Why so few monsters published for 7th edition.

[Bill the barbarian]

22 minutes ago, Dr. Devici said:

And if you really fuck something up, the events of your game aren't inviolable. If your combat encounter kills somebody instantly and you suddenly realize it's mathematically absurd and borderline unwinnable, you can just say "my bad guys, let's roll back the clock a bit" and adjust things on the spot. I've been there and I've done that, it works out fine.

 

And I thought I was the only one... cool!

I always ask the players if we should play touch move, take backs or an even friendlier game... usually causing a bit of initial confusion until I explain.

Hopefully thread may retake its rail from here.

[Andrew M]

Balancing encounters is judgement and luck. I have had a party of experienced well equipped warriors be routed by a few trollkin with crappy weapons and skills but really good dice, and had Lunar Runelords in Iron armour and with skills and spells of doom killed by a single arrow.

All you can do is guess, make sure if the pc's are outnumbered then their opponents are very much inferior and if they are going to have a strong numeric advantage that their enemies are really good if you want them to put up a fight. The nature of RQ combat rewards ambushes and other attempts to maximise an advantage and makes the pretense of something like CR impossible.

Of course CR in D+D is a great way to confidently produce a balanced encounter which wil create a TPK or be totally harmless as it does not take into account the relative power of a well optimised pc against a rubbish character , nor does it differentiate between a level 1 warrior Orc with a Great Axe and a level 1 Goblin Warrior with a Shortsword. One of which is much more likely to kill a 1st level PC.

Balancing encounters in all RPG's is a matter of skill and judgement by the GM and being willing to cheat if necessary to maintian fun. Such as suddenly the Lunar soldiers who have not engaged yet getting much worse skills, or forgetting to cst their rune magic or spirit magic , or going the other way the Lunar Priestess suddenly turns out to also be a priest of Thanatar and have a severed head with a teleport spell in her bag so she can complete her role in the scenario before being slaughtered by hightly efficient and deadly pc's who suprise the GM.

[jajagappa]

6 hours ago, EpicureanDM said:

At this point, I'd just settle for seeing you run a RuneQuest fight using the game's actual rules with minimal handwaving. Let's see you GM that Zorak Zorani Rune Lord fight, with trollkin or skeleton/zombie henchmen and an allied spirit, against a suitable group of PCs. Strike Ranks, tracking magic and Rune points, NPC allies providing magical support, paying attention to damage done to specific body locations, splitting attacks and parries, all according to Hoyle.

There are at least four ways you can run such a battle, plus additional approaches you can take.

1) Fight the whole battle. I've been there and done that (12 PC's rescuing group of trolls under assault by giant dragonsnail plus scorpionman horde). It took 12+ hours. It is doable but it is long. Would run faster in RQG with wider array of Rune Magic plus Rune/Passion/skill augments as you'll get more skills over 100+ to push down other rolls. If it's a climactic situation, maybe I'd consider running it that way again, but it is a long process (and what you're likely to remember is the long process than the outcome).

2) Fight the duel/challenge - winner take all, whatever that is. Nick's Duel at Dangerground takes this approach. It's a classic approach right out of the Iliad or similar epics. It has the advantage of focusing on the central characters. It's short, to the point, and focused. Or make it best of three fights - you play out the fights, but aren't spending your time working out complex melee rounds on a battlemat. But, it may not satisfy your urge for a "battle".

3) Battle skill with focused events. I've discussed this in another thread on how to run the Battle of the Queens.  Use the Battle skill to drive the broad fight and keep the focus on the fight between the ZZ Rune Lord with the PC's. Play out 5 or 10 melee rounds, then all pull back to heal or assess situation before entering again.

4) Keep to the broader strokes. Use basic Opposed Rolls - your attack vs their attack (or their parry if you prefer). Add your magic and other augments upfront, and then keep it focused on quickly scoring the battle. 

In any of these, set target Damage Thresholds. I.e. if ZZ Rune Lord takes 1/2 damage, he pulls back. If 1/4 of the trollkin die, the rest rout and flee. 

I don't consider any of these approaches "hand-waving". They are part-and-parcel of running a game as a GM and making decisions about how to advance the story.

[EpicureanDM]

4 hours ago, jajagappa said:

There are at least four ways you can run such a battle, plus additional approaches you can take.

1) Fight the whole battle. I've been there and done that (12 PC's rescuing group of trolls under assault by giant dragonsnail plus scorpionman horde). It took 12+ hours. It is doable but it is long. Would run faster in RQG with wider array of Rune Magic plus Rune/Passion/skill augments as you'll get more skills over 100+ to push down other rolls. If it's a climactic situation, maybe I'd consider running it that way again, but it is a long process (and what you're likely to remember is the long process than the outcome).

Slow down there. I didn't propose a fight of that size. Just a standard ZZ Rune Lord warband with a typical allied spirit and an appropriate number of trollkin or skeletons/zombies. Balance it against a group of four PCs of whatever power level feels appropriate. It should be a challenge for those four PCs, since I think it's fair to suggest that most RQ GMs want to challenge their players from time to time. I did mention that the fight should include examples of managing split attacks and parries, so the design of the participants should allow for demonstration of those rules. 

I'm ignoring the rest of your suggestions because as far as I can remember, they aren't included in the RQG corebook.

And I'm not interested in you or me running this battle; I want to see Jeff or some other RQG designer do it.

[Jeff]

OK this has wandered far afield and there is even a thread over in RuneQuest talking specifically about running combats and battles. So unless this thread returns to the subject of the number of monsters in the Bestiary, I am going to shut it down.

[Baron Wulfraed]

20 hours ago, Andrew M said:

Balancing encounters is judgement and luck. I have had a party of experienced well equipped warriors be routed by a few trollkin with crappy weapons and skills but really good dice, and had Lunar Runelords in Iron armour and with skills and spells of doom killed by a single arrow.

All you can do is guess, make sure if the pc's are outnumbered then their opponents are very much inferior and if they are going to have a strong numeric advantage that their enemies are really good if you want them to put up a fight. The nature of RQ combat rewards ambushes and other attempts to maximise an advantage and makes the pretense of something like CR impossible.

The RQ2 Treasure Factors (page 104 in the "Classic" reprint) could give a means of balance, though it may take some time.

First, compute the treasure factor of the PC's party. (One time at start of session, update after post-session experience rolls)

Then tweak the encounter/opponents so that they are a comparable treasure factor. That would, in theory, balance the relative strengths of the two sides.

[g33k]

On 2/21/2023 at 9:28 AM, EpicureanDM said:

...

You are the game's publisher! You control what the rules of the game look like and require! If you believe that 99.9% of your audience would prefer generic stat blocks like the ones Nick described, then publish rules that match the way you play the game! How does this need to be said to the people with authority over the rules themselves? Publish the shortcuts yourselves if you use them! It's ludicrous that you're telling your fans to play by rules that you don't use.

...

This is a more than fair point.

A great many of us grognards seem to have reinvented the same wheels, dozens or hundreds of times.  Some of the details vary, but overall it seems many of use very similar shortcuts (such as very-minimal "mook" statblocks) that Chaosium itself uses when they run games.  That sort of thing isn't in the core rulebook -- to the best I recall -- and with all due respect to the Nick's Manifesto & sundry online sources of grognard wisdom, none of those resources are an adequate substitute for putting into the corebook a practice that most experienced RQ GM's have been doing for decades.

 

4 hours ago, Jeff said:

OK this has wandered far afield and there is even a thread over in RuneQuest talking specifically about running combats and battles. So unless this thread returns to the subject of the number of monsters in the Bestiary, I am going to shut it down.

But -- as per Jeff's direction (wearing his Mod-Hat of Thread-Drift Prevention) -- I just want to reiterate my prior point:  humans are "monsters" too.

