Quote from: Bilharzia;829294I think SGB is an exception because Morten gave it a sword & sorcery setting which moved it quite far away from typical d&d  - magic mysterious rare and weird, monsters are monstrous (and few), combat is deadly, healing magic very scarce. All of which ironically makes it better suited for a RQ/BRP game in the first place. So I dont think I picked up much useful converting this, beyond the npcs and dealing with magic,

Fair enough.

Quote from: Bilharzia;829294which modules are you thinking would make good conversions for RQ6?

I'm trying to put together an RQ6 campaign based on the Hyperborea setting from Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea[1].  If I can get players together for it, I'm thinking about trying to bring over the published AS&SH modules[2], but I haven't actually bought any of them to look at yet.  They could already be monster-light, like you described SGB, but I'm assuming that they're combat-fests simply because it's a D&D-derived system.


[1] AS&SH is a 1e AD&D clone, minus the Tolkein, plus REHoward/CASmith/HPLovecraft - "There are no dragons here either. This game is Dungeons & Elder Things."

[2] Rats in the Walls, Charnel Crypt of the Sightless Serpent...



ETA:  After posting this, I noticed that DTRPG said I'd already bought Charnel Crypt of the Sightless Serpent.  So I found it and, a quick scan of the map key shows:

Spoiler

Room 2: 500 bats
Room 5: 2 rust monsters
Room 9: The Sightless Serpent (unique basilisk)
Room 11: 30 skeletons
Room 14: 2 ghouls, 7 skeletons
Room 18: 9 zombies, 1 necromancer

...out of 18 rooms total.

Offhand, I'd say it doesn't seem particularly bad in terms of the frequency of where monsters are present, but the numbers of monsters encountered at a time would most likely need to be toned down considerably, although I suppose assigning them low combat style scores and/or using the Rabble/Underling rules might make it survivable.

Quote from: markfitz;829301So is the d20 version actually a better buy, even if you want to run it with RuneQuest?

I would recommend the original XP1 from Xoth.net since it's $10 and probably good value just for the setting, characters, locations, ideas and plots. I don't want to over-praise it as a lot of it is very directly derived from CAS Zothique setting, Howard's Hyboria, and a bit of Lovecraft so it might not strike you as that original, it's all quite familiar without being exactly the same. What annoyed me about the Legend conversion, beyond the disastrous first published version, is that it's a missed opportunity - there's no development to make the most of the new ruleset and the thing is just so ugly, the design and layout in the original is better. The other thing to say about it is that it would have been much better suited to RQ6 but that's a by-the-by. Maybe my expectations were too high, but I think now with the the RQ6 encounter tool, I don't think $20 is going to get you much, the re-write has taken it from execrable to workmanlike.

Quote from: nDervish;829302I'm trying to put together an RQ6 campaign based on the Hyperborea setting from Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea.

Offhand, I'd say it doesn't seem particularly bad in terms of the frequency of where monsters are present, but the numbers of monsters encountered at a time would most likely need to be toned down considerably, although I suppose assigning them low combat style scores and/or using the Rabble/Underling rules might make it survivable.

I think part of the issue is that RQ style S&S tends to be about a few major antagonists and their motivations and plotting & scheming, with very little of the 'trash mobs' that D&D features more of. SGB has more of a Clark Ashton Smith flavour than anything else, and as such generally features corrupt, devious humans (or who appear to be humans....) than lots of monsters, when the monsters are present they are one-offs, wierd and dangerous. I don't know how the ASSH adventures are set up. Have you got Monster Island? that might give a few pointers.

D6 fantasy, WEG Hercules & Xena...also both super easy to learn and adapt to the setting you like best.

Quote from: Ravenswing;829135Nope, I don't agree -- it seems you're still thinking in the lockstep character class paradigm of D&D.

No, I'm not.  There are three major 'archetypes' in most fantasy literature that you can map most characters to.  The Fighting Man, the Expert and the Magic User.  Even characters that do multiple archetypes does one of those three as their main.  Wizard who are Warriors, or magic assassins or wandering dueling thieves, all three archetypes are pretty much the central focus of most Fantasy settings.  A few of them focus on a single archetype, but even if they don't, they are there and if you look, you can see it.

