Good in MRQ

Urox

Mongoose
iamtim said:
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 suspect that after a while, there will be lots of house rules and possibly a new "official" rule that replaces the halving rule.

atgxtg said:
Especially if you're carrying a PPK.
Yikes! Increased jam chance! Where's a H&K when you need one? (and if you don't get that, you've probably never played 007! :D )
 

atgxtg

Mongoose
Urox" [quote="atgxtg said:
Especially if you're carrying a PPK.
Yikes! Increased jam chance! Where's a H&K when you need one? (and if you don't get that, you've probably never played 007! :D )[/quote]

LOL :D :D :D I got it.

In fact, my character in the JB game used to carry H&K weapon excuslively. I was using the P7M8 until the "official" P7M13 stats (uberstats) came out.

I got so bad wiuth the character that I wound up spending the XP to get Q Branch to make a few 5.45, 7.62 (pistol) and 9mm barrels for the HK4 that I would invariable take whenever I was issued a "Q Branch mulitcaliber pistol".
 

andakitty

Mongoose
Just out of curiosity, how did the James Bond game rate Bond's little Beretta, the one Q took away at the beginning of Dr. No?
 

atgxtg

Mongoose
andakitty said:
Just out of curiosity, how did the James Bond game rate Bond's little Beretta, the one Q took away at the beginning of Dr. No?


You mean the .25 pistol that Bond carries in the books or the Model 1935 that he carries in the movie? :)


In the game the .25 that Bond carries is a bit of a mystery, as it's description doesn't quite match with any model pistol that Beretta manufactured. Most fans consider it some sort of custom modification to a .25 Jetfire model (the tiny pistol Pam tucked in her garter in Licence to Kill). THe game gives it Jetfire stats, but uses a picture of a Beretta Model 84 to give it the buttspur of the books.

As far as game stats went, the .25 was very concealble, reasonably decent on the draw, but had poor range and little stopping power. However, since damage in the game was based more upon how skilled you were rather than sheer firepower, the .25 was quite lethal in the hands of someone like Bond. In the game ,Bond could kill a typical foe with one or two shots even with a .25 pistol. [/i]
 

iamtim

Mongoose
Urox said:
Then RuneQuest may not be the game for you.

That's pretty pretentious of you, don't you think?

I've been playing RQ a long time. I've never been a Gloranthaphile, but RQ, for me, is the game from which all others are measured. I own a PDF-based game publishing company, and I have games sitting around waiting to be completed because I wanted to publish them with the RQ ruleset but couldn't.

The reason I play RQ is precisely because I don't want to play a 10th level fighter trouncing through a slew of 1 HD orcs. I like knowing that any schmoe could get lucky and put my character down for a dirt-nap. But conversely, I want my character to be challenged -- and if you think that antagonists should not be on roughly the same playing field as the protagonists because they might get lucky, well, then, I don't know that I have a lot to say to you.
 

SteveMND

Mongoose
Boy do I disagree with this. I don't believe that the opposition 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.

Well, to be fair, that's not part of how D&D operates; the DM determines what sort of challenges to throw at you, same as in any RPG -- RQ included. He could throw a bunch of equally-matched things at you, or a bunch of weaker things, or a couple of greater threats, as he sees fit.

Admitadely, the CR system in D&D makes it a lot easier to roughly guage an encounter's difficulty, but what to throw at PCs is always the DM/GM's call.
 

andakitty

Mongoose
I agree with you. Ever since I started playing rpgs the best of the games, the memorable ones, were the ones that the PCs were struggling to even stay alive, and some where they didn't survive. The only D&D games I was in that I enjoyed were low-level. The higher the level, it seemed, the less exciting they were. With several different GMs, at that. I jumped to RQ and Stormbringer as soon as I discovered them, and this was one of the primary reasons.

On the subject of high skill level games, the only one I have ever tried that I thought worked is Elric!/Stormbringer 5, in which PC's start with skills over 100. And they are still vulnerable, even to guards with weapon skills around 40-50%. I like it that way too.
 

Urox

Mongoose
iamtim said:
Urox said:
Then RuneQuest may not be the game for you.
That's pretty pretentious of you, don't you think?
Possibly sarcastic, but not pretentions. You remark about highly skilled guards was an eyebrow raiser, given how deadly RQ can be.
iamtim said:
I own a PDF-based game publishing company, and I have games sitting around waiting to be completed because I wanted to publish them with the RQ ruleset but couldn't.
Thanks for letting us know your position as someone with a financial interestest in MQ and the OGL, as it does help clarify your opinions.

