Jump to content
Richard S.

RQ vs D&D

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, drablak said:

RQG seems like a great system and I see a lot of people are passionate about it. I just can't wrap my head around it at the moment.

 

For those of us who have been playing RQ for decades the base resolution mechanisms and when to use them (combat vs skills vs the Resistance Table etc) are so ingrained they have become intuitive.  I'm sure it is easy to not appreciate how complex and overwhelming it can be to new people.

 

I don't know what play testing was done so hopefully this suggestion was something they did, but it seems to me that an important play testing exercise is to get a group of people who have never played RQ before.  Get them to read the manual and play a few games totally without any interaction with anyone who knows RQ.  Then watch them play and see where their interpretation deviates from what the authors expected.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the D100 is the iconic random generator for RuneQuest and BRP, dividing percentiles by 5, using a D20 and rerolling on a 1 (or if you use the Pendragon rule "high is good", rerolling on rolling your target number) gives you the same probabilities for criticals or fumbles as does the D100. If the re-roll for a crit is at the target number or below, you have a critical success. If the re-roll for the fumble is above the target number, it is a fumble. No maths involved.

Dividing by five for specials should be manageable for even marginally numerate players. Alternatively, if you rolled 1-4, reroll under your target number to get a special. Skills above 100% (or above 20) widen that re-roll range. A roll of 1 (or the target number) is always a crit, a roll of 2 (or target number minus one) is rerolled against target number minus 20. Next to no maths involved.

As crits and fumbles have a one in ten probability to crop up, you'd roll less dice than for a typical RQ melee round, or at worst just as many. Drakar och Demoner demonstrated that rolling a D20 rather than a D100 doesn't remove the BRP DNA from the game.

When I tutor math, I usually tell my pupils that percentiles aren't a new way of calculating things, and that they are best dealt with by converting to decimal fractions, and if need be, converting back after you're done with the calculations. Too many people think they understand percentiles but really don't. (I've seen lines from a medicine phd thesis manuscript "since we had less than 100 tests, we couldn't give the results in percentiles" - slightly paraphrased, and yuck.)

So: if you have D&D players refusing to roll percentiles, just use D20 for your skill rolls. You lose a lot of the fine grading with just 1 point skill increase, but then that was a major slowing factor for character progression in the transition from RQ2 to RQ3.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I don't know what play testing was done so hopefully this suggestion was something they did, but it seems to me that an important play testing exercise is to get a group of people who have never played RQ before.

As I recall from discussions, this was Jeff's preferred/primary approach to RQG playtesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mechashef said:

For those of us who have been playing RQ for decades the base resolution mechanisms and when to use them (combat vs skills vs the Resistance Table etc) are so ingrained they have become intuitive.  I'm sure it is easy to not appreciate how complex and overwhelming it can be to new people.

I don't know what play testing was done so hopefully this suggestion was something they did, but it seems to me that an important play testing exercise is to get a group of people who have never played RQ before.  Get them to read the manual and play a few games totally without any interaction with anyone who knows RQ.  Then watch them play and see where their interpretation deviates from what the authors expected.

I believe the Design Notes blog stated that both newbies and grognards were explicitly included in playtest.  They wanted to know what the newbies thought, and they wanted to know what the long-term fans thought.  I don't know whether or not they ever explicitly had any author/dev types sit in on a playtest-group of all-newbies to check on whether they had gone bonkers...

"Resistance Table, or not?" was one of the explicit considerations, and the playtest consensus was apparently strongly in favor of the RT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, g33k said:

"Resistance Table, or not?" was one of the explicit considerations, and the playtest consensus was apparently strongly in favor of the RT.

I don't mind the resistance table at all, fwiw. It's easily converted in a formulae that I can do in my head without a problem. But (one example) I don't see (yet) a pattern in the attack & parry table that I can get in my head. Another thing I have trouble with is the SR. They're not impulses I'm told, yet they sure feel like they are. And phase 2. Etc.

Share this post


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

As I recall from discussions, this was Jeff's preferred/primary approach to RQG playtesting.

