Topic: We never parried

[RickInVA]

but no one ever learns to fight without training those things. If you learn offense without defense, you're a lumberjack swinging an axe, not a fighter.

I disagree, there are examples of it in movies, Literature and even Real Life. When I was the Highschool Team manager in my youth, I saw wrestlers that had problems with this. They would always go on the Offensive, if they didn't get their opponent in a Hold right away, they then had trouble as they never really put as much Time into "training" their Defense. The Coaches would talk to them about these short comings all the time too. But they didn't listen cause they felt their Open with Offense worked for them. In the end they ended up being merely average Wrestlers. Rarely, if ever, taking any awards themselves.
These types also tended to be the Bully types in high school.

I would suggest that, while you have a valid point, that these high school wrestlers would have, what?, two ranks in wrestling?  Certainly they, at that level, could not be considered "professional" the way that any RM character is, even at low level.  So if you have two ranks and some stat bonus you might be +25, at which point there isn't much to parry with.

The PC that has committed their life to their "profession" would, I would think (you may disagree), have some level of training.  Not a mastery yet, but certainly more on the level of a college wrestler and on their way by level 10 (20 ??) to Olympic level.  As the wrestler's competence increases they will start to use more and more of all the tricks of the trade, including defense, as similarly the PC with an increasing OB will (may ?) start to do more things too; parry, multiple attack, move and fight, etc.

As someone else said, in real life low level fighters would have parried with all their might in an effort to stay alive, while PCs (with another character just a few dice throws away) are more than happy to go full offense, especially at low level when they have so little invested in the character. 

The most successful "method" (if you want to call it that) that I ever came up with was to make the players care more about their characters by investing a lot of my time, and a lot of their time, in creating very special characters with detailed background stories that they really liked. 

[Peter R]

I disagree, there are examples of it in movies, Literature and even Real Life. When I was the Highschool Team manager in my youth, I saw wrestlers that had problems with this. They would always go on the Offensive, if they didn't get their opponent in a Hold right away, they then had trouble as they never really put as much Time into "training" their Defense. The Coaches would talk to them about these short comings all the time too. But they didn't listen cause they felt their Open with Offense worked for them. In the end they ended up being merely average Wrestlers. Rarely, if ever, taking any awards themselves.
These types also tended to be the Bully types in high school.

The same holds true in fencing, a highly agressive offence can take you a long way and people new to the sport want to be able to attack and score points but to start winning fights against experience fencers you need the more balanced approach. There are techniques you can use involving body language to provoke an attack from an inexperienced oppoenent so he/she attacks when you want them to not when they really want to. If you know when the attack is coming then it is significantly easier to parry.

[Warl]

RickinVA

Peter's Point is something I think you and many forget.

In our society people specialize a lot more in these activities.

Most fighters of historical/fantasy settings wouldn't be going up against opponents of "skill" or "professionals" as you might say. They go up against lots of lesser conscript foes. So a Bad habit learned early on (Win fights through brute strength cause that works for you) becomes in grained and difficult to over come even if you are a Experienced Fighter.

When that same fighter does end up going up against a better balanced and trained fighter, they end up losing, not because they were a 2 rank fighter, but because the other guy didn't rely solely on attack and strength to carry him through.

[OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol]

Most fighters of historical/fantasy settings wouldn't be going up against opponents of "skill" or "professionals" as you might say. They go up against lots of lesser conscript foes. So a Bad habit learned early on (Win fights through brute strength cause that works for you) becomes in grained and difficult to over come even if you are a Experienced Fighter.

When that same fighter does end up going up against a better balanced and trained fighter, they end up losing, not because they were a 2 rank fighter, but because the other guy didn't rely solely on attack and strength to carry him through.

There's a difference between "not knowing" and "not willing", though. In your example, it's basically a guy who's used to win by not shifting OB to DB, thus by using all of his OB in fights. It doesn't mean he cannot (shift OB to DB), or would have to develop a skill to do so, he's just not willing to do so.

[Peter R]

Before we go too far off topic, just bear in mind that we are only discussing this because Markc was interested in a combat system that took body/build into account. No one is saying we have to radically change the combat rules or that the rules are in anyway broken. i simply pointed out that this was possible within the existing rules but that i felt that it was possible that agility/quickness may be more pertinent a stat for parrying than the more usual ST/ST/AG used for many OBs. I think this image illustrates my point.

