Mikus

Thanks guys, While I can see all of these points the RAW do not state that if an opponent chooses not to parry or dodge than my paltry 30% should go to 100% or that it becomes an automatic backstab or easy task. No, it remains an unmodified 30%. I'm not talking about a guy sticking his hands up, just not performing parry or dodge. Do we just assume that the default 70% to miss is due to my lack of skill and the stress of combat? If so, I can roll with that it just seems HIGH!!!! As fo 40% being 'I think I know what I am doing' and 60% means 'really, really good' I still fail almost 1/2 the time against some noob who is not even actively defending so perhaps not really very good at all? Perhaps everyone should start with a minimum 75% attack which could then be resisted or not. Old D&D 1st level characters against an unarmored foe had to roll 10, (or maybe 11) on a d20 to hit. This is against someone assumed to be actively defending. That means they must have had 75% or higher to hit against someone not defending I would think??? In BRP having low weapon skills unless specifically trained is a standard. If you check some old character sheets I'll bet many seasoned characters have low skill with an ax or stick, preferring to advance with sword and dagger. As for a glancing blow on the wood I think that is why armor deflects damage. The damage roll is for glancing, (1 point), or full contact, (6 points). The 30% means hit wood or 70% miss wood when chopping. Do you really miss the hunk of wood 70% of the time when your chopping or simply hit it 95% of the time but roll low damage because your not very good at it yet? I would think the latter is more likely. Anyhow, just running this through my logic filter and I do appreciate the thoughts. BRP is great but this is one of the main issues with skill based systems which turn off many players. I'm trying to conceptualize in a way that cannot easily be disassembled and discarded as illogical. Its a game but I must admit this seems a valid clunky spot. And yes, lets hope all my foes forgo Parry and Dodge!

Just wondering how you guys conceptualize and handle this. In real life against someone not actively defending I would hit him every time with a stick. Whack, whack, whack! Now, lets say in BRP I have 30% with my stick. I attack a trained martial artist who is aware but he decides not to parry or dodge. I have a 70% chance of missing. I then attack someone who has never fought or trained and he decides not to parry or dodge and I once again have a 70% chance of missing. It can't logically be their ability to avoid the attack without opting for a full on defense, (like parry or dodge), because if so I should have a harder time hitting the martial artist than the noob. As in miss the MA 70% of the time but the noob only 40% of the time. RQ2 had Defense to simulate this but it was dropped in RQ3 and I don't think ever reinstated. If I remember right in Stormbringer everyone was always able to parry or dodge and that kind of blended well with the idea of overall defense. You never really decided not to defend because you had multiple parries or dodges. Thus your skill at defence was always in play. if someone was prone or KO you would get a modifier to hit and be far less likely to miss but otherwise the chance of missing someone who is simply aware can be really high. In HackMaster 5th you always hit in a melee attack unless the defender rolls higher or you fumble. If you cannot, (or choose not to), defend then pray your armor is enough or the attacker fumbles. This seems to me more sensible and realistic. I think in Mongoose Conan you most overcome his base defense with the defender having the option of actively parrying or dodging to increase your chance of missing. But each character / creature has a variable base defense based upon class, level, etc;. Any thoughts?

Thanks Raleel, I guess I can roll with that. Something about it still bugs me and I guess its because the leaning, ducking or side-stepping is not taken into account at all once the weapon size difference becomes too great. Thus the main component is really my weapon altering the path of his weapon. In RQ3 you could Parry, which was mainly a block as damage was reduced by a set amount per weapon. Dodge was leaning, ducking or side-stepping footwork as you either succeeded or failed. I suppose that is why they make Evade such a radical manuever which always equals hitting the dirt and going prone. It seems they have combined RQ3 Parry and Dodge into Parry and added Evade as a new 'Oh Shit' maneuver. I'm actually OK with that conceptualization. I think. It is weird to think I can succeed in my parry but gain absolutely nothing due to weapon size. I understand if I get a crit and he does not I can augment the parry with a maneuver which may stop some of the damage, but it seems using the parry option with a dagger against a longsword is functionally insane. The result of 'fail completely on success' makes it appear far less footwork oriented and much more blade vs blade. Thanks!

Perhaps I misunderstand parry but lets say a swordsman using a broadsword has a DM or -1D3 and another swordsman using a broadsword has a DM of +1d8. In either case I successfully parry with a similar sized weapon I avoid all damage, correct? What if the weapon has +5 bladesharp or is a +2d8 demon weapon, (al la Strombringer type magic)? This can't simply be because of weapon threat forcing the foe to choke on his attack, (and miss completely), else why would a small weapon allow for only 1/2 damage reduction? They should have also choked as getting skewered on a gladius is no more fun than a longsword. It seems to me that a reduction of damage as in the earlier systems makes more sense but perhaps I am missing something. My main concern is that parrying Conan's punishing blow is no more difficult than the Grey Mousers, all other things being equal, (skill chance and weapon type that is). If not a block then parry should simply mean you managed to avoid getting hit period I would think. Anyhow, the problem may simply be in my conceptualization as I am thinking in terms of RQs block x damage and SBs avoids the blow.

