4 REASONS YOU NEED TO PLAY THIS 38 YEAR-OLD RPG NOW - Geek and Sundry

[MOB]

Killer quote from Sandy:

"Frodo is Frodo–not a “thief” or a “rogue” or a “warrior” or whatever. He is an individual. RuneQuest was the first game I’d seen which let my character be himself, instead of trying to fit into some mold. Even the more-flexible molds that modern Pathfinder and D&D 5e have developed are, to me, just larger prisons. In RuneQuest, I can just do things, and get better at those things over time. I don’t worry about what Feat is next in line, or what weapon specializations are best."

http://geekandsundry.com/4-reasons-you-need-to-play-this-38-year-old-rpg-now/

[Mankcam]

18 minutes ago, MOB said:

Killer quote from Sandy:

"Frodo is Frodo–not a “thief” or a “rogue” or a “warrior” or whatever. He is an individual. RuneQuest was the first game I’d seen which let my character be himself, instead of trying to fit into some mold. Even the more-flexible molds that modern Pathfinder and D&D 5e have developed are, to me, just larger prisons. In RuneQuest, I can just do things, and get better at those things over time. I don’t worry about what Feat is next in line, or what weapon specializations are best."

There are some more recent systems that allow flexible character creation (not archetype cloning), but D&D sure ain't one of them. Even the current edition still feels like being stuck with a MMO toon rather than being able to portray an actual character.

BRP will always be one of my favourite systems, and Sandy pretty much sums up my feelings exactly

Edited September 28, 2016 by Mankcam

[Haimji]

I agree, AD&D rules are perfect for MMO games on computer, not roleplaying games.

The Chaosium system is perfect to play a individual character, as in CoC for example, where AD&D rules don't works.

[MOB]

47 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

There are some more recent systems that allow flexible character creation (not archetype cloning), but D&D sure ain't one of them. Even the current edition still feels like being stuck with a MMO toon rather than being able to portray an actual character.

BRP will always be one of my favourite systems, and Sandy pretty much sums up my feelings exactly

Mine too. The other thing I like about RQ is the palpable sense of danger you have as a character, when even a rune lord could get taken down by a lucky jab with a spear by a trollkin (poor old Rurik). Sandy touches on that element of the game too in the article.

[MOB]

BTW, the TLDR summary - here are the four reasons:

1. (No) Character Classes: Frodo is Frodo–not a “thief” or a “rogue” or a “warrior” or whatever. He is an individual.

2. Combat: "messy as the floor of a butcher shop, gives the player faith that the rules represent some grim reality."

3. Experience: No artificial levels, no grinding for XP. Successfully use a skill, you get a chance to improve that skill. Simple.

4. A Whole New World: Glorantha, a setting which puts myth and magic first. Gods are not just monsters with a huge amount of HPs.

[BigJackBrass]

It should have been five reasons, of course, but he inexplicably neglected to mention ducks 

[jajagappa]

18 hours ago, MOB said:

a lucky jab with a spear by a trollkin (poor old Rurik)

Though now we know better!  Rurik will get his due yet, and pity the poor trollkin when Rurik comes calling.

[jajagappa]

7 hours ago, MOB said:

BTW, the TLDR summary - here are the four reasons:

1. (No) Character Classes: Frodo is Frodo–not a “thief” or a “rogue” or a “warrior” or whatever. He is an individual.

2. Combat: "messy as the floor of a butcher shop, gives the player faith that the rules represent some grim reality."

3. Experience: No artificial levels, no grinding for XP. Successfully use a skill, you get a chance to improve that skill. Simple.

4. A Whole New World: Glorantha, a setting which puts myth and magic first. Gods are not just monsters with a huge amount of HPs.

and don't forget:  5. [RuneQuest offered] the earliest serious look at religion in RPGs

1, 4, and 5 were the big factors for me and really made RQ stand out.  Cults of Prax was a real joy to read and is by far the most worn-out of my original books.

[sladethesniper]

Well, due to that article my wife is finally (after 20 years) OK with using RuneQuest instead of D&D on a one shot "to try it".  Nevermind that I was totally right about Call of Cthulhu and BRP in general....  Apparently my powers of persuasion are less than Sandy's.

-STS

[styopa]

21 hours ago, Mankcam said:

There are some more recent systems that allow flexible character creation (not archetype cloning), but D&D sure ain't one of them. Even the current edition still feels like being stuck with a MMO toon rather than being able to portray an actual character.

BRP will always be one of my favourite systems, and Sandy pretty much sums up my feelings exactly

IIRC it was either Johnathan Tweet or Skip Williams who told me in an email exchange that RQ had always been one of his favorite game, and definitely influenced a number of features he would bring into writing D&D 3e, which really resurrected the game.

All the reasons they give are good ones, as well as jajagappa's #5; we see how pervasive religion is in today's world, how much more of a dominant substrate should it be in a world where the gods ACTUALLY ACT and whose power is demonstrable?

[Questbird]

On 9/29/2016 at 9:09 AM, jajagappa said:

and don't forget:  5. [RuneQuest offered] the earliest serious look at religion in RPGs

Well don't forget Empire of the Petal Throne got to religions first, though Runequest probably integrated them more deeply into character creation and play.

[g33k]

13 hours ago, Questbird said:

Well don't forget Empire of the Petal Throne got to religions first, though Runequest probably integrated them more deeply into character creation and play.

Also don't forget:  the Forgotten Realms & Tekumel & Glorantha *ALL* predate the games they became associated with, and indeed predate RPGs in general !

[jajagappa]

On 10/3/2016 at 0:49 AM, Questbird said:

Well don't forget Empire of the Petal Throne got to religions first, though Runequest probably integrated them more deeply into character creation and play.

Could be, but RuneQuest (and its supplements) was available at the store I went to and Empire of the Petal Throne wasn't.

[Mugen]

On 29/09/2016 at 3:06 AM, styopa said:

IIRC it was either Johnathan Tweet or Skip Williams who told me in an email exchange that RQ had always been one of his favorite game, and definitely influenced a number of features he would bring into writing D&D 3e, which really resurrected the game.

Some time ago, Tweet wrote on a blog how big a fan of RQ he is, and that its only flaw was that it was a roll-under game and not a roll-over one.

Edit: here it is.

http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgamerunequest.html

Edited October 6, 2016 by Mugen

[styopa]

6 hours ago, Mugen said:

Some time ago, Tweet wrote on a blog how big a fan of RQ he is, and that its only flaw was that it was a roll-under game and not a roll-over one.

Edit: here it is.

http://www.jonathantweet.com/jotgamerunequest.html

I think his criticisms are a little more than that (or example he goes on about the 'brittleness' of RQ which is certainly a thing) and the challenge in d100 systems in dealing with environmental differences, but yeah, he does credit RQ's innovation in a number of things that ended up in D&D3:

RuneQuest debuted way back in 1978. It had:

• prestige classes (rune lords, rune priests, and initiates), 
• unified skill-combat-saving-throw system, 
• ability scores for monsters, 
• 1 in 20 hits are crits, 
• extra damage for lucky hits with spears and arrows, 
• ability scores that scaled up linearly without artificial caps, 
• a skill system that let anyone try just about anything, 
• "nonabilities" for incorporeal or unliving creatures, 
• armor penalties for skill checks and spellcasting (but not outright prohibitions), 
• templates for creatures, 
• affiliation groups (the model for Ars Magica's Houses and Vampire's Clans), 
• hardness for objects, 
• chance to be hit modified by Dex and size, 
• example characters used in examples throughout the rulebook,
• rules for PCs making magic items. 
     In other words, RuneQuest was the RPG that taught me how to design RPGs. Even so the RuneQuest mechanicsweren't perfect.

 

[Mugen]

19 hours ago, styopa said:

I think his criticisms are a little more than that (or example he goes on about the 'brittleness' of RQ which is certainly a thing) and the challenge in d100 systems in dealing with environmental differences, but yeah, he does credit RQ's innovation in a number of things that ended up in D&D3:

Yes. I read it 10 years ago, and I didn't rememeber it well...

[deleriad]

On 29/09/2016 at 2:06 AM, styopa said:

IIRC it was either Johnathan Tweet or Skip Williams who told me in an email exchange that RQ had always been one of his favorite game, and definitely influenced a number of features he would bring into writing D&D 3e, which really resurrected the game.

One of the things about the article and some other discussion at the time was that it mounted the best defence of armour being all or nothing (AC) versus armour reducing damage (AP) that I had read. In a more abstract system like D&D it actually makes sense. If you "miss" your attack by a few points (i.e. would have hit if you weren't wearing armour) then you can explain it as a blow that glances off your armour. Because your AC is a combination of parrying, dodging and armour protection then you can quite elegantly model high dex + low armour as the same AC as high armour. Something that is really hard to achieve in AP systems.

In RQ2/3 you tended to have an arms race of magically enhanced damage vs magically enhanced armour which meant that Hit Points became almost meaningless.* Once you're doing something like 2D8+1D4+16 damage versus 20 points of magic and armour with 5 Hit Points in a location then an attack either didn't hurt or it killed you with little in between. As a game mechanic that was not exactly brilliant. One of the things I've liked about the Mythras line of development is that the damage vs armour arms race has been dealt with through imposing bounded values. From the previews of RQ new it looks like we're going back to it all being about the size of your plus, which I think is a shame.

 

*RQ3 did have strengthening enchantments; something I utterly detested after spending my early gaming years claiming that D&D style increasing HPs were stupid beyond belief etc...

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, deleriad said:

One of the things about the article and some other discussion at the time was that it mounted the best defence of armour being all or nothing (AC) versus armour reducing damage (AP) that I had read. In a more abstract system like D&D it actually makes sense. If you "miss" your attack by a few points (i.e. would have hit if you weren't wearing armour) then you can explain it as a blow that glances off your armour. Because your AC is a combination of parrying, dodging and armour protection then you can quite elegantly model high dex + low armour as the same AC as high armour. Something that is really hard to achieve in AP systems.

The problem with Armor Class is that it works in a binary way : armor either stops all damage, or has no effect.

In a system where damage is tied to margin of success, having a "Defense" attribute based on armor, Dexterity and Parry or Dodge makes perfect sense.

Ther's also the attack tables in RoleMaster, which make characters in heavy armor easier to hit, but more difficult to seriously injure.

[Yelm's Light]

With a system as abstract as D&D's is, you can come up with any explanation you want.  The fact is that it has almost no connection to actual fighting tactics.  (Nor does hit points increasing markedly as one gains in level approach reality either.)

[styopa]

43 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

With a system as abstract as D&D's is, you can come up with any explanation you want.  The fact is that it has almost no connection to actual fighting tactics.  (Nor does hit points increasing markedly as one gains in level approach reality either.)

I don't think it was ever meant to?

Remember, an AD&D round represented a MINUTE of combat, meaning it was all about rationalized hand-waving.  That's an astonishingly long time in melee, if you think about it.

Frankly, with that timescale, one might as well have had a totally synthesized amalgam of 'attack value' (considering weapon, skill, size, strength, speed) vs 'defense value' (weapon, armor, size, strength, speed) and roll once to determine the winner.  

Our "problem" with RQ was that it was IIRC the first* to try deliberately to move into simulationist territory, which is why we argue about this stuff and D&D mostly doesn't.

*one could argue persuasively on behalf of C&S, which predated RQ by a year, I believe.  FGU's C&S was practically an academic broadside against everything 'fantastic' in D&D...

[Yelm's Light]

D&D had 10-second rounds; I have no idea what possessed Gygax, Arneson and gang to change it to a minute.  By that scale, nearly every combat would take a number of minutes.  Once I discovered RQ2 (and C&S...I've had experience with a long list of games), I stopped playing much of the TSR stuff anyway.  C&S was sort of the other extreme; I wound up preferring WFRP to it as far as simulationist gaming was concerned.

[MJ Sadique]

9 hours ago, deleriad said:

In RQ2/3 you tended to have an arms race of magically enhanced damage vs magically enhanced armour which meant that Hit Points became almost meaningless. ... RQ3 did have strengthening enchantments; something I utterly detested after spending my early gaming years claiming that D&D style increasing HPs were stupid beyond belief etc...

The race of arms is natural in any world, reality always prove it : When you get kicked, evolving is hard but equiping is easier so as RQ3 fan and player of almost any D&D I will state this :

• D&D greatest flaw was THAC0, the concept itself was excellent and good but too much complex and RQ2 simplicity win over this.
• D&D greatest creation was the levels : simulate fight between 2 mens or 2 armies alike ...as Herowars/Heroquest Mastery level works. D&D insane amount of HP represent fighting capabilities and not pure life force (like in HW/HQ).
• RQ3 greatest flaw (from my 20y of mastering point of view) are the limitations of magics and skills. As RQ Classic is perfect for initiate to acolyte fights. RQ3 unlimited should have been acolyte to runelord play but trying to make a best RQ2 failed (The better is enemy of the good).
• RQ3 greatest creation is the triple magics complementarity and in this sequence the cults' devellopements, oppositions and relations. Alls magics n' cults are linked to each others and follow differents ways.

I don't know Mythras well, but D&D is mid-to high levels plays, RQ classic is low-to-mid and HW is high-to-ultimate play. The two last have simple rules making them more playable. RQ3 have complexity near D&D but limitations force it to lower level ruining it despite a lot of excellent innovations.

[styopa]

21 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

D&D had 10-second rounds; I have no idea what possessed Gygax, Arneson and gang to change it to a minute.  By that scale, nearly every combat would take a number of minutes.  Once I discovered RQ2 (and C&S...I've had experience with a long list of games), I stopped playing much of the TSR stuff anyway.  C&S was sort of the other extreme; I wound up preferring WFRP to it as far as simulationist gaming was concerned.

Er, I don't think so?

FWIW: The LBBs said you should use Chainmail for combat - which, being a miniatures wargame, one minute combat rounds (called turns in Chainmail) were not that unusual.  10 rounds = 10 minutes = 1 turn in LBBs and AD&D, as far as I can see. Further, LBB3, confusingly states: 

Movement (distances given in Vol. 1) is in segments of approximately ten minutes. Thus it takes ten minutes to move about two moves — 120 feet for a fullyarmored character. Two moves constitute a turn, except in flight/pursuit situations where the moves/turn will be doubled (and no mapping allowed).
Time must be taken to rest, so one turn every hour must be spent motionless, and
double the rest period must be taken after a flight/pursuit takes place.
Time spent searching for anything (secret passages, hidden treasure, etc.), loading treasure, listening, ESP'ing, hiding, will be adjudged by the referee as to what
portion of a turn will be used by the activity. Typically, ESP'ing will take but a
quarter turn, while searching a ten foot section of wall for secret passages will require a full turn.
Melee is fast and furious. There are ten rounds of combat per turn.

So I'd say that the Chainmail/LBBs and AD&D were consistent at 1 minute rounds, Basic D&D may have gone to something else, but that was a diversion from canon.

[Yelm's Light]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

Er, I don't think so?

FWIW: The LBBs said you should use Chainmail for combat - which, being a miniatures wargame, one minute combat rounds (called turns in Chainmail) were not that unusual.  10 rounds = 10 minutes = 1 turn in LBBs and AD&D, as far as I can see. Further, LBB3, confusingly states: 

Chainmail was for large-scale warfare (mass melee); one-on-one was just a special case.  Original D&D rounds were 10 seconds.

Er sorry, that appears to be Basic, not Original.  It seems TSR was wildly incoherent on the subject itself; the melee round was, in various versions, 6 seconds (some editions of AD&D), 10 seconds (Basic), or 1 minute (Original and the other editions of AD&D).

Edited October 8, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[Darius West]

RQ has no grind for XP, it was traded in for "tick farming".  LOL.