RQ vs D&D

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

But I'm curious -- how would you see Fate of Glorantha differing from HQ:G ?   I usually consider Fate & HQ pretty peer-ish games...  But maybe that should be a spin-off thread... (possibly to the EH board... or to an EH/Chaosium negotiation?)

I would actually put FATE CORE at least one step higher on the crunch meter, and possibly two. FAE on the other hand is at about the same level, or possibly one step lower on the meter. 

SDLeary

[MOB]

11 hours ago, Jeff said:

For what it is worth, for me the jury is still out on whether D&D5e is a good or even particularly interesting role-playing game.

I'll go further. For me, the jury is out whether D&D is a roleplaying game first-and-foremost at all...

[Richard S.]

1 minute ago, MOB said:

I'll go further. For me, the jury is out whether D&D is a roleplaying game first-and-foremost at all...

I think that's stretching things a bit too far. It's a game that allows you to create characters and roleplay their interactions with the world around them, from seducing the local barmaid to gambling with the count to slaying the dragon. It's certainly a different type of roleplaying game than what RQG tries to be, but it certainly deserves the title.

Question: how many people on here even have experience outside of B/AD&D? Considering the majority of posters seem to be RQ grognards of a sort I'm curious as to how many of you actually realize how far D&D has come from its wargaming roots.

[g33k]

3 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

Question: how many people on here even have experience outside of B/AD&D? Considering the majority of posters seem to be RQ grognards of a sort I'm curious as to how many of you actually realize how far D&D has come from its wargaming roots.

AD&D 1e, 2e, 3.0/3.5/PF & 5e here.

I mostly skipped buying 2e as it seemed like a "fixed 1e" and by then I had all the fixes in my own mind & marginalia in my 1e rulebooks.  I bought some 2e rulebooks (for $2/title mint) at a garage-sale, later gave them away; I played a few sessions in other peoples' campaigns, and I was feeling like it was more of a "we have run out of 1e titles that sell, so we'll reset everything and make 'em rinse, lather, re-buy".

I liked 3.x/D20System, felt it went a long ways toward modernizing the system and making it cohesive.  But it quickly turned into feature-creep, power-inflation, mechanical optimization, &c.  Not my cuppa RP, mostly, and still suffered from level-based-inflation issues.  PF took that base and made my dissatisfactions worse.

I skipped 4e, full stop.

5.x seems to be the best so far (though not without flaws)... but it feels the least "like" D&D to me, like a different game "inspired by" the older ones.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think some people possibly need to be mindful of living in glass houses here. If you start flinging mud, don't be surprised if fans of the game you are disparaging start flinging mud back.

D&D5 is the market leader, has a huge fanbase, and has been a critical success since it's release. It's a simple, generic fantasy game with certain characteristic tropes and systems (Class & Level). RuneQuest is a more complex, specific settting fantasy game with it's own characteristic tropes (Skills and Cult membership).

RuneQuest may rock your boat, but I'd bet that a 'Glorantha for D&D5E' game would sell more. Just sayin'….

  

[MOB]

11 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

RuneQuest may rock your boat, but I'd bet that a 'Glorantha for D&D5E' game would sell more. Just sayin'….   

Yep...

[g33k]

19 minutes ago, MOB said:

Yep...

<heh>

RQG and 13G are coming to market remarkably close together.  I'm sure that Chaosium is looking at this with interest.  I hope they see fit to share some numbers, once we're a few months in.

OTOH, given 13G went KS and RQG didn't, the differences in marketing/production/delivery may make them less-comparable than one might think... <sigh>  Whatever, though, I know thaty *I* am very interested & curious!

 

[Jeff]

38 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

I think some people possibly need to be mindful of living in glass houses here. If you start flinging mud, don't be surprised if fans of the game you are disparaging start flinging mud back.

D&D5 is the market leader, has a huge fanbase, and has been a critical success since it's release. It's a simple, generic fantasy game with certain characteristic tropes and systems (Class & Level). RuneQuest is a more complex, specific settting fantasy game with it's own characteristic tropes (Skills and Cult membership).

RuneQuest may rock your boat, but I'd bet that a 'Glorantha for D&D5E' game would sell more. Just sayin'….

  

If we wanted to do a D&D5e, we would have done D&D5e. We did 13G instead - which I personally think is far more interesting. But then again, different strokes for different folks.

Just because something doesn't strike me as being interesting doesn't mean *you* shouldn't find it interesting! Heck, I don't get Dr. Who despite the best efforts of many friends.

[TrippyHippy]

13G may be more interesting…to you….but it won't sell as much as a 5th edition setting sourcebook. 

Heck, even Sandy Peterson realises that: 

Edited August 21, 2018 by TrippyHippy

[simonh]

7 hours ago, g33k said:

But I'm curious -- how would you see Fate of Glorantha differing from HQ:G ?   I usually consider Fate & HQ pretty peer-ish games...  But maybe that should be a spin-off thread... (possibly to the EH board... or to an EH/Chaosium negotiation?)

 

I agree they produce a somewhat similar experience in play, but it is a different set of tools. Like 13G it could expose a new audience to Glorantha. I don't see it happening officially of course, but I think fan efforts to adapt the setting to people's favourite systems are worthwhile and a sign of a healthy community. A lot of good has come from efforts like that before in the Glorantha community.

[Pentallion]

5 hours ago, MOB said:

Yep...

He said 5E, not 4.0.  I bought 13th Age and it is definitely 4.0 which is most unfortunate.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

I remember having AD&D *urges* during Avalonhills stewardship of RQ3 (before the renaissance). RQ3 had become too dry and dull in presentation for me, and I looked over at the greener grass that AD&D 2ed lay on. I bought the players handbook and dungeonmasters guide read them through and quickly came to the conclusion that game was not for me, I even bought the fighters handbook to see if that would give the game more depth/options but that just made matters worse. 

I was so used to the elgance of RQ design that AD&D just seemed silly to me, and ill thought out. 

Bringing it up to date. The 1st game I’ve played since coming back to RPGs is 5ed. We’ve played it as a group over roll20, and pretty much all of us come originally from RQ as our primarily game. We’re all agreed that it’s a version of D&D that we can all finally appreciate. It’s straight forward, and fairly elegant in design, which as RQ gognards we immediately appreciated. 

I think it’s also proved to be a game that can be adapted to less generic fantasy, as we see with Adventures in Middle Earth. 

I still have reservations about 5ed, at higher levels. But I appreciative it for what it is, and accept the games conventions. D&D has such a strong cultural currency, I can see why people want to buy into this familar game (myself included).

That being said, the RuneQuest experience is still as distinct from D&D as it was originally. Now that the new edition of RQG is out I can see it becoming our main game again. The richness of the setting, and the visceral combat is just superb, compared to D&D, & for me a big selling point of RuneQuest. 

5ed is vanilla quick fun fantasy, whereas RuneQuest has much more depth and the possibility of a more lasting enjoyment, and in my opinion this is not at the expense of more mechanical complication. 

 

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

D&D for me has always been associated with a more simplistic pulpy fantasy. 5ed with its class archetypes carries this tradition on. When I’m in the mood for it it’s great.

RuneQuest on the other hand with its Gloranthan setting has much more depth. It’s a very layered game world that has the potential to be very rewarding. It has real staying power. That being said I hope Chaosium continue to develop a variety of adventures for RQG, to support different styles of play.

13th age looks really good, but I don’t think I have enough spare time to take on another set of rules. I’d like to try it one day though.

....Did I mention how good RQ combat is?  

[g33k]

5 hours ago, Pentallion said:

He said 5E, not 4.0.  I bought 13th Age and it is definitely 4.0 which is most unfortunate.

... ?

I had understood 13A was primarily a  3.x  variant, so far as "game mechanical DNA" went ... ?

 

[HreshtIronBorne]

@g33k from what I have read of it and attempted to play it feels much more like 4.0 with encounter powers and all that jazz. 

[Richard S.]

35 minutes ago, g33k said:

... ?

I had understood 13A was primarily a  3.x  variant, so far as "game mechanical DNA" went ... ?

 

It's a hybrid of 4 and 3, made by designers of both.

[styopa]

11 hours ago, MOB said:

I'll go further. For me, the jury is out whether D&D is a roleplaying game first-and-foremost at all...

MOB I love ya man but you criticalled your "sneering gamer snobbery" check on that one.

5 hours ago, Pentallion said:

He said 5E, not 4.0.  I bought 13th Age and it is definitely 4.0 which is most unfortunate.

Ew, that's too bad.  Most D&D players will tell you "it's ok, but it's not D&D".

I'd even considered getting it to sort of ease my local 5e hardcore groups into a little more substantive setting...not sure I'd bother.  If it's 4 they won't even consider it.  I'd love it if someone clarified that it was a 3.X variant, as a number of the groups do still live in the Pathfinder ecosystem which is about 3.75.

I have no problem putting RQ up against 5e.  I think 5e is perfectly fine vanilla fare, and RQ won't be for everyone, but I expect that - as in the 1980s - some do yearn for something a little more substantive than what D&D offers.  I'm perfectly fine not being the FotM game.

[Arkat]

5 hours ago, styopa said:

Ew, that's too bad.  Most D&D players will tell you "it's ok, but it's not D&D".

I'd even considered getting it to sort of ease my local 5e hardcore groups into a little more substantive setting...not sure I'd bother.  If it's 4 they won't even consider it.  I'd love it if someone clarified that it was a 3.X variant, as a number of the groups do still live in the Pathfinder ecosystem which is about 3.75.

It is definitely not 4th edition D&D; nor is it 3.5. I'd say it's more of a 3.75 than Pathfinder is (the core of which I'd rate as a minor change to 3.5, as 3.5 was to 3.0).

13th Age does borrow a few elements from 4e that old-school D&Ders freaked out about, like the division between at-will / encounter / daily powers (in the case of 13th Age, for spellcasters only), a resource to heal yourself without relying on a cleric, and trying to give fighters and rogues more interesting combat options (but, alas, I think 4e did better with both -- and also alas, there's not much of that love for barbarians and paladins and rangers).

You can always check out the SRD, if you want to see for yourself: http://www.13thagesrd.com/

[Yelm's Light]

16 hours ago, Richard S. said:

Question: how many people on here even have experience outside of B/AD&D? Considering the majority of posters seem to be RQ grognards of a sort I'm curious as to how many of you actually realize how far D&D has come from its wargaming roots.

That describes me.  It's associated with the hack-n-slash mentality of my youth, which I've progressed far beyond.  Since then I've had experience of a wide range of other games, but haven't had any urge to use a system that doesn't have a consistent and imaginative setting.

[PhilHibbs]

7 minutes ago, Arkat said:

...a resource to heal yourself without relying on a cleric...

...which should not offend Glorantha gamers at all!

[MOB]

1 minute ago, Arkat said:

It is definitely not 4th edition D&D; nor is it 3.5. I'd say it's more of a 3.75 than Pathfinder is (the core of which I'd rate as a minor change to 3.5, as 3.5 was to 3.0).

13th Age the RPG is by the lead designer for D&D 3rd (Jonathan Tweet) and lead designer of D&D 4th (Rob Heinsoo), and brings some DNA from both these rules-sets: it has been described as their "love letter" to D&D, e.g. this Geek & Sundry article, "This Game is a Love Letter to D&D".         

Rob and Jonathan also wrote 13G, which they themselves call their D20 "love letter to Glorantha". Here's a very comprehensive review of 13G, if you haven't seen it already: http://andrewloganmontgomery.blogspot.com/2018/03/13th-age-glorantha-review.html

5 hours ago, styopa said:

Ew, that's too bad.  Most D&D players will tell you "it's ok, but it's not D&D".

Right back at ya 😉

[jajagappa]

19 hours ago, Richard S. said:

Question: how many people on here even have experience outside of B/AD&D?

Mostly current incarnations of Pathfinder and 13th Age - never played the original before discovering RQ.

[Zozotroll]

I play a lot more PF than RQ  Not my choice, RQ is just not that popular with the others n my group.  I hope to change that, but we will see.  We also play cyberpunk, traveller, and rolemaster. Oh and CoC.

 

All off these have strengths and weaknesses, but for me the system is less important than playing with a group I like and have fun with.

[Richard S.]

7 minutes ago, Zozotroll said:

the system is less important than playing with a group I like and have fun with.

Ain't that the truth

[styopa]

21 hours ago, Richard S. said:

Question: how many people on here even have experience outside of B/AD&D? 

Every iteration of D&D from LBBs, the BECMI fork, AD&D and all subsequent editions.  RQ- and Cthulhu variations starting with 2.  A host of other RPGs from the Morrow Project and Aftermath! to Bunnies and Burrows, Paranoia, EoPT, Boot Hill, V&V, VtM, to John Carter WoM.  Basically about 80-90% of the titles listed up through 1990 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_tabletop_role-playing_games .

4 hours ago, MOB said:

Right back at ya 😉

It's a fair hit, but wasn't honestly intended as a slap at 4e.  I thought 4e was perfectly playable (and thought it would have been a far better mechanical underpinning to Neverwinter Online than the silliness they have), just that in my experience *none* of the groups I'm aware of play 4e at all.  No reason to try 13th Age if it was based on 4e, but as that's been cleared up, I'm thinking again of trying it as a gateway drug for some groups.