And before you take that 100% snarky and get bent out of shape, it also includes the assumption that you have at least moderate business sense and wouldn't be publishing for a product that you felt had insurmountable problems.
 

iamtim

Mongoose
Urox said:
And before you take that 100% snarky and get bent out of shape, it also includes the assumption that you have at least moderate business sense and wouldn't be publishing for a product that you felt had insurmountable problems.

I wouldn't have taken that as snarky at all. I'll be the first to admit that I have something of a more-than-personal stake in MRQ succeeding. That said, you are 100% correct: I would not put faith in a product that I felt was garbage. I don't, I do not, get that vibe from MRQ. Certainly there's a lot of debate over it right now. But I chalk most of those debates up to "first printing blues", a slew of misinformation from playtesting, and unfounded rumors.

But aside of my more-than-personal stake, I find that I am really liking MRQ. I can easily see past all the debated points to a system that looks very much like what I've wanted since long before D&D 3.0 was even thought about, since long before the creation of the OGL, and way many long times before I considered any sort of publishing venture.
 

atgxtg

Mongoose
andakitty said:
The movie. Thanks. :)

Ah, well as the Model 1935 Beterra is .32 caliber, like Bond's PPK they don't actually mention it in the game. Probably becuase trading out one .32 for another .32 based upon "Stopping power" doesn't make sense.

IN game terns though, the PPK does have a little better stopping power than the .25. THe .380 version even moreso.

It all a tradeoff. While a .44 mag has fantastic stopping power in the game, it is a little difficult for a "secret" agent to carry around the world on various assignments. It tends to get spotted. :D
 

andakitty

Mongoose
I seem to remember Q referring to the Beretta as a .25, actually, the last time I saw the movie. Although I don't remember Connerys' Bond using anything else, other Bonds have used some pretty awesome firepower. A S&W .44 Magnum in 'Live and Let Die', and so on. One of the novelists that wrote a series of Bond novels in the 80's gave him a Ruger Super Blackhawk for a car gun when gadding about the English countryside, a Colt Diamondback on a mission in Spain and so on. Did the RPG reflect any of that? As in, were any of those sanctioned in the game?
 

atgxtg

Mongoose
andakitty said:
I seem to remember Q referring to the Beretta as a .25, actually, the last time I saw the movie. Although I don't remember Connerys' Bond using anything else, other Bonds have used some pretty awesome firepower. A S&W .44 Magnum in 'Live and Let Die', and so on. One of the novelists that wrote a series of Bond novels in the 80's gave him a Ruger Super Blackhawk for a car gun when gadding about the English countryside, a Colt Diamondback on a mission in Spain and so on. Did the RPG reflect any of that? As in, were any of those sanctioned in the game?

Oh boy, lots of questions here. Lucky for me I know the answers.


The Beretta
In the books, Bond uses a .25 caliber Beretta for about half the series before it got taken away in Dr. No. In real life, Ian Fleming got a letter from someone who complained that the .25 wasn't up to snuff, and Flemining used this in the books. In the film Dr. No, the prop used for the Beretta was not a .25 pistol, and thery do not refer to it's caliber, but it is implied to be weaker than the PPK.

In the books, Bond gets a choice between the PPK and a Centenial airweight. In fact, he generally doen't like the change in guns, and the whole change is viewed as a sort of punishment by M for Bond messing up his previous assignment (FRWL). At the end of the Book bond sort of sends of a snipe telegram to M about the new pistol not being any better against a "Dragon" (the APC) than the Beretta.


In the orginal books, Bond kept a Ruger magnum in the golve compartment of his car and a heavy backup/anitvehicle weapon, and this got upgraded in the novels in the 80s. All this was reflected in the game, since both the new novels and the RPG were reeased at about the same time. Most of the gadgets in the early books popped up in the game, inclduing the car modifications and special weapons. The Q Manual even gave guidelines for writing up equipment for the game, so most GMs could get weapon stats that were reasonaly good, and probably within a point or two of anything official.

I used to make a point of writing up at least one new thing in each adventure. It could be anything from a new weapon, to a vechile, to a Q Branch goodie, but I always wrote in something new. THe last adventure that I ran, I did up stats for the Barret .50 rifle that one of my players was fond of. It was great for shooting though the engine block of trucks. Weapons are pretty nasty in the Bond RPG. For one thing, a KL (Kill) result is tough to bouce back from in a game without raise dead. THe other would results all gave penalties to future action untl healed (after the adventure), and anyone hurt had to makde a Pain Resistance roll or drop to the ground in pain, unable to act. Characters can also do a "specfic shot" where they take a penalty to hit for a +2 wound level increase in damage (a Light Wound becomes a Heavy Wound, a Heavy Would becomes a Kill, that sort of thing).
 

