Fencing system: crunchier extended constests?

[Barna]

As part of my 7th Sea conversion, I intent to create a Fencing system which works as a plugin of sorts, changing the way extended constests wotk when in combat.

Basically, a Swordsman School keyword gives you a number of maneuvers, which work as regular skills. These have special rules which build upon the normal mechanics of extended constests. These are not in any way balanced yet; I just want to see if the idea is workable. Let's take an example:

<<<Feint>>>
When using Feint, if the character succeeds, instead of drawing AP from the opponent he can impose a -1 penalty on the opponent's skill during the next round for every 4 AP he would've drawn.

<<<Riposte>>>
When defending in an extended contest, if the character uses Riposte and is successful, he gains +1 to his skill during the next round for every 5 AP drawn from the opponent.

These are just two examples of the general idea. Do you think it could work?

[Mike Holmes]

I actually proposed something like this not too long ago in terms of "unrelated actions." That is, what you're proposing under the system I proposed would be to be taking the option to do a separate contest in order to deliver penalties to the opponent (these being the sort that would vanish with simple changes of situation).

But even that we worried about in terms of creating mechanics you can "game." That is, HQ doesn't work very well here if players are trying to figure out how best to win these contests. Optimally there should be no advantage of one option over any others. Which is likely what your ideas are going to do.

So, either you're trying to inject some gamism into HQ, which is highly problematic, or, if these actually do get balanced, then you're injecting some sort of simulation that I'm not sure is going to be all that interesting. Basically, what does this add? In HQ, you already very much get the random back and forth drama of a duel, and you can narrate any of these color elements without issue, and even have mechanical backup. What do you gain by adding these simulative elements?

Mike

[Barna]

Well, 7th Sea is about duelling and fencing amongst other things, so I guess that following the "system matters" line of thought there should be some mechanical emphasis on such situations. In other games, the particular maneuver the character performs can be relatively unimportant, but I do not think this is the case in 7th Sea.

I think it´s a bit similar to magic systems, for example. The justify a bit of departure from the standard rule in order to accomodate special situations which are key to the setting.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

The "system matters" question you need to ask is what do you want the game to focus on?

Do you want the players to have to strategize about which manuever they have to use?  Or is it that you simply want to make sure the players use a lot of different manuevers to emphasize the swashbuckling action?

If it's the latter, it's really easy.  Just simply count different manuevers as traits, let the players make them up, and tell them- "If you use the same manuever twice in a row, you get a penalty".  If you want to make it more gamey, penalize using the same manuever in the same way for the entire conflict.  Players will have to get creative about how to use them if a conflict stretches out, or take penalties.

If you want them to have to strategize about the manuevers, you're probably best off grabbing a different game, like Riddle of Steel or Burning Wheel which focuses on that kind of play.

Chris

[Barna]

The thing is, I do not beleive that one cannot insert a more detailed sub-component in an otherwise "generic" or "narrative" system. Personally, when something is important to the background of the game being played, I beleive it merits a specific mechanic.

I understand your POV, but imagine if Call of Cthulhu had no Sanity points and the GM were to instruct you to "just wing it". It certainly IS a way of handling it (and in some games I´d commend such treatment) but the point is, I do not feel that special mechanisms designed for particular situations hamper gameplay. I am indeed a fan of one-mechanic systems (HQ, D6, etc.) but I beleive that certain situations warrant a bit of extra work.

Also, TROS and BW would not be my first choices for an heroic game. I beleive they are better for grittier settings.

[Mike Holmes]

You're making a false dichotomy. Either there are special rules for fencing, or it's being ignored. Chris gave you mechanical means by which to emphasize fencing that fit in with the rest of HQ, he didn't say not to have any. If you think that the direction you're going is better than Chris' then tell us why the mechanics that you're suggesting are superior to those that he's suggesting.

Basically it sounds like your argument is that, to emphasize fencing in play, you have to make it something you can strategize about, instead of simply mechanically incentivizing fencing color. Is that your argument? If it is, how does it follow?

Here's our argument in detail (sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth, Chris): we've seen people playing HQ struggle with it a lot when they try to play it as a competitive system. It simply falls apart when one does this, because it expects one to consider the situations from a dramatic POV, rather than from a tactical POV. For instance, in an extended contest, if you're character has a lower TN than that of his opponent, he's got a strong mechanical incentive to bid as high as possible all the time - desperation bid. Which means that he doesn't really have a lot of options in terms of describing any subtle actions for the character since the bid and narration must match. Further, this tends to reduce all such conflicts to simple contests - sometimes they go to a second round, but often they end on the first bid by the player in question.

The text asks the player to consider not doing the most tactically sound thing. Now, I personally don't believe in textual suggestions being effective in play. But, interestingly, people playing do not always max their bids out. Why?

Well, because the rest of the HQ mechanics tend to promote a different style of play that worrying about winning. HQ makes failure interesting, and non-punative to the player (I'd argue it rewards players when their characters fail as much or more than when they win). So, sans an incentive to play to win, players often play so that their characters lose in conflicts (and the player wins dramatically).

If you put your suggested rules in, you're very likely to start informing players that the system is about proving you're ability as a player. Why else all the tactical fiddly rules if not for the player to min-max his character's performance? At which point, the player probably will start bidding all his AP when behind on TN, and other degenerate strategies that avoid bringing out the drama of the conflict as HQ does when played normally. And then players will start trying to augment with everything on their sheet, and you'll have to make rules to prevent this, etc, etc. Before you know it, you're struggling with the game like many others who have tried to play it the way you seem to want to play it.

Now, I could be wrong - heck go ahead and playtest it, and prove me wrong. But if it turns out messed up, don't say I didn't tell you so. ;-)

Rather, consider that what Chris is proposing as an informed alternative on how to add mechanics that will emphasize what you want to emphasize without changing the overal aesthetic considerations of the game.

Mike

[Bankuei]

Hi Barna,

To perhaps clarify what I'm suggesting- my question to you is- "Is it more important for players to strategize about the moves, OR more important that swashbuckling color appears in the game?"

If it is the latter- then what I'm suggesting produces a variety of narration and color along those lines.

"I'm going to use my Daring Leap to jump to the other ship!"
"You already used it, you'll be getting a -5 penalty!"
"Um, how about if I use Daring Leap and accidentally knock over the barrels of oil, spreading the fire on the ship?"
"Ok, that's exciting, go with it!"

See, players are still strategizing, but instead of worrying about how A manuever fits with B maneuver, you have them focusing on delivering good color for the game.  Wushu, Tunnels & Trolls and Sorcerer all use this kind of strategizing, which works really well and is simple to implement.

If you are more concerned about the former-

"I'm going to do an Italian counter-backsweep giving a +5 to attack"
"Then he replies with the Spanish Low Guard giving a +3 to defense, but +10 more against your move"

Then you start getting issues about basically rebuilding the entire HQ system.  You'll need to develop a set of manuevers, establish when and how they can be used, to what bonus/penalty against other manuevers, and what strategies develop from that.

You'll also find that the players will fall into 1-3 different strategies and NOT use a variety of tactics, unless you build a really robust tactical system.  Streetfighter, Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel all take this approach.

Depending on what your answer is to my initial question is going to inform me, Mike, and anyone else at the Forge how to help you proceed.  If you want to take the cruchy tactical route, I recommend playing another game and just drifting that so it's not as deadly, because it involves a lot less work than building a new crunchy system from the ground up.

Chris

[mneme]

Mike, this may be coming from a "played, rather than ran, the game, read the rules I needed to understand what I was playing", but how does HQ reward people for losing?  Is this a mechanical thing or a story thing?

Feel free to point me to another thread if there's one more appropriate.

[Mike Holmes]

First, HQ is a conflict resolution system, or so I read it. So there are no contest conseqeunces that are set by the system. The only way for there to be a consequence that you don't like is if the narrator decides to set one you don't like. Which I'd see as doing a bad job. Mechanically, the result of failure is a penalty, which can go away at narrator whim. Meaning that it'll stay and be applied only to the extent that it's thematically interesting to do so.

It's been my argument for a while that HQ contests are not about winning or losing, but simply for displaying how the character relates to the conflict at hand. That includes penalties, actually. That is, a character with a penalty is actually more interesting in HQ resolution than one that doesn't have one.

Agumenting, as a player skill, is pointless - the "ultimate" player would simply read every ability off his sheet and ask that the GM consider each for inclusion in the task. But that would be dull, and pointless as you can't prove you're a better player than anyone else if the optimal strategy is known. Since it is known, it becomes pretty obvious pretty darn quickly that augmenting is a matter of taste and style. And players are informed that contests outcomes are about establishing a dramatic pacing to the events, not about whether or not the player is doing well. Once players see that, failure becomes a desired outcome of contests.

To whit, I always have players who are doing their darnedest to try to get their characters into trouble - if they lose, more drama, and if they win, the character is all the more impressive for having succeeded at something that was beyond him. It all hangs together to promote this particular sort of play. Or that's been my experience with it at least.

The best way to dissuade somebody that a system is about tactics is to make the optimal strategies available to everyone.

Mike

[Barna]

Mike, let me start by saying that your well-thought out post (and the following ones too) have forced me into a 5 minute "grab my head while pondering new ideas" status. I'm really starting to enjoy The Forge as a discussion board.

