Runequest vs. every other RPG system

[thormagni]

I was just thinking about Runequest today and comparing it to Conan OGL, as far as my interest level. Kind of holding my interest in RQ up against my interest in Conan and comparing the two. When we first started playing Conan, I went out and bought the core book and then I bought several other books on top of that. And I would buy more if we were still playing it, for sure.

For RQ, I bought the first book and... I can't imagine buying anymore. I have no real interest in fleshing out my Runequest library. And I have no real interest in even trying to find out more about the "canon" RQ campaign.

I'm not trying to bash RQ, but I remember aeons ago knowing that there was a gaming system out there somewhere called RQ. But I always thought of it as kind of boring and uninteresting and it never sparked my interest enough to even go check it out. Now, after playing with these rules for, what, 5-6 months, I still feel the same way about it.

So, I'm wondering where this apathy is coming from.

Part of this is money, obviously. I just don't have the cash to buy a lot of books right now (although I have bought more Mutants and Masterminds books since we started playing RQ than I have RQ books.)

Part of it is my surplus book inventory. I have so many gaming books that even I have reached a point where I am reluctant to buy more, unless I REALLY want it. I just don't have room right now.

Part of it is my backlog of systems. I have four or five game systems that I REALLY enjoy (Hero, M&M, Fuzion, Tri-Stat and D20.) And then I have other systems I have books for that look like interesting systems, but have never tried them (GURPs and most of White Wolf's Storyteller games) and then I have systems I have books for but will never try. (Palladium, Torg and Deadlands) RQ is somewhere in the middle.

But I really think the biggest part is just a general blah feeling about the RQ gaming system. I am really enjoying the campaign, the adventures and the characters. But nothing in RQ has struck me as particularly better or worse than any other system. It has some weird, clunky ways of doing things that are annoying, but nothing that really stands out to me as a "Wow, what a neat way to resolve that issue!" sort of feature.

I mean, every system has its positives and negatives, but the only really positive I see to RQ is that we are playing it right now. If we were playing, say, Savage Worlds, or some such, I can't imagine ever opening the RQ rule book again.

Which raises another question: Why in the world am I keeping gaming books for systems that I know I will never play or even open again?

 

[Grimhelm]

Personally, I don't get worked up over systems. The game for me is not about what framework I am working under. Of course, I am me, and you are you. I like to be challenged in a game. It doesn't matter what game I am playing, I like to be challenged. I enjoy overcoming obstacles, and I enjoy doing it with whatever cunning I might possess backed up with a little bashing. I enjoy the idea of being given less and being challenged to evercome obstacles anyway. To me, this is what heroism really is; overcoming impossible odds, doing what can't be done, winning what cannot be won.

I can't say that I am a huge fan of Runequest. Yet, I am not really a fan of any gaming system. They can be too big, like the juggernaut that is D20. And they can be too sparse. Perhaps Runequest is too sparse. I don't know.

For me, the game isn't about garnishing my character with neat tricks and items. For me, the game is about garnishing the world of Inzeladun with my presence.

Having said this, I can honestly say that I don't care what system we play in. Granted, I do appreciate a sparser take on magic and power. However, if it is in the interest of all involved to switch systems, I will get behind it, as I don't particularly care what system we play in anyway.

So, whatever we decide to do, I will just keep on doing what I have always done. I'll keep butting heads with my detractors while chasing the impossible dream. What can I say? I'm a grandiose fool!

Mark

 

[InzeladunMaster]

For RQ, I bought the first book and... I can't imagine buying anymore. I have no real interest in fleshing out my Runequest library. And I have no real interest in even trying to find out more about the "canon" RQ campaign.

I don't intend to get the whole library, either. A good system, IMHO, should be complete and playable for years and years with just the core book.

As for a system having a neat method for resolving an issue, that isn't all that important to me. I would rather see the players have a neat method to resolve the issues at hand - like clubbing a mad duelist sorcerer with a shield and knocking him out. That was a neat method to resolve an issue!

It is a pretty uninteresting system, but it is also my first experience with a classless system, so a lot of it is new to me. I guess I would rather the world and adventures be more interesting than the system. The problem with some of the more interesting system is that sometimes the focus shifts from the world and campaign to the mechanics - how to tweak the system or find loopholes or otherwise become a statistical nightmare.

D20, especially at mid- to high levels, becomes a monster to GM. I couldn't construct a decent story because all the feats, spells, magic items, et. al. constantly interfered with the story! The Conan system improved on that, I have to admit - all I really had to worry about was all the feats; but some feat combinations still had some results that really deflated me.

We can try Savage Worlds, for example, but I still doubt I would bother getting the whole library. To me, it is not about having an interesting system, but about having an interesting campaign, an interesting campaign world, and an interesting character.

I would imagine, if Errol Flynn were an RPG character, he would be just as interesting no matter what system one used to recreate him.

I think the blandness of RQ allows the Player to focus on the character and traits that makes his character unique and interesting - not what feats or magic the character has. It has seemed to me, for a while, that a lot of players like talking about the mechanics of the characters they play instead of the actual character and the impact that character has on the game world.

I have to admit I have a lot of reluctance to learn yet another system. I had to learn RQ to write a Conan conversion (which got cancelled), so I know it. I guess we could try another system, but I really don't have the money to buy any more books (and I really don't like playing from photocopies or print-offs).

I was thinking of the recent fight with the mad duellist sorcerer and D20 really does not have a mechanic to knock someone out like RQ has. I am not sure that fight would have played out the same way in another system; it certainly wouldn't have in D20 or even Conan.

Sometimes I remember the original AD&D; every fighter was statistically about the same as every other fighter and so on - so how did memorable characters come out from that? By playing their attitudes, fears, cultures and so on differently - by actually playing a character, not a collection of stats. Characters are statistically far more customizable now in modern RPGs, but RQ goes back and almost makes them all pretty much the same again; the statistic variances between two characters playing the same archetype are not great, sort of like old style AD&D. Maybe that is where the apathy is. Statistically, there is not much that can be done with the characters - one has to create variance through non-statistic means.

I don't know. Just thinking out loud I am. Traditionally, I think people buy more of a system library in order to tweak or build their characters, but RQ doesn't work that way, thus one has no desire/need to buy more of the books. The books won't help one make a better character; that job is left utterly to the player.

 

[Grimhelm]

I couldn't agree more.

 

[thormagni]

Well, the Erroll Flynn thing is a an excellent point but probably not in the way it was intended. Let's say you wanted to play an Erroll Flynn type character in a game system that imposed substantial penalties for "unrealistic" combat actions. And that had high barriers to accomplish heroic tasks. And that made unarmored combat a suicide mission. Would Erroll Flynn be Erroll Flynn if he had a 10 percent chance of success swinging from a chandelier? How about a game system that imposed penalties for using "light" weapons or made it very hard to dodge or parry successfully?

The rules set the stage for what is possible in the game by choosing what to make easy, accessible mechanics that allow for achievable results and what to make complicated and difficult mechanics, likely to provide negative results. Players are going to gravitate towards the strategies that work and steer away from the strategies that don't.

If every time I try to swing from a chandelier I have a infinitesimal chance of success and high penalties for failure (being knocked unconscious, breaking my neck, providing extra attacks to my enemies because my hands are full, being vulnerable for the entire time I am swinging, etc., etc.) I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying that tactic.

I would suggest that Erroll Flynn wouldn't be Erroll Flynn if he died in the first scene of every movie. Or if he became a sullen, plodding combatant because every time he gets flashy, the movie director orders his character knocked into a near-coma. Or if he avoids combat at all costs because even the lowliest street thug has a good chance of killing him.

If I wanted to encourage someone to play like Erroll Flynn, I would design a game system that give bonuses for flamboyant, entertaining and dramatically interesting game actions. I would make speed and agility offset brute force. I would make it easy for heroes to plow through hordes of lesser opponents until they reach someone of equivalent skill. I would make a combat system that allows for many attacks of minor damage instead of single-hit deaths. I would set up systems that reward players for taking part in romantic side quests or melodrama. I would make combat fast and free-flowing instead of being technical or cumbersome.

 

[thormagni]

As an example, just looking at my character decisions here. I wanted to play a noble knight. A tank. However Runequest imposes debilitating penalties for even the lightest of heavy armor. And it gives no corresponding benefit. I was at -30 percent of some such for almost every action, and STILL was getting pummeled in combat. After the second session, it became apparent that if I wanted to hit anything I was going to have to ditch the armor. I didn't make that decision because it was what I wanted my character to be, I made it because of the strictures that the game system placed on play.

I'm not speaking for anybody else here but myself, but the barriers for spell casting are so high, I can't imagine wanting to play an arcane type of character. You give up an awful lot just to get poor-to-mediocre spells that are extremely ineffective in the game. And sneaking is so difficult, and the penalties for failure so harsh, that I don't expect anyone to play a skulking rogue type of character either.

But my point is that because of the game design of Runequest, we are making these character decisions. These aren't decisions being made based on a lofty idea of role-playing, or our vision for characters, these are decisions being made because of what the game makes easy and what the game makes difficult.

 

[thormagni]

What does the RQ system encourage? Based on what I have seen of the rules: lightly or non-armored characters specializing exclusively in one weapon and having high dodge. Why?

Armor provides too many penalties and too few benefits for anyone to be heavily armored for long. And spreading your skill out over many weapons just means you are mediocre to bad at many things. As we discussed the other night, the optimal single weapon skill is probably a 139. When you do a called shot with its -40, you bring your score down to a 99. There is no dividing of your score and you have a very small chance of missing.

I realize I am the only one who cares about this, so I guess I should probably just shut up about it. It's not like my love or hate for the system is going to stop me from coming to play. And to the extent that we finally broke free of a class-based game system, I am ecstatic. This appears to be the one we are going to play for a while, so I'm really just ruminating on game design here, I guess. As long as everyone is having fun, it doesn't really matter what system we choose.

But I like to think I'm a connoisseur of RPG systems and of all the tight systems out there, it's a shame that Mongoose tried to pour Conan into this one. (But then again, lightly armored characters specializing in a single weapon in a high lethality system might be a PERFECT game system for Conan.)

 

[Grimhelm]

It is my feeling that some folks don't perhaps understand, or discount, Inzeladun Master's desire to have fun. Olan swung from a chandelier, if you will remember, when we killed the hag. No roll was ever made. The spirit of the game called for heroic action and IM let it slip through un-noticed. Erroll Flynn would have been proud.

What is my argument? Stop letting the system dictate your every action. If you want to do something heroic, do it! If it fits the scenario and the spirit of the game, it is likely to slip through the cracks. Are we playing a video game, or are we telling a collective story? The way I see it, we are all producers of our own story, with IM being the Exec Producer, who makes the final decisions on how the story goes. Ideally the lines between what is allowed by a rules system or what is allowed by the story will be blurred.

As for your character, John, getting pummelled, I would attribute this less to rules as I would situation. Heavily armored men are geared to fight in heavily armored combat scenarios. Had you been fighting men in like garb, I think the outcomes might have been different. However, we have been fighting hags, witches, crocodiles, and lizardmen without armor. Thus, my advice would be to hire some footmen or squires to assist you to change your fighting armor/style as the situation dictates. This is not ideal, of course, but if you know what you are going into before you go, you should be able to make decisions accordingly.

Again, I am not really trying to defend the RQ system. I am only trying to say that perhaps there are other ways to look at these predicaments.

 

[chachi]

I think that we all want freedom. We want freedom to create any character we would like, and Vince wants the freedom to craft plot and adventures without our pesky abilities getting in the way. It's an interesting way to think about a game.

Ultimately, I think that our other thread refutes a lot of our arguments against this system. We've created characters that are varied and interesting enough to us to think about and discuss, even when we aren't gaming. That's pretty cool. For me, an engaging experience is really the mark of a workable system. And right now, we've got that.

We can counter a lot of the dumb points of this system with our experience and ingenuity. We could have picked up a set of armor in the last aventure that would negate those idiotic penalties. I got a cool skull thing that increases the magnitude of any spell that keeps me from dumping so much into improving that skill. Vince is aware of these problems that we keep crying about, and he'll help us out as long as we have the guts to behave ignobly and loot!!

Actually, the more I think about it, a sneaky thief-type would work pretty well. You'd need a high dodge, a very good stealth roll (somewhere in the 90s would be nice) and some skill in sleight and mechanisms (advanced skill) and you'd be on your way. Fewer characters are likely to have high skills in the skills opposing those, meaning that you could get by with lower scores than you might normally.

 

[Grimhelm]

Well stated! I'm just having fun. As for being a party that doesn't want to be led, that is all fine and good. I just wish we could stay on the same page about what we are doing. We want to vanquish the Enslavers. This is goal number one. Goal number two should be to go about it in a manner that protects people and causes as little harm to others as possible. We don't need to replace one evil with another. This and being brave seems to be the two main sticking points of this party. Heroic deeds are rarely accomplished through skulking about and turning tail in order to preserve our status for another day. And we will not attract the sort of followers we need by being shifty, evil, and cowardly. If we want to be a strong force, we need to prove that we are strong in ourselves.

I think we must realize as a group that shifty and cowardly acts will only attract followers who will sell us out and betray us. We need to improve our moral fiber. From now on, I will be feeding you all a breakfast of Grape Nuts with Moral Fiber, okay? Any complaints?