Quote from: Ravenswing;829135Follow down to the next paragraph in my post, where I tie all of that into being a powerful wizard.  My point is that there's nothing -- and shouldn't be -- mutually exclusive by definition about wizardry and stealth / weapon skill / streetwise / survival, except in so far that the time I'm improving one skill is time not spent improving another.

Here's the funny thing, if I was mapping the 'character' to D&D, then I would point out that most Wizards, once you get high enough, can do all that without chance of failure, because all the utility magic in D&D does it all and it never fails.

However, the thing is, whether or not use magic as a wizard, you still want to be a 'rogue' archetype, you want to sneak around (whether by skill or by magic), you want to unlock and disable traps and locks, you want to have a bit of street knowledge, some survival skill, because of experience, and the ability to have a skill with a weapon in case your magic doesn't work.

That sounds like the skilled expert that uses magic.  Rogue archetype.  It's not a bad thing to be able to map a character to an archetype.  It's easy to play, you get a focus to work with.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;829389However, the thing is, whether or not use magic as a wizard, you still want to be a 'rogue' archetype, you want to sneak around (whether by skill or by magic), you want to unlock and disable traps and locks, you want to have a bit of street knowledge, some survival skill, because of experience, and the ability to have a skill with a weapon in case your magic doesn't work.

That sounds like the skilled expert that uses magic.  Rogue archetype.  It's not a bad thing to be able to map a character to an archetype.  It's easy to play, you get a focus to work with.

I think he specifically said dhe idn't want to do locks and traps. Let's see...

Quote from: Ravenswing;829135See, I wanted to be a certain type of thief.  I wanted to be stealthy.  I wanted to know how to climb.  I wanted to be able to pull cons, and have good sleight of hand and bluffing skills.  Pickpocketing, sure, that was useful too.

What I didn't want was knowledge of disarming traps.  I had no use for lockpicking skill.  I wasn't interested in backstabbing.

In most skill systems, that's easy to do.  In D&D, it wasn't.

Yep, the ole memory still works now and then. He doesn't want locks or traps.  

Therefore he doesn't want a D&D Thief/Rogue. What archetype, Jungian or otherwise, someone else wants to classify his character as is pretty irrelevant to the fact that D&D classes, by design, don't do want he wants for his character. You do really seem locked into a D&D-style divide characters into classes mindset.

You can do that in second AD&D and third edition D&D as you distribute points to your skills in those.

(runs like hell)

Quote from: David Johansen;829448You can do that in second AD&D and third edition D&D as you distribute points to your skills in those.

(runs like hell)

That was one thing I really liked in 2nd Ed: customize your thief skills to emphasize what you want to be good at.  That and the options for different types of wizards were pretty cool.  But I suppose I can just modify 1st Ed and do the same stuff since I only have Basic and Expert and 1st Ed AD&D now...gave away 2nd at some point and have never even seen the later versions.

But fantasy archetypes in general: blah.

Quote from: Bren;829172Well you could have ignored those abilities or I guess just crossed them out on your sheet. Of course you wouldn't be any better at the things you wanted to do just because you chose not to be better at the things you didn't want to do. So probably not a very satisfying solution for anyone who is used to games like Runequest/CoC/BRP, GURPS, or HERO games where you can choose what you focus on as well as what you don't focus on.

No, not at all a satisfying solution: it was the moral equivalent in a skill-based system of "So, I know you don't want those skills, but I'm compelling you to put X points in them anyway.  Too bad for you."

Quote from: Bren;829430Yep, the ole memory still works now and then. He doesn't want locks or traps. Therefore he doesn't want a D&D Thief/Rogue. What archetype, Jungian or otherwise, someone else wants to classify his character as is pretty irrelevant to the fact that D&D classes, by design, don't do want he wants for his character. You do really seem locked into a D&D-style divide characters into classes mindset.

