New XP system = class system in disguise?

[Urox]

One of the things that set RQ apart from AD&D was the lack of character classes -- you had sort of jack-of-all-trades characters that were essentially 'adventurers' with a later possible specialization in combat (Rune Lord) or magic (Rune Priest).

MQ with it's 2-3 skill checks xp awards and low starting chances for some skills (especially magic) almost seems like a class system in disguise.

GM: Good job all, you've completed the adventure -- everyone gets 3 skill checks.
Fighter: I take them in War Sword, Resillience and Shield.
Thief: I take them in Dagger, Open Locks and Sneak.
Wizard: I take them in Dodge, Rune Casting and Sorcery.
Cleric: I take them in Mace, Rune Casting and Divine Magic.

Am I off-base here?

 

[MongooseMatt]

In my humble opinion, I think you are a bit

 

[iamtim]

Am I off-base here?

I think so.

I mean, theoretically, that could happen based on what roles a given character takes in the party. If one of them becomes more magic-oriented and another more sneak-oriented, it makes sense they're going to want to improve those skills.

Theoretically, it could have been the same in earlier versions of RQ; a skill that gets frequently used has a greater chance of getting checked, thus rolling for increase at the end of the session. Since a sneaky character would use sneaky skills most often, it stands to reason that sneaky skills would be checked more often.

Unless you're doing the old-old school "I'm going to lasso the Broo so I can check my Rope Use skill!"

I just don't think it was some sneaky effort to build classes into MRQ, is all.

 

[Urox]

I just don't think it was some sneaky effort to build classes into MRQ, is all.

I wasn't implying it was sneaky, just a consequence of the new system (especially as applied over a long campaign).

I am not opposed to character classes, although I think the are more geared to a dungeon-crawl type of play.

 

[Chardros The Reaper]

I haven't read the rulebook yet...picking up my copy at GenCon Saturday!!! However, from what I gather from the post, it seams you get x amount of skill checks per adventure instead of just checking skills you performed well at. There's still a tremendous amount of difference between this and class and level systems as classes are usually restricted at what skills they can learn, or at least penalized for learning skills outside their class. In MRQ it would seem you can choose any skill you like, still very different from classes in my opinion.

 

[Rykion]

I don't understand how getting to choose where you put your skill rolls turns the game into a class system. Players may tend to focus on a few skills early to get them up to acceptable levels, but there is nothing locking them into these skill choices. You have demonstrated that the system can be used to emulate a class based system, not that it inherently works in a similar fashion.

 

[iamtim]

I wasn't implying it was sneaky

My bad, I read too much into "in disguise".

 

[CharlieMonster]

MQ with it's 2-3 skill checks xp awards and low starting chances for some skills (especially magic) almost seems like a class system in disguise.

I can see where you are coming from, but I've yet to come across a system where the balance between specialist & generalist doesn't lead in this direction. However given the potential lethality of RuneQuest players who over specialise will probably find themselves in a lot of trouble if they go too far down that road.

To be fair, there is some argument that Cults were the character classes of "old skool" runequest with your bookish Lhankor Mhy types, your barbarian Storm Bulls, your Humakti & Yelmalio fighters and your thieving Orlanthi B**stards (well alright most of them were fighters too but I never let the facts get in the way of a good grudge - all hail the conquering moon!) :lol:

Though to be fair cult-based differences built into the background are a better concept than the artificial classes of D&D etc. I daresay the evolution / concept of White Wolf background led character formats owes much to RQ Cults. Though they've probably gone a tad to far down the "standardisation" route imho. Just think we could have had RuneQuest: the Godlearning if they'd bought the license!

 

[Rurik]

I wasn't implying it was sneaky

My bad, I read too much into "in disguise".

I don't think it is half as sneaky as hiding the fact that the attacker really is making a second roll by having him jump up and down on the table.

 

[iamtim]

I wasn't implying it was sneaky

My bad, I read too much into "in disguise".

I don't think it is half as sneaky as hiding the fact that the attacker really is making a second roll by having him jump up and down on the table.

Heh.

 

[andakitty]

Perhaps it is a great strength of the system to be able to go either way at will. One of my greatest complaints with D&D (any version) is the restricted feeling I get with chargen and development of characters. I perceive none of that with these rules. Even though I seem to see a little D20 influence here and there.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

One of the things that set RQ apart from AD&D was the lack of character classes -- you had sort of jack-of-all-trades characters that were essentially 'adventurers' with a later possible specialization in combat (Rune Lord) or magic (Rune Priest).

MQ with it's 2-3 skill checks xp awards and low starting chances for some skills (especially magic) almost seems like a class system in disguise.

