I really don't understand this

[Deathdealer]

Show of hands, how many of you houseruled previous incarnations of Runequest....

Yeah, I thought so.

I don't think I've ever known anyone who didn't have plenty of houserules in their Runequest games. You need houserules for MRQ? So what? I knew before it was ever published, before I ever even saw a preview, that I was going to dislike some of what was done and would just houserule it.

If you don't like MRQ and simply cannot stand the thought of having to houserule the game then play something you can be happy with by the book, but let's have an end to the incessant whining about having to houserule a game you were probably going to come up with some houserules for anyway.

Why hang around here and whine?

 

[Utgardloki]

True, I houserule every game I play.

However, when D&D 3rd edition came out, I ran that game with very few house rules, and almost all of them were loosening restrictions on character creation and development. I houseruled a couple of feats, and simplified combat just a little bit.

With MRQ, however, I have to houserule so much that, instead of asking the players to buy a copy of the rulebook as I did for D&D, I instead say that the rulebook won't help them very much; it's not worth it if your just buying it to play in my game.

This is because there are so many things that either do not look like they are workable, or won't be workable when I advance the tech level to RQ - Modern, or restrict what I can do as GM so much that I need to change things. In contrast, D&D scaled up to the modern era so well, that all I needed to do was tweak a few of the classes to fit the modern era and make some rules for guns.

Part of it may be that I myself had ideas for a new RPG until I saw that MRQ had a lot of things I was looking for ways to implement, so it would be easier to adapt MRQ than make a new game system from scratch. However, I seem to be not the only person who is making changes, such that while D&D is pretty much a system used by everybody in the same way, RQ is going to be much more idiosyncratic to the point that something that makes sense in one GM's game won't be comprehensible to another RQ GM.

I don't see much point in just complaining, however, without providing a specific reason for disatisfaction. And certain I've been one to come to this forum for solutions rather than to just spew complaints, since I did pick MRQ over alternatives such as GURPS, D20 Modern, or even 3.5 Edition D&D. So there must be something good in the rulebook that at least justifies my 25 dollars.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[SteveMND]

Yeah, I thought so.

I think the issue I've seen here tends to be the fact that it is much of the core rules of the game that are being houseruled, as opposed to merely houseruling things to make the game better fit your play style or campaign concept.

In the past, I've almost never met a GM who didn't do the latter. In the past, I've also almost never met a GM who felt he had to do the former.

 

[haargald]

Yeah, I thought so.

I think the issue I've seen here tends to be the fact that it is much of the core rules of the game that are being houseruled, as opposed to merely houseruling things to make the game better fit your play style or campaign concept.

In the past, I've almost never met a GM who didn't do the latter. In the past, I've also almost never met a GM who felt he had to do the former.

Maybe it is just me but I don't see the house ruling I'm going to be doing as very major, certainly not compared to some of the house ruling I've done for other games. I will be house ruling the over 100 skill thing and some other little things here and there, but nothing I would consider major. Hell, I consider playing MRQ as one big house rule for D20 because I hate that system.

 

[gamesmeister]

Unfortunately some of the house rules required are because several of the new rules haven't been playtested properly, or because of poor editing in the book - I think people have a right to moan about that...

An update to the Players Guide would be useful soon.

And for the most part, people aren't moaning because they want to moan - they (myself included) are offering constructive criticism so the errors are fixed and the game thrives.

Gerry

 

[Exubae]

people aren't moaning because they want to moan - they (myself included) are offering constructive criticism so the errors are fixed and the game thrives.

I don't think any one wants the game to flop, we just want a playable core system - Personally I want to see my local game shop with rows of Glorantha and Lankhmar source books for RQ...
I'm just annoyed that they've done such a poor job on the core book, when its pretty obvious with a bit more care (editing) and play testing the core game could have been a real diamond rather than a rough looking bit of coal.

Paul

 

[atgxtg]

The difference is that in prevous edtions of RQ houseruling was done as a matter of playing style or setting. With MRQ people are houseruling it becuase the core book is poorly written and dystfunctional. Rules examples with Rurik and Cormac helped to explain how the game was played. With MRQ the last thing someone shoyuld do if they want to learn how to play the game is read one of the examples of play.

There is a big difference between "changed because we like it better this way<' and "changed becuase the rule in the book doesn't work".

