BRP vs. MRQ & the OGL

[The Tweaker]

Just what the title says. I downloaded the Runequest PDF Mongoose Publishing offered as a Thanksgiving gift at drivethrustuff.com last week, but I haven't found the time to do anything more than giving it a cursory peek. I know, though, that many BRP fans did not like the changes made to the rules. My BRP experience is mostly limited to Call of Cthulhu, and I have little knowledge of the original Runequest rules, but I feel curious :

- What are the main differences between classic and Mongoose Runequest?

- What do you like/dislike the most in both versions?

Thanks!

[Trifletraxor]

Mohahahaha!!!! BRP is much better! >:->

MRQ is d100 meets D&D, in a bad way. Only thing that's better with MRQ compared to RuneQuest is that it's in print. But Basic Roleplaying will take up the place of old RuneQuest fast enough!

Viva le BRP! :thumb:

SGL.

[The Tweaker]

Mohahahaha!!!! BRP is much better! >:->

MRQ is d100 meets D&D, in a bad way. Only thing that's better with MRQ compared to RuneQuest is that it's in print. But Basic Roleplaying will take up the place of old RuneQuest fast enough!

Viva le BRP! :thumb:

SGL.

That was not only quick, Trifletraxor, but you also made me laugh. Thanks! :thumb:

But still, I'd like to know more. What are exactly the changes you loathe the most? Why is more D&D than d100? How compatible is it? Any sourcebook worth buying? And... what was the story with Runequest playtesters?

[Rurik]

Of course we don't have BRP yet, but here goes based on past experience with BRP based games and the info on this board:

Well since the RQ Magic systems are not in BRP we can leave those out of the discussion - but MRQ magic is a big area of difference from earlier versions.

No total HP is a big difference. MRQ only has HP per location, BRP has total HP.

There is no resistence table in MRQ. As a whole everything in MRQ is supposed to be skill based. A STR vs. STR roll on the resistence table in BRP becomes an Athletics vs. Atheletics opposed roll in MRQ.

Also, POWx5, CONx5 rolls etc are replaced by skills.

Combat in MRQ uses opposed rolls and a table.

MRQ uses Initiative rolls - they are called Strike Ranks just like in RQ2/3 but RQ strike ranks are fixed and based on SIZ(reach), DEX, and weapon reach, while MRQ uses a d10 roll plus (DEX+INT)/2. BRP from what I've read here uses DEX order with RQ2/3 Strike Ranks as an optional rule.

Overall, as a result of slightly lower damage, less lethal criticals, and the lack of total HP MRQ is not as deadly as BRP (though still deadly compared to most other games).

MRQ experience uses Improvement Rolls assigned by the GM for experience rather than the use based experience checks in BRP.

MRQ uses Hero Points (optional in BRP). Hero Points can be used to save your skin OR can be hoarded to buy the next big difference...

Legendary Abilities - MRQ has feat like abilities that can be purchased. Though they are very different than feats in some ways - they are very hard to get, usually requiring a very high skill and or characteristic as a pre-requisite and cost a lot of Hero Points - which as mentioned above are also used to save your character or for re-rolls or whatever.

MRQ Character Creation is very streamlined, not sure what the new BRP is like exactly.

MRQ Skills are ver consolidated. Swim, Jump, Climb all fall under Athletics for example. Again, not sure how much moreso than the new BRP.

The systems are similiar enough it is easy to use bits and pieces from one in the other.

[The Tweaker]

Very informative, Rurik. Thanks!

However, most of the changes you quote strike me as simply that: changes. They may be to your liking or not, or be more or less faithful to classic Runequest, but I still do not see why they make one ruleset inherently inferior to other. I suppose not having played Runequest previously makes it difficult for me to understand the reasons behind this. Do the changes mean that the new Runequest is any less elegant or playable than classic BRP games?

[Atgxtg]

Tweaker,

Your question wasn't about if one system is inferior to the other, just what the differences were. IF you want to know if we believe that one if inferior to the other, and why should say so. Or save yourself the trouble and go look through the early threads on the MRQ site. At least, the stuff that didn't get deleted during the "Flame Wars".

As far as differences go....

One of the big things about the differences is that many things in BRP/RQ works are universal to all BRP products, but were dropped from MRQ. In some cases this alters the style of play greatly from how every other BRP game runs. So much so that many believe MRQ to be a differernt RPG rather than a rleative to BRP/RQ.

Some examples:

1) All BRP products use something called the Resistance Table to handle opposed tests. This is usually stuff like STR vs. SIZ to move a rock, or poison Intensity vs. CON. THe chart is simple. If the intensities are the same then it is a 50-50 chance, and the odds shift 5% per point of difference between the stats. MRQ dropped that and replaced if with an entirely new opposed resolution system, that is entirely skill based. In BRP skill rolls are unopposed. One effect of this is that stats are less important in MRQ. Raw STR and CON don't mean as much as skill in Athletics or Reisilience.

