Question About Balancing Combats In RuneQuest

[listlurker]

Howdy,

Although I've followed RuneQuest since the days of the visually-impressive AH boxed sets, this latest Mongoose edition looks to be the one I can finally use with my long-time gaming group.

The rules mechanics seem to be exceptionally fluid, streamlined, and sensible this time out, and while RQ wouldn't be RQ without Glorantha, my players won't have to take a PhD in Gloranthan Studies at the local university just to use the MRQ rules set.

Here's the problem, and my question: looking over the RQMonsters PDF, I saw a lot of creatures and opponents I could use to tell interesting stories to my crew. The problem is, how do you successfully gauge the "threat level" of RQ monsters relative to your players at any given time?

Obviously, pitting a starting group against the Mother of Monsters is a bad idea which even beer wouldn't make better but, seriously, is there a way to get a sense of how tough opponents will be, in general, relative to your players' characters?

I'll probably get just one shot at introducing MRQ to my group of grognardian gaming pals. If the combats aren't fun (and repeated Total Party Kills which aren't the fault of the players aren't considered fun around here) then MRQ will flop at our gaming table, plain and simple.

Also, contrary to the common myth regarding gamers, I do have a life. I don't have the time to personally dry-run every combat before game night to test its lethality. If MRQ can't be more plug-and-play than that, then it will flop for me.

I realize that the Games Masters Guide is coming, but that PDF is not in my possesion as I write this, so it's a moot point here.

So, any practical advice from those of you who've already been putting MRQ to use at the gaming table?

Sorry for the length. Thanks for your attention,

LL

 

[weasel_fierce]

To be really really honest ? I've never seen a "points" or threat system that actually came anywhere close to resembling a fair fight. The variables are just to many and too varied.

Also, since negotiation and ransom is such a big thing, dont get too worried if the fight is a bit too tough. If they win, it'll be all the more satisfying and if they dont ? Well, hopefully they're on good terms with their family
Unfortunately its all too common in roleplaying games, but you have to be an idiot to fight to the death, except in a very few, select, conditions.

Generally, discrepancies in weapon skill, over 10-15% will be felt, heavy armour gives a significant advantage, and spell casting can make a huge difference. Those are things to watch for.

Due to how the mechanics works, Creatures with a large number of hit locations, as well as creatures with a large number of hit points per location will be very hard to incapacitate or kill. Be carefull with creatures that can deal a huge damage bonus. They are likely to be able to maim a PC in one swing.
Creatures like trolls are something to be treated with respect by the PC's


Start off slightly on the easy side. If violence breaks out, have it be simple soldiers or brigands with fairly average skills, and none too big a desire to get killed horribly. Then scale from there.
Despite your comments, You'll know far more about the capabilities of your party, than some dude on another continent might.

 

[listlurker]

Thanks WF!

Your comments regarding what to look for when assessing possible opponents is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping to see.

Perhaps other posters will have additional things to add, but even if they don't, your points give me a practical means of deciding "how tough is too tough?" when sizing up a potential opponent. Such means are crucial for designing an adventure which will make MRQ's "audition" at our gaming table go well.

I hear what you're saying about negotiation and ransom (the rulebook mentioned them also), but my players like battling monsters and foul critters quite a bit, and I doubt a Jack O' Bear, or some similar monster, would be of a mind to negotiate terms of surrender, y'know? :wink:

Also, this is a gaming group that has played D&D from before it carried a general social stigma (!) -- seriously, in our high school we were regarded merely as the guys who played "that game", and were not considered freaks or outcasts thereby.

So, while everyone in our crew is kind of done with D&D, as the rules tend to end up playing you, as opposed to the other way around -- and there comes a point where things are so homebrewed in response that you end up asking yourself `Why am I using this rules set again?'-- certain "D&D mindsets" will take time to shake off.

My point is, D&D's legacy of "fight to the last hit point" endures in the minds of many RPG players, and is possibly shored up further by similar attitudes in many fantasy computer/console/MMORPG games, or movies.

