Centipedes of Doom?

[SteveMND]

See my point? Theoretically, sure, you're probably right. In a combat simulation, it probably works the way you say.

I hate to break this to you, but we are talking about a combat simulation. What do you think the combat chapter of any RPG is?

My point is that the raw mechanics of a game system should not favor one thing over another simply due to an artificial assignment (like hit locations). Perhaps the designers intended that if you take two identical amorphous blobs and divide one into 5 hit locations and the other into 7, the one with seven is going to be a little more likely to survive, but I kind of doubt it.

Yes, you are absolutely correct; this may be irrelevant at most tables. But just because something doesn't have an impact on most tables doesn't mean it can't still be flawed.

Who, in their right mind, in a system as potentially deadly as RuneQuest (because *EVERY* version of RQ is far more deadly than *ANY* version of D&D and most other games), is going to send their character up against something like a scorpionman or chaos centipede and only try and chop off it's legs?

Of course no one will intentionally strike at it's legs. But with something with a lot of legs, statistically, that means your're going to roll legs more often on the random hit location check.

Precise shots are fine, but if I'm sitting at 60% attack, and the BBEG I'm fighting is at the same or higher, reducing my chance to hit to a mere 20% while he retains his full chance to parry is hardly what I would call the best call. While you may make that hit count more, I'm as yet unconvinced that it's worth taking three times longer to do so.

 

[iamtim]

I hate to break this to you, but we are talking about a combat simulation. What do you think the combat chapter of any RPG is?

See my post above; an actual game with actual players who've rolled actual characters is vastly different from a cold, sterile, mock-combat style test to see if a multi-legged monster is harder to kill under MRQ or not.

 

[atgxtg]

On the other hand, and this seems no minor issue, if a human has 7 hitlocations with an average of 5 points on it, this human could be hit 7 times with each 5 damage (which is not a small wound) and it is not near death, despite loosing 35 HP, which would be enough in RQ3 to kill 3 humans.

I'm not a MRQ fanboy, but realistically, the removal of general Hit Points actually makes more sense and is more relistic. In many games, characters can be "1 pointed" to death. In the real world, it doesn't really work that way. It actually does take a pretty serious injury to incapacitate someone, not a series of pinpricks.

However, those minor wounds shouldresult in some sort of impairement. As well all know, even a 1 point injury in real life causes problems. Someone who a battered, brusied and has a few nicks might not have a limb disabled, or be in danger of keeling over dead, but he is going to be in pain.

BTW, Since we are using insects as an example, it has long been a RQ rule (back to RQ2's Gateway Beastiary) that leg hits to insects were not counted against total HP. So we can't blame this on MRQ.

I do think I'd want to swip the Flashing blades hit location roll for MRQ,t hough. Oick a location, roll 2d20 for locations, and take the cllosest to your aiming point. THis will make it a bit easier for people to hit a previously wounded location.

 

[SteveMND]

In the real world, it doesn't really work that way. It actually does take a pretty serious injury to incapacitate someone, not a series of pinpricks.

I'd have to disagree, at least in one sense. Yes, pinpicks will not take anyone out.

But I look at it this way: say your PC has 3 HP in his left arm, and takes 1 point of damage. Okay, sure, pinprick, no consequence. Well, sure, from a gaming standpoint. But that realistically means your arm just took enough trauma to take it one-third of the way to being completely non-functional.

Thank about that in real-life terms. Now, expand that across the rest of your body. Each arm taking 2/3 of the trauma needed to completely incapacitate it. Each leg talking 1/2 of the damage needed to completely incapacitate them. Your chest and stomach each taking one third or one half, your head taking 1/3 of the damage needed to incapacitate it.

In game terms, sure, that might not be enough to nickel-and-dime anyone to death. But in real-life terms, I would imagine that person to be well beyond any capacity for constructive action. That's what the general hit points helped to simulate.

IMHO, even 1 point of damage is significant when translated over to real-world terms.

 

[andakitty]

As you know, taking every injury in to account can lead to a seriously complicated game. Although I have used the RQ2 type hit points often, for the purpose of running a good, smooth game the major wound system in SB1 has always been my first choice. The hit point system in MRQ is fine as far as it goes, but IMO it needs a little more. Bleed over, for instance.

 

[iamtim]

But in real-life terms, I would imagine that person to be well beyond any capacity for constructive action. That's what the general hit points helped to simulate.

But you're not playing a real-life person. You're playing a hero. Someone theoretically tougher than the rank-and-file. Someone who eschews the normal life of tending the farms and raising the kids to battle horrible monsters and fight opposing cults. You're playing the people who the rest of the villagers hide behind when the Broo come to defile the village.

