Runequest vs heroquest

[RMS]

Everyone is going on about how HQ requires creativity and that those poor dungeon crawlers just can't understand how to play it. BULL! It is not any truer than saying that HQers don't play RQ because they can't do the math.

I think you're misunderstanding the conversation between atgxtg and myself (assuming that that's where this comes from). We've had the discussion at several points about trying to convert away stereotypical D&Ders to other games, including RQ. He's had a fair amount of issues attempting to convert said players to various other games, while I haven't run into the same issues. This was never about HQ vs. RQ, but about stereotypical D&Ders attempting to play any other style: being lost with the openness of HQ or getting slaughtered by the deadliness of RQ and never coping with the cultural depth of Glorantha (or similar worlds) with any system.

They understand just fine. They just don't want to sit around and ask each other, "What do you think happens?" or "How would you feel about that?"

I could make a philosophical argument here that they really must not understand it if they aren't enjoying it, but that'd get pretty deep pretty quickly and I don't really feel like going there more than just to note it.

But others, myself included, would like to play a game.

If the other point is unfair, then this is unfair. They're both games. In fact, they're both very similar games in the whole spectrum of games. (RQ and HQ certainly have a lot more in common than either has in common with football for example, even though all three are games.) The differences are in the details only.

I like knowing the odds. I like knowing the rules and how to use them to accomplish what I want. I enjoy coming up with an effective combination of spells, maneuvers and tactics to overcome obstacles. And we always keep in mind that regardless of what the rules say, there should be a consistent logic in how the world works.

All of that is easily done with either HQ or RQ, so doesn't sound like a strong argument for either system as I read it.

The GM does his best to play the NPC effectively versus the players that are doing their best. A good GM will plan for encounters that are challenging and balanced to give the players a decent chance of success. If the story demands weaker opponents, so be it. This gives the characters a chance to really shine and bask in their own power. If the story calls for an over-powering villain a good GM will give subtle clues to the players that this may be more than they can handle.

That described how I run my games, almost exactly, regardless of what system I use. You seem to think that I can't do exactly what you describe with either system, and the fact is that I can and in fact do on a regular basis. I currently have both a RQ and HQ Glorantha game I'm running. Of course, the game systems change some things about the way the world works and how the players view things, but they really don't change how I handle things as a GM, and those changes are fairly minor. My Glorantha HQ and RQ games are well in excess of 90% the same.

 

[RMS]

Lord Twig makes ....

OK, HQ is more abstract, which is something I like about it.
RQ is more concrete, which is something I like about it

But there's nothing about HQ that is inherently worse than RQ or vice versa. Neither is more suitable as a model for Glorantha or any other world, in my opinion.

I should have read the rest of the thread before replying to Lord Twig because you said what I was trying to say, but better. I like both HQ and RQ.

The irony of me being cast as the HQ defender here is that I actually like RQ a bit more, but will happily run or play either. They're both good and both fun. Personally, I don't like the same thing all the time, so different options are nice.

 

[AKAramis]

Both games have strengths. For players whose play-styles are within the strengths of a system it will work for them... but the further afield from the areas of strength the player's style(s) lie, the less satisfying that ruleset will be.

Likewise, the demands upon the GM are very system dependent; GM fit to a system can make/break not just the GM's fun, but also the players. If the two don't mesh, it can ruin a perfectly good system.

Me, I have run some REAL dogs of game systems, and had a blast with them anyway... but it was work to do. A good system makes my job as a GM easier, or at least enjoyable. A bad system makes it hard and/or miserable. A truly bad system can make even a good game group wince...

HQ doesn't fit my player's ideas of what makes a decent system. I could run it, I suspect, but they can't get past CG.

Different rules fill different needs.

 

[RMS]

Since I'm on a roll for responses here....

For me it boils down to this.

As a player I will choose to play either HeroQuest[or Questworlds] or RuneQuest [or other BRP game].

As a GM I would only run HeroQuest. Scenario prep is way more simplier and quicker with HeroQuest than RuneQuest. My time is far too valuable to waste making up RQ NPCs.

