MRQ 'Atlantean' Edition?

I was really psyched about getting the new RuneQuest... but then I found out about the idiotic "halving" rule. That's a complete and total deal-breaker for me.

So my question is: will there be a MRQ v1.5 in the future? I'll buy the game if they fix this rule... but only if they fix it in the main book. I'm not buying a rulebook and then a Companion: "Main Book plus Book Written by Someone Who Can Do Basic Math".

If my post sounds bitter I'm sorry. But I really want to know: will there be a MRQ "Fixed" Edition in the future?

I was really looking forward to this. :(
 
I doubt it; it's not a typo nor is it unintended. The math was sacrificed for simplicity by design.

That said, Mongoose has stated they're looking into other approaches that would be optional; *I* expect they'll show up in a PDF like the Player's Guide or something.

There's also one billion trillion gazillion alternate solutions here on the forums, too.
 
Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see any change. If you feel like reading through hundreds of pages here on the subject :))), you'll see that for many of us, we eventually figured it wasn't a case of somebody not being able to do basic math, but more likely a sacriice of accuracy for increased simplicity. Whether that works or not is largely subjective; many people feel those situations will come up so seldom that it's not worth it, other feel that the very fact that it's so skewed says a lot about the game in total.

Either way, I don't see that being 'corrected' any time soon (indeed, Mongoose may not even feel it's 'broken' and is just an intended sacrifice for 'streamlining'). If it makes you feel better, Matt said the OGL nature of the game was intended to be modular (which first struck me as a bit of a cop-out, but as time went on I realized that it may well be such), and so there will be (and indeed, have been) many variations designed to fix this apparent issue.
 
SteveMND said:
Unfortunately, I doubt we'll see any change. If you feel like reading through hundreds of pages here on the subject :))), you'll see that for many of us, we eventually figured it wasn't a case of somebody not being able to do basic math, but more likely a sacriice of accuracy for increased simplicity. Whether that works or not is largely subjective; many people feel those situations will come up so seldom that it's not worth it, other feel that the very fact that it's so skewed says a lot about the game in total.

Either way, I don't see that being 'corrected' any time soon (indeed, Mongoose may not even feel it's 'broken' and is just an intended sacrifice for 'streamlining'). If it makes you feel better, Matt said the OGL nature of the game was intended to be modular (which first struck me as a bit of a cop-out, but as time went on I realized that it may well be such), and so there will be (and indeed, have been) many variations designed to fix this apparent issue.

I haven't read through all of the posts, as there are a lot of them. But even sacrificing for simplicity... when I go from 100% to 101% my skill actually goes _down_ opposing somebody with a 60% skill? That doesn't sound like a sacrifice to me: it sounds like (yet another) poorly-conceived and un-playtested rule.

Anyway, I was just stating the conditions under which I'd buy the game. Depressingly, that sounds like "never" at this point.

It's like a waiter defecating on your filet mignon before he sets the plate in front of you. "You know... I was about to pay 25 bucks for this."
 
I got my copy of the Runequest Rulebook for 25 dollars in America. I agree that I don't like the halfling mechanic, but that is easy enough to change.

The easiest and fairest system seems to be just subtract the difference between the high score and 100%. And then life goes on.

The Ruenquest rules have a couple of things that I like: hit location, knockback rules, and mechanics that make modern characters worry about guns and such. But whether the game is worth it or not is your opinion.
 
Colonel_Jenkins said:
It's like a waiter defecating on your filet mignon before he sets the plate in front of you. "You know... I was about to pay 25 bucks for this."

I think it is more like ordering a steak, getting a Rib Eye, and complaining because you wanted a Filet Mignon, and refusing to accept your own mistake.

Now, I am not trying to sound inflammatory here, but they entire post strikes me as a misleading attempt to blackmail Mongoose Publishing into "fixing" a rule that is not either important or "broken."

Your argument that when you go to 101% against 60% that you are loosing your chance of success is just not so... mathematically; you are still 41% more likely to win over your opponent (50.5 is 41% more than 30).

Now, I don't agree with this rule either, but in the age old tradition of RuneQuest (and all gaming before 1990) I will just make my own rule for my own game. I do not need, nor want, "one rule to ring them all!" LOL

But, it is (your choice) either bad manners or bad sportsmanship to try to use your decision to buy the book as a blackmail tool. If you think about it Mongoose would loose more customers my caving in to you than the one they would gain by doing the same.

The bottom like in all business is this: If you like it, buy it; if you don’t, don’t. Complaining about it is pointless.
 
A more important rule fix in my game so far has been to house rule the opposed test.

I've now found that the same mechanic can help in combat too.

As for skills over 100, I'm a long way from worrying about that.

When it does happen then I'll encourage the players to take the options that reduce their success chance, otherwise the only benefit they'll get is an increased critical chance.

I'll probably allow splitting some skills as well...
 
Now, I am not trying to sound inflammatory here, but they entire post strikes me as a misleading attempt to blackmail Mongoose Publishing into "fixing" a rule that is not either important or "broken."

That's a bit harsh. There are a lot of us who were really looking forward to the new version of RQ ( I had the first three books pre-ordered as soon as I found out about it, until I learned more about the game).

Unfortunatly, what was delivered isn't what many of us were hoping for. That's not necessarily a problem in the game as much as a difference in expectations, but when something has been added to the game that is mathematically flawed for the sake of simplicity, it's hardly unexpected to lose sales over it with those that favor accuracy over simplicity.

I loved RQ in the past, and I still love it today. But I'm just not sure MRQ is RQ, at least to me. And regardless of my loyalty to the game, I'm not going to shell out my hard-earned money for a game I feel is flawed "just because" it's called RuneQuest...
 
Lorgryt said:
Your argument that when you go to 101% against 60% that you are loosing your chance of success is just not so...

That's a good point I'd never thought of before, and it certainly is easier to accept that Mongoose used different math than the math other people have been posting about.

Think about it... 60 is 55% of 110, which means that a 110% skill is 45% better than a 60% skill. Similarly, 30 is 55% of 55, which means that a 55% skill is still 45% better than a 30% skill (60 and 110 halved, respectively.)

That's math I can wrap my head around. All the statistical stuff going around on the other threads was making my teeth numb and my eyes dry. :)
 
That's math I can wrap my head around. All the statistical stuff going around on the other threads was making my teeth numb and my eyes dry.

Heh heh, Tim...from the number of PMs I've gotten, you are not the only one. For all the ruffled feathers over the mechanic, you all might be surprised at how smoothly it plays. Hard math or no.

Regardless, as we say in all of our stuff...your enjoyment is what is important! Do what you need to in order to have fun! :)

Cheers all,
Bry
 
Lorgryt said:
Your argument that when you go to 101% against 60% that you are loosing your chance of success is just not so... mathematically; you are still 41% more likely to win over your opponent (50.5 is 41% more than 30).

It is so and has been proven time and time again on the boards. There are spreadsheets and formulas and this great tool here.

By the published rules skill 100 vs 60 will win 76.8% of the time. Skill 101 vs 60 will win 57.6% of the time. You lose 19.2% off your chance of winning the contest when your skill goes up 1%.

Your chance of success is based on three things, your skill level, your opponents skill level, and the difference between the higher skill and 100.

The two common misconceptions are that a 50 skill point advantage is the same no matter where it occurs, for example 75 vs 25 is the same as 100 vs 50. In the math behind an opposed roll this is not True.

The other is that because halving maintains the ratio of odds (as in your example) the chance of success is the same, which is also not true.
 
SteveMND said:
Now, I am not trying to sound inflammatory here, but they entire post strikes me as a misleading attempt to blackmail Mongoose Publishing into "fixing" a rule that is not either important or "broken."

That's a bit harsh. There are a lot of us who were really looking forward to the new version of RQ ( I had the first three books pre-ordered as soon as I found out about it, until I learned more about the game).

Unfortunatly, what was delivered isn't what many of us were hoping for. That's not necessarily a problem in the game as much as a difference in expectations, but when something has been added to the game that is mathematically flawed for the sake of simplicity, it's hardly unexpected to lose sales over it with those that favor accuracy over simplicity.

I loved RQ in the past, and I still love it today. But I'm just not sure MRQ is RQ, at least to me. And regardless of my loyalty to the game, I'm not going to shell out my hard-earned money for a game I feel is flawed "just because" it's called RuneQuest...

I can agree with all of this. I have been playing RQ since the first black and white cover book was new! I started playing it in 1978. You will not find me arguing that the MRQ is not Chaosium’s RQ. Or that the infamous rule needs work.

That being said, my post in a point on two parts:

1) The math is not flawed. It is just not a good rule. (And, again, the math is not flawed... it is just statistically weighted against high skills. The percentage differences are the same).
2) Using the threat of not buying the book to try and manipulate the company is pointless.

As for MRQ... I love seeing RQ still out there, and there are some great ideas in MRQ. But, as with all games, there WILL be house rules to “fix” what I don’t like.

The, as you say, expectations seem to be the real argument. But I never saw Mongoose say they were bringing back Greg Stafford to do the game, nor that it would be the same game it was in 1978, or 1980, or 1982... 25 years is bound to bring changes to a system. It is only us old codger’s who are being nostalgic about an out of print game... the new players to RQ don’t even know there is a difference except from what is posted here.

Expectations aside, halving rule aside, my post was really about what I saw as screaming at the wind. Again, “If you like it, buy it; if you don’t, don’t. Complaining about it is pointless.” Blackmail even more so.

If this has seemed “over the top” or “harsh,” I apologize for the offense my pointing out the offence has caused.
 
Lorgryt said:
(And, again, the math is not flawed... it is just statistically weighted against high skills. The percentage differences are the same).

Yup. I finally "get" what Mongoose was doing with this rule. You remain just as good in comparison to your opponent, but you're dropped down in scale to a level that is manageable by the dice mechanic. Unfortunately, that drop in scale reduces success chances a bit.

I "get" it now. I may not fully agree, but at least I understand why. I may not use it, but at least I'm not sitting here wondering what the thought process behind it was.
 
Rurik said:
The other is that because halving maintains the ratio of odds (as in your example) the chance of success is the same, which is also not true.

Math is fun... we can argue till we are blue, because we are not arguing the same point. Yet we do both agree... the rule... how shall I say it... sucks.

Both of our math's are correct, mine logically yours statistically (I am not saying you are not being logical... I am talking about math, not personality! LOL). But that doesn't matter. What does matter is this:
Mongoose Steele said:
Regardless, as we say in all of our stuff...your enjoyment is what is important! Do what you need to in order to have fun!

My initial post included the point:
Lorgryt said:
Now, I don't agree with this rule either, but in the age old tradition of RuneQuest (and all gaming before 1990) I will just make my own rule for my own game. I do not need, nor want, "one rule to ring them all!" LOL

So, rather than expecting to force Mongoose to fix what they have proven works in play testing by threats just do one of two things... don't buy the game, or make a house rule. Arguing about it or whining about it is fruitless.
 
Expectations aside, halving rule aside, my post was really about what I saw as screaming at the wind. Again, “If you like it, buy it; if you don’t, don’t. Complaining about it is pointless.

I disagree. Mongoose, like any good company, uses customer feedback and such to determine what they do and what the players want. Complaints (as long as they are constructive and presented in a fair and polite manner) are valuable to any company. In fact, aside from our spending habits, it's the only means we have to let companies know we don't like a certain decision (and spending dollars only goes so far -- unless they hear the specific somewhere, the company does not know if Person X didn't buy the game because they didn't know it existed, simply wasn't interested, or didn't like something about it).

As for me, they pretty much lost me because of several design changes they made that I felt was integral to what made "RuneQuest" for me, and a lot of little avoidable typos, mistakes and such that I've seen in the Previews and heard about here on the forums. I'm still holding out a shred of hope by waiting to see whether they bother to fix those known tpyos and errors when they release the public OGL SRD of the game, but if not, I'm done.

The, as you say, expectations seem to be the real argument. But I never saw Mongoose say they were bringing back Greg Stafford to do the game, nor that it would be the same game it was in 1978, or 1980, or 1982... 25 years is bound to bring changes to a system. It is only us old codger’s who are being nostalgic about an out of print game.

Again, I'll have to disgree. They in no way needed to use the name RuneQuest, and, since they weren't the original holder of the name, that means they had to explicitly go out and get the rights to use the name.

By them using that name, they set up expectations. Now, I'll admit, it may vary from person to person, but you can't blame people from making those expectations. Mongoose was counting on those expectations to help drive sales, to a certain point. Otherwise, they would have not spent the money on getting the name and just called it something else.

Now, if they knowingly set up expectations, they have to accept that some of us will feel they failed to live up to them, and sales would suffer as a result. Maybe not enough to make a real dent -- perhaps the new people coming in to the game would be sufficient to even thing out -- but a dent regardless.
 
iamtim said:
That's math I can wrap my head around. All the statistical stuff going around on the other threads was making my teeth numb and my eyes dry. :)
How do you think those of us actually trying to do all the maths felt... :wink:
 
SteveMND said:
Mongoose was counting on those expectations to help drive sales, to a certain point.

I thought they openly stated that they knew a lot of the "old guard" wouldn't like the changes they were making, but that they weren't marketing the game for that demographic anyway?
 
They can say a lot of things. :) There is one reason, and one reason only, why anyone would try and get the name of a product originally created by others, and that's name recognition.

They may say they knew a lot of the old guard may not like what they were doing, but they were counting on us to a certain degree.
 
Lorgryt said:
Expectations aside, halving rule aside, my post was really about what I saw as screaming at the wind. Again, “If you like it, buy it; if you don’t, don’t. Complaining about it is pointless.” Blackmail even more so.

If this has seemed “over the top” or “harsh,” I apologize for the offense my pointing out the offence has caused.

First of all, saying that I am "blackmailing" Mongoose crosses the line from shilling to libel. Blackmail is a criminal act by which a party extorts money from another party by threatening them.

Your failure to understand the meaning of the term "blackmail" and the irresponsible way you misuse the term pretty much says it all. But just for the purpose of educating you, let me break it down:

1. I was interested in purchasing MRQ (for several reasons).
2. When I found out about the "halving rule" I decided I am not buying MRQ.
3. If they changed the halving rule, I would buy MRQ.

Somehow that's blackmail? That's just customer feedback. "I won't buy your product because of X. If you changed X, I would buy it."

"Blackmail"? Grow up.

Maybe they'll never change the rule and I'll never buy the game. Fine - I'm just telling them how to get my money.
 
Back
Top