icebrand

The languages were in rq2 (classic) and also un AHs "gloranthan bestiary" -probably the best feature in the book-

I don't know how complete they are (for me the RQ2, same as everything else, is 100% complete and canon and theres nothing else out there #kiss)

30 minutes ago, Vile said:

Hey icebrand, long time no see! 😄

Indeed! Whats up Vile?

31 minutes ago, Vile said:

RQ2 species maximum is (maximum rolled) + (number of dice) + (1 for any add no matter how high). The rule is on p. 73 at the start of the Monsters chapter:

much obliged!

31 minutes ago, Vile said:

EDIT: I don't know what you mean about "Ducks". I looked through all my RQ2 and RQ3 books, and everywhere it says "Duck Goblin". 😈

Do you know why ducks go humakti? *NO ONE ELSE WILL TAKE THEM* (drumroll)

Hi! Long time RQ3 GM, just about to start GMing an RQ classic game

I tried to google/search rules but if i'm correct a 2D6+6 characteristic roll would have a maximum of 18 (maximum rolled) +2 (number of dice) = 20, vs a 21 max with 3D6. Unless i'm mistaken and the +6 counts as a +1 ? if so, a +10 would still be a +1 or a +2? 

For example, is a duck's maximum STR (2d6+1) 15 or 16?

Hope someone can clarify!

Cheers,

Alex

i think the most raw approach is that it takes time (same with axe trance and similar spells) since there isnt a single instance in the game when MP spent are instant, AFAIK.

Also, we always ignored shield / countermagic / resists when casting "buffs" and heals, but that was a rule oversight that ramps the power of shield (it was by far the most widely prayed for spell in the campaign). Shield already gives 4 spirit points per divine point (as opposed to pretty much every other spell that gives 2) and that is balanced by having to spend more time powering beneficial spells to go through it.

After 15+ years of GMing RQ, i still have a pretty stupid question -- Does Heal Wounds (the divine spell) add SR to cast the spell based on the MP spent? Is it instant?
 

We always used it as an instant cast (because my players complained about it not being any better than spirit healing), but it has a higher cast chance, and it can be cast as high as you want (considering you have the MP for it) and has a slightly better chance (+2) to go past your target's countermagic, so i decided it takes time.

How do you play it?

I re-uploaded the 1st edition:

RetroQuest 1st Ed - Downloads - Basic Roleplaying Central

Sadly, the magic book and 2nd edition changes (mostly getting rid of the resistance table for Characteristic x5 tests as opposed rolls) are forever lost =)

Ok, this is the deal; i want to run a MODERN rq6 campaign; players will be normal modern people, and there will be sorcery/shamanism-y stuffs (think unknown armies at street level).

the game is super gritty, and fits the genre better than my other go-to system (oddly enough, im running glorantha with savage worlds).

What i'm missing is "cultures". Since pretty much everyone will be from the same culture (doh!) i'm thinking maybe use "social class" as culture, since a low class member of society probably has a completely different skillset than a middle (i.e: no driving!) or upper class! So, maybe those 3 "cultures" is the way to go.

Also, im ditching starting money for a wealth rating (seriously, its easier to figure what you can and can't have according to your profession).

I may also need new/revised professions (crap, this will be a TON of work, maybe rip off the BGB?) and updated skills (literacy needs tweaking, computers, and a few skill renaming here and there).

Any ideas on where i can start stealing errr... getting inspirational material?

I would TOTALLY buy a modern RQ6 sourcebook!

Sounds like a TRULY awesome game! Thumbs up!

Sounds awesome!!!

BTW, im curious, how did you gen the characters? Did they have minimum skill requirements (like investigation, firearms, etc?)

Talk to the players beforehand and make sure they generate characters that actually go with the campaign?

What if there's no skill roll? In combat Prowess is only used as a metric of how much damage the character can do.

This is how I would break down the weapons categories but the damages stills weighs the weapons against each other. In the right hands, I want that dagger to be as dangerous as a gun.

I was actually thinking about it holding across the board. Swap out missile damage for Prowess damage. Of course, the level of tech that I tend to get up to is flintlocks and blunderbusses, so that's the scope. Still the thrust of the rules is to emphasize the character's adroitness and not the equipment they use. Someone picks up a high powered rifle and they have a high Prowess then they're going to do significant damage with it. Someone with low Prowess and a high powered rifle might make their shot but, because of their low Prowess, only clip the target or inflict a flesh wound.

On our last draft of house rules we used just two weapons:

"melee" and "war" where melee did 1D6+DB and war did 2D6+db (a dagger, club, pole, hatchet, etc is a melee weapon, and a war sword, spear, mace, battle axe etc is a war weapon).

Two handed weapons do +1 damage

I think there ARE better weapons than others (the weapons people used to war with are better than civilian weapons, you don't see armies with daggers as main weapons!) and thats why we have two damages.

As for the prowess thing, we are working at a "static" defense (-% to hit) to eliminate multiple rolls on combat.

Is one superior to the other? Not in the real world. In the end, it all comes down to how experienced each individual is... and that is portrayed in BRP by the actual percentage value next to the skill.

Actually, there are "superior" (i.e: more effective) training methods than others; it is not only dependant on individuals. That's why there are dominant styles in mma. For example, boxing is superior to pretty much everything else for punching people!

I personally side with Redcrow on this one. The term 'martial arts' has a lot of pop-culture baggage associated with it, something which still colours the word despite nearly two decades of effort from European historians and martial practitioners to overturn the far-eastern mystique it still possesses. A 'martial art' is nothing more than a fighting tradition. It merely describes a skill of learning to fight and shouldn't even be unarmed specific, which is why in MRQ2 there was no Martial Arts skill.

Is brawling inferior to karate? I do not believe so. They may expound different techniques, but there is no real difference between the core aspects of both styles - which comprise of far more than just knowing how to throw a punch correctly (there's psychology, intimidation, feints, pain tolerance, timing, etc ad nausium). Karate might offer lots of fancy kicks, whereas Glaswegian pub brawling might emphasise on headbutts and bites. Karate might offer once a week kata training and GPB might start with uncle Frank showing you the basics in a back alley, then the usual Friday night scrap down at the Kilt and Todger.

Karate is a martial art; as is brawling, boxing, wrestling, pankration, fencing, halberd fighting, Ecky Thump and all the other weird and wonderful traditions out there.

Is one superior to the other? Not in the real world. In the end, it all comes down to how experienced each individual is... and that is portrayed in BRP by the actual percentage value next to the skill.

Erm, i thought it was pretty clear i consider boxing, wrestling, etc as "martial arts". Lets "run" the numbers RQ-wise, ok?

A "brawler" starts with 25%+Mod, and fights how many times a year? Thats x points worth of checks.

A "boxer" starts with 25%+Mod, trains (if he's anywhere near serious, lets say 12hrs a week, bare minimum) + fights (sparring) + fights (matches). He also does a ton of physical conditioning.

Now, you are saying that the brawler is somewhat better and/or has a significant chance to win? Mind you, if the brawler does train/condition, then i'd consider it as another martial art...

Yes, I've had more than my share of full contact fights. Both in formal tournaments and on the streets. I've been stabbed twice and shot once as well. You can believe what you wish, but I would say you have little experience or too many Martial Arts movies and/or too much Martial Arts culture has adversely colored your view.

I will say nothing more.

Well, i guess i have too little experience then, having never being actually shot at (the worst i got was getting pistol-whipped). I guess i have little experience *shrugs*. Every streetfight ive been, or people that trained with me have, was a non issue (unless they were many vs. 1); i guess the "streetfighter subculture" must really love what they do, since they could... i don't know, get into a boxing ring and earn millions?

What prevents a Brawler from learning any of that? Experience is a wonderful teacher. Some would even say its the best teacher. Something that makes Brawling so effective is its unpredictability because not every Brawler is necessarily going to know the same sets of techniques. Learning things like positioning, stance, when to attack and when to duck can be picked up through experience. If you don't know how to make a fist and punch someone, how long would it take you to learn after being on the receiving end or even just witnessing it in a fight that doesn't involve you?

Do you have experience in full contact fights? It doesn't really sound like it. You do not learn certain things by experience, it simply does not happen. Lets say the techniques are how the chess pieces move, and the "unpredictability" comes from strategy. There are certain CORRECT ways to throw a punch (that vary slightly from style to style) and there are INCORRECT ways to do it (that basically cause less damage and/or hurt yourself).

Again, untrained does not necessarily equal inexperienced. There are many sub-cultures right here in the United States for which Brawling is a way of life like Street Gangs, Biker Gangs, etc. Unfortunately, many formally trained Martial Artists envision that all Brawlers are just fat, beer swilling couch potatos who may get into the occasional bar or street fight and may know how to punch, kick, and bite and little else because they didn't train in a dojo under the guidance of a Sensei.

IMO, the idea that Martial Arts are all inherently better than Brawling is misguided and uninformed. One good punch can end a fight and I have no reason to believe that a Brawler couldn't deliver that punch as easily as a trained Martial Artist. I've actually seen it happen.

Those subcultures you talk about *DO* train martial arts (or contact sports). Sensei and stuff is completely irrelevant; if someone teaches you how to fight (boxing, kick boxing, muay thai, or WHATEVER) you are trained.

Also, of course one punch can end a fight, but most times it does not. You really need to be really really really *very* lucky to knockout someone who knows what hes doing with one punch.

I can't think of any reason an experienced Brawler would be incapable of performing any technique that a Martial Artist could. The only real differences I see between the two is where/how they learned their techniques. Its definitely possible for a Martial Artist to know techniques that a Brawler doesn't, but I can't think of any reason a Martial Artist would know any techniques that a Brawler couldn't also know.

I can't think any reason a brawler would learn how to, lets say, perform a falling step (basic boxing). How does this brawler learn how to walk, position, when to attack, when not to, etc?

Also, please define street brawler. A guy with NO training that what? Fights on the street? Why? How often? Really, this seems out of a movie!

I would just like to mention that untrained does not necessarily mean inexperienced. You can't typically sign up for classes in Brawling at the local gym so a lot of formally trained Martial Artists tend to look down their noses at it as an inferior form of fighting. IMO, that is a mistake.

I never, ever, saw an "experienced but untrained" person that fought well. Sure, that person will win vs. an untrained and inexperienced one, and can also kick a poorly trained people, but against a serious martial artist, i doubt it.

And pretty much thats why you don't see hobos winning many boxing / mma contests.

I have seen several of these comments about fighting techniques. After clarifying that it is your game and you are free to adopt any rule that you desire, I have yet to see such a statement come from a person who actually knows the fighting techniques we are talking about. It is perfectly possible that a Karate Black Belt ends up on the losing side of a street brawl (it happens rather frequently) but this does not mean that "Karate" and "Brawl" are the same skill. In fact, it would suggest the opposite!

I would really like to read an opinion about "imaginary and Wuxia" coming from someone who has trained for a long time in "real life" martial arts. Are you a Black Belt of something, Zit?

I do =)

It is perfectly possible that a karate black belt (or anyone really) loses a "street brawl", but a REAL karate black belt (aka: full contact styles, like kyokushin or uechi ryu) losing vs. an untrained opponent would be a really weird thing. A "mc dojo" black belt? sure, probably anyone can take him since he doesnt actually learn to fight =)

Most rules have these characteristics for any subject:

1. Experts in the field say they don't work and need to be far more complex.

2. Most players find that very complex rules are a turn-off and want simple, easy to use rules.

3. Good rules sit somewhere in between the first two.

BRP works OK for me, but my experience of martial arts was 3 years of Kung Fu, 20 years ago, so I am not an expert.

If you want bells and whistles, use fancy martial arts abilities, as seen in Celestial Empire and Dragon Lines.

Martial arts rules are fine for striking, though they don't have a correspondence on how stuff works irl.

Grappling rules are ok for untrained grapplers, but they need to work with martial arts!

This brings up a second problem with writing martial arts rules. People often have widely differing ideas of what that actually means. I, to my own mind at least, think I have a fairly realistic view on it. Training in a dojo/gym/whatever is all well and good but proper fights are far better preparation for being in a fight. I also tend to avoid ascribing quasi-supernatural traits to Eastern martial arts because, well frankly, it's ludicrous.

I find the separation between "brawling" and "martial arts" unnecessary/superfluous rules-wise. Really, i can't see why its even there, and any rationalization should be applicable to weapons as well.

I'm not saying that studying a martial art is pointless but when considering martial arts you have to accept that boxing and having fights are both martial arts in their own right. They may not be as elegant as Hapkido or Wing-Chun but trust me, simply punching someone in the face is often every bit as effective as delivery an axe-kick or grabbing their pyjamas and flipping them over. It honestly doesn't come down to which art is better (which is something you see a lot of and which is neatly curtailed by the standard BRP system) but things like how good the fighter is, the combat situation itself, who wants the fight more and what they're prepared to do to win.

Striking-Wise, martial arts are as effective as their training is. It all comes down to how much contact there is. If you pit a boxer with 3 yrs training vs. someone who did 20 yrs of katas or sport (point-based) karate, im sory but im putting my money on the boxer every day. If the martial arts training itself has no contact, i.e. they dont actually HIT each other, its way less effective.

Thats why serious self-defense courses do not teach you how to fight, but how to predict dangerous situations and avoid putting yourself there to start with.

Well, actually the "martial arts" skill is kind of... Wrong!

From personal experience:

If brawling represent a non trained combatant throwing punches, then i wouldn't let grapple go past 25 or maybe 50% without martial arts. People without grappling training really don't have a clue, and even a novice grappler can defeat a heavier, stronger opponent without much problem, even if such opponent has training in other martial arts.

Just my 2 bolgs!

i think you can/should be able to put skill points on spells if you are using magic!

I don't use armor penalties, too much granularity for my taste!

But if i did, it would probably be a static penality (like -1 to the "dex*x" & "con*x", and -xx% to dodge)

Although even the athletics may be going too far. I've heard of accounts of, I think an Italian Count, who could perform full backflips on his horse while wearing plate.

There are quite a few vids on youtube of people doing athletic feats on plate armor!

Never used them, but i like them!