RQ3 Close Combat

[Mikus]

In RQ3 when a weapon with a greater SR, (shorter), closes with a weapon having a lesser SR, (longer), the longer weapon loses the SR advantage and only has 1 action per CT.

This seems to indicate that a 2-handed weapon normally having 2 actions is affected but a 1-handed spear suffers no ill effect, other than to lose the SR advantage.

Is this correct?

From my understanding this places a 2-handed weapon on par with a 1-handed weapon, which also only gets 1 action per CT, except that the 2-handed wielder obviously cannot wield a second weapon or shield.

Is this correct?

For the 2 handed weapon to regain the 2 actions, (attack and parry), would they have to disengage then reengage?

Thank you!

 

[simonh]

It isn that 1 handed weapons get 1 action. You can use a 1 handed weapon for both attack and parry if you want. It’s the character that has the actions, not the weapon. I’m pretty sure there’s no difference between a 1 handed spear and 2 handed spear in this regard.

I don’t  have RQ3 available right now to check the rules in detail, but I’m pretty sure that if you have a longer weapon and are closed on, you are down to one action if you attempt to use it with that weapon. If you use other means such as a kick, punch (presumably taking 1 hand off your 2 handed weapon to do so if necessary), etc, you still get 2 actions.

I believe there were specific rules on how to close, and how to increase the engagement distance again without disengaging.

Simon Hibbs

[MJ Sadique]

On 05/04/2018 at 6:09 AM, Mikus said:

In RQ3 when a weapon with a greater SR, (shorter), closes with a weapon having a lesser SR, (longer), the longer weapon loses the SR advantage and only has 1 action per CT.

1/ This seems to indicate that a 2-handed weapon normally having 2 actions is affected but a 1-handed spear suffers no ill effect, other than to lose the SR advantage.

Is this correct?

2/ From my understanding this places a 2-handed weapon on par with a 1-handed weapon, which also only gets 1 action per CT, except that the 2-handed wielder obviously cannot wield a second weapon or shield.

Is this correct?

3/ For the 2 handed weapon to regain the 2 actions, (attack and parry), would they have to disengage then reengage?

Thank you!

Almost All Good !

In RQ3, When you are in a melee fight If you want to engage/disengage in close combat for the next round, you have to state in this round and spend 1SR in the next round !

1/ The Rules state a longer weapon ! Which mean two-handed spear vs one-hand spear or One-hand spear vs Dagger... (only different SR weapons is needed)
-The longer weapon lose one action (and SR advantage...read next line)
-The shorter weapon will ALWAYS strike first whatever the SR is !!!
If they both have equal length weapon, They both have only action a usual SR (with the 1SR for the player making the closing)

1-So Correct !

2/ No. In one C.T, a 1-handed weapon can be used for attack or parry, 2-handed weapon for attack and parry... and TWO 1-Handed weapons for 2 attacks or 2 parries or one-of-each...

2-Not Correct

3/ No... They only have to disengage from close combat to melee combat but it's not explained, probably because :
-Closing is a special tactic linked to an attack, which mean you have to do it each round (like a short distance charge ....)
-You just have to spend at least 1SR to move from close combat to a melee distance (RQ3 is much like a figurine boardgames system)

May be Correct

[Mikus]

Thank you,

For number 3, the longer handed weapon has the option to keep the distance open by increasing his SR by 1.

Now if both increase the SR by 1 they are effectively in the same boat in regards to each other, although some other attacker might now get a strike in.

So why would anyone allow someone to close and become disadvantaged when in effect it costs nothing to maintain the status quo?

I should think Closing and 'Breaking', (Disengaging is something different), should possibly require a skill roll or resistance roll if opposed.

I can think of very few good reasons for someone with a great-sword not to take the 1SR to keep an attacker with two short-swords from closing when you consider the trade off.

       closer - 1SR gets strike rank advantage, limits opponent to 1 action

       breaker - 1SR maintains SR advantage, (effectively free), and maintains 2 actions.

So in what circumstances would someone not keep the closer at bay?

[MJ Sadique]

1 hour ago, Mikus said:

So in what circumstances would someone not keep the closer at bay?

They are indeed very few reasons, mainly :
-You cannot spend 1SR ! If your based SR is 10, whatever the reasons, you cannot attack the next turn
-You just cannot move away from him  ie you can only keep the distance as long as you can move but if your feet are stuck or you turn your back to a wall, a hole or a bigger danger...
-You fight someone with a weapon as long as yours; So if you don't want him to be able to parry or dodge, you let him get close... 1 action for the two sides but he strike 1SR latter.

