Mongoose RuneQuest II on the way

[Pete Nash]

Very simple. It is as it has been explained here: to overcome your opponent, you need to achieve one level of success more than him (success vs. failure, critical vs. success, etc.). If level of success is equal, then damage is blocked if the weapons are of the same size, or passes through (partially or totally) if the attacker's weapon is larger. With the exception of the latter case, if you hit you also get a manoeuver (two if you critical), which means that when you hit you often disable your opponent.

Ummm, you got that very slightly wrong.

If the attacker succeeds (Success or Crit) in his roll, his weapon hits. If the defender succeeds (Success or Crit) then he parrys the blow. The effect of the parry, as you rightly pointed out, depends on the corresponding sizes of the weapons. Then, if one or other succeeded and got a level of success above his opponent, they get one CM per LoS step between them.

So it is quite possible to have the damage of your attack parried, but use an offensive CM to mess up the defender in another way. Just as its possible that a defender is wounded as he applies a defensive CM to discommode his foe. Its quite sophisticated, and allows a lot of real life situations occur in play.

As both Deleriad and Rosen have indicated, there are lots of fun defensive CMs as well as offensive ones.

[deleriad]

Thanks for all that detail! Mmmm, interesting, but I'm still not sold. That's still Opposed Rolls, whatever they assert.

Well the attack parry cycle uses the same opposed roll mechanic as the original RQ2 rules. if your skill is over 100% then it reduces your opponent's skill by the excess.* Shall I assume you didn't like the original RQ2?

*There is a difference. in RQ2 the excess was only subtracted from the lower skill while in RQII it is subtracted from both.**

**Given the cost in IRs of improving over 100%, I could see a good rationale for using RQ2 mechanic of only reducing the lower skill to emphasise the importance of skill.

[frogspawner]

If the attacker succeeds (Success or Crit) in his roll, his weapon hits. If the defender succeeds (Success or Crit) then he parrys the blow.

Well that's nice and simple, at least. What are the basic effects (forgetting CMs for now) of attack & parry Crits, though?

[deleriad]

Well that's nice and simple, at least. What are the basic effects (forgetting CMs for now) of attack & parry Crits, though?

there aren't any. you get access to critical cms. (cat on hand, hence no capitals...)

[Pete Nash]

The manoeuvres may well be fun, but introducing decisions about them into the combat sequence will slow down play, I expect, and also spoil the immediacy (all-important to me) of knowing what effect you have had.

Once you've played it a few times the CMs fade into the background. Speed wise, CMs actually make combat quicker overall and can resolve a fight without needing to disect your enemy.

Not simple enough for me, I'm afraid. And introducing manoeuvres for parrying as well compounds the problem already mentioned.

The humakti draws his sword and lunges at you. Roll dice. Humakti fails, you succeed and chose and succeed in disarming him. Hold your blade under his chin. Fight over! Honestly, it can be pretty slick!

But if the book really does look as nice as all that, I might just get it anyway.

PS: It hasn't got a Physical Rune on the cover, has it?

It is a nice book. It has the Luck Rune on the cover.

[Pete Nash]

Are these similar to what has been done in SPQR, by using levels of success for varied effects, the higher the degree of success, the more potent the result (or combination of success for many successes)?

You gain one CM per Level of Success you gain over your opponent. A few of the CMs can only be selected if you rolled a critical.

[RosenMcStern]

Ummm, you got that very slightly wrong.

..

So it is quite possible to have the damage of your attack parried, but use an offensive CM to mess up the defender in another way. Just as its possible that a defender is wounded as he applies a defensive CM to discommode his foe. Its quite sophisticated, and allows a lot of real life situations occur in play.

I knew. It is just that this happens in some rather unfrequent cases. Basically, when you critical against a successful parry, you usually apply the Bypass Parry manoeuver to hit even if your opponent parries. But you still have the option of doing no damage and applying a combat manoeuver if this is tactically more effective (knockback into the chasm is a good example). Similarly, if you critically parry and your weapon is small, you would usually want to use "improve parry" to block all damage (the infamous "parry the poleaxe with a dagger case"), but you can also take the damage in and use a defensive manoeuver to disable your opponent instead - there are cases where this is more advisable.

The point is that these are extreme cases and someone could be scared by the complexity if you mention them in a "please summarize this for me" description. It is not complicate, instad. The average result is that if you succeed and your opponent fails, then you do something very nasty to your foe - either offensively or defensively - and there are several pages of nasty options to choose from. In the remaining 5-10% of non-average cases (criticals, different sizes of weapons, etc), the rules allow for hundreds of permutations that represent peculiar but realistic events. All this without introducing even one special case - it is all covered by the two basic rules: level of success, and size of weapon.

[p_clapham]

So going through book, I see the starting number of spells for both common magic and divine magic. However I can't find anything in regards to starting number of Sorcery spells. Anyone have better luck than I on this?

[lawrence.whitaker]

So going through book, I see the starting number of spells for both common magic and divine magic. However I can't find anything in regards to starting number of Sorcery spells. Anyone have better luck than I on this?

Page 27: Magic Using Characters

'Sorcerers and Witches: Gain a Grimoire appropriate to their cult. If a pre-defined cult is being used then the spells contained... will be already determined. If a Grimoire needs to be developed from scratch, it will contain up to four sorcery spells appropriate to the sorcery order's nature and teachings.'

[frogspawner]

Once you've played it a few times the CMs fade into the background. Speed wise, CMs actually make combat quicker... Honestly, it can be pretty slick!

It does sound like a pretty good system. I must give it a try sometime.

It has the Luck Rune on the cover.

Shame. Do you still have to kill people to get (the use of) their Runes?

[lawrence.whitaker]

Shame.

Don't see why having a the Luck rune on the book's cover is a shame... :confused:

Do you still have to kill people to get (the use of) their Runes?

No. Because physical runes are gone. Completely. If you had them and liked them in an existing MRQ1 campaign you can continue to use them; but otherwise... no physical runes.

[Pete Nash]

I think the Luck Rune is rather apt.

[frogspawner]

Don't see why having a the Luck rune on the book's cover is a shame... :confused:

Because physical runes were a Bad Thing. (For me, symbolizing the D&D-minded insensitivity to Glorantha that permeated MRQ1). But you know that...

Anyway, I've seen a picture of your new MRQ2 now - and I note it's not a physical rune, just a Rune. That's fine!

(Disappointed it doesn't say "Mongoose" on it, though. And I was so sure it would...)

By the way, it's not Luck. It's Fate.

Because physical runes are gone. Completely. If you had them and liked them in an existing MRQ1 campaign you can continue to use them; but otherwise... no physical runes.

What? After all the effort I put in over on the Mongoose forum, working out how they could be compatible with Glorantha??

[Pete Nash]

By the way, it's not Luck. It's Fate.

Well my copy has a Luck Rune (upsidown V with a crossbar over the top). Perhaps I was just lucky...

[lawrence.whitaker]

Well my copy has a Luck Rune (upsidown V with a crossbar over the top). Perhaps I was just lucky...

Mine too. The design changed between the cover mock-up which is out on the Interweb and the Dead Tree product.

[frogspawner]

Yep, that's Luck alright. I was looking at this from the Mongoose site:

PS: I'm glad that's explained. For all your good work, you guys deserve a better Fate!

Edited January 22, 2010 by frogspawner
PS

[Pete Nash]

PS: I'm glad that's explained. For all your good work, you guys deserve a better Fate!

Arrgh, my exhaustion fogged brain can't take any more puns. I'm off to bed!

[Atgxtg]

The combat maneuvers sound neat. But...

Is there enough to them so that players will want to vary which ones they pull off. It would get boring and counterproductive if the characters tended to pick the same maneuver all the time.

[RosenMcStern]

It is a problem that surfaced during playtesting. Some manoeuvers could be abused. But in actual play, it did not show up so frequently, and I noticed that some limitations were put in after playtesting. So there is no great danger of this becoming boring.

Besides, it is clear that more manoeuvers may exist. Remember that each weapon type has its own, so additional weapons should add additional manoeuvers. I cannot remember if the entangle manoeuver was in, for instance. Also consider that martial arts styles could provide more manoeuvers. And the EWF martial artists have plenty of peculiar combat techniques.

Incidentally, Dragon Lines has dozens of MA techniques that could work well as MRQ2 manoeuvers.

[lawrence.whitaker]

The combat maneuvers sound neat. But...

Is there enough to them so that players will want to vary which ones they pull off. It would get boring and counterproductive if the characters tended to pick the same maneuver all the time.

I've been running a playtest with my little group for quite a while now, and they don't get boring. What I've found is that the players think a bit more about their foe and what they might face in terms of CMs used against them; that then helps decide possible key CMs and responses. My players are, for instance, very wary of anyone with a missile...

[Atgxtg]

Rosen, Loz,

That's good guys. I like the idea of CMs and was fond of something similar in Usagi Yojimbo, but I could see how "constant disarms" or such could get tedious.

I really dislike MRQ1 and wasn't planning on ever looking at MRQ2, but this is getting me curious.

[p_clapham]

Thank you, I had missed that.

I had a few more questions on the book. Perhaps I ought to start a new thread, a MRQ II Q&A.

Page 27: Magic Using Characters

'Sorcerers and Witches: Gain a Grimoire appropriate to their cult. If a pre-defined cult is being used then the spells contained... will be already determined. If a Grimoire needs to be developed from scratch, it will contain up to four sorcery spells appropriate to the sorcery order's nature and teachings.'

[frogspawner]

I really dislike MRQ1 and wasn't planning on ever looking at MRQ2, but this is getting me curious.

Same for me. I suspect if the old MRQ had used these rules we wouldn't be here now - we'd be busy playing it.

And calling it RuneQuest.

[Thalaba]

I really dislike MRQ1 and wasn't planning on ever looking at MRQ2, but this is getting me curious.

Ditto this.

[Atgxtg]

Same for me. I suspect if the old MRQ had used these rules we wouldn't be here now - we'd be busy playing it.

And calling it RuneQuest.

I'm not so sure about that. I haven't read MRQ2, so I can't make any comparisons. From what I've seen from the character sheets and previews, there is still a lot of MRQ1 stuff in this that I don't like (Resilience, Pestilence, opposed rolls).