Hello, I am looking for the Legend Logo pack, which from the broken link have I cleverly deduced was a zip file. Old link - http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/leglogopack.zip Does anyone have a working link to the logo pack?

Just downloaded mine and it looks so great I think I could be easily persuaded to play in Glorantha. Which is a first. The book oozes with flavor, the images are very nicely done. Awesome job gents and I will definitely be adding the slipcase to my collection. Now if only I could get the Horror on Orient Express boxed set to go with my CoC Slip Case which is also a thing of beauty. (reprint please as $500 on eBay is a bit much). Chaosium is really turing out some 1st rate goodies IMHO.

I’m just kickin back in perfect humility and agreement with the BGB, also known as the ultimate resource and Bible of BRP. The Tome of Glorious Righteousness. We are here amongst the Old Guard. Heroes such as RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, SB, HM and a few others. Yep, just upholding truth, justice and the American way against the socialist march towards a totalitarian system where one skill covers all. Being myself magnanimous to each his own I say, I was simply expressing what We the People had stated and believed in before the Stalinists and their handlers took control of the schools, media, government and Department of RPG Consensus. Enjoy your system Comrades, I think I’ll hold out with the Old Guard and await the twilight. But in all seriousness have fun, thats what ultimately matters when playing a game. Just finished some reloading so I'm going to the woods now to hone my actual skills with a Henry 45 lever action beauty. 9.5 grains of Unique under a 255 garage cast lead RNFP. But I'll wont be parrying with it cause like my katanas and various keris it is way to pretty to abuse in such a silly fashion. - sorry, just being silly. Chow guys! and.... Styopa, This I agree with whole heartedly. Which is why I am looking into Mythras. But it appears that quite a few people say combat runs slower due to making all the special effect choices. I have no personal experience with this as I have never played it. Most of my groups were about 3 players so combat never really ran slow and having a different skill for attack and parry was a non-issue where speed was involved. Your right, the realism vs speed/simplicity of play is something each group has to deal with, (Remember C&S?). Back in the day most of my players thought SB1ed hit the sweet spot as a system. Elric! lost something for me.

Simon, I was trying to point out that you are glossing combat into a system where I am more focused on individual components within the system. Granularity is what set RQ apart for me. As for discussing HEMA training thats just fine but I have cited other forms of combat where attack - parry is not a single skill with a single weapon and you have avoided those. HEMA training is not the beginning nor the end. I also bet an average HEMA guy who looses his sword and pulls out a dagger will be at more of an offensive disadvantage than an defensive disadvantage, although I certainly agree that one strongly affects the other. Here is something I grabbed from Basic Role Playing 4th Edition from Chaosium itself. Page 199. This while trying to determine why the designers changed their mind. It is apparent that at least this guy has the same basic take on it that I do. Simplification rather than being more reflective of real life. This is all I could find but certainly don't claim there is nothing elsewhere in the BGB that says combining Attack and Parry was done to make it more reflective of reality. BGB 4th Ed Page 199....... It is also recommended that the parry skill for missile weapons (parrying with a bow, for example) begin at 1/2 your character’s initial attack skill rating. For shields the attack roll should begin at 1/2 your character’s initial parry skill rating. For example, most training with a rifle or longbow focuses on the proper use of the weapon, rather than hand-to-hand combat with it, while shield training similarly focuses more on parrying than attacking. ...... Notice specifically the sections I highlighted. This is almost exactly the point I have been making from day one and is gloriously codified within the BGB. I should have simply went to the source first and let the game speak for me but was too lazy to look it up. Point here is that these game designers put this in as a option where combat detail is of greater focus, such as hit locations vs a 'bucket of hit points' ala Kentucky Fried. And your right, it would be very hard to persuade me otherwise but I certainly admire your tenacity and am sure you feel as strongly about your point as I do about mine. That I both admire and appreciate. As for this point I think we beat the crap out of it and if anything it has made me consider deeply how I would portray combat styles in Mythras and must admit I am totally unsure how I would go about doing so. I would be happy to run into you someday, I'm sure we would drive each other crazy. : ) Mike

