MRQII is now "wayfarer"

[Agentorange]

The only bitter, dysfunctional family members I've seen are maybe half a dozen on this site

Good lord, there's loads more than half a dozen. It's just that many of us are full blown sociopaths and thus very adept at disguising or concealing our true feelings

[rust]

I will readily admit that I have no love for Mongoose Publishing or they way of doing business.

While I have a certain "brand loyalty" for Mongoose, more because of Traveller

than because of Runequest, this is rapidly eroding. Yesterday I wrote a rant si-

milar to yours on another forum, but I will not repeat it here, because it had the

developments around Traveller instead of Runequest at its centre.

[Simlasa]

Yeah, I've pretty much worn my disdain for Mongoose on my sleeve. Though my opinions extend from some of the stunts they pulled with their earlier forays into miniature wargames.

They were already on my bad list when they decided to co-opt the BRP system and start buying up all sorts of RPG licenses... "Oh, let's sacrifice some beloved old settings/games to our slash and burn business tactics. Maybe we can make six months rent off of Runequest."

MRQII is the BEST version of BRP/RQ rules EVER done imho.

Your entitled to your opinion, of course... but from my impression of your past posts you're not overly familiar with previously existing implementations of BRP... which, as has been pointed out to you elsewhere, already included a whole lot/most all of this greatness you attribute to MRQ2.

MRQ2 seems to be a pleasing combination, for you, of options that most BRP fans were already aware of.

[daddystabz]

I'm more familiar than you think. I game with a Call of Cthulu fanatic weekly. I was introduced to old Chaosium RuneQuest years back by a gamer I used to work with. I own the BRP big gold book and am familiar with it. I also own almost the entire collection of MRQII stuff. In terms of mechanics/system MRQII beats them all, hands down. Many on RPG.net seem to agree with me.

[Simlasa]

Many on RPG.net seem to agree with me.

Oh yeah, that's a shining endorsement...

[Thalaba]

In terms of mechanics/system MRQII beats them all, hands down. Many on RPG.net seem to agree with me.

Not enough to keep it afloat, it seems.

There's no such thing as 'best' or 'worst' when it comes to BRP mechanics - only things you like and things you like more and things you like less. Some games may have more things you like, others less. In five years, the things you like may well change. There is no 'one-true-wayism' in BRP derived games.

[PhilHibbs]

I agree with him as well. Pete and Loz's system is excellent.

[Simlasa]

I agree with him as well. Pete and Loz's system is excellent.

See, 'excellent' is a MUCH less controversial word than 'best'...

[PhilHibbs]

See, 'excellent' is a MUCH less controversial word than 'best'...

OK, I think it's the best roleplaying rules system that I've played. Of course, I'm aware that such things are subjective. Maybe if my group were willing to give HeroQuest a try, I might change my mind.

*Update* But, of course, this whole "best" thing is a bit of a pointless sideshow.

Edited May 24, 2011 by PhilHibbs

[soltakss]

MRQII is a very good system. If RQ3 hadn't branded itself into my psyche, I'd probably be playing MRQII for my RQ campaign.

Mongoose tried very hard to produce a good line. Sure, they had problems, but they rebooted the RQ line and produced some very good supplements, some reasonable supplements and some poor supplements. All game companies do that (Anyone remember Chaosium's Scorpionmen and Broos?). Their main problem seems to have been that they tried to run before they could walk, didn't have a good grasp of Glorantha (at least in the beginning) and had problems with editing and production quality. But, at least they did something, and that's a good thing.

As to whether MRQII is the best d100 system out there, that's subjective. It isn't as good as the hybrid that takes the best things from all the d100 games, but it's good enough.

The future is in an OGL game based on an adapted version MRQI/II. Whether that has been written yet is open to debate.

[Atgxtg]

Oh yeah, that's a shining endorsement...

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.

[Atgxtg]

MRQII is a very good system. If RQ3 hadn't branded itself into my psyche, I'd probably be playing MRQII for my RQ campaign.

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.

[sdavies2720]

While I wish that Mongoose hadn't used the RQ name without committing to it for longer, I've lived through this before and my campaign will survive.

I wish I really knew what killed MRQII in the market, but honestly the problem is too many smoking guns, not too few: MRQ1 was...not good. MRQII I think is brilliant, but the first two supplements had problems (understatement!), lingering fan disgruntlement over past Mongoose performance, the RQ name, and treatment during the MRQ1 "playtest," too many competing variants of the same game (BRP, oop RQ, MRQII, OpenQuest, CoC, others), connection to 2nd age Glorantha, and a shrinking RPG market.

It feels like this should be a table that also includes "roll twice", "roll three times", and "roll four times" on the table.

Steve

[Thalaba]

I'd probably be way into MRQ2 if I hadn't been spoiled by RQ3, too.

Luckily I don't have to choose a single system - I now have more subsystems than I can shake a stick at to plug in here and wherever.

...rabbit supporters...

I don't think this means what you think it means.

[Simlasa]

I don't think this means what you think it means.

It's not some code for Furry lovers is it? What's the alternative? 'Rabbit Deniers'?

[wbcreighton]

has it's share of rabbit supporters

That is funny !

[Camillus]

[daddystabz]

I figured people would understand when I stated MRQII was the best iteration of d100 that I was giving MY OPINION. I guess I will have to point that out. I stand by my guns still, however. In addition, yes I do indeed much prefer the elimination of the extra hassle of "special successes" and 5% vs. 10% crits. 10% is nice because you can simply calculate it in your head while 5% makes it more likely you will have to look at a chart.

[ewilen]

For 5% do "if it ends in 1, and the 10s digit is even, then it's a crit".

For 20% do "if it ends in 1 or 6, then it's a special".

That's easy, isn't it?

I'm partly joking, but if you color your dice it might be pretty simple.

Or you could roll a d20 with every roll, and if it comes up with a 1, it's a critical (or fumble if you fail), while if it comes up 2, 3, or 4, it's a special (if you succeed). Again, color the die for quick identification.

Edited May 24, 2011 by ewilen

[Jegergryte]

I for one had good experiences with MRQI … but we never played it for long because of other games going on and RL troubles smiting most of us simultaneously about a couple of sessions into the game… which broke the group into tiny bits… so the trouble of which you all refer I know nothing about, probably for the best though, then I don't regret buying the books… and now I've got BRP which is going to be fun to mould into the game I want it to be, much more preferable to the static MRQI.

I have yet to test MRQII, but I have read and looked at it. I am, for the sake of being nice, rooting for the survival of MRQII/Wayfarer (although I think the name is crap), simply because its ready-made, simple enough to get into and in need of little (or less) customisation than BRP … initially at least… as far as I have understood anyway.

About the loss of 2nd age Glorantha though? couldn't really care less, never got into it, even bought a few books, more than I should have, its perhaps the worst setting I've read so far… there is something about a magical cube that is a world that doesn't work for me… its ok if its cartoons (Hägar the Horrible anyone?), but as a rpg setting I just couldn't accept the axiomatic foundations of such a world… neither could my players. Call me narrow-minded and boring, such a world just doesn't cut it for me.

As for Mongoose, again I have no big issue with this company, this is perhaps because I'm a proper materialist, a real capitalist consumer, so when they renew, revise or otherwise perform actions to earn money and survive, even if they're poorly thought through, I don't mind too much because I know I'm only buying the stuff, they have to make it and turn a profit… if they decide to revise, well I can buy into it or ignore it. The fact that they produce something which catches my interest and attention is good enough for me… however temporary that infatuation might be.

Edited May 25, 2011 by Jegergryte

[rust]

I just talked to the owner of my FLGS, and he is definitely not amused. Right now

he has no idea how to get rid of his stock of MRQ II books without making a se-

rious loss, especially as Mongoose is now selling those books as cheap PDF bun-

dles on DTRPG. He has already decided that he will not keep Wayfarer in stock,

because he does not expect that it will sell over here, and he has ceased to ac-

cept preorders of Mongoose books a while ago, after several announced books

failed to materialize. I very much doubt that I will see any new Mongoose books

on his shelves in the near future ...

[famouswolf]

There is already a "Wayfarers" rpg on the market, too. Mongoose is a class act.

[Simlasa]

10% is nice because you can simply calculate it in your head while 5% makes it more likely you will have to look at a chart.

5% is just half of whatever 10% is... 20% is the 10% x 2... no charts necessary.

[pansophy]

10% is nice because you can simply calculate it in your head while 5% makes it more likely you will have to look at a chart.

?!

5%= 10% halved

20%= 10% doubled

never thought it is challenging ...

[Claudius]

?!

5%= 10% halved

20%= 10% doubled

never thought it is challenging ...

Not as simple as you put it. In MRQII criticals are 10% and you ALWAYS round up, whereas in AHRQIII, you round up if it's 0.5 or higher, or down if it's lower.

For example, let's say you have a 37% skill, OK? In MRQII, your critical is 4 (3.7, you round up), easy. So, in AHRQIII, you'd get 2 for a critical, and 8 for a special, wouldn't you? NO. The critical is 2 ( 1.85, you round up), true, but the special is 7 (7.4, you round down). It's more intuitive in MRQII.