Quote from: Jaeger on November 24, 2020, 05:24:19 PMMinor Quibble, As presented, D&D did have an implied euro-fantasy tolkienesque setting. Which was in line with the fantasy and sword and sorcery books people read at the time.

Actually, as presented, D&D, especially O and AD&D and maybee 2e and BX did not have any implied anything. Especially not OD&D which had stuff from Barsoom and other settings in it. AD&D draws from a really broad range as well. Just not as openly. And while BX has a setting. It is such a blank slate that it can be anything as well.

Just because there are elves and dwarves does not make it tolkienesque.

While we are discussing RuneQuest again.

What are the differences between the original RQ and the Avalon Hill RQ? Aside from the lack of setting?
I have the basic boxed set in storage.

Quote from: Bren on November 25, 2020, 01:41:57 PM

I'm curious. Do you use RQ3 Fatigue as written?

While conceptually a fatigue system seems eminently reasonable and completely makes sense to me, in practice tracking fatigue was on the borderline of what seemed too fiddly to track for me and was far too burdensome to track for my players.

It's been a while, but yes we did. Crossing off a fatigue point each round isn't too bad; nobody thinks twice about having to track their hit points or magic points. Plus the system of going into negative FP and that then imposing a corresponding penalty on checks is intuitive compared to the system of endurance checks and progressive fixed penalties to skills, movement rates etc. in Mythras. I think we tended to handwave recovery; that seemed like needless faff.

Quote from: Omega on November 25, 2020, 07:13:47 PM
While we are discussing RuneQuest again.

What are the differences between the original RQ and the Avalon Hill RQ? Aside from the lack of setting?
I have the basic boxed set in storage.

RQ2 applies attribute modifiers and skill gains in 5 point blocks.  Characters begin as "BRP" with 3d6 and minimal base skill ratings.  There are charts that show the cost of training various skills.  Each skill has a unique set of attribute modifier relationships.  The setting is Glorantha.

AH RQ uses single point attribute modifiers and skill categories.  Skills are purchased from an annual points budget and a career list.  Weapons have armour points instead of hit points.  There are more weapon and armour types.  There are naval combat rules.  There are rules for sorcery.  The primary setting is Mythic Europe.  There is a Glorantha book in the deluxe set that provides far more detail on the setting than RQ2's core did. AH RQ is far better organized and clear than RQ 2 but the typeface is smaller.

Quote from: Omega on November 25, 2020, 07:13:47 PM
While we are discussing RuneQuest again.

What are the differences between the original RQ and the Avalon Hill RQ? Aside from the lack of setting?
I have the basic boxed set in storage.

There's a lengthy post on basicroleplaying.org where somebody goes through it in detail. Not sure if it's OK to cross-post, but it's the first hit if you google.

Not sure what you mean by basic boxed set - AH's decision to go with a Standard Set and a Deluxe Set apparently went down badly because the Std Set wasn't really complete. So some people ended up having to shell out for Deluxe anyway, and supplement authors felt obliged to reprint material required from Deluxe to make sense of their product, and there was a sense of paying multiple times for the same content. This guy goes over it (while singing the praises of the UK GW version that I had):

https://refereeingandreflection.wordpress.com/2018/12/17/games-workshops-forgotten-runequest/ 

Quote from: Omega on November 25, 2020, 07:08:50 PM
..
Actually, as presented, D&D, especially O and AD&D and maybee 2e and BX did not have any implied anything. Especially not OD&D which had stuff from Barsoom and other settings in it. AD&D draws from a really broad range as well. Just not as openly. And while BX has a setting. It is such a blank slate that it can be anything as well.

Just because there are elves and dwarves does not make it tolkienesque.

I disagree.

From the beginning D&D had an implied Medieval fantasy setting. Yes with random Sword and sorcery, and sword and planet stuff thrown in.

But the implied medieval European setting was in every core book, from the class names to the spells of clerics and magic users. Magic items, monsters. Even the level names in AD&D.

And tolkienesque is a perfect term for a game that had to turn hobbits into halflings and scrub balrogs from its monster list.

The elves and dwarf race as classes are clearly tolkien based. The profile of Tolkiens LOTR and the hobbit were at a high point at the time D&D was made and soared into popularity in the late 70's and early 80's. As much as people like to point out the many legit non-tolkien influences in the game, to deny that Tolkiens works did not have a profound effect on the game and peoples perceptions of it would just be silly.

Quote from: Jaeger on November 25, 2020, 10:57:27 PMI disagree.

From the beginning D&D had an implied Medieval fantasy setting. Yes with random Sword and sorcery, and sword and planet stuff thrown in.

But the implied medieval European setting was in every core book, from the class names to the spells of clerics and magic users. Magic items, monsters. Even the level names in AD&D.

And tolkienesque is a perfect term for a game that had to turn hobbits into halflings and scrub balrogs from its monster list.

The elves and dwarf race as classes are clearly tolkien based. The profile of Tolkiens LOTR and the hobbit were at a high point at the time D&D was made and soared into popularity in the late 70's and early 80's. As much as people like to point out the many legit non-tolkien influences in the game, to deny that Tolkiens works did not have a profound effect on the game and peoples perceptions of it would just be silly.

I agree. And this is apparent when you contrast it to Runequest, the other fantasy game at the time, which was everything except Tolkienesque.

Quote from: Marchand on November 25, 2020, 08:10:05 PM

Quote from: Bren on November 25, 2020, 01:41:57 PM

I'm curious. Do you use RQ3 Fatigue as written?

While conceptually a fatigue system seems eminently reasonable and completely makes sense to me, in practice tracking fatigue was on the borderline of what seemed too fiddly to track for me and was far too burdensome to track for my players.

It's been a while, but yes we did. Crossing off a fatigue point each round isn't too bad; nobody thinks twice about having to track their hit points or magic points. Plus the system of going into negative FP and that then imposing a corresponding penalty on checks is intuitive compared to the system of endurance checks and progressive fixed penalties to skills, movement rates etc. in Mythras. I think we tended to handwave recovery; that seemed like needless faff.

Crossing off a fatigue point per round isn't bad, but it is fiddly and as the GM I already have a few things going on, having to adjust half a dozen NPCs every round (and remind the players to do the same for thier PCs) instead of just having to adjust something when they get hit or when they cast a spell felt like one too many things to track. I did hear complaints from more than one player, so it seemed like fatigue was not a fun rule to implement. On the positive side, it did make the decision on whether to wear heavy armor more interesting and provided a reasonable disadvantage to long fights in heavy armor.

I'm not familiar with Mythras, but based on other systems I've used with checks for endurance or stamina, I agree that stamina is more intuitive and it avoids fluky results that can arise from rolling unusually good or bad on stamina checks. Back when I used to run a lot, the level of variation in how long I could run at a given pace wasn't all that wide.

Darrin buddy, don't listen to the haters. There is no more scathing indictment of a tabletop roleplay game's merits than a single member of it's fanbase being a jerk to you decades ago. These knuckleheads are just butthurt that you so epically owned them.

Keep fighting the good fight you absolute legend.

Quote from: Jaeger on November 25, 2020, 10:57:27 PM
The elves and dwarf race as classes are clearly tolkien based.

I think the Elves are actually based on Poul Anderson's Elves from "The Broken Sword" If I remember rightly in B/X D&D they're described as being shorter than men and slight of build. I remember noticing this because I came to B/X after starting on Tunnels & Trolls which has the taller than men Tolkien type elves.

As to the OP, there's probably a  dude on Glorantha board somewhere bemoaning the BECMI kid who harangued him about his baroque and elitist Game with stupid ducks!

I think RQ was more popular in the UK. Like many of the other posters, I enjoyed RQ with just the minimal Glorantha setting (our group only had the boxed set and no supplements), mostly gleaned from White Dwarf articles.  Loved all the odd stuff like Broo, Scorpian men, Dragonnewts, the weird take on dwarves, elves, and trolls, even the ducks. But we did what we wanted with it and made it our Glorantha. Of course, we were dumb kids when we got our hands on RQ2 so our Glorantha was every bit as whack and indistinguishable as our dumb D&D world, or our T&T worlds. Still would rather play that the modern Gloranthan canon.

Quotethink the Elves are actually based on Poul Anderson's Elves from "The Broken Sword" If I remember rightly in B/X D&D they're described as being shorter than men and slight of build. I remember noticing this because I came to B/X after starting on Tunnels & Trolls which has the taller than men Tolkien type elves.

Doubtless there are other influences but the fact that D&D elves are divided into High Elves, Wood Elves, and Gray Elves strongly points to Tolkien.

This thread inspired me to check out RQ again. Haven't played it in... a while... and back then, we didn't know what we were doing. We certianly didn't realize what we had, since we went back to AD&D.

So I looked over Mythras Imperative last night-- which looks like it used to be RQ until they lost the license? It's a free, trimmed-down version of the game. Impressive! With most systems, I usually find too many things I don't like right off the bat, but so far I haven't seen anything I don't like. And a lot of things I do:

D100 roll-under
The power attribute
Magic as a skill roll
Armor absorbs damage 
Hit locations add a gritty feel
Special combat maneuvers
Careers that make sense
Passions
Luck points that aren't metagame currency
Defense rolls

Granted, MI is not the full game, so there might be things I dislike that I have yet to discover. But right now this is looking like it does everything I want Gurps to do, minus the.... Gurps.

One thing that seems different is I recall there were "specials" which were 20% of your skill? Looks like they got rid of those.

Now if I can only get my group to set aside 5E and give it a try. (Yeah, not gonna happen.)

Quote from: Aglondir on December 04, 2020, 12:48:37 AM

So I looked over Mythras Imperative last night-- which looks like it used to be RQ until they lost the license?

That is correct.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley on November 23, 2020, 03:44:08 PMIn the intervening years, I have found the Runequest fans period to be just as obnoxious as that one system sob. So I don't see myself as losing out on anything by avoiding them.

Hah! You are right, we are obnoxious.

You failed your avoiding roll, though, although it might be called Hide now.

Quote from: David Johansen on November 23, 2020, 11:11:41 PMThere's a decent chance I was that kid

Did you get involved in a heated discussion with a sophisticated young man regarding the merits of RQ over D&D? If so, it might have been you.