Chaosium's new RQ

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

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!

Yup. The point is though that simply because someone is a weapons master it doesn't mean that anything that comes to had can be used effectively.

Context matters. In the case of Europe, it doesn't look like the Flail became a "weapon" until the 15th C., when it apparently begins to be referenced in manuals-of-arms (probably in order to defend against it more than use it). It had probably been used by Farmers to defend themselves if necessary a lot further back in history, like a pitchforks, scythes, and sickles.

I would also postulate that numerous of the upper crust warrior class would refuse to use the "tools of a filthy peasant".

As for the farmers, I would probably start them off at 40% + bonuses, assuming we are talking about RQ.

SDLeary

 

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

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?  

GAH! Tables! Must be Rolemaster! 

SDLeary

[Haimji]

Don't forget, a fight "Humakt Rune lord" vs "Farmer newbie" is not just about score in attack, dodge take part in the fight too !

Rune Lord with a flail, start at 40% attack but get his dodge at 95%.

Farmer with same flail start at 40% too but get only 25% in dodge.

So, Rune Lord will win the fight. No need complicated rules for that.

And its getting better for Rune Lord with the new runequest, because, he can use his Death Rune to get +20% to his attack.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Haimji
edit to have same example than above

[RosenMcStern]

1 hour ago, MJ Sadique said:

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%.

Please do not attribute to me opinions that are not mine. I am in no way endorsing usage of this method during play. How I would handle it I have explained, and it has nothing to do with this.

My question stays: do you think that this method is less complicate than the root/branch? MJsadique apparently thinks it is.

Question 2: do you think that this is manageable in play? That is, it contributes to enjoyment more than it contributes to complexity?

[Haimji]

2 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

My question stays: do you think that this method is less complicate than the root/branch? MJsadique apparently thinks it is.

Question 2: do you think that this is manageable in play? That is, it contributes to enjoyment more than it contributes to complexity?

For me, yes its less complicated. And its manageable.

[g33k]

4 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

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".

Well, yeah... I think so (I wouldn't have suggested it if I didn't).  I haven't actually played it (since I haven't produced such a graph); but I have played multiple other RPGs over the course of the past 4 decades, and I expect this to be a manageable issue for virtually all gaming-tables.

A 1-page graph/pic, probably adjacent to the weapons-stat table for STR+DEXmin's/Enc/Damage/SR/etc...

If Our Hero is picking up a new weapon, the book is probably getting cracked open anyhow to grab the new weapon-stats; just glance over at the chart on the facing page.

I'd expect the overhead of "look-at-graph / count-the-steps / deriving the skill" is no greater then (actually, I'd expect "smaller than") reading/recording multiple data-points off of a table-of-entries.

Also:  lost weapons & the like (resulting in being forced to use another weapon) is not, IMHO/IME, a terribly-common occurrence at most tables.  Even if it carried "higher overhead" than I expect, it still might not occur as a notable "problem" at the table, simply because said overhead happens so seldom.  YMMV.

[g33k]

3 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

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.

WEAPON TREE CUT

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...

Hm...  My quoted version has displayed your very-nice tree quite badly...  I think I'd better cut it out of this, and for those who care, please refer back to the nice work of MJSadique!

We have a few details where I differ from you, but overall I suspect it's just a "YMMV" / differing tastes / agree-to-disagree issue.  Which is fine!  There's no one single mechanic that's the "right" one...  Also:  this is only a "first cut" (pardon my pun) solution, not a finished/polished one.  It's an idea for discussion.

I'll note that I envision a "graph" (of which a "tree" is a specialized and limited form); still, for the case in hand, it's a reasonable approximation, and shows something of the effect...

RE short-vs-long:  it's worth noting that "blades" range continuously from tiny little "dirks" and the like on up to massive "Zweihanders," so I'm unclear on whether "long" vs "short" is a good defining trait.

RE thrust-vs-cut, note that some swords are one, some are the other, and some are BOTH.

You seem to be pulling in some HW/HQ principles, which I'm going to suggest are simply out of place in the CRQ/RQ2 discussion, whose mechanics tend a bit to the crunchier and grittier; again, neither approach is "wrong," and even mixing them isn't "wrong."  But we're talking of "Chaosium's new RQ" which is solidly-based on the RQ2 mechanic.

 

[Mankcam]

It works with CoC 7E skill levels quite easily.

If using an unfamiliar weapon, then the GM would simply calls for either a Hard roll or an Extreme Roll, depending upon how similar the weapon is to the typical weapon associated with that skill. 

(Hard Roll = under half regular skill %, just like a BGB Difficult Action. Extreme Roll = under 1/5 regular skill %, like a BGB Special Success)

You could easily take it a step further by saying that using a favoured weapon of superior quality may grant the player a Bonus Dice (akin to a BGB bonus modifier, or perhaps an Easy action), or some other benefit, relevant to the weapon type or situation.

If CRQ4 uses a similar skill level system as CoC 7E then lots of little things like this fit together nicely. I hope this is at least considered for the new edition.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mankcam

[g33k]

5 hours ago, SDLeary said:

GAH! Tables! Must be Rolemaster! 

SDLeary

I think you mean "Chartmaster"! 

Myself, I do NOT mean a "table" but a "graph" -- a picture.

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

I think you mean "Chartmaster"! 

Myself, I do NOT mean a "table" but a "graph" -- a picture.

chartnoun1 check your ideal weight on the chart: graph, table, diagram, histogram; bar chart, pie chart, flow chart; Computing graphic.2 (charts) the song hit the charts at number twelve: top twenty, top ten, list, listing; dated hit parade.

SDLeary

[Yelm's Light]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 1:41 PM, g33k said:

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.

And that's all subsumed within the fact that a swordmaster has much better combat skills than a novice.  You're using RP justification for a game mechanic.  I know of no 'grizzled veteran' combat skill bonus, nor do I think there should be.  A swordmaster should be better prepared for melee than a novice anyway; Dodge, armor, and magic.  As for the farmer picking up a flail (and assuming that he had it for other non-combat uses such as threshing grains), while it's not the same as using it in combat, he'll have a lot better understanding of spacing for its use than the so-called 'swordmaster.'

It's also unbalancing; you're effectively adding more to all weapon skills.  I just think the whole thing is micromanaging where it doesn't need to be.

Heh.  I should've read further.  It appears others made my points for me.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[Mugen]

As for myself, I'm perfectly fine with having a few (maximum 10) generic and broad aptitudes, and an undefined number of "specialties" for each aptitude.

That is, I'll only have 1 Melee and 1Marksmanship aptitudes, and specialties like swords, axes, daggers, bows, riffles, and so on.

When in a situation where a specialty applies, its value is added to the base aptitude.

That's IMHO a good compromise between D100 Revolution Traits and complex skill trees.

[RosenMcStern]

8 hours ago, g33k said:

Also:  lost weapons & the like (resulting in being forced to use another weapon) is not, IMHO/IME, a terribly-common occurrence at most tables.  Even if it carried "higher overhead" than I expect, it still might not occur as a notable "problem" at the table, simply because said overhead happens so seldom.  YMMV.

Except that it does not happen so seldom. As soon as you start introducing "better than starting value" skill levels for secondary weapons, players of specialised fighters will ask the GM for permission to train in the new skill starting from the "improved" base chance. Or the character will get an experience check for the weapon, and ask (reasonable request) to roll for an improvement in the new skill.

This will immediately get out of control if you have imaginative and proactive players. And please note that here the players are not doing anything that is out of character and the GM should disallow: their character is a specialised fighter, it is normal that he wants to progress in other weapon skills and gain maximum efficiency on the battlefield. And since he is supposed to practice daily, it is also normal that he sees other weapons used and keeps them in his hands, so his character should know exactly how proficient he can be with an unfamiliar weapon, as there are very few weapons, if any, he has never sparred with.

Basically, in the very moment that you introduce this rule, you open a can of worms. And either you rule that the bonus only works when you pick up the weapon in the middle of a fight but not in the controlled situation of sparring (which is horribly unrealistic and absolutely unfair), or you are actually headed in the direction of having something almost as complicate as a root/branch system

2 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

I know of no 'grizzled veteran' combat skill bonus, nor do I think there should be.

Yet most people here say that it should be there. And most experienced fighters are deadly with whatever they have in their hands. Miyamoto Musashi killed his most dangerous opponent with an oar. Do you think his skill with the oar did not benefit from his battlefield mastery at all?

Magic and armour cannot be factored in, either. Nor can Dodge, which in some systems is subsumed in the weapon skill.

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

As for myself, I'm perfectly fine with having a few (maximum 10) generic and broad aptitudes, and an undefined number of "specialties" for each aptitude.

That is, I'll only have 1 Melee and 1Marksmanship aptitudes, and specialties like swords, axes, daggers, bows, riffles, and so on.

When in a situation where a specialty applies, its value is added to the base aptitude.

That's IMHO a good compromise between D100 Revolution Traits and complex skill trees.

It is no compromise. It is exactly how Traits work

[Mugen]

Just now, RosenMcStern said:

It is no compromise. It is exactly how Traits work

Except, in my mind, specialties have a value. For instance:

Melee 45%
-Sword +35% (total 80%)
-Dagger +25% (total 70%)
-Dodge +20% (total 65%)

So, this is both a 1-level skill tree and Traits with a number, and the reason I call it a compromise.

I understand that attacking with a short sword is different from attacking with a long sword, but I don't think it is worth more than a 10% difference.

I could call my specialities "skills" and add "specialities" worth +10%...

[RosenMcStern]

Yes, this is perfectly doable. Have you tried it in practice?

It is of course clear that there might be (and often there is) a difference between each individual weapon style in broad categories, but in my experience, granularity does not automatically imply realism. I see no problema in tracking differences in the 5-10% range if you are comfortable with it, but I strongly suspect that the actual benefits on the game will be inferior to the clutter on the character sheet. Ultimately, it is a matter of how much "not knowing how specialized you are, down to the 1% scale" damages your suspension of disbelief, because the actual effects of that "+10%" in a battle will be irrelevant, more often than not.

[Mankcam]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

Melee 45%
-Sword +35% (total 80%)
-Dagger +25% (total 70%)
-Dodge +20% (total 65%)

How would Skill Checks work in such a system? On the skill specialty (ie: Sword), or the base skill (ie: Melee)?

 

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mankcam

[Mugen]

23 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Yes, this is perfectly doable. Have you tried it in practice?

It is of course clear that there might be (and often there is) a difference between each individual weapon style in broad categories, but in my experience, granularity does not automatically imply realism. I see no problema in tracking differences in the 5-10% range if you are comfortable with it, but I strongly suspect that the actual benefits on the game will be inferior to the clutter on the character sheet. Ultimately, it is a matter of how much "not knowing how specialized you are, down to the 1% scale" damages your suspension of disbelief, because the actual effects of that "+10%" in a battle will be irrelevant, more often than not.

No, I didn't have time to test it. I don't play a lot these days, and all my plans to organize rpg sessions fail miserably...

My intent was to avoid the case where a swordfighter stops being able to fight if he uses an axe instead. And 45% is certainly not the right aptitude value for a good fighter.

As a matter of fact, I certainly won't use it with a d100 at all, and will rather use a d20 or a d10 if I do.

18 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

How would Skill Checks work in such a system? On the skill specialty (ie: Sword), or the base skill (ie: Melee)?

It's quite simple : the character above would work as if he had a 80% skill if he's holding a weapon identified as a "Sword", and 70% if he uses a "Dagger". If he holds an "Axe", he's down to 45%.

If he Dodges, he'll have an effective skill of 65%.

[RosenMcStern]

2 minutes ago, Mugen said:

My intent was to avoid the case where a swordfighter stops being able to fight if he uses an axe instead. And 45% is certainly not the right aptitude value for a good fighter.

It's quite simple : the character above would work as if he had a 80% skill if he's holding a weapon identified as a "Sword", and 70% if he uses a "Dagger". If he holds an "Axe", he's down to 45%.

Uhm, your answer to Mankcam contradicts your answer to me. How would you handle the Axe case? Axe is rather different from sword, it is very unbalanced.

In which cases does your fighter revert to basic 45% (which is still not terrible - you can survive a one-on-one confrontation when you have 45%)?

[Mugen]

1 minute ago, RosenMcStern said:

Uhm, your answer to Mankcam contradicts your answer to me. How would you handle the Axe case? Axe is rather different from sword, it is very unbalanced.

In which cases does your fighter revert to basic 45% (which is still not terrible - you can survive a one-on-one confrontation when you have 45%)?

I may not be very clear in my explanations, but there's no contradiction in my head

Melee is the base aptitude for using any hand-to-hand weapons (*). That's what you use when you have a weapon in hand with which you have no applicable specialty.

In the example above, the character has no Axe specialty. So, he'll have an effective chance of success of 45% with any action (or reaction) using an axe.

(*) Unarmed combat and Dodge are also covered by Melee, but only for characters whose Melee aptitude is superior to Athletics.

[Mankcam]

No it's me that wasn't very clear. What I was clarifying is how would you make Skill Improvement Checks? Do you make the Experience Rolls on the base  skill, or on the skill speciality?

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mankcam

[RosenMcStern]

15 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I may not be very clear in my explanations, but there's no contradiction in my head

I never doubted it

So you are at your base Melee with "totally unfamiliar" weapons. And at "Melee+something" with other weapons.

As long as this "something" varies per weapon and can be improved/trained, this is a root/branch system. At least, it quacks like a root/branch system, it swims like a root/branch system...

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, Mankcam said:

No it's me that wasn't very clear. What I was clarifying is how would you make Skill Improvement Checks? Do you make the Experience Rolls on the base  skill, or on the skill speciality?

Ok ! Your question makes more sense now

I think the following might work:

-Experience checks are given to specialties.

-Aptitudes get experience checks only if an experience check for a specialty was succesfull, but can't get more than one per session.

As for the exact chances to improve aptitude and specialties, I think something along those lines would work:

-For specialities, a d100 roll > (current value x3) or 95

-For aptitudes, a d100 roll > (current value+25) or 95

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

I never doubted it

So you are at your base Melee with "totally unfamiliar" weapons. And at "Melee+something" with other weapons.

As long as this "something" varies per weapon and can be improved/trained, this is a root/branch system. At least, it quacks like a root/branch system, it swims like a root/branch system...

Yes, a 1-level root/branch system.

And one which starts at a rather broad definition level, and allows for some combination with other branches.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Mugen

[Zit]

It is actually like in HeroQuest with aptitude = broad ability and speciality = breakdown ability, including in the way they improve independently.

[SDLeary]

9 hours ago, Mugen said:

Except, in my mind, specialties have a value. For instance:

Melee 45%
-Sword +35% (total 80%)
-Dagger +25% (total 70%)
-Dodge +20% (total 65%)

So, this is both a 1-level skill tree and Traits with a number, and the reason I call it a compromise.

I understand that attacking with a short sword is different from attacking with a long sword, but I don't think it is worth more than a 10% difference.

I could call my specialities "skills" and add "specialities" worth +10%...

Silly question. If you want something like this, why don't you simply change the way the Combat/Attack/Parry bonus is figured? 

RQ3/BGB used this... (sorry, inserting a table didn't work)

Quote

Category          Primary     Secondary     Negative

Combat Skills     DEX          INT, STR

Whereby you added 1% for every characteristic point value above 10, 1% for every two points over 10, and negative subtracted.

It could be argued that DEX and STR are of equal value in combat, so you could have them both be primary. And you could dispense with the 1% over blah blah and simply add the characteristics together, yes? So you could have a Combat = (STR+DEX)+1/2INT. This should get you somewhat close to the values that you are looking for at base without potentially borking skills and their attached experience and relationships.

SDLeary

 

[styopa]

I think the point that I personally am at is that 'combat expertise' generally is portable, to some degree.  Whether that's combat experience with a bowie knife, a maul, or a spear is irrelevant - it's the fundamental set of combat reflexes, etc that would be more or less universal.  The "fighting art" so to speak.

Skill with a style of weapon is portable, to a lesser degree - ie if you have the basics of sword handling, I'd argue that to a point, that translates - 1h swords generally are similar in approach, be they broadswords or katanas, or at least moreso than that skill would translate to axes or flails.

Finesse with a specific type - ie a single edged 1h cavalry sabre - is what experts have, and why they're experts.

Edited September 21, 2016 by styopa