Combat Matrix Problem... ????

[vitalis6969]

Given the below wording that I quoted from the new rulings, this pretty much makes the Critical/Critical, Success/Success, Miss/Miss, Fumble/Fumble section of the matrix absolutely friggin useless ???????

I mean, the shear ODDS of rolling identical rolls after all modifiers isn't even worth figuring out. The system was right before, now you fixed the matrices to include criticals and fumbles, why did you have to include the whole "opposed rolling rules"...

One way or the other, matrix or opposed rolling... not a mix of both because this just takes too much figuring to deal with. I'm sure this was an attempt to make attacks more effective when dealing with hero level characters and creatures, but it really just seems like a band-aid stuck on a broken idea... And as players, we really shouldn't have to "figure anything" before consulting a matrix...

I'm sorry, I always stick up for you guys, but this one just seems to be on the "huh? what???" pile...

Now, as a fix, I suggest the simple following, which won't be used because these are the new set-in-stone rules, but bear with me :wink:

Keep the opposed rules as you have them completely described for combat. Just two things:

1. Forget that whole lowering what you rolled if you loose thing...

2. Drop the matrix all together for both dodging and parrying. Keep it SIMPLE... Judge a success or a failure just like you would for any other roll in the game. GET RID OF THE MATRICES... They are a great idea but NOT NEEDED... AT ALL...

If something is dodged, its dodged, simple as that... If something is parried, then it is parried up to the AD of the device used for parrying, simple as that... no need to consult a broken matrix for special effects... If I roll higher to hit than you roll to parry or dodge, then you are hit... EASY

-V

The attack and defence rolls are then made simultaneously by the combatants and the results compared according to the opposed test mechanics: as usual a Critical Success always beats a normal success, but if the success levels are equal, the higher Success roll wins and the lower roll is demoted by one level. I.e. if both combatants roll a normal success, then the higher roll remains a success, but the lower roll is downgraded to a failure, or if both roll a critical success the lower roll is downgraded to a normal success. This may seem unfair when both combatants have succeeded, but it is a logical outcome. In such situations the winning opponent has exhibited either greater luck or greater competence, and turned the situation to his advantage.

If one of the combatants has a weapon skill in excess of 100%, and the skill is a standard success, the skill’s value in excess of 100 is added to the result of the dice roll, increasing the chances of victory in the Opposed contest.

Where the participants tie: i.e. the result of the Opposed roll, taking into account all modifi ers, is an identical score, and the level of failure or success is the same, then both have achieved the same result on the appropriate combat matrix.

The outcome of each combatant’s roll is compared on the table appropriate for the defensive method being used and the results applied.

 

[andakitty]

I agree completely with this. IF I ever get to run again I will dump the matrix altogether. Probably the 'opposed roll' mechanic too. I much prefer to be telling a story, or helping the players tell a story, than to deal with too many fiddly bits, when running a game. Which is why I always used BRP before. Keep it simple. I do find much of the game an improvement, just don't want to deal with the matrix and opposed rolls, thanks anyway.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

Unlike most people (I guess) I ran a game exactly as they are written (rules wise). Character creation is another matter.

If it has it in the book, I use it..

That is why I buy the games... Otherwise, you are changing the game, and you may as well change all the rules.

Just my two cents.

 

[andakitty]

Well, not exactly. It's kind of like cars. You could strip a lot of stuff out of the engine of a modern car and put in a few old style components like carburators and they still run, maybe better. And you still have many of the advantages of the more modern design. BRP was always a flexible game engine.

Just to mention, I have run some trial combats. Before I did I thought the weapons values had been seriously nerfed. Now I don't. A beheading the second round...

Besides, messing with the rules is part of the fun for me. Never played any BRP game exactly as printed, either.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

I understand

But with me, if I change one rule, there are undoubtably more that coincide with it that will need to be changed. After a while, the whole concept of the game or portion there of is changed.

I still think the game plays well as it is. Sure there are those who do not like aspects of it, but it does play well...

 

[andakitty]

As I mentioned in another post today, I would play it if not run it as is.

You know, it (BRP) is not like D20. Everything tends to be modular. You CAN change one thing without effecting everything else. MRQ? Might be different, because the guys that put it together have worked with a lot of D20 stuff previously. I'd say there would be a lot more interdependence at higher, read Legendary, levels of play...

Just looked over it again, and I am going to stick with BRP and cannibalize stuff they did right, IMO, out of MRQ.

If I were in someone elses game I wouldn't have any problem, though. It pushes my limit but doesn't just make me crazy like D20 does. Can't even play that...

 

[CthulhuFnord]

There are some portions of the combat matrix i do enjoy, the rules for ripostes specificaly. It does seem like there's an easier and quicker way to do it though....

 

[andakitty]

Seriously, look at Stormbringer 5. Many have called it the best version of BRP as far as combat goes. It has speed in play along with riposte, two weapon fighting, closing vs. long weapons, withdrawing, movement rules, integrated parry/dodge rules, the whole nine yards. It is the very best combination of playability and an exciting 'realistic' feel to the combat I have seen. You can download it or its' other version, 'Elric!' at drive thru. A read through of the rules would provide usable alternatives to any perceived problems with the MRQ game engine. In addition to, not instead of, because I do think MRQ has its good points, they just ain't the matrix or the opposed roll, IMO.

 

[vitalis6969]

See, I too REALLY LIKE the idea of the matrix as it made things simple for an outcome... But the new way to do it just... well... feels wrong...

Also, the matrix is broken if you are dealing with characters that have both high strike and defend skills. Hence the reason for if you tie the lower one drops a level. Which just brings the dumb factor right back in.

To me, the root of the problem all begins with allowing characters over 100% in their skills. But there are pros n cons to that too... :roll:

-V

 

[Sadric 86th]

I prefer the Stormbringer 5th edition BRP rules myself. I'm hoping with the new Eternal Champion books I'll find the best of both worlds. After toying with the MRQ combat rule set, it seems counter-intuitive to desire to roll low to obtain a critical except, if you don't, you want to roll as high as possible without fumbling.

 

[vitalis6969]

it seems counter-intuitive to desire to roll low to obtain a critical except, if you don't, you want to roll as high as possible without fumbling.

I find that with all opposed roles in this game... Hmmm, in my own game we have been playing for years, we just broke the Percentage score into Fumble, Full, Half, Quarter and Critical on the Character sheet. This way the object was always to roll low...

-V

 

[Rurik]

I will throw out one option that works very well with opposed rolls:

Whoever makes their roll by the most wins.

Pros: Lower is always better, and it scales seamlessly past 100.

Con's: Have to determine how much you made your roll by for all opposed rolls (though honestly often it is obvious who wins without doing the math).

If you and your players are not afraid of subtraction on the fly it works very well.

 

[vitalis6969]

I agree Rurik, that is one of the reasons that during Character Gen in my home rules game we listed the varied divisions that I posted above. Kept things neat and simple.

-V

 

[soltakss]

I will throw out one option that works very well with opposed rolls:

Whoever makes their roll by the most wins.

A radical concept Sounds almost like classic RQ.

Pros: Lower is always better, and it scales seamlessly past 100.

And you don't have to retrain your dice by forcing them to roll low or high.

Con's: Have to determine how much you made your roll by for all opposed rolls (though honestly often it is obvious who wins without doing the math).

Yes, in most cases you don't have to work it out. Even if you do, it's not a difficult calculation.

If you and your players are not afraid of subtraction on the fly it works very well.

It's what we use and it works well enough.

I'd use Levels of Success as well, so the person who makes the critical by most beats another critical, but a critical always beats a normal whichn always beats a failure which always beats a fumble.

For two failures, I'd use who failed by the least to work out who gets the upper hand. Similarly for two fumbles.

01 is always good, (1)00 is always bad.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Well, the beauty of BRP is that you can stuff things together.

MRQ character creation with stormbringer combat, Elfquest magic and the monsters from Call of Cthulhu ?

Sure thing!