Subsequent parries RQG

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Malc said:

This is exactly why one of my fixed rules for GMing is that if you don’t know a rule, and can’t find it inside a minute or so, then make a ruling.  My experience is that an incorrect ruling derails a game a lot less than waiting 10 minutes while the GM pages through the rules.

I, mostly, agree. A GM does need to keep his rulings consistent,  and not seem to be arbitrary though, so if he does make a "snap ruling" he  should keep that ruling for the rest of the campaign, or be very clear as to why, if he changes things later on. 

[Prinz Slasar]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I, mostly, agree. A GM does need to keep his rulings consistent,  and not seem to be arbitrary though, so if he does make a "snap ruling" he  should keep that ruling for the rest of the campaign, or be very clear as to why, if he changes things later on. 

This is even more important the more deadly the rule system is.
If the survival of my character depends on the rules, the more important it is to me that the rules and rulings are consistent.
I find it always very bad when a character dies in a session, and you learn later that a wrong rule interpretation/rule insight is the reason.

If you play just for fun and the gaming group does not provide character death as a central option, lax handling of the rules' accuracy is acceptable.

[DreadDomain]

21 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Because combat would take five times as long.

I fail to see how it would lead to this.

If in the system as is it takes 4 blows to bring your opponent down, it wil take you 4 MR. If you allow Melee to freeflow like Missiles, it wil still take 4 blows but only over, say, 2 MR. Same amount of die rolled, same amount of real time play just quicker ingame.

 

Edit: Duh, just realised Mugen already said as much.

I might add that if the rules about multiple defenses remains the same, if would potentially speed up combat because you would have more attacks to defend against per MR which would lead to a higher penalty.

[DreadDomain]

19 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Could be fair, I accept, but I find it hard to imagine how a single die roll (possibly two, opposed) could be replaced by something with significantly more detail without taking longer. In fact I would have thought that the whole point was to spend more time on the detail.

First let me say that I agree with all Rosen said so far. However I believe I need to clarify my thinking here.

I am not aiming at adding more details to RQG's melee combat. Certainly not to add significantly more detail.

I am not aiming at replicating a blow by blow combat system.

I am aiming at making melee combat as free flowing as missile combat.

I am aiming at reducing the level of abstraction suffciently so that a professional warrior could make the appropriate tactical decision to attack more than just one opponent in 12 seconds.

My suggestion does not add any kind of detail to melee combat (same HP, same hit locations, same weapon breakage, etc...).

[DreadDomain]

19 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

The answer is quite simple,

1. First of all, Try it at the table. As I said, the core of the question is that experience trumps principles. It works for others, so even if you find it hard to believe, it must be true.
2. Just to save you time in case you have little opportunities to try it in practice, a short example. Eliminating non-significant rolls is one of the design techniques you can use to do the trick. For instance, in Revolution D100 advanced combat, once you roll the dice something always happens. At the very least you drop your opponent's chance to make the next roll, or improve yours, building momentum until someone misses a crucial roll. The famous attack/parry/attack/parry... sequence that can happen between two high skill combatants in classic RQ can no longer happen. The result is that the number of rolls required to "take down" an opponent remains the same, and so does the time spent at the table. You just have a bigger amount of detail (and control) per roll, rather than abstractions and hit point attrition.

Now, that does not mean that after trying it in practice you will find it more satisfactory. Many people who have tried both models say "I prefer simpler, **** the detail". And the attack/parry/attack/parry... sequence has been called "a feature, not a bug".

But time is definitely not a factor. More abstraction does not mean "faster".

Again, totaly agree. In the 80's when we were playing RQ3 almost on a daily basis, we were using the SR system as is (one attack per round). We grew unsatisfied my the limitation of the system and tried implementing varous solutions inspired ny GURPS or Fantasy HERO. In the end we thoughts these "improvements" were adding too much and were taking away from the fun. I can't recall were the idea came from but we ended up using the SR exactly as was later described in BRP BGB p.199 and it was the right ratio of tactics and abstraction for us.

