[Rq-rules] Re: Playing Using MRQ Rules

[Bjorn Stolen]

>So, anyway, my first posting. Hope its not too shabby.
-Far better than my first post :-)


>Concerning aiming: I use a simplified version of aiming (modified RQ2/3),
>for the price of an additional 4 SR on the attack, the character (or 
>critter)
>gets to roll either a d10 or a d10+10 for the hit-location, i.e. aiming 
>either
>high or low. It works well for my players and for myself. For instance, if
>you want to slow someone down with missile fire, you aim low, having
>a decent chance of achieving that by either hitting legs or abdomen.

Aiming high/low is not as "bad" or unrealistic as aiming for "left nostril". 
I concur totally with your wiew of how fighting works, and people that waits 
for an opening or only aim for certain areas will make himself predictable. 
The best is not to go there, making the rules to detailed. I've allways 
thought it easier to let the base skill work out the results, then leave it 
to the GM to tell the tale.

The manual I-33 (12th century sword and buckler sparring) allmost only aim 
for the head/throat-section + the arms, that beeing the ultimate area to 
hit. Therefore that's allso logically why those locations are best protected 
in the defencive part of the manual.

It's still easy to defend leg-hits, belly hits, etc, reflecting someone 
flopping his defencive posture. This is all best solved by lieving it to the 
basic rules (roll to hit, then roll hit location, leaving it to the GM to 
tell the tale).

To aim for a location is more about NOT AIMING at certain other locations. I 
think the best rule would be to state where you aim, then roll hit-location. 
If you roll a location you did not want to hit, you missed your attemt to 
aim ;-)