changes to BRP system?

Urox said:
SteveMND said:
...and also brokered a deal with Stafford to create Gloranthan material set in the Second Age
Any source on this? And if so, what exactly he's working on.

Greg is notoriously slow...

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1181&qsSeries=RuneQuest

Godlearners, EWF, all the 2nd age goodies you could want. :)

Hyrum.
 
Any source on this? And if so, what exactly he's working on. Greg is notoriously slow...

Allow me to clarify my earlier statement; Stafford owns the IP of Glorantha, and so Mongoose struck a deal with him that will allow their company to create 2nd-age Glorantha material for their version of RQ. I have no idea if Stafford will be doing any of the actual writing for Mongoose (although I suspect he'll have significant -- if not total -- editorial powers).
 
While you could attack three times you should save actions for other things like moving. -Hyrum

hm...up to 3 attacks instead of one single attack like in normal BRP? I am not sure if I like this...I hope MRQ is as deadly as the original.

Please allow me to ask at which moment in his life a character qualifies to get his second and third attack? Does this depend on the percentage of his weapon skill? E.g. a character with 75% has 2 attacks and one with 90% has 3 attacks etc.
 
Enpeze said:
While you could attack three times you should save actions for other things like moving. -Hyrum

hm...up to 3 attacks instead of one single attack like in normal BRP? I am not sure if I like this...I hope MRQ is as deadly as the original.

Please allow me to ask at which moment in his life a character qualifies to get his second and third attack? Does this depend on the percentage of his weapon skill? E.g. a character with 75% has 2 attacks and one with 90% has 3 attacks etc.

Every character has a number of Combat Actions determined by his DEX. They range from 1-4. While a character with 1 H Axe at 30% and 3 combat actions could conceivable have 3 attacks at his full 30%, he wouldn't be able to move, aim, cast spells, etc.

Hyrum.
 
It's not necessary a case that "action" equates to "attack". Not every combat is a case of 2 people standing toe to toe in the same spot all the time and taking swings at each other. I think anyone who tries that out will get cut to ribbons pretty quickly.

Someone with 3 "actions" could select move/attack/move, or move/give orders/attack, or whatever. I could see move/attack/move being very popular...

And yes, we would get the more dynamic mobile combat we were promised out of that.
 
GbajiTheDeceiver said:
...I could see move/attack/move being very popular...

Eh, I did not think about that one. I know for a fact it will be the default action for at least one of my players. He always tries to do that with his characters. He loves to sneak up on an enemy and then run past him while cutting him.....
 
Archer said:
GbajiTheDeceiver said:
...I could see move/attack/move being very popular...

Eh, I did not think about that one. I know for a fact it will be the default action for at least one of my players. He always tries to do that with his characters. He loves to sneak up on an enemy and then run past him while cutting him.....
Sneaky little git. :lol:

Of course, the enemy will be able to do the same back to him.
 
GbajiTheDeceiver said:
Archer said:
Eh, I did not think about that one. I know for a fact it will be the default action for at least one of my players. He always tries to do that with his characters. He loves to sneak up on an enemy and then run past him while cutting him.....
Sneaky little git. :lol:

Of course, the enemy will be able to do the same back to him.

Yeah, he is a sneaky little ba-ehrm, fellow. Fighting fair is not his game.
That is very true, he might get to feel the other end of this tactic...
 
Hmmm... I'm not sure about that.

So mobile guy moves up to enemy. Well now it is the enemy's turn to taken an action, Whack!

Mobile guy attacks. Enemy whacks him a second time.

Mobile guy moves away. That was smart. He got hit twice and only hit his enemy once!

Generally speaking whoever gets the most attacks in wins. This might heavily favor someone with a high Dex. It is better to hit three times with a dagger than to only hit once or twice with a war sword. Remember that each attack will add in Str bonus and magic damage (Bladesharp?). Also if you have more attacks than your opponent that also means you have more attacks than he has parries or dodges, while you can parry or dodge all of his.

Definitely need more information.
 
Hyrum,
thank you very much again for the info.

If in MRQ a player has from 1 to 4 combat actions, this means that the new system introduces the first time in the history of BRP more than 1 attack in close combat. (there are special exceptions like stormbringer riposte and skill 100%+) On the other hand ranged combat in RQ and CoC do have already such a multiple attack system. hm...

The new MRQ combat system seems to me a little bit like WFRP. There you have also from 1 to 3 attacks. (2nd edition) They designed the system in a way that a person could also do other things in combat like "move", "defensive stance" or "charge attack" etc.. If a person is conducting such other action, the amount of attacks decreases to just 1 instead of 2 or 3. The result is that during a combat nearly nobody uses special actions, just in order not to loose his additional attacks.

Lord Twig,
I agree. Who does move around as "standard action" if he can do an attack at the same time? Especially if moving around brings no special advantage. There are some situations where moving around is necessary (like moving to another enemy etc.) but as "standard"? Characters which move around a lot will have fewer attacks which means they loose the combat more often.

The funny thing in your little scenario is that the enemy only has 2 combat actions and the mobile guy has even 3. IMO mobile guy can talk about the advantages of combat movement to other smart mobile guys in elysium. :)

Another question...is MRQ combat designed for playing on optional squares or hexes? If yes then maybe there are some reasons to make tactical moves and sacrificing attacks.
 
andakitty said:
He is what is what is referred to as a 'survivor' in my old Stormbringer games. :wink:

Yes, that tactic works very well in Stormbringer. As opposed to charging headlong towards the enemy, and try to beat them to a bloody pulp with no finesse.
 
Lord Twig said:
Hmmm... I'm not sure about that.

So mobile guy moves up to enemy. Well now it is the enemy's turn to taken an action, Whack!