If you run RQ/BRP long enough, you can do the prep work on the fly with it. It's been years (decade+) since I bothered stating any NPC up in RQ, outside of an occasional major NPC. My others are just a verbal description and I extrapolate on any details if it comes up in play...exactly like I would in HQ. HQ is definitely easier to do this with out of the box.

Hopefully, I don't loose any RQ/BRP cred around here (or with any of my players if they're lurking!) by admitting this!

 

[atgxtg]

The irony of me being cast as the HQ defender here is that I actually like RQ a bit more, but will happily run or play either. They're both good and both fun. Personally, I don't like the same thing all the time, so different options are nice.

That's okay. I've sort of jumped from defender to attacker and back again depending on what the actual points between the two games got brought up.

IMO HQ's biggest weakness isn't so much in it rule mechanics, but in it's presentation. I did a compariosn between it an Prince Valiant (both games with farily similar approaches). IMO PV is more succesful in presenting it's setting and explaining how to run the game and campaign. THe HQ rules are very much tied to gaming in Glorantha and dealing with GLorantha issues but is a best sketchy.

 

[RMS]

IMO HQ's biggest weakness isn't so much in it rule mechanics, but in it's presentation. I did a compariosn between it an Prince Valiant (both games with farily similar approaches). IMO PV is more succesful in presenting it's setting and explaining how to run the game and campaign. THe HQ rules are very much tied to gaming in Glorantha and dealing with GLorantha issues but is a best sketchy.

I agree with you on presentation. I really can't even put my thumb on what's wrong with it. It reads easy enough and everything seems straight forward (except magic, of course) on a single read, but there's something missing. I read people describing it as needing a different mindset or perspective than "traditional RPGs". Maybe there's some truth in that, but I don't like how that argument implies that there's some special wisdom necessary to play HQ because there isn't. It's a game and a fairly simple game at that.

I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned before that I really do need to track down and read PV at some point.

 

[atgxtg]

IMO HQ's biggest weakness isn't so much in it rule mechanics, but in it's presentation. I did a compariosn between it an Prince Valiant (both games with farily similar approaches). IMO PV is more succesful in presenting it's setting and explaining how to run the game and campaign. THe HQ rules are very much tied to gaming in Glorantha and dealing with GLorantha issues but is a best sketchy.

I agree with you on presentation. I really can't even put my thumb on what's wrong with it. It reads easy enough and everything seems straight forward (except magic, of course) on a single read, but there's something missing. I read people describing it as needing a different mindset or perspective than "traditional RPGs". Maybe there's some truth in that, but I don't like how that argument implies that there's some special wisdom necessary to play HQ because there isn't. It's a game and a fairly simple game at that.

I'm pretty sure that I've mentioned before that I really do need to track down and read PV at some point.

I think I can put my thumb on it. HQ is a Glorantha based game (at least until recently) that is written for Glorantha fans. THat is, if you don't know sqqaut about Glorantha, the rulesbook becomes more of a hinderance that help. With a typical fantasy setting the GM and players have something to "default" too. With a non-standard setting they are left out in the cold. HQ's weakness is that it simply doesn't provide enough info on GLorantha for a playable setting. IMO they would have been better off to foucs one one area and a few cultures for play, rather than skim over as much as they did.

Valiant succeeds becuase it forcues heavilty on the setting (Arthurian Britiain as told through Hal Foster's comic strip). It has lots of examples and panels from the strip. Even if people are not famialr with PV, they are famialr with King Arthur, and the game has a dozen or so prewritten adventures with it. Very easy for a newbie to pick it up and play.

HQ, desipte the simplicity of the game system, is really an advanced game aimed at advanced gamers. It doesn't mattter how easy it to use use it, if you don't know what to used it for.

 

[Lord Twig]

Everyone is going on about how HQ requires creativity and that those poor dungeon crawlers just can't understand how to play it. BULL! It is not any truer than saying that HQers don't play RQ because they can't do the math.

I think you're misunderstanding the conversation between atgxtg and myself (assuming that that's where this comes from). We've had the discussion at several points about trying to convert away stereotypical D&Ders to other games, including RQ. He's had a fair amount of issues attempting to convert said players to various other games, while I haven't run into the same issues. This was never about HQ vs. RQ, but about stereotypical D&Ders attempting to play any other style: being lost with the openness of HQ or getting slaughtered by the deadliness of RQ and never coping with the cultural depth of Glorantha (or similar worlds) with any system.

