The Forge Archives

Hi,

I am unfamiliar with TRoS and I am trying to gain an understanding of the combat sequence and the design philosophy behind it. I've been playing with the combat simulator in order to gain some familiarity with the combat turn sequence.

The combat simulator has the attacker declare their manoeuver and the number of dice they're allocating to the attack, and then the defender declares their manoeuver and number of dice. Is this the same as the in-game sequence?

If so, I'm curious as to why the defender knows what the attacker is going to do, and how much effort the attacker is putting behind the attack, before deciding their response. This feels like too much information.

Cheers,

The sequencing is correct, as you have described.  I can't speak for Jake, but it seems to me that the reason the attacker declares the manuver and number of dice allocated to it is to reflect that a trained martial artist can usually see what his opponent is doing, what kind of attack he's making, and how dedicated to it he seems to be.

I think another reason might be to keep things fair.  If you're throwing an attack to zone IV and I'm trying to block with a sheild, there's no gaurantee that you're not going to pad your rolls or even your CP unless you declare your number of dice thrown.

I could be off by a million miles, but it makes sense to me.

Yes, but the key factor being is that not ALL of our characters have reflexes and can sense all of that stuff. Which is why, in a game of average joe's.. I like to not have to show my combat dice until I roll them.
A Defensive roll however, does not matter... as the attack has already been swung, so it makes no difference if everyone knows how many dice you are going to throw.

*shrug* I could also be off in my thoughts as well.

-Ingenious

It's very easy to keep from giving away exactly how many dice you have in your CP by "sandbagging" or not using all of your dice, so that you lull your opponent into a false sense of security.

Or by using feints or such I suppose.
But your point is noted.
However, that should be able to go both ways should it not? If an attacker can lull the defender into a false sense of security, could the defender also not do the inverse?

-Ingenious

Hi,

Quote from: DraighI can't speak for Jake, but it seems to me that the reason the attacker declares the manuver and number of dice allocated to it is to reflect that a trained martial artist can usually see what his opponent is doing, what kind of attack he's making, and how dedicated to it he seems to be.

This seems a little fanciful to me. A feint or a beat or a stop works because the defender misinterprets the attacking manoeuver itself, let alone how committed the attacker is to the manoeuver.

Quote from: DraighI think another reason might be to keep things fair. If you're throwing an attack to zone IV and I'm trying to block with a sheild, there's no gaurantee that you're not going to pad your rolls or even your CP unless you declare your number of dice thrown.

If someone in the gaming group is prepared to cheat in order to win then it'll take more than a rules mechanism to sort out the problem.

If the defender doesn't know how many dice the attacker has committed to the attack I think it becomes inevitable that the defender will under or over commit at some point and probably very early in the combat. A 1 dice attack will be defended with ten dice or vice versa. Defending would become a guessing game with even more emphasis placed on obtaining and retaining initiative.

Yet we know that it is easier to defend than it is to attack in melee combat. The declaration sequence gives the right balance here, even if it doesn't seem to be simulating the real world directly.

I would like to know whether (at some point in the playtest for TRoS) the designers flirted with the idea of declaring attack/defense manoeuver in secret. Perhaps a grid of manoeuvers where the player places a dice on the manoeuver they want to perform, and then both reveal simultaneously? If the dice used was a d20 then the upper number could have been used to declare how many dice will be subsequently rolled.

Cheers,

Having played with some swords in a sparring and freeplay scenario, I found that generally I could judge what the attack was and how much oomph was behind it if not consciously at least on some level that interpets VERY well into the system. Notice that the beat maneuver is precisely where it is because the defender can stop it and sees what is happening. The feint however occurs AFTER the attacker declares initial dice and teh defender declares defense, thus decieving the defender. The stop short also does not function is a dice v dice soprt of way and the rules also reflect well this maneuvers uinique characteristics.

In short the rules reflect very well on how things work in a fight.

Hi,

Quote from: Ashren Va'HaleHaving played with some swords in a sparring and freeplay scenario, I found that generally I could judge what the attack was and how much oomph was behind it...

So you're saying that from your experience in real-world melee combat that as a combatant you could judge when the attacker was putting 6 fifteenths of their effort into a slashing attack to the shoulder prior to deciding what you're response should be?

Fair enough.

Cheers,

Ian,

You may be reading Ashren's reply too literally.  You can easily tell how much oomph the attacker is putting into his blow by how far he is moving his arms and from where the blow is originating- in real life I can see if its a blow with a "lot" or a "little" oomph.  But "lots" & "little" don't translate well to game mechanics for what TROS is doing.  Therefore the combat pool.

Could I tell you if you were using 5/16's of your strength vs. 6/16's- no.  Could I tell you if you were striking hard vs. soft?  Yes, unless you feinted- therefore the manuvers in the TROS system.  It's a really slick and elegent system, I just wish my regular game group liked it.

(Just realized I basically repeated everything Ashren already said)

a fellow scholar, and while we will most likely never meet, has it right in my book. I have trained with the longsword since January, 2003 and know where he is coming from. You can readily tell how much heat a guy is putting into his swing and the better you are, the longer you will wait before you commit to defence or counter (counter is the German way!) so as to make it harder for him to feint.

As for an inexperienced opponent not being able to know what the other guy is doing, I think that is covered in the CPs...

Fighter A: 15CP in Longsword.

Fighter B: 5CP in Cut & Thrust.

If both players are close in their skill then we know which character is most likely to walk away from this one...

This has floated a few ways, and I can't address it all, but...

QuoteThis seems a little fanciful to me. A feint or a beat or a stop works because the defender misinterprets the attacking manoeuver itself, let alone how committed the attacker is to the manoeuver.

True. In TROS terms these maneuvers alter die flow. Sometimes, as with the beat in TROS rules, it's chess-like, relying on set-up. In others, like the feint, it's more like what you describe. It's all there, though, I promise.

QuoteI would like to know whether (at some point in the playtest for TRoS) the designers flirted with the idea of declaring attack/defense manoeuver in secret. Perhaps a grid of manoeuvers where the player places a dice on the manoeuver they want to perform, and then both reveal simultaneously?

At great and painful length, I assure you. We opted away from grids of manevuers for two reasons:

1) elegance. As is there's quite a bit of referencing to do in-combat, especially early in one's play career. This is an area where we opted for abstraction over detail. In the end we/I decided that the current layout was the most efficient and functional.

2) it's what the "old masters" appear to have been able to do, and as such it's constantly described in the source manuals, etc. Things like "if he strikes hard at your left ear, then respond by doing x, but if he comes in softly react by doing y, and if he feints, counter by doing z" I'm happy to say that as my own skill and study with a sword has moved forward, that this is the way it works. I'd be lying if I said I understood that when I penned TROS...I'm just glad that it's turned out to be in agreement.

The best thing to do would be to play against a live human and see what permutations start happening. You'll find that thinking 2 moves ahead--where you have no idea what the attack is going to be--becomes a very real issue. It's very cerebral, really.

Jake

Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbI would like to know whether (at some point in the playtest for TRoS) the designers flirted with the idea of declaring attack/defense manoeuver in secret. Perhaps a grid of manoeuvers where the player places a dice on the manoeuver they want to perform, and then both reveal simultaneously?

Quote from: Jake NorwoodAt great and painful length, I assure you. We opted away from grids of manevuers for two reasons:

1) elegance. As is there's quite a bit of referencing to do in-combat, especially early in one's play career. This is an area where we opted for abstraction over detail. In the end we/I decided that the current layout was the most efficient and functional.

2) it's what the "old masters" appear to have been able to do, and as such it's constantly described in the source manuals, etc. Things like "if he strikes hard at your left ear, then respond by doing x, but if he comes in softly react by doing y, and if he feints, counter by doing z" I'm happy to say that as my own skill and study with a sword has moved forward, that this is the way it works. I'd be lying if I said I understood that when I penned TROS...I'm just glad that it's turned out to be in agreement.

A couple of points in response:

1) I'm glad that you abandoned the manoeuver grid and declaring manoeuvers in secret. Whether deliberate or inadvertent, it neatly ensures that the defender has an inherent advantage over the attacker. It also stops the objective of the attack being to "trick" the defender into under/over committing on the number of dice rolled.

2) The more I read TRoS and read the posts of its advocates here in the forum the more it feels to me like TRoS combat is absolutely perfect for simulating dueling, less acurate for melee combat, and would break down somewhat for "military" combat (say formation combat, even on a small scale). I'm not refering to the mechanics breaking down per se but rather the sense that the mechanics are producing the most accurate result.

3) In a real world gaming environment, unless you are running a scenario set amidst a military campaign chances are that almost everyone you meet will not have had combat training. How do you think TRoS will cope with scaling down to such an environment?

I know TRoS is going to be a joy to play. Our gaming group has agreed to take a break from our usual game to play TRoS. I'll be running a character generation and rules learning session, followed by a scenario designed for two four hour sessions, early in the New Year.

Cheers,

Quote from: Anthony IIt's a really slick and elegent system, I just wish my regular game group liked it.

Quote

Just let them play TROS only one time and You'll have them!!!
I had a D&D fixed group, never playing another Fantasy RPG. I only told one of them that I had a new system which is THE game.
One evening, only one session and everyone was fascinated and fell in love with TROS.

I think this is no problem.

Quick note/rant: I love TRoS. I dislike DnD greatly. TRoS is a great game.

But that does not mean that TRoS will be accepted with open arms by anyone who tries it. It also does not mean that it is your failing as a Seneschal if your group doesn't like it. Likewise, it is not a flaw with your group.

TRoS does an awesome job of satisfying certain goals and preferences in play. It doesn't satisfy certain other goals. It's not designed to.

DnD is a great game for people who enjoy certain types of play. This type of play is not inferior. The magic system in DnD is not inferior to TRoS's just different. The combat system is not inferior. The character class/level system is not inferior. I dislike all of these aspects of DnD, but that does not make them bad, only bad for me.

We're all here, presumably, because we love TRoS. That doesn't make it right to badmouth other games. We're most all of us here on the Forge because we like certain indie games, or just the idea of independently owned and published games, but that doesn't mean it's good to badmouth mainstream, corporately owned games. We can discuss perceived flaws in a game, we can compare and contrast and point out why we like TRoS better, but to call these games which have, in one incarnation or another, satisfied gamers for many years bad is a disservice to the industry as a whole.

/rant

Okay, I'm done. Just been seeing alot of this lately, although not all aimed at DnD.

Hi,
First time writing to this forum - still trying to digest all the info on here.

I have a lot of sympathy with Ian's initial query regarding declaring the amount of CP allotted in secret.  During my play testing with an experienced group of players they had pretty much got the combat risk factor down to a science and would allot their CPs accordingly.  in response to some of the replies to the thread I can only say - I've never tried sword fighting but a childhood spent boxing taught me that the difference between a tentative jab and a solid jab is not that easy to tell before your ears start ringing, you avoid them both the same.

I am looking at the idea of giving indicators rather than actual amounts.  So 1-5 CP is a jab or poke or quick slash whilst 6-10 would be a solid blow or lunge.  11-15 would be called something else but still give the opponent an indicator.  This could go on "inhuman", to point where it is simply too quick to judge whether it's 30 dice or 50 dice in the attack.
The safety conscious PC would then probably always choose a higher number of dice to defend with.  It essentially makes combats more risky and the daring combatent either wins quickly or ends up dead.

Would be interested to hear ideas on this -

Rick

Theres a couple HUGE problems to secret dice selection.

1) you turn the highly cerebral carefully fashioned combat mechanic into a guessing game.  Even if you have a range there's a HUGE difference between 6 and 10 dice.  Instead of being a wonderful match up mano-a-mano you wind up with "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong".  

2) This is not realistic.  Sword play was a serious business and a carefully studied science.  Masters didn't stake their lives on "guessing" right.  IN a real sword fight skill tells and secret CP allocation will turn the whole thing into luck.

3) People tend to think that the resolution system in TROS is finer than it is...since the pool is typically 10-15 dice, each die must be a fairly small fraction.  Wrong.  You get 5 wound levels.  Level 1 you generally shrug off.  Level 5 generally ends the fight.  There are only 4 steps between "Ignore it" and "dead".  EACH successful die is a wound level.  This is very very course resolution.  Being off by even 2 dice can be the difference between "just a flesh wound", and "oh shit I'm in trouble now".

Secret dice allocation is a HORRIBLE idea.  It will break the game.  Period.

Valamir I appreciate the feedback.
And from the vehemence I will review my thoughts.
If you could expand upon your arguments though - as IMHO they actually go some way to reinforce my thoughts

[1) you turn the highly cerebral carefully fashioned combat mechanic into a guessing game. Even if you have a range there's a HUGE difference between 6 and 10 dice. Instead of being a wonderful match up mano-a-mano you wind up with "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong". ]

Is combat highly cerebral? - I would say it's instinctual. The system is - and as such can be cracked by percentages (as my players did) and the only risk is from freak dice roles.  It's then a case of "oh shit....I died because I rolled badly" as it is in every other game (anybody say D&D?).  In fact your line "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong" is probably the post-humous lament of every swordsman who's ever breathed their last breath.  Guessing wrong would kill you if someone's attacking you.

[2) This is not realistic. Sword play was a serious business and a carefully studied science. Masters didn't stake their lives on "guessing" right. IN a real sword fight skill tells and secret CP allocation will turn the whole thing into luck.]
Again is it?  If I pick up a sword it would be seriously dangerous (to me) but hardly a studied science.  Again I can only refer to literature where heroes defeat more powerful combatants on a poor decision made.  A "master" would still be able to allot dice to cover a range of possible dice allotted by the attacker and still have some spare.  As was written before what would be the difference visually between a 4CP thrust and a 5CP thrust?  I don't think realism enters into it.

I'll indulge myself with an example:
One of these 'Masters' has a combat pool of 20 and is facing number one pupil with a CP of 10.  Saying that the weapons are the same and they have a lower DTN than ATN number imagine the following scenerios:
Pupil I attack with 3 dice.
Master I defend with 4 dice (a proportional defense)
Pupil - aha I'm lucky - 3 successes!
Master (Doh!) - the chances are now I will get hit - I get 4 successes - luckily i defend. (Phew)
Now I open a Can of Whoopass on you grasshopper!!.

With the grouped numbers the combat would have been such:
Pupil I attack with a cautious thrust (1-5 dice).
Master hmmm cautious hey? well i better put in a 7 dice defense in case of a 5 dice attack
Pupil - 1 dice only - I get 1 success with my poke
Master - 5 successes on a defense.  I defend so easily (as they realistically would??)
Now given the extra effort put into the parry the master can only put 13 dice into the attack with which the pupil can defend with 9 - much more interesting - the decision keeps the combat alive for the pupil and actually lessens the luck factor based on clever tactics.

As i think through other examples the system still holds.

[3) People tend to think that the resolution system in TROS is finer than it is...since the pool is typically 10-15 dice, each die must be a fairly small fraction. Wrong. You get 5 wound levels. Level 1 you generally shrug off. Level 5 generally ends the fight. There are only 4 steps between "Ignore it" and "dead". EACH successful die is a wound level. This is very very course resolution. Being off by even 2 dice can be the difference between "just a flesh wound", and "oh shit I'm in trouble now". ]

It does make combat more risky - and lends a distinct advantage to those that attack first.  But again there is an argument that that is more realistic too.

[Secret dice allocation is a HORRIBLE idea.]
It may be - haven't decided yet.

[It will break the game. Period.]
It may do but I don't think you've proved that.

Rick

PS - sorry I don't know how to do the quotes on this forum yet.

Quote from: The Flashing Blade
Is combat highly cerebral? - I would say it's instinctual. The system is - and as such can be cracked by percentages (as my players did) and the only risk is from freak dice roles.  It's then a case of "oh shit....I died because I rolled badly" as it is in every other game (anybody say D&D?).  In fact your line "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong" is probably the post-humous lament of every swordsman who's ever breathed their last breath.  Guessing wrong would kill you if someone's attacking you.

Well, I'm not a practioner, but several here are.  I'm sure Jake will chime in with his experience.  But everything I've read about real combat suggests that it was studied like a science.  In the renaissance scholars would learn swordsmanship right along side geometry, philosophy, and natural science.

Instinct?  Instinct is what you obtain after many many months of near constant drill and training.  

