Where does Runequest fit?

[Gallowglass]

I recently read this article and found it really interesting. It defines a "culture of play" as a set of shared goals for player and GM to have at the table. Basically, what does everyone want to get out of this game? 

https://retiredadventurer.blogspot.com/2021/04/six-cultures-of-play.html

Keeping in mind that this is only one person's take on the hobby, it's still fun to read this and think about where Runequest fits within the system he's describing. I would say that the different editions of RQ and Heroquest facilitate different cultures of play, but mostly it's "Traditional." I think RQ actually might be the first "trad" game, because of it's attempt to model stories set in a detailed world, rather than just "win." I think RQG carries on this style of gaming, while bringing in influences from other cultures of play. 

[Akhôrahil]

I would say almost completely Traditional - it’s one of the games that defines Traditional. It also doesn’t have the rules features of Neotrad.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Akhôrahil

[Eff]

Classic RQ (RQ2, RQ3) would be a blend of Classic and Traditional- you can look at the Jeff Okamoto campaign log to see how you have the story focus of Traditional play and the disposable characters of Classic play both at work. Or look at dungeon crawl modules for early RQ. 

RQ:RiG is more firmly Traditional but with a substantial admixture of Nordic LARP elements with the idea of creating a Gloranthan experience within the minds of the players, and some remnant Classical elements. 

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, Eff said:

Classic RQ (RQ2, RQ3) would be a blend of Classic and Traditional- you can look at the Jeff Okamoto campaign log to see how you have the story focus of Traditional play and the disposable characters of Classic play both at work. Or look at dungeon crawl modules for early RQ. 

Completely agree.

2 hours ago, Eff said:

RQ:RiG is more firmly Traditional but with a substantial admixture of Nordic LARP elements with the idea of creating a Gloranthan experience within the minds of the players, and some remnant Classical elements.

Not many classical.I haven't understood enough about the nordic to comment on it.

[Akhôrahil]

6 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Not many classical.I haven't understood enough about the nordic to comment on it.

I don’t see that aspect at all. The game RQG looks most like is Pendragon, and that is an extremely Trad game.

[Eff]

27 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Completely agree.

Not many classical.I haven't understood enough about the nordic to comment on it.

The classical remnants are mostly leftover high-lethality mechanics and sequel modules to classic RQ modules. Fragmentary. 

[Gallowglass]

Another question I found interesting: should we consider RQG to be an OSR game? The person who wrote the article would probably say no, and I would agree. On the one hand, it is based very closely on rules from the dawn of roleplaying games. But I feel like many of the features of recent OSR games are not there: rules-lite, emphasis on sandbox gameplay, embraces randomness.

(I know “OSR” is hard to pin down, these are just the things I associate with the scene.)

HOWEVER, there are definitely things about Glorantha that would be appealing to the OSR crowd. It’s kind of zany and psychedelic, and in the past Chaosium has produced some classic sandbox-style settings, like Pavis/Big Rubble and Griffin Mountain. Maybe once the new P/BR set comes out, that will attract more people.

[Garrik]

The linked article states:

Quote

I want to point out that I think talking about specific games as inherently part of some culture is misleading, because games can be played in multiple different styles in line with the values of different cultures.

So is it a bit too much to try to define RQ, a game publication, along these parameters?

Then again:
 

Quote

But, many games contain text that advocates for them to be played in a way that is in line with a particular culture, or they contain elements that express the creator's adoption of a particular culture's set of values.

And here I think it gets interesting: Have different editions of RQ tried to locate themselves differently over time?

Edited February 22, 2022 by Garrik

[Gallowglass]

23 minutes ago, Garrik said:

So is it a bit too much to try to define RQ, a game publication, along these parameters?

Sure, but I'm doing it anyway because it amuses me🥴. In all seriousness though, I think every game encourages a blend of play-styles, and the kind you have at your table depends a lot on you and your players as well.  

For me, Runequest is all about immersing your players in Glorantha, and exploring the parts of it that are not clearly defined in the books. So this is a "traditional" goal for my  gameplay as a GM. I actually think RQG currently does a better job of this than Heroquest did, because everything is so carefully defined and simulated (especially the magic). So even though I lean more rules-lite and narrative-driven in my preferences, Runequest makes Glorantha more real for me. 

