Runequest vs D&D vs Gurps vs D6 vs Exalted vs everything

[atgxtg]

I prefer a bell curve to percentiles any day of the week. Hârnmaster does well with a d100 with the four tiered success system, but even there the d100 is just too random. People with high skills (70% is pretty high in most d100 games) fail way too often.

Bell curve systems tend to have smaller "playable" ranges and begin breaking down once the stats hit a certain point. For example, I wrote up a character in GURPS with a 18 DEX and was better with most weapons that I didn't know how to use than most f the group were with thier best weapon.

BTW, Did you even see the system that Victory Games used for thier James Bond RPG? It was a % system, but allowed for success chances up to 300. Generally, you would add sklll to a stat to get a "Primary Chance" (average was 15). THis was mutiplied by an an Ease Factor (for 1/ to 10, aveage was 5) to determine the "Success Chance". Thus an average skilled chartacter (the 50% in most games) would have a 15x5= 75% chance of success in the Bond RPG. A skilled character (Primary Chance 21) would have a 105% success chance. (The % above 100 made a difference in how good you did, measured by a quality rating-similar to RQ's critical and impale percentages, but with 4 degress of success).

THe game was nice in that a highly skilled character rarely failed a skill test unless it was difficult (EF 4 or less) in some way.


Come to think of it, the Bond RPG was also the first to use "Hero Points". THat would be a very interesting was for RQ to go. :idea:

 

[Urox]

Come to think of it, the Bond RPG was also the first to use "Hero Points". THat would be a very interesting was for RQ to go. :idea:

007 is a great of example of how the system should complement the world. Hero Points make sense in Bond -- you are supposed to foil the bad guys, and when really back luck of the dice would nail you, you had a (limited use) back-door out.

While this works great in a spy game, I don't think it would be overly applicable to the standard fantasy game, which more rely on party interaction over individual acts.

RQ did have a back-door save your behind mechanism -- Divine Intervention.

 

[atgxtg]

007 is a great of example of how the system should complement the world. Hero Points make sense in Bond -- you are supposed to foil the bad guys, and when really back luck of the dice would nail you, you had a (limited use) back-door out.

While this works great in a spy game, I don't think it would be overly applicable to the standard fantasy game, which more rely on party interaction over individual acts.

Are you kidding? Fantasy is rife with indiviual acts (where do you thing the concept of heroes came from-oh, yah Ancient Greece).

I found the basic system for Bond to be perhaps the most cinematic that I've every used. How many times in a movie , on TV, or in a book where the hero is is a situation where he/she/it absolutely "has" to peform some very difficult/night impossible thing? Gotta hit Balor in the eye with a spear?; Fire a proton torpedo down a 2m shaft; Slay the Dragon?

That's one reason why so many RPGs now have something similar (including RQ). Another good reason is that Hero Points helps to protect a character during those times when the player dice stat to go wacky on him (like when the RUne Lord can roll below a 96 for a hour).

 

[Adept]

Bell curve systems tend to have smaller "playable" ranges and begin breaking down once the stats hit a certain point. For example, I wrote up a character in GURPS with a 18 DEX and was better with most weapons that I didn't know how to use than most f the group were with thier best weapon.

That's not a problem in the bell curve itself, but rather in GURPS (and your use of it there).

Should I assume pessimistically that the character in question was a Dx 18 human?

To make GURPS work properly I halved the effect stats have on skill levels.

9-10 = 10
11-12 = 11
13-14 = 12
.
.
.
With a maximum effective stat being 15 (from 19+)

In addition to that one has to note the stat inflation that many GURPS games experience. In our games Iq 13 (or Dx 13) person war really intelligent (or quite the ninja), and 15 was pretty much the practical human limit (I remember two characters with a stat at 15 in all the scores of characters in our games... NPC's included.

Besides any system breaks down if you just go "this goes to eleven" like a Spinal Tap amplifier. I got upset with RQ-3 early when I noticed how poorly it worked when people got to 90%+ skill levels.

 

[Lord Twig]

007 is a great of example of how the system should complement the world. Hero Points make sense in Bond -- you are supposed to foil the bad guys, and when really back luck of the dice would nail you, you had a (limited use) back-door out.

While this works great in a spy game, I don't think it would be overly applicable to the standard fantasy game, which more rely on party interaction over individual acts.

Are you kidding? Fantasy is rife with indiviual acts (where do you thing the concept of heroes came from-oh, yah Ancient Greece).

I found the basic system for Bond to be perhaps the most cinematic that I've every used. How many times in a movie , on TV, or in a book where the hero is is a situation where he/she/it absolutely "has" to peform some very difficult/night impossible thing? Gotta hit Balor in the eye with a spear?; Fire a proton torpedo down a 2m shaft; Slay the Dragon?

That's one reason why so many RPGs now have something similar (including RQ). Another good reason is that Hero Points helps to protect a character during those times when the player dice stat to go wacky on him (like when the RUne Lord can roll below a 96 for a hour).

I would agree with Urox. While tales of mythical heroes may have a more cinematic feel, that is not what I am looking for with RuneQuest. When I think of RuneQuest I think of more down-to-earth heroes. Guys that are pessimistic as a survival mechanism. If you need to hit the eye of the dragon to win the encounter you had better start thinking of ways to run away, because odds are it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Utgardloki]

Since 2000:

D&D Third Edition
Personally, I've found D&D Third Edition to be the greatest role playing game I've yet tried. I certainly would recommend it for an entry into the role-playing system, because all you have to do is figure out what sort of character you want to make, and everything is laid out for you. Advantages:

* The tactical maneuvering adds a dimension to play that wasn't in earlier games.

* The fact that all classes gain in hit points allows characters to survive situations they wouldn't in other games.

* The feats and epic skill DCs allow uniquely heroic actions.

* The "cookie-cutter" approach makes making NPCs a snap.

Disadvantages are that the high level of high points makes experienced characters hard to kill, and the cookie-cutter approach gives characters abilities that the player or DM might not want them to have.

I've also been playing a Jewish merchant in Cthulhu Dark Ages. I've found that a little frustrating because the game system does not allow for heroic actions. On the other hand, the Cthulhu system does a better job of capturing the essence of Cthulhian horror than D&D does.

I've been playing a Dawn Caste exalted, but I've never liked White Wolf games, and Exalted is no exception. Being limited to five dots is too contraining in many cases.

 

[andakitty]

I find that BRP is fully capable of doing whatever D&D can without the latters' deficiencies. You are coming from a D&D mindset...which I walked away from a long time ago, if I ever had it. I have tried a lot of games (including running 3.0). I could go into a long history explaining my reasoning (why I like what I like) and why I don't have such a mindset, but I wouldn't want to bore you. Suffice to say different people like different things, and let it go at that.

 

[Utgardloki]

I agree that I started with Basic D&D, and a year and a half later moved on to "Advanced D&D". I also played Runequest in 1982, and Villians and Vigilantes, Top Secret, Gamma World, and many others.

Back in the mid-80s (I think it was 84 or 85), I came up with three pages of house rules for Villians and Vigilantes that somebody said made for the best RPG ever invented. I envisioned it as a universal system, suitable for fantasy, science fiction, or espionage, as well as the comic book heroes the game was originally made for.

But now games have involved. For several years, I hadn't had much experience with RPGs until 3rd edition came out. Since then, I've suffered from lack of time to learn new systems, although I've found the L5R system easy to feel confident for, and think I'll be able to run a D6 Battlestar Galactica campaign if I ever get time to set it up. I've also considered running a science fiction game using the Call of Cthulhu rules.

