styopa

Ah, so THAT'S what "BGB" people are referring to in another thread. I have it, and didn't know the reference. Congrats, seems like a strong addition.

We did a similar thing, except ours was more character-innate than hierarchical: the highest variable a spirit magic spell could be cast was 1/3 POW, rounded down. Put another way, if the variable spell * 3 was more than your POW, you couldn't cast it. Shamans got to use their innate+Fetch POW, making them quickly the 'spirit magic powerhouses'.

Any moderate strength spirit screen would make such a fight if not outright trivial, then fairly pedestrian, actually.

FYI I'm pretty sure that's not been true for at least 15 years. That's a very fair point, and I think the root of most of our optimism for RQ4 being updated to a similar degree. Out with the clunky, kludgy stuff from RQ2 and RQ3. Keep the good bits, and then not be afraid to add some things that both ease play (ie simplified combat skills, not separate att/par) and add atmosphere (ie the runes). RQ2 and RQ3 combats between high-skill toons ended up being brittle - both just rolling a long, boring dice-contest where they were both waiting for fumbles/crits to shatter the opponent. Jeff's made the point (to which I agree) that where RQ combats reach the peak of mundane abilities that's really where magic 'dominance' would kick in, and the best-magically-equipped or -talented hero is going to win the day - while simultaneously making combats shorter and less dull. Honestly, this is a great idea. I *always* intro new players - particularly with D&D experience, which is most/all - with a short one-shot with stickpickers fighting a couple of wolves or a bear. Usually they die or are crippled. THEN we make characters with that fresh in their heads.

You're overthinking it. I was ONLY speaking in the context of hitting in melee. A D&D character with an 18 strength will have a sizable bonus to hit from his/her strength stat. A RQ toon with a similar 18 Str simply won't see anywhere near a similar bonus, regardless of which flavor of RQ you're talking about . A player from the former now playing RQ is going to see 18str on their character sheet and expect "woo! I have an 18str!" when it's really only a fairly minor advantage in RQ. I entirely agree with your points about the larger-scope ramifications of the more essentially-simulationist RQ system - more-or-less fixed hp generally in the range of weapon damage, vs the triple-digit-hp bubblewrap of D&D high level toons (and with lower and lower level toons, as the editions have advanced).

RQ6/Mythras was clearly a labor of love. As you mention, it's abundantly obvious in a number of different ways that this entire project was put together by people that care about the subject and have put a LOT of thought into trying to approach certain things in a fresh way, and not just churning out the same old tired mechanics from previous versions (like MRQ1/2). For ME personally, some of the ideas were hits, some were misses. Just having the balls to try is laudable. I'm not going to review it here. But I can easily see how other gamers could find Mythras to be their go-to game.

I know it's possibly outright heresy to suggest in this BRP land, but if the goal is to make RQ4 a faster, smoother system with the sacrifice of the 'mathy' bits, why not just base it on d20s? The stat bonuses (for example) are all based around multiples of 5, and the skills of weapons are multiples of 5...why not? Seriously, if you're going to try to avoid any % that's not a multiple of 5, why even HAVE 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%, 6%, 7%, 8%, 9% in the mechanics? You could run the entire 'BRP' approach - skills, etc - this way. When you get an experience check simply roll to fail as usual, just with a d20. Crits/Specials would need slight reworking....maybe just make crits on a 1, fumbles on a 20, specials still as 1/5 (since d20 numbers are so much easier to handle, there's simple way to rule "20%" specials: "if your roll*5 is <= skill, it's a special"). It would still be almost effortlessly simple to apply/use RQ2 source materials, but character management would get a lot easier. Instead of stat checks using stat * 5, just roll against the stat on a d20. Honestly, I'm as RQ-biased as anyone, and I don't mind the "mathiness" that Jeff mentions the playtesters hate so much, but the more I think about it, this really appeals to me as a simpler (but still not simplistic) version of RQ. Plus, then it really is something NEW. It's also going to be a big step easier for previous d20-players to adapt to.

Yeah, that's why I say we used semi-rolling SR. Each round, people would declare action, roll the appropriate* initiative die, and add their SR. Then we'd count down from the highest. If someone wanted to change action, when it got to their SR they'd deduct 1d6-Dex SR from their SR and if they still acted that round, they did. If that pushed them past zero, or if spell casting (sorcery mainly) they'd start at the top of the next round appropriately.. *we used variable init dice...typically a d10 but if the space was wide-open it could be a d12 or even a d20. For inside hallways, d8, or tight constricted spaces, d6. It meant that SR modifiers like dex and reach were more important in tight, enclosed 'tunnel fights' than in the open. It actually worked rather well. In tight spaces a lot of crap happened at the same time. Spellcasters were motivated to use short-cast spells, which made a sort of sense considering it would be all 'jostly'.

Further, I will note that RQ stats - despite being connected with all sorts of different modifiers and values in the skills - are less impactful generally than in D&D. I'm speaking particularly about Strength. For example in RQ3, you'd (essentially) get a very linear +1% to hit for every point over 10. So at 18 STR +8%. In RQ2 (and presumably RQ4) you have this tremendous step, to get only 5% if you have a 17+. (up to 20). In D&D5, it's STR 10-11: 0, 12-13: +1, 14-15: +2, 16-17: +3, and 18-19: +4 (equating, respectively to +0, +5%, +10%, +15%, +20%!) Simply, STR matters more (in this respect) in D&D 2x-3x more than it does in RQ. It's just more impactful.

I agree with Jeff: a big part is probably expectations they may not even realize they have. If they came from D&D, the thing I've found critical is to explain carefully that while D&D is *meant* to make you feel heroic: wading into a wave of baddies, chopping them up and then a titanic struggle with the BBEG. RQ is about simulation, not heroics. Ask them to literally imagine themselves, say, planning to attack 3 bandits in a hut (or whatever). You CERTAINLY wouldnt just walk in and start whacking about. Way too much chance you get bushwhacked or overwhelmed. No, you'd try to lure them out, or at least arrange some sort of ambush to do the maximum damage to the baddies with a minimum of risk to yourself...that's the mindset RQ players approach every combat. Combat is dangerous; do everything in your power to give you the advantage, and disadvantage your opponent. It's hard to understand if you come from D&D, truly. George Patton could have been playing RQ when he said "if you're in a fair fight, your tactics suck".

We mostly use semi-rolling SR/rounds anyway, so base-10 was MUCH simpler for everyone to parse into future expectations. It just seemed silly to me that an action (using 12 SR rounds) taking 14 SR could technically never happen, sort of a RQ version of Zeno's paradox. *Obviously* it would occur on SR2 of the following round in lieu of that round's action. I don't even remember if RQ2 even addressed that?

Oh, interesting - I never realized that. Makes more sense, certainly. You learn something new every day.

Without putting words in his mouth, I think that's exactly what Jeff's trying to do with RQ4. Get the essence of combat, but get rid of the cluttery details that would slow it down. The game-mechanic concept of tactical choices informing weapon-use preferences may be interesting for some people in a crunchy, simulationist way. (Me, for example.) BUT...(wild-ass guessing) I suspect that's a minority, particularly today where players apparently feel, as Jeff mentioned, that adding 12% to a skill % was just too hard/too much work. Your point is correct, essentially RQ3 was definitely saying "if you want to do a lot of damage, use a 2h; if you want to be safer, use 1h+shield" quite clearly. I always understood the 'balance' aspect of the rule, but I don't even feel it's particularly accurate. It kind of makes fencing impossible, for example. Of course it's a spectrum, right? On the one hand you have a Phoenix Command level of simulation, where 'ticks' are 1/10 of a second, and the entire GAME is simulating a few moments of (usually brutally deadly) combat. At the other end of extremes, you have Hero Wars, where a character has general ability that can be used to contest an opponent (that doesn't even necessarily have to be violent, like Oscar Wilde having "Witty Repartee 4W") and only the result is determined by die roll, leaving everything else rationalized and up to the descriptive/creative engine of the DM to describe. RQ2 to RQ3 was definitely a sold step toward the Phoenix Command end; probably, in retrospect, an overshoot. RQ4 seems like it's intending to be more of a step back toward the middle ground of playability but still maintaining the canonical 'crunch' that RQ is fundamentally identified with. I hope that RQ4 will be more than just a cleaned-up, Dragon-Pass focused reissue of RQ2 though, and take advantage of rules mechanics and concepts that bring the game into relevance in 2016. BTW Jeff, when's the next "Designing the New RQ" coming out? Been more than a month now.

RQ3 RAW was: You can pick 2 of (attack, parry, or dodge) in a round, constrained by - a 2h weapon can both attack and parry in the same round - a 1h weapon can either attack or parry in the same round - if you dodge, you get to roll your dodge against ALL attacks from that single source in that round (thus potentially effectively giving you many more 'actions') RQ2 doesn't appear to limit actions in a round OTHER THAN that constrained by the total number of SR it would take. So if your attack SR is 7, you'll never attack twice because your 2nd attack would always be at an SR greater than the 12sr limit per round (even if you're using 2 weapons). Note also that in RQ2, you could split your attack if you had 50% or above but this second attack could never be used against the same target. Also, remember there was no actual 'dodge' in RQ2.

This whole thread brings up an interesting point. RQ2 is a good example of an 'entertaining' RPG rulebook, but one that's not particularly USEFUL. (It's a product of its pre-word-processor, "hobby shop" times; original LBB D&D was even more atrociously laid out, so RQ2 was actually good in comparison.) That's why I find in the other thread - about the differences between RQ2 and RQ3 - people's comments about how 'entertaining' RQ2's examples were vs the 'soullessness' of RQ3 so ... beside the point, I guess? Look at RQ2, and try to figure out your character's hit points. It's not even IN the chapter about character creation...it's 5 pages later, in the "Mechanics and Melee" chapter. "Fighting in the dark" isn't in the Mechanics and Melee chapter...it's tucked way back in Appendix G. I've always preferred an RPG rulebook to be on the order of an instruction manual - clearly and concisely laid out for maximum clarity, logical order of things, and quick to find the table or detail you need. The "fluff" of setting and tone and atmosphere I prefer to find elsewhere, where it can really be the point of the work like a campaign sourcebook. Sure, when you're first absorbing a new rules set, it's nice to have the color and characterization stuff to set the mood. But you really only learn a game once...then the subsequent 99% of the time you play that game or use the rulebook, you're skipping PAST the fluff because it's just in the way. (FWIW I'd consider game-art an exception to this; it delivers maximum-bandwidth information about setting and style in the space of usually filling a layout hole that would have been empty white space anyway.) Yes, that might make a rule set seem "soulless" but I'm not reading a rulebook as a piece of literature. I'm reading it as a reference work that should support the play of a game with a MINIMUM of time/effort/distraction looking up some obscure reference. Maybe that's just me?

Always relegated that to the same place I put the RQ3 fatigue rules. Clever mechanic, interesting, but lots more work for no substantial gameplay benefit.

Except IIRC there were strict enjoinders NOT to treat 12 sr as counting through the seconds, so the linkage was only apparent, not real. (We dispensed with it anyway, over my own issues with SR: a problem with BOTH versions is that SR count up from zero, introducing a bunch of needless complication. Reversing it, and counting down from the highest-rolled initiative fixed a number of things and then there was never an implied connection for us...) Honestly, after this long, it's hard for me to even remember the RQ3 what's RAW and what's long-practiced houserules. So while I say I like RQ3 better, the honest answer is that if I'd put that much effort into houserules for RQ2, I'd probably have been just as happy with it. Or RQ6 for that matter. I've just reached the stage of my life where I'm uninterested in rebuilding a rules system to conform with my particular worldview. (shrug). I'm looking forward very much to RQ4 because - even though I know it's based on RQ2 and not RQ3, and that makes me a little nervous - the way forward to growing our local coterie of RQ players is abundantly NOT my little houseruled creation. It's a modern, current, commercial rules set that other people can go out and buy and run their own games. And I feel like I'm willing to go through the learning curve to really 'get behind' a new system that will be (I hope) a brave new era for RQ.

Learned with RQ2, and played that for a little while. But I'm an unabashed fan of RQ3. Trying to mentally go through the rules from front to back: For ability category modifiers like Agility or Manipulation, RQ2 had stat mods in 5% blocks (ie if you had a stat of 13-15, you'd get a +5%, 16-18 +10%), while RQ3 had an algorithm (every point above 10 was +1%). Some people liked the former, because it was meaningful steps. I prefer the latter, because it makes every stat change meaningful and de-incentivizes step-hunting. "I've got a 13 STR, so I don't care if I get a +1 or even a +2, it doesn't change anything." RQ2 had two categories of POW which was confusing as hell (for me), which was separated/clarified in RQ3 to be POW and magic points. RQ2 had defense, which was a flat -% to opponent attacks. RQ3 had dodge, which was an ability you had to actually use and took an action. I prefer the latter as the former is just too rationalized to make sense in so many situations. The latter just made more sense to me. RQ2 had some wonky per-location damage rules that used flat amounts so it didn't scale (ie if you were 6 over the hp on a location, it was severed or maimed). I could see a 3 point arm being severed by 9 points of damage. I couldn't see a 21 point tail of a dragon being severed by 27 points. RQ3 more or less filtered out those non-scaling bits, but RQ (of any generation) is recognized far and wide as "the game where characters get their arms and legs chopped off". RQ2 toons were generated pretty much as newbie stickpickers; RQ3 had background experience so your characters had some value already to start and are(a little) more survivable. RQ2 did have actually fairly extensive background rules but it was buried in an appendix in the back. It was pretty solely combat focused as well, IIRC. RQ2 only had armor values up to 6 points. RQ3 has IIRC up to 8 but with (as far as I can tell with a quick survey) no increase in weapons damage, so again, a little more survivable. RQ2 had one hit location table for each each creature type, while RQ3 had both melee and missile hit location tables for each. RQ2 weapons and shields were crazy fragile. Every point they blocked caused them damage, when it was exceeded, they were broken. (Yes, moderately good blows with a sword and your shield was junk) Not only that, the values were wonky; a medium shield blocked/absorbed 12 points, but a shortsword could block/absorb 20. Huh? RQ3 weapon damage was changed to be 'when AP exceeded, blocker takes 1' which meant weapons rarely broke except as a result of a bad fumble, very extended combats, or a series of fights without repair. Again, RQ3 made more sense to me. RQ3 added a fatigue mechanic that sounded great but I believe pretty much EVERYONE ignored it in practice as being too fiddly. RQ2 had stuff about Guilds - Alchemists, Sages, Thieves, Horsemasters, etc. Nothing much about this in RQ3. RQ2 mentioned nothing about sorcery. RQ3 had sorcery rules which seemed to polarize people; they were seen as too weak at low levels, too OP at high levels and the span between the two was far too long for most games to accomodate. They were generally considered to be too fiddly in pretty much every way. Personally, I like them A LOT but even I'd concede readily that RAW were not very playable with out a lot of work. RQ2 had a big section on treasure hoards; very little discussion in RQ3 at all about magic items, treasure, etc. RQ2 was basically in Glorantha, but without making an exclusive deal out of it (Glorantha was where it made sense). RQ3 was intended for a more quasi-historical setting, but IMO was terribly confused by itself. Was it supposed to be Roman era? Medieval? The original supplements (Vikings, Land of Ninja) were a good effort, but it fell back (imo, more comfortably) into Glorantha for the bulk of its supplements (and the best ones). Generally speaking, I think the difference between the two is more subjective than anything. It depends on what you started on and had the best time with. Most of the luminaries of the RQ world cut their teeth on RQ2, so that's the one they love. I learned RQ from RQ2 and first played it as that, but I personally fell in LOVE with RQ3. RQ2 to me is a great rule set, full of the sorts of quirky anachronisms that characterize the early generations of RPGs; the clumsy typesetting, kludgy drawings (sorry Louise) everything just says 'old timey RPG' and it *works* in that context. RQ3 probably comes off as a more mechanically consistent and better-polished, but maybe a bit more sterile; the move to quasi-Europe was IMO pretty dumb.

You misunderstand. I'm not asking for the skirmish rules to be RQ, but I'd like there to be a conceptual LINK between the two, so that porting characters from the RPG into a skirmish (and vice versa) is relatively easy. Obviously, the POINT of a skirmish rule set is something that's far more abbreviated, quicker, and succinct than full-out RQ combat.

I haven't played Skirmish OUTBREAK (haven't played a skirmish mini wargame for decades) although I understand it's reasonably highly regarded. Anyone played it? I hope that it mechanically dovetails well enough with the RQ rules that the migration to the skirmish and from skirmish to tabletop is pretty intuitive. It'll be interesting to see how they implement spirits and magic as Dragon Pass illustrated that they have a weighty impact. Spirits, magic, and heroic units were so dominant in DP that they often wiped the floor with mundane forces, to the point that any of them being included in a skirmish would sort of reduce it to 'who shoots first' sort of a thing?

Agreed, but there are methods that actually work with figures and make 'stacking order' games easier to play as long as concealing what's in the order isn't a gameplay function (I can't recall if DP does this). What I'm thinking of are 'army' cards. In some games I've seen them actually as boxes on the mapboard, off to the side, particularly where the number of army units (stacked collections of smaller units) is constrained to a finite number like the number of commanders, etc. Other games use separate cards lying off to the side. In either case, the card bears the collection of units, and the token/figure/counter on the board is is a placeholder for that whole army (typically, it's the general themselves). Even without figures, this method goes a long way to making giant-stack-of-counters games a ton easier to play in any case - I'm looking at you, Fire in the East.

One early game I ran using the CoC adventure The Haunting, my players were shocked/horrified seriously when they realized the house we were playing in (mine, a 110-yr old farmhouse) was in many, many ways laid out exactly like the adventure. When they finally decided to head upstairs, etc, we actually DID it. Freaked them the heck out.

Big fan of Nysalor/Gbaji. Nothing quite captures the subtlety of Glorantha as that whole story does for me. Any long-running Glorantha DM has to sort of figure out (at least for themselves) who's the 'good guy' in that whole story (including Arkat, of course).

Arrived yesterday - thanks guys!

Absolutely true, keeping in mind that 1) it's a vanishingly tiny % of people that get to fly and 2) they'd have to have a way to communicate that visually for it to really change people's outlook persistently and durably. Obviously, for example, medievals understood the concept of top-down plans, maps, etc. I'm just saying that it wasn't necessarily their 'go to' way to see the world, the way it seems to be for us. I try to use contemporary things like It's a map, but not *precisely* a map, if you get my drift.