Barak Shathur

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

I haven't seen where you defined you house rules such that there exists a separate movement phase, or whether it is before or after combat. Either way will likely have problems, at least if you expect to follow it mechanically and produce plausible-seeming results where archery and melee are viable but different. 

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.

40 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

and my answer was about your proposal, not about the rules. (Note that I m not saying your proposal is dumb or whatever, I just try, with my poor english, to challenge positively it, no offense then !)

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 🙂

32 minutes ago, radmonger said:

I do think your proposed houserule makes 'kiting' a bit strong. Bowman starts 10m away, fires at sr3 and 10, moves 20m for free.  Swordsman could  maintain relative position for free, and have the same thing happen next round. Or do a full sprint with no dodging and still not attack till next round. Meaning they take three unparried attacks before they finally get to strike. Better hope they are wearing very heavy armor that doesn't have any rules about it affecting movement rate.

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)

32 minutes ago, radmonger said:

the swordsman has 7SR spare (12 -5), so can close any distance up to 14m before attacking

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.

23 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

"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.”

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. 

6 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

SR 3 I am here, i hit her; SR5 she wants to hit me, hey I m not here, she can't

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.

6 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

impossible to hit a bowman if you don't include a minimum the movement in the round, the bowman has just (the one with best SR) to move out of range just after firing. That's why, I think they tried to split  movement phase then combat phase in a previous version.

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.

5 hours ago, Richard S. said:

For something like the charge example, I'd personally rule that both charger and charged would have to add the movement SR if they're attacking each other. That keeps the charged from attacking before the charger even gets close, and gives advantage to the longer weapon as per usual.

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. 

3 hours ago, Beoferret said:

1) movement is calculated according to the movement of the mount, which should generally allow a charge and attack during the same round. What if the target opponent has a better strike rank though? Um...... house rule? Parry and attack charging opponent (at half skill for the counter attack - the charging opponent is moving quickly past, right?) or attack at full skill, but no parry (or just half skill parry).

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.

40 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

@Klosteris a huge fan of RQ 3

Me too! One of my favorites. 

6 minutes ago, radmonger said:

The generalization of p194 is that combat starts at the point one combatant is _in range of_ another. This allow attempting to charge down an archer, and determines how many shots they can get at you as you close.

But really the rules need a clean rewrite splitting up strike rank (SR) and action points (AP), and making AP optional. If used, you have 12 AP per round and attacking with a weapon costs you your SR in AP.

SR alone determines who goes first. But AP determines if the person who goes first has time to do some other action beforehand. If the other action costs more APs than the _gap_ in SRs between the two combatants, it can't be done in time. If that action was a necessary precondition for attacking (i.e. closing to range, drawing a weapon, or reloading) the opponent goes first instead.

if you have more than 2 combatants involved, you repeat that procedure pairwise until everyone involved has an order assigned.

 

 

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. 

8 hours ago, David Scott said:

Firstly, remember Strike Rank is about determining who goes first.

Stevie goes first on SR7, Larry goes second (6+4=) SR10

Keep it simple, this not a moment by moment simulation, otherwise combat will take you ages.

Yes. However, you can charge in 18m, but you won't get the mount damage bonus. But you could go for a hefty knock back if your bison is war trained.

I would suggest in the first melee round you state you are preparing to change, so that's move to position, wheel and start the run. Second melee round, you strike at the rider plus weapon SR. I use the rider SR as there's some manoeuvring and riding to be done, however it's usually only SR 3 or 4, and the damage bonus is the mount's.

(You can ask over at the Q&A but @Scotty will give the same answer)

 

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?

9 minutes ago, Jason Farrell said:

I love the idea of what a character is actually doing mattering in the determination of how quickly they can do it.  I much prefer that in theory to the highly abstracted initiative roll in D&D/Pathfinder.  Unfortunately, there are some big flaws in the SR system and these conversations are common, for good reason.  I don't know that there's any way around adjudicating individual cases on the fly as a GM using the current system as written.

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.

40 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

I think you’re misunderstanding the question - how could you *ever* charge (for Lance bonus) with a bison under the rules? First off, in order to get the charge bonus, you would have to move more than half of your (or in this case, the bison’s) move, so you wouldn’t get to attack. Second, you would also spend so many strike ranks moving that you wouldn’t have enough left to make the attack.

This can presumably be sidestepped if you make some of the move in the round before, but that has other problems - for one thing, as it has to be a straight line, your target could just step out of the way (barring formation fighting).

Hence the part of the question that asks whether the rider spends SRs in the same way as the mount. Which I think the rules at least suggest that the rider doesn’t, and that this movement is ”free” for the rider.

(Mobility spell solves the 18 movement part.)

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”. 

29 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

<WInk!>

 

I want a formal reply in the QA thread. 

26 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

round 1 : Larry is charging (or takes his spear then charges): then Stevie has 7 SR ( 12 = 7+5 to take his spear ) to cast a spell or prepare himself for melee round or use a bow etc... Think about the +5 for Stevie if he is not already in the right posture

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.

14 minutes ago, radmonger said:

The rules are hardly well-written, and I am not sure they are completely self-consistent on that point, being sometimes only about attack order and sometimes doing moment--by-moment stuff that only works given minis on a map, and takes a long time even then.

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. 
 

14 minutes ago, radmonger said:

The simplest approach is, as per P. 194,  strike ranks start when melee starts. Consequently, movement into melee by either side does not change order of attacks, and Larry goes first. The movement costing SRs rule should only be used if you _are_ doing moment by moment accounting, with everyone in a known position on a map.

The tricky case here is when Stevie joins a combat between Larry and a Broo.  As usual, Stevie must beat the broo's SR to attack before it, and so must Larry. However, that doesn't tell you whether Stevie attacks the broo before the broo attacks Larry. That's the case where, if you are using minis anyway, you could reasonably use the 1 SR = 3m rule. This implicitly means you are using SRs to track things second-by-second, giving an absolute, not just relative, ordering of events

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. 

35 minutes ago, David Scott said:

Stevie goes first on SR7, Larry goes second (6+4=) SR10

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.

35 minutes ago, David Scott said:

Yes. However, you can charge in 18m, but you won't get the mount damage bonus. But you could go for a hefty knock back if your bison is war trained

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. 
 

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Actually, I'd love to play HarnMaster... It doesn't look that difficult. Although, I do wonder how mages are supposed to progress their spells - such as those that can't be repeatedly cast. I especially like the different damage types & protections.

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?

1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Please keep this topic to What house rules do you use? If you want to discuss the intricacies of specials, etc., please Start a new topic.

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

1 hour ago, Beoferret said:

I like the idea though that different types of weapons, yielding different types of damage, have their own set of pros and cons. Maybe it's better to make these general attributes. What I mean is something like giving every bludgeoning weapon a chance at causing stun on any head strike or like giving thrusting weapons (esp. spears) 1 step better Strike Rank than RAW.

 

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. 

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

4 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Do you have any players who use crushing weapons? What has their experience been?

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!

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

The "stuck impale" can have advantages, too. Most happened to arrows, where it is advantageous.

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).

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

In my games this hasn't been a problem yet. One easy way to amend Slashing lethality would be to double only the damage after deducting armor. Still hard on unarmored opponents.

 

 

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%.

6 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Except... Hobbits and Dwarves are most definitely short and fair, and somewhat swarthy...

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. 

3 hours ago, whitelaughter said:

Where are half-trolls from? Those wretched movies? Or were they something Tolkien was considering when working through how he wanted the stone giants be?

Given Tolkien references multi-headed trolls in The Hobbit, the simplest way to have trolls reproduce is by budding.

I’ve heard (maybe just speculation) that MERP came up with half-trolls based on the ‘men with jet black skin and long red tongues’ (as I recall the description in ROTK, been a while), Tolkien’s words, not mine, fighting for Sauron in the Battle of the Pelennor fields. And Umli, the half-dwarves, based on the ‘stocky men, bearded like dwarves, wielding great axes’ doing the same (they are the ones who slay Forlong). 
 

As an aside, this seems like an illustrative example of the implied racism in Tolkien’s works, in that the ‘good races’ are always fair, and usually tall (the taller and fairer the better) while the ‘evil races’ tend to be short and swarthy. Not to mention orcs, which he in a letter claims to have modeled on ‘the mongol face’, which he considered ‘the least lovely to europeans’. This, more than the differentiation of various Elvish tribes, is what always rubs me the wrong way in these books that I in other ways love so much.