Author Topic: combat movement abuse  (Read 6405 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #20 on: February 22, 2017, 01:07:43 PM »
...so lets do us both a favor and call it for what it is. you feel like youre losing and you dont like it. in combat you feel im the one that causes you to lose (i would say its the whole party but im not as selfish as you try to make me sound)

So i will thank you for giving me the opportunity to join your game for the past year and respectfully remove myself from your game. ill hop on to tell the guys bye and good luck.

It sounds like a clash play styles. Does your GM prefer simple direct combat? I get the impression he might consider stealth and dirty tricks as cheating, or at least not fun for him to run. Hey, we GMs need to have fun too!

I prefer to do it by giving the players everything they want, but crushing them anyway. That's were the challenge is.

My game, until recently, had a very similar character: A rogue specializing in stealth, alchemy and poison. I would allow him to harness animal/monster venom because he had invested ranks in Use/Remove Poison and Poison Lore. Would have requires an appropriate Fauna Lore for more exotic animals and monsters.

Once, he encountered some Green Slime in a dungeon, and, because he had brought some basic tools and empty ceramic flasks, I let him harvest some slime for future study and cultivation. He was going to weaponize the slime, using Green Slime laden bolts for his hand held crossbow! I though it was a great idea.

Ok, neutering Ambush is a big no no for me, but I will say that the Precision talent is the work of the Devil and should be wiped clean from all rules tomes, as if by the wrath of God.

I think GMs should encourage their players to be creative and occasionally let them blow apart their scenarios and story-lines. The unexpected direction things take might be even better than what you were planning!

A small example; Just this week my players were faced with a smooth wall with three deep, six inch wide holes at chest level. Runes engraved above the three holes stated that to open the secret door and continue on someone would have to put their arm in a hole, pull a lever, and lose a hand. 

Very straight forward dungeon B.S. (I've adapted this particular dungeon from a DnD 3rd edition module). Pulling the lever within the right side hole is safe, and opens the secret door. The runes are there to intimidate them into thinking that they will lose a hand no matter what.

So my players said screw this! One of them is a necromancer and thought it was worth the risk exploring the rest of the dungeon level in search of a dead body to animate (or humanoid to kill, and then reanimate). Now that is a good idea if your a necromancer.

It turns out there are the remains of three unfortunate adventurers on the level, and by luck and perseverance they find the bodies, loot them, and drag two pack to the dead end. The bodies are animated and after two undead hands are lost, the door is opened. Now they can proceed to their doom with all their hands.

Frankly, over my years of gaming, I've known of GMs that would have been pissed at the player for thinking to do that and would have done everything they could to have stopped it. Because of playing under GMs like that that I try to let my players do anything they could logically do given the situation they are in. Sometimes that means I have to change my expectations to accommodate them.

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #21 on: February 22, 2017, 04:09:43 PM »
I agree with you for sure there Vector. As a DM, you have to go with the flow and allow players to solve problems in ways you hadn't anticipated.

One last point: part of the OP's problem I think is that the moving PC can essentially strafe around the stationary NPC without penalty. This is a problem in DnD 5e too, since they changed the rules from 4th (and possibly 3rd?) edition. In 4th edition, a character could not move through or out of an enemy's zone of control without provoking opportunity attacks unless the moving character spent his entire move to just move 5' (which represented careful, guarded movement). 5th edition DnD however simplified these rules, making only movement out of (not through) an opponent's square/hex provoke opportunity attacks. This produced problems because players soon realized they could circle strafe around opponents and not provoke opportunity attacks so long as they just never moved out of the zone of control. Characters thus began to do 'conga lines' around their enemies, moving constantly to allow their allies to reach advantageous positions, thus exploiting the loophole in the new movement rules.

So what you need to have in RM is a rule that states that careless movement out of or through an opponent's zone of control provokes opportunity attacks.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #22 on: February 22, 2017, 05:28:45 PM »
So what you need to have in RM is a rule that states that careless movement out of or through an opponent's zone of control provokes opportunity attacks.

