RQ vs D&D

[soltakss]

19 hours ago, boradicus said:

Although I have only played CoC thus far, I love Chaosium's game system.  As for the skills, what immediately occurred to me as an enhancement, would be a skill "tree" by era.  In other words, some skills are related to each other in such a way that there might be enough in common between them that they could provide some cross-over capabilities.  But in order to model this accurately and neatly, a tree would be needed, wherein more general skills serve as umbrella categories for more specialized skills.  Of course, both technology, and culture progress (or, sometimes regress) from era to era, and this would provide an opportunity to create specialized skill trees based on eras - and this could be done in the form of monographs or supplements for the particular era/world/culture in question.  

Revolution D100 does this kind of thing well, in my opinion.

You have a few very general skills and then Traits that give your specialisations.

So, for example, Agility is a skill and you can have Traits of Jumping, Climbing, Dodge or Parachuting. Craft is a skill and you can have Traits of Blacksmith, Farming, Fishing and so on.

In a SciFi setting, I'd have Science as a skill and that would have Traits such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

For extra Specialisations, you just add Traits. So someone with Science could have Quantum Physics, Astrophysics and Mathematics, allowing them to apply all the Traits when looking at a problem involving Quantum Gravity around a Black Hole.

For me, it works really well.

[Numtini]

On 3/25/2019 at 11:04 AM, drablak said:

They weren't in the core books if that's what you mean, but there were various tables in the Dragon magazines (official TSR magazine), and also in White Dwarf magazines. We've played AD&D with crits and fumbles back in the 80's.

Criticals were one of the things that Gygax railed against in his notorious screed in Dragon 16:

Quote

Combat is the most frequently abused area, for here many would be game inventors feel they have sufficient expertise to design a better system. Perhaps someone will eventually do so, but the examples to date are somewhat less than inspiring of confidence. The “critical hit” or “double damage” on a “to hit” die roll of 20 is particularly offensive to the precepts of D&D as well.

Given that this was published the same year RQ was, I'm guessing that criticals were house-ruled pretty often prior to RQ. I'm quite amused by the essay as pretty much everything Gygax rants against in that essay--spell points (slots), criticals, weapon expertise--is now a core part of D&D. 

Overall, I am with Styopa in thinking RQ:G was a little too slavish to old RQ and missed an opportunity to update the game. When I encountered RQ in the 80s, I completely abandoned D&D as RQ was obviously superior. Now, after all the changes of 40 years, I find that 5E is a quite good game that I'm very happy to play, but RQ:G feels a little dated, a little over complicated, and also seems more a game people talk about than actually play. Part of that is also that the kind of storytelling that early Chaosium pioneered in the industry is now ubiquitous. If you look at a modern 5E scenario, it has far more in common with something like Borderlands or Griffon Mountain than it does to the 16 page folders of stats that made up TSR modules in the 80s.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

47 minutes ago, Numtini said:

Overall, I am with Styopa in thinking RQ:G was a little too slavish to old RQ and missed an opportunity to update the game. 

Personally I’m not so sure. I think RQG mechanics being based off of RQ2 still works really well. They were so well designed in the first place that there isn’t a lot that would improve them IMO. 

Edit: though I think in some places the rules could be explained a little better, as evidenced by the long post on damage “Death by a Thousand Cuts”

2nd Edit: OK RQ3 First Aid skill feels a bit ill matched to RQG.

I like the introduction of passions and Runes as it slides into the rule set nicely and really helps with the immersion in the game.

Combat in RuneQuest still feels as visceral as it did back in the day. 5e still plays off of a simpler more abstract  approach with AC. Though I find in play RuneQuest is fast and furious in all the right ways, despite perceived crunch. 5e ( which I play a lot of, and like) is much pulpier In approach, and despite having a more abstract approach to combat, can still fall into the trap of protracted fights, particularly at higher levels. 

I don’t see D&D 5e as particular vanilla. It’s setting and classes are quite specific DnDisms. Though I guess the background for characters tends to be much less then the rich tapestry of Glornatha. Which in one helps with accessibility - without lots of background new gamers can easily pick it up and run with it.

