How close is BRP to the original Runequest?

[Unclmick]

I have been trying to get my hands on a copy of the first Runequest system with no luck. I remember playing it, but cannot remember the system so well. All those years of the Avalon Hill version have wiped it out. I am trying to figure out looking at the new BRP, how far is it exactly from the orig Runequest?

Thanks for your help.

Mike

[aknaton]

Same dish, but with a somewhat different flavor...

[frogspawner]

Only a little bit further than the AH version (RQ3), if you pick the right options...

[rust]

My copy of Runequest (1980) has ca. 120 pages, BRP Zero has almost 400

pages (although much of it is non-Fantasy), so there obviously are some dif-

ferences ...

However, those differences are not fundamental ones, and I think that it

would not be difficult to move from Runequest to BRP and back, since the

basics are identical. From my point of view, the differences are mainly in

the details and especially in the number of options.

[sdavies2720]

However, those differences are not fundamental ones, and I think that it would not be difficult to move from Runequest to BRP and back, since the basics are identical. From my point of view, the differences are mainly in the details and especially in the number of options.

That's always been my problem reading various versions of the rules -- I always think, "This is just like the last version." Which is true at the headline level, and untrue in the details.

My experience is the various rules sets are similar enough that as a GM I can translate from one to another "on the fly." That's possible because the system mechanics started clean and didn't change too dramatically.

Steve

[Shaira]

I'm playing a fair bit of BRP RAW right now instead of RQ3, although with plenty of RQ3-ish options such as Strike Ranks, Hit Locs, etc. The main differences I'm noticing are:

i.) Multiple parries / dodges being possible at -30% per successive parry / dodge. This is particularly effective for PC opponents - they're that bit tougher because of the multiple defenses.

ii.) Parries now defend against all damage from a weapon, so you don't have to roll to see if anything gets through. Parries are quicker as a result.

iii.) Opposed rolls feel a bit more integrated, intuitive, and less "optional" than RQ3.

Apart from that, and the fact I'm using BRP Sorcery (etc) rather than RQ3 Magic, and there isn't really a hugely detectable difference between what I'm playing and how I used to play RQ3. Things feel a bit looser and a bit quicker, but that's about it.

You *could* of course play a markedly different game by selecting options differently. You could pretty much mimic Stormbringer 5 or CoC style play without too much trouble.

Cheers!

Sarah

[frogspawner]

ii.) Parries now defend against all damage from a weapon, so you don't have to roll to see if anything gets through. Parries are quicker as a result.

Is this (from p.203, about Armour) an error, then?

"In settings where shields are also used, a successful shield parry may not be enough to stop a blow, and damage from the attack can potentially pass through the armor value of the shield and to the character. In these cases, armor values for both shield and armor are subtracted before the character takes damage."

[Al.]

Is this (from p.203, about Armour) an error, then?

"In settings where shields are also used, a successful shield parry may not be enough to stop a blow, and damage from the attack can potentially pass through the armor value of the shield and to the character. In these cases, armor values for both shield and armor are subtracted before the character takes damage."

Or has Shaira simply chosen to simplify?

[Shaira]

Is this (from p.203, about Armour) an error, then?

"In settings where shields are also used, a successful shield parry may not be enough to stop a blow, and damage from the attack can potentially pass through the armor value of the shield and to the character. In these cases, armor values for both shield and armor are subtracted before the character takes damage."

Urk... You are of course right! :eek:

By implication that would of course suggest that weapon parries behave the same way (ie as old RQ3), although I can't find an explicit wording to that effect... Can you?

Hmm... this is rather different to what I'd been told. I actually prefer it this way (a la RQ3), but had been trying to play the RAW.

I'm gonna sleep on this and read through the whole PDF combat chapter with a fresh brain in the morning!

Cheers (and thanks for pointing it out!),

Sarah

[frogspawner]

Or has Shaira simply chosen to simplify?

Nah, she says she's playing RAW - or what's intended, probably. My betting is that that extract is just a glitch (though personally I'd prefer it if parries played the way it says - a knife entirely deflecting a giant's club seems silly to me).

[frogspawner]

By implication that would of course suggest that weapon parries behave the same way (ie as old RQ3), although I can't find an explicit wording to that effect... Can you?

Nope I can't. I wanted to find it - and that's all I could come up with! I'm pretty sure you've been playing the Rules-As-Intended - so don't lose any sleep over it...

