Possible solution to Brian's SimB/S issue

[Overdrive]

Hmm.. this is an interesting discussion.

I think Jake has said it many times. Not all maneuvers are equal. Some (like Toss?) are just bad. But even bad maneuvers can be useful at times, especially if they're the only thing available.. Mooks fall for Tosses, Binds and such; more experienced opponents may not.

Still, I'm with Valamir, somewhat. The above argument does not hold, IMO, since the players won't use the bad maneuvers, just because they're not as good as the others. I have some solutions:

1) Let's say you can feint from a Toss, Bind, etc., if the opponent does not choose a defensive maneuver. Perhaps in any case?

2) Improve the maneuvers a bit. Bind really takes the bound weapon out of the fight for the next exchange, effective right at the binding moment; so does Beat. This forces the opponent to buy initiative if he wishes to attack. Toss ATN depends on the material tossed (low if it gets into your eyes like sand).

3) Use these maneuvers only at the right opportunity (meaning, mostly on the second exchange).

I particularly like #1, very much use #2 in my games (which has been a while), and really advocate #3.

[Lance D. Allen]

2) Improve the maneuvers a bit. Bind really takes the bound weapon out of the fight for the next exchange, effective right at the binding moment; so does Beat. This forces the opponent to buy initiative if he wishes to attack. Toss ATN depends on the material tossed (low if it gets into your eyes like sand).

This is definitely the right idea. I can't say as Jake did a bind on me the few rounds I went with him, but every time he beat, attempting to attack with my sword was out of the question. The nearest thing to binds I've seen has been against shieldmen, and when your sword is caught on the far side of their shield, you're not hitting them with it.

So Valamir's argument on these points is easily fixed by logical application. You cannot attack with a given weapon if a beat or bind against that weapon is successful. Perfectly sound reasoning why I would defend against a beat or a bind.

Likewise, if you use my ruling that dice penalties from such maneuvers are taken first from the declared dice, there's more reason not to attack. I made this call after a duel against Julianos. He experimented with a Toss. I attacked. I ruled opposite then, but since revised my opinion.. If I get a hat or glove tossed into my face, my attack will almost certainly suffer. You can get around this by declaring more dice on the attack to offset those potentially canceled by the Toss successes, but you're having to put forth greater effort.. Still, Toss isn't the best maneuver.

I also like the suggestion of allowing a feint from a Toss, Bind or Beat. I'm not sure of it's realism, but it sounds good in theory.

Fair enough. I'm a swishy-poke (rapier & dagger) man, my sword 'n board training is nonexistent, so I'll happily yield on this one.

::salutes the fellow SCAdian, recognized as such by his terminology::

[Overdrive]

I also like the suggestion of allowing a feint from a Toss, Bind or Beat. I'm not sure of it's realism, but it sounds good in theory.

Yes, but only if the opponent does not declare a defensive maneuver; I'll probably have to playtest this one.

[Harlequin]

Just to point this out before Mike's example gets left behind, there's an important distinction between Beat and all the other "dice loss" maneuvers.  Beat is the only one which has the potential to (realistically) use up X dice to cost the other guy X dice or even possibly more.  Bind, Toss, and the like all use up X dice to cost the other guy about X/2 dice, and certainly no more than X.  Beat is not underpowered - possibly the reverse.  It's the ones which have the low efficiency that are a problem.

So, Mike, to use a variant of your example:  A and B, both CP 10.  A has initiative, and opts to Toss his slipper into the other guy's face.  (Grin.)  He does so with five dice.  B responds by attacking, with the same five dice - he isn't willing to risk overextension.  The Toss resolves first, and at TN 7, perhaps 8 for a slipper (Toss while wielding sword and shield! Cool!  Because we all know that slippers are the apparel de guerre of choice), he'll soak up about two dice, maybe three, from B's pool.  I use Wolfen's house rule that shock and all similar losses come from the attack in progress first, it makes a lot of sense, so B's attack is down to 2-3 dice.  He then rolls it and gets a success or two against A's lack of defense.  A bleeds moderately, and they go into the next exchange with even pools other than A's shock if any - and there wasn't a damn thing A could do about it.

The bigger the Toss (or Bind, etc), the worse it gets.  If they were both CP 20 monsters, and used half their pool as above, then B got to get in a solid 4-6 die indefensible attack, and A is in a lot more trouble.  Lack of commitment to the Bind etc. is not the issue; if the relative commitment is equal, then this defensive mode is, as Ralph pointed out, the only way to go.

(If the defender-turned-aggressor does go all out, it's a big problem of only slightly different nature.  In the original example, B uses all ten in the attack, A's toss soaks up 2-3 dice.  B gets to make a completely unopposed seven- or eight-dice strike.  If that doesn't do five shock, then aye, he's in trouble... but how likely is that, if B is at all smart about the strike?)

I'm big on the idea of improving the maneuvers so that the too-late counterattack is not such a guarantee.  But there are a lot of necessary targets for this (not all of which would 100% have to be "fixed up," but ones which didn't would have this hidden vulnerability built in)... Bind, Toss, Stop Short, Set-Up Grapple (IIRC), possibly others but I don't have the book on me right now.

Reducing the TN on Toss helps but does not fix the problem.  I'd be inclined to give it Beat's "twice MOS" reduction instead, and make the default TN eight, seven for good choices like mud or sand.  Letting Bind, as for Beat, tie up the weapon as well as inflicting the dice loss works fine, we've been using that house rule already.

(Although for reference, my 7th Sea/TROS hybrid character faced this situation with that ruling in place once, and used a fascinating variant on the "no defense" technique we've been discussing... both of us fighting rapier&dagger, my opponent called a solid Bind on my long blade, and I simply dropped it and went for the throat with my main gauche.  We ruled that this made the Bind irrelevant - no dice lost - and I'd stand by that ruling given the risk.  (Very relevant in that it cost me a sword instead of some dice.)   If it weren't for appalling dice luck with the dagger blow... sigh.)

Grapple... that's one I'm happy to let sit where it stands.  Trying to grapple a swordman is just silly unless you have a really strong situational advantage (current dice pool edge).  Stop Short is an interesting case, but I think (given that Stop Short is essentially a form of intimidation) that if you lose dice to a Stop Short, you also lose your chance to attack during that same exchange - you're busy flinching/stepping back.  Or, alternately, that if you're attacking during that exchange you lose not only the MOS in dice as normal, but the same again (bringing it to par with the "new" Toss, etc).  Still not a bad choice for an all-out response, because few Stop Shorts will get an MOS of more than three or so regardless of relative CPs.  That matches my experience... not flinching is valid, but it's "hit hard or get hit" time at that point.  (I may have misunderstood the intent of Stop Short, incidentally... but I always think of it as including the balaestra from fencing, if you're familiar with that motion.)

Does that fix it?  I'm not sure.  Alternate fixes are possible, other than the one I originally advocated and the ones Overdrive lists (I'm big on #3, too, for Toss and its kin).  Let the original attacker switch to something else by losing half the dice he had committed, for example; costly but worthwhile if the threat is too real.

- Eric

[Mike Holmes]

I'll buy that Toss and Bind aren't very good. And the solutions presented seem reasonable.

The question becomes a more philosophical one - is it more important to balance out the maneuvers to ensure that they get used, or to present them as realistically as possible (I assume that this is why they are where they are now?). An obvious answer is that, if the maneuvers didn't work at least in some cases, they wouldn't exist at all. Going with that argument, when do these things work, and why do they use then? Extrapolating from that, perhaps we can find the place where they are supposed to be useful, and find a way to model that.

OTOH, have we just missed the odd places in which these maneuvers are the "right" thing to select? I'm tempted to argue that part of some of these maneuvers is their surprise value. That is, perhaps because they tend to be rare, they're used less - meaning that when they are, however, they're more useful than you might think because the character doesn't adjust to the proper defense being surprised to see it at all.

What I'm thinking is that maybe some sort of pool for surprise actions could be developed or something. Not much of an idea at this point, but can you see what I'm getting at? This would be good for derring do as well (think 7th Sea Drama Dice). Hmmm. Any good?

Mike

[Edge]

these types of moves are good with equal opponents... anything that can reduce the opponents cp a little just to give you that small advantage on the 2nd exchange is a good thing.
Moves like toss also make for good roleplaying :)

[Lance D. Allen]

Toss isn't intended to be a "good" maneuver in most cases. Jake almost explicitly said so. The fact that he even bothered to use it in his bouts in Louisiana is probably only because it was all in fun, and perhaps for the surprise factor Mike mentions.

Also.. it does matter, methinks, what is tossed. A slipper, a hat or a glove.. no matter. A dagger.. Some matter, though likely it's not going to be a killing throw. Now, sand? Burning embers? A snake, or a scorpion? Acid?

Perhaps toss does have some uses, after all.

[Tash]

A snake, or a scorpion? Acid?

Perhaps toss does have some uses, after all.

Oooooooo.....now THERE'S an idea!

[[MKF]Kapten]

Toss and such seems to work best if the opponent is wearing armor and the toss is executed in the second exchange.

An unarmored person going up against an armored will probably have CP advantage but needs to get in a powerful attack to damage the armored person. If he has 4 dices to spare its better to use them on toss for the next exchange instead of doing a pointless attack.

In a fight between two unarmored people I cant see the advantage of the maneuvers that cost more dices to execute than the opponent loses.

[Ben Lehman]

I'll buy that Toss and Bind aren't very good. And the solutions presented seem reasonable.

BL>  I'll point out that, in the "Toss and Bind" thread, Jake said that "bind and strike" ought to include that it "removes the bound item from the equation" ala Beat.  Thus, no defense against a Bind is well, dumb.  Unless you had two weapons to begin with, in which case the Bind was dumb.

I think the manuevers that really suffer for this are Toss and Stop Short, and I'm okay with that, because Stop Short is *on drugs* otherwise (look -- I take your dice for free!) and Toss is a very specialized sort of beast.

And, yes, I don't see why everyone says that shields are underpowered in TROS.  Large-Shield and Flail is an appallingly good style for all the reasons mentioned in this thread.

yrs--
--Ben

P.S.  Apologies for no link.  Am lazy.

[Gideon13]

Last night at our SCA fighting practice this issue got tested: a guy who specializes in simultaneous block/strikes won most of his bouts.  He was later kind enough to explain the details to me.

In TROS terms, when creating a character:
- Put Proficiencies in priority A (8 to sword and shield)
- Buy lighter body armor to reduce fatigue/CP loss, but buy a fine large shield (DTN gets reduced to 4!) and fine arming sword (ATN to 5)
- Put many of your MA bonus skills into Body Language

In combat, keep throwing white and allocating just enough dice to your blocks to make sure you take no damage.  Then when your foe makes a mistake (e.g. is low on dice, does an attack that you know you can shrug off), pour your dice into a massive simultaneous block/strike attack (possibly spending CP for extra damage) and nail him.  If the foe doesn't attack, let your shield "accidentally" sag/drift during some non-damaging exchanges (fake a higher fatigue loss) and be ready when he takes the bait.

Before I switch to this approach (I've been using TROS as a way to experiment with different tactics in an environment where failures don't lead to bruises), can any of you see a flaw with it or is it as effective as it sounds?

Thank you very much.

[Harlequin]

I think Mike has exactly the right of it - my concern is simply to make sure that the maneuvers are truly usable, in their proper niche.

Just as Feint only has meaning in the first exchange (barring my own house rule of Press), Toss (say) is welcome to have value only on the second exchange of a round.  I'm cool with that; it's an implicit granularity which we can work around but might as well not fight.  That's fine by me - it essentially functions as a way to "bank" a dice advantage into the next round, rather than trying to use it now.

However, the massive disparity against attack-as-defense makes it basically unsuitable in this role, with present rules.  Or, at best, usable only to preserve a solid dice advantage, one that is large enough to remove all the attacker's remaining dice if he doesn't defend, yet at the same time not significant enough to be worth using for a strike immediately.  I can think of a few such circumstances - three dice vs. one die on the second exchange, against armour - but it's awfully constrained.  So I think at this point my chief interest is simply in narrowing the tactical space where "don't bother to defend" is the clearly prime response.

How's this for one way to handle it: Attacks made without the initiative have a +1 die activation cost.  This does not apply to red-red, only to situations where the initiative has been defined before you attempt to strike.  Successfully buying initiative would circumvent this cost, though I don't think I would be so mean as to assess it against the one who originally had the initiative (he had it when he declared, after all).

It does very little to address the vulnerability of those maneuvers against someone with a lot of pool remaining - which is just fine.  Doesn't mean it'll be useless against any given opponent - two matched 20CP monsters can still end up with three dice each in the second exchange, easily enough.  It just becomes situational; if they're really on top of things, then it's foolish - that's quite accurate to the real situation, IMO.

This cost would end up getting assessed against SimB/S for consistency - it is an offensive maneuver - which I think is just fine.  [Well, I suppose it can in theory be declared by the holder of the initiative, you just never see it happen in remotely even fights.]  It remains a powerful move, but it's made a little more costly, forcing you to focus more on it and risk more if it doesn't pay off.  (SCA bouts seldom have "he's bleeding somewhat but still going to stick you" as a possible outcome of a strike... if they did, I suspect the above fighter would win slightly less bouts, because that risk is very real).

It widens the tactical space of Toss such that, with small but equal pools (say, about four dice or fewer, more if you're well-protected compared to his damage), it's a valid option.  The counterstrike could still ruin your day - "No defense, and Hook for two dice" is worth a shot - but it's less guaranteed to do so.

I like that, like it rather a lot really.  That, plus having Bind tie up the opponent's weapon during the followup exchange (and the latter half of this one!), would I think lay my discomforts to rest.  I shall implement it straightaway.

- Eric

[kenjib]

How about adding a new maneuver, "Toss and Parry/Block" that allows you to parry/block with one arm and toss with the other?  I have no real world experience, but this seems entirely reasonable to me and could solve the problem.  Of course you can't do it when you've got a two handed weapon.

The only thing I wonder is how effective it will be considering that the person tossing will now have to burn dice on parry/block whether or not the opponent goes offensive, since the tosser has to declare first.  Would anyone use this new maneuver?

One could similarly add a "Stop Short and Partial Evade" maneuver.

[Harlequin]

Frankly, both too clunky and doesn't fit the sequence of declarations, as you noted.  Also adds to the maneuvers list, without enough payback.

Better to have a flat rule.  F'rex, "The original attacker may parry (with a weapon not currently committed to an attack), block, or evade, using dice from his remaining combat pool, if the defender opts to aggress" would handle your suggestion more cleanly with basically the same effect.  (Possibly with dice discrepancy limits similar to SimB/S, etc.)  However, I think that preserving some risk to the original attacker remains a good thing, that this version is too strong and not representative of the reality - the momentum of your commitment to a strike is very real, even with rapiers, even with a fistful of sand, never mind longswords and poleaxes.  (Though why anyone would make a probing attack with a poleaxe...).

Any comments on the one-die activation cost thing?

- Eric

[nsruf]

Just as Feint only has meaning in the first exchange...

Feint can work on the second exchange, too, as long as your opponent doesn't know how many dice you really have:

Declare a weak attack, e.g. a two dice swing to the arm and hope he believes that's all you've got. If his arm is armored, he may ignore the attack and strike. Now you throw in your remaining 6 dice to feint for 5 undefended dice to the head. It's risky but a nasty surprise if you can pull it off.

Of course, relating to the discussion at hand, SimB/S is pretty good against this tactic, too.