Atgxtg

But that reason could and should be something other than just an obstacle for the PCs to overcome. Necessary has nothing to do with it. Things can exist to add more depth, and options to the game. A campaign where everything exists solely to be a tool for or a challenge to the PCs is boring and bland. It's like trying to role-play on a game console. "Oh look, a half eaten apple and a mackerel. Well, I picked them up. Maybe I can trade the mackerel to the troll so I can across the bridge and use the apple to tame the wild horse that keeps running away from me, and then ride the horse to get to the castle. If only I knew what to do with the bubblegum wrapper and the hang-glider." If a setting is to have verisimilitude, there have to be things in the setting that do not revolve around the PCs. Otherwise it's just a puzzle game, with anything turning into a clue.

That presumption is not necessarily true. If I decide to run a campaign set in the modern USA, and put the Grand Canyon and the Empire State Building, I do not want my players to confront them or jump off them at some point. And, if for some reason I did want that, I'd at least want for them to wait until after they had picked up a jet pack, powersuit, been subjected to massive amounts of gamma radiation, developed telekinesis or had some other reason to expect that they could survive such an action. Or at least who were playing characters who wanted to kill themselves. I don't expect the PCs to do a frontal charge on Fort Knox merely because an adventure takes place in Kentucky. But surprise me they do, those pesky players.

That can be arranged. It's actually easier to stat up something from whatever "real" data exists than it is to come up with a design system or stats out of the blue. In fact, one reason why I did a little research into the real math was to help with the design rules. If you have some idea about something works it's easier to tell if the design rules work, where they don't, why not, if it is worth bothering about, and where you can cheat and get away with it. Some of the hard bits are where game rules conflict with reality. For instance, a average male human does not (cannot) actually exert a STR 10-11 force for very long, nor does (or can) a horse. So vehicle STR scores seem a bit low until you realize that they can perform at peak levels for much longer periods of time. Although I have to admit that some parts of BRP hold up much better than expected. Human and even horse power output in BRP is pretty much on the money. As far as the Seview and Flying Sub go, the hard bits are: -SIZ. Jason scaled down the SIZ values for large vehicles on the table on page 273 by about 90% or so. comapred to the SIZ/weight/mass table (the latter being a bit messed up). SO deciding on what SIZ value to use is a snag. I'd like to replace the SIZ table with one of my own. It won't change any of the values between 8-88, but would continue the doublnig progression past SIZ 88. But that might not go over well. -ARMOR- I got some ideas for tranlating armor thickness into an AP value, and some ideas for modfiers for various types of hull (HY-80 steel, HY-100, Titantium) but not enough data points to test it out. LOG(mm)*20 seems to work out for armor grade steel (1 inch=28 AP as per the BRP rules), but I'd need to see how that works out for other vehicles and big guns. Most of the other stuff I either got or can come up with something good enough to work. Or, more actually, several sets of values that could all work. Your welcome, and I don't think you necessarily detailed the threat. If these rules are going to be of use to others, its good to have an idea of what they are thinking of using them for. Uh, that shouldn't work. A GM might allow it, especially in toon or a supers game, but assuming even a shred of reality, the SDF-1 won't have any sort of leverage to exert force against so it could throw the Death Star, even if it were strong enough to do so. And if it did, and it had the strength, the effort would most likely rip the "arms" off the SDF-1.And if it had leverage, the strength, and the structural integrity to do the job, the attempt would rip a section off the Death Star rather than move the thing. It's like when you see Superman lift a battleship. Looks cool in the comics,. but realsitically he'd either rip an end off, or punch right through the thing like a pin through tin foil. But if you replace the Death Star with, say, King Gomorrah...

