atgxtg said:The second one lists a few things that I would (and did) dispute. THat all the "key things" in RQ2 or RQ3 making it to MRQ being the most obvious point of contention.
atgxtg said:I agree with the first review. Pretty much spot on. Especially how if you ar ef familar with previous edtions of RQ then MRQ will seem inferior.
The second one lists a few things that I would (and did) dispute. THat all the "key things" in RQ2 or RQ3 making it to MRQ being the most obvious point of contention.
Looks like we got reviews from both camps here. Good.
simonh said:atgxtg said:The second one lists a few things that I would (and did) dispute. THat all the "key things" in RQ2 or RQ3 making it to MRQ being the most obvious point of contention.
There are more changes in MRQ than any previous editions of RQ, as I said in the review, but what would you say are the key things that didn't make it? (I wrote review 2, so I'm curious.).
Simon Hibbs
atgxtg said:Just a list/answer-not an argument-I've done that elsewhere. This is a partial list of things that were in RQ (some exculsibve to RQ/RQ deriatives that are not in MRQ)
simonh said:Of the ones you list, I think I miss the resistance table the most but if you use an opposed roll mechanic that works, it still IMHO achieves the same effect. The big change here is the de-emphasizing of stats and prominence of skills in this edition.
I can't realy comment on the changes to parry yet untill I've done some playtesting.
Simon Hibbs
As far as dephasising stats go, it was in a game thaat was already skill dominant. Now Stats are'nt very significant at all. INT and CHA are throwaways, with DEX in danager of becoming a throwaway.
atgxtg said:INT and CHA are throwaways, with DEX in danager of becoming a throwaway.