Jump to content

deleriad

Regulars
  • Content Count

    353
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

deleriad last won the day on March 21 2019

deleriad had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

108 Excellent

About deleriad

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Converted

  • RPG Biography
    Started with RQII back in 1982. Ran and played in Call of Cthulhu, Ringworld and Stormbringer. Have since run many campaigns in RQ3, DC Heroes/(MEGS as now is) & CoC. Currently running MRQ. Have played in Champions, Star Trek (FASA), V & V, Cthulhutech. Played D&D just twice in my life, Traveller once. <br />
    <br />
    Contributed to early issues of Dagon, Tales of the Reaching Moon and had an article printed in Heroes, right next to one by Jonathan Tweet.
  • Current games
    Mythras - a bit of Luther Akwright. The One Ring.
  • Location
    Edinburgh, UK
  • Blurb
    Blurbidy blubidy blurb.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Just dug my copy off the shelf. Think I also got it at Convulsion. It's one with the blank Gamesmastering chapter. I remember my group going back, starting to make characters and discussing what to play with them but it just seemed to go on and on. Looking back at it now, the authors seem to have decided that the main problem RQ3 had was that it wasn't detailed enough.
  2. I did spend a while back experimenting with something this. Using d120 (d12+d10) for "hard skill tests." A fumble was rolling over your skill and rolling 100+ or rolling a natural 120. 116-119 was a failure regardless of result. It might be interesting BRP variant where you modify dice rolled rather than skill value but you really needed a d16 as well.
  3. Well it only matters if it matters. For example, if you are trying to climb in the middle of a scenario and you only have a certain amount of time to make your climb. If you fail then the GM might say "you can't see a safe hand hold anywhere. Do you want to wait 5 minutes while you look around for a different way up or do you want to try again right now at -20%?" That kind of thing. If the player tries again immediately and fails you can say "looks like it's impossible in these conditions. I guess you could take a chance and try again right now at -40%. If you fail this time you fall." Player
  4. Speaking of just the rules elements of MRQ1 for now. I had been out of role-playing for a fair while when I stumbled across the existence of MRQ1. The last two RQ3 campaigns I had run finished in 1997 when I moved to Canada. All I had done since then was the occasional CoC 1 shot for mostly non-gaming friends. Prior to that I had run a lot of RQ3, contributed to the RQ Digest and so on. Opening up the book, about which I literally knew nothing, my first impression was "god, this is cheap and nasty." So I started to go through the rules and created some PCs to see how it worked. My reactio
  5. It always comes down to what happens when a character is only within melee range of another character for one SR but the enemy's SR is higher. Now remember that in RQ3 SoI's are much looser and can be adjusted/changed by adding your DEX SR. Given the usual issues around movement and engagement if one person wants to run past the other you pretty much work through a flowchart. Does the "defender" know what's going on? Is the defender able to do anything about it? what does the runner plan to do if the defender attacks and so on. After all that it turns into Quantum movement for a while. if the
  6. That's actually not the case. In RQ3, SRs were explicitly made into a hybrid impulse/initiative system. In RQ2 they were explicitly an initiative system and RQG rolls back to RQ2. To be precise, RQ2 consisted of three different timing system. Melee SRs - used for determining who goes first in melee combat.[1] DEX SRs, used to indicate order of actions in non-melee combat. (i.e. missile or magic attacks) Movement: used for dealing with movement and actions that don't interact with combat. In general, if two combatants are not engaged in melee the idea is that they close
  7. Indeed. You see some of the same ideas in Mythras applied to damage: e.g. magic tends to increase the chance of you doing maximum damage not increase the amount of damage you do. Likewise modifiers tend not to stack, characteristics tend not to increase. Some variants have hard caps on skill values, Mythras by default tends to have a soft cap. It's fairly hard to increase your access to Magic Points. Lots of ways in which Mythras tends to have deliberately created narrower bounds to the game than standard BRP. I actually really like it. I find if the game stays within certain boundaries that s
  8. Back in the early 80s when I joined Edinburgh University's RPG society, it was split in half. Half played AD&D and half-played everything else except AD&D. (No one played D&D.) A small number of people crossed over. The society was even called "The AD&D and Roleplaying Society." I was of course in the non-D&D half and we all had an immense sense of our superiority. After all, AD&D was just roll-playing and 10th level fighter could survive a fall from orbit. How stupid was that!!?! I like to think (or at least I hope that) I have grown up since then. Admittedly I've
  9. I think this is an excellent approach and I really like it. Rather than having to manage your powers through book-keeping and efficient spending of resources (which I realise is a thing that some players enjoy) you focus on actually using them. Instead of making "stunts" something you have to succeed at with a negative modifier you can use your resources to achieve them. In that respect it follows the same logic as special effects which I think is an under-appreciated and fundamental innovation that the Mythras line has brought to BRP games.
  10. The DEX rank approach in Big Gold Book etc is much closer to a standard initiative system than the SR system in RQG. To generalise: With an initiative system, each character performs its action(s) on its initiative number. (There may be sub-phases in which all movement, all ranged attacks etc happen.) With an impulse system, a character performs its first action on impulse X, then each subsequent action happens y impulses later. Y is variable and depends on "how long" the action takes. Roughly speaking, an impulse system is action-based while initiative is character-based.
  11. In pure game mechanics terms that is precisely the issue. If you can attack and parry with a shield in the same melee round while still being able to attack with your main weapon then you always will providing you have the SRs. Failing that you will attack with shield and weapon then parry with your weapon, remembering that your chance to attack with a shield is the same as parrying. If you can attack with a cestus while wielding a 1-h weapon you will. It won't take long for the experience rolls to stack up. (I realise that there is a risk to so-doing which is a failed attack vs a successful p
  12. That is only in reference to a knockback attempt in Jason's post not a normal shield attack. (My bad because I think I managed to confuse the two rules.) Though it does of course depend on what is meant by dual wielding. If I have a cestus on my left hand I can attack with weapon and cestus but what about punching someone if (for argument's sake) my cestus fell off? Or sword plus chair-leg etc.? What this reminds me of is MRQ1 where a late change in the combat system wasn't properly reflected in the rulebook leading to all sorts of confusion. I suspect there has been some crossed
  13. Historically the answer to that is "yes." If you invest in a lot of off-hand training, your off-hand skill will eventually be better than simply using half your normal hand skill. (Technically you also need 1.5 times the normal DEX requirement but that is only DEX 10 (after multiplication) for Broadsword so not really a big deal.
  14. This is the biggest change to RQ2/RQ3 SRs since, well 1977. As a summary, providing you are wielding two weapons and have the SRs to use them you can attack with both them while still being able to parry/dodge. Shields are now considered to be a "weapon" for this purpose. The sentence in the rulebook page 219: "It is possible to attack with a shield, giving up the chance of parrying that round" is no longer true? At the risk of being philosophical - what else counts as a weapon? Something like a cestus? Presumably yes. A natural weapon something like a scorpion folk
  15. So just to be clear on this: If I am wielding two weapons then I can attack twice in a round without needing to split my attacks and can still parry? OR If I am wielding two weapons then I can attack twice in a round without needing to split my attacks but I cannot parry (or dodge) if I do this. I presume the latter. I also presume that this refers to attacking with two different weapons. i.e. I cannot wield sword and parrying dagger then attack twice with a sword (unless splitting.) Overriding the text in the rulebook, this is allowed with weapon and shield. Does this a
×
×
  • Create New...