Another a-bit-abuse-of-the-rule could be : You have a 2H spear (SR+1) and get attack by a two 1Handed-sword (SR+2) and let him come close...
-In the new round, You declare your action after the other guys : I throw away my spear at the cost of 0SR and fight with my hands (SR+3)
-The situation is reversed : You have the shorter weapon with 2 actions plus you strike first AND the others guys have only one action at SR+1
-Even if he do the same thing with his weapons, He still get a surprised modifier (SR+3); You and him have 1 action only but he have a SR+4 modifier (closing+surprised !)

[Mikus]

Sounds like there is a lot of options hid in these rules which might not be apparent at first glance.  I think I need to write out a cheat sheet with all the options and modifiers.  The exercise in doing it as well as the finished project might be very instructive.

Thanks again!

 

[RosenMcStern]

First Point: the rule in the RQ3 text that says that 1H weapons can either attack or parry in one round is superseded by an official errata that says that all weapons can both attack and parry in a round, just not on the same SR. I strongly advise you get that errata sheet, in contains important clarifications.

Second, RQ3 is 35 years old (RQ as a whole is almost 40). The system in itself is very solid, and still fun to play, but some details had not been ironed out in that specific ruleset. Regarding closing, the rules are usable and fun, but there are obvious loopholes like the ones you spotted. Most newer rulesets demand an opposed roll to "enter the guard" of the longer weapon before inflicting the disadvantage, which is less prone to confusion and more fun.

Either you accept RQ3 as "granpa D100" and have fun playing it as it is (and I guarantee you that you will have fun) or you start looking elsewhere. Trying to rationalise a 35-year old ruleset which has undergone at least a dozen iterations in the meantime is a sure recipe for reinventing the wheel, that is coming up with something that is similar to an already existing solution - but not playtested. There is a gazillion more advanced versions of the rules, and other in the making, that have a better answer to your questions and are highly compatible with the classic editions of RQ.

The same applies to your objections (which are reasonable) to SR and time.

[Runeblogger]

i was going to reply more or less what Rosen just said. 
I love RQ3, but when you play it a lot, you start seeing these loopholes.
I even wrote a list of all the things RQ3 is poor in (use gadget to the right to translate into your language).

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Runeblogger

[Mikus]

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

Either you accept RQ3 as "granpa D100" and have fun playing it as it is (and I guarantee you that you will have fun) or you start looking elsewhere. Trying to rationalise a 35-year old ruleset which has undergone at least a dozen iterations in the meantime is a sure recipe for reinventing the wheel, that is coming up with something that is similar to an already existing solution - but not playtested. There is a gazillion more advanced versions of the rules, and other in the making, that have a better answer to your questions and are highly compatible with the classic editions of RQ.

The same applies to your objections (which are reasonable) to SR and time.

This being said were you to have no irons in the fire and knowing what you now know which set of rules would you use as your base platform?

Looking through all the rules it seems to me I might have to fiddle with any a bit to get what I really THINK I want but what I think I want VS what works best and most consistant during play is most likely not the same thing.

I imagine some RQ3 derivative using real time, melee and missile hit tables, MRQ type skills, no Luck, Hero or Feats please, experience rolls for skills used and training, study for those not used, (RQ3 again), Parry and Attack separate.  Looking through the rules sets it seems RQ3 is actually the closest to what I think I like but I do find MRQ skills a bit more sensible than categories.  As for 'supported' that is basically a non-issue. Between PDFs of old rules sets, RPGNow reprints, eBay and Amazon there is hardly anything OOP. (Or at least unobtainable).  One could easily argue that never before was there such an availability and the actual problem is making a choice.   I just noticed you can get Empire of the Petal Throne and all the Swords and Glory stuff in Hardback.  Something you never could before!  And those have bee OOP since before most RPGers were even born.

I have been messing around with the MRQ SRD and some of these ideas so perhaps I'll just concoct my own and then Lulu it.  Its so easy and inexpensive to print your own books today that is a perfectly reasonable option for people to end up with their own codified house rules in a printed manual.

