In an ever-changing world...

[PhilHibbs]

Splitting this off from another thread...

5 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

Out of curiosity, why do you reject that idea? At what line would you say that a system's change would impact a character's capabilities and therefore change the character? I mean, what if a new rules set did away with RQ3 sorcery and replaced it with Luner Sorcery from GoG, that would have a drastic impact on someone's PC if they had been a sorcerer. Why shouldn't that be a noticeable change?

In a cartoon like OOTS, it's funny. If that's what you are going for in your Glorantha, great. I've played in campaigns where that kind of humour would not be out of place.

It's the same as when an actor changes in a TV series. No-one asked Dario Naharis how he managed to grow that beard so quickly. How did he do it? Does Planetos biology have different folicles than our world? Is stochastic beard growth related to the unusual seasons? No, there was no change in the world, merely in our depiction of it. The old depiction was inaccurate, or the new depiction is inaccurate, but the underlying "reality" didn't suddenly change. Same for RuneQuest mechanics, or any other game world where the mechanics change from one edition to another. Unless you believe that all game worlds have to incorporate into their cosmology an explanation for sudden global changes to the rules of the world.

[Tywyll]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Splitting this off from another thread...

In a cartoon like OOTS, it's funny. If that's what you are going for in your Glorantha, great. I've played in campaigns where that kind of humour would not be out of place.

It's the same as when an actor changes in a TV series. No-one asked Dario Naharis how he managed to grow that beard so quickly. How did he do it? Does Planetos biology have different folicles than our world? Is stochastic beard growth related to the unusual seasons? No, there was no change in the world, merely in our depiction of it. The old depiction was inaccurate, or the new depiction is inaccurate, but the underlying "reality" didn't suddenly change. Same for RuneQuest mechanics, or any other game world where the mechanics change from one edition to another. Unless you believe that all game worlds have to incorporate into their cosmology an explanation for sudden global changes to the rules of the world.

Sorry, I think I may have not been very clear or misunderstood your stance.

What I was meaning, say you've played a character for a year and then the new edition radically changes what you can and can't do. Of course, you can ignore it, but if a big part of your concept or enjoyment of a character is X,Y, and Z, it seems asking the player to ignore that they can't do those things anymore (or their effectiveness is seriously reduced) does feel like asking a bit much. 

I wasn't trying to imply that you should incorporate the mechanic changes in a in play world altering event (though that also isn't really a bad idea now and again, especially in a setting like Glorantha where such things actually could happen in canon). I was just meaning that it seems like expecting the player to be happy with dramatic shifts in their fortunes seems fairly harsh. 

As someone who has changed systems on my players numerous times throughout the years, I've tried to sell the line that 'oh, nothing's changed in the story, your character is still the same fundamentally' repeatedly. My players never buy it. 

[Ultor]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

Sorry, I think I may have not been very clear or misunderstood your stance.

What I was meaning, say you've played a character for a year and then the new edition radically changes what you can and can't do. Of course, you can ignore it, but if a big part of your concept or enjoyment of a character is X,Y, and Z, it seems asking the player to ignore that they can't do those things anymore (or their effectiveness is seriously reduced) does feel like asking a bit much. 

I wasn't trying to imply that you should incorporate the mechanic changes in a in play world altering event (though that also isn't really a bad idea now and again, especially in a setting like Glorantha where such things actually could happen in canon). I was just meaning that it seems like expecting the player to be happy with dramatic shifts in their fortunes seems fairly harsh. 

As someone who has changed systems on my players numerous times throughout the years, I've tried to sell the line that 'oh, nothing's changed in the story, your character is still the same fundamentally' repeatedly. My players never buy it. 

My campaign started in RQIII, and went through MRQ1, MRQ2, and RQ6 Mythras before landing on RQG (I always like to play with the supported rules set). The Humakti and Vingan characters who survived through those changes didn't really notice. However, a third character was designed as an archer/sorcerer. Under MRQ2 and RQ6, archery was nerfed compared to RQIII, so she relied much more on sorcery. Now sorcery has been nerfed (mainly by loss of the Targets mechanic and the bizarre restoration of Free INT) but she's an absolute killing machine with her bow. She saw an opening for Champion of Pavis and aced the interview, so we'll see what direction she goes in now (especially with the question of whether Pavis has sorcerous elements as in HeroQuest still open), but the character has certainly changed over the years.

 

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, Tywyll said:

As someone who has changed systems on my players numerous times throughout the years, I've tried to sell the line that 'oh, nothing's changed in the story, your character is still the same fundamentally' repeatedly. My players never buy it. 

Yeah, I get it. It's a tough sell. I had a similar experience with one of my players, unsurprisingly it was the sorcerer's player! If you have a well-established group, and you feel the need to change to a new rule system, I guess one way is to transition gradually and let the adventurers that are problematic in the new system just carry on using the old mechanics as much as you can and try and integrate the old and the new. Eventually they're going to die from an unlucky critical and that's that problem solved! If they do get resurrected you can then explain the new mechanics as a consequence of "resurrection sickness"!

Edited May 24, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[g33k]

I'm of the opinion that the game-rules never really exactly simulate the game-world; they approximate it, at best.

So different rule-sets simply approximate (or fail-to-simulate) in different ways.

If the rules end up badly nerf'ing -- or ubermensch'ing -- a character / archetype / etc (either a PC, or anything else that sees substantial and/or meaningful play) in an ongoing game you're converting, then I think it merits some work to power-up the nerf'ed elements, or to nerf-back-down the ubermenschen.

But starting a new campaign?  For me, that's mostly a shrug-and-move-on.

 

Except vegetarian Morokanth.  I just can't move on from that... that abomination!

[Tywyll]

54 minutes ago, g33k said:

 

But starting a new campaign?  For me, that's mostly a shrug-and-move on.

Oh I agree with that! I was talking about switching characters in play.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Tywyll said:

Oh I agree with that! I was talking about switching characters in play.

Yeah... for at-the-table continuity, I'm inclined to Nerf anything important that got too big a power-up, and to power-up anything important that got nerf'ed too hard.

Because the Glorantha that the players  at your table  are having fun with?  That is the REAL Glorantha!

[Shiningbrow]

Along with what G33K said above, but...

It's not the GM's game. It's everybody at the table's game. And so changes to rulesets really does need to be agreed upon.

When going from one edition to another, it really does need to be unanimous, or you'll end up with resentment, and then hostility, and a bad game. 

Especially, the.GM really needs to sit down and talk about everything with each player. 

Playing by a particular rule set (including house rules) is an *agreement* between all players, and thus shouldn't be taken lightly. 

(Been there, done that... Left games)

[soltakss]

When we converted from RQ2 to RQ3, we said that any spell that wasn't in RQ2 had to be replaced by something in RQ3 and we used RQ3 rules instead of RQ2 rules.

That was a mistake.

What I do now is to look at what the PC could do in the old system and try to replicate that in the new system.

If a spell is no longer in the new system the PC keeps it as it is. If the spell changes then we look to see whether it was nerfed and decide which version to use. If a skill has been lost, we keep it and so on. If a rule has disappeared then we decide whether to keep the old rule or use the new way.

So, for the original example, I'd just keep the old RQ3 sorcery spells, if they are no longer in RQG, or would use the new RQG spells if they have been restated. If it means that a Sorcerer PC cannot do what they used to be able to do, then I'd look at what they used to be able to do and find a way to see if they can do it in a similar way.