What rules do you use from other editions?

[Godlearner]

14 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Interesting. During play, what was that fixed INT stat used for?

You could Befuddle or Mindblast a creature. The chance was not that good, but it was there. People already mentioned the Familiars, but it was also useful for see what a various pets could do, and what you could train them to do. I tend to use the Handle Animal skill from Pathfinder now in absence of any clear rules in any RQ editions.

[DreadDomain]

17 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

A) Still here are a few rules that I like and actually taking very little to no effort to implement:

1) From King Arthur Pendragon and Call of Cthulhu: Melee rounds last an elastic amount of time ranging from an instant to 10s of seconds depending on what makes sense in the narrative.

2) From RuneQuest 3: Special Melee Tactics that are missing from RQG (more specifically Close Combat), Special Knockback for special success on Crushing attack (but not slashing) and quick experience system to replace the RQG's additional experience sidebar. 

3) From RuneQuest Quickstart: If both parties roll the same level of success in an opposed roll and a tie does not make sense, whoever rolls highest win. There is still a chance for a tie if both contestant roll the same number. In that case, the contest could be given to the highest skill/characteristic or be rerolled.

 

I forgot another one:

4) From RuneQuest: Aventures dans Glorantha (not sure if it is also in other translations), the adjusted starting skills for a small number of occupations.

[DreadDomain]

17 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

A) Still here are a few rules that I like and actually taking very little to no effort to implement:

1) From King Arthur Pendragon and Call of Cthulhu: Melee rounds last an elastic amount of time ranging from an instant to 10s of seconds depending on what makes sense in the narrative.

2) From RuneQuest 3: Special Melee Tactics that are missing from RQG (more specifically Close Combat), Special Knockback for special success on Crushing attack (but not slashing) and quick experience system to replace the RQG's additional experience sidebar. 

3) From RuneQuest Quickstart: If both parties roll the same level of success in an opposed roll and a tie does not make sense, whoever rolls highest win. There is still a chance for a tie if both contestant roll the same number. In that case, the contest could be given to the highest skill/characteristic or be rerolled.

4) From RuneQuest: Aventures dans Glorantha (not sure if it is also in other translations), the adjusted starting skills for a small number of occupations.

 

Ok, just realised I had double posted so let's add another one that I like:

5) From Call of Cthulhu and the Big Golden Book: Hard/Difficult tests for skills (this is difficult, you need to roll  under half of your skill to fully succeed).

Edited August 6, 2021 by DreadDomain
Edited double-post to add different content

[dvdmacateer]

Knockback for damage > SIZ from RQ3

[DreadDomain]

3 hours ago, dvdmacateer said:

Knockback for damage > SIZ from RQ3

That's another good one. Knockback is 1 meter per 5 points in excess of SIZ which meant you didn't have to pay attention to the rule unless  a) a truck load of damage was dealt, or b) there was an intentional attempt to inflict knockback.  

[soltakss]

On 8/5/2021 at 12:08 AM, lordabdul said:

Interesting. During play, what was that fixed INT stat used for?

I think that RQ3 Griffin Island had it as the number of commands an animal could reasonably be expected to know.

 

[Lordabdul]

15 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I forgot another one:

4) From RuneQuest: Aventures dans Glorantha (not sure if it is also in other translations), the adjusted starting skills for a small number of occupations.

THIS YES

[Beoferret]

On 7/20/2021 at 3:08 AM, SMW said:

We still distinguish between melee and missile hit location tables.  After decades of RQ3, we have them memorised.

What are the big differences here? I've long been feeling like the RAW random hit location generation for melee combat - where leg hits are a lot more common than head shots - is a little skewed. My own experiences in Kumdo/kendo and in swinging foam swords at friends and family produced a lot more head hits than leg hits (yes, these results are shaped by the fact that the legs are not official targets in kumdo - but they do get hit from time to time during particularly intense bouts or in bouts between beginners with unsteady aim.)

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 8/6/2021 at 3:21 AM, dvdmacateer said:

Knockback for damage > SIZ from RQ3

Iirc there’s intentional knockback in RQG, but not a general rule like in RQ3. This would be easy to slot into RQG. Though I guess you’d need to give some thought to whether you allow it for all special damage types  (slash,crush,impale)? In RQ3 where the rule originates there was only impale.

