frogspawner

True 'dis. But in my experience the PCs never run away. Does this just balance that? So... maybe a "technical advantage" mechanic would solve the problem. Something like, once the 'advantages' reach a certain threshold, then the other side is somehow disadvantaged, i.e. all attacks halved? (E.g. the others have gained better cover or height, or the disadvantaged side 'tires', or whatever - making it daft to do anything but run away?)

I quite like trying to salvage duff stuff. I'll hope to find un-burned copies to see for myself, and maybe have a go... Thanks.

Don't know it myself, but is it the one I've heard of as being ceremonially burned at RQ conventions?

You have? Doesn't RQ6's fancy Combat Manoeuvre mechanism solve the 'interminable fights between high-levellers' problem, then?

And given that you are even asking this question, it seems a fair bet that the answer is "Yes". If you are a BRP Completist, with more money than sense - then also "Yes". The annoyance factor will fade in time - leaving that satisfaction of having it ALL.

I use this all the time - though with Defence only reducing damage by 10*, not entirely negating. It works well. Characters are safer, of course, but they don't feel much safer, which is the important bit. Players still whine to have their D&D Hit Points comfort-zone back! Never. Seems very reasonable. Don't think I can be bothered with even that little admin though, personally. (* Yes, I know - it's an arbitrary 'Magic Number'. Can anyone think of a more elegant mechanic?)

...that it's not by the real Atgxtg - there's only one typo in it!

I think the question is "Does Magic World present the same dials as BRP while also being more medieval focused?" Sorry - I don't know!

Yes, rather than all characters having all traits to whatever percentage, my way lets the player choose 2 traits (which they either have or don't - no percentages). So it's as per their 'character concept' - and they get rewarded for acting accordingly. (Although other traits may develop later, perhaps displacing originals). If you rate the available traits for altruism/self-interest (I do for Good/Evil and Law/Chaos), that could give each character's 'allegiance' (or alignment). Is that system elegant? (Better not get me started on 'elegance' - some people round here don't like it! ) PS: Just to clarify, when I say 'trait' I mean one aspect of a trait, like 'Honest' (not 'Honest/Deceitful'). And you can't have opposites unless you're insane!

Nor did my players, despite the full Pendragon trait-range and simplicity: Not even a fiddly bonus - just a re-roll. And everybody wants re-rolls, right?

Not familiar with the systems mentioned, but I've also been trying to introduce Traits to my BRP/RQ game - and met with a similar lack of use by players. Just one short session may not be a fair trial. It may need more time for the players to get used to your new Traits mechanism. However, I had a Traits mechanic as simple as I thought possible (characters have about 3 Traits, and can get a re-roll if they do something "in the manner of" that trait) - but still it was virtually never used.

Doubt it - never touch the stuff. How does it end?

Still, it's a tip other readers may find useful.

'Xactly. Me, I avoid +/- modifiers and stick to just halving/doubling. Whatever feels best for you. Trying to be helpful: Let me suggest that, instead of dividing the target percentage, try multiplying the roll. E.g. If Rollx5 is skill or less it's a special.

Nope, I'm not crazy. Sorry. That would make it so much easier, wouldn't it?

Surely 'gritty' doesn't just mean low-skill, it must go deeper - to issues such as we're now discussing. I don't like to classify my games, but just guess (hope?) they'd be called 'gritty' rather than 'cinematic'. Though I still like the players to be heroic. To my mind, only when the characters are stretched, risking all, are they really heroes. If the game system supports them too much, they're not being heroic, are they? Then it's just bullying. Nasty. (For the same reason I don't like the D&D sack-of-hits HP mechanism). And the whole 'mook' concept offends me - all should be characters. An impossibly impractical dream, perhaps, but the ideal. Our top characters have say 120% weapons skills, but we don't use the -30% steps anyway (or riposting), so no-one would balk at the new Halving method. Like the problems I see with Opposed Rolls, it's about the feeling. I feel the "-30% Step" lacks elegance, whereas "Halving" feels right. If you don't, then forget it. I'm not pushing for a doctrinaire 'one-size-fits-all' consensus. (BTW, this isn't the forum to discuss such things but for the benefit of those of you who don't know, I'll just say what has happened to Britain: We have been infiltrated by soviet agents to the highest levels. They control the BBC, the 3 main political parties leadership, NHS & local council executives, much of the police, most newspapers and the Utility companies. Of course the EU is theirs, through-and-through. Perhaps they don't have much hold in the British army, hence the continual cutbacks. But it's not just high-ups - they are among us at lower managerial levels too. Pervasive, like Stasi. Nasty civil war is probably the best future facing us. The other option is that they will keep the lid on their evil conspiracy (with the Leveson press/internet gag etc) and keep control. In which case you'll stop hearing from me, as I'll have been dragged off as soon as the new gulags are built.)

Yeah, guess I prefer gritty to cinematic. For me, even a 184% Errol Flynn should have more trouble than 94% parrying that fourth attacker. Let's just say I've become sensitized to such issues, given the realization of what's been done to Britain.

Consensus would have us all playing D&D. Or, a wider form, not playing any RPG at all. In fact that would probably be best for... Public Safety. No telling what dangerous subversive ideas might occur to the citizens otherwise. You are quite right to brutally crush any dissent, Comrade Middleton.

OK, as promised, a comparison of numbers/chances of extra parries gained by each method (-30% Chunks v Half Chance)... Skill 25%: Chunks - None; Halves - 12%, 6%. (0 v 2) Skill 50%: Chunks - 20%; Halves - 25%, 12%, 6%. (1 v 3) Skill 75%: Chunks - 45%, 15%; Halves - 37%, 18%, 9%. (2 v 3) Skill 100%: Chunks - 70%, 40%, 10%; Halves - 50%, 25%, 12%, 6%. (3 v 4) Skill 125%: Chunks - 95%, 65%, 35%, 5%; Halves - 62%, 31%, 15%, 7%. (4 v 4) Looks to me like the chances are quite similar. But Halving gives a greater number of extra parries (until high %). The underlying problem is the unfairness of having no chance to parry multiple attacks after the first. However, it's apparent that the "-30% chunks" method doesn't solve that at all for skills up to 30%, only partially (just 1 more parry) up to 60%, and still not as fully as the alternative up to 120%. Therefore the "Halving" method seems to me to be a better solution all round. PS: And no "levels"-style quantization, either! :-)

The gibberish is reserved for frogs, as per the fuller quote: "Frogspawner usually only speaks gibberish to his frogs, ...". As to the gobbledegook - you have no evidence I can write at all, so there!

Of course it is too, but we're already stuck with that one. No sense in exacerbating the problem though. Oy! Stop that. The same case could be made for other percentages, I'm sure. 25%-breaks frex, which better match the standard BGB skill ratings (Neophyte, Amateur, Professional, etc). So 30% is arbitrary. Even players don't have too much trouble with halving. No need to be linear that I can see. Not clear what you mean by 'rapidly & sharply penalise subsequent defences', but I reckon the calculation is probably easier, given you only have to remember how many parries you've had (and halve that many times). I guess people feel the number of extra parries gained is about right with 30% breaks. So next I'll see how the Halving method numbers compare...

I beg to differ. "Magic numbers" seem arbitrary to me. The 30% breaks are like D&D-style multiple attacks, gained at certain levels just because they're listed on a table. Yuk. And I'm hurt. Doesn't my stating the "extra parries halve chance each time" idea above count as 'presented for consideration'? (It was straight off the top of my head, but seems to hold up under scrutiny - probably only down to 5%, the standard minimum, though).

It builds on the "Difficult is half chance" principle. That's elegance. Why should the RAW say every 30%? Why not 25%, 20%, or whatever? That's arbitrary. We should always aim to make things better.

Certainly the rule works. That makes replacing its arbitrariness with elegance a worthy challenge! Say - as many parries as you like but halving chance each time, perhaps...?

Cheers, gents (and no blame, Mr.D). The rule just lacks a certain elegance, so I can't help hankering for another solution...