Any change to the Experience system?

[Mikko Leho]

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

The basic mechanic is still the same, only the way how results are interpreted if both competitors succeed or fail. It is not like Mongoose did throw out some parts of the rules and replaced them with something else.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Well if both fail a Haggle, what does one do? Lowest magnitude of failure is the way to go, but that doesn't necessarily equate to success.

And I just might be getting the sneaking suspicion that this is mathematically the same mechanic as the Resistance Table (which is also mathematically the same mechanic as d20, y'know...) but expressed in percentile skill terms............

 

[mthomason]

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.

From the copy in front of me at the moment, bearing in mind I never played the original...

a) Can't say until I try it.
b) Yes, certainly.
c) Glorantha if you buy the supplement (or have enough source material you can convert yourself) although theres a few references to it in the core book, nifty magic aplenty (Rune Magic in the core book, others such as Divine Magic, Shamanic Magic, Sorcery, Dragon Magic, and Demonology to follow in supplements.

 

[waiwode]

Look more closely at d20.

I am aware of the option. In fact A Game of Thrones D20, where armour absorbs damage and doesn't add to the defense rolls is closer yet.

But it still isn't the quite the same, even if you were to divide RQ skills by 5.

You've never been frustrated when your 40% attack character finally hits his opponent, and the opponent succeeds in his 50% shield parry? If you're lucky you notch his shield.

Absolutley maddening. Especially when you both do it to each other. For seven or eight rounds once you factor in all the plain old misses.

Here we've got a rules set that does away with the Whiff! of low percentile combat. Roll a 53% attack? You still are probably not going to hit anything, not even his shield, once the defender rolls. But if he rolls a 54%?

Once you face a seasoned warrior (75%'s across the board) you are still pooched. You may skip in with a roll of 22% to his 80% ... but you aren't going to do it often. And every time he swings at you? You better hope he's armed with a feather duster.

I have to accept that you don't like the way the new rules are shaping up. I really think they are "the shizzle mo' bizzle", to use the vernacular of our time.

Doug.

 

[Mikko Leho]

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?

I would imagine it goes like this:

GM and player rolls dice.

GM: Did you succeed?

Player: Yes, I rolled 44.

GM checks if NPC succeeded with her roll and if succesful compares it to 44. If NPC fails no numeric comparison is needed.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Look, one of the biggest problems with % systems is how to compare rolls. How does my Sneak of 85% compare to your Perception of 15%? Going for the lowest roll does a great disservice to the person with the Sneak of 85%. The ONLY way to solve this problem is with the Blackjack mechanic, unless you want to ditch percentiles all together and go with a TN based system ala d20. (And yes, in d20 you're considered to be "taking 10" when you calculate your AC. The DMG gives the option of rolling, but it adds extra steps that d20 combat REALLY doesn't need. You're still rolling against a TN though, it just happens to be fluid from round to round.)

d20 skills are: d20 + skill +stat vs. DC (or TN for everyone else).

MRQ skills are: d100, roll under skill.

I REALLY, REALLY like the new system. I like the fact that non-combat OPPOSSED skill actions can be delt with in ONE roll, rather than rolling round after round.

It's fast, it's easy, and it puts the dice in the background so the story can move forward. Just what I want in the system I'm using.

Hyrum.

 

[Lord Twig]

So in effect, we have gone from:

“I hit.”

“Well, I parried. Roll damage.”

To:

“I hit.”

“Well, I parried. How well did you hit?”

“I rolled 44.”

“I rolled 46. Roll damage.”

Or from:

“I missed.”

“I didn’t fumble. Next!”

To:

“I missed.”

“Me too. How much did you miss by?”

“I rolled 67.”

“I rolled 65. Okay, you really missed. Next!”

In both cases you have doubled the time it takes.

 

[HyrumOWC]

One of the biggest pet peeves I had with RQ was the famous:

"I hit."

"I parry."

"I hit."

"I parry."

"I crit."

"I'm dead."

MRQ addresses this, without sacrificing what makes RQ, RQ. It still feels like RQ and it plays smoother and faster than older editions. I couldn't ask for more.

Hyrum.

 

[Lord Twig]

Look, one of the biggest problems with % systems is how to compare rolls. How does my Sneak of 85% compare to your Perception of 15%? Going for the lowest roll does a great disservice to the person with the Sneak of 85%. The ONLY way to solve this problem is with the Blackjack mechanic, unless you want to ditch percentiles all together and go with a TN based system ala d20. (And yes, in d20 you're considered to be "taking 10" when you calculate your AC. The DMG gives the option of rolling, but it adds extra steps that d20 combat REALLY doesn't need. You're still rolling against a TN though, it just happens to be fluid from round to round.)

It was never lowest roll wins. Skill vs. skill was already fairly strait forward. I roll my Sneak. If I succeed I substract my skill from my opponent's Listen. If I did not succeed, they got their full skill to hear me. Simple.

 

[Enpeze]

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?

I would imagine it goes like this:

GM and player rolls dice.

GM: Did you succeed?

Player: Yes, I rolled 44.

GM checks if NPC succeeded with her roll and if succesful compares it to 44. If NPC fails no numeric comparison is needed.

Well if this is true then this system change is a problematic one for me.
Our group isnt used to tell loud any dice numbers during action except in very rare cases. Instead we like to interprete the outcome of our action rolls with own descriptive words.

I am not sure if I like to play this new thing. But I will of course take a look at it.

 

[Mikko Leho]

I like the fact that non-combat OPPOSSED skill actions can be delt with in ONE roll, rather than rolling round after round.

Amen to that. Our last WFRP campaign came to a sudden stop when our characters had their first big battle against a band of goblins. It took about five hours to solve a combat, that took about 5-10 minutes of real time. With low skill scores it played like following:

Miss - Miss - Miss - Miss - Miss - Miss - Hit, I finally scored a hit against that goblin! - The goblin blocks your hit with his shield - Miss - Miss - Miss - Miss - Miss - Miss

Granted that RQ was never this bad for some reason, but it was enough for our GM and we switched to D&D quite quickly.

 

[HyrumOWC]

So in effect, we have gone from:

“I hit.”

“Well, I parried. Roll damage.”

To:

“I hit.”

“Well, I parried. How well did you hit?”

“I rolled 44.”

“I rolled 46. Roll damage.”

Or from:

“I missed.”

“I didn’t fumble. Next!”

To:

“I missed.”

“Me too. How much did you miss by?”

“I rolled 67.”

“I rolled 65. Okay, you really missed. Next!”

In both cases you have doubled the time it takes.

Combat works a bit differently.

I hope I'm not stepping on any toes here (looks over at the Mongoose guys...) but since the book is in the hands of the public luckily enough to get to the Open House I'll post a bit from Combat to help ease some fears.

Combat works like this, in the case of the Parry:

A parry opposes the attacker’s Weapon skill to the target’s Weapon skill (if parrying with a weapon) or Shield Skill (if parrying with a shield), in a roll similar to an opposed skill test. The attacking and defending players each roll D100 and compare their results on the Parry table: (which I can't reproduce on the forums, so I'll approximate it.)

If the attacker Fails, and the defender Succeeds, attack succeeds but 2xAP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage.

If the attacker Fails, and the defender Crits, attack fails; defender may Riposte.

If the attacker Succeeds, and the defender Fails, normal damage.

If the attacker Succeeds, and the defender Succeeds, attack succeeds but AP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage.

If the attacker Succeeds, and the defender Crits, attack succeeds but 2xAP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage; defender may Riposte.

If the attacker Crits, and the defender fails, attack succeeds and becomes critical hit.

If the attacker Crits, and the defender Suceeds, attack succeeds but ½ AP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage.

If the attacker Crits, and the defender Crits, attack succeeds but AP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage.

Riposte: a Riposte is a free attack against the attacker.

