RQ2 play attempts not gon so well.

[Belgath]

I have now tryed  to run three differentsessions  RunQuest 2  only to have them all fizzle out. To start there was some Big arguments over why there was no bonus to strength to after 17 the player did not like that at all. And felt that stats had way to letter affect. Now most of these people have been DnD players on roll20. There also was another argument over different bonuses for different skills overall is rather frustrating had two players quit during the first combat session everybody was frustrating how how long combat took and the two people that quit had lost a limb. 

Though I want to stay true to the system I think i'm going to need to make changes to Keep players.

I'm thinking of adding bonuses at earlier stage for each of the characteristics So thay  have a much stronger influence on characteristics 

Any suggestions I'm staying true to request to but speeding up combat?

Also I think I'm a make sure they have potions of healing  so they can heal their limbs so they don't quit over limbs  lost. I might need dig up if I can find them all my old house rules I had forgotten how broken RQ2 was. Compared  today's games. Where I still enjoy it. The new DnD player sofar do not, but  I may have gotten bad groups. I have not had this problem with RQ6. But to be fair I know the request six rules like the back my hand. I was pausing while playing the RQ2 to look up rules.

Does anybody have Roll20 RQ2 games going that I could join but if you love how you are GMing the game.

[pachristian]

Welcome to the wonderful world of RQ2!

The real challenge is player expectations: In D&D style games you get experience for every fight you're in - in in Classic RQ you avoid fights unless you have to be in them. In D&D, fights are generally to the death - in CIassic RQ you stop as soon as somebody is disabled. I love the rules, but there is a list of problems. Like you, I had a book full of house rules to make the game playable.

Some hints: (1) Have the players find a Healing-6 matrix on their first adventure. (2) Until the players are used to the game, do not give them any opponents with damage bonuses - there's a world of difference between a d8+1 broadsword (average damage 4.5 points) and a 1d10+1+1d4 bastard sword (average damage 9 points). (3) Encourage players to diversify their characters. D&D players tend to create their RQ characters as specialists "I'm the fighter" "I'm the thief"; instead, play up the advantages of the system by encouraging the "fighters" to cast spells and sneak, and for crying' out loud make sure the self-proclaimed 'magician' has some decent melee skills!

It sounds like you're not a beginner at this - you know what to do.

[Jeff]

Most of all, warn them that this is deadly and the consequences are realistic! Throw them a fair easy fight early on and let them know even an easy fight is dangerous. And introduce the Chalana Arroy cult early!!!

[soltakss]

Higher STR means higher Damage Bonus, with a 1D4, 1D6 or potentially 2D6 with Divine magic, for humans. That makes a big difference.

Speed up combat by throwing in tactics. Have a couple of NPCs use good tactics against the larger group of PCs and see if they pick up on them.A lot of "slow" RQ combat is due to players not taking risks.

[Belgath]

I Want  to try play testing  using 1-3-10% 4-6-5% 7-9 0% 10 -12 5% 13-15 +10 16-18 +15 19-21 +20 for all the stats I like the idea of stats are much greater influence in game play.  But Size will still effect snake negatively. Also thinking of these luck points. But call them fate points. But keeping everything else the same.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Belgath

[Belgath]

Biggest problem maybe the fact that I'm using Route 20 and so many players are so entrenched in DND it's hard to break that mold.

[Jeff]

A big part of this is feature not bug. D&D and RQ come at combat with very different assumptions. In D&D, the tradition is that overcoming the obstacle through combat is necessary in order to move on. Monsters need to be carefully tailored to the character's level, and much of the tension is the attritional depletion of resources.

RuneQuest makes no such assumption. Combat is deadly. A Rune Lord can get killed by a trollkin on a bad day. All it takes is one bad roll or one lucky roll to take someone out. The only sensible approaches to combat are:

1. Hit the foe from surprise after casting every spell you can on yourself, and strategically neutralize key foes with magic, terrain, or whatever - before the battle begins. Then hit them hard and fast. If any adventurers go down - or even look about to go down - RUN AWAY!

or

2. Find a way around the obstacle without combat. Negotiate. Bribe. Plead. Go around. Lure them out and then go in. And so on.

