[RPG]: RuneQuest (Mongoose edition), reviewed by Charlie Dunwoody (5/4)

[RPGnet Reviews]

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13053.phtml

Charlie Dunwoody's Summary:

I highly recommend RuneQuest based on its strengths: Runes, Quests, Cults, focus on character options and roleplaying, and the longevity the system offers. If your style of play focuses on story and character backed up by solid rules then this system is worth a look.

Go to the full review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13053.phtml) for more information.

[Kravell]

I just printed out the Player's Update from Mongoose.

The change to allow two failed opposed skill tests to fail makes sense to me.

The change to skills in excess of 100% isn't really clear to me. My rulebook says to halve the results only if both skills are over 100%. But the new way would work too.

Capping Persistence and Resilience must help maintain balance. But I'd have to playtest to confirm.

I like the change to Resisting Magic of making it an opposed test. Overcharging is adjusted along with this change.

The new combat tables look more complicated but more interesting with fumbles and other results added. I'll just have to playtest them.

Charlie

[Kravell]

I have looked more closely at the new combat tables and would make a change.

The new tables note that a success by the defender to Parry or Dodge and a failure by the attacker simply results in a failed attack. I'd let the defender Recover--gain back his Reaction.

Also, on a failed Dodge versus a failed attack I would remove Defender Gives Ground. Otherwise, the Dodge may turn out worse than just taking the attack.

Not sure the added complexity is a good idea.

[Kyle]

Nice review !


I would like to know though :

How generic this game really is ?

- Is it Glorantha generic ? (à la Hero Wars)

- Is it fantasy-genre generic ? (à la D&D)

- Is it truly fully generic ? (à la GURPS)

[Kravell]

Nice review !


I would like to know though :

How generic this game really is ?

- Is it Glorantha generic ? (à la Hero Wars)

- Is it fantasy-genre generic ? (à la D&D)

- Is it truly fully generic ? (à la GURPS)


RuneQuest is magic fantasy generic. There are not hundreds of spells and magic items like D&D but low-level magic is everywhere. Unlike D&D is it modular, for instance you could replace runecasting with another type of magic without tearing up other systems too badly.

RuneQuest as a rule system briefly mentions Glorantha, the setting, but is not tied to it heavily. Glorantha 2nd age builds on RuneQuest but goes in some other directions.

As an example RuneQuest monsters has halflings and orcs in it. But Glorantha doesn't mention either race (at least not that I have found). They might be in Glorantha, but they aren't specificaly detailed.

[Tori Bergquist]

I'm a big MRQ fan here, and can safely say that it adapts well to other systems. The key factor being, of course, that if you use the core system as is then you need only work in some assumptions and setting specific info about the nature and process of rune magic. If you add the Companion, then you can throw divine magic and sorcery, which makes for some distinct flavors of magic that can be defined by cultural differences, styles, or whatever you want. In one of my home campaigns, for example (a campaign which has been a D20 bitch for the last 7 years but started with Runequest 3 back in 1991, so it's basically returning to its roots) I have worked out special rules for rune magic as derived from totems, ancestral skulls, and other artifacts that serve as the vessels upon which runes are kept and channeled from.

The Mongoose guys also spoke about how MRQ's strength is in how you can tailor magic systems to the game based on setting, so other settings such as Lankhmar, Elric, Hawkmoon, Slaine, and presumably even the Pirates setting will harbor different and specific takes on magic as it works for their respective literary and historical settings. And of course they've announced a Magic Book for the end of the year, which hopefully will add a ton of material to the game.

Also, if you want a more traditional D20-style take on MRQ magic, take a look at GORE! and how it adapts many classic D&D spells to the percentile non-level based system (see lulu.com for a print edition of GORE!).

Anyway, just my .02 from a true MRQ fan boy, self admitted.....

[Lev Lafayette]

This review of Mongoose RuneQuest (MRQ) is from the point of view of a gamer completely new to RuneQuest. I don’t have the previous versions, have never played them, and have no interest in doing so.

If you don't mind me saying so, this is quite telling. Most old RQ grognards who have played the game for something in the order of thirty or so years (and this includes myself) usually consider MRQ a slight step down from previous publications. Still, I can see how seeing a RQ system for the first time MRQ could be quite an eye-opener.

Anyway, some specific issues (there are others, but these give something to chew on).

- Combat Actions and Damage Modifiers are capped. DEX 19 is the same as DEX 900. Why?

- Starting basic skills are unbalanced; the average base for active physical skills is around 22%, whereas SIZ-negative physical skills (e.g., stealth, dodge) and thinking skills is half that.

- Peasant and Noble are now cultural backgrounds! Honestly, this makes little sense. The cultural backgrounds are somewhat imbalanced, which would be OK, if they were determined by the fates. But they're not; it's an opportunity to min-max.

- Skill rolls where one or both have over 100%. The reviewer claims:

However, this halving of skills over 100% only applies if BOTH skills in the opposed test are over 100% not just one skill. It does not apply when only one skill is over 100%.


I quote directly from the SRD (section 2, page 8): "To model an opposed tests when one or more of the opponents has a skill exceeding 100%, follow this process..."

- Parry results table. A failed parry and a failed attack equals a successful hit. Now, I know Mongoose have patched this, but it should be mentioned in the review.

- The "Charge" Combat Action is an example and was cited as a broken rule numerous times on the playtest group. No matter how fast you are, or whatever SIZ/STR you are, if you can move a minimum of 5m you can charge doing an extra 1d4 damage. Whether you're a wounded sylph with a limp, an enraged bison, or even the Crimson Bat, your charge bonus will be 1d4.

- Two incapacitated arms from injury? "Most Skills based on STR or DEX are impossible, though some (such as Athletics and Dodge) only suffer a -30% penalty." You suffer on Dodge because your arms are incapacitated? How about two legs? "Most Skills that rely upon physical mobility are impossible, though some (such as Dodge and Stealth) only suffer a -30% penalty" You lose *both* your legs and you only suffer a -30% to dodge?

- Knockback: Knockback: "If a character is knocked back into a wall or other solid object, he must make a Dodge Skill test or suffer 1D4 damage to a random hit location as they slam into the obstruction." This is regardless of whether you were knocked back 1 metre (for receiving greater than your SIZ in damage) or 10 meters for receiving your SIZ + 50 points of damage.

- Natural weapons: "They may parry other natural weapons or unarmed attacks, but not crafted weapon attacks." Just remember when that axe-murderer is chasing you. You may not, under any circumstances, raise your arm and take the blow there instead of on your head. You simply cannot parry 'crafted weapons'.

