What's the concensus at this point...

[iamtim]

I feel inclined to think you have a bit of a bias with regards to Mongoose and MRQ as you are already selling product for MRQ on RPGNow, and your arguments seem to reflect that.

You are more than welcome to think that. It's been mentioned before on this forum, and I'll answer that concern the same way I did earlier:

I respond the way I do because I *personally* like MRQ.

I do not have a vested interest in RuneQuest succeeding; the system is open, and if RuneQuest tanks I'll continue publishing using the RQ SRD under the OGL; my "plain wrap" supplements might lose some value, but I actually have a few modifications I'm planning to make to fit Gatecrasher 2371 a little better than "stock" MRQ and it will work just as well with the RuneQuest logo as without it.

So please don't confuse my *personal* tastes with my *business* sense. I've been publishing for Fudge, so it's obvious my business sense sucks, heh.

None of the above, and I'm not 'pissed' at anything other than the continued tone of your posts ... Maybe if I stop responding you will feel that you can chalk up a mark in the 'I win the Internet' category and move on.

I'll apologize yet again if my posts are coming across with a tone. I tried to make it very clear in my last post that there's no intent of snarkiness or abnormal tone.

Nor am I tring to "win the Internet" -- I am honestly very, very confused over any remaining confusion about combat or the combat tables now that the Player's Guide is out. You continue to express confusion.

To me, it seems real simple -- take the rulebook, take the Player's Guide, and follow the rules in the rulebook as clarified in the Player's Guide.

I'm trying to understand why you are still having confusion, why you are still worrying about posts that were made before the Player's Guide was released, but instead of helping me to understand you accuse me of snarkiness and having a "tone".

 

[atgxtg]

Uh guys, I think it is time for everyone to calm down and step back from this before it goes over the edge.

I can see both sides point and I think there is a little unpleasantness coming from both directions, where intentional or not.

Let's play nice. Please.
If someone wants to PM me with thier complaint viewpint I'll try to help claify something but lets tone this done.

 

[Melkor]

I think you are right atgxtg, I have spent enough time posting in this thread without accomplishing anything constructive.

Tim -

I personally like MRQ too, and I want it to succeed - I just think it needs some clarification in addition to whats in the Player's Guide PDF and the Rulebook.

To answer one final point in your last post - In my post above, I mentioned dismissing Matt's 'clarification' post altogether, and the fact that just looking at the Player's Guide PDF results in having to ignore the Overextended and straight Riposte results from the Rulebook - to me, that 'fixes' something that seemed to work as written in the rulebook (albeit with the two-roll system illustrated in the Combat example) - which leads to confusion.

Why put out a 'fix' that invalidates the Overextended result on the Dodge table which was clearly meant to be an option in the rules, and which seemed to work without need of the Player's Guide PDF clarification which renders it impossible to 'officially' accomplish?

If the rules are going to stand as listed in the Player's Guide PDF, I would like to see Mongoose come out with some interrum options that state how Overextended and straight Riposte can be accomplished (without Matt's unofficial suggestion to allow a defender to Parry or Dodge an unsuccessful attack), or correct the current tables - which I have seen several people state were 'playtest tables' that made it into the rules instead of the final versions (but I haven't seen anything from Mongoose confirming that) - to somehow include Overextended and straight Riposte.

I can make the system work with atgxtg suggested Parry and Dodge tables, or my own house rules, but not everyone wants to house rule, or feels they should have to.

See RMS' post above - he mentions "skepticism about whether they were intentionally left there or whether (Matt) just doesn't want to admit an additonal error in the book...". Unfortunately, I think this may be a way a lot of folks are looking at MRQ after some of the points (which I see as confusing regardless of how you see them) listed above, and things like the 'halving' debate. That's not a good thing, and not a good reputation for a new system to develop - which I think we can agree that we both want to succeed - to have.

I've tried to be as clear as I can in explaining my point of view which obviously differs from yours. I guess it's fair to say we just don't see eye- to-eye on the subject. Maybe all of the back and forth will be beneficial to someone reading it.

As an aside, I actually purchased your 'plain wrap' monster supplement last week for use with the test combats we ran (and which led to the much-maligned 'confusion' mentioned so often in the posts above). That said, I wasn't hurling an insult at you with the bias comment. I think it's only natural to have something like that influence your opinions.

 

[Mac V]

Let's not forget that Matt said an alternate rule for the halving mechanic will appear in the Legendary Heroes book. The problem I have with straying from the main charts is there's been a dozen house fixes here. I'm going to use them until Mongoose has an "official" fix.