[Rq-rules] RE: still sick of Glorantha?

[Frank Filz]

Peter Maranci wrote:
>> On 6/2/06, Leon Kirshtein <leonbk at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am even currently running a D&D game set in
>>> Glorantha. It started recently and so far no real
>>> problems, although I need to adjust my style of GM a
>>> bit. The players are just not as interested in check
>>> grabing ;)
>>
>>
>> "Check grabbing"? That's interesting. I've been playing D&D 3.5 for
>> the last couple of years - there's literally no one available to
>> play RQ with - and more and more, I've come to appreciate the
>> skill-improvement mechanism of RQ.
>>
>> It simply SUCKS to have to play for months on end before getting a
>> chance to improve or change your character! The pace of change is so
>> dreadfully slow that it's painful. Not to mention the pure
>> awkwardness of levels in D&D; some levels are extremely beneficial,
>> while others are virtually useless. And don't even get me started
>> about Feat and characteristic improvement! What's the sense of
>> having an improvement that you have to wait for a YEAR of playing
>> time to achieve?

Hmm, how are you playing 3.5? My experience with 3.5, following the XP 
rules, was level ups every 2 sessions because of the challenges I was giving 
the party (and the length of play sessions). The game is built around 
approximately 4 4 hour sessions to gain a level.

That said, I agree, one of the nice things about RQ is the incremental skill 
increase, but in a way that prevents the single trick pony problem that can 
plague Hero and GURPS, and on the flip side, also moderating the problem of 
the jack of all trades, master of none, useless for anything problem.

I also have always appreciated RQ for creating a sustainable treasure 
economy that doesn't overload the characters with magic items (though in 
long running campaigns, PCs have had decent collections of crystals and 
matrices).

>> It does seem that the RQ system is often unfairly maligned for
>> "problems" that are due to bad GMing and bad players, though. The
>> "weapons caddy" charge is often brought up. But the fact is that
>> every version of the RQ rules that I've ever read makes it quite
>> clear that experience checks should not be abused, and that the GM
>> has the authority to rein in players who DO abuse them. So
>> criticising the system on that basis is hardly justified.

One of my end solutions to this "problem," which I've also never actually 
really seen, is to limit the number of experience rolls each PC can make. 
Sure, you've got checks in all your weapons, and 10 other skills, but you 
only get 8 improvement rolls. The other solution is to make it cost to 
switch weapons.

On the flip side, I do have a serious problem with rules that require the 
players NOT respond to the XP system with mechanically non-optimal behavior. 
If certain "by the rules" play is not desireable, the rules are broken, or 
at least the players (including the GM) have not properly established a 
shared standard of play [or social contract - to borrow a term from the 
Forge http://www.indie-rpgs.com - all terms in brackets come from language 
used there].

I've recently been reading some of my old Wild Hunt zines, and saw some of 
the early responses to this issue. I think it doesn't come up with players 
who are playing RQ for the experience of an interesting world 
[simulationism]. If players are playing for game prowess [gamism], then RQ 
has some flaws.

In college, I ended up bailing on RQ because the players there were hard 
core gamists. They had a really nice system that supported that style of 
play quite well (and it actually owes a lot to RQ).

Frank