I think every GM who runs a game like BRP runs into that problem. I've run with some players who picked up bad habits and tactics in D&D that might have made sense in that game, don't hold water elsewhere. Some guys like to charge archers (in D&D, especially in AD&D, unless somebody puts some effort into their missile weapons, it is usually better to charge and take a couple of minor hits and close to melee range ASAP; in BRP this is usually suicidal, as many of my players have proven repeatedly; In RQ with battlemagic spells like speedart. ,ultimissile and firearrow to augment missle fire, sucidal doesn't quite cover it), some like to pass tough adventures on to NPCs (In D&D there are always high level guys who could deal with these things but don't; in cinematic game chances are that the PCs are the big heroes, and if they can't do something nobody else can. I've got Star Trek and Star Wars groups who found out the hard way why its not such a good idea to stay home and let "somebody else" try to stop the Klingons or the Death Star), some guys assume that encounters are all balanced to their character's abilities (the infamous, "if its in the adventure it must be there for us to kill it" approach. I've got players who are still outraged with me for putting a dragon in the dragon's cave in the dragon mountains where everybody told them it was-along with warnings to stay away from it). It gets frustrating.

Probably not. I'm going to try and simplfy it as much as possible. So it probably won't provide as much detail as some Gms might want for some settings, styles of sub-genres. Yeah, it won't benefit or even please everyone. That's to be expected. At best it will be a useful tool for GMs who want something like this for thier SF campaigns. And for some people it might just be useful for providing some sort of benchmarks ti help them eyeball stats for their own designs. This is exactly the same kind of detail I thought necessary at the beginning of writing Mecha. Now that the book is finished, most of that detail has gone into the "Not relevant, better not bother" trash bin. A lot of rule details does not survive first contact with playtest. That the setting and style decides what mechanics to use (or not use)? Certainly. Although some things would probably be nearly universal. Ships would have some dimensions and mass, although the precise values might not be that important. And some things that would be important, will get glossed over too. In all the SF films and shows I've watched, I think I've seen two WCs, but I suspect that they are there somewhere on most spacecraft. Unless there is some other advanced tech we haven't been told about. Oh, except for anime. Even the good stuff tends to throw in some fan service of anime babes changing. Pretty much anything in any RPG importance can vary depending on the needs of the GM, group, playing style, setting, genre and campaign. If I were running a Star Wars campaign, I'd go into more detail with fighters and transports, a bit less with captial ships, and cover stuff like Death Stars in only broad terms. Well, actually, I probably would go into a bit of detail for a Death Star write up. Not because I had to, but just to see how it comes out. Sometimes it's fun to see what the realistic requirements would be for something. I got a fairly decent write up of the Seaview and Flying Sub from Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea that way. It was kinda interesting to see what sort of reactor was needed to get the performance required, and find out stuff like what the flying sub,s top speed would be a sea level, it cieling and other junk like that. But most GMs wouldn't need that stuff. I certainly wouldn't expect them to go into that level of detail though. Nor require in in a design system.

Well I give them a STR rating, but, playing Devils's Advocate for a moment: -The Punch damage for a Valkyrie in Battroid mode would be based on the Batroid STR and SIZ (which Mecha have) and the STR of the target captial ship would have no bearing. It's armor rating and hit points would, as could wherever is in the section of ship that the battroid just punched into. -As for warping away, logic would suggest that unless the Mecha is about the same size as the vcaptial ship, the capital ship's engines would be much more powerful and the Mecha wouldn't be able to stop it. Now wheather or not the MEcha can hold on or if the Captial ship breaks free would be another issue, as would how well the mecha could take the accleration if it got dragged along. But the above assumes a conventional engtine producing thrust, and by "warping away" you mean try to fly away really really fast. If by "warping away" you mean using some sort faster-than-light technology then the results will depend on just how that FTL technology is supposed to work. If it created a warp bubble, and does a space fold, like in Macross (Early Robotech epsodes) then the fighter just jumps along with the ship/ Just ask Min-Mei. Okayt, maybe not Min-Mei. On the other hand, something like the warp drive from Star Trek might drag the mecha along or not. Spomething like the hyperdrive from Star Wars would probably leave the mecha behind. But it more a matter of setting than stats.