[pachristian]

When you make rules variants - think it through! In RQ, everything affects everything else; what you thought was a minor change may have major consequences on the game.

[pachristian]

Oh -

Run a few games of Call of Cthulhu for them. That will help them get out of the mindset of "I am a super-stud who can and should kill everything in my path and take its treasure". Much easier to run RQ once they drop that mindset!

[K Peterson]

32 minutes ago, Belgath said:

Biggest problem maybe the fact that I'm using Route 20 and so many players are so entrenched in DND it's hard to break that mold.

Yes, that's likely your biggest problem. 

Find some other players that can think tactically and don't throw themselves mindlessly into battle. Or provoke battle when there are other options available. It sounds like many of your most entrenched players are jettisoning themselves from the game anyway, so why not wipe the slate clean and give it another shot with a fresh group of players.

[umbraldragon]

Sorry to hear your having these issues.  I usually approach the problem with the concept that it's an entirely different game.  I show them how simple it is to get past armor if you don't have a shield.  Also I show them that magic is powerful when used correctly.  In order to speed up combat I made a sheet with the order of combat on it, step by step and left out all the cool stuff like special effects for the first combat and I let them have a go at even odds, basically they play against themselves and I tell them it's a test run so they can see how combat works in a nutshell and that they should adjust their play style accordingly rather than create more rules, or change rules or even mess with the rules.  They as players are also responsible for the information in the core book.  I make that statement up front, even though I hold their hand the first couple of times thru, and I involve them in looking up stuff if necessary, I pass that little gift around the table each session.  Once they have that intro, then things seem to work out great.  I won't say that there are no complaints, but it's like I've mentioned to people before - the more you play the smoother it gets.  Anyway, that's my advice, have a pre game intro to combat so they can work out the kinks and get used to looking at their character sheets for information, then an actual play session.

[Belgath]

Now my kids love the game, but it took them time used to Glorantha sort of funny didn't have any problem with the ducks but when we're playing Apple Lane they got all upset about Intelligent baboons.

[styopa]

I agree with Jeff: a big part is probably expectations they may not even realize they have.

If they came from D&D, the thing I've found critical is to explain carefully that while D&D is *meant* to make you feel heroic: wading into a wave of baddies, chopping them up and then a titanic struggle with the BBEG.

RQ is about simulation, not heroics.  Ask them to literally imagine themselves, say, planning to attack 3 bandits in a hut (or whatever).  You CERTAINLY wouldnt just walk in and start whacking about.  Way too much chance you get bushwhacked or overwhelmed.  No, you'd try to lure them out, or at least arrange some sort of ambush to do the maximum damage to the baddies with a minimum of risk to yourself...that's the mindset RQ players approach every combat.  Combat is dangerous; do everything in your power to give you the advantage, and disadvantage your opponent.  It's hard to understand if you come from D&D, truly.

George Patton could have been playing RQ when he said "if you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck".

[Belgath]

I'm trying to think of a way to do one shots to introduce as many peoples I can to to RuneQuest Glorantha. My easy source is using roll  20 I think back up and put in a much longer Introduction explaining the dangers in a different mindset you have to have to manage expectations. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Belgath

[styopa]

Further, I will note that RQ stats - despite being connected with all sorts of different modifiers and values in the skills - are less impactful generally than in D&D.

I'm speaking particularly about Strength.

For example in RQ3, you'd (essentially) get a very linear +1% to hit for every point over 10.  So at 18 STR +8%.

In RQ2 (and presumably RQ4) you have this tremendous step, to get only 5% if you have a 17+. (up to 20).

In D&D5, it's STR 10-11: 0, 12-13: +1, 14-15: +2, 16-17: +3, and 18-19: +4 (equating, respectively to +0, +5%, +10%, +15%, +20%!)

Simply, STR matters more (in this respect) in D&D 2x-3x more than it does in RQ.  It's just more impactful.

[Belgath]

With the new RQ2.5 are  make the stats have a grater impact as noted earlier was going to change stat bonuses and play Play test it with my kids and see how it goes might be fun to have your stats have a lot more impact.

[umbraldragon]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

Further, I will note that RQ stats - despite being connected with all sorts of different modifiers and values in the skills - are less impactful generally than in D&D.

Simply, STR matters more (in this respect) in D&D 2x-3x more than it does in RQ.  It's just more impactful.

I politely disagree.  Using a starter character (80 point build) if you have 5 hit points in your chest area, wearing 3 points of armor, you only have 8 points total before your in a position to lose life or consciousness (more likely both.)  Say you lose a parry against a spear. You might get hit for 3 to 5 points and suffer some damage - ok. Now add 1d3 bonus for strength, say 2 points for a total of 5 to 7 damage But you get impaled and everything is 40% harder if the spear stays lodged in. Now you have to watch them reroll damage allowed for that effect. It could max out at 9 damage. This is only the first action in the round.  Imagine had you NOT been wearing armor. One point makes a world of difference.  Your not looking at a pool of hit points, where +3 only helps to whittle down that 12 points your 1st level fighter started with.

[umbraldragon]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

RQ is about simulation, not heroics.  

Have to disagree once more here. Having 40 hit points is like wrapping yourself in a safety zone and going to do battle. You could get hit twice and not even be phased. That doesn't speak of heroics to me.  Knowing death is on the line, makes it a real choice. Combat is now a moral issue and doesn't have to end in death for either party. Consequences of the aftermath are also something to consider.  RQ is all about heroics, it isn't meant to be a slash fest.

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, umbraldragon said:

Have to disagree once more here. Having 40 hit points is like wrapping yourself in a safety zone and going to do battle. You could get hit twice and not even be phased. That doesn't speak of heroics to me.  Knowing death is on the line, makes it a real choice. Combat is now a moral issue and doesn't have to end in death for either party. Consequences of the aftermath are also something to consider.  RQ is all about heroics, it isn't meant to be a slash fest.

I agree. RuneQuest is about heroism with "realistic" consequences. And that ties into Glorantha - as Glorantha is all about the consequences (often unintended) of one's actions. Not just to others - but to yourself.

[styopa]

23 minutes ago, umbraldragon said:

I politely disagree.  Using a starter character (...

You're overthinking it.

I was ONLY speaking in the context of hitting in melee.  A D&D character with an 18 strength will have a sizable bonus to hit from his/her strength stat.  A RQ toon with a similar 18 Str simply won't see anywhere near a similar bonus, regardless of which flavor of RQ you're talking about .  A player from the former now playing RQ is going to see 18str on their character sheet and expect "woo!  I have an 18str!" when it's really only a fairly minor advantage in RQ.

I entirely agree with your points about the larger-scope ramifications of the more essentially-simulationist RQ system - more-or-less fixed hp generally in the range of weapon damage, vs the triple-digit-hp bubblewrap of D&D high level toons (and with lower and lower level toons, as the editions have advanced).

[Pentallion]

10 hours ago, Belgath said:

I Want  to try play testing  using 1-3-10% 4-6-5% 7-9 0% 10 -12 5% 13-15 +10 16-18 +15 19-21 +20 for all the stats I like the idea of stats are much greater influence in game play.  But Size will still effect snake negatively. Also thinking of these luck points. But call them fate points. But keeping everything else the same.

No.  Just say no to luck points.  You're using them as a crutch because you're used to RQ6.  My group rebelled against luck points when I introduced them into our campaign. 

Instead, make their first big treasure what I call an Adventurer's Staff.  It has one Resurrection, two Regrow Limbs and three Heal Bodies.  It has to be recharged at a Chalana Arroy temple.  But it means the party can keep moving on without having to carry around a Chalana Arroy character in the group. It allows them to recover from unlucky dice, but keeps them from developing luck point dependency. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Pentallion

[DreadDomain]

14 hours ago, Belgath said:

I have now tryed  to run three differentsessions  RunQuest 2  only to have them all fizzle out

To start there was some Big arguments over why there was no bonus to strength to after 17 the player did not like that at all. And felt that stats had way to letter affect... There also was another argument over different bonuses for different skills overall

...

everybody was frustrating how how long combat took and the two people that quit had lost a limb.

...

I'm thinking of adding bonuses at earlier stage for each of the characteristics So thay  have a much stronger influence on characteristics 

...

Also I think I'm a make sure they have potions of healing  so they can heal their limbs so they don't quit over limbs  lost. I might need dig up if I can find them all my old house rules I had forgotten how broken RQ2 was.

Belgath,

I am sorry to hear your sessions did not go well. RQ2 was a phenomenal game for its time but it is still a game from the 80's with its quirkiness, bugs and broken bits. Hopefully new RQ will fix all of this.

I agree with you that the way the skill modifiers are calculated doesn't make a lot of sense but ultimately Jeff made it clear the design team chose to retain them for the next edition.

Again house rules are fairly easy to implement depending on your expectations. RQ3 is more consistent but don't really make the characteristics more significant. You could also choose to use skill modifiers based on CHAR+CHAR (per category not per skill) giving some attributes a lot more oomph and avoiding break points. That would also make your characters more competent which might or might not be a desirable effect.

10 hours ago, Jeff said:

Most of all, warn them that this is deadly and the consequences are realistic! Throw them a fair easy fight early on and let them know even an easy fight is dangerous. And introduce the Chalana Arroy cult early!!!

Jeff is overstating the realism of consequences (the lost limb frequency in RQ is not realistic) but as he states, fights in RQ are way more dangerous than in D&D. You can easily reduce the number of chopped off limbs by changing the amount of damage required to do so.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Semi-seriously, you could switch to old-school D&D players. When stats didn't mean much, and treasure was the goal rather than fighting. Many encounters were there to be avoided or tackled laterally rather than faced in a straight fight. You may need to make sure your adventure rewards thinking rather than duelling.

On the topic of bonuses, highly influental stats are one of my pet peeves in RPGs. Real people are simply not that different, stat bonuses (if any) should be far outweighed by skill. One of the reasons for high bonuses (and penalties) in modern D&D is the lack of 'skill ranks' or their equivalent.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Vile
Small phone keyboard, big fingers. :P

[DreadDomain]

8 minutes ago, Vile said:

On the topic of bonuses, highly influental stats are one of my oet peeves in RPGs. Real people are simply not that different, stat bonuses (if any) should be far outweighed by skill. One oc yhe reasons for high bonuses (and penalties) in modern D&D is the lack of 'skill ranks' or their equivalent.

I agree the balance between useless stats and dominating stat is tricky. In RQ3, the difference between average (10) and top shelf (20) characteristics (assuming all other stats the same) is +10%. In RQ6, it is at best +20% for skills where the stat is figured twice in the base score. Where the sweet spots lie might be a matter of preference but for me, an approach where each skills have a base score (like RQ2 and RQ3) with a category modifier based on CHAR+CHAR* brings the best of both worlds.

* Alternatively, to mimic RQ3, it could be CHAR+CHAR-20 so someone woth stats below 10 would have a negative modifier.

[Khedrac]

I think it is also worth remembering that most printed 2nd and 3rd Ed NPCs have ransom values - most intelligent creatures will surrender and call for ransom once things start going badly in a fight.  Once the players meet opponents doing this they may think to try it themselves too - let them and have it work (unless figthing most chaotics).  This should reduce the lethality of combat somewhat.