Runequest Pirates of the Carribean

yipwyg

Mongoose
I was just reading a thread on Enworld on how to make campaigns more like Pirates of the Carribean. I don't think he was trying to make his games more "piratey", but more like the action in the movie. I also think he was talking about the type of mood those movies have with the world.

Now hearing that Runequest combat was based on watching the fight scenes in Star Wars movies, does anyone think that the new Runequest would handle the sort cinematic action of the POTC movies.

As for me, I hope it can. Throughout both movies I was amazed at the action scenes. Straight D&D to me seems to rigid in what you can do, or for that matter what you can learn (class skills). I think skill based games are better in this regard, becasue you can choose exactly what you want to do, without potentially making a "screwed" up character.

I also think that the magic system of Runequest would work better also, being low magic compared to D&D. I probably would have casters be very rare, but there seem to be minor magic items around.
 
Well in D&D the Attack of Opportunity mechanic tends to lock you into place once you've entered into melee. One of the first tidbits I heard about the new RQ was that it attempted to do away with 'static combat' so I'd say the chances are pretty good we can all get our pirate on.
 
One of the things I've wavered back and forth upon was creating a skill like Combat Manuevers in D&D. (Perhaps a similar skill could be made in Runequest.)

What this would do is allow you to use your turn to attempt something to give you an advantage. One example would be the guy in the first Pirates movie who pushed three skeletons back with an iron pole.

As for heroic combat, so far D20/3rd Edition seems to be the best game, in my opinion. The feats and skills allow for characters to take advantages of options to carve their own niche out in battle. My main complaint about the Call of Cthulhu game I'm in is that the system doesn't allow my character to do such fancy tricks.

(I also have an Exalted character, and am aware of their mechanic for "stunts", but I tend to dislike that sort of system because it puts too much power in the DM to decide if your idea is brilliant or stupid.)

One thing about Cthulhu that it inherited from Runequest, is that the mechanic really encourages you to try everything. First you try to knife the guy. Then you try to kick the guy. Then you try to punch the guy. You want to succeed in as many attack modes as possible because every mode you succeed in gives you another chance to advance that mode. In D&D, you are more likely to specialize in one attack mode that you use over and over again.

Another advantage of D&D is that if you have the hit points, you can do things that would be suicidal in other games. Advantage or disadvantage, you decide, but in how many game systems would a heroic barbarian fearlessly charge into a horde of zombies, sword swinging as the zombies closed around him? Disadvantage of D&D: it's really hard to threaten somebody with a deadly weapon and have him take the threat seriously, unless he's been worn down by a dozen rounds of combat already.

I'd like to see a Runequest sea adventures pack.
 
Utgardloki said:
As for heroic combat, so far D20/3rd Edition seems to be the best game, in my opinion. The feats and skills allow for characters to take advantages of options to carve their own niche out in battle. My main complaint about the Call of Cthulhu game I'm in is that the system doesn't allow my character to do such fancy tricks.

Nope. Neither D&D nor Runequest (the original) really encourage heroic, varied combat. Both are generally, 'I roll to hit, I hit and do 8 points...'.

Heroic combat works much better in games such as Buffy, with varied combat options and maneuvers: kick, parry, dodge, spinning back-kick, decapitate....

It will be interesting to see whether Wizkids Pirates RPG does combat like the spectacular (but otherwise mediocre) PotC films.
 
I think if you want to do a historical pirate game, or one that is closer to historical routes, then Runequest is the game system for it. But if you want to do Pirates of the Caribean, here's why I'd choose D&D:

1. The class system. People criticise this because it locks characters into their roles, but that is exactly what happens in Pirates of the Caribbean. The pirates are pirates. The witches are witches. The soldiers are soldiers. Everybody does their thing.

2. The hit points. With hit points to spare, it's feasible to do more zany, heroic things. Maybe if you want a more serious game, Runequest is your thing. But Pirates of the Caribbean was never a serious movie.

3. The combat feats. Everybody can specialize in whatever combat niche they like, be it dodging, or bashing, or even manuevering. The disadvantage is that the combat system is a bit abstract; this is a major limitation of D&D.

Don't get me wrong. If MRQ is as good as update of the Runequest system as 3E was of the D&D system, then Runequest would be an excellent choice for many campaigns, including a pirates game. Runequest seems to be an ideal choice for the Ravenloft and Rokugan settings, even though those were initially introduced for other games.
 
Nope. Neither D&D nor Runequest (the original) really encourage heroic, varied combat. Both are generally, 'I roll to hit, I hit and do 8 points...'.