And again I say, "Bull". What exactly is a "stereotypical D&Der"? What I am objecting to is the idea that certain types of people are incapable of playing HQ because they just can't understand it. While it may be true in a few cases, my belief is that the majority of people who don't want to play HQ don't want to because they don't like it, not because they can't understand it.

They understand just fine. They just don't want to sit around and ask each other, "What do you think happens?" or "How would you feel about that?"

I could make a philosophical argument here that they really must not understand it if they aren't enjoying it, but that'd get pretty deep pretty quickly and I don't really feel like going there more than just to note it.

There is that elitism again. Obviously they don't enjoy it because they don't understand it. :roll:

But others, myself included, would like to play a game.

If the other point is unfair, then this is unfair. They're both games. In fact, they're both very similar games in the whole spectrum of games. (RQ and HQ certainly have a lot more in common than either has in common with football for example, even though all three are games.) The differences are in the details only.

I will grant that I was exaggerating there. My point was simply that some people prefer a more rule-heavy game than others. I was going to say more complex, but I do understand that HQ can be equally complex, just in a different way.

I like knowing the odds. I like knowing the rules and how to use them to accomplish what I want. I enjoy coming up with an effective combination of spells, maneuvers and tactics to overcome obstacles. And we always keep in mind that regardless of what the rules say, there should be a consistent logic in how the world works.

All of that is easily done with either HQ or RQ, so doesn't sound like a strong argument for either system as I read it.

Here I would disagree. There is no optimal combination of spells, weapons, armor, maneuvers and such in HQ. It doesn't matter what you have, all that matters is that the GM rules that you can use it and what the number next to it is.

I am not saying that this is bad. I am just saying that it is different from RQ, or D&D for that matter.

The GM does his best to play the NPC effectively versus the players that are doing their best. A good GM will plan for encounters that are challenging and balanced to give the players a decent chance of success. If the story demands weaker opponents, so be it. This gives the characters a chance to really shine and bask in their own power. If the story calls for an over-powering villain a good GM will give subtle clues to the players that this may be more than they can handle.

That described how I run my games, almost exactly, regardless of what system I use. You seem to think that I can't do exactly what you describe with either system, and the fact is that I can and in fact do on a regular basis. I currently have both a RQ and HQ Glorantha game I'm running. Of course, the game systems change some things about the way the world works and how the players view things, but they really don't change how I handle things as a GM, and those changes are fairly minor. My Glorantha HQ and RQ games are well in excess of 90% the same.

My point here was to describe what an adversarial GM might be and how it is not necessarily a bad thing. Now of course the GM could always "Win" if that was the goal. He has no limit to what he can throw at the players. A GM that just kills the characters every time the game starts is not going to have a game for very long. But a GM that creates a balanced encounter and then does his best to beat you with it makes for a very satisfying challenge.

Again, sure you could do this in HQ as well. But I am willing to bet that it is harder to truly play the part of an adversary, doing his best to take out the characters, in HQ than it is in RQ. Not impossible, just harder. On the flip side there are things that would be easier in HQ. Like trying to find out if the chieftain’s daughter thinks your cute.

 

[zanshin]

I have to agree with much of what Lord Twig says - for me the crunch of systems such as Runequest and D&D gives them color and flavour that I found lacking when i played heroquest.

As has been stated elsewhere its a matter of playstyles -the narrativist, simulationist , gamist definitions are reasonable handles for it. One is not superior to another , they are different ways and bits you get out of playing games, and different games suit different styles of player and GM.

I was really looking forward to Heroquest, given the lack of materials for RQ once the Rolston 'golden age' was over at AH _ i was very disappointed when it came to it, because it did not give me the chrome that helps make a game flavourful for me

Also there is the whole anti D&D thing - its just a different system with different emphases. I didnt like it til 3e , but 3e actually absorbed a lot of influences from RQ , and made it much more interesting , again for me

[/b]

 

[Mark Mohrfield]

If I wanted a vague game with an abstract Hit Point system where the wounds do mean anything until you go below zero--there is another game out ther that already does that.

