Advice to GMs on how to efficiently organize battles

[Squaredeal Sten]

In another thread which drifted considerably, i recently wrote: 

"As several more distinguished people have written,

That [advice to the GM on how to balance and organize battles] is a separate subject from monster count and deserves its own thread,  which I will start shortly.

I note that you seem to be asking for advice to the GM about how to balance battles and also how to  efficiently organize battles.

It is very possible that the forthcoming GM book will do that, since the old RQ2 book has "treasure factors" for balance and in the back is a "squad sheet" among several worksheets.

I have little advice on balance.  Maybe I don't even believe in balance. I do recommend mercy:  try not to doom the Adventurers and especially don't intentionally do Total Party Kills, which are not MGF.  Not very profound.

For efficient GMing, I value Andrew L. Montgomery's and Nick Brooke's advice, which I interpret as saying that each of a platoon of mooks does not need his own page in the GM's notes, while major NPCs should get more extensive detail.  It seems to work for me.  Some specifics in a while."

I would like to exchange notes here about GM prep for violent encounters with multiple throw-away NPCs.

I have found it useful and efficient to put a simple matrix in my notes with columns for each "mook" and space for notes on which adventurer each is fighting, wounds taken, magic points expended. Which in a selection of magic each may use.  They don't each need their own hit location table etc, and I can keep group notes nearby, like what superior equipment & magic the officer below may have.

For example, 

Rank	soldier	Soldier	Officer	Soldier	Soldier
Vs  PC
Hits taken
MPs used
Magic up

 

I suspect that other people have superior techniques and I'd like to hear about them.

 

 

[radmonger]

I posted this to the runequest reddit on this thread on the first starter set adventure. 

 

Rules as written, the system is equally dangerous to the NPCs as to the players. Nothing in the rules would have prevented the scorpion men destroying your PCs as quickly and thoroughly as vice versa.

Assuming your players wouldn't have found that fun, it's your job as GM to prevent that.

Game balance is a little different from Pathfinder-style systems, in that there isn't really a 'default' winner, one who is statistically 99% likely to come up on top if no tactics are used and everyone just slugs things out. instead it more smoothly varies from 'very probably will win' to 'very likely will lose'. Without large hp pools, there isn't a 'rule of large numbers' effect to reduce the effect of random chance.

A related point is that, while combat rounds themselves take longer in RQ, fights are usually settled by the end of the second round. Once one side gains a decisive numeric advantage, there isn't much coming back from that. The survivors from the smaller side are both having making more parries, and at a penalty, and also getting fewer attack rolls. Unless you completely outclass your opposition, time to surrender or run away.

The starter adventure is unusual in that, for obvious reasons, it doesn't actually require using any clever tactics or roleplay to start the fight with that decisive advantage. For most scenarios, the actual gameplay is largely in getting to that point. Perhaps using stealth or tactics to reduce their numbers, perhaps using politics to increase your own.

Character progression in RQ is also very different, in that a starting PC who is an initiate of a dedicated combat cult, and allocates everything to weapon skills, is within a shade of being as good at doing what they do as any mortal human is. Think of such PCs as 21 year old professional football players; they may have a small amount to still learn about football, but they have a massive amount to learn about life.

Some GMs don't like that, and prefer to take the RQ2 approach of starting the players at 16, where they are clearly not yet old enough to play for the first team. This give the campaign a simple central focus of a coming-of-age story; how and whether they prove themselves. Others want to tell different stories.

Anyway, they key takeaway is that for a pathfinder-style system the easy mistake for a gm to make is to set up an unbalanced fight where the players are unexpectedly mechanically doomed to defeat. The equivalent mistake that a RQ GM can make is to set up a balanced fight where the player's story cannot continue following defeat.

Because whether due to a tactical mistake, or just a bad run of dice rolls, sooner or later that will happen.

Edited February 21, 2023 by radmonger

[EpicureanDM]

13 hours ago, radmonger said:

Character progression in RQ is also very different, in that a starting PC who is an initiate of a dedicated combat cult, and allocates everything to weapon skills, is within a shade of being as good at doing what they do as any mortal human is. Think of such PCs as 21 year old professional football players; they may have a small amount to still learn about football, but they have a massive amount to learn about life.

