A while ago, I posted that I did not like the current system where in an opposed skill test if both characters fail then whoever rolls lowest in their skill test wins. This assumes that if someone who is normally very talented fails then they fail catastrophically and will lose the test. Much more realistic is that if someone who is normally very talented fails they only fail slightly.
In other words, it should be:
BOTH CHARACTERS FAIL--Whoever rolled the highest in their skill test wins the opposed test.
The only reason I can see that you didn't go with the above originally is that you were scared about how this would interact with the fumble rule. Just say that the fumble rule is not in effect in opposed skill tests like this. Instead of the above, you could have it "BOTH CHARACTERS FAIL--Whoever rolled the closest to their skill wins." The problem with this is that it achieves the same result as the above test and yet requires a subtraction. That is not as good and it is better just to use the one I outlined above.
I also remarked about the halving rule in this now deleted post. Many people have already commented how silly the halving rule is.
I realize this post will get deleted to. I just want to tell the moderators here: You are not doing yourself a service by deleting critical posts. Annoying critical friends can only turn them into enemies. I was obviously excited about MRQ or I would not have ordered it and be reading it so soon. I am going to be running an MRQ campaign. By deleting critical posts, all you are doing is annoying your fanbase.
The word will get out in the end, in any case, and your attempts to covertly re-write the rules to a released game with faults (see the "by the rules or by mr sprange" thread, for example) will be perceived as such. My advice is: Admit that you messed up, and try to release official errata quickly. Critical analysis can only help you acheive this.
In other words, it should be:
BOTH CHARACTERS FAIL--Whoever rolled the highest in their skill test wins the opposed test.
The only reason I can see that you didn't go with the above originally is that you were scared about how this would interact with the fumble rule. Just say that the fumble rule is not in effect in opposed skill tests like this. Instead of the above, you could have it "BOTH CHARACTERS FAIL--Whoever rolled the closest to their skill wins." The problem with this is that it achieves the same result as the above test and yet requires a subtraction. That is not as good and it is better just to use the one I outlined above.
I also remarked about the halving rule in this now deleted post. Many people have already commented how silly the halving rule is.
I realize this post will get deleted to. I just want to tell the moderators here: You are not doing yourself a service by deleting critical posts. Annoying critical friends can only turn them into enemies. I was obviously excited about MRQ or I would not have ordered it and be reading it so soon. I am going to be running an MRQ campaign. By deleting critical posts, all you are doing is annoying your fanbase.
The word will get out in the end, in any case, and your attempts to covertly re-write the rules to a released game with faults (see the "by the rules or by mr sprange" thread, for example) will be perceived as such. My advice is: Admit that you messed up, and try to release official errata quickly. Critical analysis can only help you acheive this.
