Do you really like MRQ?

[Icebrand]

I've tried doing this but the only problem is that I keep on forgetting to use it. When I remember to use it, it is quite effective but then again none of the PCs or NPCs tend to have Resilience over 70% (I don't use the player's update).

I wouldn't actually know what to do if a PC died... I had several "minor" PC's killed over the years [I remember *really* annoying yelmalio female elf got her back broken and tossed over a cliff by the resident UZ -she was TOO ANNOYING to risk eating (yes, walktapus was safer); the player never came back for some reason :roll:] but the major PC's only died once each: the humakti was killed by 3 mook spearmen (when he wasn't a humakti yet) and the orlanthi and sorcerer got killed by a waterfall (it seems that an RQ3 character is completely uncapable of swimming at +0% without heavy training in the skill).

After a couple of years they all came back to life and then got real powerful and stuff (runelords/priest and adept). Thing is, they are not still converted to MRQ (boy divine magic sucks now or what?) but with my current implementation [combat as opossed rolls, while partial success grants 1/2 damage AFTER armor] means they WILL get some major wounds over time.

Well, i think i drifted a bit

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

I want to tell everyone that my Humakti initiate character was killed by a dying giant falling on him, somewhere in the Rockwoods. I dont know why Im telling you this.

Its obviously still painful after all these years.

Inglorious charatcer deaths anyone? Maybe it should be a thread.

 

[Icebrand]

I want to tell everyone that my Humakti initiate character was killed by a dying giant falling on him, somewhere in the Rockwoods. I dont know why Im telling you this.

Its obviously still painful after all these years.

Inglorious charatcer deaths anyone? Maybe it should be a thread.

My humakti initiate is alive, but i once KOed a grannie with a face punch because someone menctioned the word "witch" and i thought she was a hag.

The whole town shunned AND mocked me, and to the day of his retirement the character was still beeing called Hans "oldwomenbeater"
Good thing most of the time i GM

 

[Christopher Graves]

Or had botched the last chance for world peace. Or had put water in the wine! Shot your favorite dog, or, stole your best girl.

I think many are overly critical in this thread. There is nothing in MRQ that is fatally flawed. If you are new to the game you might not even notice the errors at first and go a long way before you get head-walled and have to change a rule with a little common sense. I was around when Gygax was putting out the little paper pamphlets. I purchased White Bear Red Moon in the manila envelope and every version of Runequest along the way. I played Traveler in its hay-day and the I.C.E. systems. You all seem to selectively forget that all these systems were not without warts. I started playing war games in the early 70s, I own over 500 board wargames and play those games that have 150 or so pages of codified rules to make them work. These are far more complex than any Role Playing Game. Trust me, you can ask me and I will tell you when a set of rules is broken, poorly written, incomplete or misguided. All MRQ needs is a tweak here and there to make it very palatable to any RQ Grognard. It even has a few worthy innovations. Sure there are a few things that could be better, but, anyone who is still dissatisfied is probably spending more time thinking about rules than actually playing them.

MRQ and HQ2 are being brought into line with each other with regard to Glorantha. Recent publications have clarified a lot of this and have even tried to start to create a seamless system that works for the individual and a nation. Sure this concept isn't new and there are lots of holes but when have there not been.

I for one am extremely grateful that RQ is even being published and is at least partially doing Gloranthan Material. I suppose BRP would be fine but choices were made, decisions taken and here we are with Mongoose doing a Runequest that makes use of Glorantha. I for one will not SHOOT the gift horse in the mouth. I don't even play in the second age. I still like the material and use MRQ to run a 3rd age campaign. We run two full groups, one uses a hybrid of MRQ and HQ2 because they are VERY compatible and the other is full on MRQ.

Having said that, I understand Mongoose trying to make the system generic so that it can appeal to more people. I think a lot of reasonable compromises have been made to produce books that are usable by more than one audience and also books solely for a specific setting as well. The production value is relatively high, I personally would prefer more line drawings and more level 3 surveys to use the Phipp term but I am glad for what is being done. My chief hope is that these glossy books will help bring in more new and younger players and begin to introduce them to Glorantha which is THE seminal achievement in roleplaying. It is a strange new hybrid creation somewhere in between movie making and butterfly collecting. Nothing compares in maturity, depth and originality. Greg's personal achievement is monumental. He has found a worthy and faithful producer in Laws for this particular sequal.

Many here give rounded opinions that have criticism mixed with some perspective, experience and praise. I value these highly. Others seem to be spending more time just obsessing over points easily overcome or on poisoning the well. All MRQ needs, and this is true of almost any rules system, is a little creativity to modify it to your needs.

I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. But a little perspective and more balanced points of view would be far more productive. I challenge any to name a single problem with MRQ that could not be fixed with at worst a very short addendum of not more than a short paragraph.

 

[Newtus]

I like MRQ, its nice and straight forward and has the right amount of crunch for the type of game its trying to be. There's bits I personally don't like in it but like previous editions of the game its easy to houserule and expand.

There's an absolute mass of excellent Gloranthan material, which is a joy to read, and solid and robust support for the other settings that use the rules set.

I for one I'm very happy that Runequest is back in print, and more active than its ever been in this edition. My only regret is that I've not had chance to run it, apart from a couple of short games, due to my time being taken up with other existing campaigns (a long running HeroQuest game followed by a Battlestar Galactica game).

The most marvellous thing about the new RuneQuest from my perspective has been the OGL SRD. This has allowed me to write and publish my own game , OpenQuest. For the record I never wrote OQ because I thought MRQ is broken; in fact it gave me a very sound foundation to build upon. My motivation was that I wanted an even more streamlined and simplified version of D100, and the very generous publishing of the MRQ OGL SRD let me do that

 

[RosenMcStern]

I challenge any to name a single problem with MRQ that could not be fixed with at worst a very short addendum of not more than a short paragraph.

If this was not the truth, then the system itself would be broken, and no one here thinks so. Most problems have a quick fix: do not use armour penalty or decrease it, allow cultists to cast spells without runes, have all sorcery spells cost at least one magic point.

However, when almost everyone houserules a particular rule (the three examples above are the most famous, and very few play them as written in the book - as it happened with RQ3 dodge) then the rule is in need of a fix. The general complaint about MRQ is that it has many, many points that are "clearly in need of a small fix", more than previous editions of RuneQuest.

 

[Simulacrum]

There's a key change between RQ3 and MRQ which feels like a big step forward - and that's the switch of basic skill percentages from an arbitrary number plus modifier to a stat-derived percentage. I think there's a great deal more that can be done with that than has been, but at heart it introduces an elegance to the core system design that wasn't there before. The opposite is true of the magic system (in my opinion), however once you start working it into specific settings which provide a reason to make adjustments, it still provides a perfectly good foundation to work from.

 

[Christopher Graves]

I'm not sure the change in beginning percentages make a huge difference. I certainly agree this is more straightforward and far simpler when rolling up a character. But once a player has achieved a little experience these starting percentages have few implications for the character's fortunes.

I have always liked translating these basic skill percentages into play a bit more. In my hybrid campaign I do this to some extent. The party is made up of children who start out operating off of various combinations of three characteristics to derive their childish skills. I use both augments and the MRQ difficulty bonus system to quantify arguments that determine the outcome of their endeavors. The adults in many cased enjoy a level of mastery over the kids when childish proto-skills are compared to adult skills in opposed rolls. There are a number of exceptions.

 

[Christopher Graves]

I challenge any to name a single problem with MRQ that could not be fixed with at worst a very short addendum of not more than a short paragraph.

If this was not the truth, then the system itself would be broken, and no one here thinks so. Most problems have a quick fix: do not use armour penalty or decrease it, allow cultists to cast spells without runes, have all sorcery spells cost at least one magic point.

However, when almost everyone houserules a particular rule (the three examples above are the most famous, and very few play them as written in the book - as it happened with RQ3 dodge) then the rule is in need of a fix. The general complaint about MRQ is that it has many, many points that are "clearly in need of a small fix", more than previous editions of RuneQuest.

I am aware of all these issues and I can't entirely disagree with you, though I do believe some of these problems are either overblown or are only intermittently problematic. My point is that I cannot recall a version of RQ that did not have shortcomings and need some modification.

Some in this thread are actual authors of material for Glorantha and one or two may even have been involved with the editing of or even publication of fanzines. They tend to give far more leavened criticism because they understand the work involved, the actual achievement in building something whole. It is very easy to criticize and tear down. It is very easy to underestimate the work involved in actually creating something. I have very little patience for the long standing feud of playtester's between gaming systems. There is a chasm of between this kind of endeavor and those who have actually achieved something.

I'm sorry to scold and perhaps I am overreacting. But the very title of this thread chaps my hide. Much of the criticism is well considered adds depth to the game. This kind of thing always goes on and is essential for the improvement of any game over time. But many posts are either disingenuous or patently unfair to those who have actually done the hard work of concretely achieving the publication of a body of work.

I am extremely grateful that RQ is in publication and that Gloranthan material is being produced. I fear that the ongoing 'stitch and bitch' only serves to delay or even dissuade further efforts along these lines.

 

[Christopher Graves]

I like MRQ, its nice and straight forward and has the right amount of crunch for the type of game its trying to be. There's bits I personally don't like in it but like previous editions of the game its easy to houserule and expand.

There's an absolute mass of excellent Gloranthan material, which is a joy to read, and solid and robust support for the other settings that use the rules set.

I for one I'm very happy that Runequest is back in print, and more active than its ever been in this edition. My only regret is that I've not had chance to run it, apart from a couple of short games, due to my time being taken up with other existing campaigns (a long running HeroQuest game followed by a Battlestar Galactica game).

The most marvellous thing about the new RuneQuest from my perspective has been the OGL SRD. This has allowed me to write and publish my own game , OpenQuest. For the record I never wrote OQ because I thought MRQ is broken; in fact it gave me a very sound foundation to build upon. My motivation was that I wanted an even more streamlined and simplified version of D100, and the very generous publishing of the MRQ OGL SRD let me do that

Newt,

I haven't taken the time yet to look closely at openquest but I have heard nothing but good things about it. I think it may have some similarities to what I am trying to do in my hybrid game. I'm sure at a minimum I could plumb openquest for many new ideas. I'll pick this up soon. I've always enjoyed anything you have put together.

I wish you had the time to join in on my pbem ChildQuest game. We do have one slot left open. Your insight would be invaluable. Possibly, you might like to take a look or simply lurk. We are at:

http://groups.google.com/group/Alda-Chur

We have a serious community started up. Really, anyone is welcome to come take a look.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Some in this thread are actual authors of material for Glorantha and one or two may even have been involved with the editing of or even publication of fanzines. They tend to give far more leavened criticism because they understand the work involved, the actual achievement in building something whole. It is very easy to criticize and tear down. It is very easy to underestimate the work involved in actually creating something.

I do not underestimate anything, for sure. But, as I recently said to someone more involved than you and me, the effort put into something is not enough to ensure that the result is good. You need an objective assessment of quality. Having one edition of RuneQuest in print is one thousand times better thant having none, whatever the criticisms, but everyone's happiness is not enough to ensure that every element of the game is objectively ok. The many amendments confirm that some work can still be done.

I'm sorry to scold and perhaps I am overreacting. But the very title of this thread chaps my hide.

Man, let me say that you have not seen the really unfair comments. Thankfully, there is now a wide selection of in-print d100 games that one can use, and very few still feel the urge to flame RuneQuest for those parts that could have been designed better.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I think many are overly critical in this thread. There is nothing in MRQ that is fatally flawed.

