Subsequent parries RQG

[Atgxtg]

6 hours 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.

Whoa! You are saying that allowing for multiple attacks in a round is the basic assumption of the system, and that changing that one particular rule turns it into a different game system? That's a bit extreme. 

Edited September 11, 2018 by Atgxtg

[RosenMcStern]

25 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Whoa! You are saying that allowing for multiple attacks in a round is the basic assumption of the system, and that changing that one particular rule turns it into a different game system? That's a bit extreme. 

The definition of "Melee attack" and "melee round" is the core assumption of the RQ2/3/G combat system. Change that, and you have something that might be closer to Stormbringer or Call of Cthulhu than to RuneQuest. Still BRP, but another, different flavour of BRP.

To make another parallel: the definition of "hit points" as abilty to withstand combat (as opposed to "resistance to actual wounds") is totally central in D&D. You _can_ tinker with this concept, and editions 4 and 5 have done it, and the result will be still D&D, but a different flavour of D&D. Just think of the impact that healing surges/hit dice have on the game in 4e and 5e, and how old schoolers may bitch around against this simple mechanics because they do not like it and demand healing potions to cure wounds.

No part of a game is untouchable. But some parts, if touched, produce a "different flavour" of the game, even when they are the only part you change. I know a person who plays Mythras by pre-declaring combat effects and applying a modifier depending on the effect, in the style of classic BRP.. Any observer will still recognize it as Mythras, but the game experience is definitely different. 

[Atgxtg]

33 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

The definition of "Melee attack" and "melee round" is the core assumption of the RQ2/3/G combat system.

It isn't an assumption, but a definition. The two terms are somewhat contraction. The "Melee round' is something that is standard to virtually every RPG. Now the Strike Rank system is something that only exists in five rpgs( RQ, RQ2, RQ3, ElfQuest, and Ringworld) in three variants (RQ/RQ2, RQ3/ElfQuest, and Ringworld's Impulse system).  

33 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Change that, and you have something that might be closer to Stormbringer or Call of Cthulhu than to RuneQuest. Still BRP, but another, different flavour of BRP.

Yes, so what? People houserule all sorts of things, yet I wouldn't necessarily claim that they are playing a different game.  Going from Strike Ranks to DEX ranks doesn't entirely change the game, does it? And, if it does, what does that mean to the whole "your Glorantha may vary," thing? Are none of us playing RuneQuest? It begs the question just how much  of a game can someone change  before they are considered to not be playing "the same" game anymore? We all divert from the established rules and/or setting in some manner, either by accident of design.

I think you're handing out boarding passes for the ship of Theseus. 

 

33 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

No part of a game is untouchable. But some parts, if touched, produce a "different flavour" of the game, even when they are the only part you change. I know a person who plays Mythras by pre-declaring combat effects and applying a modifier depending on the effect, in the style of classic BRP.. Any observer will still recognize it as Mythras, but the game experience is definitely different. 

Certainly, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Likewise, altering the SR system will change how the game plays and feels to some extent. But that is true of virtually any change in how the game is run, including changing GMs. Just how much of a change altering any particular rule has depends on how radical the change, and what sort of domino effect follows the change.  Tinkering with the  SR mechanic could have a minor effect or completely alter the game depending on just what the alterations are, and the domino effect of those alterations.

I'm wondering just how much can we change the game before we are considered to be playing something else? If a GM were to replace the SR mechanic with a DEX rank mechanic from Strombringer would they be considered to be playing RQG with a minor change? RQG with a major change? a variant of RQG? A variant of Strombringer? 

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I'm wondering just how much can we change the game before we are considered to be playing something else? If a GM were to replace the SR mechanic with a DEX rank mechanic from Strombringer would they be considered to be playing RQG with a minor change? RQG with a major change? a variant of RQG? A variant of Strombringer? 

Why does it matter? Everyone will draw their lines in different places. What you call the system is less important than what the mechanics are.

[Atgxtg]

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Why does it matter? Everyone will draw their lines in different places. What you call the system is less important than what the mechanics are.

Because this is a forum for RuneQuest.  Rosen is stating that by tinkering with the Strike Rank system means that someone is no longer playing RuneQuest. So that would mean that this topic is in the wrong forum and belongs someplace else.

Frankly, I think the topic does belong here, and that the Strike Rank system isn't a sacred cow. Why can't someone tinker with it? Now I'm a fan of the SR system, and would be hesitant to tamper with it, but I  want to see how someone is going to change it before I condemn the change. There have certainly been more radical, official changes to RQ over the years. Just look at all the changes in RQG. Multiple parries, reusable rune magic for everybody, passions- all probably have a much greater impact on game play than tinker with the SR system will. So claiming that tinkering with the SR mechanic means someone isn't playing RQ anymore is an overreaction. 

I'd rather focus on the proposed change and try to see how it would affect the way the game functionally.  

 

[PhilHibbs]

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Because this is a forum for RuneQuest.  Rosen is stating that by tinkering with the Strike Rank system means that someone is no longer playing RuneQuest. So that would mean that this topic is in the wrong forum and belongs someplace else.

I see, but I don't think anyone is actually saying that such discussions would not be appropriate here.

[RosenMcStern]

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Because this is a forum for RuneQuest.  Rosen is stating that by tinkering with the Strike Rank system means that someone is no longer playing RuneQuest. So that would mean that this topic is in the wrong forum and belongs someplace else.

Frankly, I think the topic does belong here, and that the Strike Rank system isn't a sacred cow. Why can't someone tinker with it? Now I'm a fan of the SR system, and would be hesitant to tamper with it, but I  want to see how someone is going to change it before I condemn the change. There have certainly been more radical, official changes to RQ over the years. Just look at all the changes in RQG. Multiple parries, reusable rune magic for everybody, passions- all probably have a much greater impact on game play than tinker with the SR system will. So claiming that tinkering with the SR mechanic means someone isn't playing RQ anymore is an overreaction. 

I'd rather focus on the proposed change and try to see how it would affect the way the game functionally.  

 

I never "condemned" anything, nor said that the post does not belong here. I just said that tinkering in that way with the SR system is not a "minor houserule" but a change that produces a "different experience", albeit still clearly recognizable as being "RuneQuest" and not, for instance, "Stormbringer". DreadDomain himself stated it produced the more tactical experience he was looking for, implying that the "game experience" changed in a perceivable way.

Changes are not negative per se, particularly if they produce an experience that the group finds more enjoyable. The problem comes with unplaytested changes (not the case here), or changes that do not satisfy the player group.

And I certainly agree that some changes in RQG have a deeper impact on the game experience than any SR tinkering. In fact, that was exactly my caveat: do not assume that playtesting this with RQ3 makes it automatically viable with RQG. For instance, as DD acknowledged, it takes away the advantage of double attacks when you wield two weapons by giving this advantage to everyone. He is ok with this, so green light for trying it at his table. But would every single RQG player be ok with this?

[DreadDomain]

18 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

I never "condemned" anything, nor said that the post does not belong here. I just said that tinkering in that way with the SR system is not a "minor houserule"

Nor is it rebuilding from the ground up

18 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

but a change that produces a "different experience", albeit still clearly recognizable as being "RuneQuest" and not, for instance, "Stormbringer". DreadDomain himself stated it produced the more tactical experience he was looking for, implying that the "game experience" changed in a perceivable way.

Absolutely! Of course it offered a different play experience. House ruling without changing/improving play experience is rather an exercise in futility or change for the change of sake. Over time RQ3 did not offer the play experience we wanted so we house ruled it until it did.

[DreadDomain]

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I'd rather focus on the proposed change and try to see how it would affect the way the game functionally.  

Yes, it would be much more useful. Keep in mind thought that what I was describing above were house rules on RQ3 decades ago. I would have to have a cold hard look at how it could be applied to RQG and obviously playtest it. But still, there are two things that would be useful.

First, as I already expressed, the RQ2/3/G constraint on the number of attacks in a MR annoys me because I find it artificial and mechanistic, I feel it lacks versimilitude (really, I cannot try to attack two different opponent in 12 seconds?) and it prevents me from immersing or feeling tactical engaged in melee combat. While rewatching the Spartacus series or rereading Robert E. Howard, I reflected that there was no way such combat could be recreated in RQG. So the first question is, if someone feels somewhat the same what solution have they used?

Second, I fully appreciate that my sentiment is not universally shared and for some the limit of attacks in 12 seconds is not a bug, but a feature. I am interested to learn why it is the case. Do you feel you can recreate immersive, visceral combat as seen in literature (REH) or on telly (Spartacus, GoT, etc...)? Does the impossibility to attack two different opponent whith a single weapon bother you? Do you feel immersed and tactically engaged. To be honest, I would love to be convinced that the system can work for me exactly as it is.

[PhilHibbs]

15 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

While rewatching the Spartacus series or rereading Robert E. Howard, I reflected that there was no way such combat could be recreated in RQG. So the first question is, if someone feels somewhat the same what solution have they used?

Even with skills over 100, splitting attacks, and a bunch of combat magic?

[DreadDomain]

Just now, PhilHibbs said:

Even with skills over 100, splitting attacks, and a bunch of combat magic?

Conan and Spactacus are clearly not using combat magic so that doesn't help. As for skills over 100%, It does help but it means the skills need to be insanely high (as in beyond reasonable level even for heroic figures like Conan, Spartacus, Gannicus Crixius, Agron and company) to make it work. I can see these combats working fairly easily (with reasonable if heroic stats) in Mythras, HERO, GURPS, TDE, even KAP and HQ... but not RQG (but again, would love to be proven wrong).

[RosenMcStern]

4 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Yes, it would be much more useful. Keep in mind thought that what I was describing above were house rules on RQ3 decades ago. I would have to have a cold hard look at how it could be applied to RQG and obviously playtest it. But still, there are two things that would be useful.

First, as I already expressed, the RQ2/3/G constraint on the number of attacks in a MR annoys me because I find it artificial and mechanistic, I feel it lacks versimilitude (really, I cannot try to attack two different opponent in 12 seconds?) and it prevents me from immersing or feeling tactical engaged in melee combat.

It all boils down to this. It is not a matter of realism or game balance (no game is truly realistic or balanced), but whether you "feel" being your character or not (suspension of disbelief) or you feel engaged in something artificial. And the rules used do influence suspension of disbelief, although there is a lot of personal taste involved.

PS the term "immersion" is ambiguous, as a non-trivial part of the roleplaying community uses it with a different meaning. Suspension of disbelief is non-ambiguous, more widely used as it is also used in reference to cinema and fiction, and means exactly what you are describing here, so it is better to use this term rather than "immersion". Just to avoid misunderstandings.

Quote

While rewatching the Spartacus series or rereading Robert E. Howard, I reflected that there was no way such combat could be recreated in RQG. So the first question is, if someone feels somewhat the same what solution have they used?

 

Playing Mythras.  It works exactly like a REH tale, without any houseruling.

Quote

Second, I fully appreciate that my sentiment is not universally shared and for some the limit of attacks in 12 seconds is not a bug, but a feature. I am interested to learn why it is the case. Do you feel you can recreate immersive, visceral combat as seen in literature (REH) or on telly (Spartacus, GoT, etc...)? Does the impossibility to attack two different opponent whith a single weapon bother you? Do you feel immersed and tactically engaged. To be honest, I would love to be convinced that the system can work for me exactly as it is.

The problem is complex. If it is just a matter of "I cannot stand not being able to attack twice", then the solution is simple: allow multiple attacks.

If the problem is "I want more tacticism in combat", then RQ Classic is designed to be way more tactical than D&D, but not extremely tactical. Other D100 variants are more adequate for the tactical minded. However, this is a feature, and not a bug, because it incentivizes use of magic, and thus a play style more adequate for Glorantha.

A ruleset which correctly reproduces Conan should enable fighters who would not touch anything magic with a 10 foot pole to make mincemeat of sorcerers and their supernatural minions, as Conan never fails to do, no matter how nasty the monster turn out to be. However, this is NOT what you are supposed to do in Glorantha, where your closeness to your chosen runes should be as important as your abilities to wield steel. This means that de-incentivizing tactical thinking and disallowing defeat of strong opponents by means of martial prowess alone is actually a plus in a Gloranthan game. It makes you less Conan, but more Price Snodal.

 

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

I never "condemned" anything, nor said that the post does not belong here.

I must have misunderstood what your meant.

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

I just said that tinkering in that way with the SR system is not a "minor houserule" but a change that produces a "different experience", albeit still clearly recognizable as being "RuneQuest" and not, for instance, "Stormbringer".

That's where we disagree. Tinkering with the SR system could be a minor houserule, depending on the just what the change is. For example, if an RQG player were to adopt RQ3 Strike Ranks that probably shouldn't be that big a deal. I'd think that the major differences to play would stem from clearing up some of the ambiguities of RQG, such as what SR spirit magic goes off.

 

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

And I certainly agree that some changes in RQG have a deeper impact on the game experience than any SR tinkering. In fact, that was exactly my caveat: do not assume that playtesting this with RQ3 makes it automatically viable with RQG. For instance, as DD acknowledged, it takes away the advantage of double attacks when you wield two weapons by giving this advantage to everyone. He is ok with this, so green light for trying it at his table. But would every single RQG player be ok with this?

Ah. Okay. For most of the thread I was in agreement with you. Game mechanics in RQ are interlinked, and changing one thing can cause a domino effect of  consequences. Something that Mongoose didn't seem to understand when they came up with ideas such as increasing weapon damage to try and regain the lethality that RQ players were expecting. They failed to realize that increasing the damage, something that they had done in some D&D products,  had a negative impact on how armor and parrying would work in RQ. In D&D armor and defense (armor class) works independent of damage and hit points. In RQ they are integrated. 

 

But as to how severe tinkering the SR system would be, again, I think it depends on just what those changes are. 

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Conan and Spactacus are clearly not using combat magic so that doesn't help. As for skills over 100%, It does help but it means the skills need to be insanely high (as in beyond reasonable level even for heroic figures like Conan, Spartacus, Gannicus Crixius, Agron and company) to make it work. I can see these combats working fairly easily (with reasonable if heroic stats) in Mythras, HERO, GURPS, TDE, even KAP and HQ... but not RQG (but again, would love to be proven wrong).

The skills probably are "insanely high" for those characters. It's part of the style of how such characters are portrayed. For everyone else...

Part of the problem here is just what 100% skill means.In older versions of RQ, a master of a skill had a 90% score. I don;t know if this is spelled out the same way in RQG. I think it is, due to Rune Lord requirements, but someone else will have to confirm it. Now people today, when they here the word master, they think of some little old man with enough skill at martial arts to kick the butt of a half dozen muscle bound ruffians. But, that's an inaccurate view. Historically,  a master of someone was really just a craftsman who was considered "good enough" to set up his own business and do something professionally. In the modern world, people go to college and get a master's degree, which basically means the same thing- they are considered "good enough" to do something professionally in the eyes of society. It also means they are considered good enough to teach professionally.  Likewise, a master swordsman, was someone considered to be good enough to teach swordsmanship professionally. So think of mastery more in terms of a school teacher as opposed to Yoda. 

Now by that reasoning (and, to be honest, not all Chaosium RPGs have used that approach. Early editions of Stormbringer and CoC, for example, maxed skills out at 100-%) skills for experienced characters would probably be higher than 90%. That approach seems to match up with later version of Stormbringer/Elric! as well as, apparently, RQG.  So in that light, a skill score over 100% isn't "insanely" high. It just means that they are better than most starting professionals  in that field. 

 

But, I don't think that allowing a second attack with a weapon, say DEX SR after the first is unplayable. Nor do I think splitting skill the way they do in Pendragon necessarily  be a bad thing for accomplishing what I think you are trying for. 

 

[RosenMcStern]

27 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But as to how severe tinkering the SR system would be, again, I think it depends on just what those changes are. 

Exactly. DreadDomain's changes are not minor.

5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But, I don't think that allowing a second attack with a weapon, say DEX SR after the first is unplayable. Nor do I think splitting skill the way they do in Pendragon necessarily  be a bad thing for accomplishing what I think you are trying for. 

What about "you can make as many extra attacks as your weapon SR, separated by your DEX SR (minimum 1) and with a cumulative  -20 to each" ?

[Atgxtg]

19 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

What about "you can make as many extra attacks as your weapon SR, separated by your DEX SR (minimum 1) and with a cumulative  -20 to each" ?

I'm not sure if I understand how that works.Do you mean that a weapon with SR 0 gets no extra attacks but one with SR 3 would get three extra attacks, assuming a low enough DEX SR? 

Well, for starters I would consider it to be a significant change, since it would make lighter weapons more significant, as well as make armor, protection spells, and DEX much more important. Additionally, I agree with you that such a rule would work differently in RQG than in RQ3 as the extra 2 strike ranks would translate into another attack for most characters. So a swordsman with SR7, could end up getting two extra attacks instead of one. I'd also think that such a rule wouldn't be fair to weapons with a low SR modifier, such as spears, as not all low SR weapons are slow, and I would not use or encourage the use of the rule. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RosenMcStern]

You can just add DEX SR and enforce no limit, but again, that would give big guys with long weapons an advantage which they should not have. I think giving an excessive penalty to spear users would have less impact than this.

The problem is that in every way you handle it, the "add x to your normal strike rank" creates an unfair advantage for long weapons and bigger fighters, because it changes an advantage meant to imply "strike first" into a "strike more often". And longer weapons do not strike more often. This is why I say that tinkering with melee SR is inherently disruptive of the system.

[Atgxtg]

13 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

You can just add DEX SR and enforce no limit, but again, that would give big guys with long weapons an advantage which they should not have.

I'd suggest either not using melee rounds, but simply track impulses like Ringworld. It would be much fairer. A big guy with a long weapon would get first strike, but once the battle is joined it would simply turn into speed/DEX. In fact, without melee rounds, you could factor in for SIZ and weapon speed (as opposed to reach) and get something workable, fairly quickly, that wouldn't have as much of an impact. But I'm not sure if it would be worth the bookkeeping. 

[RosenMcStern]

See? In the end, it is damn complicate to tinker with this aspect of the rules without redoing everything from the ground up. It can be done, but not with "a couple of simple houserules".

[Atgxtg]

19 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

The problem is that in every way you handle it, the "add x to your normal strike rank" creates an unfair advantage for long weapons and bigger fighters, because it changes an advantage meant to imply "strike first" into a "strike more often". And longer weapons do not strike more often. This is why I say that tinkering with melee SR is inherently disruptive of the system.

Unless you do something like  3-Weapon SR as the modifier for the subsequent attacks. That way the first strike advantage remains just that. 

[RosenMcStern]

"Inverted weapon SR". This is what DreadDomani does for closing, and it is an elegant solution. Not a simple one, though. And it does not resolve the "spears are long but not clumsy" problem. My solution is better at this point, as it gives an advantage for high DEX and a disadvantage for long weapon.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

See? In the end, it is damn complicate to tinker with this aspect of the rules without redoing everything from the ground up. It can be done, but not with "a couple of simple houserules".

I wouldn't say it was redoing everything from the ground up. I do think DD's version has some far reaching consequences. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

"Inverted weapon SR". This is what DreadDomani does for closing, and it is an elegant solution. Not a simple one, though. And it does not resolve the "spears are long but not clumsy" problem. My solution is better at this point, as it gives an advantage for high DEX and a disadvantage for long weapon.

I dunno, I think a better solution would probably be to port over and adapt the riposte rules from old Strombringer, have them apply to everybody, then adjust the  modifier based on the weapon used. That is riposting with a rapier might be at -10%, while riposting with a broadsword might be at -20%, and riposting with a great axe -30%. 

[Mugen]

16 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

See? In the end, it is damn complicate to tinker with this aspect of the rules without redoing everything from the ground up. It can be done, but not with "a couple of simple houserules".

Last time I tried to make a "simplified version of RuneQuest", it ended up looking more like FATE than BRP.

[RosenMcStern]

6 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Last time I tried to make a "simplified version of RuneQuest", it ended up looking more like FATE than BRP.

Same here. The only difference is that I went on and published it