As I find segments of my time in the RPG gaming hobby taken by exploring different branches, I've come to appreciate the entire sandbox/sim approach. But it occurs to me that that the Chaosium/BRP family of games beats the pants off of D&D and it's iterations for pure sandbox/hexcrawl/rules-as-physics engine style gaming. Being a closer physics-engine style game as opposed to D&D, with more stuff making more sense. For example, Chaosium RQ2's encumberance system is much more elegant, it ditches stuff like Alignment and D&D's narrative hit points (with actual bleedout mechanics) and falling damage in RQ2 makes much more sense. RQ seems more ideal than D&D for OSR gaming - Bride of the Spider God certainly shows that the BRP family of games have OSR cred.
The Big Rubble of Pavis seems super ripe as a literal sandbox environment. I can't wait to apply sandbox/sim gaming principles to RQ6 when I run it for my meetup group in march.
I agree with the sim-engine part of your argument - RQ is better than D&D in that regard... if that's what you're looking for in your gameplay experience. But, I could see a GURPS fan making the same argument, but that GURPS is a better sim-engine than RQ or D&D.
I'm not sure whether it's any better than D&D for sandbox use. It has some great prepackaged sandbox products (Griffin Mountain, for example). So, maybe, if you're using the products as-is, or stealing inspiration from. But, I don't think that there are necessarily better tools in RQ for DIYing your own sandbox than what's found across editions of D&D.
This is always a tricky converstion because "better" is so hard to define. I can make a case that my favorite game is "better" just because it's so easy for me to run, just the same that someone else can take their favorite game and make the same case. Familiar makes better for most situations. However...
Quote from: K Peterson;720058I agree with the sim-engine part of your argument - RQ is better than D&D in that regard...
I'm not sure whether it's any better than D&D for sandbox use.
My experience with RQ (and I'll confess that I haven't really played it since the 1980's) is that it is great if you like detail and like a "build your own" character. I can see that RQ is fine for a simulation game (as are other skill-based games) but I don't see that it has any particular advantage in a sandbox style game.
I've been running sandbox style OD&D games since the 1970's and enjoy the freedom that comes with minimalistic NPC and monster data. If I see "orc, 1 HD, chainmail, sword" or something like that, I can run an encounter. For RQ I need a lot more information. The more information I need to prepare for an encounter, the less I "wing it" and the less of a sandbox the game becomes. The OD&D game I'm running right now requires essentially zero prep time, a map I downloaded off the internet, and a GM screen. I can't imagine running RQ that way.
Just my two cents.
Most RPGs can be used to run sandboxes and hexcrawls. The only requirement is that the referee focuses on responding to the players acting as their character and not to some agenda.
In other words if the players do X, the referee says that Y occurs because he views it as the most plausible of possible outcomes given the circumstances. Not because it advances how he thinks the games should go. This ideal is system neutral and totally depends on the referee not the rules to have it occur. The referee creativity comes in coming with interesting plausible outcomes not as acting as a epic novelist.
In my view how good of a sim an RPG is a personal preference. You play Runequest or GURPS because you like the type of simulation and/or degree of customization they offer.
For some people a better simulation means they can be immersed in the game more easily. As they can assume correctly how the physics operates whether it is fantasy, modern, superheroes, or even toons. A comfortable player is more likely to focus on exploration and interacting with the setting rather than worrying about whether they will survive or succeed in various encounters. But this is not an absolute and utterly dependent on the personality and interests of the player. The only hard rule is that there is no substitute for knowing your players.
However even abstracts system like D&D, Fate, or Fudge can be made to work for a sandbox campaign if the referee is smart about making his players comfortable and keeps his rulings consistent.
Quote from: K Peterson;720058I agree with the sim-engine part of your argument - RQ is better than D&D in that regard... if that's what you're looking for in your gameplay experience. But, I could see a GURPS fan making the same argument, but that GURPS is a better sim-engine than RQ or D&D.
I'm not sure whether it's any better than D&D for sandbox use. It has some great prepackaged sandbox products (Griffin Mountain, for example). So, maybe, if you're using the products as-is, or stealing inspiration from. But, I don't think that there are necessarily better tools in RQ for DIYing your own sandbox than what's found across editions of D&D.
Winner!
D&D was never a sim system to begin with, it was always abstract. In fact its LACK of sim quality inspired the RQ guys to make RQ in the first place.
Sandbox/exploration style play can be enjoyed across multiple systems and isn't tied exclusively to sim or abstract systems. Preferences in terms of rules volume and complexity trump any notion of "better" in this sense.
Quote from: finarvyn;720061For RQ I need a lot more information. The more information I need to prepare for an encounter, the less I "wing it" and the less of a sandbox the game becomes.
One certainly can cut down on the information needed, but (a) there's still a higher minimum, and (b) that passes up some reasons for choosing RQ in the first place.
RQ therefore tends IME to work better in a more intimate situation, one in which NPCs tend to be recurring characters.
The exemplary site-oriented scenarios usually involve rather less sprawling complexes than old-style D&D dungeons; exceptions such as Big Rubble are not so detailed, making more extensive use of procedural content generation as opposed to being mapped down to a 3 meter grid.
A better physics emulation engine does not necessarily translate into a better tool for sandboxing.
I'll look into the RQ6 rules for wilderness travel and get back to the thread later.
Your favorite game being "better" is merely an opinion, my favorite game being "better" is objective fact.
Runequest is better for battles with small numbers of detailed opponents. D&D is better with large numbers of identical opponents. So, the game that's best for sandbox depends entirely on what types of things exists out in the world.
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;720026As I find segments of my time in the RPG gaming hobby taken by exploring different branches, I've come to appreciate the entire sandbox/sim approach. But it occurs to me that that the Chaosium/BRP family of games beats the pants off of D&D and it's iterations for pure sandbox/hexcrawl/rules-as-physics engine style gaming. Being a closer physics-engine style game as opposed to D&D, with more stuff making more sense. For example, Chaosium RQ2's encumberance system is much more elegant, it ditches stuff like Alignment and D&D's narrative hit points (with actual bleedout mechanics) and falling damage in RQ2 makes much more sense. RQ seems more ideal than D&D for OSR gaming - Bride of the Spider God certainly shows that the BRP family of games have OSR cred.
The Big Rubble of Pavis seems super ripe as a literal sandbox environment. I can't wait to apply sandbox/sim gaming principles to RQ6 when I run it for my meetup group in march.
I think if you want more realism in your sandbox, this is true. I would simply be cautious about tying sandbox to realism or simulation, since you could have a sandbox campaign in a completely unrealistic setting. I have been doing wuxia sandboxes for a bit now and they pretty unconcerned with simulating reality.
"Cutting mistakes - In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs."
-- Murphy's Rules, "Space Gamer"
Quote from: Old Geezer;720148"Cutting mistakes - In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs."
-- Murphy's Rules, "Space Gamer"
Sounds perfectly realistic to me. :rolleyes:
So in the course of a couple hours, a force of 3000 will inflict enough damage on itself to break ranks without needing an enemy!
Quote from: Old Geezer;720148"Cutting mistakes - In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs."
-- Murphy's Rules, "Space Gamer"
Sounds more like Rolemaster than any edition of Runequest I know of (though admittedly I'm not familiar with 1e).
Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;720026...it occurs to me that that the Chaosium/BRP family of games beats the pants off of D&D and it's iterations for pure sandbox/hexcrawl/rules-as-physics engine style gaming...The Big Rubble of Pavis seems super ripe as a literal sandbox environment. I can't wait to apply sandbox/sim gaming principles to RQ6 when I run it for my meetup group in march.
BRP is definitely more like a sim than D&D; no argument there (although even BRP/RQ isn't what I'd consider an actual sim). Whether that's better or not depends on what you're after. I don't think it's necessarily better than D&D for sandbox-style gaming, but I don't see any reason it wouldn't be great at sandbox-style gaming. I think it's a fun system (D&D and BRP are my two favorite fantasy RPGs), and a RQ6 sandbox game centered around Big Rubble/Pavis sounds like an absolute blast.
Quote from: The Butcher;720173Sounds more like Rolemaster than any edition of Runequest I know of (though admittedly I'm not familiar with 1e).
Rolemaster, now, that's a game I could see rival D&D at sandbox play.
Or one could use the osr game Blood Guts & Glory for a RM + D&D hybrid.
RQ, though...I've tried to like it but it ain't my thing. It's sim-ier though, absolutely.
I've played sandboxes in both D&D and RQ, and dungeon crawls in both D&D and RQ.
Neither is better as a sandbox or dungeon crawl system.
There are differences - RQ's combat system makes continual combat dangerous, but a dollop of healing goes a long way, just make sure you stock up on healing potions. D&D's magic system makes dungeon crawls slightly easier, as RQ's answer to Fireball is an enormous salamander, which is definitely not the equivalent.
I don't think any system is particularly suited to a Sandbox game. Even Car Wars would fit a Mad-Max-style sandbox really well.
Sandboxes are about letting the players dictate where they go and what they do, rules generally don't help/prevent that.
I think the main factors really are power curve and the ease of content generation (either prep or on the fly).
RQ as written wins the first point--a more compressed power curve means more things are easily relatable to a given party of PCs. D&D or a similar system can be modified to do this, though. It's not a matter of structure so much as the numbers that go into the structure.
D&D as written (classic D&D) wins on the latter because there are fewer mechanical dimensions and many of them have defaults. But BRP/RQ can be made a little more manageable with shortcuts. Magic World has default NPC templates; GURPS has similar suggestions; both basically boil down to
"Only note extraordinary skills and characteristics."
For all games, I think it's hardest for spellcasters since knowing a given spell is an important question but hard to approximate. Maybe if you make a few spell caster templates and then note the template, the power level, and any exceptional spells. E.g. sorcerer (nature spells), master, summon earth elemental (extraordinary).
RuneQuest is the better role-play game period; at least how a determine what an RPG should be. While D&D (in its early forms) is the better game overall, though not the best RPG. Its latter versions (D&D 3-4) fail on both accounts however.
Oh, also, 1979 made a UUCP connection and it wants its thread back.
I don't see any intrinsic connection between 'physics engine' rules and 'sandbox' though if someone has an argument, I'd be interested to hear it.
For a real 'sandbox' game I think you'd ideally want relatively minimal preparation, and probably relatively little power escalation on either side of the DM screen - because if PCs are too powerful they will need customized challenges to bring them down, or because PCs that are too weak will blunder into overwhelming challenges fairly often, if those exist.
EDIT: I don't quite know where that leaves us with regard to the thread question, though. You would expect high casualties in a sandbox 0D&D game, but you also have to expect high casualties any time you play Runequest.
Quote from: elfandghost;720211RuneQuest is the better role-play game period; at least how a determine what an RPG should be. While D&D (in its early forms) is the better game overall, though not the best RPG. Its latter versions (D&D 3-4) fail on both accounts however.
Fascinating, Captain, it appears to possibly be some form of language.
As a fan of both D&D and Runequest, I feel it's easy to grok the appeal of Runequest: less abstraction.
Combat is less abstracted than D&D. Hit points as actual physical durability, hit locations, damage-absorbing armor, etc.
No classes and levels, and discrete skills for task resolution, make for less abstracted and more flexible character creation and development.
I enjoy using Runequest when I envision a campaign setting that D&D won't quite fit, or when I want a grittier game with dismemberments and whatnot.
Runequest combat is just as abstract, just in a different way.
It's essentially just a formalized way of the old way kids used to play. "I hit you" (making a d100 roll), "Did not" (making a d100)
(D&D is basically the same, except it doesn't have the "did not" part, that's part of the AC and hp.)
Fantasy Phoenix Command, it's not.
And as mentioned, you had the very dubious fumble rules which meant, like Rolemaster, that eventually your character would kill or maim himself. Does that sort of thing happen? Sure. But nowhere near the rate that the rules indicate.
BRP and it's derivatives are pretty much my system of choice but even I don't see how they're inherently any better suited for 'sandbox' play... not that they're worse for it either.
I just like them, and GURPS, because they're more intuitive to me.
With Runequest/BRP, I as the GM can imagine a "fantasy world", perhaps based on comics, books, movies, or myth and legend, then drape the rules around it.
With DnD, it is always going to be DnD first and foremost with a setting veneer.
Quote from: elfandghost;720211RuneQuest is the better role-play game period; at least how a determine what an RPG should be. While D&D (in its early forms) is the better game overall, though not the best RPG. Its latter versions (D&D 3-4) fail on both accounts however.
Now who can argue with that?
I think we're all in debt to elfandghost for stating what needed to be said. I am particularly glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;720462Now who can argue with that?
I think we're all in debt to elfandghost for stating what needed to be said. I am particularly glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.
Even speaking as a die-hard RQ fan, I have to say - Well played, sir, well played! :D
As a declared fan of RuneQuest, and a former detractor of D&D, I fail to see how RQ is better at sandbox games than D&D. :idunno:
Quote from: hedgehobbit;720116Runequest is better for battles with small numbers of detailed opponents. D&D is better with large numbers of identical opponents. So, the game that's best for sandbox depends entirely on what types of things exists out in the world.
Welcome to therpgsite!
That's a very good point, if by D&D you mean TSR D&D. On the other hand, WotC D&D (both D&D3.X and D&D4) is way more complex than RQ, so it allows combats with detailed opponents.
Still, RQ (well and all the BRP family of games) and D&D give different vibes in play. I like RQ/BRP more for historical and low fantasy games, whereas I prefer D&D and Rolemaster for D&D-style settings.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;720462Now who can argue with that?
I think we're all in debt to elfandghost for stating what needed to be said. I am particularly glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.
:D
In matters of
religion, the
Black Ulema, as always, speaketh truth.
Count me in among the RQ fans not seeing any inherent superiority for sandbox play, at least as far as the rules are concerned. As someone has already stated, the power curve fits it well but the higher prep time doesn't. RQ's less abstract, more visceral combat lends itself well for once-in-a-while skirmishes, but is less suited for waves of fighting or extended battles.
To me, RQ settings (RQ3's implied Fantasy Earth, Pavis and many other places in Glorantha) seem more geared for sandbox play than some
later D&D settings. But that is most likely due to the predilections of the times, and even Dragonlance or Ravenloft could well be played that way. (Did anyone here do that with Dragonlance - then or now? There's got to be a thread somewhere here about such sacrilege...)
