MRQ - Best version of RQ yet?

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

OK, I'm deep into the Skills chapter and so far I like what I see very very much. So I'm going to jump the gun a little and say that it's shaping up to be the best version of RQ so far. It's ultra-clean, clear (with some exceptions I'll be coming to later), concise, simple and straightforward; yet powerful, deep and flexible.

These are all classic RQ hallmarks, taken to the n'th degree.

OK, there are a few areas that could be better: the famous combat confusion, and the halving rule, for example. Of these, the only one that'll cause trouble is the halving rule. But do you know what I think? I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, and it's a fair way off yet.

Previous RQs had issues which were admittedly smaller, but - get this - occurred more often. To my mind, that balances things out.

So, is MRQ the best yet?

 

[homerjsinnott]

The poll is a bit one dimeinsional, couldn't you add a few more options?

Too early to tell for a start?

 

[HyrumOWC]

I love it, for many of the same reasons. The OGL pushes it over the top for me.

Hyrum.

 

[iamtim]

Something is telling me that many will be the responses to this, and long will be the thread.

That said, *this* RQ3er prefers MRQ to RQ3. Even with MRQ's... idiosyncrasies. It seems to have much smoother play; I'll verify that when I start the game I'm building.

And, as others have said, the OGL just puts it over the top.

 

[atgxtg]

Something is telling me that many will be the responses to this, and long will be the thread.

That said, *this* RQ3er prefers MRQ to RQ3. Even with MRQ's... idiosyncrasies. It seems to have much smoother play; I'll verify that when I start the game I'm building.

And, as others have said, the OGL just puts it over the top.

Smoother play? We've got people doing spreadheets and computer simulations to get a work around for skill halving and opposed resolution. How is that "smoother play"? And that's is after a pdf correction for combat, or else we'd still be doing work on that.

Have you been smoking the book?


Somoother character generation, maybe. Soother play? No. Or at least not yet.

 

[simonh]

I won't respond to the poll because neither of the options captures my feelings even remotely accurately.

Yes, I'll come off the fence and say that MRQ is the best verison of RQ ever. Ity's not the best playtested, or edited and needs some fixesbut overall the best.

The ultimate verison of RQ so far is one that was never published. Elric/Stormbringer has all the advantages MRQ has in terms of streamlining the system, was much better playtested and tuned over a long period of time, but in the end wasn't RQ. Although I did my best to change that.


Simon Hibbs

 

[iamtim]

We've got people doing spreadheets and computer simulations to get a work around for skill halving and opposed resolution.

Which is not important to me. Nor does it, in my opinion, change how smoothly the game appears to run. As I've said before, skill halving is going to come up so infrequently in my games that I'd rather play the game and not get stuck on it. There are tons of work-arounds already in place for when I do get to that point, too, if I decide to not run it as-is.

Statistics are not my bag, baby. Nor is an overabundance of math -- which is why I'm kinda digging the lack of characteristic rolls as well. I love tinkering with rules, but I'm not going to be bogged down if the math doesn't work right. I'd rather spend my tinkering time changing the Rune Magic system to be more applicable to my world, or coming up with new Professions or Legendary Abilities or whatever else.

So while you and the others endlessly debate alternate opposed skill resolution methods, I'm going to go play and enjoy the game.

No offense intended, of course, I just don't see that particular issue in the same light that you do.

 

[simonh]

Which is not important to me. Nor does it, in my opinion, change how smoothly the game appears to run. As I've said before, skill halving is going to come up so infrequently in my games that I'd rather play the game and not get stuck on it. There are tons of work-arounds already in place for when I do get to that point, too, if I decide to not run it as-is.

That's entirelty fair enough. For most gorups starting a game it's just not goign to be an issue for some time. When it does though, you will want to turn to some alternative rules, and preferably ones that have been proved to work by the spreadsheet guys.

However you may well hit this earlier than you think. There are plenty of ways in the system that can push moderate character skills over 100%. One spell alone can push any skill up by 10% per point of the spell, and spending extra time on skill attempts can provide large bonuses.

When you find clever players casting skill-enhancing magic on their opponents to push them over 100%, in order to weight the odds in their own favour, you might have a different perspective on this.

Simon Hibbs

 

[iamtim]

When it does though, you will want to turn to some alternative rules, and preferably ones that have been proved to work by the spreadsheet guys.

Well, with all due respect, the halving mechanic is proven to work. You half the skills, roll, and evaluate the results. That's certainly a proven way to resolve skills; the skill is certainly resolved. It may not be mathematically correct, but the rules have provided a system to determine who wins and who loses. If it's OK with me and my group, why should we worry about an alternate "proven solution"? We know the risks.

We don't play RPGs for mathematical accuracy. We play RPGs for fun. I've been GMing Fudge for the last god-knows-how-many years, and if it comes down to it I have no problems making a spur-of-the-moment decision: if a 150% guy makes a halved skill roll against a 25% guy's halved skill, and rolls above 75%... he's probably going to win the contest by GMs fiat. And my group has no problem with me making such decisions. Game rules are guidelines, not set in stone.

