That Charming Sword...

[Jon Hunter]

7 hours ago, womble said:

That is what the ref is for: providing opportunities for all the players to shine. Expecting every player choice to lead to mechanical parity is hoping for a nirvana that cannot be attained.

Good game design should be making that job easier for a GM.

 I'm not after a perfect solution, ( because then you end playing an abstraction which isn't something RQG aims for. ) just something within the ballpark of reasonable

 

[styopa]

35 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

I would argue a system which isn't balanced for gameplay, places an awful lots of pressure on a GM to counter balance the weaknesses in a unbalanced system. You just said the GM has to and described a number of things that require significant time for and there currently aren't published rules to do.

Is RQG a mass market RPG or is it designed solely for a fan base that has steeped itself in 30 years of law ?

I get the points of other advancement options, and difference between minor and major Gods.

However  I do worry about playability when foundchild cultists have a sum total of 3 specialist runespells available to them and Orlanthi have over 30 ( many much more powerful), it may work as a world build mechanism, but watch how many of your players will now choose cults like foundchild, odalya and the like?

I'd like all of cults that get right ups to be vaguely the same ball park in term's of power, progression and effectiveness, without i think we have a believable world, but a flawed game.

Agreed.

One cannot on one hand claim the system is "realistic" and "balanced".  They're almost antithetical.  I'd argue that D&D for example, is far toward the balance end of the spectrum, while RQ has historically been recognized to be toward the realistic end - even if the consequence of that is that there are indeed some character-development choices that are gimping (ie suboptimal).

I think it's not much of a secret to say that at least what I see in RQG is much more a tendency to strongly push players to be a certain kind of character.  One of the reasons might be to offer new players signposts to guide them away from suboptimal choices, at the cost of a little bit of cookie-cutter effect.

Hell, want to play an actual bad guy and you might get kicked from the game.

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Jon Hunter said:

However  I do worry about playability when foundchild cultists have a sum total of 3 specialist runespells available to them and Orlanthi have over 30 ( many much more powerful), it may work as a world build mechanism, but watch how many of your players will now choose cults like foundchild, odalya and the like?

But that's been true in RQ since it was first created and true in Cults of Prax and Griffin Mountain.  Granted we only had part of Orlanth there, but even then Orlanth was far more powerful and broader than Foundchild or Pavis or Flintnail or Zola Fel....  I never found that discrepancy an issue in all the years I ran RQ, and hopefully the material coming allows plenty of options and opportunities while recognizing that gods/goddesses are not created equal and don't have the same powers.

 

Edited August 18, 2018 by jajagappa

[Austin]

10 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

Is RQG a mass market RPG or is it designed solely for a fan base that has steeped itself in 30 years of law ?

I think that's a really good point. My perspective, for what it's worth, as someone comparatively new to Glorantha is that RQG feels more like it's written for the community than as a mass-market audience. There's a lot of depth and history and mythology to dig into, which absolutely will grip a portion of the mass-market RPG audience (like it has gripped me), but if you're not willing to do that work I think there really is a real barrier to new playgroups.

Jajagappa also has a great point in describing all the different ways for a worshipper of Odayla to "progress," and I think it's awesome that one cult can be thought about so flexibly. The challenge here is that I--or another new or new-ish player/GM--probably would not have thought of it. Which is where the five, ten, twenty years of lore and experience with the game come in.

But there's really no winning answer here.

For me, one of the draws of RQG is that it starts with chapters of history and lore, and has character creation which binds the character to the world in the form of Runes and Passions. But that level of detail which is cool to me because at soul I'm a dusty academic is going to be a barrier to new players, especially new players of RPGs. When you compare RQG to D&D 5e strictly in terms of new player access, 5e is obviously easier. Proficient, stat modifier, do I have advantage/disadvantage? It's all about trying to figure out which set of design choices is best for The Market, and is best for Game Design/Balance, and is best for Simulating Glorantha. I feel like of those, RQG does the third best.

