Tips for running exciting combat in RuneQuest

[Beoferret]

Tips for exciting combat? Run opponents as if they have some idea of what they're doing. Make use of basic, yet lethal tactics - e.g., trollkin attack the PCs with slings and then run off, hopefully leading the party into a dark troll ambush. Have individual opponents who constantly maneuver to protect their backs and/or to keep members of the party between them and any PC with missile weapons. Opponents who make use of terrain (like Icebrand notes) for their own protection, to impede PCs, or even as a weapon itself - e.g., shieldrushing a PC off a cliff or onto sharp rocks, etc.. In other words, opponents who want to win + some GM imagination. 

* Playing the "Anvil of Crom" for mood music probably won't hurt either. (And you don't have to change existing RQ mechanics to do it!) 

[Beoferret]

A more specific idea: let PCs use the Two Weapon Use rules, if they're using a shield and 1-H weapon combo. A shield bash/smack should be made at full skill value, since the character (or adversary) has already trained with it in their off-hand.

[Dissolv]

1) Foreshadow, foreshadow, foreshadow.   There should be recognizable themes that build upon each other starting from the moment the players roll up the characters.  It can be anything from the impact of a bad ruler, to the importance of the weakest and least noticeable members of society, to the inevitable fall of the mighty (trollkin kill, yo).  I find that I don't have to stick these in deliberately.  It is more running with the source material and then paying attention to the tapestry that is woven.  Some things should start to feel inevitable (that Humakt badass NPC is going to get skewered by those trollkin, isn't he?), but a true hero can subvert the seemingly fated events.  

2) Have the players rise through the social ranks.  They can start (briefly, if you wish) as mere shield bearers or even farmers, but the roles they play as 2nd fiddle to the more capable members of their society will help them relate to the role that they play when the move into the limelight.   If the players are very powerful to start, then a flashback adventure, or coming of age prequel adventure, such as Six Seasons in Sartar, really help set the stage.  Remember that everyone, weak or strong, has a story, and your world will be a lot richer. 

3) NPC's should be intelligent, and active.  In combat they should be trying to do something other than robotically marching forward into melee combat, where they exchange blows until defeated.  That's video game stuff.  Actual RPG's should have wily bandits, soldiers who regularly cast battle magic en masse, mighty heroes blessed by the gods (or one of them), who run as if a PC was working them behind the scenes, even cowardly or dastardly foes.  And they should rarely be alone, if they are that important.

Applied these ideas to combat and you will quickly get somewhere.  I can get more detailed if desired.  I"m very sure I have older posts that touch on this topic as well. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Dissolv

[coffeemancer]

should players have a morale passion?

[Kloster]

10 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

I would go one further and only allow reduction of 20% increment, so it's significant and meaningful and prevents people from playing the math. (for players who have their crit and special ranges noted on their sheet, it has the side benefit of neatly reducing your crit by 1% and special by 4% for each increment)

Good idea.

[David Scott]

1 hour ago, coffeemancer said:

should players have a morale passion?

No, just use your adventurer's passions, units use a Guiding Passion.

[coffeemancer]

11 minutes ago, David Scott said:

No, just use your adventurer's passions, units use a Guiding Passion.

problem is, players taking fear as a passion is rare and players are endlessly brave. When people face things such as chaos should they not have to overcome some kind of natural fear? why else even have the face chaos spell?

[French Desperate WindChild]

22 minutes ago, coffeemancer said:

problem is, players taking fear as a passion is rare and players are endlessly brave. When people face things such as chaos should they not have to overcome some kind of natural fear? why else even have the face chaos spell?

there is fear chaos as passion. and there are some chaotic monsters (or non chaotic, or non monsters) able to fear (spell or capacity) pcs

that means if you have not the fear passion and if the chaotic opponent has not this spell/capacity, your pc should not be feared, after all she is trained in any ceremony to face standard chaos (like broos, think like that, they are "normal")

but as a gm, I would consider that big monster (chaotic or not) or army so numerous that you know, you will be defeated may request some roll (loyalty to the leader, or any passion). If failure the pc should leave /flee without penalty (except social from other survivors). Of course if she decides to stay, that means new passions will come (if death decides to let her in the good side) and a potential malus to all skills (after all you failed your roll justifying you stay here)

[David Scott]

46 minutes ago, coffeemancer said:

problem is, players taking fear as a passion is rare and players are endlessly brave. When people face things such as chaos should they not have to overcome some kind of natural fear?

Any of the basic passions can be used, depending on the situation. It's a flight or fight reaction. An adventurer could use Love (Family) when confronted with chaos. Do I fight and die to protect my family, alternately should I run so I can see them once again. Orlanth cultists for example will have Hate (Chaos) (an initiate requirement), so there's no issue there. At 80% they would stand anyway.

46 minutes ago, coffeemancer said:

why else even have the face chaos spell?

When cast upon a single fighter, that person stands their ground and fights any Chaotic foe they face, even if they would otherwise flee.

Face Chaos, just bypasses the roll. Orlanth & Storm Bull cultists would cast it before any morale roll is required.

[Darius West]

13 hours ago, icebrand said:

Judoka here. I have no clue about fencing but feinting in judo is a basic skill, not something complicated high level athletes do (and >100% should be Panam level at least)

Like, you start training renraku waza at white belt!

Having done both too, yeah, a feint is a simple but classic move.  Not falling for a feint because you can read your opponent's posture and touch, now that's a technique.

18 hours ago, Jason Farrell said:

I would say yes, but not by roll, but rather just as narrative needs dictate (like if a character who is meant to play a major role in future events is otherwise going to be killed, and the GM doesn't have or doesn't want to create a suitable replacement)

This is about D.I.  Obviously everything is up to the GM and their tastes.  For my taste, I give every named NPC a chance to D.I. out of a situation where they are going to die, and have never regretted it.  I also don't fudge it.  The world is more interesting when you let the dice tell the story too imo.

On the other hand I also find it laudable when my players find a loophole to short circuit and wreck a scenario I have devised for them, whereas I know a lot of GMs quietly lose their sh*t about that sort of thing.  I don't mind unexpected things happening in my game and I find it broadens the story, but some GMs can't cope with that on the fly.

Edited May 6, 2022 by Darius West

[icebrand]

7 minutes ago, Darius West said:

I also don't fudge it.  The world is more interesting when you let the dice tell the story too imo.

Best.GM.Everrrrrr. 

I learnt that from BASH. You can sit down with a bunch of NPCs, roll on the patrolling tables, and the game gives you the plot. Its amazing and i totally stole those for RQ 😄

10 minutes ago, Darius West said:

On the other hand I also find it laudable when my players find a loophole to short circuit and wreck a scenario I have devised for them, whereas I know a lot of GMs quietly lose their sh*t about that sort of thing.  I don't mind unexpected things happening in my game and I find it broadens the story, but some GMs can't cope with that on the fly.

I really like your GMing! 

darkwalk or vision and PCs bypassing stuff, name a more iconic duo XD

[davecake]

I find the opposite to several others - I find the over 100% rules make for far more exciting combats. 
My experience with RQ3 was that combat between two skilled fighters (and my main campaign ran for a long time, and by the later years almost everyone was a weapon master, some much higher) could become very dull - even criticals were usually not fight ending after parry, and often combatants had enough healing available it could be just a temporary setback. Combatants that should be amazing clashes (eg party Sword of Humakt takes on Count Julan) could often become long and dull and very dependent on chance, essentially waiting for one or the other to roll 96-00 on their parry. 
So I really find the over-100% rules make combat far more exciting, and really play up the value of magic like Berserk. And usually ends up with a less than 100% parry chance, as there is far more magic that increases attack% than defence%, which makes high powered combat consistently more dangerous and exciting. 
It also makes Fanaticism and Berserk much more dramatic choices. 
 

So my advice is keep those rules to make combat exciting. 

The only small house rule I usually make is that rather than the higher skill always being reduced to 100%, their skill is only reduced by whatever it takes to reduce their opponents skill to 0%, but that doesn’t come into play that often (only when your effective attack skill is 100+ more than your opponents defenses). My players are happy with the extra arithmetic required, and it keeps that sense of truly awesome magic going when it comes into play (eg if the Sword used Sword Trance to put his skill up to 300%, and then attacks someone with a mere 150% effective parry skill, not only is their parry reduced to 5% minimum chance, but he crits and special as if his skill is 150%). 

[davecake]

On 5/6/2022 at 8:37 AM, Beoferret said:

A more specific idea: let PCs use the Two Weapon Use rules, if they're using a shield and 1-H weapon combo. A shield bash/smack should be made at full skill value, since the character (or adversary) has already trained with it in their off-hand.

Definitely, and PCs will definitely end up in the situation of an injury to their weapon arm that causes them not to be able to attack with it. Berserks will often do this. 
And I also allow fairly liberal use of the passive shielding rules, as it makes shields valuable defensively beyond weapon parry. 
This is RAW too. 

[Shiningbrow]

5 minutes ago, davecake said:

My experience with RQ3 was that combat between two skilled fighters (and my main campaign ran for a long time, and by the later years almost everyone was a weapon master, some much higher) could become very dull - even criticals were usually not fight ending after parry, and often combatants had enough healing available it could be just a temporary setback. Combatants that should be amazing clashes (eg party Sword of Humakt takes on Count Julan) could often become long and dull and very dependent on chance, essentially waiting for one or the other to roll 96-00 on their parry. 

I think that's part of the simulation. Two very skilled combatants shouldn't be taking each other out in seconds. those should be epically long battles, and only occasionally getting in a small hit.

Look at your Star Wars Jedi/Sith battles... they go on for a while, because any hit is almost fatal. Do people complain that they aren't over in a few seconds (like a fencing bout)?

Sure, it's not ideal, but I think that is more reflective of the environment, rather than the rules. "I swing, hit. They parry. They swing, hit. You parry. Next round...." Yeah, sounds really boring. But if it was a video game, movie or TV show, we'd be less bored.

[davecake]

General hints for more exciting combat - most general, but some very RG or RQG specific:

• use Passions. I use Runic inspiration sparingly, but Passions whenever they are applicable. 
   
• have an idea of specific tactics the opponents will use, including ones that depend on Spirit magic. Opponents like trollkin, duck bandits, etc are not just weaker versions, but will use what tactics they have to maximise their survival. Soldiers will have set tactics that are usually very good at being maximally effective for their equipment, whether that’s shield walls, skirmishing or charges or teamwork. Ambushes. 
   
• make use of ranged weapons, but encourage use of cover, magic, passive shield charges, etc to counter them. Basically make ranged weapons add a sense of danger, but often reward taking risks to counter them. 
   
• try to incorporate a range of opponents, some with unusual weapons or tactics. Unusual weapons from the Weapons and Equipment book, like whips and nets. Dual wielders, wrestlers, martial arts fighters.
   
• Reward your players use of plausible tactics too. Especially if the tactic involves some risk. And reward abilities to counter their opponents - don’t get annoyed when your PCs avoid an ambush, celebrate it as a chance to celebrate your players abilities. 
   
• always try to make something about the fight a bit different, at a minimum try to make scenery and terrain possibly significant. There are a lot of possibilities here - cover, environmental hazards, movement hazards, falling hazards, opportunities for swashbuckling heroics. Fights that involve climbing, riding during a chase, 
   
• Lean into the magic of particular opponents. Not every soldier should be using Rune magic (I make the assumption most soldiers are saving their 1 RP for Heal Wound etc.), but Priests and Lords absolutely should, and dedicated initiates may well have planned it for an important battle. Use their spirit magic. Have cult spirits and elementals. Remember there is a lot of ways to customise these too - if they’ve fought several air elementals, this time it’s a variant. This ghost might be about be able fire damaging arrows, or control flocks of crows. 
   
• don’t be afraid to give PCs fights that it is very difficult for them to ‘win’, just don’t give them a lethal surprise. Let them have to think about desperate escapes, fighting rearguard actions, stealth, even allowing some of them to be captured. 

[davecake]

28 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Two very skilled combatants shouldn't be taking each other out in seconds. those should be epically long battles, and only occasionally getting in a small hit.

Usually such opponents will have enough magical defences - and healing options too - that a blow getting through isn’t a fight ender. It has a back and forth, like a movie fight, rather lots of hit/parry cycles for little effect. A normal hit against someone in armour, let alone buffed with their magic, is generally a small hit - and it’s usually not happening that often, as with relatively equal opponents parry is usually still 70-80%. 
I do think RQ might benefit from some sort of ‘fight defensively’ option, when one or the other is trying to prolong the fight deliberately, currently it only has the converse in Fanaticism. 
But actually, in real life highly skilled opponents do often take each other out in seconds if they are actually trying to. A few more seconds than a skilled opponent versus an unskilled one for sure. I generally think that’s a feature not a bug. 
 

[davecake]

45 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Look at your Star Wars Jedi/Sith battles... they go on for a while, because any hit is almost fatal. Do people complain that they aren't over in a few seconds (like a fencing bout)?

Jedi and Sith are space wizards, and do not fight like actual people - and wizards with a lot of defensive laser sword powers (like parrying blind, parrying blaster bolts, fancy telekinetic wuxia jumping dodges), in order to prolong their movie fights. They still tend to put a lot of other stuff in to stop it getting too dull. If you want that in RQ it’s not that hard to create - even a spirit magic spell that let you enhance your sword parry would shift the game a fair bit that way, if that was your preferred style of game. It still ends up with largely waiting for someone to fail a parry through rolling 96-00 though, which is dramatically unsatisfying.

Most RQ warrior cults trend very much towards magic that enhances weapon offence, with defensive Rune magic often just Shield. 

[Shiningbrow]

One thing I was going to write (but should have re-read the thread in case it's already been mentioned)... I think Specials & Crits should have a bunch of other options than merely more damage.

Yeah, damage is great when you want to kill your opponent - but sucks when you want them alive. It's also largely wasted when their next action is to completely remove all that damage with 1 spell (especially when cast by someone/thing else).

So, I'd suggest adding in other effects to specials & crits... greater advantages, flung weapons, putting them on the floor, getting around them and/or putting the blade to their throat, stuns, blinding, etc

[Joerg]

On 5/5/2022 at 12:05 PM, Darius West said:

So... Here's an ugly question...

