New RQ - Designer Notes Part One

[K Peterson]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

But I do hope people at least find these notes interesting. The goal is to let you all know what we are thinking and how we are coming at it.

Definitely. Please continue. It's great to see the thought process behind this new version.

And it's nice to see Chaosium draw upon the wealth of BRP rules that have been produced over the decades, cherry-picking the best parts for this new RuneQuest.

[Warthur]

I think it's worth considering that if Chaosium are looking at producing a beginner-friendly, entry-level product, that RQ2 really is by my book the best game released under that name for that particular criterion. Having the setting baked in meant that people didn't have to puzzle out their own world before kicking off, and the game as written did a great job of introducing people to important concepts and generating buy-in.

RQ3 and RQ6 were both substantially thicker tomes than RQ2, and that's without providing any Glorantha content whatsoever. So I can see why in any "back to basics" attempt Chaosium would want to revert to a very basic form as presented in RQ2 and then add things on in a very careful, judicious way.

A game including every cool system idea that has been cooked up for Runequest from publication to now would be a game that is far too unwieldy to appeal to anyone but the hardcore crowd. I like the fact that editorial discretion is being shown here.

[eyraud]

The elemental rune diagram reminds me of something similar in Nephilim. I'm not home otherwise I could look it up. 

My experience with RQ combat is a little different than Jeff described, especially with experienced but not yet masters of combat or magic characters: it was more: hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry...hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry...

otherwise, I like where this is going...

[Rhialto the Marvellous]

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

For what it is worth, I have a copy of the 1993 Elric! book right on my desk. I've been looking quite a bit at Stormbringer, Elric!, Hawkmoon, even Ringworld. And since Jason Durall will be coming into the process at some point pretty soon, I'm pretty sure that elements of those rules will have been considered carefully.

This is good news as far as I'm concerned (granted, one small, quiet voice): while I appreciate RQ6 and its thoroughness, Elric!/Stormbringer is indeed a simpler system. 

[RCarter]

I'm confused. I want to somewhat revisit whats been said before. What happened to RQ6?  Thats the superior and most elegant system that you should be building from not RQ2.  I have to say that I'm somewhat nervous that Lawrence and Pete aren't the ones writing this and heading the design team because they created the best runequest products to date mechanically and aesthetically and In my opinion you should be building from their work.  Then Maybe drop the advanced critical system they added and add in some of the system advances from CoC7 for handling skills over 100.  

[hkokko]

6 hours ago, eyraud said:

 

My experience with RQ combat is a little different than Jeff described, especially with experienced but not yet masters of combat or magic characters: it was more: hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry...hit/parry, hit/parry, hit/parry...

 

My experience with experienced and masters 90/100+ up to 160 in main skills was very long and boring hit/parry sequences. Occasionally somebody got thru but there was in the end always iron armor, magic shield and protection so nothing much got thru. It became very very boring after some years - I have no fond memories of that... Waiting for crit/no parry or crit and fumble combo is no fun if that is the only way you can do damage. Ticking damage off defending weapon is not too much fun either and if the attacker is using impaling or hafted weapon it did not damage the defending weapon. RAW if I recall correctly state if you parry with shield armor protection counts for any damage going thru the shield so having a shield was good insurance making for even longer fights. I recall many a time when high ranking players with high opponents where on hit/parry/clink cycle for the entire evening - it could have been fun but resembled more the trench warfare from WWI fortresses.   

I sincerely hope that in the playtests the high end scenarios will be throroughly Mack truck tested. 

Action points and special effects fixed that really well - combats are cinematic and offer more tactical choices that are meaningful and make the combat more varying and fun. Combat traits add a bit of variety as well. Mook rules are good as well for some situations. 

From what has been presented so far the Runes look cool. 

[Steve]

17 hours ago, jongjom said:

Yes. Really appreciate it. Please keep us in the loop with developments!

Amen to that!

[styopa]

I think the 'dullness' of high level combat is true, if a teensy bit overstated.  Then again, it seems fairly 'real life' reasonable that two master combatants would be evenly matched and could trade blows for an inordinate amount of time. 