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Crel said:

13 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

Is RQG a mass market RPG or is it designed solely for a fan base that has steeped itself in 30 years of law ?

I think that's a really good point.

I don't. Well, in and of itself it's a good point, but not in the context of this thread. RQ has always been unbalanced, and in 1979 it was not aimed at an already-dedicated long-time fan base. It was aimed at kids. We loved it because of its gritty, realistic unfairness. Mercenaries were better adventurers than militia, and those were the only options.

Sure, you can make a case that RQG is difficult to approach due to the Gloranthan heritage that it is built on, and a few of the game mechanics are a little muddled due to the history of the various version (e.g. MP or POW for overcoming spells, new mechanics such as CHA not quite meshing well with the low CHA for certain races that are horrific to humans, and SR being a slightly wonky meld of order-of-action vs impulse). But being inherently unbalanced is not one of these factors, it's a deliberate design decision that dates back to the very first edition of the game. I loved it for that as a teenager, so unless you are making an argument about the different tastes of millennials, I don't accept it.

Thinking about it a little more, I think the imbalance is greater in RQG. In RQ 2 & 3, Orlanthi had access to a much larger range of divine magic, but hardly ever used it because it was one-use. Rune Power makes this small advantage into a much larger one. So maybe it is a fair point.

Foundchild should at least get Pathway, and True Spear.

Edited August 19, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Austin]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Well, in and of itself it's a good point, but not in the context of this thread.

That's fair. I rambled off a good ways.

I was thinking more of the lore of Glorantha being a player barrier than the mechanics as I wrote my previous post. Jajagappa had a really good solution IMO to the Odayla adventurer question, but it's the type of solution that a new GM is unlikely to think up because of the lore knowledge needed. And it seems to me that's a common, intentional trend in RQG.

I guess a way to think about it is: Would I give this to a group of 16 year olds who never played a tabletop RPG, or would I give them 5e?

[7Tigers]

Well, at 16, my first D&D (and RPG) game as a player almost made me abandon RPGs. Fortunately, a trip to London gave me access to the RuneQuest box!

Edited August 19, 2018 by 7Tigers

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Crel said:

Jajagappa had a really good solution IMO to the Odayla adventurer question, but it's the type of solution that a new GM is unlikely to think up because of the lore knowledge needed. And it seems to me that's a common, intentional trend in RQG.

That's a very good point.  Hopefully between the Gods of Glorantha book, the GM Sourcebook, and future material, the GM (and players) will have a broader range of material to facilitate character development (and encourage GM's to be bold and do what works for them and their players - the Maximum Game Fun principle is after all right up front in RQG on pg.6).

I've always liked the fact with RQ that not all gods are equal, but any player can create a unique character with their own unique pathway through Glorantha. 

I'd always encourage a player to express a thought like "I wish Foundchild character had the Path Watch spell."  As a GM, I'd ask the player to describe the story where Foundchild gained this.  And I'd reply along the lines that, yes, you remember a Master Hunter at the Great Hunt telling this story and how he went on a quest to follow Foundchild's footsteps.  Perhaps the Master Hunter failed, and gives a warning that he almost learned it, and had gained the Tiger Eye stone, but Raven tricked him at the Crossroads, stole the stone, and flew off with it.  So, there's a way to get it, a partial outline of the quest to get it, and a way for the character to advance and gain something new, but still relevant to the god.  It's just not common (yet - the character may become the Hero who restores the spell to all of Foundchild's followers!).  

[jajagappa]

5 hours ago, Crel said:

When you compare RQG to D&D 5e strictly in terms of new player access, 5e is obviously easier.

Interesting.  I've always found D&D and related products difficult to access and remember what class could or could not do what.

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, Crel said:

I guess a way to think about it is: Would I give this to a group of 16 year olds who never played a tabletop RPG, or would I give them 5e?

56 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

Interesting.  I've always found D&D and related products difficult to access and remember what class could or could not do what.

I don't know 5e, so maybe AD&D has been simplified since I last played it (so long that I still instinctively put the "A" in front) but when we started, there were only fighters, thieves, clerics, magic users, and elves as classes so who-can-do-what was pretty simple. And you could only go up to level 3, you had to buy an expansion for levels 4-6. The RQ2 rule book was huge in comparison to the blue D&D book! From that perspective, D&D was a great introduction, and RuneQuest gave us something more complex to move on to. I suspect it's the other way around now.

[Jon Hunter]

3 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Interesting.  I've always found D&D and related products difficult to access and remember what class could or could not do what.

I don't think the reason for that would be complexity, I think its because D&D is much more of an abstraction and reading your posts you tend to prefer a simulation system.

I wouldn't touch D&D with a barge pole for the similar reasons , but it doesn't mean we cant steal a trick or two off them?

[Jon Hunter]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I don't know 5e, so maybe AD&D has been simplified since I last played it (so long that I still instinctively put the "A" in front) but when we started, there were only fighters, thieves, clerics, magic users, and elves as classes so who-can-do-what was pretty simple. And you could only go up to level 3, you had to buy an expansion for levels 4-6. The RQ2 rule book was huge in comparison to the blue D&D book! From that perspective, D&D was a great introduction, and RuneQuest gave us something more complex to move on to. I suspect it's the other way around now.

D&D isn't more complex than RQ , they are both complex in different ways, RQ in some of mechanic, D&D in the numbers of options and rules.

I infinitely prefer RQ because of the sense of world, culture, the flexibility of the characters and the heightened sense of realism in combat.

However as AD&D is more an abstraction i feel a lot more works been in done in balancing the gaming experience, in terms of players choice and consequences.

Were the RQ/Glorantha community are much more likely to throw a sense of game balance withint the rules under the bus to preserve a greater sense of internal consistency within the world.

[Dragonsnail]

3 hours ago, jajagappa said:

Interesting.  I've always found D&D and related products difficult to access and remember what class could or could not do what.

I think it's mostly because it is so well known. What makes it easier is the compartmentalisation of the player into a class with limited rules for that class. But spell casters are on the other hand more difficult in 5E because of the huge range of spells, at least if the player is somewhat indecisive or unfamiliar with the game. 13th Age makes that latter part easier, because it has compartmentalised the spells to each class too, which in my opinion is a much better choice. I regard 13th Age as much better than 5E.

[styopa]

This is drifting way off topic, but I think it remains interesting.

One of the reasons d&d ends up being confusing is because of all the bolt-on cruft that keeps getting added every time Wizards needs a little revenue kick.  It's easy to paying a boom full of some new overpowered stuff when there's no canonical background to adhere to, so there's a ton of it, some self-contradictory, and with major issues of power creep.

Glorantha is finite, and once all the pieces of the world's puzzle are written into rules (o happy day!), ostensibly it would be done.

[g33k]

For those unfamiliar with the newer editions, 5e definitely makes an easier entre' than prior editions do.

3.0/3.5/d20SRD (that became PF) may be the apex of complexity.

But while I think most or all of us prefer the classless / skills-based progression of RQ&derivatives, it cannot really be argued that "choose a class" (from this shortlist) and "choose a race" (from that shortlist), is a MUCH lower barrier for n00bies than "choose your skills from that LOONG list... oh yeah and everyone has some magic, so ALSO choose your spells from t'other long list" (particularly when the classes and races fit broadly-known tropes & memes).

 

57 minutes ago, styopa said:

One of the reasons d&d ends up being confusing is because of all the bolt-on cruft that keeps getting added every time Wizards needs a little revenue kick.

In all honesty, I don't think the "revenue kick" is terribly relevant.  I think M:tG is still their bread & butter, D&D is just an occasional drizzle of honey.

But as such, it's more relevant that they keep a steady stream of products flowing so when retailers put "new arrivals" in the premium display-spaces, it's D&D; so when the industry buzzes, D&D is one of the topics buzzing, so when Amazon features "popular" stuff, D&D shows in the first page, etc etc etc.

I admit that I too thought TSR/WotC was prone to cashgrab with cycles of "new splat!  new splat!  new splat! <repeat until ... >  New Edition!  new splat!  new splat!  new splat! ... " .   👿    I never bought into 2e (which, after increasiongly-dubious splats, convinced me of their cashgrab cycle) or 4e, and I'm still undecided whether I'm getting 5e.

I'm not sure whether I was right or wrong Back In The Day, but I think these days they are more sophisticated, more about consistently marketing to keep their TopSpot than trying to cashgrab-per-supplement.

 

[g33k]

7 hours ago, Crel said:

I guess a way to think about it is: Would I give this to a group of 16 year olds who never played a tabletop RPG, or would I give them 5e?

Honestly:  neither.

If it's all-n00bs, even the GM?  Like, some kids in an afterschool group, or bored on the weekend, etc?  And one of them says, "hey, let's try that D&D game ('cos Vin Diesel Pitch Black, or 'cos Critical Role, or whatever)"  And they don't want me to GM.  So it's ALL on them?   But I can pick anything in-print (that is, they said "D&D" but that's because it's the only name they know)...

I'd give 'em a Quickstart product.  Might be RQG, or Exalted, or StarWars, or even DaVinciBRP.  But something short&sweet, with MUCH less "figure it all out" for creating PCs etc, and a smaller ruleset for the GM to manage..

Edited August 19, 2018 by g33k

[BWP]

12 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

a few of the game mechanics are a little muddled due to the history of the various version

I don't think that's the reason why a lot of things are "a little muddled" in the new rules, but that's probably a separate discussion ....

IMO successful RPG systems are a synthesis of a few things, primarily cool roleplaying ideas and well-executed mechanics.  Consider, for example, the long-term success of the older D&D systems.  Prior to 3.0 the game had (mostly) dreadful mechanics, largely because the original rules were written by people who didn't know how to write good game rules.  However, the game was positively seething with ideas and I think the attraction of that overcame the rules difficulties for most people.  It was a relative minority who responded by coming up with alternate rules to express those same ideas (hence the original RQ and of course many other game systems).  Game balance only became an issue as people became accustomed to the older rules sets and began to realise that certain game choices were much better than other game choices ("better" in the sense of "my character can grow more powerful/influential/etc.").  This in turn led to greater analysis of game systems and resulted in the various new systems and editions.

Personally, I don't think that game balance is that important if you consider that the role-playing group is a combined synthesis of diverse elements trying to make their way through the game world, achieving some collective goal -- so long as every member of the group has the opportunity to meaningfully contribute (which is not the same as "contributing equally").  On the other hand if your role-playing group is a collection of individuals who happen to work together for mutual convenience, then "balance" becomes a lot more important, as each individual requires the same opportunities for advancement.

I like that RQG has a diversity of cults, because that's how a real world should work.  Ideally players will choose their cults for role-playing reasons, and the characters will develop accordingly.  The only real requirement is that the cult exists "logically" in its environment, by which I mean, if the cult has "puny" magic, what stops it from being wiped out (or fading into obscurity)?  It's only logical that players will mostly gravitate to "powerful" cults because players mostly want their characters to be significant in the game world.

Now, if you have a situation where you have a supposedly "powerful" cult that can't attract any interest from players because it's very difficult to get anywhere with it, then you may have a problem with the way the cult is designed.

 

[Richard S.]

8 minutes ago, BWP said:

Prior to 3.0 the game had (mostly) dreadful mechanics, largely because the original rules were written by people who didn't know how to write good game rules.

Eh, I would say it's less because GG & co didn't know how to design games, and more that they were trying to convert a wargame into something entirely different. Also it was the first ever RPG so I think they should be cut some slack.

[creativehum]

17 hours ago, Crel said:

But that level of detail which is cool to me because at soul I'm a dusty academic is going to be a barrier to new players, especially new players of RPGs.

I have a weird thought about this: 

I've read statements like this from many people over many years. I honestly don't know if it is true.

The notion that there are supposed to be "training wheels" or something for RPGs is not something I've ever seen needed in practice.

Some people will want deep, detailed background to hook their characters into. Others will want the characters to be treasure-seeking vagabonds exploring lands they know nothing about -- that part of the pleasure is that their characters travelled to places they know nothing about. Different games and settings will cater to different tastes.

But this has nothing to do with new players or experienced. It has to do with taste. And tastes can shift. We like to try new things. I've been running a really wild ride of a B/X D&D game for a while now. I'm looking to RQG to shift gears. 

I honestly think people worry too much about new players. RQG is what it is. If someone is looking for a deep dive setting its there for them -- new player or old hand.

[womble]

On 8/19/2018 at 1:48 PM, PhilHibbs said:

I don't know 5e, so maybe AD&D has been simplified since I last played it (so long that I still instinctively put the "A" in front) but when we started, there were only fighters, thieves, clerics, magic users, and elves as classes so who-can-do-what was pretty simple. And you could only go up to level 3, you had to buy an expansion for levels 4-6. The RQ2 rule book was huge in comparison to the blue D&D book! From that perspective, D&D was a great introduction, and RuneQuest gave us something more complex to move on to. I suspect it's the other way around now.

Heh. That didn't even need the 'A'!  What you're describing there was Basic D&D (the expansions for higher levels were 'Master' and something else, my wooly recollection without consulting any oracles tells me), and is where I started too   Very quickly moved onto 'proper' (A)D&D though. And then RQ. AD&D was three rule books: Players' Handbook, DMG and Monster Manual, as a 'base', so I think more convoluted (certainly higher page count) than the RQ2 rules.

[Yelm's Light]

10 hours ago, womble said:

Heh. That didn't even need the 'A'!  What you're describing there was Basic D&D (the expansions for higher levels were 'Master' and something else, my wooly recollection without consulting any oracles tells me), and is where I started too   Very quickly moved onto 'proper' (A)D&D though. And then RQ. AD&D was three rule books: Players' Handbook, DMG and Monster Manual, as a 'base', so I think more convoluted (certainly higher page count) than the RQ2 rules.

And Gods, Demigods, & Heroes, which eventually morphed into Deities & Demigods after copyright issues with the Elric and Cthulhu mythoi.  (It's ironic that Chaosium ended up with the licenses for both of them.)

[womble]

Oh yeah. the book that put numbers on the Gods so you could rock up and kill 'em... Forgot about that one  

[styopa]

21 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

And Gods, Demigods, & Heroes, which eventually morphed into Deities & Demigods after copyright issues with the Elric and Cthulhu mythoi.  (It's ironic that Chaosium ended up with the licenses for both of them.)

To be precisely accurate, gdh (lbb version) later was republished in hardcover for ad&d as deities and demigods.  It was only after the first print of ddg they ran into the ip issues, so subsequent editions didn't have them, but the first edition still did.

Actually, it was Chaosium's threatened lawsuit after the first printing that led to a compromise for the 2nd printing where tsr gave Chaosium credit.  Tsr later decided that they didn't want to credit a competitor directly, so just removed the sections in the subsequent editions.

[Richard S.]

22 hours ago, womble said:

Oh yeah. the book that put numbers on the Gods so you could rock up and kill 'em... Forgot about that one  

I actually liked that book. For some settings and games it's great for adventurers to be able to go out and go toe to toe with the gods themselves, there's lots of examples of it in literature even. If you want more "traditional" gods, you can just ignore the stat blocks and references to specific powers or combat techniques.