Al.

On 20/09/2016 at 2:24 PM, Haimji said:

I m not sure the GM have to be afraif of check hunting. You have the players you deserve, if yours only want to increase theirs skills, change them.

Boom!

I agree fully. But also disagree slightly in that the GM can also influence their player's approach and behaviour.

RPG boards and forums (in general this less than most) are full of GMs moaning that their players all load up combat skills and shooty-killy magics. But then they run adventures which are full of fight scenes. And situations where the PCs lose their primary weapon but still need to fight.

If you don't want players to spend their time trying to maximise as many weapon skills as possible, don't make it a requirement of surviving the adventure and advancing the story that they are competent in lots of different weapons.

11 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

And one last point: a good ruleset always includes an initial section devoted to "when the GM should skip rolls". So, even when you decide that the roll is not necessary, if your ruleset is well designed you are actually applying it, not skipping it.

It does indeed. Next step is getting people to read the bloody thing.

I don't know what the con scene is like in Italy but in the UK there is an 'everybody knows' meme that Call of Cthulhu games are littered with 'make the Spot Hidden roll, fail make an Idea roll, fail, make a Luck roll, fail, miss the clue, game stalls' despite the fact that since 1st Edition the actual rule book has had very good advice on when to roll and what needs a roll

Maybe game designers and publishers just need to include that advice on every line of the arms and armour chart?!

Are you wanting to use RAW to emphasise CHA or are you looking to add/tweak rules to do so?

For the RAW route: just call for lots of CHAx5% rolls during the game (intimidate the wounded enemy to lay down sword rather than fight to the last, make the right impression when entering an unfriendly bar, catch the eye of the dancing girl, calm a skittish horse, etc, etc)

For extra rules those I have used are:

Don't roll or allocate CHA. It is the average (mean) of every other characteristic other than SIZ (a rule I first used in a Ancient Greek game, I noticed that the heroes in the Homeric stories were impressive and able to influence others. Some of course were also very handsome whilst others ugly but in all cases the more they stood out the more powerful they were)

Use CHA in place of STR for calculating combat skills (projection of indomitable will and ability to terrify with a single look is more important than muscle mass even for Druss and Conan)

Starting characters start with as many points of armour as their CHA score (the handsome fashionable warrior wears handsome fashionable armour; the boorish oaf wears tattered furs)

Starting characters start with as many points of Battle Magic as their CHA score (they are not only more beloved by the spirits but also better able to persuade mortals to share their cantrips)

Al

How granular are the skills going to be in RuneQuest?

I applaud the move to a single skill for Attack, Parry and Shield for each weapon

Will this be followed with non-weapon skills? i.e. will we see Devise or Pick Lock, Repair and Trap as separate skills? will we see Sleight or Juggle, Pickpocket and Sleight-of-hand?

On 14 June 2016 at 11:37 AM, BigJackBrass said:

I was just looking at the Leisuregames.com new releases page and saw that they have the Traveller core rulebook, which they're parenthetically calling the 2016 edition. That seems reasonable for a game with a long history and multiple editions from different publishers, so I think I'll personally be calling the new game RuneQuest (2016) ... unless it comes out next year. 

As with most RPG discussions I agree with most of what has already ben posted (especially the bits in opposition to each other)

But I agree with BigJackBrass the most

'RuneQuest' as a name is just a better name than RuneQuest<Letter><Number>

Placing the date of publication up front makes it obvious it's the newest version. In paranthesis is fine, in a smaller print on the same spine would work as well.

('RuneQuest2016' and 'NewRuneQuest' both make nice, unique filenames on a hard disk but IMMOO would look unbearably naff on book covers)

Al

I like this many lots

If one wishes to start a campaign where the characters are all a bit crap on the grounds that starting competent is munchkinism and not real roleplaying one can

If one wishes to start a campaign where the characters are competent one can

Best o' both

But I REALLY like the way that Runes have been integrated and rules have been used as a quick guide to what the character is like as well as what they can do

Have a merit sticker

The strength of the allegiance system is in making us think about differences and similarities

In my day job one of my dullest and most common duties is persuading testosterone fuelled adolescents (and frankly some adults of both sexes) not to blow up and over react over imagined slights.

Which leads me to think that in a wider context there is an important difference between Pride and Honour

In any setting where character's actions are expected to be subservient to a) what they are told to do and b. what they think is the right thing to do without being told

So I'd suggest

Honour and Pride and Duty

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

How to mirror that in th Strombringer RPG is another matter. 

A lesson long in the learning for me; use the rules as written as much as possible.

Just stick together the bits that are already there.

20 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Ah, and the top half of the haft is encased in iron! Not really fun to deflect bare-handed. 

Sure but the difficulty is already covered by the rules

Player has to roll a successful Parry before we are even worrying about any rules interpretation.

Which means that their character has to get in close and block the wielder's arms or the haft whilst they are close to the axeperson's body. When they are moving slowly with very little momentum. Get that wrong and they get hit by a fast-moving hurty bit. A missed (failed Parry) describes getting the Parry wrong, which to my mind covers more than just standing still and getting thwacked

On 11 March 2016 at 6:01 PM, smiorgan said:

By the way, parrying a *ucking Lormyrian ax with your bare *fists*... is beyond ridiculous! The character should have tried dodge...

But what do we mean by Parry?

Even if we happily (and why shouldn't we it's only a flipping game?!) acknowledge that everywhere Chaosium wrote Parry they probably meant Block rather than what sworspeople would recognise as a Parry. Do I have to Parry the axe head? A big long pole arm has a big long pole (stop it) to Parry. Failing the Parry suggests to me that the Parrier messed up, didn't step in far enough or otherwise mistimed and intercepted the heavy, fast moving axe head and got hit. A successfully Parry against a Critical hit with the Lormyrian Axe could just be the same. But I like the game fiction of Parrying a Critical being really bad.

On 15 March 2016 at 8:28 PM, Mankcam said:

Fun house rule for BRP:

• Critical Success = 10% of skill. Easy to calculate, and it happens more often.
• Special Success = Half of skill. Makes those effects happen way more often, which is fun but I think also more realistic. This may also quicken up the combat scene to a degree, however it works both ways in the fact that characters may also be impaired quicker as well.

That's my favoured version

I like Special Results

I've never found that it dilutes the magic or makes them seem less erm Special

On 4 March 2016 at 4:29 PM, GianniVacca said:

And then let's call the game Resolution D100!

Noooooooo

Then some ar$e who objects to you selling the book in order to reduce your expenditure (or maybe even get SOME payback on the time and effort invested) will accuse you of selling 'Re$olution'

Another potential problem; reckon Lemmy would have described bloated-indulgent-era Zeppelin* and Darkness both as novelty acts. So there would be no opposition

* be clear I say that as a man who genuinely owes his existence to Zeppelin, but Octopuses and groupies? Nah mush

4th Ed is the one version of SB which I don't own so I may be off. 

Older versions had a simple rule that defender's weapon breaks when parrying a critical attack (and vice versa) so the previous suggestions that Parrying unarmed a Critical attack leads to chopped off arm* looks bang on to me

* Ooh but what if the pugilist also failed the Fist Parry? Give the unlucky combatant the choice; you can lose both arms or lose one and then take the (double damage and ignore armour) damage as well?

So anyway I flip-flopped, returned to my original (using the word in its loosest possible sense since I've derived the lot from other people's work) and went for Darkness opposing Plant

MGDV

A: Pulled blows

B: I beg your pardon?

A: Pulled blows

Let me expand

The rules that players need follow on from the game the GM runs and the rules (s)he uses

Although I'm not a big fan of Forge pronouncements (or counter-pronouncements) one statement from early on does resonate with me. System matters. Not just the meta choice of tome but which rules the NPCs are going to choose and use.

If the PCs expect to lose a limb regularly then they will need access to zap pow instant healing. Especially if loss of limb just makes the subsequent bits of the adventure less fun and more difficult. If however foes regularly pull their blows against unarmored and or starting adventurers in order to capture and ransom them then the need (or perceived need) for that magic is reduced.

I've (all of this IMMOO clearly) found it frustrating to hear fellow GMs grizzling that their players all optimise their character for combat, ignore social skills (character and player ), tool up for a battle when going to the shops and generally act like sociopaths. But then run games where combat deadliness is dialled up to 11 all the time, and is often unavoidable. Players will choose (and demand) the tools for their characters to succeed (or at least survive long enough to be interesting).

I don't think that there is need to be (or be perceived to be) heavy-handed

And I think that the advice has been pretty spot on

What it boils down to (IMMOO) is that the player has read a sentence in the rules that he (I assume he) likes. But missed (or ignored) one which is equally valid that he (?) doesn't

Yup, the rules say that you can through a <greatsword> with throw skill. I think that this refers to throwing your beloved Zwei-hander over the pit to your chum as the mutant squirrels advance inexorably towards you, prior to you jumping so that you don't have to leave it behind when you jump. But it doesn't say explicitly that that's what it's for. (Except that in some versions of brp it does state that: p48 of Elric! for example points out that each Thrown Weapon has it's own skill)

They (the same rules you like) also say that improvised throwing weapons only do <1d6+1/2db> damage

So you CAN throw your greatsword (oh and then face the rest of the opposition empty-handed!) but it's not going to do much more than picking up a rock.

FWIW

6 hours ago, Prime Evil said:

As I understand the situation, the rights to the text reverted to Chaosium but the actual design and presentation belongs to Hasbro (via their purchase of Avalon Hill). Is this accurate? Are their plans to "repackage" some of the Avalon Hill releases at some point in the future - just been reading Sun Country again and would love a second copy

Seconded. A legal digital copy of much of the RuneQuest renaissance would be lovely.

As usual when reading RPG discussions; I agree with everyone, especially the diametrically opposed views.

A big feature for brp games for me when I first encountered them was that my character got better at what (s)he tried. My only previous experience (30 points per year) was with Dragon Warriors. A fine, fine game. But I found it frustrating that my Sorcerer ran out of magic points early on in each game and was then forced to carve the baddies up with his sword. But then we went up in Rank (level) didn't get any better at using a sword, but did get better at using magic.

With Tender Feelings?

But (or and) .... the POW economy doesn't quite do it for me either. For much the reasons eloquently laid out above.

I think that newRQ2 has the potential to address this. If my character's Runic affiliations/traits rise according to their behaviour and these have a noticeable effect on magic. Well then alongside the experience check system for skills, we could have the best of both worlds (lozenge and oblate spheroid)

Al

My only grizzle is that seems to be much more elegant and streamlined than my own attempt to do something similar

Grrrr

All good replies, thanks chaps

I'm doing it different to the official one 

Was aware that Power Runes form a nice set of dualistic traits but that Form (into which I'd folded Element) don't. But I'd written (scribbled!) myself into a corner over my Rune Magic Runepower rules. Best to pull back and try another approach

Thanks all

Al

My quick-and-dirty system (which was originally written to 'solve' a quite different 'problem)

Unarmed attacks* inflict the higher of 1d3 OR damage bonus (not the sum)

Metal armour protects against with twice its usual AP

If a character is still conscious** at the end of a combat, they immediately heal half of the unarmed damage received (bruises and winding hurt and certainly affect one's ability to fight but they are not as long-lasting as crushed bones, impaled organs or sliced muscles)

However people can (sadly, obviously) be beaten to death so you have to be up and on your feet to get that 'thank goodness, I'm not hurt as badly as I thought' effect

* by humans, post-humans, animals or anything else

** which means that this bodge might not quite do what you want ...........

EDIT: obviously Hulk is still going to have to pull his punch when swatting Captain America but I think that he's going to be doing that whatever rules approach (maybe Banner has more residual control than we realised?)

Heroic (duh) Hit Points seem essential to Heroes in a Superhero game

So I'm cobbling together my go at 'newRQ2' for a game this Sunday (as someone here said we want quality not deadline, we can all cobble together our house rules anyway)

I reckon I've got workable opposing pairs of Runes/Traits for most of the key ones

But what about Plant? What Rune is opposite to that?

Al

On 22 February 2016 at 7:51 AM, Joerg said:

Maybe it is my experience playing HeroQuest, but I wonder whether one should keep the amount of skills at the level of RQ skill categories and allow specialisations within these fields.

 

I'm a big fan of broad skill with potential specialisation

The first time I saw it was in Shadowrun (makes me feel more of a veteran than I'd like to recognise that SR doesn't count as a modern game any more!) and I thought it was brilliant

Then I wondered why it didn't go further

Then I flicked through a later edition and saw that it had been watered down

22 hours ago, jux said:

But we are talking about BRP and RQ, so yeah. Skills it is. 

Yes with a but. No with a maybe

Of the old-new designers; one is fairly proud of his work writing Pendragon, which removed most of what we would think of Agility and Stealth skills into the DEX roll (which obviously be Dex x5 in a d100 game) removed languages on the grounds that it would be more fun if the characters could all communicate, and at least one other was involved with WoW which removed the communication skills and replaced with the CHAx5 Persuade roll

On 15 January 2016 at 0:06 AM, ajtheronin said:

Question 3: a critical with an impale weapon is both a critical and an impale? 

I grew up with Stormbringer III where crits were double damage and ignored armour so just assumed that Crits in RQ were also Impales (or Slashes or Crushes!)

Assuming that a similar sounding rule is the same in each variant of d100 game is something I do a lot