frogspawner

In every case my preferred choice was to make things more playable.

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.

I don't have the new book but have been thinking about making some skills more difficult to learn that others...

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 was thinking something like this would be nice for BRP as it would give a method for adding "feats" to the game but without another system or the on-or-off effect of feats or other special powers.

I'm using Martial Arts for exactly that, and give the "special abilities" (feats) every 10%.

So, I was thinking of making each character pick a number of skills that his character specialized in and give him a bonus to his advancement checks for those skills.

I do this by only allowing INT increase rolls per session "back at town" - any others not checked are lost.

I have always played that an unsuccessful first aid still stops bleeding, cleans the wound, etc, but does not restore any actual HP.

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.

Perhaps Chaosium could create some quickstart rules with an introductory scenarion (but what genre?) and pre-gen characters, like they have with CoC, to be run at conventions?

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...

A simple mechanic would be "On an odd attack roll, the attacker chooses location, on an even attack roll, the attacker rolls location".

Maybe on a special?

But there's hardly anything wrong with recommending OP stuff, too, if you honestly believe it's superior - with the caveat that it's OP and will require searching and possibly paying higher prices.

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!

Definitely not true.... <snip>

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.

The "perfect" rule should take into account the attacking weapon momentum and the strength of the parrier, plus the contest of skills. It would be a formula far more complicate than anyone but the fanatics could possibly want to use in a game.

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:

I personally like the characteristic (RQ2 is my preferred RQ), but was trying to go for a simpler model for combat, and the always-present "characteristic that subtracts from every attack made against a character" always slowed combat down too much for my tastes.

Same here, on all three (or is it four?) counts.

Defense is also one of those characteristics that became all-important in every RQ2 game I played... everyone wanted it to be as high as possible, no matter what type of character they were playing. Everything in my game design sense tells me that über-characteristics are best avoided.

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).

We have debated (read: flamed) this point a lot on the MRQ forum, and the point is that using armor points for parries as in RQ3 is unrealistic (a steel sword is not better at parrying than a normal one), except for the fact that parrying huge blows with small weapons should be more difficult (but not impossible, except in case of area attacks).

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).

I am happy with the BRP rules as they are, simple and realistic.

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! )

By implication that would of course suggest that weapon parries behave the same way (ie as old RQ3), although I can't find an explicit wording to that effect... Can you?

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...

Or has Shaira simply chosen to simplify?

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).

ii.) Parries now defend against all damage from a weapon, so you don't have to roll to see if anything gets through. Parries are quicker as a result.

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...

Now, how to avoid power mongers? A dozen unstopable warrior races? Super mental power unbalancing type races? They have to apply to be part of some kind of Inter Galactic Council - which means the other contributors are permitted to discuss and vote whether the race should be permitted to enter the game world.

I have a suggestion for an alternative way to solve this problem...

...I would suggest that instead of individual races people could make up individual worlds or planets similar to Rust's Beneath Alien Waves. That would allow for a bit of individual freedom as well as allowing other people playing BRP sci-fi to visit the world for an adventure or two. It seems like with a few different planets or star systems on the Wiki this could be a valuable resource for gamers who are gallivanting though the final fronter in search of strange new worlds.

I agree, I think this would be a better approach than trying to design a common world.

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).

Will it be any strike taking it to 0, -5 or -10 that gives this effect? If you f.ex. are down to -4 hp, and get one more damage to your leg, will the leg then take a serious wound?

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?

I liked that table. Is it okay if I add it to the new wiki I'm working on? Can you explain your system in a bit more detail? "HPs=SIZ/2", is that the hit point you would have in a hit locations, or the total HPs? Are you unconscious at 0 or below hit points?

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)...

There is also a plan to detail Second Age Pavis for MRQ - which is a very different place to Third Age, and I'm looking foward to that project (though it won't be for a while yet).

There was a fanzine-type publication on an earlier Pavis.

The Tentacle society published two lines of books about Pavis.

There was a series of Ye Book of Tentacles about Pavis in the 3rd age, and there is a Guide to Pavis that is set in the 2nd age.

I must check, but I think that the 2nd age supplement is directly compatible with the now (around 908 ST) of the MRQ supplements

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...

Death is at -1/2 total hit points. ...

What do you think?

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.

That is true, but is the RQ3 difference in hit location resilience actually that realistic? Are you able to resist more damage to your head than to your arm f.ex.?

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.

But yes, I'm aware that the d12 location dice those not have much support.

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.

Now if we only could go toan alternative world and get a copy of Masters of Luck and Death.

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.

Ah, the Big Rants move to their own thread, at last. Now just wait till Frogspawner finds this one....

I'd already found it, mate. But after Mr Middleton's opening salvo above, I knew the matter was in good hands - so now I can rest easy...

I am still convinced that dropping general Hit Points was a bad move, and my opinion about physical runes is, ahem, very well known.

I agree (assuming your opinion of MRQ's Physical Runes is that they are a bad idea). Fancy that! :shocked:

Here's the trailer:

YouTube - Serene: a coleopterous lipogram in a, i, o and u.

At risk of appearing unqualifiedly critical or just generally snobby - that 'trailer' is 100% daft! (A laugh, though...)

I've no problem with criticism, unmoderated or otherwise, but if criticism is to be taken seriously, and to appear constructive, then it really needs to be fair, supported by facts and evidence and not simply unqualified opinion and general system snobbery.

I did say I'd only read the MRQ SRD, so I trust Mr Tindalos is able to properly judge the value of my criticisms. I didn't say everything Mongoose publish is bad - just their rules - and that I won't be buying the other stuff. I have no interest in the 2nd-age setting. And, although I'm sure you can manage it with a lot of hard work (and maybe you have, I'll never know), but it must be difficult to produce good setting material for a poor rules system - especially since some of the poor design affects the wider world (particularly their runes-as-physical-objects mistake).

I didn't want to bore Hound with point-by-point evidence qualifying why true RQ/BRP is better than the Mongoose rules. So MRQ being 90% worse is just an estimate. Since you want facts, I'll go through the MRQ SRD and get an accurate figure sometime - but not today, and probably not this week. (I'm busy, setting up a game under rules which use the best bits from BRP, RQ2/3, RoleMaster, C&S, Dragon Warriors, AD&D1&2, D&D3.x - I'm no rules snob - but nothing from MRQ). Hound of Tindalos just wanted opinions of where it's best to start, so I told him...

...RQ2.

I have a map of Zothique...

Which is very good - and looks better to me than the only other one I've seen. Perhaps it could be a bit darker?

Windows Vista (not to mention its predecessors) provides undisputable evidence of the fact that you are wrong (and note that this shows how the market works, not how it should work.

Now that is a particularly twisted market - we don't want to go that way! (And let us salute the Mac-users among us... )

Finally, did anyone notice that the MRQ forum is now way, way less active than this forum, despite the fact that there are always new products coming out for the RQ line?

Not me - ain't been there for ages. Yes, very interesting...