Looking forward to see what Chaosium does with the new RuneQuest Starter Set on this point.  We’ve got this great rich game, we now need different entry points for newcomers. 

Edited April 19, 2019 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Sumath]

29 minutes ago, Numtini said:

Now, after all the changes of 40 years, I find that 5E is a quite good game that I'm very happy to play, but RQ:G feels a little dated, a little over complicated, and also seems more a game people talk about than actually play. Part of that is also that the kind of storytelling that early Chaosium pioneered in the industry is now ubiquitous. If you look at a modern 5E scenario, it has far more in common with something like Borderlands or Griffon Mountain than it does to the 16 page folders of stats that made up TSR modules in the 80s.

That's a fair criticism, RQG is not especially innovative. But then for the most part it doesn't need to be. There are a few areas (e.g. strike ranks) that haven't aged well, but the chassis of the game is sound. It's mostly tweaking that's required. The introduction of Runes and Passions is the greatest improvement IMHO.

D&D 5E is also a missed opportunity - full of things that should no longer be there (e.g. prime stats, which aren't even used - modifiers are, so why not generate them directly?). WoTC also passed up the opportunity to solve many of D&D's shortcomings, particularly how lightweight combat is when that's supposed to be one of the three pillars of gameplay.

There are similarities between 5E scenarios and Chaosium's old campaigns, but even for some of WoTC products they seem to be similarities in style rather than substance. We're currently playing through Tomb of Annihilation and it has plot holes that you could ride a T Rex through! Looking back at Borderlands or Griffin Mountain, they were rooted in a consistent and well thought-out fantasy world, and that depth and consistency mean that you can still pick those products up now and run them pretty much as they are. ToA is a couple of years old and already looks hackneyed.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

10 hours ago, Sumath said:

full of things that should no longer be there (e.g. prime stats, which aren't even used - modifiers are, so why not generate them directly?).

Prime stats are used in 5e - opposed strength and dex checks for example.

Removing something as iconic as prime stats starts to dismantle the identity of the game. There’s innovation and then there’s innovation. I feel the same about saving throws in DnD, but they’re such big part of that games identity that they would be too problematic to remove.

I think it’s the same for RuneQuest. If you change it too much or too dramatically it ceases to be the game you identify with. That’s ok if you’re starting fresh, but not so if you have legacy. 

Edited April 20, 2019 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Sumath]

28 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Removing something as iconic as prime stats starts to dismantle the identity of the game

You'd still have scores called STR and DEX (they'd just be +2, -1 etc. instead). Ascending AC was introduced without affecting the identity of the game, so I can't see this being a big deal. Retaining unused 3d6 scores in CharGen just for nostalgia seems silly to me - isn't that what OSR rules are for?

[Atgxtg]

42 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Removing something as iconic as prime stats starts to dismantle the identity of the game.

Yeah, it is a case of just how much can you change the game before it becomes/feels like  a different game? I don't thionk there is a objective way to tell. That's why every time there is anew edtion of an RPG some of the fans of a previous edition don't like it and refuse to switch. I saw it with D&D to AD&D, with AD&D to 3E (which is what led to Hackmaster), and with 3.5E to 4E (which is what got Pathfinder started, and caused 5E to come out so soon and prevent the loss of D&D to Piazo). Likewise with RQ there were splits in the fanbase when RQ3 came out, with MRQ, and even now with RQG. 

So it's something of a gamble, since every change risks alienating a portion of the fanbase, and possibly a decrease in sales. But on the other hand without any change nothing in a game can improve and the rules can stagnate. 

[Numtini]

Maybe I'm daft, but I see D&D 5E as making the best use of stats of any game I can think of. Gods know, old D&D they had little or no effect at all. So many rolls in 5E are based on a stat roll plus proficiency if you have it in the skill. 

[boradicus]

15 hours ago, soltakss said:

Revolution D100 does this kind of thing well, in my opinion.

You have a few very general skills and then Traits that give your specialisations.

So, for example, Agility is a skill and you can have Traits of Jumping, Climbing, Dodge or Parachuting. Craft is a skill and you can have Traits of Blacksmith, Farming, Fishing and so on.

In a SciFi setting, I'd have Science as a skill and that would have Traits such as Physics, Chemistry and Biology.

For extra Specialisations, you just add Traits. So someone with Science could have Quantum Physics, Astrophysics and Mathematics, allowing them to apply all the Traits when looking at a problem involving Quantum Gravity around a Black Hole.

For me, it works really well.

So, how do these traits work?  Also, it sounds like the trait system is only comprised of one extra tier - in other words, each skill could only have one tier of traits because traits could not have sub-traits... or am I wrong in inferring this?

[Sumath]

10 hours ago, Numtini said:

So many rolls in 5E are based on a stat roll plus proficiency if you have it in the skill.

That's my point - you're adding the modifier to the roll. You're not using the prime stat. So why not just generate the modifier to begin with?

[soltakss]

8 hours ago, boradicus said:

So, how do these traits work?  Also, it sounds like the trait system is only comprised of one extra tier - in other words, each skill could only have one tier of traits because traits could not have sub-traits... or am I wrong in inferring this?

When I GM, I allow any applicable Trait to be used, but I think the Revolution rules say one, or maybe two. Each Trait adds +30 to the skill, but I play +10 because of the multiple Traits.

So, in my Revolution games, you could have Science as a skill with Astrophysics, Quantum Gravity, Mathematics and Black Holes as Traits and you could also have Quantum Maths as a Stunt under Mathematics and Rotating Bodies as a Stunt under Black Holes.

Revolution has Stunts, which are particular specialisations of Traits, so someone could have Parachuting as a Trait for Agility but have High Altitude Low Opening (HALO), Sub Orbital Low Opening (SOLO) and Wing Suit as Stunts, which I play give a +30/+10 Bonus to the skill when performing those actions.

Really, the idea of Traits and Stunts is far more important than slavishly following how they work in the rules. Personally, I have a more narrative interpretation than Paolo and treat them almost like Breakouts in HeroQuest.

[tedopon]

15 hours ago, Numtini said:

Maybe I'm daft, but I see D&D 5E as making the best use of stats of any game I can think of. Gods know, old D&D they had little or no effect at all. So many rolls in 5E are based on a stat roll plus proficiency if you have it in the skill. 

That came from 4E.

[boradicus]

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

When I GM, I allow any applicable Trait to be used, but I think the Revolution rules say one, or maybe two. Each Trait adds +30 to the skill, but I play +10 because of the multiple Traits.

So, in my Revolution games, you could have Science as a skill with Astrophysics, Quantum Gravity, Mathematics and Black Holes as Traits and you could also have Quantum Maths as a Stunt under Mathematics and Rotating Bodies as a Stunt under Black Holes.

Revolution has Stunts, which are particular specialisations of Traits, so someone could have Parachuting as a Trait for Agility but have High Altitude Low Opening (HALO), Sub Orbital Low Opening (SOLO) and Wing Suit as Stunts, which I play give a +30/+10 Bonus to the skill when performing those actions.

Really, the idea of Traits and Stunts is far more important than slavishly following how they work in the rules. Personally, I have a more narrative interpretation than Paolo and treat them almost like Breakouts in HeroQuest.

Thanks!  I was thinking of another approach the other day - that perhaps after a skill reaches say... 50%, that you *must* take a specialization, and then after that specialization reaches say... 50%, that you *must* take a sub-specialization.  But that did not sufficiently answer for me how much a specialization would contribute to the general skill.  Technically, I suppose that raw intelligence is a factor when determining how much can be abstracted from a specialization to type of general knowledge... but that might be going a bit far for game mechanics.

What are breakouts in HeroQuest, and how do they work?  Are general skill levels (the ability to abstract from specialized skills) increased when breakouts are added?

[Oracle]

1 hour ago, boradicus said:

...

What are breakouts in HeroQuest, and how do they work?  Are general skill levels (the ability to abstract from specialized skills) increased when breakouts are added?

Nope. Breakouts are generally based on and relative to the base skill. Let's say you have a skill Warrior at 18, and you add a breakout Shortsword, then this Breakout skill starts with +1, e.g. Shortsword +1 (i.e. Shortsword 19). If you raise your base skill, then this raise includes the Breakout skill, e.g. Warrior becomes Warrior 19, and Shortsword +1 then means Shortsword 20. But you can also train your Breakout skill independently from the base skill, e.g. you still have Warrior 18, but you raise Shortsword to Shortsword +2 (i.e. Shortsword 20).

As you may guess raising a Breakout skill is cheaper then raising a base skill.

[boradicus]

4 hours ago, Oracle said:

Nope. Breakouts are generally based on and relative to the base skill. Let's say you have a skill Warrior at 18, and you add a breakout Shortsword, then this Breakout skill starts with +1, e.g. Shortsword +1 (i.e. Shortsword 19). If you raise your base skill, then this raise includes the Breakout skill, e.g. Warrior becomes Warrior 19, and Shortsword +1 then means Shortsword 20. But you can also train your Breakout skill independently from the base skill, e.g. you still have Warrior 18, but you raise Shortsword to Shortsword +2 (i.e. Shortsword 20).

As you may guess raising a Breakout skill is cheaper then raising a base skill.

Can you have a string of breakout skills?  For example:  Melee is the skill, and under that would be the breakout for swordsmanship, and under that would be the breakout for rapier.

[Oracle]

1 hour ago, boradicus said:

Can you have a string of breakout skills?  For example:  Melee is the skill, and under that would be the breakout for swordsmanship, and under that would be the breakout for rapier.

No, I don't think so (at least that's how I understand the rules). But in your example Melee would be a too generic skill (at least from my perspective), so you would have Swordmanship as a skill and Rapier as a breakout.

Edited April 20, 2019 by Oracle

[boradicus]

On 4/19/2019 at 7:50 AM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Personally I’m not so sure. I think RQG mechanics being based off of RQ2 still works really well. They were so well designed in the first place that there isn’t a lot that would improve them IMO. 

Edit: though I think in some places the rules could be explained a little better, as evidenced by the long post on damage “Death by a Thousand Cuts”

2nd Edit: OK RQ3 First Aid skill feels a bit ill matched to RQG.

I like the introduction of passions and Runes as it slides into the rule set nicely and really helps with the immersion in the game.

Combat in RuneQuest still feels as visceral as it did back in the day. 5e still plays off of a simpler more abstract  approach with AC. Though I find in play RuneQuest is fast and furious in all the right ways, despite perceived crunch. 5e ( which I play a lot of, and like) is much pulpier In approach, and despite having a more abstract approach to combat, can still fall into the trap of protracted fights, particularly at higher levels. 

I don’t see D&D 5e as particular vanilla. It’s setting and classes are quite specific DnDisms. Though I guess the background for characters tends to be much less then the rich tapestry of Glornatha. Which in one helps with accessibility - without lots of background new gamers can easily pick it up and run with it.

Looking forward to see what Chaosium does with the new RuneQuest Starter Set on this point.  We’ve got this great rich game, we now need different entry points for newcomers. 

What are Passions in RQ?  Is a RQ update coming in addition to the starter set?  It sounds interesting!

[boradicus]

On 4/19/2019 at 8:00 AM, Sumath said:

That's a fair criticism, RQG is not especially innovative. But then for the most part it doesn't need to be. There are a few areas (e.g. strike ranks) that haven't aged well, but the chassis of the game is sound. It's mostly tweaking that's required. The introduction of Runes and Passions is the greatest improvement IMHO.

D&D 5E is also a missed opportunity - full of things that should no longer be there (e.g. prime stats, which aren't even used - modifiers are, so why not generate them directly?). WoTC also passed up the opportunity to solve many of D&D's shortcomings, particularly how lightweight combat is when that's supposed to be one of the three pillars of gameplay.

There are similarities between 5E scenarios and Chaosium's old campaigns, but even for some of WoTC products they seem to be similarities in style rather than substance. We're currently playing through Tomb of Annihilation and it has plot holes that you could ride a T Rex through! Looking back at Borderlands or Griffin Mountain, they were rooted in a consistent and well thought-out fantasy world, and that depth and consistency mean that you can still pick those products up now and run them pretty much as they are. ToA is a couple of years old and already looks hackneyed.

I've heard some awful things about the new 5e modules.  Most of the 5e games that I have either played in or observed seemed to me to also lean too heavily toward combat rules bog-down, or fast and loose rules that start to lack consistency and cohesion.  I think that my least favorite thing about D&D is the level-progression dependency of hit points.  It isn't only death by a thousand cuts, but also how under-powered, by comparison, the innate ability to physically survive is to that of higher levels.  The first time I played Gamma World, I suddenly realized that it is pretty ridiculous to give monsters and animals hit dice based on their size and robustness and not have hit dice for humanoids base on a similar metric. 

[g33k]

56 minutes ago, boradicus said:

What are Passions in RQ?  Is a RQ update coming in addition to the starter set?  It sounds interesting!

Which RQ do you mean?  The new/current "RQG" edition?  Or the KS'ed "Classic" edition?

RQG has "Passions" baked in.  Stuff like "Hate Lunars" and "Fear Harrek the Berserk" and "Loyalty to Shaker Temple" and "Love Family" for example.

You can use them to Augment certain other rolls:  "Fear Harrek" might help your various stealth rolls when Harrek is around, "Hate Lunars" might help your combat skills vs. Lunar troops, etc etc.

It has been part of the rules since the Quickstart was released.

Then you ask about an "update," & a "starter set," so I'm confused...

There is the "Quickstart" with the Broken Tower scenario.  That has been out the longest, before even the core RQG rulebook.  Passions included.

There is the core book itself, about a year old.  LOTS about Passions!

There is the new "slipcase set" which adds the Bestiary and "GM Screen Pack" (which is over a HUNDRED more pages than just a "GM screen"), and of course the slipcase, to the Core book.  Some new Passions for the new races.

There is a project Chaosium announced for a "Starter Set" for RQG, but that's a ways out yet, I think.

 

[boradicus]

10 hours ago, g33k said:

Which RQ do you mean?  The new/current "RQG" edition?  Or the KS'ed "Classic" edition?

RQG has "Passions" baked in.  Stuff like "Hate Lunars" and "Fear Harrek the Berserk" and "Loyalty to Shaker Temple" and "Love Family" for example.

You can use them to Augment certain other rolls:  "Fear Harrek" might help your various stealth rolls when Harrek is around, "Hate Lunars" might help your combat skills vs. Lunar troops, etc etc.

It has been part of the rules since the Quickstart was released.

Then you ask about an "update," & a "starter set," so I'm confused...

There is the "Quickstart" with the Broken Tower scenario.  That has been out the longest, before even the core RQG rulebook.  Passions included.

There is the core book itself, about a year old.  LOTS about Passions!

There is the new "slipcase set" which adds the Bestiary and "GM Screen Pack" (which is over a HUNDRED more pages than just a "GM screen"), and of course the slipcase, to the Core book.  Some new Passions for the new races.

There is a project Chaosium announced for a "Starter Set" for RQG, but that's a ways out yet, I think.

 

Yes, I was referring to the announced starter set that was mentioned above.  As for the other books, I was asking because I am not at all familiar with them.  I have had some of Chaosium's other rule books, but none of those.  They sounded interesting, and that is why I was asking about them!  I am still not clear on what a Passion is, but it does sound like it has a more directly causal and logical relationship to what it affects in the game than the inspiration system from D&D 5e, which awards inspiration for any sort of use for playing up to flaws, bonds, etc.  Thanks for getting me interested!  Of course, I would like to know more, in case I might want to invest in an edition of RQ.  I am especially interested in the "recently added" runes.  I sort of figured that runes were the point of RQ because they were a part of the name - but I suppose I really don't know that much about the game itself.  Thanks!

Edited April 24, 2019 by boradicus
Spelling

[g33k]

19 minutes ago, boradicus said:

Yes, I was referring to the announced starter set that was mentioned above.  As for the other books, I was asking because I am not at all familiar with them.  I have had some of Chaosium's other rule books, but none of those.  They sounded interesting, and that is why I was asking about them!  I am still not clear on what a Passion is, but it does sound like it has a more directly causal and logical relationship to what it affects in the game than the inspiration system from D&D 5e, which awards inspiration for any sort of use for playing up to flaws, bonds, etc.  Thanks for getting me interested!  Of course, I would like to know more, in case I might want to invest in and edition of RQ.  I am especially interested in the "recently added" runes.  I sort of figured that runes were the point of RQ because they were a part of the name - but I suppose I really don't know that much about the game itself.  Thanks!

OK, quick overview...

From the beginning, "Runequest" has had a notion of the "Runes" as being fundamental magico-mythic "building blocks" of the reality of the world of Glorantha, but has been VERY light on mechanical implementation.

The new edition of the game implements Rune mechanics in a very evocative way.  It's a real step up, and finally lets the game live up to its name.

(There are some mechanical similarities between "Runes" and "Passions" in that each can "Augment" actions that are relevant to the associated Rune or Passion.  Runes additionally have ties to your Cult/Deity, to Rune Magic, to some personality traits, etc.).

You begin play with Runes based on your character's culture of origin, the choices of the player, etc.

You begin play with Passions based on the lifepath-style character generation.  If your Grandmother was noted as a noble and faithful warrior of the King, you may begin with an "Honor" passion (i.e. to behave honorably); the idea is, you were raised on tales of her noble & honorable behavior, it was held up as the ideal to which all could aspire but YOU actually hew to those creeds:  they are part of you.  If your Father fell defending Whitewall and was utterly destroyed when even his soul was eaten by the Crimson Bat... you likely have the passion of "Fear Crimson Bat."

Passions and Runes are rated on a 1-100 scale, like skills are.  In order to activate them and get benefit, you d100 under the score -- "Hate Lunars?"  Then on a roll of 1-75, in this next fight against them you fight "passionately" (with extra elan/flair/skill).

If you're interested, the Quickstart is available as a free PDF:

https://www.chaosium.com/runequest-quickstart-1/

(n.b. that page has spoilerific content for the GM only.  If you hope to PLAY the included scenario, then maybe don't scroll down that page)

 

 

Edited April 24, 2019 by g33k

[boradicus]

Thanks!  I am more interested as a GM.  Does it have in depth information on the Rune system?  Can spells be constructed from Runes, or do they function more in the capacity of being generators of "effects?"

[Austin]

16 minutes ago, boradicus said:

Can spells be constructed from Runes, or do they function more in the capacity of being generators of "effects?"

Sorcery sort of constructs spells from Runes (in Glorantha "sorcery" means something close to "wizardry" in D&D btw), but the system is explicitly incomplete. I'd expect the basic premises to remain in the future.

However, pretty much every character has "Rune" magic, which comes from the cult of the god they worship. Each god has two or three major Runes, and certain spells known by the cult. To cast a Rune spell, your percentage is equal to your rating in the Rune needed. So for most adventurers the concept is that the magic is more... "out there in the world" than "constructed," and through acting like your god you can channel their power.

There's a reason some folks say that every RQ character is a cleric/paladin in D&D terms.

[Shiningbrow]

On 4/20/2019 at 6:28 AM, Numtini said:

Maybe I'm daft, but I see D&D 5E as making the best use of stats of any game I can think of. Gods know, old D&D they had little or no effect at all. So many rolls in 5E are based on a stat roll plus proficiency if you have it in the skill. 

Have you tried White Wolf?

Vampire, Scion, Exalted etc.

All rolls are basically stat + skill. It's impossible (well, should be) to have a roll that doesn't include a stat.

[Shiningbrow]

Would someone please explain why RQ is considered more complicated than D&D? (in terms of mechanics)