TROS - Death Spiral?

[Tash]

I have to agree that, much as I like TRoS' sombat system, the actual mechanics for determining and assigning damage are kind of tedious.  Well more than kind of...

I'd love to see a more elegant solution that retained as much of the realisim as possible, but was a tad quicker.  I've thought about just dropping the D6 location roll adn using the simplified damage tables from the quickstart rules, but since I've yet to actually play TROS with my full group I haven't made any conclusions...  

Basically I'm waiting to see how much the more accurate damage system really adds to the enjoyment of the game.  I found it plenty fun and scary just fighting duels with the QS damage tables so...

[Brian Leybourne]

May you take dice from the pool you already have "signed" for full attack, to buy initiative? or may you not?

No, you may not. You've committed them to attacking.

That's a very good reason not to over commit and throw all your dice into the attack. As others have already mentioned, if you do that to me, and I simply attack back and steal initiative, you may well be screwed.

Brian.

[bergh]

Thanks Brian!

That is a very clear answer, wow! doing full out attacks are dangerous!
i think i got confused becsoue in the Combat simulator you have programmed, you can take dices from the pool you already have commited for your attack.

[bottleneck]

sorry for confusing everyone.

I guess I played too much on the combat sim, too.
but thanks for clearing it up for me!

kamikaze is quite stupid, then! (and thus tRoS is not a death spiral that encourages kamikaze play).

[Ingenious]

Uhhh whoah. He's right. Whatdya know!
Also, Brian, your combat simulator is busted. It can't calculate reflex + proficiency. 6+6 does not equal 6...if ya know what I mean. I found a solution though by upping my proficiency to 12 lol.. which results of course in a CP of 12...

Ambrose Marchais gains +2CP for his aggressive stance
Ambrose Marchais must pay an additional 2 dice to attack because he's out of range.
Ambrose Marchais takes a swing at Gol Captain's arms/hands with 13 dice...

Gol Captain gains +2CP for his aggressive stance
Gol Captain tries to hook his weapon under Ambrose Marchais's legs, tripping him with 5 dice...

Determining who gets to swing first...

(TN 6) 2, 2, 2, 2, 17, 7  - Result: 2
(TN 7) 8, 5, 23, 8, 2, 8  - Result: 4
Gol Captain attacks first...

Ambrose Marchais can attempt to steal initiative if he wishes...
(TN 6) 3, 6, 6, 1  - Result: 2
(TN 9) 5, 2, 3, 4, 4, 1  - Result: 0
Initiative successfully stolen!

Ambrose Marchais spends some dice from his attack pool, and doesn't get as many to attack with...
(TN 6) 7, 15, 2, 19  - Result: 3

Ambrose Marchais rolls and gets 3 successes.
---------------------------------------
Attack successes: 3
Strength: 7
Weapon Damage: 3
---------------------------------------
Toughness: 7
Armor: 2
---------------------------------------

Ambrose Marchais hits Gol Captain with a total damage rating of 4... (Arm broken, lots of blood)

So, in all actuality.. Brian's words are like John F'in Kerry's. He says one thing here, but his software shows something else. Which way is correct though?
Oh, did you vote for that 87 billion before you voted against it too Senator Leybourne?? :-D hahahahahahahahahahha
you all might not be laughing.. but I am.

Political jokes aside, red/red or kamikazee or pre-empting in TROS is always risky.. some might call it dumb. Only if you fail.. if you succeed.. you're either lucky.. or smart.
-Ingenious

[Eamon]

While the spiritual attributes can often help an injured player make that last gasp of effort, the cumulative penalties can be overwhelming.

I think that the point is that, in play, SAs are in force usually from the first blow - it'd be somewhat uncommon for things to change mid-battle so that SAs would only be available at the end.

The point is that with SAs the PCs should usually outclass their opponents, meaning that even injury will be pretty rare. So you don't have to worry about a death spiral because you're not getting wounded. This allows for very heroic play. Claims that players shy away from combat in TROS, or that they die too often are just unfounded.

As for the speed, well if the PCs have lots of SAs firing, then they'll tend to go through their enemies very quickly, no? Yes, the handling time for TROS may be higher for a round, but when you only have to do one fifth of the rounds, TROS can be substantively faster. When TROS is long, it's dramatic enough that most people think that it supports itself.

If you're playing out "balanced" battles that are taking forever as "sample" fights to see how the system works, you're not seeing how it works in play. If you are playing, and SAs aren't coming up, then consider that you may want to change your GMing tactics so that they do. Because when they do, the game flies.

Mike

An excellent counter argument, especially on heroics, but it doesn't really address the wounds issue:

1. Injuries are not just delivered to the players.  Injuries delivered by the players to others also take up time.

2. The issue with wounds has little to do with long combats in TROS.  The combat system is exciting enough that people like combats.  The problem is a matter of looking up in what we consider tedious charts what happens when weapons hit meat and bone.

Now keep in mind my group hates charts.  And I'm one of them.  TROS basically keeps you chart free unless you start handling terrain rolls (and you can just memorize a few numbers here) or you start handling damage.  Then you start into an effort playing with the charts.  To us, nothing kills the drama of a game or battle than looking up crunchy bits on a chart.  It should all be on the character sheet, in my oh-so-not-humble opinion.

Now before you slap me down and tell me how exciting it is for you to read the charts, or how fundamentally simple they are, keep in mind that my feelings on the matter represent a sizeable fraction of the gaming community.  And by having a complex damage system TROS limits its business to a smaller customer group.

Which is a shame.  Because TROS is an excellent game.  The fighting mechanic rocks and can be used in any sort of setting or gaming style.  In addition, the spiritual attributes are fascinating.  The skill system is pretty decent.  And the magic system is wonderfully controversial.  And I think that having two damage systems, one called 'Dramatic' and one called 'Realistic', would only serve to increase the sales of the game and the size of the fan base.

[Malechi]

I just went and read the threads that spawned this discussion over in rec.games.frp.dnd and man.. i remember why I left that place.  such an insular vicious mob aren't they?

anyways FWIW I don't really have that much of an issue with the time combat takes or the death spiral thing.  Sure when you're wounded you get worse at doing things. And sure you can dump your pool on the first exchange.. but as a GM i'm learning new tricks every session on how to combat that and people are learning how to fight smart in the process..

i'd call it artefact of coming from D&D that htese people are concerned with that sort of thing.  play it by the rules and within the spirit of the rules and the game is sublimely cool...

[Mike Holmes]

1. Injuries are not just delivered to the players.  Injuries delivered by the players to others also take up time.

2. The issue with wounds has little to do with long combats in TROS.  The combat system is exciting enough that people like combats.  The problem is a matter of looking up in what we consider tedious charts what happens when weapons hit meat and bone.

Oh no, don't get me wrong. It's a standard part of theory here that search and handle time are problematic. Charts themselves aren't good.

The thing is that the death spiral mitigates this somewhat. That's why I said, "thank goodness" when I mentioned it had one. Rarely do you have to look up more than a couple of wounds per battle. Because wounds make battles end. Often I have characters just drop their weapons after the first wound if it's serious enough. Heck, if he's a mook, and I see a level 3 or higher wound, I don't even check the chart, he's just out of the fight. We can figure out what happened to him later if it becomes important for some reason.

And I think that having two damage systems, one called 'Dramatic' and one called 'Realistic', would only serve to increase the sales of the game and the size of the fan base.

Hey, I'm all for shortcuts. But I don't think your proposition makes things any more dramatic. I think it insulates the player from the danger.

If you want an easier method, then just have standard effects for different levels of wounds (probably easy to work out, something like 2 permenant losses, and three stun per point of hit or something), and apply them with whatever narration you like. Simple, no chart check, and you get to have fun making up your own wounds (I've suggested something like this for players who wanted more variability in the wounding).

But my point remains that the combat as is in play is very dramatic, in every experience that I've had with the game. Not because players were constantly on the verge of losing their characters, but instead because they were empowered by what they were fighting for. You feel not only the desperation of combat, but the character's feelings towards, say, his lady love whom he's fighting for.

Mike

[zilvar]

The discussion on Usenet has been at times interesting, if uncivil.  Evening folks.  I thought I would come here and see if anyone would answer the one or two questions that I posed, hoping Bob would offer an answer from the complete rules.  I apologize for coming in late.  I've been pretty busy keeping up with the original thread, but it seems to have moved back into subjects I'm not good at ;)

As a caveat, the only rules that I have to work from are what is available in the downloads section of the TROS website, which includes the 2002 quick start PDF, and the full damage tables.

As an instinctive min-maxer I remember actually trying this in the few TROS I have played and I got creamed. So I don't think it really has a death spiral mechanic at all. Injuries do have a cumulative effect, so the first person hit is at a disadvantage, but even when that happens the fight isn't over.

I'm honestly not sure that you knew at the time you wrote this exactly what a death spiral mechanic was.  If you did, you did not demonstrate a command of the term during what few exchanges we had.  Even posters on this thread agree with the existence of the effect.

See, the D&D players' complaints are all based around the idea that the strategy of play is based on resource management - Hit Points, most importantly. If you put a death spiral into that sort of game, then you lose all ability to plan based on HP, and there goes half of player tactical choice - when to fight, and when to flee.

Actually, most of my experience and complaints stem from my time playing Shadowrun 1st and 2nd edition.  Shadowrun has a horrible death spiral mechanic that is tied in with large dice pools.  Once people started to take damage, it became progressively harder to continue without fatality.  Even a light wound turned a minor gunfight into a difficult encounter due to the loss of skill and increased target numbers.  Considering that there were TWO damage tracks with cumulative effects.  Gah.   I understand that some people find that mechanic to be fun.  I honestly don't know how.

OK, with that out of the way, I have a couple of questions.

Assume a pair of fighters, both with 12 CP.  Armor is not relevant to this question unless the attack is a thrust.  My weapon is a 2H bastard sword.

Also assume that I'm very gung-ho and make an overhand cut to Zone IV.  I like the thrust better, but the other guy might be wearing armor.

With a TN of 6, I'll average six successes.  What can you do to counter it?

If you do nothing, counting on armor to protect you (yeah, pretty stupid), I've just scored a brawn+3+6 hit.  The armor table in the QS rules can't be complete, but that's still likely a 4 damage hit.  It looks like the worst result I can expect is 8 shock, but there's a pretty good chance that the shock is 10, 12, 13, or ALL.

  That leads to question 1:  Are shock losses assessed immediately?  Or do they wait until the next round?

If you block with half your pool, depending on your TN, you might reduce the margin to 2.  

 That leads to the second question:  Does shock damage to your CP come off of dice you haven't spent yet, or just off the top of your pool, assuming that the answer to my first question is yes?

If you attempt to counter, you spend two CP for the attempt, and are left with 10 at best.  You have to score slightly above average in order to meet my average.  Even better if you hold a die back.

 That leads to question 3.  Assume that a counter in those circumstances is successful and you net 6 free successes on your next attack...but don't have any dice left in your pool.  Do you still get to attack?  I assume yes, but I've seen games with odder artifacts.

What other options exist in the full rule set, and what are the odds of success?  

As long as the game pits success against success, it's mathematically fairly silly to not attack all out once you have enough of a CP to punish someone who doesn't block all out.  If you like cutting weapons, you choose an axe to take advantage of the lower ATN.  If you like thrusting, you take a rapier to take advantage of the lower ATN.  Either way, you now have above average odds on generating successes, forcing equivalent responses.

[Jaeger]

Once people started to take damage, it became progressively harder to continue without fatality. Even a light wound turned a minor gunfight into a difficult encounter due to the loss of skill and increased target numbers.

You speak as if this is a bad thing????

As a long time TROS player I say YES to the death spiral!

It is a wonderful mechanic that punishes players from continueing to fight when they should be running away!

This is IMHO, an issue of wanting different things out of your game. And an issue of player PRIDE (my PC never flees from battle!)That in TROS will get your PC killed - fast.

Q1&2: Yes, shock is immediatly subtracted from your current die pool - with any extra subtracted from your new pool when pools refresh. Pain starts on the next round and is a constant diepool minus.

Q3: yes asuccessful counter give you those extra six dice to attack your opponent with immediatly. Throwing all your dice into an attack looks good on paper, but against those who know how to play your basicaly gambling with your PC's life. (you may have a run of luck, but in the end the house always wins.)
see also the above posts on buying initiative.

As long as the game pits success against success, it's mathematically fairly silly to not attack all out once you have enough of a CP to punish someone who doesn't block all out.

Once you wound your opponent of course it's silly not to finish him off??? and if they aren't wounded and don't block/evade/counter/buy initiative, then they deserve what they get!

I'm actually now quite confused - how is this "death spiral" a bad thing???

[zilvar]

Once people started to take damage, it became progressively harder to continue without fatality. Even a light wound turned a minor gunfight into a difficult encounter due to the loss of skill and increased target numbers.

You speak as if this is a bad thing????

As a long time TROS player I say YES to the death spiral!

It is a wonderful mechanic that punishes players from continueing to fight when they should be running away!

This is IMHO, an issue of wanting different things out of your game. And an issue of player PRIDE (my PC never flees from battle!)That in TROS will get your PC killed - fast.

Knowing that I can die in one attack is sufficient reason to run away in a hit point system, a shadowrun-esque system, a WoD system, a WP/VP system, or a 'realistic' damage resolution system.  I don't need the system to reduce my ability to run away, or defend myself, or even live, in order to tell me that I'm outmatched!

Q1&2: Yes, shock is immediatly subtracted from your current die pool - with any extra subtracted from your new pool when pools refresh. Pain starts on the next round and is a constant diepool minus.

This is why attacking all out works.  I won't deny that there are situations when it's a bad idea.  That is one of the things that make statistical comparisons of games difficult:  there are often a lot of different circumstances.  Anyway, with the way the system is built, all I need is average luck vs. average luck and a 2 die advantage in order to make an all-out-attack successful.  Even one level of damage is enough to make sure that 'a few' held back dice are likely gone.  If the defender holds back more dice, they take more damage, and lose more of the dice.  The only offsetting factor that I am seeing so far is that the defender wins ties...which just means I need the two CP advantage in order to feel safe in the attack.

Q3: yes asuccessful counter give you those extra six dice to attack your opponent with immediatly. Throwing all your dice into an attack looks good on paper, but against those who know how to play your basicaly gambling with your PC's life. (you may have a run of luck, but in the end the house always wins.)

Of course the house always wins.  There is only one of you, and a limitless number of mooks out there who want nothing more than to kill you, right?  Cumulative wound effects are much harder on PC's than NPC's for that very reason.

Regarding the question.  Thanks.  I did not get a good feel from the QS rules whether the automatic successes did, indeed, count as dice in terms of being able to do something in an exchange.

see also the above posts on buying initiative.

This appears to be a risky move that takes quite a bit of your CP to even attempt.

Once you wound your opponent of course it's silly not to finish him off??? and if they aren't wounded and don't block/evade/counter/buy initiative, then they deserve what they get!

You misunderstand my point.  If you ever have, as a character, a higher CP than your opponent, by at least two dice, you will probably win any exchange if you attack full out.  If your opponent does anything but defend, the margin of dice becomes even larger, and the chance of doing anything successfully becomes that much lower.

I'm actually now quite confused - how is this "death spiral" a bad thing???

Because it is tremendously un-fun and un-heroic in any implementation I've ever seen.  If game circumstances force me into a fight, I don't want to be crippled for the rest of the night if luck is not on my side during an exchange.

[kenjib]

Hello Zilvar,

If you attack me with a full out attack and a 2 die advantage, I basically have two options.

First option is to buy initiative.  In your example above with a 12 die CP, I could spend 6 dice on buying initiative.  The odds will be in my favor since some of those dice will probably be buying up your TN for the opposed roll - I'll probably end up with an 6 TN versus your 8 TN.  So now I, the supposed defender, more likely than not have initiative and half a tank full of gas - a free and clear 6 die shot on you.

This means an average of 3 successes with the bastard sword in your example.  Assuming strength and toughness cancel each other out, if you have any unarmored spots that's a level 5 wound - game over.  If you have light armor I still get a decent wound in and hurt your combat pool enough that your attack will be severely weakened (you might have even dropped your weapon or been knocked out/knocked down too).  If on the other hand you have full heavy armor coverage to cancel this out in addition to a die pool advantage, then it's clear that I'm very much outmatched and now I go to the second option...

The second option is to full evade and bail out in the face of a vastly superior opponent.  I have a TN 4 for full evade versus your TN 6 for a thrust with a bastard sword.  Even with a 2 die advantage you'll have to get pretty lucky to hit me.  If I am clearly outclassed - why stick around for the slaughter?  More importantly, I could tell I was outclassed before getting injured, and have a chance to make a break - so the death spiral hasn't kicked in yet.

This is why attacking all out works.  I won't deny that there are situations when it's a bad idea.  That is one of the things that make statistical comparisons of games difficult:  there are often a lot of different circumstances.  Anyway, with the way the system is built, all I need is average luck vs. average luck and a 2 die advantage in order to make an all-out-attack successful.  Even one level of damage is enough to make sure that 'a few' held back dice are likely gone.  If the defender holds back more dice, they take more damage, and lose more of the dice.  The only offsetting factor that I am seeing so far is that the defender wins ties...which just means I need the two CP advantage in order to feel safe in the attack.

Yeah, but your assumption of a 2 die advantage is a huge flaw in your theory.  You don't know how many dice an NPC has when the fight starts.  He might have 2 dice fewer than you.  He might have 2 dice more.  He might have 5 dice more!  What are you going to do?  Throwing it all down is clearly reckless and in the long run will get you killed.  If you are cautious and probe to find out how good he is, you can fall back on full evade TN 4 if you find out he's better than you.  Full out attack only works if you assume that you will always be facing inferior opponents - why shouldn't a predictable formula produce predictable results in such a predictable environment?

It seems that you are only asserting that a full out attack is the best option in a campaign where the Seneschal has guaranteed that you will never face anyone who has a combat larger than yours minus two.  That's a pretty odd setup and it sounds pretty boring to me.  I don't think that's a problem with the game mechanics.

see also the above posts on buying initiative.

This appears to be a risky move that takes quite a bit of your CP to even attempt.

See my example above.  Buying initiative can decisively turn the odds to your favor against someone who overcommits in their attack against you.

Once you wound your opponent of course it's silly not to finish him off??? and if they aren't wounded and don't block/evade/counter/buy initiative, then they deserve what they get!

You misunderstand my point.  If you ever have, as a character, a higher CP than your opponent, by at least two dice, you will probably win any exchange if you attack full out.  If your opponent does anything but defend, the margin of dice becomes even larger, and the chance of doing anything successfully becomes that much lower.

Again you are assuming that you will always have a two+ dice advantage.  To me that's a character with hubris - a fatal flaw.  He thinks he's the biggest kid on the block and gets overconfident until someone bigger smacks him down.  ;)  Suddenly he tries this on a major enemy, who has a few more dice and pulls off a counter.  Now the enemy gets an uncontested attack with 18 dice...

I'm actually now quite confused - how is this "death spiral" a bad thing???

Because it is tremendously un-fun and un-heroic in any implementation I've ever seen.  If game circumstances force me into a fight, I don't want to be crippled for the rest of the night if luck is not on my side during an exchange.

That's what Spiritual Attributes are for.  They are the heroic part of the game, not the wound system.

[zilvar]

Hello Zilvar

Good morning

If you attack me with a full out attack and a 2 die advantage, I basically have two options.

First option is to buy initiative.  In your example above with a 12 die CP, I could spend 6 dice on buying initiative.  The odds will be in my favor since some of those dice will probably be buying up your TN for the opposed roll - I'll probably end up with an 6 TN versus your 8 TN.  So now I, the supposed defender, more likely than not have initiative and half a tank full of gas - a free and clear 6 die shot on you.

