RQ3 Close Combat

[g33k]

12 minutes ago, MJ Sadique said:

... My concept of perfection will not be for everyone....

Also:  even for a single person and their own judgement / tastes, "perfect" in one situation isn't "perfect" in another.

I love sports-analogies for RPGs, because they are so physical and akin (in a virtual way) to "adventure" gaming; so I'll compare two different "perfects" -- if I'm putting together a pickup basketball game and Steph Curry happens to wander by & be available for my "draft," that's a LOT better than if the (equally outstanding in her field) Evgenia Medvedeva happens to wander by & be available for my "draft."  Both are at the apex of their athletic fields, as "perfect" as it gets.  Neither one is even VAGUELY capable of athletically-substituting for the other!

Returning to RPG'dom, we have (for example) RuneQuest-vs-HeroQuest-vs-13thAgeGlorantha which each handle gaming in Glorantha in VERY different ways.  Some will prefer one of these, some another; and some will prefer different games for different circumstances.

Even strictly within the BRP/d100 family -- sometimes a given player might PREFER hit-locations, sometimes they might prefer the single HP-total, sometimes they might prefer just Major/Monor Wounds; all depending on the wants and needs -- the "tenor" or "flavor" -- of the campaign at hand, or the mix of players at the table, etc etc etc.

For myself, I (mostly) prefer RQ2/RQC style hit-points-per-location &c.

But in many modern/future settings, "adventurer" (usually meaning "military-grade") weapons are often 1-hit-and-down-or-dead... hit-locations seems mostly an onerous / unnecessary overhead.  Hydrostatic shock, massive overtrauma, concussive blasts, "neural paralysis fields" etc... If I have 5 HP in each leg, and my buddy only has 4 hp in each leg... so what???!?  

27 minutes ago, MJ Sadique said:

As the Devil's Advocate, I will never admit Perfection !

Exactly!

 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Mikus said:

Some century I shall create PerfectQuest and then you will see!  You will all make your O mouths. It will be the bestous quest EVER!  No matter the circumstance the rules will have the perfect solution and best of all, every player will agree that nothing could be finer.  It will be so cut and dry that these Forums will have nothing to discuss at all and like the One ring it will rule them all.

I can quite confidently state that should you (re)do such a thing, the nitpicking grognards will, within 72 hours, have dissected and pilloried your ego, and "oh yeah the rules are decent, but d100-version <X> is better" with a different value of "X" for each commenting grognard.   

Merciless, they are.  The Dark Side of the Force, do they serve.   Always there are FAR MORE than two!   

 

[RosenMcStern]

12 hours ago, Mikus said:

I guess I get that but % was a bad term and linking it to roll under on a non-exploding die seems to have caused some of the issues RQ has been battling for 30 or so years.  I maintain that 100% means perfect.  When was the last time you scored a 100% on a test and failed?  If 100% does not mean the whole enchilada than it is not a percentage based game.

It all boils down to tests being opposed or not. 100% does not mean perfect, it means only that you cannot fail if the only thing you have to beat is your tendency to **** up. If your have to beat someone else's roll, too, then the difference between 150 (roll at 100% chance and add 50 to your opposed roll or subtract 50 from opponent's chance, depending on the ruleset you use) and 100 (just roll at 100%) appears in all of its relevance.

Most recent rulesets use opposed rolls more frequently than straight success rolls, and thus having skills above 100% makes more sense there.

Quote

I love BRP but the skills over 100 and rounds vs time are the only things I am not enamored with.  That and dropping the Parry skill. AHHH!   Pluto fights sword and shield for a year but always uses shield parry - sword attack.  One day, for the first time ever, he decides to bash with his shield and parry with the sword.  Same level of skill?  

