How close is BRP to the original Runequest?

[Nightshade]

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.

It was an unattractive mechanic on a couple grounds, though:

1. It required constant subtraction, since you had to deal with it on every attack;

2. It didn't work like any other skill, since it increased in a different way, and you split up the percentages among other attacks.

Honestly, it never looked like it belonged with the rest of the system. I think RQ3's general approach was a better way to go, there were just implimentation problems.

[Harshax]

It was an unattractive mechanic on a couple grounds, though:

1. It required constant subtraction, since you had to deal with it on every attack;

2. It didn't work like any other skill, since it increased in a different way, and you split up the percentages among other attacks.

Honestly, it never looked like it belonged with the rest of the system. I think RQ3's general approach was a better way to go, there were just implimentation problems.

You forgot:

3. And you could Teach it, which complicated #2.

4. It always worked. In a world of probability mechanics, an always working concept is very out of place. (I'm nitpicking, you kind of mention that, but you didn't number it. )

[Nightshade]

You forgot:

3. And you could Teach it, which complicated #2.

4. It always worked. In a world of probability mechanics, an always working concept is very out of place. (I'm nitpicking, you kind of mention that, but you didn't number it. )

Well, you could argue it didn't always work; it only worked when the opponents roll landed in the range of difference between his normal skill and the Defense percentage subtraction.

That said, it was a weird, kind of out-of-place mechanic.

[soltakss]

Back to the original question, BRP seems to be closer to RQ3 than RQ2. I don't know about RQ1 as I've never seen it, but I've heard it is close to RQ2.

Some optional rules tend to be similar to RQ3, at least those in the playtest did.

Magic is completely different, though, and all the non-Fantasy stuff is extra.

So, close enough to use RQ2 with BRP but definitely a different game. Not as close to RQ as I would have liked but not too far away.

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

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.

I think you're inadvertently mixing parrying and attacking here. Parrying in game terms is usually defined by deflecting or redirecting the attack. The Shield skill or Block are different but related defensive abilities. Speaking as someone with edged weapons experience, I think combat simulation in BRP is necessarily abstracted, but also appreciate the fact that the GM can adjust the system on the fly. Depending on the situation, there is no reason why the 40% modifier you suggested could not find its place.

But that depends on a lot and I think we're over-thinking this. Look at the attacker and the defender, the weapons and armor they have, and whether or not it makes sense for an attack or defense to happen. There are no specific rules on using largish weapons in a dungeon crawl, but GMs generally know that some weapons are just not usable depending on the situation and in this case, perhaps parrying isn't always practical.

Sometimes (in the case of the sai) it means momentarily trapping a sword while the other sai (wielded in each hand) went in for the kill. I agree that momentum is a consideration, but evasion and deflection are equally important in the decision on whether to parry or just get out of the way. Some weapons in some circumstances should just not be allowed to parry by an alert GM because the opportunity just isn't there or it just doesn't make sense--use Dodge or Shield instead.

[Turloigh]

But that depends on a lot and I think we're over-thinking this. Look at the attacker and the defender, the weapons and armor they have, and whether or not it makes sense for an attack or defense to happen. There are no specific rules on using largish weapons in a dungeon crawl, but GMs generally know that some weapons are just not usable depending on the situation and in this case, perhaps parrying isn't always practical.

I believe that hits the nail on the head. I know next to nothing about real-life close combat, but I noticed my RQ3 character - during the course of a 10+year campaign - parried a lot of attacks (from monsters, polearms, what have you) with his Main Gauche that, realistically, he couldn't have.

I've given a lot of thought to the matter and I've come to the conclusion that, since no parry rule could cover every possible situation (not even alle the most likely ones), what it boils down to is: use common sense.

At least, that's what I'm writing into all my homebrews.

[Nightshade]

While I wouldn't disagree that a rule isn't going to perfectly cover every situation, I don't think it'd be impossible to define a parrying limits rule that would cover the majority of cases without breaking SOD badly, and that'd perhaps serve most games well enough.

[Richard]

I reckon RQ3 pretty much got it right on this one. Nothing to stop you adding further levels of realism by houseruling on specific weapons/combinations such as halving parry chance or APTS for poorly matched pairs such as a maine gauche against a Troll maul. It might be a good way of evening up damage effects for large blunt instruments as pointy-nointy weapons already get all that juicy impaling damage. I do like the idea that shields and weapons can be worn down, damaged and require replacement and repair. It seems convincing and reasonably realistic and adds a gritty edge to gaming. Materials and quality become important and it gives flavour to weapon use, fighting style, maintenance and purchase.

[Nightshade]

I reckon RQ3 pretty much got it right on this one.

Not really. The problem RQ3--actually all three RQs had--was that they applied a defensible approach to how shields suck up damage to weapons, but it doesn't work perfectly even with the shields, and it tends to break down with weapons pretty fast; it essentially assumes most parries are, from lack of a better term, flat blocks; that is to say they take the force directly on their face, ignore the damage greater than their toughness, and take the rest. Even with shield's this isn't always the case; if you can, you try to send the attack off at an angle which means considerable of the force is wasted. And with weapons its overwhelmingly the case. As such, the RQ system classically managed this in, really the wrong way; most blows shouldn't do any noticable damage to a weapon, and when they do they should probably do a lot.

And of course that doesn't even get into the issue of weapons that are easier and harder to parry; the noticeable example at one end is thrusting weapons (which are fast and nasty in some ways, but if you engage with them properly are easy to bring out of line, and should almost never damage a weapon used to do so) and at the other end are flails (which are hard as hell to use but also tricky as hell to parry) or the issues of large mass weapons versus low mass weapons (which admittedly is a bigger issue with chopping or impact weapons such as axes or maces than thrusting weapons or slashing weapons, but is always a _little_ issue).

Its probably not possible to factor all this in tidily, but I can't help but think you can manage a closer approximation without excessive system overhead or essentially arbitrary GM input.

[FunGuyFromYuggoth]

Its probably not possible to factor all this in tidily, but I can't help but think you can manage a closer approximation without excessive system overhead or essentially arbitrary GM input.

I think if it were possible, somebody who makes a living off writing games like Stormbringer, RuneQuest (all the flavors), or even the more recent Cthulhu Dark Ages would've presented this ages ago. If I were to guess--ok you can't stop it now --I'd say that generally a homebrew/GM judgement call is what's we've been doing for the past 30 years (before it was even called BRP) on all the gray areas. Compare the way referees differ in different sports b/c every game is a different kind of beast.

I think that's what makes BRP special. Its design engenders a little more trust between the GM and the players when it comes to situations that aren't covered on page XXX.

[Enpeze]

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.

2 magnitudes? Try to parry a 1H battleaxe with a dagger at full skill. Or try to parry a dagger with a 1H battleaxe at full skill

I think its not that simple than reducing the problem to just the size of a weapon.

The downside of all this is to clutter the rules with "parrying" houserules. Which is better?

[Nightshade]

I think if it were possible, somebody who makes a living off writing games like Stormbringer, RuneQuest (all the flavors), or even the more recent Cthulhu Dark Ages would've presented this ages ago. If I

This assumes people think its worth doing, both as designers and players; as I noted, many people find either simple hit locations or major wound systems good enough, and frankly, barring someone with enough concern to get beyond that, I don't see it as likely anyone would do the extra work. Bluntly, for most designers on most games, outside of areas of their particular concern, close enough is good enough; if the result doesn't annoy them, there's no reason they'll go the extra mile.

There's all kinds of design features in all kinds of games that exist only because it ended up being something that bothered the designer, and until it hit a designer that did, no one bothered with the skull sweat and playtesting to make it work. Among the games you mention, the only version of RQ that's been worked on in the last 15 years is is MRQ, and frankly, from my experience in the playtesting of that, its no poster child for careful, thoughtful design; CoC in design tends to assume that combat is a mostly unimportant element of the game, so its not likely to come up there. So that leaves the Stormbringer family of games, and they clearly landed in the "close enough is good enough" category.

So the fact it hasn't been done doesn't tell me it can't be done; it just tells me know one has cared enough to do the heavy lifting.

I think that's what makes BRP special. Its design engenders a little more trust between the GM and the players when it comes to situations that aren't covered on page XXX.

Given the RQ games I saw years ago, I think you're overextending from personal experience.

[Nightshade]

2 magnitudes? Try to parry a 1H battleaxe with a dagger at full skill. Or try to parry a dagger with a 1H battleaxe at full skill

I think its not that simple than reducing the problem to just the size of a weapon.

The downside of all this is to clutter the rules with "parrying" houserules. Which is better?

Like most rules, depends entirely on how important you find it.

[Enpeze]

Like most rules, depends entirely on how important you find it.

I always find it interesting that we micromanage fanatically effects like 1d8 or 1d6+1 for weapon damage or having a at least 2 seperate rules for the min. attributes for weapon use, but we dont have a problem to house rule (or not rule at all) the obvious fact that daggers are doing hard to impossible to parry axes/hellebardes and vice versa. (not counting other parrying improbabilities) Yes in this case we are given the advice to "find it important" and house rule it by ourselves. No support from the system in this question.

Additionally we have dozens of spot rules for this or that nonsense which seldom or never arises in the game but parrying with daggers which occurs in nearly every game regularly is not considered.

Maybe it would blow up the BRP rules too much? From 380p to 380 and half page

BTW: my house rule for this parrying problem is even much simpler than a half page (BRP like). I give situational parry modifiers of -20% or -40% and this works perfect.

[RosenMcStern]

BTW: my house rule for this parrying problem is even much simpler than a half page (BRP like). I give situational parry modifiers of -20% or -40% and this works perfect.

Simple and appropriate. This is what I do in MRQ. In BRP I would rather go with a Difficult parry (halve skill) to be more consistent with the rest of the rules. But that is just a minor detail.

Maybe this could become an optional rule in BRP 1.1.

[Shaira]

Isn't a dagger parrying a broadsword just an unfeasible? Or would people confine it to parrying just the long weapons (SIZ 3.0+)? Also you've got v. short weapons such as sickles and cesti which can parry, not just daggers.

Maybe something like "All parries with weapons of SIZ less than 1.0 are Difficult". Alternatively, "All parries against SIZ 3.0+ weapon attacks by weapons of SIZ less than 1.0 are Difficult"?

Incidentally, in actual play I'm finding it very easy to demand that someone Dodge rather than Parry if the Parry seems unrealistic. Someone was recently trying to parry a charging mutated giant boar with a dagger - the entire concept was just too ridiculous to even contemplate!

Cheers,

Sarah

[deleriad]

I must admit that I tend to take precisely the opposite tack because giving negative modifiers to parries veers into micro-management. That said, this is using RQ rather than BRP as I haven't properly read the parrying rules in BRP. Basically, someone trying to parry a giant, mutated charging pig with a dagger with just 4APs might as well be wearing a "tusk me, baby! tusk me!" shirt for all the good the dagger does.

If BRP tends to all or nothing parries then I would say, depending on mood and genre

"well, you can parry its tusk damage but the rest of the pig will trample you into dirt while you stand there." or

"Due to your flourish of madcap bravery & the glint of your dagger the pig loses its nerve and veers away at the last minute as you successful parry the pig. All around you gaze in amazement and you are destined to be known as Logan the man who parried a pig with a dagger for all eternity. Even now, run down hamlets are starting to hear the story."

[Rurik]

Someone was recently trying to parry a charging mutated giant boar with a dagger - the entire concept was just too ridiculous to even contemplate!

Do you mean the giant mutated boar or parrying it with a dagger?

I must admit that I tend to take precisely the opposite tack because giving negative modifiers to parries veers into micro-management. That said, this is using RQ rather than BRP as I haven't properly read the parrying rules in BRP. Basically, someone trying to parry a giant, mutated charging pig with a dagger with just 4APs might as well be wearing a "tusk me, baby! tusk me!" shirt for all the good the dagger does.

Though AP's weren't a perfect system, moving to all or nothing parries certainly seems to create more problems than it solves. Using them sure you can parry that dragon with that dagger if you want to - it just won't do you very much good. The rules dictate that dodging is better in this case, where the all or nothing parry seems silly.

This was argued at length on the MRQ boards when the latest and current combat revisions were released, which pretty much was a switch to the all or nothing parry, making AP's all but obsolete.

[SDLeary]

Isn't a dagger parrying a broadsword just an unfeasible? Or would people confine it to parrying just the long weapons (SIZ 3.0+)? Also you've got v. short weapons such as sickles and cesti which can parry, not just daggers.

Maybe something like "All parries with weapons of SIZ less than 1.0 are Difficult". Alternatively, "All parries against SIZ 3.0+ weapon attacks by weapons of SIZ less than 1.0 are Difficult"?

Incidentally, in actual play I'm finding it very easy to demand that someone Dodge rather than Parry if the Parry seems unrealistic. Someone was recently trying to parry a charging mutated giant boar with a dagger - the entire concept was just too ridiculous to even contemplate!

Cheers,

Sarah

Not quite... there is much more force at the end of a hafted weapon. Thats where all the weight is concentrated, whereas with a sword, it distributed more throughout.

As for modifiers, I wouldn't really have anything universal. A dagger is really a largeish weapon. We are generally talking about something with a 12-16 inch blade. This seems to me to be more an effect of the weight distribution on the attacking weapon rather than the size of the parrying. Perhaps this should be a special effect of axes/maces/mauls. Perhaps a modifier to the parrying party of -10%/size? To offset this advantage, I would probably also reduce the range of battle axes and light and medium maces to short. They are generally not longer than a largish dagger, nowhere near as long as a broadsword or short spear.

SDLeary

[RosenMcStern]

Isn't a dagger parrying a broadsword just an unfeasible? Or would people confine it to parrying just the long weapons (SIZ 3.0+)? Also you've got v. short weapons such as sickles and cesti which can parry, not just daggers.

Main gauches and sais are daggers, and they were designed to parry swords. It can be done. Though I would give a penalty to a mere knife parrying a sword.

Maybe something like "All parries with weapons of SIZ less than 1.0 are Difficult". Alternatively, "All parries against SIZ 3.0+ weapon attacks by weapons of SIZ less than 1.0 are Difficult"?

Dagger parrying another dagger is not difficult. Fist parrying kick is not difficult. Hoplite shield parrying maul is not difficult.

Someone was recently trying to parry a charging mutated giant boar with a dagger - the entire concept was just too ridiculous to even contemplate!

Another possible spot rule would be "Only shields can parry charges."

[Nightshade]

I always find it interesting that we micromanage fanatically effects like 1d8 or 1d6+1 for weapon damage or having a at least 2 seperate rules for the min. attributes for weapon use, but we dont have a problem to house rule (or not rule at all) the obvious fact that daggers are doing hard to impossible to parry axes/hellebardes and vice versa. (not counting other parrying improbabilities) Yes in this case we are given the advice to "find it important" and house rule it by ourselves. No support from the system in this question.

I suspect there are two things at work:

1. Most people don't think about it;

2. In most games it _won't_ come up that often; you can go a lot of sessions before hitting a situation where you're parrying a poleaxe with a dagger, because its relatively rare the situation where you get attacked with a poleaxe and all you have is the dagger. If anything, the "I'm trying to parry the Giant Maul with my broadsword" situation is more likely, and even that one won't come up all that often.

Additionally we have dozens of spot rules for this or that nonsense which seldom or never arises in the game but parrying with daggers which occurs in nearly every game regularly is not considered.

As I said, I actually don't recall anyone trying to parry with a dagger more than a handful of times in my entire Runequest period. Heck, I don't even remember someone actually using daggers as a weapon more than a handful of times.

[Nightshade]

Isn't a dagger parrying a broadsword just an unfeasible? Or would people confine it to parrying just the long weapons (SIZ 3.0+)? Also you've got v. short weapons such as sickles and cesti which can parry, not just daggers.

As someone else noted, there are weapons specifically designed for parrying that are little more than specialized daggers; its just that their design suits them to it better.

What there probably should be is just a general modifier based on relative weapon size; it still won't work in all cases, but it'd cover the most egregious ones.

Incidentally, in actual play I'm finding it very easy to demand that someone Dodge rather than Parry if the Parry seems unrealistic. Someone was recently

I personally just dislike ad-hoc rulings of that nature; I'd rather have a general rule that people can deal with the consequences of or not.

[Nightshade]

Though AP's weren't a perfect system, moving to all or nothing parries certainly seems to create more problems than it solves. Using them sure you can parry that dragon with that dagger if you want to - it just won't do you very much good. The rules dictate that dodging is better in this case, where the all or nothing parry seems silly.

It didn't really cover all the cases though; as an example a really high damage spear thrust is easier to parry with a light weapon than a lower damage attack with a mace; that's because the former is, in the end, an issue of deflection more than the latter.

[Rurik]

Though AP's weren't a perfect system, moving to all or nothing parries certainly seems to create more problems than it solves. Using them sure you can parry that dragon with that dagger if you want to - it just won't do you very much good. The rules dictate that dodging is better in this case, where the all or nothing parry seems silly.

This was argued at length on the MRQ boards when the latest and current combat revisions were released, which pretty much was a switch to the all or nothing parry, making AP's all but obsolete.

It didn't really cover all the cases though; as an example a really high damage spear thrust is easier to parry with a light weapon than a lower damage attack with a mace; that's because the former is, in the end, an issue of deflection more than the latter.

I've said AP's aren't perfect. But they cover cases like giant charging boars and daggers, while the all or nothing parry doesn't. The only way around things like the spear vs. mace issue would be weapon specific rules, which I try to avoid. Maybe some blanket rule covering thrusting weapons would work.

I have used weapon/shield AP's for a great many years, and used the all or nothing parry for a relatively short time. In that short time it is my personal experience that many more perceived reality problems arise using all or nothing parry.

[RosenMcStern]

I have used weapon/shield AP's for a great many years, and used the all or nothing parry for a relatively short time. In that short time it is my personal experience that many more perceived reality problems arise using all or nothing parry.

This is absolutely true. But I think the real problem arises from the fact that APs in RQ3 were a mix of parrying capabilities and actual toughness of weapon. You can still have a rather realistic value for "Parry points" for weapons, but this does not necessarily coincide with weapon toughness. A quarterstaff is not tough, but it is a good parrying weapon.

Plus the all or nothing parry in MRQ also suffers the problems due to the infamous "critical parry that is less effective than a normal parry". Another unfortunate situation that usually occurs when fighting trollkin in a dark cave in Ralios.