2) BRP has certain inherient checks and balances that hep to keep the game in check for experience characters. MRQ doesn't have that. Most of the problems with MRQ seem to have come about because Mongoose changed something without taking into account how those changes would affect the rest of the game. It really appears that this was becuase the author7s lack of familirily with RQ meant that he didn't understand what the cause and effect of changing things. For instance, there is a alternative damage chart for weapons that will make the game "more lethal". Probably as an attempt to win back the RQ crowd. But the author failed to take into account that increasing the damage weapons do without increasing parry APs made parrying obsolete.

3) In BRP, parrying an AP values mean something. Depending on what version/update of MRQ you run with, weapon APs are either insignificant, or so low as to be nearly insignificant. The later (the original update) changed combat from a attack& parry dynamic (RQ) to a trade blows and see who runs out of Hit points dynamic (D&D).

4) The magic system (well, magic systems) in RQ was a semi-successful attempt at providing a playable magic system for Glorantha, a setting where practically everybody can work a little magic. Practically every PC started the game knowing some magic , with Heal being almost universal. With MRQ, magic has become something that is much rarer and more the province of dedicated spellcasters (D&D again). The problem isd that Mongoose seems to have changed Glorantha to make it fit in with the D&D approach to the rules.

5) In BRP/RQ practically anybody can be killed by a lucky hit, even from a dagger. Criticials are fairly devastating. There are also some pretty nasty spells than can take someone right out of a fight. Combat in RQ is and not something entered into lightly.

MRQ really "nerfed" all of that. One hit kills are just about impossible, and the spells have been dropped or watered down. Firearrow and Fireblade are not the kick ass spells (3d6 damage!) they used to be. Disruption is fairly usuelss with the MRQ hit pont system. Several seppls have been taken out of the game for "play balance" reasons. In other words, combat was made "fun" so that people can do lots and lots of fighting (like in D&D).

Basically, MRQ is RQ rewritten by a D&D author, and is targeted at D&D players. Virtually every change in the game makes MRQ more like D&D and less like RQ/BRP. Probably a good business move (something like 90% of the RPG market plays D&D, while probably less than 10% have ever even heard of RQ), but not something that endeared Mongoose to the RQ community.

[drohem]

Very good assessment ATGXTG!

I felt the same way when I reviewed MRQ materials. It was a D&D/RQ blend.

[Atgxtg]

Very good assessment ATGXTG!

I felt the same way when I reviewed MRQ materials. It was a D&D/RQ blend.

Quiter a few RQers did feel that way. That said, It not exactly an assessment. I tried to point out the differences rather than state preferences, but to be fair to those who haven't read my posts at the Mongoose boards, I'm not what you would call unbiased in this matter (I'm an RQ junkie, and no fan of MRQ).

Hopefully, someone more favorable to MRQ will post their view of the differences just to ensure some sort of counterbalance and give Tweaker another slant.

[soltakss]

I can't see that RQM is D&D-RQ.

It is clearly based on the old RQ, more RQ2 but with some RQ3ish things.

Many of the things about RQM are good - Legendary Abilities, Modularity, Equipment Design, Vehicle Design, SRD and OGL. Some of those are apparently D&Disms, but I haven't played AD&D for a long, long time and have never played D20, so I couldn't say.

The main problems with RQM are that they brought a lot of stuff out quickly, when they would have been better consolidating the first books into one, as they have done with RQ Deluxe. Glorantha Cults 1 and 2 should have been combined, they really cocked up some of the background and some of the cults/spells, but that was probably due to unfamiliarity with existing sources or perhaps unwillingness to stick to existing sources.

But, they have brought a lot of stuff out (my wife says too much) and, as someone whose tagline is "Never Mind the Quality, Feel the Width", I couldn't complain about that as they have an awful lot of width, which can only be a good thing. We can fill in the quality ourselves.

As to how RQM and BRP differ, people have covered that ground already. They are probably closer than people think, although Chaosium are understandably not keen on identifying the products very closely.

My ideal world, as people probably already know, would be for multi-statted supplements to appear or for supplements that are compatible with both to appear. But, maybe I am naive.

So, RQM is defintely not RQ for AD&D/D20.

It might not be to everyone's taste and I am stil running RQ3, but every time I've played it I've enjoyed it.

See Ya

Simon

[Simlasa]

My main gripes with MRQ are less than rational... having more to do with Mongoose, how they do things and the kind of company they seem to want to be.

[TRose]

Al I can not having seen BRp is that there are things I like and dislike in MRQ. I do like the fact its in print() and the way a set number of skill advances are given per adventures and I also like hero points. I dont like the way the number of skills was cut down, or the way divine magic was nerfed( In my opinion) for Runepriest. I plan on supporting both at the beginning as much as I can with out having wife go berserk on me .

I hope that they will be close enough that I can steal idea from both to run my own game. I mean who wants to run a game with out being able to change things.

Perhaps after the Release of BRP some one will come up with a conversion table for converting stuff from one game into another.

[Lord Twig]

As one who had great hopes for MRQ and saw them dashed, stomped and beaten to death by Mongoose, I can tell you exactly what is wrong with MRQ in a highly biased, but none the less accurate manner.

In fact I have actually attempted to "fix" MRQ and posted it on a wiki site that can be found here.

