Runequest vs heroquest

[atgxtg]

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.

Ah, but that all depnds on what the GM considers to be the conests. If it started out as insults and switched to a fight, iut might be consdered two different contests. It could just as easly be considered a combat with a possible arugment for the insulting abilities of the characters.

Now AP and contests in HQ can be used for various puposes where in D&D HP are used fdor combat and to track other njuries (like traps). Not that D&D couldn't use that approach. Use ranks like HP and give each skill a "damage die" and it works. It is just that no one thought od doing things that way back then.

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, but the door can be taken down with fighting ability. A few damage rolls from an axe. THe real difference between HQ AP and D&D HPs in this case is more due to HQ's rule of oppostion. In HQ the door gets a roll to oppse the characters. In D&D it's resistance is more passive.

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.

No, HPs can decrease in no combat ways. Combat is just the most common method. In addtion HP's can be increased as well as decreased. Lots of healing to do that. Both systems are using a point tally and reducing that point tally results in a loss. Where HQ differs is that the system is univerally applied to everything, where as D&D uses it to track injuries and combat. Similar concept, just a broader application.

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.

quote="Mark Mohrfield"]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".[/quote]

But you are assuming that there are Wizards witht hat spell walking around. THat doesn't make GLorantha unworkable in D&D. In fact the earilest write ups of Gloranthan character were done in D&D terms. Several D&D sourcebooks have changed the magic to fit the setting. Plus wizardery isn't as common in those areas with Phalanxes.

If you look back to the old RQ2 days, there were a lot of complaints about how players couldn't get the powerful sepll effects that exsisted in "Red Moon & White Bear".


Write up a highly skilled wizard in HQ and take the multiple targets penalty, aim at the rank & file grunts and you can "fireball" them out of a fight.
It would not be too tough to do a GLorantha book for D&D.

 

[Rurik]

It would not be too tough to do a GLorantha book for D&D.

I will personally burn you if you do.

 

[Lord Twig]

RMS and atgxtg,

A lot to respond to. I won't bother with quoting as it now seems that a large part of my disagreements are based on us using different definitions. Particularly for "understand" and "adversarial".

For the understanding part of the argument, I now know what you mean RMS, and that makes sense. Without the definition it certainly seemed elitist to me, but with the definition, it makes sense.

Same thing for adversarial, with the proper definition of how you were using it I am basically in agreement.

There are a few things that I still disagree with, but I understand your arguments and they make sense. At this point I am just disagreeing on purely subjective points, which aren't worth mentioning.

 

[RMS]

It would not be too tough to do a GLorantha book for D&D.

I will personally burn you if you do.

I didn't think you were allowed to use fire? In any event, I'll bring the fuel along for it.

What drew me into Glorantha was RQ, so naturally I'm biased, but I think RQ fits Glorantha perfectly. I never thought that the heroic legends were a problem because just like earth, there are legends tied to those individuals. However, actual power on the battlefield, etc. I've always assumed was pretty much in order with the powerful Rune-types floating around the RQ supplents, like Wolfhelm in Pavis, or Blueface in the Elder Wilds. The difference is just in the number of people they lead and everything they personally does is amplified in the retelling.

Also, I'm one of the people that thinks that RQ handles the high end of the scale very elegantly. With all of the magic floating around in Glorantha, a powerful runelord is pretty much impervious to a normal rank-n-file warrior and can almost wade through them, as in legend. Of course, that's only with lots of magic up, but when it's down, that same runelord is very suseptable to a handful of rank-n-filers with decent skill and armor.

I think D&D is a horrible match for Glorantha, or any other world that has any bit of "realism" about it. If you want to scale up, something like the heropoints and extra HP of MRQ is a better way to go than going to the level and class craziness of D&D.

The only two things I found missing from old RQ for Glorantha were any rules for doing heroquests and tied to that are rules for group magic. I wrote my own rules for heroquests that worked very well for what I wanted, but I always had to wing the group support for heroquests and the group directed magic. (D&D doesn't really do that either, that I'm aware of.) I never found anything mechanical to support the latter, but did wing it in play. HQ actually supports both in the rules as written (to tie back to the thread).

 

[atgxtg]

It would not be too tough to do a GLorantha book for D&D.

I will personally burn you if you do.

Well I did do a Gloranthan crossover for a D&D campaign. The fireblade and Speedart matrices proved quite popular, once they Pcs had them instead of the NPCs. Funny how nothing changes the players minds about a game faster than magical goodies.

I think I saw some of my notes for that campaign the other day. It would covert much easier to MRQ since magic is cast/resistend with Persistiences rolls rather than POW vs POW. Now it would just require that characters get some ranks in runecasting, and targets roll will saves.


However, juding from some of the art I've seen for the Imperial Age Glorantha stuff, I think someone else might have already it done it. Ot is that just the meanest look disrupt spell?

 

[Rurik]

Heresy.

I'm gathering sticks and looking for a good stake.

 

[RMS]

A lot to respond to. I won't bother with quoting as it now seems that a large part of my disagreements are based on us using different definitions. Particularly for "understand" and "adversarial".

FYI, I do understand what you are saying about "understanding" HQ because I read people making that claim. I was just pointing out that I wasn't making that particular claim. (Aside: I read a lot of people who apparenlty didn't "get" HQ at first and later did, and they refer to it like this. Maybe that's where the idea comes from...)

For the understanding part of the argument, I now know what you mean RMS, and that makes sense. Without the definition it certainly seemed elitist to me, but with the definition, it makes sense.

I shouldn't have bothered sticking the little side bit in there about the "philosophical argument". It apparently got lost in translation, and was really meant tongue-n-cheek.

There are a few things that I still disagree with, but I understand your arguments and they make sense. At this point I am just disagreeing on purely subjective points, which aren't worth mentioning.

No problem, and like I've said before, I like RQ. I like it a lot and probably would still prefer to play it over HQ. However, I'll happily run or play either with the right group. (Along with a whole slew of other fun games.)

 

[atgxtg]

Heresy.

I'm gathering sticks and looking for a good stake.

Mmmm, a good steak.

In my defense I was trying to "wean" a couple of D&Ders into something different. My intentions were good and I was adding RQ stuff to D&D, not adding D&D stuff to RQ.

Some of the crossover stuff was a blast. The rubble runners proved to be a bit more than giant rats. The Lunar patrol was a real eye-opener. An army of fighter-wizards who used strange but nasty tactics, like all of them throwing a magic missile at the same target (mass disrupt). THe hardcore D&D players were stumped. THe ones familar with RQ were smiling.

 

[Mark Mohrfield]

Uh, these quotie things are getting difficult to use across multiple postings.

Ah, but that all depnds on what the GM considers to be the conests. If it started out as insults and switched to a fight, iut might be consdered two different contests. It could just as easly be considered a combat with a possible arugment for the insulting abilities of the characters.

That's not the usual way of doing things, though. And in d&D it's not even an option.

Now AP and contests in HQ can be used for various puposes where in D&D HP are used fdor combat and to track other njuries (like traps). Not that D&D couldn't use that approach. Use ranks like HP and give each skill a "damage die" and it works. It is just that no one thought od doing things that way back then.

But that hasn't been done across several editions of the game. I mean, if your argument is "If you change several things in D&D to make it more like HQ, then it will be like HQ," I have to say that that is kind of obvious. The point is that as the rules as they are right now, it isn't nor is it intended to be.

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, but the door can be taken down with fighting ability. A few damage rolls from an axe.

But that is my point; the door has hit points but does not have any fighting ability.

THe real difference between HQ AP and D&D HPs in this case is more due to HQ's rule of oppostion. In HQ the door gets a roll to oppse the characters. In D&D it's resistance is more passive.

but surely this is another difference.

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.

No, HPs can decrease in no combat ways. Combat is just the most common method.

What other ways?they all seem to be related to a characters health. Look, this is how the PH describes HP's; "Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and the the ability to to turn a serious blow into into a less serious one."(PH 3.0 pg 128) Contrast that to HQ's description of Advantage Points: " APs measure a fighters position," "APs also measure a characters emotional state." and finally "APs eventually determine if the hero is wounded, but are NOT hit points." (HQ page 67, emphasis added)

In addtion HP's can be increased as well as decreased. Lots of healing to do that.

But only healing. In HQ the AP's can increase due to the contest itself.

Both systems are using a point tally and reducing that point tally results in a loss.Where HQ differs is that the system is univerally applied to everything, where as D&D uses it to track injuries and combat. Similar concept, just a broader application.

Again, a difference.

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.

quote="Mark Mohrfield"]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".

But you are assuming that there are Wizards witht hat spell walking around.[/quote]

Surely a pretty reasonable assumption. Area affecting high damage spells are a hallmark of the D&D mage.

