Pete Nash

In RQ, I simply don't care for Martial Arts as an independent skill. Doubling damage is obviously (when applied to weapons) regarded as broken by most of us. However beyond this as I stated earlier, I consider any weapon or unarmed combat skill to be in itself a martial art. This is not just a semantic quibble, since my interpretation of the RQ/BRP model is that the skill should represent the entirety of that area of knowledge. Thus breaking a weapon skill down into two parts; part 1 - How to wield the weapon, and part 2 - Secret advanced techniques, just strikes me as wrong. After all, we don't use the same mechanic for any other type of skill. Do we? Although this idea is a good one for finding an alternate rationalization for the MA skill, it does pose problems - both mechanically in the game rules (to come up with lists of nifty advanced techniques) and from what happens in real life. From my perspective, most martial arts across all weapon forms contain methods to engage, disengage, disarm, pin, off-balance, break weapons, use alternate body parts or weapon areas (not normally used to deliver blows) to deliver them, grappling, Limb breaking, vital body locations and even psychology to name the most common. These are not special techniques, but fundamental parts of any fighting form, and are taught and practiced as such... The more difficult being left to later in training for those better coordinated, experienced and mentally prepared to absorb and utilise such knowledge. If nothing else, you need to be able to recognise these techniques in your opponents to be able to successfully defend against them, because they are used all the time. Most advanced (*special*) training in those MAs which I have followed, have been nothing more than a) higher philosophical perspectives (something not to be sneered at by any means, but usually not directly applicable to fighting); or more complicated ways of doing the exact same techniques listed above, but in a roundabout way (to confuse experienced opponents from recognising and countering them). Of course there are a few unique tactics which can only be applied in the right circumstances, like reflecting blinding light from a polished shield, or massed units using tight formations with huge shields to hinder enemies from swinging weapons. However, these don't strike me as being so difficult as to need a separate skill. Unfortunately in RQ/BRP we are hindered by the lack of being able to use the above techniques in a seamless way with the current rules. Specials and criticals generally just increase or decrease damage. Whereas I think in these cases you should be able to substitute a technique relevant to the situation instead - as I do in the Opposed Combat rules I wrote for use with MRQ. Although I think there should be a way of allowing more skillful combatants a way to consistently improve their damage (and spice up combat with techniques), I don't think a separate MA skill is the best way of doing it. I think we're all suffering from a kludge rule made in the days when MA movies were in vogue and the general opinion was that monks and Ninjas were mystically and inherently superior to the plain old pugalist. In my opinion I don't see any need to increase unarmed combat damage beyond a d3!

Well my perspective from studying both eastern and western martial arts is that any skill which is used to inflict, or defend against, injury in a fight has the right to be called a martial art. And when it comes down to it, both traditions use the same fundamentals of distance, timing, body mechanics, etc. There is very little difference in the 'fluidity' or 'speed' of a master in either form. The biggest difference - what little there is - in older (pre-gunpowder) styles between the two cultures comes down to availability (or practicality of using) of heavier armour, and the use of shields. Western MA's evolved to handle heavier defences. Yet both cultures have traditions of having massive weapons, polearms for rank and file, heavy armour for horseback nobles, and even the same tenancy for the ruling classes to learn and use a sword for a sidearm. They are really very similar, both in unarmed and armed disciplines. Although what's left to us of western MA literature is mostly from the early Renaissance, one can still see the modification of the styles as heavier armour was generally abandoned. Besides which, what tangible evidence (i.e. actual readable material) we have of eastern MA's rarely predates the same period and shows the same trend... All fighting knowledge evolves tactically when faced with changing social and climatic environments, new weaponry and changing protections. But the core fundamentals remain ubiquitous, not matter what their origin. Personally I'm a fan of Opposed Roll combat (where the higher success level, or higher roll if tied, wins). I like the inherent superiority it gives the higher skilled warrior, no need for mook rules, and it more readily represents what I observe in actual combat, that is to say, the greater the skill differential the faster the fight is over. Drawn out fights (assuming single combat) only really occur when the two combatants are relatively matched in skill. Mechanically to me it always seems that the amount of damage caused in a hit is normally proportional to the leeway the fighter has to emphasizing his blow - whether that be placing more power, or aiming it more tightly, etc. So the greater the skill difference, the more 'time/experience/awareness' the superior combatant has to be able to make the blow count (i.e. more damage). Mathematically however this is difficult to model easily, especially when BRP & MRQ use fixed damage ranges for weapons. Of course it is correct to say that 2H weapons are usually capable of inflicting greater mechanical impetus to a blow, however it doesn't reflect the actual 'lethality' of a blow from a more skilled wielder. Skill is far more paramount than the mass/length of the weapon. If you want to represent this you could go use the skill% divided by 10 or 20 as a bonus dice and perhaps halve all weapon damage dice. Or you could be more revolutionary, and say that damage is equal to a d(skill%/10) but its capped by the maximum damage value of the weapon - e.g. a master broadswordsman at 120% would roll a d12, but the maximum damage could never exceed 8 points. A nice elegant solution which (on face value) doesn't break anything. :innocent:

