[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Move through Writeup
Section two really only dealt with the weapon subskill.
The vote, as I recall, gave a nod to 1/5 movement rate and still
get an attack. Of the 'options':
1) withdrawl: didn't make it. I think people didn't like the idea of
someone getting a free swing at them :) So as it stands now if you
want to leave combat, you leave, no penalty for running like a
rabbit.
2) zone of influence: I don't think I explained this at all well because
IMO it made a lot of sense. But it fell one vote short (where were you
Joe?) so as it stands you can run past an armed killer with no penalty
3) run by: actually only made sense if #2 existed. Shrug.
4) concentration: passed, allowing mages 1/5 movement rate while casting
Section two was a total flop... and that's good with me. Baby steps.
So in the end you get the writeup I passed around. Conservative but a
good step in the right direction. Everyone can move 1/5 movement rate
and still perform melee actions or cast spells.
If you total up the votes on section 2, only one or two people didn't
vote and even if they both voted yes, nothing would have passed. Is
there a reason for a revote?
-Steve
> I'm confused. I guess I thought there was going to be another
> vote since it wasn't clear to everyone that they were supposed
> to vote on section 2 regardless of voting on section 1 of the
> original ballot. I must confess, I'm responsible for 1 or 2 others
> not voting since, since I told them my interpretation (which was
> erroneous). At least no serious new disadvantage has been
> introduced by the new write-up; I think an unarmored or robed
> person should be able to disengage from melee with a plate-
> mailed opponent. I just wish that the ballot hadn't been
> misinterpreted by so many people, it looked like a lot of the
> GM's were headed in the right (imo) direction. That is, allowing
> a single free swing on an opponent (that you are aware of)
> as they move past you; though I would require an AGI check
> considering my new experiences of late with actual melee
> combat. Whew, it is truly nasty, fast, and very difficult to
> keep track of; most things you aren't even aware of until it is
> over and you have a chance to mentally go over the experience.
>
> Anyway, now I'm spewing and I don't want Foo to feel as though
> I am trying to usurp his rightful place. ;-)
>
> Lyle
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Ames [SMTP:steve@ns1.cioe.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 26, 1998 6:20 PM
> To: gmlist@ns1.cioe.com
> Subject: Move through Writeup
>
>
> Here it is... way overdue I'll grant you. Everyone take a look,
> lets fix up the verbage (although its pretty straight forward right
> now and says what it should i believe). At the bottom of this
> message is some other spew that I want people to read and think
> about.
>
> --------------------------
> Section 2.5.1
>
> Each adventurer has a Movement Rate that is the distance he may move
> in a round when not in direct melee. When involved in a melee, or
> casting a spell, he may only move 1/5 (rounded down) of his normal
> Movement Rate. Movement Rate may be modified by your GM according to
> terrain, obstacles, or circumstances.
>
> Armor Movement-Rate Melee-Movement
> Naked 60' 12'
> Robes 50' 10'
> Leather Armor 40' 8'
> Chain Armor 30' 6'
> Plate Mail 20' 4'
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> Now let me banter on some of the options that didn't slide through
> and explain how it all logically fits together into the combat
> system. Movement is an integral part of combat. It just doesn't
> make sense for two combatants (or more) to stand toe to toe
> attempting to kill one another and not shift around looking for
> an advantage or an obstacle to throw between them and their opponent.
> To be cliche... combat is fluid.
>
> Lets look at some examples of inadequacies in the current system.
>
> Bob, an armed and dangerous killer, stands ready to kill his opponent
> who is standing 20 feet away. His opponent, Joe, suddenly runs right
> past Bob and out the door of the bar.
>
> Today's question is... how is it that someone can just run within two
> feet of someone who wants to kill them and not get hit? The reason is
> that the system does not allow us to 'hold attacks' and we don't really
> move simultaneously. AQ doesn't allow these things because both start
> increasing the complexity of the system.
>
> The answer, or an answer, is to say that anyone who is armed and
> ready for combat (ie weapon drawn and alert) has an area, a zone, around
> them that an opponent cannot enter, or leave, without becoming subject
> to 'melee' rules. In the above example this would mean that Joe would
> have to stop in melee range instead of just running by.
>
> How much more complex is this? Its something extra to remember so it
> is, by definition, more complex. But from a playability sense a couple
> of things would need to be considered. How often would it come into
> play? If the answer is constantly then it slows things down. If the
> answer is seldom then there is little gain from the added complexity.
> I believe the answer to be somewhere between... often enough that the
> rule should exist.
>
> Complexity occurs because everytime we add a limiter we must add some
> way that it can be bypassed (through skill, roleplaying or penalty).
> In this case Joe could run right past Bob if he was willing to give
> Bob a free attack on the way by. Penalty. Or Joe could toss a screaming
> baby at Bob causing a distraction and a choice (hit Joe or catch it).
> Roleplaying. If there were a defensive skill of some sort it would come
> into play here.
>
> Same kind of behavior when your trying to disengage from a toe-to-toe
> sword combat. Turning and running like a sissy isn't a real option in
> a situation where a single miscalculation results in losing your head.
>
> 'Nuff pondering. Thoughts on complexity here? Is it worth making this
> kind of realistic enhancement to the system?
>
> Oh... and is the Move Through writeup ok or does it need tweaking?
>
> -Steve
>