First impressions

[Newtus]

Well this member of the 'old guard’ (RQ2/RQ3, started in late 80s played solid until 99) opened his mind, stopped grumping and bought a copy yesterday.

Despite the fact that I'm more than happy with RQ2 with the Gloranthan Classics from Moon Designs, for my Old School RQ needs (despite playing Rq3 more I find it a bit broken in places and over fiddly), I'm quite enjoying MRQ.

Its nicely written, clearly laid out and despite a few typos is a joy to read.

I ran through character generation last night, and rolled up two characters in half an hour and found the char gen system much more streamlined. As someone who struggles with lots of maths in games I'm glad the characteristic modifiers for skills have gone and is replaced by simply using the appropriate characteristic or sum of characteristics as a base. Also I like the professions and character backgrounds, a much more streamlined version of cultural backgrounds and occupations from RQ3. Once niggle however was the laughable amount of kit that even a noble could afford. I rolled up a pc with a noble background and he could just afford his main weapon, a shield, a leather shirt and a backpack! I plan to fix this by having default equipment for each background and profession, like in RQ3.

It should also be noted that both characters I rolled up, a noble solider and barbarian woodsman, are without any magic. In the core rules only magic using professions get access to magic. I'm in two minds about this. On one hand one of the unique selling points of RQ as a system was that everyone got magic. However even playing in Glorantha you tended to find beginning players weren't interested in what magic they had started with until they saw non player characters using it. Then quite often they wanted to dump the magic spells they started with and learn ones of more use. The new Rune magic system in MRQ with its pick up the runes left in the adventure approach will maybe work with these types of players?

Read thorough the Combat rules this morning on the bus to work with the intention of running a combat with my two new characters tonight. Looks pretty straight forward and there's allot of rules that used to be house rules in our old games, such as the impaling weapons staying in wounds or being painfully ripped out. Saying this I’m still a bit timid about the lack of Total Hit points, since I played in Tom Zunder's play test (version 1.5 of the rules) and we got really stuck on this point and ended up fighting the limbless broo for several rounds (think Monty Python Black Knight meets RQ combat). Saying this reading the rules it answers most of my questions arising from that combat.

So far its not the RQ of my yoof and its not a modern RPG by any stretch of the imagination , in the sense that Burning Wheel, HeroQuest and Sorcerer are, but its a nice updating of a game that has many happy memories for me.

 

[DreadDomain]

Man I went under the radar for many weeks now and I come back with a lot to read!!! I have no first impression other than V1.5 (which was full of promises), the character sheet (that is one ugly sheet) and the previews (it seems they were chosen so no solid idea of the game could be made from them).

I am so behind now that I will only ask one very basic question. They kept the seven classic characteristics but re-ordered them more logically (which is good) but how are they generated for humans? Like RQ2 (3d6 to each), like RQ3 (some 3d6, some 2d6+6), like SB (2d6+6 to each) or something elses?

 

[iamtim]

They kept the seven classic characteristics but re-ordered them more logically (which is good) but how are they generated for humans? Like RQ2 (3d6 to each), like RQ3 (some 3d6, some 2d6+6), like SB (2d6+6 to each) or something elses?

They are...

Strength (STR): Roll 4D6, drop the lowest die and total the remaining dice.

Constitution (CON): Roll 4D6, drop the lowest die and total the remaining dice.

Dexterity (DEX): Roll 4D6, drop the lowest die and total the remaining dice.

Size (SIZ): Roll 3D6, drop the lowest die and total the remaining dice. Add 6 to the result.

Intelligence (INT): Roll 3D6, drop the lowest die and total the remaining dice. Add 6 to the result.

Power (POW): Roll 4D6, drop the lowest die and total the remaining dice.

Charisma (CHA): Roll 4D6, drop the lowest die and total the remaining dice.

 

[DreadDomain]

They are...

Ahhh! What a shame. I always detested RQ3's SIZ/INT vs ELSE dichotomy.

But thanks for the answer iamtim!!

For the record, it won't make or break the game obviously but I was just curious about this long time pet peeve of mine

 

[Adept]

They are...

Ahhh! What a shame. I always detested RQ3's SIZ/INT vs ELSE dichotomy.

But thanks for the answer iamtim!!

