RQ vs D&D

[styopa]

3 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

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

In its simplest terms, it's the combat.

D&D you roll against a single number, if you exceed that, you hit.  When you hit, you deduct an amount of points from the target, when they run out, they die.

RQ complicates that by allowing the defender an active chance to defend (with varying mechanical consequence), as well as segmenting the target into hit locations.  Each location further has an armor value that reduces the amount of damage applied.  If the attack succeeds to a degree that it penetrates armor and does damage, each location has varying consequences for disablement (as well as the target having a collective health total, like d&d).

There are other subjects, but I think combat is the main point.

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

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

D&D is one roll to hit and one roll for damage, maybe a flat damage bonus.

RQ is Strike Ranks, a roll to hit, maybe a parry (which might have changed the roll to hit if it was over 100% skill),  comparison of success levels, damage roll including damage modifier die, HP of the parrying weapon, a hit location roll if it wasn't parried, remaining damage versus location armour, then if enough damage is done, figuring the location HP effect on the character.

Maybe D&D has become more complex since I last played it?

[Kloster]

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

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

Because you roll a D100 instead of a D20 and 100 is bigger than 20?😉

[Shiningbrow]

6 minutes ago, styopa said:

In its simplest terms, it's the combat.

D&D you roll against a single number, if you exceed that, you hit.  When you hit, you deduct an amount of points from the target, when they run out, they die.

RQ complicates that by allowing the defender an active chance to defend (with varying mechanical consequence), as well as segmenting the target into hit locations.  Each location further has an armor value that reduces the amount of damage applied.  If the attack succeeds to a degree that it penetrates armor and does damage, each location has varying consequences for disablement (as well as the target having a collective health total, like d&d).

There are other subjects, but I think combat is the main point.

 

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

D&D is one roll to hit and one roll for damage, maybe a flat damage bonus.

RQ is Strike Ranks, a roll to hit, maybe a parry (which might have changed the roll to hit if it was over 100% skill),  comparison of success levels, damage roll including damage modifier die, HP of the parrying weapon, a hit location roll if it wasn't parried, remaining damage versus location armour, then if enough damage is done, figuring the location HP effect on the character.

Maybe D&D has become more complex since I last played it?

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

[Crel]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

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

An element that gets missed a lot, IMHO, is that while d100 systems have this initial conceptual simplicity in "Just roll under your number!" there's some hidden math involved with specials and crits. Some players, you roll a 17 and the math for "wait, is that a special?" takes a few extra moments. Or you roll a 98/99 and the GM has to go "hang on a minute, that might be a fumble..." Whereas with D&D, you can see a crit or fumble clearly on rolls of 20 or 1, and the standard "I beat him with my sword" roll is usually just d20+number. Report it to the DM and then hopefully roll damage.

I've encountered this a fair amount with both less experienced players and with less math-inclined players, and it absolutely can bog down the game at times.

[Richard S.]

53 minutes 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

What edition are you playing? AD&D? I don't mean to criticize, it's just that THAC0 hasn't been a thing since third edition. I also haven't had to refer to a table even once during combat during the few times I've played fifth. And magic users have moved away from the whole "one spell a day" shtick, now they have "spell slots" which basically act as level-specific magic points. I also disagree with your last point, all the classes are currently in the PHB save an updated version of the ranger and an experimental new artificer class.

[drablak]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

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

 

You need the attack & parry table (page 199) or the dodge table (p.200) and the ability results table (p. 143), then there's the hit location table, and is it an impale btw? And then there's a damage summary table (on the GM screen, or read a few pages in the core book), the resistance table, the skill above 100%, the strike ranks, etc. 

[Crel]

2 minutes ago, drablak said:

and is it an impale btw?

That's another good point. I find all the differences in special damage type frustrating. My group has just played double damage for ages to simplify.

[Shiningbrow]

18 minutes ago, Crel said:

An element that gets missed a lot, IMHO, is that while d100 systems have this initial conceptual simplicity in "Just roll under your number!" there's some hidden math involved with specials and crits. Some players, you roll a 17 and the math for "wait, is that a special?" takes a few extra moments. Or you roll a 98/99 and the GM has to go "hang on a minute, that might be a fumble..." Whereas with D&D, you can see a crit or fumble clearly on rolls of 20 or 1, and the standard "I beat him with my sword" roll is usually just d20+number. Report it to the DM and then hopefully roll damage.

I've encountered this a fair amount with both less experienced players and with less math-inclined players, and it absolutely can bog down the game at times.

The older character sheets used to have those numbers on it. So, if you roll 17, you can pretty quickly see if it's a S/C/I pretty quickly.  D&D had too many potential modifiers (often uniquely to certain classes.

 

2 minutes ago, Richard S. said:

What edition are you playing? AD&D? I don't mean to criticize, it's just that THAC0 hasn't been a thing since third edition. I also haven't had to refer to a table even once during combat during the few times I've played fifth. And magic users have moved away from the whole "one spell a day" shtick, now they have "spell slots" which basically act as level-specific magic points. I also disagree with your last point, all the classes are currently in the PHB save an updated version of the ranger and an experimental new artificer class.

It's based on the same concept - Base, +Dex + Armour +shield + other modifiers - roll high (plus plus plus).

You may not have needed a table, but have you needed to go back over a few rules to get the right modifiers? D&D was full of rules lawyers, and the excess of such could be quite problematic (read: complicated).

Character classes are all tabulated. And it takes up time with (perhaps ineffective) GM's trying to sort out each and every single players' classes' abilities, etc.

Wizards have (finally) moved away from "one spell per day" schtick (only took a few decades, not including the option in (Unearthed Arcana ??), but they still need to keep a check on whether they've blown a spell slot, particularly a higher one if MM'ed, or lower. Cleric - which level of Heal are you using this time, and do you have the slot to use it? So, those "level-specific magic points" creates an added layer of complication. Therefore, RQ is still by far a simpler system.  (read: less complicated)

Added complication - durations, ranges, damage (fixed or level-dependant? And is that spell level, or character level, or class level???) Elemental damage, and does the creature have a resistance? In RQ, most spells are the same for duration and range. Since there's no levels, there's not a level-dependant damage.

I disagree with your last point... all the current base classes are in the PHB... the thing about D&D is that they kept bringing out new (and not necessarily improved) classes, and I expect no less for 5E (they've already done so!). RGQ currently has a 445 page main rule book, a tiny 204 page Bestiary, about half a dozen pages in the Adventurer's book for rules (the rest is scenario and setting) and an upcoming GoG (which will be extremely useful, but not incredibly necessary). If you really want to get deeply into all the Gloranthan lore, there's obviously a whole host of material - much of which has been around for decades, and some newer stuff that adds flavour (more like scenarios and settings - not rules additions). The D&D 5E PHB is 316 pages alone. The GM's book is another 320 (granted, a large chunk of that is magic items...), and the MM is 350.. so, close to 1000 pages. So, merely the basic rulesets are double the size of RQ. Should we start adding in the add-ons that have been published? Again, to me, that equals "complicated".

 

So, back to my original question which I obviously need to clarify - why is RQ more "complicated" than D&D, and what definition of "complication" are you using?

[styopa]

24 minutes ago, Crel said:

That's another good point. I find all the differences in special damage type frustrating. My group has just played double damage for ages to simplify.

...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).

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

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

Okay. The thinking goes along these lines. Most people become familiar with D&D before they discover RQ. THey learn how D&D works, buy their own copy of the rulebooks and can do stuff like chargen pretty quickly. 

Then they try RQ, and:

• Chargen takes longer, because nobody is familiar with it,  and...
• There is only one copy of the rulebook at the table
• Everything is different and so they must learn all new things, and...
• They must unlearn all the old D&D trick that they learned that do not work in RQ.

So because it is new to them and takes longer to do things,  they must look stuff up more due to their unfamiliar and only one copy of the rules, and it takes longer, the rules start to seem more complicated. Any thing that RQ either adds detail to that D&D doesn't have (such as hit locations) or requires a roll where D&D doesn't (spell casting,  hit location determination) are viewed as added complexity. 

But, it's mostly the lack of familiarity and single rulebook, compared to the familiarity and multiple copies of rulebooks with D&D. 

 

[Shiningbrow]

35 minutes ago, drablak said:

You need the attack & parry table (page 199) or the dodge table (p.200) and the ability results table (p. 143), then there's the hit location table, and is it an impale btw? And then there's a damage summary table (on the GM screen, or read a few pages in the core book), the resistance table, the skill above 100%, the strike ranks, etc. 

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?

 

 

31 minutes ago, Crel said:

That's another good point. I find all the differences in special damage type frustrating. My group has just played double damage for ages to simplify.

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

[Shiningbrow]

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Okay. The thinking goes along these lines. Most people become familiar with D&D before they discover RQ. THey learn how D&D works, buy their own copy of the rulebooks and can do stuff like chargen pretty quickly. 

Then they try RQ, and:

• Chargen takes longer, because nobody is familiar with it,  and...
• There is only one copy of the rulebook at the table
• Everything is different and so they must learn all new things, and...
• They must unlearn all the old D&D trick that they learned that do not work in RQ.

So because it is new to them and takes longer to do things,  they must look stuff up more due to their unfamiliar and only one copy of the rules, and it takes longer, the rules start to seem more complicated. Any thing that RQ either adds detail to that D&D doesn't have (such as hit locations) or requires a roll where D&D doesn't (spell casting,  hit location determination) are viewed as added complexity. 

But, it's mostly the lack of familiarity and single rulebook, compared to the familiarity and multiple copies of rulebooks with D&D. 

 

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).

[Atgxtg]

6 minutes ago, styopa said:

 

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,

Pendragon give such a bonus against mail, and RQ3 used to have a rule reducing the AP value. You could easily apply a half value vs. maces or some such.

6 minutes ago, styopa said:

 

 

and almost worthless against arrows

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.

 

 

6 minutes ago, styopa said:

- 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).

Pendragon does it, as do a handful of thoer RPGs. It all depends on how you do it. 

[styopa]

4 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

So, back to my original question which I obviously need to clarify - why is RQ more "complicated" than D&D, and what definition of "complication" are you using?

(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?

[Atgxtg]

2 minutes 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

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. 

 

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

 

😛

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).

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. 

[drablak]

1 hour 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?

There are GM screens for D&D too, you probably know that? What's your point then?

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?

Frankly I rarely look up at a table in D&D while playing the game. Let's agree to disagree.

Edited April 26, 2019 by drablak

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, drablak said:

You need the attack & parry table (page 199) or the dodge table (p.200) and the ability results table (p. 143), then there's the hit location table, and is it an impale btw? And then there's a damage summary table (on the GM screen, or read a few pages in the core book), the resistance table, the skill above 100%, the strike ranks, etc. 

Part of this depends on which version  of either game being referred to, as well. I think AD&D was probably the most complicated on the lot. If you went "all in" you needed separate "to hit "and "saving throw" tables for each of the four main classes, two sets of damage stats for each weapon, weapon vs. armor class adjustments, weapon and non weapon proficiency and specializations, class writeups for each of the various classes and subclasses being used, track the modifiers and methods for using each availability or skill (some were % dice, some were a D6 or a D10), track the special abilities of each class and race ("only surprised on a what?", "detect secret doors with a what?"), number of attacks against creatures with less than 1HD, just how much of a magical plus is needed to hit a certian monster, strength bows, etc. etc. Everyone got added on piecemeal, and had it own set of mechanics for handling it.

 IMO, AD&D was far more complicated than any version of RQ or any other version of D&D. 

[tedopon]

As far as D&D goes, the lion's share of referencing back to the rules that happens on a regular basis in any game I've ever played (no matter the version) has been regarding spells...which is coincidentally the same as my experience with Runequest. 

Also, Runequest is more complicated mechanically than D&D...I don't know how anyone who has played (any version of) both could say differently and keep a straight face. However, they're so different in their focus on achieving the "default assumptions" of what it means to play them that it's an Apples and Oranges situation, and not really constructive to discuss. Not to mention that people get their panties in a bunch and shout down one another's points when discussions like this occur.

Regarding leveling up in D&D...it's very quick for 9/10 players. Each level is an incremental build on what you were already doing. I run D&D for kids at the library and even the ones who aren't well versed in rpgs can do it in less than ten minutes. The players who take longer are the ones who are trying to think a few advancements down the line (which is a feature/bug of most versions of Warhammer & 40K as well). 

How is this thread still active (as I prepare to hit Submit Reply)?

 

EDIT: I would agree with the assertion that AD&D was the most complicated version of D&D. It and the OD&D it came from were just a series of systems that had nothing to do with one another bolted on when the need arose. I still think that even 80s Runequest is more complex even though it had the benefit of more conscious design decisions.

Edited April 26, 2019 by tedopon

[styopa]

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 IMO, AD&D was far more complicated than any version of RQ or any other version of D&D. 

