Stephen

3 hours ago, kpmcdona said:

I think the uncertainty and danger of RQ is part of it's charm. The GM shouldn't gauge how many Lunar soldiers are in a patrol based on the PCs. The decision should be based on story logic and let the chips fall where they may. Now from a GM advice point of view, you should make sure that you don't *force* fights on players if the outcome is at all in doubt. Let the players choose to initiate combat--or not--if at all possible. Yes the PCs (or players? Not this again!) are occasionally going to underestimate opponents and have a bad day. That is the experience that RQ seems designed to create. Every decision to fight is a gamble. Do you feel lucky?  

Gosh, sorry you wiped, guess you weren't lucky....guess you all need to get out dem dice and start making the 30 family history rolls each for your new toons    

So, let me get this straight..... I'm to avoid fighting whenever possible, since gauging enemy strength in other than the vaguest terms is, well, impossible for anyone without years of experience under his belt.  So maybe 1  out of 3 game sessions might have a fight in it, right?  And since I have no way of gauging enemy strength, and the GM is blissfully and intentionally ignoring such matters (not that a new DM has much choice, given the lack of CRs), what's the odds that any effort I put into combat training actually being useful?  What are the odds I will get to that rare balanced fight where my training *might* actually matter before I wipe due to an imbalanced fight ?   Why have such elaborate and complex combat rules at all if balanced fights are a rarity?

It seems strange to even have this disagreement - CRs don't have to mean you become D and D , or that YOU or HER or HIM even have to use them.  It just makes them available to those of us that DO like balance as a game concept.  

3 minutes ago, styopa said:

Or - and I don't want to sound all "get those kids off my lawn" - we've all BEEN there and ultimately figured it out?    With (in the ancient days) far less online support, group-assistance, or forums like this to seek advice and counsel.

Just because there's neither a signpost nor a shortcut, doesn't mean there isn't ANY way to get where you're trying to go.

I think we are making the same point.  Doable but ya gotta work to get there.  Much better if the design team takes care of the basics to make it easier.

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

Balance guidelines? In the end it comes down to this - there should be always be a way for the players to get around most of an adventure's obstacle by means other than combat. That can be run away, talk to the monster, or find some allies. Jason is working on some more nuanced guidance than that, but at the end of the day, BRP balance is setting based not mechanically balanced - if your plucky but outnumbered band of rebels decide to take on that patrol of professional soldiers who are nearly as competent as them, you have a good chance of having a TPK. Just like common sense would suggest. And also keep in mind, one critical or one fumble can be a complete game changer - and how do you balance for that? 

But balance like D&D or Pathfinder does it? That’s just not how we roll. Not in Call of Cthulhu, not in Pendragon, and not in RuneQuest. A big monster with a descent chance of hitting is going to be really tough. Might wipe out the whole party. Same thing with a Rune Lord more skilled in combat than any member of the party. That’s just how it is with BRP.

If you want nicely balanced attritional adventures where the scenario is designed that the party should be able to fight their way to success against a series of level and class appropriate foes, then maybe Pathfinder or 13th Age is better for you. 

But me - I have always loved the danger of BRP. I've loved it in Call of Cthulhu, in Pendragon, and in RuneQuest. To each their own.

Much of what you say I agree with.  One of Runequest's strengths is that it discourages attrition combat and encourages thinking and roleplaying.  Similarly, its exciting that combats can swing on one fumble or crit, and makes them dangerous even when you have an advantage.  But why do CR ratings have to be a threat to that system?   Why do you feel that having such ratings somehow makes the game into, as you say, a "scenario is designed that the party should be able to fight their way to success against a series of level and class appropriate foes"?  

You said "if your plucky but outnumbered band of rebels decide to take on that patrol of professional soldiers who are nearly as competent as them..."  Your words clearly shows you have the ability to gauge competency vs. numbers at least to some extent and translate it into comparative balance, and it further suggests that your players need that skill set as well if they hope to survive.  I believe that both you and the game designers (not sure if you are one of them, pardon that) can look over a character sheet, monster stats, or an NPC write-up and get a rather good idea of comparative challenge.  Why not share such guidelines and translate it into some kind of numbers, whether it be CR or something else?  Why not make the game more accessible for those that don't have your experience?  

