MRQ and character survivability

[Scut Farkas]

I think the rules work well. Saying that, I never played the previous editions of RuneQuest. A flintlock shot to the chest knocking your character unconcious may seem unrealistic, but let's not forget that player characters (and the villains, for that matter) are more like grittier epic heroes as opposed to the run-of-the-mill people found all over the game world. So one shot in the chest doesn't kill them but incapacitates them - what's so bad about that? Realistic or not, the fact still remains - one more shot and they're goners. I just think it's a bunch of whining over nothing is all. I get that people that have played RuneQuest since it was written on stone tablets don't like change, particularly some of the changes Mongoose have made. But from an outsider coming from games like D&D, Rolemaster, etc, it's a breath of fresh air and I still commend them for putting together a great game. It has its issues (I, for one, am a little miffed that I've paid out 50 or so bucks for the Player's Book and the Monsters book and now there is a RuneQuest Deluxe book which has both of these PLUS the Companion for more like 35 or 40!), rule problems, etc, but overall they've still got the heart of the RuneQuest flavor from what I can see and still have a very lethal system compared to the competition out there. Just my two cents.

 

[atgxtg]

Judas,


Since you never seen/played the eairler editions, what can you base your judgement on?

The argument that the character larger than life heroes is flawed. That was always D&D'Ss approach, and the justification for the 4d6 drop the lowest for stats. One thing that was neat about RQ was that character usually started off not as larger than life heroes but as fresh off the farm " hero wannabes". A good deal of the charm of the game was seeing a character grow and evolve from Joe Average into a hero. In fact, that was what the rune levels and heroquesting was all about.

The "once shot unconscious" bit IS fairly realistic. Despite what you see in the movies, most bullet hits are not instant fatalities. But with the way MRQ works, neither the unconsciousness nor the "one shot and they are goners" statement is accurate. Resilience rolls make a big difference.


As for Mongoose keeping the "heart" of the RQ system, since you haven't played previous editions, how would you know? Without any familiarity with the old RQ, how can you tell what it's "heart" was?

It's like making a taste test comparision and proclaiming a winner after trying one item.

It amazes me how some people just write off the complaints as useless whining regardless of how much the game has been changed due to those complaints. Even more since most of the changes were made to fix problems that were created by Mongoose's changes.

 

[zozotroll]

I am not complaining that a shot to the chest is not incapaciting, I am complaining that Critical to the chest may be shruged off with no more than the loss of 1 combat action.

I agree that one shot stops are rare, but they do happen, and that is what crits are suposed to represent.

I can and have fixed this in my game. But at a certain point, I get tired of fixing things that should not need it in the first place.

 

[zozotroll]

On further inspection, the Fat Merchant from the pirates book, can take a crit from a pistol, with no ill effects.

Not a hero, or an exceptional person, but a FAT merchant can take a crit and not miss a beat.

 

[CthulhuFnord]

How fat are we talking?

 

[zozotroll]

Not sure, it doesnt say. Aperently, bulletproof fat.

 

[Halfbat]

Not sure, it doesnt say. Aperently, bulletproof fat.

More pizza! :lol:

 

[Scut Farkas]