My players are not idiots, and can adapt, but I can't rely on them being comfortable with the surrender option right off the top. It will have to be worked into the game experience, should MRQ survive its initial audition.

In our experience of D&D, traditionally, surrender leads to death -- or far worse -- for players. It will take a while to demonstrate that other outcomes are possible.

Lastly, I don't think my MRQ game will be set in a canonical Glorantha in any event, although it will borrow heavily from certain Gloranthan aspects, and may even share the name and the general milieu.

I love Glorantha as something to read about, myself, but the real-world decades of lore behind the game can bring a crushing weight of canon to bear.

I don't want to scare off my RQ n00bie player-friends, and I also want more room to tell the sort of stories that interest me, without requiring the Stafford Stamp of Approval, so to speak.

So, I'm unsure if the traditions of surrender and ransom will even exist in our first game session as they do in Glorantha. In any case, your comments here have been a true help, and I will certainly try to consider all my options.

Thanks again, and thanks for talking,

LL

 

[weasel_fierce]

Oh, I can definately understand wanting to do your own thing

RQ works for a wide range of stuff, so Im sure you can find things they'll like. The beauty of course is that you steal liberally. Want renaisance orc swashbucklers with demon summoning, and worshipping the Orlanthi pantheon ? Sure thing!

On surrender and negotiation.. IF this is a route you want (and just because its in the book doesnt mean you have to), then you, as the humble GM, has to start out. You set the tone. Of course, if you're fighting man eating demons, running away is propably a better option.

One last piece of advice for now: Try to showcase the things that make Runequest different than D&D, whatever those may be, to you. From experience, I find people react better to something thats new, than something thats the same, only different.

Did that make sense ?

 

[Rurik]

One idea for a starting adventure that showcases surrender and ransom could be to have the party deliver a ransom or escort a prisoner to a prisoner exchange through and into hostile territory.

Trolls come to mind as an 'enemy' well suited to this kind of mission. The party could have to escort the prisoner through hostile or chaos infested lands to get to the trolls and could have to protect their prisoner when attacked as the initial combat encounter.

On their way out after the exchange they could be ambushed by other trolls - possibly even woefully outnumbered. Then have the troll leader they just dealt with for the ransom/swap show up and call off the attackers, declaring that the party has his protection on their way home. "But if yooz Uz seez them again after this, Uglugh sayz eatz them all if yoo pleez."

An adventure like this will show how the world is different and get them used to surrender without actually having to surrender or even accept surrender.

 

[listlurker]

I do genuinely appreciate the input, Rurik, but as I said to Weaselfierce, I'm not convinced that the Gloranthan staples of surrender and ransom are necessarily elements I want to feature in the first MRQ "audition" game for my gaming pals.

Since my game world will likely be an alt-Glorantha, at best, rather than the canonical Glorantha, I'm not even certain that the cultural notions of surrender and ransom will be implemented in the same way in my game, if at all.

What it boils down to is, I will have somewhere between 4 and 8 hours to show my longtime gaming pals why the RuneQuest system (and my streamlined, faux Glorantha) is worth their dwindling gaming time and their attention.

There are so many other RQ concepts I feel I need to put across first -- the ubiquity of magic; the palpable presence of deities; the fact that the default RQ setting (via Glorantha, of course) is less influenced by medieval European folklore, and more a fantasy-child of ancient empires (Rome, Egypt, Babylon, et al) and their mythologies.

Again, Rurik, I do appreciate your input here, but I feel that my first adventure has to focus on giving the crew a broad sense of RuneQuest, and whatever Glorantha-Lite(tm) version I end up deciding to use. If I can't intrigue them the first time out, the game is dead.

Part of why I asked about combat balance is that I hope to have my players battle certain "signature" RQ monsters (as I said, they LIKE fighting monsters) to not only introduce them to the RQ flavor, but to show them where the RQ versions of certain monsters may differ from the D&D versions they are all-too-familiar with ...

Given this, I wanted some idea of how to gauge combat difficulty on an ongoing basis, because the more they enjoy themselves, the longer that initial "audition" game session is likely to go on.

It wouldn't be the first time I ended up going past my notes into total post-adventure improv because my friends wanted "more, more more". That's one way I'll know if/when RQ is a "hit" with this group.

So, to bring it all full-circle to my original post -- since I have your attention -- given your evident experience with RuneQuest (over 1500 posts here testifies to this), Rurik, do you have anything to add to Weaselfierce's suggestions on how to assess combat difficulty/combat balance when setting up battles for your RuneQuest players?

Sneaky how I brought that all back to the table, hm?

Seriously though, the more I know, as a new MRQ Games Master in this regard, the better the chance that RuneQuest will pass its "audition" for my gaming group.

The rules have to serve the storytelling, for our crew, and the more aware I can be of the threat level at any point during play, the better I can be at handling whatever may arise, and of making sure a satisfying story gets told to all, regardless.

Thanks for reading. And again, thanks for your initial idea. I may well do such a story at some point, but it won't be the first one out of the gate.

I've got to open MRQ with a bang -- I'm just trying to make sure the bang doesn't accidentally blow up all the players in the process!

LL

 

[Snowedunder]

The old RQ staples for early quests (from our group anyway) were Broo and trollkin.

Although even a Bru in platemail with a greatsword will give anyone a headache.....and watch out for those diseases!

 

[listlurker]

Broo are definitely under consideration for the "audition" adventure, Snowedunder, although I'm thinking of leaving off on trollkin and trolls until later -- when I can give them a more planned, plot-heavy presentation.

Given that my gamer-pals come from the D&D tradtion, I don't want them to just see Trolls and Trollkin as "the new orcs and goblins", you know? Best to give the Uz-bunch a separate storyline later, to emphasize just how different they are.

Similarly, while Broo seem likely to appear during the "audition" adventure (and thanks for the reminder about their disease!), I'm also casting about for some kind of "wow-factor" critter also.

As truly RuneQuest as Broo are, they are essentially humanoid monsters, and I want to show how RQ doesnt adhere to the stock D&D pattern of almost all lower-level monsters being humanoids, with the stranger stuff only coming in later.

One humanoid (Broo) fight sounds good, but I'd like to throw in a battle with something more unusual as well, to really send that "this ain't D&D" message.

Again, part of the reason I'm here asking about balancing MRQ combat is that I was literally looking through my MRQ Monsters PDF, searching for a suitable "weird RQ monster" candidate, all while wondering "Will this challenge and entertain the players -- or just eat their characters outright?" lol

So ... here I am, hoping to gather some guidance!

Thanks for posting, Snowedunder. I appreciate your input!

LL

 

[Deleriad]

Useful rules of thumb.
1: Look at the average damage a monster does and compare with your PC's armour. For example, say your PCs mostly have 3-4 APs and around 5 HPs per location then any monster with an average damage of 9+ is going to cripple whatever it hits.
2: Figure the average attack and parry%. E.g. if you have 50% attack vs 50% parry then you can assume that 1/4 of the NPCs attacks will hit unparried.
3: look at the # of CAs a monster has. If the monster has a lot of CAs then it will get more unparried hits in.
From that you can get an idea of how many combat rounds it is likely to take before the NPC delivers a blow that can cripple in one attack.

A good series of combats with new players playing starting characters is something like
1. Sacrificial lambs. Let the PCs outnumber low skilled relatively weak NPCs. Have at least one try to surrender. Let the PC's see just how dangerous combat is to others. Trollkin are good for this.

2. More sacrifices but with a couple of protected missile users so in total the PCs no longer outnumber.

3. PCs face sacrifices equal in numbers to them but with an additional two threats who roughly equal the PCs in skills and damage. Have the PCs suddenly realise that they have decisions to make and remind them that they can use HPs to save their skins.

4 As 3 but you put in something that has an average damage equal to the PCs best APs+HP+4 (i.e. even a parry might cripple you). Make the PCs realise that they have to run away sometimes.

The trick is to teach the PCs lessons that they can survive. Of course there's no accounting for dice rolls and players but smart players will quickly realise that RQ fights often have a rhythm of engage, retreat, heal, try again until one side breaks and runs and that it takes relatively small amounts of damage to a vital location to render someone useless in combat.

Example signature critters:
1: poorly armoured human brigands, trollkin, ducks or skeletons.
2: as above with archers or sling shot users.
3: Add in two Dark Trolls.
4: Add in a Great Troll.

If you don't have RQ Monsters and don't want to use trolls, you can call trollkin Orcs, Dark Trolls, big orcs and the Great Troll can be a troll. Give the faux orcs scimitars and shields instead.

An alternative to Great Troll is a tame manticore; that'll also make your players sweat. If you want to really make a point, have them face a Griffin which will force them to dodge because otherwise it will use its Claw skill to make a grapple attack (usually at plus 20%) and then fly off. Nothing like watching a PC dangling 20m up in the air to concentrate the minds of the rest of the party.

By the time you've run them through this procession they're going to have a very different understanding of combat. Let them use relatively simply characters straight out of char gen with minimal magic and a scenario background that gives them quick access to healing and/or potions. what you're looking for is to try to make the PCs run away from things that don't seem that threatening at first. If you can do that, you'll have their attention and soon they'll be fighting as smart as they can manage.

 

[soltakss]

Rule Number One: A group of PCs will usually defeat a much tougher single opponent.

Rule Number Two: A group of PCs will normally defeat a similar sized, similar-statted group of NPCs.

Rule Number Three: The way to grind down PCs is either through a large number of slightly weaker foes or a small number of more powerful foes.

Rule Number Four: If you carefully balance your NPCs and spend a long time on their stats and abilities, the PCs will wipe the floor with them in a couple of rolls.

Rule Number Five: If you are in danger of causing a party-wipe, the NPCs can always ease off, take prisoners or do non-lethal but embarrassing/nasty damage on the PCs.

I used to carefully prepare hundreds of NPC cannon-fodder for PCs to wade through, but I don't bother now. However, I am all in favour of a few minor encounters with slightly inferior groups, then a big climax with the monster at the end. Gone are the days of taking out a Thed Temple and ripping the priests apart.

So, the best answer I can give is to try things out as GMs can gain through experience in the same way that PCs can. Try some groups, see what happens, see what works and what doesn't, mix things up, don;t use the same groups over and over again.

 

[soltakss]

I've just read the rest of the thread, which is always a good idea.

Broos are always good, scorpionmen are terrifying foes, as are Jack o' Bears.

If you want to show off Normal people VS Chaos then have a chaos bash against a party 2 or 3 people stronger than the PC party. Have someone with an exotic ability, someone tough, someone scary, someone harmless and a few extras. Show them what the chaos can do. It'll scare them and intrigue them at the same time.

If you want something else, then use human foes, but from other cults. Use Praxians as enemies as they ride funny beasts and use odd magic. Use barbarian Orlanthi or Yelmalian soldiers. Use Godlearners and dragonfolk if you want, but I wouldn't for a one-off opener.

Trolls are good, but are limited in a one-of opener as you can't really show much of them and their culture is the best things about them.

Vampires are always good, but maybe a bit tough.

Have some demons turn up at the end and scare people and then have some friendly NPCs come along and save the day.

We've never really ransomed anyone, we prefer to ensure that our enemies stay dead. Of course, we have prepared attractive ransoms in case we are captured.

 

[Halfbat]

Some good outline advice, Deleriad, however....

2: Figure the average attack and parry%. E.g. if you have 50% attack vs 50% parry then you can assume that 1/4 of the NPCs attacks will hit unparried.

Just a warning - under the new combat system this sort of calculation is no longer true and is something the new system makes very difficult.

With a 50% attacker vs a 50% defender the chance is now ~34%-35% and the chance of a hit getting blocked by the opponents shield is only 5%. Up that opponent to 60% and the balance is suddenly shifted: the 60% has a 44% chance of getting through without being parried, for example, whilst the 50% only have a less than 30% chance...

