frogspawner

"Locational" - 'High is Good' applies to d20 rolling, so it seems logical that Head is 19,20.

I can't help thinking a simple bonus of +20%, +40% or even more to skills is just a bit dull for something so intrinsic to a character. How about Major Traits making related skills Easy (i.e. double chance)? And Minor Traits - erm, tricky - maybe also Easy but only half the time (flip a coin!)?

Ask who will pay this 'fine' (ransom). If it's someone of social standing (respectable, and non-rebel), then send word demanding payment and sling him back in a dungeon till it arrives. Otherwise, immediately maim him and apply torture until he tells all about the Rebels: how many there are, what equipment they have, location and layout of their hideout(s), which prisoners they regard as most important, what their inside-leg measurements are... until he dies; stick the head on a pike above the gates and feed the dismembered remains to dogs. Ha ha.

Well the BRP system works well with a fantasy setting, it's time Chaosium started publishing another one...

Like Chronicles of Future Earth, perhaps?

Oh, you totally had this old fool, you swines!

Scenarios - adventures are what it's all about.

Very interesting! Looks pretty good, from a quick glance. (Busy at the mo', soz - but I'll give it proper attention soon-ish).

Particularly the use of "Traits*" as modifiers to whichever skill is appropriate to the situation - a clever simplification.

(*Don't like that name though, because they're not like Pendragon (Personality) Traits. More like HW/HQ 'Keywords'? At least it's a better name than that!)

Later!

Thanks for the feedback.

If a normal success can give a CM instead of damage ... under what relatively common circumstances would you actually choose NOT to damage an opponent but choose a CM instead?

When your damage is unlikely to get through their armour (or at least, not enough of it to be more useful than any available CM).

...(not forgetting that a normal CM only occurs if your opponent doesn't successfully parry or diodge)...

To clarify, I wasn't actually going to play it that way. I prefer Independent not Opposed rolls. E.g. If you get a critical, you get 2 CMs; whether the defender gets a Critical/Special/Normal/Fail doesn't affect that. Though if they get CMs of their own, they are quite likely to choose ones that'll counter yours - but it'd be their choice, not forced/assumed by the system. (Hence my 'or block damage' caveat does have a point).

Thirdly, for what it's worth, RQII currently is agnostic about whether non-damaging CMs (disarm et al) cause damage as well as the CM effect. So a relatively easy house-rule is to say that non-damaging CMs are performed instead of damage.

I don't know MRQII, though it seems implied CMs would be in addition to damage (e.g. what's the point of Choose Location if the hit does no damage?). But yes, because it does reduce the set of useful CMs, I thought my "Instead of Damage" option was quite neat.

You rightly denigrate D&D 'meat-grinder' style. My intent is to use CMs to avoid that and make combats more dynamic and interesting. And I reckon the above mechanic should do the trick!

...there's no way they would be allowed to treat horses like that in a civilized film studio.

True dat. The scene prob'ly wouldn't translate well to much other that Toon, either.

Back on CMs, I'm thinking to integrate them into my BRP game. Thus:

Criticals give 2, Specials 1... and Normal hits can give 1 instead of damage (or of blocking damage, in the case of Parries).

There are defaults that anyone can do: Crits - Bypass Armour + Max Damage; Specials/Normals - By-Weapon-Type effect*.

(* Some will be useless for Normal hits, due to being damage-based, and may be replaced, e.g. with a 'Hold Off' for spears etc.)

Other manoevres would only be available to characters having Martial Arts skill in their weapon above a specified % for that CM.

Would anyone with RW knowledge in this field be so kind as to rank the MRQII CMs in order of difficulty?

MRQII Combat Manoevres - having now looked a bit closer, I like 'em.

I think they'd make combat more interesting, as well as realistic-seeming and perhaps cinematic (depending what films you watch...).

There are a few problems, though, albeit minor...

Firstly, the reason I do not like the MRQII approach to CMs is this: I prefer my tactical decisions (CMs) to drive the action (attack/defense rolls) which produces the results (hit/miss/degree of success and damage and armor as appropriate). In MRQII, it is more like the action (attack/defense rolls) produce partial results (hit/miss/degree of success) which leads to a tactical decision (CMs) which then produce final results (damage and armor as appropriate). While the latter may play smoothly, it does not feel smooth, it feels disjointed(again, in my experience).

I can relate to this. The feel is important. I'd suggest this problem can be role-played around though - just by saying a few words as you roll, describing in a very general way what you're attempting to do to the other guy. Then if you score any CMs the most appropriate ones for that are selected - the choice was made beforehand, so hopefully it wouldn't feel out-of-sequence.

Another problem I'd note is that some people prefer to roll attack & damage dice together, to save time - but with MRQII you can't. It would be cheating.

