New to MW questions

[Silver7]

Hello all! I am new to MW, but also in my 30yrs of gaming, I have had very little  experience with brp games in general. Reading through the rules, I assume it would be helpful to have certain amount of knowledge required from previous editions of Elric or other chaoium products.  Is there an additional rules that I should be reading, so I can understand MW better?  

Regardless, I have a few questions to understand the basics of the combat round. I am sure I will have a few more once I get pass the easy stuff.

1. Dex-ranks - I had assumed this was initiative with highest dex going first. However, I see the actions on page 62 says some actions forfeit dex ranks. So I am confused as to what happens when. Could someone provide an example for two combatants moving up to each other and attacking?

2. Actions - p62 says that participants have enough time to complete at least one action. Does this mean they can perform more than one? Is there only one attack allowed per turn? I see that I can move and attack (within restrictions and a dex rank forfeit). Can I do a disengage, move 2, engage a new target, and attacking? Some sort of action in a round economy would be helpful.

3. Drawing or picking up weapon says "his first attack or parry with the weapon comes five dex-ranks later, on the sixth elapsed. I searched the PDF for the word elapse, this is the only place that is used. Terminology from a different rule set? 

 

thanks,

silver

 

 

 

 

[Nakana]

Hey Silver!

Welcome to basicroleplaying.org!

I guess it would be helpful to be familiar with other products, but not necessary. I would recommend Basic Roleplaying, commonly referred to as the "Big Gold Book". Not only does it include the system, but it also includes all the optional rules and subsystems related to BRP. (Including 4 or 5 different ways to handle action resolution.)

1. Dex Ranks - (you assumed this was initiative with highest dex going first) You are correct. However, think of dex ranks as a pool of points to spend on actions. Each action costs a certain amount "points" or ranks. I think the way most people play is that a "major action" (like attacking) costs 10 dex ranks. "Minor actions" cost 5 dex ranks. So if my character's DEX is 17; I have 17 dex ranks. I could do 3 "minor actions" or 1 major and 1 minor action, with two dex ranks leftover. You lose these as they do not rollover into the next round. With the dex rank system you do not perform all your actions on your "turn" per se. (I.e. If my character needs to ready his weapon, that will cost 5 dex ranks. Therefore I cannot attack until dex rank 12)

2. If you had a dex rank of 20 then you could attack twice (on dex rank 20 and dex rank 10) if you did nothing else. "Can I do a disengage, move 2, engage a new target, and attacking?" If you had enough dex ranks you could. However at a minimum I would personally rule that disengaging costs 5 dex ranks. Therefore: disengage costs 5 dex ranks, move 2 costs 5 dex ranks, attacking costs 10 dex ranks. So only with dex ranks of 20 could you perform this. Otherwise you would have to wait until the next round to attack. 

3. I think that just means that action will cost 5 dex ranks. 

I hope this helps clarify dex ranks. If I've gotten something wrong, hopefully someone will correct me. Keep in mind, I don't use the dex rank system. I use the alternative Initiative system found in the "Big Gold Book" whereas you roll 1d10 and at it to your dex for initiative and then I play more like D&D style where you perform your actions on your turn (It's simpler to me.)

You could also try rolling 1d10+dex to yield higher dex ranks, thereby allowing more actions per turn per round.)

Edited July 25, 2015 by Nakana

[rsanford]

Nakana,

Your suggestion to think of dex ranks as a pool of points that that you use to fund actions makes a lot of sense. Having said that is that what is described in the BGB? I ask because I am under the impression that Magic World (RAW) only allows one attack no matter how much dex you have... The only exceptions I can think of are in those cases where you have more than 100% skill point in a weapon (and you want to split them) or in the case where you are executing a riposte. Let me know if I am completely delusional :-)

 

Silver7 one nuance that I found interesting is that irrespective of dex rank if a character armed with a short or medium weapon attacks a character armed with a long weapon the character with the long weapon goes first.  It makes the decision to arm your character with a short sword a little more troubling :-)

 

 

[Nakana]

That is not exactly how they describe dex ranks in the BGB. It's just how my brain interpreted it to make it easier to understand. 

