Combat Table Flaws - What am I missing ?

[iamtim]

Sorry TIm, I have to agree with Aramis here.

That's cool. You and I don't see eye to eye on many issues, especially about RPGs.

More than anything, though, I'm objecting to the pretentiousness of his post, which I took as insinuating that I just can't see how it would affect the system because I haven't been tinkering with systems since 1979.

I still contend, however, that dropping in an updated combat table that clears up the "two failures make a success" and some other issues would not have a monumental affect on MRQ.

...

I should add, "if they're done right." Maybe I'll work some up for my game and throw them out here.

 

[atgxtg]

Sorry TIm, I have to agree with Aramis here.

That's cool. You and I don't see eye to eye on many issues, especially about RPGs.

More than anything, though, I'm objecting to the pretentiousness of his post, which I took as insinuating that I just can't see how it would affect the system because I haven't been tinkering with systems since 1979.

I don't think he was being pretentious. JUst trying to explain something. I've been in that boat before. Sometimes, when you throw something out to a group of gamers some poeple might not grasp the concept, or at least view it the same way. So a person tries to set up their point of view. I've seen some "Harmless" GM tweak completey destroy a campaign with the GM not being able to figure what went wrong.

Any change is going to have repucussion. Especiay a change to the most used charts in the game. How sweeping those changes are can vary.

I still contend, however, that dropping in an updated combat table that clears up the "two failures make a success" and some other issues would not have a monumental affect on MRQ.

...

I should add, "if they're done right." Maybe I'll work some up for my game and throw them out here.

Well, that was what I tried to do. I don't know if I did it right or not, but I figure it works better than the current tables-at least until whatever future option appears on the scene.

Of course any changes will reflect the personal bias of the creator. THat may or may not sit well with others. For instance, I am strognly biased to parries being an effectiveive form of defense, so any changes I make are probably going to improve their effectiveness rather than reduce it. That's my bias. I picked it up from several other RPGs (inclduing RQ). Those who want to see attacks doing damage will prefer a different direction.


Actually I kind of suprised someone hasn't suggested using the High Fantasy Damage tables and eliminating the parry rolls.

 

[AKAramis]

Likewise, anything I'm likely to do will reduce parries success rates, but increase effectiveness, as my fencing, kenjutsu (note: not Kendo nor Iaido...), SCA Heavy, and cut and thrust broadsword experience indicate parries are actually not THAT effective in comparison to attacks.

A good parry redirects a weapon so that it fails to do damage; very seldom is a parry a weapon block. RQ3 and MRQ both do blocks, not true parries.

I'm thinking a true parry is half-skill; a success redirects the weapon around one. A block results in the weapon AP being applied, but gets full skill.

(Blocking is easy, but not highly effective. A Parry is hard, but highly effective, and on a good parry, leads to a molinet and/or riposte. The kenjutsu parries are parries, not blocks; broadsword uses both. Fence uses parries only. SCA Heavy tends to be mostly blocks; watching Sir Brendan Shimmeringstar molinet with a bastard sword was spectacular, but not common... at the time, it was only allowed for demos. Now that the 90degree rule is gone, SCA Heavies in the West are slowly starting to molinet again.)

 

[Eisho]

I'm not making a quality judement here as to what way is better or worse, but it is a difference, and a significant one. It can decide if a game is sutiable or not for a partciular genre/setting.

I think this is a very important point. The weapons tables are presumably based on Glorantha and/or a Gloranthaesque world. In the case of a rapier vs. greatsword for example, the rapier is non-Glorantha. Some kind of special rule would be needed to give the advantage to the rapier (which it surely had) to allow the point to beat the blade. Some kind of reaction roll to allow a free attack or something. If the defender-cum-attacker fails though, then he's gonna get cut in two everytime, whether he manages to get his flimsy rapier in the way or not.

This is the kind of work that Mongoose or independant publishers can develop .

Personally I find it very interesting because a foreign (or innovative) weapon imported into Glorantha _would_ have a profound effect on how combat was thereafter conducted (reflected in rules changes). Just like in real life.

Cheers,

Eisho

 

[AKAramis]

It is possible to parry a greatsword, but not to block it, with a rapier.

A true parry uses the edge (False or true) of the target's blade to redirect the attacker's blade around the target.

I've successfully parried a 6' no-dachi-bokken with a 2' wakizashi bokken on a number of occasions. (And rest assured: when I didn't, I hurt.) It's leverage and turning your own weapon into a ramp for the attacker's weapon.

RQ (3 and M) both call "parry" what is really a block.

A block is using force to stop an attacker's weapon with one's own, often true edge to true edge. It's also hell on the edge.

This IS a major fault in the system, but in practice, one that only a few martial artists (western or eastern) will really be bothered by, and many others who know it consider it a reasonable abstraction.

 

[Eisho]

I agree that the term 'parry' is being used to term what is actually a 'block' but regardless, you would still need additional rules to give the rapier an advantage against the greatsword (or a wakizashi against a no-dachi). Blocking especially but parrying (in the true sense) as well were not the best options. Dodging was more practicable (and most parries include some kind of body movement as well) but the best tactic was to simply step into the slower attack of a larger weapon and dispatch the attacker while he was making his attack. Of course this was also much harder, not least because stepping forward into a potentially deadly attack goes against every ingrained notion of self preservation. A simpler way to deal with this is to assign Strike Ranks to the different weapons, but they did that way back with AD&D (I _think_ it was AD&D anyway, could be wrong) and there were problems with that as well.

Out of interest, which Japanese martial arts have you studied? I've studied Jigen Ryu, both the original 400-year old version and the newer version (that uses the no-dachi as its primary weapon), among others.

Cheers,

Eisho

 

[AKAramis]

Just kenjutsu. Pretty much Musashi-derived. Do not know the specific style names, but it was a hybrid, and some was filtered through a renegade house of Kung-Fu.

Did learn some Kung-Fu, and while the house under which I was trained did emigrate to to the US via Japan in the late 19th C, I've found it to be valid training both physical and mental; the physical side matched closely the materials taught by more "modern" and more "traditional" houses. I ranked as a senior student of the house, but not yet a full member of the house. Due to various issues, the house dropped the brandings... a renegade house can not keep all traditions!

BTW, if you're using force, odds are it's NOT a parry, but a block.

Also, any block or parry is likely to be combined with a dodge, except for in SCA-Heavy... and that's more due to poor training than proper technique.

 

[Vadrus]

So I just read through the Combat section of the MRQ SRD and also read through the "Player's Guide" PDF, and I finally caught on to the fact (which most of you seem to have known about for a while now) that the Combat Tables for Dodge/Parry make no sense.

In the MRQ Rulebook, the Player's Guide, and the SRD, it appears that the only time you can parry or dodge as a reaction is in the event of a SUCCESFUL attack.

That being the case, a "Failure" in the Attack column shouldn't even be listed on the tables as it is impossible to trigger a Parry or Dodge with an UNSUCCESFUL attack.

That being the case, an "Attacker Overextended" result seems to be impossible to obtain when Dodging, and a straight "Attack Fails, Defender may Riposte" result also seems impossible.

I know that Matt Sprange said in his 'clarification' post that you could choose to Parry/Dodge a failed attack in the hopes of obtaining an Overextended or Riposte result - but that contradicted the requirements in the rulebook to "trigger" a Parry or Dodge.

Now that the 'Player's Guide' PDF has been released to 'answer all of our questions', it doesn't seem to address the fact that an Overextended or straight Riposte is impossible now.

What am I missing ?

Despite all the rambling that has gone on in this thread, the answer to your question is that unfortunately Mongoose fumbled both it's 'Write RPG Mechanics' and 'Proof-reading' skill rolls and people have been struggling ever since to come up with a coherent way of fixing it.

Unfortunatley everyone tends to have different ideas about whether it needs to be fixed or how to fix it and no single method seems to be coming out on top.

So at the moment the best advice seems to be 'work out the fix that you're most comfortable and run with that one' I'm afraid.

The last option is find a system you're happy with use/convert it for whichever setting you were most interested in once the MRQ source books finally start appearing. (One of my friends has challenged me to use the Hackmaster rules for Second Age Glorantha!! Probably not going to happen, not even I'm mad enough for that).


Vadrus

 

[Melkor]

I think what is frustrating is the fact that it's been how long since the release of MRQ ?

Almost a month ?

There were questions upon release that Matt Sprange responded to, but his answers lead to more questions and didn't follow what was printed in the rulebook.

These additional questions were supposed to be addressed by the 'Player's Guide PDF'....in fact, Matt's post saying that the Player's Guide PDF is available for download states the following: "All your questions answered in the Player's Guide" Unfortunately, that was incorrect, and the PDF doesn't jive with what is in the rulebook either, and just leads to more questions.

The PDF was released on August 15th, and here it is September 4th and we still have no correct way of playing out MRQ combat based on the Parry and Dodge tables in the book, and the way combat is listed as working in the Player's Guide PDF.

Why isn't this being addressed by Mongoose ?

It's damn frustrating, and makes me want to shelve the game until the inevitable Mongoose Atlantean Edition is released with corrected combat examples and tables.

 

[atgxtg]

A good parry redirects a weapon so that it fails to do damage; very seldom is a parry a weapon block. RQ3 and MRQ both do blocks, not true parries.

I'm thinking a true parry is half-skill; a success redirects the weapon around one. A block results in the weapon AP being applied, but gets full skill.

(Blocking is easy, but not highly effective. A Parry is hard, but highly effective, and on a good parry, leads to a molinet and/or riposte.

I agree. I was commenting on the lack of a true Parry months ago when the hints of the new combat system came out.I tried several times to point out that you can parry a greatsword with a dagger, just that is is tough. Like I posted befor, I just did up these charts to adress one issue (results on the chart that did not occur). I really easn't trying to rework all the rules.

I can only thing of a handlful of RPGs that differentiate between a block and a parry. Timelords being the best at that. A block just stuck something in the path of the blow (not bad with a shield) while a parry defelcted the blow (better but at 3/4th skill).

