[Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 32

Andrew bgecko at bigpond.com
Tue Nov 23 19:56:12 EST 2010


Yep, -50% in my group. Highly skilled fighters not disadvanatged too much 
and a novice is almost no chance. Simplest and easiest way we have found.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <runequest-request at rpgreview.net>
To: <runequest at rpgreview.net>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:00 PM
Subject: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 32


> Send Runequest mailing list submissions to
> runequest at rpgreview.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> runequest-request at rpgreview.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> runequest-owner at rpgreview.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Runequest digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25 (Tony Den)
>   2. Re: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25 (Bj?rn Are St?len)
>   3. Re: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25 (Styopa)
>   4. Re: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25 (Bj?rn Are St?len)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:10:39 +0200
> From: "Tony Den" <postmaster at runequest.za.org>
> To: "RuneQuest Rules" <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25
> Message-ID:
> <c9ed7b1a6c1ce347f54d74d6eb5239d5.squirrel at wwm.runequest.za.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
>
> ES Wrote:
>> I also use this RQ3 rule, but instead of halving the skill, I apply 
>> a -50%
>> modifier, which I think is fairer, IMHO.
>> I'm still not convinced by the new MRQ2 rule, where you can hit your
>> enemy's
>> head just by rolling a successful hit and him/her an unsuccessful parry.
>> And
>> you?
>>
> I tend to agree. On both accounts. Going at half skill could be the other
> way to go, but maybe that gives some advantage to a bloke with low skill
> and penalises a lad with high skill? But yes IMO a called shot is always
> harder to do, takes more concentration, even for a grand master, so there
> should be some sort of preperation or penalty to balance the game.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:58:13 +0000
> From: Bj?rn Are St?len <stolenbjorn at hotmail.com>
> To: Rune Quest mailgruppe <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25
> Message-ID: <BLU157-w24EA4021ACEAA20CFB5678BB3D0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> I like this. I fight Historical european longsword, I have allso tried the 
> I-33 manual. In addition, I fight re-enactment-fighting, and allthough you 
> can question realizm in a light contact-system, all of my experiences 
> support that you don't aim when you're engaged in a melee-fight. If you 
> really wanted to have aiming as an integrated part of the combat-system, 
> you could have advanced tables based on statistics from melee-fights. 
> Certain angles of attacks usually results in certain areas hit. For 
> instance when two people with swords of the same length, you generally 
> don't see that many hits in the legs, and if there are leg-hits, it's 
> usually because one of the fighters are vastly inferior to the other 
> person. IMO it's far to many variables.
>
> Personally, I've made house-rules where you drop "dodge", "parry" and 
> "attack" as separate skills, you simply have "fight". Fighters then roll 
> opposed rolls inspired by the resistance-table in RQ3, and the margin of 
> success on your opponent (say both have same skill, you then have 50 - 
> 50%, if you roll-say 10, you have a margin of success by 40. If your 
> opponent roll 60, that's a +10, with a total margin of success of 50) 
> determines how much fluff you can impose on your victim. Suggestions of 
> options is given a margin of success-value that the winning-player can 
> choose. The ability to aim is one of those options.
>
>> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:05:35 +0000
>> From: snarks at gmail.com
>> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
>> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25
>>
>> Pete Nash:
>> > As for allowing regular selection of 'Choose Location', well that is 
>> > exactly
>> > what happens in a real armed combat between two competent fighters.
>> > ... but if your opponent can't get their block or ward up
>> > in time then you will hit them in the face because it is precisely what 
>> > you
>> > were aiming for.
>>
>> From my limited experience of LARP fighting, you take the shots that
>> you can get. I might want to hit the guy somewhere specific (head
>> shots were forbidden for safety reasons), but he's got a shield or
>> weapon in the way most of the time, so I mostly ended up hitting
>> people in the ankles. So a "failed" parry might well mean that I get
>> to hit him, but not where I wanted to.
>>
>> I think I might try running my next MRQ fight with a rule mod: Choose
>> Location can only be picked on an unopposed melee attack. The tank in
>> my group has a bonus CA from Enhance INT and Enhance DEX so in most
>> 1-on-1 fights he gets one or two free hits anyway.
>>
>> Phil.
>> -- 
>> Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Runequest mailing list
>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20101122/9249df31/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:05:45 -0600
