Nightshade

The problem with that logic is that the weapon skills are broad enough you're not often going to be using something really new, and what if you don't have a shield? In addition, if you just parry with the weapon, you modestly increase your by the book advancement (because in a battle you'll get a roll in it if you succeed at either end) and can maximize your training.

Of course, you're right. And I'm reminded this is why we have a GM - to be the arbiter.

But that begs the question of why the GM should be the arbiter of this. It necessary for someone to make a final decision on some things in the game, but what is and isn't acceptable roleplaying outside of some blatantly disruptive cases isn't one of them. It doesn't even seem warrented.

When we started our classic fantasy campaign, we borrowed a lot from other systems. This was one of the options that I put up for a vote to my players. I did not have a single taker. I can't honestly think of anyone I've gamed with in the past 20 years that would prefer a standardized system that is "fair and balanced" over one where you are rewarded for what you actually do in game. That includes level based games like D&D, dice pool games and roll under/over games. I see that as a major flaw. Even players I've played with over the years who contributed little more than a body at the table have noted that when a system like that was in place to regulate experience acquisition (I played in an AWESOME D&D campaign early last decade that started out that way) it didn't seem fair for those who contributed less to be awarded the exact same reward.

But the standard system doesn't reward people who contribute more. It rewards those who make more rolls in different skills. Those don't come close to being the same thing. The guy who helps with all the planning, runs around and pulls opposition off the folks who are outnumbered, and is otherwise useful may make only two or three kinds of skill rolls in the whole game, while the guy who makes sure to find every opportunity to make a skill roll possible may actually be detracting from the game. There's no direct relationship.

If a GM thinks his game is suffering due to poor RP, surely it's his duty to encourage a better RP style?

Depends. Is it just him that things so? Then the answer is "no". And even if many people think so, what they're really thinking is "The level/kind of roleplaying in the game isn't at what I like." The first question there, then, is "so what am I doing to make it better?"

Otherwise I'm really suspicios that in the vast majority of cases this translates into "You're not roleplaying in the fashion I like, so I'm going to pull out carrots and/or sticks to try to get you to." And I'm dubious that's an appropriate thing to be doing.

(Or do 'a rather large number of people' really disagree with that idea?)

I think so, and I have what I consider good evidence to my satisfaction that its true. Its not a statement easy to prove, however.

I suspect that an attempt to block an attack by something like a greataxe, a halberd or a maul

with a wooden shield should have more serious consequences for the shield, probably even for

the shield arm of the combattant holding the shield - there seem to be more than a few reports

about shield arms broken because of the impact of a heavy weapon on the shield.

That's kind of a generic problem with sufficiently heavy weapons and anything armor-like; there's a reason some versions of BRP have played games with armor protection against weapons that do most of their damage from raw kinetic impact.

So, it needs to be clear to everyone what constitutes good roleplaying.

And I hope everyone here will agree it's not 'playing the tactical combat role expected of your character class' (which seems to be what WotC are trying to re-define it as with 4E).

Systems for the GM to reward Good RP will help players learn the true meaning.

No, it helps the player learn what the GM defines it as.

I don't particularly see that the GM should be the arbiter of what constitutes good roleplaying. And I think a rather large number of people feel the same.

I don't see as its either necessary or desirable for everyone to be lockstepped as to what is the appropriate way to play the game, even within one group. If someone doesn't actively throw everything off for others, I think that's all you should reasonably expect.

A lot of the time formations seem to be important for large shields, i.e. the shield wall. So it's not about individual combat but military massed-rank fighting. Long shields are useful for covering bodyparts when riding, so I like the extra AP idea. Small shields, on the other hand, tend to be light and not especially tough, and are definitely parrying rather than blocking weapons (think Zulu shields).

The problem is, this would mean shields were only useful for formation fighting, and that's actually far from the only place historically where they were used. In fact, they pretty clearly predate formation fighting.

Truth is, they should just flat out be easier to use on the whole; heavy or no, having more surface area to block and deflect with is an advantage, weight or no.

As stated, the basic problem was that lots of innovations were added into the system without understanding their impact or thinking through how they worked. One simple example is in the change from experience rolls to improvement rolls. In BRP, using a skill successfully gets you a chance at improving by experience so if you have a character who relies on a lot of different skills then they tend to use them all during a session. Conversely a specialist who only uses a small number of skills doesn't gain so much experience. MRQ1 replaced this with improvement rolls given out by the GM. As most players got the same number (+/-1) then characters who used lots of skills (such as sorcerers) got shafted. However they didn't update sorcery.

I suspect to many people that was sort of a virtue; making those who used a lot of skills prioritize which ones they thought were more important was considered fairer.

But as you say, some areas this doesn't work well in, where simple basic operations are set up so they demand a lot of skills.

And was it the "play to win" guys who tended to miss out on the awards? If so, hurt feelings or not, it may be exactly what's needed.

Not really. Its just prone to increasing the sense of conflict between them and the GM rather than doing anything to address the behavior.

Social engineering of this kind never really works except in the already mildest cases.

Off hand weapons are useful, but not necessary; as I said, its not a coincidence most fighting sabers had a reasonably heavy guard. Smashing someone in the face as the close in to do knife work won't make their day either (and if they stay far enough back to avoid that, they're really not inside your working area).

Frankly, from my experience when fighting in the round, even with a point only sword, if you're not confined heavily by the environment, closing up enough to be within reach of a point sword without getting skewered isn't that trivial an exercise anway.

Far as I can tell, the real downside of that scenario would be impaling someone in something they could survive (or getting it tangled in clothing or the like) and having them continue right up on you. At that point unless you've got a backup weapon of some sort, you'd be truly and righteously screwed.

Poor sporting technique.....but a perfectly valid combat technique. if he'd of been a knifeman who'd be talking to us today ?

Depends. Was I still using a point only sword? Am I not able to kick him when he closes up for some reason? How'd he get around my line in the first place?

The point was, what he was doing was only possible because the only interaction I'm permitted in the foil is with our blade tips. In a real fight I've got any number of other options if he gets in under my line (hint: most sword guards are perfectly functional as brass knuckles).

You also get people to learn really bad habits that work because of the general rules of such things. When I used to foil fence, there was a guy who used to get inside my reach since you couldn't use anything but the tip of the foil. This irritated me considerably because it was so much gaming the process. Enough that at one point I "accidentally" smashed him the mask with the bell of the foil while backing up.

He didn't do it again to me.

The movie version might have a chance if he understood the difference between them and vampires he's used to (hint: stakes are pretty much worthless) as he appears more superhuman than any routine Buffyverse entity. But that's what you need; avowed superhumans.

That's the key, of course; if you're trained in only the specific sports techniques, they effectively train you away from a number of effective combat techniques.

That said, for anyone who's interested, its still entirely possible to train in such a fashion as to avoid this problem, you just have to actively seek out teachers who train in more traditional and practical versions. This is usually easier with unarmed techniques than armed, but you can do it with either.

This will be a Twilight RPG expansion: "Twilight Emo - At the Sword's Edge" (AKA: "Blade").

Edit: On a tangent, here is a fan paradox for you: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" vs "Twilight" - Maybe similar to the paradox of Star Wars storm troopers shooting Star Trek red shirts.

Unfortunately, much as Buffy fandom might like to claim a chance, the defined trait of Twilight vampires don't give much of one. The only thing liable to successfully take out a Twilight vampire is a large area flame attack. Short of that they're too fast and to tough for most of the Buffyverse entities to have any sort of reasonable chance.

But the axe was a very popular battle weapon; i doubt a spear or sword would be much better, otherwise noone would have used axes!!!

Axes get good penetration and do a lot of damage. That's all the reason you need for their historical success right there (the fact they're relatively easy to make compared to any decent kind of slashing sword doesn't hurt).

Is it? Why? The axe has more reach! Would you prefer to face someone with a fireaxe or a knife?

The knife, but not because I expect the axe to be more likely to hit; its because I may well survive a single knife wound more likely than the wound from the axe.

But if you're asking me which one I expect to have a better chance to avoid, its the axe hands down. The reach isn't long enough to be relevant, and the recovery and retarget times are immensely better with the knife. Once the axe misses me once there's a very good chance I can close up inside his ability to do anything further. I can't say that about the knife.

Is this how Call of Cthulhu established itself?

You know, using a setting/subgenre that is probably one of the most recognizable crossover case in two fannish genres isn't particularly the best counterexample. In many respects, for anyone who was looking at a horror setting that was at all inclusive, Lovecraftian horror was the beaten path at that time. If you were going to get a horror based setting that was going to get any traction at all at that time its hard to picture one that was going to get any more attention. Later I suspect you'd have gotten better luck with certain kinds of survival horror, but they didn't have the name recognition.

The only thing that worked against CoC was the doom that's imbued in the setting, and its not a coincidence that the game has tended to emphasize the investigation, fighting cultists and blowing stuff up parts of the genre, and not the going mad and losing parts.

While it looks like an interesting setting, the "Fall of the Empire" vibe might turn off some people.

Its kind of a conundrum; if you produce something too off the beaten path, it can be a little too odd for many people (reference Tekumel or perhaps Jorune, or even moreso the Madlands from GURPS Fantasy II); if you stay within comfort zones, it can be too bland to get too much of a following given there's other such settings around.

As for a gneral leaning, I tend to prefer fewer skills, but allow sub-skills/specialties to allow for more diversity without overcomplicating things.

How do you handle that in BRP without making the people with focused skills kind of idiots for going that route?

I second icebrand. I've been grappled by ju-jitsu and aikido. As soon asthey have a good hold on you and lock your arms, they can comand your body to twist as they want. The human body has a 'way' it likes to bend. Trying to bend it the wrong way, results in your body moving to try and avoid the iminent broken joints. That's how some of the aikido throws work. It uses your strenghth against you.

Back to OP. I see it as a feature that once grappled, you can't get out.

The only way to escape is for an ally to intervene. This is why brazilian jujitsu, may win ultimate combat fighting matches, but doesn't work in your average street brawl. Once you're down on the ground, some one else will kick your head in.

As I noted, the effect of the rules is that anyone with a high Grapple uses it against any human opponent all the time, because its so hard to resist in the first place.

Over the years I7ve ported various things over from one RPG to another. In one case I coverted an Stormbringer campaign over to RQ3, with only a few changes (but the systems were fairly similar).

Inevitably with a "mix 'n match" system, the GM has to make decsions abot how to covert things becuase of the differences between game systems. WHat might be a slap on the wrist in one rpg can be a lethal threat in another.

And you have to watch changes in process, too. Porting over a spell-fumble system, for example, can be far more hair-raising in a linear roll like BRP than it is in, say, some kind of die pool system where avoiding fumbles is fairly easy.

I think the situation is somewhere in-between.

1. Avoiding fumbles: I'm not sure I'd split into three 50's, , but the difference between two 75% and one 150% in frequency of fumbles is probably unnoticable to most people.

2. Criticals: Similarly, most people aren't going to notice the difference between the critical chances of the two above.

3. Specials: This is a little more of an issue. However, notice that someone with 150% attack has a 30% chance of a special. A successful parry against that special will make it a hit. Two 75% chances, on the other hand, will still presumably force the -30% parry/dodge mechanic into place, which in many cases will at least potentially produce the same result, and has the advantage that it produces potentially more damage.

Personally, I suspect against single opponents, using the old deduction of Parry (and vice versa on Attack) would make a more effective and visible difference. Against multiple opponents, it'll likely be a different story, if they're weak enough to make splitting a good idea.

The problem is that the only benefit in practice with shields over an off-hand weapon in the basic system is with missile fire; the extra hit points is usually meaningless.

Ooh, ripostes...yes, that is a seriously scary rule:)

But it doesn't matter if you're wielding 1,2 or 11 weapons.

That was the part of the OP's question that I got sort of hung up in.

Rosen McS had a nice RQ-fix on two weapon-fighting: you cannot attack and parry with the same weapon on the same SR/dex-rank.(exepting ripostes).

I still maintain this poorly represents classic single-sword fencing, especially in the strike rank system because most people will tend to strike in a very tight range of strike ranks. It might be okay with a larger range and/or one with some randomness in it.