- Regaining magic points: Characters will automatically regain Magic Points equal to their POW every 10 hours. They will regain this amount in 5 hours if they are fully resting." (SRD, section 4, p1). Magic Points used to represent how much magic you could use *per day*. In RQII you regained 1/4 every six hours. Nice and simple; RQ III made it 1/24th every hour, but noone used that to my knowledge - too much "crunch". But this Mongoose edition increases MP by almost two and a half times and up to... almost six times. "Take my Disruptions!" *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* etc.

... and so forth.

Now don't get me wrong, I quite like MRQ. I really like using attributes as a base for skills and the split between basic and advanced skills. I really like the idea behind CAs. I was pleased to see my constant (and even annoying) comments that "this game must be about questing for runes" received a conceptual model by Steve Perrin and final implementation by Matthew. Heck, I ran and played in close to two dozen sessions of it during several months of playtesting and sent in a good several thousand words of comments during the same period.

But like all game systems, and even good game systems, it does have some serious kinks and errors and also has to face the very high standards of its predecessors. As other reviewers have noted the volume is particularly slim for the price-tag.

Overall, I'm not sure whether this review has paid sufficient attention to the details of the game. The core concepts are very good (hey, it's RQ...), but the implementation could have been much improved...

[weasel fierce]

Its worth noting that they recently released a significant PDF update, which fixes most of the outstanding issues, particularly the halving rule.

Overall, there's some things I really like (its the only version of RQ where I actually have fun making a character, without tedious counting of pointless modifiers), some things Im indifferent on (I like the new experience system, but I like the old system too), and some things Im not too keen on (Stormbringer has better combat rules than RQ ever did)

Overall though, its pretty good as far as Im concerned

[weasel fierce]

A few reminders..


- Combat Actions and Damage Modifiers are capped. DEX 19 is the same as DEX 900. Why?
4 actions is quite crazy enough, however, in RQ3, there is no difference to strike rank, between DEX 20 and DEX 900 either.


- Peasant and Noble are now cultural backgrounds! Honestly, this makes little sense. The cultural backgrounds are somewhat imbalanced, which would be OK, if they were determined by the fates. But they're not; it's an opportunity to min-max.

Peasant and noble were cultures in RQ2 as well.
We've found the skills pretty balanced against each other. The difference in cash is a sticking point though


- Skill rolls where one or both have over 100%. The reviewer claims:

Yeah, the halving rule sucks nuts. THe update fixed it well (in my opinion) by doing basically what RQ3 did for the same issue.


- The "Charge" Combat Action is an example and was cited as a broken rule numerous times on the playtest group. No matter how fast you are, or whatever SIZ/STR you are, if you can move a minimum of 5m you can charge doing an extra 1d4 damage. Whether you're a wounded sylph with a limp, an enraged bison, or even the Crimson Bat, your charge bonus will be 1d4.

From a realism standpoint this is awkward, but does a creature with say, a 3D6 damage bonus really need to deal another 3D6 damage or whatever from a charge ?

- Knockback: Knockback: "If a character is knocked back into a wall or other solid object, he must make a Dodge Skill test or suffer 1D4 damage to a random hit location as they slam into the obstruction." This is regardless of whether you were knocked back 1 metre (for receiving greater than your SIZ in damage) or 10 meters for receiving your SIZ + 50 points of damage.


Unless the GW edition of RQ3 is missing something (my avalon hill box is buried in stuff right now), RQ3 produces no damage whatsoever, even from being sent flying 50 yards and into a wall.

- Natural weapons: "They may parry other natural weapons or unarmed attacks, but not crafted weapon attacks." Just remember when that axe-murderer is chasing you. You may not, under any circumstances, raise your arm and take the blow there instead of on your head. You simply cannot parry 'crafted weapons'.

I profess ignorance on this, since I've never allowed people to do this, but I couldnt find any reference to unarmed parries in RQ3. The unarmed attacks table doesnt list an AP. Was this an option ?



Anything I havent commented on, Assume Im either in agreement, or that it was something indifferent :)

[Lev Lafayette]

A few reminders..
4 actions is quite crazy enough, however, in RQ3, there is no difference to strike rank, between DEX 20 and DEX 900 either.


True that. They both were SR 1; which is why the CA system would have made much more sense. It provided the opportunity for multiple attacks for very fast characters.


Peasant and noble were cultures in RQ2 as well.


They were backgrounds, but not cultures. In other words, they were closer to being RQ3 parent occupations. Cultures in RQ3 were Primitive, Barbarian, Nomad and CIvilized.


From a realism standpoint this is awkward, but does a creature with say, a 3D6 damage bonus really need to deal another 3D6 damage or whatever from a charge?


"Hell yeah", says Tarkhan The Bison Rider ;-)


Unless the GW edition of RQ3 is missing something (my avalon hill box is buried in stuff right now), RQ3 produces no damage whatsoever, even from being sent flying 50 yards and into a wall.


It does actually; every five points over SIZ causes 1m of knockback. If you get knocked into something you take 1d6 pts of damage per 5m or fraction thereof. Now the very silly rule in RQ3 was that knockback was entirely based on damage for criticals, SIZ of the opponent ignored! Imagine the trollkin causing knockback to a bison! The usual rule I've applied over the last twenty or so years is that with a critical crushing weapon damage is effectively doubled for knockback purposes only..


I profess ignorance on this, since I've never allowed people to do this, but I couldnt find any reference to unarmed parries in RQ3. The unarmed attacks table doesnt list an AP. Was this an option ?


It's not explicitly stated, but it's implied you can parry a blow with your fist with damage going to the arm rather than the head (or other location).

[weasel fierce]

They were backgrounds, but not cultures. In other words, they were closer to being RQ3 parent occupations. Cultures in RQ3 were Primitive, Barbarian, Nomad and CIvilized.
Ah, I get what you're coming at


"Hell yeah", says Tarkhan The Bison Rider ;-)

LOL


It does actually; every five points over SIZ causes 1m of knockback. If you get knocked into something you take 1d6 pts of damage per 5m or fraction thereof.
I see. That seems to be missing in the Games Workshop version of the book.


It's not explicitly stated, but it's implied you can parry a blow with your fist with damage going to the arm rather than the head (or other location).

Well, no inherent reason why you couldnt do that in MRQ if you wanted.
I'd propably ask a Persistence roll (POWx5 in RQ2/3) for someone to do this though.

[Tori Bergquist]

- Combat Actions and Damage Modifiers are capped. DEX 19 is the same as DEX 900. Why?

- Starting basic skills are unbalanced; the average base for active physical skills is around 22%, whereas SIZ-negative physical skills (e.g., stealth, dodge) and thinking skills is half that.

