Any change to the Experience system?

[Enpeze]

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.

Very nice description. Sounds you play like us.
The only thing we have to adapt is line #1: hit 33

 

[Lord Twig]

Hope that helps.

That helps. I like it.

 

[Enpeze]

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:

Thanks for the tip, but I would like to stay with BRP. (maybe MRQ) At the moment I am trying out WFRP2. Its nice but not nearly as good as BRP.

I just took a look at your recommendation.
Ähem...playing cards? Poker chips?... It seems this game is more for cowboys and indians I guess... But nonetheless thank you.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Thanks for the tip, but I would like to stay with BRP. (maybe MRQ) At the moment I am trying out WFRP2. Its nice but not nearly as good as BRP. Of course I will take a look to your recommendation.

I kind of misunderstood what you meant by players describing their rolls. Players tell what characters do, not how the conflict ends. In Dust Devils players sometimes take the traditional rule of the GM and tell how things end up. It is not for everyone but I like it.

 

[Enpeze]

Thanks for the tip, but I would like to stay with BRP. (maybe MRQ) At the moment I am trying out WFRP2. Its nice but not nearly as good as BRP. Of course I will take a look to your recommendation.

I kind of misunderstood what you meant by players describing their rolls. Players tell what characters do, not how the conflict ends. In Dust Devils players sometimes take the traditional rule of the GM and tell how things end up. It is not for everyone but I like it.

It seems so that you misunderstood me, no prob. Well Dust Devil is surely a nice and very innovative idea, but its western setting is not my cup of tea and it has no d100

 

[atgxtg]

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.

If that is the case, why mess with it? If it is simple, clean, logical and cosnsitient it doesn't need to be changed.

This who change goes against the whole "Streamlining" argument too. In RQ it was did I make my skill roll or not. Did the other guy make his roll or not. Simple. As MRQ still has a critical hit %, the new system doesn't "streamline" or "simplify" the mechanicsi it just messes with it.

Essentially this is the whole "remake" philosophy. "Wow what a great product! I'm sure I can do it better!".

 

[atgxtg]

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

No. I think it's going to play better.

Okay, I think we have ran out of common ground here. I'm getting the impression that all the "RQ fans" on this board didn't actually like RQ.

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.

Heck, why not stremline it the rest of the way and just eliminate the attack roll. THen it could be make your parry/dodge roll or get hit.

 

[atgxtg]

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.

Yes it is. Look AD&D used to use a D100 roll to lift things. THat idnd't make it same as in RQ. How you interprest the die roll IS the difference between rpgs. After all, there are only a half dozen or so differenet types of dice

 

[atgxtg]

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.

Maddening perhaps, buy RQ. Keep in moind that RQ was written by SCA fans, and respresnet the sort of things that happen when people actually face off against each other. When I used to practice with a shinai, probably half of my "attacks" were made with no intention to hit, but to either draw off my opponent, or break up his attack.

THat was what thoses misses at the low end represented in RQ.

I'm getting the impression that you didn't care much for the old game in the first place.

 

[atgxtg]

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............

I got that suspecion several pages back.

 

[waiwode]

Okay, I think we have ran out of common ground here.

Luckily, we are free to disagree.

I'm getting the impression that all the "RQ fans" on this board didn't actually like RQ.

Are the quotations perhaps a touch disingenuous?

RQ was revolutionary. Not the first skill-based classless game, it was certainly a big part of that movement, none-the-less. But as time went by many of us moved away for a variety of reasons. Gave up on fantasy, moved away from percentile games, or found a system that did things better.

Don't assume for a second that I didn't/don't like RQ. I am of the opinion that improvements can be made, and changes are due if I'm going to play it again. Facts: I have over a foot of RQ stuff in the place-of-favour on my shelf. I also haven't played RQ in over fifteen years.

I would rather play HeroQuest than RQ III.

I accept that RQII (or III, or I) may be all that and a bag of crisps for you. If so, there's nothing to worry about, the games are still there.

Heck, why not stremline it the rest of the way and just eliminate the attack roll. THen it could be make your parry/dodge roll or get hit.

Too detailed for me. I think I will not be happy unless we get rid of hit and parry rolls all together and merely accrue damage at a rate decided by a pre-selected peril threshold.

We've seen, thanks to HyumOWC, that the new system certainly doesn't rule out the chance of a miss. The "black-jack" nature of task resolution is in fact altered for combat.

 

[atgxtg]

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.)

Hyrum.

No, it is not the ONLY way to do this. THere are several other ways, inclduing the way that a game called RuneQuest did it. RQ used a "degree of success" method for skills. It also had rules where you would have to subtract one skill from another whenopposed. For example in RQ3, if the guy with the 15% Pecerption skill was actively listening, on guard,ect, her would have to subract the oppoenent's sneak skill from his chance of success, leaving the guard with a 5% chance of noticing the sneak, IF the sneak had made his 85% roll.

So there are other ways.

 

[atgxtg]

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:

Apparently. MRQ is nothing like RuneQuest either.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

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............

I got that suspecion several pages back.

Mmmm. This argument makes no sense at all, you know. If the resistance table is the same as d20 (but using roll under instead of roll over), and has been an accepted part of RQ since the very beginning, then there should be no problem with another mechanic being the same as d20.

And the resistance table is the same as d20. It's basic algebra, but here we go:

Resistance table formula (A = Active, P = Passive):
   d100 <= (10 + A - P) * 5

Divide each side by 5:
   d20 <= 10 + A - P

Convert to roll-over:
   d20 > 10 - A + P

Add A to each side:
   d20 + A > 10 + P

And if that isn't d20, I don't know what is.

 

[atgxtg]

Yeah, but RQ didn't use the resistance table for skill resolution, just for resistance rolls. I mean, sure you could divide skills by 5 and use the resistance table, but that isn't RQ.

 

[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.)

Hyrum.

No, it is not the ONLY way to do this. THere are several other ways, inclduing the way that a game called RuneQuest did it. RQ used a "degree of success" method for skills. It also had rules where you would have to subtract one skill from another whenopposed. For example in RQ3, if the guy with the 15% Pecerption skill was actively listening, on guard,ect, her would have to subract the oppoenent's sneak skill from his chance of success, leaving the guard with a 5% chance of noticing the sneak, IF the sneak had made his 85% roll.

So there are other ways.

Those degrees of success involved math, which had to be recalculated every time a skill went up or down or was modified in any way.

Any update to a beloved game is going to hit the wall of fandom. This is a good thing. It keeps designers on their toes, but it can also make people upset. I've been run through the ringer by some fans of CHILL because of the changes we're making to that game.

What it comes down to is this. If your perfect game is RQ 3, or RQ 2, or whatever, that game still exists. Mongoose isn't reprinting an old system, they're updating one for the market today. The changes they make will upset some people, while others will feel it's the bee's knees (or the dog's bollocks if you're British, according to Wikipedia). What those changes are is irrelevant, they're different for every fan.

A new edition comes with changes. Otherwise, there's no reason to do one.

My $.02

Hyrum.

 

[waiwode]

I'm getting the impression that you didn't care much for the old game in the first place.

You are certainly free to take whichever impressions you wish. This one would be mistaken.

I love RQ. I played it all through the 80's. But this isn't 1983, or even 1990.

One may feel that there should be more to skill resolution than a success/fail switch. Characters have become more than a skill list. Beliefs, Keys, Kickers, Spiritual Attributes, Relationships, and a dozen other traits and mechanics in a hundred other games are out there.

I don't want to play a pastiche, I don't want to play one of those other games. I want to play an RQ that reflects its pedigree, but also reflects the gaming "technology" of the current day.

So far, it looks like I'm getting at least part of my wish. So I'm happy about it.

I accept that you may not be, and frankly, as it seems unlikely that you and I will sit across from each other at the same table, I'm over it.

Doug.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I'm with Hyrum and Doug.

I see these changes as fixes to flaws in the original system, which I loved and still love despite them. I don't need an RQ2 or RQ3 reprint: I already have both. What I want is a system that retains the magic of old but that also sorts out some of the clunky awkward "1978" mechanics.

For this change alone, MRQ is that system.

Now, can we all agree to disagree, and just get on with stuff?

 

[atgxtg]

Look, one of the biggest problems w
A new edition comes with changes. Otherwise, there's no reason to do one.

My $.02

Hyrum.

THere wasn't a reason to do a new edtion. Just a reason to reprint the old edtion.

My $.02 and apparently, Chaosium's as well.

Guess, I'll let you people get on with your new game. I'm dropping MRQ now. I've got lots of other RPGs that I like. I wanted to see RQ back. TO me, MRQ isn't RQ.

No sense, wasting everyone's time and space argeuing over it. If everyone else thinks RQ was flawed and needed to be fixed, then I guess this is the game for them.

Just not for me.

So long. Good luck. Have fun.

 

[Enpeze]

THere wasn't a reason to do a new edtion. Just a reason to reprint the old edtion.

My $.02 and apparently, Chaosium's as well.

Guess, I'll let you people get on with your new game. I'm dropping MRQ now. I've got lots of other RPGs that I like. I wanted to see RQ back. TO me, MRQ isn't RQ.

No sense, wasting everyone's time and space argeuing over it. If everyone else thinks RQ was flawed and needed to be fixed, then I guess this is the game for them.

Just not for me.

So long. Good luck. Have fun.

Well I too think that BRP or RQ has not much to be fixed. (maybe some minor points in RQ which have been clunky, but they could be adressed by replacing them with the corresponding BRP) So as you surely know, for me, its the perfect rule system.

On the other hand, we should be open minded. Noone of us, except Halfbat and Hyrum have played the game so far to judge how it plays in the practice. Maybe its really good.

So, while I am not sure if I like every change in MRQ or if I like even MRQ as such, I will give it a chance. Alone because of all the wonderful additonal material which is released for it.