RuneQuest Rules Rumour Control

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

Having just read through a lot of threads about what the new RQ rules do/do not do, I feel I ought to make this post as, unfortunately, I will be well into the coming afternoon if I answered every query and countered every false comment.

There is a lot of speculation about the new rules (of course) and a lot of cries of 'broken!' Some people have answered with more speculation, some with the playtest rules in their pocket, others with the final rulebook but without having read it thoroughly.

Ultimately, what you think of the new rules will be down to yourself when you get the chance to read them at leisure - very soon now, as the books are making their way into shops this week!

However, I want to pose the following riddle to you. . .

Why does anyone think we would release a set of rules that is 'broken'?

 

[Urox]

However, I want to pose the following riddle to you. . .

Why does anyone think we would release a set of rules that is 'broken'?

Most of the questions people have had have worked themselves out.

I suspect people are very eager for some of the nuts and bolts -- specifically the conflict resolution mechanism, especially as it relates to combat.

As to why people are wondering about problems -- there have been 3 Mongoose staff members that have been on the board recently, and none of them have gone so far as to say the current interpretation of the combat rules* are incorrect, and that we should wait for the final publication.

*to hit roll, followed by opposed parry roll, subject to 1/2 skill modifier

 

[atgxtg]

For the same reasons anyone else might.:

Usually it is some application that the designers didn't spot.


I've seen lots of RPGs with "broken" game mechanics (1st edtion Vampire: THe Masqeurade, 1st edition l5R both come to mind, but there are others). I'm sure no one who wrote those games realized the problems when those games were being written, otherwise they would have done something about them.


BTW, Glad to know that what we've been told by others isn't the case.

Thanks.

 

[janoll]

Sorry for the edit, I'm a scientist, not a writer.

However, I want to pose the following riddle to you. . .

Why does anyone think we would release a set of rules that is 'broken'?

Mainly because gamers are a squirly lot, and that in their hearts dislike change? That is my answer from personal experience. I know I'm squirly and have serious trouble with change. But since I've never played a RuneQuest game before the second part of my answer doesn't apply to me. So I guess I'm just squirlly.

Now for a rebuttle. MRQ I'm sure will be a successful game, just by judging from the hype (positive and negative) seen on these boards. That's great! And I hope it was your intentsion, when you selected the pre-release information.

But this also can backfire. See above answer to your riddle. You probably know as well as anyone that bad news travels fast especially on the various rpg sites (like rpg.net). Even if it isn't confirmed bad news. Case in point the percieved Combat System statistical problem. With the glut of RPGs on the market I believe many won't spend their money on a new system (and a multi-book system at that) if there is this specter of "broken" surrounding it. I haven't checked rpg.net, but I'll bet money that in the weeks after MRQ is released that the debate we are having here will manafest itself over on rpg.net's boards. It could do damage, and make MRQ much less popular than it should be. I know you don't want that.

Please set some of these fears to rest. To this point there has been alot of cat-and-mouse played about the rules and how they work. I for one think it's time for Mongoose to weigh in on some of these concerns. The game is done, what's the difference if you explain the combat system now?

You can start by answering if the statistical model of the combat system as posted by another on these boards is accurate. If not please provide data to back up your answer. What can I say, I'm a scientist, EVERYTHING has to stand up to peer review.

Thanks,

 

[Halfbat]

I don't think the RQ rules are broken... and I don't think MP ever wishes to do so, and am surprised at any who suggest it. From what I've seen it's a good implementation of the RQ system, simplifying it nicely where it needed to be simplified but leaving a solid RQ feel.

It would be nice to get feedback on those areas where typos do seem to exist, though.

 

[Rurik]

However, I want to pose the following riddle to you. . .

Why does anyone think we would release a set of rules that is 'broken'?

I want to preface this by saying I mean no disrespect, and this is only based on hearsay and rumor.

The answer is: because Mongoose kinda has that reputation.

Let me explain why I say that.

I have not played any Mongoose games (other than Paranoia!, but that was long before Mongoose), and I do not own any Mongoose products, though I plan to in the near future (starting in about 2 days).

I have not been a part of an ongoing RPG game for over five years because of life's circumstances. I still play some, and still buy some. I have heard of Mongoose, some good, some bad. I recently started planning on picking up a campaign again, and then caught wind of MRQ. I was instantly excited.

Honestly, one of my sources for information about Mongoose was Wikipedia, and it talks about some broken releases. I am also aware of Mongooses' almost meteoric rise in the RPG publishing and figure that means you have to be doing something right.

Glorantha and RQ is very dear to me, as it is to many of the people on this board. That is why passions have run pretty hot at times. I have bought most of the Issaries stuff with no intention of ever playing HeroWars/Quest (talk about broken first releases). I want RQ to be good, and maybe even more importantly do well. But I also feel I am not unjustified in being a bit apprehensive.

And finally, no one expects a first release to be perfect. RQ2 was needed after RQ1, and yet even the most die hard proponents of the old rules talks about their house rule for this or that. I do not really see MRQ as a refinement of BRP but as a different system. I expect some rough edges, every game has them.

That is my two coppers worth. Letters of credit can be made payable to Rurik Runespear, Sun Dome Temple, Pavis....

 

[Urox]

Honestly, one of my sources for information about Mongoose was Wikipedia, and it talks about some broken releases. I am also aware of Mongooses' almost meteoric rise in the RPG publishing and figure that means you have to be doing something right.

I had never heard of Mongoose before MQ either.

When I asked the clerks at my FLGS about Mongoose I got mixed reactions (such as mostly good products, but the company is overextended), as well as a *rumor* about a major Mongoose line about to be discontinued.

 

[Turloigh]

For the same reasons anyone else might.:

Usually it is some application that the designers didn't spot.

That, IMHO, is quite the point.

Nobody ever releases a broken product on purpose, and nobody accuses Mongoose Publishing of doing so.

Still, for some reason or another, it (arguably) has happened in the past.

 

[Decurio]

Honestly, one of my sources for information about Mongoose was Wikipedia, and it talks about some broken releases. I am also aware of Mongooses' almost meteoric rise in the RPG publishing and figure that means you have to be doing something right.

I had never heard of Mongoose before MQ either.

When I asked the clerks at my FLGS about Mongoose I got mixed reactions (such as mostly good products, but the company is overextended), as well as a *rumor* about a major Mongoose line about to be discontinued.

My two clacks on various items:

1) The two Mongoose lines I buy religiously are Conan and Paranoia: I have nothing but praise for both. Conan, as is common knowledge had some editing issues with the first editions: Mongoose bent over backwards to correct the situation. The rest of the Conan line has had stellar production values and the quality of the art and writing is top notch.

2) I suspect that, as Rurik stated, a lot of old time RQ grognards are eagerly awaiting the launch of MRQ-I know I am. I've been playing since RQ2 (and still have my poor old worn out copy of Cults of Prax my Dad bought me when I was nine or ten) I see an awful lot of anxiety from the RQ community that mirrors the same anxiety that was rampant just before D&D 3.0 was launched.

3) I have faith in Mongoose. They have done a fantastic job with existing RPG lines, and I know they take RQ very seriously. I am looking forward to getting my hands on the core rulebook and giving the rules a thorough test-drive before pronouncing anything "broken."

 

[Cut]

When I asked the clerks at my FLGS about Mongoose I got mixed reactions (such as mostly good products, but the company is overextended), as well as a *rumor* about a major Mongoose line about to be discontinued.

Wrong place to discuss this in any depth, I know, but did the guy at you FLGS mention what line was supposed to shut down? Or at least gave a hint?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Wrong place to discuss this in any depth, I know, but did the guy at you FLGS mention what line was supposed to shut down? Or at least gave a hint?

I would be interested too!

 

[Turloigh]

Wrong place to discuss this in any depth, I know, but did the guy at you FLGS mention what line was supposed to shut down? Or at least gave a hint?

I would be interested too!

Do you want to know if he got the right one, or are you trying to imply that he is wrong?

(I suspect the latter, but I really can't tell from your post.)

 

[d(sqrt(-1))]

Why does anyone think we would release a set of rules that is 'broken'?

I don't think anyone does. I certainly don't. But the fact that there seem to be various interpretations of how the rules work implies to me that there are ambiguities present in those rules, and in that case, people will speculate as to what the correct and incorrect interpretations are. With no hard and fast ruling (i.e. a definite statement), how is it going to be resolved?

The obvious thing at the moment is the "two roll" combat mechanic, combined with the Very High skill rule. Although I have read the rules several times, it was not apparent to me (at all) that this was how it's meant to work (and I'm still not quite sure that it is). I understand that's how it was run at Continuum, so I guess that is the intended method. But it would be nice to know for sure.

Mark

 

[WildHealer]

There is a lot of speculation about the new rules (of course) and a lot of cries of 'broken!' Some people have answered with more speculation, some with the playtest rules in their pocket, others with the final rulebook but without having read it thoroughly.

Them's fightin' words, pardner...

I've got the rules. I've read them. I've spent the past four days reading the relevant parts of the rules THOROUGHLY, gaming them, and discussing them with various people on this board. At this point, it looks like there is a real issue - not a "false comment" as you accuse. Some others who have the rules are equally confused.

Why does anyone think we would release a set of rules that is 'broken'?

I think it might be good if you refrained from patronising comments like this. None of us like being talked to like we're children. Broken games get released frequently. That's what Errata are for - we're grown up, we can deal with this. Some of us have an issue here which, from a reading of the rules, we believe is real. We could be wrong. In fact, it would be great if we were. But we can't see it right now, and we have very nicely asked you for clarification - not a "oh-you-haven't-read-it-properly" brush off.

Can I suggest you read the relevant bits yourself, not as someone who is thoroughly intimate with them, but as if you're seeing them for the first time. I've been in design & specification work for donkey's years, and it's often when someone actually tries to document a product that too much familiarity results in ambiguity and lack of clarity. We're not having a go at you personally, Matt - we'd just like to know if there's an issue, and if there is how to fix it.

Hoping you'll address this shortly,

Sarah

 

[Enpeze]

Why does anyone think we would release a set of rules that is 'broken'?

I don't think anyone does. I certainly don't. But the fact that there seem to be various interpretations of how the rules work implies to me that there are ambiguities present in those rules, and in that case, people will speculate as to what the correct and incorrect interpretations are. With no hard and fast ruling (i.e. a definite statement), how is it going to be resolved?

The obvious thing at the moment is the "two roll" combat mechanic, combined with the Very High skill rule. Although I have read the rules several times, it was not apparent to me (at all) that this was how it's meant to work (and I'm still not quite sure that it is). I understand that's how it was run at Continuum, so I guess that is the intended method. But it would be nice to know for sure.

Mark

I am quite optimistic for MRQ. It will be doing fine. How can it not? Its origins is BRP/RQ which is the best RP system. Now many younger players have the chance to experience it. It was not easy to have access to RQ and its source material the last decades, so the release of MRQ and new easy buyable source books is a REAL progress. I like that very much.

While the Mongoose "strategy" is going the right way, I have learned the last days from reading the previews and forums that there are certain "tactical" problems with this 1st edition of the MRQ rules.

1) combat: 2 attack rolls? This rule breaks IMO with the usual BRP intuitivity. Additionally its too much dice rolling and "gamey".
2) high skill rules: it seems that you will be penalized if you are over 100%. suddenly from one session to the other your chances will be halved. It doesnt much matter that the chances of your enemy are also halved, because you loose more % than he, especially if he has a low skill.
3) athletics skill? Whats the logic behind this? If a STR8 guy with high skill can beat an unskilled STR18 guy in liftig a barrel?

So if it be possible, maybe msprange can give some statement about these rules. They seem to be broken, or at least very strange. I am sure many people here would appreciate this.

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Can I suggest you read the relevant bits yourself, not as someone who is thoroughly intimate with them, but as if you're seeing them for the first time. I've been in design & specification work for donkey's years, and it's often when someone actually tries to document a product that too much familiarity results in ambiguity and lack of clarity. We're not having a go at you personally, Matt - we'd just like to know if there's an issue, and if there is how to fix it.

Hoping you'll address this shortly,

Sarah

I think this is the critical bit. These issues can arise from being too close to the material, having insufficiently different gruops playtest etc

Matt's comment may be a general reaction to the fairly extensive threads that have bloomed recently without having focussed on the very specific issues which have gone beyond the 'if this is what it is I don't like it' level to a fuller more dispassionate analysis.

Regards

 

[bluejay]

I think that the High Skill Rule in Opposed Tests is simply broken mathematically unless you are trying to add some kind of singularity around the 100% breaks... perhaps in honour of the Rune of Chaos?

Character A has 100% in a skill and character B has 50%.

Chance for A to succeed and B to fail is 95% x 50% which is simply 47.5%. Easy enough

Now move A up to 101% and (due to the halving) we get 49% x 75% = 36.75%. It is now harder for A to succeed and B to fail.

This is not complex mathematics, nor is this speculation.

 

[Itto]

I think that the High Skill Rule in Opposed Tests is simply broken mathematically unless you are trying to add some kind of singularity around the 100% breaks... perhaps in honour of the Rune of Chaos?

Character A has 100% in a skill and character B has 50%.

Chance for A to succeed and B to fail is 95% x 50% which is simply 47.5%. Easy enough

Now move A up to 101% and (due to the halving) we get 49% x 75% = 36.75%. It is now harder for A to succeed and B to fail.

This is not complex mathematics, nor is this speculation.

The problem with the above, is that it does not take into acount the actual rules of the game.

In an opposed contest, if both sides fail, the one with the lowest succeeds.

Until you have read the rules and actually played them, folks should realy hold of saying if its broken and needs patching etc.

 

[bluejay]

Well I was simplifying the probabilities for those not holding a degree in Mathematics. Without wanting to go into detail, the fact that if both fail, the lowest wins and if both succeed the highest wins, also shifts in favour of the character with the lower skill but the maths is far more complex and not intuitive.

I have the rulebook and I have read the rules and I know a mathematical issue when I see one.

I'm not trying to bash the game or cause a problem but I don't like people to deny an issue that very clearly exists.

 

[bluejay]

Well they say 'pride goeth before the fall'.

I've uploaded a new version of my MRQPC and this now includes standard Opposed Tests with the option for High Skill Rules.

I've double checked my maths and it appears that the stats do scale linearly through the 100% margin break.

I deliberately created this tool because I was concerned that the stats weren't obvious... and they clearly were neither obvious nor intuitive to myself.

So, unless my mathematics are awry (and I would love someone else to check them) it appears that Opposed Tests are not at all broken through the 100% margin.

Sorry about complaining before! I'm happier to know that the system is robust to be honest.