I am interested to see what the new Runequest brings, since I haven't followed the various incarnations. I've always thought it would be interesting to run a fantasy game where the magic is not dictated by the rules of D&D. I've decided not to try to update Villians and Vigilantes to modern standards (for one thing, the game did require a calculator to play, and if a primary stat changed, everything else changed :shock: )

But for the moment, D&D is my only alternative because:
* I don't feel confident with GURPS;
* I find the L5R system a little too constraining;
* Based on reading the D6 Space rules, I think the game system is not well enough defined for my tastes;
* I don't like the White Wolf mechanism;
* Call of Cthulhu does not provide for the kind of heroic characters I envision

There are other systems out there I could try,but I'd have to buy the books and read them. :shock: Runequest I at least remember, and they can't have changed it more than they changed D&D from the original brown box edition to the current 3.5.

 

[andakitty]

BRP's very best incarnation is probably Elric!/Stormbringer (same game, different packaging). Some would argue about that statement, of course, but I think most would admit it is good. It has been used for D&D style games occasionally. My own 'project' was a Magic World/Stormbringer/homebrew, and it was a long lasting series of campaigns with the same core group.

My list of games run and/or played : D&D, AD&D 1e and 2e, Gamma World, Stormbringer, Element Masters/Gatewar, TFT, CoC, Worlds of Wonder, Hawkmoon, Ringworld, Elfquest, C&S, Swordbearer, Talislanta, Tekumel, Arcanum, Palladium fantasy, Fifth Cycle, 7th Sea, Deadlands, RQ 2 and 3, Space 1889, Dark Conspiracy, probably others I can't think of right now. I always return to BRP or something close to it.

I started in college with D&D. We couldn't figure out the rules, so we got the MicroGames Melee and Wizard and sort of pasted them over the combat and spell systems. When AD&D came out the group moved up to it, but it felt too restricting to me (I have NEVER had a D&D character I was happy with). When I ran the game I would go back to our old hybrid. Then RQ2 showed up and the group split, some continuing to play AD&D and others moving on to RQ. I jumped from RQ to Stormbringer a year or two later and have mostly stayed with that style of game ever since.

That group split is how I came to divide rpg players in D&D/not D&D mindset camps. The others wanted the high hit points, rigid structure, alignment, classes, all of it. The rest of us wanted to be able to let the characters grow organically (if that makes sense to you), reactive combat (being able to defend yourself), skills (define the character), being able to engage in the combat aspect without a hit chart (we were still years before 2e and thac0), and so on. Instead of piling on hit points we wanted to be competent characters who never got hit at all. And we wanted the sense of danger and excitement from being vulnerable to death even as we got more and more skilled. Like having the excitement of low levels in D&D permanently, plus gaining the power of high levels. When a player got a PC through an adventure in RQ or Stormbringer or CoC it feels like an accomplishment. Always, even with high skill levels. All forms of D&D that I have ever played lost that excitement for me after 4 or 5 levels, usually.

When 3e D&D came out I was excited. So I did a hard sell to the group I was in at the time (pretty hard line RQ players) and ran it. To fourth level, and it was getting to be not fun for me. I was mindset in a different type of game. The others wanted to run or play something else, so we jumped to a couple of other games. Which I forgot to list above, Wasteworld, Alternity, and WFRP in quick succession. Then Deadlands and back to my BRP homebrew. Again.

MRQ is attracting me because I want a system that I enjoy playing without a lot of houseruling plus a good flow of material being published for it. That will be a new experience for me if it happens. There are currently two other games I will most likely pick up, Epic rpg and the BRP Delux book. The latter, being essentially a BRP cookbook, should be right up my alley.

I told you it would be boring, but I couldn't resist. :roll:

 

[kintire]

Bell curve systems tend to have smaller "playable" ranges and begin breaking down once the stats hit a certain point.

But the massive problem with linear systems is that a large range of the skill levels are almost meaningless. If it is a skill that you are going to rely on in an adventure in any meaningful sense, you really need 60% or more. Having a skill at 10, 20 or 30 or even 40 is effectively the same as not having it at all. You can't rely on it and should avoid situations where you have to use it.

This resulted in a massive problem in RQIII where the assumption was that 30% represented basic competence, 50% was getting quite good, 75% was expert level and 90% was the bee's knees. But the problem is that 75% is

pants

. An expert horseman does not fall off his horse at 1/4 of the fences he jumps. An expert potter does not botch 25% of all the pots he makes.

Both d20 and GURPS handle this much better than RQ did. On the other hand, the RQ combat system works much better than either (GURPS has serious problems with defence).

And then, of course, there is the magic system. D20 has the best magic system of the three, in that it is merely quite poor. The GURPS one comes in second, as it is at least technically functional, although utterly mechanistic, dry as dust, woefully underpowered at low points values and ridiculously overpowered at higher. RQIII magic... lets pass over that in silence. Its kindest...

 

[Wulf Corbett]

This resulted in a massive problem in RQIII where the assumption was that 30% represented basic competence, 50% was getting quite good, 75% was expert level and 90% was the bee's knees. But the problem is that 75% is

pants

. An expert horseman does not fall off his horse at 1/4 of the fences he jumps. An expert potter does not botch 25% of all the pots he makes.

This is not a problem with the system, this is a problem with the GM, who apparently insists on having the player roll for every pot and fence, instead of reserving rolls only for important and/or risky actions. Mundane uses of any skill don't need rolling for, or, if they have to be rolled, should have a bonus.

Wulf

 

[kintire]

This is not a problem with the system, this is a problem with the GM, who apparently insists on having the player roll for every pot and fence, instead of reserving rolls only for important and/or risky actions.

But its the system that puts the mundane skills on the character sheet. Its not the GM that made the characters roll for starting profession, and it isn't the GM that put those skills in the starting layout. What exactly DO you roll craft skills for, if not to craft stuff?

Mundane uses of any skill don't need rolling for

So there is no difference at all between a carpenter's apprentice and a master carpenter?

if they have to be rolled, should have a bonus.

This is exactly equivalent to saying that skills at those levels are useless. If i'm doing my carpentry to build a raft, say, and I just get a bonus because "its mundane", why am I bothering to improve the skill at all?

 

[Ravelli]

But now games have involved. For several years, I hadn't had much experience with RPGs until 3rd edition came out. Since then, I've suffered from lack of time to learn new systems, although I've found the L5R system easy to feel confident for, and think I'll be able to run a D6 Battlestar Galactica campaign if I ever get time to set it up. I've also considered running a science fiction game using the Call of Cthulhu rules.

Utgardloki, I think you'd greatly enjoy Savage Worlds. It actively encourages the heroic syle of play you're looking for and is simple to learn but full-featured. It's also a generic system that's really easy to adapt for home-brew settings.

How does it compare with your D&D3 checklist of "good and bad"?

* The tactical maneuvering adds a dimension to play that wasn't in earlier games.

SW defies the old-school "I hit, you hit" syle of play and offers plenty of tactical options without the need to memorise shed-loads of rules for every feat under the sun.

* The fact that all classes gain in hit points allows characters to survive situations they wouldn't in other games. ... snip ...Disadvantages are that the high level of hit points makes experienced characters hard to kill

PCs in Savage Worlds are called "Wild Cards" and can absorb more punishment than general npcs ("Extras"). However, there's no escalating HP mechanic, so even the most experienced characters are still vulnerable.

* The feats and epic skill DCs allow uniquely heroic actions.

Characters in SW have Edges that enhance their abilities and work much like feats in d20. However, you're seldom restricted from trying something heroic because you don't have the appropriate Edge, as opposed to the binary way many feats work in D&D3. Wild Card heroes in SW also roll an extra die (known as the "Wild Die") with their skills and attributes, allowing them to accomplish more in an heroic fashion.

* The "cookie-cutter" approach makes making NPCs a snap. ... snip ... the cookie-cutter approach gives characters abilities that the player or DM might not want them to have

Creating NPCs in SW is a breeze. As it's designed to make things easy on the GM, prep time is minimal. You're not required to "level-up" NPCs so that they adhere strictly to their class and level abilities, you simply give them whatever you think they should have. Because of that, there's no reason why NPCs will have any abilities that don't fit. The same goes for PCs, as they get to choose precisely what edges, skills or powers they gain with experience.

Anyway, don't just take my word for it! You can download the Test Drive rules and the SW Combat Survival Guide and see what you think.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

But its the system that puts the mundane skills on the character sheet. Its not the GM that made the characters roll for starting profession, and it isn't the GM that put those skills in the starting layout. What exactly DO you roll craft skills for, if not to craft stuff?

To craft GOOD stuff. To craft showpiece stuff. To craft gifts for your beloved. To craft temple offerings. To craft goods to be enchanted. If all you want is a pot to piss in, all you need is watertight.

So there is no difference at all between a carpenter's apprentice and a master carpenter?

Yes there is, apprentices have to roll to create goods a master carpenter doesn't have to.

This is exactly equivalent to saying that skills at those levels are useless. If i'm doing my carpentry to build a raft, say, and I just get a bonus because "its mundane", why am I bothering to improve the skill at all?

If you are rolling to create a raft just for the fun of it, to be used on a calm pacid lake (not on Lake Placid, that has... inhabitants...) for an hours peaceful relaxation, you don't need to roll. If you intend to shoot the rapids, or cross an ocean, you roll. Even if you DON'T roll, your skill determines the quality of the workmanship, should it be tested later.

This is all basic RPG stuff, virtually EVERY RPG says all this in the 'What is RolePlaying' chapter! Don't waste time and effort rolling when it's not necessary. Surely you must have read one of them!

Wulf

 

[homerjsinnott]

Bell curve systems tend to have smaller "playable" ranges and begin breaking down once the stats hit a certain point.

But the massive problem with linear systems is that a large range of the skill levels are almost meaningless. If it is a skill that you are going to rely on in an adventure in any meaningful sense, you really need 60% or more. Having a skill at 10, 20 or 30 or even 40 is effectively the same as not having it at all. You can't rely on it and should avoid situations where you have to use it.

Well I can't agree, I think you are being a bit literal, take disaring a trap for instance. Looking at it from your point of view no one would look at disaring it until they had 90%, but that's not how it works in other systems, In D&D the DC is low, in L5r the TN is low, I don't know about GURPs but I'm sure that has a similar mechanism. How does this work in RQ? you give the skill, bonuses, the trap mech is old/faulty, the players use their ingenuity/intelligence to aid themselves :wink: :roll: Or you just make the penalty for failure low, as in most systems.

This resulted in a massive problem in RQIII where the assumption was that 30% represented basic competence, 50% was getting quite good, 75% was expert level and 90% was the bee's knees. But the problem is that 75% is

pants

. An expert horseman does not fall off his horse at 1/4 of the fences he jumps. An expert potter does not botch 25% of all the pots he makes.

I think you may have misuderstood this idea. This is not the raw % to "make a pot" or anything else but the chance to do something to the best of ones ability. If the potter wants to make basic functional pots all day the he doesn't need to roll, if he wants to make pots to the best of his ability then he should be rolling. If I have 40% in pot making yes I can make coil pots and even add slip and glaze all day but if I want to throw and add handles and fire at high temperatures then I will be rolling for every pot.

Wanna stay on a walking horse? 10% is fine. Wanna guide the horse or stay upright at a canter? 25% is fine, Wanna gallop round fighting a dragonbetter be 90% and roll each round while you horse tries to run away in utter terror (like any sensible animal). In RQ there is a difference between stressful and non-stressful situations.

And then, of course, there is the magic system. D20 has the best magic system of the three, in that it is merely quite poor. The GURPS one comes in second, as it is at least technically functional, although utterly mechanistic, dry as dust, woefully underpowered at low points values and ridiculously overpowered at higher. RQIII magic... lets pass over that in silence. Its kindest...

Sorry you have really got me here, you think that the D&D magic system is good?!?

You are joking right, putting a laugh in at the end to cheer us?

 

[Turloigh]

This is all basic RPG stuff, virtually EVERY RPG says all this in the 'What is RolePlaying' chapter! Don't waste time and effort rolling when it's not necessary. Surely you must have read one of them!

That, I think, is the core of the problem: the rules don't say so. After hearing complaints like Kintire's some time ago, I re-read the rulebooks (RQ2, RQ3, Cthulhu, Elric). I'm pretty sure I'd have found such a statement if it was there.

OTOH, I've been playing BRP games for 15+ years, and I never ever encountered this to be a problem. I honestly believe it can only become an issue with an inexperienced GM.

 

[Turloigh]

(And like the makers of GURPS the makers of Unisystem can't do their basic math. Still, it was easier to fix than GURPS. Things like character generation, point costs for skills and stuff like that.)

Andakitty - could you elaborate? I'm curious.

While I haven't played Unisystem yet, I have bought a few books, and I like what I read.

EDIT: Ummm... sorry for the threadjacking. Again.

 

[kintire]

This is all basic RPG stuff, virtually EVERY RPG says all this in the 'What is RolePlaying' chapter! Don't waste time and effort rolling when it's not necessary. Surely you must have read one of them!

I have. I've read RQIII too, and none of the stuff you have just said is in there. You made it up. Now, it may be true that most groups do make up this kind of modification: ours certainly did. But if we are comparing rules systems we have to compare the rules systems, not the houserules.

To craft GOOD stuff. To craft showpiece stuff. To craft gifts for your beloved. To craft temple offerings. To craft goods to be enchanted. If all you want is a pot to piss in, all you need is watertight

So how good a skill do you need to get watertight? It isn't completely trivial you know.

Yes there is, apprentices have to roll to create goods a master carpenter doesn't have to.

But you made this up. It isn't how by-the-book RQIII works. And anyway, just what goods can a Master make that an apprentice can't?

And so on. Of course, all of this can be houseruled. But if the GM is having to houserule all the time, why did he pay for the system?

Both GURPS and D20 can handle this. RQ can't. And anyway, you are conceding my point that skills at these levels are unrollable. So why have a percentage at all?

Looking at it from your point of view no one would look at disaring it until they had 90%, but that's not how it works in other systems

If its a lethal or dangerous trap, I certainly wouldn't want to go near it with less than 60% chance of success. And if I'm a trap disarmer and can expect to confront a number of them, even 90% is a bit iffy. Thats a one in ten failure chance. How many specialist disarmers will encounter fewer than ten traps in a career?

In D&D the DC is low, in L5r the TN is low, I don't know about GURPs but I'm sure that has a similar mechanism.

DnD has the take 10/20 system, where if you have time and your skill is high enough, it just works. GURPS uses a three dice system, which is on a bell curve. The results are more predictable. L5r shares the randomness problem.

Or you just make the penalty for failure low, as in most systems

err.. pardon? Most system make triggering a trap pretty unpleasant actually. And now I have to tailor my adventures to the system? no. Other way round I think.

Sorry you have really got me here, you think that the D&D magic system is good?!?

yeah, sorry about that. Its my deceptively putting in the phrase "its merely quite poor" that fooled you.

No I do not think the DnD magic system is good. It's clunky, trespasses on other roles too much and at higher levels becomes far too dominating. Its just better than GURPS or RQIII.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

This is all basic RPG stuff, virtually EVERY RPG says all this in the 'What is RolePlaying' chapter! Don't waste time and effort rolling when it's not necessary. Surely you must have read one of them!

I have. I've read RQIII too, and none of the stuff you have just said is in there. You made it up. Now, it may be true that most groups do make up this kind of modification: ours certainly did. But if we are comparing rules systems we have to compare the rules systems, not the houserules.

One day, if you keep trying, you'll learn that there's more to RPGs than the rules. And then it'll cease to be such a worry to you.

Wulf

 

[SteveMND]

But you made this up. It isn't how by-the-book RQIII works

Actually, this is stated in the first paragraph of the Skill chapter, where it talks about how adventurers sucessfully perform routine actions, and how typically a gamemaster will only call for skill rolls in stressful situations.

Of course, what constitutes a 'stressful' situation is largely up to the GM, but I think most would consider -- for example -- a master artisan making run-of-the-mill common items to not be a stressful situation.