Is RuneQuest Broken? Here's Why...

[Alloppo]

The new game appears good. BUT there are problems and some confusion with the rules. I wnt to continuum for the first time in ages as I am a die hard RQ player and wanted a preview. The rules were obviously too complex for the official mongoose GM's who clearly contradicted them. The official explanation of combat rules that is on the top of each forum is also contradictory. If there is only one 'hit roll' why does page 61 give examples of more than one being made? I think if Mongoose posts such a strong 'unrepliable' statement that you can clearly see is innacurate that this is indicative of a big problem. There are also contradictions on the damage bonus being applied to missile weapons. Rules say no. Monster stats say yes.

Having said all this the problems aren't too hard to iron out- lets face it we all fiddled with RQ2/RQ3 Rules. Perhaps Mongoose should scour these forums for the best suggestions and post an official House rules page.

PS- the Mongoose men at Continuum- it is NOT Gloranthia.

 

[Ravage]

Fristly, don;'t forget Bladesharp 4

Secondly as a GM for RQ in the past, we've always taken it that a monster who gets to negative in adbodmen, chest or ead is effectively out of the combat and therefore the Gm is not spending millenia helling, worrying about first aid, and we just treat them as being put ot the sword at the end if they're broo.

You know, HeroQuest is even worse! In thoery you have to get them to -40 for death. Because a failled dice roll makes you lose the action points and hell a fumble double that can make their own players go unconcious just trying to lump someone incapacitated on the floor!!

You just have to accept a certain amount of "take it as read". Its a game For Fecks Sakes! YThe GMs got enough to worry about.

Of course, if your battling a major foe, the GM has all the right to get his NPC using healing and what have you! again, its getting the level right otherwise you end up with hit -> down -> heal -> up -> fight -> hit -> down -> heal -> up -> fight ... and so forth!

 

[Vadrus]

Fristly, don;'t forget Bladesharp 4

Actually that is Bladesharp 4.5!! As the only rune you can learn Bladesharp with is Metal, and the effect of the Metal Rune is +1 damage with all melee weapons.

The Runes system makes conversion from previous editions almost impossible unless you don't mind most converted characters starting with a bag of runes so they can have the same spells, also gives them a chunk of extra runic bonuses they didn't have before.

How rare are the runes supposed to be? The spells they give are considered very common in most previous Gloranthan systems but the book gives the impression they should be rare. Is MRQ supposed to be a magic lite version of Gloratha?


Vadrus

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Maybe a "magic different" version of Glorantha?

Way I'd see it is that the dominance of the God Learners and the EWF has forced the Gods and the spirit plane to withdraw a little, meaning the runes become like extra foci.

I hate the idea of runes giving bonusses, though.

 

[Urox]

I think the characteristic rolls were tossed aside, because many playable races had characteristics with associated characteristic rolls exceeding 100%. That being said, the solution begins characters too weak for my tastes.

I was thinking about this... given how the new MQ rules are applied with opposed rolls, it really seems that Attributes should be skills as well (or at least scaled so that direct opposed rolls could be made).

RQ handled this with the resistance table, so high characteristic values scaled fairly well against resistance.

But for MQ, you have opposed rolls, and I suspect it was found to clunky to multiply stats x5 and then make an opposed roll (math is hard).

Then you have this new XP system that doesn't work well with skill diversification, so you get the consolidations that SarahN mentioned.

And while it's too early for me to tell, but also the low starting skill with RuneCasting may also enter into the mix, and the Bladesharp Ravage mentioned may be a rare occurance if a fighter-type has a 25% chance of success -- there wont be the precious skill checks to raise this skill over weapon, shield and resillience until they are maxxed out.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

I think the characteristic rolls were tossed aside, because many playable races had characteristics with associated characteristic rolls exceeding 100%. That being said, the solution begins characters too weak for my tastes.

Then use the rules for Experienced Characters.

Doc

 

[atgxtg]

I think the characteristic rolls were tossed aside, because many playable races had characteristics with associated characteristic rolls exceeding 100%. That being said, the solution begins characters too weak for my tastes.

Then use the rules for Experienced Characters.

Doc

I think he meant "weak" in a literal sense, not in skill sense. For all practical purposes STR isn't much of a factor anymore as far as lifting goes.

With the RQ SIZ schart coming in the companion, I was thinkning of allowing a character to lift, say his STR in SIZ/mass without a roll, and say twice that with a roll.

That would use the new game mechanics, but keep STR about as important as it was in the old game. No more ducks out bench pressing dark trolls.