[NickMiddleton]

I think Shaira's correct, and that the section on Armour hasn't been corrected to reflcet the section on shields on page 204 onwards in my PDF:

Shields

The easiest way to think of a shield is that it is armor that can be interspersed between the attacker and the parrying character. Shields do not cover the entire body, but neither are they as heavy as body armor, and they are traditionally much cheaper and more adaptable for use by anyone. Different types of shields are described on page 263 in the section on armor in Chapter Eight: Equipment. Shields and armor together offer flexible, battle-proven protection in historical settings. Shields do not generally lose hit points when struck by normal blows, and they are not very easy to knock free from a defender’s grasp. Usually, only powerful blows (special successes or better) will damage a shield, and the only way to lose one is through a fum bled attack or parry.

I'm holding off doing a thorough read until my physical copy arrives however, so there may be other details I've mised elsewhere.

Cheers,

Nick

[frogspawner]

Hmmm... "The easiest way to think of a shield is that it is armor that can be interspersed between the attacker and the parrying character." But armour lets damage over it's value go through, so that's ambiguous too.

Also, the "generally" and "usually" in the highlighted text imply that shields can (sometimes, albeit rarely) be damaged by hits which aren't special/critical.

But I think it's just woolly wording, and not intended that normal hits over shield/weapon hp will damage them, like RQ2/3. (Won't stop me house-ruling it that way, though! )

[RosenMcStern]

I think the passage about shields was just a leftover or referred to slung shields (although it could apply also to the way I currently houserule MRQ). We have debated (read: flamed) this point a lot on the MRQ forum, and the point is that using armor points for parries as in RQ3 is unrealistic (a steel sword is not better at parrying than a normal one), except for the fact that parrying huge blows with small weapons should be more difficult (but not impossible, except in case of area attacks).

I am happy with the BRP rules as they are, simple and realistic. The only option that need be added is to make parries vs. weapons two orders of magnitude bigger Difficult, i.e. do not parry a halberd with a dagger unless you are 200% proficient with it. But this is best left to the GM.

[frogspawner]

Yes, it seems most likely to be a 'leftover' (but it's not about slung shields, as it specifically says parry).

We have debated (read: flamed) this point a lot on the MRQ forum, and the point is that using armor points for parries as in RQ3 is unrealistic (a steel sword is not better at parrying than a normal one), except for the fact that parrying huge blows with small weapons should be more difficult (but not impossible, except in case of area attacks).

Ah, but as there's been so much debate/flaming, other people must hold the opposite view... that using APs for parries is a good mechanic. (Also less arbitrary and grainy than having exceptions for specific weapon size contests, IMHO).

I am happy with the BRP rules as they are, simple and realistic.

But sadly not quite crystal clear, it seems.

[RosenMcStern]

Ah, but as there's been so much debate/flaming, other people must hold the opposite view... that using APs for parries is a good mechanic. (Also less arbitrary and grainy than having exceptions for specific weapon size contests, IMHO).

_I_ was the one who was defending the AP system, and was convinced by the other forumers. Although the dagger vs. poleaxe question is still not perfectly addressed by any system. The "perfect" rule should take into account the attacking weapon momentum and the strength of the parrier, plus the contest of skills. It would be a formula far more complicate than anyone but the fanatics could possibly want to use in a game.

[frogspawner]

The "perfect" rule should take into account the attacking weapon momentum and the strength of the parrier, plus the contest of skills. It would be a formula far more complicate than anyone but the fanatics could possibly want to use in a game.

Surely not too complicated? Attacking weapon momentum = Damage; Parrier strength = Size of parry weapon used (meh...); Contest of Skills = Skill-rolls (determining degree of success, or lack of it). They're all accounted for in the AP rule already - so it must be perfect!

I use it - but then I am a fanatic. Most RPGers are content to have it just another factor in their AC... :ohwell:

[rleduc]

RE the OP: I pull out my old RQ rules every now and again and reread bits just for old times sake, the last time was about a year ago – here are a few things that pop to mind as differences between RQ (copy right circa 1979) and the new BRP – ignoring the big ones like RQ didn’t have super powers etc. etc.

Original RQ had only spotty rules for starting with an advanced character – we always played with a new PC having Skill Basic+Stat Bonus in all skills and nothing more.

Stat bonuses were calculated in blocks, not smoothly. An attribute of 12-14 (or what ever) might give +5% bonus. Each skill category had its own little look up table, and bonuses were always in blocks of 5%.

Characters had a “defense” value based on DEX and SIZ (I think) that was subtracted from all attacks.

Just a few examples that I can recall (use old guys don’t have the best memories) but this has made me want to go and compare the two side-by-side.

[RosenMcStern]

Surely not too complicated? Attacking weapon momentum = Damage;

Definitely not true. Thrusting weapons have little momentum but deal a lot of damage. For many weapons, the damage done is due to sharpness rather than raw kinetik energy.

Parrier strength = Size of parry weapon used (meh...);

Huh? What if a STR 18 character uses a dagger?

They're all accounted for in the AP rule already - so it must be perfect!

No they aren't. Not that other rules do it rigth, but certainly this does not. Didn't you notice that it is one of the very few things that Jason did not take from RQ3?

[frogspawner]

Definitely not true.... <snip>

Broadly speaking they are. The dodgy one is the STR 18 guy parrying with a dagger - but he had the option on something bigger.

IMO it's a better attempt at your "perfect" rule than the 'opposed roll'-type idea in the new BRP attack/parry matrix (which takes no account of the momentum/strength factors at all), and without excessive complexity.

[Nightshade]

If you really wanted to deal with this you'd probably apply a "parry value" on weapons that was independent of their armor points, based on weapon mass and the like (though I'm still thinking armor points should cause damage to the weapon if its used to parry unless one gets a special or some such (presumably reflecting that "perfect deflect" effect).

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Although the dagger vs. poleaxe question is still not perfectly addressed by any system. The "perfect" rule should take into account the attacking weapon momentum and the strength of the parrier, plus the contest of skills. It would be a formula far more complicate than anyone but the fanatics could possibly want to use in a game.

I agree. In general, we should try to work within the spirit of the BRP ruleset, which is to keep things reasonably simple. As a GM, I'd probably say to the player, "You're insane. He will hit you and all you can do is Dodge unless you can close the distance." Since no mechanism is given for closing the distance, I'd probably ask the player to give up an attack and roll a Special on Dodge to do so, prompting the attacker with the polearm to back up to an optimal range, change weapons, or use the haft of the weapon in a staff like fashion (= quarterstaff).

Upon reflection, the example perhaps is not the best one. Until my first edition arrives, the typo in Edition Zero for the Parry column permits Knives to parry in Historic weapons, but doesn't permit Large Hunting Knives to parry in Modern. Speaking strictly on realistic terms, knives and daggers weren't used to parry unless they were radically redesigned into something we know of as the sai--a weapon with its own characteristics, history, and application.

[Shaira]

As a GM, I'd probably say to the player, "You're insane. He will hit you and all you can do is Dodge unless you can close the distance." Since no mechanism is given for closing the distance [...]

Not sure if you're referring to the same thing, but we were having a quick discussion about the existing BRP "Close Combat and Closing" spot rules the other day here. They're a bit muddy, but do give you some options. Still doesn't address the parrying halberd with dagger issue, though. :-)

Cheers,

Sarah

[RosenMcStern]

Parrying has nothing to do with the closing rules in this case. It is weapon momentum, not length, that makes a parry difficult. A thrust with a long spear is not stronger than a thrust with a katana, both are two-handed weapons (except that a katana is rarely used to thrust). And you can parry a Katana with a sai.

A halberd or maul is another story. You simply cannot block a 4-5 feet long swinging weapon with anything but a large shield, you must deflect it with a well placed sidesweep or better feint against your opponent the moment he strikes and make him miss. When we discussed this on the other forum, all members with actual combat experience stated it _is_ possible if you are skilled enough. One of the forumers reported having actually done it (although you will not find many actual reports - if you miss the parry you will be hurt, no matter how stuffed the weapons are).

So the point is - yes, possible but it takes a master or a very lucky shot. I would give it a -40 in MRQ and halve the skill in BRP.

[GianniVacca]

Characters had a “defense” value based on DEX and SIZ (I think) that was subtracted from all attacks.

I would say that this was the biggest difference between RQ2 and later incarnations. There was no Dodge skill, as the Defence skill (which was 'always on') was supposed to reflect the character's trying to evade incoming attacks. Personally, I do prefer this rule -- call me a snobbish grognard.