Jump to content

RQG: Disengagement


Sean_RDP

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

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.

I think we're saying the same thing. But for clarity on my part:

Yes. No one can be forced to engage.

Fleeing is a method of disengaging. If I run by someone (neither attacking or defending) I am not engaged. Thus, as I run by my opponent I do not have to disengage, and so I do not trigger any disengage rules, and so the rules for Fleeing are not invoked.

The attacker gets his attack as his declared intent, but no additional attack because I never use the Flee rule. 

 

Edited by creativehum

"But Pendragon isn’t intended to be historical, just fun.
So have fun."

-- Greg Stafford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, creativehum said:

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.

In this scenario, would you rule:

1) the attack be a "free unopposed" attack (before SR starts)

2) the attack takes place during SR order

If 2) what happens if Vivian would run past Jon before (earlier SR) than Jon could attack?

One could assume that because Jon is not moving and stated he would wait that he would attack whenever Vivian runs past (her SR). The counter argument would be that Jon might be too slow to get in position to attack her.

(It reminds me on a house rule we had in RQ3. We could rush an attack by 1 or 2 SR earlier at -25% per SR.)

Edit: forgot to say what I would rule.

The attack would happen during SR order. Vivian would get to Jon in SR dictated by distance travelled and speed of movement (I may be missing something but I could not find running or sprinting rules in RQG. I would assume runing at 2xMove but defense if attempted at half skill and sprinting at 3xMove but no defense allowed). If she gets at earlier SR than Jon can attack, tough luck, he is not quick enough (but would consider a rushed attack).

This example also brings up a question regarding weapon SR. In this case, because Vivian is running to Jon weapon lenght just not have the same impact and Jon should not be slower if he has a dagger as opposed to a sword.

Edited by DreadDomain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

In this scenario, would you rule:

1) the attack be a "free unopposed" attack (before SR starts)

2) the attack takes place during SR order

If 2) what happens if Vivian would run past Jon before (earlier SR) than Jon could attack?

I would rule that Jon can attack Vivian. A strict reading of the rule might say that since Vivian's unengaged movement happens before SRs are figured, she is past him before SR1 and therefore he can't attack.

But just because movement and SR are resolved in two phases, that doesn't mean that they are consecutive in real time. Adventurers engaged don't just stand idly by while everyone else moves around, and then start swinging at each other when they are done. They are resolved separately, so you resolve Vivian's movement, and then Jon's attack, even if her movement indicates that she is past him.

It seems clear to me that the two phases - unengaged movement, and melee - are just to simplify the flow of the game. Get the simple stuff out of the way, then get into the SR figuring for the complicated stuff. That separation does not, to me, imply that unengaged movement provides some kind of magical immunity to being hacked at while you dash past someone who is waiting for you. That's rulesmongering.

Edited by PhilHibbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

But just because movement and SR are resolved in two phases, that doesn't mean that they are consecutive in real time. Adventurers engaged don't just stand idly by while everyone else moves around, and then start swinging at each other when they are done. They are resolved separately, so you resolve Vivian's movement, and then Jon's attack, even if her movement indicates that she is past him.

It seems clear to me that the two phases - unengaged movement, and melee - are just to simplify the flow of the game. Get the simple stuff out of the way, then get into the SR figuring for the complicated stuff. That separation does not, to me, imply that unengaged movement provides some kind of magical immunity to being hacked at while you dash past someone who is waiting for you. That's rulesmongering.

What you describe above (unengaged movement provides some kind of magical immunity to being hacked at while you dash past someone who is waiting for you) was not even an option I outlayed so we can agree to agree.

I was wondering if:

1) All of Vivian's movement is all resolved during the movement phase but Jon will get to attack her (free, unopposed, during the movement phase) as she tries to zip pass him.

or

2) During the movement phase, Vivian will move up to the "moment" were Jon will try to engage her. The rest of her movement will be resolved after the attack if it even occurs and if she is in condition to do so.

I assume the intent of the rules leads to 2). In this case, let's assume that based on her speed and the distance between Jon and her, the GM rules she he get to Jon in SR 6. The movement phase is over and we are now in SR order.

a) If Jon has SR 6 or less, no issue, he attacks her as she tries to run pass

i) She may ignore him (not try to defend) remains unengaged and resume her movement after the attack if she still can

ii) She may decide to defend (effectively getting engaged). If she continues her movement, she is now technically fleeing and Jon could get an unopposed attack but that would be weird within the context.

b) If Jon has SR 7 or more, what happens? Is he too slow to get in position to attack Vivian? This is not about magically zipping by, it is about the opponent not being uick enough to react. Based on your answer above, I believe you would rule that, no, Jon gets to attack her. Correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

If Phil and Jeremy are just running past each other... then are they engaged?

I think they are; RQG saw fit to include a whole very-2018-affirmative section on the broadness of gender recognition in Glorantha.

Oh wait, you meant a different kind of engaged?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

What you describe above (unengaged movement provides some kind of magical immunity to being hacked at while you dash past someone who is waiting for you) was not even an option I outlayed so we can agree to agree.

...

b) If Jon has SR 7 or more, what happens? Is he too slow to get in position to attack Vivian? This is not about magically zipping by, it is about the opponent not being quick enough to react. Based on your answer above, I believe you would rule that, no, Jon gets to attack her. Correct?

If I am adopting a critical tone then it is with potential interpretations of the rules, not any specific person's interpretation. Yes, I agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think attacks of opportunity like this really require a separate rule. I’d say the attack goes off at the SR of the opportunity, and if this is earlier than the characyer’s normal SR then it’s at half chance of success. Or maybe at skill chance or 50%, whichever is less. Of course it counts as the character’s attack for the round.

Edited by simonh

Check out the Runequest Glorantha Wiki for RQ links and resources. Any updates or contributions welcome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you can make sense of this if you bear in mind that SRs are an abstract initiative system that only matter when ordering a sequence of attacks. Despite looking really, really, really like an impulse system (and becoming a hybrid in RQ3) it is not.

What I mean by that is this: if someone is due to attack on SR7 it doesn't mean that they attack on SR 7 it means that they are spending all melee round in combat and resolve their attack on SR 7, after all the attacks on SR 1-6 and before all the attacks on SR 8-12. No more, no less. 

Someone who is not involved in melee ignores SRs unless they do something which interacts with a melee (e.g. casting a demoralize at someone in melee.) 

So if you are moving past an aware and armed opponent and that opponent can feasibly attack you and is not otherwise involved in a melee then that opponent can attack you. End of. For argument's sake you would resolve it on that opponent's normal SR simply to keep things straight.

Say a friend plans to demoralise the enemy on SR 4 then great. You could also state that "I will wait until Trish casts her spell then run past the enemy." This will reduce how far you can move by 12m this melee round because you waited a short while. Again this looks like an impulse system but you just need to keep pretending it's abstract and it all sort of works out. 

Mostly though this is about rulings in a context. If both parties wish to engage then engagement happens. If both parties don't want to then no engagement happens. If one party wants it and one doesn't then you're into either a ruling based on context or some sort of opposed roll. In this case the enemy may be guarding an entrance and move to block the way while you are trying to run past. In this case I would give the enemy their attack then probably go for DEX vs DEX. You win, you get past, enemy wins, you are blocked and stuck in an engagement. 

Still and all, this is my interpretation and may be completely at odds with the authors' intent. I like to think of it as Schrödinger's SRs: no one knows what they are unless they get caught in a melee. The rest of the time it tends to read as "you can do one or two things per round and/or move a certain distance."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

This example also brings up a question regarding weapon SR. In this case, because Vivian is running to Jon weapon lenght just not have the same impact and Jon should not be slower if he has a dagger as opposed to a sword.

In my view a longer weapon still gives Jon a longer reach and forces Vivian to maneuver more to get around him -- slowing her and giving him a better chance to attack before she escape. So if one is using SRs to determine sequence, I think weapon strike rank should apply.

As for which option chosen, I can definitely say that Jon does not get a free attack. (I think I have said this in every post. In my view Jon must declare he is trying to cut down Vivian as she runs for the door. That is his statement of intent for the round. He declares it and tries to do it.)

As to whether or not SR should even matter, I'm on the fence about this.

If you use Vivian's movement as a SR value (which, to be clear, is not how movement and SR are supposed to be used) and compare it against Jon's you get a clear picture of whether or not she slips about Jon and evades his attack.

However, I don't think that is how the rule are supposed to work.

The rules state on p. 192:

Quote

It is important to always keep in mind that strike ranks simply determine which attacks are resolved first in the melee round, and whether successive actions can be attempted. Each strike rank does not represent each second of the melee round.

I think we need to consider the movement before the activation of SRs the same way. The entire round is a convention to handle movement and actions in a manner that provides both order and tension. Movement doesn't happen "first" in the round with all combatant waiting around for everyone to get into position. We handle movement first because it lets the game keep moving, be clear, but also provide lots of options.

As always, I'm looking at the circumstances of the fictional situation: Vivian is trying to escape the temple before it collapses; Jon has planted himself at the doorway to prevent her escape. I then look at the rules to adjudicate this (as opposed to looking at the rules to provide what is possible for the characters to do.)

It seems to me that Jon is going to be allowed to make an attack on Vivian no matter what. She can't simply slip by him because she decided to only run. That would be weird, right?

Looking over the rules it seems to me that we're going to have Vivian either: 

  1. make a Dodge roll as she runs by Jon and he tries to slice her with his weapon. This is kind of weird since Vivian is not Engaged, but I could see it working. (Technically, as far as I can tell, if Vivian Dodges she is now engaged and stops at the doorway with Jon. So it isn't quite using the rules as written).
  2. simply take this hit unopposed as she flees past him. Her intention is to get out of the temple... not tango with Jon. So this option makes the most sense to me. It has precedence in the Flee rules, and mirrors the situation at hand: Vivian is basically ignoring the engagement with Jon and suffers a penalty for this.

I would choose 2.

Depending on the results of the attack in either case (that is, how the fictional situation changes if Jon hits) Vivian either gets out the door or not.

 

"But Pendragon isn’t intended to be historical, just fun.
So have fun."

-- Greg Stafford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, creativehum said:

looking over the rules it seems to me that we're going to have Vivian either: 

  1. make a Dodge roll as she runs by Jon and he tries to slice her with his weapon. This is kind of weird since Vivian is not Engaged, but I could see it working. (Technically, as far as I can tell, if Vivian Dodges she is now engaged and stops at the doorway with Jon. So it isn't quite using the rules as written).
  2. simply take this hit unopposed as she flees past him. Her intention is to get out of the temple... not tango with Jon. So this option makes the most sense to me. It has precedence in the Flee rules, and mirrors the situation at hand: Vivian is basically ignoring the engagement with Jon and suffers a penalty for this.

I would choose 2.

Agreed. And further, the example statement of intent given in the rulebook is

"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).

i.e. all Jon needs to say is "I'll guard the door with my sword and shield ready." 

A lot of this will come down to ad-hoc rulings though and as a GM I would let Vivian's player know the options before hand during statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, deleriad said:

Agreed. And further, the example statement of intent given in the rulebook is

"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).

i.e. all Jon needs to say is "I'll guard the door with my sword and shield ready." 

A lot of this will come down to ad-hoc rulings though and as a GM I would let Vivian's player know the options before hand during statements.

A good catch on the quote from the rules. (And it is a quote I referenced two days ago in this thread.) That text really ties into my thinking on this point.

Expanding on that quote further I  really don't think we need a separate rule for this sort of situation at all. I think it would be a shame to do that.

It is my guess that if one looks at the rules as written, sees them as "lego block" to be fitted together as needed to adjudicate situations, you'll find that most situations can fall under rulings with the game pieces at hand. (The "game pieces" being the rules in the book).

Too many specific rulings for every situation drives me nuts as both a player and Referee. I'd rather have a set of rules that can be applied in different circumstances as needed rather than have new rules for ever circumstance. I did a deep dive into the original rules for Classic Traveller (Books 1, 2, and 3) and found that --despite so many people thinking they are wanting and lacking in many areas -- the original rules do a rock solid job of giving the Referee the tools he needs to make adjudication and keep the game moving, as long as one really uses the rules that are there and then interpolates them as required. My guess is, from what I'm looking at, RuneQuest Glorantha will work the same way. 

Edited by creativehum
  • Like 1

"But Pendragon isn’t intended to be historical, just fun.
So have fun."

-- Greg Stafford

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...