Parry question?

[Mikus]

Perhaps I misunderstand parry but lets say a swordsman using a broadsword has a DM or -1D3 and another swordsman using a broadsword has a DM of +1d8.

In either case I successfully parry with a similar sized weapon I avoid all damage, correct?  What if the weapon has +5 bladesharp or is a +2d8 demon weapon, (al la Strombringer type magic)?

This can't simply be because of weapon threat forcing the foe to choke on his attack, (and miss completely), else why would a small weapon allow for only 1/2 damage reduction?  They should have also choked as getting skewered on a gladius is no more fun than a longsword.

It seems to me that a reduction of damage as in the earlier systems makes more sense but perhaps I am missing something.

My main concern is that parrying Conan's punishing blow is no more difficult than the Grey Mousers, all other things being equal, (skill chance and weapon type that is).  If not a block then parry should simply mean you managed to avoid getting hit period I would think.

Anyhow, the problem may simply be in my conceptualization as I am thinking in terms of RQs block x damage and SBs avoids the blow.

[Raleel]

• Correct. All the damage is avoided, assuming same or better level of success. Weapons are the same size.
• Even if it is augmented in some fashion. Weapon size (as a proxy for mass) is the big factor here.
• It's because it's a parry, not exclusively block. It's not stepping in and attempting to be a wall in front of the damage. Instead, it's intended to represent redirecting the weapon off it's line of attack. Thus, the weapon size represents it's ability to move the mass of the weapon away.

Under the Parry action

Quote

Parry

The character can attempt to defend against an incoming attack using a combination of parrying, blocking, leaning, ducking or side-stepping footwork to minimise the blow.

bolding mine. This is how you overcome the Conan vs Grey mouser issue you mention. Make sense?

[Mikus]

2 hours ago, Raleel said:

• Correct. All the damage is avoided, assuming same or better level of success. Weapons are the same size.
• Even if it is augmented in some fashion. Weapon size (as a proxy for mass) is the big factor here.
• It's because it's a parry, not exclusively block. It's not stepping in and attempting to be a wall in front of the damage. Instead, it's intended to represent redirecting the weapon off it's line of attack. Thus, the weapon size represents it's ability to move the mass of the weapon away.

Under the Parry action

bolding mine. This is how you overcome the Conan vs Grey mouser issue you mention. Make sense?

Thanks Raleel,

I guess I can roll with that.  

Something about it still bugs me and I guess its because the leaning, ducking or side-stepping is not taken into account at all once the weapon size difference becomes too great. Thus the main component is really my weapon altering the path of his weapon.

In RQ3 you could Parry, which was mainly a block as damage was reduced by a set amount per weapon.  Dodge was leaning, ducking or side-stepping footwork as you either succeeded or failed.

I suppose that is why they make Evade such a radical manuever which always equals hitting the dirt and going prone.  It seems they have combined RQ3 Parry and Dodge into Parry and added Evade as a new 'Oh Shit' maneuver.  I'm actually OK with that conceptualization.

I think.  It is weird to think I can succeed in my parry but gain absolutely nothing due to weapon size.  I understand if I get a crit and he does not I can augment the parry with a maneuver which may stop some of the damage, but it seems using the parry option with a dagger against a longsword is functionally insane.  The result of 'fail completely on success' makes it appear far less footwork oriented and much more blade vs blade.

Thanks!

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, Mikus said:

I suppose that is why they make Evade such a radical manuever which always equals hitting the dirt and going prone.  It seems they have combined RQ3 Parry and Dodge into Parry and added Evade as a new 'Oh Shit' maneuver.  I'm actually OK with that conceptualization.

You can alter this a little, and consider Evade the ability to stay just outside of engagement, in the sense of some of the old Swashbuckling movies from the 50's and 60's where someone runs, jumps, or ducks to remain outside of the range of a weapon; somewhat the opposite of closing. No real need to go prone unless they are evading missile fire. If they also want to incorporate tumbling, jumping up from one deck to another, or swing on a rope while also evading, then I would have this under Acrobatics.

Though, of course, this should also mean an appropriate prior outcome to disengage if already in combat.

