First Impressions.

Cowboy

Mongoose
I got the two core rulebooks (the basic book and the companion) the other day because I want to be able to use the Lankhmar book(s) as Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser stories are easily my favorite fantasy literature.

So now that I've skimmed through the main book and read most of the important bits through I've a number of observations, most of them negative.

So as not to be just bitching about stuff I don't like, I'll write how I intend to solve the things I think are problems in the event I don't just decide to use GURPS instead.

Characteristics: Too random. I also find it odd that PC's are, on average, bigger than other people. I can see why they'd be smarter, stronger and more dextrous but no reason for them to typically be big lunks.
Solution: Everyone rolls 24 dice, discards the two lowest rolls and assigns three of the dice to each characteristic except for SIZ and INT which get only two each (remembering to add 6).

Opposed tests: So, against a character with a skill of 20%, you have a better chance of winning with a skill of 90% than with a skill of 105%? That makes no sense at all and is needlessly complex besides.
Solution: Both characters roll. A success beats a failure, a critical beats a success. If both contestants get the same result, it's a tie. If a tie is an unacceptablle outcome, either roll again or just declare the character with the highest skill the winner. No halving, no weird anomalies, no fuss.

Multiple actions: These add nothing to the game beyond extra complexity and making a DEX 13+ absolutely essential for everyone neither of which is desirable.
Solution: Dead simple - give everyone one action per turn with characters with weapons skill over 100% having the option of splitting the percentage to attack again.

Limited reactions: I don't like this either. It means someone with low DEX can be easily overwhelmed even by a relatively small number of opponents (especially if I hadn't already done away with multiple actions) regardless of how high his weapon skill is.
Solution: Everyone gets a number of Reactions equal to the DEX-based number of combat actions he'd normally get if I hadn't abolished it. After these are exhausted, you may continue to react but at half skill. Defenses will be declared before you know whether the attacker hit or not.

Parries that just subtract a bit of damage and weapons that snap like twigs: Nosirree.
Solution: Use the system from SB5 for weapon breakage and parrying.

Knockback: Characters being knocked back by blows? Good and well in Champions, not in my swords & sorcery, thank you very much.
Solution: Ignore it entirely. Or maybe use it for blunt weapons only.

Split skill scores for Athletics: Ugh.
Solution: Base Brute Force tests on STRx5%. Easy-peasy and makes more sense anyway.

Armor that reduces your ability to fight: This is absolutely bizarre.
Solution: Ignore armor penalties to riding and weapon skills.

Funny, that doesn't look like all that many issues or a particularly big collection of houserules - when I was reading through it, I felt I'd be houseruling it beyond recognition in order to run it. Maybe I actually will use it after all instead of converting to GURPS...
 
That's the point of RuneQuest I think: to be simple enough to use as it stands, and simple enough for you and your players to houserule as the need arises. That's the vibe I got from it anyway. It's a system destined to become your system through modifications and adjustments that fit your play style.

It's radically different in game design from other RPGs that try to cover every single loophole, really. Some gamers will understand this statement as an admission that the system is "half finished". My point is, MRQ isn't designed for that kind of gamer, I think.

PS: for opposed tests, you can simply apply the Opposed Tests normally and discard the Very High Skills' Opposed Tests rules. Points over 100% in a skill could be added to the result of the d100, with the die result only being used to indicate a success or failure to the test. Seems simple enough.

Example: A guy with 95% makes an opposed test against an opponent with 110%. Both roll. The first guy rolls a 94, the latter a 93. Both succeed their tests, but the latter adds 10 to his die result (110 - 100 = 10) for a total of 103, which beats the 94 and is still a success to the test (since you only consider the die result, 93, to know if the test is succeeded or failed).
 
cowboy said:
Knockback: Characters being knocked back by blows? Good and well in Champions, not in my swords & sorcery, thank you very much.
Solution: Ignore it entirely. Or maybe use it for blunt weapons only.


As someone who has tried to parry a big bloke with a sword I can tell you there really is knockback (maybe not as much, but it's still there).

If you want to, call it 'forced giving ground', but it amounts to the same.
 
Cowboy said:
Characteristics: Too random. I also find it odd that PC's are, on average, bigger than other people. I can see why they'd be smarter, stronger and more dextrous but no reason for them to typically be big lunks. Solution: Everyone rolls 24 dice, discards the two lowest rolls and assigns three of the dice to each characteristic except for SIZ and INT which get only two each (remembering to add 6).

