Atgxtg

Ah. Well I suppose the answer would depnd on how much more difficult you find the RQ3 method in comparison to MRQ. I find the RQ3 math trivial enough, but I do use a few mental shortcuts. But how does skills over 100% factor into your problem? I find figuring special and crtical chances for skills over 100% to be just as easy (or difficult) as for skills under 100%. Are you trying to use a Harn-like mechanic of treating results ending in mutiples of 5 as specials?

Perhaps. But I doubt everybody peaks at the same spot. What I was trying to get at is that in an RPG our characters WILL be able to reach ANY level of proficiency with ANY skill given enough time. In other words, I could become just as good (or better) physicist as Einstein, as good a test pilot as Chuck Yaegar, or even as good a guitarist as Eric Clapton, with enough training, and improvement rolls. Personal experience seems to disagree with this.

Yup, it would. Can't fault your math. But any method other than the one givenin the rulebook will give a different progression. All you can really do is settle on something that you can accept. You might be able to do a partial "bumb" using another D10. If that is equal to or lower than below a certain threhold (lsay 2 or less for 100%) you bump the result.If not,you don't. Another possibility would be to roll the % oover 100 separate from the 100% and combine the two results in sum way. Just what is it that you are trying to achieve? I'm feeling creative.

Broo & Burrows! Who is going to break the bad news to the Scorpion Men? It was hard enough convincing all those people that Griffin Mountain was actually an Island. Personally, I am not bothered by the though of Greg pimping out Glorantha to other RPGs. Considering all the changes that have happened to Glorantha, and that various systems that ave already been used with it, nothing else could really hurt it.

Did you consider trying "bumbs" ala HeroQuest.

Not quite. Otherwise, how did the first person get so good in the first place? What I do think is that the learning curie is steeper than in RQ. As one gets better the rate of improvement should slow down.Tthe "roll over skill" improment method was supposed to reflect that, but as higher skills lead to more skill checks it doesn't quite hold. Also, the improvement increments should be smaller. Someone at 94% probably can't learn 6% all in one go, the way someone at 12% could. But, come to think of it, most RPGs are very generous with what people can learn. For example, if RQ, a character who keeps practicing can eventually become a master musician. It might take ten years game time, but it is possible. The same with ""Physics" or any other skill. Obviously, that isn't true I think the removal was more because of the shift towards removing artificial (ame balance) limits. Remember, the DEXx5% limits for magicians were made "optional" later on.

So is the math behind the Resistance Table, but a lot of people seem to have problems with it. I'm one of those "blessed" with the ability to do critical and special chances in my head (I can also do he QR ranged for the James Bond RPG in my head at the same time). And no, I don't find it difficult. For critical all one needs to remember is the 30/50/70/90/10 breakpoints. For specials the 3 and 8 breakpoints. Heck, most of the time I doN7t even need to do the "full math" but can get a good ballpark idea based on the skill% and the die roll. But, a lot of gamers can't or won't do that. In fact, get angry if a game expects them to do any math.

It must. There is no way I can refer to rabbits as inconceivable!

Sorry, I am contractually obligated to throw some of those in there. Some people only read my posts for the "fluff". I have nothing against rabbits, although I have never supported any.

You, of all people, are playing RQ3? I thought for sure you would be running some version of MRQ. You have been one of the most adrent supports of MRQ. At least one of the most ardent among the rational crowd. I'm surprised to find you running RQ3. . P.S. Just to clarify before someone takes offense. I used the word rational because each game, and game company has it's share of rabbit supporters and fanboys who rave about everything, including which printing has the best typos. I don7t consider you (or anybody else here) to be n that fanboy category.

Hey, just because many of them used to think that MRQ was the best version ever, and how it kept getting berter after each update in no way tarnishes thier endorsement, does it? daddystabz, the problem with saying MRQ2 is THE BEST, or that "it beats all the others" is that there is no way to prove that statement. You can't go with popularity. If that were the case then we7d have to conclude that D&D 4e is a much better game system, and most of us here would nuke our books and play HaArnMaster before we'd believe that. Now if we wanted to debate thevarious merits of each vararion of the game, we'd have problems just workiing out which of the various changes and new features constitue improvments. Or which of several alternate methods of doing things is the best. Case in point, you like the simplier " 4 step"crtical-normal-failure-fumble success levels in MRQ2 to the "5 step" method used in BRP. I, on the other hand, considered the self same "5 step" method used in CRQ2 (Chaoisum RuneQuest 2, or IMO the real RuneQuest 2) an improvement over the "4 step method" used in Stormbringer, the first BRP game that I played. So we have completely opposite takes on one fairly minor rule variation.Good luck trying to prove how drooping specials is better. It might be preferable to some, but that doesn't mean that it is better. Eveni if we were to try and get a consensus from the RQ community, we'd have problems. Some people don't even think that others are playing RQ. For instance, what about those folks playing HarnMaster? I foor one, consider it to be closer to RQ/BRP than I consider MRQ, but HarnMaster never claimed to be a BRP relative. I understand that you are fond of MRQ2 and believe it to be the best. But that is just one opinion.

