Training : some thoughts

[Darius West]

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

I wouldn't try to add this to RQG.

Why not?  It would be very easy to do. 

Skill Diff.      Exp Die     Choice   Example

V Easy             1d20           10%      Running

Easy                 2d6              7%       Basket weaving

Simple             1d10            5%       Riding

Average           1d6              3%       Sword

Difficult            1d4              2%       Beast Lore

V. Difficult        1d2              1%       Alchemy

Edited January 10, 2020 by Darius West

[Akhôrahil]

8 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Why not?  It would be very easy to do. 

Skill Diff.      Exp Die     Choice   Example

V Easy             1d20           10%      Crawling

Easy                 2d6              7%       Basket weaving

Simple             1d10            5%       Riding

Average           1d6              3%       Sword

Difficult            1d4              2%       Beast Lore

V. Difficult        1d2              1%       Alchemy

Apart from Crawling (not actually a skill), this table seems arbitrary. In what particular way is using a sword a more difficult skill to learn than riding? Do olympic equestrians need to train less than olympic fencers? Is becoming a master basket weaver something that's 3.5 times quicker than becoming a loremaster of beasts? Why? On what grounds?

Edited January 10, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Darius West]

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Apart from Crawling (not actually a skill), this table seems arbitrary. In what particular way is using a sword a more difficult skill to learn than riding? Do olympic equestrians need to train less than olympic fencers? Is becoming a master basket weaver something that's 3.5 times quicker than becoming a loremaster of beasts? Why? On what grounds?

In short, yes.  Let's go case by case...

Firstly, it is not a good example to compare olympic athletes with each other as they are all engaged in intensive training and likely train every day regardless of what their skill is at. The issue is not which elite athlete trains longer, but which skill is easier to learn and therefore faster to master.

In terms of skills, the notion of a "master basket weaver" in ancient times would be completely risible; a bit like claiming you were a master selfie taker.  Why?  Because basket weaving was a skill that was seen as easy and not of much account.  While you would find a potters' guild, you wouldn't find a basket weavers guild for this reason.  Children were expected to have "mastered" basket weaving.  Given that a success would mean that you have turned a pile of wicker into a container capable of holding produce without falling apart, it isn't hard to achieve, and you can quickly get more creative in your designs.  Probably the height of the skill was being able to weave a watertight basket, and in truth, while this wasn't impossible, few people could be bothered learning how.  Now compare that time to the amount of time required to become a properly trained biologist, or even a decently skilled naturalist or animal trainer.  In short, 3.5 times faster is pretty accurate, and in fact too generous.

Now let's address riding.  It is the skill of making an animal mount reliably move in the direction you want them to go in while not falling off.  Within the RQG rules, the not falling off part is all important, and we don't seem too worried about animals not going where they are supposed to it seems. Obviously you face obstacles when riding, and some are more testing of one's skill than others.  Typically people fall off during jumps, or when hit by branches, or in the bronze age, when someone interferes with the belly-band.  I do suspect that this skill is made a lot easier by more advanced saddles, so perhaps for RQG, it should be rated as Average, but on the other hand, most people who spend a week on horseback get very proficient very quickly.  We can partly put this down to attribute bonuses, and having a base skill, but someone who starts with a base 5% skill, never having ridden a horse before, will be quite proficient after a week's trail ride. 

As to swords, well the skill is certainly about how to employ some basic moves, but the art is in anticipating the moves of one's opponent, and countering them.  This leads to a lot of complexity that emerges from relatively simple principles as a result of this intense competition which is intrinsic to the skill.  While it isn't a hard skill to learn the basics of, it is a very hard skill to get genuinely good at, much like all weapons.  On the other hand, is it as difficult as high level mathematics?  No.  Is it as involved as memorizing esoteric formulae so you can produce wonder medicines from basic ingredients and the use of a lab?  No, it isn't.  While it is a difficult skill in many ways, the sword is not as difficult to learn as many of the intensely abstract and intellectual fields, where today we often see academics involved in learning more and more about less and less.

As to crawling not being a skill, you're right, so let's change that to running.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Darius West

[Darius West]

19 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Everyone in the culture has some weapon ability and training. Whether for defence or food. And using a weapon at 25% is something many of us can do now anyway, with bow being the hardest. 

