Questions about skills over 100% & Critical Hits

[atgxtg]

Is this "streamlining" or "simplification"?

I think the opposed roll may shorten a combat, but it is not very intuitive. Its rather abstract. How should a GM visually describe this "opposed" roll to his player? The best would be NOT to describe the second attack roll at all (maybe making a short..ähem..or hiding behind the GM screen ) and just read the number for technical reasons.

And ranged combat? Does this also work with opposed rolls? (AFAIK can you parry some ranged weapons with your shield)

Wow! I think we finally came down on the same side of a topic! :shock: I guess it had to happen sooner or later.

 

[andakitty]

Personally, I think they have made the game more interesting and fun without increased complication. To me it's like they have taken SB5 and improved it...by stepping back and mixing some of the best of old Stormbringer and RuneQuest. It seems they have come close to giving me exactly what I want in a fantasy rpg. Amazing. I was looking through my homebrew notes today and there are half a dozen things that they did in the same or similar ways. The base skill percentages, dividing skills into a default list and ones that must be learned to use (advanced), clumping the stealth skills into one skill, the same with perception, buffing up spears, making shields more important, and more. Magic looks the same. I think the combat system will work fine, possibly with no changes at all or very few and simple houserules (like no d10 roll for initiative).

So although it may be too little or too much for some, it looks just about right for me. I hope it also is for enough other people to keep it alive for a good long time to come.

 

[Decurio]

Personally, I think they have made the game more interesting and fun without increased complication. To me it's like they have taken SB5 and improved it...by stepping back and mixing some of the best of old Stormbringer and RuneQuest. It seems they have come close to giving me exactly what I want in a fantasy rpg. Amazing. I was looking through my homebrew notes today and there are half a dozen things that they did in the same or similar ways. The base skill percentages, dividing skills into a default list and ones that must be learned to use (advanced), clumping the stealth skills into one skill, the same with perception, buffing up spears, making shields more important, and more. Magic looks the same. I think the combat system will work fine, possibly with no changes at all or very few and simple houserules (like no d10 roll for initiative).

So although it may be too little or too much for some, it looks just about right for me. I hope it also is for enough other people to keep it alive for a good long time to come.

Andakitty, after carefully reading over the examples in the thread, I have to agree with you. Combats in the past (and I've been playing RQ since RQ 2) often became the stereotypical "I hit-I parry-I hit-I parry-I crit-I die" While there seems to have been additional die rolls added to combat, I think the additions will add to the combat-not detract from it.

 

[atgxtg]

Personally, I think they have made the game more interesting and fun without increased complication. To me it's like they have taken SB5 and improved it...by stepping back and mixing some of the best of old Stormbringer and RuneQuest. It seems they have come close to giving me exactly what I want in a fantasy rpg. Amazing. I was looking through my homebrew notes today and there are half a dozen things that they did in the same or similar ways. The base skill percentages, dividing skills into a default list and ones that must be learned to use (advanced), clumping the stealth skills into one skill, the same with perception, buffing up spears, making shields more important, and more. Magic looks the same. I think the combat system will work fine, possibly with no changes at all or very few and simple houserules (like no d10 roll for initiative).

So although it may be too little or too much for some, it looks just about right for me. I hope it also is for enough other people to keep it alive for a good long time to come.

Maybe this is exactly what you want, but based on your posts, you were more into Stormbringer 5 than RQ3.

To me is is almost the exact opposite. Practically everything that I liked about RQ got cut, and what was added just makes the game more like D&D (an "initiative roll") and HeroQuest (the current "oppososed resolution", "hero points"), games that I lijked a lot less than RQ. To me it is looking like a total loss.

Likewise I am starting to hope that it dies quickly so in hopes that some of the old RQ folk might pick up the name.

 

[Mikko Leho]

While I don't like excess dice rolls, attacker rolling twice for hit fixes some of the problems I had with previous RQ. Dodge is not just a matter of hit or miss but more variation. Same goes for parry, that can stop different amounts of damage and even open possibility for a counter attack. I would have liked to see something more fluid like what one can see in some of systems using dice pools (WoD and Shadowrun come to mind). Still with MRQ we are approaching the limits of useful percentile system.

 

[atgxtg]

While I don't like excess dice rolls, attacker rolling twice for hit fixes some of the problems I had with previous RQ. Dodge is not just a matter of hit or miss but more variation. Same goes for parry, that can stop different amounts of damage and even open possibility for a counter attack. I would have liked to see something more fluid like what one can see in some of systems using dice pools (WoD and Shadowrun come to mind). Still with MRQ we are approaching the limits of useful percentile system.

