Thanks for the input guys.

it's a good, honest question.

I run 2 rulests, oth homebrews, but one is a skill-based d100 system, and the other a class-based d20 system.

I have both because they are good at different things.
I went to the d100 for a grittier system, more mortal, so that bartenders could have level 4 basic social and that a duke could have 12000 exp in social skills.  I also wanted a system where characters only got better at the skills they used, and where combat and exploration were just part of the game you did to allow you to get things to use in the social realm, the real part of the game.
Been working on that system and setting for 27+ years now,

Years later, however, I find sometimes I have other needs.  A game with archetypes, based on exploration and problem solving.  A game with heroes and heroic archetypes.
and yes, an easier game where characters can be thrown together in 15 minutes instead of losing a game session to character creation.  

So they serve different needs.

D&D BECMI was the first RPG I ever played, but RuneQuest was the first RPG I bought, and the first one I truly loved. For me it's RuneQuest all the way.

On the other hand, I'm not you. You should run the game you feel most comfortable with.

The main problem I've found with converting DnD to RQ is the lack of "enemy races." Yes, RQ has Broo, but that's about it. One of the central ideas of RQ is that monsters are people too, not mooks.

Openquest does indeed have goblins and the like, but I've never found an acceptable (to me) way to translate a gang of orcs from DnD to something in RQ. I'm sure it can be done, but it doesn't feel right to me.

Quote from: ptingler;460421Is there a way to judge Runequest power level in comparison to D&D power level? For example, since most of the D&D adventures say for levels 2-4 or 5-7 or whatever, is there a way to judge when a Runequest group should do those adventures? Do you convert monsters from D&D to Runequest stats or do you just say okay the text has 2 D&D trolls, I'll just use 2 Runequest trolls regardless of differences between the games?

I wouldn't recommend trying to literally "convert" according to any particular formula. How I would go about it is decide beforehand about what difficulty level you want the opposition to be - you don't really need to go by the suggested D&D level and it might frankly be counterproductive to do so. Then given the power range you're looking at, pick the closest comparable existing Runequest monster for that power level and adjust it until you think you have the flavor for the original. Eliot's point is also a good one that similar monster names can be false friends between D&D and RQ.

Runequest's power curve is much flatter than D&D's, and being outnumbered even by inferior opponents is more dangerous. Between these two factors many level 1-3 D&D modules may end up being more dangerous than higher level ones, depending on the number and arrangement of the enemy. I like RQ a lot but guessing the relative power of PCs vs. monsters can be complicated in it. You may want to look at existing RQ adventures to get some models for the number and strength of monsters in your adaptations of D&D adventures. And I think if you err on the side of "weaker monsters" the players won't resent you for it.

Quote from: ptingler;460421Is there a way to judge Runequest power level in comparison to D&D power level? For example, since most of the D&D adventures say for levels 2-4 or 5-7 or whatever, is there a way to judge when a Runequest group should do those adventures? Do you convert monsters from D&D to Runequest stats or do you just say okay the text has 2 D&D trolls, I'll just use 2 Runequest trolls regardless of differences between the games?

I wouldn't recommend trying to literally "convert" according to any particular formula. How I would go about it is decide beforehand about what difficulty level you want the opposition to be - you don't really need to go by the suggested D&D level and it might frankly be counterproductive to do so. Then given the power range you're looking at, pick the closest comparable existing Runequest monster for that power level and adjust it until you think you have the flavor for the original. Eliot's point is also a good one that similar monster names can be false friends between D&D and RQ.

Runequest's power curve is much flatter than D&D's, and being outnumbered even by inferior opponents is more dangerous. Between these two factors many level 1-3 D&D modules may end up being more dangerous than higher level ones, depending on the number and arrangement of the enemy. I like RQ a lot but guessing the relative power of PCs vs. monsters can be complicated in it. You may want to look at existing RQ adventures to get some models for the number and strength of monsters in your adaptations of D&D adventures. And I think if you err on the side of "weaker monsters" the players won't resent you for it.

This said, if you want to try using RQ for some of the D&D classics, go for it. It will make for a somewhat different experience, but that doesn't mean it won't  be fun,

Quote from: Ultor;460536The main problem I've found with converting DnD to RQ is the lack of "enemy races." Yes, RQ has Broo, but that's about it. One of the central ideas of RQ is that monsters are people too, not mooks.

Openquest does indeed have goblins and the like, but I've never found an acceptable (to me) way to translate a gang of orcs from DnD to something in RQ. I'm sure it can be done, but it doesn't feel right to me.

You are conflating "fluff" and "crunch", and specifically Gloranthan fluff with RuneQuest the rules set.

Don't translate a gang of orcs to something else in RQ. Keep it a gang of orcs, but resolve the situations it gets into using the RQ rules.

Cole's advice is sound. The best way to use a D&D module with RuneQuest is to not convert at all. It is to read the module and try to grasp its inner logic, how challenges and threats are designed, how challenging and threatening they ought to be for the advised party level, and then try to recreate this intensity of threat/challenge for the RQ party.

Careful though, because the resource management doesn't work the same way. An 8th level party in D&D has a wealth of HPs to go through before things become really problematic for them, for instance, whereas a single fight may be deadly, even with mooks, in a RQ game. So it's all about trying to understand the environment depicted in the module and try to recreate it using RQ to create an environment that is enjoyable on its own merits, rather than trying to recreate the D&D game play with RQ rules. This could mean eliminating a whole lot of the little skirmishes of a D&D module in a dungeon, say, to replace them with atmospheric elements and keep the big, important fights that ought to threaten the adventurers life, depending on the type of feel you want, for instance.

I think that both OD&D and RQ are good game systems, but they have a very different feel to them. The problem, as I see it, is that as you add "realism" you tend to make a game more rules-heavy.

I think that OD&D's class system makes neat, tidy templates that are easy to worth with. OD&D's combat system is simple but abstract. OD&D has that "right" feel to me but, as others have suggested, it is probably because I've grown up with it.

RQ (and other BRP variants) adds in layers of complexity with hit location, skills, and so on. This can be good (depth of character) or bad (more to keep track of) depending upon one's style of play.

Bottom line -- they're both great rules systems. I prefer OD&D but I've got some friends who are RQ though-and-through. You can't really go wrong with either.

Quote from: Ultor;460536The main problem I've found with converting DnD to RQ is the lack of "enemy races." Yes, RQ has Broo, but that's about it. One of the central ideas of RQ is that monsters are people too, not mooks.

I've never much liked the idea of 'enemy races'... yeah, those Orcs over there are people too... but... these over here are BAD orcs... they just set fire to that old lady and ate her daughter... so go get them.

Besides reducing numbers, one thing I'm trying in our Hommlet/TOEE games with BRP is to have non-combat solutions to a lot of things... like, most of the bandits in the Moathouse are willing to talk... take bribes... there's already some of that set up in the original (Gnolls who can be bought off)... also having the majority of the monsters be unwilling to fight to the death... running away at the first solid wound. The bandits are mostly cowards who won't risk getting hurt unless they've got a sizable advantage somehow.

I'm still working on the TOEE itself... making it creepy/dangerous but not impossible.

Quote from: Phillip;460652You are conflating "fluff" and "crunch", and specifically Gloranthan fluff with RuneQuest the rules set.

Don't translate a gang of orcs to something else in RQ. Keep it a gang of orcs, but resolve the situations it gets into using the RQ rules.

I've been playing RQ for a loooong time now, and I don't view the rules as purely a set of crunch mechanics. There's a philosophy behind them, in my opinion, and one of those is that there is no such thing as "Orcs" or any other usually evil race that the PCs attack on sight. That's what made the Orcs of Griffin Island so jarring for many RQ players.

Now a good GM can apply that philosophy to any rules set, and many do, but to me it is inherent in the RQ rules.

That's why I have found it very difficult to convert D&Dish modules to RQ. Most of them are written with a philosophy I find alien to RQ.

Another example would be that treasure is culturally important - so lists of generic magic items and so on are right out, and the average orc hoard can't simply be converted either.

If you do view the rules as merely a set of mechanics, then go ahead. No skin off my nose. I'm just trying to say why I find the job difficult.

If this is just confusing "fluff" and "crunch," then I'm guilty of being confused. But I don't think so.

Quote from: Ultor;460855I've been playing RQ for a loooong time now, and I don't view the rules as purely a set of crunch mechanics. There's a philosophy behind them, in my opinion, and one of those is that there is no such thing as "Orcs" or any other usually evil race that the PCs attack on sight. That's what made the Orcs of Griffin Island so jarring for many RQ players.

Now a good GM can apply that philosophy to any rules set, and many do, but to me it is inherent in the RQ rules.

That's why I have found it very difficult to convert D&Dish modules to RQ. Most of them are written with a philosophy I find alien to RQ.

Another example would be that treasure is culturally important - so lists of generic magic items and so on are right out, and the average orc hoard can't simply be converted either.

If you do view the rules as merely a set of mechanics, then go ahead. No skin off my nose. I'm just trying to say why I find the job difficult.

If this is just confusing "fluff" and "crunch," then I'm guilty of being confused. But I don't think so.

I think I understand you correctly, and if I do, what you're saying is that RQ doesn't have alignments... in other words, absolute good or evil, where we can always say, "those guys are evil, kill them with fire!" kinda stuff. I agree with ya, but I'd say for converting modules from D&D to RQ, I'd go ahead and say, "Those guys are evil, kill them with fire!". If I'm trying to recreate a more D&D feel with RQ, I'd just let it go at that. If I were trying to use a D&D scenario, but give it a more RQ feel along with the details, I'd perhaps give some PC-accessible backstory to the orcs or other baddies to communicate to the PCs that those are bad people who need to be killed with fire.

I'm fine with killing monsters as monsters. I can get enough philosophy and ethical dilemmas from real life that I don't need it in my games of killing and taking their loot.

I think the main place where RQ mechanics push you more toward treating monsters as people is that fighting is a lot more dangerous in RQ than it is in D&D. It also has a more finely-grained set of results--you can disable someone, or be disabled, without a kill.

The effect can be as subtle as encouraging more creative ways of dealing with threats, to making both sides more willing to back off or run away, to actually encouraging negotiation.

That said, when I ran this using Basic D&D, I treated the goblins more as "nasty and lawless" than as "evil".

Quote from: ptingler;460881I'm fine with killing monsters as monsters. I can get enough philosophy and ethical dilemmas from real life that I don't need it in my games of killing and taking their loot.

:D:D