Rule variations between Starter Set and RQG

[RandomNumber]

On 11/23/2021 at 4:48 AM, Scotty said:

Yes. Please take this to a new thread. 

In the RuneQuest Starter set corrections thread some contributors have noted rule differences between RQG and Book One. Is Chaosium planning to address these differences at some point and help us understand whether these are errors, deliberate simplifications for the Starter Set, rule changes or "other"?

For example:

@7Tigers p.60, skills are supposed to be natural & unmodified > 100% for lowering other people skills now.

@Paid a bod yn dwp  Book 1 Rules. P27 Second bullet point: “A critical success does double maximum damage.”  Should this be “A critical success does double maximum damage, and ignores armor” ?

Thanks,

 

 

[PhilHibbs]

Nothing in the starter set is intended to be a change to the RuneQuest rules. If there are differences then they are either mistakes or simplifications.

Feel free as a group to adopt or ignore any differences if you're using the full rule set.

[Puckohue]

 

[Alex]

29 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Nothing in the starter set is intended to be a change to the RuneQuest rules. If there are differences then they are either mistakes or simplifications.

Be useful to know which is which!  But understandably, David is going to want to keep as streamlined a "Q&A" thread as possible, perhaps especially with a view to fast-tracking any that fall into the "corrections for the next printing" stream, so a long list of "is this SB and CB difference deliberate?" isn't going to be very helpful to that.  But if we compile a separate list of such differences -- say, here! -- then they can perhaps subsequently triage them into "CB corrections", "SB corrections", "deliberate simplifications", and perhaps the ever-popular bonus category of, "not an actual difference at all, gaze at it harder until you get an Illumination tick".

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

23 hours ago, RandomNumber said:

In the RuneQuest Starter set corrections thread some contributors have noted rule differences between RQG and Book One. Is Chaosium planning to address these differences at some point and help us understand whether these are errors, deliberate simplifications for the Starter Set, rule changes or "other"?

For example:

@7Tigers p.60, skills are supposed to be natural & unmodified > 100% for lowering other people skills now.

@Paid a bod yn dwp  Book 1 Rules. P27 Second bullet point: “A critical success does double maximum damage.”  Should this be “A critical success does double maximum damage, and ignores armor” ?

Thanks,

 

 

Pretty sure the exclusion of ‘ignores amour’ is an error. It’s included in the attack and parry results table in the same book. However I guess if new players are referencing the attack and parry table anyway, that this will be picked up. I still think it’d be helpful to include it to help new players internalise the general rule. 

[DreadDomain]

"Thrown Objects" was rewritten as "Thrown or Dropped Objects". It seems to have been expanded into something that do not quite work. The rules from RQG is simpler and work better so I am unclear why it was changed for the starter set.

Skills over 100% Book p.60. Aside from the fact I am surprised to see this rule included in the Starter Set, the last paragraph about dividing the extra % against multiple competitors, is it in the core book?

[DreadDomain]

On 11/28/2021 at 6:51 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Pretty sure the exclusion of ‘ignores amour’ is an error. It’s included in the attack and parry results table in the same book. However I guess if new players are referencing the attack and parry table anyway, that this will be picked up. I still think it’d be helpful to include it to help new players internalise the general rule. 

I agree, it feels like an omission since the table clearly references it. I agree that for clarity "and ignores armor" should be added.

A clear simplification is the fumble table  p.25 (makes sense).

The real difference is on the Attack and Parry Results table. In the Gamemaster Reference booklet (appears to be the same in the Core book and on the GM screen itself), on a critical attack against a special or normal parry, the attacker inflicts maximum special damage. In the Starter Set on a critical attack against a special or normal parry, the attacker rolls special damage (aka, their critical is downgraded to a special). This does not feel like a simplification of the rules. I wonder if it was intended or if it's a mistake.

Edited November 30, 2021 by DreadDomain

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

5 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I agree, it feels like an omission since the table clearly references it. I agree that for clarity "and ignores armor" should be added.

A clear simplification is the fumble table  p.25 (makes sense).

The real difference is on the Attack and Parry Results table. In the Gamemaster Reference booklet (appears to be the same in the Core book and on the GM screen itself), on a critical attack against a special or normal parry, the attacker inflicts maximum special damage. In the Starter Set on a critical attack against a special or normal parry, the attacker rolls special damage (aka, their critical is downgraded to a special). This does not feel like a simplification of the rules. I wonder if it was intended or if it's a mistake.

