Hey, Mongoose - Official Errata?

GoingDown said:
duncan_disorderly said:
Firstly the skill resolution system gives 4 possible results to each participant (Fumble, Fail, Success, Critical) but the parry and dodge tables only provide a 3x3 matrix...

Fumbles are quite easy: when either character fumbles, GM decides the effect (it is told on Fumble character). Why it is needed on table?

Since, ultimately the GM decides everything, why do we need any rules at all? If we are going to have a table it should be both complete and correct, currently it is neither...


I have heard that during playtesting the system has changed, but old tables and examples were used on book. I don't know if it is true.


That is the claim. It doesn't speak highly of the editing and proof reading applied to the game if it is the case.

I think it is already decided (by Matt?) that one roll is way to go. Maybe we got new tables on upcoming clarification document, but I am fine with current tables, it is not so big deal.

I'm not fine with them. As other people have said elsewhere, there is a big difference between houserules you choose to apply to make the game better fit your style or preference, and those you need to apply to make the game work at all. The tables don't work at all...
 

iamtim

Mongoose
duncan_disorderly said:
The tables don't work at all...

Then explain how I am able to use them as written in my every-other-Thursday-night game.

If they don't work at all, I shouldn't be able to do that.
 

Melkor

Mongoose
iamtim said:
duncan_disorderly said:
The tables don't work at all...

Then explain how I am able to use them as written in my every-other-Thursday-night game.

If they don't work at all, I shouldn't be able to do that.

[Broken Record] With the caveat that the Overextended / straight Riposte results are not possible to obtain.[/Broken Record]

You know I had to say it Tim. :wink:
 

iamtim

Mongoose
Melkor said:
You know I had to say it Tim. :wink:

Yeah, I know. I'm not saying there aren't problems with MRQ, I just absolutely despise the term "broken" or "doesn't work" as applied to RPG rules as they imply something that isn't true.

"You can't get straight overextended/riposte results on the combat tables as written" is accurate. "The combat tables are broken" or "the combat tables don't work" is not.

Pedantic, I know. Sometimes my inner pedant is like Popeye: "That's alls I ken stands, I ken't stands no more!" :)
 

iamtim

Mongoose
Melkor said:
[Broken Record] With the caveat that the Overextended / straight Riposte results are not possible to obtain.[/Broken Record]

[Another Broken Record]But they are if you use a single attack roll with defense chosen at time of attack, instead of triggered by the attack.[/Another Broken Record].

Heh, sorry, just had to throw that in. For the sake of completeness. :)
 
iamtim said:
duncan_disorderly said:
The tables don't work at all...

Then explain how I am able to use them as written in my every-other-Thursday-night game.

.

Maybe no one in your game ever fumbles?

Maybe you consider it a natural use of English to a say that a successful Critical Attack is "upgraded" to a critical?

The former makes the tables incomplete, requiring a house rule to enable a normal (expected even) result to be handled.
The latter is sufficently clumsy that every time I see it I am forced to conclude that either the person who wrote the table did not understand the rules, or the person who explained the rules did not understand the table. In either case they need a better errata than "um just ignore the attack fails column"
 

Melkor

Mongoose
iamtim said:
[Another Broken Record]But they are if you use a single attack roll with defense chosen at time of attack, instead of triggered by the attack.[/Another Broken Record].

Heh, sorry, just had to throw that in. For the sake of completeness. :)

Or if you use the 'Two Attack Roll' method that the core rulebook seems to indicate - ignoring that pesky little Player's Guide PDF. :wink:
 

iamtim

Mongoose
Melkor said:
Or if you use the 'Two Attack Roll' method that the core rulebook seems to indicate - ignoring that pesky little Player's Guide PDF. :wink:

Exactly. That would work too. Which leads me to say...

duncan_disorderly said:
Maybe you consider it a natural use of English to a say that a successful Critical Attack is "upgraded" to a critical?

Ah. So an oddly worded entry means the tables are "broken" and "don't work"? No way to extrapolate the meaning behind it? Just... "the tables are broken"?

I tell you, there are some sections that are worded oddly to my eyes, but that's because it's written with UK English and I'm in America. I cringe when I see "learnt" instead of "learned", for instance. But that doesn't stop me from understanding the intent.

duncan_disorderly said:
Maybe no one in your game ever fumbles?

Nope, it happens. But when it does, I refer to page 19, Fumbles, where it says that "...the actual result of a fumble is largely up to the Games Master to decide..." and "...Weapon skill tests are as vulnerable to fumbles as any other test. A fumbled roll on a Bow skill test could result in a snapped bowstring, while a fumbled roll on a 1H Sword skill test could mean the sword has been clumsily dropped..."
 

Vadrus

Mongoose
iamtim said:
Melkor said:
Or if you use the 'Two Attack Roll' method that the core rulebook seems to indicate - ignoring that pesky little Player's Guide PDF. :wink:

Exactly. That would work too. Which leads me to say...

duncan_disorderly said:
Maybe you consider it a natural use of English to a say that a successful Critical Attack is "upgraded" to a critical?

