<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
-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.<BR>
That's my problem with the "aim = -x%"-rules<BR> <BR>
> From: bgecko@bigpond.com<BR>> To: runequest@rpgreview.net<BR>> Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2010 19:56:12 +1100<BR>> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 32<BR>> <BR>> Yep, -50% in my group. Highly skilled fighters not disadvanatged too much <BR>> and a novice is almost no chance. Simplest and easiest way we have found.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: <runequest-request@rpgreview.net><BR>> To: <runequest@rpgreview.net><BR>> Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 12:00 PM<BR>> Subject: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 32<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > Send Runequest mailing list submissions to<BR>> > runequest@rpgreview.net<BR>> ><BR>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<BR>> > http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net<BR>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<BR>> > runequest-request@rpgreview.net<BR>> ><BR>> > You can reach the person managing the list at<BR>> > runequest-owner@rpgreview.net<BR>> ><BR>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<BR>> > than "Re: Contents of Runequest digest..."<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Today's Topics:<BR>> ><BR>> > 1. Re: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25 (Tony Den)<BR>> > 2. Re: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25 (Bj?rn Are St?len)<BR>> > 3. Re: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25 (Styopa)<BR>> > 4. Re: Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25 (Bj?rn Are St?len)<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> ><BR>> > Message: 1<BR>> > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:10:39 +0200<BR>> > From: "Tony Den" <postmaster@runequest.za.org><BR>> > To: "RuneQuest Rules" <runequest@rpgreview.net><BR>> > Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25<BR>> > Message-ID:<BR>> > <c9ed7b1a6c1ce347f54d74d6eb5239d5.squirrel@wwm.runequest.za.org><BR>> > Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1<BR>> ><BR>> > ES Wrote:<BR>> >> I also use this RQ3 rule, but instead of halving the skill, I apply <BR>> >> a -50%<BR>> >> modifier, which I think is fairer, IMHO.<BR>> >> I'm still not convinced by the new MRQ2 rule, where you can hit your<BR>> >> enemy's<BR>> >> head just by rolling a successful hit and him/her an unsuccessful parry.<BR>> >> And<BR>> >> you?<BR>> >><BR>> > I tend to agree. On both accounts. Going at half skill could be the other<BR>> > way to go, but maybe that gives some advantage to a bloke with low skill<BR>> > and penalises a lad with high skill? But yes IMO a called shot is always<BR>> > harder to do, takes more concentration, even for a grand master, so there<BR>> > should be some sort of preperation or penalty to balance the game.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ------------------------------<BR>> ><BR>> > Message: 2<BR>> > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 20:58:13 +0000<BR>> > From: Bj?rn Are St?len <stolenbjorn@hotmail.com><BR>> > To: Rune Quest mailgruppe <runequest@rpgreview.net><BR>> > Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25<BR>> > Message-ID: <BLU157-w24EA4021ACEAA20CFB5678BB3D0@phx.gbl><BR>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > I like this. I fight Historical european longsword, I have allso tried the <BR>> > I-33 manual. In addition, I fight re-enactment-fighting, and allthough you <BR>> > can question realizm in a light contact-system, all of my experiences <BR>> > support that you don't aim when you're engaged in a melee-fight. If you <BR>> > really wanted to have aiming as an integrated part of the combat-system, <BR>> > you could have advanced tables based on statistics from melee-fights. <BR>> > Certain angles of attacks usually results in certain areas hit. For <BR>> > instance when two people with swords of the same length, you generally <BR>> > don't see that many hits in the legs, and if there are leg-hits, it's <BR>> > usually because one of the fighters are vastly inferior to the other <BR>> > person. IMO it's far to many variables.<BR>> ><BR>> > Personally, I've made house-rules where you drop "dodge", "parry" and <BR>> > "attack" as separate skills, you simply have "fight". Fighters then roll <BR>> > opposed rolls inspired by the resistance-table in RQ3, and the margin of <BR>> > success on your opponent (say both have same skill, you then have 50 - <BR>> > 50%, if you roll-say 10, you have a margin of success by 40. If your <BR>> > opponent roll 60, that's a +10, with a total margin of success of 50) <BR>> > determines how much fluff you can impose on your victim. Suggestions of <BR>> > options is given a margin of success-value that the winning-player can <BR>> > choose. The ability to aim is one of those options.<BR>> ><BR>> >> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 15:05:35 +0000<BR>> >> From: snarks@gmail.com<BR>> >> To: runequest@rpgreview.net<BR>> >> Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25<BR>> >><BR>> >> Pete Nash:<BR>> >> > As for allowing regular selection of 'Choose Location', well that is <BR>> >> > exactly<BR>> >> > what happens in a real armed combat between two competent fighters.<BR>> >> > ... but if your opponent can't get their block or ward up<BR>> >> > in time then you will hit them in the face because it is precisely what <BR>> >> > you<BR>> >> > were aiming for.<BR>> >><BR>> >> From my limited experience of LARP fighting, you take the shots that<BR>> >> you can get. I might want to hit the guy somewhere specific (head<BR>> >> shots were forbidden for safety reasons), but he's got a shield or<BR>> >> weapon in the way most of the time, so I mostly ended up hitting<BR>> >> people in the ankles. So a "failed" parry might well mean that I get<BR>> >> to hit him, but not where I wanted to.<BR>> >><BR>> >> I think I might try running my next MRQ fight with a rule mod: Choose<BR>> >> Location can only be picked on an unopposed melee attack. The tank in<BR>> >> my group has a bonus CA from Enhance INT and Enhance DEX so in most<BR>> >> 1-on-1 fights he gets one or two free hits anyway.<BR>> >><BR>> >> Phil.<BR>> >> -- <BR>> >> Don't you just hate self-referential sigs?<BR>> >><BR>> >> _______________________________________________<BR>> >> Runequest mailing list<BR>> >> Runequest@rpgreview.net<BR>> >> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net<BR>> ><BR>> > -------------- next part --------------<BR>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> > URL: <BR>> > <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20101122/9249df31/attachment-0001.html><BR>> ><BR>> > ------------------------------<BR>> ><BR>> > Message: 3<BR>> > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:05:45 -0600<BR>> > From: Styopa <styopa1@gmail.com><BR>> > To: RuneQuest Rules <runequest@rpgreview.net><BR>> > Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25<BR>> > Message-ID:<BR>> > <AANLkTinoGavB+3owisTW6j7VGm8HFw0rnHaHrFQgHgkv@mail.gmail.com><BR>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> ><BR>> > 2010/11/22 Bj?rn Are St?len <stolenbjorn@hotmail.com><BR>> ><BR>> >> Personally, I've made house-rules where you drop "dodge", "parry" and<BR>> >> "attack" as separate skills, you simply have "fight". Fighters then roll<BR>> >> opposed rolls inspired by the resistance-table in RQ3, and the margin of<BR>> >> success on your opponent (say both have same skill, you then have 50 - <BR>> >> 50%,<BR>> >> if you roll-say 10, you have a margin of success by 40. If your opponent<BR>> >> roll 60, that's a +10, with a total margin of success of 50) determines <BR>> >> how<BR>> >> much fluff you can impose on your victim. Suggestions of options is given <BR>> >> a<BR>> >> margin of success-value that the winning-player can choose. The ability <BR>> >> to<BR>> >> aim is one of those options.<BR>> >><BR>> >><BR>> > So would you roll one roll per round, with that including both players<BR>> > "attacks" and resolved essentially simultaneously, or on each of their<BR>> > actions do they get an "attack" resisted vs the opponent's "fight"?<BR>> ><BR>> > If you have an expert against a novice - say 120% vs 20%, there's no<BR>> > conceivable way the novice can get lucky?<BR>> > -------------- next part --------------<BR>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> > URL: <BR>> > <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20101122/242456df/attachment-0001.html><BR>> ><BR>> > ------------------------------<BR>> ><BR>> > Message: 4<BR>> > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:30:26 +0000<BR>> > From: Bj?rn Are St?len <stolenbjorn@hotmail.com><BR>> > To: Rune Quest mailgruppe <runequest@rpgreview.net><BR>> > Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25<BR>> > Message-ID: <BLU157-w155092F352C395F2661ADDBB3D0@phx.gbl><BR>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > I still use the fumble-rules. So no matter how lousy your opponent is, you <BR>> > are allways perfectly capable of