Yes. Same level of skill. The point is that if Pluto knows his way with his weapons, he has been trained in both shield bashing and sword parry. If not, his trainer was a moron and Pluto should not have survived long enough to become an adventurer. There is no such thing as a guy who is 100% to hit with a weapon and 10% to parry with it, yet in RQ2/RQ3 it happened all the time, and this is not a very plausible representation of reality. You may assign a penalty to defend when lacking a shield if you are used to a "shield forward" defensive stance, but most percentile rulesets already incorporate such penalties in some way. You may not believe it, but verosimilitude is more on the side of "one skill" than on the other side, and ALL designers of D100 rulesets now agree on this. Even the RQG ruleset has dropped the attack/parry split. It is one of the very few changes it implements over RQ2.

[Jusmak]

10 hours ago, g33k said:

Also:  even for a single person and their own judgement / tastes, "perfect" in one situation isn't "perfect" in another.

I thinks same. When I want to play heroic game, with lesser dying chance I could try 13th age Glorantha or Heroquest. And when I'd like to play well flowing, simple and realistic game, I'll choose RQ3. There is indeed inbuilt strategies inside RQ3, which are not self-evident at all, and which need a bit houseruling. Even 1 -handed weapon attack & parries are officially corrected in errata, it makes a slight tactical difference, if one handed weapon could only attack or parry at same round. It may not be bad thing after all, and may put player to think more tactical possibilities. Me neither understood possibilities of unarmed combat during closed melee.

I value much more, that there are melee combat tactics build into core system as choices made beforehand, than "pick a effect" as for example in Mythras. There is no need to be effect on every landed strike anyway, I miss normal hits in that system. I want to plan my moves beforehand, and not just fall into changes of dice gaming. That in mind close combat tactics could be written more clear, like charging in, closing opponent, knock back, and maybe add some more like blinding (by throwing a jab, item into one's face). 

 

[Mikus]

6 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

It all boils down to tests being opposed or not. 100% does not mean perfect, it means only that you cannot fail if the only thing you have to beat is your tendency to **** up. If your have to beat someone else's roll, too, then the difference between 150 (roll at 100% chance and add 50 to your opposed roll or subtract 50 from opponent's chance, depending on the ruleset you use) and 100 (just roll at 100%) appears in all of its relevance.

Most recent rulesets use opposed rolls more frequently than straight success rolls, and thus having skills above 100% makes more sense there.

Yes. Same level of skill. The point is that if Pluto knows his way with his weapons, he has been trained in both shield bashing and sword parry. If not, his trainer was a moron and Pluto should not have survived long enough to become an adventurer. There is no such thing as a guy who is 100% to hit with a weapon and 10% to parry with it, yet in RQ2/RQ3 it happened all the time, and this is not a very plausible representation of reality. You may assign a penalty to defend when lacking a shield if you are used to a "shield forward" defensive stance, but most percentile rulesets already incorporate such penalties in some way. You may not believe it, but verisimilitude is more on the side of "one skill" than on the other side, and ALL designers of D100 rulesets now agree on this. Even the RQG ruleset has dropped the attack/parry split. It is one of the very few changes it implements over RQ2.

Well, here is the thing from my POV.  Take a guy who picks up a bat.  He gets a basic skill of say 25% attack and parry.  He swings at a highly skilled fighter who is also an acrobat.  He gets a 25% chance to hit. His tendency to **** up is 75%. Then he swings at a drooling moron and his chance to hit is 25%. His tendency to **** up is 75%.  Defending does not change his tendency, it interposes something to block the path or to get out of the way of what would otherwise be a hit.  Now do you really think that someone would miss both these guys 75% of the time due only to his unfamiliarity with a bat?  Thats all was was saying about percent being a questionable way of looking at it.

Now lets take this baseball bat wielding noob.  He never gets any formal training or even knows a moronic trainer in baseball bat combat style.  Yet he stands outside of bars and gets really at beating up on unarmed patrons. Over time he becomes a master of smashing them and other unarmed, (but certainly dodging), critters with his bat yet never gets trained, (like many RQ adventurers who learn by experience only).  Also, he never has to defend because they never fight back.  (This bar caters to followers of Ghandi).

Anyhow, he gets so good at smashing people, critters and things he is now a master at 100%. His tendency to **** up is gone.  Yet never once was he forced to parry a drunk or kitten with said bat.  The first fight he gets in with a trained martial artist, who delivers a smashing blow to his face,  is lithely parried at 100% by his bat?   Hum.....?????

