Mikus

On 6/6/2018 at 2:04 AM, Jeff said:

One of the things I always wanted to see is the promise of the campaign glimpsed in RQ3 - a setting in a fantasy earth that goes from Vinland to the Indian Ocean. Where our Icelandic farmers might end up joining the Varangian Guard and fighting in the Levant or where a Persian poet might end up fighting trolls in the icy wastes of Greenland. Where Constantinople and Baghdad are the great metropolises, saints intercede on the battlefield, and old gods survive in their copses and hidden temples. A setting Harald Hardrada, Ibn Battuta, Benjamin of Tudela, or Michael Psellos might recognise. 

And as Creative Director of Chaosium, that's something I am making sure comes to life.

 

Is this still in the works or dead? BGB and Runequest Fantasy Earth seems to have been misplace.

21 hours ago, Mugen said:

On which basis did you do your conversion, and which STR value did you give your giants (if I understand correctly, the problem was with their strength, ) ?

The BRP Big Gold Book lists a STR 132 value for a 16 meter Giant. It's way past the points where even a human has even 1% chance of success arm-wrestling a Giant.

Was it an AD&D module ? If so, the 3-25 scale does not really scale well with BRP.

I checked D&D 5e SRD, and STR values for Giants are between 21 and 29. Considering a PC can have up to 20 Str, no matter what his species is, those are very low values...

3.5 giants have better stats, between 25 and 35.

Actually it was while looking at STR values, ENC and the resistance table where things seemed a bit wonky. ENC and what it indicates about lifting does not scale well with the RT. As in 132 vs 120 in ENC weight capacity in lbs opposed to 132 vs 120 on the RT.  Using the RT 132 vs 120 is the same as 32 vs 20 or 22 vs 10 or 13 vs 1.  Yet 13 vs 1 is 13x where 132 vs 120 is rounded to 1x.  All 12 apart and generating the same % chance of success/failure if I am correct.

Exponential gains in STR makes sense of this BUT ...ENC uses linear calculation.  If you do the ENC math it makes no sense.  The systems don't jive.   I just noticed discrepancy because it's the first time I dug into giants more that a passing encounter. 

I was using ENC weight as the gold standard so the RT in comparison is broken. Using RT and STR with exponential gains makes sense but trashes the ENC weight system. 

It was AD&D Against the Giants.

Now, use the RT with POW and it's the same thing. 132 vs 120 POW would create very similar spell fueling ability but 13 vs 1 POW is vastly different.  13x as much!

As long as 120 fights 132 with sorcery other than a POW vs POW battle his odds are about equal. If he enters POW vs POW he's is toast. 

Once again, the sub systems SEEM at odds at high levels. 

Rarely, if ever,  would I get anywhere near these levels but they become noticable soon after human norms.

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

My problem with your proposal is how different this is from everything else in the system, which uses percentages to determine chances of success.

I certainly can't argue with you here in your probably right.  The issue all came up when I was messing with converting the giants adventure from D&D tO RQ and funky things started to happen.

Have to fudge enough that it highlights certain underlying problems. 

17 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Well... sometimes you have to make you peace with all those systems (by that I mean the BRP ruleset) being a simplified model to resolve common conflict situation with good enough believability, flexibility, impartiality and expediency...

It's not very good at outlier... Now if your setting is full of outliers you might need to com up with your own extensions, or home rules...

True.  I love the system more than any other but still ponder if there are better ways without increasing complexity or ruining the feel.  Heck, RQ/SB/MW/CoC/BRP are all in the umpteenth edition each with minor tweaks including dropping the RT completely in some editions.  Bug fixing and contemplation is just part of GMing I think.

25 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

this particular segment is not silly at all. However strong you are, you buoyancy remains the same, i.e. the weight of water that your body displace minus your own weight!  

Well the swim STR relates to your towing STR if I remember correctly.  It uses SIZ for what you can support. Which is itself wonky because a dirigible would be easier to support than a tiger tank based on buoyancy yet has a far greater SIZ I would think.  In some ways linking SIZ to weight can create unusual problems. I wonder what the SIZ of a 1" cube of collapsed star would be?   One SIZ for weight and another for targeting purposes, unless it drew objects to it due to its own gravitational force. 😲

SIZ should have been left for fleshy critters and weight for weight I'm thinking.