I'd only amend that for a set of rules, I believe it's important to have at least one group of playtesters LOOKING for ways to break them.  I'm not saying that they need to be airtight, and likely my POV is much informed by my wargaming history, but it's those people who are going to (hopefully) find exploits, breakpoints, and OP interpretations that likely can be fixed with a relatively simple errata before publishing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I'd only amend that for a set of rules, I believe it's important to have at least one group of playtesters LOOKING for ways to break them.  I'm not saying that they need to be airtight, and likely my POV is much informed by my wargaming history, but it's those people who are going to (hopefully) find exploits, breakpoints, and OP interpretations that likely can be fixed with a relatively simple errata before publishing.

Definitely YES! Whenever I work up a new rule for something I try to break it and get some others to try as well. It' much better to find this stuff out early and fix it than have to do damage control six months or a year down the road. A "rigorous" playtest can also help to reveal the severity of any problems, or any ambiguities in the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 hours ago, Mechashef said:

The resolution system for D&D is simpler and more unified, and in hindsight some of the old mechanisms from RQ1/2/3 should have been dropped in the new version but I'm absolutely sure I would have complained bitterly if they had done so.

I am currently GMing D&D 5e campaign, and just about to start RGQ one. We ended old Runequest campaign last year.  From my point of view, D&D 5e starts with unified and easy simple mechanics. But, when characters advance past 5th level, they all start to have whole lot of special feats, skills etc. and game complexity skyrockets. At higher levels, Runequest is much more simple to run .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goingdown said:

 

... But, when characters advance past 5th level, they all start to have whole lot of special feats, skills etc. and game complexity skyrockets. At higher levels, Runequest is much more simple to run .

I prefer RQ /vastly/ over D&D.

Nevertheless honesty compels me to note that the "higher levels" of RQ -- i.e. conducting Heroquests, coming back with HQ rewards -- is something we haven't yet seen.  But I expect that too to have lots of "special" stuff... Complexity TBD.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, drablak said:

Another thing I have trouble with is the SR. They're not impulses I'm told, yet they sure feel like they are. And phase 2. Etc.

The way I explain RQG melee combat to myself is like this:

RQ considers that character engaged in melee are attacking and defending for the whole Melee Round (unless they employ a different strategy like Disengaging). During the Melee Round, they will roll to see if their "attack" succeeds and that attack roll is the abstraction of a full round of stabs, slashes, trusts, pokes, feints, footwork and so on (however the player wants to describe it). If the roll is successful, the resulting damage can be described as the cause of one powerful swing or a rapid succession of stabs (again depending on how the player wants to describe it). An Attack is the abstraction of a full attack sequence conducted against one foe over the whole duration of the Melee Round and until they become very proficient in combat, they will only be able to offensively focus on one opponent during a Melee Round.

Once they have become experts, they can offensively focus on more than one opponent by Splitting their Attacks. A Split Attacks is an abstraction of an adventurer dividing their attention between multiple enemies to perform multiple Attack sequences concurrently over the whole duration of the Melee Round.

Strike Ranks are simply a measure, another abstraction, of how early a character will get a good striking opportunity and therefore potentially neutralize his opponent before they can get their own best striking opportunity. Depending on what you do in the MR (Move, Aimed Blows, Draw a Weapon, etc...) that opportunity will be delayed. In a sense, they are simply a mechanism to structure which player will roll the bones before the others.

In short:

1) an Attack is the abstraction of an Attack Sequence conducted against one foe over the whole duration of the Melee Round.

1a) When your combat skill is good enough, you can lauch a second Attack Sequence in order to attack a different opponent by Splitting your Attack.

2) the Strike Rank is the abstraction of the opportunity to neutralize the opponent before he neutralises you. You have only one opportunity per weapon.   

2a) If you fight with a weapon in each hands, you can create a second opportunity, one per weapon, against the same enemy as part of a the same Attack sequence. If you want to use one or both weapons against another opponent, you need to Split your Attack (as per 1a).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

 

Yep, I know all that.

However, how many tables, references, screens etc does one need to look up in order to figure out the full effects of said combat?

While D&D has 1 THACO roll basically, the sheer number of adjustments (add a few here, remove a few there) and the reasons for them can be staggering (conditional effect to add + to hit 😛).  In RQ, sure you have more base  rolls, but very rarely will you need to do much adjusting. What there is is pretty simple - -40% to hit because X, type thing.

Wizard and cleric - which spells have you prepared today, and have you cast them yet? Vs - well, I sacrificed 2 RP last holy day, and the local priest taught me Bladesharp 4. I have 15 MPs.

Also, while I get that character creation in RQ has a few more steps, after that, everything is extremely straightforward. I don't need to consult any books (and do you have the right one for your specialist class on hand?) Obviously for D&D, there's table after table after table.

 

So, for my money, I think D&D is a lot more complicated. As evidenced by the number of books that should be purchased (calling them "supplements", but are needed to get away from base classes). Sure, RQ has a few books out there as well, but those tend to be modules. Once you've got the first couple (and, with RQG, you really only want the main book, bestiary, and soon to be GoG

It's probably time for you to try Rolemaster!  Rolemaster has a very exciting combat system - but there are a few extra charts and tables to contend with.  The combat system also uses d100s, but the dice explode.  The critical hits are also quite realistic, with a variety of different damage types based on the weapon used.  Hits are also vs. a particular body part, making the combat more realistic and challenging.  Wounds can bleed, and can affect your character's ability to function and fight properly (but, of course, opponents are vulnerable to the same).  You might really like it!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, styopa said:

...and this is perfectly fine if it works for your group.  This is, in essence, the D&D method as IIRC there's functionally no difference between an arrow, an axe, or a mace in what it does to the target, they all do 1d8 hp.

I know IRL if someone said 'grab a melee weapon from the rack you need to get out there and fight' I'd certainly think pretty hard about which one I picked.  Personally, I *want* a character's choice of weapon to be a similarly meaningful, informed tactical choice. 

Thus that's the direction my houserules have gone (and in fact, simulationist that I am, ideally I'd LIKE to have a system that recognizes more detail in that direction - ie chainmail is nearly worthless against a mace, and almost worthless against arrows - but I've come to recognize that it's RQ-the-adventure-game not RQ-the-combat-simulation and that pragmatically that's just not possible outside of a computer game and still be PLAYABLE).

That is a great argument for developing TTRPGs software/app playing aids to support combat, and other complex forms of bookkeeping!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I disagree. Firstly, one simple GM screen takes all of that and puts in in one place if needed.

However, the "ability results" is simple maths (and a quick look up if that math is too bothersome or not written down). The A&P and A&D are pretty simple formulae, and there's not really a need to look it up every time.

Hit location table - is the same for all humanoids. Other non-humanoid creatures, sure...

Resistance table is simple maths, so you only use the table when you CBF.

Strike ranks... annoying, but not exactly hard. Not incredibly different to Initiative (depending on how you play it). Granted, the realism of the combat does mean keeping a closer eye on SRs than on Initiative.

Now, as I said above, compare all of that with a spell book, or class abilities... you've just mentioned 7 mechanics (not including Specials). These are always the same tables (except HL). How many tables, pages, abilities, spell descriptions, etc do you need handy for D&D?

 

 

Yeah, we did that too. I agree that's a bit annoying, but it is simulationist... ever looked at Harnmaster??? 😛

Oooo... I had friends who had a campaign in the world of Harn.... is Harnmaster related to that???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I totally get what you're saying, Not sure about the "multiple copies of rulebooks" though... they ain't cheap! And having everyone bring their own (if they did) would be (en)cumbersome 😛

Character generation should only be 1 session in RQ. In D&D, it's basically every level up... (yes, I'm exaggerating... but the idea of needing the tables, feats, class abilities, AND multi-classing, and you should get what I mean).

Well, I think that is part of the charm of D&D.  Everyone is eager to get to that next level so that they can go through that whole "shopping experience" of leveling up.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, styopa said:

(shrug) I'm not sure of your point?  I mean, it's clear you DON'T think RQ is more complicated and are arguing against the 'common perception' that it is.  OK.  In fact there are two levels to this discussion and you're switching between them willy-nilly.  The two points you're arguing against are:

1) RQ is generally perceived to be more complicated than D&D (which is your purported point) - well this isn't based on facts, is it?  This is just perception.  The vast, vast bulk of people learned RPGs as D&D so anything not D&D/d20 is "more complicated".  FATE seems "more complicated" when it mechanically absolutely isn't.  Not to mention each game has a lengthy history, so are we comparing AD&D to RQG?  Or 5e to RQ3?  Much of that isn't even necessarily a mechanics discussion; in my experience D&D games tend to be often in fairly simplistic worlds full of archetypes and tropes* (cf the whole idea of alignment and absolute morality making everything simple - "oh, you're verifiably evil? then I can kill you without remorse") while Glorantha has always reveled in it's relativism, complexity, rather ...er...'dynamic'... fluctuating canon.  Add that to what I've already explained is an inherently more complex combat system, and the perception is easily explained.  (While I agree with your caveats about digging out modifiers etc PERCEPTION isn't based on deep understanding.  Ask someone the elevator-pitch version of D&D combat and it's 'roll to hit, if you hit, you do damage.'.  Ask any RQ devotee to explain melee combat and I guarantee you it's going to take more than 9 words.)

*this is a broad brush, of course.  Nothing inherently in D&D requires simplistic settings (again, setting aside the rationalized ideas of 'classes' and 'alignments' which are much more flexible concepts in 5e now anyway) and there have been some fabulously interesting and creative ones.

2) RQ is more complicated than D&D: (this is where you're actually arguing) in this point, I'm probably 80% in agreement with you, and not further only because I don't care enough to get down into the weeds of details, I mean, what value is there in that?  Are we counting the number of times people have to look shit up in the books?  Are we counting the number of dice rolls each combat takes?  Why bother?

I totally agree about the D&D alignment thing.  I mean, that is probably why there is not only a Monster Manual, but additional monster supplements as well.  Players need fodder to plow through in order to level.  On the other hand, Chaosium games are a bit more spare with the hit points, and characters tend to be a little more careful about engaging in combat; hence, relationships to other beings become more substantial than just objects to be destroyed in order to level up.  So, consequently, "investigation," and other roleplaying options tend to be used more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mechashef said:

This may demonstrate why RQ is considered to be more complex than D&D.  It is part of a document I wrote for my players and doesn't include how to actually use Augments (that is another document).  I wrote it to help my players get an understanding on how various  "actions" were handled as they were frequently getting confused.

RuneQuest Resolution Mechanisms

 

 

 

 

 

General Rules (P141)

 

Skills, Runes, Passions etc are all Abilities

 

1.      Determine the appropriate Ability

 

2.      Obtain the adventurer's normal chance of success

 

3.      Apply any modifiers such as:

 

a.      Environmental (i.e. darkness)

 

b.      Magic (i.e. bladesharp)

 

c.       Opponents skill over 100%

 

d.      Augments by other Abilities

 

4.      Roll against the Abilities modified chance of success

 

5.      Determine the level of success (Critical, Special, Success, Fail or Fumble)

 

6.      Apply the results of the Ability use

 

 

 

 

 

Weapon Combat       (P197)

 

1.      Attacker rolls against their attack skill (P197)

 

2.      Defenders attempting to dodge roll against their dodge skill (P201)

 

3.      If attack is not dodged, attacker rolls damage (P203)

 

4.      Defenders attempting to parry rolls against their parry skill (P197)

 

5.      Damage is reduced by the results of the parry

 

6.      Location of the hit is rolled

 

7.      Damage is reduced by any armour or magic

 

8.      Damage is applied to defender

 

 

 

 

 

Skill Use                      (P163)

 

1.      Roll against the adventurer's skill

 

2.      Apply the results of the skill use

 

 

 

 

 

Opposed Rolls             (P142)

 

These are not used to resolve combat

 

1.      Both participants roll against their appropriate skills

 

2.      The best level of result wins (i.e. a special beats a critical)

 

o   Winner & Loser = Winner succeeds and applies the skill result

 

o   Both same level (non-critical) = Situation temporally unresolved

 

o   Both same level (critical) = Both succeed and apply the skill result

 

o   Both fail = Neither achieve their goal

 

 

 

 

 

Characteristic Roll     (P141)

 

1.      Determine the Difficulty Factor (X 5 for easy to X 0.5 for nearly impossible)

 

2.      Multiply the appropriate characteristic (such as DEX) by the Difficulty Factor

 

3.      Roll against the resulting number

 

4.      The results of the roll are applied

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resistance Roll           (P145)

 

Used for pitting one characteristic against another (Such as POW vs POW or STR vs SIZ)

 

·         Determine the appropriate characteristics

 

·         Determine the chance of success using the table on P147

 

·         The active participant rolls against this chance of success

 

·         The results of the roll are applied

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spell Attack                (P244)

 

1.      Roll against the attacker's chance of success with the spell

 

a.      Spirit = POW X 5

 

b.      Rune = Chance with best Rune required by the spell

 

c.       Sorcery = Skill with the appropriate spell

 

2.      Apply any countermagic type spells the defender has in effect

 

3.      Use the Resistance Roll mechanism pitting POW vs POW

 

4.      Roll for effected location if appropriate

 

5.      Apply the effects of the spell

 

 

 

 

 

Spirit Combat             (P368)

 

Uses the Opposed Rolls mechanism with the Spirit Combat skill

 

Spirit Combat Damage is applied to:

 

·         The loser, if there is a winner and a loser

 

·         Both participants, if both achieve a critical

 

But I think that people are missing out  and missing the point if they don't look at these stages as opportunity to roleplay through the combat in a descriptive way.  From what I recall, Palladium had more interactive choices for the player and the opponent through a similar sequence of combat events.  I rather liked that better because it lent to roleplaying through the combat.  But yeah... if the combat is not roleplayed - then what is the point of the additional steps...???

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, drablak said:

I agree totally that more complex isn't a bad thing. For example I've played Hackmaster, and had no problem with it, and if there's a complex system it's Hackmaster! I've also played many games systems over the years (including Harnmaster that someone else mentioned in this thread). The system I played the most all these years is AD&D, which most agree was the most complex version of D&D.

RQG seems like a great system and I see a lot of people are passionate about it. I just can't wrap my head around it at the moment.

Are you referring to Rolemaster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, styopa said:

(shrug) I'm not sure of your point?  I mean, it's clear you DON'T think RQ is more complicated and are arguing against the 'common perception' that it is.  OK.  In fact there are two levels to this discussion and you're switching between them willy-nilly.  The two points you're arguing against are:

1) RQ is generally perceived to be more complicated than D&D (which is your purported point) - well this isn't based on facts, is it?  This is just perception.  The vast, vast bulk of people learned RPGs as D&D so anything not D&D/d20 is "more complicated".  FATE seems "more complicated" when it mechanically absolutely isn't.  Not to mention each game has a lengthy history, so are we comparing AD&D to RQG?  Or 5e to RQ3?  Much of that isn't even necessarily a mechanics discussion; in my experience D&D games tend to be often in fairly simplistic worlds full of archetypes and tropes* (cf the whole idea of alignment and absolute morality making everything simple - "oh, you're verifiably evil? then I can kill you without remorse") while Glorantha has always reveled in it's relativism, complexity, rather ...er...'dynamic'... fluctuating canon.  Add that to what I've already explained is an inherently more complex combat system, and the perception is easily explained.  (While I agree with your caveats about digging out modifiers etc PERCEPTION isn't based on deep understanding.  Ask someone the elevator-pitch version of D&D combat and it's 'roll to hit, if you hit, you do damage.'.  Ask any RQ devotee to explain melee combat and I guarantee you it's going to take more than 9 words.)

*this is a broad brush, of course.  Nothing inherently in D&D requires simplistic settings (again, setting aside the rationalized ideas of 'classes' and 'alignments' which are much more flexible concepts in 5e now anyway) and there have been some fabulously interesting and creative ones.

2) RQ is more complicated than D&D: (this is where you're actually arguing) in this point, I'm probably 80% in agreement with you, and not further only because I don't care enough to get down into the weeds of details, I mean, what value is there in that?  Are we counting the number of times people have to look shit up in the books?  Are we counting the number of dice rolls each combat takes?  Why bother?

Yep - fair criticisms/comments!

(note, I haven't read through the other 10 posts in response after yours here...) One point I want to look at is the "'roll to hit, if you hit, you do damage" serious under-estimation of what it takes. Sure, once you've figured out that number, that's all you do (which is basically the same as any game). It's what it takes to work out what that number will be that takes a lot more calculation etc. (as I think you were acknowledging in your part 2). One of the features of RQ/BRP is the grittier combat, and thus the meatier combat rolls mechanic.

