Jump to content

Please tell me how is Mythras different than RQ?


Badder

Recommended Posts

Although very much mechanically related, the simplest answer is that Mythras has no Gloranthan background. I would have a look at the free Mythras Imperative:

Quote

A free introduction to the Mythras system, and geared towards generic adventures. Mythras Imperative contains basic character creation and combat, introduces the core concepts of the game and gets you adventuring straight away. The ideal gateway to Mythras. 

http://thedesignmechanism.com/downloads.php

These two threads may also help:

https://forum.rpg.net/index.php?threads/differences-between-mythras-chaosium-runequest-runequest-6e.844270/

https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/ejt7qa/runequest_vs_mythras/

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

-----

Search the Glorantha Resource Site: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com. Search the Glorantha mailing list archives: https://glorantha.steff.in/digests/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RQ3 started without Glorantha, and RQ2 really only had it bolted on. Mythras has an ever-expanding catalogue of settings.

Badder, I presume you are asking about the rules, not the setting? Loz is probably the one to answer this best, but to my mind the most important difference is in the combat rules - Mythras goes for a more dynamic experience there, with more player options (and probably more complexity). There are lots of other small differences like characteristic bonuses, experience, etc. Mythras has a lot of magic systems, some similar to RQ and some completely different.

Edited by Vile Traveller

Dreamscape Design: Crafters of the Finest Tabletop Roleplaying Games

Dreamscape Design: My Corner of BRP Central ... Mine, All Mine! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

System-wise, there are distinct similarities:

  • Same characteristics - 3-18 range
  • Hit Points per Location
  • Percentile Skills
  • Passions
  • Cults
  • Detailed Combat
  • Lower & Higher Magic forms
  • Creatures with full stats, so playable as characters within reason and some bounds


But there are differences within the common elements. Mythras differs here:

  • No General Hit Points
  • Mythras uses Luck Points and Action Points
  • Skill values based on sum of two characteristics (or a single characteristic x2)
  • Different spread and handling of skills: Crits on 1/10th skill value, no Special Success, no Resistance Table
  • Passions augment skills without having to roll, and don't risk reducing a skill if failed
  • Combat takes a very different approach to resolution with a lot more tactical options and the use of Special Effects
  • No Strike Ranks - Mythras uses weapon size and reach instead
  • Magic works very differently. Five systems: Folk Magic, Animism, Theism, Mysticism and Sorcery - all fully detailed, but with different approaches and effects

Another underlying difference that may not be so evident is the design philosophy behind the Mythras rules. It's not based on RQ2 to the same extent as RQ:G, and therefore a lot design choices and decisions move away from design decisions that underpin RQ2 (such as the Resistance Table).

But the two games have a common heritage and thus a lot in common. Mythras is a toolkit that requires some thought from the GM, whereas RQ:G is tied to Glorantha and thus has that consistent reference point throughout.

As David Scott suggests, take a look at Mythras Imperative which gives you a very good idea of the system, and showcases the differences I've outlined above.

  • Like 15
  • Helpful 3

The Design Mechanism: Publishers of Mythras

DM logo Freeforums Icon.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

System-wise, there are distinct similarities:

  • Same characteristics - 3-18 range
  • Hit Points per Location
  • Percentile Skills
  • Passions
  • Cults
  • Detailed Combat
  • Lower & Higher Magic forms
  • Creatures with full stats, so playable as characters within reason and some bounds


But there are differences within the common elements. Mythras differs here:

  • No General Hit Points
  • Mythras uses Luck Points and Action Points
  • Skill values based on sum of two characteristics (or a single characteristic x2)
  • Different spread and handling of skills: Crits on 1/10th skill value, no Special Success, no Resistance Table
  • Passions augment skills without having to roll, and don't risk reducing a skill if failed
  • Combat takes a very different approach to resolution with a lot more tactical options and the use of Special Effects
  • No Strike Ranks - Mythras uses weapon size and reach instead
  • Magic works very differently. Five systems: Folk Magic, Animism, Theism, Mysticism and Sorcery - all fully detailed, but with different approaches and effects

Another underlying difference that may not be so evident is the design philosophy behind the Mythras rules. It's not based on RQ2 to the same extent as RQ:G, and therefore a lot design choices and decisions move away from design decisions that underpin RQ2 (such as the Resistance Table).

