Any change to the Experience system?

[atgxtg]

[
I am going to guess the rules disallow wielding two shields? Otherwise, for the expense of about 1 average damage per attack, you gain a boatload of AP).

Not really. I don't believe that you add the AP from both weapons to the damage parried, it is an either/or thing. So wielding two shields does not have an "edge" over sword & shield. THe only real advntage would be if one of the shields got trashed while parrying,.

So then, dual wielding War Swords seems to be pretty decent, at 1d8 damage and 4AP.

Besides the AP, the only other bonus I saw to a Shield is parrying missile weapons. But, is it worth the half xp penalty?

No, probably not, although I suspect it doesn't half the XP advancement as I don't think you can get more than one imrpovement roll at a atime. Still, points to shield could be more useful elsewhere.

IMO, maybe half damage rather than minimum damage is the best way to handle the dodge situation.

 

[Urox]

Not really. I don't believe that you add the AP from both weapons to the damage parried, it is an either/or thing. So wielding two shields does not have an "edge" over sword & shield. THe only real advntage would be if one of the shields got trashed while parrying

I wasn't talking about adding AP togther -- in essense, it was dual wielding Shields so you only had to use 1 skill for attack and parry.

No, probably not, although I suspect it doesn't half the XP advancement as I don't think you can get more than one imrpovement roll at a atime. Still, points to shield could be more useful elsewhere.

I guess part of it depends on whether the rules allow you to use your xp to gain multiple checks on the same skill. If they do, I suspect that Parry winds up being superior to a shield or dodge (in most situations).

 

[wartorn]

I don't care if it is 2pt armor plus 20 points of parrying. THe fact remains that there is still a cap on the parry armor, whereas dodging can stop infinite damage.

You're only considering the 'success' side of the equation; the balance comes out when you fail - Fail at dodging and you absorb 2 points of damage; fail at parry and you absorb 10 - your left arm thinks that is significant!

No, I don't feel stronglyu about this. I'm just rying to fathom how it works, and looking at the "fallout". Sure, it is possible to power through a block. A good parry, however, is more than just a block. RQ used to cover this with the degress of success resulting in better parries. A critical parry used to stop ALL of an attack. Not a game problem as crtical parries were rare, and it is possible to, say, block a great axe with a dagger. It's also possible for the axe to slice through the dagger and hit you, or for the axe to knock the dagger out of your hand, or for the axe to drive the dagger into you.

Ok I see the problem now; we differ in our belief about critical parries. I don't believe that is possible unless you include dodging as part of parrying. A dagger can parry a greataxe successfully if the damage rolled (loosely the force of the blow) is low enough.

I'm just worried about people rushing to grab greatswords and 2H axes and then being able to bash righ through any sort of parry defense. A couple of D6s or D8s backed up with a D4 db is going to get through that 10 points.

That is a problem - good point. All I can say to that is the system should model other disadvantages of using two handed weapons that would make that alternative have a cost as well; perhaps as simple as not having a shield for your own defence.

If parrying is the perfect defense, and there is no risk to it, the equation turns and the question becomes 'why dodge?' when doing so means giving up my protection.

Several reasons. First off, to avoid the knockback effect. Secondly, if the weapon you have to parry with can't take the damage, but you need it for offense. For instance, if you are carrying a rapier and the foe has a greatsword.

But you are arguing above that parrying should not be penetrated by damage like the rapier in this example. We haven't discussed knockback effects yet; you could say why parry at all if you can dodge and have no knockback?

In game terms the effect of making parrying less effective than dodging has far reaching ramifications. For starters no one will carry around useless equipment.

I don't see it as less effective, just 'differently' effective. Parrying is a middle ground proposition - If I succeed I will probably absorb all of the damage and what's left will probably be soaked by my armour; If I fail the armour I'm wearing will absorb a lot of the damage. Dodging is If I succeed I get away clean - If I fail I will absorb very little of the damage and take most of it. Dodging also lets you doff the shield and being more lightly encumbered perhaps have greater movement speed. Tradeoffs, which make things more tactically interesting.

