Knockback get up

[DreadDomain]

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

My problem with RQG combat is the static nature of it. A combatant knocked down onto the ground will rarely remain in the original position. It would seem reasonable to regard a character suffering a knockback of more than a meter to start the next melee round as disengaged from the cause of the knockback unless said cause explicitely maintains contact.

In a perfect world, there would be a combat maneuver producing an intentional knockback of an opponent to disengage. RQG simplifies this disregarding the finicky bits about the knockback and just going through the procedures of disengaging, but from a player perspective, doing so by shoving the opponent back is narratively more satisfying.

I may misunderstand your point here but there is a combat maneuver producing an intentional knockback of an opponent to disengage (p.195). Isn't it what you are after? Now, I am not enamored about the mechanics of it but it's there.

[Joerg]

2 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I may misunderstand your point here but there is a combat maneuver producing an intentional knockback of an opponent to disengage (p.195). Isn't it what you are after? Now, I am not enamored about the mechanics of it but it's there.

A bit like RQ3's fatigue rules, yes, rules that offer an option but nobody really loves. A subset of rules that is there but doesn't quite find application.

[DreadDomain]

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

A bit like RQ3's fatigue rules, yes, rules that offer an option but nobody really loves. A subset of rules that is there but doesn't quite find application.

Still, it is not that it does not exist. It is that you do not like it. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix it? I am genuinely interested. 

Often, when I don't like a rule in RQG, I look at RQ3 or BRP. in that case, it does not help much.

[Joerg]

6 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Still, it is not that it does not exist. It is that you do not like it.

Yes. There are a couple of conventions set by the design of RQG combat that I would have preferred in a different way. Introducing house rules may change the game in unexpected ways.

One thing I experienced in mock combat was a non-physical pushback of an opponent (in a rubber sword duel) just by intimidation. (It may have helped that there is a lot of me, vertically.) Imagine a battle situation with your Humakti on point and all attackers going for the flanks rather than the point man, leaving the Humakti without an immediate opponent.

 

6 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Do you have a suggestion on how to fix it? I am genuinely interested. 

Not a fix, more of a want - something to enable a modicum of movement inside the Strike Ranks in a melee situation. Admittedly more based on armchair research and limited rubber sword experiences than actual martial arts training or real life combat situations.

 

[Malin]

12 hours ago, Joerg said:

Not a fix, more of a want - something to enable a modicum of movement inside the Strike Ranks in a melee situation.

Honestly, RQG combat turned a lot more fun for me when we removed movement from the strike ranks in most circumstances. We use SR as a more predictable initiative for the type of attack you do, with free movement (up to the limit) unless it is important. What I mean by important are things like: Can I run out the door before getting shot? How many shots will I face before I reach the bowman with my sword and so on. In most other cases it really doesn't matter.

When it comes to melee combat, I've found that letting people move freely stops that paralyzing freeze that leaves some people standing still and fighting statically as they fear adding SR to their attacks. It's just a lot more fun for us.

Also, I am totally stealing the non-physical intimidation pushback. That's my experience from fights too.

[DreadDomain]

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

Yes. There are a couple of conventions set by the design of RQG combat that I would have preferred in a different way. Introducing house rules may change the game in unexpected ways.

You and me both.

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

One thing I experienced in mock combat was a non-physical pushback of an opponent (in a rubber sword duel) just by intimidation. (It may have helped that there is a lot of me, vertically.) Imagine a battle situation with your Humakti on point and all attackers going for the flanks rather than the point man, leaving the Humakti without an immediate opponent.

I would allow something like that with an Intimidate contest (vs, Intimidate, Passion or Insight) with relevant Augments of course. Depending on the results, many narrative results could happen (one step back, turn and flee, etc...) 

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

Not a fix, more of a want - something to enable a modicum of movement inside the Strike Ranks in a melee situation. 

I hear you. Combat in RQ3 was a lot more dynamic and offered more tactical options. And the relationships between attack results and defense results were a lot simpler. It wasn't perfect but I liked it better.

[Akhôrahil]

On 11/19/2023 at 6:59 PM, Joerg said:

Not a fix, more of a want - something to enable a modicum of movement inside the Strike Ranks in a melee situation. Admittedly more based on armchair research and limited rubber sword experiences than actual martial arts training or real life combat situations.

It’s bad in a number of ways that once you’re in combat in RQG, no-one is moving anywhere until someone goes down - it makes the fights static and less interesting both tactically and narratively.

The Five-Foot Step in D&D was a good solution to this - you get some mobility and easy disengagement unless your opponent is specifically good at countering this. In RQ, it probably wouldn’t be to hard to allow one person to Move a bit and let the other decide whether to follow to maintain melee, and similarly to allow strikes to have a small pushback with follow-up.

Edited November 21, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[DreadDomain]

On 11/20/2023 at 11:21 PM, Akhôrahil said:

Ir’s bad in a number of ways that once you’re in combat in RQG, no-one is moving anywhere until someone goes down - it makes the fights static and less interesting both tactically and narratively.

The Five-Foot Step in D&D was a good solution to this - you ger some mobility and easy disengagement unless your opponent is specifically good at countering this. In RQ, it probably wouldn’t be to hard to allow one person to Move a bit and let the other decide whether to follow to maintain melee, and similarly to allow strikes to have a small pushback with follow-up.

Yes, in RQ3 things were moving around a lot more and the dynamic was enabled by:

• Movement being integrated to SRs
• Closing - which allowed "steps" while in melee and potentially changed the dynamic of the fight
• Knockback, Intentional Knockback and Special Knockback - which created gaps in melee (and disengagement and falls), unintentionally, intentionally or due to a good hit.
• Attack of opportunity - which made moving in melee dangerous
• Attack on the run
• Disengagement - which RQG has as well

There were other tactical choices but from the top of my head the above are related to movement in combat. Except for the first one, should be relatively easy to reintroduce in RQG.

All of this can provide a very dynamic, chaotic and satisfying experience for some players, but for others it can be too much options overwhelming them and "moving into position, attack, defend" might be all the want.

At the moment I gm Call of Cthulhu and RuneQuest for my daughters. CoC is a lot easier for them to manage and for RQ, I let them declare their actions for the round and I manage the mechanics (position them on the SR tracker, tell them what to roll, tell the the outcomes (attack/defense matrix) and so on.) They are not quite ready to add tactical texture :)