Do you really like MRQ?
- Thread starter Inspector Zero
- Start date
duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
Do I like MRQ?
Hmm - I like that it exists, because it means we are getting material released that we wouldn't otherwise see, and some of that material is excellent...
But do I actually like MRQ itself? Not so much. Too many too small hardbacks at the start of the range with attrocious indexing* put me off to start with, and poor editing and layout added to the negative impact.
I also dislike the semi-generic nature of the rules, and the failure to produce a proper core set of Gloranthan rules. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Rune Magic system. Now I like the idea of Rune Magic as presented in the core rules as a framework to allow you to build a set of cool magics in your setting - where you define what a Rune is, how one might acquire one, what steps are taken to attune one, and how (or if) you can dispose of one once you have attuned it. I don't think you can really use it "straight out of the book" without doing this though, and certainly not for Glorantha!
*This is probably still the worst fault with the line. The layout is still poor, but the indexing is abysmal
Hmm - I like that it exists, because it means we are getting material released that we wouldn't otherwise see, and some of that material is excellent...
But do I actually like MRQ itself? Not so much. Too many too small hardbacks at the start of the range with attrocious indexing* put me off to start with, and poor editing and layout added to the negative impact.
I also dislike the semi-generic nature of the rules, and the failure to produce a proper core set of Gloranthan rules. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the Rune Magic system. Now I like the idea of Rune Magic as presented in the core rules as a framework to allow you to build a set of cool magics in your setting - where you define what a Rune is, how one might acquire one, what steps are taken to attune one, and how (or if) you can dispose of one once you have attuned it. I don't think you can really use it "straight out of the book" without doing this though, and certainly not for Glorantha!
*This is probably still the worst fault with the line. The layout is still poor, but the indexing is abysmal
I began to play RQ with the Avalon Hill's 3rd edition, and I loved it, although I found it really too lethal.
I like MRQ general concept, but:
1. layout is very VERY poor
2. the index is horrible. I would loved to have a simple spell index with the spells ordered by rune, for example. I hoped to find this in the Spellbook, but it wasn't present there either.
3. the rules aren't well organized.
4. when you are in combat the opposed roll system doesn't work well. I preferred the old RQ III system in this case.
5. I miss a good section about magic items and treasures.
I also feel that, in combat, the bookeeping is too heavy for the GM. When there are many opponents, it's quite hard to keep infos about all the hit locations of the monsters and so on.
BTW, I still think MRQ is better than the old RQ. I really like the rune system, and I think it's possible to create a good setting using the rules.
The rules for Rune Magic, the Legendary Abilities, the enchantments, the monsters: those are just some examples of MRQ good points.
I did a mistake in my campaign: I allowed the players to use all the magic systems. So I have a sorcerer, a priest, a rune magic user, etc.
This is allowed by rules, and it would works well in Glorantha, but I have my own setting and, as GM, I found quite hard to manage three different kinds of magic.
Next time I'll play RQ I will select which rules to use, how to manage combat and I will allow only Rune Magic (that is awesome, in my opinion). Divine Magic is interesting too, I like the idea of the consacrated places (or icons) that gives the character the power to be "recharged" by the divine energy.
To sum up, in my opinion, MRQ is a good generic system and can give you a lot of ideas and possibilities to create your own world (that is what I prefer to do as a GM). Nevertheless, it need TOO MANY optional rules, houserules and so on to be really enjoyable.
I just think the system let the GM too... "alone". I have to choose which rules to use, to make my own houserules, etc. etc. Too bad. I would loved to get a generic system such as RQ for my own setting, but now -after more than 1 year of weekly game sessions- I'm tired by the great quantity of houserules and optional rules I've to use, and I decided to shift to a more simpler -or better organized- system (I tried Warhammer, but I dislike the career system, so I'm studying Dragon Warriors)...
I like MRQ general concept, but:
1. layout is very VERY poor
2. the index is horrible. I would loved to have a simple spell index with the spells ordered by rune, for example. I hoped to find this in the Spellbook, but it wasn't present there either.
