RQG: Disengagement

[Sean_RDP]

Pg. 195. The Flee option says the disengaging character is subject to an attack they cannot defend against.  Specifically their opponent "can make" an attack that the disengaging / fleeing character cannot defend against.

Is this a free attack OR is this that opponent's normal attack that the disengaging character is not able to defend against? 

If the opponent has a bow, are they not actually engaged in combat? Can the opponent take a bow shot or no?

What SR does someone flee on? I am assume SR 1 or is it their DEX SR?

Example. Orlanth Bob is losing to a Lunar soldier. O-Bob flees on SR 1 and moves I assume his 8 movement (O-Bob is a human). If the Lunar takes a free attack on SR 1 (or 2 or 3) and say, maims O-Bob's left leg, Bob is obviously not going to flee. Does the Lunar then get their normal attack on say SR 7 or have they used up their attack with the earlier attack? Because if the Lunar had to wait until their normal SR, O-Bob would be long gone and the undefended attack superfluous. 

Knockback. What SR does someone run away on? SR 12, the end of the round or the SR they made the knockback attack? If the latter, then do they move their full movement OR do they measure the SR they will be moving and if so, would that not add to their SR total? I m assuming they get to disengage this round.

Can I knockback one person and flee another if I am engaged with multiple opponents? 

Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere. I did not put it in the corrections thread because it was more of a clarification, but I can if that would be better.

[simonh]

I think what they do is just declare movement and run away per the normal movement rules. I imagine the free, extra attack triggers at the moment (SR) they move away at.

[jps]

As I read it they must spend the round doing nothing but defend and then they can move the next round at SR 1. If their opponent choose to run after them, the Gamemaster will use the chase rule.

[jajagappa]

2 hours ago, Sean_RDP said:

If the opponent has a bow, are they not actually engaged in combat? Can the opponent take a bow shot or no?

The question is whether they engaged in the first place.  If they closed and began melee combat, they are engaged.  If there is still distance, and they are firing missile weapons, they are not engaged.  That said, turning to flee might still expose you to a missile attack you cannot Dodge.

 

[g33k]

2 hours ago, jps said:

As I read it they must spend the round doing nothing but defend and then they can move the next round at SR 1. If their opponent choose to run after them, the Gamemaster will use the chase rule.

There is a fighting-retreat option, as you describe, but there is also a "flee" option, which gives their foe the undefended attack.

Edited June 13, 2018 by g33k

[Sean_RDP]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

There is a fighting-retreat option, as you describe, but there is also a "flee" option, which gives their foe the undefended attack.

Right, page 195 - Disengaging has 3 options. I get what they are and mostly how they work, but there is some clarification that could help.

Retreat, seems self explanatory. You fight defensively the whole round and are then disengaged or unengaged. It seems clear that if you are 

There is the Knockback. Still makes sense in terms of why you are unengaged and then you can run away. Which after reading answers part of my question for me: you move after the Knockback, which always happens on Rank 12. 

So before we get to Flee, let me talk about why I see this as problematic. You decide you want to disengage and either fight defensively before retreating OR use the Knockback maneuver. It is SR 12. On SR 1 (or 2 or 3 or your DEX SR) you move your 8 units. The person attacking you does the same. Boom. You are both engaged again. Nothing gained. Now I know the NPC or PC does not have to chase you, but 50/50 the odds are they will and should.  It just makes sense to pursue a retreating enemy. 

I assume that the idea of Disengaging is to be free to move, to retreat or at least maneuver around some. To engage with someone is also a bit unclear. If you are next to a guy with your hands in your pocket and he has a knife, are you engaged? Logically you are but that is never really explicitly stated. It would get really complicated though if engaging in combat were always consensual.  So here is how I see the combat breakdown.

1. Are you surprised? Yes or No
2. Are you next to another person with a weapon or ill intent? 
3. If NO you may
   1. Shoot some missiles
   2. Cast a Spell
   3. Move up to your Max racial movement
   4. Sit back and indecisively not do anything because of analysis paralysis. (You know who you are)
4. If YES, you are Engaged,  you may
   1. Attack and Defend
   2. Defend and cast spells
   3. Try something dumb (see above)
   4. Disengage or Run Away
      1. You Retreat - Defend Only, No Longer Engaged on Rank 12 or Rank 6 if mounted
      2. Knockback and if you succeed, you are now not engaged on Rank 12
      3. Flee. Enemy gets free attack on you that you cannot defend against but you can move
         1. How far can you move if you flee?
         2. Is the Free attack that character's only attack OR is it an extra attack on top of their Attack and Defend option? Can the person trying to stay engaged make 2 attacks on the same or different targets? What happens with a skill over 100%? Can they split their Free attack?

