[Circle of Hands] Combat system getting nailed down

[Nyhteg]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[Nyhteg]

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

[Nyhteg]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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.

Say it ain't so!

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

Did 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.

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.

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!

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...

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

[Nyhteg]

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.

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

for 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.

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.

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...

Very 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... :)

I'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

[Ron Edwards]

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.

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

The 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?

[John W]

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?

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[John W]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[John W]

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

[Moreno R.]

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!   :-) ]

[Nyhteg]

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?

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

[Moreno R.]

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.