100+ in a combat skill

[Shiningbrow]

5 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

• This isn't a standard combat situation whereby a 100% + parry skill can negate the effectiveness of the Giants attack. Blows from the Giant that hit their target will hit at their normal chance, and will do large amounts of damage, probably killing you if you attempt to parry -  so dodging is your only realistic defence option. No matter how skilled the swordsman, s/he isn't going to do too much by successfully putting the weapon in front of the giant maul. The Giants at a different scale and doesn't need to play by the same rules. Dodge is the only sensible option.
• I would however allow dodge at 100%+ to work as written in the rules.

Earthshield? Your shield has infinite HP...

[Mugen]

9 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Though I'm very fond of RQ and BRP game mechanics, personally I would make a GM call in these situations. For me the best starting point would be asking what would be the most satisfying outcome for the story. If its a hulking 10m giant with arms the size of trees, then for dramatic purposes I'd be inclined to house rule for story purposes that:

• This isn't a standard combat situation whereby a 100% + parry skill can negate the effectiveness of the Giants attack. Blows from the Giant that hit their target will hit at their normal chance, and will do large amounts of damage, probably killing you if you attempt to parry -  so dodging is your only realistic defence option. No matter how skilled the swordsman, s/he isn't going to do too much by successfully putting the weapon in front of the giant maul. The Giants at a different scale and doesn't need to play by the same rules. Dodge is the only sensible option.

But what about a very big Uz wielding a great maul instead of a Giant, then?

It's very likely the 4d6+2 damage of the troll will inflict damage on the duck if he parries it, even if he uses a kite shield. That's a situation where common sense would dictate that he'd better dodge, but where the rules may make parrying a good alternative.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Earthshield? Your shield has infinite HP...

Good use of magic. Good way to make parrying effective against powerful opponents. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

3 hours ago, Mugen said:

But what about a very big Uz wielding a great maul instead of a Giant, then?

 

I’d probably allow it, though I might question In the case of a huge cave troll. Basically I’d go with what makes the story cool. If it’s fun to have a super effective duck parrier running circles around a giant troll then I’d go with it. If it’s more fun to express the power of the opponent swinging huge hits at a tiny target, then I might disallow the 100%+ opposed rules. 
 

One of the things I like about RQG/BRP games is it’s easy to make these kind of calls as a GM, and it still retains a logic.

 

I guess if you’re clear on what a “parry” is actually doing in game, it becomes an easier decision to make as a gm. So alternatively If parry involves an element of changing body position from out of the direct blow, as well as a bit of weapon deflection, then maybe if it suites the game allow the 100% + opposed rule to stand in all circumstances. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[French Desperate WindChild]

maybe we can define a rule : we need a table or opposition roll :

SIZ / SIZ+STR/ damage bonus of attacker versus STR / SIZ + STR / damage bonus of defender

every x points, the defender get a penalty.

but also another table for a bigger attacker penalty : 100% in attack doesn't give you an automatic success again an ant, i believe

for this one I would use the ENC of the weapon compared to the SIZ of the defender, but I don't know how, I mean, an ant has more chance than a human to not be killed by a tree.

 

 

[RosenMcStern]

2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I’d probably allow it, though I might question In the case of a huge cave troll. Basically I’d go with what makes the story cool. If it’s fun to have a super effective duck parrier running circles around a giant troll then I’d go with it. If it’s more fun to express the power of the opponent swinging huge hits at a tiny target, then I might disallow the 100%+ opposed rules. 

One of the things I like about RQG/BRP games is it’s easy to make these kind of calls as a GM, and it still retains a logic.

Honestly, this would piss me off completely as a player. 

The game is not about "what makes the story cool", it is about making your characters shine in the story. If the duck's player has invested a lot of playing time in developing his character skills, seeing them nullified and the character put at risk of anti-climactic death is not cool at all. Players should know what to expect when they use their skills, particularly when their characters are masters at them.

This is also one of the reasons that makes me fiercely opposed to the "rulings, not rules" approach to RPGs. GM rulings are for situations where the situation is blurry and borderline, but here the point is very clear in the rules. A parry is an opposed skill roll, so a master subtracts his % over 100 from the attack of the less skilled opponent. The disadvantage of being smaller is already factored in the rules with the subtraction of AP from the blow instead of using an "all or nothing" parry as you have in GURPS. A giant club blow can kill the duck in any case if it connects despite the penalty, whereas a bigger adventurer with a large weapon would easily survive a parried hit. To add a further "GM call" to a situation where the player is already penalised to the point that he risks losing his character is the antithesis of fun. It is pure player frustration.