Instead of simply waiting for your attack turn in
order of Coordination, or defending as normal,
tell the Seneschal you want to buy the initiative by
spending CP dice equal to your opponent’s Wits.
You may then roll a Contest of Presence against
your opponent’s Wits, each against a TN equal to
the other’s Coordination; the one who gains more
successes will strike first.

Once the actions of Initiative have been established,
the first Exchange takes place: the attacker
allocates a portion of his Combat Pool to an
attack and rolls; the defender does likewise with
his Combat Pool to defend.

This text does not make it clear that you can buy initiative as a response to a combat move.  In fact, it seems to contradict that notion.  Initiative is determined (by whatever fashion), and then the attacker/defender throw dice.  I'll assume, since everyone seems to believe it to be true, that the full rules explicitly indicate that buying initiative is an allowed combat move.

Next question.  The TN's for the buyout.  What is the basis for your assumption that the TN's will be so different?

The second option is to full evade and bail out in the face of a vastly superior opponent.  I have a TN 4 for full evade versus your TN 6 for a thrust with a bastard sword.  Even with a 2 die advantage you'll have to get pretty lucky to hit me.  If I am clearly outclassed - why stick around for the slaughter?  More importantly, I could tell I was outclassed before getting injured, and have a chance to make a break - so the death spiral hasn't kicked in yet.

Yes, getting out of there will work.  I should have mentioned this, but I was mentally stuck on the example of combat from the quickstart rules where one fighter has a 4-die advantage over the other (who is armored).  In the example, evading still wouldn't have garnered enough successes to keep a wound from happening.  Mea culpa.

Yeah, but your assumption of a 2 die advantage is a huge flaw in your theory.  You don't know how many dice an NPC has when the fight starts.

Not really.  If I don't know, throught dint of my marvelous metagaming powers, then I spend a few rounds trying to figure it out.   Please. I'm not stupid, just disillusioned with dice pool systems and cumulative damage effects. :)

You misunderstand my point.  If you ever have, as a character, a higher CP than your opponent, by at least two dice, you will probably win any exchange if you attack full out.  If your opponent does anything but defend, the margin of dice becomes even larger, and the chance of doing anything successfully becomes that much lower.

Again you are assuming that you will always have a two+ dice advantage.  To me that's a character with hubris - a fatal flaw.  He thinks he's the biggest kid on the block and gets overconfident until someone bigger smacks him down.  ;)  Suddenly he tries this on a major enemy, who has a few more dice and pulls off a counter.  Now the enemy gets an uncontested attack with 18 dice...

No, I'm not.  I'm suggesting that at any time you have even a minor advantage in CP, the game system appears to support attacking your opponent all-out in order to score minor damage.  The cumulative effect of minor strikes more than outweighs any concern that an opponent will hold back dice.

That's what Spiritual Attributes are for.  They are the heroic part of the game, not the wound system.

So far as I have seen, SA's only provide extra dice to the pool.  This makes you a stronger fighter.  It does nothing to offset the game- and fun-related problems that arise from a death spiral.

[Valamir]

One should also note that 2 dice is only a fairly modest advantage.  It isn't all that unlikely for 10 dice to beat 12 dice.  The expected value on 10 dice is 6, on 12 dice its 6 (assumeing the easy TN of 6).

You're going to bet your life on that thin margin on a regular basis?

[zilvar]

One should also note that 2 dice is only a fairly modest advantage.  It isn't all that unlikely for 10 dice to beat 12 dice.  The expected value on 10 dice is 6, on 12 dice its 6 (assumeing the easy TN of 6).

You're going to bet your life on that thin margin on a regular basis?

Sure, why not. :)  I am currently playing in a D&D campaign (my first since 3.x was released) and I have resigned myself to the fact that as the Official Sneaky Bastard, I can be killed by a single lucky hit from a single orc until sometime around level 4.

More seriously, the answer is still yes.  If the dice are being unfriendly to me, they're being unfriendly, and it won't matter much if I'm attacking all out or defending with all my heart.  Statistically, I have the best chance of surviving (under those conditions) if I just go balls-to-the-wall.