How Combat was Clear to me on my First Read

[burdock]

bluejay wrote

I think most players felt it was unclear in the rules

The impression I'm getting is that many players who saw the book before seeing these forums interpreted the rules correctly regardless of the erroneous example of play. The forums were a greater source of confusion than the rules.

I was patting myself on the back. It is rarely that I get to feel so clever

 

[bluejay]

Speaking from my own experience, I skimmed the combat rules and thought the chart was a little strange. I came online to get more of a definitive answer and got into the whole 'two rolls' debate.

I then went back and read the chapter more thoroughly and found that the example agreed with the two rolls idea.

So, yes, you are correct that I hadn't considered two rolls until I came online. The main reason for that was because I felt it was a new version of RuneQuest and just assumed that the combat rules would be very similar.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

I gotta tell you, I can't jive with the delay in reaction until after the hit roll is made. I'll be running it with declarations made at the same time:

I'm wish you here. If you think about the only time you know that a roll is going to hit is when it is too late to stop it.

I could see where something where if someone missed by a mile you got your reaction back, but if he has a 67 skill and rolls a 68, you can't tell.

Me too. I like the tactical element it brings in, and I think it's far more realistic too. You're gonna jump, flinch, or put up your shield (or most likely all 3 :!: ) as soon as you see that sword beginning to swing your way.

 

[Fulminata]

I gotta tell you, I can't jive with the delay in reaction until after the hit roll is made. I'll be running it with declarations made at the same time:

I'm wish you here. If you think about the only time you know that a roll is going to hit is when it is too late to stop it.

I could see where something where if someone missed by a mile you got your reaction back, but if he has a 67 skill and rolls a 68, you can't tell.

Me too. I like the tactical element it brings in, and I think it's far more realistic too. You're gonna jump, flinch, or put up your shield (or most likely all 3 :!: ) as soon as you see that sword beginning to swing your way.

The problem with this thinking is the same problem with the thinking that others have in this thread concerning how difficult it is to "miss" a human size target. That problem is the assumption that a missed attack actually means you took a swing and missed.

It's more likely that what actually happened is that you never found an opening to attack. You weren't skilled enough to find an opening in your opponents stance so you never took a swing.

That's also why you don't have to declare a parry or dodge until after the attacker makes his roll. The fact he made his roll means he found a hole in your stance and is now making his move and it's up to you to try and stop it. Further, this explains why the ability to parry or dodge a failed attack is being taken away. There was no "attack" to parry or dodge because the attacker never found an opening!

In any case, that's the way I'm looking at it for now.

 

[atgxtg]

Me too. I like the tactical element it brings in, and I think it's far more realistic too. You're gonna jump, flinch, or put up your shield (or most likely all 3 :!: ) as soon as you see that sword beginning to swing your way.

I start dodging when I see his hand go towards his scabbard. Worse case scenario he thinks I'm having a fit and leave me alone.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

The problem with this thinking is the same problem with the thinking that others have in this thread concerning how difficult it is to "miss" a human size target. That problem is the assumption that a missed attack actually means you took a swing and missed.

It's more likely that what actually happened is that you never found an opening to attack. You weren't skilled enough to find an opening in your opponents stance so you never took a swing.

That's certainly a valid point. It's reasonable to see combat from both perspectives - wild swinging and a more "cat and mouse" affair. I'd be more inclined to introduce a "defensive stance" mechanism for those situations, however, and rule that unless you're explicitly in the defensive stance it actually is a case of taking a swing and hitting or missing.

 

[Fulminata]

The problem with this thinking is the same problem with the thinking that others have in this thread concerning how difficult it is to "miss" a human size target. That problem is the assumption that a missed attack actually means you took a swing and missed.

It's more likely that what actually happened is that you never found an opening to attack. You weren't skilled enough to find an opening in your opponents stance so you never took a swing.

That's certainly a valid point. It's reasonable to see combat from both perspectives - wild swinging and a more "cat and mouse" affair. I'd be more inclined to introduce a "defensive stance" mechanism for those situations, however, and rule that unless you're explicitly in the defensive stance it actually is a case of taking a swing and hitting or missing.

That's certainly the more traditional way of thinking about how RPG mechanics work, but then you run into all the problems described in this thread with it being nearly impossible to miss a man sized target that's standing two feet away from you, even if you are completely untrained, let alone an experienced fighter.

The reasoning I describe does away with that problem, and seems to fit the rest of the mechanics.

I wouldn't use a separate defensive stance mechanic because unless you are completely obvlivious, everyone takes up a defensive stance in a fight, even if it's just to put your fists up.

Of course, as with all RPGs, what's important is what lends the right level of verisimilitude for you.

It also depends on what type of game you are running. The wild swinging model tends to result in more humorous combats as players describe tripping over invisible cats or come up with other explanations to explain why they missed hitting the guy standing right in front of them for the third time in a row.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

It's also down to whether or not it's necessary to get an opening in the opponent's stance in any given situation. In a classical one-on-one combat then yes. If there are more than 2 combatants it can be a very different story.

 

[atgxtg]

The problem with this thinking is the same problem with the thinking that others have in this thread concerning how difficult it is to "miss" a human size target. That problem is the assumption that a missed attack actually means you took a swing and missed.

It's more likely that what actually happened is that you never found an opening to attack. You weren't skilled enough to find an opening in your opponents stance so you never took a swing.

That is exactly what was considered in RQ in the past. There is an example of combat where a character misses and they go into things like-maybe he didn't find an opeing, maybe he was still recovering from the last flurry orf blows, maybe he feinted, maybe he got choaked up and didn't swing, and maybe he actually did miss.

After spending some time fighting with a sword, I can say that yes it is harder to hit someone with a sword that you thing, and yes you can miss. FOr one thing, people are not just standing still and trading blows,if that were the case everyone would be at 99% or so. But in combat both fighters are maneivering like mad. Half of the "attacks" yopu make are not expected to hit, but to keep someone from getting into a postion to made a good attack against you. One problem is that in order to make an attack on someone else, you sort of have to open yourself up for an attack. COPRS handles that well. A good way to respenet that in MRQ woulds be if you had to break up and assign your weapon skill between attack an ddefense, or if you subtracted you attack skill form your dodge.

Basically, the best way not to get hit is to not make attacks. JUst sit back and wait for the the guy to screw up and expolit the weakness.

 

[Vadrus]

After spending some time fighting with a sword, I can say that yes it is harder to hit someone with a sword that you thing, and yes you can miss. FOr one thing, people are not just standing still and trading blows.

Wouldn't that be classed as them dodging then? i.e. moving to keep away from your weapon.


Vadrus