Jump to content
Richard S.

RQ vs D&D

Recommended Posts

On 8/20/2018 at 10:02 PM, tedopon said:

You guys may want to get all this petty hate speech out of the way now before the new RQ and even 13G drop in wide release...

Nothing at all wrong with having preferences, stating them, sticking to them fanatically and so on, but it's a real turnoff when you keep coming back to that well. I've been a fan of both Runequest and D&D since I was in middle school. Now I'm firmly in middle age. I have always been a "RQ guy," but will play anything. 

The biggest turnoff for me, in any endeavor/group/hobby/occupation/whatever, is the elitist, smarmy jerk who knows better than everyone else. The two gaming communities who are the worst about this, IMO, (ironically) are Glorantha/Runequest fans and pre 3rd edition D&D fans.

Yes. Yes, stop the petty dissing of other games. Especially if you have not played them.

People may enjoy different types of games for what they are. Just to make an example. My first Runequest game was RQ2, I have played a ton of RQ3, I have enjoyed RQ6's detailed combat and now I am raving at RQG's art, character generation and compatibility with my old RQ library.

At the same time I am running an Adventures in Middle Earth game (powered by D&D 5), and a D&D4 game set in Neverwinter - with a lot of urban intrigue (and yes tactical combat). I have played and enjoyed games of 13A and look forward to playing 13G.

One of the authors of 13G who posts in these forums was also one of the lead designers of 4e. Just saying...

Criticism and statement of preference is fine. Casual despise of other people's fun is grating.

Best,

Smiorgan

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Richard S. said:

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

This. I must say, however, that to me in play 13A feels much more like a faster and looser 4e than a variant of 3.5 - which I consider a big plus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Richard S. said:

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

I am not 100% sure that Jonathan would agree. We heard him speak a lot about how he actually preferred the 4E approacht to his own 3E at Chimeriades 2011, and in retrospective it turned out that these were musings due to him being writng 13A at the time, although not being allowed to tell us so. I suspect he himself would regard it more as an evolution of 4E to eliminate the grid than a merge with 3E.

13A is, IMO, 4E "done right". And note that I still prefer 4E to all other editions of D&D. It just lacked real integration with the setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

13A is, IMO, 4E "done right". 

Thing is, lots of gamers think 5E is 4E "done right". 

All this boils down to, really,  is the sage advice that if you can only sell a game by disparaging others, then it just calls into question the self confidence of the people making the disparagement. 

RuneQuest: Glorantha, and 13A:G ought to be good enough to stand up on their own merits

Edited by TrippyHippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TrippyHippy said:

Thing is, lots of gamers think 5E is 4E "done right". 

Uhm, I have heard many more 5E players say 4E was irredeemable. 5E was marketed more as a step back from 4E than a step forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

Thing is, lots of gamers think 5E is 4E "done right". 

All this boils down to, really,  is the sage advice that if you can only sell a game by disparaging others, then it just calls into question the self confidence of the people making the disparagement. 

RuneQuest: Glorantha, and 13A:G ought to be good enough to stand up on their own merits

Dude, I don't think anyone is saying anything else. Some people really enjoy 5e and think it is the best incarnation of D&D to date. Which it might well be. Others who have played 5e are not as impressed and some even wonder if the things that made 5e so popular also made it feel more like a hybrid between a board game and what they understand as a RPG. That's not promoting one game by disparaging others (any more than people who have criticisms of certain elements of RQG are promoting D&D by disparaging RQG) - just people explaining that they have different experiences and different reactions. 

Which is all totally fine. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

Uhm, I have heard many more 5E players say 4E was irredeemable. 5E was marketed more as a step back from 4E than a step forward.

No. The main thrust of 5E was to make a version of the game that was a step away from the very criticism that Jeff above is making - "a hybrid between a board game and what they understand as a RPG" - which is the primary reason cited why people actually stopped buying 4E (which practically required minatures to play,  designated character 'roles' in combat and emphasised set piece combat above all else in the game).

To wit, they designed a 5E game where characters were designed with Backgrounds and generated personality traits, where miniatures and tiles were firmly push aside in favour of 'Theatre of the Mind' gameplay, and where the main supplements produced were Campaign (story) based. 

I've played both editions, and older editions of D&D since the 1980s, by the way. Jeff's comments above, and to a degree your own, are badly out of touch with the main fanbase of the roleplaying hobby today. Frankly, I'm not sure either of you have played a game of 5E. 

Edited by TrippyHippy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 4e was a clever re-work of D&D principles, which managed to get rid of many problems that were detrimental to the game. More specifically, the fact classes shone at different levels (fighters at 1st level, casters at  high levels), and others were just useless (Bard). It also got rid of "trap options" and allowed for easier out-of-the-box concepts : one feat was sufficient to be fully proficient in a skill, and the only requirement to be efficient in a fight was to have a good value in your main ability.

Obviously, though, besides bad buzz and stupid comments such as "D&D is a MMO on table", the game was not suited for all kind of players, and an update was inevitable to make characters less complex, reduce the "boardgamey" elements and make it more easily understandable for all players.

As for myself, I was extremely disappointed by 5e design decisions. Even if high-level casters are nowhere as powerful as their equivalents in older editions were, the game came back to a state where "magic is better", and casters are more versatile than non-casters. And their obsession with reducing numbers led to a situation where 20th level characters are just barely more competent than 1st level ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the early 80s when I joined Edinburgh University's RPG society, it was split in half. Half played AD&D and half-played everything else except AD&D. (No one played D&D.) A small number of people crossed over. The society was even called "The AD&D and Roleplaying Society." I was of course in the non-D&D half and we all had an immense sense of our superiority. After all, AD&D was just roll-playing and 10th level fighter could survive a fall from orbit. How stupid was that!!?!

I like to think (or at least I hope that) I have grown up since then. Admittedly I've only ever got round to playing any version of D&D twice (both times were poor experiences but that was more down to the people than anything else) but would happily play in a game of D&D if it happened that way. I also think that we're going through a golden age in game design for all manner of games, including RPGs, where there is a real focus on what makes a game a good game. What I have seen of D&D 5e is that it tries really hard to be the best possible game of D&D that it can be and it seems to do really well at that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mugen said:

As for myself, I was extremely disappointed by 5e design decisions. Even if high-level casters are nowhere as powerful as their equivalents in older editions were, the game came back to a state where "magic is better", and casters are more versatile than non-casters. And their obsession with reducing numbers led to a situation where 20th level characters are just barely more competent than 1st level ones.

And yet, if you play Adventures in Middle Earth for 5E (which I have been doing so for the last year), there are no spell-casting characters and to say that "20th Level Characters are barely more competant than 1st Level ones" simply underlines to me, again that you are another person that hasn't played it. 

Edited by TrippyHippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

I'm not sure either of you have played a game of 5E. 

I have not, and I never claimed to have. This does not prevent me from knowing what people bitch... er, complained most about 4E. And what they say to have finally found in 5E. Which ie more or less what you said above.

I was absolutely not discussing what the merits of 5E are or are not. This is of no interest to me.The point (mine, not jeff's) is that I find the definition of "4E done right" not suitad to 5E, given that you yourself have written that the defining points of 4E were tossed to make 5E. I have never heard anyone say "5E is 4e done right", I have always heard "4E sucked/4E was not a RPG, while 5E is good". Which is not the same.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

I have not, and I never claimed to have. This does not prevent me from knowing what people bitch... er, complained most about 4E. And what they say to have finally found in 5E. Which ie more or less what you said above.

I was absolutely not discussing what the merits of 5E are or are not. This is of no interest to me.The point (mine, not jeff's) is that I find the definition of "4E done right" not suitad to 5E, given that you yourself have written that the defining points of 4E were tossed to make 5E. I have never heard anyone say "5E is 4e done right", I have always heard "4E sucked/4E was not a RPG, while 5E is good". Which is not the same.

But, by extension, you are criticising what you don't know. And actually, people who have played both 4E and 5E will actually note that most of the stuff in 4E was actually carried over into 5E, but where certain terms and jargon were filtered out, where a massive playtesting had players actually voice their concerns about the direction of the game - and the game as a whole was redesigned accordingly.  That is why I say 5E was 4E done right. 

And to just emphasise the current popularity of D&D since 5E came out: 

https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/03/14/dungeons-and-dragons-2017-sales/

https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/dungeons-dragons-biggest-sales-year-2017

D&D is more popular than it has ever been before. Indeed, the fact that the market leader is actually expanding it's market is what is ultimately giving the hobby - as a whole - the player-base numbers, some of them who never played any RPG before now. It is this factor that make it possible for alternative games like RuneQuest to expand too. Making disparaging comments that fly in face of real gaming experience is not going to sell your game to them. 

 

Edited by TrippyHippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

And yet, if you play Adventures in Middle Earth for 5E (which I have been doing so for the last year), there are no spell-casting characters and to say that "20th Level Characters are barely more competant than 1st Level ones" simply underlines to me, again that you are another person that hasn't played it. 