Thinking logically about dice and probabilities is a far closer approximation of the mental discipline of a swordsman than guessing a number and hopeing you get it right.

There are already rules for stop short and feints to account for those times when the swordsman is trying to sucker their opponent.

Quote
As i think through other examples the system still holds.

You will almost never be in a fight where you have a 10 die advantage on your opponent.  The difference between a good swordfighter and a great one is 5-6 dice.

QuoteAs was written before what would be the difference visually between a 4CP thrust and a 5CP thrust? I don't think realism enters into it.

This is a completely backwards way to look at it.  You can't "sim" a sword fight with dice.  The best you can do is convey an appropriate feel.  The appropriate feel for a sword fight is a contest of wit and training.  Of discipline and knowledge.  Of out thinking your opponent.

The dice system for TROS conveys this feel.  
Secret allocation does not.  Secret allocation turns a sword fight into a shot in the dark.

Quote
It does make combat more risky - and lends a distinct advantage to those that attack first.  But again there is an argument that that is more realistic too.

I'd be interested in hearing where that argument comes from.  There are entire schools of weapon training predicated on the counter...where the idea is to be the guy who attacks second.

I think you have a rather strange view of what a sword fight looks like.

QuoteIt may do but I don't think you've proved that.

I feel confident that i've played with the system enough to know how it works.  You may think that your "range of dice" idea gives a close approximation of the relative strength of the attack.  But it does not.  

Here's how it would work.

a) you select a number of dice but only tell me the range.
b) I guess
c) if I'm right I say whew, if I'm wrong I'm dead.

Why am I dead?  Because I either threw too few dice (and being too few by even 2 dice is the difference between in the fight, and out of the fight) or I threw too many.  If I threw too many, then you have a huge advantage for the second exchange in which case I die again.

Or, we both go so conservative in hording dice for defense that nothing ever happens.

Basically the entire combat comes down to a guess.  You might as well just play "pick a number between 1 and 10 and if you're right you win, and if you're wrong I win" and not even bother with the dice.  If you can't see that, its only because you haven't played enough with the system.

It wouldn't work.  And fortuneately its not necessary for realism.

QuotePS - sorry I don't know how to do the quotes on this forum yet.

Surround the text with

Quote

or highlight it and use the quote button at the top.

Quote from: The Flashing BladeI'll indulge myself with an example:

With the grouped numbers the combat would have been such:
Pupil I attack with a cautious thrust (1-5 dice).
Master hmmm cautious hey? well i better put in a 7 dice defense in case of a 5 dice attack
Pupil - 1 dice only - I get 1 success with my poke
Master - 5 successes on a defense.  I defend so easily (as they realistically would??)
Now given the extra effort put into the parry the master can only put 13 dice into the attack with which the pupil can defend with 9 - much more interesting - the decision keeps the combat alive for the pupil and actually lessens the luck factor based on clever tactics.

Hey Blade,

The issue I have with your example is that you have taken a guy with a 10CP and a guy with a 20CP and balanced the fight between them. This should not be.. the 20CP guy can and should be able to wipe the floor with the 10CP guy as and when he wants. That's a massive range.

Try running your example with two guys who are close in CP (say both have 10), and you'll see that by having to always overestimate on defense, the guy who defends in the first exchange will be woefully unable to do much on the second exchange and will be squewered.

But good thoughts nonetheless, welcome to the fourm.

Brian.

Hi,

Quote from: The Flashing BladeIs combat highly cerebral? - I would say it's instinctual. The system is - and as such can be cracked by percentages (as my players did) and the only risk is from freak dice roles.  It's then a case of "oh shit....I died because I rolled badly" as it is in every other game (anybody say D&D?).  In fact your line "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong" is probably the post-humous lament of every swordsman who's ever breathed their last breath.  Guessing wrong would kill you if someone's attacking you.

Quote from: ValamirWell, I'm not a practioner, but several here are.  I'm sure Jake will chime in with his experience.  But everything I've read about real combat suggests that it was studied like a science.  In the renaissance scholars would learn swordsmanship right along side geometry, philosophy, and natural science.

If I may make an observation. A rennaisance-period duel is entirely different to a 12th century tournament melee. IMO, TRoS models the former brilliantly and the latter -- where there is less science and more Brute Force and Ignorance -- less successfully.

Swordsmanship was indeed studied like a science in the rennaisance -- but does that make the execution of that skill a science? Astrology was studied as a science -- does that make its practice a science?

In terms of the acquisition of fighting skills, do you think that most combatants in any period gained fighting skills by attending the school of a master?

Quote from: ValamirThinking logically about dice and probabilities is a far closer approximation of the mental discipline of a swordsman than guessing a number and hopeing you get it right.

That is a judgement call. For some, the fact that the better warrior has a larger dice pool is enough to distinguish the adept from the inept without the need to telegraph the precise details of an attacking manoeuvre. The last thing we want are a bunch of role-players with Palm Pilots running probability programs at the gaming table.

Quote from: ValamirYou will almost never be in a fight where you have a 10 die advantage on your opponent.  The difference between a good swordfighter and a great one is 5-6 dice.

That's interesting. I'd have expected that to be the case without SAs. Given the premise in TRoS that the skilled warrior picks their fights wisely (that is, when their SAs are firing but not, presumably, when their opponents are firing), I would have thought that the gap would be greater on a low-to-regular basis rather than seldom.

Quote from: The Flashing BladeAs was written before what would be the difference visually between a 4CP thrust and a 5CP thrust? I don't think realism enters into it.

Quote from: ValamirThis is a completely backwards way to look at it.  You can't "sim" a sword fight with dice.  The best you can do is convey an appropriate feel.  The appropriate feel for a sword fight is a contest of wit and training.  Of discipline and knowledge.  Of out thinking your opponent.

Is it though? In a rennaisance-period duel time and movement are generally not an issue -- you have as much time as you need and they are generally fought in places where there is room to move. By eliminating these environmental constraints, the swordsmen are indeed able to execute their manoeuvres like a chess game. Most parries are with distance. An attack always exposes the attacker to the risk of a counter. And so on. TRoS covers this combat environment brilliantly.

But other combat environments from other periods may not work this way.

Playing one of four pikemen walking abreast down a winding street with another three rows of four pikemen behind you, ordered to clear the street ahead of rebellious mallots, may not fit the TRoS mode of combat quite so easily. Success depends on maintenance of the formation, not the defeat of an individual opponent.

IMO, from what I've read it looks like TRoS is currently predicated on the idea that combats are usually resolved one-on-one with people who have been highly trained. It handles this combat environment brilliantly. On the other hand, not everyone games in an environment where these premises hold true.

Quote from: The Flashing BladeIt does make combat more risky - and lends a distinct advantage to those that attack first.  But again there is an argument that that is more realistic too.

Quote from: ValamirI'd be interested in hearing where that argument comes from.  There are entire schools of weapon training predicated on the counter...where the idea is to be the guy who attacks second.

Surely this is period-specific? How many crusader knights were trained to receive the enemies' blow and then riposte?

Quote from: ValamirHere's how it would work.

a) you select a number of dice but only tell me the range.
b) I guess
c) if I'm right I say whew, if I'm wrong I'm dead.

Why am I dead?  Because I either threw too few dice (and being too few by even 2 dice is the difference between in the fight, and out of the fight) or I threw too many.  If I threw too many, then you have a huge advantage for the second exchange in which case I die again.

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Firstly, in the above example, if the defender throws more dice and is successful then they win initiative for the second phase. Isn't that the case?

Secondly, if, as the defender, throwing two dice more or less than the attacker is the difference in the fight then, by the same argument, the defender is dead if their total CP is two or more dice less than the attacker. The attacker would declare all of their dice in the initial attack, the defender would be forced to decare all of their dice for the defense, it would be two or more less than the attacker, they would die.

Personally, I think it is inevitable that someone will create a character sheet for TRoS that includes a probability grid. The Probability Grid will show the player, at a glance, how many dice to throw as the defender to achieve a particular probability of successfully defending an attack of a particular number of dice. Not everyone would choose to use such a character sheet -- all those who prefer the Art of War to the Science of War -- but those that do will reduce combat to a numbers exercise and will be able to play the numbers more effectively.