I thought Mongoose dropped it becuase they didn't want to pay for the name. Frankly, I don't think liscing out the RQ name is such a great idea. Fans tend to associate certain game mecanics with a system's name, and when a new system comes out under an old name, it tends to backfire. I suspect MRQ and MRQ2 fans will probably react as poorly to another RuneQuest as the ld RQ2/RQ3 fans did to MRQ. Maybe some of the original RQ folk and/or Chaosium might be able to release another RQ and benefit from it, but I doubt that is going to happen.

Not quite. Nick is correct here. The "special success" was dropped as far back as Sormbringerr, which introduced the success levels and percentages you see in MRQ. So it isn't a new idea from MRQ. In fact, I think that the Stormbringer/MRQ success levels are one of the many OPTIONAL RULES in the BRP book. Somewhere. So you could certainly use the 10% critical chance and drop special successes in BRP, if you want. I believe there are some folks around who have already done so. No big shakeup. The only real issues I can see would be with game mechanics in play, for instance: 1) Critical hits are very deadly in BRP. Not quite as bad as in RQ (uh, Chaosium RuneQuest, just to clarify), but still deadly. Doubling the chance might kick up the mortality rate. 2) Dropping specials would also drop the "impale" special effect that some weapons have. This would make some weapons much less effective. Missile Weapons would be particularly hurt by this. Some of this would be offset by the increased critical chance, but you might want to consider doubling the critical damage of impaling weapons. 3) Critical can bypass some defensive magic, which could once again increase game lethality. So you might want to nerf critical hits a little to offset thier increased frequency. Lastly, what do I think of the change? Well, I wouldn't do it. I don't find "specials" to be more complicated to figure out and work, and I do prefer the additional diversity they provide to game play. But that's just personal preference. I'm not going to tar and feather you if you drop specials. If you are a big Wayfarer (sorry, I just couldn't resist) Glorantha fan you might want to look at some of the old RuneQuest Gloranthan products set in the Third Age. They are old, but they might be new to you, and they are easily adaptable to BRP. I think you will find that much of what you like about Wayfarer Glorantha predated Mongoose Publishing.

No dead Mongoose. I will readily admit that I have no love for Mongoose Publishing or they way of doing business. My bad. Instead of saying the end of the OGL era, I should have said the end of the "Third Party Support" era. I just can't see how companies can survive in the RPG business of all things, when another publisher can pull thr plug on a product line. The RPG field is hard enough. I know what you mean. It is like telling all the old RQ fans to go ---- themselves and then wondering why the old fans aren't buying the game. Enemy action seems far more believable excuse than bad business.

I have read nothing but good things about MRQ2, and think highly of Pete and Loz's other works (I've got nothing against them either). The only reason why I don't say anything good or bad about MRQ2's system is that I have not read it, and have no intention of buying it. I apologize if my post/rant implied anything negative about the MRQ2 game system or either of the two authors.

Well, I know that there were a few differences made with lore type skills. Lhankor Mhy cultists could train past the 75% limit in RQ2. But, I probably am thinking in RQ3 terms. If I were running, I'd drop the 5% shuffle anyway. it is artificial, and silly. Realistically, you can train a sjill up without "combat experience" and the only reason for the rule in the game was to prevent players from staying in town training until their money ran out. I say, let 'em. With RQ2 money, it shouldn't take that long to run out. And let the experience shuffle go the way of RQ1's experience potions.

