Rick, you're absolutely right. I coincidentally spent a lot of time thinking about this this weekend.
However, the producers of HW have to accept (ok, they don't *have* to accept, but should have anticipated) some brickbats from the RQ fan base for this decision. There are a NUMBER of people (myself included, coming from a wargaming background) who came to RQ *specifically* because it dispensed with the arbitrary and contradictory rationalizations of AD&D and gave us concrete simulation.
It wasn't perfect, but for those of us looking for simulation, it was darn close. We were only peripherally *aware* of Glorantha and to be even more frank, I was more interested in the "Alternate Earth" than the "Glorantha" setting - it simply turned out that the Glorantha setting was far more supported (what a relative statement that is, eh?) than the AE.
Over time, Glorantha's come to grow on me. But I still prefer combat with (at least) realistic results. I want my players to fear combat, as real people would, since that induces the most realistic behavior and decisions. That (to me) is a *good* rules system. But on the spectrum of rules, RQ went perhaps a touch too far in number-fixation.
(big "IMO" caveat for the next para)
99% of you probably won't need an explanation, but while HW probably
represents Glorantha better in the heroic sense, there are basic
elements of reality that HAVE to happen. That's crucial for the
success of a rules system. Players have to know what to expect, or the
game quickly becomes silly (ala AD&D's "I have 120 hp, I just step off
the 400-foot cliff, since the fall can't kill me"). The easiest way to
have a broad majority of actions be expectable is to leverage the
player's real-life experience and make the system kick back comparable
results to our RW experience.
So, realism=good, goofiness=bad. That is why we're gyrating over the archery question here among others. I'm probably not the only one here who wants to find a way to reliably and predictably glean realistic results from HW combat situations, SO THAT I can put paid to that nagging voice that keeps asking "will it really work"?
I'm 95% on the bandwagon here, but I've got one foot dragging in the dirt.
And, to answer the archery issue - how to realistically resolve the
"archer shooting at someone who has no effective means of reply"
situation - which got me started on this tirade. I guess I would rule
it like this:
first contest: archer shooting, target closing (or fleeing)
archer: archery skill
target: agility, speed, small size, shield, etc.
if archer is reduced to 0 ap's, target reached melee range/found
cover/out of range.*
if the target can close with the archer, *usually* I'd rule the actual melee probably a second, simple contest since Joe Archer would typically have such crappy melee skills it should be almost a foregone conclusion at that point.
Powered by hypermail