Overthinking SR, Engagement, and Phase 2

[Wheel Shield]

I've been running my first game for a little while now. My GameMastery has been kind of weak and before last session I leaned into the combat rules to understand them better. My session went just 'okay' by my standards but the players said they had fun, so there's that. But everything seemed really laborious and complex. Now I played 20+ years ago and I know the game is not that different from the first couple editions (barring Passions and other tweaks), so I figure the problem must be how I'm approaching it.

I went through the Core Book combat chapter paragraph by paragraph and outlined it, while going through the Q&A on Well of Daliath. This to pare it down into concrete steps and statements.

Jason and David offer the advice (paraphrased), 'don't think of SR as a step-by-step choreography of the melee round, just think of it as who goes first (or in what order).'

That makes sense to me, but when I pair it with the rules I'm studying, I end doing exactly that. That is interpreting the choreography of the round, which slows the fight/gameplay right down and actually ends up confusing the players (and me truth to be told).

Thinking about it, I think it's the definition of engagement and how it interacts with Phase 2 of the Melee Round. 

1. Spoiler

   1. Statement of Intent
   2. Movement of non-engaged characters
   3. Strike Ranks
   4. Bookkeeping 

   As I understand it, engagement can be defined right in statement of intent, and it hinges on the magic words "attack" and "defend." If you avoid describing those actions, your actions happen before Strike Ranks are considered. Such that you can prepare your weapon, cast bladesharp, and close with your enemy- as long as you don't state you're attacking or defending (assuming you have the ranks available to you, for the sake of argument lets assume the player does). I ran that past the players (who are really rusty too) and they were fairly speechless.

2. There's another wrinkle in there, in that you can deviate from from your state of intent in response to what happens on the battlefield. Like healing an ally before the end of the round when that ally might otherwise die. Which sounds fine, but it opens up the question, "Can I just avoid saying I'm attacking and then alter my plans in response to the evolving situation?" I don't think my players would do that, but I'm seeing the loophole clearly.

Anyway, I ended up doing what we are advised not to do, which is treat it like a breakdown of the sequence of every action.

 

In conclusion, I know I can run the game however I like. I'm not trying to make an editorial statement about the core book. Is there a common practice or perspective that I'm missing? Am I making it harder than it needs to be?

[Squaredeal Sten]

In general, same here.  End movement and begin to call "Strike rank 1, strike rank 2" etc.  

But I don't understand why you care whether  they say the magic words "attacking", "defending".  In melee they will both attack (may say "I spear the broo") and parry. In missile combat they either shoot or don't.  In casting magic they name the spell and if applicable name the target.  We can play a whole session without saying "attack".

 

[radmonger]

The details of the way I run combat are here. It's more or less compliant with the rules-as-written, except where noted.

I think the key difference with what you describe is that any unengaged enemies get to make their own statement of intent. So someone can stand at the back and cast healing or buff spells without getting into an engagement. But, unless every enemy is engaged, or otherwise dealt with, this is a bad idea. Any enemies with any grasp of tactics will very likely run up and hit them. At which point they are very strongly advised to change their statement of intent to 'I try to dodge/parry/block'.

it's normally just 'PC privilege' to get to make statements of intent first, and so pick what engagements happen. But in the case of an explicit ambush, the opposition picks first. It is very easy to be surprised by just how deadly this will be for the typical group of PCs, so use with care.

Edited April 4 by radmonger

[Jens]

55 minutes ago, Wheel Shield said:

engagement can be defined right in statement of intent, and it hinges on the magic words "attack" and "defend."

Engagement is not gated by attacking or defending, but on focus- if you're paying close attention to someone else, and would be able to react to their actions, you're engaged. "Attack" and "defend" are simply examples of things that can happen during a melee combat. IMHO unless there's no chance someone could be impacted by or impact someone else (e.g. they're far away from combat, and doing unrelated activities), I'd skip phase 2 and move straight into phase 3, SRs.

[Wheel Shield]

1 hour ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

In general, same here.  End movement and begin to call "Strike rank 1, strike rank 2" etc.  

But I don't understand why you care whether  they say the magic words "attacking", "defending".  In melee they will both attack (may say "I spear the broo") and parry. In missile combat they either shoot or don't.  In casting magic they name the spell and if applicable name the target.  We can play a whole session without saying "attack".

 

Partially I did it because of the definition of engagement which keys in on attacking and defending. But you're right, those are just words and it's the meaning behind them that is important. I didn't mean to be that literal. The other reason being partially because the Q&A examples sort of emphasize it. But I'm going to stop there, because I don't want to blame the Q&A.

I think I understand SR well enough, it's that differentiation between Phase 2 and Phase 3 actions. The posts that followed yours helped as well.

[Wheel Shield]

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

The details of the way I run combat are here. It's more or less compliant with the rules-as-written, except where noted.

Thank you for this.

I'm not sure I follow the rest of your post, but it's probably my confusion. I would assume all the combat participants would make a statement of intent..?

[Wheel Shield]

1 hour ago, Jens said:

Engagement is not gated by attacking or defending, but on focus- if you're paying close attention to someone else, and would be able to react to their actions, you're engaged. "Attack" and "defend" are simply examples of things that can happen during a melee combat. IMHO unless there's no chance someone could be impacted by or impact someone else (e.g. they're far away from combat, and doing unrelated activities), I'd skip phase 2 and move straight into phase 3, SRs.

That's not what I took away from my reading, but what you have written makes more sense to me (so thank you). Again, not trying to be passive aggressive against the Q&A, which Chaosium was considerate enough to provide.

Having a d20 familiarity, engagement feels like a different sort of "attack-of-opportunity" or "threatened area." That makes sense with the example the Q&A uses about a ranged combatant being engaged. There may not be a way for the shooter and the target to interact, but they're engaged because they're focused  on each other (to you use your words). That sort of parallels the d20's concept of being a missile combatant being threatened by an adjacent enemy, even if their distant target can only dodge (or whatever).

Yeah, I'm starting to take away that Phase 2 is specialized for people who aren't going to be the focus of an enemy. But! If that's the case, what would their starting SR be if they only intend to move a specific distance. Is it their Dex SR + 1/per 3 M? So it's based on the movement you intend to travel?

To all who responded, thank you, this is helping.

[g33k]

4 hours ago, Jens said:

Engagement is not gated by attacking or defending, but on focus- if you're paying close attention to someone else, and would be able to react to their actions, you're engaged. "Attack" and "defend" are simply examples of things that can happen during a melee combat. IMHO unless there's no chance someone could be impacted by or impact someone else (e.g. they're far away from combat, and doing unrelated activities), I'd skip phase 2 and move straight into phase 3, SRs.

I have "engagement" being that one or both are actually interacting in some manner; "focused" on the other, to use your term... even if only insofar as "on guard" vs being attacked, or "studying" the other (e.g. for an opening).  As you say:  an actual attack/defense isn't needed; but if they're in-range to do so, and prepared to attack or defend (i.e. may be "holding action"), they are "engaged."

Not being "engaged" means they aren't acting within the series of strike-ranks (other peoples actions don't affect theirs, and theirs don't affect the others') and so their movement & noncombat actions can be resolved before the combat details.

If you alter your SOI, it's possible to become "engaged" at that point -- you then need a place in the SR sequence.
The rules don't specify resolving this.

Edited April 5 by g33k

[MiG-77]

I use on my game also simplified combat mechanics as we have couple of new players that dont know anything about RQ (background in D&D 5th edition). We only have 3 phases (SOI, movement and SR).

 

1. SOI is same in in rules. 

2. Movement. All movement regardless are you engaged or not. You or opponent gets free "attack of opportunity" (like in D&D) if he moves past you without disengaging.

3. SR. Movement dont change SR's at all, but you can participate in this phase only if you have used half of you movement at max.

4. Ditched, all bookkeeping happens real time in phase 3.


Also we use parrying mechanis from RQ 3th edition (easier to remember, no need to use table. We probably move back RQG rule when other rules comes familiar to new players)

[Wheel Shield]

19 hours ago, g33k said:

Not being "engaged" means they aren't acting within the series of strike-ranks (other peoples actions don't affect theirs, and theirs don't affect the others') and so their movement & noncombat actions can be resolved before the combat details.

If you alter your SOI, it's possible to become "engaged" at that point -- you then need a place in the SR sequence.
The rules don't specify resolving this.

I am beginning to wonder if the easiest and most straightforward thing would be to remove Phase 2 altogether. If a character is only moving and nothing else, they should have a fairly low SR and act early in the round anyway. A move being only +1 for 3m. If the player and the GM want to allow some more flexibility, for example drawing/preparing a weapon while moving, then default to the highest SR OR just combine the SRs but have them execute simultaneously. (Also make sure those "combo actions" are reasonable.)

 

18 hours ago, MiG-77 said:

4. Ditched, all bookkeeping happens real time in phase 3.

I can see that and think similarly. EDIT: Or I did until @PhilHibbs reminded me of this.

Edited April 5 by Wheel Shield
emergency healing to avoid death

[PhilHibbs]

16 hours ago, MiG-77 said:

4. Ditched, all bookkeeping happens real time in phase 3.

No chance for emergency healing to avoid death?

[MiG-77]

9 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

No chance for emergency healing to avoid death?

Depends what you mean by this? Others can heal you if they have SR left to do so (change their actions). You still die "only" end of melee round (that is after SR 12) if that was total hitpoints reduced to 0. Those hits that cause instant death, still cause instant death.

Edited April 6 by MiG-77

[Darius West]

On 4/6/2024 at 8:43 AM, PhilHibbs said:

No chance for emergency healing to avoid death?

Casting a Rune Spell takes 1SR.  Heal Limb is the "go to".  If you are out of RP, you are out of luck.  No chance to cast if you are unconscious; then it is someone else's problem.

[Wheel Shield]

I did get this sorted! Thank you very much to those who responded

[Mugen]

On 4/5/2024 at 1:04 AM, Jens said:

(...) I'd skip phase 2 and move straight into phase 3, SRs.

So, basically phase 2 would be a move to phase 3. 😉