PhilHibbs

For a thorough rules test you could try simulating the Best Action Scene Of ALL TIME.

Had to stop watching that half way through. Anyone who doesn't like animal cruelty should not watch it, there's no way they would be allowed to treat horses like that in a civilized film studio.

Nopes, no incidental KB on RQ2.

There are many improvements and fixes that have been made to the RuneQuest system since 1980. I loved Chaosium RQ2, but I could never go back to it because of all the fixes that I would have to pick through and apply to solve all the problems that I could simply avoid by starting with a more modern incarnation of the rule system.

The only problem i still see (and its the same on basic RQ2 rules) is that you can effectively parry a giant!

The way MRQ2 solves this is with weapon size - Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Enormous. If the attacking weapon is one size larger than the parrying weapon, only half the damage is blocked. If it is two sizes smaller, you have to crit and pick "Enhance Parry" which makes your weapon count as two sizes larger for parrying purposes. So even then, a dagger (S) can't parry a tree, but it could parry a poleaxe (L).

Yes, but you can easily find the rules in MRQ2 which I used as an inspiration for this one

Ah I see. Yes, I had considered implementing something to do with comparing relative success vs success with attack/parry. But it seemed quite a big change, giving the equivalent of a "Bypass Parry" manoeuvre on success v success.

What about stealing some bits from MRQ2 ?

For instance, state that if success level is the same and Attack roll is greater than Parry roll, only half damage is parried (maybe more with a shield).

I haven't spotted that rule in MRQ2!

I should probably delete this, as it didn't add anything to the discussion, but I can't find a Delete option.

I've some issues with parrying; i'm actually using RQ2 (the classic one, not MRQ) without weapon damage rules (unless it's on purpose), but i think it's about the same in BRP sans weapon AP.

When i have an opponent whose parry + def is more than the attacker's attack, and both are over 100%, combats seems to last forever, since the defender will parry 95% of the time.

You could adopt the "adjust skills over 100%" rule in MRQ2 (subtract the amount that the highest skill is over 100 by) - if one is 110% and the other is 130%, then that gets adjusted down to 80% vs 100%. Then, there is a 49% chance per exchange that one of them gets a better level of success than the other.

Actually, I don't really see the original problem. With 110% vs 130%, there is already a 20.77% or 24.5% chance per exchange that the attacker gets a better level of success than the defender depending on who's attacking. Something interesting happens 1 time in 5 - either an impaled weapon stuck in a parrying shield, or a critical hit that probably does enough damage to get some of it past the shield (average 13 for most decent weapons plus bladesharp plus damage modifier). Hm, actually shields can be pretty tough, a large shield blocks 16, so most crits with a 1h weapon will bounce off. Maybe I do see the problem.

Going back to my original calculation, given that a successful parry will block a crit... that brings even the MRQ2 rule fix down to a 4% chance vs a 19% chance. Well, that's not too bad, but if they are both 120% then it could still drag on (4.75% chance each). Oh, but an Impale vs a Parry robs the attacker of their weapon still. That could be fun, although the "I did better than you but came off worse" thing is a bit of a kicker.

I think that RQ2 shields block too much damage. Maybe knock them down from 8, 12, 16 to 6, 9, 12.

In hindsight it might have been more realistic to split the location tables into swung and thrust/missile. However that would have added a bit more overhead and created knock-on effects for all the creature hit location tables. I should have included a more severe Range penalty table too, which would have partially solved the verisimilitude problem. Unfortunately it never occurred to Loz or I, but never mind. The simple version still works fine for most situations.

Simplicity is indeed a big priority and I think you made the right call. There used to be separate melee/missile hit locaton tables in AHRQ3 and there's nothing to stop anyone from using the charts from that.

I repeat my question: why should going for the best possible location increas my chance of fumbling?

There are three answers to that question that I can think of, and I'm sure there are more.

First, if your group doesn't like increasing the chance of fumble on an aimed blow, then don't increase the chance of fumble on an aimed blow (or similar voluntary modifier). Keep the full skill's fumble chance (and crit/special if you like) and only change the chance to get a normal success. Oh, and this is the MRQ2 answer, unless the modifier takes you from over 100% to under, as that is the point where the fumble chance goes from 99-00 to just 00.

Second, you are restricting your options, and concentrating on one thing above all else, and might make a mistake because of that.

Finally, it's simpler, if that's the way you think. It's a side effect and it's not worth fussing over a 1% change here and there, and if you apply a rule consistently then you don't have arguements over what modifiers affect fumble chance and which ones do not.

I prefer the first answer, now that you've raised it, athough I would naturally have gone with the last one. But I'm a number junkie.

The other thing is you do not choose a CM after you have landed a blow. You choose a CM when your foe is has been opened by an attack. i.e. attack and parry have been rolled but damage and location have not. At this point you know you can land a blow, the question is - what will you do with it? Will you go for a vulnerable location? Will you perhaps spot a point where you can impale or perhaps you notice that the person is off balance and can be knocked over as well as doing damage. That's what you are deciding.

It's not the person swinging the sword that is making the choice. You are making the choice, your character is swinging the sword. A roleplaying game is never going to be an accurate 1-for-1 reality simulator, it's a narrative engine. I like realism, I like simulationism, but I know that sometimes you have to stop trying to reach perfection because perfection would take an entire game session to simulate one combat round.

As I said on the other forum I think your player's lack of imagination is a real shame. If you don't want them to repetitively use Choose Location then lead by example and take their PCs apart with enemies using combinations of other more useful CMs. Once they see what can be done they will probably want to start milking the other options for all they're worth.

Well, that leaves me with the problem with my imagination, because I agree with their logic. Repeatedly hitting the same location every time is a solid tactical choice in nearly every fight, especially with locational hit points and no general hit points, because it takes someone down much more quickly than spreading out the damage. In the final boss fight in the GLS scenario, everyone just hit the thing in the chest and it was dead before the first melee round was half way through. Most of the MRQ2 combat system is great, but Choose Location is ruining the game. My suggested mod wouldn't even have fixed that fight, 'cos it can't parry 6 people.

I think the Old West has a lot of promise as a Call of Cthulhu setting.

Are they saying "it would be much more fun if I wasn't able to hit them in the head?"

I've played FPS games in "cheat mode", it's no fun when you get what you want all the time. Always feeling that you have to choose the most effective option can also be disappointing. And it applies to their opponents as well, they will be receiving fewer aimed blows to their less-armored or already-injured location so it cuts both ways. I think it will change the balance of combat in a good way, but I haven't tried it yet so I'm not certain.

I don't know but this doesn't make sense to me.

"I failed my parry but stopped him from hitting me where he wanted to." Unless of course he randomly hit you where he wanted to.

You're trying to hit this guy on the head, but he's got his shield held high stopping you 'cos he's not wearing a helmet. So what do you do? You chop his leg off, or his sword arm, or you gut him. You wanted to hit the head, but the fact that he's actively trying to parry you means you can't choose Head. Nonetheless, he has clearly failed to parry, 'cos you hit him. Makes sense to me. As to rolling Head randomly, well, these things occasionally happen, but you can't guarantee a headshot due to that damn shield being in the way. Part of the reason for restricting Choose Location is that my players pick it every time, and I don't want to use the suggested penalty clause for repeating the same CM. As to "a new class of CMs", plenty of CMs have their own particular restrictions, one more doesn't make much difference.

I would have thought that if an enemy has left any locations uncovered that they have by definition failed a parry.

Yes, on a failed parry you will get a hit through, but he might have prevented you from hitting where you wanted to hit.

Legolas hits the troll several times with arrows and it's pretty clear that it's not even trying to evade. Interestingly he impales it in the body several times, clearly choosing Impale over Choose Location (presumably trying to get some damage to stick).

It seems to me that against an evenly armored opponent, you might want to go for max damage on the first few hits, and then when you've hit a vital location, Choose the same location again to take it down.

...Moreover, the MRQ system fixes a flaw that has existed in BRP, GURPS and WHFRP II for years: actually, you do not hit a random location in melee, but usually choose the weakest one and go for it as soon as an opening appears. Combat Manoeuvers achieve this result: when you hit and you are not parried, you usually choose where you hit, as it happens in real life. But if you need a special vs. failure, this realism does not happen.