GM: Good job all, you've completed the adventure -- everyone gets 3 skill checks.
Fighter: I take them in War Sword, Resillience and Shield.
Thief: I take them in Dagger, Open Locks and Sneak.
Wizard: I take them in Dodge, Rune Casting and Sorcery.
Cleric: I take them in Mace, Rune Casting and Divine Magic.

Am I off-base here?

I think so too.

It could have been reasonably argued that the RQ3 Previous Experience system was a class system in disguise also.

There's nothing to stop the hypothetical "Fighter" from taking them in World Lore, Sing and Boating either... or would that be a "Bard"??? :twisted:

 

[Urox]

It could have been reasonably argued that the RQ3 Previous Experience system was a class system in disguise also.

As are the backgrounds from Call of Cthulhu. Of course, no skills really matter for CoC...

GM: Okay, Great Cthulhu picks you all up in his tentacles
P.I.: I try to shoot him with my revolver..
Delitante: I try to convince him to put me down, speaking French...

Of course, previous experience governs what your character did before becoming an adventurer, not after.

The min/maxer in me is whispering that we won't see many "fighter types" with World Lore...

 

[atgxtg]

I don't think it is a class system. But I do think that players are going to concetrate thier developlmenet in a way that didn't hhapeen in RQ. It is less what you learn along the way, and more a reward system, with players picking what they decided to learn along the way.

 

[iamtim]

But I do think that players are going to concetrate thier developlmenet in a way that didn't hhapeen in RQ. It is less what you learn along the way, and more a reward system, with players picking what they decided to learn along the way.

As the GM, you can adjudicate that however you'd like.

"Whadda ya mean you want to advance in Sneak? You haven't done one, single sneaky thing since the last time you advanced in Sneak! I don't think that's going to work. Pick another one."

 

[Urox]

As the GM, you can adjudicate that however you'd like.

"Whadda ya mean you want to advance in Sneak? You haven't done one, single sneaky thing since the last time you advanced in Sneak! I don't think that's going to work. Pick another one."

Is that in the official rules, or are you house-ruling that in? Also, was it ever clarified if you can spend multiple checks on the same skill?

I also don't think that's a great solution. The character replies, I was practicing in my spare time during the adventure. It's a lot like the training rules -- given the $$$, you can generally increase any skill.

 

[iamtim]

Is that in the official rules, or are you house-ruling that in?

Uhm... don't know, don't care. I think that falls in line with the general logic of GMing. There's no way a player should be allowed to increase a character's Swim skill, for instance, if they've been playing an inland desert scenario for the past three sessions.

Also, was it ever clarified if you can spend multiple checks on the same skill?

The official rule states, "A player can choose to spend one improvement roll to attempt to increase one known skill." To me that reads as "one check per skill", but many are the different reads from different people regarding this ruleset. I leave your own interpretation to you.

The character replies, I was practicing in my spare time during the adventure.

Hey, if the player can justify it, I'm game. But they'd better be able to justify it. No "I was darting in and out of trees and shadows around the campfire that night to practice Sneaking!" stuff.

 

[atgxtg]

But I do think that players are going to concetrate thier developlmenet in a way that didn't hhapeen in RQ. It is less what you learn along the way, and more a reward system, with players picking what they decided to learn along the way.

As the GM, you can adjudicate that however you'd like.

"Whadda ya mean you want to advance in Sneak? You haven't done one, single sneaky thing since the last time you advanced in Sneak! I don't think that's going to work. Pick another one."

Yes, as a GM my powers are near infinite. I can do anything that I think I can get way with.

I was just explaining how it appears than the imprvement system works. As far as how I would adjucate the improvmenet checks, I'd wouldn't use it at all and just go with the old RQ method. But I'm a GM, I can do that.

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

The min/maxer in me is whispering that we won't see many "fighter types" with World Lore...

There are many types of fighters, such as Mercerary Captains, for whom World Lore and similar skills are essential lifesavers. If you're a sword for hire and know a war is coming that you'll be asked eventually to bring your band into, you need to be able to figure out which side most needs your services, which side is most likely to be able to adequately pay you and your men and take care of them, and which side is least likely to get you all killed by their leaders making foolish mistakes. These are not always the same side, because the "highest bidder" might well be the biggest fool when it comes to strategy, and the side with the most need of skilled troops might be destitute in comparison to its enemies.

 

[AikiGhost]

Am I off-base here?

I think so, the diference between alloting your improvement rolls and a class system is that a class system inherantly penalises you for certain allotments and promotes certain others. MRQ doesnt do this (Unless you count the deminishing returns of putting IPs into already high skills.)