Jump to content

Numtini

Members
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

54 Excellent

About Numtini

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    RQ2, CoC 1st Ed.
  • Current games
    CoC, House BRP
  • Location
    Cape Schrod
  • Blurb
    Random Gamer Girl

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Numtini

    RQ vs D&D

    *raises hand* A load of the stuff you're talking about is something a player deals with and it goes on their character sheet before the game. When I first played RQ, one of the revelations was that virtually the entire game was on your character sheet. That was a huge innovation in 1980 compared to squinting at the endless tables of AD&D. But D&D has caught up. The complexity is not at the table, it's all right there on your character sheet. And for the adjustments that aren't on the character sheet, they tend to be advantage or disadvantage which is easier to deal with than percentage calculations on the skill level which may change the chances of special successes. Having said that, I don't find RQ particularly difficult mechanically and I don't know why someone would think it is. But making out that D&D is still the mess it was 40 years ago is just not fair.
  2. Numtini

    RQ vs D&D

    Maybe I'm daft, but I see D&D 5E as making the best use of stats of any game I can think of. Gods know, old D&D they had little or no effect at all. So many rolls in 5E are based on a stat roll plus proficiency if you have it in the skill.
  3. Numtini

    RQ vs D&D

    Criticals were one of the things that Gygax railed against in his notorious screed in Dragon 16: Given that this was published the same year RQ was, I'm guessing that criticals were house-ruled pretty often prior to RQ. I'm quite amused by the essay as pretty much everything Gygax rants against in that essay--spell points (slots), criticals, weapon expertise--is now a core part of D&D. Overall, I am with Styopa in thinking RQ:G was a little too slavish to old RQ and missed an opportunity to update the game. When I encountered RQ in the 80s, I completely abandoned D&D as RQ was obviously superior. Now, after all the changes of 40 years, I find that 5E is a quite good game that I'm very happy to play, but RQ:G feels a little dated, a little over complicated, and also seems more a game people talk about than actually play. Part of that is also that the kind of storytelling that early Chaosium pioneered in the industry is now ubiquitous. If you look at a modern 5E scenario, it has far more in common with something like Borderlands or Griffon Mountain than it does to the 16 page folders of stats that made up TSR modules in the 80s.
  4. The problem here is that being realistic, motorcycle should be a separate skill, particularly because you should only be rolling if there's a high speed chase or evasion of some calamity or some other "extraordinary" event. However, if you make it a separate skill, nobody will take it because it's just too niche. CoC already has too many skills that nobody takes because they spread your points out too much.
  5. It's not specified that I can see, probably because worn armor in CoC classic period is really rare. It's almost exclusively an NPC thing. Delta Green is mum on the issue. I think the notion may be that if enough damage is done to the armor, the character will be dead or hospitalized and it won't really be a relevant issue.
  6. All I can say is every character seems to take athletics in Trail or Delta Green and virtually no character takes any of the "athletic" skills in CoC. That right there indicates to me that the system is dissuading people from taking skills that players generally considered useful at a more reasonable cost. I'd completely forgotten the bonus/penalty dice. This was something that really gave me pause when I read the rules, but after a session or two, it had become completely natural both to roll them and to call for them at the appropriate time. That, overall, is my feeling about 7th. Most things that seemed like significant changes at first read became invisible at the table.
  7. The rules are far better and more completely written and organized. This has led to me discovering a lot of rules that despite playing from first edition, I'd never really noticed. We've had several instances in our games where someone objected to "7th edition crap" (and yes, that's a quote) only to have me pull out the 1st edition and show them the same rule that they'd never noticed. (And in some cases, I hadn't either until I read 7th.) The big change I notice at the table is that combat is a bit more streamlined. In addition to your one action, you get a counter-reaction (dodge or fight back) to each attack against you. This is compared to old CoC where if you dodged that was the only thing you did that round (probably the single most ignored rule in 1-6 ed in my experience--it seems everyone let you dodge and let you dodge bullets). This generally means more damage gets done faster and combat ends quicker. The exception, and only thing that's crunchy imho, is automatic weapons fire. Frankly, it's a mess trying to be overly simulative. The old system was a mess trying to make it easy. Delta Green IMHO got it right. I really don't see any real difference with the percentile characteristics positive or negative. Most of the rolls in 1-6 were x5 anyway. And most of us who've gamed can do 5x maths in our head. Luck spends (optional) are convenient for avoiding meaningless death to a mook, but do little to really change the overall outcome--ditto for pushing rolls. IMHO other than the automatic weapons, the other mistake was a lost opportunity IMHO to consolidate some skills. Again, DG did that well.
  8. I have a scoot. It's totally different than driving. But I would include it as driving. All this "realism" stuff is great in theory, but if you divide this stuff too narrowly, it leaves us with a lot of skills that nobody takes, something that is already a problem in Call.
  9. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  10. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  11. Back when I was a teenager, I started to pick up Runequest stuff because that's what all the cool kids in the APAs were talking about. The rules were fine, a little confusing, and a little deadly. The next summer I went to I picked up Cults of Prax. It probably kicked around for a few weeks after before I got around to reading it. I remember sitting on my mom's couch just riveted. Suddenly, this world from the rulebook made sense, but all these other things made sense too. I knew it was a fictional world, but suddenly I "got" the way that the connections between mythology and a religion and culture centered around them would actually function. Encountering Glorantha didn't just change my gaming, it changed my life. I explored alternative spirituality. I studied anthropology and world religion. As I thought about his loss today, I am just in awe of exactly how much a simple RPG setting has had on the direction of my life.
  12. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  13. It should include 2 D20s, numbered 0-9 twice!
  14. Wouldn't it just be a fighting maneuver to restrain them?
  15. My understanding is he sold the company in 2009 and regained control in 2014. My problem with the RQ dice is the same as the CoC dice, I can roll a d10 in any other games, but if I'm playing a BRP percentile based game, I have to have proper 20 sided 0-9 twice percentiles. It just doesn't feel right otherwise. I'd be up for the hit location die though. It'd even be good as "flavor" for other games.
×
×
  • Create New...