Some of the big problems:

*If you had a high enough skill in Resilience you could keep fighting even after your head was severed. (It's just a flesh wound!)

*If you fought in full plate you had -42% to attack and parry, but if you were naked you could take a -40% to ignore the plate armor your opponent is wearing and keep your full parry. (And the woad wearing Orlanthi rejoiced!)

*In MRQ if your skill goes over 100% your chance to overcome a novice with 20% actually goes down. (Talk about overconfidence being a weakness!)

*In RQ spirit combat was power vs. power, or, in other words, spirit vs. spirit. In MRQ you needed a magic weapon to beat on it. (Well, that's the way D&D does it.)

There are numerous other problems and the books are riddled with errors. Examples don't match rules. The rules have constantly been changed, but no reason has been given as to why. They certainly will not admit that things are broken. It is absolutely a quantity over quality issue.

On a personal level, I loath that skill rolls are now handed out by the GM like experience points. I don't like Legendary Abilities, which are obviously an attempt to cash in on supplements by putting out books with more powerful ones the same way that Wizards does with D&D feats. I don't like Hero Points, at least not in RuneQuest. And finally the rules for Divine Magic and Sorcery that came out in the Companion (which I unfortunately spent money on) are the worst attempts at a magic system rule set that I have ever laid eyes on.

But hey, I'm not bitter...

[drohem]

Now, that's an assessment! Woot! :thumb:

[The Tweaker]

Tweaker,

Your question wasn't about if one system is inferior to the other, just what the differences were. IF you want to know if we believe that one if inferior to the other, and why should say so.

Well, I knew there were some differences - important differences -, and that most old-time Runequest fans did not like the changes made, so I supposed they must consider MRQ failed in some way or other. As I said before, I was just curious and I thought you all would know a lot more about this than me.

I simply did not get to what extent said changes modified the system, so your replies were really enlightening. Thanks once more to all who replied.

[Enpeze]

another example how MRQ sucks:

if a duck STR 8 is arm-wrestling a troll with STR 22 the duck wins most time if it has a higher athletics skill. This because attributes have only a marginal effect in MRQ. They killed the resistance table and attribute rolls and replaced it with their own crappy unbalanced skill comparision "system".

In short MRQ is a mediocre home-brewn chimera between D&D and RQ. It was made by (former) D&D players which didnt value and understand the elegance of many BRP mechanics and who overestimated their own ability as game designer.

[soltakss]

The Resistance Table is an elegant way of resolving some Chracteristic vs Characteristic contests, but it is deeply flawed as it doesn't cope at all well with relative values. So, someone with SIZ 200 shoulder barging someone who is a little bit bigger at SIZ 210 (5% bigger) has a 5% chance but someone who is SIZ 10 shoulder-barging someone with SIZ 11 (10% bigger) has a 45% chance.

HeroQuest resolves as skill vs skill on almost everything and this is a far neater way of doing things.

RQM uses Opposed Contests that are not particularly well thought out, but the principle of Opposed Contests should work better than the Resistance Table. I'd use Characteristic x 5% as a skill and use Opposed Contests rather than using the Resistance Table if Opposed Contests worked better.

I know that D100/BRP is a rival system to RQM, but let's not turn this thread into "Why Mongoose RQ is rubbish".

Until D100 comes out, we won't know which is actually better.

I would guess that there will be things from RQM that would benefit D100 and things from D100 that would benefit RQM.

[TRose]

One thing to remember is game rules are never written in stone , at least as far as I'm concerned. No matter how written sooner or later you are going to run into a situation where if you follow the rules the results are silly. I still remember my bad guy who while defending a staircase hit himself in the head with his pike. I change the fumble to that he tripped and landed on his head instead as to me it made more sense. Might add i bent the rules at start of fight as the fight started on a spiral staircase and I ruled that the Bandit with the pike could strike down to the otherside because of the length of the pike but the players armed with swords could not strike at him

I use the resistance tables for things that would require raw strength and athletics where a little skill would be needed. If you wanted to break down the door and did not mind about damage or noise use a strength roll. If you want to use a crowbar and do as little damage as possible and not too much noise use athletics .

[Atgxtg]

The Resistance Table is an elegant way of resolving some Chracteristic vs Characteristic contests, but it is deeply flawed as it doesn't cope at all well with relative values. So, someone with SIZ 200 shoulder barging someone who is a little bit bigger at SIZ 210 (5% bigger) has a 5% chance but someone who is SIZ 10 shoulder-barging someone with SIZ 11 (10% bigger) has a 45% chance.

No. You are forgetting that SIZ is not linear in BRP. Generally, +8 to SIZ doubles the mass. So the resistance table does make sense. Along the Same lines two SIZ 10 objects do not equal a SIZ 20 object, but more like a SIZ 18 object. Or how 2 SIZ 50 objects equate to a SIZ 58 object rather than a SIZ 100 object.

HeroQuest resolves as skill vs skill on almost everything and this is a far neater way of doing things.

Skill vs Skill isn't neater, per say. But value vs. value is. Several RPgs, inclduing Pendragon and FATE use this approach. In Pendragon, everything is rated on the same scale, so you can oppose stats, skills, passions, personality traits, etc. with each other as needed.

RQM uses Opposed Contests that are not particularly well thought out, but the principle of Opposed Contests should work better than the Resistance Table. I'd use Characteristic x 5% as a skill and use Opposed Contests rather than using the Resistance Table if Opposed Contests worked better.

The principle rocks. It is the application that MRQ uses that is the problem. IMO The resistance table works just as week as Opposed tests. In fact the Opposed system used in D&D 3rd edition basically IS the RQ resistance table, but using D20s (D20+mods vs target number, or opposed d20+mod rolls).

The problem is that D100 opposed math is not as quick and easy as D20 math. What D100 is good at is dividing up the success (and failure) range to allow for different grades of effect. IMO the opposed system in MRQ would have worked better if they had gone to d20 resolution rather than D100. Pendragon does just that, and it works well.

To be fair to MRQ, RQ2 would have benefited from d20 dice instead of d100, too. Skills were in increments of 5%, so the only thing that needed to D100 was the criticals (and D&Ds roll and confirm method would fix that).

I know that D100/BRP is a rival system to RQM, but let's not turn this thread into "Why Mongoose RQ is rubbish".

Until D100 comes out, we won't know which is actually better.

I would guess that there will be things from RQM that would benefit D100 and things from D100 that would benefit RQM.

All quite fair. That was one reason why I asked for another point of view (and had you in mind when I posted). For the most part I tried to point out differences without going RQ=good, MRQ=bad, but I realized some bias was inevitable.

Many of the things about RQM are good - Legendary Abilities, Modularity, Equipment Design, Vehicle Design, SRD and OGL. Some of those are apparently D&Disms, but I haven't played AD&D for a long, long time and have never played D20, so I couldn't say.

Now your bias is showing. I don"t think the things you listed are necessarily "good":

Legendary Abilities screw up the way the game works. It changes the game form "a learn by doing/studying approach" to a "get XP to spend on cool powers" approach.

Modularity doesn't exist. In fact, it is one of the major things that I find objectionable about Matt Sprange view of RQ. The various rules in RQ are interlinked. You can't really switch stuff in and out without creating more problems. The various "rule updates" should illustrate that. One changes causes others. The same is true with the problems with MRQ Glorantha. You can't change the gods, magic systems, and economic systems without the world changing.

Equipment & Vehicle Design- No comment, since I haven't bought those supplements. Although if the rules are like the stuff that in the equipment book, there are quite a few comments on the MRQ forums to the effect of "bad, bad, worse".

SRD- Okay, this I do consider good. It lets people look at the book before they decide to plop down some cash. Wish I had waited for this before MRQ rather than prepaid for the game. But, hey, when I read that Greg Stafford and Steve Perrin were involved in the design for MRQ (that was in the ads), I figured it a safe bet.

OGL- Bad, bad, bad. Letting anyone publish stuff for a system means that, well, ANYONE will. While there are SOME decent OGL products, there is a lot more crap. The sheer volume of OGL products for D20 is another problem (there is so much stuff, and so many similar guidebooks, that it is tough to sort through), although a problem that is thankfully exclusive to D20.

So, RQM is defintely not RQ for AD&D/D20.

What's "definite" about it? Your post does nothing to prove you point.

Here's a few points to the contrary.

1) Mongoose's products are mostly d20 based.

2) Matt Sprange is an experienced D20 author with little to no experience writing for skill based systems.

3) Reduced lethality, spell casting limited to dedicated spellcasters, and improvement awarded by the GM, all all characteristics of D&D.

4) The admitted demographic that MRQ is aimed at are the D&Ders who are disenchanted with what D&D has grown into. That came out in the chats on the Mongoose boards back a year and a half ago. Basically, if the old RQers buy it, that's great, but they were not the target audience. D&Ders were.

[Trifletraxor]

No. You are forgetting that SIZ is not linear in BRP. Generally, +8 to SIZ doubles the mass. So the resistance table does make sense. Along the Same lines two SIZ 10 objects do not equal a SIZ 20 object, but more like a SIZ 18 object. Or how 2 SIZ 50 objects equate to a SIZ 58 object rather than a SIZ 100 object.

With 210 vs. 200, you just divide by ten before taking it to the resistance table, no?

To be fair to MRQ, RQ2 would have benefited from d20 dice instead of d100, too. Skills were in increments of 5%, so the only thing that needed to D100 was the criticals (and D&Ds roll and confirm method would fix that).

:mad: Blasphemy!

OGL- Bad, bad, bad. Letting anyone publish stuff for a system means that, well, ANYONE will. While there are SOME decent OGL products, there is a lot more crap. The sheer volume of OGL products for D20 is another problem (there is so much stuff, and so many similar guidebooks, that it is tough to sort through), although a problem that is thankfully exclusive to D20.

I'd say good, good, good. The more the better. Having loads of volume of BRP stuff to sort through would be a luxury problem easily solved by a review section.

SGL.

[soltakss]

I'm not trying to get into an argument, and all in my opinion, but ...

The principle rocks. It is the application that MRQ uses that is the problem. IMO The resistance table works just as week as Opposed tests. In fact the Opposed system used in D&D 3rd edition basically IS the RQ resistance table, but using D20s (D20+mods vs target number, or opposed d20+mod rolls).

The problem is that D100 opposed math is not as quick and easy as D20 math. What D100 is good at is dividing up the success (and failure) range to allow for different grades of effect. IMO the opposed system in MRQ would have worked better if they had gone to d20 resolution rather than D100. Pendragon does just that, and it works well.

I'd have preferred keeping fumble/failure/success/special/critical as 5 levels of success and having Opposed Contests determined by Level of Success then Margin of Success then Lowest Roll on ties. So, a special beats a normal, a critical beats a special, a normal beats a failure and a failure beats a fumble in all cases, then if the Level of Success is tied, then the person who makes the skill by the most is the winner (a bit of maths but it's easy maths) and in the case of that being a tie, the lowest roll wins, because rolling low should always be good.

I don't like the abandoning of the Special in RQM, one of the many things that I personally don't like about it. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad system, though.

To be fair to MRQ, RQ2 would have benefited from d20 dice instead of d100, too. Skills were in increments of 5%, so the only thing that needed to D100 was the criticals (and D&Ds roll and confirm method would fix that).

RQ3/RQM and BRP are all percentile systems and don't equate to D20 in the same way that RQ2 did.

All quite fair. That was one reason why I asked for another point of view (and had you in mind when I posted).

I'm just pleased that I could be your stooge.

For the most part I tried to point out differences without going RQ=good, MRQ=bad, but I realized some bias was inevitable.

Bias? If you start from the position that one system is "Good" or "Bad" then bias will be present.

Now your bias is showing. I don"t think the things you listed are necessarily "good":

The only bias I have is that RQ is a good system, something that I'm not going to apologise for.

I think that a lot of the things brought in for RQM are backward steps. Spirit Combat stinks to high heaven, Opposed Rolls in combat don't really work that well, Specials have been lost, linking spells to Runes doesn't work at all for me, Divine Magic has been trashed, some cults use Spirit Magic (Runemagic with a different name) where they would have been better off sticking to Divine Magic, to name but a few.

But this thread isn't about what is wrong with RQM, it's about how it differs from previous versions of RQ. When D100 comes out, we can start a thread complaining about how D100 differs from RQ.

Legendary Abilities screw up the way the game works. It changes the game form "a learn by doing/studying approach" to a "get XP to spend on cool powers" approach.

When I first read them, that's what I felt. However, having thought about them a bit, they are no different in essence from the Heroic Abilities, Gifts, Special Abilities or HeroQuest Abilities that were in previous versions of RQ. The only difference is that they have been consolidated and rationalised so that they use the same game mechanics and that they have been made generic and easily accessible. The first is good, the second not so good. I would have preferred them to be linked to cults, to special deeds and not to be easily accessible. But in principle they are a good idea.

Modularity doesn't exist. In fact, it is one of the major things that I find objectionable about Matt Sprange view of RQ. The various rules in RQ are interlinked. You can't really switch stuff in and out without creating more problems. The various "rule updates" should illustrate that. One changes causes others. The same is true with the problems with MRQ Glorantha. You can't change the gods, magic systems, and economic systems without the world changing.

What I meant by "Modularity" was the various rules for things like Equipment making, enchanting, adapting armour, weapons, ships and other vehicles, traits for creatures, flaws for Pirates, that sort of thing. These rules are modular in nature and I like the approach. That approach is better than older versions of RQ.

Equipment & Vehicle Design- No comment, since I haven't bought those supplements. Although if the rules are like the stuff that in the equipment book, there are quite a few comments on the MRQ forums to the effect of "bad, bad, worse".

People are entitled to their own opinion, of course, but I think that Arms and Equipment is one of the top 3 supplements for RQM (Pirates and Elric are the others). The magic items are perhaps a list of cool things to have, in D&D style rather than descriptions of interesting magic items in Plunder style, but the rest of it is very good.

SRD- Okay, this I do consider good. It lets people look at the book before they decide to plop down some cash. Wish I had waited for this before MRQ rather than prepaid for the game. But, hey, when I read that Greg Stafford and Steve Perrin were involved in the design for MRQ (that was in the ads), I figured it a safe bet.

OGL- Bad, bad, bad. Letting anyone publish stuff for a system means that, well, ANYONE will. While there are SOME decent OGL products, there is a lot more crap. The sheer volume of OGL products for D20 is another problem (there is so much stuff, and so many similar guidebooks, that it is tough to sort through), although a problem that is thankfully exclusive to D20.

The more the merrier in my opinion. So far, we have Stupor Mundi, a good Fantasy Europe supplement that would mesh very well with Mythic Russia, several very low cost items from Seraphim Guard, several series from Sceaptune Games, Ronin Publishers and GORE to name but a few. Perhaps they are a bit generic, but that's because they can't write for Glorantha and don;t have specific worlds/setings to work with. But they are good for ideas and are very useable as scenarios/backgrounds.

I'd rather have 100 mediocre supplements available than 5 good ones.

After all, I can always adapt a mediocre supplement. In my opinion, I have to adapt even good supplements, so there's not a lot of difference, really. As long as they have some background, spells, NPCs and scenarios then I can use them.

What's "definite" about it? Your post does nothing to prove you point.

Was I trying to prove a point? I didn't realise. Sorry about that. I'd better check first to see what the purpose of my posts should be.

Here's a few points to the contrary.

1) Mongoose's products are mostly d20 based.

Which, of course, means they can only do more D20 stuff. they couldn't possibly do something new or different.

2) Matt Sprange is an experienced D20 author with little to no experience writing for skill based systems.

And is he the author of the RQ line?

3) Reduced lethality, spell casting limited to dedicated spellcasters, and improvement awarded by the GM, all all characteristics of D&D.

Reduced lethality is a symptom of modern gaming. I'm even using it in RQ3.

Spell casting is not limited to dedicated spellcasters, quite the reverse.

Improvement awarded by the GM is something I've used for at least 15 years with absolutely no influence from D&D. HeroQuest uses it as well. It avoids many of the pitfalls of the skill-chase and allows PCs to be focussed on what they want to.

4) The admitted demographic that MRQ is aimed at are the D&Ders who are disenchanted with what D&D has grown into. That came out in the chats on the Mongoose boards back a year and a half ago. Basically, if the old RQers buy it, that's great, but they were not the target audience. D&Ders were.

I'm sure that Chaosium would love to tap into that demographic as well.

Both Mongoose and Chaosium have a (small) security blanket in that many of the old RQers will buy both RQM and D100, both to support the systems and to see what they are like. They won't all buy the supplements, but a lot of them will buy some of the supplements.

But, if they want a lot of sales, they have to try and tap into the market of people who buy RPGs and the largest share of that is the D&D/D20ers.

It's the old argument about commercial success vs integrity. You can't have integrity in a game if it a commercial success. Load of rubbish, really.

All in my opinion, of course.

[Enpeze]

With 210 vs. 200, you just divide by ten before taking it to the resistance table, no?

:mad: Blasphemy!

IMO, having d20 instead of d100 is not that big problem. I always thought that RQ2 could use d20 easily. I have been "grown up" with Midgard (till 1988) a german roleplaying game which used d20 as its main dice. If RQ and BRP had been designed using d20 instead of d100 and we got accustomed to this over the years, I dont think that our overall experience and way to play BRP would suffering. Pendragon as a spin off of BRP shows that our wonderful system can be played with other dice too.

I'd say good, good, good. The more the better. Having loads of volume of BRP stuff to sort through would be a luxury problem easily solved by a review section.

SGL.

Really? If you look at the OGL d20 flood the past years where 99% of the material is crap, I am not sure if OGL is a good thing. Its good from a commercial POV maybe to proliferate the system, but for gamers (like me) which prefer qualtity over quantity its often difficult to find out the ones I like.

Reviews from third parties are not everything. Often they dont reflect my taste and are biased. So I would rather like to have a 3-4 books with BRP-adventures per year from a reliable high quality source (like Chaosium or Pegasus Press) than dozens of books where the most are dreck.

But maybe I am wrong in this aspect, I dont know. Maybe most of the ludicrous d20 crap books are just made by immature d20 fanboys and the guys which are going to release BRP OGL material are different.

[Atgxtg]

With 210 vs. 200, you just divide by ten before taking it to the resistance table, no?

No/Yes/Maybe. It depends on what version of RQ3+ you are using. RQ3 did go linear somewhere around SIZ 100, but that appears to be because few creatures could get such SIZ scores (Giants and Dragons). But most BRP products that came out after it, such as the latter version of CoC, used a non lineral progression to handle monster like Cthulhu.

If you keep with the non-linear scale, then you'd just use the 5% per point shift as normal, do not divide. Keep in mind that a 10 point difference doesn"t seem like much at high SIZ scores, but means a mass increase of around 138% regardless on where you are on the SIZ chart. So 200 vs. 210 is the same relationship as 20 vs. 30.

:mad: Blasphemy!

Realism. In RQ2 all the skill values and improvement rules were in 5% increments, as were the values on the resistance table. With the exception of the critical and fumble chances, RQ2 actually used D100s as D20s. So did BRP (original), WoW, and early editions of CoC. It was Strombringer that broke the trend and was Chaosium's first true D100 game, and I see a lot of RQ3 in Stormbringer.

I'd say good, good, good. The more the better. Having loads of volume of BRP stuff to sort through would be a luxury problem easily solved by a review section.

SGL.

Well, that's your opinion. I don"t place much faith in reviews. TO illustrate my point, many of us here are not fond of the MRQ product line, yet such products have gotten good reviews. So either reviews are of little value to us, or we're all wrong and should go buy those products!:eek:

[Trifletraxor]

IMO, having d20 instead of d100 is not that big problem. I always thought that RQ2 could use d20 easily.

Realism. In RQ2 all the skill values and improvement rules were in 5% increments, as were the values on the resistance table. With the exception of the critical and fumble chances, RQ2 actually used D100s as D20s.

Well, it's still blasphemy! D20 is the enemy! :eek:

If you look at the OGL d20 flood the past years where 99% of the material is crap, I am not sure if OGL is a good thing. Its good from a commercial POV maybe to proliferate the system, but for gamers (like me) which prefer qualtity over quantity its often difficult to find out the ones I like.

Reviews from third parties are not everything. Often they dont reflect my taste and are biased. So I would rather like to have a 3-4 books with BRP-adventures per year from a reliable high quality source (like Chaosium or Pegasus Press) than dozens of books where the most are dreck.

Well, that's your opinion. I don"t place much faith in reviews. TO illustrate my point, many of us here are not fond of the MRQ product line, yet such products have gotten good reviews. So either reviews are of little value to us, or we're all wrong and should go buy those products!:eek:

So you prefer a trinkle of supplements from Chaosium and the 3rd party publishers who buy the license from Chaosium, instead of a trinkle of supplements from Chaosium and a flood from 3rd parties?

If BRP was OGL, the system would spread. Chaosium would continue to produce their quality products weither a OGL was in efect or not. Take MRQ f.ex., the supplement from Sceaptune games are said to be of higher quality than the official ones. Instead of searching through individual 3rd party supplements, you could see which companies got the rumour of producing high quality content, and got consistent high reviews. OR, you could ignore it fully, and just buy Chaosium stuff. I can't see anything negative about a BRP OGL.

SGL.

[Enpeze]

Well, it's still blasphemy! D20 is the enemy! :eek:

So you prefer a trinkle of supplements from Chaosium and the 3rd party publishers who buy the license from Chaosium, instead of a trinkle of supplements from Chaosium and a flood from 3rd parties?

If BRP was OGL, the system would spread. Chaosium would continue to produce their quality products weither a OGL was in efect or not. Take MRQ f.ex., the supplement from Sceaptune games are said to be of higher quality than the official ones. Instead of searching through individual 3rd party supplements, you could see which companies got the rumour of producing high quality content, and got consistent high reviews. OR, you could ignore it fully, and just buy Chaosium stuff. I can't see anything negative about a BRP OGL.

SGL.

As I have already said, maybe you are right, but I am more on the minimalistic side now. And crappy BRP OGL products made some nerds seems like raping my favorite system.

Regarding your example of Sceaptune material which is said to be of higher quality than those of Mongoose. Well I am not surprised to hear this, because this is easy and I am rather wondering that not more 3rd party companies have this reputation.

[Atgxtg]

I'm not trying to get into an argument, and all in my opinion, but ...

Cool. My concern is that some of your statements sometimes come off as factual rather than opinion.

I'd have preferred keeping fumble/failure/success/special/critical as 5 levels of success and having Opposed Contests determined by Level of Success then Margin of Success then Lowest Roll on ties. So, a special beats a normal, a critical beats a special, a normal beats a failure and a failure beats a fumble in all cases, then if the Level of Success is tied, then the person who makes the skill by the most is the winner (a bit of maths but it's easy maths) and in the case of that being a tie, the lowest roll wins, because rolling low should always be good.

I don't like the abandoning of the Special in RQM, one of the many things that I personally don't like about it. That doesn't necessarily make it a bad system, though.

I think I agree with around 99% of what you posted here. That is how I would have preferred the game to go. That or just bump up and down the level of success based on the defender's roll (I.E. A critical vs. a special gets dropped to a special, and so on).

The abandoning of the Special does not in itself make MRQ a bad game. It along with the other changes might, but that's a different topic. Again, I wasn't saying that MRQ was bad in this thread, just pointing out the differences.

IMO, none of MRQ's changes improve anything. At best they just simply some thigs, but simple isn't necessarily better either. The special is a good example. As far as I can tell from Mongoose, the special was dropped because they thought player's weren't up to the challenge of dividing by 5.

RQ3/RQM and BRP are all percentile systems and don't equate to D20 in the same way that RQ2 did.

I agree with you about RQ3 and to some extent MRQ. To be honest, MRQ could have easily been designed to work with 20 sided dice, streamlining the rules (one of the goals), and avoiding a lot of the opposed rolls problems. With skill scores in the 1-20 ranges, the math becomes much easier to do in your head.

BRP did equate to D20, with 5% skill increments. I'm assuming that is doesn't anymore. That's probably a good question to bring up for Jason, though. Maybe BRP is still in 5% increments?

I'm just pleased that I could be your stooge.

Glad your happy. You're not my stooge, through. I just tapped you as a resource. I am aware of my own bias in this matter and was thinking of you as someone with a different bias, yet someone would could still adress the issue, rather than going to flame wars. Sadly, there are a lot of people who get hostile if someone criticizes their favorite game. Worth you I figured we could get a different point of view and not degenerate into a lot of "You Suck!" posts. Oh, and you have some knowledge and experience with gaming, making your opinions more valuable even to those who might disagree with them.

I used to hate how the MRQ fanboys would cry out how MRQ was better than RQ2 or RQ3, while never having played (or even read) them, and so have something to validate their comparison. You've actually played (and still play) RQ3, so your opinion carries more weight (with me anyway) that that on someone with no clue as to what he is talking about. Right now, you are about the only pro-MRQ member of the board that I could go to. There are/were some others over at the MRQ site, but I think we all agree that this site is a bit pro-BRP and anti-MRQ. So any counter arguments will have to be well thought out or else they won't have a chance of overcoming the bias, and allowing the board to be at least somewhat objective. I'd rather have someone like you bringing up points and counterpoints. You actually quite valuable for all us BRP fanatics to have around.

Bias? If you start from the position that one system is "Good" or "Bad" then bias will be present.

THere is always bias. It can't be avoided, even if it is unintentional. I am aware of my pro-RQ/anti-MRQ bias. That's why I wanted someone who was more pro-MRQ to provide input, so that Tweaker could get a counter balancing influence. Oh, and thanks.

There are quite a few biases among gamers, and the RQ community is no exception. Most RQers have an anti-D&D bias (partially frustration over it's success while RQ is on life support, partially anger at the crap we've taken from idiot D&Ders). RQers also have something of a love-hate relationship with the DragonQuest community (RQers prefer RQ, but we make good DQ converts, as we pick up the game mechanics easier than D&Ders do.)

The only bias I have is that RQ is a good system, something that I'm not going to apologise for.

No, you, like us all, have biases. You don't have to apologize for any of them, but it is worthwhile for people to be aware of them when they read your opinions.

I think that a lot of the things brought in for RQM are backward steps. Spirit Combat stinks to high heaven, Opposed Rolls in combat don't really work that well, Specials have been lost, linking spells to Runes doesn't work at all for me, Divine Magic has been trashed, some cults use Spirit Magic (Runemagic with a different name) where they would have been better off sticking to Divine Magic, to name but a few.

But this thread isn't about what is wrong with RQM, it's about how it differs from previous versions of RQ. When D100 comes out, we can start a thread complaining about how D100 differs from RQ.

I agree. In fact, that is tied into the reason why I wanted someone like you to respond. If you did it, we can keep focused on the topic (the differences) rather than get entrenched in our respective corners defending game systems.

When I first read them, that's what I felt. However, having thought about them a bit, they are no different in essence from the Heroic Abilities, Gifts, Special Abilities or HeroQuest Abilities that were in previous versions of RQ. The only difference is that they have been consolidated and rationalised so that they use the same game mechanics and that they have been made generic and easily accessible. The first is good, the second not so good. I would have preferred them to be linked to cults, to special deeds and not to be easily accessible. But in principle they are a good idea.

Well, that you buy them with Hero Points is another difference. Personally, I wished they were tied to cults, too, and/or tied specific skills (like allowing a master swordsman a ability to get a special attack or an extra action). I also agree that the generic approach hasn't worked. The MRQ rules are neither devoted to Glorantha (as with RQ), nor divorced from it (as with RQ3) and that half way state has led to some core rules that work for Glornatha but not elsewhere, and vice versa. IMO they should take Glroantha out of the MRQ core book and release a Glorantha book customized to better fit that setting. I think Glorantha has become one of MRQ's weakpoints. It is the most heavily supported setting for the game, yet the one with the most rule problems.

What I meant by "Modularity" was the various rules for things like Equipment making, enchanting, adapting armour, weapons, ships and other vehicles, traits for creatures, flaws for Pirates, that sort of thing. These rules are modular in nature and I like the approach. That approach is better than older versions of RQ.

Oh, I though you meant the "cut & paste" approach to rules that Mongoose has been promoting. As for the other stuff, that is continuing on the tradition of RQ products and, I agree is very much what BRP seems to be doing.

The more the merrier in my opinion. So far, we have Stupor Mundi, a good Fantasy Europe supplement that would mesh very well with Mythic Russia, several very low cost items from Seraphim Guard, several series from Sceaptune Games, Ronin Publishers and GORE to name but a few. Perhaps they are a bit generic, but that's because they can't write for Glorantha and don;t have specific worlds/setings to work with. But they are good for ideas and are very useable as scenarios/backgrounds.

I'd rather have 100 mediocre supplements available than 5 good ones.

After all, I can always adapt a mediocre supplement. In my opinion, I have to adapt even good supplements, so there's not a lot of difference, really. As long as they have some background, spells, NPCs and scenarios then I can use them.

My opinion is that I rather have products of high quality that quantity. I can always adapt good and great supplements from other RPGs, so why settle for mediocre? If I wanted mediocre gaming, I'd play D&D (the king of RPG mediocrity). But I'd rather have quality over quantity. Same with fiction. I'd rather a favorite author continues a series to high standards than try to wade through a host of books written by imitators.

It's nice to be able to go and buy one official, and decent quality setting book (ancient Rome, Feudal Japan, etc), rather than sort through the various reviews for various competing books and figuring out just whose setting book is good and whose isn't (or whose is better for your purposes). It was differnt in the old days when the local shops stocked most RPG products for most companies. Now, there is a lot more buying blind.

I hit the SIZE limit! :eek:

Must continue in second post.