Dodging and Parrying

[DreadDomain]

1 hour ago, coffeemancer said:

Id love to have time for that. but massed combat simply takes too much time to be viable for my group if we were to play it by RAW.

I would hardly call a fight against a dozen opponent "mass combat" but hey, if this is too much for your group, that is totally cool. Our group could run many sessions focused on roleplaying with minimum combat and then have a session where combat was the highlight.

[coffeemancer]

considering how new we are at the system it takes a lot of time. 

[Akhôrahil]

6 hours ago, coffeemancer said:

Id love to have time for that. but massed combat simply takes too much time to be viable for my group if we were to play it by RAW.

This is when you switch to the Battle skill.

[Trotsky]

Like many others in the campaign we play, combat is a last resort and relatively uncommon – only occurs when there are really no other options (there is an exception to this at the moment with our Orlanthi noble adventurer who due to in-game events is really very angry and likely to swing before thinking).

The campaign has not been running that long (around 16 sessions) but we have had a few small combats, a larger one with about twelve on each side and a small battle. For the battle we used battle skills and the simple modifiers found in the back of the Six Season in Sartar book.

For the one which was around twelve on each side – of which four were player characters. I came up with a simple resolution system beforehand. We were playing Six Seasons in Sartar, in that NPCs are given a Character Rating (CR) – it is a quick way to gauge how powerful a NPC is. You could just give NPCs a rating between 1-6.

The adventurers and their opponents fought using the RAW but for everyone else I had a two die roll resolution.

For each individual combat: I rolled 1D6 :adding the difference in CR of the combatants (with a +2 for each additional character in the same engagement). If the total was 6+ then a resolution roll was made. If not then the combat continued.

Resolve Combat Roll: each involved character rolled 1D6 + CR 

Higher total won the combat – loser was unconscious or dead. Winner took a number of Hit Point damage equal to the loser’s original die roll – location was random but no area could be equal or below 1. On drawn rolls both characters took damage as above. Winner lost magic points equal to 1D6 (assumed to have used them in the fight).

 

Now this could definitely be improved – and was only put together just before we played but led to a dynamic fight which was focused on the player characters. Also fun for me as the GM because I didn’t know what was going to happen.

[DreadDomain]

11 hours ago, coffeemancer said:

considering how new we are at the system it takes a lot of time. 

I would not expect any group to attempt a large fight in a system they are not really familiar with so it is probably wise of you to avoid them for now. By the way, both of my examples above were not with RQ. I was curious to see how Jeff would manage the fight with the skeletons and to showcase RQG in large fights. I haven't watched it yet but if the fight is handwaved as suggested above, well, that won't showcase much of the system.

8 hours ago, Trotsky said:

 

Like many others in the campaign we play, combat is a last resort and relatively uncommon – only occurs when there are really no other options (there is an exception to this at the moment with our Orlanthi noble adventurer who due to in-game events is really very angry and likely to swing before thinking).

The campaign has not been running that long (around 16 sessions) but we have had a few small combats, a larger one with about twelve on each side and a small battle. For the battle we used battle skills and the simple modifiers found in the back of the Six Season in Sartar book.

For the one which was around twelve on each side – of which four were player characters. I came up with a simple resolution system beforehand. We were playing Six Seasons in Sartar, in that NPCs are given a Character Rating (CR) – it is a quick way to gauge how powerful a NPC is. You could just give NPCs a rating between 1-6.

The adventurers and their opponents fought using the RAW but for everyone else I had a two die roll resolution.

For each individual combat: I rolled 1D6 :adding the difference in CR of the combatants (with a +2 for each additional character in the same engagement). If the total was 6+ then a resolution roll was made. If not then the combat continued.

Resolve Combat Roll: each involved character rolled 1D6 + CR 

Higher total won the combat – loser was unconscious or dead. Winner took a number of Hit Point damage equal to the loser’s original die roll – location was random but no area could be equal or below 1. On drawn rolls both characters took damage as above. Winner lost magic points equal to 1D6 (assumed to have used them in the fight).

 

Now this could definitely be improved – and was only put together just before we played but led to a dynamic fight which was focused on the player characters. Also fun for me as the GM because I didn’t know what was going to happen.

That's a very interesting way of doing it. As a GM I would generally not roll anything for a NPC vs NPC fight or I would "Pendragon" it by rolling opposed rolls and assigning results using the Pendragon philosophy.

By the way, RQ/BRP has been giving us many ways to run combats and I prefer to run RQ by using them all given the specific situation.

Want to run a more narrative or quicker fight? Pendragonize it. Rounds duration is elastic, no initiative is needed, use oppose rolls (for same level of success, lower roll wins), assign results inspired by KAP and resolve damage as per RQ. On a tie (same level of success, same number rolled on d100), the weapon with the smaller AP breaks). 

Want to run a combat with many participants or do not want to worry too much with a lot of tactical detail? Secondize it*. Rounds duration is elastic, strike ranks are mostly an initiative mechanism. Use RQG as is.

