Ok. So was doing some searching for a game box and recently was rudely reminded that... "hey... you know Runequest everyone talks about? Remeber you bought me way back? No? Well Hello there sailor here I am in this box you stuffed me in two decades ago! Nyah-hah-hah-haaa!"
ahem.
Ok. So what I have (er, have had all this time) is 3e Standard (by Avalon Hill). I open it up and inside are some dice, more than is listed, the two rule books, and two modules? Apple Lane and Snake Pipe Hollow? Pretty sure those didnt come in the box and I didnt buy them separate so must have come with the set? Dice are still in the bag even.
So. Reading through and first impression is... "Damn this is long winded!" They seem to use alot of words to say very little. Second impression is that it is very disorganized. Not totally. But it ping pongs around subjects willy nilly.
I feel like I really should be liking this game. Its overall percentile based. But it feels... lacking? Also feels a little over-complex in the combat area. Not too much I think. But it feels like its more steps with less payoff. Otherwise I like the tradoffs one must make of speed vs protection. I like the armour system, the weapon wear system, and the impale/stuck in system too. Well done and not too intrusive.
So how does 3e Standard compare to the other editions or the Deluxe 3e? I assume Standard and Deluxe are analogous to Basic and Expert?
I think the Deluxe book is just all the boxed set contents (the smaller books) all in one book. I can double check, I have both. The Glorantha stuff you must have tossed in the box, RQ3 was Avalon Hill/Mythic Europe.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938459I think the Deluxe book is just all the boxed set contents (the smaller books) all in one book. I can double check, I have both. The Glorantha stuff you must have tossed in the box, RQ3 was Avalon Hill/Mythic Europe.
Yes. Avalon Hill it says on the box. And while it says "Mythic Europe" it totally lacks that feel so far. Feels more Hyborian Age. Still reading through slowly. The disorganization of rules is an impediment.
I found 3E to be kind of a mess myself, although it did have some great supplement late in its run.
2E is simpler, but with a very primitive layout. It's a cool game, but you are digging back into early gaming history.
6E/Mythras is still pretty complex, but I feel the complexity had more payoff than in 3E. It has a very strong line of supplements and is still supported. There is also a scaled-back, 32 page free version called Mythras Imperative that you can get here (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/185299/Mythras-Imperative?term=mythras&test_epoch=0).
If you want something simpler, there is also OpenQuest, which is a nice little retroclone. You can get the Basic Edition of it for free. (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/127007/OpenQuest-2-Basic-Edition?) It might be a good thing to look at if you want to get into Runequest but are floundering on 3E. It has some nice supplements as well, such as Crucible of the Dragon.
If you are tired of wading through 3E, either Mythras Imperative or OpenQuest Basic might be better places to get into RuneQuest.
It's (sort of) fun remembering why a game was left back inside a box.
How different is 2e vs. OpenQuest vs. 6e?
RuneQuest 3 was a dry read however you spin it, but so were a lot of games in the 1980s. It was also the first RQ edition that divorced itself from having Glorantha as it's default setting - although some Gloranthan material was added in later printings IIRC. The default was Mythic Europe though and, as such, the work being done in Mythras is really it's natural successor. Mythras is better written and more accessible on the whole though.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;938472It's (sort of) fun remembering why a game was left back inside a box.
In this case got it and some other stuff from Crazy Egors at Gen Con and the other stuff turned out to be incomplete both and so just kinda never looked at RQ past a glance and then totally forgot about it in a move.
Quote from: Spinachcat;938474How different is 2e vs. OpenQuest vs. 6e?
Aside from them both being percentile and obviously related (same stats and skill based), there is a lot of differences.
Character generation in RQ2 is actually similar to Classic Traveller in some ways, as it generates raw teens with little in the way of applicable skill and then encourages you to join a cult in order to be trained. This racks up debt (both material and spiritual) and sets up your character for adventure to pay off debt and fulfil cult objectives in order to advance (increasing skills and magical access). The skill bonuses based on Characteristics are tabular based, and generally only have an impact on skills at more extreme ratings. There is an appendix for building characters with prior experience, but there may be a culture shock to players not used to old school gaming.
RQ6/Mythras builds characters from packages - Culture and Career - which have players distributing skill points from a predetermined list of skills. Characteristics form the base for each skill - usually by adding two scores together - and the skill levels accordingly tend to be a lot higher at the start. There is no obligation to join a cult, although they still provide magical access. OpenQuest is simpler than RQ6/Mythras with less skills and calculated secondary characteristics on the whole.
Combat is again related, but quite different with RQ2 using precalculated Strike Ranks that incorporate different Characteristic levels, weapon reach and the like to determine when you strike in order. RQ6/Mythras basically uses a randomised D&D-esque initiative system with stipulations to include other factors. RQ2 has particular rules for impale and hit location, but RQ6/Mythras expands on combat manoeuvres in quite sophisticated ways.
Magic in RQ2 is divided into Basic Magic (including spirit magic and simple spells) and Rune Magic (based upon a divine link and more powerful). Sorcery was added at a later point for more wizardly type spells. RQ6/Mythras has five systems - dividing Basic Magic into Folk Magic and Animism respectively, expanding on Theism (Rune Magic) and Sorcery, and adding Mysticism (for Kung Fu stuff).
OpenQuest in all cases is stripped down from Mongoose RuneQuest, which in turn evolved into Legend and Mythras respectively. It is more catered to particular genres, and is essentially a rules lite version of all the above, although Mythras now has a rules lite version too of course.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;938481RuneQuest 3 was a dry read however you spin it, but so were a lot of games in the 1980s.
Its not dry. Its just very very wordy. I think they could have trimmed the book down to half its page count if theyd not spent so long. Ive seen few RPG books from the 80s that came across as dry. The Mystara boxed set comes to mind. Page after page after wall of text page. Lots of info. But it all just kinda blurred together.
The RQ3 book is broken up with lots of chargen examples which breaks up the overwordyness of the sections.
These days I'd rather play Openquest (or Stormbringer), Strike Ranks and Hit locations made combat quite complicated for my tastes. Also, I didn't like Sorcery and all the magical skills added in 3e. If I had to play OS Runequest I'd rather go with 2e.
If you are a long-time 2E player, 3E is actually pretty good - most of the core rules can be skimmed, and the changes and additions are mostly good. Sorcery is the only new rules sub-system where they really shit the bed. And the supplement run is outstanding. Something like a dozen boxed sets, many excellent, covering and extending on the 2E classics. Really, 3E is a great game by itself, provided you spend the day or two of reading to learn how to play.
edit: Also, I think your boxed set should have contained something like 5 books: Core book, magic, monsters, glorantha, and game master's books; plus a pretty cool fantasy europe map and some play aids. Honestly, dollar for dollar, it kicks the shit out of most games.
