Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. drablak

    RQ vs D&D

    There are GM screens for D&D too, you probably know that? What's your point then? Simple math: yes, and D&D has simple math as well. Add a few numbers, roll over. All the modifiers are easy to remember. Compare that to a skill above 100% vs an opponent, reduce both by the above 100% skill, recompute the critical/special success, etc. It's not that the math is hard, it's that you pretend it's easier than adding a few modifiers. Compare with spell books? Really? What's complicated with spell books? Have you seen the magic systems in RQG? Frankly I rarely look up at a table in D&D while playing the game. Let's agree to disagree.
  3. Neutralize (Rune) and Neutralize Spirit Magic both resist against incoming spells. Incoming spell's strength v. the Neutralize's strength. Neutralize Magic, however, does not; it just cancels a spell for the duration. Both Solace of the Logical Mind and Logical Clarity provide immunity to varieties of mental confusion, Befuddle, enthrallment, etc which might count. Each also cost the subject access to their Passions.
  4. It's a way to give information when your player don't have the tactical savvy their characters have.
  5. I actually picked up a copy of Chaosium's ElfQuest RPG (the second edition, I believe -- one softcover volume) at Gamestorm this year. It had been untouched as a prize for a game lab for a few years. I was stunned when I saw it and reminded the guy in charge of the prize pool what he had. He ended up selling it to me for $30. (The game lab was for boardgames, so it should be less surprising that there was little interest in an older RPG. Still, do you have any idea how hard it is to find a copy of this in the wild?) The guy manning Chaosium's booth at the con was equally impressed at my find. He gave me a bag to carry it in. By then, he had completely sold out of the new RuneQuest books. Looks like a pretty good purchase.
  6. Am I right in concluding that there is no sorcery spell that defends against incoming sorcery spells? *Edit* I suppose Attract Magic might count...
  7. No, it would be resolved by a reisistance roll, each one would attempt to suppress the other on the resistance table. Although I wonder what would happen if both succeeded! Oh, hang on, I'm wrong, you only roll the resistance once when the second spell is cast to see if it suppresses the first. The first spell has no effect on the second. It just keeps on suppressing any spells that it suppressed when it was cast. Presumably if the first is suppressed by the second, then any spells that the first was suppressing then have to be overcome separately by the second one. But you asked that as if someone else had mentioned multiple Neutralize Magic spells - I don't see anyone else mentioning it.
  8. Atgxtg

    RQ vs D&D

    Most of the D&Ders I've game with had their own copy of the PHB and some other rulebooks. Most of the people I play any other RPG with do not. Yes the books cost money, but extra books not only mean another copy of the rules available to look something up, without stopping play or taking the GM's copy, but it also means more people have read that book and so know more about the game. The thing is with seasoned players chargen can be done in 15-20 minutes. With novices it can take a lot longer. Leveling up tends to be very fast, as most players already know what they want to pick for feats and other abilities, since they got a plan for their future development. This is also where a second book helps because you can look up the new abilities for one character while still working on another. In play I found that a second copy of the RQ rules cut chargen time for a group of 4-6 players in half.
  9. Today
  10. styopa

    RQ vs D&D

    (shrug) I'm not sure of your point? I mean, it's clear you DON'T think RQ is more complicated and are arguing against the 'common perception' that it is. OK. In fact there are two levels to this discussion and you're switching between them willy-nilly. The two points you're arguing against are: 1) RQ is generally perceived to be more complicated than D&D (which is your purported point) - well this isn't based on facts, is it? This is just perception. The vast, vast bulk of people learned RPGs as D&D so anything not D&D/d20 is "more complicated". FATE seems "more complicated" when it mechanically absolutely isn't. Not to mention each game has a lengthy history, so are we comparing AD&D to RQG? Or 5e to RQ3? Much of that isn't even necessarily a mechanics discussion; in my experience D&D games tend to be often in fairly simplistic worlds full of archetypes and tropes* (cf the whole idea of alignment and absolute morality making everything simple - "oh, you're verifiably evil? then I can kill you without remorse") while Glorantha has always reveled in it's relativism, complexity, rather ...er...'dynamic'... fluctuating canon. Add that to what I've already explained is an inherently more complex combat system, and the perception is easily explained. (While I agree with your caveats about digging out modifiers etc PERCEPTION isn't based on deep understanding. Ask someone the elevator-pitch version of D&D combat and it's 'roll to hit, if you hit, you do damage.'. Ask any RQ devotee to explain melee combat and I guarantee you it's going to take more than 9 words.) *this is a broad brush, of course. Nothing inherently in D&D requires simplistic settings (again, setting aside the rationalized ideas of 'classes' and 'alignments' which are much more flexible concepts in 5e now anyway) and there have been some fabulously interesting and creative ones. 2) RQ is more complicated than D&D: (this is where you're actually arguing) in this point, I'm probably 80% in agreement with you, and not further only because I don't care enough to get down into the weeds of details, I mean, what value is there in that? Are we counting the number of times people have to look shit up in the books? Are we counting the number of dice rolls each combat takes? Why bother?
  11. If there are two Neutralise Magic spells in place, wouldn't the higher powered one just neutralise the lower powered one?? 😛
  12. Atgxtg

