Runequest vs D&D

[Mondain]

I am a D&D player and interested in the Runequest game.

How is it compared to D&D? Could it be a nice alternation?

Are there some D&D player which started to play Runequest
and even found some considerable advantages?

Thanks.

 

[Halfbat]

If you do a search you could find a number of threads giving a comparison. For a direct response, try:

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27327
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27708

Like many old-timers I played D&D first, and quickly switched to RQ because of its freedom. There is more freedom in d20, now, but it is still straightjacketed with (imho) multiple complex feats and abilities and class-related features. That _can_ be an example in some settings, of course.

However, snipped from one of the above:

Briefly, I'd recommend RQ to anyone on the grounds of

- Roleplaying. RQ seems to encourage more roleplaying than D&D. Players get into their characters more, even those who previously though they were combat-monsters.

- That said, combat has a gritty feel, with all character getting worried about parries/dodges, being outnumbered, hit locations and whether to target a specific location. Tactics become important rather than rule knowledge.

- The Skill System is simple yet works well.

- Adaptability and richness. IME the core rules are easy to use to any background, not just Glorantha. That said, many peeps think Glorantha absolutely rocks and I know of few who have completely ignored all the basic critters even in their own campaigns.

- Whatever type of Magic you fancy, it's right there. From the everyday magic (Rune Spells) to Sorcery to Divine Magic.... And it can be made as scarce or as prolific as you want.

- Flexible characters Many players love the thought of having multi-dimensional characters, able to fight using a chosen weapon AND cast spells AND be sneaky or a negotiator or a healer or ... almost any other specialist. The PCs don't have to be channelled and can be built as the campaign progresses, matching the campaign and _its_ feel rather than being channeled. Of course, being exceptional at all skills can be tricky to begin with Wink

- No levels, so it's easier to knock together a monster or an advanced character. This _really_ helps.

- Duck (love 'em or hate 'em), Trolls who are ... strange, Elves who hibernate overwinter (unless non-deciduous, of course)

Hope this helps!

-------------------------
Other Possible Links:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=27698
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=23840
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22398
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=22276

 

[Kravell]

I am a D&D player and interested in the Runequest game.

How is it compared to D&D? Could it be a nice alternation?

Are there some D&D player which started to play Runequest
and even found some considerable advantages?

Thanks.

I DMed for twenty plus years and have now switched over to RuneQuest as a GM.

The advantages that made me switch are:

1. Sense of wonder. RuneQuest brings back the feeling of uncertainty and the unknown I loved about D&D. D&D for me now feels more about feats, spells, classes, and monsters and not so much about story, myth, and wonder.

2. More roleplaying focus and less miniature focus. While miniatures are fine, Wizards is moving steadily toward a focus on tactics and not so much on roleplaying. By contrast, Mongoose is releasing Elric and Hawkmoon for RuneQuest, two settings based on fantasy novels.

3. Much less prep time.

4. Less rules, but overall still a lot of choice. Not so many spells, feats, classes etc. but still wide range of character choices and options.

5. Combat feels more realistic with dodges and parries and ripostes.

6. RuneQuest mechanics support roleplaying. When you get advances (roughly in D&D terms going up in level) the mechanics encourage you to seek out mentors and study ancient tomes which in turn fosters more roleplaying.

7. Much better online support from Mongoose. Mongoose provides regular feedback and rule updates. Also, Mr. Sprange set up and lets me run my play by post on the Mongoose forums which I appreciate.

8. Community. Posters on these forums are polite and helpful. Also the Mongoose staff is knowledgeable, accessible, and helpful.

 

[frogspawner]

Yes I'm another old-time D&D player who, after years of GMing and trying to paper-over-the-cracks in D&D, finally converted to a RQ-like system - and it's so much better!

Now you're considering making the change, like I was for so long, do yourself a favour - do it now! Save yourself the years of agonizing that I went through...

