What's the concensus at this point...

[iamtim]

It seems like every official clarification that has come out so far has led to more questions and inconsistancies.

While "fixed" combat charts from Mongoose would be nice, I don't think I agree with you there. I mean, really, outside of the Player's Guide the only real issues I see are the combat charts. And those can work, if you're cool with ignoring the "attack fails" line and never seeing a riposte.

Well, there's skill halving, but I think we've all accepted that's the way Mongoose wants it and we won't see it touched until a later book. The combat charts are the only thing that you'd have trouble figuring out how they're supposed to work in the RAW.

 

[iamtim]

I'll hold on to my notes, just in case... : :wink:

Hey, once I get five "plain wrap" supplements under my belt, I'm going to start work on Gatecrasher 2371, which will be a full RuneQuest science-fantasy RPG. I will be doing a few things differently because of the flavor I want.

So you never know.

 

[atgxtg]

I'll hold on to my notes, just in case... : :wink:

Hey, once I get five "plain wrap" supplements under my belt, I'm going to start work on Gatecrasher 2371, which will be a full RuneQuest science-fantasy RPG. I will be doing a few things differently because of the flavor I want.

So you never know.

With the ROman notes pushing for a certain style of play and effects (like I need pia to "take out" shields again) I've probably done up several variant charts, armor tables, and weapon tables already. Collecting it all together might not be the worse idea I ever had. :idea:

 

[Melkor]

It seems like every official clarification that has come out so far has led to more questions and inconsistancies.

While "fixed" combat charts from Mongoose would be nice, I don't think I agree with you there. I mean, really, outside of the Player's Guide the only real issues I see are the combat charts. And those can work, if you're cool with ignoring the "attack fails" line and never seeing a riposte.

Well, there's skill halving, but I think we've all accepted that's the way Mongoose wants it and we won't see it touched until a later book. The combat charts are the only thing that you'd have trouble figuring out how they're supposed to work in the RAW.

The main 'problems' to me are the ones you mentioned - the Parry/Dodge tables (along with the Trigger requirements for the Parry/Dodge reactions), and the halving rule.

The latter being something that is problably going to stay as-is, with some options presented in Legendary Heroes - which I am fine with.

The confusion I mentioned comes from the rulebooks stating one thing, Matt's original 'Clarification Thread' stating something different, and then the Player's Guide PDF stating something different.

I just really want a final clear and concise answer from Mongoose so that I can start enjoying the game (without having to make my own rules tweaks just to make it work).

Yes, I have made my own house rules to address the issues in the meantime, but I want to know what Mongoose's stance is going to be.

I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[iamtim]

The confusion I mentioned comes from the rulebooks stating one thing, Matt's original 'Clarification Thread' stating something different, and then the Player's Guide PDF stating something different.

'Splain, por favor. I *thought* that Matt's clarification ran in line with the Player's Guide.

 

[atgxtg]

Where is Matt's "Orginal" clarification thread? I also seem to rembember some sort of discrepancy. :?:

 

[iamtim]

Where is Matt's "Orginal" clarification thread?

I dinna remember laddie, and since the Player's Guide thread is stickied it seems kinda moot.

*shrug*

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I'm thinking they would be more useful (and make more sense) if you wanted to model a defensive style of combat. One where you actively have your guard up all of the time, and wait for your opponent to make a mistake.

I don't think RQ combat, as it is written now or as it was ever written in the past, was meant to model that style.

 

[Richard]

This was my first venture into the world of forums after two misspent geeky decades designing and fiddling with my own, and others, game systems and fretting over the details of scenarios and my insanely detailed fantasy world. Ta to all who've come up with good RQ ideas, armour tables, Roman weapon variants etc. But it now seems to me to be going round in circles as the brand owners are digging their heels in and not using any of the many good workable alternatives posted. Ah, AD+D3rdEd, Tekumel... it was ever thus. I've got a first draft of alternative ('Fixes' is such a loaded term...) rules running to nearly 9 pages, which is too big to post I guess. Some personal preference (Gritty realism over massive superheroes, toned down non-human character races..), some 'best of forum' steals and some work to be done (Weapon idiosyncracies, magic details..). I've worked hard for game balance and playability but am going to have little or no time in coming weeks to develop this, play test or contribute on line. Anyone interested can e-mail
richardgorman@blueyonder.co.uk
and I'll zap it back to you as an e-mail attachment whenever I can. Likes of atgxtg and Tim might find something useful to pinch though I think it will work best as a package (Armour rule adjustments,criticals, tables..). Bye for now.

 

[Melkor]

'Splain, por favor. I *thought* that Matt's clarification ran in line with the Player's Guide.

Matt's 'clarification' thread (which I couldn't locate with a search under his name or the title) stated that you could parry or dodge an unsuccesful attack in order to attempt to get an Overextended or straight Riposte result.

The contradicted what was in the rulebook with regards to the "Trigger" requirements for a Parry or Dodge (i.e. - a 'Successful Attack'), but would have allowed for the "Attack Fails" row of the Parry/Dodge tables to be utilized - however statistically bad this would end up being for the character trying to Parry or Dodged with a "Fail/Fail" result now turning a failed attack into a succesful attack.

The Player's Guide states the following on the issue:

Q: Matthew Sprange said on the forums that you can react to a failed attack roll. Is that true?
A: Officially, no – there is no provision for that in the rulebook. As an optional rule, sure, you may find some use for it. The
combat tables allow it out of a sense of completeness – this is a kind of ‘placeholder’ for us, allowing us to introduce new rules in the future. For the basic rulebook alone, however, there is nothing ‘official’ to permit this. What you do at your own gaming table is up to you though!

 

[iamtim]

Q: Matthew Sprange said on the forums that you can react to a failed attack roll. Is that true?
A: Officially, no – there is no provision for that in the rulebook. As an optional rule, sure, you may find some use for it. The
combat tables allow it out of a sense of completeness – this is a kind of ‘placeholder’ for us, allowing us to introduce new rules in the future. For the basic rulebook alone, however, there is nothing ‘official’ to permit this. What you do at your own gaming table is up to you though!

*blink, blink*

Ok, so, what's the issue? The Players Guide is the clarification document. It supercedes what's in the rulebook and what's in the forums. I don't grok why you're calling for more clarification than than.

*shrug*

 

[Melkor]

I stated that there was confusion between the the rulebook, Matt's clarification thread, and the Player's Guide PDF. You asked me to explain. I did. I will try again.

The rulebook shows an example that suggests two combat rolls. The rulebook states that the trigger for Parry and Dodge reactions is a Succesful attack.

Matt's clarification thread stated that combat was one roll, and that the Parry and Dodge reactions did not require a succesful attack, but could work on a failed attack - and although that allowed for the "attack fails" row of the parry and dodge tables to be utilized, it didn't make much sense from the attacker's standpoint - seing as how a "Fail/Fail" result would suddenly make an attack that was originally a miss turn into a hit. Not worth it for the slim chance of a straight Riposte or Overextended result - but an option nonetheless.

The Player's Guide PDF is then released, stating that combat is one roll, the combat example in the rulebook is wrong, and that Matt's clarification thread stating that a failed attack could be parried or dodged was 'not official' - meaning that the original Parry and Dodge tables in the rulebook now show results that are impossible to obtain according to the Player's Guide PDF.

If that doesn't explain what I meant by 'confusion' in my original post, I don't know what will.

*blink, blink*

*shrug*

 

[Rurik]

*blink, blink*

Ok, so, what's the issue? The Players Guide is the clarification document. It supercedes what's in the rulebook and what's in the forums. I don't grok why you're calling for more clarification than than.

*shrug*

I stated that there was confusion between the the rulebook, Matt's clarification thread, and the Player's Guide PDF. You asked me to explain. I did. I will try again.

If that doesn't explain what I meant by 'confusion' in my original post, I don't know what will.

*blink, blink*

*shrug*

Lets see:

Batting Eyes? Check.

Body Language? Check.

Back and forth banter? Check.

I do beleive they are flirting!

(runs and hides)

 

[Melkor]

More like responding to snark with additional snark.

I'm too bashful to flirt on a public forum.

 

[iamtim]

More like responding to snark with additional snark.

There was no snark at all. I honestly don't see any problem, aside of you making things a lot harder than they need be.

There is the rulebook.

There is the Player's Guide.

The latter is the official clarification for the former. I don't care if Matt said, "you must spin around three times in your chair and toss a Big Mac over your left shoulder before making any combat rolls" on the forums; the game is officially played with what's in the rulebook and what's updated with the Player's Guide.

 

[Melkor]

Yeah, I guess the "*blink, blink*" portion of your post was just easy to misconstrue as snide ???

I am not 'making things hard' at all - I am simply trying to explain my initial use of the word 'confusion' after you asked for clarification.

Again, I stated initially that there was confusion between the three sources of information regarding combat. You asked me to clarify. Completely discounting Matt's initial 'clarification' thread and your clever big mac comment, there is still confusion - as the rulebook, along with the clarification PDF still leaves two impossible to achieve results on the Parry and Dodge tables.