 

[King Amenjar]

Show of hands, how many of you houseruled previous incarnations of Runequest....

Hardly at all, actually - the only change in games I ran was a slight bending of the rules to allow players facing multiple opponents to know who'd hit and missed before announcing which attack they'd parry.

 

[King Amenjar]

I consider playing MRQ as one big house rule for D20 because I hate that system.

In a way, this goes to the crux of the whole thing. Welcome back to 1976.

 

[Mithras]

Deathdealer, I've never known any game I haven't houseruled, and I'm envious of anyone who can play the game 'straight out of the box'. Nothing perfectly conforms to my 'world view'. But why should it?

Adapt it.

Show of hands, how many of you houseruled previous incarnations of Runequest....

Yeah, I thought so.

I don't think I've ever known anyone who didn't have plenty of houserules in their Runequest games. You need houserules for MRQ? So what? I knew before it was ever published, before I ever even saw a preview, that I was going to dislike some of what was done and would just houserule it.

If you don't like MRQ and simply cannot stand the thought of having to houserule the game then play something you can be happy with by the book, but let's have an end to the incessant whining about having to houserule a game you were probably going to come up with some houserules for anyway.

Why hang around here and whine?

 

[Melkor]

You need houserules for MRQ? So what?

The problem stems from house rules being necessary (even required) to make MRQ function properly, and with options like Overextended and straight Riposte - which were obviously intended to be an option in MRQ combat.

Sure, people house rule games all of the time to tweak them to their own preference. There's a bigger issue when house rules are required to play the game as written.

 

[Archer]

I can say for certain that there are not a single game I have GMed since I began playing in '83 that there was no houserules for. There was at least some minor house rule used in some aspect of the rules.
And some games required more house rules than others (at which point it becomes worth replacing the rules with others are another discussion not for this thread).

 

[Gevrin]

From playing RPGsas a student in '78, and RQ from '80 (amongst fifty or more others, I know of no game that didn't involve houserules for some feature or other.

That said I've been running (not reading, running) MRQ with my sons and haven't changed anything yet, other than to handwave language differences between the characters and to introduce gaming stones to remember actions/reactions used.

Combat worked very well. No the characters weren't "overextended" and didn't riposte. their skills are at the 60-80% range so halving didn't happen (I'll probably houserule that but it's no great magic). The game rolled along quickly and resolution time for fights was quick - even with the plethora of actions, reactions, reaction-attacks etc. It didn't feel quite the same as RQ2 or 3 with all the activity each round but then that sure as hell wasn't like D&D either. And the resilience rolls to keep fighting didn't feel at all like mass hit points and armour class - more like a heroic struggle to keep upright until the enemy was defeated.

Overall the game works. Maybe it doesn't work the way some people would prefer and that's their opinion, but it does work. It doesn't need houserules to make it work, only to change things to the way you want them to work. Dysfunctional? No. There are things I would prefer to be different but that's my opinion, as are so many of the criticisms levelled at the game since publification. [/rant]

Cheers

Dave

 

[Melkor]

Combat worked very well. No the characters weren't "overextended" and didn't riposte.

A Riposte is possible with the 2xAP based on a critical Parry to a successful attack. A straight Riposte is not.

Overall the game works. Maybe it doesn't work the way some people would prefer and that's their opinion, but it does work.

The fact that a straight Riposte and Overextended result is impossible to obtain, though listed and described in the rulebook (obviously because it was intended to be a valid combat option) has nothing to do with opinion.

I think the key wording here is 'works as intended' or 'works as presented' or 'works as well as it should'. Yes, that is opinion.

I realize the game 'works' well enough - but the issue seems to stem from the fact that the Player's Guide PDF appears to be a 'quick fix' way to make the system work which (in my opinion - to be clear) is quite a bit different than how the rulebook and combat examples in the rulebook seem to indicate combat should work, and which renders some of the combat options in the rulebook impossible to achieve.

I'd really like to hear from some of the playtesters and see how the combat system developed, and if they played it as it appears in the rulebook, or if they play it as per the Player's Guide PDF.

Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think a comprehensive errata document needs to be released (maybe giving us those 'to be developed' rules that allow the impossible parry/dodge options in the rulebook to be possible to achieve, and to clear up questions on the items listed in the Mongoose errata thread). I would also like to see a detailed combat example or two.

