New RuneQuest Combat rule question and suggestion

[styopa]

45 minutes ago, jongjom said:

AFAIK, a number of those who bought RQG have given feedback: so much so that they need to digest that information first before trying to take on any more. 

IIRC what, 50 copies of the rules isn't much of a cross section of samples?

44 minutes ago, jongjom said:

Not that there is much fundamentally amiss with RQG IMHO, but polishing takes time.

There was a fair amount pretty fundamentally amiss with the QS rules, to the point that Jason delurked in here to mention that it was based on January-beta text and had much changed even by the point of release of the QS....

[jongjom]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

IIRC what, 50 copies of the rules isn't much of a cross section of samples?

There was a fair amount pretty fundamentally amiss with the QS rules, to the point that Jason delurked in here to mention that it was based on January-beta text and had much changed even by the point of release of the QS....

It was a 100 copies! 

[styopa]

3 hours ago, jongjom said:

It was a 100 copies! 

^ fair point.  I stand corrected.  

Given the number of people that play a game, and the % that actually comment on message boards or feedback to devs, if MMOs are any measure, 100 in the wild = maybe 4 generating comments.  :|

[g33k]

18 hours ago, styopa said:

^ fair point.  I stand corrected.  

Given the number of people that play a game, and the % that actually comment on message boards or feedback to devs, if MMOs are any measure, 100 in the wild = maybe 4 generating comments.  :|

Good god, man... you are such a pie-in-the-sky optimist !!!

[Yelm's Light]

Given that there's very likely a much higher percentage of RQ grognards who would pay $50 for a draft copy of the rules, I'd be willing to bet it's somewhat more than 4.  Yes, I'm a pie-in-the-sky optimist, but grounded in reality.

[Yelm's Light]

I just had one of those slap-your-forehead realizations re: the failed attack vs. successful parry thing.  So obvious once you think of it.

It'd be a strong limiting factor against splitting attacks, especially when fighting more experienced opponents.

(After some thought on the matter, usually in the shower when my mind wanders, I think I'd HR that particular rule to a max of 4 points damage to the weapon.  One point really isn't enough; there'd end up being very little breakage at all.  And possible full damage is excessive to my mind.) 

[jongjom]

2 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

I just had one of those slap-your-forehead realizations re: the failed attack vs. successful parry thing.  So obvious once you think of it.

It'd be a strong limiting factor against splitting attacks, especially when fighting more experienced opponents.

(After some thought on the matter, usually in the shower when my mind wanders, I think I'd HR that particular rule to a max of 4 points damage to the weapon.  One point really isn't enough; there'd end up being very little breakage at all.  And possible full damage is excessive to my mind.) 

Yes. In the 120% fighter A vs 85% fighter B situation, fighter A has less than a 5% of getting their attacking weapon damaged. But if they split their attacks to 60% then the chance goes up to 30%+ per attack. 

However, the rules at being worked on, so let's see what happens . 

[Atgxtg]

I think if the big problem with the damage taken by the attacking weapon thing is that most metal weapons shouldn't get "whittled down" so quickly. They should have some sort of inherent armor, maybe not RQ3 ish Armor Points/Hit Points, but say some measure of APs based on their construction. As it stands in RQ2, it's just as easy to damage a sword as it is to damage a wooden spear or even a bare hand. And the bare hand could get armor protection! If wooden weapons had a couple points of armor, metal ones 6 ish. I think it would keep weapon damage/breakage common enough, but still allow most weapons to last for more that a couple of parries. 

[Mugen]

16 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think if the big problem with the damage taken by the attacking weapon thing is that most metal weapons shouldn't get "whittled down" so quickly. They should have some sort of inherent armor, maybe not RQ3 ish Armor Points/Hit Points, but say some measure of APs based on their construction. As it stands in RQ2, it's just as easy to damage a sword as it is to damage a wooden spear or even a bare hand. And the bare hand could get armor protection! If wooden weapons had a couple points of armor, metal ones 6 ish. I think it would keep weapon damage/breakage common enough, but still allow most weapons to last for more that a couple of parries. 

In a post on this forum (which I couldn't find...), Jason Durall said RQG weapons would work in a way similar to RQ3 Armor Points in the final version of the game.

As far as I remember, Special and/or critocal parries and attacks would reduce opponent's weapon's AP more seriously, but I don't remember by which amount. 

[styopa]

On 9/16/2017 at 10:12 AM, Atgxtg said:

I think if the big problem with the damage taken by the attacking weapon thing is that most metal weapons shouldn't get "whittled down" so quickly. They should have some sort of inherent armor, maybe not RQ3 ish Armor Points/Hit Points, but say some measure of APs based on their construction. As it stands in RQ2, it's just as easy to damage a sword as it is to damage a wooden spear or even a bare hand. And the bare hand could get armor protection! If wooden weapons had a couple points of armor, metal ones 6 ish. I think it would keep weapon damage/breakage common enough, but still allow most weapons to last for more that a couple of parries. 

Agreed about the disparity, but GENERALLY RQ has disregarded the inherent variation in vulnerabilities for wood vs metal weapons, or wood-hafted.  It has pretty much completely disregarded type of weapon too - for that matter, a thrusting weapon parrying ANYTHING shouldn't really do much of any damage to the attacker, ever.

RQ2 *did* recognize and account for it, but since then it's been largely ignored.

[Marc]

On 9/7/2017 at 4:50 PM, styopa said:

Let's be clear, I'd pay my $ right now in advance for a published copy, if that means getting on a list to get the draft ones as pdfs until the final one is printed and shipped.  Pretty sure nearly everyone here would do that.

Yep, me too!