If you simply took the combat example in the rulebook showing two rolls it eliminates the 'impossible to achieve' results on those tables - but the Player's Guide PDF says that is incorrect (causing confusion as to why those results are even on the tables, and why the clarification suddenly invalidates what seemingly works as listed in the rulebook).

That is further explained as a 'placeholder' for future use in the Player's Guide PDF - which has caused everyone I know who owns the rules (and several posters I have seen on the forums) scratching their heads at what seems to be fairly shoddy 'fixes' to something that seemed to work as first presented, and that leaves additional questions regarding the Parry and Dodge tables.

If the above explanation of 'confusion' doesn't sit well with you, and we have a difference of opinion, It's not going to keep me up at night worrying over it. That said, I think I've done as much as I can do here.

 

[RMS]

Again, I stated initially that there was confusion between the three sources of information regarding combat. You asked me to clarify. Completely discounting Matt's initial 'clarification' thread and your clever big mac comment, there is still confusion - as the rulebook, along with the clarification PDF still leaves two impossible to achieve results on the Parry and Dodge tables.

I guess I'm confused by your confusion also. If those results aren't possible, just ignore them. Obviously, they won't come up in play so aren't relevant anymore. I'll confess to some skepticism about whether they were intentionally left there or whether he just doesn't want to admit an additonal error in the book, but that's really beside the point.

Now, if your real issue is that you like those results and would like to see them come up in play, let's get another thread started about houseruling the combat. As written, you could certainly allow people to choose to use a reaction against a failed attack. Then they could come up, but only very rarely it would be foolhardy to do it. I don't think any RPG gets playing straight out of the box (at least that I've seen), so we might as well open up the hood now! I'm already on board with modifying armor skill penalties, will probably modify skill checks, and will almost certainly modify weapon damages and AP.

My initial impression of the flow of combat is fairly positive, but I do have a different combat system I'd like to try in some game and MRQ would be a good vehicle for it.

 

[iamtim]

Yeah, I guess the "*blink, blink*" portion of your post was just easy to misconstrue as snide ???

Well, my bad then. It's not meant to be snide, it's meant to be an expression of confusion.

I am not 'making things hard' at all - I am simply trying to explain my initial use of the word 'confusion' after you asked for clarification.

Ok, as I say this next bit, please keep in mind that I don't know you, I'm not trying to insult you or be snide; I'm just giving my impression of many of your posts on this forum.

You are making things hard. You continue to rally for clarification on things that have been clarified. You argue minute points and continue to attempt to push your position when the Player's Guide is right there. And when you are pointed to the Player's Guide, you bring up posts made before the Player's Guide was released that no one can even find anymore.

I can't figure out if you are pissed off that Mongoose had the audacity to publish a game called RuneQuest that is different from the original editions, if you are pissed off because the game isn't perfect and you had high hopes for it, if you're trolling just to keep debates about MRQ going, or if you really just don't grok MRQ.

But you are making things hard.

...

Again, please note I'm not attempting to insult or be snide. I'm really just trying to figure you out, and relaying my impressions of your postings here.

 

[iamtim]

there is still confusion - as the rulebook, along with the clarification PDF still leaves two impossible to achieve results on the Parry and Dodge tables.

Only for you. Matt stated specifically, and you even quoted it:

The combat tables allow it out of a sense of completeness – this is a kind of ‘placeholder’ for us, allowing us to introduce new rules in the future.

I don't understand how you can still have confusion over that.

 

[Melkor]

Tim -

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 making things hard.

No, I was simply trying to answer your request for clarification on what I stated has caused confusion not only to myself, but to others right here on the Mongoose forums, to the guys in my gaming group who attempted a dozen or so test combats using MRQ, and to a handful of other folks I have talked to who own the rulebook.

I can't figure out if you are pissed off that Mongoose had the audacity to publish a game called RuneQuest that is different from the original editions, if you are pissed off because the game isn't perfect and you had high hopes for it, if you're trolling just to keep debates about MRQ going, or if you really just don't grok MRQ.

None of the above, and I'm not 'pissed' at anything other than the continued tone of your posts.

In my 20+ years of gaming, I did not play RQ2, and played maybe three or four sessions of RQ3. I have no ties to the previous versions of the rules or the name Runequest. I had no high hopes for the game as it's not something that holds a lot of history for me.

I want the game to be clear and concise so that it can be approached without confusion. I don't think it's there yet, and I don't see why that seems to send you into a frenzy when I am simply respond to your request for clarification of 'confusion' in my original post.

But you are making things hard.

For the record, stating the same exact thing repeatedly doesn't make it true.

I can see that this is going to go nowhere. 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.