[Circle of Hands] Combat system getting nailed down

[Moreno R.]

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)

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[Nyhteg]

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

G

[Nyhteg]

[For clarity, my last post was to Moreno]

[John W]

I like it.
-J

[Nyhteg]

[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

[Joshua Bearden]

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)

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.

[John W]

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

[Nyhteg]

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

[John W]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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

[Nyhteg]

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

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[Ron Edwards]

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.

[Nyhteg]

>>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