Want to run a duel or a combat where the focus will be on tactics? Thirdize it*. Rounds duration are 12 seconds, strike ranks are a action point mechanism. Weave melee movement into the SR but also, do not limit the number of actions in a SR. You have enough SR to attack again, go for it. Multiple defenses is as per RQG, aimed blow is at 1/2 skill but is not delayed at the end of the turn.

My point is all three methods (and I am sure others like the one offered by Trotsky) can be used in the same game with the same characters. It is not unlike in QW where you decide if this contest should be run as a simple or as an extended contest.

* I really need better names for these two. In the 90s when we were exploring various rule sets, we often weaved a lot of RuneQuest elements into them (a process we called RuneQuestizing a game) until we dropped them and returned to RQ3.   

Edited November 13, 2020 by DreadDomain

[French Desperate WindChild]

9 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I was curious to see how Jeff would manage the fight with the skeletons and to showcase RQG in large fights.

I like a lot the whitebull series (thanks to the people to confirm what I imagine in glorantha and to show me some idea / background etc...)

There was a fight of 20 vs 20

But I was very frustrated by this point (When I see the series I project myself as player in the table so this frustration is a "virtual player" frustration)

That's just confirm that we need some rules for medium fight (I don't consider it is a battle there, you are able to name all the fighters in your side).

My concern was there was no difference between characters, just a dice to determine if yes or not the character is wounded / killed. No take into accound of armor, magic, heal, strategy, etc...

In another way, I don't see this fight managed with the individual fighting rules, so Jeff was right to determine another way.

But it s clear I (we?) need some "accelarating rules" to reduce my (our ?) frustration

[DreadDomain]

14 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

I like a lot the whitebull series (thanks to the people to confirm what I imagine in glorantha and to show me some idea / background etc...)

Me too. I generally don't watch people gaming but this series I enjoy. I like the characters and how the players portray them, I like the pictures of each characters (very evocative) and I like that the story is tied to current events and to specific locations. The maps and pictures that Jeff flashes once in a while are very useful.

14 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

My concern was there was no difference between characters, just a dice to determine if yes or not the character is wounded / killed. No take into accound of armor, magic, heal, strategy, etc...

But isn't it more a playstyle than of the group rather than a fault of the rules?

14 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

In another way, I don't see this fight managed with the individual fighting rules, so Jeff was right to determine another way.

That is were I would have seen the rules in action.

14 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

But it s clear I (we?) need some "accelarating rules" to reduce my (our ?) frustration

Pendragonize it!

[Stephen L]

On 11/8/2020 at 1:45 PM, davecake said:

Shields aren’t always the most effective option for ending a fight quick, but usually the best option for long term survival

I couldn’t see it in any of the previous posts (so apologies if it’s already been said), but shields have been hugely useful in my campaign, saving lives on a number of occasions.

Rules p.198 has that if you parry, any excess damage goes to a random location, but if you are parrying with a shield, it goes to the shield arm.

(I have a vague recollection that this is contradicted elsewhere in the rules, but I could be wrong).

This has meant that the big critical has chopped (or, in the case of the Dragon of Thunder Hills, bitten) off the shield arm.

That is *much* better than a random location.

It really has been a life saver.

[Stephen L]

On 11/8/2020 at 4:10 AM, davecake said:

And dodge is already clearly the least good option to rely on (it’s terrible if your opponent specials or critical)

As has been mentioned, dodge has it advantages.  Back in RQiii days I once took a warrior with dodge as the main defence, and I recall he was very survivable.  O.k. you’re not a typical front line grunt, because toe to toe, the risks are too high.  But if you’re lightly armoured and fast, there’s a whole range of options open to you.  It’s all about keeping combats very quick and deadly (and I remember fondly he really was deadly).  I remember hiding (and spelling up or manoeuvring for an advantage) or keeping the opponent at bay (softening them up with missiles or magic) and only going in for the kill at the end. 

And against foes that dealt big damage, there’s no substitute to just not being where they swing/stab/stomp/chomp. 

I found it refreshing to have to actually think about tactics rather than just wade in with a deadly PC (although I recall he could armour up a wade in with a 2H weapon, and using parry instead)

On 11/10/2020 at 6:04 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

There’s a good argument in there for bringing back RQ2’s defence skill in place of dodge  

Probably the thing I *hated* most about RQii was the defence, especially how you improved in it.  That sounds like I hate RQii - I loved it, it's why I here now.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

3 hours ago, Stephen L said:

Probably the thing I *hated* most about RQii was the defence, especially how you improved in it.  That sounds like I hate RQii - I loved it, it's why I here now.

Yeah I wasn’t really advocating that, just that it maybe better at representing the general abstraction of defence in a fight. Not overly keen on the extra calculation before each attack that defence in RQ 2 requires though. 

 I prefer the separate action of dodge, but my point was that there is some positioning and manoeuvring in fights already which is part of the abstraction of the weapon skill %. The big dodge attempts are in addition to that...well at least in my head anyway:) 

Edited November 16, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp