Any change to the Experience system?

[waiwode]

But, say you're that 95% Rune Lord -- would you rather fight another Rune Lord, or a band of ten 10% Trollkin?

I'm still trying to make sense of a system I haven't even seen yet!

Luckily, HyrumOWC, my best friend de jour, has offered us a little clarification.

It appears that what MRQ does is remove the whiff factor present in many percentile games, and if this is so, then once again I am astounded.

No longer will my Fat Merchant (Walking stick Attack/Parry 35) and the GM's starving robber (Rusty knife Attack/Parry 30) dance about in the dark alley I unwisely took a short-cut through, rolling misses four or five rounds in a row. Whiff!

Now, if the robber rolls a 12%, my Parry had better be higher than that (and a success). However, when the robber rolls a 76% all I have to do is roll a 75% or less to get out of the way.

But if I roll 80% to Parry? As I understand the system now, it means he stabs me, and I would have been wiser to just give him my coin purse and golden rings when he asked.

If I get this, then here is another change to RQ that I really like.

If I am mistaken? Isn't going to be the first time!

Doug.

 

[atgxtg]

Oh, the PENDRAGON method. We could just use Pendragon Pass for that.
:roll:

If that's the case, then MRQ does not play like RQ at all! :evil:

Genuine Question -> What's wrong with this method?

I'd guess it makes high skill very valuable , perhaps even untouchable - but this makes Conan types very feasible with this system.

It's not RQ.

Basically its d20. You could use roll % and add skill, high roll wins and get the same results.

 

[atgxtg]

But, say you're that 95% Rune Lord -- would you rather fight another Rune Lord, or a band of ten 10% Trollkin?

I'm still trying to make sense of a system I haven't even seen yet!

Luckily, HyrumOWC, my best friend de jour, has offered us a little clarification.

It appears that what MRQ does is remove the whiff factor present in many percentile games, and if this is so, then once again I am astounded.

No longer will my Fat Merchant (Walking stick Attack/Parry 35) and the GM's starving robber (Rusty knife Attack/Parry 30) dance about in the dark alley I unwisely took a short-cut through, rolling misses four or five rounds in a row. Whiff!

Now, if the robber rolls a 12%, my Parry had better be higher than that (and a success). However, when the robber rolls a 76% all I have to do is roll a 75% or less to get out of the way.

But if I roll 80% to Parry? As I understand the system now, it means he stabs me, and I would have been wiser to just give him my coin purse and golden rings when he asked.

If I get this, then here is another change to RQ that I really like.

If I am mistaken? Isn't going to be the first time!

Doug.

I don't. It means that defending yourself is lieky to make things worse. How do they work it if someone is shooting at you and you cannot dodge for somee reason?

1)Automatic hit? In that case everyone becomes an expert marksman.

2) Unopposed Check? In that case most characters are better off not dodging, since it will increase your chances of getting hit.

 

[waiwode]

If that's the case, then MRQ does not play like RQ at all! :evil:

No. I think it's going to play better. I think we're beginning to defeat two of the drawbacks of roll-under percentile systems.

1) No more Whiff!, where characters with low percentile skills just swing wildly and never connect. Boring.

2) No more I succeed in attack/I succeed in parry so you fail Whiffs from characters with high percentiles. Without big weapons, a character with a kite shield (10/18) and a high block could fend off an attacker forever, until someone critical'd. When the same is true of the opponent you have multiple round combats where nothing happens. Boring.

However, the high percentile character in example 2 still has a very palpable advantage over the low percentile character from example 1 in both defense and offense.

I'm more impressed with this the more I think about it, and if this isn't the system as printed, well I think we've discovered yet another of Waiwode's House Rules!

Doug.

 

[waiwode]

I don't. It means that defending yourself is lieky to make things worse. How do they work it if someone is shooting at you and you cannot dodge for somee reason?

1)Automatic hit? In that case everyone becomes an expert marksman.

2) Unopposed Check? In that case most characters are better off not dodging, since it will increase your chances of getting hit.

Perhaps missile combat requires a success to hit, based on the fact that you must actually come near the target. They aren't going to call you Robin Hood if you miss the bullseye!

Clearly I can't provide a more definitive answer without seeing the rules.

Doug.

 

[atgxtg]

Perhaps missile combat requires a success to hit, based on the fact that you must actually come near the target. They aren't going to call you Robin Hood if you miss the bullseye!

Clearly I can't provide a more definitive answer without seeing the rules.

Doug.

Yeah, I know. It's not your fault.

I just wished d20 writers didn't try to "improve" non-d20 systems. Invariably thier idea of "improvment" means "more like D&D".

 

[Lord Twig]

I am a little confused. So if I have a 20% dodge and my opponent has a 20% attack, I am better off not dodging at all!

He will miss 80% of the time anyway. If I attempt to dodge I am giving him a 50% chance of hitting me instead of just a 20% chance. With equal skills we will both have an equal chance of rolling worse than our opponent.

As for experience rolls, how does the GM determine how many advancement rolls to hand out? In RQI-III if you made the roll, you made an experience increase roll. Now we will have to add an arbitrary system for the GM to hand out rolls "as he deems worthy". Unless there is more that we are missing.

Personally I think there is more to it than what has been said. And neither is a deal-breaker for me. But as it has been stated, both rules seem incomplete.

 

[Urox]

That's not the way it works.

Essentially, MRQ is what's known as a "blackjack" system. In an opposed check, whoever rolls highest, without going over their skill, wins.

The only time whoever rolls lowest comes in is when both characters fail.

This still sounds weird. Why would you roll a Dodge if you're opponent missed?

Say a Rubble Runner tries to bite (25% attack) a novice adventurer (25% dodge) -- are you saying the below happens:

under the old rules, you would have extended combat with lots of whiffs, but this was good for skilling up.

Now it sounds like... some hasty math

25% hits, less 25% dodge = 19% hit
+
75% misses, less 25% dodge /2 (chance of rolling lower) = 28%

So, it sounds like that 25% vs 25% is really going to hit ~47% of the time?!?

 

[atgxtg]

I am a little confused. So if I have a 20% dodge and my opponent has a 20% attack, I am better off not dodging at all!

It depends of if he gets an autohit if you do not defend, or if the quality of hit hit varries based upon your roll.

I cewrtainly hope there is more to it that this.

 

[waiwode]

Yeah, I know. It's not your fault.

I just wished d20 writers didn't try to "improve" non-d20 systems. Invariably thier idea of "improvment" means "more like D&D".

Honestly? I see that as a bit of a miss.

Although the system does have a superficial resemblance to Pendragon's d20 roll-off, it doesn't really model well with d20. In d20 there's a fixed TN (or DC, or whatever) you roll against.

Pendragon: match attack versus attack, highest successful roll wins, and you get to use your shield only if your roll was a success. Only one attack between combatants (including multiple combatants).

MRQ (specualtion): match your haggle versus his haggle. If only one of you succeeds, you win. If both succeed, highest roll wins. If both fail, closest to succeeding wins. Thus there isn't a reason to roll round after round until we get a success. Success will be attained with one roll.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Oh, the PENDRAGON method. We could just use Pendragon Pass for that.
:roll:

If that's the case, then MRQ does not play like RQ at all! :evil:

Genuine Question -> What's wrong with this method?

I'd guess it makes high skill very valuable , perhaps even untouchable - but this makes Conan types very feasible with this system.

It's not RQ.

Basically its d20. You could use roll % and add skill, high roll wins and get the same results.

Depends on how much of an RQ purist you are, I suppose. I think - from what I read here - that it's genuinely felt by a lot of people that while the base mechanic in RQ is good, there are some flaws that need to be sorted. If this is one way of sorting one flaw (that doesn't require fiddly calculations that can slow things down), the I for one welcome it.

Plus, I think it unbalances the discussion to home in specifically on how a conflict resolution mechanic is handled. That's only one part of RQ, and there's a hell of a lot more that makes RQ what it is. You could very feasibly make the same point about any one of the other changes to the system. For my part, while I loved the RQ2 and RQ3 mechanics, it was despite the flaws rather than because of them. The idea of taking what is admittedly a very very good mechanic and using it to augment RQ certainly floats my boat.

To my mind, what is RQ is simple, clean, logical and consistent mechanics, and this sure as hell is a good example of one. So to me, this is RQ.

 

[Lord Twig]

Yeah, I know. It's not your fault.

I just wished d20 writers didn't try to "improve" non-d20 systems. Invariably thier idea of "improvment" means "more like D&D".

Honestly? I see that as a bit of a miss.

Although the system does have a superficial resemblance to Pendragon's d20 roll-off, it doesn't really model well with d20. In d20 there's a fixed TN (or DC, or whatever) you roll against.

Pendragon: match attack versus attack, highest successful roll wins, and you get to use your shield only if your roll was a success. Only one attack between combatants (including multiple combatants).

MRQ (specualtion): match your haggle versus his haggle. If only one of you succeeds, you win. If both succeed, highest roll wins. If both fail, closest to succeeding wins. Thus there isn't a reason to roll round after round until we get a success. Success will be attained with one roll.

You see, that actually bothers me. If you both fail, you both failed! Live with it! Or not. If two people suck that bad, neither deserves to succeed. :evil:

 

[atgxtg]

Yeah, I know. It's not your fault.

I just wished d20 writers didn't try to "improve" non-d20 systems. Invariably thier idea of "improvment" means "more like D&D".

Honestly? I see that as a bit of a miss.

Although the system does have a superficial resemblance to Pendragon's d20 roll-off, it doesn't really model well with d20. In d20 there's a fixed TN (or DC, or whatever) you roll against.

Look more closely at d20. There is an option in the DMG and elsewhere about changing to an "active" defense option. In that option instead of opossing a fixed TN or AC, you roll against a variable TN determined by taking the fixed TN (or AC) subtracting 10, and adding the remainder to a d20 roll.

For example, a man in chainmail with a 12 DEX (AC16) would roll d20+6 in oppostion to the attacker.

THis is mathemetically the same ad D100+skill, which is mathmatically the same as what we have seen so far about MRQ.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Yeah, I know. It's not your fault.

I just wished d20 writers didn't try to "improve" non-d20 systems. Invariably thier idea of "improvment" means "more like D&D".

Honestly? I see that as a bit of a miss.

Although the system does have a superficial resemblance to Pendragon's d20 roll-off, it doesn't really model well with d20. In d20 there's a fixed TN (or DC, or whatever) you roll against.

Pendragon: match attack versus attack, highest successful roll wins, and you get to use your shield only if your roll was a success. Only one attack between combatants (including multiple combatants).

MRQ (specualtion): match your haggle versus his haggle. If only one of you succeeds, you win. If both succeed, highest roll wins. If both fail, closest to succeeding wins. Thus there isn't a reason to roll round after round until we get a success. Success will be attained with one roll.

You see, that actually bothers me. If you both fail, you both failed! Live with it! Or not. If two people suck that bad, neither deserves to succeed. :evil:

But we're talking about conflict resolution, so it's not a matter of who succeeds or fails, but rather who comes out on top. You could easily fail your Hide roll, but if the person searching for you looks in completely the wrong place they'll still never find you. I can't see it being applicable to general combat though, but it would certainly fit well with grappling.

 

[Mikko Leho]

It's not RQ.

Basically its d20. You could use roll % and add skill, high roll wins and get the same results.

It is not, but even if it was I would welcome it. The basic mechanism of rolling D20 and adding any modifiers the character might have is better than rolling D100 under one's skill. This gives a more fluid way to compare different kinds of successes with the higher the better. Don't get me wrong, I think D&D suck in many ways but the basic D20 is rock solid. Seems like MRQ gives similar results and I am eagerly waiting for hearing more about it.

 

[atgxtg]

It's not RQ.

Basically its d20. You could use roll % and add skill, high roll wins and get the same results.

It is not, but even if it was I would welcome it. The basic mechanism of rolling D20 and adding any modifiers the character might have is better than rolling D100 under one's skill. This gives a more fluid way to compare different kinds of successes with the higher the better. Don't get me wrong, I think D&D suck in many ways but the basic D20 is rock solid. Seems like MRQ gives similar results and I am eagerly waiting for hearing more about it.

Well then why not just dive up all the RQ skills by 5 and run it like a skill based d20 game. Thow out levels and classes and change to to a skill based system. Or use Pendragon Pass? Or even go with HeroQuest?

All have workable game mechanics. But they are not RQ.

 

[waiwode]

You see, that actually bothers me. If you both fail, you both failed! Live with it! Or not. If two people suck that bad, neither deserves to succeed. :evil:

"Both fail" is boring. Especially in Call of Cthulhu/Warhammer/RuneQuest when all kinds of skills start really low, andyou're going to routinely fail all the time.

There are cases when failure is absolute. Did you start the campfire? Did you jump across Bottomless Chasm? Did you remember that in order to Summon Cthulhu the Stars Must be Right? Whatever. At any rate, there are times when the opposition isn't rolling, and you will either succeed or fail based only on your own merits (and a skill roll).

When two people are arm-wrestling, sooner or later one guy wins. When two people are dickering over the price of this fine Jrestoli carpet, one guy is going to get their way.

I can't really expand on this without the actual rules, all I can say is that if MRQ has done away with Whiff then I'm a happier man for it.

Doug.

 

[Lord Twig]

You see, that actually bothers me. If you both fail, you both failed! Live with it! Or not. If two people suck that bad, neither deserves to succeed. :evil:

"Both fail" is boring.

I disagree, but that is just preference.

Especially in Call of Cthulhu/Warhammer/RuneQuest when all kinds of skills start really low, andyou're going to routinely fail all the time.

There are cases when failure is absolute. Did you start the campfire? Did you jump across Bottomless Chasm? Did you remember that in order to Summon Cthulhu the Stars Must be Right? Whatever. At any rate, there are times when the opposition isn't rolling, and you will either succeed or fail based only on your own merits (and a skill roll).

When two people are arm-wrestling, sooner or later one guy wins. When two people are dickering over the price of this fine Jrestoli carpet, one guy is going to get their way.

Or both could fail to move their hands either way. Or change the price either way.

I can't really expand on this without the actual rules, all I can say is that if MRQ has done away with Whiff then I'm a happier man for it.

Doug.

Again, matter of opinion. We will just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[Urox]

All have workable game mechanics. But they are not RQ.

And it's looking less and less that MQ is RQ (as much as it is d100 or even HQ).

I personally find that having roll opposed rolls and comparing results a somewhat clunky mechanism.

Setting the Wayback Machine to 1980, we find the key features of RQ to be:
a. More realistic combat than AD&D (though not a true simulation)
b. Skill based characters (not level based)
c. Glorantha, and all the nifty magic that it comes with

It's still quite possible that MQ will fill the above requirements.

 

[Enpeze]

hm. I am not sure what to say.

Does this mean that I as GM have to memorize every combat skill of the PCs? Or do they have to say their rolled number loud and openly every time they roll the combat dice?