Pete Nash

It all depends on how you interpret the abstract values of the other characteristics. For example, I personally consider adult humans with STR 3 as people who suffer or suffered from; 1) cultural or rank based dietary restrictions, whether as an adult or a growing child 2) muscular dystrophy, polio or some other congenital disorder 3) failed to perform any physical exercise, either from laziness, religious observation, tribal superstition and so on So for me there's no problem with 3d6 STR. Its not so much whether a human can be a weak as a rabbit, but whether a significant proportion of the population can be that debilitated naturally. Sadly, throughout much of human history such conditions are far more prevalent than most people imagine.

Because it allows creatures other than humans to be measured on the same unified characteristic scale.

One man's quirk is another man's feature. There isn't a magic system out there which can't be exploited to some degree. Whilst all the magic systems have been given a thorough overhaul and spells modified to discourage blatant abuse, the principles behind sorcery remain as before. Indeed a good number of extra spells have been added to the game, some even more evil than before. At the same time however, we have the space and page count to provide detailed advice to GMs about restricting spell availability, delaying access to more potent cult magics and consequences of murderous actions. There are also other, completely new methods detailed to ensure that whilst such spells exist to replicate the high fantasy and S&S genres, their fangs can still be pulled. What we provide is merely a Sorcery toolbox. At some point the Game Master has to bear responsibility about what he places in his campaign and makes accessible to PCs. Yes we have.

Why not give support for MRQ2/Legend? Its proven to be popular, mechanically stable and perhaps most importantly, a great deal of fun!

That's all already included. Explanations of how they are intended to be used, why folks would learn (and prefer to stick with) a style, suggestions for how inclusive they should be, what happens when you use a weapon not in your style and we even added specific situational bonuses or techniques to each Combat Styles to make them more unique. Throughout RQ6 we make it very clear that unless the GM is using a pre-prepared setting, it is his responsibility to set up the weapon styles, cults, spell lists etc (just as a GM would set up the cultures, deities, cities, NPCs and scenarios if creating his own campaign world), but we give as much support as possible to help minimise the effort and show that they can use the rules to do, pretty much, anything they like.

Well, unless you have a spare Tardis you can lend me...

Hey Chorpa, are you or any RQ players you know going down to Nordsken this weekend? I'll be heading down on Saturday with the current playtest version of RQ6 and would be happy to run a game for anyone who is interested.

Ah that explains the questions. In MRQ2 and RQ6 you have Combat Styles which incorporate a group of weapons learned from cultural or career backgrounds. Thus it is easier for a character to have a broader range of proficiency depending on how inclusive the GM wants to have each style. Shields on the other hand offer several bonuses from the ability to block larger, more forceful weapons to being able to parry ranged attacks. Thus they do provide a significant edge in a fight.

In what ways specifically? That is easily done by dividing the 3 numbers of each location to represent specific joints or regions of the body. So 1-3 of the (right?) leg could be split into 1-Foot, 2-Lower Leg and 3-Upper Leg. Since the head only has 2 numbers you could make 19-Face/Neck and 20-Skull. After that its easy enough to declare that a vest/corset doesn't cover arms, a haubergeon cover the upper arms, and a full hauberk cover upper and lower arms.

Easily. S&S, Conan in particular, was part of my mindset when Loz and I worked on MRQ2. I had hoped that Mongoose would relaunch their Conan license using the new rules, and save for Paradox it would have happened. In RQ6 the trend will continue and in fact will more strongly support the S&S genre. Why do some people think that d100 systems are too deadly for the genre? Well, there's a number of reasons, but the following are what spring to mind: 1) They come from a history of playing combat heavy games, where scenarios are based around sequential conflicts, each of which unerringly ends with death. 2) They are used to surviving combat by the aid of potent and easily garnered magic. 3) They haven't read the original R.E.Howard stories, or their memories of them have been submerged by pastiches and poor movies. 4) They forget that Conan is a literary character and is fated to survive the slings and arrows of all the dangers he faces. d100 games are perfect for the genre because: 1) You can actually parry attacks. 2) You can swiftly defeat foes with one or two blows, without needing to use specifically designed mooks. 3) You can be a combat god by simply having a far higher skill than opponents. 4) Yet you can be defeated by superior numbers of very inferior foes. 5) You can replicate the fact that combat is scary and few of the book's protagonists ever use it as the first option to resolve conflict. 6) You are encouraged (and have skills available) to talk or trick your way out of conflict. 7) You can be a athletic, stealthy, educated warrior without breaking the limits of a character class or castrating a 'build'. 8) You can wear armour and have it work in the way it works in the stories (Conan loves his mail and plate) 9) With MRQ2/RQ6 at least, you can easily replicate all the shield bashing, disarming, leaping and so on which happen in the dynamic prose without penalising you own chance to hit. 10) Also with MRQ2/RQ6 you can defeat an opponent easily without needing to injure them, such as the innumerable times Conan is bashed over the head and rendered unconscious. 11) Hero Points, DI or its equivalent can help character survival. Now most problems GMs have when replicating Conanesque games using d100 games comes down to scaling of enemies, arenas of conflict and pacing. Read through most of the tales and you'll see several trends: 1) Most foes are far inferior to the main characters in terms of skill. The core protagonists have a reputation for deadliness which Conan himself often uses to intimidate his foes, preventing a fight from even starting, or quickly breaking the morale of enemies once combat is joined. Such matters are up to the GM to impose and (save for being outclassed) are system agnostic. 2) Not all the conflict, challenge or drama hinges on swinging a sword. Conan often uses his charm to turn potential foes over to his side. He uses diplomacy to finagle himself into positions of rank. He uses seduction to ensure promotion or survival. And those aspects proliferate the stories. He also uses his intellect to think his way around problems such as using tricks to fool priests, stealth to bypass unnecessary combat, knowledge of languages to seek out treasures, his athletic skills to flee from opponents - and lets face it, he runs an awful lot. 3) Pacing is perhaps the most important aspect. Conan stories hardly ever revolve about a sequence of fights every half hour. He's not cleaning out dungeons or committing total genocide (well, save for unwittingly killing the odd unique monster). Days can pass between combats, there is lots of travel, carousing, flight, rabble rousing and so on between each conflict. So GMs shouldn't need to rely on healing magic to keep on propping up the PCs between encounters. If he finds the party getting too injured he should cut back on the number of fights, reduce the threat of the opponents and make sure the majority of combats (save perhaps for the climax of the scenario) are fought with the intent of capturing rather than killing the characters. After all, most of Conan's foes want to interrogate, torture or sacrifice him later on. For me d100 systems are the perfect and logical fit for the gritty, dangerous Hyborian world. I don't want to play superhuman or uber heroic Conanesque games. I want one where I don't care if my barbarian dies, provided he dies well... "I seek not beyond death. It may be the blackness averred by the Nemedian skeptics, or Crom's realm of ice and cloud, or the snowy plains and vaulted halls of the Nordheimer's Valhalla. I know not, nor do I care. Let me live deep while I live; let me know the rich juices of red meat and stinging wine on my palate, the hot embrace of white arms, the mad exultation of battle when the blue blades flame and crimson, and I am content. Let teachers and philosophers brood over questions of reality and illusion. I know this: if life is illusion, then I am no less an illusion, and being thus, the illusion is real to me. I live, I burn with life, I love, I slay, and am content."

Wow! That sort of reaction is very far from representative in my own experience, indeed out of many dozens of people I've roleplayed with over the decades, I have never encountered that sort of intransigent behaviour. With consideration to the three options; I've seen all three occur, but when facing overwhelming force (or justified representatives of the local authority) I (or my players) will eventually capitulate trusting that the GM will evolve the story from that point onward. I'm sorry, but if a player of mine ever wrote something like that to me I'd throw him out of my group. I think its belligerent, childish, unnecessarily rude and quite frankly questions the player's ability to actually roleplay. Stand-offs are an inherent part of dramatic tension, whether its arguing against your commander when he orders you to perform a questionable deed, to resisting arrest when innocent of the crime one is accused of. Stating that you'll never capitulate means removing a, if not the, major tool of the GM to provide non-combat specific drama. Should they be used sparingly? Yes. Should characters suffer the consequences of stupidity? Of course! But threatening to deliberately blow up any campaign it occurs in, is not only selfish (after all the other players may have no issues) but also raises the question why that person is even playing in the first place. All my own opinion of course. I just don't understand this sort of psychology - especially in a game which we do for fun.

I have to say longsword is by far my favourite style for its combination of elegance, power and swiftness; although I'm probably a little more effective with sword and Viking round shield.

Welcome! Yes, and I've already incorporated my own personal take on things in MRQ2/Legend and the forthcoming RQ6. But I look forwards to see how another practitioner of historical combat would approach making BRP more interesting.

If anything Mongoose is helping to pave the way for RQ6 since they are widening the market interest for d100 products, and material written by Loz and me which Matt kindly praises in his most recent State of the Mongoose. So I for one am happy at the sudden burst of popularity raised by releasing a loss-leader and an OGL one at that.

No. I'm saying the most skilful fighter should win. Precisely my point.

I personally side with Redcrow on this one. The term 'martial arts' has a lot of pop-culture baggage associated with it, something which still colours the word despite nearly two decades of effort from European historians and martial practitioners to overturn the far-eastern mystique it still possesses. A 'martial art' is nothing more than a fighting tradition. It merely describes a skill of learning to fight and shouldn't even be unarmed specific, which is why in MRQ2 there was no Martial Arts skill. Is brawling inferior to karate? I do not believe so. They may expound different techniques, but there is no real difference between the core aspects of both styles - which comprise of far more than just knowing how to throw a punch correctly (there's psychology, intimidation, feints, pain tolerance, timing, etc ad nausium). Karate might offer lots of fancy kicks, whereas Glaswegian pub brawling might emphasise on headbutts and bites. Karate might offer once a week kata training and GPB might start with uncle Frank showing you the basics in a back alley, then the usual Friday night scrap down at the Kilt and Todger. Karate is a martial art; as is brawling, boxing, wrestling, pankration, fencing, halberd fighting, Ecky Thump and all the other weird and wonderful traditions out there. Is one superior to the other? Not in the real world. In the end, it all comes down to how experienced each individual is... and that is portrayed in BRP by the actual percentage value next to the skill.

Sounds like an excellent intro to a grim horror scenario with a tragic ending. Once the barrier materialises everything within goes utterly black, no light in or out. With the electricity is cut off, people begin to panic since few keep flashlights to hand or can locate them in the pitch darkness. Those that have personal electronics with LCD screens use the feeble illumination to grope around and become beacons for the desperate. It soon becomes apparent there aren't enough torches for everyone. Of course few are even aware that the water has been cut off too. Storage tanks in the older buildings are quickly drained by unthinking toilet use... until of course the sewage starts to back up and a stench starts to pervade the city. Those who have a glimmering of foresight start hoarding water, then food as they suspect that this eclipse isn't natural. The guns start coming out. Before long everyone switches off their lights and return to stygian blindness to avoid becoming targets of looters. After 36 or 48 hours, people begin to sweat and breathing becomes laboured. It isn't the septic fug or early spread of disease. Those with a bit more technical education realise that no heat is escaping the barrier and worse still, oxygen isn't permeating through. How long does everyone have left? A few days perhaps? So the few leaders gather together the remnants of their community and prepare them for the ultimate conclusion. Then the aliens come out of the darkness and begin to snatch people from the very arms of their loved ones...

You could take a look at MRQ2 Vikings. I included a comprehensive section on Rune Magic which includes a cap on the number of runes you know dependant on your skill. I believe they are selling it cheap at the moment, $9.99 for the pdf at RPGNow.

Aside from the fact that when I wear my full plate or riveted mail hauberk I am actually slowed (that extra mass on my arms makes a noticeable difference), swinging second is not such a big issue in MRQ2. You can often defeat an opponent with a better LoS parry without even needing to strike your foe. Comparative skill and choosing the right combat manoeuvre counts for far more than who goes first. In MRQ2 at least, armour that slows you down is actually more likely to save your life due to the importance of its APs.

It doesn't reduce your number of physical actions, just slows down when you act during the round.

I can't believe nobody posted this yet, but... A tiger? In Africa?

I also added some in Blood Magic too, but unfortunately it looks like there's little chance of that book being printed any time soon, if at all. Just to make it clear, neither Loz nor I will be working on Wayfarer. We both have other commitments now. As far as I know, Deleriad is correct in that the revision of MRQ2 to Wayfarer will be done in-house, which could be a positive or negative step depending on your perspective.

I also fight with real steel too. The biggest problem with recreating the advantages of a 2h sword over sword & shield comes down to its historical use. In reality the greatsword wasn't often used against sword and shield in a historical context. It was originally designed to be used against heavily armoured opponents lacking a shield. By the late Middle Ages it was utilised on the battlefield as a weapon to break up pike or spear formations, or even cavalry. One can ask whether this was because a shieldman had an inherent advantage or was it simply that armour had improved so greatly so shields had fallen out of use? From both my research of the existent Fechtbuch and hands on experience a trained 2h swordsman wouldn't fight like the guys in the video you provided a link too, which was little more than thuggish bashing. Instead there would be threats, thrusts, throws, trips and a myriad of other techniques to counter the defensive advantage of the shield. There is more to a great weapon than heavier blows. Yes a great or longsword can potentially hack a wooden shield apart, but from personal experience it can also become lodged in the wood too, preventing the weapon from being used or even bending when trying to yank it free. In the meantime the shieldman will be doing other things himself. Like all comparisons whether one weapon has an advantage over another all depends on the style of how the weapon is used, the situation of the encounter (single combat or battlefield), the armour being worn, and the comparative skills, experience and fear of the users.

Don't worry I will write it. I just need to let the dust settle, clear a few more urgent projects off my waiting list, and then I can start the classical immersion research.

At the moment I have no current plans to expand the setting, although I had considered writing a political campaign. Paolo said that Alephtar had been working on a Punic War campaign, but I haven't heard anything for months. My focus at the moment however is to do something for Moon Design then think carefully about my next few books. I do want to write one on Mythic Greece, completing a trilogy of historical settings, albeit split between different systems/publishers.