I had RQ3- the box set a buddy gave to me and the all in one softcover book. There's two things I recall from it- one, that I could never make it more than a page or two before my eyes glazed over. And two- the art for the monsters and chapter headers was incredible.
RQ3 was my first introduction to RuneQuest; I purchased it when I was around 14 years old. Reading it, after years of playing AD&D, turned my gaming world upside down. I found it exciting, and evocative, but sure... pretty complex. RQ3, along with WFRP, took me off the path of D&D - pretty much forever. I never wanted to play a class/level system again after exposure to those systems.
I still appreciate RQ3's system, but I don't like that much complexity in my gaming nowadays. It fits into the same category as MRQ2/RQ6/Mythras - too much system for the effort. (And I experimented a lot with MRQ2, 3-4 years ago). My tastes align more with the abstraction of (Pre-7e) Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer/Elric!, and Cakebread & Walton's Renaissance system.
I never owned the Standard edition, but it was definitely a very stripped down version. I don't think it contained all of the magic systems present in Deluxe.
Quote from: Omega;938457Ok. So was doing some searching for a game box and recently was rudely reminded that... "hey... you know Runequest everyone talks about? Remeber you bought me way back? No? Well Hello there sailor here I am in this box you stuffed me in two decades ago! Nyah-hah-hah-haaa!"
ahem.
Ok. So what I have (er, have had all this time) is 3e Standard (by Avalon Hill). I open it up and inside are some dice, more than is listed, the two rule books, and two modules? Apple Lane and Snake Pipe Hollow? Pretty sure those didnt come in the box and I didnt buy them separate so must have come with the set? Dice are still in the bag even.
So. Reading through and first impression is... "Damn this is long winded!" They seem to use alot of words to say very little. Second impression is that it is very disorganized. Not totally. But it ping pongs around subjects willy nilly.
I feel like I really should be liking this game. Its overall percentile based. But it feels... lacking? Also feels a little over-complex in the combat area. Not too much I think. But it feels like its more steps with less payoff. Otherwise I like the tradoffs one must make of speed vs protection. I like the armour system, the weapon wear system, and the impale/stuck in system too. Well done and not too intrusive.
So how does 3e Standard compare to the other editions or the Deluxe 3e? I assume Standard and Deluxe are analogous to Basic and Expert?
The boxed set contained all the rules, in a box. There was a late reprint that contained all the rules, in a single book, this worked better for me.
The Standard and Deluxe books were probably a mistake, as the Standard edition missed a lot of the rules and the Deluxe was incomplete. Then again, I never owned either of them.
RQ3 had a better rules set than RQ2, but lacked a lot of flavour. RQ2 oozed flavour out of every pore. RQ3 tried to use Alternate Earth and Glorantha as settings, in fact the Gloranthan stuff only came in a bit later. RQ3 worked well for Alternate Earth and Glorantha.
Personally, I prefer RQ3 to RQ2, just because the rules were better. MRQI was a pale imitation, tried too hard not to be RQ3. MRQII was better, tried hard not to be MRQI or RQ3. RQ6 was good, but lived a life far too short. RQ7/4 will probably be good, but who can say at the moment? RQ3 is still the best all-round product for RQ, for me, good rules, some excellent support and supplements and a fair amount of new material at the end.
How was Deluxe incomplete and whats missing in Standard RQ3?
Quote from: soltakss;938783RQ6 was good, but lived a life far too short.
Sortakinda. Not giving a fig about Glorantha, I'm more than happy to see how Mythras conquers other, more interesting territory. It's already got two scifi settings (Luther Arkwright and M-Space), an historical setting (Mythic Rome), a couple of fantasy settings (Thennla and Mythic Britain), and lots more to come.
Quote from: soltakss;938783RQ6 was good, but lived a life far too short.
It has changed its name to Mythras, but is is still actively supported. If anything, it feels like support is picking up to me.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;938491Aside from them both being percentile and obviously related (same stats and skill based), there is a lot of differences.
Thank you for the excellent breakdown!!
Quote from: TrippyHippy;938491OpenQuest in all cases is stripped down from Mongoose RuneQuest, which in turn evolved into Legend and Mythras respectively. It is more catered to particular genres, and is essentially a rules lite version of all the above, although Mythras now has a rules lite version too of course.
Which "rules light" version plays better?
Quote from: artikid;938494These days I'd rather play Openquest (or Stormbringer), Strike Ranks and Hit locations made combat quite complicated for my tastes. Also, I didn't like Sorcery and all the magical skills added in 3e. If I had to play OS Runequest I'd rather go with 2e.
Stormbringer 3e (the Ken St. Andre / GW version) is my go-to D100 fantasy. How do you rate and compare OpenQuest vs. Stormbringer?
Quote from: Spinachcat;938953Which "rules light" version plays better?
To weigh in myself, if lightness is your goal, go with OpenQuest. The "light" version of Mythras keeps most of combat complexity. It saves space by cutting out magic. It's very close to being full Mythras with anything optional trimmed out.
OpenQuest is lighter overall, and it includes magic rules. OpenQuest also has no hit locations, so it is closer to Stormbringer.
Quote from: artikid;938494These days I'd rather play Openquest (or Stormbringer), Strike Ranks and Hit locations made combat quite complicated for my tastes. Also, I didn't like Sorcery and all the magical skills added in 3e. If I had to play OS Runequest I'd rather go with 2e.
Magic was a mess in RQ3. I didn't like any of it and my group and I worked on another magic system, but those old hand-written pages are long lost.
Quote from: Spinachcat;938953Which "rules light" version plays better?
Stormbringer 3e (the Ken St. Andre / GW version) is my go-to D100 fantasy. How do you rate and compare OpenQuest vs. Stormbringer?
For me, OpenQuest is best when it is served as the engine of a particular game - like River of Heaven or The Company - but it's certainly very easy to pick up and play if you have even a smattering of D100 system experience. I'd also say the same of the Cakebread & Walton's Renaissance system games, which is very similar - Clockwork & Chivalry, Dark Streets, Pirates & Dragons.
For me, RQ6/Mythras serves as a go-to game for historical fantasy, so I'm perfectly happy using it over OpenQuest, but the quick-play rules are essentially the same in most respects as the full-edition game. It just leaves out the magic systems mainly, and presents rules in a more concise way. OpenQuest is simpler.
My favourite D100-based game of all is probably Stormbringer too. This was always a simpler system that RuneQuest, I think, with less complexity in combat and so-on. The earlier editions of Stormbringer had a lot of random tables for character generation though, whereas OpenQuest is more controlled with calculated secondary attributes and skills, and I guess more polished in a modern-system type of way.
There has been talk of Chaosium reproaching Michael Moorecock for a new edition of Stormbringer, which could potentially be hugely spectacular looking at some of the Elric graphic novels as well as the commitment towards full colour hardback releases. It's not had any confirmation though.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;939222My favourite D100-based game of all is probably Stormbringer too.
