New / Young players and RuneQuest.

[smiorgan]

Hi, 

This post is possibly at odds with this forum's demographic.

But I'm curious/ interested to know about younger players playing Rune Quest Glorantha. People who weren't playing RQ2 and RQ3 in the previous century and maybe not even MRQ or RQ6.  I was surprised that the RQ starter set did not get any Ennies, and I wondered how much the game is attracting new players. I also hope to run RQ demos for new players when the game is out in Italian (early next year, hopefully).

What do you think of the game? What do you like most of the system and setting? What kind of stories do you tell of Glorantha? Do you play meticoulously by the rules or fast and loose?  What kind of characters do you like to play? Are ducks/ Durulz still a problem when you want to sell RQ to someone?

Grognards can post if they have stories about playing with younger people.

Best,

Smiorgan

Edited September 1, 2022 by smiorgan

[PhilHibbs]

@simonh ran a game for his daughters when they were very young, he played pretty much by the rules but maybe a little simplified. I joined in for a session at Tentacles Con a few years ago when they were around 10 or 11, they were fighting some tusk riders in a village in Shadows Dance and having a great time riding around and leaping across rooftops and shooting. I think I ran some trolls that they were travelling with.

Then a few years later one of them played in a game with friends her own age, and she came home and said "Now I get it, I know now why you love playing these games". They need to play with their peers, not just their parents. Even if their dad is as awesome as Simon.

I don't know if they encountered ducks but I'm sure they'd have thought they were awesome.

[smiorgan]

13 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Then a few years later one of them played in a game with friends her own age, and she came home and said "Now I get it, I know now why you love playing these games". They need to play with their peers, not just their parents. Even if their dad is as awesome as Simon.

This is very true. My kids never went beyond playing with dad an his friends, so they basically quit playing. I was exctatic when my older son was starting a D&D5 game with his high school classmates but then the Pandemic came and killed it.   

[Scotty]

I've run quite a few demo games for 8-12s, Stealing the Eye, runs for about an hour, using the pregens. If it's too boring, they just leave... Overall it works well, as long as you emphasise the story and don't get too mechanics heavy.

Everyone selected their adventurers by looking at the pictures...

Generally there have been more girls than boys, so Vasana (and Molon), Yanioth and Sorala are popular, likewise Nathem (and shadowcat), and Vishi (with cousin Monkey). If there's an animal sidekick, they go for them. Sorala and her sorcery was a surprise, but was pointed out to me by a mother that she was really Dora the Explorer who could find out a lot of stuff with magic (and suggested that she should have Boots cousin monkey!).

The adventure is straightforward - steal x from y in place z, so there's a clear focus, with clear baddies. I normally cut the end of the game at the start of the Elemental vs. Monster boss fight and say to them that they would have to decide what the outcome was... Players were excited, but sadly the Starter set wasn't out so parents buy instantly. A few of the parents knew what RPGs were, however most were interested that it was a social face to face game (as opposed to relentless PvP minecraft).

As these are in shops and cons, I never know what happens to the potential new gamers.

Yesterday I was visiting a FLGS to organise a demo day and got some 12-14 year olds to buy the CoC starter instead of the D&D one (no RQ Starter sets) - they didn't know you could play investigative games, they only knew about fighting monsters. They also had no idea that genres other than D&D existed.

[ffilz]

I have had at least one younger player in my RQ1 campaign, he graduated from college last year. I know he was also in at least one RQG campaign.

I think I have at least a few players who were not yet gaming in 1978 having been born sometime after 1970 but I don't carefully track the ages of my players (and playing by Roll20 often don't see the players).

[Jeff]

1 hour ago, ffilz said:

I have had at least one younger player in my RQ1 campaign, he graduated from college last year. I know he was also in at least one RQG campaign.

I think I have at least a few players who were not yet gaming in 1978 having been born sometime after 1970 but I don't carefully track the ages of my players (and playing by Roll20 often don't see the players).

None of my players in my current RQG campaign are old grognards. For four of them, this is their first experience playing RQ.

[ffilz]

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

None of my players in my current RQG campaign are old grognards. For four of them, this is their first experience playing RQ.

Cool. I see no reason RQG wouldn't be attractive to younger and newer players, glad to hear that is actually happening.

[Austin]

My friends and I are all under 30 (if I'm just barely under, by now). While not "kids," I do think we qualify as being on that younger end, the fresh blood. We discovered RQ through a friend's father before RQG published, but as the main GM I've been primarily playing the new edition.

My experience is that the analogy "5E/Pathfinder is to Skyrim, as RQ is to Dark Souls" intrigues pretty much everyone I've asked, who is familiar with D&D. The idea of difficult-but-fair combat is generally exciting for people I know who are familiar with D20 systems. Also elements like everyone has magic. The lore and setting, in my experience, tends to be less engaging for a majority of players. The exception is when it translates to "cool stuff I can do." For example one new player I had picked up a newtling trickster with Become Heron (Become Other Shape) because transformation felt cool to him, and herons eating newts added a fun weird twist.

I don't have lots of experience playing in shops, but when I have, I found that the RQG core rules does spark curiosity about the game. It's very colorful, illustrated, yadda yadda, and that grabs attention. I've never seen it on a shop wall myself, but have let players paw through my travel copy. Art budgets attract readers' eyes. This was pre-COVID, haven't played a FLGS game since.

The biggest turn-off to new players I've experienced has been that the rules are complicated. Calculating crits versus specials, POWx5 (or other characteristic rolls), resistance table rolls, figuring out which spells or other character options to use when, all tends to overwhelm newer players. Some players also dislike that RQG's focus is on playing humans, coming from D20's plethora of species.

However, I've never cared much for insisting on human-centric games, and the variety of species in Glorantha does engage new players. Phrases like man-eating tapirs, what if Achilles was Donald Duck, Food-caste trollkin, and talking plant people definitely prods the curiosity of D20 players.

[svensson]

On 9/1/2022 at 3:06 AM, smiorgan said:

Hi, 

This post is possibly at odds with this forum's demographic.

But I'm curious/ interested to know about younger players playing Rune Quest Glorantha. People who weren't playing RQ2 and RQ3 in the previous century and maybe not even MRQ or RQ6.  I was surprised that the RQ starter set did not get any Ennies, and I wondered how much the game is attracting new players. I also hope to run RQ demos for new players when the game is out in Italian (early next year, hopefully).

What do you think of the game? What do you like most of the system and setting? What kind of stories do you tell of Glorantha? Do you play meticoulously by the rules or fast and loose?  What kind of characters do you like to play? Are ducks/ Durulz still a problem when you want to sell RQ to someone?

Grognards can post if they have stories about playing with younger people.

Best,

Smiorgan

So, I'm teaching my niece and grand-niece how to play RQG from a standing start. The only experience they have with tabletop gaming is computer games and books.

Now, this is also a new experience for ME, because for the first time in my life I have a table of nothing but women /girls.

My wife is playing the role of 'grognard' in that she's played RQ games before and has a solid understanding of the mechanics. It's not her favorite system ever, but she's still having fun.

The way I've 'sold' the game to my two newbies is by showing them that anybody can do anything, that you can develop your character in any direction you want. I explain that the game doesn't have classes or roles... everybody has to fight, how well you fight depends on you develop combat skills. I explain that everybody can fight a little, heal a little, sneak a little, has minor spells that can help you or hurt the bad guy, and so forth, but that you can decide if you want to be party 'talky guy' or 'weird skill monkey' or the font of sacred power, etc.

So far they really like the idea.

For me, it's a bit of struggle working out themes that appeal to them. The party is not made up of Conan [or Red Sonja] wannabes 😁. In addition, my grand-niece is just turning 13-14. I'm working very hard not to fall into the 'hooker-housewife-hag' fantasy trope and keep sexual relations in the background. This means, for example, that while 'Troy' might be great idea for movie inspiration, the women depicted spend half their time nude. I have to admit, several illustrations in the Weapons and Equipment Guide help with that a lot... Putting the idea in the head of a girl that she doesn't have to pretty or sexy to be taken seriously.

So everybody at the table is learning something.

Edited September 3, 2022 by svensson

[smiorgan]

11 hours ago, Crel said:

The biggest turn-off to new players I've experienced has been that the rules are complicated. Calculating crits versus specials, POWx5 (or other characteristic rolls), resistance table rolls, figuring out which spells or other character options to use when, all tends to overwhelm newer players. 

This confirms my impression. And it seems recent game designs try to keep math to a minimum. 

I wonder whether changing the way specials and crits are calculated would really break the game: like having specials at 1/2 skill CoC style.

 

[radmonger]

A simpler math-free system is to use the value of the single-digit die after determining success or failure. On a pass, a  '1'  is a critical, a '5' a special. On a fail, a '0' is a fumble.

Not quite the exact same odds as RQ:G; criticals become more common at high skill values. But IMHO close enough.

To complete the process of creating a system as simple to run as D&D 5E, while retaining the RQ feel:

• Convert stats to the same scale as skills by multiplying by 5 in character generation, as in C&C 6E.
• Use a single resolution method of opposing skill rolls, and counting net successes, for everything.
• Replace strike ranks with:

1. non-engaged characters act first
2. on engagement, longest weapon attacks first
3. for ongoing combat while engaged, shortest weapon attacks first
4. dex breaks ties

• Change 'starting characters can cast all common Rune Magic' to 'starting characters can learn any common Rune Magic'.

Apart from the GM sometimes having to multiply stats by 5, the result is fully compatible with everything published for RQ:G.

 

[smiorgan]

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

A simpler math-free system is to use the value of the single-digit die after determining success or failure. On a pass, a  '1'  is a critical, a '5' a special. On a fail, a '0' is a fumble.

Another system, inspired by other d100 games, could be: specials are 1/2 skill, specials that are also doubles (11, 22, etc.) are also criticals. Additionally, 96-00 are autofail, autofails that are also doubles (99-00) are fumbles. It entails that a) specials are vastly more common (good for adjudicating opposed rolls, possibly bloody for combat), b) you never crit before your skill is 22%, but when you are 100% your critical chance is 4%, the maximum critical possible is 8%, reached at 200%; c) fumbles are fixed.  I dont think it would break the game.

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

Replace strike ranks with:

I might be delusional, but I don't think Strike Rank is that a big headhache, especially because you can have them written down on your sheet and you can use a cool SR tracker.  They're different from D&D, but not that demanding per se.

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by smiorgan

[g33k]

4 hours ago, smiorgan said:

... I don't think Strike Rank is that a big headhache, especially because you can have them written down on your sheet and you can use a cool SR tracker...

I have played around with the idea of a sheet where you pre-calc (& writed down) Crit/Special/Fumble with the normal skills.

This is less appealing for RQG, because various Augments -- and vari-point spell-boosts like *Trance &c -- make for frequently-needed recalc's.
E-sheets that do this automagically seem very appealing!


But ... I honestly hate all the SR-trackers I've tried!
Things like a d12, or a token in a 12-cup mancala-board, etc... these items all suffer from being jostled, and losing their state.
I have ruined flow-of-game too often this way, even if it's sometimes just my own frame of mind.

[g33k]

7 hours ago, smiorgan said:

This confirms my impression. And it seems recent game designs try to keep math to a minimum. 

I wonder whether changing the way specials and crits are calculated would really break the game: like having specials at 1/2 skill CoC style.

I'm thinking very-seriously about adopting many "d00lite" (from DwD Studios) conventions as my basic/intro "d100/BRP" engine.
AIUI, it's a roll-low skill-centric d100 system very much like BRP, but:

• the d100 reads as 0-99 not 1-100
• crit&fumble are all the Doubles (00, 11, 22, etc ... 10% of all rolls are crit or fumble)
• The fine folks at DwD Studios vary their core engine a LOT, per setting (FrEx, I think they have at least one "class-as-multiskill" game, and various titles seem to have anywhere from 4-8 "basic stats" (like STR &c))

I'd be keeping things more BRP-like than some of their more-variant games... but most of their ideas are IMHO decent tools to have available at need...

Advantages:

• simple crit/fumble, clear at a glance
• by moving "00" to zero (bottom/lowest roll) it "regularizes" the spread of doubles -- no more 99+00 adjacent at the top of the range
• basically still a "BRP-alike" system, for cross-compatibility

Disadvantages:

•  no obvious way to implement "specials" aka "partial-criticals"
•  not actually BRP, for those considering publication or other public-facing engagement
•  not actually BRP, for those who want a "base game" that carries seamlessly over to RQ, CoC, etc.

Still thinking on this...

[Squaredeal Sten]

On 9/1/2022 at 6:40 AM, Scotty said:

I've run quite a few demo games for 8-12s, Stealing the Eye, runs for about an hour, using the pregens. If it's too boring, they just leave... Overall it works well, as long as you emphasise the story and don't get too mechanics heavy.

Everyone selected their adventurers by looking at the pictures...

Generally there have been more girls than boys, so Vasana (and Molon), Yanioth and Sorala are popular, likewise Nathem (and shadowcat), and Vishi (with cousin Monkey). If there's an animal sidekick, they go for them. Sorala and her sorcery was a surprise, but was pointed out to me by a mother that she was really Dora the Explorer who could find out a lot of stuff with magic (and suggested that she should have Boots cousin monkey!).

The adventure is straightforward - steal x from y in place z, so there's a clear focus, with clear baddies. I normally cut the end of the game at the start of the Elemental vs. Monster boss fight and say to them that they would have to decide what the outcome was... Players were excited, but sadly the Starter set wasn't out so parents buy instantly. A few of the parents knew what RPGs were, however most were interested that it was a social face to face game (as opposed to relentless PvP minecraft).

As these are in shops and cons, I never know what happens to the potential new gamers.

Yesterday I was visiting a FLGS to organise a demo day and got some 12-14 year olds to buy the CoC starter instead of the D&D one (no RQ Starter sets) - they didn't know you could play investigative games, they only knew about fighting monsters. They also had no idea that genres other than D&D existed.

[@Scotty] Think about writing that up and publishing via Jonstown Compendium, so that other people can benefit from what you have learned about adventures for very young players.  You have revealed something   that is not obvious.

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Squaredeal Sten

[smiorgan]

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

[@Scotty] Think about writing that up and publishing via Jonstown Compendium, so that other people can benefit from what you have learned about adventures for very young players.  You have revealed something   that is not obvious.

 

Great idea!

[Beoferret]

I've been wondering about this broad topic as well. I'd like RQ to endure as a gaming system (and Glorantha to get more love as a setting), which obviously means bringing in new and younger players. I'm trying to do my part and have run RQ a couple of times for my two boys. This last time, it took a little effort to keep them focused while they made characters, but when they were done they both loved their new PCs (an Odaylan hvy infantry warrior and a Grazelander assistant shaman dedicated to Kolat - my own slapped together version.) Strike ranks have been a mild challenge for them, but between me working out the math and our using the tracker from the Starter Set it all worked out pretty well (they had no complaints.) Figuring out the myriad different spells sometimes slowed things down. The math behind characteristic checks and differentiating between success/special success/critical wasn't too hard for them, but they both actually enjoy math. Aside from two early teens, I've introduced the game to some adults who I ran through two of the Starter Set adventures using the pre-gens. The group included a twenty-something woman whose previous gaming experience was with D&D. She really enjoyed playing in the Gloranthan setting, especially when her character (Aranda) got to a) kick scorpionman ass, and b) partake in an initiation rite for a young Jonstown woman who turned out to have been favored by Babs. The player in question has also enjoyed the system so far too, feeling like much of it makes more sense than D&D mechanics. But I also worked to make things as easy for these new players as I could; including providing each pre-gen character with a sheet listing and describing all the spells they had (along what they had to roll to successfully cast.)  

[Beoferret]

Two issues that I see with furthering RQs popularity with new, and especially younger, folks, neither of which should cause us to despair.

1) The mechanics of the system. I have quibbles with aspects of the system, but overall really like it. If one is using the rules from the Starter Set, I don't think they're any more difficult than D&D. But they're different and run on different assumptions, not all of which immediately appeal to folks. My youngest son, for instance, told me that he wasn't super keen on having to roll to make a spell work (even though he said it made sense with the setting and system.) Live plays I've watched on Youtube occasionally result in players saying that RQ is "crunchy" (said in a tone that implies that this was off-putting.) Again, I don't think that D&D is as simple and intuitive as many seem to believe, but it is closer to what people may have already encountered in video game mechanics (which were often, in turn, influenced by D&D). Possible solutions? Introduce prospective players to Call of Cthulhu first and get them used to the BRP system. Then woo them over to RQ. Or play up the gritty aspects of RQ combat (which is already being done to some extent), but make the case for this meaning more drama and excitement! Your shield can be splintered as you feverishly try to defend against a troll's hammer! Armor stops damage, but doesn't make it harder for your character to be hit! Your character can lop-off enemy arms! Called shots? We got 'em!  

2) Setting. Let's leave the Durulz aside. One of the reasons I love Glorantha and RQ is also one of the things that may stand in the way of growing its popularity with the young people of today - the connection with the ancient world and classical myth. While people are still interested in both, I suspect that neither are nearly as popular as they used to be. Glorantha is advertised as a world based on/linked to myth. Cool! But how many kids are all that interested in myth anymore? As for Antiquity, I think for a lot of kids/teens, "ancient" equals the Middle Ages. And there's lots of faux Medieval imagery throughout pop culture right now. Not to mention Ren Faires and their mix of Medieval and 18th century swashbuckler/pirate styles (which looks suspiciously like a lot of default 5e D&D imagery.) This isn't an insurmountable hurdle, but it means more work for those of us trying to bring RQ and Glorantha to newbies. Have those image banks handy! But maybe this is something to lean in to. "Bored with cookie cutter, faux medieval fantasy? Try our sword and sandals-flavor setting! So old, it's new!" 

[solved_captcha]

I started with RQG a year ago. My group is late 20s/early 30s and we have been gaming together since 3.5. I'm the "let's try a new system" GM in the group. RuneQuest has really worked for our group. It has frankly sometimes been a magical experience.

Hurdles- RQG is significantly more complicated than, say, 5th Ed. There are a LOT of systems going on in this game. New gamers come from videogames now- it's easier to understand that the d20 is the Interact button of the game world. It took us a full day session zero to get going, but once we did, we haven't looked back.

Glorantha is mind blowing. It's really hard to know where to start in the world, and considering that even player creation throws so much history at new players, it can be overwhelming. 

I am fortunate that my group is close enough to work with me to learn RQ together, and the complexity and alien-ness of RQ really turned out to be features for us. But if I was a new GM competing for new player's time, RQ would be too demanding. Which is too bad, because it's so rewarding, too.

I think the Starter Set should do an excellent job of getting more new people to try out RQ. It cuts back on the steep initial time buy-in and you can just play. My players love the SR chart.

[PhilHibbs]

This is why playing youngsters or foreigners is popular - it's an excuse for knowing nothing about the world. Sure, kids have been told about the world, but kids are famous for not listening to the grown-ups and not believing cautionary tales.

RQG went in a very different direction by planting the characters firmly in the narrative of the last 43 years of local history. I can see how that could go the wrong way for some players!

[Kloster]

On 9/1/2022 at 12:46 PM, smiorgan said:

This is very true. My kids never went beyond playing with dad an his friends, so they basically quit playing. I was exctatic when my older son was starting a D&D5 game with his high school classmates but then the Pandemic came and killed it.   

Same for my elder son. I purchased French RQG so he can try it with his friends, and zap.

[Mugen]

Note that there was once a RuneQuest "Lite" in the 90s : "RuneQuest 90s".

But it was only released in Japan, and in japanese. Despite it's very "generic anime/manga fantasy", it was very gloranthan.

[Mugen]

On 9/3/2022 at 9:11 PM, Beoferret said:

 Again, I don't think that D&D is as simple and intuitive as many seem to believe, (...)

Combat is much more complex than D&D, especially 5e. Hit locations, different success levels, active defenses have no equivalents in D&D. And Strike Ranks do not compare in any way to D&D Initiative.

But other areas are simpler. D&D "Vancian" magic is not intuitive at all. Spells must first be learned, then prepared each day, and you can only cast X spells of every level. In comparison, RQ Spirit Magic and Rune Magic are easy to learn and use. Sorcery is a completely different beast, but you rarely see it in play.

[Baron Wulfraed]

22 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

This is why playing youngsters or foreigners is popular - it's an excuse for knowing nothing about the world. Sure, kids have been told about the world, but kids are famous for not listening to the grown-ups and not believing cautionary tales.

Which partly covers how my ancient days went... RQ2 -- we never used the (rather coarse granularity) prior experience appendix... So all of our characters started out as village brats finally old enough to be let out on our own (with the equivalent of a carpet cut into a poncho as armor, and heavy tree branches for maces/clubs, until we beat up enough trollkin to get some money for better).

 

[Rob Darvall]

On 9/4/2022 at 5:11 AM, Beoferret said:

suspect that neither are nearly as popular as they used to be

Percy Jackson would give evidence to the contrary.

My nephews are fans, and now 5 of 6 play RQG. As well as both my children and my niece. Of these 8 (none over 23, youngest now 11ish) 5 run their own games as well as the larger family campaigns.