Welcome to our Runequest game...

[Cleombrotus]

So it's been well over six months since I spat my dummy over MRQ. I currently play RQ3 with all of my favourite bits from MRQ rules thrown in and it works very well indeed, if I say so myself.

We kept fatigue because RQ3 fatigue was a naff rule and the MRQ rule is simple and elegant and evocative.

Hero Points we have kept if only for the randomness they add. It's good to be able to add such a simple mechanic that throws combat wide open, especially if an npc looks tasty enough to have a few of his own. Legendary Abilities are up for grabs as well, although we'll integrate them on a case by case basis.

Strike ranks - I have always liked this rule in runequest. I might be in a minority here. It's complex, that's for sure, but once you have your own understanding of it or your own take on it, it enables stuff to move very smoothly. I found that MRQ initiative actually detracted from the excitement of the situation by breaking up the flow of play.

I found that the Action/Reaction system created a huge amount of gameplay to resolve a very insignificant amount of game time. This became a problem when things didn't go according to plan and, for example, one player started a melee when the other characters were about 50m away. The player in melee then took up a completely disproportionate amount of game time actually having fun smacking stuff whilst other characters were left to state "I'll move toward the fight" "Still moving" "Still moving", etc. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with this, it didn't exactly help the tension of a combat. RQ3 is shorter, more free-form and as a result more exciting. Last weekend we just had a drawn out ruck with a bunch of vampires and it was one of those fights when you think, "Now THAT's why I love and still play Runequest!"

I notice that even though I have left this forum for a good old while due to lack of internet, the lengthy exchanges about rules haven't really changed that much, and that the confusion is just as rife.

How are peoples' games going, and is anyone a complete and utter MRQ convert? Anyone else find the same things as me or am I just a weirdy roleplay geek with no friends listening to Iron Maiden and dreaming of actually meeting girls?

 

[Homunculus]

Well, my group and I are just starting out on the MRQ rules. None of us have ever played the other versions of RQ, RQ2, or RQ3. So, I guess my group counts for a full "conversion" group in Colorado.

So far we have really enjoyed the game system. I was planing on running the game under the BRP system, but that seemed to take forever to come out and MRQ was available. So, here we are, fumbling with the rule system like any good group of gamers and just trying to make a fun game out of it.

I have found, however, that we should never let the rules out way the story in progress. Should the story conflict with the rules, we allow the story to take over. Thus, I have been greatly interested in seeing what more veteran players of RQ have done in regards to their house rules and modifications on the system to keep the full fantasy aspect of the game and story.

 

[gamesmeister]

My game has been going for a couple of months now, with the ongoing saga blogged at www.gamesmeister.com/runequest. It's a re-run of 3rd age Borderlands though, albeit modified, so you won't find a great deal of new material there unfortunately

 

[Cleombrotus]

Having just received a message from another runequester who has started a similar blog/website, let me take the chance to refer others to http://www.journalspace.com

I reckon that this is an excellent blog site for the recording and publishing of peoples' runequest games, particularly people like myself who have no idea how to set up their own website...

I love reading about other games, even ones that use the same source material, since it's interesting to see different takes on the same scenarios and how people have adapted them. i like reading about other player's characters and their exploits, and i reckon the more out there the better...

anyway, get writing! or cutting and pasting...

 

[Cleombrotus]

A few days ago I was mourning the loss of our campaign website which bit the dust over christmas.

Now we have a new site, and I think it's a big improvement. Haven't transcribed everything yet, but enough to make it look alright.

Feel free to leave comments...

 

[Darran]

I just love the artwork!

 

[Inspector Zero]

Yeah, great artwork - not sure about the contributions from Grant though. My games have , so far, been mercifully free of rape-fantasy. A little too much barely repressed homo-eroticism? Oh well, each to his or her own.

The player in melee then took up a completely disproportionate amount of game time actually having fun smacking stuff whilst other characters were left to state "I'll move toward the fight" "Still moving" "Still moving", etc. Whilst there is nothing inherently wrong with this, it didn't exactly help the tension of a combat

Do you still have this reservation about the combat actions and reactions?

 

[Cleombrotus]

Yeah, great artwork - not sure about the contributions from Grant though. My games have , so far, been mercifully free of rape-fantasy. A little too much barely repressed homo-eroticism? Oh well, each to his or her own.

:lol: that's after we've removed the really offensive stuff. Still, we ask our players to contribute, and I like the way that you know when Grant is telling a story...

Do you still have this reservation about the combat actions and reactions?

I do, to be honest. We play MRQ2/3 and combat is very much not MRQ inspired. The distinct possibility exists that I was simply too attached to the way RQ3 combat runs to enjoy MRQ, but I gave it a fair crack of the whip (not to mention a fair crack of the wallet) before rejecting it. I have so many problems with it (recently resurrected in the Shields thread), but after spending a silly amount of time getting annoyed over it (see "Second printing of runequest" thread to read my full tantrum), I've calmed down. I have even considered buying dara happa stirs and the dragonewt book because I like the treatment of the Second Age...

 

[Cleombrotus]

not sure about the contributions from Grant though. My games have , so far, been mercifully free of rape-fantasy. A little too much barely repressed homo-eroticism?