If by that you mean "HeroQuest is similiar to Dungeons and Dragons", then you're just plain wrong.

No I mean the way AP loss realates to wounding is eeriely similar to the way HP relate to wounding. Both are abstract, both are linked to fighting skill.

Your original comment went well beyond that. In any case, APs are not really all that similar to HP's and neither is really linked to fighting skill.

 

[burdock]

lord twig wrote

t doesn't matter what you have, all that matters is that the GM rules that you can use it

This means that it does matter what abilities you have. You are only permited to describe things that are viable in the specific circumstances. Also you need to be able to back your descriptions up with something on the chr sheet or you cant do it.

Regardless of the arguments I still perceive that there is a misunderstanding on the part of many people who don't like HQ. A common complaint concentrates on how the rules don't result in certain effects.....whereas in HQ it is the descriptive storytelling which provides the effects. The rules are just there to nudge the narrative along, not (as in many other systems) to actually define elements of the narrative. (eg the loss of a leg in HQ is a descriptive effect based on a big AP deficit...in runequest it is a rigidly defined result of specific game mechanics. A character without a leg in HQ will have serious restrictions on what actions can be described for that character.

 

[RMS]

And again I say, "Bull". What exactly is a "stereotypical D&Der"?

I used the word "stereotypical" rather than "typical" (or similar adjective) specificly so nobody would be offended by it...and then you went and did it anyway! Recall that I'm not the one who's had issues with this, so I'm probably the wrong one to argue with about it. I was just noting that you were stepping into an ongoing conversation in the middle of it, and appear to be missing some context for the conversation.

What I am objecting to is the idea that certain types of people are incapable of playing HQ because they just can't understand it. While it may be true in a few cases, my belief is that the majority of people who don't want to play HQ don't want to because they don't like it, not because they can't understand it.

I could make a philosophical argument here that they really must not understand it if they aren't enjoying it, but that'd get pretty deep pretty quickly and I don't really feel like going there more than just to note it.

There is that elitism again. Obviously they don't enjoy it because they don't understand it. :roll:

Try reading that again. There was nothing elitist about it. It is a simple philosophical argument: what one understands, one appreciates. What one doesn't understand, one doesn't appreciate. From that, for example, I would willing admit that I don't understand D&D because I don't enjoy it. I don't see what others see to get the same joy from it that they do, so I must not understand something they do understand, or I would get the same joy as they do.

Just to be clear, I in no way said that someone couldn't understand or use the mechanics. In my D&D example, I understand and can use the D&D mechanics just fine and I can run (or play) a game like others do with D&D, but I personally am missing something because I don't derive the same pleasure from doing it as (the hypothetical) they do.

The argument can be extended to anything. I like football, therefore I understand it at some level that someone who doesn't enjoy it understands it. I use this example specifically because it's inherently clear that lots of people "understand" football at this level without understanding much at all about the mechanics of the game and how it actually works. (It's a counter to the above.) OTOH, watching golf for me gets in the way of watching the grass grow, which is far more excitng, so I don't understand golf, whether I grasp the fundamental mechanics of the game or not.

I said I wasn't going to get into this, but then you baited me with that "elitism" jab!

I will grant that I was exaggerating there. My point was simply that some people prefer a more rule-heavy game than others. I was going to say more complex, but I do understand that HQ can be equally complex, just in a different way.

There is an irony here in that I've found myself arguing a few times lately how I don't think RQ is a complex or rules-heavy game at all. I think it's pretty simple, straightforward, and intuitive. In fact, I think it's more intuitive than HQ simply because it supports "common sense" ideas of how the world and game system interact so well. HQ is simpler mechanically, but (and I'm going ot get in trouble from you here) is more difficult to grasp because of it's level of abstraction. Neither is what I think of as complex or rules-heavy.

Here I would disagree. There is no optimal combination of spells, weapons, armor, maneuvers and such in HQ. It doesn't matter what you have, all that matters is that the GM rules that you can use it and what the number next to it is.

Outside of a level of abstraction, how is that really different from RQ (or any other game)? All that matters in RQ are your skills, stats, magic, etc. and the number next to it, and whether the GM let's you use it in a certain situation.

