5th preview is up

[Wulf Corbett]

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.

That was one idea duriung playtest, whether or not it's the one adopted for the full game is another matter. It would not allow for minor wounds, though, without bookkeeping.

Wulf

 

[Archer]

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.

If that is the case, then it is just brilliant.
However, if that is the case, I wonder how you keep track of how previous blows you were dealt affect you.

 

[wartorn]

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:

I was agreeing with you?

 

[wartorn]

That was one idea duriung playtest, whether or not it's the one adopted for the full game is another matter. It would not allow for minor wounds, though, without bookkeeping.

Wulf

Excellent!

 

[andakitty]

*I was agreeing with you?*

Ah, sorry, wartorn.

Feeling a bit cranky. Shouldn't post on impulse when I have only scanned a message.

I have played using both methods, both have ads and disads. It usually depends on the group which way we do it. Suffice to say MRQ looks perfectly usable, which is saying a lot, I guess.

 

[TrippyHippy]

Face it guys, if you are complaining about losing a total hit point total you're really just reacting to the change. If we give the game a chance to show how the designers felt they could do it better, it may end up being an inspired decision. Or not. I dunno, but I think people should still give it a chance, and hit locations can be a useful thing for all sorts of things.

It certainly gives combat a gritty emphisis.

 

[SteveMND]

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.

If that is the case, then it is just brilliant.

*shudder* So, basically, if you can't completely overwhelm a location in one shot, it doesn't have any effect? Man, I hope there is more to this presumed system than that.

I don't much relish the idea of a combat system that is purely all-or-nothing. Heaven forbid the foes's armor is good enough that you can only do a point or two damage above the armor rating; that effectively would makes him invulnerable, as all the 'nickel-and-dimeing' is simply ignored...

Although I am not a rabid d20-hater like some here on the forums (), one of the things that always bothered me with that system is that a creature at 1 HP is exactly as capable and dangerous as it is at full HP. I'd hate to see any system take that extreme position even further...

 

[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.

If that is the case, then it is just brilliant.
However, if that is the case, I wonder how you keep track of how previous blows you were dealt affect you.

You don't. You lose some realism, but limit bookkeeping to "Broo A: r leg gone" or "Cormac: unconscious (head)". Which is simple.

However, as Wulf Corbett pointed out, this is not necessarily the approach that was adopted for the final release. I remember many playtesters complained about this.

As for "invulnerable" opponents, remember that you can always bypass armor with a 40% penalty.

 

[Archer]

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.

If that is the case, then it is just brilliant.

*shudder* So, basically, if you can't completely overwhelm a location in one shot, it doesn't have any effect? Man, I hope there is more to this presumed system than that.

I don't much relish the idea of a combat system that is purely all-or-nothing. Heaven forbid the foes's armor is good enough that you can only do a point or two damage above the armor rating; that effectively would makes him invulnerable, as all the 'nickel-and-dimeing' is simply ignored...

Well, thats why I also wrote (which you did not quote); "However, if that is the case, I wonder how you keep track of how previous blows you were dealt affect you."

Such a system would be totally useless without any way of keeping track of how previous blows have affected a character, so it goes without saying that you in some way will have to keep track of that.

Considering the amount of damage most weapons deal (not counting damage bonus) compared to the static value APs of armour, you can very easily end up with invulnerable characters anyway.
It all depends on if you can have several layers of armour or there is magic to boost your APs even higher.
I have played BRP games and games with BRP clones for system, in which a person in full plate armour basically were unable to being injured by a dagger, shortsword, or even broadsword. It took two-handed weapons to punch through full plate (8 AP). Added to that was the rather "common" magic that easily boosted your APs on hit locations by up to +5 AP, and even two handed weapons were nearly unable to injure a character.

Luckily, it seems this is already addressed somewhat in MRQ, as there is the precise strike rule.

 

[Archer]

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.

If that is the case, then it is just brilliant.
However, if that is the case, I wonder how you keep track of how previous blows you were dealt affect you.

You don't. You lose some realism, but limit bookkeeping to "Broo A: r leg gone" or "Cormac: unconscious (head)". Which is simple.

However, as Wulf Corbett pointed out, this is not necessarily the approach that was adopted for the final release. I remember many playtesters complained about this.

As for "invulnerable" opponents, remember that you can always bypass armor with a 40% penalty.

Makes it a more heroic game if that is the case.
Not that I complain. Using Hit Location HPs as threshold for disabling body parts is one option if you want a heroic game, and keeping track of HPs on body parts in the more traditional sense makes it a lethal game.
It allows you to use the same rules for different style campaigns with very little modification. And as such, I think it would be a great optional rule to be included (somewhere, dont know which book though).

As for bypassing armor, I know . I was writing the previous post when you finished yours

 

[SteveMND]

Well, thats why I also wrote (which you did not quote); "However, if that is the case, I wonder how you keep track of how previous blows you were dealt affect you."

Well, considering the system as presented pretty much said that you don't keep track of previous blows -- it's all or nothing -- I didn't feel it particularly relevant.

Actually, in retrospect, I suppose there wasn't really any point in quoting your part as well, as I was realy just responding to the original poster's comments. Sorry about that.

 

[Archer]

Face it guys, if you are complaining about losing a total hit point total your really just reacting to the change. If we give the game a chance to show how the designers felt they could do it better, it may end up being an inspired decision.

LOL, you are absolutely right.
However, it does not take away the couriousness I have regarding MRQ, or the joy of discusing, theorizing (and ultimately be proven wrong when the game is in our hands) about it, and it's rules.
If anything, the previews have just made me want to know more about how the rules work now.
I already know they will end up being heavily house ruled, as there are no game I GM where there are not at least some houserules.

 

[Archer]

Well, thats why I also wrote (which you did not quote); "However, if that is the case, I wonder how you keep track of how previous blows you were dealt affect you."

Well, considering the system as presented pretty much said that you don't keep track of previous blows -- it's all or nothing -- I didn't feel it particularly relevant.

True.

Actually, in retrospect, I suppose there wasn't really any point in quoting your part as well, as I was realy just responding to the original poster's comments. Sorry about that.

LOL, no problem.
You still raised some valid points though.

 

[Lieutenant Rasczak]

Face it guys, if you are complaining about losing a total hit point total your really just reacting to the change. If we give the game a chance to show how the designers felt they could do it better, it may end up being an inspired decision. Or not. I dunno, but I think people should still give it a chance, and hit locations can be a useful thing for all sorts of things.

It certainly gives combat a gritty emphisis.

To me its main effect is that its going to make Combat so very dangerous, and consequently mean your players are going to have to rely on their wits even more!

Oh dear, my lot are FUBAR now LMAO!

 

[Cobra]

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.

I don't suppose you know a link for those games? I didn't find much in google for 5th Cycle except for some used copies.

Cobra

 

[andakitty]

No, sorry. I have tried quite a few times to find a fan site and have not been at all successful.

There is a mint and near mint copy (Fifth Cycle) for sale at Noble Knight Games right now along with most of the few supplements that came out for it.

If you have any questions about it I'll try to fill you in accurately. I like it a great deal but have grown cautious about recommending a game on that basis alone. The book is easy to read but there are editing issues and the artwork is not great but distinctive (it reminds me somewhat of early TSR stuff).

That said, if you like a simple game that delivers a disproportionate amount of fun you might like this. If you like RQ, DragonQuest, and other games of that sort you should like this.

Legend of Yore is rare. I can't recommend it as a playable game. It has some good bits but truly atrocious artwork and some decidedly odd design elements.

 

[Lord Twig]

Well, thats why I also wrote (which you did not quote); "However, if that is the case, I wonder how you keep track of how previous blows you were dealt affect you."

Well, considering the system as presented pretty much said that you don't keep track of previous blows -- it's all or nothing -- I didn't feel it particularly relevant.

Where does it say that you do not keep track of previous blows? In my opinion that would suck! A guy takes hundreads of 2 or 3 point wounds and walks around as if nothing had happened? That's like going back to the "Full Power at 1hp" problem that D&D has!

 

[Gallowglass]

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.

If that is the case, then it is just brilliant.

*shudder* So, basically, if you can't completely overwhelm a location in one shot, it doesn't have any effect? Man, I hope there is more to this presumed system than that.

IIRC correctly, like a lot of the more radical notions in the early lytest drafts the open playtest group, it appeared to have been "shoved" in with no particular thought as to its wider implications (or conflicts with other subsystems) and when objections were raised, rather than work through those interactions, it was tinkered with in a desultory fashion in the next revision and then dropped from the next... But then, the iterations all seemed to lurch rather precipitously between ideas (possibly a consequence of the nature of the group itself as open and unstructured).

The threshold damage business wasn't present in the last iteration the open group saw (as far as I remember, files are at home), and there was some reasonable looking stuff about "global injuries" and impairemnet to action from specific locational wounds IIRC that meant that THP weren't missed (albeit whether the result was genuinely "simpler" or "streamlined" is open to debate) - from the previews it looks like that aspect of the system hasn't changed massively but a) I may be mis-remebering things and b) the previews so far released are what, 20 pages (inlcuding credts and contents etc) - hardly enough to form a firm impression of the final form of the new game.

Since the rules content will be released to the internet after the book is released, I'd advise everyone to wait and review the SRD before deciding whether to buy a copy.

Cheers,

NDM

 

[HyrumOWC]

I have the Developer's Kit and there isn't "threshold" or "global" damage. I can't really say more, but each location does have HP and they do take damage that carries over from hit to hit.

Hyrum.
OWC

 

[SteveMND]

Since the rules content will be released to the internet after the book is released, I'd advise everyone to wait and review the SRD before deciding whether to buy a copy.

Heh, that's true; I had completely forgotten about the fact that since this is designed to be a OGL product, the basic rules mechanics should in theory be available for perusal by anyone at some point in time. Assuming of course, they go with the same SRD model as used for d20, which I'm guessing they probably would.

That makes me far more comfortable about the product, especially with Hyrum's confirmation that they are not merely 'threshold' numbers.