Chaosium's Runequest 2 Vs Runequest 3 (Avalon Hill)

[styopa]

32 minutes ago, simonh said:

You're quite right, it was a bit of a crappy thing to say and I wish I hadn't. Oh well.

Simon Hibbs

I did say it was unusual.  You're a good bloke Simon.

[simonh]

3 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

This is exactly why in ANY existing version of BRP the Kenjutsu skill is different from the Sword skill...

European two handed swords were used in a similar style. They only really make sense if you have really good all-over plate armour otherwise you’re just too vulnerable. Until armour gets good enough, sword and shield are far superior.

Edited May 17, 2018 by simonh

[Yelm's Light]

6 hours ago, simonh said:

European two handed swords were used in a similar style. They only really make sense if you have really good all-over plate armour otherwise you’re just too vulnerable. Until armour gets good enough, sword and shield are far superior.

Or if you're a Norse berserker who just doesn't care.

[Grievous]

12 hours ago, simonh said:

European two handed swords were used in a similar style. They only really make sense if you have really good all-over plate armour otherwise you’re just too vulnerable. Until armour gets good enough, sword and shield are far superior.

Yeah, my skills with the longsword translate pretty much entirely to using a katana. Sure there are differences between the weapons, but it is not a big jump to make. Two Handed Sword just makes sense as a category of skill. Whether it is right to call what I'd do with a katana kenjutsu is a bit of a different discussion and really depends on how you use the term: if you mean swordplay with a katana, then well yes, but if you a particular school of swordsmanship, then obviously no (as I am not trained in a school of kenjutsu). 

As for the Attack/Parry seperation, from a realistic/simulationist perspective I agree that it doesn't make 100% sense (and I'm coming to this as someone who occasionally teaches HEMA, if that it relevant to someone). As a practical thing it all blends together as a way of using a set of weapons (ie. Sword alone / Sword and Dagger / Sword and Shield / Sword and Buckler / Two Handed Sword / etc), but of course, if we get all granular, different people will have different strengths (which might include being good at parrying, good at attacking, etc. That said, I don't think the Attack/Parry seperation is necessarily all bad for a role-playing game, because some level of granularity can be good for the game and it isn't so wildly unrealistic. Anyhow that's a distillation of my practical experience and views of both HEMA and RPGs.

[g33k]

On 5/17/2018 at 7:50 AM, styopa said:

...  A French saber duellist wouldn't have the first clue about effective combat use of a shield ...

A main gauche, however?  Or a cloak (to parry/foul and to misdirect/conceal)?

I'd argue one or both of those so be as integral to the "realistic" French saber duelist as the offhand-shield is to the "realistic" medieval broadsword-warrior.   Y(RW*)MV

 

Personally, I'd be satisfied if it were just "playtesters liked the single skill better than the attack/parry split skills" -- whatever will make RQ more-popular & more-played!

I actually liked having the split skills insofar as they often tracked "close" rather than "identical" and it matched my own experience -- some folks are just a bit more aggressive, with a more-dangerous offense; some are a bit more careful, with a less-penetrable defense.  But I think this actually maps better to a system with "Gifts" or "Knacks" (e.g. "Strong Defense - make all Parry rolls at +10%") than separate skills; but that strays perilously close to "Feats" and I know Feats are anathema to the RQ/BRP grognardia  ...    YGMV

 

 

* RealWorld

[styopa]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

But I think this actually maps better to a system with "Gifts" or "Knacks" (e.g. "Strong Defense - make all Parry rolls at +10%") than separate skills; but that strays perilously close to "Feats" and I know Feats are anathema to the RQ/BRP grognardia  ...   

That's actually a pretty good way of taking an RQG with a single-skill canon but allowing variability.  I don't have a problem with feats; in fact in my experience it's common that someone with a high level of skill in something (not just martial skills, now) often is aware of a plethora of 'tricks' for specific situations that lesser-skilled people don't know....which could very well be expressed as learnable 'feats'.

[BWP]

On 5/19/2018 at 8:02 AM, g33k said:

I know Feats are anathema to the RQ/BRP grognardia  ...    YGMV

Not this RQ grognard.  I think Feats are a profoundly useful RPG concept, and a great way of customising characters who might otherwise appear like clones.  Of course, it requires that the Feat system be done well and integrated correctly into the base game system.

 

[Mikus]

On 5/16/2018 at 3:12 PM, simonh said:

I'm sorry if input from real world experience doesn't get any traction with you, but this was a carefully considered change with many aspects of it taken into account and seeking out expert opinions were a big part of that. It's definitely a tradeoff, but it was felt that on balance combining the skills actually lead to fewer unrealistic divergences from reality than keeping them separate, while sometimes having them separate and sometimes combining them was too confusing. Feel free to house rule away though.

Simon Hibbs

Well now my fanny is red, mister smarty pants......

I guess it depends on where one get ones 'real' world experience. So why not just use the sword and dump that clumsy shield at home?  Defending is absolutely part of combat but many, many people have varying levels of offensive vs defensive skills.  A shield parries quite well naturally by design and restricts certain points of access by position alone. To assume that someone who normally uses a sword and shield will be just as effective in offense if he forgets his sword at the brothel is silly.  Now, if you show up everyday with only a sword, (kendo perhaps), you will use it both for attack and parry and will most likely develop a balance but if you use a sword shield combo there is a reason for that paired combination and I'll let you ponder that one based upon their design functions.

There are also 'tanks' who never really learn to defend well because they just plough down their opponents, like a hill giant with a tree stump. They take the hit.  Do you really think an fully armored knight needs to parry as desperately as a rapier wielding musketeer?  Especially when astride a charging war horse.

So why not use two shields?  Damage potential you say...then surely two swords is the way to go?  Yes?  Yet why is that not the normally favored combination?  Because a shield is simply one of the best ways to defend and a sword is better for poking someone in the belly. Remember the original authors based the original rule sets on their SCA 'real' world expertise.  Failing to complain about a change is not the same as agreeing to it.  Many people detest the changes brought about by political correctness yet fail to puke in public. (See the Trump election😏)  And if they changed their mind...changing one's mind is not necessarily the same as moving from incorrect to correct.

We might also mention that many styles of sword fighting avoid clashing blades and rely upon body taijutsu, moving the body to avoid the blow.  These schools do not parry, they dodge and strike.  So why would a master of taijutsu and and tanto be just as good parrying a battle ax with his tanto as slashing someones throat with it?  Is it conceivable your 'real' experience fails to encompass all styles of combat?

Or how about a little known art of fighting with the keris where the wooden scabbard is used to parry the wrist of the attacker and the blades never clash.  Try it and you will soon learn why you don't do it.  In RQ3 terms the keris should have about 2 AP.  You can slice with your keris across the attacers wrist or skewer it, but you never parry. This is a simultaneous counter attack, not a parry.  Now if you like to combine this all into one skill or style called 'Keris fighting ', thats ok.  Perhaps its is even superior to separate weapon skills. But losing the scabbard should cause the loss of some ability to parry.

As for:

"The hypothetical one trick pony that only ever fought one way is really a rather artificial and ridiculous caricature."

No one ever said this so this is simply a straw man.  I said you get good at what you do which is well expressed in RQ2 and RQ3 as it stands.  Use it or Lose it.....(or don't get it at all)  If you attack with your dagger, then with your sword, then PARRY with your sword you get to roll gains for D-A, S-A, S-P.  Simple. If you parry with a shield and attack with a sword your get to roll for Sh-P, S-A.  In training with a sword you would most likely train both offense and defence and thus RQ2-3 gives you gain rolls for both.  This is so natural, logical and well thought out that it bewilders me why anyone objects to its rationality except from a 'its too fiddly' POV.  If you like to simplify things thats OK but saying it is the most 'real' representation and to think otherwise is ill informed or incorrect is poppycock.

RQ you get gain rolls about once a week or so.  If you attack with your sword 10 times but only parry once you would still only get one gain roll for each skill and might only increase with parry!  If you actually use both skills in the game you will normally achieve your perceived equilibrium over time but for someone who NEVER USES A SKILL he will simply not get improvement rolls. No assumptions needed.  It simply is part of the mechanics in RQ2-3.  I don't have to assume that my assassin gets better with all somewhat related skills as he 'levels' up. No, he has to actually use each skill if he wants to improve. Once again, D&D vs RQ in the 80's. Believe me...I was there.

I could argue, (and I did), that you might as well take it to the D&D level where a Fighter, (your 'real life' multi-trick pony), can attack and parry just as well with everything he might lay his hands on.  Attack with the kitchen sink.. no problem.  Roll Brawl for attack.  Same as when you parry with that Gutenberg bible. Just like D&D originally did and one of the main reasons many liked the divisions in RQ.  It's a sliding scale and like any other gauge the degrees of divisions depend upon your desired resolution and ability use them.  Carpenters think 1/32th of an inch is tight while machinists start working somewhere in the thousandths.  Both 'real' life, both correct, both different worlds.  I do both.

So there.... (tongue sticking out). 😛  😘

But in all seriousness this is one of those things you must decide for yourself and being a simulation you decide what works best for you.  Someone said "Chasing reality in a game is a losing proposition" and I reluctantly agree with this wisdom. It all comes down to what you and your gamers like best and I personally like and agree with separating attack and parry.

Consensus in San Francisco is a bit different than in Detroit so consensus as an argument is no more than citing the agreement of some 'group' and does not in itself indicate truth, logic, wisdom or anything else except the particular groups consensus.

From my POV .....At the end of the day those who had the most fun are the ones who did it best.

Chow my friends and I will respectfully maintain 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mikus

[Mikus]

Something else I really enjoy about separate attack and parry skills.  Now this is real game play and made perfect sense.

A player in Stormbringer had a demonic shield with a +20 parry and a CON rating of something that made it unlikely to break.  Because of this, no matter the weapon he was using, he always parried with the shield.  He ended up with a high parry percentage with his shield but not so much with any of his weapons.  Even if this shield were to be lost his reliance, (skill %), upon a shield would have made him seek even a mundane one to replace it rather than simply switch to defending with his sword.

Once when he had to enter combat without his favored and much relied upon shield, (due to a foul gamemaster who was lurking in the wings, awaiting the proper time to leverage this deficiency), he found himself severly disadvantaged defending with his sword, because he had failed to train or use his weapons defensively.  This disadvantage due his to reliance upon a magic shield played out well in the game but never would have if attack and parry were synonymous.  Its situations like this which make the separation of Church and State work so well.  This player learned his lesson and began training and actually using his sword to parry.  First against lesser attacks but later with more confidence.  He still always preferred his shield, and reasonably so, but my leveraging his disadvantage made for both entertaining, (for me), and realistic game play as well as pushing him to close the gap.  He realized that if he permanently lost his shield he was sorely out of balance as a swordsman and this rectification became a motivating factor in the game, just as it would in real life.

Not sure how this would have played out in RQ6-Mythras with Combat Styles but in Elric!, (gods I hate the '!', I always feel like the author is yelling at me!), it would not have played at all except for the loss of the specific advantages of that particular shield.  Because combat is such a huge part of RQ, (I don't remember a chapter devoted to dancing or courtly love), I actually feel that a finer granularity than with other skills is fitting and proper.  Others obviously feel differently, I understand, and thats o-key-doh-key.

I'm currently looking at the magnificent cover of RQG and enjoying the image of the young lady who is holding the beast at bay with her shield while getting ready to deliver a baldesharpened blow with her sword. Yet I am wondering why she did not choose to use the sword to brace up the beast while bashing with the her shield.....strange.

[Jeff]

Probably has something to do with the fact that a sword does 1D8+1 damage and can slash or impale, while a shield only does 1D6 damage and can only crush. With only a 1D4 damage bonus, crush is far less interesting than impale or slash.

 

[simonh]

11 hours ago, Mikus said:

To assume that someone who normally uses a sword and shield will be just as effective in offense if he forgets his sword at the brothel is silly.  

Some nice straw you've got in your man there. You do know swords and shields have different stats in RQ, right? Furthermore, losing or breaking equipment is a real thing that happens and that a competent warrior should be able to cope with. maybe not as effectively of course, but at least at some level of capability above 'never done that before in my life'.

11 hours ago, Mikus said:

As for:

"The hypothetical one trick pony that only ever fought one way is really a rather artificial and ridiculous caricature."

No one ever said this so this is simply a straw man. 

My apologies, I must have misinterpreted the below comment from your previous post.

On 5/16/2018 at 4:03 PM, Mikus said:

 So if I use a sword and shield and always parry with my shield and attack with my sword I still advance in parry skill with my sword and attack skill with my shield?  This is a simplification.  If you like it, fine.  Trying to defend it won't get any traction with me but the D&D guys lurking in the wings will love you for it.

From people with HEMA experience, that just isn't how people fight in reality, so the way RQ previously split out the skills resulted in an artificial distinction. A competent warrior will absolutely buffet or strike with a shield or block with a sword when they need to and will be much more vulnerable and ineffective if they avoid it. Furthermore in practice even if you primarily expected to fight with a shield, the fact is shields break or get lost so you would train in fighting without it as well. The artificiality of a game can distort these things (although RQ equipment absolutely can break). Also the fact that a character is optimized for certain equipment can create a perverse pressure on the GM to avoid creating circumstances where it isn't available. It distorts the whole structure of the game experience when characters are highly tuned in the sort of way you described. I just think it's much more satisfying to have characters that are broadly competent at what they do and can cope with circumstances a little outside their ideal comfort zone without breaking.

It looks like we're not going to agree on this, which is fine. One of the great things about RQ and BRP in general is how easily moddable it is, so it's not as if splitting skills is all that hard. Best wishes.

Simon Hibbs

Edited May 25, 2018 by simonh

[simonh]

9 hours ago, Mikus said:

...he found himself severly disadvantaged defending with his sword, because he had failed to train or use his weapons defensively.  

I completely understand that and it's a fun anecdote. The thing is from a game system perspective, should a guy who Is highly competent at fighting with sword and shield, when the shield is gone be absolutely no more competent in defense with that sword than someone who has never picked up a sword in their whole life?*

Unfortunately that's the kind of character the old rules often gave us. After all your anecdote can be summarized as "I played this game and the skill system was so fine grained that all it took was for one piece of equipment to be unavailable to the character and the system broke". As I've said before, it really is a matter of pros and cons.

Simon Hibbs

* Also just because the character always fights with the shield 'on screen', that doesn't mean the character can't maintain a more general capability with practice during down time.

Edited May 25, 2018 by simonh

[soltakss]

On 5/16/2018 at 4:03 PM, Mikus said:

 

 

  On 7/18/2016 at 10:29 AM, Jeff said:

 

 

 

Sorry, but I cannot believe, for one moment, that Jeff actually said nothing.

[Mikus]

4 hours ago, soltakss said:

Sorry, but I cannot believe, for one moment, that Jeff actually said nothing.

That right there is funny. 

Let me give you an example with a real life tool that gets used every day.   At work I often need a multimeter. It measures volts, amps and resistance.  With your scenario skill in the VOM Multimeter should be the same for taking any of the 3 readings but over the last 34 years I have found nearly all techs can take a voltage reading but most cannot take a resistance reading correctly and never have taken a amp reading in the field.  I see it all the time. So I would split these into 3 skills for 1 device.  They often have 90% Volt, 70% Ohm, 5% Amp.  Why? Because thats the way they actually use it regardless of training in a class environment.

I like the fact that RQ made you actually use or specifically train to get an advancement. This was part of the advertisement which separated BRP from D&D.  I love D&D but I want my RQ different, or why not just play D&D?  New versions of RQ are certainly moving towards a more one size fits all mentality.  You no longer need to actually use the skill in game to advance and I can make a style called Dagger, Spear, Shield and Axe where my attack and parry chance is the same regardless of what I happen to be using in that combination.  Even if in the game I never actually use the spear, -- D&D style. My performance is identical with axe and shield as it is with dagger and shield regardless of how often I use the combo?  This just don't make any sense to me.

Is it really that odd to think a person who normally uses a shield/sword combo might have Shield 80% parry - 70% attack and Sword 80% attack - 70% parry?  This is how I normally saw it work in BRP and it seems completely logical.  I'm sure some freak scenarios could happen but where you got endless cockamamy rolls but I never saw it happen in the game.  I am using extremes with the 'never use' scenario but it is to make a point that you are assuming whereas old RQ did not need to make any assumptions.  It came out organically in the wash.

I guess we could as well assume that because a dagger can be thrown that the user has trained and do so, thus we should combine attack, parry and throw for dagger into a single skill - Use Dagger.  Also, when in combat I may need to resort to kicking, hand blows, elbows, knees and grappling so these should all be rolled in and smoked together as well. So we just added grappling and brawl into my dagger mix. Or how about that water buffalo? His attack and defense skill must be equal.  Same for a jelly fish.  In old RQ a jelly fish might have a 70% chance to sting you in the water but no parry or block whatsoever. I thought this worked quite well as a reflection of reality.  If you assume that a man's mode of combat is some all encompassing offense/defense blob you must pass that on to any creature or make very specific exceptions for each and every condition.

I must say though, never having played RQ6-Mythras I would be interested in seeing how judges handle sitiuations where a player is forced to use style in a manner he never has before in the game. Such as "Oh crap, I dropped my axe and my shield just broke so now I am fighting with spear and dagger.  Gee wiz I'm glad this is exactly the same as when I was using my axe and shield." 

One last point is that fighters of all sorts study their opponents to look for specific weaknesses in their offense and defense. Do they have a weak side.  Do they favor a certain mode of attack or defense.  These openings are exploited all the time by experience fighters.  Some people fight defensively waiting for a mistake to reveal an opening while others charge right in attempting to absorbe and overwhelm.  These nuances seem lost to me in the one skill fits all mentality.

 

Edited May 25, 2018 by Mikus

[simonh]

Mikus, Since you won't engage with or discuss any of my actual arguments or points, or any of the expert evidence I have presented in the form of HEMA training videos showing how swords and shields are actually used, and instead keep manufacturing absurd Dagger/Spear/Shield/Axe straw men, or dagger attack/parry/throw straw men, and you started out by saying you were not persuadable anyway, clearly there is no point in me making any points or repeating the ones I have already made or providing further evidence. That leaves no further productive places for me to go.

You say with combined skills in RQ you might as well play D&D, and that's fair enough. It can't be all that much work to house-rule in a parry system and D&D is a very well supported game with a very active fan community. There's even 13th Age which is a heavily D&D inspired, but far better thought out game with a recently published Glorantha supplement that might be right up your street with a bit of house ruling to introduce a parry mechanic.

RQ is also a highly moddable game. If I played in your group and you made a house rule to split out attack and parry skills, I would play that game with no issues. So have fun, and I hope one day we get a chance to meet up at a con and maybe have a beer or two together.

Simon Hibbs

Edited May 26, 2018 by simonh

[Mikus]

13 hours ago, simonh said:

Mikus, Since you won't engage with or discuss any of my actual arguments or points, or any of the expert evidence I have presented in the form of HEMA training videos showing how swords and shields are actually used, and instead keep manufacturing absurd Dagger/Spear/Shield/Axe straw men, or dagger attack/parry/throw straw men, and you started out by saying you were not persuadable anyway, clearly there is no point in me making any points or repeating the ones I have already made or providing further evidence. That leaves no further productive places for me to go.

You say with combined skills in RQ you might as well play D&D, and that's fair enough. It can't be all that much work to house-rule in a parry system and D&D is a very well supported game with a very active fan community. There's even 13th Age which is a heavily D&D inspired, but far better thought out game with a recently published Glorantha supplement that might be right up your street with a bit of house ruling to introduce a parry mechanic.

RQ is also a highly moddable game. If I played in your group and you made a house rule to split out attack and parry skills, I would play that game with no issues. So have fun, and I hope one day we get a chance to meet up at a con and maybe have a beer or two together.

Simon Hibbs

Simon,

I was trying to point out that you are glossing combat into a system where I am more focused on individual components within the system.  Granularity is what set RQ apart for me.  As for discussing HEMA training thats just fine but I have cited other forms of combat where attack - parry is not a single skill with a single weapon and you have avoided those.  HEMA training is not the beginning nor the end. I also bet an average HEMA guy who looses his sword and pulls out a dagger will be at more of an offensive disadvantage than an defensive disadvantage, although I certainly agree that one strongly affects the other.

Here is something I grabbed from Basic Role Playing 4th Edition from Chaosium itself.  Page 199.  This while trying to determine why the designers changed their mind.  It is apparent that at least this guy has the same basic take on it that I do. Simplification rather than being more reflective of real life.  This is all I could find but certainly don't claim there is nothing elsewhere in the BGB that says combining Attack and Parry was done to make it more reflective of reality.

BGB 4th Ed Page 199.......

It is also recommended that the parry skill for missile weapons (parrying with a bow, for example) begin at 1/2 your character’s initial attack skill rating. For shields the attack roll should begin at 1/2 your character’s initial parry skill rating. For example, most training with a rifle or longbow focuses on the proper use of the weapon, rather than hand-to-hand combat with it, while shield training similarly focuses more on parrying than attacking.

......

Notice specifically the sections I highlighted.

This is almost exactly the point I have been making from day one and is gloriously codified within the BGB.  I should have simply went to the source first and let the game speak for me but was too lazy to look it up. Point here is that these game designers put this in as a option where combat detail is of greater focus, such as hit locations vs a 'bucket of hit points' ala Kentucky Fried. 

And your right, it would be very hard to persuade me otherwise but I certainly admire your tenacity and am sure you feel as strongly about your point as I do about mine.   That I both admire and appreciate.  As for this point I think we beat the crap out of it and if anything it has made me consider deeply how I would portray combat styles in Mythras and must admit I am totally unsure how I would go about doing so.

I would be happy to run into you someday, I'm sure we would drive each other crazy. : )

Mike

 

[simonh]

The lineage of this idea is an interesting and reasonably separate topic. I had no idea the BGB discussed combining attack and parry, and I know for sure there is no lineage from the BGB to this aspect of RQG. Jason was the primary author on the BGB, but the decision to go with a combined combat skill system for attack and parry in RQG was made quite some time before he became involved.

If it comes from anywhere, it’s probably the one idea to make it from RuneQuest 6, now Mythras, into RQG. Pete Nash, one of the RQ6/Mythras developers is a very experienced swordsman, is a long time member of the SCA and is very knowledgeable on historical fighting manuals. I’ve seen him give seminars on historical fighting techniques and the reasoning behind this concept in particular, and various other realism issues in RPG combat systems at games conventions. It’s Pete’s explanations and demonstrations of the practical techniques used in various forms of close combat that convinced me this change makes sense, and that while it’s not perfectly realistic, it leads to fewer unrealistic and anomalous situations than separate skills. Since the new Chaosium team know Pete and have had a chance to discuss this with him, I’m pretty confident this is where the idea came from, not the BGB.

Simon Hibbs

[Jeff]

7 hours ago, simonh said:

The lineage of this idea is an interesting and reasonably separate topic. I had no idea the BGB discussed combining attack and parry, and I know for sure there is no lineage from the BGB to this aspect of RQG. Jason was the primary author on the BGB, but the decision to go with a combined combat skill system for attack and parry in RQG was made quite some time before he became involved.

If it comes from anywhere, it’s probably the one idea to make it from RuneQuest 6, now Mythras, into RQG. Pete Nash, one of the RQ6/Mythras developers is a very experienced swordsman, is a long time member of the SCA and is very knowledgeable on historical fighting manuals. I’ve seen him give seminars on historical fighting techniques and the reasoning behind this concept in particular, and various other realism issues in RPG combat systems at games conventions. It’s Pete’s explanations and demonstrations of the practical techniques used in various forms of close combat that convinced me this change makes sense, and that while it’s not perfectly realistic, it leads to fewer unrealistic and anomalous situations than separate skills. Since the new Chaosium team know Pete and have had a chance to discuss this with him, I’m pretty confident this is where the idea came from, not the BGB.

Simon Hibbs

It greatly precedes Pete for us. Combining attack and parry into a single skill for me goes back to the mid-90s, with Pendragon Pass and having the incongruity of separate skills for attack and parry being hammered home by Mike Gibson. Players react well to it and it grasp the idea pretty intuitively. Combining weapons into another skill OTOH gets a surprising amount of player pushback - especially from players who aren't OCD about "realism" but just want exciting combat with fairly intuitive mechanics (I strike, you parry, damage gets done), but who dislike the abstract attritional combat systems derived from D&D.

 

[Mankcam]

With RQ3 we house ruled the same attack % and parry % for weapons way back in 1989. Just seemed to work better for my group at that time.

So its probably been a common houserule across the board.

Edited May 27, 2018 by Mankcam

[styopa]

8 hours ago, Jeff said:

It greatly precedes Pete for us. Combining attack and parry into a single skill for me goes back to the mid-90s, with Pendragon Pass and having the incongruity of separate skills for attack and parry being hammered home by Mike Gibson. Players react well to it and it grasp the idea pretty intuitively. Combining weapons into another skill OTOH gets a surprising amount of player pushback - especially from players who aren't OCD about "realism" but just want exciting combat with fairly intuitive mechanics (I strike, you parry, damage gets done), but who dislike the abstract attritional combat systems derived from D&D.

 

It's just a different place on the spectrum between realism and speed/convenience. 

I'm honestly not sure why so much effort is being made to try to insist that it is what it isn't.  It seems like there's a lot of pain in admitting that RQG is a nod toward simplification and speed of resolution - that's NOT a bad thing!

RQ-previous (where the attack and parry abilities were tracked independently) was a different place on that spectrum.  A 76-location hit location table with a meticulous DEX-based impulse-sequential action table where each SR represents 0.1 seconds of actual time would be deep on the realism side...and it would take 4 hours to resolve a simple 1-on-1 combat.  For some people the realism is literally the most important thing.

For general playability though, even though I tend to be a realism buff, I recognize that's NOT going to be interesting for most people.  Most people want to actually play an adventure, not spend all day Saturday resolving that one 6-person combat.  RQ3 had a severe problem with that, particularly in large-number combats.

I personally prefer the skills separated BUT if unifying them is the 'sacrifice' I personally have to accept to have a new living game system?  I can cheerfully go with that.

[Mikus]

I’m just kickin back in perfect humility and agreement with the BGB, also known as the ultimate resource and Bible of BRP.  The Tome of Glorious Righteousness. We are here amongst the Old Guard. Heroes such as RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, SB, HM and a few others.  Yep, just upholding truth, justice and the American way against the socialist march towards a totalitarian system where one skill covers all.

Being myself magnanimous to each his own I say, I was simply expressing what We the People had stated and believed in before the Stalinists and their handlers took control of the schools, media, government and Department of RPG Consensus.

Enjoy your system Comrades, I think I’ll hold out with the Old Guard and await the twilight. 

But in all seriousness have fun, thats what ultimately matters when playing a game.

Just finished some reloading so I'm going to the woods now to hone my actual skills with a Henry 45 lever action beauty.  9.5 grains of Unique under a 255 garage cast lead RNFP.  But I'll wont be parrying with it cause like my katanas and various keris it is way to pretty to abuse in such a silly fashion.  - sorry, just being silly.  Chow guys!

 

and....

1 hour ago, styopa said:

It's just a different place on the spectrum between realism and speed/convenience. 

I'm honestly not sure why so much effort is being made to try to insist that it is what it isn't.  It seems like there's a lot of pain in admitting that RQG is a nod toward simplification and speed of resolution - that's NOT a bad thing!

RQ-previous (where the attack and parry abilities were tracked independently) was a different place on that spectrum.  A 76-location hit location table with a meticulous DEX-based impulse-sequential action table where each SR represents 0.1 seconds of actual time would be deep on the realism side...and it would take 4 hours to resolve a simple 1-on-1 combat.  For some people the realism is literally the most important thing.

For general playability though, even though I tend to be a realism buff, I recognize that's NOT going to be interesting for most people.  Most people want to actually play an adventure, not spend all day Saturday resolving that one 6-person combat.  RQ3 had a severe problem with that, particularly in large-number combats.

I personally prefer the skills separated BUT if unifying them is the 'sacrifice' I personally have to accept to have a new living game system?  I can cheerfully go with that.

Styopa,

This I agree with whole heartedly.  Which is why I am looking into Mythras.  But it appears that quite a few people say combat runs slower due to making all the special effect choices.  I have no personal experience with this as I have never played it. Most of my groups were about 3 players so combat never really ran slow and having a different skill for attack and parry was a non-issue where speed was involved.  Your right, the realism vs speed/simplicity of play is something each group has to deal with, (Remember C&S?).  Back in the day most of my players thought SB1ed hit the sweet spot as a system.  Elric! lost something for me.

[Jeff]

41 minutes ago, Mikus said:

I’m just kickin back in perfect humility and agreement with the BGB, also known as the ultimate resource and Bible of BRP.  The Tome of Glorious Righteousness. We are here amongst the Old Guard. Heroes such as RQ1, RQ2, RQ3, SB, HM and a few others.  Yep, just upholding truth, justice and the American way against the socialist march towards a totalitarian system where one skill covers all.

Being myself magnanimous to each his own I say, I was simply expressing what We the People had stated and believed in before the Stalinists and their handlers took control of the schools, media, government and Department of RPG Consensus.

Enjoy your system Comrades, I think I’ll hold out with the Old Guard and await the twilight. 

But in all seriousness have fun, thats what ultimately matters when playing a game.

Just finished some reloading so I'm going to the woods now to hone my actual skills with a Henry 45 lever action beauty.  9.5 grains of Unique under a 255 garage cast lead RNFP.  But I'll wont be parrying with it cause like my katanas and various keris it is way to pretty to abuse in such a silly fashion.  - sorry, just being silly.  Chow guys!

 

and....

Styopa,

This I agree with whole heartedly.  Which is why I am looking into Mythras.  But it appears that quite a few people say combat runs slower due to making all the special effect choices.  I have no personal experience with this as I have never played it. Most of my groups were about 3 players so combat never really ran slow and having a different skill for attack and parry was a non-issue where speed was involved.  Your right, the realism vs speed/simplicity of play is something each group has to deal with, (Remember C&S?).  Back in the day most of my players thought SB1ed hit the sweet spot as a system.  Elric! lost something for me.

Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[soltakss]

57 minutes ago, Mikus said:

Enjoy your system Comrades, I think I’ll hold out with the Old Guard and await the twilight. 

I Am the Old Guard and I haven't a clue what you are saying. 

Maybe you are the New Old Guard.

[Mankcam]

I been playing RQ2 since 1985, and RQ3 since 1987. Thats over 30 yrs of RQ, so I guess I am also part of the Old Guard. Not that I usually identify with such.

And like many of this apparent group, we houseruled combined attack/parry skills (after about 5yrs of playing them RAW). 

So this is not an issue of Old vs New. There is nothing radical here. Its really just common sense in a game system, and its the most common house rule I have seen with RQ players. Glad that Jeff has worked it into RQG.

Certainly works for this Old Guarder!

Edited May 27, 2018 by Mankcam

[BWP]

Well, I guess I'd identify as an "old guard" type, and none of the groups I've ever played with instituted any such house rule.

I haven't thought enough about the rule to worry about it to be honest.  If the RQG rule is what it is, I'll probably go along with it.

However, a house rule that I've contemplated in the past (but right now I can't remember if I ever actually implemented it) was to allow someone doing weapon training to do A & P training simultaneously, with whatever combination of weapon/shield/whatever that made sense for the character.  So if you're training in 2H Axe, then you train with A & P at the same time (the actual percentages though would vary because of the differences between Manipulation and Agility bonuses).  If you're training 1H Sword and normally use a shield, then you can train Sword A and Shield P at the same time.  In all cases whatever skill % is highest would determine training time.  (Alternately you could train weapon attack + Dodge simultaneously.)

A little thought might yield some other "train two skills at the same time" combinations.  Lance attack + Ride, for instance.  If a player can convince me of a plausible (to me) combination, then I'd go with it ....