What I'm saying here is that if you have a character with attribute 8 and not proficient and another with attribute 20, proficient and level 20, one has 20% chance to succeed at a DC 15 task and the second has 85% chance to succeed at the same task. That does not make a big difference considering one is Mr Nobody, and the other is at the pinnacle of human capabilities in a fantasy world. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

But, by extension, you are criticising what you don't know.

No, Trippy. I never criticised 5E and I wrote it very clearly in my comment above, beyond any chance of misunderstanding.

Quote

I was absolutely not discussing what the merits of 5E are or are not. 

I kindly request you to not "strawman" the discussion by attributing to me a criticism I did not make.

Now, I see no problem that you claim 

Quote

That is why I say 5E was 4E done right.

This is your opinion and you have argumented it in detail. It simply does not correspond to the opinions I have heard from the bulk of 5E fans I know. Perhaps we are in contact with different groups of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mugen said:

What I'm saying here is that if you have a character with attribute 8 and not proficient and another with attribute 20, proficient and level 20, one has 20% chance to succeed at a DC 15 task and the second has 85% chance to succeed at the same task. That does not make a big difference considering one is Mr Nobody, and the other is at the pinnacle of human capabilities in a fantasy world. :)

This is feature of 5E, it is called "bounded accuracy". The superiority of stronger monsters and better characters in 5E is represented by them having more HP, not a better chance to hit or to avoid damage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TrippyHippy said:

But, by extension, you are criticising what you don't know. And actually, people who have played both 4E and 5E will actually note that most of the stuff in 4E was actually carried over into 5E, but where certain terms and jargon were filtered out, where a massive playtesting had players actually voice their concerns about the direction of the game - and the game as a whole was redesigned accordingly.  That is why I say 5E was 4E done right.

To me, it just means 5e pleases more people than 4e. But does it make it "right" ?

I think 4e sales figures, as bad as they were for WotC, are far better than RQG ones. Does it mean that 4e were "right" when compared to RQG ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

This is feature of 5E, it is called "bounded accuracy". The superiority of stronger monsters and better characters in 5E is represented by them having more HP, not a better chance to hit or to avoid damage. 

I'm speaking of skills checks here, not combat. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mugen said:

What I'm saying here is that if you have a character with attribute 8 and not proficient and another with attribute 20, proficient and level 20, one has 20% chance to succeed at a DC 15 task and the second has 85% chance to succeed at the same task. That does not make a big difference considering one is Mr Nobody, and the other is at the pinnacle of human capabilities in a fantasy world. :)

A 65% increase is a huge difference, and fails to take into account all the other aspects of a character (spells, bonus Class abilities, feats, magic items) that are accumulated. If one of your abilities garners the effect of an Advantage on a roll (ie roll twice and take the best one), you'd increase your chances accordingly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

No, Trippy. I never criticised 5E and I wrote it very clearly in my comment above, beyond any chance of misunderstanding.

I kindly request you to not "strawman" the discussion by attributing to me a criticism I did not make.

Now, I see no problem that you claim 

This is your opinion and you have argumented it in detail. It simply does not correspond to the opinions I have heard from the bulk of 5E fans I know. Perhaps we are in contact with different groups of people.

To be sure, most of my arguments here are directed at Jeff and MOB for their remarks.

If this the first time you have heard the descriptor of 5E being 4E done right, you can at least say you heard it directly from someone with genuine first hand experience of both. 

Edited by TrippyHippy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Adventures in Middle Earth game (powered by D&D 5)

How does is this playing out? I've read the PHB and the GM Guide for M-E, and I really like them, but I don't think I'm ever gonna get the chance to run the game. I'm curious how it plays on the table, especially their mechanics for traveling.

3 hours ago, Mugen said:

And their obsession with reducing numbers led to a situation where 20th level characters are just barely more competent than 1st level ones.

This is interesting to me, because part of why I find 5E attractive is those reduced numbers. Now, I'm someone who usually plays casters, so I think that affects me less than it would a fighter, but coming from 3.5/PFRPG to 5E's simplification is a slightly strange, lovely experience. Instead of a world where DCs of 30+ are the only ones kind of hard to hit (in main character skills), it's a world where a DC of 30 will almost always be relevant. I'm not entirely convinced by how 5E does AC, but I personally really like the direction they took skills into, even if I personally might not have chosen to generalize them as far as WotC did.