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Gallowglass said:

Another question I found interesting: should we consider RQG to be an OSR game? The person who wrote the article would probably say no, and I would agree.

Agree, but you could probably make a game that feels and plays more like RQ1, and then you would have the BRP version of an OSR game.

[JRE]

RQ: G, for me has an aspect that does not appear in the essay, that I would call "The tiranny of the setting", or "The one true Glorantha", typical of games where the very rich setting creates its own set of constraints. It can be played as Traditional, but if the GM tries to adhere to the setting, that reduces her agency, with the benefit of better compatibility with other players and with future supplements. Other games also have this problem, and the degree of adherence to the "Canon" can be used to challenge the GMs authority, something unusual within a traditional game. 

I will go further and propose that rich settings have the setting as a kind of assistant GM, as they make the work of the GM easier, at the expense of lost agency, and usually high money expense, to get all supplements. Like Gloranthan gods, limited to their Godtime actions.

[Garrik]

28 minutes ago, Gallowglass said:

Sure, but I'm doing it anyway because it amuses me🥴. In all seriousness though, I think every game encourages a blend of play-styles, and the kind you have at your table depends a lot on you and your players as well.  

For me, Runequest is all about immersing your players in Glorantha, and exploring the parts of it that are not clearly defined in the books. So this is a "traditional" goal for my  gameplay as a GM. I actually think RQG currently does a better job of this than Heroquest did, because everything is so carefully defined and simulated (especially the magic). So even though I lean more rules-lite and narrative-driven in my preferences, Runequest makes Glorantha more real for me. 

I would say we had something of a setting-immersion goal (Trad but also some Nordic LARP thrown in) while we were playing RQ the last time, around 2005. However, at that time we also wanted to play RQ purely as a game, so our goal had even some Story Game in it. We played RQ as RQ, enjoying the RQ-ence game play and character cycle as it happens in pure RQ played by the rules. We didn't go Glorantha first, but RQ rules first, and let the game mechanics define our Glorantha. (When we didn't like it anymore, we dropped RQ, but not Glorantha.)

But this latest goal or goals of our RQ experience was definitely different from my first RQ games, which sound pretty much like Classic in this Six Cultures theory. We didn't emphasize the setting at all and our characters were not partaking in any specified story. It was just about the characters interacting in random situations through the RQ mechanic. And when the characters had depleted their resources or died, we had a stop or made new characters, and into the fray we went again. And I think RQ handled that very well.

So I guess RQ can be played in many different ways, and it can have something to give in different play cultures. However, it harbors Classic and Trad the best, and with the emphasis on and simulation of Glorantha and character development, it clearly leans towards Trad.

[Kloster]

14 minutes ago, Garrik said:

We didn't go Glorantha first, but RQ rules first, and let the game mechanics define our Glorantha. (When we didn't like it anymore, we dropped RQ, but not Glorantha.)

We did the reverse: When we stopped RQing in Glorantha (with RQ3), we dropped Glotantha and kept RQ.

[Gallowglass]

7 minutes ago, JRE said:

RQ: G, for me has an aspect that does not appear in the essay, that I would call "The tiranny of the setting", or "The one true Glorantha", typical of games where the very rich setting creates its own set of constraints. It can be played as Traditional, but if the GM tries to adhere to the setting, that reduces her agency, with the benefit of better compatibility with other players and with future supplements. Other games also have this problem, and the degree of adherence to the "Canon" can be used to challenge the GMs authority, something unusual within a traditional game. 

 

I get where you're coming from here, I struggle with this as well. I mean, I've never had my players challenge my adherence to Gloranthan canon, but I've never played with true Gloranthaphiles before. I could see it happening!

I think adherence to canon and setting lore is actually a feature of "trad," but more of a flaw than anything else, because it limits everyone's agency. That being said, I still enjoy most of Glorantha's canon because it's usually more interesting than anything I could come up with. 

 

[Orlanthatemyhamster]

Not to be asked dumb questions

[TrippyHippy]

It’s just jargon, at the end of the day.

[JustAnotherVingan]

Depends on the referee and the playerees in the end.

[Ian Absentia]

4 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

It’s just jargon, at the end of the day.