ENC still muddies the waters however.  Looking at ENC I see 1 ENC = 1/6 of a SIZ point, or 2 lbs.  Encumbering weight is ENC = STR x 6, so 80 STR = 480 ENC and 88 is 528 ENC, or 960 lbs and 1056 lbs respectively.  The scaling is just way off between the ENC and RT systems and in no way does the ENC reflect +8 points = x2 previous value.    I'll have to check BGB to see if this was fixed but swim is still kaput.

You gave me some food for thought and a different looking at things.  I'll look at the BGB some more.  Mostly I use RQ3 and I don't think it has the same chart but I could be wrong. 

30 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

You are absolutely correct. Like I said, BRP is not as neat as HERO or GURPS when it comes to these things and sometimes will use a short cut that works at human level but that does not scale up. I suspect this is the case here.

And that was my reason looking into this in the first place.  Once you scale up above human norms things get a bit wonky.  But honestly its just an exercise really, as in game any human making a STR test with a giant is simply gonna loose.

I guess I can accept that it just seems odd that everything else would be, percentage wise, diminishing returns or linear except for direct STR vs STR comparison using the RT.  Like in arm wrestling.

By your statement an 88 STR means that 8 points of STR is worth 80 additional strength when compared to a character with 80 STR when they arm wrestle.  Yet only has the effect of 8 STR in terms of lifting.  Or am I wrong here?  Does a character with 88 STR have the ability to carry 2x the weight of a character with 80 STR?  Using the Swim skill as an example you can carry anything non-boyant up to your STR in pounds indefinitely.  So 15s 15p, 80s 80p, 88s 88p.   More weight than this and you make a STR vs SIZ roll.  To me this just doesn't scale well at all but math is not my strong suit.  Is there a STR table which shows this exponential increase like the Comparative Size Chart?  I do not see it but I could be missing it.

Now, I do see in the BGB the Comparative SIZ Cart and the doubling effect.  If STR vs SIZ is used in this way I could better see the logic.  But then the Swim example above still seems broken to me.  88 STR should be able to carry x2 of what the 80 STR can carry before using STR vs SIZ on the RT.

In the end its a game and no big deal I was simply exploring alternate methods.  Stats use xd6 and skills use percentage.  So nd6 for stat resolution and %d for skills seems fairly logical.  BRP already uses the nd6 for resolution of stats and damage, (or other dice combos), so using it for task resolution is not introducing anything new and matches bell curve of stats.

1 hour ago, DreadDomain said:

I was about to say just that. Someone with STR 18 is twice as strong as someone with STR 10. They succeed 90% of the time. Someone with STR 88 is twice as strong as someone with STR 80. They succeed 90% of the time.

The same logic is applied to all the characteristics.

By the way, the SIZ chart flattens after SIZ 90. I always thought it was a design flaw that becomes obvious with the resistance table. In my BRP, weight keeps doubling each +8 SIZ forever.

Are you sure?  By this logic a character with 88 STR should get twice the STR attack bonus and damage that an 80 STR character has. Hit points figured by SIZ + CON should also be doubled by each increase of 8 points each.  If not, then a single point of STR, SIZ, CON do not exponentially increase in value EXCEPT on the resistance table?    By this I mean on the resistance table each 8 point increase equals all the previous points. 9 is worth double 1, 68 is worth double 60, 88 is worth double 80 and 1008 is worth double 1000.  On the resistance table.  But in all other ways.. hit point calculation, endurance, damage adjustment, skill % modifier this is not true.  In all cases except the RT 2 is double 1, 68 is double 34, 88 is double 44 and 1008 is double 504. Each point is worth only 1 point in relation to any other 1 point regardless of what it is added or subtracted from.   That seems odd but perhaps I am missing something. 

11 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Because of the way experience and training works in BRP, I believe it is the perfect system to have separate attack and parry skills. I am fine with having them the same but having them separate makes a statement about your character fighting style.

And it is so easy to imlement.

Yes.  BRP skill experience defiantly promotes using the skill.  In real life I know fighters who are more prone to the 'rope a dope' wait for an opening defensive style and those who go full on berserk.  BRP allows for this beautifully and adds color and depth to characters based upon their actions in the game.  It really is an elegant system.  I'm just learning HERO and it rocks as well but doubles down on the crunchiness and promotes more dramatic, cinematic play.  Of all the systems I have ever tinkered with RQ3 still seems to be the best for 'realism' in terms of mechanics.  BGB is a great tool kit.