This looks very similar to the cinematic opposed roll combat rules I came up with for MRQ. A older version of which is on the MRQ Wiki... Opposed Roll Combat - MRQWiki Take a look. There might be some other ideas within for 'Combat Exploits' which you could rework for F&S. Although I didn't limit most of my special effects according to weapon type (save entangling, since most weapons are tactically adaptable), I did originally propose that some effects could be limited to certain training schools, similar to secret teachings of Japanese sword masters. However, since then I've further adapted the idea to combine some of my system's special effects with MRQ's Heroic Abilities instead, which seamed to fit better. I do like the way you have PC's learning new exploits with increasing skill competence, but it doesn't quite gel with my rw fighting experience where knowing a set of tactical tricks isn't dependent on prowess, but rather how well you execute them is. However your rule is quite elegant.

Please understand that this is only a supposition. I might be completely wrong about what drives the supplement printing priority. Rome may have been placed on hold, because my manuscript was too big, too boring or just bloody awful!

I honestly wish I knew! The manuscript was submitted to Lynn on the 4th of May, and Dustin sent me a confirmation of its receipt on the 21st. Since then its been silent running. I had a quick chat with Charlie at Continuum, and it seems that Chaosium is awash with more raw BRP material than they can immediately handle. A few things may be delaying its publication. Firstly, its a seriously big supplement packed to the brim with history, culture and Latin, which makes it a significant (and possibly daunting) project for any editor. Secondly, since it was intended to be a proper book, rather than a straight-to-print monograph, it was submitted in raw text with no artwork (although the maps were all done and included) - necessitating further effort by a layout editor. Thirdly, the poll on the Chaosium website, showed that historical supplements are lagging behind other genres, so they may be focusing their efforts on publishing more popular settings - and wisely so! In conclusion, I wouldn't hold your breath!

Very true on both counts. However, in the first case the saga was heavily packed with descriptive text about the demonic nature and personality of Stormbringer - thus the contrast may have been specific to emphasise the sword's unique nature! The second point is also valid. MM was somewhat inconsistant in his description of magic, which was why doing all the research (collating every single incidence of magic and demons from the entire saga) was so interesting. After reading through all the excerpts it was both fun and a slight challenge to create a magic system with Loz, which matched the saga's underlying patterns. Believe me that I was just as surprised as anyone when my imagined recollection of 'bound' demons from the books turned out to be false! Both the SB and Elric game books had skewed my memory.

You should go back and read the books afresh. As you rightly pointed out neither case infers that those items were demons, and in one case it explicitly states that the armour is sorcerous, rather than demonic. The only demons in the saga ever bound as an object are Stormbringer and Mournblade themselves, and that took the magical strength of an entire race of beings more powerful than the Melniboneans to do. The research for writing Mongoose's EoM magic system, actually revealed that Sorcery using runes (more akin to traditional fantasy spells) was as prevalent as demon summoning. There was also occasional references to alchemy... both of which are far more likely explanations of the incidental sorcerous items in the saga. Thus in EoM you have the ability to use Rune Sorcery to imbue powers to items, either temporarily; or potentially for the life of the sorcerer if they are willing to bind up their power for the duration...

