Combat using ONLY the Hub and Spokes

[chris_moore]

So, I'm gearing up to burn characters with my group for a BW game using only the Hub and Spokes (first 77 pages?) of the rules. For Combat, I'd like to use a Vs. test. I've read about "Bloody Versus", but that mechanic requires the use of the Weapons Mechanic and Injury rules. Any advice? Avoid combat until we're ready for those rules? Any other simple variant on a Vs. Test I could use?

Thanks for the help,
Chris

[luke]

No way. I used simple versus tests for all of the combat in our Inheritance con game.

It went like this: Get everyone pumped for a fight. Stop action, call for steel to be drawn. Let each side state intent -- to injure/maim, capture, kill, impress, etc. Describe how intent is to be accomplished (aka Task). Gather skill, FoRK, help and advantage dice. Make sure the contribution of each die is described. Spend artha where appropriate. Both sides roll at the same time. GM describes a little action. Spend artha where appropriate. Winner describes his successful intent.

Bam, fight's over! Usually takes about five minutes of game time.

Very intense combat mechanic. We'd have 10 people on their feet chewing their nails and hollering whenever there was a fight in Inheritance.

-L

[pseudoidiot]

Just do a simple versus test? Weapon skill vs weapon skill. Advantage dice for anything you think that's appropriate -- reflexes, long weapon, superior equipment, etc... Just forget the injury mechanics and set the stakes however you want.

edit: damn, ninja'd by look with a far more elegant answer :)

[Wrathbone]

Also see Clash of Arms: Simple Melee Mechanics. It's a download in the wiki (did Luke write this?).

One question: why are the mechanics so different for versus and bloody versus tests? What I mean is, for versus tests one character decides to hit another guy, who defends (one attacker & one defender). I'm guessing after this test the defender says, "okay, I'll hit him back". Whereas with bloody versus, this is all assumed in the one roll - they are both attacking and defending.

[luke]

Actually, there's no implicit defense in the standard versus test. You can both try to kill one another. Makes ties very interesting. Gets even more interesting when you have more than two people acting at the same time.

[NeilFord]

Also see Clash of Arms: Simple Melee Mechanics. It's a download in the wiki (did Luke write this?).

Ummm... can't seem to be able to find this. Anyone got a url?

- Neil.

[Dwight]

One question: why are the mechanics so different for versus and bloody versus tests? What I mean is, for versus tests one character decides to hit another guy, who defends (one attacker & one defender). I'm guessing after this test the defender says, "okay, I'll hit him back". Whereas with bloody versus, this is all assumed in the one roll - they are both attacking and defending.
Why? Because one is a spoke is the other is a more detailed Rim component, so you have the extra detail in explicitly breaking out the defense from the offense. :) To add to what Luke mentioned you can have defense explicit as intent. I'll give a specific case, a 3-way fight, and the PCs (being relatively non-combat orientated characters) were just looking to keep out of the way till the 3rd side of the triangle was resolved. They wanted to keep one opponent at bay (they didn't want to hurt them, didn't want to get hurt by them) at the same time as appearing to be on the other opponents side.

Because there was two intents we made two rolls. The first was to have the appearance of fighting on offense (IIRC this was some sort of social-type Skill vs Perception, I forget precisely which Skill though, with combat FoRKs). The second was a Firearms vs Steel I think (PCs were using dueling pistols to create the threat to keep the opponent at bay, the opponent was a group of Scotland Yard flatfoots with clubs). If they failed the first roll the 2nd opponent would realize they were trying to dupe him (and he would have turned on the PCs and bad things would have happened). If the Coppers would have won the second Test they would have closed and beat the PCs into submission (Mi wound is the specifics I recall). If they succeeded both Tests they would be able to hold off till the Coppers dealt with the second opponent and could surrender in relative safety to have things sorted out by the Detective in charge of the case (that knew the PCs were informants).

Technically that is using a part of the Rim, Anatomy of Injury ((EDIT: But only part of it, the recovery parts. Didn't use the PTGS of the character, just said it'd be a 2D injury instead of giving it as an exponent and comparing that to the character's PTGS)). But it isn't using any of the combat parts. And in the end we didn't actually use the Rim since they succeeded (in spite of the PC doing the first roll going momentarily Blind because of a backfire from a Curse he had previously failed his Pronounce Test for :D ).

