Bonus for using a Shield to parry.

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

My guess is that it was just simpler than RQ, just like most of StormBringer rules.

Not really. Stormbringer added a lot of other stuff such as ripostes and demon abilities and had 1% skill increments before RQ did, so it wasn't all that simpler than RQ2. That came later with Elric!.

The RQ method of parring weapons stopping damage points doesn't work against demon weapons that have multiple D6 damage bonuses and can blow by any parrying object in one hit. So unless they wanted demon weapons to cut through parrying objects like a lightsaber they needed another mechanic. Demon weapons were something else that got toned down in Elric!.

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

The drawback being that a fight could become extremely boring between 2 seasoned characters, as you'd had to wait for a crit versus normal success for a weapon to break.

Not really. Seasoned characters could riposte, which tended to speed up combat greatly. After the first couple of attacks the parry percentages would drop, and even experienced characters were at serious risk of injury -especially as Stormbringer capped skills at 100%. It probably the most cinematic variant of RQ/BRP. If I wanted to run a swashbuckling game or Lightsaber duels in BRP, that would be the way I'd go.

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

As a matter of fact, I remember that in a 1987 FAQ for the french edition of SB2, the answer to the question : "why use a shield when you can parry with a 2 handed weapon ?" was exactly that : "because if your weapon breaks after a crit, you're doomed".

Unless you carry a backup weapon, which everyone should probably do unless they got a demon weapon with a high CON. Remember in Stormbringer you could parry and attack with a one handed weapon. The real advantage of a shield in Stormbringer was that it could parry arrows, which a melee weapon could not. 

 

Before Elric!, it wasn't as much of an issue as someone could improve shield parry along with weapon attack. It's only from Elric! onward that things got clunky because of combined weapon skills and the new combat matrix.  Combined attack and parry means shield improvement comes at the expense of weapon skill, and the new combat matrix means makes success levels and damage to weapons  a thing. Who wants to put skill points into shield when they could just double down on their weapon skill? Not many in n a game where players are encourage to start with a weapon skill at 100% or higher.

' 

[icebrand]

Use them like elric! ?

Weapons lose 1hp and wearer the rest when parrying.

Shields, on the other hand lose HP when they get hit, and the wearer takes damage to the shield arm once the shield breaks.

 

[pansophy]

10 hours ago, icebrand said:

Use them like elric! ?

Weapons lose 1hp and wearer the rest when parrying.

Shields, on the other hand lose HP when they get hit, and the wearer takes damage to the shield arm once the shield breaks.

 

Isn't that the default in the BGB (new DTRPG download or Hardcover book) ?
From the Attack & Defense Matrix, Footnote:

'If the parrying weapon or shield is destroyed during the parry attempt, roll the attacking weapon's normal damage and subtract the points of damage used in destroying the parrying weapon or shield. The remainder is damage which penetrates the parry attempt to damage the defender (armor still protects). If the attacking weapon is destroyed during a successful attack, damage is still inflicted on the defender but the weapon is broken at that moment.'

[Barak Shathur]

15 hours ago, icebrand said:

Use them like elric! ?

Weapons lose 1hp and wearer the rest when parrying.

Shields, on the other hand lose HP when they get hit, and the wearer takes damage to the shield arm once the shield breaks.

 

I'm against the kind of solution where the parrying weapon gradually degrades because it penalises player characters. They will always face opponents with weapons in mint condition, unless the GM randomises some kind of damage to them, which would be onerous. Better to have a breakage system like in the Swedish Expert Drakar och Demoner, where each point of damage in excess of a parrying weapon's HP gives it a 1/20 chance of breaking, or optionally, 5 pts of excess damage causes it to break automatically.

[icebrand]

3 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I'm against the kind of solution where the parrying weapon gradually degrades because it penalises player characters. They will always face opponents with weapons in mint condition, unless the GM randomises some kind of damage to them, which would be onerous. Better to have a breakage system like in the Swedish Expert Drakar och Demoner, where each point of damage in excess of a parrying weapon's HP gives it a 1/20 chance of breaking, or optionally, 5 pts of excess damage causes it to break automatically.

i agree! In my current (INSANE) campaign, weapons & shields break on fumbles (magic weapons, i.e. iron you drop it 1d6m in 1d8 direction)!

Theres nothing wrong in the RAW way btw, its just good old resource attrition. Plus, are you telling me you dont have a single PC with repair? (i dont lol)

[icebrand]

8 hours ago, pansophy said:

Isn't that the default in the BGB (new DTRPG download or Hardcover book) ?
From the Attack & Defense Matrix, Footnote:

In BGB, and RQ (all editions but 2) weapons and shields mechanically work the same.

In ELRIC! a weapon with, say, 15 HP receives a 20 damage hit, so it gets pushed away, loses 1 HP (now its at 14) and the defender takes the remaining (5) damage in a random location (just like in RQ3).

A shield (again, lets say 15 HP) on the other hand would just get hit for 5 damage if it receives the same 20 damage blow, becoming a 10 HP shield.

If the same shield now gets hit again, this time for 18 pts, it would have 2 HP now, and the wearer wouldnt be hurt at all. Finally the 3rd hit, for 10 damage breaks the shield. Now, 8 points pass on to the defender's shield arm (armor protects). Note that with weapons the D20 location is affected instead. This works like targetting weapons/shield in RQ3, plus the "no hit location roll" thing.

Edited April 30, 2022 by icebrand

[Barak Shathur]

I just re-read the section on p. 263 on shields. I'm thinking it might be possible to use the 'slung shields protect certain locations' so that instead of using the shield to actively parry, you can let it simply provide half its AP to the locations covered. You might still parry (and attack) with your weapon in this case. I think this is the way Mythras does it? Alternatively, one could just let the shield provide the half AP to the covered locations even if you use it to actively parry. Either way, it gives shields a defensive edge over parrying with a weapon.

[Mugen]

8 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I just re-read the section on p. 263 on shields. I'm thinking it might be possible to use the 'slung shields protect certain locations' so that instead of using the shield to actively parry, you can let it simply provide half its AP to the locations covered. You might still parry (and attack) with your weapon in this case. I think this is the way Mythras does it? Alternatively, one could just let the shield provide the half AP to the covered locations even if you use it to actively parry. Either way, it gives shields a defensive edge over parrying with a weapon.

This has already been said concerning RuneQuest, and I must say I'm not fan of the idea that a shield should just be a passive part of your armor.

Note that the more I think about it, and the more the changes made by RQG concerning weapon skills are excellent for Samurai-type settings, where the closest equivalent to a shield are the "sode" pieces of armor worn over the shoulders.

I checked in Mythras, and the shield fully protects the locations, and not with reduced efficiency. Also, in Mythras fighters trained with a shield always have the same parry chance with their shield and their main weapon.

[Atgxtg]

On 4/30/2022 at 4:31 AM, Barak Shathur said:

I'm against the kind of solution where the parrying weapon gradually degrades because it penalises player characters. They will always face opponents with weapons in mint condition, unless the GM randomises some kind of damage to them, which would be onerous. Better to have a breakage system like in the Swedish Expert Drakar och Demoner, where each point of damage in excess of a parrying weapon's HP gives it a 1/20 chance of breaking, or optionally, 5 pts of excess damage causes it to break automatically.

Any sort of weapon breakage, degradation or otherwise, can be said to penalize the player characters. The same can be said for critical hit and fumble systems. 

The  player characters show up and play each game session, and roll dice, while the NPCs only show up for their key scenes in an adventure. So the PCs will roll the dice much more than the NPCs, and the multiple rolls make it much more likely that a e low percentage thing will occur. In addition, because the PCs are the "stars" of the game, those rolls actually matter, where that might not be the case for one-shot NPCs.  Nobody really cares if an extra's shield breaks and he get's run through during the battle, it's just good drama. But when it happens to a player character it can be a campaign altering event. 

But a lot of things we tend to like in BRP games penalizes the player characters. Just having multiple skills in a campaign penalizes the PCs. NPCs have a defined role in an adventure and will naturally be written up with any skills they need to fill that role. For instance, an NPC pilot will know how to fly, a soldier how to fight, a physician will know how to treat wounds, etc. But players don't really know what skills they will need during their adventures of it they will have those skills at a score high enough to rely upon. So PCs study and improve multiple skills to try and cover potential situations.  

 

With shield degradation, especially with the RQ3 armor point model, the degradation really isn't much of an issue to the PCs as it took a lot of damage to actually damage a shield, and PCs could buy new/spare shields and/or cast Repair to fix the ones they have. Of course RQ2 had shields as indestructible, in fact it was one of their major advantages over weapons. 

 

[Barak Shathur]

18 hours ago, Mugen said:

This has already been said concerning RuneQuest, and I must say I'm not fan of the idea that a shield should just be a passive part of your armor.

Note that the more I think about it, and the more the changes made by RQG concerning weapon skills are excellent for Samurai-type settings, where the closest equivalent to a shield are the "sode" pieces of armor worn over the shoulders.

I checked in Mythras, and the shield fully protects the locations, and not with reduced efficiency. Also, in Mythras fighters trained with a shield always have the same parry chance with their shield and their main weapon.

One could also allow shields' full AP to be added to the locations covered, if preferred. But that's not really the point. I see it more as the shield providing interference for any attack that tries to strike those locations, making such attacks less likely to get through. My SCA experience was certainly that if you have a shield, you very rarely get hit on the shield arm or the parts of the torso that it covers in its base position. It's just too much in the way. My interpretation of this rule would simulate that.

[Barak Shathur]

12 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Any sort of weapon breakage, degradation or otherwise, can be said to penalize the player characters. The same can be said for critical hit and fumble systems. 

The  player characters show up and play each game session, and roll dice, while the NPCs only show up for their key scenes in an adventure. So the PCs will roll the dice much more than the NPCs, and the multiple rolls make it much more likely that a e low percentage thing will occur. In addition, because the PCs are the "stars" of the game, those rolls actually matter, where that might not be the case for one-shot NPCs.  Nobody really cares if an extra's shield breaks and he get's run through during the battle, it's just good drama. But when it happens to a player character it can be a campaign altering event. 

But a lot of things we tend to like in BRP games penalizes the player characters. Just having multiple skills in a campaign penalizes the PCs. NPCs have a defined role in an adventure and will naturally be written up with any skills they need to fill that role. For instance, an NPC pilot will know how to fly, a soldier how to fight, a physician will know how to treat wounds, etc. But players don't really know what skills they will need during their adventures of it they will have those skills at a score high enough to rely upon. So PCs study and improve multiple skills to try and cover potential situations.  

 

With shield degradation, especially with the RQ3 armor point model, the degradation really isn't much of an issue to the PCs as it took a lot of damage to actually damage a shield, and PCs could buy new/spare shields and/or cast Repair to fix the ones they have. Of course RQ2 had shields as indestructible, in fact it was one of their major advantages over weapons. 