Hope that helps. (Although it'll probably cause 20 people to not buy the book, 20 people to buy it, and 10 extra pages of posts. )

Hyrum.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Another advantage is that it makes the system scale better. If you adjust yourself to think of 40% as a reasonable score, and 60% as a damn good one, then with the addition of slowed down experience gains you've got something that scales well from "raw beginner" to "absolutely heroic".

 

[Mikko Leho]

So in effect, we have gone from:
“I hit.”
“Well, I parried. Roll damage.”
To:
“I hit.”
“Well, I parried. How well did you hit?”
“I rolled 44.”
“I rolled 46. Roll damage.”

Why wouldn't the player announce what he rolled instead of just stating his or her success? Also the new rule quite possibly removes the miss-miss loop.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Look, one of the biggest problems with % systems is how to compare rolls. How does my Sneak of 85% compare to your Perception of 15%? Going for the lowest roll does a great disservice to the person with the Sneak of 85%. The ONLY way to solve this problem is with the Blackjack mechanic, unless you want to ditch percentiles all together and go with a TN based system ala d20. (And yes, in d20 you're considered to be "taking 10" when you calculate your AC. The DMG gives the option of rolling, but it adds extra steps that d20 combat REALLY doesn't need. You're still rolling against a TN though, it just happens to be fluid from round to round.)

It was never lowest roll wins. Skill vs. skill was already fairly strait forward. I roll my Sneak. If I succeed I substract my skill from my opponent's Listen. If I did not succeed, they got their full skill to hear me. Simple.

There's one big reason: Math

Whether or not you agree with it, I get the suspicion that removing as much on the fly math as possible was a design goal. I know it was when we worked on the new rules for CHILL.

Having to calculate what your roll is for a given action every time I roll is a pain, and it slows things down, a lot. Throw in multiple PCs and I'd just House Rule it away.

Hyrum.

 

[waiwode]

Well if this is true then this system change is a problematic one for me.
Our group isnt used to tell loud any dice numbers during action except in very rare cases. Instead we like to interprete the outcome of our action rolls with own descriptive words.

I am not sure if I like to play this new thing. But I will of course take a look at it.

Still possible to describe your action? Absolutely.

Player #1 "Hit 33."
GM: "He fails" (or "You hit his shield" if he succeeds, etc).
Player #1 rolls 1D8+2+D6 = 11 plus a location D20 = 8, left leg. "I swing a powerful horizontal blow under the bottom of the Orlanthi scum's shield."
GM: Compares the 2 points of armour and 4 hits to the 11 damage. Sighs. "Your battle axe smashes through the rebel's thigh,and he collapses, shrieking like a pestilence spirit released from a barrow."
Player #1 "I raise my bloody axe to the heavens and howl praise to my Praxian ancestors!"
GM: muttering to himself: "That's what I get for running Praxian Storm Bulls Go Wild."

Doug.

 

[wartorn]

...

Hyrum.

Thanks! Well it looks great to me. Now I see why Matt said you'd want to Dodge a Great Axe....

 

[waiwode]

Combat works like this, in the case of the Parry ... Hope that helps.

Yep. It helps me loads, thanks HyrumOWC, you have once again earned you spot as my forum friend du jour.

Doug.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Combat works like this, in the case of the Parry ... Hope that helps.

Yep. It helps me loads, thanks HyrumOWC, you have once again earned you spot as my forum friend du jour.

Doug.

My pleasure.

Hyrum.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Well if this is true then this system change is a problematic one for me.
Our group isnt used to tell loud any dice numbers during action except in very rare cases. Instead we like to interprete the outcome of our action rolls with own descriptive words.

This could cause problems to your gaming style. I have however always thought that RQ was a RPG where GM states what the dice mean. If you are looking for a solid game, that allows players to describe what happens at conflicts, I recommend Dust Devils http://www.chimera.info/dustdevils/. It is nothing like RQ but that is not necessary a bad thing :wink: