Defender's Choice: The Target On Offer

[luke]

These mechanics were inspired by Don C (eruditus) and my abject hatred of all called shots rules in all games.


When Striking an opponent the target/defender chooses what area of his character is most vulnerable at that time. Should the attacker/striker meet his obstacle to hit, his blow impacts with the area on offer.

Should the attacker earn extra successes, he may spend them to move his target from the one on offer, to another adjacent area.

P1: I'm Striking.

P2: My legs are the most vulnerable area.

P1: ::rolls and gets 4 successes:: Ok, I got a Mark result and I'm spending one success to move the location up to his torso.


If he had got three successes he'd have to choose between doing a Mark result to the legs, or spending a success to move the location and reduce his damage to Incidental.

This rule would completely eliminate the need for called shot rules in melee combat. (I think.)

My instinct would be that you can only move the location two areas if you got a Superb result and more than one extra success. Otherwise, you can only spend one success to move location, extra or not. I'm just worried that we're going to see all extra success spent to push the location to the unarmored areas everytime. Hm, I can be convinced otherwise, though.

This needs to be playtested, but golly, I like how it looks.

-L

[foxandwarlock]

Okay, so I get the concept. I mean its kind of like inverted-TROS rules, where instead of the attacker declaring where he's attacking, the defender declares where he is attacking.

Here's my ongoing uneasiness with this situation. You are depending on one party consistently for variety. Why wouldn't I always put my most heavily armorered spot out for grabs (i.e. torso in most cases)?

And if your response is, well thats not realistic. Okay, true, and I'm no munchkin but I'm also not into voluntarily suiciding/hurting my character just for the sake of variety. I mean wounds are pretty serious business in BW.

I wonder if you'd end up just needing the same Ob to hit stuff as if you'd just called shot it. For example, someone attacks, I declare torso is my most vulnerable area. So the attacker needs an Ob 1 and what they are really trying to do is whack my head. So normally, they would need an Ob 2 (I think, right?) so what's the difference between rolling against an Ob 2 or rolling against an Ob 1 and needing 1 more to do what I want? The fact that I hit?

And if the arch-villain is holding a potion bottle I need to smash, all he has to do is keep declaring his heavily armored leg and I can never reach his hand (Leg --> Torso --> Torso to arm --> Arm to hand) because its 3 bumps. I mean I get it - he's making sure he's putting everything between me and the potion bottle but there needs to be SOME way to do it.

It seems kind of complicated to work out in a system that flows pretty good once the scripting gets rolling. Where did you say? Okay, well, what direction am I facing you? Is that really adjacent? I'm just not sure that all the hassle is worth the avoidance of the called shot rules. I think the called shot rules are amazingly simple and fit with the rest of the combat system.

[Thor]

Honestly, I'm pretty happy with the rules that currently exist. I tend not to do called shots anyway. I understand that sometimes it makes sense to Assess and go for a called shot though.

But with these rules, what is to prevent the target from always calling the torso (which is more heavily armored).

If you're going to try something like this, I would make a few suggestions: first, make these rules optional (which I figure you're planning to do anyway). Second, I think the defender should always choose the arms, hands or legs as the most vulnerable part (which they usually were), and should have to spend block dice to change the location.

Then we could use your ideas for the attacker as stipulated. What do you think?

[foxandwarlock]

There should be some benefit to wearing a breastplate. I mean even now, police wear bullet proof vests that technically only cover one attack region - because a) its where all the fragile, mushy parts are and b) its the biggest, most easily aimed for chunk of flesh.

I know Thor is historically/realistically accurate and that we are talking about bullets (straight line) versus swung blades (which hit arms & hands, arcs) but I mean, in Thor's scenario, I'd be further ahead to wear greeves and sleeves then a breastplate - so the whole idea that the torso armor gives +1D is negated.

To me if we are going to get into what area is vulnerable at any given second/exchange/moment, you've got to do it via random table where arms and legs are high percentages and the others are less - to reflect the randomness of fighting. But do you really need that kind of detail in the Wheel? I mean the effects of injuries are not specific to the location so why go so far as to have to determine which location is vulnerable at any given time?

[Thor]

To me if we are going to get into what area is vulnerable at any given second/exchange/moment, you've got to do it via random table where arms and legs are high percentages and the others are less - to reflect the randomness of fighting. But do you really need that kind of detail in the Wheel? I mean the effects of injuries are not specific to the location so why go so far as to have to determine which location is vulnerable at any given time?

I agree that we are getting down to a fine level of detail. I don't think I would use these rules if I were running a game.

That said, I don't think making arms, hands, or legs the default is really going to negate the value of the breast plate. It's only one step to the torso from arms and legs, so if you wanted to do that, you could. Basically, you'd be choosing to protect your limbs and trusting your armor to save you.

And honestly, I'd rather take a blow on my vambraces and risk a cut to the arm than let a blade get near my essential squishy parts.

[foxandwarlock]

Okay, true that Thor. Cut my forearm rather then my spleen.

But why, o why, would I ever want to go from a less armored area to the +1D breastplate? Systemically it doesn't make any sense even though realistically it would.

Again, you get to the idea that BW doesn't care if that's a light wound to the torso or a light wound to the arm - there's no difference in its effects. So there's no incentive for me to burn up my successes moving from the arm to the more heavily armorered torso. The only reason I'd want to do that is if: a) the guy has sleeves but not a hauberk or b) if I got more effects from dealing torso damage (critical, etc) then I would have incentive to risk the armor roll in exchange for a more crippling shot - but BW doesn't have and doesn't want that kind of stuff.

I'm with Thor, I probably wouldn't use these rules either - we're working to hard to solve a problem that really isn't a problem.

[Thor]

Again, you get to the idea that BW doesn't care if that's a light wound to the torso or a light wound to the arm - there's no difference in its effects. So there's no incentive for me to burn up my successes moving from the arm to the more heavily armorered torso. The only reason I'd want to do that is if: a) the guy has sleeves but not a hauberk or b) if I got more effects from dealing torso damage (critical, etc) then I would have incentive to risk the armor roll in exchange for a more crippling shot - but BW doesn't have and doesn't want that kind of stuff.


Well, consider you're facing an opponent that isn't wearing a helmet, or one that doesn't have protection on his lower arms/hands, or likewise on his legs.

The guy without the helmet can choose to make his hands/lower arms the default, and someone would have to spend 2 attack successes (that's a full IMS step with a sword or axe) to get to the head, which is unarmored.

The guy without gauntlets can make his legs the default, and someone would have to take 3 steps (i.e., spend 3 attack successes) to get to the hands. It makes sense to me.

[Kublai]

Arms to legs is only one step. The most steps you'll ever see is two, and that's from the legs to the head.

This system is not to my liking at all.

[Thor]

Arms to legs is only one step. The most steps you'll ever see is two, and that's from the legs to the head.

This system is not to my liking at all.

I thought it went upper legs-->torso-->upper arms, etc.?

But anyway, as I've said, intellectually I think it shows some promise, but I don't think it's something I would use.

[luke]

Actually, there is a problem looming with the new revisions. I'm trying to nip it in the bud with this rule.

In the basic skill>damage>injury resolution system there is absolutely no need to ever do a called shot. The abstraction of the system handles all of that.

Add armor into the mix, and things change. With the old "overall" armor test, the abstraction of the hit location and damage remained. Overall armor abstracted the "i'm taking my best shot" process.

We're leaving the overall armor test behind. Now each area can be individually and fully armored. Well, how do we determine which individual area is hit from the abstracted skill>damage>injury resolution system?

Our first instinct was to stay in the same ballpark: Chest counts as the "overall" location, pay the called shot penalty to attack another area.

Mark me, this rule isn't going to pass muster. It's wonky, guys.

Random hit location is not an option.

So why not put the burdern of the hit location on the defender? Use the "default location" from the "always hits the chest" rule and let him choose his default.

Attackers can still aim for areas, but this is done after the dice are rolled by spending successes on damage and "accuracy." Ideally, there would be no "called shots" in this, as you wouldn't need them. The defender/target would let his attacker know which areas are open to attack, and the attacker would test his skill to see if he can manipulate those openings.

Locations need to be simple: Legs<>Torso<>Head. Arms can be hit from any location and can move to any location.

It needs playtesting, but I see a lot of room for risk and strategy.
-L

[Kublai]

Our first instinct was to stay in the same ballpark: Chest counts as the "overall" location, pay the called shot penalty to attack another area.

Mark me, this rule isn't going to pass muster. It's wonky, guys.

You've said yourself many times that the instinct for a fighter is to go for center mass. It takes skill and focus to go for the other areas of the body. From this argument, it makes sense the default in BW should be to go for the chest.

I fail to understand the wonkiness of this method. Please explain.

I also will state now that I think poorly of adding another level to combat - a declaration of vulnerability.

[luke]

I fail to understand the wonkiness of this method. Please explain.


Actually, the center mass thing was Don. I went along with it because it sounded good and fixed a problem with the new armor system.

However, having all shots hit the chest and ignore the surrounding areas completely -- at no further obstacle penalty -- defeats the purpose of armor and the current called shots penalty. Armored targets are in an wierd situation where if they are completely armored, the chest is the most vulnerable point, and if one location isn't armored, they're fucked.

The three "martial artists" I spoke to today (of which you were one, and the least experienced), all agreed that there are no particular "called shots" because everything is a called shot. You're always picking a target, but sometimes something gets in the way or the movement changes and you hit something else.

As far as the gameplay of this rule goes: I love the idea that defenders/targets get to present their most vulnerable area. It doesn't have to be their weak point, it could very well be their most armored area. But they are presenting a risk that the location gets moved to a more truly vulnerable area.

Solves the hit location thing and armor location thing pretty neatly, I think.

-L

[Kublai]

However, having all shots hit the chest and ignore the surrounding areas completely -- at no further obstacle penalty -- defeats the purpose of armor and the current called shots penalty.

As I understood it, the called shot penalty remained. If not, it should be there no matter.


The three "martial artists" I spoke to today (of which you were one, and the least experienced), all agreed that there are no particular "called shots" because everything is a called shot. You're always picking a target, but sometimes something gets in the way or the movement changes and you hit something else.

Perhaps, my lack of experience compared to the other two masters only proves my point. Novices go for the mass, experts go wherever they want.

[Pogue Mahone]

Instead of doing away with called shots instead do away with the default attack. Have the attacker always script the area they are aiming for. Count an attack to the torso as 1 OB plus movement etc. (as it stands now) Have some way for the defender to move the attack to a more nonlethal area "gets his arm into the way". An Avoid where the number of successes alows a "step" away from the targeted area. Enough successes is a coplete dodge.

[Viper]

OK, the way armor works now means that it's actually more advantageous for the defender to take a shot in the chest than it is for him to take one in the arm, because he has an extra die of protection in that area. That's just not how it works, though... in a fight, no one is going to just give you their chest (or head for that matter), they're going to try to stop any blow that might come for their vitals with their hands and arms. Look at boxers- how they hold their bodies. They will try to block incoming body blows with their elbows. It's instinct to protect your vital organs.

That's the problem with letting the defender choose the default area- if it were me, I'd always keep my default as my chest, trusting the extra die of armor to give me protection. In real life, however, even if I was in a suit of full plate, I would never stick my chest out to receive a sword thrust because I thought my armor was thicker there. I'd try to block with my own sword, or if I was out of position, I'd try to turn and take it in the arm or shoulder.

The question is, I think, why would you ever do a "called shot" to a limb? Maybe to disarm your opponent, or knock him off his feet, but for the most part, if you're out for blood, you're going to go for his chest and head, and he's going to do what he can to stop you. Even if he's not actively defending these areas with a block action, there's natural defenses that come into play in the form of reflexes, and the way he is standing. Most combat stances do not expose the chest head on, there's usually one shoulder facing an opponent. This gets in the way of a clean chest strike.

I think my point is that even when you're not blocking, you're blocking. Just by the way you hold yourself, the way you move.

A major roadblock here is that there is no limit (correct me if I'm wrong) to the amount of damage you can do to a limb. If I do a called shot to the arm, and I roll well enough, I can kill someone outright (let's say a b11 on a human with MW10). ON the one hand you can say I cleaved through his arm and sliced deep into his trunk, but then, wouldn't I need a second armor test for his chest armor? On the other, you can say that losing an arm in medieval times was pretty much a mortal wound, thanks to their primitive medicine. Maybe so, but losing a limb is not instantly fatal. SO if I can kill him just as good by hitting his arm, why should I go for his chest and give him the extra die to roll?

The challenge here is finding a system where going for the chest/head and going for a limb are both viable tactics.

I'm going to suggest a few of things here, lets see how they go:

1) The defender's default hit area is his arms, assuming he is not surprised or otherwise ambushed. This represents his natural reflexes and fighting stance (just the fact that he's IN a fighting stance, doesn't matter if it's aggressive, neutral, or whatever)

2) The attacker can allocate extra successes to shift the damage to another location. Head or chest: 1 die Legs: 2 dice. (it's equally as easy to move past someone's guard to go for the upper body, it's tricky to make a shot aimed at the upper body go low instead)

3) Leg shots are called shots - no extra obstacle, but you have to declare that you're going for the legs- leg attacks are tactical moves, part of a strategy, not something you'd specifically go for unless you had a reason (disable, capture, etc.)

4) The highest wound an arm can sustain is a Serious Wound (maybe traumatic) This means the arm is severed- default hit location now moves to chest or head, whichever is more vulnerable. (this gives the attacker the option to sever the limb and take advantage of the fewer armor dice, or take the penalty of the extra die and move the hit to the chest)

5) Helmets should provide an extra die of protection, just like the chest. A warrior in chainmail armor will likely have a solid metal helmet, much stronger than what is protecting the rest of his body. The two absolutely vital areas are the head and the heart, and they should both be well protected.

[Pogue Mahone]

I like what viper is getting at.
This whole discussion is about adding another level of detail to combat. I don't have a problem with that but though I love combat in burning wheel I would not inject more detail into my regular campaign. One of things I love about the combat is that each volley is only a couple of rolls. I think the abstraction of combat details is part of what allows the game to flow and what helps us have an enjoyable dramatic experience. On that note I would love to see a combat burner. A suplement that took combat and made it the focus. Adding several layers of detail to BW combats. This would be great to use in a gritty non fantasy game like a musketeer campaign.
I want to return to some of the Ideas from my earlier post and expand upon them.
If you remove the idea of a general strike and make all strikes a scripted called shot then you do away with the need for a general armor pool. This would increase the value of individual armor pieces. Tying in the "on offer idea"... have a map of the body with OB pools for Head, Torso, Left Arm, Right Arm, Left Leg, and Right Leg. The defender then has a group of OB points that he can asign to the diferent areas and may shift around each Exchange. Lets say 5 points for the sake of it.
Joe fighter fighting without armor, not by choice, senses a great strike is on the way and winds up being correct. He wants to protect his vital organs so he has put 3 of his OB on his chest and 2 on his head figuring that his opponent will probably go for his body but still wanting to keep his head attached. Joe fighter is dashing around so this makes his OB 4 for body, 3 for head and 1 everywhere else. To Joes misfortune his opponent had actually decided to disarm him and the 5 successes roll by his attacker nearly take his arm off. Armor would add its OB to the areas it is covering.
We could then have a couple of feats that would allow attacker or defender to shift where the strike landed at the last instant.
I would like to see diferent wound scales for different parts of the body. So the scale for the head would have most of the torelances lower down so that it makes a critical strike more likely. That would be interesting to see.
My ramblin' is done.

[luke]

Well just when you thought this controversial topic was dead, I return to tell of my playtests!

Ian (my martial arts adviser and co-creator of the scripting system) and I ran some quick playtests today.

The Sword Singer vs the Named. (God, the Named is tough!)

To review the mechanic at test:
When Striking, the defender/target declares where he is vulnerable or what target is open to the attacker. Meeting the obstacle to hit means the attacker's blow lands where the defender offered.

Extra successes are used to move the location of the hit from what was offered to one more desirable to the attacker.

Essentially, after rolling, the attacker divides his successes between his accuracy and damage.

So here's how it panned out:
I knocked Ian down, but he had a Strike scripted next. I offered him my Chest armor. He glared at me, "Isn't there a point when a GM should intervene?" He wanted to hit me on the legs, I didn't want him to. I replied, "You can swing up, I don't want you to hit my legs and I'm covering them with my shield." "Fine," he replied.

End result? He got two successes over his obstacle. I knocked off one of them with my shield, leaving him with one remaining. He used that success to move his blow down to my lightly armored legs. No additional successes were put into damage, so he did an Incidental. Superficial wound to the Orc. Bastard.

Next, my revenge: I struck, he offered me his chest as the target-- he had 6 dice on that location, great. I got two extra successes, a Mark result or I could move the location. Fuck it, I left on the chest. If I did get through the armor, I wanted it to hurt. He failed the armor test. Heh, I do a B10 on my Mark. No more Mr Smartie Elf.

Round two. Ian comes in at me with a Strike. Thinking I'm clever, I offer him my head as the target. You see, I didn't want him to hit me in my lightly armored legs again, and my head was protected by a patented Spiky Orc Helmet. Ian gets one success over his obstacle, and tries to hit me in the chest. I knock that success off with my shield dice -- moving Ian's target back to where I wanted it, the head. End Result? He hits me in the head, breaks my helmet and gives me a Superficial. Damn Freakin Elves.

After that, Mr Orc was pretty annoyed. I spent all my extra successes to hit him in the head, while trying to force him to hit me in the chest/shoulders.

Last action: Strike vs Strike/Block. Both of us offer the chest as a target, both of us use an extra success to move that to the head. My shield doesn't save me -- not enough successes to push it back down to my chest.

We both fail our armor test, and suddenly it's good to be an immensely tough Orc. I take a Light wound, Ian takes a Traumatic. Heh.



So we had two pretty evenly matched chararacters going at it using the new armor, wounding, and hit location rules. There weren't a lot of extra successes to toss around as the fight wore on -- Ob 4 was the standard.

It came down to scripting and a little luck. Ian scripted aggressively when he should have been going defensive, and scripted defensive when he should have been exploiting my weaknesses. The armor and wounding system held up well, and I felt the success allocation/hit location system really enhanced the process.

There need to be some more playtests, but I am confident that this is going in the revision.

rock on,
-L

[Kaare Berg]

Can I chip in as a purist.

This adds another level of chunkyness to a working system. Why?

Granted I haven't read the revised armour (both for purist and lazyness reasons, if someone can point me to a summary I will read it).

Question is still valid though.

BW works, are you changing it just to change it?

[Judd]

What does this add to the game? How does this mechanic help players make their heroes more heroic and GM's make their villains more villainous?

I love it as a free download in the optional rules section. That's great.

But putting it in the new book seems a bit much.

Next time I run a game I'd try and use it but I feel that I'm just getting scripting under my belt as it is.

Scripting feels counter-intuitive at first but once you see a combat work it is great.

This adds another counter-intuitive element to this game and I'm just not crazy about how they will pile up in the eyes of the newcomer to BW.

[luke]

It adds exactly TWO SENTENCES to the game.

The dice are already rolled, the successes are already on the table. Where you now just say, "Four extra successes, Superb hit," with these rules you say, "My head is open." "Four extra successes, two to damage, two to aim the blow to your legs."

You divide successes between two options like you do for every other skill roll. This is absolutely NOT a new idea in the game, not now and not in the revision.

What it adds is another layer of depth, tangibility and palpability to game play in combat. What it does mechanically is gets rid of CALLED SHOTS entirely. Called Shots are problematic and broken in Burning Wheel. Currently, players have to declare a called shot before they roll and pay an extra success for it. I've run a lot of combat demos, and inevitably players also expect an additional effect for their troubles. Problem is, the BW skill>damage>injury system does not give an extra damage effect based on location.

The called shot penalty as it stands now is a product of the abstracted armor system. You need them to bypass the full armor roll. Well, we don't have an abstracted armor system any more. We have a detailed per location armor system. Yet we have no mechanic for aiming blows at the various locations. Or at least we didn't, now we did.

Lastly, this mechanic also completely fixes the Naked Achaean problem. Wasn't my intent when I designed it, but it just so happens that those naked, shield bearing Acheans could use their Block dice to keep the shots falling on their head and legs, as opposed to their naked torso.

-L

[foxandwarlock]

As a knife-fighter (in game) I have to ask.

So what are the advantages of Getting Inside now? Since the benefit of having no penalties for Called Shots has been removed.

Does being Inside allow me to move one location automatically based on my ability to maneuver inside of the person's reach?

In the case of your naked Achean, I would be able to move it to his torso even though he specified his shield arm because I am effectively too close for him to exactly control what location he exposes. Just a thought.

[luke]

Benefits for being on the inside: 1) Your opponent no longer has access to his shield. 2) Weapon length obstacle penalties still apply. Axe/long weapon +4 Ob, Sword +3 Ob, Club/Small sword +2 Ob, Hilt strikes +1 Ob, Knives/fists are at no penalty.

So versus a sword, that's three extras successes you have to work with right there. Seems like a nice advantage to me -- you'll be pumping shots into his faceplate in no time.

-L

[luke]

Sorry to double post, be we're thinking that the Feint maneuver switches the rolls -- attacker calls 'cause he's faked your ass out.

-L

[foxandwarlock]

I forgot about rendering the shield ineffective. Okay, I give.

The knife fighters are still making out :D

[Kublai]

It adds exactly TWO SENTENCES to the game.

Two Sentences in the book equals many sentences in play. You and Ian got into an argument during the first playtest and you came up with some lame answer to it. How often will this occur?


I've run a lot of combat demos, and inevitably players also expect an additional effect for their troubles. Problem is, the BW skill>damage>injury system does not give an extra damage effect based on location.

And this new system does not address their desires either. In fact, it seems to sweep aside the option altogether. People didn't have a problem with the called shots, they had a problem that the called shots had no further effect than a normal shot. People want a called shot to have a different effect than an uncalled shot. The obvious solution is to give specific effects to called shots on specific locations.

Instead of making players happy with called shots, you've taken away called shots altogether. Why? You've recreated the wheel here. Instead of having a fixed "vulnerable" location, you have a mobile one. To hit other locations besides it, you still need to do what is in essence a "Called Shot."

Example. In the official system, if I wanted to hit your head, it was a +1 Obstacle. In your new system, if the Chest was "vulnerable" it is +1 Obstacle to hit the head.

I really don't see the difference in systems besides the complication of a mobile "vulnerability."

What I want from the damage system is effects for my called shots. I am sure I am not alone. When I hit someone in the eye and do a Midi wound, it should have some different effect than a midi wound to the arm. Your new system doesn't address this at all. A midi to the leg is still the same as a midi to the head as a midi to the chest.

[luke]

What I want from the damage system is effects for my called shots. I am sure I am not alone. When I hit someone in the eye and do a Midi wound, it should have some different effect than a midi wound to the arm. Your new system doesn't address this at all. A midi to the leg is still the same as a midi to the head as a midi to the chest.

Have fun designing your own game! ::waves::

The Burning Wheel damage system is abstract, and it's staying abstract. I'm not changing the simple damage system.
::imagines the incredible row such a rule mod would create::
::shudders::

You're right, though, this system is just a flip of the current called shot system -- making called shots "optional" for every single blow landed. Jeez, I know, sounds terrible. Allowing extra narrative powers on the part of the player. God, what am I THINKING!

I'll say it again: The current called shot rules don't work with the new armor system. Defaulting to the chest just doesn't work. And allowing players to freeling whack at unarmored areas doesn't work.

Let me ask you (all) this: If I'm heavily armored in one location, why wouldn't I direct/deflect incoming blows to those areas, just in case I failed to deflect them entirely myself? Why wouldn't I rely on my plated mail greaves to protect my arms? Why wouldn't I not worry about shots falling on the shoulders or ribs because of my beefy breastplate? Why wouldn't I leave little openings for my opponent so that I might exploit them if he takes the bait?

I seem to recall a (private) conversation between Kublai and myself where he said that he did just that when sparring. He'd let shots hit him in the armor when he couldn't block them because he knew it'd soften the blow ....

The history we simulate is also full of examples of partially armored soldiers: helmet-less, greave-less, glove-less. What's up with that? Why didn't they just get hit in the soft spot on the first hit and go down? Because I suspect there was something else going on -- they were defending those openings in other ways.

And as far as "lame" arguments go: We played it strictly by the rule as written and it worked fine. It took ten seconds to resolve and added a nice detail to the combat.

-L

[Wuxing]

If I can convince everyone in my group to do it, we'll try this option out at our next session. The more I think about it, the more I think it will add something cool to the game.

foxandwarlock may feel different, but we'll see...

[luke]

If I can convince everyone in my group to do it, we'll try this option out at our next session. The more I think about it, the more I think it will add something cool to the game.

foxandwarlock may feel different, but we'll see...

If you're interested in trying it, I recommend running a quick test of it before unleashing it on your game. You want to make sure that everyone understands what's at stake in a non-crucial setting. Don't want any character's killed because a player didn't understand a playtest rule.

-L

[Kublai]

Because, young Kublai, of a thing called Simplicity in Design. Oh, I know how that must sound to your young, energetic ears, but us old folks, we need Simplicity in Design. Overcomplicating matters for the sake munchkinism or verisimilitude doesn't have the same appeal as you grow older.

The above philosophy clearly goes against this new mechanic. Instead of making things simpler, you're complicating the rules.

So, why not go back to a more abstract and simple armor ruling? Go back to a single pool of armor with one fixed amount of dice depending on type. No called shots at all. No locations. You hit me, I roll my armor dice. Leather gives you 2D, Plated Chain gives you 6D. VA reduces increases Obstacle.

When you wear armor, you are considered to be wearing a complete kit. Wearing less pieces really doesn't matter. Sort of like armor in D+D.

[Thor]

I haven't tried it yet, so I'm still open to the idea.

Even so, I'm with Kublai unless a playtest changes my mind. It seems like you're adding complexity and I'm still not sure what the problem is.

[luke]

The above philosophy clearly goes against this new mechanic. Instead of making things simpler, you're complicating the rules.


1: Because Simplicity in Design is something we always strive for, and don't always achieve.

2: Because this rule is NOT ADDING ANYTHING NEW. It is simply rearranging the order of play to make better sense of the abstractions already involved in play.

3: We've found that the abstracted armor rules were problematic. In a less grainy game, I'm all for it. But the kids like a little more detail in their BW games.

You haven't presented a single valid reason why this mechanic won't work in play. Nor have you tried it. Perhaps a playtest is in order to firm up your opinion one way or another?

-L

[Kublai]

The mechanic works, no doubt. But that isn't my problem. My problem is that it doesn't do anything to address the grievances you have with called shots to begin with. All I see it doing is to creat a mobile vulnerable location, which is fine even though it adds a step to the process. You still do essentially what are "Called Shots" to get to unarmored locations.

How does it address your broken I/M/S or whatever that skill/damage/hit location relationship was (which I still don't understand)?

[Viper]

just to jump in here, I don't know what sort of hypnotic powers Luke has in person, perhaps it's just his sexy swagger, but at Recess we rolled a few dice, and he had me convinced that it's a good idea, or at the very least one worth exploring.

I think what cleared up my confusion was the idea that this mechanic is analogous to a mechanic used in sorcery. in sorcery, when you roll extra successes, you can allocate them to different things- area of effect, damage so on.

What this rule is proposing is to make combat the same way. Ok, so you've cleared your obstacle? Great. You've got 3 extra successes to play around with. You can allocate them to do extra damage, or to move your hit location- i.e., do a Marked result to the chest and risk that extra die of armor, or an Incidental to that unarmored arm, that you're sure will at least slow the bastard down.

The only thing I find a bit cumbersome is the declaration of the default hit area- it adds another thing to keep track of in combat, and I think most people, armored ones anyway will just choose their chest as the default location most of the time anyway to take advantage of the extra die.

I kind of think it works better by just saying the default hit area is the chest, always, and you have to pay to move it, always.


Just a side note to Pete; i understand what you're saying about a midi wound to the eye vs. a midi wound to the arm, but the BW injury system isn't set up to take hit location into account- a midi wound to the head and a midi wound to the arm are two completely different things physically, but they have the same effect mechanically on the wounded party. In the same way that there is no distinction mechanically between a wound inflicted from a crushing weapon, like a mace, and a cutting weapon, like a sword, even though the wounds they inflict are physically very different.

Besides, you can't call a shot to the eye, just the head. You call a shot to the head and get a serious or traumatic wound, okay, you got him in the eye. A Midi, and you probably gave him a ringing blow and deep gash in his temple, missing the eye by that much, because he moved his head at the last possible second.

[luke]

Well, I'm glad you asked!

BW abhors "called shots." Let me define that better: The BW mechanics hate when players force in, "I want to hit him in the eye and blind him before he dies."

Stating all of that before the roll is too much. It takes away from the abstracted system in place. The skill>damage>injury system takes care of all of that for you: how accurate you are, how much damage you do according to your ability, and how that reflects on the target.

It's all determined after the roll: One roll and one table look up (the PTGS) decides if you actually "hit him in the eye and blind him before he dies".

By having a mechanic in the system for Called Shots, players begin to expect to be able to control their intent, task and results. This just isn't possible in the system, and the false expectations hurt player's enjoyment of the system. The mechanic is there, so players want it to do something it can't and won't. We don't know if you blind him until we consult his PTGS, you're saying that you blind him doesn't determine anything or help play.

So, by removing the concept of Called Shots from the system, we fix this neatly. You can't declare this intent when acting, so hopefully the attendant result expectations will fade with. Successes are divided ex post facto between location and the amount of damage you do. It becomes more of a "I'm trying to hit him in the head, and I did a Midi wound. Yippee!" as opposed to, "I hit him in the eye and only did a Midi. WTF?"

The next question is: If damage is abstracted, why does the location of the blow matter? First, because it's fun and adds a lot of flavor to the mechanics. Second, it works REALLY WELL with the new armor rules. And third, I'm incorporating your Steel test results which will work even better with this stuff.

-L

[Kublai]

What do I tell the dwarf who wants to stab everyone in the eye with a dagger?

For example, the dwarf is fighting a bandit who declares his arm is vulnerable. The dwarf rolls 8 dice and gets 5 successes. The bandit didn't script a block, let's say. So that's a Superb shot on the arm, with 2 successes left over.

What's to prevent the dwarf from moving his shot over to the bandit's face and declaring a Superb to the eye? Or is it, you can never stab someone in the eye? or is it, you do enough damage to the face to represent a stab to the eye, but there are no special effects to such a blow?

[luke]

or is it, you do enough damage to the face to represent a stab to the eye, but there are no special effects to such a blow?

If that dwarf character wants to stab his opponent in the eye, he better get lots of successes and be able to divide between damage and aim to get a Superb shot to the head.

The actual damage delivered determines if you hit any vitals. The player's desires don't determine this, the dice do.

-L

[Kublai]

In my example above, he clearly gets enough successes to do it - as will most focused warrior in stance using FoRKs, I imagine.

So he hits him in the eye with a Superb, this is clear. He does the B9 or whatever. The bandit takes a Severe Wound. And that's it, right? No other consequences for hitting the bandit in the eye?

[Thor]

In my example above, he clearly gets enough successes to do it - as will most focused warrior in stance using FoRKs, I imagine.

So he hits him in the eye with a Superb, this is clear. He does the B9 or whatever. The bandit takes a Severe Wound. And that's it, right? No other consequences for hitting the bandit in the eye?

I think you're making abzu's case for him, Kublai. Under the new system, you can't declare you're going to hit someone in the eye. You hit them in the head. If you do enough damage, then the GM can rule you hit 'em in the eye.

[Viper]

well, he's gonna gain the "missing eye" trait with all of it's disadvantages...

Plus, he's going to have to make a steel test, during which he will probably be screaming "MY EYE! MY EYE! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD AND ALL THAT IS HOLY MY FUCKING EYE!"

What more do you want?

[Ubby]

Here's my feeling after reading the proposal and the play test.

Now: enough successes to meet obstacle results in hit to torso by default. To move to another body location increase obstacle.

Proposed: enough successes to meet obstacle results in hit to whatever is offered by default. With the new armor rules, that's often going to be torso. To move to another body location uses extra successes which is virtually identical to increasing obstacle (six of one, half dozen of the other).

So basically instead of a default torso hit, the default hit is whatever is offered? Which is likely to be torso since that has the most armor dice.

The only difference I can see is that instead of making a called shot before the dice are thrown, you can make a called shot afterwards. It doesn't do away with called shots per se, it does away with "All or Nothing" called shots. For example, a called shot to the head is what, OB 3, if there aren't any other factors? I roll, come up with 2 successes. I get nada. Under the proposal, I want to hit the head, but he's only vulnerable in the leg. I roll, get 2 successes. Instead of bubkiss, I hit him in the leg.

After thinking about it, I like it better than I did at first, but I'm still undecided.

Follow up questions: Why only one vulnerable location? If the defender is caught unaware or is already engaged by someone else in melee, does the defender still get to choose vulnerability?

[Kublai]

Under the new system, you can't declare you're going to hit someone in the eye. You hit them in the head. If you do enough damage, then the GM can rule you hit 'em in the eye.

To be clearer on the matter, my point is that the dwarf succeeded in getting a terrible hit to the eye using the proposed system. However, the proposal does not address one of the main player complaints that drove Abzu to create it - a wound to a specific location doesn't have a specific effect beyond avoiding armor. Unless, there are more rules which he has not posted but perhaps hinted at previously.

Having said all this, I am a hypocrite. I have become what I hate the most - a critique of something I've never tried. So I'll shut up now until I try out the mechanic, ok?

[luke]

Follow up questions: Why only one vulnerable location?
Simplicity's sake.



If the defender is caught unaware or is already engaged by someone else in melee, does the defender still get to choose vulnerability?
Yes, defender gets to choose his what target he is presenting even if surprised -- you can still cower with your arms up -- except if the attack Feints against his Block or Counter. Then the attacker chooses.

-L

[luke]

To be clearer on the matter, my point is that the dwarf succeeded in getting a terrible hit to the eye using the proposed system.

No, he didn't. He did a Superb shot to the head area. We don't know if he hit the bandit in the eye until we consult the bandit's PTGS. The wound determines the exact and final effects, not the wishes of the player.

-L

[Kublai]

From middle of Page 4:


In my example above, he clearly gets enough successes to do it - as will most focused warrior in stance using FoRKs, I imagine.

So he hits him in the eye with a Superb, this is clear. He does the B9 or whatever. The bandit takes a Severe Wound. And that's it, right? No other consequences for hitting the bandit in the eye?

PLEASE read what I write if you're gonna respond to what I write. Make sense?

[luke]

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. I meant no offense.

You kept repeating your point about the eye, so I misread that you were still tying it to the player's called shot, rather than the wound result.

Hypocrite.
:roll:

-L

[Kublai]

http://www.geocities.com/punk_band/photos/eyeball.jpg

[Kublai]

http://www.quintessentialwebsites.com/lordoftherings/decipher_cards/087_theeyeofsauron_tn.jpg

[Kublai]

http://www.vmth.ucdavis.edu/vmth/clientinfo/info/images/ophfig2a.jpg

[Ubby]

Looks like we're a couple of steps past Visine.

[foxandwarlock]

Okay, Wuxing on Foxandwarlock's account since he is autologged in. So we just playtested this rule and let me pose a couple questions/problems we encountered.

First what about brawling? It just makes no sense there. I am trying to punch you in the face, because hell it's what you do in a fist fight. You give me your legs, since it's lightly armored and it's an awful lot of extra dice to get to the head. Doesn't seem to work for us for a straight fist fight. Maybe the amount of dice rolled will make a huge difference here.

What about hesitation? Do I get to declare where you hit me, even though I am standing there drooling? The way we've been playing (and if I am incorrect than I stand corrected :P ) if you hesitate you loose natural defenses. If I am correct, what happens here? I've effectively taken away all options as a player, except run away screaming. No one will just let you sit there and make called shots to the head. *shrugs*

I do get that it's a little wonky right now. You've made armored location specific and called shots important, but the system is made to handle more vague concepts of armor. I sort of like it, but I just don't see a reason to choose anything other than leg as a defender and change the called shot to the head from a +1Ob right now to a +2Ob.

Just some thoughts. We'll try them out again as they get more tested and fleshed out.

Wuxing

[Catalyst]

I think the hard thing about the proposal is that it runs counter to "normal" combat. If I get this right, attacker says they attack, they don't have the opportunity to present a specific goal beyond the maneuver, no aiming happens. Defender offers the target, dice are rolled, then attacker can (if successful) start to determine effects by moving the target location, etc.

So if you want to hit a target's face in a brawl, you think "Ok, I want to go for the head", but you don't get to actually do anything in the proposed rules about hitting a specific target until you find out if you hit or not. Determination of the effects of the attack happen after determination of location and amount of damage.

So if you as a player want to poke your target in the eye with an unpeeled carrot, your intent will be to move the target to the head and do a lot of damage there. 'Narrate the rest' seems to be what Abzu's advocating. Do enough damage to a location and the target should end up with a lasting in-game effect anyway, IMO. If you don't manage to get enough successes to move the hit to the head, Fate or the defender's skill or both were against you, roll with it.

Seems workable to me. Hurt to think about for a moment, but I think I get it.

The problem is that most attacking players want to be able to describe their intentions as they attack rather than working out the results of the attack after dice are tossed.

[Judd]

Why doesn't the system work like so?

I make a called shot to the eye. I hit but it only does a midi-wound. This says that the shot skimmed the eye, still a a terrible effect or if less damage, it went off the outer orbit of the eye.

I have found the called shot mechanics to be fine. Although I am a newbie, I don't understand the need for a change.

[Mechavomit]

Why doesn't the system work like so?

I make a called shot to the eye. I hit but it only does a midi-wound. This says that the shot skimmed the eye, still a a terrible effect or if less damage, it went off the outer orbit of the eye.

I have found the called shot mechanics to be fine. Although I am a newbie, I don't understand the need for a change.

I gotta say, I feel basically the same way. I know these aren't mandatory changes, play the game however we feel like, standard caveats, etc. etc..

I'm just wondering if the system really needs or wants this added granularity. It seems that if you're going to start worrying about specific hit locations, beyond what's already there, then you need to worry about specific effects, a la TRoS. The more abstract wound effects may not cut it when you're looking to cut a fella' s hand off, or wound his arm to make him drop his sword, or what have you. I know suchlike could, fairly easily, just be a product of narration, but it seems that you'd still need rules for when a limb becomes useless. Or maybe I'm worrying over nothing. Change is bad, dagnabbit! You youngsters. In my day we had to walk uphill both ways through the snow and get a natural 20 to crit for double damage.

[luke]

Why doesn't the system work like so?

I make a called shot to the eye. I hit but it only does a midi-wound. This says that the shot skimmed the eye, still a a terrible effect or if less damage, it went off the outer orbit of the eye.


That's how it works in an ideal world. But then I have a number of players come through the system and reply, "Well, this time I want to hit him in the EYE. Not skim. Eye."

To which I have to reply, "Uh, you can't."

In this version, we come to a middle ground. Extra successes are spent on hitting a location, damage determines severity of wound.

"I want to hit him in the eye."
"Well, you can aim for the head, but your final damage determines if you actually hit him in the eye or not."

In the old system, I actually had obstacle numbers for hitting in the eye! (Which contravenes the system's basic tenets. ::sigh::)


Anyway, Wuxing, Fox, we did some more playtesting here tonight. Two major details that were immediately apparent: The system is dead easy to learn. We had four people at the table of varying familiarity with the game and I only had to explain the mechanic once and everyone got it and used it on their own -- ie, I didn't have to prompt them.

Second, it brought in some very nice color into the game when a defending player really thought about their character and his position in combat. Details that add a lot to an already exciting combat.

I playtested the rules with a herd of Satyr tonight vs four very heavily armed and armoed knights -- actual play, not simulation or test. So we had skill and stats of 4s and 5s for the satyr, 5s and 6s for the PCs.

In standard combat, it works great. Blows going back and forth, characters leading with their strongest element, which gave each player a unique style and feel. The satyr only have armor on their heads, so they fought low with their heads thrust forward. Very evocative!

Where it wonked out was in blows delivered from the ground to a standing target. I shouldn't be able to declare the head. It's uncool and doesn't make a terrible amount of sense no matter how i justify it in my head.

The other was unarmed Strikes being forced southward, to the legs. Again, possible, not terribly plausible.

As far as your complaint that "you hit someone in the head, 'cause that's where you're aiming for", that's what these rules work against. If they have their arms up defending the head, then you hit the arms or shoulders. If you're really skilled, you maneuver through their defenses to hit the face. So not being able to "call a shot" for bare-fisted seems ok to me, so long as the blow isn't forced somewhere outlandish.

This seems tied to the same issue for striking from the ground. I think this can be fixed by allowing the GM to have say and sway over the logic and cheatin' of the declared vulnerability -- he can force a player to meet game expectations of consistency and sense. Players should be able to do the same for the GM and his monsters.

The GM's role is a vital one!
::gets hit on the head::
ow.
-L

[Kaare Berg]

I have found the called shot mechanics to be fine. Although I am a newbie, I don't understand the need for a change.

Got to go with Judd* here, it seems to me you are looking too hard at your game Luke. I applaud your dedication to improving the system, it is this drive that made BW the great package it is today.

I've got players who regulary go for the eyes, the mouth and other lightly armoured targets. I never give out special bonuses. Hell you inflict a midi wound to the eye the victim gets a -2d (revised wound penalties) from the blood that pours into it, the pain and so forth. He takes a midi wound to the arm he gets a -2d from the pain, the blood splipping down his arms making his grip slippy the nausiating effect of watching a big cut inhis own flesh, well you get the idea.

My point is BW works, and it works for all camps. It works for those running narrativistic games, it works for the gamist and the simulationist (forgive the forgite terminology here). Although this has been suggested as a design flaw, it isn't.
Your game appeals to all camps, and then particulary to those that straddle between two or more. Your suggested tweak pushes the game more towards the sim. and may alienate those of us who does not need to figure in the effect of air humidity on the swing arc of my arming sword.

IMO this rules suggestion is more for the annual than the revised edition. If you put this in the revised it, like Mechavomit put it , becomes official by caveat and it may frighten off some of those newer converts that are eagerly awating your reprint.

This here rules change is more like your initial idea of having PCs defecated themselves if they failed steel tests. It may be realistic, but it will detract from the fun (for two different reasons, but I won't go there again).

I can't offer any alternative yet since I haven't playtested the new armour rules, which I will as soon as someone points me to a summary.

* I keep quoting Paka recently, can't tell why.

Oh and cross posted with Luke

[Durgil]

...it seems to me you are looking too hard at your game Luke. I applaud your dedication to improving the system, it is this drive that made BW the great package it is today.
This is always a risk for any game designer, but I like where you're going with it the system personally. After reading the Monster Burner, and Ken Hite's review (http://www.gamingreport.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=111) of it, I have to trust whatever decision you make with regards to making this part of the Revised Edition, or putting it in a later Annual.

[Drozdal]

This sunday we playtested those rules in Luke's game. My first impression was positive. I like idea of investing your succeses into changing hit locations to less armoured ones, this way you can do something with your leftover ones that can't increase your damage anyway.

[Viper]

Luke's right in that you can't just hit someone in the eye. Best you can do is aim for it, because no one is going to just let you hit them in the eye (or anywhere for that matter).

[foxandwarlock]

So here's my problem with this system and my proposed solution.

When we playtested it on Saturday, I didn't feel like I was in control of my actions - and in a game like BW that pretty much says, make your decision but pay your consequences, I didn't like it. I have a vision of my character laying his sword across some guy's chest and then I end up hitting his legs. And before I start this argument again - I understand that in "real life" people wouldn't just let me hit them in the chest - what I am talking about is systemic and my enjoyment of the game - we all played games that weren't "realistic" at some point but got enjoyment out of them. Besides, how does someone realistically give me their legs, when I could just whack 'em on the outside of their arms?

On the flip side, I recognize that (as the Rolling Stones said) you can't always get what your want...or hit what you want. So I recognize the idea for the dynamic to move the hit around. But BW rarely takes control away from the players (Hesitation excluded) so why not let the attacker be in control of the attack and the defender be in charge of the defense? That way both parties feel like they are in control of their actions.

What if instead of the attacker having to spend his attack dice to move it around, what if the defender had to spend his defense dice to move it around? i.e. you can either reduce the impact of that mace or twist a little and angle it off your blade so that it hits your arm.

Just for the record, I'm not sure that this has any more merit then the other way and it certainly doesn't deal with the passive nature of stance and armor but I thought I would throw it out.

[luke]

so why not let the attacker be in control of the attack and the defender be in charge of the defense? That way both parties feel like they are in control of their actions.

What if instead of the attacker having to spend his attack dice to move it around, what if the defender had to spend his defense dice to move it around? i.e. you can either reduce the impact of that mace or twist a little and angle it off your blade so that it hits your arm.

This was my first instinct as well, but it smacks of bullying and rpg "i attack" abuse. The a sword fight is an intimate struggle between the two combatants. The defender's posture and desire not to be hit in his vulnerable areas is just as valuable as the attacker's desire to kill him.

Giving the attacker control of the defender's vulnerable areas allows him to always bypass any possible defense and (quite unrealistically) hit him in his soft spots every time. Putting the burden of posture on the defender forces them to interact and allows the defender to favor his armor as he sees fit.

I gather that Wuxing had some heavily leg-armored opponents driving your blows south. Imagine them fighting with their guard held high, any blows coming in were deflected downwards toward their best protected legs.

You couldn't get one extra success to put those shots into the arms or guts? How many dice were you rolling? What was the obstacle?

(Historically, it actually was quite common to be greviously injured in the legs in medieval fighting. Many of the bodies at Agincourt had crushed knees, and some of the swords were called stuff like "Knee Biter"!)

The other case for letting the defender choose and the attacker suffer is for the exact reasons you just stated: Why should the defender lose control of himself at the moment of impact? Why should be become a flaccid target dummy for the attacker's blows. Why wouldn't he automatically take a defensive posture favorable to him? Unless a character has a defensive action scripted, that's what happens now. They drop their guard, bare their chest and say, "Hit me!" So now, even without benefit of a Block or Counterstrike, the defender has some control over his plight.

(and remember, "attacker" and "defender" are momentary things in BW. The situation flips back and forth heart beat to heart beat. You can give exactly what you got when being struck...)
-L

[foxandwarlock]

There were three combatanats (myself included). Two with leather leggings on and one with chain. I was rolling 4 dice (or 5 with Brawling FoRKED) but when using a weapon with no VA (i.e. knife) the probablities of penetrating armor are slim (50/50 at best on leather leggings) and it worsens if the shot goes to the chest. If I can't make it to bare flesh, there's no point for me to move the strike at all (with a knife, specifically) 2d on the arms, 2d on the legs, 3d on the chest (or 5 in the case of the chain mail).

System aside, for me, it comes down to the visual. I mean I'd rather swing for the head and miss (Ob 2 required to hit) rather then swing for the head and hit the legs. Its just not what I, as the player, pictured my character doing *shrug*

Your points are valid in terms of the defender just standing there and getting beat on - BUT you could have always scripted a Block. It was your decision not to script a defensive action, so now you have to take your lumps. Decision, consequence.

Also, let me ask so that everyone is playtesting the same way. The locations are Legs, Chest, Arms, Hands and Head? And it would take two to go from Legs to Head (Leg --> Chest --> Head) as well as Arm to Head (Arm --> Chest --> Head). What about hands? When I want to knock the vial out of the guy's hand or a torch? Is that a straight up disarm? I'm just wondering how to deal with the smaller areas (or areas within an area).

[luke]

Also, let me ask so that everyone is playtesting the same way. The locations are Legs, Chest, Arms, Hands and Head? And it would take two to go from Legs to Head (Leg --> Chest --> Head) as well as Arm to Head (Arm --> Chest --> Head). What about hands? When I want to knock the vial out of the guy's hand or a torch? Is that a straight up disarm? I'm just wondering how to deal with the smaller areas (or areas within an area).

Locations are as you stated. It's two successes to go from legs to head. One success to go from any other location to any other location. Legs to arms is one success.

Knocking the vial out of someone's hand is a Disarm action or an attack to the arm causing damage. Pete came up with new Steel rules -- a Steel test caused by lost dice to the arm which is failed causes the character to drop what he's holding.

Why weren't you spending all your extra successes to move the shot to unarmored areas and just inflict a Superficial?

-L

[foxandwarlock]

Why weren't you spending all your extra successes to move the shot to unarmored areas and just inflict a Superficial?


Oh. I knew I was doing something wrong. :twisted:

Hehe.

Seriously, though, as you pointed out in the Monster Burner, you can figure on any given die hitting the Ob 4 mark about half the time. So at 5 dice that works out to be 2 or 3 successes on average. You're damn skippy that whenever I had the successes they got moved to the melon, but most of the time I couldn't really reach it. Before I got put down I managed to inflict three Superficials on Raemos' head and then he hit me for a B9 to my own.

[luke]

Before I got put down I managed to inflict three Superficials on Raemos' head and then he hit me for a B9 to my own.

So it sounds like you both were using the same rules and the same tactics, but he got the better of you. Which sounds reasonable. Was his character more skilled, or were you the same?

I hope he at least failed his Steel test!

Also, I assume you were filling in as an NPC in the fray? Wuxing didn't really put you guys PC vs PC, did he? (I only skimmed your latest write up).

-L

[foxandwarlock]

It was pure playtesting. The "fight" did not actually occur in the world of Burning Midnight but to answer your question, yes - it was PC to PC. So it was Kemlin vs. Raemos vs. a third NPC from the campaign. And under normal circumstances, any other person would have had to make a Steel Test but Raemos is immune to Steel Tests from pain and injury - so he kind of just kept taking it in the face (literally) until he carved me up.

Skimmed? :( What have we done to lose the love of Abzu? It's that damn 3 page thread rule isn't it?

Come back Abzu! :twisted:

[luke]

It was pure playtesting. The "fight" did not actually occur in the world of Burning Midnight but to answer your question, yes - it was PC to PC. So it was Kemlin vs. Raemos vs. a third NPC from the campaign. And under normal circumstances, any other person would have had to make a Steel Test but Raemos is immune to Steel Tests from pain and injury - so he kind of just kept taking it in the face (literally) until he carved me up.

Ah. Well, I hope you'll give it another go using the full rules as intended. I have a lot of confidence in these mechanics, and I hope you come around.

Tough as Nails is a farking ugly trait. Guys like that, you either have to kill them outright or knock'em down and lock'em up.

-L

Edited for postscript: Dude, you haven't lost me, the Revision has won me. I'm a busy boy...

[Kaare Berg]

How does this work with multiple combatants?
If you are facing off against three combatants there is no way that in the space of one second, you can offer the right arm to all three.

Should there be a caveat: You can offer a targt to one opponent, whereas the others get free shots? Making outnumbering situations even harder and deadlier.

Will be testing tonight.

K

[Thor]

Okay, I said I would reserve judgment until I playtested it, and now I have. While I still don't really see why the old system didn't work (aside from the stuff about specific bodyparts like the eye), I guess I'm going to have to flip-flop and say that I see almost zero added complexity in Defender's Choice.

It works just fine and is interesting to boot. Although I wonder whether abzu still thinks it's a good idea after my Roden repeatedly stabbed his dwarf in the arm through his damaged armor? :twisted:

[phredd]

Apparantly I was part of the 'problem' abzu was trying to fix with the called shots. I loved the look on his face after I told him that I was fine with not having called shots work the way I had thought they did after I'd read his explanation of it and had given up my eye stabby ways.

[Kaare Berg]

Flipp flopping in Norway too.

Actual play revealed that there was little complexity involved in this change. Didn't get to try it much because of the main fighting was between two knife-fighters on the inside.


. . . although he twisted and turned Aelfric could not keep the vengeful Joshua at bay, letting the former thief inside his guard. Within seconds the knife that so far had scratched the leather vest, found yielding flesh. Dead again, the assassin fell to the cobbles and his blood was swallowed through the mortar, feeding the Guardian of the Druid Ways.

The few blows thrown by Joshua prior to getting inside were all directed to the armoured chest, where the leather stopped it. It raised another observation.

In combat (where both participants dnace around (dash)) they have an ob 3 test to hit each other. weapon skill B4 means that to stand a chance of hitting they need to go agressive (6 dice). They will then hit the amoured location (assuming the defender presents an armoured body part). Chain mail vs VA 1 swords gives ob 2 on four dice, nearly assuring a save.

We are looking at a long fight here. Now throw shields into the mix and sit back, bring out the popcorn and the beer cause we are inn for the long haul.

I know eventually superficial wounds will creep in, letting one side whittle down the other. But waiting for the laws of avrages can take the oomph out of the fight.

My suggestion here is to go the way of third edition Ars Magica. Have two combat systems, a detailed one for the juicy fights where every blow should be savoured. And one quick and abstract (read old rules) for the endless mooks that my players often fight.

I got a feeling what the response here will be, but I'll leave it to you to suprise me. :shock: :wink:

[Thor]

We are looking at a long fight here. Now throw shields into the mix and sit back, bring out the popcorn and the beer cause we are inn for the long haul.

I know eventually superficial wounds will creep in, letting one side whittle down the other. But waiting for the laws of avrages can take the oomph out of the fight.


Kaare, in this situation, I would Get Inside, and Lock or Damaging Lock until the situation is taken care of. Or Charge/Tackle and Lock. Or Push and Lock. Get that sucker off his feet and he's not going to be dashing anywhere. And all the armor in the world doesn't do jack if I incapacitate you through Locks.

[Kaare Berg]

I know that tactic would be the smart thing to do, but in a fight with a guy trying to put three feet of steel into your gut, would you risk dropping yours on the chance that you'd get inside his shield.

Push and then beating down on someone trying to get up, different, workable and a valid tactic that my trolls favour.

This isn't a gripe, just an observation.

I still haven't tried this new option in combats involving manny on one, but my first inclination is to limit the defender offered target to one enemy, letting the rest take their pick of locations.

[Thor]

I know that tactic would be the smart thing to do, but in a fight with a guy trying to put three feet of steel into your gut, would you risk dropping yours on the chance that you'd get inside his shield.

I might, depending on the situation, especially if my armor test is going to be a B4 vs. Ob 2. And I could make my odds better by using a Charge/Tackle to get inside, upping his Obstacle while I move in. I might also try to disarm the guy and then jump Inside.

[Kaare Berg]

My viewpoint is that of a GM since I've only run BW, not played it.

Thus for me, representing an NPC with common sense and healthy respect for teh consequences of open gut surgery with three foot steel objects, I'd have to err on the side of caution. Call my side the competent but stable avrage fantasy city guardsman.

For a pc looking to end this quickly, then yes.

This harkens back to my first ever BW post back at the forge, where Luke questioned a brigand getting inside and trying to lock the mage. I've played human NPCs mostly from the motivation: I want to live since then.

Wood trolls are very different though, not to mention those cowardly but brutal grey trolls. And then we have left out the ice troll and the stone troll. Oh and thanks to the monbu we also have the dragon trolls. Now they would definitly use tricks like that.

My point was that if you have an unimaginative player (read does not script like you'd do) and a NPC played from the "I wanna live perspective", the fight above could drag out.


I might also try to disarm the guy and then jump Inside.
this would be ob 4, compared to ob3. Damn, numbers again. Knew I got myself into deep water this time. :shock:

[Kublai]

I was pondering this issue once again yesterday.. I have no idea why. Anyway, what occurs when a warrior is only wearing half-leggings, which is very typical in many games? Our one location for legs doesn't work anymore. Does there need to be more locations than just 4?

[foxandwarlock]

That was my question about hands too, Kublai. Does arm mean anywhere on the arm?

[Angaros]

As I see it, there are three obvious (to me) ways of solving this problem:

a) The rules work at a level of abstraction where such detail isn't compatible with the system. You can always subdivide parts of the body into smaller parts and add detail and it has to stop somewhere. BW stops at having 5 hit locations (head, chest, arms, hands and legs).

b) Armor dice can be modified in relation to how large a part of the actual hit location that is covered. A maille sleave covering every square inch of the arm would retain it's 5D (or whatever number of dice maille gives), whereas a set of full plate pauldrons (shoulder plates) with rerebraces would only give 4D (since it only covers 4/7ths of the arm area).

c) Use more hit locations. In the system I've been working on since time began (and that I'm completely unable to finish, cudos to Luke for having the self-discipline it takes to leave a rule once written and start on the next), I'm using 8 hit locations. Head, neck, upper arms (includes shoulders), lower arms (includes elbows and hands), thorax, abdomen, thighs (includes hips), and calves (includes knees and feet).

Is option c) really a solution? Honestly, I think it isn't. You get more detail but the problems remain. Where on the upper arm does the strike land? Where on the thorax? Does it land in the face or on the side of the head? As I said earlier, you can always find problems with where a strike lands and the armor model you use. Breastplates and arm plates aren't exactly equally thick for example? Should you account for that in the model? I know I'm taking it a bit far, but at a point, I believe you just have to say: no, this game does not account for that level of detail. You always have to interpret the results. If the armor fails to absorb a blow, you can interpret that as if the weapon landed on an unprotected spot and so on.

[Angaros]

An idea I had about the hit location system would be to use aiming zones and have "move scales" for each of them. I'd personally prefer TRoS's solution, but if we don't want more dice rolls during combat, this might be a solution.

AIMING ZONES
Top swing (basically a vertical swing going straight down)
Diagonal swing (upper right to lower left OR upper left to lower right)
Low swing (side swipe aimed at the thighs/knees)

* Top swing
Default hit location: arm (collarbone)
Move: head (1s.), chest (1s.)
Difficult to pull off without unbalancing yourself = +1Ob.

* Diagonal swing
Default hit location: chest (upper thorax)
Move: arm (1s.), hand (1s.) legs (2s.)

* Low swing
Default hit location: leg (thigh)
Move: chest (abdomen, 1s.), arm (forearm, 1s.), hand (1s.)

Not sure this solves the aiming and called shots problems, and I haven't playtested it, but I thought I'd at least post it here to see what you had to say about it.

[Kublai]

a) The rules work at a level of abstraction where such detail isn't compatible with the system. You can always subdivide parts of the body into smaller parts and add detail and it has to stop somewhere. BW stops at having 5 hit locations (head, chest, arms, hands and legs).

In BW, there are mechanics to encourage people not to wear armor on the lower half of the leg. Doing so does not impose the speed penalty for full leg armor. So, either we get rid of the half-legging choice or we divide the leg location into two seperate locations.

[Viper]

In BW, there are mechanics to encourage people not to wear armor on the lower half of the leg. Doing so does not impose the speed penalty for full leg armor. So, either we get rid of the half-legging choice or we divide the leg location into two seperate locations.

Just reduce the amount of dice you get as protection if you want to wear half-leggings. Say, half the dice you'd normally get, but no movement penalty. Ditto for arms. (even though there's no arm movement penalty)

[Kaare Berg]

An idea I had about the hit location system would be to use aiming zones

This is the approach used in Harn, sweet realistic and more importantly doable. It is however Harn, and BW is not Harn.

So again I lift my fanatic fist and warn:

Let us not get so carried away by this grail-quest for realism that we forget what is the strength and main charm of the BW system.

Flexsibility, simple core mechanic and intense conflict resolution.

If we now get caught up in a "lets add more layers of complexity" rush, we risk ruining the magic of BW and will end up with a sort of Hybrid Tros/Harn using D6 instead of d10.

Just my 2c, and I still do not understand why I use we when it is Luke's call. :oops:

[Kublai]

In BW, there are mechanics to encourage people not to wear armor on the lower half of the leg. Doing so does not impose the speed penalty for full leg armor. So, either we get rid of the half-legging choice or we divide the leg location into two seperate locations.

Just reduce the amount of dice you get as protection if you want to wear half-leggings. Say, half the dice you'd normally get, but no movement penalty. Ditto for arms. (even though there's no arm movement penalty)

You can't do that though, since armor dice is based upon material strength and not upon how much of it you're wearing.

[Blackberry]

You can't do that though, since armor dice is based upon material strength and not upon how much of it you're wearing.

You could throw a DOF along with the armor dice. If your leg coverage is from waist to knee, plus a shoe, then make that "coverage 1-4". On a 1-4 on the DOF, the armor blocked the hit. On a 5-6, it didn't.

[Viper]

In BW, there are mechanics to encourage people not to wear armor on the lower half of the leg. Doing so does not impose the speed penalty for full leg armor. So, either we get rid of the half-legging choice or we divide the leg location into two seperate locations.

Just reduce the amount of dice you get as protection if you want to wear half-leggings. Say, half the dice you'd normally get, but no movement penalty. Ditto for arms. (even though there's no arm movement penalty)

You can't do that though, since armor dice is based upon material strength and not upon how much of it you're wearing.

Right, but the unarmored part of your leg has NO material strength. So, you average the two numbers for simplicity's sake. Or you roll a DOF like Blackberry said.

The half leggings thing seems a little munchkiny to me though, like you're trying to get away with something. How many knights were there running around armored up to the max everywhere but their shins?

I'm not even entirely convinced that doing away with the lower leg part does anything for you movement-wise as the length of your stride comes more from the freedom of movement of your upper legs than your lower. Lower leg armor is effectively just really heavy boots. Harder to walk/run in, yeah, but the upper armor is just as restrictive when it comes to moving.

[luke]

The half leggings thing seems a little munchkiny to me though, like you're trying to get away with something. How many knights were there running around armored up to the max everywhere but their shins?

I'm not even entirely convinced that doing away with the lower leg part does anything for you movement-wise as the length of your stride comes more from the freedom of movement of your upper legs than your lower. Lower leg armor is effectively just really heavy boots. Harder to walk/run in, yeah, but the upper armor is just as restrictive when it comes to moving.

let's not get too deep into this, but: half leggings were incredibly common for heat, mobility and fatigue reasons. Once you removed the lower leggings, typically the upper half became a skirt-like piece of protection.

half-pieces in BW new amor are -1D from their "material strength". With the CW penalties reduced by 1 step.

start another thread if you want to argue about armor coverage, please.

-L

PS and while I'm here, I forced the DC rules on Thor last night again. Any further thoughts, Thor?

[Kublai]

Half-leggings are part of BW and in the rules as they are now, so we just can't ignore them. They were meant to reflect, among other styles, the Anglo-Saxon hauberk, the armored skirts of the romans, and the kusazuri (http://www.quanonline.com/military/military_reference/japanese/samurai_armor.html) of the samurai.

A DOF negates the justice to this new system, as you should be able to move your superb hit to an unarmored location. If you hit in the legs, then do you send a success to move it to the unarmored portion of the legs?

Halving the number of armor dice on the legs seems unjust as well, as Leather would lose one die, Plated Leather and Chain would lose two die, and Plated Chain would lose three.

Whatever is decided, it must alter the value of the armor and it must allow an attacker to move his blow to the unarmored leg at a cost of successes. The only way I can see this happening is to divide the legs into to hit locations.

[Viper]

Ok, so you're talking about tassets, etc. They're more skirts than half leggings. When you say half leggings, I think of just the upper part of leg greaves.

So instead of halving it, give it -1D. That seems fair.

[Thor]

PS and while I'm here, I forced the DC rules on Thor last night again. Any further thoughts, Thor?

When I could get you to remember what you were offering, it worked really well! :twisted:

I'm pretty much sold, although most of the time I just took what was offered. Peeling away your armor bit by bit was fun. It was great when we got to the point where you would no longer offer your chest because it was the least armored part of you. Right arm! No, left arm! Argh! :lol:

Anyway, it felt pretty natural. I'm eating my words. It doesn't add to complexity as far as I can tell. It's quick and easy and does the job.

[Kublai]

Right arm! No, left arm! Argh!

Did you guys play each arm as a seperate location? :?

[Thor]

Right arm! No, left arm! Argh!

Did you guys play each arm as a seperate location? :?

Luke decided you could favor one arm over the other, so I guess we did (but he was also losing REALLY badly and trying to win). :lol:

[foxandwarlock]

The ol' change-the-rules-on-the-spot-'cuz-I'm-getting-my-ass-kicked trick.

I love that trick. :twisted:

[luke]

Right arm! No, left arm! Argh!

Did you guys play each arm as a seperate location? :?

Thor carved me up last night. Ugh. I started with full plated chain and a Forge Mask. I had 2D on my chest by the end. I don't think I made an armor test. And I lost armor on every short. Thor, on the other hand, lost no armor and didn't fail a freaking test.

Anyway, I've put a clause into the hit location rules that allows the defender to favor one arm/leg over the other. works well enough. Only important when variable armor is at stake, really. Just forces an additional success to get to the weaker arm/leg. You can still go up down or to the middle with one success.

just did another playtest this afternoon, too. Chainmail, Shield and Axe vs Plated Chain and Spear. Ugh.

Spear won with a devastating head shot... that the defender offered himself!
-L

[Kublai]

Anyway, I've put a clause into the hit location rules that allows the defender to favor one arm/leg over the other. works well enough. Only important when variable armor is at stake, really. Just forces an additional success to get to the weaker arm/leg. You can still go up down or to the middle with one success.

It's good to be king and change the rules as you go indeed! :roll:

So, there's a lot of new stuff in these few sentences above. We have six locations now: Head, Chest, strong arm, weak arm, strong leg, weak leg? I guess you have to because I can't see how you can go from arms in general to specific arm and back to arms in general without some really fuzzy math.

For example, if I take a hit on arms in general, I only get 4 dice of protection with chain. Say I lose a point and now have 3 dice in general on my arms. On the next hit, I decide to put out a specific arm, get hit, and lose a point. Now I have one arm with 3 dice and one arm with 2 dice?

It looks like it's gonna have to be one or the other - specific arms and legs or arms and legs in general.