Preview 2

Discover the Legend RPG, Mongoose's fantasy game.
Cobra
Stoat
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby Cobra » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:37 am

What are some BRP clones?

I don't necessarily have a problem with introducing a random element to the combat sequence. I just don't want to lose the variability associated with size/dex/weapon strike ranks. I never found BRP combats to be difficult to run, or cumbersome, and don't see why introducing a random element would speed things up. In D20, once the initiative order is determined it doesn't change, no matter what you do unless someone delays an action. But in BRP, you can change the order of combat by changing your tactic.

I presume that we will still be able to do that.

Also, I don't really see how (yet) AP/HP makes more sense than just AP. In the old system, the AP and HP were the same stat. As the weapon got damaged, it's ability to resist more damage would decrease. Take, for example, an archer using his bow for impromptu defence against a sword. One would expect that with each successive hit the bow would be more likely to break as it would withstand damage less each time.

I'm speculating here, but if AP and HP are separate, does it not stand to reason that only the HP would go down as the weapon got damaged while the AP stayed the same. Therefore the damaged bow would have have the same resistance to further damage that a fresh bow would. But my experience in real life tells me that a cracked cricket bat might break when hitting a ball, but an uncracked bat could hit thousands of the same ball without suffering damage.

But perhaps I'm misinterpreting AP/HP. How does the 'breaking value' in BRP clones differ from RQ3's AP system?

As for poor Steve, he didn't get his own arm back but did manage to get something else installed in it's place. For those of you interested in prosthetics in the world of fantasy, I would encourage you to read Michael Moorcock's "The Stone Thing: A tale of strange parts" which can be found at the end of "Elric at The End of Time". All hail the Wise Man of Oorps from the mountains beyond Katatonia!

Cobra
andakitty
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:00 am

Postby andakitty » Tue Jun 06, 2006 1:46 am

Yes, Archer, what clones ARE you referring to? :?

The D10 roll looks like a little D20 fiddly bit slithering into my RQ...
homerjsinnott
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:54 pm

Postby homerjsinnott » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:26 am

andakitty wrote:Yes, Archer, what clones ARE you referring to? :?

The D10 roll looks like a little D20 fiddly bit slithering into my RQ...

I quite like the idea of a variable initiative/SR, but a d10 seems a little too big, also rolling each round could spice things up and take into account wounds, changes in actions, etc. It could also slow things down a bit (not so good). Hitting first never seemed to make that much diference in RQ, maybe a reduction in skill for each HP lost?
Archer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:58 pm

Postby Archer » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:15 am

Cobra wrote:What are some BRP clones?
Games that in some form or another uses a direct copied version of Basic Role-play or a heavily modified one, be it rolling a d100 vs skill % or d20 vs skill value (scale 1-20), or even 3d6 vs Skill value.
To name a few; Drakar och Demoner (Swedish), Mutant (Swedish), DoD Samurai (Swedish), Dark Sword (English, unknown origin), Wizards (English), etc.
Cobra wrote: I don't necessarily have a problem with introducing a random element to the combat sequence. I just don't want to lose the variability associated with size/dex/weapon strike ranks. I never found BRP combats to be difficult to run, or cumbersome, and don't see why introducing a random element would speed things up. In D20, once the initiative order is determined it doesn't change, no matter what you do unless someone delays an action. But in BRP, you can change the order of combat by changing your tactic.

I presume that we will still be able to do that.
I agree, BRP combat has never been that cumbersome (except Fatige points IMHO). I believe size and dex will still have great effect on initative in MRQ, but I think they have dropped the weapon speed in order to make it play a bit faster and make it easier for the GM to keep track of NPCs when they change from one weapon to another.

The largest problem I have seen with BRP combat is that a person who is agile, has a fast weapon, etc. always strikes first. He has to be totally suprised in order to not act first. There is no variation to how fast he reacts. And this makes combat a bit more predictable.
Especially since BRP combat tends to be; He who strikes first and hits wins.
Introducing a variable initative adds an edge of tension to the combat (will I be able to strike first?).
It also make the player vary their tactics according to when their character acts in the round, not always select the "best" tactics because they always know they will be first (if you have played with characters having a Dex of 18, you know what I mean).
Cobra wrote: Also, I don't really see how (yet) AP/HP makes more sense than just AP. In the old system, the AP and HP were the same stat. As the weapon got damaged, it's ability to resist more damage would decrease. Take, for example, an archer using his bow for impromptu defence against a sword. One would expect that with each successive hit the bow would be more likely to break as it would withstand damage less each time.

I'm speculating here, but if AP and HP are separate, does it not stand to reason that only the HP would go down as the weapon got damaged while the AP stayed the same. Therefore the damaged bow would have have the same resistance to further damage that a fresh bow would. But my experience in real life tells me that a cracked cricket bat might break when hitting a ball, but an uncracked bat could hit thousands of the same ball without suffering damage.

But perhaps I'm misinterpreting AP/HP. How does the 'breaking value' in BRP clones differ from RQ3's AP system?
It does not.
Once the damage overflows the breaking value, it is reduced by the amount that the damage was greater than the breaking value. It never took into account the difference of materials to resist damage in the first place. If your sword had got a bad notch, it would break easier when hit in another place, just because it had taken hit to one part of the blade.
Separating the weapons ability to resist and take damage from one value into AP and HP takes care of this problem.
A baseball bat (made only from wood) would probably have a very low amount of AP, and as such when damaged, it would easily loose more HPs, as per your example.
A sword whose blade is made out of metal on the other hand, have a pretty decent amount of both AP and HP, and as such, after taking a damaging blow, would still be able to resist further damage reasonably well, even though it has been damaged.
Cobra wrote: As for poor Steve, he didn't get his own arm back but did manage to get something else installed in it's place. For those of you interested in prosthetics in the world of fantasy, I would encourage you to read Michael Moorcock's "The Stone Thing: A tale of strange parts" which can be found at the end of "Elric at The End of Time". All hail the Wise Man of Oorps from the mountains beyond Katatonia!

Cobra
Though Elric at The End of Time is my least favorite book, there are some odd and cool prostetics and other strange devices in Moorcocks multiverse.
Malorium
Shrew
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:49 pm
Location: Biggin Hill, UK

Postby Malorium » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:40 pm

I like the idea of the random element of the 1D10 variable (same as the system used in the new WFRP btw which could justifiably be called a BRP clone). I'll be interested to see how Mongoose have overcome the problem of actions bleeding into other rounds (Archery & spell casting are good examples) as that always created book keeping and opportunity for 'mistakes', all of which slowed down combat.
Thumbs up for Morokanth!
Archer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:58 pm

Postby Archer » Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:08 pm

Malorium wrote:I like the idea of the random element of the 1D10 variable (same as the system used in the new WFRP btw which could justifiably be called a BRP clone). I'll be interested to see how Mongoose have overcome the problem of actions bleeding into other rounds (Archery & spell casting are good examples) as that always created book keeping and opportunity for 'mistakes', all of which slowed down combat.
Since you seem to have a number of Combat Actions each round, I guess casting is counted in spend actions rather than complete rounds etc.

Simplest solution is to keep casting time to reasonable amounts, so that it will be very seldom a spell will take more than a round to cast.

Other than that, I can only recommend turning a dice as a counter to keep track on how much longer you have to stand still casting your spell.
Cobra
Stoat
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby Cobra » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:22 am

I always thought the old SR system was easy because the rounds were divided by 10. If a spell took 13 SR to cast, it went off in SR 3 of the next round. I can imagine that getting difficult to keep track of when running multiple NPC spellcasters, I suppose, but I never had occasion to do that.

I can't really picture how it will pan out in the new system - not enough information yet. I think the comment that "if a character has a second action..." would suggest that spells are not counted in terms of combat actions. My suspicion is that one spell will be one action, and that's it. But then again, maybe you're right that more difficult spells will require more actions. That way a character with only one action per round might have to use several rounds to cast a spell, but a more experienced caster could get it off in one round.

on another note...