3. the rules aren't well organized.
4. when you are in combat the opposed roll system doesn't work well. I preferred the old RQ III system in this case.
5. I miss a good section about magic items and treasures.
I also feel that, in combat, the bookeeping is too heavy for the GM. When there are many opponents, it's quite hard to keep infos about all the hit locations of the monsters and so on.
BTW, I still think MRQ is better than the old RQ. I really like the rune system, and I think it's possible to create a good setting using the rules.
The rules for Rune Magic, the Legendary Abilities, the enchantments, the monsters: those are just some examples of MRQ good points.
I did a mistake in my campaign: I allowed the players to use all the magic systems. So I have a sorcerer, a priest, a rune magic user, etc.
This is allowed by rules, and it would works well in Glorantha, but I have my own setting and, as GM, I found quite hard to manage three different kinds of magic.
Next time I'll play RQ I will select which rules to use, how to manage combat and I will allow only Rune Magic (that is awesome, in my opinion). Divine Magic is interesting too, I like the idea of the consacrated places (or icons) that gives the character the power to be "recharged" by the divine energy.
To sum up, in my opinion, MRQ is a good generic system and can give you a lot of ideas and possibilities to create your own world (that is what I prefer to do as a GM). Nevertheless, it need TOO MANY optional rules, houserules and so on to be really enjoyable.
I just think the system let the GM too... "alone". I have to choose which rules to use, to make my own houserules, etc. etc. Too bad. I would loved to get a generic system such as RQ for my own setting, but now -after more than 1 year of weekly game sessions- I'm tired by the great quantity of houserules and optional rules I've to use, and I decided to shift to a more simpler -or better organized- system (I tried Warhammer, but I dislike the career system, so I'm studying Dragon Warriors)...
Inspector Zero
Mongoose
Have a look at Basic Roleplaying - what you like about MRQ you'll find plenty of there but without the houseruling necessity. That said, it allows for plenty of options which may put you off but unlike MRQ they are all coherent and it's clear how they are compatible with the core system.
From the responses seen so far, although some posters are clearly major fans of MRQ, most people like aspects of the MRQ system but the weaknesses outweigh the strengths overall. Despite this we all seem to have bought the books and indeed some have gone as far to say that they will probably continue to buy them and the next version of MRQ. If you were sitting there in Mongoose Towers reading that, you'd be pretty happy I think.
Here's another question then. Would people switch to a setting for BRP that looked and played like the Runequest of old?
A further question. How much do you think it would cost to buy the RuneQuest licence and copyright from Mongoose?
Deleriad
Mongoose
Inspector Zero said:
This post seems to imply that RQ and BRP are somehow mutually exclusive and I don't understand the question. If someone comes up with an old-school FRP setting statted out for BRP then I would probably play it under RQ because that's my favourite FRP system.
If I decided I wanted to do some sort of homebrew non-fantasy setting I would treat the RQ mechanics as part of the BRP toolbox and develop it accordingly.
If I get a hankering for playing in a published setting that has been done out of BRP I would probably use it as written except I would likely use the RQ combat system and replace the resistance table with opposed skill rolls. Depends how bothered I could be to customise it to my own preferences.
BTW using RQ to refer to current version of RQ as published by Mongoose.
Blackyinkin
Mongoose
Hi,
Have you all taken a look at Newt's OpenQuest game? Yes I know I illustrated it, but he sent me a hard copy the other week and I have come to the conclusion that it is most excellent. I makes RQ work for me, I like the way you create characters, I like the way skills have been reduced for simplicity, I like what he has done with Magic (in most cases, a couple of errors here and there). The game is deadly, but it is also wonderful fun. I would recommend it to everyone. Plus it is free!
http://d101games.co.uk/books/openquest/
Simon Bray
Have you all taken a look at Newt's OpenQuest game? Yes I know I illustrated it, but he sent me a hard copy the other week and I have come to the conclusion that it is most excellent. I makes RQ work for me, I like the way you create characters, I like the way skills have been reduced for simplicity, I like what he has done with Magic (in most cases, a couple of errors here and there). The game is deadly, but it is also wonderful fun. I would recommend it to everyone. Plus it is free!
http://d101games.co.uk/books/openquest/
Simon Bray
PrinceYyrkoon said:
Me... and it works well (so now you know at least one)
I particularly appreciated the general HP suppression. For me it suddenly gave more heroism to the fights without impairing their harshness.
Of course, if I had more time I would also have built my own set of house rules... but this isn't a critic for MRQ as I would make my own rules for any rule system.
Are runes an interesting idea?
Well I admit that it is a quite specific magic system. I find it good for Glorantha (you can define it as being material or spiritual as you wish, YGMW) and it even inspired my own original non-glorantha campaign background.
Do I really like MRQ?
Definitely yes!
After these years (decades?) of stale Sartar-bound material... it is fresh air again! (Orlanth liberated from Himself!)
I'm thankful for all the work done on the second age, new visions, new areas, new discoveries. It also gave me so much new ideas for the third age.
To me, Blood of Orlanth and Dara Happa stirs are the best official gloranthan campaign sets ever made... finally some epic stories thought with true heroquesting on the other side! (even it is still a little bit shy to my taste)
Do I like everything in MRQ?
Certainly not, an interesting and original Pamaltela supplement IS STILL missing (which would be the ultimate proof of bold imagination... and understandable and complete Eastern Isles being a godly feat)
Is there something I hate about MRQ?
Yes, the weird tube-forming covers of the last soft covered supplements :-D
Loran
Overall theres not a lot wrong MRQ rules set.
My main niggles are just the magic -- pacts go along way to setting things right, however Divine Magic still seems pretty limited, that is the amount of Divine magic you can have on tap, and its hard to see an easy way round the limitation using the experience system - and it starts getting messy if you start adding in POW gain rolls.
Sorcery on the other hand is a lot less broken than in its previous incarnations.. still needs tweaking though.
Back ground material has been excellent...
Especially the new Glorantha stuff... the Race books... Campaigns, there was a hiccup with the unfortunate degree of editing that the two cult books got.
And its a shame the concept of Shamanistic magic didn't make it into the Core book, its a really nice idea that got rather confused in the cults book.
It does seem a shame with all the effort that goes into these books the line is let down at the last hurdle by proof reading, at a guess to meet the rather tight scheduling which ensures a pretty consent flow of new material.
On the other side of the Atlantic Chaosium seem to have the opposite problem, the BRP is well edited and proof read, but has a dire rate of product output...
I'm still waiting to see Shattered Futures in Print.
Paul
My main niggles are just the magic -- pacts go along way to setting things right, however Divine Magic still seems pretty limited, that is the amount of Divine magic you can have on tap, and its hard to see an easy way round the limitation using the experience system - and it starts getting messy if you start adding in POW gain rolls.
Sorcery on the other hand is a lot less broken than in its previous incarnations.. still needs tweaking though.
Back ground material has been excellent...
Especially the new Glorantha stuff... the Race books... Campaigns, there was a hiccup with the unfortunate degree of editing that the two cult books got.
And its a shame the concept of Shamanistic magic didn't make it into the Core book, its a really nice idea that got rather confused in the cults book.
It does seem a shame with all the effort that goes into these books the line is let down at the last hurdle by proof reading, at a guess to meet the rather tight scheduling which ensures a pretty consent flow of new material.
On the other side of the Atlantic Chaosium seem to have the opposite problem, the BRP is well edited and proof read, but has a dire rate of product output...
I'm still waiting to see Shattered Futures in Print.
Paul
Simulacrum
Mongoose
My take so far is...thank god (mongoose) for the chance to buy some RQ again...but:
Rune Magic - you can just lose the rune tuning thing if it doesn't work for you (personally I find it deeply contrived) - but the system as presented means there is no longer a nice and aspirational progression from battle/spirit magic to divine magic, they are now simply competing systems. That goes for magic in general - there's less of a distinctive "feel" to the spell lists for each type of magic - the rules are different but not the magic.