I thought that was weird too about SIZ. However, I just reworked it to be 3d6, player picks the two they want. This allows players to work towards a small, stealthy character or towards a big hulk. Of course, I haven't rolled stats in years for RQ, so I'll probably just ignore the die rolling anyway.

Opposed tests: So, against a character with a skill of 20%, you have a better chance of winning with a skill of 90% than with a skill of 105%? That makes no sense at all and is needlessly complex besides.
Solution: Both characters roll. A success beats a failure, a critical beats a success. If both contestants get the same result, it's a tie. If a tie is an unacceptablle outcome, either roll again or just declare the character with the highest skill the winner. No halving, no weird anomalies, no fuss.

A much discussed issue on these boards. You solution is a good one. It worked a bit better in older versions where you also had a Special Success, which fell between a Critical and a normal Success. Another good solution is to reduce both skills by enough to get the highest down to a 100%. So if someone has 120% and their opponent 80%, reduce them to 100% and 60% and then roll.

Multiple actions: These add nothing to the game beyond extra complexity and making a DEX 13+ absolutely essential for everyone neither of which is desirable.
Solution: Dead simple - give everyone one action per turn with characters with weapons skill over 100% having the option of splitting the percentage to attack again.

Another good idea here is to give everyone (humans) 2 actions per round, so that it still syncs up with nonhuman creatures. Then allow someone with a skill of 100%+ and a DEX of 13+ to buy a legendary ability for an additional action, but only with that weapon. With a DEX of 19+ and a 150% or 200% skill someone could buy the fourth action.

Knockback: Characters being knocked back by blows? Good and well in Champions, not in my swords & sorcery, thank you very much.
Solution: Ignore it entirely. Or maybe use it for blunt weapons only.

This is actually very realistic. I'd highly recommend keeping the knock back. It's very hard to do much more than knock someone down, without massive damage boosting magic, and there it ends up becoming a big part of combat and very interesting.

Split skill scores for Athletics: Ugh.
Solution: Base Brute Force tests on STRx5%. Easy-peasy and makes more sense anyway.

Several of us are doing that for a bunch of skills. Strenght based Athletics is STRx5%, Dexterity based Athletics, DEXx5%, Resilience is CONx5%, etc. I don't treat them as skills that can increase or decrease, other than when the stat goes up and down.

Armor that reduces your ability to fight: This is absolutely bizarre.
Solution: Ignore armor penalties to riding and weapon skills.

Yes it is. I ignore it for everything except fatigure checks and a few skill where it makes a lot of sense: swimming for example.

Funny, that doesn't look like all that many issues or a particularly big collection of houserules - when I was reading through it, I felt I'd be houseruling it beyond recognition in order to run it. Maybe I actually will use it after all instead of converting to GURPS...

I'd choose it over GURPS, myself. RQ and GURPS cover much of the same ground, but I needed a lot more houserules for GURPS than any incarnation of RQ. IMO houseruling GURPS is more difficult too. I can't nail it down, but every version of RQ/BRP just seems to houserule easily and seemlessly, compared to any other system I've tried.
 
Cowboy said:
Opposed tests: So, against a character with a skill of 20%, you have a better chance of winning with a skill of 90% than with a skill of 105%? That makes no sense at all and is needlessly complex besides.
Solution: Both characters roll. A success beats a failure, a critical beats a success. If both contestants get the same result, it's a tie. If a tie is an unacceptablle outcome, either roll again or just declare the character with the highest skill the winner. No halving, no weird anomalies, no fuss.

Except for the fact that the only thing differentiating two characters, both with skills over 100, is their critical chance. Everythign else is the same. So a character with a 190% skill has a 19% chance of a critical against a characetr with a skill of 150% having a 15% crit chance. Only a 4% difference.

Essentialy it reduces advancement from 100% an up to an agonisingly pitiful crawl. But as you say not statistical anomalies, just an awful lot of re-rolling tied successes.
 
Cowboy said:
Multiple actions: These add nothing to the game beyond extra complexity and making a DEX 13+ absolutely essential for everyone neither of which is desirable.
Solution: Dead simple - give everyone one action per turn with characters with weapons skill over 100% having the option of splitting the percentage to attack again.