 

[MongooseMatt]

With regards to wepoans and their damage potential. . .

There is an Open Content article coming up in S&P (next issue, I think), that demonstrates the modularity of the system. It has two variant weapon tables, one for 'high adventure' and one for 'gritty reality'. The rulebook's tables are in the middle, in terms of balance, designed to make combat nasty, but survivable for long term play.

If you want more danger in your games, simply use the Gritty Reality tables - limbs will be bouncing all over the place!

 

[atgxtg]

With regards to wepoans and their damage potential. . .

There is an Open Content article coming up in S&P (next issue, I think), that demonstrates the modularity of the system. It has two variant weapon tables, one for 'high adventure' and one for 'gritty reality'. The rulebook's tables are in the middle, in terms of balance, designed to make combat nasty, but survivable for long term play.

If you want more danger in your games, simply use the Gritty Reality tables - limbs will be bouncing all over the place!

So doing something like yanking the weapon tables and substituiong damages from RQ3 or even OGL Ancients is more of an offical option that a in house tweak.

Now that is interesting. That is a concept that has a lot of possibilities... :idea:

 

[MongooseMatt]

So doing something like yanking the weapon tables and substituiong damages from RQ3 or even OGL Ancients is more of an offical option that a in house tweak.

Now that is interesting. That is a concept that has a lot of possibilities... :idea:

I cannot state this enough - this is the whole point of the Open Content nature of the new RuneQuest. The entire system was built to be modular, allowing you to pull certain rules out, insert Open Content, while leaving the rest of the rules intact (if you so wish) and workable.

We _did_ consider labelling each set of rules 1.1, 1.12, etc, allowing you to construct your own rulebook by inserting alternatives at the relevant points - but we felt that was a bit too SFB It could work, but it needs technology beyond the printed word, and we are not quite ready for that yet. Maybe something for RuneQuest II

But yes, please, please, please make RuneQuest what you want it to be by using the main rulebook as the main framework, and using (and producing, for that matter!) Open Content to get the game you want.

I have said it before, but more than a few people have made a reasonable return on producing Open Content D20 material, and some have made a living from it. The sales of the main rulebook (and, more importantly, the re-orders, as these are what signify the true demand) have gone fantastically well this past week and I can promise you that demand for open Content PDFs for RuneQuest will be high. So, start gathering your ideas, start jotting down rules, create an account at Drivethru or RPGNow, and prepare for the SRD at the end of the month!

 

[atgxtg]

I cannot state this enough - this is the whole point of the Open Content nature of the new RuneQuest. The entire system was built to be modular, allowing you to pull certain rules out, insert Open Content, while leaving the rest of the rules intact (if you so wish) and workable. [/qoute]

Ah. I seen that tried a little in the past (fusion for one). That puts things in a different light. I might hate a baline modle but like a optional plug in. Like Firefox, except I don't loose all my bookmarks every month.

We _did_ consider labelling each set of rules 1.1, 1.12, etc, allowing you to construct your own rulebook by inserting alternatives at the relevant points - but we felt that was a bit too SFB It could work, but it needs technology beyond the printed word, and we are not quite ready for that yet. Maybe something for RuneQuest II

How about you do something like what other games (such as fusion) have done and rate the modules on a "reastim" scale, orsoemthing like what Mayfair did with the last editiion of DC Heros. Something like, "this is a gritty realism plugin" or "this is a cinematic plugin". I could be helpful for putting together a reccomended configuration for a particular setting.

But yes, please, please, please make RuneQuest what you want it to be by using the main rulebook as the main framework, and using (and producing, for that matter!) Open Content to get the game you want.

I have said it before, but more than a few people have made a reasonable return on producing Open Content D20 material, and some have made a living from it. The sales of the main rulebook (and, more importantly, the re-orders, as these are what signify the true demand) have gone fantastically well this past week and I can promise you that demand for open Content PDFs for RuneQuest will be high. So, start gathering your ideas, start jotting down rules, create an account at Drivethru or RPGNow, and prepare for the SRD at the end of the month!

That is a differenert take on OGL than what has been done in the past. Usually the "fix what you don't like" is more of a "house rule" thing. Now it is more of a "plugin" thing. That is different.

So my notebook full of rule variants makes more sense as a supplement rather than suggested changes. :idea:



The mice must be awake because the wheels are turning.

 

[MongooseMatt]

How about you do something like what other games (such as fusion) have done and rate the modules on a "reastim" scale, orsoemthing like what Mayfair did with the last editiion of DC Heros. Something like, "this is a gritty realism plugin" or "this is a cinematic plugin". I could be helpful for putting together a reccomended configuration for a particular setting.

