Look opposed tests like str vs str are rare compared to skill based tests/combat. (In point of fact the way opposed stat checks work in RQ aren't mechanically the same as other opposed rolls like combat, which is inconsistent - to be the same one should multiply one's stat by 5, use that as a % chance and then proceed as 'normal', thus 22 vs 18 becomes 110% vs 90% becomes 110% vs 80%, assuming the rule for 100+ still works the same*) And combat and skill rolls in RQ are far, far more heavily biased towards skill than stat. As I say, Moorcock's characters relied heavily on artefacts, and in Hawkmoon's case deus ex machina to win. Conan relies onhis own power and ferocity.
Chaosium's Elric with 880% was with Stormbringer
And Loz pointed out that was a crap method of modelling it. What works better for your argument is his assertion that he might have a better way of modelling it. Except we've established that Elric and Hawkmoon are different kinds of heroes to Conan, relying more on their artefacts rather than their own physical prowess.
leave MRQ Conan to those that care to play it
Well I would. Except it MRQ Conan would represent a diversion of resources from d20 Conan, which is well established and is a system well suited to the particular needs of the genre. It is now at a stage where there are a few issues that could do with resolving to make it a very good fit indeed. RQ Conan will start from scratch and the first attempt will, as is the case with all rpgs, miss the mark in several areas (like d20 Conan). So even if the system is as good for modelling the Hyborian Age - and I'm more convinced than I was that it can, but still not convinced it's as good - it's a step backwards that will merely please MRQ devotees who dislike d20 Conan but will delay the introduction of a mechanically sounder Conan system (be it d20 or MRQ).
Of course if Mongoose have lost the taste for producing d20 Conan then they'll naturally switch to using their house system as a basis. There are some good commercial reasons for them to do that. And I'm pretty sure for their comments that's what they'll do - they've gone from 'no plans' to 'no plans at this moment'. I think it's a shame because they could probably sort out d20 Conan's problems (MD threshold, 2HW overpowerment, the obvious spell and feat imbalances) fairly quickly and give us as good a system as we're likely to get. Instead we'll have an initially flawed (because they always are at the first attempt or two as the system gets hammered to shape the requirements of the world) RQ Conan... 'triffic.
Not to mention pissing off those who dislike RQ and prefer d20, who are not a small number (not me, I'd be pissed of because they'd abandon a system that works pretty well and with tweaking could work extremely well and in which I've invested more than a few quid).
Running the two systems alongside each other just means a diversion of resources. When two different companies use different systems to model the same world (like d20 Cthulhu - which incidentally is a concept that I think stinks because of the way the world in question works)versus 'proper' Cthulhu it's not an issue. In this case Mongoose would be diverting resources from itself. The only sensible move is to choose one or t'other (or another system like a modified
Traveller say..)[/i]
*Actually the RQ combat mechanic could surely be hastened in its resolution by converting it to the 'opposed table' of str vs str etc. If attack and parry were divided by 5 (so 100% became 20, 60% became 13 etc) then rather than two 100% warriors slugging it out until the one in twenty roll that means one misses his parry, you could just roll 20 vs 20 for a 50% chance of a successful attack each round - but the resolution would still be 'fair'. Equally 30% vs 20% would no longer have a dreary sequence of missed attacks but would become 6 vs 4 for a 66% chance of a successfu attack and 4 vs 6 for a 33% chance.
Sorry for the digression but the thought struck me and I wanted to get it down before I forgot.
