changes to BRP system?

[Archer]

There are probably still intentional knockback rules for this scenario.

Cobra

One of the things I really liked with WFRP version 1, was the rules about "winning and loosing". Though their implementation was far from perfect, they made a lot of sense. If you "won" a round, you gained an advantage (+10% to hit), and could choose to force your opponent to move backwards (or at least away from you).
Basically you ended up trying to get the upper hand on your opponent, since it allowed you to put him where you wanted him, and gave you a better chance of hitting him.

 

[atgxtg]

There are probably still intentional knockback rules for this scenario.

Cobra

One of the things I really liked with WFRP version 1, was the rules about "winning and loosing". Though their implementation was far from perfect, they made a lot of sense. If you "won" a round, you gained an advantage (+10% to hit), and could choose to force your opponent to move backwards (or at least away from you).
Basically you ended up trying to get the upper hand on your opponent, since it allowed you to put him where you wanted him, and gave you a better chance of hitting him.

THat was a feature that I liked as bout Ars Magica. In that game you make your combat rolls and the winner has an advantage, experessed as the difference between the two combat rolls, and kept as a running total. THe character with the advantage could either continue to work to improve that advantage, or trade it in for an attack. This give a feeling of working to find and exploit and opening.

I hope the new manevering system in MRQ lets the maneuvers modify the combat effects. Like I mentioned before, the +3 to defense that GURPS gives for stepping back (giving ground), does a lot to make GURPS combat more dynamic. Putting footwork into a combat system could really liven it us (anyone remember the old LOST WORLDS fighting books).

 

[andakitty]

I'm not so sure it would be a good thing. Remember, we want as simple a game system as possible without constant mods from round to round (at least I do). MRQ already has enough to worry about as far as I can see, with the fatigue, advanced skills and so on. Notice I'm not saying it's bad, just I'm not sure it would help in this case.

 

[Archer]

I'm not so sure it would be a good thing. Remember, we want as simple a game system as possible without constant mods from round to round (at least I do). MRQ already has enough to worry about as far as I can see, with the fatigue, advanced skills and so on. Notice I'm not saying it's bad, just I'm not sure it would help in this case.

Well, as far as I am concerned, it all depends on how it is implemented. If it can be done in a simple way, that does not complicate matters much, or requires round to round record keeping, then it can be great.

 

[Enpeze]

I guess the difference between basic and advanced skills is that basic skills are for everybody, while advanced skills are just picks from a skill list of "character classes" or "occupations" like CoC has.

What I dont get is that they obviously dont use the good old game mechanics of BRP like the resistance table, the Idea Roll or the Luck Roll. This seems a little bit strange to me.

At least they get rid of the seperate parry skill and the strike ranks of RQIII and they streamlined the skill list (which is a good thing IMO)

 

[atgxtg]

I guess the difference between basic and advanced skills is that basic skills are for everybody, while advanced skills are just picks from a skill list of "character classes" or "occupations" like CoC has.

What I dont get is that they obviously dont use the good old game mechanics of BRP like the resistance table, the Idea Roll or the Luck Roll. This seems a little bit strange to me.

At least they get rid of the seperate parry skill and the strike ranks of RQIII and they streamlined the skill list (which is a good thing IMO)

I think the advanced skills are a bit like some of the skills that were in old RQ. For example, in Old RQ, while everone had First Aid skill, people had to get specialized training to learn the Treat Disease or Treat Poision skills. RQ also had several skills written on the character sheet with a (00) base chance. Such skills were not suable until trained to a base opening percentage.


Some things like the resistance table and Idea/Luck rolls are easy to reproduce in other ways. You can get about the same effects as the resistance chart by rolling Star or less on D20, with a +/-1 mod per point of difference vs the resistining force. Luck and IDea rolls would beroll stat or less on D20. Pretty similar effects with a slightly different mechanic.


I don't like the removal of the old Strike Rank system, or the separation with Attack & Parry skills. THe old SR system gave polearms a reach advatage (I hope there is something else to replace this in MRQ). Combined A& P skills doesn't always make sense. For example a man who fights with Sword & Shield should be better attacking with the sword than parriying with it. An expert archer probably should be an expect at blocking with his bow, either.

