Combat, the way we are doing it.

[vitalis6969]

I know that this is one of the ways that Mongoose has already said to do it, but I just wanted to reiterate how play works in our games. We use the new table, without the extra opposed rolls.

GM to player: The Trollkin advances, thrusting at you with his spear.

Player: I'm parrying with my shield.

GM rolls for Trollkin's attack, player rolls for parry. Die results are stated and table consulted. Effects of table are applied, damage is rolled if required and applied if damage gets past shield and/or armor.

For us, stating the defense before the roll forces the use of tactics with the players. If they are outnumbered they tend to go very defensive and retreat from battles. Looking for choke points to limit the amount of attackers, etc... What would happen in real life.

All of us in our game have been fighting weapon based martial arts for between 10 and 20 years and tend to apply this experience to our gaming. In 'real life' we fight SCA armored combat, live steel combat, kendo, etc...

In melee battles that I have been in where combat archery is allowed, we have found that in static battles an archer is actually more effective in just pointing a drawn bow with arrow at the enemy than actually shooting. It makes them flinch, or go defensive, thus using a "defensive action" and opening them up for further attacks by spears, etc... Also, two or three low level newbies can and will squash a far superior fighter by simply overwhelming his defenses with attacks.

Just throwing in what we do, its how we have fun with the game and works for us.

-V

 

[weasel_fierce]

We've played it both ways, but declaring your defense first adds a bit more tension, which is good.

 

[frogspawner]

... we have found that in static battles an archer is actually more effective in just pointing a drawn bow with arrow at the enemy than actually shooting. It makes them flinch, or go defensive, thus using a "defensive action" and opening them up for further attacks by spears, etc...

Very interesting - thanks. I have previously preferred not to pre-declare defences. Just because, not for realism but from a system-elegance point of view, it is better to avoid things like 'Statement of Intent'.

But tell me - in such situations in reality, does the act of simply pointing a drawn bow, even when no shot is made, seem to cost a "Combat Action"?

 

[vitalis6969]

Judging by the feel of the situation Frogspawner, yeah, it definitely does cost a combat action for the defender and the "shooter" who is actually just feinting.

Picture this example, its a bridge 20' wide, opposing each other are ranks of shieldmen, about six or so per side in the front row. Mixed in with this front row are about the same number of spearmen. The ranks are separated by about ten to twelve feet and the spears are working at both lines, trying for kills. A combat archer also very near the front rank just needs to get the attention of a spearman across from him for just a second by drawing and pointing an arrow at him. This usually causes the defending spearman to focus his attention on the archer, readying himself to defend against the arrow and at this time a spearman that is on the same side as our archer stabs for the kill. All of this happens in a very fast time, but that switch of attention I would indeed call an action.

-V

 

[Rasta]

All of this happens in a very fast time, but that switch of attention I would indeed call an action.

Or rather a reaction.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with V on this one. In real fighting whether or not you successfully parry is quite simply a question of anticipation. If you leave a blow until you are sure it will strike you before reacting, then it is already too late! You always react to a perceived attack.

Moderately skilled fighters usually react to the initial movement of their opponent's weapon, and from this they can (most of the time) predict at least which side of their body the weapon is going to land. However, this is still often far too late to react, and many people are struck whilst still in the process of moving their defensive weapon/shield into the correct position!

Highly skilled fighters respond to the initial body movements of their foe, before the weapon even moves. Giving rise to the illusion that they have 'super fast' reflexes. This is actually not the case, simply being a perceptive awareness and understanding of their opponent's body mechanics.

Ironically this can be used to great effect by an attacker. Whereas inexperienced fighters don't even notice the subtle body language of high-end feints and therefore don't respond, very skillful opponents can be lured into over-committing their reactions by the simplest of torso twitches, body leans or dropping of a shoulder. Those fooled by such tactics can be tricked into uncovering specific target areas, or even rendered into helpless immobility... being utterly confused about where the real attack is coming from - a real life equivalent of running out of Reactions.

When it comes to other people's concerns on this forum about running out of reactions when facing multiple (or more dexterous) opponents in MRQ, I'm afraid that's pretty true to real life too. As V pointed out, if you are outnumbered you seek a tactical advantage by either using terrain or maneuverability to your advantage so that you only have to face one or two foes simultaneously.

However, in consideration of my own experiences I now have a house rule (I don't know if this is actually part of the core MRQ rules) which allows characters to sacrifice any or all of their remaining Combat Actions in exchange for Reactions. This reflects the times when I have been outnumbered, and have still been able to successfully defend myself... but at the cost of being unable to strike back at my foes.

 

[gamesmeister]

However, in consideration of my own experiences I now have a house rule (I don't know if this is actually part of the core MRQ rules)...

It isn't, but it damn well should be! Excellent idea

...which allows characters to sacrifice any or all of their remaining Combat Actions in exchange for Reactions. This reflects the times when I have been outnumbered, and have still been able to successfully defend myself... but at the cost of being unable to strike back at my foes.

Presumably this is only once per turn? Or do you allow players to decide each time they have a combat action whether to use it or sacrifice it for a reaction?

 

[RosenMcStern]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with V on this one. In real fighting whether or not you successfully parry is quite simply a question of anticipation. If you leave a blow until you are sure it will strike you before reacting, then it is already too late! You always react to a perceived attack.

But this is not the case in MRQ, because you do not react if you are out of reactions.

or even rendered into helpless immobility... being utterly confused about where the real attack is coming from - a real life equivalent of running out of Reactions.

I would not say so. I would say it is the real life equivalent of being outskilled. Remember that you do not run out of reactions because your opponent is more clever than you and he is feinting, but because he is more dexterous.

When it comes to other people's concerns on this forum about running out of reactions when facing multiple (or more dexterous) opponents in MRQ, I'm afraid that's pretty true to real life too. As V pointed out, if you are outnumbered you seek a tactical advantage by either using terrain or maneuverability to your advantage so that you only have to face one or two foes simultaneously.

Perfectly agreeable. The problem is that even one or two are too many. Miyamoto Musashi was historically able to kill many at a time, and this was not because his DEX was 100+. Of course he did use maneuvering in those cases, but in my group we have always played that the combat maneuvering ability is part of your combat skill.

However, in consideration of my own experiences I now have a house rule (I don't know if this is actually part of the core MRQ rules) which allows characters to sacrifice any or all of their remaining Combat Actions in exchange for Reactions. This reflects the times when I have been outnumbered, and have still been able to successfully defend myself... but at the cost of being unable to strike back at my foes.

This makes perfect sense. Now why on (Fantasy) Earth did you not include it in the new players update? This would solve a lot of problems.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Presumably this is only once per turn? Or do you allow players to decide each time they have a combat action whether to use it or sacrifice it for a reaction?

I'd written it such that a player can sacrifice a combat action at any time, as long as they have some left. But feel free to make it once per turn if that suits your game better.

This makes perfect sense. Now why on (Fantasy) Earth did you not include it in the new players update? This would solve a lot of problems.

Actually there were a number of rule fixes submitted, some of which I considered quite critical... but unfortunately Mongoose didn't include them in the Players Update. I tried my best, honest! :? (*)

However, I believe many of the alternative rules which Loz and I co-developed will still be coming out in his forthcoming RQ Games Master's Book. So they'll still see the light of day eventually.

(* - In a fit of masochism after the release of the PU, I even went ahead and rewrote MRQ combat from the ground up and fixed all the outstanding problems. However despite being fun, tactical, elegant, and flawlessly scalable to any level over 100%, the final result was a significant paradigm change from the original rules and suffered a difficulty with MRQ's simplified set of success levels. Maybe one day I'll get round to posting it, so you can have fun pulling it to pieces... )

 

[frogspawner]

I even went ahead and rewrote MRQ combat from the ground up and fixed all the outstanding problems. However despite being fun, tactical, elegant, and flawlessly scalable to any level over 100%, the final result was a significant paradigm change from the original rules and suffered a difficulty with MRQ's simplified set of success levels. Maybe one day I'll get round to posting it, so you can have fun pulling it to pieces... )

Hey, it* needs it**! So please do publish, and some day soon. Besides, with claims like that, you deserve to have 'em pulled into at least a few pieces!
(* MRQ combat; ** rewrite, fixes, paradigm change...)

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Besides, with claims like that, you deserve to have 'em pulled into at least a few pieces!

Absolutely!

Okay, give me a few days. Its a big swathe of text, and converting things into forum format will take time.

 

[atgxtg]

However, in consideration of my own experiences I now have a house rule (I don't know if this is actually part of the core MRQ rules) which allows characters to sacrifice any or all of their remaining Combat Actions in exchange for Reactions. This reflects the times when I have been outnumbered, and have still been able to successfully defend myself... but at the cost of being unable to strike back at my foes.

Perhaps the best rule tweak for MRQ yet devised. Simple, elegant, and makes sense, too.


Hmm, considering some of the rest of the thread, maybe it would be good to come up with a way for characters to get extra CAs from skill. Either as an ability to be purchased with Hero Points, or as a benefit from a critical. Something like a critical attack/parry/dodge not costing an action/reaction. So a highly skilled fighter can match the abilities of a high DEX novice.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

So please do publish, and some day soon. Besides, with claims like that, you deserve to have 'em pulled into at least a few pieces!

Apologies to Frogspawner, but I'm afraid it looks like I'll have to sit on this a while longer. Hoepfully they will see the light of day, but not quite at the moment...

 

[frogspawner]

Granted. But why? If you haven't time to reformat 'em nicely for the forum, a link to a file in any old format would do...

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Lets just say I'm being a very nice man and upholding a voluntary NDA.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Does this have anything to do with the upcoming GM Guide?

 

[Loz]

Does this have anything to do with the upcoming GM Guide?

A considerable amount.

Pete and I corresponded closely on the combat chapter of the GMs' Guide and some of Pete's redeveloped system uses certain aspects that will be covered in the GM book. So whilst it would be great to see Pete's system posted here (and it IS good, but a radical departure), it really isn't prudent to do so.

I'm sure you'll all understand.