Atgxtg

Possibly. The feedback on thre MRQ boards in the early days of MRQ wasn't conclusive either way. I think that to those who didn't like the RQ experience system, for either reason, it was considered an improvement, and Mongoose was happy that it pleased both camps.. Personally, I'm not that fond of the GM handing out improvments, as it tends to promote one dimsensional characters. I've been seeing it in a few other RPGs, where character get points to imrpove thier characters after adventures. Since it is generally better fora group to have a master swordsman and a master wizard that a couple of guys who are medicore at both, I tend to see players focus on narrow arears. I agree with the though behind learning fron ones's mistakes. At times I7ve been tempted to reverse the check procedure (that is getting a check for failing a skill roll). That way, really skilled characters would get checks only by trying more difficult things. I don't really see the MRQ method as leaning from one7s failures as much as making improvment unleated to skill use. I see the same thing in d6 Star Wars. A character goes through an adventure where he is constantly using certain skills. He stubs his toe and puts on a medpac and at the end of the adventure he spends the points to imrpve first aid, even though he used it once, and several other skills multiple times. I would like to see improvment be tied to the extent that a skill was (or was not) used. Maybe something like getting a bonus to the imrpvement roillfor multiple checks. I could even see combining methods. SOmething like the checks keep accumulating until the character makes an improvment roll. More checks means a geater chance for improving.

Raising the number of rolls certainly helps, no doubt about that. It still chyannels the character but is not nearly as restrictive as the 3 roll limit. It is still an artificial limit, and I don't see it as an improvement over the tradtional method.

"It" doesn7t create the problem, the players do. Look, if you had a player who repeatedly did something self descrtuctive, would you change the game system to prevent it? Acrtions have consequences. Characters who repeaatedly buck the odds and take unnecessary risks pay the price. How is it harming the game as a whole? If the players keep dying and can7t figure out why, tell them. If they argue about it, keep reminding them whenever they get killed for it. I ran a L5R campaign where one guy had a character who had gone to the Crane (Fast-Draw) stylre durling school. Later on, he was playing a guy who had gone to the Dragon (Two Sword Style) School. He got into a fight and instead of drawing both of his blades ASAP, he weaitied and tried to cut his foe down with a Iai strike (fast draw cutting strike). He botched it and got mauled by the time he managed to get both weapon out. Now, I fet some sympathy for him, becuase it is easy to laspe into the fighting style of a previous character when you swtich characters. But then the guy did it again, and again, and again. He started going through a new character every week, making the same dumb mistake each time, despite warnings from the GM anbd the other players. Do you believe the GM should have altered the game system to prevent iai strikes just becuase this guy kept messing up? I don't see anything that supports your argument here.

No its the players. Some basic mathematics skill will reveal that the more rolls that are made in a game, the greater the chance of a PC getting killed. So a player who opts to try for twice as many rolls is taking twice the risk. It is a faurly universal rule in RPGs, too. THe effect is less pronounced in games with increasesing hit points and limited damage (D&D), and more pronounded in games where one hit can kill (RQ/BRP), but it exists in most RPGs to some degree. Insureance comapnaies and casinos clean up on just this fact. Perhaps, but then averafge players don7t seem to have a good grasp of math. I used to work at a sotre where we sold lottry tickets and was amazed at how much money people would throw away without an inkling of the odds. THe store would regualry have to fire new help becuase they would play a whole roll of scractch tickets and expect to be able to pay for it out of thier winnings. I used to be amazed at how many people didn't understand the basic concept that lottery tickets have to take more money in than they pay out to be profitable. No , if it happens enough with "good players" then those players aren't very good. Good players would catch on by the second or third untinely death. I warned my group about the hazards of skill check hunting, and most of the players caught on fairly quickly, after seeing soem PCs get nailed taking unnessary risks. Yes, I7ve hard players argue it, but once they start dying I ask them how it was working out for them. No, it isn't grognardism, it's where or not you have a classes RPG or not. It also has the effect of making character develpment a rewaed from the GM rather than one of natural progression. To asnwer bluntly, that7s a load of bull. Most D&Ders I7ve games with can't handle RQ. RThey come in with a bunch of false expectations and an undeserved belief that they "know" how to play, and usually get killed off fairly quickly, using tactics that work fine in D&D. That doesn7t mean there is a problem with RQ/BRP, and that the game system needs to be changed to accomodate players who won7t learn. Likewise, if groups continuely go skil check hunting and get wiped out for the trouble, it7s not the fault of the expereince system. The people who are opposed to the skill check system ususally claim that it prmotes skill ckeck hunting. You case history, with higher mortaility rates disproves that. If players want to "play the lottery" with thier PCs lives, and start suffering lots of casualties, yet they stubbornly continue doing the same thing, they have no one to blame but themselves.

It actually makres a rather radical change in the game. With a limited number of imrpovment rolls instead of a variable number of skill chekcs, players end up focueing on a small number of skills, and let everything else slide. The net effect is "classless" character classes. PCs just can7t imrpove of magic and weapons and horsemanship, and stealth. That is one reason why MRQ has a fairly small skill list, comapred to RQ/BRP.

I see it as a player problem not a game mechanic problem. Stupid kills. I used to game with a guy who always treated RQ as if it were AD&D. He would often by surprised that elves didn7t have infravision, that a ill thought sword stroke meant as a repirmand actually cut someone7as arm off, and that griffon claws did 1D6+3D6 damage rather than just 1D8. The fact that the player couldn7t or wouldn7t learn from his errors and adapt was not just cause to change the RQ game mechanics. If they did it not matter the consequences, then they had no right to complain. It looks like you need better players. Sure there are risks inherent in all actions in a RPG. But that doesn7t mean that players should ignore those risks, or expose themsevles to greater dangerblindly. I've burchers quite a few PCs becuase the players decided to do something stupid and suicidal, for example, doing a frontal assault on a fortified postion. I7ve seen doxzens of PCs mowed down while charging a 50 cal MG. I7ve yet to see a group do that twice. If the players keep doing the same thing and expect differernt results, then the problem isn7t with the game system. I

Sorry I don't see a problem with this, let alone two. If players want to take more risks just to collect skill checks that fine with me. When they get killed "skill check hunting" that's fine with me, too. Years ago I had a player who thought that he was getting away with something by switching weapons during combat, trying to get more skill checks. He was successful for a couple of sessions and was starting to convince others about what a "great tactic" is was and that "everybody" should do it, becuase it "made sunese to do so" the ways the RQ rules worked. THenon he third session he got killed by a mook becuase he was playing around trying to get a check in his secondary weapon. Had he been using his primary weapon, not only would he have made his parry roll, but he would have hit on his attack and probably wouldn7t have had to parry. I looked at the player and said "So, you still think swtiching weapons for more skill checks is such a great idea?" Lesson to the players: If you want to risk your character hunting after skill checks don't cry to me when you get killed y it. I have no sympathy for that kind of stupidity. RQ 8and BRP) combat is not nice and safe like D&D, with character able to sit back on thier fat cushion of hit points. One good hit usually decides the contest, and if someone isn7t fighting at his best, he deserves whatever he gets. IMO if skill cjkeck hunting is a problem, the GM iss doing something wrong. Either he is allowing frivious checks, or he isn't applying the consecquences for failing under a stressful situation.

There is some truth to what you say. It's not entirely correct, since the GM determines what mertis a skill check, but there is definately some truth to it. The MRQ approach isn't any better. What happens is that since players only get a limited number of improvbement rolls, they concetrate on thier main (combat) skills and let everything else stagnate. It doesn't matter if someone has been doing a lot of riding, reading, or sailing, theose skills won7t iMprove at all, unless the player is willing to sacrfifice an improvement roll for it. What you end up with are "classess" with each character forcuesing on a small set of skills. Plus, I'm not sure that those character who do all the planning and such need to be rewared for it will more skill improvment rolls. In general, those who do more get rewarded in other ways, in game. They usually live longer and end up with more skill rolls in the long run, since the guys who don7t do the thinking tend to die more often. With the way BRP works now, I'd be inclined to reward good players with more hero points rather than more skill rolls.

[quote=Vile;33781 How were shields used historically?

For starters you could run MRQ1 as written in the rule book! In factg, even the guys from Mongoose supposedly ranb it wrong at Conventions! Before the book even hit the shelves Mongoose had changed the rules. Supposedly something was printed wrong, or was missing from the final version of the book. Unfortunately, the "updeaded" version introduced diferent problems, which needed to be corrected in a revised update that came out six months later. Intreoducing a new round of problems. Wash, rinse, repeat. THat was just the core rules. Once you started dealing with supplments new problems appeared (like the new runic associations didn7t mesh with Glorantha). Ultimately, I think the maijor problem was that the primary author of MRQ was a guy who didnh't seem to understand the old RQ system and it built in checks and balances. He seemed to change something without be aware that the change would have a "domino effect" on other aspects of the game. For example, in reposne to fan complatins about how "D&Dish" the new combat wounding system had become (in comarison to deadly RQ), he did a article in Sings & Portents with a new table of increased weapon damages, without a comment of what asuch damageas would do to the effects the new table would have on the way armor, magical protection and shields worked. By contrast MRQ2 is written by a couple of guys with a more than passing familairy of the parent RQ/BRP game system, and how it's various comepoent systems interact. SO the rules are less buggy, more consistent, and don7t need to be updated/patched continuously in order to repair problems introduced in the previous patch.

I7ll chime in to support this. Most martial arts's I7ve seen mention that someone who is well trained in basic techniques will overcome an opponent who is poorly trained in many techniques, even if they are advanced ones. That is why the stress the basics. In fact, this holds true for most walks of life. Typically a poor grap of the basics tends to lead to a critical vulnerability that can be easily exploited. For example, it doesn't matter if you are the worlds best nuerosugeon if you don7t follow basic sterlizxation techniques.It just means you patients die from complications after a successful operation.

I do too, but lost my copy of Ringworld years ago. If I remember correcclty, Ringworld did it differently, but I can7t remeber exactly how. About the only drawback with this approach is that skills might improve a little too quickly, but the GM could always reduce the increase from 1D6 to 1D4 or less.

I sort of swiped the specilization rules from TimeLords and CORPS. A character can have a subskill aat a rating up to 1/2 the main skill. THe subskill adds to the main skill. Players don7t fell like they are being penalized for specialzing, as the subskill is at a lower value and thus goes up faster. In fact, it is worthwhile to specialize if your skill score is over 50%. Plus there is nothing to prevent somene from getting checks in both the main skill and the specialty during the coruse of an adventure.

OpenQuest and the other "open" RPGs are a bit different. Legaqlly, anyone can write a set of rules, and can amke them very much like another set of rules, just as long as they don'7t use any trademakred terms or copy text verbvatim. Where or not, morally, it is right to do so, is another matter. THere are a lot of advantages to contacting Chasoium. An actually BRP product is probably going to get more interest than a BRP realted product for PenQuest or GORE.At rthe very least, a BRP product doesn't need to be adjusted to make it compatable with BRP the way a BRP related product might need to be. Less work for a GM means a greater chance of making a sale.

Yes, definately. The bane of porting, IMO, are the suble differences in game mechanics that the GM might miss in translation. I've gotten blindsided badly a few times in the past by something unxpected in the "translation". Typically something gets transofrredinto an unberweapon, or else into something nearly useless.

Over the years I7ve ported various things over from one RPG to another. In one case I coverted an Stormbringer campaign over to RQ3, with only a few changes (but the systems were fairly similar). Inevitably with a "mix 'n match" system, the GM has to make decsions abot how to covert things becuase of the differences between game systems. WHat might be a slap on the wrist in one rpg can be a lethal threat in another.

You need to give us a better frame of reference. Since we have no idea of your ability to draw (either while you are on, or off a napkin) we have no way to guage your expectations.

How many skills depends a lot on the style of campaign I'm going for. A smaller number of skills allows the PCs to be more competent, and is a good option for campaigns with "larger than life" PC heros. A larger number of skills limits the PCs in ways, and a good option for a more realistic, gritty, campaign. As for a gneral leaning, I tend to prefer fewer skills, but allow sub-skills/specialties to allow for more diversity without overcomplicating things.

I7d probably go with each rolling against the alcohol. IT is quite possible to tie in a drinking contest. Note that it is also possi8ble to do some contrests in stages in you prefer, to make a contrest more dramtatic. FOr example, for a arm wresting contest, you could use aa "clock" idea with the arms starting off at "12 o'clock" and each degress of succcess moving the arms by 1 on the clock face until winning when thhe arms are at 3 or 9 o'clock.

Usually you can tell what is active, as it is the element of change, where as the other is trying to maintain the status quo. When id dobut, I susally let the PC be active, so he can make the roll. In fact, sometimes I let the PC roll even when he is the "passive" one. THe good thing is that either way the math is the same, so no one gets cheated if you do it the other way.

A fairly standard line in most BRP systems was that an "attack" with a melee weapon was not a single thrust/swing of a weapon, but a combination of mutiple blows. It was sually given as the reason why someone couldn7t split attacks against a single foe. The bug with allowing splitting attacks vs. a single foe is that the foe is still defending/parrying against the same weapon, weielded, and so should get his full parry vs. both attacks, since he is really defending against the same number of swings/thrust during the round.

You'd probably be better off just using the ship rules from White Wolf or RQ3 (similar but not identical, White Wolf seems to be an updated version of the RQ3 ship rules).

Then chances are after fifteen second you'd blink twice, and say "No, really, show me the money." As a general rule, RPG authors don't get paid much. In fact, most RPG writers have full time jobs and only write RPG stuff as a hobby. If you want to make a living off of RPGs you are much better off as an RPG publisher, or better still, a printer. The only ones who consisitently come out ahead are the printers (who get paid in advance, and will make money if the book sells or not). The pay for authors is really atoricious, and virtually no one would do it just for the money. For an author getting a full time salaried possition is about the best you can do (Way to go Pete!). Otherwise, working in the RPG field is comperable to volunteer work.

It is the same reason why so many RPG authoris have written something for D&D at one time or another. THe bigger the comapny the more supplments they publish and the greater chance of getting work. Plus, considering that Pete had a hand in the MRQ2 rules, he might even prefer them to BRP. Not that he owes us any explanations. He can write snappy sayings for teabags in he wants to.