Basic roleplaying combat system

[frogspawner]

Question: what does a shield have in terms of advantages over a main gauche or other off-hand weapon?

If you find a suitable answer to this question, you will easily find a way to model the advantage in game terms without too much tinkering.

Well, I think we might have just found an answer.

Actually most shield were just held, not strapped on.

For the ones that are strapped on yes.

There is a difference between small shields, which are used to actively block, and larger shields which protect in part by being movable cover.

Even so, parrying weapons get knocked away more easily than (some) shields. True? And if so, how do we model that?

[kwll]

Hello all,

Even tough I regularly read this forum, I usually do not post. I have been following this thread with great interest, however -- being a (modern) fencer myself -- and felt I should share some thoughts as well. I have no point to make, but I read this paragraph from 'Runequest: Adventures in Glorantha' (which has never been officially published, I think) about another option for using shields:

Shield Coverage

Instead of parrying, ready shields can be used to cover hit

locations (this takes no actions). A small shield can be

used to cover one hit location, a medium shield can be

used to cover two adjacent hit locations, and a large shield

can be used to cover three adjacent hit locations. Half the

shield's AP are added to any armor already covering the

hit location (or act as armor, if none is present). Such coverage

applies to melee, missile and thrown weapons.

A small or medium shield slung on one's back automatically

provides such coverage to one's chest from behind, and a large

shield slung one one's back automatically provides such

coverage to one's chest and abdomen from behind.

If this rule is in the BGB, I did not see it there. Also, I noticed that RQ:AIG shields have AP ratings amounting to (a little less than) half their AP/HP rating in BRP. I think this rule could be one possible answer to the question: 'What are the shields good at?'

[frogspawner]

If this rule is in the BGB, I did not see it there. Also, I noticed that RQ:AIG shields have AP ratings amounting to (a little less than) half their AP/HP rating in BRP. I think this rule could be one possible answer to the question: 'What are the shields good at?'

Of course, the real RQ4! Yes, I had forgotten this one. Only the "Slung" part is in BRP/BGB that I can spot. Anyone know better?

But others may have already remembered this (perhaps from RQ2/3, either...?), and still not think shields have enough of an 'edge'. Is that the case?

(BTW, while reading this up I noticed the BGB says a good thing about shields is they are easier to hold onto and can only be lost via fumbles. So then, though, is there a BGB mechanism for losing grip of parry weapons, that I've also missed?)

[Atgxtg]

Of course, the real RQ4! Yes, I had forgotten this one. Only the "Slung" part is in BRP/BGB that I can spot. Anyone know better?

But others may have already remembered this (perhaps from RQ2/3, either...?), and still not think shields have enough of an 'edge'. Is that the case?

Not with me. RQ3 is a different animal than BRP when it comes to shields. And the slug shield rules go back to RQ's Cults of Priax. One key difference is that in RQ a successfgul parry still results in a damage roll, so the AP are crucial to see if the attack is completely blocked. In BRP the Elric! resolution matrix meakes the AP/HP of the parry object much less important. IN RQ, where a dagger had 6 AP, and a typical shield had 12 AP the shield was a much better defense than in BRP, where the HP don't stop damage to the character, but just serve as the weapons HP.

(BTW, while reading this up I noticed the BGB says a good thing about shields is they are easier to hold onto and can only be lost via fumbles. So then, though, is there a BGB mechanism for losing grip of parry weapons, that I've also missed?)

If it's there, you aren't the only one who missed it. AFAIK the only ways to loose a weapon are through the fumble tables, a disarm, or damage to the character holding the weapon (disable him or his arm). It wouldn't be hard to do though.

I think the difference between RQ and BRP's parry rules is that RQ3's rules are more of a block (that is interposing the parrying object so it works like hard cover), while BRP is more of an actual parry (dusing the parrying object to defect the attack, rather than meet it head on).

The two methods could be used together. Just go back to RQ3 AP values (about half the BRP ones), and reduce the 2 HP losses in the matrix to 1 AP, and then allow RQ style blocks to be EASY and BRP stle parries to be normal.

[RosenMcStern]

The two methods could be used together. Just go back to RQ3 AP values (about half the BRP ones), and reduce the 2 HP losses in the matrix to 1 AP, and then allow RQ style blocks to be EASY and BRP stle parries to be normal.

Hmmm, this would have two effects: a more realistic separation between Block and Parry, and making Frogspawner very, very happy...

[Heimdallsgothi]

RuneQuest 6 Combat considers a number of options

1) Your Combat Style, which is the skill for wielding the weapons you know.

2) The Combat Round is Five seconds.

3) Combat Actions (Proactive and Reactive actions costing an action point, attack, parry, move etc)

4) Weapon Size and Reach (Both are important as they define how difficult it is to parry a particular weapon, or the range needed to engage.

5) Engagement Combatants can hit or be hit by a direct opponent, depending on circumstances. (Melee or Ranged engagement differs)

6) Special Effects are combat maneuvers which can be performed if one combatant gains the upper hand. (determined after the roll)

Other factors to consider are

a. Initiative is rolled at the beginning of a fight, and does not change unless something major changes (reinforcments arrive etc)

b. Strike Rank is affected by armor, heavier armors slow you down

c. Evade is a leap out of the way and leaves you prone (Dodge does not exist in RQ6, the word is not to be found in the PDF at all)

d. Parry is defined as attempt to deflect an incoming attack using a combination of parrying, blocking, leaning and footwork to stop the blow. (so in this case, the swift turn to the side to cause a strike to miss is part of the PARRY action, its not limited to just using the weapon, its a MIX)

e. Weapon/Shield Size matters

Weapon sizes are Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Enormous

Parrying equal sized attacks (sword vs sword, dagger vs dagger) allows full block

Parrys with a 1 step smaller, blocks half the damage

Trying to Parry with 2 steps smaller is futile, you dont parry a claymore with a dagger

f. Shields are awesome for blocking because of this, Buckler is considerd medium size. A heater shield/Viking shield etc is considered large. Hoplite Shields or a Kite shield is considered Huge for parry purposes. (THIS makes shields Awesome considering most 1 handed weapons are small or medium, and most 2 handed weapons are large, with a few being huge) (flexible weapons like a flail treat shields as 1 size smaller for consideration)

g. Shields also are the only way you can parry incoming missile attacks, other wise your only option is EVADE, or be a sitting duck

As for how the timing of actions happen, strike ranks are essential

Initiative: The order of who acts when during a Cycle of a Combat Round

Cycle: The countdown through Initiative values from the highest Strike Rank to the lowest, so that each participant has a chance to take their Turn when their Strike Rank is reached.(this seems to indicate that strike rank does determine when in the cycle your actions occur)

Turn: Upon each turn, participants perform a Combat Action, which comprises of a declaration, any necessary dice rolls (including reactions) and the resolution of the action.

Neat things about parry, if your opponent goes first (or you allow him to go first because you know he is of lesser skill) and he misses, then you can parry his missed attack in hopes of getting some defensive special effects

Also

If you are unwilling or unable to parry an incoming attack, it is considerd the same as having rolled a failure for their chance at a special effect (OUCH)

There are tons more, I dont know BRP well, but RQ6 covers a lot of territory, Hope this contributes

[frogspawner]

Hmmm, this would have two effects: a more realistic separation between Block and Parry, and making Frogspawner very, very happy...

Thanks for thinking of me. Though I am already pretty happy with my own RQ2/3-ish homebrew (yes, using basically RQ3 APs and not the BGB Matrix - so don't have a 'useless shields' problem). Distinguishing Blocks from Parries is more a thing to make you happy, I'd say.

[frogspawner]

Just go back to RQ3 AP values (about half the BRP ones)...

Already there, mate. And not actually bothered about Block vs Deflect - it's all Parry to me.

One key difference is that in RQ a successfgul parry still results in a damage roll...

Absolutely key. And it's the whole "Opposed Rolling" ethos that wrecks it. Don't get me started!

Lots of goodness in RQ4:AiG. Ah, what might have been...

[axe-elf]

Ok, we played BRP today, and had a blast!

Among other things, Tor-Erling the hirdmann and Eirik the seidmann (the players) were sent to kill Fjonir the rapist at his farm. There they met him and his brother, trying to ambush them. Tor-Erling won the initiative and cut down Fjonir on the first blow, so he did not even get to try his two hand battle axe. His brother was a bit more resilient, fighting with shield and sax, but was also killed in three rounds by Tor-Erling´s sword in his gut.

I love battles that are fast and bloody

The shield rules I use are basically, no cumulative -30% on shield parry. This is a good quick fix on the shield problem

I use the shield rules described in Mythic Iceland, where shield parry does that you cannot use shield AP in same round, and the DAR rules for swords, I described earlier.

For anyone interested, I put my house rules here:

Shields and off-hand weapons, dodges and parries

Several defensive actions (parries and dodges) can be done in a round, but they are affected by a cumulative -30% chance on defensive actions beyond the first. Shields parry at full skill rating, and are not affected by cumulative -30%; use shield rules described in Mythic Iceland p. 194 . Shield and off-hand attacks are difficult, except for bucklers and parrying daggers. Parry has average difficulty.

Double action rating

Most weapons give the ability to divide skill rating in two (or more) attacks when skill rating is at least 100% (BRP p.198). These weapons are therefore are said to have Double Action Rating (DAR) of 100. Some weapons are faster, such as swords (except great swords) and have DAR of 70. More attacks in fractions of at least 35% can therefore be done with swords. Rapiers are even faster and have DAR of 50. In a round using DAR multiple attacks, you cannot parry with off-hand weapons or shield.

Edited September 14, 2012 by axe-elf

[Atgxtg]

Already there, mate. And not actually bothered about Block vs Deflect - it's all Parry to me.

It depends on how you run the effect. RQ3 ish is block. It doesn't matter which method you use, but the two are not the same-and will lead to differt styles of play. In RQ2 shields were the best defense, since they didn't lose HP like the weapons did. In RQ3 they were better than weapons, but not indestructable. In BRP they are slightly better, but might not be worth the added bulk.

Absolutely key. And it's the whole "Opposed Rolling" ethos that wrecks it. Don't get me started!

EXACTLY! We are in agreement. When RQ was designed it was not designed for the opposed roll mechanic, and integrating it causes some changes.

[SDLeary]

The two methods could be used together. Just go back to RQ3 AP values (about half the BRP ones), and reduce the 2 HP losses in the matrix to 1 AP, and then allow RQ style blocks to be EASY and BRP stle parries to be normal.

I have actually been thinking about doing this. With, perhaps, a special parrying double AP (i.e., a partial deflection), and a critical parrying completely or allowing a counter-attack/riposte on the following SR.

SDLeary

Edited September 15, 2012 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

I have actually been thinking about doing this. With, perhaps, a special parrying double AP (i.e., a partial deflection), and a critical parrying completely or allowing a counter-attack/riposte on the following SR.

SDLeary

Sounds interesting. although if you use the riposte option you could have the higher success levels allow a free riposte (without the -20%). Maybe -20%/-10%/-0% for success/special/critical?

I have been thinking of a variant that ditches the success levels, that would use an opposed-high/"Price is Right Showcase" method, using then 10s dice as the effect (think success level). The difference between the effect dice for attack and parry would determine how much got through. So it could handle partial parries automatically.

For instance if both opponents had 60% skill, then a 57 vs. a 32 would be 2 points past the parry, while a 57 vs a 72 (failure) would be an unblocked strike, and a 57 vs. a 59 would be parried completely. Adjustment for weapon/shield type could be set up either as a flat bonus to the points blocked, or by higher chances of success (easy vs.normal or hard).

Edited September 15, 2012 by Atgxtg

[SDLeary]

I have also been thinking about an alternate combat option.

Blackjack, high roll under skill, rolling skill is crit (renamed)... yada yada.

Damage is figured somewhat as in Pendragon (d3s and d6s rather than just d6s), thus weapons do adds or special effects.

Criticals on doubles under skill, Fumbles either on doubles over skill, Heroic Success (traditional crit, or impale from Stormbringer) on roll of skill. Skills over 100 are represented by Expertice (Mastery levels) which allow shifts or special effects (disarming, unbalancing, etc).

This models an Exchange of Blows rather than an attack/defense cycle. Thus, highest roll under skill rolls damage for a particular contest. If one rolls under skill but is NOT the winner of the contest (Partial Success), they get to block/parry depending upon weapon/weapon style. A Partial Success, which is also a Critical blocks/parries double weapon AP; A Heroic Success that is under the roll of their opponent (still a partial success) parries all damage unless the other opponent also rolls a Heroic Success, in which case the looser is still a Partial Success.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

Sounds interesting. although if you use the riposte option you could have the higher success levels allow a free riposte (without the -20%). Maybe -20%/-10%/-0% for success/special/critical?

Interesting. If I use the riposte option, or offer it as an alternative, I'm thinking of allowing it at full skill or with the normal penalty, as I'm still going to allow a second parry or dodge at the normal -30%.

I have been thinking of a variant that ditches the success levels, that would use an opposed-high/"Price is Right Showcase" method, using then 10s dice as the effect (think success level). The difference between the effect dice for attack and parry would determine how much got through. So it could handle partial parries automatically.

For instance if both opponents had 60% skill, then a 57 vs. a 32 would be 2 points past the parry, while a 57 vs a 72 (failure) would be an unblocked strike, and a 57 vs. a 59 would be parried completely. Adjustment for weapon/shield type could be set up either as a flat bonus to the points blocked, or by higher chances of success (easy vs.normal or hard).

I think that I'm not going to use success levels either. Also, I think that skills over 100 only garner the enhanced Special and Critical success chance, and their effects (impale, ignore armor, and add a few others) but not the normal higher level trumps lower.

SDLeary

[RosenMcStern]

Already there, mate. And not actually bothered about Block vs Deflect - it's all Parry to me.

But it is not all Parry to the weapon master. The difference is there, whether you want to model it in your game or not. What you want to model in your game is Block (absorbing damage with your weapon - like RQ3 does) while what is done in BRP or GURPS is actually Parry (make sure the force of the blow goes elsewhere).

It's all a matter of what you want to represent in your game. But the fact that you want to focus on one aspect of reality does not mean that the other aspect ceases to exist or becomes "wrong". Parry does not become Block in real fencing because RQ2/3 called it so. A swordsmaster will usually tell you that if the impact of the blow is actually affecting your weapon, you have failed your parry.

When Jason summarized the rules in BRP, he chose to emphasize the Parry aspect over the Block aspect. This clearly means that shield use is de-emphasized, and shields are less useful in BRP than they should be. But they are by no means meaningless, and game-balance wise this solution is still better than RQ3. There will still be someone who does not appreciate this because his or her own game emphasizes the aspects that are not well modeled, and does not care about the aspects that the rules handle better.

EXACTLY! We are in agreement. When RQ was designed it was not designed for the opposed roll mechanic, and integrating it causes some changes.

This may be true for combat, where the opposed roll creates some headaches for game designers, but for out of combat skill use, I see no problem in using opposed rolls. Please note also that Stealth rolls have always been opposed in RQ: you have been cross-checking your success level with the Perception roll since 1984 at least.

But even as far as combat is concerned, please understand one point: combat is an opposed affari in its innermost nature. You do not "Perform a kata" while you fight, you try to read your opponent and find the best moment to strike according to his moves, not "on your own". From a conceptual point of view, assessing the result of an attack roll without checking for the defense roll is a poor, very poor way to model reality. It does not work this way in real life, so you can bring whatever "simplicity" argument you wish, but it is a fact that this approach is less realistic than others.

Now this does not mean that it does not work: combat in RQ2/3 does work. It provides results that are, in the end, quite fun and realistic. But it does so by providing a final result that is plausible by means of procedures that do not model the actual events (when you are parried, roll damage and see if it goes through in order to emulate a blow so strong that it could not be deflected by a small weapon; critical go through by means of sheer damage, and not by assessing that you bypassed the parry manoeuver, etc.). It is the same as armour class in D&D: it does not model reality at all, but in the end it works. The fact that less damage passes through is not emulated by a damage reduction, but by reducing the number of times you hit, and by prohibiting the classes that have an inferior to-hit ability to wield weapons that deal a lot of damage. It relies on average instead of reduction to enforce the fact that wearing armour will reduce the damage you take. In the end, the amount of damage that goes through is the same, so this strange combat model actually WORKS! But the individual attacks that you describe are absolutely unrealistic: you have a lot of "blows glancing on armour" where you should have parries, or blows that hit but do not deal full damage. It is clear that even if this works in the end, it is a poor representation of reality. Savage worlds does a much better job of providing a one-roll combat model, by splitting your passive defence between ability to avoid being hit (Parry) and ability to withstand damage (Toughness): as simple as D&D, but way more realistic.

In the same way, non-opposed combat works. But once you have learned that you can make rolls opposed, you immediately get the fact that it is a poor representation of reality. And just FYI, I heard Steve Perrin in person saying "Pete and Loz changed my rules a lot, but I like how they changed them!" Nothing wrong with using non-opposed combat in your game, it will not make it overall unrealistic, but I doubt a sensible designer would use it any longer in a published ruleset that is not explicitly a retro-clone. Like some other "Holy Cows" of old school RuneQuest, like one-use divine magic that sucks away your POW without any guarantee of effect.

Sadly, this means that Frogspawner will continue to come here and hopelessly pester all designers to persuade them that "opposed roll combat sucks" in the hope of having a supported ruleset that uses the old combat model (BTW, the RQ2 retro-clone is a ruleset that works that way, so you DO have one), instead of being happy to adopt the RQ3 combat rules in his own game. But this wide and comprehensive array of opinions is what keeps these boards an interesting place, after all.

[seneschal]

My complaint is that you guys have spent 24 pages arguing about shields, and no one has drawn up stats for Captain America's.

[Atgxtg]

This may be true for combat, where the opposed roll creates some headaches for game designers, but for out of combat skill use, I see no problem in using opposed rolls.

But many of us do, including the orginal author, Steve Perrin. For one thing it is clumsy when combined with the low roll mechanic of success levels. For another, we've gone thrhough the math and low roll wins does not screw over the higher skilld character the way some people think.

Please note also that Stealth rolls have always been opposed in RQ: you have been cross-checking your success level with the Perception roll since 1984 at least.

No, they haven't. Prior to MRQ the method of handling oppsed skills was very differernt. At one time the stealth roll determined if a Spot roll was necessary, and may have applied a modfier to the spot roll (ususally subtract half the stealth skill), at another time the sucess level of the stealth roll determined the success level required for the spot roll. Since MRQ it has been a direct comparsion blackjack/showcase method -high roll wins, unless somebody rolls low enough to get a better success level. It's cumbersome and counter intuitive, with a low roll mechanic.

[Atgxtg]

My complaint is that you guys have spent 24 pages arguing about shields, and no one has drawn up stats for Captain America's.

Not true, I've drawn up stats for Captain America'shield, I just haven't posted them.

But, since it is virtually indestructible, and will absorb the kinetic energy of an impact (which would make it impossible to ricochet or do any damage when thrown, btw),it would stop all the damage on a parry.

IN RQ3 terms treat it as a round shield but give it at least 100 AP. IN BRP 200 HP?AP, but ti won't take damage when it blocks.

[RosenMcStern]

But many of us do, including the orginal author, Steve Perrin. For one thing it is clumsy when combined with the low roll mechanic of success levels. For another, we've gone thrhough the math and low roll wins does not screw over the higher skilld character the way some people think.

Where did Steve say this? I spoke to him directly two years ago, and heard him say "There are a lot of changes, but they are for the better" about the new RuneQuest.

The "blackjack" method of high roll wins on a tie requires more time to "grok" than the base mechanics of "roll under your percentile chance of success". But one could also use a "low roll wins" like in SPQR. Personally, I find it more math-heavy than the blackjack method, but it also works.

One game that has the "all rolls are opposed, low roll wins" is HeroQuest. It works. So nothing prevents you from using similar mechanics in a BRP game. It will work, too. But Frogspawner will still complain, because he does not like opposed rolls and matrices at all. You cannot make everyone happy.

However, having played HeroQuest consistently during the last months, I can tell you that the overall feel of the "low roll wins" is extremely unsatisfactory, realism-wise. It decreases the value of your skill and maximises the luck factor. In HeroQuest, this is still a good thing because it encourages you to leverage Hero Points rather than ability ratings, but I would really, really loathe such a mechanism if applied to a simulative game like BRP. Not all mechanics are equally good for all games (or gaming groups).

Last but not least: Captain America's shield? Just treat it as a shield with a permanent Great Parry effect, and you are fine

[Atgxtg]

Where did Steve say this? I spoke to him directly two years ago, and heard him say "There are a lot of changes, but they are for the better" about the new RuneQuest.

All during the MRQ playtest which he got kicked out of for speaking up. His finals words were to keep rolling low.

The "blackjack" method of high roll wins on a tie requires more time to "grok" than the base mechanics of "roll under your percentile chance of success". But one could also use a "low roll wins" like in SPQR.

More evidence is support of Steve not likeing the opposed high rule.

Personally, I find it more math-heavy than the blackjack method, but it also works.

One game that has the "all rolls are opposed, low roll wins" is HeroQuest. It works. So nothing prevents you from using similar mechanics in a BRP game. It will work, too. But Frogspawner will still complain, because he does not like opposed rolls and matrices at all. You cannot make everyone happy.

I'm not against opposed rolls, or matrices. I just don't like using a blackjack mechanic with a roll low success level mechanic.

However, having played HeroQuest consistently during the last months, I can tell you that the overall feel of the "low roll wins" is extremely unsatisfactory, realism-wise. It decreases the value of your skill and maximises the luck factor. In HeroQuest, this is still a good thing because it encourages you to leverage Hero Points rather than ability ratings,

THat is just opinion, not fact. In fact the effect of luck is less pronouced in HQ than in BRP. The bumps make it harder for a W (50%) character to beat a 150% (3W) character in HQ than in BRP.

but I would really, really loathe such a mechanism if applied to a simulative game like BRP. Not all mechanics are equally good for all games (or gaming groups).

Nope. Which is why there are so many RPGs and so many variants of BRP. What works fine for one group won't for another, and we all like and dislike different aspects of the rules. I for one, love the skill check improvment system, and consider it one of the best aspects of the game, yet others hate it. I love skill categories as they make the attribute values mean something, yet others hate them. I like the SR system, yet others hate that too.

Last but not least: Captain America's shield? Just treat it as a shield with a permanent Great Parry effect, and you are fine

Yeah, but you got to go way back to find that spell.

[RosenMcStern]

All during the MRQ playtest which he got kicked out of for speaking up. His finals words were to keep rolling low.

Oooh, I remember those unfortunate moments very well.

BUT, that was MRQ1. And I met Steve when MRQ2 was on the table, and he said he was happy with the changes. I dunno if this particular change pleased/pleases him, but given the fact he wrote that nice foreword for RQ6, I suspect he has got to terms with "blackjack". Although his favorite systems is still "Roll low/use Degree of Success", I suppose.

[Atgxtg]

Oooh, I remember those unfortunate moments very well.

BUT, that was MRQ1. And I met Steve when MRQ2 was on the table, and he said he was happy with the changes.

Pretty much everybody is happy with the changes in MRQ2. But that doesn't mean that Steve preferred the blackjack mechanic to roll low.

[frogspawner]

But Frogspawner will still complain, because he does not like opposed rolls and matrices at all. You cannot make everyone happy.

As I said earlier, I am happy with my own version, thanks.

What I like about independent rolls is - when you make a roll, you achieve a definite effect.

What I don't like about opposed rolls is - when you make a roll, it has no meaning without the other guy's roll.

There's no immediacy to that. It's not you doing something - it's the system's mechanics doing it. The feel is wrong.

[rust]

What I don't like about opposed rolls is - when you make a roll, it has no meaning without the other guy's roll.

Well, in a fight your moves have no meaning without the other guy's moves,

in a debate your words have no meaning without the other guy's words, and

so on - it takes two to tango, and the result of the contest is determined by

the quality of the contributions of both.

[Atgxtg]

Well, in a fight your moves have no meaning without the other guy's moves,

in a debate your words have no meaning without the other guy's words, and

so on - it takes two to tango, and the result of the contest is determined by

the quality of the contributions of both.

Not really. If you run the other guy through, make a definitive point, or dance well, you do so regardless of how and what the other person does. It's sorta like grading on a curve.