Whatever. Almost since its inception, RQ (in spite of being a decent game with many sincere players also) has been a refuge for that group of people that hate D&D for not being "serious" enough, compared to a setting with Duck-people in it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;655930Whatever. Almost since its inception, RQ (in spite of being a decent game with many sincere players also) has been a refuge for that group of people that hate D&D for not being "serious" enough, compared to a setting with Duck-people in it.

RPGPundit

"Hate" is a strong word. I don't hate D&D, I just don't particularily like it. I don't particularily like ducks or Glorantha either.
But I find it easier to modify a setting or create my own, than houserule a mediocre set of mechanics into something unrecognizable.

Quote from: Bill;654971Players definately tried to use as many skills as possible to qualify for a skill improvement roll, even when use of that skill was contrived.

Well, it's got to be contrived to have serious consequences!

That being the case, what's the problem? Someone's playing a role that happens to be a trouble-maker, even perhaps a bit of a lunatic? (Not at all like anyone in a Michael Moorcock story, of course...)

I've seen plenty of that in plenty of RPGs!

Quote from: RPGPundit;655930Almost since its inception, RQ (in spite of being a decent game with many sincere players also) has been a refuge for that group of people that hate D&D for not being "serious" enough

Sounds more like C&S to me.

Quote from: TristramEvans;655996Sounds more like C&S to me.

RQ was a much bigger success, both at this, and in general.

Quote from: RPGPundit;656293RQ was a much bigger success, both at this, and in general.

I thought C&S was far more concerned with realism (or a medieval rather than fantasy pseudo-medieval "realism"), what RQ offered over D&D was a Culture Game.

Quote from: RPGPundit;654633Of course, this from a guy who's own game at the time had a built in incentive for any warrior to carry around a wheelbarrow full of weapons and switch weapons as often as possible.

RPGPundit

I did indeed see someone do that once, and I watched (as ref) as she died switching weapons and abandoning the initiative over and over again.

Encumbrance worked simply and therefore well in RQ tho', so in reality whilst the wheelbarrow idea appears to make sense, it was only likely when a ref failed to apply common sense or apply the simple encumbrance system.

e.g. I've only seen it happen once, in 32 years of playing and reffing BRP.

Not that I am entering the row really, although the Holmes issue with d6 per weapon but daggers faster than 2H weapons sounds interesting, in that I can easily see how you could make that a perfectly sensible ruling:

Light weapons, twice per round, d6
Medium weapon, once per round, 2d6
2H weapons, every other round, 4d6

Since 2H weapons are probably very underpowered in rpgs.

But we digress. I have only seen the wheelbarrow of weapons once in 32 years of regularly playing BRP, and she died because of it.

Quote from: tzunder;656320I did indeed see someone do that once, and I watched (as ref) as she died switching weapons and abandoning the initiative over and over again.

Encumbrance worked simply and therefore well in RQ tho', so in reality whilst the wheelbarrow idea appears to make sense, it was only likely when a ref failed to apply common sense or apply the simple encumbrance system.

e.g. I've only seen it happen once, in 32 years of playing and reffing BRP.

Not that I am entering the row really, although the Holmes issue with d6 per weapon but daggers faster than 2H weapons sounds interesting, in that I can easily see how you could make that a perfectly sensible ruling:

Light weapons, twice per round, d6
Medium weapon, once per round, 2d6
2H weapons, every other round, 4d6

Since 2H weapons are probably very underpowered in rpgs.

But we digress. I have only seen the wheelbarrow of weapons once in 32 years of regularly playing BRP, and she died because of it.

Yes, as I said - suddenly when we're not talking D&D, making an argument "Rulings, not rules, the referee should have common sense" gets thrown out of the window.

Quote from: RPGPundit;655930Whatever. Almost since its inception, RQ (in spite of being a decent game with many sincere players also) has been a refuge for that group of people that hate D&D for not being "serious" enough, compared to a setting with Duck-people in it.

RPGPundit

Oh this is a long reply, but what the hell. When I talk about D&D I mean B/X D&D and/or AD&D 1st edition (PHB and DMG and MM). I did see the White Box once but it was on a shelf as an archived thing even in 1979.

I disliked the core D&D rules system. Not for being 'serious' but being outrageouslt flawed as a combat simulation, and BRP being closer to how I imagined combat. The more time I spend with people who do combat recreation with metal swords, the more I realised that combat is just a touch too complex for any rpg to simulate wholly, but that BRP is closer than D&D.

I disliked the core D&D rules system also for it's class/level approach which meant that the world was oddly solipsist, it always mirrored the class/level structure of the players. So 1-3 level PCs had 1-3 level adventures, and when they got to 4-6, the world jacked up to 4-6 around them and so on.

I disliked the very wide power range of AD&D onwards. The difference between levels seemed to become broader and broader, and the sheer power imbalance between a 1st level wizard and a 10th or 20th level character made the world seem increasingly imbalanced.

I wanted skills. D&D didn't have them until 3e.

I disliked the haphazard nature of rules in D&D, the fact that the game appeared to grow rather than be designed, the fact that some rules followed percentiles and some a d6, that it wasn't possible to master the system by learning one or two core mechanisms. The unique nature of each class and between races and between PCs and NPCs and monsters irritated me.

D&D was very preachy. Well let's be clear, Gary Gygax was very preachy and prescriptive, which given the 'not exactly perfect' nature of the game bugged me.

I liked a magic system that allowed player choice in how to use resources to power spells, and D&D had a Vancian spell system that exacerbated the problems of low level characters and limited magic.

I didn't conceptually like the difference between player races and monsters. It appealed to me far more to be able to play any sentient creature as a PC, and with the same rules as any other creature. This came very much from playing T&T, but also my egalitarian and inclusive social views. Monsters are people too!

I liked unified resolution systems and BRP had one (actually two if you use the resistance table), it appeals to my love of simple system design and analysis in real life, which I also accept is a reductionist tendency that makes me paper over minor variations and/or cross influences.

I wanted to play in a society based game that had a culture and the players existed and interacted with it to gain benefit and make their name, whereas default D&D seemed to be about groups of mercenaries looting tombs in an analogue of the Wild West. I accept that this wasn't the only way to play D&D, but RQ offered a culture led game out of the book, so it worked for me.

The fact that in BRP it is just possible for a David to bring down a Goliath appealed to my view of the inherent danger of combat, and also my delight in the 'little guy' bringing down the behemoth with all the advantages.

I had no problem with playing ducks, trolls, scorpion-men, minotaurs, wind children, etc. any more than playing halflings, tieflings or ewoks.

As I grew up and tried other games that also took similar and different game designs, as ideas such as binary advantages and disadvantages (feats) and a lighter and lighter approach came to rulesets, and simulation was increasingly not seem as a benefit I came to 3e D&D, which had skills and a more unified approach (in the core books, I ignore the panoply of add ons) I ran it for 3 years every other week.

Much of my issues still exist, the class/level world, the very wide power level range, the likelihood that as a group of 1st level characters you couldn't take down a 10th level fighter. On the other hand, it had skills that worked, I quite liked feats, and we had a lot of fun playing it.

At the same time I was well aware of the issues around BRP, it's inherent fragility for characters was upsetting for many players, the full hit location based combat sequences were taking too long for a modern game, and the magic system with regard to POW driven divine spells was looking stingy compared to MP driven spirit/battle magic. There were too many skills and the 'tick hunting' was a problem for many refs, although not myself.

Most of these were fixed in OpenQuest and RQII and RQ6, but I also had a look at the OSR retro clone games. They were either exact copies of games I hadn't liked decades before, or they were "homages" like Castles & Crusades. I politely walked away.

Did I use to hate D&D? Yes. In my youth it seemed to really annoy me and I disliked it a lot. When I saw good settings shoe horned into the d20 system it annoyed me.

Do I hate it now? Not in the way I used to. I can relax and take it as something people enjoy a lot. I could play and run core Pathfinder and have a good time. I'd give 4e another go, it seemed a fun skirmish game. I'd try Tru20 if anyone wanted to play it or run it.

But I'd always play systems that IMHO are better designed games.

So was RQ a refuge? No, it was one of the game systems (along with T&T and Traveller and HERO and others) that offered differently designed games that appealed better to my personal likes and dislikes about roleplaying, society and system design. Was it my favourite? Probably, and yet that's because of the tight link between society and game, culture and PCs, and in reality that's achievable with many game systems, but more difficult with the power ramp of D&D.

I didn't know playing an orc PC made me an egalitarian. Now I feel all warm inside.

Other than that, mostly agreed.

Not clicking thru to anonfag's links.

Tzunder, nice post.

It reflects my exact impressions on D&D.

Quote from: silva;656398Tzunder, nice post.

It reflects my exact impressions on D&D.

Thanks, and I do hope people realise that I don't do badwrongfun stuff anymore, so give them kobolds hell!

Quote from: tzunder;656330I disliked the core D&D rules system. Not for being 'serious' but being outrageouslt flawed as a combat simulation, and BRP being closer to how I imagined combat. The more time I spend with people who do combat recreation with metal swords, the more I realised that combat is just a touch too complex for any rpg to simulate wholly, but that BRP is closer than D&D.

I think that's pretty fair. It will vary depending on just what from the vast cornucopia of D&D combat systems you use, but for the most part D&D is quite unabashedly a game of fantasy.

One published rules set may well not suit a given GM as well as another, and I got hooked on Chaosium's when I got the 2nd ed. RQ boxed set. It's basically a matter of what 'clicks' with one's own personality, I think.

Regarding some of the moaning (in earlier posts) about high-level figures and HP: If one wants a chance for the character one has spent years raising to near-demigod status to die from a random, mundane mishap, then there's a dead simple way to add this feature to any game.

Just set that chance! Make it whatever you like. Empire of the Petal Throne gives 1/200, while Arduin uses a "critical hit" table on a roll of 20. Problem? Problem solved.

A lot of things are like that: pretty trivial to change. Plenty of people have tinkered with RQ, too (replacing the original training and experience-roll rules with experience points comes to mind as one example of going more D&D-ish).

QuoteI disliked the core D&D rules system also for it's class/level approach which meant that the world was oddly solipsist, it always mirrored the class/level structure of the players. So 1-3 level PCs had 1-3 level adventures, and when they got to 4-6, the world jacked up to 4-6 around them and so on.

No, that is not at all what it means if you actually use the rules books!

EDIT: I mean the TSR-era books. I suspect that people have also read into the 3E books stuff the authors didn't actually write. Your characterization seems to match the actual intent in 4E, though, from what I gather.

One aspect of the common 'hacking' of D&D to suit individual campaigns, though, is that many people mistake this or that local custom for some kind of standard. I have often been startled by what a friend of mine, who has been playing AD&D for decades, takes for "the rules." (It's not a big deal, though, since he's down with the rule that the DM is the final arbiter for his or her own campaign.)

QuoteI wanted skills. D&D didn't have them until 3e.

Depends on your definition.

Thief functions (along with other things introduced in Supplement I) were irksome enough to many people. Why so many separate factors at all, never mind so little different? AD&D took that down to percentiles (e.g., one function at 35% and two others at 33% and 37%), and also added proficiencies. Second Edition had players distributing points among thief functions, and put non-weapon proficiencies (as an option) in the PHB.

D&D moved step by step away from the initial tendency to give set chances for things --- and re-use saving throws and other already established ones (a one-third chance being so common in the original rules that one might take it as a rule of thumb for things not covered in the rules) -- toward the proliferation of 'stats' seen in Chaosium's games and elsewhere.

You would probably agree with me that a "skills system" is nifty because of the individual detail it lends to characters, but to some other people it's more notable for adding paperwork for players.

QuoteI liked unified resolution systems and BRP had one (actually two if you use the resistance table), it appeals to my love of simple system design and analysis in real life, which I also accept is a reductionist tendency that makes me paper over minor variations and/or cross influences.

Yeah, the "universal system" has a lot of appeal for some of us. Hero System, Pacesetter's games, TSR's Marvel Superheroes and variations on that theme (Conan, 3rd ed. Gamma World), Talislanta -- a lot of "systems" hit the scene.

Heck, even fans of Tunnels & Trolls make much of its Saving Rolls.

Some folks I knew had perhaps more critical than commercial success with Legendary Lives, which did most things with a single Action Results Table ("The ART of Role Playing" in their advertising; cuteness was an LL specialty).

QuoteD&D was very preachy. Well let's be clear, Gary Gygax was very preachy and prescriptive, which given the 'not exactly perfect' nature of the game bugged me.

Yes, what his style lacked in clarity it made up for in bombast! Get down to the essentials, though, and he was mostly giving good advice from long experience. So to some extent were the RQ guys, when they followed the C&S guys' suit in preaching against sprawling dungeons (which are a bit less well suited to those games than to D&D).

QuoteI liked a magic system that allowed player choice in how to use resources to power spells

I'm guessing you mean having a spell-point system along with a memorization system that (while it more limits high-level figures) gives a bit more opportunity for novice adventurers to cast whatever spells they can afford to buy.

That kind of thing was one draw for many T&T fans, and is a fairly popular D&D variant as well (The Arduin Grimoire offering one example).

Quoteand D&D had a Vancian spell system that exacerbated the problems of low level characters and limited magic.

Magic is tons more limited in power in RQ, but tons less limited in availability, so if that's what you want as usual then the game is certainly better designed for it.

QuoteI wanted to play in a society based game that had a culture and the players existed and interacted with it to gain benefit and make their name, whereas default D&D seemed to be about groups of mercenaries looting tombs in an analogue of the Wild West. I accept that this wasn't the only way to play D&D, but RQ offered a culture led game out of the book, so it worked for me.

I don't see that so much in the de-Glorantha-nized Avalon Hill edition, not to the extent for instance of Chivalry & Sorcery or Empire of the Petal Throne.

"A culture led game out of the book" seems like a matter of tying the book to a pre-packaged culture. That's become usual, but D&D was geared more to making up your own world (Tekumel in EPT being an example).

QuoteAt the same time I was well aware of the issues around BRP, it's inherent fragility for characters was upsetting for many players, the full hit location based combat sequences were taking too long for a modern game, and the magic system with regard to POW driven divine spells was looking stingy compared to MP driven spirit/battle magic. There were too many skills...

That covers many of the complaints I've heard, although battle magic is also not so hot compared with what a spell-caster can chuck at moderate levels in old D&D (without, as in RQ, tossing away spell resistance). I got similar responses to TFT, too.

Very eloquent tzunder and I echo your sentiments about D&D vs RQ and other classic era games. I just clicked better with RQ, T&T, Rolemaster, almost any fantasy game other than D&D.