Re: Anyone like to Review Mongoose's Runquest?

From: Dave Bell <bellplace_at_...>
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 01:21:44 -0000

The top lines of the Reaction tables are misleading and will probably be errata-ed out at some point. The "Players Guide" PDF clarification (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/rqplayersguide.pdf) states:-



Q: Some people say that you make a double roll in combat if you perform a reaction (roll to hit, then another set of rolls for the results of the reaction), while others say it is all based off one roll. Which is it?
  1. All else being equal, combat works in the following way;
    1. Roll to attack. If you fail, it ends right there. If you succeed, keep your Weapon skill roll on the table.
    2. If the attack has been successful, a reaction may be declared - Dodge or Parry, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter.
    3. Your opponent rolls, effectively making this an opposed test, his Dodge or Parry against the Weapon skill you have already rolled in Step 1.
    4. Compare the two rolls like an opposed test - the only difference between a `true' opposed skill test and these combat rolls is that the result is compared to on the tables on pages 50-51.

There are not two sets of rolls in combat for the attacker - he just rolls once, and the result of that roll is what the defender compares his Dodge/Parry to. This is covered, for Dodges, on p50, last paragraph of the first column. Parry has a similar paragraph.



and...

Q: But the example on page 61 suggests the double roll system. . .
A: May the Good Lord of Gaming save us from examples! They are the bane of publishers, as they are often written, for various reasons, when the rules have been completed but the last stages of development are still going on. If something changes in the eleventh hour, the rules will be updated accordingly but, because of the way they are written, examples sometimes get left behind. If there is a problem in a rulebook, you will normally find it in the examples! In short, the example is in error and you should go by the text of the book on pages 50-51.

One roll.

> > Low Dex AND Int (the determinants for the number of actions and
> > reactions in combat) will make a very slow character and may well
> lead
> > to an unopposed attack, though you don't use up reactions (parries
> or
> > dodges) on failed attacks. Overall though if you are slow against a
> > faster opponent, going head to hea is probably a stupid thing to
> do.
>
> All I was saying here is that as these stats are randomly generated
> they are going to be very important for the future of your character.

True.  

> > You must make your own decisions, ofcourse. IMHO there are minor
> > problems with MRQ but nothing to stop a game and much to recommend
> in
> > terms of smoothing out the old RQ rules and reducing the need to
> look
> > All rules need time to bed in. Some may be errata-ed or ditched by
> the
> > second print run. There is the RQ forum mentioned above, preview
> PDFs
> > on the Mongoose website. Go see for yourselves.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Dave (who hasn't posted here since Nov '01. Wow)
> >
>
> I wasn't saying the system is especially bad. I don't think it is
> much worse than most game systems. I would rate it as worse than RQ2
> and a bit better than RQ3. I think its worse than Basic Roleplaying
> and Pendragon. I wouldn't compare it with HeroQuest as its aims are
> very different. Most game systems IMO suffer from the fact that they
> break down at higher levels and RQ4 is no exception. I think it
> might work OK as long as the % chances are between about 40-70% but
> then RQ2 worked at that level too. I bought it to see what it was
> like anyway but I don't think it is clearly better than previous
> versions.
>

I agree about RQ3. RQ2? Dunno. RQ2 was a good, succinct system but was short on backgrounds and skills. I don't see why it can't work for higher %s too - most of the problems with RQ3 tended to be around managing the time taken to process a combat round and the stalemate that high skill levels could produce. Clearly better? I don't know. I don't see MRQ being any worse and the emphasis on tactics and movement might be better.

Cheers

Dave

Powered by hypermail