A Ravenloft sandbox? That'd be interesting, for sure!
This thread seems to have opened a wormhole to 1977.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;720069Winner!
D&D was never a sim system to begin with, it was always abstract. In fact its LACK of sim quality inspired the RQ guys to make RQ in the first place.
Sandbox/exploration style play can be enjoyed across multiple systems and isn't tied exclusively to sim or abstract systems. Preferences in terms of rules volume and complexity trump any notion of "better" in this sense.
...This.
Have to admit, it was 1987 before I started running Runequest games, although I had purchased the system much earlier.
Quote from: One Horse Town;720473This thread seems to have opened a wormhole to 1977.
Indeed.
It is possible to minimise prep time for RQ (especially RQ6/Legend) because generally all you need to know about most NPC is something like
Juddo. Human. Master Baker 90%
Because he has no specific combat stats I can assume he's a normal untrained human with 5 basic Hit Points, 2 Action Points, SR 12, not likely to be wearing armour and will be 30% in hitting people and will probably do 1D4 or 1D6 damage depending on what he can find to hit people with. As I know this off by heart I don't need to record it.
A city guard might be
City Guard 60%. HP 5, SR 10, Action Points 3, Armour 3. Shortsword 1d6 s/m, shield 1d4 T/L.
The 60% means that anything to do with being a city guard is at 60% (combat, perception, local knowledge, Endurance) with everything else being at a human norm of 30%.
Combat in RQ does tend to require more dice rolling than D&D et al because it has active defences and you have to be confident of your system knowledge to improvise combats with 20+ participants but for 95% of everything else you might ever do in a sandbox setting, RQ & BRP in general is simplicity itself.
Indeed if anything, RQ/BRP is easier to wing than class&level or points build systems because you can just assign a skill value on the spot and not worry about how it balances with everything else.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;720318I don't see any intrinsic connection between 'physics engine' rules and 'sandbox' though if someone has an argument, I'd be interested to hear it.
For a real 'sandbox' game I think you'd ideally want relatively minimal preparation, and probably relatively little power escalation on either side of the DM screen - because if PCs are too powerful they will need customized challenges to bring them down, or because PCs that are too weak will blunder into overwhelming challenges fairly often, if those exist.
EDIT: I don't quite know where that leaves us with regard to the thread question, though. You would expect high casualties in a sandbox 0D&D game, but you also have to expect high casualties any time you play Runequest.
this is on the right track.
Also, the exact generation of each ruleset matters, as does the planned duration of the campaign.
One of the major differences is, as mentioned, the power growth curve and the implicit setting specifics. I totally disagree that you'd want less prep; a sandbox requires more to create any illusion of depth.
I have always found the necessity of PC level-power in the political framework to be a real turn-off in creating a D&D sandbox. That speaks volumes to me in terms of a comparative advantage of one vs the other. The power of Magic and the way both types of it in the class-based system affect the relationship/political spectrum is also a bit harder to work with. Proxies and MarySues, etc are more of a problem there.
I think a good GM can do it with both, and as long as you match your setting to your players and the Physics Engine, you can have a heck of a time.
Deleriad, those HP for normal people seem pretty low. Does this reflect a change from BRP/RQ3 to Legend/RQ6?
Quote from: Arminius;720495Deleriad, those HP for normal people seem pretty low. Does this reflect a change from BRP/RQ3 to Legend/RQ6?
Yes. RQ6/Legend does not have Total Hit Points. So for example a normal human has 5 Hit Points in each leg, 6 in the abdomen, 7 in the chest, 4 in each arm and 5 in the head.
You no longer kill someone by reducing their total hit points to zero. Instead:
Reducing any location to zero Hit Points is a serious wound in that location. At that point most people either surrender or collapse in pain.
Double damage to any location is a major wound which will lead to incapacitation, bleeding out or instant death depending on location.
So really all you need to know is whether you've done a serious wound or not. In most cases that takes 5 Hit Points damage, hence the approximation.
You can of course track hit points loss in a location if you want more detail. As long as you know the base Hit Points then
Legs & head are base HP
Abdomen is base+1
Chest is base+2
Arms are base-1
Standard BRP has the option for dividing up damage that way as well as letting armor be specific by body part or generalized AC.
I usually stick to total HP though because it's a bit faster, but allow for called shots.
Thanks, I'd forgotten about doing away with total hp in those editions.
Quote from: Claudius;720468That's a very good point, if by D&D you mean TSR D&D. On the other hand, WotC D&D (both D&D3.X and D&D4) is way more complex than RQ, so it allows combats with detailed opponents.
I didn't explain myself. D&D has plenty of abilities to affect large numbers of weak opponents; sleep/fireball, turn undead, extra attack/cleave for fighter, etc. So a battle versus 20 orcs is survivable at low to mid-levels. Whereas in Runequest (at least up to 3e, as I have no experience with later versions), magic tends to affect only one opponent even for things like Befuddle and Demoralize. This, plus the fact you only get one parry, means battles in RQ where you are outnumbered are deadly.
IOW for a sandbox through orc-infested badlands, I'd pick D&D. For a dinosaur inhabited lost valley or chaos wastes, I'd pick RQ.
Now that I think about it, Stormbringer seems a bit better than RQ because of its simplified hit point and armor system. That would be useful to handle the large numbers of soldiers, pack-bearers and guides, that would accompany the party on a hex-crawl.
I'm pretty sure that will all the myriad versions of Runequest out there, one of them has to use the old Stormbringer combat system. Anyone?
Quote from: hedgehobbit;720510I'm pretty sure that will all the myriad versions of Runequest out there, one of them has to use the old Stormbringer combat system. Anyone?
Chaosium's Magic World is basically Stormbringer with the Moorcock removed.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;720510I didn't explain myself. D&D has plenty of abilities to affect large numbers of weak opponents; sleep/fireball, turn undead, extra attack/cleave for fighter, etc. So a battle versus 20 orcs is survivable at low to mid-levels. Whereas in Runequest (at least up to 3e, as I have no experience with later versions), magic tends to affect only one opponent even for things like Befuddle and Demoralize. This, plus the fact you only get one parry, means battles in RQ where you are outnumbered are deadly.
As someone who has played in campaigns where we have done the "wade through a Great Temple and walk across the piles of corpses" in RQ, I can testify that RQ is quite fine for large numbers of opponents. Combat can become quite detailed, but is doable. The tricks are: Healing, Tactics and Helping each other.
In my own sandboxes, I've found that the driver for player action is the experience point system. OSR-style D&D's XP-for-gold system creates distributed "packets" of XP widely spread throughout the sandbox, and provides an objective means for the PCs to control their rate of advancement.
GURPS, with its point builds*, and RQ, with its use-based XP, lack this easy hook. One could create a D&D-like XP system for those games, or come up with other hooks to trigger adventure within the sandbox, but they're not there by default the way they are for D&D.
A second factor that's important in sandboxes is rate of advancement. OSR-style D&D has a relatively slow rate of advancement compared to later editions (3E/4E). It's possible for a 3E character to reach level 20 in a month. That is exceptionally disruptive of any sense of realism within an open world.
