log in or register to remove this ad

 

Why Do You Hate An RPG System?

Nagol

Unimportant
I'm not being argumentative - I was simply a huge fan of RQ2 and a long-time player of all things Glorantha. In RQ2, iron was a rune metal for cults that could work it, rare and very dangerous. But no more rare and dangerous than lead weapons, or gold weapons, or wooden weapons.

Bronze was the default. The properties of other weapons and armour weren't envisaged as a function of metallurgy, but of religious and cultural blessing.

Nor am I! It caught me a bit off guard is all. I'm trying to imagine a bronze 2-handed sword being used for a 3rd strike. Either we glossed over the whole "it was made of bronze" or I let that detail go in the last 30+ years. I remember rune metal (vaguely).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

lordabdul

Explorer
I also should reiterate that I think RQ is a beautiful system. I just find it very punishing in actual play
I think RQ is mostly trying to model the brutal aspect of combat which you can find in many Bronze-Age treatments like Conan, 300, and so on. The side-effect is that it does indeed make some players avoid combat more than they should, but I'm not sure it can be helped. It's the same thing with, say, Call of Cthulhu's SAN mechanics which can make some players so overly cautious that they go out of their way to not read any books and not go into any basement or cave, therefore avoiding the very core activity that the game is trying to make you play. In some way, even though it's a perfectly understandable reaction, you could consider it a mild case of "premise rejection" on the side of the players. Thankfully, some other players are happy to read the books and go in the basement and gleefully go mad while saving the world (or not), and, similarly, other players are happy to get bloody in RQ, dancing around flying severed limbs. Also of note: the new recently released RQ edition is much friendlier with characters, giving them way better stats and access to magic, so combat is still dangerous but healing aftewards seems much better to me. But that's a whole other discussion.

For those who want the more "mythic hero" aspect of Bronze Age tales, yes, as people pointed out, HeroWars/Quest is a good choice because it was explicitly designed to play these kinds of narrative tropes. Most other narrative-driven systems would probably work well too.

Rolemaster has GMing advice that ticks the second box, although it can be ignored
Can you point me to the appropriate book for this? I'm curious.
 

pemerton

Legend
I think RQ is mostly trying to model the brutal aspect of combat which you can find in many Bronze-Age treatments like Conan, 300, and so on.

<snip>

the new recently released RQ edition is much friendlier with characters, giving them way better stats and access to magic, so combat is still dangerous but healing aftewards seems much better to me. But that's a whole other discussion.
Conan inflicts violence on others fairly frequently and effectively. But he himself is rarely hurt too badly. And even when he is - eg the crucifixion in A Witch Shall Be Born - he recovers.

There is an asymmetry in the effectiveness of "PCs" and "NPCs" that a strictly simulationist system like RQ struggles with.

Can you point me to the appropriate book for this? I'm curious.
I think I'm thinking of RMSS GM Law. It's been a while, though.
 

Aldarc

Legend
Not that there are too many more haters hating on the things they hate in this thread, but should I make a new thread to discuss Bronze Age Fantasy in TTRPG?
 



JeffB

Legend
FWIW- if RQ is too Sim and the narrative of HEROQUEST is not your bag, please don't overlook 13th Age in Glorantha, it's absolutely fantastic and likely more appealing to typical D20 game fans

.P.S. Bronze is mined from the bones of the dead gods as per RQ2. So while it's bronze, it's mythical bronze and pretty strong ;)
 
Last edited:


Myth Master

Villager
Role-playing is only concerned with the process of making choices.

That is a very truncated view of role-play.

According to Merriam Webster (my favorite on-line dictionary), “role-play” is an intransitive verb meaningto play a role.
It can also have connotations of physically enacting a role, like an actor performing in a play in a theater or those who play in Live Action Role-Play (LARP), but both of those are a great deal more involved than what goes on in tabletop role-playing games.

Roleplaying for tabletop RPGs is much simpler.

The bottom line is: as long as the players are getting inside the heads of their characters to examine how their characters’ personalities affect their decisions, AND using that as a guide for stating their actions in play, they are role-playing.

When the point of role-playing is to address/confront some obstacle, this results in action-oriented decisions.
When it is to explore a PC’s emotions, backstory, or psyche, it is most likely represented through conversation with other PC’s or NPC’s. Some dismiss the latter as “acting” or simply “speaking in character”, not role-play, but such a nuanced distinction isn’t productive.
It's attempting to create a distinction where there is none.
If the role-play required to even engage in improvisational “acting” (projecting oneself into the character’s shoes to decide not only what to say but how to say it) isn't the very heart and soul of impromptu role-play (the very medium through which the game is played), then role-play doesn’t exist.

So, BOTH are clearly role-playing.

The only difference between these two applications of role-play is that action-oriented decisions arrived at through role-play require a player to step OUT of the role in order to follow the GM’s directions for resolving that action by rolling the dice.
Once the dice are in your hand, you are no longer role-playing. On the other hand, interaction between characters can be used to resolve some in-game matters without ever touching the dice.

If you are saying anything “in-character" — and staying there for the duration of the conversation — then you are projecting yourself into your character’s shoes by definition (or at least coming close), i.e., you are role-playing.
Affecting a (silly) accent is window dressing that has nothing to do with whether a player is role-playing or not. The players may do so, OR NOT, for their own amusement and/or perhaps that of their fellow players, but it is by no means required. Either way, its presence or absence doesn’t affect the quality of role-play at the table one whit.

WHY the players engage in role-playing in the context of game-play, their aim or purpose in doing so, is simply irrelevant as long as the result is germane to the plot line or the characters themselves or their relationships to the game world or any of its denizens.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top