Sorcery - really what's the point of e.g. the duration table - POW x magnitude minutes? I don't need a table for that. But it is also pointless. You need to know whether a spell is going to last for:
The next round or two
The fight
The scenario episode
The scenario
The campaign
The character's working life
Frankly, if a spell is POW x12 rather than POW x 14 minutes, that's a pointless distinction in playing terms, and scant reward for having clawed your way up the magical hierarchy. So I'll be substituting the old RQ3 table with the exponential growth in effect. That also means sorcery has its own cultural impact, as powerful or rich individuals acquire long-term magic effects from the better sorcerors. And the same is true for range...
Glad to see simplified character generation, dropped all those daft x1 multipliers. Shame about combat - it doesn't seem to have taken a leap forward, and despite some nice innovations seems to have not gone back to any original thinking about what actually takes place in a fight before developing the mechanics - its just a reversion of a game mechanic. For example, a combat round is ludicrous at 5 secs - on this basis an average person armed with a bow and with 2 combat actions can maintain a rate of arrowfire much higher than a hardened professional in history would attempt. This is a small niggle, it's easy enough to assume a houserule that the round is 10 secs, but it illustrates the point.
So I'm generally very chuffed to see MRQ out there and be able to spend money on RQ, but there's a lot that's not right - presentation and proof reading are also a let down. I'd love to use MRQ to publish a big non-gloranthan campaign i have, but I have no idea whether OGL and trademark licences allow one to do so with a lot of rules tweaks or house rules included?
Rune Magic - you can just lose the rune tuning thing if it doesn't work for you (personally I find it deeply contrived) - but the system as presented means there is no longer a nice and aspirational progression from battle/spirit magic to divine magic, they are now simply competing systems. That goes for magic in general - there's less of a distinctive "feel" to the spell lists for each type of magic - the rules are different but not the magic.
Sorcery - really what's the point of e.g. the duration table - POW x magnitude minutes? I don't need a table for that. But it is also pointless. You need to know whether a spell is going to last for:
The next round or two
The fight
The scenario episode
The scenario
The campaign
The character's working life
Frankly, if a spell is POW x12 rather than POW x 14 minutes, that's a pointless distinction in playing terms, and scant reward for having clawed your way up the magical hierarchy. So I'll be substituting the old RQ3 table with the exponential growth in effect. That also means sorcery has its own cultural impact, as powerful or rich individuals acquire long-term magic effects from the better sorcerors. And the same is true for range...
Glad to see simplified character generation, dropped all those daft x1 multipliers. Shame about combat - it doesn't seem to have taken a leap forward, and despite some nice innovations seems to have not gone back to any original thinking about what actually takes place in a fight before developing the mechanics - its just a reversion of a game mechanic. For example, a combat round is ludicrous at 5 secs - on this basis an average person armed with a bow and with 2 combat actions can maintain a rate of arrowfire much higher than a hardened professional in history would attempt. This is a small niggle, it's easy enough to assume a houserule that the round is 10 secs, but it illustrates the point.
So I'm generally very chuffed to see MRQ out there and be able to spend money on RQ, but there's a lot that's not right - presentation and proof reading are also a let down. I'd love to use MRQ to publish a big non-gloranthan campaign i have, but I have no idea whether OGL and trademark licences allow one to do so with a lot of rules tweaks or house rules included?
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
GeneralPanic said:
That's very culture dependant...
For example, according to the Warqa wa Gulshah (and other texts), fully competent 13th century Saljuq ghulam, or alternatively Saracen professional horsemen could shoot five arrows in two-and-a-half seconds (taking five arrows at a time from the quiver), hitting a metre-wide target at 75 metres. They were specifically trained to loose c. 5 arrows during closing at full speed (about 35 kph), at a decreasing range of 30-5 metres.
It all depends on what cultural combat practices one wants to include. Paced for endurance, hour-long Livery-bow (longbow) exchanges aren't the only possible model....
Regards
Simulacrum
Mongoose
Lord High Munchkin said:
er...no, my comparison may be culturally specific - any example will be - but the question is a practical issue of what is regarded under the game system to be normative capability for a non-specialist practitioner with non-specialist or culturally specific training. And IMHO, 12 shots per round is a hell of a rate. There is an entirely separate question over whether the rules allowances for archery are a reasonable guide to the tempo of close combat due to balancing or are devised in complete isolation
Simulacrum
Mongoose
Noted - which makes 12/minute, which is a lot. Generally with 2 combat actions and 2 reactions at average, a 5 second round is very densely packed. This is not the most important issue - it's only illustrative, and easily house-ruled. The magic system isues are far more important to whether the MRQ version of RQ is the one on which you'd want to base your campaign (compared to RQ2/3/BRP/Openquest).
One more question - how is MRQ doing in attracting new players to RQ - do Mongoose have any idea what proportion of buyers are RQ-ers who started in the late 70's or 80's, D&Ders looking for a new system to try or people new to the hobby altogether? This is obviously a product, distribution and marketing question rather than something about the niceties of the system.
One more question - how is MRQ doing in attracting new players to RQ - do Mongoose have any idea what proportion of buyers are RQ-ers who started in the late 70's or 80's, D&Ders looking for a new system to try or people new to the hobby altogether? This is obviously a product, distribution and marketing question rather than something about the niceties of the system.
Err yes. You said:
Well, LHM then quoted you a historical hardened professional who turned out 120 a minute, compared to MRQ's paltry 12! Actually, I suspect that the warrior in question couldn't maintain that kind of rate for more than short bursts, but then rare is the MRQ fight that last more than a few rounds anyhow.
I do like it, but I definitely have the impressions that it was released too early.
There are simply too many inconsistencies or plain bugs or too much "vagueness" in general for my taste.
GFC did a lot to better the mess with rune magic, but you still have to do a lot of work (i.e. adjusting the cults in CoGI... not even speaking of the mess in CoGII... or sorcery in general) to actually make the whole thing function.
Sometimes I wonder if it were better not to read too much in forums, because quite often you are pointed at things, you probably hadn't realized... often issues are raised and - I think - *dramatised* that really aren't worth haranguing about, as you - as a more or less competent GM - should be able to handle them at the table.
Well, until your player suddenly finds a major bug and exploits it to a degree that you're having trouble to save your campaign.
I often go "Oh my gosh, don't let my players read that !"
Aynway, the thing that actually bothers me most is the difference in quality (Blood of Orlanth is really great whereas the RQ Spellbook is a disaster).
So I suppose the rumours about a next edition are to be taken seriously... and I suppose Mongoose has at least one sucker (=me) who's going to spend some more money on it.
There are simply too many inconsistencies or plain bugs or too much "vagueness" in general for my taste.
GFC did a lot to better the mess with rune magic, but you still have to do a lot of work (i.e. adjusting the cults in CoGI... not even speaking of the mess in CoGII... or sorcery in general) to actually make the whole thing function.
Sometimes I wonder if it were better not to read too much in forums, because quite often you are pointed at things, you probably hadn't realized... often issues are raised and - I think - *dramatised* that really aren't worth haranguing about, as you - as a more or less competent GM - should be able to handle them at the table.
Well, until your player suddenly finds a major bug and exploits it to a degree that you're having trouble to save your campaign.
I often go "Oh my gosh, don't let my players read that !"
Aynway, the thing that actually bothers me most is the difference in quality (Blood of Orlanth is really great whereas the RQ Spellbook is a disaster).
So I suppose the rumours about a next edition are to be taken seriously... and I suppose Mongoose has at least one sucker (=me) who's going to spend some more money on it.
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
kintire said:
It is very unlikely that the aforementioned ghulam would actually loose more than the single handful (i.e. 5 arrows) at any one target—he would have "ridden-through" before he had a chance to do more than snatch another batch of arrows. There would then have likely been a gap of time whilst riding about.
So no, he certainly wouldn't have kept up 120 arrows per minute, but rather a stop-start kind of engagement (rather reminiscent of the average PC RQ combat...).