Excellent analogy I hadn't heard before.

[Joerg]

15 hours ago, radmonger said:

A related point is that, while combat rounds themselves take longer in RQ, fights are usually settled by the end of the second round. Once one side gains a decisive numeric advantage, there isn't much coming back from that. The survivors from the smaller side are both having making more parries, and at a penalty, and also getting fewer attack rolls. Unless you completely outclass your opposition, time to surrender or run away.

Unless you bring in terrain and other such limiting factors. The Munchrooms from Trollpak are a classic example of such a case.

[Jeff]

17 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

In another thread which drifted considerably, i recently wrote: 

"As several more distinguished people have written,

That [advice to the GM on how to balance and organize battles] is a separate subject from monster count and deserves its own thread,  which I will start shortly.

I note that you seem to be asking for advice to the GM about how to balance battles and also how to  efficiently organize battles.

It is very possible that the forthcoming GM book will do that, since the old RQ2 book has "treasure factors" for balance and in the back is a "squad sheet" among several worksheets.

I have little advice on balance.  Maybe I don't even believe in balance. I do recommend mercy:  try not to doom the Adventurers and especially don't intentionally do Total Party Kills, which are not MGF.  Not very profound.

For efficient GMing, I value Andrew L. Montgomery's and Nick Brooke's advice, which I interpret as saying that each of a platoon of mooks does not need his own page in the GM's notes, while major NPCs should get more extensive detail.  It seems to work for me.  Some specifics in a while."

I would like to exchange notes here about GM prep for violent encounters with multiple throw-away NPCs.

I have found it useful and efficient to put a simple matrix in my notes with columns for each "mook" and space for notes on which adventurer each is fighting, wounds taken, magic points expended. Which in a selection of magic each may use.  They don't each need their own hit location table etc, and I can keep group notes nearby, like what superior equipment & magic the officer below may have.

For example, 

Rank	soldier	Soldier	Officer	Soldier	Soldier
Vs  PC
Hits taken
MPs used
Magic up

 

 

I suspect that other people have superior techniques and I'd like to hear about them.

 

 

First off, thank you for creating a new thread.

Second, let's play around with terminology and definitions a little. I tend to approach RuneQuest combats as falling into one of four categories:
 

1. Duel. This is a one on one combat. Simplest to run, requires no special prep.

2. Loose skirmish. This is probably the most common - when the player characters fight a roughly equivalent group of opponents. Effectively it is a group of one on one combats, but some players might be casting spells or using missile weapons, others might be trying to double-team an enemy while defending against another. I tend to just print out a bunch of NPC stats if this is prepared, and if not I just do a table like:

Tusk Rider 1 ("Dave") 
Total Hit points
Injuries
Spells cast
Any other notes:

Tusker 1 ("Dave's Big Pig") 
Total Hit points
Injuries
Any notes:

And then reference the Bestiary or other source for stuff like attack %, etc. 

3. Large skirmish. This is where the players are assisted by other NPCs against a large number of foes. There might be several waves of combat, like for the defenders of the Cradle. Here's the point I start hand-waving - this is a TTRPG and not a war game! I am only interested in rolling stuff where the players are directly involved. The rest we handwave and describe narratively.

In a large skirmish, the GM really needs to keep track of how the player characters are doing. If they are kicking butt, let there be a short pause (which expires their spirit magic) and then have another wave. Maybe a few Rune levels engage with them. Or have them targeted by missile weapons or spells. If they are on the ropes, let them be rescued by allies. Move away from the idea that this is a clockwork mechanism, and really think about pacing.

4. Battle. This is where the hand-waving really needs to take over. Focus on what the players are doing. Give them opportunities to play an important role in the battle - maybe they are able to attack the enemy banner man or even a commander. Let there be plenty of pauses where spirit magic, and in larger battles Rune magic, is going to expire. Battles are confusing places where the combatants rarely know what is going on overall - that's what their Battle Skill is for!

But even in a skirmish or a battle, I handle the NPCs like I do in a loose skirmish. Stat up a few that you think are going to matter and track them. A battle is usually a session by itself - it should be a major event in a campaign, so if a game session looks like it is going to come to a battle, and you aren't ready as the GM, that's a good point to call it a night and you can prepare for the battle before the next game.

