You'll get a kick out of this, Melkor...

[Melkor]

Why would you use a two attack roll system? What does it simulate, and what are the benefits of it?

- Q

Quire, if you haven't gotten the gyst of why to use two attack rolls after reading through this thread - I'm not sure there is much else that I can say to illustrate it.

To try and sum it up in layman's terms:
It's not so much of a 'benefit' as it is 'the way the game seems to have been designed'. I'm not arguing that two rolls is better than one, or anything like that....but to take full advantage of the Parry/Dodge tables according to the rules in the rulebook for reaction triggers. The combat examples in the book also describe a two roll system.

Why use it ? Simply because it seems to be the way the rules were designed, playtested, and written in the rulebook.

 

[iamtim]

I'm not arguing that two rolls is better than one

Yeah, I'm with Melkor. I don't think ANYONE is arguing that; in truth, two combat rolls seems rather quite illogical. BUT... the game as written seems to want to be played that way and it shouldn't be a big deal to those who mind the extra die roll.

If that extra die roll is a hill some people want to die on, well, then, it won't work very well for them.

We're playing a game that attempts to distill reality to a finite set of rules; not everything will be simulated properly, or even at all.

 

[Quire]

It's not so much of a 'benefit' as it is 'the way the game seems to have been designed'. I'm not arguing that two rolls is better than one, or anything like that....but to take full advantage of the Parry/Dodge tables according to the rules in the rulebook for reaction triggers. The combat examples in the book also describe a two roll system.

Why use it ? Simply because it seems to be the way the rules were designed, playtested, and written in the rulebook.

Yep, I get you on that. And I'm not disputing that that is indeed how it looks. I'm just interested in the game mechanic of a two roll system.

Sorry. Perhaps I can put my question a different way: why would a designer come up with a two attack roll system? I can't get my head round how the extra roll adds to the combat experience. I was hoping someone brighter then me might have some insights into this and illuminate me.

The one benefit that occurs to me is that defenders don't 'waste' a combat reaction on an attack that misses. But that seems unrealistic - if a weapon is being swung at you, you react don't you? Not wait and see if it hits?

Any other ideas?

- Q

 

[Quire]

Yeah, I'm with Melkor. I don't think ANYONE is arguing that; in truth, two combat rolls seems rather quite illogical. BUT... the game as written seems to want to be played that way and it shouldn't be a big deal to those who mind the extra die roll.

I concurr!

I'm just interested in the purpose of such a system.

Perhaps I have too much time on my hands...

- Q

 

[iamtim]

why would a designer come up with a two attack roll system?

I dinna think they did it on purpose, lad.

 

[Quire]

I dinna think they did it on purpose, lad.

:lol:

Brilliant.

- Q

 

[Vadrus]

why would a designer come up with a two attack roll system?

I dinna think they did it on purpose, lad.

They accidentally wrote a set of rules??


Vadrus

 

[iamtim]

Brilliant.

I can totally see them in the RuneQuest design meeting where they talk about what they want out of the system -- opposed rolls instead of the resistance table, etc. -- and then break the old RQ down into easy-to-follow logic steps like "attack is made" and "attack is opposed". Then the meeting breaks up and everyone goes away to write their individual pieces.

Only... no one notices until it's too late that breaking combat down into the logical steps of "attack is made" and "attack is opposed" accidentally became a *directive* for the combat system instead of a logic-flow step.

"Two rolls... why did you do that?"
"Well... the flowchart... it had attack and oppose as two different steps..."
"Wha? I... you... but we... augh."

:lol:

 

[iamtim]

They accidentally wrote a set of rules??

(See my reply directly above. )

 

[Elandyll]

Yeah, I'm with Melkor. I don't think ANYONE is arguing that; in truth, two combat rolls seems rather quite illogical. BUT... the game as written seems to want to be played that way and it shouldn't be a big deal to those who mind the extra die roll.

I concurr!

I'm just interested in the purpose of such a system.

Perhaps I have too much time on my hands...

