BW w/o scripting

[elgorade]

Heresy I know. But I have to wonder whether it would work.

The background is that I just ran The Sword for some people I play D&D with. Generally, fun was had, but scripting ahead was definitely a turn-off. Both because it meant trying to think ahead, and because it put a pause into things (waiting for scripting) right when the action started.

I think it could get better/faster over time; most mechanics do as you get used to them and to the choices you have. That said, people here probably have some experience to draw on. How plausible/workable is BW w/o scripting in Fight! or DoW?

[Drozdal]

No-scripting conflict resolution is in the rules already. If you do not like the idea of scripting - versus tests are the way to go.

[pseudoidiot]

And, more specifically as it pertains to combat, check out the Bloody Versus rules.

[Dwight]

I think it could get better/faster over time; most mechanics do as you get used to them and to the choices you have. That said, people here probably have some experience to draw on. How plausible/workable is BW w/o scripting in Fight! or DoW?
If you want to keep the same level of detail in the mechanics then there are "say it then roll it" type variants for DoW as "Audience Decides" and "Unscripted Group", page 107.

I've had some experience experimenting with Fight! as "say it then roll it". The short version is that it sort of works with some hitches. Like being tough to properly handle differing Reflexes exponents and Great Strikes (and other multi-action options). Positioning works very well in reverse, once you grok it (and then describing normal Fight! Positioning results becomes a breeze). But overall it's very watered down. Likely related to the feedback you got, they just aren't use to the intensity of uncertainty with Fight! They are used to more detailed control over the situation. My response would be "Scared? Confused? Good, you are supposed to be. Someone is trying to bash your skull in!"

But I'm a bit of a prick. :D

P.S. I think I covered most of it but an extended discussion of "say it then roll it" Fight!, and it's use as a [temporary] bridge from D&D (what I tried it for BTW, likely wouldn't do it again except maybe for the Positioning EDIT: on second thought the reverse Positioning wouldn't work very well by itself, grrr), probably belongs in the Spark forum.

[jb.teller4]

And, more specifically as it pertains to combat, check out the Bloody Versus rules.

While I'm planning on using scripting, I had a question how bloody versus tests work. The section in the book says it's one roll and it's all over. That's great (and how I'd use it for any situation I wasn't using Fight! scripting for), but is there any reason you couldn't keep rolling (like turns in many other games) until someone wins the same way they would in Fight! (when their foe is incapacitated, killed, begging for mercy or running screaming)?

-John

[Drozdal]

That's great (and how I'd use it for any situation I wasn't using Fight! scripting for), but is there any reason you couldn't keep rolling (like turns in many other games) until someone wins the same way they would in Fight! (when their foe is incapacitated, killed, begging for mercy or running screaming)?
There is a reason - you precious session time. If you do not have time to (do not want, or are not interested in) scripting, why wasting it on meaningless multi rolls? Roll it once, let it ride, deal with consequences and move to the next scene / conflict.

[luke]

While I'm planning on using scripting, I had a question how bloody versus tests work. The section in the book says it's one roll and it's all over. That's great (and how I'd use it for any situation I wasn't using Fight! scripting for), but is there any reason you couldn't keep rolling (like turns in many other games) until someone wins the same way they would in Fight! (when their foe is incapacitated, killed, begging for mercy or running screaming)?

-John

Rolling repeatedly breaks the Let It Ride convention. Declare your intent and task, gather help and FoRKs, spend artha, roll the dice. The results are the results! There are no meaningless rolls.

Anyone who's played in the Inheritance scenario can tell you, it's a high-stakes, high-energy resolution system.

[elgorade]

Blakkie,

Yes, I was more wondering about one volley at a time Fight! (or DoW) rather than just bloody versus tests. Mostly as an attempt to give some familierity with the idea of the different maneuvers. Basically if pre-plotting is a sticking point because it is too uncertain and too slow, it will never feel more understandable or move faster unless people get some way to work with the maneuvers.

Neither reflexes nor positioning struck me as a problem. You do have to keep count over 3 volleys for reflexes, but I think it could be handled. They also give you a way to do "two action" actions w/o that awkward break. Probably makes great strike a bit more risky/less likely, but at least at first that isn't a real problem.

Maybe the right way is bloody versus though until players get comfortable enough with the rest of the mechanics to deal with having to plot ahead.

[Dwight]

Blakkie,

Yes, I was more wondering about one volley at a time Fight! (or DoW) rather than just bloody versus tests. Mostly as an attempt to give some familierity with the idea of the different maneuvers. Basically if pre-plotting is a sticking point because it is too uncertain and too slow, it will never feel more understandable or move faster unless people get some way to work with the maneuvers.

Neither reflexes nor positioning struck me as a problem. You do have to keep count over 3 volleys for reflexes, but I think it could be handled. They also give you a way to do "two action" actions w/o that awkward break. Probably makes great strike a bit more risky/less likely, but at least at first that isn't a real problem.

Maybe the right way is bloody versus though until players get comfortable enough with the rest of the mechanics to deal with having to plot ahead.
The no-script Fight! is maybe going to be good for a couple fights, less if the noobs are paying attention. ;) A big chunk of the problem is that someone is going to give their plans first. That problem is just exaggerated with multi-action actions and uneven Reflexes (or really any Reflexes that aren't evenly divisible by 3). Add in keeping track of actions for Reflexes not divisible by 3 and you might as well be doing the real Fight!

You can start with Bloody (I actually prefer just Vs for most situations other than 'show' duels), if there is a lot of non-combat action going on. But IMO you should just tell them to stop being such babies and suck it up. :p Make sure everyone has the same length weapons, don't bother with stances, assume everyone offers their torso to hit. You can even ignore Positioning initially.

P.S. Part of the issue IMO is the scripting sheet is very busy. Both in layout and also in how much is packed into it.

[Thunder_God]

Well, you can take a break from the campaign and run them through a combat or two, to flex their legs, in a setting where their characters won't be punished for being inexperienced, as players.

[Maedhros]

Like being tough to properly handle differing Reflexes exponents and Great Strikes (and other multi-action options).

What about treating Reflexes like Speed in HERO?

E.g. REF 6 has 2 actions in each of 3 BW volleys. This would translate in Hero to SPD 6 and act in phases 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. REF 4 would translate to SPD 4 and act in phases 3, 6, 9, 12.

Positioning would still be weird...

Multi-phase actions would be initiated in first phase, resolved in second.

[Dwight]

E.g. REF 6 has 2 actions in each of 3 BW volleys. This would translate in Hero to SPD 6 and act in phases 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. REF 4 would translate to SPD 4 and act in phases 3, 6, 9, 12.
You just gave a Reflex B4 character 2 unopposed actions vs a Reflex B6 character. Plus the Reflex B6 character now has 4 instead of 2 unopposed actions. Not so good. Plus I think you just made it more complicated. To try get rid of scripting? Seems like a double lose. ;)


Positioning would still be weird...
Positioning wasn't weird till you did that. ;)

[Maedhros]

You just gave a Reflex B4 character 2 unopposed actions vs a Reflex B6 character. Plus the Reflex B6 character now has 4 instead of 2 unopposed actions. Not so good. Plus I think you just made it more complicated. To try get rid of scripting? Seems like a double lose. ;)

Well, one would have to redefine how actions oppose one another...which falls under the "more complicated" heading.

I don't really have a problem with scripting, but it seems like that is the biggest deal-breaker when it comes to pitching the game. Myself, I agree with the concept: combat is fast, confusing and ugly and scripting models the uncertainty well. However, the immersive-play crowd tends to frown upon it since is puts one in author-stance and the d*ck-swinging gamist crowd hates it because one can't micro-manage one's combat resources as perfectly as one might want.

Consider my brainstorming to be just that :)


Positioning wasn't weird till you did that. ;)

I haven't played BW yet, but other than some bizarre indiosyncracies (e.g. two combatants can both be at "optimal" range when one has a daggar and one has a pike) I don't find positioning all that weird. Abstract, yes. Weird, not so much.

[Dwight]

I haven't played BW yet, but other than some bizarre indiosyncracies (e.g. two combatants can both be at "optimal" range when one has a daggar and one has a pike) I don't find positioning all that weird. Abstract, yes. Weird, not so much.
No, I mean the reverse mapping from concrete descriptions of intent to figuring out the roll isn't all that weird. A side effect of doing a little of that was that I found it much easier to extract concrete descriptions from the abstract you get out of scripting Positioning.

EDIT: In fact I found it so natural I'm wondering if people couldn't just describe their intent instead of just saying Close/Maintain/Charge/etc before rolling the dice. I've never really done that but I might start pushing it more.

[Maedhros]

No, I mean the reverse mapping from concrete descriptions of intent to figuring out the roll isn't all that weird. A side effect of doing a little of that was that I found it much easier to extract concrete descriptions from the abstract you get out of scripting Positioning.

EDIT: In fact I found it so natural I'm wondering if people couldn't just describe their intent instead of just saying Close/Maintain/Charge/etc before rolling the dice. I've never really done that but I might start pushing it more.

Please elaborate - I don't think I'm following.

