Runequest inconsistencies and errors ? Core rulebook

[weasel_fierce]

I am working on some modifications for our game, and I was wondering.. does anyone have a list, or can help compile a list, of rule errors and outright problems ?

Let me clarify what I am looking for:

I am (right now) only looking at the core books (rulebook and Companion.. if you have the deluxe book, ignore the monsters section)

I am not looking for rules you don't like, but which work fine in play

I am looking for rules that either are extremely vague or which were affected by later rules changes (the new combat rules are the main thing Im looking at here)


So, what do we have ?

 

[master of reality]

On both the parry and the dodge combat results matrix, the result for a failed attack versus a failed parry or dodge reads, "attack succeeds as normal". This has been changed to read "attack fails" in the updated combat rules available as a pdf from this website or in the Game Master's Handbook.

The rules for lifting heavy objects are a bit funky. Basically, if a character makes a successful athletics skill test, he lifts the object. Although negative modifications to this skill test for weight and bulk of the object are implied, they are not explicitly spelled out. Previous editions of RuneQuest used a resistance table. I think the idea of an athletics skill test for lifting objects is sound. Technique can augment strength. Take two guys with the same strength, and the one with the superior lifting technique can lift more. I was disappointed that Mongoose did not take the opportunity to flesh out this athletics skill more in the Game Master's Handbook.

 

[Ucee]

Realism for lifting? Forget modifiers. GM rules the stone weighs so much that you need STR 13 to lift it. If you're below, forget it. If you're over it, no problem. If your STR is 13, roll Athletics.

The idea is to require a roll when it's realistic that character might be able to do the feat but is not too strong to do it easily or too weak to fail automatically.

 

[Mugen]

Realism for lifting? Forget modifiers. GM rules the stone weighs so much that you need STR 13 to lift it. If you're below, forget it. If you're over it, no problem. If your STR is 13, roll Athletics.

The idea is to require a roll when it's realistic that character might be able to do the feat but is not too strong to do it easily or too weak to fail automatically.

I really like this idea. It definitely makes more sense than the original rule.
However, I think that for those with STR different from the object's SIZ (= required STR) I would ask for an athletics roll with a modifier, (STR-object's SIZ)*10% for instance.

 

[Ucee]

The point is, IMHO you need to qualify for the challenge.

In my game, in a straightforward challenge of strength, let's say an armwrestling match, STR 17 guy beats a STR 16 guy almost always, simply because he's stronger (although hangover might affect STR temporarily). You just don't go challenge the biggest guy in the village and hope for a lucky dice roll. If both were STR 17, then it's a challenge. Until that it's back to the gym for the lad.
Of course when more technique comes into play, like knocking the other guy out of balance, Athletics roll would come into play with appropriate modifiers like the one Mugen suggests (like STR difference * 10%).

For me, basic lifting falls into the straightforward strength challenges category and only requires roll if it's around you maximum capacity. Of course, this is where good GMing comes into play, so obviously the door leading to salvation has equal STR than your strongest player. If not, what's the point of it being there. It's a waste of time rating SIZ's for the objects in the game and then spend again time calculating chances of success, if they're meant to be opened anyway. Either it can or it can't. Consecutive attempts shouldn't make any difference, nor letting a weaker guy try the task.
If a door can be opened, either it's coupled with some tension (bad guys about to storm in) and calls for a roll, or it eventually opens after some trying anyway.

Same goes for lots of other tasks.. only the SIZ 17 guy rolls whether he'll get stuck in a tunnel. Smaller guys should get through and the bigger guy realizes he won't fit. Again, if GM decides that this part of the scenario could add a twist in the game, he sets the limit to something that calls for a roll for someone.

This sort of approach in general makes the game more logical, realistic and smoother. You can deem that the Tower is so difficult to climb that only your most nimble PC (decided by DEX) has a chance of trying.
This way you avoid the common situation where every PC asks for his turn to have a go. If the task was quite easy then have higher DEX PCs succeed automatically and only call for a roll for the clumsiest climber.

 

[Deleriad]

Re the STR and lifting and arm wrestling issues.

As stated you only generally have to make a skill roll in RQ if you are under stress and failure would cause ramifications or you are trying to exceed your normal limits such as carrying a heavy weight for a long time.

As I recall, in the GM's guide, it basically states that you can routinely lift a certain amount of weight depending on your STR. If you want to lift more (up to a certain limit) then you need to make an athletics/brute force roll.

With arm wrestling, and other forms of active resistance I would run it as an opposed contest but give +/-5% modifier per point of STR difference. E.g. If Burly Bob is STR 18 and Puny Pete is STR 9, then Burly Bob would get +45% to his skill and Puny Pete would get -45%.

You could also use this mechanism for other types of contest. E.g. Psychic Duelling might be a contest of Persistence vs Persistence with a modifier of +/-5% per MP difference.

A social contest might be Influence vs Influence with a modifier based on CHA differences and so on.

 

[gran_orco]

I have one issue: falling.
If a PC falls from 20m, he will, probably, broke his leg -or similar-.

 

[Ucee]

I was just showing one possible approach of how the game should be played.

I like giving emphasis to roleplaying and common sense and let the rules only solve situations where the result should be arbitrary - such as combat. This approach also saves you from a lot of hairsplitting over rules that feel unrealistic - which all rules are if you constantly try to use them as an absolute measure of reality.

Players shouldn't rely too much on dice to solve everything. If you have clear limits, it encourages more ingenious problemsolving and snuffs out idiotic decisions that some insistent PCs are capable of making.

GM can declare that "there's no way you can climb down that wall without a rope or something" instead of letting him try -> PC fails and falls, then shrugs of damage thanks to his armour and a lucky die roll or something and happily goes on his way - leaving the GM to curse why he didn't make the towers windowless or 50ft. higher to prevent such an easy way out.

Everyone is of course free to play however they like and rule-driven roleplay can be equally fun too.

 

[Ucee]

Yup, 20m fall means 4D6, each D6 to a random location, so most likely you'll just get up and walk away.

My quick rule change ("If you jump, YOU WILL DIE!!"): Roll Athletics to land on your feet. If success, remove one die from total (4D6 turns to 3D6) and roll that damage for BOTH legs.

Else roll two SEPARATE locations from upper body (not legs) and roll damage (4D6) to both. Then roll two more hit locations from those that haven't been hurt, including legs, and roll half damage each (2D6).

If fumble, locations don't have to be separate, thus you could get 2d6 to head from falling from a low roof.

 

[gran_orco]

I do 4D6 to 4 locations, similar to RQ3