Good in MRQ
- Thread starter andakitty
- Start date
I prefer to run a game with maximum skill level 99% anyway. My all-time favorite version of BRP being Stormbringer 1e.
You do know this is not the first rpg with such an aberration in the mechanics? Earthdawn had a bobble in its step dice mehanic. I don't remember but I think it was the 1D12-2D6 transition, for one. And at step 14. Wish I could remember the dice values involved better. Anyway, when I played Earthdawn I never noticed it, had no idea it existed until I read an article about it somewhat later.
You do know this is not the first rpg with such an aberration in the mechanics? Earthdawn had a bobble in its step dice mehanic. I don't remember but I think it was the 1D12-2D6 transition, for one. And at step 14. Wish I could remember the dice values involved better. Anyway, when I played Earthdawn I never noticed it, had no idea it existed until I read an article about it somewhat later.
bluejay said:
Here's why I don't think it will come into play that often: how often will A) the above 100% skills be used, and B) how often will they be used against other skills that are so far below their skill?
Does your sneaky-pete character sneak past guards multiple times in every single scenario? No. Probably not.
If you have a sneaky-pete character with a Sneak over 100%, why are you even making rolls against guards with 25% Perception skills?
If you have a sneaky-pete character with a Sneak over 100%, why isn't your GM challenging you with guards fortunate enough to have Perception skills in the 80s or 90s?
*shrug*
Where to start ? I like everything about MRQ except for some of the confusion that's come up regarding the combat system, and the wonky statistics of the halving method. As far as everything else...
Presenation:
I like the art - very impressed with all of the artists in the main rulebook. In my opinion, a lot of the art in recent RPG books has been both hit-and-miss...It's either really good, or really, really, really bad, and the same book will contain both. I don't think there is a single image in the MRQ rulebook that I don't like.
I like the layout - this may just be the Graphic Designer in me talking, but I like the runes and decorative symbols, and the torn-page edges. Very cool, and very nice for a black and white book.
Rules wise:
I like that a random aspect has been added to Strike Ranks for determining initiative.
I like that attributes play a bigger role in skill totals.
I like all of the options available during combat.
I like actions and reactions.
I like the background & profession aspects of character creation, and how quick and easy it is to generate a character.
I like the ability to generate characters from any creature in the main book.
I like how a created character has an old school 'feel' to him. This is probably a highly-debatable personal opinion, but I really like how every little aspect of the character is not defined, and how you still will need to roleplay the character to set him apart from other similar characters.
I could go on, but that's enough for now.
:wink:
Presenation:
I like the art - very impressed with all of the artists in the main rulebook. In my opinion, a lot of the art in recent RPG books has been both hit-and-miss...It's either really good, or really, really, really bad, and the same book will contain both. I don't think there is a single image in the MRQ rulebook that I don't like.
I like the layout - this may just be the Graphic Designer in me talking, but I like the runes and decorative symbols, and the torn-page edges. Very cool, and very nice for a black and white book.
Rules wise:
I like that a random aspect has been added to Strike Ranks for determining initiative.
I like that attributes play a bigger role in skill totals.
I like all of the options available during combat.
I like actions and reactions.
I like the background & profession aspects of character creation, and how quick and easy it is to generate a character.
I like the ability to generate characters from any creature in the main book.
I like how a created character has an old school 'feel' to him. This is probably a highly-debatable personal opinion, but I really like how every little aspect of the character is not defined, and how you still will need to roleplay the character to set him apart from other similar characters.
I could go on, but that's enough for now.
:wink:
That may be true, but as I said in another post, just because it doesn't come up in play very often, doesn't mean it's still not flawed.
I'll admit, I'm not very math savvy myself, and I probably never would have noticed the issue. But when dealing with numbers, I expect the people writing the rules that govern those numbers to be. The fact that several people unrelated to the game realized a mathematical flaw so quickly makes me concerned for other flaws that the designers may have missed.
SteveMND said:
See, this what gets to me. How many people have actually PLAYED the game now that it's been released? Have you?
Rather than play the game, seeing how things work in actual play, and finding out if it's fun or not, minds are being closed and the game is being pushed away on account of some internet forum discussions.
There's flaws in EVERY game. From Chutes & Ladders up to Advanced Squad Leader, and everything in between.
Play the game. Then decide. Not the other way around.
Dr. Halflight
Mongoose
I like that skills are based on attributes.
I like that there are basic AND advanced skills.
I like the Opposed Skill Roll.
I like how combat works (now that I understand it).
I like the Rune Magic system.
I like character creation.
I like the rules for Experienced Characters.
I like Legendary Abilities.
Its a great game, and I've found thats its easy to add things I feel are missing, which isn't always easy in many rule sets.
Doc
I like that there are basic AND advanced skills.
I like the Opposed Skill Roll.
I like how combat works (now that I understand it).
I like the Rune Magic system.
I like character creation.
I like the rules for Experienced Characters.
I like Legendary Abilities.
Its a great game, and I've found thats its easy to add things I feel are missing, which isn't always easy in many rule sets.
Doc
iamtim said:
Boy do I disagree with this. I don;'t believe that the oppistiong should be set at a certain point (say 80%) of the PCs. If so, there is no point in improving your characters. THat is what D&D does. If a group of 3rd level PCs makes 4th level, they go fronm CR 3 encounters to CR4 encounters. If the ecounters stay the same statistically you might as well keep you characters as beginningers.
I believe that one of the advatages of character improvement is that it does get easier for a characxter do do things that were once difficult. JUst becuase a character gets his strealth skills over 100% doesn't mean that the guards should have the percetion skills of Sherlock Holmes. THey should be the same 25%ers they always were. THe risk is that once in awhile, they 25%ers get lucky, or that Sherlock Holmes does show up.
atgxtg said:
Well, it's a good thing we don't play at the same table, then. I get bored sneaking circles around the same dumbwitted guards I've been sneaking circles around for years. I lose the joy of continually defeating similar milktoast combatants fight after fight.
I'm not saying that there should be a D&D style CR or anything, nor am I saying that NPCs should be at a given percentage of the PCs. I'm just saying that with increased skills should come increased challenges so the difference between sub-100 and above-100 skills won't be as noticeable.
andakitty said:
You could have a game like this, but may have a lot of conversion to do when using future supplements. I had a system I was going to use for skills over 100 but it had a ceiling of 200. It appears though that the system is set up to handle VERY HIGH skills. We should see when the Legendary Heroes supplement comes out.
But if you do plan on using mostly homegrown material there is nothing stopping you from capping skills at 100. I have proposed just killing characters when their skills get to high. May I recommend Skybolt?
"Bob, are you ever coming out of that cave?"
"I can't, my spear skill is 99% and I don't want to get skybolted!"
"What's that noise coming from in there?"
"Crap, a Chaos Centipede!"
Then RuneQuest may not be the game for you.iamtim said:
Without an exponential XP scale that's derived from killing monsters, older versions of RQ were much more free-form than progressive.
Also, that guard with 25% skills could get lucky and decapitate you -- something a low-level NPC would never do in AD&D.
iamtim said:
You do get increased challenges, but not with a fundamental world change. THe average soldier doesn't magically turn into an SAS quality soldier just to keep pace with the PCs.
One thing that makes games like RQ differnetnt than D&D is that the "low level" NPCs are still a threat to a "high level" PC. In D&D a 1HD, first level guard is no real threat to a 8th level fighter. Mathematically, he has a chance, but it is somewhat lower than he chance to win the lottery. In RQ, there is always the chance of one lucky hit dropping the experienced PC.
Likewise, in RQ, if you contintually throw 80 and 90% foes at you PCs to "challenge" them, you are going to waste your group.
Using you "sneak past the guards" example, if you 100% PC has to sneak past two or three 80% guards, he is probably going to be spotted by one of them every time. After two or three tries the player is going to believe that being at 100% with Stealth sucks. If you keep upping the gauards, he will think the same at 150% or 200%.
The challenge comes in the form of the more significant encounters that occuring later in the game, and the risks of what happens if you fail to get past the guards.
atgxtg said:
Please keep in mind I've been playing RQ since RQ3; I don't need a refresher on how the game works, nor do I really need refreshers on what will waste my group, or what will discourage them.
The example of "sneaking past a guard" probably isn't the best, because truthfully it doesn't happen with alarming frequency.
I'm tiring of the whole "halving skills" debate, and all the sub-debates like this one anyway. It's not doing any of us any good trying to ram opposing points of view down opposing throats. I think it won't be an issue for reasons I've well documented here; if you disagree with those reasons, or the supporting arguments I've given my reasons, that's entirely acceptable.
You'll play RQ your way, and I'll play it my way.
Rurik said:
I wasn't even going there...
BTW, several RPGs are more obvious in this approach. Suerp hero RPGs for one. Most of the "bank robber" types are there to help point out how surpeior the PC Hero is to the average person. THose encounters are fun becuase it lets the players do thier thing. What keep that from getting boringh is that, by the end of the adventure, someone will show up who the players have to take more seriously.
In a more down to earth approach, the James Bond game typically made the PCs much better than practically anyone else in the game. Then it would assume that since the PCs are so good, they can handle things such as sneaking past a bucnh of 25% guards to take photos of a new missile system, and sneak back out past the 25% again. When something went wrong and all hell broke loose, a dozen of those 25%ers spray firing AM-47s prove to be a worthwhile challenge after all. Especially if you're carrying a PPK.
Similar threads