 

[atgxtg]

We've got people doing spreadheets and computer simulations to get a work around for skill halving and opposed resolution.

Which is not important to me. Nor does it, in my opinion, change how smoothly the game appears to run.

Appears to run, maybe not. It will change how smoothly the game runs.

As I've said before, skill halving is going to come up so infrequently in my games that I'd rather play the game and not get stuck on it. There are tons of work-arounds already in place for when I do get to that point, too, if I decide to not run it as-is.

INfrequenly huh? It isn't tough to start off with a score in the 80s%. Getting to 100% with a skill in MRQ can come a lot faster than in RQ, even in as little as a month of play. What then? Cap the characters?

What about your players? Don't you think they will feel cheated when halving comes up and ruins thier chances at something.

So do you know whick "work-arond" works? Most of them raise as many problems as skill halving.

Statistics are not my bag, baby. Nor is an overabundance of math -- [/quiote]


I don't want an excess math in the game either. THat is why I want to sort stuff out, now, while it is realtively easy to fix, than later when too many people get ticked off at the screwed up mechanics and won't play the game. Keep in mind, the vast majoity of people playing MRQ are doing so with the rules printed in the book, and that makes thing even worse, with double attack rolls and all.

We are not messing around with the math for fun. No are we tracking down fractions of a pecentage point. We are talking things like a 50% increase in skill dropping your success chance to one third. THat will be noticable in play. Not the first week, but it will get noticed.

No offense intended, of course, I just don't see that particular issue in the same light that you do.

No offense taken. I questioned you, so you certainly have the right to defend your postion.

But consider this:

You are a player with a roguish gambler type character. THing of a RQ version of Maverick. You have a Gambling skill, say Poker at 90%, and are a master card player. THree weeks later you hit 101% and start halving your Poker rolls. You "hit a bit of bad luck" and loose a little. Now, over the course of the next two months, and 6 improvement roles you raise your skill up to 105%. Now you start losing more games. You contine to work on your Poker skill and by the end of the next year in game time, you have raise your skill up to a 150% and are actually worse foff than when you had a 90%.

Wounldn't you, as a player, feel cheated after spending over 50 improvement rolls to improve Poker up from 90 to 150% only to discover than it hasn't improved your chances of winning but has hurt them? Especially when you could have used those 50 rolls (and who couldn't use 50 improvement rolls ) to raise other things?

Most of my players would probably say "This sucks!" and would want their 50 rolls back, or give up on the game entirely. It's best for everyone involved for me as a GM to sacrifice a little time and effort fixing this problem before it ever arises.

I can't see praising the game for using a "smoother" resolution system that put me into such a bad situation.

Now faster character creation, on the other hand.

 

[iamtim]

Wounldn't you, as a player, feel cheated after spending over 50 improvement rolls to improve Poker up from 90 to 150% only to discover than it hasn't improved your chances of winning but has hurt them?

I think you missed where I said:

I've been GMing Fudge for the last god-knows-how-many years, and if it comes down to it I have no problems making a spur-of-the-moment decision: if a 150% guy makes a halved skill roll against a 25% guy's halved skill, and rolls above 75%... he's probably going to win the contest by GMs fiat. And my group has no problem with me making such decisions.

Frequently, in our GURPS and D20 games, a skill roll from a highly skilled person in a situation where by all rights they should succeed at their skill roll, the GM just makes them roll with the admonition "Just don't fumble."

I'm sure that'll carry over quite well.

*shrug*

 

[atgxtg]

I think you missed where I said:

I've been GMing Fudge for the last god-knows-how-many years, and if it comes down to it I have no problems making a spur-of-the-moment decision: if a 150% guy makes a halved skill roll against a 25% guy's halved skill, and rolls above 75%... he's probably going to win the contest by GMs fiat. And my group has no problem with me making such decisions.

As long as the GM is consitient I wouldn't have a problem either.

But that is your doing, not the game;'s. Why are you giveing mRQ credit for your moves? If you bought a car that didn't run, and fixed it up with a custom engine would you give the credit to manufacturer?

Frequently, in our GURPS and D20 games, a skill roll from a highly skilled person in a situation where by all rights they should succeed at their skill roll, the GM just makes them roll with the admonition "Just don't fumble."

I'm sure that'll carry over quite well.

*shrug*

Frequently in most of my RPG campaigns similar things come up. I'll either do what you do, or just automatic success it ("Okay, your a sailor with Tie Rope at 157%, yes you can retie you shoelaces without a skill roll).

It the whole player A vs Player B stuff when both have high skills that will be problematic. NPCs rarely complain to the GM-and they take a lot of abuse too.

 

[andakitty]

No, I'd have to say RQ2 if I had to choose between RQ's. And neither are the best overall choice for running any rpg, IMO. Not because of the halving rule so much as the hassle over it in the case of MRQ...and otherwise it dies of many little dissatisfactions and not nearly enough improvement to make it worth the trouble. I have stated my wish many times here, over the last two months, for a game I could run out of the box without tampering to make it work, and MRQ does..not..even..come..close. So I'll toodle off and play Tekumel, which may become my new system of choice, and leave MRQ to those of you who like it. Enjoy it, and I hope it stands the test of time and usage for you all.

 

[atgxtg]

No, I'd have to say RQ2 if I had to choose between RQ's. And neither are the best overall choice for running any rpg, IMO. Not because of the halving rule so much as the hassle over it in the case of MRQ...and otherwise it dies of many little dissatisfactions and not nearly enough improvement to make it worth the trouble. I have stated my wish many times here, over the last two months, for a game I could run out of the box without tampering to make it work, and MRQ does..not..even..come..close. So I'll toodle off and play Tekumel, which may become my new system of choice, and leave MRQ to those of you who like it. Enjoy it, and I hope it stands the test of time and usage for you all.

I'm curious about the "modular" nature of MRQ. If we will have other options presented then in six months or a year it might not be the same animal. I suspect that any mix 'n match system is going to have some options becooming more popular than others. For example, there is a fumble chart in the RQ COmpanion, I wonder if that will become common to most MRQ campaigns or used only by a handful of RQ3 diehards.

 

[iamtim]

But that is your doing, not the game;'s. Why are you giveing mRQ credit for your moves?

I'm not giving credit to MRQ for my moves. All I'm saying is this: whether or not the math is wrong, the halving skills mechanic should play out very smoothly. It won't create a lot of pauses in the action as you pause to reference charts or apply formulas or calculate odds or whatever.

Why is it so hard for you to believe that some people don't place the same priority on the math as you do? You take me to task just about every time I'm involved in a conversation about it.

Obviously my group and I have different priorities when it comes to gaming than you and your group. Is that so very hard to accept?

 

[SteveMND]

Why is it so hard for you to believe that some people don't place the same priority on the math as you do?

I don't think it's a case of understanding it or not -- I'm pretty sure we all understand at this point that you don't place a priority on these kinds of things.

But when the issue is brought up about how well MRQ has been implemented and designed, and how good of a game it is, it's hard for those of us that do care about those things to just let things like that pass.

If I'm at 100% and my opponent is at 10%, I have a 90% gain on him. But if I'm 101% and my opponent is at 10%, I'm suddenly reduced to a mere 45% gain on him, due to the halving rule.

Now, if you don't feel the inherent problem in that example is worth bothering about, that's great. But for some of us, it comes across as a notable lack of professionalism in the design of the game.

Maybe you also feel that, well, that can be easily remedied by a quick house rule, and that's fine also. But again, some of us, the question isn't 'how do I fix this,' but rather 'why should I have to fix the developer's game for them in the first place?'

Maybe Mongoose intended it that way, as an unfortunate sacrifice of numbers for simplicity (in fact, I would expect them to say that regardless). And again, that's fine. But that doesn't mean it makes the problem disappear, and for some of us, that just grates on the gamer nerve in us.

 

[iamtim]

an unfortunate sacrifice of numbers for simplicity

That's the crux of the issue right there. It really has nothing to do with professionalism, it has nothing to do with playtester feedback, it has nothing to do with anything but a decision that was made during the design process.

And some people will agree with that decision; I do. Some will not; you don't. What gets to me after a while though is the constant attempts to prove to those that do agree with the decision that they are WRONG.

It's well documented that there's a math issue; no one is debating that at all. It's well documented that some of us welcome the simplicity over the math, and others prefer the math over the simplicity. But when I openly state that it's not a problem for me, it just kinda bugs when the response is "Well how would you feel if you were a player, huh?" Obviously, it's not a problem for me because I prefer the simplicity of the mechanic.

All I'm saying is this: you're welcome to your opinion and I don't begrudge you for it. I should also be welcome to my opinion whether you think it's wrong or not. Yeah?

 

[Halfbat]

Vote +ve. Simple, skills-only and I like the Rune Magic changes (and as a result an aged character can receive penalties for resisting disease and infirmity from age quite easily).

Yes, the halving rule is atrocious, imho, but it's worth remembering it only works the way it does when combined with the "lowest loser wins" rule. But then I will probably not use it but use something else (proportional shift, perhaps).

 

[Vadrus]

Difficult to judge if it's the best version as so far it's the most incomplete version, give it six months and it might stand a chance but at the moment there's no way it could be called the best.

A more interesting poll might be is it the best RPG Rules System out there, it's one thing to compare it against out-of-print games but how does it stack up against it's current rivals?


Vadrus

 

[simonh]

I'm not giving credit to MRQ for my moves. All I'm saying is this: whether or not the math is wrong, the halving skills mechanic should play out very smoothly. It won't create a lot of pauses in the action as you pause to reference charts or apply formulas or calculate odds or whatever.

I understand that you aren't woried about the accuracy of the results, that's fine, but this is where I don't get you.

You're assuming that the alternative resolution mechanics must be more complex than the current ones. That isn't the case. The current mechanics require maths (halving and rounding two skill values, possibly several times), and comparison on a chart. Both things you say you don't like.

There is at least one alternative that require no mathematical recalculation of skills, no charts and no extra dice rolls, and also fixes the statistical flaws.


Simon Hibbs