I can understand that the GM may have "suspension of disbelief" issues, too, but this cannot come at the cost of player enjoyment. "Disallowing" rules that are core and central to a character concept (and do not tell me that this is not central to the character concept: a duck with 100%+ in shortsword is built on the concept of "I may be small but I can outsmart bigger guys" - except that the GM says you cannot) is never fun. The GM should not make any call whatsoever in cases like this, just stick to the rules unless the players agree.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

5 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

The game is not about "what makes the story cool", it is about making your characters shine in the story.

Yes I do see your point.  I argued both ways. 

I can see how RAW the 100%+ opposed parry could be interpreted as lowering the effectiveness of a giants attack, if the meaning of  “parry” is not only getting your weapon in the way of the opponents weapon, but also shifting your body out of the way too. 

But also I think if a GM wants to make a house rule which is consistent, not too outlandish, and applies to all, then that’s fair game too. For some story wise it may feel more appropriate to the type of game you want to run - you may have exceptions to rulings in extreme circumstances. Some people might like to house rule in the knockback rule from RQ3. Not everyone is going to play RQG by the book, but equally it’s cool if you do. 
 

Personally I like the idea of a super agile parrying duck so would be inclined to play it RAW, as that’s a cool story that I’d like to play through, and the rules model that well. But If I was inclined to have exceptions in extreme circumstances, I wouldn’t let rules bog me down. 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[RosenMcStern]

The point is that it should be a house rule that the duck player knows when he chooses to play a "small but exceptionally clever" character, not a ruling you make on the spot. Both player and GM should agree about plausibility when the player is still in time to say "Well, then if this is the rule I will play a big guy, instead".

[French Desperate WindChild]

Just now, RosenMcStern said:

The point is that it should be a house rule that the duck player knows when he chooses to play a "small but exceptionally clever" character, not a ruling you make on the spot. Both player and GM should agree about plausibility when the player is still in time to say "Well, then if this is the rule I will play a big guy, instead".

I agree,  RPG is what GM and players defined. that is a common story.

But remember that a GM doesn't need house rule to let the giant kill the duck. give the giant enough skill (300.. 4000 ... 50000) and with the official rules, it will be done.

So for a group (GM + players) who don't want to kill any pc, give low skill to the giant and follow the rule

for a group accepting that a pc death is possible for the climax, we can imagine more simulationist rules than curently (of course shared with the players) or let the GM manage the % if he/she decides that this giant is part of the climax and cannot be killed in a normal fight. After all as a player I would try to imagine a smart plan to kill or avoid the giant fury than just rushing

 

[Lordabdul]

It seems we are running around in circles here, from contrived examples to "I'd make a ruling as a GM" to more subtle/less clear examples, to "how about this house rule?", to "I don't need rules when I can make a ruling" and back to a contrived example to show rulings are necessary sometimes (this circle just happened twice already). At this point I'm only interested in seeing these house rules (including mine) get playtested and hearing about some feedback.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

36 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

The point is that it should be a house rule that the duck player knows when he chooses to play a "small but exceptionally clever" character, not a ruling you make on the spot. Both player and GM should agree about plausibility when the player is still in time to say "Well, then if this is the rule I will play a big guy, instead".

Agreed you have to be fair in bringing in house rules.
If I was going down the house rule road, with the duck and the giant situation , and I was to house rule out the 100%+ opposed rule for parry as an exception to the rule, it would be across the board. It would have to apply to all small/medium/and maybe large sized pc’s too. not just penalising ducks. They’ve had it hard enough.

 As a GM I’d also give some thought before hand to the encounter, and make sure that the PC’s had a decent chance to dodge or some other advantage like magic before disallowing opposed parries.
 

But personally I’d keep it rules as written. If the concept of parry includes shifting your body out of the force of the blow, and deflecting the remaining momentum away with your parry weapon then why not? It’s not impossible to visualise a PC parrying and side stepping at the same time, whilst helping to guide the giants glancing blow away from themselves with their weapon/shield.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[RosenMcStern]

25 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

So for a group (GM + players) who don't want to kill any pc, give low skill to the giant and follow the rule

It is not a matter of not accepting the risk of PC death. "The PC died because the giant had 300% in Maul and this was too much for him to handle." is extremely different from "The PC died because the GM decided on the spot that he was not able to handle a giant with 40% Maul when the rules says he should". 

