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

[Yelm's Light]

2 hours ago, Mikus said:

BTW - Is your name from the Black Company?  One of my all time favorite sites of books. Cooks got another one scheduled for release this October. I'm chomping at the bit to read it.

That's Murgen, not Mugen.

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Yes, there are different ways to do crits and specials, but I was trying here to be as close as possible to RuneQuest 2/3/G chances to get them with a d20.

To do so, and have crit chances different from 5%, you have to rely on the result of a second die.

Old french game Légendes Celtiques was a d20 roll-under game (heavily influenced by RuneQuest and FGU games) using Margins of success. On a 1, the d20 was re-rolled and, if successful, the new Margin of success was added to the first.

In a roll-over variant, you could roll an open-ended d20, add your skill versus a difficulty and count results superior or equal to (difficulty+20) as crits.

Then I would probably pull from Cthulhu here; not a perfect match for RQ2/3/g, but close. 1 is a natural critical, under half skill is a special, which fits in with margins of success, but I always try to avoid rolling an extra die if possible. 

To me your last option seems a bit too mathy. To me is should be something you can read on the dice without doing extra calculations. In fact, if I could fit hit locations into the same roll, I probably would to eliminate that die roll.

SDLeary

[Mikus]

20 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

That's Murgen, not Mugen.

Your right!  I was seeing Mugen and reading Murgan.  

[Yelm's Light]

Just gonna exult in my finally getting GtG; I'd been holding out to get the discretionary funds for the hardbound (which kept getting put off because other expenses kept interfering), but I finally gave up and got the pdf.  The first thing I did was to save it to a flash drive.

So now I have only 800+ pages to read to get somewhere near the point where many of you grognards already are.  (I'm a grognard myself, as should be clear to any regulars here, but my knowledge was generally limited to RQ2/RQ3/some HQ stuff.)

[Mugen]

23 hours ago, Mikus said:

Your right!  I was seeing Mugen and reading Murgan.  

In fact, it's japanese for "infinite" (or "illusion" with other characters).

There is a character named Mugen in (excellent) anime Samurai Champloo, but I chose this pseudonym before watching it.

[soltakss]

On 10/04/2018 at 8:41 AM, Jeff said:

Even my 8 year old son has no trouble understanding having "better than 100%" chance.

He's 8 now? Blimey!

[Mugen]

On 10/04/2018 at 9:41 AM, Jeff said:

I think that is a case of overthinking. Even my 8 year old son has no trouble understanding having "better than 100%" chance. Strictly speaking that may be nonsense, but as language is actually used, it is pretty easy to grasp.

Still, a lot of people I met had trouble understanding the concept.

But this is a common misconception with roll-under games, an not only d% games. See, for instance, how skill and attribute totals in Fading Suns can only go up to 18...

[simonh]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Still, a lot of people I met had trouble understanding the concept.

But this is a common misconception with roll-under games, an not only d% games. See, for instance, how skill and attribute totals in Fading Suns can only go up to 18...

If it's presented as 'how good you are at it' then I suppose I can see that potentially confusing people. Of course what it really is, is just your chance of success at a typical task under moderately stressful circumstances, with a cap at 95%. An objective measure of how good you are at something isn't directly represented in the game.

I have to say I've never really had any problem with the concept and don't remember this ever being a problem with people understanding the system either in RQ, CoC, or any other game with percentage skills. My kids picked it up without breaking step when they were about 8 or 9.

Simon Hibbs

Edited April 16, 2018 by simonh

[Al.]

One of the few things I preferred about RQIII to RQII was the rationalising/reducing of the skill list:

Conceal covering Hide Item and Camouflage

Devise covering Pick Lock and Set/Disarm Trap

etc.

I cannot think of much else which I thought RQIII did better than RQII. (So in answer to OP: almost everything!)

The layout of RQIII was (and probably still is) the epitome of functional, efficient textbook which with the benefit of hindsightt may owe something to Avalon Hill being a wargames and boardgames company whose customers expect the rulesbook to be a reference work rather than an inspiring book of weirdness.

 

VERY early on we played with EVERY point over 12 added +5% to a skill category (and every point below 9 subtracted 5%) and binning the base chances (I think that the minimum for a category was 5%) but I think that was the influence of Stormbringer rather than RQIII.