It was a relatively low combat campaign but every time there was combat it was quite tense and 'detailed' in what occurred with the characters. Even though it was usually only one or two rolls.

[Paul B]

This is probably what we'll end up doing in our next B* game. I really, really like the idea of inflicting an outcome, rather than damage, in combat. Obviously it requires the players be on board and not abusive.

EDIT: I think we'd probably have to come up with with a common agreement as to what "Injured" means -- or maybe the intent really is to just tag a specific level of injury on the wheel. I think I'd rather do it like Mouse Guard conditions, where Injured is, IIRC, a flat +1Ob to everything 'til you're, uh, not injured.

p.

[Dwight]

I think we'd probably have to come up with with a common agreement as to what "Injured" means -- or maybe the intent really is to just tag a specific level of injury on the wheel. I think I'd rather do it like Mouse Guard conditions, where Injured is, IIRC, a flat +1Ob to everything 'til you're, uh, not injured.
I've given a little thought to this too. You could do +1Ob through +3Ob. Instead the fixed "Thirsty/Hungry" and rules about what it affects and the hierarchy of what you can fix first you can just colour the state custom on the go. Have just a simple list of injuries/maladies by description and the associated Ob, and just clear whichever one you've got time for when you've got time. I know there are a few places other than Injury where there are Tax dice but they are all special cases too. The Tax dice make sense if you are worried about determining precisely when someone falls unconscious during the combat but if you are handling combat in a Single Test roll then that isn't relevant.

With recovery like MG with just a simple Health Test (or whatever is appropriate to the condition) to clear when you've got an appropriate amount of time to rest and heal/bake cookies/etc. (probably appropriate to the +Ob like 1 day/1 week/2 months for each higher condition and an Ob for the test appropriate too). Injuries that subtract dice were sort of a special condition in BW anyway since penalties are normally +Ob. With a +3Ob penalty (with potentially 2 month downtime and something like an Ob 5 Health test to recover while risking permanent maiming) on the line that's going to provide plenty of tension without death being on the table.

The downside (or maybe upside?) is that all that detail in the PTGS in mostly useless. You can use the MW as an eyeball vs the threat as a guide for picking the damage but the exact exponent most of the other PTGS has very little use. A consequence of this, and the fact you don't have to worry so much about dropping unconscious because of single low stat bring taxed to zero, is there is less pressure against min/maxing Stats (and they lose some of their mechanical value, for various reasons).

[BobSlaughter]

Ummm... can't seem to be able to find this. Anyone got a url?

- Neil.

Seconded. Did a search on the Wiki and on Google; nothing came up.

[Paul B]

So we did character/world/setting/situation making for an all-orc game last night and I pitched this idea to my players. They seemed generally enthusiastic, but once we started digging in, we started noticing how thoroughly integrated the Fight! subsystems are with the entire game. Like...one player wants to be a Servant of the Black Blood, or whatever the nasty shaman crew is called -- I had no idea what to tell him about action costs and speed of casting and all that. I mean, the answer really has to be 'none of that matters', but just the fact that you have numbers and aren't using them is...I don't know. Disconcerting I guess.

Another player was working through his Resources decisions and, of course, wasn't thrilled with the notion that all his equipment basically came down to mere props.

Stat decisions were another sticking point. Getting that fourth reflex squeezed out is a BIG DEAL if you're scripting; not so much without.

We're almost wondering if maybe we should consider a short-ish list of relevant modifications. Like...the player with the highest Reflex gets +1D. Longest reach weapon gets +1D. Fastest weapon. Strongest armor. Highest-power weapon. Stuff like that. It seems like that kind of undermines the intense simplicity of just rolling the versus test and getting on with it. Feels a bit like the checklist you go through to figure Firefight! disposition in BE.

Really, it was weird to fight/advocate so hard *against* scripting, and to listen to players fight so hard *for* it. I think we reached a compromise, though, and agreed to dig into scripting only in the event of a Belief-specific Fight! situation.

p.

[Dwight]

Feels a bit like the checklist you go through to figure Firefight! disposition in BE.
Probably a really good reason for that ... since that's what I assume all that stuff in FF! is for, abstracting in place of the Reflexes and Positioning tests that you don't have anymore.


Really, it was weird to fight/advocate so hard *against* scripting, and to listen to players fight so hard *for* it. I think we reached a compromise, though, and agreed to dig into scripting only in the event of a Belief-specific Fight! situation.
IMO that should probably explicitly be the default way to play the game. You could argue that it is implicitly, because you are only suppose to be focusing down in detail on what really matters to the people at the table. Beliefs are suppose to be what matters. If you do this you tend to avoid a lot of things that are either one-sided or very complicated (large scale Fight! battles like that 11 a side one Earthenforge ran). The downside is that if you are still learning Fight! the gaps between using it means it takes much, much longer to learn.

[Kevin]

Also see Clash of Arms: Simple Melee Mechanics. It's a download in the wiki (did Luke write this?).

I don't think it is anymore. I still have a copy but it dates back to BW Classic. I think it got dumped in the revision in favour of the Bloody Versus test.

However, it pretty much boiled down to making a series of Bloody Versus tests until one combatant decided to stop.

[Fourth Horseman]

All this talk of versus tests and stripped down BW is making Jesus weep ...

That's cool for short one off games, or even in campaigns when you want to resolve a conflict that doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things and would just get in the way of getting to a juicier conflict during a session. But if you are running a longterm campaign I would advise treating fight! and DoW like voting, do it early and often ...

Eschewing fight! and DoW robs your characters and games of several things:

a) Emotional investment and hence drama: resolving a bloody versus test, 1 minute, scripting out a fight! to conclusion, 30 minutes, scripting out a massive fight! with multiple combatants, 2 hours, the satisfaction of outscripting and beating 6 trolls, 58 orcs, and a necromancer with 3 PCs in a knock down drag out fight! ... timeless.

b) Narrative: a fight! and DoW writes its own narrative and hence feels a lot less contrived or arbitrary than a versus test.

c) Tests: all ye advancement whores take note, you are going to test a hell of a lot more stats and skills regularly using the fight! and DoW mechanics. R&C alone will be a boone to perception and speed. Now getting tests and advancing your characters isn't just about being a power gaming whore. How else do you think you are going to grow low LP characters into something that can take on the more interesting and powerful bad guys? I don't know about you guys, but I prefer the attachment that comes from growing a character from a low power grub into a badass, rather then burning a badass right off the bat.

d) Epiphanies: having more opportunities for tests means having more opportunities to burn artha on them.

Once you start doing fight! and DoW on a regular basis scripting will become second nature. I won't lie, it will still at times be very time consuming, but the rewards are still manifest.

[chris_moore]

Well, we'll get a hanky for Jesus, 'cause we're excited to play BW this way (for starters, at least).

I'm interested to see if your opinions bear out with our group. They very well might. I'll definitely apologize to the Messiah if you're right.

-Chris

[Paul B]

Oh yeah, nothing better for building strong emotional investment than a scripted Fight! featuring two heavily armored, equally skilled foes.

After a couple hours of whiffage, I'm ready to see them all die in a fire.

p.

[Dwight]

Oh yeah, nothing better for building strong emotional investment than a scripted Fight! featuring two heavily armored, equally skilled foes.

After a couple hours of whiffage, I'm ready to see them all die in a fire.

p.
Couple of hours? Ikarumba! Aggressive Stance + Great Strike + Mace (or other high AP weapon) + aiming for the extremities [EDIT: + FoRKs] will bring buddy to his knees quickly. As can choosing to by-pass armour using 'rassling moves. Or if the opponent is well armoured, on all extremities and you aren't hopefully you've got a ranged weapon to move out to R&C and poke holes in him.

However if both sides turtle and don't exploit options available, especially with low Skill coupled with disproportionately high quality armour, you can end up in a snorefest. What Fight! rules don't do well is help out players/GMs by closing off these dead-ends systemically. It relies more on player experience and knowledge of the system, and a general aggressive attitude [fostered by the rest of the system], to protect against these bad situations.