creativehum

Here's my ruling:

It depends on the circumstances of the fictional situation. 

Not only is this how I normally Referee, but this is an important passage from RQG:

Quote

The players and gamemaster declare the intentions of all participants in the melee round. 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).

Enough should be said so that every participant has as much information about your intentions as could be expected from their adventurer’s involvement in the situation. The gamemaster, in particular, should provide as much information to the players as seems reasonable. Players may not know what exact spell a foe is going to cast, but they should know that the foe is readying a spell.

So, we're not trying to nail down every little detail before the round. We want to know the general gesture and sweep of the actions, and then drill down the specifics and nitty-gritty as we go.

The basic default, as I would GM, would be this:

PHIL: I'm running to kill Tom.

JEREMY: I'm running to stop Phil. I'm going to hack him in the back before he kills Tom.

TOM: "help"

The general positioning of the character will influence a lot of what happens next. Can Jeremy reach Phil before Phil gets to Tom? Or will Jeremy have to meet Phil over Tom's prone body?

Let's say that Jeremy can meet Phil on his way to Tom... and because he can move less than Phil than Phil's journey to Tom, he'll have the lower SR. Jeremy commits to this (attacking Phil on his way to Tom), and Phil commits to rushing at Tom to kill him.

Now, what happens when Jeremy encounters Phil? Well, Jeremy attacks Phil... that's for sure. But is Phil engaged in the combat? In my ruling (with my limited grasp of the rules at this time) I say the answer is no. Jeremy made it clear he wanted to run at Tom even though he knew Phil was gunning for him. He CHOSE to do this.

This means that Jeremy gets an attack on Phil with no defensive action from Phil. It's a risk Phil is willing to take because (for whatever reason) he wants Tom dead NOW.

And that's it. You can't make someone engage according to the rules, as far as I can tell. But there is certainly a downside for NOT engaging with someone attacking you.

But what happens after that? Again: what are the circumstances of the fictional situation? If Jermey cuts into Phil's legs I'm going to rule he doesn't make it to Tom. If it is a light cut on an arm, he keeps going. If Jeremy does a Knockback attack on Jeremy and succeeds he definitely doesn't make it to Tom.

What we have here is this juicy feast of options and possible results. Phil could have chosen to engage with Jermey on his way to Tom, but decided to take a risk. Jeremy can try to knock Phil off his attack, but risks ending up on his own ass if he screws up. The hit location (without the Knockback) but do the trick for Jeremey... but it might not.

That's how I'm seeing it for now.

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

And what if you are trying to engage someone who is trying to engage someone else? Say cutting off those Broo before they get to your buddy. I dunno. RQ2 said that if SRs were the same then compare DEX, so we treat this the same way and the one with the highest DEX wins?

This never came up back when we were actually playing RQ2. 

The rules of RQG say...

Quote

 

If both opponents have the same strike rank, their DEX characteristics are compared and the fastest combatant strikes first. If DEXs are the same, then the strikes are simultaneous, and damage is not taken until both attacks have been rolled and all damage assessed.

 

So, yes. If an enemy rushes at my friend, and I rush the enemy, then we go in SR order, and then DEX for ties, and simultaneous hits if DEX ties.

But note: you can't make someone engage with you. Being "Engaged" means (as far as I can tell, and again, I'm no RQ expert) that you are attacking and defending against someone. 

If Phil (SR 7) rushes at my buddy Tom (lying on the ground bleeding out) to finish him off, and I run to attack Phil (with a SR 6), Phil does not have to Engage with me. He could commit to attacking Tom, ignoring me, and letting me attack him without any defensive actions, because he wants Tom dead that badly and his will to risk taking the attack so he can finish Tom off. I'm engaged with Phil, Phil is engaging Tom, and Tom is looking up at me with hope.

For the record, if the odds looked good, I'd probably make a Knockback attack against Phil to get him the hell away from my buddy Tom in case I don't kill him this round.

Anyway... that's how I'd read it with my first take on the rules.

9 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think so.

Honestly, I find these three options nifty, with plenty of opportunity for tactical choices and desperate gambles, keeping the battle from being simple a bunch of rolls to hit. 

As I've noted I've never played RQ -- but I'm getting kind of eager!

10 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

This seems to be over-complicating what is a fairly simple and obvious mechanic.

I agree with you across the board -- except handling the opponent's attack when fleeing could be ambiguous and how it is used does matter. I don't see it as a matter of "gospel". Figuring out rules ahead of time certainly prevents confusion during play. I know I'm comfortable with what I'd do with Flee now. Glad I saw the thread.

35 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Sorry, I assumed from the example in the first post "Bob flees on SR1" that fleeing happened during SR,  because the character is engaged at the start of the round. 

This is an interesting question (Or perhaps not! I don't know RQ that well!)

if I declare "I'm fleeing this guy to run over and attack the troll who is about to kill my friend" does it matter if I do it on my SR or at the start of the round during movement.

it seems to me I'd do it at the start of the round, since the moment I activate Flee I am no longer engaged. So my opponent gets the free attack, I move to the troll for my attack, and my opponent does whatever he is going to do on his SR.

21 minutes ago, styopa said:

It seems mechanically odd that people with BAD SRs are essentially unharmed by the disengage rule in that case - they can simply stroll away on their action, suffering nothing more than they already have.  The only people hurt by it are...faster people?

I concur. 

The rules states that if you flee your opponent "can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged."

The opponent either can make an attack or he can't. And the rule states the opponent can. 

The only way I can square this -- using  a blunt, plain reading that requires no extra interpretation or shenanigans to make sense -- is that the opponent gets an immediate attack when you try to flee independent of his SR. That is the cost of being able to move full movement that round even though you are engaged.

Note that a slower opponent will only have one attack no matter what, while a faster opponent gets another shot at you when you turn tail and move.

Yes. Good points.

My questions is what if the SRs were reversed?

The Broos attack me on SR 3 and I flee on SR 7.

The rules say each Broo "can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged."

In this case how does that work? 

1 hour ago, deleriad said:

Normally, if no one is around on SR 7 the broos would stand around looking confused however you have decided to move as if you are disengaged. This allows the two broos to attack you before you start to move. If you are still capable of moving then you can move as a disengaged character up to your MOV.  (This is not a "free" attack - precise words are. "their opponent can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged.")

This would be their attack for the round. Essentially it has been brought forward out of normal SR order.

What if the Broos had no SR after the fleeing character flees?

Do they not get an attack? Is their SR brought forward from the next round?

15 minutes ago, Sean_RDP said:

To illustrate why I think this is incoherent in general, let me focus on the initial basic question

Free Attack

If you Flee, your opponent gets a free attack.

Free attack? Is this an attack outside their normal attack OR does it use up their normal attack?

Example. CharA is Fighting Broo1 and Broo2. The two Broo are primed to attack on SR 7. CharA has had enough and is fleeing. So each Broo gets a free attack if they want it. IF they take these attacks, do they still have their normal attacks on SR 7 or not?

I agree that this question is a point with some ambiguity. I was trying to clear out all the chafe that was I think cluttering put the issue and not confusing at all.

Now, I have never played RQ -- not any version. I am simply looking at the rules as present in front of me.

What I read of the pages is the following: "This leaves the disengaging adventurer open and defenseless—their opponent can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged."

When I read that that second clause, I read it as the Flee option offering an additional, immediate attack to the opponent. This means the opponent(s) can choose to do whatever they want on their normal SR. (Which might well be try to close on the fleeing character.)

Not only is it the easiest, most blunt reading of the sentence, it also provides a cost for the Flee maneuver -- which I think is a good idea.

Importantly, for me, there was no ambiguity. The reading I'm offering is the reading I would have had simply picking up the book and reading it.

On 6/12/2018 at 7:32 PM, Sean_RDP said:

To engage with someone is also a bit unclear. If you are next to a guy with your hands in your pocket and he has a knife, are you engaged? Logically you are but that is never really explicitly stated.

I'm a little confused as to to the confusion, but I wanted to clarify this part:

On page 195, above the section on disengaging, we find this sentence:

Quote

An adventurer engaged in melee cannot move until disengaged.

Which means, for the purposes of play, "engaged" in RQG means your movement is limited. The idea is that if you are busy attacking and defending with one or more opponents you don't have control over where you are going or where you want to get to.

If a guy is standing next to you with a knife in his pocket you are not engaged. If someone is shooting a bow at you you are not engaged. Because in both cases your movement is not constrained in any way. 

To get control over where you are going or where you want to get to you can make a Retreating action (a defensive action that frees you up to move without consequence if successful, but takes a melee round), use a Knockback Attack (an attack frees you up to move without consequence if successful, but takes a melee round), or Flee (which allows you to move immediately, allowing you to move as if you were not engaged, but at the cost of your opponent getting to make a free attack).

Each of the three options has tradeoffs. For example. If I need to get to the shaman and punch him in the face before he finishes the ritual RIGHT NOW, then I might use the Flee option to get to him, even though it opens me to an attack. I might do this because I don't have the luxury of time to make a defensive retreat toward the shaman and don't have time to mess around with a Knockback attack.

"Flee" might be an awkward word choice given the connotation, but it is the word we have. You are "fleeing the opponent" and that's why the word is used. But you might also be, "Rushing toward the Magical Shenanigan before an enemy gets it."

With this in mind, Flee doesn't means a character vanishes into smoke before his opponent. It means the character can now move and is moving as if he wasn't Engaged. If the opponent wants to pursue, he can and standard movement rules apply, including the Chase rules.

The three options are there, as far as I can tell, to allow risks and consequences for different options based on different circumstances. Sometimes I'm going to rush to help my friend who is getting hammered by a troll, consequences be damned, and sometimes I'm going to say, "I can't risk a free attack this turn." Or I'm going to Knockback my opponent toward the edge of cliff and then advance on him... which I would not otherwise be able to do because I would be Engaged, and when I am Engaged I'm not allowed to move.

And so on.

14 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Okay, I'm stunned. I guess people really do buy and play RPGs for the art. Maybe it's a generation thing or something. 

Do some people buy and play a game only because of the art? I suppose so.

Does art influence whether or not some people buy and play a game? Probably!

Are there people for whom art in an RPG doesn't matter at all? Wouldn't doubt it.

Is it a generational thing? No.

Welcome to living on a planet with seven billion different people.

No. Not at all... because I don't think most people learn about games, talk about games, buy games, or find fellow players in stores.

As noted in my lengthy post above, I believe most of the above is handled online. 

I play a weekly game face-to-face. We play a wide selection of games. We've been playing for two and a half years regularly.

The games are discovered online (kickstarters, blog posts, forums), purchased online (variety of sources), and the group was partially formed online (I invited friends I knew, but also found some players through Meetup.com). 

A local game store greased no wheels and had no impact in facilitating play at all. 

I'm not saying a local game store can't be a wonderful thing, and can't be helpful.

I am saying I have no idea how a local game store is vital or needed for the discovery of games or for the play of new games to occur.

If my group ends up playing RQG it is because I found out about it online... and a local game store will have nothing to do with it. 

(And I'm not into RuneQuest because I played it years ago. I've never played RuneQuest. I would be a new player too! I decided check out Glorantha when Hero Wars was released, which I heard about online. Really, all my interaction with RuneQuest and Glorantha has come about because of things I've read online.)

50 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Hold it. Slight misunderstanding. I do buy products on line, especially RPGs..

 

Well, then, I'm confused afresh, since several posts back you seemed very concerned that your local game store wouldn't carry RQG material because of the price point. But price point or not, either it matters brick and mortar carries games these days... or it doesn't. And I don't think it does. 

So I don't quite understand your points or concerns about... well... I really don't understand. But it's all good.

1 hour ago, Richard S. said:

and in the ones I've heard people talk about...

