So what do you like about MRQ ?

[danbuter]

Likes
Fatigue system - best version in any BRP game.
OGL - nuff said
Opposed rolls - you'd think this would have been in years ago.

Dislikes
Hit locations - I prefer Stormbringer/CoC using just total hit points.
Glorantha - of course, this just won't go away. :evil:
Runes rocks being required as default - I make them tattoos or carved on items, not space rocks.

 

[Rurik]

I'm still at a bit of the loss about what is so streamlined about combat. In some areas MRQ has freed up bookeeping and eliminated steps, but the gains in playability made seem to be squandered ina couple of other places.

One is keeping track of actions/reactions, it more than makes up for not having to keep track of total HP. The other is that the lack of total HP makes combat take longer in that you often have to beat the crap out of an emeny to drop them, including bludgeining them when down until they pass out or die (the baby seal effect). It just seems to take a lot more blows to take out an enemy.

 

[The King]

One is keeping track of actions/reactions, it more than makes up for not having to keep track of total HP. The other is that the lack of total HP makes combat take longer in that you often have to beat the crap out of an emeny to drop them, including bludgeining them when down until they pass out or die (the baby seal effect). It just seems to take a lot more blows to take out an enemy.

Do your foes never surrender or run away when they feel beaten?

 

[Rurik]

That entirely depends on the foes in question - but really that is not a system issue at all. Surrender or running away have nothing to do with whether a system is 'streamlined'.

For all the talk of streamlining combat I haven't really seen that MRQ makes combat quicker to run. It has eliminated bookeeping and steps in some places, but added it in others, and it very often takes considerably more effort to kill a foe than it did in earlier versions. That has been my experience at least.

I don't dislike MRQ combat at all by any means, and I kind of like the way the lack of total HP work - I just haven't really seen what is streamlined about it. They got rid of some baggage but also added some.

 

[Vivamort]

I like the combat tweaks (reactions, CA's) and the new initiative rules since they keep combat between higher skilled foes from bogging down.
I like that attack and parry aren't separate weapon skills anymore.
I like the new sorcery rules.
I like the fact that RQ is supported now and new material is coming out.
Character generation is faster and easier now.
I think I like the hero points/legendary abilities but I haven't used them enough yet to be sure.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The other is that the lack of total HP makes combat take longer in that you often have to beat the crap out of an emeny to drop them, including bludgeining them when down until they pass out or die (the baby seal effect). It just seems to take a lot more blows to take out an enemy.

Do not forget that old RQ2/3 "blows" were a combination of all the attacks you could make in a 12-second round, that is possibly 5-10 actual blows. In MRQ each attack is one single blow (2-3 attacks per 5-second round means 1 attack per 2 seconds, i.e. each attack is a blow), like in GURPS, but you still have a "melee round" instead of 1-second turns.

So yes, in RQ3 you could take an enemy down with two blows, but they were the equivalent of at least SIX melee attacks in the new system, in terms of time elapsed. RQ2/3 just had a higher level of abstraction (more strategy), while MRQ requires you to take more short-term decisions, and more often (more tactics).

Which is better? Well, RQ3 is faster once you grok the Strike Rank system, which can easily require one year of play, while MRQ is much easier to understand for newbs. All in all there is no "better" system, they are just different.

 

[gran_orco]

Do not forget that old RQ2/3 "blows" were a combination of all the attacks you could make in a 12-second round, that is possibly 5-10 actual blows. In MRQ each attack is one single blow (2-3 attacks per 5-second round means 1 attack per 2 seconds, i.e. each attack is a blow), like in GURPS, but you still have a "melee round" instead of 1-second turns.

So yes, in RQ3 you could take an enemy down with two blows, but they were the equivalent of at least SIX melee attacks in the new system, in terms of time elapsed. RQ2/3 just had a higher level of abstraction (more strategy), while MRQ requires you to take more short-term decisions, and more often (more tactics).

