Second Printing of Runequest...

[Cleombrotus]

I've tried to come up with a combined action/reaction table for RQM using modified results based around the new/old matrices. I'd like to read anyone's opinion of it and any recommended changes, although please offer a reason why, and in terms of the game mechanics, not in terms of so-called historical accuracy...

Also, be warned, it's a JPEG that you can't read (unless you're a Journalspace member) unless you copy and paste it to Word or somesuch. Limitations of my Blog site, I'm afraid...Many Thanks for taking the time to do so, however...

http://runequest.journalspace.com

 

[Halfbat]

I'd like to read anyone's opinion of it and any recommended changes,

Interesting work. It might be an idea to look at the MrQWiki for some decent tables and work done already.

1) I take it you're keeping it to the existing (assumed) non-two-roll rule where the "Attacker Misses"/"Defender Missses" only applies when using the two-roll rule. Otherwise the tables, as is, heavily penalise Dodge and weapon parries (why Dodge and possibly fail when it's better to ignore the attack). At present, I'm not sure though as it seems the tables mix the single-roll and two-roll results.

2) Weapon Attack vs Def Grapple - the attacker should not be able to make a grapple attack if he fails and the Defender criticals. This has got to be a cut/paste error, though (it's v. easily done)!

3) Grapple vs Grapple - Critical in defender's atttack vs failed attackker should not allow a riposte - it should be a straight "critical grapple" for the defender. Again look slike a cut/paste or phrasing error.

4) Not sure what a grapple "riposte" is meant to be. This could be made clear

5) Critical Grapple Attack vs Defender weapon parry or Dodge may be better balanced as a more neutral response such as "fail" - why should a dodge allow a riposte when it only does so otherwise when teh defender is using a weapon?

Hope that helps.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I just don't feel that I can play it yet because I don't want players to acquire habits or expectations that will have to change. More than that, how can I ask them to buy the rules, which I have been doing for months now, when I'm going to have to say to them, "by the way, from that page to that page is all bollocks..?"

And don't quote me the cardinal rule of roleplaying games. I shouldn't have to change it.

Im going to quote you something else:

The game IS playable as it is, out of the book, with no changes.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Thanks for the replies. It's absolutely going to be full of cut/paste errors at the moment. I just wanted it filled out as a starting block with changes going in as they occur to me.

1./ Your point about the better to ignore than dodge and fail is exactly why I put it on the forum, so thankyou.
2./ Grapple riposte is as per the printed rules. I always assumed you got a free attack which could include the defender going straight to a Throw or Inflict painoption due to your assailant making such a pig's ear of his grapple attempt.
3./ The same would seem to be true of any riposte in the face of a failed attack. The whole nature of reaction in these rules even seems to imply, to me, that you could attack as a reaction (it would heavily favour the attacker, obviously), but rather than open that can of worms, I figure that the idea of the riposte meets that reasoning perfectly adequately. It is entirely feasible that when someone 'attacks' you, you pre-empt their attack. We used to call it 'getting your retaliation in first'.

Grapple as a reaction was whimsy (If Arnie can do it in Conan the Barbarian, then my players can try it in my game) as much as anything and it's clearly going to favour the attacker, and I think that Ignore needs to be in there for logic's sake and so you can compare the implications on one table, not that I'm expecting many people to use it unless one of your opponents is blind, prone and on unstable ground. Then you might justifiably ignore their attack...although if you're out of reactions...

Certainly single roll combat, maybe even opposed as per skills, which I think is a good, streamlined rule, despite the high/low roll dichotomy. This will obviously require more work. If you want the MS Word doc to play around with, see my website email address.

I'll be playtesting it wednesday night. It will probably contain some calamitous logic bomb just waiting to go off in my face...

Also, weasel_fierce, I'm sure that ultimately it is playable in either existing form. With reference to my opening thread, I just have the hump with it at the moment. I'll probably calm down.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Also, weasel_fierce, I'm sure that ultimately it is playable in either existing form. With reference to my opening thread, I just have the hump with it at the moment. I'll probably calm down.

Didnt mean to bark at you. I just have a sore spot for people stating things are broken, when they arent. Sorry if I came across as a butt

If you happen to be in Oregon some day, I'll buy you a beer

 

[Cleombrotus]

No worries Weasel, didn't take it personally, although I'll hold you to that beer.

Otherwise the tables, as is, heavily penalise Dodge and weapon parries (why Dodge and possibly fail when it's better to ignore the attack).

Halfbat: You're totally right about the imbalance. I like the slightly harsher implications for failed dodge or weapon parry (as opposed to shield), and I think that the consequences for ignoring an attack which then succeeds should be greater, so I'll redress the balance that way. Thus if you ignore an attack which then goes on to hit you for a normal success, it becomes a critical. Seems logical to me. I always envisioned the ignore response as forced upon a character by lack of reactions rather than as bravado.
This has big implications for being outnumbered or out of reactions, but then I like that, too. Moral of this tale: Carry a big shield.

 

[durulz]

I don't agree with the idea that if you ignore an attack (due to lack of reactions) a normal hit is bumped up to a critical. 'Ignoring' (a misnomer, surely) an attack due to lack of reactions is not quite the same as just standing there like a lamp-post, come what may. Combat would be (is) very frenetic with lots of movement. The victim of such an attack is hardly 'ignoring' it, they just can't move quick enough to make an active attempt to stop the blow. But they are still moving. The advantage the attacker gets is that the defender will not be making a parry/dodge roll.
If someone, who still has reactions left, self-consciously says, 'sod it, I'll ignore it', then you may be on better ground. But that said, there is still the +20% to hit modifier - so the attacker is getting an advantage there. Are you suggesting the attacker gets TWO benefits (plus bonus to hit and a normal success getting upped to a critical)?
Sound like you are making it all more complex, by including exceptions here, an alternative there. I'm all in for a rule change, but not if it makes it more complex. Keep it simple.

 

[Cleombrotus]

'Ignoring' (a misnomer, surely)

Absolutely. More like "Unable/Unwilling to react". If you can come up with a better, equally simple word, I'm game.

The advantage the attacker gets is that the defender will not be making a parry/dodge roll

This is already reflected in the table - 'Ignore' is a single defender option and has no levels of success. Ignore is just there so that every combat outcome is on one table.

there is still the +20% to hit modifier

Sorry, which one is this in this context?

Sound like you are making it all more complex, by including exceptions here, an alternative there.

I'm not entirely sure that's fair or correct. What's complex about three tables becoming one? What exceptions and what alternatives? Please spell them out because I accept this may very well be wrong or badly mistaken, but with help it could be right.

 

[durulz]

Well, for a normal hit to be classed as a critical would require the defender to make the decision to 'ignore' as opposed to being forced to 'ignore' due to lack of reactions. It would only be in this case that it would begin to be fair, and even then I'm not too sure.
My thinking is this. If a defender 'ignores' due to lack of reactions then they aren't 'ignoring' the hit as such - they just can't move quick enough to react. They aren't 'ignoring' the hit as such, aren't stationary either - presumably in combat versus someone and thus moving about. Therefore, to bump that normal hit up to a critical seems too extreme and would unduly favour characters who have more combat actions (mmm...), characters who already enjoy an attack that cannot be parried or dodged (due to defender's lack of reactions). Too many benefits. Just think it through - you are giving that character/NPC a free critical attack every round. A CRITICAL hit. That means, in all likelihood, that character/NPC is going to subdue an opponent EVERY round, on balance. Do you really want that kind of game-balance altering effect?
Now, if the character/NPC (who still has reactions left) decides not to defend, then they probably deserve all that happens to them. In this instance they are aware of the attack (they still have reactions and can still do something about ith if they choose) but decide to ignore it. This differs from the above example because in this instance the defender is actively NOT doing anything about the attack. In the above example the defender may not be able to block the attack, but that's not quite the same as not TRYING to do anything about it. However, even in the case that someone does choose to truly ignore an attack I'm still not overly convinced that making it a critical is a good idea. But I could certainly be talked into it more easily.
And this is what I meant about exceptions - 'if defender ignores attack then it becomes a critical ONLY if they have reactions left' blah blah blah. Just creates tedious sub-clauses.
Anyway, on balance I have always found role-players to be intelligent people (although a very curious form of intelligence) and I am sure everyone will find their own resolution to this dilemma. If it works - great. If it doesn't then players (and referee) will soon vote with their feet. 'Official' rulings are never really worth the paper they're printed on anyway.

 

[durulz]

My final thoughts on this problem are very easy to summarise: if it causes that much anxiety and turmoil then play another game. It really is that easy. There is no obligation to play Runequest (any version of it) - it's only a game (sorry to be so reductionist about this, but it really is true) - the only obligation there is, is the money one spends on it. And if that's not enough of a motivator to resolve this issue simply and painlessly then none probably exists.
Not an ideal resolution, I agree (Mongoose should have got it right and made the changes clear from the off) - but that's the situation.

 

[Trifletraxor]

That's a great respons to someone who tries to make the system work...

Mongoose can still get i right by just publishing a working errata.

SGL.

 

[Cleombrotus]

I agree with you it is unbalancing. You should check your website more often, although it's my fault for posting queries and resolutions on two different sites. Anyway, it has since occurred to me that the entire context of RQM combat lies within the idea of the unopposed attack. The basic idea that an unopposed attacker can fumble, fail, succeed or critical. All reaction results must be balanced with this. You shouldn't be penalised for reacting to an attack unless you fumble. As Halfbat pointed out, the result for failing to parry/dodge should never be worse than not reacting at all, fumbles notwithstanding. I am hoping to find that I am being a complete arse about this, but I am in a serious sulk about buying a rulebook mere weeks ago that appears to be out of date before I've even played the game...

 

[Trifletraxor]

I agree with you it is unbalancing. You should check your website more often, although it's my fault for posting queries and resolutions on two different sites. Anyway, it has since occurred to me that the entire context of RQM combat lies within the idea of the unopposed attack. The basic idea that an unopposed attacker can fumble, fail, succeed or critical. All reaction results must be balanced with this. You shouldn't be penalised for reacting to an attack unless you fumble. As Halfbat pointed out, the result for failing to parry/dodge should never be worse than not reacting at all, fumbles notwithstanding. I am hoping to find that I am being a complete arse about this, but I am in a serious sulk about buying a rulebook mere weeks ago that appears to be out of date before I've even played the game...

Was that a respons to me? I was responding to durulz "go play another game" post. I belive MRQ is a broken system, that won't work without houserules, but I'm hoping some good houserules will make the scenarios usable. I'm not really that interested in a new system, RQ3 is way superior. What I'm waiting for is scenarios, and I'm still waiting.

SGL.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Sorry Sverre, that post was a response to durulz, not you. Your reply wasn't there when I posted. Durulz and I co-write our website and co-run our game. I don't like him either...

Best,

Stu.

 

[durulz]

You're absolutely right to be on your guard with me - I can't be trusted.
To be honest, I was in agreement with your idea of coming up with your own houserule. It's just this quest for official sanction is pointless and unnecessary (I believe).
My reason for thinking this is also quite simple (I'm very simple-minded): what if I don't like the official ruling? That won't stop me doing what I like best anyway, so why not go straight ahead and make my own decision?
The reason I suggested that someone who does not like the game to play something else is because...well, they don't like the game. There's no reason for loyalty (especially since the publishers have made a significant fluff without attempt to amend said mistake).
Personally, I don't care what the official ruling is. I don't care which edition is right or wrong. I don't care which table makes the most sense. I'll do what I think will make for an enjoyable game - the game is infinitely more important to me than the rules. Consequently, I will change whatever rule gets in the way of an enjoyable game.
I really love the new RQ. And those bits I don't like (especially rune integration as a pre-requisite for casting rune magic) I am happy to change/abolish. In fact, the new RQ re-invigorated my role-playing at a moment when I was getting rather bored of it.
I must be doing something right, since the players in my game have all enjoyed the game, write stories about their characters in my game, and are all keen for the next part of the campaign. My preference for 'game' over 'rules' is clearly achieving something. I am quite happy to debate rules, but it seems as though an incredible amount of time has been wasted on discussing rules (note - TOO much time. I'm not saying that NO rules-based debates should take place), and nowhere near the same amount of time has been dedicated to actually (gasp!) playing the game!
My position is quite simple: if you don't like a rule (official or otherwise) change it. If you don't like having to do that, and it still niggles you, then play something else. I'm quite happy to change rules and quite happy to play new RQ.
I'm now bowing out of this debate. Gracefully. If slightly disenchanted.