And yes, (sigh), it does constitute Opposed Rolling and so offend against my preference for independent rolls. Shame. But I'm working on that - I'll get independent-rolling CMs house-ruled before too long, don't you worry!

Good effort, guys!

Any have stuff like the XM-25 'game changer'...?

It is not more complex. Try it...

... the best combat manoeuvre often changes according to the weapon types, opponent's armour, magic, current tactical situation, the foe's skill, how well you rolled and the ultimate objective of the PC.

Ok, you got me. I am just going to have to try this MRQ2 for myself. Now, where's my draft letter to Father Christmas...

Why undermines?

I mean, if hits can typically opt to strike the location with weakest armour, then armour is devalued.

And yes, there are times when it does happen.

And here I meant, does it [deflections etc striking unintended locations] happen in Real World combat (frequently)? Because if so, then the random location roll simulates that, without need for a more complex mechanic.

Moreover, the MRQ system fixes a flaw that has existed in BRP, GURPS and WHFRP II for years: actually, you do not hit a random location in melee, but usually choose the weakest one and go for it as soon as an opening appears.

Interesting. If so, this undermines the Armour Points mechanism too. But surely there are times, in actual combat, when partial dodges, deflections, etc result in strikes to locations other than intended?

Why treat Fumble as Failure?

It seemed to fit simply the OPs requirements for not-too-many CMs (but doesn't meet his spec for other reasons).

Yes, I thought about that, but what I don't like about it is that every successful hit gets a CM...

Ah. Fair do's. I (obviously) don't know that much about MRQII, so I'll leave it in your capables - good luck!

I am taking a different approach and using CMs as a tactical decision that can be made before rolling. They make the roll more difficult, and may also affect the next action by the character who uses them, and, depending on the maneuver, might also impact the next action taken by the opponent.

This sounds a good, traditional RQ/BRP approach.

How about 1 CM per Level of Success difference, but regard Fumble just as Failure for the calculation?

Well, Glyphmaster is just a working title. It was just too much hassle to keep typing "RuneQuest 2 Retro-Clone"!

At the moment this is just a one-off project, a setting-independent rule set.

Well, my suggested name wasn't entirely serious (but not entirely a joke either). I hope 'Arqueuetu' isn't too unpronounceable...

And to save your typing it could be abbreviated to just 'ARQ'.

More seriously, I suspect a big part of the attraction of RQ2 were the references to the world it was set in. Just cutting these might leave it a bit soul-less, but generic-izing them could be difficult... but an interesting challenge! How are you doing it?

I agree there should be a generic setting, as suggested over on that other board's thread:

Here's an idea for the setting: a city built out of ancient ruins on a river bordering a vast expanse of plains...

Not keen on the name 'GlyphMaster' though. How about naming it after the setting? For which I suggest "Arqueuetu".

Well, Rosen, I'm somewhat surprised at your hostility to this idea.

On the other hand, I'm not surprised at all. Seems like Rosen's standard procedure to me...

He tells me he's done a substantial portion of the character generation and game system. I've finished the monsters and I'll get back to other chapters...

I'll volunteer to do some too - but it'll have to wait until after a couple of my other 'vanity' projects... (a fantasy PBeM and my own d100 rules set, in a way based on RQ2, incidentally).

I don't want to get into a big argument about RQ2 vs. RQ3...

No need - that's not the issue. The point is RQ2 is a significant part of RPG design history. Future generations of RPGers should have the chance to know it - and preferably experience it - so they can best appreciate current systems. And hopefully go on to design even better ones.

By the way, I'd better reiterate that Glyphmaster will be a free PDF. No-one's trying to make a quick buck or undermine the BGB or anything nefarious like that.

Naturally. It's for the Greater Good!

http://www.gringlespawnshop.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=glyph&action=display&thread=108

It is a clone of RQ2 and is called Glyphmaster.

It's certainly a worthwhile project. But who is actually working on it? Does anyone know this "Uncruliar" guy, and what progress he's making?

That reminds me - when this was discussed before, wasn't it suggested that Parrying with a Shield should be Easy (i.e. x2) ?

Yes. It states that you cannot Dodge and Parry in the same round, but you can Attack and Dodge or Attack and Parry.

Phew! After Merak's apparently contrary assertion, I was beginning to doubt it... Thanks for saving my sanity there, Rosen. What there is of it.

With BRP if you Dodge an attack, you miss the possibility to do your attack in the same round.

What? Surely not! You get to do an Attack and a Dodge (or an Attack and a Parry) - or am I missing something here?

I don't follow? Does that make shields more useful?

Ah, sorry, I was hung up on the 'why put points in shield when you can put them in dodge' problem. Still using old-style 'Shields block more than weapons, and weapons break' rules, I had forgotten the new-BRP 'useless shield' problem... Good Luck with that.

Aren't there old threads about exactly this...?