I like the resistance table ok but it doesn't seem to scale well.  Two beings, one with a 3 STR and the other with a 6 STR are separated by 15%.  Two other beings, one with a 15 STR and the other with a 18 STR are separated by 15%.  Yet 3 is 1/2 of 6 and 15 is 5/6 of 18.  I was thinking perhaps each being rolls nd6.  Whoever rolls under their characteristic and has the lowest roll wins.   The number of dice rolled being determined by the highest characteristic in the struggle.  Such as 18< = 3d6, 19-24 = 4d6, 25-30 = 5d6, etc.

This way a hobbit arm wrestling a giant is never likely to end well for the hobbit.  The bell curve of 3d6 makes 3 vs 6 heavily in favor of the 6 while 15 vs 18 is not nearly as bad.

Am I breaking the system or making it worse?

1 hour ago, DreadDomain said:

Mixing and matching RQ3, RQG and MW you could:

- Have skills by weapon categories (1h Sword, 2H Axe, Fencing weapons, etc.)

- Have half your best skill in similar combat style (melee, unarmed, missile, thrown)

You can do that even if you choose to have separate attack % and parry %.

 

Yes.  This is what I was thinking and better stated.  Thank you.  Most of my experience is with Stormbringer and RQ3.  I like the categories but I think any degree of melee skill would translate to some degree of skill regardless of the exact weapon.   Simply due to body mechanics, timing, general experience.  I also like separate attack and parry to cover instances such as a Warrior who nearly always enters combat by initially thrusting his spear at 'long' range hoping for an impale. Then leaving it in the opponent to hamper him and switching to sword. (as one simple example) Using a spear like this would allow you a spear ATTACK skill gain roll but your PARRY skill should not get better if you always manage to get the initial attack and never parry.   But this is a separate issue and was unfortunately argued in another post.

Someone who has 100/100 with a 1-h Axe would never have less than 50/50 when in melee using this system.  I like that.  It makes the general warrior more logical and battlefield ready while not taking away from the 'Master of the ......'.

Some people like attack/parry to have the same chance with each weapon.  Some like them to be separate.  This is an issue I have banged around before and people seem passionate on both sides and I don't really want to discuss that here.

What I do want to ask is how you handle basic attack and defense %s.  I feel a warrior skilled with a staff who has 88/83 should certainly not get these levels translated when fighting with a short sword but he should not fall back to his basic attack parry characteristic skill %s.  My thoughts are perhaps 1/2 your greatest skill percentage as a base for melee, thrown, missile, siege as long as you comprehend the basics of the weapon adjusted by the basic characteristic skill %..  Shooting a crossbow is really not that much different than shooting a rifle yet swinging a staff is very different than swinging a nun-chuck.   A bare knuckle boxer is not a knife fighter but either one would be able to translate some of his skill into fighting with the other.  So attack +11%, Dagger Attack 73% = 84% Dagger Attack. This would give a base 11+37 = 48% unarmed hand.  Of course, if your unarmed skill is greater than this you would use that instead.

Anyhow, just wondering how others treat this.

6 hours ago, Matt_E said:

In the first sentences, you make the same point that I do.

The answer to the second paragraph is, of course, "no".  The question is, how do we model this, and square that with (presumed or explicit) downtime activities?  If you like the RQ3 way, then I suggest you simply use those rules, or BRP.  If you want to otherwise use Mythras (which is a much better game), then simply change the way you hand out XP:  Use a character sheet with tick boxes as in RQ3, allow skill advancement only in ticked skills as in RQ3, and make every weapon be a separate Combat Style.

However, I always suggest (as you also have noted) that one actually try the rules as written before deciding that they simply must be changed.  Otherwise, one should wonder why one bothers to consider a new system.

I disagree with an absolute assertion that people are lazy.  Some people do more than the absolute minimum, and dedicate themselves.  We call them "winners", or in a hard RPG world, probably just "the living".  If you understand that your odds of getting the next bag of gold, or surviving the next battle, increase substantially through practice, then you'll practice, unless you are a great fool.  Some fools do succeed--the proof is all around us--, but I see them as the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

Yepper. My  repeating the point was just to establish that we agree that inclusive combat style with many weapons would be hard to take afield. And it would then follow hard to skill up with the missing ones.  I'm not sure why it is hard to model this as it was done very well since the early 80's.  Or so I thought. I know NASA says we can't go to the Moon because we no longer have the technology and misplaced all the telemetry, 🤔 but I still have my old BRP stuff and the BGB so fortunately the Van Allen belts and powerful engines are not an issue here.

sorry....I digress in musings.....

As for lazy I suggest you consider why communist societies tend to be dung holes and the massive growth of generational welfare over the last 50 years. Not everyone is lazy, to be sure, yet the masses certainly are less than highly motivated.  I'm not sure a Trump, Ford or Rothschild would consider us 99% to be in the driven - winner class.  And I doubt Trump, Henry or Mayer would be swinging the blade, they would hire some 'loser' to do the dirty work.  Its a view point.

Just out of curiosity, how many hours a day do you practice your profession when your off the clock?  Thats why the residential electrician never gets good with the bender.  He may do some extra study of what he needs, (will earn him more money and / or an easier job), but not what he never uses. That would be a waste of time and quite frankly, foolish.  My time is better spent honing my crossbow skills than my bow skill because I hung up my bow and don't use it.  Your assuming that because a combat style has spear in the name she would practice with it and I am assuming that if she never uses it she will decide her time is better spent practicing with the weapn she actually will rely upon.  Actually, I'm not assuming anything as the 'use or train it to gain' model has that covered.

But all this that aside you guys HAVE convinced me to try Mythras as is, and them tweak it if I like.  It's BRP at it core after all.

Thanks for the suggestions my friend and I do appreciate your point of view.

9 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

Sure*. It would just mean upping the page count (and cost) by 30%, laying out the entire book differently, and then doing all the attendant proofing, corrections, reproofing, errata handling, and so on. I realise that the request is only semi-serious, but the point of the second printing is to correct outstanding errata and add a little more like clarity here and there. We simply can't make wholesale changes without a significant investment of time and money.

*And with or without ligatures?

Ya...I kinda figured that.  Guess its a trip to the dollar store for a 3x cheaters.  But Raleel has it right.  All I need to do is use the PDF... but I'll print the charts for personal use.  How about a large font GM Screen?  Surely that is doable.  Hollow Earth Expedition did some real nice ones.  They would stop a speeding die from an irate player.

Could you please increase the font back to the RQ6 size.  I would gladly pay more for a book easy on the eyes.  Reading RQ6 is a pleasure,  Mythras is a coke bottle glasses torture for me. It really is hard on aging eyes as has been noted by many.

I spend $60-70 taking my kid to see some popcorn-coke-movie, so that on a nice big book like RQ6 is nothing.

I think some of my hesitation against gaming Mythras is the book is a bit painful to read.  Were I to play tomorrow I might opt for RQ6 simply because using the book is so much easier. That is a great layout as far as I am concerned.  I really do have trouble consulting the tables in Mythras.  PDFs are for printing, not reading, and I enjoy books.

Perhaps a Large Font Red letter version for us old farts?

Which also begs you guys to understand you are are talking to someone old, crotchety and set in his ways perhaps.  I'm talking about RosenMcStern here...😆

JUST KIDDIN!  Its me.  I like RMS.  Seems like he has quite a bit of valuable RQ exp and is always willing to help and offer suggestions. I started with SB when it first hit the shelves so my muscles might be a bit stiff but they are not completely rigid.  Ya never know, I might loosen up with enough good natured pummeling.

57 minutes ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

As Rosen McStern says, the idea behind Combat Styles is to better reflect the way warriors train in combat. Some styles will be weapon and technique specific (Fencing, for example), and such styles will include one or two weapons (sabre and foil, perhaps), along with a trait that applies to the training method. But for career soldiers and mercenaries, it's unlikely that you train in one weapon in isolation, and thus have the potential for wildly differing skill %s across weapons you practice with regularly. In Bernard Cornwell's Saxon and Arthurian novels, there are many descriptions of training or how warriors trained, and in all cases, combinations of weapons (spear, shield, sword) are routinely mentioned. But this is true of Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, Napoleonic infantrymen, and even modern day soldiers.

But of course, Your Mythras is Your Mythras (YMYM), and so we deliberately left combat styles quite vague, so that you can, if you wish, make them very specific or very open, as you prefer. The intention though, is to allow for groups of related weapons to be trained together to ensure continuing skill increase parity. Also notice that during character creation, characters have the chance to gain a cultural combat style, and then, when they choose a profession, perhaps one or more additional combat styles. The former reflects the kind of martial training one might gain in the formative years, while the latter includes the scope for increased specialisation as one makes a career of martial training.

Find the way that suits your style of play. Mythras supports it.

Lawrence,

First of all thanks for producing such a great game.  I am a collector and have 3 copies of MRQII, (a bunch of the supporting material),  3 copies of RQ6 slipcases, 2 soft covers and 1 hardbound.  2 copies of Mythras and 1 of Classic Fantasy, Monster Island, Mythic Bri, etc;. So I obviously think the work done by both you and Pete is exceptional as well as collectable and will increase in value over time.  My RQ collection is for more extensive than my actual time playing the game! lol  Have a beer on me!

In your example using Career soldiers and mercenaries I can accept because they are most likely forced to hit the training field and use the skills.  As long as the game as played supports that model than I would be fine with it because you are using the skill.  Basically you are stating that Combat Styles assumes that one is using the skills off stage whereas individual skills does not make any assumptions.  Skill checks actually forces you to express this in game play.  If this is the explanation I'm fine with that, but to say you level up 5 skills just because you level up is somehow more realistic,( even if you don't use it), than rolling for each skill actually fails the litmus test.  I wonder if the Soldier or Mercenary were to muster out and join a roving band of drunken, gold seeking adventurers if he would diligently train all his weapons on a daily or weekly basis or simple use his weapon when necessary?

Now lets think dungeon crawling adventure.  Think Hobbit or LOTR.  These guys went afield not with a wagon train packed with shields and weapons.  They were walking through swamps, dense forests, snowy mountain paths and underground labyrinths for a year or so. During this time our Hobbits went from dorks to fairly seasoned adventurers with a modicum of combat skill. Bilbo had Sting as did Frodo later.  Gandalf carried a sword and staff.  Aragorn Narsil but no shield if I remember right.  Boromir sword and shield. This is my point about game play and what do the characters actually use.  Now if you are playing a mercenary in the Black Company and Elmo is relentlessly drilling you than sure, because you are roleplaying that you are training the whole set. The Company has wagons full of various weapons and equipment.

As for Bilbo if he started the game of Mythras with Combat Style - Dagger and Shield would you give him increases with the shield skill at the end of the Hobbit adventure or just with the dagger?  To my way of thinking he could not have goton better with the shield because he did not even have one.  This is my issue with inclusive groups of disparate items regardless of experience.

From personal game experience I find the vast majorities of players are not declaring time spent training.  They are plundering graves, whoring, killing monsters or thieving.  Like the Grimoire skill where you can cast all spells in a book at the same level, even if you have never actually summoned that demon but were using the healing spell on page one.  For this I would either insist all spells in a Grimoire be of the same type..summonings, alchemy, etc; or I would think you need to actually learn and use the spell to get better with it.  Just the way I would represent it.

Thanks and I appreciate the way you always express yourself with eloquence and civility.  Its say a lot about you as a person.  Keep up the great work and when I play Mythras I'm sure it will support my style.

By the way, I waiting to spend money on Mythic Greece....................

11 hours ago, Matt_E said:

"In real life try entering combat with 5 or 6 various weapons.  Way too encumbering for adventurers."  -- I'm not sure I understand this remark, in the context of Combat Style.  Remember that just because your Combat Style has taught you to use a collection of weapons effectively, does not mean you carry or otherwise have access to all of those weapons at all times.

For example, in our game a Hunter will often have a CS that includes Longspear, but she probably does not carry that weapon into town along with the meat for sale...  In fact, she might not always bring it with her on the hunt, especially if e.g. she knows she will be on a long, tiring outing through dense underbrush, in search of smaller animals that do not require such a weapon anyway.

Likewise, social rules or societal laws may induce a warrior not to walk around town with a greatsword, even though he owns one and is trained in its use.  (We have discussed that idea with some frequency on the TDM forum.)

Finally, a character may be down on his luck and missing some gear, either because he lost it falling down a mountain, or had to hock it to buy more booze.  Finding a useful weapon during an adventure--say, in a boss fight, when you could really use it--becomes extra sweet, in that case.

I would not let encumbrance concerns dictate how many weapons you include in a CS.  If you want to group some weapons because it seems otherwise sensible to you, go for it.

 

If you are a deer Hunter do you go into the woods with a muzzleloader, spear, crossbow and 30-06?  All at the same time? Not me, I take one at a time into the field.  As most game adventurers spend the majority of time traveling in the field they do not load up the kitchen sink.  This ends up dictating actual use and thus increase in skill.

Will your hunter skill up with the spear if she spends all her time hunting with the bow?

Now, after a time I have, (in the real life world),  dropped everything in favor of the Crossbow and Muzzleloader because its easier to get and remain accurate with just one rifle and one archaic missile.  Get good with a 50 Cal Muzzy and for whitetail you do not need shotgun, 30-06, 44 Lever in lower MI.  The Muzzy is good for all gun seasons, reaches as far as you are allowed and packs a wallop.  Thus my Deer Gun Combat Style - Rifle, Shotgun, Henry .45, Muzzleloader is now simply Muzzleloader.  Due to actual use.  I thus my scoped muzzleloader skill has increased while I still cant use open sights on the .45 very accurately.  In real life, not a simulation.

Not condescending you just have your own opinions and I respect that.  I have no respect sheeple.

I can see most of these points and agree that the old experience check model is the one that appeals to me the most.  For reasons you stated.  Its like an electrician with a set of pipe benders in his car.  If he goes residential he never uses his benders compared to his brother who enters commercial.  Many of the initial set of tools and techniques, (battle training), remain the same but 3 years down the line Mr. Commercial kicks ass as a pipe bending fool while Mr. Residential remains a rank amateur with his bender.  Fighting is the same way.  If you become a close quarters house to house fighter that pole ax is gonna become a liability and will get discarded rapidly, thus no skill increase. Your brother guarding the palace gate may find this pole ax his favorite and most trained weapon thus discarding his shield in daily use and not really leaning on it heavy in training.  People are lazy by nature and will not train hard with things they  use regularly.  People who go to martial classes three times a week or SAC every weekend LOVE the training and are not the same as people who fight for a living.  For them it becomes a job and they train what they use, and what they use they get better with.  If these guys entered actual everyday real life combat in diverging situations, (glider pilot vs fighter pilot vs bomber pilot),  after 5 years there would be a disparity of skills based upon daily use.  Guarantee it.  Although all are pilots using the pilot skill think of all the various subsets based upon what each needs to know and deal with during their job. I'll stick with one Pilot skill as a simplification thank you!  I have no need for Glider, Fighter and Bomber Pilot skills but some people may feel differently. Now separate Sword Skill and Shield Skill is OK my wheel house.

This is divergence through actual use and old RQ models that better than levels or groups IMHO.  I think Mr. Average gamer who ends up following the path of sneaky infiltration VS front line tank can be easily convinced to hang up his kite shield and opt for a sai because he just can't conceal the shield.  Most of my players have a decent dose of common sense and I have never had to argue the 'You cant swing that 5' ax in this 3' corridor.  Perhaps I have been lucky though.

Although I get the whole training package concept actual experience and age has taught me that everyone diverges into specialization in every field over time. This is why at ProgramInc John is the goto guy for HTML, Pete the Obj-C and Cocoa guru, Lenny is our C# wizard while Jackie is the go to girl for PEARL.  Each came out of the same school and classes to become computer programeers and each went their own way once they got a job at ProgramInc.  They all learned BASIC and they all forgot it soon after getting a job. Now had two of them continued to use BASIC on a weekly basis they would not only not forget it, they would get better.  Experience checks.

At the end of the day either model is OK for a game but the simple, logical fact is that lumping skills together regardless of use and expecting them to increase in unison SEEMS TO ME simplification rather than an MORE accurate modeling of reality.

This said....

Simplification is not a bad thing, most of us look for it in every day life...the Easy Button.  But to say they this is more realistic I personally think is an apologetic rather than a fact.  I carry a knife every day and have trained with it but I have never used in actual combat it so my skill remains somewhat static and may be decreasing due to aging. I do wrestle and practice various MAs with my boy weekly and do get better with what I practice with, (excepting arthritis and other wounds rearing up to slow me down).

Nothing here is an attack on other ways of doing things, just my preference.  So far I have not found a valid point to contradict my position but for anyone who said, "Hey, it's a game and this just works better. Less bookwork and more fun." I would say perhaps you'll sell me. The Easy Button.  I love Monopoly but have never believed for a second it has any relation to real life...excepting when I have to pay exorbitant taxes or go to jail.  Stormbringer 1 was a wild ride.  D&D5 is a lot of fun and I play it with my boy.  RQ3 was my down and dirty simulation.

I do have Mythras, ( I'm a collector of systems and choice is not a problem...😛), and I will take your recommendation and try it RAW.  Perhaps I'll find it better, meaning more fun.

As usual thanks and I do value all opinions expressed in a friendly fashion.

I think I would actually stick to Combat Styles of either 1 weapon per hand, 1 weapon and 1 shield, 1 2-handed weapon,  Empty Hand and Weapon or Totally Unarmed. For two armed gents that is.  Kali is a different beast altogether.

Like Hand and Dagger, Short Sword and Buckler, Bow(2 hands), 2-Handed Axe, Unarmed, etc.  Loss of a weapon might not hamper skill % but would drop the benefit of whatever was lost. In Legend I think you also would loose a CA. (Two Hands style is two weapons after all!)

Hand and Dagger, (now basically Empty Hand), means no cutting pokey for you, and unless you switch to Two Hand style you are missing a weapon and thus a CA. Hand blows and grapples only.  The idea of something like Sword, Dagger, Spear, Shield and Bow style just grinds me.  If so I might just have 1 Handed Melee, 2 Handed Melee, Thrown, Missile and Siege categories. Something like RoleMaster.

I might implement Traits as sub-skills rather than inherent in the Combat Style.  Such as Silent Kill being a 'Trait Skill' that can be used with any reasonable Combat Style but you are limited by the lower of the Style or Trait.  As long as the Trait seams reasonable for the weapon. Then again not having actually played one of these MRQII gems, (and they do look like gems!),  I really could be talking out my backside. I suppose water fighting with a knife is quite a bit different than with a club.🤔

From my experience most players stick with 1 ranged weapon and 1 or 2 melee weapons, like sword and dagger.  In real life try entering combat with 5 or 6 various weapons.  Way too encumbering for adventurers.  Perhaps heavy infantry or cavalry but even then I a bit much.

I have other grognard ideas about RQ skills but I shall reframe from mentioning those because the peasants and townsfolk break out torches and pitchforks every time I do.😟 The irate pummeling I receive is Legendary even in Hell.  Feel like Trump as guest star on The View.    👺🤕  🐖 🐄

I was checking out RQC last night and looking over the DEF rules.  Seems like these might be exactly what I was looking for in terms of some average mook having nothing and someone with greater natural ability and experience have some innate defense.  That and possibly giving everyone a 15% kicker to all melee skills.  This would largely make it easier to hit said mook while keeping it closer to RAW against someone a bit above average, (15 DEF say), and someone with a greater DEF would offset this kicker into their favor.  Just a thought and I will have to run some combats both ways to see how the results differ.  I notice that  BRP direct decedents seem to have weapon dependent base chances while the MRII line does not. Having a Base Chance of DEX + STR for all Combat Styles gets you into the same range, albeit its a flat line VS the BRP approach of individual weapon granularity.

5 hours ago, g33k said:

I'd like to re-cast Mikus' OP..  As I see it, he's really asking a defense-oriented question, not an attacking one, so let's flip it.

I'm a highly-skilled fighter or martial artist.  Lots of Dodge, Parry, etc.

I am fighting a dangerous opponent, Omega, when one of two other foes (Able or Bozo) run up to ALSO engage me,  O is enough more-dangerous than A or B that I take NO declared actions to oppose either:  no parry/dodge/etc.  Nevertheless, A is notably more skilled than B is.

Realistically -- if the simulation of combat were realistic enough -- I would still be able to disadvantage Bozo's attacks more than I could Able's attacks, even with no "declared actions".  I could circle away, I could throw a feint to try to make them spend an action of Parry/Dodge; I could shift my stance so I seemed more-threatening; I could recognize an "about to attack" shift, and fall back; etc.  Skilled A would be less disadvantaged by this stuff; unskilled B would be "off his game".  Returning to the OP perspective -- A should have a better chance to hit me than B should, even though I'm not declaring a Parry or a Dodge.

All the combat systems under discussion (iirc) throw in some handwaves about how a combat-round presumes and subsumes a certain amount of moving-about, shifting stances, feints, probing moves, etc etc etc...  Stuff is happening between the telling blows & dramatic dodges.  That stuff -- even if it's "stuff" that includes no declared Actions -- is more effectual for more-skilled fighters (like me), and it's "stuff" that should keep Bozo from being as much of a threat as Able is, even if I never spend a declaration on either one of them.

g33k! You pretty much nailed it. Thanks.  Sorry I was unable to express my original concern more clearly and then I got off track.  My old mind wanders.

Yes, my skill against a noob OR a trained fighter should be modified, either up for the noob or down for the fighter.  Because forgoing active Parry or Dodge used to be covered in RQ1&2 with the Defense Skill as a modifier to the attack roll rather than a separate roll. If I remember rightly.  I believe, (not know), they dropped this as a simplification.  In the 30% case though it would really suck as then you would be lucky to ever hit anything alive at all.  

But if Attack skill was a minimum of 50% and Defense starting at DEX + INT mods, raising at a slower rate than other skills, it would address this concern nicely.  Perhaps top that DEF at DEXx3.

Example: Attacker has 75% - noobs 8 DEF or Bad A$$ Fighters -25 DEF.  Much more likely noob is gonna opt for an active defense.  Sorry about the fire wood though, having no DEX and INT means no DEF mod. 😏 In normal conditions its an easy or no roll task, just roll damage per wood chop.  But at night in a storm roll my Ax skill.  I suppose you could always roll just for a fumble check to make sure you did not strike off a toe or send a peice of wood flying into your choppers.  (Done that second one I'm sorry to admit).🤕

Lovely...What ya think?  Too much extra math?  Unbalance the game?

22 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Just remember that Combat Styles are variable, that is to say that you and the players decide what they are before you start play. They can be as simple as "Sword and Shield", or as inclusive as "Roman Legionary" or "Shao Lin Monk" fighting styles. Appropriately adjust for desired level of crunch.

SDLeary

I choose 'All Inclusive' style with a trait of '1 hit 1 kill' please  😀

14 hours ago, Nick J. said:

I guess if you take only the narrowest interpretation of the rules, then it's not explicit, but attacking a "defenseless" opponent is an "easy" roll in the RAW. How the victim of an attack gets to "defenseless;" either because they've run out of parries/dodges, or just choose not to parry/dodge (for some crazy reason) doesn't seem all that difficult to draw a line between the two concepts. As for your D&D character example. needing to get a 10+ on a D20 roll is 55%. Sure some characters will have bonuses from Strength, etc.but it's not an average of 75%.

 

What I meant was a level 1 guy has a 55% when the opponent is actively defending because D&D assumes it is so, rather than BRP systems which have an opt in Parry or Dodge.  I'm sure BRP is not assuming you are just standing there waiting to receive a blow, you just did not go full monty on the defense. When you consider the D&D assumed defense adjustment as opposed to called parry /defend than my final 55% must have been at least 75%. This assumes he only has 20% defense.  If his defense is 45% I must have a 100% base attack against someone just standing there, (to get the 55%), which is the HackMaster 5 way.

7 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

It also depends on how the BGB models combat. In Mythras or Revolution, Joe the Fresh Axeman would have two or three opportunities per round to hit a target which does not defend, so even with a skill close to 50% the chances of not spilling blood would be much lower. Not to mention that the BGB has a round length that is double that of Mythras or RD100, thus the correct comparison would be one blow in BRP vs. 4 or more in the other systems (probably 6 if Joe has a semi-decent DEX). As you can see, a more detailed combat system is a good antidote to this "whiff factor".

Seems like Mythras might represent my thoughts better although combat rounds with multiple actions are really just chunks of individual actions rather than descreet actions themselves.  Still, any individual swing with a 30% skill will miss more than 3 out of 4 times unless he defends, then its gets worse.  Perhaps Combat Styles with groups of weapons trained as a unit might make it less likely to start with such low percentages as well???

Certainly this issue is not a fatal flaw in my mind,  just something I have been pondering.

As always, thanks guys!

Thanks guys, this helps put it in a perspective I can accept.  Sometimes if I can't grock the concept it nags at the mind.

I really like the RQ6 - Mythras presentation but need to hash out some of the differences to go forward.  Next I'll tackle the Combat Style thingie.  That has me warding myself with a cross and garlic.

But I feel better now.....