Preview is out

[DreadDomain]

Well, that is also a very simple rule. But it lacks the elegant symmetry of doubles below, and doubles above.

However, if that is the rule that applies in MRQ, then it is very easy to use the double below method, without it changing too much.

The main problem with the double method is that it needs an extra mechanism to sort out critical when skills were above 100%, making it lose any semblance of elegant symmetry.

The method used in V1.5 works perfectly as far as 1000%.

 

[Archer]

Well, true. It becomes a problem if you have % over 100.

If, and I assume that is the case, MRQ allows % over 100, just like stormbringer, then the rule described here is better.

 

[Rurik]

Well, true. It becomes a problem if you have % over 100.

If, and I assume that is the case, MRQ allows % over 100, just like stormbringer, then the rule described here is better.

Another thing that bugs me about the doubles rule is that a character with a 50% skill has a 50% greater chance of fumbling than critting (6% and 4% respectively).

 

[andakitty]

The 10% critical is simple, logical, fast, and easy. All you have to do is glance at the dice, no calculations required. It also has a smooth, fair progression. For critical failure I use 99/100 for skills below 50% and 100 for skills 50%+.

I usually use it along with a critical effects chart listing piercing/crushing effects. Anything from 'impressive scar' to death; it is easy to include all sorts of consequences including broken bones, lameness, etc. all the way up to death. I have made up several such charts with varying levels of lethality. It also has the advantage of not having to worry about hit locations unless the damage is at a certain level, the lethality of which can ,again, be modified easily. I use either one third or one half total hit points. It's easy, feels realistic, gives the players chills without being overwhelmingly lethal and does not intrude on narrative at all. It is essentially the major wound system from 1st ed Stormbringer with a few bells and whistles.

I hope it is the way they decided to go with MRQ. At least something similar.

 

[Archer]

Rurik: 4% of critical and 5% of fumble (55,66,77,88,99), that is not 50% greater chance of failure. It is 25%.
But the point is still valid, the double system shifts the scale somewhat, since you require a 55% to have an equal chance of crits and fumbles. That is if you are using fumbles at all.

Andakitty: That system is still used in Stormbringer 5, and it is a fast and nice alternative to counting hit points on different hit locations.

However I have another alternative I use in BRP clones that use HP on hit locations. Instead of keeping track of HPs on hit locations, I halve the number of total HPs a creature has. Hit locations are only used to determine what piece of armour has any effect on the damage. When the killing blow / disabling blow falls, it is the hit location that is struck with that blow that gets the nasty effect.
This gives the players the illusion that I am counting HPs on hit locations. No group of players have never caught me doing this.
If game balance is something you consider, I can tell you that using HPs per hit location for PCs, and the half HP system for NPCs, is about the same when it comes to lethality, with a slight edge to the PCs. However, it makes it much simpler for the GM to keep track of NPCs hit-points and injuries.

 

[Rurik]

Rurik: 4% of critical and 5% of fumble (55,66,77,88,99), that is not 50% greater chance of failure. It is 25%.
But the point is still valid, the double system shifts the scale somewhat, since you require a 55% to have an equal chance of crits and fumbles. That is if you are using fumbles at all.

I was counting 00 as a fumble.

 

[Archer]

Ah, ok. Yes, true. With 00 as a fumble, it is quite a bit tougher.

If MRQ uses a scale that is definitive 1-100, and no higher, it is a problem. But if it is realtively easy to have skills over 100%, then it works reasonably well, assuming that you consider that a character that skilled, should not be able to fumble at all or as frequently (00 = always fumble).

I have used the system of doubles over or below % for WFRP1 the longest time. 00 always entailed something much worse than fumbles, and 11 generally meant a critical to the head.

In Stormbringer it was not really a problem, since it was quite frequent to have % in weaponskills over 100%, and with such a skill level you could not fumble.

When running "Drakar och Demoner" version 1 and 2, only 00 meant a disaster when casting spells, or fumble during normal combat actions, while doubles below % was critical hits.

But considering that MRQ seems to handle up to 1000% without problem, this solution does not look near as elegant anymore. Though it will be a hard habit to break.

 

[andakitty]

Archer, a similar system is used in SB5, yes, but with another level or two of complication. The SB1 uses 10% criticals, SB5 uses 20%; SB1 has a series of parries at -20 per parry during the round; SB1 uses parry OR dodge during a round, SB5 integrates parries and dodges and reduces successive attempts by -30 from the previous attempt. The tables showing results of attack/parry/dodge are absent from SB1. All in all, SB1 produces a much, much faster playing experience. I have found it more enjoyable than any other, including Elric!/SB5.

 

[Archer]

Archer, a similar system is used in SB5, yes, but with another level or two of complication. The SB1 uses 10% criticals, SB5 uses 20%; SB1 has a series of parries at -20 per parry during the round; SB1 uses parry OR dodge during a round, SB5 integrates parries and dodges and reduces successive attempts by -30 from the previous attempt. The tables showing results of attack/parry/dodge are absent from SB1. All in all, SB1 produces a much, much faster playing experience. I have found it more enjoyable than any other, including Elric!/SB5.

Unfortunately, I never got the chance to play the older versions of Stormbringer, as they stood and collected dust in my collection, due to the players not liking the world. It was only with Elric! that I managed to get a group playing.
But I have a hard time imagining something faster than SB4/5, as our game has been lightning fast.

I do not really see what you mean with Attack/Dodge/Parry tables. The only table/matrix is the Evasion/Detection Matrix, and that has nothing to do with Dodge/Parry or Attack, and everything to do with stealth and being discovered.

And the only tables that has anything to do with Attacks are the Major Wounds table.
The only thing I can think of coming close are the rule that states that it requires a critical parry/dodge to counter a critical attack.

Unless of course you are refering to the Matrix at page 64 in Elric! (I do not have SB5 available here), which is just an overview to really explain the possible combinations of those who are completely new to role-playing games. The same basic possibities exist in earlier SB editions as well, but there is no overview.

The Parry/Dodge actions to avoid an attack is simply a skill roll with a cumulative -30% penalty for previous Parry/Dodge action taken. It can not be much faster than that, no tables are included in the handling of those actions.

As for the chance of using either dodge or parry in the same round, I think that is an improvement. It allows characters to actually survive when their weapon or shield has been bashed to tiny pieces.

The only additional layer of complication I can think of from SB3 to SB4(Elric!) and beyond, is the addition of the rule that you have to dodge into our out of different melee ranges. But that usually only occur in the beginning of a combat, and when it occurs otherwise, it is not much of a hassle.
I do not remember, but I wonder if that rule did not exist in SB1-3 as well...

Crits are 1/5th (20%) of total % and Impales are at 01 rolls.

 

[andakitty]

I just find the SB1 easier to run. Never did care much for the Young Kingdoms myself, so I borrowed the basic combat and skill system and ran a homebrew setting. For magic I expanded the magic system from Magic World (part of the Worlds of Wonder setting). Best game I ever ran, lasted several years, realtime. Part of the reason I am liking MRQ is that it looks like a mixture of that sort. RQ+homebrew.

Nothing at all wrong with SB5. I just always had more fun with the earlier version. The differences don't look like much, true, but believe me when I say that the actual use feels very, very different.

Those were the tables I was referring to, Attack/Parry and Dodge tables. Try to use them religiously and they do bog things down just a bit. The closest equivalents in SB1 were fumble tables with about five of six possibilities.

 

[Archer]

I have also run homebrew settings with stormbringers ruleset (mainly SB4 which was called Elric!).

Sorry for asking again, what tables? I have never ever seen any tables for parry/dodge or attack (you make it sound like it is role-master, not SB4/5).
The only thing I see is the Attack/Dodge/Parry Matrix Table, which is a very complicated way to show those who have trouble learning the rules what is said in the text;
It requires a Critical Success on a Parry to completely counter a Critical Success Attack, or an Impale. If you only succeed with your parry, the attack strucks home and deal normal damage (ignoring armour).
If you are any experienced running Basic Role-playing derivatives or clones, you should not have any problem using that simple rule.

Though I have not run SB1-3, I have run other games that use basically the same BRP rules. There is no real speed difference between that and SB4/5. The only difference is that in SB4/5 you have much more options. You can choose either to parry or dodge for each attack. That marginally slows down the game if you are very unused to that. But the slowdown is only the factor that the player has to choose if he is going to parry or dodge for each attack.
In practise that is seldom a problem, unless you become disarmed, weapon breaks etc. because the players tend to use Parry if they are better at that, and dodge if they are better at that.

 

[andakitty]

Those are the tables, yes. As complex as Rolemaster, no. Easy to use, yes. But SB1 is simpler yet...that is my only point.

 

[Archer]

Those are the tables, yes. As complex as Rolemaster, no. Easy to use, yes. But SB1 is simpler yet...that is my only point.

My point is that is not a table you have to use at all. It is just an overview.

If you learn the easy rule; It takes a Crit to parry/dodge a Crit/Impale completly. If the parry/dodge is only a success against a Crit/Impale, the attack deals normal damage. If it was an Impale, then it also ignores armour.

Easy as pie.

The table is the most complicated way I have ever seen to explain a very simple rule. Very poor way of teaching even new players how the rules work IMHO.

As for simplicity of SB1 attacks/parries;
Hmm, the only thing I see that is simpler in SB1 is that you remove the choice per attack basis.
You do not have impales either in SB1, so that removes further options (even though Impales are so infrequent that it will only come up only once in about 20 combat encounters).

Sorry if I get a bit defensive regarding anything Eternal Champion and SB 1-5. I am a big fan both of Moorcocks books, and the RPGs (except Lords of Melniboné).

 

[andakitty]

You cannot use it just as a reference if you are going to use it. It has enough fiddly bits, *if you actually use it*, to slow down the game(or it slows me down, anyway). Trust me on this. This is no reflection on you, now is it? SB1 is my preferred level of difficulty...yes, to me there is a distinct difference in play, if not to you.

No need to get defensive about anything. This is my favorite system, BRP and derivatives, if I am not a Moorcock fan or even a Glorantha fan.

 

[Archer]

Well, it is not meant really as a "reference". It just shows you what the possible combinations are, in an effort to clarify the rule I described with a very piece of short text. And it fails misserably.

I have never ever heard of anyone on the Stormbringer mailinglist using the Attack/Dodge/Parry matrix to look up the result of an attack/parry or dodge.

But enough of that.
If you prefer SB1, I will not try to convert you.

Hmm, same here. A RPG with a form of BRP in it's core, basically the same rules as in SB1/RQ2, was what I began playing RPGs with in 82.

 

[andakitty]

Er, well, now you have heard of someone who has used it in play. I like to have a GM screen I can actually use. Anyway, it does add to play, but sort of edges the process toward work, instead of play, for me.

These days I mostly use my own mix of BRP houserules gleaned from various sources. I can't wait to see how MRQ compares and if I will be seduced away from my own ruleset.

 

[Archer]

GM Screen you can actually use. What did the GM Screen have to do with a single table in an RPG that you simply can ignore if you know how the rules work?

I respect your opinion, but fail to see the connection to the GM Screen.

And talking about GM Screens, does anyone know the dimensions of the RQ GM screen?

 

[are]

It looks like you can 'switch modes' with a Halberd: three different skills with three different damage / Str / Dex values; but the same Enc / AP / HP and therefore the same weapon?. I can imagine how the 2H Axe [swing] and Spear [stab] skills apply. What does the 'Polearm' skill represent, if not those two?

I believe a spear is primarily used with a thrusting movement. 2h-Axe is a rather uncontrolled, but powerful blow swinging the halberd in a great arc. "Polearm" is when you have a more balanced grip on the weapon, swings the head for damage albeit in a more restricted arc so you can still parry with the handle. A staff is used in a similar fashion as well as thrusting, but it is lighter and swifter, and does less damage because it is lighter and has no sharp edges or pointed end. Most of these skill should overlap to a certain degree, prehaps all should "default" to polearm and vice versa at -20 and staff and spear to each other at -20. At least as long as shortsword uses the same skill as non-impaling swords. All IMHO, off course.