[Mad Ainsel]

I found that RQIII was somewhat more "pedantic" mechanically speaking. I have to keep referring to the crit/impale/fumble table, which is becoming a chore for aging eyes. I put it in my Kindle with larger type. In a recent character sheet redesign, I added spots for those special numbers to reduce the load on players. I understand the more precise nature of it, but question the need. RQII you just had to remember your times tables, ala fives and twenties. In spite of that, I generally liked and preferred RQIII, and its pedantic approach, as I went to it exclusively and even heavily incorporated its sorcery system in my own non-Gloranthan campaign setting.

 

This is just as well as I found much of the early RQIII Glorantha supplements to be slapdash in nature. I thought "Gods of Glorantha", in particular, tried to do too much and none of it well. I was either not interested in many of the cults, or I was interested and found them lacking in details. I'm looking forward to Chaosium's redux of that one and long form cult write ups. No doubt it will have to have Kyger Litor too....;)

 

I found the chargen system in RQIII to make fairly anemic characters. By the time they could deal with a few trollkin, as starting out adventurers, they were already 'one foot in the grave' old. I frequently had to tweak them a great deal to get them to where they could hang on a bit in the game. Sometimes even tossing the chargen rules aside entirely. This is particularly evident with sorcerers who I thought gave up too much physical prowess for a poor exchange of magic.

 

 

[g33k]

55 minutes ago, Mad Ainsel said:

I found that RQIII was somewhat more "pedantic" mechanically speaking. I have to keep referring to the crit/impale/fumble table, which is becoming a chore for aging eyes. I put it in my Kindle with larger type. In a recent character sheet redesign, I added spots for those special numbers to reduce the load on players. I understand the more precise nature of it, but question the need. RQII you just had to remember your times tables, ala fives and twenties. In spite of that, I generally liked and preferred RQIII, and its pedantic approach, as I went to it exclusively and even heavily incorporated its sorcery system in my own non-Gloranthan campaign setting.

This is just as well as I found much of the early RQIII Glorantha supplements to be slapdash in nature. I thought "Gods of Glorantha", in particular, tried to do too much and none of it well. I was either not interested in many of the cults, or I was interested and found them lacking in details. I'm looking forward to Chaosium's redux of that one and long form cult write ups. No doubt it will have to have Kyger Litor too....;)

I found the chargen system in RQIII to make fairly anemic characters. By the time they could deal with a few trollkin, as starting out adventurers, they were already 'one foot in the grave' old. I frequently had to tweak them a great deal to get them to where they could hang on a bit in the game. Sometimes even tossing the chargen rules aside entirely. This is particularly evident with sorcerers who I thought gave up too much physical prowess for a poor exchange of magic.

It sounds like the new edition of RQ will be right up your alley!  

But yes, the new Gods book will have Kyger Litor (again).  :-)

[trystero]

On 4/27/2018 at 9:42 PM, Mad Ainsel said:

I found that RQIII was somewhat more "pedantic" mechanically speaking. I have to keep referring to the crit/impale/fumble table, which is becoming a chore for aging eyes.

I hardly ever used the table; "5% of success chance", "20% of success chance", and "5% of failure chance" always sufficed for my group.

[simonh]

17 minutes ago, trystero said:

I hardly ever used the table; "5% of success chance", "20% of success chance", and "5% of failure chance" always sufficed for my group.

That’s the easy bit. There was still looking up or memorizing  the ‘Attack, Parry and Dodge Results’ Table, special rules for knock back, grappling and such, and the fumble tables. Even after playing for several years the quick reference sheets were regularly used. To be fair to RQ3 though, even RQ2 while simpler in some ways still has its complexities and I’m sure a few quick reference sheets for RQG will come in handy.

One of the main problems with RQ3 in the very early days though was the fragmentation of rules across multiple rule books and boxed sets. The all-in-one-book edition was a revolution.

Simon Hibbs

[soltakss]

On 4/30/2018 at 6:55 PM, simonh said:

One of the main problems with RQ3 in the very early days though was the fragmentation of rules across multiple rule books and boxed sets. The all-in-one-book edition was a revolution.

And was somethig I missed for, what, 10 years after it came out. Someone in our current gaming group asked me if I preferred the all-in one book to the originals, to which I replied "what all-in-one book?" I bought one a couple of week later.

[Mugen]

On 4/30/2018 at 7:55 PM, simonh said:

One of the main problems with RQ3 in the very early days though was the fragmentation of rules across multiple rule books and boxed sets. The all-in-one-book edition was a revolution.

Simon Hibbs

That may be the reason whey french edition was always all-in-one-book. Which was rather strange, actually, as it was a boxed set with just one big book and a reference leaflet containing all tables. Later,they dropped the box and sold it as a hardback book, as the VAT on boxed sets changed.

[Mad Ainsel]

On 5/4/2018 at 3:32 PM, soltakss said:

And was somethig I missed for, what, 10 years after it came out. Someone in our current gaming group asked me if I preferred the all-in one book to the originals, to which I replied "what all-in-one book?" I bought one a couple of week later.

It was a while before I discovered that one too. Even so that one can fail with use. I'm looking forward to a real bound book.

 

[Mikus]

On 7/18/2016 at 5:29 AM, Jeff said:

 

 

On 7/18/2016 at 3:23 AM, waltshumate said:

Runequest 3 worked just fine for Glorantha  If all the Glorantha specific rules from Gods and Glorantha and Genertela players book had been collected in one place then the lack of Glorantha in the core books could not be used as lame excuse for beating up on the rules today.  The RQ3 Glornatha material pushed Runequest passed the cults as character classes to a more culture based game system, it is a great pity it was never finished.

• If you like nostalgia more than reality you will probably prefer RQ2
• If you prefer weapons that fall apart every melee you will probably prefer RQ2
• If you prefer D&D style adventuring  you will probably prefer RQ2
• If you prefer a really weak previous experience system you will probably prefer RQ2
• If you prefer a game system where you could play it with a D20 instead of a d100 you will probably prefer RQ2

 

I think you said this great.  I feel in many ways RQ3 came closer to fulfill the promise that was RQ2.  Now everyone is trying to return to the D&D mentality even if they fail to recognize it themselves. Combining parry and attack into a single skill for example.  So if I use a sword and shield and always parry with my shield and attack with my sword I still advance in parry skill with my sword and attack skill with my shield?  This is a simplification.  If you like it, fine.  Trying to defend it won't get any traction with me but the D&D guys lurking in the wings will love you for it.

Or how about combat styles where several, (or even all if you like), weapons can be lumped under a single skill for both attack and parry.  This is really not much different from D&D under Greyhawk.  This is Ok if you like it but not what got everyone crooning about RQ in the first place.  Perhaps few were there at the time to remember what made RQ different from D&D.  Not that D&D was bad, we loved it.  But RQ was for people who wanted more 'realism' and a classless system.

How about the trend to allow you make skill improvement rolls for whatever you want.  The RQ promise was skills advanced ONLY through training or actual use in game.  Not because you gained another level, (i.e. completed this weeks adventure session).  Although there is much to like about current RQ iterations there is certainly a convergence between RQ and D&D.  And if that is the trend, then why not just play the one which is most supported and ubiquitous? RQ3 handled skill advancement brilliantly and simply I still have not found anything I like better.

If you like Glorantha that is just fine but RQ3 opened the doors for those who wanted to play in all the other endless realms apart from Glorantha, and yet still be able to play in Glorantha. Separating setting books from the core rules is just good marketing I should think.

The book being 'souless' was not a fault, but a feature of RQ3 that RQ2 lacked. How about them apples? LOL

The soul was supplied by the GM and player's imagination.  Lacking an imagination or simply being enamored by an existing setting a GM could always get setting books sepeately.  The 'RQ2 is better because of Glorantha' guys who bemoan RQ3 are actually saying that I should have to pay for stuff I don't want and will never use. Or perhaps just stick with D&D I guess?  They also seem to forget that RQ3 actually did include Glorantha material in the set.  The rules were divorced but there was still quite a bit of Glorantha packaged in.  No other settings were included by default so I think this is a very odd complaint.

Anyhow, after all these years I still think RQ3 shines.  Some minor tweaks would have been nice but MRII and its derivatives really are moving along a different, and more cinaramic trajectory from what made RQ3 so different from everything else.  Not a bad or inferior trajectory,  just different.  

[styopa]

I'm as hardcore a rq3 devotee as they come, but the contrarian in me insists that I defend rq2 here at least a little.

If (imvho) it didn't measure up to the mechanical rigor of its descendant rq3, that doesn't one iota detract from what a groundbreaking rule set it was in its time.

I think rq2 was supremely evocative, entertaining, and advanced rpg mechanics light years beyond d&d.

Rq3, tightening the maths quite a bit, had a LOT of stuff that was fiddly and rigorous, but simply not FUN enough to be worth using: fatigue for example.  I was one of those who felt sorcery was clever and interesting but I can't but admit that it was insufficiently playtested and ultimately half baked*.  In short, to me rq3 was a rules set while rq2 was more of a setting+game, if that makes sense?

I thought rq3 would have been a better "base" from which to step to RQG, sure, but 1) the logical best base would have been coc7, to preserve the cross-genre consistency that has (had) been the brp/Chaosium hallmark, and 2) it ain't my $ and career, and it's easy to criticize from the cheap seats.

*something tbh I'm bluntly rather concerned about the also "ex nihilo" sorcery in RQG, likewise unlikely to have been rigorously tested by people *trying* to exploit the rules...I guess we'll see?

[simonh]

I think RQ3 gets a bit more flak than it really deserves, it was much more conducive to long term play and varied in-game activities than RQ2. I've got no beef with reverting to a more RQ2-like core combat system though.

Combining attack and parry skills has nothing to do with D&D and everything to do with talking to people with experience of historical combat skills, such as HEMA. They talk a lot about building experience with weapon sets, and even point out specific design features of some weapons that are there due to common use with specific complementary equipment, often a shield. In the case of sword and shield fighting, many manoeuvres in that combination involve offensive use of the shield and defensive use of the sword. Check out this video where they show some of this. Also typical historical warriors would train to be effective in multiple scenarios depending on what they might have available. The hypothetical one trick pony that only ever fought one way is really a rather artificial and ridiculous caricature.

I'm sorry if input from real world experience doesn't get any traction with you, but this was a carefully considered change with many aspects of it taken into account and seeking out expert opinions were a big part of that. It's definitely a tradeoff, but it was felt that on balance combining the skills actually lead to fewer unrealistic divergences from reality than keeping them separate, while sometimes having them separate and sometimes combining them was too confusing. Feel free to house rule away though.

Simon Hibbs

Edited May 16, 2018 by simonh

[The God Learner]

17 hours ago, simonh said:

I'm sorry if input from real world experience doesn't get any traction with you, but this was a carefully considered change with many aspects of it taken into account and seeking out expert opinions were a big part of that.

Probably a good idea to smuggle in some design notes at the end. It might be a puzzling choice to some readers. I, for one, would appreciate such notes. 

In practical play, we tended to merge RQ2 and RQ3 while chipping away various tedious subsystems, in the end making it an unholy powergaming brew. Thus, I'll leave the detailed critiques to the more principled. (Except for one systems comment: in retrospect, I think the crit/special/fumble system, while definitely appreciated by players, also turned out to be most dangerous to PCs, simply due to them facing so many more attack rolls than anyone else.)

[RosenMcStern]

18 hours ago, simonh said:

I'm sorry if input from real world experience doesn't get any traction with you, but this was a carefully considered change with many aspects of it taken into account and seeking out expert opinions were a big part of that. It's definitely a tradeoff, but it was felt that on balance combining the skills actually lead to fewer unrealistic divergences from reality than keeping them separate, while sometimes having them separate and sometimes combining them was too confusing. Feel free to house rule away though.

 

1 hour ago, The God Learner said:

Probably a good idea to smuggle in some design notes at the end. It might be a puzzling choice to some readers. I, for one, would appreciate such notes. 

Even though he was not involved with any design team (AFAIK), Simon has pretty nailed it here. Both the one-skill and the two-skill approach are abstractions, and both create some paradoxical situation. However, all modern designers and all "real combat experts" questioned about the subject, Peter Nash being the most authoritative voice for me since he belongs to both groups, agree that keeping the skills separate produce more paradoxes than having one skill. The only person who I can think of who has real combat experience (SCA, not HEMA) and designed rules with the split skills is Steve Perrin in the 70s and 80s. And I did not see him complaining about the  decision to unify the skill, neither in Mythras (for which he wrote the preface) nor in RQG (which he reviewed).

So in the end it is rather a matter of "general consensus among those who are in the know". Disagreement is still legitimate.

[styopa]

19 hours ago, simonh said:

Combining attack and parry skills has nothing to do with D&D and everything to do with talking to people with experience of historical combat skills, such as HEMA. They talk a lot about building experience with weapon sets, and even point out specific design features of some weapons that are there due to common use with specific complementary equipment, often a shield. In the case of sword and shield fighting, many manoeuvres in that combination involve offensive use of the shield and defensive use of the sword. Check out this video where they show some of this. Also typical historical warriors would train to be effective in multiple scenarios depending on what they might have available. The hypothetical one trick pony that only ever fought one way is really a rather artificial and ridiculous caricature.

