Why RQM is not like D&D

Moved from a different thread ...

There were some dubious comments made about Mongoose RQ (RQM or MRQ) being influenced by D&D.

Ahhh The D&D influenced game with the name of RuneQuest.

Do you mean RQ 4 or Mongoose RQ? I'd like to avoid any game influenced by D&D.

Don't worry - there are a lot of people on this forum who have very strong views anout Mongoose RQ, D&D etc.

In my opinion, RQM has nothing in common with D&D, or at most about the same in common as any other roleplaying game.

Mongoose RuneQuest (often abbreviated at RQM) is the one inspired by D&D. The never actually published RuneQuest:Adventures in Glorantha (abbreviated as RQ:Aig) was inspired by GURPS and was much more of a wargame.

Amusingly of course D&D3 was massively inspired by RuneQuest. So RQM was inspired by D&D3 was inspired by RQIII was inspired by RQI was inspired by D&D 1st edition.

Now I'll go on record as saying that the RQM playests left a bad taste in my mouth, some of their public utterances I find to be arrogant and insulting, I despise Mongoose's publishing strategy and some of their business practices.

BUT if you have already found some of their rules to be a good fit for you (and you are happy to play that favourite of BRP sub-games, picking and choosing which rule to take from which game) then I would not let their family history concern you unduly.

Al

Mongoose RQ is the D&D-influenced one. It departs significantly from previous versions of RuneQuest - too much so, IMHO.

RQ4 - "RuneQuest - Adventures in Glorantha" (or RQ4:AiG) was a never-published version much more true to the RQ tradition. PDF copies of it are around, and it has good & interesting ideas, plus a fair number of creatures (with their SIZes).

RQM doesn't depart very far from other versions of RQ. Most ofn the rules are very similar, in my opinion. Apart from Strike Ranks, you can use most of RQM with RQ2/3 and vice versa.

Strange, I've been reading through RQM and I don't find it to be much like D&D, and I've been playing D&D since Red Box. In fact it looked almost exactly like BRP with one or two very minor changes (like actions per round instead of DEX ranks). What about RQM do you guys find to be "D&D inspired"? How does it deviate so significantly from previous versions of Runequest? Were earlier versions of Runequest not based on the BRP system?

It is far more similar to BRP and RQ2/3 than D&D.

Objectively and in my opinion :

• RQ2 and RQ3 are quite similar
  
• RQ3 is similar to Thieves World Companion, Ringworld and Stormbringer
  
• BRP is similar to RQ2, RQ3 and Stormbringer/Elric
  
• RQM is similar to RQ2, RQ3 and BRP
  

First remember that MRQ is compared more often to RuneQuest than to BRP, since that's what it purports to be. The amount that MRQ is like D&D is probably a question of degree, since it is still more like RQ than D&D. But many people thought that the changes introduced by MRQ were implemented to draw in some of the 3.5 crowd and make it more palatable to them, rather than improvements or refinements to the rules as they were. One of the reasons it isn't called RQ4 (or RQ5, whatever) is that many people did not think it followed in the footsteps of previous editions enough to be a successor - that it was in fact a different game, not just a different edition.

It's been a while since I looked at the MRQ ruleset, but from memory, these were my beefs...

1. MRQ removed the RQ strike rank system and replaced it with another system (also called strike ranks) that was really just a D&D initiative system by another name.

It is more like DEX Ranks from CoC, in my opinion, except for the D10 Initiative Roll. Didn't Stormbringer have a DEX Rank idea where you attacked on your DEX? In theory it makes sense, the way that RQM does it doesn't and I prefer the RQ3/Optional BRP Strike Rank rule.

2. MRQ removed the resistance table and the usefulness of many stats in the process (no more STR vs SIZ rolls). CON rolls and resistance to magic were replaced with 'saving throw'-like skills (such as Persistence).

True, no more Resistance Table, which is a shame as it is useful. I had never thought of Persistence as being like a Saving Throw, but I suppose it could be seen that way.

3. MRQ added legendary abilities which smelled like D&D feats.

And a good thing too. RQ/BRP needs this kind of thing in a more fomalised way than has existed in the past. I would like to see them in BRP as well.

