Concerning the new player's update...

[Mongoose Pete]

Greetings.

I must thank everyone for their rapid and constructive reviews of the new Player's Update document. The concerns you have expressed are both legitimate and are currently being seriously considered. In the meantime however, I feel I must explain the background to why the combat rules were changed to their present form.

As previously mentioned (by Vitalis I think) there are two ways of approaching combat. The first is by using an Opposed Test. The second is by using the Combat Matrix.

Although both Loz and I believe that opposed rolls are the greatest feature of MRQ, using them to directly resolve combat is extremely lethal. An opposed test can only result in a single 'winner' which means you either get hit, or you don't... and what is worse, that hit might be a critical too! There is no defence save armour. As such, opposed tests are a little bipolar for such dangerous activities.

On the other hand you can instead compare the success level of each combatant on the Combat Matrix. This is a little safer in terms of survivability, but does lead to potential problems when both combatants exceed 100% in weapon skills.

Before the Player's Update was conceived, I had been working with Loz to update the current combat matrices and create fumble tables, to fix problems previously identified by the members of this forum. The tables should work perfectly in that regard.

However, both Loz and I dreamed of unifying the rules so that Opposed Tests could, if desired, be used even in combat too - which would have the advantage of speeding up combat considerably and overcoming the difficulties of heroic skill levels.

Thus in the GM's Guide, Loz added an opposed test rule to my updated matrices as an option for those who desired to use it. Although it adds a level of complexity, this rule is a halfway stage between the granularity of the Combat Matrix and the faster battle resolution of an opposed test, resulting in a 'slightly' less lethal system.

When Mongoose asked for suggestions for the Player's Update, they took part of these new optional rules from the draft GM's guide. As a core rule for combat resolution perhaps this was a mistake, since the criticisms expressed thus far have been both valid and consistent. I believe that this issue can be easily resolved by simply using the Combat Matrices as they stand and ignoring the opposed test.

On a more positive note it has been gratifying that there has been support for both the new >100% rules, the fixing of Opposed Tests when both parties fail, the Fumble Tables, and the use of Opposed Tests for magic resistance. There are more very well conceived (optional) rules forthcoming in the GM's Guide.

Loz has promised to explain the rationale behind the Overcharging rules later, although addressing Rurik's specific concerns it would be a simple fix to say that both the attacker and defender must make any declarations of boosted MP's simultaneously... perhaps using a hidden dice to indicate the number selected.

Please keep coming with the constructive criticism. As this release has demonstrated, Mongoose is very willing to resolve any serious problems identified with their system.

 

[vitalis6969]

W00t!!! I got an honorable mention, lol...

Anyway, thank you for the feedback, its good to know that things are being looked at and it also backs up my feeling that these were two systems that got kinda scrunched together...

Looking forward to the GMs guide and more updates..

-V

 

[Halfbat]

When Mongoose asked for suggestions for the Player's Update, they took part of these new optional rules from the draft GM's guide. As a core rule for combat resolution perhaps this was a mistake, since the criticisms expressed thus far have been both valid and consistent. I believe that this issue can be easily resolved by simply using the Combat Matrices as they stand and ignoring the opposed test.

Thank you for being so honest and so quick in your reply, Pete. Though I raised this point, as I said I do like these combat matrices as an clear recommendation for MRQ combat. Yes, it is sad that the opposed skills system doesn't quite work as smoothly, but then ongoing combat is not simulating a straight, single-win situation.

Using the results "as is" may be a solution that doesn't remove the usefulness of AP, as you suggest.

As a result, it may mean that equally skilled fighters will slog it out for a while - but I'm not sure that this is too 'unrealistic' after all (though may be a result of the generous fatigue for combat). Two superb fighters will trade attacks whilst each looks for an opening, and it's then that other factors come into play, imho, such as fitness (Resilience or CON), or using precise hits....

 

[RosenMcStern]

Hehe, I had suspected the tables and the "highest roll downgrades the lowest" were devised in different moments. As I said, my concerns are generated by the nasty effects of some rule combinations, like the predeclaration of attacks with the variable CAs per round, not by the rules themselves which do have a strong rationale between them when considered one by one. I know you have spent some time thinking about them, people.

However, I think the best solution would be the exact opposite of the one you suggested: keep the opposed roll rule and drop the new edition of the tables (minus the fumbles). The opposed rolls work rather well with the old matrices.

There is one additional reason that makes me dislike the new tables: are your really meaning that the brand-new, shining GM screen that I bought at Tentacles, which I have used only once is now obsolete? :evil:

 

[Rurik]

Yes, thanks for the in depth reply. We know a lot of hard work and good intentions went into the changes.