You see, you are making broad assumptions about combat but the old rules made no assumptions.  They were geared to what you did.  What your saying is like the leveling up of skills in D&D.  You go up a level, you gain in skill even if you never used if.

As for consensus I have always felt that is like taking a poll of 'Should the drunk driving laws be stiffer?' at the local pub.  I suppose lemmings also work by some form of consensus but I'm not sure about the wisdom here either. The Earth is flat was also consensus at one time, (and may be again LOL).

Under the old rules if you used a trainer you would train in attack and parry and get better at both. You became experienced in what you actually did.  If you ever trained in any martial arts I'm sure you have met people who were  lacking in offense or defense.  You see it all the time in MMA fights, especially back when it began and fighters were from hard fighting styles, not todays MMA style. 

 

Anyhooo, just my thought and way of looking at things. As usual, milage may vary.

 

Thanks for the comments!

[g33k]

26 minutes ago, Mikus said:

Well, here is the thing from my POV.  Take a guy who picks up a bat.  He gets a basic skill of say 25% attack and parry.  He swings at a highly skilled fighter who is also an acrobat.  He gets a 25% chance to hit. His tendency to **** up is 75%. Then he swings at a drooling moron and his chance to hit is 25%. His tendency to **** up is 75%.  Defending does not change his tendency, it interposes something to block the path or to get out of the way of what would otherwise be a hit.  Now do you really think that someone would miss both these guys 75% of the time due only to his unfamiliarity with a bat?  Thats all was was saying about percent being a questionable way of looking at it.

Now lets take this baseball bat wielding noob.  He never gets any formal training or even knows a moronic trainer in baseball bat combat style.  Yet he stands outside of bars and gets really at beating up on unarmed patrons. Over time he becomes a master of smashing them and other unarmed, (but certainly dodging), critters with his bat yet never gets trained, (like many RQ adventurers who learn by experience only).  Also, he never has to defend because they never fight back.  (This bar caters to followers of Ghandi).

Anyhow, he gets so good at smashing people, critters and things he is now a master at 100%. His tendency to **** up is gone.  Yet never once was he forced to parry a drunk or kitten with said bat.  The first fight he gets in with a trained martial artist, who delivers a smashing blow to his face,  is lithely parried at 100% by his bat?   Hum.....?????

You see, you are making broad assumptions about combat but the old rules made no assumptions.  They were geared to what you did.  What your saying is like the leveling up of skills in D&D.  You go up a level, you gain in skill even if you never used if.

I personally like the separate attack & parry, because (1) I have sparred with people who are noticeably better on attack or on defense (so "separate skills" matches my experience) & (2) I have never observed wildly-lopsided attack-vs-parry disparities either in RL sparring (except vs newbs) or in PC's rolling their skill-checks (so again, the rules align with my personal experience).

That said... I have never observed wildly-lopsided  attack-vs-parry disparities... and therefore I wholly-discount your batsman.  The guy who learns entirely-by-experience and never makes a parry so he never gets a parry-tick to skill-up just doesn't happen.  Not in RL, and not in the rules as I have seen them played.  So I place zero value on a rule-set that models this phenomenon (despite the carefully-crafted thought-experiment); even more than that, I would actively dislike-and-avoid a ruleset that modeled such absurdity!  But my confidence (that adventurers DO use both Attk&Parr, DO get (similar numbers of) skill-ticks in each, and DO (across many many skill-checks) average out to having roughly-comparable scores in both) keeps the BRP family in my perennial top-three list.

If the designers want the simpler rules (of a single Attk+Parr skill) instead ofn preserving the "knack" for attack or defense (that some seem to possess), they get to do that.

I expect I'll be able to live with the single-skill RQG approach; if not, I can always HR the separate skills back in ... confident of how it will work!

 

[Mikus]

46 minutes ago, g33k said:

I personally like the separate attack & parry, because (1) I have sparred with people who are noticeably better on attack or on defense (so "separate skills" matches my experience) & (2) I have never observed wildly-lopsided attack-vs-parry disparities either in RL sparring (except vs newbs) or in PC's rolling their skill-checks (so again, the rules align with my personal experience).

That said... I have never observed wildly-lopsided  attack-vs-parry disparities... and therefore I wholly-discount your batsman.  The guy who learns entirely-by-experience and never makes a parry so he never gets a parry-tick to skill-up just doesn't happen.  Not in RL, and not in the rules as I have seen them played.  So I place zero value on a rule-set that models this phenomenon (despite the carefully-crafted thought-experiment); even more than that, I would actively dislike-and-avoid a ruleset that modeled such absurdity!  But my confidence (that adventurers DO use both Attk&Parr, DO get (similar numbers of) skill-ticks in each, and DO (across many many skill-checks) average out to having roughly-comparable scores in both) keeps the BRP family in my perennial top-three list.

If the designers want the simpler rules (of a single Attk+Parr skill) instead ofn preserving the "knack" for attack or defense (that some seem to possess), they get to do that.

I expect I'll be able to live with the single-skill RQG approach; if not, I can always HR the separate skills back in ... confident of how it will work!

 

Hello!

I will try to better explain myself but I think this is on of those disagreements which will not get resolved and ultimately because it's just a game is not really that important.  Here goes.

'The guy who learns entirely-by-experience and never makes a parry so he never gets a parry-tick to skill-up just doesn't happen.  Not in RL'. ' 

I think you mean not in Hollywood, sparring or tournaments.

The bat example fits in perfectly with street thugs who can go a whole career of violent intimidation and bullying people without ever having to defend themselves, and these people do and always will out number true street fighters looking for a fair fight. Think of the school bully who never attacks someone bigger. They usually have numbers on their side as well. In real life the strong nearly always attack the old, young, weak and defenseless.  Rarely does someone go looking for a fight , they look for someone to victimize.  Just like Animal Planet.  Watch how animals attack prey. They don't one on one with the strongest, they mass attack and pull down the most defenseless whenever possible.  Although my bat wielding thug may not be David Carradine in Kung-Fu or a seasoned monster hunter the example stands as a reflection of true life happenings. Just turn on the news. People get brutalized and mugged all the time by skilled attackers, (as well as less skilled but no less violent political activists), and they never even throw up enough of a fight that required the assailant to defend himself. 

If you think about it classroom sparing or rules driven ring combat equates to RQ3 training where both skills are used. In those situations yes, skill would usually climb together but attack and parry skills ARE actually being trained and used.  In the street, not so much.  Using the RQ3 rules you get to roll for skill increases for skills used in training so we are covered.

A smart thug, animal or warrior in real life, (where getting wounded may equate to missing a meal or even death), never looks for a fair fight.  That is for soon to be crippled fools.  They look for a kill where defense never even comes into play once the actions starts.  Think one-shot one-kill.  Defense is by position, situation and restriction of the opponents opportunity to inflict harm back upon the attacker.  Shoot arrows then move in and stab the crippled survivors.  Hide in the trench and lob grenades. Then come out and bayonet the crippled casualties.  Not much hit-parry is there?  Assassins poison the wine, stab from behind and shoot from a distance.  Hunters sit in the tree with a crossbow. They never go toe to toe with the buck.  (At least I don't but perhaps thats because I'm a big wuss!)  Hit-parry-hit-parry is for demonstrations and training for when the worst happens and you failed your attack, or you are attacked and need to defend. If you are doing a hit-parry in RQ3 combat you will get to make improvement rolls for both, so we are still covered.

So it depends on your world view but I do believe mine is firmly seated in RL  Now I certainly admit there are some cases where hand to hand combat happens, but my bat example is far more the norm than some glorious noble fighter looking to test his skill in an match outside of a ring. A deadly match to boot! 

But as usual this is my opinion and mileage may vary.  Monopoly is fun but not very realistic..... so there is that....

Thanks guys, and remember whatever our particular idiosyncrasies may be , BRP is still friggin awesome and I appreciate bantering with you!  Allows me a chance to check my thinking and perceptions. 

