styopa

Mike, will Rattling Wind adventure for RQG include pre-gen characters?  Or is it scaled suitably to use the RQG pregen squad?

19 hours ago, styopa said:

Honestly, it's not surprising.

D&D is the dominant paradigm in the tabletop gaming world.  That's simply fact.  RQ isn't.

Nevertheless, I expect that most of us prefer (at least a variant of) RQ better, so we like to discuss why we prefer mango-flavor when it seems everybloodyone else likes chocolate.

I expect in Peugot forums, there are recurrent threads about what are interesting about Peugot and (generally) why "we" like them better than all those dullards who enjoy Toyota/Honda.

*or '67 Impalas.

Amusingly, I stumbled upon this thread in another RPG forum - https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-the-essence-of-d-d.666859/page-71#post-7814435 

Many many pages, in which I see Runequest is mentioned at least a dozen times.  Frankly (and correctly, IMO) they're essentially swirling around the question of branding as shorthands for other gaming systems..

In ironic opposition to our commentary here, much of theirs seems to be about the LACK of any core ethos or IP that uniquely identifies D&D as a thing.  That is, unquestionably, the spectral opposite of RQ.  We're practically drowning in memetic archetypes.

2 hours ago, Richard S. said:

Gods whenever I finally think this topic is dead for good y'all come right back at it a few weeks later

Honestly, it's not surprising.

D&D is the dominant paradigm in the tabletop gaming world.  That's simply fact.  RQ isn't.

Nevertheless, I expect that most of us prefer (at least a variant of) RQ better, so we like to discuss why we prefer mango-flavor when it seems everybloodyone else likes chocolate.

I expect in Peugot forums, there are recurrent threads about what are interesting about Peugot and (generally) why "we" like them better than all those dullards who enjoy Toyota/Honda.

*or '67 Impalas.

7 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Getting back to the "vs D&D" thing, I remember a guy whose D&D character was so good at blind-fighting that when the going got tough he put a bag over his head to improve his chance to hit. Rat-bagging at its finest. Unfortunately this meant that he didn't realize when the rest of the party had run away and left him on his own...

One of the glaring flaws of the advantage/disadvantage rationalizing 5e uses.  If you're somehow disadvantaged in a combat, just have your own mage drop darkness on BOTH of you.  If your target is blinded, you have advantage on them.  But they have advantage on you, and so all advantages and disadvantages cancel, leaving you both with a normal chance to succeed where before only you were handicapped.  Dumb.  

20 hours ago, lordabdul said:

It does but, like I said, such stat scores are for NPCs, as far as I can tell -- I don't see these scores being reachable when the human max scores are around 21-ish, even with a few extra points granted by your deity somehow. And if we're talking about NPC vs NPC, I don't tend to roll, I just narrate. But sure, it could happen... just probably not in my games. The reality is that problems with RPG systems not scaling well down to insect level, or up to superhero/god level, is not exactly new... if anything it's vastly more common than not. Even generic systems have some problems scaling, so I bet that RQG rules don't really care about that because they assume the PCs are going to be humans (exceptional, heroic humans, yes, but still human), so one side of the equation is "always" going to be below mid-20s.

I think you're getting into the weeds taking the specific numbers way too literally.  They're examples.  They're just blown up to big numbers to highlight subtleties in the mechanics.

Maybe this is easier to wrap your head around: should a 6 vs a 5 (ie 55% success) be the same or different as a 12 vs 10 (60% success) or 18 vs 15 (65% success) or 24 vs 20 (70% success)?  They're all the same ratio of A:B, so why do they resolve differently?  Opposed rolls (the true system, where high roll wins ties-of-success-level) have no scaling issues resolving such.  By the linear exposition of the resistance table, tiny differences in large numbers remain as potent in determining success as tiny differences in small numbers.  To me, that's contrary to reality - the 'noise' of any system (what we're black-boxing with our dice rolls) scales with the inputs.  It doesn't remain absolute.

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

But really, when do you ever need to roll with such stats? 

Because extraordinary, unusual, exceptional things NEVER happen in a game with magic and heroes, right?  

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

So always roll low on the D100 except when in this specific type of contest, and even then, certain types of low rolls are better than high rolls except when they aren't? 

We didn't think that was elegant at all and rejected it.

cf my edit above:

I get your point about it being counter-intuitive and contrary to resolution systems used in the rest of the game...I guess I'd understand that more if mechanical consistency seemed to have been much of a priority in any other system in the game.  There are plenty of examples of tables, breakpoints, mechanics that could easily have been unified and systematized but instead (likely mainly to conform with RQ2's paradigms) remain their own little thing, unique and inconsistent.

14 hours ago, Crel said:

For what it's worth, I know of at least one system that uses D66-iles, though more for random generation off tables than for actual play. Forbidden Lands, by Fria Ligan.

Traveller did it back in 1980, iirc particularly in the bigger tables like planetary and system generation results.

On 9/24/2019 at 6:50 AM, Jeff said:

That doesn't sound like a modern v. old-fashioned to me, but just an aesthetic preference.

Agreed, it's a subjective thing, sure.  

On 9/24/2019 at 6:50 AM, Jeff said:

The resistance table - which might as well be called the Magic Resistance Table given that almost all of its uses are for magic resistance - is there because it makes the likelihood of success immediately predictable.

... as long as you're within the sweet spot of the table, yes.  While I originally found it also quite appealing, over the years I've run into enough edge-cases to question how it resolves anything BUT the very middle-of the road conflicts.  Yes, I entirely embrace that a 12 vs an 11 should be a 55% chance to win, or that a 11 vs a 12 is 45%.  It's mechanically quite pleasing.  But ...is a 70 vs a 60 really as overwhelming a chance of victory as 11 vs a 1?  Should 1 vs a 2 really be a 45% chance of success?  There are real issues of scaling here.

Further, the idea of an entire table's real-estate dedicated (as you mention) to the solve function of resisting magic which could be equally presented as an algorithm is (again, "to me") as anachronistic as saving throws.

On 9/24/2019 at 6:50 AM, Jeff said:

Others have said RQG would have been more modern with some mechanics that let you Push results or Luck points as per CoC 7e. ...ultimately, I think that it is important for RQ that players can fail. They can and do die.

Entirely agree.   We had luck points in the campaign for when my sons were very young.  IMO they are anathema in a RQ game with adults.

On 9/24/2019 at 6:50 AM, Jeff said:

Then finally, there are those who liked the some of the mechanics in MRQ2 that were rejected for RQG.

I never even looked through the MRQ versions...I presume it was something like RQ6?  I liked their attempt at a new paradigm, honestly.  It was a good effort but I'd agree with you that it didn't ultimately work great (too cinematic for my taste), nor was it particularly RQ flavored.  Tangentially, I'd call it a more "modern" approach, but proof that modern isn't necessarily better.

22 hours ago, Jeff said:

The Opposed Roll used in RQG results in a lot of ties - by design.

Except the full opposed roll mechanic - that best-victory wins, OR HIGHEST ROLL WITHIN A VICTORY CATEGORY - ensures that ties are almost nonexistent.  That reduces ties to what, 1 in 10,000?  I find that aesthetically elegant.

EDIT: and reading further, I get your point about it being counter-intuitive and contrary to resolution systems used in the rest of the game...I guess I'd understand that more if mechanical consistency seemed to have been much of a priority in any other system in the game.  There are plenty of examples of tables, breakpoints, mechanics that could easily have been unified and systematized but instead (likely mainly to conform with RQ2's paradigms) remain their own little thing, unique and inconsistent.

doublepost

16 hours ago, boradicus said:

A '67 Impala?  RQ isn't *that* old!  How about a classic late 70s sophisticated sports car?  The system is a classic, but it is also both streamlined and sophisticated.

I picked it because it's a gorgeous car with character, that's all.  Age has nothing to do with character.