Yep ... and any time I see someone talking about "fantasy archetypes" as a defense of character classes, I'm struck by how often the list of archetypes falls into lockstep with the classes in the favored system.  It's self-justifying, and completely subjective.  (It's also bizarre, given the number of seminal RPG authors, such as Tolkien and Leiber, whose characters break the archetypes.)

Ultimately, the reason I won't play in a class-based system is as you allude: I refuse to play to anyone else's notion of what my character ought to look like.

Quote from: nDervish;829277Since you brought up running the d20 version of a module in RQ/BRP...  Any tips for that sort of thing in general, more on the design side than the nitty-gritty of converting stats, etc.?  There are a lot of good (or at least decent) D&D/d20/OSR modules out there which I've considered adapting to RQ6, but there's a major difference in design philosophy regarding combat.  As in D&D-family games tend to assume multiple major fights, while RQ6 seems much less forgiving about repeated combats, especially if you're severely outnumbered, which also seems to happen a lot in D&D-style modules.

It's surprisingly easy, once you rid yourself of the notion that there's a conversion chart which will accurately translate STR from one system into another, or archery skill from one system into another.

Even if I don't know a system worth beans, it isn't hard to tell -- by way of comparison -- how good a character is.  If a NPC is described as being very strong, and his Might score of 14 is the highest I can see in the scenario, I presume that high is good, low is bad, and that 14 must be some impressive.  If crunchies are 2nd level, skilled warriors are 4th level, the Queen's Blademistress is 7th level and the Grand Undefeated Champion Gladiator of the Imperial Arena is 10th level, I've got a notion of what they're likely to be able to do.  I can translate that into my system of choice, because after nearly thirty years of playing it, I know full well what a Grand Undefeated Imperial Champion ought to look like vs a mook street thug.

And who cares if I hit the numbers exactly?  Except in so far as my players' lives are made easier by weaker NPCs, they don't care -- and they won't notice -- whether I translate the Magistra of the Seven Truths as having IQ 13 vs 14 vs 15, or if I give the Big Bad's chief lieutenant Rapier-16 vs Rapier-17.

Quote from: Ravenswing;829811It's surprisingly easy ...

Yes, but he is saying "stats to one side, how do you convert d20/d&d to RQ ?"
So the question is more about how scenario or encounter design is different between d20/d&d and RQ. Even if you get stat conversion 'right' theres a difference in style which doesn't translate easily.

Quote from: Bilharzia;829881Yes, but he is saying "stats to one side, how do you convert d20/d&d to RQ ?"
So the question is more about how scenario or encounter design is different between d20/d&d and RQ. Even if you get stat conversion 'right' theres a difference in style which doesn't translate easily.

Well, if the question really boiled down to "How can I make RQ combat work just like D&D's?" that's a different one altogether.

And I disagree -- that's even easier to change.  Double PC hit points.  Treble PC hit points.  Halve NPC armor protection.  Disallow critical hits on PCs.  Whatever.  There's no system in creation that fixes like those can't be implemented in no more time than it takes to articulate them to the players.

Quote from: Bilharzia;829881Yes, but he is saying "stats to one side, how do you convert d20/d&d to RQ ?"
So the question is more about how scenario or encounter design is different between d20/d&d and RQ. Even if you get stat conversion 'right' theres a difference in style which doesn't translate easily.

Yes, exactly.

Quote from: Ravenswing;829895Well, if the question really boiled down to "How can I make RQ combat work just like D&D's?" that's a different one altogether.

And I disagree -- that's even easier to change.  Double PC hit points.  Treble PC hit points.  Halve NPC armor protection.  Disallow critical hits on PCs.  Whatever.  There's no system in creation that fixes like those can't be implemented in no more time than it takes to articulate them to the players.

No, I was asking about scenario design, not stats.  I mean, it's right there in the initial question that you quoted:

Quote from: nDervish;829277Any tips for that sort of thing in general, more on the design side than the nitty-gritty of converting stats, etc.?  There are a lot of good (or at least decent) D&D/d20/OSR modules out there which I've considered adapting to RQ6, but there's a major difference in design philosophy regarding combat.  As in D&D-family games tend to assume multiple major fights, while RQ6 seems much less forgiving about repeated combats, especially if you're severely outnumbered, which also seems to happen a lot in D&D-style modules.

