Positioning with multiple participants in Fight!

[Maedhros]

RE: This thread

http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?p=59499#post59499

From the narrative, it appears that Luke + Kirin were using one Positioning test for both characters in the Fight.

The rules as written consider only one-on-one...is there a thread that discusses how to adjudicate multiple participants with respect to positioning?

[Dwight]

http://www.burningwheel.org/wiki/index.php?title=Burning_Wheel_FAQ#Fight.21_with_Mu ltiple_Combatants

You can handling positioning rolls as a group (with helping dice) or individually. The link above talks about how to handle it individually.

[Maedhros]

Thanks.

[LukeS.]

Positioning tests require a slight effort to get one's head around the idea because positioning is completely relative. You can't think of combatants as occupying an "absolute" coordinate. At least I couldn't, and I "got it" once I left off trying to imagine how a fight would look on a grid map.

After that conceptual leap, I found that positioning is *very* pliable and very straightforward and easy. I'm pretty sure the link provided above is what caused it to click for me.

The short of it is: If you have more successes than whomever is opposing you, then you get your intent. But you don't have to declare on whom you want to advance or from whom you want to withdraw until the moment right before you cast thy dice.

Suppose we have three combatants, A, B, and C. They script the following:
A: Close
B: Maintain
C: Withdraw
Suppose also that they each are within Lunging of one another. Assume they all have weapons of identical length. They then each make positioning tests, gaining the following number of successes:
A: 3
B: 5
C: 4

This shakes out like so: (1) A is within Lunging of B and vice versa. A had fewer successes than B and so failed to Close with B. (2) A is Outside striking distance of C and vice versa. Since C had more successes than A, C gains intent and successfully withdraws. However, (3) B got more successes than C and gains intent, successfully maintaining. So B and C are still in Lunging. So:
A-B: Lunging
A-C: Outside
B-C: Lunging

You can also Close or Maintain or Withdraw from multiple foes. Suppose, in the Example above, A and C had both scripted Close. Since B got 5 successes to their 3 and 4, respectively, B successfully Maintains with both and neither A nor C is in Optimal.

[Maedhros]

Is it fair to state different intents: Close vs. A, Withdraw vs. B? (It seems so from the FAQ).

[Thor Olavsrud]

Is it fair to state different intents: Close vs. A, Withdraw vs. B? (It seems so from the FAQ).

No. Think of it this way: Your positioning roll serves two purposes. First, you roll it with an intent (Close, Maintain or Withdraw) against a particular opponent (or group of opponents, if they are helping each other to position). Second, your roll serves as the obstacle for any individual or group attempting to position against you.

Let's say Jason is closing on Bob. Bob is Withdrawing from Jason. Meanwhile, Brian is attempting to close on Jason.

Jason roll 4 successes. Bob rolls 3 successes. Brian rolls 4 successes.

In this case, Jason would successfully Close on Bob. Jason's 4 success Close beats Bob's 3 success Withdraw. Jason gets to move one distance category closer to Bob.

At the same time, Jason's 4 successes set the obstacle for Brian's Close against him. Brian needs 5 successes. Unfortunately, he only managed 4, so there is no change in relative distance between Jason and Brian for this Volley.

[Maedhros]

No. Think of it this way: Your positioning roll serves two purposes. First, you roll it with an intent (Close, Maintain or Withdraw) against a particular opponent (or group of opponents, if they are helping each other to position). Second, your roll serves as the obstacle for any individual or group attempting to position against you.

Let's say Jason is closing on Bob. Bob is Withdrawing from Jason. Meanwhile, Brian is attempting to close on Jason.

Jason roll 4 successes. Bob rolls 3 successes. Brian rolls 4 successes.

In this case, Jason would successfully Close on Bob. Jason's 4 success Close beats Bob's 3 success Withdraw. Jason gets to move one distance category closer to Bob.

At the same time, Jason's 4 successes set the obstacle for Brian's Close against him. Brian needs 5 successes. Unfortunately, he only managed 4, so there is no change in relative distance between Jason and Brian for this Volley.

I don't see how that precludes stating different intents.

Let's say I want to position myself so that NPC A is between myself and NPC B, such that NPC B cannot strike me. In game terms, this could be accomplished by Closing vs. A and Withdrawing vs. B. Suppose it works out thusly:

ME: 4 successes
A: 3 successes
B: 3 successes

I beat them both, so I could conceivably achieve my positioning intents.

Is there a reason this is disallowed?

[Dwight]

Probably because you'd get effectively get two, or more, active positioning actions rather than the regular one. As it is you are getting extra implied Maintains, that's pretty good. Trying to do two things at once? Even if it was allowed it screams serious +Ob, although having to split your positioning dice between the roles might be more appropriate than +Ob penalties? Then there is the issue of how many dice do you get if you are actively positioning against two others if they have differing weapon lengths.

[LukeS.]

Let's say I want to position myself so that NPC A is between myself and NPC B, such that NPC B cannot strike me. In game terms, this could be accomplished by Closing vs. A and Withdrawing vs. B.

No. You can script only a single positioning action per volley. See the top of p.147.

What you want to do in the example above is script Close and declare that you are closing on A. In order to prevent B from closing on you, you'll need to win the positioning test. Your odds of doing so will be improved if you (a) have a polearm or something. Get a longest weapon; (b) have the highest speed multiplier; (c) burn artha.

Remember that a volley is like three seconds long; there isn't a lot of time to run around too much.

Also, you're still thinking of positioning in terms of miniatures or markers on a grid map. BW is more abstract: you want to script then narrate. So don't think "I want A to be between me and B," but rather "I want to close on A and I hope to god I can keep B at bay. Don't betray me, dice!" then describe your positions after the dice shake out. The whole thing will click in a little while.

Fighting 2 on 1 in BW isn't going to be easy, unless you're a badass with high reflexes (like B5+). BW is a gritty system; there aren't any "mooks."

[Dwight]

Fighting 2 on 1 in BW isn't going to be easy, unless you're a badass with high reflexes (like B5+).
I personally don't consider it 'badass' till it's B7 or G4. Life is just a bowl of fancy assorted cashews until you've had to face someone with 3 or more actions/volley. ;) In no small part because it implies they've got a pretty heft Speed too. EDIT: At that point, unless you are up against similar 'badasses' or you've got diddly for weapon Skill or Power stat, 2 on 1 or even 3 on 1 starts becoming very feasible.

[LukeS.]

Yeah, B7 is what I meant to say! I was thinking you need to be able to pull off 3 actions per volley, forgot that B5 would be 2/2/1 not 3/1/1. :oops:

[Jaroslav]

Let's say Jason is closing on Bob. Bob is Withdrawing from Jason. Meanwhile, Brian is attempting to close on Jason.

Jason roll 4 successes. Bob rolls 3 successes. Brian rolls 4 successes.

In this case, Jason would successfully Close on Bob. Jason's 4 success Close beats Bob's 3 success Withdraw. Jason gets to move one distance category closer to Bob.

At the same time, Jason's 4 successes set the obstacle for Brian's Close against him. Brian needs 5 successes. Unfortunately, he only managed 4, so there is no change in relative distance between Jason and Brian for this Volley.

Ugh! I'm not sure why I'm so thick-headed when it comes to understanding this. I think, in part, it's because, even though I know I should let go of real-world analogies and just accept the abstraction, that's easier said than done.

For instance, if Brian had scripted Withdraw instead of Close, he still would have failed, correct? That just seems so strange to me that, even though Jason is putting his effort into closing on Bob, Brian still can't just run away.

It seems like it could get even more abstract. Couldn't this theoretically lead to a situation where A and B are inside, and B and C are inside, but A and C are at lunging, or even outside striking distance? That is, A is right next to B, and B is right next to C, but A and C are several paces apart?

[LukeS.]

For instance, if Brian had scripted Withdraw instead of Close, he still would have failed, correct? That just seems so strange to me that, even though Jason is putting his effort into closing on Bob, Brian still can't just run away.
Here he could, because no-one is opposing his withdrawal. A withdraw only "fails" if another character is trying to Close or Maintain against it and gets more successes.

[Dwight]

Ugh! I'm not sure why I'm so thick-headed when it comes to understanding this. I think, in part, it's because, even though I know I should let go of real-world analogies and just accept the abstraction, that's easier said than done.

For instance, if Brian had scripted Withdraw instead of Close, he still would have failed, correct? That just seems so strange to me that, even though Jason is putting his effort into closing on Bob, Brian still can't just run away.
The trick isn't to let go of real-world analogies, it is to understand them and let them follow from the dice.

Why can't Brian just run away? Because Jason is actually putting effort into both, if indirectly. Everyone is moving. They might have even passed near each other momentarily.

I did this sort of test once, having positioning sort of like the alternate DoW. Having the players describing what their characters were trying to do moving around the room and then determining the positioning rolls from that. It worked surprisingly well. But you have to remember that sometimes you can be passing closer to someone to get away, just that it happens in such a manner that the opponent doesn't have time/position to act on you as you pass closer.

[Jaroslav]

It sounds like Blakkie and LukeS. are in disagreement over my first question. Am I reading that right?

EDIT: As to my second question, where A and B are inside, and B and C are inside, but A and C are outside striking distance (a situation for which I didn't describe the various positioning rolls, but which I believe is theoretically possible, if I'm understanding how this works), I still don't see how you could possibly describe this with any kind of real-world analogy. (There are even more questions that arise when one considers what happens on the next turn, but I'll hold off on those.)

[Thor Olavsrud]

Dwight's got it.

If Jason doesn't care to keep Brian from Withdrawing, then he simply doesn't oppose Brian's attempt to do so. In that case, Brian's obstacle to Withdraw is simply Ob 1 rather than the Ob 4 it would be if Jason opposed him.

On the other hand, what if Jason does want to oppose Brian? In that case, imagine that Jason isn't going directly after Bob. Instead, he's circling as he closes on Bob to cut off his escape route. The move also happens to keep him about the same distance from Brian.

Does that make sense? Don't think of a Fight! as occurring on a fencing piste, all in a straight line. The fighters are constantly circling, moving and jockeying for advantage.

Now then, if that's clear, I'll add a postscript: If both Bob and Brian wanted to withdraw from Jason (i.e., they both script Withdraw for the same Volley), their best bet is actually to help each other (imagine them covering each other's retreat, pointing out roots or other obstructions, and generally helping each other prevent Jason from closing on them). Bob has a Speed B4 and Brian has a Speed B5. Bob's the slowest, so Brian has to help Bob, as per the Help the Slowest and the Loudest rule (http://burningwheel.org/forum/showthread.php?t=2722&highlight=slowest+loudest).

Brian hands Bob 2D (since his Speed is B5).

If Brian rolls more successes than Jason, then both he and Brian Withdraw from Jason. If Jason rolls more successes than Bob, then he Closes on both Bob and Brian.