In response to your second - yes, I'm certainly counting the number of times you have to look up books, rules, etc. The claim, was that RQ is more complicated (and the perception that it is too). Is there a point in arguing this on this forum? Unlikely... unless there really are some people here who believe it (and, I have my doubts that there are...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Mail is  quite effective  against arrows, if it's made correctly and worn over a gambeson. Most modern simulations of longbow vs. mail have been flawed. They tend to use the wrong type of mail, leave out the padding, don't provide and "give" to the target, use the wrong bow (most "longbows" today are underpowered), wrong arrows (too thin and light) and wrong arrowheads. 

 

But the general thought among historians these days is that mail is quite effective against arrows, and that the dominance of the longbow is more of as myth. The British victory at Crecy and Argincourt were more due to battlefield conditions and bad tactics by the French that due to the ineffectiveness of mail.

Very interesting to know! Thanks for the info!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Most of the D&Ders I've game with had their own copy of the PHB and some other rulebooks. Most of the people I  play any other RPG with do not. Yes the books cost money, but extra books not only mean another copy of the rules available to look something up, without stopping play or taking the GM's copy, but it also means more people have read that book and so know more about the game. 

 

The thing is with seasoned players chargen can be done in 15-20 minutes. With novices it can take a lot longer. Leveling up tends to be very fast, as most players already know what they want to pick for feats and other abilities, since they got a plan for their future development. This is also where a second book helps because you can look up the new abilities for one character while still working on another. In play I found that a second copy of the RQ rules cut chargen time for a group of 4-6 players in half. 

A) yes, but not incredibly relevant in as much as I'd expect most players who love a game to have their copies. What is relevant is the number of books people have to buy (and thus, the additional add-ons to convince the GM their character can/should have...

b) "seasoned players".... Seasoned players of BRP (who have already planned their characters) can do CharGen in 15 minutes in most games. "Levelling up" in BRP/RQ is 5 mins for said seasoned players (but, again, something to be said about all games). I do think, however, that having the RQ rules shouldn't really matter, as there's really only the experience and POW-gain rolls to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Joerg said:

. (I've seen lines from a medicine phd thesis manuscript "since we had less than 100 tests, we couldn't give the results in percentiles" - slightly paraphrased, and yuck.)

 

As an ESL teacher and (former) English language examiner, I find that really really funny.... My Chinese year 7 students know better than that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, boradicus said:

It's probably time for you to try Rolemaster!  Rolemaster has a very exciting combat system - but there are a few extra charts and tables to contend with.  The combat system also uses d100s, but the dice explode.  The critical hits are also quite realistic, with a variety of different damage types based on the weapon used.  Hits are also vs. a particular body part, making the combat more realistic and challenging.  Wounds can bleed, and can affect your character's ability to function and fight properly (but, of course, opponents are vulnerable to the same).  You might really like it!

Thanks!

I've seen the rules for MERP, but haven't had the community to play in 😭... (I really want to move back to Melbourne!!!!!)

I've also seen Harnmaster, and again, yep, I'd be into that!

I also love White Wolf (Vampire and Scion .... and huge handfuls - or 2 - of dice :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mechashef said:

Weapon Combat       (P197)

 

1.      Attacker rolls against their attack skill (P197)

 

2.      Defenders attempting to dodge roll against their dodge skill (P201)

 

3.      If attack is not dodged, attacker rolls damage (P203)

 

4.      Defenders attempting to parry rolls against their parry skill (P197)

 

5.      Damage is reduced by the results of the parry

 

6.      Location of the hit is rolled

 

7.      Damage is reduced by any armour or magic

 

8.      Damage is applied to defender

 

 

 

You can speed things up by rolling the attack, Hit Location , and damage dice all in 1 go... Certainly HL and damage work well in one hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

A) yes, but not incredibly relevant in as much as I'd expect most players who love a game to have their copies.

Really? That's not what I've seen. In most games, the players don't buy the rulebooks. D&D is the exception. I think it is beause with D&D you need the PHB to plan out your character.

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

What is relevant is the number of books people have to buy (and thus, the additional add-ons to convince the GM their character can/should have...

That depends on the price of the books as well just which books they "have to buy". A lot of the books aren't needed. Part of the problem here is that some games deliberately put spread out character types, options, weapon, etc. over mutiple books to get people to buy them. It's essentially adapting the CCG model to RPGs. 

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

b) "seasoned players".... Seasoned players of BRP (who have already planned their characters) can do CharGen in 15 minutes in most games. "Levelling up" in BRP/RQ is 5 mins for said seasoned players (but, again, something to be said about all games). I do think, however, that having the RQ rules shouldn't really matter, as there's really only the experience and POW-gain rolls to do.