3 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

That is why I say 5E was 4E done right. 

My experience is that 5E feels more like a development grown from the 3.5/PFRPG system than it does grown from 4E. But, I didn't play much 4E (I was one of those players that very quickly disliked it at launch). To my perspective, 5E looks like WotC's reaction to seeing Paizo's Pathfinder, and the upcoming Pathfinder 2 looks like a reaction in kind to 5E. I personally understand the threads of those two games as being in a kind of dialogue with one another; I'm not sure where I would place 4E into my understanding. Perhaps as another branch, which interacts with 13A (which I have zero experience with). For what it's worth though, my experience has been the same as RosenMcStern's--I hear more people describing 5E as a return to 3.5/Pathfinder roots than as a good growth from 4E.

3 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

This is feature of 5E, it is called "bounded accuracy". The superiority of stronger monsters and better characters in 5E is represented by them having more HP, not a better chance to hit or to avoid damage. 

Where does that term come from? (Not trying to challenge, just curious. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Crel said:

Where does that term come from? (Not trying to challenge, just curious. :))

I think that Mearls himself created or used it. They consider it an intentional feature, not a bug. YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Crel said:

This is interesting to me, because part of why I find 5E attractive is those reduced numbers. Now, I'm someone who usually plays casters, so I think that affects me less than it would a fighter, but coming from 3.5/PFRPG to 5E's simplification is a slightly strange, lovely experience. Instead of a world where DCs of 30+ are the only ones kind of hard to hit (in main character skills), it's a world where a DC of 30 will almost always be relevant. I'm not entirely convinced by how 5E does AC, but I personally really like the direction they took skills into, even if I personally might not have chosen to generalize them as far as WotC did.

Let me clarify : I was not against some limitation in numbers inflation.

My problem here is that the maximum bonus (for non-rogues and non-bards) for characters that are very high level and with the maximum possible ability value is just 11 points above a commoner's bonus, and only 0.5 points above a d20 average result. As a consequence, characters that are not top level and don't have the maximum possible ability value have a bonus that is under that threshold.

As a result, the random part of the skill check is, for most characters, more important than their skill.

Another consequence of the system is that Mages have to multi-class into Rogue to get Expertise to reach the highest possible level in Arcana skill (Unless you're using some playtest material which includes feats that grant Expertise in one skill).

Edited by Mugen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

I think that Mearls himself created or used it. They consider it an intentional feature, not a bug. YMMV.

Indeed. You see some of the same ideas in Mythras applied to damage: e.g. magic tends to increase the chance of you doing maximum damage not increase the amount of damage you do. Likewise modifiers tend not to stack, characteristics tend not to increase. Some variants have hard caps on skill values, Mythras by default tends to have a soft cap. It's fairly hard to increase your access to Magic Points. Lots of ways in which Mythras tends to have deliberately created narrower bounds to the game than standard BRP. I actually really like it. I find if the game stays within certain boundaries that success is measured more through the things you have successfully achieved than by, say, having skills over 200% or the ability to routinely inflict 20-30 points of damage on a normal hit once you're all magicked up. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2018 at 5:57 AM, 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'….

  

Just cos it sells more, doesn't make it better. That it sells more in spite of its cruddy flaws reflects its unique position of being the one everyone (even non-gamers) has heard of because it was first, and the fact that it's "accessible", because it offers a vanilla experience. And there are games that started in 2e or maybe earlier, which have moved with at least some of the versions.

Classes and levels are, at the very best, 'training wheels', and, at the worst, dreadful straitjackets that the rest of the rule system's development expends (wastes) 90% of its time trying to undo. Witness: the core concept of the 'prestige class'; the progressive liberalisation of multi-classng rules as official versions are released; the ongoing proliferation of classes each more niche than the next.

I haven't actually played 5e, but having read the rules I think there are a few developments that look welcome, maybe even nearly 'inspired' and a whole swath of changes that are, for me, definite turn-offs, compared to 3.5e. It seems to have taken half a step back towards 2nd, which for me, is a backward and unwelcome step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, womble said:

Classes and levels are, at the very best, 'training wheels', and, at the worst, dreadful straitjackets that the rest of the rule system's development expends (wastes) 90% of its time trying to undo. Witness: the core concept of the 'prestige class'; the progressive liberalisation of multi-classng rules as official versions are released; the ongoing proliferation of classes each more niche than the next.

I agree. The flexibility and richness of RuneQuest 2 character customization options with just skills and battle magic when compared to any D&D version shows how better is the skill-based model in this regard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×