Adept Press

I think I have it now! Mostly as most recently posted, but with one crucial addition or clarification.

1. Fair-and-clear. This happens once, so everyone's oriented before we move into the action.

2. Go in order. At the end of your action, state your next intended action, and describe one thing which shows your character initiating it.

i) If you get sucked into a clash and do anything but full defense, you lose your upcoming action. This may be no big deal to someone who just wants to fight, but it's a little risky concerning the advantage die, all else being equal. Even if you lost the intended action, still state your next intended action right on schedule.

ii) The advantage die is awarded to one side of every clash just before its resolution, but before the offensive and defensive point splits. It is not discussed or negotiated.

3. The order changes in two ways:

i) if your Q drops due to injury or anything else, moving you further from the "go next" point.

ii) if you pump B to get immediately to the "go next" point, which can be done at any moment unless someone is already rolling dice. You'll stay in that position relative to the other characters unless (i) happens.

5. Spellcasting includes a slight variant to 4(ii) in that one can pump B to get "into" a spellcaster's move rather than precede it, for the purpose of oppositional magic only. Your character stays in the position ahead of the character who was casting the spell, just like normal "pump to go next" actions.

6. Modifications like the +1 to allocate for a sword don't do anything to the order.
---
I think this will "pop" play into exactly the right format.

Let's try it! Make up two Circle knights using Gethyn's thingie (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29364274/CoH%20Character%20Tool.html), and give the one with the lower score total a tally item.

Pit them against these guys, in separate mini-playtests.

1. Three unnamed freemen armed only with spears + a manticore. Locate it on a rocky coastline stained with birdshit, like this (http://images.travelpod.com/tw_slides/ta00/af8/856/the-rocky-california-coastline-malibu.jpg). The knights have arrived on horseback on the bluff to the left, the opponents are in and among the rocks right at the water margin.

2. A named Amboriyon wizard (attributes = highest knight's) with the outdoorsman profession and two Rolke panthers who've befriended him or her, in this environment (http://serenityspell.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/img_2397.jpg). It's an ambush, and guess who's on the receiving end.

3. Two named NPCs with martial professions (high or low doesn't matter, arm & armor appropriately) and two nzaggs, in this Pananthuri underground tomb (http://www.saqqara.nl/img/Excavations/Tombs/Ptahemwia/Ptahemwia_substructure.jpg) whose décor looks like this (http://www.madeinsouthitalytoday.com/assets/uploads/Campania/Naple_Province/Naples_Underground/Catacombes/Catacombe-san-gennaro_500.jpg). The opposing groups are each hunting the other. Light sources matter for everyone.

Tell me how it goes!

Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 01, 2014, 01:46:31 PM
i) If you get sucked into a clash and do anything but full defense, you lose your upcoming action. This may be no big deal to someone who just wants to fight, but it's a little risky concerning the advantage die, all else being equal. Even if you lost the intended action, still state your next intended action right on schedule.

The intended next action is declared AFTER the clash is concluded/narrated/visualized/etc and BOTH combatants declares their next action at the same time, right? It's like a new mini-free-and-clear-for-two where if I say "I turn back and hit him again" the other guy can change his next action declaration, or it's already fixed? In this second case who declare first?

And if the sucked-into-clash character did not limit himself to full defense, he is declaring not his action when it will be his turn in the rotation again (seeing that he did lose that action) but the next one after that?

If a character has used full defense to keep his next action, but then change the action declaration, he lose the next action?

Quote
ii) The advantage die is awarded to one side of every clash just before its resolution, but before the offensive and defensive point splits. It is not discussed or negotiated.

So:
1) A (as he declared previously) suck B in a clash
2) before anything else is narrated (tactics, actions, etc) the GM assign the advantage die, basing his decision on what already happened and the situation at this time.
3) A and B decide how many dice assign to defense and offense
4) Both roll, they compare results, subtract damages if warranted.
5) The GM narrates what just happened, with fictional details, based on the outcome of (4): for example if one of the two successfully hit the other with a knife attack, they are now fighting in very close quarters
6) They both declare what their next action will be. For A is the action he will try to do in his next turn, for B, if he did not limit to full defense, it will be in the next turn after his next one.

Correct?

Quote
3. The order changes in two ways:

i) if your Q drops due to injury or anything else, moving you further from the "go next" point.

ii) if you pump B to get immediately to the "go next" point, which can be done at any moment unless someone is already rolling dice. You'll stay in that position relative to the other characters unless (i) happens.

And you can act even if you did lose your next attack, right? (I am just checking if a previous reply was still valid)

You can change your action too, or even if you pumped B you are still tied to what you declared before?

Quote5. Spellcasting includes a slight variant to 4(ii)

There is no (4), you are jumping from 3 to 5 every time you post this list...  :-)

Quote
Let's try it! Make up two Circle knights using Gethyn's thingie (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29364274/CoH%20Character%20Tool.html), and give the one with the lower score total a tally item.

Uh? Now? In this thread? Posting all the numbers? Or we simply try and tell you the impressions afterwards?

Off-list, and post about it here later.

More detailed answers to your questions will arrive soon.

QuoteThe intended next action is declared AFTER the clash is concluded/narrated/visualized/etc and BOTH combatants declares their next action at the same time, right?

No. Only the officially acting character declares his or her next action.

QuoteAnd if the sucked-into-clash character did not limit himself to full defense, he is declaring not his action when it will be his turn in the rotation again (seeing that he did lose that action) but the next one after that?

Neither. He does not declare an action after the clash. He will declare his new action after the end of his next turn (the "empty" one).

QuoteIf a character has used full defense to keep his next action, but then change the action declaration, he lose the next action?

No again, for the same reason.

QuoteSo:
1) A (as he declared previously) suck B in a clash
2) before anything else is narrated (tactics, actions, etc) the GM assign the advantage die, basing his decision on what already happened and the situation at this time.
3) A and B decide how many dice assign to defense and offense
4) Both roll, they compare results, subtract damages if warranted.
5) The GM narrates what just happened, with fictional details, based on the outcome of (4): for example if one of the two successfully hit the other with a knife attack, they are now fighting in very close quarters
6) They both declare what their next action will be. For A is the action he will try to do in his next turn, for B, if he did not limit to full defense, it will be in the next turn after his next one.

Two things. In (3), it's points, not dice (this must have been a minor typo, no big deal). In (6), no, not both, just the character whose turn just finished.

QuoteAnd you can act even if you did lose your next attack, right? (I am just checking if a previous reply was still valid)

You can change your action too, or even if you pumped B you are still tied to what you declared before?

I don't know what these mean.

Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 01, 2014, 06:52:40 PM

QuoteAnd you can act even if you did lose your next attack, right? (I am just checking if a previous reply was still valid)

You can change your action too, or even if you pumped B you are still tied to what you declared before?

I don't know what these mean.

The first one is about this reply: http://indie-rpgs.com/adept/index.php?topic=302.msg3011#msg3011
Citing:  Doing this (pump B to jump to the top of the order list) cancels the "misses next action" status.
I assume this is still valid even after these changes, but seeing that if was not explicit in your post, I wanted to check.

The second one is:
A, B, C and D are fighting with each other, and they are in order of decreasing Q, so A act first, B second, etc.
They declare their next action in the free and clear phase. C declare that he will attack D.
A suck C in a clash, C stay in full defense, and now it should be B's turn to act, but C pump Brawn to act before B.
C is still tied to his previous declaration about his next action, and he must attack D, or pumping Brawn can change that, too, and C can attack A instead? ?

(I am asking because if he can't change it, there is a strange rules combination at work:  if C use even a single point to attack A in the clash, he lose his next action, and pumping B he can do a totally different thing. But if he did stay in full defense...  he can't do it?)

I see!

Pumping Brawn overrides all else - you jump to the next action position and you can do whatever you want - it's a full and thorough reboot. Afterward, you announce your intended following action.

I am quite excited about this. I think all the holes and special cases are gone, and that we always now what every character is about to do, all the time.

I think the only thing left is to explain how unnamed characters can hurt the player-characters individually, which I keep forgetting to do.

Hi, Ron I have some thoughts about the current combat system/sequence...

Basically, this new bit about declaring the next action as soon as the current action has been resolved has thrown me for a slight loop.
Having run a few basic engagements with a handful of characters, I don't really understand why it's necessary.
I find it an overhead in fact - in terms of extra complication and in terms of Things To Remember Or Write Down.

What I mainly seem to find is that all sorts of declared actions become void all the time as things play out:

Let's say Albrecht clashes with Berthold and knocks him down, then declares he will switch his attacks to Dieter for his next action. Berthold was on full defence because last go he said he wanted to lob a spear at Cedric but now has to get his arse out of the mud double-quick-like instead. And in the meantime Cedric leaps in and decapitates Dieter with a well-swung axe from behind so Albrecht has to declare a new action when his turn comes up...

I don't know if it's how I'm calling things in the clashes and so on, but that kind of interplay happened often enough to be noticeable and raise a question for me.

Declaring next actions also seems, for me anyway, to remove the immediacy of the fiction.
Knowing 'what everyone wants to do all the time' feels weird in the context of the 'putting it on the line' feeling of the choices within a clash, say.

So...I don't see what declaring my next action adds to the process.

Without that element, I suggest we have something that looks like this:

A. Set-Up in the Fair and Clear.
Everyone knows exactly how the the engagement initially forms up. ("I'm hurling a spear at you. Your buddy is casting a spell. My buddy is dashing for higher ground. OK. Let's go!")

B. Turn-taking.
On my go, I announce what I'm about to do. If anyone doesn't like the sound of that, they can pump B to jump in and try to stop me.
(Pumping B for counter-magic doesn't change the order, but the principle is the same. You've just declared you're casting a spell and I decide I don't want you to do that.)

At the start of the engagement, everyone knows what everyone is about to do and where they're doing it and strategises accordingly.
When we're in the chaos and the to-and-fro of the turn-taking, everyone knows:
i) Everything that everyone has just done or is busy doing; and
ii) Exactly what the currently active guy is just about to do.

As I see it, all actions then become a calculated risk with limited knowledge.

- on my go I don't know who your guy is going to shoot his damn arrows at next, but I'm sick of him doing it at all and I want to stop him...
- I didn't realise you were going to cast a Blast at me on your turn, so I'm going to have to pump B to try to take you out in a clash when I can't really afford to...
- I don't yet know why your guy went on full defence when I clashed with him just now, but it's certainly a red flag to my buddies coming before
him later in the order...
- etc...

That sort of shifting tactical action based on limited knowledge seems more realistic and immediate to me.
Everyone has to commit to in-the-moment decisions, primarily choosing targets and deciding right now whether to pump B or not to tactically change the order. Plus, there's no remembering extra stuff across everyone's goes, which I consider a massive benefit.

Conversely, with this new mode of fully declared intent at all rimes I can, for instance, ignore people because I know that I'm not their target this go. To my mind, ignoring someone in a fight should always be a significant risk.

Now, although my experience is that I don't like it, my assumption at the moment is still that I equally just might not get it.
I could be missing something - a bigger picture; your thought process about this; your own play testing...something.

So there we are...those are my thoughts and my question: how is declaring next-action more functional (or in other ways better or preferable) than
declaring current-action only?

Best,

Gethyn

I see your point and I think I see a way through.

First, I'll explain where I'm coming from. The original notion, and this dates back 20 years or more, is to get away from the almost universal model of resolution which resembles a series of stop-time moments, in each of which, one person gets to act. It's my turn, so everyone else is literally frozen, and I rub my chin and look around and decide what I want to do.

Historically, an alternative has been available since role-playing's earliest days, manifest in Tunnels & Trolls: whole-round, all-group resolution, with some unconstructed opportunities for individual action here and there. Comparatively, it's been a tiny minority.

(Interestingly, most iterations of D&D have attempted to be both-and-neither, a whole 'nother topic. 3rd edition tried to make things more reactive, 4th dramatically more so, but I can see it already, this is a huge threadjack so, not now.)

So I wanted action without stop-motion and yet with individual react-and-respond. I first began with the clash notion in Gray Magick, and the earliest versions of Sorcerer adopted that. However, without a coherent larger framework, the clash idea falls apart, and as it happened, I discovered and adapted the rather excellent system in Zero for Sorcerer, removing clashes. That game did not really explain the opening framing of its resolution very well, so I developed the fair-and-clear for Sorcerer, resulting in what I think is one of the most dynamic conflict resolution systems in gaming. You can see differing variations of it in both Elfs and Trollbabe, somewhat loosened up in the former and tightened up in the latter.

It Was a Mutual Decision goes to a more scene-based resolution method, and S/Lay w/Me is an entirely different animal from any of the others, so the concept doesn't really apply. Spione and Shahida also provide diverse methods based on multiple-players with few characters, and tuned toward "soft" decisions that may or may not emerge from the context of the hard mechanics.

So what I'm doing here is resurrecting the clashes and seeing if I can achieve the same goal I did with Sorcerer, with this mechanic as opposed to directly opposing dice per action. The obvious method is to preserve the fair-and-clear and simply embed clashes in Sorcerer-style rounds, and that's what the first playtest draft pretty much does. John liked it that way and I know it works from my own playtesting. But I decided that I want to cut back even further, pre-Sorcerer entirely, and build something new. I'm basing it partly on my little not-a-game Mongrel (http://adept-press.com/wordpress/wp-content/media/mongrel.pdf) from 2003, which is where the get-thee-to-the-end-of-the-line method comes from.

Again, the priority is not to permit any stop-motion even though everyone gets to act individually. The bump-to-front mechanic gets us at least 75% of the way, but I don't like the way that once you go, your character is frozen until the next go unless sucked into a clash.

All right, that said ...

I think the solution to what you're talking about is merely to get a little bit of reactive narration in there. Is your character ... trying to stand up, holding his face, after receiving a shield-smash? Nocking another arrow? Reaching into his or her sleeves? Jumping off the bluff? None of which is to be considered totally binding, but merely in the very first microsecond of initiation. The character can still do whatever the player wants at the moment their actual turn is initiated.

Part of the goal is cognitive: each person experiences his or her character as engaged, without "stand down it's not your turn" interludes.

Part of it is communicative: everyone at the table maintains the group awareness of fair-and-clear at all times, so characters' positions, motions, the directions they're looking ... the simple cinematic imagination is maintained through talking.

I think that's a good compromise between what I suggested and what you're saying, preserving the goals and experiential qualities of both.

I bet a number of us are doing this to a certain extent during post-roll narration anyway.

So, the combat mechanics as they stand now (stood yesterday), am I bound to either perform the action that I declared (or prefigured) last turn or else give up my action?  Or am I allowed to change my mind and still have freedom to act?

Thanks,
-J

We might have posted simultaneously. I'm scaling back my original post in this thread from "declare next action" to "narrate a bit post-action," to provide visual context for everyone. It has nothing to do with committing to the action for next time, but provides context for whatever it is that you end up doing, and the character isn't frozen in the posture of merely completing the previous action.

I'm pretty sure that there is no longer any change declared action anywhere in the process at all.

Okay good, then I like it. :)  It's for momentum of events, but it's not mechanical, it's not something that we have to remember from turn to turn for every character.

I can already hear some players thinking "oh, I can get Advantage by telegraphing one thing, but then doing another, thus confusing my enemy."  I assume this just falls under "nothing you narrate before your roll affects who has Advantage," and so it doesn't work like that.

Thanks,
_J

Interesting.

So the fundamental, underlying intent in all this is to escape from a sense of this stop-motion "tick-tocking" in engagements? The you-go, I-go, wargame vibe?

I'm reminded of a mechanism in board game (it's also widely played with pen and graph paper) called "Bolide".
The game is about Formula 1 motor racing and uses a 'vector movement' system.
Bear with me, I'm convinced this will make sense...
So in this boardgame, you have a little car on the racetrack but you also have an associated pawn, placed off in front of the car somewhere.
This is where your car's momentum will take it on your next move.
You can move your car to the pawn or to a bunch of spaces around it, and in turn the pawn displaces off in front of your car as you do so. Faster you go, the further ahead of you the pawn gets.
Upshot is that everyone playing has a general sense of your speed, trajectory and choices, but on your go you can also arbitrarily slam on the brakes or accelerate harder to end up somewhere else entirely if you choose.

So. Back to CoH... Inertia and momentum and intent...
It sounds like you're suggesting something along the lines of:

1. On your go, announce your action and do it, then;
2. Describe your 'new trajectory', the present state of momentum, that results from the outcome of the action.

Where that second step applies to anyone else involved in the action too.

As you say, not a declared next action, binding in any way, but - I don't know - like a 'statement of vector' in order to keep everything active.

Is this the gist?
If so, I'm starting to like it...

G

Yeah! As I said, hardly anything different from what a lot of us are probably doing already as part of post-roll narration. Just a bit more attention to it, that's all, and getting it into the player's hands rather than the GM's.

Tonight, in our 2nd play test I hope to finish our adventure and then try out some of the combat scenarios.  We'll probably all have more useful and insightful feedback then.

In the meantime here's a quick thought that I hope to revisit later with more actual play experience.

I'm really attached to the combat queue idea as simply ACT then get to the end of the line.  This makes me question the utility of adjusting the combat queue during a fight based on any consequences to Q.

Here's how I see it.  During Free and Clear we set the fight in motion with our opening moves. We line up then in order of Q. Then throughout the rest of the fight taking any action moves us simply to the end of the queue.  We take action in 1 of three ways: by  waiting for our turn;  by spending B and jumping ahead; or by responding offensively to a clash and getting pulled up.

Saying the same thing in outline form:
1. On my own turn I ACT then go to end of queue
2. On someone else's turn, we spend B, ACT then go to end of queue
3. On someone else's turn I get drawn into a clash, I ACT offensively and go to end of queue.

If I take Q damage that's bad enough in terms of reducing my offensive and defensive pool, but is it really worthwhile to try to keep tracking it, relative to other players Q scores throughout the whole combat?

With this method we never really need to say "you lost your action" because you got "sucked in" to a clash.  Instead we could say, "you're invited to take your turn early - by fighting in this particular clash." Accept, and you get a chance to deal damage before going to end of the queue. Refuse, by defending, and take your turn when it comes up naturally in the queue.

What I like about this view of things is that it enhances the distinction between this game and D&D style initiative based turns & rounds.   It truly eliminates "rounds" and thus jettisons the notion of a unit of time that expands to contain all the actions that all the combatants are entitled to take. The only similar thing would be a "clash" which involves two characters taking 1 action simultaneously.

Cases like in our last game where we needed to set a time frame for the arrival of an external element to the melee can easily be dealt with by setting a number of actions. So instead of saying the mob will get here in 3 rounds, or as I said in that game "after everyone has had 2 opportunities to act". I could simply say, the mob will get here immediately after the 7th action has been taken. Now I don't have to worry about who had an action and lost it.. and how many times we've gone around a circle.  Instead I simply count down, each clash = 1 turn no matter who's in it; each spell or other action = 1 turn.  When 7 have gone, even if it was the same person spending 8pts of Brawn in a row, then the time is up and the mob arrives.

You know....  I like this idea.

I'm attracted to that proposition, Joshua, simply because it cuts out a book-keeping, tracking element...I'm trying to work out if you lose anything  by it.

If Q is core fighting ability, does it also model stamina? Does loss of Q during a fight suggest exhaustion?
Getting winded, starting to lose the tempo of the exchange or (for low-Q characters) being unable to follow the tempo in the first place, matters a great deal and makes the difference between being able to keep your head up and being overwhelmed. If Q drops, and in the absence of burning B to force yourself to stay in the fight, simply more of your opponents will get to act ahead of you.

If the mode is 'act and go to the back of the queue' I think this aspect is lost isn't it?
Dwindling effectiveness isn't quite the same, maybe?

I very much like your idea of timing by actions, but consider - where do the newly arrived dudes slot into an existing action order?
Has to be in order of Q somehow, doesn't it? Or does it? That raises questions of its own, of course - where do they act if the Q4 dude has pumped himself into first position ahead of the Q8 dude?

My thinking, actually, would be to simply reset the engagement at that point. Circumstances have changed, so start again from scratch (although using whatever the current goings-on are as the context) with a new free and clear phase as everyone adjusts to the shift in situation.

I'm torn, as I say. I like the 'act and go to end' idea.
It cuts right to the heart of removing the traditional ideas of initiative order and emphasises tempo instead, which is cool.
At the same time...I still think Q order might matter...or does it..?

G

Let's try it my way first (as per the reply to Gethyn) and see how that goes. I'd like to see a collective effort for this, so it can be compared to Joshua's suggestion in a sensible way.

Here's a combat test for you.

Setup
Two Knights (one of them a Wizard) have been guided to the cliffside lair of a Wyrm by a pair of locals. As they approach the cave mouth across the shingle beach, the Wyrm bursts out and the locals reveal their true colours - for reasons of their own, they quite like having a Wyrm around and are going to attack the Knights to prevent them harming it.

Knight 1: Q8 B7 Wizard
Knight 2: Q6 B6
Wyrm: Q6 B6
Local 1: Q4 B7
Local 2: Q4 B4

The Knights have each brought a spare spear, expecting to need to throw at least one of them. As the action begins, one is in hand, the other stabbed into the beach beside them.

Initial order after the free and clear:

K1 (Hurling his spear as the Wyrm charges)
Wyrm (Spewing a gout of venom at K1 as it rushes out)
K2 (Hurling a spear at the Wyrm)
L1 (Jumping K2 from behind)
L2 (Piling on with L2)

NOTE: It was a toss-up, but K2 decided to try to hurt the Wyrm rather than turn his attention to L1 (which he could have done in the free and clear quite happily) simply because it seemed it would make for cooler action that way.

Actions
K2 rolled a double 1 on his spear throw. It sails wide.
He snatches up his spare spear and braces behind his shield as the Wyrm bears down.

Order: W-K2-L1-L2-K1

The Wyrm spews venom at K1, hitting well but not getting past K2's armour and shield on full defence.
The Wyrm writhes left and right and closes to striking distance.
K2 bursts up from behind his shield with his spear arm back.

Order: K2-L1-L2-K1-W

K2's spear throw finds its mark on the Wyrm's shoulder, but the 7BQ damage it does is simply turned aside by the Wyrm's scales.
Hearing L1 behind him, K2 takes up his second spear and begins to turn.

Order: L1-L2-K1-W-K2

Leading with his shield, L1 delivers a leaping spear thrust at K2's back as the Knight turns.
With the advantage die in hand, L1 puts 6 into offence and 2 into defence. K2 goes full defence.
K2 rolls badly and is only saved by armour. The spear thrust skids past his shield and glances off his helm. He staggers back, trying to recover as the second local arrives from the flank.
L1 follows up, readying his spear for another strike.

Order: L2-K1-W-K2-L1

L2 has the advantage die but he's not a great fighter. He goes for a shoulder charge/shield bash using a 4:4 offence/defence split.
K2 decides to trust to his armour and try to turn the tables. He takes a 6:6 split.
It pays off. Even with the advantage die, the rolls are bad for L2.
K2 crouches to deflect the shield charge and drives his spear into L2's stomach.
L2 is instantly on B0 Q1 and out of the fight. He crumples.
K2 wrenches his spear free.

Order: K1-W-[K2 acted]-L1-#L2 horribly wounded#

K1 decides he can't take on a Wyrm on his own and chooses to cast Dominate in order to try and get the thing under control.
The Wyrm is not taking any spells from a stinking wizard today, thank you, and pumps a point of B to break the action order.

Order: W-K1-[K2]-L1

The Wyrm moves like lightning and slams K1 with a lashing claw strike.
Despite a solid hit, K1's full defence plus shield and armour just manage to protect him from harm.
K2 is knocked flying across the shingle, his ears ringing and his shield splintered and scarred by a raking claw mark.
The Wyrm bares its fangs and hisses, tensing to leap after him.

Order: K1-[K2]-L1-W

K1 rolls up into a crouch and casts the spell, hurling a handful of black smoke into the air between them. "Back into your stinking lair you beast!" or some such. He makes the C vs 12 roll with room to spare and the shocked Wyrm cowers and begins to slink hurriedly backwards towards the cave.
Breathing hard, K1 retrieves his spear from the ground and turns toward his companion behind him.

Order: [K2]-L1-*W retreating*-K1

K2 has acted against L2 so his go is already done.
He whips the blood from his spear tip and turns on L1, eyes blazing.

Order: L1-*W*-K1-K2

Having just seen his companion gutted, L1 closes more cautiously with K2, attempting a shield bash, but K2 furiously pumps B to beat him to the punch.

Order: K2-L1-K1

K2 decides it's time to end this farce right now.
With the advantage die in hand, he goes full offence.
L1 hastily takes full defence but it doesn't help.
L1 rolls a 3; K2 rolls a 17. That's 20BQ damage after armour...
Without breaking stride, K2 knocks L1's shield aside and thrusts his spear through the man's throat.

Engagement over.

Using Joshua's method, the ordering in this exchange would have been as follows:

K1-W-K2-L1-L2
W-K2-L1-L2-K1
K2-L1-L2-K1-W
L1-L2-K1-W-K2
L2-K1-W-K2-L1
K1-W-L1-#L2#-K2 (K2's counterstrike to L2's stomach)
W-K1-L1-K2 (Wyrm pumps B)
K1-L1-K2-*W*
L1-K2-K1
K2-L1-K1 (K2 pumps B and ends it)

Unfortunately in this, the damage was all utterly emphatic so no-one lost small amounts of Q which would have forced a change in order.

The process was smooth.

On the table, I used a column of small index cards with the B, Q and armour of each character written on them.
As goes we're taken, I simply slid the card from the top of the column to the bottom. When an action was used up in a clash, I slid the relevant card out of the column to one side then moved it to the bottom when their go came up in the sequence.
I tracked damage directly on the cards too.

I have one question about multiple attackers.
If K2 had acted offensively against L1 in the first clash and thereby used up his action, would he still have had the option to act offensively against L2 or would it have to be full defence?

The other questions I have are all about the Wyrm, actually.
The rules describe it as a "normal attack" but should armour protect against its venom?
Did I play the Dominate spell correctly? Was that how it was supposed to have worked?
How big is a Wyrm? Based on its description in the rules, I can't help feeling the Wyrm is quite large (like taking on the mass of an elephant maybe) and should have a higher Q and B. Perhaps if it got in among the Knights a bit more and got to use its tail things would have got far uglier.

G

Minor typo for clarity and a niggling thought...

Typo:
"K2 is knocked flying across the shingle"
Should be K1, of course swing as he was the dude fighting the Wyrm...

The niggle is about that change in action order due to diminishing Q.
In short: Does it actually work..?

I thought it was simple and clear and straightforward, but the more I run through examples, the less it seems like it works cleanly once the order gets shaken up by characters spending B...

Simple example. If the order of action has become Q3 Q7 Q5 Q6 and now the Q7 dude is shot by an arrow and drops to Q4 (ouch)...where does he go in the action order?

G

Quotethe locals reveal their true colours - for reasons of their own, they quite like having a Wyrm around and are going to attack the Knights to prevent them harming it.

Say it ain't so!

QuoteThe Knights have each brought a spare spear, expecting to need to throw at least one of them. As the action begins, one is in hand, the other stabbed into the beach beside them.

Somebody's been paying attention.

The fight is incredibly exciting to read. Maybe it seemed easy in retrospect, but at the moment the knight spears the first guy, there is literally no way to tell which way this can go.

Not looking for compliments, but for promotion copy: can you reflect on the differences between this play-experience and that found in any other RPG of your experience?

QuoteI have one question about multiple attackers.
If K2 had acted offensively against L1 in the first clash and thereby used up his action, would he still have had the option to act offensively against L2 or would it have to be full defence?

Good question. I think it's a matter of kicking the can down the road ... i.e., once your future action is lost, it stays lost, so all you can do until you get there is defend.

Otherwise, a second attack on a "future action lost" character is actually giving them a free action back, which is sort of understandable but way too complicated for me to write and for people to implement in play.

QuoteThe other questions I have are all about the Wyrm, actually.
The rules describe it as a "normal attack" but should armour protect against its venom?

I sure hate to introduce any "armor has half effect" rules, which is where my bad-designer brain went upon first consideration.

I think armor does protect vs. the venom, in the sense that less of it gets on your skin. I might suggest that it bypasses helm protection (no face-plate), but the mail is lined by a gambeson and is a very extensive garment, and a shield seems like very much what the doctor ordered against a viscous liquid spray. Say goodbye to that shield after the fight, though, for sure.

QuoteDid I play the Dominate spell correctly? Was that how it was supposed to have worked?

Yes! When all is said and done, a wyrm is just a beast. It's good to be a wizard ... and if that spell had failed, that might have been a bad day for them.

QuoteHow big is a Wyrm? Based on its description in the rules, I can't help feeling the Wyrm is quite large (like taking on the mass of an elephant maybe) and should have a higher Q and B. Perhaps if it got in among the Knights a bit more and got to use its tail things would have got far uglier.

It takes up about as much room as an African elephant, but it has about half the mass.

I think it's pretty tough - the spell is what saved the day, which is fine.

Very minor points, not criticism, as "GM style dial" material.

1. I would not let either character snatch his spear as a post-action narration - "grabbing for my spear" would be fine, but not getting it. As I see it, K2 would be spearless for the wyrm's attack (but could still fight, just with shield only), and if he went full-defense, he'd be situated to get the spear then - depending on how that clash went (e.g. if he were untouched), I might even slide in a free grab at that point.

By contrast, "wrench the spear free" is awesome. It wouldn't be possible after a strike from a mounted charge, but in this case, foot-to-foot, it's great!

QuoteThe niggle is about that change in action order due to diminishing Q.
In short: Does it actually work..?

I thought it was simple and clear and straightforward, but the more I run through examples, the less it seems like it works cleanly once the order gets shaken up by characters spending B...

I've been thinking a lot about this. The first point is that people need to stop thinking of it as a Q order, which carries all sorts of baggage, so we can call it the order, which merely happens to be set initially by Q. 

Second, how about this? Rule: whenever your Q is reduced, drop to the far end of the order, and that's your new position. The precise value of Q does not matter.

I like it! It means that you break the initial order in two ways: (i) go to the front when you pump B, (ii) go to the back when you lose Q. "And that is all," as Junie B. Jones would say.

Yes, I know, I "keep changing things," but this one does seem like the right solution.

Best, Ron

QuoteThe fight is incredibly exciting to read. Maybe it seemed easy in retrospect, but at the moment the knight spears the first guy, there is literally no way to tell which way this can go.

It was exciting to play.
And yes, a lot of things could have gone differently; the Knights were pretty lucky...

Quotefor promotion copy: can you reflect on the differences between this play-experience and that found in any other RPG of your experience?

Let's see...well, in a nutshell I've found Circle of Hands combat creates a more immediate and scary sense of risk than any other game I've played. At every step there are genuine tactical choices to make and not only is no single choice guaranteed to succeed, but the system offers no protection at all from the results of failure. There's no hiding place. It becomes clear that just about everything a character can do in combat comes down to taking a calculated risk under pressure, then laying it on the line. Again, I've not felt that to the same extent in any other game.
The timing system is also very powerful. "Initiative" is not just about whose turn it is next...it matters when I can get to do stuff in ways I've not seen before.
I've found that Sorcerer conflicts, for example, create a feeling of explosive chaos and conflicting intent; in contrast, Circle of Hands seems to naturally generate a powerful sense of opposition, intensity, desperation and brutal consequence.
When a character survives an engagement it genuinely feels like a triumph.
It's tense, vivid, shocking and very, very cool.

Quoteonce your future action is lost, it stays lost, so all you can do until you get there is defend.
Otherwise, a second attack on a "future action lost" character is actually giving them a free action back, which is sort of understandable but way too complicated for me to write and for people to implement in play.

I agree. Once I've engaged with an opponent in a clash - as opposed to covering up and staying mobile - then I've lost all ability to take control of other clashes. My attention is occupied.

Unless...
Even if I've used up my action, would it work to allow me to still attack in a later clash if I spend a point of Brawn..?
Seems like it would; it fits in with the vibe of the existing rules about Brawn use. It's a bit like pumping B to resist a spell effect.
The order isn't changed but I get to do something I wouldn't normally be able to do...at a cost...

QuoteVery minor points, not criticism, as "GM style dial" material.

Thanks for the clarifications on the Wyrm, too.
I was actually going to ask if there wasn't a little too much post-action narration creeping in now and then.
I felt some of those were starting to edge into the territory of double-dipping an extra action.
Those pesky Knights definitely had things far too easy... :)

QuoteI've been thinking a lot about this.

Me too! :)
I had a post drafted about how the Q mechanisms and the B mechanisms seemed to be grating against each other a bit but with your tweak about Q ordering I don't think I need to post it now.

My thinking about Q has been that it has nothing to do with notions of speed - hand speed, foot speed, speed of action (maybe a little bit, in terms of martial skill inside a clash, but mostly not).

I've actually been thinking of it more as a character's facility with the OODA Loop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) on all scales. Instead of "initiative/action order" I've tended in my own mind toward the term "Tempo", as in rhythm, "the Tempo of the fight"; with a sense too of that idea of "sente vs gote" from Go.

Q ordering might reflect the character's ability to process the emergent action and make timely choices. Being in lots of fights will make far more difference to that than 'quick hands' or even 'quick thinking'.
Spending B in a fight would be a matter of "seizing sente", breaking the Tempo in order to gain immediate advantage.

So yes, dropping to "the end of the line" on losing Q makes complete sense to me.
Taking a blow - blood in your eyes, breath knocked out of you, arm shocked and numbed - isn't nothing.
It will absolutely force you out of Tempo. I like it.

G

QuoteEven if I've used up my action, would it work to allow me to still attack in a later clash if I spend a point of Brawn..?
Seems like it would; it fits in with the vibe of the existing rules about Brawn use. It's a bit like pumping B to resist a spell effect.

Yes. Pumping Brawn to act immediately is always an option unless someone is literally rolling dice, or the spell effect has taken place.

QuoteThe order isn't changed but I get to do something I wouldn't normally be able to do...at a cost...

Wait ... maybe I haven't been clear about this. There are two things that can happen besides merely going on your turn.

1. Get your Q reduced. In this case your position changes, for good, to the current end of the line. You are now potentially bracketed between two completely different characters and as the action proceeds, you stay in that ordinal position.

2. Pump B. In this case your position changes, for good, to the current front of the line. You are now potentially bracketed between two completely different characters and as the action proceeds, you stay in that ordinal position.

In neither case are you shifted temporarily and then get restored to your "place." Is that what people have been doing? Is that why this weird language about one's "actual" or "real" position is keeps coming up?

Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 03, 2014, 09:55:51 AM

QuoteI have one question about multiple attackers.
If K2 had acted offensively against L1 in the first clash and thereby used up his action, would he still have had the option to act offensively against L2 or would it have to be full defence?

Good question. I think it's a matter of kicking the can down the road ... i.e., once your future action is lost, it stays lost, so all you can do until you get there is defend.

Otherwise, a second attack on a "future action lost" character is actually giving them a free action back, which is sort of understandable but way too complicated for me to write and for people to implement in play.

No, wait a minute.  This contradicts something that you posted a couple of days ago.  Have you changed your mind, or are we talking about a different situation?  As I understand it:

If I get drawn into a clash and I fight back (don't go full-defense), then I lose my next action, but then: if I get drawn into another clash before my next action, I can fight back again.  Right?  I'm not forced to take the full-defense option just because I've already spent my next action.

Thanks,
-J
P.S.: In Gethyn's transcript of the wyrm fight, the descriptions of how each character finished their action and showed what they intended to do next made it much more interesting and exciting to read!  Usually blow-by-blow accounts of RPG combats are dead boring for anyone who wasn't at the table.  I think you're onto something here.

Hey John, how you describe it is how I've been playing it, but at the moment I'm second-guessing myself. There is currently no ruling on the matter.

A middle ground would be to say that, if you have lost/spent your next action and get sucked into a clash, you shall not have the advantage die.

But that could break the "based on the fiction" philosophy of the advantage die, and result in some silly outcomes.  "I'm on a horse and he's not, and HE gets the advantage die!?"  ("Well you're busy pulling your spear out of that demon...")

-J

In fact, would it be easier/better or worse to eliminate "lose your next action" entirely and replace it with "go to the end of the line?"

Which would mean no accounting/remembering at all, not even a little bit, and solving this little thorny question in the process.

If it's worse, then we can keep the "flip your counter over" idea, but then I have to make up a solution to the thorny question.

I'm liking the go-to-the-end-of-the-line idea because:  When you fight back in a clash, it means you are now one to two full rounds* away (depending on how long ago your last turn was) from your next proactive action.  With 3-4 PCs and 3-4 opponents, that's a long wait.  *And I know there are no rounds, but you know what I mean...

At least being able to participate in future clashes gives you something to do besides defend.  Or, if we do the end-of-the-line method, then you are exactly one full round til your next action after you fight back.  Not too bad.  And it also simplifies the priority tracking. 

-J

Quote from: Ron Edwards on April 03, 2014, 09:55:51 AM
Second, how about this? Rule: whenever your Q is reduced, drop to the far end of the order, and that's your new position. The precise value of Q does not matter.

I like it! It means that you break the initial order in two ways: (i) go to the front when you pump B, (ii) go to the back when you lose Q. "And that is all," as Junie B. Jones would say.

Yes, I know, I "keep changing things," but this one does seem like the right solution.

Hi Ron. On a first reading of this I thought that it was too much punitive for people who gets wounded (A, B, C, D, E: A clashes with B, B counter-attack instead of staying on full defense, lose action and gets wounded by a single point of Q, not enough to change the Q order. The following sequence is C, D, E, A, (B should be here but can't act) C, D, E, A,  B would drop two entire iterations, instead of (B - not acting), C, D, E, A, B -  so, with the old rule B drop 4 places, with the new one, 8!

But then it hit me... with this rule, we could drop the "don't act" complication entirely! It would be enough to to drop people to the last place even when they are not wounded, if they don't limit themselves to full defense.

With the previous example: A clashes with B, B counter-attack instead of staying on full defense, The following sequence is C, D, E, and then, A or B. Who goes first? The one who higher Q (so if you lose Q you are still more probably in the last place). If A was not wounded, A will go first, so B drop 4 places, exactly as with the old rule, but without worrying about "lost actions"...

[edit: crosspost with Ron that had the same idea! Great minds thinks alike!   :-) ]

QuoteIn neither case are you shifted temporarily and then get restored to your "place." Is that what people have been doing? Is that why this weird language about one's "actual" or "real" position is keeps coming up?

I don't know what other people have been doing, but I am simply being a twit.
Disregard my comments about spending B to avoid acting defensively without changing order and all that stuff.
For some reason I forgot (only in my post, not in play) about plain old spending B to go first. Duh.

Moreno, regarding your thoughts about A and B going to the end and who should go first?
How about the person who was sucked into the clash always goes to last place?

G

Quote from: Nyhteg on April 03, 2014, 01:53:03 PM
Moreno, regarding your thoughts about A and B going to the end and who should go first?
How about the person who was sucked into the clash always goes to last place?

I don't like it very much, because in some occasion, sucking someone into a clash is not very savvy...  example, A, B, C, D, E, A is armed with a knife, B has a sword. C is casting a spell against B.  B would attack C, but A act first, and suck B in a clash... now, B has the advantage die, and he could easily go in full defense and maintain his stated attack against C. But the chance to really going medieval on A's ass with an advantage die is too tempting, and so, B attack A during the clash. At the end of the clash A is down 3Q and 2B and B isn't even wounded, but A has obtained what he wanted, he sacrified himself to give C the chance to cast the spell undisturbed.

Now, all what I wrote until now about this example is "how thing should go", with the combatants making these choices...  but if we follow the "the one who get sucked goes last" rule, we have that A, that was hit by a sword for 5 points of damage, will act before the one who hit him. What if he will cast a spell? B will have to pump B to avoid being hurt by a spell cast by the person he was hitting again and again with his sword...

If instead we go to "Highest Q first", A stays the first only if he is not hit by the sword. If he was hit and damaged enough that now B has higher Q, B will act first and can suck A in a clash to finish him, if he wants. As it should be.

Ron, I have a CoH playtest in around...  40-50 minutes from now. Which version of these rules do you prefer being playtested? (with an already-created venture, not with the scenario you listed, at least not at first)

Up to date.

Narration

Conclude all turns with brief reactive/re-orienting narration.
This does not mean everyone in a clash, just each character whose turn is concluded.

Do not permit substantive actions in these narrations.

Ordering

Set initial order by Q, as you know. Keep this order unless #1 or #2 occur.

1. Jump to the front of the line by pumping B. Maintain that new place in the order.

2. Go to the back of the line if:

i) Q is reduced by injury.
ii) You're sucked into a clash and choose to fight offensively.

Maintain that new place in the order.

And that is all.

I see your point, yes that makes much more sense.
Both participants go to the end; lowest Q goes to last place. Cool.

G

[For clarity, my last post was to Moreno]

I like it.
-J

[I feel like I'm cluttering up the place a bit but I don't know how to edit my previous posts (or even if that's possible, actually).]

Anyway, on reflection Moreno, I think the ordering of last place might need more discussion.

In your example where the knife guy tries to tie up the other guy in a clash and gets mauled...injury trumps everything.
If a character is injured, he goes to last place. Done.
The discussion about the knife guy losing Q so becoming 'slower' (for want of a better term) than the person he attacked isn't actually an issue. He was injured, so he goes in last place. No comparison of Q scores needed. He got owned.

The question remains if no-one is hurt in a clash, though.
If the knife guy attacked, the other guy fights back, but shields and armour do their job and no-one is injured...then I still say perhaps the person who was sucked in should go into last place.
In other words, the order between the participants remains unchanged.
A was acting before B before the clash. A is still acting before B after the clash.

Alternatives?

- Compare Q scores..? That actually has a chance of messing with the order. Character A was acting before B and forced a clash, but B happens to have a higher Q so after the clash B has skipped ahead of A for free..? Normally he'd have to pay a point of Brawn to do that. So that doesn't seem right to me.

- The person who had the advantage die goes before the guy who didn't, maybe..? Again, the order could get messed with in the same way. Free advancement. Don't like it.

Like I say, I think it still needs some consideration - and at the moment I think I'm still in the "injury aside, the person who initiated the clash stays higher up in the order after the clash too" school of thought.

Lord knows, I've been wrong before though. :)

G

Taking Q damage bumps you to the end of the queue.  I like this too!  But now let me go after another issue.

In Gethyn's report above he illustrated something I had suggested without noticing it.
Instead of making someone lose an action for a riposte in a clash, simply send them to the back of the queue along with their attacker.

I submit this is easier to track than having keep someones place in the queue just so that when their turn comes up we can announce, they've spent their turn.

As Gethyn put it:  ( I really love your fight notation, it makes me feel able to deliver useful combat reports now)

Quote

Order: K1-[K2]-L1-W
...
Order: [K2]-L1-*W retreating*-K1

K2 has acted against L2 so his go is already done.
He whips the blood from his spear tip and turns on L1, eyes blazing.

*under my suggestion, he wouldn't have this particular opportunity to narrate that last bit of colour.

A side effect of this is that as long as a character has any Q at all they can always retaliate in a clash. But choosing to do so keeps you at the back (the reactive end) of the queue. With this method nobody get's any 'free' shots at anyone.  (Queue a reference to The Quick and the Dead.)

My Fight Log (Not guaranteed to be exactly what happened last night)

In our combat testing last night, the knights were returning home from Bekselle when  one straggling member of the entourage went missing.  (I can't tell you how much I love this abstract body of support personnel). They tracked the attackers to the beach scene as pictured in this thread.

In free and clear the knights decided to occupy the top of the bluffs and rain arrows down on the enemy (K1 had a bow). K2 stood ready to repel the attackers if they tried to rush the bluffs. The freemen and the manticore, seeing the bow coming out decided to indeed rush the bluffs. (Honestly the topography was so hostile to the enemy that as GM my inclination was to simply run, however I decided to go all gonzo)

Q order yielded K1 K2 M F1 F2 F3 (In an effort to create a little bit of challenged I ascended the freemen into 4/4/4/4 characters)

K1 took a shot with her bow at F1 who could not return fire.  On a successful Qv12 she hit for 6BQ bringing F1 to Q1 and bumping him to the end of the queue (not actually what happened. Since f1-3 had equal Q, I simply reordered them in my head to ensure that the uninjured attacked first)

K2 M F2 F3 F1 K1

K2, anticipating the charge decided to wait, feeling pretty sure he'd hold the advantage, I put him at the end of the queue.

M F2 F3 F1 K1 K2

M with all the savy of a wild pig, charged up the hill full offence, K2 accepts this clash and ripostes with full O as well. I give the knight advantage for excellent positioning - the knight ends up doing 33BQ - 3 for the manticores armour by making a two handed pile-drive right into the creatures chest.  The manticore dying act is to propel itself further against the spear, closing the distance to the knight and raking him with both claws for 16BQ the blows glance off of helm,mail and sheild but 4BQ get through.  K2 releases the spear and lets the it and the manticore's corpse fall back down the hill.

F2 F3 F1 K1 K2

Here's another odd temporal issue. I'm trying to picture the position of F1-3. Have they gained the top of the bluff yet or not?  One on hand I'd like to say that positionally they acted at the same time as the manticore.  But strict adherence to the queue keeps them frozen I think until their turn.  It seems to work out fine.

F2 gains the bluff without interference and attacks K2 with advantage since K2 is recovering from the manticore clash and possibly weaponless(?). K2 opts to go full defence I think, not because we thought he had to but simply because he lacked the advantage and was being cautious. This strategy works and the clash ends with an impasse, all damage deflected by K1's armour. (Had he used any offence I would have simply put him in the queue behind F2)

F3 F1 K1 K2 F2
changes to
K1 F3 F1 K2 F2

F3 announces now, since we failed to establish earlier, that he's rushing the knight with a bow.  K1 realizes this and pumps brawn to jump ahead and get another shot off in advance.  The freemens positioning vis-a-avis climbing the bluff is crucial here.  Had I ruled that they all moved simultaneous with the Manticore this would play out differently now.  Another hit Qv12 dealing 6BQ.  F3 drops to 1/1/4/4.  In this case I don't move him to the back of the queue for taking that dmg.

F3 F1 K2 F2 K1

F3, now badly injured, gets to the top of the hill and lunges at K1 with a spear, hurt but still holding the advantage as K1 has to drop his bow and ready his francisca and sheild. The freeman goes all off. and the knight is partially defensive.  I cannot recall the outcome... so I'll suggest F3 somehow survived. By responding with some offence, K1 must now go the back of the queue.

F1 K2 F2 F3 K1

F1 (who took the first arrow shot) finally acts by attacking K1 in concert with F3. (I see this separation of what in real time could have been a simultaneous attack as a reasonably heroic abstraction for the purpose of the game.) I give F1 the advantage for being part of this flanking attack.  K1 again opts for a conservative D & O split which pays off.  The fransisca buries itself deep in the uncovered forehead of the freeman ending his life.  (Had F1 survived he would have moved to the back of the queue and K1 would have followed.)

K2 F2 F3 K1

K2 can now initiate a clash, and announces a plan to sheild bash F2 right back over the bluff. This intention get the advantage in my humble op.  F2 goes full def in an attempt to sidestep this maneuvre but fails, and falls, breaking his neck in the process.

.... got to stop here cause of an interuption ... but you can see where this is going.

Hi Gethyn,

If we say that the person who got drawn in goes to the end of the line, then you could have a situation in which that person never gets a turn. 

Example:

Combatants: A, B, and C, in that order initially.

A attacks B, and B fights back.  Neither (or both) are injured, so they go to the back of the line, B last.  The order is now C,A,B.
Then C takes his turn.  Say he casts a spell.  Now the order is A,B,C again.
Then A gets his second turn.  But B hasn't had a turn yet.  If A attacks B, and neither (or both) are injured, then the new order becomes C,A,B and the cycle repeats, B never getting a turn!

As for injury, I agree that it should be consequential.  If one of the combatants in a clash is injured, then he goes to the end of the line.  But except for that situation, I think the active player should go to the end of the line; not to reflect anything in the fiction, but simply to make sure that the attacked player eventually gets a turn!  Otherwise, nobody would ever fight back in a clash.

Cheers,
-John

John, hi

>>the cycle repeats, B never getting a turn

I'm actually perfectly happy with that.

See, B is not not actually being forced to do anything he doesn't want to.
He's getting a turn every time, he's just using it to fight back in the clashes.

If B wants to do something else, all he has to do is go full defence when he's attacked and, barring injury, he gets to do anything he likes when his go comes up. I don't see a problem. Either that or he needs to spend Brawn to jump in, or simply fight better and injure A in the clashes. ;)

G

Okay you have a point there. :)

Let's take it down to two combatants, a duel.  As long as B continues fighting back during A's attacks, then B can't initiate any actions.  If B wants to do something other than to hit A, then he has to go full defense and hope he doesn't take damage.  That does seem realistic.

Okay I have to work this out.  A attacks B.  After this action is resolved, the order is:

• B,A if B went full defense and took no damage.
• A,B if B went full defense but took damage, or if B fought back (and no matter the outcome)

Or, my suggestion, that when both or neither are injured the active player goes to the end of the line:  After A attacks B, it's:

• B,A if B took no damage, whether he fought back or not.
• A,B if B took damage

So basically you're saying that fighting back should have a cost: it always cost you your next action - which is consistent with the original playtest rules.

Okay, you're right. :)  My suggestion was a bigger departure from the original design than I'd realized.

-J

Hey everyone, I'd really like it if we focused on the outline I provided above, without variants. Just for a little while.

Ron, hi

Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to introduce something new but straighten out a question I have about one last bit of your latest outline.
Although I think we might have worked it out (I think. Maybe), for some reason we seem to have fallen into discussing it amongst ourselves rather than simply saying "Hey, Ron, what's your thinking about this one thing..?"

So, um, "Hey, Ron, what's your thinking about this one thing...?" :)

It's now all very clear how the order changes and why.
Taking an action or getting injured sends you to the back. Spending B sends you to the front.
OK. Simple, crisp and lovely.

The only question which arises is about the sequence in which two characters move to the back of the line when they trigger a change in order simultaneously. Because it has a direct knock-on effect for later goes.

Example:
X shoots an arrow at Y. X has acted, Y is injured. Both need to change order.
X clashes with Y. Y fights back, so they've both acted. Maybe one or both of them are injured in the process too. Both need to change order.
X casts a spell, Y spends Brawn to get into X's action and cast counter magic. Both have acted; both need to change order.

In all of those situations, two characters need to go to the back of the order at near enough the same moment but who actually goes to the back first? What's the sequence?
When the dust settles and it's the next character's go, what should the order look like at the end of the line - X then Y, or Y then X?

That's not covered in your outline yet or in previous discussions I don't think, so we were trying to work it out because it seems like an important gap in the process. In fact, I don't think your outline can be fully applied without knowing how to process this aspect.

The principle we seem to have arrived at is "injuries are moved last, initiator is moved first, other actor second", but what do you think about the matter?

Gethyn

Not to be too butt-headed, or more so than usual ... but I thought that principle was already embedded and obvious. No situation arises where two characters go to the back of the line simultaneously, because the events that send them there don't occur simultaneously. If X acted and hurt Y, then X goes to the back first and Y goes to the back next. If you're using physical objects to keep the order (which I recommend), then this is incredibly transparent, as you're moving the counters appropriately as things happen.

Except for some times that I don't think were brought up, or haven't read closely enough to see yet: specifically, when damage is done to more than one character by a single attack. In those cases, they all go to the back and are arranged there in order of current Q.

Hey Gethyn, I was thinking about the wyrm situation and decided that the characters' foresight in bringing the backup spears and planting them in the sand was good thinking - enough to justify a grab. To clarify how that would work in the narration sequence, upon the character casting his first spear, the player would say, "I'm reaching for the other spear," or anything else that's uncompleted - or if he says, "I'm grabbing it," then it means "I'm grabbing at it," by definition. Considering the ease of this grab - set up precisely for that purpose - it completes without stress at the beginning of the character's next move.

What I'm saying is that it was not necessary for the character to say "I'm grabbing the spear" at the end of Move 1, in that the spear will be automatically grabbed for free given its setup. But it is the right narration to say, as a reminder and a visual - the point is that it's not a way to stave off ah-ha you-forgot.

>>I thought that principle was already embedded and obvious.

OK. I guess all I can say is that I didn't find it so obvious.
I don't say that in any kind of huffy way, you understand...I've just sort of...missed the obviousness somehow I suppose.

>>No situation arises where two characters go to the back of the line simultaneously, because the events that send them there don't occur simultaneously.

Again, have I missed or misread something?
I've been going along thinking that the events inside clashes are explicitly simultaneous actions.
Same with counter magic where the second wizard gets into the first one's action.
Neither of those are simultaneous..?

Keeping order with physical objects is something I consider a must, definitely. Obligatory.
It makes so much of the process utterly straightforward.

Regarding the Wyrm, spears in the ground, thing that's a cool note and makes complete sense.
I very much like how the game isn't 'narrative heavy' but the moment-to-moment described details really do matter nonetheless.

Thinking more about that particular combat, BTW, I realise there was no real reason for the second Knight to spend Brawn in the final clash.
He could have let the guy come at him and still gone full offence.
The difference I decided it made - in that particular instance rather than as any kind of general rule - was that it allowed him to take the advantage die.
Does that sound about right?

G

Hey,

Quote>>I thought that principle was already embedded and obvious.

OK. I guess all I can say is that I didn't find it so obvious.

"I thought" meant "Amazing what one thinks, stupid head of mine," not, "And you should have seen it but you were dumb." You guys are great - without you, I'd never have realized that was a necessary issue.

>>No situation arises where two characters go to the back of the line simultaneously, because the events that send them there don't occur simultaneously.

Quote
Again, have I missed or misread something?
I've been going along thinking that the events inside clashes are explicitly simultaneous actions.
Same with counter magic where the second wizard gets into the first one's action.
Neither of those are simultaneous..?

Simultaneous enough for the fiction, not simultaneous in terms of player statements. Or if you prefer to stay in the fiction, pumping B to counter someone else's spell necessarily puts you a microsecond in front of that action; otherwise we're in the philosophical hell of saying that something simultaneously happens and does not happen.

QuoteI very much like how the game isn't 'narrative heavy' but the moment-to-moment described details really do matter nonetheless.

Me too. My operating principle is that you don't make shit up out of nothing right before you roll, to get a mechanical advantage; nor does the order of who-shouts-what matter.

QuoteThinking more about that particular combat, BTW, I realise there was no real reason for the second Knight to spend Brawn in the final clash.
He could have let the guy come at him and still gone full offence.
The difference I decided it made - in that particular instance rather than as any kind of general rule - was that it allowed him to take the advantage die.
Does that sound about right?

Yes, with the proviso that "clash initiator" gets the advantage only as a decider of last resort. If the two characters were squared off in a way that you really see as equal circumstances, then that's the deciding factor. Otherwise, whatever factor the GM thinks is the real-deal advantage is the one which matters, no matter who initiated the clash.

Good, good.

So, would you mind awfully just summing up where the system has got to now, just for reference?
Making the not-simultaneous simultaneous stuff clear and laying out the who goes where when, and so forth?

Is it useful to think of the order being changed at the moment of announcement rather than at resolution?
I say "I attack you", my marker goes to the end of the queue. You say "I totally fight back" and yours moves too.
I say "I cast a spell", my marker goes to the end of the queue. You say "I spend B and cast a counterspell" and yours moves too.

Waiting until the dice are rolled can make things more confused maybe?

Anyway, what I notice about most about this now is that ranged attacks are total arse. :)
I think it was John a few posts ago who was concerned that constantly fighting back in a clash would repeatedly 'use up' your go. What's far, far worse than that is getting repeatedly injured from a distance by some dickhead with a shortbow.
Every time you take damage - go to the end of the queue. Talk about suppression fire..!
It's either spend B to rush that sucker or spend the whole fight dodging arrows, I guess.

In other news, check this out:

I've just finished writing a javascript 'Combat Management Tool' along similar lines to the character roller.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/29364274/CoH%20Combat%20Tool.html

Lets you set up a list of characters with their B, Q, Names and so on, then click buttons to zap them to the top and bottom of the list at will. Handy?

G

I think it's pretty much set in stone the way I posted it last. I don't think any of the concerns about order for who goes to the end led to any changes. If I'm not mistaken, there's no simultaneity - that word seems to have been inserted into the discussion and I'm not sure why - except for area-attack cases, and the rule then is that everyone gets arranged by Q at the end.

I'll summarize:

Arrange everyone order of Q, highest goes first. With each "go," the character goes to the end of the line.

If you get pulled* into a clash, and go full defense, you preserve your place in the order.
If you get pulled into a clash and fight back within it, then you pop to the end of the line (behind the guy who just did, for initiating his or her action).

If you take damage, then go to the end of the line - note that if it's your turn and you take damage, then there may not be any difference, you still go to the end - but if you hurt the other guy, then you both go to the end but he's behind/after you.

If you pump B to jump to the front, you jump all the way in front so the guy you're pre-empting is still in place.
This is very slightly altered for oppositional magic, because you jump right in front of that guy by a microsecond but his spell still goes off - you're blending with his action rather than utterly pre-empting it. In this case, when the dust clears, you go to the end of the line, and then he goes to the very end (after you). So the effect is not different from that of a clash that you just pulled him into.

In the rare cases in which more than one character is simultaneously injured by an area attack, then all such characters go to the end and get arranged there by Q, highest first.

Don't let simultaneity bug you. Yes, the combatants in a clash are hurting one another "simultaneously" in the fiction, but really, they aren't, right? Nothing dictates that the one guy's axe-strike connects exactly at the same microsecond as the other guy's flail-hit. Simultaneity is a game mechanics term, not a fictional one. So as long as who initiated the clash is clear, then the procedures keep us safe from mechanical simultaneity.

QuoteAnyway, what I notice about most about this now is that ranged attacks are total arse. :)
I think it was John a few posts ago who was concerned that constantly fighting back in a clash would repeatedly 'use up' your go. What's far, far worse than that is getting repeatedly injured from a distance by some dickhead with a shortbow.
Every time you take damage - go to the end of the queue. Talk about suppression fire..!
It's either spend B to rush that sucker or spend the whole fight dodging arrows, I guess.

Yeah, arrows really stink. They don't stop you from moving, so you can charge a bowman, and once you're on top of him the bow doesn't work any more. (No Legolas point-blank arrows, thank you)

Also, if the bowman is unnamed, then all you're doing is making Q vs. 12 rolls to avoid getting shot. As such, that's not so bad for the typical player-character in this game as long as they can get to the guy pretty soon. And I'm speculating that maybe beasts are immune to arrows for purposes of immediate combat - great for hunting, not so good for stopping power (Seriously no Legolas now!) - so if you're mounted, and charging, the bowman might get off a couple shots but better run soon. Seems to make sense historically, cavalry can always scatter the bow-armed skirmishers.

But really, your best bet is to shoot back. Or get wizardly on them.

Back to the Q vs. 12 roll to avoid arrowshot,** my current thinking is that if you miss that roll, then you take 6 + the amount by which you missed. I have Q 6, I roll a friggin' 4 on two dice, so I take 12 - 10 + 6 = 8 BQ. You may note that armor is great in these circumstances, hence the image of the mailed knight with five arrows stuck in his armor.

One problem with that is that no one wears mail to go ridin' around in the countryside, la de dah. (That's going to be hard to convince role-players about, I know ...)

However, the real problem is when the bowmen have the advantage - as in, look, the locals have ambushed us - and then you're rolling with a single die.

Yes, when the locals ambush you in a place of their choice, with bows, you are fucked. This concept doesn't seem to have penetrated very far into either cinema or gaming ...

Best, Ron

* Note term change.
** Historical weapons pedants may note that I don't say "fire" an arrow.

That'a great! I've had all my questions about sequencing answered at this point.
And I'm completely over the simultaneous stuff. :)

Is the Q vs 12 roll the new rule you alluded to recently for how unnamed characters hurt PCs in general, or is it specifically for unnamed folks with bows?
The ambush/advantage rule is pleadingly brutal in any event.

Did you take a look at the tool?

G

QuoteIs the Q vs 12 roll the new rule you alluded to recently for how unnamed characters hurt PCs in general, or is it specifically for unnamed folks with bows?

Yeah, it's the standard vs. unnamed technique. Might be too clunky, we'll see.

I'm currently in a rush, will check out the management tool a bit later.

I just tried out the little scene with the 2 knights, the manticore and 3 unnamed freemen with spears.  Here's how it went.

The manticore went down in 2 hits, and never did a scratch of damage.  The knights acted first, and I had given the knights Advantage since they were mounted and on a rise relative to the manticore.  The first knight dropped the manticore's B/Q to 5/2.  The manticore, now eith Q 2, missed its attack.  The knight's second attack easily finished it off.

The fight against the 3 freemen had a lot of wiffs, and became a bit silly.  The knights attacked with Q vs.12 rolls using one die.  Since they both had Q 6, this meant they could only succeed on a roll of 6, which didn't happen in three or four rounds.  Meanwhile, when the freemen attacked, the knights made Q vs.12 rolls (with 1 die) which they often failed, but: damage = 6 + (12-roll), which was never more than 12.  The knights, having mail, shield and helmet, had Armour 12, so the freement COULDN'T damage them.

One of the knights eventually dismounted to fight on foot with a chain mace.  After another round of fighting, I ruled that the knight was inside the reach of the freeman's spear, and gave the knight the Advantage (in this case, 2d6 on his Q vs.12 roll).  The knight finally scored a hit, and one freeman went down.  I stopped rolling at that point.

Summary: I feel that the fight with the manticore was decided by Advantage.  Fully armoured knights are untouchable by unnamed people, and unnamed people are nearly untouchable by knights unless the knight has Q >> 5 and/or does something to gain a clear advantage.  Ascended people (B/Q 4/4) are easier to kill than unnamed people!

The manticore got unlucky; if it had avoided injury long enough to attack, then I think it could have been much more of a hazard to those knights.  I'll run this scene again and see what happens.

I ran the scene a second time, this time allowing the manticore to go first and giving it advantage.  Same outcome, it was trounced.

The third time, I had the manticore open with a stinger attack, full out (intent +6).  It hit, delivering the Paralyze effect.  ...which the knight then shrugged off by pumping 1 B.

Paralyze, the spell, is more effective than the manticore's sting because the caster can pump B to counter-act the victim's pumping (right?).  But I'm assuming the manticore can't do that.  Perhaps the manticore should deliver a Paralyze effect "as if pumped by 3 B by the caster" or something?  Or maybe the manticore should have the option to pump B on spec when it hits - the equivalent of squeezing its venom bulb.

Also, I think the stinger strike should do normal injury damage (attack - defense + B - armour) on top of the Paralyze effect.  Maybe that's what you intended, but it's not obvious from the manticore's description.

Gotta get my monsters to be meaner now.