Yeah, I would be pretty happy with a rule for opportunity attacks. I would probably require a certain amount of action percentage (20?) to be held back to represent that the individual is on guard for foes moving about him. I can imagine a situation were a person/creature is too involved with one or more opponents to launch an attack at a passerby.

Question: If I were to tell my players that they can take "opportunity" attacks if they have held back 20% action, what would you say was the OB of these attacks. They are sort of free attacks, but I don't see them as being made with 100% OB.

Free attacks at half normal OB? Quarter of normal OB? The same OB that was available that round after penalties for movement, parrying and other actions?

A +0 OB attack would seem fairly worthless in most cases. What do you think?

Offline ardem

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #23 on: February 22, 2017, 06:47:56 PM »
Well we had a chat last night, and it a case of jumping to conclusions and miscommunication for than anything dramatic. Pity he did not chat to me first before going nuclear on here, sorry for that guys i hate to see this type of stuff on the forums myself. <smile>

Play style has some of what this is about, it also about the limitations of the system to deal with opportunity attacks and those that attack last has an advantage others do not, I think linked with a very powerful rogue that can stun pretty much anything that is not undead.

Its not about the Gm desire to 'win', I think all GM's know that is not our role however we have the tough job in making combat fun for everyone and interesting however if there is a player character that makes it impossible due to a flaw in the system, and I do believe moving through zone of control is a flaw, at the end of a turn and attack the rear which means there is no parry full rear bonus and there is not a thing as a GM you can do once the stun issues now compound. Rinse and repeat every battle, now yes as a GM you can change it an add in more numbers of monster that increase combat from 2 hours fights to 4 hour fights leave little time for RP. Players just never understand there is not just one consideration that goes through our heads. Its the case of the players looking at the tree and the Gm looking at the forest.

As express to the player last night its not a personal issue or a player issue, which he thought from the original post. It is a rule issue that I need to resolve to make sure the game a) is challenging for all b) is fun for all and is fast. I think rogue characters highlights the issue but any character could go though zones of control without limitations. DnD controls this by the opportunity action, where it seems to stop the whole flank/flank issue as there is a risk and reward in trying to get behind an enemy. However its not compounded with 0 parry and a +35 on attack, its only a +2 on roll if I remember rightly.

Now if took time to get in the rear or it was not easy to pass a character , by moving through their zone without risk then yeah this would be a non issue. Without Metaing from a GM perspective every combat to basically account for knowing exactly that move and attack in the rear on the last round


Offline ardem

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #24 on: February 22, 2017, 07:56:01 PM »
So what you need to have in RM is a rule that states that careless movement out of or through an opponent's zone of control provokes opportunity attacks.

Yeah, I would be pretty happy with a rule for opportunity attacks. I would probably require a certain amount of action percentage (20?) to be held back to represent that the individual is on guard for foes moving about him. I can imagine a situation were a person/creature is too involved with one or more opponents to launch an attack at a passerby.

Question: If I were to tell my players that they can take "opportunity" attacks if they have held back 20% action, what would you say was the OB of these attacks. They are sort of free attacks, but I don't see them as being made with 100% OB.

Free attacks at half normal OB? Quarter of normal OB? The same OB that was available that round after penalties for movement, parrying and other actions?

A +0 OB attack would seem fairly worthless in most cases. What do you think?

I actually like your thought process here, I agree a 0% attack would be not worth it however, the risk reward thing would go into affect as the 20% opportunity action for a 1/2 OB, would make a tumbling roll through more needed. Nobody tumbles as this do not need too, and its a huge risk as people always max there weapons but not there athletics or acrobatic skills. The risk is a player or NPC lose 20% action when they never needed too and 20% is not something to laugh at.

Offline Merkir

  • Senior Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 667
  • OIC Points +0/-0
  • Long lost GM
    • Information Technology
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #25 on: February 22, 2017, 07:57:54 PM »
I think the major issue here isn't the rule issue. It's the lack of understanding of the role of the GM. The player appears to believe he's competing against the GM with words to the effect that he is "winning" and the GM is "losing". The GM and players should never be adversaries. The GM is a facilitator.

As a GM, I believe my main role is to ensure everyone has fun. To do that I work with the players as a collaborative effort to ensure they do whatever they want, however they want, as long as it isn't outrageously unrealistic. When I (or a player) believe something is a bit unfair or unreasonable, and there's no adequate rule, we all discuss it in good spirit and decide by consensus the most common-sense solution. Luckily, the groups I've played with are all very friendly and reasonable.

My suggestion, GM, is to sit down with all of your players prior to your next session and have a friendly chat about the relationship between players and GM. I'd be saying that we're actually one big team, creating an epic free-form story together.

Offline MurderByNumbers

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2017, 09:30:51 PM »
I apologize to everyone here for going off. I have also apologized to Ardem in TS as well as email.

It is a series of miscommunication as well as personally feeling singled out which Ardem has explained that it may feel like I'm being singled out but it's more of using my actions as an example to explain the situation. Which I readily admit I and my character use more than anyone else in the party to a combat advantage. It is also used by myself at an opportunity which causes a cascade effect in the npc lines that is not easy to stop/counter. "If you throw a pebble into the water on one side of the ocean, it can create a tidal wave on the other side." Once the wave starts it's impossible to stop or at the very least extremely difficult.
Where the fight was at a evenly matched almost stale mate, I tend to try and act in a way which causes the lines to collapse due to myself and other members of the party becoming free to move and attack at will. Too much momentum for npcs to stop.

As far as suggestions from a player side..
-Enemy positions which stop, limit, or would provoke an opportunity attack for a PC/NPC if the movement is attempted.
-I think leaving an enemy controlled square (square within range of melee attack of the NPC/PC) without a disengage action being taken to result in a 0% action cost opportunity attack with 1/2 to Full OB is fair. (Yes, can full attack 1 PC, and attack of opportunity a PC who tries to move between characters and doesn't take some defensive measure [tumble, parry, disengage] against the potential threat)
-I also think free 0% action to rotate a model whichever way that character chooses (essentially a "in response" instant action) is also fair (to limit rear/flank bonus) so long as the new facing would not have resulting in another character getting flank/rear bonus. Example: Full face 1 threat and receive an attack from that threat. Then later in combat put their flank/rear to that character. This would reflect a pc/npc attempting to turn in the midst of combat to protect their rear/flank to an enemy trying to circle them. While it would put them on the defensive positionally they could not simultaneously front face both opponents on opposite sides.

I personally believe these are fair to both sides the PCs and NPCs, this also gives Risk/Reward to both sides while maintaining the balance of not getting "free rear" attacks. This would also maintain combat purpose of a fast, lower HP, lower AT character.

would gladly discuss other opinions/suggestions/thoughts/concerns on it

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2017, 09:40:36 PM »
I actually like your thought process here, I agree a 0% attack would be not worth it however, the risk reward thing would go into affect as the 20% opportunity action for a 1/2 OB, would make a tumbling roll through more needed. Nobody tumbles as this do not need too, and its a huge risk as people always max there weapons but not there athletics or acrobatic skills. The risk is a player or NPC lose 20% action when they never needed too and 20% is not something to laugh at.

I could go for a 1/2 OB opportunity attack. I think I would stick with asking my players to keep 20% action back to represent a more guarded stance. Your right, they could waste that 20%, but if they think there are no unaccounted for combatants about and want to take a chance they don't have to reserve the 20%. I'm just a little reluctant to go with 0% opportunity action because RMSS isn't big on "free" actions and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole.

Hey, if this could get a player to actually invest in Tumbling Evasion I would consider it a worthwhile miracle.

Realistically, even fantasy "realistically", sometimes a group of guys/orcs/whatever are just going to stomp a mud hole in an outnumbered combatant.

"I didn't know how many guys it was going to take to kick my ass, but I knew how many they were going to use."

If you leave your flanks and rear positions accessible, I think any character - especially Rogues and Thieves - should take advantage of it.

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,099
  • OIC Points +25/-25
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2017, 10:24:23 PM »
-I also think free 0% action to rotate a model whichever way that character chooses (essentially a "in response" instant action) is also fair (to limit rear/flank bonus) so long as the new facing would not have resulting in another character getting flank/rear bonus. Example: Full face 1 threat and receive an attack from that threat. Then later in combat put their flank/rear to that character. This would reflect a pc/npc attempting to turn in the midst of combat to protect their rear/flank to an enemy trying to circle them. While it would put them on the defensive positionally they could not simultaneously front face both opponents on opposite sides.

Another option for facing and attacks, which is more of a departure from the rules as written (although not as much as opportunity attacks IMO), is to split the round: first everyone moves, then everyone takes their action. If you do that, you can allow everyone to pick their facing with knowledge of where all the attacks are coming from, which means you'll only get flank if the person is being attacked by two foes.
System and Line Editor for Rolemaster

Offline MurderByNumbers

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2017, 11:17:59 PM »
-I also think free 0% action to rotate a model whichever way that character chooses (essentially a "in response" instant action) is also fair (to limit rear/flank bonus) so long as the new facing would not have resulting in another character getting flank/rear bonus. Example: Full face 1 threat and receive an attack from that threat. Then later in combat put their flank/rear to that character. This would reflect a pc/npc attempting to turn in the midst of combat to protect their rear/flank to an enemy trying to circle them. While it would put them on the defensive positionally they could not simultaneously front face both opponents on opposite sides.

Another option for facing and attacks, which is more of a departure from the rules as written (although not as much as opportunity attacks IMO), is to split the round: first everyone moves, then everyone takes their action. If you do that, you can allow everyone to pick their facing with knowledge of where all the attacks are coming from, which means you'll only get flank if the person is being attacked by two foes.

+1 for what I think is a good idea as well, very simple while effective

Offline ardem

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #30 on: February 22, 2017, 11:44:50 PM »
Another option for facing and attacks, which is more of a departure from the rules as written (although not as much as opportunity attacks IMO), is to split the round: first everyone moves, then everyone takes their action. If you do that, you can allow everyone to pick their facing with knowledge of where all the attacks are coming from, which means you'll only get flank if the person is being attacked by two foes.

That is quiet an eloquent solution, but does it really change the issue in moving through zones of control to lower your activity percentage to get the highest possible points to fight. Does this now benefit the lower of the people that roll initative, as they see where people are moving.

We have also been playing with squares rather then hexes as online maps tend to prefer that style so moving diagonally through two opponents is a lot easier then in hexes.

I need to think on it, as I think Merkir is right there is also need to be more conversation between the party, but I needed to get options first which was reason for this post.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #31 on: February 23, 2017, 12:01:59 AM »
Another option for facing and attacks, which is more of a departure from the rules as written (although not as much as opportunity attacks IMO), is to split the round: first everyone moves, then everyone takes their action. If you do that, you can allow everyone to pick their facing with knowledge of where all the attacks are coming from, which means you'll only get flank if the person is being attacked by two foes.

+1 for what I think is a good idea as well, very simple while effective
In other threads we've had regarding this I've mentioned that I use this, referring to it as the BattleTech Round.

Basically you do movement first and actions second (two phases), with the winner of initiative deciding if they want to take their movement/actions before or after anyone with a worse initiative.

So you can move to block someone trying to escape a room, or you want wait on them and react to their movement.

Likewise you can attack someone first that maybe you need to take down before they attack, or you can wait on the actions of others in order to react to something they do, such as defend an ally for example.

Your group can also choose if you want movement to cost a %, limiting your potential actions, or if you merely want to have movement penalize actions based on the 'degree' of movement.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2017, 12:11:12 AM »
I need to think on it, as I think Merkir is right there is also need to be more conversation between the party, but I needed to get options first which was reason for this post.

Other than all this rules crunchy goodness, I'm not actually sure what the problem is. Is the party just steam rolling through all your NPCs and scenarios because of flanking and high mobility? Is the character in question outshining everyone else on the battlefield, leaving the other players bored and/or resentful? Given these tactics, has it been hard to construct a scenario that isn't too easy or a potential TPK (Total Party Kill)?

Are you using Rolemaster's terrible (IMHO) experience system where this character is "stealing" all the Kill Points awarded by getting in that final one shot one kill?

All the above aside, I do agree with everyone that Rolemaster can definitely use some rules for zones of control.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2017, 12:19:55 AM »
I apologize to everyone here for going off. I have also apologized to Ardem in TS as well as email.

I can relate to this kind of thing coming to a head to some extent.  Over the years we wound up with groups where this kind of drama doesn't happen much anymore and, when it does, we generally have a short discussion about how whatever caused the issue will be handled going forward.  But, to speak to what used to sometimes happen...

I once played under a GM that stopped following certain rules in order to provide a challenge to the party, rules the PC's still had to abide by, and it eventually led to a rather heated discussion.  I'm not going to go into the whole story or comment no certain personality traits at the time, but I'm just going to say what I said then: The GM and the players need to play by the same rules.  It's a real pet peeve of mine.  The GM wasn't 'out to get us' or anything, but he felt he needed to skirt the rules in order to provide a challenge when there were better ways to more effectively challenge the party.  Now, I don't know if that was going on here, but it certainly seems like someone may have felt that's what was going on and I can fully understand the frustration.

Also, provided everyone is roughly equally intelligent, odds are the group will often collectively outsmart the GM and the GM can become quite frustrated by this if it happens a lot.  My #1 recommendation here is this: Learn from them.  Since you should be playing by the same rules you can often use a groups own tactics against them.  Both in the sense that if they, as an experienced group, realize a certain tactic is very effective then experienced foes should realize this and also in the sense that if they become predictable you can lay a trap.  I'd refrain from using out of character info to do that, but if the party (and their tactics) become known it's a completely reasonable result.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #34 on: February 23, 2017, 12:28:28 AM »
Quote
Quote
I need to think on it, as I think Merkir is right there is also need to be more conversation between the party, but I needed to get options first which was reason for this post.
All the above aside, I do agree with everyone that Rolemaster can definitely use some rules for zones of control.
This is a pretty typical problem.  We've basically ruled that moving into melee range with a foe, and not leaving it (which still allows you to circle them), will not draw an attack and that the foe can turn to face you if desired, but when moving OUT of melee range with a foe you need to do it carefully (1/4 movement for example) or potentially draw a melee attack.  Differing group play-styles would need to determine how much of a bonus you get (i.e. if you used all your action do you just get a +0OB, or do you get more?).

Potentially, moving out of melee with a foe: 1/4 movement is backing away (no free attack), 1/2 movement is turning and moving away (free attack no OB), and full movement is outright turning and running (free attack full OB).
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #35 on: February 23, 2017, 12:30:20 AM »
So what you need to have in RM is a rule that states that careless movement out of or through an opponent's zone of control provokes opportunity attacks.

Yeah, I would be pretty happy with a rule for opportunity attacks. I would probably require a certain amount of action percentage (20?) to be held back to represent that the individual is on guard for foes moving about him. I can imagine a situation were a person/creature is too involved with one or more opponents to launch an attack at a passerby.

Question: If I were to tell my players that they can take "opportunity" attacks if they have held back 20% action, what would you say was the OB of these attacks. They are sort of free attacks, but I don't see them as being made with 100% OB.

Free attacks at half normal OB? Quarter of normal OB? The same OB that was available that round after penalties for movement, parrying and other actions?

A +0 OB attack would seem fairly worthless in most cases. What do you think?


