Just musing about Specials...

[g33k]

6 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

What is the UGE thing I see people talking about a lot recently?! 😮

Anyway I got the BGB2011 and the BGB2023 and.... mm.. checking the cover page... UGE is Universal Game Engine subtitle on the front page is it?
And BGB is the 2011 edition, because it's golden. 

Oh, I think I got it!! 😄 

...

Note also that the "UGE" is released under the  very  liberal "ORC" license, but the "BGB" is entirely (c) / closed.

Notwithstanding that some of the text is identical, the BGB is not a "safe" source for writers & dev's looking to publish / redistribute / commercialize / etc; it's a great resource for fans, full stop.

[Atgxtg]

40 minutes ago, g33k said:

Note also that the "UGE" is released under the  very  liberal "ORC" license, but the "BGB" is entirely (c) / closed.

Notwithstanding that some of the text is identical, the BGB is not a "safe" source for writers & dev's looking to publish / redistribute / commercialize / etc; it's a great resource for fans, full stop.

All true but I think it would be rather difficult to make something that could be proven to be exclusively from the BGB and not the UGE or self made, and even if someone could do so, they probably wouldn't be worth going after for it.  There is very little rules wise that is in the BGB that isn't in the UGE. 

I mean, if Chaosium actually sued somebody because they used 1D4 damage for a throwing knife per BGB p. 252 instead of 1d4 damage per the UGE p. 170  they probably lose in court, get penalized for filing a frivolous lawsuit and get a ton a fan backlash in the process. The terms are pretty much interchangeable. 

 

So someone would really have to cut & paste specific text that was exclusive to the BGB that is some way harmed Chaosium for it's inclusion  in a third party product. 

[Barak Shathur]

On 7/7/2023 at 8:52 PM, Atgxtg said:

RQ1-2. The Slash rule was one of the many optional rules tucked away in the legendary RQ appendix.  The Slash let you roll your weapon damage twice, and weapons got stuck like with impales. . At the time, as I mentioned previously, impales were max+rolled and so were still  technically better than slashes, but this was still nasty. Especially since some of the two handed weapons. A slashing greatsword doing 4D8 or a slashing pole axe doing 6D6, might not match the autokill/location take out that   1D10+12 longspear or 2D6+14 pike had in RQ2, but not by much.

This may explain how slashing weapons became (IMO) over powered in RQG, where both slashing and impaling specials do twice damage instead of the above. It seems the developers lifted the slash special (minus the getting stuck part) from RQ2, while downgrading the impale special (making it less special, so to say).

[Lloyd Dupont]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

19 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

 

I was thinking, if the damage exceeds the armor, the damage can be applied to the armor instead of the target. On a crit when armor doesn't count, the armor might even be destroyed in 1 hit...

Uh, why? Nothing personal but I don't think you understand how combat in BRP is supposed to work. It is supposed to be brutal and nasty with people taking major wounds, losing limbs, getting run through by spears and such. Most of those injuries aren't things that characters are expected to shrug off and walk away from. It's just that such injuries should be happening to the NPCs far more often than to the PCs, thanks to the PCs being more highly skilled (better parry & dodge), better equipped (armor soaks more damage) and better magicked (protection/sorceror's armor, magical healing).

confused... why why not?
I mean initially I was thinking simply reduce AP by 1 (if overcome). But if enemy armor is really annoying taking it down might become a priority....

[Lloyd Dupont]

7 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Using Heroic HP. Raises Core thresholds (Chest, Abdomen) just enough to mitigate things a bit, while leaving limbs and head vulnerable.

It should be for everyone, right? PC, NPC, Monsters?

[Barak Shathur]

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

This is the general BRP forum, for all BRP based games, not one specific to the BGB, All the various systems mentioned as as much BRP as the BGB. BRP was always Chasoium's umbrella term for it's various RPGs.  Plus considering that the BGB itself was cobbled together from previous Chasoium games using the "basic role playing system" they aren't "other systems" they are the BGB sources. At least 90% of the BGB comes from those other games.

Again, my assumption (which proved to be correct) was that the OP was basing his game on BRP specifically. I'm using the term to refer mainly to UGE, since when I posted a light hearted joke about that acronym it was deleted and replaced with a stern admonition to use the term "BRP" solely. So BRP it is (though obviously it applies in most respects equally to BGB). BRP draws on those other games, yes, but makes its own particular synthesis, where the different parts often interact with the whole in different ways than in the original context, wherefore it makes sense to discuss it as a separate system. And since most of the posts I see here refer to BRP in that sense, my assumption has so far been that this (sub)system is the foundation of most discussions unless otherwise stated. 

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

Then why did you bring up the RQ3 blunt weapons vs. flexible armor rule? If you can go outside the BGB why can't anyone else?

If you are going to jump into a conversation and bring in RQ3 then you can hardly claim that you are sticking only to the BGB.

Because I was comparing it to BRP. 

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

Balanced slightly different as a result to what? Could you clarify your statement here.

Ok, this will get a bit technical. In RQIII, the most powerful 1H impaling weapons such as broadsword and 1H spear did 1d8+1, leading to an impale roll of 1d8+1 + (max weapon damage, 9)+db, thus 11-18 points of damage (warhammer and scimitar did 1d6+2, i.e. 11-17 points of damage on impale). A devastating hit in other words that will destroy most hit locations, especially if you add DB. In BRP, 1H impaling weapons don't exceed 1d6+1 base damage, so an impale becomes (1d6+1 x 2)+db or 4-14 points, a much more forgiving result (for the opponent), even with DB added. However, in BRP you have half skill to remove a stuck weapon rather than 1/5 as in RQIII. One difference this leads to is that in BRP, shortsword is actually a relatively good weapon (since it impales, unlike broadsword) while in RQIII it is simply a diminutive brother. 

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

If we have to compare just "the best" weapons then I say your point doesn't stand. But your point that 1H thrusting weapons are limited to 1D6+1 in the BGB holds true.

It seems to me that the highest damage output makes for the best weapon in BRP, since weapon AP is very high and they thus seldom break, and DEX rather than weapon length is determinative for first strike among comparable weapons. And base chance doesn't have much impact since at character creation you can set the skill at 75% regardless. 

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but not much overhead. Basically something like adding half the db (1d3 per d6) would do it and it could be incorporated into the existing charge rule. In fact, I could see adding something for partial db when someone doesn't get fully up to speed.

In itself it may not seem like much, but when added to all the other spot rules a GM has to keep track of... it becomes kind of a death by a thousand cuts. At least for me. But an alternative could be to use the mount's DB for all kinds of weapons during a charge, the benefit of a lance being that it strikes before everything else since it's so damn long.

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

It sure did more that squat for me on the shoulders. Now I was getting hit with bamboo and even a blunt steel sword (stupid thing to do), but padding stopped quite a bit.

I was talking about the mail, not the padding. Padding certainly helps, mail stretched over it not so much. Maybe a teensy weensy bit, but there's no comparison to a rigid plate of any material.

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

But if maces were more effective against mail then those other weapons wouldn't have been so prevalent. It became the armor of choice becase it was the best armor of available until plate came along.

Look if some weapon showed a marked advantage over other weapons, and is cheaper and easier to produce then everybody would use it. If maces could just blow through mail then everybody who wanted to take down a knight would have grabbed a mace or a tree limb.

Knights in battle used lances against each other a lot. The sword was a side arm that was very versatile against a wide variety of opponents, and also light enough to carry around in civilian dress. Good to have in other words, certainly useful, and as you yourself said a status symbol (not least since it took a lot of skill to make). It's represented a lot (along with the ubiquitious lances) but who knows how common maces really were. Tree limbs would not be so useful against mail, the point of a mace (or warhammer for that deal) is that it concentrates the force into a small striking surface unlike a club. However a mace is not so easy to handle, it is short and top heavy, so to get close enough for it to have any effect on a knight in mail, you probably need to be another knight in mail.

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

Mace was also quite effective (with padding)) against maces and other blunt weapons. Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.

I guess we disagree here, unless we're talking mail with a rigid underlayer plus padding, like one of those really stiff gambesons. The more I think about it, the more it seems to me that this must have been the norm. That would certainly be effective against maces and hammers, which however would still have a greater chance of injuring the wearer on a mailed body part than a broadsword.

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

THe only reason why mail went out of service was that plate became cheaper to make.

Why yes.

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

If that were true then knights would have had the mace as their preferred weapon over the sword, as they were more likely to fight armored foes.

Again, a sword is a more versatile weapon. It's good as a side arm, and maybe your opponent isn't covered head to toe in mail? Maybe you could stab him in the face, chop off a finger or two (or a toe). Not to mention cutting through irritating peasant levies like butter. While as armour got better, the sword became more and more reduntant. It's my perception at least that starting from the 13th century, when more and more plates started appearing over the mail, is when you start to see more variation from the sword, axe, spear combos (e.g. the bizarre choppas of the Maciejowski bible).

Ugh...got to go to bed. More later.

 

 

Edited July 9, 2023 by Barak Shathur
typos, clarity

[g33k]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

All true but I think it would be rather difficult to make something that could be proven to be exclusively from the BGB and not the UGE or self made, and even if someone could do so, they probably wouldn't be worth going after for it.  There is very little rules wise that is in the BGB that isn't in the UGE. 

I mean, if Chaosium actually sued somebody because they used 1D4 damage for a throwing knife per BGB p. 252 instead of 1d4 damage per the UGE p. 170  they probably lose in court, get penalized for filing a frivolous lawsuit and get a ton a fan backlash in the process. The terms are pretty much interchangeable. 

So someone would really have to cut & paste specific text that was exclusive to the BGB that is some way harmed Chaosium for it's inclusion  in a third party product. 

I doubt m/any would worry about 1d4 vs 1d4+1 or etc; but where the details of the UGE edition are identical, the new ORC license provides coverage.

The thing is:  you can explicitly re-use the BRP:UGE text -- word for word -- even in commercial endeavors; it's a safe source/resource.
The same isn't true of the BGB.

I don't think you need to prove "harm" to file (c) violations, though.  Chaosium has certainly been willing to communicate their displeasure over (c) violators...

• At least one Cthulhu project was shut down because -- AIUI -- they had blithely commingled open IP (from the (c)-expired part of canon) with Chaosium-owned and/or Chaosium-licensed IP.
• IIRC a JC product was taken down when someone took a Whitewall map (that was "showed to fans" but not released to the public domain) & included it in their JC offerings.

If developers choose to limit their source material to the UGE, they can be sure they're using stuff Chaosium has explicitly released.  As you note, that's most of the BGB.

Whereas if you draw from the BGB, you've got no markers telling you when you're stealing Chaosium IP, nor what BGB'ism may be included in other, future non-ORC RPG's (I doubt we will see an ORC edition of RQ or CoC, for example

The new Rivers of London is based on Ben Aaronovitch's IP (only licensed by Chaosium) so I doubt we'll ever see any of it ORC'ed (though the strictly-mechanical bits could be, of course, just like MW was SB with the Moorcock IP stripped out, or Mongoose Legend was their MRQ2 with the Glorantha stripped out, etc etc etc.).

[g33k]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

... they probably wouldn't be worth going after for it ...

Sometimes -- as I understand it, IANAL &c -- the (c)-owner has to pursue a claim, or effectively surrender control of the (c).

"Failure to defend" a (c) can be cited by successive violators as "proof" that the material is now in the public domain.

So even if Chaosium saw no reason to pursue small-scale violator  Joe Schmoe  for his violation, they may have larger-scale legal reasons they felt required them to do so.
 

[SDLeary]

5 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

It should be for everyone, right? PC, NPC, Monsters?

Perhaps? I've aged much as I have considered this. 🙂 Sometimes I go one way, sometimes the other.

For NPCs, if I want "Ultra Realism", then I would apply to all equally. Something a bit more "Cinematic", Heroic HP for PCs, and regular for opponents who are not Captains or the Boss, who would also have Heroic HP. A bit more down the hole into "Comic" territory, Mook type rules where they are removed from play after a single hit, with higher caliber foes with regular HP and Heroic HP.

Monsters are a bit tougher to give a single answer, as the conception of the monster can vary dramatically depending on vision of the world. Is a dragon the large hulking beast of Game Of Thrones; or are they the size of a Komodo Dragon with wings, as is oft depicted fighting St. George? If the former, I might go the other direction and say that short of a critical hit, there isn't much you can do without large siege weaponry. If your concept of a dragon is the True Dragons of Glorantha, then not even those will do more than tickle it at best. So for Monsters, think about it a lot. If they are supposed to be the culmination of the adventure or campaign, I would go with Heroic HP, unless they are so powerful that it could cause a TPK. Then, I might take them down a notch.

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

After consideration, and at the risk of being pedantic, I'll go with (CON+SIZ)*0.75 😛
This way any human can still be beheaded with one stoke critical of 2H Sword.

Otherwise, thanks for this long and informative food for thoughts thread...

[Barak Shathur]

Part 2.

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

You disagreed with my statement, then made one of your own about what "probably" might happen. So how did my statement prove your point? 

You said "(t)he real advantage from maces and such is that they tend to be a little heavier than cutting weapons with more of the weaight in the head so they tend to have more of an impact." In other words, better at delivering the kind of damage they were designed for (crushing) through the protection offered (mail, designed to stop slashing and piercing) than a sword, whose main mode of damage is cutting rather than crushing (though not exclusively). Ergo, mail is better at stopping sword cuts than mace blows. That's my point. Again, I think the RQIII errata does a decent job of representing this aspect with its rule for crushing weapons vs mail.

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

On 7/8/2023 at 1:23 AM, Barak Shathur said:

However, broadswords (arming swords really) were never intended to be used without a shield.

Which wasn't what you said previously. You said Sword had an advantage vs. Spear. It doesn't. Sword and Shield vs. Spear is a different situation.

On 7/8/2023 at 1:23 AM, Barak Shathur said:

And the sword and shield combination beats the spearman handily most of the time in this video.

And all of the fighters are more experienced with sword than with a spear. That showed just how much of an advantage the spear gave. 

Note that when the spearman also carries a shield (although that negates his reach) or works in a group things shift again.

On 7/8/2023 at 1:23 AM, Barak Shathur said:

This is the situation most representative of historical reality.

No the historical reality would have a group of spearmen fighting together. Not facing off against swordmen one on one. 

Plus also historically most people who carry a sword had more experience that those with a spear, since the sword was a more expensive weapon of the upper classes, `who tended to be trained warriors, as opposed to most spear wielders, who were not. And experience is the biggest advantage.

Regarding the spear vs sword controversy I'll say this: it depends on whether you're using the spear one or two handed, and whether the sword is paired with another weapon (like a shield). Yes, a two handed spear has a distinct advantage against a single one handed sword, bur so does any two handed weapon since you have more reach and force available. So what the video is saying is "a 2H weapon is superior to a 1H weapon", a point that hardly needs making. However, it's more interesting to compare 2H spear vs sword and shield, or 1H spear and shield vs 1H sword and shield, where the combatants thus are more evenly matched. Who comes out on top? In the video it seems to favour the sword, for the precise reason I give: it's relatively easy to push the spear aside with the shield and then get inside the reach of the tip. An extreme example of this would be the Battle of Pydna, where once the roman legionnaries had got past the sarissas the Macedonians had to drop them and turn to sword fighting, where the romans triumphed since the gladius was longer than the kopis and the romans were generally better trained sword fighters. Now this was massed battle rather than single combat, but you get the point!

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

Yes, his touches are light, and wouldn't be near enough to stop a real opponent, so what? The same was true with the swordsman's attacks, yet I don't see you mentioning that. Naturally both combatants could have hit harder and really inflicted serious injuries or death. That they didn't doesn't invalidate the results.

It's all about the spearman's ability to stop the swordsman as he closes, and it makes a big difference whether gently tapping him suffices, or if he needs to really stab hard enough to wound him. I'd say in the latter case, the spearman gets one shot before the swordsman is inside the tip, at which point it's all over for mr Spear unless he drops it or shoves Mr Sword away (which BRP represents well IMO).

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

On 7/8/2023 at 1:23 AM, Barak Shathur said:

He would have to commit much more to each stab, preventing him from stabbing with such frequency and putting him more off balance and less able to retreat so quickly.

And he still should recover and react faster than the swordsman would be able to with the sword. 

Not sure I understand this statement. How is he able to react faster than the sword guy? Stabbing hard enough to wound forces him to commit to a forward movement, which he then must reverse in order to back pedal, while the sword guy just keeps going forward (provided he parried the spear)

 

On 7/8/2023 at 4:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

On 7/8/2023 at 1:23 AM, Barak Shathur said:

And if they were wearing armour...forget about it. You could never retreat as quickly as your opponent advances without losing your balance eventually.

That's your claim, but you provide nothing to back it up other than your say so. In real fighting spearmen did backpedal, and they did fend off aggressive attackers. Men hunted with spears, for reasons. And "eventually" could be long after he skewered the swordsman. 

Have you tried backing up quickly in armour? Sooner or later you're likely to trip since you can't see where you're going, unlike the combatant charging forward. You also have a lot of extra weight, and the helmet often makes you top heavy, making it even harder to keep your balance. It's not impossible but it's much harder than running forward.

How am I supposed to "back it up" with anything other than my say-so? Can you prove your points? Yours and mine are all more or less subjective opinions, submitted for everyone to determine which ones seem most valid, based on the arguments presented. 

@Lloyd Dupont, if you want this back and forth to end you better tell us to shut up, otherwise it will never end! Just speaking from experience here.

 

Edited July 10, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[SDLeary]

For Spear vs Sword, and variations with and without shields, check out YouTube. Either Lindybeige or Scholagladiatoria did a video looking at this. 

In fact, I seem to remember the vids and a discussion down in Alistor’s. It might be buried a couple of years back.

SDLeary

[Lloyd Dupont]

17 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

@Lloyd Dupont, if you want this back and forth to end you better tell us to shut up, otherwise it will never end! Just speaking from experience here.

Nah it's fine. It's entertaining and informative.. so a win-win! 🙂

[SDLeary]

@Barak Shathur

It was further back than I thought. Here it is:

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

On 7/9/2023 at 5:55 PM, Lloyd Dupont said:

It should be for everyone, right? PC, NPC, Monsters?

Depends on the type of game you are going for. To some extent if you pump up everyone the same the benefits cancel out. This is what I refer to as the "everybody has a 18, so nobody does." situation. Any sort of bump or rule change isn't made in a vacuum and will have effects on other rules and aspects of the game. Thus if the GM gives all characters extra character points so that everybody has an 18 in a prime characteristic, then 18 becomes the new normal. if a GM ups weapon damage, then armor and parrying means less, unless they get increased to offset the damage.

 

This all comes down to what you, as GM, want the game to do. Then you make changes to support your goals. For instance if you want the PCs to be tougher either to be more heroic, or to because they need to be able to hold their own against some tougher opponents then you might up the PCs and not the NPCs or maybe not the rank & file NPCs.  

 

[Atgxtg]

On 7/9/2023 at 4:58 PM, Barak Shathur said:

This may explain how slashing weapons became (IMO) over powered in RQG, where both slashing and impaling specials do twice damage instead of the above. It seems the developers lifted the slash special (minus the getting stuck part) from RQ2, while downgrading the impale special (making it less special, so to say).

Well RQG was built mostly upon RQ2 so it has most of the same strengths and weaknesses. THe slash and crush rules are in the appendix for a reason, too. 

RQG relying on RQ2 over RQ3 is  one of the reasons why I'm, not a fan of RQG. RQ3 does have it's own weaknesses but it did fix a lot of the problems with RQ2 that now are in RQG. For example, in RQ2 there is a problem with larger monsters having fantastically good attack skills because of thier high STR score. RQ3 capped the category  bonuses from secondary characteristics preventing big dumb monsters from mastering all their natural weapons due to sheer size and strength. 

Meanwhile the BRP BGB drew from more diverse sources and collected things in a different way. Not necessarily better (or worse), but different.  

[Atgxtg]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:44 AM, Lloyd Dupont said:

After consideration, and at the risk of being pedantic, I'll go with (CON+SIZ)*0.75 😛
This way any human can still be beheaded with one stoke critical of 2H Sword.

Otherwise, thanks for this long and informative food for thoughts thread...

I think the best thing you can do here is:

1) get an idea of how you want combats to go

2) get some PC and NPC/Monster stats and playtest several combats

3) Compare your results to your expectations and if you don't like the results adjust things to suit your tastes, perhaps posting on the forum for feedback first.

 

You see, the thing is that most of us think the game system, in various forms, plays out fine the way it is, the game mechanics are tightly intern=connected, and and we know that fiddling with the mechanics can backfire, unless you know how it all interacts and what the domino effects of changes are. The various problems with Mongoose RuneQuest were mostly due to things that Mongoose changed that had a domino effect that lead to unintended consequences . Increase hit points and weapons become less dangerous, increase weapon damage and armor and parrying becomes less effective, increase armor and parrying and your right back where you started but with higher numbers. Now those of us who have played the game for awhile know some of what does what, but we learned a lot of that the hard way. 

[Atgxtg]

On 7/10/2023 at 10:39 AM, SDLeary said:

For Spear vs Sword, and variations with and without shields, check out YouTube. Either Lindybeige or Scholagladiatoria did a video looking at this. 

In fact, I seem to remember the vids and a discussion down in Alistor’s. It might be buried a couple of years back.

SDLeary

Probably, It got brought up in the Pendragon forums awhile back too, because it would have a significant effect on Pendragon combat. It was mostly dismissed not because people didn't believe the spear had an advantage, but because they believed that it did, and that just didn't fit the knightly paradigm. Pendragon being a knight-centric RPG. Much the same reason why commoners aren't even counted in the troop strengths of some battles. 

 

In fact, I I just discovered the spreadsheet I did for Pendragon at that (2019) time with Reflexive Modifiers for Pendragon based on the results of the Lindybeige video. Speaking of which here is the full Lindybeige video  with all 65 match results at the end.

 

Results and Pendragon Reflexive Modifiers were: 

Match	Results	Modifier
1 H Weapons vs. Spears	3 vs. 9	-5/+5
Swd & Buckler vs. Spears	2 vs. 4	-3/+3
Longswords vs. Spears	2 vs. 4	-3/+3
Greatswords vs. Spears	0 vs 4	-10/+10
Half-Swords vs. Spears	3 vs. 3	0/0
Swd & Shield vs. Spears	6 vs 7	-1/+1
Swd & Shield vs. Spears & Shld	6 vs 0	+10/-10

I'm re-watching the video, but based on the comments by Lindy and Matt, this was with people who were all experienced with swords (HEMA) but who had little to no experience with spears. Apparently most weren't all that experienced with shields either.

 

 

Edited July 13, 2023 by Atgxtg

[Lloyd Dupont]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think the best thing you can do here is:

1) get an idea of how you want combats to go

2) get some PC and NPC/Monster stats and playtest several combats

3) Compare your results to your expectations and if you don't like the results adjust things to suit your tastes, perhaps posting on the forum for feedback first.

 

You see, the thing is that most of us think the game system, in various forms, plays out fine the way it is, the game mechanics are tightly intern=connected, and and we know that fiddling with the mechanics can backfire, unless you know how it all interacts and what the domino effects of changes are. The various problems with Mongoose RuneQuest were mostly due to things that Mongoose changed that had a domino effect that lead to unintended consequences . Increase hit points and weapons become less dangerous, increase weapon damage and armor and parrying becomes less effective, increase armor and parrying and your right back where you started but with higher numbers. Now those of us who have played the game for awhile know some of what does what, but we learned a lot of that the hard way. 

Lol... are you being passive aggressive here? so uncharacteristic you I believe! Mondays! Am I right?

Anyway 3~1 year ago I tried many rules in a row (I mean many D100 system).. and I realize I didn't like any of them. For various reason 😛 
And I kept "cheating" (or fudging the rolls as GMs say) as we played...
But anyway, I will use them over D&D anytime. I hate humongous HP and classes. And I like skill-based RPG, so here you go.

Anyway, I confess, I totally missed all along that localized HP in BRP did not work as I thought they did, but didn't play BRP specifically that long.

Regardless it was mostly damage spell that bothered me the most (like Blast or Sharpen) but I have a fresh perspective now and I hope I can make it work. Sharpen is too good, and Blast is unsatisfactory for everyone, too expensive, too much damage, too easy to dodge.

True I was slightly annoyed how it was either too easy to cut heads (with a +7 sword hey!) or an hallberd, or too hard (a normal sword, again, against a full plate does shite, fair but I was stupidly populating the world with mostly swords), or alternatively, I was also slightly annoyed how 3 punches on an unarmored human are deadly. But, to repeat myself, that is not really my major concern (which is damage spell as mentionned above).

Anyway, I already perfectly realize now, just what you mentioned in the quoted text, the subtle different damage number, armor number, etc.. add up for a big difference between each of those games... But just saying it make a big difference while being vague on what is the difference is not being helpful, is it? Anyway, the rest of this thread has plenty of both historical information and helpful hints, if needed.

Edited July 13, 2023 by Lloyd Dupont

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Lol... are you being passive aggressive here? so uncharacteristic you I believe! Mondays! Am I right?

No, I not being passive aggresive here. Sorry, inflection is hard to put into text. I'm trying to be logical here and it doesn't always come across well in writing so let me try to clarify my point.

 

First off I don't know exactly what you want or exactly how familiar you are with the BRP rules and in what incarnations. 

Secondly, I don't know exactly how you want or expect the rules to play out.  I'm mostly guessing what you want based upon past experiences and my knowledge of how various rules interact with each other.

Thirdly, I do (mostly) know how the various rule mechanics work as is and what (some) of the ramifications are for changing various rule mechanics. What happens if you change damage, or use hit locations or what not. Th latter is much trickier that it might seem because the exact effects depends on what combination of rules are in play to begin with. Combinations that Chasoium has used in the past in games such as RQ, Strombringer, Magic World, CoC, etc. I know. But when you put together a more exotic mix it gets much harder to determine what the effects will be.

 

My apparenlly P/A answer is because:

• I can't say for certain what the exact effects of any unusual combinations will be, although I know some rules are much more powerful than other and will drastically alter the game.
• I don't know if you will be more or less happy about those effects whatever then end up being.

 

So my suggestion was for you to test out what you do to see what the end effects are (and tho avoid any unwanred surprise effects before actual play), ten come back here if something doesn't work out the way you want so we can find out what you didn't like and explain why and what to do to adjust for it.

 

It's kinda like cooking. You want to season thing to your taste, but my taste are not the same as yours and I can only advise as to what adding more of of a given spice might do.  

 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Anyway 3~1 year ago I tried many rules in a row (I mean many D100 system).. and I realize I didn't like any of them. For various reason 😛 

 

And it's those "various reasons" that are the rub. The rest of us don't know what games you didn't like and why you didn't like them.  Don't feel bad about that though because we don't usually know why some of us prefer one version of BRP while other prefer another. That's why there are multiple forums here and why there are still RQ2 and RQ3 fans in the RQG era, why early editions of Strombringer still have fans post Elric! and Post Magic World (II), and why every so often someone mentions Ringworld or ElfQuest.

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

And I kept "cheating" (or fudging the rolls as GMs say) as we played...

 

Why did you cheat? I know you were unhappy with the status quo, but what sort of cheats did you do and why. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

But anyway, I will use them over D&D anytime. I hate humongous HP and classes. And I like skill-based RPG, so here you go.

 

And that helps us to narrow things down for you. Right now I think your preferences are somewhere between Magic World (I) and Classic Fantasy. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Anyway, I confess, I totally missed all along that localized HP in BRP did not work as I thought they did, but didn't play BRP specifically that long.

Exactly. And that is why I'm a bit more hesitant about changes. It really easy to mess up BRP becuase of how interconnected it is, especially compared to D&D.

In D&D you can double weapon damage and the only effects will be that characters will take more damage from attacks, drop faster in combat, there will be a few more kills due to going -10 more often, magical healing will become less effective but more important, and the party will have to stop and rest more often. But armor, magical defense,initiative,  and the rest all work the same as before. 

Do the same thing in RuneQuest and now weapons blow past armor and parrying weapons, characters get maimed and killed far more often, one shot drops become much more common, speed and order of battle become more significant, impales are almost an autodrop/kill (4D6+4+db), parry weapons degrade faster, magic that makes someone harder to hit becomes more valauble than magic that reduces damage, and so on. 

BTW, Mongoose Publish did just that with MRQ, mostly due to fan response over their use of hit locations without general hit points (which I think is what you assumed) and how it made RQ much less lethal and bordered on Monty Python's Black Knight. So the doubled damage to correct the effects of a previous change. And they did this sort of thing repeatly. Basically every time they tired to correct for a problem they created with a previous rule change, they created more problems. Mostly because the ones calling the shots didn't understand ways that RQ rule interconnected where D&D rules did not. 

 

THat's why I'm worried about and trying to help you avoid. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Regardless it was mostly damage spell that bothered me the most (like Blast or Sharpen) but I have a fresh perspective now and I hope I can make it work. Sharpen is too good, and Blast is unsatisfactory for everyone, too expensive, too much damage, too easy to dodge.

Sharpen is too good? Now that is a suprise. Sharpen is basically a renamed and toned down Bladesharp spell, and is one of the longest servings spells in BRP going all the way back to the beginning. I never would have expected you to say that. Normally Bladesharp/Shapen is offset by Protection and parrying. Both stem from RQ's "Battle Magic" and are common spells. I mean in old RQ everybody knew a little battlemagic. Most adventures would know spells a package of spells that included a damage boosting spell like Baldesharp, some Protection, a Little countermagic, some Healing, and then an attack spell that rewuired a POW vs POW roll, partically for character improvement. 

As for Blast being overpowered, yes , IMO it is. You see the "Magic" system in the BGB derives from original Magic World, which was an attempt to turn BRP into a high fantasy RPG, and which added powerful D&D type attack spells to the less powerful RQ Battle Magic spells.  which used general hit points, fixed armor, and no major wounds, resulting in characters who can take a 4D6 blast and keep fighting.   Even with tall that Magic World magic is generally considered to be overpowered. Blast doesn't exist in other BRP games such as RuneQuest or Strombringer, where it would far more deadly.

 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

True I was slightly annoyed how it was either too easy to cut heads (with a +7 sword hey!)

+7 capped at weapno max. So a broadsword would cap out a 9 points plus db. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

 

or an hallberd, or too hard (a normal sword, again, against a full plate does shite, fair but I was stupidly populating the world with mostly swords)

Uh, it's supposed to be that way. Realistically most hit by a sword (or other 1H weapon) against someone in full plate will bounce. I think your expecting D&D style results where people take some damage from each hit. That not how BRP was designed. 

Now what usually makes swords dangerous against people in plate are the specials and criticals, hit locations, the ability to aim for where the armor isn't, and spells like bladesharp/sharpen.

Oh, also full plate should be a bit rarer in BRP than in D&D. In most BRP setting full plate is expensive and it takes awhile for people to be able to afford it. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

or alternatively, I was also slightly annoyed how 3 punches on an unarmored human are deadly.

Yeah, welcome to the club on that one. Back when RQ was designed, the emphasis was on lethal combat and little consideration was given to non-lethal combat. IMO if you want to address that then houserule a special case for nonlethal attacks. Something like getting your db as bonus armor might work. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

But, to repeat myself, that is not really my major concern (which is damage spell as mentionned above).

Well the typical solution for that is to not have those damage spells. As I mentioned above most of the big damage spells do not exist in BRP other than magic world and the BGB "MAgic" rules, and are generally considered to be overpowered/broken. A wizard tossing around 4D6 blast spells for 3 magic points in a game with some combinations of  hit locations, major wounds or variable armor is a game changer. So my advice here would be to drop the "Magic" system for something else, or drop the big damage doers like Blast. 

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Anyway, I already perfectly realize now, just what you mentioned in the quoted text, the subtle different damage number, armor number, etc.. add up for a big difference between each of those games... But just saying it make a big difference while being vague on what is the difference is not being helpful, is it? Anyway, the rest of this thread has plenty of both historical information and helpful hints, if needed.

Yeah, sorry but this is kinda like troubleshooting a "broken" piece of equipment. We know it's broken because you said so, but we can't tell how it is broken unless we can see it, test it and ask you questions. Your statements about blast and sharpen are enlightening.

[Lloyd Dupont]

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

3 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

True I was slightly annoyed how it was either too easy to cut heads (with a +7 sword hey!)

+7 capped at weapno max. So a broadsword would cap out a 9 points plus db. 

Really?
Reading carefully the new one (2023 edition) there is a brief (but important!) line to that effect indeed!
But the BGB (2011) doesn't say so!
 

[Atgxtg]

9 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Really?

BRP BGB PDF (I think was a 2019 edition ) has:

This spell adds 5% to the attack chance and 1 point of
damage to any weapon (including blunt weapons and
missile weapons) it is successfully applied to, up to the
maximum damage possible using that weapon.

But an earlier edition (2016 I think) does not. 

 

9 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Reading carefully the new one (2023 edition) there is a brief (but important!) line to that effect indeed!
But the BGB (2011) doesn't say so!
 

t I suspect the change was something done in the errata after you bought your edition.

The rule, harks back to RQ2 where some spells (like Truesword) had that limit. RQ spells had quite a few limits, for instance bladesharp (think sharpen) was limited to +20%/4 points in RQ2. The rule was mostly dropped in RQ3 which eliminated a lot of the magical restrictions, but since everybody could cast spells in RQ it was a level playing field. 

I think the situation you have is that since only magicians have access to magic their powerful spells cannot be counterbalanced by non- magicians. So a wizard who casts Sharpen 12 suddenly had a chainsaw.  One who could cast Blast 12 could do 12D6 damage and  flash fry dragons, giants and pretty much anything else that could pop up in the game. Yeah, I'd say that's the problem with the  Worlds of Wonder: Magic World magic system. It's why I stopped running WoW:MW. It also why it isn't a common problem in BRP games as no other BRP game uses that particular magic system, except the BGB which lists it among other systems and tones it down a little.

I strongly suggest that you either limit those spells or better yet beg, borrow or steal one of the other , better balanced, magic systems. For instance use the magic rules but replace the Magic system spells with the Sorcery systems spells. (maybe without the summoning spells because summoned creatures like demons and elementals is traditionally where sorcery got OP.) and you get spells that aren't as overpowered.

 

 

 

[SDLeary]

23 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Probably, It got brought up in the Pendragon forums awhile back too, because it would have a significant effect on Pendragon combat. It was mostly dismissed not because people didn't believe the spear had an advantage, but because they believed that it did, and that just didn't fit the knightly paradigm. Pendragon being a knight-centric RPG. Much the same reason why commoners aren't even counted in the troop strengths of some battles. 

 

In fact, I I just discovered the spreadsheet I did for Pendragon at that (2019) time with Reflexive Modifiers for Pendragon based on the results of the Lindybeige video. Speaking of which here is the full Lindybeige video  with all 65 match results at the end.

 

Results and Pendragon Reflexive Modifiers were: 

Match	Results	Modifier
1 H Weapons vs. Spears	3 vs. 9	-5/+5
Swd & Buckler vs. Spears	2 vs. 4	-3/+3
Longswords vs. Spears	2 vs. 4	-3/+3
Greatswords vs. Spears	0 vs 4	-10/+10
Half-Swords vs. Spears	3 vs. 3	0/0
Swd & Shield vs. Spears	6 vs 7	-1/+1
Swd & Shield vs. Spears & Shld	6 vs 0	+10/-10

I'm re-watching the video, but based on the comments by Lindy and Matt, this was with people who were all experienced with swords (HEMA) but who had little to no experience with spears. Apparently most weren't all that experienced with shields either.

 

 

Yeah, most HEMA folks work with Longswords. Which makes me wonder how it would have gone if they were facing off against people well versed in 2H Spear, and Spear and Shield.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

11 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, welcome to the club on that one. Back when RQ was designed, the emphasis was on lethal combat and little consideration was given to non-lethal combat. IMO if you want to address that then houserule a special case for nonlethal attacks. Something like getting your db as bonus armor might work. 

I would suggest Less Lethal Damage. A skill crit with fists, feet, or a truncheon (or other less lethal weapons) can still take someone out permanently. 

As for normal LL Damage, you could match the inflicted damage against the Location HP by opposed roll or Resistance Table:

• If the roll overcomes the location, a stun effect
• If the roll criticals the the location then a KO (an actual KO, someone keeling over in pain, joint lock...)
• Or other effects that you might come up with

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Yeah, most HEMA folks work with Longswords. Which makes me wonder how it would have gone if they were facing off against people well versed in 2H Spear, and Spear and Shield.

SDLeary

Which is exactly what Lindy and Matt say in the long version of the video. They discussed actually training some people to fight with spear and then train some swordsmen to specifically go after spearmen. Nothing came of that though at least not yet.

 

One interesting tidbit was Lindy's story about how in his past experience Spear & Shield always beat Sword & Shield, because the spearmen always had a sword as a secondary weapon. So if aswordman got too close the spearman would just drop the spear, draw sword and and stab the swordsman before he could get his shield back. That actually makes a lot of sense and would make sense in game if using the close in fighting rules.