What parts of RQM do you really like?
- Thread starter homerjsinnott
- Start date
Nickbergquist
Mongoose
homerjsinnott said:
I think only old-school RQers who fell in love with 2nd edition and earlier can truly try and argue that MRQ has nothing going for it (imo :lol: )
Speaking as someone suffering from terminal D20 burnout, I find MRQ to be the breath of fresh air that breathes life back in to my weary GM's bones. The real arguments in favor of MRQ as I see it are:
1. Realism. This game is much better at modelling realistic fantasy than most others are (except GURPS).
2. Well supported. I really like a game that seems to have some steam behind it; I'm a collector, damnit! I dislike systems that start strong than simply evaporate (cough >Monte Cook< cough).
3. Unusual magic, and diverse forms of such. MRQ only adds to and expands upon earlier forms of RQ magic, and leaves the door wide open for new and interesting styles and themes. Back in the day, I used to rune 3rd edition RQ with an entirely home brew free-form magic system for a while, so the idea of differing systems appeals to me.
4. Better than just Glorantha! The strength of the Runequest system lies in it's flex. Mongoose is happily supporting it with literary adaptations of Hawkmoon and Lankhmar, and I eagerly await additional support elsewhere. No, I don't use "other people's campaigns," but I do love reading them! I am also eager to see how the Diomin stuff looks from Otherworlds, and am very hopeful for future third party releases.
5. It's OGL. Nuff said, I can write and publish my own stuff for it, too.
6. It's alive!!!!! It's not D20, it seems to have a developing fan base, it's a decent system, and it's in print. Prior to MRQ, my chances of starting a new RQ game were: zilch. Post MRQ, I'm already playing again for the first time since 1994. Woo hoo! Yes, gamers are a fickle lot. But I gotta roll with it, so if being in print is what it takes, then hey.....
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
iamtim said:weasel_fierce said:
I assume you were referring to my comment?
If so, then I ask... why? I mentioned that I don't like the resistance table, why would I want to keep using the resistance table when I can do the same thing with opposed rollls?
If you weren't referring to my comment, well, then... move along, nothing to see here.
I was referring to you.. I think
Opposed rolls work fine, but I like the other option as well. There's things that may not be covered by a skill, and things where I like the option of basing it specifically off a stat, rather than a skill.
More options = happy weasel
What I really like in MRQ :
*Cultural background/profession skill system : Quick, simple and logical.
*Skill opposition system (although criticals should beat normal success)
*The Runic skills in Runic magic
*A more dynamic combat system
What I really dislike in MRQ :
*Very low skill base chances
*Localized Hit Points
*Characteristic generation method
*The way combat actions are handled
*Cultural background/profession skill system : Quick, simple and logical.
*Skill opposition system (although criticals should beat normal success)
*The Runic skills in Runic magic
*A more dynamic combat system
What I really dislike in MRQ :
*Very low skill base chances
*Localized Hit Points
*Characteristic generation method
*The way combat actions are handled
gamesmeister
Banded Mongoose
Mugen said:
<scratches head>
I'm still trying to figure this one out... :wink:
gamesmeister said:
I was not clear on this one : By "combat actions" I meant the Combat Actions attribute.
In other words, I like multiple actions/reactions, but I don't like the fact their number is simply based on DEX, making DEX 13 characters ways more able in melee than DEX 12 ones.
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
canology said:
Same thing :wink:
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
Mugen said:
Could you say a little more?
gamesmeister
Banded Mongoose
Mugen said:
Ah, gotcha.
I agree on both points btw. Combat is definitely more interesting than it used to be, but I also dislike the fixed number of CAs - this was probably my first house rule
The Good
=========
0. The Glorantha and Lankhmar books have been excellent (gliches aside).
1. Combat is smoother
Only locations need to be tracked.
Though not sure if we're playing whats described in the core book, and we have housed ruled a few bits.
CA... one action and one reaction.
Resilence is fixed to CON x5
2. Hero points and the ability to award role playing.
3. Sorcery is far better... still gross at high skill%, but the new experience system levels the game field a little.
4. Rune magic... ... I kind of like the idea, but in practice to get good at casting runes seems an expenseive task.
5. Skill rationalisations....
Though we've extracted Brawn as STRx5 - from athletics
Added read/Write <Language>
Got a bit of a downer on
=================
Character Generation... Its quick, but doesn't take into the account the characters age... but does have rules for more heroic campaigns etc in the companion... it would have been cool to have those rules in the core book... but theres only so much I suppose you can fit in a core rule book.
Divine magic and Spirit combat - I feverently dislike... but applying RQ3 mechanics to these doesn't seem to break the rest of the game, which is fine...
=========
0. The Glorantha and Lankhmar books have been excellent (gliches aside).
1. Combat is smoother
Only locations need to be tracked.
Though not sure if we're playing whats described in the core book, and we have housed ruled a few bits.
CA... one action and one reaction.
Resilence is fixed to CON x5
2. Hero points and the ability to award role playing.
3. Sorcery is far better... still gross at high skill%, but the new experience system levels the game field a little.
4. Rune magic... ... I kind of like the idea, but in practice to get good at casting runes seems an expenseive task.
5. Skill rationalisations....
Though we've extracted Brawn as STRx5 - from athletics
Added read/Write <Language>
Got a bit of a downer on
=================
Character Generation... Its quick, but doesn't take into the account the characters age... but does have rules for more heroic campaigns etc in the companion... it would have been cool to have those rules in the core book... but theres only so much I suppose you can fit in a core rule book.
Divine magic and Spirit combat - I feverently dislike... but applying RQ3 mechanics to these doesn't seem to break the rest of the game, which is fine...
homerjsinnott said:
Okay.
Cultural background/profession skill system
It didn't seem very impressive to me when I first read it, but in the end I find it very effective and logical.
Skill opposition system
IMHO, "roll-under blackjack" is the best option available for a roll-under system. However, I recognize there are some major flaws in MRQ's version (skills over 100%, no impact of critical rolls, and "low roll wins if both fails").
The Runic skills in Runic magic
I always prefer when a system uses "skills" instead of "charateristics" to determine success chance. Note that I don't like the idea of runes as objects that have to be kept in hand to cast a spell...
A more dynamic combat system
I like the idea of Actions & Reactions. I was less and less satisfied wth the quite static nature of RQ3 strike ranks.
Very low skill base chances
A beginning character simply hasn't got enough skill points to have average scores (say 50/60) in "common" skills and a professional level (70/80) in his best ones.
Localized Hit Points
Too much book-keeping IMHO.
I prefer Generic Hit Points along with a "major wound" system".
Characteristic generation method
It works fine in D&D where all stats are 3d6-based. But using 2d6+6 for SIZ and INT gives ridiculously high numbers for both of them.
The way combat actions are handled
I already answered this topic. I'd prefer either of the options below :
-CA as a maximum number of actions/reactions per turn, with a cumulative malus for performing more than 1 action and 1 reaction in a round.
-CA based on Initiative Roll. For instance : Number of Actions/Reactions = (Initiative/6).
gamesmeister
Banded Mongoose
Mugen said:
Agreed, even with the improved numbers for experienced starting characters, the number of available points to spend is way too low. Easily fixed though.
Mugen said:
I can recommend a third way: After adding a D10 to your SR Modifier to establish turn order during combat, use the result to determine CAs
1-10: 1 CA
11-20: 2 CAs
21-30: 3 CAs
31-40: 4 CAs
I've also toyed with other ideas that produce more random results, such as:
On a roll of 10, roll again and add both rolls (if another 10 is rolled, keep going).
On a roll of 1, roll again - another 1 means 1 CA only this turn
frogspawner
Mongoose
If you interpret Runes as divine blood-crystals that get absorbed into the blood-stream when integrated, would that make you happier with them?Mugen said:
Agreed.Mugen said:
Oh very agreed! Only determine hit location if it's significant.Mugen said:
How about rolling 3d6 for SIZ/INT but rounding anything below 8 up to 8?Mugen said:
gamesmeister said:
That seems pretty cool. At least the principle. I'm not sure about the actual breakdown of numbers. It would be pretty neat if it actually resulted in a regular person getting 1-3 (or 4) actions as the flow of battle changes, with the abilities of the character changing the odds but not the possibilities. So that a quick&smart character would still occasionally only get one action.
The clarification you had at the end has merit.
What about if a roll of 1 always means just one combat action, and the 10 is indeed and open ended 10. That would do it.
weasel_fierce said:
That's what Persistence, Resilience, and Brute Force are for; essentially opposed stat rolls.
In *my* MRQ, Persistence, Resilience, and Brute Force are just names given to POWx5, CONx5, and STRx5 respectively.
There's nothing stopping you from doing opposed rolls based on STATx5, either. To me, opposed rolls are way easier than the resistance table.
CharlieMonster
Mongoose
homerjsinnott said:
I never liked it, too much maths and not enough flexibliity
homerjsinnott said:
So far I have written adventures for the Warhammer Known World, Thieves World, Glorantha, a Homebrew Campaign and Highlander with no hassle at all. I know some people have beefs of one kind or another with the system (for the record I do as well) but that doesn't detract from the general "universality" of the system.
homerjsinnott said:
Really can't agree with you on this one. I'll admit I'm not down with the snouts (sic "a few Exceptions") , but the quality of the art is generally very good. We'll have to agree to disagree on Dobsky's "kindergarten stylee" (although, needless to say I'm right and you're wrong !!!
)homerjsinnott said:
As spotted by Canology. Hardly "out of print" though as he has two more books to come yet.
CharlieMonster
Mongoose
BTW - A page and a half before what we like about the system ends and we start picking the system apart is that a forum best?!? :lol:
CharlieMonster said:We'll have to agree to disagree on Dobsky's "kindergarten stylee" (although, needless to say I'm right and you're wrong !!!
Poor mr. Dobsky. If I recall correctly he was the guy that drew maps for various Avalon Hill products. His maps are actually very nice.
Avalon Hill made him create art for the Troll Gods (I think it was) books. To make things worse, the originals are obviously in color, but the prints grayscale, and in huge, page wide format.
I'd quite like to see the originals in colour. They could actually be quite interesting.
gamesmeister
Banded Mongoose
Adept said:
Yeah, I did consider that too, but I was a bit worried about too many 1's, although I haven't playtested it.
The average SR modifer is 13 for a starting character, so that gives the following percentages:
1CA = 10%
2CAs = 60%
3CAs = 27%
4CAs = 3%
To me that seems weighted a little too high towards the 1CA, hence why I currently roll again looking for a second 1. Perhaps if you roll a 1 you should still roll again, but just subtract the result, which would give an average starting character the following:
1CA = 8%
2CAs = 62%
3CAs = 27%
4CAs = 3%
Better, but there is an additional die roll required.
Similar threads
