[Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 32

Bjørn Are Stølen stolenbjorn at hotmail.com
Tue Nov 23 21:56:26 EST 2010


-But what happens if you have 90% in sword-attack, and you aim or -say the abdomen, and roll 50? That means that you didn't hit the torso, but where did the sword hit? When we fight after longsword-manuals, all* attacks are aimed at the head/face, but we often end up hitting other places. Because the target moves, because he blocks and deflects the blade, etc, etc. If I were to make a to hit-table based on my experience with WMA-longsword, perhaps 30% of hits are in hands, 20% are in underarms, 20% are in head, 10% are in shoulders/overarms, 10% are torso/abdomen and the last 10% are legs. This is even when we actually aim for the head initially.
That's my problem with the "aim = -x%"-rules
 
> From: bgecko at bigpond.com
> To: runequest at rpgreview.net
> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:56:12 +1100
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 32
> 
> 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
> > ***************************************** 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101123/1b099e53/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list