 

[Cleombrotus]

I agree - I want to play it and not talk about it. I was all well and good, head wrapped around the rules, logically and even mathematically which is no mean feat for yours truly, and then I came across this second printing where the results on the table seem to make less sense than the ones in the first, but would appear to be an attempt to clear up some mistake or imbalance that I can't actually see. So now I'm screwed. Do you want to run what's in your book and I'll run what's in mine and we'll see how it pans out, or do we want to change it and both run the same thing?

As to official sanction, I agree totally - don't need it as such. I just want a consistent rules system that makes sense.

So this 'new' table, says that if I FAIL my parry and the attacker FAILS their attack, I achieve the same effect as when I CRITICAL my parry and the attacker achieves a SUCCESS? Do I have this right???

The 'old' table said that if I FAIL my PARRY and the attacker FAILS their attack then the attack succeeds as normal. But if I steadfastly refuse to react in the face of such unnecessary violence, then my attacker has missed?

Seriously, what am I missing here? Have I just unknowingly crossed the threshold of being unable to understand and run roleplaying games? I'm not ruling it out...

So anyway, in theory I'm there, RQM all the way. Love it. Combat Actions/Options/Variable Strike Rank, the works. It's this second printing which is annoying me so much, and it would be perfectly fine if I was ignorant of it...

In real terms, of course I'm overreacting. I can solve the problem at a stroke, but I like hearing everybody's opinions because we are all runequest fans and there's a huge amount of knowledge on this forum that I want to tap into...

If I want official sanction for anything, it's just to explain about this second printing, and hopefully to tell me that I dreamed it...

 

[Rurik]

According to Mongoose you declare a defense in response to a succesful attack. The defender normally would only use a reaction against a successful attack, so the Attacker Fails row of the combat table normally never comes into play.

This makes parrying with weapons (as opposed to shields) and dodging of limited effectiveness, as weapon AP are low and a sucessful dodge takes minumum damage.

Which is why changing the combat table in the second printing makes little sense - the row they changed never comes into play in the RAW. :?

The 1st printing table was left over from the two roll system used through much of the playtesting but dropped before release - it still made into the book in the form of the combat table and is also in one of the combat examples in the core rulebook.

In the two roll system if the attacker hits and the defender reacts, the attacker makes a second roll that is indexed with the reaction roll on the combat table. That is why the attackfer fails/defender fails results in "attack succeeds as normal" - it was written for a system where the attacker already scored an initial hit.

With the two roll system dodges avoiding all damage and weapons blocking 2xAP become not only possible, but fairly common results, making both dodging and parrying with weapons more effective.

Mongoose says the attacker fails row was included so that if players wanted to houserule allowing a parry or dodge of a successful attack in hopes of a critical - but the risk of converting a miss into a hit is pretty high unless the defenders skill is 90+%. It seems the second printing changes are designed to soften the penalty for optionally defending against a failed attack should the players so choose to houserule that as an option.

I hope that clarifies things at least a little.

 

[Rurik]

Also, not having the second printing, I am still not clear on what the attacker fails/defender succeeds result is in the second printing.

It used to read: 2xAP blocked, but now that is in the Attaker Fails/Defender Fails position, so what is in Attacker Succeeds/Defender Fails position on the 2nd printing chart?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Hi guys,

Just to let you know I am looking into this - will have a definitive answer for you this week!

 

[Rurik]

Thanks!

Good to know.