Why some folks dislike Fight!

[Eric]

Yeah, I can hear the hissing already. :)

Okay Luke I hope this is kosher, but I just posted some thoughts on the above issue over at the BW Forum at The Forge. Please tell me if I have violated any etiquette of which I was unaware.

Here's the link:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18734.0

Cheers,

Eric

[khelek]

Back in my Shadowrunning GM days, and my perusal of the Dumpshock forums, I heard very similar statements made by many regarding the Shadowrun (SR) Melee Mechanic.

SR was pretty standard for fire arms (you shoot twice, I shoot twice), but in Melee, when you attacked I could hurt you if I rolled better (it was semi-simultaneous actions). Basically your action was to participate in melee or not, the winner of the Vs. Roll did damage. Not surprising you only got into melee combat with someone who could not wash the floor with you.

Many players hated it. they said that it was unfair, that they did not ever have a chance for an action, etc. etc. I loved it. From my (limited) experience in sparring it was more true than any other system I had seen.

I like the Fight! Mechanics for the same reason.

Eric, where are you now? You wrote the post, but seem to be middle-ground on the issue. Are just your expectations just slightly singed or are you still aflame (pun intended) with frustration?

[Eric]

Aargh! Someone else who thinks that *I* am unhappy with "Fight!" I fucking love "Fight!"

My "complaint" that Luke didn't include a disclaimer in the revised text was borne not of any frustration I have with "Fight!" ('cuz I don't have any) but rather borne of my frustration with people who buy the game and then complain that it doesn't preserve that hoary fucking chestnut called "the exchange of blows." Why should it? What fucking Moses of RPGs descended from Mount Gygax bearing stone tablets that said that all games needed to model combat the same way?

So I'm not on any kind of middle-ground at all. I'm way over on the side that BW and a whole host of other games are on...and the view from this side is glorious, baby.

Eric

[khelek]

aahhh sorry :oops:

your post made it sound like you were a convert (as you apprently are like the rest of use), but you began it wiht this line:

"...and by "some folks" I of course mean me. <wink>"

I think you need a disclaimer on your post stating it is full of sarcasm, and that the Author is not to be taken at the face value of the intial post. etc etc ...

J/K
:D

[stormsweeper]

I love when people bring up SCA sparring as a benchmark of realism.

[Eric]

Hey Khelek,

No harm no foul, eh?

I admit that in retrospect I should have included some sort of bigger disclaimer to the effect that I should not be identified with the kind of people I am complaining about.

I do, however, wish Luke had included some kind of Disclaimer about BW departing radically from the "exchange of blows" model (all of which is, for me, a Good Thing TM) in order to alert traditional gamers to the fact that they need to let go of their traditional assumptions about How Combat in Games Is and Ought to Be and play the game as it is written.

The motive behind my request stems from recent expereince over at the Harn Forum where a guy on the boards (who probably has only had the game for about a week) started complaining vociferously that the game is "broken" and proposing all sorts of *fixes* for "Fight!"

He hasn't even played out a few sample combats to get the feel of the game!!!! Although this is conjecture, my feeling is that this guy has become so habituated to the "exchange of blows" model from years of roleplaying that he can't see that it is Just One Model (and by no means necessarily the best model). For this guy, combat *by definition* means the "exchange of blows." Anything else is broken.

As I said, this is conjecture on my part as to this guy's state of mind, but I think it is borne out by other experiences (including my own) where it took me some time to recognize that my idea of what a game should do was the product of a certain amount of habituation to a narrow range of models.

Let me be clear: I have nothing against people coming up with houserules when repeated play has shown that such a thing is really needed in order to satisfy all the participants. BUT, I really think games ought to be played as written for a while in order to give them a fair shake. Reading a game by yourself and then immediately thinking about how you would change the way it works isn't fair to the game, and ultimately and more importantly it isn't fair to you. How will you know whether or not you like Morroccan food if you don't try it? If you read the recipe and immediately start thinking about how to turn it into something familiar like Italian food, you've really done yourself a disservice.

Here endeth the lesson,

Eric

[jchokey]

Although this is conjecture, my feeling is that this guy has become so habituated to the "exchange of blows" model from years of roleplaying that he can't see that it is Just One Model (and by no means necessarily the best model). For this guy, combat *by definition* means the "exchange of blows." Anything else is broken.

Speaking as 'this guy', I have to say you're barking up the wrong tree-- possibly even hunting in the wrong woods. Please see my clarification (as well as a few other comments) on The Forge (where I first saw that you said the same thing):

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18734.msg197648#msg197648

[khelek]

I have seen comments like that many time for many fo the games that I have picked up (I collect RPG systems for the hell of it).

I know I am tempted sometimes to "fix" games beforeI play them, I so far have resisted that temptation.



Stormsweeper - I never said SCA, nor did I say foam. Osrry if I was unclear.

[stormsweeper]

Stormsweeper - I never said SCA, nor did I say foam. Osrry if I was unclear.

I was referring to a poster over on the Forge, not you.

[Karl]

Back in my Shadowrunning GM days, and my perusal of the Dumpshock forums, I heard very similar statements made by many regarding the Shadowrun (SR) Melee Mechanic.

A lot of the difficulty I have, and I know many others fall into this catagory, with the old Shadowrun mechanic isn't that the defender can do damage to the attacker or that it isn't "fair" for the attacker to get his butt handed back to him on a platter. Those things I have no problem with. However I do hold issue with the defender theoretically doing damage to an infinite number of monkeys attacking him in a given phase....and he doesn't even need to be trying to fight in melee for this to happen.