Downgrading Opposed Rolls

[Melkor]

I finally had a chance to read through Runequest Deluxe last night, and was wondering why downgrading opposed combat rolls is something found in the rules.

It seems to me like the comparisons on the Dodge and Parry tables of success levels covers things fairly well, and if I am reading the rules correctly, the only time two opposing combatants would have the same level of success on the charts would be if they rolled the same exact number on the opposed die roll.

Is that correct? If so, why even bother with downgrading? I'm just not getting the 'reason' behind the rule.

Thanks.

 

[DigitalMage]

I completely agree with everything you have said and it is one of the reasons I am really miffed about RuneQuest.

 

[kintire]

I finally had a chance to read through Runequest Deluxe last night, and was wondering why downgrading opposed combat rolls is something found in the rules.

Because if you don't do that, the system doesn't really work for skills in the 70-99 range. People succeed all the time, and contests devolve to who can roll a crit quicker.

 

[Melkor]

I can see where that would make sense Kintire - but it seems kind of ridiculous to bother with tables that have results that are only applicable in the very rare event that the opposed dice rolls result in the exact same number.

 

[DigitalMage]

Because if you don't do that, the system doesn't really work for skills in the 70-99 range. People succeed all the time, and contests devolve to who can roll a crit quicker.

I am not sure I agree, there is enough variability in the hit location roll and damage bonus rolls to still allow quite different results.

For Dodges a tied success level just means you inflict minimum damage for the weapon, however strength bonus is rolled and AP of worn armour comes into effect so the result is in doubt, enought variability that some damage is likely dealt but not necessarily always the same amount (especially as changing hit location often means changing AP).

E.g. Gramn has a 1H Sword skill of 86%, a Damage bonus of +d4 and he is wielding a Bastard sword doing d8 damage. He attacks Nyrul who has a Dodge skill of 97% and is wearing a Chainmail shirt (reducing his Dodge skill to 77%).

More than likely both Gramn and Nyrul will roll successes as their % chance fo success is greater than 70%, so let us suppose that happens.

Gramn's first attack does minimum weapon damage (1 point) and damage bonus roll (roll of a 2) for a total of 3 points of damage. The hit location roll indicates that it hits Nyrul's Chest. The 5 APs of the chain shirt means he takes no damage.

Gramn's second attack again does minimum weapon damage (as we are again assuming both succeed) but the damage bonus roll is a 4 for a total of 5 points of damage. The hit location roll this time indictaas the blow hits Nyrul's unprotected head! 5 points of damage are inflicted to Nyrul's head reducing that location to 0 HP and thus causing a Minor wound and losing Nyrul his next Combat Action.

Both of those exchanges involved attacker and defender getting the same success levels (either both Crits or both Successes) and yet the end results were quite different.

You would get even more variability for matching success levels on parries where:
Both crits: you do max weapon damage (but still roll damage bonus) and opponents benefits from twice AP of weapon. Hit location is still random and thus so is benefit of armour.
Both successes: you roll damage as normal and opponent benefits from AP of weapon. Hit location is still random and thus so is benefit of armour.

 

[Melkor]

Good points Digital Mage.

I just read through the 'What's new in Deluxe' thread, and from what I gathered, it seems that the 'downgrading' rules were meant to be optional, but not marked as such in the book.

That being the case, can any of you think of any issues that might come up if I just decide to discard that rule and use the tables for dodge and parry 'as is' without downgrading?

 

[RosenMcStern]

I think your interpretation of the rules is not correct. Having the same level of success means that both succeed or both critical, not that both roll the same number. Since this is a fairly common result, the downgrading is suggested/required to avoid combats that last too long.

That said, it has been clarified that using the tables as they are is perfectly fine. It is probably a matter of taste: those who like the clash of weapons and relying on APs prefer this solution, whereas those who like elegant combat and deadliness prefer the downgrading option.

 

[DigitalMage]

I think your interpretation of the rules is not correct. Having the same level of success means that both succeed or both critical, not that both roll the same number. Since this is a fairly common result, the downgrading is suggested/required to avoid combats that last too long.

I am not quite sure who this comment was aimed at, if it was me my examples were showing what can happen even if you don't downgrade. And it just shows that such combats needn't last long even without downgrading - in my example Gramn was able to take his opponent down to 0 HP to his head in one blow!

When parrying there is even more potential for decisive blows - If Nyrul was parrying with a 3AP weapon and both Gramn and Nyrul rolled successes, then without downgrading this means roll damage as normal and apply AP of weapon. Gramn could conceivably inflict 9 damage in a single blow in such a case - max damage on weapon and bonus (8 and 4 respectively), reduced by AP3 to 9 and then hit location roll indicates an unprotected area.

I am not seeing a compelling argument for downgrading I am afraid.

 

[Mikko Leho]

I am not seeing a compelling argument for downgrading I am afraid.

The best argument for downgrading is that it introduces more tactical decisions. When equal and experienced fighters meet downgrading makes one wonder if full plate armor is really that good and maybe precise attacks are not used. Without downgrading both combatants would just wear as much armor as possible and call precise attacks every action. Maybe the latter is more realistic but the first choice is closer to my boardgamer heart.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Clarification: I was referring to Melkor's interpretation of the rules.

Digital mage, your example is correct, but it does not depict a situation that you are going to encounter in a typical combat involving PCs. No PC will go around wearing no headgear. Most PCs will rely only on shield parry, not on Dodge or Weapon parry, as it has been stated a helluvalot of times. The report that comes from most experienced GMs is that without the downgrading, combat is all about shields and precise attacks - even worse, precise attacks that bypass armor after being parried by shields, which is atrociously unrealistic, and not so much fun.

 

[gamesmeister]

After a lot of discussion on these lists over this subject, I now use both systems i.e. both with and without downgrading.

When the attacker declares his attack the defender has the option to use the downgrading rules if he wishes. He's likely to do this if
a) the attacker has declared a precise attack
b) the attacker is big and powerful, but relatively unskilled
c) the defender is trying to parry with a low AP weapon.

If he chooses to downgrade, we use the rules as found in the Deluxe edition. If not, we just use the table from Deluxe, but without downgrading. This seems to give the best of both worlds and has worked well so far.

 

[Deleriad]

I'm one of many who don't use the downgrading rules. Basically I think the people who put it together just didn't notice that it meant that it basically made APs pretty close to pointless. You can kind of ret-con an argument for downgrading but basically everything about it has "doh" written across it.

As with some other people I use "partial successes" instead as I find it a useful unifying mechanic across all opposed rolls. Basically the winner of the contest keeps their result (critical or normal). If the loser of the contest made their roll then it gets capped at a "partial success."
For example, when parrying your results are:
critical - block all or block 2*APs and riposte
normal - block 2*APs
partial - block 1*APs
fail/fumble - no effect.

Others run variants on a theme.

 

[RosenMcStern]

AIf he chooses to downgrade, we use the rules as found in the Deluxe edition. If not, we just use the table from Deluxe, but without downgrading. This seems to give the best of both worlds and has worked well so far.

Thanks for providing us yor field experience, Gamesmeister. Feedback from an experienced GM who is running a complex campaign is very useful.

The advantage of this approach is that it limits the houseruling: you are just doing what Loz has admitted was his first idea about downgrading, that is making it an option. And it is realistic, too: parrying a poleaxe with a dagger requires more skill than blocking it with a shield, although you can still do it.

 

[kintire]

Melkor

I can see where that would make sense Kintire - but it seems kind of ridiculous to bother with tables that have results that are only applicable in the very rare event that the opposed dice rolls result in the exact same number.

Well, yes. But that's what you get for changing systems midstream!

DigitalMage

I am not seeing a compelling argument for downgrading I am afraid.

Well, consider this example, then, subtly like your own...

E.g. Fighter has a 1H Sword skill of 86%, a Damage bonus of +d4. He is wielding a Bastard sword doing d8 damage. He attacks Swashbuckler who has a Dodge skill of 97%, a rapier parry skill of 85% and is wearing a puffy swashbuckler shirt and tight breeches

Again, we will assume success. Also, assume average damage.

Fighter's first attack hits. Swashbuckler now has to choose to dodge or parry. he chooses dodge, as it is higher. Fighter does minimum weapon damage (1 point) and damage bonus roll (roll of a 2) for a total of 3 points of damage. The hit location roll indicates that it hits Swash's Chest. He takes 3 points of damage, which will be enough that he doesn't want that happening again.

Fighter's second attack comes in. Swash has realised that Dodging won't save him for long, so he elects to parry. His parry is successful. No one really cares. Fighter now does average damage, 4 +2 less the APs of the weapon makes 4. This will probably take out a limb, or the already wounded chest, or seriously weaken a head or abdomen.

Swash surrenders, as he realises he is utterly doomed. It doesn't matter if his skill is five, fifty or one hundred and fifty. He cannot defend himself at all. The best he can do is reduce the damage to the point where it will take several hits to kill him.

This is the basic combat system, and its unacceptable. You HAVE to play a heavily armoured type. Anyone else is doomed. Parrying is useless, except with a shield, and then only if your opponent is foolish enough not to be using a two handed weapon. No swashbuckling rapier duelists, no skin clad barbarians, no lightly armoured skirmishers. If you do not have armour at least equal to your opponents' minimum damage you might as well not show up.

That being ruled out, we have two alternatives. Straight success failure rolls. These take too long, even with the reduction of skills over 100 rule. That leaves downgrading success.

 

[gamesmeister]

AIf he chooses to downgrade, we use the rules as found in the Deluxe edition. If not, we just use the table from Deluxe, but without downgrading. This seems to give the best of both worlds and has worked well so far.

Thanks for providing us yor field experience, Gamesmeister. Feedback from an experienced GM who is running a complex campaign is very useful.

The advantage of this approach is that it limits the houseruling: you are just doing what Loz has admitted was his first idea about downgrading, that is making it an option. And it is realistic, too: parrying a poleaxe with a dagger requires more skill than blocking it with a shield, although you can still do it.

Well I must admit I wasn't convinced by the downgrading rules for a long time - I believe it was you that finally persuaded me of their value, in combination with your Block rule

At the moment the players rarely use them, but I think that will change as their skills start to get really high (not that far off, as they started as Veterans so most weapon skills are between 60% and 75%).

 

[RosenMcStern]

At the moment the players rarely use them, but I think that will change as their skills start to get really high (not that far off, as they started as Veterans so most weapon skills are between 60% and 75%).

This is how I envision it. As long as I am a novice, all I wish is to have a shield between me and my opponent's weapon, no matter how battered the shield is at the end of the fight. The more experienced I get, the more I appreciate the option of taking more risks and seeing my enemy miss that blow by simply deflecting it with my nightstick.

 

[DigitalMage]

Without downgrading both combatants would just wear as much armor as possible and call precise attacks every action.

Maybe I just have a serious disconnect in the levels of skills expected. Precise attacks suffer a -40% penalty, and wearing loads of armour also reduces skills by quite a lot. So be able to do all that, and still have both combatants unlikley to fail their roll, their skill ratings will have to be near to 160% to 200%!!!!

Reading through MRQ (I admit to only having read the book, so I admit that my opinions are not based on any game play) I got the impression that skills would normally be less than 100% and only masters having skills above 100%.

However if everyone seems to be justifying how the Deluxe combat rules works based on opponents with skills greater than 100% I must assume that most people play with characters with skills above 100%. Extrapolating on that I assume that non-combat skills are also at such lofty levels, and I begin to wonder why the hell this is a % based system rather than a roll-over system.

The more I read on here and the more frustration I have with the rules the less likely I am going to actually run this game. I bought MRQ as an easy alternative to D&D3.5 but I have been having so much problems with the combat rules, lack of bookmarking in PDFs etc that I am continuing with D&D and I really am thinking of just ditching MRQ.

<catches breath>

Sorry for the rant but no game has wound me up so much as MRQ - that cannot be a good thing.

 

[DigitalMage]

The report that comes from most experienced GMs is that without the downgrading, combat is all about shields and precise attacks - even worse, precise attacks that bypass armor after being parried by shields, which is atrociously unrealistic, and not so much fun.

I addressed the Precise Attack issue in my last post. As for Shields becoming so useful then what is wrong with that? It does mean that players will have to split their improvement rolls across two skills rather than one in order to parry and attack and so getting scores for both in the high ranges where success is almost guaranteed will take longer - meaning the issue won't come up until much later.

I don't deny that downgrading rolls may be more beneficial for combats where both combatants have skills close to 100%, I just don't think it is necessary and I definately don't think having rules to better handle a rare situation* should dictate how the rules should be for the more common scenarios.

*But I guess my view of a MRQ game is vastly different from others, most people seem to be saying Veteran and Master characters are more the norm (for NPC foes as well as PCs) rather than the exception (e.g. major villains and very experienced PCs).

 

[DigitalMage]

The advantage of this approach is that it limits the houseruling: you are just doing what Loz has admitted was his first idea about downgrading, that is making it an option.

ANd this really does point to serious quality issues. When I discussed the problems with the original rules with a MQ staff member at their open day I was told the printed rules weren't what was meant to be the rules. Then the Player's Update comes out and is in PDF form for quite a while (i.e. enough time to reconsider it before printing deluxe) and gets formalised in Deluxe only for it to be said again "the rules in print aren't what we meant".

For Christ's sake after the first screw up couldn't you make damn sure that what got printed in deluxe is exactly what you meant!!!!!! :evil:

Apologies for yet another rant.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Sorry for the rant but no game has wound me up so much as MRQ - that cannot be a good thing.

For you or for the game?