My point here was to describe what an adversarial GM might be and how it is not necessarily a bad thing. Now of course the GM could always "Win" if that was the goal. He has no limit to what he can throw at the players. A GM that just kills the characters every time the game starts is not going to have a game for very long. But a GM that creates a balanced encounter and then does his best to beat you with it makes for a very satisfying challenge.

You lost me here somewhere. Isn't an adversarial GM someone who is out to "win" by killing off the PCs: like the old ultimate dungeon's we'd all make. If you meant something else by this, then it's lost on me.

Again, sure you could do this in HQ as well. But I am willing to bet that it is harder to truly play the part of an adversary, doing his best to take out the characters, in HQ than it is in RQ. Not impossible, just harder. On the flip side there are things that would be easier in HQ. Like trying to find out if the chieftain’s daughter thinks your cute.

You lost me here too. Any game I run, the NPCs are all working as hard for their goals as the PCs, and will use everything in their power to affect the situation. My NPCs aren't cardboard figures that sit around waiting for the PCs to show up and interact with them. If they turn into adversaries, they will do everything within their abilities to defeat the players. This is how I've always run games.* My goal is to present a coherent, logical (within it's own definitions of logic) world for the PCs to interact with. Their adversaries are what they are (I don't scale up/down with them) and have as much initiative, motivation, and drive (depending on personality, etc.) as the PCs, so will certainly work to the best of their abilites to defeat the PCs. Do people run differently than this? The only thing that comes to mind is that I know some people try hard to scale to the power level of the PCs, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. I don't do that btw. The NPCs are what they are. Sometimes the PCs just have to withdraw, regroup, and look for help or other answers. Sometimes the PCs can completely overwelm the other side because they overpower them.

* I made some D&D players really upset way back when I first started playing (Jr. High) by doing this. They'd gone into a typical early D&D dungeon, killed some things, took their loot, and left to level up, regain magic, heal, buy better equipment, etc. When they returned they found that the monsters (orcs, I think) had organized, set up new defenses, spend a good portion of their saved money (ie. treasure the PCs were after) on hiring mercenaries and were pretty tough. The players were really upset with me, initially, because they expected everything to be as they left it. The net result was that it got us out of dungeon delving because it showed how absurd the whole notion was - especially when there was no "treasure" left to find!

 

[iamtim]

* I made some D&D players really upset way back when I first started playing (Jr. High) by doing this.

Hell, I made one of my ex-players all sorts of pissed by using a "real life" NPC.

We were playing D20 Call of Cthulhu and the players were on a corporate audit team for a chemical firm. I'd built up one of the scientists to be a real pill; not to actively oppose the PCs, but to be a hindrance. So when it was time for the PCs to search his laboratory, he wouldn't cooperate because he was in the middle of some research. This ex-player has his character try and manhandle the NPC out, and I decided that would be grounds for a fight.

So we rolled initiative, I won, and the NPC bopped him in the head with a beaker and dropped the PC.

It was great.

 

[atgxtg]

If by that you mean "HeroQuest is similiar to Dungeons and Dragons", then you're just plain wrong.

No I mean the way AP loss realates to wounding is eeriely similar to the way HP relate to wounding. Both are abstract, both are linked to fighting skill.

Your original comment went well beyond that. In any case, APs are not really all that similar to HP's and neither is really linked to fighting skill.

Oh yest they are. AP's are based upon the skill you are using. So a guy with Sword Combat 17 starts the fight with 17 APs, plus whatever augments he can get, and these AP are what are bit and lost during the fight. If anything APS are even more closely tied to fighting ability that HP because as APs are lost so is fighting ability.

Hit Points in D&D are also tied to fighting ability. The number of HP that a character has is based upon class and level. THe more combat capable the class, the greater the HP.

Yes, they are quite similar in play. As combantat's fight, these points are lost. In both cases the points do not necessarily represnet actual wounds but the relative situation of the fight-until someone goes into negatives. Once out of points, characters in both games suffer peanlties.

Functionally, there isn't much difference. Roll a D20 and someone looses points.


As to the games being similar in other ways, well, it is probably one of the greatest ironies of the RPG world that as innovatives as RQ was, it wasn't well suited for GLorantha. D&D, with it's unrealistic, larger than life, player characters is actually a better match.

 

[atgxtg]

Again, sure you could do this in HQ as well. But I am willing to bet that it is harder to truly play the part of an adversary, doing his best to take out the characters, in HQ than it is in RQ. Not impossible, just harder. On the flip side there are things that would be easier in HQ. Like trying to find out if the chieftain’s daughter thinks your cute.

The adversarial DM comment was mine, as were most of the things that Lord Twig took issue with. If this bit is any indication, we are talking abouit two differenrt things.

Bty adversaial DM I did not mean that the GM is running the villans as if they were the PC's adversaries. Depending on the advenuteres and the circumstances, that is usually just part of a DM's job. Or a GM's job in most other RPGs.

By "Adversarial DM" I am reffering to those DMs that actively work to kill off the PCs, and use the villians as a tool towards that end. THey are the ones who run fanatatic oppnents that never retreat, and think nothing of the whole tribe getting sluaghtered as long as they inflict some HP Loss onto a PC. Sure the DM could just wipe out the group by fiat, but the whole thing about the adversarial DM is that whiile he would considered killing the group by decree as unfair, he consideres using opponents as darts to strike down the PCs as well within the rules of the game.

I know gamers who will not discuss plans in front of some DMs because those DMs will change the opponents' battle plans based upon what they hear.

IMO such people shouldn't be running the game. UNfortunately, most of the D&D DM's that I've played with are that way. One of the better D&D DM's I've gamed with had a knack of not using monsters that were "favored enemies" of the PC Rangers. It got to the point where the rangers started picking things that they didn't want to see again.

You lost me here too. Any game I run, the NPCs are all working as hard for their goals as the PCs, and will use everything in their power to affect the situation. My NPCs aren't cardboard figures that sit around waiting for the PCs to show up and interact with them. If they turn into adversaries, they will do everything within their abilities to defeat the players. This is how I've always run games.* My goal is to present a coherent, logical (within it's own definitions of logic) world for the PCs to interact with. Their adversaries are what they are (I don't scale up/down with them) and have as much initiative, motivation, and drive (depending on personality, etc.) as the PCs, so will certainly work to the best of their abilites to defeat the PCs. Do people run differently than this? The only thing that comes to mind is that I know some people try hard to scale to the power level of the PCs, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. I don't do that btw. The NPCs are what they are. Sometimes the PCs just have to withdraw, regroup, and look for help or other answers. Sometimes the PCs can completely overwelm the other side because they overpower them.

* I made some D&D players really upset way back when I first started playing (Jr. High) by doing this. They'd gone into a typical early D&D dungeon, killed some things, took their loot, and left to level up, regain magic, heal, buy better equipment, etc. When they returned they found that the monsters (orcs, I think) had organized, set up new defenses, spend a good portion of their saved money (ie. treasure the PCs were after) on hiring mercenaries and were pretty tough. The players were really upset with me, initially, because they expected everything to be as they left it. The net result was that it got us out of dungeon delving because it showed how absurd the whole notion was - especially when there was no "treasure" left to find!

I remember making one player extremly upset. He wanted tog et across a farly large gap. He wanted to jump it, when the GM (moi) tolk him that it was just too far to jump (something like 40 feet). I was just trying to help the player by letting him know when something was clearly beyong his abilites.

THe player got angry asked me who I was to tell him what his character could or could not do. Despite the warnings from the rest of the group, he jumped. And fell to his death. THey player got even more upset, and claimed that I had killed his character. I pulled out the rule book, let him calculate his actuall jumping distance, and how he was still 20-25 feet short of his goal.

He left the table in a huff.

 

[mthomason]

By "Adversarial DM" I am reffering to those DMs that actively work to kill off the PCs, and use the villians as a tool towards that end. THey are the ones who run fanatatic oppnents that never retreat, and think nothing of the whole tribe getting sluaghtered as long as they inflict some HP Loss onto a PC. Sure the DM could just wipe out the group by fiat, but the whole thing about the adversarial DM is that whiile he would considered killing the group by decree as unfair, he consideres using opponents as darts to strike down the PCs as well within the rules of the game.

You know, I've never understood people who took this approach (well, unless you're playing Paranoia).

I take a role as GM as being the director in a movie. I've got a story to tell, and a bunch of actors with which to tell it. Some fool forgot to get the scripts printed, so we're just having to make it up as we go but the important thing is that it creates a story that is fun for the participants (because, you see, the same fool also forgot to pay the actors so you have to keep them happy somehow).

The rules and dice are just there to ensure some kind of realism (obviously the reality may not be earth-standard reality but that doesn't really matter, as long as the laws of physics work in some mostly-determinable manner), and on occasion can (nay, should) be ignored if they're going to screw everyone's hard work up.

When a character opens a door to fifty orcs when they had no idea they were there, they should at least be given the chance to slam it and run and not get dragged inside and forced to fight a round of combat first.

When a character is heroically rushing in to save the princess, and the only way to get there is climb the tower, it's not really fair to make the climb a -80% penalty to their skill (unless they're purposely ignoring the ladder you told them was there).

When a character leaps into the bottomless pit of the Xarquigg just to prove they can get away with anything with this soft GM, it's their own stupid fault and they deserve to die a horrible death as the Xarquigg catches them in mid-air, toys with them for a few minutes, and then peels their skin off in strips.

Oh and no, I'm not telling you what the Xarquigg is standing on.

 

[atgxtg]

By "Adversarial DM" I am reffering to those DMs that actively work to kill off the PCs, and use the villians as a tool towards that end. THey are the ones who run fanatatic oppnents that never retreat, and think nothing of the whole tribe getting sluaghtered as long as they inflict some HP Loss onto a PC. Sure the DM could just wipe out the group by fiat, but the whole thing about the adversarial DM is that whiile he would considered killing the group by decree as unfair, he consideres using opponents as darts to strike down the PCs as well within the rules of the game.

You know, I've never understood people who took this approach (well, unless you're playing Paranoia).

I think it stems from the hobby's wargaming roots. Somehow they feel that they should be trying to "win" the game. I've know a few DMs like that. I know one guy who loves working up NPCS, partly because he can give them abilties and items that he would rarely get as a player. He gets so into his NPCS that he cheats to save them. He will try to rationalize it in game terms ("Hey, he had a teleport ring."), but the fact remains that the DM gave the NPC just what he needed to escape the PCs. Once iun a while is alright. When it becomes a unjustifed pattern, it is a problem.

I take a role as GM as being the director in a movie. I've got a story to tell, and a bunch of actors with which to tell it. Some fool forgot to get the scripts printed, so we're just having to make it up as we go but the important thing is that it creates a story that is fun for the participants (because, you see, the same fool also forgot to pay the actors so you have to keep them happy somehow).

Plus the actors are also the audience. I take a fairly similar approach, except I usualy don't have a story to tell per say, but a series of possible events that might become a story. Like an improv group, the actors on the stage have a good deal of control over the direction of the story. THere have been some nights when I've hand to put down my prepared adventure and gone off on a tangent.

The rules and dice are just there to ensure some kind of realism (obviously the reality may not be earth-standard reality but that doesn't really matter, as long as the laws of physics work in some mostly-determinable manner), and on occasion can (nay, should) be ignored if they're going to screw everyone's hard work up.

Actually I thing the rules and dice are there to ensure some sort of fairness and impartiality. So we don't get the "I shot you!" "No, I shot you first!"

When a character opens a door to fifty orcs when they had no idea they were there, they should at least be given the chance to slam it and run and not get dragged inside and forced to fight a round of combat first.

I'd say it depends. Somethimes a PC runs into stuff that is a complete surprise. Othertimes he just doesn't bother to see the sighs (like, "Barracks for 50 Orcs"). I've had plenty of groups get into truble because they didn't bother to figure out what they were up against.

When a character is heroically rushing in to save the princess, and the only way to get there is climb the tower, it's not really fair to make the climb a -80% penalty to their skill (unless they're purposely ignoring the ladder you told them was there).