****WARNING***ENTERING RANT MODE***** I for one am neither surprised nor upset about the split. I think most of the old RQ/Glorantha crowd didn't seem to care much for MRQ or the Second Age stuff. So I don7t think that line was selling very well. In my opinion, MRQ1 wasn't worth the paper it was printed on (or even the hard drive space the PDF took up), and there were lots of problems and complaints about the MRQ Cults and gods (Orlanth has Chaos rune associations?). So I can't say I7m surprised or disappointed by this. I do feel for those few (apparently, if they were legion this wouldn't have happened) who jjust had a favorite RPG line shut off. That always sucks. But hey, at least the game mechanics(MRQ/Wayfarer) will still be in print, and there is quite a lot of Glorantha stuff out there (and more coming) that can be used with or adapted to MRQ. So it couldn't be much, much worse. I feel even worse for third party MRQ companies. I think this spells the end of the OGL era, and/or third party licensing. I hope nobody get stuck with a load of "orphaned" supplements. I supposed PDfs could be adapted to a related system and repackaged/formatted, but those hard copies are going to be a pain to unload. Don't the main companies have any legal obligation to third party comapnies? What to stop an unscrupulous comany from setting up a bucnch of smaller comies for a trip to oblivion by suddenly killing off a product line and leaving the thirird parties holding the bag, and lots of product? As far as Wayfarer (why not cal lit "Whatever"?) goes, I hope it tanks. Now I heard that Pete and Loz did a good job with the MRQ2 rules, I didn't look at MRQ2, so I don't know how good they are, but I've seen some of Pete and Loz's other work so I can certainly believe that MRQ2 was better than MRQ1. So I got nothing against Pete or Loz, but like several others here, I think "yet another RQ derivative" doesn't help BRP, Chaoisium, or those who play one of the many variants, or relatives, of the original RuneQuest system. Rather than the "one biig, happy, BRP family" that some envison and hope for, what I think we have is "many, small, unhappy, dysfunctional, hostile, and inbred BRP family" that has made things worse, rather than better. Heck, this site exists in part because of that animosity. I blame this on the major comapnies involvedin this whole fiiasco. Because of idotic legal ramblings, we've had to call a system that is essentially RuneQuest, Nasic Role Playing, and another system, that is much less like RuneQuest that BRP, RuneQuest. And all so that somebody could use name recgonition and brand appeal to suckier in some old RQ players. It got to the point that is someone said that they played RQ2, we still didn't know what game they were playing. Frankly it ticks me off that somebody could print another RPG and call it RQ2. It ticks me off even more that somebody went and did so anyway, knowing full well what confusion it would cause among the RQ community. Heck, if Mongoose had called the game Wayfarer when they started this whole mess, we probably would have been one big happy BRP family. If there are some good options in MRQ2/Wayfarer/Whatever d100 based system that Mongoos is publishing this week that are worth swiping for BRP, then by allm eans, taake 'em. As Matt Sprange hismelf pointed out lback in the early days on MRQ, "you can't copywrite game mechanics". But personalty, I believe that the sooner Wayfarer dies off and the sooner Mongoose igets thier hands off of the "BRP family" the better off we are all going to be. I get the feeling from the other publishers of "BRP related" products that the people at those companies actually play some derivative of this game. I don't get that feeling from Mongoose Publishing. In fact, judging on the various "updates" for the system, i have a hard time believing that the guys who wrote MRQ1 even read the game, let alone played it. So ultimately, this is probably going to be a good thing for us all. No more confusion and animosity over the name of a game what is not now, nor ever really was RuneQuest. I just hope we can all avoid the temptation to use the phase "the role playing game formerly know as RuneQuest".

I7ll pull out my RQ2 book. I think I know the answer, but I could be thinking RQ3. I think there is no such limit on lore/academic skills, since you learn those mostly by study rather than use. For instance, you can learn more history by reading than by talking about it. That is also why such skills can be trained past the 75% limit that most skills have. But,like I said, I might be thinking RQ3. I7ll check RQ2 and see if it is he same, or not.

Oh, that's not entirely fair. The RQ3 Creatures book did come up with some new creatures. Or at least ones that were "new" to RQ. As for the drought since then, I'd blame that on the fact that Chaosium degenerated into the "CoC Company" during the late 80s, and didn't do much else of any significance for a couple of decades other than break up.

Kinda funny. I just don't think it was such a great thing to do in RQ. In AD&D the bonuses didn't kick in until 15, and a character needed some 12s here and there to qualify for a class. I once had the dubious honor of getting a DM to go back on his "one set of rolls, that it!" rule in AD&D when I rolled so poorly that I failed to qualify for any class. But, in RQ there is a certain charm to taking an average character and developing him into a hero. Plus stats could be trained up during play. But...back on topic, my point was that not every RPG is was constrained to do things the same way as D&D. IMO, I think that RQ3 probably should have ditched the 3-18 curve for the other stats, and gone with something like 2d6+3 for everything, and tweaked the SR breakpoints a little. But even then, we'd still have problems with non human characters.

LOL! Okay, to clairfy, the 4D6 drop the lowest method was not a standard method in RQ. It was the default method in AD&D. One thing about RuneQuest is that, unlike most of the other early FRPGs, it did not evolve out opf D&D. It had it's own methods and internal logic that was differernt from D&D. IMO, that is one of the things that was wrong about MRQ. It was more RQ written by and for the D&D crowd.

Ooh, PDF, even better! Thanks.

Works for me, thanks! I am helping a GM make the switch from D&D to RQ/BRP and while I had an extra copy of the RQ3 Boxed Deluxe set, I didn't have the errata except in my perfectbound book.

Well, it is because when RQ3 was written they needed a way to have races that were smaller (and dumber) than humans. With the old 3D6 method of RQ2, they didn't have much room to sueeze in a hobbit or dog.