Normally I would say you are right. But in other threads here we are discussing the "hero" aspects of RQ. The consent is that RQ has its quality to portray heroic actions, if the skills are high enough. (over 100%) So its seems that it is a matter of taste and game environment. The simplicity of RQ allows for playing a low or a high fantasy. (Personally I am more on the lower end)


Heroic combat works much better in games such as Buffy, with varied combat options and maneuvers: kick, parry, dodge, spinning back-kick, decapitate....

RQ is NOT just I hit and you hit 8 points damage system. It depends on description, where other systems have complicated and rule-heavy combat actions or features. RQ is designed in such a way that your imagination is the boundary. Want to do a spinning kick? Describe it, receive your modifier from the GM and roll the dice. That is how RQ is played in my gaming environment since 20 years.

Really there is no need for premade combat actions like this buffy game you described.
 
Enpeze said:
RQ is NOT just I hit and you hit 8 points damage system. It depends on description, where other systems have complicated and rule-heavy combat actions or features. RQ is designed in such a way that your imagination is the boundary. Want to do a spinning kick? Describe it, receive your modifier from the GM and roll the dice. That is how RQ is played in my gaming environment since 20 years.
Perhaps that's how you do it, but is it actually in the rules?... :| I don't remember reading that in any RuneQuest book I've ever seen. Sure that this isn't a house rule?
 
Enpeze said:
Heroic combat works much better in games such as Buffy, with varied combat options and maneuvers: kick, parry, dodge, spinning back-kick, decapitate....

RQ is NOT just I hit and you hit 8 points damage system. It depends on description, where other systems have complicated and rule-heavy combat actions or features. RQ is designed in such a way that your imagination is the boundary. Want to do a spinning kick? Describe it, receive your modifier from the GM and roll the dice. That is how RQ is played in my gaming environment since 20 years.

Really there is no need for premade combat actions like this buffy game you described.

While I agree that describing the action and the GM applying a modifier is a good way to go, it falls to the player to describe it, the GM to apply it and remember the modifier for next time and apply similar mods for similar actons and to debate with the player how difficult it would be and why it should be more difficult than the last action he tried....

Personally, I find that set maneuvers, with pre-written and tested difficulties, without complex rules, are the way to go to create heroic combat.
 
My experience has been that combats tend to be affected very much by the game rules.

The D&D rules do tend to present an abstract face with "I hit for 10 points of damage". The DM or player can describe things in more detail, but tend not to.

On the other hand, I've found that D&D combatants move around a lot more than in other game systems. Nothing gets PCs moving like a druid who is seriously trying to kill them :twisted: Add in a rogue or two, a halfling with a spiked gauntlet (nasty :twisted: ), a bunch of minions, spells to command the battlefield, reach weapons, terrain (don't forget -- combatants on higher ground get a +2 bonus for attacks), and you can have combatants go all over the place. The fact that PCs have feats and skills and class abilities with evokative names like Hold The Line, means that players will try to maneuver to use their abilities to their best advantage.

In Call of Cthulhu, PCs tend to switch attack modes frequently in order to gain successes to build up points. In general, a lot of CoC games seem to be players looking for any excuse to use any skill they can, due to the way character advancement works.

My experience has been that Exalted has kind of dragged as the players and GM spend time wracking their brains thinking of and abjucating stunts. Having predefined rules does help a lot, I think. Also, I'm not sure I like the fact that in Exalted you are supposed to think of a stunt for every single attack, but others may prefer it that way. I prefer the D&D/Call of Cthulhu mode where vivid attacks are reserved for the rare critical hits/impale successes.

And then there is the fact that some systems encourage recklessness while others encourage keeping a healthy regard for one's own skin.
 
I'm just glad that the Pirates of the Caribbean topic is finally being discussed somewhere. When I search on the web, I can't find any PotC discussion that pertains to legitimate RPG systems. Everything is about those discussion games on message boards.

I think that the class system has certain advantages, but I don't really like the 3E system of feats. I suppose if a simplified system were put together it would work fine. Utgardloki had it right when he said that pirates were pirates, witches were witches, and so on. The class system really puts characters into roles, and this seems to really fit the PotC world.

Having said that, I'm really looking forward to RQ and I'm hoping that neat campaign settings get developed in a hurry. PotC RQ would be super!
 