Mobile guy attacks. Enemy whacks him a second time.

Mobile guy moves away. That was smart. He got hit twice and only hit his enemy once!

Hmm, you are right. The First action, Second action, Third action, etc. approach nullifies any advantage you may gain by using such tactics.
I think Stormrbingers Dex Ranks, RQ3 Strike Ranks then is much better, since you at least have a chance of doing several actions before it is the enemies turn.

One possible solution would be to drop the action by action method, and allow a character to use all his actions on his turn. But then going first becomes even more important than it was in many BRP games.

However, a surprise attack, run - attack - run should probably work quite well, assuming the enemy is surprise a whole round.

But there will be other instances where "you go first, then I go, then you" will cause problems. In fact, it pretty much feels as if you as well could drop the X actions per round issue, and go back to 1 action / 1 reaction per round. Since in effect, with 4 actions, and "I go, you go, etc." all you have done is cram several rounds into one round. Unless an opponent have less actions than you do.
 
What I meant was, do anything EXCEPT stand up and trade blows if the other guy looks bigger and stronger, or even if they don't. My players learned that to survive they had to use missile weapons, gang up, ambush, use cover, use poison, high dodge to disengage when needed, etc. MRQ looks and feels like it is going to provide options like this. And smart players will use them. It makes for a better game than I hit you, you hit me, higher hit points win.

Anyone else thought about those 2h weapons? Even more difference in the damage than before. I have been speculating about whether 2h or 1h plus shield will be better (as in...more survivable), but the truth is we just don't really know enough to judge yet. Dang it, I want that game!
 
Andakitty: I agree on the options provided.
But generally BRP has mostly been "he who hits first and deals enough damage wins", very seldom have it been a bonk-fest like D&D, where you defeat the opponent by attrition.
And it looks pretty much like MRQ will be the same; Hit first, and preferably use a twohanded weapon to deal massive damage.
I also think that for a "survivalist" it will eventually be (when % is high enough); Hit first, aim for the head, and use a 2h weapon to make sure the opponent dies.

If we are lucky, the options provided might change this somewhat. But I somehow also doubt it.
 
I'd like to play instead of run, and I'd like to try spear and shield like a Greek hoplite. :)

I hope they have nifty poison rules. We use to have all sorts of fun with the poison rules in SB1.
 
andakitty said:
I'd like to play instead of run

Hmm. Sorry, but I do not get what you are aiming for here.

andakitty said:
, and I'd like to try spear and shield like a Greek hoplite. :)

That should by all rights be a superb choice, especially when in formation. Unfortunately, few RPGs allow this to be a good combination of weaponry and tactics.

andakitty said:
I hope they have nifty poison rules. We use to have all sorts of fun with the poison rules in SB1.

I foremost hope for somewhat realistic, but very simple poison rules. Something that allows for "mild effect", "moderate effect", "strong effect", but I doubt that will be so.

Same backstabbing player as mentioned before, also tend to use poisons, if the poison system is good enough. So I would appreciate intressting poisons as well in MRQ.

But then, I would also like to see intresting drugs, herbal concoctions, etc. in the game.

One of the most intresting characters and campaign I have ever GMed included a herbalist, which in the standard "fantasy fare" of published scenarios tend to be rather useless (not a fighter, not a sneak, and not a wizard). However, his personal goal to help those in need, in suffering, and struggling to produce new helpful drugs and medicines, became the highlight of the campaign.
When a daemon of Nurgle (this was WFRP) spread the disease Nurgle's Rot, he was the only character in the party that actually was brave enough to try to help those that had become afflicted, and through that, made a scenario that was basically a monster hunt, into something that was very intresting role-playing wise.
 
Archer - But generally BRP has mostly been "he who hits first and deals enough damage wins", very seldom have it been a bonk-fest like D&D, where you defeat the opponent by attrition.

Thats one of the reasons why BRP is so close to reality. "First strike wins the most time" is a vital lessen if someone practices a kind of martial arts in real life (except aikido of course which is based on reactions)
 
Enpeze said:
Archer - But generally BRP has mostly been "he who hits first and deals enough damage wins", very seldom have it been a bonk-fest like D&D, where you defeat the opponent by attrition.

Thats one of the reasons why BRP is so close to reality. "First strike wins the most time" is a vital lessen if someone practices a kind of martial arts in real life (except aikido of course which is based on reactions)

I know, I used to practise kyokushin karate when I was younger, more agile, and not as round in the middle. But while it might be realistic, it lends it poorly to dramatic combat scenes (unless the dramatic in the situation is who acts first), or if you want a more cinematic style in combat, or for that matter if you care a lot about the game being constructed to be a game, not a simulation of reality, where chosing the right option in the right moment is important.

I think it would be best to compare it to a game of poker. Do you play it by the rules, or do you play it with just one card, where the one who draws the highest card wins? which would you say have the most tension, and the most amount of "fun"?

While I basically are a "simulationist" myself, I have in the last five years begun to lean somewhat towards a cinematic style of GMing, and have begun to see that to a certain degree, it is good to have the game behave like a game, not reality.

That said, I do not like the way D&D (d20 version or older) does things either. It is too much of a game, and the balance with lethality is very bad. In once situation you can take 10 dagger thrusts in the gut, the next you make _one_ roll to determine if you die on the spot or survives unscathed (save vs death against certain spells etc.).
 
It's all about compromise, flavor, ease of play, and mostly what you enjoy. BRP style games have always been the best blend for me. I would have enjoyed D&D without the feats and prestige classes. Although I am not really comfortable with the 'roll high for a target number' type resolution system. I could have dealt with the other perceived problems.
So I like some simulation but fast moving simulation, I guess.
 
Back
Top