> From: Styopa <styopa1 at gmail.com>
> To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTinoGavB+3owisTW6j7VGm8HFw0rnHaHrFQgHgkv at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 2010/11/22 Bj?rn Are St?len <stolenbjorn at hotmail.com>
>
>> Personally, I've made house-rules where you drop "dodge", "parry" and
>> "attack" as separate skills, you simply have "fight". Fighters then roll
>> opposed rolls inspired by the resistance-table in RQ3, and the margin of
>> success on your opponent (say both have same skill, you then have 50 - 
>> 50%,
>> if you roll-say 10, you have a margin of success by 40. If your opponent
>> roll 60, that's a +10, with a total margin of success of 50) determines 
>> how
>> much fluff you can impose on your victim. Suggestions of options is given 
>> a
>> margin of success-value that the winning-player can choose. The ability 
>> to
>> aim is one of those options.
>>
>>
> So would you roll one roll per round, with that including both players
> "attacks" and resolved essentially simultaneously, or on each of their
> actions do they get an "attack" resisted vs the opponent's "fight"?
>
> If you have an expert against a novice - say 120% vs 20%, there's no
> conceivable way the novice can get lucky?
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20101122/242456df/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:30:26 +0000
> From: Bj?rn Are St?len <stolenbjorn at hotmail.com>
> To: Rune Quest mailgruppe <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25
> Message-ID: <BLU157-w155092F352C395F2661ADDBB3D0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> I still use the fumble-rules. So no matter how lousy your opponent is, you 
> are allways perfectly capable of screwing up stuff :)
> I'm actually home from WMA-class today, and as I was teaching a beginner 
> parrying-principles, I decided to be very obvious and overdo the 
> movements. Result: I managed to hit myself in the head with my own 
> sword.... So fumbles are allways a funny addition to a combat system. I 
> allso allow for criticals. During one round, both contestants gets one 
> roll each, not one roll pr. turn of combat. So both could get criticals (I 
> think I decided those would cansel eachother out), one can crit and the 
> other fumble, or both can fumble. The advantage IMO with my system is that 
> you don't have to decide what penalties you get when you want to aim, 
> aiming is a reward you can "shop" if you earn it, much as it is in real 
> combat; it's only when you've managed to out-manouver the opponent you get 
> the luxury of aiming. I've never been able to aim on beforehand, and 
> having much chanse of hitting there. But when I manage to seize the 
> initiative, press the opponent on defence, when the enemy does somthing 
> remarkably stupid or if I manage to do a technique particularily well 
> (like an elbow push that spins my opponent around so he's having his back 
> towards me) -only then can I aim. The aiming itself is peace of cake, it's 
> the setting up for the kill that is the difficult bit. IMO it's a bit like 
> playing chess, to do the chehk-mate-move itself is probably somthing even 
> a 4year old can do, it's the winning that is the difficult part.
>
> But I'm not saying that my system is perfect, there are many weaknesses 
> with it, like:
> *several vs. one opponent
> *different weapons facing eachother, range, etc.
> *I've allso been thinking hard on wether wrestling should be integrated 
> into "fight" as well, as wrestling is the fundament and 100% integrated 
> into the sword, spear and dagger-sections of all medieval martial manuals 
> that have survived since the medieval/renissanse period. THis is a 
> neglected aspect of all fantasy roleplay-rules.
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:05:45 -0600
> From: styopa1 at gmail.com
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25
>
>
> 2010/11/22 Bj?rn Are St?len <stolenbjorn at hotmail.com>
>
>
> Personally, I've made house-rules where you drop "dodge", "parry" and 
> "attack" as separate skills, you simply have "fight". Fighters then roll 
> opposed rolls inspired by the resistance-table in RQ3, and the margin of 
> success on your opponent (say both have same skill, you then have 50 - 
> 50%, if you roll-say 10, you have a margin of success by 40. If your 
> opponent roll 60, that's a +10, with a total margin of success of 50) 
> determines how much fluff you can impose on your victim. Suggestions of 
> options is given a margin of success-value that the winning-player can 
> choose. The ability to aim is one of those options.
>
>
>
>
> So would you roll one roll per round, with that including both players 
> "attacks" and resolved essentially simultaneously, or on each of their 
> actions do they get an "attack" resisted vs the opponent's "fight"?
>
>
> If you have an expert against a novice - say 120% vs 20%, there's no 
> conceivable way the novice can get lucky?
>
> _______________________________________________ Runequest mailing list 
> Runequest at rpgreview.net 
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20101122/22a15e70/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
>
>
> End of Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 32
> ***************************************** 




More information about the Runequest mailing list