[MJ Sadique]

23 hours ago, Mikus said:

The bat example fits in perfectly with street thugs who can go a whole career of violent intimidation and bullying people without ever having to defend themselves, and these people do and always will out number true street fighters looking for a fair fight. Think of the school bully who never attacks someone bigger. They usually have numbers on their side as well. In real life the strong nearly always attack the old, young, weak and defenseless.  Rarely does someone go looking for a fight , they look for someone to victimize.

You just gave the perfect counter-example of your theory AND the very reasons why all your example just cannot happens ! And I will explain you why :

In RQ3 rules, IT IS WRITTEN  :

"Gamemasters generally allow experience checks whenever skills are successfully used in stressful situations. An attack against a helpless target is not a stressful situation and does not deserve an experience check."

So, your example of a 100% attack skills is just not possible, YOU CANNOT progress to mastery levels being a coward without proper enemies parries or trying to kill you ! A thug get at least +25-35% to skill attack facing defenceless prey... I personally think he should never progress upper than 50%.

 

Secondly, There did exist in history some martial arts which only focus in attacking and completely ignoring any aspect of defence, parrying or dodging. But it's more a philosophy choice from them; To be able to know how to attack without fail, you need to know how people can defend themselves. A lot of GM, as myself, choose to create a rule to reflect this logic ! but it's not in the rules...like a lot of thing

 

Thirdly, in rq the main problem about skills percentiles is they don't mean anything... In later brp, chaosium did give a scaling of skills (like in Cthulhu v7 ). I personally really like Land of Ninja which clearly state that having 90% in a skill mean you are a True Master like Miyamoto Musashi, Sun Tzu, Guillaume Tell or Bruce Lee BUT In a RPG, most Big Bill fighting with full plates+mail and divine armor 5 will check their attacks skills against unarmored durulz with daggers... and they shouldn't progress against defenceless enemies.

[Mikus]

5 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

You just gave the perfect counter-example of your theory AND the very reasons why all your example just cannot happens ! And I will explain you why :

In RQ3 rules, IT IS WRITTEN  :

"Gamemasters generally allow experience checks whenever skills are successfully used in stressful situations. An attack against a helpless target is not a stressful situation and does not deserve an experience check."

 

Sorry but I think you failed to think this through entirely.  At least from my POV so I will try to explain it.

Try hiding outside a building and then attack someone as they exit. I guarantee you will be under stress.  Helpless means bound and gagged, unconscious, etc;.  Getting the drop on a foe is not the same as helpless, it is what every pro looks to achieve in deadly combat. What your saying is that if I get the drop on creature x and kill it as it exits its lair I am both a coward and gain no experience. Tell that to an archer. No attack skill roll unless you also parry with that bow, mister!  In your interpretation of this rule they could NEVER learn by experience, which is exactly how everyone learns archery.  I understand this rule as actual use where something could go wrong., not boldly and stupidly standing toe-to-toe with a fire breathing dragon. How about the sniper with a rifle?  No experience check for doing his job unless someone returns fire?  If he does his job right there will be no one to return fire, yet in your system he has to f-up to get better it would seem.

It seems in your estimation the only people who ever get better at killing are guys in a tournament or dolts choosing to subject themselves to mortal wounds. The assassin, sniper, bomber pilot, missile man, mortar man, submariner, etc;, , should not get experience checks because nobody gets to hit them in the face.

Patton said war is not about dying for your counrtry it is about making the other poor bastard die for his.  RuneQuest brought that to the RPG table. No more wading through mounds of orcs.  You had to fight smart or die.  That means avoiding get hit, not trading blows. Your world view, although very noble, is a bit unrealistic.  The reason we keep building better weapons, like drones, is to save our skins and avoid Dodging and Parrying while perfecting Attack. Toe to toe combat is for sporting events and the soon to be dead. Many pros in the combat world are more like ninjas, you dont even know who these 'cowards' are.  Think special forces. You can call them cowardly but this is the way the world works outside of a arena and how REAL EXPERIENCE is actually gained.

You said.....