In application though, how often did these combats occur in such a context, where one or the other (or both) combatants didn't have some 'other' thing going, like powerful magic or friends?  A melee duel at those levels of expertise in Glorantha without substantial magic in play is nearly inconceivable.

That said, I definitely expect that one of the things they're going to take from RQ6 is the special effects.  I very much disliked how common they were and how RAW unbalanced they could be, but the combined principles of a: to every exchange there's someone who wins, and this win can be directly translated into some sort of advantage (even slight), and b: special effects are driven by character choices thus adding another level of interest in the interplay of combatants - both of these NEED to be included.

I'm a simulationist; I don't want my combats to look like Crouching Tiger SFX scenes.  But I realize that some people do want exactly that.  The special combat effects is a great mechanic as well to give to a DM to 'dial up' or 'dial down' the fantasticness of such scenes.

[Noita]

I never played any games where the pc's were so accomplished and certainly agree that two Rune Lords would likely go on, and on and on until exhausted or some hefty Rune magic tipped the balance. 

Sever spirit anyone?

[hkokko]

We had many. It is relatively easy to get to Rune level if you play for awhile even if you start as lay members. if you start as novices it will be faster....

[styopa]

22 hours ago, Steve said:

9 hours ago, hkokko said:

We had many. It is relatively easy to get to Rune level if you play for awhile even if you start as lay members. if you start as novices it will be faster....

[styopa]

My goodness, I don't think I'm smart enough for this forum software, or it hates Chrome.

Anyway, replying to Hannu's comment:

" We had many. It is relatively easy to get to Rune level if you play for awhile even if you start as lay members. if you start as novices it will be faster.... "

Then clearly your combat isn't lethal enough.  /joke.

I'm kidding of course; considering the RQ3 requirements were typically something like 90% in ~5-7 skills, which is about 50-55 skill checks (with +1d6 on successful check)

(Interestingly, starting at a skill of 25, with no stat modifier, it's 55-65 rolls. Starting at a skill of 50, that only drops to perhaps 45-50.)

How long in your campaign would it take for your players to get 50 checks in 5-7 key skills?  Once my players decided what they wanted to be, they were acutely conscious of focusing on those skills, of course, meaning they were ALWAYS trying.  Basically, in those key skills you could count on them having a success every time they had an opportunity to resolve skill checks, so they'd get anywhere from 1-3 skill checks per key skill per play session.  So that's only about 20-25 play sessions to Rune Lord candidacy?  A real life year, meeting 2x monthly?  It's a while, but not a terribly LONG while, IMO.

(IMG it wasn't 'automatic' that you hit 90% in those skills, you got to be a RL.  I said they could TRY for RL whenever it was contextually appropriate, but some cults only gave you 3 tries, for example, or other cults required a massive donation and significant service to be considered.  And if RAW the cult required "90% skill in bow and arrow" I didn't care what their character sheet skill % was...they simply had to demonstrate to the Priest in a ritualized ceremony that they could successfully arrow "...9 of the 10 totems representing enemy tribes..." or whatever.)

[Atgxtg]

22 hours ago, Warthur said:

 

RQ3 and RQ6 were both substantially thicker tomes than RQ2, and that's without providing any Glorantha content whatsoever.

 

Yeah, but I don't think they were more complex or less beginner friendly. I think RQ2 was thinner mostly because it used a smaller typeface and denser layout. So it can fit the same information in about have the pages. And then there is the RQ 2 APPENDIX, which crammed stuff into something like a 5 point font. There are some ideas and options in there that never saw the light of day again. 

[jux]

To me it looks exciting. I really like how the new RQ seems to be more rules light and beginner friendly.

I really like RQ6 as well and I think it is very complete. It has it's nice simulative tone that fits perfectly with the more historic settings that RQ6 has. I like it to be a separate product line. RQ6 is also very rules heavy - not over the extreme, but it is the maximum I can chew. So I like the new RQ to be a lighter version and without combat maneuvers.

