Skirmish Omnibus

[Fuseboy]

Imagine a.. document, which provides guidance (not new rules) for quick battle resolution (in a campaign that has a lot of fighting - like D&D dungeon crawl quantities of fighting). This combat would be resolved with a single roll or linked test.

But, rather than just having the same test every time (the Knight roll his Lance, FoRKs Ride and everyone else Helps with Sword, Bow and Sorcery), each battle turns on a crucial factor or two - and weapon skill often isn't it. In fact, there are five (or however many) key factors in having a fight go well (meaning you rout the enemy, gain their loot, avoid injury and incidental calamity) associated with a skill (or skill group).

The GM can look at the guidance and, considering the context of the battle, quickly come to a judgement about what the key test (or tests) is likely to be. This is somewhat predictable - while the GM isn't straight-jacketed, very similar battles will tend to come down to the same two or three types of tests. Players (not PCs) can acquire a sort of system mastery, learning to try to set up the battle on favorable terms to avoid areas of weakness (by making the crucial factor something else), steer it towards an area of strength.

The structure of the guidance could be ..

1. Don't be silly; the context of battle is so diverse, this is pointless. Don't bother. (If so, please keep moving, nothing to see in this thread.)

2. Look at a bunch of factors, and test the one (or two) where the players are the most disadvantaged relative to their opponents. If players are so hopelessly outclassed in one of the factors, just apply it as a penalty to whatever gets tested.

3. Something else.

I'm looking for discussion and brainstorming on what these factors might be, and how the guidance might work. Thanks!

[Fuseboy]

Some assumptions to limit the scope:

1. Both sides want to fight and hurt the other side.
2. Assume a player 'party' of 2-4, possibly with a sprinkling of NPC henchmen, against a large monster or groups of up to 10-12 humanoid opponents.

Some fictional outputs of the guidance.

A. The players - four knights errant - are travelling through mountainous terrain when they're spotted by a pair of gryphons intent on eating their horses. The players are after a bounty on gryphons, and killing the pair will leave the nest (wherever it is) unguarded, so they're keen to fight back rather than simply escape. The players are mounted, but the gryphons' flight allows them to dictate the time and place of the battle. The players are in remote, exposed wilderness, allowing the gryphons to keep harassing the players as long as they like unless decisively driven off. The players have a single crossbow with their party.

Guidance: The gryphons completely control the war of maneuver that the players can't even compete in this regard, and they can wait days for the right moment to attack, but the players' crossbow has the range advantage. Roll the gryphons' Tactics vs. player Forte or Observation; the loser gets +1Ob to a Crossbow vs. Speed test.

[Paul B]

I'd probably do a little thinking ahead of what sorts of intents/stakes might be at hand beyond the "murder every living thing in this room" implication of the standard dungeon delve. But that sort of thing would be like...a brainstorming tool for dungeon (or whatever) based adventures. But I think (!) you're talking about how to gauge a fight on the spot and how to determine what goes into that fight. My advice in that case would be to not worry about which skill to test, but rather what consequences of failure to level at the players.

Quibbling/worrying over the specific ability tested is, to me, emphasizing the wrong part of the challenge. That's a tactics-oriented decision and it's already baked into the Fight! system (even then, it's less about the ability tested and more about how maneuvers interact with each other).

But I think interesting combat consequences for one-off battle rolls is a really interesting area to explore! I'm not sure how to codify it. Stuff I would personally take into account:

* Time pressure (can you win fast enough to do something else?)
* Equipment/supply pressure (you win the battle but now you're out of food, or your armor is effed up, or you broke your sword)
* Information control (in the course of the fight, a spy or escapee slips away and now a bigger and more dangerous threat is on its way)
* Environmental threats (if you fail, you've won the fight but now a party-harming trap has been triggered)
* Morale problems (you can win the fight but the cost is general demoralization, or a valuable NPC asset quits, or your leadership comes under question by the survivors)

Just tossing some ideas around here. Identifying the "about-ness" of any given BW roll and making it relevant, ideally, to a character's Beliefs, is a core GMing skill. I don't think any of the ideas above, for example, are really that interesting absent the chance to push against a Belief.

p.

[Sam W]

Yeah, I think Paul has the right of it. It's the failure consequences that I personally struggle with in situations like this. When I think about combat in D&D(admittedly, it's been a while), a lot of it was about cost and resource management. You were destined to win the combat, or at least in the games I played you were, what was really at stake was how many spells you had to expend, how many potions you would have to use, how much resting time there would need to be, etc. Are the beliefs ripe for challenge if combat goes badly?