Realsitically, you sort of combine both actions. For example, if a guy is carrying a shield he will probably interpose it between himself and an attack while dodging. Sort of a "if dodge fails, get a parry". The two options really are intertwined.

Couldn't agree with you more here; the system should model it this way but that is a separate topic.

But realsitcally, the reason why they teach parrying is that is is generally much more effective that trying to dodge. THe foe can swing, cleave, thrust and lunge with his weapon faster than you can probably move your whole body. Parrying is much faster, and a lot less tirring too. Parrying is also less tiring.

I'm at a disadvantage here having never trained to fight with european weapons; I can tell you from my martial arts experience (some competitive (and not point) fighting) that most standup defense is based on dodging - if you keep bouncing on your feet, dodging is a natural defense which lets you move faster than the other person can attack. But that's martial arts.

So - I like the "only 2xAP on success" system so long as 2xAP of shields is sufficient most of the time to absorb an opponent's attack with a one handed weapon. I'm ok with 2h weapons being a counter to this (I imagine that was part of their allure IRL) so long as not having a shield is a disadvantage. Like you I would prefer a system that modelled blocking as a backup defense to a dodge.

You prefer a system that always gives you the chance of absorbing the full weight of the blow regardless of the damage (within reason here I assume)

I think the official rules support your view of things and not mine, despite what the chart says. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[atgxtg]

I don't care if it is 2pt armor plus 20 points of parrying. THe fact remains that there is still a cap on the parry armor, whereas dodging can stop infinite damage.

You're only considering the 'success' side of the equation; the balance comes out when you fail - Fail at dodging and you

absorb 2 points of damage; fail at parry and you absorb 10 - your left arm thinks that is significant!

No, no. Fail at dodging at you take minimum damage from a failed attack, reduced by armor. Fail at parrying and you take full damage,reduced by your parry AP and armor. Translation Dodge is better than Parry. THat is why the chart doesn't work and the text doesn't follow it.

Minimum damage from most weapons is a point ot two. Not enough to get past leather. Hency my concerns over the "grab the biggest weapon and who cares if you make the roll" tactics that the chart would have encouraged. By the chart, skill was secondary to how much damage you can dish out. That is wrong.

Ok I see the problem now; we differ in our belief about critical parries. I don't believe that is possible unless you include dodging as part of parrying. A dagger can parry a greataxe successfully if the damage rolled (loosely the force of the blow) is low enough.

Yes, it is possible. A successful parry isn't a block. For instance, stepping into an attack is a good way to get past the "business end" of a halfted weapon and deflect the attack. If you take martial arts, I wonder if your style teaches "hard blocking". It is also how martial artistis can deflect sword attacks.

I'm just worried about people rushing to grab greatswords and 2H axes and then being able to bash righ through any sort of parry defense. A couple of D6s or D8s backed up with a D4 db is going to get through that 10 points.

That is a problem - good point. All I can say to that is the system should model other disadvantages of using two handed weapons that would make that alternative have a cost as well; perhaps as simple as not having a shield for your own defence.

THe best way to model it is to let people actually miss. THat is why I am glad they tossed the chart out. The RQ model with two semi-skilled combatants missing a lot is very realistic. Of course movement is actually a factor in every action, too. Combatants step forward, retrat and to the sides in combination with attacking and defending. Not to many RPGs do this.

Several reasons. First off, to avoid the knockback effect. Secondly, if the weapon you have to parry with can't take the damage, but you need it for offense. For instance, if you are carrying a rapier and the foe has a greatsword.

But you are arguing above that parrying should not be penetrated by damage like the rapier in this example. We haven't discussed knockback effects yet; you could say why parry at all if you can dodge and have no knockback?