NPCs get Divine Intervention?  Yea or Nay?

I definitely fall in the Yea camp.  It creates a sense of continuity in the world when the players recognize an NPC they had fought previously, but who D.I.-ed out of the situation when it went bad for them.  Obviously this encounter doesn't happen the next session (unless it needs to), and might take any turn the GM needs it to.  IMO recurring NPCs and players' interactions with them are crucial to making any RPG setting work.

Villains definitely do, just like their minions are willing to go to some length to give them resurrection, or in case of doubt necromantic contact with the spirit of the deceased to allow them a vengeful rest.

I also use something like passions to decide on breaking points for the opposition, like loyalty to (or fear of) the villain.

[Joerg]

On 5/6/2022 at 12:22 PM, coffeemancer said:

problem is, players taking fear as a passion is rare and players are endlessly brave. When people face things such as chaos should they not have to overcome some kind of natural fear? why else even have the face chaos spell?

A Fear passion can be used to incite bravery, although I would say except against the primary source of the passion. Fear of one opponent can incite bravery against someone blocking a way away from the fearsome enemy.

[Runeblogger]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

So, I'd suggest adding in other effects to specials & crits... greater advantages, flung weapons, putting them on the floor, getting around them and/or putting the blade to their throat, stuns, blinding, etc

You mean sort of as in Mythras, but only with specials and crits, right? I have also considered this option, but I still need to test it.

[Shiningbrow]

2 hours ago, Runeblogger said:

You mean sort of as in Mythras, but only with specials and crits, right? I have also considered this option, but I still need to test it.

I knew I'd read it somewhere (and I actually wrote that the first time I tried to post it).

[Beoferret]

A couple more very specific ideas:

1) Allow knife/dagger attacks after a PC or adversary has successfully grappled an opponent. And limit the defenses that can be used against such an attack; only dodging (perhaps at half %) and parrying with unarmed melee skills.

2) Allow targeting of hit locations at the regular SR of an attack, rather than only at SR 12. 

3) Working off the Two Weapon Use rules again, allow PCs to attempt a knockback attack on SR 12 after they've made their regular attack; but only if they don't parry and if they have enough SR.

[davecake]

20 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

One thing I was going to write (but should have re-read the thread in case it's already been mentioned)... I think Specials & Crits should have a bunch of other options than merely more damage.

You should definitely check out Mythras, and see what of its rules you find useful for your game, as that is a core part of its rules. I actually think adopting that idea, but sticking with RQG rules otherwise, probably gets you a better game than either, if a more complex one than RQG.  

The RQG rules had, more or less, a design goal of keeping combat relatively simple (at least, not more complex than RQ2), but adding the excitement to the game through far more common use of powerful magic, with rune magic being far more accessible and flexible. I think they’ve succeeded, and I think it is a good call - so much of the coolness of RQ, both for action and for world building, is in Rune magic, and widening that up is great, I think that is a near universally positive feeling about RQG and overall the right call. And much as some very specific choices annoy me, others I think are great. 
 

So I think there are two strategies in game design there, and the RQG one is ‘lean into the magic’. And you can definitely see that in Jeff’s own GMing style - he loves the magic and mythic side of things, and generally really leans into empowering his players to thinking that way, even when their ideas may not be reflected in the rules. Challenge the spirit to a dance off? Sure! 

But I think adding more complexity to the core combat rules is unlikely to be something that Chaosium officially are going to lean into (though there is plenty of complexity around the edges, with things like specialised rules for chariot fighting). But that’s what house rules are for, right?

In his writing for the GUMSHOE system, Ken Hite has the idea of a Zoom - a bunch of rules for a specific topic, that aren’t intended to expand the core rules, but to be used when your campaign has enough of a focus on a specific topic (either due to your campaign theme, or your players interest) that you want more rules for it. I kind of like the same idea for RQ myself, though RQ/BRP is far more gritty and less modular than GUMSHOE. If your game has one guy who fights as an unarmed martial artist, you don’t need rules beyond making him effective at it. But if your game has 4 of them, or is closely based on wuxia themes, you want more rules, so that styles and tactics matter. Similarly, if your players really are not that focussed on combat detail, stick with RQG and emphasize magic and passion as where the excitement is. If half your group are ancient warfare buffs, recreationists, martial artists, etc you might want to add some house rules for things like closing, different results for specials, etc. 

 

[davecake]

I give major enemies DI, especially enemy Rune Lords with 1D10 DI who have effectively a 100% chance - but usually to take them out of the fight, it’s a way of acknowledging PC victory without removing them as a long term NPC. But I don’t roll DI for initiate NPCs generally. I might roll it where success might have a particularly nice dramatic resolution, or where it has unusual and specific effects.