I'm not sure how 'Dive for Cover' came to be a reaction that didn't use up combat actions. That seems strange to me - I would think this would be more effectively handled by movement in combat. At the very least it ought to cost an action. Imagine an archer diving for cover, recovering, aiming, and firing an arrow at the person who was just shooting at him - and all of that taking just one action. There must be more to this than meets they eye...
wartorn
Stoat
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Sep 09, 2005 8:20 pm

Postby wartorn » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:42 am

Cobra wrote:I'm not sure how 'Dive for Cover' came to be a reaction that didn't use up combat actions. That seems strange to me - I would think this would be more effectively handled by movement in combat. At the very least it ought to cost an action. Imagine an archer diving for cover, recovering, aiming, and firing an arrow at the person who was just shooting at him - and all of that taking just one action. There must be more to this than meets they eye...
I see it working like this; two combatants with one combat action apiece (and hence one reaction apiece): Albert, armed with a bow goes first and shoots at Bob, armed with a javelin. Bob employs his one reaction to dive for cover, and successfully dodges the arrow. On his turn, Bob can use his remainng combat action to throw his javelin from the prone position or stand back up. If Bob throws his javelin, Albert can use his reaction to dive for cover; but if Bob stands Albert's 'Reaction' is lost (and any 'movement' he might have had when diving for cover) since there is nothing to react to. The key point here being that while Bob was able to move in reaction to an attack, he wound up on the ground - not so good a place if he had been armed with a bow.

This could also apply in melee, where the defender can opt to retreat as part of their reaction, giving ground in order to improve their chance of defending. The disadvantage is that when that defender's combat action comes they've stepped away from their opponent. Its worth noting that this is entirely based on speculation since I've never seen the actual rules.
KOLAT
Shrew
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:51 am

Postby KOLAT » Wed Jun 07, 2006 3:57 pm

Archer wrote:Polearms. Modern historical references in the english language (and I suppose the french language as well) to the word Glaive refers to the polearms bearing this name, or the name glaive guisarme.
No abolutely not.

In french "glaive" is the roman gladius.

Kolat
Cobra
Stoat
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Toronto

Postby Cobra » Wed Jun 07, 2006 4:36 pm

I see it working like this; two combatants with one combat action apiece (and hence one reaction apiece): Albert, armed with a bow goes first and shoots at Bob, armed with a javelin. Bob employs his one reaction to dive for cover, and successfully dodges the arrow. On his turn, Bob can use his remainng combat action to throw his javelin from the prone position or stand back up. If Bob throws his javelin, Albert can use his reaction to dive for cover; but if Bob stands Albert's 'Reaction' is lost (and any 'movement' he might have had when diving for cover) since there is nothing to react to. The key point here being that while Bob was able to move in reaction to an attack, he wound up on the ground - not so good a place if he had been armed with a bow.

This could also apply in melee, where the defender can opt to retreat as part of their reaction, giving ground in order to improve their chance of defending. The disadvantage is that when that defender's combat action comes they've stepped away from their opponent. Its worth noting that this is entirely based on speculation since I've never seen the actual rules.
Yes, that's starting to make sense. Nicely done.

Cobra
homerjsinnott
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:54 pm

Postby homerjsinnott » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:47 pm

The AP/HP for weapons seems to adds another level of fiddelyness, yet more book keeping for the poor ref, if you have a large combat involving even five player adversaries it would prolong the combat by a noticeable amount.

Weapon amour points are enough.
Member of the FESPA. Formally PESPAM (spliters!).

"I would rather be a Troll than a chimp brained pompous system bigot like you."
It's the system bigot bit I don't understand, and I like chimps.

I was a God Learner experiment.
andakitty
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:00 am

Postby andakitty » Thu Jun 08, 2006 12:33 am

You can consider weapons 'mooks' for npcs and just treat them as destroyed on a successful hit, that would give the pcs a nice feeling of accomplishment when they whack off the enemy spearhead. 8) Not as much as when they whack the npc, of course...

I have to admit that I like this particular bit of fiddliness. I don't care much for the d10 initiative roll at the beginning of every round though. Either rule can easily be ignored without hurting play, I'm thinking. And that is one of the signs of a good game. Wish they would unveil the character sheet. :roll:
homerjsinnott
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:54 pm

Postby homerjsinnott » Thu Jun 08, 2006 2:43 am

andakitty wrote:You can consider weapons 'mooks' for npcs and just treat them as destroyed on a successful hit, that would give the pcs a nice feeling of accomplishment when they whack off the enemy spearhead.
Mumblemumblemumblerefcheatinmumblemumblemumble, mumblemumblemumblegoodideamumblemumblemumble,
andakitty wrote:I have to admit that I like this particular bit of fiddliness. I don't care much for the d10 initiative roll at the beginning of every round though. Either rule can easily be ignored without hurting play, I'm thinking. And that is one of the signs of a good game. Wish they would unveil the character sheet. :roll:
mumblemumblemumbleIagreemumblemumblemumble.
Member of the FESPA. Formally PESPAM (spliters!).

"I would rather be a Troll than a chimp brained pompous system bigot like you."
It's the system bigot bit I don't understand, and I like chimps.

I was a God Learner experiment.
andakitty
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 6:00 am

Postby andakitty » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:01 am

Very funny. :roll:
Archer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:58 pm

Postby Archer » Thu Jun 08, 2006 9:34 am

KOLAT wrote:
Archer wrote:Polearms. Modern historical references in the english language (and I suppose the french language as well) to the word Glaive refers to the polearms bearing this name, or the name glaive guisarme.
No abolutely not.

In french "glaive" is the roman gladius.

Kolat
Ah, I did not know that. My french language skills is about 1%.

Btw, great nickname. I take it you play L5R? :)
t-tauri
Stoat
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 8:17 pm

Postby t-tauri » Thu Jun 08, 2006 1:40 pm

Archer wrote: Btw, great nickname. I take it you play L5R? :)
Kolat is a Gloranthan Air God.
homerjsinnott
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:54 pm

Postby homerjsinnott » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:25 pm

andakitty wrote:Very funny. :roll:
I thought so. :wink:
Member of the FESPA. Formally PESPAM (spliters!).

"I would rather be a Troll than a chimp brained pompous system bigot like you."
It's the system bigot bit I don't understand, and I like chimps.

I was a God Learner experiment.
homerjsinnott
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:54 pm

Postby homerjsinnott » Thu Jun 08, 2006 3:27 pm

t-tauri wrote:
Archer wrote: Btw, great nickname. I take it you play L5R? :)
Kolat is a Gloranthan Air God.

Well, suppose so. As much a great big shaman thingy.


I do.
Member of the FESPA. Formally PESPAM (spliters!).

"I would rather be a Troll than a chimp brained pompous system bigot like you."
It's the system bigot bit I don't understand, and I like chimps.

I was a God Learner experiment.
Archer
Greater Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 805
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:58 pm

Postby Archer » Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:09 pm

t-tauri wrote:
Archer wrote: Btw, great nickname. I take it you play L5R? :)
Kolat is a Gloranthan Air God.
Lol, ok. It is also the name of a very bad-guy-scheming-and-ploting behind the scenes organization in Rokugan (the campaign world for L5R).
homerjsinnott
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 482
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:54 pm

Postby homerjsinnott » Fri Jun 09, 2006 12:11 am

Archer wrote:
t-tauri wrote:
Archer wrote: Btw, great nickname. I take it you play L5R? :)
Kolat is a Gloranthan Air God.
Lol, ok. It is also the name of a very bad-guy-scheming-and-ploting behind the scenes organization in Rokugan (the campaign world for L5R).

I don't think they are bad...
Member of the FESPA. Formally PESPAM (spliters!).

"I would rather be a Troll than a chimp brained pompous system bigot like you."
It's the system bigot bit I don't understand, and I like chimps.

I was a God Learner experiment.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests