MRQII is now "wayfarer"

[Claudius]

Nooooo, Simon, please! Not another retro-clone!

I can't have enough versions of 1d100!!! I want more!

[rust]

I can't have enough versions of 1d100!!! I want more!

Ah, I see - another serious case. It is not very infectious, so your familiy mem-

bers and others are probably safe, but the medication is somewhat expensive,

the standard treatment is 1 book / month ...

[Guest Vile Traveller]

Nooooo, Simon, please! Not another retro-clone!

Yes! Just gimme a minute!

Wait a moment, that wouldn't be retro, that would be forward-looking ...

[rust]

Wait a moment, that wouldn't be retro, that would be forward-looking ...

You can always become the inventor of the protro-clone ...

[PhilHibbs]

I can't have enough versions of 1d100!!! I want more!

Some people won't be happy until they can roll 1d100 to decide which rules variant to use this session. Personally, one of the reasons I'm not keen on BRP is that there is too much choosing to do. I demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty.

[ewilen]

As long as everyone's following the same rule, I don't think that 1% here or there matters. So for AHRQ/BRP, why not just go ahead and use a standard calculation of 10% of the number, round up, and then halve (rounding up) or double?

Otherwise I'm beginning to think it might be a good idea after all to use a specially-colored d20 alongside the dieroll. For sticklers, it even provides a more precise frequency of 5%/20% of the base number. (In fact, it's exact.)

About the HM/RQ connection. MRQ II might be closer to Chaosium/AH RQ overall, but there are some ways that HM is closer to the roots. One I can think of is that HM doesn't have combat actions or combat maneuvers. Still, HM's has many innovations, like calculation of Skill Base, the way magic works, use of "aim point" when you attack, elimination of hit points in favor of "impairment" and damage saves, and of course the attack & damage matrices.

[PhilHibbs]

MRQ II might be closer to Chaosium/AH RQ overall, but there are some ways that HM is closer to the roots. One I can think of is that HM doesn't have combat actions or combat maneuvers.

Those mechanisms were my main concern about MRQ2, they are a radical departure from the way things always used to be - no more dividing the round into Strike Ranks, no more "aimed shots" or split attacks over 100%. I'm really happy with the way it has worked out, though.

If anyone's curious as to how a fight might go in MRQ2, here's a writeup of my last session.

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=47291

[daddystabz]

I'm curious though that if I dump special success from my BRP games and adopt MRQII's levels of success instead, with 10% crits and all, if it will mess up balance at all in BRP.

[ewilen]

You'd lose the special effects of some weapons on special results. In other words, a crit is a crit regardless of weapon type, but an impale with a spear has special effects & consequences that are both different from a crit and different from crushing with a club.

That said, I think you'll find that it's pretty robust. If you want to compensate at some point, you can just adjust the damages by various weapons. For example, Chaosium Stormbringer (1e-3e) doesn't care about specials; it even uses 10% for crits.

Edited May 25, 2011 by ewilen

[PhilHibbs]

I'm curious though that if I dump special success from my BRP games and adopt MRQII's levels of success instead, with 10% crits and all, if it will mess up balance at all in BRP.

Yes it will, the systems are balanced differently in this respect. BRP has a 1/5 chance special success for an impale, which does extra damage, and a 1/20 chance crit that does maximum damage and ignores all armour. MRQ2 has a 1/10 chance crit that, if the opposition doesn't parry, gets you two manoeuvres, from which you can choose Maximize Damage and Ignore Armour, or Choose Location and Max Damage, or Impale and Ignore Armour, or any of a variety of other combinations. But the "double maximum ignoring armour" can't happen in MRQ2, and "ignore armour" is much less common in BRP.

So, if you want to adopt part of one system and part of another, you will have to consider the balancing factors.

Also, armour levels are slightly lower in MRQ2, weapon damage... not sure if that is different, MRQ2 has higher locational hit points but no general hit points, all these factors affect game balance, and (in theory) are designed to be balanced relative to each other.

[sdavies2720]

Yes it will, the systems are balanced differently in this respect. BRP has a 1/5 chance special success for an impale, which does extra damage, and a 1/20 chance crit that does maximum damage and ignores all armour. MRQ2 has a 1/10 chance crit that, if the opposition doesn't parry, gets you two manoeuvres, from which you can choose Maximize Damage and Ignore Armour, or Choose Location and Max Damage, or Impale and Ignore Armour, or any of a variety of other combinations. But the "double maximum ignoring armour" can't happen in MRQ2, and "ignore armour" is much less common in BRP.

So, if you want to adopt part of one system and part of another, you will have to consider the balancing factors.

Also, armour levels are slightly lower in MRQ2, weapon damage... not sure if that is different, MRQ2 has higher locational hit points but no general hit points, all these factors affect game balance, and (in theory) are designed to be balanced relative to each other.

And there are subtleties of MRQII that change the feel: For instance if the attacker crits on his attack, but the defender parries successfully then no damage will get through. The attacker still gets a Combat Maneuvre for his greater level of success, but choosing "ignore armor" isn't going to help him (0 damage getting through is still 0 damage). The attacker should pick something like "Disarm" or "Trip" or whatever. There are subtleties here that I like, but that are definitely different from traditional RQ & BRP.

Steve

[Noita]

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.

And many of us don't

[PhilHibbs]

Actually, I just had a look into the BGB. It's still the AHRQ3 rule - looks I used a house rule for the last 15+ years, without knowing

According to BRP Quick-Start Edition, you round up. Is the BGB different? I have the Quick-Start PDF with me, my physical BGB is at home.

[PhilHibbs]

I use special successes with MRQII, I just use the Harnmaster way of resolving them, if a success ends in a 0 or 5, it's a special success. It's 20%, just not the bottom 20%.

It's 20% rounded down, where as BRP (Quick-Start Edition) has 1/5 of skill rounded up. No reason why that is bad, so long as you're aware of it.

So on a crit vs failure, do you award 3 CMs instead of two? Or do you not use CMs?

[rust]

In the BGB a critical success is based upon 5 % of skill rounded up.

[PhilHibbs]

In the BGB a critical success is based upon 5 % of skill rounded up.

I got the impression from pansophy that it was "round to nearest", i.e. halves round up. That was the usual principle in AHRQ3. *Edit* Just found a scanned image of the AHRQ3 Game Aids, and that appears to be "halves round up", so BRP is different to AHRQ3.

Edited May 25, 2011 by PhilHibbs

[rust]

I got the impression from pansophy that it was "round to nearest", i.e. halves round up. That was the usual principle in AHRQ3.

Ah, I see, my bad. I looked at the example at the beginning of the book, where

Critical Success is explained, and there it is rounded up. However, on page 175

it reads "Round fractions using normal rounding.", which most probably means to

"round to the nearest".

[PhilHibbs]

Ah, I see, my bad. I looked at the example at the beginning of the book, where

Critical Success is explained, and there it is rounded up. However, on page 175

it reads "Round fractions using normal rounding.", which most probably means to

"round to the nearest".

So the Quick-Start Edition rules are different to the BGB? That's odd.

[Narl]

Ah, I see, my bad. I looked at the example at the beginning of the book, where

Critical Success is explained, and there it is rounded up. However, on page 175

it reads "Round fractions using normal rounding.", which most probably means to

"round to the nearest".

Rules say normal rounding, but the table on page 172 uses round up. It would be a much longer table if it used normal rounding.

Personally, I think it is easier to use round up, and if you do use a table, it results in a much shorter and cleaner table.

[Thalaba]

I don't remember what the text in either books says, but the chart showing specials and criticals in BGB is different, and demonstrates simpler rounding, that the chart in AHRQ3. That much I know. The BGB chart rounds up, which means the specials, criticals, and fumbles always change on increments of five percent of the skill. The RQ3 chart rounded to the nearest. We always rounded up when playing RQ3 in the past anyway, since it just made more sense and we didn't really want to refer to the chart. Now some of my players keep the BGB chart handy, though for the most part nobody needs to look at it anymore, as people have gotten a handle on that.

There's no question that having only 1 degree of super-success at 10% is easier than having two at 5 and 20% repsectively. The trade-off is that you only have four degrees of success instead of five. Personally, I like having the five, despite being poor at head-math, because it leads to a wider range of possible outcomes. If you like the simplicity of 10%, go for it. If you prefer the granularity of 5/20%, use that instead. It's a no-brainer - there really isn't much to argue about here, IMO, since it's all about personal taste, like so many things in this system.

[deleriad]

I use special successes with MRQII, I just use the Harnmaster way of resolving them, if a success ends in a 0 or 5, it's a special success. It's 20%, just not the bottom 20%.

I have seen that system. It's not quite the same as 'arithmetical' specials though once you get to 100%. E.g. 100% skill actually only has 18% chance of a special. That's because a roll of 05 would be a critical and 00 would be a fumble. Any dice reading system gets quirky around and over 100%. In BRP skills over 100 end up being quite common because of the *2 Easy system. On any easy skill roll any skill of 50 ends up over over 100.

It's a pretty picky issue. It's a similar quirk to using "doubles" for criticals and fumbles. Using doubles is nice and neat but given that 2 of the doubles are 99 and 00 then criticals become a little less common and fumbles become probably too common in proportion to normal failures.

[ewilen]

Elliot, what version of Harnmaster do you use?

I learned HM on 1e, but I think I have 2e/3e lying around somewhere.

Although I think its combat enhancements are nifty (including the healing rules!), overall HM combat is probably too much for most players. Even when simplified into 2e/3e, which I feel lost some important nuance. (By contrast, I gather that HM Gold may have fixed some issues with 1e but that it's even more involved.) And I don't think there's much point to it, if combat isn't the main event. After flirting with HM for years, and briefly getting into a campaign, I've swung back to believing that the Elric!/SB5 approach is the best base to work off of for me. (And BRP gives me an in-print book that I can point players to.)

I still like the way HM calculates opening skills, though: average several pertinent attributes to get a skill base, then multiply that by a factor depending on the skill and profession.

[Atgxtg]

That is funny !

Sorry, I am contractually obligated to throw some of those in there. Some people only read my posts for the "fluff".

I have nothing against rabbits, although I have never supported any.

[Simlasa]

So, you're happy calculating the special success chances for 33%, 77% and 123%? No cheating. Let me know how many seconds it took you to calculate them.

Yeah, I'm happy doing that... very quick (I didn't get out the stopwatch). Much faster than some of the math we regularly do in our Earthdawn games.

I'm not claiming it's an important degree of detail in the game... as long as whatever is done is consistent... just that I don't see it as unwieldy.

[Atgxtg]

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

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