No I am arguing why parrying is more effective that dodging. If dodging was better there would be no point in lugging around a shield. Techincally, yes a rapier can parry a greatsword. Peroid. Note I said rapier, not foil. I own some swords, and not the $49.99 vvariety. A real sword can take the hit and stop the attack. In fact, a showrdsword is probably better at parrying a greatsword than just about any other kind of sword, inclduing a greatsword. Shorter weapons can take the impact better and are less likey to break. THat is one reason why most swords were fairly short until metalurgy advanced. The early bronze and iron broadswords would bend and break when a shorsword would not.

What makes parrying a greatsword with a dagger difficult isn't so much that the dagger will break (try cutting therough a common table knife with woodaxe some day. It's not that easy), but the effect of reach. Generally as the shorter the weapon the less room you have for error.

If you stop and think about it, if you could cut through daggers and small weapons so easily, plate armor would prove useless, since axes and spears would punch right thought it (armor is a lot thinner that a weapon).

I don't see it as less effective, just 'differently' effective. Parrying is a middle ground proposition - If I succeed I will probably absorb all of the damage and what's left will probably be soaked by my armour; If I fail the armour I'm wearing will absorb a lot of the damage. Dodging is If I succeed I get away clean - If I fail I will absorb very little of the damage and take most of it. Dodging also lets you doff the shield and being more lightly encumbered perhaps have greater movement speed. Tradeoffs, which make things more tactically interesting.

THat is fine if dodging doesn't let you take minimun damage. THe old RQ model of getting nailed if you fail the dodge works. THe get hit for minimum damage vs. parry for 1xAP doesn't.

But realsitcally, the reason why they teach parrying is that is is generally much more effective that trying to dodge. THe foe can swing, cleave, thrust and lunge with his weapon faster than you can probably move your whole body. Parrying is much faster, and a lot less tirring too. Parrying is also less tiring.

I'm at a disadvantage here having never trained to fight with european weapons; I can tell you from my martial arts experience (some competitive (and not point) fighting) that most standup defense is based on dodging - if you keep bouncing on your feet, dodging is a natural defense which lets you move faster than the other person can attack. But that's martial arts.

Careful. Not all martial arts are the same. While you are stressing dodging, I know some poeple who swaer that the only defense is a hard block. Likewise I knew a guy who took tae kwon do who claimed that the only way to defeat muliple opponenets was to attack agressively and go for crippling blows. An Akidoka had an entirely different approach.

So - I like the "only 2xAP on success" system so long as 2xAP of shields is sufficient most of the time to absorb an opponent's attack with a one handed weapon. I'm ok with 2h weapons being a counter to this (I imagine that was part of their allure IRL) so long as not having a shield is a disadvantage. Like you I would prefer a system that modelled blocking as a backup defense to a dodge.

THe allure of @H Weapons was generally to get through worn armor, not parry armor. Again, the point of a parry is to deflect the attack not just to block it. I don't mind the 2xAP on a success, providing that the AP to damage ratio is such that a successful parry will stop most attacks.
I don't like the failed attack going up against 1xAP on the chart though. It promotes big damage weapons over skill. Again, that is why I am glad the chart is gone.

You prefer a system that always gives you the chance of absorbing the full weight of the blow regardless of the damage (within reason here I assume)

Yes. THat is exactly what I want. That is sort of the point of defense. RQ without the parrying isn't much of a game. You get hit, you get hurt, you drop. Note though that a chance of doing something isn't the same as always doing something. A sucessful shield parry should stop most attacks. Of course you might not have much of a shield left after a few good hits.

I think the official rules support your view of things and not mine, despite what the chart says. We'll have to wait and see.

Yeah, since the chart sees to be in error, then I guess the rules do support my view-at least until we get to see them.

 

[atgxtg]

I was thinking (it's the weekend), I wouldn't mind the chart that much if the weapon damage was scaled as well as the parry defense.

My idea would be to have weapons do more dice damage based upon roll. Like 1 die for failure, 2 dice for success, and 3 or 4 for a critical.