I'd rate the games for sandboxfulness as follows:
1) OSR-style D&D
2) Runequest
3) Warhammer Fantasy / Rolemaster
4) GURPS
5) 2E D&D
6) 3E D&D
7) 4E D&D
*GURPS' use of point-builds also means that character power is essentially a meta-game phenomenon; the rules are physics...except for point values, where they're not. This is a big issue with, say, magic items or cybernetics, and the ongoing issue of whether one should pay points for them.
Jesus,
I thought we were talking about a sandbox, not the 'Arena Combat' model.
One of the things that I think really matters about what a ruleset is good for is what kind of game it is good for. If you are using combat as the primary means to measure which is better, well, then D&D is clearly more combat-centric.
Quote from: amacris;720521GURPS, with its point builds*, and RQ, with its use-based XP, lack this easy hook. One could create a D&D-like XP system for those games, or come up with other hooks to trigger adventure within the sandbox, but they're not there by default the way they are for D&D.
While D&D does incentivize character's to seek adventures (i.e. gold), RQ's training system does create an ever present demand for more and more gold. Everything, from skills to spells costs money. So, in both games, treasure = advancement.
Yeah, there's been some drift due to each person's personal associations of sandbox and the main activities of an RPG. Sandbox per se doesn't require realism (although I like realism and I like sandbox); it also doesn't call for a particular amount of combat (although I like combat to be a moderate-low emphasis).
There have been a lot of attempts to claim sandbox as one's own because it's what the cool kids are doing these days. But my minimal sandbox criteria basically entail player-character freedom to move and act in a setting that behaves as if it has a prior, separate existence independent of the PCs.
The reason I think a shallow power curve is helpful is that it makes more of the setting accessible and relatable to the PCs at any time. A game with a steep power curve either needs more warning to PCs about going places or behaving in ways that can get them dead, or the group has to accept a lot of mortality.
True, in RQ fighting in general is dangerous, but that means players have an easier time calibrating their decisions. I.e., always pick your fights.
The reason I think simple stats are important is that they make it easier to prep lots of content in advance, and easier to generate/improvise on the fly. Both factors reduce the need/temptation to channelize player activity or to bias GMing decisions in favor of stuff that has lower mechanical load vs what follows naturally from the setting.
Quote from: amacris;720521In my own sandboxes, I've found that the driver for player action is the experience point system. OSR-style D&D's XP-for-gold system creates distributed "packets" of XP widely spread throughout the sandbox, and provides an objective means for the PCs to control their rate of advancement.
I find one of the huge advantages of RQ and BRP generally is the limited experience awards, whether skill checks in BRP or experience awards in RQ6/Legend. This motivates players to seek out money in order to buy training, equipment, magic and so on. Likewise the presence of guilds etc gives a simple and effective way of linking characters to factions in the world. Monster Island is a masterclass in exactly this for RQ6 and shows how the different magic settings can also become prime motivators for characters.
Quote from: amacris;720521GURPS, with its point builds*, and RQ, with its use-based XP, lack this easy hook. One could create a D&D-like XP system for those games, or come up with other hooks to trigger adventure within the sandbox, but they're not there by default the way they are for D&D.
I find XP for Gold and even XP for killing monsters too constraining and artificial in my S&W/Majestic Wilderlands games.
Constraining because not every player's goal is accumulate gold or kill things. Yet in a system where this is your sole means of advancement you are forced to pursue those goals if you want to advance mechanically.
In my games I reward fixed XP based on a formula. When a player achieves character goals or party goals they get more XP. With the Goals defined by the players themselves. I have no formal process for this, instead I pay careful attention to their roleplaying, out of game banter and keep notes on what they are trying to achieve. When they achieve whatever they are trying to do, I reward them with more XP. Whether it is killing a dragon or founding an inn.
The formula I used since the early 80s is 100 xp times their level times a factor. The factor being typically 2 for a normal session and goes up to five depending on what they accomplished. Sometimes I adjust the 100 xp up or down depending on how fast the campaign is to progress. Lately it been downwards because the players in my games tend to play out each and every damn day of the calender.
For a novice, XP for Gold, and XP for killing has the virtue of simplicity. It takes time to learn how to listen, takes times to learn how to weave their desire into the campaign without being heavy handed. Even after 30 years I am still learning things that makes it easier to do this.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;720529While D&D does incentivize character's to seek adventures (i.e. gold), RQ's training system does create an ever present demand for more and more gold. Everything, from skills to spells costs money. So, in both games, treasure = advancement.
Note that RQ's training and advancement rules have changed quite a bit over editions.
Anyway, I've wondered why it's so rare to see the original Traveller ethos in fantasy. I.e.: have one or more setting based motivations (in T: make enough money to afford cool stuff), separate from "character advancement". Newfangled fantasy games often give "rewards" for "doing your own thing", but the rewards still basically translate into leveling up, or hero-point bennies.
Would be nice to see more effort at making the reward for pursuing your own goals be: achieving those goals. And have that be interesting of course. Then your advancement/hero point system can run in parallel but not be the point of play.
Granted that lots of people get off the xp/advancement treadmill--but it's a powerful attractor for beginners, and becomes a default assumption.
Deleriad: cross-posted. I've been holding off on RQ6 because MRQ2 is good enough for my purposes. MI sounds like good stuff--comparable to Griffin Mt/Island?
Quote from: Arminius;720538Deleriad: cross-posted. I've been holding off on RQ6 because MRQ2 is good enough for my purposes. MI sounds like good stuff--comparable to Griffin Mt/Island?
I got in on the Hardcover Indiegogo campaign and I am glad I did despite owning legends. It is a top quality book both physically and in the writing. My feeling is that I would game with the RQ 6 book and publish with Legend (if you want to go that route).
Quote from: Arminius;720536Anyway, I've wondered why it's so rare to see the original Traveller ethos in fantasy. I.e.: have one or more setting based motivations (in T: make enough money to afford cool stuff), separate from "character advancement". Newfangled fantasy games often give "rewards" for "doing your own thing", but the rewards still basically translate into leveling up, or hero-point bennies.
I'd jump at a fantasy game that went with that direction... capable characters with rules for some advancement of skills, but predominantly in-game rewards for actions. Which fantasy games have tried that?
Thanks, Rob, but I feel that even Legend is too mechanically involved for my purposes. I got MRQ2 basically as a sourcebook of ideas for BRP and a decoder-ring for Age of Treason. I reckon MI would be intelligible without RQ6.
Quote from: Simlasa;720545I'd jump at a fantasy game that went with that direction... capable characters with rules for some advancement of skills, but predominantly in-game rewards for actions. Which fantasy games have tried that?
Well, I've heard that Jorune has a default setting-based motivator that PCs want to become citizens of a big city state. Then there's Griffin M/I and now I hear Monster Island. Pendragon seems to have some of that. I'm not sure it's ever been fully realized but I'd like to see others on the list.
No response yet from the OP. I wonder if this thread was just a troll turd dropped to piss off the D&Ders.
If it was, it failed.
Quote from: Arminius;720547Well, I've heard that Jorune has a default setting-based motivator that PCs want to become citizens of a big city state.
