frogspawner

:focus: Going back to hit locations... RQ2 armour came in a hotch-potch of different pieces, covering various locations, rather than complete "suits" assumed to be uniform all over the body like BRP/RQ3. It felt realistic, and was fun to work out in a way. But same-AP-all-over suits lose some of the realism, and much of the point of having locations. Therefore I intend to define some non-homoeneous suits. But I don't want the hassle of rolling location all the time, so I'll use the weighted average AP, and only use locations if someone aims (see the spot rule) for a specific loation - which I expect will be more frequent, given the opportunity to hit weak spots in opponents' armour. Anyone know any pitfalls with this? Or has anyone already done it? (And could I see your armour-suit deinitions, please? )

Good idea. Cheers!

Granted, and thanks for it. It makes perfect sense. I just mean, when we're trying to remember which (POW/PP) applies to an existing power.

And now we know the principle, we can. But I just worry that player's "gut feel" will often be for whichever is most advantageous to them, leading to disputes, leading to looking things up anyway...

It sounds like each individual case has been decided sensibly. But it seems to me that having two methods is itself less playable than one, because you have to look up which it is each time, just to be sure.

Yes, yes and yes. Ironically, in the cause of harmonizing with straight BRP, I have only just dumped my own mechanism for this. I gave each skill a 'difficulty rating' which meant they increased by +1%, +2%, +3% or +5% accordingly (weapons and many skills being in the simple, +5% category). I liked it, but two bad points were: (i) having to work out NPCs skills exactly (but that's probably more a fault of my perfectionism!); and (ii) having to tell people all the time what their increases were. I'm using Martial Arts for exactly that, and give the "special abilities" (feats) every 10%. I do this by only allowing INT increase rolls per session "back at town" - any others not checked are lost.

Ditto. But also I only allow one First Aid (attempt) per person, not per wound. Getting 9hp or whatever back seems a bit much to me! So don't worry that you're stingy.

It's a good idea. From what's been said on this forum (or was it Mr. Durall's blog?) there's one already submitted...

Maybe on a special?

I recommend RQ2 because it is the best place to start (though by all means progress to BRP later). I just searched ebay for "runequest" and found this: RuneQuest RPG Book (RQ2). £2.99, 2 days to go - no bids! (OK, it's UK, but can it be much rarer in the US?) They usually go for a tenner or less. Easy to find, cheaper than new product... isn't that helpful enough? PS: Seller will post worldwide - go for it!

Broadly speaking they are. The dodgy one is the STR 18 guy parrying with a dagger - but he had the option on something bigger. IMO it's a better attempt at your "perfect" rule than the 'opposed roll'-type idea in the new BRP attack/parry matrix (which takes no account of the momentum/strength factors at all), and without excessive complexity.

Surely not too complicated? Attacking weapon momentum = Damage; Parrier strength = Size of parry weapon used (meh...); Contest of Skills = Skill-rolls (determining degree of success, or lack of it). They're all accounted for in the AP rule already - so it must be perfect! I use it - but then I am a fanatic. Most RPGers are content to have it just another factor in their AC... :ohwell:

Same here, on all three (or is it four?) counts. Ditto. But I salvaged Defence, making it similar to Dodge but usable all the time and increased only by role-playing. (My GM-awarded alternative to Hero Points. Yes it's an über-stat, and everyone wants it - so they have to role-play. That's the name of the game! )

Yes, it seems most likely to be a 'leftover' (but it's not about slung shields, as it specifically says parry). Ah, but as there's been so much debate/flaming, other people must hold the opposite view... that using APs for parries is a good mechanic. (Also less arbitrary and grainy than having exceptions for specific weapon size contests, IMHO). But sadly not quite crystal clear, it seems.

Hmmm... "The easiest way to think of a shield is that it is armor that can be interspersed between the attacker and the parrying character." But armour lets damage over it's value go through, so that's ambiguous too. Also, the "generally" and "usually" in the highlighted text imply that shields can (sometimes, albeit rarely) be damaged by hits which aren't special/critical. But I think it's just woolly wording, and not intended that normal hits over shield/weapon hp will damage them, like RQ2/3. (Won't stop me house-ruling it that way, though! )

Nope I can't. I wanted to find it - and that's all I could come up with! I'm pretty sure you've been playing the Rules-As-Intended - so don't lose any sleep over it...

Nah, she says she's playing RAW - or what's intended, probably. My betting is that that extract is just a glitch (though personally I'd prefer it if parries played the way it says - a knife entirely deflecting a giant's club seems silly to me).

Is this (from p.203, about Armour) an error, then? "In settings where shields are also used, a successful shield parry may not be enough to stop a blow, and damage from the attack can potentially pass through the armor value of the shield and to the character. In these cases, armor values for both shield and armor are subtracted before the character takes damage."

Only a little bit further than the AH version (RQ3), if you pick the right options...

I have a suggestion for an alternative way to solve this problem... Yes, I also think a "separate worlds"-type approach is best. But I'd go further, and suggest separate Universes. But with Gates of various forms to allow travel between the Universes. Authors of each Universe would have total editorial control - so no need to smack-down anyone's creativity, no need for voting or bureaucracy. (Some authors might want more than one world, and some might want unstoppable warrior races, or whatever - and wouldn't things be boring without 'em?). But co-operation between authors would still be possible if they wished, of course. GMs would have total control of the Gates - so only things thay allowed could pass though them, and only to/from Universes they permitted. This has been suggested previously and is called the 'Gated Worlds' (as opposed to SharedWorld).

Yeah - bit of a glitch, I know. Probably good reason for an "only blows doing 5+ damage can be serious/critical" rider, and maybe another saying "only blows doing 2+ can disable". (If someone bleeds through a threshold, I ignore that, so there is precedent). Is that too complicated yet?

Thanks! By all means add it to your wiki, if you think it's worthy. I just threw it together for an example, and it has various oddities peculiar to my own homebrew, rather than BRP. (I'd revisit it if you like - but not this week, sorry!) I don't use HP/Loc, so SIZ/2 is Total HPs. But since they stay alive down to -CON, most characters actually gain, and have about 150% of BRP hps, rather like your method. It's just most of them are 'below the waterline' - which I find has advantages. (How could any self-respecting hero run away when they're just down to half hit points? But if they're down to Zero, well that's understandable... ) At 0, the location that was hit goes out of action. So if it was head, yes you're unconscious. But otherwise not - though you may lose your weapon/shield (arm hit), fall over (leg/abdomen hit) or be pretty well helpless (chest hit)...

It'd be nice if new material for Pavis (or anywhere in Glorantha) built upon already published versions rather than driving a bulldozer through it...

I use a similar system, so I quite like it. I.e: Use only Total HPs, HPs = SIZ/2, Die at under -CON; Wounds taking you to 0 or less disable the location hit, -5 gives a lesser Major Wound ('serious' - breaks etc); -10 gives a greater Major Wound ('critical' - severs etc), rolled on the combined location/wound table I gave before. Yes, it contains the assumption that all locations are equally vulnerable - but you could skew the location table according to your taste in that regard. Well, I'm quite fond of the idea of d12's for location. But I won't be using it (yet), because I'm currently on a 'harmonize with straight BRP' kick.

Speak nicely to Stephen Martin and you might get to see what there is of it in this world. Last year I was intending to work on an electric version but sadly haven't found the time.