Runequest game style

[stacktrace]

Different game systems are better/worse for different game styles. I am interested in Runequest 2, but wonder if it would be a good fit for a classic extended dungeon delve playstyle.

Can anyone who has played a long time give me an indication of the game style Runequest is best at representing?

Thank you in advance.

 

[kintire]

Given a reasonably magic rich background where the PCs have access to healing magic it certainly could. Runequest is a reasonably gritty system but the wide access to magic mitigates that. MRQ2 is a system where taking someone out is asy and quick, but actually killing them is more difficult. The one slight problem is that its skills based not level based, and depending on the skills layout characters of a given experience will be of very different potential in different situations, which makes dungeon design a little more tricky. Nothing insurmountable though.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Looking at the Monster Coliseum (RQ2 Monster Manual), one could argue that default mode of play is actually in a Coliseum as opposed to a dungeon bash, even though the actual objectives (fight, kill, take their stuff) is essentially the same.

 

[soltakss]

The RuneQuest games that I have played on an ongoing basis have tended to be wilderness crawls where PCs tend to travel widely, encountering different cultures and groups.

However, I have lost count of the dungeon crawls and temple-hacks that we have done. RuneQuest is equally as good when windmilling through a horde of chaos, dripping with gore, as travelling through plains talking to groups of nomads.

That's the beauty of RQ, it is not particularly suited to any one style of play and can suit many different campaign styles.

 

[Paladyn]

Bear in mind I only plan for now, but I'm going to run a sandbox game.

World will be on low tech level but rich with spirits, magic, omens etc. While there will be plenty of magic, it's not high one that shifts continents or banishes demons instantly, but hedge spells and witch charms. Epic quest means slaying particularly large and human eating bear, fighting bogmen of swamps or raid village far away to steal cattle.

Real treasure is your trusty sword, your armor bears marks of chops your father suffered and most precious are tools, that come handy. You fight for you, your family, community, not for some ideals or honor.

I think, it basically like RuneQuest/Glorantha should look.

 

[stacktrace]

Thanks for the replies. There is quite a bit I like about RQ2, though it does seem a bit too harsh to allow extended dungeon delves. Still unsure if it is the best fit, but it certainly seems like it can handle it alright.

 

[ThatGuy]

My advice for dungeon delving- increase the rate at which MPs are recovered, and make sure a couple PCs invest in heal, and at least 1, preferably a sorcerer, has a regrow limb/regenerate spell. As the GM/DM it is your responsibility to make sure those bases are covered if you want the PCs to have a good time and go the distance.

Otherwise, someone is going down sooner or later. It just takes 1 turn of bad dice...

Having said that, I think with those conditions, MRQ2 is a great dungeon crawl system. If the dungeon/temple/crypt is not overly large the RAW is actually a bit more strategically fun to play (conserve those MPs!), but if you are talking about the dungeon that goes on and on...yeah, I'd say above adjustments are a must. They can always be a byproduct of the dungeon itself as well (there are small softly glowing crystals embedded in the flesh of the dungeon walls that seem to feed your magic reserves), if you just want to keep the perk confined to the dungeon. This could be especially interesting if the crystals become more scarce as the party gets closer to their goal/boss/enemy/etc.

 

[stacktrace]

I certainly suscribe to the idea that PCs should attempt to avoid fights wherever possible. The "dungeon delve" I had in mind was more of an extremely large mythical underworld full of deadly traps and monsters and lots of treasure and magic. The challenges would be to avoid the traps and monsters whenever possible while encountering various wonders and puzzling situations almost fairy tale like in nature.

I have been reading Jack Vance's The Dying Earth for the first time and really inspired by the crazy situations the characters in that book find themselves in, as well as the strong sense of magic and the unknown confronting them.

How do characters in RQ do in a combat situation when outnumbered by a host of much lesser skilled enemies? I am hoping that it still poses a risk, but typically the stronger group (even though outnumbered) should carry the day with a decent tactical approach.

I am also more inclined towards centralized HP rather than hit locations. Does this tend to make combat significantly more deadly?

 

[ThatGuy]

How do characters in RQ do in a combat situation when outnumbered by a host of much lesser skilled enemies? I am hoping that it still poses a risk, but typically the stronger group (even though outnumbered) should carry the day with a decent tactical approach.

I am also more inclined towards centralized HP rather than hit locations. Does this tend to make combat significantly more deadly?

if enemies outnumber PCs it can get very dangerous very fast- it's all dice at that point. A 30% NPC can still roll a 2 when the 89% fighter rolls a 96- or worse, the fighter is out of CA and the "2" is a free attack- and the lowly duck takes off a leg! (*lowbrow Glorantha humor*). So, yes, too many foes, no matter how low their skill level are deadly. If however the only have 1 CA each (like Zombies), it becomes more manageable.

As far as central HP it just makes it different- things like regrow limb become a bit unneccessary and other by products of battle become more abstracted (an injured arm- which arm and holding what? Is an Arm or a leg injured- each strongly effect strategy differently). And foes with heavy damage weapons become more formidable. 2 blows from a greathammer might end the fight rather than allow for a broken leg and broken shield arm, but a victory...

 

[stacktrace]

Speaking of number of CA's. I imagine most PCs start off with 2 nearly all the time. How quickly will they typically start gaining 3 CA's, and is that something players typically strive to improve asap?

So, no so much wadding through a bunch of mooks laying them low. How about the Maneuver action that lets you minimize attacks against multiple opponents through an opposed Evade check? Does that see much use and is it as helpful as it seems in writing?

Sorry for the noobish questions, and thank you for your patience and responses. I actually have only looked though a copy of the book and been reading about it, so I do not have all the rules quite right yet. I did just order the rulebook because certain aspects of the ruleset very much appeal to me (classless, magic systems, active defenses in combat and armor as damage reduction). The upcoming Empires book also looks great and its existance played very much into my growing interest of this game. It seems also that Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (one of my old favorites) was greatly influenced by this game.

 

[Malakor]

Most of the characters in my group have 3 combat actions (4 when using shields, which they are all getting to the point where they try to keep one handy :lol: ) and they find that the CA's disappear quickly when they are facing more than one opponent at a time.

A couple of mooks with very low skill can whittle away at a skilled warrior's combat actions very quickly with just a couple of lucky rolls on the GM's part.

I always try to keep it fun, but I also like to keep it interesting (had a sniper in the shadows who kept moving about during our last session, she never did get a good solid hit on the characters [although she took out one of her own mooks at one point ], but she definitely kept them on their toes.

 

[ThatGuy]

Speaking of number of CA's. I imagine most PCs start off with 2 nearly all the time. How quickly will they typically start gaining 3 CA's, and is that something players typically strive to improve asap?

So, no so much wadding through a bunch of mooks laying them low. How about the Maneuver action that lets you minimize attacks against multiple opponents through an opposed Evade check? Does that see much use and is it as helpful as it seems in writing?

CAs are the name of the game- I had a PC in a game that was a very intelligent, high-dex Elf with a co-ordination spell and a bound spirit that increased his dex (I wanted to see how far he could take it, and how effective it could be). He was able to get up to 6 CAs with his shield. He was by far the most effective fighter in the party, despite the fact he didn't have a damage modifier. He would single handedly take out almost 3 enemies per round with an average of 2 free attacks. He was effective to the point of being almost unbalanced. There is a spell in the draconic mysticism religion of Glorantha that allows for a bunch of extra defensive CAs, and that spell is really effective as well (perfect for a martial artist build). The thing is, everyone is counting down CAs, so you get past the third and forth turn and if a character has CAs left, that character is generally making free attacks and picking off enemies with CMs.

I have found that- in game- evade is a mixed bag. You not only have to succeed in the roll, you have to succeed in the opposed roll- much tougher. It can be done, but it is risky, and again it just takes one roll...I have seen a lot of successful evades that only accomplish the negation of a CM, which while a definite boon, still does damage. So maybe run a few practice battles with just NPCs to get a feel?

 

[kintire]

Combat Actions define how effective you are. All melee combatants should start with 3. If you don't have 3, pick a support role or take up farming.

Maneuvering is okay, but as soon as you face decent opponents it loses a lot of utility. You can't rely on winning opposed rolls round by round.

 

[stacktrace]

Combat Actions define how effective you are. All melee combatants should start with 3. If you don't have 3, pick a support role or take up farming.

That worries me. One reason I am attracted to RQ is because all characters seem to be able to provide reasonable contributions in combat, rather than the mage (in a class based game) having to hide in the back when out of spells.

Perhaps I will adopt the rule from BRP where everyone gets a single attack/action each round (until they have over 100% skill) and can make multiple parries/dodges each round (at a cummulative -30% for each additional one after the first).

 

[soltakss]

I certainly suscribe to the idea that PCs should attempt to avoid fights wherever possible. The "dungeon delve" I had in mind was more of an extremely large mythical underworld full of deadly traps and monsters and lots of treasure and magic. The challenges would be to avoid the traps and monsters whenever possible while encountering various wonders and puzzling situations almost fairy tale like in nature.

RuneQuest is perfect for this kind of game. I've run and played these games with RQ before and they work very well.

How do characters in RQ do in a combat situation when outnumbered by a host of much lesser skilled enemies? I am hoping that it still poses a risk, but typically the stronger group (even though outnumbered) should carry the day with a decent tactical approach.

In older versions of RQ, the PCs would have the edge. They would rely on heavy/boosted armour to deflect most of the damage, then attempt to kill several foes per round with multiple/split attacks, hoping to avoid criticals that might take them down, even then they might have heavily enchanted hit locations or have boosted CON giving them more hit points.

However, I have never played an RQM game in anger, so I don't know how it plays out. I'd guess that Protection spells would still boost armour enough to provide some immunity, but I'm not sure how Combat Reactions would work. Perhaps they'd give the PCs the edge, but they might give NPCs an advantage. Certainly, giving PCs 3 CAs against 2 CAs for NPCs would certainly help the PCs' cause.