[radmonger]

6 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Unless you bring in terrain and other such limiting factors. The Munchrooms from Trollpak are a classic example of such a case.

Yeah I need to explain that a bit better, because what i mean by outnumbered is something like 'outnumbered in active combat'. Using terrain to limit the number of enemies who can engage you at once comes under tactics. Which I count as prior to the actual mechanics of combat.

Most of the time you are going to play that out; expect the players to actually pick good tactics, and have them fail if they don't. But it's also fine to have one player make a battle roll and say 'ok, you succeeded, half the enemies are not going to be relevant to this fight'.

 

 

 

[Jeff]

15 hours ago, radmonger said:

Game balance is a little different from Pathfinder-style systems, in that there isn't really a 'default' winner, one who is statistically 99% likely to come up on top if no tactics are used and everyone just slugs things out. instead it more smoothly varies from 'very probably will win' to 'very likely will lose'. Without large hp pools, there isn't a 'rule of large numbers' effect to reduce the effect of random chance.

A related point is that, while combat rounds themselves take longer in RQ, fights are usually settled by the end of the second round. Once one side gains a decisive numeric advantage, there isn't much coming back from that. The survivors from the smaller side are both having making more parries, and at a penalty, and also getting fewer attack rolls. Unless you completely outclass your opposition, time to surrender or run away.

The starter adventure is unusual in that, for obvious reasons, it doesn't actually require using any clever tactics or roleplay to start the fight with that decisive advantage. For most scenarios, the actual gameplay is largely in getting to that point. Perhaps using stealth or tactics to reduce their numbers, perhaps using politics to increase your own.

Character progression in RQ is also very different, in that a starting PC who is an initiate of a dedicated combat cult, and allocates everything to weapon skills, is within a shade of being as good at doing what they do as any mortal human is. Think of such PCs as 21 year old professional football players; they may have a small amount to still learn about football, but they have a massive amount to learn about life.

Some GMs don't like that, and prefer to take the RQ2 approach of starting the players at 16, where they are clearly not yet old enough to play for the first team. This give the campaign a simple central focus of a coming-of-age story; how and whether they prove themselves. Others want to tell different stories.

Anyway, they key takeaway is that for a pathfinder-style system the easy mistake for a gm to make is to set up an unbalanced fight where the players are unexpectedly mechanically doomed to defeat. The equivalent mistake that a RQ GM can make is to set up a balanced fight where the player's story cannot continue following defeat.

This is all spot on, although I find that in RQ, fights are usually settled once one side or another loses a "critical mass". That might be when the leader of one side is defeated, or when there is a clear numerical/usefulness superiority on one side or another. Combats tend to last 2 to 4 rounds in my experience.

 

[Akhôrahil]

18 hours ago, radmonger said:

A related point is that, while combat rounds themselves take longer in RQ, fights are usually settled by the end of the second round. Once one side gains a decisive numeric advantage, there isn't much coming back from that. The survivors from the smaller side are both having making more parries, and at a penalty, and also getting fewer attack rolls. Unless you completely outclass your opposition, time to surrender or run away.

Agree (well, often a little beyond round 2, especially if there's an initial missile/spell exchange). RQ has this strong "death spiral" (once you start losing, you start losing more) which is usually considered a bad thing (as it means a battle is decided long before it's finished if everyone fights to the death) but works really well here, as it means that even if the sides were reasonably even at start, things will soon tilt in one direction and then it's time to try to get out of the fight for the losing side because catching up is really hard, and further supported by how there are institutions for not fighting to the bitter end.

Even if one side fights to the death, I like to call things once it's clearly decided ("You clear out the remaining rabble"), because rolling your way through the mopping-up is pretty boring and time-consuming. If they could handle 12 zombies, they can handle the remaining 3, unless they've been seriously weakened doing it.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Jeff]

27 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Agree (well, often a little beyond round 2, especially if there's an initial missile/spell exchange). RQ has this strong "death spiral" (one you start losing, you start losing more) which is usually considered a bad thing (as it means a battle is decided long before it's finished if everyone fights to the death) but works really well here, as it means that even if the sides were reasonably even at start, things will soon tilt in one direction and then it's time to try to get out of the fight for the losing side because catching up is really hard, and further supported by how there are institutions for not fighting to the bitter end.

Even if one side fights to the death, I like to call things once it's clearly decided ("You clear out the remaining rabble"), because rolling your way through the mopping-up is pretty boring and time-consuming. If they could handle 12 zombies, they can handle the remaining 3, unless they've been seriously weakened doing it.

After things go bad for one side, that is when people should 1. run away, or 2. surrender for ransom. Or something else is going on that they should run to. There is a video game/DND mentality that all fights should be to the death before moving on to something else. In RQ it is much smarter (and usually more fun) to have the losing side run away or surrender. 

[Squaredeal Sten]

I usually find that when the fight goes badly for the NPCs, most of those still fighting go down before they can disengage.  Then a party member with Slow magics the disengaged.  

But what I need to improve, is managing battles vs. Enemies in phalanx.  I want to have the second rank ready to step up. So I need to prepare a slightly different matrix.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Squaredeal Sten
Added paragraph

[Akhôrahil]

8 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

I usually find that when the fight goes badly for the NPCs, most of those still fighting go down before they can disengage.  Then a party member with Slow magics the disengaged.    

Agree. Fleeing from ranged skirmishing often works (especially when it's easy to get out of line of sight); fleeing from melee is really hard for NPCs. Doubly so if the PCs sensibly spam Mobility and Slow.

[Squaredeal Sten]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

After things go bad for one side, that is when people should 1. run away, or 2. surrender for ransom. Or something else is going on that they should run to. There is a video game/DND mentality that all fights should be to the death before moving on to something else. In RQ it is much smarter (and usually more fun) to have the losing side run away or surrender. 

And running or surrendering is completely realistic in tbe RW.  Even in close order, which supports morale, hardly any one fights past 50% casualties and 25% is more usual..  In open order, a much lower threshold.

Most of the casualties in classical times were taken after the formation broke, when cavalry slaughtered the fugitives.  So in Anabasis you have Xenophon explaining that the Greeks mounted some men from their phalanx because otherwise "they could not kill any", the side that ran dropped their shields so they could run faster.

Unfortunately we seldom have the encumbrance stats prepared so it's hard to say when the Adventurers can't keep up.

[Akhôrahil]

PCs can fairly often turn a fight around though, by bringing out Rune Magic or other resources they would have  preferred to keep in reserve. Things tend to change in a fight once that Shield 6 lands.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Jeff]

7 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

PCs can fairly often turn a fight around though, by bringing out Rune Magic or other resources they would have  preferred to keep in reserve. Things tend to change in a fight once that Shield 6 lands.

Yes, that is why you put them into key dramatic moments of the battle, and then extrapolate from there.  

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

After things go bad for one side, that is when people should 1. run away, or 2. surrender for ransom. Or something else is going on that they should run to. There is a video game/DND mentality that all fights should be to the death before moving on to something else. In RQ it is much smarter (and usually more fun) to have the losing side run away or surrender. 

Usually yes, but there's an amount of exceptions. Mindless enemies (gorps, skeletons). Controlled enemies (like Commanded elementals). Cornered Chaos. Cornered PCs versus Chaos. Berserking enemies.

[Jeff]

6 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

Usually yes, but there's an amount of exceptions. Mindless enemies (gorps, skeletons). Controlled enemies (like Commanded elementals). Cornered Chaos. Cornered PCs versus Chaos. Berserking enemies.

Those should be exceptions that prove the rule. Unless your game is all about fighting Chaos. In which case, they quickly learn why Chaos is hated.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

I agree with most of this, including considering running away as things turn bad.  Though our group does seem to have too many D&D / GURPS / Video Game types so they hardly ever do.  Lately, we've been burning through D.I. though, I guess that's kind of the same...  (OT: this is probably an unintended consequence of the new RQG Rune Lords D.I for cheap rule)

What I don't see is fights being anywhere close to "decided" after a couple of rounds.  I'm not saying you all are lying or anything!  Not at all.  Just that something you do is very very different than what we do.