I think it might be much simpler this way

Disengage. The character may only defend and on SR 12 they move back so there is at least one (or two) units between them and all combatants if possible. If this is not possible, a character cannot disengage. Success means the person is considered outside of melee combat at the beginning of the next round. IF one of the opponents wishes to dispute the Disengage, they make an attack roll versus the disengaging character, who may dodge or parry. IF the attack is successful, no damage is done but the disengaging character cannot move and is still considered engaged. Each additional opponent engaged with the disengaging character imposes a 10% penalty on their defense roll.

Flee. The character chooses to just run away.  Each adjacent engaged enemy who has the attack option chosen may choose to make an immediate attack on the fleeing character. The fleeing character cannot defend against this attack. This "free" attack uses up the characters attack option for the round.

But that is just me.  I am okay with the rules as written, there are just some clarifications that would help make them a bit more clear.

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Sean_RDP

[RosenMcStern]

This reminds me of my times in the 80s, playing RuneQuest with people who had played too much Fantasy Trip.

The point is that some games - nominally those which use a grid, like D&D 3.x or the aforementioned TFT, have the concept of "engagement by grid position". Once you are adjacent to a melee-capable opponent, you can no longer move freely. Please note that this is a direct derivative of the wargamey concept of Zone of Contol (ZOC), and TFT even explains in which hexagons a character projects a ZOC and allows a one-hex shift in the ZOC like many wargames do. It is a perfectly effective way of handlng combat, if tactical combat is what you are after.

However, RuneQuest, which is a game that does not expect players to use a grid, treats engagement as a matter of "fictional positioning*". This means that you are engaged in melee when you have narrated an exchange of blows with another guy, and you are no longer engaged when you have narrated a disengagement. The simple fact that the other fighter can move at the same SR as you after you have disengaged does not trigger engagement again, as there is no "adajcent figures are engaged in melee" rule in RuneQuest.

 

* fictional positioning is a forgie term introduced, or at least used mainly, by D. Vincent Baker.

[Atgxtg]

But what if he runs up to you and hits you? Wouldn't that mean you were engaged again? Grid or no grid it is a logical thing for an opponent do if he was winning a fight and the other guy tries to get away. And I don't see what's to prevent him. 

 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Atgxtg

[RosenMcStern]

The rule about unengaged movement occurring First does. Once free to move, the feeling character goes faxter and moves earlier.

[Atgxtg]

1 minute ago, RosenMcStern said:

The rule about unengaged movement occurring First does. Once free to move, the feeling character goes faxter and moves earlier.

Automatically? What if the other guy is an elf or mounted or something like that? Can he catch up with the guy next round or something? 

[RosenMcStern]

In some cases, i suppose so. But not in the average case.

[Atgxtg]

So its: *sniff* "This isn't fun anymore, I'm going home." *sniff*

Why did we need this rule? 

 

[styopa]

^ PRECISELY why we play out most meaningful combats on a hex map.

We rarely used figures as I was growing up (mainly because we were cheap), but as a GM now I find it much more visually stimulating, as well as making positioning and such much more comprehensible to everyone involved.  Wipe-off vinyl hex mats are great, and on occasion when action is going to be concentrated in a place, I'll put in the effort to draw up a more detailed/pretty to-scale sheet that's stuck to the table, hidden under the usual battlemat until it's needed.  The gasp at the reveal is practically worth the price of admission itself.

So yep, we have zones of control as Rosen mentions, etc., as well as reasonably simple mechanics.  Works terrific.

[Sean_RDP]

On 6/13/2018 at 5:22 AM, RosenMcStern said:

This reminds me of my times in the 80s, playing RuneQuest with people who had played too much Fantasy Trip.

The point is that some games - nominally those which use a grid, like D&D 3.x or the aforementioned TFT, have the concept of "engagement by grid position". Once you are adjacent to a melee-capable opponent, you can no longer move freely. Please note that this is a direct derivative of the wargamey concept of Zone of Contol (ZOC), and TFT even explains in which hexagons a character projects a ZOC and allows a one-hex shift in the ZOC like many wargames do. It is a perfectly effective way of handlng combat, if tactical combat is what you are after.

However, RuneQuest, which is a game that does not expect players to use a grid, treats engagement as a matter of "fictional positioning*". This means that you are engaged in melee when you have narrated an exchange of blows with another guy, and you are no longer engaged when you have narrated a disengagement. The simple fact that the other fighter can move at the same SR as you after you have disengaged does not trigger engagement again, as there is no "adajcent figures are engaged in melee" rule in RuneQuest.

 

* fictional positioning is a forgie term introduced, or at least used mainly, by D. Vincent Baker.

Grid/No Grid is entirely beside the point. Nothing I describe above requires the use of a grid or miniatures.

When we played RQ (back in the day) we didn't use a grid or miniatures.  I cannot remember an instance where one side or another tried to disengage though, so I have no anecdote / example.

Even with fictional positioning (love forgie terms) and theater of the mind, the rule in RQG seems unclear and a bit incoherent. I understand the intent of the rule and it certainly takes into account some shenanigans, like one person is mounted OR one person has a longer weapon. I think the rule works just fine or will work just fine if it is just massaged and cleaned up a bit.  Right now it just seems very vague and hand wavy for a game that is so specific in other regards. 

The same with being engaged. Logically when I engage you, you are engaged, simple as that. But the wording makes engagement sound too much like a consent kind of thing. 

/shrug 

 

[Atgxtg]

I just wondering, based on what I read here, if a group is getting beat up and they all decide to disengage is that it? Is the fight just over and they all vanish from sight of the of the opponents? 

[creativehum]

On 6/12/2018 at 7:32 PM, Sean_RDP said:

To engage with someone is also a bit unclear. If you are next to a guy with your hands in your pocket and he has a knife, are you engaged? Logically you are but that is never really explicitly stated.

I'm a little confused as to to the confusion, but I wanted to clarify this part:

On page 195, above the section on disengaging, we find this sentence:

Quote

An adventurer engaged in melee cannot move until disengaged.

Which means, for the purposes of play, "engaged" in RQG means your movement is limited. The idea is that if you are busy attacking and defending with one or more opponents you don't have control over where you are going or where you want to get to.

If a guy is standing next to you with a knife in his pocket you are not engaged. If someone is shooting a bow at you you are not engaged. Because in both cases your movement is not constrained in any way. 

To get control over where you are going or where you want to get to you can make a Retreating action (a defensive action that frees you up to move without consequence if successful, but takes a melee round), use a Knockback Attack (an attack frees you up to move without consequence if successful, but takes a melee round), or Flee (which allows you to move immediately, allowing you to move as if you were not engaged, but at the cost of your opponent getting to make a free attack).

Each of the three options has tradeoffs. For example. If I need to get to the shaman and punch him in the face before he finishes the ritual RIGHT NOW, then I might use the Flee option to get to him, even though it opens me to an attack. I might do this because I don't have the luxury of time to make a defensive retreat toward the shaman and don't have time to mess around with a Knockback attack.

"Flee" might be an awkward word choice given the connotation, but it is the word we have. You are "fleeing the opponent" and that's why the word is used. But you might also be, "Rushing toward the Magical Shenanigan before an enemy gets it."

With this in mind, Flee doesn't means a character vanishes into smoke before his opponent. It means the character can now move and is moving as if he wasn't Engaged. If the opponent wants to pursue, he can and standard movement rules apply, including the Chase rules.

The three options are there, as far as I can tell, to allow risks and consequences for different options based on different circumstances. Sometimes I'm going to rush to help my friend who is getting hammered by a troll, consequences be damned, and sometimes I'm going to say, "I can't risk a free attack this turn." Or I'm going to Knockback my opponent toward the edge of cliff and then advance on him... which I would not otherwise be able to do because I would be Engaged, and when I am Engaged I'm not allowed to move.

And so on.

Edited June 15, 2018 by creativehum

[Sean_RDP]

To illustrate why I think this is incoherent in general, let me focus on the initial basic question

Free Attack

If you Flee, your opponent gets a free attack.

Free attack? Is this an attack outside their normal attack OR does it use up their normal attack?

Example. CharA is Fighting Broo1 and Broo2. The two Broo are primed to attack on SR 7. CharA has had enough and is fleeing. So each Broo gets a free attack if they want it. IF they take these attacks, do they still have their normal attacks on SR 7 or not?

[jajagappa]

4 minutes ago, Sean_RDP said:

If you Flee, your opponent gets a free attack.

Free attack? Is this an attack outside their normal attack OR does it use up their normal attack?

