Another sell me thread :)

[Raleel]

On 4/9/2017 at 5:39 AM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I like the colour of RQ2 in this regard. The special & critical roll giving access to the characteristic damage of the weapon. Impale for impaling weapons, Crush for bashing weapons, and slash for cutting weapons. Though i think the last 2 damage types are optional. 

When combined with hit locations there's a lot of variety with what can be done. A big blow to the head could result in instantaneous death, or a big blow to the abdomen could result in the target bleeding to death. Also powerful blows can incapacitate, with the possibility of limb loss...Nice Sunday discussion  

On the other end of the spectrum fumbles can create really interesting and colourful complications too.

With RQ2 I like that these effects are largely taken care of for the player.  There remains a random element to combat which feels more like what I expect in a frantic tussle. However aimed shots (at a penalty) to specific hit locations are still possible.

I've not played Mythras but the more deliberate choice of special effect seems to me to be too deliberate? But maybe thats just me? I like the idea of cinematic moves but I'm not sure whether having an arsenal of special effects to be calmly chosen in the fast pace of a melee is the way to go? For me it seems like it could upset the rhythm of combat. In RQ2 its quite fast,and pausing at a critical moment to make a decision about which special effect to use could upset that rhythm. For me at least RQ2 has a good balance in this respect. 

The thing is, special effects are the place where Impale and other things like it are. It's not really an arsenal, though I can see why a person might view it that way. It's the place where you place things that are the result of combat beyond damage. Entangle is there, for nets, and only entangling weapons can use it. Bash (aka pushing back) is there, and only blunt weapons and shields can use it. Tripping is there, and anyone can do it, but it is also not a good choice all the time - say if you rolled poorly, but still hit (bottom end of your hit range, but not a critical), because it is an opposed roll and easily countered. 

Fumbles in Mythras also provide opportunities for special effects, though the opponent must succeed to be granted them. These include things like hitting your buddy or yourself or having a weapon malfunction. 

I can certainly see the view that it could upset the rhythm. I've seen some players get paralyzed with the choices available to them. there are a couple of reasons for this, but none are particularly difficult to deal with - read the rules, pay attention instead of being on your phone, etc. 

frankly, I find Mythras combat it be quite fast, being over in a couple of rounds. This is based on a year of campaign or so, with combat most every session. I would say that it is a touch more complex than my memories of rq2, and it's probably more complex than the current iteration of 5e d&d (that one has no impaling, no specials, no defense rolls, etc). It is also quite deadly, similar to rq2, and has hit locations. 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1 hour ago, Doug nordwall said:

The thing is, special effects are the place where Impale and other things like it are.

Yes  agreed.

In RQ2 its enables increased damage with characteristics of the particular weapon type (impale, crush, slash) , whereas in Mythras it appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to give the fighter a choice of special attack, not limited to just weapon type damage as in RQ2 (impale, crush, slash), but also tactical manouvres like the mentioned tripping.  

I've not played Mythras (so correct me if I'm wrong) but It seems to me that these same tactical options in Mythras are already built into RQ2. Mechanically they are achieved in RQ2 by making a specific type of attack, instead of relying on a special/critical roll to access them. So for instance tripping could be achieved by making a knock back attack in RQ2,  disarm is possible as well as a special type of attack etc.

On balance I think I prefer keeping the specials/criticals as a way of inflicting more/maximum damage from a weapon type only, and keeping the tactical manoeuvres as a special form of attack as in RQ2.  You still have tactical options but the action isn't slowed down at critical moments through deciding what special effect to use. Though i'm sure it gets easier with practice,  I think the RQ2 approach is a little less intimidating to a newbie. 

[Raleel]

9 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes  agreed.

In RQ2 its enables increased damage with characteristics of the particular weapon type (impale, crush, slash) , whereas in Mythras it appears (correct me if I'm wrong) to give the fighter a choice of special attack, not limited to just weapon type damage as in RQ2 (impale, crush, slash), but also tactical manouvres like the mentioned tripping.  

I've not played Mythras (so correct me if I'm wrong) but It seems to me that these same tactical options in Mythras are already built into RQ2. Mechanically they are achieved in RQ2 by making a specific type of attack, instead of relying on a special/critical roll to access them. So for instance tripping could be achieved by making a knock back attack in RQ2,  disarm is possible as well as a special type of attack etc.

On balance I think I prefer keeping the specials/criticals as a way of inflicting more/maximum damage from a weapon type only, and keeping the tactical manoeuvres as a special form of attack as in RQ2.  You still have tactical options but the action isn't slowed down at critical moments through deciding what special effect to use. Though i'm sure it gets easier with practice,  I think the RQ2 approach is a little less intimidating to a newbie. 

depends on the attack, but yes, largely that would be the case. Sometimes, they don't make sense in the context of the attack, of course, and thus are not allowed (choose location on large targets can't hit the head, for example). Some special effects are pretty specialized, and require special training to even get access to (kill silently, for example). But you generally do get a choice, even if that choice is to cause your opponent to go back on his heels and be forced to spend his next action defending.

In the case of Impale, Bleed, and Stun Location (which would probably be roughly comparable to Impale, Crush, and Slash), they are enabled by the weapon, but they are not necessarily strictly increased damage. Impale, for example, does increase damage by allowing it to be rolled twice and taking the highest. It also leaves the weapon in the target, and additional damage is caused on removal. Bleed, on the other hand, doesn't do additional damage, but it does cause fatigue, which simulates blood loss. Stun Location, as you might guess, is a knockout blow to a location. You must have the right weapon for each of these. Remise requires a small weapon. Entangle requires an Entangling weapon. Entrapping weapons can Pin Weapon without the need for a critical.

I would not say that it is "relying on a special/critical roll to access". A simple hit, combined with your opponent's inability to defend, or even unwillingness to defend, will give you one. If you hit and he does not or cannot defend, you get 1. if you critical and he does not defend, you get 2 along with access to the critical ones. If you critical and he fumbles his defense (note, he has to try to fumble), you get 3 special effects as well as access to attacker criticals and defender fumbles special effects. 

As far as preferences go, and easier in practice, that likely depends on the person. I certainly have seen this in my game. I've also seen players who really savor the special effects and find that it brings something to combat they previously had not experienced in any system. The determination of what you are going to do - specific kind of attack (does a RQ2 trip attack cause damage?) vs determining once your attack has been made is just a preference and a timing thing. my own group tended to have a small set of choices ready.

Your Mythras/Runequest/Glorantha will vary and all that  

[nDervish]

17 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

On balance I think I prefer keeping the specials/criticals as a way of inflicting more/maximum damage from a weapon type only, and keeping the tactical manoeuvres as a special form of attack as in RQ2.  You still have tactical options but the action isn't slowed down at critical moments through deciding what special effect to use. Though i'm sure it gets easier with practice,  I think the RQ2 approach is a little less intimidating to a newbie. 

That's certainly the most common way to do it.  The problem, in my experience (and my opinion; you may not consider this "a problem") is that nobody ever uses the tactical options when they're a special form of attack, declared before rolling to hit.  This is partly because it's easiest to just take the default action (a normal attack), but, also, most game systems actively discourage their use by first penalizing the attack roll for these special attacks and then making them all-or-nothing.  Except for highly-situational cases where the special attack is basically a desperation play to get the side-effect that you absolutely need at that moment, a normal attack is almost always the better option.

Mythras turns that on its head in order to get (at least in theory) more dynamic combat.  Instead of saying "if you want to stab through a gap in your opponent's armor, you have to roll a crit; if you fail to crit, you miss entirely", Mythras says "when you crit on an attack, you have the option of stabbing through a gap in your opponent's armor (or taking a different SE); if you don't crit, you still hit and do damage normally".  The Special Effects are added on top of the normal effects of the attack and you never lose anything by using (or attempting; some can be resisted) an SE in Mythras, so they get used a lot more often.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

10 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

 Some special effects are pretty specialized, and require special training to even get access to (kill silently, for example). But you generally do get a choice, even if that choice is to cause your opponent to go back on his heels and be forced to spend his next action defending.