screwing up stuff :)<BR>> > I'm actually home from WMA-class today, and as I was teaching a beginner <BR>> > parrying-principles, I decided to be very obvious and overdo the <BR>> > movements. Result: I managed to hit myself in the head with my own <BR>> > sword.... So fumbles are allways a funny addition to a combat system. I <BR>> > allso allow for criticals. During one round, both contestants gets one <BR>> > roll each, not one roll pr. turn of combat. So both could get criticals (I <BR>> > think I decided those would cansel eachother out), one can crit and the <BR>> > other fumble, or both can fumble. The advantage IMO with my system is that <BR>> > you don't have to decide what penalties you get when you want to aim, <BR>> > aiming is a reward you can "shop" if you earn it, much as it is in real <BR>> > combat; it's only when you've managed to out-manouver the opponent you get <BR>> > the luxury of aiming. I've never been able to aim on beforehand, and <BR>> > having much chanse of hitting there. But when I manage to seize the <BR>> > initiative, press the opponent on defence, when the enemy does somthing <BR>> > remarkably stupid or if I manage to do a technique particularily well <BR>> > (like an elbow push that spins my opponent around so he's having his back <BR>> > towards me) -only then can I aim. The aiming itself is peace of cake, it's <BR>> > the setting up for the kill that is the difficult bit. IMO it's a bit like <BR>> > playing chess, to do the chehk-mate-move itself is probably somthing even <BR>> > a 4year old can do, it's the winning that is the difficult part.<BR>> ><BR>> > But I'm not saying that my system is perfect, there are many weaknesses <BR>> > with it, like:<BR>> > *several vs. one opponent<BR>> > *different weapons facing eachother, range, etc.<BR>> > *I've allso been thinking hard on wether wrestling should be integrated <BR>> > into "fight" as well, as wrestling is the fundament and 100% integrated <BR>> > into the sword, spear and dagger-sections of all medieval martial manuals <BR>> > that have survived since the medieval/renissanse period. THis is a <BR>> > neglected aspect of all fantasy roleplay-rules.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 16:05:45 -0600<BR>> > From: styopa1@gmail.com<BR>> > To: runequest@rpgreview.net<BR>> > Subject: Re: [Runequest] Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 25<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > 2010/11/22 Bj?rn Are St?len <stolenbjorn@hotmail.com><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > Personally, I've made house-rules where you drop "dodge", "parry" and <BR>> > "attack" as separate skills, you simply have "fight". Fighters then roll <BR>> > opposed rolls inspired by the resistance-table in RQ3, and the margin of <BR>> > success on your opponent (say both have same skill, you then have 50 - <BR>> > 50%, if you roll-say 10, you have a margin of success by 40. If your <BR>> > opponent roll 60, that's a +10, with a total margin of success of 50) <BR>> > determines how much fluff you can impose on your victim. Suggestions of <BR>> > options is given a margin of success-value that the winning-player can <BR>> > choose. The ability to aim is one of those options.<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > So would you roll one roll per round, with that including both players <BR>> > "attacks" and resolved essentially simultaneously, or on each of their <BR>> > actions do they get an "attack" resisted vs the opponent's "fight"?<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > If you have an expert against a novice - say 120% vs 20%, there's no <BR>> > conceivable way the novice can get lucky?<BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________ Runequest mailing list <BR>> > Runequest@rpgreview.net <BR>> > http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net<BR>> > -------------- next part --------------<BR>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<BR>> > URL: <BR>> > <http://rpgreview.net/pipermail/runequest_rpgreview.net/attachments/20101122/22a15e70/attachment-0001.html><BR>> ><BR>> > ------------------------------<BR>> ><BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > Runequest mailing list<BR>> > Runequest@rpgreview.net<BR>> > http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > End of Runequest Digest, Vol 30, Issue 32<BR>> > ***************************************** <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Runequest mailing list<BR>> Runequest@rpgreview.net<BR>> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net<BR> </body>
</html>