So, your example of a 100% attack skills is just not possible, YOU CANNOT progress to mastery levels being a coward without proper enemies parries or trying to kill you ! A thug get at least +25-35% to skill attack facing defenceless prey... I personally think he should never progress upper than 50%.

I think this is your opinion, not a fact.  So in your game if I play an assassin who sneaks into a palace at night, dispatches ten guards as well as his target with a dagger, (thrown or otherwise), and then escapes with the Eye of Egg Moto I would not get skill increase rolls because I was a coward who got in the kill before having to perform a dagger parry?  I could never get above 50% attack unless I constantly screw the mission up and have to fight my way in and out?  Swell assassin, huh?  I certainly want this guy on my covert black ops crew.

In my view, (and that of RQ3), I would get better at dagger attack, just not parry.  Because I did not actually use it.  If I go toe-to-toe, attack, parry, attack, parry...then I roll checks for both.  If I choose not to attack in a combat, only to parry then I get a skill check for parry but not attack.  Lets not forget attack - dodge.  No parry ever.  I guess we might as well drop the dodge skill and blend that in as well. Because if all I do is dodge and run I should still get better with unarmed attack?  Seems logical enough that the actual use of the skill determines the skill gain rolls. This is a biggest argument against D&D like I class levels.  I go up a level so all my skills get better even the ones I never used.  Now, all we have to do is decide what the skill encompasses.  Perhaps here is where styles come in?  Perhaps here is our disagreement?

Perhaps I am looking at this wrong....  How about  a Sneak Attack Skill,  First Attack Skill, Assassinate Skill, Sword Fencing Skill???

Maybe this is what Combat Styles are, I have not got that far yet.  Now this I would concede to, ( I think ).

I suppose the attack could start using Backstab Skill - if fails and we enter in to Fencing Skill - where I get my butt whooped so move to Turn Tail and Flee Skill?

We wont necessarily agree, and thats OK.  If we did there would be no use for these forums to banter ideas about. 

Have a great day and thanks for your input!  I do appreciate it even if I am yet to be convinced of your POV!

Edited April 11, 2018 by Mikus
Cleaning up some of my gobble-d-gook

[RosenMcStern]

This discussion has become educational, indeed. There are different points of view and all have their validity. Here are my considerations.

On 10/04/2018 at 10:22 PM, Mikus said:

No attack skill roll unless you also parry with that bow, mister!  In your interpretation of this rule they could NEVER learn by experience, which is exactly how everyone learns archery.  I understand this rule as actual use where something could go wrong., not boldly and stupidly standing toe-to-toe with a fire breathing dragon. How about the sniper with a rifle?  No experience check for doing his job unless someone returns fire?  If he does his job right there will be no one to return fire, yet in your system he has to f-up to get better it would seem.

Ranged weapons follow a different path in RQ3. The rule that you train in attack&parry together is clearly for hand to hand combat. This example is thus irrelevant.

However...

 

Quote

I think this is your opinion, not a fact.  So in your game if I play an assassin who sneaks into a palace at night, dispatches ten guards as well as his target with a dagger, (thrown or otherwise), and then escapes with the Eye of Egg Moto I would not get skill increase rolls because I was a coward who got in the kill before having to perform a dagger parry?  I could never get above 50% attack unless I constantly screw the mission up and have to fight my way in and out?  Swell assassin, huh?  I certainly want this guy on my covert black ops crew.

The rules say clearly that you have to be in a stress situation to get a check. MJSadique implied that beating a target that does not fight back implies no danger in any case. And this is perfectly reasonable: if the bully misses, he can strike again next round, there is no scanario in which he gets hurt, even in case of failure. In the case of the assassin, if he misses he is knee deep in s**t: the target will call the guards. It is rather clear that the level of stress is almost absent in one situation and very high in the other, so the two examples are not comparable.

On the other hand, the RQ3 rules also state that combat is always a stressful situation. Now, does an enemy who does not fight back count as combat? Does a sneak attack count as combat ? These questions are not explicitly covered by the rules, so  both MJSadique and Mikus have a point. It is a matter of interpretation.

My personal approach to the point is, however, a bit different.

You will concede, Mikus, that your examples are at the very least a bit extreme. Yes, you can find people who are more adept at attack than at parry with a weapon, but in all cases where this applies we end up with the question "Does this qualify as combat"? This means that your examples are valid, but certainly borderline.

Now, my question is "Is it really a good design practice to make things more complicate in order to better handle a borderline case" ?

In this specific case, we are forcing everyone to record two different skill scores for each weapon (an average of five extra numbers to track for an average RQ3 adventurer) in order to avoid writing down some special rules for shields and weapons that are usually employed as one-shot attacks like the assassin's dagger or the lance.

Now, what solution is simpler: to clutter the character sheet for all adenturers with attack/parry values, or to write down the simple special case "Shield attacks are Difficult", "The lance cannot parry" and "Dagger parries are Difficult if your training is in assassination", which apply only to the characters who use these techniques ?

 

Quote

Perhaps I am looking at this wrong....  How about  a Sneak Attack Skill,  First Attack Skill, Assassinate Skill, Sword Fencing Skill???

Maybe this is what Combat Styles are, I have not got that far yet.  Now this I would concede to, ( I think ).

In fact, Mythras does have a Combat Trait that covers assassination.

And you have just given me an idea for a new Combat Stunt for Revolution.

[Atgxtg]

On 4/9/2018 at 11:32 AM, Mikus said:

Well, here is the thing from my POV.  Take a guy who picks up a bat.  He gets a basic skill of say 25% attack and parry.  He swings at a highly skilled fighter who is also an acrobat.  He gets a 25% chance to hit. His tendency to **** up is 75%. Then he swings at a drooling moron and his chance to hit is 25%. His tendency to **** up is 75%.  Defending does not change his tendency, it interposes something to block the path or to get out of the way of what would otherwise be a hit.  Now do you really think that someone would miss both these guys 75% of the time due only to his unfamiliarity with a bat?  Thats all was was saying about percent being a questionable way of looking at it.

Yes, it's one of the drawback to trying to rate skills as both a success chance, AND as a rating of overall knowledge and ability.  Real world experience would have both combatant's closer to a 95% chance of hitting. it doesn't take a lot of know-how to hit someone with a bat. But, likewise, it doesn't take a lot of skill to step out of the way or block an attack either, and eventually it turns into a contest of ability, relative to each other,   instead of some absolute scale. 

Most modern RPGs can handle this test of relative ability with oppose rolled. Unfortunately, this is where that 4 year old game engine sort of lets us down. It's just not designed to do so, and doesn't really adapt well to doing so. 

 

I have an idea for fixing this, but I think to make it work smoothly requires dumping the low roll special and critical chances. 

 

[Grievous]

On 4/10/2018 at 10:16 PM, MJ Sadique said:

Secondly, There did exist in history some martial arts which only focus in attacking and completely ignoring any aspect of defence, parrying or dodging. But it's more a philosophy choice from them; To be able to know how to attack without fail, you need to know how people can defend themselves. A lot of GM, as myself, choose to create a rule to reflect this logic ! but it's not in the rules...like a lot of thing

I guess this is starting to go a little off point, but I'm curious what martial arts do you feel fit that bill? Personally, I can only come up with systems that have different takes on defense, accomplishing it primarily via offense, but none that don't do any defense (indeed I find the concept somewhat strange).

[Mikus]

"The rules say clearly that you have to be in a stress situation to get a check. MJSadique implied that beating a target that does not fight back implies no danger in any case. And this is perfectly reasonable: if the bully misses, he can strike again next round, there is no scanario in which he gets hurt, even in case of failure. In the case of the assassin, if he misses he is knee deep in s**t: the target will call the guards. It is rather clear that the level of stress is almost absent in one situation and very high in the other, so the two examples are not comparable"

The bold above is text wrong in my opinion.  What if the guy ducks the bat and attacks back? Perhaps he has a gun or knife or is Bruce Lee.  How about the patrons mob him?  Certainly he may be countered and assaulted in return.  