We could, but I think I would prefer to leave that in the hands of the players and Open Content producers. Word will get round quickly enough about each supplement that makes the grade, for whatever reason. . .

That is a differenert take on OGL than what has been done in the past. Usually the "fix what you don't like" is more of a "house rule" thing. Now it is more of a "plugin" thing. That is different.

So my notebook full of rule variants makes more sense as a supplement rather than suggested changes. :idea:

Absolutely. Of course, the difference between a house rule and a commercial product is in the editing and presentation, so you might need to tart them up a bit, maybe grab a freelance artist and chuck him the odd crust. But yes, this is _exactly_ what we intend for RuneQuest.

A short while ago, I was bemoaning the fact that no one tweaks with their RPGs any more. This was intended to be our insidious plan to force people to go back to the old ways (it also has the self-serving function of potentially generating cash for our fans, who then have more money to feed back into their hobby and, well, everyone is happy ).

 

[mthomason]

A short while ago, I was bemoaning the fact that no one tweaks with their RPGs any more. This was intended to be our insidious plan to force people to go back to the old ways (it also has the self-serving function of potentially generating cash for our fans, who then have more money to feed back into their hobby and, well, everyone is happy ).

Actually I blame the d20 boom for that

All the older gamers had to tweak their RPGs themselves, so we just knuckled down and did it. Anyone who started with D&D3E found a wealth of pre-tweaked options falling off the shelves next to the "official" books and just hasn't had to do anything.

I remember the days when I was converting every major novel and TV show I saw to a couple of sheets of Marvel Super Heroes RPG stats... (at the time it was the most generic system I could find)

I also have my 20-or-so handwritten pages for turning the original Lone Wolf books into a full RPG somewhere around here Thankfully the product you guys made came out absolutely nothing like the mess I came up with (but hey, I was only about ten years old at the time). I just grew up writing my own character classes, grafting rules for vehicles and technology into fantasy rulessets, and generally turning the original designer's intent inside-out to fit my own needs.

Nowadays all that is done for you... sheesh, you didn't even have to sit and make up classes for 3E because some company went and made a bunch of "Power Classes" pamphlets

 

[atgxtg]

A short while ago, I was bemoaning the fact that no one tweaks with their RPGs any more. This was intended to be our insidious plan to force people to go back to the old ways (it also has the self-serving function of potentially generating cash for our fans, who then have more money to feed back into their hobby and, well, everyone is happy ).

Actually I blame the d20 boom for that

Partially. I think the other thing is that the greater variaty of procuts out there, not ot mention what has been printed in the past, GMs are less likekly to need to houserule things, becuasse they have a ready made alternative.

For example, for me MRQ has to compete with RQ2, RQ3, Harn and several other RPGs. I'm less likely to tweak MRQ if what I want is already in in RQ3 or CORPS.

Back when we were all tweaking (and juding by recent posts a lot of us haven't stopped tweaking) a lot of it was by necessity. Way back when,if you wanted gritty reralsim, you played RQ. If you wanted beer & pretzels RPGing you went for Tunnels & Trolls. Want to play what everyone else plays, get D&D. Now we have more choices.

I remeber when Samurai RPGing meant either Bushido or Land of the Rising Sun (for C&S). Now I got a dozen differnert systems to choose from.

 

[mthomason]

If you wanted beer & pretzels RPGing you went for Tunnels & Trolls.

I think that's the first RPG I ever played... back when it came as a photocopied stapled book with a yellow card folded cover... ahh, memories. I had no idea there was anything more complicated at the time so I just kept building on top of it myself...
Then it was D&D (the five boxed sets), and unfortunately I missed RQ altogether. In the pile of games I accumulated over the years, not one version of RQ got in there

And yes, nowadays you can go choose from a stack of RPG reference books dedicated to listing modern weapons and their statistics. Complete reference books? We never had the luxury of things like that, maybe a few pages in the back of a supplement if we were lucky.

These young'uns nowadays just don't realise how easy they have it...

 

[atgxtg]

If you wanted beer & pretzels RPGing you went for Tunnels & Trolls.

And yes, nowadays you can go choose from a stack of RPG reference books dedicated to listing modern weapons and their statistics. Complete reference books? We never had the luxury of things like that, maybe a few pages in the back of a supplement if we were lucky.

These young'uns nowadays just don't realise how easy they have it...

You know, that sort of explains something about the who pro& con argument. A lot of the pro camp seem to wonder why the cons are sticking around and not just swtiching to soemthing else. THat is a viewpoint entirely consistient with the modern market of diversity.

