No More Counting Paces? [Archive]

luke

10-25-2004, 11:30 PM

and moving between striking distances is done with a Versus Speed test.

If a Spearman wants to hold is opponent at his optimal striking distance, but his sword-wielding opponent wants to pull in closer, we make a versus Speed test. Winner earns their intent.

In the case of longer weapon lengths, they get a bonus die at striking distance/lunging distance. They get no bonus on the inside.

For characters with faster movement multipliers, they get bonus dice. For example, a Great Spider with a Speed of B6 (x4 multiplier), elongated forelimbs and bladed tarsi vs a Roden Bruiser with B5 Speed (x3.5 multiplier), a sword and shield -- the spider gets two bonus dice, one for his extended reach (all that matters is that it's longer than his opponent) and one die for his higher Speed multiplier.

The Spider wants to keep the Roden in his optimal striking distance (no Ob penalties for him), which is lunging distance (+1 Ob) for the Roden. He rolls his Speed +2D at the top of the volley.

The Roden wants to close with the Spider. He gets no bonus dice (not a longer weapon, not faster). He just rolls his B5 Speed vs the Spider's at the top of the volley -- counts as movement, not action.

Obviously, the Spider is in control of the fighting distance for this encounter.

hm?
-L

Viper

10-26-2004, 01:01 AM

Even though we only got to test the system for a couple of volleys at Ubercon, I was still digging how it worked. I especially liked that you can close to inside range in tandem with a lock action.

One thing I would think about adding is penalty when being attacked from behind - it's hard to keep two or more opponents at bay when they're coming at you from opposite sides. Of course, then you could design a trait to mitigate this, preferably named after a martial arts hero!

luke

10-26-2004, 01:23 AM

Thor

10-26-2004, 09:47 AM

Jet Li or Jacky Chan?

Anyway, I figure if two folks are trying corner/close in on their quarry they can help each other on the positioning test. +1D for Speed of 4, +2D for Speed of 5. Suddenly that gang of thugs has got you surrounded...

-L

That's perfect! I like it. What I personally like about it is that it feels like tactical maneuvering has become very important and fluid, but it seems easier to handle than counting paces.

It's a great way to really incorporate the tactical use of terrain too. You can use walls or hills, or what have you to make it even harder for an opponent to close with you. Suddenly, you can have a spearman guarding a door, and an attacker HAS to successfully close with him and fight him to get through. There's no way he can get by otherwise. That's cool!

luke

10-26-2004, 10:46 AM

right. using the new flavor of the obstacle system, players could earn bonus dice for their characters by intelligently using terrain. the difficult and cool part about this is that the player's got to narrate his position -- state that he's defending that door. If he doesn't, no bonus dice.

-L

Angaros

10-26-2004, 11:38 AM

Not sure if this fits in this thread, but are there any mechanics similar to the TRoS terrain rolls for avoiding to fight more than one opponent in BW? I haven't seen any and it would be neat if one could outmaneuver his opponents so that only one could get an opportunity to strike. Perhaps an Ob2 or 3 test vs. Agility when facing two opponents and Ob 3 or 4 if facing more than two. This could perhaps be done as a tandem move forcing a character to either dash around or do some footwork to line up opponents.

Viper

10-26-2004, 11:51 AM

The avoid action lets you dodge multiple attacks- you can't use it in tandem with a strike, though.

luke

10-26-2004, 12:05 PM

this would be part of the proposed modification we're discussing in this thread.

It would just come down to Speed tests. The winner gets to declare his striking distance. If he wins by a significant margin (2 successes) he can keep one opponent out of striking distance, while sticking with another.

-L

Kublai

10-26-2004, 12:41 PM

It sounds like you're getting rid of the Walk, Jog, and Sprint tandem actions in favor of these new rules. I like the sound of these new rules, but there are some factors that I need to understand.

-Are there still movement penalties during melee?

-How would a Hesitation of "Run Screaming" work? An instant "Withdraw" opposed speed test or would it occur at the beginning of the next Volley?

-What about Bonuses for charging across several actions? Do you still get the extra dice?

-That if someone is shooting from a distance into melee? How would movement modifiers be calculated if there are no movement rates?

-Jogging/Sprinting during combat was sometimes means the difference between life and death. Since those modifiers are gone, what are my options besides Avoid?

Angaros

10-26-2004, 02:41 PM

It would just come down to Speed tests. The winner gets to declare his striking distance. If he wins by a significant margin (2 successes) he can keep one opponent out of striking distance, while sticking with another.
If I've done my math right (no guarantees), a character with a Speed of B4, facing two opponents with the same Speed would have a 19% chance of getting a 2 success margin vs. at least one both of his opponents. I have no experience in actual martial fighting, but I've been told it's not too difficult to keep two opponents at bay, maneuvering so that only one of them have an opportunity to fight properly. Perhaps loweing the margin to 1 success would do the trick. Then you'd have about 60% chance of just fighting one opponent. It might all depend on how easy you want it to be, regardless of what is realistic. Personally, I would go with a 1 succ. margin I believe.

Viper

10-26-2004, 03:02 PM

It's not so hard if they're both coming at you from the same direction, but once they start flanking you it gets infinitely mor difficult- even if you're holding one at bay with your sword, the one to your side can come up and grab you, or sneak behind you and attack. Terrain is a factor, but multiple opponents defnitely have an edge on the single combatant. Methinks the folks who told you its not that hard were either very, very well trained, like police/military or high degree black belt, or just talking out of their ass. Multiple opponent combats can go very well in a martial arts class, since you know what's coming at you from where, but in real life, it's a lot tougher.

Here's an interesting thought that occured to me, completely seperate from the multiple combatants thing. Let's say I have a broadsword, my opponent has a spear- he wants to keep me at his optimal striking distance, where I can't strike at him. For argument's sake, let's say he beats my speed test- I cannot hit him. Can I strike at the spear? Like trying to chop the spearpoint off, effectively leaving him with a quarterstaff? Obviously I'd have to roll against material strength, but is it a viable tactic?

Thor

10-26-2004, 03:37 PM

Are there still movement penalties during melee?

The way we'd been testing it, you get a penalty if you use the Close or Withdraw tandem actions, but no penalty if you try to Maintain the combat distance.

-How would a Hesitation of "Run Screaming" work? An instant "Withdraw" opposed speed test or would it occur at the beginning of the next Volley?

When it happened in playtesting, we made the Speed test right then and there. That worked pretty well.

-What about Bonuses for charging across several actions? Do you still get the extra dice?

I think Luke decided that the increasing bonus was broken after you related Dro's Roden-exploding dwarven charge to him. I'm guessing you'll still get a bonus, but only one die.

Kublai

10-26-2004, 03:41 PM

... the spider gets two bonus dice, one for his extended reach (all that matters is that it's longer than his opponent) and one die for his higher Speed multiplier.

Just to be clear, it's not a cut and dry "My weapon is longer than yours so therefore I get a bonus die for closing," right? Sure a spear would outreach a sword, but a sword wouldn't get the bonus over a dagger, would it?

Kublai

10-26-2004, 03:42 PM

Can I strike at the spear? Like trying to chop the spearpoint off, effectively leaving him with a quarterstaff? Obviously I'd have to roll against material strength, but is it a viable tactic?

I think this is not only viable, but an excellent tactic!

Thor

10-26-2004, 03:48 PM

Just to be clear, it's not a cut and dry "My weapon is longer than yours so therefore I get a bonus die for closing," right? Sure a spear would outreach a sword, but a sword wouldn't get the bonus over a dagger, would it?

Why not? The length of a sword is a hell of an advantage until you get nice and close. Once you're on the inside he wouldn't, but why shouldn't he have the bonus if he wins the Speed test? He's at his optimal striking distance and the knife-fighter has to lunge. The sword-fighter can definitely use that difference to his advantage.

luke

10-26-2004, 03:57 PM

Yay, questions!

It sounds like you're getting rid of the Walk, Jog, and Sprint tandem actions in favor of these new rules. I like the sound of these new rules, but there are some factors that I need to understand.

Yes, i'm experimenting to see if there's a way to abstract movement and just focus on what's important -- am I close enough to hit him?

-Are there still movement penalties during melee?

Maintaining your fighting distance incurs no penalty.
Closing or Withdrawing your fighting distance is analogous to Jog/Dash. You are at a +1 Ob penalty for moving quickly. However, in this version your opponent does not suffer the same penalty to hit you as you come in/go out.

In other words, I'm not prepared to penalize the troll standing his ground as you are trying to rush in under his guard. He should be able to smack you just fine -- you should pay the penalty and earn the rewards of the close action.

-How would a Hesitation of "Run Screaming" work? An instant "Withdraw" opposed speed test or would it occur at the beginning of the next Volley?

Run Screaming counts as a Withdraw. If you fail your withdraw test... your opponent keeps up with you!

-What about Bonuses for charging across several actions? Do you still get the extra dice?

Charge is being restructed to accomodate it's new position. In these rules it'd be a "Special Maneuver Action." It is a positioning/movement, but also an action -- a POWER-based close. You script Close+Charge. You roll (at the top of the volley, during the positioning phase) Power +1D for risking your weight in a Charge. If you Closed on a previous volley, you get +1D for momentum.

Defender tests their Speed + bonuses as per the normal positioning test.

If the attacker wins, he's made bodily contact with his target. Wins by 1 he knocks him off balance, wins by two he knocks him down.

If the defender wins the attacker hesitates for his next action. If the defender has an Avoid scripted, he gets to test his Speed again against any extra successes remaining from the Charge.

-That if someone is shooting from a distance into melee? How would movement modifiers be calculated if there are no movement rates?

Shooting into a melee is +1 Ob penalty. If the target is closing or withdrawing during that volley, it's +2 Ob.

-Jogging/Sprinting during combat was sometimes means the difference between life and death. Since those modifiers are gone, what are my options besides Avoid?

Jogging is covered in the Close/Withdraw movements. As for Sprinting? Well, it won't be so easy to just Sprint around combat any more. Avoid is still your best bet for protecting your arse. But note well that now you can Avoid as you Close (meaning, Avoid while Getting Inside.)

Let's say I have a broadsword, my opponent has a spear- he wants to keep me at his optimal striking distance, where I can't strike at him. For argument's sake, let's say he beats my speed test- I cannot hit him. Can I strike at the spear? Like trying to chop the spearpoint off, effectively leaving him with a quarterstaff? Obviously I'd have to roll against material strength, but is it a viable tactic?

This question has come up a number of times already. My fight director asserts that it is very difficult to attack and destroy someone's weapon while in a melee. It's a small, moving target and generally pretty tough. I'm also not a big fan of "I krush your veppon!" attacks.

However, I'm seriously considering including a Beat action in BW. Beat would allow you to knock your opponent's weapon away for a moment. Beat could add Ob penalties to use the weapon on the next action and/or (depending on where it fell in the volley) could negate a longer weapon's reach bonus dice.

Perhaps scripted Strikes from Outside Striking Distance against longer weapons automatically devolve to a Beat?

-L

Kublai

10-26-2004, 04:16 PM

Why not? The length of a sword is a hell of an advantage until you get nice and close. Once you're on the inside he wouldn't, but why shouldn't he have the bonus if he wins the Speed test? He's at his optimal striking distance and the knife-fighter has to lunge. The sword-fighter can definitely use that difference to his advantage.

Urgh. Not saying that your point isn't solid but rather I see another chart in the works. A chart clearly describing what weapons are longer than other weapons. As in Long weapons - staves, spears, naginatas; Medium weapons - long swords, maces, hammers, axes; and Short weapons: fists, knives, nunchaku.

Otherwise, there may be some openings for arguments.

Kublai

10-26-2004, 04:19 PM

luke

10-26-2004, 04:22 PM

i actually incorporated relative lengths into the revised weapons table to deal with another problem I was having with fighting distances.

if we go in this direction, it solves that other problem and all the work is done.

BTW, I was talking thinking that this Fighting Distances test would have to be an optional rule. A recommended one, but still optional. If you don't want to deal with it, just start everyone at optimal distance and start bashing away.

-L

luke

10-26-2004, 04:27 PM

[quote=abzu]How many novels and movies describe this exact situation? A lot. Imagine the master swordsman cutting off the tips of the infantry's spears as they surround him. It's awesome!

i know, i know. but reverse it: do you want it done to your PC? If it was done, what would you do? It just gets into ugly territory. (I'd rather leave it to obscure special maneuvers for martial arts masters.)

Beat is a separate phenomena. It just knocks the weapon away, doesn't destroy it.

-L

Angaros

10-26-2004, 04:46 PM

I see your point Viper. Perhaps skill would be something to work into this. Something that reflects your ability to move around on a battlefield, not necessarily tied to your technical proficiency in wielding a weapon.

Viper

10-26-2004, 04:53 PM

Maybe the beat action could be an opposed power test? You're trying to knock his weapon out of position, he's trying to keep it there. If you overcome his power by more than 2 successes, then you get to roll on material strength table to see if you break the weapon... but otherwise you just take dice away from his next action, whatever that is.

ie, if he had block scripted and normally gets 4 dice, but is the victim of a beat action that overcomes his power by 2 successes, he now only gets 2 dice to block, for that action only. Ditto for striking, or whatever. If you get 4 successes against him, then he gets no dice and is effectively hesitating, plus you get to test and see if you break his weapon.

I know a 1:1 ratio of beat successes to lost dice is pretty powerful, but on average I don't think you'll be losing more than one or two when you get beat. To mkae it even more interesting, maybe beat can work both ways... if you try to beat someone and fail, YOU lose dice on your next action, because your weapon got deflected and is now out of position.

Thor

10-26-2004, 04:55 PM

BTW, I was talking thinking that this Fighting Distances test would have to be an optional rule. A recommended one, but still optional. If you don't want to deal with it, just start everyone at optimal distance and start bashing away.

That's fair, I think. It's a cool rule with some fun applications, but if you don't want to deal with it, you don't have to.

Durgil

10-26-2004, 05:44 PM

This question has come up a number of times already. My fight director asserts that it is very difficult to attack and destroy someone's weapon while in a melee. It's a small, moving target and generally pretty tough. I'm also not a big fan of "I krush your veppon!" attacks.

However, I'm seriously considering including a Beat action in BW. Beat would allow you to knock your opponent's weapon away for a moment. Beat could add Ob penalties to use the weapon on the next action and/or (depending on where it fell in the volley) could negate a longer weapon's reach bonus dice.

Perhaps scripted Strikes from Outside Striking Distance against longer weapons automatically devolve to a Beat?
It is only difficult when you consider trying to hit the point; I purpose that the longer the weapon, the easier the weapon would be to sweap away. In the case of a broadsword beating away a spear, this would not be any harder than any other type of attack, and if done with enough force, it might be very difficult for the spearman to recover. Other than ducking/dodging a blow, how else would a fighter with a shorter weapon hope to get close to an opponent with a longer weapon, at least when the two initially close at the start of combat?

Angaros

11-07-2004, 03:19 PM

Doing some CPR on this thread...

I've just come back from a short playtest which went ok. After re-reading this discussion I must say that I like the proposed changes of using close/withdraw and Speed tests at the beginning of a Volley.

Fighting multiple opponents is something I'm still wondering about though. A character wanting to fight only one baddie (out of the two facing him) must script withdraw for the volley? Or can he be more precise and script "withdraw from A, maintain distance to B" for the movement Speed test? Or is a test initiated regardless of scripting to figure out which character that gets to choose distance? For example:

PC fights A and B. They all have Speed B4, are all uninjured, fighting at their optimal sword range. At the beginning of V1, a Speed test is initiated to determine distances. Since A and B are helping each other, they both get a bonus of 1D to their Speed for a total of B5 each.
- If PC gets more succ. than BOTH A and B, he can choose distance to both of them. This means he can fight one, both or none of them this volley. It is up to him.
- If PC gets more succ. than either A OR B, he can only choose distance to the one he "won over". This means he can choose to fight one or both of his opponents (assuming the one that won over PC wants to fight).
- If PC gets less succ. than BOTH A and B, he is in their mercy. They can choose to close, maintain or withdraw as they see fit."
Is this a correct assessment? Is the distance maintained as it were between two opponents that come up with the same number of successes? It might seem easy for a character to avoid fighting two opponents at the same time, but with the helping dice, PC (in the example) is bound to face impossible odds if enough opponents show up.