As a "new blood" in the hobby (Mongoose Legend was my first RuneQuest), I want to emphasize one thing that the grognards here may disagree with. I think the key to success for this version of RQ is the accessibility. The core book must be simple, short and sweet. But I am afraid this product can very easily become a big tome, which means it will cost much and so do poorly to win over the "new blood".

The book is not out yet, but you can see how many are already scared away with the choice of including the monster of a setting that is Glorantha. This is what I am looking forward from the new RQ:

•  Minimal setting burden. It (mechanics, magic, etc) should be recognizable for Glorantha fans, but setting understanding should not be required. No one should buy the ridiculous Guide to Glorantha volumes, to enjoy this game. This RQ, while married to Glorantha, should be playable in other settings as well.
• Very, very good setting introduction. You want your target audience to be actually new to Glorantha. The old grognards are alrady sold, but you must sell that monster setting to the new players. Maybe they even go full-crazy and buy these big boring setting books of yours. So do it right. Don't overload it with information. Rather keep them hungry. Give a setting teaser or something.
• Keep it thin, yet fully playable with the core book alone. Make many expansions, but keep the core book thin, cheap, accessible. That means below 200 pages. (RQ6, while work of art, is totally dysfunctional as a reference book to me). You know your target audience, right? The gamers - they have jobs now, wifies, children, taxes. Pages cost money and they cost time for players. Modern RPG games try to focus on that. Least amount of material for playing the game! I want to see 10 page adventure supplements - not 300 page campaigns. Don't expect your gamers to be full time GMs, because we are not.

Well, that's only from a newbie point of view. You still can do stuff that all the old fans expect, but have opportunity for the beginners to be included in this as well.

[styopa]

I think jux has some great points.

The unique situation for Glorantha is that while most fantasy games have to also present "the world" to the players, Glorantha already has The Guide which is as staggeringly comprehensive as a fictional world can be.  So Chaosium has the opportunity to be able to present a rules system with a fairly minimalist setting background, knowing that the rest is out there if people want it, already.

[Jeff]

37 minutes ago, jux said:

To me it looks exciting. I really like how the new RQ seems to be more rules light and beginner friendly.

I really like RQ6 as well and I think it is very complete. It has it's nice simulative tone that fits perfectly with the more historic settings that RQ6 has. I like it to be a separate product line. RQ6 is also very rules heavy - not over the extreme, but it is the maximum I can chew. So I like the new RQ to be a lighter version and without combat maneuvers.

As a "new blood" in the hobby (Mongoose Legend was my first RuneQuest), I want to emphasize one thing that the grognards here may disagree with. I think the key to success for this version of RQ is the accessibility. The core book must be simple, short and sweet. But I am afraid this product can very easily become a big tome, which means it will cost much and so do poorly to win over the "new blood".

The book is not out yet, but you can see how many are already scared away with the choice of including the monster of a setting that is Glorantha. This is what I am looking forward from the new RQ:

•  Minimal setting burden. It (mechanics, magic, etc) should be recognizable for Glorantha fans, but setting understanding should not be required. No one should buy the ridiculous Guide to Glorantha volumes, to enjoy this game. This RQ, while married to Glorantha, should be playable in other settings as well.
• Very, very good setting introduction. You want your target audience to be actually new to Glorantha. The old grognards are alrady sold, but you must sell that monster setting to the new players. Maybe they even go full-crazy and buy these big boring setting books of yours. So do it right. Don't overload it with information. Rather keep them hungry. Give a setting teaser or something.
• Keep it thin, yet fully playable with the core book alone. Make many expansions, but keep the core book thin, cheap, accessible. That means below 200 pages. (RQ6, while work of art, is totally dysfunctional as a reference book to me). You know your target audience, right? The gamers - they have jobs now, wifies, children, taxes. Pages cost money and they cost time for players. Modern RPG games try to focus on that. Least amount of material for playing the game! I want to see 10 page adventure supplements - not 300 page campaigns. Don't expect your gamers to be full time GMs, because we are not.

Well, that's only from a newbie point of view. You still can do stuff that all the old fans expect, but have opportunity for the beginners to be included in this as well.