Yes, it was an important goal in that setting. I don't remember what the XP advancement rules were like... if there were any. I could see players just ignoring the Drenn quest if they could just opt for physical power and mad skillz... but if citizenship were required to access training and equipment then it would become a primary goal that brings various new responsibilities.
Quote from: Simlasa;720545I'd jump at a fantasy game that went with that direction... capable characters with rules for some advancement of skills, but predominantly in-game rewards for actions. Which fantasy games have tried that?
Cineflex
A battle of D&D vs. RQ????
It's 1981 again baby! Everybody grab your bell bottoms!
Quote from: Spinachcat;720600A battle of D&D vs. RQ????
It's 1981 again baby! Everybody grab your bell bottoms!
(http://www.goodman-games.com/images/Hugh-Final.jpg)
Quote from: RunningLaser;720601(http://www.goodman-games.com/images/Hugh-Final.jpg)
I love this image.
DCC.
Quote from: Spinachcat;720600A battle of D&D vs. RQ????
It's 1981 again baby! Everybody grab your bell bottoms!
Except RQ has been constantly improving while D&D has been on a downward spiral.
Quote from: Psychman;720467Even speaking as a die-hard RQ fan, I have to say - Well played, sir, well played!
Quote from: Riordan;720469In matters of religion, the Black Ulema, as always, speaketh truth.
:hatsoff:
Quote from: TristramEvans;720625Except RQ has been constantly improving while D&D has been on a downward spiral.
hmm. very good point. I hear tons of folk rave about the new RQ or such, compared to the opinion of D&D, though a lot of folk are big on Pathfinder
Quote from: TristramEvans;720625Except RQ has been constantly improving while D&D has been on a downward spiral.
RQ has improved? :confused:
Don't Get me wrong, it might've, but my main impression from looking at the Mongoose versions was "dull" (the other impression Being that they should've been softcovers).
Allthough Magic World looks pretty good (generic version of Elric! = good idea).
Quote from: The Ent;720676RQ has improved? :confused:
Don't Get me wrong, it might've, but my main impression from looking at the Mongoose versions was "dull" (the other impression Being that they should've been softcovers).
Allthough Magic World looks pretty good (generic version of Elric! = good idea).
Is honestly say RQ6 is the best fantasy system yet published. It's not pretty (nice cover, but the inside shows its budget), but the system is a work of beauty.
Quote from: The Ent;720676RQ has improved? :confused:
Don't Get me wrong, it might've, but my main impression from looking at the Mongoose versions was "dull" (the other impression Being that they should've been softcovers).
Allthough Magic World looks pretty good (generic version of Elric! = good idea).
RQ6 is from the Design Mechanism, Mongoose no longer have the RQ licence. Same talent at work as on the most recent Mongoose version, but now with a free hand to deliver the game the way they wanted...and it really is a wonderful piece of work. I speak as someone who thought the Avalon Hill RQ3 was as good as I would never need anything to be, bought Mongoose RQ1 and was proved right, bought MRQ2 and was persuaded I might be wrong, bought RQ6 and was proved I was wrong.
I wonder if what people mean when they mention the two games' power curves is that since in a sandbox that contains two monsters A and B, of which A is much more dangerous than B, it only depends on the players' choices if their characters will encounter A or B first, it's important that A will always be a major but not insurmountable threat and that B will never cease being a threat, no matter how experienced the PCs might get (otherwise the sandbox actually is just a "trackless dungeon" whose levels are all accessible at any time). So in this regard sandbox-play seems better suited to RQ or to a version of D&D in which character advancement is somewhat limited. (Perhaps D&D is better suited to sandbox adventures than to sandbox campaigns?)
Quote from: TristramEvans;720679Is honestly say RQ6 is the best fantasy system yet published. It's not pretty (nice cover, but the inside shows its budget), but the system is a work of beauty.
Quote from: Iron Simulacrum;720692RQ6 is from the Design Mechanism, Mongoose no longer have the RQ licence. Same talent at work as on the most recent Mongoose version, but now with a free hand to deliver the game the way they wanted...and it really is a wonderful piece of work. I speak as someone who thought the Avalon Hill RQ3 was as good as I would never need anything to be, bought Mongoose RQ1 and was proved right, bought MRQ2 and was persuaded I might be wrong, bought RQ6 and was proved I was wrong.
I may have been a bit unfair to RQ.
I'll check out RQ6, sounds like it deserves a closer look.
Note: still got my ragged old Avalon Hill RQ3 and Think it's a fine enough game but not quite for me (never had my hands on RQ1 or 2 - I know these Are more popular than 3 with the fans. I do have (system vise unrelated) Heroquest wich really leaves me cold and makes Glorantha seem more than a bit dull - but that's not Nothing to do with RQ :)).
Quote from: MatteoN;720699I wonder if what people mean when they mention the two games' power curves is that since in a sandbox that contains two monsters A and B, of which A is much more dangerous than B, it only depends on the players' choices if their characters will encounter A or B first, it's important that A will always be a major but not insurmountable threat and that B will never cease being a threat, no matter how experienced the PCs might get (otherwise the sandbox actually is just a "trackless dungeon" whose levels are all accessible at any time). So in this regard sandbox-play seems better suited to RQ or to a version of D&D in which character advancement is somewhat limited. (Perhaps D&D is better suited to sandbox adventures than to sandbox campaigns?)
Well, in the case of D&D it depends a bit.
If using 3.Xe rules then yeah it can become a bit problematic since monsters could easily either be way too strong or laughable walkovers giving meaningless rewards.
If using AD&D or or similar then it becomes easier, allthough AD&D character's power levels Don't 100% Map to levels; in 2e say, a fighter with 18/* strength, weapon specialization and so forth is vastly more powerful than one w/o these things, frex. A Str 18/* fighter dual wielding specialized longswords can take on a couple ogres apiece w/o big worries Even at say 3rd level or thereabouts. A 1e dude with Sub-18 Str and no specialization probably can't.
Of course in ad&d, a monster lair of humanoids can well be an army consisting of a couple hundred dudes + leaders and allies, wich means that Even if they're individually wimps the PCs will want some levels before taking them down.
Quote from: The Ent;720702Well, in the case of D&D it depends a bit.
If using 3.Xe rules then yeah it can become a bit problematic since monsters could easily either be way too strong or laughable walkovers giving meaningless rewards.
If using AD&D or or similar then it becomes easier, allthough AD&D character's power levels Don't 100% Map to levels; in 2e say, a fighter with 18/* strength, weapon specialization and so forth is vastly more powerful than one w/o these things, frex. A Str 18/* fighter dual wielding specialized longswords can take on a couple ogres apiece w/o big worries Even at say 3rd level or thereabouts. A 1e dude with Sub-18 Str and no specialization probably can't.
Of course in ad&d, a monster lair of humanoids can well be an army consisting of a couple hundred dudes + leaders and allies, wich means that Even if they're individually wimps the PCs will want some levels before taking them down.
All true, which can be contrasted with systems where you just don't attack a fortress of a few hundred guys and leaders and allies.
Because the power curve you mention above, with the 2 ogres, I have pc knights with over a hundred sessions played that might not want to walk into a fight with 2 ogres alone.
Quote from: LordVreeg;720704All true, which can be contrasted with systems where you just don't attack a fortress of a few hundred guys and leaders and allies.
