From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V1 #16 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Tuesday, 15 November 1994 Volume 01 : Number 016 RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to say "Yeah, I agree." Those who do will be lynched. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. RQR: will be prepended to it. 3. Do not engage in a point-by-point analysis or rebuttal of another person's message. It is too confusing for others to follow, qualifies as nit-picking, and it usually leads to flame wars. 4. There is no number 4. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: RQR: TAP spells. Re: RQR: TAP spells. RQR: Real Life Combat Re: RQR: Real Life Combat Re: RQR: Real Life Combat ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: davidc@cs.uwa.edu.au (David Cake) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:14:24 +0800 Subject: Re: RQR: TAP spells. >G'day > >I don't recall any recent discussion on the series of TAP sorcery spells but >... >I guess I'm probably not alone in thinking that the TAP spells are largely >overpowered. Simply making the spells moraly wrong or rare doesn't cut it in my >book. First, lets note the attempts of RQAIG to reduce to power of Tap - they suceeded to an extent that is laughable - for most variants of Tap, Increase Characteristic gains much more for the Tapper. But back to RQ3, which is what I presume that Paul is talking about. DO I find Tap overpowered? Not really. What you gain from Tap is just MPs, and not a huge amount (bear in mind the cost of the Tap spell). It is powerful only because the MPs go direct to the caster, though this is very useful. The idea of the spell is that the MPs are the reason why you use it, and the reducing attributes the unavoidable side effect. Why would most people want to reduce attributes permanently? Reducing them temporarily is just as good for winning the fight (and much easier to do), and tapping causes some lasting hatred and animosity, and marks you as evil. It can be useful if you are into having incompetent slaves, I guess, but I still don't see it as very USEFUL. Powerful, yes. >Other GMs may find things different but I know that my players would want >the spells no mater what the moral implications are (If I let them have it). > There is something very wrong with your players, then. The essence of RQ roleplaying is to live within a religion and a society. If the players want to use magic that is abhorrent to both society and religion, then either they havn't really got the idea yet, or they are willing to take a lot of risks. Certainly they could easily be cured from wanting the spell by a gang of Storm Bull Berserks dropping in for a quick visit to deal with the evil sorcerers! (or knights of Hrestol, or whatever is appropriate). But one of the nice things about sorcery is that you can very easily not let them have it anyway. Unless you hand out a grimoire with Tap in it, then they have to met a sorcerer with Tap and get him to teach it. Finding one may be difficult, and you may well regret finding him when you do (as he is just as likely to treat you as fuel anyway). And yes, I know you said that being morally wrong or rare doesn't cut it for you, but I just saying that it should. The rare means you as GM have complete control over introducing it into your game. The morally wrong not only means most reasonable people wouldn't want it, but more importantly means there are a lot of people willing to kill you for using the spell. That is enough control for my PCs. >Just a suggestion, but to tone down the power of the spells, I'd suggest the >following: > >Characteristic loss from the TAP spell last only for as long as the duration of >the spell. Death only occurs if a charateristic is tapped down to 0 before the >spell expires. When the spell expires, charateristics are fully regained with >the exception of one point. >This would make it simmilar to the spell REDUCE CHAR. but with imoral >overtones. I can live with this, though, which at least still keeps the essential nature of the spell - short term gain for permanent loss for someone else. It makes it a poor substitute for Reduce Char, but as I said the gain to the caster is the real purpose of the spell. >Repeated use of TAPPING the characteristics that define a persons spirit >(INT,POW) could cause a form of Vampirism (loss of your own POW) in people. Nah. There are lots of Brithini that have been Tapping for centuries without ill-effect. I quite like the fact that Tap has no bad effects on the user - it makes the evil more tempting. >I would suggest that items that rely on tapping, gain a form of sentience after >years (decades, centuries) of absorbing other peoples POW and INT. > Hmm.... not really. The evil of Tap is that what is tapped really goes - something is lost forever for some short term selfish gain. Cheers Dave >Any comments? > >Paul. ------------------------------ From: akuma@netcom.com (Steven E Barnes) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 23:15:45 -0800 Subject: Re: RQR: TAP spells. >Why would most people want to reduce attributes permanently? To Tap your own size to 1, of course :-) - -steve ------------------------------ From: Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk (Liam McCauley) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:40:50 +0000 Subject: RQR: Real Life Combat Thanks to Brandon Brylawski for compiling and posting his BrandonQuest. This is the kind of thing I was hoping to see on this list. I have always ended up tinkering with the combat systems of games I play to achieve the balance between realism and playability that I prefer. I have also seen a lot of articles and house rules on the same subject. It is quite easy to measure the playability of a set of rules (if you get the chance to play them a bit!), but realism is more difficult. Unless you have experience of combat, and/or appropriate medical knowledge, most peoples view of combat is probably based on the cinema, TV, and a sense of what feels right. Whilst this is OK for Star Wars, it isn't really satisfactory for games like RQ. I have recently (5 months ago) taken up aikido, which is a martial art involving body art (throws, pain holds, etc.) and weapons. This has given me a limited insight into combat that I thought other people on the list may find interesting. Firstly, there are a lot of factors that make the practice different from a fight between a humakti and a broo: a) the weapons practice is done in the form of kata, or set moves - this is not like kendo where the kendoka are actually "fighting" each other. b) the weapons are not metal, or sharp. We practice principally with 2 weapons - the bokken (wooden practice sword based on katana) and the jo (wooden staff about 5' long by 1"; used to represent staff or japanese spear which has a wide, flat cutting head and a spike on the butt for piercing armour). c) the person you are practising with is not actively trying to kill you. This knowledge probably helps to keep the adrenaline to a reasonable level. Whilst a mistake on your part may result in a blow to the side of the head, the person attacking you will not (usually) continue to beat you to a pulp when you are down. d) weapons practice (as far as I have experienced it) is done one-on-one. e) we don't wear armour. So, given all these qualifiers, what useful observations have I made? Parrying: One of the most important factors in determining whether you will get hit by an attack is how fast you react to the attack and move to parry. I have practised with a more experienced aikidoka whose counter attack was so fast that I parried with my jo about 1/10 of a second too late. In RQ terms, I consider that I made my parry, it's just that my opponent's weapon happened to be inside my guard at the time! This makes me think that a fight between two high %, fast characters shouldn't result in the two of them battering each others weapons until one breaks. Pulling back for a full strength hit leaves you too open. Weapon damage: Most parries are not simply blocks, where the weapon is placed between yourself and your opponents weapon. This would be of little use if you were hit by someone much stronger than yourself. Instead, you absorb the blow by putting the tip of your weapon near the base of your opponent's weapon, and let the weapons slide together until your opponent's tip is near your weapon's base. At the same time, you should step off the line of a thrust or overhead cut, or lean just out of reach of a side cut. This results in a sort of parry/dodge combination which is much safer, and doesn't damage your weapon as much because it is absorbing rather than clashing. There is a Japanese 2nd dan in our club who now has a reputation for destroying other people's weapons. He broke my jo when he was parrying my attack (which would have been a successful attack if it hadn't been parried - a set of circumstances in RQ which couldn't cause my weapon to break!). As far as I can tell, there were three reasons why my jo broke: 1) Weapon quality. My jo was a cheap, Taiwanese model borrowed from a friend. 2) Skill & power. My opponent is VASTLY better than me, and built like a brick shit-house (BTW, is this British slang?). 3) The type of parry. Rather than absorbing my blow, his parry comprised of smacking my thrust to one side. Fumbles: Brandon removed the "Hit self" entry from the fumble table because it seemed improbable. I have never seen anyone hit themselves with a bokken, but I know of someone who swung a jo up between his legs - definitely a case of "Hit self for maximum damage"! Distance and awareness: Combat is not static. When practising, you move to the right distance from your opponent before attacking - seems obvious, but I have been attacked by swings that wouldn't reach me. You should also be aware of the people practising to either side of you. You need a good 10' between people swinging jos around. Hit Locations: Most attacks are aimed at the head or stomach. Most counterattacks are aimed for the hands. When someone has just attacked you, and you have absorbed their blow with your parry, what is the nearest and easiest to hit part of their anatomy? Their hands. After most practice sessions, I come away with a deep bruise on my right thumb! Multiple Attackers: Whilst we don't do multiple attacks in weapon practice, we do it in body art. The worst number of people to be attacked by seems to be four. Any more, and they get in each others way. In a RQ combat 4 on 1 would be a walkover for the 4 (unless the 1 was much more powerful), but from what I have seen, this is not the case. Don't get surrounded, move straight for one opponent on a flank and deal with him with a simple and fast manoeuvre (hopefully throwing him at one of the other three), then move straight for the next opponent. The important points seem to be keeping the initiative, and being aware of what is happening all around you. I hope that this was of some use and interest. Liam McCauley Liam_McCauley@qsp.co.uk "Without the slightest opening Nor the least thought of the enemy And his encircling swords Step in and cut!" - O Sensei ------------------------------ From: Jon Green Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:18:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Real Life Combat I've also done aikido (though I'm not current due to a lack of sensei in the area), am a fencerand have some real-weapons fighting experience. I enjoyed Liam's comments, and have one or two to add: > Parrying: > ..... This makes me think that a fight between two high %, fast > characters shouldn't result in the two of them battering each others > weapons until one breaks. Pulling back for a full strength hit leaves > you too open. > It's certainly true that a fight between two highly skilled fighters tends to take much longer to resolve. The first thing you do is try the idiot traps. (I'll come to that later.) A skilled combatant expects them, defends against them, and then you both know it's going to be a lot slower than you expected. Most fighters didn't last long, and few got to be good, so the long drawn-out duels between high-% types didn't happen often - most particularly because in the press of battle there are few opportunities for trading more than a couple of blows before the scene and opponent changes. I agree that weapon breakages are rather overstated. The better you get, the more you respect and protect your weapon. Parries become better-made, and the assailant's blade is turned rather than its impact absorbed, as Liam notes. A low-low-skill fight is short, with the intent to disable rather than to kill. Weapon breakages are common (*). A low-high fight is also short, with the intent to kill. Weapon breakages are also relatively common. High-high fights take time (if there _is_ time), the intent is often to kill (but not always), and weapons break rarely. I feel that there's a good case for limiting weapon breakages to fumbles (or failed parries against critical hits), as these are usually the circumstances where they occur. (*) meaning that it's not a rarity, rather than that it happens every third time! > Weapon damage: > ... This results in a sort of parry/dodge > combination which is much safer, and doesn't damage your weapon as much > because it is absorbing rather than clashing. More to the point, it is deflecting rather than absorbing. The most successful parries are always deflections, for two reasons: 1) you don't have to absorb the energy of impact through weapon or body; 2) an opponent's deflected weapon is of no use until it can be brought back into a position to atteck or defend, and the opponent's follow- through - especially for a heavy weapon - can make this slow, whilst your own weapon should be in a good position to press an immediate attack undefended, against (hopefully) an off-balance opponent. Novices will always block instinctively, a reaction a skilled fighter takes into account. You need to un-train yourself from your blocking instinct in order to parry effectively. (Blocks have their place, but they're usually a last resort only.) > There is a Japanese 2nd dan in our club who now has a reputation for > destroying other people's weapons. He broke my jo when he was > parrying my attack (which would have been a successful attack if it > hadn't been parried - a set of circumstances in RQ which couldn't > cause my weapon to break!). As far as I can tell, there were three > reasons why my jo broke: > 1) Weapon quality. My jo was a cheap, Taiwanese model borrowed from a > friend. The unskilled fighter usually had cheap weapons as well. A good reason for taking weapon HPs with a pinch of salt - an exoensive blade, for example, will have hgher HPs and either a higher dice value (e.g. use d8 rather than d6) or less ENC (or for _very_ good specimens, both). RQ weapons should be taken to be of middling quality, with all stats adjustable according to quality. > 2) Skill & power. My opponent is VASTLY better than me, and built > like a brick shit-house (BTW, is this British slang?). Certainly is! And he'll be using that power directed, rather than by brute force. > 3) The type of parry. Rather than absorbing my blow, his parry > comprised of smacking my thrust to one side. > A full-force blow to the base of a sword is the best way of breaking it, especially if it's made of cheap materials. Even if the break fails, the opponent's hand takes the major impact energy, and may release the sword. It's a good trick against a novice. > Fumbles: > Brandon removed the "Hit self" entry from the fumble table because it > seemed improbable. I have never seen anyone hit themselves with a > bokken, but I know of someone who swung a jo up between his legs - > definitely a case of "Hit self for maximum damage"! > Nah - max. damage would mean a snapped pelvis! But it wouldn't feel good... > Distance and awareness: > Combat is not static. When practising, you move to the right distance > from your opponent before attacking - seems obvious, but I have been > attacked by swings that wouldn't reach me. You should also be aware > of the people practising to either side of you. You need a good 10' > between people swinging jos around. > In the field of battle you may not have that luxury, and you need to be aware of every person within weapon's reach (your and theirs) even if they're on your side. It's _very_ difficult! IT's one thing to practise in an open courtyard, another entirely fighting back-to-back in a melee. > Hit Locations: > Most attacks are aimed at the head or stomach. Most counterattacks > are aimed for the hands. When someone has just attacked you, and you > have absorbed their blow with your parry, what is the nearest and > easiest to hit part of their anatomy? Their hands. After most > practice sessions, I come away with a deep bruise on my right thumb! > I was coming to idiot traps. One excellent way to down a novice opponent quickly - and in a melee you have to - is to feint high, draw an empty high parry, then cut hard down to the ankle whilst shoulder-charging (removing the space for a swing). The opponent goes down hard, and you jump on the head or try for a lethal cut (your weapon's in the right place). The whoe thing takes maybe 10-15 secs, and you can't afford much more. In a _real_ scrap, any trick's permitted. I knew someone who would win pretty consistently by a head shot blocked, followed by a kick to the (undefended) groin, then a lethal blow whilst the opponent was, er, distracted. And that would have been a fairly common tactic. Incidentally, about ten years ago someone opened a Viking mass grave (a rare beast), and tallied the wounds. The most common , I believe, was bone damage to the left ankle. Anyone got more details? My memory's a bit fuzzy, and the info second-hand. There are certain skills - like the drawing of an opponent's attack or parry, and like the use of non-weapon blows - which are common to whole classes of fighting, and are as applicable to beating it out with clubs as to rapier-work. I'd be interested in considering developing a slightly different classification of fighting skills, to separate fighting ability into three parts: area skill (hand-to-hand or missile), weapon class skill (edged or club weapons) and individual weapon (rapier or 1-H short sword), with each category individually trainable, and the person's total skill in a given weapon being the sum of the component skills. Any takers? > Multiple Attackers: > Whilst we don't do multiple attacks in weapon practice, we do it in > body art. The worst number of people to be attacked by seems to be > four. Any more, and they get in each others way. In a RQ combat 4 on > 1 would be a walkover for the 4 (unless the 1 was much more powerful), > but from what I have seen, this is not the case. Don't get > surrounded, move straight for one opponent on a flank and deal with > him with a simple and fast manoeuvre (hopefully throwing him at one of > the other three), then move straight for the next opponent. The > important points seem to be keeping the initiative, and being aware of > what is happening all around you. > That's about right for an open area. In the normal press, it's more like three. Two can get in good attacks, with a third maybe able to operate at about half efficiency. Melee fighting depends on the circumstances, and GMs need to adjust the setup accordingly. > I hope that this was of some use and interest. > Very much so; thanks Liam. Jon - -- jonsg@hyphen.com Jon@sundome.demon.co.uk Jon@sundome.demon.co.uk ------------------------------ From: Graeme A Lindsell Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 12:03:50 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: RQR: Real Life Combat Liam McCauley & Jon Green had a discussion of real life combats vs RQ-Rules: While this is interesting, what actual rules changes or new rules are you proposing for RQ combat? I don't have any combat experience; I can't really design realistic rules based on second hand testimony. The only suggestions I saw were: JG: >an exoensive blade, for >example, will have hgher HPs and either a higher dice value (e.g. >use d8 rather than d6) Do you mean higher AP's, or are you using the RQ2 rules? JG: >Weapon breakages are common (*) >(*) meaning that it's not a rarity, rather than that it happens every >third time! In our current RQ3.5 campaign (which has been running since early 1992), I can't recall seeing a weapon breakage. I'm sure other peoples milage may vary, since we don't use the swordbreaker rules or many two handed swords, which in RQ3 are the best ways to break weapons. LM >In RQ terms, I consider that I made my parry, it's just that my opponent's >weapon happened to be inside my guard at the time! Well I'd say you didn't make your parry. IMO you're saying that the skill of your opponent determined whether you would parry successfully, which is currently not a part of RQ parries, though it is true for dodging. Can you suggest a rule to model this? Dodge like parries, perhaps, or deduction from parry skill against an attack over 100%? >built like a brick shit-house (BTW, is this British slang?) I think it may be Australian in origin, though I could be wrong. ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V1 #16 ****************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists.