So what's left?

[iamtim]

Now that we have the Players Guide clarifying all the combat and other miscellaneous issues, what's left that needs to be addressed?

We all know about the halving mechanic; something tells me that's not going to change, and that its "shortcomings" are acceptable in the eyes of the designers.

Is there anything else that requires clarification or is in error? (Aside of personal dislike, of course; you may not like that only spellcasting professions actually get magic, but that's not an indication the system is "broken".)

 

[MongooseMatt]

We all know about the halving mechanic; something tells me that's not going to change, and that its "shortcomings" are acceptable in the eyes of the designers.

Oh, we'll play with it. If a majority of our base do not like a rule, we don't ignore them. Somewhere along the line, we may present an alternative, and it will be up to you chaps which one you use.

Is there anything else that requires clarification or is in error? (Aside of personal dislike, of course; you may not like that only spellcasting professions actually get magic, but that's not an indication the system is "broken".)

It is not as if other characters can't get access to magic fairly easily, depending on the setting. . .

 

[iamtim]

Somewhere along the line, we may present an alternative, and it will be up to you chaps which one you use.

Oh, excellent. Well, color me wrong.

It is not as if other characters can't get access to magic fairly easily, depending on the setting. . .

Don't get me wrong, that doesn't bother me at all. I've just heard it bandied about as a complaint round these parts, so it became my example. There's a lot of issues that people have complained about in the RQ core rules that don't apply specifically to Glorantha, and I was trying to weed those out under the assumption that the actual Glorantha book will tailor the RQ core rules to be more Glorantha specific.

 

[mthomason]

The biggest problem appears to stem from an expectation that the RQ rulebook would be the definitive source for the Glorantha setting, therefore anything in there that doesn't appear to quite fit with Glorantha (hence the questions on Chaos runes and magic) is getting quoted as a "problem".

It was perhaps unfortunate that the Glorantha sourcebook wasn't available at the same time as the rulebook, as many of these issues simply wouldn't have had the chance to crop up.

 

[Enpeze]

I would like to know the reason why the resistance table or the good old characteristic x5 check isnt included in the new rules. Also luck rolls (POWx5) and idea rolls (INTx5) help in many situations.

If its possible (especially for new players who dont have the access to older material) these useful game mechanism should be reintroduced in an update of MRQ.

Not that I dont like "athletics". It could be useful for many situations, but not for everything (eg the example of duckSTR8 which wins against trollSTR18 )

 

[SteveMND]

The biggest problem appears to stem from an expectation that the RQ rulebook would be the definitive source for the Glorantha setting, therefore anything in there that doesn't appear to quite fit with Glorantha (hence the questions on Chaos runes and magic) is getting quoted as a "problem".

Yah, but that may be that people just don't quite understand what is meant by a game being OGL. By definition, it implies a certain type of 'generic' approach that is needed to make it compatible with a wide variety of different potential settings.

Personally, I understood the concept right away (as did I'm sure many developers and publishers), and I think it was made clear by Mongoose just fine that the game was to be an OGL set, but maybe if it had been more explicitly spelled out at the beginning what that meant, such expectations wouldn't have been made.

Then again, a lot of people disliked RQ3 for the exact same reason -- disassociating itself from Glorantha -- so perhaps making it clearer would have hurt things. Either way, it would have been nice to have the Glorantha setting book out at the same time as the main rulebook.

 

[Rurik]

Somewhere along the line, we may present an alternative, and it will be up to you chaps which one you use.

Oh, excellent. Well, color me wrong.

Matt has indicated earlier on the board that the halving rule created quite a bit of commotion at the Mongoose offices too.

I think the reason for keeping the halving may have something to do with the legendary heroes book. What tidbits we have seen seem to indicate skills in the hundreds will be seen at some point.

Linear or bumping methods work well with skills a little over a hundred, but not so well when you are comparing say skills of 320% to 360%.

Any bumping method would reduce the 320 vs. 360 to effectively 20 vs. 60, while halving reduces it to 90 vs. 80, a better aproximation of relative skill IMHO.

I am curious to see how this works out.

 

[atgxtg]

I suspect that, aside from the skill halving, we should have an understanding of things until the Companion comes out and we seel what effect it has on the game.

BTW, I had an idea for solving the halving problem. When you halve a skill and reduce it below 100, that character gets a free "second-chance" roll (as per page 59) as if he had spent a Hero Point.

I suspect this would help the high skilled character retain thier advantage whn "dropping under the 100% threshold".

 

[Zoetrope]

Why not just roll D1000 - three different coloured D10 for 100's, 10's, 1's....?

Ok, perhaps that's a daft idea! :shock:

Z

 

[MongooseMatt]

BTW, I had an idea for solving the halving problem. When you halve a skill and reduce it below 100, that character gets a free "second-chance" roll (as per page 59) as if he had spent a Hero Point.

Ooh, that is _very_ close to one of the systems we have been tinkering with. . .

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

The only big other big issue I see (and perhaps the biggest for me) is the no raw attribute roll. I can see where they were going, and in some cases the new Resistance skills work, but in others (such as when you want to just bash open a door), an attribute roll still works best. I simply roll attribute x5 and use the skill system modifiers, which works pretty well, so I have already fixed the problem for myself, although I am sure others will have the same problem themselves.

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

I suspect that, aside from the skill halving, we should have an understanding of things until the Companion comes out and we seel what effect it has on the game.

BTW, I had an idea for solving the halving problem. When you halve a skill and reduce it below 100, that character gets a free "second-chance" roll (as per page 59) as if he had spent a Hero Point.

I suspect this would help the high skilled character retain thier advantage whn "dropping under the 100% threshold".

Be interesting to see the math on this (cough...Bluejay)

 

[Rurik]

Be interesting to see the math on this (cough...Bluejay)

Boy, that guy just doesn't get a break. I move we officially change BlueJay's name to "MathSlave"

 

[bluejay]

Might get chance to do it this week but I'm off to Italy on Friday night and won't be back for two weeks...

 

[Rurik]

Might get chance to do it this week but I'm off to Italy on Friday night and won't be back for two weeks...

Glad to hear it. Have a good trip.

 

[atgxtg]

BTW, I had an idea for solving the halving problem. When you halve a skill and reduce it below 100, that character gets a free "second-chance" roll (as per page 59) as if he had spent a Hero Point.

Ooh, that is _very_ close to one of the systems we have been tinkering with. . .

Well, I started with MRQ's similarities to HQ and borrwed the "bump" for masters idea for "bump for 100%". THen I recalled that a Hero Point in HQ works like a bump, so I figured I'd try working a "bumb" like a Hero Point in MRQ. Then I saw some pole commenting on how bumpping for 100% turns a 320% vs 360% match into a 20% vs 60% and so I took the halving idea instead.

I might P!$$ & M*@^, argue and rant, but I do pay attention.

 

[atgxtg]

Might get chance to do it this week but I'm off to Italy on Friday night and won't be back for two weeks...

You poor guy. I should feel guilty, but I am too curuois to see how it works and don't want to spreadsheet or code it.


THe hard bit is going to be factoing in the second cahnce as a "double condtional" variable. You can spend a "Second chance" etiehr to reroll your roll or an opponents.

I believe this will be the thing that helps out the highs skill peole against the 20%ers, since it can be used to make them reroll those fluke criticals. LIkewise it is really going to turn those halved 80%ers into 96%ers.

The potential pitfall is that it might be too skewed towards the high skilled.

Oh, and the 2 rolls for each for the two 300% ers could take a bit, but that is probably a rare enough situation that the added rolls could just add to the drama. Still a flurry of blows from a double halved master swordsman is going to take a while.

 

[Rurik]

Might get chance to do it this week but I'm off to Italy on Friday night and won't be back for two weeks...

You poor guy. I should feel guilty, but I am too curuois to see how it works and don't want to spreadsheet or code it.


THe hard bit is going to be factoing in the second cahnce as a "double condtional" variable. You can spend a "Second chance" etiehr to reroll your roll or an opponents.

I believe this will be the thing that helps out the highs skill peole against the 20%ers, since it can be used to make them reroll those fluke criticals. LIkewise it is really going to turn those halved 80%ers into 96%ers.

The potential pitfall is that it might be too skewed towards the high skilled.

Oh, and the 2 rolls for each for the two 300% ers could take a bit, but that is probably a rare enough situation that the added rolls could just add to the drama. Still a flurry of blows from a double halved master swordsman is going to take a while.

Actually, you just made me realize something. Halving works fine if the characters have the same skill. 300 vs 300 becomes 75 vs. 75 - no problem there. The problem is that the higher skill gets penalized, and is penalized more the greater his skill exceeds the lower skill, so maybe what we need to work on is a mechanic that works with the spread.

Just a thought I'm throwing out. I'm gonna stew on it for a bit.

 

[atgxtg]

Actually, you just made me realize something. Halving works fine if the characters have the same skill. 300 vs 300 becomes 75 vs. 75 - no problem there. The problem is that the higher skill gets penalized, and is penalized more the greater his skill exceeds the lower skill, so maybe what we need to work on is a mechanic that works with the spread.

Just a thought I'm throwing out. I'm gonna stew on it for a bit.

Yeah, that was part of what I was trying to get across in the math thread. 300 vs 300 works fine. It is just when you have 20 vs 150 that the math turns around and bites you.

That is what I means about the success chances being based on the difference between skills rather than the ratio. Every time you halve the skills you maintain the same ratio but you half the difference, and thus halve the advnatage for the higher skilled character. See what I am trying to say?

I think the "second chance" rule give back the high skill advatage. Wehars in the normal rules a 20 vs 102 gets turned into a 10 vs 51, halving the asdvantage for the higher skilled character, the "second chance" rule turns in into a 01% vs 60% or a 10% vs 76% (If I got the math right).

It just might be "too good" a fix-and push the curve too far the other way.

 

[Rurik]

OK, here goes some heady stuff.

BlueJay and KA basically pointed out that what matters with opposed rolls is the spread. TaKe for example 60 vs. 40. If both players roll below 40 it is 50/50 who wins. If both players roll above 60 it is 50/50 who wins.

Point 1) Where the higher skill gets the advantage is the range between 40 and 60. If he rolls in that spread, he cannot lose the opposed tests.

Point 2) However, if the higher skill rolls above 60, that range belongs to the lower skilled character - he cannot lose if he rolls between 40 and 60 because of the rule: both fail lowest roll wins.

To compensate for the penalty to the higher skill due to halving take the case in Point 2 away from the lower skilled character. To do this use the following rule: When halving and both sides fail, highest roll wins.

So for normal opposed tests, both fail low roll wins. For Halved opposed tests both sides fail high roll wins.

The effect is that if the real skills involved were 120 and 80, halved to 60 and 40, the lower skilled character cannot win by rolling between 40 and 60 even if the higher skilled character fails.

Make sense?