So in addition to the Bestiary, the RQ GM should be looking at Cults and Homelands in the core books.

Praxian Impala archers will in many ways be similar to trollkin slingers, but in other ways be very different.  Each might reasonably be used by a GM to challenge the PC's in a combat encounter.  ZZ and Uroxi are also similar "big and dangerous berserker" encounters.  Prankish/seductive Eurmal... and Elurae.

Lots of "Bestiary" entries in the core book, actually!
 

Edited February 22, 2023 by g33k

[Squaredeal Sten]

On 2/19/2023 at 8:10 AM, General Ork said:

Ok, so I got the page count wrong.

But, my point is that there should be - for a Fantasy TTRPG - a bigger and more extensive bestiary and having additional monsters all spread out in bits in other products is not as good as having a more extensive bestiary. One should not have to buy a couple of extra books, and worse yet previous editions to get further creatures.

Releasing a second bigger and more extensive bestiary would add to Runequest significantly.


So is there any plans to add additional creatures, and maybe collect the additional ones into a second bestiary.

Runequest is a great game, but is lacking in extensiveness in a few areas. Fleshing that out would add greatly to the game.



But I am new to Runequest and moved to it from DnD 5E. I am glad I did and like the game more. However I feel that a more extensive second monster book would greatly enhance teh game for me and other new players. I am not going to start a new system and have to go all over the place to get creatures, or decide to design my own.

In short, Runequest does lack a range and volume of creatures compared to competitor games and no matter how you slice this cake that is a fact. Maybe the majority of Runequest fans from older editions don't feel this is an issue at all.

I think tbe first five responses tell you most of what you asked for.  But before Jeff closes the thread I'd like to try to summarize.:  I am going to answer "Why?" Not to argue you out of what YOU want.  You do you.

1. Runequest and D&D have developed different GMing styles. 

It's been a long time since I played D&D but back in the late 1970s its monster manual provided a pretty formulaic method for GMs: Start 1st level PCs in the next level of the same dungeon hunting goblins, 2nd level of the dungeon against orcs, add critters with more dice as the PCs gain levels and go deeper in tbe dungeon.   I am sure D&D has evolved but those are its roots.

RQ on the other hand grew out of the dungeon paradigm (it is still used but most adventures are in open air) and is not a level based game, so evolved in a different direction.  Presenting a series of new monsters with more dice is not expected or successful.  The opponent and adventure  progression has to be more complex.   

2. Those of us who have run RQ for a few years have not experienced running out of monsters.  Judging from the responses of those who have run RQ for decades, they have elaborated foes within existing categories.  For example there are rolled up spirits and demons per Bestiary - then in a specific supplement there is Krampus who falls into that general category: You can buy the Throat of Winter adventure with him in Jonstown Compendium.  Which I recommend.   But he is not meant to be a generic Krampus that any GM throws into his 27th level dungeon, you open the room door and he says " You're on the naughty list."  No he is not Santa Claus, not even an evil Santa.  He has motivations, subordinates, and methods peculiar to the adventure.

3. A follow on book of "monsters" is not a good business decision for Chaosium right now.  They need to get the gods book out the door, then the GM book. The big Sartar campaign.  The Holy Country book(s).  The East Isles are recently in Jonstown Compendium.  Jajagappa did just this year publish Imther in JC.  Geographic areas and cultures are the way for RQ to grow, not monsters.  The areas may come with area specific opponents, some of whom are monstrous.  But if a unique opponent is found in Kralorela there is no reason it should pop up in Ralios.  

4. Us GMs and players are not demanding a 2nd Bestiary.  We mostly don't follow the D&D method that would make it desirable. Maybe in a few years Chaosium will compile one, maybe for the oceans or for Pamaltela,  but we are clamoring for other books now.

That's why. In my humble but wordy opinion.

[mfbrandi]

On 2/21/2023 at 8:17 PM, Dr. Devici said:

people making their own content … are taking up the role of game designers, and are going to … break things, … and that's … OK.

This! (Apologies for the brutal edit.)

When I see people complaining that their favourite publisher hasn’t provided x (even when they really should have), I think that although FRP can seem a bit prog, it is just as much punk. DIY is (almost always) more fun than complaining, right?

[Agentorange]

General Ork,

In terms of immediately gaining access to more RQG monsters I think the Jonstown Compendium over at Drive Thru RPG is probably your best answer. There's a couple of small bestiaries there, and Indeed there was series of products called Monster Of The Month that ran for a couple of years. I think both years are available as bundles.Obvously some will suit your tastes better than others but they all have merit.

 

[Jon Hunter]

On 2/19/2023 at 2:14 PM, General Ork said:

180 is not a lot, compared to other major RPGs its quite a few. And using only a quarter, In 1 year of playing I have used half. Each person has there own style of play and GM style.

 

HI General,

Allow me politely to challenge the premises of your question , which is that more is better.

I've always thought that RQ gloranthan world with limited numbers of widely known foes is actually beneficial for a number of reasons.

1) it creates a much more believable game world than D&D's gaz billions of options.

2) Its creates room and need to GM inspiration,  with new twists on old foes, new situationally unique foes

3) foes have meaning , with expansive lists that menaiung is lots if it ever exhisted

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

2. Those of us who have run RQ for a few years have not experienced running out of monsters.  Judging from the responses of those who have run RQ for decades, they have elaborated foes within existing categories.  For example there are rolled up spirits and demons per Bestiary - then in a specific supplement there is Krampus who falls into that general category: You can buy the Throat of Winter adventure with him in Jonstown Compendium.  Which I recommend.   But he is not meant to be a generic Krampus that any GM throws into his 27th level dungeon, you open the room door and he says " You're on the naughty list."  No he is not Santa Claus, not even an evil Santa.  He has motivations, subordinates, and methods peculiar to the adventure.

 

Yes, Austin @Crel did a fantastic job on this. It has been my pleasure to be his editor on others works, if not this one. He does great on detailing monsters and their tactics and raison d'etres... (see his MotM series for a few critters to add to yer Bestiary, General Ork).

https://preview.drivethrurpg.com/en/browse?keyword=akhelas

 

Edited February 23, 2023 by Bill the barbarian

[Duff]

I've never treated RQ as a Monster of the week type game, by far the most common antagonists my players have dealt with has been humans, and will continue to be. YGWV but the bestiary is more than enough for my table.

[soltakss]

On 2/22/2023 at 11:09 PM, Agentorange said:

In terms of immediately gaining access to more RQG monsters I think the Jonstown Compendium over at Drive Thru RPG is probably your best answer.

Unfortunately, General Ork has said that doesn't like PDFs and most of the Jonstown Compendium supplements are currently PDF only.

On 2/23/2023 at 3:14 AM, Duff said:

I've never treated RQ as a Monster of the week type game

But, but, but, one of the Jonstown Compendium series of supplements is called Monster of the Week, so it must be!

Edited February 24, 2023 by soltakss

[Nick Brooke]

NB: the “Rune Master of the Month” releases (first half of 2022) include tactical notes for running their high-powered NPC parties.

[Agentorange]

14 hours ago, soltakss said:

Unfortunately, General Ork has said that doesn't like PDFs and most of the Jonstown Compendium supplements are currently PDF only.

But, but, but, one of the Jonstown Compendium series of supplements is called Monster of the Week, so it must be!

Ah, so he did. Pity -  there's some good stuff in the JC. I can understand his viewpoint . I'm fine with PDF's as short documents eg: Monster of the Month etc. But for longer documents I find hardcopy easier to navigate and easier to use.

[radmonger]

3 hours ago, Agentorange said:

But for longer documents I find hardcopy easier to navigate and easier to use.

Correct me if i am wrong, but printing your own copy of a pdf you own, for personal use, is legally ok. More expensive and probably lower quality than the explicit drivethru option, and zero legal resale value. On the other hand, if it gets worn out from overuse, you can just print it again.

Also, there are plenty of web services that will let you upload a pdf and have it posted to your door in a variety of bindings. Technically, due to the upload, this does require the publisher's permission; I've not seen Chaosium give that anywhere. 

[Professor Chaos]

TBF it is not unreasonable for players of either/both DnD/computer games where every other room has a new monster behind the door and you slaughter hundreds upon hundreds of them to be confused by a game which doesn't have that.

But it is not just RQ and Glorantha that is not like that but neither pretty much all worthwhile fantasy fiction - Conan generally fights one monster, one usually sorcerous villain and a bunch of mooks per adventure, even Aragorn probably doesn't earn that many XPs from the orcs, orcs and more orcs he slays, Beowulf over a long lifetime of hero-ing kills a bunch of dudes, Grendel and Grendel's Mum (who in the Anglo-Saxon are called orcs) and gets killed by a dragon, and in Greek myth in the whole world there is only the one minotaur, one pegasus, one medusa etc and generally it takes a demi-god to beat or tame them.

So maybe what we really need to do is explain what Runequest and Glorantha are like better? 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by Professor Chaos

[mfbrandi]

19 hours ago, Professor Chaos said:

So maybe what we really need to do is explain what Runequest and Glorantha are like better?

Well, I don’t know about better …

What really is the function of multiple manuals of monsters in the games that do have them? I cannot see that there is a mechanical need for them, and if a GM wants to spring a surprise, they′ll homebrew something. But people like to look at the hideous pictures and glance over the stat blocks irrespective of whether they are ever going to use or encounter the beasties. And game publishers like to sell books; who can blame them? So — to an extent — they are coffee-table books for gamers. And that is fine.

Where other games have monsters, the RuneQuest–Glorantha complex has deities and their associated religions. And [cough!] soon, we will have ten more books dedicated to those. So we needn’t feel we’re missing out, but we probably shouldn’t feel superior, either.

[Manunancy]

Mfbrandi, i think thEre's a bit of misuderstanding with Professor Chaos : I interprets his comment as 'we should do better at explaining what Runequest and Glorantha are' - your reply feels like you took it as 'we shouLD eXPlain glorantha is better'

Edited March 1, 2023 by Manunancy

[mfbrandi]

12 minutes ago, Manunancy said:

I interprets his comment as 'we should do better at explaining what Runequest and Glorantha are'

You are right. My apologies to all.

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

You are right. My apologies to all.

Whenever I run a game for people who have played DND but never played RuneQuest or Call of Cthulhu before, I have roughly a 45-60 minute overview of the rules (especially magic) and the tropes of the setting, and emphasise that combat is a two-edged sword. Then in whatever introductory adventure I do (and I have my favorites), we have a little investigation, a lot of roleplaying opportunities, and then some combat. Sometimes the combat is a duel or two, sometimes it is a loose skirmish, and sometimes it is something the players get to plan and initiate. But that teaches them the ropes pretty quickly.

If they have played Cthulhu it is easier, and if they have never played any TTRPGs it is easiest.

[Agentorange]

9 hours ago, Jeff said:

 

If they have played Cthulhu it is easier, and if they have never played any TTRPGs it is easiest.

That's an interesting  ( and very good )way of looking at it - no pre conceived notions or expectations about what a TTRPG should be.

[Soccercalle]

I think one of the best things in Glorantha is that there is a backstory of all species and most monsters. We know how Mostal created the dwarves and that Kyger Litor is the mother of trolls. There is mythological and often even historical stories that explains their origins, history and values. That makes them much more believable. Trollkin, and chaos-tainted Telmori is the effect of Gbaji.

Tolkien had that with orcs (corrupted elves), dwarves (products of Aule) and balrogs (fallen fire maiar). But most generic RPGs dont. There is just bestiarys that may say that dwarves and elves distrust each other. But they rarely explain WHY they do that.

I prefer species and monsters with roots and back stories to the alternative.