atgxtg,

You make valid points. However, the "heart" of the game IS there. I suppose the better word to use would be "spirit" of the game, if that's not going too far as well. Not having played it doesn't mean not having checked it out. Not having played it means I'm not totally familiar with the rules and I am aware that plenty have changed (as they always do when passed from one publisher to the next - plenty complained when Avalon Hill took it over as well). In other words, it's not like Mongoose RuneQuest fell out of the sky onto my head and I'd never heard of the game before then - I just don't know the old rules intimately because I never actually played them. (I won't go into how many RPGs I have on my bookshelf that I never played or ran - I collect more than I actually get time to play). Nonetheless, I am fairly familiar with Chaosium and their BRP style, having been gaming since the very early 80s. I realize that characters started at almost nothing and rose from the ranks to be heroes. I also know how much RuneQuesters malign D&D in spite of its prominence. To me, they ARE a cut above, which is what keeps the rest of the world of NPCs from all being heroes just like you. That's probably the old AD&D guy talking, though. Yes, it takes away from the total randomness of the game (I read recently someone's post that said his Runelord was killed by a peasant with a wooden pitchfork, which humbled him), but I don't think it kills the flavor of the old game. I also remember hearing people complain about previous editions because of the fact that the characters started out weak and were killed at the bat of a lash. I guess it takes all kinds and we like what we like. I understand where you're coming from, anyway. I felt the same way when Wizards of the Coast took over D&D. At first I was happy to hear that someone was moving to a new edition. Once I got that new edition, though, I was a bit horrified at the result. To many, it was a godsend because it made characters more flexible. To me, though, it took away from the importance of each character class (since they originally were the absolute and final when it came to doing what they do). So, I humbly back away and apologize for calling it whining over nothing - not having been a RuneQuest player since its inception, it's not really my place to make such a bold statement. One last thing, though - I've watched a lot of games change between publishers and plenty disappear altogether because no one picked up the torch. At least Mongoose did pick up the torch, even if they dropped it a few times along the way.

zozotroll,

lol about the fat man. I saw an episode of Cops once that featured a really fat guy who had been shot in a driveby or something with a .22 pistol. It hit him in the leg and, no kidding, literally bounced off him. All it did was bruise him! I was amazed. I know .22s aren't powerful, but you'd think it would have at least done better than that. He was wearing long pants, but that's not really the point - it's still a bullet, however small. At any rate, I get what you're saying about the crits. It's made me move toward rolling damage twice before adding the damage bonus (another D&D concept I guess I'm carrying over), rather than just using max damage. I agree that the crit system is not as impressive as it should be, given the lethality of previous editions.

 

[zozotroll]

Actualy, under the old rules, hitting an unarmored target got double damage, or ignored armor if they had it.

Just imagine getting a D puncture crit, rolling a 99, and no major harm done, say a -10%, not even stuned unable to parry. It is not a change, it is a huge departure.

And it is not even the pocket pistols. It is a full heavy pisatol that does this.

And a musket cant kill the same fat guy on a crit. A .75 brownbess to the chest from 10', and the best you can do is a KO. A lot of highlanders, Americans and French infantry can attest that simply is not true.

 

[Scut Farkas]

No, you're right. A musket from 10' away, particularly to the abdomen, should be (historically) lethal. It's not just the piercing to take into account, but such weapons usually mangled the innards as well. No amount of fat was going to change that.

 

[atgxtg]

Not sure, it doesnt say. Aperently, bulletproof fat.

That was such an awesome post. I think I just been Illuminated...

 

[atgxtg]

Judas,

Okay, I can accept your position as long as you have some familiarity with previous editions of RQ to make your comparison. I don't agree, but I can accept it.

As regard to the lethality of a musket hit. Well, it is historically, almost impossible to kill someone outright with a musket, spear, sword, pistol, etc. It's very easy to inflict an life threatening injury that could eventually prove fatal. The vast majority of people who die in battle do so after the battle is over.

Police training includes a warning about shooting an attacker who is wielding a weapon like a knife. Even if you inflict a mortal wound, they might still be up long enough to stab you a couple of times.

The "bang your dead" thing is more hollywood than history.

 

[Scut Farkas]

No, it's true that musket wounds were a slow death (as many abdominal wounds can be), but they nevertheless largely resulted in death (over 80% mortality rate from abdominal wounds in the American Civil War, for instance). Splitting hairs on how long that took aside, RuneQuest doesn't currently have a good mechanic for bleeding per round (such as Rolemaster had in their crit tables), nor for infections and whatnot, so a -10% result is a bit silly. As far as warnings concerning shooting people with knives and somesuch, that has more to do with the fact that the average gun owner is not skilled with the weapon. The rated stopping power of a given round can be taken to the bank and a .45 hollow point in your chest is going to put you on the floor unless you're hopped up on PCP, which I am assuming this fat pirate guy isn't.

 

[atgxtg]

No, it's true that musket wounds were a slow death (as many abdominal wounds can be), but they nevertheless largely resulted in death (over 80% mortality rate from abdominal wounds in the American Civil War, for instance). Splitting hairs on how long that took aside, RuneQuest doesn't currently have a good mechanic for bleeding per round (such as Rolemaster had in their crit tables), nor for infections and whatnot, so a -10% result is a bit silly. As far as warnings concerning shooting people with knives and somesuch, that has more to do with the fact that the average gun owner is not skilled with the weapon. The rated stopping power of a given round can be taken to the bank and a .45 hollow point in your chest is going to put you on the floor unless you're hopped up on PCP, which I am assuming this fat pirate guy isn't.

Judas, the 80% mortiality rate wasn't due so much to the lethailty of the musekt, but to the relatively poor state of medicine and hygene. Keep in mind, most treament for musket hits involved amputation, a procedure that also had a high mortaility rate. Infection was a major cause of death. If decent medical aid, mundane or magical, is available, the mortaility rate drops considerably. Compare the mortality rate from the civil war to that of today. Modern weapons are just as lethal, usually more so, but we have more survivors, thanks to higher medical care.

THe warning wasn't for average gun owners, but for trained police officers. In the real world when you shot someone, they probably can be up and f8unctioning long enough to stab you a couple of times. The guy migh bleed to death in a minute or two, but that is sort of academic if you are doing the same.

In a real firefight, there is something called adrenlanine dump. Even skilled marskmen will find themselves shaking, and it become very difficult to shoot straight. Especially when you senses are telling you to "Shoot NOW!!!". Consider that most real firefights taken place at a distance of about 20 feet, and that only about 15-20% of the bullets hit the target.

I wouldn't take your .45 stopping power to the bank. For starters, there is a LOT of controversy over Stopping %. There are several differernt formulas and none of them really match up well to real world data. There are plenty of cases where people have been shot mutliple times with .45 bullets (and others) and still walked away. Shot placement and the attitude/willpower of the target are probably the two most important factors. Unless you can do enough tramuma to sever the spinal cord, there is no guanrentee that the target will drop.

 

[Puck]

Another factor, at least as I understand it, is that with muskets and early rifles the velocity was much slower and the ball was bigger. This would cause bones to shatter and fragment more like they were hit with a blunt weapon making a very complicated wound hence all the amputations to prevent infection. Apparently, also the slower ball would push bits of skin and even clothing into the wound which would almost always cause later infection. Immediate magical healing could prevent a lot of this stuff.

 

[Halfbat]

Some good points from atgxtg I think...

In a real firefight, there is something called adrenlanine dump. Even skilled marskmen will find themselves shaking, and it become very difficult to shoot straight. Especially when you senses are telling you to "Shoot NOW!!!".

And this can even happen in normal competition conditions, never mind under fire. Most hyper-advanced sports training in shooting/archery that I've seen is not so much about the finer details of technique (though some does come into it) but is much more about mental attitude geared to managing/controlling these side-effects.

Consider that most real firefights taken place at a distance of about 20 feet, and that only about 15-20% of the bullets hit the target.

I didn't realise it was so high (the 15-20%) - I though it was much less. And it's worth remembering that this is despite the theoretical optimum infantry engagement range of some modern armies (about 600-800m iirc in some forces).

 

[atgxtg]

Yeah, the big show musket balls were more efficient at transferring their energy to the target. One problem with modern high velocity rounds is that they can over penetrate, going right through the target, and doing relatively little damage.

Of course, accuracy was never a musket's strong point. That's why they were used for volley fire. A ball is not very stable.


Halfbat,

Yep, competition shooting CAN kick in the nerves. But, there is something special about when the target is shooting back. One RPG that I like, used to double the combat score when used in "low-stress" conditions. I recall having to explain that to a player, who wondered why his skill with a bow was so low.*

"That's your chance to hit if the deer are shooting back, or if you are facing down a charging rhino.."

"Oh. But deer don't shoot back, and there ae no Rhinos in North America."


"True. In that case you get to double your skill."


In real life, as opposed to RPGs, the combatants are usually worried about getting killed, so they often take poor or rushed shots. Often, men will shoot blind, just to keep the enemy from setting up for some good shots.


As for RPG/MRQ terms, believe it or not, most melee weapons are about as lethal as most handguns. People tended to think that guns are deadlier, but that is mostly due to what they see in films or in RPGs. Thy "know" that guns kill, and that "knives/swords/etc." hurt, but take a few whacks to drop you. Not true. A person is probably morel likely to bleed to death from a sword or axe cut then from a bullet hit.

The advantage of firearms is a easier learning curve, and that it takes very little skill to use them effectively. Unlike melee weapons, the relative skill of the combatants isn't very important.


All that said, something like the old bleeding rules would be a nice addition. Even something simple like loose a HP in that location each d10 minutes until treated.

 

[hdrider67]

Doesn't page 55 explain the death from bleeding? If you get a major wound and aren't able to be brought to 1HP, you die from bloodloss in either STR+CON rounds or STR+CON/2 rounds, depending on hit location.

It's not 1HP/d10 rounds but you're still dead.

That said, yeah RQ3 was MUCH more deadly. Half the HP and 0 was dead (if I remember right) That's about four times as deadly as MRQ.

I'm not complaining, though. MRQ is still more dangerous to characters than D20.

 

[atgxtg]

That said, yeah RQ3 was MUCH more deadly. Half the HP and 0 was dead (if I remember right) That's about four times as deadly as MRQ.

I'm not complaining, though. MRQ is still more dangerous to characters than D20.

Most Rpgs are more danagerous than D20. I can't think of any other system (except for Superhero RPGs where there is a reason) that a typical PC can soak a few .50 caliber hits and still keep on chugging away. D20 is like fighting with weapons made by NERF.

 

[Scut Farkas]

Wow, been away for a while and this board has lit up! I look at firearms this way - based on statistics from 1997, a little over 50% of all firearm related injuries proved fatal. OF ALL. That includes the stupid injuries such as shooting oneself in the foot, etc. I don't know the actual statistics of how many of those were attempted murders or firefights, but I'm betting the percentage would rise if one could sort it that closely. Of those statistics there were none available (in my class anyway) for whether or not the injured parties who did not die continued moving before being taken to the hospital. There again, for the point of stopping someone with a bullet, I'm betting the percentage was fairly high.

The point is simple and you can argue it into the ground all you want - a musket shot to the abdomen from 10 feet way is going to impose more than a -10% pentalty to actions and, in fact, is highly likely (we'll not say 100%) to make you go prone and stay there.

If you don't believe that, feel free to stand 10 feet in front of me and let me shoot you in the abdomen with one. See if you stay on YOUR feet, let alone keep coming at me with your actions only limited by 10% of your abilities.

Somehow I missed the bit about police training. However, bear in mind that police deal, quite often, with people on substances, which can change whether or not someone realizes they've been shot in the first place (the psychological side of being shot comes into play as to whether or not you stop or even fall to the ground - at the very least, if you don't feel the pain of the shot you are less likely to stop right away, provided a vital organ has not been hit).

So for further clarification, the odd instance of someone taking multiple shots and still coming at you (that is the exception and not the norm) aside, the stopping power of a bullet is pretty significant - whatever formula you choose to rely upon.

Getting back to the original point of all this - we have a pirate, who the poster does not say is so liquored to the gills that he can't feel pain, who is shot in the abdomen by a flintlock from 10 feet away. The shot is not necessarily lethal in and of itself, but he is highly likely to be immobilized for several rounds of time and will bleed a right significant amount. He doesn't have the benefit of modern medicine, and the poster didn't say there was someone standing over him with a healing spell in waiting. Therefor we are only dealing with the basic effects of a shot to the abdomen which, even at the low velocity of a flintlock, is going to hurt like hell from 10 feet away and is most probably going to strike with enough force to send him prone for more than even 1d4 combat actions.

It's great that we can spout statistics and whatnot, but there is a point where it just gets silly.