#39: Glorantha Second Age Using RuneQuest 4 Rules

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave39.phtml

Summary:

More about RuneQuest ... and Glorantha. Also, a campaign begins.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/brave/brave39.phtml) for more information.

[Tim Ellis]

Let me be the first of the Grognards to point out that you aren't using RQ4...

Mongoose RuneQuest (MRQ) is at least RQ5 if not RQ6 (which is why MRQ is a better designation) - It's just that the intervening versions didn't make it through to publication...

RQ4 was Runequest:Adventures in Glorantha. (RQ:AIG) This version was written for Avalon Hill and various Playtest versions were produced, some of which have subsequently found their way onto the Internet. I don't think it was ever "finished", but mostly those RQ fans who have seen copies generally consider it an improvement on RQ3

Avalon Hill's next version of Runequest was Runequest:Slayers - This was written just before Hasbro bought up Avalon Hill, and after the termination of the AH/Chaosium deal and the break up of Chaosium which left Greg with the rights to Glorantha, Chaosium with the BRP rules and Avalon Hill with the RQ trademark. The game therefore has nothing in common with RQ1-4 apart from the name. It was cancelled at the 11th hour and subsequently got released by the authors on the internet.

[cjh]

I wanted to bring up something that you mention about SRDs in your column. A lot of people have gotten the misguided impression that SRDs are some free version of games that allow people to get into the game without having to buy the books. That really isn't the case. SRDs are intended, first and foremost, as a resource for publishers so that 3rd parties will know what is and what is not open content that can be used or derived from in their subsequent books.

As the SRDs are only those parts of the rules that are declared open content, they are never going to actually match the published books, and that is intentional as not everything in the rulesets are intended to be released to 3rd party publishers.

[ShannonA]

Let me be the first of the Grognards to point out that you aren't using RQ4...


Calling MRQ RQ5 or RQ6 seems pretty silly, given neither of the two games you're talking about were actually published (nor was the latter actually RuneQuest in any way shape or form).

RQ4 may or may not come into common usage as a name, but I can guarantee you RQ5 and RQ6 never will--at least not for this version of the rules.

[Strange Visitor]

Calling MRQ RQ5 or RQ6 seems pretty silly, given neither of the two games you're talking about were actually published (nor was the latter actually RuneQuest in any way shape or form).

RQ4 may or may not come into common usage as a name, but I can guarantee you RQ5 and RQ6 never will--at least not for this version of the rules.

I have to agree, and that's even given _I_ tend to think of RQ:AIG as RQ4 (and often refer to it that way); but its silly to expect people to reserve an edition name for an edition that never saw publication.

[smascrns]

Calling MRQ RQ5 or RQ6 seems pretty silly, given neither of the two games you're talking about were actually published (nor was the latter actually RuneQuest in any way shape or form).

RQ4 may or may not come into common usage as a name, but I can guarantee you RQ5 and RQ6 never will--at least not for this version of the rules.
True. Yet I much prefer MRQ to RQ4. The reason is simple, Mongoose's RQ is not simply a new edition of Chaosium/Avalon Hill's previous RQ games. It deeply changes the ruleset, dropping things that in my opinion are core to it, introducing things that move it a completely different direction and setting it at a different power scale. Thus Mongoose's RQ is not just an update and development of the previous RQ game that builds on the original foundation, it is a very distinct game that shares some basic mechanics with it but departs so much in other aspects that they are very different beasts. That's why I consider that it makes more sense to refer to the new game as MRQ than RQ4.

[smascrns]

From the column:
Two, RQ4 uses modern game rules that I’m familiar with and enjoy. RQ3 uses a more “classical” design such as tables with cross-indexed numbers in rows and columns.
Well, this is just not true. RQ2 and RQ3 hardly use any tables. The infamous Resistance Table had a very limited usage and it was completely needless since it only put down a very simple computation of mods similar to any you can find in "modern game rules". (Cheers to MRQ for dropping the RT, not because it was a table, instead because it was a poor mechanic that was not needed since opposed rolls could be used instead of it.)

Of course, your first reason more than justifies your option. It may became outdated, though, when Chaosium publishes Deluge BRP. If they actually publish it (I'll have to see it to believe it).

And I'm glad you didn't drop the ducks. A lot of people can't stand them but I'm a fan. It's nice to see that you and your players also got a liking of the little bastards.

[rstites]

Well, this is just not true. RQ2 and RQ3 hardly use any tables. The infamous Resistance Table had a very limited usage and it was completely needless since it only put down a very simple computation of mods similar to any you can find in "modern game rules". (Cheers to MRQ for dropping the RT, not because it was a table, instead because it was a poor mechanic that was not needed since opposed rolls could be used instead of it.)

Yeah, the complaint about tables is pretty poor since RQ2/3 required no tables in play. There's nothing inherently more modern or less about either set than the other. They're just different. I agree on calling it MRQ, not because RQ4 isn't reasonable but simply because it adds confusion and the main point of language is clear communication. I miss the resistance mechanic, but mechanically things work out pretty similar. It's just that you need two rolls for opposed skill rolls rather than a single roll with the resistance mechanic. Also, as written MRQ doesn't offer opposed stat tests. They're easy enough to houserule right in, but they should have been in the core rules IMO.

I have mixed feelings on the ducks. I've tended to write them out of Glorantha simply because most players can't take them seriously and don't want them around unless the game is pure comedy. OTOH, with the right players I'd put them right back in.

As to starting location, I think Ralios is great. I still haven't bought the PDF, but I know enough 2nd Age Glorantha to know that it'll be a great place to be right in the middle of things, but just far enough out to allow players to develop out of the heat for a while. It's a shame that material couldn't be put in the 2nd Age book.

Good luck with the campaign. I'd like to see you drop the shots at RQ2/3 though. There's no point to it, and it's obvious you aren't familiar with the rules. (A statement that MRQ is in print would cover it all. Plus, a columnist should be above uninformed cheap shots anyway.)

[Tim Ellis]

Calling MRQ RQ5 or RQ6 seems pretty silly, given neither of the two games you're talking about were actually published (nor was the latter actually RuneQuest in any way shape or form).

RQ4 may or may not come into common usage as a name, but I can guarantee you RQ5 and RQ6 never will--at least not for this version of the rules.

It's not unheard of for versions to be skipped when a version in development is overtaken by a later version...

while RQ4:AIG wasn't published I think it is well known enough amongst the (traditonal) RQ Community that using RQ4 is unneccesarily confusing - Especially as there is nothing in the MRQ rule book that refers to it a being the 4th Edition of anything!

RQ:Slayers just adds to the confusion - I'm not aware of anyone who considers it was a "new version" of RQ (although that might have been the original intention)

MRQ (Mongoose Runequest) is unambiguous whether one is an old grognard or a newcomer.

[Strange Visitor]

Yeah, the complaint about tables is pretty poor since RQ2/3 required no tables in play. There's nothing inherently more modern or less



Seems like you needed the fumble tables and a hit location chart in every version I knew of. You can argue the latter isn't a table, per se, but the former certainly was.

[rstites]

Seems like you needed the fumble tables and a hit location chart in every version I knew of. You can argue the latter isn't a table, per se, but the former certainly was.

The hit location table doesn't really count IMO since it's A: right on the character sheet so it's not "looking up a table" and B: everyone has it memorized by the end of the first session so it never comes up again. (It's a bit like the whole attack, defense matrix in MRQ. It's memorized so fast as to not be an issue in play.) Plus, when comparing versions it's there in all of them, so no distinction.

If you choose to use the (optional) fumble tables, you're correct. I just wing the fumbles as they come rather than bothering with look-up tables, but I'm not surprised from our previous discussions that you've always used them as written! ;)

[Nihtgenga]

MRQ (Mongoose Runequest) is unambiguous whether one is an old grognard or a newcomer.

I'd avoid calling Mongoose Runequest 4th edition for one main reason. When Mongoose publishes their 2nd edition of the rules I imagine they will call it Second edition, which will really confuse things. Calling the current ones MRQ will allow clear reference to MRQ2, etc. in the future.

As to ducks, I found that the players came in 2 types. Those that saw them and thought Donald Duck, and those who saw them and thought Howard the Duck. The latter type normally did ok, the former usually needed to be taken out and shot.

[smascrns]

Seems like you needed the fumble tables and a hit location chart in every version I knew of. You can argue the latter isn't a table, per se, but the former certainly was.
True. But if one doesn't like it, one can just forget it and decide what's a fumble in a freeform way. That's what "modern games" do, they include things that are not defined in the game, like levels of success that are not defined and are left for the players to figure what they mean. I much prefer to have a table that I can use or not, and that provides me with clear guidelines on what a certain level of succes means than to have nothing.

[Strange Visitor]

The hit location table doesn't really count IMO since it's A: right on the character sheet so it's not "looking up a table" and B: everyone has it memorized by the end of the first session so it never comes up again. (It's a bit like the whole attack, defense matrix in MRQ. It's memorized so fast as to not be an issue in play.) Plus, when comparing versions it's there in all of them, so no distinction.

If you choose to use the (optional) fumble tables, you're correct. I just wing the fumbles as they come rather than bothering with look-up tables, but I'm not surprised from our previous discussions that you've always used them as written! ;)


I don't recall anything optional about them; its possible some language existed that allowed the GM to make something up, but if so they were used in pretty much every RQ game I ever saw at the time.

[rstites]

I don't recall anything optional about them; its possible some language existed that allowed the GM to make something up, but if so they were used in pretty much every RQ game I ever saw at the time.

I always read them as being examples, like Rurik is an example of play. I never thought of them as hard-n-fast rules to be used out of the book. However, I don't think it's a big deal either way and I certainly know plenty of other GM's who always flipped to the tables. There were certainly times after RQ3 came out with the handy little quick-reference tables, that I'd flip to those too. I just didn't ever think of it as an integral part of the rules.

[smascrns]

I don't recall anything optional about them; its possible some language existed that allowed the GM to make something up, but if so they were used in pretty much every RQ game I ever saw at the time.
There are plenty of combat situations where the tables or the results they produce just don't apply. For instance, how does one drop a natual weapon? So they were handly examples and needed to be adjusted when required.

[Strange Visitor]

There are plenty of combat situations where the tables or the results they produce just don't apply. For instance, how does one drop a natual weapon? So they were handly examples and needed to be adjusted when required.

A lot of tables in games are sometimes disregarded, but that doesn't make them more optional than other parts of the rules (where that's also true).

[weasel fierce]

I generally use MRQ as the name, simply because its what a lot of people use.
RQ4 as a name is kinda like Tunnels&Trolls 6th edition. Its unpublished stuff, internet jabber and that Slayers game (which is pretty cool btw, even if its not really RQ).

by the by... the players update for MRQ added fumble tables :) I like fumble tables, they make me happy

[rstites]

I generally use MRQ as the name, simply because its what a lot of people use.
RQ4 as a name is kinda like Tunnels&Trolls 6th edition. Its unpublished stuff, internet jabber and that Slayers game (which is pretty cool btw, even if its not really RQ).

by the by... the players update for MRQ added fumble tables :) I like fumble tables, they make me happy

I've always wondered what the deal with 6th edition T&T was. I own the 5th edition. I've heard of the 5.5th edition, though don't know how it's different from 5th, and I know the current edition is 7th.

I missed the MRQ fumble tables. I just read the parts about correcting/explaining the combat system. I'll have to go look at those, and the rest of the update.

Strange Visitor, I think it's pretty clear from our discussions that we're on opposite ends of the RQ play-styles. It's clear from reading around here and other online sites that my play style is (and apparently has always been) much less literal on the rules interpretation than many RQ players. I always thought that was an old school take on things, but it appears that even amongst old-timers I'm much less literal about things than many others. Virtually every person I've ever played RQ with has played under me first, so they usually adapt my playstyle, to a certain extent. (All of them are more literal with the rules than me, but I always assumed that was a different in experience. Now I wonder if that's the case, or if I'm just weird! :) )

[Kravell]

Based on the feedback from the posters here, I'll start referring to RuneQuest as MRQ. However, next month's column is already turned in, so it will be RQ4 for one more month yet.

Charlie

[Strange Visitor]

Strange Visitor, I think it's pretty clear from our discussions that we're on opposite ends of the RQ play-styles. It's clear from reading around here and other online sites that my play style is (and apparently has always been) much less literal on the rules interpretation than many RQ players. I always thought that was an old school take on things, but it appears that even amongst old-timers I'm much less literal about things than many others. Virtually every person I've ever played RQ with has played under me first, so they usually adapt my playstyle, to a certain extent. (All of them are more literal with the rules than me, but I always assumed that was a different in experience. Now I wonder if that's the case, or if I'm just weird! :) )

Well, obviously I can't _demonstrate_ mine is the typical here (and since I'm a typically early adopter of game systems, I also taught a lot of the people I play with), but given I played a fair bit with some of the Chaosium people Back In The Day, I'm fairly confident that more people used the fumble tables than not, even if they did occasionally have to adjust them before there was a seperate one for missiles and unarmed attacks.

[rstites]

Well, obviously I can't _demonstrate_ mine is the typical here (and since I'm a typically early adopter of game systems, I also taught a lot of the people I play with), but given I played a fair bit with some of the Chaosium people Back In The Day, I'm fairly confident that more people used the fumble tables than not, even if they did occasionally have to adjust them before there was a seperate one for missiles and unarmed attacks.

I accept that. Hey, I even like the tables. I'm just not willing to look them up in play, most of the time.

Kravell, you do know that we'll still have to give you a hard time about MRQ vs. RQ4. It's in the grognard list of things that have to be complained about and offers no exceptions! ;)