Mixing MRQ2 Combat Manoeuvres and RQ3 Strike Ranks

[RosenMcStern]

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 mechanics of "Apply modifiers for tactics before rolling" has been around for at least three decades. But this does not mean that it is the correct representation of making tactical choices.

I repeat my question: why should going for the best possible location increas my chance of fumbling?

[SDLeary]

I repeat my question: why should going for the best possible location increas my chance of fumbling?

Perhaps it shouldn't increase your chance to fumble, but your chances of hitting a smaller target should be reduced over the mass in general. The head is much smaller than the entire person.

Alternately, perhaps it should increase your chance of fumbling, because you are focusing on a point with the intent of hitting that target, perhaps you are not paying enough attention to the situation in general and inadvertently open yourself up if you miss.

SDLeary

Edited November 29, 2010 by SDLeary
added paragraph

[lawrence.whitaker]

Perhaps it shouldn't increase your chance to fumble, but your chances of hitting a smaller target should be reduced over the mass in general. The head is much smaller than the entire person.

I'd disagree with this (certainly for humans) because:

Head is an elevated portion of the body that has to remain exposed during combat so you can see what you're doing.

It doesn't move, with the same flexibility or finesse of the limbs; limbs, OTOH, are going to be in constant movement.

The eyes of a similar sized opponent are naturally drawn to the head and face, making the head a natural area for the focus of attacks

[SDLeary]

I'd disagree with this (certainly for humans) because:

Head is an elevated portion of the body that has to remain exposed during combat so you can see what you're doing.

It doesn't move, with the same flexibility or finesse of the limbs; limbs, OTOH, are going to be in constant movement.

The eyes of a similar sized opponent are naturally drawn to the head and face, making the head a natural area for the focus of attacks

I agree with this to a degree, head remains fairly static and is really the only bit up there most of the time; it is quite a bit smaller than center of mass though. A page or two back I suggested using a choice of High (1d10+10) or Low (1d10) for location determination instead of location choice, because things are in motion and do move around or interpose themselves inconveniently.

Logically it just seems wrong to determine that you aimed for a location after you have already landed the blow. As stated before a sequence issue. I can understand if others have no issues with this. Its just something that stands out for me.

By the way. LOVE the new Elric book! Excellent job!

SDLeary

[Thalaba]

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

<Snip good answer>

Ok, I'm convinced on the validity of choosing the location from a simulationism standpoint. I think the part that worries me a little is that it might take some of the fun out of mixing and matching armour - which is really more a game play issue, and probably a minor one at that.

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.

I would definitely like to pick your brain on this more at a later time. For now, do you know of any good book that would talk about ancient formation fighting?

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

Ah, yes - this one will come in useful - I'd forgotten about it.

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.

I like this, too - giving a gradation of aim. The pieces are starting to fall into place.

EDIT: I would just add that you learn a lot when you start to try and take a ruleset apart about how well it was put together. I always admired RQ3 for being very tight - some many things interacted with others in subtle ways that it was hard to 'improve' on the rules, because making one thing 'better' often made something else 'worse'. I have to say that, now that I'm looking at them more closely with a sculptor's eye that the MRQ2 ruleset is probably just as tight - and that's a remarkable thing.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Thalaba

[deleriad]

I agree with this to a degree, head remains fairly static and is really the only bit up there most of the time; it is quite a bit smaller than center of mass though. A page or two back I suggested using a choice of High (1d10+10) or Low (1d10) for location determination instead of location choice, because things are in motion and do move around or interpose themselves inconveniently.

The outcome of this roll would be that no one would ever use this CM. Think about it. You get a CM, you can use it to aim high or low or to Impale or to trip, disarm, damage a weapon and so on. I can't think of any time I would ever use that as a CM.

The other thing is you do not choose a CM after you have landed a blow. You choose a CM when your foe is has been opened by an attack. i.e. attack and parry have been rolled but damage and location have not. At this point you know you can land a blow, the question is - what will you do with it? Will you go for a vulnerable location? Will you perhaps spot a point where you can impale or perhaps you notice that the person is off balance and can be knocked over as well as doing damage. That's what you are deciding.

[RosenMcStern]

I think the only situation where "Choose Location" is not very appropriate for non-critical attacks is with ranged weapons. If there is one weak spot in MRQ2 combat, it is that it uses the same manoeuvres for both melee and missile combat. But in hand-to-hand combat, I think most have agreed that it is random location choosing that seems weird.

Logically it just seems wrong to determine that you aimed for a location after you have already landed the blow. As stated before a sequence issue. I can understand if others have no issues with this. Its just something that stands out for me.

This is actually a design technique (you roll in the middle of the procedure). It stresses tactical choices more than tactical chances, because you apply tactical decisions only to exchanges you have actually won. When you lose, what you were attempting is not important: you just lost. Although it sounds weird if you are used to the classic approach (you roll at the end of the procedure), it is actually considered a better design choice.

[PhilHibbs]

The other thing is you do not choose a CM after you have landed a blow. You choose a CM when your foe is has been opened by an attack. i.e. attack and parry have been rolled but damage and location have not. At this point you know you can land a blow, the question is - what will you do with it? Will you go for a vulnerable location? Will you perhaps spot a point where you can impale or perhaps you notice that the person is off balance and can be knocked over as well as doing damage. That's what you are deciding.

It's not the person swinging the sword that is making the choice. You are making the choice, your character is swinging the sword. A roleplaying game is never going to be an accurate 1-for-1 reality simulator, it's a narrative engine. I like realism, I like simulationism, but I know that sometimes you have to stop trying to reach perfection because perfection would take an entire game session to simulate one combat round.

[PhilHibbs]

I repeat my question: why should going for the best possible location increas my chance of fumbling?

There are three answers to that question that I can think of, and I'm sure there are more.

First, if your group doesn't like increasing the chance of fumble on an aimed blow, then don't increase the chance of fumble on an aimed blow (or similar voluntary modifier). Keep the full skill's fumble chance (and crit/special if you like) and only change the chance to get a normal success. Oh, and this is the MRQ2 answer, unless the modifier takes you from over 100% to under, as that is the point where the fumble chance goes from 99-00 to just 00.

Second, you are restricting your options, and concentrating on one thing above all else, and might make a mistake because of that.

Finally, it's simpler, if that's the way you think. It's a side effect and it's not worth fussing over a 1% change here and there, and if you apply a rule consistently then you don't have arguements over what modifiers affect fumble chance and which ones do not.

I prefer the first answer, now that you've raised it, athough I would naturally have gone with the last one. But I'm a number junkie.

Edited November 30, 2010 by PhilHibbs
MRQ2 rule.

[Pete Nash]

I would definitely like to pick your brain on this more at a later time.

Gladly.

For now, do you know of any good book that would talk about ancient formation fighting?

I can't think of one in my library that springs to mind, but most of those are from older authors who wrote from an intellectual point of view and not from physical recreation. I'd suggest reading the Ancient Warfare magazine whose scholarship is now extremely good and encourages publication of more modern theories.

Nowadays I base my conjectures on a combination of primary sources, battlefield pathology reports, historical development of armour and of course my personal experience of reenactment and armoured battles.

For example, as a youth I always wondered why Roman legionaries (save centurions) never wore armour on the legs or arms whist gladiators did, and why they armed with a gladius - as it messed with recreating them as serious opponents in my RQ2 and RQ3 historical games. It wasn't until I fought in close order formation that it made sense and I began to understand descriptions by contemporary authors. They are armoured for the battlefield and not personal combat. It makes a huge difference.

[Pete Nash]

I think the only situation where "Choose Location" is not very appropriate for non-critical attacks is with ranged weapons. If there is one weak spot in MRQ2 combat, it is that it uses the same manoeuvres for both melee and missile combat.

This is an area where it is difficult to maintain a simplified model, since a lot depends on the range you are throwing/shooting at. Within 10m any half way decent archer can pick precisely where they want an arrow to hit. Up to 20m a highly skilled archer can still do it. Over that it becomes more a question of being able to hit the target in the first place.

In hindsight it might have been more realistic to split the location tables into swung and thrust/missile. However that would have added a bit more overhead and created knock-on effects for all the creature hit location tables. I should have included a more severe Range penalty table, which would have partially solved the verisimilitude problem. Unfortunately it never occurred to Loz or I, but never mind. The simple version still works fine for most situations.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Pete Nash

[PhilHibbs]

In hindsight it might have been more realistic to split the location tables into swung and thrust/missile. However that would have added a bit more overhead and created knock-on effects for all the creature hit location tables. I should have included a more severe Range penalty table too, which would have partially solved the verisimilitude problem. Unfortunately it never occurred to Loz or I, but never mind. The simple version still works fine for most situations.

Simplicity is indeed a big priority and I think you made the right call. There used to be separate melee/missile hit locaton tables in AHRQ3 and there's nothing to stop anyone from using the charts from that.

[lawrence.whitaker]

By the way. LOVE the new Elric book! Excellent job!

Don't want to threadjack, but thank you! Glad you like it.

Back to CMs...

[frogspawner]

MRQII Combat Manoevres - having now looked a bit closer, I like 'em.

I think they'd make combat more interesting, as well as realistic-seeming and perhaps cinematic (depending what films you watch...).

There are a few problems, though, albeit minor...

Firstly, the reason I do not like the MRQII approach to CMs is this: I prefer my tactical decisions (CMs) to drive the action (attack/defense rolls) which produces the results (hit/miss/degree of success and damage and armor as appropriate). In MRQII, it is more like the action (attack/defense rolls) produce partial results (hit/miss/degree of success) which leads to a tactical decision (CMs) which then produce final results (damage and armor as appropriate). While the latter may play smoothly, it does not feel smooth, it feels disjointed(again, in my experience).

I can relate to this. The feel is important. I'd suggest this problem can be role-played around though - just by saying a few words as you roll, describing in a very general way what you're attempting to do to the other guy. Then if you score any CMs the most appropriate ones for that are selected - the choice was made beforehand, so hopefully it wouldn't feel out-of-sequence.

Another problem I'd note is that some people prefer to roll attack & damage dice together, to save time - but with MRQII you can't. It would be cheating.

And yes, (sigh), it does constitute Opposed Rolling and so offend against my preference for independent rolls. Shame. But I'm working on that - I'll get independent-rolling CMs house-ruled before too long, don't you worry!

Good effort, guys!

[vagabond]

MRQII Combat Manoevres - having now looked a bit closer, I like 'em.

I think they'd make combat more interesting, as well as realistic-seeming and perhaps cinematic (depending what films you watch...).

There are a few problems, though, albeit minor...

I can relate to this. The feel is important. I'd suggest this problem can be role-played around though - just by saying a few words as you roll, describing in a very general way what you're attempting to do to the other guy. Then if you score any CMs the most appropriate ones for that are selected - the choice was made beforehand, so hopefully it wouldn't feel out-of-sequence.

Another problem I'd note is that some people prefer to roll attack & damage dice together, to save time - but with MRQII you can't. It would be cheating.

And yes, (sigh), it does constitute Opposed Rolling and so offend against my preference for independent rolls. Shame. But I'm working on that - I'll get independent-rolling CMs house-ruled before too long, don't you worry!

Good effort, guys!

I think I may have found a houserule that may fix the issue for me somewhat. I'll do some testing and let you know.

BTW, Loz, Pete, RosenMcStern, and, of course, Steve Perrin as well as everyone else who has responded - thanks for the patience and explanantions. It has helped clarify a few things. Again, the main problem, for me, is feel. But, maybe my "fixes" will help some ...

Ian

[dragonewt]

I think I may have found a houserule that may fix the issue for me somewhat. I'll do some testing and let you know.

For a thorough rules test you could try simulating the Best Action Scene Of ALL TIME [WARNING: Contains animal scenes that may offend or be found disturbing].

Just as there is a 99 Bottles of Beer program listing for almost every programming language, there should be a play session transcript of this scene for each and every RPG system.

Edited December 5, 2010 by dragonewt

[PhilHibbs]

For a thorough rules test you could try simulating the Best Action Scene Of ALL TIME.

Had to stop watching that half way through. Anyone who doesn't like animal cruelty should not watch it, there's no way they would be allowed to treat horses like that in a civilized film studio.

[frogspawner]

...there's no way they would be allowed to treat horses like that in a civilized film studio.

True dat. The scene prob'ly wouldn't translate well to much other that Toon, either.

Back on CMs, I'm thinking to integrate them into my BRP game. Thus:

Criticals give 2, Specials 1... and Normal hits can give 1 instead of damage (or of blocking damage, in the case of Parries).

There are defaults that anyone can do: Crits - Bypass Armour + Max Damage; Specials/Normals - By-Weapon-Type effect*.

(* Some will be useless for Normal hits, due to being damage-based, and may be replaced, e.g. with a 'Hold Off' for spears etc.)

Other manoevres would only be available to characters having Martial Arts skill in their weapon above a specified % for that CM.

Would anyone with RW knowledge in this field be so kind as to rank the MRQII CMs in order of difficulty?

[deleriad]

Criticals give 2, Specials 1... and Normal hits can give 1 instead of damage (or of blocking damage,

Here's a design question then. Imagine you're a player playing this system. If a normal success can give a CM instead of damage (not forgetting that a normal CM only occurs if your opponent doesn't successfully parry or diodge) under what relatively common circumstances would you actually choose NOT to damage an opponent but choose a CM instead? If the answer is that you can't think of a relatively normal circumstance then the result of this system is that CMs won't be chosen. The net result of your changes to all the systems seems to be that you end up recreating the current BRP system the long way around. At which point it's hard to know what you have achieved.

Secondly for a normal parry to gain a CM the opponent must have missed therefore there will be no damage to block anyway, so that caveat is a bit pointless.

Thirdly, for what it's worth, RQII currently is agnostic about whether non-damaging CMs (disarm et al) cause damage as well as the CM effect. So a relatively easy house-rule is to say that non-damaging CMs are performed instead of damage.

Finally, the intent behind your ideas seems to be that the majority of damaging attacks should have no "special effects." This D&D style combat as a meat grinder. Two people stand there and batter each other until one falls over. The intent behind RQII combat as I understand it is that every damaging attack has a special effect. Thinking about fights, they don't seem to be meat grinds (I nick him in the arm, he pokes me in the leg, I whack him in the head, he hits me hard in the stomach and I pass out) they're a blur of attack and defence until *something happens.* A lot of the commentary about CMs by people who don' t actually play the game seems to be along the lines of "too much happens" making it "too easy" to do things other than grind away at hit points.

Anyway, those are the problems I see with this idea.

[frogspawner]

Thanks for the feedback.

If a normal success can give a CM instead of damage ... under what relatively common circumstances would you actually choose NOT to damage an opponent but choose a CM instead?

When your damage is unlikely to get through their armour (or at least, not enough of it to be more useful than any available CM).

...(not forgetting that a normal CM only occurs if your opponent doesn't successfully parry or diodge)...

To clarify, I wasn't actually going to play it that way. I prefer Independent not Opposed rolls. E.g. If you get a critical, you get 2 CMs; whether the defender gets a Critical/Special/Normal/Fail doesn't affect that. Though if they get CMs of their own, they are quite likely to choose ones that'll counter yours - but it'd be their choice, not forced/assumed by the system. (Hence my 'or block damage' caveat does have a point).

Thirdly, for what it's worth, RQII currently is agnostic about whether non-damaging CMs (disarm et al) cause damage as well as the CM effect. So a relatively easy house-rule is to say that non-damaging CMs are performed instead of damage.

I don't know MRQII, though it seems implied CMs would be in addition to damage (e.g. what's the point of Choose Location if the hit does no damage?). But yes, because it does reduce the set of useful CMs, I thought my "Instead of Damage" option was quite neat.

You rightly denigrate D&D 'meat-grinder' style. My intent is to use CMs to avoid that and make combats more dynamic and interesting. And I reckon the above mechanic should do the trick!

[PhilHibbs]

When your damage is unlikely to get through their armour!

Damn good point. This hasn't come up in my game yet as I haven't thrown heavily armoured enemies at them. Armour has a high penalty in MRQ as well so that discourages running around in full plate, and when I did throw a big baddie with Shield up, the sorceror's first spell was Neutralise Magic.

[Pete Nash]

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

Okay I have the results from the today's practice. What I did was set up a series of single combats. The fighters ranged from a young guy who has only been fighting one month, to a nearly 50 year old veteran of high competence. The pairings were organised so that a diversity of opposing skills were represented. Several weapon forms were used, longsword, sword and shield, or sword and buckler. These too were mixed and matched to provoke a wide range of test circumstances.

To prevent distracting them (thus affecting their bouts), each fighter was assigned an observer who simply counted how many attacks their guy threw. I acted as the record keeper and observer of where shots were actually striking. The 'defeated' fighter had to call out where the blow had landed so that the attacker could confirm that the location struck was indeed where they had been aiming.

Over 15 matches there were in total 109 attacks made, averaging out at 7.26 shots per bout - or 3.6 shots per combatant - before a 'kill' occurred. Of all those attacks only one, the very last, was regarded as a 'misplaced' hit. This occurred when a blow aimed at the upper inner thigh accidentally stuck the opponent in the groin when the recipient shifted his leg slightly.

Sadly the resulting uncontrollable hilarity inspired by the 'fatal' shot prevented further continuation of the test. Happily the gentleman in question recovered in time, but in hindsight pointed out that although he had been struck in a technically different anatomical region, the fact that his foe had been aiming only 5cm lower made it a bit of a grey area on whether it should count as a miss-hit. However, I deemed it was worthy of consideration so included it in this report.

During the proceeding (and longer) tournament using the same full contact full force rules, there was in fact only two arm shots, but both of these had been intended, rather than accidental interpositions.

In conclusion the incidence of accidentally striking an unintended location (at that particular practice) proved to be less that one in a hundred.

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

Unfortunately I didn't have enough people to keep track of a full skirmish. I'll have to think about setting one up where I can still get accurate data from independent observers.

I hope that helps!

[RosenMcStern]

I think the debate is over, then. We have played with the "Halve your chance when you aim" rule for 30 years, and it can still "feel right" for many, but the "choose location when you hit well" model seems to be more realistic.

However, I would still consider it appropriate to make "Choose Location" a crit-only manoeuver for ranged weapons, at least when you are not at point blank.

One very important question about armour, Pete: do combatants succeed at hitting the weak spots in armour, too, when they strike the intended location?

[SDLeary]

Okay I have the results from the today's practice. What I did was set up a series of single combats. The fighters ranged from a young guy who has only been fighting one month, to a nearly 50 year old veteran of high competence. The pairings were organised so that a diversity of opposing skills were represented. Several weapon forms were used, longsword, sword and shield, or sword and buckler. These too were mixed and matched to provoke a wide range of test circumstances.

To prevent distracting them (thus affecting their bouts), each fighter was assigned an observer who simply counted how many attacks their guy threw. I acted as the record keeper and observer of where shots were actually striking. The 'defeated' fighter had to call out where the blow had landed so that the attacker could confirm that the location struck was indeed where they had been aiming.

Over 15 matches there were in total 109 attacks made, averaging out at 7.26 shots per bout - or 3.6 shots per combatant - before a 'kill' occurred. Of all those attacks only one, the very last, was regarded as a 'misplaced' hit. This occurred when a blow aimed at the upper inner thigh accidentally stuck the opponent in the groin when the recipient shifted his leg slightly.

Sadly the resulting uncontrollable hilarity inspired by the 'fatal' shot prevented further continuation of the test. Happily the gentleman in question recovered in time, but in hindsight pointed out that although he had been struck in a technically different anatomical region, the fact that his foe had been aiming only 5cm lower made it a bit of a grey area on whether it should count as a miss-hit. However, I deemed it was worthy of consideration so included it in this report.

During the proceeding (and longer) tournament using the same full contact full force rules, there was in fact only two arm shots, but both of these had been intended, rather than accidental interpositions.

In conclusion the incidence of accidentally striking an unintended location (at that particular practice) proved to be less that one in a hundred.

Excellent report, and somewhat interesting results. Perhaps I'll just have attackers call out a location when they attack... to take care of my sequencing issue.

With regards to the experience question. Any data on how the novice did in successful placement vis-a-vis the veteran?

Unfortunately I didn't have enough people to keep track of a full skirmish. I'll have to think about setting one up where I can still get accurate data from independent observers.

Gotcha. I can understand how difficult that would be. Even if at a large event, enough observers would be an issue.

I hope that helps!

Helps quite a bit! Thanks!!

SDLeary

[Thalaba]

@ Pete: How long did each match last?