Attack/Parry Outcomes Are A Mess

[Akhôrahil]

My initial impression of RQ:G was it was amazing in the care with the rules, but I've slowly come to revise that. Not in general - the rules are of high quality - but in how some parts of the rules are messes where it seems cut and paste jobs and previous rules versions haven't been properly cleaned out, leading to poor results. The Two weapon fighting rule is one obvious example (where the clarification was a total rewrite that changed the printed rules 180 degrees), the parrying penalty rules another, and I'm seriously confused about the phalanx rules. But perhaps the most egregious are the Attack/Parry outcomes.

Let's start by just looking at the rules text (pp. 198, 200) and not the summary table (p. 199). That one is a lot better, and we'll get back to it.

Where does excess damage go 

• Successful parry vs. successful attack: to random location
• Special parry vs special attack: to adjacent location
• Critical parry vs. critical attack: to random location

Does this make sense? I posit that it does not.

Parrying a critical hit

For whatever reason, weapon damage to parrying weapon is doubled even after the weapon already does max special damage. This seems completely excessive - either do maximum special damage (the sensible solution), or double damage, not both!

Weapons incapable of damage on critical hits (only)

However, unlike all other attacks, long-hafted and impaling weapons do no damage to parrying weapon on specifically and exclusively critical hits. This is weird in two ways: first that a long-hafted weapon does damage to opponents weapon, except on critical hits when it doesn't. Second, that it seems utterly unreasonable that a weapon like a halberd or a long-axe are unusually bad at damaging, say, an opponent's shield. 

And then it's all contradicted

Then the table on p. 199 states different things about all these issues (thank Orlanth!). It's usually very good (really, just ignore all the other text and just use it, the rest will just confuse and mislead you). Things come out in a logical fashion rather than the mess that is the rules text. But it makes you wonder about the point of the rules text if the sensible advice is to just ignore it.

Critical hits automatically hit

But even this table has issues. For instance, Critical Attack vs Fumbled Parry states "Attacker automatically hits, does maximum special damage." What does this even mean, given that the table entry only comes up once you've scored a critical hit and thus obviously have hit already? If you critically hit, you automatically hit? Uh, thanks I guess?

[klecser]

@Jeff any insight on these questions from a design perspective?

[styopa]

[klecser]

So, clearly my comment above is considered "Sad" by people, and I don't understand why. I was just trying to be helpful. Why is it "Sad" to ask a designer to give insight on the design process? It's a rare privilege that we have from Chaosium designers. If you don't want me to be helpful here, I'll stop commenting.

Edited July 9, 2019 by klecser

[Byll]

I've a sad face when I made a pun before now. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

{😀 Iskallor, very 😀. I 😆 until I 😂}

Edited July 10, 2019 by Byll
Necessary sarcasm

[Bill the barbarian]

40 minutes ago, klecser said:

So, clearly my comment above is considered "Sad" by people, and I don't understand why. I was just trying to be helpful. Why is it "Sad" to ask a designer to give insight on the design process? It's a rare privilege that we have from Chaosium designers. If you don't want me to be helpful here, I'll stop commenting.

I would not be put off by the sad comment, assume that it does not say much other than I am sad. It could be that they are sad because they have not seen an answer to your question or that you have to ask the question instead of it being clear.

In any case, don't give up yet. We do not know why you got the sad face, perhaps they will answer you here or you can ask them in a private post. In any case, I can not imagine that you are being disparaged for asking for design perspective,

[styopa]

58 minutes ago, klecser said:

So, clearly my comment above is considered "Sad" by people, and I don't understand why. I was just trying to be helpful. Why is it "Sad" to ask a designer to give insight on the design process? It's a rare privilege that we have from Chaosium designers. If you don't want me to be helpful here, I'll stop commenting.

Fwiw I'm looking forward to the answer, but I expect it will come from @Jason Durall, not Jeff.

[Akhôrahil]

5 minutes ago, styopa said:

Fwiw I'm looking forward to the answer, but I expect it will come from @Jason Durall, not Jeff.

I don't think the design process is any of my business, merely the outcome. I can only imagine what a nightmare it is to try to keep two texts (summary table and rules text) that are supposed to say the same thing up to date with each other as rules changes keep happening in the design stage and time is running short.

We should be glad that at least the summary table is quite fine. 

This isn't about pointing fingers, merely to try to get things better in the next version, and perhaps to help clear up reader confusion (I remember how confused I was before I realized that the text actually wasn't making sense).

Edited July 9, 2019 by Akhôrahil

[Shiningbrow]

15 hours ago, klecser said:

So, clearly my comment above is considered "Sad" by people, and I don't understand why. I was just trying to be helpful. Why is it "Sad" to ask a designer to give insight on the design process? It's a rare privilege that we have from Chaosium designers. If you don't want me to be helpful here, I'll stop commenting.

