Topic: Do you resolve the full parry attack rolls when "Stunned" or "Must Parry"?

[Marc R]

I'll admit I've skipped the roll also.

IMO the logic behind the roll requirement is that if you have a 4' piece of cutlery, and I have a 4' piece of cutlery, and I try to carve a steak off of you, and you try to stop me with your blade, that's not a controlled circumstance. We're both swinging sharp chunks of metal around and moving about violently. The potential for a fumble is always there.

We both have 50 Skill in the broadsword, I go full OB on you, you go full DB on me, you are not attacking me, but you are not just standing there behind your sword blocking passively, you are constantly moving your sword to parry my blade. . .if you assume I'm going to slash right and move left, so parry right. . .and then you turn out to be mistaken as to my intentions as I move right and slash left, your parry intersects my body.

The best explaination I've ever been given was by an old GM of mine:

"Say one of your loved ones goes crazy and comes at you with a knife. . .if you pick up a knife to "Defend yourself", you are still escalating the level of danger in the situation by introducing a second knife into the mix. . .using a bat or chair is less lethal, but still quite dangerous. . .using a pillow or a heavy blanket to block, now you're not escalating the threat level of the situation, though you are taking more risk on yourself."

If you accidentally over do it with a pillow in trying to block the knife, at worst it's a fluffy crit. . .if you miscalculate slightly blocking a knife attack with a bat, the knife wielder will end up with a broken arm, or head. . .even if you're absolutely not trying to harm the other person and just trying to keep the knife from hitting you, you are still waving a club around.

Movie actors and stuntmen are not really trying to hurt each other, but nobody considers it "safe" or "Casual". . .every now and then someone gets killed, or severely carved up.

[providence13]

A parry is using my skill with a weapon and positioning to protect me for 10 full seconds. Realistically, I understand the roll. That is a long time to fight defensively.

My players had the same argument; "You can't make me jump off of a cliff. You can't make me attack."
 
I didn't want to force them to attack, but said it was a possible result from being in a fight, even if on the defensive, for 10 full seconds.

Now we just move the points to DB. No roll. The extra roll each time would slow down the game for us. Other groups might not have that problem. YGMV

[Marc R]

"You can't force me" is 100% true.

When stunned or must parry, you can still move or maneuver at a penalty, you are not forced to parry at all. . .you can stop fighting and talk or surrender, you can run away, you can perform a skill check. . .you can choose to declare a parry on someone, but if you do so, you are declaring that your character is continuing to fight. . .the fact that you are stunned or must parry means you cannot assign anything to OB. . .but technically you are still declaring a "full parry" on someone.

The weirdness is that it states that you may not declare an attack, but specifies you can parry at a penalty. . .but a full parry is resolved an attack per the way the parry rules work.

I guess it could be justifiably argued either way, but if you cannot full parry without a roll to check for fumble/lucky shot while normal, it's strange that you can skip the fumble/lucky shot roll when stunned or must parry.

But if your intention is to 100% defend and not risk weapon fumble or an accidental strike on your foe, wouldn't you just declare a dodge maneuver (RMC AL P29) with the stun/must parry maneuvering penalty?

[markc]

  For a computer I would have it roll for stun and stun no parry for a live game I would leave it up to the group.
  I guess you could also create a Talent that allows you to not roll or add a rule and or ability to combat styles to take care of the roll for stun and stun no parry. Maybe a flat result based on the number of ranks you have in a weapon and slightly modified by the fumble range of the weapon and other factors.


MDC

[RandalThor]

I understand all the "realistic" reasons for the extra roll, I just think that in order to speed the game along, we don't need to have all the rolls. The ability to screw up in a completely random, non-important incident is one of the reasons some people get turned-off from games like RM, I think. They don't want their character to die just because he fumbled a parry from an attack by henchman #4, and he fell down the stairs, broke his neck, so the evil bad guy is now able to dominate the kingdom putting everyone in magical slavery.

I have actually had a guy stop gaming completely because of a fumble. Overboard? You bet. But there it is. I would rather be gaming with them than enforce a (imo) silly rule. I also believe that the reason all of these "story-telling" games, like The Dresden Files, and Houses of the Blooded, are gaining in popularity is due to the dislike of the incredibly randomness of old-school games.

The new "buzz-words" are: smooth, easy, fast, etc... particularly when it allows the player to push the mechanics into the background and concentrate on their character and the story. Which I prefer.

[pastaav]

In the past I have both required the roll and skipped it. If we think of movies I have seen plenty of occasions when a character becomes stunned but by pure luck manage to get the attacker killed in some ways. Some players like to have a chance of doing damage even if it is slim and in those cases the roll is not really a hassle IMO. The argument for dropping the roll is that the likelihood for anything happening is quite low anyway so doing the roll just takes time.

[RandalThor]

In the past I have both required the roll and skipped it. If we think of movies I have seen plenty of occasions when a character becomes stunned but by pure luck manage to get the attacker killed in some ways.

Which can easily be attributed to the non-stunned attacker fumbling because they over-thought their advantage.

The example I can think of, is in the first book of the Wheel of Time (The Eye of the World) when Rand accidentally kills a trolloc because it basically impaled itself on his sword; he was stunned/surprised as he had never seen a trolloc before and thought they didn't exist, though not injury stunned. To me, it wasn't so much as what Rand did, as to the trolloc screwing up.

[Marc R]

I feel the variation lies in:

If Rand is stunned, he's still parrying, and might lucky high roll kill the Trolloc, or the Trolloc might trip and fall on it's own sword.

If Rand is Stunned-No-Parry, then he doesn't roll, and the Trolloc can only trip and fall on it's own sword.

[RandalThor]

I think it is better reflected as once someone is stunned, it is really more up to the opponent to screw up the situation.

In the situation described (not nearly as well as in the book *sigh*), the trolloc impaled itself on Rand's sword, which was just in his hand, not being waved around or anything - because he was shocked/stunned/surprised.

Now stunned characters can still do maneuvers and such (at -25), but they cannot attack, so there is no roll for any "sheer lucky break attack." The surely can fumble a maneuver, though.

[Marc R]

There are instances where it might matter. . . .like lets say you've gone to kill an undead with your +10 holy sword.

The Skeleton stuns you, then comes at you again with it's rusty old -5 spear.

If it fumbles, it's most likely going to take minimal damage from it's weapon, but if you lucky shot it with the holy sword, you're more likely to do nasty damage to it.

Similar to if your foe fumbles a dagger shot on you, vs you lucky smack it with your two handed sword. . .

The variance in the power level of the attack can be quite significant, and can matter quite a bit between the self inflicted unlucky strike and the other inflicted lucky strike.

I get the logic of trying to speed up play (tricks for speeding up RM combat are generally good tricks), and I can see why you might want to hand wave past and move along, but there's a difference between the attacker fumbling and the almost helpless target getting lucky.

[RandalThor]

All of that is for GMs and Players who have to have the rules as sacrosanct. I don't, so I don't feel the division is worth the extra work. I can use my imagination in the game and describe how the poor, bumbling skeleton got it's big toe stuck in a crack on the dungeon floor and shattered itself against your holy weapon. I mean, really. If you have pitted a simple skeleton against the hero with the holy sword, it isn't a major battle (at least that part isn't), so have fun, get a little silly, make some people laugh. Now, in the major battle, you get a little more detailed and serious.

And there isn't a difference between the attacker fumbling and the nearly helpless defender getting lucky - if the attacker fumbles, the defender has definitely gotten lucky. It is all in how its described.

And, if we are both waiving around "4' pieces of cutlery" - you offensively, me defensively, then it is up to you to stab yourself with either my sword or your own. In other words: I only got lucky because you got unlucky.

[rdanhenry]

A "parry" when stunned is going to look a lot less like a controlled attempt to intercept the opponent's weapon and a lot more like wildly flailing in the general direction of the greatest threat in order to make approaching you dangerous. It makes more sense to skip the attack roll for a full parry when in full health than when subject to stun or must parry.

[Marc R]

I'm fine with the house rule to skip the roll, and I've often skipped it in the past. . .either on purpose, or just forgot.

And there isn't a difference between the attacker fumbling and the nearly helpless defender getting lucky - if the attacker fumbles, the defender has definitely gotten lucky. It is all in how its described.

And, if we are both waiving around "4' pieces of cutlery" - you offensively, me defensively, then it is up to you to stab yourself with either my sword or your own. In other words: I only got lucky because you got unlucky.

The first difference comes in to when you have a 6" piece of cutlery and I have a 5' piece of cutlery, so my accidentally slashing you is generally far worse than you accidentally slashing you.

The second difference lies in the fact that my "wild swinging" +0 attack is actually far more dangerous to you almost always, than your odds of self inflicted fumbling. . . .per the other thread, the math odds of random +0 slashing are far more dangerous than the probabilities of a fumble:

http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=11116.0

A +0 attack is far more dangerous than the fumble. . .as in "There's a 3% chance the attacker will fumble, but there's a 30% chance that the flailing +0 attack will connect." (The odds vary in every instance, but only in very rare instances is it not true that the +0 roll isn't at least a factor of 10 more dangerous than the likelyhood of a fumble).

So they're not really interchangeable, I can't really gut believe that something 1-8% likely to cause you to harm you is = something 20-80% likely to cause me to harm you.

If you wanted to dump one of them, the one more likely to actually change the results of the event would be to drop the fumble chance for the attacker, not the wild attack odds of the defender.

OTOH, dropping the "wild swing" +0 OB attack lets you skip a roll, so it saves a bit of time, I can see the benefit there. . .but while I can see the advantage of skipping it to save time, you're not skipping something irrelevant that only GMs who think the RAW are sacrosanct would bother with, you're actually making it much safer to attack combatants who are stunned (be that stunned PCs, or Stunned NPCs). . .like, if you know they're stunned, never bother parrying and pile into them at full OB. . .it's not like they can hit you.

That being the big change. . .you don't need to worry, so you don't put any OB into DB "Just in case". . .without risk you go Conan on my stunned character and full OB. . .it's not pedantic, nit picking, RAW worship or such, it's shifting almost all the risk from the attacker to the stunned defender. . .and if combatants have any way of telling when a target is stunned, making it a gimmie to go for it and full OB their head out of the park.

[markc]

 I think I might make it an option in that if you have a specific number of ranks in a weapon you have the option to have a +0 attack. Lets say at 10 ranks you have the option to attack at +0, if you are stunned. This is the same for every 10 ranks and you get another attack as specified in the RMC CC. That way again it provides some more incentive to buy ranks in weapons for Pure Arms users mostly.


MDC

[Ecthelion]

I'm fine with the house rule to skip the roll, and I've often skipped it in the past. . .either on purpose, or just forgot.

I am not sure whether the current RM rules answer this question. But if I were to rewrite the rules in a new edition, I'd state that an attack roll always has to be made, even if stunned / no parry. And I'd add an optional rule that GMs may choose to always skip the attack roll if the character is Must Parry or Stunned.

[providence13]

OTOH, dropping the "wild swing" +0 OB attack lets you skip a roll, so it saves a bit of time, I can see the benefit there. . .but while I can see the advantage of skipping it to save time, you're not skipping something irrelevant that only GMs who think the RAW are sacrosanct would bother with, you're actually making it much safer to attack combatants who are stunned (be that stunned PCs, or Stunned NPCs). . .like, if you know they're stunned, never bother parrying and pile into them at full OB. . .it's not like they can hit you.

That being the big change. . .you don't need to worry, so you don't put any OB into DB "Just in case". . .without risk you go Conan on my stunned character and full OB. . .it's not pedantic, nit picking, RAW worship or such, it's shifting almost all the risk from the attacker to the stunned defender. . .and if combatants have any way of telling when a target is stunned, making it a gimmie to go for it and full OB their head out of the park.

Right or wrong, this is how we play. Being stunned is serious! So everyone (every PC) puts some DP into Stun Relief/Stun Removal (RMFRP).

[Marc R]

Right/wrong has nothing to do with it, or at least, it's definitely not my intention to tell you you're doing it wrong. . .if it works for you, then what you're doing is right. My objection was to being called a blind slave to the RAW.

The point I was getting at was that it's not a casual non change, stick with the Roll, or skip the roll, whichever works for you, but the judgement of:

"Rolling for +0 attacks you're more likely to fumble than hit."

Is provably false, +0 attacks are more dangerous to the foe than a fumble risk, which means the comments of:

"People who roll +0 attacks are showing slavish devotion to the rules for no good reason"

is unfair. Roll them or don't, whatever works for you, but calling this a choice between slavish devotion to the Raw vs Saving time is an oversimplification, it's not a pure and obvious beneficial trade off, or we'd all be doing it. To be fair, the trade off is:

Rolling +0 OB attacks takes more time but makes attacking "Stunned" or "Must Parry" foes more dangerous.

vs.

Not Rolling +0 OB attacks saves some time, but makes attacking "Stunned" or "Must Parry" foes less dangerous.

[RandalThor]

The first difference comes in to when you have a 6" piece of cutlery and I have a 5' piece of cutlery, so my accidentally slashing you is generally far worse than you accidentally slashing you.

Just because you are wielding a longer weapon doesn't mean that my fumble only involves my shorter weapon. And vice versa. Any fumble (by either party) can mean getting hurt with either weapon. The severity of the fumble can dictate it - as can the GM with description/flavor. So, if you are defending with a longsword against my attack with a dagger and I fumble my attack, I can just as easily hurt myself with your weapon as with mine. But to require both to roll is unnecessary, imo. It is just bogging the game down. Again, imo.

Also, it can really tick someone off to screw up so bad when they are just trying to be careful. Its aggravating. To force them to make a "do I screw up or not?" thats just cruel.

[Marc R]

The math says the roll is more likely to result in a lucky hit, than an unlucky fumble. .

I get the gut feeling that it's a "Fumble check" but odds wise, that's simply just not true. The odds of you lucky hitting your foe exceed the odds of fumbling.

Because of that, when approaching a stunned or must parry foe, rather than go full OB as a combatant would if the stunned don't roll, instead they go "I put 75 into OB and 25 into DB". . .20-25 extra parry DB is usually enough to take the edge off a +0 OB attack.

It's threat DB. . .just like if two people attack you, they usually both declare some parry, even though you can only attack one of them, not because you WILL attack both of them, but because you COULD attack either of them.

IMO the small risk of a fumble, in exchange for forcing people moving in to attack you when you're vulnerable to defend themselves with say 25 parry DB, reducing the OB they put into the attack by 25, it actually makes it more likely you'll survive to the end of the round.

When you remove the roll, you remove that threat, the attacker doesn't bother to parry, and in games where you can tell if someone is stunned or must parry, the attacker goes full OB, usually with lethal results.

I get the logic of how skipping it saves time, but you're paying with "A fumble check" in exchange for "A chance of hurting them" AND "Threat of hurting them forcing them to tone down their attack a bit and parry some". . .which is far more of a fair transaction than saying it's just a fumble check to be mean to the defender in exchange for nothing but a waste of time.

[pastaav]

IMO the small risk of a fumble, in exchange for forcing people moving in to attack you when you're vulnerable to defend themselves with say 25 parry DB, reducing the OB they put into the attack by 25, it actually makes it more likely you'll survive to the end of the round.

When you remove the roll, you remove that threat, the attacker doesn't bother to parry, and in games where you can tell if someone is stunned or must parry, the attacker goes full OB, usually with lethal results.

I agree, not every attacker will care about the +0 attack enough to do parry, but some of them will do and that can be life saver for the defender. Actually there is one more reason why the attacker might like to parry...in game groups when stun can be temporary relieved you can never trust the defender stay stunned and that makes it very unexciting to stun somebody.

Also I think comparison of probabilities is something that should be done with care. It is easy to compare say 25% and 50%...but it is fundamentally harder to compare low probabilities that are very similar. This is especially true if the possible outcomes are so very different in utility.