RQG: Disengagement

[styopa]

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

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. 

It seems mechanically odd that people with BAD SRs are essentially unharmed by the disengage rule in that case - they can simply stroll away on their action, suffering nothing more than they already have.  The only people hurt by it are...faster people?

[boztakang]

19 minutes ago, styopa said:

It seems mechanically odd that people with BAD SRs are essentially unharmed by the disengage rule in that case - they can simply stroll away on their action, suffering nothing more than they already have.  The only people hurt by it are...faster people?

Well, they still can't Defend if they wish to move this melee round, rather than the next one - which is a significant disadvantage.

Which then brings up the question: 
If you attempt to Retreat in the scenario above, does the broo's attack next melee round count as "re-engaging" since he can attack before you can move?

I would personally rule NO, so long as you continued to only defend, and you could then move on your normal move SR without penalty. But I don't know that the rules have anything specific to say about that case. (again, probably ok given how unlikely it is) 

[creativehum]

21 minutes ago, styopa said:

It seems mechanically odd that people with BAD SRs are essentially unharmed by the disengage rule in that case - they can simply stroll away on their action, suffering nothing more than they already have.  The only people hurt by it are...faster people?

I concur. 

The rules states that if you flee your opponent "can make one attack against the adventurer which cannot be parried or Dodged."

The opponent either can make an attack or he can't. And the rule states the opponent can. 

The only way I can square this -- using  a blunt, plain reading that requires no extra interpretation or shenanigans to make sense -- is that the opponent gets an immediate attack when you try to flee independent of his SR. That is the cost of being able to move full movement that round even though you are engaged.

Note that a slower opponent will only have one attack no matter what, while a faster opponent gets another shot at you when you turn tail and move.

[deleriad]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

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. 

Not quite. RQ2 (and RQG  as I understand it) separates out unengaged movement and melee. Unengaged movement happens before melee SRs are started. So to flee you have to resolve the attacks before SRs start. Unlike RQ3 you don't start moving on a SR. Remember SRs are not units of time they are purely a way of determining who hits first. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by deleriad

[Atgxtg]

25 minutes ago, deleriad said:

Not quite. RQ2 (and RQG  as I understand it) separates out unengaged movement and melee. Unengaged movement happens before melee SRs are started. So to flee you have to resolve the attacks before SRs start. Unlike RQ3 you don't start moving on a SR. Remember SRs are not units of time they are purely a way of determining who hits first. 

Sorry, I assumed from the example in the first post "Bob flees on SR1" that fleeing happened during SR,  because the character is engaged at the start of the round. 

Edited June 15, 2018 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

34 minutes ago, boztakang said:

 

34 minutes ago, boztakang said:

Which then brings up the question: 
If you attempt to Retreat in the scenario above, does the broo's attack next melee round count as "re-engaging" since he can attack before you can move?

If unengaged movement happenes before SR combat then the broo don't get to attack next round before you can move. 

[PhilHibbs]

This seems to be over-complicating what is a fairly simple and obvious mechanic. You have three options listed - disengage by defensive retreat, knockback, or flee which is quick but risky. If those three don't cover it, and an alternative option makes sense in the situation then the referee can decide on it. If a player wants to use a skill like Intimidate or Insight, I'd allow that. Or if they know the terrain and can jump down a ravine or onto a low branch, that would be OK. Just refer to the MGF rule and don't let the basic mechanics stop you. If your group prefers to take the rules as strict gospel, good luck.

[creativehum]

35 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Sorry, I assumed from the example in the first post "Bob flees on SR1" that fleeing happened during SR,  because the character is engaged at the start of the round. 

This is an interesting question (Or perhaps not! I don't know RQ that well!)

if I declare "I'm fleeing this guy to run over and attack the troll who is about to kill my friend" does it matter if I do it on my SR or at the start of the round during movement.

it seems to me I'd do it at the start of the round, since the moment I activate Flee I am no longer engaged. So my opponent gets the free attack, I move to the troll for my attack, and my opponent does whatever he is going to do on his SR.

[creativehum]

10 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

This seems to be over-complicating what is a fairly simple and obvious mechanic.

I agree with you across the board -- except handling the opponent's attack when fleeing could be ambiguous and how it is used does matter. I don't see it as a matter of "gospel". Figuring out rules ahead of time certainly prevents confusion during play. I know I'm comfortable with what I'd do with Flee now. Glad I saw the thread.

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, creativehum said:

It seems to me I'd do it at the start of the round, since the moment I activate Flee I am no longer engaged. So my opponent gets the free attack, I move to the troll for my attack, and my opponent does whatever he is going to do on his SR.

I think so.

[creativehum]

9 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think so.

Honestly, I find these three options nifty, with plenty of opportunity for tactical choices and desperate gambles, keeping the battle from being simple a bunch of rolls to hit. 

As I've noted I've never played RQ -- but I'm getting kind of eager!

[PhilHibbs]

1 minute ago, creativehum said:

As I've noted I've never played RQ -- but I'm getting kind of eager!

Yeah, RuneQuest combat is exhilarating and terrifying.

[Atgxtg]

55 minutes ago, creativehum said:

This is an interesting question (Or perhaps not! I don't know RQ that well!)

if I declare "I'm fleeing this guy to run over and attack the troll who is about to kill my friend" does it matter if I do it on my SR or at the start of the round during movement.

it seems to me I'd do it at the start of the round, since the moment I activate Flee I am no longer engaged. So my opponent gets the free attack, I move to the troll for my attack, and my opponent does whatever he is going to do on his SR.

And what if you are trying to engage someone who is trying to engage someone else? Say cutting off those Broo before they get to your buddy. I dunno. RQ2 said that if SRs were the same then compare DEX, so we treat this the same way and the one with the highest DEX wins?

This never came up back when we were actually playing RQ2. 

[creativehum]

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

And what if you are trying to engage someone who is trying to engage someone else? Say cutting off those Broo before they get to your buddy. I dunno. RQ2 said that if SRs were the same then compare DEX, so we treat this the same way and the one with the highest DEX wins?

This never came up back when we were actually playing RQ2. 

The rules of RQG say...

Quote

 

If both opponents have the same strike rank, their DEX characteristics are compared and the fastest combatant strikes first. If DEXs are the same, then the strikes are simultaneous, and damage is not taken until both attacks have been rolled and all damage assessed.

 

So, yes. If an enemy rushes at my friend, and I rush the enemy, then we go in SR order, and then DEX for ties, and simultaneous hits if DEX ties.

But note: you can't make someone engage with you. Being "Engaged" means (as far as I can tell, and again, I'm no RQ expert) that you are attacking and defending against someone. 

If Phil (SR 7) rushes at my buddy Tom (lying on the ground bleeding out) to finish him off, and I run to attack Phil (with a SR 6), Phil does not have to Engage with me. He could commit to attacking Tom, ignoring me, and letting me attack him without any defensive actions, because he wants Tom dead that badly and his will to risk taking the attack so he can finish Tom off. I'm engaged with Phil, Phil is engaging Tom, and Tom is looking up at me with hope.

For the record, if the odds looked good, I'd probably make a Knockback attack against Phil to get him the hell away from my buddy Tom in case I don't kill him this round.

Anyway... that's how I'd read it with my first take on the rules.

[Atgxtg]

Ah, but what people are saying, and this is one of the differences between RQ2/RQG and RQ3, is that movement happens before  you go into Combat Strike Ranks, so if two or more characters are moving, they would have to work out who was engaged to whom before the wedding, I mean combat , takes place. So both Phil and you would move before you even got into SR 1.

So I'm wonder if, you both started unengaged, if you could cut off Phil before he got to Tom. 

[PhilHibbs]

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Ah, but what people are saying, and this is one of the differences between RQ2/RQG and RQ3, is that movement happens before  you go into Combat Strike Ranks, so if two or more characters are moving, they would have to work out who was engaged to whom before the wedding, I mean combat , takes place. So both Phil and you would move before you even got into SR 1.

So I'm wonder if, you both started unengaged, if you could cut off Phil before he got to Tom. 

I'd say if two unengaged characters are moving and they come into contact then one can force the other to stop by engaging.

[creativehum]

Here's my ruling:

It depends on the circumstances of the fictional situation. 

Not only is this how I normally Referee, but this is an important passage from RQG:

Quote

The players and gamemaster declare the intentions of all participants in the melee round. These intentions do not need to be precise (“I’ll wait here for them to do something, and have my shield and sword at the ready if someone gets close” is enough detail).

Enough should be said so that every participant has as much information about your intentions as could be expected from their adventurer’s involvement in the situation. The gamemaster, in particular, should provide as much information to the players as seems reasonable. Players may not know what exact spell a foe is going to cast, but they should know that the foe is readying a spell.

So, we're not trying to nail down every little detail before the round. We want to know the general gesture and sweep of the actions, and then drill down the specifics and nitty-gritty as we go.

The basic default, as I would GM, would be this:

PHIL: I'm running to kill Tom.

JEREMY: I'm running to stop Phil. I'm going to hack him in the back before he kills Tom.

TOM: "help"

The general positioning of the character will influence a lot of what happens next. Can Jeremy reach Phil before Phil gets to Tom? Or will Jeremy have to meet Phil over Tom's prone body?

Let's say that Jeremy can meet Phil on his way to Tom... and because he can move less than Phil than Phil's journey to Tom, he'll have the lower SR. Jeremy commits to this (attacking Phil on his way to Tom), and Phil commits to rushing at Tom to kill him.

Now, what happens when Jeremy encounters Phil? Well, Jeremy attacks Phil... that's for sure. But is Phil engaged in the combat? In my ruling (with my limited grasp of the rules at this time) I say the answer is no. Jeremy made it clear he wanted to run at Tom even though he knew Phil was gunning for him. He CHOSE to do this.

This means that Jeremy gets an attack on Phil with no defensive action from Phil. It's a risk Phil is willing to take because (for whatever reason) he wants Tom dead NOW.

And that's it. You can't make someone engage according to the rules, as far as I can tell. But there is certainly a downside for NOT engaging with someone attacking you.

But what happens after that? Again: what are the circumstances of the fictional situation? If Jermey cuts into Phil's legs I'm going to rule he doesn't make it to Tom. If it is a light cut on an arm, he keeps going. If Jeremy does a Knockback attack on Jeremy and succeeds he definitely doesn't make it to Tom.

What we have here is this juicy feast of options and possible results. Phil could have chosen to engage with Jermey on his way to Tom, but decided to take a risk. Jeremy can try to knock Phil off his attack, but risks ending up on his own ass if he screws up. The hit location (without the Knockback) but do the trick for Jeremey... but it might not.

That's how I'm seeing it for now.

Edited June 17, 2018 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'd say if two unengaged characters are moving and they come into contact then one can force the other to stop by engaging.

Yeah, but if you're not using some sort of map or other way to note the relative positions? 

 

32 minutes ago, creativehum said:

And that's it. You can't make someone engage according to the rules, as far as I can tell. But there is certainly a downside for NOT engaging with someone attacking you.

Actually I think, at least according to RQ2, that someone is considered engaged automatically as soon as he is attacked, because you can't make a melee attack and not be engaged.  If you attack Phil then you and Phil are engaged (congrats, don't tell the wife). 

 

 

[PhilHibbs]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but if you're not using some sort of map or other way to note the relative positions? 

No, not if they are using this "fictional positioning" system, when I would prefer to call "narrative positioning". MRQ2/RQ6/Mythras would use the Manoeuvre skill to adjudicate this kind of situation.

[DreadDomain]

5 hours ago, creativehum said:

The basic default, as I would GM, would be this:

PHIL: I'm running to kill Tom.

JEREMY: I'm running to stop Phil. I'm going to hack him in the back before he kills Tom.

TOM: "help"

And if Jeremy was himself engaged with another opponent, he would need to "flee" which I believe would give an unopposed attack during the movement phase.

5 hours ago, creativehum said:

The general positioning of the character will influence a lot of what happens next. Can Jeremy reach Phil before Phil gets to Tom? Or will Jeremy have to meet Phil over Tom's prone body?

Let's say that Jeremy can meet Phil on his way to Tom... and because he can move less than Phil than Phil's journey to Tom, he'll have the lower SR. Jeremy commits to this (attacking Phil on his way to Tom), and Phil commits to rushing at Tom to kill him.

Without a grid, a lot would come to what was described previously and the theater of the mind. 1) Can Jeremy intercept Phil on the way? 2) Will he meet him just as he reaches Tom and get to attack first (lower SR). 3) Will he get there just late (higher SR) but just in time so he can parry for Tom. Lastly 4) Maybe he can't intervene in time.

5 hours ago, creativehum said:

Let's say that Jeremy can meet Phil on his way to Tom... and because he can move less than Phil than Phil's journey to Tom, he'll have the lower SR. Jeremy commits to this (attacking Phil on his way to Tom), and Phil commits to rushing at Tom to kill him.

Now, what happens when Jeremy encounters Phil? Well, Jeremy attacks Phil... that's for sure. But is Phil engaged in the combat? In my ruling (with my limited grasp of the rules at this time) I say the answer is no. Jeremy made it clear he wanted to run at Tom even though he knew Phil was gunning for him. He CHOSE to do this.

This means that Phil gets an attack on Jeremy with no defensive action from Jeremy. It's a risk Jeremy is willing to take because (for whatever reason) he wants Tom dead NOW.

I believe you are confusing Jeremy and Phil but in essence, it describes situation 1) above. 

Question. If Phil decides to parry, would he then become engaged and thus intercepted before he can reach Tom? I believe so.

In situation 2) and 3) above, I believe Phil, Jeremy and Tom would all end up engaged irrespective if Phil tries to parry Jeremy or not since they all end up in close proximity. If any would try to flee, they would attract, I believe, an unopposed attack from their opponents during the movement phase.

[PhilHibbs]

The way I see it, all "engaged" means is that they are within weapon range. If the person you are engaged with wishes, they get a free attack if you keep moving and ignore them. Simple as that. So Phil and Jeremy are both engaged if they come within arms reach. Phil is ignoring Jeremy and going for Tom, so Jeremy gets a free attack. Jeremy is also engaged with Phil, but Phil is not attacking so it doesn't really matter, he can use the "flee" option to immediately disengage.

If Phil decides not to take the risk and instead defend or attack Jeremy, then Jeremy has to accept the consequences of being engaged, but that's what he wanted.

If Phil and Jeremy are just running past each other... then are they engaged? If so, do they both get free attacks? Hm, I'd say probably no even though a literal reading of the rules might imply that they do. I think one or other party has to make a conscious decision to engage, in which case the free attacks apply. If you take the free attack option, you clearly aren't fleeing.

[creativehum]

I'm about to quote the rules and stuff from RQG. This isn't because I consider the rules "gospel." Also, I believe people should play any game exactly as they wish -- which means they should ignore rules as they desire. I'm not telling anyone they are playing wrong. But I've never played RQ before. I'm reading the rules with an eye to understanding how the game works. Also, I assume the designers put some thought into how the game works and how the pieces of the game interact. Before I take the game apart and start ignoring what was written, I'm going to look at what is there, try it out, and see how it works.

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The way I see it, all "engaged" means is that they are within weapon range...

That's a fine definition of engaged if it works for you. I would never say you can't play the game that way.

However, my definition of Engaged comes from several places in the text of the game, particularly on page 192.

The first, and clearest definition of Engaged comes under the section of 2. Movement of Non-Engaged Characters:

Quote

Any adventurer or monster actively taking part in melee combat, whether attacking or defending, is engaged in melee combat.

The emphasis is added in the original text. This is where the term "engaged" is defined.

So, when are you engaged? If you are attacking or defending in melee combat. That's it. If someone is attack you, then that person is engaged. If you are not attacking back or not defending against the attack, then you are not engaged. If someone is shooting an arrow at you, or you are shooting an arrow at someone else, you are not engaged, because that is not melee combat. If I cast a spell at someone from a distance, I do not have to use of the three options to disengage because I was not in melee combat, and so I was not engaged.

This definition matters because there are some things you can do while not engaged in combat, which you cannot do while not engaged in combat. Chief among these is MOVE. Continuing the quote from page 192...

Quote

All characters and monsters not directly engaged in melee combat may move up to their total movement rate (MOV).

So the key quality of engaged or not-engaged is the ability to move up to your total movement rate.

If you are not attacking or defending you are not engaged. No one can make you engaged. It is a choice to become engaged. 

Once you are engaged, however, (that is, attacking or defending) special maneuvers are required to disengage. (Retreating, Knockback, Flee.)

If you were not engaged you do not need to use any of these maneuvers to move because you were not engaged and thus do not need to disengage. If I run by someone who attack me but I do not engage, I do not need to either Retreat, Knockback, or Flee that person to continue my movement. The attacker does not get an additional attack per the Flee rules... because I wasn't engaged and so I do not need to disengage.

This thread exists because of this distinction between engaged and non-engaged. If you are not engaged you can move freely... until someone with a lower SR than you hacks your thigh or does a Knockback attack, or any other act that would prevent you from getting to where you wanted to go. (Even though pure movement is not assigned a SR, I would use the SR table to determine the SR value of the movement in matter where the success of the movement might be impacted by an attack. The tools are there; I'll use them.)

I'm perfectly willing to assume I'm misreading the rules, and if one of the designers tells me so I'll go along with it. But at this time it seems like the easiest, clearest reading of the rules.

6 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Question. If Phil decides to parry, would he then become engaged and thus intercepted before he can reach Tom? I believe so.

So, yes. I agree with this.

Also, DreadDomain, thank you for catching the error in my post above. Fixing it now!

Edited June 16, 2018 by creativehum

[PhilHibbs]

7 minutes ago, creativehum said:

If you are not engaged (that is, attacking or defending) you are not engaged. No one can make you engaged. Once you are engaged, however, (that is, attacking or defending) disengaging requires special maneuvers. (Retreating, Knockback, Flee.) However, if you were not engaged with someone attacking you, you do not need to use any of these maneuvers to move because you were not engaged and thus do not need to disengage.

Seems ok to me. The only difference that I can see right away is whether the person that you are moving close to gets a free attack or not. It also means that you can freely run past an enemy in the early part of a melee round before their attack SR, as you are not engaged so no free attack. If it is after their SR, they can delay their attack to when you are next to them. Maybe that is ok.

[creativehum]

16 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

whether the person that you are moving close to gets a free attack or not.

I'm curious about this. Why would the person get a free attack? The person I am running past would have had to make a statement of intent. Either they are tying to attack me, or they are not. If they declared they want to attack me, they get an attack. If they did not, they are busy doing something else.

 

16 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

It also means that you can freely run past an enemy in the early part of a melee round before their attack SR, as you are not engaged so no free attack.

Keep in mind something I've said before: As Referee I always let the fictional circumstances of the situation trump all else, using the rules to adjudicate those circumstances.

If Vivian says, "I'm running past Jon to get to the exit before the temple collapses," and Jon says, "I'm standing by the door to cut Vivian down before she gets out" then I'm going to allow Jon a roll to hit Vivian before she exits. If he manages to hit her legs or cripple her in some way, she won't be finishing her run out the door.

I understand that by the rules movement and non-combat actions goes first. But that is a convention to keep things moving along. If Jon states his intention is to attack Vivian as she runs by him, he will get a chance on that attack as she runs by -- because it makes utter sense within the circumstances of the fictional situation that he be allowed to do so.

The rules also state that an attack can interrupt or prevent other actions or attacks from occurring. I see the ruling in the example above as an application of this thinking.

If one character declares an attack on another character who is moving and is close enough to make that attack, the attack will happen because the fictional circumstances demand the attack be allowed to happen.

Edited June 16, 2018 by creativehum

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

I'm curious about this. Why would the person get a free attack? The person I am running past would have had to make a statement of intent. Either they are tying to attack me, or they are not. If they declared they want to attack me, they get an attack. If they did not, they are busy doing something else.

They get a free attack if you are engaged and trying to disengage just by moving ("fleeing"). The situation described is that Jeremy is intercepting Phil to stop him from getting to Tom, so presumably Jeremy declared "move and attack, engage if possible". If Phil can't be forced to be engaged, then Jeremy gets no free attack, just a regular attack on or after his SR.