Fast forward to 2018, I see I could do the exact same thing with RQG with very minor changes. One thing I would need to try is the penalty for multiple defenses to confirm it would still make sense within that context.

[DreadDomain]

9 hours ago, Malc said:

This is exactly why one of my fixed rules for GMing is that if you don’t know a rule, and can’t find it inside a minute or so, then make a ruling.  My experience is that an incorrect ruling derails a game a lot less than waiting 10 minutes while the GM pages through the rules.

Also, if anyone wants to see how smooth detailed blow-by-blow combat can be, I’d recommend a look at The Riddle of Steel RPG.  It’s not perfect, but it does have an even more visceral feel than RuneQuest.  Also several things in common, such as creatures that don’t bleed or suffer shock (like skeletons and zombies) being a lot more dangerous than they seem...

Haven't played RoS for years but the passage I emphasized is part of my issue. We have heard/read people describe the RQ combat system as visceral and/or immersive. The current system as written doesn't feel like it at all. I appreciate it does for many others but personally, I cannot immersed or feel viscerally engaged in a combat when a full 12 seconds of combat abstracted in one single roll.

Again, it doesn't mean that it is wrong or bad, simply that it doesn't work for me.

Edited September 8, 2018 by DreadDomain

[Malc]

30 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Haven't played RoS for years but the passage I emphasized is part of my issue. We have heard/read people describe the RQ combat system as visceral and/or immersive. The current system as written doesn't feel like it at all. I appreciate it does for many others but personally, I cannot immersed or feel viscerally engaged in a combat when a full 12 seconds of combat abstracted in one single roll.

Again, it doesn't mean that it is wrong or bad, simply that it doesn't work for me.

I think that the "visceral" in RQ combat is a direct comparison to D&D (specifically AD&D, given the time it was first quoted).  When any RQ combat could get you killed or maimed (even if it's a vanishingly small chance), that's a big difference to most AD&D combats (most, not all), where that sense of danger just isn't present - it always felt like most fights just happened to wear down resources, but you had no real sense of danger to your character.  That sense of danger and the tension it brings, is what (I think) is important to me in a combat system.

My experience has been that the "right" level of abstraction in combat is a moving target that differs between groups, and sometimes between different games with the same group.  The TRoS combat system is the one I've used that feels closest to "simulating" a sword fight, probably because it's loaded with tactical decisions that make player skill almost as important as character skill.  While systems like HeroQuest and Fate, while excellent, are a little too abstract for my taste.  Because of the danger I mentioned, the RQ combat system, while not perfect, is "good enough" for me to enjoy it, while being relatively straightforward even for a group who've never played RQ before.

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I am aiming at making melee combat as free flowing as missile combat.

I am aiming at reducing the level of abstraction suffciently so that a professional warrior could make the appropriate tactical decision to attack more than just one opponent in 12 seconds.

Ok, we're talking about totally different things then. I thought we were talking about removing the abstraction of a single die roll to cover an entire 12 seconds of action, without substantially changing the balance of melee to missile/magic DPS.

[DreadDomain]

13 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Ok, we're talking about totally different things then. I thought we were talking about removing the abstraction of a single die roll to cover an entire 12 seconds of action, without substantially changing the balance of melee to missile/magic DPS.

There might have been two parallel conversations!

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

There might have been two parallel conversations!

As clarification, I was replying to "Why is it not blow by blow in melee?"

[RosenMcStern]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

As clarification, I was replying to "Why is it not blow by blow in melee?"

The two things are linked, though: the level of abstraction in melee combat is the reason why the frequency of attack rolls is different.

[RosenMcStern]

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Again, totaly agree. In the 80's when we were playing RQ3 almost on a daily basis, we were using the SR system as is (one attack per round). We grew unsatisfied my the limitation of the system and tried implementing varous solutions inspired ny GURPS or Fantasy HERO. In the end we thoughts these "improvements" were adding too much and were taking away from the fun. I can't recall were the idea came from but we ended up using the SR exactly as was later described in BRP BGB p.199 and it was the right ratio of tactics and abstraction for us.

Fast forward to 2018, I see I could do the exact same thing with RQG with very minor changes. One thing I would need to try is the penalty for multiple defenses to confirm it would still make sense within that context.

You could certainly do this, but depending on your group, such a modification might create more issues than it resolves:

• it nullifies any advantage of double wielding, as it gives the same benefit to anyone
• it contradicts the core assumption that Strike Ranks do not represent the time needed to carry out the attack (see Jason's and Jeff's posts in other threads); any newbie you introduce to the system will be even more confused: "Come on, what does it mean that it is not a measure of time when you can attack again after that same number of SR ?"
• it gives a huge advantage to big fighters with long weapons, which already have an advantage in the fact that they do more damage. Anyone with SR4 attacks three times more frequently than anyone with SR7+. A SR 3 fighter (not infrequent for a Gloranthan troll with a long maul) can strike FOUR times per round - with a terribly clumsy weapon, by the way. The "potential damage per round" value of weapons increases quadratically, even cubically if a bigger character with a longer weapon can also strike more frequently.

Just consider the huge incentive this would give to using long weapons in inappropriate situations. No matter how big a penalty you assign to wielding that long spear or greatsword indoors, the extra attack (or two extra attacks, in some cases) more than offsets it.

Furthermore, as you have already started to suspect, this modifications almost transforms the Strike Rank system into an impulse system. Why keep melee rounds and statement of intents, then? What to do with parries? And so on. The can of worms is big enough for a flock of pythons to crawl out of it.

Good old Perrin strike ranks are still a solid system 40 years from their introduction. But being solid means also that the system is internally consistent (at least in melee). It is not easy to change one aspect without breaking something else.

7 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Haven't played RoS for years but the passage I emphasized is part of my issue. We have heard/read people describe the RQ combat system as visceral and/or immersive. The current system as written doesn't feel like it at all. I appreciate it does for many others but personally, I cannot immersed or feel viscerally engaged in a combat when a full 12 seconds of combat abstracted in one single roll.

 If the core assumption of the game system does not work for you, perhaps you should try Legend, Mythras or Revolution D100 instead. None of the three has the problems you find in classic RQ, yet they are still D100 games with few if any compatibility issues.

[Atgxtg]

14 hours ago, prinz.slasar said:

This is even more important the more deadly the rule system is.

. I don't think character death, specifically, has to be on the line, it's more a case of how serious the campaign is and if there are consequences that the players take seriously and care about. Character death is just the most obvious, extreme and easiest case.  

Conversely, if there aren't any consequences to speak of, then the Gm can play very fast and loose. For example, a game like Toon, where no consequences ever last more than a few minutes-or until the end of the current game session, is one where a GM can basically get away with anything, just so long as the players can follow it, or trust him enough to accept it. 

 

Following what is happening, and trust are big parts of it. If the players can follow and understand the ruling, no matter what it is, then it won't be a problem. If the players can't follow or understand the ruling, then trust in the GM can carry it.

 

[DreadDomain]

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:51 PM, RosenMcStern said:

You could certainly do this, but depending on your group, such a modification might create more issues than it resolves:

Of course we could and as I said we did as early as late 80's. The modifications did not create more issues than it solved and the issues it did create were resolved at the time.

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:51 PM, RosenMcStern said:

• it nullifies any advantage of double wielding, as it gives the same benefit to anyone

Yes. Or no. It depends. Some groups will see that as a feature as dual wielding does not become the de facto style become you finally could attack twice in a MR. At the same time, you still gain some benefits. A sword and board fighter will get better defense (from the shield) while a dual-wielder has both versatility (if he chooses different weapons) and a back-up weapon. Of course it comes at the price of extra training. Back then, we saw that as a feature.

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:51 PM, RosenMcStern said:

• it contradicts the core assumption that Strike Ranks do not represent the time needed to carry out the attack (see Jason's and Jeff's posts in other threads); any newbie you introduce to the system will be even more confused: "Come on, what does it mean that it is not a measure of time when you can attack again after that same number of SR ?"

Not really, it's is just a pacing mechanism and RQG already uses this exact pacing for Missile Attacks. Resolving melee attacks the same way improves internal consistency and reduce confusion. However, so what if SR were a measure of time, albeit inaccurate? The confusion is already created by having a 12 seconds MR divided in 12 SR.

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:51 PM, RosenMcStern said:

• it gives a huge advantage to big fighters with long weapons, which already have an advantage in the fact that they do more damage. Anyone with SR4 attacks three times more frequently than anyone with SR7+. A SR 3 fighter (not infrequent for a Gloranthan troll with a long maul) can strike FOUR times per round - with a terribly clumsy weapon, by the way. The "potential damage per round" value of weapons increases quadratically, even cubically if a bigger character with a longer weapon can also strike more frequently.

Just consider the huge incentive this would give to using long weapons in inappropriate situations. No matter how big a penalty you assign to wielding that long spear or greatsword indoors, the extra attack (or two extra attacks, in some cases) more than offsets it.

So a big, dextrous and quick fighter with a long weapon would be advantaged against a small, clumsy, slow fighter with a small knife. Yes, we also saw that as a feature. What we saw at the time as a bug was that someone with a big or long weapon (low SR) would strike often and a small, short weapon (high SR) would be slow. We ended accepting that while a shorter weapon fighter would be kept at bay, opportunities to strike would be lower and we slightly modified the Close Combat maneuver from RQ3. From memory, in addition to the normal rule, there were three other situations for someone with a short weapon to slide with the longer weapon fighter's defense:

1) if the short weapon fighter would succeed his attack and the long weapon would fail his defense

2) if the short weapon fighter would get a special on his defense

3) if the short weapon fighter would spend a MR successfully defending against the longer weapon fighter (the opposite of disengaging)

Once inside the defense, we were flipping the weapon SR (we tried many variants here and I cannot remember if we were also flipping the SIZ SR). The longer weapon fighter had to regain an appropriate reach in the same way described above. It did create quite a few exciting back and forth.

As for cramped areas, in RQ3 the rule was to halves the skill%. I can tell you, it was a big incentive to drop/not use a big weapon and have something smaller.  

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:51 PM, RosenMcStern said:

Furthermore, as you have already started to suspect, this modifications almost transforms the Strike Rank system into an impulse system. Why keep melee rounds and statement of intents, then? What to do with parries? And so on. The can of worms is big enough for a flock of pythons to crawl out of it.

Good old Perrin strike ranks are still a solid system 40 years from their introduction. But being solid means also that the system is internally consistent (at least in melee). It is not easy to change one aspect without breaking something else.

I am not "starting to suspect", we played that way for many years . Good points though. We also played with dropping the MR and the Statement of intents but finally realised it gave a structure to the flow of action and helped everyone to decide quickly what they wanted to do in the MR and avoided/reduced decision paralsys in combat.

I believe we tried three different things with defenses:

1) unlimited defense

2) each subsequent defense is at a penalty (we tried a few penalties but I believe we used -10% the most)

3) each defense push your next action by 1 SR

We flip flopped between the three, they all worked well for us and never quite decided which one we preferred. The first was just easier and the second and third were forcing us to take more tactical decisions.  

I feel you might be selling the SR system short because we found it to be very easy to change and quite resilient to these changes. The changes we adopted ot those we rejected were less about breaking the system or not and more about creating and enjoyable, immersive flow without cluttering ourselves with extra rules. Like I said, we initially tried different add-ons inspired by GURPS or HERO but dropped them to come back to only a few tweaks to the RAW of RQ.   

On ‎9‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:51 PM, RosenMcStern said:

 If the core assumption of the game system does not work for you, perhaps you should try Legend, Mythras or Revolution D100 instead. None of the three has the problems you find in classic RQ, yet they are still D100 games with few if any compatibility issues.

I quite like Mythras (and would never choose Legend over it) and haven't tried Revolution yet. The thing is, I believe RQG is a pretty good game and it just make more sense to use it to play in Glorantha. And it's not that the "core assumption of the game doesn't work for me" (most of RQG works for me). I simply do not like the straightjacket put on the SR system in melee combat.

Edited September 11, 2018 by DreadDomain

[styopa]

On 9/7/2018 at 11:21 AM, Atgxtg said:

AD&D (a game system in which combat, magic, climbing a tree, lifting an object, blacksmithing, listening at a door (virtually everything) had it's own special rule.

You don't have to even go that far.  RQ had your chance to hit vs targets chance to avoid, damage minus armor.  Maybe a little mathy for some, but that compared to AD&D that was simple, intuitive, and fit on your character sheet.  AD&D  had FIVE different tables to look on for your 'to hit' number, x-ref vs your level and armor (essentially, a 3-dimensional matrix) that was only barely algorithmically laid out. Oh and that table wasn't RAW even available to players.

Think about the differences in approach those differences signify.

[styopa]

For me, what it boils down to is consistency; I don't see a justification that missile combat should be handled in a mechanically different way than melee "just because".  Either they should be both "the damage applied over 12 seconds is represented by this roll, regardless of the number of blows that actually landed" or it's "blow-by-blow.".   If I have a great DEX, I can chop with that tomahawk 1/round, but throw 3?   What if I've thrown one then end up in melee, can I still chop?  Vice versa?

If the byplay of leads, feints, etc are "just too much" to simulate (but you want to implement them rather than rationalizing them as part of the to-hit die roll) and you want to black box them, then black box THAT specifically and deliberately.  Give melee fighters the ability to apply their skill (either as a flat mod, or as a taken-action) to debuff their opponent's next parry/dodge, etc.

For that matter, I don't really get why subsequent-parries-with-penalties are a possibility when subsequent-attacks-with-penalties are not; after all, a parry really is just a deflective 'attack' on the opponent's weapon.

So you get 1 melee attack a round (normally), 3-4 parries a round, maybe up to 3 missile attacks per round, 2 spirit magics a round, 1 divine magic a round.  Bizarre.

FWIW I strongly believe the original mechanic of missile weapons getting extra shots was implemented mainly as a comfort-feature for people coming from D&D where they were used to (also, for no real reason) multiple shots a round with a missile weapons.  

 

[Atgxtg]

23 minutes ago, styopa said:

For me, what it boils down to is consistency; I don't see a justification that missile combat should be handled in a mechanically different way than melee "just because".  Either they should be both "the damage applied over 12 seconds is represented by this roll, regardless of the number of blows that actually landed" or it's "blow-by-blow.".   If I have a great DEX, I can chop with that tomahawk 1/round, but throw 3?   What if I've thrown one then end up in melee, can I still chop?  Vice versa?

To add to your argument, the high rates of fire for archers historically was for volley fire, where a group of archers was shooting into a mass of targets. Against a single target, under real combat conditions, the rates were slower. Same with the range. I've read comments from archers today say that an archer can't reliably hit a target beyond about 80 yards.

 

23 minutes ago, styopa said:

For that matter, I don't really get why subsequent-parries-with-penalties are a possibility when subsequent-attacks-with-penalties are not; after all, a parry really is just a deflective 'attack' on the opponent's weapon.

That's what happens when you 'mix-n-match" rule sets. The subsequent parries rule comes from Strombringer, which had a subsequent attack rule, the riposte. But, when subsequent parries were ported over to RQG riposte wasn't, probably because RQ already had a multiple attack rule (spitting attacks). 

If they had ported over ripostes, then they would not only have to deal with replacing an established rule (splitting attacks) but they would also have to figure out how to integrate ripostes into the Strike Rank mechanics. 

 

23 minutes ago, styopa said:

FWIW I strongly believe the original mechanic of missile weapons getting extra shots was implemented mainly as a comfort-feature for people coming from D&D where they were used to (also, for no real reason) multiple shots a round with a missile weapons.  

I doubt it. It was probably based on how long it took to get a good during SCA battles, as opposed to how long it took to get a good hit at an archery range. Bows are faster, but mostly because targets don't defend themselves- or shoot back. 

[Joerg]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

To add to your argument, the high rates of fire for archers historically was for volley fire, where a group of archers was shooting into a mass of targets. Against a single target, under real combat conditions, the rates were slower. 

Leaving realism aside, if you check the exploits of Paris as a heroic archer in the Iliad, he does a veritable Legolas in that Trojan assault. Distance would have been under 20 meters, but in a melee situation where he dodged between heavily armored melee fighters.

At a similar distance, even relatively untrained me was able to fire six well-aimed shots at similar distance on torso-sized targets which showed only every five seconds or so for maybe three seconds in considerably less than a minute. That's one called hit onto a hit location per melee round. Sniping from a position away from melee.

Quote

Same with the range. I've read comments from archers today say that an archer can't reliably hit a target beyond about 80 yards.

Depends on the size of the target, and whether it is moving about, and on arrow speed if it is moving about.

Your average sports bow with ultra-light arrows will achieve similar flight times as a low military strength longbow with wooden arrows. At 80 meters, you can have a second arrow notched and ready when the first arrow strikes the target. With flight times like that, you need to guess at the movement of a moving target to land a hit. You can reliably hit a torso-sized area at that distance, but the target needs to cooperate and cross that area when the arrow arrives.

The closer the target gets, the smaller the area you can reliably hit, and the greater the chance that the victim will be within that target area because time to move out of it also shortens. Again, at 20 meters you can snipe fairly well, but the target needs to cooperate through constant movement or failure to evade.

If you are shooting at a densely packed mass of targets, effective range is about 150 meters. Hitting an individual target reliably at that distance is hard, but on good days even I managed to put most of my arrows within the second innermost ring at a clout tournament.

Rapid fire archery at an approaching mass is a sound strategy if you don't have to worry about ammunition. Given the amount of material and labor that goes into a well-adapted arrow, not having to worry is likely a situation where your opponents arriving makes all conservation of ammo a moot decision.

 

 

[styopa]

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

Leaving realism aside, if you check the exploits of Paris as a heroic archer in the Iliad, he does a veritable Legolas in that Trojan assault. Distance would have been under 20 meters, but in a melee situation where he dodged between heavily armored melee fighters.

I'm not sure the mechanics of a "realistic" combat system should be based on the performance of a LITERALLY mythopoeic heroic person, even if we could for a moment believe the Iliad was real..

5 hours ago, Joerg said:

At a similar distance, even relatively untrained me was able to fire six well-aimed shots at similar distance on torso-sized targets which showed only every five seconds or so for maybe three seconds in considerably less than a minute. That's one called hit onto a hit location per melee round. Sniping from a position away from melee.

6 in a minute?  How many times do you think someone could strike a target with a sword in a minute? 15? 20? More?

My point isn't the realism or lack of realism, frankly. 

We all know that one COULD design a meticulous second-by-second simulation system (ala Phoenix Command).  It would be realistic, it would likely also be IMPOSSIBLE to play usefully (IMO).  My point is that one can chose literally any point on the spectrum from rationalized to realism & I'm fine with that.  What I'm not fine with is a system that picks multiple different systems on the spectrum arbitrarily for different parts of what might even be simultaneously the same event. 

Wouldn't it be simpler to just use the same rules approach consistently for everything?

[Joerg]

4 hours ago, styopa said:

I'm not sure the mechanics of a "realistic" combat system should be based on the performance of a LITERALLY mythopoeic heroic person, even if we could for a moment believe the Iliad was real..

It was written for an audience of warriors. Poetic exaggeration was accepted in such poetry, like Beowulf's heroic swimming feat. If you want to capture the option of epic heroic combat at the upper range of the combat system, boosted by magic, this is what your system is supposed to support.

You do want the gritty professional level on the other end.

4 hours ago, styopa said:

6 in a minute?  How many times do you think someone could strike a target with a sword in a minute? 15? 20? More?

Rolled tatami maps? Maybe 20 strikes, and your energy spent for a few minutes as this would be a sprint effort and not sustainable aerobic activity.  More than half as many arrows in rapid fire mode at point blank "you need to fumble to miss" range, if you have those arrows ready, Arrowmound fashion, and a lot less anaerobic metabolism.

Ypu'll be able to hit about as many fencing contacts with your opponent's weapon, and much less exhaustion. A strike followed through is a different kind of effort than testing your opponent's weapon for a clear strike. How many pieces of wood can you cleave with an axe in a minute?

 

There are weapons which deal a lot less force per strike but have a greater strike frequency, like daggers, and the RQ strike rank system sucks at simulating knife fights or fisticuffs with chain strikes, unless you treat the chain strike sequence as a single attack.

 

[RosenMcStern]

On 9/9/2018 at 7:15 AM, DreadDomain said:

I feel you might be selling the SR system short because we found it to be very easy to change and quite resilient to these changes. The changes we adopted ot those we rejected were less about breaking the system or not and more about creating and enjoyable, immersive flow without cluttering ourselves with extra rules. Like I said, we initially tried different add-ons inspired by GURPS or HERO but dropped them to come back to only a few tweaks to the RAW of RQ.   

Well, the above is what I would call rebuilding the system from the ground, not a few tweaks. To each his own: if it works for you, why not?

Just do not assume that a system that worked fine with RQ3 will do the same with RQG. The two games look similar, but the balance of power is different.

[DreadDomain]

17 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

Well, the above is what I would call rebuilding the system from the ground, not a few tweaks. To each his own: if it works for you, why not?

Just do not assume that a system that worked fine with RQ3 will do the same with RQG. The two games look similar, but the balance of power is different.

You do realise that what I just described can be summarize by:

1) Take RQ3 melee combat

2) ignore the 1 attack and 1 parry per MR constraint

3) add a few options to closing in combat

4) playtest and tweak as require

You and I have very different of building from the ground up. Revolution d100 is building from the ground up. Would you consider RQG a game built from the ground up.

As for RQ3 and RQG, I agree, I would need to replaytest this. Not only are the games slightly different but these were the house rules we used 30 years ago!

Edited September 11, 2018 by DreadDomain

[RosenMcStern]

11 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

You do realise that what I just described can be summarize by:

1) Take RQ3 melee combat

2) ignore the 1 attack and 1 parry per MR constraint

Yep. This negates the basic assumption of the system (an attack is the total of all actions you make in a round). Like playing D&D with armour is a penalty to the to-damage roll and not the to-hit roll. You can do it, and it will stil have the feeling of D&D as it still has levels and hitpoint inflation, but it is not the same game.

For me, it is a "rebuild from the ground", because it requires a revision of all the ancillary rules connected to that assumption. Which I suppose you did, given the number of other changes you have described. 

Quote

As for RQ3 and RQG, I agree, I would need to replaytest this. Not only are the games slightly different but these were the house rules we used 30 years ago!

They are not "slightly" different. The unification of attack & parry, the ability to make multiple defenses per round and the subtraction of skill over 100% from the opponent's skill and the general availability of skill-enhancing weapon magic change the balance of the game much more than you can think at first sight. At high skill levels, the balance of combat is quite different. 

 

[DreadDomain]

59 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Yep. This negates the basic assumption of the system (an attack is the total of all actions you make in a round). Like playing D&D with armour is a penalty to the to-damage roll and not the to-hit roll. You can do it, and it will stil have the feeling of D&D as it still has levels and hitpoint inflation, but it is not the same game.

For me, it is a "rebuild from the ground", because it requires a revision of all the ancillary rules connected to that assumption. Which I suppose you did, given the number of other changes you have described. 

They are not "slightly" different. The unification of attack & parry, the ability to make multiple defenses per round and the subtraction of skill over 100% from the opponent's skill and the general availability of skill-enhancing weapon magic change the balance of the game much more than you can think at first sight. At high skill levels, the balance of combat is quite different. 

 

Let's say that we clearly disagree. Continuing this exchange is becoming rather pointless as we seem to argue on a side issue (is it from the ground up or not) that is not bringing anything to the conversation. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by DreadDomain

[RosenMcStern]

Hey, this is a RPG forum. The more trivial the subject, the more we are supposed to flame!