 

I agree that critical hit systems in particular penalise PCs, since they tend to be outnumbered and thus are more subject to potential criticals than NPCs. Apart from that, of course PCs are subjected to greater dangers than most NPCs, after all they are supposed to be adventurers! They live a life of danger! That's simply part of the territory.

My problem with degradation of equipment is relevant for what happens in any given encounter, to which PCs will bring deteriorating equipment while NPCs invariably do not. It's also partly a matter of realism or world consistency. If PCs walk around with damaged weapons, so should NPCs. And that would be onerous to implement. Better to simulate it with a simple breakage test. I just had an idea, if an attack exceeds a parrying weapon's AP, the parrying weapon breaks if the damage overcomes its AP on the resistance table.

[Atgxtg]

On 5/25/2022 at 8:01 AM, Barak Shathur said:

I agree that critical hit systems in particular penalise PCs, since they tend to be outnumbered and thus are more subject to potential criticals than NPCs. Apart from that, of course PCs are subjected to greater dangers than most NPCs, after all they are supposed to be adventurers! They live a life of danger! That's simply part of the territory.

Yes, but its' not so much about being outnumbered but just the inevitiability of constanlty playing. IUf the PCs always had surpeior numbers they would still suffer more because they are there every session while a given NPC isn't. It's like watching an action TV series where the heroes face death every week, yet always come out unscathed. For instance there is a slight chance of someone decaiptating themseves with a fumble. So if you play long enough it will probably happen to a PC.

 

It's why a lot of things that people intuitively think help their characters (such as improving their skill scores) actually hurts them. If the PCs skills goes up they end up facing more skilled oppoents, which in turn increases the chances of a PC taking a critical hit. The NPCs going from 20-25% to 30% is actually a big deal, statstically. 

 

On 5/25/2022 at 8:01 AM, Barak Shathur said:

My problem with degradation of equipment is relevant for what happens in any given encounter, to which PCs will bring deteriorating equipment while NPCs invariably do not.

But why would the pCs have degraded equipment? Maybe it's because I go with RQ3 over Elric! but it was rare for a PC to see a weapon degraded. Maybe a shield might lose a point or two, but it didn't happen that often, and when it did the PCs just replaced their shield - often by takening one to the fresh ones conveniently provided by the NPCs.

On 5/25/2022 at 8:01 AM, Barak Shathur said:

It's also partly a matter of realism or world consistency. If PCs walk around with damaged weapons, so should NPCs.

 

Yes, but why would the PCs bee walking around with degraded equipment in the first place? In RQ3 that rarely happened. It was more common in RQ2, but in RQ2 most people used shields, which didn't have that problem, and knew Repair to fix stuff up.

On 5/25/2022 at 8:01 AM, Barak Shathur said:

And that would be onerous to implement. Better to simulate it with a simple breakage test. I just had an idea, if an attack exceeds a parrying weapon's AP, the parrying weapon breaks if the damage overcomes its AP on the resistance table.

You could do it that way. Or you could just have every attack roll on the resistance table against the weapon's AP.  Or you could give the weapons an APx5% roll or some such. I think it's more onerous to implement that the RQ3 method, but it might be less onerous that the RQ2 or Elric! methods. But then I never found RQ3's fatigue system to be all that onerous. Most fights were over long before fatigue became an issue, unless someone was overloaded. 

 

But if this works for you and your players go for it. There are lots of ways to handle something like this. HARN's weapon quality roll comes to mind. Weakest weapons rolls against it's WQ and if it fails it breaks. If it succeeds the stronger weapon then rolls against it's WQ. 

Edited May 26, 2022 by Atgxtg

[Barak Shathur]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but its' not so much about being outnumbered but just the inevitiability of constanlty playing. IUf the PCs always had surpeior numbers they would still suffer more because they are there every session while a given NPC isn't. It's like watching an action TV series where the heroes face death every week, yet always come out unscathed. For instance there is a slight chance of someone decaiptating themseves with a fumble. So if you play long enough it will probably happen to a PC.

Yes! But again, it is part and parcel of being an adventurer. This is why I like BGB:s Fate Points, which is essentially a story telling device in that it removes some of the random, meaningless death that inevitably bedevils campaigns.

 

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

It's why a lot of things that people intuitively think help their characters (such as improving their skill scores) actually hurts them. If the PCs skills goes up they end up facing more skilled oppoents, which in turn increases the chances of a PC taking a critical hit. The NPCs going from 20-25% to 30% is actually a big deal, statstically.

But this is very much on a meta level, and unavoidable. And in a skill based game such as BRP, it is harder for PCs to improve their chances of survival. Magic items and armour would seem to provide the best insurance policy, can be built up over time, and do to some degree correspond to the increase of hit points of  level based games. Still, a decent GM tailors the challenges to the PCs abilities, regardless of what they are. The most dangerous games are the ones where criticals cannot be parried (such as the Swedish Drakar och Demoner -91), where it seems only a matter of time before any PC who engages in combat gets killed.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but why would the PCs bee walking around with degraded equipment in the first place? In RQ3 that rarely happened. It was more common in RQ2, but in RQ2 most people used shields, which didn't have that problem, and knew Repair to fix stuff up.

It's about simulation of a believable world. If shields can degrade, PCs can't be the only ones that it happens to.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

HARN's weapon quality roll comes to mind. Weakest weapons rolls against it's WQ and if it fails it breaks. If it succeeds the stronger weapon then rolls against it's WQ. 

HARN's breakage system is the worst I know of. It takes almost no consideration of relative impact. A dagger may break a tower shield with one hit, while a troll's maul might bounce harmlessly off a buckler or broadsword. Here, BRP iterations like RuneQuest and Drakar och Demoner are far superior in that actual damage rolled determines the chance of damaging the parrying weapon.

[Atgxtg]

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Yes! But again, it is part and parcel of being an adventurer. This is why I like BGB:s Fate Points, which is essentially a story telling device in that it removes some of the random, meaningless death that inevitably bedevils campaigns.

Exactly. Fate Points/Character Points/Force Points/Hero Points all help to mitigate the slings and arrows of outrageous dice rolls. 

On  one hand we want and need the threat that some random mook could take out a PC in order to make the fights interesting and hopefully exciting, but on the other we don't actually want some random mook to take out a PC.  

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

But this is very much on a meta level, and unavoidable. And in a skill based game such as BRP, it is harder for PCs to improve their chances of survival. Magic items and armour would seem to provide the best insurance policy, can be built up over time, and do to some degree correspond to the increase of hit points of  level based games. Still, a decent GM tailors the challenges to the PCs abilities, regardless of what they are.

Yeah, it is harder is skill based games compared to level based games where the level of risk can be more tightly controlled. Playing with more realistic game mechanics risks more realistic results. But realistic results aren't what we really want for heroic adventures. 

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

 

 

The most dangerous games are the ones where criticals cannot be parried (such as the Swedish Drakar och Demoner -91), where it seems only a matter of time before any PC who engages in combat gets killed.

No, the most dangerous games are not necessarily those where critical cannot be parried. You cannot parry crticals in D&D, but is hardly more dangerous that RuneQuest. Generally games that have fixed hit points or would levels, where characters are always at risk of being killed or incapacitated by a single hit are more deadly that those where that don't. 

 

The infamous Ruirik Runespear vs. Trollkin fight, where a Runelord gets taken out by a random mook, is something that won't happen in D&D to  14th level Paladin facing a 1 hit die goblin. Yes, statistically it could happen in D&D, but in order to do so the Paladin would have to miss the goblin a couple of dozen times while the goblin slowly whittles down the Paladin's hit point, and then stand there for the killing blow, despite seeing how the fight had been going. Statically speaking, the D&D Paladin has a much greater chance of getting struct by Lightning. 

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

It's about simulation of a believable world. If shields can degrade, PCs can't be the only ones that it happens to.

Agreed, unless there is some in universe justification for it. 

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

HARN's breakage system is the worst I know of. It takes almost no consideration of relative impact.

Actually it does with the differences in Weapon Quality.

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

A dagger may break a tower shield with one hit,

Which could happen in BRP with your idea of rolling damage vs. AP on the resistance table.

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

while a troll's maul might bounce harmlessly off a buckler or broadsword.

Again, that is exactly what could happen in BRP with your oppsing damage against AP idea.

 

19 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Here, BRP iterations like RuneQuest and Drakar och Demoner are far superior in that actual damage rolled determines the chance of damaging the parrying weapon.

It's not far superior, just different. In reality:

• Defending/Parry an attack isn't just interposing something else to take the hit for you, but instead involves angling your weapon (or shield) to deflect the attack to redirect it away from you.
• How damaging an a weapon is to a person is not just about "relative impact", force or energy. The body part hit has a lot to do with it. What might be a 2 hit to the chest could be a 8 point hit in someone's  eye. 
• Weapons that can impale soft human flesh shouldn't be any harder to stop with a sword, or plate body armor. Impaling weapons someone being weapon and armor piecing. 

 

You are oversimplifying everything by assuming high damage must mean high impact. it doesn't. If it did firearm damages would be relatively fixed at a given distance, , and light weapons like daggers could never do more damage than greatswords or halberds. But as "damage" is a combination of many factors (impact, energy/area, sharpness of edge,  relative hardness of materials, user skill, point of impact, angle of attack, luck, etc.) then making impact damage roll the only criteria is far from superior. 

 

[icebrand]

11 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

The infamous Ruirik Runespear vs. Trollkin fight, where a Runelord gets taken out by a random mook, is something that won't happen in D&D to  14th level Paladin facing a 1 hit die goblin. Yes, statistically it could happen in D&D, but in order to do so the Paladin would have to miss the goblin a couple of dozen times while the goblin slowly whittles down the Paladin's hit point, and then stand there for the killing blow, despite seeing how the fight had been going. Statically speaking, the D&D Paladin has a much greater chance of getting struct by Lightning. 

I'm sorry but ruriks death is fine and theres nothing wrong with it, and you can bet your RPG collection he would have died in D&D too.

You see, Rurik wansnt "killed by a lucky trollkin".

"When faced by a priestess of Kyger Litor, in contrast, Rurik led his friends into an ambush by trolls hidden by Invisibility. Half the party was slaughtered and the 
other half were beggared by the ransom that the trolls demanded.

Finally, on a quest to regain Power lost in a previous call for Divine Intervention, deep in the Pavis ruin known as the Devil’s Playground, Rurik and a long-time rival Johnathan Trollsbane led the party into another ambush; this time of well-prepared trollkin. One of the enemy unleashed a Shade that drove Rurik’s spirit from his body. Yelmalio heard his prayers and sent it back. 
Before he could rise a lucky trollkin had plunged a spear into his leg. The shock was too much, and Rurik died again. This time, though, he didn’t have the Power to plead to Yelmalio again."

