5th preview is up

[Archer]

Archer, I said I am not interested. I don't care for people who argue for the sake of argument. Be so kind as to pretend I don't exist from now on.

Well, this will be the last answer I will give then, since I can not just let such an accusation to pass me by. I do not argue just for the sake of argument, I strongly resent that. I argue because I have another point of view, and I feel that it is valid to present a viewpoint or viewpoints that goes against what others hold to be true or correct, and perhaps raise a concern or hatch an idea regaring something discussed.

This is a forum after all, which has the function to be a hub for those with a similar intrest wishin to share ideas and discuss topics, no matter their point of view on what is being discussed.

I discuss things (sometimes passionately) because I am intrested in MRQ, and I am intrested in finding alternative ways of using the rules, change what in my opinion is a really bad choice etc. Just as you do when you argue against someone's viewpoint in this forum.

As for ignoring your presence on the forum, that you have pretty much guaranteed with your replies, as I do not find being insulted enjoyable. I will however for the time being not hold that against you.

I can not however guarantee that I by circumstance will never answer in a thread that you have posted in, if I feel I have something to add.
As long as this remains an open forum, I will be here, discussing the different issues, aspects, etc. regarding RQ.

If this does not suit you, I can not really help you.

 

[Archer]

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]

Do you care to elaborate on this a bit?
As I understood it, you use the result of the skill roll directly to measure the effectiveness of attacks against non-vital NPCs (also called Mooks or cannon fodder)? I would like to hear more about this. Can you give me a practical example?

 

[SteveMND]

As far as the non-vital NPC's go,...

Interesting; in all my games of RuneQuest, I never actually had non-vital NPCs. Some people have commented on the "extra bookeeping" that the hit points/locations created, but I guess I never saw it as more work because my PCs (or I when gaming) never really dealt with so-called 'canon fodder' or 'mooks.' Our games tended to deal with a small number of PCs and when combat and such occured, it was against a comparatively small number of NPCs (albeit challenging ones).

Sure, there were the mobling peasantry of the bad guys, but they were really just for atmosphere, I never really dealt with those per se -- they always just sort of scattered or stayed out of the way if the PCs came across a mixed bunch, and let the Bad Guys take on the Heroes...

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!)

Heh. More often than not, my players were working for the Empire.

 

[Archer]

Thats one way of dealing with it, assuming the players do not go after these "atmospheric combatants". I know mine will, as they tend to choose the closest target.

In most campaigns we have played, combat is very rare, but when it happens, it is usually on a rather large scale (10-30 characters).

In the more cinematic campaigns we have run (in the style of the Three Musketeers etc.), there have been quite a big number of "mooks" before the characters end up facing the villain in style.

It certainly is a subject that will become less or more important depending on what style you are running the current campaign in.

In a campaign focusing on courtly intrigue (like my current L5R campaign), combat is rare, and has only occured in the form of a duel to settle a matter of honor. Had this been played out with the MRQ rules, the Hit Location HP system would not have mattered much.

 

[Lord Twig]

First I would like to say that I am looking forward to buying the latest RuneQuest and will be getting it as soon as it came out. That said I have some fears concerning the new rules.

For those that don't like hit locations. RuneQuest has Hit Locations. If it doesn't have Hit Locations, it's not RuneQuest. My opinion I guess, but RuneQuest has always had Hit Locations.

I personally found no problem with Total HPs and am rather disturbed by their absence. I am sure that something has been designed to replace it but I haven't liked anything I have heard yet.

Having Total HPs and location HPs was very simple and very easy to understand. I can not imagine anything simpler! Take damage, subtract it from your location and total HPs. I have just described the entire system. Whatever replaces total HPs needs to be just as simple and should be the same for every situation. I don't want to have to memorize 50 different ways to simulate total HPs just because someone decided that they didn't want to have to keep track of them!

Alternatives I have heard:

After the arm is disabled you start doing damage to the chest. What happens when you are sheeted in flame? What happens when you take poison? It all goes to the chest? Combine this with the rule that allows you to take -40% to hit a specific location and players will do nothing else!

Con damage. How is this different than total HPs?!

Wound levels, charts, saving throws. How is any of that easier than total HP? Things like this would really ruin it for me.

I still hold out hope. I frequently don't like changes made to games I play when a new addition comes out, but quite often after playing it I find it is for the better. I can only pray that MRQ will be the same.

 

[Gaheir]

Archer, as an example of how I might handle such a scenario let us suppose that the clan ring has raised a war party to destroy a Vivamort temple hidden outside clan lands. While the PC heroes and important NPCs battle the vampire(s) and their more powerful minions lesser warriors in the clan are facing the skeletons/zombies you might expect to face. Two Orlanthi weapon thanes with skills in the 50-60% range and armour in the 4 point range are facing six skeletons, also in the 50-60% range, and armed with short spears. Here, I would quickly (intuitively) assign the humans a good edge (similar skills, but better armed and armoured, more reactive). I would assign the humans first strike, and approximately a 30% chance to kill a foe. The skeletons would require a special success to harm the human. Two such successes would take out a human. More substantial differences either way would tip the odds even more, but you don't usually have high skill NPC villains in these positions. If so, I usually assume the very powerful character is successful at defeating a foe each round, unless the weaker makes a roll under, say, 10%.
Accurate, no way. Quick, yes. Subject to fudging-sure. (If the story is advanced by the skeletons above quickly overwhelming the Orlanthi, and charging the Chalana Arroy priestess healing a fallen PC, well, let's go with that, on occasion!) It is not an attempt to treat them fairly. But, these are just the bit players in the story. For me, the key is to focus on the PC's and the major NPC's, interesting NPC's and their nemesi(s)(?)

 

[Archer]

My beef is not with the fact that it has Hit Locations, it is with the fact that keeping a record of many NPCs HPs in all those locations can be a bit much (guess I have to choose my words very carefully here in order to not further agitate people).

That is why I would like to keep track of something else, that is only a single value for NPCs that are not as important (which generally ends up being 95% of all NPCs for me, even those that should be important I usually end up being to lazy to keep a full record on).

I agree, whatever replaces the full-body-chock/damage that the Total HP represented, has to be as simple and easy to use as that.

I do hope that none of the solutions suggested (next hit location, Con damage, saving throws) are indeed in the game. But I guess we will not know until the game is released.
Con damage, as you say, is just another form of Total HP, one that ignore a creatures size.

 

[Archer]

Archer, as an example of how I might handle such a scenario let us suppose that the clan ring has raised a war party to destroy a Vivamort temple hidden outside clan lands. While the PC heroes and important NPCs battle the vampire(s) and their more powerful minions lesser warriors in the clan are facing the skeletons/zombies you might expect to face. Two Orlanthi weapon thanes with skills in the 50-60% range and armour in the 4 point range are facing six skeletons, also in the 50-60% range, and armed with short spears. Here, I would quickly (intuitively) assign the humans a good edge (similar skills, but better armed and armoured, more reactive). I would assign the humans first strike, and approximately a 30% chance to kill a foe. The skeletons would require a special success to harm the human. Two such successes would take out a human. More substantial differences either way would tip the odds even more, but you don't usually have high skill NPC villains in these positions. If so, I usually assume the very powerful character is successful at defeating a foe each round, unless the weaker makes a roll under, say, 10%.
Accurate, no way. Quick, yes. Subject to fudging-sure. (If the story is advanced by the skeletons above quickly overwhelming the Orlanthi, and charging the Chalana Arroy priestess healing a fallen PC, well, let's go with that, on occasion!) It is not an attempt to treat them fairly. But, these are just the bit players in the story. For me, the key is to focus on the PC's and the major NPC's, interesting NPC's and their nemesi(s)(?)

Ok, now I understand what you meant a bit better.
It very much reminds me of Amber - diceless RPG.

 

[Lord Twig]

After 15 years in one campaign the characters become rather powerful. I had frequently put them up against dozens of weaker opponents. It really was easy to keep track of.

The character would hit and would usually lop off a limb or kill them outright with a blow to the head, chest or abdomen. Either way that opponent was out of the fight. If I did need to record damage I would just use a piece of paper to write, "#23 RL -5". So fodder #23 was down 5 points on his leg. Obviously he was down the same amount on total so why write it down? I can add single digit numbers up to 20 in the blink of an eye. So if several locations where damaged "#23 RL -5, C -4, A -7" and they only had 13 HPs they were dead on total.

Compared with keeping track of damage to a creature that has 220hps and no locations, as in D&D, the RQ method is easier.

 

[Archer]

After 15 years in one campaign the characters become rather powerful. I had frequently put them up against dozens of weaker opponents. It really was easy to keep track of.

The character would hit and would usually lop off a limb or kill them outright with a blow to the head, chest or abdomen. Either way that opponent was out of the fight. If I did need to record damage I would just use a piece of paper to write, "#23 RL -5". So fodder #23 was down 5 points on his leg. Obviously he was down the same amount on total so why write it down? I can add single digit numbers up to 20 in the blink of an eye. So if several locations where damaged "#23 RL -5, C -4, A -7" and they only had 13 HPs they were dead on total.

That pretty much looks like the notepad I used to write on, after a battle.
And I agree, more powerful characters means that they finish of the enemy that much faster, allowing you to do less record keeping.
The nightmare is a battle with daggers (1d4+1) or other weaker weapons, in battle against several opponents in reasonably good armour (3-4AP), then you have quite a lot of notes just for one character, has he has been nicked over and over again.

Compared with keeping track of damage to a creature that 220hps and no locations, as in D&D, the RQ method is easier.

I agree totally. But that is mostly due to the fact that a creature with 220HP in D&D tends to take a rediculous amount of hits before it goes down. A battle between two fighters of that magnitude, and you have something that just feels absurd.

The seemingly increase in HP per Hit Location in MRQ is something we will have to see how this shifts the scale when it comes to doing record keeping.

 

[andakitty]

Lord Twig, I know how you feel about the hit point pool, and I really can't relieve your doubts. You have to actually try a game that works that way like, apparently now, MRQ. Or not. I have throughout my GMing career preferred low hit point pools with some sort of major wound mechanic. It is faster and it is fun. However, I know from running a game called Fifth Cycle that hit location only with no hit point pool works quite well and also is fun. The problems you cite have easy, fast, playable solutions. Of course, you can always use both. I simply no longer find it necessary. In any case it shouldn't be a deal breaker for a game. Just figure some number that seems right from STR, CON, and/or SIZ and go for it!

 

[wartorn]

Lord Twig, I know how you feel about the hit point pool, and I really can't relieve your doubts. You have to actually try a game that works that way like, apparently now, MRQ. Or not. I have throughout my GMing career preferred low hit point pools with some sort of major wound mechanic. It is faster and it is fun. However, I know from running a game called Fifth Cycle that hit location only with no hit point pool works quite well and also is fun. The problems you cite have easy, fast, playable solutions. Of course, you can always use both. I simply no longer find it necessary. In any case it shouldn't be a deal breaker for a game. Just figure some number that seems right from STR, CON, and/or SIZ and go for it!

It really is just extra recordkeeping; I can't see how anyone would be disappointed by a new mechanic that maintains the same level of (non)-abstraction but is much 'faster' to run. I imagine if you were to gather data on all the NPC deaths over the history of all RQ games you'd find that only a small percentage were made ahem 'combat ineffective' by destruction of their Total HP pool. I'd predict that most low-grade NPCs were put to negative HP in the legs/abdomen and subsequently ignored.

 

[andakitty]

And this is wrong how? And this is extra book keeping how? :roll:

No, never mind. I really don't care one way or the other. :lol:

 

[Cobra]

item 1; divide the 25 by 7(no. of locations), apply to all locations evenly starting with the head. By my calculation, that's 4 points each to head, arms, and chest and 3 each to the other locations. Wow. That's hard. That's also a very lucky PC for a 100 foot fall.

item 2; depends on how you want to do it; as above or target one body location for max damage, have the bolt exit a second location for half damage. I prefer the first, my players the second. I can't imagine why. Maybe because it tends to leave a smoking corpse with no head and a gaping hole in the chest.

Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm warming to these ideas. I don't necessarily think this is 'easier' than not having a hit point pool, but certainly interesting and probably more realistic.

It makes sense to me that damage would spill over from one location to another, or be evenly spread out. A blast of fire effect could certainly apply damage to all locations evenly, and I suppose with time one becomes fairly adept at doing division by 7 in one's head.

For falling, you could roll a hit location to see what hits first, then apply damage to that location and have excess damage spill over to the next, and so on. Or, if falling damage is calculated by distance fallen (d6 per 10' fallen, for eg.), one could roll a hit location for each damage die rolled and apply that damage to that hit location. Fast or streamlined? No. But realistic? I think so. I'm looking forward to seeing how MG will handle it.

I'm wondering how drowning is handled. This is often simulated by taking damage to HP, but that never made sense to me. Is there another way to handle drowning, anyone?

Archer, it seems to me that if you are looking for a way to make record keeping simpler or are too lazy to even create stats for your npc's then RQ might not be the right game for you. It's always been fairly detail oriented, and there are lots of other options out there. Somebody mentioned Amber, for one...

Cobra

 

[andakitty]

You hit the nail on the head, Cobra. Thing is, though, it actually is *almost* as easy. That's all I'm saying. Remember I stated before that my own preferred method is hit points/major wound. And I confess that the only way I actually tried hit locations only was because I was too lazy to convert a game that used them. So I ran it as it was written and discovered it actually can be worth the small additional trouble..to me.

The drowning rule directly from the rulebook; SUFFOCATION When a character cannot breath, he begins to suffocate. A character can endure without breathing for 1 combat round per 2 points of Endurance , round up. For example, a character with END 11 can live for six rounds without breath; he dies at the beginning of the seventh round.

This begins when you fail a Swimming roll.

 

[Lord Twig]

If there is no total HPs in the game I won't add it. I am not stuck on total HP as the only way to do things. I just think that it was a pretty simple and accurate way to represent general damage. Mongoose may have come up with something even better. And I hope they have!

Of the options presented the "Damage bleeding over to other locations" is probably the least objectionable (IMHO). After thinking about it for a while, it would probably work fine. There would still be some strange things where drowning and such is involved. Poison, disease and such will probably do stat damage, which is pretty standard. Brain Fever anyone?

The drowning rule directly from the rulebook; SUFFOCATION When a character cannot breath, he begins to suffocate. A character can endure without breathing for 1 combat round per 2 points of Endurance, round up. For example, a character with END 11 can live for six rounds without breath; he dies at the beginning of the seventh round.

Which rulebook are you quoting? Not RQ I hope. Six rounds would be only 30 seconds. Anybody can hold their breath that long with no problem. Drowning in 30 seconds would be pretty severe.

 

[andakitty]

That drowning rule is from a different game as are the other options I described. It is called 'Fifth Cycle' and is very, very similar to Runequest. So much so that I suspect it was written by someone who started off playing RQ. You know, like many published rpgs throughout the 80's and 90's were written by someone doing a 'better' version of D&D. Usually they have a few good ideas but otherwise are like the parent game. What have been called 'fantasy heartbreakers', which term I do not like. This particular one has great similarities to RQ and Dragonquest. Skill-based, percentile roll under, a 5% critical and 20% special, hit locations (without the hit point pool, as noted) and much more. The reason I like it (well, one reason) is a very good magic system that has everything D&D does, pretty much, melded with a RQ style combat system. And there are factors that make it fairly fast and easy to run in spite of some weaknesses (don't they all have them?).

The drowning rule example used a character with a low END. The stats run from 6 to 30 for a human. A PC is usually much better off than the poor example. Another factor is that you still get your Swim rolls every round to stop the process, albeit at a lower percentage chance. It (the save) starts at ENDx5% and falls after each failure. So it simulates someone floundering and trying to get air nicely. The process can be pretty nerve wracking to the PC's.

The lightning bolt example comes from another game yet, Legends of Yore. I have never tried to run it but I got a lot of good ideas from it that enhanced my BRP games (and Fifth Cycle) greatly.

 

[Adept]

Two Orlanthi weapon thanes with skills in the 50-60% range and armour in the 4 point range are facing six skeletons, also in the 50-60% range, and armed with short spears.

Just a quick comment here. The weapon thanes are the warrior elite of the clan. Isn't 50-60% rather low? Personally I put the weapon thanes at around 70+% in the d100 scale. Elite force, that is. Also armed and armoured to the best of the clan chieftain's ability (that is, chainmail and good swords)

 

[Archer]

Archer, it seems to me that if you are looking for a way to make record keeping simpler or are too lazy to even create stats for your npc's then RQ might not be the right game for you. It's always been fairly detail oriented, and there are lots of other options out there. Somebody mentioned Amber, for one...

Cobra

I mentioned Amber.
Well, I think it is. I have run plenty of Basic Role-playing and RQ3 in the past. I have just skipped HP/Hit Location and used 1/2 Total HP to keep the amount of record keeping I have to do to near nothing.
Basic Role-play / RQ3 has always been pretty simple to just give an NPC statistics ad-hoc. Just using 1/2 total HP for NPCs makes this even easier to do.
Hopefully there is a mechanic that allows me to skip the HP/Hit Location in MRQ. Or I have to introduce my optional rule (posted earlier in this thread).

 

[RosenMcStern]

I have not read any of the playtest drafts, so I might be badly mistaken, but aren't the damage thresholds for hit locations supposed to apply to damage dealt in one blow? The idea behind this is to avoid HP bookkeeping altogether: either it incapacitates you, or you just do not write it down.