One good thing though is that is you want to go with you half skill parry, this chart would be helpful, since it breaks things into half of less.

 

[Gavatar]

I fenced in high school and college, and I think the answer to the parry or block question is NOT a function of the defender's weapon, but of the type of attack. If your attacker thrusts, you parry. If your attacker cuts/swings/chops, your block. In fencing it's called a "beat".

So would a person thrust with a GreatBig Sword? It's not designed for that type of attack, but instead would be used to hack at an opponent. It most certainly could not be blocked (i.e. parried) by a rapier. No in the real world, at least. The defender would have to Dodge or take-it-like-a-man (or have his rapier shattered into 1000 tiny fragments).

But a Rapier could easily Parry any kind of thrusting attack, regardless of AP of the weapon. All momentum of the attack is simply redirected, with little or no impact to the integrity of the parrying or the attacking weapon what-so-ever. AP shouldn't even factor in to a True Parry.

Gav

 

[AKAramis]

I fenced in high school and college, and I think the answer to the parry or block question is NOT a function of the defender's weapon, but of the type of attack. If your attacker thrusts, you parry. If your attacker cuts/swings/chops, your block. In fencing it's called a "beat".

And I think you're quite wrong. You are (1) underestimating the strength of a rapier and (2) not understanding the variations of parry advanced by latter masters of broadsword.

I've used wooden shortswords to parry wooden greatswords. If you've fenced in college, odd are it's "olympic styles" which do not have much "real world application." (I fence with rapier, and have done steel broadsword work as well.)

I've parried a swung rapier with a 12" baton. It's hard, but doable.

A swing is actually easier to redirect than it would seem; the diamond of defense applies well beyond thrusting technique.

And many greatswords can be used for thrusting; often were, historically, against horsemen.

 

[rkhigdon]

Has anybody just allowed the Defender the option to react to a failed attack roll by choice? This would allow the Overextended/Riposte results to come into play at the risk of taking damage when you otherwise would not. Throw in that it costs a reaction and I think this adds a nice little tactical element to the process.

 

[bluejay]

I've considered allowing Defender's to react to missed attacks but generally it really isn't worth it. You can check the stats on my MRQ combat calculator to see how much more likely you are to be hit when you parry or dodge a failed attack.

...and yes I am back from holiday now!

 

[atgxtg]

I am going to post on this, but first, I hacve to comment on something important:

Hey Bluejay is back!!!

Now back to the topic...

You can just let the defender react to a failed roll. In fact, Matt does list it an a option. It is just that it isn't a very good option in game terms. For most people it means a much greater chance of geting hit than getting the riposte or overextention results. Now for the very skilled at doging or someone skilled with a kite shield or other weapon with 2xAP of the opponment's damage, the idea of defending against a missed attack becomes more viable.

In my experience, It is possible to parry or block pratically any weapon with practically any other weapon. Denpeing on the weapons invloved it gets tricker. I've parried a pratice sword with my hand (and did it right too. Risky dumb and very easy to get caught "redhanded"), and I've also did a good solid parry with my arm (I blocked my opponent's arms rather than the weapon, much better if you can do it).

Generally, despite how easy it seem to be able to swing/thrust a sword and hit someone, it just isn't so. THe only times I ever got hit during practice was when I was either trying to hit the other guy, or got cocky and tried one of those fancy TV move (Those are practically guarenteeed to get someone killed-just that it usually the one trying them rather than the target).
Practically ever defense is combined with movement. You either step back or to the side if you are being defensive, or strp in and try to stop the swing if you are being aggressive. Most ot the "attacks" being made are not really even expected to strike your foe, more to control and limit his actions. You see if someone swings a sword in your direction, you usually bring your blade up to defend and try to step out of the way at the same time.

The big trick is that once you commit to an attack you make youself more vulnerable to being attacked. Sort of like you divide you skill. If you want to hit someone and get very aggressive, you are usually wide open. If you want to defend yourself and have room to maneuver, you can probably keep from being hit until the other guy's arm fall off, but you won't be able to make any attacks.

One way to look at in in game terms is that the combatants do not stand in adjacent squares, but usually a sqaure father back, just out of reach. As soon as one person steps in to strike, you get into a attack-react-counter sort of situation until someone gets hir, or more likely starts to fall behind on the reactions and steps back.

 

[bluejay]

Thanks atgxtg... wow I missed a whole load of posts!

 

[atgxtg]

Thanks atgxtg... wow I missed a whole load of posts!

Lots of posts, several suggestions and optional rules, three flamewars, and offical PD-and that was just the first week.

 

[gamesmeister]

I've considered allowing Defender's to react to missed attacks but generally it really isn't worth it. You can check the stats on my MRQ combat calculator to see how much more likely you are to be hit when you parry or dodge a failed attack.

...and yes I am back from holiday now!

That's why I suggested an alternate line on the Attack Failed line of the combat charts. At the cost of a react, you can attempt to make your opponent overextended a lot more frequently. Link is http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20873&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=17

Just an idea for the melting pot...