About 90% of the manuscript has been Latin proofed by the very dedicated Classicist who volunteered his priceless services, and those chapters are now in the hands of a good friend for pre-submission editing. Also the first of the city maps has been finished and looks wonderful. I'm still aiming for my submission deadline at the end of April, after which its in the hands of Chaosium.

I wish I could find a cheap copy of the Dune Encyclopedia...

I have been seriously thinking about writing a BRP Dune setting. However, since the licence is out of reach, I was considering doing it as a free download for fans. I was considering making the Wierding Way, Mentat recall, etc. a group of separate skills, only available to those of a particular guild/social group. For Prescience, I'd use a simple rule of spend an extra power point, roll an extra set of dice for the skill check. Thus if you spent 2pp on a skill attempt you'd roll three sets of % dice, and then choose the best temporal 'path' by selecting the roll you preferred. Simple and elegant. Most everything else is simply background, character professions and equipment; and the game itself should focus more on intrigue and politics, over gratuitous combat. (Crysknives, lasguns and poisons should make the already deadly BRP combat, more lethal still, encouraging more cerebral problem solving.)

Project status. Well, I am currently finishing off the Creatures section and having fun making my own versions of some Roman monsters. A very kind gentleman who is professor of Classics, is now going through the chapters written so far, correcting all the Latin words I've included. Last but not least, a good friend of mine is generating a map of Late Republican Rome, from a collection of other map fragments I've gathered over the last couple of years - sadly there seems to be no good detailed maps of the city at that time available (at least on the net). My current deadline is to be finished by the end of April - towards which I am currently flogging myself. All the tough chapters are now finished. Its just the fun ones left to go...

I already have a page dedicated to Latin insults... although we'll have to see what survives. Some censoring might be required!

Yes, their responsibilities are explicitly explained. That's been covered too!

I'm working on the Religions chapter at the moment, in parallel with the continuing efforts on BRP Rome. As Loz said, Magic and Combat are done, though creatures are yet to be decided upon. Save for a few culturally specific skills and equipment, I'd imagine we'll run with what's available in the default MRQ rules. It will be a fairly comprehensive book, since there is no knowing if it'll be a popular enough setting to support further supplements - and I loath the marketing concept of publishing multiple books to cover what should be core material. That wouldn't be a problem. You could substitute your favourite combat rules, BRP skills and rolling mechanics as desired with no impact. The only area which cannot easily be substituted are the magic rules, which work differently from MRQ and BRP. They were specifically designed to be unique and have their own distinct flavour. Its a fascinating blend of the favourite science, fantasy and imagination's of a group of die hard roleplayers, from a variety of different backgrounds. No idea on either at the moment. Loz and I are having a progress meeting in March to review Religions, before it goes to the Design Mechanism for a final critique. After that comes the Bestiary, editing, sourcing for artwork, and layout. Work on my side will progress much faster once BRP Rome is finished. So the only thing I can say for sure is not until the autumn at the earliest.

Please cheer away! I've just finished the Religions chapter and am now moving onto the daunting task of squeezing 700 years of history into a dozen pages... without leaving out all the fun stuff! :ohwell:

Hi Jason I first posted this on the Opposed Rolls thread, but I think your description of how Opposed Rolls work on p174 needs some clarification. I believe you mean that if both characters get the same level of success then you do NOT downgrade the success of the winner down to a failure... AND... In the case of tied criticals or specials the winner only achieves a normal success. If so, then you should change the above text to make this specific. Cheers!