SDLeary

Edited August 21, 2018 by SDLeary
spelling

[Raleel]

3 hours ago, Mikus said:

It is weird to think I can succeed in my parry but gain absolutely nothing due to weapon size.  I understand if I get a crit and he does not I can augment the parry with a maneuver which may stop some of the damage, but it seems using the parry option with a dagger against a longsword is functionally insane.  The result of 'fail completely on success' makes it appear far less footwork oriented and much more blade vs blade.

Actually, it’s not quite nothing, though I understand your meaning. Parry a big sword with a dagger, you may not stop the blade, but you prevent a special effect. Granted, it may not make much of a difference (remove limb is a very strong “special effect”) but it can deny him an Impale or a Bleed or some other definite fight ender. That and he may just roll bad on damage. 

I tend to view it as a diverting the weapon AND a side step. 

Other thing is, with missiles and shields, it’s almost certainly a hard block with smaller ones. 

Consider this option - you aren’t all that good with your combat style (say, 50%) using a dagger and a shield. He swings. A possible smart move is to passive Block with your shield, covering many locations, and then parry with your dagger. Sure, it won’t block damage, but it could prevent him from choosing location around your shield.

Big old shield blocks a lot of damage. Big 4 location shield can block 60% of the numbers possible to hit. Do it the other way around, you are only blocking it 50% of the time, and if you fail, he’s picking whatever location he likes, preferably the ones without armor. Fail with the dagger, he’s picking a location that is not warded, but you may have some armor on there. 

Ill be honest, the passive ward with the shield and parry with the weapon didn’t even occur to me until earlier this year and someone else mentioned it. But it’s a fair advantage. 

[Raleel]

46 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

You can alter this a little, and consider Evade the ability to stay just outside of engagement, in the sense of some of the old Swashbuckling movies from the 50's and 60's where someone runs, jumps, or ducks to remain outside of the range of a weapon; somewhat the opposite of closing. No real need to go prone unless they are evading missile fire. If they also want to incorporate tumbling, jumping up from one deck to another, or swing on a rope while also evading, then I would have this under Acrobatics.

Though, of course, this should also mean an appropriate prior outcome to disengage if already in combat.

SDLeary

Pretty sure this is even in the rules under Daredevil and Acrobatics actually, and a good use of it 

[Mikus]

Thanks guys, this helps put it in a perspective I can accept.  Sometimes if I can't grock the concept it nags at the mind.

I really like the RQ6 - Mythras presentation but need to hash out some of the differences to go forward.  Next I'll tackle the Combat Style thingie.  That has me warding myself with a cross and garlic.

But I feel better now.....

[SDLeary]

58 minutes ago, Mikus said:

Next I'll tackle the Combat Style thingie.  That has me warding myself with a cross and garlic.

Just remember that Combat Styles are variable, that is to say that you and the players decide what they are before you start play. They can be as simple as "Sword and Shield", or as inclusive as "Roman Legionary" or "Shao Lin Monk" fighting styles. Appropriately adjust for desired level of crunch.

SDLeary

[Mikus]

22 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Just remember that Combat Styles are variable, that is to say that you and the players decide what they are before you start play. They can be as simple as "Sword and Shield", or as inclusive as "Roman Legionary" or "Shao Lin Monk" fighting styles. Appropriately adjust for desired level of crunch.

SDLeary

I choose 'All Inclusive' style with a trait of '1 hit 1 kill' please  😀

[RosenMcStern]

15 hours ago, Mikus said:

I choose 'All Inclusive' style with a trait of '1 hit 1 kill' please  😀

Funny, because (minus the 1 hit 1 kill variant, but there are options for that, too) this is exactly what you get when you play OpenQuest, Renaissance or Revolution D100. Of the MRQ-derivatives, Mythras is actually the most restrictive one when it comes to determining how many weapons you can apply your skill to  .

[Raleel]

4 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Funny, because (minus the 1 hit 1 kill variant, but there are options for that, too) this is exactly what you get when you play OpenQuest, Renaissance or Revolution D100. Of the MRQ-derivatives, Mythras is actually the most restrictive one when it comes to determining how many weapons you can apply your skill to  .

Oh, this option is in Mythras as well. It just offers more restrictive ones too

[Mikus]

I think I would actually stick to Combat Styles of either 1 weapon per hand, 1 weapon and 1 shield, 1 2-handed weapon,  Empty Hand and Weapon or Totally Unarmed. For two armed gents that is.  Kali is a different beast altogether.

Like Hand and Dagger, Short Sword and Buckler, Bow(2 hands), 2-Handed Axe, Unarmed, etc.  Loss of a weapon might not hamper skill % but would drop the benefit of whatever was lost. In Legend I think you also would loose a CA. (Two Hands style is two weapons after all!)

Hand and Dagger, (now basically Empty Hand), means no cutting pokey for you, and unless you switch to Two Hand style you are missing a weapon and thus a CA. Hand blows and grapples only.  The idea of something like Sword, Dagger, Spear, Shield and Bow style just grinds me.  If so I might just have 1 Handed Melee, 2 Handed Melee, Thrown, Missile and Siege categories. Something like RoleMaster.

I might implement Traits as sub-skills rather than inherent in the Combat Style.  Such as Silent Kill being a 'Trait Skill' that can be used with any reasonable Combat Style but you are limited by the lower of the Style or Trait.  As long as the Trait seams reasonable for the weapon. Then again not having actually played one of these MRQII gems, (and they do look like gems!),  I really could be talking out my backside. I suppose water fighting with a knife is quite a bit different than with a club.🤔

From my experience most players stick with 1 ranged weapon and 1 or 2 melee weapons, like sword and dagger.  In real life try entering combat with 5 or 6 various weapons.  Way too encumbering for adventurers.  Perhaps heavy infantry or cavalry but even then I a bit much.

I have other grognard ideas about RQ skills but I shall reframe from mentioning those because the peasants and townsfolk break out torches and pitchforks every time I do.😟 The irate pummeling I receive is Legendary even in Hell.  Feel like Trump as guest star on The View.    👺🤕  🐖 🐄

[Matt_E]

"In real life try entering combat with 5 or 6 various weapons.  Way too encumbering for adventurers."  -- I'm not sure I understand this remark, in the context of Combat Style.  Remember that just because your Combat Style has taught you to use a collection of weapons effectively, does not mean you carry or otherwise have access to all of those weapons at all times.

For example, in our game a Hunter will often have a CS that includes Longspear, but she probably does not carry that weapon into town along with the meat for sale...  In fact, she might not always bring it with her on the hunt, especially if e.g. she knows she will be on a long, tiring outing through dense underbrush, in search of smaller animals that do not require such a weapon anyway.

Likewise, social rules or societal laws may induce a warrior not to walk around town with a greatsword, even though he owns one and is trained in its use.  (We have discussed that idea with some frequency on the TDM forum.)

Finally, a character may be down on his luck and missing some gear, either because he lost it falling down a mountain, or had to hock it to buy more booze.  Finding a useful weapon during an adventure--say, in a boss fight, when you could really use it--becomes extra sweet, in that case.

I would not let encumbrance concerns dictate how many weapons you include in a CS.  If you want to group some weapons because it seems otherwise sensible to you, go for it.

 

[Raleel]

as matt says, training != what you carry with you all the time. However, roman soldiers appear to have carried (in addition to armor) shield, sword, darts, pilum, and vericulum, and perhaps even a dagger. I could very easily see carrying a sword, shield, spear, dagger, and bow if you were equipped for war. vikings did shield, sword or axe, spear, dagger. often they had multiple spears.

[RosenMcStern]

14 hours ago, Mikus said:

I think I would actually stick to Combat Styles of either 1 weapon per hand, 1 weapon and 1 shield, 1 2-handed weapon,  Empty Hand and Weapon or Totally Unarmed. For two armed gents that is.  Kali is a different beast altogether.

Like Hand and Dagger, Short Sword and Buckler, Bow(2 hands), 2-Handed Axe, Unarmed, etc.  Loss of a weapon might not hamper skill % but would drop the benefit of whatever was lost. In Legend I think you also would loose a CA. (Two Hands style is two weapons after all!)

Hand and Dagger, (now basically Empty Hand), means no cutting pokey for you, and unless you switch to Two Hand style you are missing a weapon and thus a CA. Hand blows and grapples only.  The idea of something like Sword, Dagger, Spear, Shield and Bow style just grinds me.  If so I might just have 1 Handed Melee, 2 Handed Melee, Thrown, Missile and Siege categories. Something like RoleMaster.

I might implement Traits as sub-skills rather than inherent in the Combat Style.  Such as Silent Kill being a 'Trait Skill' that can be used with any reasonable Combat Style but you are limited by the lower of the Style or Trait.  As long as the Trait seams reasonable for the weapon. Then again not having actually played one of these MRQII gems, (and they do look like gems!),  I really could be talking out my backside. I suppose water fighting with a knife is quite a bit different than with a club.🤔

From my experience most players stick with 1 ranged weapon and 1 or 2 melee weapons, like sword and dagger.  In real life try entering combat with 5 or 6 various weapons.  Way too encumbering for adventurers.  Perhaps heavy infantry or cavalry but even then I a bit much.

I do not want to sound condescending, but you should really read more about the history of non-classic d100 rulesets before thinking about doing your own houserules. I can remember reading the exact same comments from other people dating back to 8 or more years ago. This discussion has already been done, and represents periodically as new people with a long experience of the classic rulesets appear on forums.

So, let us split my reply into two parts: the rules considerations, and the reality check considerations. Different people might attribute more value to either one of these aspects.

From a pure rules-wise point of view, the “one weapon, one skill” only works properly with the “experience check” advancement model. In that model, since your character progresses mainly through field use of the skill, it does not really matter how many skills you need to support your combat techniques, as long as they are actually used in battle. After a main confrontation, you will have earned the opportunity to raise ALL of your relevant skills.

Enter Advancement Points instead of Experience Checks, and everything changes. Now you have the ability to improve ALL of your stealth-related abilities (both hide and sneak) with one point, ALL your perception-related abilities with one point (two points if you also use Tracking), and ALL your magical abilities with two points, barring multi-grimoire sorcerers. But unless your combat style includes all weapons you use in battle, you will need several points to improve your martial prowess as a whole. It does not sound very consistent, does it?

The point of combat styles is simply that they represent “how they trained you to fight in the army academy”, and it is extremely reasonable that you received this training, and progress in it, as a whole. Your personal inclinations will probably make you have a favourite trick  among the standard ones, but a simple “specialization” houserule in which, frex, you add +10 to one weapon and subtract -10 to the others is more realistic, and simpler, than going back to tracking a different skill for each weapon. YMMV, but really, how many of your doubts stem from actual fighting experience, and how many from growing up with ol’ good RQ Classic?

As for the Sacred Cow of realism... well, as others have pointed out, the standard war equipment for a soldier usually included four different weapons at least, each with its specific purpose. At the very least, you have a “main” weapon with long reach/damage (or a ranged weapon), a sidearm for close quarter combat, and a dagger for various purposes. You will often add a shield and/or a thrown weapon for use by non-ranged fighters. This is a realistic war load for a competent fighter who wishes to be prepared for all eventualities, and it does not make you overencumbered, nor does it look like a golf bag of weapons – each of these weapons have a separate “hanging point” on the fighter’s belt or sash, and one of these is carried on the shoulder.

The fact that your average player may not want to carry about all these is again a rules artefact: once Joe the Average Gamer has discovered the weapon that provides a damage/difficulty to manage ratio that lies in his comfort zone, he will tend to stick with it and initiate arguments with the GM about his desire to use it even in combat situations where a real fighter would switch to another weapon. I still remember my old RQ3 days of “No, you cannot use a pike in closed spaces. I do not f***** care that it halves the damage and adds 2 Strike Ranks, with the enemy so close you must drop the damn polearm and draw a javelin.” No hope of explaining the player that there are no “universal” weapons, and each war tool has its own specific use – though admittedly some are better than others.

Edited August 24, 2018 by RosenMcStern
was reminded that well-mannered cows are Sacred, not Holy :)

[lawrence.whitaker]

As Rosen McStern says, the idea behind Combat Styles is to better reflect the way warriors train in combat. Some styles will be weapon and technique specific (Fencing, for example), and such styles will include one or two weapons (sabre and foil, perhaps), along with a trait that applies to the training method. But for career soldiers and mercenaries, it's unlikely that you train in one weapon in isolation, and thus have the potential for wildly differing skill %s across weapons you practice with regularly. In Bernard Cornwell's Saxon and Arthurian novels, there are many descriptions of training or how warriors trained, and in all cases, combinations of weapons (spear, shield, sword) are routinely mentioned. But this is true of Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, Napoleonic infantrymen, and even modern day soldiers.

But of course, Your Mythras is Your Mythras (YMYM), and so we deliberately left combat styles quite vague, so that you can, if you wish, make them very specific or very open, as you prefer. The intention though, is to allow for groups of related weapons to be trained together to ensure continuing skill increase parity. Also notice that during character creation, characters have the chance to gain a cultural combat style, and then, when they choose a profession, perhaps one or more additional combat styles. The former reflects the kind of martial training one might gain in the formative years, while the latter includes the scope for increased specialisation as one makes a career of martial training.

Find the way that suits your style of play. Mythras supports it.

Edited August 24, 2018 by lawrence.whitaker

[Matt_E]

"you should really read more about the history...I can remember reading the exact same comments from other people dating back to 8 or more years ago. This discussion has already been done, and represents periodically as new people with a long experience of the classic rulesets appear on forums." 

--This problem is not unique to d100 RPG forums! 😄  Personally, considering current online culture and the inconsistency of the numerous forums out there, I don't really blame anyone (especially a newcomer) for asking rather than trawling for an answer.  Many times lately I have tried to find my own posts from years or just months ago, and have failed.

"As Rosen McStern says, the idea behind Combat Styles is...But of course, Your Mythras is Your Mythras (YMYM), and so we deliberately left combat styles quite vague...Find the way that suits your style of play. Mythras supports it."

--This toolbox approach to game design gets mentioned over and over in our discussions of Mythras, and Loz and Pete are to be commended for it.  My only suggestion is that, in the next edition of RAW, they offer an explicit section on this in the introductory chapter, and gray text boxes at the later spots where this approach is especially important--like Combat Styles.  In the two editions to date, this sort of exposition has been done nicely in the prefatory chapter on magic and considerations for setting up a world; I think that the rulebook might benefit from a similar chapter or large section up front to emphasize the philosophy, which is mentioned briefly in the current edition, but not emphasized enough, IMO.

 

[Mikus]

Not condescending you just have your own opinions and I respect that.  I have no respect sheeple.

I can see most of these points and agree that the old experience check model is the one that appeals to me the most.  For reasons you stated.  Its like an electrician with a set of pipe benders in his car.  If he goes residential he never uses his benders compared to his brother who enters commercial.  Many of the initial set of tools and techniques, (battle training), remain the same but 3 years down the line Mr. Commercial kicks ass as a pipe bending fool while Mr. Residential remains a rank amateur with his bender.  Fighting is the same way.  If you become a close quarters house to house fighter that pole ax is gonna become a liability and will get discarded rapidly, thus no skill increase. Your brother guarding the palace gate may find this pole ax his favorite and most trained weapon thus discarding his shield in daily use and not really leaning on it heavy in training.  People are lazy by nature and will not train hard with things they  use regularly.  People who go to martial classes three times a week or SAC every weekend LOVE the training and are not the same as people who fight for a living.  For them it becomes a job and they train what they use, and what they use they get better with.  If these guys entered actual everyday real life combat in diverging situations, (glider pilot vs fighter pilot vs bomber pilot),  after 5 years there would be a disparity of skills based upon daily use.  Guarantee it.  Although all are pilots using the pilot skill think of all the various subsets based upon what each needs to know and deal with during their job. I'll stick with one Pilot skill as a simplification thank you!  I have no need for Glider, Fighter and Bomber Pilot skills but some people may feel differently. Now separate Sword Skill and Shield Skill is OK my wheel house.

This is divergence through actual use and old RQ models that better than levels or groups IMHO.  I think Mr. Average gamer who ends up following the path of sneaky infiltration VS front line tank can be easily convinced to hang up his kite shield and opt for a sai because he just can't conceal the shield.  Most of my players have a decent dose of common sense and I have never had to argue the 'You cant swing that 5' ax in this 3' corridor.  Perhaps I have been lucky though.

Although I get the whole training package concept actual experience and age has taught me that everyone diverges into specialization in every field over time. This is why at ProgramInc John is the goto guy for HTML, Pete the Obj-C and Cocoa guru, Lenny is our C# wizard while Jackie is the go to girl for PEARL.  Each came out of the same school and classes to become computer programeers and each went their own way once they got a job at ProgramInc.  They all learned BASIC and they all forgot it soon after getting a job. Now had two of them continued to use BASIC on a weekly basis they would not only not forget it, they would get better.  Experience checks.

At the end of the day either model is OK for a game but the simple, logical fact is that lumping skills together regardless of use and expecting them to increase in unison SEEMS TO ME simplification rather than an MORE accurate modeling of reality.

This said....

Simplification is not a bad thing, most of us look for it in every day life...the Easy Button.  But to say they this is more realistic I personally think is an apologetic rather than a fact.  I carry a knife every day and have trained with it but I have never used in actual combat it so my skill remains somewhat static and may be decreasing due to aging. I do wrestle and practice various MAs with my boy weekly and do get better with what I practice with, (excepting arthritis and other wounds rearing up to slow me down).

Nothing here is an attack on other ways of doing things, just my preference.  So far I have not found a valid point to contradict my position but for anyone who said, "Hey, it's a game and this just works better. Less bookwork and more fun." I would say perhaps you'll sell me. The Easy Button.  I love Monopoly but have never believed for a second it has any relation to real life...excepting when I have to pay exorbitant taxes or go to jail.  Stormbringer 1 was a wild ride.  D&D5 is a lot of fun and I play it with my boy.  RQ3 was my down and dirty simulation.

I do have Mythras, ( I'm a collector of systems and choice is not a problem...😛), and I will take your recommendation and try it RAW.  Perhaps I'll find it better, meaning more fun.

As usual thanks and I do value all opinions expressed in a friendly fashion.

[RosenMcStern]

7 minutes ago, Mikus said:

I do have Mythras, ( I'm a collector of systems and choice is not a problem...😛), and I will take your recommendation and try it RAW.  Perhaps I'll find it better, meaning more fun.

Note that Loz has just stressed that a "Sword and Shield" combat style is actually still RAW, and in fact it was the default approach to styles in MRQ2 (man, the time I wasted trying to explain why there was a Sword & Shield style and a Sword Only style on the Italian forums of MRQ2...). I was just pointing out that more comprehensive styles is how most people having used both approaches prefer it now, including the authors. 

[Mikus]

11 hours ago, Matt_E said:

"In real life try entering combat with 5 or 6 various weapons.  Way too encumbering for adventurers."  -- I'm not sure I understand this remark, in the context of Combat Style.  Remember that just because your Combat Style has taught you to use a collection of weapons effectively, does not mean you carry or otherwise have access to all of those weapons at all times.

For example, in our game a Hunter will often have a CS that includes Longspear, but she probably does not carry that weapon into town along with the meat for sale...  In fact, she might not always bring it with her on the hunt, especially if e.g. she knows she will be on a long, tiring outing through dense underbrush, in search of smaller animals that do not require such a weapon anyway.

Likewise, social rules or societal laws may induce a warrior not to walk around town with a greatsword, even though he owns one and is trained in its use.  (We have discussed that idea with some frequency on the TDM forum.)

Finally, a character may be down on his luck and missing some gear, either because he lost it falling down a mountain, or had to hock it to buy more booze.  Finding a useful weapon during an adventure--say, in a boss fight, when you could really use it--becomes extra sweet, in that case.

I would not let encumbrance concerns dictate how many weapons you include in a CS.  If you want to group some weapons because it seems otherwise sensible to you, go for it.

 

If you are a deer Hunter do you go into the woods with a muzzleloader, spear, crossbow and 30-06?  All at the same time? Not me, I take one at a time into the field.  As most game adventurers spend the majority of time traveling in the field they do not load up the kitchen sink.  This ends up dictating actual use and thus increase in skill.

Will your hunter skill up with the spear if she spends all her time hunting with the bow?

Now, after a time I have, (in the real life world),  dropped everything in favor of the Crossbow and Muzzleloader because its easier to get and remain accurate with just one rifle and one archaic missile.  Get good with a 50 Cal Muzzy and for whitetail you do not need shotgun, 30-06, 44 Lever in lower MI.  The Muzzy is good for all gun seasons, reaches as far as you are allowed and packs a wallop.  Thus my Deer Gun Combat Style - Rifle, Shotgun, Henry .45, Muzzleloader is now simply Muzzleloader.  Due to actual use.  I thus my scoped muzzleloader skill has increased while I still cant use open sights on the .45 very accurately.  In real life, not a simulation.

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

--This toolbox approach to game design gets mentioned over and over in our discussions of Mythras, and Loz and Pete are to be commended for it.  My only suggestion is that, in the next edition of RAW, they offer an explicit section on this in the introductory chapter, and gray text boxes at the later spots where this approach is especially important--like Combat Styles.  In the two editions to date, this sort of exposition has been done nicely in the prefatory chapter on magic and considerations for setting up a world; I think that the rulebook might benefit from a similar chapter or large section up front to emphasize the philosophy, which is mentioned briefly in the current edition, but not emphasized enough, IMO.

We have recently (last weekend, in fact) done exactly this in preparation for the game's next printing.

[Mikus]

57 minutes ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

As Rosen McStern says, the idea behind Combat Styles is to better reflect the way warriors train in combat. Some styles will be weapon and technique specific (Fencing, for example), and such styles will include one or two weapons (sabre and foil, perhaps), along with a trait that applies to the training method. But for career soldiers and mercenaries, it's unlikely that you train in one weapon in isolation, and thus have the potential for wildly differing skill %s across weapons you practice with regularly. In Bernard Cornwell's Saxon and Arthurian novels, there are many descriptions of training or how warriors trained, and in all cases, combinations of weapons (spear, shield, sword) are routinely mentioned. But this is true of Greek hoplites, Roman legionaries, Napoleonic infantrymen, and even modern day soldiers.

But of course, Your Mythras is Your Mythras (YMYM), and so we deliberately left combat styles quite vague, so that you can, if you wish, make them very specific or very open, as you prefer. The intention though, is to allow for groups of related weapons to be trained together to ensure continuing skill increase parity. Also notice that during character creation, characters have the chance to gain a cultural combat style, and then, when they choose a profession, perhaps one or more additional combat styles. The former reflects the kind of martial training one might gain in the formative years, while the latter includes the scope for increased specialisation as one makes a career of martial training.

Find the way that suits your style of play. Mythras supports it.

Lawrence,

First of all thanks for producing such a great game.  I am a collector and have 3 copies of MRQII, (a bunch of the supporting material),  3 copies of RQ6 slipcases, 2 soft covers and 1 hardbound.  2 copies of Mythras and 1 of Classic Fantasy, Monster Island, Mythic Bri, etc;. So I obviously think the work done by both you and Pete is exceptional as well as collectable and will increase in value over time.  My RQ collection is for more extensive than my actual time playing the game! lol  Have a beer on me!

In your example using Career soldiers and mercenaries I can accept because they are most likely forced to hit the training field and use the skills.  As long as the game as played supports that model than I would be fine with it because you are using the skill.  Basically you are stating that Combat Styles assumes that one is using the skills off stage whereas individual skills does not make any assumptions.  Skill checks actually forces you to express this in game play.  If this is the explanation I'm fine with that, but to say you level up 5 skills just because you level up is somehow more realistic,( even if you don't use it), than rolling for each skill actually fails the litmus test.  I wonder if the Soldier or Mercenary were to muster out and join a roving band of drunken, gold seeking adventurers if he would diligently train all his weapons on a daily or weekly basis or simple use his weapon when necessary?

Now lets think dungeon crawling adventure.  Think Hobbit or LOTR.  These guys went afield not with a wagon train packed with shields and weapons.  They were walking through swamps, dense forests, snowy mountain paths and underground labyrinths for a year or so. During this time our Hobbits went from dorks to fairly seasoned adventurers with a modicum of combat skill. Bilbo had Sting as did Frodo later.  Gandalf carried a sword and staff.  Aragorn Narsil but no shield if I remember right.  Boromir sword and shield. This is my point about game play and what do the characters actually use.  Now if you are playing a mercenary in the Black Company and Elmo is relentlessly drilling you than sure, because you are roleplaying that you are training the whole set. The Company has wagons full of various weapons and equipment.

As for Bilbo if he started the game of Mythras with Combat Style - Dagger and Shield would you give him increases with the shield skill at the end of the Hobbit adventure or just with the dagger?  To my way of thinking he could not have goton better with the shield because he did not even have one.  This is my issue with inclusive groups of disparate items regardless of experience.

From personal game experience I find the vast majorities of players are not declaring time spent training.  They are plundering graves, whoring, killing monsters or thieving.  Like the Grimoire skill where you can cast all spells in a book at the same level, even if you have never actually summoned that demon but were using the healing spell on page one.  For this I would either insist all spells in a Grimoire be of the same type..summonings, alchemy, etc; or I would think you need to actually learn and use the spell to get better with it.  Just the way I would represent it.

Thanks and I appreciate the way you always express yourself with eloquence and civility.  Its say a lot about you as a person.  Keep up the great work and when I play Mythras I'm sure it will support my style.

By the way, I waiting to spend money on Mythic Greece....................

 

[Raleel]

10 minutes ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

We have recently (last weekend, in fact) done exactly this in preparation for the game's next printing.

Can we expect a True Ligature version and Non-Ligature version for heathens?

[Mikus]

Could you please increase the font back to the RQ6 size.  I would gladly pay more for a book easy on the eyes.  Reading RQ6 is a pleasure,  Mythras is a coke bottle glasses torture for me. It really is hard on aging eyes as has been noted by many.

I spend $60-70 taking my kid to see some popcorn-coke-movie, so that on a nice big book like RQ6 is nothing.

I think some of my hesitation against gaming Mythras is the book is a bit painful to read.  Were I to play tomorrow I might opt for RQ6 simply because using the book is so much easier. That is a great layout as far as I am concerned.  I really do have trouble consulting the tables in Mythras.  PDFs are for printing, not reading, and I enjoy books.

Perhaps a Large Font Red letter version for us old farts?

Which also begs you guys to understand you are are talking to someone old, crotchety and set in his ways perhaps.  I'm talking about RosenMcStern here...😆

JUST KIDDIN!  Its me.  I like RMS.  Seems like he has quite a bit of valuable RQ exp and is always willing to help and offer suggestions. I started with SB when it first hit the shelves so my muscles might be a bit stiff but they are not completely rigid.  Ya never know, I might loosen up with enough good natured pummeling.

Edited August 24, 2018 by Mikus

[Raleel]

11 minutes ago, Mikus said:

Could you please increase the font back to the RQ6 size.  I would gladly pay more for a book easy on the eyes.  Reading RQ6 is a pleasure,  Mythras is a coke bottle glasses torture for me. It really is hard on aging eyes as has been noted by many.

I spend $60-70 taking my kid to see some popcorn-coke-movie, so that on a nice big book like RQ6 is nothing.

I think some of my hesitation against gaming Mythras is the book is a bit painful to read.  Were I to play tomorrow I would opt for RQ6 simply because using the book is so much easier.

Perhaps an Large Font Red letter version for us old farts?

i know folks love the physical books, and I can respect that. But this is a real advantage for PDFs - Large Font Red letter versions are just a click or two away.

Unfortunately, I've yet to find a PDF reader that offers an Add Ligatures Like Mithras Intended button