RuneQuest 6 vs BRP for Base System

[Archivist]

Just curious, for those of you that hack your own system, what do you use for the base rules?

[Atgxtg]

I tend to use RQ3 for the base. In my opinion it's better thought out and has more "check & balances" than the systems derived from it (and/or RQ2). Plus is mostly compatible with any of the add on rules and options from BRP and BRP related games. Just about anything can be ported over.  

[soltakss]

RQ3 for me, too. It works better than most and acts as a good base.

[auyl]

Legend for me

[el_octogono]

Elric! And I guess Magic World for me

[SDLeary]

If I want BRP compatibility then I generally start with RQ3 or Stormbringer 5e/MW.

If I don't care about compatibility it is a bastardized system based on a d100 version of Pendragon with liberal helpings of BGB and other BRP extended family sources, HQ, and items from discussion on this forum.

SDLeary

[Ethereal]

Runequest 2 (Chaosium). I will use other systems to add to it. BRP, Openquest, etc.

 

[Baragei]

I'm most familiar with BRP, through Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer and the BGB. RQ6 is the ruleset I fell completely in love with and now almost always think in terms of. I thought the Stormbringer/BGB-combo would be my valentines forever, but after RQ6 it turns out I was just deeply infatuated with it.

I've always mixed, matched and tinkered my d100 games. 

[nDervish]

I'm using RQ6 as my base system these days, but always have BGB, Magic World, Pendragon, etc. close to hand when I'm writing things up.

[Rhialto the Marvellous]

OpenQuest2 for me, since I have a bias towards lean rules. I consider Age of Shadow (OQ1) to be an exemplar in this regard. I just find it easier to add to a lean base than subtract from a thicker one (e.g., RQ6).

[rsanford]

Elric / Magic World here...

[Archivist]

For those of you that use an earlier version of RuneQuest, why?

[Atgxtg]

Because, in my opinion it is as good or better than anything that was spawned from it. Most of the spin offs have "bugs" that were introduced by the authors.  For instance, BRP has a flawed SIZ table, and various other bugs that came about from rules being ported over from CoC and Worlds of Wonder, as WoW was the current authors favorite incarnation of the rule set. And some of the of the new rules, such as opposed rolls, I don't like.  

Several things that I liked about RQ, such as skill category modifiers, were marginalized or removed because they were not things that the current author was concerned with. Many BRP players seem to prefer the more streamlined incarnation of the game system used in CoC and Strombringer/Elric!, but I liked the "crunchiness" that old RQ had. 

Now that all well and good, the author gets to do that, and many BRP fans prefer some of the changes, but I don't so I will use the version that I prefer, and port over any options or variants that I require for a given setting. 

 

 

[Atgxtg]

Oh, and for those of you that use a later version of RuneQuest, why?

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, SDLeary said:

If I don't care about compatibility it is a bastardized system based on a d100 version of Pendragon with liberal helpings of BGB and other BRP extended family sources, HQ, and items from discussion on this forum.

 

That seem very interesting. How does that game mechanic work? 

[TRose]

BRP for the skeleton core of my Frankenstein system.

 I use BRP mostly cause it available and my new players can get a copy of it. .For magic I use The Magic book/RQ3 system as I think its the best magic system out there. I have also allowed Mysticism from RQ6 and a Modified Rune magic system from Advance sorcery . I also use the damage modifiers for Strenght and size from RQ6 so a giant does not auto smear everything it hits.

For experience I use a modified OpenQuest  system. I give out 10-20 points a game , but each point raise a skill by one point to learn a new spell cost 10 points and to raise a stat is 15.

 I use Mongoose legendary abilities as a reward for doing a heroquest.

 

[Archivist]

Just curious.

In D&D variants, you get rough character balance because of how classes are designed. In a pure point-buy system, like vanilla BRP or GURPS or Savage Worlds, you get a balance based on the points. If you just hack in "stuff," how do you make sure that the guy with access to magic from that Magic system you've chosen to use isn't vastly overpowered compared to the other characters?

[TRose]

Class balance is an illusion at best as it does not take in a GM running style.

 For example one of my best players has very basic combat skills, plays his character as a coward who avoids fighting, but is very skilled in social skills. He tends to talk his way out of fights instead of slugging it out. Which considering how brutal D100 combat is, is a good thing.

  As for the two system I added, Rune magic is for players is weaker then others in many ways because it requires you to prepare the spells ahead of time. And Mysticism has been balance for RQ6 so porting it over was no problem

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by TRose

[Atgxtg]

I agree, "game balance" is mostly an illusion. For example, in D&D 3.5E just how balanced in a first level wizard compared to a fighter who is a decent archer? A high DEX bow specialist is going to be able to pepper the wizard apart from outside of the wizard's casting range, and probably keep the wizard from getting any spells off. 

 

Another thing is that, for the most part, it doesn't really matter if one character is "vastly overpowered compared to the other characters". The PCs are not (hopefully) fighting each other, but are working together towards a common goal.As long as all the PCs have something to do that the players have fun with there isn't any problem. For example, in the Star Wars films, notice how whenever the "high powered" Jedi and Sith face off against each other all the other characters are somehow kept busy elsewhere? The same thing can apply to RPGing. 

 

"Game Balance" is really just a way of keeping things easier to write adventures for, and/or run for the GM, not anything really important. 

[tooley1chris]

Have to likewise go with Elric! /MW although I could just as eaily use BRP. Just feel that MW has done all the rules hacking for me already. Best pieces of the best systems. 

[Mankcam]

If I had the time to run complete hack rules, I would probably go with some bastardised version of RQ3 and MW.

Despite it's sanitised flavour compared to RQ2, I think RQ3 pretty much had many of the things I like in terms of game mechanics. MW is also a great set of rules, so if I was to make a hack fantasy system, I would start with those two books on my table.

I really like the simple character generation presented in MW, so that would be in my hack rules over RQ3's more clunky character generation. However the RQ3 Hit Locations and Armour win over MW's Major Wounds and Variable Armour for me, so they would be ported from RQ3. Skill Categories are organised a little better in MW however, so a hack rules could be pretty evenly done between RQ3 and MW if I had the time to cherry pick.

I would house rule how much impact Characteristics have on the Skill Categories, and I'ld increase the chance for Special Successes to be equal to half skill chance (as stated in another thread).

These days I am more likely to run games out of the box, and I will be using RQ6 for these purposes. The DM supplements are built for it, and I can easily use the OpenQuest and Renaissance supplements with it as well. So I'll keep going with RQ6 I reckon, unless my troupe finds the combat effects confusing, which in that case I will return to hacking RQ3/MW due to it's simplicity.

I'll most likely use the next RQ Glorantha edition specifically for Glorantha games, depending on how the fully developed game looks once published.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mankcam

[SDLeary]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

That seem very interesting. How does that game mechanic work? 

Basic Blackjack roll over. No specials, only critical on an exact roll of skill. Not a great chance, I know, but I want a critical to be really special, and as I use threshold based hit locations, its not like major wounds are uncommon. Skills over 100 are mastery based... and on and on. Still tweaking. Oh, and weaponless and wood based weapons (staves, clubs, etc) are by default less lethal. In this case only cause "real" damage if a major wound is scored. 

SDLeary

[Mankcam]

9 hours ago, Archivist said:

Just curious.

In D&D variants, you get rough character balance because of how classes are designed. In a pure point-buy system, like vanilla BRP or GURPS or Savage Worlds, you get a balance based on the points. If you just hack in "stuff," how do you make sure that the guy with access to magic from that Magic system you've chosen to use isn't vastly overpowered compared to the other characters?

I'm not sure if game balance is an issue in actual play, but it can certainly be an issue in many players minds if you do a hack system.

This is one of the reasons why I'm more inclined to run a cohesive system RAW these days, rather than make a hack system out of a grab-bag of preferred rules. You really need alot of time and mental energy devoted to looking at how each set of ported rules may impact on each other, which is not always easy to see due to the rules all broadly being compatible.

Edited February 14, 2016 by Mankcam

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

Basic Blackjack roll over. No specials, only critical on an exact roll of skill. Not a great chance, I know, but I want a critical to be really special, and as I use threshold based hit locations, its not like major wounds are uncommon. Skills over 100 are mastery based... and on and on. Still tweaking. Oh, and weaponless and wood based weapons (staves, clubs, etc) are by default less lethal. In this case only cause "real" damage if a major wound is scored. 

SDLeary

Is is that you don't like specials, and crits, or the difficulties inherent is doing so in a D100 blackjack system?

No offense, just curious about the game design. Plus, I had something similar in the works but with a form of success levels. 

[nDervish]

18 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, and for those of you that use a later version of RuneQuest, why?

Because the combat Special Effects in RQ6 are one of my all-time favorite things I've ever seen in RPG mechanics and I have no nostalgia for older versions, having never played them - my first experience with BRP systems was buying RQ6 and BGB, then sitting down and reading both of them.  I also prefer RQ6's stat+stat skill baselines and opposed rolls over the resistance table, so that pretty much makes it the obvious choice for my base system.  There are parts I port over from BGB, MW, etc., such as skill ticks, but, for all the really big core chunks, I like the RQ6 version better.

 

16 hours ago, Archivist said:

In D&D variants, you get rough character balance because of how classes are designed. In a pure point-buy system, like vanilla BRP or GURPS or Savage Worlds, you get a balance based on the points. If you just hack in "stuff," how do you make sure that the guy with access to magic from that Magic system you've chosen to use isn't vastly overpowered compared to the other characters?

I don't.  It's not something I even think about consciously.

Now, I do adjust things if they don't "feel right" and part of "feels right" is that it's not so strong or weak that taking it or avoiding it is a total no-brainer, so things tend to end up more-or-less balanced because of that, but I don't make a point of sitting down and crunching numbers or running simulations to confirm balance.  I just don't care that much about it, plus RPGs are so flexible and wide-open with what can happen that everything ultimately ends up being situational.  The ability that's utterly OP today can be worthless in next week's game and vice-versa.