What's new in Deluxe?

[gamesmeister]

Sorry, I don't follow.

It looks to be the same as the one published recently.

 

[medievaladventures]

I went yesterday to the FLGS and Runequest Deluxe was not there yet. However, since I was intent on buying deluxe, I picked up Faery's Tale Deluxe.

 

[Shadow Queen]

i ment the perception and reesiliance on the sheets in the pdf update

 

[DigitalMage]

Disappointing about the opposed rolls in combat - you don't need to find a definitive victor in combat because the table allows for partial success on both sides (e.g. only doing minimum damage is a partial success for both the attack and dodge).

This really does make me not want to bother with Mongoose RuneQuest, if it weren't for Slaine I would likely not bother!

What annoys me most is that there is specifically a statement in the core book about how much care they took with the combat system:

Overall, a lot of design attention was focussed on the combat rules.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Disappointing about the opposed rolls in combat - you don't need to find a definitive victor in combat because the table allows for partial success on both sides (e.g. only doing minimum damage is a partial success for both the attack and dodge).

If you don't want to use opposed rolls in combat, just use the tables as is. If you want fast and brutal then use them. Your choice.

 

[DigitalMage]

If you don't want to use opposed rolls in combat, just use the tables as is. If you want fast and brutal then use them. Your choice.

I guess I can and it is simple enough, I just hate having to houserule, especially as I will likely play and run mostly at cons where you have to explain any houserules you are using and get used to any different house rules that other GMs are using.

It just frustrates me that Mongoose apparently cocked it up once and then IMHO do so again with the update

I will hang fire on buying Deluxe until I am sure a PDF version will be available.

 

[hdrider67]

So...

What's the chance of getting Deluxe by EOB tomorrow? Have the warehouses been shipping the product for a few days now?

(I'm leaving for Germany on Wednesday and was hoping to be able to read MRQD)

 

[gamesmeister]

Disappointing about the opposed rolls in combat - you don't need to find a definitive victor in combat because the table allows for partial success on both sides (e.g. only doing minimum damage is a partial success for both the attack and dodge).

If you don't want to use opposed rolls in combat, just use the tables as is. If you want fast and brutal then use them. Your choice.

Pete, what was the reasoning behind introducing opposed rolls into combat? I think I know the answer, but I'm interested to know what the thought processes were between yourself and Loz (and any others involved).

 

[CruelDespot]

Disappointing about the opposed rolls in combat - you don't need to find a definitive victor in combat because the table allows for partial success on both sides (e.g. only doing minimum damage is a partial success for both the attack and dodge).

That result would be very very rare. It would only happen on an exact tie, when both the attacker and defender roll the same degree of success with the exact same d% number (so less than 1% of the time). I think you might have overlooked the description of how to use the table. It is not adjacent to the table where you might expect (I am going off the SRD here). It is under step 3 of close combat attacks.

"If the success levels are equal, the higher success roll wins and the lower roll is demoted by one level. If both combatants roll a normal success, then the higher roll remains a success, but the lower roll is downgraded to a failure, or if both roll a critical success the lower roll is downgraded to a normal success. If the participants achieve the same level of success with the same score on the die, then no downgrading takes place."

So the partial success you referenced would only happen when neither roll gets downgraded. Sorry if that interferes with your disgruntlement.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Pete, what was the reasoning behind introducing opposed rolls into combat? I think I know the answer, but I'm interested to know what the thought processes were between yourself and Loz (and any others involved).

Opposed Rolls = Marmite, You either love 'em or you hate 'em...

Personally I like them, as does Loz. They are the best mechanic in the whole of MRQ, primarily because they result in a decisive winner. There are no more questions about whether the sneaky person remains hidden or the searcher spots them if both characters succeed. This is a useful tool in any d100 based game system since skill contests at high skill levels can get bogged down, or give an unfair 'default' edge to one side or the other.

The second advantage is the steeper probability curve of winning with two disparate skill values. A 20% difference can give the user of the higher skill (depending on the skill %s) a 66-75% chance of winning the opposed roll. Although this makes some people shudder, I actually perceive it as a good thing since it adds more value to skills less than 100%. I.e. you can actually be the master of a fight using a character with only 80% in their weapon skill when faced with 60% opponents. It adds needed granularity, especially in a d100 system which in its Elric incarnation had average NPC's regularly running about with 101%+ weapon skills.

Besides the game system and mathematical advantages, the third reason for making Combat an opposed roll, was that it fitted better into the rest of the MRQ rules set. It seemed strange that opposed rolls were used everywhere else, save for combat.

What we developed was not a perfect fix. I balanced the tables so that people who only wanted to use straight rolls in combat would still be happy. The opposed rule should have been optional, for those who want faster and more deadly combat. Both have their place, depending on your game style. And more importantly, both work.

Its now a case of choose your own poison, or come up with your own house rules if you want to tweak! :wink:

Unfortunately as the rules currently stand, it is impossible to smoothly harmonise the concepts of using static results tables with opposed rolls. It cannot be done without rebuilding the combat rules from the ground up... Which of course I later did.

We simply did the best we could to repair and improve with the minimum of modification, what was already there. On the whole, the response has been favourable... (although I wish Mongoose had also included my revisions to wound levels!)

 

[Loz]

Pete's reply is as comprehensive as you can get.

Just to add, the opposed rolls were designed for the GMs' Guide originally, and to be optional. My brief was to develop the system but not to fiddle too much with the core otherwise it would result in reworking from the ground up.

Having run God-knows how many combats with the opposed system, for both Glorantha and Elric, I can honestly say that the system runs well and fluidly. I stand by it. 110%. I know some people hate it, but whatever we'd come up with someone would have hated it for some reason, small or big, and I really, really don't have the time or energy to debate this continually.

 

[DigitalMage]

That result would be very very rare. It would only happen on an exact tie, when both the attacker and defender roll the same degree of success with the exact same d% number (so less than 1% of the time).

And that is exactly my problem! Sorry if I wasn't clear. In non-combat opposed rolls, having a way to determine a victor in everything but an exact tie is a good thing, as often stating that both parties succeeds is confusing e.g. someone trying to sneak past someone who is attempting to spot intruders - if both succeed what actually happened?

However, in combat there is a nice table that has specific results for when both parties get the same level of success so there is no confusion so you don't need to always find a definitive victor.

E.g. what happens when the attack and dodge both succeed? The attack does minimum damage; the target managed to dodge some of the blow but not all - no confusion!

Having results on a table that will occur less than 1% of the time is wasteful, and (and this is my main bugbear) for parrying makes the AP value of the weapon or shield largely irrelevant as only if both parties get a critical or they both get successes with exactly the same dice result are APs taken into account. This makes Shield use absolutely worthless! And guess what my first character I created for MRQ specialised in? :roll:

I think you might have overlooked the description of how to use the table. It is not adjacent to the table where you might expect (I am going off the SRD here). It is under step 3 of close combat attacks.

"If the success levels are equal, the higher success roll wins and the lower roll is demoted by one level. If both combatants roll a normal success, then the higher roll remains a success, but the lower roll is downgraded to a failure, or if both roll a critical success the lower roll is downgraded to a normal success. If the participants achieve the same level of success with the same score on the die, then no downgrading takes place."

Initially I did overlook that and I was happy with the player update (other than the fact that it made the GM screen a mostly worthless buy as the main tables you will refer to have changed). It was only when someone pointed out the downgrading of success levels that I was annoyed - extra complexity and making shields useless.

So the partial success you referenced would only happen when neither roll gets downgraded. Sorry if that interferes with your disgruntlement.

As stated, it doesn't interfere with my disgruntlement - it is the cause of it!!!!!! :evil:

 

[DigitalMage]

Personally I like them, as does Loz. They are the best mechanic in the whole of MRQ, primarily because they result in a decisive winner.

I completely agree with this (for non-combat rolls).

Besides the game system and mathematical advantages, the third reason for making Combat an opposed roll, was that it fitted better into the rest of the MRQ rules set. It seemed strange that opposed rolls were used everywhere else, save for combat.

The problem is that combat was different in another way as well - it used a table to work out exactly what happens when people get the same level of success, and that result is different than if one failed and another succeeded.

