Combat Confusion Cleared - Comments and Discussion
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
GoingDown said:
Good point. The rules may well be fun played wrong.
But it can definately lead to problems. What happens when you go to the local game store and join a game and find out they are playing differently than you?
Years ago I started in a 2300AD campaign, and everybody loved it at first. Then during a major space battle some issues came up the rules did not resolve after any amount of searching, reading, or re-reading. Killed the fun and suspense, annoyed the GM, and was houseruled on the spot. Very next session the same thing happened (different situation came up during play, no resolution found). That was the last time we ever played 2300AD. Too bad really, it was a fun game when it worked.
andakitty said:
Boy, I wish I had your optimism sometimes
There is a problem if not one person who has the rules on this board understood them correctly!.
Especially because the way they are supposed to work is better than any of the mis-interpretations. And far from everyone who buys the book is a member of this board and has the explanation we have.
I doubt any author or publisher considers such confusion "no issue", and will bet the next printing is re-worded to clear up the rules.
Just to clarify (for the nth time) I'm really not into bashing this game. I'm a huge fan of RuneQuest and I'm really looking forward to getting into the new system more.
I looked at the halving mechanism, thought something was amiss and wrote software to see the results. I didn't care which way they fell, rather that they gave me solid information to base any assumptions upon.
Disappointingly, my software has shown that there are some significant statistical issues with the High Skill Rule but I'll try and see if I can think of another easy way to get around the problem. Philosophically I think it was right on the money but unfortunately stats just get all nasty in this area. I can't say for definite if people will start to see this but I have a feeling my players wouldn start to see a pattern here. Stats are awkward and unintuitive so players might not notice it but it's still a matter of keeping them in the dark.
Itto, don't feel like you should apologise about spreading the 'two rolls combat mechanism'... that's exactly how the example in the rulebook works.
Andakitty, I don't think anyone here has had an overblown reaction... perhaps you're thinking of people burning Harry Potter books?
No one is talking about returning rulebooks or even discounting future purchases, just asking for clarifications to rules which require them.
Urox, thanks for calling me one of the math guys! Now, I'm really cool!
I prefer to think of myself as one of the guitar guys: http://www.jamessemple.com/
Have fun all and please don't take this all too seriously... Honestly I felt guys were arguing about this on RPG.NET as if their lives depended on it.
cheers
I looked at the halving mechanism, thought something was amiss and wrote software to see the results. I didn't care which way they fell, rather that they gave me solid information to base any assumptions upon.
Disappointingly, my software has shown that there are some significant statistical issues with the High Skill Rule but I'll try and see if I can think of another easy way to get around the problem. Philosophically I think it was right on the money but unfortunately stats just get all nasty in this area. I can't say for definite if people will start to see this but I have a feeling my players wouldn start to see a pattern here. Stats are awkward and unintuitive so players might not notice it but it's still a matter of keeping them in the dark.
Itto, don't feel like you should apologise about spreading the 'two rolls combat mechanism'... that's exactly how the example in the rulebook works.
Andakitty, I don't think anyone here has had an overblown reaction... perhaps you're thinking of people burning Harry Potter books?
No one is talking about returning rulebooks or even discounting future purchases, just asking for clarifications to rules which require them.
Urox, thanks for calling me one of the math guys! Now, I'm really cool!
I prefer to think of myself as one of the guitar guys: http://www.jamessemple.com/
Have fun all and please don't take this all too seriously... Honestly I felt guys were arguing about this on RPG.NET as if their lives depended on it.
cheers
Oh, and briefly just to clarify for Urox, the new calculator (version 1.1) is designed for the rules as we all understand them to work at the moment (i.e. in light of Matthew Sprange's announcement).
Doesn't seem to be too much of a problem in combat now (except that the example in the book is wrong) just an issue with the Opposed Skill tests using the High Skill rule.
Doesn't seem to be too much of a problem in combat now (except that the example in the book is wrong) just an issue with the Opposed Skill tests using the High Skill rule.
Very true. "Even if there really isn't a problem, and people merely think there's a problem, that's the problem."
I wouldn't be too hasty there, Bluejay.
My interest in purchasing the game has severely waned due to all the confusion. And now, seeing that the confusion is not just based on misunderstandings, but actual ambiguity and conflicting text in the actual rule books, as verified by people that have those books in their hot little hands, that interest has waned even more.I was a big RQ fan, like many of us. When I found out Mongoose was going to release a new version, I was ecstatic, and placed a pre-order for the first three books that very day.
A week later, when the first of the previews came out, I started to have doubts. It wasn't like I had expected it to be, but that was okay -- it's a new game, and the designers have different ideas that may or may not jive with mine. But as more and more previews came out, I was more and more concerned. I ended up cancelling the pre-order, as this had now become something I wanted to wait to see in person, so to speak, before I spent money on it.
