styopa

Further, I will note that RQ stats - despite being connected with all sorts of different modifiers and values in the skills - are less impactful generally than in D&D.

I'm speaking particularly about Strength.

For example in RQ3, you'd (essentially) get a very linear +1% to hit for every point over 10.  So at 18 STR +8%.

In RQ2 (and presumably RQ4) you have this tremendous step, to get only 5% if you have a 17+. (up to 20).

In D&D5, it's STR 10-11: 0, 12-13: +1, 14-15: +2, 16-17: +3, and 18-19: +4 (equating, respectively to +0, +5%, +10%, +15%, +20%!)

Simply, STR matters more (in this respect) in D&D 2x-3x more than it does in RQ.  It's just more impactful.

I agree with Jeff: a big part is probably expectations they may not even realize they have.

If they came from D&D, the thing I've found critical is to explain carefully that while D&D is *meant* to make you feel heroic: wading into a wave of baddies, chopping them up and then a titanic struggle with the BBEG.

RQ is about simulation, not heroics.  Ask them to literally imagine themselves, say, planning to attack 3 bandits in a hut (or whatever).  You CERTAINLY wouldnt just walk in and start whacking about.  Way too much chance you get bushwhacked or overwhelmed.  No, you'd try to lure them out, or at least arrange some sort of ambush to do the maximum damage to the baddies with a minimum of risk to yourself...that's the mindset RQ players approach every combat.  Combat is dangerous; do everything in your power to give you the advantage, and disadvantage your opponent.  It's hard to understand if you come from D&D, truly.

George Patton could have been playing RQ when he said "if you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck".

9 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

it sounds like the design team definitely prefer RQ2's 12SR/MR. However it's no biggie either way for me)

 

We mostly use semi-rolling SR/rounds anyway, so base-10 was MUCH simpler for everyone to parse into future expectations.

It just seemed silly to me that an action (using 12 SR rounds) taking 14 SR could technically never happen, sort of a RQ version of Zeno's paradox.  *Obviously* it would occur on SR2 of the following round in lieu of that round's action.  I don't even remember if RQ2 even addressed that?

33 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

 

This point was absolutely and clearly taken back in the official errata. The softback Deluxe edition clearly states that the two last lines of the first paragraph of the "How to Parry" section should be disregarded and replaced with "You cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same SR". IIRC, the GW edition of the rules has the correct text in that paragraph, rather than an errata at the end.

Oh, interesting - I never realized that.  Makes more sense, certainly.  You learn something new every day.

19 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Thanks for that. I've just had a chance to read over rq2 combat, and you've confirmed my understanding.

Over the years I must have unconsciously mixed up the rules from the 2 editions. I think we played RQ3 games with the freedom of rq2 combat, allowing both attack and parries with a single one handed weapon. 

I've been looking through RQ2 for a ruling that wasn't there  I think for ease of play I prefer the RQ2 approach - simple straight forward everyone gets a chance to parry no matter whether one handed or 2 handed weapon is used.

Your point about dodge in RQ3 is important too as it becomes an extra action to be used instead of an attack or parry. I guess in RQ 3 the combat rules encourage either 2 handed weapons, or the combination of shield and a singlehanded weapon. A single handed weapon on its own, would only be a good option if your dodge % is good. Other wise you're at a major disadvantage without a parry defense.

I see no reason why the RQ2 approach shouldn't prevail here? Surely a skilled fighter could both attack and parry in the same round with a single handed weapon? After all it is lighter and more manauvreable. And in game terms, I think it's a lot easier to take for granted a parry option no matter the weapon. It's more streamlined - everyone gets a parry.

Without putting words in his mouth, I think that's exactly what Jeff's trying to do with RQ4.  Get the essence of combat, but get rid of the cluttery details that would slow it down.

The game-mechanic concept of tactical choices informing weapon-use preferences may be interesting for some people in a crunchy, simulationist way. (Me, for example.)  BUT...(wild-ass guessing) I suspect that's a minority, particularly today where players apparently feel, as Jeff mentioned, that adding 12% to a skill % was just too hard/too much work.

Your point is correct, essentially RQ3 was definitely saying "if you want to do a lot of damage, use a 2h; if you want to be safer, use 1h+shield" quite clearly.  I always understood the 'balance' aspect of the rule, but I don't even feel it's particularly accurate.  It kind of makes fencing impossible, for example.