That right there is funny. Let me give you an example with a real life tool that gets used every day. At work I often need a multimeter. It measures volts, amps and resistance. With your scenario skill in the VOM Multimeter should be the same for taking any of the 3 readings but over the last 34 years I have found nearly all techs can take a voltage reading but most cannot take a resistance reading correctly and never have taken a amp reading in the field. I see it all the time. So I would split these into 3 skills for 1 device. They often have 90% Volt, 70% Ohm, 5% Amp. Why? Because thats the way they actually use it regardless of training in a class environment. I like the fact that RQ made you actually use or specifically train to get an advancement. This was part of the advertisement which separated BRP from D&D. I love D&D but I want my RQ different, or why not just play D&D? New versions of RQ are certainly moving towards a more one size fits all mentality. You no longer need to actually use the skill in game to advance and I can make a style called Dagger, Spear, Shield and Axe where my attack and parry chance is the same regardless of what I happen to be using in that combination. Even if in the game I never actually use the spear, -- D&D style. My performance is identical with axe and shield as it is with dagger and shield regardless of how often I use the combo? This just don't make any sense to me. Is it really that odd to think a person who normally uses a shield/sword combo might have Shield 80% parry - 70% attack and Sword 80% attack - 70% parry? This is how I normally saw it work in BRP and it seems completely logical. I'm sure some freak scenarios could happen but where you got endless cockamamy rolls but I never saw it happen in the game. I am using extremes with the 'never use' scenario but it is to make a point that you are assuming whereas old RQ did not need to make any assumptions. It came out organically in the wash. I guess we could as well assume that because a dagger can be thrown that the user has trained and do so, thus we should combine attack, parry and throw for dagger into a single skill - Use Dagger. Also, when in combat I may need to resort to kicking, hand blows, elbows, knees and grappling so these should all be rolled in and smoked together as well. So we just added grappling and brawl into my dagger mix. Or how about that water buffalo? His attack and defense skill must be equal. Same for a jelly fish. In old RQ a jelly fish might have a 70% chance to sting you in the water but no parry or block whatsoever. I thought this worked quite well as a reflection of reality. If you assume that a man's mode of combat is some all encompassing offense/defense blob you must pass that on to any creature or make very specific exceptions for each and every condition. I must say though, never having played RQ6-Mythras I would be interested in seeing how judges handle sitiuations where a player is forced to use style in a manner he never has before in the game. Such as "Oh crap, I dropped my axe and my shield just broke so now I am fighting with spear and dagger. Gee wiz I'm glad this is exactly the same as when I was using my axe and shield." One last point is that fighters of all sorts study their opponents to look for specific weaknesses in their offense and defense. Do they have a weak side. Do they favor a certain mode of attack or defense. These openings are exploited all the time by experience fighters. Some people fight defensively waiting for a mistake to reveal an opening while others charge right in attempting to absorbe and overwhelm. These nuances seem lost to me in the one skill fits all mentality.

Something else I really enjoy about separate attack and parry skills. Now this is real game play and made perfect sense. A player in Stormbringer had a demonic shield with a +20 parry and a CON rating of something that made it unlikely to break. Because of this, no matter the weapon he was using, he always parried with the shield. He ended up with a high parry percentage with his shield but not so much with any of his weapons. Even if this shield were to be lost his reliance, (skill %), upon a shield would have made him seek even a mundane one to replace it rather than simply switch to defending with his sword. Once when he had to enter combat without his favored and much relied upon shield, (due to a foul gamemaster who was lurking in the wings, awaiting the proper time to leverage this deficiency), he found himself severly disadvantaged defending with his sword, because he had failed to train or use his weapons defensively. This disadvantage due his to reliance upon a magic shield played out well in the game but never would have if attack and parry were synonymous. Its situations like this which make the separation of Church and State work so well. This player learned his lesson and began training and actually using his sword to parry. First against lesser attacks but later with more confidence. He still always preferred his shield, and reasonably so, but my leveraging his disadvantage made for both entertaining, (for me), and realistic game play as well as pushing him to close the gap. He realized that if he permanently lost his shield he was sorely out of balance as a swordsman and this rectification became a motivating factor in the game, just as it would in real life. Not sure how this would have played out in RQ6-Mythras with Combat Styles but in Elric!, (gods I hate the '!', I always feel like the author is yelling at me!), it would not have played at all except for the loss of the specific advantages of that particular shield. Because combat is such a huge part of RQ, (I don't remember a chapter devoted to dancing or courtly love), I actually feel that a finer granularity than with other skills is fitting and proper. Others obviously feel differently, I understand, and thats o-key-doh-key. I'm currently looking at the magnificent cover of RQG and enjoying the image of the young lady who is holding the beast at bay with her shield while getting ready to deliver a baldesharpened blow with her sword. Yet I am wondering why she did not choose to use the sword to brace up the beast while bashing with the her shield.....strange.

