Some critical words about the companion preview

[atgxtg]

If you were to take d20, incoprorate the armor, major wounding, and magic rules from Ancients, replace BAB with skill based weapon use, replace classes with skill based advancement, and you could fairly easily transform it into a game system that feels a LOT like RQ.

Or, more simply stated: If you changed everything....

Simple, but inaccurate. You change nearly everything...


More seriously, the changes needed are much less than one might think. Most of it is in OGL Ancients, so all that would be needed is to change weapons to skills (easy), and then just work up a cost to buy skill improvements and feats. THe CODA system esseintally does just that.

 

[atgxtg]

One of the more interesting questions, so to say one of the "deal breakers" for me is how the multiple actions are playing out in practice.

In BRP you have just 1 attack action and 1 parry action. In MRQ you have up to 4 attack actions (if you have the necessary DEX) and up to 4 parry actions.

Most BRP systems had rules for mutiple actions and attacks. MAybe you didn't use them, or your characters never got skilled enough to make them worthwhile, but mulitple attacks were already there. RQ allowed people to split attack scores (you probably don't remeber this as you didn't run Rune Lords). Stormbringer had some similar rules, inclduing the orginal (and great) mutiple parry/riposte rules.

 

[Enpeze]

One of the more interesting questions, so to say one of the "deal breakers" for me is how the multiple actions are playing out in practice.

In BRP you have just 1 attack action and 1 parry action. In MRQ you have up to 4 attack actions (if you have the necessary DEX) and up to 4 parry actions.

Most BRP systems had rules for mutiple actions and attacks. MAybe you didn't use them, or your characters never got skilled enough to make them worthwhile, but mulitple attacks were already there. RQ allowed people to split attack scores (you probably don't remeber this as you didn't run Rune Lords). Stormbringer had some similar rules, inclduing the orginal (and great) mutiple parry/riposte rules.

Of course I am aware of the rules you described. I used them often in my games. But multiple actions for 100%+ skills have not been the point of my posting. I expressed my fear that the shift to DEX instead of skill for multiple actions could be a deal breaker for me if it is not implemented VERY well.

I think I can get along with changes like no resistance table, no general HPs, opposed skills rolls and several others. But if one fighter has 4 times the actions as another fighter? And this depends only on DEX? This is on of the biggest changes to the core RQ/BRP system. And I will see if I like it.

I play enough WFRP2 to recognize some rule similarities with MRQ. The most significant is the free parry if you have a second weapon. (or shield) Or the human movement value of 4. Or the fact that the play testers used in an older MRQ test version a reversed d100 as for rolling hitlocations.
Each of these mechanism you can find in WFRP2 as well. A fact which is very interesting for those who play both systems.

 

[Rurik]

I think I can get along with changes like no resistance table, no general HPs, opposed skills rolls and several others. But if one fighter has 4 times the actions as another fighter? And this depends only on DEX? This is on of the biggest changes to the core RQ/BRP system. And I will see if I like it.

Another factor very different from RQ2/3 is that strike rank modifier is determined solely on Dex, and penalized for weapon weight. Reach, such an important part of classic RQ, seems to be removed as a game consideration. This just further makes DEX as one of the more important combat stats (granted strike ranks also have a random element, so a slower character might strike first).

In the old way, a quick little guy with a dagger was always at a big disadvantage to a big guy with a poleaxe.

The changes to strike ranks do indicate sorcery can't be exactly the same - the casting time used be in strike ranks (Base SR + 1 per MP, spread across as many 12 strike rank rounds as necessary). It just wouldn't work in the new system.

 

[atgxtg]

Of course I am aware of the rules you described. I used them often in my games. But multiple actions for 100%+ skills have not been the point of my posting. I expressed my fear that the shift to DEX instead of skill for multiple actions could be a deal breaker for me if it is not implemented VERY well.

I think I can get along with changes like no resistance table, no general HPs, opposed skills rolls and several others. But if one fighter has 4 times the actions as another fighter? And this depends only on DEX? This is on of the biggest changes to the core RQ/BRP system. And I will see if I like it.

I play enough WFRP2 to recognize some rule similarities with MRQ. The most significant is the free parry if you have a second weapon. (or shield) Or the human movement value of 4. Or the fact that the play testers used in an older MRQ test version a reversed d100 as for rolling hitlocations.
Each of these mechanism you can find in WFRP2 as well. A fact which is very interesting for those who play both systems.

Ah, I see your point now, Sorry. I agree with you, it would such if combat actions become soley DEX based. In RQ two or three attacks at 50% are probably better than one attack at 100%.

Hopefully the number of actions won't be entirely DEX based, but tied to something else and bought with Hero Points.

 

[atgxtg]

Another factor very different from RQ2/3 is that strike rank modifier is determined solely on Dex, and penalized for weapon weight. Reach, such an important part of classic RQ, seems to be removed as a game consideration. This just further makes DEX as one of the more important combat stats (granted strike ranks also have a random element, so a slower character might strike first).

In the old way, a quick little guy with a dagger was always at a big disadvantage to a big guy with a poleaxe.

*Sigh*. THat is what happens when things get "Streamlined". THe complications in a game system are what adress ceetain issues-such as reach.

Since MRQ is supposed to stress manevering in combat, isn't reach addressed in another manner? THis might counteract the new SR system.

The changes to strike ranks do indicate sorcery can't be exactly the same - the casting time used be in strike ranks (Base SR + 1 per MP, spread across as many 12 strike rank rounds as necessary). It just wouldn't work in the new system.

How do they word SR now? Are there a fixed number in a round, or is the SR number just an initiative number? Off the top of my head, I guess they could just say every 10 MP in a spell requires a round to cast. Say something like normal SR-MP. If the number is negative add 1 round per 10 MP?

 

[Rurik]

How do they word SR now? Are there a fixed number in a round, or is the SR number just an initiative number? Off the top of my head, I guess they could just say every 10 MP in a spell requires a round to cast. Say something like normal SR-MP. If the number is negative add 1 round per 10 MP?

In the second preview SR is the roll of a d10, + The characters strike rank modifier. It says quick and lithe characters will act first, while characters weilding heavy weapons will act later. Combat actions are taken in order, highest SR first. It is a Strike Rank in name only - an Initiative Roll in any other system.

I am assuming that the negative penalty is probably equal to the encumbrance of the weapon. Also note that there is no statistic indicating reach in the weapon table.

So the number of Strike ranks varies from round to round. The Rune Magic (what used to be Battle/Spirit Magic) spells in preview 3 have a casting time listed (in rounds I assume).

While I am not opposed to an Initiative roll, I think the MRQ system has quite the opposite feel of RQ 2/3 as far as the small and lithe versus large with a big stick.

 

[andakitty]

There is a lot we don't know, more than we do know in fact. The way the initiative rule is worded implies some form of modification to the speed with which big heavy weapons can be used. The fact that there are three modes of attack with a halberd implies some more depth as well. The game could have intricate rules for closing, or not. We just can't see the big picture yet. Actually, what I can see reminds me more of Stormbringer than RQ2-3. It may not be a bad thing, in the end. Strike ranks were not perfect. They worked, yes, but as someone else here pointed out they seemed mechanistic. I believe the authors of this game were going for a more fluid, natural seeming style. You know, now that I think about it, RQ combat was largely based on SCA combat, and SCA combat was highly restricted with many 'dos' and 'don'ts'...rules which wouldn't be present in real life-or-death combat. Maybe a more fluid combat system without some of RQs' rigidity wil be fun...and a better simulation in some ways.

 

[Rurik]

There is a lot we don't know, more than we do know in fact. The way the initiative rule is worded implies some form of modification to the speed with which big heavy weapons can be used. The fact that there are three modes of attack with a halberd implies some more depth as well. The game could have intricate rules for closing, or not. We just can't see the big picture yet. Actually, what I can see reminds me more of Stormbringer than RQ2-3. It may not be a bad thing, in the end. Strike ranks were not perfect. They worked, yes, but as someone else here pointed out they seemed mechanistic. I believe the authors of this game were going for a more fluid, natural seeming style. You know, now that I think about it, RQ combat was largely based on SCA combat, and SCA combat was highly restricted with many 'dos' and 'don'ts'...rules which wouldn't be present in real life-or-death combat. Maybe a more fluid combat system without some of RQs' rigidity wil be fun...and a better simulation in some ways.

I realize we don't have the full rules, I am basing my speculation on what information we do have - what else can we do in this forum until the release?

I am not opposed at all a random element to initiative. My post was in agreement with atgxtgs' point about comat actions possibly making DEX the MOST important combat stat, and adding to it that the information released so far on SRs/Initiative seem to also favor Quick characters with light weapons - a departure from the flavor of classic RQ.

There may be additional rules to cover reach based on weapon type or skill used, though that hardly seems "streamlined" to me. Strike Ranks were mechanical, but they included speed, arm reach, and weapon reach in one statistic that fit neatly on your weapon stat line.

Actually, my suspicion with the halberd was that it could be used with any of three skills, which also doesn't sit all to well with me. If I am skilled with the halberd I should be able to use it effectively as a thrusting weapon or a polearm. And 2h axe seems silly - you don't swing a halberd the same way you do a large axe.

But you bring out the worst in me - I really am quite excited for the new RQ and always try a rules system as is before modding it to my taste. These are just some of my reservations based on what I've seen. I could be wrong - it has happened before (but only once or twice).

 

[andakitty]

Oh, I agree with you, actually. Mine were just cautionary statements and, I had hoped, constructive suggestions. Not meant to be critical in any regard, to you or to MRQ, which I remain excited about as well.

I am truly sorry if the result was to 'bring out the worst' in you. Pax, although I never intended else. 8)

 

[atgxtg]

Well, we should all know how this works in a week or so.I would think that will the emphaisis on movement in combat, the relative reach of weapons would be factored in somehow.

However, if "streamlined" means just cutting stuff out and changing things to make them more like other rpgs, then I don't believe MRQ is going to "wow" anyone. For every rule that get's "simplified" in MRQ there is a degree of detail and color that we loose.

 

[andakitty]

And we always have the old versions of BRP to fall back on. I just hope I don't have to mess with the rules TOO much. It is cetainly going to be nice to have material coming out that is at least compatible with BRP...if all else fails.

 

[Mac V]

Yes,we will see next week. The few reports that came out of the Open House were very positive. I'm keeping my fingers crossed...

 

[atgxtg]

I'd be more hopeful of the postive reposese of the Open House if I had a better idea of what the players were like. THere are several differenert groups of RQers, from the old vets, to those who played it here and there, to newbies.

It is possible that something that seems novel and impressive to some might be old news to others or even a step in the wrong direction.

I havbe a funny feeling that a lot of us either either going to love it or hate it. I don't believe there will be much of a middle ground. I'm just not sure how universal the reaction will be (as it will all the old pros hate it or love it, or will it be a split).

I think I am almost an axious to find out what other RQers think of MRQ as I am to see the game. I wonder how many of us will like or dislike the same things?

 

[Rurik]

I am truly sorry if the result was to 'bring out the worst' in you. Pax, although I never intended else. 8)

My reply just sounded so darn nagative - which was not my intent. Since I am obviously not to blame it had to be your fault :wink:

Besides, Isn't the topic of this thread about criticising the previews...

 

[Mac V]

It is possible that something that seems novel and impressive to some might be old news to others or even a step in the wrong direction.

A common problem I've found in this hobby is that sometimes people get so caught up in the particulars, they forget to sit down and just have fun.

I'm still mystified why people can't have fun because the damage of a particular weapon has changed, or that an elf looks different in a picture.

Worst case, don't buy the rule books, buy the source books (or none if it's that bad). Use edition (insert favorite here) rules. Have fun. Even with the limited amount of info I've seen, it's still pretty much BRP. We're talking a modified system, not a completely new one. I can't imagine most of the old schoolers couldn't convert it on the fly.

 

[atgxtg]

It is possible that something that seems novel and impressive to some might be old news to others or even a step in the wrong direction.

A common problem I've found in this hobby is that sometimes people get so caught up in the particulars, they forget to sit down and just have fun.

What people consider having fun can vary. I recall the last gaming group that I was playing in. Each week, the same two players would have thier characters charge the enemy (the situations didn't matter, that was their tactic). Each week those two players watched thier characters go down and, as often as not, die. One day I got sick of it and tried to get the group to use some sort of tactics (stuff like either the entire group charges and overwhelms the enemy, or we stay put and let them come to us. THis 1/3rd the group charges just got PCs killed).

The resonse was that I was somehow ruing things and that we were there to "have fun". I asked how watching the same two guys ghet killed each week was fun, and how waiting half the night for their characters to get healed up (or to roll up replacements) was "fun".

Fun is relative.

I'm still mystified why people can't have fun because the damage of a particular weapon has changed, or that an elf looks different in a picture.

Maybe I can help to "demystify" you here. In the case of changing weapon stats, it can have an effect on just what sort of character concepts work and thus what a player can or cannot play. There is also a question of what seems right to players too. For example, if we changed dagger damage to 2D20 in MRQ there would be lots of repucussion in game.

As to the issue of the problem of elf looks, the problem is that few things can ruin the verisimilitude of a setting than retconning. Why buy a GLorantha book and learn about the setting if it is all going to be retconned anyway. If Greg didn't want pretty elves with pointed ears in Glorantha he shouldn't have allowed them to be drawn that way for over a decade.

Worst case, don't buy the rule books, buy the source books (or none if it's that bad). Use edition (insert favorite here) rules. Have fun.

Nope. Worse case scenario would be that if a bad game sold well and made it more difficult to find other good stuff to play. For example, to those who do not like d20, the fact that 80% of the US RPG market is d20 based really limits the choices available. If MRQ turns out to be bad and successful, it will cut the remaining 20% down to even less.

I'm not claiming that MRQ is bad, just what the worst case could be.

Even with the limited amount of info I've seen, it's still pretty much BRP. We're talking a modified system, not a completely new one. I can't imagine most of the old schoolers couldn't convert it on the fly.

We have diffienert interprestations here. From what I've seen so far, it might as well be a new system. Absoulutely nothing of RQ3 appears to have survived into MRQ-so in effect is is a new system. How convertable it will be to other BRP products remains to be seen-based upon how stats and abilities interact in MRQ. Conversion is certainly possible, conversion on the fly is a bit more tricky. You might get numbers, but they may not mean the same thing. A good example of that is converting from the latter Elric/Strombringer edtions to other BRP products. Elric pretty much tells people to design characters with 100%+ weapon skills-something rare in every other RQ/BRP variant. So A GM needs to cosnider if the combat skills should be coverted over at 1 to 1.

 

[andakitty]

Part of effective criticism, nevertheless, is pointing out why the criticism is not relevant. Criticizing the critic, as it were. Criticism based on such scanty data is intrinsicly worth very little. Speculative criticism is a different matter, and indeed is fun for some of us...playing at 'fill in the blank'...until it gets too serious. No point in that. At the end of the day it won't have much effect on whether the game is any good or not anyway.

 

[atgxtg]

Part of effective criticism, nevertheless, is pointing out why the criticism is not relevant. Criticizing the critic, as it were. Criticism based on such scanty data is intrinsicly worth very little. Speculative criticism is a different matter, and indeed is fun for some of us...playing at 'fill in the blank'...until it gets too serious. No point in that. At the end of the day it won't have much effect on whether the game is any good or not anyway.

Yup. Since, for most of us, our knolwedge of MRQ is still limited to the preview pages and the few tidbits we've gotten on the forum. That makes most of this speculative.

It is one reason why we can have such differenet takes on MRQ. People are speculating to 'fill in the blanks', and each of us is filling the blansk in differently. It is like giving out a deozen pages from a book and watching the readers try to extrapolate the entire novel.

As long as well all know that we are speculating, it's okay.

 

[andakitty]

I wish some of the people who actually played the game at demos at the Mongoose open house and Continuum would be a little more forthcoming with what they experienced. There is a thread at rpg.net right now that fills in a little, but not much.