    RQ vs D&D

    Pendragon give such a bonus against mail, and RQ3 used to have a rule reducing the AP value. You could easily apply a half value vs. maces or some such. Mail is quite effective against arrows, if it's made correctly and worn over a gambeson. Most modern simulations of longbow vs. mail have been flawed. They tend to use the wrong type of mail, leave out the padding, don't provide and "give" to the target, use the wrong bow (most "longbows" today are underpowered), wrong arrows (too thin and light) and wrong arrowheads. But the general thought among historians these days is that mail is quite effective against arrows, and that the dominance of the longbow is more of as myth. The British victory at Crecy and Argincourt were more due to battlefield conditions and bad tactics by the French that due to the ineffectiveness of mail. Pendragon does it, as do a handful of thoer RPGs. It all depends on how you do it.
  13. I totally get what you're saying, Not sure about the "multiple copies of rulebooks" though... they ain't cheap! And having everyone bring their own (if they did) would be (en)cumbersome 😛 Character generation should only be 1 session in RQ. In D&D, it's basically every level up... (yes, I'm exaggerating... but the idea of needing the tables, feats, class abilities, AND multi-classing, and you should get what I mean).
  14. I would only use it to determine what happened in large-scale battle/war. Letting players determine strategies and traps themselves is much more fun and rewarding.
  15. It's the big adventure of the Beyond The Wall supplement (3e edition). I like the feel of it, and it will be on the table for the next gaming session. I will probably add a nucklelavee encounter somewhere because I like them so much since Bard's tale ^^ Did any of you play it? Any tips?
  16. I disagree. Firstly, one simple GM screen takes all of that and puts in in one place if needed. However, the "ability results" is simple maths (and a quick look up if that math is too bothersome or not written down). The A&P and A&D are pretty simple formulae, and there's not really a need to look it up every time. Hit location table - is the same for all humanoids. Other non-humanoid creatures, sure... Resistance table is simple maths, so you only use the table when you CBF. Strike ranks... annoying, but not exactly hard. Not incredibly different to Initiative (depending on how you play it). Granted, the realism of the combat does mean keeping a closer eye on SRs than on Initiative. Now, as I said above, compare all of that with a spell book, or class abilities... you've just mentioned 7 mechanics (not including Specials). These are always the same tables (except HL). How many tables, pages, abilities, spell descriptions, etc do you need handy for D&D? Yeah, we did that too. I agree that's a bit annoying, but it is simulationist... ever looked at Harnmaster??? 😛
  17. Atgxtg

    RQ vs D&D

    Okay. The thinking goes along these lines. Most people become familiar with D&D before they discover RQ. THey learn how D&D works, buy their own copy of the rulebooks and can do stuff like chargen pretty quickly. Then they try RQ, and: Chargen takes longer, because nobody is familiar with it, and... There is only one copy of the rulebook at the table Everything is different and so they must learn all new things, and... They must unlearn all the old D&D trick that they learned that do not work in RQ. So because it is new to them and takes longer to do things, they must look stuff up more due to their unfamiliar and only one copy of the rules, and it takes longer, the rules start to seem more complicated. Any thing that RQ either adds detail to that D&D doesn't have (such as hit locations) or requires a roll where D&D doesn't (spell casting, hit location determination) are viewed as added complexity. But, it's mostly the lack of familiarity and single rulebook, compared to the familiarity and multiple copies of rulebooks with D&D.
  18. styopa

