Jump to content

RosenMcStern

Members
  • Content Count

    2,512
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    29

RosenMcStern last won the day on May 12

RosenMcStern had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

842 Excellent

2 Followers

About RosenMcStern

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 08/25/1964

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.alephtargames.com/
  • Skype
    paolo.guccione

Profile Information

  • Location
    Somewhere in the EU

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    BRP, RQ, HQ, what else?
  • Current games
    BRP, RQ, HQ, what else?
  • Location
    Somewhere in the EU
  • Blurb
    Now roll for 1d6 SAN loss for seeing my actual picture....

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. RosenMcStern

    Strike Ranks: initiative order or action allowance?

    You see? This contradicts the assumption that Strike Rank is not "the time it takes". If you allow extra actions when a foe is down (I don't, do the rules allow this?), then basically you are saying that Bubba did it faster because he is big and has a long weapon. Edit: ah, you mean splitting under the 100% rule. Yes, he might be able to do so with a SR of 7, but only if he has a huge skill. Which is better used lowering his opponent parry than making two attacks at a reduced %ile.
  2. This is a theoretical subject, so it does not belong in the clarification/potential errata threads. Better open a new discussion. As Jason said, there is an issue here. Not everyone will mind it, but someone will. And as I said in other threads, the good old Perrin&Turney Strike Rank System is still a solid, usable, fun-to-run combat system 40 years after its initial release. Yet it does show its age, as nothing is perfect. The big deal is that there is one basic assumption in how RuneQuest handles [melee] combat: Your character will do what he or she planned to do at Statement of Intents time. No "deciding when your turn comes" in RuneQuest (as it happens in D&D initiative system). As a RuneQuest GM, I have learned that the best way to referee complex games is to enforce the simple-but-effective rule of "You stick to your plan, period" rule. Change of intents to "Heal eviscerated comrade" (or sometimes Dismiss Befuddle) was the only exception. Strike Rank is only an attempt to give an order to the pre-planned course of actions: missile attack comes first, then spear attacks, then swords, then daggers, then weapons that were still sheathed at the start of round, etc. etc - it does NOT represent the time it takes to swing that weapon, as in fact you are swinging more than once per round (moreover; swinging a longer blade takes more time, not less). If you stick to the above principles, and only handle hand to hand combat in your battles, then RuneQuest combat is extremely easy and intuitive: strike when your SR comes, the opponent defends, if the attack connects and the defense does not, then OUCH! Drawing swords, moving into combat or buffing yourself with magic beforehand delays your action. Hard to find anything simpler and more intuitive in a simulation-oriented combat system. The problem comes, as Jason remarked, when your main action is not melee combat, but something that can be attempted more than once per round, such as firing a missile or casting a spell (which happens quite frequently in a magic-rich environment like Glorantha). Then Strike Ranks become a measure of how long it takes to perform that action, with fast characters acting more frequently than slower ones. It is still quite intuitive, after all, but the different way Strike Ranks are treated in the two cases can generate some confusion. And the obvious question arises: if I can cast Befuddle more than once until I have Strike Ranks left, why can't the same apply to swinging my battleaxe? We are all human, and sometimes you cannot wrap your head around these details. There is also another point, which is the one that nags me the most. Whenever you mix up melee combat and repeatable actions - for instance when you throw your javelin and then charge into combat, or cast non-offensive magic and then engage your enemy - then your SIZ and Weapon Length Strike Ranks are counted in determining how many actions you can perform. Take note: not in determining in what order you perform your single melee action, in which case it makes perfect sense, but in determining how many actions you perform. Bulky Bubba the Uzdo gets to do more "things" (spells, missiles, etc.) because he is big and wields a maul, whereas Quicky Quacko the Durulz can only fight in melee because his puny SIZ and short gladius give him a very high SR. Notwithstanding the fact that Quacko has possibly twice as much DEX as Bubba. Honestly, this completely destroys my personal suspension of disbelief. Given that there are other non-trivial deviations from the RQ2 tradition in the rules, and that all (or almost all) variants of BRP published after RQ3, Chaosium or non-Chaosium, managed to solve or circumvent these issues, I would have expected RQG to contain some sort of solution, too. Apparently, it does not. Thoughts?
  3. RosenMcStern

    Chapter 4: COMBAT

    Sounds sensible.
  4. RosenMcStern

    Chapter 4: COMBAT

    Yes. This is typical of Basic Combat, which is very similar to non-violent conflicts. And in generic conflicts RPs are always taken away from one side or the other. There is no "nothing happens" result. This also means that the defender must ALWAYS roll his defense. There is no reason not to roll (whereas in Advanced Combat the defender might be willing to save Strike Ranks if he does not feel confident to succeed in the roll).
  5. RosenMcStern

    Revelation when using Stunts

    Uhm, this is doable, but it is not what I would recommend to do. Here is why: 10% is too small a bonus, it makes the Trait insignificant; 20% is a good compromise, we have tried it and it works well, but 10% is basically a "why bother?" kind of bonus. using Stunts to further specialize Traits is something that has been discussed in depth on several threads in the general section: it would create a "tree" of skills, something that has been attempted only in the Ringworld iteration of the BRP rules, and never again after that; in general, when an experiment is never repeated, there is a reason. Of course , some people will still like it and use it, but not everyone. most important of all, using stunts as specializations that give a further bonus for something you are particuarly good at overrides and hides the most important and fundamental functions of stunts: enabling your characters to do something that others cannot do. A stunt is the ability to do something special: stopping an aircraft in midair, making an extra attack with the off hand, ignoring your social victory if your status is inferior, keeping your opponent at bay even when you roll lower, extending the range of your magic or psionics beyond normal. All of these are feats you are simply unable to do without the stunt, you do not just get a bonus to do them. These are the reasons why I have not described Stunts that have this effect in the core rules. There are some examples in the characters I have uploaded so far, but they are all extremes, a kind of "superhuman" skill level (Count Julan's Scimitar skill from YT gifts and Hawkeye's impossible marksmanship with the bow - superhero stuff). Nothing that should be generally available, as players would invariably try to stack as many of these bonuses as possible for their main weapon(s) rather than diversifying techniques. If you wish to use Stunts as bonus-providers in your game, I recommend that you introduce the new category of Specialty Traits along with Stunts, rather than making all Stunts work this way. Otherwise, you would be throwing away a good half of the game.
  6. RosenMcStern

    No love for crushing?

    Simon, only in your games can adventurers be "minding their business in a Vivamort temple". Invisible, poleaxe-wielding undead pixies is the least you can... no, sorry, you should expect to meet there.
  7. RosenMcStern

    Some data on sorcey spells

    LM usage of sorcery was introduced in Sartar:KoH, a HeroQuest publication, in 2009. And the fact that there was an Aeolian sect of Malkionism was already known, although it was not clear how their magic worked, at least in official sources.
  8. RosenMcStern

    Greg Stafford Condolence Thread

    I met Greg face to face for the first time in 1997, after a good decade of playing in his universes, and in 2010 for the last time. I must say that as a person, he was even better than as a game author. Which is something, given his track record as a designer. Greg shared his dreams with us, and we will continue to live his dream now that he is no longer with us. My thoughts go to Suzanne, who loved, accompanied and took care of this exceptional person for so many years, and certainly made his last days happier; and to all of his family.
  9. RosenMcStern

    No love for crushing?

    "Halve soft armour vs. mace" was the official rule (after errata) in RQ3, and I have used it for 15+ years with extreme effectiveness. -2 could create trouble because it would make a gambeson ineffective, whereas when you wear mail it is actually the gambeson underneath the chain which provides a minimal protection against the crushing effect.
  10. RosenMcStern

    No love for crushing?

    This is WRONG. Maces are good anti-armour weapons, but their effect is more remarkable on flexible armour, not rigid. Chain mail is almost ineffective against maces, whereas with your houserule chain becomes better than plate vs. maces (And yes, this story of mace vs plate is also in Savage Worlds, but it is still WRONG in SW, too). A more precise modification could be -1 armour vs. hard armour, -2 vs. soft armour. IN this way you have Chain = 3 vs. crush, Plate = 5 vs; Crush, which is both realistic and somehow fair for the mace wielder. However, this houserule would make trolls terribly dangerous.
  11. RosenMcStern

    No love for crushing?

    Then you should also ditch STR and DEX requirements, as they deprive your character of the freedom to choose a rapier if his DEX sucks. Why should the system make that decision for you ? To cut it short: I do not see any problem if you give all special successes " double damage" like impales, and then narrate the reasons why you did so much damage. However, for me a system which rewards a choice you would not make in real life (such as picking a blunt weapon when you are small) breaks suspension of disbelief in a severe way. Looking at the real world does not necessarily "break the magic".
  12. RosenMcStern

    No love for crushing?

    Such unfortunates should simply use a thrusting sword - or play a stronger character if they love maces. Ah.... and light maces did not exist in the real world. They are a game construct, like ringmail armour. Does this tell you anything ?
  13. RosenMcStern

    No love for crushing?

    There is not just the diversity factor to keep into account, but the appropriateness, as Mechashef pointed out. The bigger the weapon (and the attacker), the more convenient it is for the attack to be based on brute force. If you cannot pack enough strength into that crushing blow, it is unlikely that you will stun your opponent. Impaling weapons, instead, are effective even when small: eight inches of steel in the heart will leave you as dead as three feet would. As long as there are some adventurers who benefit from using blunt weaponry (trolls and minotaurs), I would say that balance is preserved. Demanding that all adventurers have a benefit when using a certain kind of weapon is perhaps too much - and not quite realistic.
  14. RosenMcStern

    Summoning RuneQuest Gamemasters

    You can call for a roll just to check whether the character shines while succeeding, or just succeeds (variant of fail forward). For instance; the characters want to get to the next port. If they roll Persuade against the ship captain, they get a discount passage by ship and spend little time and money. If they don't, they must either spend a fortune or waste time by going on land. The only thing to remember is that even in case of fumble, the character still succeeds. He or she just embarasses him/herself while doing so, with possible negative fallout in the afterwards. There is nothing worse than frustrating a good plan because you thought it would be cool to call for a roll on that 100% skil,l and then the player rolls 00...
  15. RosenMcStern

    Merrie England family tree?

    For those I have gnomes chained in my cellar who do the dirty job for me. It is just creative writing (as testified by the delay of Red Moon Rising) that is in short supply. For now. You guess right.
×