That's a "sad" face??? I'm really out of touch with emojis...

I actually think it's people agreeing with you, about not getting that insight. At least, my interpretation. It doesn't make sense that they'd be sad at your request.

[Jason D]

On 7/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, Akhôrahil said:

My initial impression of RQ:G was it was amazing in the care with the rules, but I've slowly come to revise that. Not in general - the rules are of high quality - but in how some parts of the rules are messes where it seems cut and paste jobs and previous rules versions haven't been properly cleaned out, leading to poor results. The Two weapon fighting rule is one obvious example (where the clarification was a total rewrite that changed the printed rules 180 degrees), the parrying penalty rules another, and I'm seriously confused about the phalanx rules. But perhaps the most egregious are the Attack/Parry outcomes.

Let's start by just looking at the rules text (pp. 198, 200) and not the summary table (p. 199). That one is a lot better, and we'll get back to it.

Where does excess damage go 

• Successful parry vs. successful attack: to random location
• Special parry vs special attack: to adjacent location
• Critical parry vs. critical attack: to random location

It should probably be all random. Adjacent might be a carryover from shield parrying. I'll take a look and see if the matrix/table needs to be corrected. 

 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Parrying a critical hit

For whatever reason, weapon damage to parrying weapon is doubled even after the weapon already does max special damage. This seems completely excessive - either do maximum special damage (the sensible solution), or double damage, not both!

Again, this might be a carryover. These charts had a lot of editing and back-and-forth and could have used more. 

 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Weapons incapable of damage on critical hits (only)

However, unlike all other attacks, long-hafted and impaling weapons do no damage to parrying weapon on specifically and exclusively critical hits. This is weird in two ways: first that a long-hafted weapon does damage to opponents weapon, except on critical hits when it doesn't. Second, that it seems utterly unreasonable that a weapon like a halberd or a long-axe are unusually bad at damaging, say, an opponent's shield. 

That's a legacy rule. Ignore it as you see fit. I intend to remove it from any future editions. 

 

On 7/8/2019 at 10:45 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Critical hits automatically hit

But even this table has issues. For instance, Critical Attack vs Fumbled Parry states "Attacker automatically hits, does maximum special damage." What does this even mean, given that the table entry only comes up once you've scored a critical hit and thus obviously have hit already? If you critically hit, you automatically hit? Uh, thanks I guess?

You may not believe this, but our playtest GMs asked us to be quite explicit about whether an attack hits or not for every entry. It's the most basic question... "Did the attack hit?" and for various reasons people thought it wasn't always evident, even when the results discussed damage.  

[soltakss]

On 7/9/2019 at 12:47 PM, klecser said:

So, clearly my comment above is considered "Sad" by people, and I don't understand why. I was just trying to be helpful. Why is it "Sad" to ask a designer to give insight on the design process? It's a rare privilege that we have from Chaosium designers. If you don't want me to be helpful here, I'll stop commenting.

Two people put a sad face on the post. I don't think that is any reflection on your post.

I'll like it to balance it out.

Edited July 13, 2019 by soltakss

[soltakss]

On 7/9/2019 at 1:47 PM, styopa said:

Fwiw I'm looking forward to the answer, but I expect it will come from @Jason Durall, not Jeff.

You must be psychic!

[Bill the barbarian]

On 7/13/2019 at 5:34 AM, soltakss said:

Two people put a sad face on the post. I don't think that is any reflection on your post.

 I'll like it to balance it out.

Good call, I did likewise!

[Akhôrahil]

This thread had the weirdest derailment I think I've ever seen.

[Bill the barbarian]

6 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Good call, I did likewise!

ALL RIGHT, WHO GAVE ME A SAD FACE!

You got some 'splaining to do, Mr Hibbs!

Edited July 15, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Bill the barbarian]

44 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

This thread had the weirdest derailment I think I've ever seen.

Sorry

:(

[g33k]

51 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

This thread had the weirdest derailment I think I've ever seen.

I think we got a pretty comprehensive (and official) reply from Jason, upthread.  That ... kind of completes the topic?  End if the line?  No more tracks from which to derail the train?

I think we're running down a spur.

Edited July 15, 2019 by g33k
F'ing autocorrect

[Bill the barbarian]

14 hours ago, g33k said:

I think we're running down a spur.

I think we are running down a gag..,. and beating it to a pulp. 

15 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

This thread had the weirdest derailment I think I've ever seen.

I was going to post something similar this AM but decided to double check the thread and came to the same conclusion g33k did. Otherwise the post made

21 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Good call, I did likewise!

would have been a little different but keeping the above quote.

Cheers

Edited July 16, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Shiningbrow]

4 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

This thread had the weirdest derailment I think I've ever seen.

Seriously???