But I was still willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Hpwever, as more errors became apparent (combat table, conflicting examples, etc.)... well, let's just say that Mongoose's OGL/SRD is the last saving grace for the game as far as I'm concerned.
If, when the SRD comes out, the errors have been fixed and the confusing text has been clarified, then I may still get the book (although really, at that point, why buy a book full of known errors?). But if the SRD and such still has all the mistakes and conflicting text, forget it; I'll wash my hands of the game and the company at that point.
Prove me wrong, Mongoose. Seriously.
I did the same thing, although my enthusiasm has waned.SteveMND said:
<asbestos>
At this point, I'd probably recommend people that already have (and are happy with) RQ2/3 to hold off on buying the core series and just pick up the Glorantha books (even if you're playing in the Third Age, you know there is going to be lots of juicy tidbits to enhance your game).
</asbestos>
Urox said:
I pre-ordered it too. As soon as I saw Steve Perrin's name attached to it. If I hadn't preordered it, I'd stay clear of MRQ. At the very least, the amount of confusion over the game (up to an incudling the offical Mongoose demonstator during the Open House, who apparenlty didn't run the game right) MRQ can't be considered a very successful attempt at streamlining if, out of all the pople on the boards who have the rules, only Matt Sprange seems to understand them.
SteveMND said:
Personally, I think a lot of the early confusion was based on the SRD (which has only rules cut and dried, no explanations), early playtest drafts (which are designed to change), and incomplete previews.
I have had the SRD for a few weeks and I gave up reading it. Dry, boring, and not easy to comprehend as a complete game... but, IMHO, SRDs are not meant to be complete, playable games, they're meant to be a publisher resources.
Reading through the actual book (I've had it since yesterday), I'm finding it much easier to understand, and while certain sections could be misinterpreted (the dual rolls in combat, for instance) I think if the initial doubt hadn't been laid down via the questionable sources listed above, we wouldn't have had near the debates we've had.
See, though, as an OGL base game, the rules are what the crux of the SRD is supposed to be. The raw mechanics, the nuts and bolts of the game system.
I'll be honest; when I look for a game system, I'm looking for the game system. Not the background, or the history of nation X, or the diabloical plans of Group Y. I'm looking for how combat is handled, how damage is done, how obstacles can be overcome and how one set of numbers (the characters) interact with the other set of numbers (the world). That's all a system is to me.
The rest of the stuff -- all the roleplaying, all the character development, all the grand storylines and engaging plots and colorful characters -- all that can be created by me and my gaming group. Or, if I want, I can use the last thirty years worth of Glorantha history as source material. Or I can grab the new stuff from Issaries, or the new stuff coming from Mongoose on the Second Age. Or Lankhmar, or Conan, or Greyhawk, or Forgotten Realms.
But if the mechanics don't work, or are flawed, or confusing, then everything else falls apart. And there's no reason at all to buy the system, for me at least. The 'fluff' of roleplaying is a critical element, but there's thirty year's worth of 'fluff' out there I can use, and more being produced every day.
iamtim said:
The major misconceptions about combat started with a player who had played the game at continuum and owned the rules - not that he can be blamed for interpreting them the way it was taught to him.
The fact that after many board members had copies of the printed core book not one of these questions was answered definitevely by the rules text pretty much shows that the confusion is not caused by early or incomplete information.
Errata is a part of gaming, and to be expected for any 1st edition, but it is unfortunate that combat, the nuts and bolts of any rpg, is so unclear.
Well fair enough guys.
I will state, just for the record, that I didn't start posting on this board until I already had the core rulebook (I'd pre-ordered from Mongoose).
The rules aren't ambiguous about the dual-rolling in combat, the example given uses two rolls very clearly. Character attacks and hits, target decides to parry and then they both roll again (and this time the attacker rolls a critical). It's at the top of page 61.
Anyway, the confusion hasn't been enough to put me off the game!
I will state, just for the record, that I didn't start posting on this board until I already had the core rulebook (I'd pre-ordered from Mongoose).
The rules aren't ambiguous about the dual-rolling in combat, the example given uses two rolls very clearly. Character attacks and hits, target decides to parry and then they both roll again (and this time the attacker rolls a critical). It's at the top of page 61.
Anyway, the confusion hasn't been enough to put me off the game!
Hi All,
Well I've got the core rules, spent most of last afternoon and evening catching glimpes during a family visit. Despite this I found the rules fairly easy to follow.
Reading the forums here and on rpg.net. created most of the confusion for me! The book was clear enough (i.e. one roll for attack & one for parry etc).
Oddly I would say the opposed rolls are way cool. There is some real scope to make this cool even with the (probably rare) 120% vs 60% type situation.