 

[Urox]

But in real-life terms, I would imagine that person to be well beyond any capacity for constructive action. That's what the general hit points helped to simulate.

But you're not playing a real-life person. You're playing a hero. Someone theoretically tougher than the rank-and-file.

That gives me a cool idea. What if after every few adventures, a character's hit points would go up? It's kind of like they learned from experience, and are becoming more heroic...

 

[iamtim]

That gives me a cool idea. What if after every few adventures, a character's hit points would go up? It's kind of like they learned from experience, and are becoming more heroic...

Uh.

~_^

 

[atgxtg]

In the real world, it doesn't really work that way. It actually does take a pretty serious injury to incapacitate someone, not a series of pinpricks.

I'd have to disagree, at least in one sense. Yes, pinpicks will not take anyone out.

But I look at it this way: say your PC has 3 HP in his left arm, and takes 1 point of damage. Okay, sure, pinprick, no consequence. Well, sure, from a gaming standpoint. But that realistically means your arm just took enough trauma to take it one-third of the way to being completely non-functional.

Not quite. THat is the drawback on HP systems. Human being are blocks of stuff that lose x% functionality with each damage point. Taking 50% of someone head HP out doesn't mean they lost an eye, nostil, an ear, lowerjacw and half thier teeth. Losing 1/3hp means the guy is messed up, and should be impaired some way.

Thank about that in real-life terms. Now, expand that across the rest of your body. Each arm taking 2/3 of the trauma needed to completely incapacitate it. Each leg talking 1/2 of the damage needed to completely incapacitate them. Your chest and stomach each taking one third or one half, your head taking 1/3 of the damage needed to incapacitate it.

In game terms, sure, that might not be enough to nickel-and-dime anyone to death. But in real-life terms, I would imagine that person to be well beyond any capacity for constructive action. That's what the general hit points helped to simulate.

IMHO, even 1 point of damage is significant when translated over to real-world terms.

Yes, I agree. That's why I said there should be some sort of peanlty for the wounds, rather than just keeing over dead. Maybe something like halving skills atfer taking more damage than SIZ or some such.

You wouldn't happen to be one of the few people areound here to have read Time Lords or even CORPS? THat's pretty much how they work damage in those games. The damage taken is compare to a person's Body Points to get an imparement.

So in those games, as if life), said bashed up character might not have lost the use of any limbs, but might have been stunned, knocked unconsious, have penalties to most actions, and probably has a few injuries that will be eventually fatal, if left untreated. The CORPS damage system might be adatable to MRQ too.

 

[atgxtg]

But in real-life terms, I would imagine that person to be well beyond any capacity for constructive action. That's what the general hit points helped to simulate.

But you're not playing a real-life person. You're playing a hero. Someone theoretically tougher than the rank-and-file.

That gives me a cool idea. What if after every few adventures, a character's hit points would go up? It's kind of like they learned from experience, and are becoming more heroic...

That'sd what I liked about the James Bond RPG version of Hero Points. You would get a result in combat, such as: QR 2, that's good enough for the the .44 Mag bullet tears into your chest and kills you, but that's to those 3 Hero Points you just spent, it's a miss.

Best of both worlds. Realistic and deadly combat with Hero survivalbity, without giving each PC more hit points that all the oppostion combined.

 

[canology]

I am really puzzled by the argument about chaos centipedes, etc.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, either RQ2 or RQ3 (I don't remember which) did not count leg damage against the HP total of giant insects and the like. So Old RQ was exactly the same as MRQ in this regard.

And as far as I know, giant insects in MRQ are not immune from the "dead in CON+POW" melee rounds when they lose a limb.

So MRQ is even more lethal than RQ2/3.

 

[MongooseMatt]

But I look at it this way: say your PC has 3 HP in his left arm, and takes 1 point of damage. Okay, sure, pinprick, no consequence. Well, sure, from a gaming standpoint. But that realistically means your arm just took enough trauma to take it one-third of the way to being completely non-functional.

You are assuming hit points are on a linear scale. . .

 

[MongooseMatt]

I am really puzzled by the argument about chaos centipedes, etc.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, either RQ2 or RQ3 (I don't remember which) did not count leg damage against the HP total of giant insects and the like. So Old RQ was exactly the same as MRQ in this regard.

And as far as I know, giant insects in MRQ are not immune from the "dead in CON+POW" melee rounds when they lose a limb.

Very true. There also seems to be a presumption here of how such creatures would be handled.

Why does anyone think we would give such creatures a location on the chart for each limb?

You can be a bit more elegant than this in games design.

 

[homerjsinnott]

But I look at it this way: say your PC has 3 HP in his left arm, and takes 1 point of damage. Okay, sure, pinprick, no consequence. Well, sure, from a gaming standpoint. But that realistically means your arm just took enough trauma to take it one-third of the way to being completely non-functional.

You are assuming hit points are on a linear scale. .

Could you give me the scale so I can convert.
Also does my weapon do more or less damage as I do more and more wounds to my opponent?

Uh.

~_^

D&D anyone? (I wasn't sure if you understood).


I thought one of the major differences between RQ and most other RPGs was that it was quite lethal and gritty. If this is not the case with MRP then it is a VERY different role playing game.

 

[SteveMND]

You are assuming hit points are on a linear scale. . .

Pardon? I'm stating that if an arm has 3 hp, and 1 hp of damage is done to it, then it's mathematically taken 1/3 of the amount of trauma needed to put it out of action. I'm not saying a nice linear 1/3 of the arm is gone, or 1/3 of the degree of movement is missing, or whatever. Just that any amount to put a limb at that position on the scale of damage -- regardless of where it is -- would be significant in a real-world analogy, IMHO.

But yes, hit points in a location are linear: If you have 3 hp in an arm, and take 1 point of damage, then two more identical hits will take it out. that's linear.

Now, some games have 'wound levels' or the like, in which adding another identical wound to an area might have effects disparate with the effects the first one had, but I'm not aware of that being done in MRQ. If so, that would be interesting.

 

[Enpeze]

But in real-life terms, I would imagine that person to be well beyond any capacity for constructive action. That's what the general hit points helped to simulate.

But you're not playing a real-life person. You're playing a hero. Someone theoretically tougher than the rank-and-file. Someone who eschews the normal life of tending the farms and raising the kids to battle horrible monsters and fight opposing cults. You're playing the people who the rest of the villagers hide behind when the Broo come to defile the village.

Playing heros is a personal thing, not a rule thing. MRQ is a generic system and should be able to portray combat between normal unskilled people too. You should be able to play everybody from small child to a...well maybe "hero" if you like this stuff.

 

[iamtim]

D&D anyone? (I wasn't sure if you understood).

Yeah, heh, I got it. Thus the face. There's a reason I play RQ and not d20/D&D. I don't hate D&D, but I'm not fond of what d20 has become. And I don't want to play it unless we're using hundreds of house rules; things like Ken Hood's Grim-N-Gritty Combat and Hit Point rules. Things like the 2d10 instead of 1d20 option. Different magic systems. Non-Tolkienesque races from our homebrew fantasy world that was developed while wearing Glorantha tinted glasses.

And really, if you're going to house rule d20 that much... why not just bite the bullet and play RQ?

 

[Enpeze]

Well I dont think that MRQ is that undeadly. But it seems that if you are unlucky and hit each location just once, it could be much longer to take an opponent out than in RQ3.

Of course the thing is different if you really use the precise strike rule the whole time, which seems to be necessary to be an more effective melee combatant.

 

[iamtim]

But it seems that if you are unlucky and hit each location just once, it could be much longer to take an opponent out than in RQ3.

So let's say I'm fighting some dude. Let's say I smack him a good one in the left arm, randomly, and he doesn't go down. Then let's say I smack him a good one in the right arm, randomly, and he still doesn't go down.

At this point I'm thinking, "Holy crap. Two good, solid hits, and he's not down yet. And he hasn't hit me yet. I better start going for the precise strikes, or a flurry of strikes or something, because this isn't deading him as quick as I want it to be deading him."

...

That's my point. If you just stand there and randomly attack body parts, never caring where you hit beyond what it takes to roll that d20 for the hit location, your character should probably wind up dead.

No offense intended.

Alternately, if you're involved in a combat where you're hitting this opponent randomly and apparently NOT making any progress towards deading him, and your character doesn't have the skill to pull off precise strikes, maybe he's a little outlclassed and fleeing is the more prudent option.

 

[Archer]

Examples aside, if i'm reading this correctly, the concern appears to be valid.

All other things being equal, with the loss of general HP in the game, a creature with more hit locations -- regardless of whether they are vitals or not -- will be harder to kill than a creature with fewer hit locations, due to the simple fact that incoming damage will tend to be spread out more.

This is not due to any question of vitals or the like, but rather a issue created by the mechanics used.

And there you have why I voiced my "punching bag" concerns in a much older thread. I have seen this happen before, when I removeed Total HP from a BRP Clone.