I'm not sure you could alternate with D&D - when you've realized RQ is the better system for Roleplaying and Heroism, who could go back? Only someone wanting to be a bully waddling safely around as a great bloated sack of s... hit points.

Can't say I'm very keen on the MRQ version, though - try to find a copy of RQ2 on e-bay or wherever - a superior system, and everything you could wish for (world, monsters, treasure generator, inspiration...) all in one book, and all for just about 10 quid, usually.

 

[Kagan Altar]

I'm a long-time GM of RuneQuest and long-time DM of D&D. I'm Cross-posting from ENWorld:

I own MRQ, Glorantha books, Lankhmar... you name it. I even wrote an ENWorld review of MRQ. I'll get Elric of Melniboné RPG and Hawkmoon RPG ASAP (and own the previous editions, as well as a whole bunch of Glorantha third age material, herowars... and so on). Just to provide the context.

First, I think MRQ as a system should be differentiated from Glorantha, the setting (the ducks, broos and so on). It's like saying "Forgotten Realms" for D&D, if you see what I mean.

Then, as far as the systems' comparison go, these are IMO two systems built for different uses in mind. Where D&D strives to be precise in terms, rules and sub-rules, RuneQuest provides general guidelines you are free to build on and adjudicate as you want. It also provides a different type of Fantasy: D&D is great for campaigns with characters who have steady mechanical advantages piling up as they go; with RuneQuest, everything has basically two/three types of scales - normal heroes and legendary heroes (with the experienced hero, with Skills around 80%, in between).

RuneQuest is easy to customize. It's easy to use. The rules aren't long to read. The characters can be created real quick.

As I put it somewhere else:

MRQ is more rules-light and more adaptive than DnD on some levels. See, DnD provides a precise type of fantasy and entertainment. It has its levels, its classes and prestige classes, and a whole host of rules and sub-rules to play with. It's cool sometimes to have that level of detail and customization, and this precision in the elements of game balance and design. When you are considering like I do that the rules may support the immersion and vivid feeling of a fantasy world (and thus aren't opposites), this can be a great help.

Sometimes, however, you want to be able to just roll some dice and get the game moving. You will not want to spend a lot of time on the tactical aspects of the game. You will want to be able to take the rulebook and say "ah, geez, frack this!" and roll with your instinct to adjudicate situations and just well, go on playing the game. Sometimes even, you'll search for a rules frame, as opposed to a complete interdependent game system, that just allows you to customize and build rules on the go, to make the system your own.

MRQ does all this stuff really well, for me.

There's also a difference in the types of fictions MRQ and DnD simulate. Playing people who feel more like the "average joe" and try to survive in a world that is just as large, if not larger, than themselves will fit more MRQ's intent by the way it is framed with the use of percentages and roll-under mechanics.

If however I want to have characters starting very low to achieve extreme power gradually while still retaining the fun of struggles and dice rolling on a large scale of character development and concentrating on contrasts within the character from start to finish, the discrepancies between levels and the open-ended mechanic of "roll+bonus vs. difficulty" which can scale on and on forever, will probably be more appropriate.

Hope this helps. BP.

 

[Mikko Leho]

While miniatures are fine, Wizards is moving steadily toward a focus on tactics and not so much on roleplaying. By contrast, Mongoose is releasing Elric and Hawkmoon for RuneQuest, two settings based on fantasy novels.

To give Wizards some credit they just released new edition of Star Wars, which is pretty good I hear. Also one can't really compare RuneQuest and D&D when more accurate comparison would be RQ vs d20. D&D with its classes and special rules is a high fantasy implementation of the basic d20 rule set, which in turn can be used to power all sorts of games like Midnight and Conan.

 

[Kravell]

While miniatures are fine, Wizards is moving steadily toward a focus on tactics and not so much on roleplaying. By contrast, Mongoose is releasing Elric and Hawkmoon for RuneQuest, two settings based on fantasy novels.

To give Wizards some credit they just released new edition of Star Wars, which is pretty good I hear. Also one can't really compare RuneQuest and D&D when more accurate comparison would be RQ vs d20. D&D with its classes and special rules is a high fantasy implementation of the basic d20 rule set, which in turn can be used to power all sorts of games like Midnight and Conan.

Star Wars Saga sounds like a good game. But it is designed for use in conjunction with the miniatures game, not the other way around. Which is fine if you like minis or want to pull those rules out. I just don't want to do so.

I respectively disagree that you can't compare RuneQuest and D&D. Many D&D players never try a D20 game so they wouldn't be familiar with all the D20 variants out there.

 

[Rasta]

Star Wars Saga sounds like a good game. But it is designed for use in conjunction with the miniatures game, not the other way around. Which is fine if you like minis or want to pull those rules out. I just don't want to do so.

Me neither. D6 Star Wars all the way!!!! Where a wookie's punch is stronger than his bowcaster! Oh yeah! 8)

 

[Kravell]

Star Wars Saga sounds like a good game. But it is designed for use in conjunction with the miniatures game, not the other way around. Which is fine if you like minis or want to pull those rules out. I just don't want to do so.

Me neither. D6 Star Wars all the way!!!! Where a wookie's punch is stronger than his bowcaster! Oh yeah! 8)

I have to admit that D6 SW was more fun than D20 SW. But Star Wars was different back then before the new movies came out. The original three movies weren't as dark because the good guys win.

In a way, the complexity of D20 is necessary to capture all six films, books, and video games of SW out now. Including the darkness of the new films and the bleakness of some of the novels.

 

[Rasta]

In a way, the complexity of D20 is necessary to capture all six films, books, and video games of SW out now. Including the darkness of the new films and the bleakness of some of the novels.

Yeah, no doubt. There was an elegant simplicity to D6 Star Wars. It did get annoying having to roll 8D6 or more once the characters were powerful.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Also one can't really compare RuneQuest and D&D when more accurate comparison would be RQ vs d20. D&D with its classes and special rules is a high fantasy implementation of the basic d20 rule set, which in turn can be used to power all sorts of games like Midnight and Conan.

False. D20 is a generalization of the fantasy game D&D. Just like GURPS is a generalization of the fantasy game The Fantasy Trip. It is not the other way round.

Nobody here is stating that RuneQuest is the fantasy implementation of Basic RolePlaying. The opposite is true: RuneQuest came first, then Call of Cthulhu and all the other BRP derivatives (ElfQuest, Stormbringer, etc.). And all D100 fans know this, and admit this openly.

Please do not state here that D&D is the offspring or a specialized implementation of D20. It is not the truth.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Star Wars Saga sounds like a good game. But it is designed for use in conjunction with the miniatures game, not the other way around. Which is fine if you like minis or want to pull those rules out. I just don't want to do so.

I don't know where you are reading that, but I can't see any correlation between Star War Miniatures and Star Wars Roleplaying Game. They use different rule systems and either is needed to play the other. Of course I haven't read the Saga Edition but I have skimmed through my friend's old edition, which didn't require any miniatures more than the basic D&D. If you are referring to the fact that combats can be handled using miniatures, then RQ is not without fault as there are few miniatures out for it too.

I respectively disagree that you can't compare RuneQuest and D&D. Many D&D players never try a D20 game so they wouldn't be familiar with all the D20 variants out there.

In that sense I agree with you. However when assessing what one can do with different rule sets comparison should be in my opinion made between RQ and d20.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Please do not state here that D&D is the offspring or a specialized implementation of D20. It is not the truth.

That is exactly what I state. D20 roots may lie in the development of D&D and its history, but it is however an independent rule system. D&D is a high fantasy orientated implementation of d20, a pirate or western setting would require different modifications to the core d20 but all would be based on the same core.

Why d20 is then better opponent to RQ than D&D? Because RuneQuest is implemented differently to each setting. New rules might be added and some old ones discarded. The process what I am seeing with the Eternal Champion line of RQ products is much more like OGL publishing than just releasing new settings for D&D. Also other publishers like OtherWorld Creations and Sceaptune Games are doing something that looks like d20 licensing to me. Of course things are not so straight forward but it is how I see the situation.

 

[Kagan Altar]

Star Wars Saga sounds like a good game. But it is designed for use in conjunction with the miniatures game, not the other way around. Which is fine if you like minis or want to pull those rules out. I just don't want to do so.

It is designed with the idea that many SW players use the miniatures, yes, but the game does not require miniatures to be played. This is a common misunderstanding about Saga.

From Jedi Counseling #104:

Q: Is the new system really just a ploy to sell miniatures? Is it just a beefed-up version of the miniatures game?

A: No. The Saga Edition rules don't depend on miniatures any more than the rules in the Revised Core Rulebook or the original Core Rulebook did. The Gamemaster can easily abstract all the rules on movement, attacks of opportunity, and so on if that kind of game is preferred. However, we include rules for using miniatures or other tokens on a battle grid so that players who prefer that style will have everything they need. Roleplaying games have their roots in miniatures wargaming, and today a substantial number of players still use miniatures in their games. Ignoring that part of the community by omitting rules for using miniatures on a battle grid would be a terrible disservice to them.

I can understand how someone might be confused by the use of miniatures in the examples in the combat chapter, or by the fact that speeds and such are measured in squares. But that doesn't mean that Saga Edition is meant only for players who use miniatures. For example, we use squares to measure distances in combat for several reasons.

* We recognize that a solid majority of players do use miniatures and a battle grid, and the fact that miniatures are built to scale makes it easy to visualize distances in a manner that players understand intuitively. When you can visually gauge distances as you do in real life, you don't need to make real-world measurements in the game.
* Including multiple units of measurement (such as meters, feet, and so on) is redundant, adding unnecessary clutter to stat blocks and game mechanics. And it really adds up over the course of a book that contains dozens of stat blocks.
* We have faith that you're all more than smart enough to convert to whatever unit of measurement you prefer, whether that's meters, feet, or even abstractions such as "nearby" versus "over there."

Obviously, we do want people to buy our miniatures; frankly, we'd have to be pretty dumb to make a product and not hope it sells well. Nevertheless, there's a big difference between requiring players to use miniatures and making sure that players who have miniatures get the most possible use out of them. We're trying to do the latter.

The same logic applies to all game supplements and accessories, whether we're talking about sourcebooks, GM screens, terrain tiles, or character sheets. You don't need any of those items to play, but if you choose to use them, we want to make sure they're worth every penny. In fact, since Star Wars Miniatures is a stand-alone game, we hope that miniatures players will like the fact that their collections are immediately useful if they try the roleplaying game. Again, we want all players to feel that they're getting good value out of what they have.

 

[Utgardloki]

I think that Runequest makes a good change of pace. I, for example, am excited about converted Iron Kingdoms to Runequest, although I tend to take on too many projects at once and then end up getting none of them done.

Runequest is a great way to try out different magic systems, get free of the constraints of classes, and make even heroic characters a little bit nerveous when threatened with major damage.

In Iron Kingdoms: Runequest, for example, the distinctions between the arcane classes vanishes and it just becames a matter of which skills you have, whether you've been formally trained to read magic and become a wizard, or whether you've been trained in music and become a bard, or whether you've relied on self study and become a sorcerer. (Or maybe you picked up the engineering skills of the arcane mechaniks.)

Personally, I am more attracted to the potential that Runequest has for modern settings. I haven't finished my Runequest: Modern project, either, but it should have a different feel from my World War II/Ravenloft blend. The latter is more cinematic, with characters defying incredible odds because they are superheroic. Runequest characters may be a bit more "realistic" but still capable of heroic feats.

So many games, so hard to get people together to play them.

 

[Finarvyn]

I'm sort of curious if everyone means the "new D&D" or if they are drawing comparrisons to one of the versions of the old D&D. I've played OD&D for 30 years and don't think that MRQ is better unless your goal is to have more skills and hit location.

Someone said that MRQ brings back a sense of wonder. I find that my campaign setting does that. The way we run an adventure does that.

Years ago a buddy and I split on our gaming philosophy. He chose RQ and I chose OD&D. We have a great time playing in each other's campaigns and have found that each of us has found a system that best fits our own GM-ing style. I can't say that one system is really a lot "better" than the other; they are different.

I bought several of the new MRQ core rulebooks and the Lankhmar setting. I think they're great, but for me I still find that OD&D allows me to run an adventure with less prep time. (After all, all I need to know is class and level and I can run an NPC. Doesn't get much easier than that.)

Again, if the comparrison is intended to be with 3E D&D, I retract pretty much everything I said. I think that the new edition of D&D is really packed with rules and would much rather run MRQ. As much as I love Mongoose's d20 Conan setting, I would like it better if the rules were trimmed down.

Just my opinion.

 

[Finarvyn]

I just re-read my last post and am not totally certain it came off the way I wanted. I'm not trying to get into a "your system stinks" or "my game is better than yours" argument, but am just trying to relate some of my experineces over the decades.

I think my main point was this: find your own style.

If I try to copy your game, it may be a disaster. If you try to copy my game, it may be a disaster. Find your own style and pick the rules set that best fits your style.

By all means, give MRQ a try. Buy the book, read the rules, run some short adventures, see if you like it. If you do, stay with it because the longer you play with a particular rules set the better you'll know those rules and the faster the game will run.

If you don't like it, try some other rules and see what happens. I have maybe 30 RPG rules systems sitting on my shelf at the moment. Some get played a lot, others sit there and look nice. Most of them have some really neat aspects and some reason why some group somewhere thinks its the best system on the planet. (Hopefully, the author of the game is one of those people.)

RQ in one form or another (Stormbringer, Corum, Call of Cthulhu, and more) has been around for a very long time. Clearly, many gaming groups enjoy the way it's played. RQ allows players to get constant gradual advancement instead of quantum leaps from level to level. The trade-off is that you have to keep track of all of those skills. Try it and see what you think!

 

[Loz]

I just re-read my last post and am not totally certain it came off the way I wanted. I'm not trying to get into a "your system stinks" or "my game is better than yours" argument, but am just trying to relate some of my experineces over the decades.

I think you said what you wanted to say very eloquently indeed, Finarvyn. And its really nice to hear your views and see such a balanced approach. Both systems, RQ and D&D (whatever the flavour) have merits and flaws and lend themselves to different GMing styles. Thank you for posting!

Loz

 

[kintire]

I profoundly disagree with any statements along the lines of "RQ encourages roleplaying more". No system: NO system encourages roleplaying more than another unless it is so poor that is damages the whole game. You can roleplay in any system, or ruleplay in any system. Its the gaming style and the group that encourages or restricts roleplaying, not the system.

That said, some systems are better for different styles of games. If you are into high heroic fantasy where a hero can wade through small armies of lesser beings, D20 could well be your bag. Grittier combats where even a major hero can be brought down if outnumbered is more RQ forte. But you can adapt either system to either style.

Its largely a matter of preference. D20 is a more abstract system with a class system. RQ is more detailed and without. Both have their pros and cons.

 

[Mr Benn]

I profoundly disagree with any statements along the lines of "RQ encourages roleplaying more". No system: NO system encourages roleplaying more than another unless it is so poor that is damages the whole game. You can roleplay in any system, or ruleplay in any system. Its the gaming style and the group that encourages or restricts roleplaying, not the system.

I totally agree. Same goes for the sense of wonder - that comes from the imagination of the players and DM - not the system.

For fantasy games, I think the big divider is the magic system. For an Elric game, d20 just doesn't have the mechanics to deal with demon binding - I've seen attempts to do it but it loses the character of the Young Kingdoms.