Typical Pragmatist.

!i!

[ffilz]

11 hours ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

Depends on the referee and the playerees in the end.

Very good point. My campaigns would register as Classic per those categories... I've been running RQ mostly the same way since 1978, and I still run 1st edition. I'd probably run RQG more or less the same way... (well, OK, the Passions would drag a change, and that's probably part of why I resist RQG...)

Edited February 23, 2022 by ffilz

[Kloster]

Just drop the passions!

[albesias]

The real question is how do you play RQG? It's not a matter of games, is a question of table tastes, styles, agendas or whatever name you like.

My taste is an inmersive experience with post hoc narrative. I want to be there, not telling a story.

A narrative approaching introduces distance between me as a player and the setting. It's not my cup of tea.

 

 

[Akhôrahil]

14 minutes ago, albesias said:

The real question is how do you play RQG? It's not a matter of games, is a question of table tastes, styles, agendas or whatever name you like.

To a point, but games also support different play styles.

14 minutes ago, albesias said:

My taste is an inmersive experience with post hoc narrative. I want to be there, not telling a story.

A narrative approaching introduces distance between me as a player and the setting. It's not my cup of tea.

For instance, when this is your gaming agenda, RQ is preferable to HQ, as this is the style it supports best.

[Atlantean]

On 2/22/2022 at 3:30 PM, Garrik said:

I would say we had something of a setting-immersion goal (Trad but also some Nordic LARP thrown in) while we were playing RQ the last time, around 2005. However, at that time we also wanted to play RQ purely as a game, so our goal had even some Story Game in it. We played RQ as RQ, enjoying the RQ-ence game play and character cycle as it happens in pure RQ played by the rules. We didn't go Glorantha first, but RQ rules first, and let the game mechanics define our Glorantha. (When we didn't like it anymore, we dropped RQ, but not Glorantha.)

But this latest goal or goals of our RQ experience was definitely different from my first RQ games, which sound pretty much like Classic in this Six Cultures theory. We didn't emphasize the setting at all and our characters were not partaking in any specified story. It was just about the characters interacting in random situations through the RQ mechanic. And when the characters had depleted their resources or died, we had a stop or made new characters, and into the fray we went again. And I think RQ handled that very well.

So I guess RQ can be played in many different ways, and it can have something to give in different play cultures. However, it harbors Classic and Trad the best, and with the emphasis on and simulation of Glorantha and character development, it clearly leans towards Trad.

Being most recently immersed in BROSR style play and the attendant conversations thereof, the primary story model for one style of play (label it what you will) is “pulp fiction” (see Jeffro Johnson’s blog and book “Appendix N.”)

RuneQuest in its classical form uses the myth/legend as story model so play tends to be very different. 

The primary driver of the difference, imo, is how magic is treated in the game. 5e made magic ubiquitous and morphed into a weird little d20 simulacrum of RuneQuest. Most of the BX crowd are playing LFG whether they realize it or not where Low Fantasy Gaming is anthropocentric with restricted magic.

As an edit, an example of this treatment of magic is the difference between RQG and Call of Cthulhu.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Atlantean
Completing thought

[Garrik]

On 3/16/2022 at 2:47 PM, Atlantean said:

RuneQuest in its classical form uses the myth/legend as story model so play tends to be very different. 

 

Interesting. Which edition of RQ, and where is this stated?

I've played 2nd and 3rd ed, and they had distinctly different feeling. 2nd had clearly clumsier mechanics (more akin to D&D), but had more Glorantha and Bronze Age in it. 3rd strived to be generic, with more choice but less atmosphere. Both had essentially dungeon adventures published, and I still clearly remember how awkward some more mythical tones/quests felt. Only when we started to develop our own setting and social dynamics did something more than D&D style gaming grow out.

As to how you used/played those games and where you found your inspiration for the adventures is, in the end, personal. Even if the myth/legend might be stated somewhere as the 'official' story model.

[Atlantean]

Not being a hyper rationalist, I wouldn’t look to any canonical statement. First edition RuneQuest is all Glorantha and the mythic element is what drives it. So many mechanics are missing (hiring henchmen, how many monsters show up if a random encounter table is even available, so many more) that granular pulp interactions are very difficult to play.