Quote from: Doom;1086408Yep, I misremembered exactly what you needed to roll to improve, but it's still a bit wonky in that a couple of unlucky "experience point" rolls can stunt your character's growth dramatically, you can literally be several "levels" behind the rest of the party just by rolling poorly here, and if you've half a dozen players, the odds are decent that someone will indeed roll that poorly. Improving skills which start in the 20% or less range can be brutally subject to luck (gotta have a success, after all...). The fact still remains the "advancement rolls" were such a huge deal and never clearly defined as well.

My group had the same experience with EP in Runequest. It REALLY, REALLY SUCKED when a new character was trying to become competent at a skill and missed the chance to improve because of the whim of the dice. I've seen people give up on the system because of that.

"I'm bad at this and I keep letting my friends down, and I've played along for three game sessions, and now you tell me I can't even improve my character? SCREW THIS."

Especially because, as starting characters, you pretty much had to be bad at most things.

You start out more competent in RuneQuest Glorantha than you did in earlier versions.

I like the earlier editions of Runequest. I did not like the various later revisions to make it more realistic etc, such as Mythras/RQ6 whatever other iteration of the new rules were, I know it changed hands/publisher several times and in the end I just gave up on the whole RQ thing.

I can't say I particularly liked Glorantha.  It's pretty unapproachable for a new GM for it.  As a player I've had good and bad experiences with it, depending on the GM.

That sounds like there's no way I'd buy into a dedicated book set (such as the slipcase edition).
But I find myself less often actually running RPGs, apart from one offs every now and then and more often just reading the books. For various reasons, such as just being really busy, hard to get people to turn up regularly due to their busy schedules or just being unreliable and so on.
I'm getting older too, so I have less energy to run RPGs as often as I used to. Especially if the reward vs effort is getting harder to balance out.
 
The odds are I probably won't get it, but if I do, it'll be that really pretty slipcase edition. Partially as it'd look really nice on my shelf.  Also for old times sake and I could see myself poring through those books on a lazy Sunday on my verandah.

Quote from: Doom;1086413Yes, a D&D player could just not play and be just as bad off as a player who played half a dozen sessions of RQ. I'm not sure that's much of an argument for equivalent wonkiness--there are several other RPGS where if you don't play at all your character generally won't improve.

You don't seem to have understood what I said. As many others have mentioned, the rules as written work just fine and are no more wonky in practice than is D&D experience.

Sure a very unlucky player in Runequest might fail a bunch of attempts to increase their skills. A very unlucky player in OD&D wouldn't increase their skills either. Either because their character spent the entire adventure not finding any treasure and/or running away from tough monsters or because their character was unlucky enough to just get dead in session after session. Back in the olden days before every kid and his parents felt the need for him to get a trophy just for showing up, this was considered a feature not a bug.

QuoteAnd I'm not complaining about it being confusing or unfair, either...just weird.

You are complaining that Runequest isn't just like the D&D that you play. Of course it isn't. It isn't supposed to be just like D&D. That was, in part, the point of Runequest. A point that seems to have escaped you.

I've played RQ several times across several editions. Not a huge fan, although I can't put my finger on anything I would consider especially distasteful to me (perhaps aside from the magic systems which I've always found somewhat clunky). I think if I were to run a crunchier-type Glorantha game I would most likely just do so in GURPS.

If I wanted to play up the mythical/rune-based angle, I would probably go with something pretty narrative and free-flowing like Heroquest: Glorantha.

Quote from: Bren;1086616You don't seem to have understood what I said. As many others have mentioned, the rules as written work just fine and are no more wonky in practice than is D&D experience.

Heh your definition of "many" is strange. But if that's the route we'll go here ,then a huge number of people have said they found a problem with the EP system, and how it changes in other editions, or how they houserule it, or how it's so bad they just use training rules to get around it.

QuoteYou are complaining that Runequest isn't just like the D&D that you play. Of course it isn't. It isn't supposed to be just like D&D. That was, in part, the point of Runequest. A point that seems to have escaped you.

No, that's not the point at all. I openly defy you to find a quote by me that said the problem with RQ was it's not just like D&D. If' you can't find such a quote, shut up now. I predict you won't, though.

Warhammer FRP doesn't have an EP system just like D&D, and I don't find it screwy. The last dozen computer RPGs  I've played don't have EP systems just like D&D, and I don't find them screwy, either. Perhaps if you read what I write, and instead of what you imagine, we'd have an easier time talking, eh? But get back to me with that quote before continuing this, please.

Quote from: Doom;1086783No, that's not the point at all.

The point is that you like level-based systems, which Runequest isn't. D&D is the Ur-example of a level-based system.

One reason you like level-based systems is undoubtedly that you understand how a level-based system works. So it's not a big surprise that you like D&D and Warhammer. And many video games are also level based. So no surprise you like some of them. Runequest isn't level based. You've shown us that you don't understand it. So it's not surprising that you don't like Runequest.

Also water is wet.*


* When kept at one atmosphere of pressure and at a temperature somewhere between 0 and 100 degrees C.

Quote from: Doom;1086783a huge number of people have said they found a problem with the EP system, and how it changes in other editions, or how they houserule it, or how it's so bad they just use training rules to get around it.

Prior to this discussion, the only major complaint I can recall ever having seen about the BRP/RQ experience system is that some players will try to game the system by going out of their way to use as many different skills as possible, even when doing so is patently unreasonable, in an attempt to gain checkmarks (and, thus, improvement rolls) in as many skills as possible.  The one minor complaint I've seen is that some people dislike the record-keeping involved in tracking which skills are up for potential improvement and which are not.  That's it, in my experience.

The switch in RQ6/Mythras (and, actually, I think it may have come earlier in MRQ/Legend, but I'm not certain) to having the GM give out a fixed number of experience rolls per advancement opportunity (session, adventure, whatever interval they're using) as RAW is intended to address those issues - players gaming the experience checkmarks and eliminating the overhead of tracking the checkmarks.  It has nothing to do with the system being seen as fundamentally flawed and, when you get down to it, is really a pretty minor change to the system anyhow.

The training rules aren't a workaround used because the main experience system is "so bad", they're a core part of the system, meant to be used alongside it.  Using your skills actively in the field may or may not improve them based on experience rolls; training is a guaranteed increase, but it takes time and money and (depending on the specific ruleset you're using) may tend to produce smaller gains.  Live experience also has the advantage that you can gain improve multiple skills at once if they're all in active use, while training is generally limited to developing one skill at a time.  Also, training requires a trainer whose skills are better than yours, so you reach a point where you have to either rely on live experience to improve further or go on a quest to find a master whose skills are sufficient to train you further.  So neither method of advancement is truly a replacement for the other.

From this discussion, I gather that you dislike the BRP/RQ advancement system because it's unpredictable and because bad luck can prevent character from gaining (non-training) skill improvements.  Is that accurate?  And are there other aspects which put you off that I haven't picked up on?

Quote from: Doom;1086430Heh, you say it's clear to you, and "usually consider." Contradict yourself much?'

Seems pretty clear to me.

Runequest 2nd edition, Page 25

QuoteAt the end of the scenario, when the character can take a week to relax and meditate upon his experience, there is a chance he will learn from what happened to him.

Which applies to other skills

Runequest 2nd edition, Page 47

QuoteJust as an Adventurer can learn fighting, either by experience or through training, he can also learn other skills and increase them through training.

As for being wonky, the system reflects the fact that the author were in college or just out of college when RQ2 was written.  It reflects the idea that what a character know is reflected by skill categories, that can be improved by spending the time and paying the cost of undertaking a course of training.

For example a Biology major may not know much about Technical Writing but if they took Technical Writing for a semester they definitely now have some amount of writing skill afterwards.

Or they could learn technical writing by trial and error. It may take longer but is certainly cheaper.

Quote from: nDervish;1086860The training rules aren't a workaround used because the main experience system is "so bad", they're a core part of the system, meant to be used alongside it.  

I concur,

Classic Runequest has a lot of consideration for what commonly referred to as the "life of the setting." The idea that the characters are part of a world with other people with their own concerns. This includes guilds where characters can seek training and patronage. In classic Runequest the presentation of skills outside of combat is centered on which guild or organization offers training in that skill. The more advanced character options like Rune Lords and Rune Priest are even more tightly bound with a specific organization centered around a religion.

Nearly every point where RQ2 talks about skill advancement it talks about learning from experience or learning by training. It presented as two options.

I don't have as much experience running RQ2 as I do GURPS but from what I ran character advancement is driven largely by training paid for by money earned from adventuring. However learning from experience is always there and over time contributes it share of skill advancement.

Quote from: estar;1086863Seems pretty clear to me.

Runequest 2nd edition, Page 25


Which applies to other skills

Runequest 2nd edition, Page 47

Quote from: RQ2At the end of the scenario, when the character can take a week to relax and meditate upon his experience, there is a chance he will learn from what happened to him.

I wasn't remembering that explicit text, but yea, it's right there and clear. I may interpret it a bit differently when I GM, but that doesn't mean the original text is not clear or doesn't work well.

As far as me or other folks running it a bit different, consider that even venerable chess is often played with house rules (do you allow taking back a move after removing your hand from the piece? Do you use a time clock? What are the time clock rules?), some very commonly used, and some codified by various play associations. Chess even spawns variant games. None of that means the original game is bad. It just means there are various reasons to play differently, even if it's just for "a change of pace."

Frank

Quote from: ffilz;1086942As far as me or other folks running it a bit different,

Your house, your rules.

I only jumped in when people were talking about RAW. That made me go "Hey wait a minute it wasn't like that.". I feel that one should understand RAW as a starting point, but never be beholden to it. Being consistent rulings based how the setting of the campaign is defined is the most important factor in my opinion.

So if anybody thinks that XP in Runequest should be different great! Change it! There are many ways to think about how folks learn skills and how that depicted in various genres.

My opinion, based on reading RQ2, and what I know of the authors, I think Runequest RAW XP system is a reasonable approach and clearly written.

I ran RQ 2 as a 15 year old with a borrowed set of rules.  There were some things that didn't entirely click, but I don't remember skill advancement being on of them.  If anything, it was one of the more directly clear things in the rules.

Quote from: estar;1086953Your house, your rules.

I only jumped in when people were talking about RAW. That made me go "Hey wait a minute it wasn't like that.". I feel that one should understand RAW as a starting point, but never be beholden to it. Being consistent rulings based how the setting of the campaign is defined is the most important factor in my opinion.

So if anybody thinks that XP in Runequest should be different great! Change it! There are many ways to think about how folks learn skills and how that depicted in various genres.

My opinion, based on reading RQ2, and what I know of the authors, I think Runequest RAW XP system is a reasonable approach and clearly written.

I was only emphasizing that my use of some house rules wasn't due to the original rules not being clear and usable, but simply because I had some preferences, therefore I was not being contradictory.

So yea, I totally agree with you that the RAW are clear, reasonable, and usable.

Frank

Quote from: nDervish;1086860Prior to this discussion, the only major complaint I can recall ever having seen about the BRP/RQ experience system is that some players will try to game the system by going out of their way to use as many different skills as possible, even when doing so is patently unreasonable, in an attempt to gain checkmarks (and, thus, improvement rolls) in as many skills as possible.  The one minor complaint I've seen is that some people dislike the record-keeping involved in tracking which skills are up for potential improvement and which are not.  That's it, in my experience.

That's the same general complaint I've heard online since the 1980's when I first started talking RPGs online.  I've never had an issue with it, as skill checks are only supposed to be awarded for attempts under duress, and I've always ruled that if you were just doing it for the skill check then you're not really under any real duress.  Having said that, I'm actually pretty free with handing out skill checks.  I've never found it hurts the game to have a little faster advancement.

Speaking of which, the most common house-rule I've seen is to grant skill checks for any skill attempted under duress, whether successful or not.  This allows lower skilled characters better chances at advancement early on, but converges pretty closely to RAW as they advance.  I've done this forever and seen lots of other people do it.  It doesn't mean we think RAW is unclear or bad, but rather we just prefer doing it this way for our game.

Quote from: estar;1086864Classic Runequest has a lot of consideration for what commonly referred to as the "life of the setting." The idea that the characters are part of a world with other people with their own concerns. This includes guilds where characters can seek training and patronage. In classic Runequest the presentation of skills outside of combat is centered on which guild or organization offers training in that skill. The more advanced character options like Rune Lords and Rune Priest are even more tightly bound with a specific organization centered around a religion.

One of the ways that RQ really focuses on the world around the PC's and feeling a little more like there's a world out there that isn't just adventuring is that the training rules really encourage lots of downtime.  Our games frequently have an adventure or two every game year, with time between being concerned with training, cult duties, and family duties.  It just doesn't fit into the adventure-after-adventure-after-adventure paradigm of D&D, or most other RPGs.  This isn't explicitly stated, but is implicit in how the game functions.  

QuoteI don't have as much experience running RQ2 as I do GURPS but from what I ran character advancement is driven largely by training paid for by money earned from adventuring. However learning from experience is always there and over time contributes it share of skill advancement.

You have to do both.  You can only do one advancement from training after each advancement by adventure.  Also, (most) skills can only train up to 75%, after which advances come only through adventure.  Those last skill percentages to quality for Runelord can drag out for quite a while in practice, as can those last POW gains to qualify for Priest (or Runelord, just lower requirement).

I ran a ton of GURPS in the 80's and early 90's.  I made players argue for how they'd gained any new abilities in it from XP, due to my RQ background.  I allowed anything that made sense, but if they wanted something that didn't come out of play, they needed downtime to go study and learn the new ability.  I feel like that builds into the game when abilities don't just pop up out of thin air, but come directly out of play.  

That's part of what always appealed to me in BRP.  All the gains in mechanical character growth come directly out of the adventures and campaign, rather than just be something tacked on for between play.  I see that some don't like the randomness of it, but in actual play differences in advancement aren't that big of deal.