Hey, Mongoose - Official Errata?

SteveMND said:
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.

Ok, I'll give you that one. "Complete and utter distaste" probably was too strong. But I'm going by memory here and I'm getting older, so cut me SOME slack. Heh.

:)
 
MRQ isn't RQ2/3, and trying to make it so can only lead to madness.
As we are drip fed a bit more of the puzzle (i.e the Companion) and get a better picture of how things fit together, its becoming pretty plain to see.

As a game in its own right MRQ, it is a good crack - and there are some nice ideas in there, but it pays to leave your RQ2/3 head behind.

I've been struggling against the flow with the game trying to play/run it like RQ3, and then penny dropped on the whole game is set up, the emphasis of the two games is completely different;
They shares some commonality but where as
RQ2/3 was gritty, realistic, and deadly
MRQ has a more high fantasy and heroic feel.
This isn't bad it is just different.

I don't agree with some of the stuff, spirit combat being the biggy - but most of these come from pre-concieved ideas drawn from the older editions. Its hard getting out of the RQ2/3 mindset, even while playing MRQ my old RQer's get blank expression on their faces, while trying to interpret the rules

Really the only real issue with MRQ has been the really lousy editing/proofing on the core book (Mongoose is lucky they didn't shoot themselves in the foot with it).
Once you've gone through forums, and worked out what should be happening, the game itself seems to play ok (assuming I'm playing the game correctly!)

Hopefully when a 2nd edition come around the rules will be cleaner and better explained, as there is a good game there trying to escape :)

I have publically stated
Good for You :lol:
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.
I think its not the changes in rules that are the problem its the shift in play emphasis from realism to heroism that they herald, BRP is heavily set in simulation hell/heaven (Delete where applicable) ehere as MRQ has moved away a little from its restrictions.
There has been an obvious attempt to make RQ appeal to a broader audience, taking up some of the 'usable' concepts that have come out of d20/D&D, once again this isn't a bad thing, and it fits a heroic model.

At the end of the day if you enjoy the MRQ play MRQ, if not play RQ3 - it looks like either could be used in the setting, and both are pretty cool games in their own right.
 
The Piss-poor editing is reason enough to want my PDF updated for free... it's poorly enough worded to make it confusing to my players, the examples do not match the rules, and certain tables do not match the rules, either.

At least for those of us with the electronic core rules, we can easily make use of an updated version.
 
iamtim said:
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"?

If a profesionally produced (and priced) rulebook ostensiably written in English, by people whose native language is English (from either side of the atlantic) and published by an English (although the same would apply to an American publisher too) includes rules that read like the English translation of the instruction pamphlet in cheap Chinese electronic devices then yes, they are broken. The only way to extrapolate the meaning from these tables is to directly contradict the explanation in the players guide PDF (in which case the language in the tables becomes perfectly clear, but you are still left with them being incomplete in resolving a 4x4 matrix into a 3x3 table)

iamtim said:
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.

I'm not talking about transatlantic differences, the fact that Americans can't spell, and presumably understand only one branch of mathematics (Maths) has never prevented me from understanding rules. Providing tables that are contradictory to the stated rules is an entirely different kettle of fish.

iamtim said:
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..."
[/quote]

This is true, but beside the point. The rules are certainly clear about what happens if you fail a roll too, none the less the tables provides a resolution as to the interaction between an attacker getting a success and the defender a fail or vice versa. So they should also do so for the situations where one or other party fumbles. This is not the same as fumbling your attack roll. Per the rules you only get to use the tables on a reaction following a successful attack, so If I have succesfully attacked and when you try to dodge the reaction contest gives me a fumble and you a failure, have I hit or not? What if I criticalled the attack? HOw much better do I hit you if I roll a critical, you try to parry, but in the reaction contest I critical (again) and you fumble? Why should these be left to a GM call when the results of every other combination of rules has a specific rule?

