As a long time RQ/BRP fan I've always liked hit locations in any game that I wanted to be 'gritty'... WFRP, sword and sorcery, horror, etc. But I never knew they were a feature of early official D&D. I think BRP hit locations are simpler, so not much crunch for the added flavour to battle... and having your character develop some interesting scars/impediments.
It’s good to know that RQ/Basic Role Playing have such a great hit location system. I remember reading the Legend rules, which I’m led to believe were based on RQ.. are you familiar with those little black books? If so, how would you compare them to RQ?
@@rpgsandmore7550 Legend is what Mongoose renamed their Runequest II rules after Chaosium took back the license for RQ/Glorantha... and it's also very similar to Runequest 6/Mythras... which is a favorite of mine. The hit location is just an additional D20 roll, there's no front/side/back fiddlyness.
Was an interesting listen. Thank you. Hit locations are too crunchy for me. I find even simple combat to be long and boring so this would definitely not be my thing. 😅
You’re welcome, and thank you for listening and commenting. I can’t blame you at all. I think they’ve been omitted from subsequent editions for just that reason.
I don't know if I would be much inclined to include a hit location table. Seems like complexification without much benefit other than novelty. Is it fun? If you like this sort of thing why not just go full on rolemaster? ever peruse those books? they were built as optional rules for d&d.
I have not read Rolemaster. I might grab a PDF at some point. Thank you for the recommendation. It can absolutely add complexity, and I doubt that the average table would want to use it. I haven’t tried it myself yet, but will do an update video when I do try it just to show if it can be done smoothly, or not.
I really like these rules overviews. Great job!
Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it!
As a long time RQ/BRP fan I've always liked hit locations in any game that I wanted to be 'gritty'... WFRP, sword and sorcery, horror, etc. But I never knew they were a feature of early official D&D.
I think BRP hit locations are simpler, so not much crunch for the added flavour to battle... and having your character develop some interesting scars/impediments.
It’s good to know that RQ/Basic Role Playing have such a great hit location system. I remember reading the Legend rules, which I’m led to believe were based on RQ.. are you familiar with those little black books? If so, how would you compare them to RQ?
@@rpgsandmore7550 Legend is what Mongoose renamed their Runequest II rules after Chaosium took back the license for RQ/Glorantha... and it's also very similar to Runequest 6/Mythras... which is a favorite of mine.
The hit location is just an additional D20 roll, there's no front/side/back fiddlyness.
Was an interesting listen. Thank you.
Hit locations are too crunchy for me. I find even simple combat to be long and boring so this would definitely not be my thing. 😅
You’re welcome, and thank you for listening and commenting.
I can’t blame you at all. I think they’ve been omitted from subsequent editions for just that reason.
I don't know if I would be much inclined to include a hit location table. Seems like complexification without much benefit other than novelty. Is it fun? If you like this sort of thing why not just go full on rolemaster? ever peruse those books? they were built as optional rules for d&d.
I have not read Rolemaster. I might grab a PDF at some point. Thank you for the recommendation.
It can absolutely add complexity, and I doubt that the average table would want to use it. I haven’t tried it myself yet, but will do an update video when I do try it just to show if it can be done smoothly, or not.
@@rpgsandmore7550 ua-cam.com/video/zHou2Lt3Hl8/v-deo.html