No, not even close to the limits. I've seen (and own) several RPGs that mange to use percentile systems in differenet ways. There are ways to give degress of success with a percentile system. Some games broke up the sucess chance into different types of success (like RQ's old Critical/impale rules, or Bond's Quality Ratings). I seen some games give benefits per 10% or 20% increments.

It seems like every other year a game comes out with a new way to use dice.

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Practically everything that I liked about RQ got cut, and what was added just makes the game more like D&D (an "initiative roll") and HeroQuest (the current "oppososed resolution", "hero points"), games that I lijked a lot less than RQ. To me it is looking like a total loss.

Likewise I am starting to hope that it dies quickly so in hopes that some of the old RQ folk might pick up the name.

Not liking it is unfortunate, but you still have RQ3 - and maybe BRP - to fall back on. Obviously what individuals want from a product will differ. I liked RQ2, could never really get into RQ3 and thought SB was OK. I'll have to play MRQ through to see if it works.

I think hoping it fails is perhaps shortsighted given it would also kill all the support/setting materials.

Regards

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I won't be able to factor everything in until I get to see the rules but I think (hope?) we may not have the complete picture on the over 100% combat skills.

I ran the approaches through Excel last night and did get two very different sets of results betweeen an attacker on 80% and a defender with (a) 99% and (b) 101%.

Regards

Edward

 

[burdock]

It seems to me like a very stupid idea for the attacker to have to roll again in order to overcome an attempt at defence. It seems more simple, and accurate, for the attacker to keep the value of their original roll and for the defender to attempt to overcome that....so that the defender is opposing the skill of THAT particular attack....it suggests to me a serious lack of thought on the part of the designers....to the extent that I wonder if we have interpreted the rules correctly in this thread. Oh And I think the old Above 100% rules worked fine.

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

It seems to me like a very stupid idea for the attacker to have to roll again in order to overcome an attempt at defence. It seems more simple, and accurate, for the attacker to keep the value of their original roll and for the defender to attempt to overcome that....so that the defender is opposing the skill of THAT particular attack....it suggests to me a serious lack of thought on the part of the designers....to the extent that I wonder if we have interpreted the rules correctly in this thread. Oh And I think the old Above 100% rules worked fine.

Adding a third roll (ie the attacker's) produces an additional granularity because you get a different spread of results. Whether that is good or bad is a different issue. It certainly is less simple than a straight opposed roll. To get the same sets of results (fail, AP, APx2, riposte) you would have had to graduate the parry roll's success by adding another break point - mind you this could have been done by using the crit/special approach.

I am not sure that we can use 'accurate' in the context of a fantasy RPG's mechanic which is attempting except to the extent that we can relate it to the real world. Hence it is usually easier to identify issues with time/movement and time/rates of fire.

I would be surprised if the mechanic was the result of 'a serous lack of thought' because it is not an intuitive response and probably took a lot of thought - whether it works is a completely different question

Regards

 

[Archer]

It seems to me like a very stupid idea for the attacker to have to roll again in order to overcome an attempt at defence. It seems more simple, and accurate, for the attacker to keep the value of their original roll and for the defender to attempt to overcome that....so that the defender is opposing the skill of THAT particular attack....it suggests to me a serious lack of thought on the part of the designers....to the extent that I wonder if we have interpreted the rules correctly in this thread. Oh And I think the old Above 100% rules worked fine.

I totally agree with you. Why not keep the result of the first roll, and compare with the defenders roll. This would be much faster, and still allow for what the current rule do.

 

[Enpeze]

Adding a third roll (ie the attacker's) produces an additional granularity because you get a different spread of results. Whether that is good or bad is a different issue. It certainly is less simple than a straight opposed roll. To get the same sets of results (fail, AP, APx2, riposte) you would have had to graduate the parry roll's success by adding another break point - mind you this could have been done by using the crit/special approach.

I think its a failure to break the intuitivity of BRP just to enable additional combat results. Especially if these combat results also are not easy to explain to the player. If a MRQ fighter parries, he gets nearly with each hit some minl damage.

Eg:
Player 1 has a sword with 1d8 damage +1d4 damage bonus. Player 2 has a heavy mace (AP 3) The average damage of player 1 is 7. So each time player 2 wins the parry contest he gets 1 damage point on his arm if player 1 rolls an average of 7. If player 1 rolls above average then player 2 gets even more. After 3-4 average attacks or 1 good attack (assume 12 points) the arm of player 2 is badly hurt, despite his parry success.
So please can somebody explain me why this should be? How do you explain this "effect" to a player? Whats the realism behind? And additional problem is the the extended bookkeeping of all these mini damages to the parry arm.

I think the old approach of RQ3 is better. There only damage goes through is you break the parry weapon by dealing damage more than its double AP. This is not very often, but when it happens it gives an impressive ingame description.

I would be surprised if the mechanic was the result of 'a serous lack of thought' because it is not an intuitive response and probably took a lot of thought - whether it works is a completely different question

Regards

I am sure that Mongoose tested the combat system alot. But they take a different approach to descriptions, I and my group is used to. We like to describe every dice roll directly. This means no more rolling as necessary but each dice roll gets described to the other players. RQ3 allowed this direct way very well.

But in MRQ you roll numbers without direct connection to a visual description. Its kind of rolling on a table, looking at the outcome and using the number for rolling again on another table for determining the describeable effect.
I am sure it plays fast if you get used to it, but for me it is too "gamey".

BTW: what I dont understand is how anyone can compare MRQ to SB5. SB5 has IMO not more in common with MRQ than say RQ3.

 

[Archer]

But in MRQ you roll numbers without direct connection to a visual description. Its kind of rolling on a table, looking at the outcome and using the number for rolling again on another table for determining the describeable effect.
I am sure it plays fast if you get used to it, but for me it is too "gamey".

BTW: what I dont understand is how anyone can compare MRQ to SB5. SB5 has IMO not more in common with MRQ than say RQ3.

I agree, I have been thinking about how to describe the action to the players, but nothing I come up with seems reasonable. It is just a too artificial thing that has no other basis than to prove a game-mechanic in such a way as to make the game work according the predefined game-design principles. Much like d20 works, and that is a very bad thing; adding mechanics just for the sake of it, not that it makes much sense.

As for SB5, I have a hard time comparing MRQ to SB5, since SB5 is quick-easy-and fast. MRQ has already with the little that has been shown in these forum and the previews shown that is very far away from being similar, both in mechanics and speed (based on added mechanics).

I think the only way to really make MRQ work quick and well is to adapt some of the Stormbringer rules;
> It takes a critical parry to counter a critical hit totally.
> A critical attack deals x2 damage.
> A critical parry vs a normal hit gives you a reposte.
> A normal parry vs critical hit means you take normal damage (not x2).
> A sucessful parry means you take no damage.

 

[atgxtg]

Greetings


Not liking it is unfortunate, but you still have RQ3 - and maybe BRP - to fall back on. Obviously what individuals want from a product will differ. I liked RQ2, could never really get into RQ3 and thought SB was OK. I'll have to play MRQ through to see if it works.

Yes, I have RQ to fall back on, as well as the option to play a different RPG (when I get the chance). I preferred RQ to HeroQuest, but based upon what I am reading about MRQ, I think I'd prefer HQ to MRQ.

I think it really isn't fair to call the game RuneQuest if so much about the game has been changed.There appears to be very little of RQ left in MRQ.

I think hoping it fails is perhaps shortsighted given it would also kill all the support/setting materials.

Premature, considering that I haven't read the MRQ rules yet. However, if MRQ does turn out to be what I am thinking that it will be, then as long as it exists, it prevents any chance of RQ being "resurrected". None of the support/setting material announced so far has me excited, so there is nothing that I would miss. I'd have been more ehtused about 4th Age Glorantha as opposed to 2nd Age, but I guess that would have required Greg Stafford to get involved. Of course, that is just my view. No doubt there are people who will love the new game and consider it the ultimate RPG.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

I check this forum several times a day to get news on MRQ, because I'm really looking forward to it.

Continually there are messages about BRP, RQ2 or 3 or SB5 being a better game. First I'd like to say that most of us are merely speculating on the rules still. Second, BRP, RQ2 or 3 or SB5 are still options for those players & groups that play them. Third, Mongoose will be giving the relevant parts away in the SRD, so you don't even have to "go out on a limb" to buy the main parts of the new game. I understand how important this game is to people, but its NOT BRP, RQ2 or 3 or SB5, there are forum to talk about those games. AND please, as a fan, I hope no one else posts they hope it dies a quick death.

Can we at least get widespread release of the game and SRD for anyone who's uncertain, before we strip the game bear?

And my last points are these: It looks like its still close to BRP, RQ2 or 3 & SB5, so it can at least supplement those games to some degree, I know Deluxe BRP is supposed to be out this year, but Chaosium doesn't typically make its deadlines or produce a ton of material each year. AND its OGL, so anyone can "create" supplements or new combat systems for MRQ & do its similar heritage to the OTHER RQ/BRP derived games that already exist. If you don't like the combat CHANGE it and then put it on a web page or publish it.

Sorry for being snarky, but as much as some posters loathe MRQ, I'm LOOKING FORWARD to forming an opinion about it starting next tuesday.

Doc

 

[Enpeze]

It is just a too artificial thing that has no other basis than to prove a game-mechanic in such a way as to make the game work according the predefined game-design principles. Much like d20 works, and that is a very bad thing; adding mechanics just for the sake of it, not that it makes much sense.

d20? I thought the same. (but hesitated to say) Of course I would rather choose to play MRQ than d20 if I am urged to decide myself.

I think the problem with MRQ is that it is a good design and is well tested. But it lacks the minimalistic principals of BRP. And it is against my playing style.

I think the only way to really make MRQ work quick and well is to adapt some of the Stormbringer rules;
> It takes a critical parry to counter a critical hit totally.
> A critical attack deals x2 damage.
> A critical parry vs a normal hit gives you a reposte.
> A normal parry vs critical hit means you take normal damage (not x2).
> A sucessful parry means you take no damage.

I hoped that MRQ is the system I can use without houserules. It doesnt seem so. But I am sure that the MRQ source material is easy to convert to RQ or BRP.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

I think it really isn't fair to call the game RuneQuest if so much about the game has been changed.There appears to be very little of RQ left in MRQ.

Then perhaps you should have licensed it from Greg. But most of us won't know that for several more days. This is beginning to look like a D&D 4E post over on rpg.net.

Doc

 

[kustenjaeger]

[Eg:
Player 1 has a sword with 1d8 damage +1d4 damage bonus. Player 2 has a heavy mace (AP 3) The average damage of player 1 is 7. So each time player 2 wins the parry contest he gets 1 damage point on his arm if player 1 rolls an average of 7. If player 1 rolls above average then player 2 gets even more. After 3-4 average attacks or 1 good attack (assume 12 points) the arm of player 2 is badly hurt, despite his parry success.
So please can somebody explain me why this should be? How do you explain this "effect" to a player? Whats the realism behind? And additional problem is the the extended bookkeeping of all these mini damages to the parry arm.

I think the old approach of RQ3 is better. There only damage goes through is you break the parry weapon by dealing damage more than its double AP. This is not very often, but when it happens it gives an impressive ingame description.

Greetings

In RQ3 a heavy mace would have armour 10 and a broadsword D8+1 damage. Assuming a +D4 damage bonus a successful parry would block an average damage blow (8 points of damage). In MRQ the same heavy mace is AP3 and the 'war' sword does D8. Here a parry will only block 3 or 6 of the average 7 (D8+D4) damage rolled. But in either case (certainly for RQ3) the extra damage over the AP (p48 RQ3 Book 1) of the mace will go to whatever hit location is rolled not necessarily the arm holding it (representing I imagine a deflection off the weapon).

The real difference between MRQ and RQ3 in this particular area (of AP)seems to be that weapons are proportionally less effective in parrying than shields in MRQ (5/8/10) compared to RQ3 (8/12/16 for the same types). So weapons are (very roughly) at about 40% of RQ3 AP compared to 60-70% for shields.

In a mediaeval environment I would not expect that anyone would want to parry a sword with a mace anyway - that's what shields are for.
However there may well be an issue where a sword is used to parry another sword because the same 'leaking through' of damage would seem to occur which would not have been the case in RQ3.

We'll see the full story next week though.

Regards

 

[Urox]

Is this "streamlining" or "simplification"?

I think the opposed roll may shorten a combat, but it is not very intuitive. Its rather abstract.

I am trying to figure out why they didn't go to a straight opposed roll.

All I can figure out is that they wanted to keep the munchkiny extra actions per round (which seem somewhat cumbersome).

Lets say 2 Rune Lords with 110% skill fight each other. Under RQ, they would have an extended (either epic or boring depending on your perspective) battle until a crit goes through (~6 rounds).

In MQ, it seems that everyone round, one of the two is going to connect. So, I guess it comes down to how many blows it takes to overcome a location -- if it takes 2, you could be looking at ~11 rounds to a winner*, especially since there are no total hp. If it takes 1 blow, there'll be about 1 round of combat, and if it's 3 hits to overcome a location, it could be a long battle... Of course, someone is likely to critical before hitting an opponent twice in the same location...

Hey, that reminds me, anyone know how criticals work in MQ? Someone said they no longer ignore armor. If so, just how do you whack on that Zorak Zorani Rune Lord with enchanted lead armor with a bazillion AP?

*now that I think about this, with the goofy 2 actions +1 free reaction, this is actually less rounds, but the a similar amount of dice rolls.

 

[Fiddler]

First I would like to thank Mongoose for not only bringing back Runequest, but giving it an aggressive schedual of new supplements over the next few months. I am also glad they made it OGL. I am looking forward to seeing all the variations and tinkering with the game engine that will be done in the future.

One of the things I like about the people on the Runequest forums is the love for the Runequest brand name they bring to the debate.