I remember playing white box D&D when it came out.  We loved it. We had fun. Many of my great gaming memories revolve around it and AD&D it and yet they were so primitive and lacking by todays standards that one would think it impossible. Same with Traveller. Those original 3 books in a little black box opened worlds.

[Mikus]

27 minutes ago, Runeblogger said:

i was going to reply more or less what Rosen just said. 
I love RQ3, but when you play it a lot, you start seeing these loopholes.
I even wrote a list of all the things RQ3 is poor in (use gadget to the right to translate into your language).

 

 

Thank you for that list.  I just scanned through it and will read if fully here in a bit.  I agree with using the Resistance Table for opposing skills and have thought the same thing myself.  That or opposed skills like in RQ6.  No need for separate systems.  Also, I would make getting skills over 95% difficult and over 100% very difficult.  Diminishing returns on experience rolls and such.  

[RosenMcStern]

14 hours ago, Mikus said:

This being said were you to have no irons in the fire and knowing what you now know which set of rules would you use as your base platform?

I DO have irons in the fire, this is the problem

Anyway, judging from your list of desires and problems, it sounds like the best route to expanding would be using the Big Gold Book as an expansion kit for RQ3. It shows how to simplify things where you want (it allows you to ditch SR and yet to have rules for closing with a longer weapon) and to keep complexity where you want, and it is highly compatible with CoC 1-6, RQ3 and Stombringer.

Two more important points:

- better disregard the MRQ SRD completely: it is full of flaws that one cannot but define as "bugs" and "gamebreakers". Its only advantage is that it is free, and could be used as a basis to create your own ruleset, but the pitfalls it contains are many and if you start from there you risk keeping some of them. Over the years, several authors have sanitized it and generated a usable, fun versions of the game by keeping the good ideas (there are some) and ditching the bugs. Use any one of them as the starting point for any personal ruleset you wish to make. if you use the original SRD from 2006, chances are you will eventually regret it.

-  I would strongly disadvise against making advancement over 95% and 100% more difficut. Either you do not wish to have skills over 100% at all, or it is better to let the players progress as much as they can beyond the 100% barrier. With your proposed variant, no player would probably ever go beyond 105%-110% even after years of campaigning, and 105% is really not worth it. Your character would have done "the effort to become a hero" and yet he would not be a hero at all, as 105% only allows a +1% in specials and the ability to split attacks at 52%, a tactics that is highly ineffective most of the time. No "wading through hordes of enemies", for sure.

[styopa]

19 hours ago, Mikus said:

This being said were you to have no irons in the fire and knowing what you now know which set of rules would you use as your base platform?

Simple: I think I'm not alone in saying that I'm waiting for RQG to finally release so I can have a currently living, breathing commercial product...on which to base my probable cavalcade of house rules.

[Mikus]

I shall did deeper into the BGB. Unfortunately they made it a big GURPS like monstrosity and that turns me off a bit.  It would have been great if it was something you could check off what you did not want then print on demand.  Ala carte printing!  That would be cool.

My issue with over 100% is that it becomes ungainly because percents were never designed to go past 100 when the die is pegged from 1-100.  Thats why it is hard to come up with a good answer.  IMO that is. Games like Rolemaster add the skill to a d100 roll, (not a %) and Hackmaster adds combat modifiers to a d20. Highest result is the best in both systems. No intrinsic caps.  Although I love BRP in general I have always thought that the Roll under your % chance inherently places a logical cap which is why skills over 100 are the red headed bastard of the system. MRQ1 seems to have chose to blatantly ignore that and I personally think that might have been one of the major problems. Think 200% and 300% skills in a roll under on a d100 system!!!   Thats like having to roll under 40 or 60 on a d20 in D&D.  If D&D did that we BRPers would be jeering and howling with glee.  Although I get 00 always fails, 01 always succeeds, special and critical go up as percentage goes up, it still feels ungainly to have skills so high.  At least to me. 

Anyhow, if over 100 is to be common than I think the system would have been better off adding your skill to a 1d100 roll.  Make it open ended where 99-00 means roll again and add and 01-05 means roll again and subtract.  More math but no over 100 problem.  Rolls of a double, (11, 22, 33, etc are Critical if you succeed and fumble if you fail.)

Other than silly high skills with no good way to resolve them why does MRQ get such a bad wrap?  I know it has some clunky bits but scanning through it I don't see it deserving the horrific reputation it has.  Now I have never played it so perhaps things come up in game that are not so apparent on the surface.

[Mikus]

3 minutes ago, styopa said:

Simple: I think I'm not alone in saying that I'm waiting for RQG to finally release so I can have a currently living, breathing commercial product...on which to base my probable cavalcade of house rules.

I hear you but it seems to me that Chaosium dropped the ball on RQ quite a bit in the past and LW and PN seem to be the ones with the fire in their belly.  "living and breathing" in this age are really up to the players.  Right now we have BRP, RQ1, RQ2, SB, CoC, (7 iterations?),RQ3, Elric!, MRQ, MRQII, Legend, RQ6, BGB, Mythras, OpenQuest, MW, RQC,... xxxQuest....OMG!!!!  .... all at our keyboards for download or purchase.  Not sure we needed another 'quest' but hopefully I will open it up and go OMG!!!!  THIS IS IT!  Either way WE will buy it because thats what WE do.....  Never having any particular interest in Glorantha makes RQG a curiosity for me. It would have to be modified simply because it is designed for Glorantha. It looks to me that it is going to be RuneQuest 2 played with Elric! rules. For that a source book for the BGB might have been the better choice.  I have come to terms that I will never be 'happy' with one system so I'll just have to buy them all!  whhh haaaahh haaaa   rubs hands evilly ....

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, Mikus said:

My issue with over 100% is that it becomes ungainly because percents were never designed to go past 100 when the die is pegged from 1-100.  Thats why it is hard to come up with a good answer.  IMO that is. Games like Rolemaster add the skill to a d100 roll, (not a %) and Hackmaster adds combat modifiers to a d20. Highest result is the best in both systems. No intrinsic caps.  Although I love BRP in general I have always thought that the Roll under your % chance inherently places a logical cap which is why skills over 100 are the red headed bastard of the system. MRQ1 seems to have chose to blatantly ignore that and I personally think that might have been one of the major problems. Think 200% and 300% skills in a roll under on a d100 system!!!   Thats like having to roll under 40 or 60 on a d20 in D&D.  If D&D did that we BRPers would be jeering and howling with glee.  Although I get 00 always fails, 01 always succeeds, special and critical go up as percentage goes up, it still feels ungainly to have skills so high.  At least to me.

Reaching 100% in a skill does not mean that you are at the pinnacle of the skill. Instead it means that you normally succeed at using the skill in normal conditions. Having a skill in excess of 100% means you normally succeed in the skill in difficult, extreme or near impossible conditions. 

So, someone with 100% normally succeeds if there are no modifiers. Someone with 120% normally always succceeds with a 20% difficulty, but the 100er only succeeds 80% of the time. Someone with 200% skill normally succeeds under most conditions, even when a 100er is reduced to a negligible skill.

If you cap skills at 100%, then having a difficulty modifier of -60 means that even experts are reduced to 40%, which makes little sense to me.

[soltakss]

1 hour ago, Mikus said:

I hear you but it seems to me that Chaosium dropped the ball on RQ quite a bit in the past and LW and PN seem to be the ones with the fire in their belly.  "living and breathing" in this age are really up to the players.  Right now we have BRP, RQ1, RQ2, SB, CoC, (7 iterations?),RQ3, Elric!, MRQ, MRQII, Legend, RQ6, BGB, Mythras, OpenQuest, MW, RQC,... xxxQuest....OMG!!!!  .... all at our keyboards for download or purchase.  Not sure we needed another 'quest' but hopefully I will open it up and go OMG!!!!  THIS IS IT!  Either way WE will buy it because thats what WE do.....  Never having any particular interest in Glorantha makes RQG a curiosity for me. It would have to be modified simply because it is designed for Glorantha. It looks to me that it is going to be RuneQuest 2 played with Elric! rules. For that a source book for the BGB might have been the better choice.  I have come to terms that I will never be 'happy' with one system so I'll just have to buy them all!  whhh haaaahh haaaa   rubs hands evilly ....

Don't forget Revolution, which, at its core, has a very fine system. In fact, that is the way I will probably go if I start a campaign again in the future.

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Mikus said:

....  Right now we have BRP, RQ1, RQ2, SB, CoC, (7 iterations?),RQ3, Elric!, MRQ, MRQII, Legend, RQ6, BGB, Mythras, OpenQuest, MW, RQC,... xxxQuest....OMG!!!!  .... all at our keyboards for download or purchase ...