Yes. Part of me wonders whether this was an unintended change? For instance I imagine there could be a few early versions of the table knocking around on the computer? Quite an easy detail to miss and mix up.
 

On the other hand, perhaps the designers felt the core table was too deadly for a starter introductory set, and deliberately toned down the critical results? 

Theres certainly no streamlining going on here compared to the core. My preference would be for consistency, but maybe playtests have pushed this small change for a slightly less deadly result? 
 

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Akhôrahil]

On 11/27/2021 at 10:30 AM, RandomNumber said:

@7Tigers p.60, skills are supposed to be natural & unmodified > 100% for lowering other people skills now.

This one I can see being deliberate, as the percentage drop is a well-known problem issue in combat. Even if it's not a change to the RQG rules now, it may be intended for a ".1" version in the future at which point the Starter set would be compatible. It strikes me as less likely that it's a downright mistake, considering that it would mean accidentally improving the game and that the text must actually be added. 🙂

On 11/27/2021 at 10:30 AM, RandomNumber said:

@Paid a bod yn dwp  Book 1 Rules. P27 Second bullet point: “A critical success does double maximum damage.”  Should this be “A critical success does double maximum damage, and ignores armor” ?

This I could see either way, on the other hand. It's not inherently strange if you want to ensure that unparried Crits (and even many parried ones) aren't universally fight-enders and frequently kills (maximum double damage is pretty damned nasty on its own, and it has always felt a little strange that Crits are 'two steps' up from specials - both max damage and no armor). But it could as easily be just a mistake - it's much easier to accidentally drop text than accidentally put it in.

Edited November 30, 2021 by Akhôrahil

[PhilHibbs]

Personally I think they should have just dropped all the ">100%" rules from the starter set. Just live with one attack and higher crit/special chances. Not many starter characters will be over 100% regularly with the exception of some magic now and then.

Edited November 30, 2021 by PhilHibbs

[Akhôrahil]

17 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Personally I think they should have just dropped all the ">100%" rules from the starter set. Just live with one attack and higher crit/special chances. Not many starter characters will be over 100% regularly with the exception of some magic now and then.

Solid point.

[Baron Wulfraed]

9 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

The real difference is on the Attack and Parry Results table. In the Gamemaster Reference booklet (appears to be the same in the Core book and on the GM screen itself), on a critical attack against a special or normal parry, the attacker inflicts maximum special damage. In the Starter Set on a critical attack against a special or normal parry, the attacker rolls special damage (aka, their critical is downgraded to a special). This does not feel like a simplification of the rules. I wonder if it was intended or if it's a mistake.

Starter Set, page 27, does state that a critical does double maximum, whereas a "special" does (roll twice) double damage -- so... the table is a bit ambiguous.

OTOH: the starter set doesn't seem to have differentiated the damage modes between thrust/cut(slash)/crush -- so on that basis we have a simplification. After all, main RQ:RiG rules for crushing damage doesn't double the weapon damage, it doubles the characters damage bonus. If one doesn't have a damage bonus then special/critical with a crushing weapon has no difference from a normal hit -- other than critical ignoring armor.

[DreadDomain]

5 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

This one I can see being deliberate, as the percentage drop is a well-known problem issue in combat. Even if it's not a change to the RQG rules now, it may be intended for a ".1" version in the future at which point the Starter set would be compatible. It strikes me as less likely that it's a downright mistake, considering that it would mean accidentally improving the game and that the text must actually be added. 🙂

If it is deliberate (and it most probably is), it is indeed a simplification since this rule wouldn't be used by any pre-gen from the set. But if it's the case, like Phil says, why even include it?

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Personally I think they should have just dropped all the ">100%" rules from the starter set. Just live with one attack and higher crit/special chances. Not many starter characters will be over 100% regularly with the exception of some magic now and then.

And even less often if the natural skill must be over 100%. In the case, the rule is applicable to a very small number (one or two) NPC in the starter set. So yes, cutting it would have been easier and more appropriate for the Starter.

3 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Starter Set, page 27, does state that a critical does double maximum, whereas a "special" does (roll twice) double damage -- so... the table is a bit ambiguous.

While the text on p.27 and the table are somewhat ambiguous, the table in itself is clear on when you roll normal damage, special damage or inflict maximum special damage. The SS table is simply different than the CRB/GM Pack for these two results.

The table even kept the different wording for "special attack vs normal parry" ("same amount of damage" vs "any damage in excess"). I think it is supposed to mean the same thing but always wondered if in fact it is supposed to work differently. 

[Steve]

Edit - my bad, ignore me.

 

Edited December 6, 2021 by Steve