So, why do the characters fumble hardly ever in MRQ? And why the characters do not suffer from fatigue with the same time?

 

[RosenMcStern]

Hardly ever? A decent level character fumbles every 100 rolls, but he makes five to ten times more rolls, so he fumbles once every, say the equivalent of 10-20 RQ3 rolls if there is a 5:1 t o10:1 ratio. In fact, you fumble more often than in RQ3, exactly because you need more rolls to finish the same combat!

As for fatigue, a RQ3 character took 5 FPs per minute, and regained them in one minute of non-combat. Now it takes a lot more to get one fatigue level, but then it takes hours to recover. Just a different scale.

 

[CruelDespot]

Overall, I like the elegant simplicity of MRQ. Fewer skills, easier to calculate starting skills, quick character generation.

I like the revival of Lankhmar, Elric, and Hawkmoon under the same rules system. Plus Glorantha, and Slaine, and pirates. Good support. Lots of options. Looking forward to the upcoming historical Japanese supplement. Very much hoping there will someday be a Conan version.

This topic was intended to focus on the positive, to provide an alternative to all the other gripe threads. So Boo to those who couldn't resist adding their "dislikes" above.

 

[Rurik]

This topic was intended to focus on the positive, to provide an alternative to all the other gripe threads. So Boo to those who couldn't resist adding their "dislikes" above.

Well if it is boo on me (which I think it probably is) I'll point out I never said anything bad about it upthread - I like the way the lack of total HP plays.

I am genuinely curious about the streamlining of combat though, because in my experience it just doesn't seem to be the case. Am I missing something? RQ 2/3 combat was never troublesome to me, saying MRQ combat is not faster is not a knock on the game, just my perception of how it plays.

 

[Cleombrotus]

I agree. It's a strange one. Combat is inevitably the most real-time consuming part of gaming, and necessarily so, but in terms of the scaling, I feel that the authors of MRQ went straight for "bullet-time" combat. The amount of effort to generate negligable game time seems misguided to me.

However, I can imagine that lots of people like to imagine their combat in slo-mo. After seeing 300 I can certainly see the benefits, but I weigh this up against the unfortunate player who every five minutes gets to say "Aiming" five minutes later, "Aiming", five minutes later "Fire my bow" "You missed", five minutes later "Reloading"...all to produce about ten seconds of game-time?

I'm not going to knock anyone who enjoys this, and as an individual, when your character is in the limelight, doing cool cinematic things, then it's great, I'm sure, but it didn't work for me and my players...

As I've said before, if I was doing a one on one adventure, perhaps in Lankhmar, then MRQ would probably be a very good system because of its detailed focus on individual choice that creates a minute account of your character's choices and their outcomes, but for my group of six it was just unwieldy...

 

[Puck]

The other is that the lack of total HP makes combat take longer in that you often have to beat the crap out of an emeny to drop them, including bludgeining them when down until they pass out or die (the baby seal effect).

This was nagging at me too, everyone seemed like a zombie. Play became kind of anti-climactic, especially with creatures that did not have ransom possibilities. Leaders would go down kind of quickly, but the lesser followers never seemed like they could be taken down. After the first couple sessions of MRQ I evoked a long term fix that I had been using for years and I think has a variation on the Wiki.

There are heroes/main characters and then there are the extras, the red shirts as it were. The PCs and the main fleshed out antagonists use the rules as written. They of course have the heroic stuff and the narrative necessity to keep them going. For the nameless extras I use total hps equal to their siz+con/2 as well as hit locations. Although it may be a little less realistic or D+Dish, It really makes things more dramatic. Authors and directors often have their heros cutting through swaths of extras, but the main villain or his lieutenant, that is who you watch out for. So far it has worked brilliantly and my players like it much better.

By the way, I like:
Character Creation.

Adding characteristics together for base skill chance (Like it a lot).

I think I am really going to like the grimoire sorcery stuff offered in cultsII (havn't really put it into play yet).

The (non-tabular version of) opposed roll combat.

The wild amount of stuff coming out for MRQ. Not enough time and players to use all the settings but I love to buy and read them non-the-less.

This forum! Cannot say enough about that.

 

[Deleriad]

For the nameless extras I use total hps equal to their siz+con/2 as well as hit locations. Although it may be a little less realistic or D+Dish, It really makes things more dramatic. Authors and directors often have their heros cutting through swaths of extras, but the main villain or his lieutenant, that is who you watch out for. So far it has worked brilliantly and my players like it much better.

I've always used an informal mook rule in RQ. Basically, one hit location disabled means either I'm out of here or I'm falling over and moaning or I'm out for the count. Any major wound (enough to do 2*damage) means basically dead now or dead later.

That said, most of the major campaigns I've run have been in non-Gloranthan, low-magic settings where mooks don't have easy access to healing spells and that simplifies things a lot.

 

[Scut Farkas]

I don't see a problem with the hit locations or streamlining. The notion that you have to let the rules tell you when something is dead is not realistic in itself, I think. I approach my game in terms of ideally having the PCs survive, so the rules will have to dictate their mortality. But as far as their enemies go, if a PC takes out an enemy's hit location, particularly if they basically cut it off, that enemy is not likely to keep fighting if he has the option to surrender or run away. Furthermore, if the enemy loses consciousness, nothing stops them from slitting his throat if they really want him dead. I can see the point of having to do a lot of hacking, slashing and bludgeoning to kill an enemy strictly by the rules, but that's not necessarily the way it has to be, nor should be. I think the combat rules are more intended to realistically halt combat. You may not kill your enemy very quickly, but you can very quickly put them out of commission. That said, my last ghoul encounter ended in the first round when the monster was decapitated. It can happen pretty fast, apparently!

 

[Trifletraxor]

It annoys almost all the people on Triff's BRP forum.

Yeah funny isn't it. Hating something as much as some of them do is pretty stupid in my opinion.

It's a good thing I can enjoy the occasional flame war. I like the long arguments over different styles of play (I do it this way - NO! THAT WAY IS WRONG!).

Lively over there though.

Says the guy with the most offensive post over there yet! 8)

SGL.

EDIT: Any new fansites for my d100 link list by the way?

 

[Rurik]

Yeah funny isn't it. Hating something as much as some of them do is pretty stupid in my opinion.

It's a good thing I can enjoy the occasional flame war. I like the long arguments over different styles of play (I do it this way - NO! THAT WAY IS WRONG!).

Lively over there though.

Says the guy with the most offensive post over there yet! 8)

SGL.

I don't think anything Magistus has said has been all that offensive.

 

[Rurik]

The notion that you have to let the rules tell you when something is dead is not realistic in itself, I think.

But when discussing the rules, and saying they are faster or streamlined, it is not really a fair argument to say "MRQ is faster but I don't use the rules as written". I could just as easily say "RQ3 was much faster, but we used a houserule where both sides just rolled a d10 and the higher roll won the fight".

Mook rules are fine, and would speed up combat a lot (with mooks at least) - but they are not part of MRQ as written. Surrender and fleeing happen, just as they did in RQ2/3, but again that does make the rules themselves streamlined. I don't dislike the changes to combat at all, but I don't feel my bookeeping has been reduced or that combats have been shortened.

 

[The King]

Says the guy with the most offensive post over there yet!

I thought I was though never (very) offensive against Mongoose (because I wouldn't be there if I wasn't satisfied with their books.)

 

[Trifletraxor]

I don't think anything Magistus has said has been all that offensive.

I'm referring to you trollkin-food! :twisted:

Actually, more positive stuff have been written about MRQ than negative on the site, if you include the MRQ review section. :wink:

SGL.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Apparently the GM guide has new options for making major wounds much more unpleasant.

Part of it is roleplaying too though.. how many sentients will continue a fight after their arm comes off ? Very few people actually want to die.
When you encounter those that will fight to the bitter end, it should be memorable exactly because they are crazy