New edition out. Three books each the size of fucking Alberta. Looks very pretty. Is it any good? I know there's been lots of editions, so does this one justify dropping a fat wad of cash?
I love Runequest, but I've never been a Glorantha fan. I backed the Runequest Classic (reprint of RQ2) Kickstarter and it's one of my favorite books.
I've heard lots of good things about Runequest Glorantha, but I haven't looked into it much.
I haven't gotten close to finishing reading my copy, but it's a great book. There's a lot of people saying that maybe they played it too safe in terms of sticking to RQ2ish rules in the level of crunch and a slight lack of modernity, but I never played RQ so I don't really know. As someone that likes a little crunch, I feel like the setting and mechanics tie together well, so I'm pretty happy with my purchase. RQ certainly takes a little more player buy in than D&D does, but it's probably worth it.
Not a fan of D100 mechanics. People that have bought the game, also buy and play all the D&D 5E stuff still. Any edition of RuneQuest is more of a collector's thing. I would argue that SPI's DragonQuest is better than RuneQuest.
Quote from: Chunkthulhu;1085966I love Runequest, but I've never been a Glorantha fan.
Same here. The setting just never grabbed me. I used bits of it, like the Broo, and the idea of cults... but that's it. I used RQ2 for its rules.
So the new one really pushing Glorantha and... various other developments at Chaosium... has me favoring Mythras as a game with a bit of that crunch, but no hard-wired setting.
If you like Glorantha, definitely worth the expenditure, it is particularly good at collecting information about the setting into a single location. I just received my Leather Bound Slipcase Edition. Beautiful job of layout, printing and binding. I wouldn't suggest that one for actual play (as noted above it's mainly a collector's thing). Has much changed? Not really, and if Glorantha isn't your thing, it wouldn't be a big loss to bypass.
For those who aren't fans of Glorantha Chaosium is planning "RuneQuest Fantasy Earth", which will use the same rule-base as RQG but Fantasy Earth in place of Glorantha. I think I read somewhere they'll do something along the lines of the old Avalon Hill Vikings, Land of the Samurai, etc.: regional books for different parts of Earth.
Thanks for the feedback.
I downloaded the free start adventure thingy on the Chaosium website. Don't think Glorantha's for me. Gonna give it a miss.
Quote from: rhialto;1086129For those who aren't fans of Glorantha Chaosium is planning "RuneQuest Fantasy Earth", which will use the same rule-base as RQG but Fantasy Earth in place of Glorantha.
Yeah, I think they've been planning that since 2013 or so ...
Quote from: Vile;1086151Yeah, I think they've been planning that since 2013 or so ...
A bit longer, since about 1980 :D
Mythras already has the Mythic Earth series for that "fantasy earth" feel. You have Mythic Britain, Rome, Constantinople and, Greece is supposedly in the works.
I haven't had an opportunity to actually play the new Runequest Glorantha game, so instead I've made do with rolling up characters. That in itself takes a long time, compared to what I'm used to. Eventually I'll get to try out the rest of the rules. I predict session 0 will be a chore to get through.
As for Glorantha itself, I honestly preferred the setting when it was more of a rough sketch of a setting rather than this deep, anthropological thing to study. As such, I've always favored RQ2 (aka Runequest Classic).
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1086107I would argue that SPI's DragonQuest is better than RuneQuest.
Please start that thread! It would be an interesting discussion.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1086227Please start that thread! It would be an interesting discussion.
It would be an interesting discussion. Great game, but in my opinion not better than Runequest.
Quote from: shuddemell;1086228It would be an interesting discussion. Great game, but in my opinion not better than Runequest.
Except for the DQ magic system, which is very flavorful and fun to play (even when you backfire), I agree.
I like the D100 mechanics. Work great for some games, other things work great for others.
Never come across Dragonquest before. Bit of google-fu reveals its an old SPI game. I'd be interested in hearing more about it in a separate thread. Old systems interest me. Is it possible to still get Dragonquest in a print form anywhere?
Quote from: BrokenCounsel;1086131I downloaded the free start adventure thingy on the Chaosium website. Don't think Glorantha's for me. Gonna give it a miss.
I love Glorantha, but I suspect I'd find it a bit tougher to get into now than it was for those of us who grew up with it. If you ever get a chance, it might be worth playing in a game to experience it rather than trying to read up on it.
RQ6/Mythras is a great system that already has support for several fantasy worlds if you want to try something out of the general lineage.
Quote from: BrokenCounsel;1086239I like the D100 mechanics. Work great for some games, other things work great for others.
Never come across Dragonquest before. Bit of google-fu reveals its an old SPI game. I'd be interested in hearing more about it in a separate thread. Old systems interest me. Is it possible to still get Dragonquest in a print form anywhere?
DQ is a really weird game to compare against RQ, other than being from roughly the same era. It has some really interesting ideas in it, but at the same time is most definitely a product of a chit-n-hex wargaming company and it shows throughout, both in presentation and how the game operates. I have no idea if it's available anywhere now. I think TSR published a second edition sometime in the early 80s. I still have my original SPI edition.
The recent release of the TFT makes for a more direct competitor to DQ conceptually, as both are built onto a hex-based skirmish system.
Quote from: RMS;1086245DQ is a really weird game to compare against RQ, other than being from roughly the same era. It has some really interesting ideas in it, but at the same time is most definitely a product of a chit-n-hex wargaming company and it shows throughout, both in presentation and how the game operates. I have no idea if it's available anywhere now. I think TSR published a second edition sometime in the early 80s. I still have my original SPI edition.
You can get copies of DQ (1st & 2nd edition were by SPI, 3rd by TSR) on eBay, Amazon, etc. Search on-line and you'll probably find a fan-made SRD, too, with occasional attempts to rewrite it for OSR (in the broadest sense) uses. It's similar to RQ in that it's gritty and simulationist, not really epic. You start out fairly frail and have to spend XP to increase everything (skills, spells, weapons, careers, talents, etc.). The differences between the editions aren't too numerous and a summary can be found here (https://grognard.com/info1/dqmanifest.html).
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1086107Not a fan of D100 mechanics. People that have bought the game, also buy and play all the D&D 5E stuff still. Any edition of RuneQuest is more of a collector's thing. I would argue that SPI's DragonQuest is better than RuneQuest.
I never found DragonQuest even playable (interesting read, though). Glorantha is also a neat world, and I concede I might just do it as a collector's thing.
It isn't the d100 mechanics that were the issue in RQ, it's the nice-but-unworkable EP system.
Quote from: BrokenCounsel;1085965New edition out. Three books each the size of fucking Alberta. Looks very pretty.
I have them as PDFs, as my wife won't let me buy more books unless I throw away some of the books I already have.
Quote from: BrokenCounsel;1085965Is it any good?
Yes, it is very Gloranthan in flavour, adds to the RQ2/RQ3ness of the rules and adds some nice touches. It is also very pretty, with very good artwork.
Quote from: BrokenCounsel;1085965I know there's been lots of editions, so does this one justify dropping a fat wad of cash?
Probably, I would say yes.
The rules are a mixture of RQ2 and RQ3, with some stuff added on. Unfortunately, where something differs in RQ2/3 it sometimes uses both versions in the rules, which is very annoying.
It adds a lot of stuff and is the most complete version of RQ out there. It also uses the Mythology of Glorantha and assumes that it is a magical world, which is a nice way of doing it.
If you have RQ2 and RQ3, then you already have a lot of the rules, but I think it is still worth buying. Get it as a PDF first, to see if you like it.
Quote from: Doom;1086270It isn't the d100 mechanics that were the issue in RQ, it's the nice-but-unworkable EP system.
What do you mean by "EP system" here? I can't parse that into anything that I've seen complained about in RQ, so am curious.
Quote from: soltakss;1086275If you have RQ2 and RQ3, then you already have a lot of the rules, but I think it is still worth buying. Get it as a PDF first, to see if you like it.
I have my copy, to go along with copies of everything else RQ ever published by Chaosium/AH, but honestly haven't read completely through it. I just finished running a long RQ2 campaign, inspired by the Kickstarter a couple of years back. As much fun as I've had with RQ over the years, and Glorantha over the years, I'm currently pretty fried on both.
Everything does look nice on my shelves, just to rub it in! :)
You don't have experience points. You use skills, skills you use have a chance of improving, but it's a weird chance--the better you are, the better you get. And it's never really well defined when you get better, exactly. I always found it to be too much "Simon Says." I grant D&D EP is subject to DM whim on some level, too, but there is at least theoretically a predictable progression.
Quote from: Doom;1086367You don't have experience points. You use skills, skills you use have a chance of improving, but it's a weird chance--the better you are, the better you get.
The "the better you are, the better you get" part makes me suspect you misread/misremember how the skill improvement rolls work. In order to improve your skills, your advancement roll has to
fail, so the better you are, the harder it is to improve further. e.g., If your skill is at 75%, you roll percentile and the skill improves on a roll of 76+. On 01-75, it does not improve.
Mythras changes this up a bit by abandoning the "checkmarks for potential to improve" part and instead giving you a fixed number of experience rolls per session or adventure. In this version, since experience rolls are a scarce resource, you would still gain 1 point in the skill on 01-75 so that it's never completely "wasted", but that's still less than you would get on a 76+ (1d4+1 skill points, IIRC). Your INT also factors into the target for the advancement roll, but that varies by BRP flavor, so I'm ignoring it here for the sake of simplicity.
Quote from: Doom;1086367And it's never really well defined when you get better, exactly.
Yeah, the system could stand to have clearer standards on how often to make advancement rolls, since the rate of character improvement is so heavily dependent on how frequent these rolls are. I wouldn't be so interested in a hard "do it this way", but a brief (say, half-, or maybe even quarter-page) discussion of "here are some options to choose from, and the way that each one would affect your campaign" would be excellent to include. A game with advancement rolls at the end of every game session regardless of events or passage of in-game time would have a very different feel than one with a Pendragon-style Winter Phase where you only make advancement rolls once per in-game year.
Quote from: Doom;1086367You don't have experience points. You use skills, skills you use have a chance of improving, but it's a weird chance--the better you are, the better you get. And it's never really well defined when you get better, exactly. I always found it to be too much "Simon Says." I grant D&D EP is subject to DM whim on some level, too, but there is at least theoretically a predictable progression.
As already noted, it sounds like you misremember something here. The chances of improving get lower as you advance. It's very easy to get to competent in skills, but very difficult to become a master in something. The experience system is one of the things that tends to get lauded about BRP systems.
I've generally simplified the training part of skill improvement. (It should be noted that training is very much integral to improvement in RQ.) It works, but I just let people pay to spend so many hours working on a skill and then get another improvement roll.
Yep, I misremembered exactly what you needed to roll to improve, but it's still a bit wonky in that a couple of unlucky "experience point" rolls can stunt your character's growth dramatically, you can literally be several "levels" behind the rest of the party just by rolling poorly here, and if you've half a dozen players, the odds are decent that someone will indeed roll that poorly. Improving skills which start in the 20% or less range can be brutally subject to luck (gotta have a success, after all...). The fact still remains the "advancement rolls" were such a huge deal and never clearly defined as well.
Increasing skills in Runequest works differently than does increasing levels in D&D. But the way increases work is no more "wonky" than it is in several versions of D&D. Depending on how experience works in D&D one could miss one single session and essentially end up 2 full levels behind everyone else - they could be level 3 or 4 and you could still be level 1 or 2. And yes I've seen that happen in D&D.
Miss one session in Runequest and at most you miss one check for any given skill so you might still be at 35% in skill A and 70% in skill B while your friend is now at 40% in skill A and at 75% in skill B. I've seen that happen too, but until now I've never seen anyone complain about it for being too confusing or too unfair.
Quote from: Bren;1086411Increasing skills in Runequest works differently than does increasing levels in D&D. But the way increases work is no more "wonky" than it is in several versions of D&D. Depending on how experience works in D&D one could miss one single session and essentially end up 2 full levels behind everyone else - they could be level 3 or 4 and you could still be level 1 or 2. And yes I've seen that happen in D&D.
Miss one session in Runequest and at most you miss one check for any given skill so you might still be at 35% in skill A and 70% in skill B while your friend is now at 40% in skill A and at 75% in skill B. I've seen that happen too, but until now I've never seen anyone complain about it for being too confusing or too unfair.
Yes, a D&D player could just not play and be just as bad off as a player who played half a dozen sessions of RQ. I'm not sure that's much of an argument for equivalent wonkiness--there are several other RPGS where if you don't play at all your character generally won't improve.
And I'm not complaining about it being confusing or unfair, either...just weird. That said, not having complaintants means little for a system played by very few. I've never heard anyone complain about the dice mechanics of Nin-Gnost, either...doesn't mean the mechanics are great.
Quote from: Doom;1086408Yep, I misremembered exactly what you needed to roll to improve, but it's still a bit wonky in that a couple of unlucky "experience point" rolls can stunt your character's growth dramatically, you can literally be several "levels" behind the rest of the party just by rolling poorly here, and if you've half a dozen players, the odds are decent that someone will indeed roll that poorly. Improving skills which start in the 20% or less range can be brutally subject to luck (gotta have a success, after all...). The fact still remains the "advancement rolls" were such a huge deal and never clearly defined as well.
At least in my games, training is as important as experience, and there's no randomness to that (well, I did run one campaign using RQIII style random improvement instead of fixed 5%).
As to bad luck, well, your character who never advances is better off that the other guy who kept rolling those 99s for attacks and eventually killed himself...
I went through a phase of getting all bent out of shape about randomness in character generation leaving some players with worse of characters than others. I've been working on getting over that... So to me, randomness in the character improvement system is no worse, and considering that you are making improvement rolls every adventure (or even every game session depending on exactly how you play it), the odds are far better of you keeping pace compared to rolling poorly for initial attributes which sticks with you.
And what do you mean by never clearly defined? It's always been clear to me that you get one roll for each skill you succeeded with during an adventure. Considering the era of the game, it was pretty clear what an adventure was. And if the PCs were traveling through the wilderness, going from point A to point B, then I would usually consider that an adventure.
I have also used the system of giving out a GM assigned number of improvement rolls rather than one roll for each skill which succeeded which works fine also. With that system, I also allowed spending improvement rolls on things like riding or languages where there was not an explicit skill roll made, but if you had spent time riding or speaking a non-native language, you could take an improvement roll in one of those skills.
Quote from: ffilz;1086420At least in my games, training is as important as experience, and there's no randomness to that (well, I did run one campaign using RQIII style random improvement instead of fixed 5%).
Well, yes, if you house-rule something that works for you and your group, that's something. I'm not convinced that changes the rules as written, though.
QuoteAs to bad luck, well, your character who never advances is better off that the other guy who kept rolling those 99s for attacks and eventually killed himself...
Most people can distinguish a difference in important between half a dozen unlucky rolls in combat and a couple of ridiculously critical rolls in leveling up your character. Some cannot. Obviously.
QuoteAnd what do you mean by never clearly defined? It's always been clear to me that you get one roll for each skill you succeeded with during an adventure. Considering the era of the game, it was pretty clear what an adventure was. And if the PCs were traveling through the wilderness, going from point A to point B, then I would usually consider that an adventure.
Heh, you say it's clear to you, and "usually consider." Contradict yourself much?
QuoteI have also used the system of giving out a GM assigned number of improvement rolls...
And a different set of houserules...chances are, if you've modified the RAW multiple different ways trying to find something satisfying, then, yes, there's something unsatisfying about RAW that isn't so easy to fix. Just sayin'
Quote from: Doom;1086430Well, yes, if you house-rule something that works for you and your group, that's something. I'm not convinced that changes the rules as written, though.
FYI, those are the training rules as written. You pay the money and take the time and get an automatic skill increase. They work perfectly fine.
Houserulling BRP is common, but it's almost never due to the rules being unclear or broken, but just to shift aesthetics or a tweak things a bit. I use a number of houserules*, but not one of them would I consider there because the written rules are poorly written and poorly thought out. They're all there just because I like what I did more than the written rules. One of the strengths of the system is that it's extremely transparent, so extremely easy to houserule without surprises popping up.
* Also, I have yet to play any RPG that I don't houserule to some extent. Tweaking rules is part of the fun of gaming, so of course I tweak away to make them conform to my ideas.
Quote from: Doom;1086430Well, yes, if you house-rule something that works for you and your group, that's something. I'm not convinced that changes the rules as written, though.
No house ruling, I ran training using RAW, the only "house ruling" was porting RQ3 random improvement (1d6+1 percent) amount into RQ1/2 in place of fixed 5%.
QuoteMost people can distinguish a difference in important between half a dozen unlucky rolls in combat and a couple of ridiculously critical rolls in leveling up your character. Some cannot. Obviously.
I don't see the improvement rolls as "ridiculously critical". No matter what the rolls are, if you have a long enough string of bad rolls to actually start making a difference against other characters, it really doesn't matter if they were combat or improvement rolls. And if they were improvement rolls, at least your character lives to get another chance...
QuoteHeh, you say it's clear to you, and "usually consider." Contradict yourself much?
No contradiction. It's always been clear to me that an adventure could either be a trip to a dungeon and back, or an extended trip between two points. Now maybe some would read the rules in a way to exclude an extended trip between two points from being an adventure. Fine. Advancement in that GMs game may be a bit slower than in my game.
QuoteAnd a different set of houserules...chances are, if you've modified the RAW multiple different ways trying to find something satisfying, then, yes, there's something unsatisfying about RAW that isn't so easy to fix. Just sayin'
Sometimes house rules are because of something being unsatisfying. Sometimes not. Also, what I found unsatisfying as a teenager (when I first played RQ1) and what I find unsatisfying now is different.
Yea, I run RQ1 with some house rules. But I'd also be fine running it totally as written.
