Which is your favourite RQ combat system

[Deleriad]

Having run MRQ for a while know I find myself interested to know what other people are doing when it comes to combat systems and I've never done a poll before so I thought I would kill two birds with one stone.

If you are running or playing Mongoose RuneQuest what combat system do you use?

1. The rules as written using the players' update. (This is an opposed roll system where equal results cause the loser to be downgraded.)

2. The original MRQ combat system - that is the unopposed combat system with a combat matrix as written in the original MRQ rule book.

3. A different opposed roll system? This might be Pete Nash's rules, something else or your own homebrew.

4. A different un-opposed roll system. This might be something like RQ2 or RQ3 or BRP.

5. Something else entirely.

It would be good if you could explain more if you answer 3-5.

 

[Rasta]

I like RQ3 combat rules the best so far.

Though when it comes to MRQ, I like Pete Nash's rules.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

My own, but I am somewhat biased!

 

[zozotroll]

Opposed modified by different threads here. And no I cant remeber where all the bits came from.

 

[Da Boss]

My own, but I am somewhat biased!

similar

a highly modified Stormbringer / BRP system

 

[Deleriad]

Interesting that so far the 'official' system seems least used. Maybe part of the issue is that people got into the habit of using their own version quite quickly and the others didn't want to change from the original.

Mind you, still only 12 responses. I would have thought that most people would use the MRQ system with just the odd tweak.

For the record I use my own opposed roll system as well but, ironically, I prefer MRQ's original system to the updated opposed roll system.

 

[SSWarlock]

I do use the updated MRQ system with a few tweaks..and those tweaks are coming under review as I become more familiar/comfortable with MRQ's combat. I've actually ended up trashing some of my tweaks after testing them a few times.

 

[Deleriad]

Well it seems that opposed roll combat is more popular than unopposed at the moment but that the official system is not that popular.

I must admit to using my own opposed roll system as I don't like the "all or nothing" impact of downgrading on official system.

Anyone else still to vote?

 

[Inspector Zero]

I'd have thought you would get more than 20 participants for this poll. I wonder what question would really get the mouses clicking...

 

[master of reality]

I'd vote for the category "The rules as written using the players' update.", except that I don't use the downgrade rule. If both the attacker and defender roll a success, I read the the success versus success result right off the table. I'd vote for "use the rules as originally written", but I prefer the parry and dodge tables in the update (or Game Master's Handbook). In the core book a failed attack versus a failed parry reads "Attack succeeds as normal". In the GM's handbook a failed attack versus a failed parry reads "Attack fails". That makes more sense to me and my gaming group. The GM's handbook appears to treat the downgrade rule as optional. Combat "is unchanged from the details on page 44 of RuneQuest....However, we have included here a few optional rules for Game Master consideration." page 60. And on page 64,
"...it is still necessary to cross-reference the result on a combat results matrix, as is the case using the standard RuneQuest mechanics. But, there are some important differences to note if Opposed tests are used to handle combat."
I've experimented with Peter Nash's opposed rules combat and even considered borrowing some ideas from the Flashing Blades combat system, which is a little more detailed than the RuneQuest system. The added complexity of the Flashing Blades system is great for duels between humans, but in the end, when you have 3 players running three or four characters each fighting 14 trollkin and a troll, it's much easier to appreciate the simplicity of rolling a percentile die and reading the results off the table.

 

[durulz]

RQ3 for me.
MRQ combat was the reason I stopped playing Mongoose RQ - it's the heart of the system and it stinks.

 

[Inspector Zero]

So then most people are using the GMs Handbook results tables without the downgrade rule?

 

[master of reality]

So then most people are using the GMs Handbook results tables without the downgrade rule?

That's what I do.

 

[zozotroll]

I use the downgrade, but not sure if it is out of the deluxe rulebook or not. And I will not look it up anymore. I have a system that works for us, and have no desire to go thrpugh that pain again.

 

[Pruneau]

Too late to vote, I have to remember to check this site more frequently, considering how much valuable info is on it.

We have partly adopted the Pete Nash system, with some additions for grappling, re-introduction of the special hit, and a different table for grapple, vs parry and vs dodge.

I have to say I like the added variety, with the crit at 5% and the special at 20%, one out of three rolls is non-standard, with either a riposte, added attack bonus(es), and so on. The system has become totally natural.
__________________________________________
~Pruneau~

 

[Deleriad]

Well it looks the results are that less than 1/3 use the official system. I *suspect* that there is no one overwhelming popularly system but that the most popular options are players up with or without downgrade. i.e. I suspect that more use the player's update without downgrading. It looks like the majority use some sort of opposed roll system.

Should Mongoose other decide on a new edition of errata I would be strongly tempted to suggest that they removing downgrading from the combat system because what evidence there is implies that it is not popular.

On the other hand, it looks like opposed roll combat has been taken up. Interesting to me because I use an opposed roll system and occasionally consider changing back to unopposed.

 

[master of reality]

I'm pretty happy with how the Game Master's Handbook tidies up the combat system.

1) The combat tables have been fixed.

2) Two key combat actions have been added: closing and disengaging.

3) The downgrade rule given in the player's update is treated as optional.

4) Weapon reach is added.

5) New rules for handling wounds.

If the core book had presented the combat system the way that the Game Master' Handbook does, I wouldn't have spent so much time tweaking the system.
I would like to see some rules about weapon breakage or knocking a weapon out of a combatant's hands.

 

[Denalor]

Where can I actually find Pete Nash's version ?

I do not have the GM's Book, so I can't say anything about the tables found there (I’m intrigued though by weapon reach, maybe I should buy it…). I only have the RQ Deluxe and I assume that the Player's Errata has been included in the Deluxe version.

If you use the rules as written (in Deluxe), i.e. with denoting/downgrading you will speed up combat a lot. Especially skill levels above 100% have a major impact (as you add your skill above 100% to your actual dice roll in the opposed comparison).
Consider two opponents each with 100% skill in their favoured weapons. If you do use the denote option you will have a hit every strike (barring the roll of 00, a fumble, of course).
You will most likely never have the “Attack succeeds, damage is reduced by the AP of the parrying weapon”, as it is really very unlikely that both combatants roll exactly the same result.
So, despite both being superb warriors, the combat will be over rather quickly.

If you do not use the denote system and just use the tables directly, you will always have the success vs success (barring crits (01-10) and fumbles (00)), i.e. “Attack succeeds, damage is reduced by the AP of the parrying weapon” (or in case of Dodging, “Attack succeeds but causes minimum damage”). If both use warswords and any kind of shield and none have a damage bonus, no damage will be made at all (I haven’t found the rules for damaging the parrying weapons… I seem to remember they used to have something like that in previous editions of RQ, no ?). If you have Dodge 100% then you would always only take minimum damage (for the warsword 1), thus with a mere leather armour you also won’t take damage.
Images of Artagel fighting Gart in Stephen R. Donaldson’s Mordant’s Need or the various fights between Drizzt do’Urden and Artemis Entreri in R.A. Salvatore’s numerous Dark Elf books are flickering in my head right now. Superb fighters and none gaining any advantage.
I do prefer that, as it forces the opponents to be more cunning than their foe, e.g. by using magic, which is a vital part of RQ. However, this will also make combat skills above 100% less important (as it will “only” increase the crit range).

Wasn’t there also a “special success” in previous editions of RQ ? Something like 20% of the skill level ? Maybe the tables could be adjusted with that additional degree of success ?

2) Two key combat actions have been added: closing and disengaging.

Very useful, currently you always take a free hit if you move towards your foe unless you charge, right ?... guess I have to buy that GM Handbook after all

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Where can I actually find Pete Nash's version ?

It looks like I'll have to promote my own work.

The rules can be found somewhere on the MRQWiki, under the Combat heading. However, that is an older version, and some minor polishing has been done since they were uploaded, so PM me if you want the latest incarnation.

http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Combat

They should give you an alternative to the probability break points you pointed out in the current MRQ rules. Enjoy!

 

[rabindranath72]

The best IMO is the Pendragon system.