Because the power curve you mention above, with the 2 ogres, I have pc knights with over a hundred sessions played that might not want to walk into a fight with 2 ogres alone.
Absolutely! In more "sim" Games like RQ or GURPS (in the latter case, let's for his example assume a fairly grounded fantasy campaign with characters starting out with around 100 (eds < 4) or 125-150 (4e) points) characters might simply never become powerful enough to Even Think about taking down 200 orcs on their own (allthough twice their Number in ogres may at some point become doable, depending).
I Think both RQ and GURPS can absolutely be used for sandboxes but it must take the above into account.
I had promised myself I wouldn't do this ... but after a couple of months of highly entertaining lurking on TheRPGSite I'm starting to get really attached to y'all! And after many years away from RPGs in general, I've just started to ineluctably drift back, playing D&D because that's what's easy to find in Paris, but really dying to GM RuneQuest, as the 6th edition of what's always been my favourite game has reignited all my gaming fires at once ...
As far as sandboxing goes, I think that it's the setup that really makes RQ shine for this kind of game. It's not that other games don't do it, but RQ characters from the very beginning are implied not to exist in a vacuum. Starting characters come equipped with a whole raft of cultural elements baked right in at character creation. You're not just a fighter, you're a Nomad Camel-Rider Skirmisher, or a Civilized Blacksmith Citizen Volunteer. The culturally specific combat-styles of RQ6 imply how you learned your weapon-skills, in a group, your previous profession implies where you come from, who you might be linked to. The different magic styles all imply membership of a group, specifically thematic sets of magical/social structures that you interact with, and all the quests, enmities, entities, lusts for power, battles to climb a hierarchy that that implies. All characters are assumed to belong to some sort of cult/religion or brotherhood/guild, often providing a great way to tie characters together and give them common goals and structure to interact with. Beginning characters in the new edition also all have story-hooks in their past to jump-start the imagination, as well as families, social classes, even spouses and children perhaps! Contacts, enemies, allies and such are all generated before play starts, and bonus luck points awarded to characters who provide pre-game ties to each other's backstories.
The emulation-physics of the game are, I agree, pretty neutral as regards whether they suit sandbox or not, and pretty much a matter of taste, but RuneQuest has a history and an emphasis on characters that are conceived as part of a living and breathing world of detailed cultures and cults that, in my opinion, provides the ideal set-up for sandbox play. A group-character creation session can provide the seeds for any number of player-driven plots, with PCs who belong in the GM's world, and are already implied to be implicated in any number of struggles, hierarchies, jockeyings for advancement, etc. This is not at all to say, of course, that D&D doesn't do this, or can't do this. It's just that it seems always to have been part of the initial buy-in for RuneQuest (and Glorantha is a good example of it, though I don't use it myself). PCs with a web of NPCs and organisations they care about/hate/respect, will drive their stories themselves. Add to this the new to RQ mechanic of Passions, and loyalties, grudges, oaths, geasa, superstitions, lusts, taboos etc just jolt the characters into life as soon as they step on the field of play. If the GM has imagined a detailed world in action to complement these rounded characters, sandbox goodness just erupts from it!
You said a mouthful...with which I agree. It's not that RQ is better suited in terms of the base mechanics, but iterations of RQ have generally given more of those sorts of details and hooks that ground the PCs in the setting and encourage them to have setting-based motivations.
However getting back to MatteoN, classic D&D works well for dungeons with freedom of movement partly because of the conceit that depth in the dungeon gives a good sign of the level of monsters that will be found there. I think back in the day the original D&D groups acknowledged among themselves that outdoor adventures were tougher than dungeons. I think this was because of the lack of calibration.
Quote from: Arminius;720538Deleriad: cross-posted. I've been holding off on RQ6 because MRQ2 is good enough for my purposes. MI sounds like good stuff--comparable to Griffin Mt/Island?
You could take a look at the collection of reviews collected over at our forum, one of which was written by deleriad and another by Zachary.
http://designmechanism.freeforums.org/monster-island-reviews-t190.html
Also to be fair, here is the "Tell me about" thread from TBP, which shows a varied series of critiques both for and against it.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?697493-Tell-me-about-Monster-Island
I tried to make an archetypal sandbox setting, using Griffin Mountain as my original inspiration for its structure. So RQ6 can do sandbox games very well, its just depends on what
style of sandbox you're looking for...
Quote from: markfitz;720721I had promised myself I wouldn't do this ...
Well, you did. And since no one else has said it; Welcome to the rpgsite, markfitz!
And apart from your formatting, that was a stellar first post.
Welcome, markfitz!
Quote from: The Ent;720700I may have been a bit unfair to RQ.
I'll check out RQ6, sounds like it deserves a closer look.
You won't regret it.
I've reviewed RQ6 right here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25324).
Thanks a million baragei and The Ent! I'll have to get a handle on the technical etiquette of formatting etc .... is there a tutorial in how to make the posts look pretty anywhere? I'm excited to get in here and get my hands dirty, and two discussions running at the same time of my very favourite game was just too much temptation to resist. Look forward to crossing swords/quaffing ales on many other topics with you guys in the future.
Just hit Return twice between paragraphs and you'll be fine.
Got
you ...
D'oh!
Quote from: The Butcher;720745You won't regret it.
I've reviewed RQ6 right here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=25324).
Great review, Butcher!
Quote from: The Ent;720755Great review, Butcher!
Thanks :)
Quote from: TristramEvans;720679Is honestly say RQ6 is the best fantasy system yet published. It's not pretty (nice cover, but the inside shows its budget),
I'd take the inside of RQ6 over Magic World any day of the week.
Quote from: daniel_ream;720833I'd take the inside of RQ6 over Magic World any day of the week.
im not familiar with Magic World, but the name alone doesnt inspire confidence
Quote from: TristramEvans;720840im not familiar with Magic World, but the name alone doesnt inspire confidence
Generic version of Elric!.
I'm of the opinion that MW doesn't do anything that the BRP Big Gold Book doesn't already do, since it leaves out the interesting and unique-to-Elric! magic systems.
I found the layout and graphic design of MW just amateurish. Which isn't a fair criticism, because it was done by an amateur; it's barely one step up from a monograph, done mostly as an homage to the memory of Lynn Willis who designed the original and passed away this year. All well and good, but I think they're asking far too much money for it.
a generic version of Elric without the Elric magic system? that seems pointless. does it have a background of any sort? I mean, what was the motivation for this as opposed to just using the Basic RPG system?
I agree. Magic World is cobbled together from Avalon Hill RQ3 and the Elric! material with the serial numbers filed off. You're better going for the deluxe product that is RQ6. Or BRP Gold Book if you want a few more options of things to drop in or out. That said, RQ6's magic systems are so good (and so adaptible) that it seems a shame not to dive into them. There's nothing quite like the Mysticism rules in BRP, and that adds a whole slew of options in terms of ascetic brotherhoods and other things. In my plans for a campaign, I've used those rules to model a warrior brotherhood like Fionn and Fianna of Irish legend, and a monkish order of witchhunters within a wider powerful church. It's not just for ninjas!
Quote from: TristramEvans;720855a generic version of Elric without the Elric magic system? that seems pointless. does it have a background of any sort? I mean, what was the motivation for this as opposed to just using the Basic RPG system?
There's a short bit at the end with a pretty ho hum fantasy setting sketched out. It's nothing to write home about.
Quote from: TristramEvans;720855I mean, what was the motivation for this as opposed to just using the Basic RPG system?
Single book fantasy RPG. The BGB doesn't have as much detail on fantasy specific skills and doesn't have as many spells, and is more of a toolkit than a "use these specific combat and skill options" game. If you have no other BRP material, MW will give you everything you want in one book.
Of course so will RQ6, but RQ6 is more detailed and crunchy, especially in the combat system. I suppose you could think of it as RQ6 being the AD&D to MW's B/X.
Quote from: daniel_ream;720859I suppose you could think of it as RQ6 being the AD&D to MW's B/X.
You couldn't possibly come up with a sentence to make me less likely to buy a game than to compare it to AD&D versus B/X.
Since we're talking RQ, I'd appreciate it if the RQ-heads would recommend their favorite adventures/scenarios for (any version of) RQ.
Pavis/Big Rubble, I know is well-loved.
I hear interesting things about Apple Lane.
EDIT: Griffin Mountain, DUH.
I have a copy of Legendary Duck Tower I'm about to use.
What else is worth keeping an eye out for?
Just a small clarification: Magic World does have the Elric! magic system but the rules for demonic summoning aren't as detailed. You get that detail back, along with other magic systems from Elric! supplement(s), in Advanced Sorcery. (Dunno if it's been published yet.)
Glad to hear about Mysticism in RQ6--something completely new vis a vis MRQ2/Legend.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;720462Now who can argue with that?
I think we're all in debt to elfandghost for stating what needed to be said. I am particularly glad that these lovely children are here today to hear that speech. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed the courage little seen in this day and age.
Plus points for the Blazing Saddles reference.
Quote from: TristramEvans;720679Is honestly say RQ6 is the best fantasy system yet published. It's not pretty (nice cover, but the inside shows its budget), but the system is a work of beauty.
For you maybe.
RQ has always been too fiddly for me. "You take six points of damage" is as detailed as I want to get.
Quote from: VectorSigma;720891What else is worth keeping an eye out for?
Snakepipe Hollow
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CLxv7UlL8m8/TYH1GZ33jxI/AAAAAAAAAcY/GGMdflWMSaE/s320/snake.jpg)
Trollpak
(http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/trollpak1982.jpg)
Hellpits of Nightfang
(http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/hellpitsofnightfang.jpg)
Thieves' World (which also includes stats for D&D, DQ, TFT, and several other systems)
RQ Cities (special edition of the Midkemia Press classic)
Soloquest, Scorpion Hall and The Snow King's Bride.
There were a couple of deluxe "dungeon tile" boxed scenarios from a British firm, but I don't recall the titles.
There was a Dorastor product from AH that looked interesting, but I haven't played with it.
The AH Glorantha stuff (Gods, Elder Secrets, Genertela, etc.) included a lot of interesting material, but I'd go for Moon Design's Cult Compendium first. The AH Vikings and Land of Ninja sets were also pretty nice.
Daughters of Darkness and Eldarad I would pass up.
My impression of Borderlands and Questworld, Duck Pond and City of Lei Tabor is 'meh," but maybe others can give more insight.
Quote from: Old Geezer;720996For you
Duhhhhh, who else? I dont come on forums to post other people's opinions.
Quote from: TristramEvans;721011Duhhhhh, who else? I dont come on forums to post other people's opinions.
I thought "For you maybe" meant that according to OG you might be mistaken about your own appraisal of the game.
Quote from: VectorSigma;720891Since we're talking RQ, I'd appreciate it if the RQ-heads would recommend their favorite adventures/scenarios for (any version of) RQ.
Not cheap, but all the Moon Design re-issues have some of the best stuff:
http://www.glorantha.com/product-category/glorantha-classics/
Design Mechanism has the $1 legacy material from Mongoose days, 2 campaigns in there:
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse.php?manufacturers_id=4057
+Monster Island
Tradetalk zine, a mix of things:
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/browse.php?manufacturers_id=2629
I liked Masks of Pavis but don't know if it and the other publications are available outside of Ebay
http://www.tradetalk.de/english/tentacles_tome.html
Borderlands was the cornerstone of my RQ2 campaign in the 80s, along with Griffin Mountain, Pavis, Big Rubble. It's a light episodic campaign which can easily be run semi-sandbox with some more material about the region, which you get from Pavis/Rubble, Cults of Prax.
Edit: Not sure I would rate Duck Tower or Hellpits that highly, they are both cavern/ruin crawls, Hellpits from memory is an especially thin monster mash, very 70s D&D.
Quote from: MatteoN;721018I thought "For you maybe" meant that according to OG you might be mistaken about your own appraisal of the game.
OG plays OD&D, which is about 1step away from freeform play. His opinions on systems of medium crunch or more is pretty irrelevant.
Just to add another vote for it, Monster Island really is a deluxe Swords&Sorcery sandbox ... The keyed locations, factions, treasures (including all sorts of interesting non-monetary resources, like magically powered locations and tombs of ancient serpent-folk sorcerers who guard forgotten knowledge, medicinal and narcotic plants, skins hides and feathers of various exotic beasties), dangers, wonderful encounter tables and event tables, etc etc etc, really add up to a beautiful demonstration of applying the RuneQuest game system to campaigns-worth of sandbox play. It's in the tradition of other great RQ sandboxes such as Griffin Mountain and Pavis/Big Rubble. It's not that sandbox is the province of RuneQuest as such, but that there's a long tradition of the system being really usefully applied to the principles of what we now know as sandbox play. I think Griffin Mountain was really very innovative in this regard. Check out the Moon Design re-edition of it and tell me you don't fancy some low-tech low-fantasy tribal shenanigans after reading it!
Quote from: Phillip;721010There was a Dorastor product from AH that looked interesting, but I haven't played with it.
I like Avalon Hill's Dorastor: Land of Doom. It's a neat little sandbox. It's a toss up for me whether I prefer it to Griffin Mountain. GM covers more area but isn't as full of stuff.
Avalon Hill's stuff is really hit or miss. Dorator is good but Lords of Terror, the remake of Cults of Terror, released shortly afterwards is crap (along with most of the boxed sets). Two books that were well done is Sun Country and Strangers in Prax. I won't use them because I'm not a fan of Prax (or Glorantha either for that matter), but they would be nice for someone running a game in that area.
Quote from: TristramEvans;720679Is honestly say RQ6 is the best fantasy system yet published. It's not pretty (nice cover, but the inside shows its budget), but the system is a work of beauty.
How does RQ6 compare to Elric and COC (the two I played quite a lot years ago)
Is it a refinement or a drastic alteration?
Quote from: Bill;721323How does RQ6 compare to Elric and COC (the two I played quite a lot years ago)
Is it a refinement or a drastic alteration?
You could think of both Stormbringer/Elric and CoC as branches of the RQ system that were simplified to better suit the genre they focused on. RQ6 isn't really a refinement or alteration of either one of those, but more like a development of the main RQ system. And it's quite a bit crunchier than either Elric! or CoC.
One could say it's crunchier than RQIII, too, but I think that's a bit misleading, because while there are a lot of options and things to do in RQ6 combat, the game play is pretty straightforward. And the system feels cohesive, probably because of things like consolidating dodge into parry, and re-doing the skills (and elements like combat styles), and excising the resistance table, et cetera.
Great RQ talk in this thread so far. Getting much inspiration.
Quote from: TristramEvans;721011Duhhhhh, who else? I dont come on forums to post other people's opinions.
Well, you should. From now on you should ask me my opinion and then repeat it.
Quote from: Bill;721323How does RQ6 compare to Elric and COC (the two I played quite a lot years ago)
Is it a refinement or a drastic alteration?
it refines the basic system then adds elements to chargen and combat system, so its more robust of a medieval combat game than Basic system. It ises fighting styles which provide familiarity with a number of weapons and techniques, and it expands on a characters backgrou d during chargen, among other things, but everything added os very simple and streamlined while providing a very specific connection to the gameworld and allowing a lot of tactical options in combat, but still freeform enough that they encourage rather than getting in the way of creativity.
Like Tristram said, the combat system adds a lot of (optional) crunch, but it doesn't get in the way. In my experience, it tends to make combat more tactical but less lethal, with a lot of options to disarm, knock prone, force surrender etc. Combats are often swift and decisive, but actually less lethal than they were in previous RQ. Big difference with CoC and Elric, as far as I can tell, is the classic RuneQuest use of the hit location table. Again, one good crippling hit can have a combatant out of action without necessarily killing him.
The other really big difference is the magic system. Elric/Stormbringer systems tended to concentrate on summoning demons and elementals, very much in keeping with the source literature. Though the Bronze Grimoire also includes rules for sorcery and rune magic, which were not bad. RQ6 has five magic disciplines: Folk Magic, which covers the minor cantrips of hedge wizards and, if desired, the little magical short-cuts ordinary people use in daily life, Animism to cover shamanic spirit-summoning (or demonology, capturing djinns, making deals with fae .... whatever you want!), Sorcery for academic world-altering highly-adaptible spell-work, Theism for dealing with deities, and Mysticism for meditation-garnered inner powers of augmentation and superhuman feats.
The classy thing is that all of these can be adapted, limited, used or not used, combined together in a magical ecology of your own design to make innumerable magical cults, fellowships, colleges, etc. Most of these tend to be quite narrowly focussed (each grimoire or school of sorcery for example only giving access to a thematic set of spells learned in order). But a magician, through quests and discovery, can eventually learn different schools of magic, and casters often have Folk Magic as apprentice spells before going on to a higher discipline.
The options for the way that magic points can be regained scream plot-hooks: sacrifice of animals or sentient beings, tapping magical locations -standing stones, leylines etc - consuming certain narcotics, worship (of a god, or of yourself!), consuming quested after minerals or metals, meditation, singing and dancing, capturing spirits ... And all can apply to different types of casters in different proportions. Seriously, just putting together your magic economy/ecology in RQ6 is a very exciting piece of world-building ...
Quote from: markfitz;721505Like Tristram said, the combat system adds a lot of (optional) crunch, but it doesn't get in the way. In my experience, it tends to make combat more tactical but less lethal, with a lot of options to disarm, knock prone, force surrender etc. Combats are often swift and decisive, but actually less lethal than they were in previous RQ. Big difference with CoC and Elric, as far as I can tell, is the classic RuneQuest use of the hit location table. Again, one good crippling hit can have a combatant out of action without necessarily killing him.
The other really big difference is the magic system. Elric/Stormbringer systems tended to concentrate on summoning demons and elementals, very much in keeping with the source literature. Though the Bronze Grimoire also includes rules for sorcery and rune magic, which were not bad. RQ6 has five magic disciplines: Folk Magic, which covers the minor cantrips of hedge wizards and, if desired, the little magical short-cuts ordinary people use in daily life, Animism to cover shamanic spirit-summoning (or demonology, capturing djinns, making deals with fae .... whatever you want!), Sorcery for academic world-altering highly-adaptible spell-work, Theism for dealing with deities, and Mysticism for meditation-garnered inner powers of augmentation and superhuman feats.
The classy thing is that all of these can be adapted, limited, used or not used, combined together in a magical ecology of your own design to make innumerable magical cults, fellowships, colleges, etc. Most of these tend to be quite narrowly focussed (each grimoire or school of sorcery for example only giving access to a thematic set of spells learned in order). But a magician, through quests and discovery, can eventually learn different schools of magic, and casters often have Folk Magic as apprentice spells before going on to a higher discipline.
The options for the way that magic points can be regained scream plot-hooks: sacrifice of animals or sentient beings, tapping magical locations -standing stones, leylines etc - consuming certain narcotics, worship (of a god, or of yourself!), consuming quested after minerals or metals, meditation, singing and dancing, capturing spirits ... And all can apply to different types of casters in different proportions. Seriously, just putting together your magic economy/ecology in RQ6 is a very exciting piece of world-building ...
This is what makes RQ6 stand above so many other games out there. The potential variation in flavour really quite thrilling. I really do encourage anyone who has previously written RQ off (not looking at anyone in particular. ;) ) to look at it all over again with fresh eyes. Go on, you know you want to...
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;721370You could think of both Stormbringer/Elric and CoC as branches of the RQ system that were simplified to better suit the genre they focused on. RQ6 isn't really a refinement or alteration of either one of those, but more like a development of the main RQ system. And it's quite a bit crunchier than either Elric! or CoC.
One could say it's crunchier than RQIII, too, but I think that's a bit misleading, because while there are a lot of options and things to do in RQ6 combat, the game play is pretty straightforward. And the system feels cohesive, probably because of things like consolidating dodge into parry, and re-doing the skills (and elements like combat styles), and excising the resistance table, et cetera.
Sounds good; the dodge and parry mechanics and 'missing' skills were two of the minor issues I had with Elric and CoC. I should take a look at RQ6.
Thanks to everyone for all the info about RQ6; much appreciated!
Quote from: Bill;721889Thanks to everyone for all the info about RQ6; much appreciated!
Any game more complicated than Basic D&D has fans who say "It plays simpler then it reads.", even Phoenix Command.
With RQ6 it is really true.
The only caveat is that the magic system is more of a magic system toolkit in that it *might* be too generic for a specific world and need some tuning up. Also using characters with all the magic types at once might be a bit much. Other then that though, the thing's a well-oiled machine.
Totally agree, but for me the "tuning up of the magic system" is actually one of the most fun parts of the whole thing. In the campaign I'm planning, I'm considering having users of each kind of magic sort of be the point of the whole thing, with different (and contradictory) ways of interacting with the world's magic be a fundamental part of what's going on .... It's true though that it's the one thing about the system where you really need to get your head around a few complex mechanics. Particularly Animism, for some reason. That one's not quite simple. But a campaign with a spirit-summoning druid, a chosen champion of one of the old gods, a mystical warrior with mighty battle feats, a student of forbidden sorcerous tomes, and a hedge-witch for good measure? Hell yeah. The great thing about RQ is that those characters can also be, respectively, a wandering bard, a village blacksmith, a backwoods hunter, a roving scholar, and a brigand outlaw at the same time!