MRQ review in Roolipelaaja (Roleplayer) magazine, Finland
- Thread starter Adept
- Start date
I don't see misinformation, I see disagreement and some stuff I disagree with myself, but that's all just opinion.
Of course others have been here longer so I may just be missing it.
It does occur to me, I had a really annoying experience on rpg.net with a poster who kept rebutting criticisms of a book that it later turned out he hadn't read at all - he just wanted it to be good so much he made stuff up in rebuttal. I think that may have made me less kindly disposed than perhaps is fair.
Of course others have been here longer so I may just be missing it.
It does occur to me, I had a really annoying experience on rpg.net with a poster who kept rebutting criticisms of a book that it later turned out he hadn't read at all - he just wanted it to be good so much he made stuff up in rebuttal. I think that may have made me less kindly disposed than perhaps is fair.
WildHealer
Mongoose
Well, I've seen numerous posts stating that very real concerns about the rules are a result of "hearsay" or "rumour-mongering" rather than a close reading of the rules - which obviously isn't true. Matt has clarified the Combat example - basically the rules as written are incorrect and Matt's explanation provides a new and (AFAIK) working version. However, issues like Critical Hits not really working, the apparent pointlessness of 100%+ skills, the need to make Bypass Armour rolls ALL the time, strangeness with the impale rules, the Halving Rule simply being broken, the strange implications of the Runic Integration rules, and others, are still open, bleeding wounds which could really do with some official First Aid. The misinformation that these are simply moans and grouches by a bunch of miserable old RQ grognards who'll never be pleased with anything, and not real concerns, is (in my case at least 
) simply not true.
Is it worth saying "IMHO" after all that?
) simply not true.Is it worth saying "IMHO" after all that?
Urox said:
Nah. Just tired of the whole thing.
I mean, sure, we could go on debating for post after post after post, taking apart each others arguments, looking for the weak spot in the armor where we can aim our precise shots, but what good will it do?
Probably not a whole lot. I hightly doubt I'm going to all-of-a-sudden-like change his mind about anything I've argued for, and unless he's got some new approach that's going to blow me away I'm not moving much either.
I mean, do you think it would have done me any good to refute his comment by stating that in four days of near constant debate on the Mongoose RQ board I only *ahem* "ran for the high ground" once, and that was when I found out he didn't even have a copy of the rules? I don't either.
If I'm going to expend that much energy on this board, I'd much rather not argue with people about what's wrong with the system, but enjoy what's right about it.
I guess if that's "taking the bait" and "running for high ground", well, I'm guilty then.
iamtim said:
Well, as I recall atgxtg was one of the people asking details about how combat worked in a certain situation because he didn't have copy, and I was answering, because I did have a copy, when you jumped into the thread with some wise remark about getting shot in the ass with a flaming arrow. And then proceeded to tell us that the rules shouldn't need to cover what happened when an impale didn't penetrate armor because that should never happen because we should be using precise attacks instead.
So yeah, I was kinda surprised you took the high ground when you found out he didn't have a book - or do you not read a thread before jumping in and making flaming ass remarks?
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
RQ3 didn't divorce itself from Glorantha, there was even a Glorantha Book in the Main Box set.iamtim said:
Not me, and judging by the growth of D&D afterwards only a few old guard.Iamtim said:
iamtim said:
I think you are over stating the case, as someone who played RQ2 then RQ3, many, no I mean all of the players I know were happy to change from one to the other and dropped what they didn't like about RQ3/2 anyway. RQ didn't fade away because of version 3 (which must have been fairly popular because fanzeens like Tales used it), But because of changes in the market and a lack of strong support.
You are right, there will always be a few people who hate change, but many more wil be cautious/sceptical but willing to try it and then use it/ditch it, depending on results.
I welcome change, when I can see good in it. Way back when the previews first started coming out, I questioned the reasons why some changes were made. Were they made to adress certain issues and fix flaws, or were they arbritary just for the sake of change.
I never got a good answer as to why certain things were changed, only that "you have to expect changed with a new edition".
THe answerds that I did get didn't hold up to anyone with any knowledge of how RQ3 works. For example, the whole weapon blocks AP thing in the parry rules was supposedly to adress the "blocking a great axe with a dagger problem" that supoosedly existed in RQ3.
Let's examine that. In MRQ, a Great Axe does 2d6+2, and will probably have a +1d2 db (if your strong enough to wield a Greataxe, and above SIZ 9 you got a db), for an average of 10.5 points of damage a whack. A dagger has 4 AP, so that's 6.5 points through for a 1xAP parry result.
In RQ3, a Greataxe still does 2d6+2, but the db is upped to +1d4 for an average character, for an "average" damage of 11.5. A dagger has 6AP, so on an normal parry, the dagger is going to stop 6 points, leaving 5.5 points of damage to get through on a normal parry. And in RQ3, the dagger loses an AP so that it will be less effective the next time.
I never got a good answer as to why certain things were changed, only that "you have to expect changed with a new edition".
THe answerds that I did get didn't hold up to anyone with any knowledge of how RQ3 works. For example, the whole weapon blocks AP thing in the parry rules was supposedly to adress the "blocking a great axe with a dagger problem" that supoosedly existed in RQ3.
Let's examine that. In MRQ, a Great Axe does 2d6+2, and will probably have a +1d2 db (if your strong enough to wield a Greataxe, and above SIZ 9 you got a db), for an average of 10.5 points of damage a whack. A dagger has 4 AP, so that's 6.5 points through for a 1xAP parry result.
In RQ3, a Greataxe still does 2d6+2, but the db is upped to +1d4 for an average character, for an "average" damage of 11.5. A dagger has 6AP, so on an normal parry, the dagger is going to stop 6 points, leaving 5.5 points of damage to get through on a normal parry. And in RQ3, the dagger loses an AP so that it will be less effective the next time.
Ironically, that's one of the main things I really liked about RQ3 -- I love Glorantha, but I also liked being able to take what I felt was one of the best game mechanics to come along, and to use it with other settings, and without having to do a whole lot of rewriting to disassociate it from Glorantha.
SteveMND said:
Me too. Er, except for the whole Glorantha thing. Glorantha is OK, but it's not my favorite setting. 'Course, that could be that I never took the time to read up on it much. And I even have the RQ3 Glorantha and Gods of Glorantha boxed sets!
Maybe that'll change when Mongoose releases the Glorantha: Second Age book.
*shrug*
SteveMND said:
Me too. I think that having the RQ3 game mechanchics separate from GLorantha probably woundn't have been a problem if the Glorantha stuff had chured out at the same rate that it did in the old Chaosium days. Instead, it was quite some time before we started to see new Glorantha stuff, and most of that was the short-form cult stuff. It isn't who has the most gods in a book, but who desbries the cult better.
If we had gotten an RQ3 Cults of Prax, Cults of Terror, and a new campaign pack for RQ3, along with more ingormation on the Hero Wars, I think the RQ2 crowd could have been pacified, if not happy.
If there is anything that I will give MRQ credit for being superior over over RQ3 is that it looks like we wont have to wait for years to see new Gloranthan stuff.
atgxtg said:
Give us just a little time, and you may have the option to lay your hands on more Gloranthan material than you can handle