I've always interpreted this to mean that it is their normal attack, but that you have no response to it (i.e. you have no Dodge nor Parry).  Free = Unopposed.

[creativehum]

15 minutes ago, Sean_RDP said:

To illustrate why I think this is incoherent in general, let me focus on the initial basic question

Free Attack

If you Flee, your opponent gets a free attack.

Free attack? Is this an attack outside their normal attack OR does it use up their normal attack?

Example. CharA is Fighting Broo1 and Broo2. The two Broo are primed to attack on SR 7. CharA has had enough and is fleeing. So each Broo gets a free attack if they want it. IF they take these attacks, do they still have their normal attacks on SR 7 or not?

I agree that this question is a point with some ambiguity. I was trying to clear out all the chafe that was I think cluttering put the issue and not confusing at all.

Now, I have never played RQ -- not any version. I am simply looking at the rules as present in front of me.

What I read of the pages is the following: "This leaves the disengaging adventurer open and defenseless—their opponent can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged."

When I read that that second clause, I read it as the Flee option offering an additional, immediate attack to the opponent. This means the opponent(s) can choose to do whatever they want on their normal SR. (Which might well be try to close on the fleeing character.)

Not only is it the easiest, most blunt reading of the sentence, it also provides a cost for the Flee maneuver -- which I think is a good idea.

Importantly, for me, there was no ambiguity. The reading I'm offering is the reading I would have had simply picking up the book and reading it.

Edited June 15, 2018 by creativehum

[deleriad]

8 minutes ago, Sean_RDP said:

To illustrate why I think this is incoherent in general, let me focus on the initial basic question

Free Attack

If you Flee, your opponent gets a free attack.

Free attack? Is this an attack outside their normal attack OR does it use up their normal attack?

Example. CharA is Fighting Broo1 and Broo2. The two Broo are primed to attack on SR 7. CharA has had enough and is fleeing. So each Broo gets a free attack if they want it. IF they take these attacks, do they still have their normal attacks on SR 7 or not?

So statements of intent have are that the broos want to attack and you have decided to flee. 

Normally, if no one is around on SR 7 the broos would stand around looking confused however you have decided to move as if you are disengaged. This allows the two broos to attack you before you start to move. If you are still capable of moving then you can move as a disengaged character up to your MOV.  (This is not a "free" attack - precise words are. "their opponent can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged.")

This would be their attack for the round. Essentially it has been brought forward out of normal SR order.

If the two broos had declared that they were attacking your friend you could flee and no one would attack you. (Your friend might attack you in the spirit world later but that's a whole other issue.)

Balance wise:

Flee - can't defend but get a whole melee round's worth of movement away from your enemy.

Retreat - can defend but don't get any distance just far enough away to be out of weapon reach. Next round you can move as a disengaged character though your enemy could chase you.

 

[Atgxtg]

Thanks, everybody, that clarifies thing. 

 

[creativehum]

1 hour ago, deleriad said:

Normally, if no one is around on SR 7 the broos would stand around looking confused however you have decided to move as if you are disengaged. This allows the two broos to attack you before you start to move. If you are still capable of moving then you can move as a disengaged character up to your MOV.  (This is not a "free" attack - precise words are. "their opponent can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged.")

This would be their attack for the round. Essentially it has been brought forward out of normal SR order.

What if the Broos had no SR after the fleeing character flees?

Do they not get an attack? Is their SR brought forward from the next round?

[Atgxtg]

Unless they significant changed the SR system, the Broo couldn't have "no SR" since SR isn't used up. The GM counts out the SR and characters act when their SR comes up. Now what I think the rule means is that if you fled the Broo on SR 3 (DEX SR) then the Broo would get to attack you then (SR3) instead of waiting until SR 7. The idea is, AFAIK, that the character gets to run away, but the opponents don't get robbed of their attack. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Atgxtg

[creativehum]

Yes. Good points.

My questions is what if the SRs were reversed?

The Broos attack me on SR 3 and I flee on SR 7.

The rules say each Broo "can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged."

In this case how does that work? 

Edited June 15, 2018 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

AFAIK if the Broo attack you on SR3 (they must have some Chaotic features to get a melee attack on SR3- Giant HyperBroo, no wonder you want to flee!) they already used up thier attack for the round, and your free to flee on SR 7 without any consequences.

IMO the rule simply  prevents someone from running away before the Boo attack and cheating the Broo of any chance to attack them at all.