I think in MW it is rare for anyone to have a DEX of 20 or higher. Therefore the issue doesn't really come up. (You only have enough dex ranks to attack once anyway.)

I would adjudicate that if a character has a DEX of 20+ and attack skills over 100% then theoretically that character could attack up to 4 times per round. (Over 100% rules can be applied each dex rank that affords an attack.) Although there may be additional penalties that apply with the 100% attack rules. 

*We may be venturing into "house rule" territory at this point. 

[rsanford]

Well said!

I am at best an intermediate level GM and still have a lot to learn. Having said that I found out about BRP/MW last last year and haven't looked back since.  It is just seems sooo much more intuitive than D&D.

 

 

[Sunwolfe]

Hi, Silver:

One thing about BRB, for as many GMs and players as there are, you will have as many interpretations and opinions of the rules . That’s what makes the system so strong, but it can also be frustrating for neophytes …LOL! As you posted in the Magic World (MW) thread, I’m going to answer from a MW perspective using the core rule book as my base. While in my opinion, it might be helpful to have MW's foundation Stormbringer 5th ed. to look for typos (you shouldn't have to worry about it now that the updated MW pdf. is out) and BRPs Big Gold Book is nice to have for ideas and modifications, I don't feel either are needed to play MW. I apologize to you, and the rest of you, for the length of my response, but for the sake of clarity, I’m doing my best to be thorough. To the experts, don’t hesitate to correct me where I’m wrong. I’d appreciate it.

Dex-ranks - I had assumed this was initiative with highest dex going first.

Yeppers, that is true (65). 

However, I see the actions on page 62 says some actions forfeit dex ranks. So I am confused as to what happens when. Could someone provide an example for two combatants moving up to each other and attacking?

Because MW is less crunchy than other systems, it does not require exact measurements with miniatures, hexed battle/encounter mats/boards as some RPGs do. Logic, flexibility and fairness rule the day. I’ll outline an encounter below, but I’ll do it in first-person player rather than third-person character.

Actions - p62 says that participants have enough time to complete at least one action. This is the norm. Does this mean they can perform more than one?

There are situations wherein a player can perform more than one action, however, this is usually very specific and each action is separated by 5 DEX-ranks (67). 

Is there only one attack allowed per turn?

Yes. This again is the norm. The only exception is a Riposte (63) and splitting an attack skill at 101% or higher into two separate attacks (68; left-hand column). 

I see that I can move and attack (within restrictions and a dex rank forfeit). Can I do a disengage, move 2, engage a new target, and attacking? Some sort of action in a round economy would be helpful. 

This how I would interpret the rules as I read them—the rest of you, don’t hesitate to chime in here and set me straight. No; you may not.

If your player’s DEX is 17 and engaged [as in: that’s my enemy; I’m his foe; we’re locked, cocked and ready to rock], I can declare at the beginning of the round that I intend to disengage (62). To do so, I must make a successful Dodge skill (62). Dodges are free actions so no cost there.

If my Dodge is successful, I have disengaged and I may “…move up to maximum movement by the end of the round…” , BUT, the disengagement IS my Action that round and is listed as such under “Actions In A Round”.

Technically as a disengaged player, I may now Move during the round in which I am disengaged up to my “…maximum movement…” (which is 8). As I do so, time is eating up DEX-ranks.

If I move half my allowable movement, which as a human would be 4, I must wait to attack someone next round. If I move only 2 (I have a DEX of 17), I forfeit 5 DEX-Ranks and my working DEX-rank is now 12. If I move 3-4, I forfeit 10 DEX-ranks reducing my working DEX-rank to 7 (62). 

If I decide to reengage in combat or someone engages me, I must work within these parameters. In all practicality, however, I’m going to be the low man on the DEX-rank totem pole and if no one has zeroed in on me, I may be unengaged the whole round as I bob and weave my way through the melee. 