You should be able to dance around in a melee combat and score a reasonable hit 25% of the time, and maybe parry a strike towards you with some effectiveness about 25% of the time... No???

When someone who has had even a little bit of training goes up against someone who has had no training beyond watching people swing a weapon, it quickly becomes apparent that the untrained person is in a lot of trouble. Literally 5 minutes of training and a couple of hints from someone who knows what they're doing can make so much difference (assuming the person being trained bothers to listen).  This is vaguely akin to an "assisted skill use" effect, except a smart person may remember what they have been taught and keep doing it, making it something else, perhaps a bit more like RQ2 scroll treasures perhaps.  It is hard to express this effect in game terms, but it is tangible and I have seen it in effect quite often.

[Akhôrahil]

13 minutes ago, Darius West said:

When someone who has had even a little bit of training[...]

I believe the idea is that the women have had a little bit of training, if nothing else a Vingan who drops by sometimes to teach elementary self-defence. Likely not any proper military training, but just being a dozen of you and poking spears in the right direction in a mildly coordinated fashion can fend off some enemies (compare the samurai training the villagers in The Seven Samurai). 

Edited January 10, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[French Desperate WindChild]

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

 

If we apply the curve to skill increase, it means you get bigger/smaller rolls based on different "tiers" of current skill. Again, a simple table would suffice. Let's say between 0% and 19% you get 3d6, then between 20% and 39% you get 2d6, and after that's it's 1d6.

I feel it very good.

 

19 hours ago, g33k said:

I'd be strongly against anything gender'ed.

I cannot tell you how much I hate the idea of "not as skilled, because she's a girl."

Base the differences on the cultural roles,  profession, and the Cults.  People following "peaceful" professions & Cults (Barntar, Ernalda, etc) get many more "peaceful" skills, regardless of gender.  People following "adventurer" Cults get combat-related and other "adventuring" skills, regardless of gender.

 

I am not talking about our world / culture now (In my opinion there is no reason to pay less or more, or to close the door to a gender / a sex / a religion... if the job is done it is done as long as softskills are good too), but about the glorantha

There are 2 things : what you learnt before you're  initiation,  and what you learnt because you're cult choice or call /profession choice.

Of course a warrior (any gender) will learn weapons, of course a healer (any gender) will learn first aid.

Of course Vinga cultist will learn weapon, of course Barntar cultist will learn plant lore.

But my point was "cultural weapon"
How do adults prepare children before initiation ? Did they specialized girls differently than boys ?

I never learn how to use a weapon at school. I am not sure that my skill today is just 25% the soldier skill after  3 (?) years of training to become master. Or just fist fight. I am pretty sure I have less than 25% to hit (with impact) a sand bag. And I am a man, but a man born in XX century. If I was born in XI century I probably knew more about mace / axe (no sword I'm not a noble) and very probably any girl (in France at least)  would be prohibited to use the same weapon

Do you think, than in Sartar where Ernalda for women and Orlanth for men are so obvious, girls and boys learn exactly the same things ?

Of course if you see this girl with a vingan temper, you may teach her weapons skills or a man with a nandan temper you may teach him some Ernalda attribut skill. But not all the girls, and not all the boys

To avoid a table gender, I propose something else:

the cultural table gives no % for weapons, only a list. the profession bonus give more bonus not +10 but +25 for exemple, for any "cultural weapon", and if you want an exotic weapon, you have a -15% malus.

Then: you, a woman or a man, you have the same skill, because you'r way is profession + cult.

If your cult give you no weapon, and your profession just one (like Barntar / Ernalda farmer) ok, you have one skill at 40-50% and the others are.. ridiculous score like mine IRL.

If your cult give you one weapon, and your profession 3 or 4 (like orlanth/humakt warrior) ok, you have 2 - 3 skills at 60%+ and  one at 80%+

 

[Lordabdul]

4 hours ago, Darius West said:

Why not?  It would be very easy to do. 

Why not? Because you have to draw the line somewhere about what to model and what not. RQG drew the line there and I don't feel the need to move it... and that's coming from me, a big GURPS nerd, a system that does have different skill difficulty ratings.

But see, it's "easy" to come up with a table, but it's harder to make it work and justify it -- if only vaguely evidenced by the many lines of text to try and justify it immediately afterwards.

First, your table has 6 levels of difficulty. GURPS, a system known for supposedly being overly complex, only has 4. Why did you pick 6? Did you think about it?

Second, your table only addresses training. Why are character creation rules exempt for this? Why would 21 year-old basket weaver and a 21 year-old alchemist have the same ratings in their respective professional skills when one has an easy skill and the other has a very difficult skill?

How are you going to address gameplay balance? Different difficulty ratings will mean that different characters will progress at different speeds. You might realize that, given the categorization you've done, some occupations will be unfairly "slowed down" while others are "boosted". People with "difficult" rating for their main professional skill will progress slowly, which affects their yearly income... but if their skill is "difficult", surely they are in some expert field and are bound to charge more, no? So you have to go and check back on all the income amounts. And you have to check back on all the skills marked as "main occupation skill", to see if that needs rebalancing. And also you need to see if any occupation has an unbalanced skill list compared to other occupations... I call that the "suck it, healer" problem, where if you want to play, say, a druid-type healer, you need to learn medicine and surgery and herbology and chemistry and all kinds of stuff like that a suddenly you have a whole bunch of "difficult" skills, so your character creation points evaporate way faster, and your character progression comes to a crawl, compared to the fighter guy who only spends points and improves his weapon and shield skills (both average in difficulty). So then you need to maybe change the skill list, to fix the problem of some occupations having too many skills by grouping several skills into one or something... and so on.

This thing is going to slowly and insidiously ripple through the whole game system and next thing you know there's something slightly wrong or unsatisfying with your characters and your campaign, and you realize what you've done. Or maybe your players are not so picky, maybe your campaigns don't last that long, maybe you end up with a bunch of PCs that don't expose this problem too much or at all (like, say, everybody's a fighter!).

[Shiningbrow]

11 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Why not? Because you have to draw the line somewhere about what to model and what not. RQG drew the line there and I don't feel the need to move it... and that's coming from me, a big GURPS nerd, a system that does have different skill difficulty ratings.

But see, it's "easy" to come up with a table, but it's harder to make it work and justify it -- if only vaguely evidenced by the many lines of text to try and justify it immediately afterwards.

First, your table has 6 levels of difficulty. GURPS, a system known for supposedly being overly complex, only has 4. Why did you pick 6? Did you think about it?

Second, your table only addresses training. Why are character creation rules exempt for this? Why would 21 year-old basket weaver and a 21 year-old alchemist have the same ratings in their respective professional skills when one has an easy skill and the other has a very difficult skill?

How are you going to address gameplay balance? Different difficulty ratings will mean that different characters will progress at different speeds. You might realize that, given the categorization you've done, some occupations will be unfairly "slowed down" while others are "boosted". People with "difficult" rating for their main professional skill will progress slowly, which affects their yearly income... but if their skill is "difficult", surely they are in some expert field and are bound to charge more, no? So you have to go and check back on all the income amounts. And you have to check back on all the skills marked as "main occupation skill", to see if that needs rebalancing. And also you need to see if any occupation has an unbalanced skill list compared to other occupations... I call that the "suck it, healer" problem, where if you want to play, say, a druid-type healer, you need to learn medicine and surgery and herbology and chemistry and all kinds of stuff like that a suddenly you have a whole bunch of "difficult" skills, so your character creation points evaporate way faster, and your character progression comes to a crawl, compared to the fighter guy who only spends points and improves his weapon and shield skills (both average in difficulty). So then you need to maybe change the skill list, to fix the problem of some occupations having too many skills by grouping several skills into one or something... and so on.

This thing is going to slowly and insidiously ripple through the whole game system and next thing you know there's something slightly wrong or unsatisfying with your characters and your campaign, and you realize what you've done. Or maybe your players are not so picky, maybe your campaigns don't last that long, maybe you end up with a bunch of PCs that don't expose this problem too much or at all (like, say, everybody's a fighter!).

Or... You suddenly realise you're no longer playing Runequest.

[Darius West]

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

How are you going to address gameplay balance? Different difficulty ratings will mean that different characters will progress at different speeds.

RQ has never worried about gameplay balance.  This is one of its great strengths as a game.  Nobody is restricted from learning any skill, save by the bounds of what is opportunistically available to them within the game's geographical and social setting.  One's character may start life as a dog worshipping savage, but  can learn to read and write and eventually become an erudite sorcerer if one can find a way to do so.

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

But see, it's "easy" to come up with a table, but it's harder to make it work and justify it -- if only vaguely evidenced by the many lines of text to try and justify it immediately afterwards.

That sounds like laziness to me.

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

First, your table has 6 levels of difficulty. GURPS, a system known for supposedly being overly complex, only has 4. Why did you pick 6? Did you think about it?

Why even assume that GURPS is the gold standard here?  It isn't even a good system, merely one that handles a great many diverse situations badly. A classic example of a system where one size fits nothing and no-one.  Bad game mechanics.

Did I think about it?  Yes.  Allow me to explain... I divided the skills into ones you can learn in a day, a week, a month, a season, a year, and a decade.  These may seem like arbitrary time breaks, but they seem to work out surprisingly well in practice.  I have put a lot of thought into it over a number of years of research on various skills.  Thanks for asking.  Did you think about it?

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Second, your table only addresses training. Why are character creation rules exempt for this? Why would 21 year-old basket weaver and a 21 year-old alchemist have the same ratings in their respective professional skills when one has an easy skill and the other has a very difficult skill?

Obviously there should be some alterations to those rules.  Good point.

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

People with "difficult" rating for their main professional skill will progress slowly, which affects their yearly income

Like in real life ? Oh noes!

19 hours ago, lordabdul said:

You might realize that, given the categorization you've done, some occupations will be unfairly "slowed down" while others are "boosted".

The only word I take exception to in that sentence is "unfairly".  If it is realistic, it is fair.

8 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Or... You suddenly realise you're no longer playing Runequest.

Or you have made a system which is pretty realistic even better.  RQ has had a lot of re-writes, like many RPGs.  The aim of every rewrite is to make the game better, isn't it?  And isn't RQG getting another rewrite soon?

[Shiningbrow]

2 hours ago, Darius West said:

Or you have made a system which is pretty realistic even better.  RQ has had a lot of re-writes, like many RPGs.  The aim of every rewrite is to make the game better, isn't it?  And isn't RQG getting another rewrite soon?

More realistic doesn't necessarily mean better. I'm going to presume a large number of people don't want more realism in RQ. If they did, they would have said so earlier, or appropriated Harnmaster.

Remember - MGF!

Edited January 11, 2020 by Shiningbrow

[Lordabdul]

4 hours ago, Darius West said:

Did you think about it?

Sorry if I sounded mean, that wasn't my intent -- I was merely asking about the reasoning behind 6 skill levels since the way you wrote your replied made it look like you had just come up with that table 5 minutes beforehand. But I explicitly said that I didn't want to think about it  

4 hours ago, Darius West said:

Why even assume that GURPS is the gold standard here?

Aside from the fact that I explicitly said I'm a GURPS-fan you mean?    The point wasn't to say that GURPS is the gold standard. The point was to say that GURPS is considered "overly complicated" by many gamers, and so it should give you pause when you design a system that's even more complicated than GURPS.

4 hours ago, Darius West said:

And isn't RQG getting another rewrite soon?

No, why would you think that? It just had one already.

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Remember - MGF!

Yep. If Darius' idea of fun is "more realistic income and education inequality" then by all means he should proceed -- it's not my fun but I support and love to see people come up with house rules. My point was to highlight that this kind of change tends to seep into many other parts of the system. Even if you have different design goals ("realism" vs "game balance"), it does affect all that other stuff one way or another... so that's why I was challenging Darius' quick reply composed of "it's easy, look" followed by a simple table.

[Shiningbrow]

8 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Yep. If Darius' idea of fun is "more realistic income and education inequality" then by all means he should proceed -- it's not my fun but I support and love to see people come up with house rules. My point was to highlight that this kind of change tends to seep into many other parts of the system. Even if you have different design goals ("realism" vs "game balance"), it does affect all that other stuff one way or another... so that's why I was challenging Darius' quick reply composed of "it's easy, look" followed by a simple table.

Agreed. I think if you're going to go to realism approach for one, you should probably go for the whole lot. (In contrast to what I write below :p)

It just gets a time-consuming.

(Although, personally, I'd like more differentiated hit locations, and damage/absorption for weapons/armour).

[Darius West]

On 1/12/2020 at 3:13 AM, lordabdul said:

No, why would you think that? It just had one already.

I have heard some gossip about this very point from Chaosium people at RQCon Downunder recently.  Yeah, there is a version 2 under discussion.  Idk how serious it is, but it seemed pretty serious, in fact, like it was already underway.

On 1/12/2020 at 3:13 AM, lordabdul said:

Yep. If Darius' idea of fun is "more realistic income and education inequality" then by all means he should proceed -- it's not my fun but I support and love to see people come up with house rules. My point was to highlight that this kind of change tends to seep into many other parts of the system. Even if you have different design goals ("realism" vs "game balance"), it does affect all that other stuff one way or another... so that's why I was challenging Darius' quick reply composed of "it's easy, look" followed by a simple table.

LOL education inequality. Hilarious.  I want a skill system that reflects the real world.  If that means you won't master alchemy until your 60s, so be it, alchemists and wizards should be old, and long drawn out apprenticeships should be part of that.  The entire change would be a bracket with 2 letters in it next to skills, or even going into the base skill on the character sheet.  And the pay off?  Realistic skill training times and improvement rates. 

[Darius West]

On 1/12/2020 at 1:31 AM, Shiningbrow said:

More realistic doesn't necessarily mean better. I'm going to presume a large number of people don't want more realism in RQ. If they did, they would have said so earlier, or appropriated Harnmaster.

Remember - MGF!

If they don't want realism, they can get their narrative/systemless jollies playing HQ, and probably already do so.  RQ has always been a flagship for realism in RPGs.  Don't believe me?  Remove the magic system and look at what happens in combat.  For me, a good portion of MGF is a game system that behaves like the real world in most respects, but with some magic to spice it up.  I am not alone in wanting this.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Darius West

[SDLeary]

30 minutes ago, Darius West said:

I have heard some gossip about this very point from Chaosium people at RQCon Downunder recently.  Yeah, there is a version 2 under discussion.  Idk how serious it is, but it seemed pretty serious, in fact, like it was already underway.

Just for reference... this kind of chatter ALWAYS goes on inside a game company. Until they actually tell you that there is a manuscript in hand, or that its in-editing, I’d take it with a grain of salt. 

SDLeary

[Bill the barbarian]

38 minutes ago, Darius West said:

I have heard some gossip about this very point from Chaosium people at RQCon Downunder recently.  Yeah, there is a version 2 under discussion.  Idk how serious it is, but it seemed pretty serious, in fact, like it was already underway.

 

Great good news if true, I love my RQ G books, but I realize work needs to be done and for precedence see RQ 1 and the better edit of RQ 2 which came out... what 2 years later!

8 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

Just for reference... this kind of chatter ALWAYS goes on inside a game company. Until they actually tell you that there is a manuscript in hand, or that its in-editing, I’d take it with a grain of salt. 

SDLeary

Oh sure, ruin my mounting joy with horrible reality!

[Shiningbrow]

10 hours ago, Darius West said:

If they don't want realism, they can get their narrative/systemless jollies playing HQ, and probably already do so.  RQ has always been a flagship for realism in RPGs.  Don't believe me?  Remove the magic system and look at what happens in combat.  For me, a good portion of MGF is a game system that behaves like the real world in most respects, but with some magic to spice it up.  I am not alone in wanting this.

There's clearly levels of realism. RQ *simulates* the real world slightly (in rules) - certainly better than some other systems. But it clearly doesn't go all the way. Obviously more than HQ.

I mentioned above Härnmaster... Different damage types, a MUCH more complete hit locations table, much more complex overall. It'd be easy to do a Glorantha Härnmaster - but I don't think it would sell very well, and most RQ players wouldn't stick with it.

 

People who play BRP want *some* realism, but definitely not the whole hog.

And that's all I'm saying.... 

[SDLeary]

10 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

 

Great good news if true, I love my RQ G books, but I realize work needs to be done and for precedence see RQ 1 and the better edit of RQ 2 which came out... what 2 years later!

Oh sure, ruin my mounting joy with horrible reality!

Your a Barbarian... isn't your mounting joy horrible reality? 😁

SDLeary

[Pentallion]

On 1/8/2020 at 3:02 PM, g33k said:

I think the idea is, you get involved with your community, your clan.  "Full time adventurer" isn't what the rules are aimed at; your "day job" isn't an optional choice you make.  You're expected to be a responsible & engaged member of the clan, the community (more or less non-optionally).

And your god generally cares about this stuff.  Don't expect rune-magic & rune-points if you're behaving selfishly; your god wants their whole community to thrive!  The world doesn't just go on by itself -- if YOU, personally, aren't helping it get along, YOU can expect personal repercussions.

The "landed aristocracy" isn't the same thing (in Sartar); it isn't a leisure class, and it isn't "landed."  You hold land, and work it, on behalf of the clan ... but it's still Clan land, not YOUR land.  If you delegate the duty to a lieutenant so you can go adventuring, you can expect the Clan may soon decide you were right, and reassign the land formally to your (former) lieutenant, who has demonstrated ability and dedication (unlike some slacker who calls themselves an "adventurer").

We had an early HR in our RQ2 games:  you could only take one "training" check in any given skill, then you needed some real-world experience before you could get another training-check.  I haven't decided whether to carry that forward to RQG.

Something worth considering is the idea of skill-thresholds.  50%, 75%, 90% ...  We already have one threshold, at 100% -- the 100%ers can suddenly split their attacks.  99%'ers can only dream of it!

So you might say... for "Ride(Horse)" that somewhere around 30%, you won't fall off (unless somebody knocks you off, or the horse tries to buck, or similar).  Below that, and you may just be inexperienced enough to fail a "ride in a straight line on easy ground" roll, just from the horse changing gait unexpectedly, or something like!  😆

Just a thought FWIW.

For a game set in a classical greek era during the Hero Wars ie classical greek Iliad, it sure goes out of its way to have stay at home heroes.  Not very sail off for years of adventuring type rules.

[Darius West]

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

There's clearly levels of realism. RQ *simulates* the real world slightly (in rules) - certainly better than some other systems. But it clearly doesn't go all the way. Obviously more than HQ.

I mentioned above Härnmaster... Different damage types, a MUCH more complete hit locations table, much more complex overall. It'd be easy to do a Glorantha Härnmaster - but I don't think it would sell very well, and most RQ players wouldn't stick with it.  People who play BRP want *some* realism, but definitely not the whole hog.  And that's all I'm saying.... 

Fair enough.  There is a point at which rules get top heavy and bog down the game in mechanical trivia.  Harnmaster isn't even the worst offender on that score.  

[Akhôrahil]

14 minutes ago, Darius West said:

Fair enough.  There is a point at which rules get top heavy and bog down the game in mechanical trivia.  Harnmaster isn't even the worst offender on that score.  

The next Gloranthan RPG, very combat detailed, set in the East Isles: Twin Phoenix Command.

[Lordabdul]

14 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

RQ *simulates* the real world slightly (in rules) - certainly better than some other systems.

Sorry for being picky but I'd say it simulates the real world more than other systems, not necessarily "better"

14 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

People who play BRP want *some* realism, but definitely not the whole hog.

Yeah, I think RuneQuest's DNA/goals has always been about (1) making low-tech melee weapon fighting more realistic, and (2) making magic more sophisticated. Other aspects of the system are deliberately not as crunchy, which results in a fairly non-uniform crunchiness throughout that some people might be bothered with (hence house rules). Gloranthophiles are blessed enough that there's no less than 3 officially supported game systems (you can stretch it to 4 if you count Mythras!) from where to start before you add house rules... I don't know if any other setting has this kind of luxury!

Edited January 13, 2020 by lordabdul

[Shiningbrow]

8 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Sorry for being picky but I'd say it simulates the real world more than other systems, not necessarily "better"

😮😮😮😮

 

😜

[g33k]

RQ has always leaned a bit more toward the melodramatic & pulpy than the "realistic," of course.

To see this, one need only look at the RQ characters who've lost limbs, vs what the archaeologists find who study old battle sites, and graveyards...   😇

 

Also, honesty compels me to note that other games like GURPS (with its "accuracy" & "realism" dials maximized) and Riddle of Steel (which only HAD accuracy/realism as a metric 😉  ) both exceed BRP in this regard. _ 

[Darius West]

On 1/16/2020 at 5:42 AM, g33k said:

RQ has always leaned a bit more toward the melodramatic & pulpy than the "realistic," of course.

To see this, one need only look at the RQ characters who've lost limbs, vs what the archaeologists find who study old battle sites, and graveyards...   😇

https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/57471/is-there-an-online-random-setting-generator

IRL there are no Chalana Arroys to regrow your limb or stick it back on with a Healing 6.  No, our healers were actually the main amputators.