I beleive I understand what you mean, but I too think you are making a false dichotomy in a way. I don't think that, shall we say, "tactical sub-games" which often reside in the more general mechanics of a RPG will draw players into a sistematic search for the best maneuver or benefit. Let's take my players for example (although those are quite an amazing bunch and perhaps not the best example). Standard R&K 7th Sea has a mechanically complex Fencing system which includes special maneuver mechanics, school abilities, etc. My players enjoy duelling as a small tactical sub-game, but I've never seen them engage in the "best tactic" behaviour you suggest. As a matter of fact, they regularly go to great lengths to do the "dramatically appropiate" thing, even if they lack the skill/talent/whatever and a more sound maneuver could be used.

I do see that you are right in relating a tactical resolution to a more "competitive" approach to the RPGing experience, but at the same time, I've always thought that the tension between what's "tactically/mechanically sound" and what "my character would do" is a big part of the whole roleplaying experience. As a matter of fact, I'd say it's one of the reasons why a lot of people do not get or enjoy roleplaying games. Even GNS and the roleplaying theories acknowledge that gaming as in competition is an important part of roleplaying games, even if there's not really a lot of support for what GNS defines as "gamist" in The Forge.

I'm not sure how hard it is to create a decent Fencing system. I've done a few which were more or less balanced (mind the "more or less") but since I don't have the book yet, I cannot really be sure. If indeed the system is too hard to create, I will follow your advice, as I do not want to spend countless hours with it.

I have only now started reading a few things on roleplaying thoery, GNS and all the spiel. From what I've read and from my limited interpretation of this model, I would say I'm interested in creating a great story mainly and in the more "tactical" issues only in a secondary plane. My players seem to enjoy both things (perhaps narrative issues a bit more), so this is usually where my games go. What I mean is, I do not see a problem in letting a small ammount of tactical thought enter the system, always considering that it's not HQ's strongsuit.

All in all, you have definetly picked my interest. When my book arrives and I can read it carefully, perhaps a more in-depth review of the feeling and mechanics of the game will persuade me to follow the approach you suggest. Wary as I am of a completely narrative combat system, the idea is starting to grow on me. I'll give it more thought when my books arrive.

[Mike Holmes]

I'm really starting to enjoy The Forge as a discussion board.

And I think we're enjoying you being here, too. I am at least.

I beleive I understand what you mean, but I too think you are making a false dichotomy in a way. I don't think that, shall we say, "tactical sub-games" which often reside in the more general mechanics of a RPG will draw players into a sistematic search for the best maneuver or benefit.

It's generally accepted that a given group may not play to what the rules incentivize. The question then becomes what it is that the rules do for the players?

My players enjoy duelling as a small tactical sub-game, but I've never seen them engage in the "best tactic" behaviour you suggest.

So, OK, why do they enjoy the deuling? If it's not competition, then what are they getting out of making the tactical choices? A feeling of fencing verisimilitude?

I do see that you are right in relating a tactical resolution to a more "competitive" approach to the RPGing experience, but at the same time, I've always thought that the tension between what's "tactically/mechanically sound" and what "my character would do" is a big part of the whole roleplaying experience.

That's a fascinating POV, I don't think that I've ever heard that response. I'm not buying it, yet, but it's an interesting direction. I can actually see certain situations where you'd be right here: for instance, you're presented with an option to stab somebody in the back, but your character is honorable. The trade-off between the mechanical incentive or throwing it away because the character decides to do the honorable thing does lead to an interesting dilemma.

But that's one that can exist with the current system in HQ - what you're proposing is putting in rules that really can't have any effect on perception of character. That is, thematically what does it matter whether you feint or riposte? That choice can't have the sort of thematic punch that's interesting. Meaning that the only value of such a choice is in terms of players showing off their tactical acumen.

Or am I missing something?

Now, all this said, I've actually been one to propose that something like combat resolution can be "cordoned off" from other play, and be momentarily gamism inside a larger narrativism context. I use TROS as my example for this. The difference with TROS, however, is that the mechanical choices that have an effect on combat are made prior to engaging in the combat (basically how many SAs apply to the fight). Once in the fight, the system no longer has anything to do with displaying the character, it has to do with player ability to manipulate the system. There is no conflict.

In HQ, on the other hand, as I've tried to demonstrate, if you start mixing these things together, you get problems (which it doesn't seem that you disagree with).

Even GNS and the roleplaying theories acknowledge that gaming as in competition is an important part of roleplaying games, even if there's not really a lot of support for what GNS defines as "gamist" in The Forge.

What GNS says is that if/when you mix systematic support for more than one mode of play that you tend to get players playing with more than one agenda, and that this is tends to be problematic (please note the intentional use of the word tend).

Again, this may not happen to your group, and so the "incoherence" problem may not happen for you. But, then, that suggests to me that everyone is playing narrativism and the question becomes what do they get out of the tactical rules?

I'm not sure how hard it is to create a decent Fencing system. I've done a few which were more or less balanced (mind the "more or less") but since I don't have the book yet, I cannot really be sure. If indeed the system is too hard to create, I will follow your advice, as I do not want to spend countless hours with it.

Oh, I think it's doable in the technical sense that you could create a tactical system that would work for HQ (my very first thought was "just tack on TROS combat!"). The only question is whether or not that would be an improvement, or what you'd otherwise lose from HQ play by doing it.

Or whether using another system would support what you're attempting with less trouble.

All in all, you have definetly picked my interest. When my book arrives and I can read it carefully, perhaps a more in-depth review of the feeling and mechanics of the game will persuade me to follow the approach you suggest. Wary as I am of a completely narrative combat system, the idea is starting to grow on me. I'll give it more thought when my books arrive.

Careful with your verbology. All RPGs have narrative as the way that information is passed. HQ, in fact, talks a lot about being strongly about narration. But that has nothing to do with narrativism, which is about player control of creating narrative, not narration. In fact, in HQ, the GM is called the Narrator, specifically because he has the traditional lion's share of the narration rights.

In fact, the HQ book reads as pretty traditional in many ways. It could be said that what I do to get HQ to play the way that I do is actually "drift" or alterations of the rules to get it to work how I like. I'd argue that HQ has to be drifted at least a little to play it to any agenda, however, and that the version that I play requires the least drift. I have few real alterations to the rules, and most of what I do is simply to interpret the text in a way that makes things work for me (that is, the text is pretty ambiguous about many things).

The designers, despite that we'd call it sloppy design here at The Forge, intentionally created much of the ambiguity under the notion that it's better to have an ambiguous game that can be drifted multiple ways than to specify one way to play the game. While this seems sage at first, I can show you evidence that it's not the best policy. In any case, the point is that when reading it, you may not see exactly the effects that I'm talking about. Playing it, however, will give you a better idea.

Mike

[Barna]

I was bored yesterday and I wrote a short combat using the Extended Contest rules and the ideas put forward by Bankuei. Surprinsingly, it seemed very fluid and intuitive.

To start with, I decided that when a character chooses a Swordsman School as his Trademark, he gets a "XXX School" keyword at 17. This keyword is composed of 4 maneuvers and 3 "style" abilities. Maneuvers are only important flavour-wise and do not carry any particular mechanic workings (they are generally used to augment your Fencing skill with the appropiate description). Styles, on the other hand, are some words which describe the School´s way of Fencing and which of course can also be used as augments. For example, the Aldana School has "Inner music", "Elegant" and "Unpredictable", while the Ambrogia School has "Adaptable", "Cheater" and "Inverted weapons". I´m not sure whether the maneuvers can only be used to augment or if they can be used as the main skill, but all in all it´s a minor point.

One rule I´m thinking of is forbidding players from augmenting with the same ability two consecutive rows. It may seem a bit harsh but it would encourage creativity. Another option would be imposing a penalty if the character repeats moves, as Bankuei said.

[Bankuei]

Hi,

If you feel like adding minor crunch color, you could also state that players may augment with any styles they have in common with their opponent- that is- having knowledge of your foe's style gives you insight into defending/overcoming them.  This goes right in with normal HQ augment rules without really making any modification.

Stylistically, you end up with some PCs seeking out teachers, specialized training, or befriending rivals to counter their archrivals, and other's staying "pure" to their style out of pride.

Chris

[Barna]

The R&K system has a "Exploit Weakness" knack which allows players to learn the weaknesses of other styles to use them in their favour. I was thinking of adding a "Know XXX School weakness" ability.

One mechanical trinket I intend to keep are Mastery abilities. That is, when the player reaches Apprentice, Journeyman or Master level in a school, they get a bonus of some sorts. I really like that and I don´t think it will affect the general disposition of combat.

[Web_Weaver]

Hi Barna,

It is recognised by the board gaming community that new players often suggest changes to a game in line with other games they have played, before beginning to recognise the inherent strengths of the game a hand. This is very common with RPGs as well, and a trap I have fallen into more than once.

I would therefore, strongly suggest that you playtest without modifying the rules before you jump in and tinker with them.

With this in mind, can I clarify a couple of points, as I am not sure if you will benefit from rules modifications.

At one point above you imply that you don't own HQ. How much experience of the system do you have?

You also suggest nesting a swashbuckling system within HQ but I don't understand what you really mean by this. Ignoring magic there really are not many sections to the HQ rule set. The whole game is actually based on Simple or Extended contests with everything else supporting this.

Are you suggesting that you use Simple & Extended contests for everything excepting a separate sword dualling mechanic. I think this would cause a great number of problems when contests are a mixture of sword play and other forms of fighting.

If you must tinker, I think your best solution would be to use the theistic magic system for Sword Schools. Define each school as having three, affinity like, keywords and give some example, feat like, maneuvers that can be used in each.

You could avoid confusion with magic itself by using one or more of the other systems to simulate it.