Any change to the Experience system?
- Thread starter Durand Durand
- Start date
Okay, that makes sense to me -- it's a move from the straight up resistance table to an opposed skill system -- I guess that will work.waiwode said:
Now, what I am trying to understand is if the MQ combat system is any better than RQ. To me it seems like a little needless complexity has been added (a bad thing if the goal is to streamline the rules). It looks like Special success is gone, but instead you have Riposte.
If memory serves, RQ3 had a much simpler results table, where the success of the hit was independent of the parry for computing results
Attack: Whiff, Hit, Special, Crit
Parry: Whiff, Parry (reduce damage by AP, -1 AP to item), Crit (no damage)
I do see your point. It just doesn't seem very elegant to me. I see a difference in succeeding with a skill and being seen anyway and failing a skill roll to start with. Is succeeding better really something to worry about? Maybe use the comparison if both parties succeed, otherwise compare skill levels. Another week and a half, we will know what they have done. Hopefully there will be enough that I do like to overcome the 'that could have been better' bits (ditto for everyone). What I am hoping for mostly right now is to have a similar and simple mechanic to cover everything. It doesn't have to be exactly the same, just similar enough so that it becomes automatic during play.
OKay, after all the clarifications, and corrections, it appears that the big thing that I don't like about MRQ combat is just a typo. :shock:
Let me see if I got this right. Setting back the clock a few days, we have Troz the Trollking (10% combat skills) sneaking up on Rathgar the Rune Lord (95% weapon skills and dodge) as Rathgar is setting the campfire for the evening. :evil:
Troz the Trollkin, suffering from a Death Wish, flings a rock at Rathgar the Rune Lord. Troz roll an 11% and misses, provoking no reaction other than a "YOU SUCK!" from Rathgar. :!:
A few Strike Ranks later, Rathar hacks at the Trollkin with his hatchet and hits with a 88 (hey, he's a Rune Lord, they're good with weapons). Troz deparately parries with his buckler (he may have a death with, but he ain't crazy) and actually success with a 09!.
Why is it when you are trying to get killed, you start to roll good?
So, if I got this right, Rathgar hit's for nornmal damage (1D6+1D4), say 7 points, but the Trollkin succesfully blocked, soaking 5 points with his buckler (which probably loses 1 HP too), and leaving 2 points to go to a random location, say left arm,or which 1 point is soaked up by the Trollkin's 1 AP skin, leaving 1 point to be resolved with the damage/injury system. (Yet's not go there until the book is out!) :idea:
It doesn't matter who rolls higher or lower, just as long as they are success, failures, criticals, or fumbles (do we have fumbles?). :?: No "Blackjack", "Barracat", or "Texas Hold 'Em Poker" rules that could turn a miss into a hit and force poor Rathgar to take a rock off the noggin should he roll a 97 vs the Trollkin's 95. :idea:
Is that right? :?:
Let me see if I got this right. Setting back the clock a few days, we have Troz the Trollking (10% combat skills) sneaking up on Rathgar the Rune Lord (95% weapon skills and dodge) as Rathgar is setting the campfire for the evening. :evil:
Troz the Trollkin, suffering from a Death Wish, flings a rock at Rathgar the Rune Lord. Troz roll an 11% and misses, provoking no reaction other than a "YOU SUCK!" from Rathgar. :!:
A few Strike Ranks later, Rathar hacks at the Trollkin with his hatchet and hits with a 88 (hey, he's a Rune Lord, they're good with weapons). Troz deparately parries with his buckler (he may have a death with, but he ain't crazy) and actually success with a 09!.
Why is it when you are trying to get killed, you start to roll good?So, if I got this right, Rathgar hit's for nornmal damage (1D6+1D4), say 7 points, but the Trollkin succesfully blocked, soaking 5 points with his buckler (which probably loses 1 HP too), and leaving 2 points to go to a random location, say left arm,or which 1 point is soaked up by the Trollkin's 1 AP skin, leaving 1 point to be resolved with the damage/injury system. (Yet's not go there until the book is out!) :idea:
It doesn't matter who rolls higher or lower, just as long as they are success, failures, criticals, or fumbles (do we have fumbles?). :?: No "Blackjack", "Barracat", or "Texas Hold 'Em Poker" rules that could turn a miss into a hit and force poor Rathgar to take a rock off the noggin should he roll a 97 vs the Trollkin's 95. :idea:
Is that right? :?:
Maybe. Probably. See the 'Open Day folks' thread, nearby. There is a table that was apparently a little...mixed up...but it isn't a deal breaker. The text is supposed to be correct, there is an error or two in the table. Opposed skill rolls we still don't really know about. But yes, you were just a little hasty. Welcome back. 
I was missing your cirroness and argumentativeness.
I was missing your cirroness and argumentativeness.
andakitty said:
It isn't a deal breaker to me if it is just a typo. Matter of fact RQ3 had the same sort of typo on the combat charts in the "Game Aids" booklet. In the booklet a Healing Spell can reattach a severed limb if cast within 10 MR. In the rules, you needed magic capable of reattaching/regrowing limbs.
Making the same sort of screwup as the RQ3 design team did, could be viewed as a positive. I guess. I mean, talk about faithful.
THe "no wiff" idea, would have ruined the combat system. A Troll with a maul going to be able to smash down skilled fighter with a showrdsword & shield, since 2xParry AP would not have offset 2D6+2D6 damage.
andakitty said:
Well, I was rather disgusted with the "opposed combat" system. I haven't exactly been an euthusiatic fan of MRQ, and the new "opposed resultion" system was turning into a "deal breaker" for me. As I didn't like the idea, but most everyone else did, I thought it was better for me to shuttle off rather than just annoy everyone with "this game sucks" comments on every thread.
andakitty said:Welcome back.
Well, since the rule I didn't like, doesn't exisit (at least as far as combat is concerned), I sort of lost my motivation for leaving. I'm not certain if I'm "back" or just "checking my bearings" before heading off. I just don't want to leave for a "false" reason.
andakitty said:
I "missed" my "cirroness" too? Indeed, I've missed it all my life. What is "cironess"? It is a word that I do not know the defination of. IS is a good thing, or do I need shots for it? :?:
and argumentativeness.
[/quote] Who. me? Au contraire.
P.S. Does anyone know if my combat example correct, though? All this "streamlining" has me confused. :?
P.P.S. Are there still impales and knockbacks?
P.P.P.S. The combat matrix in MRQ seems to look a lot like the resolution system in Usagi Yojimbo with opponents being forced to give ground and such. In fact, the UY resolution system might work better that the one in MRQ, typo not withstanding. Maybe.
To the best of my knowledge (that is according to what I have read on this board), yes, your example is correct.
There are still impales, although how they work is still unknown to most of us (at least it is to me). Also I believe that it was mentioned somewhere that a natural 00 is a fumble. Again, not sure exactly what the effects of a fumble is.
There are still impales, although how they work is still unknown to most of us (at least it is to me). Also I believe that it was mentioned somewhere that a natural 00 is a fumble. Again, not sure exactly what the effects of a fumble is.
Mikko Leho
Mongoose
atgxtg said:
Yes and yes. Second RQ rules preview:
The second RQ Companion preview states:
atgxtg, look at the thread 'Runequest combat and reactions' in the Rulesmasters forum above. It should help sort things out. There is still the question of how MRQ handles opposition rolls for other skills like stealth/perception and so on, but I think that it will probably be similar. The good thing about the parry and dodge charts is that they will be easy to memorize, with only nine parts. The bad part is we already have a pretty serious error in the book (the charts), although I can think of a couple of ways to get around it.
The system as a whole is looking more and more like a BRP derivative to me. A thread over at rpg.net about BRP has a few people speculating about how people might start using the MRQ OGL to publish CoC material outside Chaosium. I don't know how feasible or possible that is, but there you go.
'cirroness' is a word my wife made up. Basically whenever somebody is being negative about something she teases them (usually me) by calling them 'cirro' as in 'stormcloud'. Like I'm being a little black stormcloud raining on someones parade.
The system as a whole is looking more and more like a BRP derivative to me. A thread over at rpg.net about BRP has a few people speculating about how people might start using the MRQ OGL to publish CoC material outside Chaosium. I don't know how feasible or possible that is, but there you go.
'cirroness' is a word my wife made up. Basically whenever somebody is being negative about something she teases them (usually me) by calling them 'cirro' as in 'stormcloud'. Like I'm being a little black stormcloud raining on someones parade.
andakitty said:
Thanks for the link. It does help clarify the combat matrix.
andakitty said:
I agree. I also think it looks more BRP than RQ, but I think you mentionted that a few posts back yourself. THe no need to defend unless hit rule, did orginate in a BRP product. It is a tradeoff. It makes somethings simplier, but we lost a few things too (no more damaging the attacker's weapon, or actually "parrying" an attack as poopsed to just blocking).
andakitty said:
Feasible from a rules persepctive, certainly. Enough of the numbers match up to make the games semi-compatable. Feasible from a liscencing issue-no. I doubt Chasoium would let the Lovecraft liscence go.
IMO, I'm noty sure if there is much reason to. I mean evenif someone prefers MRQ to CoCBRP, CoC is probably, of all the Chaosium settings, the one where the rules matter the least. None of the rule changes are going to amount to much if you are up against a Shoggoth. Getting a minimum damage result for a dodge against Cthulhu probably tranlates to your corpse being in one piece.
andakitty said:'cirroness' is a word my wife made up. Basically whenever somebody is being negative about something she teases them (usually me) by calling them 'cirro' as in 'stormcloud'. Like I'm being a little black stormcloud raining on someones parade.
Ah. I googled that word. I wasn't sure if it was a word I hadn't seen before or some sort of mispelling/typo. Beleive it or not, I'm not being negative about MRQ, I just have yet to see how any of the changes I've seen "improve" the game. I think that is where I wind up going up aginast people on things. For instance, I don't see the new matrix as an improvment over Critical/Special/Normal Sucess in either results or speed of play ("streamlining").
I believe Urox wrote something similar, a couple pages back.
In my eyes, adding some of MRQ's results to the old skill use formula would have been easier, and more streamlined. Then again, most of my gamers could figure out crits and special sucesses in thier heads.
I hope that we we see the whole system that the changes will have benefical effects that I haven't seen. I suspect that Dead Blue Clown might have been onto something when he said that I wasn't fitting into the "target demographic" for MRQ. Many of the things people has complained about and are pleased about the change, were things that I liked about RQ. In many ways the changes are going in the "wrong direction" as compared to my expectations.
It isn't that I am negative, just that I haven't seen anything postive in the things that were changed.
I think the editorial error in the combat matrix isnt so bad......you could read it like this: there is no sensible reason to defend against an unsuccesful attack.....BUT.......if you WERE stupid enough to throw yourself in front of a moving weapon in order to parry it then the table shows the results of such an unlikely action. Fair enough?
burdock said:
If some guy was swinging a sword at you, you'd be stupid not to try and defend. If you wait to see if the weapon's going to hit, you'd be far too late to defend a successful blow, too.
This is some strange kind of metagaming thinking that is very common and, IMO, comes from initiative systems where person 'A' does his complete action, then 'B', and so on. The reality is that it all happens more or less at the same time (which is why I like the old SR system better than the new).
By definition, the parry must happen in the same instant as the attack for the two weapons to connect. There is no time to think about whether it's worth parrying or not.
Similar threads