Of course it's a spectrum, right?  On the one hand you have a Phoenix Command level of simulation, where 'ticks' are 1/10 of a second, and the entire GAME is simulating a few moments of (usually brutally deadly) combat.  At the other end of extremes, you have Hero Wars, where a character has general ability that can be used to contest an opponent (that doesn't even necessarily have to be violent, like Oscar Wilde having "Witty Repartee 4W") and only the result is determined by die roll, leaving everything else rationalized and up to the descriptive/creative engine of the DM to describe.  RQ2 to RQ3 was definitely a sold step toward the Phoenix Command end; probably, in retrospect, an overshoot.  RQ4 seems like it's intending to be more of a step back toward the middle ground of playability but still maintaining the canonical 'crunch' that RQ is fundamentally identified with.

I hope that RQ4 will be more than just a cleaned-up, Dragon-Pass focused reissue of RQ2 though, and take advantage of rules mechanics and concepts that bring the game into relevance in 2016.

BTW Jeff, when's the next "Designing the New RQ" coming out?  Been more than a month now.

5 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

From my hazy memory, in the past when we played Runequest in combat we allowed an attack and parry with a one handed weapon during a single melee round. 

Looking through RQ 3 this is not the case, it's a choice of attack or parry with a one handed melee weapon ( not taking into account shields or 2 handed weapons)

Skimming through RQ 2 classic I haven't been able to find clarification regarding attack and parrys with one handed weapons in same melee round. Was it the same as RQ 3?

RQ3 RAW was:

You can pick 2 of (attack, parry, or dodge) in a round, constrained by

- a 2h weapon can both attack and parry in the same round

- a 1h weapon can either attack or parry in the same round

- if you dodge, you get to roll your dodge against ALL attacks from that single source in that round (thus potentially effectively giving you many more 'actions')

RQ2 doesn't appear to limit actions in a round OTHER THAN that constrained by the total number of SR it would take. So if your attack SR is 7, you'll never attack twice because your 2nd attack would always be at an SR greater than the 12sr limit per round (even if you're using 2 weapons).  Note also that in RQ2, you could split your attack if you had 50% or above but this second attack could never be used against the same target.  Also, remember there was no actual 'dodge' in RQ2.

This whole thread brings up an interesting point.

RQ2 is a good example of an 'entertaining' RPG rulebook, but one that's not particularly USEFUL.  (It's a product of its pre-word-processor, "hobby shop" times; original LBB D&D was even more atrociously laid out, so RQ2 was actually good in comparison.)

That's why I find in the other thread - about the differences between RQ2 and RQ3 - people's comments about how 'entertaining' RQ2's examples were vs the 'soullessness' of RQ3 so ... beside the point, I guess?

Look at RQ2, and try to figure out your character's hit points.  It's not even IN the chapter about character creation...it's 5 pages later, in the "Mechanics and Melee" chapter.  "Fighting in the dark" isn't in the Mechanics and Melee chapter...it's tucked way back in Appendix G.    

I've always preferred an RPG rulebook to be on the order of an instruction manual - clearly and concisely laid out for maximum clarity, logical order of things, and quick to find the table or detail you need.  The "fluff" of setting and tone and atmosphere I prefer to find elsewhere, where it can really be the point of the work like a campaign sourcebook.

Sure, when you're first absorbing a new rules set, it's nice to have the color and characterization stuff to set the mood.  But you really only learn a game once...then the subsequent 99% of the time you play that game or use the rulebook, you're skipping PAST the fluff because it's just in the way.  (FWIW I'd consider game-art an exception to this; it delivers maximum-bandwidth information about setting and style in the space of usually filling a layout hole that would have been empty white space anyway.)

Yes, that might make a rule set seem "soulless" but I'm not reading a rulebook as a piece of literature.  I'm reading it as a reference work that should support the play of a game with a MINIMUM of time/effort/distraction looking up some obscure reference.  Maybe that's just me?

On 7/16/2016 at 7:26 PM, Mechashef said:

Page 16 of the Softcover Magic book of the Deluxe RQ3 in regards to learning and using spirit magic spells states:

 

“To learn a spell, a character must engage in spirit combat with a spirit which knows the spell.  ... If the student reduces the magic points of the spell spirit to zero (without losing all of his magic points in the process), he takes knowledge of the spell from the spirit, impressing it upon his own mind.  The spirit breaks off combat and returns to the spirit plane.  If the spirit returns to the spirit plane free of any control, it then regains the spell.”

Always relegated that to the same place I put the RQ3 fatigue rules.  Clever mechanic, interesting, but lots more work for no substantial gameplay benefit.

5 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I've also seen the point raised that RQ2 had 12 strike ranks, while RQ3 had 10. Not too sure whether there is much difference in practice, though it makes sense having 12 strike ranks to12 seconds of the melee round. 

 

Except IIRC there were strict enjoinders NOT to treat 12 sr as counting through the seconds, so the linkage was only apparent, not real.

(We dispensed with it anyway, over my own issues with SR: a problem with BOTH versions is that SR count up from zero, introducing a bunch of needless complication.  Reversing it, and counting down from the highest-rolled initiative fixed a number of things and then there was never an implied connection for us...)

Honestly, after this long, it's hard for me to even remember the RQ3 what's RAW and what's long-practiced houserules.  So while I say I like RQ3 better, the honest answer is that if I'd put that much effort into houserules for RQ2, I'd probably have been just as happy with it.  Or RQ6 for that matter.  I've just reached the stage of my life where I'm uninterested in rebuilding a rules system to conform with my particular worldview.  (shrug).

I'm looking forward very much to RQ4 because - even though I know it's based on RQ2 and not RQ3, and that makes me a little nervous - the way forward to growing our local coterie of RQ players is abundantly NOT my little houseruled creation.  It's a modern, current, commercial rules set that other people can go out and buy and run their own games.  And I feel like I'm willing to go through the learning curve to really 'get behind' a new system that will be (I hope) a brave new era for RQ.

Learned with RQ2, and played that for a little while.  But I'm an unabashed fan of RQ3.  

Trying to mentally go through the rules from front to back:

For ability category modifiers like Agility or Manipulation, RQ2 had stat mods in 5% blocks (ie if you had a stat of 13-15, you'd get a +5%, 16-18 +10%), while RQ3 had an algorithm (every point above 10 was +1%).  Some people liked the former, because it was meaningful steps.  I prefer the latter, because it makes every stat change meaningful and de-incentivizes step-hunting. "I've got a 13 STR, so I don't care if I get a +1 or even a +2, it doesn't change anything."

RQ2 had two categories of POW which was confusing as hell (for me), which was separated/clarified in RQ3 to be POW and magic points.

RQ2 had defense, which was a flat -% to opponent attacks.  RQ3 had dodge, which was an ability you had to actually use and took an action.  I prefer the latter as the former is just too rationalized to make sense in so many situations.  The latter just made more sense to me.

RQ2 had some wonky per-location damage rules that used flat amounts so it didn't scale (ie if you were 6 over the hp on a location, it was severed or maimed).  I could see a 3 point arm being severed by 9 points of damage.  I couldn't see a 21 point tail of a dragon being severed by 27 points.  RQ3 more or less filtered out those non-scaling bits, but RQ (of any generation) is recognized far and wide as "the game where characters get their arms and legs chopped off".

RQ2 toons were generated pretty much as newbie stickpickers; RQ3 had background experience so your characters had some value already to start and are(a little) more survivable.  RQ2 did have actually fairly extensive background rules but it was buried in an appendix in the back.  It was pretty solely combat focused as well, IIRC.

RQ2 only had armor values up to 6 points.  RQ3 has IIRC up to 8 but with (as far as I can tell with a quick survey) no increase in weapons damage, so again, a little more survivable.  

RQ2 had one hit location table for each each creature type, while RQ3 had both melee and missile hit location tables for each.

RQ2 weapons and shields were crazy fragile.  Every point they blocked caused them damage, when it was exceeded, they were broken. (Yes, moderately good blows with a sword and your shield was junk)  Not only that, the values were wonky; a medium shield blocked/absorbed 12 points, but a shortsword could block/absorb 20.  Huh?   RQ3 weapon damage was changed to be 'when AP exceeded, blocker takes 1' which meant weapons rarely broke except as a result of a bad fumble, very extended combats, or a series of fights without repair.  Again, RQ3 made more sense to me.

RQ3 added a fatigue mechanic that sounded great but I believe pretty much EVERYONE ignored it in practice as being too fiddly.

RQ2 had stuff about Guilds - Alchemists, Sages, Thieves, Horsemasters, etc.  Nothing much about this in RQ3.

RQ2 mentioned nothing about sorcery.  RQ3 had sorcery rules which seemed to polarize people; they were seen as too weak at low levels, too OP at high levels and the span between the two was far too long for most games to accomodate.  They were generally considered to be too fiddly in pretty much every way.  Personally, I like them A LOT but even I'd concede readily that RAW were not very playable with out a lot of work.

RQ2 had a big section on treasure hoards; very little discussion in RQ3 at all about magic items, treasure, etc.

RQ2 was basically in Glorantha, but without making an exclusive deal out of it (Glorantha was where it made sense).  RQ3 was intended for a more quasi-historical setting, but IMO was terribly confused by itself.  Was it supposed to be Roman era?  Medieval?  The original supplements (Vikings, Land of Ninja) were a good effort, but it fell back (imo, more comfortably) into Glorantha for the bulk of its supplements (and the best ones).

Generally speaking, I think the difference between the two is more subjective than anything.  It depends on what you started on and had the best time with.  Most of the luminaries of the RQ world cut their teeth on RQ2, so that's the one they love.  I learned RQ from RQ2 and first played it as that, but I personally fell in LOVE with RQ3.  RQ2 to me is a great rule set, full of the sorts of quirky anachronisms that characterize the early generations of RPGs; the clumsy typesetting, kludgy drawings (sorry Louise) everything just says 'old timey RPG' and it *works* in that context.  RQ3 probably comes off as a more mechanically consistent and better-polished, but maybe a bit more sterile; the move to quasi-Europe was IMO pretty dumb.

19 minutes ago, Yinkin said:

Contrary to some other posters I do NOT wish for a ruleset that specifically links with the RQ rules. RuneQuest is a great rpg, but for a minis skirmish game you want something faster that creates interesting small battles! I have played some such, Confrontation and Bushido being two favourites, although I have not tried Outbreak! The important thing is that it is a good, interesting and tactical set of skirmish rules!

I do echo the comments about the models, though! Orlanthi is a good beginning, and I think they are and should be unique enough that you would want them rather any old barbarian mini with a rune on the shield. Praxian beastriders, I agree very much with! They are a very characterful culture that works excellently as foes to the orlanthi!

You misunderstand.

I'm not asking for the skirmish rules to be RQ, but I'd like there to be a conceptual LINK between the two, so that porting characters from the RPG into a skirmish (and vice versa) is relatively easy.

Obviously, the POINT of a skirmish rule set is something that's far more abbreviated, quicker, and succinct than full-out RQ combat.

I haven't played Skirmish OUTBREAK (haven't played a skirmish mini wargame for decades) although I understand it's reasonably highly regarded.  Anyone played it?

I hope that it mechanically dovetails well enough with the RQ rules that the migration to the skirmish and from skirmish to tabletop is pretty intuitive.  It'll be interesting to see how they implement spirits and magic as Dragon Pass illustrated that they have a weighty impact.  

Spirits, magic, and heroic units were so dominant in DP that they often wiped the floor with mundane forces, to the point that any of them being included in a skirmish would sort of reduce it to 'who shoots first' sort of a thing?

7 hours ago, Joerg said:

The rules of Dragon Pass/WBRM and Nomad Gods use stacking as part of the tactical element - this is a boardgame that doesn't lend itself well to playing with miniatures.

 

Agreed, but there are methods that actually work with figures and make 'stacking order' games easier to play as long as concealing what's in the order isn't a gameplay function (I can't recall if DP does this).

What I'm thinking of are 'army' cards.  In some games I've seen them actually as boxes on the mapboard, off to the side, particularly where the number of army units (stacked collections of smaller units) is constrained to a finite number like the number of commanders, etc.  Other games use separate cards lying off to the side.  In either case, the card bears the collection of units, and the token/figure/counter on the board is is a placeholder for that whole army (typically, it's the general themselves).

Even without figures, this method goes a long way to making giant-stack-of-counters games a ton easier to play in any case - I'm looking at you, Fire in the East.

One early game I ran using the CoC adventure The Haunting, my players were shocked/horrified seriously when they realized the house we were playing in (mine, a 110-yr old farmhouse) was in many, many ways laid out exactly like the adventure.  When they finally decided to head upstairs, etc, we actually DID it.

Freaked them the heck out.

Big fan of Nysalor/Gbaji.

Nothing quite captures the subtlety of Glorantha as that whole story does for me.

Any long-running Glorantha DM has to sort of figure out (at least for themselves) who's the 'good guy' in that whole story (including Arkat, of course).

Arrived yesterday - thanks guys!  

16 hours ago, groovyclam said:

But that might not necessarily hold true for fantasy settings where plenty of flying creatures or spells could give aerial views of the land.