It seems to me from my very limited LARP fighting experience that most of the time you go for the openings that the enemy hasn't covered - so while he may not have stopped you hitting him, he may well have stopped you hitting him in a vital location. So being able to "Choose Location" on a failed parry isn't realistic. I am considering restricting Choose Location to unopposed attacks and criticals.

So has the D&D system of hit points and saving rolls going up as a character progresses not made it into CF? I have had a flick though and can't see anything like that. Total Hit Points are double what they used to be in RQ3, but that's for all characters (and monsters) from the start. How can a high-level CF character wade through a horde of hundreds of low-level orcs in the same way that a 10th level fighter can?

I'm going to adapt a zone from World of Warcraft into a RuneQuest 2 campaign. Zul'Drak is a ruined city where the trolls who worshipped animal spirits/gods turned to desperate measures in order to fight of the Lich King and sacrificed their own gods to gain their powers for themselves to use against the undead. In Glorantha, this will be against chaos rather than undead, and I'm going to place it in the Palarkri Mountains in Pamaltela. The party are a group of God Learners in the Golden Liberation Society and they will be sent there on a rescue mission to investigate a missing expedition. I'm not sure what race the natives should be, maybe some relatives of the Agimori, or some new human type of my own invention modelled on the Aztecs.

My set of Sandy's rules is back online: http://www.hibbs.me.uk/snarks/sandysorcery.html

My variant rules is here: http://www.hibbs.me.uk/snarks/meldeksorcerors.html

I found some MRQ2 downloads here, so I thought I'd share this:

Game Aids on MRQ Wiki

The Adventurer Creation Spreadsheet is mine - there's an online Google Documents version (you will need to have a Google Documents account and use Save As to use it), and an OpenOffice.org version as well.

Oh well, I'd buy it if it depicted a steaming pile of crap on the cover, so I may not be the best authority.

I'm thinking of replacing the cover art on my copy of MRQ with something like that.

However, the BRP book uses the traditional system, but there are guidelines as to when a skill check is appropriate.

This is not something that BRP should have hard rules for, any more than Cthulhu, Stormbringer, or Superworld should have all had the same system. Suggestions, definitely, for the benefit of newer players, but nothing strict, just a clear statement that the referee should choose their system at the start of a campaign.

I am shocked. They want to throw out the chapter about BRP? This wiki moderator is probably mad. I didnt know that it is even possible in Wikipedia that just one person decides if a certain wiki article is notable or not.

Since I read this thread I was a fan of wiki. But now, I am not so sure anymore.

It's not an encyclopedia of roleplaying, it's a general encyclopedia. There's no reason why any particular administrator should know the first thing about roleplaying. The article had no references to back up any assertion of notability, so an admin tagged it as such. Essentially he said "I see no reliable independent evidence that this is notable - provide such evidence or it will be considered for deletion". Note the word "considered" - it means that it will be flagged for debate. Not for deletion, but for debate. No reason to get wound up at all, this is just the system working the way it is supposed to. I spotted it, and helped to sort out the situation. Job done, move on, no need to get annoyed over anything.

I think enough has been done in linking to Shannon's article on RPGNet. Thanks all.

An admin on Wikipedia has flagged the Basic Roleplaying article as not having established notability of the subject matter, and thus may be considered for deletion at some point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Role-Playing

Now I know what you're all thinking, but don't. A flood of fans all logging on and saying "It's notable, we know it, it's historically significant and great and stuff" isn't going to help. Appologies for the characterisation, I exaggerate for comic effect.

What *will* help is references to published material that states that BRP is historically significant to the hobby, and preferably which is independent of Chaosium, Games Workshop, and anyone else directly linked to the material. By this I mean reviews and historical articles in publications such as Dragon, Escapist, etc. or, even better, in mainstream publications outside the hobby. Blogs of prominent industry people like Ken Rolston are also good, even though he worked for Avalon Hill on the RQ stuff.

If you find something, then you can either navigate the maze of templates and citation rules, or just post a reply here and I'll do that bit.