Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)

[Belgath]

For me the most important thing, is going to be the atmosphere. RQ2 was my first RPG so I'm biased towards to. But that being said. I had house ruled Quit a bit of RQ2 after about 10 years I had over 100 pages of changes. I never moved on to RQ3 but I purchased all the supplements just converting them on the fly. I didn't move on,  untill RuneQuest 6 came out. For me RuneQuest was the best game play I ever had the opertunty to play. As stated earlier some people like there RuneQuest less crunchy some want more others don't want hit locations others do.  In the end every single person out there, will like different parts the game. The great thing about d100 games it is easy to convert stuff. Keep the Rules you like Takeaway ones you don't. Make it your game. I'm way excited about RQ2.5 character creation processing. I have  never like starting my players as a zero. I have always had my players start with characters that had something special and are better than the typical.  It looks like RQ2 going to have awesome atmosphere with lots of depth of character. So long as they keep that I would be happy with RuneQuest 2.5, i'll just add and take away rules according  to my preference. I have Never got why people bent out of shape of a rule. And because of one rule thay don't want to play the game. Just change rule don't like and move on. Jeff go is going hard road ahead as people are very passionate about their RuneQuest. No matter what he does upset about it. So I'm glad I am not in he's position. 

[Belgath]

Just now, Belgath said:

For me the most important thing, is going to be the atmosphere. RQ2 was my first RPG so I'm biased towards to. But that being said. I had house ruled Quit a bit of RQ2 after about 10 years I had over 100 pages of changes. I never moved on to RQ3 but I purchased all the supplements just converting them on the fly. I didn't move on,  untill RuneQuest 6 came out. For me RuneQuest was the best game play I ever had the opertunty to play. As stated earlier some people like there RuneQuest less crunchy some want more others don't want hit locations others do.  In the end every single person out there, will like different parts the game. The great thing about d100 games it is easy to convert stuff. Keep the Rules you like Takeaway ones you don't. Make it your game. I'm way excited about RQ2.5 character creation processing. I have  never like starting my players as a zero. I have always had my players start with characters that had something special and are better than the typical.  It looks like RQ2 going to have awesome atmosphere with lots of depth of character. So long as they keep that I would be happy with RuneQuest 2.5, i'll just add and take away rules according  to my preference. I have Never got why people bent out of shape of a rule. And because of one rule thay don't want to play the game. Just change rule don't like and move on. Jeff go is going hard road ahead as people are very passionate about their RuneQuest. No matter what he does people will be upset about it. So I'm glad I am not in he's position. 

 

[DreadDomain]

7 hours ago, SDLeary said:

An option would be to pull POW out of most skills. Honestly, it should probably only be in a magic bonus (if one exists), or Oratory.

SDLeary

 

7 hours ago, Jeff said:

Again, I disagree utterly.

I too would prefer to keep POW in the skill modifiers. That's why I was suggesting to make POW less swingy otherwise it will be a problem whatever the method. Someone hovering around POW 16 or 17 will keep adding and substracting 5% to some of his skills.

[SDLeary]

8 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

 

I too would prefer to keep POW in the skill modifiers. That's why I was suggesting to make POW less swingy otherwise it will be a problem whatever the method. Someone hovering around POW 16 or 17 will keep adding and substracting 5% to some of his skills.

I was presenting it as an option, because POW is the most swingy characteristic, and thus is essentially the cause of the vast majority of recalculation. You could, for example, pull it out of the category modifiers and apply it as the base for specific skills. Still a bit of recalc, but for a fewer set of skills.

SDLeary

Edited July 20, 2016 by SDLeary

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

From my hazy memory, in the past when we played Runequest in combat we allowed an attack and parry with a one handed weapon during a single melee round. 

Looking through RQ 3 this is not the case, it's a choice of attack or parry with a one handed melee weapon ( not taking into account shields or 2 handed weapons)

Skimming through RQ 2 classic I haven't been able to find clarification regarding attack and parrys with one handed weapons in same melee round. Was it the same as RQ 3?

[Mankcam]

I always thought you got an attack on your SR, which often could mean more than one attack per melèe round when using the old Strike Rank system.

I thought that you were able to Parry only once in the melee round at full skill, then parry in subsequent actions within the melee round with a culminative -30% negative modifier until you ran out of the ability to do so.

I may be mixing up RQ and BGB rules however. I may need to check when I get back home ...

Edited July 21, 2016 by Mankcam

[Mugen]

10 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I was presenting it as an option, because POW is the most swingy characteristic, and thus is essentially the cause of the vast majority of recalculation. You could, for example, pull it out of the category modifiers and apply it as the base for specific skills. Still a bit of recalc, but for a fewer set of skills.

SDLeary

I agree with you.

I know how re-computing skills every time POW changes is a pain in the ass, but it is not in my eyes a good reason to go for RQ2-like 5% increases, and I prefer your solution.

I'm also not in favor of RQ3-style modifiers, which are cumbersome to say the least.

This is why I advocate 1 skill base value per skill category (not per skill) based on 2 characteristics, as I think it's the quickest and most efficient solution.

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

From my hazy memory, in the past when we played Runequest in combat we allowed an attack and parry with a one handed weapon during a single melee round. 

Looking through RQ 3 this is not the case, it's a choice of attack or parry with a one handed melee weapon ( not taking into account shields or 2 handed weapons)

Skimming through RQ 2 classic I haven't been able to find clarification regarding attack and parrys with one handed weapons in same melee round. Was it the same as RQ 3?

It seems to me it was changed in an errata, and you could make one attack and one parry per turn with a single weapon.

As for myself, I'm fine with the original RQ3 rule. I would allow one to dodge using his weapon skill, however.

[Mankcam]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

I'm also not in favor of RQ3-style modifiers, which are cumbersome to say the least. 

This is why I advocate 1 skill base value per skill category (not per skill) based on 2 characteristics, as I think it's the quickest and most efficient solution.

I'm unsure, but I think Jeff may have mentioned that something like this was discussed, but rejected by the play test group.

Which is a shame, as I think that it may have been one of the better solutions as it can appeal to those who like the idea of a reasonable sized skill category modifier, yet who don't want to see (stat+stat) as a base chance for each particular skill. 

I think it's a great compromise between previous RQ versions, and if the goal of the system design is to create a 'clean' system, then you can't get much more simple than this approach, unless you ignore Skill Categories altogether.

Personally I would really dig it if Skill Categories were calculated this way. 

 

(This is getting off topic to the title heading of this thread: 'Chaosium's RuneQuest 2 vs RuneQuest 3 (Avalon Hill)'. However it has shown up within several threads that it may even deserve it's own topic thread, although the conversation regarding it is almost exhausted now, and it does not sound like it is going to be explored further by the design team)

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Mankcam

[DreadDomain]

I agree with Mugen and Mankcam, skill + skill by skill categoties would be a very good solution.

And I agree a whole lot of this conversation should have been in the "New RQ dedign questions" thread.

[styopa]

5 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

From my hazy memory, in the past when we played Runequest in combat we allowed an attack and parry with a one handed weapon during a single melee round. 

Looking through RQ 3 this is not the case, it's a choice of attack or parry with a one handed melee weapon ( not taking into account shields or 2 handed weapons)

Skimming through RQ 2 classic I haven't been able to find clarification regarding attack and parrys with one handed weapons in same melee round. Was it the same as RQ 3?

RQ3 RAW was:

You can pick 2 of (attack, parry, or dodge) in a round, constrained by

- a 2h weapon can both attack and parry in the same round

- a 1h weapon can either attack or parry in the same round

- if you dodge, you get to roll your dodge against ALL attacks from that single source in that round (thus potentially effectively giving you many more 'actions')

RQ2 doesn't appear to limit actions in a round OTHER THAN that constrained by the total number of SR it would take. So if your attack SR is 7, you'll never attack twice because your 2nd attack would always be at an SR greater than the 12sr limit per round (even if you're using 2 weapons).  Note also that in RQ2, you could split your attack if you had 50% or above but this second attack could never be used against the same target.  Also, remember there was no actual 'dodge' in RQ2.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