Depends on the type of mecha game. Shows like Macross and Gundam do use ships for more than just supply bases and weapons platforms. In fact, I would have expected ships in a mecha game to be built like other Mecha. Just big Mecha. I don't understand your argument. Should I not do this because some people won't want it for their games? Okay, in that case you shouldn't write BRP MECHA, or anything else, since there are bound to be people who won't have a need or even a use for it. I have no use for Classic Fantasy. Nothing against the people behind it, but I don't want to play a BRP game that attempts to recreates the style of old D&D dungeon craws. But there are those who do. I'm not tellingthe people behind CF not to bother because it won't apply to most BRP fantasy campaigns. It might be crucial, it might not be. It depends on what the weapon ranges are and the size of the ships. In many cases the weapons can shoot father than the length of a big ship. so the exact location of a given system isn't usually important. In other cases it is. And, of course, if somebody goes into a breech in the hull, it is worthwhile to know what they just jumped into, but that doesn't neccesitatwe a detailed deck plan for every ship design. Yup, but that holds true for any system. I'm sure BRP MECHA will produce some information on MECHA that won't be necessary in all campaigns. Looking at the sheet for Kootetsu Jeeg, I doubt the need for a size class (you already have SIZ) and an APP score (it's a machine, what's it gonna do, go to bars and and pick up chicks?). Really, just what is and isn't necessarily is very subjective and based around how people use ships in their game. If somebody just uses the ship as a location to base adventures of, ala Metamorphisis Alpha, then pretty much all the game stats are unnecessary. I went with the ones I did for a reason, they are the ones that most GMs will need to know. SIZ: You need to know how big the thing is so you can tell just how much junk and people you can cram into it. You may not need to know the precise size & tonnage,, but you do need to know approximate size, and an approximate relationship to other vehicles (i.e. can Ship A fit inside the landing bay for ship . ACC/MOV, RATED SPEED: You need to know how long it takes for a ship to get to wherever it is going. Things like if Ship A can outrun Ship B are generally important. Even in MECHA campaigns. Macross would have gone much differently if the SDF-1 could have outrun the Zentradi ships. And what if it could have outrun the Zentradi Mecha? ARMOR AND HIT POINTS: Are the way BRP tracks damage. We need to know how tough something is for combat pruposes and in case of collisions and other accidents. WEAPONS: Also needed for combat. And in most MECHA anime the big ships shoot at the small fighters and power suits, so those stats are necessary. Now some thingsa like STR, surface area, and power generated aren't really necessary for game play, but are for determining the limits of what a ship can do. If you just go with a point buy system, and let people buy things like armor and Speed directly, the big ships will be tougher, better armors, faster, more agile, and better armed, simply because they will have more points to spend. Especially if you want the little ships to move faster than the big ones. Otherwise the big ships move faster because they have to most points to spend. You need to know how powerful the engines are for a given mass, so you can find out how fast the ship can move.Likewise surface area/SIZ is important for figuring out how much of the ships tonnage will be taken up for armor. Power is needed just to know the limits for how many weapon and such the ship can operate. Otherwise some people will put near limitless firepower on their space SUV. But, if this information is necessary to a GM, why would he bother with it in the first place? If somebody is using this, it means that they want to know some things about the ship. If they didn't, they wouldn't bother. If a GM wants to say, "The ship is like a huge disc, a kilometer across, has 25 AP, 2000 HP, and 12 laser turrets (4d8+4) spaced early around the hull." he can. I'm not going to stop them. It's up to each GM to decide what tools he needs, wants or considers unnecessary. Right?