How does "describing intent" differ from scripting Close/Maintain/Charge/etc?

[Dwight]

Please elaborate - I don't think I'm following.

How does "describing intent" differ from scripting Close/Maintain/Charge/etc?
"I try to corner him so I can get in a good swing." (AKA Close) "I try to get past her to make for the door". (AKA Withdraw) "I cut off his attempt to escape out the door." (AKA Maintain) So you still script Close, Withdraw, Maintain, etc. but you describe the physical actions behind it as the Exchange plays out.

EDIT: I'd be interested how much of this describing of positioning goes on at BWHQ? I always avoided it out of fear of things really complicated to describe as the Fight! went on.

[Maedhros]

"I try to corner him so I can get in a good swing." (AKA Close) "I try to get past her to make for the door". (AKA Withdraw) "I cut off his attempt to escape out the door." (AKA Maintain) So you still script Close, Withdraw, Maintain, etc. but you describe the physical actions behind it as the Exchange plays out.

EDIT: I'd be interested how much of this describing of positioning goes on at BWHQ? I always avoided it out of fear of things really complicated to describe as the Fight! went on.

Ahhh - I see. I would think this is how it's usually done, n'est pas?

[zabieru]

Notice the quotes closing before the "(AKA Close)." If you include that in the quoted player statement, then yes, that's very common. If you don't, you create the possibility for confusion when the GM thinks you're scripting Charge or Maintain instead of Close. I don't recommend that. Just describe what you're doing, and state what maneuver you're using to do it. Not a problem. If your players ain't feeling that, then have them describe, and you suggest the most appropriate maneuver, and then they can correct you if they need to.

[Dwight]

My eyes aren't that fuzzy [yet] and we play at a smallish table, so I can read the script. I suppose some wording choices could leave it confusing if you didn't glance at their script sheet too, or where unable to reliably read the script sheet (less than stellar eyes, larger table, etc).

[elgorade]

My eyes aren't that fuzzy [yet] and we play at a smallish table, so I can read the script. I suppose some wording choices could leave it confusing if you didn't glance at their script sheet too, or where unable to reliably read the script sheet (less than stellar eyes, larger table, etc).

My eyes are that fuzzy, and in any case anything that needs clarification by a quick look at what someone else wrote is probably best stated. Otherwise you end up having to ask anyway when people put their dice on their script sheet, or put it in their pocket for a moment, or have really bad handwriting and are using a scrap of paper, or whatever. Maybe it is my eyes, but I consider it really bad form in a game (board or RPG) when I'm expected to be able to read what is in front of the other players to play.

Noffense taken, just wanted to point out that if it is worth clarifying stated intent, it is worth doing it in a way eveeryone can understand. Since the general medium of the game is spoken and that gets to everyone at once, I think clarification should be in the words.



Doug

[Archdaimon]

In my point of view the biggest problem with scripting is the difference in the skills needed for that and compared to Bloody-versus.

Before hand when creating characters it has to be very clear whether or not you are using scripting.

My problem is that a player with skill 5 in something owns bloody-verus, while he because of the more detailed Fight! might suck against a player built towards the Fight! mechanics.

More consistency between the details and the single skill in bloody-versus would have been nice... though I do not know if that is in any way possible...

My biggest wish would be for the BWHQ to make some kind of detailed fight no more complicated than the "haggeling" rules, that still takes more than one skill into consideration, yet doesn't need the 1 hour engagement that Fight! can easily become.

[zipht]

Part of the issue IMO is the scripting sheet is very busy. Both in layout and also in how much is packed into it.

Yes, I agree Fights scripting sheet is much to busy. It really confused me when I first started playing.

My advise is, ask one of your friends to just do a bunch of fights with you. Use Characters from the book. Once you get a handle on it Fights can go very quickly, unless both sides have armor. Then you should aways have an ax ready.

[Dwight]

... unless both sides have armor. Then you should aways have an ax ready.
Or a willingness to take it to the mats! Charge & Lock FTW! :)


My problem is that a player with skill 5 in something owns bloody-verus, while he because of the more detailed Fight! might suck against a player built towards the Fight! mechanics.
That's somewhat of an issue for some types of builds like a high Power not getting his chance at Lock (but he's still going to be quite dangerous if he does win, and the dice are fickle). Similar with some Feats, if you don't choose to factor them into the Bloody Vs with bonus die. But from just a Skill POV I'll take a Sword B4, Brawling B4, Dirty-Fighting-Wise B3, Melee-Tactics-Wise B2, Mace B3, up against a Mace B6, no problem.

So the optimals are somewhat different but it isn't horrendous because the broader based character still sees benefits.