THis could scale independant of the parry roll (1xAP, 2xAP, 3+xAP)

We would probably need to tweak soem weapon damages (cap off weapons at 1d12) but it might be an interesting variant. :idea:

 

[waiwode]

My New Beef. And it is a beef based upon rumour, not fact.

I've been pretty much positive (possibly even annoyingly so) about MRQ up to this moment. But now I have an actual problem with the experience system as reported to me.

"1 tick per five hours play" or words to that effect. Man what?

Okay, substitute 1 tick/session for those of us who play a 3-4 hour session weekly ... because I'm not bringing a chess clock to my sessions.

Now Stat Improvemtn having a 3 tick cost (is it still rolled?) means you don't want to be tossing these out like puppies. But what's the harm in increasing this to the point where the players actually feel rewarded, and not like the GM is being penurious.

Fact: Most RPGs don't last years. Heck, we'ed be lucky if most RPG campaigns last months. (I know all you grognards have been playing in the same campaign since you rolled up characters with Pontius Pilate and Herod one night long ago) What is accomplished by restricting chances at character improvement so strongly?

I know that a 1% improvement is now automatic ... so?

Is there at least a training mechanic to ameliorate this rate of improvement?

Of course, I'm Doctor House-rule, and I can hand-wave away "approximately 1-2 GM-selected skill improvements based on character performance, and 1-2 player-chosen skill improvements" or more, depending on my desires. But did someone thing this was a good idea?

 

[SteveMND]

Pffft, Herod was a min-maxer to the worst degree.

As to the experience issue, I suppose it depends on how people run their campaigns. I know some where the order of the day is two or three small sessions a week, and some that have been great big 18-hour marathons once a month.

Most of the ones I've been in tend to vary depending on when it's played. Most are weekly, but if it's held on a weekday, it's usually 3-4 hours. If held on a weekend, it's easily double that.

I suspect -- as in most RPGs -- the experience in MRQ may well be one of the most variable, as different players and GMs prefer different speeds of advancement for their PCs. This past year I've played in one D&D campaign where it took us four or five sessions to advance a level, and another held once a month where we automatically upped our characters a level each time we played. All depends on how it's run.

 

[atgxtg]

DragonQuest used to award experience that way (you got an award after every 5 hours). In that game the rule was mean to reward people who play long sessions, rather than penalize people who play for 4 hors or so (they just got an award at the end of the game).

Personally, I don't like the new XP system either. One thing that I used to like about RQ (I've been typing that a lot), was that XP was tied to a character's actions rather than being a reward for suffering through a game session (the reason for XP awards in many other RPGs).

I don't mind 1% improvments (Harn has them), but I don't like the low number of checks. I'd much rather see the game give more XP but spread the checks out a bit.

I'm wondering what hasn't been changed in MRQ? It's probably a shorter list.

 

[andakitty]

Heh. I've already set out my favorite BRP games to supplement MRQ as needed. 8)

That said, I am still excited at the prospect of a flow of related scenarios and other material. Stuff that I can use with little rules manipulation(I hope). Just the identical stats and roll under percentile resolution should make it easier. Easy enough, I reckon. :wink:

...and I wonder when the new corrected basic MRQ rulebook will be out?

Oh, one other scary thought: if the combat resolution chart in the book is messed up, do we have any reason to expect any difference in the one sure to be on the GMs screen? :roll:

 

[HyrumOWC]

There's no "tick" per hours of play. The rules suggest 2-3 "checks" per session, plus 1-2 Hero Points, modified by the GM and how fast he wants advancement to happen.

You get 1% or you hope to roll over and get +1d6%.

Hyrum.

 

[waiwode]

There's no "tick" per hours of play. The rules suggest 2-3 "checks" per session, plus 1-2 Hero Points, modified by the GM and how fast he wants advancement to happen.