Arrh! You'll drive yourself crazy that way. If the group just wants to wander around killing things, and you the GM don't, you probably aren't going to change them. I know some D&D players who suck at any other RPG because they still think and act like they are playing D&D. The like dungeon claws and hack 'n slash and that's that. They aren't interested in story, role-play or any of the other stuff that can be part of a RPG campaign. That's their choice, and they are not going to get involved in any risk that doesn't directly affect their character's life, or combat stats. That's that. As long as they have fun, that's okay. As long as the GM is having fun, that's okay. It's when people aren't having fun when something is wrong. If you are happy with hack 'n slash then no problem. Now if you were to run that group in HQ, you'd probably have to put the characters lives at stake, and kill more PCs than other GMs in order to give the players risks they can appreciate. It would probably be a bloodbath though, since HQ doesn't slant the contests in the PCs favor as much as some other RPGs. In HQ, the PCs are expected to fail at times and suffer setbacks. If the setbacks and other consequences don't mean anything to to players, the GM will have to kill more PCs.

Yeah, and because combat isn't that important in Cthulhu. The Shoggoth is still going to eat the PCs if it comes down to a fight.The majority of Mythos beings are not something that players can beat in combat anyway, so there isn;t much point is getting very specific or detailed. The Shoggoth is still going to eat the PCs if it comes down to a fight. I don't think running CoC using the more complex RQ2 or RQ3 rules or even the ultra streamlined original BRP booklet is gonna make much of a difference in how CoC will play out. It's like deciding which tank to use against Godzilla. Moot. The Shoggoth is still going to eat the PCs if it comes down to a fight.

Sorry, I think both ROsen and I were reffering to STR in terms of the ability to apply a Force (i.e. thrust). For structural durability I've been using CONstruction, armor and/or hit points. A ship will need a certain amount of CON to keep from breaking apart under acceleration. Higher ACC means higher CON required.

I know it's not. That's one reason why I took this approach. For the most part we really don't need to know what the SIZ is for a laser cannon. We just need to know if we can fit it on our ship. I figure that with a lot of this, as far as use goes, GMs will only do the work that they need to do. Now the spreadhseet I'm working on to test this out will crunch the numbers, but there is no reason for GMs and players to track anything they don't need. FOr instance, the spreadhseet track the surface area of the vehicle for armoring purposes. So, while you will be able to tell how much surface area the ship has, if you don;t need it, you won't bother with that part. For the most part, people can just plug in some values into the data section, and sheet will spit out BRP game stats for them. I could set it up so that the player selects the performance he wants (SIZ, ACC, MOV, Handling,) and the program works out what engines are required and such. Yeah, but what happens if the PCs (in one big ship) are trying to outrun the bad guys (in another big ship)? Or if somebody uses a tractor beam? Now if these aren't possibilties in a GM's campaign, then he wouldn't need to track stuff like STR, ACC< Handling, or MOV. But...he'd still need to worry about things like armor and weapons.

THanks for the feedback. I'll put togeth some bare bones stuff to see how it looks. Well, after working of vehicle design rules off and on for several RPGs over the last few years, I learned something about how things work, and have come to the realization that often the design rules for RPGs are more complicated that the real world math! Also, there are a lot of times where it is easier to play with real numbers. Like when dealing with cargo capacity, or determining if something will fit though the hatch. I figure that each ton of size would translate to roughly 3 cubic meters of volume. So those who want them can do up deck plans, or at least get an idea of how big thier ship is. Yeah. I've been toying around with the idea of a scale of Technology Levels. A culture capable of space travel would be TECH 1. Earth in the 1960s would be TECH 1. Non-sparefaring cultures would have a decimal rating, and more advanced culture would have a higher rating. And there is a little wiggle room for play, too. Somebody might use a less advanced design to save money. The thrust/ton of engines would by adjusted by the TL. The F-1 thruster from a Saturn V rocket has a thrust/weight ratio of around 94, which is close enough to 100 that so I can set a TECH 1 rocket engine to a 100:1 ratio. Some modern engines seem to be at 160:1, so if TECH ratings are linerar (and right now I don't know if that is good or not) then a modern engine would be TECH 1.6. Te same idea would apply to other systems. So a TECH 10 culture (whatever that means, perhaps FTL travel?) would have more advanced systems. I also figure TECH will handle the real world problems with fuel. At TECH 1, a ship might need to be 90% fuel, while at higher TLS only a small percentage of the ship is fuel. Fairly abstractly. I don't plan to get a degree in astrophysics just to write this, and I certainly don;t want GMs and players to get a degree just to design a ship or play in an RPG. What I'd probably do is scale the performance to TECH somehow. More advanced sensors would get a bonus, have better range, resolution, be able tot rack multiple targets, etc. As far a targeting goes, I supposed I'd have to allow for either route. Designers could opt to buy a targeting system for each weapon, or some sort of master system that handles everything. Although without a hit location or critical hit table it might be a moot point in play. One additional perk about this approach that I just realized is that it makes it easier for other to expand upon. Using tonnages and TECH rating mades things fairly modular. So somebody could come up with spot rules for engines/weapons/whatever for a specific setting.

