Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
creativehum

How Many Attacks in a Round?

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Fair enough. All good.

I simply don't want this to be about my players. 

The latest advice I'm getting on this is: Ignore the rules you bought; buy a scrying bowl; play the way we did 40 years ago when we blew off the rules too.

No. The advice is: one section of the rules state X, but none of the examples from Chaosium did things that way. 

 

Quote

This is the problem at hand, as far as I'm concerned. 

I agree with you. I believe the rules should be clear and concise, and that the game should "officially" be run according to those rules. Whatever those rules happen to be. If a rule is unclear,  obsolete or just plain wrong, then it should be corrected, replaced, or removed. 

 

It's also why I believe we would have been better off with a smaller rulebook with less "fluff". It would have made things much easier to proofread and troubleshoot.

Edited by Atgxtg
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

We certainly did that in RQ3, but I think that was one of the things that was loosened up in that edition. It's been well over 30 years since I last played RQ2 so I have no idea how we ran it back then!

We did in RQ2. If you got one of the Soloquest adventures , I believe you'll find some of the NPCs doing it. It was how things were done at conventions, including ones with people who games with people from Chaosium. I remember because the whole add the POW point cost to the SR of the melee attack thing was something I first discovered while running RQ2 at Massconfusion by a guy who gamed with Steve Perrin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Following up on Atgxtg's points, I went back to RQ2 and looked at the passage pulled from RQ2 and placed into RQG. While the texts are similar, they are not the same:

From RQ2:

Quote

A character has fewer options within a melee. When engaged in melee, the character must spend it attacking and defending. While a character might throw a spell at an oncoming foe and then engage him in combat within the same round, a character cannot, while engaged in combat, attack both physically and magically. This means that a character who starts a round physically engaged in melee may either attack and defend normally or defend normally and attack magically. Thus, within a melee, a character’s strike rank indicates when he may initiate an attack. However, he is considered to be performing that attack for the entire round and can do little else except parry and defend.

From RQG: (the bolded passage is bolded in the rules)

Quote

Multiple Activities Within Melee

An adventurer has fewer options when engaged in a melee. When engaged in melee, the adventurer must spend it attacking and defending. While an adventurer might throw a spell at an oncoming foe and then engage that foe in combat within the same round, an adventurer cannot, while engaged in combat, attack both physically and magically.

This means that an adventurer who starts a round physically engaged in melee may either:

  • Attack and defend normally; or
  • Defend normally and cast spells.

The RQ2 section ends with this sentence:

"However, he is considered to be performing that attack for the entire round and can do little else except parry and defend."

Which makes it clear that there is only one attack, either physical or magical, each round. (Duel wielding and multiple attacks are special cases that break this rule, which is why they are special cases.)

The last sentence in RQG muddies the later by removing that sentence and making the word attack indefinite (how many attacks? who knows) and makes the use of magic plural ("spells"), implying one can make multiple spell attacks.

But since RQG is built off the bones of RQ2 I'm happy enough to that text for reference.

The assumption seems to be that when engaged in melee one is very busy, but while attacking from a distance one can get off multiple attacks and is less constrained about what can do in the round. (The text is explicit about this: Outside of melee one has a lot more options; in melee, the game says you get in one good attack and a defend).

In terms of mechanics and gameplay there is, then, a distinct advantage to being at range. This means opponents may want to close, or attack a character standing back from the fight and lobbing arrows or spells. This offers tactical play because fighting at range and in melee are not the same thing.

This may not be what some people want. Some people might not consider it realistic. And that's all fine. But I can see what the rule is supposed to be now. And I can see how it will evangeline players when in a fight.

As a side note: I could not find any examples in the RQ2 contradicting this rule, though I'm willing to believe a) there are examples in other RQ books that do contracted the text; and b) plenty of people didn't play this way.

Nonetheless, the RQ combat system is an integral part of any RQ game and I'm all for trying it out as is before changing things up.

Thanks for all the replies and thoughts.

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 9:42 AM, Atgxtg said:

Yes, you should be able to. Unfortunately, a lot of the text in Chaosium products is cut & pasted from earlier products, often without other bits of rules that provide the proper context. And I don't believe the powers that be want to reinterpret the rules differently now. 

Chaosium has pretty explicitly stated that they expect folks to run RQG entirely from the new line, without reference to prior canon.  The books must stand on their own; any prior "interpretations" of the rules that contradict a plain-sense reading of the RQG RAW are irrelevant.

Edited by g33k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, g33k said:

Chaosium has pretty explicitly stated that they expect folks to run RQG entirely from the new line, without reference to prior canon.  The books must stand on their own; any prior "interpretations" of the rules that contradict a plain-sense reading of the RQG RAW are irrelevant.

That would be great if not for all the plain sense contradictions within the RQG RAW itself. By RAW, I don't believe people can even use Fireblade anymore. Apparently, in RQG,  fighting with the weapon blows the concentration required to maintain an active spell. Then there are things like opposed rolls, which last I've read here, can officially be resolved, yet. And how about two weapon use? Nobody was able to work that out by just a "plain-sense reading of the RQG RAW"- we had to get clarification from Jason, and then needed to get the clarification clarified. More than once. So plain sense readings of the RAW aren't solving much.

At least going back to the older books gives us something to work with.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, g33k said:

Chaosium has pretty explicitly stated that they expect folks to run RQG entirely from the new line, without reference to prior canon.  The books must stand on their own; any prior "interpretations" of the rules that contradict a plain-sense reading of the RQG RAW are irrelevant.

Unfortunately, and characteristic of cut'n'paste rules iterations vs drawn-from-scratch editions, it seems there are a lot of RAW inconsistencies that simply don't make much sense unless one has contextual info from earlier versions to go with - kind of like the US Constitution and the Federalist papers. :)

That said, I'm old, and am waiting the interminable time until the hard copy book is available before I finally start dissecting it rule by rule.  I love pdf's as reference works (search is your friend) but for me, nothing beats a dead-tree book for browsing, cogitating, and reading at leisure needed to really 'get' a rule system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

42 minutes ago, styopa said:

Unfortunately, and characteristic of cut'n'paste rules iterations vs drawn-from-scratch editions, it seems there are a lot of RAW inconsistencies that simply don't make much sense unless one has contextual info from earlier versions to go with - kind of like the US Constitution and the Federalist papers. :)

I guess you just posted the Declaration of Interdependence! :)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, styopa said:

That said, I'm old, and am waiting the interminable time until the hard copy book is available before I finally start dissecting it rule by rule.  I love pdf's as reference works (search is your friend) but for me, nothing beats a dead-tree book for browsing, cogitating, and reading at leisure needed to really 'get' a rule system.

I consider myself a pretty damned geeky person.  Dual-booting custom configured OS'es, dynamic networking for high-availabily servers, etc (at work).  I have run more non-Microsoft OS'es at home than ones from Microsoft, sometimes 2-3 at a time.

That said, I am 100% in agreement with you:  the RQG PDF is getting a quick read-thru from me, but I don't plan to "dig in" (or begin using the rules in play) until I have defiled Aldryami-corpses to gloat over...

Edited by g33k
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Disrupt is used in this post as an example "attack" spell and Bladesharp as a "non-attack" spell.)

So, you are either "non-engaged" or "engaged" in melee.

1. If I am "non-engaged" I can cast Disrupt at an enemy, and if I have sufficient SRs and remain "non-engaged" I can cast Disrupt again at another (or the same) enemy that round.

2. If I am "non-engaged" I can cast Disrupt at an enemy, and if I have sufficient SRs (enemy comes to me or I move to enemy), I become "engaged" in melee and either cast Disrupt at my enemy or attack with a prepared weapon (one physical or magical attack when "engaged") that round.

3. If I am "engaged" in melee, I can cast Disrupt at my enemy or attack with a prepared weapon (one physical or magical attack when "engaged") that round.

4. If I am "engaged" in melee, and if I have sufficient SRs, I can cast Bladesharp on my prepared sword and attack with that sword (one physical attack, but magic used is not an attack) that round.

5. If I am "engaged" in melee and attack and kill my enemy, leaving me "non-engaged", and if I have sufficient SRs I can cast Disrupt at another enemy that round (one attack while engaged, but free to act while non-engaged).

Does this make sense and/or help? More combinations, possible, obviously, but I wanted to cover a few scenarios.

Kind regard, James

Edited by Anunnaki
Added another possible option
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m very m Ch of the opinion that when the text says ‘attack physically and magically’, by magical attack they actually mean just casting a spell. I know that’s not what it says, but I really don’t like the idea of differentiating between attack spells and other spells in this way.

Apart from anything else it creates all sorts of problems deciding if specific spells are attacks or not. Is a detect spell and attack? I would assume not, but apparently it might b able to destroy your countermagic defences, which seems pretty ‘attacky’ to me. It just don’t want to have to deal with that. Fir me, the bullet points win.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair call. The definition of "offensive spells" is in RQ:G in the Spirit Magic Procedures sidebar, p.256. Basically, "spells cast at an unwilling target that require a POW:POW resistance roll."

So Detect Enemies, for example, isn't an "offensive spell" because it never triggers a resistance roll.

But that said, the point I was trying to make is difference between "non-engaged" and "engaged" as a limit on attacks and just using an obvious attack spell as an example.

Edited by Anunnaki
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using miniatures for most combats, I'd probably use the simple rule that "engaged" is whenever there is a hostile enemy adjacent that you're aware of, whether they're actually attacking you or not.  And like simon, I'd simply rule that it's "spellcasting" generally, not attack-spell casting. 

But then again, I'm still mentally at-sea about the whole order of operations in RQG.  I didn't like RQ2 nor RQ3 for that matter, so we'll probably figure out a way to HR-shoehorn our hybrid-rolling-SR system into RQG.  It has the advantage that it's less deterministic than 'statement of intent' (without the kludgy need for a change-action mechanic), less predictable than fixed SRs, and still very quick to use in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2018 at 4:29 PM, g33k said:

Chaosium has pretty explicitly stated that they expect folks to run RQG entirely from the new line, without reference to prior canon.  The books must stand on their own; any prior "interpretations" of the rules that contradict a plain-sense reading of the RQG RAW are irrelevant.

Sure, but when the new rules are unclear or contradictory, then we go back to the old rules, where they are clear and uncontradictory.

Also, it allows us to grumble "That's not the way we have always played it ..."

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2018 at 8:29 AM, g33k said:

Chaosium has pretty explicitly stated that they expect folks to run RQG entirely from the new line, without reference to prior canon.  The books must stand on their own; any prior "interpretations" of the rules that contradict a plain-sense reading of the RQG RAW are irrelevant.

That's a lovely sentiment, and would be fantastic if it held up to the actual text.

As it stands, I've read deeply into the rules. I've run a session of the game. And I've never played any version of early RQ. And I can tell you now the writing is often unclear and obscure; contradictory and fussy. This isn't a matter of "style" (though the style certainly gets in the way of clarity.)

Without referring back go the earlier edition of RQ2 I simply would not understand how certain elements are supposed to work or find certain clues as to make my best guess on how certain elements are supposed to work.

As I've said before there are a ton of fantastic ideas in RQG. But some of the core concepts that should be routine (both for any RPG and for RQG specifically) are obscure, unclear, and poorly worded and laid out across the book. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, creativehum said:

That's a lovely sentiment, and would be fantastic if it held up to the actual text.

As it stands, I've read deeply into the rules. I've run a session of the game. And I've never played any version of early RQ. And I can tell you now the writing is often unclear and obscure; contradictory and fussy. This isn't a matter of "style" (though the style certainly gets in the way of clarity.)

Without referring back go the earlier edition of RQ2 I simply would not understand how certain elements are supposed to work or find certain clues as to make my best guess on how certain elements are supposed to work.

As I've said before there are a ton of fantastic ideas in RQG. But some of the core concepts that should be routine (both for any RPG and for RQG specifically) are obscure, unclear, and poorly worded and laid out across the book. 

That's a pretty sweeping and stunning indictment.  As one of those grognards who began with the classic RQ2 edition (back in 1980/81), I'm not sure I am /capable/ of reading the new rulebook from a "blank slate" POV the way you have come to it, so I won't just flat-out say you're wrong; but my understanding is that Chaosium sought out a pretty diverse set of playtesters, including some equally RQ-inexperienced to you.

We have obviously been seeing requests to "clarify" (or correct) various topics here on BRPC, and some on G+, and I presume elsewhere.  So it's clear that yours is not an isolated opinion; there ARE problems.  Of course, there are always issues with any rule-set.  I think it remains to be seen just how severe the issues with this set is ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, g33k said:

...my understanding is that Chaosium sought out a pretty diverse set of playtesters, including some equally RQ-inexperienced to you.

I rather suspect there were indeed a number of 'complete noobie' players.

I likewise rather suspect that there were few to no "complete noob" groups INCLUDING GMs who had never played RQ before, or many of the questions raised in these forums wouldn't have gotten to these forums.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×