MRQ - Best version of RQ yet?

[Sigtrygg]

RuneQuest is the first thing I've ever bought from Mongoose.

I used the basic system last Saturday to run a sci-fi game one off on a "haunted" space station (the old Traveller Death Station adventure with cyber-zombies).

Character generation was really quick (I added some Traveller skills at 10% per level earned during prior history).

No one had a skill above 100 so halving didn't come up.
I did creatively interpret the opposed test rule. It worked well in play.

Combat was much faster than any other version of RuneQuest or BRP I've ever run.

So far I am impressed with the system. It plays well.

 

[atgxtg]

Fanboys! Fanboys! Fanboys!

As opposed to "Hater! Hater! Hater!", which could concievably be applied to you?

Concievably. Probably not entirely accurate. I just thik that a claim of best puts the burden of proof on the shoulders of thosemake the claim. Now if I had started a poll claiming that MRQ was the worst RQ game, I'd have to try and back that up.

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.

Cool, I can accept those reasons. I don't agree with all of them (OGL can backfire; I like statx5 rolls; I agree with #3-it is faster than the x2 and x4 percentiles per year calculations, although I'm not sure if I like beginning characters in the 70s+; I dont see how being in print makes a game the best version of it, just the easiest to acquire. ), but I can accept them.

 

[burdock]

whatever our views....I suppose that with the openness of this new runequest and with us lot wanting to streamline it.......it is destined to become the best version ever. How could it not?

 

[simonh]

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.

This is true. My oppinion is based on a subjective assessment, not on qualitative testing.

What I do know is that I have no intention of ever running a Gloranthan game using either RQ2 or RQ3. I have had a lot of fun with those games over the years, but they are just too complex and have too high a learning curve for new players.

I would run a new game using MRQ, and if any of the rules need fixing then I'm very confident I can fix them, even if it just means reverting to the Elric rules in some cases, which I know work well from long experience.


Simon Hibbs

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

"Fanboy" is a bit harsh, don't you think? I didn't even know Mongoose existed (on account of having lived in a cave for the past 15 years) until MRQ was announced, yet I stand by what I said in my opening post. I've never seen RQ1, but from what I understand it wasn't too much different from RQ2. RQ2 was good, but it had the flawed "defence" mechanic, massive potential for confusion over the use of POW, characteristics that didn't scale properly and went out of whack at low values, a rulebook layout that was great for learning but hopeless for continued use, weirdness with Climbing and Jumping being Manipulation Skills, missing rules (how do Shamans store POW on the Spirit Plane anyway?) and an experience system that accelerated way too fast. RQ3 had flawed ENC, flawed Fatigue, flawed Sorcery, missing charm and was over-genericised to the extent of being bland.

MRQ admittedly has it's own problems, but they don't occur as often as those above, and are easily resolved.

Oh yeah - I deliberately kept the poll as Yes/No, because I figured that 90% of the answers would have been in-between if I had included that as an option. If you feel you need time before making a call, well, just take the time.

 

[atgxtg]

"Fanboy" is a bit harsh, don't you think?

I dont consider it "fanboyism" to post the poll. THat is just asking a question. I do consider it "fanboysim" for a bunch of RQ fans to say that MRQ is the best version based upon what we've seen so far.



I didn't even know Mongoose existed (on account of having lived in a cave for the past 15 years) until MRQ was announced, yet I stand by what I said in my opening post. I've never seen RQ1, but from what I understand it wasn't too much different from RQ2. RQ2 was good, but it had the flawed "defence" mechanic, massive potential for confusion over the use of POW, characteristics that didn't scale properly and went out of whack at low values, a rulebook layout that was great for learning but hopeless for continued use, weirdness with Climbing and Jumping being Manipulation Skills, missing rules (how do Shamans store POW on the Spirit Plane anyway?) and an experience system that accelerated way too fast. RQ3 had flawed ENC, flawed Fatigue, flawed Sorcery, missing charm and was over-genericised to the extent of being bland.

MRQ admittedly has it's own problems, but they don't occur as often as those above, and are easily resolved. [/quote]


THey occur a lot more often. Like with every opposed D100 roll.Something that isn't that easy to resolve. RQ3 ENC/Fatigue wasn't flawed, just that most people didn't like it. MRQ's system of penalties for armor combined with persistence rolls based on CON is actually more complicated-just people don't seem to mind. THe missing charm and bland comments are subjective. I'd have applied them to MRQ.

Oh yeah - I deliberately kept the poll as Yes/No, because I figured that 90% of the answers would have been in-between if I had included that as an option. If you feel you need time before making a call, well, just take the time.

But if that is the case then 90% of your answers are inaccurate.

 

[iamtim]

I do consider it "fanboysim" for a bunch of RQ fans to say that

MRQ is the best version based upon what we've seen so far...

Augh, you and your quotes, man. I didn't say that, Gbaji did.

 

[atgxtg]

I do consider it "fanboysim" for a bunch of RQ fans to say that

MRQ is the best version based upon what we've seen so far...

Augh, you and your quotes, man. I didn't say that, Gbaji did.

Sorry, sorry. New keyboard isn't taking CNTL-C all the time. I'll do some edting.

For what is's worth, I we do a pool about Logitech making the best wireless keyboard, put me down as a "no".

 

[Gaheir]

Where is the simplicity I hear people praising? RQII resolved spells with targets simply-a single pow vs pow roll on the resistance table. MRQ:roll to cast the spell, opponent roll resilience or persistence to resist.
Using skills rather than characteristics for tests? Why should athletics rather than a straight strength test be used in a brawn situation? (Strength 8, high athletics vs. strength 17, low athletics in attempts to brace a collapsing tunnel?) The math (?) involved in RQII is pretty basic and should not be held against it? (Admittedly 5% is harder to figure out than 10%, but with the math being bandied about on the halfing rule I'm sure everyone out here can handle it!)
Another simplicity question...RQII 120 pages including battle magic, rune magic, campaign and setting rules, creatures, maps (and a story of Rurik to help understand the rules!)...MRQ rule book 128 pages, and at least 2 more books to provide the same...
Of those voting this is the best RQ I'm curious how many played RQII?

By the way, I do like the new material, and will use some in an RQII game, but the best thing about them is that there is new RuneQuest available!

 

[burdock]

gaheir wrote

MRQ:roll to cast the spell, opponent roll resilience or persistence to resist

Well the simplicity here is that rather than making two dice rolls and checking the results on a table, we just make two dice rolls. Opposed resolution rolls take the need for tables away (except the simple tables in the more detailed combat rules).......Some people uphold, however, that we need to change the ways these resolutions work in MRQ.

 

[RMS]

Well the simplicity here is that rather than making two dice rolls and checking the results on a table, we just make two dice rolls. Opposed resolution rolls take the need for tables away (except the simple tables in the more detailed combat rules).......Some people uphold, however, that we need to change the ways these resolutions work in MRQ.

That's the way it worked in RQ2 and RQ3 also. There's no need for any table during play in either incarnation. The resistence table is there, but it's so simple that nobody ever bothers to look at it. (Same with the critical/special tables. Everyone 12+ can calculate 5% and 20% in their head, so no needs for the table. It's just a nice overkill addition.)

 

[burdock]

RMS wrote

That's the way it worked in RQ2 and RQ3 also. There's no need for any table during play in either incarnation. The resistence table is there, but it's so simple that nobody ever bothers to look at it. (Same with the critical/special tables. Everyone 12+ can calculate 5% and 20% in their head, so no needs for the table. It's just a nice overkill addition.)

agreed

 

[simonh]

Where is the simplicity I hear people praising? RQII ....

Skill category modifiers were a mess to calculate. The strike rank system was awkward. The damage system was IIRC a bit more complex, but I can't remember the details except for different hit location tables for missile and melee weapons. Defence modifiers was another extra complication. The unarmed combat mechanics were primitive.

Don't get me wrong, it worked ok and I have fond memories of it, but most of the game systems in MRQ seem to me to be easier to grasp. Another factor was layout, RQ2 was not easy to use as a reference book.


Simon Hibbs

 

[Gaheir]

Are you comparing to RQII or III? RQII did not have separate tables for missiles and melee and having a single book to reference (in my opinion a well layed out book, at that) is easier. Skill category modifiers were more involved, but made sense-giving bonuses/penalties for high/low skills that impacted the skills-and maybe added 2 minutes to character generation if the players were not adept at the calculations.
I do not mind spending time on character generation-we added Central Casting at some point, with much GM input!