New Runequest - what to expect
- Thread starter Doctor Warlock
- Start date
Lord Twig said:
Well, HW didn't really have thousands of cults. What it had was 4-5 subcults per good old RQ1-3 god. And it provided decent write-ups for some gods RQ never got around to (Ernalda, Vinga, Yinkin, the Sartarite Hunter God, Valind, etc) These gods were always there and mentioned, but they never had a write-up that was worth a damn until Storm Tribe.
As far as the subcults being like Prestige Classes, I guess you could draw that parallel. But at the end of the day, if you convert the "spell feats" of the subcult to rune magic, all it allows people to do is somewhat specialize their rune levels differently than others. So if you've got four Orlanth Adventurous Rune Lord types, they all share 80%+ of their possible rune magic, but the guy who is in the Adventurer subcult has some weather control and additional wind stuff, the guy in the Movement subcult has more Tports and move buff spells, the guy in the Fly subcult has access to more flying type spells, and the guy in the Thief subcult has access to stealth spells.
But it's still RQ so it's a long, long way from prestige classes.
At the end of the day, I think HW was a mess as far as the rules were concerned, but I did like a lot of the background information. Storm Tribe and the Dragon Pass atlas and the Lunar info book were particularly useful to Glorantha-philes.
I do hope that MRQ provides lots of rich background material AND a good set of useable rules. It would be nice to get the best of both worlds.
Agreed. I have the same opinion about Herowars. The rules have been just "$§&§%§%" (I have no words for it
). A great disappointment. But the background material is excellent. (except the ducks of course)While I think that the rules Moongoose provides will be good, I am not so sure about the background material. Lets see. Glorantha - the second age with 160p for the whole setting?
For HW alone the source book "Glorantha" has 300p (in German language). And the other publications you mentioned?
But we will see. I am trying not to judge before it is released.
THe problem I had with HeroWars/HeroQuest was that it was the numerical values (after augments) that were important, but not the actual skill or ability. In game terms it made no difference if you killed someone with a fist, sword, or death ability (you could even bore someone to death with bad Ortlanthi poetry). It all worked the same way.
This sort of took a lot of the fun (and even the point) of getting special abilities, since they didn't provide any special bonuses other than the standard augment.
At one time I was seriously contepmating taking "Unified Field Thoery" for a Sage character and use it to augment every roll I made in the game.
This sort of took a lot of the fun (and even the point) of getting special abilities, since they didn't provide any special bonuses other than the standard augment.
At one time I was seriously contepmating taking "Unified Field Thoery" for a Sage character and use it to augment every roll I made in the game.
Darran said:
The thing is they are not adding new things. They are adding detail to things that already exist. The problem is that people have already fleshed out their own details. The "new" material is completely worthless in that sense.
Now I am sure there actually is some new material in with all the extra details, but I am not going to take the time to sift through the dross.
atgxtg said:
True in a way. It's a unified mechanic which is all the rage in game design over the last few years. However in practise, it makes a huge difference whether you use fist, sword, or death ability. A fist is going to take a massive improvisational modifier if the other guy is holding a weapon, and is going to take a pretty big one if you wish to actually kill someone with it, rather than just beat them up. A death ability is magical and therefore attacks only against the ability to resist magic by someone, so bypasses their great swordsmanship or fist fighting abilities. Plus, a death ability will be much easier to actually kill with. Using a fist or sword will have a much better chance of defeating your foe without outright killiing them, which is why you may well choose one way over the other.
There are straw man arguments all over the net on boring people to death with bad poetry or defending yourself with basket weaving, but obviously those aren't going to be used in anything but a very silly game. In a serious game, no player would try it, and one dumb enough to try would be looking at enough improvisation modifiers to drop the skill 40, 60, or 80 points.
Like any game, it depends on what the ability is. However, you are correct that in HQ special abilities don't break the rules like they do in most games. In most games that's what's special about them. They allow you to break the normal rules. In HQ, the system supports these so you don't get that feeling of getting away with something mechanically.
There are specific rules in there about not allowing overly broad skills.
Seriously, you can only augment with skills that are appropriate and are part of the narration of what you want your character to do. You can't just pull any skill out that you like and augment with it. Generally, you'll only have 1 - 3 skills that are appropriate. Only things that are driven by relationships or personality are going to see more and those will be negative as often as positive. Also, the opposition gets to augment away too, so it all evens out in the end.That's enough HQ defense. I knew I'd have to do it around here sometime. I'm apparently the only person in the world that really likes HQ and really likes RQ and is happy to run either one of them for a myriad of settings, including Glorantha.