Well, it depends on why that is the only way to save the Princess. Usually it is the guy who sets up the encounter (the GM or writer of the adventure) who sets the limits. If the players can't take the staris, then the GM should have Repunzel let down her hair. At least, if that is supposed to be the goal that the players must accomplish.

When a character leaps into the bottomless pit of the Xarquigg just to prove they can get away with anything with this soft GM, it's their own stupid fault and they deserve to die a horrible death as the Xarquigg catches them in mid-air, toys with them for a few minutes, and then peels their skin off in strips.

Oh and no, I'm not telling you what the Xarquigg is standing on.

Yeah, pretty much. THere is nothing wrong with it if the player gets lucky and succeeds. Its fun to get away with something once and a while. If someone tries to take on the entire garrison and pulls it off, good for him. But it usually doesn't work that way. I recall a Morrow Projject advenutre I had written for a conventin years ago. Practically every character in the torunament groups died because every group did a frontal assualt on a .50MG nest. Most did it by charging across a football field. Not a good idea. Most seemed to have expected the bullet to knock off some hit points but not seriously injure them.

 

[AKAramis]

By "Adversarial DM" I am reffering to those DMs that actively work to kill off the PCs, and use the villians as a tool towards that end. THey are the ones who run fanatatic oppnents that never retreat, and think nothing of the whole tribe getting sluaghtered as long as they inflict some HP Loss onto a PC. Sure the DM could just wipe out the group by fiat, but the whole thing about the adversarial DM is that whiile he would considered killing the group by decree as unfair, he consideres using opponents as darts to strike down the PCs as well within the rules of the game.

You know, I've never understood people who took this approach (well, unless you're playing Paranoia).

It's quite reasonable, IF one considers RPG's to be a variant of Minis Gaming. Such GM's usually do use balanced encounters, then try to win each encounter as an exercise in gaming.

 

[Mark Mohrfield]

In any case, APs are not really all that similar to HP's and neither is really linked to fighting skill.

Oh yest they are. AP's are based upon the skill you are using. So a guy with Sword Combat 17 starts the fight with 17 APs, plus whatever augments he can get, and these AP are what are bit and lost during the fight. If anything APS are even more closely tied to fighting ability that HP because as APs are lost so is fighting ability.

Oh, no they're not. APs are based ANY skill that is used to start the contest. They MIGHT be linked to a fighting ability, but they could also be linked to something else. If the contest begins with the characters insulting each other and esculates into a fistfight, the APs are still based on whatever abilities the characters used to start the contest. Furthermore, the contest doesn't have to become violent at all. APs could represent the characters' reputatation, for ex.

Hit Points in D&D are also tied to fighting ability. The number of HP that a character has is based upon class and level. THe more combat capable the class, the greater the HP.

Again, not necessarily. A door in D&D has hit points, but no fighting ability. Perhaps I should have written "Neither AP's nor HP's are NECESSARILY tied to fighting ability.

Yes, they are quite similar in play. As combantat's fight, these points are lost. In both cases the points do not necessarily represnet actual wounds but the relative situation of the fight-until someone goes into negatives. Once out of points, characters in both games suffer peanlties.

Functionally, there isn't much difference. Roll a D20 and someone looses points.

There's an enormous amount of difference between them. HP's only decrease in combat. AP's can decrease or increase in combat or in any other extended contest.

As to the games being similar in other ways, well, it is probably one of the greatest ironies of the RPG world that as innovatives as RQ was, it wasn't well suited for GLorantha. D&D, with it's unrealistic, larger than life, player characters is actually a better match.

D&D actually makes certain things that we know exist in Glorantha impossible. Forex, we know that various Pelorian cultures produce phalanxes, but in D&D these are unworkable do to spells like "fireball".

 

[mthomason]

Plus the actors are also the audience. I take a fairly similar approach, except I usualy don't have a story to tell per say, but a series of possible events that might become a story. Like an improv group, the actors on the stage have a good deal of control over the direction of the story. THere have been some nights when I've hand to put down my prepared adventure and gone off on a tangent.

Oh yeah, I should have said "a story to tell but no idea what the middle and ending is yet, due to the aforementioned absence of scripts"

I see my job to work with the players rather than against them, the only difference is I'm the player with an adjudicator hat on and a pile of extra characters.