Parry question?

[lawrence.whitaker]

Quote

Could you please increase the font back to the RQ6 size.

Sure*. It would just mean upping the page count (and cost) by 30%, laying out the entire book differently, and then doing all the attendant proofing, corrections, reproofing, errata handling, and so on. I realise that the request is only semi-serious, but the point of the second printing is to correct outstanding errata and add a little more like clarity here and there. We simply can't make wholesale changes without a significant investment of time and money.

*And with or without ligatures?

[Matt_E]

5 hours ago, Mikus said:

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.

In the first sentences, you make the same point that I do.

The answer to the second paragraph is, of course, "no".  The question is, how do we model this, and square that with (presumed or explicit) downtime activities?  If you like the RQ3 way, then I suggest you simply use those rules, or BRP.  If you want to otherwise use Mythras (which is a much better game), then simply change the way you hand out XP:  Use a character sheet with tick boxes as in RQ3, allow skill advancement only in ticked skills as in RQ3, and make every weapon be a separate Combat Style.

However, I always suggest (as you also have noted) that one actually try the rules as written before deciding that they simply must be changed.  Otherwise, one should wonder why one bothers to consider a new system.

I disagree with an absolute assertion that people are lazy.  Some people do more than the absolute minimum, and dedicate themselves.  We call them "winners", or in a hard RPG world, probably just "the living".  If you understand that your odds of getting the next bag of gold, or surviving the next battle, increase substantially through practice, then you'll practice, unless you are a great fool.  Some fools do succeed--the proof is all around us--, but I see them as the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

Edited August 24, 2018 by Matt_E

[Mikus]

9 hours ago, lawrence.whitaker said:

Sure*. It would just mean upping the page count (and cost) by 30%, laying out the entire book differently, and then doing all the attendant proofing, corrections, reproofing, errata handling, and so on. I realise that the request is only semi-serious, but the point of the second printing is to correct outstanding errata and add a little more like clarity here and there. We simply can't make wholesale changes without a significant investment of time and money.

*And with or without ligatures?

Ya...I kinda figured that.  Guess its a trip to the dollar store for a 3x cheaters.  But Raleel has it right.  All I need to do is use the PDF... but I'll print the charts for personal use.  How about a large font GM Screen?  Surely that is doable.  Hollow Earth Expedition did some real nice ones.  They would stop a speeding die from an irate player.

[Raleel]

As a person who has recently approached a certain age, I empathize greatly. 

The ruenquest 6 Gamemasters pack has a nice set of tables. Probably could carve that up for a big 5 panels screen with a spot in the middle where you can leer our evilly at your players

[Mikus]

6 hours ago, Matt_E said:

In the first sentences, you make the same point that I do.

The answer to the second paragraph is, of course, "no".  The question is, how do we model this, and square that with (presumed or explicit) downtime activities?  If you like the RQ3 way, then I suggest you simply use those rules, or BRP.  If you want to otherwise use Mythras (which is a much better game), then simply change the way you hand out XP:  Use a character sheet with tick boxes as in RQ3, allow skill advancement only in ticked skills as in RQ3, and make every weapon be a separate Combat Style.

However, I always suggest (as you also have noted) that one actually try the rules as written before deciding that they simply must be changed.  Otherwise, one should wonder why one bothers to consider a new system.

I disagree with an absolute assertion that people are lazy.  Some people do more than the absolute minimum, and dedicate themselves.  We call them "winners", or in a hard RPG world, probably just "the living".  If you understand that your odds of getting the next bag of gold, or surviving the next battle, increase substantially through practice, then you'll practice, unless you are a great fool.  Some fools do succeed--the proof is all around us--, but I see them as the exceptions that prove the rule.

 

Yepper. My  repeating the point was just to establish that we agree that inclusive combat style with many weapons would be hard to take afield. And it would then follow hard to skill up with the missing ones.  I'm not sure why it is hard to model this as it was done very well since the early 80's.  Or so I thought. I know NASA says we can't go to the Moon because we no longer have the technology and misplaced all the telemetry, 🤔 but I still have my old BRP stuff and the BGB so fortunately the Van Allen belts and powerful engines are not an issue here.

sorry....I digress in musings.....

As for lazy I suggest you consider why communist societies tend to be dung holes and the massive growth of generational welfare over the last 50 years. Not everyone is lazy, to be sure, yet the masses certainly are less than highly motivated.  I'm not sure a Trump, Ford or Rothschild would consider us 99% to be in the driven - winner class.  And I doubt Trump, Henry or Mayer would be swinging the blade, they would hire some 'loser' to do the dirty work.  Its a view point.

Just out of curiosity, how many hours a day do you practice your profession when your off the clock?  Thats why the residential electrician never gets good with the bender.  He may do some extra study of what he needs, (will earn him more money and / or an easier job), but not what he never uses. That would be a waste of time and quite frankly, foolish.  My time is better spent honing my crossbow skills than my bow skill because I hung up my bow and don't use it.  Your assuming that because a combat style has spear in the name she would practice with it and I am assuming that if she never uses it she will decide her time is better spent practicing with the weapn she actually will rely upon.  Actually, I'm not assuming anything as the 'use or train it to gain' model has that covered.

But all this that aside you guys HAVE convinced me to try Mythras as is, and them tweak it if I like.  It's BRP at it core after all.

Thanks for the suggestions my friend and I do appreciate your point of view.

[Matt_E]

You digress too much in your musings.  I will not participate in this conversation any further.