Ah. So an oddly worded entry means the tables are "broken" and "don't work"? No way to extrapolate the meaning behind it? Just... "the tables are broken"?

I tell you, there are some sections that are worded oddly to my eyes, but that's because it's written with UK English and I'm in America. I cringe when I see "learnt" instead of "learned", for instance. But that doesn't stop me from understanding the intent.

duncan_disorderly said:
Maybe no one in your game ever fumbles?

Nope, it happens. But when it does, I refer to page 19, Fumbles, where it says that "...the actual result of a fumble is largely up to the Games Master to decide..." and "...Weapon skill tests are as vulnerable to fumbles as any other test. A fumbled roll on a Bow skill test could result in a snapped bowstring, while a fumbled roll on a 1H Sword skill test could mean the sword has been clumsily dropped..."

But don't you miss the 'Hit self in random location for max weapon damage' possibilities? i.e. the sort of stuff that no GM can normally get away with without the perfect excuse of 'Don't blame me, that's what the table says :twisted: ).

In many ways Rolemaster was a terrible game but most people loved just reading the critical tables to see how sadistic they were, 'Shot through both ears, hearing impared, poor fool dies instantly' etc were classics.


Vadrus
 

iamtim

Mongoose
Vadrus said:
But don't you miss the 'Hit self in random location for max weapon damage' possibilities? i.e. the sort of stuff that no GM can normally get away with without the perfect excuse of 'Don't blame me, that's what the table says :twisted: ).

SURE!

But the absence of either those tables or a fumble line in the existing combat tables does not mean that they [the combat tables] are "broken" or "don't work", especially given that there are rules for fumbles that cover in-combat situations.

I wish like hell the crit/fumble tables had made the Compendium cut. Same with the SIZ table.
 

Vadrus

Mongoose
iamtim said:
Vadrus said:
But don't you miss the 'Hit self in random location for max weapon damage' possibilities? i.e. the sort of stuff that no GM can normally get away with without the perfect excuse of 'Don't blame me, that's what the table says :twisted: ).

SURE!

But the absence of either those tables or a fumble line in the existing combat tables does not mean that they [the combat tables] are "broken" or "don't work", especially given that there are rules for fumbles that cover in-combat situations.

I wish like hell the crit/fumble tables had made the Compendium cut. Same with the SIZ table.

I have to agree, many things about MRQ are not 'broken' though a few fairly central issues are illogical, irritating and very poorly proof-read. To me the issue is perception of the product and from the first it main impression has been poor communication and lack off polish.

One thing most RPG's have is dedication i.e. many start as a single person or playing groups project that grow into a finished product. They tend to be a persons work of love and that passion is usually apparent, even if the actual game has poor mechanics or logical inconsistancies.

Unfortunately MRQ doesn't come across like that to me (or anyone in my playing group - I wont make that claim for people here on the boards as I'm not privey to their actual perceptions), to me it seems that little care or attention to detail has been made during it's production and that's what I find most frustrating. If feels like it has been scanned in from the RQ3 books, chapters handed to different people to edit using only a very rough outline of the intended system, and then told by the boss he wants it on his desk by Thursday as it ships on Friday.

I can put up with dodgy rules as I've yet to find a RPG without its fair share of them, but it feels like it was produced by a government department rather than someone who cares about the game.

Yes this is probably a very harsh view, but initial perception is what makes or breaks a game, an established name only gets a product so far before the product has to stand on its own merits.


Vadrus
 

Melkor

Mongoose
I think you make a lot of good points Vadrus.

It remains to be seen how Mongoose will tackle all of these issues, and so far, I don't think they have done the best job of responding.

I'm hopeful that the promised errata will set things straight, and possibly be included in a revised or second print rulebook that those of us who have purchased the original might be able to get a big discount on.
 

iamtim

Mongoose
Vadrus said:
Unfortunately MRQ doesn't come across like that to me ... to me it seems that little care or attention to detail has been made during it's production and that's what I find most frustrating.

You know what it feels like to me?

I'll tell you. And this is the first time I've spoken of this to anyone.

To me it feels like Matthew (Sprange) loved RuneQuest and had a bunch of new and innovative (from an RQ perspective) ideas for it, so he worked to get the rights to do it and was almost immediately torn to shreds by RQ "old-guard" who were offended at the very thought of changes to their precious game. It feels like the RQ "old-guard" complained enough that the new RuneQuest was brought more into line with old RuneQuest, until Matthew tired of their complaints and brought the new RuneQuest completely in-house where it was quickly reshaped yet again into something of a hybrid between Matthew's original ideas and what the RQ "old-guard" wanted, and pushed out the door as it had already been delayed once.

My observations on this and other forums generally supports that; RQ "old-guard" generally do not like MRQ and greatly overstate the problems with it. D&D players and people with little or no prior RQ experience generally like MRQ and are willing to gloss over more of the problems with MRQ.

I begrudingly have to admit that things would probably have been better had Matthew taken more of an "out front" position with regards to RuneQuest instead of remaining as quiet as he has. On the other hand, I understand why he would remain a wee bit silent.

So I dunno. Take from that what you will.
 

SteveMND

Mongoose
I'll tell you. And this is the first time I've spoken of this to anyone.

What? No it isn't. It's different terminology, but it's still the basic message you've been saying since you got here -- the "Old Guard" are inventing problems where there aren't any, and are the cause for all the world's woes. :wink: Well, with perhaps the new addition of making the Old Guard retroactively responsible now for how the game ended up turning out...

Actually, I hope your scenario in fact isn't correct, as to me, it actually makes it sounds worse than if it were merely a case of poor proofreading and innocent mistakes...
 

Trifletraxor

Mongoose
iamtim said:
My observations on this and other forums generally supports that; RQ "old-guard" generally do not like MRQ and greatly overstate the problems with it. D&D players and people with little or no prior RQ experience generally like MRQ and are willing to gloss over more of the problems with MRQ.

People with no prior RPG experience have nothing to compare with. MRQ is not by far as bad as D&D, which might explain why D&D players haven't complained.

If Mongoose did not mean to bait in the Old Guard, they could have called the game something else. No point in calling the game RuneQuest if you plan to change all the rules anyway, except to attract RQ2/RQ3 players

SGL.
 

iamtim

Mongoose
SteveMND said:
What? No it isn't. It's different terminology, but it's still the basic message you've been saying since you got here

I'm not going to get into another argument over this, especially with someone who has expressed their complete and utter distaste for the game and given their grand exit speech. :)

That said, no, I have *never* stated in public that I think the reason for MRQ's problems stem from Mongoose initially caving in to "old guard" pressure and retroactively trying to correct that "caving in" on short notice to hit the release date. That's not even a premise I put together until someone just recently posted on this forum that the initial playtest release contained an entirely different central mechanic that was changed after the playtesters complained about it.

It has long been my position, and I have publically stated, that many of the "old guard" do not like MRQ and the changes it brought to the RuneQuest name because it now makes RuneQuest something other than a regurgitation of previous versions with minor changes.

But those are two different things.
 

iamtim

Mongoose
Trifletraxor said:
No point in calling the game RuneQuest if you plan to change all the rules anyway, except to attract RQ2/RQ3 players.

Yeah... 'cuz that strategy never works. Like D&D 3.0, which made the D&D 2E players cry because it was so different.

For what it's worth, I'd still rather play 1E AD&D than D&D 3.0/3.5. But over three revisions I expect the game to change and often in ways I don't like. I'm AD&D "old guard", I suppose -- while I've been playing RQ since RQ3 was new, I've been playing D&D since the Erol Otus decorated Basic D&D set.

Revisions happen. Games change. There are other reasons for obtaining the name RuneQuest than snaring an "old guard" selection of gamers; in fact, if that's the sole reason for obtaining the name, Mongoose has no business sense in spending all that money to write a game for such a small group, comparitively.
 

mthomason

Mongoose
iamtim said:
I've been playing D&D since the Erol Otus decorated Basic D&D set.

They must have ran out of bits of Erol to decorate them with when they made mine :(

I did (do) have the five coloured boxed sets though. Loved that game. Shame they had to go develop the Advanced version as well, it kinda ruined it for me when Mystara devolved into a couple of hastily thrown together AD&D boxed sets and then disappeared altogether. Then they had the gall to go and delete the standard D&D game altogether and rename the AD&D one to replace it. Then they went and messed with all the rules, and instead of fifty hardback books you now needed fifty-five before you could even do the really basic stuff like player-character Dragons, have characters > L20, or run a Forgotten Realms campaign. Those *@^"£%ers...

And heaven forbid you wanted to run a L21 Forgotten Realms character who was half-dragon.
 

SteveMND

Mongoose
I'm not going to get into another argument over this, especially with someone who has expressed their complete and utter distaste for the game and given their grand exit speech.

Pardon? You realize this is SteveMND, and not Atgxtg, right? :)

I never stated that I had 'complete and utter distaste' for the game. Far from it, in fact -- I was always careful to explain that it's not a bad game, but rather just one that doesn't suit my particular tastes. There are a lot of new and interesting things within the game, but there are an equal number of things i didn't like. It's not a bad game (barring the known typos, erros and such), but as I have said before many times, it's just not a game for me, as I was expecting something different.

And yeah, I probably should have been more careful with my 'grand exit speech.' True enough, the game wasn't what I was looking for, and so I decided not to hang around and comment on it anymore. However, I am still keenly interested in how companies like Mongoose do business, as well as discussions on overall game design/marketing. And, of course, I am still a fan of the Gloranthan mythos, if not the current rules set build around them.

I got bored one day last week, and decided to dredge up the Mongoose link from my bookmarks, and sure enough, more discussions on the above topics had cropped up... sigh. I really should have left well enough alone. :)
 

Trifletraxor

Mongoose
iamtim said:
There are other reasons for obtaining the name RuneQuest than snaring an "old guard" selection of gamers; in fact, if that's the sole reason for obtaining the name, Mongoose has no business sense in spending all that money to write a game for such a small group, comparitively.

Could you name a few?

RQ was the second largest RPG for a time.

SGL.
 
Top