Well now my fanny is red, mister smarty pants...... I guess it depends on where one get ones 'real' world experience. So why not just use the sword and dump that clumsy shield at home? Defending is absolutely part of combat but many, many people have varying levels of offensive vs defensive skills. A shield parries quite well naturally by design and restricts certain points of access by position alone. To assume that someone who normally uses a sword and shield will be just as effective in offense if he forgets his sword at the brothel is silly. Now, if you show up everyday with only a sword, (kendo perhaps), you will use it both for attack and parry and will most likely develop a balance but if you use a sword shield combo there is a reason for that paired combination and I'll let you ponder that one based upon their design functions. There are also 'tanks' who never really learn to defend well because they just plough down their opponents, like a hill giant with a tree stump. They take the hit. Do you really think an fully armored knight needs to parry as desperately as a rapier wielding musketeer? Especially when astride a charging war horse. So why not use two shields? Damage potential you say...then surely two swords is the way to go? Yes? Yet why is that not the normally favored combination? Because a shield is simply one of the best ways to defend and a sword is better for poking someone in the belly. Remember the original authors based the original rule sets on their SCA 'real' world expertise. Failing to complain about a change is not the same as agreeing to it. Many people detest the changes brought about by political correctness yet fail to puke in public. (See the Trump election😏) And if they changed their mind...changing one's mind is not necessarily the same as moving from incorrect to correct. We might also mention that many styles of sword fighting avoid clashing blades and rely upon body taijutsu, moving the body to avoid the blow. These schools do not parry, they dodge and strike. So why would a master of taijutsu and and tanto be just as good parrying a battle ax with his tanto as slashing someones throat with it? Is it conceivable your 'real' experience fails to encompass all styles of combat? Or how about a little known art of fighting with the keris where the wooden scabbard is used to parry the wrist of the attacker and the blades never clash. Try it and you will soon learn why you don't do it. In RQ3 terms the keris should have about 2 AP. You can slice with your keris across the attacers wrist or skewer it, but you never parry. This is a simultaneous counter attack, not a parry. Now if you like to combine this all into one skill or style called 'Keris fighting ', thats ok. Perhaps its is even superior to separate weapon skills. But losing the scabbard should cause the loss of some ability to parry. As for: "The hypothetical one trick pony that only ever fought one way is really a rather artificial and ridiculous caricature." No one ever said this so this is simply a straw man. I said you get good at what you do which is well expressed in RQ2 and RQ3 as it stands. Use it or Lose it.....(or don't get it at all) If you attack with your dagger, then with your sword, then PARRY with your sword you get to roll gains for D-A, S-A, S-P. Simple. If you parry with a shield and attack with a sword your get to roll for Sh-P, S-A. In training with a sword you would most likely train both offense and defence and thus RQ2-3 gives you gain rolls for both. This is so natural, logical and well thought out that it bewilders me why anyone objects to its rationality except from a 'its too fiddly' POV. If you like to simplify things thats OK but saying it is the most 'real' representation and to think otherwise is ill informed or incorrect is poppycock. RQ you get gain rolls about once a week or so. If you attack with your sword 10 times but only parry once you would still only get one gain roll for each skill and might only increase with parry! If you actually use both skills in the game you will normally achieve your perceived equilibrium over time but for someone who NEVER USES A SKILL he will simply not get improvement rolls. No assumptions needed. It simply is part of the mechanics in RQ2-3. I don't have to assume that my assassin gets better with all somewhat related skills as he 'levels' up. No, he has to actually use each skill if he wants to improve. Once again, D&D vs RQ in the 80's. Believe me...I was there. I could argue, (and I did), that you might as well take it to the D&D level where a Fighter, (your 'real life' multi-trick pony), can attack and parry just as well with everything he might lay his hands on. Attack with the kitchen sink.. no problem. Roll Brawl for attack. Same as when you parry with that Gutenberg bible. Just like D&D originally did and one of the main reasons many liked the divisions in RQ. It's a sliding scale and like any other gauge the degrees of divisions depend upon your desired resolution and ability use them. Carpenters think 1/32th of an inch is tight while machinists start working somewhere in the thousandths. Both 'real' life, both correct, both different worlds. I do both. So there.... (tongue sticking out). 😛 😘 But in all seriousness this is one of those things you must decide for yourself and being a simulation you decide what works best for you. Someone said "Chasing reality in a game is a losing proposition" and I reluctantly agree with this wisdom. It all comes down to what you and your gamers like best and I personally like and agree with separating attack and parry. Consensus in San Francisco is a bit different than in Detroit so consensus as an argument is no more than citing the agreement of some 'group' and does not in itself indicate truth, logic, wisdom or anything else except the particular groups consensus. From my POV .....At the end of the day those who had the most fun are the ones who did it best. Chow my friends and I will respectfully maintain

right on baby! 😀

I walked into the Brigade Shop and there on the shelf was bright shiny red box with Strombringer in a kick ass font and one bad ass looking Elric holding the Black Blade aloft. It had all the dark sex appeal of a Nazi Flag just screaming "Touch me, I dare you." Like a Panzer amongst a flock of Shermans it dominated the field before me. Instantly I had to have it. I had read Elric, Hawkmoon and Corum and even if I hadn't the ominous presence of the magnificent 1st Edition boxed set had sealed the deal. There was no option except to bring this bad boy home and stun parents and siblings alike. It had that presence. Crooning with delight I forked over the required greenbacks, all my allowance had provided over the past several weeks, into the outstretched palms of the balding merchant of delight and sped home with this portal to fantasy cashed safely upon my ten speed. Once we played the system we were shocked at the PC death toll and overwhelming brutality of sorcery and combat alike. We loved it! *Sorcery was something to be feared and which felt like the dread one should have when facing something otherworldly and beyond mortal ken. *A sword through your guts made for a very, very bad day. *Resurrection was possible as long as you did not mind being a slave rowing some foul chaos war galley. This was not our grandma's RPG! Balance you cry? That be for wusses me lads! One player rolled up a smokin Sorcerer from Pan Tang and played it to the hilt. He inflicted more PC death than anything else in any of my games...ever. Not that this was a good thing in itself, but it was unique. Once he bound a water elemental into his 'friends' canteen which drowned him after washing down breakfast. This simply because he decided his friend could possibly become a threat down the line. Being a sadistic megalomanic he was fine with PC underlings but anyone who was advancing too much for his liking was soon targeted. In time this would culminate in his demise at the hands of the players. He found that even though he was encircled with demonic protection and elemental servants that he still could be put down with a well timed sword thrust. Everyone has to visit the watershed sometime, right? Balance finds a way. D&D was never like this! For some reason Stormbringer both allowed and promoted actions that could be anti-heroic yet oh so entertaining. Why did the assassinated, tortured and betrayed PCs keep coming back to the game and playing beside this tyrant? Because it was intense and you did not want to miss a lick. He was an unholy terror and they wanted to be a part of this epic, even if it meant they might be sacrificed during some ritual. (One or two were) This campaign was a cruel one driven by this one player but I tell you only in this game, with this system could this have been so well executed. The stars were aligned! Once this campaign ended we found the system supported all kinds of play but was admittedly best suited to mundane campaigns where magic was scarce or its dark polar opposite. I have often thought that by simply nailing on some variant modes of magic and culture one could easily play in the world of Conan, Glen Cook's Black Company, Dread Empire or any other setting where magic is something other than milk and toast and combat is serious business. We had tried RQ2 but did not get into Glorantha and at the time it seemed a bit cumbersome for what it offered. For some reason RQ3 has much more appeal to me as a system but came at much later date. Yet for dark, demonic vampiric dark, Stormbringer 1st edition was it. Later editions gave up this intensity for the sake of balance and thus lost the wild dread and darkness that made 1st edition exceptional. While others editions may be technically better they lack the mood, style and feeling that only comes when prying open that old red coffin of a 2" deep box and beholding the glory that is the red and white book. The updated magic was for me nothing more than pouring water into wine. If you have never held one of these 1st Edition beauties you have missed something. For me it was a feeling and style unique in an ocean of similitude.

I think you said this great. I feel in many ways RQ3 came closer to fulfill the promise that was RQ2. Now everyone is trying to return to the D&D mentality even if they fail to recognize it themselves. Combining parry and attack into a single skill for example. So if I use a sword and shield and always parry with my shield and attack with my sword I still advance in parry skill with my sword and attack skill with my shield? This is a simplification. If you like it, fine. Trying to defend it won't get any traction with me but the D&D guys lurking in the wings will love you for it. Or how about combat styles where several, (or even all if you like), weapons can be lumped under a single skill for both attack and parry. This is really not much different from D&D under Greyhawk. This is Ok if you like it but not what got everyone crooning about RQ in the first place. Perhaps few were there at the time to remember what made RQ different from D&D. Not that D&D was bad, we loved it. But RQ was for people who wanted more 'realism' and a classless system. How about the trend to allow you make skill improvement rolls for whatever you want. The RQ promise was skills advanced ONLY through training or actual use in game. Not because you gained another level, (i.e. completed this weeks adventure session). Although there is much to like about current RQ iterations there is certainly a convergence between RQ and D&D. And if that is the trend, then why not just play the one which is most supported and ubiquitous? RQ3 handled skill advancement brilliantly and simply I still have not found anything I like better. If you like Glorantha that is just fine but RQ3 opened the doors for those who wanted to play in all the other endless realms apart from Glorantha, and yet still be able to play in Glorantha. Separating setting books from the core rules is just good marketing I should think. The book being 'souless' was not a fault, but a feature of RQ3 that RQ2 lacked. How about them apples? LOL The soul was supplied by the GM and player's imagination. Lacking an imagination or simply being enamored by an existing setting a GM could always get setting books sepeately. The 'RQ2 is better because of Glorantha' guys who bemoan RQ3 are actually saying that I should have to pay for stuff I don't want and will never use. Or perhaps just stick with D&D I guess? They also seem to forget that RQ3 actually did include Glorantha material in the set. The rules were divorced but there was still quite a bit of Glorantha packaged in. No other settings were included by default so I think this is a very odd complaint. Anyhow, after all these years I still think RQ3 shines. Some minor tweaks would have been nice but MRII and its derivatives really are moving along a different, and more cinaramic trajectory from what made RQ3 so different from everything else. Not a bad or inferior trajectory, just different.

"The rules say clearly that you have to be in a stress situation to get a check. MJSadique implied that beating a target that does not fight back implies no danger in any case. And this is perfectly reasonable: if the bully misses, he can strike again next round, there is no scanario in which he gets hurt, even in case of failure. In the case of the assassin, if he misses he is knee deep in s**t: the target will call the guards. It is rather clear that the level of stress is almost absent in one situation and very high in the other, so the two examples are not comparable" The bold above is text wrong in my opinion. What if the guy ducks the bat and attacks back? Perhaps he has a gun or knife or is Bruce Lee. How about the patrons mob him? Certainly he may be countered and assaulted in return. The bat-man example seems to offended some peoples idea of honor, a fair fight, the stress level or what have so you there is a logic disconnect about the point I am making. Lets try another.... Lets take the Draw - Cut - Dual (I shall avoid terms like Iaido). You draw a sword and cut. Fastest guys cripples or kills his opponent. No defense except getting the first blow in. Now is this honorable, non-cowardly and stressful for everyone? If so does the winner of the Attack get to make an experience roll? In RQ3, yep. Does he parry or evade? Nope. Does get a Dodge or Parry experience roll? Not in RQ3 but in the one-skill-does-all way of thinking he absolutely must. Because in that way of thinking no melee attack can happen without also defending. So after my man Miyamoto wins 100 duals and becomes a master, (99%) of Attack he also is at 99% Parry or is it 99% Dodge? Now someone is going to say fast cutting with a katana against another opponent is different from two rapier dualists facing off and the fastest one skewiring the other, but I will never agree for a functional standpoint. It the dualist makes a parry-attack he gets to roll for exp with both. If he only strikes, just for the attack. Simple. Is this somehow different from getting the first shot in with a dagger, sword, hand, bat or what have you and ending the fight before having to defend? Nope. Bottom line is I think RQ3 represented the skills well, you don't. Either way its a game. I suppose someone might think Pilot and Navigator should be the same skill because they are a private Cessna pilot. A C-130 pilot in WWII and up to at least 25 yrs ago, by my knowledge, depended upon his navigator and the navigator normally was not a pilot. Separate skills entirely. Now....I could be convinced that something like Indonesian kris fighting makes a good Combat Style because the defense is built into the attack. You never parry with your blade, you attack the incoming attack. So the 'parry' is the attack. (At least with the style I am referring to). This I could easily agree on as a combo attack/parry skill and would concede the point. But this poor dog has been beaten and I will just agree to disagree on this point. I do respect other opinions but for myself I feel it is reductionist past the a level I agree with,. Same as Pilot = Pilot, Navigator, or Athletics = Brute Force, Climbing, Jumping and Swimming (Yep, that was a single MRQ skill both written and defended by someone). Thanks guys.

Your right! I was seeing Mugen and reading Murgan.

Ya.. and even today when I am told 25% I don't think of 25 slices of pie out of 100 slices, I think of 1/4 of the pie. Back in the 'old' days we would would have rolled 1d4, but thats because we were stupid fools and did not have specials and critical. Hell, we did not even have hit locations. I'm talking archaic. You were just one big, fat blob of HP. When told 1cm I think a little less than 1/2" and a meter is about a yard. I know this is because I am old, ignorant and set in my ways. Therefore perhaps todays kids do function differnetly. If I moved to a 10% critical system with no specials I would kick around the idea of doubles being a critical or fumble based upon if it is a success or failure. 37% chance means 11, 22 and 33 are critical and 44, 55, etc a fumble. 11 is always a critical and 00 always a fumble. I know this pumps the fumble chance a bit though. Not sure if there are other downsides. As for the critical die, yes, 1 = critical, 2 = special, 19 = auto miss, 20 = fumble. regardless of success or failure but it replaces math with yet another die. BTW - Is your name from the Black Company? One of my all time favorite sites of books. Cooks got another one scheduled for release this October. I'm chomping at the bit to read it.

Having to explain to an 8 year old that you roll two dice, one is the tens and one is the ones. 07 is a 7 and 00 is 100. If you have a 125% chance a 00, (100), is a fumble. This is by conception easier than a "1-5 on this die is a win, 6-20 not so good". ?? I love BRP but I think d20 and simple modifiers is easy and if your locked to 5% than sticking to the most simple representation would make sense. That was all I was getting at. But I conceded that 1-3 for a crit on a die 100 cannot be accurately represented on a d20. By the way, don't kids start with number lines, ranges that is, before percentages? In fact, I think fractions come before percentages, like 1/4, or 5 out of 20. I could be wrong but that seems to be how I remember learning it so most children would grasp this sooner than percentages. At least that how I learned math in the good old public education system. At the end of the day my favoring of RQ3 was largely due to skills ranging from 1-whatever rather than 1-20, (functionally). To my mind this is what made the %d worthwhile over a d20 roll.

Sorry but I think you failed to think this through entirely. At least from my POV so I will try to explain it. Try hiding outside a building and then attack someone as they exit. I guarantee you will be under stress. Helpless means bound and gagged, unconscious, etc;. Getting the drop on a foe is not the same as helpless, it is what every pro looks to achieve in deadly combat. What your saying is that if I get the drop on creature x and kill it as it exits its lair I am both a coward and gain no experience. Tell that to an archer. No attack skill roll unless you also parry with that bow, mister! In your interpretation of this rule they could NEVER learn by experience, which is exactly how everyone learns archery. I understand this rule as actual use where something could go wrong., not boldly and stupidly standing toe-to-toe with a fire breathing dragon. How about the sniper with a rifle? No experience check for doing his job unless someone returns fire? If he does his job right there will be no one to return fire, yet in your system he has to f-up to get better it would seem. It seems in your estimation the only people who ever get better at killing are guys in a tournament or dolts choosing to subject themselves to mortal wounds. The assassin, sniper, bomber pilot, missile man, mortar man, submariner, etc;, , should not get experience checks because nobody gets to hit them in the face. Patton said war is not about dying for your counrtry it is about making the other poor bastard die for his. RuneQuest brought that to the RPG table. No more wading through mounds of orcs. You had to fight smart or die. That means avoiding get hit, not trading blows. Your world view, although very noble, is a bit unrealistic. The reason we keep building better weapons, like drones, is to save our skins and avoid Dodging and Parrying while perfecting Attack. Toe to toe combat is for sporting events and the soon to be dead. Many pros in the combat world are more like ninjas, you dont even know who these 'cowards' are. Think special forces. You can call them cowardly but this is the way the world works outside of a arena and how REAL EXPERIENCE is actually gained. You said..... So, your example of a 100% attack skills is just not possible, YOU CANNOT progress to mastery levels being a coward without proper enemies parries or trying to kill you ! A thug get at least +25-35% to skill attack facing defenceless prey... I personally think he should never progress upper than 50%. I think this is your opinion, not a fact. So in your game if I play an assassin who sneaks into a palace at night, dispatches ten guards as well as his target with a dagger, (thrown or otherwise), and then escapes with the Eye of Egg Moto I would not get skill increase rolls because I was a coward who got in the kill before having to perform a dagger parry? I could never get above 50% attack unless I constantly screw the mission up and have to fight my way in and out? Swell assassin, huh? I certainly want this guy on my covert black ops crew. In my view, (and that of RQ3), I would get better at dagger attack, just not parry. Because I did not actually use it. If I go toe-to-toe, attack, parry, attack, parry...then I roll checks for both. If I choose not to attack in a combat, only to parry then I get a skill check for parry but not attack. Lets not forget attack - dodge. No parry ever. I guess we might as well drop the dodge skill and blend that in as well. Because if all I do is dodge and run I should still get better with unarmed attack? Seems logical enough that the actual use of the skill determines the skill gain rolls. This is a biggest argument against D&D like I class levels. I go up a level so all my skills get better even the ones I never used. Now, all we have to do is decide what the skill encompasses. Perhaps here is where styles come in? Perhaps here is our disagreement? Perhaps I am looking at this wrong.... How about a Sneak Attack Skill, First Attack Skill, Assassinate Skill, Sword Fencing Skill??? Maybe this is what Combat Styles are, I have not got that far yet. Now this I would concede to, ( I think ). I suppose the attack could start using Backstab Skill - if fails and we enter in to Fencing Skill - where I get my butt whooped so move to Turn Tail and Flee Skill? We wont necessarily agree, and thats OK. If we did there would be no use for these forums to banter ideas about. Have a great day and thanks for your input! I do appreciate it even if I am yet to be convinced of your POV!

Too bad for that. I was hoping to just tweak some things to try for myself. I'll take a look at Legend but I must say I have recently picked up Mythras and it is one sexy beast. What I should really do is just shut up, pick a system and stick with it. It would RQ3 or Mythras I'm certain. Most of my ideas have probably been tried and shelved anyhow, otherwise they would be in a current version. Sometimes I forget how much fun I had with 1st Ed Stormbringer, D&D and Traveller black box. There is so much more to a good and fun game than the particular mechanics. Back in the old days we really had no rules for anything so nearly everything was a house rule on the fly. The original EPT was overwhelming in its scope at the time. Now it is a thin little book.

Do you think your 8 year old gets "roll 5% or less of your skill of 67 on a die 100" easier than "roll 1 on a d20"? I get what your saying but.....more than 100% is not the point. I don't buy 15% of 111 is easier for your child than roll under or under 3 on a d20.