• Should slash have a knockback potential?
• With Impale does knockback take the weapon with them?
• Perhaps there should be options for the attacker to run with the impale, adding their damage bonus again for extra knockback? 
• Depending on how far the knockback are you still considered ‘engaged’ for purposes of the melee round? 

Good optional rule, but a little extra to remember. 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

14 hours ago, lordabdul said:

THIS YES

How is this different? 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Regarding movement in RQ3, and strike ranks, personally I wouldn’t want to use that as it creates a lot more to track in game, pushing the game into a more simulationist direction. Having said that RQ3 is perhaps better suited to accurately measuring movement in melee, and if that suites your style maybe something worth considering? RQG/RQ2 is better suited to theatre of the mind, and has more flexibility which I like. 

Edited August 7, 2021 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Joerg]

3 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

How is this different? 

Total number of skill points gained on par with other careers.

[dvdmacateer]

21 hours ago, soltakss said:

I think that RQ3 Griffin Island had it as the number of commands an animal could reasonably be expected to know.

 

I had a dig through Griffin Island can't seem to find the reference. 

[dvdmacateer]

4 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Iirc there’s intentional knockback in RQG, but not a general rule like in RQ3. This would be easy to slot into RQG. Though I guess you’d need to give some thought to whether you allow it for all special damage types  (slash,crush,impale)? In RQ3 where the rule originates there was only impale.

• Should slash have a knockback potential?
• With Impale does knockback take the weapon with them?
• Perhaps there should be options for the attacker to run with the impale, adding their damage bonus again for extra knockback? 
• Depending on how far the knockback are you still considered ‘engaged’ for purposes of the melee round? 

Good optional rule, but a little extra to remember. 

In RQ 3 it does not have to be a special any damage that goes over the target's SIZ creates a knock back.  For each 5 pts of damage or fraction thereof the target is knocked back 1m and make a Dex x5  to stay standing pg 49  of the boxed set players book.  With smashing  and slashing weapons  on special the target is knocked back 1m per 5pts of damage, SIZ is not a factor pg 56 of the Box set players book . 

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

24 minutes ago, dvdmacateer said:

In RQ 3 it does not have to be a special any damage that goes over the target's SIZ creates a knock back.  For each 5 pts of damage or fraction thereof the target is knocked back 1m and make a Dex x5  to stay standing pg 49  of the boxed set players book.  With smashing  and slashing weapons  on special the target is knocked back 1m per 5pts of damage, SIZ is not a factor pg 56 of the Box set players book . 

 

Yes RQ3 only had impale special damage, so I was thinking there’s an opportunity in RQG to allow the flavour of attack with the greater variety (slash,crush,impale), to dictate how effective the knockback is. Doesn’t have to be ‘special damage’ as such, but maybe crush type weapons have more of an opportunity for knockback on a normal attack etc? Slashing weapons might not be as effective for knockback? 

[Kloster]

On 8/6/2021 at 3:55 AM, DreadDomain said:

4) From RuneQuest: Aventures dans Glorantha (not sure if it is also in other translations), the adjusted starting skills for a small number of occupations.

So do I, but I don't count it, because I currently play with the french release (all my players are french and most of them don't speak english).

[Kloster]

20 hours ago, Beoferret said:

What are the big differences here? I've long been feeling like the RAW random hit location generation for melee combat - where leg hits are a lot more common than head shots - is a little skewed. My own experiences in Kumdo/kendo and in swinging foam swords at friends and family produced a lot more head hits than leg hits (yes, these results are shaped by the fact that the legs are not official targets in kumdo - but they do get hit from time to time during particularly intense bouts or in bouts between beginners with unsteady aim.)

IRL, projectile and missile weapons (and thrusting weapons) tend to hit the largest area as the swung weapons tend to hit outside area (limbs and heads). The dual hit location table reflect this. We have added that thrust weapons use the missile table.

[Kloster]

5 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Regarding movement in RQ3, and strike ranks, personally I wouldn’t want to use that as it creates a lot more to track in game, pushing the game into a more simulationist direction. Having said that RQ3 is perhaps better suited to accurately measuring movement in melee, and if that suites your style maybe something worth considering?

