Morgan d'Barganfore
Mongoose
I'm hoping someone with more experience than I can expand/clarify..
Moving again (and again (and again...))
- Thread starter Deleriad
- Start date
Well, it goes on, and on, and on, and, well you get the idea.
Suffice it to say there are 2 distinct trains of thought here IMO, those that use battlemats and grids and those that don't.
Personally, I've played both ways - battlemats with D&D v3.0 and above and no battlemats or miniatures with D&D 2nd ED. I prefer using battlemats for 2 reasons:
Generic rules should be able to handle both types of play with no confusion, otherwise they aren't really generic. Just my 2-bobs worth.
Suffice it to say there are 2 distinct trains of thought here IMO, those that use battlemats and grids and those that don't.
Personally, I've played both ways - battlemats with D&D v3.0 and above and no battlemats or miniatures with D&D 2nd ED. I prefer using battlemats for 2 reasons:
1. The visual/spacial aspect. This simply helps reinforce the verbal description creating a more complete 'picture'. Everyone can 'see' exactly where they are in relation to their surroundings and everyone else.
2. The much, and IMO, unjustly, maligned tactical element they bring to combat. You have to really think about your tactical options. That Orc protecting the sorcerer becomes a serious problem, not just an abstract exercise in avoidance (which kind of reminds me of runners running off the line in Baseball to avoid a tag).
Generic rules should be able to handle both types of play with no confusion, otherwise they aren't really generic. Just my 2-bobs worth.
Morgan d'Barganfore
Mongoose
Ok, understand and thanks.
Yes, I agree , the tactical element (from the mat) is the real key to a lot of our major encounters.
It's the clarification in this context that is important.
Yes, I agree , the tactical element (from the mat) is the real key to a lot of our major encounters.
It's the clarification in this context that is important.
Morgan d'Barganfore said:
I think the main 'problems' with movement come from us who prefer to use a battlemat. The current RAW, clearly, are not designed for this type of gaming which is a bit of a shame, but by the same token, it shouldn't be as difficult as has been made out to allow for it.
In our games and we're all ex-d&d, we haven't encountered anywhere near the confusion some have. I'm not saying we're brilliant or anything, just that we use the movement rules in a way that makes sense to us and still fit's RAW. It could be simply that some of the posters are, and I hate to use this term because it sounds so condescending and I don't mean it to be, 'overthinking' movement rather than just playing and working it out as you go, which is pretty much what we did.
On the battlemat we use a scale of 1 sq = 1 mtr. We don't treat diagonals any differently, so 3 squares diagonally is 3 mtrs unlike D&D 3.x which would have it 4 mtrs (I know technically it would be 20ft for the purists but we're talking RQ movement after all). On your CA you can move however you like but if you move your full movement in 1 CA that's all you do that CA and you can't move anymore that round except to evade. Once your total movement is moved, you can't move anymore that round. That's it. RAW.
Charging is the same, your opponent must be within reach of your charge movement (40mtrs - Armour Penalty) and you attack on your last CA for the round or the appropriate CA in the following round if you declare your charge on a CA other than your first - in other words if you have 3 CA your charge takes 3 CA, so if you begin it on your 2nd CA of the round it finishes on your 1st CA of the next round. This assumes you haven't already moved this round, if you have you can't charge because you would be exceeding you movement allowances.
As far as the 'recipient' of your charge is concerned, if they are aware of you charging and are otherwise not engaged, they may take whatever reasonable steps they like to prepare for your charge on their respective CA's - this tends to move away from RAW a little depending on what they want to do, but hey, the main thing here is what is reasonable in a given situation. If I have 3 actions I can perform and some Neanderthal with a big sword is frothing at the mouth wanting to take me apart limb-by-limb and sprinting in my direction, I'm going to make productive use of those actions to make his life decidedly uncomfortable.
If I'm unaware he's running at me, well I'm unaware and can't really do much, can I? Or if I'm currently battling someone that wants to use me for butchery practice or a pin cushion, I'm going to be focusing my efforts on stopping them from hurting me, either by defensive or offensive actions and most likely a combination of both.
That's it. My take on movement. It may not be 100% correct RAW. But it works for us. A little, and I mean a little, 'official' clarification wouldn't hurt though. We have to remember this is a game and it's meant to be fun - not a mathematical exercise in abstract geometry or whatever, nor is it intended to replicate real life 100%.
HalfOrc HalfBiscuit
Mongoose
DamonJynx said:
Well each to his own, obviously. But, based on my experience with wargames and RPGs, I honestly believe that both these advantages can just as easily be recreated using figures on an ungridded surface. Which then adds the further advantage of not just thinking in little squares.
Again, I understand fully the desire to have a ruleset that fully meets one's own preferences (and I'm lucky because MRQII/Legend as written pretty much does that as far as I'm concerned), but I don't think you can realistically expect a ruleset properly to support multiple styles of play. And if you choose to use a set of rules in a way that isn't fully supported (and that it doesn't purport to support), then you've got to expect to make modifications.
I don't think any claim to being "generic" - which to my mind is about a ruleset being usable in different genres and settings - implies that a ruleset necessarily supports different playstyles.
We use a combo of miniatures and abstract movement, so it's kinda a somewhere in between the two extremes, I guess. I am not too fussy about movement, but we like to use minis to show positions etc.
I think the way I proposed movement to be used would solve many problems related to how movement and SRs work. So if you have just single mode of movement, ie. Move CA of 8 (or whatever your base move is) and you can take this as many times as you have SRs in a round, you solve most of the issues related to charging a long distance, the opponent reacting to your charge etc, as it divides movement evenly according to your SRs. You don't have to use your movement in a single 'lump' at one SR in a round, and you can more easily tell where you PC is at any given time, and the PCs can react to changing situations etc. To me, it just fits better with rules this way. So I drop the whole charging/sprinting thingy: if you use two or more CAs for movement in a round, you're effective running, and forfeiting at least part of of your actions for movement, but not necessarily all of them, which in my book is more realistic and flexible.
I haven't yet decided whether to apply armour penalty to all moves, or just those that exceed your basic move, might be more simple to apply it to all movement? But I could also rule that you apply it to all those SRs beyond the first one.
For what it's worth, I think it's a serious flaw in rules design if a set of rules only supports one way of playing (abstract). But I am not entirely convinced this is the case here.
I think the way I proposed movement to be used would solve many problems related to how movement and SRs work. So if you have just single mode of movement, ie. Move CA of 8 (or whatever your base move is) and you can take this as many times as you have SRs in a round, you solve most of the issues related to charging a long distance, the opponent reacting to your charge etc, as it divides movement evenly according to your SRs. You don't have to use your movement in a single 'lump' at one SR in a round, and you can more easily tell where you PC is at any given time, and the PCs can react to changing situations etc. To me, it just fits better with rules this way. So I drop the whole charging/sprinting thingy: if you use two or more CAs for movement in a round, you're effective running, and forfeiting at least part of of your actions for movement, but not necessarily all of them, which in my book is more realistic and flexible.
I haven't yet decided whether to apply armour penalty to all moves, or just those that exceed your basic move, might be more simple to apply it to all movement? But I could also rule that you apply it to all those SRs beyond the first one.
For what it's worth, I think it's a serious flaw in rules design if a set of rules only supports one way of playing (abstract). But I am not entirely convinced this is the case here.
Deleriad
Mongoose
I do think there are two different issues here.
1 Is that the rules simply aren't very clear. I was in the last round of playtesting and it turns out that I didn't understand the rules.
2 The system itself is actually very simple and does work just as well for grids as for abstract. It may however be too simple.
The complete rules are:
A character can move up to their normal MOV rating without needing to spend any CAs. If a character wants to move more than that, it has to spend all of its CAs. If a character's MOV is 8m, then it can move up to 8m during the round split among whatever CAs it wishes. If it wishes to move 9m or more then it must run and spend all its CAs running.
It's really simple. If your character wishes to move 7m then attack, it can do so. Means it has 1m of movement left for the rest of the round. If it wishes to move 9m or more then it either has to split it over multiple rounds or has to charge, which will use all its CAs.
The problem with this is that there is a huge and counter-intuitive breakpoint where 8m is free but 9m costs you everything. There are also a variable number of Strike Rank "cycles" in a round. One round everyone might have used all their actions by the end of the first cycle. In another round it might take 3 or 4 cycles to finish. If someone is running/charging, you can't easily write rules as to when it culminates. For this reason I experimented with "action-based movement" (you can move X/Y/Z metres per combat action). That's all well and good but it throws up different oddities not the least of which is that a person who is STR 10, INT 15, DEX 10 ends up running faster than someone STR 15, INT 10, DEX 13.
My current campaign is off-season at the moment but when it restarts I'm likely to make the following tweaks to RAW.
1) If you want to move and act you can't move more than half your MOV. (e.g. you could move 4m and attack).
2) You can use the MOVE action if you want to move more than half your MOV in a single go (but of course you cannot combine this with another action).
3) If you succeed at an Athletics test then a MOVE action only costs half its normal amount of movement. E.g. Want to move 7m to take cover behind a rock. Make an athletics test and it only costs you 4m of movement.
4) No change to running.
1 Is that the rules simply aren't very clear. I was in the last round of playtesting and it turns out that I didn't understand the rules.
2 The system itself is actually very simple and does work just as well for grids as for abstract. It may however be too simple.
The complete rules are:
A character can move up to their normal MOV rating without needing to spend any CAs. If a character wants to move more than that, it has to spend all of its CAs. If a character's MOV is 8m, then it can move up to 8m during the round split among whatever CAs it wishes. If it wishes to move 9m or more then it must run and spend all its CAs running.
It's really simple. If your character wishes to move 7m then attack, it can do so. Means it has 1m of movement left for the rest of the round. If it wishes to move 9m or more then it either has to split it over multiple rounds or has to charge, which will use all its CAs.
The problem with this is that there is a huge and counter-intuitive breakpoint where 8m is free but 9m costs you everything. There are also a variable number of Strike Rank "cycles" in a round. One round everyone might have used all their actions by the end of the first cycle. In another round it might take 3 or 4 cycles to finish. If someone is running/charging, you can't easily write rules as to when it culminates. For this reason I experimented with "action-based movement" (you can move X/Y/Z metres per combat action). That's all well and good but it throws up different oddities not the least of which is that a person who is STR 10, INT 15, DEX 10 ends up running faster than someone STR 15, INT 10, DEX 13.
My current campaign is off-season at the moment but when it restarts I'm likely to make the following tweaks to RAW.
1) If you want to move and act you can't move more than half your MOV. (e.g. you could move 4m and attack).
2) You can use the MOVE action if you want to move more than half your MOV in a single go (but of course you cannot combine this with another action).
3) If you succeed at an Athletics test then a MOVE action only costs half its normal amount of movement. E.g. Want to move 7m to take cover behind a rock. Make an athletics test and it only costs you 4m of movement.
4) No change to running.
Deleriad;
That is quite good. In fact, I just proposed almost the exact same thing to my players at our game yesterday! I DID make a couple of small additions;
1) You can Charge, which is moving more than half your Movement Rate, up to your Max Move and Attack...but you cannot Defend until your Strike Rank comes around again. You are running and swinging all-out to close the distance and get the Strength Bonus...but at the cost of defense. I am also suggesting that we limit the Charge to the First CA Only in a round.
2) When you Run, you move up to 5 times your Movement Rate, but also cannot defend yourself...you are too intent on moving all out, and cannot see the folks behind you (I don't have my book on me, but that may be RAW anywho).
TGryph
That is quite good. In fact, I just proposed almost the exact same thing to my players at our game yesterday! I DID make a couple of small additions;
1) You can Charge, which is moving more than half your Movement Rate, up to your Max Move and Attack...but you cannot Defend until your Strike Rank comes around again. You are running and swinging all-out to close the distance and get the Strength Bonus...but at the cost of defense. I am also suggesting that we limit the Charge to the First CA Only in a round.
2) When you Run, you move up to 5 times your Movement Rate, but also cannot defend yourself...you are too intent on moving all out, and cannot see the folks behind you (I don't have my book on me, but that may be RAW anywho).
TGryph
Morgan d'Barganfore
Mongoose
I think it's easy to overlook the "up to" 8m and "up to" 5xmovement-AP.
Somewhere there's a quote from Loz citing 40m charge/run (with no armour penalty) would take all 3 CAs but 20m charge or run only CAs, which does support this.
Might be pedantic, but if required I'd use RAW as follows, in its simplest form:
Assuming 3 CAs and 8m base move:
1) can move, e.g. 2m and do something e.g. ready weapon
[uses 1 CA, leaves 75% movement left]
2) can move, e.g. 2m to close to foe and do something, e.g, hit foe
[uses 1 CA, leaves 50% movement left, assume foe drops, and no parry required]
3) can move 4 m to close to 2nd foe and do something, e.g. hit 2nd foe
[uses 1 CA, leaves nil movement]
Assuming we agree the above is possible, then I'd extend this to charging as follows:
1) As above [uses 1 CA, leaves 75% movement left]
2) can charge 10m {2m x5} to foe and hit foe
[uses 1 CA, leaves 50% movement left, assume foe drops, and no parry required]
3) can charge 20m {4m x5} to foe and hit foe
[uses 1 CA, leaves nil movement]
I'd make each base move automatic, no check required, but athletics check for a charge or run.
Somewhere there's a quote from Loz citing 40m charge/run (with no armour penalty) would take all 3 CAs but 20m charge or run only CAs, which does support this.
Might be pedantic, but if required I'd use RAW as follows, in its simplest form:
Assuming 3 CAs and 8m base move:
1) can move, e.g. 2m and do something e.g. ready weapon
[uses 1 CA, leaves 75% movement left]
2) can move, e.g. 2m to close to foe and do something, e.g, hit foe
[uses 1 CA, leaves 50% movement left, assume foe drops, and no parry required]
3) can move 4 m to close to 2nd foe and do something, e.g. hit 2nd foe
[uses 1 CA, leaves nil movement]
Assuming we agree the above is possible, then I'd extend this to charging as follows:
1) As above [uses 1 CA, leaves 75% movement left]
2) can charge 10m {2m x5} to foe and hit foe
[uses 1 CA, leaves 50% movement left, assume foe drops, and no parry required]
3) can charge 20m {4m x5} to foe and hit foe
[uses 1 CA, leaves nil movement]
I'd make each base move automatic, no check required, but athletics check for a charge or run.
Morgan d'Barganfore said:
It is in a "common" interpretation of RAW.
Morgan d'Barganfore said:
Splitting movement in this manner doesn't take into account that a combat round is 5 seconds which is something I think is often overlooked in movement discussions. Therefore, spread evenly over the round, each CA (3) takes 1.667 seconds. If you were to try moving as you suggest, I think you'd find it takes considerably longer than 5 seconds.
This is the reason why charging and sprinting are considered to take all of your CA's for a round, it takes that long for you to build momentum. Usain Bolt runs 100mtrs in a little under 10 seconds, so 50mtrs in 5 seconds. He is not readying a weapon or decapitating someone as he rushes by. We're talking about someone who is trained to run using every advantage of modern training and sports science, not a medieval or earlier warrior, in armour, in the heat of a battle, fighting for his life.
Morgan d'Barganfore said:
If you decide to implement your house rules for movement, a fatigue test at the end of the action would be, IMO, more realistic (if you use the fatigue rules).
I thought it was established some pages ago that charge does NOT take all your actions (except in horse/fly-by charge)?
This is one of the reasons I feel increasingly frustrated about discussing this matter: 1) people can't seem to agree on how to interpret RAW, 2) people cant' seem to agree on which forum explanations/additions to this rule are to be taken as RAW, and 3) people all seem to be using their own houserules/interpretations and regard them pretty much as RAW. Me included, of course. We need a frickin consensus on RAW, folks. And it needs to be stickied on this forum. Either by Mongoose or by us, I don't care.
As to the Usain example, I still prefer my houserule which does away with running completely (in a sense). You have the Move and the Charge CAs, both of which can be taken multiple times in a round, provided you have the CA and space to do so. If you use multiple Moves, you are in effect running and can also react to combat events assuming you hava the CA to do so. So if you have armour and max of 3 CA usable for movement (shields etc. dont' give you movement related CA), the max you could run is 3 times 8 minus your armour penalty. so a max of 24 meters in 5 seconds. Seems reasonable? Then you could have a new CA called Sprint which woul use the normal sprint rules, ie. 5 times 8 minus armour penalty. The difference between running and sprinting, in addition to the difference in distance, would be that you can't move into combat with sprinting, you need to remain disengaged all the way. With using normal Move CA, you can move into combat , but not attack on that CA. For that you'd need charge. Also, if you take Attack CA, you can move up to 2 meters (1/4 of you move rounded up). To recap:
Attack = move up to 2m and hit, 1 CA
Move = Move up to 8m, 1 CA
Charge = move up to 8m and hit with +damage bonus, 1 CA*
Sprint = move max movement rate 5 times 8m etc. Uses all CAs
*If one is concerned about lack of momentum, you could rule that the previous CA has to be Move or that charge takes you two/all CAs. But I don't like this latter solution because it takes movement out of sync with other characters' CA actions.
This is more in keeping with how flexible the combat rules are in general, and does away with the nonsense moving 10 meters eating up all your actions. It will eat up max two but that's it (and possibly allow you to hit too).
But like I said, this is only my houserule, and I am perfectly happy to adopt any SENSIBLE, SIMPLE and ELEGANT variant/official rule, if someone is able to provide that. If not, I guess we all just have cope with it, and come up with various interpretations which work for each of us?
This is one of the reasons I feel increasingly frustrated about discussing this matter: 1) people can't seem to agree on how to interpret RAW, 2) people cant' seem to agree on which forum explanations/additions to this rule are to be taken as RAW, and 3) people all seem to be using their own houserules/interpretations and regard them pretty much as RAW. Me included, of course. We need a frickin consensus on RAW, folks. And it needs to be stickied on this forum. Either by Mongoose or by us, I don't care.
As to the Usain example, I still prefer my houserule which does away with running completely (in a sense). You have the Move and the Charge CAs, both of which can be taken multiple times in a round, provided you have the CA and space to do so. If you use multiple Moves, you are in effect running and can also react to combat events assuming you hava the CA to do so. So if you have armour and max of 3 CA usable for movement (shields etc. dont' give you movement related CA), the max you could run is 3 times 8 minus your armour penalty. so a max of 24 meters in 5 seconds. Seems reasonable? Then you could have a new CA called Sprint which woul use the normal sprint rules, ie. 5 times 8 minus armour penalty. The difference between running and sprinting, in addition to the difference in distance, would be that you can't move into combat with sprinting, you need to remain disengaged all the way. With using normal Move CA, you can move into combat , but not attack on that CA. For that you'd need charge. Also, if you take Attack CA, you can move up to 2 meters (1/4 of you move rounded up). To recap:
Attack = move up to 2m and hit, 1 CA
Move = Move up to 8m, 1 CA
Charge = move up to 8m and hit with +damage bonus, 1 CA*
Sprint = move max movement rate 5 times 8m etc. Uses all CAs
*If one is concerned about lack of momentum, you could rule that the previous CA has to be Move or that charge takes you two/all CAs. But I don't like this latter solution because it takes movement out of sync with other characters' CA actions.
This is more in keeping with how flexible the combat rules are in general, and does away with the nonsense moving 10 meters eating up all your actions. It will eat up max two but that's it (and possibly allow you to hit too).
But like I said, this is only my houserule, and I am perfectly happy to adopt any SENSIBLE, SIMPLE and ELEGANT variant/official rule, if someone is able to provide that. If not, I guess we all just have cope with it, and come up with various interpretations which work for each of us?
I agree. Does anyone have an issue with this interpretation? Unless someone makes a convincing case that anyone actually loses combat actions, I'm going to post this as a clarification on the wiki.Verderer said:
Matt, or anyone from the 'goose, who is going to be revising the text, and are they taking notice of the amount of confusion around this subject?
Deleriad said:
Where's your sense of commitment?
I appreciate work/family life impacts heavily on gaming time, I know mine does.
While I don't necessarily agree with every post of yours I've read, they are thoughtful and insightful and show a good understanding of both the actual and intended application of the rules. To have you involved in some manner could only be beneficial to the finished product.
RosenMcStern
Mongoose
DamonJynx said:
Interestingly, both of us took part in the playtesting of RQ II. However, I discussed this point with Loz a couple weeks ago in Germany, and the usual policy for Mongoose is doing the editing in-house. I doubt this will change for Legend, as there is no real need to re-write the rules. They have just to change the examples and write a couple of clarifications about Sorcery and movement. Any other changes would require additional playtesting.
Deleriad
Mongoose
I agree with Mr McStern. There is a bunch of tidying and tweaking that can and should be done but I think the system is basically rock solid. A really good root & branch editing pass would tighten everything up. It's not a trivial undertaking but doesn't actually require new mechanics.
I came into the original RQII playtest at the end so I didn't have that much input.
As an example of detailed fine tuning.
The civilised background has everyone getting +20% Influence. That doesn't really fit well with most civilised professions (peasants largely) and if you look at later publications, that tends to be fixed.
The +20% for 2H weapons disarming doesn't actually work as intended and needs rewording.
With the exception of an overhaul of the movement explanation, I don't think the book needs more than just that detailed fine tuning.
I came into the original RQII playtest at the end so I didn't have that much input.
As an example of detailed fine tuning.
The civilised background has everyone getting +20% Influence. That doesn't really fit well with most civilised professions (peasants largely) and if you look at later publications, that tends to be fixed.
The +20% for 2H weapons disarming doesn't actually work as intended and needs rewording.
With the exception of an overhaul of the movement explanation, I don't think the book needs more than just that detailed fine tuning.
RosenMcStern said:
Deleriad said:
I know the 'conversion' only needs minimal re-writing, i.e. Glorantha specific material replaced with generic examples and so forth, along with a bit of clarification here and there. It's just that from several posts, here and on other forums, I get the impression that Mongoose's track record for in-house editing isn't all that flash. I was just hoping that the job would be given to people such as yourselves, who are both passionate and knowledgeable re the system and game design in general.