andakitty

Mongoose
Interesting. I've never read any of the original books, just some of the later ones. Always loved the movies (the Sean Connery ones anyway), after I finally discovered them in the Navy (I grew up in a small town in Tennessee, there were like three or four movie theaters in a 25 mile radius). In the Navy I first saw 'On Her Majesties Secret Service' at a base theater (1970), then the next year a local theater in Norfolk had a double feature of 'Thunderball' and 'You Only Live Twice'. I was hooked. 'Diamonds Are Forever' was the first one I caught in a regular release. You sound like a real Bond fan. :)

So, nothing much nice to say about MRQ? I am going to use bits and pieces, I guess, but I feel I have better options for a full system. Oh, well. Hopefully the setting books and Monster book (especially) will be of use. :?
 

atgxtg

Mongoose
andakitty said:
Interesting. I've never read any of the original books, just some of the later ones. Always loved the movies (the Sean Connery ones anyway), after I finally discovered them in the Navy (I grew up in a small town in Tennessee, there were like three or four movie theaters in a 25 mile radius). In the Navy I first saw 'On Her Majesties Secret Service' at a base theater (1970), then the next year a local theater in Norfolk had a double feature of 'Thunderball' and 'You Only Live Twice'. I was hooked. 'Diamonds Are Forever' was the first one I caught in a regular release. You sound like a real Bond fan. :) [/qoute]


I liked the movies. Then I got into the RPG, and started to read the books (the books are better, but a bit dated now). What is coll about the RPG is that while it is based more off of the movies as that is what fans will be famialr with, the rules are probably geared more towards the books.
It is a great rpg system, IMO. The game has a strong, but suble bias towards the player agents, yet gives rather relisitic results. It's definately worth picking up. I know I ust have bought the game seven or eight times, and have given away four or five copies to players. I think I got a pdf of it now, just in case. With your interest in firearms you should look at this and TImelords, if you can find them.


andakitty said:
So, nothing much nice to say about MRQ? I am going to use bits and pieces, I guess, but I feel I have better options for a full system. Oh, well. Hopefully the setting books and Monster book (especially) will be of use. :?

I can't speak for everyone else, but in my case, I'm still waiting for my Core Book to arrive. My local game shop distributor refused to ship the book out until Tuesday (the shop owner wanted to get it eariler so he could give me mine on the offical release day). So, until I get my book, my comments are based upon what tidbits of info I get to pick up here.

BTW, What is the new damage bonus formula? I am looking forward to that.
 

andakitty

Mongoose
Too damn low!

STR+SIZ DM

1-5 -1d8
6-10 -1d6
11-15 -1d4
16-20 -1d2
21-25 +0
26-30 +1d2
31-35 +1d4
36-40 +1d6
41-45 +1d8
46-50 +1d10
51-60 +1d12
61-70 +2d6
71-80 +2d8 ...etc.
 

Rurik

Mongoose
andakitty said:
Too damn low!

STR+SIZ DM

1-5 -1d8
6-10 -1d6
11-15 -1d4
16-20 -1d2
21-25 +0
26-30 +1d2
31-35 +1d4
36-40 +1d6
41-45 +1d8
46-50 +1d10
51-60 +1d12
61-70 +2d6
71-80 +2d8 ...etc.

Well I started reading the rules last night. What I can say is that the damage as a whole is scaled back a little, so those damage bonuses make sense in the context of MRQ.
 

Vadrus

Mongoose
Except for the Longbow which is now the most dangerous weapon in the game, 2d8 damage that can impale from 175 meters away. According to the monsters section it can put down anything short of a dragon with two hits to the same location. Most adventurers would lose a location with a single hit wearing the heaviest armour available, ouch :shock:

Speedy combat indeed, one volley by the PCs or their oponents and the fight is probably over or at the very least no longer in doubt about the outcome.


Vadrus
 

Rurik

Mongoose
Vadrus said:
Except for the Longbow which is now the most dangerous weapon in the game, 2d8 damage that can impale from 175 meters away. According to the monsters section it can put down anything short of a dragon with two hits to the same location. Most adventurers would lose a location with a single hit wearing the heaviest armour available, ouch :shock:

Speedy combat indeed, one volley by the PCs or their oponents and the fight is probably over or at the very least no longer in doubt about the outcome.


Vadrus

I agree, very deadly (the great axe and great sword as well). Being a generic system, I assume that is based on the English Longbow, which could drop a man in full plate with one shot. Ask the French. As such, in my days playing in the greater dragon pass area, there was not an equivelant weapon. You do not have to make it readily available in your campaign. The "Nomad Bow", presumably a composite bow, with 1d10 is much more likely to be carried in any game I run.
 
Top