Mixing MRQ2 Combat Manoeuvres and RQ3 Strike Ranks

[PhilHibbs]

...Moreover, the MRQ system fixes a flaw that has existed in BRP, GURPS and WHFRP II for years: actually, you do not hit a random location in melee, but usually choose the weakest one and go for it as soon as an opening appears. Combat Manoeuvers achieve this result: when you hit and you are not parried, you usually choose where you hit, as it happens in real life. But if you need a special vs. failure, this realism does not happen.

It seems to me from my very limited LARP fighting experience that most of the time you go for the openings that the enemy hasn't covered - so while he may not have stopped you hitting him, he may well have stopped you hitting him in a vital location. So being able to "Choose Location" on a failed parry isn't realistic. I am considering restricting Choose Location to unopposed attacks and criticals.

[deleriad]

It seems to me from my very limited LARP fighting experience that most of the time you go for the openings that the enemy hasn't covered - so while he may not have stopped you hitting him, he may well have stopped you hitting him in a vital location. So being able to "Choose Location" on a failed parry isn't realistic. I am considering restricting Choose Location to unopposed attacks and criticals.

I would have thought that if an enemy has left any locations uncovered that they have by definition failed a parry. Funnily enough I was watching Fellowship of the Ring for the first time in a couple of years and found myself looking at the cave troll fight in terms of CMs.

Legolas hits the troll several times with arrows and it's pretty clear that it's not even trying to evade. Interestingly he impales it in the body several times, clearly choosing Impale over Choose Location (presumably trying to get some damage to stick).

There's also a sequence where the troll attacks with his hammer several times in a row at the same person who clearly evades successfully but is not able to attack back due to lots of rolling around.

You also see Frodo evade a few times until he finally fails and gets Impaled for his pains. At this point I suspect that the player either gets lucky with the location roll or spends a Hero Point to reroll the location.

It actually looks like you could recreate most of the fight in RQII terms with relatively little fudging.

[PhilHibbs]

I would have thought that if an enemy has left any locations uncovered that they have by definition failed a parry.

Yes, on a failed parry you will get a hit through, but he might have prevented you from hitting where you wanted to hit.

Legolas hits the troll several times with arrows and it's pretty clear that it's not even trying to evade. Interestingly he impales it in the body several times, clearly choosing Impale over Choose Location (presumably trying to get some damage to stick).

It seems to me that against an evenly armored opponent, you might want to go for max damage on the first few hits, and then when you've hit a vital location, Choose the same location again to take it down.

[deleriad]

Yes, on a failed parry you will get a hit through, but he might have prevented you from hitting where you wanted to hit.

I don't know but this doesn't make sense to me.

"I failed my parry but stopped him from hitting me where he wanted to." Unless of course he randomly hit you where he wanted to.

I mean you could invent a new class of CMs which only work on criticals or unopposed attacks but why would Choose location be the only CM in the class? Is Choose Location really harder than managing to Impale someone or disengaging from combat?

[PhilHibbs]

I don't know but this doesn't make sense to me.

"I failed my parry but stopped him from hitting me where he wanted to." Unless of course he randomly hit you where he wanted to.

You're trying to hit this guy on the head, but he's got his shield held high stopping you 'cos he's not wearing a helmet. So what do you do? You chop his leg off, or his sword arm, or you gut him. You wanted to hit the head, but the fact that he's actively trying to parry you means you can't choose Head. Nonetheless, he has clearly failed to parry, 'cos you hit him. Makes sense to me. As to rolling Head randomly, well, these things occasionally happen, but you can't guarantee a headshot due to that damn shield being in the way. Part of the reason for restricting Choose Location is that my players pick it every time, and I don't want to use the suggested penalty clause for repeating the same CM. As to "a new class of CMs", plenty of CMs have their own particular restrictions, one more doesn't make much difference.

[RosenMcStern]

Part of the reason for restricting Choose Location is that my players pick it every time

This was reported during playtest, and it was found both Fun and Realistic by the Weaponmaster.