But as Lordabdul said, we have reached the point where we are discussing some general concepts about "simulative" RPGs rather than the RuneQuest rules.

[Akhôrahil]

I will probably put in a house rule that no-one skill can be reduced by more than half due to the opposition having over 100%. This will have some weird outcomes at extremely high skill levels (like 300% vs 200%), but I feel I can live with that for the time being (plus, perhaps it's a good thing that 300% vs 200% doesn't mean the one with 200% is completely helpless?).

And if the PCs complain, a fight with a Diamond Iron Dwarf with weapon skills at several hundred percent might make them change their mind...

[JustAnotherVingan]

3 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

The point is that it should be a house rule that the duck player knows when he chooses to play a "small but exceptionally clever" character, not a ruling you make on the spot. Both player and GM should agree about plausibility when the player is still in time to say "Well, then if this is the rule I will play a big guy, instead".

I don't think small but exceptionally clever characters would choose to fight toe to toe with giants.

[Lordabdul]

3 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

But personally I’d keep it rules as written. If the concept of parry includes shifting your body out of the force of the blow, and deflecting the remaining momentum away with your parry weapon then why not? It’s not impossible to visualise a PC parrying and side stepping at the same time, whilst helping to guide the giants glancing blow away from themselves with their weapon/shield.

True but on the other hand the RQ rules emphasize the gritty and dangerous aspect of parrying blows by having tables and rolls for damaging (and potentially breaking) the opponent's weapon or shield. It feels inconsistent to me that it doesn't therefore have rules for having dinosaurs and giants break your shield faster than anybody else. It would fit the narrative tropes of the genre.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

39 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

It feels inconsistent to me that it doesn't therefore have rules for having dinosaurs and giants break your shield faster than anybody else. It would fit the narrative tropes of the genre.

RAW The rules do model this through the greater damage bigger monsters do. Damage modifiers tend to be much greater. 
It’s quite likely that if a giant hits a successfully parrying PC, that the excess damage will still kill them. An average giant might be doing average damage of 29 hitpoints per hit. 
 

edit: And that’s before specials or criticals 

Edited February 3, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[PhilHibbs]

4 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

edit: And that’s before specials or criticals 

When your hit chance has been reduced to 5% by superior skill, any special is also a critical, and that only happens 1 in 100 times. When it does, though... 

Edited February 4, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Shiningbrow]

21 hours ago, Mugen said:

But what about a very big Uz wielding a great maul instead of a Giant, then?

I don't think an Uz, no matter how big, would be able to wield a giant... 

(Of course, YGMV)

[Joerg]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

I don't think an Uz, no matter how big, would be able to wield a giant... 

(Of course, YGMV)

Herakles did so, once, in order to cut his enemy from receiving regeneration from the earth. A heroic troll might imitate that feat.

And if you can use Mostali as thrown objects, why not use a giant to hit? I would make this a subset of flail weapons, though, unless the giant is rigid due to some other magical effect.

There ought to be some adaptation of the knockback rules, as swinging such a massive object is bound to move the wielder in the opposite direction, or on a strike in the same direction.

 

But jokes aside, there are weapons - even some handled by humans - that have an area effect rather than striking a single hit location, e.g. thrown nets, sometimes large enough to entrangle several targets. Rules for avoiding these would be appreciated.

[Shiningbrow]

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

I would make this a subset of flail weapons, though, unless the giant is rigid due to some other magical effect.

If they had a good enough INT, they could be a slashing weapon.

 

You know - cos they'd be so sharp...   

[PhilHibbs]

5 hours ago, Joerg said:

And if you can use Mostali as thrown objects, why not use a giant to hit? I would make this a subset of flail weapons, though, unless the giant is rigid due to some other magical effect.

Has anyone ever tried to wield you in a Trollball game? You'd make a fine battering ram.

Edited February 4, 2020 by PhilHibbs

[Joerg]

4 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Has anyone ever tried to wield you in a Trollball game? You'd make a fine battering ram.

Yes, that happened once. Made me stumble, caused a minor quake.

 

In case you wonder what this is about, I used to be the regular trollball giant referee at Castle Stahleck.

Edited February 4, 2020 by Joerg