 

[Lord Twig]

One combat a week?! What fun is that?

While I agree that the "4 encounters a day" guideline is a bit artificial, if you are in enemy territory you can expect that you will frequently be in more than one combat a day.

I played RQIII for years and honestly, the expert character's rarely died to inexperienced characters. Your arm gets chopped off? Oh well, it will be reattached by the next round. That is what healing spells are for! Healing is cheap and easy in RQ.

Strengthening Enchantment helped with HPs so one lucky critical didn't kill you outright. At least most of the time. Parries and dodges kept most attacks away and protection spells and armor kept most attacks from getting through if you failed either of those.

After a combat is over one character with a healing spell and some decent magic point storage (MP matrices, power spirits, etc.) would have the party back at full fighting form in minutes, if not sooner.

 

[Cobra]

At least they get rid of the seperate parry skill and the strike ranks of RQIII and they streamlined the skill list (which is a good thing IMO)

I also really liked the old SR's and separate A/P skills. But adding the separate skills back in ought to be simple. Putting the SR system back might be harder, but should be do-able.

For me, the more of these things that get streamlined, the more the system becomes D20 - and that would be a shame IMO.

Cobra

 

[andakitty]

Well, I have to say that right now it looks like it'll be easier to BRPize it than to D20ize it. :wink:

 

[atgxtg]

I also really liked the old SR's and separate A/P skills. But adding the separate skills back in ought to be simple. Putting the SR system back might be harder, but should be do-able.

It all sort of denpends on what is in the new MRQ. The new SR system might handle things in a similar fashion. Possibly dropping SR for point of spells, etc. One thing about RQ that I loved was how the SR system worked to putt things into a combat order. Adding the POW point cost of spells to DEX SR to determine when the spell went off (and if it was interrupted) was simple, easy, and worked better than practically any other system I've seen for "casting during combat."

For me, the more of these things that get streamlined, the more the system becomes D20 - and that would be a shame IMO.

Cobra

Not that surprising, the design of D&D 3E/D20 was heavily influenced by RQ. OGL Ancients looks even more like RQ than D&D.

I just hope that the streamlining isn't done to excess. I find that the more complex a system is the more options avaliable to the players. Make the game too simple and it lacks the flexiblilty to be used in more than one way.

 

[Mikko Leho]

What I dont get is that they obviously dont use the good old game mechanics of BRP like the resistance table, the Idea Roll or the Luck Roll. This seems a little bit strange to me.

Resistance table was not a good game mechanic and such it is good to be removed. In fact I always thought it and static strike ranks to be removed from MRQ since the day it was announced. Everything that needs charts in roleplaying game should be abolished from the rules (hit locations being so-so).

For me, the more of these things that get streamlined, the more the system becomes D20 - and that would be a shame IMO.

Have you ever played D20 or more specifically D&D 3.5? It is difficult game with tons of different variables. Although I think RQ could use some streamlining, D&D definitely needs a huge rules overhaul.

 

[Enpeze]

Mikko Leho - Resistance table was not a good game mechanic and such it is good to be removed. In fact I always thought it and static strike ranks to be removed from MRQ since the day it was announced. Everything that needs charts in roleplaying game should be abolished from the rules (hit locations being so-so).

I like the resistance table. It is simple to use and I cannot remember that I have ever looked on it the last 10 years. Just done the math in my head. 5% per point difference, thats not difficult at all, IMO. And its very basic and minimalistic approach to handle many problems of an adventurers life. But of course sometimes tastes are different.

Regarding charts I am with you. I did never like the strike ranks of RQIII (prefer more CoC style of play with order of actions based on dex)

 

[Turloigh]

I like the resistance table. It is simple to use and I cannot remember that I have ever looked on it the last 10 years. Just done the math in my head. 5% per point difference, thats not difficult at all, IMO. And its very basic and minimalistic approach to handle many problems of an adventurers life. But of course sometimes tastes are different.

Regarding charts I am with you. I did never like the strike ranks of RQIII (prefer more CoC style of play with order of actions based on dex)

I'm with Enpeze on all accounts.

The resistance roll never bothered me, it's easy to calculate on the fly. But from what I hear, lots of people never liked it, and even Steve Perrin said during playtest that he wanted to get away from it. However, I expect the new rule to be just as good.

I also expect several charts and tables to be removed from the game. You can't get away from the hit location table, but that can be printed on the character sheet, so it's not really an issue.

 

[Mikko Leho]

I like the resistance table. It is simple to use and I cannot remember that I have ever looked on it the last 10 years. Just done the math in my head. 5% per point difference, thats not difficult at all, IMO. And its very basic and minimalistic approach to handle many problems of an adventurers life. But of course sometimes tastes are different.

Part of my dislike is based on the principle that one shouldn't have interpret any charts when roleplaying. Additionally the resistance table broke the logic of the game by converting values from 1-20 to percentile number 1-100 with a step of 5, which is kind of like using skills but not because skills used a step of 1. Why use d100 when you could have just as easily used d20?

Resistance table works for roughly human sized creatures, but when resisting attributes rise well above 20 and differ greatly (like in the case of two dragons wrestling), things fall apart quickly. One more thing that bothered me was that resistance table was not used extensively through the game, but sometimes the rules called you to make percentile rolls against attributes times 5. This rule again is broken if attributes rise well above the human norm.

MRQ seems like to correct some and possibly all of these problems.

 

[Enpeze]

Mikko Leho - Additionally the resistance table broke the logic of the game by converting values from 1-20 to percentile number 1-100 with a step of 5, which is kind of like using skills but not because skills used a step of 1. Why use d100 when you could have just as easily used d20

Of course you can just use d20 instead of %. It would not change the simplicity of the system. Personally I prefer % because I am used to think in % and not in numbers from 1 to 20.

Resistance table works for roughly human sized creatures, but when resisting attributes rise well above 20 and differ greatly (like in the case of two dragons wrestling), things fall apart quickly. One more thing that bothered me was that resistance table was not used extensively through the game, but sometimes the rules called you to make percentile rolls against attributes times 5. This rule again is broken if attributes rise well above the human norm.

I do not agree. Why should the system be different for non-humans? If 2 dragons wrestle then the one with fewer points will probably loose. simple. If he has 9 points or more STR than the other he will always win. (except maybe a 01 which I interpret always a critical success with corresponding cinematic effects) I have absolutely no problem to use the resistance table for every creature stat if put against another creature stat. The elegance of the system is that it is strictly linear and allows for compairing every stat a creature can have to every stat of another creature.

You can even add several stats together and put it against the same set of stats of another creature. Or you can just use another BRP mechanism. Example is:
Two guys want to impress each other before combat with their muscles and skills. You have the following options to displays this match.

-Add STR+SIZ of one guy and put it against STR+SIZ of the other guy on the resistance table (assuming they are showing muscles and "making themselves bigger")
-make a weapon skill roll for each guy (assuming they are waving with their weapons to show the opponent how dangerous they are) as long untill one guy fails his roll

Another example which displays the usefulness of the resistance table is:
-A guy wants to lift an object. Put STR of the guy vs. SIZ of the object against each other on the resistance table. This shows that you can even put different stats of 2 entities (which can be also nonliving objects) against each other. Of course you also alternatively use a roll STR times x to lift objects, but then you have to evaluate the weight of the object by yourself.

And dont forget that much of the magic system is built upon using POW vs. POW rolls on the resistance table.

A last example is. A guy tries to solve a standard riddle which has a generic value of say 10.
-A successful INT vs. 10 roll is necessary to solve the riddle. If there is a time component in solving the riddle you can give it a higher value, say 12.
-Alternatively you can just let the player make an idea roll. INTx5%.
-A third option (which I normally prefer) is to roleplay the riddle solving.


Also I see no contradiction if you sometimes make other roll just against the attribute times x. It depends on the situation which mechanism should be used.

 

[Archer]

Pendragon, if I remember correctly, did away with the resistance table, and introduced the following rule; Roll below your value but higher than the oppositions roll.

 

[Turloigh]

Pendragon, if I remember correctly, did away with the resistance table, and introduced the following rule; Roll below your value but higher than the oppositions roll.

... and I wouldn't be surprised if we find a similar rule in the new MRQ.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Of course you can just use d20 instead of %. It would not change the simplicity of the system. Personally I prefer % because I am used to think in % and not in numbers from 1 to 20.

More coherent solution would have been some other resolution system, that had used actual percent rather than 20 steps of 5.

I do not agree. Why should the system be different for non-humans? If 2 dragons wrestle then the one with fewer points will probably loose. simple. If he has 9 points or more STR than the other he will always win.

The problem arises when the strenght and size of a dragon is determined with 20 rolls of d6. With this kind spread it is not uncommon too see two dragons with difference of 9 in strenght + size. For humans a difference of 9 is much more rare. Too completely overwhelm other is much more common with dragons than among humans, which suggest that resistance table is suited better human vs human conflicts.

And dont forget that much of the magic system is built upon using POW vs. POW rolls on the resistance table.

Which is not elegant, but this is again a matter of opinion.

A last example is. A guy tries to solve a standard riddle which has a generic value of say 10.
-A successful INT vs. 10 roll is necessary to solve the riddle. If there is a time component in solving the riddle you can give it a higher value, say 12.
-Alternatively you can just let the player make an idea roll. INTx5%.
-A third option (which I normally prefer) is to roleplay the riddle solving.

You forgot that the character can have a skill called "riddle", that he or she can use to solve the riddle in question. This only however increases the absurdity of the situation: to use INT or skill, apply difficulties by resistance table, static percent or by dividing the target number etc. Numerous ways to solve conflicts are a sign of poor game design. Rules should clearly state what to do in situations like this. I still consider RQ3 as one of the best roleplaying rules because of its experience system, realistic combat, simple character creation and Glorantha, but its task resolution system leaves much to be desired.

 

[Enpeze]

mikko leho - The problem arises when the strenght and size of a dragon is determined with 20 rolls of d6. With this kind spread it is not uncommon too see two dragons with difference of 9 in strenght + size. For humans a difference of 9 is much more rare. Too completely overwhelm other is much more common with dragons than among humans, which suggest that resistance table is suited better human vs human conflicts.

Well if you think that there is to much spread in dragon wrestling, you can break the STR number of the dragon down, (eg to a tenth of the original number or whatever) and then apply the resistance table. This little math should be worth the time if you like to show your players wrestling dragons.
Another solution would be to determine the STR value of a dragon with 3d6+60. Then there is not so much spread. I would choose this solution because I find it more realistic (if you can say "realism" and "dragons" in one sentence )

In every system you can discover some problems if you search long enough. This does not proof that the system as a whole is crap. Sometimes it proves only that there is somewhere a problem which can maybe fixed. In your above example it seems to me that the problem you show comes from an unintuitive way dragon STR stats are determined and not from a broken resistance table.
See it this way. If a dragons STR is determined with 20d6, then one Dragon has a STR of 20 and the other dragon has a STR 120. Not very realistic. The alternative Method to determine dragon strength is to say that you roll 60+3d6 which results in numbers of 63 to 78. I would choose the latter.

Which is not elegant, but this is again a matter of opinion

this is right.A matter of opinion. IMO POW vs. POW is a much better way to show spell effects than saving rolls like d20.

ou forgot that the character can have a skill called "riddle", that he or she can use to solve the riddle in question. This only however increases the absurdity of the situation: to use INT or skill, apply difficulties by resistance table, static percent or by dividing the target number etc. Numerous ways to solve conflicts are a sign of poor game design. Rules should clearly state what to do in situations like this.

I have never heard of this skill and I dont have many riddles in my games enough to introduce such a skill for myself. But if you introduce this skill then why not. Its the power of the system which allows for many solutions.

The fazit is that it seems that you prefer fixed regulations and rules to flexibility. (eg. I assume this from your comment that there should only be one way to resolve conflicts, or that rules should clearly state what to do in a riddle situation, which is not my opinon at all)

With this in mind I can understand why you have problems with tools like the resistance table etc. These tools made for responding very fast and very flexible to the most situations of a characters life without writing a 200p rule book.

I have myriards of uses for the resistance table, you not. Thats ok because we have different play styles in our games.

 

[Archer]

Pendragon, if I remember correctly, did away with the resistance table, and introduced the following rule; Roll below your value but higher than the oppositions roll.

... and I wouldn't be surprised if we find a similar rule in the new MRQ.

Me neither, it is one of the mechanics I have expected to be present to replace the resistance table.