Whilst the move in 50 vs 50 from 1/4 to 1/3 doesn't seem like much, it overloads the combat calculation by making the combat much more unpredictable; imho a fight becomes much more troublesome or much easier - simply by over-emphasising the very early dice (and, I know, the dice always make a difference, but we're talking about how predictable it is here).

The bigger shift in the result towards higher attack skills also means more skilled NPCs are very much more difficult opponents.

 

[elgrin]

If I can add my two-pennyworth in an attempt to help.
Firstly, my experience is that dyed-in-the-wool D&D'ers will have real difficulty with the no-class system.
Secondly, all RQ combat is lethal, your average D&D player does not appreciate how lethal. Rurik sometimes refers to an event with a Rune Lord and a trollkin; allegorical or not it does represent RQ combat. This makes judging the correct balance harder, as any character can get lucky and deliver a fatal blow, so they will have to take care not to overmatch themselves - running away is not so much an option as a neccessity sometimes. My own feeling is that a couple of combats where they are reasonably powerful compared to the opposition is sensible with newcomers to RQ so as to get the swing of the combat, and then start worrying about gettting an equal match. Some character will get really hurt, even in this situation, and help show the players how the system can punish careless play.
Thirdly, RQ is really enjoyable for GM's as the freedom of the NPC's to amaze and astonish the PC's has always seemed to me to much better than most other RPG's

elgrin

 

[Rurik]

So, to bring it all full-circle to my original post -- since I have your attention -- given your evident experience with RuneQuest (over 1500 posts here testifies to this), Rurik, do you have anything to add to Weaselfierce's suggestions on how to assess combat difficulty/combat balance when setting up battles for your RuneQuest players?

Well in the time between then and now lots of very useful advice has been given. Think D&D at very low levels, when characters are fragile. Even a slightly inferior foe is going to be able to get lucky and kill characters with good rolls. RQ is kinda like that, even when players get powerful.

In D&D when characters get up in levels the luck of the roll gets diminished as inferior foe would have to get lucky over and over just to wear down the inflated HP of their enemy. Characters know than can fight a while, and when their hp get too low they know it is time to find healing. There is no 'sudden death'.

MRQ is actually a good bit less deadly than earlier RQ versions (and so more approachable to players of leth lethal systems), but combat is still very lethal compared to D&D. Keep that low level mindset when designing your first adventures and you should be fine.

Here are sone fast guidlines:

* Big two handed weapons are deadly. Avoid them at first.

* Sheilds are excellent at first. Giving foes weapons like 2h short spears and single swords is a good starting point.

* Weapons that impale are deadlier than weapons that don't.

* Being outnumbered by equal foes is a big disadvantage. If you want to outnumber the party use foes with a damage penalty.

* Take combat actions into account when determining 'outnumbered' - three on two is not so bad if the party of three all has 2 CA's and the party of two has 3 CA's each. Now if the party of three has 3 CA's each and the smaller party only 2 each...

*Lots of hit locations makes a foe tougher.

Dragonewts also make a good starting foe and are unique to RQ (but may seem too similar to Lizardmen at first). The Scouts are pretty weak and one Warrior running them makes a good 'boss monster' for a starting party.

Scorpionmen make a great foe but are tough. Maybe a one armed one would ba good starting baddy.

I hope this helps some.

 

[atgxtg]

My 2 cents....

Take a good look at the damage the creature dishes out. It is probably the best gauge of how deadly it is. Creatures that can do lots of damage have a greater chances of "offing" a PC, either with a lucky hit, or by beating down defenses (MRQ parries don't stop much). Now compare that damage to what sort of protection the PCs have (armor, magic, parry Aps) and see what sort of effect if would have on a character after a round or three of combat.

Now do the reverse and compare the average damage a character does to the monster's defenses, and try to get a feel for how long the monsters could go last before it would get cut down.


One thing about determining how effective a threat is is how menacing you can make it appear to the players. It can have all 80s for stats, but look like a wimp if a PC wastes it a soon as it shows up. Likewise, if can be the weakest thing in the world and still be a good menace if the GM can set the scene, mood, and foreshadow things.

THe best way to make a monster effective is to do things like in an old style horror film. Show the players signs of the monster7s activity, so that by the time the thing makes an appearance, it has already built up something of a reputation. Then keep the creature "on screen" for a little time required by the adventure. THat keeps the menace a unknown, and thus keeps it "scary".

For instance, if you want to use Broo, have the characters run across signs of Broo activity (some dead farmers, maybe some disease, or maybe a animal birth that goes horribly wrong). Then hit the PCs through thier NPC friends and family to make the threat personal. Having a villager captured by Broo is bad, having your sister captured by Broo is much, much worse.

As long as you can make the players feel like they are being challenged, the actual stats don't matter much. Giving the Broo leader a name, nasty scar, and an eyepatch can often do more that adding 25% to his skills, since the players never look at the monster stats.

 

[listlurker]

Wow -- the troops really rallied while I slept! And no one has insulted me yet -- are you sure we're on the internet here?

Seriously, though, thanks to everyone who took the time to post ideas while I was being a wussy mortal and sleeping. I intend to post further replies to individual posts later, but for the next days, I need to absorb the advice given, and to see how it applies specifically to my MRQ gaming plans.

Thanks again, everyone. I can only hope that the powers-that-be at Mongoose have a similar sort of "advice on combat balance" section planned for the Games Master Guide -- or some supplement -- because this is exactly the kind of knowledge a n00b GM really needs when hoping to give MRQ a try.

Once more, all -- thank you!

LL

 

[weasel_fierce]

Wow -- the troops really rallied while I slept! And no one has insulted me yet -- are you sure we're on the internet here?

Your favourite game sucks

 

[listlurker]

Wow -- the troops really rallied while I slept! And no one has insulted me yet -- are you sure we're on the internet here?

Your favourite game sucks

Whew! Thanks, weasel_fierce! For a while there, I thought maybe my internet connection was down! Hahahaha!

Oh, wait, that's not the proper internet response is it? I'm supposed to counter with something wholly irrelevant, yet completely vicious, right?

I'll pass. I've come to notice that Mac's Inverse Law of the Internet really does apply -- the amount of time one spends fighting on the internet is the inverse of how much of a life one actually has.

But seriously, thanks to you, WF, and the rest of the MRQ community for your helpful commentary here. It's a welcome change from the usual hostile climate on gaming forums. May the other kind of trolls and trollkins never darken this place.

LL

 

[listlurker]

Hello all,

I've had some time to mull the responses to my original post which started this thread, and here's where I'm still unsure as to whether the MRQ rules are the right fantasy rules set to audition for my long-time gaming group.

Please note: I am not criticising the MRQ rules set here; I am simply trying to figure out whether the MRQ rules are a good fit for the kind of fantasy adventures my friends and I enjoy.

Since I haven't actually run the MRQ rules at a gaming table -- and the rules' initial appearance before my long-time gaming pals will amount to a make-or-break "audition" for the MRQ system, I'm here seeking the counsel of those who know the practical, table-tested ins-and-outs of the MRQ system.

Okay. So here's where I see a problem. Speak up if I've got it wrong.

The problem is, the MRQ combat rules seem designed to be randomly and spontaneously lethal.

There's nothing inherently wrong with such lethality. It represents a more realistic, grittier form of fantasy combat, and I get that.

The problem is not with the lethality, so much as the "randomly AND spontaneously" aspects. Simply put, it plays hell with trying to tell any kind of ongoing story.

I'm a writer by trade (and it IS a trade -- it can be learned and taught; don't let anyone tell you any different, if you have any aspiration to write!), and the reason my friends have asked me to run RPGs for them all these years, is that they like the storytelling that surrounds their choices and conflicts. I'm sure that they also like getting professional-quality stories for free, the cheap basstids (heh).