- Peasant and Noble are now cultural backgrounds! Honestly, this makes little sense. The cultural backgrounds are somewhat imbalanced, which would be OK, if they were determined by the fates. But they're not; it's an opportunity to min-max.

- Natural weapons: "They may parry other natural weapons or unarmed attacks, but not crafted weapon attacks." Just remember when that axe-murderer is chasing you. You may not, under any circumstances, raise your arm and take the blow there instead of on your head. You simply cannot parry 'crafted weapons'.

- Regaining magic points: Characters will automatically regain Magic Points equal to their POW every 10 hours. They will regain this amount in 5 hours if they are fully resting." (SRD, section 4, p1). Magic Points used to represent how much magic you could use *per day*. In RQII you regained 1/4 every six hours. Nice and simple; RQ III made it 1/24th every hour, but noone used that to my knowledge - too much "crunch". But this Mongoose edition increases MP by almost two and a half times and up to... almost six times. "Take my Disruptions!" *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* etc.


Tragically, the rosy-colored glasses of hindsight overlook the enormous number of errors to be found in previous editions of Runequest....especially 3rd edition. I'll concede that 2nd edition was a pretty tight package, although its Glorantha-centricity was too much for me in the end (which is why I preferred 3rd edition for it's open-world nature). In any case, unfortunately, the truth is that you could produce a list as long o longer, easily, from at least 3rd edition of Runequest on niggling little errata and rule issues (encumbrance rules, anyone?).

Also, when it comes to house-ruling, I find that I do it considerably less with MRQ than I did with RQ3.

I don't have books on hand, unfortunately, and some of your issues have already been addressed, but a couple disagreements:

1. Having a separate package for peasants and nobles makes more sense to me than a generic "civilized" package. Sorry, it really doesn't make sense to lump them together. Min-maxing only works here if GMs allow it. If I start a campaign and tell everyone, "you'll all start as peasants," then min-maxing obviously is out the door. Can it happen? Yes. But you can do that in any game whatsoever, and the power gamers will always exploit. I feel that the MRQ model will still appeal more to role players than to point mongers.

2. Recovering magic points: in actual play it does not work like you describe. It does mean spells will happen somewhat more often, in a given day, perhaps. It allows for a somewhat faster pace to the game, yes, if resting between bouts of spell casting is shorter, but in actual play this works towards better story and pacing imo than under prior editions, which I had already house ruled in favor of a system like this, anyway. This is a difference of preference, not a rule gaff. But it is something I prefer over prior editions, especially the tedious 3rd edition method.

3. On Parrying with natural weapons, while others have addressed this, I do not disagree with the MRQ ruling. Why? Because it is my opinion that you are blocking a sword blow with your arm, not parrying it. How the hell does a fleshy arm deflect (which is what parrying does) a weapon attack??? You are blocking the blow and absorbing the attack with your arm. Now, to be fair, I will look in the rules and see if they address the idea of blocking an attack with your arm.....but common sense tells me this is the way to handle such a maneuver, treating an arm like an improvised shield. Functionally, no difference....but the point is that if I told players they could parry a blow with their hand, then pretty soon all the group's runecasters are going to start looking like they jumped out of a Jet Li flick!

4. On balancing skills: not sure what your point is, here. That stealth should be equally easy for all beginners, same as athletics? The skills you refer to do take a hit, but are also more useful to adventurers, not common folk, and this provides room for development with skill points by adventurers, without giving away too much for free from the get-go. Also, while I think one could argue that climbing, jumping and other athletic maneuvers are something we can all do, more or less, dodging an attack or moving without being detected will require more than just good instinct to pull off without training. In short, I hear you, but I don't understand why you think these need to be balanced.

[Tori Bergquist]

- Combat Actions and Damage Modifiers are capped. DEX 19 is the same as DEX 900. Why?

- Starting basic skills are unbalanced; the average base for active physical skills is around 22%, whereas SIZ-negative physical skills (e.g., stealth, dodge) and thinking skills is half that.

- Peasant and Noble are now cultural backgrounds! Honestly, this makes little sense. The cultural backgrounds are somewhat imbalanced, which would be OK, if they were determined by the fates. But they're not; it's an opportunity to min-max.

- Natural weapons: "They may parry other natural weapons or unarmed attacks, but not crafted weapon attacks." Just remember when that axe-murderer is chasing you. You may not, under any circumstances, raise your arm and take the blow there instead of on your head. You simply cannot parry 'crafted weapons'.

- Regaining magic points: Characters will automatically regain Magic Points equal to their POW every 10 hours. They will regain this amount in 5 hours if they are fully resting." (SRD, section 4, p1). Magic Points used to represent how much magic you could use *per day*. In RQII you regained 1/4 every six hours. Nice and simple; RQ III made it 1/24th every hour, but noone used that to my knowledge - too much "crunch". But this Mongoose edition increases MP by almost two and a half times and up to... almost six times. "Take my Disruptions!" *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* etc.


Tragically, the rosy-colored glasses of hindsight overlook the enormous number of errors to be found in previous editions of Runequest....especially 3rd edition. I'll concede that 2nd edition was a pretty tight package, although its Glorantha-centricity was too much for me in the end (which is why I preferred 3rd edition for it's open-world nature). In any case, unfortunately, the truth is that you could produce a list as long o longer, easily, from at least 3rd edition of Runequest on niggling little errata and rule issues (encumbrance rules, anyone?).

Also, when it comes to house-ruling, I find that I do it considerably less with MRQ than I did with RQ3.

I don't have books on hand, unfortunately, and some of your issues have already been adressed, but a couple disagreements:

1. Having a separate package for peasants and nobles makes more sense to me than a generic "civilized" package. Sorry, it really doesn't make sense to lump them together. Min-maxing only works here if GMs allow it. If I start a campaign and tell everyone, "you'll all start as peasants," then min-maxing obviously is out the door. Can it happen? Yes. But you can do that in any game whatsoever,a nd the power gamers will always exploit. I feel that the MRQ model will still appeal more to role players than to point mongers.

2. Recovering magic points: in actual play it does not work like you describe. It does mean spells will happen somewhat more often, in a given day, perhaps. It allows for a somewhat faster pace to the game, yes, if resting between bouts of spell casting is shorter, but in actual play this works towards better story and pacing imo than under prior editions, which I had already house ruled in favor of a system like this, anyway. This is a difference of preference, not a rule gaff. But it issomething I prefer over prior editions, especially the tedious 3rd edition method.

3. On Parrying with natural wepaons, while others have addressed this, I do not disagree with the MRQ ruling. Why? Because it is my opinion that you are blocking a sword blow with your arm, not parrying it. How the hell does a fleshy arm deflect (which is what parrying does) a weapon attack??? You are blockig the blow and absorbing the attack with your arm. Now, to be fair, I will look in the rules and see if they address the idea of blocking an attack with your arm.....but common sense tells me this is the way to handle such a maneuver, treating an arm like an improvised shield. Functionally, no difference....but the point is that if I told players they could parry a blow with their hand, then pretty soon all the group's runecasters are going to start looking like they jumped out of a Jet Li flick!

4. On balancing skills: not sure what your point is, here. That stealth should be equally easy for all beginners, same as athletics? The skills you refer to do take a hit, but are also more useful to adventurers, not common folk, and this provides room for development with skill points by adventurers, without giving away too much for free from the get-go. Also, while I think one could argue that climbing, jumping and other athletic maneuvers are something we can all do, more or less, dodging an attack or moving without being detected will require more than just good instinct to pull off without training. In short, I hear you, but I don't understand why you think these need to be balanced.

[Fifth Element]

From the review: "One note, MRQ uses the Open Game License started by Wizards of the Coast, meaning all the core rules are available for free online except for the rules for rolling up Characteristics."

To be precise, this is not what the Open Game License means. Not all OGL rules are provided for free (you have to buy most of them, though you are technically allowed to turn around and give them away - only the open parts, mind you). The stipulation against character generation rules has to do with the d20 System license, not the OGL.

[Lev Lafayette]

Well, no inherent reason why you couldnt do that in MRQ if you wanted.


Well, apart from the fact it is explicitly rejected.

I'd propably ask a Persistence roll (POWx5 in RQ2/3) for someone to do this though.

*nods* A good house rule.


1. Having a separate package for peasants and nobles makes more sense to me than a generic "civilized" package.


Except the package is not generic; they are occupations within the civilised cultural group.

2. Recovering magic points: in actual play it does not work like you describe.

Perhaps not in your games, but in others it certainly would. Personally, I think the RQ2 method is the best.


3. On Parrying with natural weapons, while others have addressed this, I do not disagree with the MRQ ruling. Why? Because it is my opinion that you are blocking a sword blow with your arm, not parrying it. How the hell does a fleshy arm deflect (which is what parrying does) a weapon attack???


Blocking and parrying are, in this sense the same thing. A fleshy arm would not deflect (except with a critical) the weapon attack (it has 0 APs), rather the damage would occur there rather the chest, head or abdomen. Yes, it is an act of desperation, but I know what I'd rather lose.

[weasel fierce]

For some reason, I have always used a basic rule of "recover 1 POW per hour of rest or 3 hours of reasonably simple activity" in any BRP game.

[smascrns]

*nods* A good house rule.
No, not good. Putting your arms in front of you to block incoming damage is a very natural reaction. That's we tend to do unintentionally. In fact, I think we need a persistance roll for people NOT to do it. I remember a case I read about once where a German pianist had a car accident. She was able to control herself and did not put her arms to the front... in order not to damage her hands that, if damaged, would mean an end to her career. She broke the window with her head instead...
Blocking and parrying are, in this sense the same thing. A fleshy arm would not deflect (except with a critical) the weapon attack (it has 0 APs), rather the damage would occur there rather the chest, head or abdomen. Yes, it is an act of desperation, but I know what I'd rather lose.
Precisely. That's why we have this engrained reaction.

[smascrns]

3. On Parrying with natural weapons, while others have addressed this, I do not disagree with the MRQ ruling. Why? Because it is my opinion that you are blocking a sword blow with your arm, not parrying it. How the hell does a fleshy arm deflect (which is what parrying does) a weapon attack??? You are blocking the blow and absorbing the attack with your arm. Now, to be fair, I will look in the rules and see if they address the idea of blocking an attack with your arm.....but common sense tells me this is the way to handle such a maneuver, treating an arm like an improvised shield. Functionally, no difference....but the point is that if I told players they could parry a blow with their hand, then pretty soon all the group's runecasters are going to start looking like they jumped out of a Jet Li flick!.
Humm, while parrying in RuneQuest (any edition) there's no technical difference between blocking and deflecting. Parry covers both situations. (Yes, MRQ tables introduce the two concepts, but that's an arbitrary result of the rolls, not something the players decide on themselves.)

Now, for one interesting historical tidbit. Joao de Barros, a Portuguese cronicler of the Portuguese expansion, describes a battle between Portuguese and Arabic soldiers in Socotora in the next terms:
"they were carrying shields made of cow hide that spited the iron away, and they were so skilled at taking in those shields the blows and shot that it seems they were fencing instead of warring" from Asia, 2nd Decade, Chapter 4).
Ok, this happend in the 16th century but it is about late Medieval melee fighting. What does it tells us? That when at war, European soldiers would not loose time while fighting hand-to-hand to parry the incoming blows. They would just push forward and hit, hit and hit until they got the better of their adversaries (the fact that they were carrying heavier armour contributed to this a lot). While doing this they would use their shields in a more or less static position to block incoming blows. I have other sources that point to this.
On the other hand, peoples that rellied less on armour and more on skill, would relly a lot more on "fencing" - parrying and dodging techniques. That was the case with the Arabians and the Naiars of Kerala, for instance.

Which means that RQ, any edition, is not that good at modeling these alternatives. Neither is it at modeling the difference between parrying and dodging since in combat there was not a clear breakup between the two. Both were used, often in combination, and in combination with offensive moves that pre-empted attacks. The dynamics of hand-to-hand combat are actually very hard to model in a rules set, so they should either be abstracted or they require very detailed and minute points of rules. RQ falls in between and it finishes not providing a good model. Irrespective of edition.

[weasel fierce]

Maybe fighting styles just work differently in Glorantha :)

[Kravell]

If you don't mind me saying so, this is quite telling. Most old RQ grognards who have played the game for something in the order of thirty or so years (and this includes myself) usually consider MRQ a slight step down from previous publications. Still, I can see how seeing a RQ system for the first time MRQ could be quite an eye-opener.

I’ve seen RuneQuest before. I just didn’t buy it before. The whole Donaldius Ducktus thing didn’t impress me much but Mongoose dropped that silliness in this edition.

Anyway, some specific issues (there are others, but these give something to chew on).

- Combat Actions and Damage Modifiers are capped. DEX 19 is the same as DEX 900. Why?

Combat actions stop at 4 per round. The table goes up to 4 per round. Going beyond that is pointless.

Damage Modifiers is capped at 100. That covers a pretty good range.

- Starting basic skills are unbalanced; the average base for active physical skills is around 22%, whereas SIZ-negative physical skills (e.g., stealth, dodge) and thinking skills is half that.

Why is this unbalanced? Does it keep the game from running or stop character creation? No it does not. You don’t like the way it’s set up but that doesn’t automatically translate into it being unbalanced.

- Peasant and Noble are now cultural backgrounds! Honestly, this makes little sense. The cultural backgrounds are somewhat imbalanced, which would be OK, if they were determined by the fates. But they're not; it's an opportunity to min-max.

How are they unbalanced? The skill bonuses are all the same. 30% in set skills and 40% in choices for every background. Four advanced skills each. Give me an example of how to min-max.

- Skill rolls where one or both have over 100%. The reviewer claims:

I quote directly from the SRD (section 2, page 8): "To model an opposed tests when one or more of the opponents has a skill exceeding 100%, follow this process..."

Since I’m not reviewing the SRD that quote isn’t real helpful. Buy the book and read along on page 21:
“To make an opposed test when two or more of the opponents has a skill exceeding 100%, follow the following process:”

Don’t quote me the SRD. I’m reviewing the book here. Do me the courtesy of at least reading what I reviewed before you start making inaccurate statements.

- Parry results table. A failed parry and a failed attack equals a successful hit. Now, I know Mongoose have patched this, but it should be mentioned in the review.

No it shouldn’t. Don’t tell me how to review.

In the rulebook you only parry in response to a successful attack. Therefore, you can’t have a failed attack and a failed parry.

I didn’t mention it because it doesn’t come up in the game. Mongoose left the section in but it doesn’t affect the game unless you want to use an optional rule and use the result.

Did you even read the rulebook before critiquing my review?

- The "Charge" Combat Action is an example and was cited as a broken rule numerous times on the playtest group. No matter how fast you are, or whatever SIZ/STR you are, if you can move a minimum of 5m you can charge doing an extra 1d4 damage. Whether you're a wounded sylph with a limp, an enraged bison, or even the Crimson Bat, your charge bonus will be 1d4.

Why is this rule broken? You get a bonus to damage. In what way would this rule stop a game from being played? If you don’t like the rule change it, but it works fine as written.

- Two incapacitated arms from injury? "Most Skills based on STR or DEX are impossible, though some (such as Athletics and Dodge) only suffer a -30% penalty." You suffer on Dodge because your arms are incapacitated? How about two legs? "Most Skills that rely upon physical mobility are impossible, though some (such as Dodge and Stealth) only suffer a -30% penalty" You lose *both* your legs and you only suffer a -30% to dodge?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Any other questions?

- Knockback: Knockback: "If a character is knocked back into a wall or other solid object, he must make a Dodge Skill test or suffer 1D4 damage to a random hit location as they slam into the obstruction." This is regardless of whether you were knocked back 1 metre (for receiving greater than your SIZ in damage) or 10 meters for receiving your SIZ + 50 points of damage.

Right. What’s your point? The game has rules for running into a wall. What’s the problem? If you don’t like the rule, fine, but it doesn’t stop the game from running.
- Natural weapons: "They may parry other natural weapons or unarmed attacks, but not crafted weapon attacks." Just remember when that axe-murderer is chasing you. You may not, under any circumstances, raise your arm and take the blow there instead of on your head. You simply cannot parry 'crafted weapons'.

Right. You dodge the axe. Why in hell you’d try to parry it with your arm is beyond me. You’d get yourself killed.

- Regaining magic points: Characters will automatically regain Magic Points equal to their POW every 10 hours. They will regain this amount in 5 hours if they are fully resting." (SRD, section 4, p1). Magic Points used to represent how much magic you could use *per day*. In RQII you regained 1/4 every six hours. Nice and simple; RQ III made it 1/24th every hour, but noone used that to my knowledge - too much "crunch". But this Mongoose edition increases MP by almost two and a half times and up to... almost six times. "Take my Disruptions!" *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* *budda-budda-budda...* *rest* etc.

... and so forth.

Sorry, your rambling totally lost me. What part don’t you like and why don’t you like it? I’m not reviewing RQII or RQIII by the way. Just a note.

Now don't get me wrong, I quite like MRQ. I really like using attributes as a base for skills and the split between basic and advanced skills. I really like the idea behind CAs. I was pleased to see my constant (and even annoying) comments that "this game must be about questing for runes" received a conceptual model by Steve Perrin and final implementation by Matthew. Heck, I ran and played in close to two dozen sessions of it during several months of playtesting and sent in a good several thousand words of comments during the same period.

But like all game systems, and even good game systems, it does have some serious kinks and errors and also has to face the very high standards of its predecessors. As other reviewers have noted the volume is particularly slim for the price-tag.

Overall, I'm not sure whether this review has paid sufficient attention to the details of the game. The core concepts are very good (hey, it's RQ...), but the implementation could have been much improved...

Hey good for you. However this review did pay sufficient attention to the details of the game while you couldn’t even bother to quote from the book I was reviewing. Just because you don’t like MRQ doesn’t mean my review didn’t pay attention to the details of the game.

My opinion is your love of RQII and RQIII has affected your ability to look at this review objectively. While I can appreciate you like those games I wasn’t reviewing them.

[Kravell]

From the review: "One note, MRQ uses the Open Game License started by Wizards of the Coast, meaning all the core rules are available for free online except for the rules for rolling up Characteristics."

To be precise, this is not what the Open Game License means. Not all OGL rules are provided for free (you have to buy most of them, though you are technically allowed to turn around and give them away - only the open parts, mind you). The stipulation against character generation rules has to do with the d20 System license, not the OGL.

I have to respectively disagree. RuneQuest does not use the D20 System license anywhere that I can find. None of their books are OGL. Even the main rulebook says that the product contains no Open Game Content.

Therefore, you can't buy the OGL parts. You can only get them from the SRD. For publishers, that's great. For new players it's also a bonus because they can look over the rules before buying. Which are two of the reasons I like the OGL!

[Kravell]

I'd like to make a note here that I have nothing against RQI, RQII, or RQIII. If the games are enjoyable please play them!

I wanted to make clear in my review, however, that I was only reviewing MRQ. I didn't want to compare MRQ to previous versions because it has been done before and I frankly don't have the expertise to do so. I know very little about previous versions of RQ.

I wrote the review because I believed MRQ needed a review based solely on its own merits and not based on comparisons to previous versions. I didn't mean to come across as being against previous versions.

I hope that clears up any confusion about my statement that I haven't played previous versions and don't plan to. I have nothing against previous versions, honest!

[Lev Lafayette]

I’ve seen RuneQuest before. I just didn’t buy it before. The whole Donaldius Ducktus thing didn’t impress me much but Mongoose dropped that silliness in this edition.


You missed out on the early editions of the playtest. For a while there Ducks almost ruled the game ;-)

But seriously, Ducks were always a very minor part of Glorantha (just located in a major place) and weren't part of RuneQuest per se. You won't find them in Questworld for example.


Combat actions stop at 4 per round. The table goes up to 4 per round. Going beyond that is pointless.


So a reasonably quick human, DEX 21, has the same number of combat actions as Hermes, god of travellers, DEX.. oh, I don't know... 150? C'mon. It would have been such a simple matter to stick "etc" at the end of the table imo.


Damage Modifiers is capped at 100. That covers a pretty good range.


It's not bad, I'll readily admit. An "etc" would have been quite a simple addition; as was suggested numerous times, I may add.


Why is this unbalanced? Does it keep the game from running or stop character creation? No it does not. You don’t like the way it’s set up but that doesn’t automatically translate into it being unbalanced.


When one set of skills has an average starting base of 22% and others a starting base of 11% that is an obvious imbalance. This is a clear incentive to develop characters who specialise in active physical skills and a disincentive to passive physical skills and thinkers.


How are they unbalanced? The skill bonuses are all the same. 30% in set skills and 40% in choices for every background. Four advanced skills each. Give me an example of how to min-max.


Pick a Noble and get the cash is a sticking point. Sure the skill bonuses are the same (hey, that took several iterations), and that is a valuable improvement, I'll agree.


Since I’m not reviewing the SRD that quote isn’t real helpful. Buy the book and read along on page 21:
“To make an opposed test when two or more of the opponents has a skill exceeding 100%, follow the following process:”

Don’t quote me the SRD. I’m reviewing the book here. Do me the courtesy of at least reading what I reviewed before you start making inaccurate statements.


*sigh* OK, then I'll get back to you on those points.


Why is this rule broken? You get a bonus to damage. In what way would this rule stop a game from being played? If you don’t like the rule change it, but it works fine as written.


Sure, if you want to play a game like Toon. But if someone wanted to play a strong simulationist game and applied that rule, damn straight it would stop the game being played.


Yes. Yes. Yes. Any other questions?


Does this strike you as plausible? Seriously? Try it at home. Hang both your arms limp and dodge blows. Now try the same thing without use of your legs. See how you go. Tell us the results.


Right. What’s your point? The game has rules for running into a wall. What’s the problem? If you don’t like the rule, fine, but it doesn’t stop the game from running.


My point? That they're not good rules? That they're not plausible rules?


Right. You dodge the axe. Why in hell you’d try to parry it with your arm is beyond me. You’d get yourself killed.


Actually, as others have mentioned in this thred you'd do that precisely for the reason not to get yourself killed.


Sorry, your rambling totally lost me. What part don’t you like and why don’t you like it? I’m not reviewing RQII or RQIII by the way. Just a note.


To put simply? The recovery of magic points is much too fast, both relative to other game systems and relative to the ruleset from which this game claims history.


Hey good for you. However this review did pay sufficient attention to the details of the game while you couldn’t even bother to quote from the book I was reviewing. Just because you don’t like MRQ doesn’t mean my review didn’t pay attention to the details of the game.


Actually I think MRQ is quite good. I also happen to think that you have over-rated it. Just as you're allowed to express an opinion, so am I. Deal?


My opinion is your love of RQII and RQIII has affected your ability to look at this review objectively. While I can appreciate you like those games I wasn’t reviewing them.

Nobody is "objective" in a review, and they're fooling themselves if they think they are. At best one can make subjective expressions, engage in some reflection, review their own work, publish and back them their claims with convincing arguments.

[Tori Bergquist]

One thing I have learned from the back-and-forth on MRQ is that the naysayers and objectionists to the 4th edition of the game are often complaining about very rule-specific issues where interpretation is sometimes not quite what it seems. I was thinking about a few of the cases addressed here, for example:

Parrying with a limb. Realistically, you can not parry with a limb. You can block, but MRQ defines block/parry in the same manner, so that creates confusion for fans of older editions who (presumably) like the older method of separate tracking numbers for all this stuff.

But anyway, I think I understand the premise behind the MRQ parrying with your bare hands rule: sure, we all expect that we'll try doing that, in theory (the flinching effect) but that's not really the same as actually, consciously trying to beat away a sword with a bare arm. Now, from the side of the attacker, he's aiming for a specific body part (head) or just anything (roll), but for him, a hit is a hit, whether it cleaves through the arm or he manages to connect to the head or whatever body part....either way works. But going by the rules, the effective combat result is simple: target is hit, takes damage. If you treat it as a parry, then that means you roll on the parry chart and get some potentially odd results. All you really need here is the most common rule to all role playing games: GM common sense. If a player wanted to try to intercede a blow with a different body part, I would probably have him make some sort of will check (sorry, books not on hand atm), then treat it like a contest against the attacking roll, assuming the attacker cares which body part he connects to. If he succeeds at the contest, then bam, that body part takes the damage like a normal attack. But if I allowed a parry, then I could get the various different range of results on the parry table, which would be silly, since it means that any and all defendants who could not otherwise parry/block a blow will now want to do so to hopefully achieve better results against their limbs.....

I also get the feeling that Lev's group must be very power-gamer oriented, as many fo the complaints about the system surround potential abuse through min-maxing....and my own local groups are so opposite that that I just can't see it. The case of the "super noble" package is a great example. I haven't had one person roll up a noble, yet in my games. Why? But it sounds like the MRQ games Lev has been in (because I would be loathe to consider criticism of any game from someone who hasn't actually played it) must be laden with nothing but nobles.

Same with the magic point recovery. The current system still takes hours. It helps the dynamics of the story along, I feel, by making player slightly more comfortable using magic if they need it, knowing that they are not going to be severly penalized from further use. Weirdly, arguing that characters should have no limit to combat actions (a major power-level up imo) but should be limited in spell point recovery seems contradictory to me.

Speaking of which, since one of MRQ's charms (indeed, all prior editions too) is it's realism, I contend that there should be no problem with a cap on combat actions. I don't want to playa game in which Hermes is running around, anyway....that's what D&D is for. Moreover, just because mortals are capped at 4 CAs doesn't mean the GM can't devise faster monsters or even gods if it suits him....I don't believe the issue of battling super fast gods was ever a topic in prio editions of RQ, either, and frankly, I think the new Legendary Abiltiies element of MRQ provides a more realistic outlet for fantastical actions such as hyper-speed based characters. I want to play a realistic and gritty game of MRQ, thank you, not Superworld....

Okay, working unfortunately, but more later, maybe....

[Lev Lafayette]

One thing I have learned from the back-and-forth on MRQ is that the naysayers and objectionists to the 4th edition of the game are often complaining about very rule-specific issues where interpretation is sometimes not quite what it seems.


In general I think its quite a good system and there are a number of good patches over rules-specific matters in previous editions (I like CAs for example).


Parrying with a limb. Realistically, you can not parry with a limb. You can block, but MRQ defines block/parry in the same manner, so that creates confusion for fans of older editions who (presumably) like the older method of separate tracking numbers for all this stuff.


Huh? Parrying or blocking in previous editions was the same. Nothing has changed there except for the new prohibition noted.


I also get the feeling that Lev's group must be very power-gamer oriented, as many fo the complaints about the system surround potential abuse through min-maxing....and my own local groups are so opposite that that I just can't see it. The case of the "super noble" package is a great example. I haven't had one person roll up a noble, yet in my games. Why? But it sounds like the MRQ games Lev has been in (because I would be loathe to consider criticism of any game from someone who hasn't actually played it) must be laden with nothing but nobles.


Far from it; it's just that I'm presenting incentive structures. When we did playtesting we deliberately went for a range of characters to test the system. Some of the discoveries included an enormous imbalance in favour of barbarians in terms of skills and and enormous disparity of the range of money nobles could have and, of course, their purchasing power.


Same with the magic point recovery. The current system still takes hours. It helps the dynamics of the story along, I feel, by making player slightly more comfortable using magic if they need it, knowing that they are not going to be severly penalized from further use. Weirdly, arguing that characters should have no limit to combat actions (a major power-level up imo) but should be limited in spell point recovery seems contradictory to me.


One should be is limited by their POW, just as one's CAs should be limited by the DEX. Their should be no limit to either.


Speaking of which, since one of MRQ's charms (indeed, all prior editions too) is it's realism, I contend that there should be no problem with a cap on combat actions. I don't want to playa game in which Hermes is running around, anyway....that's what D&D is for. Moreover, just because mortals are capped at 4 CAs doesn't mean the GM can't devise faster monsters or even gods if it suits him...


Not without breaking the game system rules.


I think the new Legendary Abiltiies element of MRQ provides a more realistic outlet for fantastical actions such as hyper-speed based characters. I want to play a realistic and gritty game of MRQ, thank you, not Superworld....


In terms of "realism" and "grittiness" there are many, many reasons why MRQ isn't quite up to scratch - and some of those, imo, include Legendary Abilities.

Anyway... I'd better get on doing a review for it myself!

[Tori Bergquist]

In general I think its quite a good system and there are a number of good patches over rules-specific matters in previous editions (I like CAs for example).



Huh? Parrying or blocking in previous editions was the same. Nothing has changed there except for the new prohibition noted.



Far from it; it's just that I'm presenting incentive structures. When we did playtesting we deliberately went for a range of characters to test the system. Some of the discoveries included an enormous imbalance in favour of barbarians in terms of skills and and enormous disparity of the range of money nobles could have and, of course, their purchasing power.



One should be is limited by their POW, just as one's CAs should be limited by the DEX. Their should be no limit to either.



Not without breaking the game system rules.



In terms of "realism" and "grittiness" there are many, many reasons why MRQ isn't quite up to scratch - and some of those, imo, include Legendary Abilities.

Anyway... I'd better get on doing a review for it myself!

I think, in the end, that you and I can both at least agree to disagree on this one. But I would like to see your review of the game, and actually will have to check out your older reviews of prior editions, too....I'm pretty sure you reviewed those, iirc.

One thing I am always concerned about with role playing games in general is the fact that the "common sense factor" sometimes gets tossed out when the rules get too tight and specific. The more we rely on the rules to dictate the course of every possible action (ala D20) the less entertaining and flexible those rules end up being. I also feel the same way about game balance. Balance is a prefectly useful mechanism in rule design, yes, but it's actually quite hard to create a real depiction of the world....or something on a literary scope, even like most RPGs....and keep it balanced. Take your two examples: the noble and the barbarian. Are they rewarding players with better skill packages than other professions? Yes. Is it fair to those who don't choose those packages? Might not be, depending upon how you see it. But if there was no functional difference between the barbarian and the serf in tems of skills, then what, exactly, makes the barbarian so interesting that he dominates literature and history, while the serf remains a rather ignominous element of medieval sociology? If I start a game of RQ and everyone unanimously decides to play barbarians and nobles, then I know I am playing with a group that is probably less interesting in role playing and more interested in wargaming. Fine...it might be what they want. But if my group decides to all start as peasants with simple jobs, and one amongst them decides to play the barbarian....well, what then? Do I penalize him for making such a choice, or reward the other players for choosing a more honest profession, or do I aknowledge that not everyone needs to be created equal, and that is the point of the whole character design process to begin with? The great thing about the non-level based system in RQ is that it can handle situations like this much, much more effectively than a game like D&D can.

Another issue: just for the record, combat actions and magic point recovery actually don't mix. First, there's realistically a limit to how many physical actions a character can take in a combat round. An unlimited potential is nonsense, and I remaina bit surprised at you arguing for it, seriously....you seem much more level headed than that. Second, nothing in RQ or any other RPG since 1st edition AD&D has provided rules dictating that the GM is breakin the rules and can not append such matters. It goes back to the "common sense law" I mentioned: the GM decides what is best for his game. I don't see anything in any edition of RQ that defies this. As an example, and I feel that the RQ books as well as the designers have established firmly that MRQ's magic system is flexible and can be redesigned as needed for any setting....the default core setting makes those assumptions, of course, and the commentary and designer notes from Mongoose emphasize such, too. But hey, I like the game as is....so hey, such is life.

Lev, I am impressed with your ability to look at games in a broader context. If you do a RQ review, I'd certainly like to see your cross-analysis of the current edition with older editions. But one thing I'd love to see if a modern day contrast, too.....or put another way, comparing how MRQ stacks up to the standards of today's industry. Do D&D 3.5, HARP, or other current, in-print and "live" systems work better than MRQ, for example? I think that, unfortunately for fans of older editions of RQ, that this analysis from a current perpsective would provide a better sense of how MRQ fares in the current gaming picture, especially since I don't think that the game's primary support is coming from old fans now, but from new ones who find the MRQ system a breath of fresh air in contrast to D20 and other alternatives (like me, although I am also an old school RQ fan who prefers the openness and flex of the new MRQ).

[Lev Lafayette]

Another issue: just for the record, combat actions and magic point recovery actually don't mix. First, there's realistically a limit to how many physical actions a character can take in a combat round.


Yes, there is a limit. The limit is defined by the character's reaction speed, that is, their DEX. Just like magic points are determined by POW. Or cognitive ability by INT; and so forth.

Anyway, it's not a 'die in the ditch issue', rather an poor editorial oversight. Placing "etc" at the end of any table with incremental change is obvious.


Lev, I am impressed with your ability to look at games in a broader context. If you do a RQ review, I'd certainly like to see your cross-analysis of the current edition with older editions. But one thing I'd love to see if a modern day contrast, too.....or put another way, comparing how MRQ stacks up to the standards of today's industry. Do D&D 3.5, HARP, or other current, in-print and "live" systems work better than MRQ, for example?


I would put it probably on a similar level; one of the things I think is particularly impressive about D&D is the fact it really has improved in each edition. That, I believe, accounts a great deal for its success.

[weasel fierce]

Sometimes Improvement is an awful subjective thing though.

f.x. I dont think anyone can reasonably argue that classic traveller doesnt have the worse /rules/ of any traveller edition.

But its still a ton of fun, and people still prefer it, sometimes exactly because its so vague.


Whether MRQ is better, equal or worse than RQ3 or RQ2 (the exalted of old school rpg.netters) is ultimately dependent on what you are looking for. To me, personally, the things I thought were awkward in RQ3 were mostly fixed or smoothed out (character creation, initiative rolls instead of strike ranks, clear definitions of how many things you can do per turn, and divine magic not sucking anymore), and its made glorantha far more accessible than it has been before.

For other people, the things they'd like to see improved will of course be very different (and a lot of people didnt want anything improved whatsoever)

However, I think we can all agree that noone could expect it to be RQ2 reprinted word for word, which seems to be at the core of a lot of complaints, similar to the complaints often levelled against WOTC's D&D (which I dont like personally, but I realize that there was no way to expect it was going to be written "for me")

[Kravell]

Actually I think MRQ is quite good. I also happen to think that you have over-rated it. Just as you're allowed to express an opinion, so am I. Deal?

Nobody is "objective" in a review, and they're fooling themselves if they think they are. At best one can make subjective expressions, engage in some reflection, review their own work, publish and back them their claims with convincing arguments.

Fair enough. We will have to agree to disagree on most of these points.

I do think most of your concerns are fairly minor and do not warrent rating MRQ down on Substance. I realize the game does not perfectly balance every single facet (such as some skills being based on two characterstics and some on one).

However, right from the get go the game doesn't stress balance. Characterstics are randomly rolled, meaning no two characters are likely to be completely balanced since randomness is so much a part of character creation. Therefore, getting hung up on some minor skill points seems overly harsh to me.

Same thing with the money. Yes, a noble will over a long spread of averages end up with more money. But for one player making one character the law of averages breaks down enough that it simply won't matter that much in the long run.

For instance in my RuneQuest game I've seen a nomad temperate (from RQ Companion), peasant, God Learner lower class, and a God Learner middle class rolled up. No nobles. The money wasn't even considered, just the best way to make a character.

[Kravell]

I think, in the end, that you and I can both at least agree to disagree on this one. But I would like to see your review of the game, and actually will have to check out your older reviews of prior editions, too....I'm pretty sure you reviewed those, iirc.

One thing I am always concerned about with role playing games in general is the fact that the "common sense factor" sometimes gets tossed out when the rules get too tight and specific. The more we rely on the rules to dictate the course of every possible action (ala D20) the less entertaining and flexible those rules end up being. I also feel the same way about game balance. Balance is a prefectly useful mechanism in rule design, yes, but it's actually quite hard to create a real depiction of the world....or something on a literary scope, even like most RPGs....and keep it balanced. Take your two examples: the noble and the barbarian. Are they rewarding players with better skill packages than other professions? Yes. Is it fair to those who don't choose those packages? Might not be, depending upon how you see it. But if there was no functional difference between the barbarian and the serf in tems of skills, then what, exactly, makes the barbarian so interesting that he dominates literature and history, while the serf remains a rather ignominous element of medieval sociology? If I start a game of RQ and everyone unanimously decides to play barbarians and nobles, then I know I am playing with a group that is probably less interesting in role playing and more interested in wargaming. Fine...it might be what they want. But if my group decides to all start as peasants with simple jobs, and one amongst them decides to play the barbarian....well, what then? Do I penalize him for making such a choice, or reward the other players for choosing a more honest profession, or do I aknowledge that not everyone needs to be created equal, and that is the point of the whole character design process to begin with? The great thing about the non-level based system in RQ is that it can handle situations like this much, much more effectively than a game like D&D can.

Another issue: just for the record, combat actions and magic point recovery actually don't mix. First, there's realistically a limit to how many physical actions a character can take in a combat round. An unlimited potential is nonsense, and I remaina bit surprised at you arguing for it, seriously....you seem much more level headed than that. Second, nothing in RQ or any other RPG since 1st edition AD&D has provided rules dictating that the GM is breakin the rules and can not append such matters. It goes back to the "common sense law" I mentioned: the GM decides what is best for his game. I don't see anything in any edition of RQ that defies this. As an example, and I feel that the RQ books as well as the designers have established firmly that MRQ's magic system is flexible and can be redesigned as needed for any setting....the default core setting makes those assumptions, of course, and the commentary and designer notes from Mongoose emphasize such, too. But hey, I like the game as is....so hey, such is life.

Lev, I am impressed with your ability to look at games in a broader context. If you do a RQ review, I'd certainly like to see your cross-analysis of the current edition with older editions. But one thing I'd love to see if a modern day contrast, too.....or put another way, comparing how MRQ stacks up to the standards of today's industry. Do D&D 3.5, HARP, or other current, in-print and "live" systems work better than MRQ, for example? I think that, unfortunately for fans of older editions of RQ, that this analysis from a current perpsective would provide a better sense of how MRQ fares in the current gaming picture, especially since I don't think that the game's primary support is coming from old fans now, but from new ones who find the MRQ system a breath of fresh air in contrast to D20 and other alternatives (like me, although I am also an old school RQ fan who prefers the openness and flex of the new MRQ).

I agree with D20 being too tight and inflexible. I've been playing D&D for over twenty years. A month back I looked at about fifty hardcover D&D books for 3.5 and I thought, what the hell am I doing?

D&D has rules for everything all the way down to types of ice per square on an artic plain. Too many classes, feats, spells, and prestige classes. Yes, you can try to just use the basic rules, but at 960 pages even the three core books are fairly rule intensive.

So I switched to MRQ. And I wrote this review because the others reviews I'd read of MRQ used the differences between it and previous versions as a negative no matter what the reason for the change.

I wanted to review it based on its own merits. It stands strongly beside D&D as a well-designed fantasy RPG with less complexity and with a more modular approach.

While some design choices are extremely simplified (charging does an extra 1d4) it isn't that hard for a GM who wants more complexity to change it. And the rules are easy enough to use that I can do so right off the type of my head.

Charging: +1d4 damage or use your damage modifier or that of your mount whichever of the three is highest.

I'm glad the rules aren't that complex but for those who want more details they are easy to extrapolate.