The guy on the left (trying to parry) is a former regional champion, the guy on the right (attacking) is a Commonwealth gold medalist and the ref is a former British Army fencing champion. (I am not in the photo)

[Spectre771]

i simply pointed out that this was possible within the existing rules but that i felt that it was possible that agility/quickness may be more pertinent a stat for parrying than the more usual ST/ST/AG used for many OBs.

One can also make a very strong argument that IN plays an important role in predicting when to parry, where to parry, where the attack may be coming from, if that attack is going to be a feint or something you need to commit your full parry to.  Having done Martial Arts since 82/83, it's something that isn't "learned" as much as it is "experienced."  Determining exactly how much effort to throw into that parry in the micro-second sliver of time as your opponent's leg is starting to rise... is it a feint?  Is it an actual attack?  Is it just the lead-off for a stronger kick that will be right after this one?

This parry system is something that could definitely be worked into the game system, but it would have to be a balancing of a lot of mechanics and numbers.  I love the ability to take some OB and to throw it into DB; some/half/all.  It's something that logically makes perfect sense to me as a Martial Artist and as I am sure for any boxer, fencer, etc.  If you know you need to parry a bit then something will taken off your attack if you decide to make an attack afterwards.

If we went with making parrying a skill, that's going to leave a TON of OB points sitting there for full, all out attacks every round with a second skill that can also be beefed up for really large DB available every round.  How can one logically make a FULL attack every round and have FULL/Enhanced DB every round?  The worst is AD&D where you either attack or you Dodge that round.  Either you get the killing blow first and take a full beating, or you go full defense and do nothing.  It's a flaw in that system that I really can't stand.  You aren't even allowed to take a Hail Mary attack after you've done full parry (Dodge).  To those ends, I still like that some of OB can be put into DB in RM with restriction based on the type of weapons involved.  It's something that really makes the RM system <Insert Adjective Here>.  Fun, realistic, natural, fluid, adaptable...

Perhaps... If Parry is purchased as a skill, individually for each weapon with bonuses for similar weapon categories and unarmed.  The stats for calculating Parry = QU/AG/IN.  This value of Ranks + Stat bonus + Combat Skill bonus could total out to an additional DB that can be added?  Character's don't HAVE to buy the Parry skill, just like any other skill in RM.  They can be content with the normal DB they get from QU and Armour.  There could be the flat -50 for attempting a skill in which you have no training.  As absurd as that sounds, if anyone has ever watched a karate class where a white belt tries to throw his entire body into a full block then lands on his face will understand why it would make sense.  Lack of training/experience looks pretty funny at times.  This Parry skill would now allow for the natural/learned/experienced ability to more readily defend one's self. 

Through the years of Martial Arts, I can easily say that I can defend via parrying, redirection, subtle body movements now and with considerably less effort than I could 30+ years ago when I first started.  The cost?  30+ years of Development Points, bruises, wounded pride, and experience!  However, with that, my OB doesn't suffer anywhere near as much as it used to.  I can parry/redirect an attack and make a full strength attack with the same hand in what would be considered the same "round" in RM.

[markc]

Does not the above info from various posters bring questions into account of the skill Adrenal Defense and its use in combat while being able to attack?
MDC

[Peter R]

I have just been thinking. Stalk and Hide is one skill with two different sets of stat bonuses and possibly two different item bonuses e.g. boots of stealth may only give a bonus to stalking but not to hiding whilst a cloak may help with hiding but not when trying to move silently.

The same principle could apply to OB when trying to parry. If you want to use half your OB to defend with then you would get half the offensive OB and half the Defensive OB. You can have the different stat bonuses for the two aspects of combat and apply bonuses/penalties for body/build.  No need to have a different skill or to exclude anyone from parrying.

[Warl]

Does not the above info from various posters bring questions into account of the skill Adrenal Defense and its use in combat while being able to attack?
MDC

I enforce the rule of No armor and no holding anything larger than a dagger rule when allowing Adrenal Defense.

And to the point about large Obs and Large DBs if split into two separate skills, If you read my post, I suggested that the Bonus per rank purchased also be lowered.

In effect lets say you had your skill in long sword. It would have an OB cost of 3/3/3 and since it is a decent defense weapon it has a DB skill cost of 3/3/3  but each rank (in an RM2 system) your net you only 3% skill (Not sure how that would translate into RMSS, maybe 1% for the general category and 2% for the specific skill? ) So if  the Player chose to buy 3 ranks in OB and 2 ranks in DB with the weapon, he would get 9% to ob and 6% to db... But he could only transfer to defense(DB) 2 of those 3 ranks of OB, since he didn't put as much training in defense, and since he only get half the effect of the transfer, he only gets 3% addition to his defense by fighting defensively from those 2 ranks.

On a larger scale. say over several levels the fighter had fully developed his OB having 12 Ranks in Defense.
But in DB he only developed 4 ranks.
He could only apply 4 ranks of his OB to defense since he didn't train in it and would only garner a benefit of 6%.... but He could transfer All 4 ranks of DB to OB if he wanted to go on an All out attack, though again he would only gain 6% bonus from this.

[Cory Magel]

To a certain degree, for me, this is a little too much math and extra skills that, in the bigger picture, usually have the same end result.  It's like saying... (5-4) + (-7+8) = 2 ...instead of... 1+1 = 2.
Which is funny, because we're in the RMC/RM2 forum and usually it's the RM2 users saying RMSS has too may skill.

[Peter R]

I agree with Cory I think that  is too complicated.

[markc]

 The Weapon: Offense and Weapon: Defense skill ideas are interesting and I can see in one case skill inflation and in another a use for the skills. For me to use it though I think I would have to do some testing of the ideas and see what else came of it.
MDC

[RickInVA]

If Weapon: Defense skill were a limiter on the amount of OB that can be used to Parry I think would have some merit.  In that scenario if the PC had 120 OB and 50 Weapon: Defense, then the PC could use up to 60 of his OB to Parry (120 x 50%).  I could get to like that.

[Green Manalishi]

Hmmm.....I don't think there is much inherently wrong with the way RM uses parries, and certainly no need to complicate it further. For so many of us, we love RM because the ability to parry unlike so many other games. My only complaints were the "parry only the one you attack" which I house ruled a way to parry multiple opponents, but at a disadvantage (which it should be.)
But there are so many ways to a "parry" can be looked at. It can be increased focus and physically dodging the attack, it can be physically blocking the opponents weapon with your own, it could be positioning to limit his opportunities, it could be forcing him into positions where he isn't as effective (a good offense is a good defense type of thing)

I know I certainly don't want to break down different types and start making PCs have skills for each type.

PC:"I am parrying half this round."
GM:"Are you using your 1 handed short axe parrying vs. long blade using quickness to dodge vs. opponents 1"-2" taller than you on a Tuesday skill or something else?"

[RandalThor]

Hmmm.....I don't think there is much inherently wrong with the way RM uses parries, and certainly no need to complicate it further. For so many of us, we love RM because the ability to parry unlike so many other games. My only complaints were the "parry only the one you attack" which I house ruled a way to parry multiple opponents, but at a disadvantage (which it should be.)
But there are so many ways to a "parry" can be looked at. It can be increased focus and physically dodging the attack, it can be physically blocking the opponents weapon with your own, it could be positioning to limit his opportunities, it could be forcing him into positions where he isn't as effective (a good offense is a good defense type of thing)

I know I certainly don't want to break down different types and start making PCs have skills for each type.

PC:"I am parrying half this round."
GM:"Are you using your 1 handed short axe parrying vs. long blade using quickness to dodge vs. opponents 1"-2" taller than you on a Tuesday skill or something else?"

Yes, lets not do this, hmmm? 

I, too, allow them to parry more than just who they attack. Sorry, but people can see more than one opponent at a time and effectively try to keep them from hitting.

[tbigness]

I too have always allowed parry of multiple targets except flanking rear attackers.

[yammahoper]

Parry is applied against all frontal attacks and is subtracted from all OB's used even if hasted(your defensive positioning affects ALL attacks made).

[Ecthelion]

Parry is applied against all frontal attacks and is subtracted from all OB's used even if hasted(your defensive positioning affects ALL attacks made).

Interesting house rule, but we prefer the parrying only the combatant that the character attacks way from the RM rules.

[Peter R]

As far as I am aware, the core rule is of parry applying only to your opponant.

[jdale]

That is the rule as written. I think it gives an unrealistically great advantage of numbers, whereas letting parry apply against everything gives an unrealistically low advantage. But both are equally simple as rules, and the latter is certainly more fun whether it is one PC against a rampaging horde or one party of PCs against a single epic foe. I am using Yammahoper's rule myself.