You get 1% or you hope to roll over and get +1d6%.

Hyrum.

Clear on the last bit. Much clarified (and relieved). Thanks.

Doug.

 

[homerjsinnott]

Pffft, Herod was a min-maxer to the worst degree.

Do you remember that session with Pilate reffing?

Said things were so bad he would never do it again, washed his hands of the WHOLE thing...

 

[atgxtg]

...and I wonder when the new corrected basic MRQ rulebook will be out? Razz

I was thinking they could just toss in a 1 page sheet with the corrections in the book. Just affix it to the inside cover. West End Games did this when they did their "Rules Upgrade" for d6 Star Wars.

Oh, one other scary thought: if the combat resolution chart in the book is messed up, do we have any reason to expect any difference in the one sure to be on the GMs screen? :roll:

I suppose it depends on if the final GM screen has been sent to the printer. I hope not, or it could make the GM screen less than useless.

 

[atgxtg]

There's no "tick" per hours of play. The rules suggest 2-3 "checks" per session, plus 1-2 Hero Points, modified by the GM and how fast he wants advancement to happen.

You get 1% or you hope to roll over and get +1d6%.

Hyrum.

Thank You. That's much better. I kinda like the auto 1% or risk the improvement roll. I might swipe that for other BRP games.

Now Hero Points are used to modify die rolls, buy special abilities or what?

 

[SteveMND]

Do you remember that session with Pilate reffing?

Said things were so bad he would never do it again, washed his hands of the WHOLE thing...

Yeah, but seriously, Pilate ran such seriously monty-haul campaigns. Anything the players wanted they got. It became such a running joke among the group I suppose we really shouldn't have been all that surprised when he snapped and killed all our PCs. Well, except for that one guy who always rolled well; three days later, and he was back with the same character...

 

[HyrumOWC]

I kinda like the auto 1% or risk the improvement roll. I might swipe that for other BRP games.

I always thought that the +1% or roll was an official rule. It's how it always worked in the RQ games I played in.

Hyrum.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Now Hero Points are used to modify die rolls, buy special abilities or what?

Both. (And a couple other things. They're VERY cool.)

 

[atgxtg]

I kinda like the auto 1% or risk the improvement roll. I might swipe that for other BRP games.

I always thought that the +1% or roll was an official rule. It's how it always worked in the RQ games I played in.

Hyrum.

No, in previous edtion of RQ a check allowed an improvement roll. When you improved you either got 5% (RQ1-2) or 1D6% (RQ3). In RQ3 there was an option to take a fixed 3% (later adjusted to 2%) rather than make the 1D6 roll.

THe automatic 1% is interesting. I think I'll probably cap it at the 75% mark though-it could be problematic for the "over 100%" crowd.

 

[atgxtg]

Now Hero Points are used to modify die rolls, buy special abilities or what?

Both. (And a couple other things. They're VERY cool.)

I love the orginal Hero Point system that was developed with the James Bond RPG. Since then, other RPGs have had Hero Points, or something similar (Force Points, Character Points, Courage Points, A$$ Saver Points) with mixed results (worked good in some games, not so good in others).

Can you give us a hint as to some of the things that Hero Points can be Used (and abused) for? :?: Cryptic answers make me inqusitive (I have a character in one rpg who is barred from the Temple at Delphi )

 

[HyrumOWC]

Now Hero Points are used to modify die rolls, buy special abilities or what?

Both. (And a couple other things. They're VERY cool.)

I love the orginal Hero Point system that was developed with the James Bond RPG. Since then, other RPGs have had Hero Points, or something similar (Force Points, Character Points, Courage Points, A$$ Saver Points) with mixed results (worked good in some games, not so good in others).

Can you give us a hint as to some of the things that Hero Points can be Used (and abused) for? :?: Cryptic answers make me inqusitive (I have a character in one rpg who is barred from the Temple at Delphi )

Die rolls, Legendary Abilities, get out of jail free card.