Flaming the Combat System

[nebulousmenace]

There are some things in the BW combat system I think are really cool. The wound system (in general) is very good. I like the idea that eight B1 hits are not the same as one B8 hit.

But there's a real problem- or let's say, "design difference"- between the way combat works and the way I'd like to see it work. Basically, first one to draw blood wins the fight.

MATH BOY TIME.
If you're complaining that I'm using average rolls, think of it as "Half the time, it's worse than that. " If you really believe you roll better than average, go to Atlantic City and learn.

This is the combination of Steel rules and TN increases.

Steel: Let's consider a really burly character- 5 Willpower, 6 Steel. Someone who's seen their own blood, killed with their own hands. They take a third Superficial wound and lose a die.

This person has a 5 hesitation and will roll 3 or 4 successes. So they will either run screaming for 1 or 2 actions, getting stabbed in the back on the way out, or stand stunned for 1 or 2 actions, getting stabbed in the front. So, hey, free shots. Deadly free shots.

Now let's consider that character on the way to that third Superficial wound. As I said, this is someone who's been in a few fights, had a broken nose, knows what it feels like. Let's take that character and give them ONE superficial wound. All those TN 4's become TN 5's. So if you've got 5 dice (expert) all of a sudden you're rolling like you've got 3 dice (just past beginner.) And god help you if you get another Superficial wound. Luke- remember that time I rolled 13 dice and didn't get a single 6? Pretty funny, huh?

Now, yes, it's a bad idea to get cut. And it should make things harder. But not THAT much harder. I'd rather throw my shield away than fight with a Superficial wound- my chances would be better.

I think someone's response in the previous go-round of the Wheel forum was "There's always SOMETHING you can do in a fight, even if it's just keeping an opponent off your friends." There's always something you can do when your car is plunging off a cliff; it's just not something useful.

Have other people noticed that one wound makes you useless in a fight? Or is it just me?

[Kublai]

Have other people noticed that one wound makes you useless in a fight? Or is it just me?

Although I think you are being a bit extreme in your use of the word "useless," I can't say I entirely disagree with your statement. It has been my experience as a GM and a player that BW combat isn't necessarily won by the side that does more wounds. Often, victory goes to the side that makes the other guys run away. The new "quick" combat rules only strengthen this opinion.

And I guess that's what Abzu is getting at. Combat is deadly. No one wants to die. Better to run away and live. In fact, it's easy to run but hard to stay. He actually encourages this with the DN modifiers. In essence, the Supie and Light say, "Ouch! This is gonna get a whole lot worse! I should probably get out while I can!"

Isn't this the way most real-world battles -- even street fights -- are resolved? The first side to flinch gets hit. Tons of prisoners.

In BW, 3-5 LPers won't make their hesitation tests, for the most part, unless you specifically make a combat monster. Granted, it ain't epic-scale heroism. It's pretty damn gritty. Yet, it is possible to achieve such unflinching bravery. Look through the Traits; Fearless, Cold-blooded, Cool-headed, etc. If you don't buy them, then you can always earn them through some good roleplying.

My character has a Grey Steel, the Fearless Trait, and a high Will. He never flinches. And he has a grey combat skill that makes up for any modifiers. It's great! But then again, I have been playing him for years now and earned those greys. It's something you should look forward to in the future as your fledgling character grows in power. After all, isn't it better to earn those things than begin with them?

P.S. - You are a Wizard, yes? Where are your Courage and Valor spells? That'll keep your mates in the thick of it!

P.Ps. - 13 dice and no successes? It sounds like you are just a bad player to me! :lol: :wink:

[mike_ravenwood]

In a one on one fight, the first to get wounded does usually win. But to me that adds to the drama of the fight. Two opponents start of very defensive looking for a weakness, trading blows. If a strike slips through, an someone takes a wound, act a little more aggressive, were your opponent down. When the penalties look good to you, go aggro and blast through their weakended defenses.
the body is amazing at dealing with certain challenges. Having a high forte means they can run forever with out tiring and go for days with out rest. Their impressive health allows them to stretch the limits of the human body. At the same time a ripped muscle, a fractured bone, or deap slashed, impair the ablilty to even move an arm or leg once let alone carry on in combat.
At the same time group combat is a little different, my PC's keep an eye on each other and cover each other when the fall. To allow them time to recover and help in the fight. Remember that when some fails their steel test due to wounds, most of the time ( at least in my game) it is by 2 or 3. That less than 3 seconds. I can't imagine breaking a rib, or dislocating a arm and not pausing due to the pain for at least a few seconds.

[nebulousmenace]

OK, this is another thing that's been bugging me that has finally made it to the forum: Combat is boring for some people.

As an example, let me set up the last fight we were in. Our PC's were [to put it in archetypal terms] the Knight, the Rogue, the Wizard, the Archer, and the Blacksmith.

We were attacked by two knights, their two squires, a crossbowman and two spearmen. So you've got seven against five.

As far as the characters' point of view, it was balanced and solid. The archer got two or three kills, the wizard got one or two, the blacksmith got one, the knight got one; we did very well for people caught by surprise, and there were a bunch of dramatic moments- White Fire flying, etc.

But it was a five hour fight. Each exchange takes a while to resolve. [12 characters.]

And the archer had FOUR [4] actions that required her to be there. Really, she could have read a book during that fight. I wouldn't have blamed her, either.

Here's her scripting for a couple of rounds:
Nock /Nock
Draw /Draw
Draw
- - - - - - - -
Draw/Draw
Fire
Nock/Nock
- - - - - - -

Meanwhile, the knight is desperately parrying, cutting someone's saddle girth, pulling them off the horse, leaping on bareback, and doing two ride-by attacks, knocking people down with the horse, all sorts of exciting things. Which have to be resolved. It's a thrilling combat, really. For the Knight. The Archer gets to watch.

Playing the Wizard, I didn't do much either. Try to not get trampled, and script a lot of "cast" actions. I kept myself busy doing rules-checks.

We worked well together- we kept the archer protected , we were tactically smart and lucky, and [except for me] nobody did stupid things and got out of position.

But two out of five PLAYERS [not characters] had nothing to contribute.

It doesn't always work that way; sometimes the Blacksmith also misses the entire fight, being lame in one leg as she is.

[eruditus]

This is both a strength and weakness of the game. its something that the GM and players have to work together to resolve.

Archery in BW is utterly unique and well balanced. Being the archer in BW is not the same as being a fighter, as it is in almost every other system I know. All joking aside, real archery does not work like Legolas would have us believe. It is a tedious and steady process that one DOES NOT DO during melees. I was even a bit disappointed that there are no "you may hit your friend rules (or did I miss them)" for firing into combat. I know I incorporated them in my game. A GM needs to inform her prospective players about that and the players need to play accordingly.

A similar perspective runs for Wizards.

Why is this so? Because unlike most games combat is not something that the group should seek. Combat, unlike other games, is not something that heppens in every game session or even every other game session. That is a clear way, imho, to get your characters killed. The games I run, combat happens about once every four or so sessions. And even though violent opportunity sometimes presents itself, two out of three times the PCs avoid it and run away or sneak or talk their way out of it.

As for a five hour combat?that remains to be seen. i think it just requires focus, comfort with the rules and the GMs ability to move things along that will dictate that. I recall playing Rolemaster in games where combats took several sessions - hours and hours. yet, when I run a RM game, things happen in heartbeats, and combat rarely last longer than 1 hour (as I have mentioned on the forums before - I ran a 9 person combat in 45 minutes). The death spiral in BW is severe enough that I couldn't imagine things lasting much beyond that unless there was a lot of avoiding and blocking going on with no strikes. :)

The game sounded interesting for the knight :lol:

The solution - either the archer should take up some knife fighting or swordsmanship and the wizard do the same, or the GM and the other players should be willing to persue wizardly sessions of research. My groups archer is a falconer and a real ladies man, so time carousing and hunting are relatively significant parts of the game. Maybe not 5 hours worth ;) but enough to give everyone their time. It also helps that folk stay involved in the game when they are not in teh middle of the action. My monday group is really good at this - cringing and cheering when others are doing their own thing (or even just off having a quiet in-game conversation).

[Mad Hatter]

As the GM of nebulousmenace's previously mentioned session, I have to say I have reached roughly the same conclusion as he has. There was a great deal of grumbling from the players after that game, even from the knight, who had a great deal to do in that fight.

I agree totally with your comment on archers. I actually find BW to be quite realistic and accurate regarding archery (and despite their variable effects, wizards fit into this category--supporting fire). Archers are deadly, but it is time consuming to shoot the bow. Generally in historical warfare, the problem with archers is that they would be overrun before they had a chance to reload after their initial volley. The archer in the scenario nebulousmenace mentions used her shots very effectively, and never fired at any individual that was directly engaged in hand-to-hand combat the instant she fired. She definitely posted the most kills, a fact that is also realistic. :)

Because of this really great effectiveness, you just can't have the archer (or wizard--White Fire!) shooting every two or three actions. This does, however, make this position a rather boring one in a fight. :(

As far as the amount of time goes, this fight ran relatively smoothly. I'm not sure how I could have sped it up. Everyone was pretty comfortable with scripting by the end, and I was scribbling actions quickly for the NPCs. We just had 5 players and 7 NPCs (not counting steeds, which did occasionally factor in). Combat in BW is very granular. It runs slowly if you fully script it. This session was really my experiment in a fully scripted combat. Our game really doesn't focus on the combat side, and I wanted a full-on fight to see how it would work.

Now that I have, I don't think I will do it again. :? Fully scripted combat is great for a situation like the one where the blacksmith got into a mano-a-mano with a single woman-at-arms. One on one scripting is good. It's relatively quick, and it greatly increases the tension in the scene. Large-scale combats, where all of the players are involved, need a quicker, less detailed treatment. I think I will be using the group combat rules Luke has put out for these in future.

As far as the archer using a knife or something, our combat would have gone even longer if she had. She was the one putting enemy fighters down, even though the wait was terrible, she really rocked. The White Fire paid off well, too. :twisted:

[luke]

The archer could:
drop the bow and join the fray.
use a hunting bow for close quarters fighting where she doesn't need the range of a longbow. that saves her two actions!
she could throw rocks or knives. faster, but less deadly!

The GM could target her specifically with bad guys to make her combats more interesting. It always gets more desperate when someone is closing in on you in particular! (And a single archer was generally no match for a galloping armored soldier.) Alternately, the GM could involve the archer in an "archer duel" where the two opponents are testing stealthy (physical actions/2 actions) and using assesses and sprints interspersed with their reload actions.

At Agincourt, that famous battle of archers vs knights, the archers got off a few volleys and then dropped their weapons, took up axes and charged into the fray. They knew too well, that at short range they were far far less effective.


As far as running a big melee, you are welcome to use the simplified combat rules. An event like what you described will be over in one roll and take about 10 minutes to negotiate and describe. But it sounded a hell of a lot more fun to play it out.

As far as "five hours" goes, this isn't the norm for us either. Unless I've pegged a combat to be the session, then combats take a half hour to 2 hours at the most. I wasn't there, so I don't know what was going on, but if it was your first big melee in BW, then perhaps practice will make them smoother in the future?

And as for wizards' and archers' further participation in the melee, I allow an additional solution if the player can't or won't to alter their character's behavior to become more involved. I either give them an NPC to play (perhaps letting them script for the horses or letting them play squires or other lesser involved npcs) or sometimes I bring them over to my side of the screen and let them play the villains. It's great fun and has always worked reasonably well.

good luck,
-abzu

[eruditus]

And as for wizards' and archers' further participation in the melee, I allow an additional solution if the player can't or won't to alter their character's behavior to become more involved. I either give them an NPC to play (perhaps letting them script for the horses or letting them play squires or other lesser involved npcs) or sometimes I bring them over to my side of the screen and let them play the villains. It's great fun and has always worked reasonably well.

-abzu

I was going to suggest exactly this. Maybe a bodyguard or man-at-arms for the archer to play. Thus, for a combat the archer goes into the background, sending out arrows every so many vollies (keeping up that impressive kill ratio) and the player is still involved in the nitty-gritty.

I found somethng that goes a long way is a little combat planning when the NPC is made. "How does this person fight?"

In a combat my Monday group just had the bad-guy did a lot of stealthy actions (G8 stealthy...eeww) putting the horse and other obstructions in the way of the PCs line of sight. For this I brought the action in and out of scripting, giving the rest of the group some time to catch up.

Questions of speed: what reflexes do your PCs have? Is there a lot of avoiding and blocking? I will time my next big combat and share it with the forum to help us all get an idea of what we may be doing differently.

Hope this is all helpful.