A returning player considers combat...

[Trotsky]

Hi Everyone,

I have had the slipcase set for a week now and have thoroughly enjoyed reading it. I was talking about it to one of my gaming friends who said he had heard the combat rules are pretty crunchy (he has never played RQ in any form). This led us to a conversation about what that means. He said he thought it means it strives to be realistic and account for realistic physics and time keeping. This made me think about what the system is trying to achieve and made me think about my original experience with RQ2 back in very early eighties…

My gaming group back then – all friends from school – immediately fell in love with the RQ2 experience. We stopped playing other games (except Traveller) for a long time after. The biggest and most exciting change for us was the extreme lengths we went to avoid combat.  I remember the excitement of the visceral combat – several combat scenes are still with me decades later… I definitely believed then that the combat was more realistic to other fantasy RPGs.

However, I realise now that the RQ combat system is not at its heart anything to do with realistic simulation, it is all to do with storytelling… As I have been learning the new RQ I have been playing out some combats to get comfortable with the rules. The GM in me can’t help but narrate these exchanges in my head and the stories they paint are glorious – full of tension, setbacks, unexpected successes and pleas for mercy when it all goes wrong! 

[Bill the barbarian]

53 minutes ago, Trotsky said:

However, I realise now that the RQ combat system is not at its heart anything to do with realistic simulation, it is all to do with storytelling… As I have been learning the new RQ I have been playing out some combats to get comfortable with the rules. The GM in me can’t help but narrate these exchanges in my head and the stories they paint are glorious – full of tension, setbacks, unexpected successes and pleas for mercy when it all goes wrong! 

And cries of "my ransom is"... or "I call upon (Insert name of god here) to save me!” ringing out from the defeated....

Yes, I have always seen the simulations twist of he rules led to good narration as sweat breaks out on a gamer’s forehead and he realizes that his next idea had better be good, or...

Ruric glances woefully as his battered shield, flics the blood from his eyes with a jerk of his head and realizes he is spent. Too many wounds on him, too little mana from the gods remaining to spawn more miracles. His opponent stands untouched... Two choices remains, one uncertain and requiring permanent sacrifice from his soul or... he falls to his knees sighing, "My ransom is held for me at the Clearwine Earth Temple”, he begins while making the Rune of Communication with his hands... "Let us send messengers to make ready the transfer of wealth from my clan to yours. I declare surrender and offer ransom in the name of wise and peaceful Issaries" 

Edited July 12, 2020 by Bill the barbarian

[jajagappa]

1 hour ago, Trotsky said:

However, I realise now that the RQ combat system is not at its heart anything to do with realistic simulation, it is all to do with storytelling…

I think it always has been.  The "crunchiness" (i.e. the Lunar just severed your left leg) is there too, but that's part of the story, part of what's memorable.  You get a picture in your mind (and at the table) of what is happening.

[Lordabdul]

10 hours ago, jajagappa said:

The "crunchiness" (i.e. the Lunar just severed your left leg) is there too, but that's part of the story, part of what's memorable.  You get a picture in your mind (and at the table) of what is happening.

Yeah, there are crunchy rules that are only there for tactical combat's sake, for people who want to effectively play a wargame, while some other crunchy rules are there to help create more story twists and narrative opportunities. Sometimes, in the hands of 2 different GMs, the same set of rules might end up more firmly in one or the other category, and that's often how players might get put off with that particular set of rules... and you don't understand because you had the other type of experience.

[Stephen L]

23 hours ago, Trotsky said:

all to do with storytelling

Yes, I’ve always felt that RQ combat was unrivalled for excitement, and indeed story telling.  I've never been one to be impressed by realism that gets in the way of fun!

I may be wrong, in that’s it’s ages since I’ve played RQii/iii but the main difference I'm finding is that weapons are breaking far more often then I recall them previously.  Close inspection of the combat tables for specials and crits, indicate that there’re cases where the parrying weapon/shield take full damage, not just 1 hp.  It means that combats are resolving quite quickly, rather than getting into endless slogs.  A really good hit, even if parried, will damage the parrying weapon, leaving the parrier vulnerable against future blows.

Another area of the combat rules that I've found takes a lot of reading, is parrying, particularly which location takes the excess damage.  An interpretation that we've adopted is that damage on a shield (not weapon) parry goes through to the parrying arm.  Which makes shield users somewhat more survivable (albeit with perhaps fewer limbs!).  Which I think is a really nice touch.  You decide, am I parrying with shield or weapon, based on how many AP each has left, and how much your shield arm hurts!

Another area of great story telling in the rules is character generation, which is pretty amazing in RQinG.  I don’t recall anything to match the vividness of the characters generated, with backstories that fuels lots of ideas for the referee.

Gosh, I vaguely remember someone called Trotsky who was active on the RQ/Glorantha Forums, back in the day that I was following them, but that would have been decades ago…

Stephen.
 

[CharloixBrooKiller]

As someone that goes way back with both D&D and RQ, as well as  participating in Markland and SCA in the day (okay, the day was the late 70's early 80s) I agree that RQ combat is not about "more realistic" from a granular sense.  I would however say that RQ combat in relation to D&D is more realistic in that 1) numbers matter, 2) ANYONE can get themselves hurt or  killed, 3)keep doing it and you'll get it trouble sooner or later, 4) mismatches are not fixed just by your 'skill'.  I mean when a Great Troll hits with his club, does it matter if you got your shield up?

 

What RQ combat does is change the RPG game from massive 'dungeon crawls' to a more detailed, granular experience in which a few fights cap the scenario or action. It is not THE only ac tion.

[DreadDomain]

I generally does not need a combat system that tries to replicate reality but I like combat that:

1) involve tactics and decision making to a degree. I don't necessarily dislike repetitive turns, I attack, I parry, I attack, I parry but I dislike it when it is the only option.

2) have consequence and where the tactics/approach you choose (number 1 above) have an impact on the consequences

3) Give a sense they are real, believable. I like watching a movie and be able to visualise it in a combat system.

Regarding 1, I believe RQG provides it but is only missing a "closing maneuver" to make the reach of a weapon something you can use to your advantage, may it be long of short.

Regarding 2, RQG definitely delivers. Criticals and specials that vary depending on weapon type, damage that have various consequences based on hit location, parries that are not binary (I parry or I don't), the real possibility that you might die or be  seriously injured in any fight and the in game expectation, that you will try to avoid it or at the very least try to avoid bringing it to a lethal conclusion by surrendering and offering ransom or by capturing an enemy and collecting ransom.

Regarding 3, I only need to forget about the duration of a MR (12 seconds) and replace it in my head by "an elastic amount of time lasting from a few seconds to 12 seconds"  and I am happy.

With all 3 conditions filled, storytelling then becomes easy and very satisfying.

[Bill the barbarian]

9 hours ago, Stephen L said:

Gosh, I vaguely remember someone called Trotsky who was active on the RQ/Glorantha Forums, back in the day that I was following them, but that would have been decades ago…

 

Already asked, because I was wondering the same thing. This Trotsky, much like the last (the one from “Not a Dead Communist” website) denies being his own predecessor.  In a similar vein, there is a Wanderer wandering around BRP Central. This was my name back in the BBS days. 

Edited July 14, 2020 by Bill the barbarian