Forum

At that point you'd be better off to ditch both attributes and make one that represents both if they are going to be so intertwined if you wanna keep it simple.

I disagree, STR is needed as a minimum for weapon usage, and for damage bonus. In fact this simplifies the current system by placing STR outside the skill system, together with CON and WIL.

To me 'agility' already feels/sounds like an amalgam of strength and the old 'dexterity', anyway.

I can sympathise with the reasoning here, but you don't want AGL to be the god stat that everybody has to have a high score in.

The AGE rpg avoids this by elevating Fighting and Accuracy (ranged attacks) to being stats in their own right. So you want to be good at fighting, you get a high Fighting stat, but that means nothing about your Strength or Dexterity, those are completely separate stats.

Give how the skills are broken down into combat / non-combat, I wonder if having a 'Fighting' and 'Shooting' stat in their own right, linked to the combat skills, would resolve this problem.

Give how the skills are broken down into combat / non-combat, I wonder if having a 'Fighting' and 'Shooting' stat in their own right, linked to the combat skills, would resolve this problem.

Perhaps replacing STR with 'Fighting'? Needs a catchy name, though. Brawn?

I can sympathise with the reasoning here, but you don't want AGL to be the god stat that everybody has to have a high score in.

The AGE rpg avoids this by elevating Fighting and Accuracy (ranged attacks) to being stats in their own right. So you want to be good at fighting, you get a high Fighting stat, but that means nothing about your Strength or Dexterity, those are completely separate stats.

Give how the skills are broken down into combat / non-combat, I wonder if having a 'Fighting' and 'Shooting' stat in their own right, linked to the combat skills, would resolve this problem.

I don't believe in "God" (stats) and find worrying about them to be silly.

Given the limited number of Attributes, the use of any one of them is going to be an approximation, a compromise. Given the game's authors' definition of the Attributes STR and DEX, my suggestions make more sense to me. STR as "Raw muscle power" (p25, Attributes) leaves no room for using it as a controlling Attribute for anything beyond lifting heavy objects or otherwise applying raw force through bodily effort. AGL as "Body control, speed, and fine motor skills (p25, Attributes) is clearly (to some of us) the single state most relevant to any movement/control of the body. Using AGL as the above-mentioned (see my initial post) choices for Primary Attributes and Skill/Attribute associations is the least stretch from reality. Using the STR limits on weapon use/object hefting accomplishes a good approximation of how STR affects what one can do within the bounds of one's AGL. "Religious" devotion to a bad choice made for OD&D is a poor excuse for continuing to make that same mistake. A slavish devotion to "balanced" use of Attributes strikes me as a poor reason to use STR (as defined in this game) for something that it is clearly (to me) not about. STR (as defined in this game) is ONLY about exerting force with one's physical body. There is NOTHING in that definition about body control. Body control is defined as being governed by AGL. Period. The STR mods on damage and limits on what one can pick up and wield as a weapon are adequate to introduce STR's effect on combat and the use of tools, etc., in the above-mentioned Professions' key attributes.

Introducing new Attributes like "Fighting" (the value of which I would start as an average of STR and AGL) is a not-unreasonable suggestion, but it is one that I find to be unnecessary if one makes the adjustments that I suggest and will use as House Rules when I play the game. They are simple, elegant, and closer to how real bodies work. They are anchors in our physical reality that help to make the fantasy elements more approachable/relatable because we have a more intuitive connection to how character/NPC/monster bodies physically work.

I utterly reject the notion that there is no need to consider "reality" in a fantasy game about Demons and Dragons (and Humans, Dwarves, Elfs, etc.). Anchors in our physical reality help to make the fantasy elements more approachable/relatable because we have a more intuitive connection to how character/NPC/monster bodies physically work.

I think STR fits as it is. Look at any fighting-sport, its weight-classes that is the most important. Its utterly rare that a smaller fighter goes and fight in heavier weight-classes, simply because the smaller one dont stand a chance. I only know of one exception from K1 (which is indeed pretty awesome however). And weight in professional fightingsport is basically equivalent to muscle mass.

Thats for brawling, and one could argue that swordfighting would be dexterity. However, if you take armour and parrying into account and the utterly first blow wont be lethal, I would still bet on a muscular brute more than a slim climber/yoga-practitoner, if they have had the same amount of sword practise. Even if the dexterious slim fighter can swing his sword with precision, the weapon itself is long and heavy, and he would have a hard time to keep up with the rapid swings, the force of the parries, and to keep his balance when met with the brutes momentum.

I think knifes could work for the slim fighter though, since there could be little actual contact as long as he was able to move freely around the brute. Also, his better precision and better reflexes would not be hampered from a long weapon.

I really think its good as it is, based on the games premises with STR, DEX and skills

I think STR fits as it is. Look at any fighting-sport, its weight-classes that is the most important. Its utterly rare that a smaller fighter goes and fight in heavier weight-classes, simply because the smaller one dont stand a chance.

The more I hear people mentioning this, the more I appreaciate BRP/RQ's Size characteristic.

The more I hear people mentioning this, the more I appreaciate BRP/RQ's Size characteristic.

Yes, it was in all versions of Drakar och Demoner until the 2016-version, and was clearly useful for making dwarves, ducks and halflings. I still have it in my own DoD-homebrews.

However, to make the mix of explosive strength, size, reflexes, cardiovascular fitness, coordination, observe-orient-decide-act-loop-speed and everything else that is needed to brew a detailed and “realistic” feel of melee combat in a BRP-system is not easy. Also, it usually makes the system take an enormous amount of time, which decreases the combat-feel just as much as the extra detail adds to it. I think STR = raw physical power including size-benefit, and AGL = coordination and reflexes, can work just as well in a fast BRP-system.

The most “realistic” feeling I have had of rpg combat is still from Basic DnD levels 1-3. That really captures the guts and glory

Trying to extrapolate from modern sports to life or death combat is doomed to failure, because modern sports prohibit the very techniques that would be most effective as they cause serious injury or death. Which leaves you with things that are based on doing high impact (and the ability to resist that) being what works in a sport context. Similarly why grappling works much better than it should in MMA, since you can't counter it by gouging eyes and ripping off testicles in the way you would for real. Likewise what is put into theatrical fight scenes bears little to no resembance to real techniques.

Any real combat with weapons is much more about precise placement and control, because your priority is stopping the other party from being able to hurt you without exposing yourself to their attack. If you study surviving manuals of instruction from the late mediaeval / renaissance masters, putting too much force into a blow is poor technique. You should use just enough to cut the target effectively, without overcommiting. There are texts which describe those who swing big heavy handed blows as "Buffaloes" and it is easy to deflect or avoid their attacks then take them apart while they are trying to recover.
I have many times enjoyed watching big muscular guys in longsword fights against my wife, who is slight but fast and agile. Seeing the slow realisation dawning that they have worn themselves out throwing huge swings at her which she's casually deflected away and now she is taking them apart because they are tired and don't have the skill to deal with her counterattacks. Her complaint about halberds is that she is strong enough to use one perfectly well if she needs to kill the target, she just can't stop the swing safely if she's just playing.

As has been said, linking strength to effectiveness/damage with weapons is an error that goes right back to the begining of RPGs, and probably derives from the pulp fiction tropes which inspired many early games. It's so baked into most systems that I just live with it because it would require a massive redesign to change. I think removing the separation between stats and skills could work - just have a range of abilities. I've never seen that done though - be interested if anyone can point me at an example.

When I first started practicing with weapons nearly 40 years ago, it also started me down a course of seeking more detailed and simulationist systems. I've come to realise that the more detail you put in, the less it feels like a real fight. True skilled combat is not about thought and planning, it's about trained reflex and an instinctive ability to see/feel what is the right thing to do in the moment. I find fast, simple, roll and shout systems give the feel of a fight much better than ones which try to model more details. So many of them get the details wrong due to the various misunderstandings and myths which break my immersion. It's kind of like the old idea that "the pictures are better on the radio" in that your imagination can supply the missing detail, all that really matters is the result - and that there is enough of a system to be able to differentiate skill levels etc in a reasonably consistent manner.

Page 25 offers the definition of the character attributes. Specifically, Strength (STR) is defined as "Raw muscle power" and Agility (AGL) is defined as "Body control, speed, and fine motor skills". Based upon those definitions, assigning STR as the primary Attribute for the following makes no sense.

Artisan - Key Attribute: STR (Should be AGL since doing the sort of work defined as "Artisan" require the properties of AGL, not STR. STR can enhance, but it is not essential.

Fighter - Key Attribute: STR (Should be AGL since fighting is far more dependent upon AGL's properties than on "raw muscle power". STR correctly affects damage and which weapons may be used w/o penalty.

Knight - Key Attribute: STR (Should be AGL, See comments about Fighter, above)

Weapon Skill - Axes (STR) should be Axes (AGL). STR affects force applied and whether a given "axe" can be effectively wielded. Hitting where one is aiming depends upon AGL's properties.

Weapon Skill - Blunt Weapons (STR) should be Blunt Weapons (AGL) (see comments about Weapons - Axes).

Weapon Skill - Brawling (STR) should be Brawling (AGL) (Brawling is more bout being able to move and land/avoid blows than it is about the raw power of a given strike. STR can be important when trying to break a hold. AGL can also be very useful when breaking a hold, too (ask a wrestler)).

Weapon Skill - Spears (STR) should be Spears (AGL) (see comments about Weapon Skill - Axes, above).

Weapon Skill - Swords (STR) should be Swords (AGL) (see comments about Weapons - Axes, above).

By this token, however, you could argue that any attribute could and should apply to pretty much all rolls.

For example:
Artisan? It's more about knowing what to do than anything else. Thus, it should be based on intelligence.
Artisan? It's often about trial and error, just keep trying and learning how to do better. Willpower, obviously.
Artisan? Well, you try swinging that hammer for half an hour with a low constitution score.

RPGs have to keep it simple, to an extent, otherwise you end up with overly complex systems that slow to a crawl at the table.

That, and swinging a big piece of metal is very much about strength, as the main things are moving said piece of metal faster than the opponent can parry or dodge it, which is mostly strength, and hitting hard enough that the opponent won't get up and hit you back, which is definitely strength.
Could the case be made that precision is pretty important as well? Sure. But that also goes fo how good you are at evaluating your opponent's reach (which would be intelligence), or how good you are at outlasting him (con), depending on how you're armed.
They went with strength, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, 'cause it applies to most weapons and fighting styles (moving your weapon faster than the opponent is a definite advantage in pretty much all circumstances, both when you're armored and when you're not).

Artisan? It's more about knowing what to do than anything else. Thus, it should be based on intelligence.

I agree.