Absolutely true, keeping in mind that 1) it's a vanishingly tiny % of people that get to fly and 2) they'd have to have a way to communicate that visually for it to really change people's outlook persistently and durably.  Obviously, for example, medievals understood the concept of top-down plans, maps, etc.  I'm just saying that it wasn't necessarily their 'go to' way to see the world, the way it seems to be for us.

3 hours ago, nerfherder said:

I've actually been trying to think of a way to communicate graphically the basics of a world layout (including showing the main areas) without just showing the players a copy of the highly detailed and accurate map.  Any suggestions?

I try to use contemporary things like 

It's a map, but not *precisely* a map, if you get my drift.

On 6/21/2016 at 0:47 PM, Blacktoad said:

Very good points. I think sometimes I get too fixated on crunch, especially when setting up overland maps on Roll20 so that measurements are accurate and usable. I will assume measurements will be the same as RQ2.

Once that occurred to me (the time-instead-of-distance thing) I began to realize how much differently medieval people would have conceptualized their sense of place, and how radically the "aerial view" has altered our perceptions as moderns, particularly in the way we see the top-down view of things as authoritative - from blueprints to maps.

In fact, for the medieval person, they'd usually never have even conceived of this (except for fantasists, trying to imagine what birds could see).  The 'top down' map was pretty limited to places where you could actually get such a view close to a city, like the alps.  Otherwise, their 'city diagrams' were simply profiles, and then a sort of mental-topology of places and relationships.

(Sorry, you can probably tell one of my degrees was in geography.  Maybe this isn't interesting for most.)

It really made me start presenting information in games without maps, as much as possible (tactical maps, sure, but I mean the big world maps we all love to draw and look at).

As repellent as the example is, Broo show that miscegenation is possible with ANYTHING, given enough magical oomph behind it.

To answer Khedrac's original question, no, I haven't used half elves - I think in any canonical Glorantha (YGMV) they'd be pretty rare.

I could certainly even see a deliberate attempt to make them, probably from the elves' side, as a way to better understand or try to infiltrate humanity.  Humans (I'd guess) would generally find them repellent, or at least shocking.  I say it would be from the elves' side, because (thinking like a vegetable here) they're all about trying to create life here, there, everywhere but (ironically in human terms) they don't really care much about the "sanctity" of pure breeding, so if it was a failed mutation they'd just shrug.  

IMG elves aren't just people with pointy ears and wood bones, at least I try to portray them as REALLY DIFFERENT.  They're practically space aliens from humans' point of view, with their unconcern about individuals and frighteningly long-view collective perspective.  Elf Woods are terrifying places, if you're not there with their permission or an elf-friend.

7 hours ago, Joerg said:

...this is one man's interpretation of how the rules would play published without a rules audit, let alone a Glorantha audit. ...

As is yours, no?

5 hours ago, Joerg said:

RQ3 sorcery was Alternate Earth sorcery, really - and it did see some adaptation and use for Land of Ninja. The basic concept - each spell its own skill, and manipulation skills as capping skills much like riding was for mounted combat - applied to any user of sorcery.

Gods of Glorantha did a very very feeble attempt to introduce Malkioni- and Mostali-specific spells, which I haven't seen anybody use anywhere.

The role of wizards in Malkioni society was severely under-defined. The use of sorcery by non-specialists among the Malkioni (e.g. craft guilds, Hrestoli knights) with just a few spells and intensity worked fine, even though the spell effects were a bit sucky. (Especially the lottery "Damage Resistance" which worked the least when needed the most, and required lots of die rolling.)

...

So, I expect a fresh approach keeping the "skill and manipulation" idea, stirring in Gloranthan runes and cultural background. More than 30 years of roleplaying developments should help create something that is not a POW-sink or a skill requirement multiplication nightmare. Or an exercise in administration of durations...

Elder Secrets had the Mostali sorcery, I believe?

Unfortunately, the new rule set will be based exclusively in Dragon Pass, meaning Sorcery will likely be covered only in perfunctory fashion.  I believe it's being included at all only because Jeff has mentioned that Lhankor Mhy use sorcery which was a pretty big surprise to me.

Stumbled on this document I put together years ago, that had converted some effects familiar to World of Warcraft players into RQ3 terms. Maybe someone finds them interesting.

The Death Knight ones I used for abilities of some of Delecti's Lieutenants, the Druid for a player that wanted to be a healer but not "just another Chalana Arroy".

Yes, some of the effects are fiddly and will require things like tokens marking effects - for example a green d20 for plague, a red d20 for tracking bleeding, and a blue d20 for tracking frost effects. For that purpose, I'd typically say that the status effects like that are non-stacking with themselves - for example you either have the frostbite effect or no, not that you could be affected multiple times with frostbite. Depending on your preference, you could say they're exclusionary - you couldn't have both plague and frostbite at the same time.

This management burden may constrain the use of some of these. For example I wouldn't (as a DM) want to try to manage more than one NPC with Death Knight abilities at a time. OTOH, if you have a player with lifebloom, let THEM track the stuff, so they work fine for player abilities.

They're meant to be reasonably balanced according to RQ3 power levels - typically 1 Spirit mp= 1 disrupt = 1-3 nonignorable damage or = 1 point of immediate healing. Ergo, Lifebloom (as a 1 point spirit spell) heals 3 points which may seem overpowered, but it does it over 6 rounds starting NEXT round. Moonfire (2 point spirit spell) does 1d6 damage and rolls on the missile to-hit location at +10 (so likely head), but you need to roll to-hit, and armor protects.

They also work well as magic-item abilities, for example a dagger shaped like an icicle may give the wielder the ability to cause Frostbite for 1mp on contact. Or a magical willow twig, that if broken, casts Nature's Grasp on the user.

Anyway, enjoy. If people like these, I could certainly do more.

RQ3 DK and Druid.pdf

To kind of go back to the generic/specific topic, I find it curious that Greg's original creative impetus of Glorantha - where it was born - was in the West, with Prince Snodal's stories and the tales of the survivors of Seshnegg.  You'd think (at least I would) that these original tentative steps into worldbuilding would leave that area the creative heart of the game?

Yet in all of its official rules incarnations, the game itself has more or less ignored the West.  

RQ2 didn't even have sorcery as a thing, while it was only in (latter, when it came back to Glorantha generally) RQ3 that we started to see our first hints of Malkionism.  Is it possible that the first non-Lunar/Orlanthi/Praxian character officially presented wasn't until Arlaten, in Strangers in Prax?

http://www.staffordcodex.com/overview

(shrug) Personally, I think republishing in OSR format might be a quick way for Chaosium to make a buck, but the smarter move would be to have them updated, polished to 2016 publishing standards, and queued to release simultaneous with RQ4.  IMO nothing is more critical to the release of a new rule set than supplements being widely and immediately available.

My fantasy pipe dream would be that concurrent with RQ4's release, we'd have one or even two significant campaign supplements of the caliber of RQ3-heydey products: Sun County, River of Cradles, or at least as substantial as Shadows on the Borderlands.  Those were all *magnificent* supplements, and I think much of the material we're talking about could well be compiled into a SotB-style product focused on Dragon Pass (or a part of it) with a relative minimum of effort.

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

"That gap is 16 cubits wide. If you miss the opposite ledge, you will drop half a fathom onto sharp rodks. Do you jump it?"

"What was a cubit? And how deep is half a fathom?"

Hence some need to compare measurements with your personal preferred units. If I see temperatures given in Fahrenheit, I gain no knowledge whatsoever. Same goes for pressures in psi or (even worse) just a weight without any area reference.

 

I live and work in Imperial-measures land, and I honestly couldn't care less what measurement system they use.

For my players, we simply parse meters as yards and that works.  Nobody gives a crap about more precision than that anyway.  We try to avoid metric only because it's frightfully anachronistic in conversation but hey if that's your system of choice YGMV.

In terms of larger distances, I tend to use neither miles nor km, but time.   Even today, in our map and precision-centric society, colloquial conversation tends to be time-based.  How far is Chicago?  About 8 hours drive.

If someone in Pavis asks how far it is to Boldhome, *nobody* would say 280km.  The answer would of course be "a hard week's ride for a brave soul, alone; at least a couple of weeks with traders' wagons, assuming you're not stopping with them; or, the rest of your life if you're unwary and the nomads are acting up"

2 hours ago, CruelDespot said:

So you like conflicts that are "epic" but that only involve small numbers of people. 

Name a single epic story in which the lead character is actually the army?  

I'm with David, despite being a simulationist that loves wargames, in my RPGs mass combat is narratively driven, not mechanically so.  It provides a backdrop to character action. Their choices may influence it in unexpected ways, but generally it's plotted out as a series of events that I want to happen, "dumping" the PC's out at the end in a given situation.  Obviously, the trick is to keep them from knowing that with enough DM sleight-of-hand.