There are some amazing game stores out there with deep shelves. And then there are many, many others that don't. (I live in Los Angeles, and across Los Angeles County I have a mix of both. So I'm not saying the kinds of stores you describe don't exist. I'm saying they are rare -- and awesome.

46 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No. I hate to subscribe to anything these days, or buy something online from a  company that I don't already deal with...

Okay, this explains at least part of my confusion.

The notion that having an RPG on the shelves of a brick and mortar store is vital to promoting it is, in my estimation, off base.

First of of all, most stores will only carry D&D 5th, and if they carry any other games at all it will be a small selection of game lines, and even then not fully supported. 

D&D is simply the go to game across the United States. It is the default, with a vast market share that most other games can't compete with. Assuming that another RPG line is going to get a lot of shelf space, apart from a few unique circumstances in a few specific stores, is a kind of fool's errand as far as I can tell.

Second, while some people don't like to buy products online (which is fine) the fact is most RPG retail that doesn't involve D&D takes place online. There's no way around this.

Between POD (One Book Shelf, Lulu, and others), game companies with their own retail machine (Chaosium, Evil Hate, and countless others), and secondary sales (eBay, Noble Knight, Amazon, and others)... most games are purchased online and shipped to buyers. I'm looking at my RPG shelves right now and I don't think a single book staring back at me right now came home in my hands from a store.

Chaosium is promoting RQG online via their website, social media, RPG forums... which is what you do these days. Because this media will contain links, which will lead to their online store, which leads to sales, which is how most RPGs are (again) sold these days. The media can contain images from the books, quotes from reviews, links to PDF samples and more. The fact that anyone can easily download the free PDF of the RQG Quickstart with a couple of clicks on links and buttons is how promotion works this days, it is now people can sample the game, the images, the text, and so on without ever having to buy anything.

I suspect that none of this is anything that interests you -- which, again, is fine. But especially for new players, which you seem particularly concerned about, this is how players new to RuneQuest and Glorantha will come across the game. Anyone wanting to see "what else is out there" will enter the wilds of the Web, come across forums, game focused groups on Facebook or G+ , blogs, and so on, and stumble across news about RuneQuest Glorantha as they fall down various rabbit holes, see images, read reviews, and see people talking about it with passion.

The RPG hobby is thriving and busy with the exchange of ideas and content online (as well as playing online, which does wonders for people who do not live in gamer-dense areas). And most of the purchasing is happening online as well.

26 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What will sell it to my group is me, running it. Nothing in the rulebook will do it. Not until they actually see it in play.

That's true of all RPGs in all situations.

I believe I am becoming confused by what your concern or problem is.

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It seems like I'm one of the few, if not the only on around here is isn't in awe of RQG, and I also happen to be the one who hasn't seen the art. There could be a connection. 

First, for clarity, I'm not in "awe" of RQG. I've never played RQ, and have only played a little bit of HQG. (That said, one of my favorite convention games was a one-shot I ran of HQG a few years back.)

So I'm curious about RQG. It looks great. As a huge fan of Pendragon I love the integration of the Passions/Runes in RQG and looking forward to seeing if the game as a whole will work with my group. I think it will fly, but we'll see! So, I want to make it clear that the mechanics/rules really are very important to me.

It sounds like the game might be a tough sell for your group. I'm not really sure wha the game/setting could do to change that. Though, as has been mentioned, a free, complete, and interesting introductory Quickstart that introduces the rules and the setting certainly seems like a way to test the waters.

As for my group, I've been running a Lamentations of the Flame Princess game (essentially Basic D&D), and we have played Cyberpunk 2020, the Shadowrun setting using the HeroQuest rules, a fantasy Rome game and a kids-in-a-magic-school game both using Powered by the Apocalypse engine, Unknown Armies 3rd Edition, Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying 1st edition, among others. I'm probably running a Classic Traveller mini-campaign in a few weeks. So, by definition, we're willing to try lots of things. For this reason I think RQG might work.

The thing that's holding me back is me. I'm currently reading Herodotus' The Histories, want to read Gilgamesh, and want to track down a copy of Four Thousand Years Ago for a reasonable price... because I know I'll be responsible for guiding my Players into a certain mindset... and I want to do it well. And that means steeping myself in a certain kind of thinking, culture, and worldview that is alien to most of us.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That is probably the one thing about RQG that everyone seems to say. I haven't seen it, but apparently it's gorgeous. But does anybody play an RPG because of it's looks? Do they run a campaign because of it? If they do, great.

My Monday Night Group plays lots of different RPGs. (We rotate GMs, and people run what they want.) Most of them have had no exposure to Glorantha, and none of them to Runequest.

If I want to run RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha for them, you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to place RQG, the RQG Bestiary, and the RQG GM book, and the Glorantha Sourcebook on the table and let them flip through them. The art is going to be a major influence if they are excited and interested in playing. What else could hook them on an intuitive and gut level? The mechanics will matter, but me babbling about mechanics for half-an-hour will pale in comparison to that amazing image of Orlanth striding across the land in the Glorantha Sourcebook, the tatted-up warriors in RQG, and so on.

Glorantha, for better and worse, is a alien and strange place. Without the art to help draw new players in, and help get everyone on the same page, I'm not sure exactly what would inspire people on a whim to get excited and focused on what roleplaying in Glorantha is supposed to be like.

All of this is personal and subjective (of course)...

But I don't want a "pared down" Runequest Glorantha version of any kind.

The point of Glorantha is that it is Glorantha. The point of Runequest (now, at least) is that it is a game fully integrated into the setting of Glorantha. 

If I want Glorantha I want the whole deal. I want the rules that reflect the setting completely, and I want enough setting material (ranging from cultures to hero quests) to let me play the game. If it takes three volumes and a $150, so be it. The buy-in for Runequest: Roleplaying in Glorantha is going to be a lot more than $150. It will be the time and energy devoted to reading up on the setting, investing in the ideas of the setting, and digging into all that in play. Either one wants a "deep-end setting" -- or one does not. If one does, it sound like the three volumes of RQG will deliver that. If not, one shouldn't be picking up the game.

If I want lighter version of Glorantha (or Runequest, for that matter), there are a half-dozen easy to acquire options of this nature. But that isn' t what RQG is about. It's been clear since 1999 that the push from Team: Glorantha has been to make game lines and setting products that bring GLORANTHA to the gaming table -- as big and unwieldy as that might be.

20 minutes ago, Stephen said:

no SoCal peeps out there? (cricket)

For some reason the post double posted--I have deleted this one!

17 minutes ago, Stephen said:

no SoCal peeps out there? (cricket)

SoCal is... big. (Because all of Cal is big!)

I'm in Los Angeles. (West Side, specifically.) The chance to check out your game is enticing. But driving to Orange County is maybe more of a commute than I'd want, given that I have a regular gaming group on Mondays... and plenty of other gaming I could pick up here as well. (And that traffic back north on Sunday night can be brutal!)

1 hour ago, MOB said:

Fortunately you can try out RQG for precisely $0: RuneQuest Quickstart.

I don't suppose anyone who has gone through the RQG book carefully has made up a list of any differences in the rules presented in the Quickstart and those found in RQG? (From what I've read so far on forums it seems as if there are some changes... but I haven't done my deep dive into either yet.)

That I am having to parse words this carefully makes me sad and is kind of weird, but for the record:

1 hour ago, ThornPlutonius said:

 Mr. O'Brien's statement about distinct features....

O'Brien never makes a claim for "distinct features." In both the thread title and the post he claims RQ has four features that help make the game distinct from other games.

In other words, the game is distinct, not the features.

Does RQ have the four features named? Yes.

Do these four features in combination in the same game help make RQ unique among other RPGs? Yes.

Got it. 

Cool. Thanks.

This is, I suppose, off topic... But if the players don't state what Rhein PCs are doing... how do you know what the PCs are rolling?