The bat-man example seems to offended some peoples idea of honor, a fair fight,  the stress level or what have so you there is a logic disconnect about the point I am making.  Lets try another....

Lets take the Draw - Cut - Dual (I shall avoid terms like Iaido).

You draw a sword and cut.  Fastest guys cripples or kills his opponent.  No defense except getting the first blow in.

Now is this honorable, non-cowardly and stressful for everyone?   If so does the winner of the Attack get to make an experience roll?  In  RQ3, yep.

Does he parry or evade? Nope. Does get a Dodge or Parry experience roll? Not in RQ3 but in the one-skill-does-all way of thinking he absolutely must.  Because in that way of thinking no melee attack can happen without also defending.  So after my man Miyamoto wins 100 duals and becomes a master, (99%) of Attack he also is at 99% Parry or is it 99% Dodge?

Now someone is going to say fast cutting with a katana against another opponent is different from two rapier dualists facing off and the fastest one skewiring the other,  but I will never agree for a functional standpoint.  It the dualist makes a parry-attack he gets to roll for exp with both.  If he only strikes, just for the attack.  Simple.  Is this somehow different from getting the first shot in with a dagger, sword, hand, bat or what have you and ending the fight before having to defend? Nope.

Bottom line is I think RQ3 represented the skills well, you don't.  Either way its a game.

I suppose someone might think Pilot and Navigator should be the same skill because they are a private Cessna pilot. A C-130 pilot in WWII and up to at least 25 yrs ago, by my knowledge, depended upon his navigator and the navigator normally was not a pilot. Separate skills entirely. 

Now....I could be convinced that something like Indonesian kris fighting makes a good Combat Style because the defense is built into the attack. You never parry with your blade, you attack the incoming attack. So the 'parry' is the attack.  (At least with the style I am referring to).  This I could easily agree on as a combo attack/parry skill and would concede the point.

But this poor dog has been beaten and I will just agree to disagree on this point.  I do respect other opinions but for myself I feel it is reductionist past the a level I agree with,. Same as Pilot = Pilot, Navigator, or Athletics = Brute Force, Climbing, Jumping and Swimming (Yep, that was a single MRQ skill both written and defended by someone).

Thanks guys.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Mikus

[Jusmak]

RQ is just a game, and how skills are presented there is a matter of game design only, not a matter of reality. I teach different martial arts. When boxing covering, blocking and dodgking are all taught separetly as are jabs, hooks, uppercats. You could devide every move to it's own skill, because every move must be learned separatly. There is no shortcuts to learn each separate move. Power from jab does not carry to hooks, or into defence. When person learns more, by good timing attack and defence may be one move. But before that it is unlikely rookie can defend himself from heavy blows made by trained fighter, those just go through defence into body. Counterattack is reaction to attack, so it can be seen as defensive action.

Attack is anyway always more important, because without ability to knockout person or win a fight, fight gets longer and eventually you'll lose it. But without good defence, you'll be koncked out sooner, if opponent is hard hitter...

What can gamesigner do, when attempting to catch mechanics and chaotic essence of combat situation? Fail. So, they do instead something, which could be fun to play in rpg for some people. Anyway RQ3 works for me quite well now as it is. There is enough room for imagination and describing. It teaches well, that every fight is a risk, and some intelligence is hoped from players. It seems, that more designers write about combat simulation, more they travel from realism. This old engine runs still better, than many newer from realism's or playability view, and I will not change it for cinematic views. It is still the story, that matters.

[soltakss]

On 08/04/2018 at 8:25 PM, Mikus said:

Some century I shall create PerfectQuest and then you will see!  You will all make your O mouths. It will be the bestous quest EVER!  No matter the circumstance the rules will have the perfect solution and best of all, every player will agree that nothing could be finer.  It will be so cut and dry that these Forums will have nothing to discuss at all and like the One ring it will rule them all.

And then we'll all house rule it in different ways to make it even more perfect ...

[Mikus]

On 4/14/2018 at 2:59 PM, soltakss said:

And then we'll all house rule it in different ways to make it even more perfect ...

right on baby!  😀