Utgardloki said:
One thing about Cthulhu that it inherited from Runequest, is that the mechanic really encourages you to try everything. First you try to knife the guy. Then you try to kick the guy. Then you try to punch the guy. You want to succeed in as many attack modes as possible because every mode you succeed in gives you another chance to advance that mode. In D&D, you are more likely to specialize in one attack mode that you use over and over again.

Really? In my experience the opposite was true. With the lethality of thre RQ combat system, the round ohat you are "trying something new" is the round that you get hurt by a foe that you would have dropped if you had stuck to your primary attack. I've seen a lot of characters bite the dust this way, while the player though he was being clever and getting away with something for free.


Utgardloki said:
I'd like to see a Runequest sea adventures pack.

Hear hear! Chaosium briefly touched on this concept a couple of times, but a nice High Seas setting would be nice.


BTW, I just picked up the new Usagi Yojumbo RPG, and it has some very fluid combat rules with lots of maneuvers. It has given me some ideas as to how the "swashbuckling" style of combat might get implemented in MRQ. It is really neat how they have counter-attacks, parries, weapon binds, and retreats worked into the game.

For example, in UY when someone gets an impale result, the taget can choose to retreat a step to negate the implae effect (but they still taget a "normal" hit and damge). Something like that would really help to keep characters moving in MRQ. It also leads to some neat tactical maneuvering, such as trapping a foe up against a wall so they can't reatreat from an impale.
 
I think RQ for PotC would work well, as RQ handles unarmoured combatants better than most games, with good dodge and parry you rarely need armour (but when you do...). For some reason rapiers get a huge bost in damage (same as a warsword) in RQ4, but that is perfect for PotC making it a staple weapon. Heavy armours make you sink like a stone. I'd think introducing an improvised weapon category might be fun, or allowing people to use their unarmed attack skill with some bonus damage for holding objects, or bonus knockback for using an iron pole to push folk, that kind of thing.

atgxtg said:
BTW, I just picked up the new Usagi Yojumbo RPG, and it has some very fluid combat rules with lots of maneuvers. It has given me some ideas as to how the "swashbuckling" style of combat might get implemented in MRQ. It is really neat how they have counter-attacks, parries, weapon binds, and retreats worked into the game.

I think the new UY rpg is brilliant, so many good ideas, such fluid and dynamic fights. We had a few problems with our analysis of the dice mechanics, as it was pretty easy even for an experienced combatant to "fluff" it and die, newbies would drop like flies as combat was so deadly. Also, most experienced combatants had the same group of core abilities to rely on as they were the ones that worked best. Still, UY would work well for PotC, and it's ideas are well worth stealing. We used if for a vaguely historical samurai game, a bandit hunt with political intrigue. Most of the system was focused on combat though, and we tried to invent our own social "feats" for more interesting games.

If you instead felt you wanted to stick to D20, I'd instead pick up True20, as it has some nifty ideas to "solve" the elements long reguarded as problems in D20 (HP tanking, etc), people on that forum are already working on a PotC conversions. I think T20 still has problems, but an experienced GM should be able to steal what he wants and junk the rest.

I whole heartedly agree, PotC is one of the movies where walking out of the cinema your thinking to yourself, "How can I turn this into a game..?", and "I want an pet undead monkey".

Durand Durand.
 
Durand Durand said:
atgxtg said:
BTW, I just picked up the new Usagi Yojumbo RPG, and it has some very fluid combat rules with lots of maneuvers. It has given me some ideas as to how the "swashbuckling" style of combat might get implemented in MRQ. It is really neat how they have counter-attacks, parries, weapon binds, and retreats worked into the game.

I think the new UY rpg is brilliant, so many good ideas, such fluid and dynamic fights. We had a few problems with our analysis of the dice mechanics, as it was pretty easy even for an experienced combatant to "fluff" it and die, newbies would drop like flies as combat was so deadly. Also, most experienced combatants had the same group of core abilities to rely on as they were the ones that worked best. Still, UY would work well for PotC, and it's ideas are well worth stealing. We used if for a vaguely historical samurai game, a bandit hunt with political intrigue. Most of the system was focused on combat though, and we tried to invent our own social "feats" for more interesting games.

I am liking UY more and more as I go over it. It manages to simulate a lot of things that I've always wanted to see in an RPG very well. For example, I like how they work retreating into the game-it really helps to make the characters move around the board, rather than the typical "stand and trade blows" that we see in RPGs.

I also like how much styles and choice of tactics can really change the combat dynamics. For example, how someone with Bo Mastery can use a Bo as a flexible weap[on, and thus extend it's reach. THis could be a big surprise to an attacker with a spear who was expecting a "free" attack. When you start to combine the Gifts you weind up devoping a fighting style that can completely customize a character so that two swordsmen armed with the same weapon can fight entirely differently. It is also techniclally possible to strike over a dozen foes in one round if the character is good enough, and is very lucky. Interesting in a game that only gives 1 attack per round as standard.

With the die mechanics, I think the number of dice rolled is very important. Beginning characters are not much tougher that the stadnard "wimpy" bandits, so early fights could be bloody. Once someone has mastered a weapon (9 MArks d12&d10) though, they should have fewer chances of botching.

I also like how they work criticals in UY, with each weapon having a choice of differt types of ciritcals, with possible addtional critics being availbe depending upon what Gifts a character has. THis could work out very well for a Pirate cmapaign, as, rather than picking something and rolling for it with a penalty, you pick what effect you want after you know that you got a critical. This makes it more likeyl for character to trip each other, drive someone over a railing or bash somone aside the head with a belaying pin.

I hope the new combat rules for MRQ have some of the same feel. UY makes it feel more like a battle of wits and tactics as opposed to just die rolling. Players get to choose options and work in the differnet benefits fromn thier weapons and gifts. It definately has the "Star Wars Lightsaber COmbat" feel to it that MRQ has been designed for. [/i]
 
atgxtg said:
THis could work out very well for a Pirate cmapaign, as, rather than picking something and rolling for it with a penalty, you pick what effect you want after you know that you got a critical. This makes it more likeyl for character to trip each other, drive someone over a railing or bash somone aside the head with a belaying pin. [/i]

I think thats the best way to make any system more cinamataic tbh. In most games you dont do cool stuff as theres way to much risk, as you have to declair, then make a roll that will probably be more difficult, often meaning you basicaly do nothing. Allowing you to convert a success into a stunt after the roll means your PCs are way more likely to do cool stuff.

Best of all this isent that system specific, you can Houserule it into any game your running.
 
jadrax said:
atgxtg said:
THis could work out very well for a Pirate cmapaign, as, rather than picking something and rolling for it with a penalty, you pick what effect you want after you know that you got a critical. This makes it more likeyl for character to trip each other, drive someone over a railing or bash somone aside the head with a belaying pin. [/i]

I think thats the best way to make any system more cinamataic tbh. In most games you dont do cool stuff as theres way to much risk, as you have to declair, then make a roll that will probably be more difficult, often meaning you basicaly do nothing. Allowing you to convert a success into a stunt after the roll means your PCs are way more likely to do cool stuff.

Best of all this isent that system specific, you can Houserule it into any game your running.

I know what you mean. Usually in an RPG, a character is better off doing a standard attack than taking a penalty for a sepcial effect. D&D 3E has a nice idea with feats granting a character do do somewith tough without a penalty, but the high hit point totoal sort of undercut the benfits.

UY is neat in that you get to pick your ciritcals after you make your roll. Esentially it makes the neat effects "freebies" while still kepingh them skill dependant. UY also allows a character to muliple criticals on one roll (each die that beats the difficlity number after the first is a critical, but you can't take the same type of critical more than once-capping off the ciriticals by what a weapon can do and what a character can do).

You are correct that this is something that can be "houseruled" into a game. It would failry east to incorporate soemthing like this with RQs success, special success and critical success rules.

We know that MRQ has changed the success system though, but I hope we can see some of UY ideas in MRQ.
 
As far as the high hit point total goes, I've seen some d20 products that adjust the level advancement charts to handle some of this problem. After advancing through 4 HD, switch to the class plusses. This tends to keep overall hit points a lot lower, which in turn makes players respect monsters a lot more. Characters get some decent hit point totals without getting absurd.

Just a thought.
 
Finarvyn said:
As far as the high hit point total goes, I've seen some d20 products that adjust the level advancement charts to handle some of this problem. After advancing through 4 HD, switch to the class plusses. This tends to keep overall hit points a lot lower, which in turn makes players respect monsters a lot more. Characters get some decent hit point totals without getting absurd.

Just a thought.

The "absurd" hit point total is not the only problem which D20 has. There are lot others like character classes and the need for XP. I remember the 2 years back in the nineties when I played D&D (shrug)

From time to time game companies sell rule improvements and new versions on D&D like skills, Armor resisting damage and Dodge as a "revolution" of the system. Well they forget that other systems (especially RQ) already had all that "revolutions" 2 decades before.
 
And they always have somthing else people find "wrong"

Just face it, no system is anything but a compromise.
 
Back
Top