I don't think anyone would really disagree with this...BUT as a point of practicality, when one asserts 'well, commonly X would have trained not just with a broadsword, but with a broadsword and SHIELD; it's commonsense and realistic" the, er, riposte (pun intended) would be that such an assertion is extremely NARROWLY cultural.  IRL a samurai handed a shield would probably be actually *impaired* if required to use that shield.  A French saber duellist wouldn't have the first clue about effective combat use of a shield.  Extremely primitive cultures - say those using wicker shields vs light missiles but pretty much useless against serious melee items - they're going to have no concept about the offensive use of a shield that would be part of a viking's standard training.  And these are all real-world cultures - essentially by throwing in a cultural basis for weapon skills, you're requiring a DM to essentially adjudicate the martial memes for whole cultures and regional variations in advance to be consistent: do trollkin from the Shadow Moon plateau regularly use shields, but trollkin from Kingdom of Ignorance don't?

I defer to experts when their expertise seems relevant.  I would shut up if we were talking about Chivalry and Sorcery in 1190 Europe.  SCA and HEMA are exceedingly narrowly focused on European traditions (HEMA explicitly so).  Does anyone believe that Kendo experts would confirm that "oh sure, using a shield is *always* a part of training"?

The "one trick pony" may seem a caricature to you, but I can certainly see it in a fantasy setting.  I can see a minotaur having a lot of experience bashing things with a weapon.   I don't really see them spending a lot of time practicing parring at the neighborhood quintain?

Further, even if one can hand-wave away the narrow cultural basis for the "oh well of course a shield would be part of their training" rationale, I personally believe it just throws a host of practical rules-complication into the mix.  What weapons are assumed to be 'martial enough' that shield use is assumed as part of the training?  Broadsword, sure, easy.  Bastard sword that has both 1h and 2h modes?  Maybe, sure.  How about a mace?  Yeah, probably still martial enough. Club?  Dagger?  Trident?   Martial artists?  Flail?  Flail swung by someone whose entire experience with it is as a farmer?  For weapons/cultures without such training, when they pick up a shield what happens?  What if ''warrior with sword and shield' loses/breaks her sword?  Can she really just attack with the shield at the same %?  I find this stuff just a morass of special cases, edge cases, and inconsistencies, frankly.

IMO it ultimately seems (maybe contrarily)  simpler to have them broken out separately.  If you don't like the idea of 'master sword guy incompetent with shield' then just make a rule that shield/parry skills are never less than (50%, or whatever) of the attack ability.  Or when they get a skill check with either attack or parry, they can spread the gained % across either.  Etc. 

19 hours ago, simonh said:

I'm sorry if input from real world experience doesn't get any traction with you,

That's unusually passive-aggressive for you?

 

[simonh]

56 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

 

Even though he was not involved with any design team (AFAIK), 

I was present at several discussions of these issues at conventions, including with Pete, so I had the good fortune to talk about this with many members of the design team. I was also involved in some of the early stages of playtesting, but I certainly can't speak for the design team.

Simon Hibbs

Edited May 17, 2018 by simonh

[simonh]

36 minutes ago, styopa said:

Does anyone believe that Kendo experts would confirm that "oh sure, using a shield is *always* a part of training"?

 

Bear in mind I'm writing from a limited knowledge of the development of the system.

I don't think the rules require that every combattant's skill to also be applicable with a shield, instead skills are gained in weapon sets. A weapon set might very well consist of a single weapon, or it might cover use of a weapon and shield, etc. For example a combattant trained in two handed sword might have a two handed sword skill that allows attack and parry with that weapon, while a wielder of a one handed sword and shield might have one skill for both attack and parry with one handed sword and shield. For details beyond that, we'll have to wait a few weeks.Specifically, I don't know to what extent being trained is sword and shield fighting would enable you to parry with a sword alone, I would hope it would be fairly generous because I think that makes sense.

The fundamental principle is that you only need to have one combat skill to be effective, but attacking and parrying are separate actions in the game requiring separate rolls. Unifying the skills makes sense practically because many close combat manoeuvres include both defensive and offensive aspects. Attacking in it's inherent nature means extending towards or closing on the target, which provides opportunities for counter-attack. Therefore offensive moves are performed in such a way as to still provide defensive options and counter-moves and you train in sequences of these, not just single actions individually.

Quote

That's unusually passive-aggressive for you?

You're quite right, it was a bit of a crappy thing to say and I wish I hadn't. Oh well.

Simon Hibbs

Edited May 17, 2018 by simonh

[RosenMcStern]

51 minutes ago, styopa said:

  Does anyone believe that Kendo experts would confirm that "oh sure, using a shield is *always* a part of training"?

This is exactly why in ANY existing version of BRP the Kenjutsu skill is different from the Sword skill...