RQ3+4+BRP?

[Barak Shathur]

20 hours ago, Jeff said:

Correct. Greg was fundamentally dissatisfied with the approach taken with that manuscript. I playtested it as well, and shared Greg's dissatisfaction. It was an interesting and worthwhile exercise, but I agree with Greg that it was not the direction to go.

Thanks to you and David for sharing these nuggets of role playing history! Do you have any recollection of any details of what Greg was opposed to?

[David Scott]

16 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Do you have any recollection of any details of what Greg was opposed to?

It wasn't details (although there was creeping complexity between the first and second drafts), more that it was all moving away from his vision of Glorantha. Overall I don't think he found it very interesting given what else he was working on at the time. It never dealt with the mythology, just more mechanics.

[soltakss]

On 9/23/2021 at 10:13 AM, David Scott said:

I was an RQIV playtester. I didn't like it, no one in my group was interested in playing it once they realised that It introduced more complications to an already complex system and added nothing to the current AH version.

That was basically my view when I saw a copy of the rules. Very complex for no reason. I seem to remember it talking about half-turns and so on, to indicate that an Adventurers has rotated a little but to face someone else, and I thought "Who in their right mind would want rules for that?"

 

[Barak Shathur]

9 hours ago, soltakss said:

That was basically my view when I saw a copy of the rules. Very complex for no reason. I seem to remember it talking about half-turns and so on, to indicate that an Adventurers has rotated a little but to face someone else, and I thought "Who in their right mind would want rules for that?"

 

So maybe not everything in RQ4 is stellar. I guess the parts I appreciate are the ones that seem to address what I consider more or less serious problems in RQ as a whole, solutions that unfortunately were never implemented in later BRP iterations (though some, like the hit location damage levels, as per the above were). The way I use it is to incorporate those parts into RQ3 and, voila I have a game that functions very nicely.

The session got canceled tonight so I can't give a full report yet...

[Barak Shathur]

I should add that clearly, as has been stated by others, RQ4 was a work in progress. We’ll never know how it would have turned out in the end. But it contains some nuggets that function really well with the BRP system IMO. 

[deleriad]

I got a copy of this back in the day (the one without the Shaman rules) and, initially, our gaming group were keen to try it out. We had mostly been playing non-Gloranthan RQ3 since RQ3 came out so I was particularly keen to see how Glorantha would be re-embedded particularly because I was Jonesing to run a generational campaign set in Jonatela. After ploughing through it, doing some char gen and starting to convert Rainbow Mounds, we gave up. It was just so much detail. 

At the point, as a group, we were quite into detail in lengthy campaigns but on the whole we were tending to simplify game play and character sheets. Less book-keeping more playing. RPGs in general had been on a trajectory of increasingly complicated and detailed systems from the mid-80s and RQ4 would have been the poster child for that. I'm not sure there's anything "wrong" with RQ4 as a system in its own right but it was just too much work to enjoy it. That said, I had mixed-opinions when I learned it had been cancelled because it meant that the RQ hiatus would continue. Plus I wasn't really keen on the narrative games that were emerging: ultimately I enjoy the type of world-building that BRP style games push you towards. 

[David Scott]

When did the pretty version appear? I didn't see it until around 2000, but the credits page says 1993. I only ever saw monospaced text files and emails. Even at conventions, I never saw this (and I'm listed as one of the playtesters).

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by David Scott

[Mugen]

I didn't find any reference to Steve Perrin, not even a "Special Thanks".

I'm shocked.

[Ian Absentia]

The Family Tree is more of an anastomosing channel.  Steve was doing different things with different people at the time, but his omission is odd.

!i!

[Barak Shathur]

So I see the combat system, including HP, DB, specials, knockback, damage and move calculation as good updates to RQ3, basically (and better than any other BRP iteration I've come across for my money). That's really all I need from RQ4. But what about you guys? What would you keep, and ditch, from RQ4?

[SDLeary]

14 hours ago, David Scott said:

When did the pretty version appear? I didn't see it until around 2000, but the credits page says 1983. I only ever saw monospaced text files and emails. Even at conventions, I never saw this (and I'm listed as one of the playtesters).

 

I think your 10 years off. Your scan that you posted says '93. 😉

SDLeary

[David Scott]

6 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I think your 10 years off. Your scan that you posted says '93. 😉

 

Clearly a rose-tinted glasses effect...

[olskool]

On 9/20/2021 at 10:49 AM, Baron Wulfraed said:

Where it gets complicated is the weapon type variations. The core critical statement (bolded in the book) is just (all extracts from pages 203-206)

Under "Special Damage" one finds

• Impaling weapons: An impale does twice the weapon’s normal rolled damage. That is not 2xrolled, but roll+roll (given example: 1D6+1 -> 2D6+2) -- and then add any damage bonus (damage/magic bonuses are not doubled)... and weapon is stuck in target
• Slashing: The slashing weapon’s damage should be rolled normally twice and both results added together. Essentially same as impaling, but weapon does not get stuck in target -- but there is a later clause about "incapacitating" the target
• Crushing: The weapon damage should be rolled normally and the regular damage bonus for SIZ+STR (if any) should also be rolled normally. The maximum damage  bonus from STR+SIZ, if any, should then be added to the result. Least effective -- if you don't have a damage bonus, you gain nothing from a crush. (The critical at least gets you maximum damage vs rolled)

Summarized in the sidebar on page 203.

We always gave CRUSH maximum damage and counted the damage total as DOUBLED for knockback/knockdown in Runequest 2e.

[olskool]

On 9/18/2021 at 3:33 PM, Barak Shathur said:

The pdf I have is called "RuneQuest 4 - Adventures in Glorantha" and is from 1993. The DB table goes

STR + SIZ         DB

01-05                -4

06-10                -3

11-15                 -2

16-20                -1

21-25                +0

26-30               +1

31-35               +2

36-40              +3

etc.

(STR + SIZ/5, rounding up, minus 5)

It's a damn shame it wasn't published, in many ways it's the version I like the best that I've seen so far. It really seemed to solve many of the problems with RQ, IMO.

Edit: at least in terms of combat mechanics and general game system. I haven't studied chargen or magic closely, for that I use RQ3 and BRP.

Just take this chart and add a die roll for the bonuses +/-  then 1, 1D2, 1D3, 1D4, 1D5, 1D6, 1D8, etc...  This gives a bit of variety without sacrificing the total damage possible.  We ACTUALLY used this in Runequest 2e back in the '90s and it worked quite well. 

The one change we did make [through evolution in play] was deducting the weapon's STR requirement from the PC's STR BEFORE we made the calculations for damage.  We then used increments of 5 points of "surplus STR" to determine the damage bonus.  This made lower STR characters actually consider weapons like shortswords and daggers for their characters.  

Edited September 28, 2021 by olskool

[Barak Shathur]

So, we had our session, battle ensued, here is the combat report:

The situation: two PCs in a rowing boat in the wee hours of morning, hunting a giant eel under the wooden platform of Laketown (we are playing in Tolkien's Middle Earth using MERP modules). Two more PCs are supporting with crossbows from the platform. They are hunting a giant eel that has been plaguing the good fishermen of that town. While steering through the thick mist among the huge timber piles they suddenly hear a cry and a big splash, and hurrying toward the sound come upon an upturned boat, a fisherman desperately swimming away from it, and a 10' eel gorging  itself on the spilled catch.

The creature hasn't noticed the approach of the adventurers, so they aim and let loose from the boat with bows (the one's on the platform haven't caught up with them yet). The first roll is 100, a fumble, and the character's poor compatriot is hit for special (double) damage in the leg. To make things worse, the fumbler rolls max damage, so the leg is impaled for 18 points! However, since it has 5 HP, only 10 are taken to general HP but the leg is maimed. The unlucky fellow falls, bleeding (since he took more than the leg's total HP in one shot) and is incapacitated. Until his leg is healed, he has one combat action less than normal and can only crawl and fight from the ground (at half skill). He manages however to roll under CON x3 and the bleeding stops by itself before it has started.

Next round, the remaining bowman in the boat misses again (they get -25% due to mist, darkness, the eel moving and showing only partly above water). One of the characters up above, who is a dwarf and thus doesn't get a penalty for darkness, scores a hit though. A decent shot, but far from knocking the eel out. Now however the eel becomes aware of the adventturers in the boat next to it, and being very aggressive (and stupid to boot), attacks them. In the following round it reaches the boat while the PCs in it ready their melee weapon (battle axe and spear) and rams it with the full force of its body. Since I'm combining RQ3 with 4 (and a bit of BGB), I'm using RQ3's rules for intentional knockback. The eel is very big and strong so both men in the boat are affected, but they both succeed with their DEX rolls and keep their balance. They strike back at the eel (the one with the maimed leg lying over the railing and swinging his battle axe feebly at half skill) but fail to do much damage. Next round, the one still standing manages to injure the eel with his spear, and it now lunges into the boat at him (they gonna need a bigger boat), managing to bite his leg and doing 7 points of damage. Since they've both taken off all armour in order not to sink like stones if they fall in the water, this leg too is out and we now have both PCs in the boat knocked down. A quarrel from the crossbow dwarf grazes the eel but it's still in business.

In RQ4 it costs 5 MOV to move from lying to kneeling, and 5 more to move from kneeling to standing. I rule that the spear guy, whose leg is injured but not incapacitated, is able to get up to kneeling position in the initial movement phase (if he refrained from any actions in the combat phase he would be able to move up to twice his move again). He gets up on his knees and stabs at the eel (if it was above him he would get -10% to his attacks, but it's in the water below so he can fight as normal. He misses though. Now, however, the axe guy manages to get a decent blow in across the eel's spine. 10 points is enough to knock it out, and it is soon floating upside down in the bloody water. The wounded warriors haul the 120 kg beast onto the boat and limp back to the quay, where they are greeted by the cheering fishermen. Next session they will get healed by the high priest of the Fishers' Cult and the campaign will commence.

The system didn't get fully tested since there wasn't any movement to speak of, but everyone agreed the combat flowed smoothly. I will keep using RQ4's combat system with RQ3 going forward. Cheers!

[Kränted Powers]

How did they handle Fatigue rules in RQIV? 
After all these years with our very tuned RQ3 engine, the Fatigue rules are still "the missing puzzle".

[David Scott]

11 hours ago, Kränted Powers said:

How did they handle Fatigue rules in RQIV?

An optional system of 6 levels of fatigue from normal to prostrated, governed by a fatigue roll (CON multiplier dependant on activity). It was over 2 pages long...

Better than RQ3, but I still ignored it.

[Kränted Powers]

I wonder if somebody has solved this problem. I couldn't find a thread about this either. After all these years with RuneQuest III here are my solutions:

1) Current system:
Encumbrance is divided by Constitution. Each point means -10 % to all physical skill rolls and -1 strike rank. All the time, from the very first melee round to the last. So, it's not cumulative. We are not satisfied with this, but it's been fair for adventurers with CON 17 or 7.

2) Under construction: Roll each round.
This is not as bad as it sounds as we roll all the dice (to hit, hit location, damage) at the same time to speed up the combat (so we are not wasting time like "did you hit? Yes? Ok, then roll for hit location. Thanks. And then, damage roll, please"). 

Add one D20 (CON check) more WITH a modifier (encumbrance/CON). Each time you fail there's -10 % to hit and -1 to SR.

Any thoughts about this?

 

[David Scott]

Depends how crunchy you like your games. None of the RQ3 GMs I played with, ever used it. The sentence Starting from zero, an average adventure, can completely recover full fatigue points in 4-10 minutes, basically meant it was ignored as a time waster.

[Mugen]

As for myself, I treat Hit Points as being essentially fatigue.

Wounds and other long-term "health status" rédigé their maximum value.

[Kloster]

22 minutes ago, David Scott said:

None of the RQ3 GMs I played with, ever used it.

One of mine used it, and it never changed the result of a single roll, because combat were sufficiently short to avoid the -1% per fatigue below 0 to have any effect. The next GM (a player in the game we used it) decided to discard it completely.

[Kränted Powers]

24 minutes ago, David Scott said:

Depends how crunchy you like your games. None of the RQ3 GMs I played with, ever used it. The sentence Starting from zero, an average adventure, can completely recover full fatigue points in 4-10 minutes, basically meant it was ignored as a time waster.

I think the Fatigue rule is another tactical option for players, so I would not want to lose it. Making heavily armoured knight (with too much experience on beer) run around the combat field until he is exhausted is not a bad strategy.

[Kränted Powers]

4 minutes ago, Kloster said:

One of mine used it, and it never changed the result of a single roll, because combat were sufficiently short to avoid the -1% per fatigue below 0 to have any effect. The next GM (a player in the game we used it) decided to discard it completely.

I agree. We had the similar experience in the early days.

[Kloster]

5 minutes ago, Kränted Powers said:

I think the Fatigue rule is another tactical option for players, so I would not want to lose it. Making heavily armoured knight (with too much experience on beer) run around the combat field until he is exhausted is not a bad strategy.

Agreed, it might work, is logical and coherent. But my experience is different: I tried several time to use this strategy, but the time needed to have the malus really count is way too long to get any chance of survival versus said armored tank, er, knight. with said experience and accompanying sword.

[Kränted Powers]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

Agreed, it might work, is logical and coherent. But my experience is different: I tried several time to use this strategy, but the time needed to have the malus really count is way too long to get any chance of survival versus said armored tank, er, knight. with said experience and accompanying sword.

Last time we played, a fight took 12 combat rounds (couple of minutes). Maybe it isn't realistic to get exhausted in such an short time, but perhaps we could be a bit unrealistic and add FATIGUE check after each round. So that the more agile and faster fighter can run around his opponent to make him more exhausted. Hmm, I think there is a chance for a tactical option. 

A guy who teached myesword techniques outside in a nearby park showed us another trick. The more your opponent is running around the better the chance that he will slip. And this happened too. Maybe that's covered in Fumble rolls. 😉

Edited January 6, 2022 by Kränted Powers