4. They tried to introduce a more obvious and direct relationship to runes through Rune Magic, which seemed somewhat ill thought out. This doesn't necessarily make the game more D&D-like though, I don't think.

It makes it less D&D-like, as least the D&Ds I have seen.

5. The number of combat actions seemed to favour DEX too much as a stat and ignored one's level of skill with a weapon. This is also not a D&Dism as far as I can tell.

DEX has always been important. In older RQ versions if you were big, quick and skillful then you could attack very often in a round.

6. Free attacks were added, which seemed a lot like D&D opportunity strikes.

And are a bad idea.

There are probably more. In general, MRQ also doesn't have the same feel that older versions had and it left people with the feeling that Mongoose had missed the point.

The same thing was said about RQ3. Later supplements have shown that RQM has produced some good material.

Now, to be fair you've so far only heard one side of the story. There are people here who are also active on Mongoose forums which, I assume, means they've come around to like the game. Hopefully one of them can give you a more balanced (and informed!) opinion than I can.

Thalaba

Personally, I play RQ3 with some rules from RQM, some from BRP, some from RQ2 and some extra house rules. I wouldn't play RQM at the moment becuase I am not that interested in Second Age Glorantha.

Objectively, MRQ is much more like BRP than it is like D&D. But the changes Mongoose made were in the direction of D&D. Not at all what old-time RQ fans hoped for in a long-awaited new release of "RuneQuest"!

In my opinion, Mongoose formalised a lot of stuff, made things more reasonable and added a lot of things that have been used in other games for a long while, all good things.

That isn't to say that it is more like D&D, rather it is a more commercial game and perhaps that's the problem. RuneQuest players have always been a bit snobbish about their game, especially those who play in Glorantha and those who would never play in Glorantha (long story) and most would agree that earlier versions of RQ knocked spots off other games. However, this elitism has always been coloured by the fact that RQ is not as successful as D&D, an apparently inferior game, and this has always been hard to take. So, many RQ and BRP people have taken the attitude that making a game commercial, or selling out, is moving towards a D&D style game.

Well, I think it does. It makes MRQ more D&D-like in attitude. (Much more so than any game calling itself RuneQuest should be). The contemptible "kill-things-and-take-their-stuff" D&D-style approach was built-in to the MRQ Rune Magic system. Instead of Runes being spiritual ideas your characters would strive for, oafish Mongoose made them physical objects you had to kill for and take. Yuk.

Yes, the way that Runes worked is a mistake. Making them physical tokens that could be taken is a mistake. Linking spells to certain runes is a mistake and the way that Gloranthan cults wotk with Runes is a mistake.

However, this does not make this more like D&D.

"Kill things and take their stuff" is not a D&Dism. Look at many films - the heroes take stuff off dead people all the time. Medieval battefields had teams of people whose job was to strip the corpses of their armour and take their weapons to be used again. Winners of jousts or duels were awarded the arms and horse of the losers as a prize. Weapons and armour was so expensive that taking the arms of the dead is a valid tactic, the inclusion of magical items makes it more economic. In RQ2/3 the looting of corpses was a standard event and wasn't thought of as wronf, except by Hunakti. The anti-"Kill things and take their stuff" is to a certain extent a Hero Wars/Hero Quest/Farmers Collective snobbism in itself, one which does not reflect history or economics.

Yep, Mongoose missed the point alright. Their failure to even understand their error is emblazoned on the MRQ books covers!

:confused: I'm not even sure what this means.

RQ:AiG may not have been perfect, but it was certainly no wargame. It would've been a much better RuneQuest than MRQ - which doesn't deserve the name, IMHO.

I saw a version of RQ4 and didn't like it that much, it certainly had a lot of wargamey ideas, especially in the wooden movement and combat actions. RQM is far better than that.

One of the ways that RQM is like D&D (D20), and that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, is that RQM has been produced under an OGL and has an SRD. This has obviously been copied from D20 and is an excellent idea.

One of the ways that RQM is like D&D (D20), and that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, is that RQM has been produced under an OGL and has an SRD. This has obviously been copied from D20 and is an excellent idea.

I think what people are trying to express when they say that MRQ is closer to D&D is that MRQ has had subtle changes towards the attitude of D&D, and therefore has a shallower expression and generalized approach. BRP and RQ2 have a deeper layer of thought that stitches and binds the rules. Most people cannot see, appreciate or relate to that and so find D&D more palatable, and cannot relate to experience BRP people are talking about.

Game mechanics are not the only thing being scrutinized.

This is perhaps where the elitism comes from. Most people who actively choose BRP and RQ have a need for something more stimulating at another level, and are frustrated that others cannot appreciate what they can see.

This is also another reason why the D&D 'way' is more popular as more people can relate to the (have to choose words carefully here) simpler approach. Perhaps D&D and WoW are more appropriate for the needs of a consumer society.

For me, the thinking and depth of BRP has its roots in RQ and the thinking and approach of people behind the likes of "Cults of Prax", "Elder Secrets" and "Trollpak".

Regarding MRQ and D&D, from an Aldryami perspective, the forest is there, but there is no song to be heard. Quiet. Empty. A shadow.

Maybe it is like seeing in colour when most people only see in black and white. How do you explain the depth and experience of colour to the others?

True, no more Resistance Table, which is a shame as it is useful. I had never thought of Persistence as being like a Saving Throw, but I suppose it could be seen that way.

I kind of like the idea of removing the Resistance Table. I hate having to look up tables during a game, so the fewer the better. Besides, it's nothing that can't be handled with opposed rolls and rolls modified by difficulty, like it is in RQM. There are Characteristic roll % values in BRP, might as well use them.

However I did find it rather sad that RuneQuest 3 had very little to do with Runes. I created a modification to Sorcery where I had a Runic Lore skill. ...

I sympathize with that, and your solution to the problem sounds fine. If Mongoose had used some similar system, it would have been so much better. But they couldn't break out of the D&D-ish "grab stuff!" mind-set...

Yes, the way that Runes worked is a mistake. Making them physical tokens that could be taken is a mistake. Linking spells to certain runes is a mistake and the way that Gloranthan cults wotk with Runes is a mistake.

:confused: I'm not even sure what this means.

It means the Mongoose books have pictures of physical Runes on the covers.

And MRQs physical Runes are it's big mistake - a terrible mistake IMHO - which reveals Mongoose's D&D-style attitude.

I kind of like the idea of removing the Resistance Table. I hate having to look up tables during a game, so the fewer the better.

I'm not keen on the Resistance Table either. I just use STATx5 rolls.

(But modify the stat by +/-1 per point below/above 10 of the opposing Stat/Potency/whatever, if necessary).

Which of course makes the numbers exactly the same as the Resistance Table...

As the person who caused this “debate”, I apologise to any that I upset or offended.

I believe that MRQ is definitely a variation of BRP/RQ, not a variation of D&D.

However I also believe that a couple of the places where it has diverged from RQ have given it a more D&D feel.

I played D&D and AD&D many years ago (though RQ was the first system I played), but then didn’t touch it for many years.

A few years ago when I started plundering online resources for scenario ideas, I came across the newer versions of D&D. Perhaps the most noticeable change to someone casually reading through D&D scenarios was the introduction of feats.

I was involved in the MRQ playtest when Legendary Abilities were proposed. Regardless of where the idea was originally developed, and whether people think they are required in BRP, they certainly give a D&D flavour.

I personally had no bad experience with the MRQ playtest (other than it being quite chaotic, but that is understandable), and believe that the MRQ resources can be quite useful to BRP as they can be converted without too much trouble.

MRQ does certainly seem to have been influenced by D&D, but of course is still, at its core, based on the BRP ruleset.

Regarding MRQ and D&D, from an Aldryami perspective, the forest is there, but there is no song to be heard. Quiet. Empty. A shadow.

Maybe it is like seeing in colour when most people only see in black and white. How do you explain the depth and experience of colour to the others?

Nice.