LHM, 2 questions
1. Do you have any data on how acurate this cluster shot was? I imagine it was like a shotgun blast, but like a burst from an assault rifle, you dont care where all the rounds go as long as some hit the target.
2. Do you have any data on target effects vs a single arrow? I suspect they had less MV, so penetrated less, but that is only a guess. Perhaps a bow has enough reserve power that the extra weight of the arrows does not slow it down.
3. Yes I only said 2....What did the multi-shot do to range? Again, it seems it should shorten it, but I am interested in what really happened.
Thanks for any inof
1. Do you have any data on how acurate this cluster shot was? I imagine it was like a shotgun blast, but like a burst from an assault rifle, you dont care where all the rounds go as long as some hit the target.
2. Do you have any data on target effects vs a single arrow? I suspect they had less MV, so penetrated less, but that is only a guess. Perhaps a bow has enough reserve power that the extra weight of the arrows does not slow it down.
3. Yes I only said 2....What did the multi-shot do to range? Again, it seems it should shorten it, but I am interested in what really happened.
Thanks for any inof
Simulacrum
Mongoose
This is actually quite an interesting notion for a Legendary Feat or specific rules for a specialist technique/cult skill. I read that Sassanid bowmen were also thought to be able to do this (loose 5 arrows in rapid fire, from horseback) and it is suggested they used a specific device to do it (but it is unknown what this was). I'd be interested if there are sources available other than the one cited, which as literature is apt to exaggerate - or at least perhaps to cite the very best anyone could achieve as if it was a general proficiency.
By the way, I'm working on some house rules for shields which seem to have very little thought put into them - has anyone already done some work on this?
By the way, I'm working on some house rules for shields which seem to have very little thought put into them - has anyone already done some work on this?
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
GeneralPanic said:
Quite likely, there is a longstanding continuity in Central Asian archery traditions.
...OK, this is a bit long, and I should point out I'm far more knowledgeable on Medieval Chinese archery than Islamic, but here you go....
Ghulams generally used a variety of different bows of the Turkish type, different bows for different purposes... and different draws for differing goals too.
Ranges of 800 metres were certainly possible with a turkish-type bow—but NEVER in combat (these distances were just attempted for sport distance-shooting). Arrows would actually be loosed in combat at a range at which they could almost be guaranteed to defeat armour (i.e. under c. 50 metres).
At the ranges that they were generally trained to loose at (even at the outer 30 metre point for charging archery) wearing any armour was a bit of a moot point—the arrows would punch through regardless.
It should be remembered that arrows shot from composite bows at close ranges were often perfectly capable of "punching-through". There are even numerous reasonably modern examples of North American Plains Indians (although they used a weaker composite bow of a different construction), shooting straight through an adult female North American Bison and felling the calf on the other side.
As to accuracy, this would naturally increase when the archers sat on a stationary mount (as they were also trained to do), but ghulams were typically aiming at the torso. However, as a charging ghulam approached his target his accuracy would likely increase as the target grew closer in his view.
The arrows were typically "tanged" in construction (unlike the Western European practice of "socket" construction). "Tanged" arrows are somewhat weaker, and more prone to shaft shatter—but some break-up of arrows could be expected given the sheer impact forces involved (normally war-bows, such as the 'aqqar, were in the range of 50-75 kg draw weight).
Of course arrows were not the only things that could be shot... with a bow called a husban "grasshopper", fitted with a nawak or a majra arrow-guide, short darts, stones, and ceramic grenades of naft "Greek-fire" could also be launched.
Many of the times ghulams were defeated by Frankish forces were in fact due to poor "on the fly" organisation, and more indulgence in politicking than in the training that they should have been doing. Actually the sheer effectiveness (and status) of the Turkish bow could be seen as being a problem, its' continued use (well into the mid 18th C) being held by some as possibly holding back the military use of modern hand-guns in Ottoman forces.
I hope that this that helpful? However, as I mentioned, I know a great deal more on Chinese rather than Islamic archery—so I might be simplifying things.