On the other hand, declaring manoeuvres/dice in secret doesn't work with TRoS because any game design is an integrated package. Underlying the combat system and its playtest is the rule that the defender knows what manoeuvre and how many dice are inbound. Change that and the flow-on effect would be complicated. Personally I don't think that there is any need to change the system.

Cheers,

Ian.Plumb wrote:

QuoteIf I may make an observation. A rennaisance-period duel is entirely different to a 12th century tournament melee. IMO, TRoS models the former brilliantly and the latter -- where there is less science and more Brute Force and Ignorance -- less successfully.

I'll have to disagree with you there, Ian.  Even a grand melee breaks down into fights between two or three people at a time, which TRoS models quite well.  If I remember correctly, you stated earlier that you've not had any experience with TRoS combat other than the combat simulator, which is, with all due respect to Brian, not a wholly accurate reflection of how combat works.  It's pretty damned close though.  


Ian.Plumb wrote:

QuoteSwordsmanship was indeed studied like a science in the rennaisance -- but does that make the execution of that skill a science? Astrology was studied as a science -- does that make its practice a science?

You're arguing somantics here.   Art or science, the fact that swinging a yard long piece of steel into someone will likely injure them doesn't change.


Ian.Plumb wrote:

QuoteIn terms of the acquisition of fighting skills, do you think that most combatants in any period gained fighting skills by attending the school of a master?

They learned from someone who knew more about it than they did.  Anyone can seem to be a master when you're ignorant.  My point here is that  the techinques of any effective fighting style don't just fall out of the sky, people work together and teach each other and refine their knowlege.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

QuoteIMO, from what I've read it looks like TRoS is currently predicated on the idea that combats are usually resolved one-on-one with people who have been highly trained.

This is not always the case.  I would wholeheartedly suggest purchasing the book to fully get a grasp of the system.  You won't get it in the Sim, you won't pick it up here, and none of us can tell you about it and lend any great level of proficiency in it.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

QuoteFirstly, in the above example, if the defender throws more dice and is successful then they win initiative for the second phase. Isn't that the case?

Yes, but assuming the combatants are evenly matched, the initial defender (who now has the initiative and the role of aggressor) is at a disadvantage because he has thrown too much of his CP into defence on the initial excange.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

QuotePersonally I don't think that there is any need to change the system.

I agree.

"Is it hot-hot-hot, or cold?"

Sorry, couldn't resist. That's a joke from SNL, for the uninitiated that are going "huh?"

I'll take a few issues on here, but probably not all.

Re: Combat as Art or Science
It's both, as stated by it's earliest European practicioners. I could dig up a date for quotes that that effect if need be. The idea of brutish men trying to kill each other without an element of "science" is patently flawed, however, and is really a product of the victorian age's tendency to revise history in a way that makes modern queer-theory look very tame. The earliest extant treatise on armed combat method within medieval Europe comes from the 1200s, and shows a tremendous amount of sophistication. In the 1300s you have tremendous works of very scientific approaches to personal violence. In fact, the differences between what we see in 1350 and 1650 are really only in the details--it's clear that little had changed but nomenclature and organization. This same phenomenon is evident in modern American prisons, where the prisoners train each other with shanks (knives) in techniques that are startlingly similar to the german and italian methods of the 1400s. How's that? When your life depends on it, it becomes a science. No wonder that the greatest leaps in science are always in times of war.

I find it not only senseless that fighting was ever based on "brute force and ignorance" for any space longer than a few years, but I feel that the weight of historical evidence from the earliest Greek civilization to the modern army. I cannot reccomend a book called "Carnage and Culture" enough at this moment.

Re: Grouping instead of specific quantities.
A specific quantity of dice is not a specific number of successes. Each gither gambles on how many of those incoming dice will be successful. Fate has allready decided, but the defender doesn't know what the decision is. Fighting is about gambling, but not guessing. Thus a swordsman that says "guessed wrong" really means "I took the wrong risk." This plays out beautifully in TROS combat. Understand also that I--perhaps as well as anyone anywhere--understand the flaws in converting real-world fighting to the tabletop of TROS...but it's still pretty darn accurate. Oh, and for the record--I wouldn't defend with 4 against 3 unless I was feeling really confident or had some luck dice laying around!

Also, Ian wrote "Again I can only refer to literature where heroes defeat more powerful combatants on a poor decision made." Excellent! I agree! It was a poor decision, not a guess! I've done it in TROS (Ralph/Valamir can testify) and I've done it in actual bouts with all manner of weapon. It happens, but it's a brain fart or a bad gamble--not a guess!

Re: the meaning of such groups
Here's another problem with grouping as you described, from a playability standpoint. If your standard "town guard" has only 8CP (entirely possible), then he is only capable of 2 cautious attacks, or one cautious and one all-out of some sort. I've been put "in the ring" with guys who definitely have only 5 CP dice "In real life" (hah), but they came at me with 2 big swings. Nonetheless, I encourage playtesting your idea to see if we're right, or full of it. It's the only way to be sure. Otherwise you're just taking our word for it.

Good discussion, but definitely hot hot hot.

Jake

Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbIf I may make an observation. A rennaisance-period duel is entirely different to a 12th century tournament melee. IMO, TRoS models the former brilliantly and the latter -- where there is less science and more Brute Force and Ignorance -- less successfully.

Quote from: DraighEven a grand melee breaks down into fights between two or three people at a time, which TRoS models quite well.

In a tournament melee there is a press, and an individual fights with their mates in order to isolate and capture an opponent. Rather than one-on-one combat, an effort is made to retain formation. It is these elements that I suspect, without having played the system, that TRoS may model less well than it does the duel.

Quote from: DraighIf I remember correctly, you stated earlier that you've not had any experience with TRoS combat other than the combat simulator...

Your memory has betrayed you.

QuoteSwordsmanship was indeed studied like a science in the rennaisance -- but does that make the execution of that skill a science? Astrology was studied as a science -- does that make its practice a science?

Quote from: DraighYou're arguing somantics here.   Art or science, the fact that swinging a yard long piece of steel into someone will likely injure them doesn't change.

This is possibly the finest example of taking a quote out of context that I have seen this year. Well done! The author made the observation that swordsmanship was a science, studied in the same manner as geometry -- the inference being that swordsmanship's application is as scientific as geometries'. Hence the need for a rebuttal. Nobody believes that swordsmanship is like geometry in its application.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbIn terms of the acquisition of fighting skills, do you think that most combatants in any period gained fighting skills by attending the school of a master?

Quote from: DraighThey learned from someone who knew more about it than they did.  Anyone can seem to be a master when you're ignorant.  My point here is that  the techinques of any effective fighting style don't just fall out of the sky, people work together and teach each other and refine their knowlege.

A craftsman doesn't receive training in a fighting style. Nor does a prostitute. Nor the priest, nor the nun. And so on down through the vast bulk of people who live in any given period. There is no science to fighting when these people are the combatants.

Cheers,

Lots of strange preconceptions about what fighting looks like from some of these posts.  Somewhere along the line the general gaming public bit hook line and sinker into the myth of the "dark ages" where brutish barely articulate barbarians bashed at each other with mighty thews until someone won.  That and they've generally read way to many crappy fantasy novels.

Human intellegence hasn't changed for thousands of years.  We have more accumulated knowledge now, but we are not appreciably smarter than men living 1000, 2000, 10,000 years ago.

Weapons are dangerous.  People who use weapons for a living will learn to use them well.  Fighting intelligently was not invented in the renaissance.  

Now, if someone wants to argue that people with 0 proficiency, or perhaps with proficiency lower than required to qualify for the basic maneuvers shouldn't get the advantage of knowing the attacker's dice in advance.  Fine.  That's probably a workable house rule.  I think its highly unnecessary as someone with a combat pool that low will get wiped up and down with no problem anyway...all such a rule would do is make him go from completely outclassed and certain to die, to completely outclassed and certain to die squared.  But if it makes one more comfortable with the rules...go for it.


To give specific answers to some specific statements.

Quote
This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Firstly, in the above example, if the defender throws more dice and is successful then they win initiative for the second phase. Isn't that the case?

Yes.  Only as the new attacker you'll have wasted dice that you should have to throw into your attack.  But since you overestimated, you don't have them and the defender has alot more dice that you.  You attack.  The defender uses a simo block and strike or other similiar offense oriented defense and you're dead.

Quote
Secondly, if, as the defender, throwing two dice more or less than the attacker is the difference in the fight then, by the same argument, the defender is dead if their total CP is two or more dice less than the attacker. The attacker would declare all of their dice in the initial attack, the defender would be forced to decare all of their dice for the defense, it would be two or more less than the attacker, they would die.

A 2 die difference IS a noticeable advantage.  The weaker party will need to use a good bit of skill to overcome it.  A 4 die difference is a significant advantage.  The weaker party better be very skilled in the system or very lucky.  A 6 die difference is a dominant advantage.  TROS is a game that will punish you for being too cocky, but with a 6 die advantage...you don't have to be that worried (just don't get cocky).  At 8 dice...its pretty much scoffing time (except for the possibility of that really bad roll that keeps you on your toes).

With secret allocation you completely screw with this relationship.  All of the sudden the 4 die advantage guy finds himself at a 2 die disadvantage for no better reason than he guessed a number wrong.  No player skill.  No character skill.  Just a random guess.  It simply won't work.

Quote
Personally, I think it is inevitable that someone will create a character sheet for TRoS that includes a probability grid. The Probability Grid will show the player, at a glance, how many dice to throw as the defender to achieve a particular probability of successfully defending an attack of a particular number of dice. Not everyone would choose to use such a character sheet

So... What is the phobia about probabilities? How does this hurt the game?  Answer:  not at all.  

In some games there is no real strategy to the system itself.  Alls the "to hit" roll does is add randomness which has to be planned for...and so knowing the probability takes even that rudimentary strategy away

But in TROD there is absolutely zero problem with knowing exactly how many dice at DTN 6 it takes to defend a 6 die ATN 7 attack with 95% certainty.  ZERO problem.  TROS's system works because of the choices players make making them more knowledgeably actually helps the sytem.

Quote-- all those who prefer the Art of War to the Science of War -- but those that do will reduce combat to a numbers exercise and will be able to play the numbers more effectively.

This isn't a question of Art vs. Science.  Its the difference between being prepared and not being prepared.  Honestly, my feelings regarding those who don't want to take the time to be prepared is simply "Too bad".

TROS is a system that requires the players to think.  It is not a purely character driven system where all the player has to do is decide to attack or not and then roll some dice.  Player's skill is an important factor.  

There is nothing wrong with learning everything you can about how to win a fight.  This isn't in the least bit "gamey" its a perfect simulation of how real people with real weapons fought.  They prepared.  They took the time to learn how to fight well.  In reality that meant understanding their equipment and how to use it.  In the game that means understanding probabilities and how to use them.

But in truth, you don't really need a probability table.  Understanding "more dice is better" and rolling dice pools often enough to get a feel for the range of successes a given roll will produce is perfectly fine.  Roll 8d10 20 times and you'll have pretty much the same knowledge on the range of likely results as someone who did the math and calculated the standard deviation (at least enough to make sound judgements on how many dice to roll if you want to be sure, and how few you can get away with if you want to take a risk).  It doesn't take a stats whiz to figure out how to use the dice effectively.

QuoteOn the other hand, declaring manoeuvres/dice in secret doesn't work with TRoS because any game design is an integrated package. Underlying the combat system and its playtest is the rule that the defender knows what manoeuvre and how many dice are inbound. Change that and the flow-on effect would be complicated. Personally I don't think that there is any need to change the system.

On that we're in full agreement.

Hi,

Quote from: Jake Norwood(Art or Science?) It's both, as stated by it's earliest European practicioners. I could dig up a date for quotes that that effect if need be. The idea of brutish men trying to kill each other without an element of "science" is patently flawed, however, and is really a product of the victorian age's tendency to revise history in a way that makes modern queer-theory look very tame.

For me, this is incorrect. The reason it is incorrect is because we're talking about different things.

An RPG combat system caters for all combat that takes place within the gaming framework. TRoS combat looks like it is designed to cater for combat between warriors. Based on this premise, what you've said here is correct to some degree (I'd still argue that combat between heavily armoured warriors has a larger degree of Brute Force involved in its resolution than than that of a rennaisance duel).

Is that the bulk of combat that takes place within the gaming environment though? I would argue that combat between those of military training is rarer than that between those without. And combat between those without seldom results in a death.

Perhaps TRoS will model the scenes of a bourgeois uprising, or a tavern brawl, or any other non-military combat. I look forward to seeing it in action.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodAlso, Ian wrote "Again I can only refer to literature where heroes defeat more powerful combatants on a poor decision made."

Not my quote. ; ^ )

Cheers,

Hi,

Quote from: ValamirLots of strange preconceptions about what fighting looks like from some of these posts.  Somewhere along the line the general gaming public bit hook line and sinker into the myth of the "dark ages" where brutish barely articulate barbarians bashed at each other with mighty thews until someone won.  That and they've generally read way to many crappy fantasy novels.

Are you saying your argument is based on these misconceptions or someone else's? If your own then look, don't be so harsh on yourself. There is a lot of miseducation that we need to de-program from the general gaming public. Concepts like gaming environments where there is little if any rule of law, yet trade is possible and a centralised government.

Nobody has actually stated what you are railing against.

What was said was:

1) The outcome of a rennaisance duel had little to do with brute force.

2) A medieval melee between heavily armoured combatants had more to do with brute force.

Nobody has said that the latter was all about brute force.

Cheers,

I'm not a martial artist of any significant caliber, but just as a mathematical observation:

Guessing is, effectively speaking, a randomized element.  If you want to include it, you should take out the other random element (die rolling) and just use chits.  Doubling up your randomization does funky things to your probability.

Which is another way of saying that the guessing and such of a sword-fight are already included in the TRoS system -- they are imbedded in the die rolls that you make after you declare intentions (and think about it -- what ELSE are you rolling for?)  It all depends on where you want your randomness to come from, and debating it is a bit like debating rolling d3 vs playing RPS.  The TRoS system is built around dice-driven probability -- replacing it with guessing-game based probability in any effective manner will most likely involve a completely gutting and reshaping of the rules engine.

yrs--
--Ben

QuoteFor me, this is incorrect. The reason it is incorrect is because we're talking about different things.

An RPG combat system caters for all combat that takes place within the gaming framework. TRoS combat looks like it is designed to cater for combat between warriors. Based on this premise, what you've said here is correct to some degree (I'd still argue that combat between heavily armoured warriors has a larger degree of Brute Force involved in its resolution than than that of a rennaisance duel).

Is that the bulk of combat that takes place within the gaming environment though? I would argue that combat between those of military training is rarer than that between those without. And combat between those without seldom results in a death.

Perhaps TRoS will model the scenes of a bourgeois uprising, or a tavern brawl, or any other non-military combat. I look forward to seeing it in action.

It doesn't matter.  You are really predicting a problem that doesn't exist.  Its a rule that adds nothing to the outcome of the combat.  A rule that does nothing is not a very good rule.


What do I mean by this:  some examples.

1) Completely untrained peon with a CP of 4 goes up against a knight with a CP12.  Under the rules as written how does this combat end.  Badly for the peon.  He's dead as quickly as the knight wants to kill him.  So what if his player knew exactly how many dice the knight threw.

Lets say you play with a rule that says the peon's player doesn't know because the character isn't good enough to.  Ok.  So what.  Whats changed?  You just made the fight tougher for the guy who's going to get his ass beat anyway.  Net benefit to the game...zero.

2) Lets have 2 peons square off against each other.  Both have CP 4.  At this low a level they don't have any real access to maneuvers, and any player skill is going to be minimal because there simply aren't that many choices on what to throw...you only have 4 dice.  So the end result is going to pretty much be random.  Who ever gets the better rolls will win.  Mostly luck.

Again lets say you're playing with a rule that says niether of these guys is good enough to judge his opponent so dice allocations are made in secret.  Ok. you've just made the battle...even MORE random.  It was going to be decided by luck anyway, its decided by luck now.  Net benefit to the game...zero.

Why add a rule that does nothing?


Further I think those suggesting that the uncertainty of the secret allocation would be a good thing are forgetting that there's a big source of uncertainty to the game already.  See the knight doesn't KNOW the peon only has 4 dice.

Some might think that the added uncertainty of using a range of rolls would keep the knight guessing a little bit if he didn't know exactly what the peon was going to throw.  But that's already built into the game as is.  The knight doesn't know the peon only has 4 dice.  He might be an 8 or 10 die peon.  So a wise knight player is going to face the peon cautiously because of that uncertainty.   This is equally true of knight on knight combat also.

The uncertainty effect is already present in the system as is.  Again.  Why add a rule that does nothing?


Another thing that I think people are missing out is how the die pool is calculated.  Its Reflex + Proficiency.  Reflex is unlikely to be higher than 6 for most characters.  For average joe nobody its most likely going to be 4 or 5.

To that is added the Proficiency.  Proficiency implies knowing what you're doing.  An average nobody with only 2 levels of proficiency is going to have a CP of 6 maybe 7.  The typical guy who knows his way around a sword is going to be 12-13.  The beginner who knows a little is going to be 8-10.  The advantage of the expert to the novice is already built into the CP difference.

Someone who truly has no proficiency at all is going to have a very low CP.  Period.  There is no case possible where a complete newb whose never held a weapon is going to have a CP of 10.  It just can't happen.  If he's got a CP of 10-12 then he's had training of some kind and knows (to some extent) what he's doing.

It really isn't any clearer than that.

Valamir, IMO, your views are defeated by the simple fact that under the premise of knowing how many dice someone throws... there is no way for a character to under-estimate his foe. I had done this in my first session, the under-estimating of a guy that I didnt know had a combat pool of almost 30 with his SA's firing. I figured a level 3 wound to the neck would have weakened him enough for me to get my licks in.. but alas, it was not so. So in turn, when I wedged my halberd into the guy's left clavicle.. I excepted him to be out of dice.... but alas, it was still not the case. And this leaves my combat-geared character to almost shit his pants and run. But another level 4 to the same area did enough to give him a blood loss of around 40-50.. and I finished him off with a level 5 thrust to the head.

I much would rather see the possibility of being under-estimated, over-estimated, etc etc... rather than not see it at all. It ads a HELL of alot more flavor to 'oh, so he is only throwing X number of dice?... well then I will counter by throwing X number of dice'.
::edited to note that there is still SOME level of possibility of under/over estimation of an opponent.. but only to the level of ATN and DTN numbers he is trying to acheive. This system would therefore rely more on LUCK to win a battle, not just skill or knowing how many dice the guy has. And as we know, luck in a battle had little to do with it historically

::edit #2 And if you further want to make things more realistic... rather than having the proficiency level and reflex equal the number of dice you throw and rely on a weapon's ATN... why not also have the amount of proficiency reflect that in a lower ATN? perhaps for ever 2 or 3 levels of profciency, rounded down... lower the ATN by 1.

::edit #3 Funny story about under-estimating someone. As I have first had experience with it now that I remember. Now, as a few of your know... Zaziel was a student of fencing. Having had a curiosity of this for some-time, I challenged him to a duel. I had no helmet, a foil... he had the helmet, and a plastic light-saber. Needless to say I under-estimated his skill with a plastic light-saber used as a rapier... and got stabbed in the eye.(level 0 wound, contact forced out of socket) Now then, if he had the foil AND the helmet.. I'd probably be looking like a pirate now.

-Ingenious
God = Me.

To whom it may concern:

If the rules don't make sense to you, or if you have a better idea, by all means, play it.  If it works for you and your group, more power to you.  Hell, for all I care, you can throw spitwads at each other and call it Riddle.  There are many here who understand the line of thought and reasoning behind the system as it stands, and agree that it's the most logical.  If you aren't one of those, then do it however it suits you.  

This whole thread just seems argumentative.

Can we agree to disagree?

Ingenious.  I have already addressed everything you just said in the post directly above yours.  The underestimating of your foe comes in because you don't know how many dice your foe has.

The underestimating of an attack comes in when you figure X dice will be enough to block his attack, but he rolls well and you roll poorly and your defense turns out to be inadequate.

Re: Brute force in the "dark ages"

There is absolutely no evidence prior to the victorian era that the dark ages were lacking in highly developed "sciences" of fighting, but there is considerable evidence to the contrary. The idea of two fully armored men slugging away at one another is completely fictional, and has been since the victorians and their romantic 18th century predecessors came up with the idea.

In addition to actual physcial evidence supporting the idea of well-thought out systems of what could be called scientific approaches to combat throughout the last 3,000 years without break, there's an issue of basic logical argument. It is absurd to assume that a continent that exhibited sophisticated forms of combat from the early greek period through the late roman period suddenly gave them up only to mystically re-discover them in 1296 AD. 800 years of not knowing the best way to kill a man with the tools that technology allowed, sandwiched between 2 of the most sophisticated? Impossible and unfounded.

What I'm saying is that a medieval melee did not have more to do with brute force, and that idea is entirely a product of poorly educated authors from the last 300 years. Was strength an issue? Absolutely, it always has been in physcial hand-to-hand combat. But not more so than now (in fact, weapons are equilizers. The modern UFC fighter relies on much more brute force than evidence would propose that our western ancestors did).


On a more productive note, the real issue here (I think) is whether or not the current declare-and-roll method is sound from both a playability perspective and a simulation of source material approach. I say that it is, and while I would present the ideas differently, I agree with the bulk of Valamir's points and responses.

Jake

Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbFor me, this is incorrect. The reason it is incorrect is because we're talking about different things.

An RPG combat system caters for all combat that takes place within the gaming framework. TRoS combat looks like it is designed to cater for combat between warriors. Based on this premise, what you've said here is correct to some degree (I'd still argue that combat between heavily armoured warriors has a larger degree of Brute Force involved in its resolution than than that of a rennaisance duel).

Is that the bulk of combat that takes place within the gaming environment though? I would argue that combat between those of military training is rarer than that between those without. And combat between those without seldom results in a death.

Perhaps TRoS will model the scenes of a bourgeois uprising, or a tavern brawl, or any other non-military combat. I look forward to seeing it in action.

Quote from: ValamirIt doesn't matter.  You are really predicting a problem that doesn't exist.  Its a rule that adds nothing to the outcome of the combat.  A rule that does nothing is not a very good rule.

I'm not suggesting these issues would be resolved by introducing secret rolls. At least twice now I've said that TRoS doesn't need secret rolls -- that they would undermine the design of the mechanics. Various sub-threads have moved on to discus broader TRoS mechanics issues.

Quote from: Valamir1) Completely untrained peon with a CP of 4 goes up against a knight with a CP12.

To make this relevant to what I'm talking about, how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

Quote from: Valamir2) Lets have 2 peons square off against each other.  Both have CP 4.  At this low a level they don't have any real access to maneuvers, and any player skill is going to be minimal because there simply aren't that many choices on what to throw...

Does TRoS model this combat with as much authenticity as it does the combat of the highly trained? Or does the lack of manoeuvres, the increased chance of fumbling, and the rarity of successes make it more slapstick than realistic? I don't know -- and I look forward to finding out.

Cheers,

Hi,

Quote from: ValamirIngenious.  I have already addressed everything you just said in the post directly above yours.  The underestimating of your foe comes in because you don't know how many dice your foe has.

The underestimating of an attack comes in when you figure X dice will be enough to block his attack, but he rolls well and you roll poorly and your defense turns out to be inadequate.

Absolutely right. It is the result that indicates underestimation, as by definition with the rolls you made you needed more dice to get the job done.

Cheers,

Quote...how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

Very, very well, I believe. This aspect of combat was very carefully playtested. With or without terrain rolls, it mirrors those experiences that I have seen, read about, and informally tried. Is there a specific break-point that you're worried about?

QuoteDoes TRoS model this combat with as much authenticity as it does the combat of the highly trained? Or does the lack of manoeuvres, the increased chance of fumbling, and the rarity of successes make it more slapstick than realistic? I don't know -- and I look forward to finding out.

Well, first I'd like to say that two untrained fighters either ends up bloody as hell or slapstick. The blood comes in with charged emotions, which is when unskilled people are most likely to attack one another. The presense of such emotional energy is modeled via SAs in TROS. If a fight lacks these SA modifiers, then it is likely to be a rather clusmy affair--as is my experience in 3 years of teaching new folks how to fence and fight.

The core maneuvers--cut, thrust, parry--are available to all, thus a fight can still take place rather cleanly. Many players only use these manevuers as it is. Also, according to historical records, such fights usually ended up with both fighters tossing their weapons away to resort to bare hands--something that they're both more comfortable with (I would imagine, realistically, that every boy in the middle ages had enough experience in wrestling and fist-fighting to have a clue of what's going on. The sources support as much, but it's hardly conclusive).

Also, the chance of fumbling decreases with fewer dice--a quirk of the probability curves in TROS that I actually like. What this kind of fight will produce is people that hit each other a few times until one has a depleted CP and can be finished off without resitance, gaining a killing blow. This, too, matches what I know about unskilled people trying to kill each other hand-to-hand. Is there something specific here that concerns you where actual play is concerned?

Jake

Hi,

Quote from: Jake NorwoodWhat I'm saying is that a medieval melee did not have more to do with brute force, and that idea is entirely a product of poorly educated authors from the last 300 years. Was strength an issue? Absolutely, it always has been in physcial hand-to-hand combat.

Ah, so that's what the problem is! BF&I, for me, isn't the same as brute force and ignorance. I apologise for using a term that obviously has no specific vernacular connotation outside our area. BF&I -- the way we use it -- means physical strength.

I am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Cheers,

Quote from: Ian.Plumb

Quote from: Valamir1) Completely untrained peon with a CP of 4 goes up against a knight with a CP12.

To make this relevant to what I'm talking about, how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

I think so yes.  The knight is in a bit of trouble.  Base rule is he'd wind up splitting his pool of 12 against 6 opponents which if he tried to take them all on at once would be 4 dice to 2.  Pretty likely to get killed.

Instead he'd be advised to use Terrain Rules to maneuver.  This works by sacrificing dice out his CP for a roll that gives him the privelege of only fighting some of his attackers.  Not having the book handy I can't remember what the difficulty would be, but the knight would give up say 4 dice to face two opponents.  The other 4 opponents are considered to have been maneuvered out of position to attack that round.  This leaves the knight with 8 CP which makes it 4dice to 4 dice.  Still pretty risky.

Quote from: Valamir2) Lets have 2 peons square off against each other.  Both have CP 4.  At this low a level they don't have any real access to maneuvers, and any player skill is going to be minimal because there simply aren't that many choices on what to throw...

Does TRoS model this combat with as much authenticity as it does the combat of the highly trained? Or does the lack of manoeuvres, the increased chance of fumbling, and the rarity of successes make it more slapstick than realistic? I don't know -- and I look forward to finding out.

Cheers,[/quote]

Its not slapstick.  Its just more limited in options.  You still have red and white dice to throw.  The attacker selects the number of dice to roll, the defender rolls.  Its just like normal.  With so few dice it hard to get very many successes in an attack, but its unlikely that the opponent will have any armor, so damage should still be felt.

I should point out though that 4CP is pretty extremely bad.  This is a below average reflex with absolutely 0 proficiency.  This sort of individual would be more likely to run than fight.

Hi,

Quote from: Ian.Plumb...how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

Quote from: Jake NorwoodVery, very well, I believe. This aspect of combat was very carefully playtested. With or without terrain rolls, it mirrors those experiences that I have seen, read about, and informally tried. Is there a specific break-point that you're worried about?

Excellent! I look forward to seeing this in action. Outnumbering modifiers are the bane of many systems.

There is a specific scene in our material wherein this area of the system will be critical. In Lyon in the 14th century many "gates" were simply archways or places where the building had been built over the top of the roadway. There was no physical gate by that time, though there may have been in earlier times. During civil unrest chains were hung across the road and soldiers posted to the chains. Not many soldiers as there were few within the city. As such there was little barrier there, in a military sense. Instead, the barrier was psychological -- all knew that it was a significant crime to cross the chains when they were in place.

It will be fun to see how the scene pans out.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbDoes TRoS model this combat with as much authenticity as it does the combat of the highly trained? Or does the lack of manoeuvres, the increased chance of fumbling, and the rarity of successes make it more slapstick than realistic? I don't know -- and I look forward to finding out.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodAlso, according to historical records, such fights usually ended up with both fighters tossing their weapons away to resort to bare hands...

Absolutely. In Lyon's case it was a serious crime to draw steel in a fight and if someone died then the combatants were tried for murder, regardless of the circumstances (that is, self defense or whatever).

I'm sure TRoS will model fisticuffs well. There are several posts that describe CPs of 20+ and so my concern was the handling of pools of 3 or 4.

Cheers,

Ian-

QuoteAh, so that's what the problem is! BF&I, for me, isn't the same as brute force and ignorance. I apologise for using a term that obviously has no specific vernacular connotation outside our area. BF&I -- the way we use it -- means physical strength.

I am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Physical strength, then, is an important issue, even in the Ren period. George Silver in 1590 said that if two untrained men duel at the rapier, then the better wrestler will win. If they are equal wrestlers, then the stronger man will win. Strength was equally important in earlier periods, but I would hesitate to say more so.

Of course it requires a good degree of physical conditioning to wear and fight in armor, and that's an important issue, too, but the size of the medieval man and the armor he left behind testifies that they were hardly he-men. I'm probably as strong as most of them ever were, thanks to superior training methods.

It's also important here to come down to a better understanding of what eras we're discussing. "Medieval" ends when? "Renaissance" when? I would say that 1467 is still patently medieval when we get into fighting, but historians say the ren. period begins in 1400 in some circles. So is the longsword and full plate armor a medieval or renaissance convention? The armors of the dark ages were mostly mail variants (if you're talking metals), and would not have been as constricting (nor as heavy, likely) as the later full plate.

Additionally, the techniques used for fighting armored opponents of all ages center on skillful methods of overcoming their armor--never is the topic of overpowering seriously discussed, until Burton, Egerton, and Castle in the 1800s! I blame them--as respected as they are in the field--for much of what plagues modern conceptions of early combat today.

The idea of the "Renaissance Duelist" is also a relatively new convention. Dueling was illegal everywhere in the Renaissance, so what you really had were ruffians and street fighters. "Swashbucklers." These guys were real rough-and-tumble types, and the accounts we have on streetfights from that era confirm that they were'nt below trying to kill a man with the wooden heel of a shoe--certainly not elegant, even though this is the supposed hight of a fencer's science, when in some places (esp. Spain) geometry was allready being used in absurd quantities to explain the dynamics of fencing with both cutting and thrusting weapons.

One last thing. In the Codex Wallerstein, a German manual from 1549 or before that details longsword, langesmesser, dagger, and wrestling (not the rapier or cut-and-thrust normally associated with the renaissance, so we'll consider this "medieval," since the techniques shows are at least a few hundred years old), the author writes:

"You should also know that you should fight a weak opponent with strength and an equal opponent...with reach, and should let a strong opponent attack first and fight him with agility."

And

"Although a weak fighter in a serious combat can be equal to a strong oppoent, if he has previously learned agility, reach, battle techniques, and killing techniques, in a friendly combat strength has alwas the advantage."

In friendly combat strenght always wins. When it gets serious, science wins. Similar statements can be found as early as the 1300s, and they don't appear to be new ideas. I hope that helps clarify what I'm saying.

Jake

Quote from: Ian.Plumb
I am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Ian,

Generally speaking most arts depend on the careful application of force in precise places to achieve their effect. The skill is in manouvering so that you can launch an attack that your opponent cannot dodge or intercept. They very rarely go for the force on force approach because that guarantees victory for the bigger, stronger fighter and generally favours tactics that in turn are open to exploitation by a more skilled opponent. The same is true whether one is fighting with a rapier or a warhammer (which, by the way, weigh about the same).

One other thing that might make you scratch your head even more is that some Western Martial Artists will argue that fighters using styles descended from those of the "brute force and ignorance" knight (such as George Silver and the English school) would despatch a rapier wielding fighter in short order.