One of the ways that RQM is like D&D (D20), and that hasn't been mentioned elsewhere, is that RQM has been produced under an OGL and has an SRD. This has obviously been copied from D20 and is an excellent idea.

Yep, it was certainly a helpful idea for me. It let me see up-front that I didn't like MRQ, and prevented me wasting any money on their product.

I've never really had a problem with legendary abilities or indeed feats, as long as they were used sensibly and didn't dominate the game. if you look at the Irish/Celtic myth cycle their heroes could do all sorts of weird stuff. One of them ( Cuchulainn ? ) did this thing where he'd cast 5 javelins at the enemy, jump up onto the javelins , run across them , leap down, strike down an enemy with his sword....and all before the first javelin struck.

You simply can't do that kind of thing with skill rolls alone, and that it seems to me is where legendary abilities come in. Equally consider the whole Wuxia genre, think of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and that sort of flying/running thing they do during the combat sequences. It could be some kind of spell, but it seems more like an innate ability of the characters themselves, once again I would say that that is what legendary abilities is all about.

Lastly, even RQ2 and 3 had something vaguely similiar in that various cults ( Humakt and I think Yelm ) had cult gifts and geasa.

Lastly, even RQ2 and 3 had something vaguely similiar in that various cults ( Humakt and I think Yelm ) had cult gifts and geasa.

RQ heroes who completed hero quests (in various past RQ2/3 games) obtained items of power as well as what can be described as feats.

So "feats" have always been a part of RQ at a hero level, however there has never been an official set of rules to reflect such abilities. The closest reference would be observations made of Chaosium in-house games (back in the day).

A potential issue with most systems these days is that every character has feats. Which is fine depending on the type of character and game you are playing. However, it seems that there is a certain munchkin element to feats when they are taken for granted for everything (which is sometimes what happens). The result is every game becoming Dragonball Z (Rifts anyone?).

A parallel to this is an observation where some Shadowrun and CP2020 characters have more implants and less humanity than the Borg (which can be fun, although maybe not for everything).

http://games.sub-standard.com/Motivational%20Posters/Shadowrun-rifts-Btech/Shadowrun-Borg.jpg

MRQ clearly states that Legendary Abilities are not obtained by just spending Hero Points on them: you need to perform something exceptional to obtain one of them. I would say that in Glorantha, for instance, a HeroQuest is required. So abusing them is just a problem of weak-handed GM.

What is more D&D-ish in MRQ is certainly the introduction of Resist(Persistence), Resist(Resilience), Resist(Dodge) traits for spells, which are the equivalent of D&D saving throws. But this is not necessarily a bad feature of the game.

MRQ clearly states that Legendary Abilities are not obtained by just spending Hero Points on them.

Given that Legendary Abilities are treated this way, then they are not the same as feats. And so MRQ is not like D&D in this respect. Although it might be my naive personal prejudice, I smell a hint of feat featurism.

What is more D&D-ish in MRQ is certainly the introduction of Resist(Persistence), Resist(Resilience), Resist(Dodge) traits for spells, which are the equivalent of D&D saving throws.

The difference in approach I see between D&D and BRP, is that D&D has a stronger tendency to abstract abilities and resistance (saving throws, HP), even though all RPG's abstract at some level. Where as BRP task resolution is normally directly represented by the appropriate stat or skill (not a disjointed arbitrary number). At first I thought that Persistence, Resistance and Dodge were an abstraction of the D&D type. However, they are almost handing raw stats roles (which I never fully liked) as skills, in a way that is consistent with RQ skill rolls in general.

But this is not necessarily a bad feature of the game.

Does MRQ have any bad features (that are not shared with BRP/RQ)?

I think that the main thing that makes MRQ more like D&D is that is has lost some of the original thinking and mindset that differentiated RQ from D&D.

This does not mean that MRQ is more like D&D, rather MRQ is less like the RQ some of us knew.

MRQ clearly states that Legendary Abilities are not obtained by just spending Hero Points on them: you need to perform something exceptional to obtain one of them. I would say that in Glorantha, for instance, a HeroQuest is required. So abusing them is just a problem of weak-handed GM.