Knowing the mathematical disadvantage to halving your skill as the 120% player would make me take on 'useful' disadvantages. For example, in a bargining competion I would say that I push for a quick deal (-20%), arguing ths should be applied to the opponent too.
For a knowledge competition I would say I would discuss slightly obscure information (-20%).
There are more possibilities that I have time for at this moment to describe.
Also I would say in real life the better opponent does not do as well as 'mathematically' I would expect. Often you've seen the better candidate fail as they 'know' they can win. Hence a worse probability for the 100-150% odd player makes sense, unless they pusk home the advantage somehow (see above).
Like the rules for chess this game could hold many nuisances.
Well I've got the core rules, spent most of last afternoon and evening catching glimpes during a family visit. Despite this I found the rules fairly easy to follow.
Reading the forums here and on rpg.net. created most of the confusion for me! The book was clear enough (i.e. one roll for attack & one for parry etc).
Oddly I would say the opposed rolls are way cool. There is some real scope to make this cool even with the (probably rare) 120% vs 60% type situation.
Knowing the mathematical disadvantage to halving your skill as the 120% player would make me take on 'useful' disadvantages. For example, in a bargining competion I would say that I push for a quick deal (-20%), arguing ths should be applied to the opponent too.
For a knowledge competition I would say I would discuss slightly obscure information (-20%).
There are more possibilities that I have time for at this moment to describe.
Also I would say in real life the better opponent does not do as well as 'mathematically' I would expect. Often you've seen the better candidate fail as they 'know' they can win. Hence a worse probability for the 100-150% odd player makes sense, unless they pusk home the advantage somehow (see above).
Like the rules for chess this game could hold many nuisances.
sexy_davey
Mongoose
I have my copy of the main rulebook now, and I agree with some of the opinions expressed in this forum. The rules have some things I like (fancy combat options, better character generation rules, that kind of thing), and some I don't - for example, ooh, I don't know, just off the top of my head, the whole opposed rolls thing? I think what I'm going to do is take the bits I like, leave out the bits I don't and use a hybrid RQ3/MRQ system. I'm just sad enough to have more or less all the RQ3 rules committed to memory (even after all these years), so this should be pretty simple.
I'm also enough of a RQ geek to buy anything and everything even vaguely attached to RQ/Glorantha (Daughters of Darkness, anyone?), but I look at it this way - even if I don't use the new system, just look at all the new source material! It's close enough to old RQ to use without too much problem.
Probably.
Just before I go, I have a quick comment on the whole dividing skills by 2 (or 4, or 8 etc.) issue. If you had an 800% skill in say, sing, and were competing against someone with 804% sing, you'd kind of expect them both to succeed? It seems counterintuitive to be, after the very high skill rule is applied you only have a 50/50 chance of success? I know the rule is designed for relative success, but why not, say add an extra die at to the roll for hundreds? So you roll ordinary percentiles to determine success, but another die to determine how successful? So in the above example, one player rolls 89, the other rolls 14, but then first player rolls a 3 on the hundreds die, and the other rolls a 6? player who succeeds the most wins?
Just a thought. Feel free to shoot it down...
And... go!
I'm also enough of a RQ geek to buy anything and everything even vaguely attached to RQ/Glorantha (Daughters of Darkness, anyone?), but I look at it this way - even if I don't use the new system, just look at all the new source material! It's close enough to old RQ to use without too much problem.
Probably.
Just before I go, I have a quick comment on the whole dividing skills by 2 (or 4, or 8 etc.) issue. If you had an 800% skill in say, sing, and were competing against someone with 804% sing, you'd kind of expect them both to succeed? It seems counterintuitive to be, after the very high skill rule is applied you only have a 50/50 chance of success? I know the rule is designed for relative success, but why not, say add an extra die at to the roll for hundreds? So you roll ordinary percentiles to determine success, but another die to determine how successful? So in the above example, one player rolls 89, the other rolls 14, but then first player rolls a 3 on the hundreds die, and the other rolls a 6? player who succeeds the most wins?
Just a thought. Feel free to shoot it down...
And... go!
It seems that the system works pretty well. Confusion has been thrown up by one very unfortunate mistake in one example of play. Its not THAT bad. I had a feeling throughout all the debate that the correct interpretation of the rules would be as the official declaration dictates. I was not completely convinced by any of the evidence.......I even suspected the mistake in the example of play. It seems that many people who read the rules before reading these forums (or attending the mongoose open day!!) understand the rules pretty well.
bluejay said:
So the example in the rules insn't confusing, just wrong. Or the officlial clarification that uses ine roll is. According to the sticky, the attacker doen't roll again, but uses his orginal roll.
IF you track down the threads, the confusion did not orginate from people without the rule book, but from people with the rulebook.
Similar threads