Part of that is because in RQ/BRP characters "level up" at the end of each session or adventure, while in D&D they must accumulate XP over several sessions. So rather than 5 minutes each week, it's 20 minutes per month. But, since most of the leveling up is automatic in D&D, and as most players think ahead as to what new spell or ability to learn when they level up, the process goes faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, drablak said:

Simple math: yes, and D&D has simple math as well. Add a few numbers, roll over. All the modifiers are easy to remember. Compare that to a skill above 100% vs an opponent, reduce both by the above 100% skill, recompute the critical/special success, etc. It's not that the math is hard, it's that you pretend it's easier than adding a few modifiers.

Compare with spell books? Really? What's complicated with spell books? Have you seen the magic systems in RQG?

 

I'm glad you brought such things up! And, yes, the magic system is exactly the example I wanted to make of the complexity involved.

Let's just take a real good hard look at that "few modifiers" bit...

Let's assume a newbie player is trying out RQ/D&D, and they're given a pre-gen (a few levels up/experience checks), and knows about RPGs in general. They want to cast a healing spell...

RQ

I cast Heal 3 - what do I do?

Roll to see if you cast it, deduct MPs, remove damage.

I roll under my POWx5% - success - how many points do I heal?

Three.

I rolled a crit.

Three.

It says I'm a human...

Three.

I'm healing another human...

Three.

My character is in Chalana Arroy, the healer's cult...

Three.

I'm a priest...

Three.

It says here I have First Aid.

Three

I'm trying to heal their head...

Three.

I have some healing matrix thing...

Three.

I have this 2pt Healing Crystal...

Oh, ok - five.

 

D&D

I cast Heal - how many points do I heal?

(GM starts the inquisition...)

Which spell?

What class are you?

What level?

What level of what class?

What race are you (does it allow any healing modifiers?)

What level spell are you using? (do you have that slot available? Is it level dependant?)

(if you're a cleric) What is your domain?

Does it have a healing modifier? (Can you use it in this situation?)

Do you have a feat that adjusts it?

Does your heal spell have an ability modifier?

Do you have a feat that changes that ability modifier?

Have you changed your modifier?

Have you done an action that has enabled you to modify your spell?

Has someone near you done something that may modify your healing ability?

Does someone nearby have an ability that changes your modifier? (eg Aura) Have they turned it on? is it currently in use? (wait for the arguments about all that!)

Who is your target?

Do they have any modifiers to healing?

Does their race have any healing modifiers?

Do you have any magic items that can change your healing modifiers? (what are they? What do they do? How many can you use at once?)

Are all the above modifiers stackable? Which ones? Which don't count?

 

 

Does anyone think I'm being grossly unfair in my comparison? Because I know I've missed a few things in the D&D comparison... And, obviously, I can do the same for attack rolls... And, what's worse, a lot of those questions/modifiers need to be recalculated not only for every battle/situation, but often within/between combat rounds! (do you still have advantage? Has the enemy moved away? Has your friend moved next to them? Are you considered to be flanking still? Do you have companions who have a feat that is now activated? Do you have a feat that needs them to also have the same feat, and are they now activated?

 

As for other magic... D&D has quite different stats, abilities, and everything else. RQ? Spirit (POWx5 for every, basically same range, all with same duration (well, instant/temporal), variables easy math for MPs). Rune (usually same duration, range, have to sacrifice POW, wipe of RPs for a while, % roll under appropriate Rune). Sorcery - yeah, getting more complex!! I'll pay that. But, it's supposed to be complex, which is part of the reason most characters (not players) don't use it! There's an actual in-world reason associated with the complexity.

So, yes, I think D&D is far more complex and complicated... How many times have those here played D&D and forgotten a bonus/modifier in amongst all the race/class/feats etc etc??

As indicated previously, I don't dislike complex... In some ways, I revel in them. (Personally, I'd like to see a more defined Hit Location table in RQ :D:D:D )

 

I also agree with what's been said before - this debate is somewhat apples and oranges. D&D is "high fantasy" with lots of books telling you what you can do. RQ is fantasy, with a couple of books with a few rules, and you decide where you want to take it within the game world.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...