RQ2 play attempts not gon so well.

[soltakss]

18 hours ago, styopa said:

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".

 

Sometimes, but I disagree generally.

RQ is about simulation, true, but it is also about fiction. Look at the Heroic Fiction of the past, the Icelandic Sagas, Matter of Britain and so on, they are full of heroic characters who leap into battle and kill dozens of enemies.

If RQ cannot simulate a hero fighting in a battle frenzy then it is not a good simulation. RQ needs to cover the whole gamut of human experience, from those who do not fight, those who fight cautiously to those who put caution to the wind and embark on heroic battles.

[soltakss]

15 hours ago, styopa said:

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.

In RQ, skill and magic count for more that characteristics. Sure, characteristics give you the initial skill bonuses, but having a high skill or a good Bladesharp is a lot more important than just being strong.

In D&D, normal characteristics go up to 18, then a Fighter gets a percentile add 18 (45) to give incrementals. I think the Monster Manual had characteristics going to 24 or 25, but they were for superheroic characters. In RQ, gifts can increase a human's STR to 21, magic can increase a human's STR to 42, which means that humans can get a higher damage bonus, adding 2D6 to your damage is a big leveller in combat.

Don't forget that RQ is a magic-oriented game, especially in Glorantha. PCs are expected to have some magic and tend to gravitate towards some combat magic. D&D does not have that ethos.

[TrippyHippy]

I think the big thing that needs to be said when comparing RQ2 to the current version of D&D is, well, 35 years of development. Compare RQ2 to OD&D and it makes a lot more sense. 

I do think they need to tidy up the relationship between skills and characteristic scores though, as when I've tested out the chargen with groups I play with it has been a frustration. Every characteristic score ought to make some difference in play.   

In the case of the combat system, I just think there needs to a concerted effort to make it as intuitive as possible, especially with regards to table referencing which needs to be minimalised. 

Edited July 23, 2016 by TrippyHippy

[Mankcam]

I pretty much agreed with Trippy's statement. Characteristics need to be meaniful, and there are a few other inconsistencies that need to be addressed.

I think it is important to remember that RQ2 is from the early 80s so it is bound to have some nuts and bolts that may not work as smoothly as we have come to expect.

I tend to like it more out of nostalgia, although the setting rocked and still does. However BRP moved on and some things got better, others worse, and a lot just changed for the sake of it.

Although I love my RQ Classic book, I don't think I will inflict that character sheet on green players. If my old troupe was around then we would probably use it for old times sake, just like the mature D&D crowd returning to D&D OSR.

However I will wait until CRQ4 is published before I run any more Gloranthan games. I expect that may be next year, but I have CoC 7E to run before then, not to mention Mythras and also a return to a few other RPGs.

So my advice is not to exert too many efforts into fixing RQ2, and just wait to see what CRQ4 brings us.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Mankcam

[rust]

3 hours ago, soltakss said:

If RQ cannot simulate a hero fighting in a battle frenzy then it is not a good simulation. RQ needs to cover the whole gamut of human experience, from those who do not fight, those who fight cautiously to those who put caution to the wind and embark on heroic battles.

Well, yes, but ... The RQ combat system is designed to provide a comparatively high degree of verisimilitude, and I think that RQs ability to simulate a "heroic battle" ends where the verisimilitude of the original heroic fiction ends. After all, many of the heroic stories are seriously exaggerated myths and would require a rather silly system to simulate them.

[pachristian]

All well and good gang, but we're getting off topic. This email assumes that Belgath wants to run RQ2 on Roll 20, and make it a good game.

When you sit down behind that GM screen, you have one responsibility: To make sure all the players at your table have a good time. That doesn't mean that they should be given a bunch of easy wins, or a pile of unearned treasure, but it does mean that you GM fairly, and with an eye to what the players want to do. 

Belgath, your initial post implies that the Classic RQ system was directly responsible for the player's complaints. You also state that you know the RQ6 rules "like the back of your hand". This implies that you've run RQ6. Classic RQ combat runs faster than RQ6: Did you have similar complaints when running RQ6? 

What did you do to manage player expectations? And can you clearly state what your players expected as part of the game?

[Belgath]

most the time it's over in aroundI run RQ6 on roll20 for 2 years now combat is vary fast in RQ6 most the time it's over in Round 1.5 currently running ClassicFantasy Jest finished up a 1 year long LutherArkwright Campaign. And have been running a long-standing Glorantha campaign that we put on hold until The RQ4 rules come out. 

9 hours ago, pachristian said:

All well and good gang, but we're getting off topic. This email assumes that Belgath wants to run RQ2 on Roll 20, and make it a good game.

When you sit down behind that GM screen, you have one responsibility: To make sure all the players at your table have a good time. That doesn't mean that they should be given a bunch of easy wins, or a pile of unearned treasure, but it does mean that you GM fairly, and with an eye to what the players want to do. 

Belgath, your initial post implies that the Classic RQ system was directly responsible for the player's complaints. You also state that you know the RQ6 rules "like the back of your hand". This implies that you've run RQ6. Classic RQ combat runs faster than RQ6: Did you have similar complaints when running RQ6? 

What did you do to manage player expectations? And can you clearly state what your players expected as part of the game?

But as you stated these is problems. Directly coming from RQ2. Now don't get me wrong I love RQ2 it was my first RPG I was can get a copy at 8 years old by Grag Staferd Who started me on all my RPG adventures. 

My players were just a random group of people who asked to join the advertised game on roll20 so it's very common to get knuckleheads, complainers and unreliable players. I do explain this is not D&D game has very dire consequences for bad decisions and that it's easy to die. Of course there's a lot more speach, but as I use Voice to text that iscrews up is my writing.( I have nerve damage makes it very difficult for me to write) so I apologize for the poor writing. But I use the same speech I use for RQ6. Now combat was slow do to a lot of  missed hits.

And as you asked the question. And can you clearly state what your players expected as part of the game? I realized that I did a vary pore job of this I was more wrapped up in reliving some of the adventures probably thinking too much myself and nostalgia and not the players. 

I will go back and invite my RQ6 players ask him to do a couple one shots explain to them this is the  I original version of the game it's much more dangerous then RQ6 and you have no luck points.  In the Original post I guess what is really asking for is There som  common House rules used or do people play as is.

[Mankcam]

Power Points could be used for additional purposes, predominantly for exertion (or fate) - basically allow skill re-rolls but it costs a PP to do so.

That was a common BRP house rule, so it could be applied to any BRP game such as RQ or CoC.

 

Edited July 24, 2016 by Mankcam

[simonh]

The RQ2 rules aren't really all that complex, but they do offer a huge variety of options to player characters compared to D&D. Being proficient at using the game system effectively takes a lot more time and thought. In D&D you can play a fighter or thief or really any of the non spell casting classes without really knowing much about the rules. But to run a character in combat in RQ2 you really do need to know the game system in and out.

Simon Hibs

[styopa]

On 7/23/2016 at 3:57 AM, soltakss said:

In D&D, normal characteristics go up to 18, then a Fighter gets a percentile add 18 (45) to give incrementals.

FYI I'm pretty sure that's not been true for at least 15 years.

 

On 7/23/2016 at 5:09 AM, TrippyHippy said:

I think the big thing that needs to be said when comparing RQ2 to the current version of D&D is, well, 35 years of development. Compare RQ2 to OD&D and it makes a lot more sense. 

That's a very fair point, and I think the root of most of our optimism for RQ4 being updated to a similar degree.  Out with the clunky, kludgy stuff from RQ2 and RQ3.  Keep the good bits, and then not be afraid to add some things that both ease play (ie simplified combat skills, not separate att/par) and add atmosphere (ie the runes).

 

On 7/23/2016 at 7:12 AM, rust said:

Well, yes, but ... The RQ combat system is designed to provide a comparatively high degree of verisimilitude, and I think that RQs ability to simulate a "heroic battle" ends where the verisimilitude of the original heroic fiction ends. 

RQ2 and RQ3 combats between high-skill toons ended up being brittle - both just rolling a long, boring dice-contest where they were both waiting for fumbles/crits to shatter the opponent.  Jeff's made the point (to which I agree) that where RQ combats reach the peak of mundane abilities that's really where magic 'dominance' would kick in, and the best-magically-equipped or -talented hero is going to win the day - while simultaneously making combats shorter and less dull.

 

21 hours ago, Belgath said:

I will go back and invite my RQ6 players ask him to do a couple one shots .

Honestly, this is a great idea.  I *always* intro new players - particularly with D&D experience, which is most/all - with a short one-shot with stickpickers fighting a couple of wolves or a bear.  Usually they die or are crippled. THEN we make characters with that fresh in their heads.

[Pentallion]

One other way mundane battles end is with knockback.  A failed dex check puts the defender on the ground.  Further knockbacks are into solid surface, which, per RAW (at least RQ3) means 1d6 damage ignoring armor.  This can end a battle as frequently as crits/specials.  Especially the well balanced fights between two high end characters.  This is why, without iron, trolls are so deadly.  I wonder if it's an overlooked aspect of battle sometimes from reading here.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

From personal experience there were a lot of options that came into play when one side or the other couldn't get through an opponent's armour. Magic is the obvious one, knockback has been mentioned, disarm and grapple were useful. Alchemy was great in RQ2, acid the great equaliser. I think it's reasonable that two plate-armoured tanks would bash away at one another ineffectively, that's why they have all those other moves in the medieval fighting manuals. Oh, and shoot it with an arbalest!

Edited July 25, 2016 by Vile

[Mugen]

14 hours ago, styopa said:

FYI I'm pretty sure that's not been true for at least 15 years.

Yes. Since 3rd edition, characters get +1 on all rolls for every 2 ability points above 10. So, a 18 Strength character gets +20% chance to hit and +4 dmg modifier.

Nevertheless, the meaning of Strength in RQ (any version) and modern day D&D games is different. In RQ, it is only one factor among others (DEX, and sometimes INT) that helps defining one's base skill with weapons and some other skills. In D&D, it is the only factor used for determining one's melee skill (and Athletics).

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Mugen said:

Yes. Since 3rd edition, characters get +1 on all rolls for every 2 ability points above 10. So, a 18 Strength character gets +20% chance to hit and +4 dmg modifier.

Nevertheless, the meaning of Strength in RQ (any version) and modern day D&D games is different. In RQ, it is only one factor among others (DEX, and sometimes INT) that helps defining one's base skill with weapons and some other skills. In D&D, it is the only factor used for determining one's melee skill (and Athletics).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean (with the bolded text)?  Particularly the word "only"?

It's certainly not the only thing that determines melee skill: Str contributes to melee skill OR Dex does (depending on weapon property), as well of course does character level (and maybe class), not to mention feats in certain situations.  So a number of things affect attacks, much like RQ.

If you're talking about what STR affects, it's used in determining melee skill, ranged skill with thrown, encumbrance limits, saving throw mods for several classes, Strength checks (obviously) and athletics (as well as a bunch of special abilities that use STR as a referent, like Barbarians' indomitable strength ability).  How is that much different from RQ?

 

 

[Mugen]

7 hours ago, styopa said:

I'm not sure exactly what you mean (with the bolded text)?  Particularly the word "only"?

It's certainly not the only thing that determines melee skill: Str contributes to melee skill OR Dex does (depending on weapon property), as well of course does character level (and maybe class), not to mention feats in certain situations.  So a number of things affect attacks, much like RQ.

If you're talking about what STR affects, it's used in determining melee skill, ranged skill with thrown, encumbrance limits, saving throw mods for several classes, Strength checks (obviously) and athletics (as well as a bunch of special abilities that use STR as a referent, like Barbarians' indomitable strength ability).  How is that much different from RQ?

See how characteristics influence skills in D&D 3+ and RuneQuest :

-In RQ, most skills are influenced by 2 or more characteristics.

-In D&D 3+, only one ability bonus is added to either BaB, skill rank, half level or proficiency bonus.

That's because, originally, Str was the prerequisite for the fighting man class. In RQ, Str is just a measure of one's muscular power.

[Sean_RDP]

So I want to circle back to the original post to address a few things as I really have nothing to add to the RQ vs D&D discussion or the metaphysical merits of either.

If the intention is to introduce new players to a game, a one shot with pregens seems like a great idea. Character Creation is generally one set of questions and then the game is another. So let them play the game first, roll the dice, and see actual results. The mindset of people often is different when playing something specifically introductory vs. jumping into even a small mini-campaign. They tend to be more forgiving in that environment.

I don't see where house rules and Potions will help. They subvert the idea of playing a different game. Once you begin making game Y like game X, you may as well play game X. There are plenty of ways within the rules to help create a sense of excitement and accomplishment without changing rules OR handing out powerful magics day 1 to keep players alive. The problem is players are used to not dying in an early game, where as more classic games and players are used to character death, especially for early characters.

And character screening is important, it really is. Even online in an open forum. Let folks know how deadly the game can be and then emphasize it again. Give folks an opportunity to think about it.

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Alchemy is an integral part of low-powered RQ2, and something which makes it different from the later editions. Most players of my acquaintance made use of blade venom, acid, healing potions, and anti-venom. I'm not talking about magic potions, to be clear.

[Jeff]

Blade venom is pretty widely considered to be a power-gamed mistake by the writers (Greg hates it) and it got abused HORRIBLY in the old Chaosium house games. Healing potions, anti-venom are just fine though.

[Sean_RDP]

10 hours ago, Vile said:

Alchemy is an integral part of low-powered RQ2, and something which makes it different from the later editions. Most players of my acquaintance made use of blade venom, acid, healing potions, and anti-venom. I'm not talking about magic potions, to be clear.

Right gotcha. I was not even thinking about alchemy. 

[deleriad]

Going back to the OP I have a very different take on this. If you are running RQ2 under Roll20 for D&D and/or RQ6 players and you don't know RQ2 very well, it's not going to go very well. Both you and the players are going to have system shock. RQ2 is unforgiving and deadly, not in a gritty interesting way but in a random "oops there goes my arm" kind of way.

I grew up on RQ2 and RQ3. Hell I even had an article published for RQ3 in Heroes. I wouldn't play either of them now. RQ2 was lightning in a bottle for its time. When we used to play it we used to laugh at PCs getting their limbs hacked off on the vagaries of a dice roll or when they would spend round after round missing each other then fumble and kill a friend. When you're 17 and this is all new, it's funny. 

After a while it stopped being funny then, as a GM, I learned to roll my dice behind a screen in order not to expose the PCs to quite so many criticals. When I wanted to keep a crit I would move the screen to one side so the players could see it was legit. Otherwise I would call it a fail. I also ended up with some quite poor rolling gem dice that I would use as GM dice.

As games, RQ2 and more so RQ3 aren't very well designed. They were a revolution for their time but the only reason I would play them now is if someone else was running them for nostalgic LoLs. Personally I would wait for the new Chaosium RQ to scratch that retro RQ itch as from the sounds of it they're addressing many of the rough spots. 

Issues around the link between characteristics and skills are always contentious in all d100 games. In many ways, the link is deliberately weak because there's a premise that learned skill (largely) trumps born ability. 

In summary, I very much doubt you did anything "wrong." Rather I suspect that you and the players were caught out by how differently RQ2 plays to D&D and RQ6/Mythras. You could add a whole load of healing potions and other doodads to keep PCs alive and stick their arms back on but if you want to try again, go with the flow. Starting PCs are pretty useless, owe a shed load of money and will probably die or be crippled in the first 1-3 sessions. If anyone makes it out of that alive, then celebrate and take it from there.

[Pentallion]

Wow!  Couldn't disagree more with Deleriad.  My group loves RQ3.  They have tried and tried to get into RQ6 but just don't like it.  It's not as deadly.  They're chomping at the bits to see the new RQ come out.  So am I. 

[GianniVacca]

On 26/07/2016 at 6:39 AM, Jeff said:

Blade venom is pretty widely considered to be a power-gamed mistake by the writers (Greg hates it) and it got abused HORRIBLY in the old Chaosium house games. Healing potions, anti-venom are just fine though.

Well, it's also pretty expensive to get trained in it.

[styopa]

34 minutes ago, GianniVacca said:

Well, it's also pretty expensive to get trained in it.

I think the point of it being felt to be power-gamey was the fact that the use of it would easily GUARANTEE massive extra damage.  Essentially, wiping POT12 poison on your blade is going to guarantee +6 damage, and given the sort of "rationalized" (vs realistic) rules, it all hit at once, right away.  FAR too easy for players to get super lethal.

In reality:

- rarely would a meaningful dose of poison remain on the weapon after one exchange of blows, or even storage.  Scabbard your sword?  Gotta reapply poison.  Further, the simple passage of time would eventually negate most poisons (I'd guess most poisons' lethality was directly related to their volatility)

- application itself was obviously dangerous

- poison is slow-acting, usually.  That's the easy way that I dealt with poisons to reduce their utility.  Barring crazy-expensive, volatile neurotoxins, I'd rule that poison damage happened per the rules, but was applied ONE POINT PER MINUTE (5 rounds).  So yeah, you can use a poison arrow to bring down that target, but you might have to follow/track (or fight) it for 15 minutes before it finally dies.

The only weapons I'm familiar with being poisoned fairly frequently were arrows or other missile weapons, and even then it's mostly primitive tribes or trivial/assassination weapons. In most cases I can think of, poison is/was a lethality-amplifier for weapons that are otherwise mostly ineffective - blowguns, shuriken, darts, primitive bows, etc.

[soltakss]

On 7/24/2016 at 10:06 PM, styopa said:

FYI I'm pretty sure that's not been true for at least 15 years.

It was the case when I last played AD&D, maybe in 1984. 

[g33k]

8 hours ago, soltakss said:

It was the case when I last played AD&D, maybe in 1984. 

At least since 3.0/d20 -- when "AD&D" transitioned back to being just "D&D" -- the stats have all been much more regularized & linear:  every 2 points in a stat gives +1 on the d20 roll, and STR has no unique call-out with a percentile add.