Much has also been said about the difficulty of translating RQ stats and other factors into CR ratings.  I would suggest that perhaps the reason is more based on bias toward eschewing "balance" than it is on the actual difficulty of providing some sort of CRs. 

In the end I wonder if perhaps many of you have been involved with Runequest so long that you have lost perspective on how incredibly difficult it is for a new DM and players to create adventures or make reasonable decisions in Runequest without CRs or something similar.  Or how difficult it is for new players/GMs to look at some stats and get any reasonable idea of what they translate to in a fight.  And providing such numbers doesn't have to change what the game is about or threaten it's core principles - it merely would make the game more accessible.

3 minutes ago, 7Tigers said:

Well, fewer combats mean they are meaningfull, so you'd better be prepared for it. And that NPCs having 75% or 60% in spear is not really important. More important is what is their cult? What runic magic are they likely to use? How many rune points do they have left? What is their combat tactic (scorpion men with multiple arms and poison tactic is quite different from a band of trollkin with slings one)? Do they have allies nearby? Will repercussions happen if PCs kill or ransom them?
So provinding a balancing formula seems a bit difficult with all those parameters.

And small dungeon crawling is always possible. But for big dungeons, attrition will quickly raise its ugly head...

To be fair, other roleplaying games also have those issues, and they still managed to provide a workable CR system, right?  In any case, it appears from the post above that there will be a whole chapter dedicated to such balance, so the point has become less of a problem to me.

21 minutes ago, Jason Durall said:

 

The Gamemaster Sourcebook, which is my highest prio right now, has a whole chapter on Encounters, specifically on scaling them to suit the needs of the scene and to provide the right degree of challenge for the adventurers. 

But if you'd like to claim that we're "stubbornly refusing" to provide such info, or that sales are poor, you can be wrong on both counts. 

My apologies - my built up angst re this issue in Runequest over 30 years got the better of me.  Allow me to elaborate:  All previous RQ systems have failed to provide such guidelines.  Then RQG player book is then released, along w/the Bestiary, and still no such guidelines.   Whenever balance and combat is bought up in these forums, it seems that everyone is quick to jump on the "we don't need combat encounter balance" bandwagon.  

I sincerely apologize for jumping the gun and over-dramatizing w/the "stubbornly refused" comment   It turns out I should have been thanking you for bringing RQ out of the dark ages of imbalance instead of criticizing you lol (Steve slaps himself repeatedly as penance).  But perhaps you can see why I was concerned.  

20 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

24 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

PCs are not balanced.  How on earth could you make a system that actually works, when player capabilities are all over the place?  I am quite sure most of the time my Great troll ZZ berzerker can flatten a LM, or Issaries PC.  But man am I happy to have them around when it is their turn to shine.  So how can you crm that into a CR system?

The evidence is clear - role-playing games have been successfully using CR systems for decades.  You just need to start w/the understanding that its a BASELINE guideline, not a definitive one.  Its a place for a GM to begin his balancing work from, not end it at.

36 minutes ago, 7Tigers said:

Well, it is YOUR opinion. That's fine. But did you play the game before being so sure of it?
As it was said above, magic, missiles and multiple attacks nullify a lot differences between encounter "levels".
A careful attack will lead you more farther and more succesfully than running head down into fights.
At RQG, every combat is dangerous. So players learn very fast to plan for them or find ways to avoid them.
It may not be your favorite kind of play. So perhaps RQG is not for you. Again, that's fine.
But for a lot of people, not having a system for balancing encounters (for now, knowing that the physical Core Rules book has been available only since a few hours) is not an issue.
And Jason has already said that Gamemaster Sourcebook will contain a full chapter about adventure design (campaign/adventure/encouter design, etc.).

Yes, I have spent hundreds of hours playing the game and analyzing/working on it, ever since the PDF was released.  But none of that is really relevant to the OP's post that we need guidelines.  If combats are to be avoided, and are not meant to be balanced, why should a PC invest in combat stats and spells vs.other stuff?  Why the elaborate rules for combat?  If combats are rarely fought and balanced, why does it matter if I have a 75% in spear vs. 60%?  

Thank you for the information re the DM source book.  I hope it will fix the problem.

17 minutes ago, Crel said:

What are your suggestions then, for how such a system should start? Lend us your experience.

It would begin with an understanding that the goal is to get a baseline idea of a creatures challenge rating.  Something that will lower the difficulty of creating balanced encounters, not eliminate it.  As w/all CR systems, differing party compositions, luck, and skill are going to lead to different results.  But it is much easier starting w/a baseline than none at all.

D and D's challenge rating system is a decent model to start with.  A chart would assign "difficulty points" to PCs/NPCs/creatures based on a # of factors:  avg.damage dealt, hp, combat skill %s, armor, spells, etc.  Depending on the challenge you want and the number of encounters the PCs face, you might decide to set the enemy group at 20% the difficulty level of the PCs, or 70%, or whatever.

Remember, difficulty level is always an elusive and changing target.  But there is a reason why virtually all games use such a system - it decreases the work needed to balance encounters.   And without balanced encounters, all those combat spells, stats, and rules really don't mean much.

10 minutes ago, 7Tigers said:

And if you want balanced encounters, just avoid combats. RQG is about Role Playing in Glorantha, not mega dungeon crawling anyway.

Well, for  a Role playing game it sure does have a lot of rules, stats, and spells used primarily in COMBAT........Look, here is a simple rule of game design:  Don't introduce rules that you don't have fully fleshed out.  An elaborate combat system without a system for balancing encounters = inconsistent and awkward at least, inexplicable at worst.  And I would also suggest that if role-players don't find a way to share the table with gamers, they are going to find their hobby slowly shrinking. Would it really have taken too much time or the designers to work out an encounter balancing mechanism? 

15 hours ago, OrlanthR said:

Hi all. Any advice on a way to balance opposition  for PCs in combat? I’ve been using the Treasure Factor calculator from RQ2, but I wasn’t sure if there was anything more nuanced out there.

Also, I want to generate some high level npc opponents, Lunar Sorcerers etc. Any pointers on where to find examples for someone relatively new to Glorantha?

Thanks!

No such animal.  The designers of RQG have stubbornly refused to include any balanced encounter guidelines, an omission which I think will drive the final nail into the RQ coffin.  I just don't think the  designers understand (or more likely don't care) how absolutely crucial it is to have such a tool if you want to appeal to today's gamer.  I see RQG as a game about nostalgia, hopes, and dreams, but without the hero needed to save it from final judgement by today's gamers.  But in the meantime, until that final judgement day (which may arrive soon in the form of low sales of the hardback), me and the other grognards here will have some fun at least fiddling with the game (since I can't, much to my dismay, find any gamers under 40 willing to actually play it, and the only ones that will play it are RQ veterans who favor/are nostalgic for/ are stuck in the edition they played back in the day).

I would be interested in hearing from the game designers about this issue.  I don't have a problem w/the various augments not working well in combat, since I dont think that was their intent.  If you want to do something better in combat, train it.  But if time is not an issue, it makes sense that Meditation and skill augments are there to make your chances better.

But there are problems w/Meditation.  We have always played that a fail-cast spirit spell cost 1 MP.  So casual casters w/a 10 POW would fail half the time, and the caster could possibly lose several MP before casting successfully.  Thus Meditate fits in well, as a mechanism to be able to take an extra 10 mins to make the chance 75%.  But w/the cost of failed casts being 0, there just seems to be little point in Meditation.  Why not just keep casting until successful and take less time in the process?

This doesn't seem to be the only inconsistency in the rules.  Its almost as if the different rules of this game were taken willy nilly from different editions without much regard to how they work together.

Skill augments seem to work a little better.  I can imagine doing a dance to make that Influence of the noble more likely.  You don't want to fail such a roll even once, so repeat-till-fail is not an option.

I am in now, thanks again Jeff   

thanks, I appreciate it

ahhhh

yes lol

hi jeff I took your advice and went to the facebook page and actually had to create a facebook account to access it, but have been unable to join it for some reason.  I dont seem to get any response, not sure if it is my facebook settings or something.  Do you know someone on that group that can help me?

thanks bud, i will try that

no SoCal peeps out there? (cricket)

I have a group in Tustin, Orange County california looking for 1-2 more peeps for new campaign.  We meet every other weekend on sundays.  A couple of our players are new and a couple (including myself) are veterans.  We play a blend of RQ editions and use extensive 3d terrain and miniatures    ( I have possibly the best collection of terrain and figures on the planet ).  My email is shoak1@yahoo.com.