What is more D&D-ish in MRQ is certainly the introduction of Resist(Persistence), Resist(Resilience), Resist(Dodge) traits for spells, which are the equivalent of D&D saving throws. But this is not necessarily a bad feature of the game.

Oh, yeah. I knew there was another thing - thanks for reminding me.

MRQ introduced an experience system based on an 'experience points' kind of thing awarded by the GM, and this was another apparent little D&Dism.

This is also another reason why the D&D 'way' is more popular as more people can relate to the (have to choose words carefully here) simpler approach. Perhaps D&D and WoW are more appropriate for the needs of a consumer society.

While I won't dispute this, I would like to point out that a large number of people who play D&D are not more than peripherally aware that alternatives even exist, so it isn't really a case of people D&D being popular because everyone who plays it 'prefers' it - many are introduced to it, like it, and never bother to look into other fantasy rpg's at all. What's more, of those who are aware of other rpgs, many get so used to the system they started with that changing to another system becomes a difficult step. At least, these are common attitudes I find where I live. That's not to take away from those who legitimately think it's better, having given other games a fair shake, of course.

I kind of like the idea of removing the Resistance Table. I hate having to look up tables during a game, so the fewer the better. Besides, it's nothing that can't be handled with opposed rolls and rolls modified by difficulty, like it is in RQM. There are Characteristic roll % values in BRP, might as well use them.

Although it is called a 'table' it is really just a simple mathematical formula, the results of which are shown in a table. Once you get used to that, there is no need to look it up at all. There was a thread a while back covering this topic - it might have some alternatives for you, if you don't like it, but really it's not as troublesome as the name 'table' suggests. And this is coming from someone who can't do head math to save his life!

Thalaba

Although it is called a 'table' it is really just a simple mathematical formula, the results of which are shown in a table. Once you get used to that, there is no need to look it up at all. There was a thread a while back covering this topic - it might have some alternatives for you, if you don't like it, but really it's not as troublesome as the name 'table' suggests. And this is coming from someone who can't do head math to save his life!

I just don't understand why there are two different ways of dealing with exactly the same kinds of situations. Opposed rolls are quick and easy (well, quicker and easier than resistance rolls) and handle exactly the same kinds of situations that resistance rolls do. I just don't see a need for resistance rolls, unless I'm missing something that can't be handled by opposed rolls, or a roll modified by a difficulty.

I just don't understand why there are two different ways of dealing with exactly the same kinds of situations.

That's one of the reasons I object to opposed rolls! But then, I do combat the way it was in RQ (interacting results of independent rolls), not the new BRP way using ORs. I suspect many do likewise (or at least I hope they do!)

Opposed Rolls are a new-fangled innovation, and not to everyone's taste. (You find them easy? I'm amazed!)

I just don't understand why there are two different ways of dealing with exactly the same kinds of situations. Opposed rolls are quick and easy (well, quicker and easier than resistance rolls) and handle exactly the same kinds of situations that resistance rolls do. I just don't see a need for resistance rolls, unless I'm missing something that can't be handled by opposed rolls, or a roll modified by a difficulty.

Oh no.. Opposed rolls. This is going to be a long thread:D

As long as no one mentions opposed rolls on the Resistance Table then we'll all be fine.

Replying to many posts at once ...

It means the Mongoose books have pictures of physical Runes on the covers.

Ah, I see. I quite like the covers of the standard RQ range, they are plain and simple, obviously part of a range and don't involve fancy pictures that need to be interpreted. Some of the rune choices are a bit iffy, but the concept is fine. RuneQuest with Runes on the cover, it makes sense.

And MRQs physical Runes are it's big mistake - a terrible mistake IMHO - which reveals Mongoose's D&D-style attitude.

Sorry, can't see it myself. But I am a bit dense.

As the person who caused this “debate”, I apologise to any that I upset or offended.

Why? Nobody is upset or offended, as far as I can see. I just moved this to a new thread because that's probably where it belonged.

I believe that MRQ is definitely a variation of BRP/RQ, not a variation of D&D.

<snip>

I personally had no bad experience with the MRQ playtest (other than it being quite chaotic, but that is understandable), and believe that the MRQ resources can be quite useful to BRP as they can be converted without too much trouble.

MRQ does certainly seem to have been influenced by D&D, but of course is still, at its core, based on the BRP ruleset.

All games have been influenced by D&D, to some extent, whether positively or negatively. That doesn't make them good or bad. The fact is, as you have said, that RQM is definitely in the BRP camp.

I've never really had a problem with legendary abilities or indeed feats, as long as they were used sensibly and didn't dominate the game. if you look at the Irish/Celtic myth cycle their heroes could do all sorts of weird stuff. One of them ( Cuchulainn ? ) did this thing where he'd cast 5 javelins at the enemy, jump up onto the javelins , run across them , leap down, strike down an enemy with his sword....and all before the first javelin struck.

You simply can't do that kind of thing with skill rolls alone, and that it seems to me is where legendary abilities come in. Equally consider the whole Wuxia genre, think of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and that sort of flying/running thing they do during the combat sequences. It could be some kind of spell, but it seems more like an innate ability of the characters themselves, once again I would say that that is what legendary abilities is all about.

Exactly, and they are a good thing in principle. I'd have liked a more heroic way of getting them, but not every setting has HeroQuests, so learning them as the culmination of a skill makes sense to me.

Lastly, even RQ2 and 3 had something vaguely similiar in that various cults ( Humakt and I think Yelm ) had cult gifts and geasa.

and

RQ heroes who completed hero quests (in various past RQ2/3 games) obtained items of power as well as what can be described as feats.

And Land of Ninja had Ki skills, many people had HeroQuest Abilities, Demonic Abilities and so on, all of which could be modelled using Legendary Abilities.

So "feats" have always been a part of RQ at a hero level, however there has never been an official set of rules to reflect such abilities. The closest reference would be observations made of Chaosium in-house games (back in the day).

I'm all for non-standard parts of games being standardised and Legendary Abilities seem to have done so. In my RQ-SciFi SRD, I've used a lot of Legendary Abilities for people with very advanced skills and they seem to work very well.

A potential issue with most systems these days is that every character has feats. Which is fine depending on the type of character and game you are playing. However, it seems that there is a certain munchkin element to feats when they are taken for granted for everything (which is sometimes what happens). The result is every game becoming Dragonball Z (Rifts anyone?).

Having different levels of feats or talents is fine by me. RQM has them in the descriptions of Ducks, for example, where every duck has a special ability/feature. I can't see anything wrong with things like "Ambidextrous", "Good at Languages" or "Good with women" being minor abilities that certain people have as part of a character generation. It adds flavour to the game. Having full-blown Legendary Abilities at the start is a bit much, but why not minor abilities?

MRQ clearly states that Legendary Abilities are not obtained by just spending Hero Points on them: you need to perform something exceptional to obtain one of them. I would say that in Glorantha, for instance, a HeroQuest is required. So abusing them is just a problem of weak-handed GM.

I certainly wouldn't allow all of them just by meeting the requirements, although some of them are clearly skill extensions and would be picked up by a Master or taught by a Guild or School.

Given that Legendary Abilities are treated this way, then they are not the same as feats. And so MRQ is not like D&D in this respect. Although it might be my naive personal prejudice, I smell a hint of feat featurism.

From what I've seen of D&D/D20 (through the SRDs), feats are more like Feats in HeroQuest, where you could have Make Pottery as a Feat. I prefer special abilities to be, well, more special than this, which is why I like Legendary Abilities, in principle.

The difference in approach I see between D&D and BRP, is that D&D has a stronger tendency to abstract abilities and resistance (saving throws, HP), even though all RPG's abstract at some level. Where as BRP task resolution is normally directly represented by the appropriate stat or skill (not a disjointed arbitrary number). At first I thought that Persistence, Resistance and Dodge were an abstraction of the D&D type. However, they are almost handing raw stats roles (which I never fully liked) as skills, in a way that is consistent with RQ skill rolls in general.

It is. However, RQM is taking abstraction a bit far, in my opinion.

Does MRQ have any bad features (that are not shared with BRP/RQ)?

The way it handles Runes. Bad. Very bad. Very, very bad, indeed.

And the maps in Clanking Ruins, those were very bad as well.

Separating Experience Points and Hero Points is a waste of time. Be like HeroQuest and use the same things for both roles.

I think that the main thing that makes MRQ more like D&D is that is has lost some of the original thinking and mindset that differentiated RQ from D&D.

That is partly because the people involved in earlier versions of RQ were not involved in RQM. (Don't mention Steve Perrin, we all know how that went ...)

Similar accusations were levelled at RQ3 and that turned out OK in the end.

This does not mean that MRQ is more like D&D, rather MRQ is less like the RQ some of us knew.

We all wanted the new version of RQ to be fantastic, but it fell short. Then we all wanted the new version of BRP to be fantastic and that fell short. The problem is that every one of us who has GMed RQ/BRP for a long time has our own views about what makes RQ/BRP good and what is required to make it better. I swear blind that building on RQ3 is the way forward but I know a lot of people who say that RQ3 was a mistake and that building on RQ2 is the way to go as well as people who say that RQ2/3 were mistakes and building on Stormbringer/Elric is the way forward. Almost nobody says that building BRP on CoC is the way forward, which says a lot about the CoC rules.

Oh, yeah. I knew there was another thing - thanks for reminding me.

MRQ introduced an experience system based on an 'experience points' kind of thing awarded by the GM, and this was another apparent little D&Dism.

The funny thing is that I was using this approach in my RQ campaign that eventually dies 12 years ago. It makes a lot of sense and is better than the tick-chase, but this has been covered in a different thread.

The difference between RQm and D&D is that Experience for RQM is awarded according to how successful the PCs have been and, optionally, how well they have performed, how well the players roleplayed and so on. D&D experience is according to how much treasure they have gained and how many creatures they have killed. So, a healer in RQM could heal a regiment and get some experience, whereas in D&D the healer would have to kill a few orcs on the side.

Using Experience Points and abstracting physical characteristics being like D&D means that games such as HeroQuest are like D&D. Hang on, they both use D20 as well! :eek:

I just don't understand why there are two different ways of dealing with exactly the same kinds of situations.

Probably because the same technique doesn't work well in all possible combinations. I don't use Opposed Rolls in the same way as in RQM or BRP as I don't like either approach. I use Made it by Most and Levels/Degrees of Success and that works well for me.

Opposed rolls are quick and easy (well, quicker and easier than resistance rolls) and handle exactly the same kinds of situations that resistance rolls do. I just don't see a need for resistance rolls, unless I'm missing something that can't be handled by opposed rolls, or a roll modified by a difficulty.

I'd love to use Characteristic x5% rolls rather than the Resistance Table but me players prefer the Resistance Table, so that's what we use. Attacking and Defending Rolls make more sense to me, but there you go.

That's one of the reasons I object to opposed rolls! But then, I do combat the way it was in RQ (interacting results of independent rolls), not the new BRP way using ORs. I suspect many do likewise (or at least I hope they do!)

Certainly, I use RQ3 combat with some RQM combat options, but combat in my games is always very fluid.

Opposed Rolls are a new-fangled innovation, and not to everyone's taste. (You find them easy? I'm amazed!)

Opposed Rolls are found in both RQM and BRP, in one form or another. Apparently they are the Future, but I prefer the Past. However, it isn't one of the things potentially lifted from D&D and I wouldn't want a detailed Opposed Rolls discussion to choke this thread into silence. We can do that ourselves.

Almost nobody says that building BRP on CoC is the way forward, which says a lot about the CoC rules..

Excepting that the core of BRP is the CoC rules and most of the players I know who are NOT big BRP fans will say 'oh so its like Cthulhu? Cool let's have a game then'*

Al

* Warning: Al's personal experience of people wanting to use CoC as the basis of BRP is no more valid than Soltakss experience of no people wanting to use CoC as the basis of BRP

Separating Experience Points and Hero Points is a waste of time. Be like HeroQuest and use the same things for both roles.

I would not recommend that. It would make characters who use Hero Points creatively to bend plot less powerful than characters who hoard their HP. The current MRQ way requires keeping track of two values, but it separates character achievement from good roleplaying, and this is a Good Thing.

Separating out narrative systems (Hero Points) from mechanical systems (Improvement rolls) is, IMHO, essential.

Hero Points allow characters to affect the narrative of a scenario both immediately ("ha! That crossbow bolt didn't kill me after all, it was deflected by my whisky flask.") and long term ("after years of searching I've finally found Mad Mack the Decapitator and managed to persuade him to teach me the art of decapitating foes with but a single swing").

Improvement rolls abstract the rate of improvement of character skills and abilities. In practical terms, I find that I pretty much give all PCs about the same number of IRs which means that all PCs improve at about the same rate; it's just down to what players chose to spend them on.

On a meta level you could say that, Hero Points give new control over events in the world to players while Improvement Rolls give new control over PC development to the GM. Having been playing RQM for a couple of years now, I wouldn't go back to skill ticking.*

* One exception to this is sorcerous characters as they require more significantly more skills than other characters. Skill ticking tends to even that problem out. If I were running games with a grab-bag of characters including sorcerous characters I would probably give the sorcerer an IR premium.

I totally agree about the need to separate roll-influencing capabilities given to players (Hero Points or Fate Points) from character improvement. However, having played with both methods (ticks and IRs) I think a mix of the two is the best option, i.e. allow players to tick their skills for improvement but limit the number of rolls they can make at end of sessions.

I think a mix of the two is the best option, i.e. allow players to tick their skills for improvement but limit the number of rolls they can make at end of sessions.

That is what I used to do in my last years of RQ3. I would say that players couldn't have more than X experience rolls to stop them gaming the system.

After a while of playing RQM more recently I realised that actually ticking boxes in the old days was something of a fiction. If a player wanted to improve a skill and had a good reason for improving by experience (e.g. maybe they failed spectacularly at something) why not just let them do it? Looking back on it, there's a lot of overhead in ticking boxes for experience rolls that doesn't seem to have really done anything for the experience of playing.

One of the other advantages of IRs (which sort of exists with experience rolls) is that you can use them to set the improvement speed of a campaign. If you want characters to start as farmworkers but quickly improve you can a) give out more IRs and give them out more frequently. You can do that with experience rolls but it's a little harder to justify. Personally, I just give out a fixed amount after each session with an occasional premium of +1 for a character who did something unusual and extraordinary. It also makes downtime easy. Rather than counting hours and free time and training costs I let characters spend X Improvement rolls.

Nobody is upset or offended, as far as I can see.

Of course not - we're all part of the same family. I read that in someone's sig, so it must be true.

The funny thing is that I was using this approach in my RQ campaign that eventually dies 12 years ago. It makes a lot of sense and is better than the tick-chase, but this has been covered in a different thread.

Well, that is a matter of taste, really. I like the existing RQ3 method, but then I don't allow tick-hunting, which I agree is to be avoided.

The difference between RQm and D&D is that Experience for RQM is awarded according to how successful the PCs have been and, optionally, how well they have performed, how well the players roleplayed and so on. D&D experience is according to how much treasure they have gained and how many creatures they have killed. So, a healer in RQM could heal a regiment and get some experience, whereas in D&D the healer would have to kill a few orcs on the side.

I thought this had been changed for 3.5, and that experience was now awarded for accomplishing various 'mission objectives', but then I'm no expert.

In any case, I was merely trying to point out why people say MRQ is the D&D version of RQ (regardless of the validity of those reasons). And I don't think people are trying to argue that MRQ is like D&D within the broad context of all roleplaying games, or even all BRP games, merely that it is more like D&D within the context of games that were called RuneQuest.

Thalaba

Of course not - we're all part of the same family. I read that in someone's sig, so it must be true.

"We Are All Us" ?

Of course not - we're all part of the same family. I read that in someone's sig, so it must be true.

"And most murders happen within the family" ? :shocked: