RosenMcStern

The problem with "generic" weapons like that is that armors are NOT suppossed to be generic. Or maybe they are?

First of all, most players game in fantasy settings, where you WILL find shields, greatswords and rapiers together, just used by different races. So the "ancient" weapon table makes sense. You have to eliminate some items from it only when you play in the Real World .

Secondly, armors are less generic than weapons, but they are still a bit generic anyway. The banded armor used by the Romans is not the same as that used by later populations. The Romans themselves used plate cuirasses, but it is rather different from the one used by Renaissance soldiers (or modern cuirassiers - plate cuirasses and helms are still used, although for scenic purposes, by the Italian army).

Another problem is that the rules in the BGB (but not RQ3) allow you to swing twice, with melee weapons, if your SR is 5 or less. This is utterly and absolutely unrealistic: it means that a DEX 1 ogre with SIZ 20 and a long two-handed club will swing twice. A DEX 20 halfing under the effect of the Haste spell will swing once because of arm and weapon reach.

Hmmm... but presumably the reverse is also true: if trained in sword only, picking up a shield would give a disadvantage? Could be hard to persuade people of that!

Actually, I suspect they simplified the rule in MRQ (in origin it was: if you lack one of the two weapons that make up your style, you are at -20%) because I pointed out this fact. In truth, if you are trained in 1-hand weapon parry and you have a shield, it hampers you. Your training tells you to keep your weapon towards your enemy, but using the shield requires that you keep that towards your enemy. Can become messy. People who have not actually tried will not believe it, but in fact it works this way.

Wrong. It is not my house rule it is an optional rule listed right in the core rulebook. Go read it yourself. See on pg 188 the sidebar on eliminating or reversing statement of intents.

If you couple it with the elimination of DEX penalties, it is not an optional rule but a houserule. I am pretty sure that NO ONE ever playtested this combination of rules. Playtesters please correct me if I am wrong: did anyone playtest the combat sequence like daddystabz suggested, i.e. "I do whatever I want on my initiative and then everyone else acts, no matter how many things I did?"

Please note that doing things like you suggest means that you can, in your turn, drink as many potions as you want, draw your sword, draw your shield, move as far as you wish, kill one opponent with an impale, extract the impaled weapon and then kill another opponent if you have 100% with your weapon, without anyone interfering, simply because without DEX penalties there is no way to know how many things you can do in one round!!!

Furthermore, the sidebar clearly and explicitly says "This streamlined style of play works well, and in most non-combat situations there is little worry of confusion." I.E., the rules are clearly recommending not to use it for combat, because in combat situations it will cause trouble. As in the example above.

I've played D&D for decades and to reiterate: Movement in D&D does NOT affect initiative whatsoever.

We know that, there is no need to reiterate it. You are completely missing the point that Nick and I made. We know how D&D works. However, D&D has correctives for the "fuzzy" things that we explained in the examples, and that stem from the fact that the rules allow you to do several actions before your opponents can act. If you use that approach in BRP, that does not have opportunity attacks or a limit to the non-combat actions you can perform in one round, then things will not go so smoothly as they go in D&D. Taking a rule that works well in a game and putting it into another may end up in a very different result than that it has in the other games. In the specific case, the BRP rules clearly say that using this approach in combat risk messing your game up.

Another thing you must keep in mind is that certain rules options will not make good sense depending on what optional rules you intend to employ in your personal game. I intend to use the optional rule where instead of having a sequence where each player declares his/her intentions and then in initiative order each player rolls those actions, in my game each player will say what he/she will do and then rolls right there and then to see if it is successful.

That is not an optional rule. It is your houserule.

Optional rules are rules that have been playtested and inserted in the rule book. What you suggest is totally unplaytested, and everyone who has played BRP in one way or another is telling you "don't do it". You are free to use whatever tweak you want, but I cannot see the point in trying to convince people with 20+ years of gaming on their shoulders that what you have devised since you read the BGB is better than what they have been playing for a quarter of a century.

As for the example Nick made, D&D works differently than how you describe. Sure, you can move and attack on your initiative, but you cannot do whatever move you want because you are limited by Opportunity Attacks.

By using your proposed houserule, the Orc with initiative 20 can move 8 metres around the hero and kill the defenceless princess, and the hero with his 19 Initiative can do nothing but look. Definitely unsatisfactory, realism-wise and story-wise.

Also, MRQ does not work as you propose, either. Sure you can move on your Strike Rank, and you suffer no penalty, but you cannot attack after moving. At all. You will attack with your next CA. AFTER your opponent has acted, not before.

No, they do not make sense. You can see that the person with the highest actual combat skill %ile around here (Pete Nash) never uses separate combat skills. He did, however (in MRQ2, sorry TGFKARQ2) subsume all attacks and parries in a single combat style %ile. I think it is the best solution, if you think of it: when they teach you how to swordfight, they teach you all moves used by a certain school.

However, this leaves two open points:

a) BRP does not have Combat Styles, so either you introduce them or the Shield skill produces trouble

If you have been trained to use sword&shield, and you do not have a shield, you are at a disadvantage in the real world - the stance and moves when using a shield are totally different.

No, it refers to initiative. Mankcam is describing his houserules.

No, it is not cumbersome at all. You step and attack? Roll at DEX rank. You move and attack? Roll at half DEX rank. You draw weapon and attack? Roll at DEX rank -5. Or any combination.

Definitely less cumbersome than having Strike Ranks change with every combat.

I could agree about parrying much larger weapons being Difficult, but rules 2. and 3. are rather unrealistic. Remember that parrying with a weapons implies anticipating, not blocking, a blow, and defending with a pole weapon is essentially keeping your foe at bay with the weapon point aimed at him, not intercepting the attack with the shaft..

If the damage exceeds the parrying object shit points by 1 it breaks (if it's a weapon) or loses 1 hit point (if it's a shield).

Uhmmm, if I was playing a fighter type character, I would rather not employ a weapon that has such an attribute.

Going back to seriousness, two-weapon use is perhaps the only point in the BGB that I found lacking. The best solution I can find is to use the rule that goes with Strike Ranks (you cannot attack and parry with the same weapon in the same SR) with DEX ranks, too. If you know how to employ your weapons, a 1-weapon user is toast. Still, this rule is hard to exploit for novice players.

Other solutions can be devised. I think the best approach is that used in Wayfarer (TGFKARQII): combat style includes both weapon and shield use. Please note that it is the solution used in The Celestial Empire, too: there is no separate Shield skill. The solution provided in Rome was added by Pete when I had him put hit locations back in (the original manuscript had locationless stats): several Ancient suits of armour use shields statically to replace armor pieces, rather than use it to block.

It's editable

Excellent News !!!! Question... in the future do you think there will be plans for Late Imperial Supplement?

That area is already covered by Cthulhu Invictus. You just take away everything with tentacles, and you are ok. Rome was intentionally aimed at the Republican period to avoid conflicting with that work.

Actually, work has started on the Rome:Generals and Senators supplement. IndianaKen is doing the writing. We hope to hit the shelves for Christmas.

Now that Pete is freelancing again, we might be willing to publish something by him again. But _after_ he is over with the Gloranthan supplement.

Use Nameless Streets.

Nononono please. I have just finished a 10-page long thread flame about Ron Edwards and his wisdom on the Italian game forums. We all have opinions about "the man", but let us not start this, huh? Let's be nice and positive to everyone.

But, unless someone makes a retro-clone version of RQ3 and adds the best bits from MRQI/II, OpenQuest, Wayfarer and BRP, I'll continue to use RQ3+.

Nooooo, Simon, please! Not another retro-clone!

It will work. However, in settings that rely heavily on firearms, having bullets do extra damage only on a critical will decrease the chances to take a tough opponent down. CoC has no specials, but it does have impales. I suggest you use the MRQ (sorry Wayfarer) combat manoeuvers in combat, to counter this nerfing effect.

Wow, atg, what did you eat for breakfast? Scorpion jelly?

I feel even worse for third party MRQ companies. I think this spells the end of the OGL era, and/or third party licensing. I hope nobody get stuck with a load of "orphaned" supplements.

It actually happened already.

It ticks me off even more that somebody went and did so anyway, knowing full well what confusion it would cause among the RQ community.

What ticks me off, instead, is that he did it, completely ignoring the annoyance to old fans, and then dropped the name after 18 months. Why bother, if it was not so important to them?

LOL, I think he meant the "RQ name" and the "Second Age setting" either singly or combined.

Hmmm, I suspect this option is not on the table. Mongoose would have picked it, in that case.

in case another interested party thinks they can make a go of them, individually or combined.

Combined? There is already enough trouble keeping licensor and licensee happy together. Would having a group of licensees make things better?

HeroQuest has changed a little bit since Rick Meints and Jeff Richard took over, didn't you notice? The last Sartar supplements are very close to systemless.

Although the games will be certainly HQ-style, I am sure Pete & Loz will manage to make it appeal to BRP fans, too. They certainly know how to do this

Did anyone else get this same vibe?

Did anyone actually fail to notice this?

In short, I think you have enough materials to run Glorantha for years, whatever MGP does. We ran Glorantha with d100 for years with NO product coming out for it, so don't worry. Just have fun. It's a game.

Yeah. Sounds suspicious. Loz joins Rick & Jeff in the same day Iss splits with MGP.

mmmmhh.

However, I doubt that Wayfarer will have a long life.

Geez. I am afraid this might be the case. But Pete really does not deserve this.

I meant: I KNOW Rick is the exception

By the way, any chance to see OpenQuest re-labeled as "The Real Thing" now?