RuneQuest Rules Rumour Control

[Rurik]

That is the classic confict with RPGs. The trade off between simplicy and realism. Simplier makes it easier to use, more relasitic lets you use it for more.

BTW, Stafford didn't write the rules for RQ or HQ. He did write Pendragon, not to mention Prince Valiant.

And actually, I consider RQ2 a pretty simple system. Ever played Aftermath? Simple can be realistic, while a game can be very complex and not really be that realistic at all. RQ really only has a couple mechanics. Percentile skill, Resistance table, Stat time X saves. Yet none of these mechanics are overly complicated in and of themselves, and can easily be applied to almost any situation.

 

[atgxtg]

How was Valiant? I have never seen or played it, nor know anyone who has. Any good?

Yeah, sort of. It is based upon the Hl Foster strip so the setting is similar to Pendragon, but more open in terms of what you can play and the sort of adventures you can have.

THe concept was born, apparently out of the idea of being ble to get noive players playing a game without spending a lot of time learning the rules. In some ways a ancestor of HeroQuest in terms of being simple, and having a univeral system to resolve everything.

Talks were conducted by tossing coins and counting heads. The number tossed were based upn stat + skill. All heads was comple success (roll and add another coin) and all tails was a complete failure. Combat was literally whittling down your opponent since the loser would lose the difference in coins tossed from his ability. So if we were both tossing 6 coins, and I got 5 heads to your 3, you would loose two coins and toss four coins next turn.

I really liked the persoanlity trait rules in Prince Valaint, and even though of swiping them. Characters would have traits and passions, and earned glory whenever they roleplayed one of thier listed traits in the game. So if someone took brave, they would get 50 glory by acting brave. THey might get killed too, but that's the price you pay. Characters could even be obsessive about a trait, and earn double glory, meaning that they must always act that way. FOr instance someone who is obsessively brave must always do the brave thing, even if common sense might suggest a better course of action.

There were also things like reward certificates that players could earn and then cash in in order to alter the course of the game. You could do things like having the Baron's daughter fall in love with another PC, or getting rescued when you were in a tight spot.

 

[atgxtg]

And actually, I consider RQ2 a pretty simple system. Ever played Aftermath? Simple can be realistic, while a game can be very complex and not really be that realistic at all. RQ really only has a couple mechanics. Percentile skill, Resistance table, Stat time X saves. Yet none of these mechanics are overly complicated in and of themselves, and can easily be applied to almost any situation.

Yes, RQ2, especially RQ2 without Glorantha is failry simple. Simple systems are not necessarily bad ones, nor complex ones necessarily good. In fact, RQ is actually less complicated than AD&D. It was just that most D&Ders familiarity with D&D and having copies of the books that made the situation feel like the reverse.

I ran an Aftermath! campaign. The game isn't that bad, but it is a bit cumbersome. It all depends on what you have and what you want to do with it.

Many of RQ mechanics: skill ratings (percentile or otherwise), stat rolls and such are now universal concepts in rpg design. RQ however, is about as simple as you can go before things start to get wierd and break down.

 

[Rurik]

How was Valiant? I have never seen or played it, nor know anyone who has. Any good?

Talks were conducted by tossing coins and counting heads. The number tossed were based upn stat + skill. All heads was comple success (roll and add another coin) and all tails was a complete failure. Combat was literally whittling down your opponent since the loser would lose the difference in coins tossed from his ability. So if we were both tossing 6 coins, and I got 5 heads to your 3, you would loose two coins and toss four coins next turn.

There were also things like reward certificates that players could earn and then cash in in order to alter the course of the game. You could do things like having the Baron's daughter fall in love with another PC, or getting rescued when you were in a tight spot.

Hmm, kinda sounds like gambling to me. Is it legal?

But it just give me this great idea for a mechanic. All the players get a pool of quarters based on their stats or skills. You put a shot glass in the center of the table, and fill it with Scotch (any other liquor will do in a pinch). Now the players take their quarters and....

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Yes, RQ2, especially RQ2 without Glorantha is failry simple. Simple systems are not necessarily bad ones, nor complex ones necessarily good. In fact, RQ is actually less complicated than AD&D. It was just that most D&Ders familiarity with D&D and having copies of the books that made the situation feel like the reverse.

I ran an Aftermath! campaign. The game isn't that bad, but it is a bit cumbersome. It all depends on what you have and what you want to do with it.

Many of RQ mechanics: skill ratings (percentile or otherwise), stat rolls and such are now universal concepts in rpg design. RQ however, is about as simple as you can go before things start to get wierd and break down.

I agree. Coincidentally I was just telling my 15 year old son about Aftermath. I remember running a couple of games but its mechanics and techie data dead ended it for me.

Regards

 

[Rurik]

I agree. Coincidentally I was just telling my 15 year old son about Aftermath. I remember running a couple of games but its mechanics and techie data dead ended it for me.

Regards

But they provided all those multi-page flow charts to help with the mechanics. :roll:

You can still get it in pdf for like $10 I think. I've considered it just to have it - I don't have the paper copies anymore. Could be worth it just for the scavenging tables - I loved those. Almost as much as groin shots.

 

[atgxtg]

Hmm, kinda sounds like gambling to me. Is it legal?

But it just give me this great idea for a mechanic. All the players get a pool of quarters based on their stats or skills. You put a shot glass in the center of the table, and fill it with Scotch (any other liquor will do in a pinch). Now the players take their quarters and....

When you make it to run level you get to switch to nickels! Just as soon as the moon stops spinin' and the Crimson Bat puts down that banjo.

The coins were used to keep thing simple and so that people could play the game without buying all sorts of dice. The insiration for the game was that epole used to visit with Greg, and when wondering what they could do for entertainment, someone whould suggest playing one of Greg's games. Unfortunately, there was nothing that a non gamer you could just write up a character and go with.

THe coinds did prove problematic though. With a buch of D2s there wasn't quite as much radomness in the resutls are was probably required. I wanted to try it sometime with those funky d6s that West End used for the Herc&Xena, and DC rpgs.

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

You can still get it in pdf for like $10 I think. I've considered it just to have it - I don't have the paper copies anymore. Could be worth it just for the scavenging tables - I loved those. Almost as much as groin shots.

I think I've still got the paper copy buried in the garage somewhere.

Regards

 

[atgxtg]

Could be worth it just for the scavenging tables - I loved those. Almost as much as groin shots.

Groin shots?! :shock: You weren't kidding about that "any other liquor will do in a pinch" line. I think I'll just stick with the Scotch.

 

[Rurik]

Groin shots?! :shock: You weren't kidding about that "any other liquor will do in a pinch" line. I think I'll just stick with the Scotch.

Ouch. That hurt almost as bad as that trollkin.

 

[Lord Twig]

bluejay,

Does your little program take into account the both succeed roll high, both fail roll low mechanic?

I am trying to wrap my head around the mathematics of that but must admit that I have not managed it.

 

[atgxtg]

Groin shots?! :shock: You weren't kidding about that "any other liquor will do in a pinch" line. I think I'll just stick with the Scotch.

Ouch. That hurt almost as bad as that trollkin.

Glad it went over well, I was gonna post "You like groin shots, no wonder the trollkin got you!", but I though better of it.

 

[bluejay]

bluejay,

Does your little program take into account the both succeed roll high, both fail roll low mechanic?

I am trying to wrap my head around the mathematics of that but must admit that I have not managed it.

Yes it does. Feel free to view the source of my code and even if you can't understand JavaScript, I've really tried to comment the code clearly. The section you are talking about starts around line 289.

My code also takes into account automatic success and failure and fumbles. It also takes into account that these values change as well (automatic success reduces in Opposed Rolls each time you halve the skills, automatic failure reduces at 200% and every 100% afterwards, chance of fumble disappears after 500%).

I've really tried to make it comprehensive in its representation of the rules.

 

[Halfbat]

Yes, RQ2, especially RQ2 without Glorantha is failry simple. Simple systems are not necessarily bad ones, nor complex ones necessarily good. [...]
Many of RQ mechanics: skill ratings (percentile or otherwise), stat rolls and such are now universal concepts in rpg design. RQ however, is about as simple as you can go before things start to get wierd and break down.

And the MRQ version has even streamlined that, imho, but maintain the ability to creat complex results from a ready base system. It's a step up from RQ3 and as simple to use as RQ2...

As far as the thread goes, I think the streamlining and basic rules are excellent, with just two glitches: the Halving rule, which won't be a problem in lower-level campaigns, and for me the need to reroll an attack dice if the defender decides to oppose an attack (I agree: this is very munchkin, and not clear in the rules, sadly) - it doesn't actually add that many more results and could be handled mor esimply in a single optionally opposed roll.

 

[Archer]

Halfbat: As someone who has read the rules, is there any way you can see the following modification to the rules breaking the system, and by that I mean make some aspect of it problematic.

Modifications;
> Attacker rolls to hit as usual.
> No opposed roll.
> Defenders Parry; Normal Success = Parries AP amount of damage. Critical Success = Parries 2xAP amount of damage, and is allowed a riposte.
> Defenders Dodge: Normal Success = Dodges all damage. Critical Success = Dodges damage, and cause attacker to overreach (loose one action).

 

[Rurik]

Halfbat: As someone who has read the rules, is there any way you can see the following modification to the rules breaking the system, and by that I mean make some aspect of it problematic.

Modifications;
> Attacker rolls to hit as usual.
> No opposed roll.
> Defenders Parry; Normal Success = Parries AP amount of damage. Critical Success = Parries 2xAP amount of damage, and is allowed a riposte.
> Defenders Dodge: Normal Success = Dodges all damage. Critical Success = Dodges damage, and cause attacker to overreach (loose one action).

I have considered something similar, if the attack succeeds just parry (ala RQ 2/3). I think the AP for weapons are based on the "block 2xAP" result being common. I would suggest doubling weapon AP if doing away with the second oppossed roll. Critical would allow a repost, which is a pretty good bonus in and of itself, or maybe damage attackers weapon.

 

[Archer]

I have considered something similar, if the attack succeeds just parry (ala RQ 2/3). I think the AP for weapons are based on the "block 2xAP" result being common. I would suggest doubling weapon AP if doing away with the second oppossed roll. Critical would allow a repost, which is a pretty good bonus in and of itself, or maybe damage attackers weapon.

So basically we would have;

> Defenders Parry; Normal Success = Parries APx2 amount of damage. Critical Success = Parries 2xAP amount of damage, and is allowed a riposte.

Hmm, I could actually consider an additonal roll here. But not as written in the rules, but a roll to see how much damage a weapon absorbs from an attack. Though that would be slower than just using AP x 2.

 

[Rurik]

So basically we would have;

> Defenders Parry; Normal Success = Parries APx2 amount of damage. Critical Success = Parries 2xAP amount of damage, and is allowed a riposte.

Hmm, I could actually consider an additonal roll here. But not as written in the rules, but a roll to see how much damage a weapon absorbs from an attack. Though that would be slower than just using AP x 2.

The AP for weapons as printed in the preview range from 2-4, hardly worth parrying with if you need to crit to block 2xAP. I think the stats were chosen expecting 2xAP to be a pretty common result.

 

[atgxtg]

Hmm, I could actually consider an additonal roll here. But not as written in the rules, but a roll to see how much damage a weapon absorbs from an attack. Though that would be slower than just using AP x 2.

Or you could incorpoate the old special success from RQ3 into your parry roll. Say something like Parry stops 1xAP, under 1/2 skill = 2xAP.

You could even put in a partial parry under failures if you wanted for 1/2AP.

 

[atgxtg]

Yes, RQ2, especially RQ2 without Glorantha is failry simple. Simple systems are not necessarily bad ones, nor complex ones necessarily good. [...]
Many of RQ mechanics: skill ratings (percentile or otherwise), stat rolls and such are now universal concepts in rpg design. RQ however, is about as simple as you can go before things start to get wierd and break down.

And the MRQ version has even streamlined that, imho, but maintain the ability to creat complex results from a ready base system. It's a step up from RQ3 and as simple to use as RQ2...

I won't know for certain until I see it. With the clarifications we have gotten over the weekend, the regualr combat seems to work, but I don't find it "Stremlinmed" over RQ3. It seems at least as complicated. Three rolls instead of two, comparing results on a matrix. I think I'm more fond of Arhcer's way of doing it (or just sticking with RQ3).

As far as the thread goes, I think the streamlining and basic rules are excellent, with just two glitches: the Halving rule, which won't be a problem in lower-level campaigns, and for me the need to reroll an attack dice if the defender decides to oppose an attack (I agree: this is very munchkin, and not clear in the rules, sadly) - it doesn't actually add that many more results and could be handled mor esimply in a single optionally opposed roll.

The halving rule does seem to be a major glitch, but yeah it won't matter until you have people with skills greater than 100% opposing each other, and in my exeprience that doesn't come up too often outside of combat. Maybe the halving rule can be ignored (as in cxombat) and just use the normal combat resoultion system.