Centipedes of Doom?

[Archer]

The more I look at the book the more I dislike some of the changes...the 'skill saves', less damage, weakened criticals, the combat chart, the halving rule (now that I look at it more closely). Some of the damages just seem wrong, like 2d8 longbow. I don't wish to houserule yet another game.

I can understand your decision. The BRP versions/clones (including original RQ1,2,3 systems) we have modified and made to work, certainly works better than MRQ will without modifications, and perhaps even a second or third edition. We have already found ways around what problems existed in those games.

 

[andakitty]

Flawed how, Urox? I didn't have anything you said in mind, just describing the system because Archer asked. I am curious about what you mean by flawed. I really don't know of any rpg with a mechanistic or 'simulationist' (if I am using the term correctly) resolution system which doesn't involve lots of luck. Having a system that works and is fairly effortless to run usually satisfies me. Fifth Cycle did both, and was fun. Ergo, it's a good game. I require a little 'crunch', but there is a limit to that.

So the query at the beginning of the post is a sincerely curious question, not an irritated one.