Kevin Rose responded:
>It all depends on what you are trying to achieve. I'm sure you could
>punch out Mike Tyson if he was very unlucky and you were very lucky. But
>is it something that a rational person would consider? If you want a game
>that gives an unskilled person with a six inch knife a 5% chance to kill a
>skilled, alerted warrior in armor in a one-on-one fight I don't think I'd
>want to play that game.
I confess this probably belongs in a different forum. But it does bear on attitudes of GMs in all games and Glorantha in particular (which is a world both realistic and fantastic).
I agree in this circumstance. (Though the chance is not 5% "to kill" but to even have a chance of doing damage - maybe even a serious wound - or maybe death...) I think a lot of GMs (like me a little while ago) have a tendency to run weak foes like D&D orcs - i.e. in masses which die like flies but wear down the PCs on the odd chance that they might get lucky and trash them. It happens in Pendragon and many other games too. Realistically, in the circumstance you cited, even five peasants with knives are probably going to stay well clear of an armoured foe, because even if one of them lucked out and scored a serious hit, three or four of his friends will be dead by then. Only under dire circumstances will outclassed foes actually fight as opposed to running away (even though that may be more dangerous in fact). I agree, peasants will more probably use missile weapons (not least because it's easier to run away from your foe if s/he's already a long way off.) As you said, more attention should be paid to realistic ways of overcoming extra powerful enemies than just clobbering them. But frankly, I don't know too many novice PCs who will take on a dragon in combat on the chance that one of them may get a crit.
One of the reasons I liked the scenario Gaumata's Vision in Shadows on the Borderlands is that it adopts a sensible approach to inexperienced combatants. That is (if the GM decides the villagers are not well led) they run about all over the place and form up tentatively, only to break and run if faced with any stiff competition. I think this is the way small bands of experienced (or mad) warriors can overcome (apparently) superior odds. It's about morale and mental attitude (toughness) as much as pure skill or equipment. But if the superior combatant presses his overwhelming advantage too far, his foe may just turn and score that lucky hit.
In other circumstances (i.e where one opponent may be superior but not overwhelming) I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that there is a chance as much as 5% to score a really good hit in the vagaries and terrors of a mortal combat. (aside - I DO sometimes prefer the RQ system on a D% die which allows for lower probabilities than those given on the D20 in Pendragon - but the D20 is more elegant). And if an experienced combatant is silly enough (or unfortunate enough) to get into a fight with several weaker but still substantial foes, then s/he is going to be faced with a good chance of being defeated.
As this is not really Gloranthan (and I am not a Rules Digest(?) subber), I'll forgo further comment, but I'd be happy to negotiate in private...
Pax
Saravan.
Powered by hypermail