Basic roleplaying combat system

[axe-elf]

Yes, there is. It is the basic assumption of BRP, that what you do in a round you decide at the beginning and carry on for the rest of the round. Once you have opted for Parry, it will be Parry for the rest of the round. This is somehow negated by the Fighting Defensively option, but that is an exceptional situation.

BRP is a simple ruleset and it has several viable options in it. But it does rely on some basic assumptions that you have to "grok" before you master it. This one, that you DO NOT make decisions DEX Rank by DEX Rank but go with a previously determined strategy, is rather important.

Hmpf...then the game designers should have tried some real fencing. Sticking to the plan always, is deadly. I´ve done bushido for a period, and anyone designing an rpg combat system should have tried something like that

And even so, you could plan to parry, dodge, parry for example.

[Atgxtg]

Hmpf...then the game designers should have tried some real fencing. Sticking to the plan always, is deadly. I´ve done bushido for a period, and anyone designing an rpg combat system should have tried something like that

And even so, you could plan to parry, dodge, parry for example.

It depends not so much on reality, but the style of play desired. Real sword fighting is very different from fencing, and from cinematic sword fighting. But depending on what style of play desired a author might try to mimic one style over reality.

I really think you'd prefer RQ3 to BRP. It's more like what you are looking for.

[vagabond]

It depends not so much on reality, but the style of play desired. Real sword fighting is very different from fencing, and from cinematic sword fighting. But depending on what style of play desired a author might try to mimic one style over reality.

I really think you'd prefer RQ3 to BRP. It's more like what you are looking for.

Elric! allowed you to freely mix Dodge and Parry, and the 30% rule applied to both. The new Magic World clarifies the rule somewhat as it isn't worded very (and the examples do not help) in any edition I have seen. Basically, for you keep track of every parry and dodge used in a round in a generic sense, i.e the first parry or dodge is defensive action (DA) #1, the next parry or dodge is DA #2 and so on. You then multiple which (DA - 1) you are at by 30% and apply it to the skill attempted.

For example, assume Parry 70% and Dodge 65%.

First DA the player chooses to Parry at full 70%.

The second DA, the player chooses to parry at 70% - 30%, or 40%.

The third DA, the player chooses to dodge at 65% - 30%x2, or 05%.

The way the rule is worded (and, again, the example does not help), you use the previous value as your skill, and then subtract another 30%. What this means is, if you have a Parry skill of 50% and a Dodge of 90%, the RAW would go like this:

First DA the player chooses to Dodge at full 90%.

The second DA, the player chooses to Parry. Full skill at Parry is 50%, but by the rule, you use the previous attempt minus 30%, or in this case, the last Dodge of 90% minus 30%, or 60%. So, apparenly, by rule, if you chose to Dodge first, you are all of a sudden better at Parry

Common sense indicates it should not be this way, but that is the rule as written. Ben and I went back and forth with how best to deal with this, and we decided on (and Ben uses it in Magic World) to just track the number of attempts to figure out the cumulative penalty, and apply that cumulative to the starting value.

Now, as to why you cannot change plans during combat - well, since combat goes by DEX rank, and actions should be declared in reverse order, allowing slower characters to change their actions based upon what happened during the round givs them a distinct advantage. However, in my opinion, this should only be applied to characters who opt for "Full Defense" or "Fighting Defensively". I think parries and dodges as reactions to blows are "free actions" and can be used interchangeably. BUT, since Dodge is an attempt to not only avoid a strike, but also puts you out of position some, I would rule that either once you Dodge in a round, you must continue to Dodge and may no longer Parry, or, every time you Dodge, the your very next Attack or Parry has a penalty applied since you have taken yourself out of position.

Ian

[axe-elf]

I really think you'd prefer RQ3 to BRP. It's more like what you are looking for.

I hear what you say. It´s just that I have spent money on this baby and want to fix it. And also, my group want a generic system with possibilities for more genres, since we all like to do some GMing, moving characters around in different settings.

Anyway, RQ3 , that is 6th edition is it, the new one?

[axe-elf]

BUT, since Dodge is an attempt to not only avoid a strike, but also puts you out of position some, I would rule that either once you Dodge in a round, you must continue to Dodge and may no longer Parry, or, every time you Dodge, the your very next Attack or Parry has a penalty applied since you have taken yourself out of position.

Ian

Hmmm.. I just wonder why make it so complicated. The players have no interest in choosing anything else than their best defencive skill for the whole round (except maybe for dramatic purposes), because this will always give the largest amount of defencive actions.