Edit: This means that there are possible situation which ought to be covered by the table but aren't - so when you try to resolve them using the rules you fail, - hence the rules are broken and need a house-rule to fix, even if that rule is merely to override the table with the fumble rule on P19
 
duncan_disorderly said:
Per the rules you only get to use the tables on a reaction following a successful attack, so If I have succesfully attacked and when you try to dodge the reaction contest gives me a fumble and you a failure, have I hit or not? What if I criticalled the attack? HOw much better do I hit you if I roll a critical, you try to parry, but in the reaction contest I critical (again) and you fumble? Why should these be left to a GM call when the results of every other combination of rules has a specific rule?

If you use only one attack roll as stated on player's guide, then there is no problem on that. Only thing is that those first lines on parry & dodge tables are not going to be used at all.

If parry/dodge attempt is declared on same time with attack, then all lines on table are used and there still is no problems (exept perhaps the probabilities of hitting succesfully are weird in this situation, I am not a math person)
 
iamtim said:
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.

To be honest, this is not far from what actually happent during playtest, even if it is from a biased perspective.

Not all new ideas from Mongoose team were good nor were all RQ Old-timers complaints simply resistance to change. A number of them made significant efforts to make the game better.

The first playtest versions had significant flaws in it and MRQ would have been barely playable if some "old guard" had not been there to spot these in the first stages of playtest.

It is also true that some of Mongoose's ideas that were heavily criticized since the first playtest draft are in the final book.

I feel myself more enthusiast with MRQ than I ever thought possible a year ago. I am not completely satisfied by it, but I recognize it is my favorite BRP published game since a long time.
 
duncan_disorderly said:
the fact that Americans can't spell, and presumably understand only one branch of mathematics (Maths)

So now you resort to insults?

This is true, but beside the point.

No, it is *exactly* the point. There's no need to explain the results of a fumble on the combat charts; as a fumble is nothing more than a special-case failure, it's redundant. So the attack roll fails, oh, and a sword is dropped (or whatever other devious snafu the GM has in mind based on the fumble rules on page 19.)

I mean, I suppose you could add another line to the combat charts which replicated the failure line and add something like, "and whatever else the GM deems appropriate as per the rules on P. 19" but that seems really silly to me.

If I have succesfully attacked and when you try to dodge the reaction contest gives me a fumble and you a failure, have I hit or not?

Let's see... looking at the combat chart... attack roll failure and defense roll failure = attack succeeds as normal.

Yup. You hit. What happens to the fumble on the reaction contest? Well, that's up to me. I could rule that you hit so hard it sent vibrations up your arm and you dropped the weapon. I could ignore it, since that was only a reaction contest and not the attack roll.

I don't see why that's so hard; I can't grok why you're having such a problem with adjudicating a very simple fumble rule.

What if I criticalled the attack?

(Assuming the combat quoted above...) The result reads "Attack succeeds as normal"; normal resolution for a critical is maximum damage. So you'd get maximum damage, and then I'd worry about the fumble as I stated above.

How much better do I hit you if I roll a critical, you try to parry, but in the reaction contest I critical (again) and you fumble?

(Again assuming the combat quoted above...) You achieved a critical hit. You dish out maximum damage, and then I deal with my fumble on the reaction contest; maybe I dropped the weapon I was parrying with, maybe I slipped and fell in the mud as I tried to dodge out of the way.

Why should these be left to a GM call when the results of every other combination of rules has a specific rule?

Because the specific rule for fumble states that it's up to the GM to decide what happens. Why is it so hard for you to make a judgement call? Are you not that good of a GM?

I mean... what if I want to pee on my opponent and set him on fire? There's no rules for that. What if I want to do a funny dance and slap him in the face a la the Three Stooges? There's no rules for that.

We're GAME MASTERS. We have to do things like this all the time. So near as I can figure, you're either hidebound when it comes to making decisions that don't have a clear-cut rule, or you're looking for problems where they don't exist. You may not LIKE the fumble rules, and that's cool -- you have that right. But to complain that it isn't covered is all sorts of wrong. It's all right there, in black and white, and clearly spelled out (unlike some of the other MRQ issues).
 
Mugen said:
A number of [RQ old guard] made significant efforts to make the game better.

Oh, I don't doubt that. I was using blanket statements. Heck, I consider myself one of the "old guard", having played RQ since RQ3 was new.
 
iamtim said:
I mean... what if I want to pee on my opponent and set him on fire?

Your urine is flamable? :shock: :lol:

If that was a legendary ability I dread to think what the prerequisites would be !


Vadrus
 
iamtim said:
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.

Funny how perceptions differ.
I'm up with you till MS got the rights to (the) RQ (name) - At this point the vibe I got was by and large the "Old guard" was excited. There was maybe some disquiet that Mongoose were largely known for their D20 and derivative OGL systems, and that some of their products had been noted as having quality control issues, as well as some confusion as to the relative status of MRQ and DBRP. I saw no evidence of any shredding based merely on the thought that changes might be made from earlier editions. Just about everyone who has played either RQ2 or RQ3 recognised that some changes would be desirable (It's just that no 2 people agreed what those changes were).

MS than began a very public playtest via Yahoogroups, which (and I think he admitted something along these lines on rpg.net subsequently) he used to float some half formed ideas both to see whether they worked and to see whether they were "acceptable" to the potential player base. Some of the ideas were good, some were bad, and some were "good, but not for RQ". The Playtest rules underwent a number of revisons, in which some rules were never touched, and others underwent massive changes. There were also a number of posters on the group who seemed more interested in discussing their own house rules than anything that MS was producing. Some of these house-rules were tweaks based on other BRP games, others were radical changes that borrowed from any manner of mainstream or indie RPG's...

MS then dropped out of the playtest to concentrate on other (business) Issues and the (visible) mongoose presence on the playtest list dropped right off.

A number of people, particularly the so-called "Old Guard" did become very discouraged during this period, due to the very radical nature of some of the changes, both from Mongoose and from other individuals. Personally I feel a more structured approach would have been a benefit here...

The Yahoogroup was then closed down and a number of posters to the group received a further update to the playtest rules - These were, I felt a great improvement on the earlier versions, and much closer to the original system without being a direct copy. I also assumed that (particularly given the previous iterations) that there would be a couple more updates to polish off the remaining rough edges, but in a very short space of time (A week, or possibly less I think) the playtesting was, as far as I could tell over. (For all I know there might have been an ever shrinking number of playtesters, and this was the point I was dropped...)

The impression I got was that the Mongoose Business Plan required that Runequest be launched at the end of July (to hit Continuum?) and that plan over-ruled any considerations like ensuring the rules were fully functional, coherent and consistent


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.
.

I think lumping everyone in to "RQ Old Guard" is somewhat misleading, being as it encompasses people who think RQ3 was wonderful, people who think RQ3 was a hideous mistake, People who liked RQ but hated that it was set in Glorantha, People who love Glorantha, are ambivalent about RQ, but dislike HeroQuest, and people who'se old RQ games are so old and heavily house-ruled that given a reprinted RQ2 or 3 would complain about all the rule changes it contained

Also consider the history of RQ. Despite what Glorantha-freaks may tell you, RQ's main selling point in the early days was that it wasn't D&D. It may therefore be a less than positive sign if people with prior experience of RQ dislike the system but those from a D&D background do not. (Depending on a whole host of things including why they think that and what your intentions were in designing the system that way).

While I don't believe you could ever design a system that would completely satisfy every old RQ player (far less every potential RQ player), as others have said, why go to the trouble of licensing the RQ name if you do not want to attract the RQ fanbase? (If it was a desire to work in Glorantha why not "OGL Glorantha"?)
 
Back
Top