IMHO if you had wanted to introduce opposed rolls in combat you should have dropped the tables and gone with the binary result of a success or failure, or at most taken account into accunt a critical success for one party being a special hit.

E.g.
Dodge
Attacker Crits (and Defender doesn't Crit): Attack inflicts maximum damage
Attacker succeeds*: Roll damage normally
Both attacker and defender fail: Attack fails but defender has to give ground
Defender succeeds: Attack fails
Defender Crits (and Attacker doesn't crit): Attack fails and attacker over extended

*Whether this is a success because attacker succeeded and defender failed, or because both succeeded but attacker rolled higher, or because both rolled crits but attacker rolled higher is irrelevant, under opposed rolls all that matters is who won.

The opposed rule should have been optional, for those who want faster and more deadly combat.

if this had been the case I would have absolutely no problem with the new changes. So if this was how it was meant to be, will future printings of Deluxe include this, or are we stuck with opposed rolls being the official rule?

Both have their place, depending on your game style. And more importantly, both work.

The original rules work as well, but they weren't the best. The players update rules do work, but IMHO aren't the best either as they invalidate a particular skill choice (Shield use).

Unfortunately as the rules currently stand, it is impossible to smoothly harmonise the concepts of using static results tables with opposed rolls.

So why use opposed rolls in combat??????!!!!

Sorry if I appear overly critical, but I like to play by the book, a quirk that comes from prior experience of running official demos of games, running at conventions and not liking joining a game where the GM has instuted house rules that I don't like or have an understanding of.

 

[DigitalMage]

and I really, really don't have the time or energy to debate this continually.

Apologies, I know I am one of those who keeps banging on about this. Unfortunately for me this is the one sticking point that means I am undecided about whether to buy into the game line or not.

So far I have the Core and Companion in PDF format - if I decide to buy into the line I plan to buy hardcopy and PDF copies of Slaine and all the core books (Deluxe, Spells, GM book, legendary heroes etc).

Personally I think Slaine will swing it for me, but if it weren't for Slaine I would probably have stayed away.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Having results on a table that will occur less than 1% of the time is wasteful, and (and this is my main bugbear) for parrying makes the AP value of the weapon or shield largely irrelevant as only if both parties get a critical or they both get successes with exactly the same dice result are APs taken into account. This makes Shield use absolutely worthless! And guess what my first character I created for MRQ specialised in?

Somebody (actually very few people) dislike APs because they tie a weapon hardness to its ability to parry with. This is a good point, but introducing another value (the Parry Points) for weapons would be a bit too complicate, albeit realistic. In any case, we can assume that using APs is a good thing for most players, because "it feels RuneQuest".

So how can you reintroduce APs while keeping APs useful? It is a bit complicate, but I think it is worth it. Just introduce Block as a variant of Parry. When you Block you are not deflecting the strength of your opponent's blow with your weapon but just interposing it betwen you and the business edge of your foe's sword. Blocking an attack is not an opposed roll, so the "tied" result come out very often. Furthermore, when you block with a weapon, damage in excess of the weapon APs goes to the weapon, not to the wielder (or both if the GM is sadistic), so blocking with a weapon will result in it breaking after a few blows, while blocking with a shield is a viable tactic.

 

[gamesmeister]

Personally I like them, as does Loz. They are the best mechanic in the whole of MRQ, primarily because they result in a decisive winner.

I doubt you'll find many dissenters on that score - opposed rolls are an excellent concept. It's just their application within the combat system that I personally have problems with.

The second advantage is the steeper probability curve of winning with two disparate skill values. A 20% difference can give the user of the higher skill (depending on the skill %s) a 66-75% chance of winning the opposed roll. Although this makes some people shudder, I actually perceive it as a good thing since it adds more value to skills less than 100%. I.e. you can actually be the master of a fight using a character with only 80% in their weapon skill when faced with 60% opponents. It adds needed granularity, especially in a d100 system which in its Elric incarnation had average NPC's regularly running about with 101%+ weapon skills.

Yeah, this is what I thought you'd say. As anyone who's played RQ for any length of time knows, combat between high level characters goes something like this:

"I hit"
"I parry"
"I hit"
"I parry"

etc etc, ad infinitum

Therefore I understand the need to mitigate this to a certain extent.

Besides the game system and mathematical advantages, the third reason for making Combat an opposed roll, was that it fitted better into the rest of the MRQ rules set. It seemed strange that opposed rolls were used everywhere else, save for combat.

But they're not. A PC who is searching for a scroll in a library does not make an opposed roll against the library, and one who is climbing a cliff doesn't make an opposed roll against the difficulty of a cliff. Opposed rolls are a mechanic that are used in certain circumstances, but by no means all.

What we developed was not a perfect fix. I balanced the tables so that people who only wanted to use straight rolls in combat would still be happy. The opposed rule should have been optional, for those who want faster and more deadly combat. Both have their place, depending on your game style. And more importantly, both work.

Yes, the opposed rule should have been optional, because while it might work in theory, it invalidates a number of areas of the game such as weapon APs and shield parries. IMHO, the hefty increase in dice rolling makes it clunky too, but maybe that's just me.

IMO, opposed rolls were the wrong way to go to bring granularity to combat - variable CAs per round are a much better solution. Partly because they remove the huge gulf between DEX 12 and DEX 13 (50% more attacks and parries for the latter every combat), but also because they remove that battle of attrition that results from high level skills. If you roll at the start of a combat round and only find yourself with 2 CAs as opposed to your opponent who has 3, you're in deep doo-doo, regardless of your 101% skill with a shield. They also increase the number of tactical decisions to be made in a combat round, rather than the bog standard hit/parry, hit/parry.

 

[gamesmeister]

I know some people hate it, but whatever we'd come up with someone would have hated it for some reason, small or big, and I really, really don't have the time or energy to debate this continually.

Loz, while it's true there will always be someone who doesn't like a particular rules mechanism, I think it's fair to say that when it receives as much criticism as this one, perhaps its worth looking at again.

And no offence, but there hasn't been a debate. There's been a lot of discussion between various forum members on this subject, but valid points raised during those discussions have pretty much been ignored by Mongoose. I appreciate you guys are very busy, and I'm thankful that you are so I can buy more of your books , but these are the core rules we're talking about and so issues like this will always have a big impact.

 

[RosenMcStern]

I have run a poll about the opposed roll and the new tables, and the results were:

a) most people like the new tables better than the old

b) 50% of posters like the opposed roll in combat, 50% do not

c) 30%+ posters do not mind switching rules and houseruling

So even though someone (including me) has raised valid points against this or that rule, the best idea is, apparently, to go with the "You can make the opposed roll optional" approach. As with most controversial rules (armor penalty anyone?). Just be prepared to play the other way at some conventions.

 

[Hyborian]

Having results on a table that will occur less than 1% of the time is wasteful, and (and this is my main bugbear) for parrying makes the AP value of the weapon or shield largely irrelevant as only if both parties get a critical or they both get successes with exactly the same dice result are APs taken into account. This makes Shield use absolutely worthless! And guess what my first character I created for MRQ specialised in?

I share your opinion on that matter. Here's one way to solve the problem :
Whenever both attack and dodge/parry succeed, consider that there is a tie if there are less than 10 points between the two die rolls (instead of both die rolls giving the same result).

 

[Loz]

But they're not. A PC who is searching for a scroll in a library does not make an opposed roll against the library, and one who is climbing a cliff doesn't make an opposed roll against the difficulty of a cliff. Opposed rolls are a mechanic that are used in certain circumstances, but by no means all.

That's very true. I think what Pete was trying to get across was instances where characters are acting against each other - such as in the classic sneak/spot example.

However there's no reason why you couldn't use opposed rolls very comfortably in the situations you describe. Searching a library? Assign a value to the library depending on its size and filing system. A cliff? Assign a rating for its height, inclination and (lack of) handholds. I think you'd only do this for those seriously dramatic (pardon the pun) cliffhanger moments. Again, its very much a personal preference sort of thing. You can easily throw a penalty at a straight skill test instead. But the opposed mechanics have a nice elegance to them that allow for such contests to be resolved definitively.