Cheers

Maybe the discussion of strength would be better divided between military/civilian combt than medieval/ren. combat.
   I've always found the time divisions dark ages, middle ages/medieval, renaissance to be pretty ignorant, but pretty useful at the same time for generalization.  
   But back to the strength thing.  A good rapierist in 1590 wouldn't need the strength of a man at arms in 1450 (though it's always useful if you've got it).  What's the psi to run someone through with a rapier?  Negligable.  What's the psi to cut a man down with a military blade while he's wearing a jack?  The more the better.  Ever done free play with foiled rapiers?  If you train in medieval methods, you probably won't be able to break  a sweat.  Tried to flourysh for 5 minutes in complete armour?  It definitely takes a lot of training and exercise.  Soldiers require strength, for civilian warriors, it's just a plus.

Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbI am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Quote from: CamillusGenerally speaking most arts depend on the careful application of force in precise places to achieve their effect. The skill is in manouvering so that you can launch an attack that your opponent cannot dodge or intercept. They very rarely go for the force on force approach because that guarantees victory for the bigger, stronger fighter and generally favours tactics that in turn are open to exploitation by a more skilled opponent...

I agree completely. I was thinking more in terms of it taking more strength to cause a wound through armour with a longsword than it does to cause a wound on an unarmoured opponent with a rapier, rather than using strength to deliver the blow per se.

Cheers,

Hi,

Quote from: Ian.PlumbAh, so that's what the problem is! BF&I, for me, isn't the same as brute force and ignorance. I apologise for using a term that obviously has no specific vernacular connotation outside our area. BF&I -- the way we use it -- means physical strength.

I am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Quote from: Jake NorwoodPhysical strength, then, is an important issue, even in the Ren period. George Silver in 1590 said that if two untrained men duel at the rapier, then the better wrestler will win. If they are equal wrestlers, then the stronger man will win. Strength was equally important in earlier periods, but I would hesitate to say more so.

Fair enough -- I'm completely won over. Many thanks for the illuminating comments everybody.

Cheers,

Ian-

QuoteI was thinking more in terms of it taking more strength to cause a wound through armour with a longsword than it does to cause a wound on an unarmoured opponent with a rapier, rather than using strength to deliver the blow per se.

I'm glad you brought this up. While it does take more strength to injure with a cut than a thrust (and therefore a longsword than a rapier), this is currently worked into the DR of TROS weapons. The second issue is the idea of "causing damage through armor." TROS allows this sort of thing to happen with very strong characters, but I dare say that that's unrealistic! I think that injuring a man in armor with a longsword cut would be horrifically difficult. The sword would break before the armor would--or at least that's what the research is showing. This is one area that I chose to go with playability and more modern conceptions of things instead of what was really going on. In all honesty, it's largely because at the time I didn't know any better. I am glad, however, that much beyond a lvl 1 wound is uncommon in TROS AFAIK, which sounds about right to me. It's the anti-armor weapons that I'd worry about--picks, axes, polearms.

Jake

ps Ian- I hope it doesn't feel like we're picking on you; I know I'm not.

Hi,

Quote from: Jake NorwoodIan- I hope it doesn't feel like we're picking on you; I know I'm not.

Tee Hee. No need for concern on that score.

While the majority of the exercise so far has been to gauge how people are applying TRoS in their campaigns, part of the exercise is to gauge who is using TRoS and why. Translating TRoS into the Lyon campaign environment is going to be challenging from a mechanics perspective (Char Gen changes and all that environment stuff), but the major concern is whether a player of TRoS wants to play in an authentic 14th century Lyonnais campaign.

In 14th century Lyon, walking around the city with a weapon or in armour is an aberation that requires justification. More importantly, the character wouldn't think to do it -- the city is a peaceful place where the rule of law is strong. Certainly craftsmen who use knives carry knives -- not for protection, but because they need to in order to perform their profession. Murder is uncommon; shocking when it occurrs. While I think TRoS is going to work beautifully in our environment, is it the sort of environment that a TRoS player wants?

It is all very interesting and a little exciting!

Cheers,

I'm glad you brought this up. While it does take more strength to injure with a cut than a thrust (and therefore a longsword than a rapier), this is currently worked into the DR of TROS weapons. The second issue is the idea of "causing damage through armor." TROS allows this sort of thing to happen with very strong characters, but I dare say that that's unrealistic! I think that injuring a man in armor with a longsword cut would be horrifically difficult. The sword would break before the armor would--or at least that's what the research is showing. This is one area that I chose to go with playability and more modern conceptions of things instead of what was really going on. In all honesty, it's largely because at the time I didn't know any better. I am glad, however, that much beyond a lvl 1 wound is uncommon in TROS AFAIK, which sounds about right to me. It's the anti-armor weapons that I'd worry about--picks, axes, polearms.

Jake

   Good point, I use the alternate rule, which isn't really such a big difference enough to call it that, that whatever damage that surpasses the AV, is blunt, regardless of the weapon.  Simple and realistic.  You can still try to beat someone down with your sword if they're wearing armour, but it represents the impacts and what they do, not a weapon cleaving the armour.  It's GMs call whether it makes sense for a thrust to pierce or bypass the armour, or if a gorem with a bill cleaves it with a rage cut, or excalibur goes at it hehe.

Quote from: Ian.PlumbWhile I think TRoS is going to work beautifully in our environment, is it the sort of environment that a TRoS player wants?

Question REALLY is.. Is it the sort of environment that your TRoS players would want?

Quote from: Valamir

Quote from: Ian.PlumbTo make this relevant to what I'm talking about, how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

I think so yes.  The knight is in a bit of trouble.  Base rule is he'd wind up splitting his pool of 12 against 6 opponents which if he tried to take them all on at once would be 4 dice to 2.  Pretty likely to get killed.

Instead he'd be advised to use Terrain Rules to maneuver.  This works by sacrificing dice out his CP for a roll that gives him the privelege of only fighting some of his attackers.  Not having the book handy I can't remember what the difficulty would be, but the knight would give up say 4 dice to face two opponents.  The other 4 opponents are considered to have been maneuvered out of position to attack that round.  This leaves the knight with 8 CP which makes it 4dice to 4 dice.  Still pretty risky.

Just a minor pedantic nitpick. No more than three opponents can attack someone at once. The default is two. A good terrain roll can reduce that to 1 (moving around so only one of them can face you each round), no terrain roll or a failure means you face 2, and a botched terrain roll means you face three 3.

The exception to this is if the opponents have spears (more than three can thrust) or they're animals (see OBAM).

The knight is still in some trouble, though. :-)

Brian.

I see everyone's point of view on this and finally understand it.
However, I would take note with Brian... that he's meaning melee combat, or so I hope. There can be many many more opponents on top of that with ranged combat, and all of them might only have MP's of around 6 or 7 or less. The knight is screwed in this situation, unless he has help.. but hopefully a knight isnt going to go single-handed into a peasant revolt without some bodyguards.

-Ingenious

In general I think if you've got 3 or more people shooting arrows at you that you're scrood anyhow. But that's just my opinion..

Hello,

I watched that discussion attentively with a high interest. I'm a new member, so let me introduce myself shortly. I'm a Ph. D. physics student. I played RPGs since a good 10-12 years now. I heard of TRoS not long ago on another board and I look foward to play it. I took some ken-jutsu lesson at my university for about 2 years now and I'm currently reading german and Italian longsword books now (no longsword school around here :-( ). Principally Meyer's book as I think it's well written and understandable.

Back more or less on topic: german longsword basic positions and strikes are more than highly similar to katori shinto ryu sabre positions and strikes from what I gather... And from a historical point of view, I once read somewhere (wow credible information ;-) ) that pretty much all of the "civilized" world's swordfighting styles (and wrestling styles presumably) originates from the greeks. In other words, the greeks at pretty much nailed it down. The rest is just some sort of "dialiects" influenced by culture. And armor I guess...

Back on topic: About strength and long sword. Since the sword's movement is basically circular, the energy delevered by a cut depends on the angular momentum of the blade. Considering the relatively low weight of swords, I would guess you don't need to be that strong to make an as hard a strike as necessary/possible. I don't really have the feeling that a much stronger person will strike so much more efficiently. On the other hand, on some defenses, strength becomes much more important. That being said, I never wielded a real weapon so take it as you will.

w/r/t strength and wielding longswords

Olympic weightlifters have the best ten metre sprint of any olympic athelete, including the sprinters.

My experience of using broadswords and longswords is that the stronger guys were faster than the weaker guys absolutely.  They also had the option to power through your parries.  And greater strength lent them greater endurance so they could just play with you for a bit then smear you when you started to fatigue.