Sounds interesting. Good that there is thought on appropriateness of the special effects, and that some are restricted specialisations.

 

10 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

Impale, for example, does increase damage by allowing it to be rolled twice and taking the highest. It also leaves the weapon in the target, and additional damage is caused on removal

Thats the same in RQ2 IIRC. 

 

10 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

Bleed, on the other hand, doesn't do additional damage, but it does cause fatigue, which simulates blood loss

This is not a special attack in RQ2, but blood loss through negative hit points in a location is possible and can result in death if not healed. I think RQ3 may have introduced the idea of fatigue from blood loss, but fatigue was a bore to use in RQ3.

 

10 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

Stun Location, as you might guess, is a knockout blow to a location

RQ3 introduced stun/subdue attack, but restricted to aiming for the head. Weapon damage was pitted against head hit points on the resistance table. I believe limbs could also effectively be stunned/subdued by major damage to the location.

 

10 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

Remise requires a small weapon

Is an nasty but interesting tactic for small stabbing weapons. No workable equivalent in RQ2. Making 2 attacks requires 100% or above attack ability, which can then be split in two. So 2 attacks at 50% etc

 

10 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

Entangle requires an Entangling weapon. Entrapping weapons can Pin Weapon without the need for a critical.

I'm pretty sure that certain weapons had this ability in RQ2/3  - nets, sword breaker etc. But they may have required a special success to access the entangle effect?

10 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

does a RQ2 trip attack cause damage?

Knockback in RQ2 didn't result in weapon damage as well. I believe falling as a result of knockback happened in RQ2 on a special success. RQ3 changed it to a Dex x5 roll to stay standing. RQ3 formalised knockback damage related to distance travelled, and whether you collided with a solid or moveable object.

However RQ3 also changed knockback to be a result of any attack where damage exceeds the size of the opponent by at least 5 points. So in RQ3 knockback could also do weapon damage.  You still had the option of making an intentional knockback attack too.

10 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

I would not say that it is "relying on a special/critical roll to access". A simple hit, combined with your opponent's inability to defend, or even unwillingness to defend, will give you one.

Ah I see I didn't realise that. So special effects are accessed when the opponent fails to defend succesfully , as well as criticals? Thats pretty deadly.

 

1 hour ago, nDervish said:

That's certainly the most common way to do it.  The problem, in my experience (and my opinion; you may not consider this "a problem") is that nobody ever uses the tactical options when they're a special form of attack, declared before rolling to hit.  This is partly because it's easiest to just take the default action (a normal attack), but, also, most game systems actively discourage their use by first penalizing the attack roll for these special attacks and then making them all-or-nothing.  Except for highly-situational cases where the special attack is basically a desperation play to get the side-effect that you absolutely need at that moment, a normal attack is almost always the better option.

Mythras turns that on its head in order to get (at least in theory) more dynamic combat.  Instead of saying "if you want to stab through a gap in your opponent's armor, you have to roll a crit; if you fail to crit, you miss entirely", Mythras says "when you crit on an attack, you have the option of stabbing through a gap in your opponent's armor (or taking a different SE); if you don't crit, you still hit and do damage normally".  The Special Effects are added on top of the normal effects of the attack and you never lose anything by using (or attempting; some can be resisted) an SE in Mythras, so they get used a lot more often.

Thats a fair point. There is an element of penalisation in RQ2/3 for using these tactical options, which may result in you missing altogether. I guess as long as it balances with the extra benefit of the special attack then that should to some extent circumvent the disincentive for using them. 

 

Very interesting thanks guys I've leant something new regarding Mythras and RQ2, a window on their respective game designs

Edited April 11, 2017 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Raleel]

I should mention (and am not going to quote for laziness and brevity) that remise, in the Mythras case, means you get a follow up attack which uses action points (base unit of action economy). It would probably be closer (as I understand it) to forcing the attacker to defend only the next round.

in the case of knockback and trip, trip is explicitly put to prone. There is also a Bash special effect which moves away and can cause prone if they are not careful. There is also knockback, which is based on doing a lot of damage.

and yes, special effects are accessed when you succeed and your opponent fails. There is also a small case where you can critical, your opponent succeeds, and you get to access one SE which can be a critical based one. This case is largely there because success on a defense will often (though not always, see dagger blocking two handed sword) block all the damage. In this case, the critical special effect can be "circumvent parry" which allows for a normal strike, even though they parried. 

Honestly, I wonder if folks will start just using rune magic from RQG and then pull in the combat from Mythras for their own games. 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

I think the important thing for me is that RQG can model these interesting and colourful attack options in its own way. I'd like to see an intuitive open approach to making colourful special attacks  ( which is already largely possible in RQ2 ). I think one of the good things about Mythras is that it lays these options explicitly on the table, so helps the player realise cool options. If RQG could expand a little on the suggestions for special attacks already present in RQ2/3, perhaps keeping it fairly simple mechanically, then that would be a useful improvisation tool in game for extra cool combat options. The key for me is not overcomplicating the system, as started to happen with RQ3.

37 minutes ago, Doug nordwall said:

There is also a Bash special effect which moves away and can cause prone if they are not careful.

Yes RQ3 has knockback tied to bludgeoning weapons as well, think it was connected with succeeding with a special IIRC. RQ3 introduced a few more combat options, which could easily have been expanded on to incapsulate the options that are present in Mythras. The key I think is keeping it simple and intuitive, and allow for improvisation.

[Raleel]

23 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I think the important thing for me is that RQG can model these interesting and colourful attack options in its own way. I'd like to see an intuitive open approach to making colourful special attacks  ( which is already largely possible in RQ2 ). I think one of the good things about Mythras is that it lays these options explicitly on the table, so helps the player realise cool options. If RQG could expand a little on the suggestions for special attacks already present in RQ2/3, perhaps keeping it fairly simple mechanically, then that would be a useful improvisation tool in game for extra cool combat options. The key for me is not overcomplicating the system, as started to happen with RQ3.

Yes RQ3 has knockback tied to bludgeoning weapons as well, think it was connected with succeeding with a special IIRC. RQ3 introduced a few more combat options, which could easily have been expanded on to incapsulate the options that are present in Mythras. The key I think is keeping it simple and intuitive, and allow for improvisation.

I think that this discussion really points to a fundamental excellence in the base of the brp/d100 family of games. Folks who want any particular approach can get it, and can largely change pieces to suit their own evolution with little worry about it hooking in to other things and causing breakage across the entire system. 

[Yelm's Light]

2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Thats the same in RQ2 IIRC. 

RQ2 impales add the rolled damage (including bonuses) to the maximum possible damage.  There's an optional rule that will cause damage to the impaled target if they don't pull out the stuck weapon, but that's the only case mentioned.

 

2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I think RQ3 may have introduced the idea of fatigue from blood loss, but fatigue was a bore to use in RQ3.

Agreed.  More crunch, less flow.  I'm also not a big fan of a character at maximum ENC immediately going into penalty for taking pretty much any action whatsoever.  RQ2's ENC rules are workable and, as importantly, simple.

 

2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Is an nasty but interesting tactic for small stabbing weapons. No workable equivalent in RQ2. Making 2 attacks requires 100% or above attack ability, which can then be split in two. So 2 attacks at 50% etc

In RQ2 there's the special case of dual wielding, where the attacker can choose to forego a parry in a round to get a second attack at the normal attack chance.

 

2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I'm pretty sure that certain weapons had this ability in RQ2/3  - nets, sword breaker etc. But they may have required a special success to access the entangle effect?

I don't think it's mentioned in the main RQ2 rules, but I remember scenarios that introduced special rules.  For instance, the newtlings in the Rainbow Caves in Apple Lane had nets that would cause an enemy fumble on his/her next action, only required a hit, and could be parried.

 

Edited April 11, 2017 by Yelm's Light

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 26 September 2016 at 8:04 AM, Jeff said:

The weapon damage of a special (or critical) success depends on the type of weapon. We all know the good old Impale. Twice normal damage plus the weapon gets stuck (which can cause continued damage, but also means the attacker must pull out the weapon or lose its use). Impales tend to kill.

Slash also does twice normal damage. If the hit points in the location equal or are surpassed by the slashing damage, the target must make a roll or be incapacitated. Slashes tend to incapacitate.

Crush adds maximum possible damage bonus (on top of regular rolled damage bonus). This is horrific when you are fighting someone with a +2D6 or greater damage modifier (like a large dark troll or a great troll). 

 

 I've lifted this from a post on Special attacks in the new RQG full post found here

It shows the colourful type of damage dealt in the new Runequest by different weapon types on a special hit. Crush is devasting when paired with large creatures. I really like the sound of that. 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

So the RQ2 special weapon damage has been tweaked a little and incorporated into the new RQG, using the old Impale, Slash, Crush damages. Slash seems to have changed most, being better conceptualised then it was in RQ2. In RQ2 I think it stood on impales toes a little with the chance of having the weapon stuck in the opponent. The focus on incapacitated is new for slash i think? Have to wait to see the new rules, but in RQ2 limbs were incapacitated when they reached 0 hit points or less. Not sure whether the new slash rules indicate a change to that RQ2 ruling?

 

[styopa]

4 hours ago, Doug nordwall said:

Honestly, I wonder if folks will start just using rune magic from RQG and then pull in the combat from Mythras for their own games. 

Nah.  I'm not terribly fond of the determinism in picking special effects, frankly.  I think the Mythras model works well enough for mano-a-mano duelling, but doesn't scale to (my imagining) mass combats very well?  I think the action-point budget weights numbers of combatants extremely heavily - too much so for fun, really.  It might be exceptionally realistic, but then again RQ has to rationalize some things: frex we let SIZ 8 things have a STR of 15 (shrug).  The numbers-advantage might work well enough for the players because vs the BBEG it usually is a handful of players ultimately vs one, but especially as players get to be more powerful, numbers will turn against them - ultimately (in Mythras) almost penalizing players for becoming powerful in a way (with no AoE spells, etc) that they can't counteract.

4 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes RQ3 has knockback tied to bludgeoning weapons as well, think it was connected with succeeding with a special IIRC. 

IIRC RQ2 started to have this in its appendix combat options?  But yeah, RQ3 formalized it.  

I'd evolved my house rules to something actually simpler in application, NOT based on specials: bashing weapons, if damage>=SIZ (bipeds), check to fall prone.  For every 1/3 SIZ in excess, possibly go back 1m if check failed.  If multiple of SIZ, automatically go back 1d3m for each multiple of siz, then check to fall prone.*  Specials would do much more damage, so they were simply more likely to induce such effects.  

*neat result: just using club damage (1d6) and assuming a baseball is SIZ 0.1, this means a typical player would bat a ball 35d3 meters or on average about 200' or a max of 345' w/o strength bonus.  Home runs are typically 340+ feet.  Mickey Mantle's 'longest home run ever' of 643 ft is slightly less than a perfect roll on a special (or more likely a special plus a sizeable damage mod).  

 

Ultimately, the RQG rules are going to be just the same as any other rules set: amenable to houseruling as needed.  I'm just looking forward to a core system that's a living, breathing, supported product that lets me run games and if people want to buy the rules somewhere, it doesn't have to be some ancient collector's price from ebay.

[Raleel]

4 hours ago, styopa said:

Nah.  I'm not terribly fond of the determinism in picking special effects, frankly.  I think the Mythras model works well enough for mano-a-mano duelling, but doesn't scale to (my imagining) mass combats very well?  I think the action-point budget weights numbers of combatants extremely heavily - too much so for fun, really.  It might be exceptionally realistic, but then again RQ has to rationalize some things: frex we let SIZ 8 things have a STR of 15 (shrug).  The numbers-advantage might work well enough for the players because vs the BBEG it usually is a handful of players ultimately vs one, but especially as players get to be more powerful, numbers will turn against them - ultimately (in Mythras) almost penalizing players for becoming powerful in a way (with no AoE spells, etc) that they can't counteract.

And that's good! Don't have to play a way you don't want to  I know there was a lot of consternation a while back about Glorantha and RQ6 not being possible now,  but folks can do as they like really. Some folks may like Glorantha with this style of combat. Some may like it with 13th age or RQG .

as for mass combats, I think it scales just fine depending on your definition of mass. If I want a lot of guys (10 or more), I use rabble, which go down in a hit, or underlings, which go down in two, and don't really have any hit locations. Worked well for me, even running 10 or 12 on the GM side with five player characters. I can quite comfortably do 6-8 full locations and full special effects at a time. 

Really, nothing says there are no AOE spells. Sorcery has multi target spells - every last one - and theism has many. Even animism have large elemental spirits, which are, in a way, AOE. Mysticism deals with the problem differently.

I think I get what you are saying about numbers, but it is manageable, just not in the run into it and hope to live sort of way. But, depending on the power level of your campaign, that is quite possible - mystics with high levels of skill and augmentation can virtually walk through without spending actions on defense and are assured hits. 

[nDervish]

14 hours ago, styopa said:

Nah.  I'm not terribly fond of the determinism in picking special effects, frankly.  I think the Mythras model works well enough for mano-a-mano duelling, but doesn't scale to (my imagining) mass combats very well?  I think the action-point budget weights numbers of combatants extremely heavily - too much so for fun, really.

While Mythras is my preferred flavor overall, I do agree with both of these criticisms, to the extent of having bikeshedded some potential solutions that I'd like to try out, although I haven't actually gotten around to testing either one yet.

For the first, the obvious solution is to limit which SEs are available on any given attack, which is made even easier with TDM's release of the SE cards.  In principle, I could now print myself a customized deck of SE cards and, whenever someone gets an SE, deal them one card for every 20% skill (or whatever) and have them choose from those SEs.  Or perhaps each player holds a hand of some number of SE cards, with a new combat action allowing them to discard and replace cards from their hand by "repositioning" themselves in the melee to open up new avenues of attack.  Of course, before actually implementing this, I'll need to decide how many times each individual SE should be represented in the deck...

For the second, I've been toying with ideas for replacing the AP economy with Magic World rules (skill over 100% can be split for multiple attacks; unlimited defense attempts at a cumulative -30% penalty for each attempt after the first), but a lot of combat Special Effects interact directly with the AP system (e.g., the Pin Weapon SE prevents you from using your next AP to attack) and I haven't come up with a good way of handling them if AP are no longer a thing.

[Mankcam]

I don't really see the array of combat manuvers to be neither a feature or a flaw in Mythras, but rather just a trait of the game. One man's trash is anothet man's treasure kind of thing.

Two of the players in my group would react to them very differently

One would love the ammount of choice available, and would no doubt study up on the options so he could get the best out of every situation. 

The other player would probably just grind to an inert halt, being overwhelmed by the perceived sheer volume of choices.

So I guess it is really up to the kind of players in the troupe whether the combat manuvers are a boon to game flow or not.

However you look at it, they certainly build upon the tactile flavour of combat that is already inherent in BRP. 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Mankcam

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

21 minutes ago, Mankcam said:

I don't really see the array of combat manuvers to be neither a feature or a flaw in Mythras, but rather just a trait of the game. One man's trash is anothet man's treasure kind of thing.

Two of the players in my group would react to them very differently

One would love the ammount of choice available, and would no doubt study up on the options so he could get the best out of every situation. 

The other player would probably just grind to an inert halt, being overwhelmed by the perceived sheer volume of choices.

So I guess it is really up to the kind of players in the troupe whether the combat manuvers are a boon to game flow or not.

However you look at it, they certainly build upon the tactile flavour of combat that is already inherent in BRP. 

