Ospreys' Ragnarok

[Faust23]

Sadly there seems to be rather a lot of rules based questions getting asked on the facebook page at the moment which doesn't bode well.

Lot's of rules based questions get asked with every new set regardless of publisher. It's not foreboding of anything. Every game has a learning curve. Back before the internet, we'd all buy a new game, read it carefully, and work through the learning curve. Now some people just complain about it on the internet and, sight unseen, people jump ship...baffles me to no end.

[Elk101]

Thanks for posting Tim. If you'd like to set a Ragnarok thread up for rules queries, etc, please feel free to do so. I'm sure the LAF can keep it constructive.

(Moderator)

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

I am hesitant to comment on rules in general, as someone has put a lot of time and effort into writing them.  I appreciate that rules are not easy to write and that the authors may also be members here.  I am interested in Ragnarok but haven't bought them yet.  Looking at some of the comments it makes me think of other recently realeased rules that I have bought.  I do wonder whether the publishers wanted rules released quickly and have therefore not had adequate editorial input.  The rules seem rushed and poorly worded, which is a pity when they are otherwise good games and fun to play.

[Manchu]

For whatever reason, there have been cases of errors being added to published texts that do not appear in the MS or where certain crucial information from the MS has been omitted by the editor in the published text.

These things happen.

Fortunately, we live in an era in which many rules writers are near-immediately available to correct and clarify.

[D. Brownie]

Hi,
I published some articles in a numismatical italian journal, that's so far less important than Osprey... I sent my MS, then they corrected It and resent me again to correct their corrections (some were wrong and I made them recorrect).
So, whether Osprey's or author's fault, I don't want to spend 25£ for something that in itself has some problems, but that will probably fixed in the future...
I'm not Happy about this situation, since I like very much the background of the game, I was waiting for It from months and I was painting Vikings purposely.
But I'm full of games that I'll never play with and I don't want One more (quite expensive).
It's hard to see a so bad review and so I decided to cancel my pre-order and to wait for more detailed reviews, Battle reps....

[Manchu]

Sorry to break the bad news but you’ll be hard pressed to find ANY ruleset of ANY edition in your possession, or on the market at large, devoid of errors — and, as to omission, how could you even know?

Hopefully gamers will not lose too much sleep over this terrible revelation!

In seriousness, the true failure of any ruleset lies not in errors/omissions but rather in neglecting to correct problems and address questions.

Novices (of all ages) tend to balk at errata and FAQs, as if they are evidence that a game is bad. To the contrary, the presence of errata and FAQs actually show us that, first, the rules have managed to engage an audience and, second, that the writer actually cares enough to respond. Neither can be taken for granted.

If I ever manage to publish a ruleset, it’s my sincerest hope some gamers will actually try reading it and playing it, find problems (especially those I hadn’t thought of, or didn’t think of as problems), and allow me the opportunity to correct and clarify. Could any rules writer ask for better? And, for my part, I’d repay their generosity by being available as best I can, talking through the issues, and writing errata and FAQs.

That’s my ideal and, well, that’s what is happening here. There are really no reasonable grounds for objection, at least if you’re at all familiar with making something and actually putting it out there for public consumption, especially via a third party like a publisher.

The absence of errata and FAQs are the only definite red flags — as they signal that nobody, including even the writer, can be bothered.

[D. Brownie]

I think there Is a big difference between "some useful improvements" ( nothing Is perfect) and a "complete disaster" like described here :
http://talesfromfarpoint.blogspot.com/2019/05/ospreys-ragnarok-angry-review.html?m=1
To improve something you have at least be able to play and understand what Is written....
Then I repeat: I didn't see It personally and so I have to trust in Who did It and gave specific, not generic, clear explained opinions about It. A generical defense for me has not value...

[Manchu]

The author of that review is also OP here. As to the admission that, after three reads, he still has no idea how close combat works ... here is my take (I confess, after only one read):

A model spends Action Points (AP) to make an attack. Subtract the defending model’s Defense stat (DF) from the attacking model’s Melee Attack (MA) stat and find the Success Value corresponding to the result on a table. To hit, roll equal to or greater than that value on 2d6, where 12 always hits and 2 always misses. If the attacker hits, you subtract the defender’s Resilience stat (RS) from the Strength stat of the attack (ST) and similarly use the result to find the Success Value you need to equal or better on 2d6. If this damage roll succeeds, the defender loses HP — by at least 1HP but plus an additional HP for every three points you roll over the damage roll Success Value.

Once per round (generally speaking) a defending model may interrupt an incoming attack to start a “clash” by succeeding on an opposed Drive stat (DR) test. The attacker’s DR is subtracted from the defender’s DR to find the required Success Value, as usual. If successful, the defender makes an attack (without spending AP) against the attacker that is resolved before the attacker’s original attack resolves. Then, if the attacker has survived the clash, his original attack resolves, albeit calculated at -1 to DF. If the clash roll is unsuccessful, the attacker’s original attack resolves (also at -1 to DF) but then the defender, if he survives, gets make an attack, again without spending AP; albeit at -1 to MA.

[Cubs]

It all smells of writers struggling to meet publisher deadlines. It's odd though, given that the core of the rules are apparently already in place, that there isn't also a core text in place with corrections following errata from previous publications. 

[spacecowsmith]

Hi,

I am indeed the author of the angry blog review and as I noted in it, I apologise for sounding so angry when reviewing the book. Tim has since contacted me to let me know that Osprey did indeed remove examples from the rules to fit the word count so I do apologise once again to Tim for doing him a disservice with my review and he has put up examples of how the rules work.

That being said, something has clearly gone a bit wrong with the release of the book as I own over 50 different rulesets and I've never been so frustrated by the rules as with Ragnarok. If it had been one of the blue covered sets that retail at about £11.99, it would have been fine as the background, art and campaign system are good but £25 is quite a bit of cash for a poorly edited book that needs errata released almost immediately.

If this whole thread is causing undue distress amongst Lead Adventurers, I'm sorry to have posted and ask the moderators to remove it.

[judgedoug]

Long time lurker...

Is the issue that the OP doesn't like a subtracting one number from another to find the modifier? I admit this is a bit more granular that other rulesets such as Frostgrave, but games such as Frostgrave, with a single roll with a fixed number to achieve success, seem to be advertised as, and written as, a super simple experience that requires little to no thought when making actions - ie, the "beer and pretzels" game format (and FG and its' ilk achieve great success by more often than not delivering a satisfying experience in a short time and with few meaningful decision points). Ragnarok adds a few levels that a player must think about before making actions - is this warrior skilled enough to engage this other warrior, is he strong enough to defeat him, what are my odds of causing enough damage to put this warrior down, etc.

As it is, the task resolution system is merely rolling a 7+ on 2d6, with the 7+ adjusted by the difference in the two stats being compared.
Melee vs Defense to hit;  if hit, then make a Strength vs Resilience test. If successful, that causes damage to the defender.

Of course, I could be missing what the confusion is all about - can someone clarify? I am having trouble finding what in the ruleset is "obscure to the point of madness!" as the OP puts it in his blog...

[Manchu]

@spacecowsmith

did you find my restatement/conclusions above useful?

[Elk101]

This is a bit of a tricky one; whilst I have been asked to remove this thread at the request of the OP, there is clearly merit in being able to discuss the rules and interpretations of the rules. It is also only fair to allow the author to be part of any such discussions, as per his offer earlier. I will, therefore, shut this thread down and open up a new one to specifically discuss the rules, errata, etc.