- Q

My take on it is that -if the 2 roll system is indeed what was intended- its purpose was to separate the attack process into two classic events

1) Attack roll (remember that only a successful attack can trigger a defense, as per the rules
This determines either success -or- failure of attack. no crit/fumble at this point

2) Quality (how good it is) of attack vs Defense.
This is in fact not as "weird" as you might think.
Quality of hit tables are old as RPGs, but used to be called "Crit Tables" or "Fumble Tables".

THis table is just a bit too small compared to what we are used to.
At the very least, it needs an additional Fumble row (which has been added already by one of our resident posters I believe).


With this explanation, all makes sense:
- the trigger effect
- the Fail/Fail result
- And specially the line "Attack succeeds and become Critical Hit".

What I would love to see is a table with the following lines

Fumble / Special Failure(opt.) / Failure / Success / Special Success / Crit

This would be a lot more RQ'esque .


Of course, my preference would go toward a 1 roll, in which case we have to have declaration of defense first (player having specifically to declare what he is defending against), and change the first result (Fail/Fail) to nothing happens.
With a more complete table (the "special" result begin borrowed from older RQ's), and this one roll system, we'd have the best of both worlds imho.

 

[iamtim]

it needs an additional Fumble row

So... just out of curiosity, why does it need an additional fumble row?

A fumble is just a special case failure, with that special case being determined by GM fiat (see the Fumble rules on P19, IIRC.)

A crit is just a special case success, with that special case in combat being max damage.

So since there is no dedicated combat fumble rules, why a special row for it on the table?

 

[Elandyll]

it needs an additional Fumble row

So... just out of curiosity, why does it need an additional fumble row?

A fumble is just a special case failure, with that special case being determined by GM fiat (see the Fumble rules on P19, IIRC.)

A crit is just a special case success, with that special case in combat being max damage.

So since there is no dedicated combat fumble rules, why a special row for it on the table?

I think you answer this yourself

A fumble is just a special case failure

A crit is just a special case success

Thus, if crit is an option in the table, why not Fumble ?

Imagine a table with results that not only determine defense vs attack, but also how good the attack is (which crit already hints at).
My take on it is that it is 2 birds one stone.
1) You simplify the roll to one attack roll
2) You have a result much more detailed than just success/fail (I know some players have been requesting a "Crit " Table and a "Fumble" table with very detaield results such as "Self Impales" or "Decapitates Target" and the like. The goal with MRQ being to simplify and accelerate combat, I think it would do a good work of it while staying simple, and also a bit more RQ-esque imho).

My take on it.

 

[iamtim]

Thus, if crit is an option in the table, why not Fumble ?

I actually answered that. A crit is a special-case success that has documented in-combat results: you get maximum damage.

A fumble is a special-case failure that does NOT have documented in-combat results: you fall back on the rules on p19.

So what would you put on the fumble line? "Attack fails, and the GM gets to adjudicate the fumble as on p19"?

A fumble is just a failure that gives the GM a reason to f*ck with you.

 

[Lord Twig]

Thus, if crit is an option in the table, why not Fumble ?

I actually answered that. A crit is a special-case success that has documented in-combat results: you get maximum damage.

A fumble is a special-case failure that does NOT have documented in-combat results: you fall back on the rules on p19.

So what would you put on the fumble line? "Attack fails, and the GM gets to adjudicate the fumble as on p19"?

A fumble is just a failure that gives the GM a reason to f*ck with you.

Well a whole lot of people, myself included, really dislike the fact that the fumble rules just fall back on GM fiat. Why not just let the GM decide what a critical does?

I don't think we will agree on this, and it is a matter of personal preference (required line), but for a lot of people the fumble "rules" (if you can call them that) leave a lot to be desired by many people.

 

[iamtim]

Well a whole lot of people, myself included, really dislike the fact that the fumble rules just fall back on GM fiat.

So what would you have a fumble do that could fit on that table? Maximum damage for a crit works, and is easy to implement "globally". But what about fumbles? Wouldn't "you drop weapon" get a little tiring after a while?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm curious about how you'd "fix" this "problem".

 

[Lord Twig]

Well a whole lot of people, myself included, really dislike the fact that the fumble rules just fall back on GM fiat.