20 hours ago, Qizilbashwoman said:

How dare you insult the d12, a hardworking die that isn't responsible for the fact that nobody seems to love her

(seriously, though, a d12-based game would be excellent?)

d12centiles.  Woo...I rolled a twelvty-eleven!

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

I've found our combats in RQG are over very fast - a combat is long because either both combatants are very powerful and equally matched OR there are a lot of combatants involved.

I don't buy the idea that whatever the current edition of D&D is by definition "what is modern". I think 5e is good at being what it is supposed to be, but I personally find it to be very much a throw-back to the early 1980s in terms of design. Sure, some things are sped up (D&D combat was always attritional rather than dynamic, so it is easier to speed up) or cleaned up (although D&D still uses D12s) but in general, it is basically a cleaned up best of editions 1-3. Which is exactly what it is supposed to be. Its success is not a result of being "cutting edge" but by hitting a comfortable sweet spot for old fans and new. It is not for me but that's totally fine - I'm not its target audience. 

Honestly, I don't know what a "modern game" is anymore. PbtA? Fate? None of those have particularly new and cutting edge mechanics. To me the most cutting edge game is Pendragon, any edition, with RQG and CoC7e close behind. Arguably 4th edition was much more "modern" - that's been dialled back in 5th edition (to its benefit, IMO).

At the end of the day, D&D and the BRP family of games took different design paths a VERY long time ago. Comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruits. If we go back to the Triassic Age we can find they had the same ancestors. But now they are very different games and very different experiences. I "personally" prefer oranges to apples, and I "personally" prefer BRP games to D&D. But that's just a matter of aesthetic taste.

Yes, RQ combats with multiple combatants are long affairs, as I specifically mentioned.  Throw 12-14 trollkin at a party of 6 and get that combat done in less than a half hour?  As we commonly have an adventuring group of 5-6 and our adventures are combat heavy, encounters can be long affairs PARTICULARLY when you throw complicated or dynamic terrain, and a few spell casters in there.

Yes, I entirely agree that 5e is a "cleaned up" version of AD&D, + 2e, + 3e (and none of the regrettable 4e).  Which is precisely why it's popular.  It gives its consumers precisely what they want: a tighter, cleaner system for playing D&D.  I certainly didn't (and wouldn't) use the term 'cutting edge' for 5e mechanics.   

What I will commend 5e for is their simplification of kludgy inconsistencies in previous editions; boiling down status effects to very simple sets of conditions and impacts on characters.  Advantage/Disadvantage is a brilliant concept (I don't know if they came up with it first, or just ripped it off someone else's game) that radically speeds up the game at only a minor cost of verisimilitude.  They removed the (essential) requirement of a tabletop grid for play, but certainly provided solid mechanics to use it if one wishes.  Simplification/codification of magic systems and mechanics (regrettably, still Vancian, but still...).

Despite this, I'm not here to 'defend' D&D.   After all my game of choice is still basically RQ.

What defines a modern game?  For me (and this is obviously subjective) it's more about specific features: I'd call opposed rolls a 'modern' resolution mechanism (robust, scalable, intuitive) while the resistance table is not (intuitive only within strict bounds, non scaling, non robust).  Easily remembered algorithms are 'modern'.  Tables and charts are not.  I'd call any game with (basically) 3-18 stats old-fashioned (ie both D&D and RQ), while CoC7e made a 'modern'  move to dispense with that canard.  I think Passions are very "modern" as they mechanically support roleplaying in a way older games rarely did.  Just a testament to how far ahead Greg was in his game concepts. 

If you need an example, I'd probably call FATE games like Diaspora "more essentially modern", where the game result is more a synthesis between the players and GM than the classic tabletop-rpg narrative-with-choices.  Not my bag, personally, but with the right group I could see it being fascinating.

IMO you said it yourself many times: your design aesthetic was 90% RQ2, I think that's close to what RQG is.  If I had to make a quick metaphor: 5e is a 2018 Ford Edge SUV: safe, conservative, with modern safety gear, will get you from A to B without fuss but also pretty boring; pedestrian.  RQG is a retuned, detailed 1967 Impala.  Everyone will certainly see/hear you coming down the street, heads will turn.  It won't be for everyone, but it's not trying to be.

And btw d12s are delightful.  Maybe I'm just some sort of dodecahedral atavism.  Platonic solids FTW.  But yeah, I'd consider that modern systems probably are more decimal.  (Still waiting for someone to come up with a reason for d12-ile rolls.  Or d20-ile.)

If you like D&Ds mechanics and RQs setting, you might want to try 13th age, I believe they're a synthesis of the two.

5e is, I think, a very GOOD rules system, with vastly tighter mechanics than any iteration of RQ (including, sadly, RQG) and a fundamentally-faster resolution speed, if that's your goal.  I think 5e is the closest D&D to the 'feel' of AD&D but with the modern mechanics and sensibilities of an RPG in 2019.  RQG is deliberately *not* a modern game, it's 90% RQ2 with some additional mechanics (passions, runes) bolted on and polished a bit.  If anything, they've improved the setting even further with much more thematic art on-point and a more detailed character/background integration system (as long as you're playing in Dragon Pass, so far; more expansions to other regions are slated)

Yes, in RQ you can run combat for an hour, finish, and then someone cruelly asks "OK so how much time has passed?" and as DM you count it up and go, "Erm, about two minutes" LOL.   That's just RQ, especially with lots of bodies involved.

18 hours ago, Ian Absentia said:

Oh.  So this was actually the point you wanted to make from the outset.  You should've led with that and spared the trouble of inviting responses.

!i!

And what sort of interesting thread discussion would that generate? (shrug)

If I can't start a thread that makes it at least to 2 pages, why would I bother posting?

1 hour ago, Ian Absentia said:

I'm pretty sure this issue regarding Humakti has been addressed elsewhere recently.  Upon initiating, one's existing ties are severed, but out of necessity they may form new ties, including to former hearth, home, and clan.  They'll be different ties, though, approached via the new Humakti perspective.  So you're right that Loyalties and Passions will all relate to Humakt, either directly or indirectly, but Humakt still has a vested interest in one's daily life.

!i!

My point (and the question when it was posed in our group) was SPECIFICALLY in regards kinship ties.  

And you addressed my point - upon initiating those ties would be severed (or would they just be massively reduced for initiates, and cut completely for RLs?), but nothing in my question was about forbidding them gaining them later in other contexts.

Just saying that is a pretty big omission in the cult writeup - "by the way, if you choose this cult, you can disregard all those ties to anything not the cult in pre-gen".

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

A Humakti wishing to eat regularly will have to enter a relationship relying on his loyalty with his employer which may be a regiment leader taking a mercernary contract, or it could be a noble engaging him as a bodyguard and companion.

Last time I checked, for most people Loyalty(employer) wasn't a necessity to get a paycheck.  Just do the job.  

I don't see the passions such as loyalty appropriate to be applied in the context of such ephemeral stuff as short/medium term employment.  Sure, eventually.  But that's sort of the difference between "job" and "career" ain't it?  Or are you really giving players the ability to popup a new loyalty/passion that easily?

Good question came up among my group the other day: shouldn't Swords of Humakt pretty much delete all their Loyalty() and Passion() for anything that's not Humakt-related?  Particularly Loyalty(Clan) or Passion(Family, etc)?  Not sure how this would impact initiates, but certainly if they want to be good Humakti, they certainly shouldn't be using those things.

Cult writeup in RQG doesn't mention it, but lorewise it's pretty clear that Humakti connections to hearth, home, and clan are cut.  They're ritually dead to their kin and clan ties are severed.

16 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

LOL what kind of an expression is that?

A pretty common British one.  I'm being multicultural.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/a-dog-s-breakfast

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dog's breakfast

Thanks for the hard work, and particularly for your willingness to let this crew advise, edit, and make suggestions.

I haven't read it through as I don't really use RQG mechanics (I think RQG combat sections are a bit of a dog's breakfast, unfortunately confirmed by the fact this is already a 2-page thread), but as a GM I'd already question the idea of 'slogging' through a swamp with a bow & arrow at the ready.    I'd probably insist that the only weapon that could be readied in such a situation would be one handed, as you'd almost certainly need the other to help 'slog' through the swamp.  "Creeping through the woods" however, I'm totally with you then.

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

So far it doesn't. It won't make individual sorcerers play on par with Rune Lords or Rune Priests - if you want to dazzle folk with your amazing in combat displays of magic, join a cult. If you want to research spells that you cast as parts of long and convoluted rituals on specific days, send terrible curses upon your neighbours, or weave sorcery around your chosen champion, then sorcery may be for you.

I think I'm coming to wrap my head around "how sorcery is envisaged in RQG": they're really more like magical equivalents to alchemists or sages.

While I believe I'm understanding it better, it's nevertheless disappointing.  Not because I believe RQ sorcerers should play like D&D sorcerers tossing fireballs and eldritch blasts per se; I simply think that:

a) lorewise, sorcery is presented as a MAJOR pillar of magic; for (non-)God's sake, it's the foundational magical metaconcept to half of Genertela (or even possibly the majority, if you're talking population), Fonrit, and the Mostali, even Wyrms.  ....to say nothing of what the God Learners did with it..  While I can see a persuasive argument that as-is, the organized and intellectualist approach to magic very well could empower Malkioni societies as entities enough to 'resist' theistic-powered cultural competition, but down at the player-character level?  It's so evanescent as to be almost irrelevant to PCs.  Maybe that's absolutely canonical, I can't argue that since you define canon.  

b) metawise: it's just damned dull.  There's a reason pretty much nobody plays alchemist player characters or sage player characters.  We all know sorcery wasn't in RQ2 - that's the basis, btw, upon which I claim that sorcery fundamentally doesn't belong in Dragon Pass or rules meant to be focused/set there - but RQ3 definitely presented it as something literal.  Despite all its well-recognized warts, some players/GMs found it interesting and liked it.  There were certainly plenty of efforts made to make it work.  Why miss the opportunity in a new rule set (where there was wide creative freedom) to really make something cool?  

I'm certainly not going to change anyone's mind here.  The model more or less seems to be set at this point.  I think this 6 page thread shows that people want sorcery to be a part of gameplay, not a gnostic machina backdrop whose only impact on the world are some long-duration buffs.   I ultimately find what we're uncovering here just seems like a missed opportunity ... so far. 

I hope the Western cultural setting publication, when it comes, exploits the opportunity to make something as rich, comprehensive, and interesting for players as it seems like it could be.

6 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Lodril's Ten Sons and Servants. 

7 hours ago, metcalph said:

I think what's really needed for Sorcerers is an expanded list of things they could do each season.  How do they use their spells to benefit themselves, their community and so on? 

It's sort of why an entire SOURCEBOOK is really needed to approach a whole different approach to magic.  What we have in RQG is, unfortunately, this weird little stunted sort-of-rules shoehorned into Dragon Pass where (IMO) it simply doesn't fit any more than would draconic or eastern magic.

9 hours ago, Jeff said:

We should all be fortunate that the Malkioni have rejected their God Learner ways, and have retreated back to less dangerous Rokarism and New Hrestolism.

In that sense, 'adventuring' sorcerers are as aberrant - and as weird, to those who understand the context - as broken mostali and rootless aldryami.

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

The official line is that "pure" sorcerers aren't intended as adventurers in Dragon Pass or the Holy Country, let alone Prax. But nor are Ompalam cultists, Godunya cultists, Daruda cultists, or Garangordos cultists for that matter. ...

 My personal thoughts about running sorcerers in the West is more along the lines of Ars Magica, which would close that circle as Jonathan holds that Ars Magica was supposed to be about doing RQ3 sorcery right in the first place. 

August 24, 2019:  I completely agreed with Jeff 2x in the same day.

https://tenor.com/view/whats-going-on-the-office-jim-what-is-going-on-wtf-gif-3926604