[RPG]: RuneQuest and RuneQuest Companion, reviewed by smascrns (2/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13496.phtml

Sergio Mascarenhas's Summary:

FANTASY SERIES #9: There’s enough RuneQuest in Mongoose’s RuneQuest but there’s also too much non-RuneQuest. On its own merits MRQ could be a worthy game if it wasn’t for a very poor design choice. Read on.

Go to the full review for more information.

[smascrns]

This the 10th, not the 9th, in my Fantasy series of reviews.

I mention in the review that previous editions of RQ don't have rules for slashing or smashing criticals. This is true about RQ3 but it is not true about RQ2. This game has the said rules in the appendix with optional rules.

I compared MRQ mainly to RQ3. I didn't cover other BRP games, though. Some features of MRQ may have been inspired by games such as Stormbringer, though.

There is an error in the second phase of the combat example. I say that the Guard cannot riposte when he actually can. What happens is that I started this review many months ago and had to stop working on it due to other more pressing issues. When I went back to it I had to change a lot of things due to the changes to the game introduced by the Players Update. This had an impact in the example to the extent that what was previously the third phase became the second phase. here goes the corrected second phase of the example:

Second action: D’Artagnan fails his attack and the Guard, emboldened by the smell of his adversary’s blood, Criticals on his parry. The attack is perfectly parried and the Guard may riposte since he still has his second reaction left. He rolls 71 and thus fails by 1%: The rapier is blocked by one of D'Artagnan's big, round buttons. In a split second (literally) the Guard proceeds to his second action and he attacks D’Artagnan, failing this time. Luckily D'Artagnan is not parrying otherwise he migh succeed and be able to riposte on his side. Anyway, 2.5 seconds are gone by now.

[Lazarus]

One of the things about this review that strikes me is this: you continually assert that MRQ has a "default" leaning toward skills at 100%, yet I don't see you stating any reasoning for this. My read (admittedly, incomplete) of the book does not support that assertion - do you have anything to back it?

Laz

[smascrns]

Originally Posted by Lazarus

One of the things about this review that strikes me is this: you continually assert that MRQ has a "default" leaning toward skills at 100%, yet I don't see you stating any reasoning for this. My read (admittedly, incomplete) of the book does not support that assertion - do you have anything to back it?

Actually it is there in the review but it may be too buried and not clear enough. Let me sumarize why I think this:

The game sets an experience scale that goes up to Hero where hero is at the 125% skill and above (granted, in the set of the best skills of the character, those that define his fields of expertise that make him a hero).

Most Legendary abilities require skills of 90% or above, thus moving to Legendary levels is reserved to characters just below or near the 100% threshold.

Many of those legendary abilities provide bonus to the skill roll, moving the percentage further up, thus reinforcing the tendency towards ability rolls above 100%.

I tried to analyse the character's life cycle. By this I mean how long does he stay in each skill level in game terms (not in setting terms since game time and setting time moves at different paces). In other words, if one takes one character from the start of his career up to the day when he retires after a long, successsul and - most important - resilient life, how much time does he spend before reaching the 100% threshold and how much time does he spend afterwards? My crude analysis tells me that such a character will spend most of his time around or above 100%, not below that value.

Also take into consideration that there are rules to create more advanced characters, so a lot of players will not play grunts and unexperienced PCs.

The game mentions characters with skills in the multi hundreds. If one wants to achieve such high levels the time spend playing low level characters is even more dwarved. (I personally think that those multi hundred characters are a mistake; they look more like couch creations then like roleplayed characters.)

The issues with the rules for skills above 100% came fast after the game was released which shows that the players themselves got the message that thats where the cookies are.

On the overall I think that in MRQ the characters start to get interesting when one closes on the 100% range or moves past it because that's in the nature of the game.

[jeremywolf81]

Mongoose seems to be quickly becoming known for horrid 1st printings so they can release "deluxe" editions to suck more of your money away with their high priced printings. No I'm not bitter in the least.

[Lev Lafayette]

Getting rid of characteristic rolls was an 11th hour decision, at least according to my playtester versions, and I think it does great damage to RuneQuest's historic simulationist agenda. Basically, it means that one can achieve incredible things through sufficient training (which you point out is very quick) which previously, and realistically (remember RQII's rightful claim to "playable realism"?) is most appropriately limited by stats.

A game where a STR 10 character who is highly trained in Athletics can lift more than a STR 25 character with little training is going to break my brain. Likewise a character with low-trained DEX 25 character racing against a high-trained DEX 10 character.

Some actions are much more characteristic-based than skill based. The game system should, and once did, reflect this.

[Pig with Pen]

Nice and thorough review, thank you very much.

[smascrns]

I'm glad you liked it Pig with Pen

Originally Posted by Lev Lafayette

Getting rid of characteristic rolls ... means that one can achieve incredible things through sufficient training (which you point out is very quick) which previously, and realistically (remember RQII's rightful claim to "playable realism"?) is most appropriately limited by stats.

Some actions are much more characteristic-based than skill based. The game system should, and once did, reflect this.

I also believe RQ does a better job than MRQ, even if I'm not a fan of the RQ approach. In it some actions are purely talent based (characteristic rolls) and others are skill based. Skills reflect talent in a soft way through ability modifiers based on the characteristics and through the impact of thoe mods on skill advancement. Here MRQ augmented the initial impact of characteristics but got rid of the impact on skill advancement.
I would personaly like to see an evolution with a more balanced combination of characteristics and skills, one that gives more importance to characteristics in the final ability score and that is thus able to live without characteristic rolls.

[Tori Bergquist]

Nice, thorough review. Although I am in "the other camp," of MRQ supporters, who largely I think have given up on trying to dispute the matter of MRQ's merits with the detractors, I just wanted to say that your review (well, comparison review) was carefully thought out.

Just a couple odd bits:
MRQ is definitely comrpised of "Hard Skills." So a high STR character isn't worth as much as a high atheltics PC in MRQ terms. This is a design feature I like because it prevents runaway high-attribute issues, making it more realistic to retain focus on skill development. Also, I have no problem with the idea of a brawny guy who doesn't know his own strength getting trumped by the skinnier guy who has practiced hard to apply force and mettle where it's needed.

On the SR issue of Dex+Int based, and the Actions/round method: speaking as someone who intensely disliked the unnecessarily cumbersome strike rank system from older editions, I much prefer the current system. It's just proven much easier for me to execute from a mechanical standpoint in my gaming groups. As realistic, maybe not. But it works for me. Now, for the idea of INT as a deciding factor in number of actions: I think the smartest guy in the world isn't going to think his way in to a faster reaction time if he's not physically fit. The fastest players on the battlefield ought to be those who act on instinct, and have the dexterity to match. Again, my own opinions: the power of the older RQs to simulate reality may have been more accurate, but from a playability standpoint, MRQ is a much easier system to sell current generation players on.

Finally, on the presentation of the books: can't really argue. The RQ Deluxe edition is what it should have been all along, and it is regretful that Mongoose has hurt their rep with poorly-conceived releases. Still, given that almost all of my gaming money goes to them these days, I can only hope that they are learning....once they get used to their new press!

DISCLAIMER: Please, I'm only commenting on the fact that I liked the structure and presentation of you review, even if I strongly disagree with most all MRQ detractors on both esthetic and practical issues regarding the differences between this system and older systems. I strongly believe that if this system had been called anything other than Runequest, and had not been tied to Glorantha in any way, that it would be getting none of this flack and attention from a very vocal minority. But these are just my opinions, and I am not trying to pick an argument at all; the differences between the two camps are too distant for us to ever see eye-to-eye on one another, so please just take my final comment as "good job, even if I disagree," and not an attempt to open a new debate...I don't want to convince you, and please don't try to convince me, just ain't happenin'

[smascrns]

Originally Posted by Tori Bergquist

Nice, thorough review. Although I am in "the other camp," of MRQ supporters, who largely I think have given up on trying to dispute the matter of MRQ's merits with the detractors

I don't consider myself a MRQ detractor. On the contrary, I had high hopes about it but these just didn't materialise. I tried to explain why, that's all.

MRQ is definitely comrpised of "Hard Skills." So a high STR character isn't worth as much as a high atheltics PC in MRQ terms. This is a design feature I like because it prevents runaway high-attribute issues, making it more realistic to retain focus on skill development.

Nothing against that but then, why retain the characteristics at all? I mean, why having characteristics with such a limited usage? They are there mostly for two purposes: Determining the initial value of the skills; determining the attributes. Other then this they serve almost no purpose. If that's so, why not drop them altogether? Note: I don't expect an answer from you as much as to vent my puzzlement on this design option.

speaking as someone who intensely disliked the unnecessarily cumbersome strike rank system from older editions, I much prefer the current system. It's just proven much easier for me to execute from a mechanical standpoint in my gaming groups.

(If I ever run RQ again I'll use my own house rule for this purpose.) Back to the issue, my main issues are about the combination of SR and action phases, on one side; and the fact that the rules don't take into account things that were present in the past editions and that made sense to factor into SR. Personaly I don't see any major advantage in a system when compared to the other at the game table, but MRQ is very, very illogical, and that's something that interfers with my own ability for "suspention of diesbelief".

Now, for the idea of INT as a deciding factor in number of actions: I think the smartest guy in the world isn't going to think his way in to a faster reaction time if he's not physically fit. The fastest players on the battlefield ought to be those who act on instinct, and have the dexterity to match.

I couldn't agree more. The problem is that INT in MRQ (as in RQ and most games) does not measure instinct, on the contrary it measures conscious thinking. So, the impact of INT in SR should be negative but this is the exact reverse of what the rules dictate.

I strongly believe that if this system had been called anything other than Runequest, and had not been tied to Glorantha in any way, that it would be getting none of this flack and attention from a very vocal minority.

I'm sure you're right. But then, if RQ had been reduced to the fixation of nothing else than "a very vocal minority", why did Mongoose go for the RQ? Brand? Why did Mongoose start the game development cycle by asking for the input and support of that "very vocal minority"? Why did Mongoose work MRQ from going back to the old and outdated game preferred by that "very vocal minority"? If there was nothing to gain from picking the RuneQuest brand, the Glorantha link and working from the RQ ruleset, why did Mongoose do it?
You forget that RuneQuest remained a lurking and lively OOP game due to that "very vocal minority". It was their continuous support that kept the brand with enough notoriety to be a commercial asset today. It was their continuous support that made the RQ ruleset worth looking at as the basis for the development of a new game.
That "very vocal minority" is perfectly justified for the flack. Needless to say, Mongoose has also all the legitimacy to do as it did, but it has to accept the flack with grace.

I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else of anything in particular. I'm just giving a perspective for people to evaluate the two games, and next decide on which they want to play, that's all.