I don't give a fuck about mapping D&D STR to RQ STR or how many HP something has.  LIke you said, that's easy.

I'm wondering "D&D focuses on dungeon crawling with a zillion monsters in every room.  When combat appears in RQ, it seems to focus on smaller, less frequent, more individually-meaningful fights.  Are there any useful techniques for converting from one design philosophy to the other?" (i.e., revising the adventure to keep the concept, flavor, and basic structure, but with fewer and more individually-meaningful fights) not "How can I tweak RQ so that the characters can survive a dungeon crawl with a zillion monsters in every room?"  I want to adjust the D&D adventure to fit the RQ system, not to play RQ as if it were D&D.

Quote from: nDervish;829919I'm wondering "D&D focuses on dungeon crawling with a zillion monsters in every room.  When combat appears in RQ, it seems to focus on smaller, less frequent, more individually-meaningful fights.  Are there any useful techniques for converting from one design philosophy to the other?" (i.e., revising the adventure to keep the concept, flavor, and basic structure, but with fewer and more individually-meaningful fights) not "How can I tweak RQ so that the characters can survive a dungeon crawl with a zillion monsters in every room?"  I want to adjust the D&D adventure to fit the RQ system, not to play RQ as if it were D&D.

• Focus on the individually meaningful fights.
• Get rid of any crappy, boring monsters. The resources the PCs have available tend to be less in RQ so you don't need or want the waves of resource exhausting encounters that some D&D adventures use.
• Empty many of the rooms because the dungeon doesn't have a zillion monsters and RQ tends towards a more naturalistic ecology for its dungeons and ruins than does D&D.  
• Limit the total number of monsters available so that even a wandering monster table will end up with blanks on the table as monsters are eliminated.
• Some (possibly many) of the encounters on the table should be pre-defined, pre-statted groups that no longer appear once eliminated and that have a lair in or around the dungeon. So if table entry #7 is party of six goblins and the PCs eliminate those goblins, then six goblings are gone from Level II, Room #5(the goblins' lair).
• RQ monsters have motivations of their own and may want to avoid or negotiate with a well armed group of PCs. The goblins might be willing to ally with the PCs to get rid of the ogre who demands a tribute of one goblin a month on the ogre feast day.

Scenario design is more about scenario than game. If we use the old Shadows on the Borderlands for RQ as an example, it contains enough monsters and evil priests to make your average D&D-module hang its head in shame.
Which can make it very nasty for inexperienced, foolhardy and bloodthirsty characters. But inexperienced characters were probably not meant to enter the bowels of the Dyskund Caverns.

Quote from: Bren;829955

• Focus on the individually meaningful fights.
• Get rid of any crappy, boring monsters. The resources the PCs have available tend to be less in RQ so you don't need or want the waves of resource exhausting encounters that some D&D adventures use.
• Empty many of the rooms because the dungeon doesn't have a zillion monsters and RQ tends towards a more naturalistic ecology for its dungeons and ruins than does D&D.  
• Limit the total number of monsters available so that even a wandering monster table will end up with blanks on the table as monsters are eliminated.
• Some (possibly many) of the encounters on the table should be pre-defined, pre-statted groups that no longer appear once eliminated and that have a lair in or around the dungeon. So if table entry #7 is party of six goblins and the PCs eliminate those goblins, then six goblings are gone from Level II, Room #5(the goblins' lair).
• RQ monsters have motivations of their own and may want to avoid or negotiate with a well armed group of PCs. The goblins might be willing to ally with the PCs to get rid of the ogre who demands a tribute of one goblin a month on the ogre feast day.

This is a very good start. Although D&D can also of course be played like this, I'd pay a lot of attention to the more naturalistic ecology and motivations and interrelations between the monsters. RuneQuest is much more likely to favour negotiation and playing one faction off against another. Check out Snakepipe Hollow for an example of what a great and deadly old-school RuneQuest dungeon crawl can look like.