Just a idea, but I was thinking of doing a design system that sort of works outside of BRP, but which would give BRP stats. When you build the ship, you'd pick a hull size, in tons, and then use the tonnage as points to buy systems. For example, you could decide to make a 100 ton ship, and a rocket engine might yield, say 75 tons of thrust per ton of engine. So if you bought a 2 ton rocket engine, you'd get 1500 tons of thrust. Since 150 tons of thrust divided by 100 tons of mass is 1.5, the ship would have an acceleration of 1.5Gs. We could then use the SIZ table to get a SIZ for the ship, using the 100 tons of mass, a STR for the engines, using the 150 tons of thrust, an ACC for the ship (multiple the Gs by 10) and so on. Basically a lot of this stuff is easier to do with real world math than with BRP terms. And a couple of tables or a spreadsheet could convert real world numbers that I think we can all get out heads around into RPG speak. Does this approach make sense?

Yeah. 30 years age I was doing room/monster/treasure. 29 years ago I started to switch to adventures. 28 years ago I moved onto campaigns. But it's not necessarily about system though. Any RPG can be played in either way. In fact, in spite of what the campaign is supposed to be about. I've had a lot of problems with D&D players who try to play other games as if they were D&D. They port over ideas from D&D that really won't work elsewhere. Somehow they think that if the world goes upa round them,. they will be okay. Really? I kinda liked extended contests. Probably more so that the rest of HQ. The new point method in HQ2 seems like an improvement, too. My biggest gripes with HQ were that all abilities seemed the same, and that the scatted approach to Glorantha made it very hard for newbies to grasp the setting.

I once ran a game where a PC was comdemmed to death, and got tossed into area against a werewolf. Much to everyone's surprise a series of odd fumbles and one lucky critical resulted in the PC strangling the werewolf with his bare hands. The crowd loved it, and the PC got a full pardon. Everything was rolled oipenly, and the whole table sort of sat there in shock as it all unfolded. MAybe. I'd need to know more about your campaign before I could say. Do they just wander around from place to place killing things, and getting treasure? Do they have any ties to any one or place in the game? I don;t blame you. I'm not a big fan of HQ. I find the system sort of bland. Everything seems the same as everything else. But I'm sure there are lots of people who lost characters in HQ, but they are the ones who play it. Not necessarily. If you are running a narrative type of game, which HQ certainly is, then you don;t want the PCs getting killed off by fluky die rolls. If a PC died, you want it to be in a climatic scene against a major foe-not becuase he got tentanus cutting himself while trimming his nails. It's bad form in general for PCs to get killed off by mooks when the GM has a hot hand. So this rule prevents that kind of death. But don''t misunderstand me,characters can die. It's not like the PCs have immunity and can go around acting stupid and still walk away relatively unscathed like in a typical D&D game. Any character who is "Completely Defeated" in HQ (basically a fumble vs. critical situation) is fair game for the recycle bin. Of course that depends on what he was defeating at. But it certainly holds true for things like combat. It's just that in most situations the PCs have a chance to avoid hanging around until they get killed. In HQ, you ability rating (skill) is also your hit points. So if a character is getting pasted, his ability to fight will drop, and he will probably not keep blinding swinging hoping to roll a critical.

Yes, some do. Did you ever read the Zero story in the RQ Companion? There's a scruffy werewolf who comments that he turns tail and runs right when the Orlanthi goe into thier thier "Foul Spawn of Chaos" speech. One of the things that make Humakt appealing to me was that I didn't have to learn any damn poetry. Orlanthi can't go on a date without hamming it up with some doggerel about the Earth Mother. I often wondered if the Humakti ability of Sense Assassin was really just learning to listen for the guy who's recitie the "Club Humakt from behind so I can swipe the Sword and kill somebody that I shouldn't" poem.

No, but not for the reasons you might think. I haven't run HQ. I played a little HW when it came out didn''t care for it, and haven't had the chance to try either of the revised versions. Not true. If the only thing the players care about was thie survial of thier characters, they never would go adventuring. They have thier character settle down in a quiet, safe place. Unless the GM is running an old hack 'n slash game, all the other stuff should matter to the players, since it will impact what thier character can do in the future. Having someone's family get killed orr, or losing an arm, or having the character get gang raped, should all be risks that matter tot he player. Just not to the same degree that they would to the character. To some people losing the character isn;t a risk that matters - some players just shrug it off and grab dice to roll up another one. So -ultimately- the risks that matter are the ones that the players think matter. No. HQ isn't in the same style as HS. More like the style of Prince Valiant. Do characters ever die? Yes. Do they die often? Probably not. The exact level of lethialty depends on the style of the campaign the GM is running. Superheroes would die less often than say, modern soldiers. But death would be less likely than in a game like BRP. In general, t takes a mix of bad luck and poor judgment to get killed off, in HQ. But then, in HQ you are more likely to fail than in BRP. The killed by a Chaos blob thing can indeed happen. In fact, running off after Chaos monsters is about as good a way to get killed in HQ Gloranta as any. Sure. But they might not be hanging around on the BRP forum. You could check out the HQ forums. I think most of us here prefer RQ to HQ. The thing with HQ is that a character really can't die simply due to die rolls. An opponent has to decide to kill the character. So when a character gets defeated, the opponent might have a better use for them (like ransom). But a hungry Walktapi would certainly eat an incapacitated foe.

I expect so, but it would be fairly rare. It's really not a good thing in any RPG to kill off lots of characters. For a character to die, the character would probably be doing something really important, like some sort of HeroQuest (in the Gloranthan use). But getting killed is certainly a possilbity, especially in combat against a merciless foe. There is an example in the HQ2 book based on a slasher-flick style of movie with a heroine dealing with a demented serial killer. The run the contest showing what happens if she wins, and then show you what happens if the killer wins. Basically, if the killer wins, the heroine probably winds up as another victim. But the killer would need to beat the heroine pretty badly in the opposed rolls win to get that result. It would be more common for the heroine to escape, but be wounded and impaired in some way. Of course if the killer is fighting with Deranged Maniac 6W6, and the heroine is resisting with Eye Candy 18 the girl is in big trouble, and it's a foregone conclusion. It's not pointless, just something where the players don;t care about the outcome, and generally boring. But losing one's character isn't the only form of risk. The stakes can be anything, as long as the players have a vested interest in the outcome. Things like an item, money, family members, loved ones, keeping various body parts attached where they are, tracking down an escaped prisoner, not getting caught while cheating on your taxes, passing an inspection, earing or keeping the respect of the community, avoiding a speeding ticket, and a host of other things can all pose a real, significant risk, as long as the players care about the outcome. Any of the big, extended contests in HQ are, by definition, about things that the PCs care about. If they weren't, the GM would just use the quick contest resolution, and move on to the important stuff.

After flipping though HQ2, I'd say that in same ways it is like what RQ3 was to RQ2. Basically the same game with updated rules and most of the Glorantha stuff removed. HQ wass orginally supposed to be a "high level" Glorantha game. HW and HQ1 were. HQ2 is a generic RPG that may be used for Glorantha. It certainly cut down on the size of the rulebook and made things a bit less confusion and intimidating. Most of the differences in the mechanics are minor, and backwards compatible. It's the stylistic differences that are more telling, with the "heroic spiral" campaign path.

What makes it an important matter is that there is no penalty for making the attempt. In RQII if you wanted to do a called shot or a disarm or some such you had to apply some sort of penalty to your attack, and if you failed you pretty much wasted the round. With the bonus kicking in as a result of the respective levels of success, you get rewarded with the maneuver rather than penalized for the attempt.

Not really. Those parry rolls are all important. Not to mention things like magic. But 4W1 is a lot higher than 90%, more like 200%. At that level, the armor becomes less of a factor in RQ. The criticals and specials will dictate the outcome. And characters in RQ can "augment" too, with stuff like magic. Stuff like bladesharp and protection can level the playing field. The differences have more to do with style of play than with equipment. HQ is looking at things from the viewpoint of the story, and isn't looking too closely at the details.FOr example, Luke beats the rancor somehow despite lacking any weapon that can really harm it. The thing just happens to be standing right underneath a heavy door, and Luke just happens to find a skull, toss it at the control panel, hit, and activate the door, which also just happens to close very quickly, and lacks any sort of sensor to prevent it from dropping down on top on something and crushing it. In RQ/BRP something like that would have to be played out, spotted by the player, timed perfectly, the rancor would need to blow it's defense roll, and go through he normal damage procedure. It's a very different fight, and equipment has little to do with it. Luke still has a couple of bones and his wits to fight with in both RPGs. Just in HQ, he has a much better chance of pulling it off.

Of course, games which make the player choose his precise maneuver before rolling (and which don't let him change it no matter how well he succeeded), work with bonuses and penalties... But that is quite realistic. [.quote] Note really. In a RPG this forces the player between going for some special maneuver OR just attacking and doing damage. In most cases hitting someone for damage is superior to other maneuvers. In real life, people do maneuver because they can't just hit the other guy. The neat swordplay stuff is designed to help create an opening that can be exploited to strike later. It's practically the exact opposite of how it works in most RPGs. Nobody would do a feint, beat, or other fancy move if it were easier to just hit the other guy. Yes, but those secret attack are also harder to spot and stop. Basically, a simple attack should be easy, but also easy to parry. But that isn't more realistic. Like I mentioned earilier, I got a really good head hit on somebody who I wasn't even trying to hit. The target is moving, and acting, so things don't always work out as planned. Yup. Plus game playt wise. it's no good having special maneuver that have a penalty. People won't want to use them if they are harder than just killing the other guy. By putting them in as a freebie, characters aren't penalized for fancy maneuvers.

Yeah,. in a fight there are times when you have to take what if offered. I once kept hitting someone in his foot becuase he keep leading with it and left it open. Likewise, the best head hit I even got was when I wasn't trying to hit the other guy at all. I did a feint slash to force my oppoent to one side. Unfornately, he did a circular parry and turned a miss into a head hit. Luckily, it was a low power attack with a shinai.

Thanks for the info. THat part I think I get. In a narrative, the actual ability and realsitc chance of success have little ro do with how a hero performs. The hero perfomrs as required by the needs of the story. Robin LAws in very big on narrative style of play.

By HQ1 do you mean HeroWars (the name HQ had to go by at first) or HQ1? I've tead (and played) HW, and own HQ1/ I know the latest version of HQ put everything on a "relative to the players scale" but otherwise I though the changes between HQ1 and HQ2 were minor. Did I miss something? I got HQ