 

[atgxtg]

From playing RPGsas a student in '78, and RQ from '80 (amongst fifty or more others, I know of no game that didn't involve houserules for some feature or other.

That said I've been running (not reading, running) MRQ with my sons and haven't changed anything yet, other than to handwave language differences between the characters and to introduce gaming stones to remember actions/reactions used.

Combat worked very well. No the characters weren't "overextended" and didn't riposte. their skills are at the 60-80% range so halving didn't happen (I'll probably houserule that but it's no great magic). The game rolled along quickly and resolution time for fights was quick - even with the plethora of actions, reactions, reaction-attacks etc. It didn't feel quite the same as RQ2 or 3 with all the activity each round but then that sure as hell wasn't like D&D either. And the resilience rolls to keep fighting didn't feel at all like mass hit points and armour class - more like a heroic struggle to keep upright until the enemy was defeated.

Overall the game works. Maybe it doesn't work the way some people would prefer and that's their opinion, but it does work. It doesn't need houserules to make it work, only to change things to the way you want them to work. Dysfunctional? No. There are things I would prefer to be different but that's my opinion, as are so many of the criticisms levelled at the game since publification. [/rant]

Cheers

Dave

What you are not considering is how the game will play as the characters improve. When resilience hits the 90a%+ area. You will see character up and fighting after taking 20, 30 or more points to the head. You will also see character dancing around as if unhurt as long as none of thier locations drop below 0 HP.

THe armor chart is messed up. So is the combat matrix. So is the unarmed combat matrix. Practicelly every example in the book that has been mentioned when discussing how the game works hat been offically stated as being wrong.

In fact, the combat systemin the book, is wrong. If you go by the book, you will be using a two roll attack system.

 

[Melkor]

In fact, the combat systemin the book, is wrong. If you go by the book, you will be using a two roll attack system.

A two roll attack system that doesn't mention what happens when you roll a crit on the first roll, as opposed to a crit on the second roll, vice versa, or a crit on both rolls. :lol:

Clearly, the system needs work.

 

[Gevrin]

A Riposte is possible with the 2xAP based on a critical Parry to a successful attack. A straight Riposte is not.

Yeah, they didn't roll a parry crit so it didn't crop up.

The fact that a straight Riposte and Overextended result is impossible to obtain, though listed and described in the rulebook (obviously because it was intended to be a valid combat option) has nothing to do with opinion.

If Matthew Sprange is being open, maybe the inclusion of the top line of the combat charts was a typo. Maybe they weren't intended to be a valid combat option in the core rulebook. I don't know either way (OK, hand up - to be honest I really don't care. I can run the game with no apparent loss of enjoyment to me or the players so I'm not about to get very worked up about it).

I think the key wording here is 'works as intended' or 'works as presented' or 'works as well as it should'. Yes, that is opinion.

I realize the game 'works' well enough - but the issue seems to stem from the fact that the Player's Guide PDF appears to be a 'quick fix' way to make the system work which (in my opinion - to be clear) is quite a bit different than how the rulebook and combat examples in the rulebook seem to indicate combat should work, and which renders some of the combat options in the rulebook impossible to achieve.

I'd really like to hear from some of the playtesters and see how the combat system developed, and if they played it as it appears in the rulebook, or if they play it as per the Player's Guide PDF.

Why? What will it achieve? Prove that the game was playtested with two attack rolls? Prove that they used the top line of the combat chart? And what then? So Mongoose decide to reduce the number of rolls to attack, in order to simplify combat (one of their stated goals), and then someone forgot to alter the combat charts in the core book. Embarrassing. So maybe they'd rather try to save face by issuing the pdf guide than admit to a rather basic blunder. Ultimately so what?

Again, I hate to beat a dead horse, but I think a comprehensive errata document needs to be released (maybe giving us those 'to be developed' rules that allow the impossible parry/dodge options in the rulebook to be possible to achieve, and to clear up questions on the items listed in the Mongoose errata thread). I would also like to see a detailed combat example or two.

I emphatically agree that errata is essential but then it would be for any new game.

Developed rules? Do you want to see all the playtest rules that were dropped from the final version. The first playtest used d100 but changed to a roll-and-add-to-get-over-100 system (if I remember rightly, it was to allow skills over 100% to be used fully. The reaction of the playtesters wasn't exactly positive though - now that wasn't RQ).

Maybe the missing rules will surface in a future supplement or maybe they'll be consigned to the "...seemed like a good idea at the time..." bin. Maybe they weren't worth it. The top line might quietly (as if...:lol disappear from the Gloranthan edition and be completely lost to future generations.

Cheers

Dave

 

[Melkor]

Why? What will it achieve? Prove that the game was playtested with two attack rolls? Prove that they used the top line of the combat chart? And what then? So Mongoose decide to reduce the number of rolls to attack, in order to simplify combat (one of their stated goals), and then someone forgot to alter the combat charts in the core book. Embarrassing. So maybe they'd rather try to save face by issuing the pdf guide than admit to a rather basic blunder. Ultimately so what?

No. You're misundarstanding my intentions.

Mainly because I was interested in using a two-roll system myself except for the problem I realized I would have with criticals (see my post above). I'd like to know how the playtesters played and tested the system to try and figure out exactly how it worked as presented in the rulebook because that's how I see the game working as I would like it to work.

I would hope that the months of playtest and feedback that contributed to the final version of the game were what showed up in the rulebook.

The Player's Guide PDF seems to be a stopgap to fix some of the rules in the rulebook - and possibly done at the behest of feedback that was critical to the two-roll system rather than because the book was in error in several places.

Mongoose releasing a 'stop gap' fix document doesn't have to be considered a bad thing - though I would have hoped that months of playtesting contributed to the final version of the combat system. If not, why have playtesters ?

I have no vested interest in seeing Mongoose embarassed if the Player's guide PDF was just an attempt to 'save face' instead of fess up to the errors in the main book. In fact, I hope that's not the case because I think MRQ has great potential, and I would hate to see that kind of attitude from the company that produced it.

Seriously, I don't see how that could be the case...I think it might be more of an instance of not thinking things through before releasing the Player's Guide rather than trying to save face...I mean, why admit in the Player's Guide PDF that the examples in the book are in error, but then try to save face regarding other errors or rules that were left out ?

That doesn't make sense unless the sheer number of errors would make the 'Runequest: Atlantean Edition' a necessity, and Mongoose customers slap their foreheads and say "Oh no, not again!".

The problem I have now is the lack of response from the Mongoose folks since the Player's Guide PDF was released. Like I have said elsewhere, I'm glad to see Matt's response on the Errata thread that says they are working on it, and I am hoping that the Errata document clears up several of these issues.

Unfortunately, It looks like (from the now missing in action "MRQ Companion - No Thanks" thread), that a whole new set of questions are waiting to be answered.

Don't get me wrong Gevrin - don't think I am anti-MRQ. I really want to use it for a Glorantha campaign, for Middle Earth, and for a Classic History game. I'm just waiting for some issues to be cleared up because I just can't (personally) use it in it's current state.

 

[iamtim]

Mainly because I was interested in using a two-roll system myself except for the problem I realized I would have with criticals (see my post above).

Hey, Melkor.

I think you may be letting your frustrations get to you again. Now, I didn't read your post above, but I think I get the gist of it; you're worried what happens if a player rolls a crit on the first attack roll, right?

Well, look at the combat charts -- see where they say "attack succeeds as normal"? To me, when considering a dual-attack roll, that reads that the attack should succeed as it normally would from the first roll: a success is a success, a crit is a crit.

So if you get a crit on the first roll, and the combat table returns an "attack succeeds as normal" result on the second, I would say the intent was to let the crit "pass through".

I can't see an attack roll followed by an opposed defense roll working any other way.

Tim.

 

[Melkor]

Well, look at the combat charts -- see where they say "attack succeeds as normal"? To me, when considering a dual-attack roll, that reads that the attack should succeed as it normally would from the first roll: a success is a success, a crit is a crit.

So if you get a crit on the first roll, and the combat table returns an "attack succeeds as normal" result on the second, I would say the intent was to let the crit "pass through".

Based on that - a crit rolled on the first roll would still be a crit if the second attack was succesful (but the parry was not)...in addition to the chance of 'upgrading' to a crit with the second roll ?

I have stated elsewhere that I am not that mathematically inclined - How does this work out your chance of scoring a critical ? Does it increase it significantly over that of just rolling once ?

And for the record, my frustration has faded to a kind of resigned annoyance at this point. :wink: