Chaosium's new RQ

[g33k]

This may be heresy here on these boards (and maybe the topic has come up before, but my quick search didn't find it) because I'm borrowing from other games (notably d&d) but:  one thing I wish RQ did a bit better is generalized/related skills.  Is there any chance of this in RQnew?

This comes up in several ways...  Here's one set of examples:

For example, any "Sword of Humakt" should be VERY dangerous the VERY first time they grab a spear... or even don a pair of cestuses!  The "Similar Weapons" rule really doesn't capture this adequately; so very much of melee-combat generalizes... and is there even a generalized (not combat-specific) version of that?  AD&D1 "THAC0" and 3.x/PF "BAB" ... it's a real thing, and RQClassic has afaik/iirc no good representation of it.  :-(   Mind you, I think all versions of D&D carry this too far... but the silo'ed skills of RQ is at least as bad in the other direction.

For example, anyone who reads two or three of the "Romance Languages" can probably muddle through a newspaper or other pop-media / non-formal writing in any of the Romance Languages...  Again, there is a "similar languages" rule (citing Nordic tongues), but not a general rule.

For example, anyone who can drive any motor vehicle is MUCH more capable with ANY OTHER motor vehicle, than someone who has never driven any.  In RQ Classic, there is not (afaik) anything on horse/Beast riding generalizing or not; I think the idea is that all "Riding" is one skill, but IMHO that shouldn't be the case (e.g. a bipedal mount will be VERY different from a quadruped, and both in turn differ from a flying mount!), but there should be SOME overlap.

I'd love a clean, elegant way to capture this notion!

===

Shadowrun 3e (iirc) had "Skill Groups" that were "bundles" of "related skills" which one might get as a set, for lower build-point cost than as if you were buying each one as an independent silo'ed skill.  The idea was that they were (a) related in the way I discuss above, so each improves the others; (b) likely to be trained-up as a set or group.

===

Supplementary/complementary/synergistic skills can give a bonus, or make the task easier:  if you know how to do "Skill A" well, it helps with some uses of "Skill B."

For example, if the PC is tracking someone who breaks their trail at a body of water, using a strong "Swim" skill might let them figure out most-likely water routes, and regain the overland trail more quickly, than someone without the "Swim" skill.

For example, someone with a strong "jeweler" or "whitesmith" skill might spot a poisoned needle on a ring, or a mason might spot a deadfall-triggering paving-stone, more-readily than someone just using "Spot Trap."

===

So... are any ideas like these anyhing we might see in the new edition?

 

[styopa]

In re your 'Sword of Humakt' example, I actually disagree.  Hand a Sword of Humakt a flail that he's never used before and no, I don't see that he somehow organically 'should' be deadly with it.

Re related skills, I'd say that since the variety here is probably endless, most of those would HAVE to be left to DM ruling unless you want a 1000-page rulebook.  Logically, yeah, related languages should bonus each other, sure.

For example, RQ practically invites it by the way they classify their weapons into '1h blunt' vs '2h blunt' etc.  I give any player with a skill in a SPECIFIC weapon in that table, half skill with any other weapon on that table unless they get a skill roll which might improve that skill, then it becomes a specific one...

Yes, it's possible for a little-used specific weapon skill to be later overcome by larger improvements in another specific skill, such that "half of the larger skill" is greater than the specific; then the smaller specific just defaults to the half-value for the time being.

PERSONALLY, I'd love to see a little different approach to the new RQ rules, where development leads to specificity.  So for example, you might just have a base "weapon" skill up to 50%.  Once you get over 50%, you'd have to specify "1h edged" but that skill would be good across ALL 1h-edged category weapons.  Then at 75%, you'd have to specify a specific 1h edged type (broadsword, for example).  All your 1h edged would remain at 75%, but your skill with the specific kind could then progress to 100%.  At 100%, it's with a SPECIFIC WEAPON, in sense that experts tend to treasure a specific tool in their mastery.  