Regarding a testing structure, I really like your ideas. I wonder if linked tests would be a neat way to go about dealing with a large skirmish. Each character describes an intent and task, and tests an appropriate skill. The final outcome of the combat is left up to the person testing the combat related skill(sword, crossbow, etc.) but there could be a myriad of interesting smaller failures based on what individual characters decided to do. "You have killed off the trolls, but one of your companions is hanging from the ledge of a cliff due to a failed power test while attempting to push a boulder onto your enemies."

Sorry if this is drifting away from what you initially asked. I'm really interested to see where this discussion goes so apologies if I'm digressing.

Out of curiosity, what exactly are the beliefs in play here? Or at least what do they generally sound like?

Also, have you tried any of this in play?

[technomonkey]

Sometimes you can keep it simple: if you fail the roll, you win the fight but take a B7 wound in the process.

[Fuseboy]

Paul, as you say, the particular choice of skill isn`t ever the main consideration; why the fight is happening in the first place and the consequences of success and failure in the larger context are much more important. (This is true for Figth!, DOW, Firefight, etc.) A list of interesting failure consequences as a prod to the GM`s imagination would be useful.

What I`m talking about is the next level down, something that gives players to chew on in terms of being able to develop player knowledge, much as they do for Fight! or DoW scripting - but for one-roll resolution.

No time to write, more later!

[donbaloo]

I approve of this discussion!

Michael, you mentioned single roll resolution at one point and then gave a linked test example. For the record I like the linked test version. Still keeps it much simpler and quicker than a Fight! but gives you a lot of room for mechanically significant variation.

Just to throw some thoughts off the top of my head into the pool, I'm thinking something flow chartish.

At the very top Awareness of either party. Next level down maybe Indoor/Outdoor conflict with a list of appropriate skills and relevant factors. Followed by Group/Single opponent with a list of appropriate skills and factors.

You're probably wanting to talk more about the relevant skills and factors and circumstances though. Maybe we should look at the primary contributing factors to victory and work something around those. Perhaps main categories of Awareness, Maneuverability, Numbers, Subterfuge, Combat skill. As you were saying, choose the one that you'd like to play the primary role in the conflict.

I'm still thinking...

[technomonkey]

What about another approach? You could do it once or twice and show the players how this would work, using other skills as the primary roll or in a linked test to win a fight. Then point it out. Hopefully, then they'd realize what happened and then push for it themselves. Assuming they have some other skills better than their fighting, or are at least interested in getting more tests for them, then they'll do all the work for you.

[Fuseboy]

If I understand you, technomonkey, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

A fight looks imminent, everyone draws their weapons, and then the GM calls for a Tactics test. What?! Nobody has it. Turns out the hobgoblin chief is a veteran of many border raiding campaigns, and knows a thing or two about battles. The players scramble to make the beginner's luck, and fail. Now the question isn't winning, but withdrawing from the battlefield before they're completely surrounded by his hyena riders' pincer maneuver. They make the speed test and break out of the circle.

Now the players have learned that tactics are important (within the context of the fact that three of them have beliefs about purging the Hobgoblins from the Kingmarl). What are they going to do? Muddle through? Get some training? Try to come up with a plan in-character to neutralize this skill of the chief's (e.g. attack his encampment at night, instead of on the open battlefield)?

If there's some underlying logic as to when Tactics is the relevant skill, players can eventually learn this.

[technomonkey]

Hrmm. Yea, but I was thinking a bit broader.

Like, maybe you know someone is going to attack you group. You look down at your skill list and see Ditch Digging, so you decide to dig some trenches to hide in and then pop out and surround your attackers. Then you could handle the rolling a few ways, just Ditch Digging, Ditch Digging linked to (fighting skill), Ditch Digging which allows Tactics linked to (fighting skill). But my idea is that the players try to get in 'weird' skill to contribute to combat (without being too outlandish).

Skills become relevant when players do stuff that makes them relevant.

[Ilvarin the Bold]

This is great stuff. I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for, but based on the posts I’ve read, this is the direction it’s taking me in:

Pull back a little and identify particular phases of the conflict, ie Ambush, Maneuver, Engagement, Withdrawal, maybe others. At any rate, each party can test skills relative to a certain phase. That opens the door to players getting creative with their skills and not being pigeon-holed into using specific skills for specific things. Of course, Task and Intent are in play, and FoRKs and helping dice where appropriate. I realize this gets away from the “one roll” idea, but I think it trades that for more player engagement as they learn how to maximize their strategic options in given phases. Success in one phase can allow players more authorial control in later phases. For example, an outnumbered party “wins” in the Engagement phase, now their Intent for escape can be a Fighting Withdrawal rather than an all-out route.

As for failure, I believe Mouseguard’s Complications and Conditions would be a nice fit here, with some obvious retooling.

[Fuseboy]

I started listing the factors that would lead to victory, but they were so numerous I nearly despaired. But then it occurred to me - group them into triads. This gives a nice structure where you can look at each factor and quickly note which side has a decisive advantage, whether there's a clear tie, or whether it's totally uncertain.

Triads of Battle

The purpose of this is as a loose procedure for coming up with either a single test or a linked test. To determine how to resolve a battle, consider the five triads of battle, each of which is comprised of three factors.

1. Note the intent of each side.

2. Look at each factor. Note whether one side has that factor clinched, whether it's a clear tie (or irrelevant), or whether it's very uncertain.

3. Circle any factor for which the players have made explicit, recent plans. Circle any factor for which a player has a relevant belief or instinct.

4. Look at each triad. Look for triads where the players are battling to avoid a total loss or break a tie by resolving an uncertainty, and where anything is circled; these will be the most interesting factors to use as tests. Also, hitting things with weapons is fun, too.

5. Modify the intents. If one side is completely outmatched, for example, it may be completely unable to achieve its goal (kill the dragon!) and have to settle for a lesser one (run away!)

4. Pick 1 to 3 "deciding factors" to test, ideally not more than one per triad. In some situations, you might choose to have a skill from one factor test one from another factor (e.g. Preparedness vs. Initiative, Range vs. Maneuver).

5. Consider giving +1-2 Ob to one of the tests for each lost or decisively lost triad. Make sure you narrate the effects of these on the battle!

6. Resolve the deciding factors as a linked test (if they don't oppose the enemy directly, as in making fortifications), or as a series of versus tests, each one accruing +1 Ob to the loser's next test.

7. The final test determines the battle - this should definitely be a versus test. Consider using the loser's successes (or their victory on earlier tests) as indicative of the degree of compromise.

The Triads:

A. Experience - Reconnaissance - Unity

B. Preparedness - Initiative - Restraint

C. Simplicity - Environs - Fervor

D. Tactics - Range - Maneuever

E. Ability - Number - Equipment

The Factors:

Experience
How combat seasoned are the participants? Noncombatants? Conscript villagers? Professional soldiers? Elite guard? Predatory animals? Consider testing Steel if this becomes decisive.

Reconnaissance
How well is the enemy known and understood - its numbers, tactics, breakdown, weapons, disposition, condition, etc.? If this becomes decisive, consider wises, Observation.

Unity
How well does the fighting force function as a cohesive whole? Disciplined troops and a clear command structure? Adventuring commune on their first day out? Virtual strangers who have never fought together before? Unruly, leaderless goblins? Consider testing Command if this becomes decisive.

Preparedness
Which side is most ready to fight? Soldiers on battlements? Vikings, leaping from their longboats? Pilgrims, asleep by their fire? Many skills can be appropriate - Observation, Steel (for surprises), Command, Ditch-digging, Mending, Health, Cooking, Foraging.

Initiative
Which side is forcing the other to react, controlling the tempo of battle? Who chose the time and place of battle? As a decisive factor, this can test Stealth, Speed or Health, Tactics or Strategy for battles of various sizes. (Note: it's very hard to take the initiative against prepared fortifications.)

Restraint
Which side has the least ambitious intent? (See Ambition, below.) Is one side merely trying to escape, or stall the attackers? Is the goal to eradicate every last enemy? If this becomes decisive in large battles, consider using Tactics as a means of recognizing an opportunity. Willingness to settle for a lesser intent if the battle drags on also counts.

Simplicity
Which side can focus on its single intent exclusively? Is one side trying to prevent messengers escaping from the other side as well as defeating the combatants? If this becomes decisive, use a skill appropriate for achieving the secondary goal.

Environs
Which side has freedom of movement in the environment surrounding the battlefield? Can one side afford to move the battle more freely? Is one side hemmed in? As the decisive factor, consider Speed, Orienteering, an appropriate -wise, Command or Logistics, depending on the size of the battle.