[deleriad]

You're trying to hit this guy on the head, but he's got his shield held high stopping you 'cos he's not wearing a helmet.

What would be the difference between that and two people fighting on a cliff edge where on2 "bash" CM is instant death? In that case by the same logic even though I might fail a parry I would take precautions.

Or say I'm using Evade. Can I be really good at dodging my head out of the way of a blow or is it only a failed shield parry that allows me to block aimed blows?

Or say my sword is the only weapon I have and I really don't want to be disarmed, can I take precautions against that happening?

I just don't see the problem that you are trying to fix and furthermore I see that your suggested fix adds more complication and opens up further questions. If the problem's that your players believe that a head shot is always the best option, be creative against them rather than trying to change the rules in an attempt to change their behaviour. From the sounds of it, if you make choose location harder then they'll simply fixate on the new "best in all circumstances option." Finally, if your players like being able to hit things in the head, what's the problem? Are they saying "it would be much more fun if I wasn't able to hit them in the head?"

[PhilHibbs]

Are they saying "it would be much more fun if I wasn't able to hit them in the head?"

I've played FPS games in "cheat mode", it's no fun when you get what you want all the time. Always feeling that you have to choose the most effective option can also be disappointing. And it applies to their opponents as well, they will be receiving fewer aimed blows to their less-armored or already-injured location so it cuts both ways. I think it will change the balance of combat in a good way, but I haven't tried it yet so I'm not certain.

[Thalaba]

Nice to see people I recognize from the RQ Rules list coming in to BRP Central!

Warning: Potentially incoherent rambling ahead:

Although I trust Pete's experience (actually, it mirrors exactly that of one of my players who is a live-steel reenactor) I can't help but wonder how it effects historical roleplaying. In many periods, combattants and skirmishers were only lightly armoured. Egyptians and Sumerians basically only protected the head and abdomen. Ancient libyans had little other than a loin cloth and a rug-like cape that they used as a shield (what size weapon would that be?). These were not exceptions - this is how front-line troops were protected. They didn't all have shield, either. In a situation where some locations are unarmoured - being able to hit the location you want seems like it would end all combats in the same, rather predicable way - which is a bit of a story killer, it seems to me. Would Achilles last long in an MRQ fight? The choice of location hit goes entirely to the attacker. The defender cannot choose to defend one location more than others. There is nothing in the model that allows the defender to leave his armoured bits open while he uses the shield to protect the unarmoured bits. This, to me, makes the MRQ method sound more dangerous than I'm comfortable with for our campaign.

[deleriad]

Although I trust Pete's experience (actually, it mirrors exactly that of one of my players who is a live-steel reenactor) I can't help but wonder how it effects historical roleplaying. In many periods, combattants and skirmishers were only lightly armoured. Egyptians and Sumerians basically only protected the head and abdomen. Ancient libyans had little other than a loin cloth and a rug-like cape that they used as a shield (what size weapon would that be?). These were not exceptions - this is how front-line troops were protected. They didn't all have shield, either. In a situation where some locations are unarmoured - being able to hit the location you want seems like it would end all combats in the same, rather predicable way - which is a bit of a story killer, it seems to me. Would Achilles last long in an MRQ fight? The choice of location hit goes entirely to the attacker. The defender cannot choose to defend one location more than others. There is nothing in the model that allows the defender to leave his armoured bits open while he uses the shield to protect the unarmoured bits. This, to me, makes the MRQ method sound more dangerous than I'm comfortable with for our campaign.

Well, it only matters if you fail to parry for some reason. If you fail to parry and leave yourself open, the enemy will take what they see as the most effective option. RQ has never allowed you to defend one location more than others so there's no change there. The main effect the system has is to make combat less random and make skill matter more.

For example, with a 60% vs 70% battle. Previously if one hit and one missed then your skill *made absolutely no difference* to where you hit your opponent so it came down to a d20. Using the CM model, if you succeed and your opponent doesn't then your skill has opened them up. So if they are wearing a helmet you might choose to strike at their weapon arm to disable them. Alternately you might choose an impale to try and maximise what damage you do in which case the choice of location is random or you might try and disarm them while also damaging them in a random location.

It has been my experience that RQII combat tends to require fewer dice rolls to achieve a significant attack than other versions of BRP. The last few sessions I've played (The Pavis Rises campaign) PCs have been largely unarmoured and I've noticed that they avoid combat at all costs. In the last session they were ambushed by people with self bows. Three of them almost lynched the fourth player when he didn't immediately give up. What you will find with historical combat I suspect is that it will probably end within just a few actions. As far as I know, that's fairly accurate. However a knock-down big boss fight will see your players burn through Hero Points to re-roll parries, Resilience tests, force opponents to re-roll criticals and to convert major wounds to serious wounds. A big boss fight will depend on just how many Hero Points the PCs have.

[Pete Nash]

It seems to me from my very limited LARP fighting experience that most of the time you go for the openings that the enemy hasn't covered - so while he may not have stopped you hitting him, he may well have stopped you hitting him in a vital location. So being able to "Choose Location" on a failed parry isn't realistic. I am considering restricting Choose Location to unopposed attacks and criticals.

This is not LARP fighting. If you failed to parry it means you weren't able to guard against the incoming blow. Your opponent has out-manoeuvred you and your defence.

However, if you want to offer an in-game choice of holding the shield static over one location then I don't see any problem with that. The location is guaranteed safe in exchange for not getting a parry - since that's effectively what you are doing.

but you can't guarantee a headshot due to that damn shield being in the way.

I tell you what Phil. You bring a couple of swords and shields to the next con I'm at and I'll happily show you how to do it. Bring a helmet too and I'll even prove I can still strike the head with more than sufficient force...

Part of the reason for restricting Choose Location is that my players pick it every time, and I don't want to use the suggested penalty clause for repeating the same CM. As to "a new class of CMs", plenty of CMs have their own particular restrictions, one more doesn't make much difference.

As I said on the other forum I think your player's lack of imagination is a real shame. If you don't want them to repetitively use Choose Location then lead by example and take their PCs apart with enemies using combinations of other more useful CMs. Once they see what can be done they will probably want to start milking the other options for all they're worth.

[SDLeary]

I think a good chunk of the issue here is really just the sequence. Choosing a vital location after the attack/parry sequence just seems backwards. While I do not doubt that a good warrior will aim at a specific location, I can also see the defense of the target getting in the way, and foiling the attempt by parrying or dodging enough to have something else hit.

I don't really have issues with any of the other CMs, just this one really. I would probably restrict this one to Critical, or find another method if the combatants wanted to be able to choose locations. Perhaps imposing a penalty or simply saying hitting a specific location is Hard, without the RQ3 restriction of having to wait till the end of the combat sequence.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

This is not LARP fighting. If you failed to parry it means you weren't able to guard against the incoming blow. Your opponent has out-manoeuvred you and your defence.

Yes, but even an opponent who has fubar-ed their parry is moving around, which might shift things around enough that you don't hit the intended body part. Have you ever "aimed" for the head, and instead hit your opponent on the shoulder, even though they didn't parry, but simply moved enough to throw off your aim?

[SDLeary]

After thinking about this for a few more minutes, I think I would in fact restrict this CM to Critical hits. I would also, however, introduce another CM that would allow High or Low hits; location being determined by 1d10+10 for high hits, and 1d10 for low hits. For me, this would solve the issue of "aiming" for a part, and then having combat circumstances shift things around a bit.

SDLeary

[PhilHibbs]

As I said on the other forum I think your player's lack of imagination is a real shame. If you don't want them to repetitively use Choose Location then lead by example and take their PCs apart with enemies using combinations of other more useful CMs. Once they see what can be done they will probably want to start milking the other options for all they're worth.

Well, that leaves me with the problem with my imagination, because I agree with their logic. Repeatedly hitting the same location every time is a solid tactical choice in nearly every fight, especially with locational hit points and no general hit points, because it takes someone down much more quickly than spreading out the damage. In the final boss fight in the GLS scenario, everyone just hit the thing in the chest and it was dead before the first melee round was half way through. Most of the MRQ2 combat system is great, but Choose Location is ruining the game. My suggested mod wouldn't even have fixed that fight, 'cos it can't parry 6 people.

Edited November 29, 2010 by PhilHibbs

[Pete Nash]

lthough I trust Pete's experience (actually, it mirrors exactly that of one of my players who is a live-steel reenactor) I can't help but wonder how it effects historical roleplaying.

That is a very good question. Long post follows...

Firstly you need to remember in real life combat against competent opponents is dangerous. Its not sparring down at the fencing club or a bit of light entertainment on the big screen. Frequently it doesn't last beyond a handful of seconds unless it is ceremonial or restricted by cultural convention. It is short. brutal and designed to incapacitate ASAP and does this because you can easily target a specific location or take your foe to the ground, etc.

With that in mind you then need to look at the average incidence of combat in historical societies. In general, except for violent crime (normally restricted to poverty or urban living) few people ever see combat except for war. Even war is either limited to specific social classes (in ancient societies) or is irregular, becoming increasingly infrequent as history progresses.

Whilst PCs frequently solve problems with inordinate amounts of lethal violence, the same is not true in the real world. Most cultures aren't pastiches of wild west lawlessness. There are social conventions which restrict combat, punishing attacks, wounding, kin-slaying and so on. Those that act in a psychopathic manner are ultimately punished or exiled by society.

Most folks were, and are, honestly scared of losing their life. Very few are ever willing to take it to the armed level, preferring negotiation or capitulation to settle problems. Even if violence breaks out, most people won't kill their opponent. Not only does it bring social stigma, but it might also cause trouble depending on the law of that culture.

Another aspect of most historical cultures is that very few people actually walk around heavily armed. Most are unarmed or have a knife or impromptu weapon at most. An armed society is not a polite society - its a society where bullying thrives and duelling etiquette begins to form. From the Vikings to 17th C French fops, the same cycle occurs. Those who partake in armed intimidation and those who stand up to it, generally end up maimed or dead in relatively short order.

Very few duellists who survived their combat ever continued a to pursue a career of such fights. Just like in RQ combat, unless you are significantly more skilled than your opponent, its just a matter of time...

So what does this ultimately mean for Historical Campaigns?

Combat is rare and should probably be reserved for climatic conclusions.

When combat does occur it is frightening and exciting for the players.

Depending on the culture and situation, the fight does not need to end in death, although maiming or accidental fatality are always a possibility.

In many periods, combattants and skirmishers were only lightly armoured. Egyptians and Sumerians basically only protected the head and abdomen. Ancient libyans had little other than a loin cloth and a rug-like cape that they used as a shield (what size weapon would that be?). These were not exceptions - this is how front-line troops were protected. They didn't all have shield, either.

There are a lot of issues involved here. The fact that these early civilisations tried to protect their head and torso with armour indicates how easy it is to strike at those locations, even if shields are being used.

In close formation battles however, limbs are remarkably difficult to strike. For example its nearly impossible to hit at the enemy's legs - if you are using a spear you are risking losing (control of) the weapon as the two side close, and if you have a sword then there is no way to cut at anything below the waist once the lines engage. This same 'press' makes swinging at arms difficult too, since there are a lot of other weapons in the air snagging your swing. Shield arms are near invulnerable due to the tightness of the situation. When you consider a thrusting weapon, then realistically hitting a moving arm is a matter of luck and its much better to aim at the static head and torso.

I could have added rules for such things into MRQ2, but I didn't think it was worth the added level of complication and to be honest most PCs don't normally fight in close order battlefield formation anyway.

In a situation where some locations are unarmoured - being able to hit the location you want seems like it would end all combats in the same, rather predicable way - which is a bit of a story killer, it seems to me.

Well, that's why most battles end up with one side routing, often before battle is even engaged. Most historical battles have very low casualty figures because they were aware of the risk, didn't want to die and ran away.

It also depends on the available weapons too, see my point above. Choose Location loses a lot of its bite the smaller the weapon damage involved.

Would Achilles last long in an MRQ fight?

Quite a long time! Not only would his very high skill prevent him from taking damage - because he would be significantly reducing his opponent's attack skill and almost always succeeding his parry - but there's also that little issue of having a constant divine Shield 12 protecting him, thanks to his mother's paranoia.

The choice of location hit goes entirely to the attacker. The defender cannot choose to defend one location more than others. There is nothing in the model that allows the defender to leave his armoured bits open while he uses the shield to protect the unarmoured bits.

Actually there is. There's the defensive CM of Redirect Blow allowing the defender to choose where the blow will land on him.

This, to me, makes the MRQ method sound more dangerous than I'm comfortable with for our campaign.

I do recommend trying combat out using the RAW first and seeing what happens. Remember too that defeat does not have to equate to death, so Choose Location can be a very useful way to win a fight without needing to kill, which allows a more mature and/or realistic style of play.

Choose Location doesn't have to be a story killer. Its not the best CM by any means, and it often adds to the players enjoyment.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Pete Nash

[Pete Nash]

Yes, but even an opponent who has fubar-ed their parry is moving around, which might shift things around enough that you don't hit the intended body part. Have you ever "aimed" for the head, and instead hit your opponent on the shoulder, even though they didn't parry, but simply moved enough to throw off your aim?

Yes, but it happens very, very rarely.

The RAW can model this situation in several ways. I might have chosen Impale or some other option instead of Choose Location... Or the defender may have won the CM and used Redirect Blow against my bigger weapon.

Not that it really matters. Those who really dislike the ease of Choose Location are more than welcome to turn it into a Critical CM if it helps their verisimilitude or game balance.

[SDLeary]

Yes, but it happens very, very rarely.

Well, yes, now. But how about as a lad just learning to cleave your opponent in two?! ;-)

Or, with an opponent of similar skill level?

SDLeary

[Pete Nash]

Well, yes, now. But how about as a lad just learning to cleave your opponent in two?! ;-)

Chances are that against anyone with a decent amount of training they probably won't be able to hit them in the first place.

Most of these unanticipated secondary targets are generally from from weapon snarls or weapon/shield deflections, or are trajectory interceptions which are too early or late in the blow to have any significant force in them. Thus in the majority of cases I would personally interpret them as still successful parries (in the case of the former) or misses by the attacker (in the case of the latter). It does depend on weapon type however, which can have an affect on the initial line of attack and whether it can still inflict damage when it hits.

For example, a partially deflected great weapon is likely to still have sufficient force to hurt even if parried by a sidesword or buckler. A situation which is covered in the RAW.

However its another interesting question. I still think it'll be less than one thrown shot in a hundred, but I tell you what. I have a couple of young novices who've started training in the last couple of months. I'll actually do a count of how many times it occurs as they fight, and we'll see how often it occurs empirically against a range of opponents. Next one is this coming Sunday if you don't mind waiting that long for an experiment?

[deleriad]

I do think that people are tending to forget that Choose Location is just one of several manoeuvres and that in pure rules terms it is on a par with disarming, impaling, tripping and so on. i.e. when an opening presents itself because you just outfought your opponent it is one of the options you choose. It's not even always the most useful.

For example, in a critical attack against a normal parry where the parry weapon is large enough to block the damage then choose location is pointless. You may have wanted to hit someone in the head but they read your attack well enough to get a parry. In that case you would either try to slide some damage through to a random location (bypass parry) or you would notice that in blocking the attack that they are off-balance so you might trip them or disarm them, setting them up for the kill.

Similarly against someone in a full plate suit then you're far better off trying to knock them off their feet or disarming them than battering away.

Phil mentioned a big boss fight where all the PCs focused fire on the same location. Great. That's smart thinking. If you look at the cave troll fight in Fellowship you notice that it went down after several blows to the same two locations - head & chest including what looked like a final killing critical to the throat. The only reason it too so long to go down was that the rest of the company is hard pressed by goblins so they can't focus on the troll. If you watch, as soon as the goblins are mostly dead they focus their attacks on it and hey presto it is down in seconds. In Phil's case, the big boss is all by itself. When I ran that scenario my PCs ran away as fast as they could primarily because it was big, angry and there was no guarantee that they would survive. Basically as a GM you have to play very smart if you put a single large creature against a bunch of skilful, prepared and fearless PCs. That, surely, is as it should be. No PC in BRP/RQ willingly lets itself get outnumbered after all.

[dragonewt]

I do think that people are tending to forget that Choose Location is just one of several manoeuvres and that in pure rules terms it is on a par with disarming, impaling, tripping and so on

I think one thing to consider is that when an attacker "chooses" a location, they have generally fought in such a way (either conscious thought, muscle memory or reactive skill) so as to lead an opponent, or generally create those circumstances that lead to the best desired outcome for the attacker.

In contrast, consider the stories of Bruce Lee telling an opponent exactly how and where he will hit, then doing it.

Edited November 29, 2010 by dragonewt

[Guest Vile Traveller]

However, if you want to offer an in-game choice of holding the shield static over one location then I don't see any problem with that. The location is guaranteed safe in exchange for not getting a parry - since that's effectively what you are doing.

I believe this has been a common house rule since the first time RQ2 made an appearance. After all, characters spend a lot of time lugging shields around, slung or strapped to one part of their body or another. It takes time to ready your shield, so combat might be joined while you still have it slung over your back. Or an attacker from ambush might get unlucky and hit you right in your slung shield. I always made sure I knew where my players' characters carried their shields just for this kind of occasion. However, would a slung shield protect at full value? Is not some element of deflection reflected in the high AP compared to worn armour?

I must say I'm becoming more interested in MRQ2 through reading this thread, especially after going through Mr. Perrin's draft SPQR rules.

[SDLeary]

However its another interesting question. I still think it'll be less than one thrown shot in a hundred, but I tell you what. I have a couple of young novices who've started training in the last couple of months. I'll actually do a count of how many times it occurs as they fight, and we'll see how often it occurs empirically against a range of opponents. Next one is this coming Sunday if you don't mind waiting that long for an experiment?

Not at all! I think that would be interesting information to have.

See if you can fit them into a skirmish situation too, see if their tactics change at all.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

If you look at the cave troll fight in Fellowship you notice that it went down after several blows to the same two locations - head & chest including what looked like a final killing critical to the throat. The only reason it too so long to go down was that the rest of the company is hard pressed by goblins so they can't focus on the troll. If you watch, as soon as the goblins are mostly dead they focus their attacks on it and hey presto it is down in seconds.

For me at least, its not the intent to strike at a specific location. Its the mechanic that allows the choice of this after a successful attack. Aiming at a specific part of the body or item is a conscious task that takes place before any action is taken... after all you are "aiming" or "targeting", which you do before committing to the action.

The Cave Troll in LOTR is something of a special case, simply because of its size. Its head being the size of a humanoid would make it easier to aim at, despite all the flailing around.

SDLeary

[DamonJynx]

Hi Guys, I'm a bit of a novice to MRQ2 & BRP, not actually having played yet. But it strikes me that a singular point has been missed amongst the discussion: it's a game. The rules are there not to simulate a "real fight" but to abstract the ebb and flow of combat in a way that is fun, and lets face it, deadly. They give combatants a range of maneuvers for success if they roll significantly better than their opponent. If a combatant consistently uses the same tactic, you should use the rules provided for that circumstance (can't remember exactly what that is at the moment). Sometimes in a combat situation of a well constructed scenario, killing all the NPC's may prove detrimental to the PC's, as questioning enemies often provides valuable information.