[Runequest] RQ6 simulationist question

Styopa styopa1 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 22 01:01:31 EST 2013


1) "RQ3 says, explicitly, "In melee combat, an attack is not just one blow
but a series or combination of blows which occupy a span of time beginning with
the strike on which the weapon may be used until the end of the melee round".
p50 Del."
It may SAY that in the rules, but did *anyone* really visualize what was
going on in RQ3 as anything but a blow-by-blow account of the action?  The
quote above sounds to me like mealy-mouthed weaseling about what was being
represented ala AD&D.  In fact, it sounds almost like a direct quote from
the AD&D DM's guide.

2) I too agree that I found the lack of specificity as far as Combat Styles
in RQ6 to be a rather glaring omission.  Granted, it is extremely
setting-dependent, and while not hard to 'wing it' as an experienced DM,
 it seemed that more examples there would have been useful particularly for
someone new to the system.
Personally, in running RQ6 the (so far) one time, rather than the fixed
"you are X, therefore you get A, B, and C abilities" I tended to give the
Players the Combat Style as a prelude to discuss what weapon families would
be included and allow them to choose an appropriate Combat Style Trait (for
example a street thug would get a choice of hidden weapon, blind fighting,
or thrown weapon).


On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:15 AM, <lev at rpgreview.net> wrote:

> >
> >       Yes, but having separate skills in 1 H spear (attack and parry),
> 1H sword
> > (attack and parry), LH shield (attack and parry) is certainly a huge
> > amount less abstraction than a single skill 'Hoplite combat style'.
>
> That is indeed true also; I certainly never bothered to separate attack
> and parry as separate skills.
>
> >
> >       It had never occurred to me that it needed much explanation - it
> seems
> > fairly trivial to adapt to ones game in practice, and the notes on style
> > in the GMing chapter made it pretty clear why there wasn't a standard
> > list.
>
> In which case we can certainly strongly agree to strongly disagree on that
> matter.
>
> >       Which isn't to say that deciding what should go into a combat
> style is
> > always trivial (those on the WorldOfGlorantha list will notice my recent
> > obsessive musing on Dara Happan use of Greek vs Macedonian style
> > phalanxes), but the reasons why should have little to do with the rules.
>
> Personally I would prefer to see such obsessive musings represented in the
> actual game.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130121/3ae3050c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Runequest mailing list