A related question: how many opponents can one have "on the inside"? I know TROS limits the maximum number of opponents that can fight you to 3 (unless they have pikes for example). Other games place the limit at six opponents. Does BW have such limits?

Bill Cook

11-07-2004, 11:41 PM

Excellent questions, Angaros.

I think BW could benefit by taking a page from Sorcerer and let die rolls stand for multiple comparisons.

e.g. A duels B. C finishes off D and closes to assist A. All roll Sp: A (3 successes), B (2 successes) and C (2 successes). Assuming ties go to defense, B succumbs to A's knife advance (for example) while C is kept out of striking distance.

My two cents.

Angaros

11-08-2004, 07:15 AM

If you go with the no scripting option the winner of the Speed test gets to declare whichever distance he prefers when already knowing the outcome of the test. This sort of goes against the scripting idea of BW (as I've interpreted it). On the other hand it doesn't ruin the mechanics and it's a lot simpler and more direct than the alternatives.

One of those alternatives would be to state your preferred distance for each foe that you want to react to movement-wise. Then you'd have four options: inside, striking distance, lunge, and out of reach. That also means you commit to a certain tactic when scripting. For example:

PC is (again) fighting A and B. This time he's fighting with his dagger only and scripts the following movement:

A-close, B-outside / A-close, B-outside / A-close, B-outside

In this exchange PC wants to engage A while keeping B at bay. Scripting out of reach (or outside) means that one wants both characters to be out of reach. Wouldn't do any good to script that option otherwise when fighting someone with a longer weapon. A Speed test is held at the top of each volley and if PC succeeds, his intentions will be realised. The problem for PC is, as stated before, that A and B can help eachother and get bonus dice to their Speed tests. The problem with this solution is that the mechanics are bulkier and takes some more writing.

Another solution would be to use close, maintain and withdraw actions where you don't specify a distance to your foe(s). When toying with this alternative I found that it get's very hard to script intentions truthfully. If you're a boxer and want to stay in close range, you'd probably script close/maintain/maintain for a volley. But this makes it overly difficult for the boxer since all his inside actions might turn into hesitation if he loses that first volley Speed test. The other volleys he's scripted maintain and will thus maintain whatever distance he's at. That's not what he wants, but that's what his script says. This is the problem that makes me favor the first alternative if I'm gonna use scripting at all for moving between fighting distances.

Fizban

11-11-2004, 05:05 AM

I had another problam with movement... when using miniatures.
When i did this, I had the following problams:
1. Who goes first?
2. What direction may i take? should i scrip it?
This makes a problem... Actually, a character moves acording to her oponent movement, but according to this system, it just doesn't work...
Maybe the old inititive system will work better here? What about... rolling a number of dice equal to the reflexes of the character? But then it make problem with spellcasters and archers... very complicated...

- Fizban.

Kublai

11-11-2004, 11:29 AM

This new system won't work with miniatures very well. As for your other questions, Fizban, everyone moves at the same time. You have to script movement, but you don't have to script which direction. But since this new system abstracts the movement concept beyond paces AND direction, neither should be considered during combat. It's all just whether you stayed in combat range or not.

Thor

11-11-2004, 11:37 AM

nother solution would be to use close, maintain and withdraw actions where you don't specify a distance to your foe(s). When toying with this alternative I found that it get's very hard to script intentions truthfully. If you're a boxer and want to stay in close range, you'd probably script close/maintain/maintain for a volley. But this makes it overly difficult for the boxer since all his inside actions might turn into hesitation if he loses that first volley Speed test. The other volleys he's scripted maintain and will thus maintain whatever distance he's at. That's not what he wants, but that's what his script says. This is the problem that makes me favor the first alternative if I'm gonna use scripting at all for moving between fighting distances.

Not really, because he can always choose to Forfeit an Action at the end to change Actions for the next Volley. Also, just because he's Outside Striking Distance doesn't mean he's hesitating. Avoids and Blocks work as normal. And unless he's facing a guy with a LONG reach, like a spearman or a troll with a mattock, he'd still be close enough to do Lunging Strikes. Sure, he'd pay an Obstacle penalty, but his Actions still happen. And if it does happen to him when he's trying to box with a spearman or a mattock-wielding troll? Well, then he deserves to die. That's just stupid.

Angaros

11-11-2004, 01:21 PM

Not really, because he can always choose to Forfeit an Action at the end to change Actions for the next Volley. Also, just because he's Outside Striking Distance doesn't mean he's hesitating. Avoids and Blocks work as normal. And unless he's facing a guy with a LONG reach, like a spearman or a troll with a mattock, he'd still be close enough to do Lunging Strikes. Sure, he'd pay an Obstacle penalty, but his Actions still happen.
Can I script "close / close / close" as move? Let's say I succeed in the firtst volley and choose to get on the inside, what happens in volley 2 if I win that test too? I can't get closer than being on the inside. Should close be interpreted as "closer if possible"? I'd guess so, but I want to make sure.

If I win a test and have scripted withdraw I ought to be able to withdraw far enough to make the knife-fighter outside his lunging distance as well. At least if my Jog/Dash rate permits it. How else would you be able to escape someone in combat?

About the hesitation: I meant if I had scripted actions that can only be used on the inside, like lock. I recall the special rule from the book saying you can change a scripted Lock to a Get Inside action if your opponent gets out. How does this translate into the new movement rules? I mean, the Get Inside action isn't used any more with these new rules is it? The close/maintain/withdraw actions are tandem movement?

When I script movement, I specify a move (close/maintain/withdraw) versus each opponent I'm engaged with, right? Can I specify a move against opponents that aren't fighting me at the moment (assuming I'm able to track his movement while fighting someone else)? Is there a limit to how many opponents I can handle in this way?

And if it does happen to him when he's trying to box with a spearman or a mattock-wielding troll? Well, then he deserves to die. That's just stupid.
There are martial arts styles (like aikido) with maneuvers efficient versus armed opponents. A troll might be over the top, but a spearman ought to be doable. :) But yes, it should be difficult.

luke

11-11-2004, 01:44 PM

1. Who goes first?
2. What direction may i take? should i scrip it?

Hi Fizban,
You're looking too hard at the problem. As Pete said, all move at the same time, and direction is irrelevant. Players are allowed to decide the direction of their movement when they announce their actions. They declare to everyone, then.

So you can script Jog, I can script Sprint. You can announce that you're following me, I can announce that I am trying to pull away. Our actual distance moved in paces determines if we're in striking distance, etc.

Can I script "close / close / close" as move?
Of course! You're on the right track, Angaros. Because even on the Inside, you can keep hustling your opponent daring him to try to make a move.

If I win a test and have scripted withdraw I ought to be able to withdraw far enough to make the knife-fighter outside his lunging distance as well. At least if my Jog/Dash rate permits it. How else would you be able to escape someone in combat?

Jog/Dash rates actually don't matter under these rules. What's important is the result of the Versus Speed test. For example, your character is wielding a sword and your opponent has a knife, and you're both in Optimal Striking distance for both weapons (nose to nose, about a pace apart). The swordsman wishes to withdraw. He's going to have to move from optimal to Lunging and from Lunging to Outside. Two areas of Striking distance. So he's either going to have to win the Withdraw test by two or more successes or win two tests consecutively (without the knife fighter closing on him). Success will put him Outside the Knife's Striking distance and in his own Lunging distance. (This is possible so long as the weapon has a longer Striking distance than the opponent's. A spear could do the same thing to the sword.)

About the hesitation: I meant if I had scripted actions that can only be used on the inside, like lock. I recall the special rule from the book saying you can change a scripted Lock to a Get Inside action if your opponent gets out. How does this translate into the new movement rules? I mean, the Get Inside action isn't used any more with these new rules is it? The close/maintain/withdraw actions are tandem movement?

Close/Withdraw/Maintain are tandem actions. Close and Withdraw add a +1 Ob penalty to the mover's actions, not his opponents'. Maintain incurs no penalty.

Shifting movement around like this has forced us to modify some of the actions. Charge is now a Power-based Close action (it is not a Tandem, but acts as a Close). You still get the bonus die, but if you fail you hesitate. Test Charge vs Withdraw (which acts as Natural Defenses) or Avoid + Natural Defenses.

Get Inside, sadly, falls by the wayside entirely. It is subsumed by the Close movement.

Lock and Throw can be performed at anyStriking distance now. Lunging distance is a +4 Ob penalty, Striking distance is a +2 Ob penalty, Inside Arms Reach incurs no penalty.

When I script movement, I specify a move (close/maintain/withdraw) versus each opponent I'm engaged with, right? Can I specify a move against opponents that aren't fighting me at the moment (assuming I'm able to track his movement while fighting someone else)? Is there a limit to how many opponents I can handle in this way?

This is going to require a bit more playtesting for me to explain properly. However, we've done a three person fight and didn't have too much trouble. More on this soon.

-L

PS I think the C/W/M rules work fine with minis.

Thor

11-11-2004, 01:44 PM

Everything is in flux with the playtest of this stuff, so my answers may not be the most recent. But I'll try to answer in a general way.

Can I script "close / close / close" as move? Let's say I succeed in the firtst volley and choose to get on the inside, what happens in volley 2 if I win that test too? I can't get closer than being on the inside. Should close be interpreted as "closer if possible"? I'd guess so, but I want to make sure.

Inside is the closest you can get. You can script Close as often as you like. However, I believe that using a Close or Withdraw maneuver incurs a slight Obstacle penalty.

If I win a test and have scripted withdraw I ought to be able to withdraw far enough to make the knife-fighter outside his lunging distance as well. At least if my Jog/Dash rate permits it. How else would you be able to escape someone in combat?

As currently constituted, to the best of my knowledge, there will be three 'zones.' Outside Striking Distance, Optimal Striking Distance, and Inside Striking Distance. Each Volley you can only move through ONE of those. If you are Inside and decide to run away, you need two actions to do so. You need to Withdraw to Optimal Striking Distance, and then again to Outside Striking Distance.

About the hesitation: I meant if I had scripted actions that can only be used on the inside, like lock. I recall the special rule from the book saying you can change a scripted Lock to a Get Inside action if your opponent gets out. How does this translate into the new movement rules? I mean, the Get Inside action isn't used any more with these new rules is it? The close/maintain/withdraw actions are tandem movement?

Maneuvers like Lock, Throw, Charge and Push have been given a great deal of thought. As I understand it, Lock and Throw will not require you to be Inside anymore. However, you will incur an Obstacle Penalty if you are not Inside.

When I script movement, I specify a move (close/maintain/withdraw) versus each opponent I'm engaged with, right? Can I specify a move against opponents that aren't fighting me at the moment (assuming I'm able to track his movement while fighting someone else)? Is there a limit to how many opponents I can handle in this way?

You only script one movement Action per Volley, just as you do now under the Paces system. I know Luke really liked the Terrain rolls in The Riddle of Steel (which allow you to prevent more than one person from engaging you at a time), but I don't know if he's given thought to how to incorporate something like that yet.

Angaros

11-11-2004, 02:02 PM

Thanks for your answers Thor. It helps a lot. I have a session coming up tomorrow and will incorporate a number of rules changes. My players are used to usíng playtest rules as they've helped me develop my own game for the last few years. :) Now they get the Wheel instead since it's so neat.

Inside is the closest you can get. You can script Close as often as you like. However, I believe that using a Close or Withdraw maneuver incurs a slight Obstacle penalty.
I seem to remember close and withdraw being interpreted as Jog/Dash for penalties's sake. However, if you script maintain and your opponent scripts withdraw, and you win the Speed test, is this then interpreted as you having prevented him to withdraw or have you just kept up with him? It might seem of little importance but if he scripted withdraw, and the second interpretation is correct, then you have moved as well (despite your maintain) and ought to get the Jog/Dash penalties as well. I know there are penalties inflicted on both the character who moves and anyone trying to attack him. (I'm nitpicking I know. :))

As currently constituted, to the best of my knowledge, there will be three 'zones.' Outside Striking Distance, Optimal Striking Distance, and Inside Striking Distance. Each Volley you can only move through ONE of those. If you are Inside and decide to run away, you need two actions to do so. You need to Withdraw to Optimal Striking Distance, and then again to Outside Striking Distance.
But in the "outside striking distance" zone, your opponent can still use a lunge?

Maneuvers like Lock, Throw, Charge and Push have been given a great deal of thought. As I understand it, Lock and Throw will not require you to be Inside anymore. However, you will incur an Obstacle Penalty if you are not Inside.
Sounds great.

You only script one movement Action per Volley, just as you do now under the Paces system. I know Luke really liked the Terrain rolls in The Riddle of Steel (which allow you to prevent more than one person from engaging you at a time), but I don't know if he's given thought to how to incorporate something like that yet.
I'm a big fan of those as well. Can't wait to see what he comes up with.

Angaros

11-11-2004, 02:07 PM

Dang. I didn't see your post Abzu. Thanks for clearing stuff up. :D If I get what you're saying, there are four "zones": inside, optimal, lunging and outside. Sounds good. And the success margin from the Speed test is the number of zones you can move in a volley (in the distance scripted). That also sounds really good.

Oh, and another question: from who's perspective are the zones interpreted? Optimum striking distance isn't going to be the same from someone with a knife and someone with a spear as you said. For example:

Say A wields an axe and B wields a knife. They are at optimum striking distance. Let's interpret this as A's opt distance. This ought to mean B has to lunge to be able to hit, right? Is B then considered to be at Lunging distance? What if B wins the Speed test for next volley and has scripted close. His margin is 1 success so he moves to optimum. Is he now on the inside of A? Or somewhere in between?

Thor

11-11-2004, 02:19 PM

I seem to remember close and withdraw being interpreted as Jog/Dash for penalties's sake. However, if you script maintain and your opponent scripts withdraw, and you win the Speed test, is this then interpreted as you having prevented him to withdraw or have you just kept up with him? It might seem of little importance but if he scripted withdraw, and the second interpretation is correct, then you have moved as well (despite your maintain) and ought to get the Jog/Dash penalties as well. I know there are penalties inflicted on both the character who moves and anyone trying to attack him. (I'm nitpicking I know. :))

Hey Angaros. Looks like Luke answered most of your questions. I just wanted to point out that you shouldn't look at Maintain as Standing Still. Maintain means sticking to your opponent and maintaining the same Striking Distance. So if your opponent scripts Withdraw and you script Maintain, and you win the Speed test, it's perfectly possible that you moved to keep up with him.

Angaros

11-11-2004, 02:20 PM

I see. Thanks. :) I added a question to my last post since I thought noone had answered. Please have a look. Pretty please.

luke

11-11-2004, 02:24 PM

Oh, and another question: from who's perspective are the zones interpreted? Optimum striking distance isn't going to be the same from someone with a knife and someone with a spear as you said. For example:

Say A wields an axe and B wields a knife. They are at optimum striking distance. Let's interpret this as A's opt distance. This ought to mean B has to lunge to be able to hit, right? Is B then considered to be at Lunging distance? What if B wins the Speed test for next volley and has scripted close. His margin is 1 success so he moves to optimum. Is he now on the inside of A? Or somewhere in between?

The winner of the Positioning test determines starting Striking distance. So if the Spear wins, his Optimal is the Knife's Lunging. Spear's Lunging is Outside the Knife's Striking Distance.

If the Knife wins, he can declare that he ducks into his Optimal. Knife and Spear share a chuck of Optimal Striking distance -- 1-2p for the Spear, 1p for the Knife. So neither character is at a penalty if the Knife wins (which is about the best starting position a knife fighter can hope for). If the Knife wins the next Close test, he's Inside (again with no penalties) and suddenly the Spear's got Ob penalties in addition to losing his bonus dice for Positioning due to his length advantage.

rock.
-L

Angaros

11-11-2004, 03:47 PM

One final question then. If the knife fighter is at *his* lunge distance and withdraws with one success, he's only going to be outside *his own* striking distance right? Not outside the spearman's striking distance (he's at lunge)? (knife would be optimum 1p, lunge 2p, outside 3p+, while spearman is optimum 1-2p, lunge 3p and outside 4p+) To get outside the spearman's reach, he'd have to withdraw another step?

luke

11-11-2004, 03:51 PM

To get outside the spearman's reach, he'd have to withdraw another step?

yes.

Bill Cook

11-11-2004, 05:20 PM

Hey, Angaros. A lot of the things you're asking about, I'm currently working through with independent playtest in preparation for my BW campaign. While my investigations are not official, I assume they have some bearing, nonetheless. Take a look at Playtest Results (http://indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=13318) on the Forge: BW Forum.

I interpret movement scripts beyond limit as reverting to Maintain, except Withdraw, which I narrate as "Escapes Battle." But beginning Inside, scripts of Close become Maintain, for example. I incorporate lunging as an outer range of the Striking layer; i.e. if you can lunge, regardless of whether you have to, you're in Striking.

Take your axe vs. knife example: beginning outside, they both script Advance. Versus Sp is rolled to determine advantage in striking. There are three possibilities: "prevent access; lunge," "allow access; opponent lunges" and "allow access"; or, from the knife-fighter's perspective: "prevented; opponent lunges," "allowed access; lunge" and "allowed access."

Axe rolls two successes. Knife rolls three. Coming from Outside, begin at "prevented access; opponent lunges" and improve, by margin, to "allowed access; lunge." Margin is limited to Striking, in any case; if you wanted to get Inside, for example, you would have to script a second Advance on the next volley.

From the axe-man's perspective, he wants to remain within Striking but also prevent access from the knife-fighter. I distinguish movement that affects Striking advantage as Footwork. So he'd script Footwork vs. whatever .. probably, Advance.

I hope some of that gives clarity to your question of perspectives, as well as another take on how to resolve advantage within Striking.

** ** **

Lock and Throw can be performed at any Striking distance now.

While I especially enjoy the martial moves, this I don't follow. I require Charge, Push, Throw and Lock to be performed Inside; otherwise, they turn to Hesitate.

Another thing that's worth noting: I interpret the first three to force an opponent from Inside to Striking; test Sp with the margin as obstacle to see if they fall prone. (The exception is Throw; there, falling down is automatic and the margin is a Strike against the ground or a wall, for example.)

Think of the implications! With spear vs. knife, if you lose Maintain vs. Advance from Striking, you can forfeit to script Push and force him out. (Here, the margin of Push vs. ND would determine Striking advantage.)

** ** **

Re: TROS terrain rolls.

TROS is a great system. And the terrain roll is probably the second best mechanic in the core rules. But it is very duel-ish. Hence, it doesn't give any real answer to the dilemma of third-party perspective. The principal use of the terrain roll is an expense to duck the issue and get back to the fuzzy, safe domain of the duel.

I encourage the BW design team to allow true capture of third-party perspective. I envision a "standing dice comparison" mechanic a la Sorcerer; and possibly, added definition to exisiting movements to address third-party function. Avoid is a fine example of an action with third-party application. In any case, I think the last thing you'd want is to have to designate intent per opponent; it should be inherent to the script.

Thor

11-12-2004, 12:58 AM

Lock and Throw can be performed at any Striking distance now.

While I especially enjoy the martial moves, this I don't follow. I require Charge, Push, Throw and Lock to be performed Inside; otherwise, they turn to Hesitate.

Why shouldn't you be able to use Throw and Lock from the Outside? You reach in and grab them. There's no Obstacle penalty on the Inside, but there is one at Striking Distance, and an even greater one at Lunging distance.

Charge and Push no longer work the way they used to. They're still Martial Actions (i.e., you have to devote Actions to use them), but Charge is now a Power-based Close and Push is a Power-based Withdraw.

Bill Cook

11-12-2004, 03:50 AM

Why shouldn't you be able to use Throw and Lock from the Outside? You reach in and grab them.

Well, I'm thinking about it where you can't make bodily contact unless you're Inside. I guess, if your weapon were fist, that would be a weird exception.

But the way I've been looking at it, you'd first have to be close enough to grab your target before you could put a Lock on 'em or Throw 'em. The reaching in you describe I see as the movement itself. (i.e. Advance.)

** ** **

As far as the relationship between martial move actions and movement/distance, I see the following:

Charge is conditioned by Advance. Impact occurs at Striking or Inside, depending on whether a weapon (hence, reach) is employed. (Which, for a weapon, I require the stabbing variety.)
I require Inside for Push. (An Advance Inside could construe a Charge; otherwise, movement is not relevant.)
I also require Inside for Lock and Throw. Here, movement neither has bearing. (For an Inside Advance to a Lock, you could use the margin as an obstacle to test Sp or be tackled; that would probably be showing off :))

Another interesting category is a contest of weapon-based Charges, with matched or mismatched reach. With matching reach, to me, it seems smoothest to have a vs. test of Charges. With a mismatch, the margin of the contest of Advances determines striking advantage and the point of impact. You can reuse the margin for a Strike, also, a la Throw.

As you can see, I've been having too much fun with this :)

P.S. I've gotten a real boost in instancing martial move actions by freely re-rolling losses for both sides on ties. Highly recommended.

Angaros

11-12-2004, 05:06 AM

Since yesterday, I've been sitting here trying to figure out which weapons share striking distance with each other. Even using a simple case of knife vs sword vs spear, I must confess that the use of relative zones seems like a complicated version of using absolute zones instead. Like Drozdal suggested on the first page of this thread. As Thor then replied, it is doable with three relative zones (inside, striking and outside) but if you don't define them objectively it's just getting more complex. Why? Because with rel. zones you must still count paces to figure out if my striking distance is within my enemies and if not, can he still lunge, is he on the inside or is he outside his reach? And if he's outside his reach, is that also outside my reach? Your respones might be that you easily learn these distances and can tell that swords and knives share striking distance, while a spear's optimum is the knife-fighters lunge zone and so on. But, as I see it, when you begin to store that information (how different weapons compare to others) in your head, you have already begun using absolute zones instead of relative. You just haven't defined it in the text. So why not put it into the text instead?

This seems to be exactly what you've done just with other labels:

Example:
Z....Kn....Ax....Sp....Paces (~)
A s i i contact
B s s i 1p
C l s s 2p
D o l s 3p
E o o l 4p
F o o o 5p+
Where i = inside, s = striking, l = lunging and o = outside
Kn = knife, Ax = axe, Sp = spear

luke

11-12-2004, 10:38 AM

Absolute zones aren't the worst thing in the world, but I don't think they are completely necessary for this system.

We've yet to use them.

The first step to using the Fighting Distances rules is to determine at what distance the fight begins. We make a positioning test first, winner declares where he wants to start. Ties means that neither side is in Striking Distance. You can't start on the Inside.

When determining that starting Striking distance, a few guidelines are necessary to remember: Only the longest weapon (at start) gets access to its bonus dice. Pole weapons are longer than swords/axes, swords and axes are longer than knives and fists. +1D for each step in the statement above. Therefore a spear gets +2D to positioning tests vs a knife. Sword gets +1D to positioning vs a knife.

Further guidelines for striking distance are: All weapon lengths shares at least one pace of optimal striking distance. Spear lunging distance is outside striking distance for a sword and knife. Spear optimal is lunging distance for a sword, outside for a knife. Inside for a spear is the same as everybody else (this just keeps things simple).

If a shorter weapons gets into optimal striking distance against a longer weapon, both weapons are considered in optimal striking distance.

If a sword successfully gets into Optimal vs a spear, both weapons are in optimal striking distance -- in order for a sword to be in optimal, the spear has got to be in its optimal range, too.

does this help?
-L

luke

11-12-2004, 10:53 AM

also, we did a couple of two on one fights last night and I didn't see any problems. Either fight broke down into obvious one on ones, or the two characters were helping each other -- and only one player was rolling with bonus dice from the other.

given the nature of BW, I don't think it's necessary to have a "terrain roll" where you cut off your opponents. You can still do that via clever scripting. (as Thor showed me last night. both fights my Orc was off his feet in one volley. ::sigh::)

-L

Angaros

11-12-2004, 11:14 AM

I see. There will surely be a fight in tonight's session (I will provoke one if I have to ;)) so we'll test these rules.

What did he script to keep those orcs off? Did he only use the movement options to achieve this or are there aspects I don't know about? I'd love to hear about it.

Do longer weapons always get bonus dice in positioning tests? I mean it should be easier to prevent access using them, but it shouldn't be easier escaping someone on the inside with them.

Kublai

11-12-2004, 11:40 AM

luke

11-12-2004, 11:41 AM

What did he script to keep those orcs off? Did he only use the movement options to achieve this or are there aspects I don't know about? I'd love to hear about it.

It was Troll vs two Orcs. Round 1: Troll Closes with a Charge. Astride Maintains, Follower Withdraws (I think). Thor chose the Astride as the Troll's target. Therefore the vs test was between those two characters. Needless to say, the Astride was knocked flat. After that, he was pretty much out of the fight for an exchange. The Troll was free to deal with the Follower. He Charged him flat as well, then turned and finished the Astride with his hammer.

Round 2: The troll charges again, once again the Astride is knocked flat -- even with Maintain and Avoid scripted I couldn't roll enough to successes to save myself. This time the Follower scripts a Close action. The troll had a Close, too, but rolled a simple positioning test -- Speed vs Speed + FoRKs and advantages. The Follower won and promptly chopped the Troll's leg off.

By breaking the fight down into manageable chunks based on the intent of each player, we didn't have any problems.

[/quote]
Do longer weapons always get bonus dice in positioning tests? I mean it should be easier to prevent access using them, but it shouldn't be easier escaping someone on the inside with them.[/quote]

Ah, good point. No, bonus dice drop away on the Inside. Shorter weapon gets +1D on the Inside.

Also, we encountered this glitch last night: The player must act with the weapon he used for positioning. If using knife and sword and on the Inside, if the player takes the +1D from the knife, he's got to Strike with the knife.

Off to North Carolina,
-L

luke

11-12-2004, 11:45 AM

Fizban

11-21-2004, 07:42 PM

This new system won't work with miniatures very well.
too bad :?
I really wanted to try running buttles with miniatures... but the same-time-acting prevent the game to wort with that... :?
oh well...

- Fizban.

Thor

11-21-2004, 07:54 PM

I really wanted to try running buttles with miniatures... but the same-time-acting prevent the game to wort with that... :?
oh well...

- Fizban.

It actually works just fine with miniatures. We usually don't like to use them because in our experience it's easier to maintain the imaginative space without them. But you shouldn't have any problems if you really want to.

luke

12-07-2004, 08:40 PM

We've done a couple of playtests with the new positioning rules. Correction: we've done over a dozen playtests.

This weekend we did a couple that I thought you'd be interested in. I ran one with the Black Hunter vs the Elven Ranger. Victory to the Black Hunter. He narrowly escaped death and managed to kill the Elf! (Of course, had I let the Elf use his songs and cloak, it would have been a different story.)

But the real amazing test was the one Pete did. Pete ran a demo for our friend Andy. It was Andy's Giant vs Miles Black, the example hunter in the CB.

Andy won the initial positioning test and decide to start at extreme range for the Giant's rocks -- which happened to be extreme range for the hunting bow, too.

After that, Miles just controlled the positioning -- dodging through the woods, peppering the Giant with arrows. He actually managed to give the behemoth a superficial wound!

Then Andy charged him and Pete scripted a Close, too. (I think.) Either way, they got into melee range. So we dropped the ranged volleys and went into standard scripting. Pete won the initial positioning test here, so he declared Miles was Out of Striking Distance for the Giant and started the exchange with an arrow knocked.

Pete's clever scripting kept him out of harm's way and allowed him to withdraw even further. This put them back in Missile Range. Andy was itching to hurl another rock at the little punk, but it was time for us to start our game.

All in all it was a successful test. Pete had only played the new maneuver rules twice before. With the written chapters in front of him he was able to explain it to andy without my help at all. Once the concept of the Vs Speed test to determine range/striking distance and the various maneuvers were imparted, it seemed pretty straightforward.

I also was pleased by how seamlessly it goes from missile to melee combat. The overall concepts are the same, but some of the details are different. For example, you no longer script actions in missile combat. You just script your manuver. If you win the test, your extra successes determine your available actions. But in melee we use the traditonal scripting system.

The one question that arose from the test was the fate of spells, origins and area of effect.

hm.
-L

Thor

12-07-2004, 08:52 PM

The one question that arose from the test was the fate of spells, origins and area of effect.

That was exactly the issue I was going to raise with you, based on doing up these spells.

luke

12-07-2004, 10:00 PM

The one question that arose from the test was the fate of spells, origins and area of effect.

That was exactly the issue I was going to raise with you, based on doing up these spells.

Well, Single Target/Personal Origin spells aren't any good in ranged combat. In melee combat they'd count as Shortest Weapon.

Presence Origin spells count as Longest weapon in melee so long as Will is 3 or higher. Presence Origin doesn't count for poo in missile combat unless there is a range mitigation.

Sight Origin always counts as Longest weapon in melee and grants +6D to Range dice for missile.

Natural Effect spells will have to be dealt with individually.

Caster AoE doesn't really matter.

Single Target AoE depends on Origin.

Presence AoE counts as Thrown Weapon +1D Range when combined with Presence or Sight Origin.

Double Presence AoE counts as +2D to range with Presence Origin, +1D with Sight.

Personal Origin/Paces AoE would probably be limited to melee combat only. Definitely Spear or longest weapon, though.

Presence Origin/Paces AoE'd prolly confer the same benefits as a thrown weapon.

Personal or Presence Origin and 10s of paces likely has the range of gun. That's +2D for Range max.

10s of paces combined with Sight Origin (ala Storm of Lightning or Rain of Fire) would confer 8D for Range and positioning.

100s of paces... now it's just getting silly. But at least as many dice as a Great Bow: +4D. Combined with Sight Origin... you've got the medival equivalent of a B52 loaded with napalm and daisy cutters. Duck, cause there's no where to run.

Leagues and 10s of Leagues... I don't think they are applicable to positioning tests, but I'm open to suggestions.

These numbers are really based on the potential of the spell, not the actuality of the successes.

Wait. Sorcerers should position for range and cover using their Sorcery and an appropriate spell. It becomes a VS test, but one like Steel -- they still have to overcome the spell obstacle, but their successes still count against their opponent's positioning test. If they're opponent gets more successes than the obstacle of the spell, these successes are subtracted from the spell effect. To represent finding cover and stuff.

Holy shit. I think I just fixed something broken.

So the measured area stuff goes back to being an abstraction/estimation. The spell can go 100s of paces if you try, but what really matters is if you beat your opponent's successes. The spell grants you the potential to do that. (And we don't care precisely how many meters away he was when you fried him. We just care that your spellcraft allowed you to fry him at all.)

whaddya think?
-L

Edit:
Maybe I should just express spell ranges in missile weapon equivalencies? With "Sight" being the maximum at 6D?

Thor

12-07-2004, 10:07 PM

Holy shit. I think I just fixed something broken.

So the measured area stuff goes back to being an abstraction/estimation. The spell can go 100s of paces if you try, but what really matters is if you beat your opponent's successes. The spell grants you the potential to do that. (And we don't care precisely how many meters away he was when you fried him. We just care that your spellcraft allowed you to fry him at all.)

whaddya think?
-L

Edit:
Maybe I should just express spell ranges in missile weapon equivalencies? With "Sight" being the maximum at 6D?

I think we need to do some more playtesting. :?

luke

12-07-2004, 10:12 PM

sorry if it's confusing, i was working it through it right there.

All I'm saying: Spell-casting can be used for position, like Speed or Steel.

The Spell is the weapon and adds range dice like a bow (or Spear in melee).

The test is versus test. The mage must both beat the spell obstacle and his opponent's successes. Extra successes can be applied to cover, aiming or to the spell effects!

::zzzap::
-L

Thor

12-07-2004, 10:13 PM

Edit:
Maybe I should just express spell ranges in missile weapon equivalencies? With "Sight" being the maximum at 6D?

I think that's probably the best way to go at first glance.

Thor

12-07-2004, 10:14 PM

Thor

12-07-2004, 11:02 PM

Alright, just brainstorming here. A different way than what you've suggested for dealing with spells under Range and Cover.

Determine the base bonus dice based on Origin and base Area of Effect. The wizard makes a regular Range and Cover roll as normal (using Speed or Perception or whatever he wants). If he's using a spell with variable range (like White Fire), he can BID for additional bonus dice on the Range and Cover roll. This raises his Obstacle on the actual spell.

For instance, I'm casting White Fire at range. White Fire has a Personal Origin (+0 Range and Cover), and Measured Area (10s of Paces) Area of Effect (+1 to Range and Cover).

I opt to use a Perception-based Maintain (and I have a B6 Perception). That gives me a base of B7 for my Range and Cover dice (we'll ignore any applicable traits for now). I know my opponent is pretty nasty with his bow, so I decide to Bid up my Spell Obstacle for +3D to my Range and Cover for a total of B10.

I manage 7 successes, and my opponent only manages 5. I spend one to release my spell, and I apply the second one to a +1D Terrain Advantage (I don't think I should be able to get an Aiming bonus, but we could discuss that).

So now I have to cast my spell. Normally it would be Ob 3, but I bid up +3D for my Range and Cover test, so it's Ob 6!

Whaddya think?

luke

12-07-2004, 11:23 PM

Thor

12-07-2004, 11:32 PM

My reasoning for not going with this initially (it's the same format as bows and shtuff) is because it'll be too easy for mages to get off spells and destroy their opponents.

Sure, you might have taken cover from the Rain of Fire, but it doesn't matter. You're still going to take full damage.

It's actually a pet peeve of mine about the spell system. I point at you, you die. Nothing you can do about. No cover, no dodging, no armor. Nuffin.

I was hoping to bring spells into the fold and allow the rest of us a little bit of chance to survive.

-L

Edit: and if we're not going to make people pay successes to add range/AoE then spells get even more ridiculous.

And, the +3 Ob cast really farks up a player's Tax tests.

Hmm...I understand what you're saying. I thought that what I suggested actually made it harder for mages to completely dominate the field.

We're still making them pay successes for Range. To get that +3D bonus to Range and Cover, they increase the Ob of their spell by +3D (which means less successes for adding to damage), AND +3 Ob to Tax.

luke

12-07-2004, 11:40 PM

Right, right.

I'm just not being clear.

In the standard method (as you've proposed spells to follow) sorcerers can use their Perception to Maintain (or Speed) plus applicable bonus dice. And if we give spells range dice, then they can use them to.

They can win a standard positioning test. Even against a bow-armed opponent, they could feasibly win without having to spend any bonus dice.

Then, they cast their spell and annhiliate their opponent. Base Ob. Boom.

The current system necessitates that a sorcerer must spend successes (after the roll) in order to cross long distances. This is a core mechanic, and without it the spell system will be thrown off balance.

What I was trying to do was leave the spell obstacle as is, but allow the opponent to reduce casting successes with his own maneuver test. In essence forcing the sorcerer to pay for his range. Extra successes would then be applied to damage/effect.

-L

Thor

12-07-2004, 11:47 PM

What I was trying to do was leave the spell obstacle as is, but allow the opponent to reduce casting successes with his own maneuver test. In essence forcing the sorcerer to pay for his range. Extra successes would then be applied to damage/effect.

Okay. I'm with you. I'm just concerned that if we use the Sorcery roll as the Range and Cover roll, the average mage is going to be rolling somewhere between 8 and 12 open-ended dice before you even add in bonus dice.

luke

12-07-2004, 11:52 PM

Okay. I'm with you. I'm just concerned that if we use the Sorcery roll as the Range and Cover roll, the average mage is going to be rolling somewhere between 8 and 12 open-ended dice before you even add in bonus dice.

::sigh:: you're right.

It seems that we've got about 5-10 dice being rolled for positioning tests in our playtests.

Even if we cut out traits from a sorcer's arsenal, he'll have Will+Skill (5+5) plus the spell. 1-6 dice.

hrm.

I really. really. really. don't want to have to overhaul sorcery.

::sigh::
:oops:

"Why," you say? Because spells will need to be given range dice... instead of paying for range successes.

Hm. Maybe you're right. Standard RnC plus spell as a weapon...

Each spell gives you a small pool of dice to draw on, depending on its range/origin. Using that pool adds to the Cast/Resist Ob.

:roll:

Thor

12-07-2004, 11:58 PM

"Why," you say? Because spells will need to be given range dice... instead of paying for range successes.

Yeah, that's why I was suggesting bidding for additional Range dice. Essentially you're spending dice on Range, but before you roll for the spell. You're gambling you'll get enough successes to reach the target.

Kublai

12-08-2004, 11:33 AM

Could you simplify and abstract all mention of paces in Sorcery? Instead of facets for range in paces, 10s of paces, or even miles, could you have facets for 1 zone, 2 zones, or 4 zones?

That wouldn't be too hard to swap out.

tetsujin28

12-31-2004, 05:19 AM

It actually works just fine with miniatures. We usually don't like to use them because in our experience it's easier to maintain the imaginative space without them. But you shouldn't have any problems if you really want to.I'm completely the opposite: gaming without miniatures just ain't gaming, to me. And it does seem that by making movement amorphous that minis become difficult to use for anything.

And on the question of hacking weapons: personally, I have no problem with opponents using the same sort of tactics. But then, I come from Runequest, where worrying about the integrity of your weapons is an important part of the game.

Thor

12-31-2004, 09:41 AM

I'm completely the opposite: gaming without miniatures just ain't gaming, to me. And it does seem that by making movement amorphous that minis become difficult to use for anything.

It actually does work very well with miniatures. For his "Beat Pete" competitions, Luke has a hex mat with an arena drawn on it with all sorts of obstacles (pits, marshy ground, barrels, walls, etc.). We broke it out when we first started playtesting the new rules (shhh! don't tell anyone) and we felt it worked really well. Obviously you still need an idea of what characters are capable of in paces in order to use the miniatures (and I think Luke is planning on including that in an appendix).

If you script a Withdraw and I script a Maintain, you are going to try to move away from me in your dash-sprint range. I'm trying to stick with you or cut you off. If you win the positioning test (which is generally a versus Speed test with bonus dice based on weapon length, traits, terrain, etc.) then you get away from me by one position (Inside --> Optimal Striking -- > Lunging --> Outside Striking).

However, if I win, I stick with you no matter what. Whether you moved your sprint distance and I stayed with you, or I cut you off is in question. Personally, the GM in me says the person who won the Positioning Test gets to decide whether he chased his opponent or cut him off. When using miniatures though, common sense based on the location of the miniatures on the map should be more than enough to answer the question.

tetsujin28

12-31-2004, 01:57 PM

Hmm. I can see where that's useful. So it ends up somewhat like the Terrain rules in TROS? And I'm guessing Maintain is a new maneuver? Man, I'm going to have to learn the game all over again :wink:

Thor

12-31-2004, 03:00 PM

Hmm. I can see where that's useful. So it ends up somewhat like the Terrain rules in TROS? And I'm guessing Maintain is a new maneuver? Man, I'm going to have to learn the game all over again :wink:

Heh! I think you'll find it easier than you think. It is a little like the Terrain rules in TRoS, but not entirely. Basically, Walk, Jog, and Sprint are gone. In their place you'll choose Close, Maintain, or Withdraw.

At the beginning of every volley you'll compare your movement script against your opponent's script. If you've both scripted the same thing, you get what you want, no problem. If not, it's a versus Speed test. You'll get bonus dice based on a number of things: longest weapon, traits (like Fleet of Foot), terrain, etc. Then you roll. The winner gets what he wants.

In playtest we've found it very fluid, and we've also found it layers on a whole new level of tactical options that are very satisfying.

Angaros

02-15-2005, 08:06 PM

If a shorter weapons gets into optimal striking distance against a longer weapon, both weapons are considered in optimal striking distance.