Objectively, I agree with you.  %ile systems - even with specials and crits and fumbles - are inherently simpler than table-lookups. 

That was an astonishing innovation for the time (/thanks Steve Perrin) and one of the (several, IMO) things that make RQ an inherently better game system mechanically.

UNfortunately....RQG holds onto way, way too much late-70s paradigm cruft of its own in its overriding effort to stay retro-compatible with minimum conversion*.  Look at SR - different tables/breakpoints EACH for SIZ and DEX, Spirit Combat damage, healing rate, damage bonus.  HP for location - which in RQ3 had been neatly algorithmic 25% of body hp for arms, 40% for chest, 33% for legs, abd, head - is back to a kludgy, inconsistent, linear table that ends up with a 30' giant being surprisingly fragile (only 2x the hp of a normal human)...

*which I fundamentally don't get anyway; if you're going to have to spend 5+ mins for each character/creature adding passions, runes, etc is another minute adjusting HP and SR - especially if the conversion is algorithmic and quick - going to be that onerous?

[Atgxtg]

25 minutes ago, styopa said:

Objectively, I agree with you.  %ile systems - even with specials and crits and fumbles - are inherently simpler than table-lookups. 

Yup, althouth it's not the % dice that do it, it's the combination of being able to resolve tasks without a table, and having one game mechanic to resolve most tasks. It's becuase from RQ onwward, most desginers had a idea of what the game was to encompass and built a game system to handle it. D&D, as the prioneer, dealt with things as they popped up.

25 minutes ago, styopa said:

That was an astonishing innovation for the time (/thanks Steve Perrin) and one of the (several, IMO) things that make RQ an inherently better game system mechanically.

UNfortunately....RQG holds onto way, way too much late-70s paradigm cruft of its own in its overriding effort to stay retro-compatible with minimum conversion*.  Look at SR - different tables/breakpoints EACH for SIZ and DEX, Spirit Combat damage, healing rate, damage bonus.  HP for location - which in RQ3 had been neatly algorithmic 25% of body hp for arms, 40% for chest, 33% for legs, abd, head - is back to a kludgy, inconsistent, linear table that ends up with a 30' giant being surprisingly fragile (only 2x the hp of a normal human)...

*which I fundamentally don't get anyway; if you're going to have to spend 5+ mins for each character/creature adding passions, runes, etc is another minute adjusting HP and SR - especially if the conversion is algorithmic and quick - going to be that onerous?

Yes, this is one of the reason why I think going back to RQ2 was a mistake. Instead of rolling back the clock 40 years and dealing with all the baggage that existed, it would have been better, IMO to go with the latest Chasoium version of the game (RQ3 or BRP BGB, or maybe the RQ4 notes) and update it. And it's not all that retro compatible, since so many of the game mechanics have been altered.

As for the giant being fragile, that kinda makes sense. It doesn't take a lot of "damage" to kill someone or something. A 5 ton elephant can be killed with a single bullet. It's just difficult to do so instantly. And the elephant can do a lot of damage while you wait for it to bleed out. Now I think RQ3 did a better job of that, as SIZ factored more prominent in Hit Point calculations (as they should).

 

[Mechashef]

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

 

 

 

 

[Mechashef]

The level of complexity is not necessarily a good or a bad thing.  As has been pointed out the two games have a different focus.  I suppose a bit like how some people prefer manual cars while others prefer automatics.

 

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 prefer the percentile concept, the distinction between being hit and being injured, the resistance Table and many other features of RQ that can make it more complex.

 

I think a big part of the problem is that the current rules in some areas are poorly written.  There is much confusion caused by inconsistencies and ambiguities in the text.  Sometimes this relates to new features (such as Augments), but sometimes it relates to fundamental parts of RQ (such as the effects of damage on hit locations) and those sections really should have been written better.

Please note.  As I have written in another thread, I write and run training courses.  I'm fully aware of how hard it is to write manuals and how easy it is to write things that make sense to you but not to someone with no background in the product.  Considering the resources available to them and the immense scope of the project, the authors have done a fantastic job, much better than I would have done.  It is a huge, complex project.  Most parts are outstanding, but some areas need more work.  

 

[PhilHibbs]

15 minutes ago, Mechashef said:

The level of complexity is not necessarily a good or a bad thing.

Quite. The question was "Why is RQ considered to be more complex than D&D", and my answer should in no way be considered a criticism of RQ's mechanics.

[drablak]

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.