Topic: A new level of archery

[Merkir]

Whether we like it or not, a round is equivalent to a finite amount of time, otherwise it's impossible to calculate how far a character is able to move within a round, or a phase.

Directly quoting from RMC CL p 140, Base Movement rate is:
"... the number of feet the character can move at a “walking pace” in a ten second battle round"

[Merkir]

Personally, I would allow the PC to throw the spear in Phase 1 at a penalty, albeit that goes against the RAW. And don't ask me how I would work out what the range should be (to calculate range modifier)... does the Orc run 10', 30', 50' by the time the spear is thrown? GM's call I guess.

[Cory Magel]

Directly quoting from RMC CL p 140, Base Movement rate is:
"... the number of feet the character can move at a “walking pace” in a ten second battle round"

But that's not the same as saying "X Foe moves 50' in the blink of an eye so X is now out of range of you".  The throw of a spear at X is happening while X's running away is taking place.  When you have larger amounts of movement allowed in a given portion of the round this problem is magnified (RMC/RMU).

RMSS you have three phases and movement is the only thing that is limited within those phases.  Movement is the only part of the RMSS round that is largely non-abstract.  Snap is 20% movement, Normal is 50% movement, and deliberate is 80% movement (note: movement, not action).  So, if you have a 240' run allowed in a round you can move 48 feet in Snap.  Let's assume foe X has a better initiative than his attacker and he runs away.  In snap he can only run 20% of his full movement allowance.  If his attacker is also in snap then he's not going to be able to run any father before the attack.  If the attacker throws in Normal, then foe X would be capable of running 70% total (20% snap + 50% normal) of his full movement allowance before the attack is made.  Now, if the attacker had the better initiative he could have attacked before even X's 20% movement in snap, or if the attacker attacked in normal, X would only be 20% of his movement away.

In any case, if that's far enough to get out of range, then you have to assume he fled far enough away to make the attack ineffective.  You're going to have to have a line in the sand somewhere.  Even if you want to say combat is simultaneous then the line in the sand is simply offset by one round.

Now, you also have to consider that part of the reason for ranges on missile weapons being shorter than they can actually be fired is you're talking about EFFECTIVE range.  If you fire a bow at me from 200' away, unless I'm paying no attention, it's going to be pretty easy to sidestep that missile.  Really, I don't even need to look and can just dodge and weave and you're going to have a much harder time hitting me.  So you could actually argue even the longer ranges already in-game are possibly unrealistic.  So the in-game mechanic tries to strike a balance between those things.

Too often people look at game mechanics and say "That's not realistic!" and they are right... because it's really freakin rare you can make completely realistic rules and still have them be fun (i.e. manageable, balanced, etc).

BTW, this is why I like the BattleTech round.  Movement, in order of worst to best, then Action, in order of best to worst.  It pretty much completely eliminates the problem we're talking about there.

[Cory Magel]

Delete. Nothing to see here... move along...

[Merkir]

Directly quoting from RMC CL p 140, Base Movement rate is:
"... the number of feet the character can move at a “walking pace” in a ten second battle round"

But that's not the same as saying "X Foe moves 50' in the blink of an eye so X is now out of range of you".

In reality, of course not, but using the RMC rules gives precisely the same end result. It's as if they teleported 50'. In RMC rules (I can't talk about RMSS/FRP) during Phase 1 the fleeing Orc is able to move 50% of his Movement rate (at run pace, we rule), while the PC throwing the spear must wait until Phase 2. This means that the Orc will always be out of range at the end of phase 1, before the spear can be thrown in phase 2. I'm just stating the way the RMC rules work. This is why I keep bringing up the topic in various threads, so that any new rules will hopefully deal with this situation in a more realistic way.

BTW, this is why I like the BattleTech round.  Movement, in order of worst to best, then Action, in order of best to worst.  It pretty much completely eliminates the problem we're talking about there.

Yes I agree. Having played Battletech, movement and actions make much more sense, and I intend to see if our group wants to try the reverse initiative movement. It won't solve the phase 1 movement issue described above, but still a step in the right direction perhaps.

[Merkir]

I will add that I think the game designers have a very difficult time trying to balance movement, ranged and melee combat. It's not at all easy when melee is simulated as a multitude of thrusts, ripostes, swings, dodges, with an attack simulated by one attack roll during the round. Whereas ranged attacks are generally one (reasonably fluid) aim and throw/fire action. The disparities are very well highlighted by the video at the beginning of this thread.

I can only suggest a shorter round, which while not solving the problems, at least makes the problems less pronounced.

[jdale]

A movement phase followed by an action phase works great. That's what we do, I'm quite pleased with it. Super helpful for reducing declarations too.

95% of the time, we don't even worry about sequence. I say, "who is moving?" and they move. Conflicts about positioning (e.g. trying to get into melee with a given target who is evading) are resolved by Running rolls and not by initiative at all. Then when it comes to actions, people already know their circumstance and are more likely to know what they are going to do.

[Merkir]

Yes jdale, I'm very much leaning towards that too, along with Corey's reverse initiative for movement. We've been using the RMC rules as written for a long time now but there's always been an inescapable "wrong" feeling when using them, evidenced by current examples. I fully understand the intent of RMC (and RMU) phases and action costs in 5% or 10% increments, and the flexibility the designers are attempting to give players when deciding how to alot their 100% activity for the round, but in actual use they have always seemed a little clunky and unrealistic, and quite difficult to account for.

A simple movement phase followed by action phase seems simple and fair, although I understand detractors may say it's leaning towards board-game mechanics rather than rpg. I remember using the old MERP combat sequence which broke down the phases into movement, spells, missile, melee, etc. and I don't recall anyone complaining about it. We all knew exactly where we stood and it was the same for all parties.

jdale, how far are characters allowed to move in your movement phase? And does the amount of movement detract from a character's ability to perform action(s) in the action phase?

Also, all this talk of home-brew combat sequences makes me more concerned for the RMU sequence. If so many long standing players/GMs are ignoring the RAW and using their own combat rules, that's a clear indicator of something amiss. I wonder if RMU could have two sets of combat sequences, basic and advanced; basic being the simple phases, advanced being the % activity method. The designers would no doubt be horrified by the thought, but if many players are already ditching the written rules for their own systems...

[jdale]

jdale, how far are characters allowed to move in your movement phase? And does the amount of movement detract from a character's ability to perform action(s) in the action phase?

Movement phase: Full movement for whatever pace they are moving. One round worth of movement. But I use a 5 second round, so BMR is half what it would otherwise be.

Action phase: The pace penalty for that rate of movement applies to all actions for the round. There's no distinction about movement was during this action and not during this action. If movement is half BMR or less ("creep" pace), the pace penalty is -0. Otherwise, pace penalties are as listed. The "Min Move" column of the pace table becomes unnecessary because movement is never for only part of the round.

So far the only exception in which movement occurs as an action and not in the movement phase is the Leaping spell.

[Merkir]

Elegant simplicity. It sounds brilliant, and I'm particularly thinking about newcomers to the game.

[Cory Magel]

95% of the time, we don't even worry about sequence. I say, "who is moving?" and they move. Conflicts about positioning (e.g. trying to get into melee with a given target who is evading) are resolved by Running rolls and not by initiative at all. Then when it comes to actions, people already know their circumstance and are more likely to know what they are going to do.

With the BattleTech round this is really what happens unless there is a conflict that involves movement, such as someone trying to block someone else from reaching a certain point and that kind of thing.

I've been given some guff in the past over stating that I think the RMSS round is the best middle ground for an official RM round, but that I prefer the more extreme ends, those being either full on second-to-second or the BattleTech style round (I'll never do the D&D style round of each person takes their entire rounds action at once in initiative order).  My opinion of what is sensible for publication and what I prefer to use will sometimes differ... but I think if someone is unable to see that difference they are in for a hard time of it.