Another Compatability Question

[1970]

I just found and bought a bunch of Mongoose RuneQuest books at a pretty good price.  How similar is it to Classic RuneQuest?  Aside from the different setting, which I know about, what are the main differences?  Can I use both of them with a reasonable amount of work?

 

ETA:  The Mongoose books I bought were the 1st edition as far as I know.

Edited April 30, 2016 by 1970

[muminalver]

Runemagic is different, if I have understood it right. Base chances on skills are based on stats, no Resistance table..

That are things I think are different direct of the bat... Observation I'm no Rq 2 knowledeged and this is all fron memory

 

[styopa]

99% chance that if you're a reasonably competent DM you can use most of the adventure stuff just winging the changes.

For example, no player ever said "wait a second, he had 15 hp but his arm had 4hp instead of 3!  We've been robbed - this is a different version!" Yeah the spells take some creativity but as long as your monsters are reasonably equipped according to expectations, it's all good.  

Hell, you can wing most D&D adventures, subbing trollkin for goblins, troll stats for orcs, etc and none will be the wiser.  The only thing there is that there's a complete absence of spirits, which are so fundamental to the 'feel' of RQ.

[soltakss]

You can use most of the versions of RQ together fairly easily.

 

Resilience, Persistence and Common Magic are the three big skills that are not used in earlier RQs.

HPs, APs and weapon damage vary slightly, but you can shrug that off as being flavour.

Many skills have been rolled into one, so Perception instead of Spot Hidden/Spot Traps or Athletics instead of Climbing/Jumping but that makes things easier.

You should be able to run Mongoose RQ scenarios with RQ2/RQ3 fairly easily.

 

[1970]

On 5/1/2016 at 11:24 AM, styopa said:

99% chance that if you're a reasonably competent DM you can use most of the adventure stuff just winging the changes.

What if I'm not reasonably competent ?

Thanks for the replies.  I think I've got it.

[soltakss]

15 hours ago, 1970 said:

What if I'm not reasonably competent ?

Competent 50% should be enough.

 

[styopa]

Goodness, I wouldn't say I'm more than 20% competent, and I can manage.

[olskool]

All of the RQ editions have good ideas that can be merged into an older (or newer) game system.  For instance, I liked Mongoose Publishing's approach to weapon durability so I incorporated it into my campaign.  They use both Armor Points and Hit Points for weapons.  I took that idea for both my weapons and shields.  A broadsword in my game has 8 Armor Points and 20 Hit Points.  A medium shield made of wood has 5 Ap and 10 Hp, while a medium shield made of hardwood and bronze has 10 Ap and 20 Hp (at the expense of greater weight).  

To enhance this, I modified RQ3's original rules so that once the weapon's AP is exceeded, the weapon's HPs take a ONE point reduction and the damage passes on to the defender.  This gives the average sword wielder more than twenty parries (perhaps hundreds if his attackers are using lighter damage weapons) before his weapon breaks (unlike RQ2, RQ3's rules allowed a warrior to go into battle without having to carry a couple of replacement swords).    

Just take what you need for your game and leave the rest behind.          

[styopa]

12 hours ago, olskool said:

To enhance this, I modified RQ3's original rules so that once the weapon's AP is exceeded, the weapon's HPs take a ONE point reduction and the damage passes on to the defender.      

I thought this WAS RQ3's original rule?  Maybe I changed it so long ago I forgot the original.

Anyway, same here, except in the case of a clearly softer material parrying a harder one, then the excess damage goes straight to the AP, not just reducing it by 1.

Wood shield vs axe, eventually wood shield WILL be flinders.

[Arnold-C]

6 hours ago, styopa said:

I thought this WAS RQ3's original rule?  Maybe I changed it so long ago I forgot the original.

You thought right, that's the RQ3 original rule.

On a successful parry, damage equal to the weapon's armor points will be blocked, the remainder, if any,  will go on the body of the parrier and the parrying weapon loses 1 AP, except when the parry was a special success. If the parry was a critical success, no damage will go through, even if the attack would have been a critical success. (Player's Book, Page 48 / RuneQuest Fantasy Roleplaying Adventure, Page 32: "Damage to Parrying Weapons").

[olskool]

8 hours ago, styopa said:

I thought this WAS RQ3's original rule?  Maybe I changed it so long ago I forgot the original.

Anyway, same here, except in the case of a clearly softer material parrying a harder one, then the excess damage goes straight to the AP, not just reducing it by 1.

Wood shield vs axe, eventually wood shield WILL be flinders.

 

Yes, it was.  That should have read "...I modified RQ2 to RQ3's original rules...." My brain must have jumped ahead of my fingers.  Based on the modifications I made, you could also argue that I modified RQ3 to RQ2 since the "give and take" from both games was almost 50/50. I think that is the biggest advantage that RQ (or BRP) has.  You can use ANY percentile based game to modify it pretty easily.  I love that about skill based gaming systems (percentile or otherwise).  

[styopa]

1 hour ago, olskool said:

You can use ANY percentile based game to modify it pretty easily.  I love that about skill based gaming systems (percentile or otherwise).  

...and let's not forget: the key is that it REMAINS LARGELY INTERNALLY CONSISTENT.

Other non d100 games have so many rationalizations and stuff, if you add this feature or that ability, you're likely to be tripped up later by a powergamer who recognizes that you've just given him a loophole to execute infinite actions a round or somesuch.