Ok, Another Thread About MRQ II

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Right.

Please forgive my ignorance people, but...

Ive heard some say that MRQI was confused, broken, disappointing, etc.. Ive heard some say that MRQII is a slick work of art. Yet Ive heard the guys that wrote it say its all backwards compatible, its not that different, you can use your old books too and that the major differences are tweaks to combat, and one or two other details.

So, what is it? Whats the difference? What, exactly has been changed?

Im currently playing MRQI quite happily (with, as Ive said before, a few house rules), Im not entirely sure its all that broken. I know I will buy MRQII, but, Im just wondering where the differences are.

Maybe MRQII seems slick because it hasnt yet acquired all those layers and options which MRQI supported, though, its inevitable that they will return, along with new options, etc..

I guess I just want to know how come some people thought MRQI so bad, yet think that MRQII is awesome, even though its, essentially, the same game with some tweaks.

Or am I mistaken? Is it all that different? Can anyone give me an example of where small changes have made a big impact.

Cheers people.

 

[Loz]

The biggest impacts are for combat and magic. Both work very differently to MRQ even though the underlying mechanics are very similar in nature and converting MRQ characters to RQII won't be too painful a process.

Elsewhere there are minor adjustments to how things work but nothing so fundamental that the MRQ rules are compromised or left redundant (save for combat and magic, as already noted).

I'll let others follow-up on this...

 

[Nostrildamus]

Can anyone give me an example of where small changes have made a big impact.

I can try, not having the book with me at work, so forgive me if I err here or there.

Opposed rolls (including combat) are simpler to handle vs. RQ1 RAW. Combat is certainly streamlined and, with the addition of Combat Maneuvers, more action packed and detailed than it was before. Combats can potentially end much quicker than before. As I stated in a reply to yours (on my post to Loz and Pete), for every success level over your opponent, you gain a maneuver. So, for instance, if you score a Critical Success and the defender scores a Failure, you get two maneuvers. You could choose Maximize Damage and Choose Location, making your location choice the head. There's a good chance the duel just ended. There are quite a few choices to make, from impaling to pinning weapons, changing combat distance and more. So, combat is more fluid and cinematic, without losing that grittiness that RQ is known for.

Conversely, the upcoming monster book promises to have specific combat maneuvers for each critter, which can really spice up encounters nicely and give each creature a truly individual feel in terms of tactics compared to others in the book. Much more memorable confrontations, therefor.

Magic has changed a lot. Gone are physical Runes, which many did anyway with the first edition. Sorcerors have only two skills to learn in order to use their magic effectively now, instead of several manipulation skills, etc, so they are more powerful than before. Divine magic is more sensible and friendly than it once was for those who choose that path, as far as how they regain spells, etc.

These are just some examples off the top of my head. Others can follow up. Get the book, dude, you won't be disappointed.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Cheers guys.

Combat maneuvers sound awesome.

They sound pretty deadly too. Is it possible for an NPC to call an impale to a PCs head on one lucky roll?

I see now that it has changed for the better, (getting rid of physical runes is sensible, so too, is reducing the number of hoops a sorceror has to jump through), whilst remaining backwards compatible to an extent.

When I house rule Runequest, however, its usually to help the PCs stay alive. I quite like story arcs, campaigns and all that. I dont mind the combat being dirty and deadly, as long as the PCs have a better than 50% chance of survival.

 

[Deleriad]

In some ways it's like a thoroughly house-ruled version of MRQI...

For example, here's some of the things I didn't like about MRQI and how they have changed in MRQII.

Variable Combat Actions. Each 6 DEX gave you +1 CA and +1 reaction. In MRQII: You get just 1 CA for each 6 average of INT+DEX and CAs are used for both attacks and parries. Therefore there is both less variability in the numbers and more tactical nuance: do you focus your CAs on attack or defence.

Rune Magic being both trivial and incredibly hard to use effectively. Renamed common magic and using just one skill.

Divine Magic and sorcery in MRQ1 had new mechanics but then the spells weren't properly updated to work with the new mechanics. In MRQII both the mechanics have been refined and the spells had a thorough overhaul to fit in.

Combat: MRQ1 had at least 3 different combat systems: pre-release, written in the book and then players update. In MRQII the combat system appears to be coherent and has a new level of depth.

Everything else is all about nips and tucks. A revised version of the effects of 100%+ skills in opposed contest, a few skills moved around, legendary abilities revised, cults properly laid out and so on. Finally, the system has been written to be complete in a single book.

The basic effect is that most of the innovations that turned up in MRQI have been kept (apart from physical runes) have been tweaked, overhauld or radically revisioned. A character will look much the same on the surface but there's a lot of re-engineering under the hood.

I would say that while you could play MRQI exactly as written most people felt that you *had* to make house rules. With MRQ2, although there are house rules I might choose to use to suit me, I feel as though I could play it straight out of the book and it would be good.

 

[Deleriad]

They sound pretty deadly too. Is it possible for an NPC to call an impale to a PCs head on one lucky roll?

If the NPC critical when the player fails (or doesn't have a CA left to parry with, yes.) However the player can of course save themself with a hero point.

I'm currently running something like RQ1.8 as I gradually convert my Blood of Orlanth campaign. Last session the Urox character finally used his berserk and charged a line of 6 EWF soldiers. Being a berserker he doesn't parry. He eventually ended up with 2 elites smashing as hard as they could over and over at his Right Arm with their klanths in an attempt to make him drop his axe. One did critical: demanding the spending of a hero point. He took two more hits that would normally be major wounds to his right arm but shrugged them off with hero points. He took 5 of them down in the end and was last seen running after a very scared looking wyvern. So, the PC was hit with probably 6 successful called shots, one of them being a critical but survived (albeit losing 3 Hero points in the process).

 

[AxeMurder]

Don't you not even need to critical?

Can't you just impale on a success vs fail (or no defense)

 

[Deleriad]

Don't you not even need to critical?

Can't you just impale on a success vs fail (or no defense)

Yes you can. However to impale AND perform a called shot to the head you need 2 CMs. That means either a critical vs a fail or a normal success vs fumble.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Using hero points as bennies to stave off the worst a potentially lethal combat system can offer.

Id like to see how it pans out in play. Sounds good though.

I have to have it.

 

[Rurik]

Does a critical have an inherent effect (such as max damage) still or does it only (usually) gain a CM?

 

[Denalor]

Might not be really the correct thread to write the following but this comment:

Combats can potentially end much quicker than before

... sort of tipped me off

Obviously everyone thinks that is positive.
I'm not so sure.
The thing my players have been griping about RQ (in general) is the deadliness of the system (in comparison to - sigh - the likes of DnD).
Yes, I think MRQI did a lot to make it less deadly, but still... the idea of having a PC killed upon a "mere" bad roll sounds a bit ... well, harsh, I'd say. And the comment above suggests that this is even more likely to happen now with the new combat rules.
On the other hand, there passed indeed many a combat round where no successful hit was inflicted, so lots of dice-rolling without any effect, which became quite frustrating, especially for the more heavily-armoured PCs.

Anyway, the whole thing about the multitudes of combat manoeuvres sounds rather complicated without having the rules in front of you (I have not - yet - bought MRQII) .
I somehow get the feeling that it is indeed so complicated that my players will just go for the max damage.
And - as I understand it - that (going for max damage that is) will actually be possible whenever you hit and the other fails to dodge/parry, right ?

As for a complete overhaul of sorcery... hmm, actually I liked the complexity of sorcery, especially the required dedication to become powerful. I'm having some trouble grapsing that now there will only be two skills for sorcerers. That appears to utterly destroy the whole idea of a life-long study, no ?

I must admit that I am a bit "suspicious" (well, not really the word I'm looking for, but I guess that's all my English is worth) about the overwhelming enthusiasm here. Everywhere you read only high praises. Praises from people, whose "expertise" in RQ-matters I've come to highly appreciate or at least whose opinions I sort of shared. Chuckle, that paragraph really sounds strange even to my own ears. I suppose it all comes down to "being afraid of spending a lot of money... again" :lol:

Well, any news when it's supposed to be available as PDF :wink: ?

 

[Deleriad]

And - as I understand it - that (going for max damage that is) will actually be possible whenever you hit and the other fails to dodge/parry, right ?

Actually max damage is only available when you critical, and then it's only for one of the dice so max damage for a greatsword would be 1D8+8 unless you can choose max damage twice.

Choose location or the weapon specific CMs (bleed, impale, stun and sunder seem most popular)

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Obviously everyone thinks that is positive.

The thing I remember most about combat in RQ3 was lots and lots of dice rolls and getting nowhere. This system tries to make each action exciting, tactically versatile and a bit more fun.

The thing my players have been griping about RQ (in general) is the deadliness of the system (in comparison to - sigh - the likes of DnD).
Yes, I think MRQI did a lot to make it less deadly, but still... the idea of having a PC killed upon a "mere" bad roll sounds a bit ... well, harsh, I'd say.

You are more likely to be defeated or incapacitated rather than dying straight out. It is possible to die from a single blow from a big weapon, but it isn't likely unless you're dancing around naked and have burned all your hero points. Instead you tend to lay about helpless going 'ouch... I'm bleeding.... to death..... er....... help?'.

Also it is slightly easier to judge how a fight should turn out, since the probability mechanics behind it give a more significant advantage to having the higher skill. So its a little less random than previous versions of RQ.

I somehow get the feeling that it is indeed so complicated that my players will just go for the max damage. And - as I understand it - that (going for max damage that is) will actually be possible whenever you hit and the other fails to dodge/parry, right ?

See Deleriad's answer above.

As for a complete overhaul of sorcery... hmm, actually I liked the complexity of sorcery, especially the required dedication to become powerful. I'm having some trouble grapsing that now there will only be two skills for sorcerers. That appears to utterly destroy the whole idea of a life-long study, no ?

Nothing stopping your life long sorcerer sinking all his improvement rolls into magic. Its just that he'll actually be competent from the start and can actually grow to be awesome in the length of an average campaign, rather than sitting around enviously watching the Rune Lords and Rune Priests have all the fun!

If you still want to hobble sorcerers by making them learn lots of skills, its completely possible to do this using the rules as written.

 

[Ssendam]

Two questions if I may ...

1) I'm a little confused about what Maneuvers are available. Weapons have specific maneuvers listed for them in the weapon charts, then the combat section lists all maneuvers. I think, (but haven't checked weapon by weapon yet), that the combat section takes account of the weapon types by saying "slashing weapon only" next to the maneuver title. I am right in thinking that you just look through the list to see what applies? (i.e. All maneuvers are available dependent on your weapon type and level of success. You don't qualify for any of them as a "skill"). If so I think I might draw up a little chart to make it easier to see your options.

2) Combat Actions ... I am still uncomfortable with these and not sure how to fix it. Any person with 3CA vs a person with 2CA has a major advantage, effectively they get a non-parryable attack per round. I'm tempted to standardise CA's at 2 a round or allow any number of parries at a cumulative -30% penalty. Anyone else considering an adjustment or do you all think it's ok? Does having more/heavier armour reduce your CA's?

Stay frosty!

 

[Loz]

1) I'm a little confused about what Maneuvers are available. Weapons have specific maneuvers listed for them in the weapon charts, then the combat section lists all maneuvers. I think, (but haven't checked weapon by weapon yet), that the combat section takes account of the weapon types by saying "slashing weapon only" next to the maneuver title. I am right in thinking that you just look through the list to see what applies? (i.e. All maneuvers are available dependent on your weapon type and level of success. You don't qualify for any of them as a "skill"). If so I think I might draw up a little chart to make it easier to see your options.

Yes, you're right. The CMs listed by weapon indicate the most applicable CMs for the weapon. Maces cannot Impale, for instance, or certain weapons Sunder.

2) Combat Actions ... I am still uncomfortable with these and not sure how to fix it. Any person with 3CA vs a person with 2CA has a major advantage, effectively they get a non-parryable attack per round. I'm tempted to standardise CA's at 2 a round or allow any number of parries at a cumulative -30% penalty. Anyone else considering an adjustment or do you all think it's ok? Does having more/heavier armour reduce your CA's?

Armour doesn't reduce CAs. But you are right that having more CA than an opponent offers a distinct advantage. You're perfectly at liberty to introduce the house rules you've suggested and if this fits your style of play and campaign go right ahead. However, with CA structured in the way that they are, it forces characters to think about how they intend to fight, the weapons they choose, and what options they choose within a fight. These nuances would, I think, be lost if CA were standardised or cumulative parries at a -30% levy introduced.

And remember that if you allow any number of parries at -30% per attempt, you're actually introducing a mechanic that would give a better chance of the opponent generating a Combat Manoeuvre if you fail in the attempt.

If you stick with the RAW there are some options available to you to help balance things out.

1. Go for a weapon and shield or two weapon style. This gives you a +1 CA advantage immediately. Definitely useful against anything that uses a double-handed weapon.

2. Look at Combat Manoeuvres that reduce an opponent's CA rather than necessarily inflict the most damage. Gaining a CA advantage is important and can be more advantageous than simply Bypassing Armour or Maximising Damage, depending on the circumstances.

3. Try not to be outnumbered in a fight. If you are, think about alternatives - like running, or putting distance between you and the opposition and making ranged or magical attacks. Being outnumbered in close combat can be truly deadly.

4. Remember that you have Hero Points. HPs can generate a last-ditch CA which can often tilt the balance in your favour when all seems lost.

Its worth trying a few test combats to get the hang of the combat rules and their nuances. We realise its a massive change from what's gone before in RQ and BRP, but after extensive playtesting we've found combat to be a hugely more satisfying experience - and haven't found a need to either standardise CA or allow any number of parries. Give it a go and see what works best for you.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

Once again, forgive my ignorance of the new rules, but...

If a PC is confronting an NPC who has more CAs, say, 3 and the PC has 2, are we entirely relying upon the NPC to roll poorly for his extra attack? And, thereafter, relying upon hero points to save the PC?

Would it not be advisable to only allow PCs combat maneuvers? Or am I over-exaggerating the lethality of the system?

This isnt a criticism here guys, Im just trying to mull things over in my head.

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

BTW, I understand something similar could happen in the earlier version, but there, the NPC wouldnt be able to aim for the head, effectively.

 

[Ssendam]

Thanks for the views Loz; "fix" was not quite the right word in my original post, I didn't mean to imply anything was broken!

I suppose what I find hard to reconcile in my mind is that it feels natural to get more attacks per round as you become more skilled in other words a skilled warrior can take on more opponents. With CA's being tied to stats this aspect is lost. My outlook probably comes from different RPG's so I have to remind myself, this is how Runequest does it.

I suppose if you are not the quickest of people then you never will be and a good warrior will to some extent be born with natural ability. Maybe I might trial something where if you have over 100% you can split your attack for an extra CA? Hmmmm

Do you get an extra CA with a Shield/Weapon combo? I thought it was just dual weapon?

Do you automatically assume the parry is with the shield (or longer weapon in a 2 weapon combo)?

 

[PrinceYyrkoon]

You can improve your characteristics with experience, though, cant you?

 

[RosenMcStern]

As for a complete overhaul of sorcery... hmm, actually I liked the complexity of sorcery, especially the required dedication to become powerful. I'm having some trouble grapsing that now there will only be two skills for sorcerers. That appears to utterly destroy the whole idea of a life-long study, no ?

Nothing stopping your life long sorcerer sinking all his improvement rolls into magic. Its just that he'll actually be competent from the start and can actually grow to be awesome in the length of an average campaign, rather than sitting around enviously watching the Rune Lords and Rune Priests have all the fun!

If you still want to hobble sorcerers by making them learn lots of skills, its completely possible to do this using the rules as written.

I have to disagree here. All the playtests we have run show that the system works smoothly and allows your God Learner a superior flexibility in action. And Maximum Game Fun, if I may add it. I have no further comments about this since I lack the complet manuscript (I lack a suitable address to receive the $% book by mail!) and cannot really say anything about the final result.

However, the statement that with the old rules the Sorcerer had to stay in a corner and watch the Rune Lord is not really supported by fact. Sorcery has always been a magic system for dedicated characters and for dedicated players, i.e. the player has to study the rules very carefully if he wishes to achieve some result with his character. This is not true for divine or spirit magicians, whose spells have a very straightforward effect (Do more damage, Disable that Enemy, Increase that Characteristic).

If there have been reports of Sorcerers being pointless or not fun in the old systems, both Avalon Hill and Mongoose first edition, I would really like to know whether they came from players who have a long experience in playing a sorcerous magician in RQ. I have both GMed and played sorcerer in Mongoose RuneQuest first edition (after 20+ years of heavy use of Sorcery in RQ3), and in all cases the magician, even with his abysmal starting %iles between 30% and 50%, was the undisputed protagonist in the group, and the GM had to struggle to avoid him "stealing the scene" from other players. I hope Rurik can make the reports of his game public someday, as an exampe of this. My character was sucky in skill, yet incredibly fun to play.

The new system changes the balance somehow, modifying the relationship between what you can do at start and what you can eventually do, which means that your character plays differently. However, I affirm that the perceived problems in the MRQ first edition Sorcery were, well, just perceived (apart from a couple of broken spell descriptions).

It would be nice to have more practical feedback on this, waiting for the eventual feedback about how your wizards work in RQ II.