Welcome to our Runequest game...

[Cleombrotus]

Hey all - we have been playing a RQIII campaign for about five years now and are just on the rules testing phase of a conversion to Mongoose Runequest. Really enthusiastic about the system, although lets be honest, the books are geared to ensure that you have to buy them all, especially if your game's in Glorantha. Not that as a RQ fan I am going to begrudge the outlay, but I don't see RQM competing with D&D as it once did. Ah well, we'll see.

Anyway, you can find our campaign website at http://runequest.journalspace.com

Feel free to add comments on the links provided, and we'll see if our conversion to RQM will be as successful as we think it will be. Still, the Players Guide would help...

 

[Trifletraxor]

Nice page. Give us some info on your houserules too as you convert over!

SGL.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Certainly will. We've been talking about house rules for weeks now, but can't really agree about stuff as yet. Both of us GM's are adamant that Rune Integration is not a requirement to be able to cast Rune Magic, however. We love the idea of Rune Integration, but the idea that every user of RQIII Spirit Magic now has to be Runetouched doesn't fit with our idea of Glorantha. I understand that Secind Age magic is supposed to be different, and our campaign is Third Age, and further understand that Folk Magic will redress the incongruity a little, when released, but everyone using battle magic is one of the hallmarks of RQ, in my opinion, and needing to be Runetouched in order to do so doesn't do it for me...

 

[weasel_fierce]

yeah, MRQ magic meshes better with heroquest than old runequest, I;ve found.

 

[Quire]

yeah, MRQ magic meshes better with heroquest than old runequest, I;ve found.

Really? In what way have you found MRQ magic meshes with Heroquest, w_f?

- Q

 

[Cleombrotus]

I feel I must confess that although I bought the deluxe hero wars boxed set when it first came out, I have never finished reading the rules. I love the support material and the information. I love the artwork and I love the concept. But I'm still, at heart, the guy who goes through the RQ2 rulebook reading the examples, and I'm still the guy who wants to wear different armour on each hit location and know that my choice makes a difference...No other RPG has ever made me feel more in tune with either a character or a world than RQ, and I've been playing them for a horrendous twenty six years now.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Part 1 of our House rules - the RQ3 character conversion - is now on our website for anyone interested. Nothing particularly earth shattering, but thanks to the people here who came up with some of the stuff that we used.http://runequest.journalspace.com/
Also, check out our resident artist's character sketch for his Sofali Hsunchen. It's bloody good in my opinion, and I'm going to have to bribe him to do some more for us. I've heard he's partial to sweets and puppies...http://runequest.journalspace.com/?author=Gramper

 

[Cleombrotus]

Just finished writing up my first session of RQM for the website. Very interesting. Obviously things will get quicker as we procede, but it was a record keeping nightmare, tracking sheets notwithstanding. I thought RQ3 was complicated. It's a breeze compared with this. Still, positive feedback from at least one of my players. I'll get the rest tonight. Mixed, I suspect. Quick question. I felt that my Yara Aranis Priest was a bit shortchanged on the old divine magic front (at least compared to RQ3). Is it possible (have not checked myself as I have no time right now) to force a bound spirit to learn/store divine magic against its POW and then cast it for you? What other ways are there for priests to store multiple castings without resorting to truestone or matrices? Any other external sources of Dedicated POW that anyone knows of or has theorised (for Third Age Glorantha)?

 

[Cleombrotus]

Having invested in all of the core rulebooks and three of the Gloranthan sourcebooks, and attempted to embrace them wholeheartedly, not to mention persuading two of my friends who probably wouldn’t have purchased them otherwise, (I mention this to stress the fact that I did give the game a more than fair chance) I have decided to ditch MRQ as a rules system. I’m going back to RQ3, but using the rules from MRQ that I like.
The main reason for this is playability of combat. When running MRQ combat, I find that rather than engaging with my players, I’m head-down to my tracking sheet trying to keep track over who’s doing what. I used to be able to talk with them and describe dramatically what was going on, and the description would culminate in a few dice rolls that created a cool gaming atmosphere with lots of drama. Of course all that still goes on, but with so many mechanics and choices for both players and GMs that most of my group are uninvolved for most of the time. I found that in order to run a one character to one foe combat in MRQ with my six players means that to produce just five seconds of game time means keeping track of, conservatively, thirty actions, and forty-two reactions. I don’t know what kind of game others like to run, but as far as my humble abilities are concerned, this is just about my own personal definition of unplayable. I can, and have been, running it, but it’s just not fun - it's all mechanics. So there we go. Just an opinion based on gameplay.
Having said that, I do think that when I run Lankhmar, or any game with two or three players, I’ll probably use MRQ uncut, just not for larger groups, and not in Glorantha. The added choices make it a very literary system, and very good, methinks, for a couple of player characters, or particularly a one character/one GM game. Also, I’m taking plenty of rules back to RQ3 with me. MRQ Opposed rolls for spirit combat and the like; Hero Points and Legendary abilities; Fatigue; Dragon magic; a version of Resilience, Brute Force and Persistence (but not for spell resistance); Several skills, both advanced and basic; Arms & Equipment; Mass Combat; there are probably others that I can’t think of right now.
It’s a big decision, not least because of the money I spent. If I’m brutally honest, I can think of more than £150 quid’s worth of roleplaying stuff I would have sooner bought than MRQ, but it looked so good when I read it. It was only in playing that the reality began to dawn. However, I have something that I’ll be using from all the books I’ve bought, so it’s not been a total waste. I think that with the new rules I'll be able to give high level RQ characters 'somewhere to go' which is really all that was ever missing from the RQ3 rules anyway...
Feel free to hit me with a torrent of abuse...

 

[juhanfg]

To be honest I've reach a similar conclusion.

I find that the whole combat system doesn't make sense to me so I will be going back to RQ3, except for the fatigue.

I think I like the magic system of MRQ so I will probably keep it, with several exceptions such as the need for runes for cult magic, and the fact that I will allow mixing spiritual and divine magic (I see that most of the theist people might follow a big cult and then get some help form their ancestor spirits and this is not possible under the current rules).

I might keep the legendary abilities, but there are not going to be hero points. What are hero points anyway? I've never understood what they where about. It seemed an unnecessary addition to me.

Other things I'll mix and match, things like experience: I don't have power players so for me the checking of the boxes worked. I say when you get a check and that's all. So the whole number of dice per adventure to spend in whatever you want makes less sense to me than getting a roll for abilities you have used.

I like the idea written somewhere in the forum of using the biggest difference, instead of the highest roll under your %, to determine who wins an opposed roll so I'll use that. It scales for >100% without having to change or add anything and it is one operation, exactly the same one that you have to do anyway.

So to sum up, I'll be using something that might be RQ3.5 and I can live with.

PS: I just remembered that I'll definitely will not be using MRQ movement as a horse takes 42 seconds to RUN 100m (see pg84 of MRQ manual) as I said I a different thread.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

I do not feel like I have to buy all the books, just the ones I need. I will not get Justralia or the Clanking City as I do not have need for them

Source books can be a lot of fluff, especially city books. I have all the descriptions I need from the Main Glorantha book, if we ever go to Justrelia

On behalf of Mongoose, my hat goes off to them for making so many supplements for a rather "Retired" game (as far as materials go).

Besides, my whole campaign will be in Ralios and Dorostar.

 

[andakitty]

I, too, find the game a bit problematic to run as is. My go-to is Stormbringer, but there is a fair amount of material in the MRQ books that I find useful. I wish the prices of the books were not so high, as they are not really worth it in most cases. Hopefully the EC books will be of more value to me.

The opposed roll rules, combat matrices, and 'action/reaction' arrangement are what put me off running it as written. I became bogged down keeping track of the action order too. Sad, because more than one BRP game handles the attack/defend sequence better and more smoothly, IMO. At least it's nice to know I am not alone in this.

I want to note that the fact that my main problem with the game is the way it bogs me down with unnecessary detail during play is basically my main problem with D20...and in this way and several others it seems that the design seems to be done in a fashion to try to attract D20 fans. This is a mistake. As is the marketing model.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I thought long and hard about using RQ3 and Stormbringer combat in MRQ.

We usually play with 2-3 players, so MRQ combat works great for us. I can understand why people would want something simpler.

A simple speed up is to do fixed initiative (average of dex and int), or only roll init once (as in D&D and later Warhammer).
Everyone gets 1 or 2 actions period.
Alternatively, 1 action, and then you can dodge once and parry once (I like that, again, as per Warhammer)

 

[gamesmeister]

The main reason for this is playability of combat. When running MRQ combat, I find that rather than engaging with my players, I’m head-down to my tracking sheet trying to keep track over who’s doing what. I used to be able to talk with them and describe dramatically what was going on, and the description would culminate in a few dice rolls that created a cool gaming atmosphere with lots of drama. Of course all that still goes on, but with so many mechanics and choices for both players and GMs that most of my group are uninvolved for most of the time. I found that in order to run a one character to one foe combat in MRQ with my six players means that to produce just five seconds of game time means keeping track of, conservatively, thirty actions, and forty-two reactions. I don’t know what kind of game others like to run, but as far as my humble abilities are concerned, this is just about my own personal definition of unplayable. I can, and have been, running it, but it’s just not fun - it's all mechanics. So there we go. Just an opinion based on gameplay.

Out of interest, why are you keeping track of it all? I agree that if you give that responsibility to one person, it's far too much, so let your players take responsibility for their own actions.

The only thing you need to keep track of is initiative order, and which phase of the round you're on i.e. first CA of the round, second etc. Then you can just cycle through each character each phase

e.g

"Right, that's the end of the 2nd phase, on to phase 3. Steve, you're first"
"No actions left"
"Keith"
"No actions"
"Alex"
"Yep, I've got one, I'm going to splat the duck..."

You need to track of your NPCs, but in a battle it's best to put them all on the same initiative to keep things simple.

Reactions are the same - let your players keep track of how many they have left. Dice, poker chips, pencil and paper, it's up to them how they do it but it should not be left to you. All you need to do is keep track of the number you have left for your NPCs.

 

[Rasta]

The main reason for this is playability of combat. When running MRQ combat, I find that rather than engaging with my players, I’m head-down to my tracking sheet trying to keep track over who’s doing what. I used to be able to talk with them and describe dramatically what was going on, and the description would culminate in a few dice rolls that created a cool gaming atmosphere with lots of drama. Of course all that still goes on, but with so many mechanics and choices for both players and GMs that most of my group are uninvolved for most of the time. I found that in order to run a one character to one foe combat in MRQ with my six players means that to produce just five seconds of game time means keeping track of, conservatively, thirty actions, and forty-two reactions. I don’t know what kind of game others like to run, but as far as my humble abilities are concerned, this is just about my own personal definition of unplayable. I can, and have been, running it, but it’s just not fun - it's all mechanics. So there we go. Just an opinion based on gameplay.

I too found those same problems when I first converted from RQ3. A lot of the new rules seemed counter intuitve to the way I was used to doing things. And as a rusult, bogged down gameplay.

What? Rolled inititive? So, you mean the elf isn't going to attack on SR 3 and 6 every round with his bow? What? SIZ and weapon lenght don't have any bearing on combat anymore? So that duck with high DEX and INT and a dagger is going to hit first BEFORE my large human with a lance? ect. . .

I found though, once you (and players) get used to the combat mechanics, slap on a few house rules, gameplay actually goes just as smoothly as in RQ3, and is less predictable. It's just a matter of getting confortable with them.

 

[Cleombrotus]

The issue is not one of realism, which is essentially fine. It's not about complicated rules, which, on paper, are simple and quite elegant. It's about the way the system actually plays. All my players can wrap their heads around the idea of actions/reactions, etc. The problem is that as far as the actual experience of sitting down and playing out a combat goes, it's boring. The moment when the game should be at its most tense and dramatic has actually become bit of a chore.

I stress again that this is not something I see happening in a game with a few players, where the added choice of action will add depth to a combat that is needed in small games. It's just that when I run RQ3, my imagination is the limit on my ability to run a combat. MRQ has me thinking, "If I have more than six enemies for the party they're going to get bored midway through the fight."

This is clearly the exact opposite of what should be happening. There are obviously lots of permutations to this, GM style not the least of them, but I do feel that the parts of MRQ that should be the best and most innovative (and appear so in print), don't work in the context of 'playing a game'.

 

[Rasta]

What mechanics specifically do you find bogging down the combat of 6+ enemies?

 

[Cleombrotus]

mainly the fact that every single thing is now an combat action as opposed to a description of action that needs resolving. it increases the time needed to resolve certain things and this can (has) left certain players out in the cold once a melee starts and some characters are using each combat action to attack.

 

[Rasta]

I see. Each to their own.

 

[pasuuli]

I'm late to this conversation, but the thread seems germane to my gaming group, which has been playing RQ3 since 2003, but is also aware of MRQ. The points raised by all here are going to be helpful when we make the ruleset transition. Thanks!