My gut feeling is that a sufficiently strong force would defeat a sufficiently weak but numerically superior force most of the time, epsecially with the use of healing magic. Don't forget that RQM has generally lower damage than older versions RQ so is inherently more survivable.

I am also more inclined towards centralized HP rather than hit locations. Does this tend to make combat significantly more deadly?

Yes and No.

Centralised hit point mean that it only takes a certain amount of damage to kill/disable a PC, but that is a fair amount of damage.

Having hit locations means that the PC can take a lot more damage, in multiple small blows, but a location can be taken out in a single blow, possibly disabling or incapacitating the PC.

So, taking 20 hit points of damage in an arm won't kill you but taking 20 points of damage with centralised hit points will probably kill you.

 

[PhilHibbs]

How do characters in RQ do in a combat situation when outnumbered by a host of much lesser skilled enemies? I am hoping that it still poses a risk, but typically the stronger group (even though outnumbered) should carry the day with a decent tactical approach.

I am also more inclined towards centralized HP rather than hit locations. Does this tend to make combat significantly more deadly?

MRQ2 has rules for simplified NPCs that just have General Hit Points, and an even more gung-ho option for hacking through hordes of nameless mooks if that's the style you want, but ignoring this latter optional rule, combat is always dangerous and should be approached with care. The old Pre-Mongoose RQ rules had Rurik as "the" sample character, and he became a Rune Lord of Yelmalio, but was famously killed by an ordinary Trollkin with a spear. If the players have a sensible choice of well-used magic, they can triumph over superior numbers more-or-less reliably.

 

[Deleriad]

Combat Actions define how effective you are. All melee combatants should start with 3. If you don't have 3, pick a support role or take up farming.

That worries me. One reason I am attracted to RQ is because all characters seem to be able to provide reasonable contributions in combat, rather than the mage (in a class based game) having to hide in the back when out of spells.

Perhaps I will adopt the rule from BRP where everyone gets a single attack/action each round (until they have over 100% skill) and can make multiple parries/dodges each round (at a cummulative -30% for each additional one after the first).

Personally I would suggest playing RAW first and then seeing how you feel. I played MRQ1 for a long time with a fixed number of Combat Actions but I find MRQ2 plays just fine with variable CAs.

Having an extra CA is a big advantage but so is having a big damage modifier or higher skill than your opponent. There are enough variables in the game that I think the absolute requirement for 3 CAs the poster above alludes to is overstated.

 

[dbhoward]

Having an extra CA is a big advantage but so is having a big damage modifier or higher skill than your opponent. There are enough variables in the game that I think the absolute requirement for 3 CAs the poster above alludes to is overstated.

I absolutely agree with this. One of the best fighters in our current group has only 2 CAs but usually does just fine. He has a very high STR and DM and can often end a fight before it even gets to the 3rd Combat Action...

I also agree to play RAW for a while until you see how it works for you. It can take a while to really see how all the elements fit together, for the "why'd they do that" to turn into the light bulb turning on in your head. At least it did for me...

 

[Nickbergquist]

Combat Actions define how effective you are. All melee combatants should start with 3. If you don't have 3, pick a support role or take up farming.

That worries me. One reason I am attracted to RQ is because all characters seem to be able to provide reasonable contributions in combat, rather than the mage (in a class based game) having to hide in the back when out of spells.

Perhaps I will adopt the rule from BRP where everyone gets a single attack/action each round (until they have over 100% skill) and can make multiple parries/dodges each round (at a cummulative -30% for each additional one after the first).

Personally I would suggest playing RAW first and then seeing how you feel. I played MRQ1 for a long time with a fixed number of Combat Actions but I find MRQ2 plays just fine with variable CAs.

Having an extra CA is a big advantage but so is having a big damage modifier or higher skill than your opponent. There are enough variables in the game that I think the absolute requirement for 3 CAs the poster above alludes to is overstated.

I second this. I was initially put off by CAs, but over the last six months of weekly play have grown quite accustomed to their use and it feels very natural now. One bit of advice Loz gave me on the forums early on was simple: use tokens to track CAs. At the start of play everyone gets a set of tokens to reflect their unspent CAs, and they "spend" those during combat as they perform various actions. I have a pool for the NPCs in the same fashion, and it works extremely well to keep track of them.

Now that said, I think adopting the BRP mechanic would work fine, too....but on average it may actually gimp the PCs slightly, as in my experience most PCs will have 3 or more CAs (usually due to build, plus a bonus CA for their shield or off-hand weapon) and the average enemy will have 2 CAs plus 1 CA for any off-hand weapons/shields. This means the PCs will typically have 1 or 2 more actions than most average opponents, which can be a big advantage in battle using standard RQII mechanics.

 

[stacktrace]

Thanks for the tip, I will give it a try RAW first and will break out the poker chips.

Books should arrive within the next couple days, and hoping to have the first game in about a month, will let you all know how it turns out.