RQ3 RAW was:

You can pick 2 of (attack, parry, or dodge) in a round, constrained by

- a 2h weapon can both attack and parry in the same round

- a 1h weapon can either attack or parry in the same round

- if you dodge, you get to roll your dodge against ALL attacks from that single source in that round (thus potentially effectively giving you many more 'actions')

RQ2 doesn't appear to limit actions in a round OTHER THAN that constrained by the total number of SR it would take. So if your attack SR is 7, you'll never attack twice because your 2nd attack would always be at an SR greater than the 12sr limit per round (even if you're using 2 weapons).  Note also that in RQ2, you could split your attack if you had 50% or above but this second attack could never be used against the same target.  Also, remember there was no actual 'dodge' in RQ2.

Thanks for that. I've just had a chance to read over rq2 combat, and you've confirmed my understanding.

Over the years I must have unconsciously mixed up the rules from the 2 editions. I think we played RQ3 games with the freedom of rq2 combat, allowing both attack and parries with a single one handed weapon. 

I've been looking through RQ2 for a ruling that wasn't there  I think for ease of play I prefer the RQ2 approach - simple straight forward everyone gets a chance to parry no matter whether one handed or 2 handed weapon is used.

Your point about dodge in RQ3 is important too as it becomes an extra action to be used instead of an attack or parry. I guess in RQ 3 the combat rules encourage either 2 handed weapons, or the combination of shield and a singlehanded weapon. A single handed weapon on its own, would only be a good option if your dodge % is good. Other wise you're at a major disadvantage without a parry defense.

I see no reason why the RQ2 approach shouldn't prevail here? Surely a skilled fighter could both attack and parry in the same round with a single handed weapon? After all it is lighter and more manauvreable. And in game terms, I think it's a lot easier to take for granted a parry option no matter the weapon. It's more streamlined - everyone gets a parry.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[styopa]

19 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Thanks for that. I've just had a chance to read over rq2 combat, and you've confirmed my understanding.

Over the years I must have unconsciously mixed up the rules from the 2 editions. I think we played RQ3 games with the freedom of rq2 combat, allowing both attack and parries with a single one handed weapon. 

I've been looking through RQ2 for a ruling that wasn't there  I think for ease of play I prefer the RQ2 approach - simple straight forward everyone gets a chance to parry no matter whether one handed or 2 handed weapon is used.

Your point about dodge in RQ3 is important too as it becomes an extra action to be used instead of an attack or parry. I guess in RQ 3 the combat rules encourage either 2 handed weapons, or the combination of shield and a singlehanded weapon. A single handed weapon on its own, would only be a good option if your dodge % is good. Other wise you're at a major disadvantage without a parry defense.

I see no reason why the RQ2 approach shouldn't prevail here? Surely a skilled fighter could both attack and parry in the same round with a single handed weapon? After all it is lighter and more manauvreable. And in game terms, I think it's a lot easier to take for granted a parry option no matter the weapon. It's more streamlined - everyone gets a parry.

Without putting words in his mouth, I think that's exactly what Jeff's trying to do with RQ4.  Get the essence of combat, but get rid of the cluttery details that would slow it down.

The game-mechanic concept of tactical choices informing weapon-use preferences may be interesting for some people in a crunchy, simulationist way. (Me, for example.)  BUT...(wild-ass guessing) I suspect that's a minority, particularly today where players apparently feel, as Jeff mentioned, that adding 12% to a skill % was just too hard/too much work.

Your point is correct, essentially RQ3 was definitely saying "if you want to do a lot of damage, use a 2h; if you want to be safer, use 1h+shield" quite clearly.  I always understood the 'balance' aspect of the rule, but I don't even feel it's particularly accurate.  It kind of makes fencing impossible, for example.

Of course it's a spectrum, right?  On the one hand you have a Phoenix Command level of simulation, where 'ticks' are 1/10 of a second, and the entire GAME is simulating a few moments of (usually brutally deadly) combat.  At the other end of extremes, you have Hero Wars, where a character has general ability that can be used to contest an opponent (that doesn't even necessarily have to be violent, like Oscar Wilde having "Witty Repartee 4W") and only the result is determined by die roll, leaving everything else rationalized and up to the descriptive/creative engine of the DM to describe.  RQ2 to RQ3 was definitely a sold step toward the Phoenix Command end; probably, in retrospect, an overshoot.  RQ4 seems like it's intending to be more of a step back toward the middle ground of playability but still maintaining the canonical 'crunch' that RQ is fundamentally identified with.

I hope that RQ4 will be more than just a cleaned-up, Dragon-Pass focused reissue of RQ2 though, and take advantage of rules mechanics and concepts that bring the game into relevance in 2016.

 

BTW Jeff, when's the next "Designing the New RQ" coming out?  Been more than a month now.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

14 minutes ago, styopa said:

Without putting words in his mouth, I think that's exactly what Jeff's trying to do with RQ4.  Get the essence of combat, but get rid of the cluttery details that would slow it down.

The game-mechanic concept of tactical choices informing weapon-use preferences may be interesting for some people in a crunchy, simulationist way. (Me, for example.)  BUT...(wild-ass guessing) I suspect that's a minority, particularly today where players apparently feel, as Jeff mentioned, that adding 12% to a skill % was just too hard/too much work.

Your point is correct, essentially RQ3 was definitely saying "if you want to do a lot of damage, use a 2h; if you want to be safer, use 1h+shield" quite clearly.  I always understood the 'balance' aspect of the rule, but I don't even feel it's particularly accurate.  It kind of makes fencing impossible, for example.

Of course it's a spectrum, right?  On the one hand you have a Phoenix Command level of simulation, where 'ticks' are 1/10 of a second, and the entire GAME is simulating a few moments of (usually brutally deadly) combat.  At the other end of extremes, you have Hero Wars, where a character has general ability that can be used to contest an opponent (that doesn't even necessarily have to be violent, like Oscar Wilde having "Witty Repartee 4W") and only the result is determined by die roll, leaving everything else rationalized and up to the descriptive/creative engine of the DM to describe.  RQ2 to RQ3 was definitely a sold step toward the Phoenix Command end; probably, in retrospect, an overshoot.  RQ4 seems like it's intending to be more of a step back toward the middle ground of playability but still maintaining the canonical 'crunch' that RQ is fundamentally identified with.

I hope that RQ4 will be more than just a cleaned-up, Dragon-Pass focused reissue of RQ2 though, and take advantage of rules mechanics and concepts that bring the game into relevance in 2016.

 

BTW Jeff, when's the next "Designing the New RQ" coming out?  Been more than a month now.

Thanks. I'm really enjoying the chance to indulge in these RQ ideas. Must be an itch that I never properly itched back in the day

You've summed that up brilliantly. I think my younger self saw the "advanced" nature of RQ3 as the way forward at the time, more sophisticated, more attempts at simulation. Now it feels surprisingly that I want the opposite of that...but not as far as heroquest, I still want some crunch. 

I think also the point you make about attempts at realism in simulation don't always reflect real authenticity, as mentioned with regards to the parry options of rq3. There's lots of factors that would affect the speed and ability to parry and attack with a 2 handed weapon, like extra weapon weight for instance. And as you mentioned it doesn't take into account the fast nimble one handed weapon user. 

[RosenMcStern]

 

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Your point is correct, essentially RQ3 was definitely saying "if you want to do a lot of damage, use a 2h; if you want to be safer, use 1h+shield" quite clearly.  I always understood the 'balance' aspect of the rule, but I don't even feel it's particularly accurate.  It kind of makes fencing impossible, for example.

This point was absolutely and clearly taken back in the official errata. The softback Deluxe edition clearly states that the two last lines of the first paragraph of the "How to Parry" section should be disregarded and replaced with "You cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same SR". IIRC, the GW edition of the rules has the correct text in that paragraph, rather than an errata at the end.

Edited July 21, 2016 by RosenMcStern

[styopa]

33 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

 

This point was absolutely and clearly taken back in the official errata. The softback Deluxe edition clearly states that the two last lines of the first paragraph of the "How to Parry" section should be disregarded and replaced with "You cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same SR". IIRC, the GW edition of the rules has the correct text in that paragraph, rather than an errata at the end.

Oh, interesting - I never realized that.  Makes more sense, certainly.  You learn something new every day.

[DreadDomain]

6 hours ago, styopa said:

RQ3 RAW was:

You can pick 2 of (attack, parry, or dodge) in a round, constrained by

- a 2h weapon can both attack and parry in the same round

- a 1h weapon can either attack or parry in the same round

- if you dodge, you get to roll your dodge against ALL attacks from that single source in that round (thus potentially effectively giving you many more 'actions')

RQ2 doesn't appear to limit actions in a round OTHER THAN that constrained by the total number of SR it would take. So if your attack SR is 7, you'll never attack twice because your 2nd attack would always be at an SR greater than the 12sr limit per round (even if you're using 2 weapons).  Note also that in RQ2, you could split your attack if you had 50% or above but this second attack could never be used against the same target.  Also, remember there was no actual 'dodge' in RQ2.

This is definitely an area where we prefered the less limiting, more freeflowing approach of RQ2. After trying combat with the two actions limit, we ended up with a mix of RQ2 and RQ3:

- allowing any number of actions limited by the number of SR

- SR 10 with 3 SR between actions

- dodge was used but only against a single attack

I hope Jeff uses the freeflowing approach.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

3 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

 

This point was absolutely and clearly taken back in the official errata. The softback Deluxe edition clearly states that the two last lines of the first paragraph of the "How to Parry" section should be disregarded and replaced with "You cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same SR". IIRC, the GW edition of the rules has the correct text in that paragraph, rather than an errata at the end.

Ah ha, I've had to delve deeper( a few disgruntled Balrogs) I actually have the Avalon hill soft bound reprint as well, with the errata in the back, although it never had proper use.

You are right in the errata correction. Although I also have my Gamesworkshop used copies and they don't include the useful errata. Thanks for bringing that to my attention 

A surprisingly critical bit of errata! 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Mankcam]

50 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

This is definitely an area where we prefered the less limiting, more freeflowing approach of RQ2. After trying combat with the two actions limit, we ended up with a mix of RQ2 and RQ3:

- allowing any number of actions limited by the number of SR

- SR 10 with 3 SR between actions

- dodge was used but only against a single attack

I hope Jeff uses the freeflowing approach.

This sounds very much like how we used to play it, and I'ld be happy if CRQ4 follows something similar to this.

(I prefer RQ3's 10SR/MR, it just feels better to me, but it sounds like the design team definitely prefer RQ2's 12SR/MR. However it's no biggie either way for me)

 

Edited July 21, 2016 by Mankcam

[styopa]

9 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

it sounds like the design team definitely prefer RQ2's 12SR/MR. However it's no biggie either way for me)

 

We mostly use semi-rolling SR/rounds anyway, so base-10 was MUCH simpler for everyone to parse into future expectations.

It just seemed silly to me that an action (using 12 SR rounds) taking 14 SR could technically never happen, sort of a RQ version of Zeno's paradox.  *Obviously* it would occur on SR2 of the following round in lieu of that round's action.  I don't even remember if RQ2 even addressed that?

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

10 minutes ago, styopa said:

We mostly use semi-rolling SR/rounds anyway, so base-10 was MUCH simpler for everyone to parse into future expectations.

It just seemed silly to me that an action (using 12 SR rounds) taking 14 SR could technically never happen, sort of a RQ version of Zeno's paradox.  *Obviously* it would occur on SR2 of the following round in lieu of that round's action.  I don't even remember if RQ2 even addressed that?

Are we talking casting spells? I guess if you allow that with melee combat then the order of sr would quickly become confused as second attacks pile into the next melee round? 

[g33k]

12 hours ago, styopa said:

Your point is correct, essentially RQ3 was definitely saying "if you want to do a lot of damage, use a 2h; if you want to be safer, use 1h+shield" quite clearly.  I always understood the 'balance' aspect of the rule, but I don't even feel it's particularly accurate.  It kind of makes fencing impossible, for example.

This, IMHO, is more a matter of evolving technologies... 2h for more damage / offense, 1h+Shield for more damage-resistance / defense.  Until, of course, armor became obsolete/ceremonial.  Then the fast weapons evolved, since armorless flesh slices so easily... with just a flimsy blade that would break on even below-par medieval armor.

[Mankcam]

8 hours ago, styopa said:

We mostly use semi-rolling SR/rounds anyway, so base-10 was MUCH simpler for everyone to parse into future expectations.

It just seemed silly to me that an action (using 12 SR rounds) taking 14 SR could technically never happen, sort of a RQ version of Zeno's paradox.  *Obviously* it would occur on SR2 of the following round in lieu of that round's action.  I don't even remember if RQ2 even addressed that?

I can't remember. When I played RQ3 if an action took that long to complete then I think I may have ruled that it occurred at the end of the melee round on the last SR. Not sure if that is canon or not.

In truth, I can't remember what we used to do now. 

I played RQ3 until the late 90s, took a break and played a few other rpg systems, and when I returned to BRP I used the BGB for my Gloranthan setting games (except with a mish-mash of RQ3 magic and ideas from HW/HQ).

In more recent years I replaced the BGB with RQ6. which seemed to have Initiative Order calculated along the lines of the BGB, but it also reminded me of the old RQ SR system which took weapons and armour into account. So RQ6 has a good way of doing it.

I liked Strike Ranks back in the day, but it's all a bit nostalgic and foggy now, and it may seem a little weird returning to it. However it will definitely remind me I'm playing RQ, as no other rpg in my collection has anything like it in regards to resolving Initiative Rolls.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Mankcam

[DreadDomain]

11 hours ago, Mankcam said:

This sounds very much like how we used to play it, and I'ld be happy if CRQ4 follows something similar to this.

(I prefer RQ3's 10SR/MR, it just feels better to me, but it sounds like the design team definitely prefer RQ2's 12SR/MR. However it's no biggie either way for me)

 

I'm like you, I prefer 10 SR but it really isn't a deal breaker.

2 hours ago, Mankcam said:

I liked Strike Ranks back in the day, but it's all a bit nostalgic and foggy now, and it may seem a little weird returning to it. However it will definitely remind me I'm playing RQ, as no other rpg in my collection has anything like it in regards to resolving Initiative Rolls.

I always liked strike ranks. They make sense and they give a flow to the game. They require you to consider carefully howbto use them in specific situation (like when a short weapon fighter close a longer weapon fighter) but they feel very tactical and very... RuneQuest.

[styopa]

16 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Are we talking casting spells? I guess if you allow that with melee combat then the order of sr would quickly become confused as second attacks pile into the next melee round? 

Yeah, that's why I say we used semi-rolling SR.  Each round, people would declare action, roll the appropriate* initiative die, and add their SR.  Then we'd count down from the highest.  If someone wanted to change action, when it got to their SR they'd deduct 1d6-Dex SR from their SR and if they still acted that round, they did.  If that pushed them past zero, or if spell casting (sorcery mainly) they'd start at the top of the next round appropriately..

*we used variable init dice...typically a d10 but if the space was wide-open it could be a d12 or even a d20.  For inside hallways, d8, or tight constricted spaces, d6.  It meant that SR modifiers like dex and reach were more important in tight, enclosed 'tunnel fights' than in the open.  It actually worked rather well.  In tight spaces a lot of crap happened at the same time.  Spellcasters were motivated to use short-cast spells, which made a sort of sense considering it would be all 'jostly'.

[groovyclam]

13 minutes ago, styopa said:

*we used variable init dice...typically a d10 but if the space was wide-open it could be a d12 or even a d20.  For inside hallways, d8, or tight constricted spaces, d6.  It meant that SR modifiers like dex and reach were more important in tight, enclosed 'tunnel fights' than in the open.  It actually worked rather well.  In tight spaces a lot of crap happened at the same time.  Spellcasters were motivated to use short-cast spells, which made a sort of sense considering it would be all 'jostly'.

Very interesting house rule. Sounds good.