steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (10/16/84)
[+++]
REVIEW OF FLAWS IN RUNEQUEST 3 (Chapter 1)
FOREWORD
A few weeks ago, in response to an article praising Runequest 3,
I replied to that message by saying that the new Runequest "sucked".
Now, while I hold it to be my prerogative to hold any opinion I want
on a game, I should have qualified my opinion with what I found
objectionable to it. My only excuse for not doing so is that when
I made my initial comment, I didn't have time to even begin listing
the varied and numerous problems with RQ 3.
Now I do.
As a final note, before going into this review, let me state that
I am both an experienced player, referee, play tester, and game
designer, who has had much experience with Chaosium games. If my
review of Runequest 3 seems biased, it is because I am looking at
it from the perspective of a Runequest 2 player who expected old
bugs to be fixed, not new ones introduced. Even under the new rules,
Runequest 3 is not all that much worse than AD&D. It can still be
fun, if (as in AD&D) you try to ignore rules problems, or invent
variant rules which fix them. The attitude that rules don't need to
be good because people will naturally fix them, seems common in the
gaming industry, but would hardly be sanctioned in our own profession
("This software works, just as long as you fix all the bugs in it").
Of course, I'm not much of a fan of AD&D either.
In all the following review areas, a five grade listing is given. These
are: Very Good, Good, Ok, Poor, and Very Poor. Following this, is usually
a note explaining why the grade was given. The areas are grouped together
under area titles, which usually correspond to one of the books in the box.
Also, at this time, I would like to give thanks to all the people who helped
me write this review, and pointed out bugs to me. Particularly helpful
were, Steven Barnes, Ricky Taylor, Jeremy Higdon, Robert Mace (and other
SCA fighters), and innumerable numbers of convention goers and RQ 3 play
testers.
RUNEQUEST 3
GENERAL COMMENTS
Game Considered Overall -- Poor to Very Poor
Particulars follow.
Speed of Publication -- Poor
The Chaosium has a reputation for being late in everything.
However, in Runequest 3 they were especially late. More than
a year went by without any support for Runequest in any
form, because of the slowness of the change over.
Backwards Compatibility -- Very Poor
1] Played by the book, Runequest 3 is entirely incompatible with
Runequest 2. This means that an investment of up to 100 dollars in
Scenario packs, play aids, and cult descriptions, are now worthless.
The last time I talked to Greg Stafford about this, he indicated that
the Chaosium's plan was to re-release the old SP's in the new system
(making you pay all over again, for the old materiel). Aside from
the basic obnoxiousness of this plan, it has another fatal flaw:
the Chaosium's lateness. By the original schedule, Glorontha Pack
should have been out 1/3 year ago, and new materiel would start
appearing in 1986. As you may or may not know, Glorontha Pack will
(as best) hit the store shelves by the end of the year. This implies
that the new materiel will actually come out by the earliest, in 1987
-- that is, if the schedule is kept.
2] There is nothing on the front cover of Runequest 3 which says that
it is a new game system, and separate from its other releases. Thus a
customer who is ignorant of the actual state of affairs of the game,
may pick up a new Runequest 3 and buy any number of old incompatible
Runequest 2 scenario packs, still unsold in stores. I almost saw
this happen once, but the game store owner was too moral a fellow to
let it slip by.
3] Both as a player, and as a referee, I am forced to perform many
hours worth of labor converting my characters into the new system.
Even if the method of conversion was a piece of flawless elegance,
(which it is not by any means), I still do not like having to perform
such a laborious task, for essentially no reason. Runequest characters
are not like AD&D characters, who can be summerized in 6
characteristics, class, level, HP, race, and magic items; each
skill, and its accordant percentage, is individually listed and
must be rewritten on a new character sheet.
Cover Art -- Very Good
Aside from minor technical and esthetic flaws in the drawing --
the woman wearing gems, not a helm; the mans kneepads drawn as part
of his boots; the picture of the man disjoint from the rest of the
drawing (look closely, his feet look as if both of them are slipping
off the stairs); -- aside from that, a very pretty picture. Someone
has finally found out that a pretty cover helps along a bad rules
system, better than any amount of advertizing does (an old trick
learned by TSR a long time ago).
Price -- Very Poor
At 38 bucks a shot, the new Runequest is no small investment. It
would not be so bad if the new rules actually made a playable game,
or if the customers were assured that it was a one shot deal. This
is not to be. The SP's for the new Runequest will be similarly priced.
(25$ for the Referee's rules, is a particularly bad deal, since the
only really usable book in it is the creatures descriptions).
Paper Quality -- Poor
The books themselves are more tender than a soft bound book; the
cover is made of the same paper as the internal pages. Already, the
RQ 3 that I borrowed, is beginning to show signs of wear. It is not
yet 1 month old, and hasn't been treated any worse than any standard
book. Perhaps I may be surprised, but I doubt that these books will
have half the lifetime of the RQ 2 books (or 1/10th the lifetime of
a hard bound AD&D Players Handbook).
I also do not like Avalon Hill's decision to make Runequest into a
"Bookshelf Game" (i.e. to put it in a box). As the people at Avalon
Hill, may or may not know, FRP games are not usually played off the
bookshelf. Rather, students and other adherents to FRP, carry the
games around with them for quick reference -- most often in a backpack
or some such. In this environment, a box disintegrates within a
period of 3 months. It cracks at the bindings, and becomes completely
unusable. Large boxes are particularly susceptible to this, so most
RQ 3's should begin falling apart by the next convention.
Layout -- Good
Avalon Hill, or Chaosium, or both, did a good job on this one. The
pictures are clear, the type is readable, the colors draw attention
but do not interfere with reading. The one thing that I didn't like
about the Layout, is the way that the previous experience charts are
spread out all through the beginning of the book. This makes the
tables hard to find, in addition to interrupting the continuity of
the initial rules.
(Other general comments can be found at the end of this review,
listed under the title "Summary Comments")
OVERALL GAME
Clarity -- Good
As in all Chaosium games, the writing style is clear and simple.
Sometimes too simple. There are a number of ambiguities in the
text, which should be resolved. For instance, "Jump" says that
a character must make the jump roll to jump "twice his height
horizontally, or up to his height vertically with a running start".
But it does not say what roll to make (if any) for distances less
than that. (Remember: running is is series of small jumps).
World View -- Poor
A World View of a game system, is the world which the game writers
imply. For example, the world view of AD&D is monster infested
wilderness interspersed with "dungeons" containing fabulous treasure
and magic; Chivalry and Sorcery's world view is medieval Europe in
all its gory detail; Tunnels and Trolls has a world view in which
whimsical gods toy with the adventurers, giving fabulous power,
and then taking it away.
Some games are tied only to a genre (a set of world views). D&D,
Champions, Arms Law, Justice Inc., all fall into this wide spread
category. Some games are not only tied to a specific world view,
but are tied to a specific world. Call of Cthuluhu, Paranoia,
Elfquest, EPT, Stormbringer, fall into this one. Each approach
has its own strengths: a general system can be adapted to any number
of different campaigns, a specific system has more time to explore
its own particular world. Runequest has always been a specific
system. Its world is Glorontha. The designers of Runequest,
attempted to write a more generalized version of Runequest. This
attempt failed badly.
Instead of generalizing Runequest, the new world view attempts to
Glorontha-ize fantasy. We find no Cyclopses and Medusa in Fantasy
Europe, but Broos and Gloronthan Trolls instead. The religions are
barely disguised Glorontha cults -- not even general enough to handle
the Stormbringer pantheon (another Chaosium FRP game). Though many
references are made to Tolkien (and presumably his creations), we
find that elves "are tied to their forests in ways not understandable
by men" -- a reference straight out of Glorontha.
Through out the rest of the review, I will be pointing out these
Glorontha-isms. They are subtly pervasive throughout the game,
concentrating mainly in the magic book.
This alone is not enough to give the World View of RQ 3 a Poor
rating. Glorontha is, when viewed with a forgiving eye, an
interesting world with a fascinating cosmology. It's easy to
settle a campaign there, provided you only pay attention to its
gods, continents, and empires. The problem with RQ 3, is that
it allows no support for world views other than Glorontha --
though a "Viking Pack" is supposed to come out, the societies,
gods, money, and motivations will all still be Gloronthan.
"Fantasy Europe" already resembles Glorontha much more than any
authentic earth mythology; it will no doubt only end up like the
defunct Questworld: A place to put all the scenarios that "aren't
good enough" for Glorontha.
Game System -- Very Poor
"A roleplaying game's system is the invisible support from which
the game world must hang". True enough. However it is also true
that a game system must derive itself somehow from reality. This
was always the concept which set Runequest 2 apart from other game
systems. While a high level fighter in AD&D had more hit points
than his shield, a RQ 2 character was always realistic.
This is no longer necessarily true, since the Chaosium has decided
the TSR approach to game design, which is to "play balance" all
approaches to combat regardless of realism. What's worse, is that
many of these game flaws are not simply bugs which have an easy fix.
The flaws are built so deeply into the system that removing them is
equivalent to redesigning it; if you want your average healthy
Cimmerian to have a much greater stamina than an under exercized game
designer, you have to rebuild the Fatigue system from scratch. In
the following text, such errors will be pointed out as "Design Errors".
This is not to say that Runequest 3 is unplayable under all
circumstances. Far from it, if you only run average humans, and
kill them off before they become too skilled, you will find that
the system mimics reality to a tolerable degree. But this is also
true of almost every other system on the market, including some real
loosers like Tunnels and Trolls. The acid test of a GOOD system,
is how it handles powerful characters, non-humans, and exotics.
Again, Runequest 3 fails miserably. The rules repeatedly encourage
characters to do things which are unrealistic in a fantasy setting.
To a certain extent, such flaws can exist in the system without
destroying the world. Players are supposed to be more interested
in "character conception" then that. But after a while, this will
break down if the holes are too blatant, and run across too often.
Players quickly learn that a dead character makes a very uninteresting
concept. In the following text, rules which are unrealistic, or
promote unrealistic behavior, will be pointed out as "Reality Flaws".
Game Examples -- Ok
"Cormac the Pict" is a good idea to give examples with. But it was
a better idea with Rurik the Restless. Why, do you ask? Well
because such examples also serve as the indication of the style of
the campaign. Rurik in RQ 2, started out a beginning adventurer,
suffered a major setback, but eventually made it to rune lord. Cormac
in RQ 3, is beaten up, suffers serious disease, is thrown in jail on
the whim of a nobleman, is knocked over by wind, and turned down
by a Shaman. His only success is to repeatedly avoid being killed,
by managing to hide. He also learns a few basic battle magic spells.
If the designers of RQ 3 seriously want a referee to run their games
in such a ritual sacrifice fashion, (which they do: "These
personalities ... reveal how some more or less ordinary adventurers
progress (or don't progress) in actual situations") then I don't want
anything to do with it as a player. Suffering repeated "Roll your
52% Hide, or die when the enemy tribe finds you", is not what I call
fun; this should NOT be "Call of Runequest", despite what Sandy
Peterson might believe.
PLAYERS RULES
Characteristics -- Good
I always liked RQ 2 characteristics, and am glad that they didn't
delete or seriously mung with any of them. They still give silly
numbers, (Size has nothing to do with Strength, and vice versa),
but this is true of all 3d6 systems.
Characteristic Increases -- Very Poor
RQ 2 had a concept called "Species Maximum". The idea was that there
was a limit to how high you could train your characteristics, which
depended upon your race. The Reality Flaw with this system, was that
at the highest levels, everybody began to look the same. POW 18, DEX
21, CHA 21, STR/SIZ/CON equal, and INT usually 17 or 18 (if you wanted
a character who progressed quickly). There was also a Reality Flaw
with STR/CON/SIZ, which hasn't been fixed.
RQ 3 does away with "Species Maximum", without substituting any good
alternate, and thus makes everything worse.
To the old STR/CON/SIZ Reality Flaw, RQ 3 adds a Design Error. The
old Reality Flaw has not been fixed: Large and/or strong creatures
can become incredibly more healthy (resistant to disease, etc), and
naturally healthy creatures can become incredibly strong. But all
this cross training WAS limited by Species Maximum, and so things did
not get out of hand (except for Dragonnewts). Now, since there IS
no species maximum, we find that an average Halfling can train his
STR up to 17. Particularly healthy ones can eventually become much
stronger than trolls. An intelligent Manticore, being naturally
strong, can train both his health (and therefore his venom) up to
amazing levels.
For the old DEX/APP Reality Flaw, RQ 3 substitutes a new one.
Both DEX and APP are now limited by half again the original roll.
What this means is that one of every 72 people, will be able
to attain a Dexterity like unto the gods (26), whereas the low
1 of 72, will never be better than a klutz (6). Such variation
will inevitably lead to DEX inflation (starting out with the
highest DEX possible), since any high DEX character has a much
better chance of survival.
POW now has a wonderful Design Error, where it had none before.
The Species Maximum characteristic used to be one sixth again the
maximum rollable. This meant that an Elf (2d6+6 POW) would have an
18 + 1/6 x 18 = 21 Species Maximum. Humans likewise. Now, RQ 3
makes you add the minimum rollable plus the maximum, so an Elf
now has a 8 + 18 = 26 Species Max. A Dryad (2d6+16) near Species
Max, handily defeats the Bad Man in spirit combat, and I don't even
want to THINK about Hags. The repercussions in the areas of Magic
are considerable, since higher Species Max means easier POW gain
rolls. This in turn gives more POW for spells, magic items, and
binding spirits. Non-human Shamans are amazingly gross.
Hit Points -- Good
Much of the old Reality Flaw from RQ 2 has been removed. Good.
This is somewhat offset by the botching of training up STR and CON,
however.
Damage Modifier -- Ok
The same old Damage Modifier is being used, with its enormous
breakpoint effect. For a normal human, 1 additional point in STR
or SIZ can suddenly add about half again to the damage of all
weapons he uses. Some sort of increasing die roll (1d1, 1d2,
1d3, etc) would have been better. (Could have even been
substituted on the old RQ 2 character sheets).
Number of Strike Ranks -- Ok
For no obvious reason, RQ 3 now has 10 Strike Ranks instead of
12. All the tables have been adjusted accordingly, but there didn't
seem to be an overwhelming need for a change. Perhaps the game
designers wanted to make clear than SR's, had nothing to do with
seconds of time, by removing the (apparent) one-to-one correspondence.
Actually, Strike Ranks are themselves kludges. They have little to
do with the progress of blows in an authentic mele. Since there is
no easy alternate, it can do.
Previous Experience -- Very Good
Previous Experience is an exceedingly well done piece of work.
It allows players to build reasonable backgrounds for their
characters, and allows a reasonable amount of previous experience,
without getting gross. The only real problem with it, is that it
contains a large number of Glorontha-isms ("Healer, Civilized:
01-75 Your adventurer's parents worship the earth goddess....").
Quick Experience System -- Very Good
For its limited scope, this works very well.
Simple Skills -- Ok
The old skills are unchanged. The 05 success, 95 failure is still
kept. This still has its old Reality Flaw wrong with it. Get 20
people to try something, and almost always one of them can. It
isn't noticeable usually, unless you ask a giant to jump. (Because
of his size, the giant will fall over most of the time, but take
off to the moon on a 01-05).
Skill vs Skill -- Poor
It does not explicitly state if a skill which has been modified to
negative ADDS to the opponents chance of making the skill roll.
Also, the Skill vs Skill algorithm is not transitive -- i.e. it
matters greatly which skill is designated the "attacking" skill,
and which one the "defending" skill. Consider two characters
who are 90% in Tracking: one who is looking for a trail, and one
trying not to leave one. Both characters have a 85% total chance
of success, if theirs is the roll considered "passive". The "active"
wielder can only hope the "passive" user blows his roll. For 5
to 45 percent range, the percentages are reversed... the "active"
wielder gets the better deal, since the Skill vs Skill roll assumes
automatic success if your opponent blows his roll.
Skills Categories -- Poor
Improvements in this one: no more break points. Alas, it is
offset by the ill definition of most categories. We find that good
Boating and Throwing depend heavily upon being very small. A Miss
America contestant can speak foreign languages much better than
a plain girl. Great Trolls make wonderful pick pockets.
This could possibly be fixed by rules alterations. Negative skills
should be secondarily negative (1 for 2, not 1 for 1). Throw and Boat
should be Manipulation based skills, and Manipulation should not have
STR in the calculation at all. Sing & Speak Foreign Language
should have no APP modifier, and Sleight should have a Negative SIZ
modifier.
Experience Gain Rolls -- Very Poor
The old Reality Flaw "you learn only during a stressful situation"
is still around, as expected. ("Gosh, I learned to play the piano
twice as quickly as my friend, because I only play when the trolls
are attacking!"). This can be explained away in the interest of
getting players to go out in the field, and is perfectly fine.
Experience Gain Rolls suffer from being tied to skill modifier bonuses,
because all the silliness of the Skills Categories becomes magnified.
Not only do people who are very lucky (high POW) rather noticeable, but
they are made incapable of learning how to be less so. Manticores can
learn to Play Instruments much more quickly, because they are so strong.
Giants can learn how to Track much more easily, because they are very
healthy.
More to the point, we find out that high skill modifiers aid characters
in learning in an astounding way. A human and a giant, with an equal
INT and DEX, at 100% Sleight, will find that the giant learns his skill
10% more quickly than the human can; getting 100 checks, a character
over 100%, with a 20% skills modifier will go up an average of 70%,
while a character with a 5% skills bonus will go up 14%; under 100%,
the ratio is even more extreme, since skill level affects the chance
to even get the check in the first place.
This all is just begging for characteristic inflation. It encourages
the 17 DEX character to train his DEX up to 26, since this will mean
an automatic +9% chance to learn how to use half the skills in the book.
In addition, any character who has a +1 Skills Modifier can train all
those skills above 100%, but characters with a 0 bonus cannot. In
short, RQ 3 took the old RQ 2 Reality Flaw, and magnified it.
While RQ 2 encouraged INT inflation (rolling intelligent characters),
this was more palletable for several reasons. One, most of the enormous
fighting machines {Minotaur, Manticore, Great Troll} were rather dumb.
So, a player had to choose between being powerful to start out with, or
having a better future ahead. Two, strength and smallness have little
to do with learning, only intelligence does. (In fact, the DEFINITION
of intelligence, is the ability to learn. Look it up, if you don't
believe me.) Finally, since you want to encourage people to play
intelligently anyway, it did not hurt to encourage them to play
intelligent characters.
Fatigue -- Very Poor
The first point to ask about Fatigue, is why is it necessary?
Certainly people get tired, but Conan never seems to (even when
he is wearing plate). Many SCA fighters have told me that when
in top shape, they can fight for almost half an hour before getting
really pooped. Real fighting includes pacing, and looking for
openings, which allow characters to rest even when "attacking"
an opponent. Especially under the adrenaline of combat, people
"die" long before they are seriously hampered from fatigue.
RQ 2 seems to work just fine without it, so would have RQ 3. Alas,
things are not that easy. You cannot even do away with the whole
system, since the game designers offer no other, and Fatigue is
enmeshed so thoroughly with Encumbrance, that they are almost
inseparable. In short, it is one big Design Error, interspaced
with Reality Flaws. To wit:
"Cormac is still being pursued by enemy tribesmen. Though
he is a strong runner, he still hears their calls and jeers
behind him. He is now -3 fatigue points -- all the fatigue
points (including zero) on his fatigue tally have been
checked off, and he has lost three more besides. In this
melee round, his player must therefore subtract 3 from any
skill, resistance, or characteristic roll he makes for Cormac.
What the author failed to mention, is that Cormac, an unencumbered
healthy primative hunter, has been jogging for at most 4 minutes.
In another 3, according to the RQ 3 system of Fatigue, he will faint.
But this is not all! Assuming Cormac was the healthiest and the
strongest a human can be, and he was jogging entirely naked, he would
skill keel over from exhaustion in less than 15 minutes. Whatever
inhuman levels of Constitution a modern day jogger must have in RQ 3
is left up to the readers imagination.
The problem of Fatigue actually goes much deeper than this. It really
has to do with the designers attempt to simulate multiple types of
exhaustion with one simplified system. For instance, we find that
prolonged hiking or riding over several hours, reduces a characters
Fatigue (as it should), but this Fatigue loss is measured in the same
units that sprinting around the block is. Thus, to rest from a
entire days exertion, one need only to recover the Fatigue points
through a 1 minute rest. Doing so at the end of each hour of hiking,
insures that a character is never down more than 1 to 2 points
of Fatigue.
The game designers make loss of sleep (sleeping in armor) cost Fatigue
points as well. They use a bad example, since sleeping in most armor
(without a helm on) is actually quite comfortable. Aside from that,
of the type of Fatigue being lost is again, obviously, the wrong one.
It leads to the humorous Reality Flaw of a character who is sleeping
in armor, asking to be woken up every hour or so, so that he can rest
to recover his lost Fatigue.
In fact, the only "_p_e_r_m_a_n_e_n_t" Fatigue loss springs from ENC;
this turns out to be exactly the wrong application of permanent Fatigue,
since it leads to a linear relationship between the weight that the
character is carrying, and the strenuousness of the exertion. For
example, a character can jog with a full pack, about 1/2 as long as he
can jog totally unencumbered. This makes characters able to run with
inhumanly large amounts of ENC for a relatively long time, but fall over
when totally unencumbered after a relatively short time (relative,
that is, to reality).
Because the Fatigue system all works off of one attribute in a very
simplistic fashion, it can only be tuned to be realistic on one setting.
This setting seems to be a an unencumbered human, with average STR and
CON, and who is very very out of shape. Nikkelos the Sorcerer looks
perfect under the Fatigue system, as does, incidentally, Steve Perrin
(or even myself). It does not work for the average adventurer. To
try to patch up the system for other races and sizes, a completely
separate Fatigue table is given, which occasionally leads to the correct
results. (The table seems to have been designed for horses).
I talked to Steve Perrin about this, and he mentioned in response that
Fatigue was in "melee rounds only", i.e. don't count fatigue unless
the referee is asking for statements of intent. The first problem with
this is that it is a obvious and stupid Reality Flaw; some people claim
they are already researching a spell to put others in "melee rounds" to
make them tire out. It may even be more simple than that: in the
example, Cormac hears "calls and jeers behind him", which forces
him into melee rounds -- so much for "...and names will never hurt me".
Secondly, only counting Fatigue in battle allows characters to perform
inhuman feats of endurance outside of it. ("Run for an hour carrying
my horse? Sure, no problem, just make sure I don't go into combat").
Swimming also uses Fatigue, tell me does the Chaosium really only mean
Swimming while in combat?
Another incidental Reality Flaw is that the designers went overboard
on reducing percentiles for being Fatigued. Athletes, we find, are
particularly vulnerable to disease because they are fatigued so often.
In addition, when tired, not only is your strength effectively reduced
by a large amount, but you also are less Lucky. A Storm Bull after
having slaughtered 100 Broos, finds the god unwilling to respond to
a tired worshiper (Divine Intervention -- POW x 1 characteristic
roll). If he does make the roll (by some miracle), then he has lost
a huge amount of additional permanent POW, because of the Fatigue loss.
Encumbrance -- Very Poor
Encumbrance is inexorably intertwined with Fatigue, but it has
other problems as well.
Since the ENC of armor increases as a multiple of Size, but Fatigue
increases as an average, we find that a large strong people (who
have high STR relative to CON) have fewer rounds to fight than
small weak people when wearing equivalent sets of armor.
This means that Pixies and Halflings can all wear Plate without
a worry about fatigue loss, but Trolls cannot.
Particularly large trolls are even in worse condition. A Size 21
two legged creature uses the size equivalency chart. This means
he has 28 Fatigue points to start out with, regardless of his
STR or CON. Dress the troll in Plate, give him small clothes, a
Troll Maul, and nothing else, he will start out at -16 Fatigue.
It is quite possible for an average well equipped large Dark Troll
to faint if he accidentally goes into melee rounds.
If the troll feels bad, he should talk to the newlywed husband.
The strong and healthy guy (13 STR/13 CON) tries to lift his
lithe (SIZ 9) wife through the doorway, when someone "called and
jeered" at him, and he went into melee rounds. Figuring out his
current Fatigue (since this is what you do when you start into
melee rounds), we find he has 26 total. A respectable number, until
you realize that his wife weighs (9 SIZ x 6 ENC/SIZ =) 54 ENC, which
makes him faint dead away. How embarrassing.
The Design Error lying behind all this is not all that difficult
to spot: Fatigue and Encumbrance are calculated in exactly the same
way: you compute the number of melee rounds you can exert yourself
in exactly the same say as you compute what you can carry. So
it is impossible in RQ 3 to have a character who can carry a great
deal, but tires quickly (high STR/low CON), and impossible to have a
character who cannot carry much, but can do so for a very long
time (low STR/high CON). No one, for instance, expects a high STR
Sumo wrestler to be able to jog twice as far as the normal man, but
this is what RQ 3 implies. Can a Halfling carry more ENC than a
human? Due to the Halfling's high Con, the RQ 3 system says yes.
This is reminiscent of the D&D concept of mixing high Dexterity
(ability to avoid a blow), and Armor Class (ability to absorb
damage); the RQ 3 Fatigue/ENC system takes two related, but entirely
separate world elements, and tries to mix them together. The resulting
system is so unnatural, it has to depend upon such artificialities
as "melee rounds", and being tuned to work correctly for one specific
archetype. This type is (not surprisingly) for average size armor
worn by out of shape humans.
Because it is a system which is unrealistic, fixing the Fatigue
or Encumbrance numbers so that characters could carry one another
in combat, as in the movie Uncommon Valor, helps not a bit. It
only would make the formula silly elsewhere (perhaps allowing people
to jog carrying their horses for half a minute). If you want an
effective ENC system in RQ 3, you have to design it yourself.
ENC also is supposed to subtract directly from both ability to cast
magic, and Dodge ability. I am not too concerned about the latter,
since Dodge is such an asinine idea anyway, that it doesn't make
any difference if ENC affects it or not. About the former, I can
only wonder what the designers were thinking about when they made
this rule up.... to add insult to injury, we now find that the
Size 21 troll in Plate now has a -55 percent chance to cast his
spells, while the STR 2 Halfling in Plate is discomfited by no more
than -15. A Giant can't cast spells, not because no one taught him,
but rather because his belt buckle weighs too much. (After all,
he only has a 125 STR to lift it). These Reality Flaws are really
humorous, until you realize you paid 38 dollars for them.
Training -- Ok
Some parts of Training have been improved, although I do find it
strange that "Experience" is more useful than having someone teach
you correct technique. Is this why the Chaosium felt the need to
invent "Martial Arts", to explain away the fact that people who are
taught ancient, well thought out combat methods, are better than
street fighters? Well, other than that, and the artificial 75%
limit (which was always there), I like this section. Particularly
good are the paragraphs explaining just where all that money goes
to, and the time involved in learning.
Incidentally, the 1d6-2 roll, is just like saying you get
2 plus an optional 1d6-4. From this perspective, only a fool would
take the roll. Strange how, in a later Cormac's saga, it shows
Cormac rolling average (20 & 21 total on 6 dice) and the text
calls this luck "uninspiring". It is his player's intelligence
that is uninspiring.
Research -- Poor
Having problems with all those skills at 0 percent? Have no fear!
Research is here! From the formulas given, we find that you take
no time at all to learn a skill from the base 0 percent. Throw
a man in a French library, and before you know it, he'll be writing
his first faltering words ("Parlez vous ...."). Everybody should
learn his first 1d6-2 Martial Arts easy.... just make like Bruce Lee.
Its not that Research is not a good idea, you just have to add
a few more ideas like experience bonuses for knowing what you're
looking for, previous experience in the field being researched,
and innate predilection toward the skill in question. The system
presented is much too simplistic, and assumes that all skills
become predictably more difficult to learn, after you easily got
the knack of them in the first place. The rules are better than
nothing, but not much.
Characteristic Increase -- Poor
Having the cost and time of characteristic training depending upon
an arbitrary game value is silly. Why should a Halfling doubling
his strength take half the time doing it that a Troll doing the
same thing does? The real cost associated with raising strength
should have to do with how much you have raised it already, or how
much is normal for your species, not based on arbitrary values.
Since we have already discussed the lack of species maximum for
characteristics, I will not rehash those Reality Flaws.
Characteristic Decrease -- Very Poor
RQ 3 promotes the idea that characteristics are not an abstraction,
indicating a wide range of personal aspects, such as DEX being
a combination of hand-eye coordination, musculature, and flexibility.
No. Characteristics are treated as some form of elixir, which every
character has, but some have more than others; which can, in turn,
be squeezed out of a person like blood from a turnip.
For example, Appearance (not at all in the eye of the beholder), has
a particular Magic Point value for each character, which a sufficiently
skilled sorcerer can Tap. Rock Hudson is a veritable storehouse
of magical power, (no doubt found somewhere in his classic jaw line),
while you or I have almost nothing. An athlete who dies, can be
resurrected twice as long after you or I, because he has so much
more STR in him than we do. A juggler who gets the Shakes, will
survive much longer than anybody else, because he has more DEX in
him to begin with.
While Runequest 2 had some of the same ideas, at least they did not
pursue them with the same fervor that RQ 3 has. The idea was holed
up in the back of the book, listed under optional "Disease" rules.
This is no longer the case, as Characteristic Drain is now the method
of aging, inaction, disease, death, and Tapping.
Strike Ranks -- Ok
There are two changes in this from RQ 2. The good one, is that it
is now possible to alter your statement of intent, without having
to waste 11 seconds to do so. The bad one, is that it now seems
that a character moving up on another, strikes last because the
moving character unconditionally looses strike ranks. The worst
case, is where a character moves up and cannot hit his foe, since
he hasn't enough strike ranks. His foe, who was waiting for him,
gets a free attack.
Also, any old numb skull with a high DEX gets the first strike even
against a seasoned fighter. (While Runequest says that an attack is
actually a combination of blows, almost none of the rules really
treat it as such.)
Aimed Blows -- Ok
I am not overwhelmed by this method, holdover though it is from
RQ 2. It does not simulate well what an aimed blow really is.
Basic Attack Percentages -- Poor
Someone at the Chaosium still has the idea that the better damage
a weapon does, the lower percentage it should start out with.
For example, a Naginata starts at 5%, while a Spear starts at 15%.
Now while I will not pass judgement on the basic idea of making
high-damage weapons more difficult to use (it is an issue of
reality vs play balance), I do find it somewhat silly that they
expect this technique to actually prevent players from just using
the highest damage weapons.
A lower starting percentage does not hinder a character's use
of a weapon at all, since lowered starting percentages can be
trained up easily. What is more needed is an innate difficulty
factor, which would be a subtraction from a weapon's Skill Bonus
(and experience bonus) because the weapon is innately more difficult
to use. An addition to the Skill Bonus for shield parrying would
also have been better than the high starting percentage. As
currently written, the starting weapon/shield percentages really
have no meaning.
Parry -- Good
The new rules for allowing hafted weapons to occasionally damage
during a parry are good. It would have been better if all weapons
only did damage on an impale, since such notching is not very common.
Later we find in the book, Parry can now be used against hand thrown
missile weapons. The rules and an example seems contradictory:
"Thrown weapons can be parried if the parrier is aware of the attack..",
and "A spear thrown from the darkness impales Churchak. The roll
is 16 points of damage, but he gets his own spear in the way for
a parry". (I am assuming in this example, that Churchak has not
researched up his Darksense.) Also, in real life, any missile weapon
used at long range can be parried, if seen.
Weapon Armor -- Ok
RQ 2 weapons needed armor badly. RQ 3 gave it to them, but in a
funky fashion. From the rules, we find that the reason that swords
don't break is not because they are made out of steel, its because
they are "interposed" between the attacker and his target. Does
this mean that if I "interpose" a trollkin (or a candle), in front
of a descending troll maul, that the interposed object only takes 1
point of damage? Not likely. Chalk up another Reality Flaw.
Parrying an opponents attack to break his weapon becomes a credible
option, since a parry does full weapon damage when the attacker
misses (unlike attacks). I would prefer half damage for interposed
objects, and let weapon armor take care of it. Also, it is never
explicitly stated what happens to a weapon which reaches 0 armor
points. I assume that it becomes effectively unusable, but does
it snap? Can it be rebent into shape?
Dodge -- Very Poor
The first major problem with this rule, has nothing to do with Dodge.
It has to do with what it replaces: Defense. Defense is simply
the idea that fast, small, lucky, intelligent, or experienced
creatures are generally harder to hit than slow, large, unlucky,
dumb and/or inexperienced ones. Talking to members of SCA, I have
found this to be a generally approved of idea -- it's how combat
really works.
Now the RQ 2 implementation of Defense had a few holes in it -- which
could be lived with. The first was that two creatures of equal size,
had a hard time hitting each other in hand to hand combat if they
were small, and an easier chance if they were large. (RQ 3's "Attack
Modifiers" table maintains this flaw.) The second problem with Defense
was the way that you got experience in it... unless you had a positive
Defense bonus, you could not get any more, and the more Defense you
had, the better you got at it.
So change the special experience system for Defense, right?
Wrong. What the brilliant folks over at the Chaosium decided to
do was get rid of the idea of Defense entirely, and substitute in
"Dodge" instead.
A character can now Attack, Parry, or Dodge in a melee round, choosing
two of the above actions. Thus, to instinctively avoid a blow, I
have to either forego my attack, or put my shield behind my back.
If I choose to attack and parry, it matters not at all if I am Size
4 or Size 19, if my DEX is 3 or 58, if I am the most experienced
fighter or if I a raw amateur -- my opponent has the same chance of
hitting me.
If you try to Dodge and Attack, the Reality Flaw becomes more hilarious.
Lord Alfred Winddragon had us simulate two fighters Dodging and
attacking with Great Swords -- the resultant combat looked like a
pogo-stick competition. Swords and shields were even more silly,
since the attacker had to place his shield behind his back, so as
not to accidentally parry a blow.
The flaws become worse again, when you consider non-human types.
How do you hit a with a composite bow Pixie at 120 yards? Simple,
just catch it "attacking" and "parrying" another Pixie while fighting
over a berry (or catch it slinging a missile). What do they mean "He's
so bad, he can't hit the side of a barn?" They mean he's not an
expert -- since even a Size 80 side-of-barn adds only a total of
+30% to your chance to hit -- lacking rules for positive defense, a
character who has missed his dodge is as easy to hit as a stationary
object.
Weapon Knockback -- Ok
Well at least there are rules for doing knockback from a blow,
even if they are somewhat silly. What does a pointy or sharp
weapon have to do with knockback? Does a Bladesharp 4 really
add almost a meter to knockback? Does a small mount charging
down on a braced pike really get pushed back an additional 2
meters because of his own damage bonus?
Intentional Knockback -- Poor
Well now we know what the most effective form of attack is in
Runequest 3. Intentional Knockback. All you have to do is
Dodge and Parry and then Intentionally Knockback your opponent
onto the ground. Then you get +20% chance to hit him, and he
gets -20% chance to hit you. Simple, no?
Stunning and Subduing -- Poor
It appears that to aim a blow at the head, all you have to do
is attack to Stun or Subdue. Then, regardless of the actual
damage of the blow, you have a reasonable chance to knock your
opponent out. Trollkin will love this attack, since it gives
each one a 20% chance to knock out a typical great troll, with
even 1 hit point penetrating.
It also does not say if the damage done by a subduing blow is
actually applied as hit points damage to it. One presumes not.
Special Hit Locations -- Good
These are re-writings of the RQ 2 Special Hit location system.
They are good, but are not extensive enough. Some downward modifier
should have also been included for swinging at extremely large
creatures (such as giants).
Mounted Weapons Limitations -- Very Good
A reasonable set of special rules. Set Spear vs Charge should
be based on velocity and size, not on strength of the mount. This
is a very small detail though.
Unfavorable Environments -- Good
1] Darkness has a reality flaw, since pitch blackness not only
subtracts from an attackers chance to hit, but it also subtracts
from the defenders innate Defense ability. The SCA has tried out
fighting blind, and people are hit quite a bit more often than
RQ 3 rules suggest.
2] Underwater is reasonable set of rules, if you ignore the Fatigue
loss except for land based creatures (or ignore the Fatigue entirely).
3] High ground is very good.
4] Narrow passageways should include any thrusting weapon, not just
spear and pike. Otherwise good. The Fatigue is silly.
5] The rules for Covered Targets have not improved since RQ 2. You
still have a 50/50 chance of missing a giant who is covered by a
hillside, even though the exposed portion of his size is greater than
the size of a man. There is still also no way to aim for hit locations
with missile weapons, which is bad.
Criticals -- Good
A critical now cannot do less damage than a special hit. This is
very good. However every critical almost always does exactly the
same damage. This is not so good.
Specials -- Ok
"Impales" look fine from a game balance point of view, though the
extra damage done is still not all that realistic. I do find
complaint with the effect of a special from a smashing or slashing
weapon though.
From the way the rules are written, a character who does at least
5 points of damage to any foe on a Special, knocks the target back
at least one meter. This means that a duck with a club can knock
over a giant, assuming the latter fails a DEX x 5 roll.
Fumble -- Good
Same old RQ 2 fumble table.
Close Combat -- Ok
It is always good to have a game at least approximate what goes on
in close combat, even if it does not quite match up to reality.
The closing rules are fine, but what happens when you pull up to
too short a range is not. In reality, no one can attack at full
damage when choked up too close -- whether you forego your parry
or not. Also parry, as the game so correctly points out, is an
instinctive response -- foregoing parry at all is almost a
contradiction in terms.
Disarm -- Poor
Disarming an opponent remains too easy in RQ 3. If I attack an
opponents weapon, he has no chance to effectively block my attack
against breaking the weapon. Thus, regardless of the skill of
my opponent, I can disarm him with a few blows.
Multiple Targets -- Very Good
There are now reasonable rules for all of these things. The example
of Bigclub has a strange +1d3 at the end, which is not explained
anywhere.
Firing Into A Mele -- Very Poor
How to make yourself invulnerable to missile weapons attacks: 1] Get
a bunch of dogs. 2] Involve yourself and them in "mele" (pay the END
cost for now). 3] Watch perfectly good missile wielders practically
fumble their chance to hit a particular target. With 9 dogs, the
attack percentage is 1/10 normal, etc. Sure, you're going to loose
dogs, but so what?
Engines -- Good
Since adventurers rarely fight in long sieges (not heroic or profitable
enough), I do not really see the need for these rules.
SKILLS -- Good
In general, the skills were explained as to what they were. Though
there were some ambiguities left, it is not enough to make an issue
out of. Also, some skills are too general, and really cover
separate areas of expertise; these should have been subdivided.
THE WORLD
Falling -- Good
Asphyxiation -- Good
Fire and Heat -- Very Good
My my how this reminds us of the Hero Sys treatment of the
same subject....
Poison -- Very Good
I am particularly impressed by the fact that the words "usually" and
"Unless otherwise specified by the gamemaster" are included in this
description.
Disease -- Poor
The same tired old Glorontha-ism of Disease is hanging around RQ 3.
In it, we find that a disease does nothing more (or less) than
permanently destroying characteristics. No Fatigue loss (even in
RQ 3's botched up system), no skill subtractions, no temporary
characteristic loss. Just total destruction.
At least now, with the lack of species maximum, you can regain your
characteristics back. We find that one way to save your life, if
you are afflicted by mild Wasting Disease, is to lift weights (all
modern hospitals should have them). This leads back to my comments
about RQ 3 Characteristic Decrease in general.
Also, notice the Glorontha-isms in the passage: "Broos", "The disease
Goddess", "disease spirits".
Aging and Inaction -- Very Poor
"See that cleft chin? Notice how good he looks? That is the sign
of a character who will never 'ugly away'. But over there.... see
how he picks his nose, and has warts? He is going to die before he
reaches 50. How about the Pixie? She's always been weak (Pixie's
usually are), which means that she will life a short life. Look at
that guy over there.... the one who looks like Woody Allen, he's
got such a low DEX you can just about kiss him good bye. But the
Halfling (who trained up his STR to 24) is going to live to be 500."
The only characteristic which has any bearing on health is (or should
be) Constitution. This should be obvious from the above example.
Though it is true that STR, DEX, and APP can be lowered beyond 40,
it has no bearing on the health of the character. Even so, CON
reduction is an abstraction, since reasonably healthy people quite
often just keel over and die.
In addition, reading the rules as they stand, it appears that anybody
can live forever. Alls you got to do is retrain the characteristic
up, once it has been reduced. Yes, I'm sure that APP training is
hard to come by, but by RQ 3 it all could be done.
(Doctor: "Sponge" Nurse: "Sponge" Doctor: "Pad" Nurse: "Pad"
Doctor: "Eye Liner" Nurse: "Eye Liner" Doctor: "Lipstick"....)
Weather -- Very Poor
By the wind rules, we find that a hawk cannot fly. Its STR is not
enough to keep it from being bowled over by a STR 2 (calm air
movement) wind. Children are knocked over by breeze which blows
out a candle, and a normal woman will be knocked down occasionally
by light wind. A moderate wind will most certainly knock down
any average man, and most above average ones as well. Only at
the very upper end of the chart does Wind effects table begin to
look reasonable.
(End of Chapter 1)robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (10/25/84)
Thanks for a review that seems to prove something else altogether: If you make a really intricate, detailed, complex, fantasy game in order to attempt to imitiate reality, you will probably develop a hopeless muddle full of unrealistic bugs. So why bother??? In Lewis Carroll's late book, "Syvlie and Bruno", one of the characters has a really detailed map of the local area. It is made on a scale of (are you ready?): ONE TO ONE. There is some nice humor regarding the difficulty of using the map. BUT, In a complex FRP system, it's easy to start taking hours to play minutes of "reality"; then we catch up by taking seconds to play days of reality; then we... at some point I actuality prefer reality itself. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
steven@qubix.UUCP (Steven Maurer) (11/12/84)
A bug killer.
Another bug killer.
A third bug killer.
I've been getting a number of requests for the original
posting of my RQ 3 review. Though my followup corrispondence
was well distributed, some sites didn't get the original
review. So here it is again.....
-- Steven Maurer
====================================
REVIEW OF FLAWS IN RUNEQUEST 3 (Chapter 1)
A few weeks ago, in response to an article praising Runequest 3,
I replied to that message by saying that the new Runequest "sucked".
Now, while I hold it to be my prerogative to hold any opinion I want
on a game, I should have qualified my opinion with what I found
objectionable to it. My only excuse for not doing so is that when
I made my initial comment, I didn't have time to even begin listing
the varied and numerous problems with RQ 3.
Now I do.
As a final note, before going into this review, let me state that
I am both an experienced player, referee, play tester, and game
designer, who has had much experience with Chaosium games. If my
review of Runequest 3 seems biased, it is because I am looking at
it from the perspective of a Runequest 2 player who expected old
bugs to be fixed, not new ones introduced. Even under the new rules,
Runequest 3 is not all that much worse than AD&D. It can still be
fun, if (as in AD&D) you try to ignore rules problems, or invent
variant rules which fix them. The attitude that rules don't need to
be good because people will naturally fix them, seems common in the
gaming industry, but would hardly be sanctioned in our own profession
("This software works, just as long as you fix all the bugs in it").
Of course, I'm not much of a fan of AD&D either.
In all the following review areas, a five grade listing is given. These
are: Very Good, Good, Ok, Poor, and Very Poor. Following this, is usually
a note explaining why the grade was given. The areas are grouped together
under area titles, which usually correspond to one of the books in the box.
Also, at this time, I would like to give thanks to all the people who helped
me write this review, and pointed out bugs to me. Particularly helpful
were, Steven Barnes, Ricky Taylor, Jeremy Higdon, Robert Mace (and other
SCA fighters), and innumerable numbers of convention goers and RQ 3 play
testers.
RUNEQUEST 3
GENERAL COMMENTS
Game Considered Overall -- Poor to Very Poor
Particulars follow.
Speed of Publication -- Poor
The Chaosium has a reputation for being late in everything.
However, in Runequest 3 they were especially late. More than
a year went by without any support for Runequest in any
form, because of the slowness of the change over.
Backwards Compatibility -- Very Poor
1] Played by the book, Runequest 3 is entirely incompatible with
Runequest 2. This means that an investment of up to 100 dollars in
Scenario packs, play aids, and cult descriptions, are now worthless.
The last time I talked to Greg Stafford about this, he indicated that
the Chaosium's plan was to re-release the old SP's in the new system
(making you pay all over again, for the old materiel). Aside from
the basic obnoxiousness of this plan, it has another fatal flaw:
the Chaosium's lateness. By the original schedule, Glorontha Pack
should have been out 1/3 year ago, and new materiel would start
appearing in 1986. As you may or may not know, Glorontha Pack will
(as best) hit the store shelves by the end of the year. This implies
that the new materiel will actually come out by the earliest, in 1987
-- that is, if the schedule is kept.
2] There is nothing on the front cover of Runequest 3 which says that
it is a new game system, and separate from its other releases. Thus a
customer who is ignorant of the actual state of affairs of the game,
may pick up a new Runequest 3 and buy any number of old incompatible
Runequest 2 scenario packs, still unsold in stores. I almost saw
this happen once, but the game store owner was too moral a fellow to
let it slip by.
3] Both as a player, and as a referee, I am forced to perform many
hours worth of labor converting my characters into the new system.
Even if the method of conversion was a piece of flawless elegance,
(which it is not by any means), I still do not like having to perform
such a laborious task, for essentially no reason. Runequest characters
are not like AD&D characters, who can be summerized in 6
characteristics, class, level, HP, race, and magic items; each
skill, and its accordant percentage, is individually listed and
must be rewritten on a new character sheet.
Cover Art -- Very Good
Aside from minor technical and esthetic flaws in the drawing --
the woman wearing gems, not a helm; the mans kneepads drawn as part
of his boots; the picture of the man disjoint from the rest of the
drawing (look closely, his feet look as if both of them are slipping
off the stairs); -- aside from that, a very pretty picture. Someone
has finally found out that a pretty cover helps along a bad rules
system, better than any amount of advertizing does (an old trick
learned by TSR a long time ago).
Price -- Very Poor
At 38 bucks a shot, the new Runequest is no small investment. It
would not be so bad if the new rules actually made a playable game,
or if the customers were assured that it was a one shot deal. This
is not to be. The SP's for the new Runequest will be similarly priced.
(25$ for the Referee's rules, is a particularly bad deal, since the
only really usable book in it is the creatures descriptions).
Paper Quality -- Poor
The books themselves are more tender than a soft bound book; the
cover is made of the same paper as the internal pages. Already, the
RQ 3 that I borrowed, is beginning to show signs of wear. It is not
yet 1 month old, and hasn't been treated any worse than any standard
book. Perhaps I may be surprised, but I doubt that these books will
have half the lifetime of the RQ 2 books (or 1/10th the lifetime of
a hard bound AD&D Players Handbook).
I also do not like Avalon Hill's decision to make Runequest into a
"Bookshelf Game" (i.e. to put it in a box). As the people at Avalon
Hill, may or may not know, FRP games are not usually played off the
bookshelf. Rather, students and other adherents to FRP, carry the
games around with them for quick reference -- most often in a backpack
or some such. In this environment, a box disintegrates within a
period of 3 months. It cracks at the bindings, and becomes completely
unusable. Large boxes are particularly susceptible to this, so most
RQ 3's should begin falling apart by the next convention.
Layout -- Good
Avalon Hill, or Chaosium, or both, did a good job on this one. The
pictures are clear, the type is readable, the colors draw attention
but do not interfere with reading. The one thing that I didn't like
about the Layout, is the way that the previous experience charts are
spread out all through the beginning of the book. This makes the
tables hard to find, in addition to interrupting the continuity of
the initial rules.
(Other general comments can be found at the end of this review,
listed under the title "Summary Comments")
OVERALL GAME
Clarity -- Good
As in all Chaosium games, the writing style is clear and simple.
Sometimes too simple. There are a number of ambiguities in the
text, which should be resolved. For instance, "Jump" says that
a character must make the jump roll to jump "twice his height
horizontally, or up to his height vertically with a running start".
But it does not say what roll to make (if any) for distances less
than that. (Remember: running is is series of small jumps).
World View -- Poor
A World View of a game system, is the world which the game writers
imply. For example, the world view of AD&D is monster infested
wilderness interspersed with "dungeons" containing fabulous treasure
and magic; Chivalry and Sorcery's world view is medieval Europe in
all its gory detail; Tunnels and Trolls has a world view in which
whimsical gods toy with the adventurers, giving fabulous power,
and then taking it away.
Some games are tied only to a genre (a set of world views). D&D,
Champions, Arms Law, Justice Inc., all fall into this wide spread
category. Some games are not only tied to a specific world view,
but are tied to a specific world. Call of Cthuluhu, Paranoia,
Elfquest, EPT, Stormbringer, fall into this one. Each approach
has its own strengths: a general system can be adapted to any number
of different campaigns, a specific system has more time to explore
its own particular world. Runequest has always been a specific
system. Its world is Glorontha. The designers of Runequest,
attempted to write a more generalized version of Runequest. This
attempt failed badly.
Instead of generalizing Runequest, the new world view attempts to
Glorontha-ize fantasy. We find no Cyclopses and Medusa in Fantasy
Europe, but Broos and Gloronthan Trolls instead. The religions are
barely disguised Glorontha cults -- not even general enough to handle
the Stormbringer pantheon (another Chaosium FRP game). Though many
references are made to Tolkien (and presumably his creations), we
find that elves "are tied to their forests in ways not understandable
by men" -- a reference straight out of Glorontha.
Through out the rest of the review, I will be pointing out these
Glorontha-isms. They are subtly pervasive throughout the game,
concentrating mainly in the magic book.
This alone is not enough to give the World View of RQ 3 a Poor
rating. Glorontha is, when viewed with a forgiving eye, an
interesting world with a fascinating cosmology. It's easy to
settle a campaign there, provided you only pay attention to its
gods, continents, and empires. The problem with RQ 3, is that
it allows no support for world views other than Glorontha --
though a "Viking Pack" is supposed to come out, the societies,
gods, money, and motivations will all still be Gloronthan.
"Fantasy Europe" already resembles Glorontha much more than any
authentic earth mythology; it will no doubt only end up like the
defunct Questworld: A place to put all the scenarios that "aren't
good enough" for Glorontha.
Game System -- Very Poor
"A roleplaying game's system is the invisible support from which
the game world must hang". True enough. However it is also true
that a game system must derive itself somehow from reality. This
was always the concept which set Runequest 2 apart from other game
systems. While a high level fighter in AD&D had more hit points
than his shield, a RQ 2 character was always realistic.
This is no longer necessarily true, since the Chaosium has decided
the TSR approach to game design, which is to "play balance" all
approaches to combat regardless of realism. What's worse, is that
many of these game flaws are not simply bugs which have an easy fix.
The flaws are built so deeply into the system that removing them is
equivalent to redesigning it; if you want your average healthy
Cimmerian to have a much greater stamina than an under exercized game
designer, you have to rebuild the Fatigue system from scratch. In
the following text, such errors will be pointed out as "Design Errors".
This is not to say that Runequest 3 is unplayable under all
circumstances. Far from it, if you only run average humans, and
kill them off before they become too skilled, you will find that
the system mimics reality to a tolerable degree. But this is also
true of almost every other system on the market, including some real
loosers like Tunnels and Trolls. The acid test of a GOOD system,
is how it handles powerful characters, non-humans, and exotics.
Again, Runequest 3 fails miserably. The rules repeatedly encourage
characters to do things which are unrealistic in a fantasy setting.
To a certain extent, such flaws can exist in the system without
destroying the world. Players are supposed to be more interested
in "character conception" then that. But after a while, this will
break down if the holes are too blatant, and run across too often.
Players quickly learn that a dead character makes a very uninteresting
concept. In the following text, rules which are unrealistic, or
promote unrealistic behavior, will be pointed out as "Reality Flaws".
Game Examples -- Ok
"Cormac the Pict" is a good idea to give examples with. But it was
a better idea with Rurik the Restless. Why, do you ask? Well
because such examples also serve as the indication of the style of
the campaign. Rurik in RQ 2, started out a beginning adventurer,
suffered a major setback, but eventually made it to rune lord. Cormac
in RQ 3, is beaten up, suffers serious disease, is thrown in jail on
the whim of a nobleman, is knocked over by wind, and turned down
by a Shaman. His only success is to repeatedly avoid being killed,
by managing to hide. He also learns a few basic battle magic spells.
If the designers of RQ 3 seriously want a referee to run their games
in such a ritual sacrifice fashion, (which they do: "These
personalities ... reveal how some more or less ordinary adventurers
progress (or don't progress) in actual situations") then I don't want
anything to do with it as a player. Suffering repeated "Roll your
52% Hide, or die when the enemy tribe finds you", is not what I call
fun; this should NOT be "Call of Runequest", despite what Sandy
Peterson might believe.
PLAYERS RULES
Characteristics -- Good
I always liked RQ 2 characteristics, and am glad that they didn't
delete or seriously mung with any of them. They still give silly
numbers, (Size has nothing to do with Strength, and vice versa),
but this is true of all 3d6 systems.
Characteristic Increases -- Very Poor
RQ 2 had a concept called "Species Maximum". The idea was that there
was a limit to how high you could train your characteristics, which
depended upon your race. The Reality Flaw with this system, was that
at the highest levels, everybody began to look the same. POW 18, DEX
21, CHA 21, STR/SIZ/CON equal, and INT usually 17 or 18 (if you wanted
a character who progressed quickly). There was also a Reality Flaw
with STR/CON/SIZ, which hasn't been fixed.
RQ 3 does away with "Species Maximum", without substituting any good
alternate, and thus makes everything worse.
To the old STR/CON/SIZ Reality Flaw, RQ 3 adds a Design Error. The
old Reality Flaw has not been fixed: Large and/or strong creatures
can become incredibly more healthy (resistant to disease, etc), and
naturally healthy creatures can become incredibly strong. But all
this cross training WAS limited by Species Maximum, and so things did
not get out of hand (except for Dragonnewts). Now, since there IS
no species maximum, we find that an average Halfling can train his
STR up to 17. Particularly healthy ones can eventually become much
stronger than trolls. An intelligent Manticore, being naturally
strong, can train both his health (and therefore his venom) up to
amazing levels.
For the old DEX/APP Reality Flaw, RQ 3 substitutes a new one.
Both DEX and APP are now limited by half again the original roll.
What this means is that one of every 72 people, will be able
to attain a Dexterity like unto the gods (26), whereas the low
1 of 72, will never be better than a klutz (6). Such variation
will inevitably lead to DEX inflation (starting out with the
highest DEX possible), since any high DEX character has a much
better chance of survival.
POW now has a wonderful Design Error, where it had none before.
The Species Maximum characteristic used to be one sixth again the
maximum rollable. This meant that an Elf (2d6+6 POW) would have an
18 + 1/6 x 18 = 21 Species Maximum. Humans likewise. Now, RQ 3
makes you add the minimum rollable plus the maximum, so an Elf
now has a 8 + 18 = 26 Species Max. A Dryad (2d6+16) near Species
Max, handily defeats the Bad Man in spirit combat, and I don't even
want to THINK about Hags. The repercussions in the areas of Magic
are considerable, since higher Species Max means easier POW gain
rolls. This in turn gives more POW for spells, magic items, and
binding spirits. Non-human Shamans are amazingly gross.
Hit Points -- Good
Much of the old Reality Flaw from RQ 2 has been removed. Good.
This is somewhat offset by the botching of training up STR and CON,
however.
Damage Modifier -- Ok
The same old Damage Modifier is being used, with its enormous
breakpoint effect. For a normal human, 1 additional point in STR
or SIZ can suddenly add about half again to the damage of all
weapons he uses. Some sort of increasing die roll (1d1, 1d2,
1d3, etc) would have been better. (Could have even been
substituted on the old RQ 2 character sheets).
Number of Strike Ranks -- Ok
For no obvious reason, RQ 3 now has 10 Strike Ranks instead of
12. All the tables have been adjusted accordingly, but there didn't
seem to be an overwhelming need for a change. Perhaps the game
designers wanted to make clear than SR's, had nothing to do with
seconds of time, by removing the (apparent) one-to-one correspondence.
Actually, Strike Ranks are themselves kludges. They have little to
do with the progress of blows in an authentic mele. Since there is
no easy alternate, it can do.
Previous Experience -- Very Good
Previous Experience is an exceedingly well done piece of work.
It allows players to build reasonable backgrounds for their
characters, and allows a reasonable amount of previous experience,
without getting gross. The only real problem with it, is that it
contains a large number of Glorontha-isms ("Healer, Civilized:
01-75 Your adventurer's parents worship the earth goddess....").
Quick Experience System -- Very Good
For its limited scope, this works very well.
Simple Skills -- Ok
The old skills are unchanged. The 05 success, 95 failure is still
kept. This still has its old Reality Flaw wrong with it. Get 20
people to try something, and almost always one of them can. It
isn't noticeable usually, unless you ask a giant to jump. (Because
of his size, the giant will fall over most of the time, but take
off to the moon on a 01-05).
Skill vs Skill -- Poor
It does not explicitly state if a skill which has been modified to
negative ADDS to the opponents chance of making the skill roll.
Also, the Skill vs Skill algorithm is not transitive -- i.e. it
matters greatly which skill is designated the "attacking" skill,
and which one the "defending" skill. Consider two characters
who are 90% in Tracking: one who is looking for a trail, and one
trying not to leave one. Both characters have a 85% total chance
of success, if theirs is the roll considered "passive". The "active"
wielder can only hope the "passive" user blows his roll. For 5
to 45 percent range, the percentages are reversed... the "active"
wielder gets the better deal, since the Skill vs Skill roll assumes
automatic success if your opponent blows his roll.
Skills Categories -- Poor
Improvements in this one: no more break points. Alas, it is
offset by the ill definition of most categories. We find that good
Boating and Throwing depend heavily upon being very small. A Miss
America contestant can speak foreign languages much better than
a plain girl. Great Trolls make wonderful pick pockets.
This could possibly be fixed by rules alterations. Negative skills
should be secondarily negative (1 for 2, not 1 for 1). Throw and Boat
should be Manipulation based skills, and Manipulation should not have
STR in the calculation at all. Sing & Speak Foreign Language
should have no APP modifier, and Sleight should have a Negative SIZ
modifier.
Experience Gain Rolls -- Very Poor
The old Reality Flaw "you learn only during a stressful situation"
is still around, as expected. ("Gosh, I learned to play the piano
twice as quickly as my friend, because I only play when the trolls
are attacking!"). This can be explained away in the interest of
getting players to go out in the field, and is perfectly fine.
Experience Gain Rolls suffer from being tied to skill modifier bonuses,
because all the silliness of the Skills Categories becomes magnified.
Not only do people who are very lucky (high POW) rather noticeable, but
they are made incapable of learning how to be less so. Manticores can
learn to Play Instruments much more quickly, because they are so strong.
Giants can learn how to Track much more easily, because they are very
healthy.
More to the point, we find out that high skill modifiers aid characters
in learning in an astounding way. A human and a giant, with an equal
INT and DEX, at 100% Sleight, will find that the giant learns his skill
10% more quickly than the human can; getting 100 checks, a character
over 100%, with a 20% skills modifier will go up an average of 70%,
while a character with a 5% skills bonus will go up 14%; under 100%,
the ratio is even more extreme, since skill level affects the chance
to even get the check in the first place.
This all is just begging for characteristic inflation. It encourages
the 17 DEX character to train his DEX up to 26, since this will mean
an automatic +9% chance to learn how to use half the skills in the book.
In addition, any character who has a +1 Skills Modifier can train all
those skills above 100%, but characters with a 0 bonus cannot. In short,
RQ 3 took the old RQ 2 Reality Flaw, and magnified it.
While RQ 2 encouraged INT inflation (rolling intelligent characters),
this was more palletable for several reasons. One, most of the enormous
fighting machines {Minotaur, Manticore, Great Troll} were rather dumb.
So, a player had to choose between being powerful to start out with, or
having a better future ahead. Two, strength and smallness have little
to do with learning, only intelligence does. (In fact, the DEFINITION
of intelligence, is the ability to learn. Look it up, if you don't
believe me.) Finally, since you want to encourage people to play
intelligently anyway, it did not hurt to encourage them to play
intelligent characters.
Fatigue -- Very Poor
The first point to ask about Fatigue, is why is it necessary?
Certainly people get tired, but Conan never seems to (even when
he is wearing plate). Many SCA fighters have told me that when
in top shape, they can fight for almost half an hour before getting
really pooped. Real fighting includes pacing, and looking for
openings, which allow characters to rest even when "attacking"
an opponent. Especially under the adrenaline of combat, people
"die" long before they are seriously hampered from fatigue.
RQ 2 seems to work just fine without it, so would have RQ 3. Alas,
things are not that easy. You cannot even do away with the whole
system, since the game designers offer no other, and Fatigue is
enmeshed so thoroughly with Encumbrance, that they are almost
inseparable. In short, it is one big Design Error, interspaced
with Reality Flaws. To wit:
"Cormac is still being pursued by enemy tribesmen. Though
he is a strong runner, he still hears their calls and jeers
behind him. He is now -3 fatigue points -- all the fatigue
points (including zero) on his fatigue tally have been
checked off, and he has lost three more besides. In this
melee round, his player must therefore subtract 3 from any
skill, resistance, or characteristic roll he makes for Cormac.
What the author failed to mention, is that Cormac, an unencumbered
healthy primative hunter, has been jogging for at most 4 minutes.
In another 3, according to the RQ 3 system of Fatigue, he will faint.
But this is not all! Assuming Cormac was the healthiest and the
strongest a human can be, and he was jogging entirely naked, he would
skill keel over from exhaustion in less than 15 minutes. Whatever
inhuman levels of Constitution a modern day jogger must have in RQ 3
is left up to the readers imagination.
The problem of Fatigue actually goes much deeper than this. It really
has to do with the designers attempt to simulate multiple types of
exhaustion with one simplified system. For instance, we find that
prolonged hiking or riding over several hours, reduces a characters
Fatigue (as it should), but this Fatigue loss is measured in the same
units that sprinting around the block is. Thus, to rest from a
entire days exertion, one need only to recover the Fatigue points
through a 1 minute rest. Doing so at the end of each hour of hiking,
insures that a character is never down more than 1 to 2 points of Fatigue.
The game designers make loss of sleep (sleeping in armor) cost Fatigue
points as well. They use a bad example, since sleeping in most armor
(without a helm on) is actually quite comfortable. Aside from that,
of the type of Fatigue being lost is again, obviously, the wrong one.
It leads to the humorous Reality Flaw of a character who is sleeping
in armor, asking to be woken up every hour or so, so that he can rest
to recover his lost Fatigue.
In fact, the only "_p_e_r_m_a_n_e_n_t" Fatigue loss springs from ENC;
this turns out to be exactly the wrong application of permanent Fatigue,
since it leads to a linear relationship between the weight that the
character is carrying, and the strenuousness of the exertion. For
example, a character can jog with a full pack, about 1/2 as long as he
can jog totally unencumbered. This makes characters able to run with
inhumanly large amounts of ENC for a relatively long time, but fall over
when totally unencumbered after a relatively short time (relative,
that is, to reality).
Because the Fatigue system all works off of one attribute in a very
simplistic fashion, it can only be tuned to be realistic on one setting.
This setting seems to be a human, with average STR and CON, unencumbered,
and who is very very out of shape. Nikkelos the Sorcerer looks
perfect under the Fatigue system, as does, incidentally, Steve Perrin
(or even myself). It does not work for the average adventurer. To
try to patch up the system for other races and sizes, a completely
separate Fatigue table is given, which occasionally leads to the correct
results. (The table seems to have been designed for horses).
I talked to Steve Perrin about this, and he mentioned in response that
Fatigue was in "melee rounds only", i.e. don't count fatigue unless
the referee is asking for statements of intent. The first problem with
this is that it is a obvious and stupid Reality Flaw; some people claim
they are already researching a spell to put others in "melee rounds" to
make them tire out. It may even be more simple than that: in the
example, Cormac hears "calls and jeers behind him", which forces
him into melee rounds -- so much for "...and names will never hurt me".
Secondly, only counting Fatigue in battle allows characters to perform
inhuman feats of endurance outside of it. ("Run for an hour carrying
my horse? Sure, no problem, just make sure I don't go into combat").
Swimming also uses Fatigue, tell me does the Chaosium really only mean
Swimming while in combat?
Another incidental Reality Flaw is that the designers went overboard
on reducing percentiles for being Fatigued. Athletes, we find, are
particularly vulnerable to disease because they are fatigued so often.
In addition, when tired, not only is your strength effectively reduced
by a large amount, but you also are less Lucky. A Storm Bull after
having slaughtered 100 Broos, finds the god unwilling to respond to
a tired worshiper (Divine Intervention -- POW x 1 characteristic
roll). If he does make the roll (by some miracle), then he has lost
a huge amount of additional permanent POW, because of the Fatigue loss.
Encumbrance -- Very Poor
Encumbrance is inexorably intertwined with Fatigue, but it has
other problems as well.
Since the ENC of armor increases as a multiple of Size, but Fatigue
increases as an average, we find that a large strong people (who
have high STR relative to CON) have fewer rounds to fight than
small weak people when wearing equivalent sets of armor.
This means that Pixies and Halflings can all wear Plate without
a worry about fatigue loss, but Trolls cannot.
Particularly large trolls are even in worse condition. A Size 21
two legged creature uses the size equivalency chart. This means
he has 28 Fatigue points to start out with, regardless of his
STR or CON. Dress the troll in Plate, give him small clothes, a
Troll Maul, and nothing else, he will start out at -16 Fatigue.
It is quite possible for an average well equipped large Dark Troll
to faint if he accidentally goes into melee rounds.
If the troll feels bad, he should talk to the newlywed husband.
The strong and healthy guy (13 STR/13 CON) tries to lift his
lithe (SIZ 9) wife through the doorway, when someone "called and
jeered" at him, and he went into melee rounds. Figuring out his
current Fatigue (since this is what you do when you start into
melee rounds), we find he has 26 total. A respectable number, until
you realize that his wife weighs (9 SIZ x 6 ENC/SIZ =) 54 ENC, which
makes him faint dead away. How embarrassing.
The Design Error lying behind all this is not all that difficult
to spot: Fatigue and Encumbrance are calculated in exactly the same
way: you compute the number of melee rounds you can exert yourself
in exactly the same say as you compute what you can carry. So
it is impossible in RQ 3 to have a character who can carry a great
deal, but tires quickly (high STR/low CON), and impossible to have a
character who cannot carry much, but can do so for a very long
time (low STR/high CON). No one, for instance, expects a high STR
Sumo wrestler to be able to jog twice as far as the normal man, but
this is what RQ 3 implies. Can a Halfling carry more ENC than a
human? Due to the Halfling's high Con, the RQ 3 system says yes.
This is reminiscent of the D&D concept of mixing high Dexterity
(ability to avoid a blow), and Armor Class (ability to absorb
damage); the RQ 3 Fatigue/ENC system takes two related, but entirely
separate world elements, and tries to mix them together. The resulting
system is so unnatural, it has to depend upon such artificialities
as "melee rounds", and being tuned to work correctly for one specific
archetype. This type is (not surprisingly) for average size armor
worn by out of shape humans.
Because it is a system which is unrealistic, fixing the Fatigue
or Encumbrance numbers so that characters could carry one another
in combat, as in the movie Uncommon Valor, helps not a bit. It
only would make the formula silly elsewhere (perhaps allowing people
to jog carrying their horses for half a minute). If you want an
effective ENC system in RQ 3, you have to design it yourself.
ENC also is supposed to subtract directly from both ability to cast
magic, and Dodge ability. I am not too concerned about the latter,
since Dodge is such an asinine idea anyway, that it doesn't make
any difference if ENC affects it or not. About the former, I can
only wonder what the designers were thinking about when they made
this rule up.... to add insult to injury, we now find that the
Size 21 troll in Plate now has a -55 percent chance to cast his
spells, while the STR 2 Halfling in Plate is discomfited by no more
than -15. A Giant can't cast spells, not because no one taught him,
but rather because his belt buckle weighs too much. (After all,
he only has a 125 STR to lift it). These Reality Flaws are really
humorous, until you realize you paid 38 dollars for them.
Training -- Ok
Some parts of Training have been improved, although I do find it
strange that "Experience" is more useful than having someone teach
you correct technique. Is this why the Chaosium felt the need to
invent "Martial Arts", to explain away the fact that people who are
taught ancient, well thought out combat methods, are better than
street fighters? Well, other than that, and the artificial 75%
limit (which was always there), I like this section. Particularly
good are the paragraphs explaining just where all that money goes
to, and the time involved in learning.
Incidentally, the 1d6-2 roll, is just like saying you get
2 plus an optional 1d6-4. From this perspective, only a fool would
take the roll. Strange how, in a later Cormac's saga, it shows
Cormac rolling average (20 & 21 total on 6 dice) and the text
calls this luck "uninspiring". It is his player's intelligence
that is uninspiring.
Research -- Poor
Having problems with all those skills at 0 percent? Have no fear!
Research is here! From the formulas given, we find that you take
no time at all to learn a skill from the base 0 percent. Throw
a man in a French library, and before you know it, he'll be writing
his first faltering words ("Parlez vous ...."). Everybody should
learn his first 1d6-2 Martial Arts easy.... just make like Bruce Lee.
Its not that Research is not a good idea, you just have to add
a few more ideas like experience bonuses for knowing what you're
looking for, previous experience in the field being researched,
and innate predilection toward the skill in question. The system
presented is much too simplistic, and assumes that all skills
become predictably more difficult to learn, after you easily got
the knack of them in the first place. The rules are better than
nothing, but not much.
Characteristic Increase -- Poor
Having the cost and time of characteristic training depending upon
an arbitrary game value is silly. Why should a Halfling doubling
his strength take half the time doing it that a Troll doing the
same thing does? The real cost associated with raising strength
should have to do with how much you have raised it already, or how
much is normal for your species, not based on arbitrary values.
Since we have already discussed the lack of species maximum for
characteristics, I will not rehash those Reality Flaws.
Characteristic Decrease -- Very Poor
RQ 3 promotes the idea that characteristics are not an abstraction,
indicating a wide range of personal aspects, such as DEX being
a combination of hand-eye coordination, musculature, and flexibility.
No. Characteristics are treated as some form of elixir, which every
character has, but some have more than others; which can, in turn,
be squeezed out of a person like blood from a turnip.
For example, Appearance (not at all in the eye of the beholder), has
a particular Magic Point value for each character, which a sufficiently
skilled sorcerer can Tap. Rock Hudson is a veritable storehouse
of magical power, (no doubt found somewhere in his classic jaw line),
while you or I have almost nothing. An athlete who dies, can be
resurrected twice as long after you or I, because he has so much
more STR in him than we do. A juggler who gets the Shakes, will
survive much longer than anybody else, because he has more DEX in
him to begin with.
While Runequest 2 had some of the same ideas, at least they did not
pursue them with the same fervor that RQ 3 has. The idea was holed
up in the back of the book, listed under optional "Disease" rules.
This is no longer the case, as Characteristic Drain is now the method
of aging, inaction, disease, death, and Tapping.
Strike Ranks -- Ok
There are two changes in this from RQ 2. The good one, is that it
is now possible to alter your statement of intent, without having
to waste 11 seconds to do so. The bad one, is that it now seems
that a character moving up on another, strikes last because the
moving character unconditionally looses strike ranks. The worst
case, is where a character moves up and cannot hit his foe, since
he hasn't enough strike ranks. His foe, who was waiting for him,
gets a free attack.
Also, any old numb skull with a high DEX gets the first strike even
against a seasoned fighter. (While Runequest says that an attack is
actually a combination of blows, almost none of the rules really
treat it as such.)
Aimed Blows -- Ok
I am not overwhelmed by this method, holdover though it is from
RQ 2. It does not simulate well what an aimed blow really is.
Basic Attack Percentages -- Poor
Someone at the Chaosium still has the idea that the better damage
a weapon does, the lower percentage it should start out with.
For example, a Naginata starts at 5%, while a Spear starts at 15%.
Now while I will not pass judgement on the basic idea of making
high-damage weapons more difficult to use (it is an issue of
reality vs play balance), I do find it somewhat silly that they
expect this technique to actually prevent players from just using
the highest damage weapons.
A lower starting percentage does not hinder a character's use
of a weapon at all, since lowered starting percentages can be
trained up easily. What is more needed is an innate difficulty
factor, which would be a subtraction from a weapon's Skill Bonus
(and experience bonus) because the weapon is innately more difficult
to use. An addition to the Skill Bonus for shield parrying would
also have been better than the high starting percentage. As
currently written, the starting weapon/shield percentages really
have no meaning.
Parry -- Good
The new rules for allowing hafted weapons to occasionally damage
during a parry are good. It would have been better if all weapons
only did damage on an impale, since such notching is not very common.
Later we find in the book, Parry can now be used against hand thrown
missile weapons. The rules and an example seems contradictory:
"Thrown weapons can be parried if the parrier is aware of the attack...",
and "A spear thrown from the darkness impales Churchak. The roll
is 16 points of damage, but he gets his own spear in the way for
a parry". (I am assuming in this example, that Churchak has not
researched up his Darksense.) Also, in real life, any missile weapon
used at long range can be parried, if seen.
Weapon Armor -- Ok
RQ 2 weapons needed armor badly. RQ 3 gave it to them, but in a
funky fashion. From the rules, we find that the reason that swords
don't break is not because they are made out of steel, its because
they are "interposed" between the attacker and his target. Does
this mean that if I "interpose" a trollkin (or a candle), in front
of a descending troll maul, that the interposed object only takes 1
point of damage? Not likely. Chalk up another Reality Flaw.
Parrying an opponents attack to break his weapon becomes a credible
option, since a parry does full weapon damage when the attacker
misses (unlike attacks). I would prefer half damage for interposed
objects, and let weapon armor take care of it. Also, it is never
explicitly stated what happens to a weapon which reaches 0 armor
points. I assume that it becomes effectively unusable, but does
it snap? Can it be rebent into shape?
Dodge -- Very Poor
The first major problem with this rule, has nothing to do with Dodge.
It has to do with what it replaces: Defense. Defense is simply
the idea that fast, small, lucky, intelligent, or experienced
creatures are generally harder to hit than slow, large, unlucky,
dumb and/or inexperienced ones. Talking to members of SCA, I have
found this to be a generally approved of idea -- it's how combat
really works.
Now the RQ 2 implementation of Defense had a few holes in it -- which
could be lived with. The first was that two creatures of equal size,
had a hard time hitting each other in hand to hand combat if they
were small, and an easier chance if they were large. (RQ 3's "Attack
Modifiers" table maintains this flaw.) The second problem with Defense
was the way that you got experience in it... unless you had a positive
Defense bonus, you could not get any more, and the more Defense you
had, the better you got at it.
So change the special experience system for Defense, right?
Wrong. What the brilliant folks over at the Chaosium decided to
do was get rid of the idea of Defense entirely, and substitute in
"Dodge" instead.
A character can now Attack, Parry, or Dodge in a melee round, choosing
two of the above actions. Thus, to instinctively avoid a blow, I
have to either forego my attack, or put my shield behind my back.
If I choose to attack and parry, it matters not at all if I am Size
4 or Size 19, if my DEX is 3 or 58, if I am the most experienced
fighter or if I a raw amateur -- my opponent has the same chance of
hitting me.
If you try to Dodge and Attack, the Reality Flaw becomes more hilarious.
Lord Alfred Winddragon had us simulate two fighters Dodging and
attacking with Great Swords -- the resultant combat looked like a
pogo-stick competition. Swords and shields were even more silly,
since the attacker had to place his shield behind his back, so as
not to accidentally parry a blow.
The flaws become worse again, when you consider non-human types.
How do you hit a with a composite bow Pixie at 120 yards? Simple,
just catch it "attacking" and "parrying" another Pixie while fighting
over a berry (or catch it slinging a missile). What do they mean "He's
so bad, he can't hit the side of a barn?" They mean he's not an
expert -- since even a Size 80 side-of-barn adds only a total of
+30% to your chance to hit -- lacking rules for positive defense, a
character who has missed his dodge is as easy to hit as a stationary
object.
Weapon Knockback -- Ok
Well at least there are rules for doing knockback from a blow,
even if they are somewhat silly. What does a pointy or sharp
weapon have to do with knockback? Does a Bladesharp 4 really
add almost a meter to knockback? Does a small mount charging
down on a braced pike really get pushed back an additional 2
meters because of his own damage bonus?
Intentional Knockback -- Poor
Well now we know what the most effective form of attack is in
Runequest 3. Intentional Knockback. All you have to do is
Dodge and Parry and then Intentionally Knockback your opponent
onto the ground. Then you get +20% chance to hit him, and he
gets -20% chance to hit you. Simple, no?
Stunning and Subduing -- Poor
It appears that to aim a blow at the head, all you have to do
is attack to Stun or Subdue. Then, regardless of the actual
damage of the blow, you have a reasonable chance to knock your
opponent out. Trollkin will love this attack, since it gives
each one a 20% chance to knock out a typical great troll, with
even 1 hit point penetrating.
It also does not say if the damage done by a subduing blow is
actually applied as hit points damage to it. One presumes not.
Special Hit Locations -- Good
These are re-writings of the RQ 2 Special Hit location system.
They are good, but are not extensive enough. Some downward modifier
should have also been included for swinging at extremely large
creatures (such as giants).
Mounted Weapons Limitations -- Very Good
A reasonable set of special rules. Set Spear vs Charge should
be based on velocity and size, not on strength of the mount. This
is a very small detail though.
Unfavorable Environments -- Good
1] Darkness has a reality flaw, since pitch blackness not only
subtracts from an attackers chance to hit, but it also subtracts
from the defenders innate Defense ability. The SCA has tried out
fighting blind, and people are hit quite a bit more often than
RQ 3 rules suggest.
2] Underwater is reasonable set of rules, if you ignore the Fatigue
loss except for land based creatures (or ignore the Fatigue entirely).
3] High ground is very good.
4] Narrow passageways should include any thrusting weapon, not just
spear and pike. Otherwise good. The Fatigue is silly.
5] The rules for Covered Targets have not improved since RQ 2. You
still have a 50/50 chance of missing a giant who is covered by a
hillside, even though the exposed portion of his size is greater than
the size of a man. There is still also no way to aim for hit locations
with missile weapons, which is bad.
Criticals -- Good
A critical now cannot do less damage than a special hit. This is
very good. However every critical almost always does exactly the
same damage. This is not so good.
Specials -- Ok
"Impales" look fine from a game balance point of view, though the
extra damage done is still not all that realistic. I do find
complaint with the effect of a special from a smashing or slashing
weapon though.
From the way the rules are written, a character who does at least
5 points of damage to any foe on a Special, knocks the target back
at least one meter. This means that a duck with a club can knock
over a giant, assuming the latter fails a DEX x 5 roll.
Fumble -- Good
Same old RQ 2 fumble table.
Close Combat -- Ok
It is always good to have a game at least approximate what goes on
in close combat, even if it does not quite match up to reality.
The closing rules are fine, but what happens when you pull up to
too short a range is not. In reality, no one can attack at full
damage when choked up too close -- whether you forego your parry
or not. Also parry, as the game so correctly points out, is an
instinctive response -- foregoing parry at all is almost a
contradiction in terms.
Disarm -- Poor
Disarming an opponent remains too easy in RQ 3. If I attack an
opponents weapon, he has no chance to effectively block my attack
against breaking the weapon. Thus, regardless of the skill of
my opponent, I can disarm him with a few blows.
Multiple Targets -- Very Good
There are now reasonable rules for all of these things. The example
of Bigclub has a strange +1d3 at the end, which is not explained
anywhere.
Firing Into A Mele -- Very Poor
How to make yourself invulnerable to missile weapons attacks: 1] Get
a bunch of dogs. 2] Involve yourself and them in "mele" (pay the END
cost for now). 3] Watch perfectly good missile wielders practically
fumble their chance to hit a particular target. With 9 dogs, the
attack percentage is 1/10 normal, etc. Sure, you're going to loose
dogs, but so what?
Engines -- Good
Since adventurers rarely fight in long sieges (not heroic or profitable
enough), I do not really see the need for these rules.
SKILLS -- Good
In general, the skills were explained as to what they were. Though
there were some ambiguities left, it is not enough to make an issue
out of. Also, some skills are too general, and really cover
separate areas of expertise; these should have been subdivided.
THE WORLD
Falling -- Good
Asphyxiation -- Good
Fire and Heat -- Very Good
My my how this reminds us of the Hero Sys treatment of the
same subject....
Poison -- Very Good
I am particularly impressed by the fact that the words "usually" and
"Unless otherwise specified by the gamemaster" are included in this
description.
Disease -- Poor
The same tired old Glorontha-ism of Disease is hanging around RQ 3.
In it, we find that a disease does nothing more (or less) than
permanently destroying characteristics. No Fatigue loss (even in
RQ 3's botched up system), no skill subtractions, no temporary
characteristic loss. Just total destruction.
At least now, with the lack of species maximum, you can regain your
characteristics back. We find that one way to save your life, if
you are afflicted by mild Wasting Disease, is to lift weights (all
modern hospitals should have them). This leads back to my comments
about RQ 3 Characteristic Decrease in general.
Also, notice the Glorontha-isms in the passage: "Broos", "The disease
Goddess", "disease spirits".
Aging and Inaction -- Very Poor
"See that cleft chin? Notice how good he looks? That is the sign
of a character who will never 'ugly away'. But over there.... see
how he picks his nose, and has warts? He is going to die before he
reaches 50. How about the Pixie? She's always been weak (Pixie's
usually are), which means that she will life a short life. Look at
that guy over there.... the one who looks like Woody Allen, he's
got such a low DEX you can just about kiss him good bye. But the
Halfling (who trained up his STR to 24) is going to live to be 500."
The only characteristic which has any bearing on health is (or should
be) Constitution. This should be obvious from the above example.
Though it is true that STR, DEX, and APP can be lowered beyond 40,
it has no bearing on the health of the character. Even so, CON
reduction is an abstraction, since reasonably healthy people quite
often just keel over and die.
In addition, reading the rules as they stand, it appears that anybody
can live forever. Alls you got to do is retrain the characteristic
up, once it has been reduced. Yes, I'm sure that APP training is
hard to come by, but by RQ 3 it all could be done.
(Doctor: "Sponge" Nurse: "Sponge" Doctor: "Pad" Nurse: "Pad"
Doctor: "Eye Liner" Nurse: "Eye Liner" Doctor: "Lipstick"....)
Weather -- Very Poor
By the wind rules, we find that a hawk cannot fly. Its STR is not
enough to keep it from being bowled over by a STR 2 (calm air
movement) wind. Children are knocked over by breeze which blows
out a candle, and a normal woman will be knocked down occasionally
by light wind. A moderate wind will most certainly knock down
any average man, and most above average ones as well. Only at
the very upper end of the chart does Wind effects table begin to
look reasonable.
(End of Chapter 1)