creativehum

"True" is a non-emotive term for me, not a weapon... at least the way I try use it. (If I failed, I apologize.)

It says in the text that the only way for there to be tie is if the numbers are equal.

On the previous page (p. 142) it says "If both participants succeed, the winner is whoever achieved the better result." I choose to read "better" as "higher roll." (Perhaps I'm wrong!) So the rules seem to be the same as the QuickStart. They might be changing in the future. But I"m looking at the words on the page and when I read them it seems to be saying what was said in the Quickstart -- though perhaps with less clarity.

2 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Yeah, I don't understand why this is such an emotive issue.

Ha ha ha ha ha...

People: This rule seems ambiguous. Designer, could you clarify?

Other People: Why is everyone being so emotive?

3 minutes ago, David Scott said:

Considering that in 6 weeks of playing RQG at our club. Opposed rolls haven't produced any result that falls into the disputed tie section. I think all of our opposed rolls have been straight success/failures.

Without knowing how many rolls you've made I can't be sure... but that's kind of amazing, right?

6 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I was under the impression that it does not say how to adjudicate if the same number is not rolled.

It does not. But the text makes it clear that a tie exists only when the same number is rolled. 

So, yes, it is ambiguous in terms of resolving which party wins if the success level is the same but the numbers are different. The players need to decide, using the current text, which number (higher or lower) breaks the tie. But no matter what, according to the current rules, there is no tie unless the same number is rolled.

Perhaps this ambiguity is what Jason was talking about when he said it would be clarified?

And so... if I want the rules for HeroQuesting I buy the GM Pack?

Folks, this isn't some wobbly-point. We're talking about the rules for HeroQuesting. Which product the rules for HeroQuesting will be clearly explained and integrated into the RuneQuest Glorantha game line is kind of a big deal.

31 minutes ago, simonh said:

It sounds like actually the GM Book, along with a screen and maybe a few other component, will be part of the GM Pack?

Here's the quote:

Quote

 

GameMasters Pack- which is really a setting pack - a Colymar sandbox setting with 3 adventures which can be linked or play separately. Some 100 pages with lots of statted NPCs which can give GMs template for what a Clan Chief may look like stat-wise. 

An impressive map of Clearwine by Oliver Sanfilippo was circulated to help GMs and players visualise locations. A map of Boldhome will appear in the (later) Dragon Pass campaign pack. Oliver's cartography is also in the core book.

The GM's book will also feature magic items, guidance about treasures, and Heroquesting and Hero rules.

 

So, the "GM's book" might be part of the GameMaster's Pack? Which is really a setting pack, not a GM Book?

I guess? I don't know? I give up?

12 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Only if you carry forward text from the Quickstart that is no longer present in the main rules.

This is, in fact, not true. 

Several of us, in this very thread, have quoted text from RQG that makes it clear that a tie only exists if the same number is rolled in the same level of success. (See David Scott's last post above). 

Okay. So we have confirmed there are two separate products. The GM Pack and the GM Book.

The GM Pack will contain the Colymar lands (including Clearwine and Apple Lane) as a sandbox area with three loosely linked scenarios,  play aids, a calendar of holy days, and the GM Screen with all sorts of key tables.

The GM Book will also feature magic items, guidance about treasures, and Heroquesting and Hero rules.

Is there any other information about the GM Book?

Thanks!

1 hour ago, jongjom said:

Can Chaosium please give some clarity to the thinking of what happens with two successful rolls i.e. a tie. 

What happens if someone successful rolls a Hide and someone a Search? I know this has been asked before, but I cannot see the answer on the boards.

The blackjack rule seems to be the sensible option, but if this is not used then can Chaosium please give clarity on the reasoning behind this? 

Many thanks 

As for now, the official version (that is, the version in the text of RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha) is that the roll with the higher number with the same success level, succeeds. The tie only exists when the success level is the same and the dice rolled is the same. 

The latter case will be rare, but could happen. If it should happen then the status quo remains. My problem with this is, as you your self say, we are left as players what to do now? Do we make the same roll again? Then why not, as you say, just resolve the roll with the first roll somehow? 

Apparently later material will clarify this. But for now, until I see what the new material is and find it useful, I'm sticking with "higher roll wins." It seems like it will get the job done and keep the game moving.

10 minutes ago, Jeff said:

The GM pack includes the Colymar lands (including Clearwine and Apple Lane) as a sandbox area with three loosely linked scenarios,  play aids, a calendar of holy days, and the GM Screen with all sorts of key tables.

That sounds terrific. 

Can you describe what will be in the GM Book?

Will it have rules? I was told online at some point it would contain more detailed information about heroquesting than is found in RQG.

Will it have more details about other homelands for PCs (or will those be reserved for further supplements)?

I know there is this thing called the GM Book for RQG that will be released in the future.... and I would love to get a handle on what might be contained in it.

All I'm really trying to do is to figure out the investment cost of what might be called the "Core Set" of RuneQuest Glorantha.

There is the is book that was just released, the Bestiary, and... A GM Book? Or not?

8 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

I think MOB is incorrect on that. 

*sigh*

getting information on the GM Book seems to be harder than takin down the Red Moon.

2 minutes ago, MOB said:

GM book - GM pack are the same thing. 

Great.

i had been hearing the exact opposite across the internet.

can you tell me what will be in it apart from adventures?

16 hours ago, MOB said:

The Bestiary will be out (in PDF) next month, and the GM Pack (in PDF) the month after that.

We will have print copies of the RQG core rules at Gen Con.

And the GM Book? (Which I believe I'd different than the GM Pack?)

28 minutes ago, David Scott said:

The ties aren’t great, the higher roll wins is great. 

Oh. Okay.

And I agree with you. 

1 hour ago, David Scott said:

If it changes to what Jason says, then there will just be more ties. Personally this works great.

I will probably keep the "high roll wins" as well. 

But David, could you explain more about how ties are great. I'm sure they can be. But I'm having a blind spot on it. Can you talk about how such situations play out -- and what happens next in that situation?

Thanks!

58 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Well, HQ uses a "high roll wins" (it was "low roll wins" before HQG) rule to break ties.

Anyway, you're right the number of ties will be pretty high, and clearly in favor of the "defender" if there is one. My guess is the rule was discarded because it's not intuitive to break ties with a high roll in a game where lower is better. But that was a poor choice, IMHO.

I should have been clearer. You get a lot of "Marginal Victories." In a system in which you are suppose to be getting a single output for a conflict the odds are you end up with lots of Marginal Victories rather than decisive victories. I can kind of see the value of that. But a lot of time it simply left conflicts hanging without a sense of resolution. Sometimes yes, I get it. But the odds were weighted to this.

I'm not sure what I think about this. One of my biggest problems with HeroQuest (a game system I otherwise love) is the large number of ties that are produced by this kind of system. I really want a system to help me resolve things (that's why we're rolling), to not learn, "The Future Is Unclear... Try Again."

Are there any posts from the designers about how to handle ties? How to make this result intriguing, fun, interesting, and move things along?

Then what does that text mean? Sincerely confused.

If a tie takes place when the numbers are the same (per the text), what is the result if the numbers are not the same?

Also, can you point me to where this conversation took place?

3 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

That is exactly what was raised, and Jason said no, the "higher roll" rule does not apply. Which I think is a shame, it seemed to work well. The only down side was if there is a long time elapsed between the die rolls, you might not know what the first number was.

I'm not sure if this answer the question at hand -- but I think it does.

At the top of p. 144 of RQG, we find this passage describing the results of Opposed Rolls:

Quote

Tie: A tie (where both participants achieve the same type of success but roll the same number) means the situation is temporarily unresolved. If both participants rolled a critical success, the result is a tie.

(emphasis added)

It sure seems as if a tie is defined as having the same type of success and rolling the same number.

This implies (to me at least) that if both parties have the same type of success, but they don't roll the same number, then it is not a tie.

While the text does not seem to state this clearly anywhere, I would infer that since rolling different numbers does matter when the same type of success is rolled (since rolling different numbers precludes a tie) the higher number rolled is the rolled that wins the Opposed Roll.

I am having to infer a bit from the text. But I think it is clear enough.

2 hours ago, deleriad said:

Agreed. And further, the example statement of intent given in the rulebook is

"These intentions do not need to be precise (“I’ll wait here for them to do something, and have my shield and sword at the ready if someone gets close” is enough detail).

i.e. all Jon needs to say is "I'll guard the door with my sword and shield ready." 

A lot of this will come down to ad-hoc rulings though and as a GM I would let Vivian's player know the options before hand during statements.

