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

[Elandyll]

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.

No, what I said is that "maximum dmg" is a very narrow and limited option for a "critical success". Just like "Dropped weapon" is for Fumble.

What I did point out is that you are fine with one, and not the other

My examples of possibilities for crit. sucess included dmg over time (bleed), slowed down opponent (due to bruised arm), etc.

I think such a table could offer either a simple result (crit: MAx dmg, Fumble: drop weapon) or for more advanced players hint at other possibilities, to the choice of the GM...

I know a whole bunch of players that would be happy with 2 results in the table sending you to 2 other tables in fact, one for Critical dmg roll, one for Fumble Without going that far, I believe it is possible to "extend" the table a bit in the possible results...

example of the good'ol RQIII Fumble tables (melee, missile and natural weaps), including "special" successes
http://www.maranci.net/rq3aid.pdf#search=%22runequest%20critical%20damage%20table%22

 

[Gnarsh]

Ok. I was thinking about this last night, and realized that there's an alternative and relatively simple way of handling things while using a one roll system. It ties into my observation about the chart really being a line of results with different "levels" of success:

A simple way of looking at the chart (for dodge in this case) is to just line up the results in order:

0. Attack misses, attacker overextended
1. Attack misses.
2. Attack hits for minimum damage, defender gives ground.
3. Attack succeeds as normal.
4. Attack succeeds and is a critical hit.

What if we realign it this way:

[pre]
0. Fumble (optional)
Attack misses. Attacker overextended

1. miss
Attack misses

2. Attack hits for minimum damage. Defender gives ground

3. regular hit
Attack suceeds and is a regular hit

4. Critical hit
Attack suceeds and is a critical hit
[/pre]

Ok. The results in italics are the attackers result. By default, if no defensive action is taken, those are the results based on what the attacker rolled on his weapon skill attempt.

The idea is that once the attacker has rolled (success or not), the defender has a choice of reacting to the attack. I've previously disagreed with this mechanic in general, but I do feel that too many balance components of MRQ are based on the assumption of reactions being spent only when needed, so I'm keeping that here.

The defender rolls his defense skill (in this case dodge, you'd have to make some alterations to work this for parry, I'm just throwing the concept out there for examination). On a fumble, the value of the result is increased by one. On a miss, the value is unchanged. On a success, the value is reduced by one, and on a critical, the value is decreased by two.

The point of this whole thing is to give a way to both use one roll for the attacker *and* make use of the extended/riposte results in the chart. In this case, those are the fumble results when rolled normally. Also, on a miss the defender could choose to dodge and a regular success will transform the miss into an overextended result (which may very well be worth using the reaction).

Still playing with the idea. I'm just personally opposed to using charts to resolve combat. IMHO, a series of success levels is easier for players to remember and use then a chart.

 

[iamtim]

No, what I said is that "maximum dmg" is a very narrow and limited option for a "critical success". Just like "Dropped weapon" is for Fumble.

You didn't say:

a crit being systematically maximum dmg (it could be a whole bunch of things, a bleed effect up to pierced organ and up)

?

That says exactly why I'm OK with it. Maximum damage can be a whole bunch of things, but "weapon dropped" is just that; there's only so many ways that you can explain away "weapon dropped."

Whatever. I'm just talking in circles. If you want a fumble row on the table, add one. I won't.

 

[Elandyll]

No, what I said is that "maximum dmg" is a very narrow and limited option for a "critical success". Just like "Dropped weapon" is for Fumble.

You didn't say:

a crit being systematically maximum dmg (it could be a whole bunch of things, a bleed effect up to pierced organ and up)

?

That says exactly why I'm OK with it. Maximum damage can be a whole bunch of things, but "weapon dropped" is just that; there's only so many ways that you can explain away "weapon dropped."

Whatever. I'm just talking in circles. If you want a fumble row on the table, add one. I won't.

Apparently you did not see what I meant by "bleed effect", which seems self explanatory enough to me, but that's ok
I reiterate: Maximum damage in one hit is but one of several things that could happen on a critical. That could also be dmg over several CAs, atacks being slowed down, etc.
I find amazing that you are unwilling to admit that in one case (crit success) the result is narrow, and perfectly fine in branding a fumble as "limited" with its "drop weapon".
I am also somewhat talking in circle, but only because the dual standard kinda irks me.

I'm just talking in circles.

If you meant to tell me that I was wrong in wanting to implement that in my future games, you certainly were

I won't

That's the beauty of house-ruling RPGs, you don't have to

 

[iamtim]

Maximum damage in one hit is but one of several things that could happen on a critical.

Not according to the RAW, which is all I've been talking about. In the RAW, a combat critical results in maximum damage. If you are using the RAW and you get a critical hit in combat, everyone knows what's going to happen: you'll do maximum damage.

Conversely, in the RAW, if you get a fumble in combat no one knows what's going to happen because it's up to GM's fiat. You *could* add in something like "weapon dropped" for parries, or "defender trips" for dodges. But then you are limiting fumble results according to the RAW -- I can come up with MANY different fumble results beyond those two.

I don't know where you are getting a double standard from, unless you are referring to my assertation that "maximum damage" can be described as several different things based on the location hit and the relative health of that location, whereas there's only so many ways you can describe a dropped weapon.

All I did was ask what you could add to the combat charts in a fumble line that would carry the same weight and meaning as "critical hit", because in the RAW "fumble" doesn't have a combat meaning aside of GMs fiat.

 

[Quire]

I'm just personally opposed to using charts to resolve combat. IMHO, a series of success levels is easier for players to remember and use then a chart.

Well, that's cool, but you're doing the exact same thing as the tables, really. It's like the difference between presenting statistics in a pie chart or a bar chart - the stats are the same, the representation is the only thing that's changing.

But if the Levels representation works sweeter in your head, then go for it.

- Q

 

[Gnarsh]

I'm just personally opposed to using charts to resolve combat. IMHO, a series of success levels is easier for players to remember and use then a chart.

Well, that's cool, but you're doing the exact same thing as the tables, really. It's like the difference between presenting statistics in a pie chart or a bar chart - the stats are the same, the representation is the only thing that's changing.

But if the Levels representation works sweeter in your head, then go for it.

It does more then that though. The charts don't accurately reflect the combination of a single attack roll versus a single defense roll. Which is strange, considering you'd think a chart would be more precise.

The charts are both needlessly complex and less realistic then defining a range of success levels based on the attack result, and then simply increasing or decreasing those levels based on the result of the defense roll. That's not to say that the charts are "bad". Just that as written, they don't work using any method, so my thinking is that if we're looking at changing the mechanic to make it work, why not make it simpler to use at the same time?

 

[Quire]

Just that as written, they don't work using any method, so my thinking is that if we're looking at changing the mechanic to make it work, why not make it simpler to use at the same time?

Yeah, I like your thinking. Your levels can still be distributed to a table though, and I'm guessing some folks would find that easier to reference than a sliding scale of results.

Your mind is nimble enough to handle the levels, 'cause you are a clever chap. A distributed table might be simpler for others to follow. It makes absolutely no difference to the results, of course...just saying, is all!

- Q

 

[duncan_disorderly]

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?

1) Because this isn't a straight skill roll, it's an contested roll to determine the success (or otherwise) of an attempt to avoid the consequences of being hit.

2) A success means you successfully use the skill being rolled, and a failure you fail, yet the table still contains an entry to tell us that if you fail to dodge/parry a successful attack then you will be hit.

3) There are 16 possible outcomes of a contested roll. It is sloppy work to provide a set outcome for 9 of them and say "come up with the other 7 yourself"

4) The GM decides on all outcomes in a RPG, using the rules to guide him, so either we need a table to provide that guidance (in which case it should be complete) or we don't.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Not according to the RAW, which is all I've been talking about. In the RAW, a combat critical results in maximum damage. If you are using the RAW and you get a critical hit in combat, everyone knows what's going to happen: you'll do maximum damage. .

But we're not talking about a critical on the combat roll. We're talking about a critical on the parry result or the Dodge result table. These do not necessarily give you maximum damage, but may give you a chance at Riposte or opponent overextended. In a similar way a fumble here should have a result defined in terms of the contest.

I'm quite happy with a fumble on an attack roll being determined by the GM. The number of possibilities is highly dependant on circumstances (one can't "hit friend" if you are fighting alone, or "drop weapon" if you are punching, and "hit self" when setting a two handed spear against a charge is unlikely). This is a different kettle of fish though, and just as the mechanical result "Maximum Damage" can be explained in a number of ways, the mechanical results of a fumble here (whether by attacker, reducing the effect of the blow, or leaving them at a disadvantage (off balance, in receipt of a riposte) or the defender (increasing the effect of the blow, or leaving them at a disadvantage (Off balance, losing subsequent actions/reponses etc) can be described in a manner fitting the actual combat in which they occur.