HQ vs RQ?

[Atgxtg]

Blimey. I thought that Murphy's Rules type stuff was just mathematical, or apocryphal. That's brilliant!

...Though maybe this means you're not representative after all - your Real World Luck stat may be skewing the data.

(You guys do all know the RW runs under T&T rules, right? )

I once ran a game where a PC was comdemmed to death, and got tossed into area against a werewolf. Much to everyone's surprise a series of odd fumbles and one lucky critical resulted in the PC strangling the werewolf with his bare hands. The crowd loved it, and the PC got a full pardon. Everything was rolled oipenly, and the whole table sort of sat there in shock as it all unfolded.

Maybe I've just got Hack'n'Slash players, then... :/

MAybe. I'd need to know more about your campaign before I could say. Do they just wander around from place to place killing things, and getting treasure? Do they have any ties to any one or place in the game?

Yes indeed. But I think I'll stick here thanks. The OP asked the question here, so we should answer from what we know here, no?

I don;t blame you. I'm not a big fan of HQ. I find the system sort of bland. Everything seems the same as everything else. But I'm sure there are lots of people who lost characters in HQ, but they are the ones who play it.

Well, that's a serious problem.

Not necessarily. If you are running a narrative type of game, which HQ certainly is, then you don;t want the PCs getting killed off by fluky die rolls. If a PC died, you want it to be in a climatic scene against a major foe-not becuase he got tentanus cutting himself while trimming his nails. It's bad form in general for PCs to get killed off by mooks when the GM has a hot hand. So this rule prevents that kind of death.

But don''t misunderstand me,characters can die. It's not like the PCs have immunity and can go around acting stupid and still walk away relatively unscathed like in a typical D&D game. Any character who is "Completely Defeated" in HQ (basically a fumble vs. critical situation) is fair game for the recycle bin. Of course that depends on what he was defeating at. But it certainly holds true for things like combat.

It's just that in most situations the PCs have a chance to avoid hanging around until they get killed. In HQ, you ability rating (skill) is also your hit points. So if a character is getting pasted, his ability to fight will drop, and he will probably not keep blinding swinging hoping to roll a critical.

[Atgxtg]

Exactly.

30 years ago, the risky thing for me was staying alive.

Now, risk is different. It is not just about individual player characters, it is more about the community, the clan/tribe/city, religions and the world in general.

In RQ, the focus used to be on saving yourself. In HQ it is about saving the world.

Yeah. 30 years age I was doing room/monster/treasure. 29 years ago I started to switch to adventures. 28 years ago I moved onto campaigns. But it's not necessarily about system though. Any RPG can be played in either way. In fact, in spite of what the campaign is supposed to be about. I've had a lot of problems with D&D players who try to play other games as if they were D&D. They port over ideas from D&D that really won't work elsewhere. Somehow they think that if the world goes upa round them,. they will be okay.

To be honest, I don't use Extended Contests. If I need to use something similar then I use Chained Simple Contests from Mythic Russia. Extended Contests just confuse and bore me.

Really? I kinda liked extended contests. Probably more so that the rest of HQ. The new point method in HQ2 seems like an improvement, too.

My biggest gripes with HQ were that all abilities seemed the same, and that the scatted approach to Glorantha made it very hard for newbies to grasp the setting.

[BMonroe]

Blimey. I thought that Murphy's Rules type stuff was just mathematical, or apocryphal.

I once ran an RQIII game in which an orc warlord attacked the PCs, fumbled, and knocked his own helmet off. The very next round, he fumbled again, and chopped off his own head.

Greg told me a story of a house game at CHaosium in which a baboon 'bit his own head off'.

In RQ, the focus used to be on saving yourself. In HQ it is about saving the world.

Not always. Most of the HQ games I've run have been very personal adventures, not epic save the world stuff at all.

[frogspawner]

It took the world 30 years to grow out of hack and slash D&D'isms in general.

Um. Has it?

Do they just wander around from place to place killing things, and getting treasure? Do they have any ties to any one or place in the game?

Pretty much (and not really, respectively), despite my best efforts. <Hangs head in shame> Must try harder...

Greg told me a story of a house game at CHaosium in which a baboon 'bit his own head off'.

I can see how this may be one of the drivers to develop HW/HQ! But I just think it's fantastic. (For that, I let you off).

Great anecdotes, gentlemen - thanks!

[dragonewt]

Um. Has it?

Not as much as I would like, no. Although there are more choices of games that help encourage more "role" and less "roll", more thoughtful approaches, less naive assumptions, and more "thinking outside the box". However, human nature being what it is, not all players and GMs follow that lead.

[Atgxtg]

Um. Has it?

Pretty much (and not really, respectively), despite my best efforts. <Hangs head in shame> Must try harder...

Arrh! You'll drive yourself crazy that way. If the group just wants to wander around killing things, and you the GM don't, you probably aren't going to change them. I know some D&D players who suck at any other RPG because they still think and act like they are playing D&D. The like dungeon claws and hack 'n slash and that's that. They aren't interested in story, role-play or any of the other stuff that can be part of a RPG campaign. That's their choice, and they are not going to get involved in any risk that doesn't directly affect their character's life, or combat stats. That's that. As long as they have fun, that's okay. As long as the GM is having fun, that's okay. It's when people aren't having fun when something is wrong. If you are happy with hack 'n slash then no problem.

Now if you were to run that group in HQ, you'd probably have to put the characters lives at stake, and kill more PCs than other GMs in order to give the players risks they can appreciate. It would probably be a bloodbath though, since HQ doesn't slant the contests in the PCs favor as much as some other RPGs. In HQ, the PCs are expected to fail at times and suffer setbacks. If the setbacks and other consequences don't mean anything to to players, the GM will have to kill more PCs.

[frogspawner]

Arrh! You'll drive yourself crazy that way. ...

Thanks, that helps. I'll make sure to have fun - beating them up rather than myself. So it'll be with my preferred system, and that's basically RQ, not HQ.

[Atgxtg]

Thanks, that helps. I'll make sure to have fun - beating them up rather than myself. So it'll be with my preferred system, and that's basically RQ, not HQ.

I think every GM who runs a game like BRP runs into that problem. I've run with some players who picked up bad habits and tactics in D&D that might have made sense in that game, don't hold water elsewhere. Some guys like to charge archers (in D&D, especially in AD&D, unless somebody puts some effort into their missile weapons, it is usually better to charge and take a couple of minor hits and close to melee range ASAP; in BRP this is usually suicidal, as many of my players have proven repeatedly; In RQ with battlemagic spells like speedart. ,ultimissile and firearrow to augment missle fire, sucidal doesn't quite cover it), some like to pass tough adventures on to NPCs (In D&D there are always high level guys who could deal with these things but don't; in cinematic game chances are that the PCs are the big heroes, and if they can't do something nobody else can. I've got Star Trek and Star Wars groups who found out the hard way why its not such a good idea to stay home and let "somebody else" try to stop the Klingons or the Death Star), some guys assume that encounters are all balanced to their character's abilities (the infamous, "if its in the adventure it must be there for us to kill it" approach. I've got players who are still outraged with me for putting a dragon in the dragon's cave in the dragon mountains where everybody told them it was-along with warnings to stay away from it).

It gets frustrating.

[seneschal]

But, but ... if you include the Dragon Mountains in your setting, complete with said caves and large lizards that belch hot gasses, presumably it is because you wanted your players to confront them at some point. The PCs just need to know whether they're in Dragonslayer, The Hobbit, or Farmer Giles of Ham.

[Atgxtg]

But, but ... if you include the Dragon Mountains in your setting, complete with said caves and large lizards that belch hot gasses, presumably it is because you wanted your players to confront them at some point. The PCs just need to know whether they're in Dragonslayer, The Hobbit, or Farmer Giles of Ham.

That presumption is not necessarily true. If I decide to run a campaign set in the modern USA, and put the Grand Canyon and the Empire State Building, I do not want my players to confront them or jump off them at some point. And, if for some reason I did want that, I'd at least want for them to wait until after they had picked up a jet pack, powersuit, been subjected to massive amounts of gamma radiation, developed telekinesis or had some other reason to expect that they could survive such an action. Or at least who were playing characters who wanted to kill themselves. I don't expect the PCs to do a frontal charge on Fort Knox merely because an adventure takes place in Kentucky. But surprise me they do, those pesky players.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Atgxtg

[seneschal]

Jet pack? Radiation? Telekinesis? Naw, a ramp, a high-powered motorcycle, and a chance to be on TV are all your player-characters need ...

Besides, in a modern real-world U.S.A. campaign the Grand Canyon, Fort Knox, and the Empire State Building exist whether I want them to or not. In a fantasy game, I get to pick and choose which elements are in my setting. So if there are dragons, trolls, etc., they are there for a reason. If my PCs are all local tradesmen in a campaign where their goal is to outsmart the sheriff and the local tax collector while milking the Duke for all he is worth, such creatures wouldn't be necessary ... unless they occasionally show up at customers.

[Atgxtg]

Jet pack? Radiation? Telekinesis? Naw, a ramp, a high-powered motorcycle, and a chance to be on TV are all your player-characters need ...

Besides, in a modern real-world U.S.A. campaign the Grand Canyon, Fort Knox, and the Empire State Building exist whether I want them to or not. In a fantasy game, I get to pick and choose which elements are in my setting. So if there are dragons, trolls, etc., they are there for a reason.

But that reason could and should be something other than just an obstacle for the PCs to overcome.

If my PCs are all local tradesmen in a campaign where their goal is to outsmart the sheriff and the local tax collector while milking the Duke for all he is worth, such creatures wouldn't be necessary ... unless they occasionally show up at customers.

Necessary has nothing to do with it. Things can exist to add more depth, and options to the game. A campaign where everything exists solely to be a tool for or a challenge to the PCs is boring and bland. It's like trying to role-play on a game console. "Oh look, a half eaten apple and a mackerel. Well, I picked them up. Maybe I can trade the mackerel to the troll so I can across the bridge and use the apple to tame the wild horse that keeps running away from me, and then ride the horse to get to the castle. If only I knew what to do with the bubblegum wrapper and the hang-glider."

If a setting is to have verisimilitude, there have to be things in the setting that do not revolve around the PCs. Otherwise it's just a puzzle game, with anything turning into a clue.