Agree, there are virtues to both approaches from sounds of it. I think Its very healthy for RPGs (and BRP type games) that we have game designers still innovating and trying out new interesting approaches.  

Personally a more streamlined approach may be easier for me to deal with (its probably a fine balance with RQ), particularly as a GM where managing more options could slow down the game and perhaps loose sight of the story line. I remember aspects of RQ3 stated to become cumbersome in this way, with too much record keeping creeping in for my taste, though i still enjoyed the game. I guess as with anything more game time will help the game to flow whatever flavour RPG you choose. 

[Mankcam]

Although I love Mythras, a more streamlined approach like classic BRP games does suit my current my troupe much better, so I am glad that RQG is keeping with this way of doing it. 

A Special success with an attack roll causes a bonus effect based upon the type of damage inflicted - this suits me fine.

It certainly doesn't happen all the time, so when it does then it is a highlight. You also know straight away which bonus effect to apply, so it does not slow down game play at all when it occurs.

I prefer the optional rules for these special effects from RQ2 to their BGB counterparts, although the BGB included additional effects like Entangling and such which I think could be easily added to the RQ2 Special Effects of Impaling, Crushing, and Slashing; all this would all work well together for the new RQG edition. 

For Critical Successes I actually prefer how it works in CoC 7E. Here the critical success only happens on a roll of '01', so it's immediately clear when it occurs. Very simple.

However the result is left wide open to the GM. In CoC 7E it can be purely a narrative result with the GM determining what occurs; or it can be a mixture of rules and narrative, such as the standard special success plus some kind of additional grandstanding moment.

In the Pulp CoC 7E supplement there is a list of suggested additional effects to combine to the standard weapon special success, ranging from the old RQ3 and BGB Critical Effects through to some new ones.

I think something like this would be welcome way of doing it in RQG, as it does give a real 'wow' factor to rolling a critical success. 

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Mankcam

[Jason D]

On 4/9/2017 at 1:18 PM, HorusArisen said:

As an aside you guys should get a playtester to write an I gamer style promotional piece.

Its great hearing from the designers but you describe it very mechanically for the most part, if still enthusiastically.

Would be good to hear from a player why this is the game to go with.

That will come.  

[Jason D]

On 4/9/2017 at 11:05 PM, styopa said:

Jason, if you don't mind pulling back the covers a little more on this, how do such point pools and spell access work for associated cults?  Is it just more spells in your castable list, or do they cost an extra point or...?

You can certainly join an associated cult, and that cult's Rune magic will become available to you, but your Rune points are tracked separately. If a Rune spell is offered by multiple cults, you can pick which Rune point pool you're using when you cast the spell. 

[Richard S.]

57 minutes ago, Jason Durall said:

You can certainly join an associated cult, and that cult's Rune magic will become available to you, but your Rune points are tracked separately. If a Rune spell is offered by multiple cults, you can pick which Rune point pool you're using when you cast the spell. 

So each cult has a separate pool? That's interesting. Also, are associate cults available for joining by anyone, or only Rune Priests like in RQ2.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Jason Durall said:

You can certainly join an associated cult, and that cult's Rune magic will become available to you, but your Rune points are tracked separately. If a Rune spell is offered by multiple cults, you can pick which Rune point pool you're using when you cast the spell. 

... So a Storm Khan might have entries on his character-sheet like:

• Storm Bull (17 _____________ )
• Ernalda (6 ________)
• Waha (4 _______)

Indicating 17 Rune Points given to the Bull, and 17 points of Rune Magic cast'able ad-lib from any the Bull offers; and 6 points given to Ernalda, and 4 to Waha (the lines after to track use of points).

Is that correct (erm... correct-ish, I presume I haven't written it in the exact format Chaosium has) ?

 

[Mugen]

On 08/04/2017 at 4:58 PM, HorusArisen said:

1.how do characters differ?

2.what is different about combat?

Based on my knowledge of RQ2:

1. An important difference is that characters have generic hit points and localized hit points. If you're hit in the arm for 3 points, both generic hit points and arm hit points will be decreased by 3 points.

Skills have a base value, and belong to one of 7 categories. Each category has a modifier attached to it, which is expressed as a multiple of 5%. Contrarily to RQ6, a 1-point difference in a characteristic will usually not have any impact on these modifiers. For instance, in RQ2 characters with STR 17 to 20 will all get the same +5% modifier to attack skills, and characters with STR 21 to 24 will all get +10% to those skills.

2. The most obvious difference is that the number of actions is not based on characters' DEX and INT.

Another major difference is that initiative use "Strike Ranks", which are determined by your DEX, SIZ (for melee attacks) and weapon length. SR range from 1 (quickiest action) to 12 (very slow action, or second action in a round). Usually, a bowman will attack at SR 3, an pole arm fighter at SR 5, and a 1 handed weapon fighter at SR 7.

Another difference is how Sorcery will work. In RQG, each spell will need a different skill, and you need to spend as many MPs as you put effects levels (intensity, Range, Duration) in a spell. You also need to master Runes and Techniques before learning spells, a process that is binary (that is, you either have mastered a Rune -or a Technique-or not), and not related to your runes affinities.

[soltakss]

16 hours ago, Richard S. said:

So each cult has a separate pool? That's interesting. Also, are associate cults available for joining by anyone, or only Rune Priests like in RQ2.

I would houserule this, almost certainly.

Pantheonic pools make a lot of sense, so a worshipper of Orlanth should be able to use the Orlanth Pool to cast Thunder Brothers spells and a worshipper of Eiritha should be able to use her Eiritha Pool to cast spells from the Procectoresses.

[soltakss]

16 hours ago, g33k said:

... So a Storm Khan might have entries on his character-sheet like:

• Storm Bull (17 _____________ )
• Ernalda (6 ________)
• Waha (4 _______)

Indicating 17 Rune Points given to the Bull, and 17 points of Rune Magic cast'able ad-lib from any the Bull offers; and 6 points given to Ernalda, and 4 to Waha (the lines after to track use of points).

Is that correct (erm... correct-ish, I presume I haven't written it in the exact format Chaosium has) ?

 

I would think that it would be something similar to:

• Storm Bull (17, Berserker, Face Chaos, Spirit of Law, Earthpower)

Casting Earthpower would use the Storm Bull Pool as Eiritha gives Earthpower to Storm Bull. 

A Storm Bull worshipper who also worships Waha might have:

• Storm Bull (17, Berserker, Face Chaos, Summon Spirit of Law, Earthpower)
• Waha (4, Speak to Beasts, Cremate Dead)

He could cast the Summon Spirit of Law using either the Storm Bull or Waha Pools, even though the spell is against the Storm Bull Pool.

Of course, until the rules come out, this is pure speculation.

 

[Jusmak]

About cinematic aspect (which has nothing to do with realism) of RQ2/3 and Mythras, I like there is in both systems many possibilities to do with a character. But saying Mythras is more cinematic because of special effects, which are always read from piece of paper same way is cinematic? 

At first I would like to ponder how cinematic experience in created. What I think cinematic experience is some kind of slow motion of high lighted action. 

Can this be created any other way than reading aloud something written in paper? Is there option to create something like that by storytelling, using own imagination, like people playing heroquest do? When I played Mythras as forum game, we had no fights. Only few skill rolls. But work GM made created cinematic, storytelling experience, because of exellent description of NPSs, places and situations. So, there was highlights without action, even. Tension and threat created, atmosphere of different places.

GM can make dull high level combat in RQ2 more interesting, by very fast paced dice rolling, like you were fighting with dices. If you just wait for special or critical, you may ignore fast all normal throws and build exitement to wait in flurry of blows, when opening is found.

Real thing is, what you make of the system. You may get even DD more cinematic than any other game just by adding more fluent description. If players and GM all put their efforts that kind of play, it will be so.

I played rolemaster too long and I grew allergic reading same effects in every encounter, as player has nothing else to do than throw dice. Others think it is cinematic play. To me it is crap.