This is one of the reason why we use RQ3 combat rules (the whole chapter: 10 SR round, split skills for attack and parry, only 2 actions per round, SR as a measure of time and move per SR, special manoeuvers, no hit matrix, AP for weapons ans shields, ...). We have added the various specials for slashing and crushing, and a few other things from RQG combat.

Edited August 7, 2021 by Kloster

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, dvdmacateer said:

I had a dig through Griffin Island can't seem to find the reference. 

Apologies, maybe it was a house rule we had.

Griffin Mountain had rules for Train Dogs that allowed dogs to have three commands. When Fixed INT came along, we might have just said that they could have their Fixed INT in commands, instead of just 3. I thought that might have also been in Griffin Island, but it isn't.

[dvdmacateer]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

Apologies, maybe it was a house rule we had.

Griffin Mountain had rules for Train Dogs that allowed dogs to have three commands. When Fixed INT came along, we might have just said that they could have their Fixed INT in commands, instead of just 3. I thought that might have also been in Griffin Island, but it isn't.

No problem.  I thought I had failed my Read English roll.

[Lordabdul]

9 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Regarding movement in RQ3, and strike ranks, personally I wouldn’t want to use that as it creates a lot more to track in game, pushing the game into a more simulationist direction. Having said that RQ3 is perhaps better suited to accurately measuring movement in melee, and if that suites your style maybe something worth considering? RQG/RQ2 is better suited to theatre of the mind, and has more flexibility which I like. 

Even RQG is arguably a bit too "Strike Ranky" for me. I'm tempted to use SRs just as "initiative", and ignore all (or relegate to "optional") the other stuff that invariably puts everybody on the "slippery slope to action economy systems" (which is where RQ3 ended up). AFAIK, that's actually more or less how the designers use SRs in their own games, even though they kept all the RQ2 rules when they wrote the new book. But that's mostly "house rules" and not "rules from other editions".

Edited August 7, 2021 by lordabdul

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

2 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Even RQG is arguably a bit too "Strike Ranky" for me. I'm tempted to use SRs just as "initiative", and ignore all (or relegate to "optional") the other stuff that invariably puts everybody on the "slippery slope to action economy systems" (which is where RQ3 ended up). AFAIK, that's actually more or less how the designers use SRs in their own games, even though they kept all the RQ2 rules when they wrote the new book. But that's mostly "house rules" and not "rules from other editions".

Yeah I think that’s how it works best. Just keep it in mind as an initiative system 

[Godlearner]

For a while we were trying to fool around with varying Initiatives, as in the other game, but in the end we went back to strike ranks. Not really happy with anything I seen in this respect. 

[DreadDomain]

10 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes RQ3 only had impale special damage, so I was thinking there’s an opportunity in RQG to allow the flavour of attack with the greater variety (slash,crush,impale), to dictate how effective the knockback is. Doesn’t have to be ‘special damage’ as such, but maybe crush type weapons have more of an opportunity for knockback on a normal attack etc? Slashing weapons might not be as effective for knockback? 

Yes, in RQ3 on a special, impale weapons will do impale damage and slashing and crushing weapon will do automatic knockback. In that regard, I prefer RQG specials but I like adding the automatic knockback to crushing (but not slashing). It is the effect of disengaging your opponent but also potentially making him fall or slam into solid objects.

[DreadDomain]

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Even RQG is arguably a bit too "Strike Ranky" for me. I'm tempted to use SRs just as "initiative",

The strike rank system as used in RQG is just an initiative system. The actions you take, the weapon you yield, the moves you make, the spells you cast are all factored in to tell you when you strike/act in the round. That is why the statement of intent is important in RQG. It is the moment you decide what you do and compute the effect to the action order.

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

and ignore all (or relegate to "optional") the other stuff

But it's an initiative system that is more involved than most and one could only use only DEX ranks and INT ranks to determine who acts when and be done with it.

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

that invariably puts everybody on the "slippery slope to action economy systems" (which is where RQ3 ended up).

What some see as a "slippery slope to action economy", others would describe as the "benefit of tactical combat". Isn't great that we can choose? I think it is.