Topic: Do you make Full Parry characters attack?

[bottg]

"Yes, Luke has gone into a full out Frenzy, but Darth Vader can almost do nothing except a Full Parry with an occassional fumbling thrust.  But in the end..."

That occasional fumbling thrust is the attack roll at +0.  He didn't roll up, but then he probably would't in 7 rolls.

[Marc R]

The chief difficulty in merging common sense to this rule is a misperception of combat time.

Per RM rules. . .luke went frenzy, and made. . .one melee attack roll at full OB.

Keep in mind the 10 second round, and a lot of this makes more sense.

The odds of rolling one open ended up result out of seven rolls is not great, the odds of doing it on one roll are 5%. . . .so vader failed. . .

Also, a basic break between common sense, real world melee combat and RM combat.

Real world: Dodge, Parry, Block

RM2: Parry

RMC: Parry, Dodge.

The basic essential rules are designed around the RM2 concept, where "Parry" essentially consists of "Attacking in a defensive manner" with no other options.

RMC tactical adds in Dodge, which consists of no attempts to use your weapon for defense, and just avoiding attack.

Neither has added in the concept of "Block" as a pure action in and of itself. . .essentially, a "Full parry with no attack" is blocking, which the rules simply don't cover as is, except perhaps in the DB bonus from a shield.

Perhaps Tim will add "Block" in the combat companion. . . .

[bottg]

That is true. 

Although even a fighter who is completely blocking stands a chance of fumbling.  And there must be the chance of injuring an opponent even when blocking completely (the blocking weapon slides off the face of the blocked weapon and catches the opponent etc). 
That is of course only my point of view, and how i play it, but then it makes sense to me! 

[yammahoper]

A block is nothing more than a fancy parry typically used with a counter attack of some kind in mind.

RM combat doesn't require all this super specific tactical enumeration.  Your DB represents defensive potential, not specific moves.  Let the players provide that, or the GM in his description of an attacks results.

lynn

[Marc R]

which is essentially the real issue. . .it's not a single act, it's 10 seconds of action, which involve a lot of individual parry/block/dodge/attack sequences in it. . .even if you're not going out of your way to hit the opponant, the chaos/murphy factor of two people swinging weapons around comes down to that die roll.

Consider the odds of someone getting hurt just goofing around play fencing with broomhandles or sticks. . .even if it's just a smacked finger. . . I recall all too often that things like that ended up with someone bleeding, or bruised, and nobody was actually trying to hit anyone.

As I said before "What're the odds?"

[yammahoper]

it's not a single act, it's 10 seconds of action

Exactly.  I like the 10 second round because it fits so well with a role playing game, a game of imagination, not tactical specifics. 

Still, if players and GM are willing to pass on low OB attacks, rock on.  Me, I want every opportunity I can get.  As a GM, I like those low OB attacks because they are likely to only land hits, but no player knows that when you roll the dice...

lynn

[Balhirath]

Another reason I draw this answer is seen in Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi.  Luke has finally beaten his father.  At the end, Darth Vader has no other choice but to Full Parry.  However, after six blows, Luke is finally able to slap the light saber aside and sever his father's hand holding the saber.  Watch it.  SEVEN blows.

This is my best example of the Full Parry that eventually fails.

No attack from Darth Vader.  Period.

Yes, Luke has gone into a full out Frenzy, but Darth Vader can almost do nothing except a Full Parry with an occassional fumbling thrust.  But in the end...

rmfr

That's what happen all the time. Sooner or later the attacker will roll open ended high and beat the crap out of the full defense