My house rules for RQ1 are primarily:
Use the battle magic changes from RQ2
Import any weapons relevant to cults that aren't present in RQ1 from RQ2
INT for races usable as PCs (and many others) is 2d6+6
When rolling an attribute for a PC, instead of rolling XdY+Z, roll (X+1)dY, pick X of them, and add Y (note that there MAY be reasons not to pick the highest, sometimes it makes sense at least for SIZ to pick the lowest).
I have some house rules to the previous experience system from the back of the book (but it's MOSTLY run RAW, most of the house rules there are extra options)
I still grant characters that go through the previous experience system cult credit, and cult credit may be used for skills the cult teaches as well as battle magic
Hit Points are (SIZ + CON) / 2 (round up) and then use the HP adjustments for SIZ and POW
Attribute maximum is the lower of racial max or 1.5 * the original roll (round up)
I rename the Oratory bonus Communication and use it for spoken language skills as well as a few others
I have added some additional Communication skills (some are from Cults of Prax)
For skills, your skill is how much training/experience you have, then you add ability bonus on top to gauge success, for improvement rolls, you just need to beat the raw skill (so if I have Axe 25% and Attack +25%, I have a net Axe of 50%, but I only look at the 25% for training cost and only need to roll 26+ to learn from experience).
There's probably a few procedural things that are so ingrained in how I run RQ that I'm not thinking about them.
Yes, in the past, I have used more significant house ruling. I have used RQ3 style previous experience of my own concocting. In one campaign, players assigned attributes by point buy, and then distributed (+5, +10, +10, +15, +15, +20, +20, +25) among the ability bonuses (Attack, Parry, Defense, Manipulation, Stealth, Perception, Knowledge, Communication). I've also run with various other weapons charts (John T. Sapienza, designer of the RQ2 character sheets, had a "unified" set of weapons that I used for a while). I used to have players keep track of how many successes they had with a skill beyond the first, and use that as an addition to the improvement roll. In my long running campaign, I settled on giving the players a fixed number of improvement rolls after each "adventure". These are all tweaks to the game and don't invalidate the original rules in any way. These days I've chosen to not use many of them to have more of the original experience.
Frank
Quote from: Doom;1086408Yep, I misremembered exactly what you needed to roll to improve, but it's still a bit wonky in that a couple of unlucky "experience point" rolls can stunt your character's growth dramatically, you can literally be several "levels" behind the rest of the party just by rolling poorly here, and if you've half a dozen players, the odds are decent that someone will indeed roll that poorly. Improving skills which start in the 20% or less range can be brutally subject to luck (gotta have a success, after all...). The fact still remains the "advancement rolls" were such a huge deal and never clearly defined as well.
My group had the same experience with EP in Runequest. It REALLY, REALLY SUCKED when a new character was trying to become competent at a skill and missed the chance to improve because of the whim of the dice. I've seen people give up on the system because of that.
"I'm bad at this and I keep letting my friends down, and I've played along for three game sessions, and now you tell me I can't even improve my character? SCREW THIS."
Especially because, as starting characters, you pretty much had to be bad at most things.
You start out more competent in RuneQuest Glorantha than you did in earlier versions.
I like the earlier editions of Runequest. I did not like the various later revisions to make it more realistic etc, such as Mythras/RQ6 whatever other iteration of the new rules were, I know it changed hands/publisher several times and in the end I just gave up on the whole RQ thing.
I can't say I particularly liked Glorantha. It's pretty unapproachable for a new GM for it. As a player I've had good and bad experiences with it, depending on the GM.
That sounds like there's no way I'd buy into a dedicated book set (such as the slipcase edition).
But I find myself less often actually running RPGs, apart from one offs every now and then and more often just reading the books. For various reasons, such as just being really busy, hard to get people to turn up regularly due to their busy schedules or just being unreliable and so on.
I'm getting older too, so I have less energy to run RPGs as often as I used to. Especially if the reward vs effort is getting harder to balance out.
The odds are I probably won't get it, but if I do, it'll be that really pretty slipcase edition. Partially as it'd look really nice on my shelf. Also for old times sake and I could see myself poring through those books on a lazy Sunday on my verandah.
Quote from: Doom;1086413Yes, a D&D player could just not play and be just as bad off as a player who played half a dozen sessions of RQ. I'm not sure that's much of an argument for equivalent wonkiness--there are several other RPGS where if you don't play at all your character generally won't improve.
You don't seem to have understood what I said. As many others have mentioned, the rules as written work just fine and are no more wonky in practice than is D&D experience.
Sure a very unlucky player in Runequest might fail a bunch of attempts to increase their skills. A very unlucky player in OD&D wouldn't increase their skills either. Either because their character spent the entire adventure not finding any treasure and/or running away from tough monsters or because their character was unlucky enough to just get dead in session after session. Back in the olden days before every kid and his parents felt the need for him to get a trophy just for showing up, this was considered a feature not a bug.
QuoteAnd I'm not complaining about it being confusing or unfair, either...just weird.
You are complaining that Runequest isn't just like the D&D that you play. Of course it isn't. It isn't supposed to be just like D&D. That was, in part, the point of Runequest. A point that seems to have escaped you.
I've played RQ several times across several editions. Not a huge fan, although I can't put my finger on anything I would consider especially distasteful to me (perhaps aside from the magic systems which I've always found somewhat clunky). I think if I were to run a crunchier-type Glorantha game I would most likely just do so in GURPS.
If I wanted to play up the mythical/rune-based angle, I would probably go with something pretty narrative and free-flowing like Heroquest: Glorantha.
Quote from: Bren;1086616You don't seem to have understood what I said. As many others have mentioned, the rules as written work just fine and are no more wonky in practice than is D&D experience.
Heh your definition of "many" is strange. But if that's the route we'll go here ,then a huge number of people have said they found a problem with the EP system, and how it changes in other editions, or how they houserule it, or how it's so bad they just use training rules to get around it.
QuoteYou are complaining that Runequest isn't just like the D&D that you play. Of course it isn't. It isn't supposed to be just like D&D. That was, in part, the point of Runequest. A point that seems to have escaped you.
No, that's not the point at all. I openly defy you to find a quote by me that said the problem with RQ was it's not just like D&D. If' you can't find such a quote, shut up now. I predict you won't, though.
Warhammer FRP doesn't have an EP system just like D&D, and I don't find it screwy. The last dozen computer RPGs I've played don't have EP systems just like D&D, and I don't find them screwy, either. Perhaps if you read what I write, and instead of what you imagine, we'd have an easier time talking, eh? But get back to me with that quote before continuing this, please.
Quote from: Doom;1086783No, that's not the point at all.
The point is that you like level-based systems, which Runequest isn't. D&D is the Ur-example of a level-based system.
One reason you like level-based systems is undoubtedly that you understand how a level-based system works. So it's not a big surprise that you like D&D and Warhammer. And many video games are also level based. So no surprise you like some of them. Runequest isn't level based. You've shown us that you don't understand it. So it's not surprising that you don't like Runequest.
Also water is wet.*
* When kept at one atmosphere of pressure and at a temperature somewhere between 0 and 100 degrees C.
Quote from: Doom;1086783a huge number of people have said they found a problem with the EP system, and how it changes in other editions, or how they houserule it, or how it's so bad they just use training rules to get around it.
Prior to this discussion, the
only major complaint I can recall ever having seen about the BRP/RQ experience system is that some players will try to game the system by going out of their way to use as many different skills as possible, even when doing so is patently unreasonable, in an attempt to gain checkmarks (and, thus, improvement rolls) in as many skills as possible. The one minor complaint I've seen is that some people dislike the record-keeping involved in tracking which skills are up for potential improvement and which are not. That's it, in my experience.
The switch in RQ6/Mythras (and, actually, I think it may have come earlier in MRQ/Legend, but I'm not certain) to having the GM give out a fixed number of experience rolls per advancement opportunity (session, adventure, whatever interval they're using) as RAW is intended to address those issues - players gaming the experience checkmarks and eliminating the overhead of tracking the checkmarks. It has nothing to do with the system being seen as fundamentally flawed and, when you get down to it, is really a pretty minor change to the system anyhow.
The training rules aren't a workaround used because the main experience system is "so bad", they're a core part of the system, meant to be used alongside it. Using your skills actively in the field may or may not improve them based on experience rolls; training is a guaranteed increase, but it takes time and money and (depending on the specific ruleset you're using) may tend to produce smaller gains. Live experience also has the advantage that you can gain improve multiple skills at once if they're all in active use, while training is generally limited to developing one skill at a time. Also, training requires a trainer whose skills are better than yours, so you reach a point where you have to either rely on live experience to improve further or go on a quest to find a master whose skills are sufficient to train you further. So neither method of advancement is truly a replacement for the other.
From this discussion, I gather that you dislike the BRP/RQ advancement system because it's unpredictable and because bad luck can prevent character from gaining (non-training) skill improvements. Is that accurate? And are there other aspects which put you off that I haven't picked up on?
Quote from: Doom;1086430Heh, you say it's clear to you, and "usually consider." Contradict yourself much?'
Seems pretty clear to me.
Runequest 2nd edition, Page 25QuoteAt the end of the scenario, when the character can take a week to relax and meditate upon his experience, there is a chance he will learn from what happened to him.
Which applies to other skills
Runequest 2nd edition, Page 47QuoteJust as an Adventurer can learn fighting, either by experience or through training, he can also learn other skills and increase them through training.
As for being wonky, the system reflects the fact that the author were in college or just out of college when RQ2 was written. It reflects the idea that what a character know is reflected by skill categories, that can be improved by spending the time and paying the cost of undertaking a course of training.
For example a Biology major may not know much about Technical Writing but if they took Technical Writing for a semester they definitely now have some amount of writing skill afterwards.
Or they could learn technical writing by trial and error. It may take longer but is certainly cheaper.
Quote from: nDervish;1086860The training rules aren't a workaround used because the main experience system is "so bad", they're a core part of the system, meant to be used alongside it.
I concur,
Classic Runequest has a lot of consideration for what commonly referred to as the "life of the setting." The idea that the characters are part of a world with other people with their own concerns. This includes guilds where characters can seek training and patronage. In classic Runequest the presentation of skills outside of combat is centered on which guild or organization offers training in that skill. The more advanced character options like Rune Lords and Rune Priest are even more tightly bound with a specific organization centered around a religion.
Nearly every point where RQ2 talks about skill advancement it talks about learning from experience or learning by training. It presented as two options.
I don't have as much experience running RQ2 as I do GURPS but from what I ran character advancement is driven largely by training paid for by money earned from adventuring. However learning from experience is always there and over time contributes it share of skill advancement.
Quote from: estar;1086863Seems pretty clear to me.
Runequest 2nd edition, Page 25
Which applies to other skills
Runequest 2nd edition, Page 47
Quote from: RQ2At the end of the scenario, when the character can take a week to relax and meditate upon his experience, there is a chance he will learn from what happened to him.
I wasn't remembering that explicit text, but yea, it's right there and clear. I may interpret it a bit differently when I GM, but that doesn't mean the original text is not clear or doesn't work well.
As far as me or other folks running it a bit different, consider that even venerable chess is often played with house rules (do you allow taking back a move after removing your hand from the piece? Do you use a time clock? What are the time clock rules?), some very commonly used, and some codified by various play associations. Chess even spawns variant games. None of that means the original game is bad. It just means there are various reasons to play differently, even if it's just for "a change of pace."
Frank
Quote from: ffilz;1086942As far as me or other folks running it a bit different,
Your house, your rules. :)
I only jumped in when people were talking about RAW. That made me go "Hey wait a minute it wasn't like that.". I feel that one should understand RAW as a starting point, but never be beholden to it. Being consistent rulings based how the setting of the campaign is defined is the most important factor in my opinion.
So if anybody thinks that XP in Runequest should be different great! Change it! There are many ways to think about how folks learn skills and how that depicted in various genres.
My opinion, based on reading RQ2, and what I know of the authors, I think Runequest RAW XP system is a reasonable approach and clearly written.
I ran RQ 2 as a 15 year old with a borrowed set of rules. There were some things that didn't entirely click, but I don't remember skill advancement being on of them. If anything, it was one of the more directly clear things in the rules.
Quote from: estar;1086953Your house, your rules. :)
I only jumped in when people were talking about RAW. That made me go "Hey wait a minute it wasn't like that.". I feel that one should understand RAW as a starting point, but never be beholden to it. Being consistent rulings based how the setting of the campaign is defined is the most important factor in my opinion.
So if anybody thinks that XP in Runequest should be different great! Change it! There are many ways to think about how folks learn skills and how that depicted in various genres.
My opinion, based on reading RQ2, and what I know of the authors, I think Runequest RAW XP system is a reasonable approach and clearly written.
I was only emphasizing that my use of some house rules wasn't due to the original rules not being clear and usable, but simply because I had some preferences, therefore I was not being contradictory.
So yea, I totally agree with you that the RAW are clear, reasonable, and usable.
Frank
Quote from: nDervish;1086860Prior to this discussion, the only major complaint I can recall ever having seen about the BRP/RQ experience system is that some players will try to game the system by going out of their way to use as many different skills as possible, even when doing so is patently unreasonable, in an attempt to gain checkmarks (and, thus, improvement rolls) in as many skills as possible. The one minor complaint I've seen is that some people dislike the record-keeping involved in tracking which skills are up for potential improvement and which are not. That's it, in my experience.
That's the same general complaint I've heard online since the 1980's when I first started talking RPGs online. I've never had an issue with it, as skill checks are only supposed to be awarded for attempts under duress, and I've always ruled that if you were just doing it for the skill check then you're not really under any real duress. Having said that, I'm actually pretty free with handing out skill checks. I've never found it hurts the game to have a little faster advancement.
Speaking of which, the most common house-rule I've seen is to grant skill checks for any skill attempted under duress, whether successful or not. This allows lower skilled characters better chances at advancement early on, but converges pretty closely to RAW as they advance. I've done this forever and seen lots of other people do it. It doesn't mean we think RAW is unclear or bad, but rather we just prefer doing it this way for our game.
Quote from: estar;1086864Classic Runequest has a lot of consideration for what commonly referred to as the "life of the setting." The idea that the characters are part of a world with other people with their own concerns. This includes guilds where characters can seek training and patronage. In classic Runequest the presentation of skills outside of combat is centered on which guild or organization offers training in that skill. The more advanced character options like Rune Lords and Rune Priest are even more tightly bound with a specific organization centered around a religion.
One of the ways that RQ really focuses on the world around the PC's and feeling a little more like there's a world out there that isn't just adventuring is that the training rules really encourage lots of downtime. Our games frequently have an adventure or two every game year, with time between being concerned with training, cult duties, and family duties. It just doesn't fit into the adventure-after-adventure-after-adventure paradigm of D&D, or most other RPGs. This isn't explicitly stated, but is implicit in how the game functions.
QuoteI don't have as much experience running RQ2 as I do GURPS but from what I ran character advancement is driven largely by training paid for by money earned from adventuring. However learning from experience is always there and over time contributes it share of skill advancement.
You have to do both. You can only do one advancement from training after each advancement by adventure. Also, (most) skills can only train up to 75%, after which advances come only through adventure. Those last skill percentages to quality for Runelord can drag out for quite a while in practice, as can those last POW gains to qualify for Priest (or Runelord, just lower requirement).
I ran a ton of GURPS in the 80's and early 90's. I made players argue for how they'd gained any new abilities in it from XP, due to my RQ background. I allowed anything that made sense, but if they wanted something that didn't come out of play, they needed downtime to go study and learn the new ability. I feel like that builds into the game when abilities don't just pop up out of thin air, but come directly out of play.
That's part of what always appealed to me in BRP. All the gains in mechanical character growth come directly out of the adventures and campaign, rather than just be something tacked on for between play. I see that some don't like the randomness of it, but in actual play differences in advancement aren't that big of deal.
Quote from: nDervish;1086860Prior to this discussion, the only major complaint I can recall ever having seen about the BRP/RQ experience system is that some players will try to game the system by going out of their way to use as many different skills as possible, even when doing so is patently unreasonable, in an attempt to gain checkmarks (and, thus, improvement rolls) in as many skills as possible.
This can be a concern, but at least for combat skills there's some built in disincentive or risk in deciding to start combat using a 1-H Spear when your attack is 30% and your parry is 25% instead of staying with your trustee Bastard Sword where those skills are 75% and 70% respectively. I've seen it done, but sometimes it doesn't end well.
One of the initial draws of RQ2/BRP for me (besides not having levels or classes) was the XP system. It just made more sense to me than some offstage odometer that would ding and suddenly raise all my stats. I never saw any examples of 'skill hunting' out in the wild either, I suspect they're largely based on hypotheticals/rumors rather than actual play.
Legend/Openquest/Mythras and Delta Green 2e changed the XP system somewhat but I'll choose to ignore that and keep the per skill check boxes.
Quote from: Simlasa;1087453One of the initial draws of RQ2/BRP for me (besides not having levels or classes) was the XP system. It just made more sense to me than some offstage odometer that would ding and suddenly raise all my stats. I never saw any examples of 'skill hunting' out in the wild either, I suspect they're largely based on hypotheticals/rumors rather than actual play.
Legend/Openquest/Mythras and Delta Green 2e changed the XP system somewhat but I'll choose to ignore that and keep the per skill check boxes.
I don't remember if the complaints of skill check hunting back in the day I read in The Wild Hunt were speculative or not but at least they did lead to a proposal to add 1% to the chance of advancement for each additional use. At higher skills that's significant enough to add additional discouragement for skill hunting. What I DO KNOW would happen is for things like Spot Hidden, folks would have the lower skilled characters try first, or have characters look but not tell until everyone had a chance to look so more folks would have the opportunity for a check.