So the guy got half his party killed, then DI, then killed by shade, then DI, then killed by trollkin. Theres nothing wrong with it, it's a lot of fck ups one after another, and a good death.

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by icebrand

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

I'm sorry but ruriks death is fine and theres nothing wrong with it, and you can bet your RPG collection he would have died in D&D too.

I never said there was anything wrong with it. Only that it wouldn't happen in D&D.

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

You see, Rurik wansnt "killed by a lucky trollkin".

Yes he was, as you point out below.

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

"When faced by a priestess of Kyger Litor, in contrast, Rurik led his friends into an ambush by trolls hidden by Invisibility. Half the party was slaughtered and the 
other half were beggared by the ransom that the trolls demanded.

Finally, on a quest to regain Power lost in a previous call for Divine Intervention, deep in the Pavis ruin known as the Devil’s Playground, Rurik and a long-time rival Johnathan Trollsbane led the party into another ambush; this time of well-prepared trollkin. One of the enemy unleashed a Shade that drove Rurik’s spirit from his body. Yelmalio heard his prayers and sent it back. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

Before he could rise a lucky trollkin had plunged a spear into his leg. The shock was too much, and Rurik died again. This time, though, he didn’t have the Power to plead to Yelmalio again."

So yes, Rurik was killed by a lucky trollkin. But in D&D a lucky trollin plunging a spear into his leg almost certainly wound;'t have done enough damage to kill Rurik. 

 

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

So the guy got half his party killed, then DI, then killed by shade, then DI, then killed by trollkin. Theres nothing wrong with it, it's a lot of fck ups one after another, and a good death.

 

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. Just that it the increased level of risk to a PC is inherent with the game system. RQ is just more dangerous to PCs that D&D is. There is nothing wrong with that. People should know how things work in whatever game they are playing.

In fact,I'd say that the increased risk is actually a feature of RQ that make it appeal to some layers, myself included. Becuase some NPC could potentially kill any PC, no matter how experienced or skill they are, the fights are always dangerous, and thus exciting. That's not the case in increasing hit point games where the PCs have four times the ability of their typical opponents. 

 

My point against Baron Shathur's argument here is with the claim that weapon degradation penalizes the PCs because it is more likely to happen to them to them than to the NPCs. As with many other things it's is really more an unavoidable aspect of the RPG being focused on the exploits of the PCs, and their PCs survival and continued play. Few NPCs are going to have ten attacks made against them over the course of a campaign, where almost every PC will face that over time. It just a byproduct of the NPCs being mostly one-shot opponents, while the PCs are there for every session. 

 

I also dispute the claim that they PCs will be adventuring all the time with damaged equipment. In most versions of BRP that track weapon damage, there are ways for the PCs to avoid weapon damage, or to  fix or replace their weapons between encounters. FOr instace RQ2 had unbreakable shields and the repair spell, RQ3 had much more resilient weapons and the repair spell, and all versions of BRP allow players to have a spare weapon or shield on hand for when they need it. 

 

Not do I see an all or nothing weapon breakage rule as being and less penalizing to the PCs. In fact I would say it has the opposite effect because rather than the PCs weapons degrading they just break, leaving the PCs even more vulnerable. Double so since in most version of RQ/BRP it takes a lot to break a weapon.Even the relatively soft weapons from RQ1-2 could usually stop a couple of hit before breaking.  

 

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Atgxtg

[icebrand]

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I never said there was anything wrong with it. Only that it wouldn't happen in D&D.

No, it wouldnt happen in DnD, since theres no DI and Rurik would have been dead like 2 adventures ago?

Also i would argue that in DnD terms Rurik would have been rolling death saves and the trollkin hit him then, this can and does happen in DND!

It's like people parrot this "crit by a trollkin" part while forgetting the rest.

[Barak Shathur]

20 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

On  one hand we want and need the threat that some random mook could take out a PC in order to make the fights interesting and hopefully exciting, but on the other we don't actually want some random mook to take out a PC. 

Even with Fate Points is still quite possible to die from a mook, as evidenced by one of my players' character's demise recently. What tends to happen is that if a PC gets into trouble and Fate Points start to run out, the player gets a choice to remain in the dangerous situation or try to get out. My player chose to stay and fight even though outnumbered by orcs, which saved the rest of the party but cost the character his life a few rounds later. 

This points to a tension I have always felt exists in the BRP games (and some others), namely that the games that focus most heavily on individualised and detailed character creation are also the ones were those characters tend to die the most, thus at a relatively high cost to a player's investement of time and engagement, while in a game like D&D (with its rather more simple and streamlined character creation), at least in the earlier iterations, provided you survive the meat grinders of the first few levels adventurers are much likely to live a long and rich life.

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Playing with more realistic game mechanics risks more realistic results. But realistic results aren't what we really want for heroic adventures. 

I rationalise it somewhat in the sense that a GM isn't always able to convey all the relevant information someone would pick up in a real life situation, and there might be cues that would inform an individual of the actual threat level that don't come across to the player until it's too late. In this sense, Fate Points can balance out this aspect and give the PC a chance to get away that the player perhaps should have taken in the first place (or would have if the information had been more complete).

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Actually it does with the differences in Weapon Quality.