True enough "in theory" (though I notice you include some OOP/unlicensed & rare items, so the availability and legality of those is dubious; but by the same token you have omitted some readily available stuff such as C&W's Renaissance & family, and others -- the list is MUCH larger).  But  in practice those  boil down a LOT.

RQ1/RQ2/RQC are essentially a single game, for example (with RQ1 being pretty much a "RQ2 beta" ruleset, from the modern perspective); and Mythras = RQ6 for almost all cases & MRQII & Legend are close enough ("beta" rules for the TDM products?) to be rolled-in here, too.

That's 7 products down to 2; other, similar "consolidations" are possible.

And plenty of the other iterations of the BRP/d100 rules are more a matter of  [ Selecting a rule-subset / Fluffing with setting / Art & Layout / Printing ]   than actually producing a "new" set of rules, where mechanically-similar games end up "feeling" very different because their setting & art are so different.  (Of course this is because the BRP BGB was largely based upon collecting all those rule-variations and stripping them out of their settings).

That's not to say there's no innovation in the family!  Far from it!  The Mythras fork has some really nifty stuff un-seen in earlier BRP's, and more recently RD100 has been equally innovative, as just a couple of examples.  I'm really liking what I'm seeing of the upcoming RQG rules, the QS & other teasers hint at some innovations from Chaosium, too.

But that big ol' List o' Games (a) could be much bigger as a simple/comprehensive list, but (b) in practical terms has far fewer notably-separate-and-different "base" games to build up from.

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Mikus said:

I hear you but it seems to me that Chaosium dropped the ball on RQ quite a bit in the past and LW and PN seem to be the ones with the fire in their belly. 

In terms of product lifecycles, we're just barely into the nuChaosium era; I'm sure some problems linger.  But in the end, TDM is just MUCH more focussed on their Mythras line.

Chaosium has the RQ/CoC split in their BRP family (and the occasional ancillary piece such as Mythic Iceland); but they also have the Heroquest line, other Gloranthiana such as Khan of Khans (and just what IS the relationship between the 13G-team (and product) and Chaosium?    ) and other Cthulhiana such as CoC for Beginning Readers, fiction, art &c via RedBubble, etc etc etc...  They are actually cranking out a TON of stuff, and really high quality stuff!   PLENTY of fire in Chaosium's belly, if you wanna look at all their irons in all their fires.

[Mikus]

I have never looked at it. And I most likely should not!  LOL

[Mikus]

2 minutes ago, g33k said:

In terms of product lifecycles, we're just barely into the nuChaosium era; I'm sure some problems linger.  But in the end, TDM is just MUCH more focussed on their Mythras line.

Chaosium has the RQ/CoC split in their BRP family (and the occasional ancillary piece such as Mythic Iceland); but they also have the Heroquest line, other Gloranthiana such as Khan of Khans (and just what IS the relationship between the 13G-team (and product) and Chaosium?    ) and other Cthulhiana such as CoC for Beginning Readers, fiction, art &c via RedBubble, etc etc etc...  They are actually cranking out a TON of stuff, and really high quality stuff!   PLENTY of fire in Chaosium's belly, if you wanna look at all their irons in all their fires.

Thats good to hear and I certainly did not mean it as a slight to Chaosium.  Heck, they gave me Stormbringer 1st Ed and I LOVED that game.  It was a player killing field and really promoted some dark game play.  Memorable.  

[Jusmak]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

Reaching 100% in a skill does not mean that you are at the pinnacle of the skill. Instead it means that you normally succeed at using the skill in normal conditions. Having a skill in excess of 100% means you normally succeed in the skill in difficult, extreme or near impossible conditions. 

So, someone with 100% normally succeeds if there are no modifiers. Someone with 120% normally always succceeds with a 20% difficulty, but the 100er only succeeds 80% of the time. Someone with 200% skill normally succeeds under most conditions, even when a 100er is reduced to a negligible skill.

If you cap skills at 100%, then having a difficulty modifier of -60 means that even experts are reduced to 40%, which makes little sense to me.

At RQ3 reaching 100% skill is always meant me pinnacle of skill, when in other systems it is different. Skillcheks are not done, when used in everydaylife, unstressed conditions. Carpenter can make a chair with 15 % skill, without skillcheck. Horse can ridden without skillcheck. Actions at normal condition may not require skillcheck, or at least is not worth for experince check. Masterylevel at animaltraining is reached at 50% skill. Soldiers are called veterans at 50 % combat skills. 

If character never fails his skillcheks, when using those during stressful, pressured situation, I call that mastery. And for me it kills most of exitement to roll dice. Then it comes to gm to make up difficulties to every situation, every fight. Yes, I do like mudcrawling. Mastery is not so exact number, but comparison to others skills.

So my path was also to make in harder to reach skill 100%, AND also lower demands for priesthood. Two attacks at round may also done at 90% skill. 

Playstyles may differ and I do like play RQ3 more, when skills rarely are more than 50-75 %.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Jusmak

[Mikus]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

Reaching 100% in a skill does not mean that you are at the pinnacle of the skill. Instead it means that you normally succeed at using the skill in normal conditions. Having a skill in excess of 100% means you normally succeed in the skill in difficult, extreme or near impossible conditions. 

So, someone with 100% normally succeeds if there are no modifiers. Someone with 120% normally always succceeds with a 20% difficulty, but the 100er only succeeds 80% of the time. Someone with 200% skill normally succeeds under most conditions, even when a 100er is reduced to a negligible skill.

If you cap skills at 100%, then having a difficulty modifier of -60 means that even experts are reduced to 40%, which makes little sense to me.

I guess I get that but % was a bad term and linking it to roll under on a non-exploding die seems to have caused some of the issues RQ has been battling for 30 or so years.  I maintain that 100% means perfect.  When was the last time you scored a 100% on a test and failed?  If 100% does not mean the whole enchilada than it is not a percentage based game. This is not an opinion, just basic math.  Most of the problems would have been solved by target numbers, (Difficulty), and score over.  Need to score over x to hit.  Roll a d00 and add your skill.  Highest result in opposed tests win.  Exceed by x = special, exceed by y = critical or some such thing.  Open Ended rolls means you cannot get locked into a no win situation.  You can always roll higher or lower than someone else without making x = always hits, y = always fails. Actually all the various systems to determine results would then basically fall into this one mechanism.  Attack, resistance, magic, etc;  It would slip right into BRPs other mechanics very well I would think, but it would not be BRP anymore. 

 

I love BRP but the skills over 100 and rounds vs time are the only things I am not enamored with.  That and dropping the Parry skill. AHHH!   Pluto fights sword and shield for a year but always uses shield parry - sword attack.  One day, for the first time ever, he decides to bash with his shield and parry with the sword.  Same level of skill?  This was one of those lets dumb it down decisions that seems to plague us today in every area of life.  Can't comment on the Combat Styles yet but if Sword and Shield style has the same chance when the sword is broken and the style now becomes Sword and Glove then I would whine about that as well.

[Mikus]

Some century I shall create PerfectQuest and then you will see!  You will all make your O mouths. It will be the bestous quest EVER!  No matter the circumstance the rules will have the perfect solution and best of all, every player will agree that nothing could be finer.  It will be so cut and dry that these Forums will have nothing to discuss at all and like the One ring it will rule them all.

[styopa]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

If you cap skills at 100%, then having a difficulty modifier of -60 means that even experts are reduced to 40%, which makes little sense to me.

That's one reason I've considered letting experts (over 100) do other things like:

- sacrifice a% for speed (typically 20% per sr improvement

- sacrifice a% to reduce targets a% 2:1

...I agree with your take on over-100s but you have to have a system that's not shy of putting -20,-40-60 penalties out there.

[MJ Sadique]

20 minutes ago, Mikus said:

Some century I shall create PerfectQuest and then you will see!  You will all make your O mouths. It will be the bestous quest EVER!  No matter the circumstance the rules will have the perfect solution and best of all, every player will agree that nothing could be finer.  It will be so cut and dry that these Forums will have nothing to discuss at all and like the One ring it will rule them all.

XD MuaaaAAAAAAAAAHHHH !!!!!!

I really like your way of thinking but It's Impossible because :

-FIRST, I abort "Perfection" ... because being perfect means you cannot make something better which is not fun, nor possible.
-SECOND, My concept of perfection will not be for everyone. For example :  RosenMcStern have create his own D100, even if it could be perfect for him it will never be for me. ;p
-THIRD, You are in Runequest/Glorantha Forum.... We have all been raised by a Chaosium-ic Rule ! Your Game May Vary which mean everyone in this forum will never be perfectly agree on anything.

AND

As the Devil's Advocate, I will never admit Perfection !