But the two games have a common heritage and thus a lot in common. Mythras is a toolkit that requires some thought from the GM, whereas RQ:G is tied to Glorantha and thus has that consistent reference point throughout.

As David Scott suggests, take a look at Mythras Imperative which gives you a very good idea of the system, and showcases the differences I've outlined above.

Loz: Am i allowed to translate this for german language sites to explain to german Mythras and/or RQ gamers where the differences of the two systems are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, there's really a "top 3" that *FEEL* different at the table...

1st and most-obvious, is "Special Effects" during combat.  This has taken the idea of crits/specials/fumbles, expanded it, and made it a tactical player-choice element.  It has all the familiar crit elements, like "maximum damage" and "ignore armor," but many more, as well.  Depending on relative degrees-of-success between attacker & defender, several SE's might be achieved, stacking onto one attack.  I've found that, more often than not, judicious use of SE's is more likely to decide combat that mere HP-attrition (even with per-location HP totals that reliably go out on 2-3 hits (often just 1 ) ) .

The downside, at my table, was that I was unable to "sell" it to the players, and they suffered from "analysis paralysis" trying to choose SE's during combat.  Others do not encounter this issue (and I have seen some clever workarounds for tables where this IS a problem).


2nd (and related in that it's also "combat") is the Action Point system.  Average characters will have 2 AP's per round, which often get used as 1 attack & 1 parry, but could both be taken as attacks, or both parries (nicely creating "all-out-attack" or "all-out defense" as combat options)... or either/both as noncombat actions like "throw a rope to someone who fell overboard" or "throw the big switch to turn off the Doomsday Device," etc etc etc.  But mostly, that I have seen, it's 1 attack & 1 parry.

Faster characters might have 3 APs instead of 2 -- an extra attack, or an extra parry, etc.  What to do with it is an interesting tactical choice, for those players.

4 APs is freakishly fast, and terrifying in combat.

You can also spend APs to benefit someone nearby... parry a blow meant for them, step between them and a charging attacker, etc.

It is this later element that makes APs the strategic path to victory, where SEs are the tactical path.  The strategic approach will not only consider each PC's APs, but the APs of the group (vs. the APs of the enemy group), and if possible, have people intervene (parry/etc) on behalf of a "Heavy Hitter," so that PC can concentrate on offense.


Last but not least, the various magic-systems, which each have different intentions & design goals, and thus feel & play very differently.  Some of these would be out of place in Glorantha, and so of course nothing like them exists in the Chaosium RQ tree of RQ1/RQ2/RQ3(kinda-sorta-mostly)/RQG.


The other issues -- to me, at least -- either don't "feel" like they are as big a deal in play; or they are more issues of character-generation/downtime/GM-prep, rather than play-at-the-table.

YMM(as always)V!
 

Edited by g33k
apostrophication
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AndreJarosch said:

Same here: 
MYTHRAS feels like it was DESIGNED to make the best locical use of the D100 System. 
RUNEQUEST feels like it has GROWN from edition to edition (RQ1, RQ2, RQ3 to RQG) into the D100 System that it is today. 

I agree.

I feel like RQ1 was originally designed as an alternative to D&D, and modified over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Mugen said:

...

I feel like RQ1 was originally designed as an alternative to D&D, and modified over time.

The whole RQ/BRP family-tree is clearly "designed as an alternative to D&D," given the STR/DEX/INT/etc stat-blocks on 3d6.  It's just too specific to be anything BUT D&D-derived, even if they then did innovative other things.

You need to hit games like Fudge, or Risus, or HeroQuest/QuestWorlds, to clearly break from that lineage and forge a new path without any of the old baggage...
😉 


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...