Hmmm. It might just be me, but on careful re-reading of the Opposed Test description on p174 the following text seems slightly flawed and a little confusing... Now we can all interpret this correctly so that if both characters get the same level of success then you do NOT downgrade the success of the winner down to a failure. However, it does not say this specifically. It also doesn't explain what happens if the winner of matched specials, or criticals are treated as such... or whether the winner should be treated as having only gained a normal success. Does anybody else seem the same flaw or am I being overly pedantic? :confused:

My apologies, I appear to have made a mistake. It is part of the default rules on p174, with the addition that you also reduce an opponent's level of success if you succeed in your skill check too. The mathematical alternatives are on p170. Please forgive my stupidity. ;-(

If you don't like them, then there's no problem. They are after all, an optional rule in BRP. For my gaming style they sort out the consistency problems RQ suffered, and streamline play. Rolling high-within-low is simply a matter of habit and becomes transparent very quickly, extra maths only kick in once you get skills above 100% and nobody I play with seems to have a problem with on the fly addition or subtraction. Whether they 'trivialize potentially exciting contests' depends completely upon how the results are applied by the GM - it is not specifically linked to how the dice are rolled and read. Are Opposed Rolls perfect? By no means. But until the next elegant innovation comes along, I'll be using them.

Badcat's sarcasm aside, I honestly do feel that Opposed Rolls are the best rule innovation since RQ was invented! Not only do they remove the inherent bias which the standard rules gave to one side or the other by default, but they also fix the associated mathematical problems caused when the contestants reach mastery+ (as demonstrated by Lord Twig above). No more who is active/passive questions, no more in-game disagreements about consistency of how those decisions were applied, and much less repetitive dice rolling in combat... Simply if there is someone or something which could resist you, then make it an Opposed Roll and get a clear cut result. Its streamlined the flow of all the games I've played in, or run, since we started using it.:thumb:

Hi Sarah If French is your native language, then a wonderful guy called "Arasmo" (on the Mongoose & Scriptorium forums, I don't know if he's present here) has just completed a full translation of the rules, and added some artwork too! Le Scriptorium - REGLES OPTIONNELLES POUR RUNEQUEST It looks and reads much better than my original... if you can read French of course!

Indeed. It is all a matter of semantics and interpretation. However, I personally consider anyone who achieves a 1st dan in an oriental martial art to be at least 90% in their skill, and I apply the same standard to an SCA knight or a Master in the European martial arts. Such titles are usually only applied to those who have shown (at the very least) an extremely high level of prowess, and the ability to consistently overcome their peers in competition. I also use the same standard for educational awards too, i.e. a PhD for example. Thus for me, these 'titles' are the vital anchor point to what otherwise is a completely abstract value. How else can you qualify what the skill percentage actually means?

Effectively yes, whomever wins the opposed roll gains the advantage... But this is my own personal way of doing things. I like opposed rolls so much, I even wrote my own set of combat house-rules based on them, which can be found at the following link if you're interested. Unfortunately they are designed for use with MRQ rather than BRP, but the core opposed roll mechanic will translate cleanly between both systems. http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/images/c/c0/Opposed_Roll_Combat_Rules_v2.4.pdf They resolve the SB5 type combat deadlocks very effectively, and give a significant advantage to the higher skilled combatant, even when skills reach the hundreds. I like my combats to be short, deadly and spectacular! >:-> BRP (when you get it) uses a matrix of attack LOS vs. parry LOS which, just like SB5, gives precedence to the defender when ties occur. So despite the slightly increased chance of a critical result in BRP, it is still prone to deadlock situations.

This is definitely a matter of personal interpretation. My personal experience is that some masters are much better than others, and the difference between them (modeled as percentage skills) is nowhere near slight! For example, you could place a newly made 1st dan black belt against a senior 7th dan of his martial art... Or a standard knight of the SCA versus one of the Super-dukes. These sort of bouts don't normally last much beyond a few blows. :shocked: Single combats normally only bog down between people of roughly equal skill. So from my perspective the "realism" is that its the difference between the individual fighter's skills which counts... not the fact that they reached 100%. Thus I'm definitely a 'mythic linear' kind of guy and use a similar rule to the one Rurik mentions to preserve the skill difference in favour of the most skillful fighter. (Sorry for using a fighting analogy here, but the trend should apply to most other things. E.g. A physics professor at a university vs. Einstein over a question of relativity. Both are masters of the subject, but I think I know who should win the overwhelming majority of debates... at least in the early 1900's! )

You could combine both methods. You get ticks for failing skills in stressful situations; and at the end of the scenario the GM could give out a number of skill improvements, which the player can choose to place anywhere. This would model both real-life processes of learning-by-failure and focussed training.