A MOV of 8, is a crap-load of movement and the MW standard for humans. A unit of movement is “…several to ten meters…” (54). Those GMs who want an exact amount for each movement unit are encouraged to call a unit “…five meters…”, but the spirit of the ruling is that a unit is relative to circumstance, situation and GM discretion. 

So to answer your question according to how I interpret the rules, if I disengage from combat (my combat action) and move 2 (reducing my DEX-Rank by 5) I would not be able to engage a new target until the beginning of next round. Remember, you can only disengage if your are already engaged, nor can you reengage unless you’ve been engaged (wow).

If at the beginning of the round I was Unengaged, however, I could move about, choose my target—if they hadn’t yet chosen me—and attack on my modified DEX-Rank.

Drawing or picking up weapon says "his first attack or parry with the weapon comes five dex-ranks later, on the sixth elapsed. I searched the PDF for the word elapse, this is the only place that is used. Terminology from a different rule set? 

MW’s combat system is lifted directly from Stormbringer 5th edition (SB). The passage in SB reads, “….his first attack or parry with the weapon comes five dex-ranks later on the sixth elapsed” (112). It lacks the comma between “later” and “on”. What the passage in MW is trying to say is that five-ranks have elapsed and on the sixth, you may attack or parry. In the above example, with a DEX-Rank of 17, you’d attack or parry on 12.

What follows below is a combat wherein I’ve tried to address most of your questions. 

Situation
          Two human adventurers are camping for the night on the portico of a ruined temple. It’s the pre-dawn morning watch and Player A  is on guard. Player B is snoozing away nice and toasty having won both first watch privileges and Player A’s blanket for his bed in a dice-game earlier. Unbeknownst to the twain, they are being stalked by two human ruffians: Bandit C and Bandit D.

          Human MOV is 8. The GM rules that the bandits and their prey are far within the distance allowable for human movement so no adjustments to DEX-Ranks will need to be made in that regard—no rulers, battle boards, hex papers or miniatures needed. Nice, but not needed.

Pre-combat
          Player A describes to the Chronicler (GM) that she is on the alert and moving cautiously around the fire and her sleeping companion. The GM makes a show of rolling dice behind the screen and confirms that she does exactly that although she’s a bit tired after the long watch. Near the end of her watch the GM describes that she thinks she hears something suspicious and asks her to make a Listen skill roll. She has a 75% Listen. She rolls a 14, a Special Success.

          The GM rolls his bandits’ Move Quietly skills in an Opposed Skills Roll test (49). Bandit C has a 60% and rolls a 10. Like Player A, he too has rolled a Special Success. A Special Success VS a Special Success results in a stand-off and Player A does not hear Bandit C.

          Bandit D, however, is not so lucky. He too has a 60% Move Quietly but rolls a 68 and blows his covert approach by stepping on a pebble that shoots out from under his sandal and skitters across the cobbles.

          The GM tells Player A that she is sure someone is out beyond the fire light.

 

GM: “It almost sounds like someone threw a small stone across the porch from beyond the broken columns to your left. What do you do?”

Player A: “I draw my sword and wake up Player B while watching the area, but this could be a detraction, so I’m on the alert for attack from another direction.”

GM: “Hmmm…”

          The GM rolls against the Bandit’s INT in an Idea Roll to see if they pick up on the fact that their prey has been alerted by the errant stone.  Being the one who made the noise, Bandit D rolls a 45 against INT x5 and realizing they’ve lost their Ambush surprise and rushes out of hiding. Bandit C, on the other hand, who didn’t make that noise must roll against INT x3 to realize the jig’s up.  He fails his roll and is oblivious, so he’s a bit behind his fellow on the attack.

“…okay. You draw your sword, but before you can wake Player B, a figure rushes you from behind the column you were watching. What is your DEX-Rank…?”

Player A: “Can I at least call out to wake Player B?!”

GM: “Sure.”

Player A: “Player B! Fire! Foes! Awake!”

         The GM decides that Player B (PB) was sleeping lightly enough he wakes at PA’s call but must clear his bed roll. Bandit C, seeing his mate’s attack, leaves his hiding place to engage PB.

          NOW…at this point much depends on you as the GM—style, rules interp, circumstances and situation—to determine who is engaged and who is not. As a GM I would rule that Player A and Bandit D are for all intents and purposes “engaged in hand-to-hand combat” and Player B and Bandit C, while not yet engaged, soon will be—once B gets up.

          Even though I would normally deal with both Players and their perspective combats according to DEX-ranks, for the sake of this illustration, I’m going to deal with PA and BC first.

GM: “PA what’s your DEX-rank, again?”

PA: “16”

GM: “Nice! You’ll go first [Bandit D has a 13 DEX-rank]. Do you want to anything special? Let’s hear your Statement.”

PA: “How close is the approaching bandit?”

GM: “Close enough that if you’re not careful you’ll lose your advantage; maybe four meters and closing on a run.”

PA: “Well in that case, I’ll simply meet his attack with my own.”

GM: “Good call, but I wanted to give you a chance to do something else if you wanted to…”

PA: “Like what?!”

GM: “Oh, well, I don’t know…kick sand in the bandit’s face…

PA: “We’re on a marble flagged porch!

GM: “…run away…”

PA: “Fat chance! I’m not PB.”

PB: “Hey, I resemble that statement!”

GM: “…or use a ring of invisibility…”

PA: “I don’t have a ring of invisibility!”

GM: “Oh. Right. Bad, GM. Bad.”

PA: “Like I said, I attack.”

GM: “Okay, no magic items then. We enter the Action Phase. Roll your attack…”

          Combat follows as per normal and described on pages 62 through 67.

          Let’s deal with Player B now.

GM: “Okay, PB, you awaken at PA’s cry.”

PB: “I jump up and attack whoever is attacking me with my broadsw--”

GM: “Hold on there, cowboy. That’s cool, but let’s do this by the numbers. What’s your DEX-rank?”

PB: “Ha! 17!”

GM: “Excellent, so let’s hear your Statement.”

PB: “I’m going to get up, draw my sword and look for enemies. If there are none, I’ll help PA with her’s.”

GM: “Any magic?”

PB: “Nope. Let’s do this!”

GM: “Okay, Speedy, but before you ‘do this’ you’ll need to make an Agility roll at  DEX x3 to get clear of those cuddly warm blankies you cheated PA out of earlier without making a mess of things.”

PB: “What!?”

PA: “You cheated!? I knew it!”

PB: “Oww…no I didn’t--! Come on, GM; I’m…”

GM: “You roll it or I’ll rule it…” (one of my favorite sayings).

PB: “Fine!” Dice chatters across the table. “Damn, a 52! I failed!”

GM: “Well, while that’s not a good thing, and it’ll cost you a DEX-rank (17 minus 1: DEX-Rank 16), you didn’t Fumble, so you were able to clear the blankets with a bit of effort, but as you rise, before you can do anything else the enemy is upon you and you’re engaged. Action phase!”

PB: “What?!”

GM: “Yeppers. Clearing the extra blanket cost you precious nano-seconds and a foe with a sword in hand is nearly upon you [Bandit C has a 15 DEX-rank]

PB: “Fine! I attack…”

GM: “ ‘You gonna skin that smoke wagon, pilgrim…’ ?”

PB: “What?”

GM: “Are you going to draw your sword?”

PB: “Well, I mean, I had it out. Laying beside me while I slept…”

GM: “I let you have it out, ‘…laying beside…” you while you slept, but even you said in your statement of intent that you were going to ‘…draw [your] sword…’ so it must have been in a scabbard and you’re going to lose some more of that DEX advantage of yours drawing it out. It costs you five-DEX ranks to do draw that weapon. You’ll be able to attack on the next DEX-rank.”

PB: “What was that, Willis?!”

PA: “In other words as your DEX-Rank is 17, you lose 5 Ranks.” PA counts on her fingers backwards, “ …17, 16, 15, 14, and 13, for drawing your sword and you’ll be able to attack on DEX-Rank 12 [“…the sixth elapsed.”]. Oh wait, and minus one more for failing to disentangle yourself from the blanket you cheated to get, so that’s DEX-Rank 11.

PB: “But that means the bad-guy has the drop on me!”

PA: “That’s what you get for cheating at dice.”

PB: “What? I didn’t cheat. Bad GM! Bad!”

GM: “You’re lucky I don’t make you roll for it! You draw it, no problem, and good thing too because, as PA pointed our so nicely, your loss of 5 DEX-ranks allows your foe to attack first.”

PB: “Can I disengage, instead of drawing my weapon?”

PA: “Hey! You can’t leave me here to face two of these guys alone. You suck!”

GM: “Sorry pard, but the time for declaring a disengagement was during the Statements phase. It’s Actions time.

PB: “Okay, I draw my weapon and attempt to parry.”

          Combat follows as per normal and described on pages 62 through 67.

          Let’s pretend, however, that during the Statements Phase PB did declare he wanted to disengage from the round—his sheathed sword in hand.

GM: “Sure, but that’s your action for the round. You’ll have to make a successful Dodge roll first.”

PB: “Okay, I’ll do that. My Dodge is killer at 70%. 45! Bam!”

GM: “So tell me how you disengage—sidestep, dive for cover, jump out of the way—and in which direction?”

PB: “I’m going to dive dramatically into a shoulder roll to the left away from the fire and toward any cover I can find.” 

PA: “What a wuss. You’re a coward.”

PB: “No, no; I have a plan!”

PA: “Right. You’re a cheater and a chicken.”

PB: "No I'm not!"

GM: “So! You dodge out of the way, making your dramatic dive and roll. Make you’re Agility roll at DEXx4 rather than x5 (49, 50).

PB: “I just made it with a 67!”

GM: “You dive out of the way with a smooth shoulder roll, but even as you do, [GM rolls dice for effect] you catch the whistling sound of your opponent’s sword as it slices off a lock of hair.”

PB: “What about my helmet?!” 

PA: “Oh my god.” PA covers her face with her hands.

GM: “Really. You sleep with your helm on.

PB: “Well…”

GM: “Dude, if you did that, we’re backing this round up and you’re going to have to make a Luck roll at POWx1 to even hear her call, and as far as getting out of your ill-gotten blankets…”

PB: “Okay, okay. Fine. I get it. I’ll get a hair cut later to even it out.”

GM: “Excellent. You successfully disengage. You rise and…what?  What do you do? Run, reengage, what?”

PA: “Yeah, what? I want to hear your great ‘plan’.”

PB: “Well, I draw my weapon, turn and survey the tableau.” 

GM: “’Tableu’ good word. Well, you see PA engaged in desperate combat with a ruffian of some sort armed with a long sword. You aren’t too sure about armor but you note that few outward plates are showing. It’s probably not heavy armor. Oh, and you see a similar attired foeman—the guy you dodged—sans a buckler, turning around for another go at you.”

PB: “What!? I thought I just disengaged him?!”

GM: “You did, but, he likes you and wants a place on your dance-card. He thinks you’re graceful.”

PB: “But I disengaged!”

GM: “You did, but that doesn’t mean the bad guys take a knee. You dodged, drew your sword and turned to survey the scene (the GM rules in his head that it took at least 2 units of Movement and some time) You’re basically still there. If you’re going to hang out, he’s going to try and engage you. Lucky thing too because he might have gone after PA if you’d disappeared.”

PA: “Some plan.”

GM: “So…?”

PB: “Fine. When I know the dude is committed to coming for me, I’ll move further back into the shadows over toward that well we discovered earlier and engage him there. Maybe I can trick him into falling in the hole.”

PA: “I hope you fall in.”

GM: “Great. Off you go and [GM rolls] our hero, none-too-bright, follows you. You won’t be able to engage in combat until next round however.”

PB: “Aww! But--!”

GM: “PA, back to you.”

PA: “About time. Can I get my blanket back?”

GM: “When this is over…”

           And there you go! Clear as mud, right? LOL! Regardless, I hope some of it helps (I hope some of it's right! Really, though, I do play MW). I'm sure someone else will come and straighten me out.

Cheers!

Edited July 26, 2015 by Sunwolfe
clarity

[Silver7]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies.

Nakana - sounds like I need to get the gold book.  Regardless of what it says, I like this "pool of points to spend on actions" instead of just one attack.  I own RQ6, but struggle with the action point economy (its why I bought MW).  With defense rolls costing an action in RQ6, the difference between 2AP and 3AP are pretty wide.  I like MW roll as many defense rolls as you want with incremental penalties.

rsanford - I was unaware of the "short or medium weapon vs long" Thanks for pointing it out.  I recently move from Plano, by the way.  Use to live close to Preston and Legacy.

Sunwolfe - Thank you for taking the time to right the wall-of-text.  You explanations and example of play really help me solidify what the rules where trying to say.   Is stormbringer 5th edition easier to read and understand over MW? 

It still seems like there is a lot of places the rules just assume you know some other edition.  Not very newbie friendly. Should I pick up the BGB or Stormbringer?  Should I give RQ6 or Legacy another shake? 

"As a total side note, the "roll defense as many times as you like, but take a -30% for each" reminds me of Bare bones Fantasy (BBF).  BBF uses a "press your luck" mechanic where you take a -20% for every action you take.  Offense and Defense.  Wanna move and attack? -20% to your attack. Need to parry that round? -40%.  You can move and attack as many times as you want, but dodge and parry, plus your 2nd attack, is gonna be at high penalties.  I wonder if this would work for MW, considering it is already treating defense this way.

Cheers

Silver

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rsanford]

Silver,

I live near Spring Creek and Coit. I'm about 5 minutes from Preston and Legacy. Small world...

i have not read the entire BGB yet but I would recommend it. They are a few details that MW leaves out that while not crucial to play are good background and the BGB covers it. One example was when I tried to figure out how long (real time) a turn was and how many rounds it had in it. MW hand waves it but BGB had the answer... 25 rounds each up to 12 seconds long. When you are tweaking the rules that kind of stuff is important.

I also have Stormbringer 4 & 5. Stormbringer 5 has a better layout and excellent background on the young kingdoms but in every other respect is nearly identical to MW. Stormbringer 4 is also excellent, has awesome artwork and has the best demon summoning rules of the chaosium rule sets (in my opinion). Having said that if you have MW I don't think you need Stormbringer but you probably do need the BGB.

As for RQ6 I am reading it now. Coming from D&D 2e I find it very crunchy (really crunchy) but also extremely well written and polished. As a matter of fact RQ6 and BRP's Rome book might be the best rule sets I have ever read. All in all if you like simulating combat realistically you will love RQ6. If you want a higher level slightly more abstract game I would stick with magic world.

 

 

[Sunwolfe]

Sunwolfe - Thank you for taking the time to right the wall-of-text.  You explanations and example of play really help me solidify what the rules where trying to say. Is stormbringer 5th edition easier to read and understand over MW? 

It still seems like there is a lot of places the rules just assume you know some other edition.  Not very newbie friendly. Should I pick up the BGB or Stormbringer?  Should I give RQ6 or Legacy another shake? 

My pleasure 

While I would not describe Stormbringer 5E (SB 5E) as easier to read than MW, I will say that SB was edited much more thoroughly and thus its euphany makes SB a more pleasant read than MW. I agree with rsanford that you don't need SB to play MW. Not at all. MW stands alone. If you purchased SB 5E and compared the two, you would find that MW is not simply a carbon copy of SB. Other sources contributed their rules as well, such as the Creature and GM sections from Runequest 3E and the ship rules from SB's Sailing on the Seas of Fate. If you bought SB 5E to use as SB 5E or to simply expand your library that would be one thing but to get a better read on MW--no, no I don't think so. 

And while the BGB is nice to have for research, rule additions, changes or tweaks, or an honored place on your library shelf, I don't believe it is necessary either. I happen to think that every BRP adherent should have the BGB in one form or another and that they can only benefit from reading it, but it is not necessary to play MW well and satisfactorily.

As for giving RQ6 (one of the most well written and polished games I have ever read) another shake, it is always worthy of another chance, but it is simulation oriented and therefore more "crunchy" than MW which is "squishy" and therefore more abstract in mechanics by comparison. Though RQ6 is modular as the best of BRP-inspired games are and can be adjusted to require less or more of one or the other.

I know next to nothing about Legacy.

I wish you luck in your quest. MW rocks and I hope you get a chance to play it soon.

[Chaot]

Great stuff so far, a few additions.

There are definitely more than one attack allowed per round!  At skill 101% you can split your attacks.  Each attack has to have at least 50% in it. Edit: bah.  rsandford already pointed that out.  Good on you rsandford, I failed my Search roll.

As written, there are actually two parts to the combat phase.  Actions are declared according to INT rank then resolved according to DEX rank.  It let's smarter characters kind of see what's coming.

Edited July 26, 2015 by Chaot

[Sunwolfe]

Heya, Chaot,

I found the MW rule for using INT-ranks for casting magic during the combat round (65), as I remembered, but I can't seem to find the section about using INT ranks for declaring actions. Could you help me out there with a page reference?

Cheers,

[Nick J.]

Heya, Chaot,

I found the MW rule for using INT-ranks for casting magic during the combat round (65), as I remembered, but I can't seem to find the section about using INT ranks for declaring actions. Could you help me out there with a page reference?

Cheers,

I looked for that too and didn't find it. Being somewhat new to BRP/MW all I can say is that I know I read that rule somewhere, but I want to say it was a house rule in somebody's blog post, or maybe it's in the BGB? (I'd check the latter, but I'm moving and it's packed away in storage so I can't). At the very least it's a rule I really like.

[Chaot]

You are absolutely right!  It was in both Elric! and Stormbringer5, which is where most MW rules came from.  It looks like Ben dropped them.  Over all, I think that's a good move.  They served a purpose but I'm not sure I know anyone who ever used them.

[BMonroe]

In all honesty, in all the years I've played BRP-based games, I've never played a game where we used Statements of Intent at all.

[NickMiddleton]

I use them an an ad hoc basis when the action scene is sufficiently complex that I think it benefits the game. Most of the time, characters and NPC's having the same information about everyone's intended course of action doesn't matter, but occasionally, peoples intentions and readings of the situation can be really important.

Mind, when I do use Statements of Intent, I do them in REVERSE order of INT - so the smartest person gets to declare LAST (after everyone else has announced their plans); and then resolve actions in DEX rank order.

But most of the time I don't bother with statements at all.

cheers,

Nick

[Sunwolfe]

In all honesty, in all the years I've played BRP-based games, I've never played a game where we used Statements of Intent at all.

When I got a room full of chatty players--six and myself--all loud and eager to be heard at the same time, Statements help focus players and alert them that it's time to set aside the levity and get serious for a moment--a brief moment :-T, but otherwise I'm like Nick, I only use them when I feel the need :-).

[tooley1chris]

Think I'm going to try them next session. Might help with player tactics...and they could use help.

[threedeesix]

In all honesty, in all the years I've played BRP-based games, I've never played a game where we used Statements of Intent at all.

Same here, I always start out wanting to use everything as written when I start a new game, but that is usually the first thing to go. It just seems to slow the game down and doesn't really add anything to it in return. Plus it disrupts that natural flow of the game. As far as most players are concerned, when their turn comes up, they typically want to act, not describe everything they want to do, only to have to wait until the GM goes around the table yet again.

[smiorgan]

In all honesty, in all the years I've played BRP-based games, I've never played a game where we used Statements of Intent at all.

Same here. I remember reading the optional rule in BGB on "eliminating statements of intent completely" and realizing that I had ALWAYS played like that in all my BRP games.