Any change to the Experience system?

[HyrumOWC]

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.

You will be missed. Passion is always a good thing.

Hyrum.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

In fairness to Mongoose, they never made a secret of the fact that this wasn't going to be the same game. Similar in style, yes, but not the same.

They're legally entitled to call it RQ, but this whole discussion has revolved around whether they're morally entitled to do so, which is a very subjective point.

Saying that "everyone thinks RQ was flawed" is a bit extreme, I think. We all have our individual likes and dislikes, and in the end what's going to come out of any system is naturally going to make some folks happy and others less than happy. Most will like some bits and dislike other bits. It would have been amazing if it was anyway otherwise.

If MRQ was 100% identical in every game mechanic to BRP, where's the incentive to buy one over the other? Or to buy both? Suffering for your art may be noble, but it doesn't put food in your mouth or a roof over your head.

Look on the bright side: in a few months time we will hopefully have two systems - one very streamlined and modern, the other full of all the old BRP goodness - each of which is broadly compatible with the other in terms of stats and suchlike, and each of which will serve it's own purpose. You'll be able to use supplements for each with the other, and you'll be able to use all of the classic old RQ material with both, with an absolute minimum of pain in the conversion process. This is far far more than anyone could have hoped for 2 years ago.

We all win.

 

[Urox]

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

I thinnk RQ3 could have used an updated rules version, especially coming up with a more player-friendly sorcery system. FAT could be dropped, and a few other rules streamlined.

I'd have especially liked to have seen a well-bound rulebook set back in Glorantha.

RQ3 was a tweak, but it looks like MQ seems pretty much like a rewrite.

I hope MQ isn't changes just for changes sake (as others have suggested).

 

[Cobra]

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.)


Hyrum.

So... does this mean that during combat, the player and GM each state what their attack/parry roll is, then compare the results on a resistance table and roll accordingly, then check the results chart. Is that what you mean by 'opposes the attacker's weapon skill'? If so, that's awfully cumbersome and wrong in so many ways.

Or, do you simply roll against your own skill and declare if it's a success, failure, or critical and compare that result on the chart? I which case you are not opposing anybody's weapon skill, only opposing their success rate. This makes much more sense to me and is quite elegant.

As a GM I don't want to have to do any head math if I can avoid it unless it's a simple x 5 calculation. I hate adding and subtracting multiple modifiers and comparing agaisnt movable DC's. I want my success rate written on the sheet in front of me. I also don't want to have to reveal to players what the % skills of my NPC's are.

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

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. Sad

Sorry to see you go, atgxtg (or 'axe-to-grind' as I like to think of you, since only Moorcock himself could pronounce 'atgxtg'). You have certainly provided some interesting viewpoints (many of which I agreed with, some not) on this forum and I often appreciated your 'devil's advocate' stance on many issues. I have, at times, felt like you about the status of MRQ, but I find that I am warming to it. Best of luck.

Hyrum, thank you for your timely post. Could you clarify what you mean by 'oppose attackers weapon skill'? Also, there was no mention of fumbles on your chart. Have they been done away with (would be sad IMO)? Also, what about damage to attacking or parrying weapons?

Thanks,

Cobra

 

[HyrumOWC]

So... does this mean that during combat, the player and GM each state what their attack/parry roll is, then compare the results on a resistance table and roll accordingly, then check the results chart. Is that what you mean by 'opposes the attacker's weapon skill'? If so, that's awfully cumbersome and wrong in so many ways.

Or, do you simply roll against your own skill and declare if it's a success, failure, or critical and compare that result on the chart? I which case you are not opposing anybody's weapon skill, only opposing their success rate. This makes much more sense to me and is quite elegant.

#2. I roll, you roll (if you have reactions left), we see who succeeded and who failed and compare results. There is no chart, just your % vs. my %.

As a GM I don't want to have to do any head math if I can avoid it unless it's a simple x 5 calculation. I hate adding and subtracting multiple modifiers and comparing agaisnt movable DC's. I want my success rate written on the sheet in front of me. I also don't want to have to reveal to players what the % skills of my NPC's are.

I agree 100%.

Hyrum, thank you for your timely post. Could you clarify what you mean by 'oppose attackers weapon skill'? Also, there was no mention of fumbles on your chart. Have they been done away with (would be sad IMO)? Also, what about damage to attacking or parrying weapons?

If you parry with a weapon or shield it takes damage. I don't remember if there are fumbles and since I'm on my wife's computer while mine gets updated to XP Pro I don't have the files in front of me. I'll post again later tonight once I get access to my machine again.

Hyrum.

 

[waiwode]

So... does this mean that during combat, the player and GM each state what their attack/parry roll is, then compare the results on a resistance table and roll accordingly, then check the results chart.

Shriek! Egads, no. The Parry chart is actually a non-chart once you've used the system a couple time.

You roll. He rolls. There is a result. It may be damage, it may just be damage to the defender's shield/parrying weapon. It may be a riposte.

This really isn't a complex system at all.

Doug.

 

[waiwode]

Any update to a beloved game is going to hit the wall of fandom.

Could you imagine the hullaballoo if the Internet had been as common as it is now when RQ3, with newfangled Sorcery and all kinds of Backgrounds rules, had come out?

I shudder to think of it. And may well have been a very vocal dissenter. It took a long time for me to swallow some of the changes.

Doug.

 

[Cobra]

So... does this mean that during combat, the player and GM each state what their attack/parry roll is, then compare the results on a resistance table and roll accordingly, then check the results chart.

Shriek! Egads, no. The Parry chart is actually a non-chart once you've used the system a couple time.

You roll. He rolls. There is a result. It may be damage, it may just be damage to the defender's shield/parrying weapon. It may be a riposte.

This really isn't a complex system at all.

Doug.

Yes, I see it now, and like it. Thanks for the clarification, guys.

Cobra

 

[SteveMND]

Shriek! Egads, no. The Parry chart is actually a non-chart once you've used the system a couple time.

Much like how the old Resistance table was a 'non-chart' once you used the system a couple times?

Some people still complain that the Resistance table was too cumbersome. I don't see this system as presented here so far to be any more complex/non-complex that that was... for good or ill.

...

Well, okay, to be honest, yes, this looks far more cumbersome to me, at this point. I'll reserve final judgement until the product comes out, though; it may be that the limitations of the forum format is making it sound more complex than it really is.

 

[andakitty]

Nine results, Steve. You can have it memorized in a short time and never look at it again. Simpler than Stormbringer 5s' attack/parry matrices. Just as the resistance table is/was as simple to remember as one row on the multiplication table. They (Mongoose) have gone for 'simple and fast' in every aspect of the new RQ that I have seen so far. It may, in fact, play better than earlier versions. Wouldn't that be something?

 

[Mac V]

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.
_________________

Is this layed out a bit neater in the book Hyrum?

 

[SteveMND]

Nine results, Steve. You can have it memorized in a short time and never look at it again. Simpler than Stormbringer 5s' attack/parry matrices. Just as the resistance table is/was as simple to remember as one row on the multiplication table.

I've never been a fan of matrices. At least the one in RQ was typically the only one used, and was a simple mathematical formula.

Having a specialized matrix like this for just one application of a skill versus a skill makes me wary that there may be several used throughout the book, as opposed to a simpler, more universal formula.

But as I said, we'll see. In a few weeks, even.

 

[andakitty]

It has nine components. It should make a nice, compact, easily memorized chart. Not bad for the ground it will cover.

 

[andakitty]

Steve, it says 'similar to an opposed skill test'. One chart to rule them all? With commonsense alternatives when it is say, parry or dodge? And a small chart at that. To me, this looks easier than any previous version of RQ. I hope you give it a shot. 8)

 

[HyrumOWC]

Is this layed out a bit neater in the book Hyrum?

It's a nice 3x3 chart.

Hyrum.

 

[GoingDown]

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

How come that failed attack succeeds if parry succeeds? This sounds crazy.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

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

How come that failed attack succeeds if parry succeeds? This sounds crazy.

That botherd me when I first saw it too, but the defender is trying to block the attacker, so he succeeds in doing it. He then gets Double his AP instead of just his AP, so he did better than if the attacker had succeeded.

Doc

 

[GoingDown]

[
That botherd me when I first saw it too, but the defender is trying to block the attacker, so he succeeds in doing it. He then gets Double his AP instead of just his AP, so he did better than if the attacker had succeeded.

So, if I parry succesful I just jump to my opponent's blade even it was seemingly going to miss my torso, and then try to block that obviously bad or misguided thrust. :shock:

Ouch!

At least I am giving poor guy a change to hit me, so I am not a chicken. Luckily at least the parry gets 2xAP, so his blade should be good to get something thru.

 

[Mac V]

It's a nice 3x3 chart.

Hyrum.

That's the right complexity level for me! Thanks Hyrum.

 

[SteveMND]

So, if I parry succesful I just jump to my opponent's blade even it was seemingly going to miss my torso, and then try to block that obviously bad or misguided thrust.

No, I see what they're going for here -- basically, in each round of combat, there are all sorts of blows being thrown, etc., and it looks as if the game is assuming that each person in a combat will be hitting each other over time -- the attacks and parry/block rolls aren't there to tell you if you hit or not, but rather to compare the relative abilities of each combatant and figure out the damage done each round from there.

Ther better you are at parrying/blocking, the more damage over the course of that round you soaked up with your sword/shield, as represented by the double-AP note when your attacker's check is lousy. That still doesn't necessarily mean that you completely avoided or deflected every shot that round, though.

I understand (and can kind of appreciate) the approach they took, but I'll have to see it in action to see whether or not I like it.