This is what happens to us old people. We like what we like and get set in our ways. But really, RQ3 is one sweet set of rules. Other than a few oddities I think it is one of the best rules sets ever. It sets a very high bar. Comparing something new to something that has been working great forever is perfectly logical. RQ2 was great as a whole concept but I thought a 5% system using a d100 was a bit odd. A d20 would have been more elegant. RQ3 made a d100 functional. And for myself separating Glorantha made it more viable for people who did not want to play in Glorantha. One of the failings of EPT was the setting either grabs you or it does not. If it did not, the systems invented for it were just two hard to filter out the Tekumel. I have to believe that RQG is going to find a hard core group of Glorantha fans but most fans of d100 games will use another system. Just a hunch. BTW - I hope I am wrong and that Chaosium hits it out of the park. I have been a big fan since Strombringer 1st ed. and my shelf has about 4' worth of BRP stuff. I'll buy it and I hope I will like it enough to play it.

First off I am not trying to start a war, I'm honestly looking for complaints about the game which are not systemic of BRP in general. My main reason for asking is that I am thinking about tweaking the SRD for my own house game which I could then print for my players. If it is that broken though I might just be better off making a sourcebook for a "better" set of rules. Mongoose RQ1 seems to get blasted all the time. Having never played it, (but I do have it on the shelf), I was wondering if someone could list the main problems with the system. From what I see of the top on my head: Athletics Skill - covers too many disparate things. Brawn, Agility, Swim - I think they are better left as individual skills - easily separated so no big deal. Opposing Skill Rolls - MRQII handles this nicely and it is quite easy to implement in MRQ so another no big deal in my book Hit Points - no total damage vs total HP but MRQII, RQ6, and Mythras seem to follow this lead so it seems that must not have been a major gripe. If so, it is very easy to reimplement. So what is so wrong with the system that it can never be mentioned in polite company? Thanks, Mike

I certainly will. Thank you.

Hello! I will try to better explain myself but I think this is on of those disagreements which will not get resolved and ultimately because it's just a game is not really that important. Here goes. 'The guy who learns entirely-by-experience and never makes a parry so he never gets a parry-tick to skill-up just doesn't happen. Not in RL'. ' I think you mean not in Hollywood, sparring or tournaments. The bat example fits in perfectly with street thugs who can go a whole career of violent intimidation and bullying people without ever having to defend themselves, and these people do and always will out number true street fighters looking for a fair fight. Think of the school bully who never attacks someone bigger. They usually have numbers on their side as well. In real life the strong nearly always attack the old, young, weak and defenseless. Rarely does someone go looking for a fight , they look for someone to victimize. Just like Animal Planet. Watch how animals attack prey. They don't one on one with the strongest, they mass attack and pull down the most defenseless whenever possible. Although my bat wielding thug may not be David Carradine in Kung-Fu or a seasoned monster hunter the example stands as a reflection of true life happenings. Just turn on the news. People get brutalized and mugged all the time by skilled attackers, (as well as less skilled but no less violent political activists), and they never even throw up enough of a fight that required the assailant to defend himself. If you think about it classroom sparing or rules driven ring combat equates to RQ3 training where both skills are used. In those situations yes, skill would usually climb together but attack and parry skills ARE actually being trained and used. In the street, not so much. Using the RQ3 rules you get to roll for skill increases for skills used in training so we are covered. A smart thug, animal or warrior in real life, (where getting wounded may equate to missing a meal or even death), never looks for a fair fight. That is for soon to be crippled fools. They look for a kill where defense never even comes into play once the actions starts. Think one-shot one-kill. Defense is by position, situation and restriction of the opponents opportunity to inflict harm back upon the attacker. Shoot arrows then move in and stab the crippled survivors. Hide in the trench and lob grenades. Then come out and bayonet the crippled casualties. Not much hit-parry is there? Assassins poison the wine, stab from behind and shoot from a distance. Hunters sit in the tree with a crossbow. They never go toe to toe with the buck. (At least I don't but perhaps thats because I'm a big wuss!) Hit-parry-hit-parry is for demonstrations and training for when the worst happens and you failed your attack, or you are attacked and need to defend. If you are doing a hit-parry in RQ3 combat you will get to make improvement rolls for both, so we are still covered. So it depends on your world view but I do believe mine is firmly seated in RL Now I certainly admit there are some cases where hand to hand combat happens, but my bat example is far more the norm than some glorious noble fighter looking to test his skill in an match outside of a ring. A deadly match to boot! But as usual this is my opinion and mileage may vary. Monopoly is fun but not very realistic..... so there is that.... Thanks guys, and remember whatever our particular idiosyncrasies may be , BRP is still friggin awesome and I appreciate bantering with you! Allows me a chance to check my thinking and perceptions.