That's the Elric method for multiple attacks. Split attacks divide the skill evenly, and no attack can be below 50%. It works great, and I used this for Gloranthan game (Elric rules, but RQ3 magic) for several campaigns very successfuly.

However, why do you then recommend using a different system for parries? Just allowing multiple parries will just almost guarantee all of them succeeding when skill is over 100%, how ever many of the there are.

The Elirc method was to apply a cumulative 30% penalty to all defensive actions after the first - but you could do as many of them as you like regardless of skill, so long as the penalties don't sink you to 0%.
 
Cowboy said:
Funny, that doesn't look like all that many issues or a particularly big collection of houserules - when I was reading through it, I felt I'd be houseruling it beyond recognition in order to run it. Maybe I actually will use it after all instead of converting to GURPS...

On ballance, it's not all that bad. Few systems are all things to all gamers. This one has deffinitely got a few kinks, but it's all fixable. It's LOT simpler than GURPS 4th ed though. The cross-links between skills and ads/disads in that system completely do my head in.
 
About that SIZ being 2d6+6 it is for humansa generally, not for players chars only. That is because humans tend to be that average 170cm tall. And that SIZ score 8 it way smaller than 170cm, Have you ever heard normal human adult who is 100cm tall? (if you dont count midgets, because sick, small or mentally ill kids would be killed in most of those cultures repsetented in Glorantha. Not that i mean midgets are sick or abnormal. Of course if a player want to play a midget, fix the score smaller).

But the point is that 2d6+6 is for humans generally, not only for player chars
 
Hoitsu said:
About that SIZ being 2d6+6 it is for humansa generally, not for players chars only. That is because humans tend to be that average 170cm tall. And that SIZ score 8 it way smaller than 170cm, Have you ever heard normal human adult who is 100cm tall? (if you dont count midgets, because sick, small or mentally ill kids would be killed in most of those cultures repsetented in Glorantha. Not that i mean midgets are sick or abnormal. Of course if a player want to play a midget, fix the score smaller).

But the point is that 2d6+6 is for humans generally, not only for player chars

I understand that 2D6+6 is for all humans and not just PCs.6 plus the highest two of 3D6, however, is just for PCs, making the average PC about SIZ 15, where the average (non-PC) human is SIZ 13.

That's the Elric method for multiple attacks. Split attacks divide the skill evenly, and no attack can be below 50%. It works great, and I used this for Gloranthan game (Elric rules, but RQ3 magic) for several campaigns very successfuly.

However, why do you then recommend using a different system for parries? Just allowing multiple parries will just almost guarantee all of them succeeding when skill is over 100%, how ever many of the there are.

I took the percentage-splitting straight from SB5, actually. The -30% per defense after the first is one of the things I don't like about SB, and I really don't mind combats between characters with skill of 100%+ being determined largely by when one of them gets a critical. I might also consider going the GURPS route and give everyone one parry (per weapon), one block (if they have a shield) and unlimited dodges, but it's much easier to get a very high Dodge score in RQ than it is in GURPS, since, in GURPS, it's a derived characteristic and not a skill.

I'd choose it over GURPS, myself. RQ and GURPS cover much of the same ground, but I needed a lot more houserules for GURPS than any incarnation of RQ.

It's the opposite for me. I'd use a total of two houserules in GURPS 4. (I'd make defenders declare their defense before the attacker rolls to hit rather than after, and I'd make it possible to defend against a critical with another critical). The only reason there'd be for me to use RQ over GURPS would be to avoid having to convert anything.
But that is, admittedly, a pretty good reason. :p
 
Kagan Altar said:
That's the point of RuneQuest I think: to be simple enough to use as it stands, and simple enough for you and your players to houserule as the need arises. That's the vibe I got from it anyway. It's a system destined to become your system through modifications and adjustments that fit your play style.

I think you would find that you would be in the vast minority if you wanted to buy a new game system that you had to houserule from the get-go. That's like buying an X-box 360 that you had to do wiring and sodering before it would play properly. Doesn't happen.
 
Cowboy said:
Multiple actions: These add nothing to the game beyond extra complexity and making a DEX 13+ absolutely essential for everyone neither of which is desirable.
Solution: Dead simple - give everyone one action per turn with characters with weapons skill over 100% having the option of splitting the percentage to attack again.

Limited reactions: I don't like this either. It means someone with low DEX can be easily overwhelmed even by a relatively small number of opponents (especially if I hadn't already done away with multiple actions) regardless of how high his weapon skill is.
Solution: Everyone gets a number of Reactions equal to the DEX-based number of combat actions he'd normally get if I hadn't abolished it. After these are exhausted, you may continue to react but at half skill. Defenses will be declared before you know whether the attacker hit or not.

Um... So someone with a Dex of 15 SHOULD have the same amount of attacks as someone who has an 8? Assuming both have the same level of weapon skill?

Let me think about th-No.

Skill is not the be all and end all, natural ability should and does count for something.

Someone with a DEX of 8 is somewhat clumsy and thus NOT someone I'd want holding a point object in the first place. The fact that the game allows characters between 7-12 two attacks is pretty damn generous.
 
Nagisawa said:
Cowboy said:
Multiple actions: These add nothing to the game beyond extra complexity and making a DEX 13+ absolutely essential for everyone neither of which is desirable.
Solution: Dead simple - give everyone one action per turn with characters with weapons skill over 100% having the option of splitting the percentage to attack again.

Limited reactions: I don't like this either. It means someone with low DEX can be easily overwhelmed even by a relatively small number of opponents (especially if I hadn't already done away with multiple actions) regardless of how high his weapon skill is.
Solution: Everyone gets a number of Reactions equal to the DEX-based number of combat actions he'd normally get if I hadn't abolished it. After these are exhausted, you may continue to react but at half skill. Defenses will be declared before you know whether the attacker hit or not.

Um... So someone with a Dex of 15 SHOULD have the same amount of attacks as someone who has an 8? Assuming both have the same level of weapon skill?

Let me think about th-No.

Skill is not the be all and end all, natural ability should and does count for something.

Someone with a DEX of 8 is somewhat clumsy and thus NOT someone I'd want holding a point object in the first place. The fact that the game allows characters between 7-12 two attacks is pretty damn generous.



You know we are talking about a 5 second round here right?

Sorry, but that's just so obviously flawed it's laughable.
 
Hoitsu said:
About that SIZ being 2d6+6 it is for humansa generally, not for players chars only. That is because humans tend to be that average 170cm tall. And that SIZ score 8 it way smaller than 170cm, Have you ever heard normal human adult who is 100cm tall? (if you dont count midgets, because sick, small or mentally ill kids would be killed in most of those cultures repsetented in Glorantha.
<snip>

Where on earth do you get that? Midgets (or dwarfs) have often been seen as magically gifted, or othervice supernatural. I'd guess in Glorantha they would be seen to have a tie to the element of Earth, because of of the clay-mostali dwarves.

Also that has absolutely no bearing to the dice based (blech) size generation. Dwarfism is so rare that it definitely won't be represented by rolling 2 on 2d6.
 
Nagisawa said:
Um... So someone with a Dex of 15 SHOULD have the same amount of attacks as someone who has an 8? Assuming both have the same level of weapon skill?

Let me think about th-No.

Skill is not the be all and end all, natural ability should and does count for something.

Someone with a DEX of 8 is somewhat clumsy and thus NOT someone I'd want holding a point object in the first place. The fact that the game allows characters between 7-12 two attacks is pretty damn generous.

Most iterations of the BRP system have allowed characters the same number of actions per turn regardless of DEX. It works just fine. DEX already influences combat skill and initiative. I see no good reason to make it an outright god-stat in RQ.

And allowiong everyone one action per turn has the advantage of also being significantly simpler.
 
homerjsinnott said:
You know we are talking about a 5 second round here right?

Sorry, but that's just so obviously flawed it's laughable.

Thank you for the informative and thoughtful reply refuting my logic...

Cowboy said:
Most iterations of the BRP system have allowed characters the same number of actions per turn regardless of DEX. It works just fine. DEX already influences combat skill and initiative. I see no good reason to make it an outright god-stat in RQ.

And allowiong everyone one action per turn has the advantage of also being significantly simpler.

Actually, I would have disagreed with the implementation of BRP, then. Because one thing that has always driven me nuts is the fact that having a low dex or high dex is mostely concequential. Which in my experiance is not.

Also, what's wrong with 2 attacks? WHY must 13 be so mandatory? The system uses a random roll system, and let's face it the odds of getting 13 or higher isn't all that good.

