5th preview is up
- Thread starter yipwyg
- Start date
homerjsinnott said:
Exactly. Things like Beholders and Illithids (and to a lesser extent, the drow) are classics. Good concepts, but a thoroughly crappy game engine.
Incidentally the book of Aberrations (Lords of Madness, or some such) was really lame in comparison to the third party products among the same lines.
Which is cooler, a beholder that runs on strange Void energies, that moves by levitating and telekinetic power and doesn't have a brain or a digestive track... or the one in the Lords of Madness that is basically just a weird biological creature and moves by puffs of air from it's skin. Blech.
The more you try to rationalize a creature like a beholder (that is the ultimate magical monster in a way) and make some semi-biological explanation the less of the gosh-wow you get from it.
Here's a bunch that does it right:
http://www.goodmangames.com/preview-CG.php
msprange said:
The more variety, the better. With a d12 you have more possibilities for a glancing blow. That is a good thing. My only real gripe at Hârnmaster is the large fixed portion in the damage determination. It works well for fighters in armour, but makes it really deadly to fight without it. There are no really bad hits in Hârn, which I think is a problem.
You know, I'm not sure how I missed the significance of this post earlier.
I wish I had known the above info from the beginning (ah, the complexities of IP law and such). In truth, I was actually looking forward to a new version of the BRP-based game seen in RQIII, and not a 're-imagining' of the game system, given that Mongoose doesn't have the rights to the previous mechanics. Ah well, live and learn.
If that is indeed the case, and the new MGPRQ doesn't look much like the old RQI-III because they didn't also have the rights to the game mechanics themselves, well, that puts everything in a new light.
Still doesn't appeal to me, but at least you can't say that the new MGPRQ is moving "away" from classic RQ, because they presumably didn't have the IP license to be like it from the get-go.
So use the bell curve for weapons like axes that tend to deal at least moderate damage and more minimum damage, and a single die with perhaps a modifier for weapons like swords which might just cause a nick. Seems like a reasonable rationale for weapon stats. And demonstrates a possible use for both die types.
I guess the only way to be 100% happy with a game system is to write it oneself, so Matt must look like the cat that ate the canary right now. I know I would have LOVED getting paid to write up an alternate percentile system for a new version of RQ...
I guess the only way to be 100% happy with a game system is to write it oneself, so Matt must look like the cat that ate the canary right now. I know I would have LOVED getting paid to write up an alternate percentile system for a new version of RQ...
Steve, I still think it is going to be very much like BRP, as much as it can under the circumstances. I am already taking some of the ideas I gleaned from the previews and installing them in my homebrew.
Sorry you are not getting as excited about this. For me, it's beginning to feel like Christmas in the summertime.
Sorry you are not getting as excited about this. For me, it's beginning to feel like Christmas in the summertime.
A
Archer
Guest
andakitty said:
I never said that it was not easy, I said it added a lot of record keeping, which slows down the game.
andakitty said:
And you still have to keep track of 7 numbers for the PC instead of just one.
andakitty said:
As I wrote, not difficult, just a nightmare since you will have to keep record of much more values per NPC than with a HP pool.
For example, run a game with 15-20 NPCs and PCs involved in a combat, it quickly becomes a mess to keep track of HPs for each NPc. It means keeping track of 105-140 separate HP Pools.
I can safely say at this point, that a Total HP is what is going to make or break the game for me. I already have a functional rule-set to use (Stormbringer 5). And though I would prefer to have access to a rule-set that is OGL, I am beginning to wonder if it is really worth it.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Well, there ain't one. You could add one in using SIZ+CON or whatever, but none of the supporting rules - drowning, disease, etc - are going to use it. Hit locations are what seperates RQ from BRP, and this has Hit Locations.Archer said:
By the way, I actually agree with you. It's the record keeping aspect of the locations that's convinced me I probably won't use MRQ myself. But I do support Mongose for going this way - it's created a distinct game system that still has all the essential feel and function on RuneQuest.
Wulf
GbajiTheDeceiver
Mongoose
Well, as the weapon damages are much the same as before, you could just average CON and SIZ to get a workable total HP value.
A
Archer
Guest
msprange said:Archer said:
But you are assuming we just hacked out the mechanic and stopped there.
Suppose we then went on to replace the mechanic with something else that could handle all the situations you just described?
Oh, and if you fall 100 ft. in the new RQ, you are _not_ walking away. . .
Hmm, I guess I will have to give it a chance then. As long as it is not some sort of "chock/trauma/bleeding resist roll".
LOL, I never expected you to survive 100 ft. That was just an example to show the absurdity of similar changes to BRP I have observed. No replacement for Total HP, but still you could fall and take damage, and only way to determine where, was to roll where you hit yourself when you landed.
This resulted in one of the most famous (in our gaming group) quotes ever having been uttered at the gaming tables; "Yahoo! I broke my leg!".
A
Archer
Guest
Wulf Corbett said:
That is a real shame. Means I will have to rewrite the rules when I intend to use RQ as the basis for my own setting and game (through the OGL), in which you will only have total HP and a critical hit table to tell you what damage you took when suffering a major wound.
As for separating MRQ from BRP? nah, I have seen several BRP games and BRP clones that has the hit locations with their HPs and a Total HP. So that just does not fly in my book.
Wulf Corbett said:
Ok, I have been thinking about how to apply the general rule to solve this problem in BRP to MRQ, and have come up with the following idea.
Optional Damage Rules - Faster Combat with less record keeping
1. APs on Hit Locations are still used, as they determine how much of the damage dealt will actually get through the armour. Hit locations can also be used to describe the damage dealt to the NPC. So they still have a function in this way. The hit location that was struck the killing/disabling blow is the one that got seriously hurt.
2. Skip HP per Hit Location for unimportnat NPCs. Instead they have just Hit Points, which are calculated as (SIZ+CON)/4, rounded down. This means that a duck (using the values of the preview) would have (13+9)/4=5.5, rounded down to 5 HPs. Basically what he has in his head and legs
3. This makes unimportant NPCs a bit "easier" to injure and bring down. But it greatly reduces record keeping, and the players will live in the illusion that you are keeping track of damage to hit locations. For example, if the duck was struck a 6 point damage to his left leg (he has 5 HP by this optional rule), you would just say his leg was disabled. Just as if you had kept track of his individual HPs per Hit Locations.
Had he suffered a 6 point blow to the head, he might have been rendered unconscious or killed (depending on how those rules work).
What do you say?
No, Archer, no nightmare either. Just an alternative way to do it that is just as easy if not easier. Nothing more, nothing less. Certainly nothing to make MRQ less attractive as a playable, functional game. Now why don't you argue some more so you can justify whatever pops into your head? But please don't direct it at me again. I'm not interested.
msprange said:
Matt,
This is encouraging. I'm glad that someone from Mongoose is paying attention and offering opinions and explanations. Knowing the reasoning behind things makes me feel more open minded toward the changes. And, of course, you are right that at this point there could be no 'one perfect version'. The big concerns are, as Steve pointed out, that the game still maintain its intricacies, its flexibility, its logic, and its tactical (and fun) combat system.
Interesting, that bit from Wulf about the rights to the mechanics. My undestanding, however, was that BRP did not have hit locations and was closer to Cthulhu that RQ, in which case I'm not really interested. In any case I'm not going to hold my breath for Chaosium to do anything in a hurry.
andakitty, does Stormbringer use hit locations? I might check it out...
Cobra
A
Archer
Guest
andakitty said:
Hey, no need to get hostile or insulting.
First of all, I very seldom just writes what pops into my head.
The strong reaction I had about having just HPs on hit locations, was just because I have been down this road before. And it did not suit my taste then either. I had hoped to avoid this issue with RQ.
Well, might not make it less attractive to you, but it is to me. Few game systems or settings manage to meet my preferences. And when I find something I do not like, I voice my opionion about it.
I have never shied away from telling an RPG maker what I think about their game or their system, and I do not intend to start doing so now.
Some fans take this as an insult to their person, it is not.
Stormbringer does, in a backhanded sort of way. If you take half total hit points in one shot you roll on a chart that does various nasty things to one part of your body or another. It works well enough, but not with the precision of hit locations. It's probably preferable if you want a fast game with fast resolution. Another advantage is that hit locations require squad sheets and this doesn't. Honestly, I don't prefer one over the other. They both work, so it pretty much boils down to whether you prefer ease or detail in combat (with only slightly less ease). I can also say that the Stormbringer way is truly 'fast, furious, and fun', as they claim for Savage Worlds.
A
Archer
Guest
andakitty said:
Very much so. Stormbringer is probably the only Basic Role-play system BRP Clone that I have played, in which you truly get a sense of speed and action during combat. A combat between two skilled fencers are litteraly nailbiting tense and fast. It usually ends up being a sort of duel between me as GM and the player/s. I barely have time to describe what happens, before the player rolls his roll and describes his action.
I would have to say that in some ways, it is also more detailed than Hit Locations. Not when you hit, but when you make a significant hit. Everything from loss of fingers, nose, ear, hand, foot, to a very nasty gash to the abdomen. All which might result in permanent injuries and loss of Characteristic value.
I, for one, prefer the removal of total hp, unless used as a threshold for exhaustion/inability to continue fighting. Minor damage accross your body may temporarily incapacitate, but should not cause death. Using hit locations certainly makes combat feel more real. Rather than tracking total hp, you need only worry about which wounds you've taken, and where. I would dread having my hero fall to nicks and bruises, none of which are serious. As far as poison and other massive effects, I am sure there are plenty of dealing with them-poisons could certainly target certain body parts, probably the chest most frequently (heart or lungs).
Matt, if still in a responding mood-can we shrink the ducks a litte bit?
Matt, if still in a responding mood-can we shrink the ducks a litte bit?
A
Archer
Guest
Well, I hear you. And it is a valid point about beind downed by nicks and bruises. It however, all depends on how heroic your game is.
Realistically, nicks and bruises do get you, if in sufficient numbers.
In a heroic game, that might not be as fun though.
But that said, I would like to see a less-record-keeping system to use for non-vital NPCs. HPs per Hit Location is still a good idea for PCs as the players will have to keep track of them.
Realistically, nicks and bruises do get you, if in sufficient numbers.
In a heroic game, that might not be as fun though.
But that said, I would like to see a less-record-keeping system to use for non-vital NPCs. HPs per Hit Location is still a good idea for PCs as the players will have to keep track of them.
As far as the non-vital NPC's go, I know what I do as a games master. I tend to go with effective die rolls-Knowing the relative skills of NPC/villain combatants I generalize. A low enough attack roll tends to disable/kill the opponent. This lets me focus the attention and drama on the characters, who I see as nexus points for fate. Where the players travel, more unusual things happen, and events tend to occur that have more or less dramatic effect on the locale and the greater world. In a Glorantha campaign I would like to see the Lunar expansion eventually stopped by the PC's, after long, eventful carreers of opposition (and heroics!)
I don't feel that skimping the details on the peripheral events diminishes the game-for myself, and hopefully, my players, the focus should be on their actions and opponents.[/i]
I don't feel that skimping the details on the peripheral events diminishes the game-for myself, and hopefully, my players, the focus should be on their actions and opponents.[/i]
Similar threads