:lol: Actually, I've just re-read his 'school report' on the back of your comments and it IS completely outrageous so I've removed that part...I dunno, fantasy roleplayers, eh?

 

[master of reality]

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.

IMO, the main difference between how MRQ combat works in practice and RQ 2 combat is all the actions and reactions. IN RQ 2 the order of combat is determined by strike rank only. In each turn, everyone gets one attack, and there's no limit on the number of times a character can parry or dodge per turn. In MRQ, most characters can make more than one action per turn, and characters can only parry or dodge if they have a reaction. On paper, this looks fine. In practice, however, keeping track of all the actions and reactions was such a chore that I felt the need to create an EXCEL spreadsheet. Now when a character makes an action or reaction, I simply put a tick mark in the appropriate column.
Is it a better system? On the one hand the action/reaction mechanic does a pretty good job of simulating what happens when a slow character tries to take on a fast adversary. On the other hand, the slow character spends a lot of time either moving towards the fight or getting attacked without the ability to parry or dodge.

 

[Deleriad]

IMO, the main difference between how MRQ combat works in practice and RQ 2 combat is all the actions and reactions. IN RQ 2 the order of combat is determined by strike rank only. In each turn, everyone gets one attack, and there's no limit on the number of times a character can parry or dodge per turn.

This is not RQ2 or RQ3. For a start RQ2 didn't have dodge and you could only attack once and parry once in a combat round.

RQ3 allowed one attack plus dodge or parry or two defensive reactions. Obviously you could play it the way you suggest but that is a house rule, not the rules as written.

Personally I play MRQ with a fixed number of actions and reactions (2 of each) and don't find it any more onerous than RQ3. Even in RQ2 where basically you get one action and one reaction per round you still need to track who has used their parry this round.

 

[Inspector Zero]

Personally I play MRQ with a fixed number of actions and reactions (2 of each) and don't find it any more onerous than RQ3

I agree with this. I don't fix the numbers of actions/reactions but play it RAW but I have to say I don't find it burdensome. A piece of paper and a pencil is all that is needed. I've always found the need to keep track of rounds and who is doing what.

I would say however that the later it gets and the drunker people are the more difficult this becomes. Perhaps this is at the root of some posters' problems?

 

[master of reality]

IMO, the main difference between how MRQ combat works in practice and RQ 2 combat is all the actions and reactions. IN RQ 2 the order of combat is determined by strike rank only. In each turn, everyone gets one attack, and there's no limit on the number of times a character can parry or dodge per turn.

This is not RQ2 or RQ3. For a start RQ2 didn't have dodge and you could only attack once and parry once in a combat round.

RQ3 allowed one attack plus dodge or parry or two defensive reactions. Obviously you could play it the way you suggest but that is a house rule, not the rules as written.

Personally I play MRQ with a fixed number of actions and reactions (2 of each) and don't find it any more onerous than RQ3. Even in RQ2 where basically you get one action and one reaction per round you still need to track who has used their parry this round.

Isn't the phrase "In each turn, everyone gets one attack" the same as the phrase "you could only attack once...in a combat round?" By turn, I mean combat round. As far as the number of parries per turn, that's how I remember it, but it's been many years since I played RQ2 and I don't have a copy of it.

My point was that increasing the number of actions per turn and introducing reactions changes the flavor of the game and creates more bookkeeping.

 

[Deleriad]

Isn't the phrase "In each turn, everyone gets one attack" the same as the phrase "you could only attack once...in a combat round?" By turn, I mean combat round. As far as the number of parries per turn, that's how I remember it, but it's been many years since I played RQ2 and I don't have a copy of it.

My point was that increasing the number of actions per turn and introducing reactions changes the flavor of the game and creates more bookkeeping.

RQ2: each character got one attack and one parry per round. (Could split attacks and parries if over 100%). No dodge but could apply defence among opponents.
Book-keeping for one character with 110% parry deciding to split parries plus 30% defence split among 2 different foes is actually pretty significant.

RQ3: One attack and one parry/dodge or a combination of 2 parries/dodges. Attacks and parries could be split. Dodge could be used multiple times against the same foe.

Both RQ2 and RQ3 could bog down during statement of intent when players try to figure out the best way to split attacks and parries.

The main problem with the MRQ system I run into is remembering which actions we're on (e.g. is this the second or third actions step this round.) I give players and important NPCs tokens to spend on reactions. Without the need for complicated statements of intents I find that MRQ is probably the quickest playing of the versions of RQ I've played. I wouldn't go back to their combat systems now.

Not sure how the flavour of the game is changed by explicitly calling parries and dodges reactions. I *do* personally find that MRQ raw has too much going on in a short time frame. 3-4 attacks in a 5 second round tends to mean that the balance of things you can do while in combat as opposed to not being in combat is off. E.g. If you have to charge 100m to get into a fight it might be over before you get there.

 

[master of reality]

The main problem with the MRQ system I run into is remembering which actions we're on (e.g. is this the second or third actions step this round.) I give players and important NPCs tokens to spend on reactions.

Exactly! That's why I created a spreadsheet to keep track of actions and reactions. Tokens sound like an interesting approach as well.

 

[Christopher Graves]

The links to your site don't work. Are there new ones?