[Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25

Pete Nash the.iqari at gmail.com
Fri Nov 19 05:55:20 EST 2010


>
> Not sure I agree.  While there's not too much of "aiming for the head and
> hitting the foot" I saw plenty of cases both when I was in martial arts and
> in fencing where the available target that presented itself was what you
> hit, and where you got somewhere near what you were aiming for but not on
> it.
>

That's fine and still modelled in the MRQ2 rules. You get a better level of
success and instead of 'Choose Location' you go for an 'Impale' on a random
target instead. ;)

In my real world fighting I nowadays very rarely get caught on adjacent
targets or randomly interposed limbs, When I do hit an unexpected location I
personally consider it a 'miss', since usually the blow has either been
interrupted early, landed late or glanced which normally results in
insufficient force being inflicted. That is true for both weapons and
unarmed strikes, especially the latter where an inch off precise distance
can negate a telling blow.

Still MRQ2 combat is an abstract model which I based on my own experiences.
If I gain an tactical advantage in combat (force my opponent to open a hole
where I want one, gain superior position etc) then the chance of striking
something other than my intended location is a lot less than 1 in 20.  Bear
in mind also that there are significant differences in close quarter
Medieval fighting styles and the extreme range, touch kills of modern
fencing (if that is what you were doing), which might explain in part our
separate experiences. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20101118/d2e994a6/attachment.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list