DreadDomain

I am not fond of arrays at all and I personally love point buy characteristics when it is part of a point buy system. The method described above is exactly how we used it in RQ3 back in the days.

It does, thanks!

Of course it does. My question is more about how it relates to the curent PDF found in the download section. 1) Will the available PDF be updated to align with the print file? 2) Is the available PDF already in line with the print file? 3) Is the available PDF more "up to date" than the print file (and thus won't be updated to reflect the print file)? 4) We do not know the answer to the question/lost track of all te changes (which is also a valid answer).

I might have had an invisibility spell on me, let's try again. On 9/15/2018 at 8:01 PM, DreadDomain said: @MOB will the pdf be updated to reflect the print copy or does the print copy already reflects the current pdf available in the download section?

@MOB what about this question (slightly clarified from my original post)?

At the time it was not a problem tthat we tried to solved because we didn't that as a problem. Remember, we were still using weapon SR as a reach mechanism so at long range a spear could me nimble and fast (low SR) but if closed within its optimal reach, it would become more difficult to maneuver. For us the abstraction was good enough. Your solution is a tad more abstract as it folds in reach (low melee SR tends to act first in MR) and nimbleness (high melee SR tends to attack more often in a MR). This might be more adequate for RQG since RQG does not have any closing mechanism.

Not it's not complicated. You simply have to focus on what you (a generic "you" here) are trying to achieve. It is always tempting to throw the baby with the bath water ( why use MR? Why use statement of intents? Why...?) but it does not have to be so. You said it yourself, if you only want to attack multiple times in a round, just allow multiple attacks. There is nothing wrong with rebuilding from the ground up but sometimes a couple of simple houserules is enough for the job.

Nice. Definitely something to try. I like it (theoritically of course).

The "building from the ground up" is a totally irrelevant argument so I would not worry too much about it. It doesn't really matter how many times the argument is repeated, the fact is in this conversation, I am the only one who went through the trials and playtests to make RQ3 work for us. We tried massive changes and it wasn't worth the effort so in the end we settled on minor changes and gave us what we wanted. In RQ3, the changes implemented did not have reaching consequences but I agree with you and I suspect it might be the case in RQG if only bacause of the more prevalent magic. I haven't played RQG so I would play it RAW to start with and if I suspected I would find it lacking, my first temptation would be to ignore rules rather than adding rules. Potential candidates to ignore would be: - Activities within melee (use as per activities outside of melee) - Dual wielding special rules (dual wielding already has benefits on its own) - Splitting attacks - Penalties to multiple defenses Although, I might feel like ignoring these rules could make the game simpler and more to my liking, I have no clue if it really would as I did not try them (nor RAW). I do not quite appreciate the impact magic would have on the play experience.

To make it clear, I do not try to reproduce Conan but my Glorantha that was heavily influenced by RQ3. And maybe that's it. Maybe the inability to defeat an opponent by martial prowess is a feature. Maybe the mechanistic nature of melee combat is a feature. Maybe Glorantha, and by extension RQG, is just not for me anymore. I am just not willing to accept it yet.

Yes, this is exactly it. It is less about detail or reslism and more about making sense within the parameters of the game. Pendragon makes sense in a Pendragon context. There is so many details in RQ that a one attack per 12 seconds do not make sense to me. We had alot of experience with RQ3 so we could make the changes that would give us the desirable flavour. I have no experience with RQG so discussing a theoritical solution is fun but only playing it can confirm it. In the end it could be as simple as ignoring the fact that the MR is 12 seconds and consider it elastic or just allowing multipke attacks but it could be much involved, building from the ground up as you say or even forget about RQG altogether and use another game. You mention Mythras and let's be honest Mythras is a fantastic game. It is in many ways superior to RQG and maybe an easier solution would be to simply port the Rune system in Mythras and run with it. The fact is RQG has alot of positive things going for it so I'd rather try to make it work for me. If I wanted to play in the Hyborian Age, would I use RQG? No, I would use Mythras. But in a Gloranthan context, I'd rather give RQG a chance. It's just that I'd like melee combat to stand on its own. But I agree maybe it can't. Magic in RQG has much more profound impact than it had in RQ3 and maybe combat cannot be looked at without that lens.

@MOB will the pdf be updated to reflect the print copy or foes the print copy already reflects the current pdf?

Conan and Spactacus are clearly not using combat magic so that doesn't help. As for skills over 100%, It does help but it means the skills need to be insanely high (as in beyond reasonable level even for heroic figures like Conan, Spartacus, Gannicus Crixius, Agron and company) to make it work. I can see these combats working fairly easily (with reasonable if heroic stats) in Mythras, HERO, GURPS, TDE, even KAP and HQ... but not RQG (but again, would love to be proven wrong).

Yes, it would be much more useful. Keep in mind thought that what I was describing above were house rules on RQ3 decades ago. I would have to have a cold hard look at how it could be applied to RQG and obviously playtest it. But still, there are two things that would be useful. First, as I already expressed, the RQ2/3/G constraint on the number of attacks in a MR annoys me because I find it artificial and mechanistic, I feel it lacks versimilitude (really, I cannot try to attack two different opponent in 12 seconds?) and it prevents me from immersing or feeling tactical engaged in melee combat. While rewatching the Spartacus series or rereading Robert E. Howard, I reflected that there was no way such combat could be recreated in RQG. So the first question is, if someone feels somewhat the same what solution have they used? Second, I fully appreciate that my sentiment is not universally shared and for some the limit of attacks in 12 seconds is not a bug, but a feature. I am interested to learn why it is the case. Do you feel you can recreate immersive, visceral combat as seen in literature (REH) or on telly (Spartacus, GoT, etc...)? Does the impossibility to attack two different opponent whith a single weapon bother you? Do you feel immersed and tactically engaged. To be honest, I would love to be convinced that the system can work for me exactly as it is.

Nor is it rebuilding from the ground up Absolutely! Of course it offered a different play experience. House ruling without changing/improving play experience is rather an exercise in futility or change for the change of sake. Over time RQ3 did not offer the play experience we wanted so we house ruled it until it did.