Centipedes of Doom?

[Vadrus]

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.

Actually that doesn't have to be true, a human and a small centaur fight, for arguements sake they both have the same total of SIZ+CON and both have their primary weapon skills at 40% (perfectly reasonable for a starting character who's main aim was not to be a combat specialist).

Neither can hit with precise strikes due to their skill level. Both would have the same general HP under previous editions so the fight would have fair. Now in MRQ with the addition of the of the centaurs extra locations it becomes a firm favourite to win an otherwise even fight as the random distribution of hits favours it heavily.

And no I don't accept the arguement that players will always stack things in their favour, if this always happens then the GM is being far too lenient. Many times the players oponents will have the upper hand in position and tactics and in those circumstances the more locations and opponent has the tougher it becomes.


Vadrus

 

[andakitty]

No, but one sign of a good game is having the players TRYING to stack the odds all the time...

 

[iamtim]

No, but one sign of a good game is having the players TRYING to stack the odds all the time...

Amen. I put forth that if you're players AREN'T doing that, and they're just blindly wading in against opponents that "...have the upper hand in position and tactics...", then you need some new players.

 

[Vadrus]

No, but one sign of a good game is having the players TRYING to stack the odds all the time...

Amen. I put forth that if you're players AREN'T doing that, and they're just blindly wading in against opponents that "...have the upper hand in position and tactics...", then you need some new players.

Are you saying your players have never been ambushed, hunted or outmatched?? Obviously I'm far too harsh on mine.


Vadrus

 

[Rurik]

No, but one sign of a good game is having the players TRYING to stack the odds all the time...

Amen. I put forth that if you're players AREN'T doing that, and they're just blindly wading in against opponents that "...have the upper hand in position and tactics...", then you need some new players.

But they shouldn't always be able to stack odds. Some of the best tension is created by forcing characters into situations that makes them uncomfortable. I can remember one game where we had to rescue someone, time was of the essence (going to be sacrificed - ritual had already started) and there was a bad ass (as in he had iron) scorpion man gaurding a door we had to go through, right after a bend. No room for missle combat or anything fancy, no time for clever plans or traps.

I have been in plenty of other similar situations, but this one seemed a very appropriate example.

 

[iamtim]

Are you saying your players have never been ambushed, hunted or outmatched?? Obviously I'm far too harsh on mine.

Not at all; I'm just saying that I have the caliber players that, when ambushed, hunted or outmatched, try to manouver themselves into a better position instead of blindly accepting that they are ambushed, hunted, or outmatched.

 

[iamtim]

But they shouldn't always be able to stack odds. Some of the best tension is created by forcing characters into situations that makes them uncomfortable.

I never said the characters weren't uncomfortable, or that they were always able to stack odds. Read the posts again. I said if your players aren't *TRYING* to stack the odds in their favor, you need new players. I can't think of ANY players I've EVER had that, when outclassed, didn't try and better their position. It didn't always work, but boy did they try.

 

[atgxtg]

Are you saying your players have never been ambushed, hunted or outmatched?? Obviously I'm far too harsh on mine.

Not at all; I'm just saying that I have the caliber players that, when ambushed, hunted or outmatched, try to manouver themselves into a better position instead of blindly accepting that they are ambushed, hunted, or outmatched.

I try not to run many ambushes. In most rpgs, as in life, they are just much too deadly. A good ambush in a fixed HP system should take about a third of the group in the opening round. If you are running a system that realistically handles the surprise factor (like GURPS where it takes a few seconds for the "ambush" to sink in) of an ambush, the entire group might be down before they even get a chance to react, let alone act.

I do agree that when they can help it, it is almost always a good idea for the players to try and "sieze the initiative" and be active rather than reactive. Reactive characters are just folling the enemy's battle plan. By doing something other than reacting the players force the enemy to do go outside of thier battleplan.

 

[Vadrus]

Are you saying your players have never been ambushed, hunted or outmatched?? Obviously I'm far too harsh on mine.

Not at all; I'm just saying that I have the caliber players that, when ambushed, hunted or outmatched, try to manouver themselves into a better position instead of blindly accepting that they are ambushed, hunted, or outmatched.

Funny how we all speak about our players as if they were pets or moderately trained monkeys

However, the point never was that players shouldn't react to a situation, it's that in an even encounter the players actions should buy them an advantage, not just equalise an imbalance in the basic combat rules.


Vadrus

BTW my players don't always blindly rush into combat... not always ... I remember them having a plan... once

 

[iamtim]

However, the point never was that players shouldn't react to a situation, it's that in an even encounter the players actions should buy them an advantage, not just equalise an imbalance in the basic combat rules.

Actually, that's not at all what MY point was. My point was that an "imbalance in the rules" shown via a cold, sterile, lab-quality test of the system might not actually be an imbalance in actual play, because in actual play more is at stake than testing the system for the sake of testing the system and reactions on the part of the combatants will be vastly different.

I still hold to that, too.

 

[atgxtg]

Funny how we all speak about our players as if they were pets or moderately trained monkeys

They aren't? :?