Fervor
Is one side possessed with a religious zeal? Addled by bezerker herbs? Defending its lair or young? If this is a decisive factor, consider Oratory, Steel.

Tactics
Is one side following a battle plan created by a tactician? Is there a gambit to deceive the enemy? Or is the side purely reacting to the other? Tactics, appropriate wises.

Range
Does one side have significant ranged weaponry? Bow (etc.)

Maneuever
Can one side join and leave battle at will as a result of its better maneuverability or speed? Speed, Riding.

Ability
Who fights best? This is where you test weapon skills.

Number
Who has the mostest men?

Equipment
Who is better equipped for the melee? Generally not tested, but potentially mending or smithing skills for large forces on long campaigns if this becomes a deciding factor.

Ambition, Restraint, Failure and Compromise

Some adverse effects are easier to inflict on the enemy than others. Use this hierarchy to figure out which side has the most Restraint. You can also use this as a list of compromises the winner must endure depending on their margin of success.

Delayed
Exposed
Exhausted
Repelled

Dislodged
Depleted
Demoralized
Injured

Routed
Captured
Slaughtered

[Fuseboy]

So.. as an example from play, in last session of Burning Ahimsa, our party was ambushed by three of Mataji's giant hunting spiders and a revenant version of the duellist, Zeki.

A. Experience (tie) - Reconnaissance (uncertain) - Unity (uncertain)
Both groups are made of veteran combatants; we've fought spiders, and the spiders have fought humans, but none of us has fought the other. Zeki and the spiders may never have fought together, and using the lizardmen effectively would be key to using our numerical advantage.

B. Preparedness (spiders ambushed us, we're tired and hungry) - Initiative (ambush in a box canyon) - Restraint (perhaps us, who just want to drive them off, whereas they may be under orders to capture us)

C. Simplicity - Environs - Fervor
Not especially interesting.

D. Tactics - Range - Maneuever
We were badly outgunned here; the spiders can walk up the canyon walls with ease, and Zeki's ambush caught us completely by surprise; we had no battle plan at all. Winning Range is the only thing that would prevent this triad being a total loss - so this makes an interesting test.

E. Ability - Number - Equipment

We outnumber the spiders more than 2 to 1, but their locking silk is a powerful advantage in close combat (equipment), and few of us have chitin-busting high VA weapons. I think it comes down to Ability here - perhaps Jaya's Spear (B4 with 4D help from the lizardmen converts, 2D Faith, 2D Sorcery, 1D Sword) against Zeiki's 5D Sword with 6D help from spider brawling. 13D vs. 11D.

[sanjwise]

So.. as an example from play, in last session of Burning Ahimsa, our party was ambushed by three of Mataji's giant hunting spiders and a revenant version of the duellist, Zeki.

Cool stuff Michael.

1. Once the players and the GMs have gone through this check list of Triads, what do you do? How does the mechanic resolve itself? I hope you're going to follow though the on the example.

2. How easy would it be to hammer out the nuances of each sides advantages or disadvantages within the triads if you haven't played the scenario. I mean, we played this scenario out in Fight! so looking back its relatively easy to determine strengths and weaknesses. But if you haven't fought much against Great Wolves, maybe you wouldn't realize that a Wolf's Intimidation is super powerful.

neat though.

sanj

[The_Tim]

OK, trying a second time. First time got eaten by forum pixies.

Using the same fight that Michael did, I'd probably handle it with a Linked test set-up. I largely agree with his factors and triads.

Given the set-up (failed Orientation test complication, we're in a boxed canyon, Jaya's old enemy has found us and is using the canyon against us at night) I'd start with Observation vs. Stealthy (+1D advantage for night in a canyon). Do we spot the spiders/Zeki before they begin their descent into the canyon?

After that, we'd be looking to get out of the canyon--which is a terrible location for us whether fighting or fleeing. Speed vs. Speed seems appropriate, and fits well with being modified by the previous test--if we are oblivious, they have a head start, but if we spot them before they begin to descend then we have a head start of sorts.

Finally it would be the weapon vs. weapon with help. If we won the Speed test, we'd be free of the canyon and a stronger foe than expected, whereas if we lost we'd have run ourselves a bit ragged in the course of being fully boxed in. Jaya vs. Zeki makes the most sense as if we had to boil the Fight! down to a single thing, it would be if she would strike him down and move on again or not.

(The Fight! made sense as a Fight!, it is just the most recent martial conflict in the game, so is a fresh example).

[Fuseboy]

1. Once the players and the GMs have gone through this check list of Triads, what do you do? How does the mechanic resolve itself? I hope you're going to follow though the on the example.

It's not intended to be a definitive mechanic, it's just a guide for revealing which tests might be most relevant/decisive for the outcome of the battle. That's deliberate. But, the clues it provides are:

a) Triad A is tied and very uncertain - perhaps: "Uddhar, your lizardmen are staring at you blankly as the spiders race down the canyon walls. Command them now, or they sit out the fight!"

b) More interesting, Triad D is nearly a lost cause, the players are only leading in Range. A total loss here should give the spiders a huge advantage in a melee - so seal the players' fate by calling for Bow vs. Speed. (Link this into the melee, with the loser having +1 Ob.)

c) The fight isn't a lost cause on other grounds, so this one should go to weapon skills. Melee as described above (13D vs. 11D).


2. How easy would it be to hammer out the nuances of each sides advantages or disadvantages within the triads if you haven't played the scenario. I mean, we played this scenario out in Fight! so looking back its relatively easy to determine strengths and weaknesses. But if you haven't fought much against Great Wolves, maybe you wouldn't realize that a Wolf's Intimidation is super powerful.

Yes, this system doesn't do that at all - it doesn't tell you what abilities are good in Fight! and therefore should be represented here. You have to eyeball that yourself based on your experience.

On the other hand, this is just my first stab at a set of triads. Too many of them reduce to Tactics and Steel tests, I think. There could be other factors, such as fear of hideous monsters (e.g. the undead and giant spiders), the effects of having battle magic or divine favor.

[AsthmaticHamster]

I think I sense a disconnect in the conversation here.

It seems like people are talking about two different things:

1) How to simulate small-unit tactical combat in relatively few rolls.

2) How to set intelligent intents and tasks for violent conflict.

The first one falls out something like this: If I can come up with a model of all - or at least the most important - factors that enter into small-unit conflicts (e.g. these triad thingies), then I can find evaluate each side, assign bonuses and penalties based on relative advantages in each factor, and identify the one axis on which the tide of battle will turn.

This is a technique to create a faithful reproduction of small-unit conflict, without just bundling everything into a Tactics roll. That's fine, if that's what you want to do, but I think the second issue is one that underpins the first.

The second issue runs something like this: If you have two groups of people who are fighting each other, you need to know what they are trying to accomplish. In the case of a tactical simulation where both sides are pursuing absolute victory (i.e., elimination or incapacitation of all foes, capture of all arms and materiel, total control of the theater of conflict), you might conceivably want something akin to this tactical flowchart. Assuming, however, that either your players' characters or your antagonists are going to want something out of the conflict other than pure, abstract victory, then this flowchart idea may not be the place you need to focus your efforts.

That assumption is a safe assumption by the way, because of the BIT mechanics. Very, VERY rarely have I ever seen a character who had a belief about winning a total victory in a specific battle. Sure, beliefs about killing the enemy commander, or driving the enemy off of some area of land, but those don't REQUIRE total victory. In fact, total victory is almost... disappointing. If you look at the intersection of what your antagonists want out of a situation, and your players' intents, you can usually identify the relevant skill.

So really, while the flowchart is pretty cool, it has a very constrained usefulness in violent conflict in Burning Wheel. Instead, if you want interesting tactics summarised in short rolls, you should follow the spirit of the ditch-digging example above. Let your players find creative solutions to their tactical woes, rather than trying to calculate a "realistic" solution. The power dynamic here is a lot more like negotiation than D&D-style mechanics. Your players state their intent (e.g., "We're going to dig holes and hide in them!"), you collaboratively ascertain the task ("Ok, so stealthy?" "Oh, no, I wanted to use my ditch-digging. Is that cool?"), then you set the ob ("you'll have to dig some pretty cunning holes to make them big enough to hide people and small enough to not be suspicious - Ob 5."), maybe do stakes if you want (or leave them implicit), and then the players roll.

At least, that's my take on it. Hope it helps!

[Fuseboy]

That stuff with the triads is a bit much, I think, so let's leave that aside.

AsthmaticHamster (err.. may I call you Ham?). I think.. the word 'simulate' sets us off down a path I'm not looking to go. I also think I set this off on the wrong direction by including a slightly too-large scope of factors to consider; once you do that, you get into the territory of trying to decide whether the attackers having had a bad night's sleep is more important than defenders having had to eat their potatoes raw that morning, etc.