To the old timersers, we a re used to it being "the only game in town" and so stick around fight for our points and tweak like crazy. That is a vriewpoint consistient with the market we grew up in. All GMs who gave been doing this for decades are probably qualifed for the position of "game designer".

Seems to exaplain things perfectly.


But if the one who tweak don't like twhat they are seeing and the ones who like what they are seeing don't tweak...

 

[d(sqrt(-1))]

You know, that sort of explains something about the who pro& con argument. A lot of the pro camp seem to wonder why the cons are sticking around and not just swtiching to soemthing else. THat is a viewpoint entirely consistient with the modern market of diversity.

To the old timersers, we a re used to it being "the only game in town" and so stick around fight for our points and tweak like crazy. That is a vriewpoint consistient with the market we grew up in. All GMs who gave been doing this for decades are probably qualifed for the position of "game designer".

Yes, I think that you are right. If you grew up with games being something that you basically mostly made up yourself, then that's what you did. Basically, for someone who's been (say) playing RQ for 20-30 years, you have a lot invested in it, and you care a lot about the quality of the result. That on it's own will tend to make you fight a corner. Maybe it also makes you more sensitive to ambiguities in rules!

cheers,

Mark

 

[atgxtg]

Yes, I think that you are right. If you grew up with games being something that you basically mostly made up yourself, then that's what you did. Basically, for someone who's been (say) playing RQ for 20-30 years, you have a lot invested in it, and you care a lot about the quality of the result. That on it's own will tend to make you fight a corner. Maybe it also makes you more sensitive to ambiguities in rules!

cheers,

Mark

Yeah. I think it does. I know a lot of younger gamers who shrug off ambiguities, while the older players tend to think, Why didn't the writer do his $%#$^ job and lock that loophole down before we fly a dragon through it?!".

I've know some gamers to be completely obvious to some glaring problems with mechanics until someone who could do the math stepped in and blew the lid off.
The younger players blamed the number cruncher, the older players blamed the game designer.

I think that is it. A lot of the problems here are not with the opposing view, but in trying to figure out how anyone could come to that conculsion.

Different value systems.

 

[simonh]

I've seen the 'halving skills over 100%' rule being criticised, and I think this is based on a naive and simplistic analysis of the probabilities. Also not the It Does Not Apply to Combat - people keep giving examples of it using combat. Please stop doing that, it's annoying!

Let's take the example of a character with 90% skill versus and NPC with 80% skill. The NPC will succees four-fifths of the time, so the probability of the PC suceeding while the NPC also fails is 90% times 20% or 18%.

If the PC had a skill of 120% then the halving rule kicks in and the PC's adjusted score is 60% versus the NPC's score of 40%. The probability of the PC succeeding while the NPC fails is now 60% times 60%, which means the PC will score an unambiguous win 36% of the time.

In fact the situation is a little more complicated because it's possible for both characters to succeed and then it's down to the lowest roll, but I think you can see that in an opposed rol it's not the absolute percentage you are rolling against that is significant, it realy is the ratio of the skill percentages. I think the halving rule is an excellent one and is a novel improvement to the basic RQ system.

Simon Hibbs

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I've seen the 'halving skills over 100%' rule being criticised, and I think this is based on a naive and simplistic analysis of the probabilities. Also not the It Does Not Apply to Combat - people keep giving examples of it using combat. Please stop doing that, it's annoying!

Let's take the example of a character with 90% skill versus and NPC with 80% skill. The NPC will succees four-fifths of the time, so the probability of the PC suceeding while the NPC also fails is 90% times 20% or 18%.

If the PC had a skill of 120% then the halving rule kicks in and the PC's adjusted score is 60% versus the NPC's score of 40%. The probability of the PC succeeding while the NPC fails is now 60% times 60%, which means the PC will score an unambiguous win 36% of the time.

In fact the situation is a little more complicated because it's possible for both characters to succeed and then it's down to the lowes roll, but I think you can see that in an opposed rol it's not the absolute percentage you are rolling against that is significant, it realy is the ratio of the skill percentages. I think the halving rule is an excellent one and is a novel improvement to the basic RQ system.

Simon Hibbs

I think it's a case that it's fairly counter-intuitive to grasp at first. I'm personally houseruling that in the event of a tie (both succeed or both fail) we declare a deadlock, wait one "conflict turn", halve skills again, and try again. Repeat until we have a clear winner. Should get rid of any ambiguities. It does mean more rolls, but it can make things more dramatic and tense.