mrq1

[Daxos232]

I keep seeing that everyone says mrq1 had horrible errors and was not a good system. I have the players handbook but that's the only mrq1 book I have. What is it about the system that people didn't like?

[icebrand]

I didn't like the combat mechanics (combat actions, attack, parry, ridiculous AP), but i don't like the MRQII mechanics either (combat actions and how combat works with running out of actions and maneuvers).

Also, the magic kinda sucked. I like BRP a lot more.

ATM i'm switching to Fire & Sword, with D100 (5% increments), adding some RQ2 rules (like defense and skill categories) and filling the gaps with BRP and house-rules.

[vagabond]

For the most part, the combat in MRQ1 was not very good. There were corrections made when Mongoose's Elric was released, and those changes either made it into MRQ1 errata or a the Companion, or in a later version.

MRQ2 combat is definitely better, and the combat actions are pretty cool. But, I am not 100% enthralled with how the combat actions are implemented. Just a personal preference kind of thing, it's not that they are broken.

The rest of the rules are pretty good though. I use a combination of BRP (Gold Book, Elric!, Corum and Stormbringer, as well as MRQ2 for my core rules now.

Ian

[Thalaba]

There was a lively discussion about this some time ago. I didn't find the original thread, but here's a rebuttal thread that Simon started that nicely summarizes the points from the previous thread. This thread is in the context of people saying that MRQ1 was a D&D-ified version of RQ - and certainly to many of us grognards it was, though not all by a long shot. Maybe someone with more patience than I can find the link to the original thread that these comments came from.

http://basicroleplaying.com/showthread.php/1486-Why-RQM-is-not-like-D-amp-D

[vagabond]

There was a lively discussion about this some time ago. I didn't find the original thread, but here's a rebuttal thread that Simon started that nicely summarizes the points from the previous thread. This thread is in the context of people saying that MRQ1 was a D&D-ified version of RQ - and certainly to many of us grognards it was, though not all by a long shot. Maybe someone with more patience than I can find the link to the original thread that these comments came from.

http://basicroleplaying.com/showthread.php/1486-Why-RQM-is-not-like-D-amp-D

http://basicroleplaying.com/showthread.php/1476-Missing-table/

Had to do with SIZE calculations and such. It wasn't until page 4 that the whole MRQ/D&D stuff came up.

Ian

[Atgxtg]

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.

[rust]

I keep seeing that everyone says mrq1 had horrible errors and was not a good system. I have the players handbook but that's the only mrq1 book I have. What is it about the system that people didn't like?

It was as Atgxtg explained. The system was a bit like my Windows Vista operating system, it

constantly required updates to eliminate the bugs from the previous updates, spreading more

confusion with each additional update - a permanent work in (little) progress, with only a few

very nice exceptions like the first versions of Empires and Guilds, Factions and Cults.

[deleriad]

As stated, the basic problem was that lots of innovations were added into the system without understanding their impact or thinking through how they worked. One simple example is in the change from experience rolls to improvement rolls. In BRP, using a skill successfully gets you a chance at improving by experience so if you have a character who relies on a lot of different skills then they tend to use them all during a session. Conversely a specialist who only uses a small number of skills doesn't gain so much experience. MRQ1 replaced this with improvement rolls given out by the GM. As most players got the same number (+/-1) then characters who used lots of skills (such as sorcerers) got shafted. However they didn't update sorcery.

To be honest, it's hard to think of a single innovation that was properly implemented in MRQI. On the other hand, a lot of the innovations had potential and the new edition shows what happens when you spend a couple of years developing MRQI systematically. I personally like what MRQ tried to be and think that MRQII is now my favourite member of the BRP family but I wouldn't touch 90% of the MRQI line.

[RosenMcStern]

However they didn't update sorcery.

In fact, Jeff K had already fixed this in Cults of Glorantha 2 by stating that all spell skills were subsumed in one Read (Grimoire) skill. Loz & Pete completed this by unifying the manipulation skills.

[deleriad]

In fact, Jeff K had already fixed this in Cults of Glorantha 2 by stating that all spell skills were subsumed in one Read (Grimoire) skill. Loz & Pete completed this by unifying the manipulation skills.

Well it was fixed for Glorantha only in MRQ1 and then properly fixed in MRQII. That said, the sorcery spell descriptions were never fixed. For example you had the illusion spells that were essentially impossible to cast as intended because Mongoose didn't properly update spells that were written in RQ3 on the basis that a master magus could probably pull off about 18 levels of manipulation, something almost impossible in MRQ1. The MRQ1 line is a great case study of the strengths and weaknesses of Mongoose. On the positive side, they get product out of the door and they tend to get good authors. On the negative side their editing and quality control is abysmal meaning that there is no consistency of anything but page count.

MRQII is basically what MRQ1 should have been.

[RosenMcStern]

MRQII is basically what MRQ1 should have been.

With some notable exceptions, I agree with you.

[Nightshade]

As stated, the basic problem was that lots of innovations were added into the system without understanding their impact or thinking through how they worked. One simple example is in the change from experience rolls to improvement rolls. In BRP, using a skill successfully gets you a chance at improving by experience so if you have a character who relies on a lot of different skills then they tend to use them all during a session. Conversely a specialist who only uses a small number of skills doesn't gain so much experience. MRQ1 replaced this with improvement rolls given out by the GM. As most players got the same number (+/-1) then characters who used lots of skills (such as sorcerers) got shafted. However they didn't update sorcery.

I suspect to many people that was sort of a virtue; making those who used a lot of skills prioritize which ones they thought were more important was considered fairer.

But as you say, some areas this doesn't work well in, where simple basic operations are set up so they demand a lot of skills.

[tedopon]

I suspect to many people that was sort of a virtue; making those who used a lot of skills prioritize which ones they thought were more important was considered fairer.

When we started our classic fantasy campaign, we borrowed a lot from other systems. This was one of the options that I put up for a vote to my players. I did not have a single taker. I can't honestly think of anyone I've gamed with in the past 20 years that would prefer a standardized system that is "fair and balanced" over one where you are rewarded for what you actually do in game. That includes level based games like D&D, dice pool games and roll under/over games. I see that as a major flaw. Even players I've played with over the years who contributed little more than a body at the table have noted that when a system like that was in place to regulate experience acquisition (I played in an AWESOME D&D campaign early last decade that started out that way) it didn't seem fair for those who contributed less to be awarded the exact same reward.

That's why I've preferred the skill based systems over the years. I'll play damn near anything, but I prefer to play a game where my character's statistical attributes are at least a somewhat accurate representation of how I play them.

But, in the end, it's really a matter of taste, and I'm sure there are groups who would prefer a more evenly distributed experience pool for their games. I'm definitely not one of them.

[Nightshade]

When we started our classic fantasy campaign, we borrowed a lot from other systems. This was one of the options that I put up for a vote to my players. I did not have a single taker. I can't honestly think of anyone I've gamed with in the past 20 years that would prefer a standardized system that is "fair and balanced" over one where you are rewarded for what you actually do in game. That includes level based games like D&D, dice pool games and roll under/over games. I see that as a major flaw. Even players I've played with over the years who contributed little more than a body at the table have noted that when a system like that was in place to regulate experience acquisition (I played in an AWESOME D&D campaign early last decade that started out that way) it didn't seem fair for those who contributed less to be awarded the exact same reward.

But the standard system doesn't reward people who contribute more. It rewards those who make more rolls in different skills. Those don't come close to being the same thing. The guy who helps with all the planning, runs around and pulls opposition off the folks who are outnumbered, and is otherwise useful may make only two or three kinds of skill rolls in the whole game, while the guy who makes sure to find every opportunity to make a skill roll possible may actually be detracting from the game. There's no direct relationship.

[tedopon]

But the standard system doesn't reward people who contribute more. It rewards those who make more rolls in different skills. Those don't come close to being the same thing. The guy who helps with all the planning, runs around and pulls opposition off the folks who are outnumbered, and is otherwise useful may make only two or three kinds of skill rolls in the whole game, while the guy who makes sure to find every opportunity to make a skill roll possible may actually be detracting from the game. There's no direct relationship.

I see what you mean. I guess I have had a few players over the years like that. I remember a guy who played in a CoC game I ran years ago who was always pulling random nonsense to increase skills he would never actually use in a way that helped. He died when tinkering with a dynamite stick _in a large hotel in downtown Chicago_. He quit playing after that and would only play board games with us. HA!

But, my statement still holds water. Although what you speak of does happen, just as many times the guy planning and doing all the running around is increasing a lot of his character's maths just by being an active player rather than a good use for a chair.

[rust]

But the standard system doesn't reward people who contribute more. It rewards those who make more rolls in different skills.

This is not necessarily a problem, I think.

As the BRP rules say, the gamemaster should allow experience checks whenever skills are suc-

cessfully used in stressful situations. In my view this means that the character has to take a si-

gnificant risk to gain any experience from a successful skill use, he cannot just use this skill he-

re and that skill there to get an experience check - unless he is willing to accept a significant

risk of a rather harmful failure each time.

For example, if a character intends to get a chance to improve his climbing skill by climbing

each and every wall in sight, I will allow it - if he accepts that each and every failure will mean

that he will fall and take more or less severe damage each time, up to and including the risk

that a fumble will break his neck.

If treated this way, characters tend to think before using skills just to beg for some more ex-

perience checks, and if someone decides to use more skills and to take the relevant risk each

time, the experience checks seem a fair reward - "more pain, more gain" ...

[deleriad]

This is not necessarily a problem, I think.

As the BRP rules say, the gamemaster should allow experience checks whenever skills are suc-

cessfully used in stressful situations.

What I found in my last couple of years running RQ3 was that I followed this method and by default I was gradually adopting a system which might as well have been an IR system. For example, a sorcerer might spend a long time reading over ancient scrolls. Rather than making him make Read rolls I would have making an Idea or Lore skill roll to find the information and at the end of the scenario might say that'll count as Read and Lore checks. It also solved the old bugbear of what about the person who learns through failing?

Mind you, I'm also a big believe in "Let it Ride" and "say yes or roll dice." Rather than asking for a Climb Roll every 5 or 10m I figure the player tells me what the character wants to do and if there's no reason to worry about failure I'll say "ok off you go." If dice are rolled I try to have one skill roll suffice rather than loads and tell the player the consequence of failure. I suspect that I call for less than 1/10th of the number dice rolls now as I did when I was a young whippersnapper. Means that IRs work better for my style of play than experience checks.

Nowadays I'll tell players you can have X IRs each. Bob you can have an extra one because of the way you handled dinner with the Count and you can also all get 1 each in Lore (Regional) because of what you learned. Then it's up to the players to assign them based on what their PCs did and learned. It's a system I prefer but you do have to follow the implications right through: something that MRQ1 patently failed to do and, what's more, the various patches often made the problem worse.

[Atgxtg]

But the standard system doesn't reward people who contribute more. It rewards those who make more rolls in different skills. Those don't come close to being the same thing. The guy who helps with all the planning, runs around and pulls opposition off the folks who are outnumbered, and is otherwise useful may make only two or three kinds of skill rolls in the whole game, while the guy who makes sure to find every opportunity to make a skill roll possible may actually be detracting from the game. There's no direct relationship.

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.

[Nightshade]

This is not necessarily a problem, I think.

As the BRP rules say, the gamemaster should allow experience checks whenever skills are suc-

cessfully used in stressful situations. In my view this means that the character has to take a si-

gnificant risk to gain any experience from a successful skill use, he cannot just use this skill he-

re and that skill there to get an experience check - unless he is willing to accept a significant

risk of a rather harmful failure each time.

The problem with this is that a certain percentage of BRP system players develop what I can only call a compulsion about getting rolls. In fact, I think most do to a limited extent, but some just can't keep it down to sanity. Now what you talk about here deals with the issue of meaningless rolls, but it can't deal with the other half of the problem: rolls that are meaningful but didn't need to happen.

Lets say you have two ways of dealing with a problem, the more straightforward, and safer way, and the more risky way that doesn't really have much else to recommend it--but it does provide more skill rolls. Some people will take the latter just for that reason.

There's two problems with this:

1. Everyone else may not be onboard this approach, but that doesn't mean they don't get dragged along one way or another.

2. Even if everyone is onboard, it turns up the hazard level in a way that may not be attractive or good for the overall health of the game.

Now you may say "Well, I have ways of addressing that if it happens." Of course you do. Like most people on this board, you're probably a longtime BRP grognard. This means one way or another, you've gotten peace with any peculiarities of the system.

But not everyone is a longtimer. And new people aren't necessarily going to be similarly equipped, or, in some cases, feel like they want to deal with the problem. In the past, at least some of these have probably tossed in the towel and moved on to other systems.

So providing people a tool to keep this down to a dull roar does serve a purpose, even if its not one many people on this board feel like they need.

[vagabond]

I like to handle experience rolls thusly:

1) Ticks are given if a skill is used successfully in a stressful situation

2) At the end of a scenario, the GM can award each player a number of ticks to apply as they desire (I usually keep this to around 4 or so, but for much longer scenarios, I up it. Campaigns are treated as a chain of scenarios, so no need to add any more per scenario).

3) Skills can have two ticks at most.

This allows for growth through use, with heavy use potentially granting double growth, but also allows growth of skills that may not have played an important part, but the player decides that for whatever reason, those skills are important.

This method can help quell the need to just do things in order to get ticks.

Ian

[rust]

Lets say you have two ways of dealing with a problem, the more straightforward, and safer way, and the more risky way that doesn't really have much else to recommend it--but it does provide more skill rolls. Some people will take the latter just for that reason.

I seem to be a lucky guy, because I have never had a player whose character knowingly took

a higher risk than he considered necessary to solve a problem. I suspect this is because our

general style is rather simulationist, and someone actively looking for unnecessary risks to ta-

ke just is not a very plausible character - at least not one any party would tolerate as a mem-

ber.

[Atgxtg]

Lets say you have two ways of dealing with a problem, the more straightforward, and safer way, and the more risky way that doesn't really have much else to recommend it--but it does provide more skill rolls. Some people will take the latter just for that reason.

There's two problems with this:

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.

[Nightshade]

I like to handle experience rolls thusly:

1) Ticks are given if a skill is used successfully in a stressful situation

2) At the end of a scenario, the GM can award each player a number of ticks to apply as they desire (I usually keep this to around 4 or so, but for much longer scenarios, I up it. Campaigns are treated as a chain of scenarios, so no need to add any more per scenario).

3) Skills can have two ticks at most.

This allows for growth through use, with heavy use potentially granting double growth, but also allows growth of skills that may not have played an important part, but the player decides that for whatever reason, those skills are important.

This method can help quell the need to just do things in order to get ticks.

Ian

That's certainly an alternate way to deal with it; its just inverting the process which may suit some people better than limiting the number of ticks possible, which is really what the MRQ method does.

[Nightshade]

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.

If you don't see the way an ongoing tendency in this direction can disrupt a campaign, I'm not sure what to say to you. Killing the character doesn't really help unless every new character starts at the bottom (and that creates its own sets of problems in my experience).

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.

As I said, I've seen people who did this no matter the consequences. Over the years in RQ I saw quite a lot of them to one degree or another. The fact it had risks didn't seem much of a deterant in a game where no matter how careful you were, a 01 from a composite bow could make all your effort in vane, and given it tends to be irrational behavior in the first place, expecting potential bad consequences to fix it isn't understanding the problem.

[Nightshade]

I seem to be a lucky guy, because I have never had a player whose character knowingly took

a higher risk than he considered necessary to solve a problem. I suspect this is because our

general style is rather simulationist, and someone actively looking for unnecessary risks to ta-

ke just is not a very plausible character - at least not one any party would tolerate as a mem-

ber.

I suspect you've got people who are far, far more willing to ignore "PC glow" than is even vaguely typical in this hobby. People who take unnecessary risks are all over the hobby, and even gritty systems don't make that go away.