RQ vs D&D

[Narl]

This whole thread accomplishes nothing but turning off folks who may actually like both RuneQuest and D&D. Everyone on these boards already likes RuneQuest or you wouldn't be here. Some of us also like D&D.

I'd suggest the board administrators delete or lock this thread. As the official Chaosium boards, there will likely be an influx of D&D fans who become curious about RuneQuest after seeing it on shelves or available online in the next few weeks. This thread would only turn them off in my opinion, and hurt potential RuneQuest adoption.

[Richard S.]

Just now, Narl said:

This whole thread accomplishes nothing but turning off folks who may actually like both RuneQuest and D&D. Everyone on these boards already likes RuneQuest or you wouldn't be here. Some of us also like D&D.

I'd suggest the board administrators delete or lock this thread. As the official Chaosium boards, there will likely be an influx of D&D fans who become curious about RuneQuest after seeing it on shelves or available online in the next few weeks. This thread would only turn them off in my opinion, and hurt potential RuneQuest adoption.

Eh, there've been worse threads. Maybe it was a mistake for me to make this but someone else was probably going to do it sometime anyways.

[Narl]

Just now, Richard S. said:

Eh, there've been worse threads. Maybe it was a mistake for me to make this but someone else was probably going to do it sometime anyways.

I don't blame you at all for starting it. It would be useful for folks new to RuneQuest to understand the actual differences, just without the misinformation and personal biases.

[tedopon]

46 minutes ago, Narl said:

This whole thread accomplishes nothing but turning off folks who may actually like both RuneQuest and D&D. Everyone on these boards already likes RuneQuest or you wouldn't be here. Some of us also like D&D.

I'd suggest the board administrators delete or lock this thread. As the official Chaosium boards, there will likely be an influx of D&D fans who become curious about RuneQuest after seeing it on shelves or available online in the next few weeks. This thread would only turn them off in my opinion, and hurt potential RuneQuest adoption.

I'm gonna roll my eyes here and agree with everything that Narl says...except probably the thread lock request.

I say let us all get the trash talk out now and try and use our big boy & big girl manners in the coming days.

EDIT: forgot to mention "big girls," fixed

Edited August 22, 2018 by tedopon

[Atgxtg]

50 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

Eh, there've been worse threads. Maybe it was a mistake for me to make this but someone else was probably going to do it sometime anyways.

It's not a bad idea. It's just that something like this usually ends up with people discussing why they prefer one system to the other and blurring fact (ie.e RQ has fixed hit points while D&D has increasing hit points) with opinion (i.e. fixed or increasing hit points suck!). It's hard through since discussing the merits and drawbacks of one game mechanic to another (i.e. fixed hit points tend to make combat more gritty and opponents are always a threat, while increasing hit points make combat more cinematic and allow the players to take more risks and get away with it) will involve some level of personal preference.

 

[d(sqrt(-1))]

8 hours 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.

Yes, imagine how bad it would be if one always succeeded 5% of the time and failed regardless of skill 5% of the time - the horror!

 

[d(sqrt(-1))]

3 hours 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 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.

 

Oh no - after 42 years of role-playing I'm still on training wheels! Farewell cruel world...

[tedopon]

7 minutes ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

 

Oh no - after 42 years of role-playing I'm still on training wheels! Farewell cruel world...

I got a jingle bell and streamers for mine! Thinking about taping a card on my fork so it will click my spokes.

[womble]

9 minutes ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

 

Oh no - after 42 years of role-playing I'm still on training wheels! Farewell cruel world...

Nah. You're wrestling with the dreadful straitjacket. Or you've accepted the fact that you need catalogue after catalogue of straitjackets to find one that's comfy for a particular game.

 

[styopa]

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

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

It's considered a feature mainly because the (linear) progressions of 3.X resulted in ridiculous numbers like "I'm rolling a d20 with +43".

Crunching that down to SOME plusses but great swathes of them obviated by advantage/disadvantage (which is a GREAT mechanic, btw) was a strong progression from 3.x to 5e.

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

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).

Your first point is absolutely correct, and a deliberate design decision.

Your second point ironically may be partly a result of RQ.  Tweet, Cook, and Williams all were quite familiar with (and iirc Tweet was a big fan of) RQ.  Again IIRC it was him who really implemented the novelty of skills generally in D&D3, and it's not unlikely that the 'portability' of classes - the dipping into classes for 'packets' of abilities' - was a deliberate way to get out of the straitjacket of D&D class system.

3 hours ago, womble said:

Just cos it sells more, doesn't make it better.

Nor, to be clear, does it make it ipso facto worse, either.  I don't think you'll have much debate here that RQ is a fundamentally better system here, of course.  ENWorld?  Maybe.  Ultimately it's a subjective call, which is why debating them generally (as opposed to specific mechanics) is futile.

There are some features of 5e I like very much but on the whole no, it's not a better game for how I like to play RPGs.  Then again, how I like RPGs (I can pretty much guarantee) is likewise not what others on this board would agree is fun, either.

 

[GamingGlen]

9 hours 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. 

No, he's right.  I've been playing 5E for over 2 years.  Your character is not much better, bonus wise, at 20th level than at 1st.  The proficiency bonus goes from +2 to +6,  that is not a big change in 19 levels.   And unless you spend one of the few feats you get, most of the skills will have the same bonus at 20th level as they had at level 1.  

At first I liked 5E, and I still like some changes such as variable spells, but I have come to dislike the nerfing of many spells.  Haste has been turned into something I will never cast.  I see too many concentration spells (including Haste).  

The lack of skill progression in 5E is the biggest turn off for me.  Which I find odd, since I love Traveller which has very little skill progression, but then Traveller is not a zero-to-hero RPG.

[TrippyHippy]

7 hours ago, GamingGlen said:

No, he's right.  I've been playing 5E for over 2 years.  Your character is not much better, bonus wise, at 20th level than at 1st.  The proficiency bonus goes from +2 to +6,  that is not a big change in 19 levels.   And unless you spend one of the few feats you get, most of the skills will have the same bonus at 20th level as they had at level 1.  

At first I liked 5E, and I still like some changes such as variable spells, but I have come to dislike the nerfing of many spells.  Haste has been turned into something I will never cast.  I see too many concentration spells (including Haste).  

The lack of skill progression in 5E is the biggest turn off for me.  Which I find odd, since I love Traveller which has very little skill progression, but then Traveller is not a zero-to-hero RPG.

The proficiency goes up from from +2 to +6. So too, do the Ability Scores, and the bonuses you accrue from there (in practice, from a -1 to a +5 range), and as I say it doesn't take into account all the myriad of other features you gain (like escalating HP, magic, class abilities, feats) along the way. If your a Rogue Character, you also get Expertise which doubles your proficiency score against selected skills. In effect, a 20th Level Rogue might have a +17 (+6 x2 = +12 +5 = +17) to roll against certain skills. 

And, like I say, a potential 20%-85% chance of success increase is still pretty huge. If by the time you get to 20th level, you have also picked up a few magic items, or some other ability bonus, then the overall bonuses accumulate quite a lot. If they increased more than this, they wouldn't have any challenges left in play unless you just keep increasing target numbers (as in previous editions). That was why they made the deliberate design choice to keep the various DCs and ACs on a tighter scale, with less meaningless escalation. 

With regard to the other points, and indeed the crux of this whole thread - I don't just play D&D exclusively, and there is nothing wrong in comparing D&D5E with RuneQuest, in terms of strengths and weaknesses, or any other game for that matter. I totally agree that, for the most part, D&D is just vanilla fantasy (although AiME was quite distinctive in feel, largely because characters could not rely on magic at all - an Orc is actually quite lethal in that game). I could put together a whole bunch of reasons why RuneQuest would be a more satisfying game to play, certainly in long term campaigns. However, the notion of 'D&D not being a real rpg' is really not an edifying or accurate comment at all - and it's a turn off from the people who say it rather than the other way round.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by TrippyHippy

[Zozotroll]

Traveller has a different version of increase. You go from a Las rifle to an FGMP-15, and from a far trader to a gazelle.  Perhaps[s you dont hit much more often but people notice a lot more. 

[Zozotroll]

I play a lot of things.  If Jeff doesnt think pathfinder is a real RPG, I lose no sleep, I feel no anger.  Just not that big of a deal that someone does not agree with me.  Happens all the time.

 

Stay away from miniature wargame boards, or history forums, the comments there will shatter your brains.

[TrippyHippy]

11 hours ago, Zozotroll said:

I play a lot of things.  If Jeff doesnt think pathfinder is a real RPG, I lose no sleep, I feel no anger.  Just not that big of a deal that someone does not agree with me.  Happens all the time.

Doesn't make the statement any more correct though. Pathfinder is a real RPG. 

If people really wanted to point out the strengths of RuneQuest above D&D, you'd point to the organic nature of character development as opposed to Class and Levels, the greater verisimilitude of the combat, authenticity of the magic and spiritual depth of the setting. You could also claim that the art direction is a bit more consistent in style and tone too. 

All these things are reasonable arguments to say - but arguing that a roleplaying game isn't a roleplaying game is childish and untrue.  

Edited August 23, 2018 by TrippyHippy

[TrippyHippy]

3 hours ago, Zozotroll said:

Traveller has a different version of increase. You go from a Las rifle to an FGMP-15, and from a far trader to a gazelle.  Perhaps[s you dont hit much more often but people notice a lot more. 

Exactly right about Traveller. 

[GamingGlen]

5 hours ago, Zozotroll said:

Traveller has a different version of increase. You go from a Las rifle to an FGMP-15, and from a far trader to a gazelle.  Perhaps[s you dont hit much more often but people notice a lot more. 

We're talking about character development and mechanics of play, not gear.  Fantasy RPGs have mundane to artifacts as well.

[GamingGlen]

3 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

Doesn't make the statement any more correct though. Pathfinder is a real RPG. 

If people really wanted to point out the strengths of RuneQuest above D&D, you'd point to the organic nature of character development as opposed to Class and Levels, the greater visimilitude of the combat, authenticity of the magic and spiritual depth of the setting. You could also claim that the art direction is a bit more consistent in style and tone too. 

All these things are reasonable arguments to say - but arguing that a roleplaying game isn't a roleplaying game is childish and untrue.  

"authenticity of the magic"?    hahahaha.. magic is made up, no matter the system.  I never cared much for the way D&D did magic, but it was in black and white, making it easy to use.  RQ magic varied, the battle magic/spirit/folk/common magic system was easy to use, but rune magic got more complicated, and sorcery required reading a technical, er, tome of arcana on how to use it.  I like the variability of RQ sorcery, something I wish I could do in D&D (e.g., vary the range and AoE of Fireball).

[TrippyHippy]

3 minutes ago, GamingGlen said:

We're talking about character development and mechanics of play, not gear.  Fantasy RPGs have mundane to artifacts as well.

Actually, when talking about D&D, you are talking about character improvement. Character development is largely incidental to the process - a character doesn’t need to develop in any personal growth or emotional sense, while XP itself is really just a currency to trade in for more HP, more spells, more abilities and so on. 

In Traveller, the mechanical enhancements are largely bought through better technology and the currency to buy them with is....well... Credits. 

[TrippyHippy]

2 minutes ago, GamingGlen said:

"authenticity of the magic"?    hahahaha.. magic is made up, no matter the system.  I never cared much for the way D&D did magic, but it was in black and white, making it easy to use.  RQ magic varied, the battle magic/spirit/folk/common magic system was easy to use, but rune magic got more complicated, and sorcery required reading a technical, er, tome of arcana on how to use it.  I like the variability of RQ sorcery, something I wish I could do in D&D (e.g., vary the range and AoE of Fireball).

Nope. Beliefs in magic are real, in a historical, mythical, paradigm sense - whether or not they are real in a physical reality sense. Runequest has a better understanding of that. 

[womble]

Verisimilitude/internal consistency/integration with the world. They all act together to make game magic feel more authentic. Even more so when some of the practices described in the 'fluff' (which isn't really fluff in RQ, it's integral to the setting) actually relate to practices thought to be magical by their real world practitioners. Not sure there are many Vancian mages in the weird world out there, or priests who pray for specific spells that can be different every day to suit their expected needs.

Glen's point about the gear getting better in DnD too is quite correct. It's built into the rules. A nth level character is assumed to have a certain level of magical panoply, and the Challenge Ratings don't work without that. In 3.5ed, there's even a table to tell you how much that stuff would be worth at standard MI prices. I can't think of a way you can progress in Traveller that isn't open to progression in DnD. Social is handled similarly in both (except that Traveller has a number you can link to it).

 

 

[Mugen]

12 hours ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

Yes, imagine how bad it would be if one always succeeded 5% of the time and failed regardless of skill 5% of the time - the horror!

Fact is, D&D5 doesn't have this kind of mechanism. If DC is superior by more than 20 points to your skill bonus, you can't succeed, and if it is inferior or equal to your bonus +1, you can't fail. Problem is you need to be a rogue or a bard if you want your skills to be high enough that you won't bother rolling for an "average" task.

You're a wizard whose magic comes from reading old tomes full of arcane theories ? Too bad your Dex is not good enough to multi-class rogue, you will never be good enough in your field to be sure to answer questions your farmer neighbour has a chance to know.

And it's even worse for clerics and religious knowledge, as it's not likely their Int will ever reach 20.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Mugen

[Mugen]

12 hours ago, styopa said:

Your second point ironically may be partly a result of RQ.  Tweet, Cook, and Williams all were quite familiar with (and iirc Tweet was a big fan of) RQ.  Again IIRC it was him who really implemented the novelty of skills generally in D&D3, and it's not unlikely that the 'portability' of classes - the dipping into classes for 'packets' of abilities' - was a deliberate way to get out of the straitjacket of D&D class system.

In D&D3, as flawed as it was, a wizard or a cleric didn't need to multi-class into rogue to maximize their Arcana skill. or religious knowledge.

[soltakss]

For many years, RQ fans have said that RQ suits Glorantha better than D&D because Classes and Levels don't work in Glorantha. Then 13th Age Glorantha came along and showed that Classes and Levels do work in Glorantha. I am convinced by Classes, but not so much about Levels.

So, now that D&D sort-of works in Glorantha, there is an argument about which flavour of D&D works best. That is an argument that nobody will win.

I played AD&D back in the day and bought 3e. I thought that 3e was D&D with a lot of things from RQ, for example different spells for different gods for clerics, which matched the Gloranthan experience. I freely admit that I haven't seen, and know nothing about, 4e or 5e, except that different people say that each edition is the work of the devil and is nothing like D&D "should be".

People have different preferences. People will prefer one edition over another. That's life. RQ has goine through more versions than D&D and there are passionate people for each version.

Not sure what the point of debating different versions of D&D here is, though.

[RosenMcStern]

21 minutes ago, soltakss said:

I thought that 3e was D&D with a lot of things from RQ

So does its author think.

Quote

Not sure what the point of debating different versions of D&D here is, though.

It is not an RPG  forum if you do not flame.

And now, let's flame about what you can be call an RPG forum instead of what you can call an RPG.