THat doesn't make GLorantha unworkable in D&D. In fact the earilest write ups of Gloranthan character were done in D&D terms.

It is my understqanding that the writeups were done by a non-gloranthophile. furthermore, they were done pre-RQ, which means that there were only D&D type games(Arduin in this case, I believe) around for there to base the writeups on.

Plus wizardery isn't as common in those areas with Phalanxes.

Even if we were assuming D&D arcane magic=Glorantha wizardry there are the Carmanians, many schools of Lunar magicians and some others as well.

If you look back to the old RQ2 days, there were a lot of complaints about how players couldn't get the powerful sepll effects that exsisted in "Red Moon & White Bear".

The few units that can do this are meant to be of nearly demi-god strength.

Write up a highly skilled wizard in HQ and take the multiple targets penalty, aim at the rank & file grunts and you can "fireball" them out of a fight.

You'd have to be pretty durned powerful to do that though, not just the equivalent of a fifth-level mage.

It would not be too tough to do a GLorantha book for D&D.

Doable, maybe, but difficult.

 

[Rurik]

In my defense I was trying to "wean" a couple of D&Ders into something different. My intentions were good and I was adding RQ stuff to D&D, not adding D&D stuff to RQ.

Some of the crossover stuff was a blast. The rubble runners proved to be a bit more than giant rats. The Lunar patrol was a real eye-opener. An army of fighter-wizards who used strange but nasty tactics, like all of them throwing a magic missile at the same target (mass disrupt). THe hardcore D&D players were stumped. THe ones familar with RQ were smiling.

It's kinda like those old Reeses Peanut Butter Cups commercials. "Hey you got your got your chocolate in my peanut butter!"

Only I actually like chocolate amd peanut butther mixed together, so maybe it is not such a good analogy after all. :?

 

[atgxtg]

Yeah the quote this is getting tough, so I'll try to limit it.

First off, my orginal comparsion of AP to HPs holds. I was doing a comparison of combat in the orginal post and how HQ combat differens in feel from RQ combat. Rolling a d20 and losing points is something that HQ and D&D share.

Yeah, HQ uses the AP system for other thing (for everything), but that doen't eliminate the similaritesi in combat.

THe situation of insults turning into a fight and what to use for starting APs actually depends of if the insults were be used in general play, used as a contest, or used as a extended constest. It is only when the insults are used as an extended costest that your argument holds. In the other two sitations it would be weapon skills used for APs. I've never seen anyone run an extended insult contest before.


As for the early D&D write ups of Glorantha characters, one of those "non-Gloranthphiles" was Steve Perrin. I think I still have a few of the early, pre RQ writeups.

Running Glorantha with the D&D rules would be pretty easy. JUst make a few adaptations to reflect the setting, like in most good campaign books and you are set. It isn't nearly as difficult as you might think.

D&D's heroic approach and increasing HP system mimics the epic Glorantha protrayed in HQ far better than "girtty and dirity" RQ ever did.

Keep in mind the orginal drafts of what evloved into RQ was a lot more D&D like with levesl of experience and charcter classes. So, yeah, it can be done.

 

[Rurik]

As for the early D&D write ups of Glorantha characters, one of those "non-Gloranthphiles" was Steve Perrin. I think I still have a few of the early, pre RQ writeups.

Check. 1 burning stake for atgxtg, 1 burning stake for Steve Perrin.

I mean, what has Steve done for us lately? It's not like any of his rules made it into MRQ. Hell, atgxtg has probably contributed more to MRQ than Steve by this point anyway.

 

[atgxtg]

As for the early D&D write ups of Glorantha characters, one of those "non-Gloranthphiles" was Steve Perrin. I think I still have a few of the early, pre RQ writeups.

Check. 1 burning stake for atgxtg, 1 burning stake for Steve Perrin.

THat would be unfair to Steve. It was partically becuase of those D&D writeups that Steve got the chance to work on RQ. Basically Greg Stafford liked what Steve was doing better than what the first set of Glorthanan RPG (Ardiun) rules had turned out.

I mean, what has Steve done for us lately? It's not like any of his rules made it into MRQ. Hell, atgxtg has probably contributed more to MRQ than Steve by this point anyway.

None of my rules made into MRQ either. Steve at least had some fluff text make it in. I did get one of my questions reprinted in the Player PDF.

Actually Steve has dome other work. SPQR and stuff on Questwords and FANGS. He has done stuff, just hans't done much with RQ. Not surprising since he isn't getting paid to write RQ stuff. FANGS actually looked pretty good and is worth visiting the site.

 

[burdock]

quetzalcoatl wrote

It is only when the insults are used as an extended costest that your argument holds. In the other two sitations it would be weapon skills used for APs. I've never seen anyone run an extended insult contest before.

Or in the middle of an extended contest (using weapon skills) you could suddenly freak your oponent out by switching to argument and try to nab some action points that way. Action points are about your overall relative advantage and any viable actions are a possibility (not just combat actions).

 

[atgxtg]

quetzalcoatl wrote

Just for that, I'm not gonna tell you about the error I left in the Mayan calendar. Wait 'til 2012. :wink:

It is only when the insults are used as an extended costest that your argument holds. In the other two sitations it would be weapon skills used for APs. I've never seen anyone run an extended insult contest before.

Or in the middle of an extended contest (using weapon skills) you could suddenly freak your oponent out by switching to argument and try to nab some action points that way. Action points are about your overall relative advantage and any viable actions are a possibility (not just combat actions).[/quote]

Thqat is one of the strange things about HQ. It doesn't really matter what you are rolling or using for augments, as long as it gets the green light from the GM you can use anything on your sheet.

Theroetically uo can defend against a berserk Uroxi weielding a greataxe with Cute & Cuddly 16, Bad Puns W3, or Everyone loves Chaos 2W6. As far as game mechanics are concerned.

It is up to the GM to disalow something or prodive a situational modifer (Okay Cute & Cuddly might work, Bad Puns gets a -20 situational mod, and Uroxi aren't everybody, so Everybody Loves Chaos is out. ) .

If I were running, I could see allowing someone to augment his fighting ability with insults like in a old swasbucking movie.

On the other hand, if someone lowered thier sword and switched to insults, they get run through. Someone who is swinging a weapon at you probably isn't going to stop just to get into an argument.


"LUNAR LACKY! >Urghh!<"
:>thump<:

"Stupid dead barbarian, bringing your wit to a sword fight. If you get DI remember to use something sharp next time.

 

[burdock]

quetzalcoatl wrote

If I were running, I could see allowing someone to augment his fighting ability with insults

Ah...I didn't mean using argument skills to augment but as an an attack in itself

 

[Mark Mohrfield]

Or in the middle of an extended contest (using weapon skills) you could suddenly freak your oponent out by switching to argument and try to nab some action points that way.

"Now look here. I'm a fricassing rabbit, not a stewing rabbit! "

 

[atgxtg]

Or in the middle of an extended contest (using weapon skills) you could suddenly freak your oponent out by switching to argument and try to nab some action points that way.

"Now look here. I'm a fricassing rabbit, not a stewing rabbit! "

Duck Season.

 

[atgxtg]

quetzalcoatl wrote

If I were running, I could see allowing someone to augment his fighting ability with insults

Ah...I didn't mean using argument skills to augment but as an an attack in itself

I know what you mean't. BUt like I posted earilier, I just don't see it as a reasonable action. The rules might let you use anything, but I don't see it as something I'd allow as a GM. Stop and insult someone who is holding a sword and he just cut you down. Not drop his wepon, start bawling and head home to mommy.

 

[Mark Mohrfield]

First off, my orginal comparsion of AP to HPs holds. I was doing a comparison of combat in the orginal post and how HQ combat differens in feel from RQ combat. Rolling a d20 and losing points is something that HQ and D&D share.

But gaining points is something they do not share. Really "You role a twenty sider in both games" is a rather superficial similarity.

On the characters: The only D&D-style (Actually Arduin) ones I've seen were in the back of Wyrms Footprints, reprinted from Wyrms Footnotes. These are credited to one Dave Hargrave.

On Perrin being a Gloranthaphile: Apparantly he isn't. IIRC he's specifically said he isn't, and the on the one occasion I met him face to face at a RQ con he asked the GM what the Kingdom of War was, which would seem to confirm that. As for the original drafts being more D&D like, it is my understanding that this is exactly what he changed when he came aboard the project.

On running a Glorantha campaign using D&D rules: Difficult but possible. It would definitely require a whole new magic system.

While there's plenty of epic level stuff in HQ, there's also alot of mundane level activity such as cattle raids, match-making, etc.