I guess that copy of MacBeth that they typed up is no big deal then.

 

[Rurik]

However, the point never was that players shouldn't react to a situation, it's that in an even encounter the players actions should buy them an advantage, not just equalise an imbalance in the basic combat rules.

Actually, that's not at all what MY point was. My point was that an "imbalance in the rules" shown via a cold, sterile, lab-quality test of the system might not actually be an imbalance in actual play, because in actual play more is at stake than testing the system for the sake of testing the system and reactions on the part of the combatants will be vastly different.

I still hold to that, too.

But Ideally, the rules would hold up in a cold sterile lab testing environment. If your skills never go near one hundred the halving rule won't affect play, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have an inherent flaw (namely, that at some point your chance of sucess goes down because your skill went up).

You have said that the more hit location advantage should never be a factor because your players should be smart enough game around it. Well they won't always be able to, and more importantly they shouldn't have to.

 

[Vadrus]

However, the point never was that players shouldn't react to a situation, it's that in an even encounter the players actions should buy them an advantage, not just equalise an imbalance in the basic combat rules.

Actually, that's not at all what MY point was. My point was that an "imbalance in the rules" shown via a cold, sterile, lab-quality test of the system might not actually be an imbalance in actual play, because in actual play more is at stake than testing the system for the sake of testing the system and reactions on the part of the combatants will be vastly different.

I still hold to that, too.

No what your point is that you feel it is not an imbalance for 'your group', the rules are imbalanced but you feel your playstyle compensates, this may not however hold true for all groups especially those new to the hobby or with a novice GM.


Vadrus

 

[iamtim]

My point was that an "imbalance in the rules" shown via a cold, sterile, lab-quality test of the system might not actually be an imbalance in actual play, because in actual play more is at stake than testing the system for the sake of testing the system and reactions on the part of the combatants will be vastly different.

No what your point is that you feel it is not an imbalance for 'your group', the rules are imbalanced but you feel your playstyle compensates, this may not however hold true for all groups especially those new to the hobby or with a novice GM.

Man, the pretentiousness of some of the people on this board blows me away. No, that's not my point. My point is as quoted above. It has nothing to do with a particular groups playstyle, but actual play in general.

How many published modules have actually been played as the designer thought they would be played?

How many times has the mantra, "the players will ALWAYS think of something the GM hasn't," been stated?

Please don't try and tell me what my point is. I'm fully and 100% cognizant of what my point is. You may not understand or I may not express it adequately, in which case -- if you want to continue the discussion -- your words would be, "I don't understand what you mean," not, "No what your point is..."

 

[SteveMND]

It sounds to me like it boils down to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, but since it won't be an issue at most tables, it's no big deal," compared to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, and even though it won't be an issue at most tables, it's still a flaw."

 

[iamtim]

It sounds to me like it boils down to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, but since it won't be an issue at most tables, it's no big deal," compared to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, and even though it won't be an issue at most tables, it's still a flaw."

Hey, you know, that sounds like it just about sums up this whole debate. About MRQ in general, too.

I'm happy to hang it up with that comment as the bottom line.

 

[MongooseMatt]

It sounds to me like it boils down to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, but since it won't be an issue at most tables, it's no big deal," compared to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, and even though it won't be an issue at most tables, it's still a flaw."

On this issue, I have another take - wait until you actually see these creatures in a game, and have fought against them, then decide. At the moment, some people are adding 2 and 2, but getting 5. You haven't seen where we are going yet with the rules and I am pretty sure not many people have actually played this game yet. . .

 

[Vadrus]

It sounds to me like it boils down to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, but since it won't be an issue at most tables, it's no big deal," compared to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, and even though it won't be an issue at most tables, it's still a flaw."

Hey, you know, that sounds like it just about sums up this whole debate. About MRQ in general, too.

I'm happy to hang it up with that comment as the bottom line.

Me too, sorry if I've come across as overly arguementative, I just wanted to love MRQ and so far it's not managed to grab me


Vadrus

 

[Rurik]

It sounds to me like it boils down to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, but since it won't be an issue at most tables, it's no big deal," compared to "Yes, there's a flaw in the design, and even though it won't be an issue at most tables, it's still a flaw."

Hey, you know, that sounds like it just about sums up this whole debate. About MRQ in general, too.

I'm happy to hang it up with that comment as the bottom line.

Me too, sorry if I've come across as overly arguementative, I just wanted to love MRQ and so far it's not managed to grab me


Vadrus

Not me. I'm an ornery bastard. I was hoping this was going to degenerate into some serious hysteria and name calling.

 

[Vadrus]

Hey, you know, that sounds like it just about sums up this whole debate. About MRQ in general, too.

I'm happy to hang it up with that comment as the bottom line.

Me too, sorry if I've come across as overly arguementative, I just wanted to love MRQ and so far it's not managed to grab me


Vadrus

Not me. I'm an ornery bastard. I was hoping this was going to degenerate into some serious hysteria and name calling.

I get enough of that at work


Vadrus