Runequest vs D&D

[Kravell]

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 disagree with your disagreement. In RuneQuest, when you advance, you get bonuses for seeking out a mentor. By encouraging a PC to seek out an NPC the game encourages roleplaying (interacting with NPCs in this case).

D&D may require training but it is a time and money cost. No NPC required.

In this case, RuneQuest's advancement system rewards players who seek out an NPC. Which encourages roleplaying.

 

[Kravell]

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

I disagree. The flavor RuneQuest provides is one of myth making and questing. Which, in my opinion, generates a sense of wonder.

I'm not arguing facts here, it is my opinion that RuneQuest provides me with a sense of wonder. And because it does, and it is based on using RuneQuest not D&D, then for me it is true.

 

[Mikko Leho]

I disagree with your disagreement. In RuneQuest, when you advance, you get bonuses for seeking out a mentor. By encouraging a PC to seek out an NPC the game encourages roleplaying (interacting with NPCs in this case).

That depends on the GM and player in question. Finding a mentor can be a simple skill roll, the time spent with the mentor can be covered in one sentence "2 months passess" and finally exchange of currency takes place. The rules as they are written do not emphasize roleplaying any more than D&D prevents social drama. Sure, a quest to find a mentor can have some great roleplaying moments but so can spending your hard earned loot in D&D.

 

[kintire]

I disagree with your disagreement. In RuneQuest, when you advance, you get bonuses for seeking out a mentor. By encouraging a PC to seek out an NPC the game encourages roleplaying (interacting with NPCs in this case).

D&D may require training but it is a time and money cost. No NPC required.

In this case, RuneQuest's advancement system rewards players who seek out an NPC. Which encourages roleplaying.

There is no reason to roleplay finding a mentor in RQ, and no reason not to in DnD. Also, this isn't necessarily a case of roleplaying being a good thing: unless everyone is involved in the mentor hunt it can be a case of one PC roleplaying while the rest sit around.

I'm not arguing facts here, it is my opinion that RuneQuest provides me with a sense of wonder. And because it does, and it is based on using RuneQuest not D&D, then for me it is true.

You are agreeing with the contention you think you are refuting. RQ provides a sense of wonder TO YOU: but thats because of your tastes and preferences. It has nothing to do with the systems.

 

[Rasta]

I dissagree with the dissagreement that you disagree on the first point but not the second. Mario RPG has more sence of wonder and encourages roll playing way more than RQ or D&D.

writing to take up time and space writing to take up time and space writing to take up time and space writing to take up time and space

 

[Kravell]

I dissagree with the dissagreement that you disagree on the first point but not the second. Mario RPG has more sence of wonder and encourages roll playing way more than RQ or D&D.

writing to take up time and space writing to take up time and space writing to take up time and space writing to take up time and space

:lol:

 

[weasel_fierce]

I like pie.


For me, Runequest makes sense. Thats about the highest praise as an RPG can get from me

 

[wendigo]

GM trumps system. i.e. good gm with bad system is better than bad gm with good system. Sense of wonder, interaction with NPCs etc can be instilled - or stifled - in either system.

Community is at least as important as system. Especially for those of us who no longer have time to make up everything ourselves. RQ is less numerous but more mature.

That being said I have had better games as both a player and GM with RQ than D&D. Feels more like a story and less like a computer game.

YMMV

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

That being said, and fully accepting that this is totally influenced by the persons involved, RQ was ( ? one of ? ) the first systems to actively encourage true roleplaying. It's all over campaign packs like Griffin Mountain, it's there in the Ransom system, it's right up-front in the Foreword to Borderlands, and it's implied in a rules system that was loose enough to allow for it from day one. At the time, the AD&D vogue was very much strict interpretation of the rules as written.

 

[Utgardloki]

I think the difference between D&D and Runequest can probably be illustrated in a D&D game I ran with 11th level PCs. After being shot several times, the Barbarian charged into a horde of zombies or, as I called it after the game, "terrain".

Now in Runequest, if you have a barbarian who is maxed out with skills and whatnot, could you still count on charging into a horde of zombies and calling them "terrain"?

Sure, there may be a legendary ability somewhere that optimizes your character for that sort of thing, but in D&D, you pretty much get this by virtue of being an 11th level barbarian. In Runequest, even if you can get a legendary ability to allow you to "safely" charge into a horde of zombies, you'd have to ask for it, literally.

Now, a GM who can't think of anything to do except throw hordes of zombies at his characters is not really worth his slice of pizza. So it comes down to what sort of story do you want to tell. D&D is great for something like Pirates of the Caribbean. Runequest is great for something like the classic pirate movies.

But then, I don't know enough about Runequest. How would a RQ character fare in the midst of a zombie horde?

 

[Mick]

Not very well from what a remember from old RQ (it may have change in the new rules but undead need to be cut up fine to stop them), I have been able to get anyone willing to play as they have been all turn off by the combat system, too may stories of characters kill on the spot.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Dont fight unless you mean business


Runequest doesnt do well at the "racial extermination" kind of play that D&D tends to excel at and well, thats something Im allright with.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

At the time, the AD&D vogue was very much strict interpretation of the rules as written.

