Barak Shathur

This text is repeated verbatim in RQG, and in both places it implies that "no matter how long" two fighters have traveled before they enter melee, strike rank is figured out 'normally' for them. The problem is how this statement interacts with the movement SR penalty rule. It seems obvious to me that neither of them are impacted by it, since in RQ2 it goes on to clearly differentiate between that situation and one where you charge someone firing an arrow or casting a spell at you, where it is necessary to know when the arrow or spell is loosed visavi how long it takes for the attacker to move. While when two unengaged fighters join battle, all you need to know is who has the longer weapon, longer arms and quickest reactions. It's irrelevant for the static person how long it took for the charging person to get there, he can only attack him once he's within range. So this, IMO, directly refutes I mean, why would Stevie go on 7 and Larry on 10? This only makes sense if Stevie was attacking from afar (telekinetically?), before Larry reaches melee range. If the movement penalty is added to Larry's SR, it's because he arrives later in the round, not because he becomes slower, smaller or his spear shrinks from having moved. So if Larry gets SR's added to to arriving late, then so should Stevie, since he only gets to strike at that late point in the round that Larry arrives.

My proposed rule change only concerned removing the +1 SR per 3m moved, at least for melee combat. Everything else would remain as written in the rules. Anyway, I don't really need any rule changes to make it work. I just need some clarifications so that charging an unengaged enemy, whether by foot or mount, isn't arbitrarily penalised. This can be accomplished in the following way: 1. Interpreting the paragraph on p. 194 to mean that when two unengaged combatants meet in combat, their SR is calculated 'normally', i.e. without additions for movement, while if someone approaches an already ongoing fight, SR for move are added. 2. When you are riding, it's the mount expending movement and amassing SR penalties, not the rider. So moving more than half of the mount's move does not preclude the rider from attacking at his 'normal' SR that same round.

Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought you were responding to the way the rules would work if just my proposal was implemented. My respect to you for engaging in this not in your first language! And thanks for challenging my ideas 🙂

But wait, isn't it like this: MR 1, bowman is within 10 m and fires two shots. End of MR1. MR2 movement phase, bowman moves 12 m (half move) intending to fire, swordsman moves 22m, they are now in contact. MR3, they are engaged in melee. Where does the "20m for free" come from? You can't move outside the Movement phase, right? (edited, I got the calculation wrong at first) I guess this system works as a method to determine if a combatant arrives in time to strike in the same round, as long as the initiative order between the individual combatants is not affected by having moved (or at least not just one combatant and not the other). Which is exactly what the quoted paragraph indicates.

I just can't let go of this quote from Page 194 under Movement. It seems to be the one thing that rescues the entire SR system, in the way it differentiates between two unengaged fighters meeting in melee, and someone joining an already ongoing combat. Of course I want it to support my position, but can someone explain how it doesn't? It seems clear to me that it's intended to mean that when two fighters initiate combat, regardless of distance traveled, they go on their standard unmodified melee SR, but when someone moves to join after a fight has begun, you add the move SR penalty to that combatant's melee SR.

This is not how the rules work. Once you're engaged in melee, the only way to leave is to disengage, which takes a round of dodging and parrying. Or if you simply run away, the opponent gets a free swing at you. So no, this wouldn't happen. Again, this is not how it works. Movement phase, bowman moves into range. Resolution phase, bowman fires. Once you've fired, you can't move anymore that round. If you're talking about a bowman repeatedly retreating after shooting, well if he wants to shoot again he can only move half move in the round he shoots, so you'll catch up eventually. But yes, it is possible to run into range, shoot once, and then run away forever. As is true in reality too. Yes. Either SR should be purely initative order, or it should be timing within the round. According to Scotty, it's the first for the person standing still, and the second for the one moving towards him. Which is arbitrary and illogical. It really should be simple. Longest weapon/reach attacks first. If both combatants are covered by the same SR rule (either both act on higher SR because the charger arrives later in the round, which the +1 SR per 3m indicates) or movement only affects things within the movement phase, such as who get to point B when. In which case both attack on their normal SR in the resolution phase.

Me too! One of my favorites.

Or, IMO, a simpler solution that doesn’t add another factor such as action points, is for movement to not have an impact on strike ranks. Either you can move up to half your move and carry out an action (or several if SR permits), or move more than half your move but not do anything else.

So this is it, this is canon? If you move to attack someone, you will strike last even if you have a longer weapon and are taller? If a rider charges an opponent, that opponent gets to strike first even if the rider has a longer weapon and greater reach from being mounted?

RQIV:AiG figured this out and separated movement and other actions entirely. There was a move phase, and a 'melee phase', where magic, missile and melee happened in SR order, and the one did not impact the other except in that if you moved more than your basic move stat (usually 4-6 m) you didn't get to do anything else apart from moving.' But they canned this one.