I don't think anyone is out to be negative, but we can be an honest bunch and all have opinions (isn't there a saying about that?).

But I do want to point out using the table without the opposed part of the rule amounts to virtually no change to the old tables. Success vs success still results in min damage on a dodge and AP blocked with a weapon. There is the welcome edition of fumbles, and some other minor differences like a failed dodge giving ground - but the basic problem that dodging and parrying with a weapon (as opposed to shield) is of limited utility is unchanged.

I will definitely run through some combats and see how the new rules play out - rules I haven't liked at first reading have worked out well in practice once I've tried them. If I don't like them I can just continue using the old tables with opposed rolls (maybe I can score Rosen McStern's shiny new GM Screen on the cheap ).

 

[andakitty]

I think you are on the wrong track. There is no need for opposed rolls of this sort at all, over 100% skills, or especially 'heroic skill levels', IMO. You seem to be trying to make percentile D&D, to attract the D&D crowd. Oh, well. My advice, which you will not take and don't want to hear, is drop these elements entirely and KEEP IT SIMPLE. I hate to say it, but this does not look like a game system improvement, and I think I'll back out even faster than I came in.

 

[Loz]

I think you are on the wrong track. There is no need for opposed rolls of this sort at all, over 100% skills, or especially 'heroic skill levels', IMO. You seem to be trying to make percentile D&D, to attract the D&D crowd. (

Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm dyed-in-the-wool BRP/RQ. Creating a system that's 'a percentile D&D' never, ever, once entered my head.

 

[RosenMcStern]

but the basic problem that dodging and parrying with a weapon (as opposed to shield) is of limited utility is unchanged.

I do not agree with you, Rurik. The utility is in fact decreased, because a successful parry no longer downgrades a critical attack to a normal one. If Onslaught criticals you with his Greatsword and you manage to parry with your dagger, with the old rules you got 2d8+db-2 pts, while you now take 16+db-4 pts, [faint sound of limb chopped off in the distance]. Oh, and in the old table a parried/dodged weapon never impaled, what is the new rule?

As for dodges, just imagine Sam the swift (Dodge 100%) facing said Onslaught while having a chasm behind him. Note that if Sam dodges, with the new matrix any non-critical roll adds a Give Ground effect to the rolled damaga [AAAAAIEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!]

As for the GM screen, make a bid. In case we reach an agreement, please do not include bolgs in the envelope.

Creating a system that's 'a percentile D&D' never, ever, once entered my head.

What if the evil Sorcerer Gygax sent an apparition to haunt your dreams and turn you to the Dark Side of roleplaying? :twisted:

 

[Loz]

Loz wrote:
Creating a system that's 'a percentile D&D' never, ever, once entered my head.



What if the evil Sorcerer Gygax sent an apparition to haunt your dreams and turn you to the Dark Side of roleplaying?

I riposte with my 'Summon Dave Arneson' spell...

 

[Loz]

Prepare yourselves... this is a long post.

First of all, I’d like to thank everyone for the constructive and articulate views they’ve posted. Obviously we were braced for such a reaction, but what’s encouraged me considerably is the rational, consistent tone throughout.

As Pete has very neatly summarised, the new combat approach and matrices were developed for the GMs’ Guide which is stuffed with all sorts of optional rules. When it came to combat I sat down and re-read the RAW, and attempted to look rationally at the whole skill system.

Combat is one of the areas where you truly have an ongoing Opposed test requirement. There is a constant exchange of advantage, the threat of someone trying to hit you, and you trying to defend yourself in some way, and then doing the same to your opponent. In any given Opposed skill situation it’s not just success that’s crucial, but also the degree of success. RQ/BRP has handled this in different ways over the years, but the RQ3 way was to categorise skill rolls into crit/special/success/fail/fumble. I didn’t want to introduce that into the game, because it does add complexity and would mean a more detailed rewrite of the rules. The ‘roll-high-but-under’ paradigm is actually quite neat because it allows an immediate way to compare two standard successes, but see who gets the vital edge. It IS a paradigm shift from straightforward ‘roll-under-roll-low’ but becomes intuitive in a very short time.

So, the intention for combat was to introduce a degree of consistency and elegance into the rules, but account for the critical nature of a combat situation. If two warriors both succeed in their respective actions, and one has a better degree of success, that needs reflecting in the outcome. To me, there were two options: either introduce a whole set of new, additional outcomes that would add yet more rule consultation, or reflect that ‘in the moment’ superiority within the combat matrices. That was where the downgrading of the less successful opponent came in, otherwise, the chances of constant ties, and long, drawn-out battles, remains a high possibility, especially with highly skilled combatants. I spent a considerable amount of time discussing this with Pete Nash, who has a finely tuned eye for detail, and is also an experienced real-life swordsman, and we tweaked and tuned, and tweaked some more. We then play tested the Opposed rules and new matrices in our regular Friday game. In fact, the GM hadn’t even been a party to our discussions; I gave him the rules options and asked him to run combats using them. They worked, and worked very nicely. A few tweaks here and there, and both Pete and I (and the other players) were convinced that, far from adding complexity or additional figuring/head-scratching, this was the way to go.

In and around this, Matthew Sprange and I had been discussing the combat system for the GMs’ Guide and whether this could be worked into the updated Players Guide. I gave Matthew the revised rules, and these spent a fair amount of time in the hands of Mongoose Towers where we had yet more discussions, tweaks and reviews. Finally, yesterday, we launched the PDF. As Matthew said, this is something affecting the future of RQ, and so I was keen for him to have buy-in, along with others on the Mongoose team. The decision to move to, and formalise, Opposed test combat, with the revised matrices, was a joint decision subject to long discussion beforehand.

It is a paradigm shift, but I don’t think that, in the long-run, it’s the wrong thing to do. Believe me, I’m no number cruncher or bean-counter, so additional complexity isn’t something I had in mind when putting these rules together. I want something enjoyable, readily visible, and, yes, dangerous, because fights are.

That said, the matrices and the Opposed roll rules are written deliberately to be modular. If you don’t like the Opposed rules, drop them and stay with the RAW. The matrices should work just fine. If you buy into Opposed tests for combat but find the matrices awkward, ditto. In the end, this is your game, and I would never, ever, advocate that the rules should be followed slavishly. Every GM faces situations where they need to do an on-the-fly fudge, or find a situation that seems to break the rules, and comes-up with a solution that’s exciting, acceptable to all, and works for their style of game. Some become house rules. RQ has always been very, very accommodating of that approach, and it should continue.

One last thing to address: Spell Overcharging. Looking at page 66/67 of RQ, each MP of overcharge improves spell Magnitude AND lowers the Resist Trait, AND increases the Duration trait. Going back to the Opposed test situation, if someone successfully resists a successfully cast, overcharged spell, and gets the better success, it shouldn’t, in my view, completely negate the spells effects, but should be able to diminish them. Hence the rule to reduce the additional effects of overcharging. Clearly it’s dependent on the spell, but take a Disruption spell, for instance. A spellcaster could overcharge it to cause multiples of 1D3 damage for each point of Magnitude; useful against big, tough, opponents resistant to mundane attacks. In the RAW, failing to resist it with Resilience exposes the target to fatality, especially if overcharged by 2 or 3 points (which isn’t unlikely). This is still true in an Opposed resistance if you fail in your Resilience opposed roll. If you succeed with the better success, then you’ll resist the Disruption fully. If you succeed but don’t win, you’ll take the spell’s effect, but at a Magnitude of 1. This reflects the partial success of the resister, and the expertise of the caster, by negating some, but not all, of the overcharged spell.

So, apologies for the lengthy reply, but I thought it better to read and digest all the comments made thus far, rather than post lots of little replies to each point. I’m sure the debate will continue, and that’s a good thing, but please try the rules changes in your own game and, as said before, keep what works for you, and drop what doesn’t. The changes that have been made are there to ensure consistency across the resolution mechanism, and to be as complete as possible (which, as a publisher, Mongoose has to try to be. As players/GMs, you have the prerogative, nay the right, to use as much as little as you want), without being hideously complex, or supported by a litany of additional special rules to handle exceptional circumstances. It does require a certain shift in thinking from RQ players and GMs, but if you don’t want to shift into that particular gear, then the parts of the rules that fit with your game and style can be applied equally well.

 

[Sinisalo]

RQ was starting to look like the country cousin of other rpgs. With these changes and the goodies I expect to see in Elric/EC you have at least caught up.

Ive had time to look at the combat tables now and I think they with the opposed roll makes an elegant solution. It seems that APs are now obsolete though and I couldnt understand why they were mentioned. Am I getting this wrong?

The over 100% rule makes things scalable, the new tables with OppR makes it sophisticated.

I like.

 

[Sinisalo]

Oh one very important thing that hasnt been addressed is the problem of cult rune magic and integrating runes. Will it be in the GMs guide?

 

[Rurik]

One last thing to address: Spell Overcharging. Looking at page 66/67 of RQ, each MP of overcharge improves spell Magnitude AND lowers the Resist Trait, AND increases the Duration trait. Going back to the Opposed test situation, if someone successfully resists a successfully cast, overcharged spell, and gets the better success, it shouldn’t, in my view, completely negate the spells effects, but should be able to diminish them. Hence the rule to reduce the additional effects of overcharging. Clearly it’s dependent on the spell, but take a Disruption spell, for instance. A spellcaster could overcharge it to cause multiples of 1D3 damage for each point of Magnitude; useful against big, tough, opponents resistant to mundane attacks. In the RAW, failing to resist it with Resilience exposes the target to fatality, especially if overcharged by 2 or 3 points (which isn’t unlikely). This is still true in an Opposed resistance if you fail in your Resilience opposed roll. If you succeed with the better success, then you’ll resist the Disruption fully. If you succeed but don’t win, you’ll take the spell’s effect, but at a Magnitude of 1. This reflects the partial success of the resister, and the expertise of the caster, by negating some, but not all, of the overcharged spell.

I'd never interpreted the overcharging rules to say that the actual effect of the spell was magnified. The first effect of overcharging on page 67 states:

The spells magnitude is considered to be one higher for the purpose of countering it with spells such as Countermagic and Dispel Magic.

Being able to cast a 4d3 disrupt for 4 MP and a -15% penalty very powerful and kind of defeats the price structure and concept of progressive spells. The implications of 6d6 skybolts and 3d10 fireblades are frightening.

The point of overcharging a disrupt in previous versions of RQ and they way I have read the MRQ rules would be to punch through any countermagic and reduce the targets resist - not amplify the damage.

 

[gamesmeister]

Hehe, I had suspected the tables and the "highest roll downgrades the lowest" were devised in different moments. As I said, my concerns are generated by the nasty effects of some rule combinations, like the predeclaration of attacks with the variable CAs per round, not by the rules themselves which do have a strong rationale between them when considered one by one.

You've mentioned variable CAs a couple of times recently - is this something I've missed? As it happens I think it's a good idea - in fact, I think it's an important change, but I haven't seen anything official on it.

 

[gamesmeister]

Prepare yourselves... this is a long post.

First, thanks for coming on and giving us the rationale behind this.

So, the intention for combat was to introduce a degree of consistency and elegance into the rules, but account for the critical nature of a combat situation. If two warriors both succeed in their respective actions, and one has a better degree of success, that needs reflecting in the outcome. To me, there were two options: either introduce a whole set of new, additional outcomes that would add yet more rule consultation, or reflect that ‘in the moment’ superiority within the combat matrices. That was where the downgrading of the less successful opponent came in, otherwise, the chances of constant ties, and long, drawn-out battles, remains a high possibility, especially with highly skilled combatants.

This works fine when you have two relatively even combatants, but it potentially has big problems. For example, a human armed with sword and shield is up against a Great Troll, armed with a huge maul. If the human attacks and downgrades the troll's parry, it won't make much difference. If the Great Trolls attacks and downgrades the human's shield block, the human is almost certainly incapacitated with a single blow. A combat like this will often boil down to a single combat action on the part of the troll. Yes, Great Trolls should be dangerous, but it will be almost a death sentence for a PC having to fight one (or any other large creature for that matter). In fact, if the Great Troll flurries...

This kind of scenario removes most of the fun from RQ combat. No-one wants to see their PC runemaster get mashed simply because their successful parry was achieved through a low dice roll.

Even with even combatants, combat will be much more of a lottery - ultimately, you're losing much of the elegance you're trying to introduce.

It is a paradigm shift, but I don’t think that, in the long-run, it’s the wrong thing to do. Believe me, I’m no number cruncher or bean-counter, so additional complexity isn’t something I had in mind when putting these rules together. I want something enjoyable, readily visible, and, yes, dangerous, because fights are.

It is a major paradigm shift, to the point where you ask if it's still RQ.

I totally agree that you want something "enjoyable, readily visible, and dangerous", however you want those three in equal measure. I believe this change seriously shifts the balance away from the first and into the last, to the detriment of the game.

The one area I think MRQ combat should address is variable combat actions. That DEX 13 cut off is awful, considering the difference an extra CA makes. Me, I use the SR modifier * 5%, with crits getting 4, success 3, failures 2, and fumbles 1. There are several other suggestions also in circulation, and I hope you look at this in the GM's guide.

One last thing to address: Spell Overcharging. Looking at page 66/67 of RQ, each MP of overcharge improves spell Magnitude AND lowers the Resist Trait, AND increases the Duration trait.