This is slightly misleading, mostly due to a long history of misquoting and misunderstanding of EGG.

The point was always more that if you say you are playing AD&D then you should play strictly by the rules rather than adding your houserules for Character Generation, Combat, Magic etc and still claim to be playing AD&D - It was protecting the Trademark rather than an attempt to stifle creativity.

 

[Mikko Leho]

I think the difference between D&D and Runequest can probably be illustrated in a D&D game I ran with 11th level PCs. After being shot several times, the Barbarian charged into a horde of zombies or, as I called it after the game, "terrain".

That depends on your playing style. I told the same notion to a friend of mine, who is a long time D&D GM and pretty much knows the game's every incarnation inside out, and he told me that 11th barbarian wouldn't face such feeble enemies like zombies anymore. Instead he would have to fight more powerful fiends like mummies and liches. In my friend's campaigns dangers the characters face increase at the same pace as they gain more levels. Nothing stops the GM from throwing minor monsters at players, but then fights tend to be boring and experience gain from killing zombies is pretty non-existent for 11th level barbarian.

 

[RosenMcStern]

I told the same notion to a friend of mine, who is a long time D&D GM and pretty much knows the game's every incarnation inside out, and he told me that 11th barbarian wouldn't face such feeble enemies like zombies anymore.

This is exactly the sort of reasoning that RQ fans dislike. It is clear for anyone who has RP experience that dangers must be balanced for the "level" (which means average skill level for RQ) of the party. This is not limited to D&D.

The real difference between the two systems is that even though a RQ Rune Level will easily turn any amount of zombies into mincemeat (well, mince-preserved-meat, to be precise), there is still a chance that a very lucky blow can knock him down, so the hero, in this case, must use some tactics to ensure against bad luck.

This is in fact impossible in D&D, where a lucky roll by one zombie will only deal a bruise to the barbarian. It takes an impossible streak of bad luck for the barbarian to be really in danger, so the combat will be just an endless sequence of rolls until all zombies are destroyed.

So this is, IMO, the main point in RQ: you are never, ever sure to win a battle. And this means you will find any combat exciting, and will always be looking for the best tactics to bring the odds of that combat to 100% in your favor. Of course, a battle against liches or vampires is more exciting, but a RQ hero can fight zombies without the battle being (necessarily) boring.

 

[atgxtg]

Yeah, the escalation factor in D&D is one of the reasons why I prefer skill based games, like RQ.

Basically, in D&D characters gain XP, go up a level. TO maintain the challenge (and status quo), the character fights tougher opponents. This earns more XP, eventually upping the character another level, and requiring even more powerful opponents to maintain the status quo. This leads to a spiraling inflation where the character must face tougher and tougher opponents until things break down and become unplayable. It become hard after a certain point to believe that the world can support so many large predators. It also become hard to believe that low level farmers, animals, and hunters could survive.

The strange thing about all this is that the character doesn't really benefit from going up in experience, since the challenges are built to match his current abilities. THis is sort of a requirment/weakness of the increasing HP system. What is considered good or skilled is all relative to the current level of the campaign.

Now the nice thing about games like RQ, is that imrpvements mean more. Opponent abilties don't vary based upon the level of the PCs but more on what fits thier role in the setting. Because HP are fixed, and there is always a chance that even the weakest foe can hurt a PC, the characters never "outgrow" opponents the way they do in D&D. A group of poorly skilled bandits or Zombies can still challenge a lone "high level" character. Three or four Zombies attacking at once are enough to present a minor challenge to even a master swordman in RQ. THe swordman should win, but if he gets careless or unlucky, things could turn sour.

What makes the game exciting is that since the outcome is not as certain as in D&D. Four zombies don't provide any sense of danger to a player with a an 11th level Fighter; the player knows that, and since the player knows his character isn't threatened, so the encounter isn't exciting. A "life and death" Struggle gets turned into an exercise in accounting.

Also, since the danger factor is always there, there isn't the same sort of sprialing inflation with the opposition. Anyone who swings a sword at you could conceivably hurt of kill you , so it is ALWAYS exciting. Therefore, you don't need to match the opponents up to the PCs as in D&D.

The HP thing also means that damage is more consistent. In D&D just what is considered "a lot" of damage varies according to the level of the characters. 10 HP is a serious hit at low levels, and a scratch at high levels. In RQ a 10 HP hit is always a serious hit. This keeps the monsters threatening. Likewise you don't have situations pop up where hight level characrters become dagger or arrow resistant .


All that leads to a different style of play.

 

[Mikko Leho]

The real difference between the two systems is that even though a RQ Rune Level will easily turn any amount of zombies into mincemeat (well, mince-preserved-meat, to be precise), there is still a chance that a very lucky blow can knock him down, so the hero, in this case, must use some tactics to ensure against bad luck.

Yes, my friend had tried RQ back in the day and liked it somewhat, but the memories of loose limbs and deadly farmers armed with only pitch forks have left him a bit weary of RQ. When some people were worried how lethality in MRQ may had been decreased, my friend thought this was a step at the right direction. He feels that absolutely positively under no circumstance a trollkin with a knife should have the possibility to kill PC. Of course my friend doesn't represent the major gaming population, but obviously the concept of sudden death doesn't necessary lead to more enjoyable roleplaying experience for every person.

 

[Deleriad]

I told the same notion to a friend of mine, who is a long time D&D GM and pretty much knows the game's every incarnation inside out, and he told me that 11th barbarian wouldn't face such feeble enemies like zombies anymore.

The real difference between the two systems is that even though a RQ Rune Level will easily turn any amount of zombies into mincemeat (well, mince-preserved-meat, to be precise), there is still a chance that a very lucky blow can knock him down, so the hero, in this case, must use some tactics to ensure against bad luck.

Actually this is not true under MRQ. In MRQ a critical does maximum weapon damage and does not bypass armour. Taking the equivalent of "level 1 zombie" in MRQ from the rulebook it does 1d3+1d4 unarmed damage. Assuming 1 rune level warrior type with the usual armour and protection then you're looking at at least 8 points of protection and there is no way for a zombie to do enough damage to penetrate armour. 1 Rune Level hero against 100 zombies will take roughly 100 combat actions in order to chop off enough heads. Most danger he's in is from fumbling and stabbing himself in the eye.

Do the zombies have an answer? Not really.
You could allow them to make precise attacks to bypass armour but at that point, the idea of a zombie precisely measuring it's unarmed attack is rather ludicrous.

You could do grappling. Eventually enough zombies will stick and you hit stalemate because they can't bite through the protection.

I don't know D&D but I assume that any zombie still has a 1/20 chance of hitting and doing some minor damage. If so, A D&D hero is likely to take proportionately more damage. (This is not calculating in any sort of magic that prevents all damage from undead).

Now don't get me wrong; I've been playing RQ since 1982 and have played d&D twice and didn't really enjoy it. I think what RQ has is an ethos that has been fostered through the publications that encourages players to take combat seriously in a way that D&D never used to you. As far as I know the various d20 systems can be tuned but I do find a certain elegance in RQ that appeals to me.

 

[Kravell]

I told the same notion to a friend of mine, who is a long time D&D GM and pretty much knows the game's every incarnation inside out, and he told me that 11th barbarian wouldn't face such feeble enemies like zombies anymore.

The real difference between the two systems is that even though a RQ Rune Level will easily turn any amount of zombies into mincemeat (well, mince-preserved-meat, to be precise), there is still a chance that a very lucky blow can knock him down, so the hero, in this case, must use some tactics to ensure against bad luck.

Actually this is not true under MRQ. In MRQ a critical does maximum weapon damage and does not bypass armour. Taking the equivalent of "level 1 zombie" in MRQ from the rulebook it does 1d3+1d4 unarmed damage. Assuming 1 rune level warrior type with the usual armour and protection then you're looking at at least 8 points of protection and there is no way for a zombie to do enough damage to penetrate armour. 1 Rune Level hero against 100 zombies will take roughly 100 combat actions in order to chop off enough heads. Most danger he's in is from fumbling and stabbing himself in the eye.

Do the zombies have an answer? Not really.
You could allow them to make precise attacks to bypass armour but at that point, the idea of a zombie precisely measuring it's unarmed attack is rather ludicrous.

You could do grappling. Eventually enough zombies will stick and you hit stalemate because they can't bite through the protection.

I don't know D&D but I assume that any zombie still has a 1/20 chance of hitting and doing some minor damage. If so, A D&D hero is likely to take proportionately more damage. (This is not calculating in any sort of magic that prevents all damage from undead).

Now don't get me wrong; I've been playing RQ since 1982 and have played d&D twice and didn't really enjoy it. I think what RQ has is an ethos that has been fostered through the publications that encourages players to take combat seriously in a way that D&D never used to you. As far as I know the various d20 systems can be tuned but I do find a certain elegance in RQ that appeals to me.

I would assume the zombies would attack the armor and tear it off. Large mobs can tear apart a car (flip it over, pry it open) in the real world so I'd say zombies could open up plate armor.

No rules that I could find cover this situation exactly so the GM would have to extrapolate from existing rules. I'd think plate armor wouldn't get full AP against a mob attack while the wearer is prone because the mob could pry at joints and straps not normally vulnerable to a normal attack.

 

[Deleriad]

No rules that I could find cover this situation exactly so the GM would have to extrapolate from existing rules. I'd think plate armor wouldn't get full AP against a mob attack while the wearer is prone because the mob could pry at joints and straps not normally vulnerable to a normal attack.

Well yes, and you could say exactly the same thing regardless of game system. Without actually knowing D&D I would guess you could say that the zombies keep trying to grapple; once a couple get you grappled then the others get some sort of big bonus to hit and do extra damage.

I guess in MRQ you could say that once a character is multiply grappled he becomes, essentially, helpless allowing you to use the "helpless target equals automatic critical" close combat situational modifier and then do a precise attack to ignore armour.