I agree with all of the above. Just to add on it:

• This is a self-contained book. You don't need the Sourcebook, let alone the Guide, to start play. It is intended that you can use this book to run the RQ2 scenarios (it will contain material on how to handle Rune magic, which is a bit different now).
• The book will be somewhere in the vicinity of 240 pages. Maybe little more, maybe substantially less (as I plan to then cut, cut, cut). It currently stands at 200 pages, and will go up once the monster stat blocks are added. My expectation is it will be about the size of HeroQuest Glorantha.

Hope that helps!

[Rick Meints]

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but I don't think they were more complex or less beginner friendly. I think RQ2 was thinner mostly because it used a smaller typeface and denser layout. So it can fit the same information in about have the pages. And then there is the RQ 2 APPENDIX, which crammed stuff into something like a 5 point font. There are some ideas and options in there that never saw the light of day again. 

I used RuneQuest Classic because I had the layout and such to hand. Here's how the editions measure up. Word counts were rounded up or down based on what I felt was a typical layout page.

RQC = about 140,000 words (144 pages, 10 point font, about 950 words per page)
RQ3 = about 260,000 words (280 pages, probably 9 point text, about 950 words per page)
MRQ = 100,000 words at most (128 pages, 9 point, about 700 words per page)*
MRQ2 =  300,000 words at most (450 pages, probably 9 point text, about 700 words per page)*
RQ6 = about 320,000 words (456 pages and looks to be 10 point text, about 750 words per page)

* comparing MRQ and MRQ2 is complicated because the "Deluxe MRQ2" included the 98 page Companion and the 160 page Monsters books.

[hkokko]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

Anyway, replying to Hannu's comment:

" We had many. It is relatively easy to get to Rune level if you play for awhile even if you start as lay members. if you start as novices it will be faster.... "

Then clearly your combat isn't lethal enough.  /joke.

Heh - "Many characters died to reach this" - they called me the killer GM and added a skull sticker to their side of the GM screen for each character killed... Even some rune lords were killed.  It was brutal evolution - in the end they found a way to adapt to that environment... iron plate, iron shield, iron sword, shield 4, protection 4 and friends... They suspected that retaliation would be brutal so very rarely or never saw the Sever Spirit from their side... 

[Rhialto the Marvellous]

6 hours ago, Jeff said:

I agree with all of the above. Just to add on it:

• This is a self-contained book. You don't need the Sourcebook, let alone the Guide, to start play. It is intended that you can use this book to run the RQ2 scenarios (it will contain material on how to handle Rune magic, which is a bit different now).
• The book will be somewhere in the vicinity of 240 pages. Maybe little more, maybe substantially less (as I plan to then cut, cut, cut). It currently stands at 200 pages, and will go up once the monster stat blocks are added. My expectation is it will be about the size of HeroQuest Glorantha.

Hope that helps!

Thank goodness...not to dump on another hoary game, but just look at the great misfortune that was/is T5: a great brick of a book that is the antithesis of this, and should be an object lesson in what not to do to try and attract a new audience.

[SDLeary]

10 hours ago, Rick Meints said:

RQ3 = about 260,000 words (280 pages, probably 9 point text, about 950 words per page)

IIRC, Chaosium's general body was 9/11. I don't think this was changed for the AH stuff, but I could be wrong. 

SDLeary

[Trifletraxor]

On 2/11/2016 at 2:18 PM, styopa said:

I think the 'dullness' of high level combat is true, if a teensy bit overstated.  Then again, it seems fairly 'real life' reasonable that two master combatants would be evenly matched and could trade blows for an inordinate amount of time. 

We had this problem too for some time, that combat just went on and on. Until we changed the critical, special, failure and fumble rules that is. Now we have criticals at 1/10th skill rounded down, specials at 1/2 skill rounded down, all rolls above 90 is a failure (if not a fumble) and fumbles at 90+1/10th skill rounded down. It REALLY speeds up the combat. The players were horrified when I introduced the rule, fearing the swift death of their characters, but have gotten used to it now. (As a side effect it also provides better granulation for opposed non-combat skills).