A good catch on the quote from the rules. (And it is a quote I referenced two days ago in this thread.) That text really ties into my thinking on this point.

Expanding on that quote further I  really don't think we need a separate rule for this sort of situation at all. I think it would be a shame to do that.

It is my guess that if one looks at the rules as written, sees them as "lego block" to be fitted together as needed to adjudicate situations, you'll find that most situations can fall under rulings with the game pieces at hand. (The "game pieces" being the rules in the book).

Too many specific rulings for every situation drives me nuts as both a player and Referee. I'd rather have a set of rules that can be applied in different circumstances as needed rather than have new rules for ever circumstance. I did a deep dive into the original rules for Classic Traveller (Books 1, 2, and 3) and found that --despite so many people thinking they are wanting and lacking in many areas -- the original rules do a rock solid job of giving the Referee the tools he needs to make adjudication and keep the game moving, as long as one really uses the rules that are there and then interpolates them as required. My guess is, from what I'm looking at, RuneQuest Glorantha will work the same way. 

16 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

This example also brings up a question regarding weapon SR. In this case, because Vivian is running to Jon weapon lenght just not have the same impact and Jon should not be slower if he has a dagger as opposed to a sword.

In my view a longer weapon still gives Jon a longer reach and forces Vivian to maneuver more to get around him -- slowing her and giving him a better chance to attack before she escape. So if one is using SRs to determine sequence, I think weapon strike rank should apply.

As for which option chosen, I can definitely say that Jon does not get a free attack. (I think I have said this in every post. In my view Jon must declare he is trying to cut down Vivian as she runs for the door. That is his statement of intent for the round. He declares it and tries to do it.)

As to whether or not SR should even matter, I'm on the fence about this.

If you use Vivian's movement as a SR value (which, to be clear, is not how movement and SR are supposed to be used) and compare it against Jon's you get a clear picture of whether or not she slips about Jon and evades his attack.

However, I don't think that is how the rule are supposed to work.

The rules state on p. 192:

Quote

It is important to always keep in mind that strike ranks simply determine which attacks are resolved first in the melee round, and whether successive actions can be attempted. Each strike rank does not represent each second of the melee round.

I think we need to consider the movement before the activation of SRs the same way. The entire round is a convention to handle movement and actions in a manner that provides both order and tension. Movement doesn't happen "first" in the round with all combatant waiting around for everyone to get into position. We handle movement first because it lets the game keep moving, be clear, but also provide lots of options.

As always, I'm looking at the circumstances of the fictional situation: Vivian is trying to escape the temple before it collapses; Jon has planted himself at the doorway to prevent her escape. I then look at the rules to adjudicate this (as opposed to looking at the rules to provide what is possible for the characters to do.)

It seems to me that Jon is going to be allowed to make an attack on Vivian no matter what. She can't simply slip by him because she decided to only run. That would be weird, right?

Looking over the rules it seems to me that we're going to have Vivian either: 

1. make a Dodge roll as she runs by Jon and he tries to slice her with his weapon. This is kind of weird since Vivian is not Engaged, but I could see it working. (Technically, as far as I can tell, if Vivian Dodges she is now engaged and stops at the doorway with Jon. So it isn't quite using the rules as written).
2. simply take this hit unopposed as she flees past him. Her intention is to get out of the temple... not tango with Jon. So this option makes the most sense to me. It has precedence in the Flee rules, and mirrors the situation at hand: Vivian is basically ignoring the engagement with Jon and suffers a penalty for this.

I would choose 2.

Depending on the results of the attack in either case (that is, how the fictional situation changes if Jon hits) Vivian either gets out the door or not.

14 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

They get a free attack if you are engaged and trying to disengage just by moving ("fleeing"). The situation described is that Jeremy is intercepting Phil to stop him from getting to Tom, so presumably Jeremy declared "move and attack, engage if possible". If Phil can't be forced to be engaged, then Jeremy gets no free attack, just a regular attack on or after his SR.

I think we're saying the same thing. But for clarity on my part:

Yes. No one can be forced to engage.

Fleeing is a method of disengaging. If I run by someone (neither attacking or defending) I am not engaged. Thus, as I run by my opponent I do not have to disengage, and so I do not trigger any disengage rules, and so the rules for Fleeing are not invoked.

The attacker gets his attack as his declared intent, but no additional attack because I never use the Flee rule. 

16 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

whether the person that you are moving close to gets a free attack or not.

I'm curious about this. Why would the person get a free attack? The person I am running past would have had to make a statement of intent. Either they are tying to attack me, or they are not. If they declared they want to attack me, they get an attack. If they did not, they are busy doing something else.

16 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

It also means that you can freely run past an enemy in the early part of a melee round before their attack SR, as you are not engaged so no free attack.

Keep in mind something I've said before: As Referee I always let the fictional circumstances of the situation trump all else, using the rules to adjudicate those circumstances.

If Vivian says, "I'm running past Jon to get to the exit before the temple collapses," and Jon says, "I'm standing by the door to cut Vivian down before she gets out" then I'm going to allow Jon a roll to hit Vivian before she exits. If he manages to hit her legs or cripple her in some way, she won't be finishing her run out the door.

I understand that by the rules movement and non-combat actions goes first. But that is a convention to keep things moving along. If Jon states his intention is to attack Vivian as she runs by him, he will get a chance on that attack as she runs by -- because it makes utter sense within the circumstances of the fictional situation that he be allowed to do so.

The rules also state that an attack can interrupt or prevent other actions or attacks from occurring. I see the ruling in the example above as an application of this thinking.

If one character declares an attack on another character who is moving and is close enough to make that attack, the attack will happen because the fictional circumstances demand the attack be allowed to happen.

I'm about to quote the rules and stuff from RQG. This isn't because I consider the rules "gospel." Also, I believe people should play any game exactly as they wish -- which means they should ignore rules as they desire. I'm not telling anyone they are playing wrong. But I've never played RQ before. I'm reading the rules with an eye to understanding how the game works. Also, I assume the designers put some thought into how the game works and how the pieces of the game interact. Before I take the game apart and start ignoring what was written, I'm going to look at what is there, try it out, and see how it works.

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The way I see it, all "engaged" means is that they are within weapon range...

That's a fine definition of engaged if it works for you. I would never say you can't play the game that way.

However, my definition of Engaged comes from several places in the text of the game, particularly on page 192.

The first, and clearest definition of Engaged comes under the section of 2. Movement of Non-Engaged Characters:

Quote

Any adventurer or monster actively taking part in melee combat, whether attacking or defending, is engaged in melee combat.

The emphasis is added in the original text. This is where the term "engaged" is defined.

So, when are you engaged? If you are attacking or defending in melee combat. That's it. If someone is attack you, then that person is engaged. If you are not attacking back or not defending against the attack, then you are not engaged. If someone is shooting an arrow at you, or you are shooting an arrow at someone else, you are not engaged, because that is not melee combat. If I cast a spell at someone from a distance, I do not have to use of the three options to disengage because I was not in melee combat, and so I was not engaged.

This definition matters because there are some things you can do while not engaged in combat, which you cannot do while not engaged in combat. Chief among these is MOVE. Continuing the quote from page 192...

Quote

All characters and monsters not directly engaged in melee combat may move up to their total movement rate (MOV).

So the key quality of engaged or not-engaged is the ability to move up to your total movement rate.

If you are not attacking or defending you are not engaged. No one can make you engaged. It is a choice to become engaged. 

Once you are engaged, however, (that is, attacking or defending) special maneuvers are required to disengage. (Retreating, Knockback, Flee.)

If you were not engaged you do not need to use any of these maneuvers to move because you were not engaged and thus do not need to disengage. If I run by someone who attack me but I do not engage, I do not need to either Retreat, Knockback, or Flee that person to continue my movement. The attacker does not get an additional attack per the Flee rules... because I wasn't engaged and so I do not need to disengage.

This thread exists because of this distinction between engaged and non-engaged. If you are not engaged you can move freely... until someone with a lower SR than you hacks your thigh or does a Knockback attack, or any other act that would prevent you from getting to where you wanted to go. (Even though pure movement is not assigned a SR, I would use the SR table to determine the SR value of the movement in matter where the success of the movement might be impacted by an attack. The tools are there; I'll use them.)

I'm perfectly willing to assume I'm misreading the rules, and if one of the designers tells me so I'll go along with it. But at this time it seems like the easiest, clearest reading of the rules.

6 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Question. If Phil decides to parry, would he then become engaged and thus intercepted before he can reach Tom? I believe so.

So, yes. I agree with this.

Also, DreadDomain, thank you for catching the error in my post above. Fixing it now!