Help me sell RQG to my players

[Kloster]

6 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

I am curious to hear what you believe came from KAP or SB that made RQ less RQ?

In fact, the influences that I believe are giving a 'less' RuneQuest impressions are from Stormbringer and are (for me) the  Single skill for attack and parry (bad idea) and the Multiple Parry (bad idea).

For the rules coming from Pendragon, I feel some are good imports, some are bad imports and I have mixed feelings on some, but none are make me feel the game as 'less Runequest'.

[DreadDomain]

Just now, Kloster said:

In fact, the influences that I believe are giving a 'less' RuneQuest impressions are from Stormbringer and are (for me) the  Single skill for attack and parry (bad idea) and the Multiple Parry (bad idea).

For the rules coming from Pendragon, I feel some are good imports, some are bad imports and I have mixed feelings on some, but none are make me feel the game as 'less Runequest'.

Ok, that's interesting. Out of curiosity, is your RQ closer to RQ2 or closer to RQ3?

[Kloster]

Just now, DreadDomain said:

Ok, that's interesting. Out of curiosity, is your RQ closer to RQ2 or closer to RQ3?

I would like it to be closer to RQIII, even if I feel some that some RQG evolutions are very good. I would have prefered a RQIII basis to a RQ2 basis.

[Kloster]

4 minutes ago, Kloster said:

For the rules coming from Pendragon, I feel some are good imports, some are bad imports and I have mixed feelings on some, but none are make me feel the game as 'less Runequest'.

Oh, yes, there is one: The 1 adventure per season rule (Argh)

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, Kloster said:

In fact, the influences that I believe are giving a 'less' RuneQuest impressions are from Stormbringer and are (for me) the  Single skill for attack and parry (bad idea) and the Multiple Parry (bad idea).

For the rules coming from Pendragon, I feel some are good imports, some are bad imports and I have mixed feelings on some, but none are make me feel the game as 'less Runequest'.

The single skill for Attack and Parry comes from everyone - Greg, myself, Steve, Sandy, Jason - and everyone I know who has ever done martial training, and even my own limited experience in Chinese staff and straight sword training. 

Multiple Parry comes from Steve and Jason. I like the rule addition (or I wouldn't have included it), although in practice it is used as more of a desperation move.

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, Kloster said:

Single skill for attack and parry (bad idea) and the Multiple Parry (bad idea).

I don't think those are bad ideas in absolute, quite the opposite.

But the combination of both rules and the fact you can freely chose which hand you chose for parrying, produce very unfortunate results, such as the fact fighting with a shield is much more difficult than fighting with just one weapon.

And concerning "highest roll wins" in combat, I like how it worked in the last playtest version of MRQ (the one from Kenneth Hyte, I think), before Mongoose fumbled everything. In this version, a succesful parry with a roll inferior to the attacker's only blocked half the weapon's AP in damage.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mugen

[PhilHibbs]

23 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Multiple Parry comes from Steve and Jason. I like the rule addition (or I wouldn't have included it), although in practice it is used as more of a desperation move.

Many monsters, maybe most, have multiple attacks so I'd expect it to be used a lot. Certainly has in my experience, three out of four combats so far involved muti-attacking opponents (rock lizards, sprul-pa, broo).

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

The single skill for Attack and Parry comes from everyone - Greg, myself, Steve, Sandy, Jason - and everyone I know who has ever done martial training, and even my own limited experience in Chinese staff and straight sword training. 

My mistake. I thought they came from Stormbringer. This is the only BRP game I've played where I have seen them. But the question was about what I felt 'less Runequest', and those 2 rules are part of it: Even RQ2, that has been proclamed to be the basis for building RQG has separate attack and parry skills, and allow a single parry per round.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

I don't think those are bad ideas in absolute, quite the opposite.

Different persons, different feelings.

[Jeff]

2 hours ago, Mugen said:

I don't think those are bad ideas in absolute, quite the opposite.

But the combination of both rules and the fact you can freely chose which hand you chose for parrying, produce very unfortunate results, such as the fact fighting with a shield is much more difficult than fighting with just one weapon.

And concerning "highest roll wins" in combat, I like how it worked in the last playtest version of MRQ (the one from Kenneth Hyte, I think), before Mongoose fumbled everything. In this version, a succesful parry with a roll inferior to the attacker's only blocked half the weapon's AP in damage.

How is fighting with a shield much more difficult? It is a separate skill, yes. But most folk start out with a decent skill at shield, and shields usually have more AP than weapons, cheaper to replace, and way more useful against missile weapons. 

[Mugen]

30 minutes ago, Jeff said:

How is fighting with a shield much more difficult? It is a separate skill, yes. But most folk start out with a decent skill at shield, and shields usually have more AP than weapons, cheaper to replace, and way more useful against missile weapons. 

If I have to invest in two skills instead of one, I will end up with smaller chances of attacks and/or parry than with one skill, even if it's only a 5% difference.

It would be a pity to lose a limb instead of a broken broadsword because of that 5% difference.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mugen

[Shiningbrow]

6 hours ago, Kloster said:

In fact, the influences that I believe are giving a 'less' RuneQuest impressions are from Stormbringer and are (for me) the  Single skill for attack and parry (bad idea) and the Multiple Parry (bad idea).

I'm not ganging up on you with the rest, but I do want to say... I see both sides of it!

The more anal rules nazi in me wants RH/LH Att & Par like in in days gone by. But, I also like the simplification of just the 1 skill to cover both (with half percentage for using off-hand).  But then, I'm also not un-convinced about MRQ about "Combat Styles"... AS a person usually practices a couple of weapons/shield together, and not individually (and, obliviously, sometimes you do!)

Multiple parries actually make a lot of sense! They do reflect real life.... (unlike single attacks, and the concept of a 'melee round').

I think, ultimately, MGF wins out, and thus a single skill roll is closer to maximum than having to up-skill separate Att & Par... and the ability to multi-parry.

 

41 minutes ago, Jeff said:

How is fighting with a shield much more difficult?

They're a lot bulkier, and harder to utilise. Coming from single one-handed weapon to adding a huge weight on your other (usually balancing) arm is quite encumbering. But, if you're trained with it, then it's something you get used to anyway...

[PhilHibbs]

29 minutes ago, Mugen said:

If I have to invest in two skills instead of one, I will end up with smaller chances of attacks and/or parry than with one skill, even if it's only a 5% difference.

It would be a pity to lose a limb instead of a broken broadsword because of that 5% difference.

RuneQuest adventurers can raise more than one skill at the same time. You don't get lower skill increases for having more skills ticked. And the down-side of parrying with your sword is that you are likely to break it, giving you no attack OR parry (or severely gimped, half chance).

Edited June 21, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[soltakss]

On 6/19/2019 at 2:53 PM, styopa said:

Personally, I'd say that a QUICKER way to get people into the 'vibe' would be to simply watch Hercules or Xena.  They're streaming pretty much everywhere and while kitschy they're decent shows and hew to the bronze age motif at least as closely as RQG does.

Definitely agree with that. They are as accurately Bronze Age as RuneQuest is and almost as much fun.

19 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I never read the Illiadand that short blurb is very informational. It makes it less likely that I will ever read it (so many good books to read) but still gives a context around the whole thing.

I read the Iliad as a teenager and it was great, full of combat and stuff. When I started playing RQ, I thought that it was just like the Iliad. I've still got the Book Club version that I read as a kid. If you like RQ then I think you'd like the Iliad.

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

RuneQuest adventurers can raise more than one skill at the same time. You don't get lower skill increases for having more skills ticked. And the down-side of parrying with your sword is that you are likely to break it, giving you no attack OR parry (or severely gimped, half chance).

It's true for experience, but not for training. The hours I will spend training with my shield will be less time invested in my sword.

I can also carry a second sword in my off-hand in case the other one breaks, and use it to attack if my SR allows for it. As I will concentrate on my main hand, my chances of success won't be very good, but it's not such a problem.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Mugen

[Kloster]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I'm not ganging up on you with the rest,...

Thanks.

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Multiple parries actually make a lot of sense! They do reflect real life.... (unlike single attacks, and the concept of a 'melee round').

True. I used (over 30 years ago) to practice a lot of fencing (foil and sabre). I never told the multiple parry is a bad rule, nor that it does not better describe real world, as the possibility to parry and attack with the same weapon. I said that for me, it does not feel like Runequest. It removes part of the tactical reflection in the combats. And I have the same problem with the single skill. I agree it is simpler, not that it better describe real world (at least not with my experience), but I can accept that the authors prefers it that way. It just does not feel right for me.

[Kloster]

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

But the combination of both rules and the fact you can freely chose which hand you chose for parrying, produce very unfortunate results

Agreed, but this is another point. I spoke of feelings about gameplay, not about rules problems.

[Joerg]

41 minutes ago, Mugen said:

It's true for experience, but not for training. The hours I will spend training with my shield will be less time invested in my sword.

I can also carry a second sword in my off-hand in case the other one breaks, and use it to attack if my SR allows for it. As I will concentrate on my main hand, my chances of success won't be very good, but it's not such a problem.

The ability to parry or shield from missiles is a definitive advantage of the shield parry. The dual wield approach requires at least as much training for the off-hand, but it has the advantage of leaving the main hand weapon attack at full skill rather than halving an attack above 100%. The down side of this method is that you need to cast your sword-enhancing magic on each blade separately, or go for Multispell.

Parrying a massive blow with your attack weapon may take out your attacking arm and not just the weapon, leaving you unable to continue the combat in the next melee round.

For my personal taste, RQ has too many skills. The more skills a system provides, the less proficient will the characters be. Each additional skill is another thing you cannot do -- sometimes not at all, sometimes not decently. That said, mastery may come only with specialisation.

From a realism point of view, there are some weapon skills where attacking and parrying are more or less the same, and there are other weapons which work fine in the offensive but which are lousy for parrying, like head-heavy weapons such as flails, hammers, heavy axes or mattocks.

[Byll]

2 hours ago, soltakss said:

I read the Iliad as a teenager and it was great, full of combat and stuff. When I started playing RQ, I thought that it was just like the Iliad. I've still got the Book Club version that I read as a kid. If you like RQ then I think you'd like the Iliad.

I read Xenophon's Anabasis in translation on the train to/from college many years ago. I wonder where that paperback is in the book cases now? Hah, top of the stairs, maybe I should dip into it again...

Quote

'I was just saying that we had many glorious hopes of safety. First of all, we have kept our oaths to the gods , while our enemies have broken theirs, and in addition to this perjured themselves in transgressing the truce. This being so, it is reasonable to suppose that the gods will be against our enemies, but will fight on our side; and they are capable of making even the strong weak, and of saving the weak easily, when such is their will, even if they are in the midst of danger.

...Not many days ago you were in battle against the children of our old enemies, and though they were many times your number, you, with the help of the gods, defeated them. And on that occasion you showed yourselves to be brave men in order to get Cyrus a kingdom; but now the fight is on for your own safety, and therefore I am sure it is right to expect from you much greater courage and a much greater will to victory. Then too, you ought to feel much greater confidence against the enemy. On the last occasion, you had no experience of them and could see their prodigious numbers, but all the same, in the spirit of your fathers, you had the courage to set about them. Now however, you know from experience that even if they are many times your number, there are not eager to face you. What reason have you to be afraid of them any longer?'

Supposedly it was Kirk's bedtime reading on the USS Enterprise; it was the first time I recall hearing anything about the Kurds.

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

The ability to parry or shield from missiles is a definitive advantage of the shield parry. The dual wield approach requires at least as much training for the off-hand, but it has the advantage of leaving the main hand weapon attack at full skill rather than halving an attack above 100%.

You really don't need to train both skills equally. Contrarily to the sword+shield combination where having a good shield skill is mandatory to protect your character'efficiently, your off-hand weapon only gives you a bonus attack, and as a result it's perfectly fine to just let it grow with experience.

[DreadDomain]

5 hours ago, soltakss said:

I read the Iliad as a teenager and it was great, full of combat and stuff. When I started playing RQ, I thought that it was just like the Iliad. I've still got the Book Club version that I read as a kid. If you like RQ then I think you'd like the Iliad.

Ok, Joerg description made it sound like something that would not interest me very much.

[DreadDomain]

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

The more anal rules nazi in me wants RH/LH Att & Par like in in days gone by. But, I also like the simplification of just the 1 skill to cover both (with half percentage for using off-hand). 

Like Kloster, coming from RQ3 as my preferred "Classic RQ", all that crunch sounds pretty cool to me and I also loved the way characters were built. At the same time, the simplifications make the game more approachable and easier to get into. Unlike Kloster, I do not feel it UnRuneQuestize the game.

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Multiple parries actually make a lot of sense! They do reflect real life.... (unlike single attacks, and the concept of a 'melee round').

Yes, I love the addition of multiple parries. They make combat a lot more credible to me. However, the concept of melee combat (single attack, 12 seconds round) and how SR works (taking only reach into account but not providing options for shorter weapon fighters to get into an advantageous position) is a good base to start from but just too simplistic and tactically unbelievable. I hope the Gamemaster Guide will expand on that.

[Jeff]

8 hours ago, Byll said:

I read Xenophon's Anabasis in translation on the train to/from college many years ago. I wonder where that paperback is in the book cases now? Hah, top of the stairs, maybe I should dip into it again...

Supposedly it was Kirk's bedtime reading on the USS Enterprise; it was the first time I recall hearing anything about the Kurds.

I read the Anabasis and Diaz's Conquest of New Spain while doing a 160 km kayak trip in the Canadian Rockies with my brother. Nothing gives you more respect for the hardship those folk went through than reading about it after having done a 6km portage in the wilderness.

[PhilHibbs]

20 hours ago, Mugen said:

It's true for experience, but not for training. The hours I will spend training with my shield will be less time invested in my sword.

Do you really feel that training with a sword and shield is less effective in terms of how quickly you learn than training with just a sword? I can't see why that should be the case.

Do you wonder why, historically, anyone ever bothered with shields?

Edited June 22, 2019 by PhilHibbs

[soltakss]

17 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Ok, Joerg description made it sound like something that would not interest me very much.

Try it, if you like it then thank me, if you don't then thank Joerg and blame me.

[Bill the barbarian]

32 minutes ago, soltakss said:

Try it, if you like it then thank me, if you don't then thank Joerg and blame me.

Hell, get totally contrarian and spread the blame to one and all. Or is that so egalitarian as to become  quite agreeable in the end?

I'm confused.