MRQ - Best version of RQ yet?
- Thread starter GbajiTheDeceiver
- Start date
While I think the combat system needs tweaking (now that i have actually GOT the rules I can see that those dodge/parry charts were blatantly designed for the two-roll attack technique!!.....and new charts for the one-roll technique need to be designed) I can see the intended functionality and fluidity of the system and will vote that it is the best system - though it is still in its raw state and needs to be refined somewhat!
Sigtrygg said:That patch is broken too
It gives as an example a 230% skill criticalling on a 64. A skill of 230 can only critical on a 23 or less :twisted:
Using the current rules you are right, but this is a change to the current rules so of course it produces different results.
Simon Hibbs
iamtim said:
But is isn't a simple mechanic. Rather than using one way to handle all skill rolls, we use one method for a normal skill test, another for opposed tests, and still another for combat. THe we factor in criticals for some roles, but not for others. Halving for some rolls, but only for high skills, and not in combat. THen we tweak the critical automatic success, and and fumble chances. It's not simple, it's a mess.
It is about the least simple method I've seen. It is very complicated and doesn't work well. Mongoose ripped out a die mechanic that was simple and did work and replaced it with a confusion, contradcictory and broken method of doing things.
You think Mongoose should get a pat on the back for this just becuase you don't care about math?
I have a strong supicion that a lot of the MRQ fans who think the game works just fine are going to be singing a differenrt tune after they run thsigame for awhile.
You really wouldn't mind throwing away all those improvement rolls, huh? Okay, you are the first player I've heard from with that viewpoint. [/quote]
iamtim said:
"SIGH". I wonder, just what would it take for you not to like something about the game. I am seeinhg a lot of people who liek MRQ reponsing to criticism this way
"ThHere is nothing wrong with the game mechanics"
"Okay there is something wrong but it is minor bug, maybe a few percentage points"
"Okay there is a problem but we have a workaround."
"We have a problem, so I'm just gonna fudge it"
"It is such a great simple system."
If they had made a design decison for simplicy and didn't care that it was dsyfunctional they could have made it much simpler.
iamtim said:
Would anything?
You have said repeately that the math doesn't interest you. So how can you really judge how significant a math error is?
If you fdon't mind that your success chance goes down past 100% qwhy bother tracking skills at all?
Frankly, it is the biggest snafu for a core game mechanic I think that I have ever seen, and I own a lotta games. If this isn't big enough to make you go looking elsewhere, nothing would be.
atgxtg said:
(For what it's worth, your quotes are kinda messed up. You credited RMS with things I said, and sometimes what you say gets put into a quote so it's hard for me to follow what you're saying.)
There's not much I dislike in games in general. I don't get that worked up over games. I judge a game by one thing and one thing only: do I enjoy it?
So far, I enjoy MRQ. I'm having fun reading it, I'm having fun making characters, I'm having fun converting stuff to it. You may be right though, maybe I won't have fun actually playing it -- I have referenced "actual play" quite often in my posts, wondering if the halving mechanic will be a big issue in actual play or not.
My biggest question is still this, though: why does it seem to bother you so much that the math is not a big deal for me? If I'm having fun playing the game, why do you care if the math is wrong or not?
atgxtg wrote
The vast majority of people are not looking elsewhere. I wonder why this is? There must be something about the system (more than just the settings I think), despite the problems, that makes them wish to stay.
I can see all sorts of rough and incomplete edges in the final product, but can also see an inner fluidity, a beautiful "grain" in the system that would show through with careful "sanding".
Is the problem big enough to make YOU go looking elsewhere? I hope not as you are one of the ones who wishes it to be perfect. And, by your presence in these forums, it seems that you have not gone looking elsewhere. I suspect the reason for this is that you see the potential and are dedicated to making Runequest work.
Runequest has returned as a phenomena. And here we all are - the Runequest community - making it into the Runequest we all want.
The vast majority of people are not looking elsewhere. I wonder why this is? There must be something about the system (more than just the settings I think), despite the problems, that makes them wish to stay.
I can see all sorts of rough and incomplete edges in the final product, but can also see an inner fluidity, a beautiful "grain" in the system that would show through with careful "sanding".
Is the problem big enough to make YOU go looking elsewhere? I hope not as you are one of the ones who wishes it to be perfect. And, by your presence in these forums, it seems that you have not gone looking elsewhere. I suspect the reason for this is that you see the potential and are dedicated to making Runequest work.
Runequest has returned as a phenomena. And here we all are - the Runequest community - making it into the Runequest we all want.
Sorry about the quotesw, I had typed a message to RMS eailer and I think Parts in the clipboard messed up my message. I'll try to fix it.
AIt doesn't bother me per say that the math isn't a big deal for you.
I just don't see how you can call such a complicated sytem (and I forgot the sometimes you want high, sometimes you want roll on the same type of rolls) as simple.
I fully expect MRQ to self destruct in play. Not in the first session or two, as players expect some confusion during the learning process.
The thing about the math though is that even if you ingore it, it won't ingore you.
AIt doesn't bother me per say that the math isn't a big deal for you.
I just don't see how you can call such a complicated sytem (and I forgot the sometimes you want high, sometimes you want roll on the same type of rolls) as simple.
I fully expect MRQ to self destruct in play. Not in the first session or two, as players expect some confusion during the learning process.
The thing about the math though is that even if you ingore it, it won't ingore you.
burdock said:
MOre along the lines that I see the beauty of what RQ was. I've said this before, I can't see any change in MRQ that I consider an improvement. If the orginal RQ was like this, I would have gone looking for something else. Back then that would have meant DragonQuest.
The saving grace of MRQ is the modularity that has been hinted at. If we can really swtich out certain sections, then the things that don't work, or work differently than intended, or just don't please the community of players, will be replaced with options-rather than just becoming things that each GM has to houserule. I'm staying around also becuase I want to see how the comapinion book changes things.
Old RQ did work. MOst, if not all of the problems that exist in MRQ came about from discarding something in RQ that worked and replacing it with something that doesn't work. I don't consider that good game design.
What I can't understand is how people keep saying how great the game is, yet don't have anything "great" to give as an example. Everytime someone points out something the rsponse is "Oh, I don't think that's a big problem".
I am not trying to make the game perfect. It's a nice idea to have a prefect game, but that is all it is, an idea. All games will have problems and not all players will like the same things. THat being said, I do expect a game to have a core mechanic that works. I consider that the signle most important thing to a core rulebook-working rules. If a game uses one mechanic to handle most of it's taks, then I expect that mechanic to work. Character creation, magic, setting, are all secondary to having a system that works. If you don't have that, you don't have a game system.
Lots of people seem to like the game becuase it is simple-it isn't. It is very complicated and confusing. I don't consider that an opinon, but something that can be proven. THe core mechanic for d20 is simple. SO is the core mechanic for traveller or old RQ.
Everyone keeps raving about the game's potential and what it could be. I'm looking at what it is.
Maybe in six months or a year it might be a good game.
But how can a it be considered the best version of RQ? Especially by a group of RQ fans? And when they have yet to run run one game session?
Fanboy idol worshipping.
atgxtg wrote
Good heavens!! I'm certainly no fanboy of mongoose. I accept that the system has flaws but I have been struck by its deeper fluidity. I look at the situation with positivity, see the potential rather than spreading around negativity (and slight insults). This positivity could be a flaw in my personality as I approach many aspects of my life in this manner.
Good heavens!! I'm certainly no fanboy of mongoose. I accept that the system has flaws but I have been struck by its deeper fluidity. I look at the situation with positivity, see the potential rather than spreading around negativity (and slight insults). This positivity could be a flaw in my personality as I approach many aspects of my life in this manner.
LOL!
atgxtg wrote
Some will have run it briefly, others rolled out characters, others will have run combats on their own or with a friend......I'm sure a lot of people would have put the system under a little more analysis than just reading the rules...and probably all of them will be aware of the flaws and rough edges (from reading these forums). Perhaps they are all stupid? I tend not to jump to this conclusion.
Also, I do appreciate the work of the Mathematical Accuracy contingent.
atgxtg wrote
Some will have run it briefly, others rolled out characters, others will have run combats on their own or with a friend......I'm sure a lot of people would have put the system under a little more analysis than just reading the rules...and probably all of them will be aware of the flaws and rough edges (from reading these forums). Perhaps they are all stupid? I tend not to jump to this conclusion.
Also, I do appreciate the work of the Mathematical Accuracy contingent.
atgxtg said:
As opposed to "Hater! Hater! Hater!", which could concievably be applied to you?
Here's why *I* think this is the best version of RQ, and I'm sure it's going to spark more debates, and more atgxtg posts telling me how wrong I am (heh):
1. The OGL. Ka-pow. For *years* I've wanted the ability to publish games with a RuneQuesty core, but all I've had is D20 and a few other, lesser known games that are also under the OGL. Now I have that.
2. The lack of characteristic rolls. No more CONx5 or POWx5 for me, now it's all done via skills. Yay!
3. The ease of character creation. Holy crap, it's like night and day.
And finally,
4. It's in print.
burdock said:
Stuipd? No. I don't thin they are stupid. I just think they are voting based upon what they want the game to be in future rather than what it is now. All of the things you have mentioned are hardly sufficent to qualify the game as the "best version ever".
I think a lot of people are so happy that thereis a game called RuneQuest out, and that there will be Gloratha books, or Lanmhmar books, or that they can tailor it to thier own settings, that they are voting Yes! due to reasons that do not exist-at least not yet.
burdock said:
Yeah, me either. Not being a D20 fan, nor a fan of any of Mongoose's other licensed properties, I have none of their products in my game collection.
...
Oh, wait, I did have the Pocket PHB and DMG for a D20 game I played in for a while. But I gave them away and got the WotC PHB -- it was far better organized and easier to use than the Pocket books.
Similar threads
