MRQ review in Roolipelaaja (Roleplayer) magazine, Finland

[Rurik]

Can someone show me one rule or stat that hasn't been changed?

Actaully, the armor values and types look pretty much straight from RQ2 (plate=6, chain=5, etc). And they have ENC values like 3, 2, or 1. I havn't read hoe ENC works, but it pretty much seems like a return to the RQ2 days from RQ3.

Plus, the name is RuneQuest. That is the same too.

 

[andakitty]

Actually I find it odd too. The SIZ stat is fairly BRP. The weapon stats are very similar. The main difference to me seems to be the nerfing of this and that and reliance on a resolution chart. And the skill save thingy, I am growing less comfortable with that the more I think about it.

But if I were less familiar with BRP the similarities would be less obvious, I must admit.

 

[WildHealer]

I couldn't disagree with you more (and I was playing during the transition to RQ3).

I'll second that, Urox. I've been trying to convert a couple of Rune-level characters from RQ3 to MRQ. Believe it or not, one of them is a character I actually converted from RQ2 to RQ3 many, many moons ago, and occasionally gets wheeled out for a quick run round the Block. 8)

We thought ourselves hard done-by with the RQ2 to RQ3 conversion in the day because we lost the 100%+ Rune Lord "opponent skill reduction" rule, plus we had to recalc skill modifiers and strike ranks and modify a few weapon damages and armour values, plus of course the messing about with POW crystals... Needless to say however this is tiny in comparison to the MRQ conversion.

It won't surprise you to hear me say it hasn't gone too well. The Battle Magic / Spirit Magic conversion is rather bewildering with the Runic integrations - especially those which don't seem to gel with the Rune-levels' runic associations, and their ability to do damage is massively reduced. The PCs per-location HP have gone up, but the average opponent's ability to damage them has gone down - although this might sound like a good thing to a player, it leaves me with a weird vibe, as though combat is now going to be a much more drawn-out process. One of the characters wears iron plate - with a few points of Shield and a 1H Sword Skill of 176% he is practically invulnerable, even to equally powered characters (Bypass Armour doesn't really help here, not when you can just Parry the blow). Naturally the 100%+ skills are rendered much less effective (and are actually worse off in their opposed use). Some of the skills being merged is quite iffy - "Perception" is the pet peeve right now, subsuming Scan, Search, Listen, Taste, Touch.

I'm going to test-run these guys in some combats and see how it plays out. My gut feeling from seeing the numbers is that we're just going to be waiting for the 96-00 rolls on Parry coinciding with a successful Bypass Armour attack. Obviously Critical Hits will no longer be effective.

BTW - can anyone with the Companion tell me if the Shield Divine Magic spell is also bypassed by the Bypass Armour attack? Also, can you stack it with Protection or not?

Cheers,

Sarah

 

[iamtim]

Yeah, but my point of contention was with you statment that you found it odd that poele could say that MRQ isn't RQ when it obviously is RQ.

It isn't quite that onbvious. An RQ2 player could sit in with a RQ3 group and play with only minor adjustments. Functionally the game was almost the same. An RQ2 or 3 player sitting down into an MRQ session really doen't know the game.

I apologize, but I'm having a hard time following your first sentence.

I'd argue your second point, but I'm getting the feeling that this line of debate would only end up in a "could too/could not" session and I have no interest in that.

And it's an exercise in futility to engage an MRQ debate with someone who hasn't even read the book in the first place. Or at least the SRD.

 

[atgxtg]

And it's an exercise in futility to engage an MRQ debate with someone who hasn't even read the book in the first place. Or at least the SRD.

So tell me, how much RQ experience do you have?

 

[Balbinus]

I couldn't disagree with you more

Then we will have to agree to disagree. And that's OK.

Yeah, but my point of contention was with you statment that you found it odd that poele could say that MRQ isn't RQ when it obviously is RQ.

It isn't quite that onbvious. An RQ2 player could sit in with a RQ3 group and play with only minor adjustments. Functionally the game was almost the same. An RQ2 or 3 player sitting down into an MRQ session really doen't know the game.

That's wrong IMO, I have played both 2nd and 3rd quite a bit and I don't see this as more different to 3rd than 3rd was to 2nd.

 

[iamtim]

So tell me, how much RQ experience do you have?

Not that it matters, because the subject at hand is Mongoose RuneQuest, but I've been playing RQ3 since Avalon Hill released the Deluxe Boxed Set. While I have RQ2, it never jived with me like RQ3 did; maybe it was a presentation thing, I dunno.

 

[Balbinus]

So tell me, how much RQ experience do you have?

Not that it matters, because the subject at hand is Mongoose RuneQuest, but I've been playing RQ3 since Avalon Hill released the Deluxe Boxed Set. While I have RQ2, it never jived with me like RQ3 did; maybe it was a presentation thing, I dunno.

It's very much a taste thing isn't it? I preferred second edition to third, but I can certainly see why some would prefer third to second, in many ways it was a better game.

This strikes me as a similar thing, I can't see how MRQ could seriously be said not to be Runequest by anyone who has actually read it.

 

[iamtim]

It's very much a taste thing isn't it?

Not really. The issue in the conversation you quoted is that atgxtg has been debating MRQ rules, but admitted last night he has not read the rules yet, and is only going off information he's received on this board.

It's totally cool if atgxtg prefers older RQ editions to MRQ; I just don't think he should be debating MRQ -- and I refuse to debate MRQ any further with him -- until he actually gets his hands on a copy of the book or SRD and actually reads them.

 

[Balbinus]

It's very much a taste thing isn't it?

Not really. The issue in the conversation you quoted is that atgxtg has been debating MRQ rules, but admitted last night he has not read the rules yet, and is only going off information he's received on this board.

It's totally cool if atgxtg prefers older RQ editions to MRQ; I just don't think he should be debating MRQ -- and I refuse to debate MRQ any further with him -- until he actually gets his hands on a copy of the book or SRD and actually reads them.

I meant whether one rationally preferred 2nd, 3rd or MRQ. I was unclear though about that.

Criticising a game one hasn't read is silly and just damages one's credibility.

 

[Urox]

Criticising a game one hasn't read is silly and just damages one's credibility.

I'd tell you that smoking is bad for your health, but since I've never smoked, I don't have the credibility...

This is a general falacy of logic.

If someone feels that arguments presented are based on errors, speculation or faulty logic, that makes for a good reply as you make your own argument. Just disagreeing with someone doesn't necessarily make for stellar debate.

A good example of this was a response in another thread when someone was asked if a statement about game play that they made was explicitly in the rules, and their reply was along the lines that it didn't matter because they were going to play it their way (regardless of the rules).

 

[SteveMND]

It's perfectly acceptable and possible to make rational critiques of the game even if you don't have a copy of the rules yet, since Mongoose has made several pages of the rules themselves available, and many people with the actual rules in their hands have been posting material from the books as well.

The problem therein lies only when you attempt to criticize certain things beyond the scope of that material available, or try to criticize how it works in the larger context of the game, when you can tell that from the preview.

But if a passage in the preview says "2+2=5," then one can very validly criticize it. You just has to be careful not to extrapolate things outside the limits of what's been made available to you.

 

[WildHealer]

I just don't think he should be debating MRQ -- and I refuse to debate MRQ any further with him -- until he actually gets his hands on a copy of the book or SRD and actually reads them.

Nice cop out. atgztg is correct, after all:

Generating attributes is differenrt, previous experience is differenrt, skill bases are diffiernt, characteric rolls are gone, general Hit point are gone, new magic system, new way of handling skill checks, new method of handling parrying and dodging, opposed rolls, skill halving, no more special successes, no resistance table, no skill categories, skill checks are assigned rather than earned, the addtion of hero points, the addtion of legendary abilties.

That's heaps more changes with MRQ than we've had before. The question as to whether they're good changes or not is a separate issue, but it's a little silly to try and refuse to even look at the issue.

I for one am happy to entertain changes. In fact, I'd been hoping for a whole new "next generation" of RQ with the new edition - a real advance on what we had in the past, keeping all the Good Stuff which has stood the test of time and knocks spots off the competition, whilst moving ahead into cutting edge territory with some new kick-ass rules. I was happy to accept HeroQuest as one possibility for taking Gloranthan roleplaying forwards - I'd been hoping MRQ would do something similar but with a more simulationist backbone. I'm actually surprised Mongoose don't seem to have picked up on the wave amongst the so-called grognards for something like that.

I'm therefore absolutely gutted that what I have in my hands seems a clunky incomplete ruleset which is hard to understand, contradictory, & which frankly feels rather rushed, lacklustre & a great opportunity lost. A pale reflection of its former self, currently. Sure, some people will continue to say how wonderful, brilliant, and utterly perfect it is until the ruins come crashing about their ears and in spite of all evidence to the contrary, but I for one am rather disappointed to have to count myself amongst the nay-sayers. I so wanted this to be brilliant.

The one saving grace is that the source material is looking promising. Pleeeeease let this be good. Pleeeease.

Sarah

 

[Balbinus]

Criticising a game one hasn't read is silly and just damages one's credibility.

I'd tell you that smoking is bad for your health, but since I've never smoked, I don't have the credibility....

I think there is slightly more evidence on the smoking front. As it is, what I'm seeing is statements about the book based on what some other posters have said, and those statements frankly don't correspond to the book I've seen.

SteveMND captures the point well, when you extrapolate beyond the material available to you to make judgements about the contents of text you haven't read that isn't really credible. It would be like my criticising the Starship Troopers rpg, I can criticise it on broad things that I have gleaned from reviews and so on but the moment I start talking about how rules operate that I have never read I've left the world of stuff I have meaningful info on.

By contrast, sarahnewton has read the book, is unimpressed by it and has meaningful comments to make. One might agree or disagree, but her opinion is clearly informed.

 

[iamtim]

Nice cop out. atgztg is correct, after all:

Generating attributes is differenrt, previous experience is differenrt, skill bases are diffiernt, characteric rolls are gone, general Hit point are gone, new magic system, new way of handling skill checks, new method of handling parrying and dodging, opposed rolls, skill halving, no more special successes, no resistance table, no skill categories, skill checks are assigned rather than earned, the addtion of hero points, the addtion of legendary abilties.

No cop out at all. He is correct in those changes. I never said he wasn't. But what of the details in those changes? Can he speak with accuracy and authority regarding them? If a detailed question comes up can he refer to the rules and verify the answer? No, not unless, according to his own admission, someone posts them here on the boards. And then he's trusting the accuracy of a 2nd-hand source.

But he can sure debate about them.

That's silly.

 

[WildHealer]

But he can sure debate about them.

That's silly.

Oh dear. You do seem to have an axe to grind with atgxtg there, iamtim. As you seem determined to miss the point at all costs, and as it's getting a little too close to a slanging match, I'll respectfully disengage from the arena & leave you to it.

No offense, it's just not my bag.

 

[iamtim]

Oh dear. You do seem to have an axe to grind with atgxtg there, iamtim.

No, I don't. I've even laughed at some of his posts in other threads. I just think there's been too much misinformation slung around over MRQ since it's release, and it doesn't need any more.

Just the facts, ma'am.

 

[WildHealer]

Ok, my apologies - I didn't mean to sound too snappy. I actually agree with you on the misinformation bit - I really wish Mongoose would make a few statements about what seem to be the biggest howlers in the rules. Matt came down definitely on one side for the Combat Rules, which was great - I could certainly do with a Little Bit of Mongoose Love for the other sore areas right now. 8)

Just grouchy. :?

Note to self: lie down in darkened room with damp copy of RQ2 reference sheets over eyes until vision improves.

 

[Urox]

No cop out at all. He is correct in those changes. I never said he wasn't. But what of the details in those changes? Can he speak with accuracy and authority regarding them?

Bravo on another cop out.

To my understanding, the nature of the discussion has become how much has changed in MQ from RQ, and what are the possible effects of those changes (not are the changes good or bad -- it's too early for that).

While someone may not be able to quote the rules without owning the books, they can postulate questions and make deductions. It is expected that people who are interested in rules discussions and have access to the books will reply with affirmations or refutes.

But, to attempt to invalidate someone's arguments based on based on whether they own the rulebook smacks of fanboyism.

 

[andakitty]

Indeed, many of us came close to the reality in our rampant speculations, even before we had the book. atgxtg has annoyed me from time to time, but I respect his positions...and he has made some damn good points. Sometimes I want to strangle him, though. Continue on, atgxtg. you too, iamtim, and everybody else. The back and forth sometimes reveals valuable nuggets. And as someone pointed out, that is what a forum is for.