I don't like it.
Can someone, HyrumOWC maybe or someone else who knows, confirm or deny that MRQ uses a mechanic where you have opposing rolls for combat where you have to make your percentile roll AND make it with a better margin than your opponent? Is that how parry works? I'd appreciate an answer because if that is what they have done it is a dealbreaker for me, and I would like to divert the money I have saved for MRQ to something more to my taste.
Thank you ahead of time.
Can someone, HyrumOWC maybe or someone else who knows, confirm or deny that MRQ uses a mechanic where you have opposing rolls for combat where you have to make your percentile roll AND make it with a better margin than your opponent? Is that how parry works? I'd appreciate an answer because if that is what they have done it is a dealbreaker for me, and I would like to divert the money I have saved for MRQ to something more to my taste.
Thank you ahead of time.
RMS said:
Lots of RPGs have used a unified game mechanic. They just do't do it it to the point where what is being used becomes so unimportant. IMO, HW/HQ suffers from being written almost exclusively for Stroytelling purposes rather than roleplaying purposes. Then again, I'm not a fan of Robin Laws RPG. I'm hoping that RuneQuest isn't like Rune.
RMS said:
It should make a big difference, but it doesn't. I read the examples of the Humakti Death special ability, and see the zstuff posted on the HeroQuest mailing list, and for all practical purposes, a character is better off just dumping the XP into Sword. MOst of the augment stystem doesn't work out well from a character design satandpoint. THere isn't much point in taking the Sowrd Combat abilities like decapitate foe, for instance. It is of limited use, is only successful if you can get the foe's AP's down to -31, and for the cost it would have been better just to put the XP right into sword.
Using the Death Ability should have a better chance of killing someone outright. It doesn't. TO kill someone you need to get thier AP value down to -31 for a "dying" result. If you get this with the Death ability or with a sword, fist, crossbow, or whatnot, makes little difference. Yeah, killing someone wiith a blanket is probably going to get a big imporisational modifier, but doing so with most weapons would not.
Special abilities in most games don't nexcessarily break the rules (ala feats), but they do give difference effects that are not all the same. In HQ it is the rating of the abilty (or augment) that is important, rather than what the actual ability is. Since most abilities are going to be used as augments, it means that it doesn't matter if that 13 is a enchanted swrd, battlemagic spell, personality trait, follower or whatever.
Overall, I find the system mechanics dry and lifeless. I buy the HQ books, however, becusse the setting is anything but.
atgxtg said:
I do think the book is not clear on this and that's unfortunate. (Or maybe it is, but it's description doesn't make sense to me, so I assume they meant the way I interpret it!
) The example of killing someone if you reduce their AP to -31 is when you have a general physical conflict with them. It's an example. However, you always have to define the stakes of the conflict before you role, so if you're using death magic, the stakes pretty much have to be death, so reducing someone to -31 AP isn't necessary to result in death. Also, remember that they cannot defend with a typical mundane skill if you're using death magic directly against them, unlike if you used a sword. That's a big thing. Force Joe Swordsman from his Sword&Shield 10W3 to his Magical Defense 17 is a major advantage. From the other end, using fists is most likely not going to result in death just because -31 AP is reached. It'll most likely result in some unexpected severe wound, but not outright death.This is apparently a problem with a lot of people's interpretation of HQ. Those AP levels aren't hard and fast. They're examples for you to extrapolate from. -31 AP for a "dying" result is only applicable if you go into a battle with the typical open ended "we want to win" as stakes. Everything changes if they stakes are expressly defined as a dual to the death or something similar to that.
True, but attempting to defend against death magic with a sword skill is going to get a large modifier. See above. Trying to defend against a sword with a brawling skill is going to get a large modifier. Trying to defend against a sword with orate or basket weaving is going to get a huge modifier if allowed at all, though HQ certain supports that the someone can engage your character with their orate and convince him not to attack them, before he pulls his sword. I actually like that, though obviously others are not fond of it. It does result in some interesting conflicts, like a Lunar official attempting to convine the PC Uroxi of something using Orate vs. Obstinate as the conflicting skills.
It's just a turn of phrase, but basically what things like feats, magic in most games, etc. do is allow the character to do something not supported elsewhere by the rules. It's a special case. That was my point there. There are no special cases in HQ.
The ability itself is quite important, I'd argue. You're correct that any ability can be attempted for any contest, but unless it's an ability that's directly applicable, then it will be at a negative. It's very common to have players lack the ability they need to address a situation. This is no different than RQ/BRP. Having a high Orate ability in either game doesn't help your Sword skill, which doesn't help your ability to case magic, etc.
That I'd agree with for the most part. HQ is extremely rules light and requires lots of interpretation from the GM and players. It supports a certain style of play very well, but it does a horrible job of providing atmosphere. That has to come from the players in the game. The irony is that many people here will say that one of the beauties of BRP is that it "gets out of the way", and I'd agree. HQ just does that to the extreme. BRP still imparts some of it's own flavor on a game world, but not as much as most games.
You should really check in with the folks at Issaries, becuuse they don't run the abilities that way in thier examples. Nor do the run the contest outcomes the way you suggest with the AP's requires for a result being flexible.
Quite the opposite. THe idea in HQ is that the characters aren't supposed to die easily, and then only through a deliberate act. Reaching -31AP is really only accomplished in a couple of situations in HQ. First off, it has to be a lethal encounter (so "Basket Weaving Deathmatch" is out) and the opponent must either be making a deliberate effort to kill the character by bidding high and using a parting shot, or the opponent just completely outclasses the opponent and just sort of wipes out the character adbsent-mindedly, such as running into Harrak the Beserk and getting wasted with his "cautious" (for him) 50 AP bid.
Quite the opposite. THe idea in HQ is that the characters aren't supposed to die easily, and then only through a deliberate act. Reaching -31AP is really only accomplished in a couple of situations in HQ. First off, it has to be a lethal encounter (so "Basket Weaving Deathmatch" is out) and the opponent must either be making a deliberate effort to kill the character by bidding high and using a parting shot, or the opponent just completely outclasses the opponent and just sort of wipes out the character adbsent-mindedly, such as running into Harrak the Beserk and getting wasted with his "cautious" (for him) 50 AP bid.
atgxtg said:
Yeah but how is Harrak's 50AP bid with his 5W10 Bersek Combat ability different from Jar-Eel's 50AP bid with her 5W10 Scimitar Fighting ability? How is his +10 Augment with his Bad Ass Killer skill different from her +10 Augment from her Moonsword? Does it matter if I defend with my Artful Dodger 2W5 instead of my buddy defending with his 2W5 Devout Coward?
Answers as far as I can tell from reading and trying to GM the rules:
No difference.
No difference.
Doesn't matter.
Which is dull as dishwater to me.
SwordSage said:
Er, isn't the difference in how the story is told?
I hate to redux this, 'cause if the engine doesn't 'work' for you, then there's little mileage in trying to convince you that it should...but:
Your argument _could_ be equated to: what does it matter what weapon was used? They all do damage.
- Quire
atgxtg said:
Why should I check with Issaries if I like the way the game runs already? Plus, the guy I actually learned about HQ through is the official Issaries rep for conventions, etc. so I can't imagine I'm too far out there. In fact, I may run it some in the future for such purposes and I know that how I run it is "close enough" to cannon to be acceptable. I do accept that the HQ book, let alone the unclear mess HW apparently was, doesn't actually convey the way the game runs very well. That's unfortunate. The first rule of thumb for HQ is that it's a very loose game with virtually no hard and fast strictures. If you're trying to run it literally, you're missing the whole point of it IMO and I'm not suprised at all that you didn't like it. It wasn't designed for that and doesn't do it very well. You need more structure for a literal rules interpretation type game...and perhaps that's just the kind of game you need for fun.
The idea is that people don't die easily through accidental deaths or through conflict where it'd be more interesting for them to live for another day. That's true. HQ stresses that death is not the ultimate result of most conflict, just like the real world, but some sort of enduring "wound" is more appropriate for most conflicts: lost prestige, a lingering physcial wound, etc.
Having said that, choosing death as the outcome of a specific contest is an option. The rules attempt to point out that fighting to the death is rare, but apparently have overdone it. (You aren't the first one I've run into that's interpreted the rules that way.) All of the lists of results under final AP are only suggestions. It's up to the GM and players to interpret these for specific actions. None of them are hard and fast strictures. If a player wishes the stakes of a contest to be death (a dual to the death for example), I'll allow that and interpret the final results as how much the character has to sacrifice to acheive that level of outcome. If the player only gets a minor victory, then their character was injured in the battle and carries a lingering wound as the "price" for getting that final shot in that killed the opponent. Note: this part is my interpretation and goes farther than some HQ gms, but it's well within the spirit of the rules if not the letter. (As a bonus it also removes one common complaint that the winner never suffers anything in a contest. Now they have the option: take the hit and force a nastier situation for the adversary or let the adversary get away but leave unscathed themselves.)
Also, I should point out that extended constests are so rare (once every 6+ sessions generally) that we really should be talking about simple contests which offer very little for guidelines on different levels of victory/defeat. If the suggested final AP values bother you that much, then just skip them and use the final level of victory/defeat like you would in a simple contest.
Have we drifted far enough off topic that we should take this elsewhere now?
I don't know where you're located, but if you're ever in the Twin Cities area when I'm running HQ, you're more than welcome to join in and see how I run it.You only run about 1 extended contest per six game sessions? Wow, that is a lot different from what I've read, both in the book and on thr HQ mailing list.
As far a structure goes, without some form of stucture you don't have a game system at all-just a setting and a few realtive ratings descibing people is certain situations. Oh wait, that IS HeroQuest.
THat is one reason why there are so many problems with it. Very little in the game is defined weel enough to be sconsistient from player to player, let alone from grop to group. What little that theyt do nail down, winds up being condractioned, or just plain wrong-like the puma people's Shapechange ability.
That might be alright for Greg Stafford who wants to tell stories on the monomyth, but it makes for a lousy RPG. THey would have been better off to go with a diceless aprraoch like Amber.
As far as the lethiality of contests-that sort of depends on the nature of the contests, and the participants. Having played an run a lot of Humakti, death comes up a bit more often than with other types of characters.
I agree with Urox, I'll take a Sever Spirit over the Death abilities that the Humakit get in the Storm Tribe book any day. THe HQ Humakti are grimer and talk tougher than thier RQ counterparts, but are no where near as tough. In HQ pretty much all the cults have combat magic that works out about the same as what the Humakti get.
We probably are not too far off topic yet. THe topic is what we can expect from MRQ, and Robin Laws is one of the writers of the new edition
, so I expect we will probably see a few HQ concepts migrate in MRQ.
I hope not many though. If MRQ is like HQ, it will fail miserably. RQ fans want RQ, and HQ fans alreadly have HQ. So a RQ that is too much like HHQ isn't going to sell to either group.
As far a structure goes, without some form of stucture you don't have a game system at all-just a setting and a few realtive ratings descibing people is certain situations. Oh wait, that IS HeroQuest.
THat is one reason why there are so many problems with it. Very little in the game is defined weel enough to be sconsistient from player to player, let alone from grop to group. What little that theyt do nail down, winds up being condractioned, or just plain wrong-like the puma people's Shapechange ability.
That might be alright for Greg Stafford who wants to tell stories on the monomyth, but it makes for a lousy RPG. THey would have been better off to go with a diceless aprraoch like Amber.
As far as the lethiality of contests-that sort of depends on the nature of the contests, and the participants. Having played an run a lot of Humakti, death comes up a bit more often than with other types of characters.
I agree with Urox, I'll take a Sever Spirit over the Death abilities that the Humakit get in the Storm Tribe book any day. THe HQ Humakti are grimer and talk tougher than thier RQ counterparts, but are no where near as tough. In HQ pretty much all the cults have combat magic that works out about the same as what the Humakti get.
We probably are not too far off topic yet. THe topic is what we can expect from MRQ, and Robin Laws is one of the writers of the new edition
, so I expect we will probably see a few HQ concepts migrate in MRQ. I hope not many though. If MRQ is like HQ, it will fail miserably. RQ fans want RQ, and HQ fans alreadly have HQ. So a RQ that is too much like HHQ isn't going to sell to either group.
From the previews MRQ is looking more Runequesty than Heroquesty.
I consider Runequest (and hopefully MRQ willl be included in this) to be perfect for playing the real, gutsy corporeal situations of adventuring in Glorantha....Whereas Heroquest, with its broad applicability and its sublime fluidity that can sometimes flow like poetry, to be ideal for playing the more mythic and idealised heroquests. Now we have two brilliant tools for two very different roleplaying situations, one solid and effective, the other beautiful and soulful.
I consider Runequest (and hopefully MRQ willl be included in this) to be perfect for playing the real, gutsy corporeal situations of adventuring in Glorantha....Whereas Heroquest, with its broad applicability and its sublime fluidity that can sometimes flow like poetry, to be ideal for playing the more mythic and idealised heroquests. Now we have two brilliant tools for two very different roleplaying situations, one solid and effective, the other beautiful and soulful.
