DreadDomain

It is probably part of it. I am curious to know if you have an example or two to illustrate your point?

Other things I do to make things smoother: 1) When a rule states to oppose CHAR1+CHAR2 vs CHAR3+CHAR4 on the resistance table, I simply use the best of CHAR1 or 2 versus the best of CHAR3 or 4. So on a knockback, I pit the best of the attacker's STR or SIZ versus the best of the defender SIZ or DEX. It's quicker to figure out the % needed and gives better results for big creatures (like uzko). 2) I ignore the Attack vs Defense tables and use: Attack A normal attack does normal damage. If parried, parrying weapon blocks its current HP. If exceeded, excess goes to hit location and parrying weapons takes 1 HP of damage. A special attack does special damage. If parried, parrying weapon blocks its current HP. If exceeded, excess goes to both hit location and parrying weapons HP. A critical attack does maximum special damage and bypasses armor. If parried, parrying weapon HP reduced by the damage rolled. If exceeded, excess goes to hit location. Parry Normal parry blocks some damage - see attack results. Against an unsuccessful attack, roll parrying weapon damage. If it exceeds attacking weapon HP, reduce its HP by 1. Special parry reduces a successful attack by 1 level - see attack results. Against an unsuccessful attack, roll parrying weapon damage. If it exceeds attacking weapon HP, reduce its HP by the excess. Critical parry reduces a successful attack by 2 levels - see attack results. Against an unsuccessful attack, roll parrying weapon damage. If it exceeds attacking weapon HP, reduce its HP by the excess. Against an unsuccessful attack, roll parrying damage on a normal parry or a special parrying damage on a special of critical Dodge Each level of success reduces a successful the attack by 1 level - e.g. on equal success, the attack is dodged. A critical attack versus a normal dodge, results into a special attack (level of success of the attack reduced by 1 because of the normal dodge). 3) Damage to weapon Another option is to ignore damage to weapons unless the intent is to damage the weapon (see Disarm)

I do not like maneuvers that halves skills and delay the action to SR 12. My own personal house rule (dating from my RQ3 days). Aimed Blows are at half skill but are not delayed to SR 12. They happen when they happen. That's interesting. Back in the days we used many approaches for RQ3 the one we ended up settling on was (fuzzy memory here) based on removing restrictions on number of actions and make the MR even more fluid. It implied: Multiply attacks were allowed, the first happening on normal SR (taking into account DEX SR, SIZ SR, Weapon SR, Movement, previous actions etc.). Subsequent attacks were 3 SR later (unless other things were done in between). Multiply dodges and parries were allowed. I think the cumulative penalty was -30% (based on Stormbringer perhaps) but nowadays I would use -20% No maneuvers were arbitrarily delayed to the last SR. They were at half skill, which was enough of a penalty. The rest of the SR management (drawing weapons, movement, limit of etc.) were as per normal rules. From a sequence perspective, it went like this. Statement of Intent for the whole round was high level (I am casting Bladesharp and then run to Cormac to attack him) but the first action of the round was stated clearly (I cast Bladesharp) so everyone knew when they acted first. Once the first action of a player was completed, they would state their next, again so all knew when the next action of that character was. Change of intent worked the same by adding 3 SR - By the time the first character cast Bladesharp, Cormac has started running away so instead of chasing him, I will move to attack Signy (+3 SR). Combat was very dynamic, and we loved it. Add to it stuff like closing, disarm, knockback, fumbles, etc. and there was a lot happening. The flow was actually very fluid with the player making and adjusting decisions based on what was happening, and only having to remember their next SR. All of this can be done in RQG except that Movement would need to be weaved back into the SR sequence. If not for that, I would probably have used that approach by now. This. Having movement happen within the SR made combat so much more fluid and less abstract. Probably the rule I like the least in RQG (because short of bringing back RQ3 movement rates, it is not easy to house rule back). I like this.

Does it work more or less like BRP except that you use DEX SR, SIZ SR, Melee SR instead of DEX rank and INT Rank? Having just written that, I realise it might not quite be like BRP if you keep movement as a separate phase only for the unengaged. Which fail condition are you using, -10% or -20%? For all actions in the scene? I suspect tighter writing would resolve 80% of RQG issues. The rest is just clunkiness here and there. I am only talking about the technical aspect (rules) of RQG. The setting aspect (fluff) is currently very good.

I am the same. I like RQ's crunchiness and believe most of RQG's add-ons (passions, runes, augments, sacred times, multiple defenses) are great. If anything, I like to add a bit more granularity (damage bonus) and combat options (reach and closing) here and there. I would like a cleanup of some inconsistencies and clunky rules (or pieces of inconsistent writing), but they can mostly be ignored or house ruled. I have absolutely no issues with the resistance table, but I am also happy to use opposed rolls (where on a tie, higher roll wins) instead. One important piece of the rules that I dislike are the Attack vs Parry an Attack vs Dodge tables. There are just too inconsistent and riddled with unnecessary exceptions. To your point, both tables can easily be ignored and replaced with a "level of success of the defense downgrades the level of the attack by 1" approach (which is almost what the tables are doing) and it works fine. Other could use the BRP matrix or the RQ3 resolution, and it would work fine.

Agreed. These subtle variations do not bring much to gameplay and easily confuse people.

Complexity comes in many flavors, some good, some bad. Putting the setting aside for the moment, I'll use a few specific examples to illustrate my point. First, runes and associated personalities, passions, most of the skills and even the background generation, make the game rich and dense. They are not complicated to use at all, but they do add tasty layers of character and setting definition from a mechanic perspective. Yes, it comes at the price of a longer character generation process but that can be bypassed for those who do not want the tasty morsels. In my book, these are the best parts of RQG. Second, the resistance table is not particularly complex, but it does require to either look up at a table or do some easy computation in your head. In addition, some contest requires to add (or average) two characteristics on each side of the contest before the success result can be determine. Finally, there is already another opposed roll system, so it begs the question, was this other mechanic needed (rhetorical question)? In the aggregate, the resistance table do add a bit of complexity and it is fair to wonder if it worth it. Different groups will have different answers. Third, combat is allegedly the most complicated part of the game, and not necessarily in a good way for many groups. There are quite a few cognitive loads that need to be carried. Determining the Stike Ranks (are you engaged or not? it works differently), figuring out the result of the attack versus the defense (there is a lot of information on the matrix and it's not necessarily consistent), damaging weapons, rolling damage, subtracting armor, removing hit points, removing location hit points, figuring out effect on said location, if any... Wheeww, lots going on. Some groups will revel in it. Some won't. After looking at a few actual plays (including Chaosium's) and witnessing how combat did (not) flow or looking at people getting confused by the rules, I concluded that RQG's combat needs a cleanup.

Yes, that version is much better. At the very least, adding "highest roll wins" as an option when a tie does not make sense would have been a good compromise for RQG. Much cleaner. By the way, I also prefer the attack/parry interactions from the quickstart rather than the matrix in RQG.

I cannot speak for the design intent behind RQ's rule but for my post, it is clearly and unapologetically, "we need a reason for why crits get through protective magic so it sounds reasonable that protective magic isn't flawless".

I believe it is reasonable to assume that magic is NOT perfect and that protective magic is NOT flawless or without "small openings". Therefore It could be breached or bypassed through a masterful or lucky strike.

Correct. Not much detail at this stage beyond "opposed rolls instead of resistance table".

It does. This might be the RuneQuest better than RuneQuest. But let's wait and see.

Based on what Mark has posted on Discord, and the draft character sheet: The skills list seems about right. For some (not me), it may look too long but they are grouped by Arcana (4 or them) which will make quickly finding a skill more intuitive. Also the list covers everything including languages and combat. Skills are based on the addition of two characteristics (and maybe by Arcana as a "skill category") Success levels are easy to figure out (special at 1/2 skill, critical at 1/10) Passions, Drives, Arcana, Masks, Voice, Aura - it feels like there will be plenty to shape your character personality Sanity! Love it. The 8 BRP characteristics "Burning characteristics" (aka exerting oneself) to improve success level sounds cool. All of that I love so far. Mark also mentions the following: No resistance table, you compare success level (as it is in RQ or BRP for skills), I assume it will be the same for characteristic rolls (CHAR x5 I assume) Hit locations but no hit points per location - I assume major wounds will be a thing. All in all, this is shaping really, really well...

Darn. To save on shipment I was waiting for this book to bundle it with BRP and RQ:Mythology in my next order. I guess I'll need to wait some more.

When it comes to d100 mechanics, I believe Pulp Cthulhu does pulp best*. Beyond the fact that combat is very fluid it has a few nice features: The addition of archetypes in character creation adds more skill points to distribute and therefore more competent characters, but in a focused way. It can create very different flavors of characters even if they have the same occupation. The enhanced Luck rules, and players having more Luck points, enhance player agency on their characters. Pulp talents add that extra bit to characters that define them some more and let them shine in specific manners. More Hit Points. Combined with the Major Wound rule makes character very tough since they will not die on 0 HP unless they are suffereing form an untreated major wound. The Two-Headed Serpent actual play on Stream of Chaos offered quite a few epic action scenes. EDIT: *I never played Astounding Adventures so cannot compare. EDIT: Another d100 that may do Pulp well is Troubleshooters. It is geared toward franco-belgian graphic novels but the gap between the two "genres" is often narrow. Have not read or played it yet.

I won't lie, the first time I read it, I thought it felt needlesly bulky and cumbersome. After trying it in play, in real practice, I was hooked. From a design perspective, it neatly ties skills to multiple attributes, more directly and beautifully than RQ does, and makes critical and fumbles work very well using d20s. Another thing that it does is clearly connect your skill training with the potential quality of the result. It is actually quite well thought out. From a play experience perspective, it's actually very quick to resolve. You throw 3 dice and read them from top left to down right. It is often really quick to see which die (or dice) you need to focus on (as an example, if none of your attributes are lower than 10, you never worry with rolls of 10 or lower). Second... Exactly. Each test adds that moment of tension. I cannot quite explain why but that moment you watch the three roll and need to assess if any attributes failed you can be as you describe, a bit dramatic. I never got to that point but you have clearly played a lot more than I did. Going back to Dragonbane, this thread makes me reread DB and I have three further comments. First, I which the booklets in the Chaosium starter sets would have the same paper quality, specifically the cover. Second, the type of adventures is different but the Adventures book reminds me of the gamemaster book in the RQ Gamemaster Set. It offers a somewhat sandboxy environment, with locations, NPCs, encouters and loosely linked adventures. That's a compliment, I love the RQ GM book. Third, I don't think I ever clued in on this but am i correct to say that irrespective of which kin you choose, you always roll 4d6 drop 1 for the attributes. No bonus or penalties foe anyone?

Ok. Aside from too many attributes, I didn't feel the game was very complex (but more complex than Dragonbane for sure).

Rêve de Dragon could be that French game?

Yes, Dragonbane does channel the vibe of older games but with better production and tighter rules. Believe it or not, I believe the Aventuria card game played in story mode channels the same kind of vibe (and reuse some of DSA 1 scenarios). Having no German language skills at all, I did not experience the evolution between DSA 1 and DSA 5 so I only remember the simpler, casual gaming of DSA 1, which I connect to Dragonbane's style. DSA 5 for me is just a much better game than DSA 1, with a deep setting and rich history with plenty of character development opportunities. Where it becomes relevant to Dragonbane is that the Heldenwerk adventures fill a similar space. Perhaps they could be used as scenarios for Dragonbane. But maybe not, they are generally less hexcrawl/combat and more social/investigation/combat. Intriguing! But my lack of German skill won't help me here.

Dragonbane is definitely a game I want to love. The box set is sturdy, the books have a nice finish, the art is good and the rules seem to hold together well in a nice, simple fashion while being succintly written in an easy to understand format. But I have not tried it yet. While it feels like a great ruleset for casual gaming (low effort, low prep before you start), there is nothing in the rules that makes me scream "I want to play this NOW!" Looking at my shelves, the rules are somewhat in the same category of: Symbaroum - Dragonbane seems like it holds together better than Symbaroum but the latter has a much depeer, intriguing setting. But Symbaroum is not necessarily for casual gaming. Forbidden Land - I feel both games serve the same purpose (and I have the same "why should I play this game" with FL). Based on my read, I feel Dragonbane is better than FL. Between the two, I would choose DB Pendragon - Like Symbaroum, it offers a totally different gaming experience with no magic, only humans, only knights for KAP. I prefer KAP's design but again, not as much for generic fantasy casual gaming. The Dark Eye - ok, this one might feel weird because TDE that goes as deep as Glorantha and the rules can be as detailled and rich as RQ or GURPS... but it doesn't have to be. I read DB and I cannot stop thinking the TDE can easily offer the same kind of generic fantasy casual gaming but with the benefit of offering so much more (both in rules and setting) if wanted. And magiv in TDE is a lot more interesting than the generic magic in DB. Apologies for the long winded answer but this thread is useful to me because it made me verbalise with I always pass on DB since I got it (I clearly wrote all of this more for myself than anyone else). While I don't really see why I would choose FL over DB or why I would choose DB over TDE, I came to realize why I would play DB aside from a solid, low effort entry point ruleset: the book of adventures. The mini campaign in the book of adventures looks fun and (potentially?) low prep. Maybe this is what I should do. Read it, prep it, and GM it.

Only because of the cover / graphic design ?

Yes, in RQ3 things were moving around a lot more and the dynamic was enabled by: Movement being integrated to SRs Closing - which allowed "steps" while in melee and potentially changed the dynamic of the fight Knockback, Intentional Knockback and Special Knockback - which created gaps in melee (and disengagement and falls), unintentionally, intentionally or due to a good hit. Attack of opportunity - which made moving in melee dangerous Attack on the run Disengagement - which RQG has as well There were other tactical choices but from the top of my head the above are related to movement in combat. Except for the first one, should be relatively easy to reintroduce in RQG. All of this can provide a very dynamic, chaotic and satisfying experience for some players, but for others it can be too much options overwhelming them and "moving into position, attack, defend" might be all the want. At the moment I gm Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest for my daughters. CoC is a lot easier for them to manage and for RQ, I let them declare their actions for the round and I manage the mechanics (position them on the SR tracker, tell them what to roll, tell the the outcomes (attack/defense matrix) and so on.) They are not quite ready to add tactical texture :)

You and me both. I would allow something like that with an Intimidate contest (vs, Intimidate, Passion or Insight) with relevant Augments of course. Depending on the results, many narrative results could happen (one step back, turn and flee, etc...) I hear you. Combat in RQ3 was a lot more dynamic and offered more tactical options. And the relationships between attack results and defense results were a lot simpler. It wasn't perfect but I liked it better.

Still, it is not that it does not exist. It is that you do not like it. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix it? I am genuinely interested. Often, when I don't like a rule in RQG, I look at RQ3 or BRP. in that case, it does not help much.

I may misunderstand your point here but there is a combat maneuver producing an intentional knockback of an opponent to disengage (p.195). Isn't it what you are after? Now, I am not enamored about the mechanics of it but it's there.