For the record, it won't make or break the game obviously but I was just curious about this long time pet peeve of mine

I agree. The RQ-3 thing seems to have been a fix to some problems (mostly human size vs. dwarf size and similar) and was never that good an idea. Now that Mongoose RQ is an all new system, there was absolutely no reason to stick to the 2d6+6 stats for Siz, Int other than misplaced nostalgia

 

[SteveMND]

Now that Mongoose RQ is an all new system, there was absolutely no reason to stick to the 2d6+6 stats for Siz, Int other than misplaced nostalgia

On the contrary, that always made perfect sense to me. On a linear scale, 7 INT and below was typically defined as pretty near animal intelligence (well, along with fixed INT, but you know what I mean). By definition (barring birth defects, etc.), any human individual capable of being a PC in the game needs to have an INT score of at least 8, hence the non-standard range. Of course, I suppose another method would be to just to raise any score to at least 8, but that would result in a disproportinate number of morons as characters.

Along with SIZ, that demonstrated one of the things I really liked: fairly absolute ranges for characteristics (unlike some games, like D&D, where there really is no upper limit). You could maybe get a stat above the max limit, but it was brutally difficult.

Numbers like that are created arbitrarily to begin -- the base stats developed all those years ago for humans could have just as easily been written around a base of 4d6, or 3d10, or what have you -- but setting certain stats with a minimum level helps to balance and compare them against other species and creatures that you create.

In D&D again, for example, INTs of 1 or 2 are animal inteliignce, since 3 and up is human range. that doesn't leave much for wiggle room; a hamster is pretty much as smart as a cow as is smart as a dog is as smart as a chimpanzee, statistically speaking. The wider range of some stats -- along with fixed versus free INT, a distinction I loved -- provides more room to develop the mechanics.

 

[atgxtg]

Now that Mongoose RQ is an all new system, there was absolutely no reason to stick to the 2d6+6 stats for Siz, Int other than misplaced nostalgia

On the contrary, that always made perfect sense to me. On a linear scale, 7 INT and below was typically defined as pretty near animal intelligence (well, along with fixed INT, but you know what I mean). By definition (barring birth defects, etc.), any human individual capable of being a PC in the game needs to have an INT score of at least 8, hence the non-standard range. Of course, I suppose another method would be to just to raise any score to at least 8, but that would result in a disproportinate number of morons as characters.

Acxtually the stats in RQ are't quite on a linear scale. A INT 15 Human isn't 3 times as smart as an INT 5 Dog. It is actually an increasing scale. With SIZ every +8 points was x2 mass. So while a SIZ 16 person was twice the mass of a SIZ 8 person, a SIZ 32 horse is more that twice the mass of the SIZE 16 person (four times).

THe increase was just so gradular (about 9% per point) that is was near linear through the typical attribute values for humans.

In D&D again, for example, INTs of 1 or 2 are animal inteliignce, since 3 and up is human range. that doesn't leave much for wiggle room; a hamster is pretty much as smart as a cow as is smart as a dog is as smart as a chimpanzee, statistically speaking. The wider range of some stats -- along with fixed versus free INT, a distinction I loved -- provides more room to develop the mechanics.

I wished that they had done something similar with all the attributes. Say 2d6+6 for everything or maybe 2d6+3 (10 average). It gives a lot more "wiggle" room for other animal stats.

 

[Urox]

Strength (STR): Roll 4D6, drop the lowest die and total the remaining dice....

That's Old School. That's how we rolled up AD&D characters 25 years ago...

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

What I was wondering was why RQ continued to use this particular methods of rolling stats, in which you roll the stats in sequence and write down the number and that's it.

It's something I would have house-ruled away myself and provided alternatives to. The "you got what you rolled" approach has been abandoned by everyone else, incluidng WOTC (whose enshrining of the "roll your six numbers and then choose what goes where" approach was one of the most subtle but important changes to D&D when the 3rd edition first appeared). There is no reason Gms cannot use something similar as a house rule in their games: make your stat rolls of the requisite types and then place them where they are appropriate to what you want your character to be.

This is the only design flaw I've picked up in my curso0ry reading of the book (the local game shop is holding a copy for me, but I have yet to actually pick it up and take it home).

 

[GoingDown]

What I was wondering was why RQ continued to use this particular methods of rolling stats, in which you roll the stats in sequence and write down the number and that's it.

I guess there will be alternatives in upcoming books.

I would like to use this: roll 4d6, drop any die you want to and add rest to your score.

 

[andakitty]

I don't know that assigning stats would be a great idea here without more changes. For instance, the 'actions per round' is based solely on the DEX score, so guess where the high score will always go? Or at least more often than not, in many cases...

 

[Rurik]

For one the rules specifically state the GM may elect to let players swap Stats, with the exception that Int and Siz can't be swapped with other stats (because of the different roll for them), which is the same as letting you allocate them.

Kitty is right, you need to be careful with this, there are definately stats that are more important than others, Dex being a pretty big one (the biggest).

When I first learned D&D 25 years ago I learned roll 4d6 drop lowest 6 times and assign. Boy were those early parties an ugly bunch of people with no social skills.

 

[andakitty]

Mine still tend to be, with any sort of assigned stat scheme. So I usually use a mix, like roll in place and modify and/or add more points. Like SB5, more or less.

 

[Rurik]

I have had characters roll and assign all stats but Cha/App, and roll that one seperately. That works pretty well to.

 

[Urox]

I have had characters roll and assign all stats but Cha/App, and roll that one seperately. That works pretty well to.

After a year of GMing 'Ernest Bornine's" I came up with the unusually cruel method -- roll best 3 of 4 dice 6 times and assign, but your lowest stat can't be CHA...

 

[iamtim]

After a year of GMing 'Ernest Bornine's" I came up with the unusually cruel method -- roll best 3 of 4 dice 6 times and assign, but your lowest stat can't be CHA...

Whenever my players started pulling that, I'd just run them through scenarios that had LOTS of social interaction.

Heh, one time they were working as mercenaries, and a "CHA munchkin" was acting as the parties leader. They missed out on about 3 jobs right in a row until they learned that the low CHA character shouldn't be their front-man.

 

[SteveMND]

This is the only design flaw I've picked up

That's not a design flaw, that's a design preference. Personally, I'm most fond of "everyman" campaigns, wherein normal, average people (the PCs) find themselves thrust into unusual situations, and they have to learn how to be heros. Random stats perfectly mesh with that idea, and so I tend to use that most often (that said, I allow a certain number of rerolls during character generation to help avoid truly unworkable characters).

But again, it also depends on the type of campaign you are running. For the long, developed campaigns, I prefer to use the everyman idea. For shorter, one-off type campaigns where the characters are already established heroes, some other method of providing with better stats or skill initially works well. It all depends.

 

[Vadrus]

This is the only design flaw I've picked up

That's not a design flaw, that's a design preference. Personally, I'm most fond of "everyman" campaigns, wherein normal, average people (the PCs) find themselves thrust into unusual situations, and they have to learn how to be heros. Random stats perfectly mesh with that idea, and so I tend to use that most often (that said, I allow a certain number of rerolls during character generation to help avoid truly unworkable characters).

But again, it also depends on the type of campaign you are running. For the long, developed campaigns, I prefer to use the everyman idea. For shorter, one-off type campaigns where the characters are already established heroes, some other method of providing with better stats or skill initially works well. It all depends.

I agree, one of our most memorable campaign had the PC's starting as farmers, was funny when much later the Humakti Runelord just kept wishing people would leave him alone so that he could go back to the simple farming life again.


Vadrus

 

[Michael Hopcroft]

I have had characters roll and assign all stats but Cha/App, and roll that one seperately. That works pretty well to.

After a year of GMing 'Ernest Bornine's" I came up with the unusually cruel method -- roll best 3 of 4 dice 6 times and assign, but your lowest stat can't be CHA...

What do you mean Ernest Borgnine (the legendary character actor whose career spanned from the 1950's to thr 1980's and included an Academy Award in 1956 for Marty) wasn't chasrismatic? Pretty, no -- he lookied like an "ordinary guy". But definitely charismatic -- he commanded your atention on-screen though skill at his craft and presence.

 

[SteveMND]

What do you mean Ernest Borgnine (the legendary chsaracter actor nwhose career spanned from the 1950's to thr 12980's and included an Acadmy Award for Marty) wasn't chasrismatic? Ptretty, no -- he lookied like an "ordinary guy". But definitely charismatic -- he commanded your atention on-screen though skill at his craft and presence.

RQ3 used Appearance, not Charisma, which is probably what the reference is to. A change in MRQ I'm not fond of, but it's nowhere near a deal-breaker or anything for me.

I remember one short-lived campaign where one of our players rolled up an APP of 4, and decided to keep it. He had to go around covered up in big cloaks and cowls just to keep from scaring the children and such.

Also: "1950's to thr 12980's"? Wow. Now that's some career!