[Zit]

I think Atgytg means the 3rd edition from AH in the mid-80's.

I'm missing the old "defence" rule of RQ2. Actually not: I'm still playing with RQ2 . No dodge skill, just a penalty to the attacker simulating the difficullty to hit the target, and is disconnected from parrying. And if you wanted to dive out of range of an attack, then a DEX roll - but no other action was then possible. It was clear, simple and there was no conflict with the parry rolls. I don't know why they changed it.

[vagabond]

Hmmm.. I just wonder why make it so complicated. The players have no interest in choosing anything else than their best defencive skill for the whole round (except maybe for dramatic purposes), because this will always give the largest amount of defencive actions.

Because, depending on your opponent (and you can always be facing more than one), your best defense may change. For example, you may be best at parrying, but there are some cases where you cannot parry (your opponent it too large for example). Or, depending on which attacker is engaging you, you may want to parry and try to get a riposte due to that particular defender's poor armor or defensive ability, and attempt to knock that combatant out of action.

Ian

[RosenMcStern]

Hmpf...then the game designers should have tried some real fencing.

They did. The original system is based on SCA experience.

And even so, you could plan to parry, dodge, parry for example.

I think the whole idea has been clarified much better by Pete Nash in RuneQuest 6. In fact, when you roll for a Parry, you are adopting a combination of parries and dodges that is subsumed into your Parry skill. Your parry/dodge/parry kata would be rolled on your Parry skill in any case.

When you roll Dodge you are actually getting really out of the way: retreating or ducking for cover. In many incarnations of BRP like Call of Cthulhu, and in RuneQuest 6/Legend, dodging prevents attacks altogether. It should be used only against missile weapons or something so big you cannot parry it. BRP is not so strict about dodging and allows it in close combat, but it does not incentive its use in melee, either.

[Atgxtg]

I hear what you say. It´s just that I have spent money on this baby and want to fix it. And also, my group want a generic system with possibilities for more genres, since we all like to do some GMing, moving characters around in different settings.

I understand. You already shelled out cash for BRP.

BUt we could probably get you the revelant data. 90% of BRP is about the same. And you can swap out the one or two things you don't like. That's what us old timers do.

Anyway, RQ3 , that is 6th edition is it, the new one?

Nope RQ3 is an older one. About 30 years older.

RQ6 is a new animal.

[Philotomy]

I understand. You already shelled out cash for BRP.

BUt we could probably get you the revelant data. 90% of BRP is about the same. And you can swap out the one or two things you don't like. That's what us old timers do

Maybe we need some threads like "BRP in the Style of RQ3" and "BRP in the Style of Stormbringer/Elric" and "BRP in the Style of RQ2"?

[Heimdallsgothi]

RQ6 is a new animal.

and is fairly awesome...

and just introduced firearms, blackpowder, modern weaponry.. even energy weapons.. change up a few professional skills...

and you got RQ6 star wars

[vagabond]

The info I posted came after I pulled my Elric! book for reference. I was pretty sure shields were much better at parrying in Elric!, and wanted to ensure I was pulling the correct info. I do know that the asterisked and italicized info at the bottom of the matrix in Elric! was vague if not incorrect altogether, but the actual result entries in the matrix as well as in the text are very clear and I find no contradictions (other than the asterisked/italicized blurb).

I have not checked Stormbringer 5th yet to see if the Elric! rules passed through unscathed in this regard, or if some changes were made.

Ian

Just verified - Stormbringer 5th has identical text with respect to weapon and shield parrying. And, if you remove the asterisked and itlaicized blurb at the bottom of the matrix, I find no confusion in the rules. They are very explicit about when weapons lose HP, when weapons break, and when shields lose HP and break. Shields are significantly better at parrying (which really should be blocking) than weapons. The only advantage a weapon has is the ability to riposte with a much deadlier attack than a shield bash.

Ian

[Gollum]

Hmpf...then the game designers should have tried some real fencing. Sticking to the plan always, is deadly. I´ve done bushido for a period, and anyone designing an rpg combat system should have tried something like that

And even so, you could plan to parry, dodge, parry for example.

I fully do agree with this post. Especially in 12 seconds!

In combat, each decision is taken in the 1 or 2 seconds scale... Or you are dead...

So, to my mind (and for my games), no matter what does the player. As long as there is the -30% penalty, it remains fair. And it gives amazing actions that we see in movies. Aragorn parries one Uruk-hai, dodge the second one, parry the third one and then attack the first one... It's much more fun to imagine than three parry in a raw.

[Gollum]

It depends not so much on reality, but the style of play desired. Real sword fighting is very different from fencing, and from cinematic sword fighting. But depending on what style of play desired a author might try to mimic one style over reality.

All weapons that I learn (and I learn a lot in traditional Kobudo training) extensively use a mix of parry and dodge. So, I can't be sure for medieval sword, but it sounds that any weapon training teach both parrying and dodge, alternately, or even exactly at the same time: you parry a blow why stepping back or to one side.

[Gollum]

I think the whole idea has been clarified much better by Pete Nash in RuneQuest 6. In fact, when you roll for a Parry, you are adopting a combination of parries and dodges that is subsumed into your Parry skill. Your parry/dodge/parry kata would be rolled on your Parry skill in any case.

Oh... OK! Then, what I wrote above is wrong. I didn't have this explanation. And since I come back from GURPS, I'm used to think that one roll means one precise action.

When you roll Dodge you are actually getting really out of the way: retreating or ducking for cover. In many incarnations of BRP like Call of Cthulhu, and in RuneQuest 6/Legend, dodging prevents attacks altogether. It should be used only against missile weapons or something so big you cannot parry it. BRP is not so strict about dodging and allows it in close combat, but it does not incentive its use in melee, either.

We can also thnik that a parry is a true attempt to get out of the foe's attack, that is not only one step back but several meters back. A series of dodges (in the usual meaning of the term). Exactly as a parry roll is actually several parries and dodges combines together.

But then, it makes the BRP system much less simulationist than GURPS, where every move is simulated by the rules. One roll represent a strategic series of actions and not only one action. The BRP becomes then more strategic than simulationist...

Edited September 6, 2012 by Gollum

[Atgxtg]

All weapons that I learn (and I learn a lot in traditional Kobudo training) extensively use a mix of parry and dodge. So, I can't be sure for medieval sword, but it sounds that any weapon training teach both parrying and dodge, alternately, or even exactly at the same time: you parry a blow why stepping back or to one side.

With what I've used, the same time thing is more like it. We tend to step away from the attack and try to parry or block (parry and block are not the same thing) at the same time.

But in BRP terms, that would mean combining parry & dodge into one Defense skill. Maybe using the average of the two.

[Gollum]

Just verified - Stormbringer 5th has identical text with respect to weapon and shield parrying. And, if you remove the asterisked and itlaicized blurb at the bottom of the matrix, I find no confusion in the rules. They are very explicit about when weapons lose HP, when weapons break, and when shields lose HP and break. Shields are significantly better at parrying (which really should be blocking) than weapons. The only advantage a weapon has is the ability to riposte with a much deadlier attack than a shield bash.

Ian

Which is more realistic. A shield is mainly designed to parry blows. A good warrior can attack with it, of course. But then , his main intention is to surprise his foe, who usually waits (an prepares himself) for a weapon attack.

[Gollum]

With what I've used, the same time thing is more like it. We tend to step away from the attack and try to parry or block (parry and block are not the same thing) at the same time.

I don't have the same experience. In my training, we really choose between stay at the same place and parry or step back (or to one side) and parry. Staying at the same place to parry is much harder than stepping back first. But it allow very rapid counterattacks (while stepping back requires to step forward before counterattacking). I don't know if the BRP system, with its 12 seconds scale, can simulate the difference between this two combat options.

Note that's it's a true question. Not a critic.

But in BRP terms, that would mean combining parry & dodge into one Defense skill. Maybe using the average of the two.

In my humble opinion, the all-out defense dodge + parry simulate the step back + parry option. You make two rolls to have an improved chance of defending. But one can imagine that both actions are made at the same time.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Gollum

[Gollum]

Oh... I forgot to tell. The "stay-exactly-as-the-same-place-to-parry" option is particularly effective with a "double weapon", that is with two different weapons of the same type (you hold one in each hand): sai and tonfa for instance; but we can also think about two knives or two quite little axes.

Indeed, you parry with one hand and attack with the other one. It can even be done exactly at the same time (with a lot of practice); which is named ai-uchi (simultaneous techniques).

Edit: and it can of course be done bare handed. One hand parry while the other punch or while you kick.

[Atgxtg]

I don't have the same experience. In my training, we really choose between stay at the same place and parry or step back (or to one side) and parry. Staying at the same place to parry is much harder than stepping back first. But it allow very rapid counterattacks (while stepping back requires to step forward before counterattacking). I don't know if the BRP system, with its 12 seconds scale, can simulate the difference between this two combat options.

That's what I meant before about modern fencing being different from real sword fighting. Modern fencers tend to fight along a straight line, and don't move around as much as in earlier forms of sword fighting. Such movement is very economical, and also plays to the strengths of fencing weapons, such as the lunge. But it's not how people used to fight with swords.

In my humble opinion, the all-out defense dodge + parry simulate the step back + parry option. You make two rolls to have an improved chance of defending. But one can imagine that both actions are made at the same time.

The problem with two rolls is a game mechanics one. A dodge and an parry at 50% each is as good as a 75% skill in either. Someone with 80% in each, would stop 96% of attacks.That makes it very hard for somebody to get a hit through. And we would need a reason why characters don't do it on every parry. Perhaps if the character had to give up a certain amount of ground. That way he could get boxed in and prevented from continually retreating.

Games like GURPS and Usagi Yojimbo, where a character can retreat/give group when defending to get a bonus to their defense. Something like a flat +20% or +30% (the same as the riposte penalty) or so might work too.

In RQ3 dodging was harder to pull off than a parry, but stopped all of the attack, where some damage might get through a parry. The RQ parry was more of a block than a true parry.

[frogspawner]

The problem with two rolls is a game mechanics one. A dodge and an parry at 50% each is as good as a 75% skill in either. Someone with 80% in each, would stop 96% of attacks.That makes it very hard for somebody to get a hit through. And we would need a reason why characters don't do it on every parry. Perhaps if the character had to give up a certain amount of ground. That way he could get boxed in and prevented from continually retreating.

That's the mechanic I use. Basically one parry per round*, and as many dodges as you like (only one per attack) - but any dodging means you have to step back (or go prone, or similar). Seems to counterbalance the "RQ combat is too lethal" complaint. How well it models any RW combat, I don't know...

(* But with Martial Arts giving an extra attack or parry, instead of extra damage).

[Atgxtg]

I think the RQ too lethal thing is more a factor of using hit points, hit locations, and weapon damages with adds. It turns some situations into kills simply by addition. For example, no one in RQ can survive having two locations disabled as the damage required to do so it would exceed their total hit points. But in real life people can surviving with four limbs disabled. THe whole hit point attrition concept is erroneous. Two 5 points wounds do not equal one 10 point wound.

[RosenMcStern]

But then, it makes the BRP system much less simulationist than GURPS, where every move is simulated by the rules. One roll represent a strategic series of actions and not only one action. The BRP becomes then more strategic than simulationist...

You nailed it. It is _exactly_ the difference between BRP and GURPS combat.

Also, I would call it "level of abstraction" rather than "level of simulation". BRP is more abstract. It requires fewer rolls, at the price of not detailing every single action.

[Gollum]

That's what I meant before about modern fencing being different from real sword fighting. Modern fencers tend to fight along a straight line, and don't move around as much as in earlier forms of sword fighting. Such movement is very economical, and also plays to the strengths of fencing weapons, such as the lunge. But it's not how people used to fight with swords.

I fully do agree with that.

The problem with two rolls is a game mechanics one. A dodge and an parry at 50% each is as good as a 75% skill in either. Someone with 80% in each, would stop 96% of attacks.That makes it very hard for somebody to get a hit through. And we would need a reason why characters don't do it on every parry [...]

Because it is all-out defense (or total defense, if you prefer; sorry, I used the gurpsish term). So it prevents from attacking.

Games like GURPS and Usagi Yojimbo, where a character can retreat/give group when defending to get a bonus to their defense. Something like a flat +20% or +30% (the same as the riposte penalty) or so might work too.

Yes. It might work.

In RQ3 dodging was harder to pull off than a parry, but stopped all of the attack, where some damage might get through a parry. The RQ parry was more of a block than a true parry.

Yes. It was a block. Not a parry.

[Gollum]

You nailed it. It is _exactly_ the difference between BRP and GURPS combat.

Also, I would call it "level of abstraction" rather than "level of simulation". BRP is more abstract. It requires fewer rolls, at the price of not detailing every single action.

By "simulationist", I usually mean a role playing game that simulate each choice of the player... Exactly as if it were at the place of his character and really had these choices to make.

But the term abstraction fits too. It is exactly what I feel about the BRP system now. Combats are more abstract. I understand things better. Thank you for your help.