Not only would this represent what I think would be a fairly realistic system, then NPCs would be easier to roll up, as their (likely lower) weapon skills would be more general.  That BBEG might be great with his particular magical scimitar, but whoever picks it up, if they want to become really GOOD with it will need to commit to using it.

[Yelm's Light]

The thing is, driving a car (even a manual shifter) is much different from driving an 18-wheeler, which is much different from riding a motorcycle.  Even among similar weapons, balance, timing, and usage may differ depending on design.  A weapon without a crossbar will tend to be used differently than one without, for instance; the wielder could get his fingers removed using a particular weapon the wrong way.  Stabbing with a dagger is different from using a shortsword similarly; you can do a lot more mobility-wise with a dagger, but you can do more initial damage with a shortsword.  Daggers are better at extremely close/grappling range combat because it doesn't take as much room to get in an effective stab.

I'm pretty sure RQ2 had the same rule, where different weapons under the same category could be used at half the skill of the preferred weapon.  As a matter of fact, consulting my happy red leatherish-bound rules copy, it does (p. 26, "Effects of Training With Similar Weapons").

[g33k]

On 8/16/2016 at 3:41 PM, styopa said:

In re your 'Sword of Humakt' example, I actually disagree.  Hand a Sword of Humakt a flail that he's never used before and no, I don't see that he somehow organically 'should' be deadly with it.

PERSONALLY, I'd love to see a little different approach to the new RQ rules, where development leads to specificity.  So for example, you might just have a base "weapon" skill up to 50%.  Once you get over 50%, you'd have to specify "1h edged" but that skill would be good across ALL 1h-edged category weapons.  Then at 75%, you'd have to specify a specific 1h edged type (broadsword, for example).  All your 1h edged would remain at 75%, but your skill with the specific kind could then progress to 100%.  At 100%, it's with a SPECIFIC WEAPON, in sense that experts tend to treasure a specific tool in their mastery.  

We may have to just agree to disagree.  :-)   But, I'll take a moment to expand on my thought... So, our Humakti (or ANYONE, really, who's a swordmaster) picks up a flail, and (for whatever circumstance) is now forced to use one (for the first time ever) in life-or-death combat.  

That's our scenario, right?  And we're asking "How good a novice-flailsman is the swordmaster, compared to a complete-combat-novice flailsman," right?  (Or "flailswoman," but that construction sounds even more awkward than "flailsman" so... )

I argue that anyone who's a "weaponmaster"  (a highly skilled combat-veteran) has a HUGE leg up on the newbie fighter picking up whatever weapon and facing their first-ever kill-or-be-killed foe.  They're better at ALL combat.

The vet already know the variables, they've already faced whatever weapon the other person is wielding, and understand its strengths and weaknesses,  Similarly, they've faced this "new" flail, repeatedly; even though it's new-to-them, it's NOT really -- they have had people try to kill them with a flail, they have seen the tricks and subtleties.  They may not be as practiced with the flail, but they are WAY more-competent than the otherwise-unskilled fighter.

Furthermore, the veteran understand the timing of a fight, they understand the optimum distances, what's "sizing-up" range vs "closing for the kill" range; they know how to feint & otherwise fake-out the foe, they know how NOT to be suckered in by the foe's fake-out.  They can feel when their own muscle-fatigue is likely to be slowing them down (and back off to a safer range, to ease up and rest), and they can spot signs of it in the newbie (and close in to take advantage of the weakness).

After the first couple of clashes, they'll have spotted weaknesses in their foe, AND in their own methods... and adjusted their own methods, and be planning to exploit those of the foe.

They're just more-dangerous, with any/all weapons.  They may not be even close to how dangerous they are with their weapon-of-choice, but they completely out-class the total novice.