Seriously though, the problem I'm seeing with the MRQ rules right now is that any character in combat, regardless of level, equipment or ability, can die outright with a single bad dice roll.

Randomness and spontaneity are what makes RPGs entertaining for a Games Master -- they're not entirely scripted or predictable.

But, as a GM, I need to have a general sense of which way the tide of battle is turning, so that I can revise on the fly if the worst occurs.

MRQ combat seems so random and so spontaneous (so realistic, if you like) that I can see entire sessions -- indeed entire plotlines -- being fatally derailed by a single bad dice roll, more often than not.

To put it another way, we all know Greedo damn well shot first in the original Star Wars film, right?

Right, so in the MRQ version, Greedo rolls a crit, all Han's skills and abilities avail him nothing, and faster than you can say "Kuta puta, Solo?" our favorite Corellian's head is reduced to a crimson stain on the wall of the Mos Eisley Cantina. End of the Star Wars story as we know it.

Yes, I realize that there are ways to adapt the plot and move on -- to adjust the story on the fly. My issue is, this "one roll, one kill" phenomenon seems pretty commonplace in MRQ.

Just how regularly will MRQ require me to redirect or rework the plot just because two or more player characters died randomly because of bad dice rolls?

Sorry, Frodo, Shelob randomly critted you and Sam dead on the way to Mordor. Take five while I check my notes and figure whether I can bring in new characters at this point, or whether Saurons wins ...

Okay, I was trying to be funny with that last bit -- but I think you see my point here.

Every GM has to deal with Total Party Kills or the "wrong player characters" dying unexpectedly sometimes -- but in most systems I've tried, you can usually see when things are starting to go south at the gaming table. The MRQ rules, as written, seem to invite a lot more "sudden death" into the mix, a lot more often.

The other problem with this sort of high-lethality realism is that players tend to regard their characters as little more than temporary, disposable placeholders, soon to be killed.

This is fine for a "beer and pretzels" fantasy game night, or for those who really like the high-risk aspect, but my players expect an engaging story of me.

It's really hard to keep players connected to the plot and to the game world if their avatars in said world keep dying in droves.

I get the feeling I've misread the MRQ combat rules somewhat -- but I've purposely overstated my concerns here to give those with practical knowledge of how MRQ works at the gaming table clear points to address.

I still think the Mongoose RuneQuest rules are a solid set. I'm just not convinced the system will let me tell the kinds of ongoing stories my players and I enjoy.

Anybody have any thoughts? Thanks.

LL

 

[Halfbat]

Seriously though, the problem I'm seeing with the MRQ rules right now is that any character in combat, regardless of level, equipment or ability, can die outright with a single bad dice roll.

That's more the case with the new combat rules where the opposed rolls really bias the results towards the higher-skill character, but even a lower-skilled character can suddenly get a hit which goes completely his opponent's defense.

In non-opposed, normal combat*, I've found the "sudden death" rarely happens, just as in earlier RQ. Yes, a critical to the head can put a character out, especially one who is weak in Resilience, but this requires 11-13 points of damage to the typical PC in one blow, bypassing armour and shield AND requiring the PC to fail two successive Resilience rolls. There's few weapons that can dish out that much at the start of a campaign (when PCs have little armour) and we're talking about a lot of bad luck.

It's not as commonplace a result as might be felt.

The style of the game emphases thinking about potentially violent encounters beforehand and even trying to avoid them completely. Healing skills and spells are, however, vital if a party is to push on in D&D style as the PCs can pick up a variety of non-lethal wounds fairly quickly.

If all else fails, Hero Points end up being useful, here, to allow the players to just avoid death by a smidgeon.

ime, RQ campaigns with developed characters are very possible and work very well, better than level-based systems as the skills and characters can readily be tailored to support any style of campaign.

Hope this helps!
--------------------------
* From a RQ perspective, that is. It's worth bearing in mind that the feel of RQ is grittier than d20 so a GM shouldn't have big monsters that rely on surviving HP attrition to be defeated.
Edit: Got rid of an extraneous bbcode tag!