What's new in Deluxe?

[Loz]

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.

Nothing is being ignored. Just because someone from Mongoose - me or anyone else - doesn't post in response to every point being debated (and I think there actually has been a very good, fluid, sensible debate) doesn't mean its being ignored at all. We all keep an eye on the forums and watch carefully what is going on.

 

[Rurik]

Not this again! Here we go ...

1) Critical is now often worse than a winning the opposed success/success result.

2) AP's rarely used, which means...

3) Shields are pretty much obsolete as they are no better at parrying than a kitchen knife*. (2 improvement rolls to increase weapon&shield over 1 improvement roll to increase 2 handed weapon or 2weapon fighting).

4) The new combat table is bigger than the old, but actually has reduced the number of common results. Furthermore, the opposed shift rule frequently confuses people. Posters here, and other people I have talked to, often misunderstand (or miss completely) that bit. Intuitively the success/success result on the table seems like it should be one of the most common results, not one of the rarest. How it works is not easily grasped, or at least not presented clearly enough.

Those are the biggest problems with the tables. For all that, I'm a bit confused about what they fixed, other than the AP's are too low complaint (now they are infinite in most cases). They certainly haven't removed confusion from the system, or added possible results for the added complexity.

Also, I'm not sure if the question of how to handle spellcharge enchantments with the new opposed spellcasting rule has ever been answered. Since spellcharge effects are always cast successfully do they have a 100% for the purpose of the opposed roll? If so, they are very powerful now considering the math behind opposed odds.

To end on a positive note ( :shock: ) the skill over 100 resolution and Fumble Tables are great!

*A kitchen knife oddly being an excellent choice for parrying before the latest update :?

 

[gamesmeister]

Also, I'm not sure if the question of how to handle spellcharge enchantments with the new opposed spellcasting rule has ever been answered. Since spellcharge effects are always cast successfully do they have a 100% for the purpose of the opposed roll? If so, they are very powerful now considering the math behind opposed odds.

I guess the best way is for the spell caster to roll the dice anyway, just to produce an opposed roll. Regardless of the roll, his spell is still cast automatically, even if it has no effect because it was resisted.

To end on a positive note ( :shock: ) the skill over 100 resolution and Fumble Tables are great!

Definitely.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Rurik, get over it. There are flaws. Since everyone is going to use some houserules anyway, they will not be fixed. That's all.

There have been suggestions about how to fix points 1-4. Someone does not even see them as issues. Since we know the most common fixes, we are prepared for the houserule sets we are most likely to meet at conventions.

This is not the biggest problem in MRQ. In many cases this "rule uncertainty" might even help .

 

[Rurik]

Rurik, get over it. There are flaws. Since everyone is going to use some houserules anyway, they will not be fixed. That's all.

Well forums are for opinions, and I certainly have them. I feel pretty strongly that the new combat update to the rules is flawed. And reading upthread I'm not alone here. I intend to post my opinion whenever this subject comes up and will continue to do so.

And I don't feel it is pointless. I'm not doing this just because I'm a whiny bitch but because I feel it is part of my civic duty as a board regular to give my opinion. Mongoose employees say they listen and these points are not ignored - maybe I'm foolish to believe, but hey, we did get a new players update eventually. I even like some parts of it. I hope they'll fix the remaining issues and haven't given up on them.

This is not the biggest problem in MRQ. In many cases this "rule uncertainty" might even help .

Hmm. I'm never a fan of rule uncertainty, particularly in core mechanics. Out of curiousity, what are the bigger problems?

 

[atgxtg]

Rosen,

If nothing is going to be fixed by Mongoose and everything is going to be fixed through houserules, why bother to buy anything from Mongoose at att? Why should WE send THEM money if WE are the one who are going to have to fix things and get them working?

For a year, I kept hearing how it was an improvement that weapons had low AP scores. Now it is an improvement that AP scores are virtually meaningless.

Don't you think game mechanics are an important topic?

 

[RosenMcStern]

I feel pretty strongly that the new combat update to the rules is flawed. And reading upthread I'm not alone here.

Absolutely. Do not forget that I was the one who complained most.

I intend to post my opinion whenever this subject comes up and will continue to do so.

And I don't feel it is pointless. I'm not doing this just because I'm a whiny bitch but because I feel it is part of my civic duty as a board regular to give my opinion.

Yep, but do not complain more than once per issue. Having more people complaining about one rule is more significant than having one complaining repeatedly.

This is not the biggest problem in MRQ. In many cases this "rule uncertainty" might even help .

Hmm. I'm never a fan of rule uncertainty, particularly in core mechanics. Out of curiousity, what are the bigger problems?

Well, we all had a bunch of houserules for older RQs. We'll have a bunch for MRQ. Do not forget that we now have the same core rules for Glorantha and YK/EC, which was not the case twenty years ago (OMG, am I that old? :shock: ).

Biggest problem? Runes in Glorantha. My biggest complaint with RQ3 was the POW loss for 1-use divine magic. My houserules are still in use in a 20-people group. This is now fixed (and yes, I know you do not like the fix). Good. Sorcery is way better. Good.

But not being able to use one of your integrated runes as the price for your ransom, and having Orlanthi integrate Chaos Runes to cast skybolt, this is a big problem, especially in Glorantha. This is what needs houeseruling. Big houseruling. Possibly an official fix, before someone gets the wrong attitude about Glorantha.

 

[gamesmeister]

Absolutely. Do not forget that I was the one who complained most.

Yep, but do not complain more than once per issue. Having more people complaining about one rule is more significant than having one complaining repeatedly.

Hehe, am I the only one to see the irony in these two comments? :wink:

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Rurik, get over it. There are flaws. Since everyone is going to use some houserules anyway, they will not be fixed. That's all.

This is a really really poor excuse for producing a flawed ruleset. Eeryone can choose to use houerules if they want, but they shouldn't have to use them because the rules are poorly thought out or explained - especially when the rules are supposed to be a clarification and improvement on the previously poorly thought out and explained rules...

 

[DigitalMage]

Rurik, get over it. There are flaws. Since everyone is going to use some houserules anyway, they will not be fixed. That's all.

I like to run by the book - I have run Shadowrun 3rd and 4th editions by the book (as I was demoing it). I have run World of Darkness by the book. I have run Star Wars D20 by the book.

Mongoose Runequest is the first game that I feel I really will have to houserule - and that is without having played it, just reading the rules is enough to highlight the flaws to me - that cannot be a good thing!

If it weren't for Slaine I would likely have ditched MRQ as a bad idea based purely on this issue as it is one that will come up each and every game session most likely!

 

[RosenMcStern]

Too bad this is not a RQ2/RQ3 forum, otherwise I would get an experience check in "Incite the crowd"

especially when the rules are supposed to be a clarification and improvement on the previously poorly thought out and explained rules...

This is probably the most important subject. Except that I do not think the original rules were poorly thought out. I think the worst point in the update PDF is that it fixed what was not broken. Spell resistance worked well before the update, too, it is just that many people had not understood the mechanics of Overcharging. This has been admitted by the authors, too.

I spent hours trying to show to my old group that the different number of CAs depending on DEX was in fact not a problem because you only spent a reaction when your [higher DEX] opponent connected. All gone with the update. With pre-declaration of defenses, master swordsman vs. three trollkin = dead master, as he is likely to use his reactions against the blows that miss. Another regression.

And we could name more.

The point is that many people on the forums stated "the update is ok, or at least it is an improvement". I even ran a poll, remember. So the general consensus is that most things are ok with the update, and everyone can houserule what he dislikes.

The part about runes in Gloranthan games is less a matter of opinion, instead. Glorantha is an established setting where there are some general facts that are acknowledged by everyone, and Your Glorantha May Vary. But if the core rules suggest something that is opposed to acknowledged canon (resurrected Humakti and Storm Bulls integrating Chaos Runes), then we are teaching it wrong to the newbies. But there is another thread to discuss it.

As for why we should give our money to Mongoose for rules we have to modify, I am not willing to comment, as I am an independent publisher

 

[gamesmeister]

I spent hours trying to show to my old group that the different number of CAs depending on DEX was in fact not a problem because you only spent a reaction when your [higher DEX] opponent connected. All gone with the update. With pre-declaration of defenses, master swordsman vs. three trollkin = dead master, as he is likely to use his reactions against the blows that miss. Another regression.

Just to comment on this point, DEX based CAs were equally flawed before the players update, because your argument assumes we are talking about low to mid level characters. Once characters achieve high level with weapon skills (perhaps 80% or above), the chances are that even though you got to see if your opponent hit previously, the likelihood is that they would, and therefore you would have to spend the Reaction. There was a good chance that your DEX 13 opponent would have a free hit against you almost every round, regardless of your skill level.

Two high level swordsmen duel it out, one with DEX 12 and one with DEX13 - both will hit most of the time, but the one with DEX 13 will always have enough Reactions to parry his opponent, and possibly respond with the occasional riposte, while the one with DEX 12 won't even have enough to parry all your attacks, let alone make any free attacks of their own. As I keep banging on about, we're talking about a 50% increase in the attacks you have over your opponent every round. 50%!!! What other part of the game has this kind of differential? You don't see Runecasters with POW 13 able to cast 50% more spells than guys with POW 12.

I think those hours you spent trying to convince your group were wasted...the more you increase your weapon skills, the more fixed CAs become a big problem

 

[RosenMcStern]

My concern is not the difference between two swordmasters of DEX 12 and 13 (RQ3 SR had steeper curves). Use the (SR+d10) / 10 variant rule and the difference smoothens.

It is the master swordsman vs. three trollkins scenario that pisses me off. A man with 100%+ skill can tell which of his opponents is better to parry. Unfortunately, with the new update this does not happen in MRQ. Not even making CAs dependant on a die roll.

 

[Rurik]

It is the master swordsman vs. three trollkins scenario that pisses me off.

Me too!

I'd have survived that Trollkin easily using the original MRQ rules!

 

[gamesmeister]

It is the master swordsman vs. three trollkins scenario that pisses me off. A man with 100%+ skill can tell which of his opponents is better to parry. Unfortunately, with the new update this does not happen in MRQ. Not even making CAs dependant on a die roll.

Yes, that is true, which is why I've reverted to the original rules - only use a reaction if you get hit. It's smoother, less dice rolling, and usually allows the occasional riposte or other free attack. It also fixes your 3 trollkin problem.

I've tried the new opposed roll rules, I've tried the non-tabular rules we developed on these forums, and in the end I've reverted back to a modified version of the original rules.

At the beginning of combat I roll once for SR order which remains the same for the entire combat, and then each round each combatant rolls for the number of CAs they get. Other than that, I use the original MRQ combat rules, albeit with the fixed combat tables.

 

[RosenMcStern]

If it is not broken.....

 

[Sinisalo]

If it is not broken.....

It's not broken if you like your games stuck in a 1980s timewarp. I like RQ3 but it went on to be developed through Pendragon and Stormbringer into a far more subtle game that answered problems.

One of those problems was scalability. When your characters got past the 90% mark there was no longer any real point in playing, it just got silly. The mechanics just could not handle games that involved incredibly talented individuals. Pendragon and Heroquest both dealt with this in very sophisticated ways and the update does too.

This is not quite my twopenneth but i won't bore everyone with an essay.

As always this just my opinion.

 

[gamesmeister]

Errr, I think he was referring to the original edition of MRQ rather than RQ3...

 

[atgxtg]

Errr, I think he was referring to the original edition of MRQ rather than RQ3...

Yeah, but his argument sort of holds for that too. RQ3 wasn't broken, but got "fixed".

But, Rosen's opinion that MRQ combat wasn't broken, and that the new "shields are useless" update isn't broken either doesn't seem to be true.

Also, that topic is a LOT more important than "Runes in Glorantha". Runes in Glorantha only applies to one setting, while the core game mechanic applies to every MRQ setting. People running campaigns in other settings won't be affected one way or the other by Glorantha.

Basically, this is boiling down to what is more important to Rosen. All fine and dandy, except anyone else (say, oh, Rurik), can and will have a different set of priorities, and they are just a valid as Rosen's, and they have just as much a right to squawk about what they want.

No one is saying "learn to live with the runes as they are, Rosen".


Now if someone is buying 1000 copies of the book....

 

[RMS]

One of those problems was scalability. When your characters got past the 90% mark there was no longer any real point in playing, it just got silly. The mechanics just could not handle games that involved incredibly talented individuals.

That's a common misconception about RQ2/3, but those systems actually work pretty well in practice at high levels. We've run campaigns with characters with very high skills (200%+ for one) and RQ works just fine. It is scaled to normal people, so there are dimishing returns, but the characters are still fun and easily challenged.

I'd disagree on SB being an improvement on RQ too. SB is a great game, but it's more correct IMO to call it a simplification of RQ, not an overall improvement. I like both.