Shields

[Kloster]

31 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

The obvious use for Sing is as a skill augment.

Yes. I used it for casting spells and 1 battle song.

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, Akhôrahil said:

The obvious use for Sing is as a skill augment.

Yes, exactly, that's my point: Sing is useful mechanically. So is Shield. But a whole bunch of other things fill the same mechanical usage: you can also augment with a Rune, a Passion, or some other skill. And all those things are more interesting to spend points on than Sing. Same situation as with Shield. I'm pretty sure that if we were to make a priority list of things people typically use to augment their attacks, you would have Orate and Intimidation before Sing, because those 2 are more generally useful than Sing. And then they'd use Runes/Passions which typically have far bigger scores (although you can't really spend points in those). So you end up with a cultural trope (barbarians singing and banging their weapons before charging) that doesn't get reflected in the game because there's not enough mechanical incentive to do so compared to other better mechanical incentives. Similar to how players who go where the mechanics leads them will prefer to parry instead of using a shield.

Of course, narratively speaking, you could say that an Orate or Passion augment is, in fact, a song of some kind. So you can still kind of get the cultural trope in your games without mechanics. Which is why I was saying my point was both far fetched, but also illustrating that you don't necessarily need mechanics per se... Anyway, I think we have way enough suggested shield-related house rules, so I'm hoping the OP will now come back with feedback on which rules work well.

Edited July 6, 2020 by lordabdul

[Squaredeal Sten]

I realize that due to mis-interpreting the RQG shield rules, we have been playing with an informal house rule;  The GM has let a medium shield automatically take the damage to a left arm or chest.  A mis-interpretation possibly based on a hasty reading of the shields / missile weapons section and the phalanx section of the combat rules. 

But it seems a reasonable thought- possibly good to add to the current rules?  What do you think?

[BrentS]

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Yes, exactly, that's my point: Sing is useful mechanically. So is Shield. But a whole bunch of other things fill the same mechanical usage: you can also augment with a Rune, a Passion, or some other skill. And all those things are more interesting to spend points on than Sing. Same situation as with Shield. I'm pretty sure that if we were to make a priority list of things people typically use to augment their attacks, you would have Orate and Intimidation before Sing, because those 2 are more generally useful than Sing. And then they'd use Runes/Passions which typically have far bigger scores (although you can't really spend points in those). So you end up with a cultural trope (barbarians singing and banging their weapons before charging) that doesn't get reflected in the game because there's not enough mechanical incentive to do so compared to other better mechanical incentives. Similar to how players who go where the mechanics leads them will prefer to parry instead of using a shield.

Of course, narratively speaking, you could say that an Orate or Passion augment is, in fact, a song of some kind. So you can still kind of get the cultural trope in your games without mechanics. Which is why I was saying my point was both far fetched, but also illustrating that you don't necessarily need mechanics per se... Anyway, I think we have way enough suggested shield-related house rules, so I'm hoping the OP will now come back with feedback on which rules work well.

I think the difference between soft skills like Sing, Orate and Intimidate is that while they may be culturally important, they are not the focus of the game. This is an heroic fantasy game simulating an experience equivalent to our own ancient societies. Ancient societies placed a premium on warfare and, true to its wargame roots, RQG focuses on combat, a whole chapter on it. We celebrate Glorantha in all its detail, including its rich cultural setting, but for the majority of gaming this supports play focused on violence, or the possibility of it. You only have to look at the official published scenarios to see this. We can certainly all point to games where intrigue, negotiation and social interaction are the central themes, and these sessions are fantastic, but those exceptions to the rule don't escape the fact that RQG is, at its heart, a game about adventure and armed conflict. We might theoretically propose that a game centred on singing would be great, with a full chapter focused on yodelling and intricate, complex rules devoted to it, while combat is reduced to a single Manipulation skill description.....but if we're honest, we know none of us want to play that game 🙂

This means that there is an onus on design to get its core system of combat right. So integrating shield skills in a satisfying, meaningful and workable way is more important than fine tuning the Sing skill. Interestingly, my next game will have a Chalanna Arroy player, and Sing may well be an important part of her therapeutic toolbox, possibly combined with Comfort Song. This is an exciting challenge and will help foster the setting and narrative focus we want, but part of the game's tension will be how a peaceful person navigates a violent world. I won't be subjecting the other players to a game about singing 🙂

While I've really enjoyed and learned from all the excellent discussion, I can't include all the suggestions, particularly those that advocate increased complexity or reverting to other rule systems with which I'm unfamiliar. It's actually all helped to convince me that my original simple idea, slightly modified, is my best bet, and that's what I'll trial first. If it doesn't break the game and make us all decide to give up and find an RPG about singing, I'll let you know. 🙂

 

Brent.

Edited July 6, 2020 by BrentS

[Lloyd Dupont]

10 minutes ago, BrentS said:

We might theoretically propose that a game centred on singing would be great, with a full chapter focused on yodelling and intricate, complex rules devoted to it, while combat is reduced to a single Manipulation skill description.

Very forward thinking!
I am going to start to exploit the Yodelling mechanic right now! 🤣

[Austin]

7 hours ago, BrentS said:

If it doesn't break the game and make us all decide to give up and find an RPG about singing, I'll let you know. 🙂

You better!

[Lordabdul]

Fun topic necromancy: I was reading back on some of the RQG designer's notes that I had missed, and there's a little interesting tidbit about shields in there. See if you can spot it!

[DreadDomain]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

Fun topic necromancy: I was reading back on some of the RQG designer's notes that I had missed, and there's a little interesting tidbit about shields in there. See if you can spot it!

I have not clicked on the link but going from memory, is it that they considered using a shield would not be a separate skill but would be part of the main weapon skill?

[Squaredeal Sten]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

Fun topic necromancy: I was reading back on some of the RQG designer's notes that I had missed, and there's a little interesting tidbit about shields in there. See if you can spot it!

Yes, interesting.   So the shield skill is a later thought, after an initial intent to just make shield parry % the same as weapon parry %.  Perhaps a result of later playtesting after the initial design notes?

Personally i live well with the shield parry rules as they are.  It doesn't rub me the wrong way.  And when i learned to fence it was foil fencing, no shield, so it's "obvious" to me that shield parry skill is NOT always linked to weapon parry skill. 

[Lordabdul]

Just now, DreadDomain said:

I have not clicked on the link but going from memory, is it that they considered using a shield would not be a separate skill but would be part of the main weapon skill?

You have excellent memory  

[DreadDomain]

23 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

You have excellent memory  

I remember that one because I thought it was quite a departure that somewhat mirrored the decision to not split attack and parry.