So what would you have a fumble do that could fit on that table? Maximum damage for a crit works, and is easy to implement "globally". But what about fumbles? Wouldn't "you drop weapon" get a little tiring after a while?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm curious about how you'd "fix" this "problem".

Yes, that is pretty much it. If you fumble an attack you drop your weapon, fumble a parry you drop your parrying weapon, if you fumble a dodge you fall prone.

It is only going to happen once out of a hundred rolls, so you are not going to see weapons flying everywhere.

Left up to the GM what is he going to rule? How long are you going to wait on him to come up with something on the fly? And then can you say that everybody will just accept his arbitrary judgment without complaint? I know that your group would have absolutely no problem, but what about everyone else?

If it is predefined there is no argument. If it is left up to someone's judgment call it is open to question.

 

[Malakor]

It is only going to happen once out of a hundred rolls, so you are not going to see weapons flying everywhere.

Statistically, maybe. But I remember a particular session where one of my players lost not only every weapon he was carrying, but a couple that he picked up from fallen foes :lol:

In my group, even if a fumble table exists, I ignore it and base the description of the fumble on what 'works' for the action and the situation, and sometimes for what is just plain fun, because at the end of the day, that's what it's all about.

 

[iamtim]

I ... base the description of the fumble on what 'works' for the action and the situation, and sometimes for what is just plain fun, because at the end of the day, that's what it's all about.

*nodnod* Me too.

It seems to me that if you're not going to trust your GM when it comes to adjudicating fumbles, you probably shouldn't be playing with that GM.

I'll admit that sometimes I go for the dropped weapon. But I like to mix it up sometimes, too. Maybe your helm got spun around, or your arm got caught in a strap somewhere.

It just seems that every dodge fumble lands someone on their face, every parry fumble results in a dropped weapon seems kinda static. You can describe a crit hundreds of ways, but a dropped weapon is just that... a dropped weapon.

 

[Elandyll]

Well a whole lot of people, myself included, really dislike the fact that the fumble rules just fall back on GM fiat.

So what would you have a fumble do that could fit on that table? Maximum damage for a crit works, and is easy to implement "globally". But what about fumbles? Wouldn't "you drop weapon" get a little tiring after a while?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm curious about how you'd "fix" this "problem".

I wouldn't say "smartass", but unwilling to see things from another point of view, yes.

As I myself pointed out, you say that a crit is a special success, and a fumble a special failure. To that regard, they are identical.

So, you have no problem with a crit being systematically maximum dmg (it could be a whole bunch of things, a bleed effect up to pierced organ and up), but you have a problem with "drop weapon" in case of a fumble?

I agree that the GM has to decide, but once you put fumble in the table, the description could simply entail : Choice to GM between Weapon drop, bruised bone on the arm attacking, takes a -10 Strike rank penalty for the rest of the fight ... etc. Suggestions...

We are all (I think) long time roleplayers here, we all know that ultimately, it shouldn't be a table's role to decide what's happening (I still have nightmares with my very first GMing of a Cthulhu scenario. One player, very unlucky with dices, ended up dying thanks to a Fox's bite that entailed a disease and several failed resistance rolls, the chance to get bit in the first place was 8% and disease to develop only 20%. Since then, I decided that never again I'd let a bunch of tables decide the outcome of a story).

My point is, (even though I think the 2 roll system works), that a 1 roll system with a developped table including a whole range of possibilities would be nice.

My 2cp.

 

[iamtim]

but unwilling to see things from another point of view, yes.

The very fact that I'm asking you how you would do it should be evidence to the contrary.

So, you have no problem with a crit being systematically maximum dmg (it could be a whole bunch of things, a bleed effect up to pierced organ and up), but you have a problem with "drop weapon" in case of a fumble?

You said it right there. Maximum damage can be described a multitude of different ways, especially dependant upon hit location and that location's HP total; a dropped weapon, though, is just a dropped weapon. How many different descriptions can you come up with for "dropped weapon"?

Sure, you could come up with a whole slew of different fumble options, but that's not a parallel with "maximum damage", and, really, makes the combat system more convoluted.