There are multiple ways of doing it, but we have up to now been allowing full OB attacks. That may seem very generous to the attacker, but remember that the RM combat round is already very abstracted. IIRC, both the RM2 and the RMSS round is 10 seconds long. In reality, you can swing a sword many more times than once in 10 seconds. An untrained person can probably swing 10 times in that span; a trained one, 20 or more. It only takes one to kill. So while an opponent who is fully aware and defending himself might only let one or fewer good blows in during that period, a defenceless person would let in multiple ones; it doesn't seem that unreal to me to allow a full OB attack.

The way we are running it in our RMU game that is just starting is that an opportunity attack like this would follow the rules for instantaneous actions: the first costs 0 AP, the rest in the same round cost 1 AP (equivalent to a 25% action in RMSS I think). These attacks follow the same rules as normal ones: they get a -75 for being essentially a 1 AP attack (you get -25 for each 1 AP less than the full amount a melee attack normally costs, which is 4 AP; this is the standard rule in RMU). But since the opponent is defenceless, they also benefit from the opponent being 'flatfooted' (essentially, the opponent is not defending himself carefully), which is a +60 bonus. So the total OB = full OB minus 15.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #36 on: February 23, 2017, 12:33:37 AM »

In other threads we've had regarding this I've mentioned that I use this, referring to it as the BattleTech Round.

Basically you do movement first and actions second (two phases), with the winner of initiative deciding if they want to take their movement/actions before or after anyone with a worse initiative.


We do that too, with a slightly different vocabulary. We just allow anyone who has won initiative to either take an action or defer it to a later point in the turn. This makes winning initiative always good: winners get to decide whether they want to act before other characters or after.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,615
  • OIC Points +5/-5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #37 on: February 23, 2017, 12:37:13 AM »
In other threads we've had regarding this I've mentioned that I use this, referring to it as the BattleTech Round.
Basically you do movement first and actions second (two phases), with the winner of initiative deciding if they want to take their movement/actions before or after anyone with a worse initiative.
We do that too, with a slightly different vocabulary. We just allow anyone who has won initiative to either take an action or defer it to a later point in the turn. This makes winning initiative always good: winners get to decide whether they want to act before other characters or after.
I think, personally, that doing this with movement and actions separately creates a much more interesting round by not having everyone take their entire turn at once, but doesn't extend the round into multiple action phases.  Basically, it's a compromise between the old D&D round and the RM2/RMSS rounds.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (greater than > less than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #38 on: February 23, 2017, 10:50:53 AM »
I have a player playing an assassin and he always goes deliberate to then moves around a enemy rear to get the rear bonus and also avoid things like shield and parry.

I completely screwed up the original post above (looks like one long quote), so I'll post this again. Guess I shouldn't post after midnight!

Other than all this rules crunchy goodness, I'm not actually sure what the problem is. Is the party just steam rolling through all your NPCs and scenarios because of flanking and high mobility? Is the character in question outshining everyone else on the battlefield, leaving the other players bored and/or resentful? Given these tactics, has it been hard to construct a scenario that isn't too easy or a potential TPK (Total Party Kill)?

Are you using Rolemaster's terrible (IMHO) experience system where this character is "stealing" all the Kill Points awarded by getting in that final one shot one kill?

All the above aside, I do agree with everyone that Rolemaster can definitely use some rules for zones of control.

Offline Hurin

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 7,347
  • OIC Points +0/-0
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2017, 01:43:45 PM »
Personally, Vector, I think the player in question was playing smartly within the rules, it is just that the rules need to be expanded a bit to make zones of control truly controlling, and to give characters an appropriate chance to react in a turn-based system. Free changes of facing when unengaged, and/or opportunity attacks for characters that push carelessly through an enemy's zone of control, would I think solve most if not all of the issues (they certainly have for us). But of course I am looking at this from an RM2/RMU perspective, and my solutions might not be apt for RMSS. I am just throwing them out there for those that might find them useful.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

'Every party needs at least one insane person.'  --Aspen of the Jade Isle