Be careful here...the magnitude is only increased for the purposes of countering or dispelling the spell.

Going back to the Opposed test situation, if someone successfully resists a successfully cast, overcharged spell, and gets the better success, it shouldn’t, in my view, completely negate the spells effects, but should be able to diminish them. Hence the rule to reduce the additional effects of overcharging.

Agreed, and on the surface the change seems like a good idea. However...

Clearly it’s dependent on the spell, but take a Disruption spell, for instance. A spellcaster could overcharge it to cause multiples of 1D3 damage for each point of Magnitude; useful against big, tough, opponents resistant to mundane attacks.

See above. An overcharged Disruption will still only do 1D3 damage, but it's just harder to counter.

Therefore this rule change will have virtually no effect. You need to counter the spell before you attempt to resist it - when you counter it, it will still be at full strength, but when you resist it, it makes little difference whether the overcharge is applied or not, other than the duration. This obviously can make a difference, but it's not generally that important. If you're befuddled for 5 minutes, an extra minute or two won't usually make much difference...

So, apologies for the lengthy reply, but I thought it better to read and digest all the comments made thus far, rather than post lots of little replies to each point.

No problem - lengthy replies are very welcome when they come from the game authors...keep 'em coming!

 

[Halfbat]

Even with even combatants, combat will be much more of a lottery - ultimately, you're losing much of the elegance you're trying to introduce.

Exactly. I am concerned that the effect of AP is being signficantly reduced as the majority of results have no effect upon it.

It's not a case of "well, house rule your way around", and I'm not sure this is a helpful response as it amounts to "write your own rules". This may be fine for home games, but for those that need or have to stick with the RAW, or support the core rules, turning combat into a lottery in this way is not helpful. In the long run it _unbalances_ combats by making them less able to be judged effectively.

As said elsewhere, combat really is _not_ aching for an opposed role situation as it has a very different result set than almost all opposed tests. Combat does not give a single-point result, as most opposed tests, but a range of results resulting form the breadth of interactions. Moreover, these modifications significantly reduce the effectiveness of a core piece of RQ - the AP of weapons.
[/quote]

 

[RosenMcStern]

You've mentioned variable CAs a couple of times recently - is this something I've missed? As it happens I think it's a good idea - in fact, I think it's an important change, but I haven't seen anything official on it.

I am just referring to the basic rule, where different DEX characters have a different number of CAs ranging from 1 to 4 per round. Many people have complained that it wouild be better to allow just 2 CAs per round, but i feel it is not so unbalancing in the old rules. However, if you declare reactions before the attack is rolled, having one less CA than your opponent is deadly even when your foe is largely inferior to you in skill, as you might waste your reactions on misses and leave a critical unparried.

There is a way to randomize the number of CAs a little that was suggested by Dead Blue Clown on these forums, in fact, and I have added it as an optional rule in Stupor Mundi. It is rather complicate, though.

 

[gamesmeister]

Yeah, I know the rule you're referring to (although it wasn't originally suggested by DBC - I forget who though). I've tried it, but found I didn't like the way it played, so I've dropped it in favour of my own alternative, which is to say I convert the current SR into a % (SR x 5%). Each PC rolls then against that at the start of the round, with a crit giving 4 actions, success 3, failure 2, and fumble 1. Actions are performed in order of lowest dice roll first.

That's twice in two days I've banged this particular drum...I'll be quiet now

 

[weasel_fierce]

Im not really concerned with lower dependence on AP honestly. Stormbringer did away with that concept mostly, and works far simpler for it.

I havent really digested the new combat tables yet, but they dont look that different to me ?

 

[Itto]

Glad to see an update out for the rules, now including fumble tables! I always liked fumble tables. As it GM it takes the sting of having to decide whats going to happen to a player (or NPC) when they fumble. As the result often leads to the death of the player, it kinda hands the resposiblity back to the person who fumbled.

On the Opposed Combat front, I think I prefair going with "higher roll is promoted" for a success v' success rather than "lower is demoted". Using the higher is promoted means that AP in weapons are used more. I'll run a game with the rules presented, but I get a nasty feeling that they will a somewhat more brutal. Which maybe a good thing, I remeber the pain of having Runelords fighting Runelords and the hours that could take.

I'd already started using Opposed Resistance, so I ditched Overcharging as there the rule is not needed with Opposed Resistance.

I really like the capping of Persistance and Resiliance, also I like the idea of the higher starting level, but slower progression. I'll ask my players to take a vote see what rule to use.

All in all, very good stuff. Now to print it out on works colour laser, and cut up the tables and stick them to my GM Screen

Cheers