If a Roundshield (WQ 13) blocks a Battleaxe (WQ 12), you first roll breakage for the axe, since it has lower WQ. Roll higher than WQ on 3d6 and the item breaks. If the weaker item doesn't break, you test the stronger item. Needless to say, it's not hard to roll over 12 on 3d6, and since almost no weapons have higher WQ than 12, most weapons will break after being parried by a shield a couple of times, whether it be axe, sword, mace or dagger. I don't find this congruent with reality.

21 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Again, that is exactly what could happen in BRP with your oppsing damage against AP idea.

But almost never, since a dagger (1d4+2+DB) has almost no chance of exceeding the AP of most shields (12-16 AP in RQIII), while in HARN it would be the rule.

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Defending/Parry an attack isn't just interposing something else to take the hit for you, but instead involves angling your weapon (or shield) to deflect the attack to redirect it away from you.

And it has no relevance at all what kind of weapons are involved?

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

How damaging an a weapon is to a person is not just about "relative impact", force or energy. The body part hit has a lot to do with it. What might be a 2 hit to the chest could be a 8 point hit in someone's  eye. 

This, on the other hand, HARN simulates beautifully with its injury chart. The same weapon impact can have different effects on different body parts. But at the level of granularity of BRP, there isn't much room for this nuance beyond different HP for different hit locations.

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You are oversimplifying everything by assuming high damage must mean high impact. it doesn't.

RQIII and IV certainly imply this through their rules for knockback. In the former, damage in excess of SIZ causes  knockback. In RQIV, the mechanic is similar although simplified.

 

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

making impact damage roll the only criteria is far from superior

Then how do you propose doing this in a way that is both simulationist and playble (the main strength of BRP in my opinion). 

 

[Barak Shathur]

22 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

If it did firearm damages would be relatively fixed at a given distance, , and light weapons like daggers could never do more damage than greatswords or halberds. But as "damage" is a combination of many factors (impact, energy/area, sharpness of edge,  relative hardness of materials, user skill, point of impact, angle of attack, luck, etc.)

I see this as simulated by weapon special effects and, especially, criticals.

[Mugen]

Minor nitpick : The game you're referring to is HarnMaster. Harn is the fantasy world where the game takes place, and started publication before the game.

[Atgxtg]

On 5/27/2022 at 12:16 PM, icebrand said:

No, it wouldnt happen in DnD, since theres no DI and Rurik would have been dead like 2 adventures ago?

Depends on what vbersion of D&D you are playing and under what house rules. Most groups that played AD&D had some sort of DI rule, usually along the lines of Level as a percentage. And there are all sorts of raise from the dead/wish type spells that could have gotten him back.

 

But the key point is that high level PCs aren't at nearly as much risk against low level oppoents in D&D than in RQ or other skill based RPGs.

On 5/27/2022 at 12:16 PM, icebrand said:

Also i would argue that in DnD terms Rurik would have been rolling death saves and the trollkin hit him then, this can and does happen in DND!

Only for massive damage. Rarely if ever for a mook stabbing a body while it's down or already dead. 

On 5/27/2022 at 12:16 PM, icebrand said:

It's like people parrot this "crit by a trollkin" part while forgetting the rest.

Because the rest really isn't all that relevant. In just about any RPG other RQ the situation couldn't happen.

BTW, how did the Trollkin kill Rurik after Rurik called DI but before he got back up? DI should have gone off on SR 0 in RQ2 so Rurik should have been able to defend himself.

 

Now I understand that a PC taking lots of risks is eventually going to fall to something, just by the percentages, but that is secondary to the fact that a hero type PC fell to a mook.

[Atgxtg]

On 5/28/2022 at 9:03 AM, Barak Shathur said:

I see this as simulated by weapon special effects and, especially, criticals.

Yes, that's my point. High damage isn't always about an attacking doing more damage, but could be about it doing damage to a more vital location.So a light energy/force attack to a leg probably gives you a limp, but to your skull gives you a concussion, and to your brain gives you a coma. 

A greatsword might hit with several times the force of, say a .25 caliber bullet, but if the latter goes through someone eye it will do "more damage" in game terms, even if it does less actual damage.

A lot of what makes "damage" in the game are the various vulnerabilities of a living body, and wouldn't nor shouldn't translate to a parry object. You can't impale a broadsword with a thrusting dagger.

 

[Atgxtg]

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

Even with Fate Points is still quite possible to die from a mook, as evidenced by one of my players' character's demise recently. What tends to happen is that if a PC gets into trouble and Fate Points start to run out, the player gets a choice to remain in the dangerous situation or try to get out. My player chose to stay and fight even though outnumbered by orcs, which saved the rest of the party but cost the character his life a few rounds later. 

You're missing the point. The point is when gaming we want the risk of of death to make the fights exciting but we also don't really want our PCs taken out by a random mook and ruin the adventure.

For example, image how Star Wars would have gone if one of those Strotroopers had actually hit Han Solo before he took off in the Falcon? 

 

In order to have an excting game we want that element of risk, but conversely in order to have a satify adventure, no to mention a campaign, we don't really want that to happen. 

 

Much of the design choices and differences between RPGs are about how you balance off those two conflicting goals.

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

This points to a tension I have always felt exists in the BRP games (and some others), namely that the games that focus most heavily on individualised and detailed character creation are also the ones were those characters tend to die the most, thus at a relatively high cost to a player's investement of time and engagement, while in a game like D&D (with its rather more simple and streamlined character creation), at least in the earlier iterations, provided you survive the meat grinders of the first few levels adventurers are much likely to live a long and rich life.

Somewhat. I think it had something to do with the way adventures were written and probably applied to early RQ as much as early D&D. Balastor's Barracks and such were dungeon crawls much like with D&D. 

 

I think the differences are that RQ quickly expanded beyond the simple dungeon crawl and that PCs can never really be safe in a fight to the same degree as they can in game with increasing hit points and "balanced" encounters. A master swordsman in RQ can almost always be taken out by a lucky critical, while a high level fighter in D&D can't be taken out by one attack from a low level oppoent.

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

I rationalise it somewhat in the sense that a GM isn't always able to convey all the relevant information someone would pick up in a real life situation, and there might be cues that would inform an individual of the actual threat level that don't come across to the player until it's too late. In this sense, Fate Points can balance out this aspect and give the PC a chance to get away that the player perhaps should have taken in the first place (or would have if the information had been more complete).

True. Player characters can only notice the things that the GM conveys to them, and even then they might not always grasp the significance of what they are told. While the players can work on their perception skills to help with this, the GM gets to design the encounters and can pretty much set the difficulty as desired, or just make something happen.

I once had a character get ambushed by forty ninja (!!!) because the GM just sort of made it happen that way, and that was with a character who had superhuman sense ala Daredevil. I did plead my case to the GM and he changed his mind, but it did happen. 

 

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

If a Roundshield (WQ 13) blocks a Battleaxe (WQ 12), you first roll breakage for the axe, since it has lower WQ. Roll higher than WQ on 3d6 and the item breaks. If the weaker item doesn't break, you test the stronger item. Needless to say, it's not hard to roll over 12 on 3d6, and since almost no weapons have higher WQ than 12, most weapons will break after being parried by a shield a couple of times, whether it be axe, sword, mace or dagger.

Mathematically it's about one in four times not "a couple" but I see your point. I'll also point out that weapons break almost as fast in RQ2.

I think that is more of a problem with the given WQ ratings rather than the method. Raise WQ by 4 or 5 points and you get much better results.

 

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

I don't find this congruent with reality.

. I don't find any of the various weapon breakages to be congruent with reality. Even plastic toy weapons are more durable than RQ2 weapons.

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

But almost never, since a dagger (1d4+2+DB) has almost no chance of exceeding the AP of most shields (12-16 AP in RQIII), while in HARN it would be the rule.

Your forgetting impales and crticals. Even something like arrows can take down a shield, or make it unusable.

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

And it has no relevance at all what kind of weapons are involved?

Skill is a bigger factor. Yes, you can actually parry a pole ax with a dagger. If you do it right, it works out just fine. Problem is what happens when you don't do it right. 

 

But keep in mind that defending isn't just standing there and placing your shield or weapon in the way, but can include things like stepping forward and making contact before the oppoent fully extends. It why RQ had the succesful parry damaging a failed attacking weapon rule. 

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

This, on the other hand, HARN simulates beautifully with its injury chart. The same weapon impact can have different effects on different body parts.

Yup. For what is essentially one page of tables it does that wonderfully.

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

But at the level of granularity of BRP, there isn't much room for this nuance beyond different HP for different hit locations.

Oh, I don't think HArn's injury system is all thatmore complicated that BRP. Basically it comes down to a matrix with  4 sucess levels for each oppoent.; damage vs. armor; and an inury roll based upon the result of the latter. 

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

RQIII and IV certainly imply this through their rules for knockback. In the former, damage in excess of SIZ causes  knockback. In RQIV, the mechanic is similar although simplified.

Somewhat, but again it comes down just what is happening. For instance a blow could strike someone off balance and so on.

For a real life situation I know hunters who swear that a bullet knocked a deer down, but real world physics proves otherwise. If the shot could knock the deer down, it would also knock them down when they fired the weapon. Newton's third law of motion.

But realistically if the pain caused the deer to flinch or jump, and the bullet damaged a leg so that the deer couldn't stand on it - it would sure look like the shot knocked the deer down.

Also realistically no one can really send someone flying by whacing them with a mace. Not unless thier the Hulk or something.

 

On 5/28/2022 at 8:54 AM, Barak Shathur said:

Then how do you propose doing this in a way that is both simulationist and playble (the main strength of BRP in my opinion). 

Well for starters I'd probably go with RQ3 as my base, as I find that preferable to the BRP/Elric method. It's not perfect, but I think it holds up better than any of the other methods used in BRP games. 

Maybe I'd differentiate between a block and a parry (harder but no weapon damage). Come to think of it BTRC's Timelords did a good job of this. Weapons didn't break all that often, unless the wielder was very strong. Shield did break fairly easily, but had hit locations, so that you'd usually lose a chunk of it rather than having the whole shield go at once. 

But as you don't want to track weapon AP/HP ,  I might go with something like the HARN WQ roll, but set the WQ higher so that you have fewer weapon breaking. A steel sword should be tougher than a wooden shield. Maybe even factor in for a partially broken weapon/shield and a completely broken one.

Being BRP, I might replace the 3d6 rolls with opposing the WQ's on the Resistance Table. Damage could be based upon the result (critical/special/success/failure/fumble). I'd probably use a two success level hit model for all weapons/shields. That is  the losing weapon would be destroyed on a critical or fumble, but only partially damaged (say half damage and WQ/AP) on normal success.failure. Two normal successes/failures would break the weapon though.

 

I''d probably need to consider how much fighting goes in in the campaign, and how often I want weapons to break before I made any decisions though. I mean if the average fight has a PC making five attacks and parries and there only a one in ten chance of weapon breakage the PCs are going to have a hard time (approx 12% chance) keeping a weapon for two fights.

 

 

[icebrand]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Depends on what vbersion of D&D you are playing and under what house rules. Most groups that played AD&D had some sort of DI rule, usually along the lines of Level as a percentage. And there are all sorts of raise from the dead/wish type spells that could have gotten him back.

My D&D experience is 95% with AD&D 2e and 5% 3/3.5ed.

Personally this is the 1st time i hear about DI in d&d, and realistically all those types of spells are for characters who are vastly more powerful than whatever RQ RAW can generate: raise dead (the most basic res spell) is a lv5 cleric spell, which means you need to be lv9(!) to cast it and as a lv9 cleric you should be more powerful than any RQ PC (or about the same with the most powerful players, but it's *much* easier to get there).

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

But the key point is that high level PCs aren't at nearly as much risk against low level oppoents in D&D than in RQ or other skill based RPGs

Because RQ and D&D are different genres! Imagine a runelord is what? Lv5? Sure, you have more HP and can't get 1hit by a mook, but many mooks can still take resources, while in RQ you parry way more attacks, negating all damage.

Again, apples to oranges; D&D is attrition based, and RQ is more realistic, fights are either parry or take a wound that has a good chance to take you out.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Only for massive damage. Rarely if ever for a mook stabbing a body while it's down or already dead.

If a mook stabs you while you are down in current D&D you automatically fail your dead save; any damage does the same, it doesnt matter. Same thing with Coup de Grace in 3e!

In 2e if you are down a mook is super dangerous! You died at -10 as far as i can remember? So your con/level didnt matter at all!!!

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Because the rest really isn't all that relevant. In just about any RPG other RQ the situation couldn't happen.

It's a feature, not a bug. And it's an amazing feature, and i read about tons of people ignoring it!

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

, how did the Trollkin kill Rurik after Rurik called DI but before he got back up? DI should have gone off on SR 0 in RQ2 so Rurik should have been able to defend himself

I have no idea. It reads like Rurik died by a shade attack, then uses DI not to die, but he was on the ground or something and the trollkin criticalled on a leg, so he was damaged from before? 

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I understand that a PC taking lots of risks is eventually going to fall to something, just by the percentages, but that is secondary to the fact that a hero type PC fell to a mook

Is it really that secondary? It's actually the strength and beauty of RQ; there are no mooks, everyone is a person. I think this is why i dislike super stuff outside the rules, it breaks the contract.

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You're missing the point. The point is when gaming we want the risk of of death to make the fights exciting but we also don't really want our PCs taken out by a random mook and ruin the adventure

And i say... Why not? You already are playing RuneQuest, why not play the strengths? Yes a random "mook" can totally take you out.

I mean, if as i player i find out my GM made the broo not impale me in the head for 27 points and i die, then what good is my runelordship? I'm don't really have the Mastery rune, i would not deserve my title any more than a random NPC the GM popped out of thin air; id rather die to a mook than have my adventuring career being... I don't know how to say it... Fake?

I think there are other systems that do that kind of game better -but of course they don't do glorantha at all, unless you play HQ- RQ on the other hand, is a magical game where anything can happen, for good and for bad. 

Also a player death doesnt ruin the adventure, just derails it! I fear a "weakness" of the game is that it has a long chargen; this doesnt synergize very well with all these super lethal situations the adventurers face all the time, but you can always make everyone roll a backup character (i have a stack of customizable pregens instead).

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

For example, image how Star Wars would have gone if one of those Strotroopers had actually hit Han Solo before he took off in the Falcon?

Well, thats because it's a George Lucas as GM. He values characters because it's a movie and stuff. 

But if you are playing han solo at my runequest, well... The storm trooper shoots you and you die, and thats why RQ aint very good for a starwars game. 

Maybe chewbacca saves the party and they fly to bespin, and Lando takes over? Maybe han solos twin, dan solo comes to the rescue? 

For me the magic of runequest is that i don't know what's gonna happen. And if the dm doesnt know, you can bet the players don't either!!! And that, for me, makes for the ultimate adventure game.

[Baron Wulfraed]

13 hours ago, icebrand said:

My D&D experience is 95% with AD&D 2e and 5% 3/3.5ed.

Personally this is the 1st time i hear about DI in d&d, and realistically all those types of spells are for characters who are vastly more powerful than whatever RQ RAW can generate: raise dead (the most basic res spell) is a lv5 cleric spell, which means you need to be lv9(!) to cast it and as a lv9 cleric you should be more powerful than any RQ PC (or about the same with the most powerful players, but it's *much* easier to get there).

Based upon https://oldschoolroleplaying.com/divine-intervention-in-dungeons-and-dragons/ it was something introduced in 1st Ed AD&D. If it wasn't in the 2nd Ed books, my GM must have carried it over (the transition from 1st to 2nd occurred during my active years; I don't intend to crawl into the basement to find the AD&D bin -- RQ2/RQ3/RQ:RiG is currently cluttering the living room).

Quote

In 1st edition Divine Intervention is discussed on page 111-112 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Of course, when the DMG was published, no compendium of gods or deities had yet been released for AD&D.

In my group, DI most often came up more as a humorous warning regarding saying things at the table:

Player (not in character): Oh my god!
GM (ominously): Yeeesss???