These days I'm pretty much focused on
Magic World as my BRP fantasy flavor of choice... which is basically Stormbringer with the Moorcock filed off.
I got Mythras Classic Fantasy for Xmas though and itching to try running some OD&D modules with it.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;939222There has been talk of Chaosium reproaching Michael Moorecock for a new edition of Stormbringer, which could potentially be hugely spectacular looking at some of the Elric graphic novels as well as the commitment towards full colour hardback releases. It's not had any confirmation though.
Well there is this quote from Rick Meints from December 28, 2016 (http://basicroleplaying.org/topic/5073-podcast-mentioned-stormbringer-negotiations-with-chaosium/?do=findComment&comment=81785):
QuoteWhile we have no bad news, we have no good news either. This isn't something that is actively progressing. I wouldn't expect any news for months, if not longer.
I would take that as a confirmation that they are in talks, but that they have not reached a mutually suitable agreement.
Quote from: Simlasa;939232These days I'm pretty much focused on Magic World as my BRP fantasy flavor of choice... which is basically Stormbringer with the Moorcock filed off.
Technically, it's Elric with Moorecock filed off, as they changed the rules quite a bit from Stormbringer 4th, although they did change the title back to Stormbringer 5th in the early 2000s.
Quote from: Baulderstone;938923It has changed its name to Mythras, but is is still actively supported. If anything, it feels like support is picking up to me.
MRQII changed its name to Legend, RQ6 changed its name to Mythras, neither are now RuneQuest. Support should be picking up for D100 games generally.
Quote from: soltakss;939253MRQII changed its name to Legend, RQ6 changed its name to Mythras, neither are now RuneQuest.
But what matters if they're still basically the same games? Having 'Runequest' on the cover just gives expectations of Glorantha, which we're thankfully now free of.
Yep. I agree. I think when Mongoose picked up the license they was always a tension with whether people liked RuneQuest as a generic engine or as a specific setting game for Glorantha. The issue has been fudged for too long, and now that RuneQuest and Mythras have gone seperate ways we can enjoy both as separate games in their own right.
My only caution is that I'm still not really sure I'm enough into Glorantha to really appreciate a new game.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;939266My only caution is that I'm still not really sure I'm enough into Glorantha to really appreciate a new game.
I know I'm not. I've used bits of the setting over the years, but as a whole it's never held my interest. If Chaosium put out the system on it's own, or join it to other settings, I'll have a look... but I'm quite happy with the various BRP variants I've already got on my shelf.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;939251Technically, it's Elric with Moorcock filed off...
With an infusion of RQ3 to round it out and fill in gaps.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;939266The issue has been fudged for too long, and now that RuneQuest and Mythras have gone seperate ways we can enjoy both as separate games in their own right. [...] My only caution is that I'm still not really sure I'm enough into Glorantha to really appreciate a new game.
Is it going to be much of a new game? All that I've read has indicated that it's basically RQ2.5 for the rules set. Probably with some fluffy narrative mechanics to reflect the setting "better". I can't image that it'll be that hard to learn, or will be that different from RQ2.
Quote from: Simlasa;939232These days I'm pretty much focused on Magic World as my BRP fantasy flavor of choice...
I would have "converted" over to
Magic World, but since I already own everything released for
Elric!, and quite a bit of stuff from RQ3, it seemed unnecessary. There didn't seem to be that many additions, or positive changes to make it worth it, as well. Also, I found the layout and artwork to be a little drab, and the editing to be poor.
Quote from: CRKrueger;938459I think the Deluxe book is just all the boxed set contents (the smaller books) all in one book.
The all-in-one RQ3 deluxe book is nice. But, goddamn the binding. I'm very careful with all of my Rpgs, but opening that one a few times led to a page falling out of the monsters section.
Quote from: Larsdangly;938518Sorcery is the only new rules sub-system where they really shit the bed.
RQ3's Fatigue is a bookkeeping pain in the ass.
Quote from: K Peterson;939292There didn't seem to be that many additions, or positive changes to make it worth it, as well. Also, I found the layout and artwork to be a little drab, and the editing to be poor.
I've got the Elric stuff as well but I like having the rules without the Moorcock. I see it as a fantasy focused version of the BGB corebook (which is also 'drab').
The editing issues are shared by most books from that era of Chaosium, nothing I can't deal with.
Quote from: K Peterson;939292With an infusion of RQ3 to round it out and fill in gaps.
Is it going to be much of a new game? All that I've read has indicated that it's basically RQ2.5 for the rules set. Probably with some fluffy narrative mechanics to reflect the setting "better". I can't image that it'll be that hard to learn, or will be that different from RQ2.
The main things I have picked up about the new edition is for there to be a rejig of the character generation to be more like package picks for culture, profession and the like and create more experienced characters from the off. In this regards it will actually move away from RQ2.
It's also been said that they want to include Pendragon-style Personality factors based on the Runes and Sorcery will be added as a new verb & noun style system (a la Ars Magica, albeit without the spontaneous magic). The HeroQuest: Glorantha book is something of a forerunner of the type of layout and design principles they want to employ I guess. I have the Guide to Glorantha set and, as much as anything else there would be a sense of completion to have a set of up-to-date RQ rules to stand aside them.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;939307The main things I have picked up about the new edition is for there to be a rejig of the character generation to be more like package picks for culture, profession and the like and create more experienced characters from the off. In this regards it will actually move away from RQ2.
Chaosium's got a boner for making games that are 'fast! furious! fun!' these days.
Compared to many other games of the time RQ3 was actually well written. Take a look at the useful and ahead of its times GM section for instance. The layout was a bit.....odd, with some Glorantha here and some religion there, but I think it holds up pretty well. I am thinking about mining it for good stuff, while cutting some over-complex parts (like the point system for action sequences, I've forgotten what they called it)
Quote from: Simlasa;939283I know I'm not. I've used bits of the setting over the years, but as a whole it's never held my interest. If Chaosium put out the system on it's own, or join it to other settings, I'll have a look... but I'm quite happy with the various BRP variants I've already got on my shelf.
Yeah, Chaosium is dead-set on sewing Glorantha back into Runequest. Based on my experience with MRQII/Legend and RQ6/Mythras, I really do believe they're missing the forest for the trees here (i.e. that setting-agnostic RQ is a better and more wide-ranging offer than inextricably-linked-to-Glorantha-RQ), but WTF do I know.
Quote from: K Peterson;939294RQ3's Fatigue is a bookkeeping pain in the ass.
How so? Seems fairly straightforward from what Im reading (in Standard)
-1 fatigue per round of combat, sneaking, swimming, etc. -2 per round of combat sprinting, etc.
If fatigue was negative then all skills suffer the same amount of loss.
And going negative equal to max fatigue score incapacitated.
And get back 1d3-1 per round not doing anything fatiguing.
Seems pretty straightforward? Its effectively a second HP system that wears down from activity rather than combat.
Quote from: The Butcher;939320Yeah, Chaosium is dead-set on sewing Glorantha back into Runequest. Based on my experience with MRQII/Legend and RQ6/Mythras, I really do believe they're missing the forest for the trees here (i.e. that setting-agnostic RQ is a better and more wide-ranging offer than inextricably-linked-to-Glorantha-RQ), but WTF do I know.
Well, the thing that brought a wry smile to my lips on the matter was all the talk of page count prior to the decision to exclude RQ6/TDM from their plans.
There was a expressed concern about how to fit in the desired Gloranthan background into the RQ6 rules, which at the time was about 400 pages long. Now that they have gone their own ways, TDM have since revised the layout and design of the game and released Mythras which is a much leaner 300 pages, along with Mythras Imperative which condenses all the rules needed to play into a 35 page booklet. It's all 100% self contained too (you don't need any other book to play).Chaosium's RuneQuest, on the other hand, is mooted to have expanded to a three seperate books which could go into a slipcase....
In my view, they could have found an avenue to release a new version of RuneQuest, as a self contained game, but still maintain continuity with TDM and the wider reach of a generic rule system in the same way they have done with HeroQuest and HeroQuest: Glorantha. They could have ran the two things alongside each other, and brought in titles like Luther Arkwright, Korantia, Classic Fantasy and the Mythic series into their own collective. Indeed, books like Mythic Rome, Britain, Greece, Iceland and Mesopotamia would have made awesome peripheral supplements to expand the classical reading list in appreciating Glorantha. For people wanting the classic RuneQuest rules - well, they are still in print now anyway.
But then again, as I've said, perhaps a clean split will work out better in the long term. I'm certainly happy with the direction Mythras has taken since and we'll see what Chaosium has to offer later this year I hope.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;939266My only caution is that I'm still not really sure I'm enough into Glorantha to really appreciate a new game.
Quote from: K Peterson;939292Is it going to be much of a new game? All that I've read has indicated that it's basically RQ2.5 for the rules set. Probably with some fluffy narrative mechanics to reflect the setting "better".
Aye, and there's the rub. Some of us don't
want mechanics (fluffy, narrative, or otherwise) which reflect the setting "better", because we aren't looking to play games in Glorantha.
As someone who has absolutely no interest in Glorantha, it's not clear whether the new CRQ will have enough non-Glorantha-specific material to be worth my while, or if it will be so tightly shackled to the Glorantha setting as to be essentially useless to me.
From what I saw in on the designer's blog prior to losing interest in reading about all the Glorantha wankery, I'd say the latter looks a lot more likely, regardless of how easy it might be to learn the new system.
Quote from: Omega;939323How so? Seems fairly straightforward from what Im reading (in Standard)
-1 fatigue per round of combat, sneaking, swimming, etc. -2 per round of combat sprinting, etc.
If fatigue was negative then all skills suffer the same amount of loss.
And going negative equal to max fatigue score incapacitated.
And get back 1d3-1 per round not doing anything fatiguing.
Seems pretty straightforward? Its effectively a second HP system that wears down from activity rather than combat.
Yes, Fatigue rules are easy to understand, but every turn you had to substract one point. Every damned turn. It was boring. No surprise that sometimes we forgot substracting the Fatigue point.
Quote from: Simlasa;939283I know I'm not. I've used bits of the setting over the years, but as a whole it's never held my interest. If Chaosium put out the system on it's own, or join it to other settings, I'll have a look... but I'm quite happy with the various BRP variants I've already got on my shelf.
Exactly what I think. I'm not into Glorantha either. I liked Chaosium's Mythic Iceland, and if they finally publish a second edition I may buy it. But an only-Glorantha RuneQuest? And with several corebooks? No, thank you.
When the Chaosium-Moon Design "thing" happened (to this day I don't know what happened exactly), and Chaosium announced that they will produce a new edition of RuneQuest not based in RQ6, I was worried that my taste in d100 gaming would stop being supported. But then the Design Mechanism (RQ6 changing its name to Mythras) and Alepthar Games (Revolution d100) came along and saved the day.
Quote from: Claudius;939669When the Chaosium-Moon Design "thing" happened (to this day I don't know what happened exactly), and Chaosium announced that they will produce a new edition of RuneQuest not based in RQ6, I was worried that my taste in d100 gaming would stop being supported. But then the Design Mechanism (RQ6 changing its name to Mythras) and Alepthar Games (Revolution d100) came along and saved the day.
Same here... I don't know when Chaosium might again put out something that interests me. I'm not on for CoC 7e
or the Runequest thing.
Mythras and its related settings have been great.
I can't see Revolution d100 being my cup of tea though. The author seems bent on bringing in more narrative type mechanics and that will keep me away.
Quote from: Simlasa;939688Same here... I don't know when Chaosium might again put out something that interests me. I'm not on for CoC 7e or the Runequest thing.
Mythras and its related settings have been great.
I'm in the same boat and it seems a common opinion: love BRP/Runequest, not interested in Glorantha. Yet Chaosium don't seem to care for this market and have left it to Design Mechanism and others. Too bad, I have a nostalgic love of buying books with the Chaosium name but my d100 gaming is still better than ever without them.
Quote from: Simlasa;939688Mythras and its related settings have been great.
Yes!
QuoteI can't see Revolution d100 being my cup of tea though. The author seems bent on bringing in more narrative type mechanics and that will keep me away.
I haven't decided yet if I like Revolution d100 or not. On the one hand, I liked A LOT the short list of skills + traits thing (traits are like specialties). On the other hand, I tried to read the Conflicts and Combat chapters and I was clueless. Am I the only one? :confused:
The upcoming edition of RuneQuest does seem odd to me. Stafford seemed to decide that RuneQuest ultimately wasn't right for Glorantha, so Hero Wars/HeroQuest seemed to become the game for "real" Glorantha, while RuneQuest became a broader fantasy system that was also used by people who still wanted to play in the "flawed" version of Glorantha it represented.
It seemed like everyone was pretty much happy for a while, but now it looks like RuneQuest is getting remade to make it something closer to HeroQuest. It might be a cool game, but it seems very late in RuneQuest's life to make it over so drastically and keep the same name.
It's not really an issue as the BRP system is really thriving with a wide range of supported rulesets at the moment. Mythras certainly seems to have survived its name change without suffering, and OpenQuest is still out there. It just seems weird for me to have the one called "RuneQuest" to be one furthest from what I think of when I hear the name.
I suppose it is a bit like the 4E era of D&D where Pathfinder and the retroclones all represented more traditional forms of D&D, with the one actually called D&D being the furthest from it.
Just to be clear with my analogy, I never played 4E, and I have no serious opinion on it. I'm not trying to say that 4E sucks or that the new Runequest sucks. I'm just saying they seem to be very new takes on a game that will be competing more traditional versions of the same game.
It could work better for Chaosium than WotC. As a smaller company, Chaosium has more potential to bring people in active gamers that don't already play RuneQuest, even if it loses some fans. With 4E, WotC was already had the dominant marker share, so it seemed to shed players, and didn't bring many in.
Quote from: Omega;939323How so? Seems fairly straightforward from what Im reading (in Standard)
-1 fatigue per round of combat, sneaking, swimming, etc. -2 per round of combat sprinting, etc.
If fatigue was negative then all skills suffer the same amount of loss.
And going negative equal to max fatigue score incapacitated.
And get back 1d3-1 per round not doing anything fatiguing.
Seems pretty straightforward? Its effectively a second HP system that wears down from activity rather than combat.
Claudius already mentioned the constant bookkeeping required for every PC, all of the time. If I recall correctly, encumbrance impacted fatigue level. So, acquiring new equipment, or making changes to your loadout required a recalculation of fatigue points.
Quote from: Simlasa;939688I can't see Revolution d100 being my cup of tea though. The author seems bent on bringing in more narrative type mechanics and that will keep me away.
I had the same impression of
Revolution D100. I recall looking at some playtest notes (a year ago or so?), and seeing some comments from the writer/publisher. And they led me to believe that RD100 was an attempt to
NewSchoolRules BRP, with a more narrative focus.
I also wasn't interested in contributing to its Kickstarter - when the system was still in the process of being playtested and written.
Quote from: soltakss;939253MRQII changed its name to Legend, RQ6 changed its name to Mythras, neither are now RuneQuest. Support should be picking up for D100 games generally.
Quote from: Simlasa;939263But what matters if they're still basically the same games? Having 'Runequest' on the cover just gives expectations of Glorantha, which we're thankfully now free of.
When Chaosium/Moon Design announced that their RuneQuest 7th (yes, I said 7th) wouldn't be based on RQ6, and that it would be a Glorantha-only game, I got somewhat annoyed, but after thinking through the whole matter, I realized that it was not so bad. The Design Mechanism, not being able to keep working on Adventures in Glorantha, has to turn their attention to their Mythic and fantasy settings. Since I'm not interested in Glorantha, for me it's a win. I only feel sorry for Pete and Loz, who must have put a lot of work and excitement into their Glorantha supplement.
Alephtar Games was also hit very hard by Chaosium's recent policies (they lost like 90% of their catalog), I hope their new Revolution d100 gains momentum and they put back in print their catalog. Even if you don't like Revolution d100, their supplements can still be used with other d100 games. I want to like Rd100, and I think that there is a great game in there, almost as good as Mythras, but first I have to understand the damned rules! :(
Erm, wasn't this supposed to be a RuneQuest 3 thread? Who derailed it talking about products by The Evil Competition(TM)?
Jokes aside, a couple brief replies, as some posters called me in.
Quote from: Simlasa;939688I can't see Revolution d100 being my cup of tea though. The author seems bent on bringing in more narrative type mechanics and that will keep me away.
After consultation with co-authors and feedback from potential users I have decided to make the "narrative" mechanics completely optional, which was not the initial goal when we kickstarted the game. A considerable amount of side notes has been added to mark the points which contain such mechanics with "do not use this rule if first-person play is fundamental for you" warnings.
Some variants of the game (Mecha) will have non-simulative mechanics inextricably bound to the rules, but the core engine does not. It is perfectly playable as a purely simulative engine.
Quote from: Claudius;940142I haven't decided yet if I like Revolution d100 or not. On the one hand, I liked A LOT the short list of skills + traits thing (traits are like specialties). On the other hand, I tried to read the Conflicts and Combat chapters and I was clueless. Am I the only one? :confused:
No. But to a degree, this might be an inevitable effect. When faced with a choice between something simpler that did not produce really satisfactory results in playtest, and something more complex that actually did the job it was supposed to, I went with the solutions
that proved the best at the table. This does not always imply that they are also the most linear to explain. Or, in other words, you have to try it in practice to really grasp the system. Pansophy had the same doubts when reading the text - he changed his mind completely after playing!
Quote from: K Peterson;940157I had the same impression of Revolution D100. I recall looking at some playtest notes (a year ago or so?), and seeing some comments from the writer/publisher. And they led me to believe that RD100 was an attempt to NewSchoolRules BRP, with a more narrative focus.
This is not the only goal of the game, of course, and this is the reason why we have left ample options for playing it the traditional way.
The core intent of the game was to disentangle us from the decisions and strategies of other publishers.
However, I also made the intentional choice of not producing just "yet another derivative of the Mongoose RQ SRD". It could probably have made more sense marketing-wise, as all those who commented "it keeps me away" would have commented "I will buy it" instead, had I proposed a semi-paraphrasis of OpenQuest with enough crunchy options to replace the Big Golden Book. Such an operation, though, would have had the limited purposes of just "biting away" small pieces of market from D101 or TDM by replicating essentially the same thing they were already doing.
In other words, why make a game that tried to cater to
a segment of customers who were already perfectly happy with with OpenQuest or Mythras? It certainly made more sense to focus primarily on gamers who were interested in seeing something different, as long as compatibility with other D100 games was more or less guaranteed.
Even more important, system overlapping and uniformity is not necessarily good for the fanbase. As most if not all gamers mix and match various rules from different D100 incarnations, the more different a game is from the average, the more useful it is to gamers. Thus, I have made the conscious and explicit choice of selling fewer copies in the beginning (we have enough setting materials ready to re-publish to make up for this loss), but having a game which has a real justification for its existence beyond "we no longer have a Chaosium license". This also leaves us more room to attract customers not usually interested in D100 and thus enlarge the potential audience.
Quote from: K Peterson;939292Is it going to be much of a new game? All that I've read has indicated that it's basically RQ2.5 for the rules set. Probably with some fluffy narrative mechanics to reflect the setting "better". I can't image that it'll be that hard to learn, or will be that different from RQ2.
I suspect that all this Chaosium talk that "the new Chaosium RQ4 (yes, 4th, Mongoose and the Design Mechanism never happened!!) will be like RQ2, with some tiiiiiiny changes", is just marketingspeak. After all, RQ2 is still remembered and very well regarded by a lot of RQ fans, and the RQ2 kickstarter was a resounding success, so it is in the best interest of Chaosium to portray RQ7 as the natural successor of RQ2.
I had a look at the RQ7 design notes, and didn't get the impression that RQ is actually so similar to RQ2. Yes, RQ7 is a d100 game and as such, it will share a lot of traits with RQ2, but I think the same can be said about RQ3, MRQ1, MRQ2 and RQ6. Or Stormbringer.
Anyways, all of this is speculations from me, time will tell if I was right or wrong.
Quote from: Claudius;940376...
I had a look at the RQ7 design notes, and didn't get the impression that RQ is actually so similar to RQ2. Yes, RQ7 is a d100 game and as such, it will share a lot of traits with RQ2, but I think the same can be said about RQ3, MRQ1, MRQ2 and RQ6. Or Stormbringer.
From the mechanics I've seen RQ7 is pretty much abandoning all of the mechanics that were introduced in RQ4-6. RQ 7 has:
the resistance table, characteristic rolls (STR*5 etc), skills as a flat base chance + category modifier, skill increase through experience, no "differential rolls" (i.e. no special effects in combat or degrees of relative success); combat ordered through 12 Strike Ranks per round rather than a number of Action Points to spend per round.
At this point I don't recall whether they are keeping criticals as 1/10 or reverting back to specials (1/5) and criticals (1/20). Also don't know if they are keeping "blackjack" tie-breakers for opposed rolls.
They seem to have decided that not only must every bit of setting content published since 2004 be erased but also every mechanical change.
Compared to RQ2 the changes look to be: slight tweaks to the list of skills; skills as true percentiles rather than units of 5; replacing defense with dodge; wholesale changes to magic and the addition of runes as a central mechanic.
As far as I can see, it's as if someone found the RQ3 design document with track changes turned on. They undid most but not all of the RQ3 track changes and deleted the magic chapter ready to start again.
What it seems like to me is that the chaps at new Chaosium woke up one morning and said "Hang on a minute, we put a lot of money into this so lets publish the RQ we liked playing when we were young."
Well I kinda liked Glorantha as presented in RQ2.
Fantasy chaotic romans versus fantasy germans/celts plus ducks and dragonewts.
Add to this a map, a short timeline and that's it.
No fat, nicely trimmed.
Quote from: deleriad;940378From the mechanics I've seen RQ7 is pretty much abandoning all of the mechanics that were introduced in RQ4-6. RQ 7 has:
the resistance table, characteristic rolls (STR*5 etc), skills as a flat base chance + category modifier, skill increase through experience, no "differential rolls" (i.e. no special effects in combat or degrees of relative success); combat ordered through 12 Strike Ranks per round rather than a number of Action Points to spend per round.
At this point I don't recall whether they are keeping criticals as 1/10 or reverting back to specials (1/5) and criticals (1/20). Also don't know if they are keeping "blackjack" tie-breakers for opposed rolls.
They seem to have decided that not only must every bit of setting content published since 2004 be erased but also every mechanical change.
Compared to RQ2 the changes look to be: slight tweaks to the list of skills; skills as true percentiles rather than units of 5; replacing defense with dodge; wholesale changes to magic and the addition of runes as a central mechanic.
As far as I can see, it's as if someone found the RQ3 design document with track changes turned on. They undid most but not all of the RQ3 track changes and deleted the magic chapter ready to start again.
What it seems like to me is that the chaps at new Chaosium woke up one morning and said "Hang on a minute, we put a lot of money into this so lets publish the RQ we liked playing when we were young."
RQ2 doesn't actually use a Resistance table for anything other than POW vs POW conflicts (usually for magic). The universal table must have come later on. There aren't any Characteristic x 5% rolls either. They only influence Ability (Skill groupings) modifiers.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;940387RQ2 doesn't actually use a Resistance table for anything other than POW vs POW conflicts (usually for magic). The universal table must have come later on. There aren't any Characteristic x 5% rolls either. They only influence Ability (Skill groupings) modifiers.
Characteristic rolls were in the appendix to RQ2. Also used in Rainbow mounds as I remember. DEX roll not to fall in the water and I think you had to fail a SIZ roll at one point or get stuck somewhere.
Resistance table was also in the basic roleplaying booklet that came in the RQ2 box set: used for arm-wrestling with good old Burly Bob.
To answer the OP's question. I don't remember the precise details but because the initial release of RQ3 was so expensive and sales bombed a few years later they came up with the wheeze of dividing it into standard and advanced. Games Workshop sold them as hardback books in the UK. I had forgotten that AH also made box set versions that they sold in the rest of the world.
Standard was basically the full game with all kinds of bits cut out. You could just about play it as a game in its own right but all the published supplements were written for the advanced (aka the complete) rules. This meant that all the supplements then had an extra section detailing the "advanced" elements in the supplement.
Although I played RQ3 for about 12 years I have managed to blank out the number of idiocies in the product.
As a rules set, taken in the whole, I found RQ3 to hang together slightly better than RQ2 but at the expense of being a lot more fiddly. The system became a lot more granular. For example, though it's not explicit, in RQ2 most of the time if you get a modifier it's pretty big, often +/- 20%. In RQ3 you could easily end up with 3 to 4 modifiers per die roll starting at +/-1% (Looking at you Fatigue Points) and not infrequently including a multiplier.
RQ3 was state of the art c. 1984 or so. It's still a decent game, but there are a lot better options out there.
I tend to prefer RQ2, but RQIII is a fine set of rules, and I rather liked the Mythic Europe setting. I'd be happy playing either. I like RQ6, as well, but my RQ6 games have not been as successful as I expected. Not sure why -- maybe it's just my familiarity with the older versions contrasting with my rulebook referencing when using RQ6.
My main issue with RQ3 were the flimsy paper covers on the rulebooks that came in the boxed set. I was careful with mine, and kept them out of the hands of rougher folks... but I really wish they'd been made of sterner stuff.
Quote from: Herne's Son;940478RQ3 was state of the art c. 1984 or so. It's still a decent game, but there are a lot better options out there.
Thanks for the most meaningless contribution to this thread.
Quote from: RosenMcStern;940370Erm, wasn't this supposed to be a RuneQuest 3 thread? Who derailed it talking about products by The Evil Competition(TM)?
Hmm, true, this thread was supposed to be about RQ3, hmm, ok, I'll say a few words about it.
The first RPG I ever played was D&D Mentzer (the one with the Larry Elmore cover), but the first RPG I ever bought, and ever loved, was RQ3. It was the Spanish version, which was, if I'm not mistaken, a translation of the British version (Games Workshop), with two corebooks, RQ Basic and RQ Advanced. After having played D&D Mentzer and MERP, RQ3 blew me away, it felt so logical and consistent.
Nowadays, I would (and will, when my turn to be the GM comes, soon, my treasure, soon :D) choose another flavor of d100. The BRP golden book includes some rules slightly different from the RQ3 ones, which I like more. And I like Mythras even more than BRP. I might like Revolution d100 as much as Mythras if I get to decipher the rules.
At RosenMcStern
Thank you for your answers. Perhaps I should open or resurrect a thread about Rd100 so I don't derail this one.
By the way, I saw a conflict example in the corebook, but no combat example. Did you write a combat example anywhere? I would like to see one.
Quote from: Simlasa;940517My main issue with RQ3 were the flimsy paper covers on the rulebooks that came in the boxed set. I was careful with mine, and kept them out of the hands of rougher folks... but I really wish they'd been made of sterner stuff.
Really? Mines made of the same stock as the pages inside. But its a pretty sturdy stock. Its not cardstock like the module covers. But not flimsy paper either.
Quote from: Claudius;940539Thank you for your answers. Perhaps I should open or resurrect a thread about Rd100 so I don't derail this one.
By the way, I saw a conflict example in the corebook, but no combat example. Did you write a combat example anywhere? I would like to see one.
Quick answers to avoid stealing space from the main subject of the thread: yes, chapter 4: "Combat" has few examples. As it is chapter 3 that introduces something really new, we prioritized providing more examples for that, instead. This means that the long, complete example that other games devote to combat was instead reserved for a social encounter, with the incidental violent part of the challenge excised.
A Basic Combat example is essentially the same as a non-violent Conflict in a violent context. I do not have a complete advanced combat example ready for linking - it could be a good idea to provide one as soon as possible, given that users are starting to have the game available for play.
Quote from: Claudius;940376I suspect that all this Chaosium talk that "the new Chaosium RQ4 (yes, 4th, Mongoose and the Design Mechanism never happened!!) will be like RQ2, with some tiiiiiiny changes", is just marketingspeak. After all, RQ2 is still remembered and very well regarded by a lot of RQ fans, and the RQ2 kickstarter was a resounding success, so it is in the best interest of Chaosium to portray RQ7 as the natural successor of RQ2.
I had a look at the RQ7 design notes, and didn't get the impression that RQ is actually so similar to RQ2. Yes, RQ7 is a d100 game and as such, it will share a lot of traits with RQ2, but I think the same can be said about RQ3, MRQ1, MRQ2 and RQ6. Or Stormbringer.
Anyways, all of this is speculations from me, time will tell if I was right or wrong.
Personally, I have little to no faith that the new Chaosium management will create an RQ I'll want to play.
Quote from: Omega;940547Really? Mines made of the same stock as the pages inside. But its a pretty sturdy stock. Its not cardstock like the module covers. But not flimsy paper either.
Yeah, it's a petty thing... but it bugs me beyond any rational reason. The Fantasy Trip books were similarly annoying to me in that regard.
yah, its a shame that TFT was published the way it was. They did it for a reason: their goal was to present a game that was structurally a bit like D&D (three core books; involves mucking around in dungeons), but cost ~1/3 as much to buy - i.e., it would fit within Metagaming's business model of pumping out cheap but cool table top board games. It worked - a lot of people bought TFT as it was published. But the poor editing and super cheesy cover art was bothersome from the start (got knows why the covers were like that; the interior line art is great). And they practically dissolved in peoples hands as the books aged. One of the reasons why the game didn't revive well during the OSR revival is that the original books are in bad shape. Plus the IP is owned by an insane monster who won't republish or let anyone else take it over. Also, GURPs sort of displaced it in the market. And the lineup of campaign and adventure materials went downhill super fast - Death Trap is fun in a board gamey way, but the rest of it is honestly not worth while other than as collectors materials. Its too bad, because the rules were great and arguably better for dungeon crawling than any of the other 'D&D with a difference' games (Runequest, Tunnels and Trolls, Chivalry and Sorcery, etc.)
Quote from: TrippyHippy;940387RQ2 doesn't actually use a Resistance table for anything other than POW vs POW conflicts (usually for magic).
You have stated this before and you are still wrong
Quote from: waltshumate;940590You have stated this before and you are still wrong
I have the RuneQuest 2 book in front of me now. The Resistance table is located P37 in the Basic Magic Chapter, and specifically refers to POW vs POW only.
It may be in a Basic Roleplaying supplement in a box set version of RuneQuest, but it isn't in the RQ2 rulebook itself for anything else - including Appendices.
You are wrong.
Well, there are the following I can find for uses of the Resistance table:
- p56: Rune Lord allying a spirit uses POW+CHA vs POW+INT of spirit
- p66: Darkness Elemental uses its POW against the CON of the victim
- p66: Fire Elemental uses a roll of 3d6 vs the CON of the victim on the Resistance table
- p67: Sylphs can throw people unless they resist by pitting STR vs that of the elemental (explicitly said to be STR vs STR rather than POW vs POW using the Resistance table)
- p100: Knockback "compare STR+SIZ of attacker vs SIZ+DEX of target on the resistance table" (paraphrased a bit) (Appendix C)
There are also Characteristic rolls used throughout the book, not just on p98
p45 Poisons attack by matching their POT against CON
p90 Vampires attack like Ghosts (POW vs POW)
I cannot find Wraiths in the RQ2 rulebook, but they matched POW vs CON/STR in their initial attack, I think.
RQ3 was the first book I ever encountered in the Runequest series. I found it rather late in my gaming years - 2008 or so I think? I got my hands on a copy of the Deluxe Edition and fell in love with the mechanics immediately. Because it was my first read, I still prefer that particular edition over any other, though I quite like the RQ6 copy I have. I've just picked up the RQC hardcover, and am waiting to read it (time, time, time), so I'll see how I feel after that.
In terms of mechanics? I know the encumbrance rules seem laborious, but I guess I just got used to clunky mechanics and tracking from my Rolemaster days, so it didn't bug me. But I have a preference for games where wandering around with 100lbs of gear matters, and incentives light weight travel and armour. My players? A lot of them love the "so epic it shits marble" approach to gaming, and therefore RQ sits on my shelf, untouched and unused a lot of the time.
The Mythic Earth bit in RQ3 was what sold me the most, actually. I liked how Ars Magica made a mythic earth as well, and this one was in the same vein in terms of setting, and made me really start to rethink what I wanted out of fantasy games.
RQ3's encumbrance rules are not really that complicated: you add up what you are carrying, and its either above your limit or not. People gripe about it because they are babies about tracking any kind of encumbrance!
Quote from: Larsdangly;940698RQ3's encumbrance rules are not really that complicated: you add up what you are carrying, and its either above your limit or not. People gripe about it because they are babies about tracking any kind of encumbrance!
Keeping track of fatigue and encumbrance in RQ was super easy. I never understood why people thought it was so complicated.
My gripe was that it seemed like a useless complication. I played RQIII pretty heavily from '85-'95 or so, and don't ever remember the skill penalties -ever- coming into play.
Quote from: Herne's Son;940699My gripe was that it seemed like a useless complication. I played RQIII pretty heavily from '85-'95 or so, and don't ever remember the skill penalties -ever- coming into play.
It's not difficult but it is tedious, time-consuming and not worth the effort. Especially for the GM tracking multiple NPCs' fatigue points.
I used to have a house rule based on running settings where magic was not prevalent that you could increase your skill chance by 1% per Fatigue Point spent (or 5% per Magic Point spent). I wouldn't bother with it now.
Exactly. Incremental penalties are statistically useless in BRP. Losing 1% per round is just a pain in the ass to track. If it were a 5% penalty for each point of negative FAT, it might actually make a difference. But like I said above, the games I played back in the day, no fight ever lasted long enough for anyone to have more thank like a -3% to -5% penalty. And by the time PCs had been around long enough that they were equipped with heavy armor (chain, plate, etc.), their combat skills were up in the 75%-90% range anyway, so those fiddly penalties were -really- useless.
Quote from: deleriad;940704It's not difficult but it is tedious, time-consuming and not worth the effort. Especially for the GM tracking multiple NPCs' fatigue points.
Exactly this. And that's why I originally posted that the RQ3 Fatigue rules were "a bookkeeping pain in the ass."
Quote from: d(sqrt(-1));940679Well, there are the following I can find for uses of the Resistance table:
- p56: Rune Lord allying a spirit uses POW+CHA vs POW+INT of spirit
- p66: Darkness Elemental uses its POW against the CON of the victim
- p66: Fire Elemental uses a roll of 3d6 vs the CON of the victim on the Resistance table
- p67: Sylphs can throw people unless they resist by pitting STR vs that of the elemental (explicitly said to be STR vs STR rather than POW vs POW using the Resistance table)
- p100: Knockback "compare STR+SIZ of attacker vs SIZ+DEX of target on the resistance table" (paraphrased a bit) (Appendix C)
There are also Characteristic rolls used throughout the book, not just on p98
Quote from: soltakssp45 Poisons attack by matching their POT against CON
p90 Vampires attack like Ghosts (POW vs POW)
I cannot find Wraiths in the RQ2 rulebook, but they matched POW vs CON/STR in their initial attack, I think.
I'll happily acquiesce to greater knowledge of the game - I've never played it, and only purchased Classic RuneQuest for the first time last year. But the book I have in front of me doesn't check out with those references. The pages referenced are discussing totally different things - p56 is about horse riding, for example. P45 is discussing Shamans.
Different printings, perhaps?
Anyway, looking through some of the spells and sidebars I have found some references, myself, to using different Characteristics rather than POW on the Resistance table, although they aren't as obvious as the table itself which is in the Magic Chapter and labelled POW vs POW. However, point conceded. I guess the virtue of actually playing the game rather than just reading for the first time is you pick up more things in play. Apologies if anyone felt misled.
My first introduction to Runequest was the Elfquest book I shoplifted at the mall bookstore, then had to replace with one I actually paid for after I got snitched on. I got the Avalon Hill book, but never box, sometime after that, but still never got a chance to play either, but the obviousness of percentile mechanics was, to my tender and criminal eyes, brilliant.
Over the years I've collected a vast array of books for RQ, but honestly I've never 'got' Glorantha... so everything Glorantha focused has just irritated me. I did use MRQ and MRQII to run my own setting for a couple of years straight, but when we tried to pull but RQ3 my players balked at the character creation system. Lazy gits.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure I will buy anymore RQ books. The big gold book bored me to tears, and the MRQII seems to get the job done, even if I did wind up importing stuff from MRQ to fill out the line a bit. Maybe if its extra shiny. I like shiny.
Quote from: deleriad;940704It's not difficult but it is tedious, time-consuming and not worth the effort. Especially for the GM tracking multiple NPCs' fatigue points.
I used to have a house rule based on running settings where magic was not prevalent that you could increase your skill chance by 1% per Fatigue Point spent (or 5% per Magic Point spent). I wouldn't bother with it now.
If you want tedious try a round of Mythras/RQ6. Waiting for 4-6 people. fiddle with action points and decide what special effects they are going to use is mind numbing.
Quote from: waltshumate;940860If you want tedious try a round of Mythras/RQ6. Waiting for 4-6 people. fiddle with action points and decide what special effects they are going to use is mind numbing.
Having run multiple campaigns under RQ/Mythras since 2004 and published various scenarios for it, that's not my experience.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;940793I'll happily acquiesce to greater knowledge of the game - I've never played it, and only purchased Classic RuneQuest for the first time last year. But the book I have in front of me doesn't check out with those references. The pages referenced are discussing totally different things - p56 is about horse riding, for example. P45 is discussing Shamans.
Different printings, perhaps?
Anyway, looking through some of the spells and sidebars I have found some references, myself, to using different Characteristics rather than POW on the Resistance table, although they aren't as obvious as the table itself which is in the Magic Chapter and labelled POW vs POW. However, point conceded. I guess the virtue of actually playing the game rather than just reading for the first time is you pick up more things in play. Apologies if anyone felt misled.
My memory from playing RQ2 back in the day, was that the Pow vs. Pow table was initially designed to manage magical conflicts, but the designers quickly realized it would work well for any kind of Stat vs. Stat conflict. Hence the other little rules in the RQ2 core rules that directed you to the Pow vs. Pow table for other uses. I don't think it was explicitly stated that it should be used for any sort of conflict rolls until the BRP booklet came out.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;940793I'll happily acquiesce to greater knowledge of the game - I've never played it, and only purchased Classic RuneQuest for the first time last year. But the book I have in front of me doesn't check out with those references. The pages referenced are discussing totally different things - p56 is about horse riding, for example. P45 is discussing Shamans.
Different printings, perhaps?
Anyway, looking through some of the spells and sidebars I have found some references, myself, to using different Characteristics rather than POW on the Resistance table, although they aren't as obvious as the table itself which is in the Magic Chapter and labelled POW vs POW. However, point conceded. I guess the virtue of actually playing the game rather than just reading for the first time is you pick up more things in play. Apologies if anyone felt misled.
No worries. I was going from the 1980 UK RQ2 printing. I've got the reprint somewhere but I can't find it at the moment to check the page numbers.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;940793Different printings, perhaps?
Different printings. Classic from last year is a new layout with some additional material from 'zines of the period interpolated so pagination changed from the original version these gentlemen are working with: allying a spirit is now p. 61, etc.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;940793I'll happily acquiesce to greater knowledge of the game - I've never played it, and only purchased Classic RuneQuest for the first time last year. But the book I have in front of me doesn't check out with those references. The pages referenced are discussing totally different things - p56 is about horse riding, for example. P45 is discussing Shamans.
Different printings, perhaps?
Maybe, I am looking at RQ2 (1980) but not the blue (to me) cover. The pages agree with di's pages.
Quote from: TrippyHippy;940793Anyway, looking through some of the spells and sidebars I have found some references, myself, to using different Characteristics rather than POW on the Resistance table, although they aren't as obvious as the table itself which is in the Magic Chapter and labelled POW vs POW. However, point conceded. I guess the virtue of actually playing the game rather than just reading for the first time is you pick up more things in play. Apologies if anyone felt misled.
Don't worry about it. We often argue points about things we haven't played, or sometimes havn't even seen.