Second Printing of Runequest...

[Cleombrotus]

So I sat down last night for my first playtest. Took me long enough. All was well until we realised that our rulesbooks were different. My combat matrices said one thing, whilst others said another.

I'm probably the last to know this, but I've tried searching this forum and can find no joy so hopefully some other nice person can inform us poor ignorant first printing owners what other easter eggs, if any, lie in wait for us in the second printing.

Have Mongoose released a free PDF with the new stuff on it?

Cheers,

Stu.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Just an addendum to this...the SRD currently online agrees with the matrices printed in my (apparent) first printing...this could of course mean that my mate's copy, labelled 'second printing', has a misprint...will continue to investigate...

 

[Halfbat]

Just an addendum to this...the SRD currently online agrees with the matrices printed in my (apparent) first printing...this could of course mean that my mate's copy, labelled 'second printing', has a misprint...will continue to investigate...

Do enlighten us as to what the combat matrices say - it's more likely the second is write, imho.

 

[Cut]

That's ineresting. Where has this book been printed? China? The UK?

 

[durulz]

Since I was playing in the game with Cleombrotus I'll explain the differences.
Under the Parry matrix table there is an anomaly.
Cleombrotus' (presumably first edition) copy says, under Failure/Failure 'Attack succeeds as normal'.
My second edition copy (it said so on the frontispiece) has, under Failure/Failure 'Attack succeeds but 2 times AP of defenders parrying weapon or shield stops damage'.
Quite a substantial difference.
I wonder if any others have noticed this and, more importantly, what is Mongoose's explanation? If there was an editorial change between editions then why didn't Mongoose announce that? And did they provide a free errata sheet? And if not, why not?
There are also several other contradictions/editorial fluffs eleswhere in the book, but none so serious that common sense can't work them out.
A explanation, please, Mongoose?

 

[Halfbat]

Interesting change. And you're right, it's a big difference. Any differences in the actual text, though?

 

[Quire]

:shock:

 

[RosenMcStern]

Well, this is both good news and bad news. Good news because it shows that the Mongoose crew is in fact working on a set of errata to fix the inconsistencies. I remember Loz asking on this forum for a generic "How to rephrase without disrupting" contribution, so this move must have been planned ahead. Bad news because they botched it by not providing a small set of errata that changes the first printing into the second. In fact they botched it very badly by not even telling their customers that the differences exist.

But I think we can excuse them: they were too busy making the print facility work, and later too excited seeing it actually work. :roll:

 

[Rurik]

What does the Attack Fails/Parry Succeeds result in then according to the second printing?

2xAP blocked used to go there.

 

[Osentalka]

Hello

I had a talk with Alexander Fennell at Essen Games fair in october 2006. There he spoke about the fact that RQ main rule book would run out in a couple of month, and that there would be a second printing (NOT a second edition) coming. After i asked about the changes, he told me that this woudn´t be a major rewrite, but only a little bit rephrasing, and minor changes. He pointed out that around the time this second printing will be available Mongoose would also publish an errata sheet (as PDF is assume).
I can only imagine that the new printing facility has screwed up that errata part until now, but i am sure that Mongoose will publish that sheet. And with an extra errata sheet the first printing buyers will have the same rules as the second printing customers.
I am a collector, so i see myself buying another copy of the rule book...


Cheers

Osentalka

 

[Cleombrotus]

I agree, on the whole. There's a lot of good will that exists toward this system, mine not being the least of it - it's good to have stuff being published at all. However, unless I am much mistaken (someone please show me that I am), there has been a vacuous silence with regards to this, and I would point out that both books claim to have been printed in 2006. A list of changes would have been seriously appreciated not least given some of the obvious confusion that has been evident in this forum.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Hmm - this is the AEG approach - L5R 1st edition went through 4 printings, with fairly major revisons each time. The changes 1st>2nd and 2nd>3rd where only discovered, like this one, when groups discovered that their rulebooks disagreed. No errata was ever officially provided. The changes from 3rd>4th were overseen by a member of the fan community who had taken a job as an intern at AEG - although he had moved on before the 4th printing was released he did leave a list of changes behind. It was not made available when the 4th Printing was released, and when AEG were subsequently asked about it the offical response was "There were no changes" (although a reminder that this list had been produced did eventually lead to it's release on the L5R mailing list - it still never made it to the offical AEG website though).

One can only hope that Mongoose manage better than this!

 

[Rurik]

What I find odd is that the change makes little sense.

The changed result makes no sense in the two roll system, and I can't see how it is much of an improvement on the 'optional may parry a failed attack' explanation put forward in the players guide.

If imposing a penalty for a failed parry against a failed attack I would use something like 'off balance' or overextended - not convert the failed attack to a hit.

Also, the 'new' system makes using a parry against a failed attack have no downside in many cases. If you are using a sword (AP 4) you know the worst that will happen if you miss is that you will block 8 points of damage (before armor). Fighting a normal human with a weapon that does 1d8 or less it becomes almost a no risk proposition. True there is a 1% chance of a fumble, but if your chance of a crit is 5% or 8% or whatever why wouldn't you do this if you know you have reactions that will go unused?

Note I still do NOT necessarily reccomend doing this against a really big Great Troll with a really big maul.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Okay, so here's a clarification on what these two books say. The only differences I've seen so far, bearing in mind I haven't looked, are on the Parry and Dodge matrices. I've listed the ones previously mentioned for purposes of completeness.

The first printing (and, interestingly, the SRD which you would think would be very easy to change) says that a failed attack vs. a failed parry = Attack succeeds as normal.

The second printing says in the same cell, Attack succeeds but 2xAP of parrying weapon/shield are deducted from damage.

The successful parry vs. a failed attack now reads Attack Fails.

The rest is the same.

The Fail/Fail on the Dodge matrix now reads, Attack succeeds but inflicts minimum damage.

The rest is the same. So, on the surface, hardly earth shattering changes. Annoying to the anally retentive (so that's the entire rpg community), but easily remedied. I just wondered why the SRD has remained the same as the first printing. Is it because this second printing is wrong and Mongoose don't yet know? Is it because Mongoose have a stack of unsold referees shields marked up with the wrong matrices? What's the score here?

Does anyone else have this second printing? Has anyone purchased the ref's screen? What matrices are on it? Part of me (the naive part) still hopes this is some kind of one-off freak...

 

[vitalis6969]

What kills me on this whole thing, is that we KNOW Mongoose staff read these forums and there still hasn't been a clarification. I have the first edition, so I would be really interested in knowing what the answer here is.

Any Mongoosians out there willing to say what is what?

Or at least tell us an errata is coming in the next couple of days??????

-V

 

[RosenMcStern]

COOL!

This makes Rurik's houserule even more effective! You hit and your opponent fails his parry with a higher roll? Double AP! You hit and your opponent parries with a higher roll? Well, maybe next time....

Thanks Mongoose, this was needed!

NOW IF YOU COULD PUBLISH IT IN SOME ERRATA PLEASE!?!?

 

[Cleombrotus]

I'm afraid I'm a little less forgiving. House Rules, god love 'em, should be a tool by which a GM can alter the flavour of his or her game to help achieve the atmosphere they want, or to reflect the nuances of their campaign world. If you want to alter the system to make it more realistic (by your own definition), then fill your boots - it's your game.

However, you shouldn't have to come up with house rules in order to make a system that you have paid for playable. That should not be your job. I'm quite sure that game design is a nightmare in many ways. It's a very public exercise if you get it wrong and gamers are, on the whole, a pretty switched on bunch so they'll let you know pretty quickly when you've buggered it up, but we all want it to work as much as anyone. I like this new system very much. It's exciting and gives players a great amount of choice and opportunity. I just don't feel that I can play it yet because I don't want players to acquire habits or expectations that will have to change. More than that, how can I ask them to buy the rules, which I have been doing for months now, when I'm going to have to say to them, "by the way, from that page to that page is all bollocks..?"

And don't quote me the cardinal rule of roleplaying games. I shouldn't have to change it.

 

[soltakss]

When RQ3 came out, we continued playing RQ2 for a good while.

The process of moving to RQ3 consisted of:
1. Using the spells and new cults in RQ2, with 4 point stacking etc.
2. Implementing a few of the RQ3 rules as house rules for RQ2
3. Playing a minor campaign using the RQ3 rules, to see if they worked
4. Converting PCs to RQ3 to see if they lost any of their flavour
5. Finally playing an RQ3 campaign

We should have introduced some extra steps:
6. Deciding which RQ2 rules were worth keeping
7. Combining RQ2 and RQ3 to get a better system

But we didn't, so we lost a lot of the RQ2 flavour.

I can see virtually the same steps being used for playing RQM.

In my current RQ3 campaign, we are at Stage 2 in the sequence. I can't see us doing Stage 3 for a long time, just because our campaign would be disrupted by putting it on hold. Playing two RQ systems side-by-side would be too confusing as RQM is considerably different in certain areas.

 

[Cut]

The staff isn't online at these forums as often as they used to be. The printing change must keep them busy all the day.

There will be a statement for sure at onepoint of time...

 

[frogspawner]

When RQ3 came out, we continued playing RQ2 for a good while.

The process of moving to RQ3 consisted of:
1. Using the spells and new cults in RQ2, with 4 point stacking etc.
2. Implementing a few of the RQ3 rules as house rules for RQ2
3. Playing a minor campaign using the RQ3 rules, to see if they worked
4. Converting PCs to RQ3 to see if they lost any of their flavour
5. Finally playing an RQ3 campaign

We should have introduced some extra steps:
6. Deciding which RQ2 rules were worth keeping
7. Combining RQ2 and RQ3 to get a better system

But we didn't, so we lost a lot of the RQ2 flavour.

Well, I'm still at Step 2, of RQ2 to 3: All the flavour, and a combat system that isn't broken...