Obviously, or we wouldn't still be here ...

If you are new to the game you might not even notice the errors at first and go a long way before you get head-walled and have to change a rule with a little common sense.

I don't think you needed previous experience with the game to spot rules and examples that contradicted each other, or a resolution system that gave 4 results (Fumble, Fail, Success, Critical) but crossreferenced them on a 3x3 table...

I was around when Gygax was putting out the little paper pamphlets. I purchased White Bear Red Moon in the manila envelope and every version of Runequest along the way. I played Traveler in its hay-day and the I.C.E. systems. You all seem to selectively forget that all these systems were not without warts.

But we are comparing the 4th (published) edition of a game from an established RPG company, not the first efforts of a new startup. While no game is ever perfect, the inital MRQ rulebooks suffered from poor editing, poor layout, and being rushed out without being properly playtested.

All MRQ needs is a tweak here and there to make it very palatable to any RQ Grognard. It even has a few worthy innovations. Sure there are a few things that could be better, but, anyone who is still dissatisfied is probably spending more time thinking about rules than actually playing them.

The problem is, when I am buying rules, I expect the designer to have identified those areas than need tweaking before expecting me to part with my hard-earend cash. - I dislike spending money on a rulebook to find that I need to download a "players update" that changes the published rules. (I also dislike being forced to buy the rules in multiple expensive, slim hardbacks before being offered the chance to buy them in the single volume they should have been released in int he first place...)

I for one am extremely grateful that RQ is even being published and is at least partially doing Gloranthan Material. I suppose BRP would be fine but choices were made, decisions taken and here we are with Mongoose doing a Runequest that makes use of Glorantha.

Me too. I suspect that were Chaosium to be producing the game rather than Mongoose we would have a much better looking game, but far less material...

Having said that, I understand Mongoose trying to make the system generic so that it can appeal to more people. I think a lot of reasonable compromises have been made to produce books that are usable by more than one audience and also books solely for a specific setting as well.

While I can see the appeal of a generic system, I don't appreciate the way that it was done. I'd rather have seen a proper Gloranthan Core Rulebook, of a smilar size to RQ Deluxe and a truly generic SRD which could be published as a "basic RQ" in a similar sized book to the original rulebook.

The production value is relatively high, I personally would prefer more line drawings and more level 3 surveys to use the Phipp term but I am glad for what is being done. My chief hope is that these glossy books will help bring in more new and younger players and begin to introduce them to Glorantha which is THE seminal achievement in roleplaying.
[\quote]
I'd not describe the production value as relatively high at all. The layout is often poor, the indexeing is always abysmal. The maps are too small, to dark and unispiring. The initial run of extremely thin hardbacks just looked like being a rip off, and production problems with the in-house printing did nothing to instil confidence in the quality of the content. (And I have little complaint with the quality of the content in those books - but Hardback books are expensive, and it is hard to justify the expense, or to persuade people that the book is worth getting when the covers are warping like mad)

The covers of the "generic" books are also generally unapealling too. I don't think they would encourage you to buy the game if it were not for the "brand recognition" of "Runequest".

(Not strictly MRQ related, but I know people who took one look at the physical quality of the (MRQ Printed) CthulhuTech book and put it back on the shelf...)

I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. But a little perspective and more balanced points of view would be far more productive. I challenge any to name a single problem with MRQ that could not be fixed with at worst a very short addendum of not more than a short paragraph.

The Indexes (Indicies?)
The Maps

The problem is that any discussion of the problems with a system is bound to appear more negative than is actually the case. The poor quality of the original rulebooks soured me to MRQ, and resulted in my lack of interest in the non-Gloranthan lines, but the overall quality of the Gloranthan supplements means I haven't vanished completely...

 

[Vivamort]

I've been happy with MRQ but I think it is because of my expectations. I've been playing RQ since the 70's and I bought about every game Chaosium had at one time or another...Stormbringer, Hawkmoon, COC, as well as Avalon Hill RQ and even bought RQ's distant cousin Arduin. I've always mixed in the elements I liked from each game system and scrapped the ones I didn't.

When I bought MRQ I was just glad to see new RQ material coming out so I took the parts I liked and ignored the parts I didn't. Based on my experience I never expected to be wowed by every rule change since, after all, most of RQ wasn't broken to begin with, and didn't need to be fixed, just tuned up a bit. Same thing with BRP. That is the expectation I have for buying RQII.

I've enjoyed most of the Mongoose material I've purchased, the only thing I really didn't care for much was Lankhmar and that was just because apart from the black magic system there wasn't much I could use.

 

[Lev Lafayette]

I challenge any to name a single problem with MRQ that could not be fixed with at worst a very short addendum of not more than a short paragraph.

The absolute hash job of the occupation system which tried to merge the culture and location specific RQ2 and the generic RQ3 occupations at the same-time. That entire section needs a rewrite.

 

[RosenMcStern]

I must admit that I am not super happy with the MRQ chargen system, but the background/occupation distinction does not sound so awful to me.

 

[Rurik]

Wow. I really like the Character Generation System. I was amazed at how fast my very first MRQ character rolled up. They are as fast or faster than any BRP implementation I can think of - and RQ was always the most time consuming.

The MRQ method of Background/Profession/Free points works very well and is very quick. I've always considered it a strong point of the system.

There were some definite problems with it's implementation - the fact that there never any backgrounds for Sorcerous or Divine characters even with the release of the companion, and trying to fit the generic backgrounds to Glorantha was definitely a square peg into a round hole kind of fit. But these were not problems with the system itself, just the implementation.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Actually, I'd have to say I really like the Mongoose Chargen too. It's much more focused than the standard BRP method, and allows a nice balance between packaged archetypes (the cultures and careers) and the usual flexibility of BRP. I also like the way that they've resolved the interaction of Characteristics with Skills, using them as bases. It's quite elegant, in all.

I do know a lot of gamers compare MRQ unfavourably with BRP, but there are certain areas I actually prefer. Character generation is one of them. What I don't really like in MRQ is the table-referencing, convoluted combat system.

 

[rabindranath72]

What I don't really like in MRQ is the table-referencing, convoluted combat system.

This. And the fact that what are essentially saving throws are handled by skills (persistence etc.)

 

[Mongoose_Will]

Just as a quick point,

I can only speak from a creative point of view (layout, graphic design)

Judging these new books based on the old ones would be a little bit of a mistake, the look is totally different and dare i say it... much better.

We have new artists working on the core book and while art is subjective most of it is of much higher quality.

We are striving to get rid of any comments based on bad design/layout so we can move forward and attract much more positive feedback.

Although saying that, constructive criticism is always welcomed as we are constantly looking to improve.

 

[Simulacrum]

This. And the fact that what are essentially saving throws are handled by skills (persistence etc.)

I have no problem with them being percentile based, I'm not keen on the names, would prefer more obvious, "toughness" and "willpower" or somesuch, but that's just me. And I'd prefer them not to be listed as skills, nor readily improved like skills, but more or less fixed apart from specialist training, Stat increases, or magic. The MRQ shift towards basing skills on stats rather than an (arbitrary basic+stat-derived mod) that I really like is let down in trying to make these work - the Elric/GMH amendments, which use stats +30 and Statx5 cap rather highlight the problem rather than fix it.

I think they are workeable as written, but could be much improved, they are a key component of the MRQ version of the game.

I'm working on using Resilience based on STR+CON+SIZ and Persistence on INT+CON+POW. This gives you a likely range for most PC's of 34-40 at start. I wouldn't want PC's in my campaign to have "saving throws" in excess of 50% as standard unless very well tooled up with magic and divine favours. Bonuses apply - eg poison antidote add to resilience when opposing the right poison, a phylactery adds to persistence vs certain types of spell.