Fumble Table

[RMS]

Trolls can and have used fire, ask any ZZ redsmith.
why should they be equal?
Game balance?

IMO one the real beauties of RQ is that it didn't waste a bunch of time on something as ethereal as game balance. If you want game balance, why do dark trolls have better stats across the board than humans? That's not balanced. OTOH, clubs, etc. are fairly well balanced in the way I already mentioned. They may not have the potential to do as much damage as a sword or axe, but they're easy to acquire and relatively easy to use. That's where they balance.

Speaking of ZZ and game balance, where does that fit. There's a cult that gets darkness magic, fire magic, necromancy, etc. all rolled into one. If you want to complain about game balance issues, ZZ is a good way to go. Or for humans, Humakt is an extremely badassed cult, but in all my years of running RQ/Glorantha I've never had anyone want to play a Humakti. That's the beauty of it. They see that Orlanthi, Issaries, Lhankor Mhy, Urox, etc. are more fun in the world so go for those characters, despite the fact that none of them get the kind of whopass magic of Humakt. (In fact, my one longterm Humakti character is the only PC I've seen in well over 20 years of Glorantha play that wants to deal with all the strictures and social issues of being Humakti!)

There is a reason why sharp weapons have dominated warfare (until gunpowder).

What about flails, footmans maces and hammers?

All have had very limited use compared to swords, axes, and arrows on the battle field, and all are fairly primitive weapons generally used by levies and not by professionals. (The flail gets developed to be somewhat more useful, but it's primary use was still as a farm tool employed on the battle field by people who couldn't afford "real" weapons.)

I want there to be pros and cons for all weapon types. I don't care about anything else to be honest as long as it feels right, cause in the end it's all make believe anyway.

There already are pros and cons for all of them. The problem here is that what I've implemented is what feels right to me, and it was well received by all of my players over the years, so I doubt what feels right to you would be the same as what does for me. It sounds like I'm a bit more after a simulation than you, and you're a bit more after the "balanced" game part.

 

[homerjsinnott]

Well this is going to take some time so (I might) go get some coffee and a sandwich.

Fair enough, but they still happen very infrequently so aren't something you're depending on, so come down to blind luck on when they happen. The odds aren't lucky, but the actual timing is.

No, its still random, it's not luck cause it has nothing to do with POW or gods.

The four days are a minor part of the time required to travel to and from the closest temple, do appropriate favors etc.

You're a priest remember? you don't need to do favours. It would be assumed that what you were doing was to the cults benefit, unless you were only made a priest cause you had the stats, and I don't play that type of game and neither do you I suspect. Also what about Sanctify? one of the first spell any priest should get.

Shield can only be cast once per journey/trip, whereas Protection can be cast over-and-over, so long as the player has enough magic points (and they regenerate constantly).

Not in my world, magic point regen only after 8 hour uninterupted sleep, just like RQII

Magic is magic, its source maybe different, it's effects maybe different, but it should obey the same rules, unless that is part of it's effects.

Shield was immensely powerful, it lasted 3*as long and was the equivalent of 4 points of Spirit magic, how is that not potent?

For some divine spells, that extra time was a big issue, but not with Shield. Most RQ combats are done in a couple of minutes, so either Shield or Protection will easily last the entire battle.

Yes, but not all, also Shield could be extended as well, and even if not, it could last till a later fight, protection much more unlikely so.

For purely mundane purposes, Shield is twice as good as Protection per point, but costs actual POW to gain (and under the written rules is gone forever after casting, unless you're a priest), and can only be cast infrequently with much effort to reload.

I disagree, that 2points of CM sure is good to stop those mind affecting spells, also remember Shield doesn't go down if penetrated like CM does.

And that it doesn't cost any current MP to cast, but then by the time people have enough Shield to be useful (and reusable) they typically have lots of MP storage devices, so Protections, etc. go up immediately in every fight.

No MP to cast is a big bonus, as is also almost autocasting. Storage? possibly, but then again maybe not.

My houserules (which are very similar to the RQII Slash/Impale/Crush thing) worked out very well in practise. However, I really don't care about balance, as such, when I game. I want things to work logically, at least as far as I understand things to actually work. It was at least balanced enough, that I didn't see it driving player decisions for what weapons they chose, which is good enough for me.

Nor did mine, but we mostly stuck with occupational weapons, but that still doesn't change the fact that crushing weapons were not as good for human PC's as the other two. You don't say what you did to correct this.

Nothing. Why bother? Crushing weapons aren't as good. They're advantages are being readily available, cheaper, and easier to use (higher starting % in RQ). If they were as good as sharp or pointy things in actual combat, people wouldn't waste all the effort making sharp and pointy things for combat.

Sorry I misunderstood you, you seemed to imply that you had balanced them in some way in your first reply.
The basic chance was higher, but not usually the cultural chance.

Game balance is overrated. I'll take realism any day of the week.

Please feel free to come round my house and let me whack you with a real sword or a useless mace so we can try out the effect of my heavy leather jacket as armour (I will even get you some chain if you're feeling a bit reluctant).

Nothing, no-thing, no poncing round re-enacting or martial art can do anywhere near the justice of real warfare, cause if it did no-one would do it. I like realism, (thats why I Play RQ) but I accept that RPG aren't realistic (thats why I don't play Rolemaster), thank god.



This is not a pipe.

Clubs were great until helmets were invented, then they lost much of their effect. Flails and maces became popular when plate armour started to be so good that edged weapons just couldn't defeat it reliably. A mace is meant to stun or crack bones through plate armour.

Personally I would have thought they would do that through any armour, but there you go.

Also on the subject of game balance, RQ's huge damage for the greatsword and poleaxe meant that in the old days most human PC's wanted one or the other

For reasons I have stated before, not in my world.

God I'm glad I'm not 15 anymore.

God I wish I was, just with the experience I have now.

But no, I agree I'm glad I can work around the bigger is better thing.

IMO one the real beauties of RQ is that it didn't waste a bunch of time on something as ethereal as game balance. If you want game balance, why do dark trolls have better stats across the board than humans? That's not balanced. OTOH, clubs, etc. are fairly well balanced in the way I already mentioned. They may not have the potential to do as much damage as a sword or axe, but they're easy to acquire and relatively easy to use. That's where they balance.

Speaking of ZZ and game balance, where does that fit. There's a cult that gets darkness magic, fire magic, necromancy, etc. all rolled into one. If you want to complain about game balance issues, ZZ is a good way to go. Or for humans, Humakt is an extremely badassed cult, but in all my years of running RQ/Glorantha I've never had anyone want to play a Humakti. That's the beauty of it. They see that Orlanthi, Issaries, Lhankor Mhy, Urox, etc. are more fun in the world so go for those characters, despite the fact that none of them get the kind of whopass magic of Humakt. (In fact, my one longterm Humakti character is the only PC I've seen in well over 20 years of Glorantha play that wants to deal with all the strictures and social issues of being Humakti!)

I feel it did. RQ balance the things by actually making it difficult to play a Troll, Dwarf or Elf in a human society or even a ZZ human in a human society. To me these things balanced out well. As for being a Humakti, I had a well established character who had just joined next encounter WHAM! died. Never came back, God I miss Ben D Mace so much :wink: I played a Yelmalion for a long time who was a an amazing bigot cause of his geases, also couldn't touch his 90+% sling cause of the same reason.

As to trolls having better stats same thing applies, go be a troll travelling down the Zola Fel and see where it gets you, 21 STR or no.


Thank you both for listening.

 

[Adept]

Game balance is overrated. I'll take realism any day of the week.

Please feel free to come round my house and let me whack you with a real sword or a useless mace so we can try out the effect of my heavy leather jacket as armour (I will even get you some chain if you're feeling a bit reluctant).

Excused me? What on earth are you talking about here? I never sais a mace is useless, if you check my posts earlier I explaned how it came about and what it's good for (whacking somebody in a plate armour). There still isn't any mythological game balance reason why a mace has to be just as good as a sword or a spear. A mace is a terribly heavy and cumbersome thing to lug around, and a sword of a spear is usually a much more effiscient weapon. You want a mace when the opponent is so heavily armoured that even an axe won't go through.

And I also never said anything about a heavy leather jacket being good armour. I was talking about leather _armour_. That is, cuirboulle or, to a lesser extent, really thick rawhide. It really bugs me when people think leather armour = leather jacket.

Nothing, no-thing, no poncing round re-enacting or martial art can do anywhere near the justice of real warfare, cause if it did no-one would do it. I like realism, (thats why I Play RQ) but I accept that RPG aren't realistic (thats why I don't play Rolemaster), thank god.

No one would do it? I don't do SCA or re-enacting. I study european longsword (you'd call it a bastard sword propably) from the manuals of master Fiore and some other contemporaries. It's brutal, effiscient and even elegant in it's own way.

Also Rolemaster is about as far from realism as you can get. It is, afterall, modified D&D with more charts thrown in.

As to the effects of weapons being impossible to know (because real warfare is somehow totally alien and unknowable?) I quess all those archeologists who study the effects of ancient weapons with replicas and so on are just wasting their time? Instead they should play RQ, because for some reason it's about as realistic as you can get? (seeing as it is based on SCA combat).

I must say I don't really understand what you are trying to say here?

[Edited to remove the mock swearing. It was supposed to be heck, but the way, but it propably came accross as something more rude]

 

[homerjsinnott]

Game balance is overrated. I'll take realism any day of the week.

Please feel free to come round my house and let me whack you with a real sword or a useless mace so we can try out the effect of my heavy leather jacket as armour (I will even get you some chain if you're feeling a bit reluctant).

Excused me? What the #%"" are you talking about here? I never sais a mace is useless, if you check my posts earlier I explaned how it came about and what it's good for (whacking somebody in a plate armour). There still isn't any mythological game balance reason why a mace has to be just as good as a sword or a spear. A mace is a terribly heavy and cumbersome thing to lug around, and a sword of a spear is usually a much more effiscient weapon. You want a mace when the opponent is so heavily armoured that even an axe won't go through.

And I also never said anything about a heavy leather jacket being good armour. I was talking about leather _armour_. That is, cuirboulle or, to a lesser extent, really thick rawhide. It really bugs me when people think leather armour = leather jacket.

Nothing, no-thing, no poncing round re-enacting or martial art can do anywhere near the justice of real warfare, cause if it did no-one would do it. I like realism, (thats why I Play RQ) but I accept that RPG aren't realistic (thats why I don't play Rolemaster), thank god.

No one would do it? I don't do SCA or re-enacting. I study european longsword (you'd call it a bastard sword propably) from the manuals of master Fiore and some other contemporaries. It's brutal, effiscient and even elegant in it's own way.

Also Rolemaster is about as far from realism as you can get. It is, afterall, modified D&D with more charts thrown in.

As to the effects of weapons being impossible to know (because real warfare is somehow totally alien and unknowable?) I quess all those archeologists who study the effects of ancient weapons with replicas and so on are just wasting their time? Instead they should play RQ, because for some reason it's about as realistic as you can get? (seeing as it is based on SCA combat).

I must say I don't really understand what you are trying to say here?

Please calm down a bit and reread my post and understand it .

Ps I'm sorry I forgot to add a smilie to my point about the jacket.

PPs I did say heavy leather jacket.

Ppps I don't like being sworn at.

Pppps Smilies added for humour, god I'm so sorry I left them out (so much hassle for such a small thing).

 

[Adept]

I edited out the frustrated mock swearing. Check above to see how mild it was supposed to be. I still don't quite follow the logic of you argument.

 

[homerjsinnott]

My point is quite simple. Any attempt to recreate any part of the past, is doomed to fail, not matter how good anyone thinks it is, it's rubbish. It not a good approximation, its not even a bad approximation, the very best that can be said about it is that it is a little like it. All archeaologists and historians will, if pushed, tell you that trying to recreate the past is like trying to recreate a mountain after you have reduced it to 1 cm chunks, taken 99% away mixed the rest up and spread it over the globe. And thats being generous. To then put those ideas in another persons head...!

Read 'The Past is a Foreign Country by David Lowenthal' to get a better idea of what I am talking about.

That is what a an RPG combat is like only much much worse. This is all relative, some "little likes" are better than others.

So realism is vastly overated, I think.


I hope this is a little clearer.

Thanks, Ade.

Edited to make it a little clearer.

 

[homerjsinnott]

My point is quite simple. Any attempt to recreate any part of the past, is doomed to fail, not matter how good anyone thinks it is, it's rubbish. It not a good approximation, its not even a bad approximation, the very best that can be said about it is that it is a little like it. All archeaologists and historians will, if pushed, tell you that trying to recreate the past is like trying to recreate a mountain after you have reduced it to 1 cm chunks, taken 99% away mixed the rest up and spread it over the globe. And thats being generous. To then put those ideas in another persons head...!

Read 'The Past is a Foreign Country by David Lowenthal' to get a better idea of what I am talking about.

That is what a an RPG combat is like only much much worse. This is all relative, some "little likes" are better than others.

So realism is vastly overated, I think.


I hope this is a little clearer.

Thanks, Ade.

Edited to make it a little clearer.

I think I should add that this doesn't mean that these 'models' are useless or that we shouldn't use them, far from it. They are the only thing we have at our disposal, but we must be aware that that's all they are.

 

[Adept]

My point is quite simple. Any attempt to recreate any part of the past, is doomed to fail, not matter how good anyone thinks it is, it's rubbish. It not a good approximation, its not even a bad approximation, the very best that can be said about it is that it is a little like it. All archeaologists and historians will, if pushed, tell you that trying to recreate the past is like trying to recreate a mountain after you have reduced it to 1 cm chunks, taken 99% away mixed the rest up and spread it over the globe. And thats being generous. To then put those ideas in another persons head...!
<snip>
I hope this is a little clearer.

Thanks, Ade.

Edited to make it a little clearer.

Clear enough, but not something I take very seriously. Human physiology is the same as it ever was, and even psychology has changed very little. There is no reason we can't research & recreate parts of our history with quite high accuracy. Certainly nothing to warrant the fatalistic tone you seem to be suggesting.

Heck, things like checking the the effectiveness of weapon vs. armour are easy enough to do. Recreating combat styles that have been lost takes more work, but is by no means impossible.

Form a group of people who know how to swordfight, give them viking swords and shields and time to practise. The most effiscient and natural fighting style they come up with will be the one closest to what the actual vikings did.

There's no mystery to martial arts, european or oriental. It's just practical application of violence. Practise makes perfect.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Form a group of people who know how to swordfight, give them viking swords and shields and time to practise. The most effiscient and natural fighting style they come up with will be the one closest to what the actual vikings did.

I'd disagree with that strongly, unless the group has a high turnover due to fatalities. I was a member of the Glasgow Vikings - a group within the Norse Film & Pageant Society, a reenactment group, complete with steel weapons and armour. We did not recreate a realistic fighting style. We recreated a safe, good-looking fighting style, that LOOKED like it could have been used by the vikings. But none of us was under any pretence it actually WAS realistic, we were only too aware of pulled blows and avoiding delecate areas.

Wulf

 

[andakitty]

It reminds me of 'martial artists' vs. street fighters. Guess who wins? The winner usually has two things going: actual experience fighting, having won or lost and the willingness to actually hurt somebody. Our games have no significance when the real deal happens. It's easy to talk the talk, not so much to walk the walk. If the weapon chart you use feels right, fine. Don't confuse it with the real thing. And yes, we can't really make any determinations one way or another until we see all the rules.

Meanwhile, you guys might be interested in Epic rpg. Like Riddlle of Steel and RQ2 it has a more authentic feel than usual.

Excuse me if I sound pedantic today.

 

[Adept]

Form a group of people who know how to swordfight, give them viking swords and shields and time to practise. The most effiscient and natural fighting style they come up with will be the one closest to what the actual vikings did.

I'd disagree with that strongly, unless the group has a high turnover due to fatalities. I was a member of the Glasgow Vikings - a group within the Norse Film & Pageant Society, a reenactment group, complete with steel weapons and armour. We did not recreate a realistic fighting style. We recreated a safe, good-looking fighting style, that LOOKED like it could have been used by the vikings. But none of us was under any pretence it actually WAS realistic, we were only too aware of pulled blows and avoiding delecate areas.

Wulf

Reenactment is a different kettle of fish. What you seem to be saying is that practise is useless and the reality of combat is totally different. I subscribe to a different theory. You fight like you train.

Practise a martial art enough, and that's how you fight in a real situation too. If the training is sensible, it will serve you much better than our animal instincts.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Practise a martial art enough, and that's how you fight in a real situation too. If the training is sensible, it will serve you much better than our animal instincts.

Sure, I agree with that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the fighting style of people actually using real weapons in real fights as a career. Unless you actually practice maiming and killing people, the use of lethal weapons in any form of practice will never, ever, recreate the reality. If you actually believe otherwise, you'll probably never walk away from your first real fight involving them.

Wulf

 

[Wulf Corbett]

Oh, and by the way:

Reenactment is a different kettle of fish. What you seem to be saying is that practise is useless and the reality of combat is totally different.

One false and one true. It's actually very very useful in teaching you the severe limitations on safe practice combat, and how far off reality it is.

Wulf

 

[Adept]

Practise a martial art enough, and that's how you fight in a real situation too. If the training is sensible, it will serve you much better than our animal instincts.

Sure, I agree with that. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the fighting style of people actually using real weapons in real fights as a career. Unless you actually practice maiming and killing people, the use of lethal weapons in any form of practice will never, ever, recreate the reality. If you actually believe otherwise, you'll probably never walk away from your first real fight involving them.

Wulf

I'm not saying it will "recreate the reality". The psychological impact of mortal danger in immense, and acually cutting somebody open with a sword would propably mess one up somewhat. Still, that doesn't mean it's totally off the wall and suddenly all the combat training is useless.

Fiore (the italian swordsmaster whose writings form a large part of my training) was adamant that the most important part of fencing is control. In real life one doesn't swing a sword around like Conan, or if one does, one is dead very soon. Actual, effiscient, swordplay is all about control, timing and keeping your cool. That means that training is ultimately very effiscient.

Hell, how do you think the old italian fencing masters became masters anyway? They didn't fight a thousand duels to the death, or even to first blood. They practised. Hundreads and thousands of hours with blunt steel swords and some protective gear, like we do at the Swordschool.

After enough practise (and mental training) one is profiscient with the longsword, and at that point one is ready to fight an actual duel if the need arises.

I'm not sure what sort of historical reality you are thinking about, but it seems like training like that hasn't been very important in it.

 

[Adept]

Oh, and by the way:

Reenactment is a different kettle of fish. What you seem to be saying is that practise is useless and the reality of combat is totally different.

One false and one true. It's actually very very useful in teaching you the severe limitations on safe practice combat, and how far off reality it is.

Wulf

What is this "reality shock" experience you've had that has convinced you so that no training can prepare one for real combat?

Does the same apply to unarmed combat as well? Does no amount of unarmed combat training help when somebody actually comes at you intending to hurt you? It sure has helped me.

 

[andakitty]

It is true, Adept. No matter how well trained you are or how tough you think you are you never really know what you will do until you are there. Most people will hesitate to really hurt someone and hesitate again when they realize what might happen if they stick their head up. I sincerely hope none of us are ever in a position where we have to make that discovery.

 

[Adept]

It is true, Adept. No matter how well trained you are or how tough you think you are you never really know what you will do until you are there. Most people will hesitate to really hurt someone and hesitate again when they realize what might happen if they stick their head up. I sincerely hope none of us are ever in a position where we have to make that discovery.

But it still doesn't invalidate training, nor does it invalidate research into ancient combat arts. I know things are terrifying in real life. I had real trouble with any situation with potential physical harm, but I made myself face such things and now I can function and keep my head cool when things get threatening / physical.

 

[andakitty]

No, it doesn't.

Check out Epic rpg. They base combat skill on intuition and will, not strength and other physical qualities. A better than average model, I think. Might pick it up to at least cannibalize, I think. Lots of good ideas.