One possible difference is that we have a Humakti with a good Sense Ambush skill, a Uroxi with good Sense Chaos, a Shaman who can see the spirits, and a few PCs and familiars who settle for non-magical aid: excellent skills at Spot or Listen.  So the PCs very seldom get ambushed.  And our Humakti has the dreaded no fun at all "don't participate in an ambush" geas, so vice versa.  For most battles, both sides have a few rounds to get prepared.

Our PCs are now pretty high level, so Shield 3 / Prot 4 is common, and Shield 5 / Prot 6 is not unheard of.  That could play a role too.  (And the baddies usually have up some Shield too).

Thoughts?  I'm really interested in what about your combats make them more decisive sooner, because ours take a long time.  Even a "minor" one.

[Cloud64]

@Jeff While you're paying this thread some attention, I have a quick question. I'm organising the Battle of the Queens for my players tomorrow evening. Your notes elsewhere have proven useful, thank you, and I am using them as my base to work from. But, there's one thing that sounds good but I'm scratching my head over what to do with it – Battle Intensity. Any elucidation gratefully received. Other stuff I'm happy to make a good guess at from the examples.

[Eff]

So the initial question that led to this thread being created was: 

"How do you expect new RuneQuest GMs to both "[take on] a Dark Troll warrior who’s a Death Lord of Zorak Zoran, with the full panoply of Rune spells, enchanted lead armour, zombie and skeleton hordes, etc., and a clan or warband backing them up (with specialists, healers, trained battle-insects, allies, and the like)" and also understand which of the rules in the 400+ page rulebook they just bought should be ignored when running this fight at the table?"

with some additional clarification:

"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."

Which is to say, the question is not about "how do you organize battles", this is a more specific question about how to run powerful opponents with a great deal of resources, and doing so according to the rules. With that in mind, there are two difficulties here. The first one is the "handling time" of the combat rules and the extent to which it increases nonlinearly. That is, if you have a group of five PCs against the same number of dark trolls (ten combatants), and you have a group of five PCs against a Death Lord, four skeletons, an allied spirit, and two NPC allies of the Death Lord providing magical aid, (thirteen combatants), does it take 1.3x as long to run each given round, or does it take longer? 

This leads into the second aspect, which is- how should GMs play someone like a Rune Lord in battle? Let's step away from ZZ for a second here and focus on, say, a Wind Lord, because I've spent more time thinking about what an Orlanth cultist can do. So by default a Rune Lord will have 90% in a relevant Rune, which is to say, they can cast their Rune magic at a 90% chance absent anything else. They will have 18 CHA and so will have access to up to 18 points of spirit magic. They will likely have high POW to cast said spirit magic with, and thus a plentiful reserve of MP. They have a 90% or better Passion related to their cult or deity. They also have a heightened chance to use Divine Intervention. Finally, they have 90% at a minimum in a relevant weapons skill, quite likely multiple of them. 

Their allied spirit will also be an initiate of the same cult and have their own pool of spirit magic, rune magic, and MP to work with. And we have NPC allies casting their own magic in support. 

Now, whatever goons or henchpersons are brought along probably aren't quite so kitted out with magic. But even on a basic level, within a given round, the GM does have to think about the combinatorial effects of having the Rune Lord, the allied spirit, and whatever allies are casting support magic interacting with one another. They also have to consider when the Rune Lord might call for divine intervention, because that's a far more practical option than for mere mooks, something which the Rune Lord would reasonably consider invoking. 

What, then, would people do to make this specific kind of combat, of PCs versus a Rune Lord in full kit, with some support casting and some goons, run smoothly without glossing over the things the Rune Lord can do? Even a spell like Leap, hardly the first to come in mind, offers the option for an expeditious retreat or a circumvention of PC defensive positioning. 

[Jeff]

21 minutes ago, Cloud64 said:

@Jeff While you're paying this thread some attention, I have a quick question. I'm organising the Battle of the Queens for my players tomorrow evening. Your notes elsewhere have proven useful, thank you, and I am using them as my base to work from. But, there's one thing that sounds good but I'm scratching my head over what to do with it – Battle Intensity. Any elucidation gratefully received. Other stuff I'm happy to make a good guess at from the examples.

BATTLE SIZE AND INTENSITY

The size of the battle dictates its Intensity rating. Scripted battles give a set Intensity rating. To determine Intensity randomly (or if you would prefer to do so in the case of scripted battles), roll 3D6 and add the number of Battle Turns/Encounters for the size of the battle as given in Battle Size Table. For example, a Medium Battle has a random Intensity of 3D6+7. 

Battle Intensity is used primarily to determine who chooses the Skirmish Encounter the Players face each Battle Turn.

 

Battle Size Table

Battle Size	Example	Total Combatants	Maximum Turns	Random Intensity
Skirmish	Bandits, Cattle Rustlers	30	1	3D6+1
Clash	Clan, Company	300	3	3D6+3
Small Battle	Tribe, Regiment	1,000	5	3D6+5
Medium Battle	Liberation of Boldhome	3,000	7	3D6+7
Large Battle	Second Moonbroth, Dangerford, Battle of Queens	10,000	8	3D6+8
Huge Battle	Pennel Ford, Battle of Heroes	30,000	10	3D6+10

ENCOUNTERS

Each battle, from the smallest tussle between a handful of skirmishers to the largest clashes of armies, is built around the Encounter. For battles of Skirmish size, a single Encounter is the entirety of the fight. For larger conflicts, multiple Encounters are strung together through a combination of Player and Gamemaster choices. Think of these as vignettes contained within the larger battle environment; exciting highlights in between periods of amorphous chaos, nameless fear, and mind-numbing boredom.

Encounters are arranged by use of cards or a list drawn up by the Gamemaster. They are chosen by either the Players or the Gamemaster, depending on Battle roll outcomes. The Gamemaster should make up two decks or lists before the battle begins: one of Foes, the other of Opportunities. The Gamemaster should tailor the selections to the battle being fought—for instance, if there are no local militia present, then the Militia Encounter should be left out. 

Foes represent different types of enemy fighters and may be encountered multiple times in a battle. Opportunities, on the other hand, come but once, and may only be chosen when a Player rolls a critical success on their Battle roll. Opportunities are a chance to make a major impact on the battle: by seizing an enemy standard or killing an enemy commander, for example. After an Opportunity is played through, it may not be chosen again during that battle. 

The available Encounters are determined by the type of foe being fought. 

In this chapter we include foes from Sartar, Prax, and the Lunar Empire, and some from other cultures around the periphery of Dragon Pass.

Gamemasters are free to mix and match Encounters as they see fit to create an interesting variety of potential events prior to a given battle. However, once battle is joined, the actual sequence and type of Encounters is determined by a mix of Battle rolls and Gamemaster choice.

Players and the Gamemaster choose a number of potential Encounters each Battle Turn, but only one is played through. 

SELECT ENCOUNTER

After making their Battle rolls, adventurers who rolled successes take turns (from highest CHA to lowest) selecting a Foe Encounter. An adventurer who rolls a special or critical success on Battle may opt to select an Opportunity instead. Regardless of the adventurer’s rolls, the Gamemaster always selects an Encounter as well.

Once all selections are made, make an opposed roll against the battle’s Intensity rating. If the roll succeeds, the Gamemaster chooses a Foe from the selected Encounters to play that Battle Turn. If the roll fails, then it is the Commander who chooses (if an adventurer) or otherwise select an Encounter at random. Of course, if there is only one possible Encounter this Battle Turn, you may skip this step.

However, if an Opportunity has been selected, it must be chosen. If there are more than one Opportunity selected, the Gamemaster or Commander may choose between them.

A final note: if the enemy Army Commander succeeded with their Battle roll at the start of the battle, the Gamemaster may, once per battle, overrule any chosen Encounter and substitute any other Encounter—even one not otherwise available in the battle’s normal selection of Encounters! (Thus may surprise events and hidden ambushes be sprung.) If the enemy Army Commander’s Battle roll was a critical success, the enemy forces are inspired by their Passions and fight with a +25% modifier to their pertinent Weapon or Magic Skills in the substituted Encounter.

After the selection is made, the chosen Encounter is played through, as detailed below. The remaining Foes and Opportunities are disregarded for now and may be chosen again in later rounds. Foes may be faced more than once, but Opportunities, once played, may not be chosen again this battle.

[Jeff]

44 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

I agree with most of this, including considering running away as things turn bad.  Though our group does seem to have too many D&D / GURPS / Video Game types so they hardly ever do.  Lately, we've been burning through D.I. though, I guess that's kind of the same...  (OT: this is probably an unintended consequence of the new RQG Rune Lords D.I for cheap rule)

What I don't see is fights being anywhere close to "decided" after a couple of rounds.  I'm not saying you all are lying or anything!  Not at all.  Just that something you do is very very different than what we do.

One possible difference is that we have a Humakti with a good Sense Ambush skill, a Uroxi with good Sense Chaos, a Shaman who can see the spirits, and a few PCs and familiars who settle for non-magical aid: excellent skills at Spot or Listen.  So the PCs very seldom get ambushed.  And our Humakti has the dreaded no fun at all "don't participate in an ambush" geas, so vice versa.  For most battles, both sides have a few rounds to get prepared.

Our PCs are now pretty high level, so Shield 3 / Prot 4 is common, and Shield 5 / Prot 6 is not unheard of.  That could play a role too.  (And the baddies usually have up some Shield too).

Thoughts?  I'm really interested in what about your combats make them more decisive sooner, because ours take a long time.  Even a "minor" one.

That is a LOT of defensive magic and should give the players a huge amount of survivability. Of course that tends to be the sort of thing that you can cast once, maybe twice, and then it better be off to the temple! Assuming both sides are that amped up on magic (which should be pointed out to them - that means they are regularly fighting the elite of Glorantha!), that tends to prolong fights.

And of course, even with all that defensive magic, all it takes is a critical on one side or a fumble on the other for things to fall apart really fast.

[Cloud64]

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

BATTLE SIZE AND INTENSITY

Fabulous, that is very helpful. Many thanks.

[ffilz]

OK, how do I do it... Note that I run 1st edition RQ, but I couldn't imagine doing things any differently with any other edition...

Sometimes I will use resources like FOES or Trolls & Trollkin to provide quick sheets for the opposition. Note that I prefer the earlier form of each NPC is an individual as opposed to the later form (Borderlands for example) where all the opposition of the same type is identical.

Sometimes I'll note damage and stuff right in the module (blasphemy...)

Sometimes I'll take notes on scrap paper.

I track POW used and spells cast individually.

If I'm running RQ, I'm running it because I like this level of detail. If I want to track less detail about opposition, I'll run something different.

Oh, and I have house rules for hit points, often I will recalculate though sometimes I'll just use the NPCs are written in a module. It depends on my mood. But as I use average of CON and SIZ, you can bet that I'll be refiguring the hit points for anything that has SIZ much larger than CON. And conversely I'd probably do the same if SIZ was much less than CON. What I really need to do is make a Google Sheet combat tracker where I can just input the NPCs CON, SIZ, and POW at the top and everything automatically calculates and then I also have a space to input damage to each location (and then total HP loss is automatically tallied also). On the other hand that would be annoying... Maybe I could make something work that was easy to print...

As to balance, in the other thread I noted that as an old school gamer, I'm not that concerned. Sure, if I'm setting up an adventure for my PCs, I'll make some effort to match power level. But I'm not going to worry about perfection there. The PCs can surrender or run away or not even engage in the first place. And if a TPK happens, it happens, and we move on. On the other hand I can't recall EVER having a TPK in RuneQuest... Or having to invoke deus ex machina to save the PCs (I've done that in the past in other games). I've had plenty of PCs die. And the PCs have retreated after watching one of their companions explode.

[EpicureanDM]

23 minutes ago, Eff said:

So the initial question that led to this thread being created was: 

"How do you expect new RuneQuest GMs to both "[take on] a Dark Troll warrior who’s a Death Lord of Zorak Zoran, with the full panoply of Rune spells, enchanted lead armour, zombie and skeleton hordes, etc., and a clan or warband backing them up (with specialists, healers, trained battle-insects, allies, and the like)" and also understand which of the rules in the 400+ page rulebook they just bought should be ignored when running this fight at the table?"

with some additional clarification:

"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."

Which is to say, the question is not about "how do you organize battles", this is a more specific question about how to run powerful opponents with a great deal of resources, and doing so according to the rules. With that in mind, there are two difficulties here. The first one is the "handling time" of the combat rules and the extent to which it increases nonlinearly. That is, if you have a group of five PCs against the same number of dark trolls (ten combatants), and you have a group of five PCs against a Death Lord, four skeletons, an allied spirit, and two NPC allies of the Death Lord providing magical aid, (thirteen combatants), does it take 1.3x as long to run each given round, or does it take longer? 

This leads into the second aspect, which is- how should GMs play someone like a Rune Lord in battle? Let's step away from ZZ for a second here and focus on, say, a Wind Lord, because I've spent more time thinking about what an Orlanth cultist can do. So by default a Rune Lord will have 90% in a relevant Rune, which is to say, they can cast their Rune magic at a 90% chance absent anything else. They will have 18 CHA and so will have access to up to 18 points of spirit magic. They will likely have high POW to cast said spirit magic with, and thus a plentiful reserve of MP. They have a 90% or better Passion related to their cult or deity. They also have a heightened chance to use Divine Intervention. Finally, they have 90% at a minimum in a relevant weapons skill, quite likely multiple of them. 

Their allied spirit will also be an initiate of the same cult and have their own pool of spirit magic, rune magic, and MP to work with. And we have NPC allies casting their own magic in support. 

Now, whatever goons or henchpersons are brought along probably aren't quite so kitted out with magic. But even on a basic level, within a given round, the GM does have to think about the combinatorial effects of having the Rune Lord, the allied spirit, and whatever allies are casting support magic interacting with one another. They also have to consider when the Rune Lord might call for divine intervention, because that's a far more practical option than for mere mooks, something which the Rune Lord would reasonably consider invoking. 

What, then, would people do to make this specific kind of combat, of PCs versus a Rune Lord in full kit, with some support casting and some goons, run smoothly without glossing over the things the Rune Lord can do? Even a spell like Leap, hardly the first to come in mind, offers the option for an expeditious retreat or a circumvention of PC defensive positioning. 

This is exactly right. There's no value in drawing owls for new RQ GMs. The only person who's responded so far who sounds like they actually use RQG's rules when running combat is @Rodney Dangerduck. 

5 hours ago, Jeff said:

2. Loose skirmish. This is probably the most common - when the player characters fight a roughly equivalent group of opponents. Effectively it is a group of one on one combats, but some players might be casting spells or using missile weapons, others might be trying to double-team an enemy while defending against another. I tend to just print out a bunch of NPC stats if this is prepared, and if not I just do a table like:

Tusk Rider 1 ("Dave") 
Total Hit points
Injuries
Spells cast
Any other notes:

Tusker 1 ("Dave's Big Pig") 
Total Hit points
Injuries
Any notes:

And then reference the Bestiary or other source for stuff like attack %, etc. 

This goes to what @Eff(always) puts more eloquently than I do. This is too vague. This could also be a description or advice for running a D&D skirmish. Is that really something you can't grasp? Maybe it is. 

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

 

[EpicureanDM]

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

What I don't see is fights being anywhere close to "decided" after a couple of rounds.  I'm not saying you all are lying or anything!  Not at all.  Just that something you do is very very different than what we do.

That matches my experiences with RQG, but I suspect they've been less extensive than yours. Even at the relatively "low levels" we played at, the power of Heal spirit magic and, especially, Heal Wound as a common Rune spell made combats last often closer to 4-6 rounds.

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Our PCs are now pretty high level, so Shield 3 / Prot 4 is common, and Shield 5 / Prot 6 is not unheard of.  That could play a role too.  (And the baddies usually have up some Shield too).

Thoughts?  I'm really interested in what about your combats make them more decisive sooner, because ours take a long time.  Even a "minor" one.

Given that you're playing at a "high level," that makes sense to me. My group never reached those heights. This is when I would expect there to be support casters on each side who're just trying to debuff their opponents. That could be a job for allied spirits.