So why worry?
 
Knockback: Characters being knocked back by blows? Good and well in Champions, not in my swords & sorcery, thank you very much.
Solution: Ignore it entirely. Or maybe use it for blunt weapons only.

In practice Knockback only happens with really powerful blows. With an average human Siz of 13 only 14+ points of damage will cause appreciable knockback. It's quite realistic for hand to hand (in fact it is one of the items that stems from the Old RQ teams experiences on the field of battle with the SCA!)

Multiple actions: These add nothing to the game beyond extra complexity and making a DEX 13+ absolutely essential for everyone neither of which is desirable.
It was an attempt to simplify the old SR system I suspect. It seems to work fairly well though, I personally have held on to it.

Limited reactions: I don't like this either. It means someone with low DEX can be easily overwhelmed even by a relatively small number of opponents (especially if I hadn't already done away with multiple actions) regardless of how high his weapon skill is.
Shouldn't they be? I think it makes perfect sense for somebody who is slow on their feet to be easily "mobbed". If you want to bring skill into the equation, I guess you could allow "split defence" letting the defender proportion out his Dodge or Parry between opponents.

Parries that just subtract a bit of damage and weapons that snap like twigs: Nosirree.
Solution: Use the system from SB5 for weapon breakage and parrying.
I may be reading it wrong, but weapons only take damage if deliberately attacked, they don't take damage through normal parrying. The system appears to be slanted to make shield parrying more effective than weapons (which it should be) but I guess the values are kind of low.

Opposed tests: So, against a character with a skill of 20%, you have a better chance of winning with a skill of 90% than with a skill of 105%? That makes no sense at all and is needlessly complex besides.
Solution: Both characters roll. A success beats a failure, a critical beats a success. If both contestants get the same result, it's a tie. If a tie is an unacceptablle outcome, either roll again or just declare the character with the highest skill the winner. No halving, no weird anomalies, no fuss.
Another obvious option is to use the crit beats success etc, but resolve ties by the difference between the number rolled and the skill level, negating re-rolls and pretty much ensuring overwhelming skill differences are decisive.

Armor that reduces your ability to fight: This is absolutely bizarre.
Solution: Ignore armor penalties to riding and weapon skills.
This one seems pretty much unanimous, how they let it through I'll never know, presumably if they do a 2nd ed, it will be history. I'm thinking of going one step further and only applying it to Stealth, Acrobatics & Fatigue rolls.
 
Nagisawa said:
Actually, I would have disagreed with the implementation of BRP, then. Because one thing that has always driven me nuts is the fact that having a low dex or high dex is mostely concequential. Which in my experiance is not.

The point though is that in most BRP games, the difference in DEX is pretty big without giving high DEX extra attacks. The ability to always go first and potentially have multiple actions per round (with sufficiently high skills) is big, and yet the character has to earn those over time.

Also, what's wrong with 2 attacks? WHY must 13 be so mandatory? The system uses a random roll system, and let's face it the odds of getting 13 or higher isn't all that good.

So why worry?

I don't have a problem with 2 attacks myself. One just has the advantage of being (very) slightly simpler. I still like the idea of requiring a legendary ability to get more than 2 attacks with prereqs of DEX 13+ and skill 100%+. That takes away the "god" stat, but still allows it to have advantages over time.

The problem is that that odds of getting a 12 or lower vs. 13 or higher are roughly equal when you roll 4d6 and drop the lowest for DEX. So roughly half the PCs will have 2 actions and the other half will have 3 actions, and that alone will determine many battles regardless of skill and experience.
 
RMS said:
The problem is that that odds of getting a 12 or lower vs. 13 or higher are roughly equal when you roll 4d6 and drop the lowest for DEX. So roughly half the PCs will have 2 actions and the other half will have 3 actions, and that alone will determine many battles regardless of skill and experience.

But PCs can increase their DEX. Sure, it's better if you don't have too but after all it's the responsability of the GM. He can let the players put their stats where they want, ensuring that fighting oriented characters have 13 in DEX at start.

W.
 
The 13 DEX threshold isn't really a problem for me.

Pretty much every combat orientated PC is going to have 3 CA's, while non-combat PC's will have 2 or 3.

This will give PC's an edge over average foes and put them on equal footing with some 'good' foes. Works for me. PC's are often outnumbered anyway.
 
Back
Top