Dare I ask?

[RMS]

Originally Posted by TrippyHippy

No. The new parry table in the Deluxe edition (p54) shows:

- If both the defender and attacker succeed in their rolls, then the damage is reduced by the AP of the weapon.
- If the parry rolls a critical then the damage is reduced by twice the AP.
- If the attack rolls a critical, then the maximum damage is inflicted.
- If they both roll a critical, then maximum damage is applied and twice the AP is reduced.

The opposed contest rule, generally, is clarified in conjunction with this application in combat, on p22 also. The Deluxe book is open in front of me as I type this, and I've played in several sessions with that book, those rules, and my gaming group. That is what is stated, clearly, in the text of the rules, and with the examples given.

Interesting. The Player's Update downgrades rolls exactly like Atgxtg notes, and according to both the authors and everyone else I've asked, the Deluxe version of the rules are identical to the Player's Update. <shrug> It's never been a huge deal to me since the houserule needed to fix it is intuitive and obvious, but it is one of the handful of things that's kept me from bothering with anything new for MRQ: too many issues that need to be sorted because they weren't properly playtested, edited, and written.

With respect, you appear to making a more critical error by not reading the book. Regardless of what may have been argued about on the net, the rules I have explained, in both the new and old books, are precisely correct. The rules in the old book don't work very well, but they do work, functionally, in the Deluxe edition. My preference, however, is for a slightly simpler system still, which is what BRP provides me with.

He's right. The original rules didn't work out of the book since they contradicted themselves. You could put things together three different ways with the rules, as written. The Player's Update fixed some things, but broke some others, like the downgrading of rolls. It just seems to be an endless cycle. I prefer simpler systems too and one of the ironies is that the most complex form of BRP combat is RQ3 which is significantly faster, more fluid, and more tactical (if you want) than MRQ. (It still isn't perfect of course, and I did houserule a bunch of it, so don't think I'm just critical of MRQ! )

I agree that the changes in the rules have caused difficulties in interpretation. We can see this in the free PDF rules on this site, which appear to actually conflate the old rules with the revised ones. My advice, honestly, is to enjoy all the MRQ setting supplements (which are still 99% compatible with BRP), use the MRQ rules as optional rules for certain things (like Hit Locations, character generation, or alternative magic systems), but use BRP for the core rules in most games.

I actually think the rush to publish is the real problem with MRQ, and apparently Mongoose has a track record of problems there, and basic things like proper editing get bypassed. I agree with you, but between the above issues and the printing issues of late, I've been holding off on most of the 2nd Age Glorantha stuff, which I really, really want.

[TrippyHippy]

That rules effect looks like a system you could use instead of referring to the tables, so maybe the writers were caught in two minds again, regarding the solution to the problem. Personally, I think the tables are what should be scrapped, outright, anyway.

Anyway, in terms of the content of the Glorantha books, and others, it should be noted that the character stats still pretty much look the same as BRP stats, so the Glorathana books are effectively compatible with the BRP system, regardless of what combat system you use. The only things that tend to be different are:

a) No HP in MRQ - but easy to calculate from (SIZ + CON)/2 as usual.
b) Combat Actions, Strike Rank, Damage Modifiers and Move Rates all work in different ways to BRP.
c) There will probably be a slightly different selection of skills represented - although for NPCs, who cares, as long as you understand them, eh?

Other than that, just check out the source material in free publications like Signs & Portents, or whathave you. Honestly, you can easily make use of this material, and that found in the Glorantha books, with the BRP ruleset.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by TrippyHippy

That rules effect looks like a system you could use instead of referring to the tables, so maybe the writers were caught in two minds again, regarding the solution to the problem. Personally, I think the tables are what should be scrapped, outright, anyway.

It was because they replaced the old resolution system with the new one and it made the tables mostly obsolete. Basically prior to the latest update Aps were used, but since weapon Aps were so low (2-4 points) parrying was a bad idea. Statistically speaking the extra 2 points of AP weren't worth the risk of botching the parry. After the Update, APs became seondary.

That is part of the overall problem with MRQ. Most of the mechanics are patchwork fixes that correct one problem but create others. It is less, being on two minds about something than not being of one mind.

Pretty much all the bugs were brought up by the playtesters, who were ignored. The official attitude seems to be "well, you guys are going to hourserule this anyway, so who cares how it works".

Originally Posted by TrippyHippy

Anyway, in terms of the content of the Glorantha books, and others, it should be noted that the character stats still pretty much look the same as BRP stats, so the Glorathana books are effectively compatible with the BRP system, regardless of what combat system you use. The only things that tend to be different are:

a) No HP in MRQ - but easy to calculate from (SIZ + CON)/2 as usual.
b) Combat Actions, Strike Rank, Damage Modifiers and Move Rates all work in different ways to BRP.
c) There will probably be a slightly different selection of skills represented - although for NPCs, who cares, as long as you understand them, eh?

Other than that, just check out the source material in free publications like Signs & Portents, or what have you. Honestly, you can easily make use of this material, and that found in the Glorantha books, with the BRP ruleset.

As for generic MRQ to generic BRP that is mostly true. There are some differences worth considering during conversion, like the effects of armor to weapon skills. Also, Persistence and Resilience are important combat abilities in MRQ. While they can be dropped in BRP with no harm, a GM should work up a method of determining their values for BRP being converted to MRQ.

The other big thing would be the magic. This is especially true for Glorantha. RQ characters have more magic that MRQ characters and MRQ character have rune integration to contend with.


But some of the more system neutral stuff, like Pirates, might convert over fairly easily. Although I wonder what flintlock weapon damage are in MRQ with it's higher bow damages. If a longbow does 2D8, what does a pistol do 2D10? That might fly in MRQ, but would be brutal in BRP.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by RMS

I actually think the rush to publish is the real problem with MRQ, and apparently Mongoose has a track record of problems there, and basic things like proper editing get bypassed.

I am not sure if the rush was the only real problem. I guess it was rather a mix of
-rush, a lot of
-ignorance (ignoring the wise comments of experienced playtesters and overestimating the own ability to redesign a already excellent rule system) and a
-different roleplaying culture. (Mongoose was primarly a D&D centric company before MRQ)

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I am not sure if the rush was the only real problem. I guess it was rather a mix of
-rush, a lot of
-ignorance (ignoring the wise comments of experienced playtesters and overestimating the own ability to redesign a already excellent rule system) and a
-different roleplaying culture. (Mongoose was primarly a D&D centric company before MRQ)

The latter shouldn't have mattered; after all, the designers of RQ were D&D people before they were RQ people, too (Steve Perrin had a rather well known set of houserules floating around known as the Perrin Conventions in the early D&D community, for example).

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

The latter shouldn't have mattered; after all, the designers of RQ were D&D people before they were RQ people, too (Steve Perrin had a rather well known set of houserules floating around known as the Perrin Conventions in the early D&D community, for example).

But it does matter. Steve was a former D&D who moved away from the D&D way of doing thing things.

THose who like the way D&D works are more inclined to handle other games the way the handle D&D.

Case in point, in MRQ magic has become the domain of the spellcasters. No one else starts with any magic.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

But it does matter. Steve was a former D&D who moved away from the D&D way of doing thing things.

THose who like the way D&D works are more inclined to handle other games the way the handle D&D.

Case in point, in MRQ magic has become the domain of the spellcasters. No one else starts with any magic.

I have to point out that's true in some versions of BRP, too; its just not what we're used to in RQ. Universal magic is actually pretty uncommon in fantasy in general; more often than not, its the purview of specialists.

[TrippyHippy]

For the sake of balance, I think it is fair to point out that Chaosium has also had it's share of mistakes in rules clarity, and printing issues, over the years too.

And personally, I did actually find the 3rd edition RQ book to be an exceedingly dry and innaccessible book, for the most part.

I'm not trying to be defensive for Mongoose, for the sake of it, I'm just trying to point out that a lot of the divisions between the MRQ and Chaosium BRP communities may be a little more aggravated than they need to be.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by TrippyHippy

For the sake of balance, I think it is fair to point out that Chaosium has also had it's share of mistakes in rules clarity, and printing issues, over the years too.

And personally, I did actually find the 3rd edition RQ book to be an exceedingly dry and innaccessible book, for the most part.

I'm not trying to be defensive for Mongoose, for the sake of it, I'm just trying to point out that a lot of the divisions between the MRQ and Chaosium BRP communities may be a little more aggravated than they need to be.

Certainly some truth about the split between the communities. But I will say that MRQ has been plagued with a lot of rule problems and inconsistencies. More in it's year and a half of existence than any BRP product has ever had.

Our little look through the combat system about APs is just one example.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

The latter shouldn't have mattered; after all, the designers of RQ were D&D people before they were RQ people, too (Steve Perrin had a rather well known set of houserules floating around known as the Perrin Conventions in the early D&D community, for example).

Well, maybe you are right, but was the intention to create RQ not because of beeing unsatisfied with the D&D rule system? And after RQ release Perrin and his companions abandoned D&D completely, no?

AFAIK Mongoose has never been stated to be unsatisfied with d20. And I am sure a lot of them are still favoring this awful rule system for their private games. Thats why I said the Mongoose guys are coming from a "different roleplaying culture" than RQ and are still embraced by it.