RQ3, for example, explicitly states that “a riding character does not have to spend strike ranks on movement - his animal is doing that for him”.

I want a formal reply in the QA thread.

This works, but then SR becomes a measure of the absolute point in time in a MR the action occurs, rather than simply the order, which runs contrary to the stated intent of the rules. But this is certainly a valid interpretation in my mind. What absolutely doesn't make sense would be if Stevie remained at SR 7 and can strike then, while poor lumbering Larry doesn't get to attack until 12. IMO, SR as time signature is far more onerous as a system than SR as simply initiative order.

Exactly! It says that SR do not equal necessary at what absolute point in time in a round something occurs, but rather in which order, yet the way in which movement affects SR means the exact opposite. This is how I interpret that paragraph, that when two fighters first engage, SR is not modified by any prior movement, since initiative itself has nothing whatsoever to do with that. However, when someone joins an ongoing fight, they might arrive too late to have a meaningful impact that round. This makes sense, but I wish they could clarify it if so.

Even though Larry has a longer weapon? So charging someone is always a disadvantage? I mean in this example, the spear tip arrives before Larry gets in range of Stevie’s shortsword, so Stevie going first is very strange. So in essence, I charge in MR1, the individual I charge gets to attack me, and in the next MR I attack him? Even though my lance tip reaches him way before he can physically reach me? This can’t be right.

Two questions about movement combined with attacking. So you can move up to half your move and attack. Your SR is increased by 1 for each 3m you move. But P. 194: “Movement: Any time two fighters meet in melee, no matter how long they’ve traveled to get to that meeting, strike rank should be figured out normally for them. However, the gamemaster should consider the time taken to get from point A to point B when an adventurer joins an ongoing melee or charges across a distance at a foe using a spell or missile against them.” 1) Say Larry Longspear (MSR 6) moves 12 m towards Stevie Shortsword (MSR 7) and attacks. Both have DEX SR 3. What happens? Does Larry arrive and attack at SR 10? Or does he arrive at SR 7 since he began moving at DEX SR 3 and adds 4 for 12m? Basically, at what SR does he arrive at Stevie, and at what SR does he attack? How about Stevie? If Larry arrives at SR 7, can Stevie then attack Larry at SR 7? Or does Larry arrive at 10 and Stevie has to postpone his attack until then, meaning they strike simultaneously? This interpretation would seem to go against the concept that longer weapons strike first, and potentially give an advantage to whoever doesn’t move before attacking, which doesn’t make logical sense. Now, in terms of mounted charges. To execute one, you need to ride at least 20m in a straight line. My bison has MOV 12, so he can move 36m. Half of this is 18m, so can I (the rider) not charge with my bison and attack with my lance in the same round? Or is it that since it’s the bison moving and not the rider, the rider’s MSR is not affected by the distance moved, so that the difference is that the bison cannot charge and attack in the same round, but the rider can? And at what SR does the rider arrive, and at what SR does he attack? *he=he/she/it/they etc

Here's a thought, don't know if it's realistic. What if we, as a community of BGB users, put together a kind of compendium of tweaks to BGB that we all voted and agreed on? Like a third party hakpak. The emphasis would be on tweaking, not changing anything fundamentally. For me, for example, I would like weapons to have stats more similar to RQ3, i.e. with less AP/HP, and for parrying to absorb damage equal to AP rather than deflecting all damage. I would like to make shields make more of a difference in melee, for example by penalising both attacking and parrying with the same weapon with -30% cumulatively, to stack with multiple parries. I would also like each point of SIZ to correspond more to specific units of weight, again more like RQ3. 6kg per point for the humanoid range, then maybe larger weight units per SIZ point at higher ranges. I would also like to develop the simplified stamina system sketched out in BGB a little, so that you make CON rolls maybe every minute, modified by ENC, with failure giving some kind of penalty, maybe 5 or 10 per failed roll. I would tweak the point buy system so that attributes become more expensive the higher they go, and also have some lower cutoff to avoid dump stats (maybe 6 for 3d6 range). Suggestions like this could be put in lists and voted on, and then we could have a kind of community update, an unofficial BGB 2.0 if you like. Is this possible? Thoughts?

I want to add that I, also, find the artwork incredible and highly contributing to the immersion. Immersion, maybe that’s the key word here. That’s what RQ as a whole is so successful at. HarnMaster, at least 3ed, actually runs pretty smoothly, once you get all those armour layers tallied up. I find the huge amount of hit locations excessive and overly laborious to manage. Everything else is fantastic, especially the damage types and protections. Columbia Games actually just released a QuickStart version, where they reduce the hit locations to about the same as BRP. I think this really is a direction for them to go. Anyway, back in topic! Good points everyone.

To balance out the criticisms I have been leveling at this game system, here's a celebratory thread. I guess I could say in terms of game mechanics, RQ/BRP as a whole is the worst system, apart from all the other ones! There's none I'd rather play. It combines simulationist realism (a must for me) with playability (a must for my aging brain, I just can't spend any more time flipping through the tables of Rolemaster or adding up the armour layers of HarnMaster). And in terms of gaming experience, as a player in a long running RQG game I've had some of the most fun I've ever had in table top rpg, even ranking with the glorious experiences of childhood, which doesn't say a little. So my list of great stuff: Skill based progression (of course). No chasing XP by slaughtering everything in sight. Skill based games tend to become more story driven in my experience, apart from simulating the real world better. Attributes have a real impact. In some other games, only exceptionally high scores make a difference. Combat, at its best, is scary, intense and dramatic. I would tweak a few things, but that's pretty minor. Passions. What a great innovation! What a way to drive character motivation. But the top thing I think is the world building. I have not come across a game that situates a PC so firmly in its environment, culture and history. And in this company I don't really have to mention it, but Glorantha is as unique, magical and fascinating as a fantasy world could be. Thanks to this, RP:ing in Glorantha is always meaningful. Adventures float on a river of deep structure, where everything ties into something greater than itself. It's a remarkable accomplishment, so hats off to all who contributed. I'm sure I can think of more. What's yours?

Ok. But I was arguing for the sake of justifying my house rule.

Exactly! Crushing special does max db damage, piercing does double damage but gets stuck…these two seem balanced. Slashing weapons already tend to have higher damage dice, so the ability to incapacitate by itself seems balanced with the above. But double damage without drawbacks just knocks the others out of the water.

Not really - theme is the Pavis Royal Guard, player characters are mounted archers, the main fighter is an impala Yelmalian with a spear gift. For some reason, I have yet to see a PC with a crushing weapon in RQG. Maybe it's because they only become a meaningful choice if you have at least 2d6 damage bonus. I'd be curious to find out otherwise! Yes, arrows are just fine, they are not the issue. And sure, having your spear stuck in your opponent's body or shield can be advantageous, but you do lose your (usually) primary weapon. If you have several opponents, it's a great disadvantage (as one of my players in a BRP game found out, he died while trying to pull his spear out).

Do you have any players who use crushing weapons? What has their experience been? In the campaign I've been playing, almost everyone uses swords, so the issue doesn't come up. I think there's one PC who uses a spear, and AFAIC, that spear has not gotten stuck anywhere so I think the GM has either forgotten, or simply ignored, the rule for piercing specials. The problem is that looking objectively at the three categories of special damage, slashing weapons are simply 'better' than the others. I find that irksome since a) there's no game-balancing reason for it, and b) it doesn't correspond to reality. Two factors which for me are the biggest selling points of BRP.

I've only been a player in RQG, but if I was to GM I would do the following: Remove double damage for slashing special damage. The reason why: slashing weapons are simply much better than piercing and crushing weapons as it is now. Double damage with no drawback is just too powerful (4d8 greatsword specials anyone?). The chance to incapacitate foes when reducing a hit location to 0 HP is powerful enough. This would come close to the wonderful weapon balancing that RQ3 achieved (for my money, the best BRP weapon implementation). Crushing weapons would suddenly become a valid choice. Spears would become useful. It would also be more realistic, swords aren't superweapons. Do something to improve the usefulness of shields. Either allow the passive armour rule (half shield HP as AP for covered locations) to apply even when parrying actively with the shield, or apply the -20% penalty to a weapon that both attacks and parries in the same round (so an attack counts as a parry in terms of incurring the penalty for extra actions). The reason why: shields are too weak in RAW, they serve no function beyond missile screens. Change standard dwarf SIZ to 1d6+6. The reason why: A SIZ 2 dwarf should be a different kind of creature, like a nilmerg, it shouldn't have, like, STR 4d6. Maybe reduce DEX to compensate (2d6+2 maybe). Oh and I would reduce the bonus for successful use of passions to +10%, and the penalty for failure to -10%.

Yes, though among Hobbits, Fallohides (I think Frodo is Fallohide, IIRC) who have more contact with Elves, are taller and fairer than the other subgroups. Tallness itself is associated with closeness to the Valar, those who dwelled in Aman grew taller than their brethren, as did the Númenóreans. And anyway, Frodo and Gimli are shown as exceptional, while most Hobbits and Dwarves, like the ‘Middle men’ tend to be morally neutral and mostly interested in minding their own business. Yes, the Númenóreans at one point got corrupted by Sauron. But those who didn’t then went on to become his most formidable foes. Tolkien is not a one dimensional author, and he can handle moral complexity and contradiction. But there are certain strong patterns that seem indicative of cultural prejudices that conflict with our current norms and beliefs (or mine at least, and I’m not alone in this) and to be able to enjoy the good parts I, at least, have to grapple with the bad ones.