All those things add up to what D&D 3.x/Pathfinder calls "BAB" (and prior editions called "THAC0")... as I said above, I think the BAB/THAC0 concept is much too far the other direction... but RQ still has a way to go, when it comes to verisimilitude on this point.

 

[Mankcam]

On 17/08/2016 at 8:41 AM, styopa said:

PERSONALLY, I'd love to see a little different approach to the new RQ rules, where development leads to specificity.  So for example, you might just have a base "weapon" skill up to 50%.  Once you get over 50%, you'd have to specify "1h edged" but that skill would be good across ALL 1h-edged category weapons.  Then at 75%, you'd have to specify a specific 1h edged type (broadsword, for example).  All your 1h edged would remain at 75%, but your skill with the specific kind could then progress to 100%.  At 100%, it's with a SPECIFIC WEAPON, in sense that experts tend to treasure a specific tool in their mastery.  

Actually I quite like this idea. Simple, yet effective.

However given the granularity of RQ, this rule might be better applied to CoC.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mankcam

[Yelm's Light]

Seeing someone use a weapon and knowing how to use it effectively are two completely different things.  A flail is a perfect example, actually, being that it has a moving part/parts.  The mode of attack is about as unlike that with a sword as possible.  If you've seen it used, you might get that you would tend to swing it in an arc away from the body, but would you know when and how to flick your wrist for maximum effect?  Where specifically the best places to attack would be, and how to swing it so that you could hit them?  The sword would be used in a straight line (if stabbing) or a different type of arc (if chopping).  I would think a mace would be more easily adapted to, as using it would be very similar to hitting with the flat of a sword's blade.

Using your rationale, there might as well be just one general attack skill.

[SDLeary]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

That's our scenario, right?  And we're asking "How good a novice-flailsman is the swordmaster, compared to a complete-combat-novice flailsman," right?  (Or "flailswoman," but that construction sounds even more awkward than "flailsman" so... )

I argue that anyone who's a "weaponmaster"  (a highly skilled combat-veteran) has a HUGE leg up on the newbie fighter picking up whatever weapon and facing their first-ever kill-or-be-killed foe.  They're better at ALL combat.

Hmmmm.... Yes, agree to disagree. You see, if we are going to take natural ability or use familiarity into consideration, then I would suggest that a Farmer should be damn good with a flail, as its a common tool on a farm to thresh the grain. He has used it, kept it in his hand, knows how to swing and connect so that the head doesn't bounce back and do him harm.

SDLeary

[Noita]

Yeah farmer smacks the swordmaster round the head, knocking him out, and good riddance too.

[SDLeary]

On August 16, 2016 at 3:41 PM, styopa said:

PERSONALLY, I'd love to see a little different approach to the new RQ rules, where development leads to specificity.  So for example, you might just have a base "weapon" skill up to 50%.  Once you get over 50%, you'd have to specify "1h edged" but that skill would be good across ALL 1h-edged category weapons.  Then at 75%, you'd have to specify a specific 1h edged type (broadsword, for example).  All your 1h edged would remain at 75%, but your skill with the specific kind could then progress to 100%.  At 100%, it's with a SPECIFIC WEAPON, in sense that experts tend to treasure a specific tool in their mastery.  

This sounds an awful lot like Ringworlds Root/Branch skill system. While I personally liked it, it was somewhat cumbersome, especially where knowledge skills are concerned. Also, IIRC, the skill category value did nothing for the skill, simply providing a maximum value before specialization was needed. 

SDLeary

[Noita]

I'd rather avoid anything complicated. Combat styles with a combined attack and parry. The less book keeping the better. To be honest these days i even look at RQii and shudder

Edited September 20, 2016 by Iskallor

[Haimji]

I m agree with SDLeary and Iskallor.

Too complicated for me these root skills system.

I can imagine a master at One hand sword start his 2 handed sword at better level than a newbie but no need to make complicated rules, just give a +10% bonus or something like that.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Haimji

[SDLeary]

10 minutes ago, Haimji said:

I m agree with SDLeary and Iskallor.

Too complicated for me these root skills system.

I can imagine a master at One hand sword start his 2 handed sword at better level than a newbie but no need to make complicated rules, just give a +10% bonus or something like that.

Something like that, I might be convinced to allow half skill value plus category bonuses. I also state that the common 1h hafted weapons, in this case axe, mace, and hammer, are the same skill; though I might impose a penalty for the first fight or two. 2h spearmen can use a quarterstaff, etc.

SDLeary

[skoll]

8 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Seeing someone use a weapon and knowing how to use it effectively are two completely different things.  A flail is a perfect example, actually, being that it has a moving part/parts.  The mode of attack is about as unlike that with a sword as possible.  If you've seen it used, you might get that you would tend to swing it in an arc away from the body, but would you know when and how to flick your wrist for maximum effect?  Where specifically the best places to attack would be, and how to swing it so that you could hit them?  The sword would be used in a straight line (if stabbing) or a different type of arc (if chopping).  I would think a mace would be more easily adapted to, as using it would be very similar to hitting with the flat of a sword's blade.

Using your rationale, there might as well be just one general attack skill.

Combat is about more than just swinging your weapon. It's foot work, reading your enemy, timing the attacks, using your surroundings. It's about not s*itting your pants when somebody comes at you with murder in their eyes.

I'm not saying, that there should be one general attack skill, but I do agree with g33k, that a Humakti Rune Lord should be able to beat a novice with any weapon that he happens to get his hands on.

[Noita]

I dont think there would a novice in sight if a Humakti rune lord turned up holding a spoon. They would surrender or leg it.

His reputation alone would win the fight. That and his death rune ruining everyone's day.

I always have plants wilt at their approach and the odd small bird drop out of the sky.

[RosenMcStern]

Revolution D100 does this quite easily. There is one generic "Close Combat" Skill (as it happens in OpenQuest, so it is not such an unthinkable approach) and the Trait/Slot system make sure that the warrior's proficiency extends only to a reasonable number of weapons. A weaponmaster who has no specific training with a weapon is on par with, or superior to, a trained newbie.

This part of the rules is among the sections that I have already made public.

Edited September 20, 2016 by RosenMcStern

[Noita]

I think that getting to Sword of Humakt means that the person would probably be above basic in many different weapons just from being in the thick of things all his adult life. He'd have the balance, footwork and battle savvy. 

To be honest it's why I prefer HQ to RQ. He'd use his Death Rune, his career ability (which would cover weapon use), or any number of other abilities that might work.

[Haimji]

With the new RuneQuest, the Rune Lord of Humakt can easily beat a newbie. The Rune Lord can use his death Rune to increase his martial hability. He can use his magic like bladesharp.

But don't forget the gift/geases. Usualy a Rune Lord take gift like "+5% fighting with sword" several times and get geases "can't use mace" or "can't use maul" etc.

[g33k]

On 8/16/2016 at 3:41 PM, styopa said:

PERSONALLY, I'd love to see a little different approach to the new RQ rules, where development leads to specificity.  So for example, you might just have a base "weapon" skill up to 50%.  Once you get over 50%, you'd have to specify "1h edged" but that skill would be good across ALL 1h-edged category weapons.  Then at 75%, you'd have to specify a specific 1h edged type (broadsword, for example).  All your 1h edged would remain at 75%, but your skill with the specific kind could then progress to 100%.  At 100%, it's with a SPECIFIC WEAPON, in sense that experts tend to treasure a specific tool in their mastery.  

21 hours ago, Mankcam said:

Actually I quite like this idea. Simple, yet effective.

I'd posit similar overall effect, but taken in reverse:  as the fighter gets more-competent, a broader "fight skill" begins to emerge.

So the newbie with the sword, as they get "OK," discovers they're beginning to get some elementary "1-H Edged" skills; as they get REALLY good with the sword, they find their "1H Edged" skills are actually beginning to be good, and their OVERALL skill with weapons is beginning to be OK, too.  The numbers would be the same as in Styopa's 100/75/50 example above (at that level), but arrived at "backwards" from the order he got there...

Both takes remind me a bit me ... hrm, I think it was 3rd edition(?) of Shadowrun -- you could have a "Guns" skill, specialized in "long-arms" (e.g. rifles et al), super-specialized in "Barrett 121"

Edited September 20, 2016 by g33k
clarity

[g33k]

16 hours ago, SDLeary said:

You see, if we are going to take natural ability or use familiarity into consideration, then I would suggest that a Farmer should be damn good with a flail, as its a common tool on a farm to thresh the grain. He has used it, kept it in his hand, knows how to swing and connect so that the head doesn't bounce back and do him harm.

SDLeary

Actually, there's rather a long tradition of "farmer" implements being drafted into military use after "farmers" kicked military butt... In the east, the "tonfa" and "nunchaku" were threshing/flail farm implements.  In the west, the military flail is a minor elaboration of the farmer's flail, and "Bill-Hooks" & similar come straight off orchard-pruning pole-tools, and the scythe from field-harvest.

I would freely allow someone with "Farming 90%" or "Fieldhand 90%" to use one of their "tools" as a weapon under the "similar weapons" rule -- not at their full-civilian score of 90%, but surely not as if it was something unfamiliar being wielded for the first time!

[g33k]

21 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Seeing someone use a weapon and knowing how to use it effectively are two completely different things.  A flail is a perfect example, actually, being that it has a moving part/parts.  The mode of attack is about as unlike that with a sword as possible.  If you've seen it used, you might get that you would tend to swing it in an arc away from the body, but would you know when and how to flick your wrist for maximum effect?  Where specifically the best places to attack would be, and how to swing it so that you could hit them?

The really-skilled actually DO learn a lot from "just" watching; a lot more than the newbie learns from seeing the same thing!  Obviously, they don't have the practice-time and the deep muscle-memory that they have with most-favored weapons or even lightly-practiced ones.  But they have seen it used both side-by-side (wielded by an ally) and in the hands of the foe trying to kill them!

No, they are ABSOLUTELY not as good with the new/different weapon (e.g. flail from sword) as they are with their favorite, or even a "Similar Weapon"... but neither are they as helpless as a rank combat-novice!

 

21 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Using your rationale, there might as well be just one general attack skill.

No, that's the D&D-esque "THAC0" or "BAB" system... and explicitly NOT what I'm arguing (as I've said above... repeatedly).  Maybe 3/4 skill for very-similar (shortsword is very-similar to both longsword and dagger, e.g.), 2/3-skill for anything-not-dissimilar, and 1/2-skill for anything highly-dissimilar... ?

So at 100% longsword, Our Hero might have 75% with everything that's anything on the knife-to-sword spectrum, 67% with all other rigid 1-handed weapons (maces, axes, etc), and 50% with the really wierd "bendy" weapons like flails & whips, or with big 2-h pole-arms (longspear, halberd, fauchard, etc). 

NOTE that for a low-skill, "made their first skill-advancement-check" newbie, their basic ability with an alternate weapon probably exceeds what they can generalize from their very-low skill with a sword.  This is an intentional feature.

Edit 2 - And for the special case of the Farmer (q.v. SDLeary's point above) I'd probably rule that "threshing wheat" and "fighting a man-at-arms" are highly-dissimilar, so 50% of skill.

 

Edited September 20, 2016 by g33k
added a small addendum

[g33k]

11 hours ago, Iskallor said:

I dont think there would a novice in sight if a Humakti rune lord turned up holding a spoon.

"AAAAAHHH!  Humakt cannibal!  He's come to kill us and EAT US!"

[RosenMcStern]

11 minutes ago, g33k said:

No, that's the D&D-esque "THAC0" or "BAB" system... and explicitly NOT what I'm arguing (as I've said above... repeatedly).  Maybe 3/4 skill for very-similar (shortsword is very-similar to both longsword and dagger, e.g.), 2/3-skill for anything-not-dissimilar, and 1/2-skill for anything highly-dissimilar... ?

So at 100% longsword, Our Hero might have 75% with everything that's anything on the knife-to-sword spectrum, 67% with all other rigid 1-handed weapons (maces, axes, etc), and 50% with the really wierd "bendy" weapons like flails & whips, or with big 2-h pole-arms (longspear, halberd, fauchard, etc).

As a matter of fact, it makes sense. In other words, from a purely theoretically point of view, you are right. It should work so.

But now you please tell me how this classification of quite similar/not so similar/completely dissimilar weapons (which I find appropriate, I am not denying it) is less complicate and articulate than the root/branch skill system.

[g33k]

5 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

As a matter of fact, it makes sense. In other words, from a purely theoretically point of view, you are right. It should work so.

But now you please tell me how this classification of quite similar/not so similar/completely dissimilar weapons (which I find appropriate, I am not denying it) is less complicate and articulate than the root/branch skill system.

Ummm... I can't even comment.  Ringworld (the ruleset cited above as having "root/branch") has been on my "want to acquire" list since roughly forever.  Never even SEEN a copy in person.

FWIW -- I've never actually tried to implement it, but I have loosely envisioned it as a "graph" (in the math-y graph-theory sense), with "nodes" of weapons, then 1-hop-away weapons are "quite similar," 2-3 hops are "not dissimilar" and 4+ hops are highly dissimilar (distances on the graph might need to be tweaked a bit), and I expect other oddities would crop up (e.g. some edges might be directed where most would not) .  Pictures, after all, being worth a thousand words... so a 1-page graph will replace 4 pages of "this weapon is this-much related to that weapon" text ... right?  

[RosenMcStern]

Absolutely right. This is "how it works in real life".

Do you think it would be manageable at the table? I am not talking about being "realistic" (it is), I mean "manageable".

[MJ Sadique]

It seems to me your two ways of classing is (or can be) the same but with differents points of view :

1/ Using a tree classification is GM's memory free but you need the tables to use it, which is not easy manageable in the heat of action.
2/ Using similarity need a few memory and you don't have to open your book every second which is more manageable in the heat of action.

EXAMPLE

Sword

Sword_1H    Sword_1H_long    Sword_1H_short   Sword_1H_short_curved     Sword_1H_short_thrusting         Sword_2H

I take a Dravian language tree, modified a bit, so don't complain about the look please XD

 

With G33K method, it's a genealogy method, each rank get from a weapon to another get a distance and malus : From Sword_1H_Long to Sword_1H_Short_thrusting there is a 3 steps so let's said -10% par step you get a -30% malus if using one weapon but the other's skill.

With RosenMcStern principles, quite similar / not so similar / completely dissimilar weapons you could get -10% / -30% / -50% modifier. and in this case you could say between Sword_1H_Long and Sword_1H_Short_thrusting  they are not so similar : you get -30%.

==> G33K method is a book rule without GM's point of view. so it's a more fair method but heavier in term of management ! but RosenMcStern is easier to play with but if your master is angry he can get you the -50% even if it's not completely dissimilar and you can't complain.

Personnaly, I'll go to Rosen because I don't like tables (remember the terrible Rule Master) but I will use the old one word missing/in excess method (glory to Herowars) so from Sword_1H_Long to Sword_1H_Short_thrusting you have the word long, short and thrusting in differences so get -10% per word missing : you get -30%. A bit more tricky, easy to remember and no one can complain the equity of the GM. It's manageable, a lot more realist.

 

One word : tree organisation is just a point of view resuming a lot things, in reality it's hellish more complex than this for weapons or languages...