    RQ vs D&D

    ...and this is perfectly fine if it works for your group. This is, in essence, the D&D method as IIRC there's functionally no difference between an arrow, an axe, or a mace in what it does to the target, they all do 1d8 hp. I know IRL if someone said 'grab a melee weapon from the rack you need to get out there and fight' I'd certainly think pretty hard about which one I picked. Personally, I *want* a character's choice of weapon to be a similarly meaningful, informed tactical choice. Thus that's the direction my houserules have gone (and in fact, simulationist that I am, ideally I'd LIKE to have a system that recognizes more detail in that direction - ie chainmail is nearly worthless against a mace, and almost worthless against arrows - but I've come to recognize that it's RQ-the-adventure-game not RQ-the-combat-simulation and that pragmatically that's just not possible outside of a computer game and still be PLAYABLE).
  19. The older character sheets used to have those numbers on it. So, if you roll 17, you can pretty quickly see if it's a S/C/I pretty quickly. D&D had too many potential modifiers (often uniquely to certain classes. It's based on the same concept - Base, +Dex + Armour +shield + other modifiers - roll high (plus plus plus). You may not have needed a table, but have you needed to go back over a few rules to get the right modifiers? D&D was full of rules lawyers, and the excess of such could be quite problematic (read: complicated). Character classes are all tabulated. And it takes up time with (perhaps ineffective) GM's trying to sort out each and every single players' classes' abilities, etc. Wizards have (finally) moved away from "one spell per day" schtick (only took a few decades, not including the option in (Unearthed Arcana ??), but they still need to keep a check on whether they've blown a spell slot, particularly a higher one if MM'ed, or lower. Cleric - which level of Heal are you using this time, and do you have the slot to use it? So, those "level-specific magic points" creates an added layer of complication. Therefore, RQ is still by far a simpler system. (read: less complicated) Added complication - durations, ranges, damage (fixed or level-dependant? And is that spell level, or character level, or class level???) Elemental damage, and does the creature have a resistance? In RQ, most spells are the same for duration and range. Since there's no levels, there's not a level-dependant damage. I disagree with your last point... all the current base classes are in the PHB... the thing about D&D is that they kept bringing out new (and not necessarily improved) classes, and I expect no less for 5E (they've already done so!). RGQ currently has a 445 page main rule book, a tiny 204 page Bestiary, about half a dozen pages in the Adventurer's book for rules (the rest is scenario and setting) and an upcoming GoG (which will be extremely useful, but not incredibly necessary). If you really want to get deeply into all the Gloranthan lore, there's obviously a whole host of material - much of which has been around for decades, and some newer stuff that adds flavour (more like scenarios and settings - not rules additions). The D&D 5E PHB is 316 pages alone. The GM's book is another 320 (granted, a large chunk of that is magic items...), and the MM is 350.. so, close to 1000 pages. So, merely the basic rulesets are double the size of RQ. Should we start adding in the add-ons that have been published? Again, to me, that equals "complicated". So, back to my original question which I obviously need to clarify - why is RQ more "complicated" than D&D, and what definition of "complication" are you using?
  20. Crel

    RQ vs D&D

    That's another good point. I find all the differences in special damage type frustrating. My group has just played double damage for ages to simplify.
  21. drablak

    RQ vs D&D

    You need the attack & parry table (page 199) or the dodge table (p.200) and the ability results table (p. 143), then there's the hit location table, and is it an impale btw? And then there's a damage summary table (on the GM screen, or read a few pages in the core book), the resistance table, the skill above 100%, the strike ranks, etc.
  22. Anyone who wants to learn some Keeper tricks should watch Mike in action. Compare the text of the adventure to how it shakes out and you'll see some key decisions he makes, in response to his players, to make for a unique experience. He's also excellent at creative test outcomes/requests on the fly.
  23. 36,000 views in the past two weeks!
  24. Yes, that's how sorcery works. Protection 2 is spirit magic, Extension is rune magic, the two can't be combined, and Kloster was talking about sorcery anyway.
  25. Conflagration spell damage is specifically described as 'per Melee Round', and not MoonFire damage. This is why I guessed that MoonFire is doing damage only once. This has the unfortunate effect of having somebody already affected that can stay, but avoid the 4D6/MR for 25 MR monster.
  26. So a Protection 2 with Extension will persist when a friendly supporter cast a Protection 4 without Extension on that person? With sorcerous Neutralize Magic, it is evidently possible that two spells affect the same target at once. Both the Neutralize and the neutralized spell persist until their duration runs out - if the Neutralize runs out first, the original spell is in function again. An argument against having multiple spells affecting the same target might be made if the target has a magical thingness that is modified by the spell. Any new spell would find the thingness to which the magic would couple already occupied. As long as the spells affecting an item are addressing different properties, it is possible to have a single sword with simultaneous Bladesharp, Truesword, Boon of Kargan Tor, Neutralize Armor, Preserve Item, Dampen Damage, Neutralize Spirit Magic, Neutralize Death Rune, Neutralize Magic (cast at Neutralize Armor), possibly even Protection cast on it (if Countermagic, that would be enemy action to preserve the adverse magic cast on it, possibly after Dullblade). (And yes, Dampen Damage and the subsequent Neutralizes would be enemy action...) This would obviously be a duel situation with indirect magical support allowed, and your friendly sorcerer might attempt to use Neutralize Magic on all those enemy sorceries...
  27. What edition are you playing? AD&D? I don't mean to criticize, it's just that THAC0 hasn't been a thing since third edition. I also haven't had to refer to a table even once during combat during the few times I've played fifth. And magic users have moved away from the whole "one spell a day" shtick, now they have "spell slots" which basically act as level-specific magic points. I also disagree with your last point, all the classes are currently in the PHB save an updated version of the ranger and an experimental new artificer class.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...