[Mugen]

On 11/2/2016 at 5:38 PM, Rick Meints said:

* comparing MRQ and MRQ2 is complicated because the "Deluxe MRQ2" included the 98 page Companion and the 160 page Monsters books.

It's the other way around : MRQ2 has no Deluxe edition,  and MRQ1 does. 

[Mankcam]

Well I must admit that I do like the way RuneQuest Glorantha is shaping up.

I am pretty happy the Gloranthan elements will be baked into the character sheet. If I want to play a general fantasy game then I will use RQ6 ( or whatever Loz & Pete rename their system), but if I want to specifically play in Glorantha then this will likely be the system I will use, depending on the finished product of course. 

I really liked the Skill Categories from RQ3 ( and BRP BGB), as they really helped organise the character sheet. My main gripe was that the Category modifiers were almost meaningless, and thus the characters Characteristics did not have much of a direct impact on skills, so RQ6 does much better in that respect. If I were developing a new RQ, I would ditch the actual skill base chances, and organise the skills under Skill Categories, and make sure the Skill Category modifiers are decent.  Something like having a Primary Characteristic ( equal to the Characteristic) which is added to two Secondary Characteristics (equal to half Characteristic). Then that would achieve the same scale of base chances, yet make the Characteristics more meaningful.

Also in regards to skill success levels, I would go with something like Trifletraxor posted where the Critical Success is 10% of the skill, and a Special Success is equal to half % of the skill. That would work so much better than the old RQ3/BGB Special success rules - I was thinking of house ruling this in RQ3/BRP before I discovered RQ6 combat effects, which was one of the reasons I went from RQ3 to RQ6. You could probably even add Pushing skills from CoC 7E (although Characteristics need to remain the same scale to keep consistency with all the preexisting RQ/BRP stat blocks - that was not the best thing for CoC 7E to change, IMO).

Anyway, I'm obiviously not designing it, but that's my two cents worth. 

I do want to add, however, that as a long time fan of RQ and Glorantha, I certainly appreciate Jeff taking the time to present the designer notes, and MOB forwarding them here, it saves me checking the Moon Design website.

As an aside, I know there has been some recent inflammatory remarks regarding Moon Design on other forums recently, and I hope that It doesn't impact on the momentum and great work that s going on in the background.

(For what it's worth, I kind of liked MOB's candidness, it's very aussie, down here we all used to be that direct until the political correct police caught up with us in recent years. Gets us in trouble sometimes though heh heh)

Like many people I was disappointed with some of the recent changes with Chaosium, but I'm certainly not disappointed with how things appear to be shaping up.  I am more than happy wth Moon Design keeping us in the loop with things like the podcasts and these designer notes.

Just wanted to say the communication is greatly appreciated guys

 

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mankcam
spelling error correction

[Atgxtg]

Skill Category Modifiers were far from meaningless in RQ3. In addition to adding to the skill ratings it was also added to improvement rolls. Thus, a character with a +19% Attack Modifier would improve his combat attack skills much faster than someone with a +0% or negative modifier. And the category modifier was crucial for someone if they were to exceed 100% skill, since to do so required rolling over 100. 

Edited February 13, 2016 by Atgxtg

[Mankcam]

23 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Skill Category Modifiers were far from meaningless in RQ3. In addition to adding to the skill ratings it was also added to improvement rolls. Thus, a character with a +19% Attack Modifier would improve his combat attack skills much faster than someone with a +0% or negative modifier. And the category modifier was crucial for someone if they were to exceed 100% skill, since to do so required rolling over 100. 

You raise a very good point, I totally forgot about the Skill Check bonus and Skills over 100%. Yes the category modifiers did shine here, and I stand very much corrected. 'Meaningless' is not the right word I'm looking for.

I think what I'm trying to say is that I didn't feel that the Skill Category bonus was big enough in active skill use, and I always wanted Characteristics to have more of a direct impact on skill chances. IMO the MRQ D100 SRD approach was better in this regard, although I did mourn the loss of the skills not being organised under the Skill Categories like RQ3, BGB, and MW did.

I would like to see a return to the Skill Categories, just with a greater impact in play

Edited February 13, 2016 by Mankcam