If a sword successfully gets into Optimal vs a spear, both weapons are in optimal striking distance -- in order for a sword to be in optimal, the spear has got to be in its optimal range, too.

All weapon lengths shares at least one pace of optimal striking distance.

Since I'm revising the character sheet for my campaign, I will fix the script sheet too, mostly because I use what I know about the new positioning rules. Hence the CPR on this thread. Is this a correct graphical view of how it works:
http://www.bronzeworks.org/downloads/reach.png
The + figures are inside penalties to Ob, but that's pure guesswork.

If so, then I have a question. Assume A is bare-fisted (shortest) and B is wielding a pike (longest). Does A have to get 7 successes (all in all) to proceed from B's lunging to inside? Or will he only have to go through "B lunge" -> "B optimal" -> "A lunge" -> "A optimal" -> "inside"? Do you perhaps only keep track of where your enemy is relative to yourself? Or something completely different? I'm trying to understand how to best keep track of the distances.

Kublai

02-15-2005, 08:13 PM

Angaros

02-15-2005, 08:17 PM

The way your example would work is that if B had A at B's lunging distance, that would mean A was outside A's striking distance. So, in order for A to get into his Optimal Distance, he would only need 2 more successes than B generated during the positioning test: 1 success to move from A's outside to A's Lunging, then 1 more to move from A's Lunging to A's Optimal.

B's position means jack diddly to A if A wins the test. It's all relative to the winner.

Make sense?
I'm beginning to understand. Not quite there yet. :) Say B won the first Speed test and took A to his own Optimal. In the next volley, A wins the Speed test and can start closing with his successes. Where is B considered to be before any successes are applied? Outside? Lunging? Is Optimal for a longer weapon always equal to Lunging for a shorter when focus is switched?

Kublai

02-15-2005, 08:39 PM

Angaros

02-15-2005, 08:42 PM

Now I think I get it -- thanks! This will work great, I'm sure of it.

luke

02-15-2005, 09:10 PM

Ok, say B did win and took A to B's optimal. That would mean A's now in A's Lunging. If A won the next positioning test, it would take only one success for A to move into A's Optimal, which would be B's Inside.

Um. This is slightly off. In order to keep things simple, "inside" is inside for everyone -- regardless of weapon length.

Here's an example: A Swordsman (long weapon, "normal" in your table) is fighting and Knifer (shortest weapon). They start outside of the swordsman's striking distance. The swordsman wins the first positioning test by one. He moves into Lunging distance for his weapon. As it happens, this is Lunging distance for a knife, too. A weapon has to be more than two lengths longer in order to hold your opponent at bay while you're at lunging distance.

Next volley, the swordsman wins again. This time, he puts himself in optimal striking distance. The knifer, however, remains at lunging distance. His weapon length is shorter, so the swordsman can hold him at lunging distance, while he positions for optimal.

If the knifer wins the next test, he can put himself in optimal range for his knives. This would then be optimal for both weapons. (Optimal range for a shorter weapon is optimal range for a longer weapon.) If he wins by two, he could duck inside. Both characters would then count as being inside.

hope this helps,
-L

Angaros

02-16-2005, 07:24 AM

Thanks. One final (I hope) question though: Say the knifer wins and puts himself at optimal -- this means they're both at optimal striking distance. If the swordsman wins the next test -- can he spend one success and still be at his own optimal and have the knifer at lunging or will he have to get to his own lunging first and then get one step closer again?

Oh, and another: how firmly do you hold the players to their movement script? If they've scripted Close and wins the Speed test by, say 3 successes, do you force them to move 3 steps closer or can they move as many steps as they wish (minimum of 1)?

luke

02-16-2005, 10:19 AM

Yes, the swordsman can back out from optimal to lunging distance for one success. He'd put the knifer at lunging distance as well.

A character may move one or two distances, period. As written, if you win by two, you move two distances. Uncertainty is a good thing.

-L

Angaros

02-16-2005, 10:28 AM

What I meant was, can the swordsman back so that he's still in optimal, while the knifer is at lunging?

Start: outside S (Swordsman)
V1 (S close / K close):
S wins by 1 succ -> S lunging / K lunging

V2 (S close / K close):
S wins by 1 succ -> S optimal / K lunging

V3 (S maintain / K close):
K wins by 1 succ -> K optimal / S optimal

V4 (S withdraw / K close):
S wins by 1 succ ... can he go to "S optimal / K lunging" as in V2 or is "1 step" interprested as going to "S lunging / K lunging"?

There is a difference between the two. I'm guessing he can only use his "own" spaces, meaning that if he's at optimal and must withdraw 1 step then he's at lunging regardless of where this puts the knifer. Makes most sense rules-wise I think. Hm. If this is correct, then that one step backwards for the swordsman makes it much tougher for the knifer since the knifer now has to score two more successes to get back to his own optimal. Cool.

luke

02-16-2005, 10:33 AM

What I meant was, can the swordsman back so that he's still in optimal, while the knifer is at lunging?

Yes. I'm sorry, I misspoke. Still groggy from editing until 3 am.

Yes, just like in the first example I posted, but in reverse.

-L

eruditus

02-16-2005, 11:19 AM

I definately think that positioning is something that works out better in play than in a forum setting.

There are some sticky areas but the idea is novel enough and solid enough that i think its a big step in the right direction!

Kublai

02-16-2005, 11:33 AM

If the swordman and knifer are both at optimal and the swordman wants to keep his optimal but put the knifer at lunging, would the swordman need to script Withdraw?

If he wins the positioning by 1, he succeeds at his intent, but if he wins by two both are now considered at lunging? Is this correct?

luke

02-16-2005, 11:50 AM

If the swordman and knifer are both at optimal and the swordman wants to keep his optimal but put the knifer at lunging, would the swordman need to script Withdraw?

yes.

If he wins the positioning by 1, he succeeds at his intent, but if he wins by two both are now considered at lunging? Is this correct?

yes.

-L

Kublai

02-16-2005, 12:08 PM

Why is the winner penalized so? He obviously is in control so why not allow him to achieve his intent?

eruditus

02-16-2005, 12:35 PM

Why is the winner penalized so? He obviously is in control so why not allow him to achieve his intent?
What's with you and your new buzz word? ;)

I figure that its what scripting is all about. Sometimes you plan on something but it just doesn't come out the way you want it to. Its not about winning the speed roll, its about clever decision making. We'd all love to say "but i intended to do this perfectly!" but rarely does a plan come out unscathed when it comes in contact with the enemy. :)

i think this whole intent thing can too easily stumble into a means for players to worm their way out of having to forfiet actions to change their minds when things don't go their way.

Kublai

02-16-2005, 12:56 PM

Angaros

02-16-2005, 01:34 PM

I see what you mean Kublai. Extremely Speedy characters (say with a B6) fighting incompetent people will only rarely get precisely what they want. I mean, face someone with only a B3 in Speed and you'll pretty often get 2 or more successes more than your opponent. Which means you will never get to move one step closer or farther away. A skilled or fleet-footed individual ought to have more precision than that.

Kublai

02-16-2005, 03:30 PM

Having read what Luke wrote in the actual Revision and not what he posted here, I am relieved to discover that the winner can put himself wherever he wants to, as makes sense to us all. :D

eruditus

02-16-2005, 05:50 PM

What are you talking about? I don't think a person who scripted Withdraw in order to keep himself in Optimal and put his opponent at Lunging and then wins his positioning test by a lot should be penalized by not getting what he wanted.

Now what did you mean?

Of course, by your last post this is a moot point. However, that being said, I only agree with you because I think it was discussed at some point that you are not allowed to roll less dice than you have.

If you could control your die pool than my opinion would be that you overshot, ran into or closed on your opponent.

But I see by all this that the philosophy is really that your roll says whether you carry out your intent or not. I wouldn't complain about either ruling however if the idea was that the roll determined abstarct distance, not intent. thus making it more of a gamble... maybe i should hold back a little if i want to step around him and maintain.

I mean if you think about it, because your Withdrawing to KEEP optimal distance then your "sprinting" enough to get a moving quickly penalty. i don't think its a stretch to say that you over-compensated.

Again, i realize that this is not the mechanical reality anymore.