Manuevers questions

[Jake Norwood]

Aw hell...so it sucks...

Something to work on, I guess. I'd love to hear alternate mechanics that are (a) simpler (b) more effective and (c) come from someone that has actually tried this in real life (in any martial art).

Jake

[Valamir]

Yeah there are a number of moves that I've across that leave me scratching my head going "what the heck good is that".

Forget for a moment what the real world move is or isn't good for.  These are game rules with a game effect.  Using them has to have some game effect that involves the user expecting (in the statistical sense) some advantage.  If the maneuver does not convey a game effect advantage than it serves no purpose except as descriptive flavor that would better be left to player narration than dice rules.

That said, I think there is probably alot about these moves that isn't immediately obvious as to when they're good and when they're not.  In reality there are moves you can perform that at times would be absolutely brilliant and at other times would be absolutely stupid.  I suspect that many of these moves we're discussing fall into this category, so I'm willing to concede that just because I can't see a time where beat or stop short has any value what so ever doesn't mean that that time doesn't exist.  I also suspect that because these rules were modeled on real moves that Jake and others who are dedicated students of the western martial arts have a much easier time know when the beat is useful and when it isn't than those of use trying to figure it out from reading the text.

All that said, what I'd love to see on the website is a tactical analysis of each of these moves.  When is a good time to use a beat, what do you accomplish by useing one, and then an example showing how the move plays out in game terms...e.g. "in a situation where the defender is A, B, C and the attacker is X, Y, Z a beat performed 1, 2, 3 would accomplish 7, 8, 9"  If you get my meaning.

[Valamir]

Yeah there are a number of moves that I've across that leave me scratching my head going "what the heck good is that".

Forget for a moment what the real world move is or isn't good for.  These are game rules with a game effect.  Using them has to have some game effect that involves the user expecting (in the statistical sense) some advantage.  If the maneuver does not convey a game effect advantage than it serves no purpose except as descriptive flavor that would better be left to player narration than dice rules.

That said, I think there is probably alot about these moves that isn't immediately obvious as to when they're good and when they're not.  In reality there are moves you can perform that at times would be absolutely brilliant and at other times would be absolutely stupid.  I suspect that many of these moves we're discussing fall into this category, so I'm willing to concede that just because I can't see a time where beat or stop short has any value what so ever doesn't mean that that time doesn't exist.  I also suspect that because these rules were modeled on real moves that Jake and others who are dedicated students of the western martial arts have a much easier time know when the beat is useful and when it isn't than those of use trying to figure it out from reading the text.

All that said, what I'd love to see on the website is a tactical analysis of each of these moves.  When is a good time to use a beat, what do you accomplish by useing one, and then an example showing how the move plays out in game terms...e.g. "in a situation where the defender is A, B, C and the attacker is X, Y, Z a beat performed 1, 2, 3 would accomplish 7, 8, 9"  If you get my meaning.

[Lance D. Allen]

Reading back over my post, I see that I was overly critical.. Hell with it, I was harsh. What I was meaning to do when I began the post was put the exact phrasing up so that it's merit could be picked out from where it was hiding.. Instead I picked it apart and declared it worthless..

I apologize.

Valamir says it better.. There is very likely merit, or else they would not have been included. Jake and his crew know their renaissance martial arts much better than most of us. I, however, cannot see merit in that particular maneuver, the way the rules are written. Rather than declaring it without merit, I'd much rather see how it was designed to work.. And if indeed it is flawed, see it fixed.

As for suggestions.. I honestly can't think of any at the moment. I'm not absolutely sure of what the maneuver accomplishes, other than backing an opponent away, or causing them to attempt a full evasion in response to nothing. I have used this technique, though not with any sort of formal training.. Mostly, I messed around with a few friends who were trained in Kendo, and did my best not to get too beat up.

[Jaif]

For stop short, I'm thinking of following the same pattern as feint.  The idea here, though, is you're trying to get the person to overcommit dice.

You declare a cut/bash/thrust, the other person declares a defense, then you declare a stop short if the other person declared an aggresive defense, e.g. counter, block open and strike, or grapple.  Both parties still spend their dice, but roll exactly like described in the book for stop short. The die roll difference is the number of dice lost by the loser (could go either way).

This probably only gets to work once in a fight.

Anyway, I'll keep thinking about it.

-Jeff

P.S. You guys are making me remember my fencing class.  I had one glorious move:

My partner was a mediocre fencer simply taking the class for credits (it was a beginner's class).  Of course, this means he kicked my butt most times we faced off.  One time, in fact, he actually disarmed me - quickly stuck the point of the foil under the guard and yanked.

When we had our final duel (essentially our final exam), I played it very conservatively, and he did the same.  I was completely expecting him to try to showoff by disarming me, so I waited and did light manuevers basically leaving my hand still much of the time.  At one point, I saw his foil dip down a lot, and realized he was trying it again.  I just moved my whole arm wide right (too wide, but we both sucked so it didn't matter), and he completely whiffed and ended up with his foil pointing skyward.  I then tapped him and got the point.  I went on to win that 3-2, mostly because he had psyched himself out.

Sorry, all this talk about feinting and what-not got me to reminisce. :-)

P.P.S. The final exam wasn't about winning, it was to show how much you learned.  Actually, your ability as a judge in other matches was probably just as important.

[Bankuei]

Well, this is great and all, but I still have my question, specifically addressed to Jake, since I want to know how it was intended to be played originally.  Certainly I can come up with house rules if I want to, and not have a problem with that, but I was curious as to how you guys run it.

So again:
1) How do you pull strikes?  Is there a chance of messing up and doing full damage?

2) (Modified) If feints are used as listed in the book, are they really useful(in your testing and demos) and how often or when do you use them?

Thanks,

Chris

[Brian Leybourne]

OK, so lets see if I understand your proposed changes to beat...

Attacker declares an attack (cut, thrust or bash) with X dice

Defender defends with Y dice

Attacker says "ha ha, I'm actually doing a beat). Note that this is probably only a relevant maneuver if the opponent attempts a parry or counter because othereise his weapon wont be extended to be beaten.

Attacker pays an activation cost? Only Case of Rapiers has a beat activation cost in the book, but maybe they should all be cost 1 for this change to the maneuver, because you're changing what you were doing - you had to make it look not like a beat or the opponent wouldn't have bothered defending.

Make the rolls. If defender wins, nothing happens (but they're both down dice) and defender gets initiative. If attacker wins, defender loses additional dice according to the margin of success, and attacker keeps initiative.

I think that sounds like a very good modification of the beat (if I have the suggestion right) and makes it actually useful.

How about the "only available on first engagement after a pause" thing? keep it or dump it? Certainly in my experience as a fencer (which admittedly I only did for a few years at university, but I wasn't bad) I found beating an opponents blade aside to be useful at any stage during a bout.

[Lance D. Allen]

I think that the beat should stand as it is, for when it is declared. While smacking the opponent's blade is useful in various stages of combat, it's greatest psych effect is after a pause, when the two opponents are feeling each other out (again). Also, I think that a beat should have the same penalty for overuse -vs- a single opponent that feint does.. While I personally may have never learned when I was slingin' shinai with my friends, most swordsmen who have survived a to-the-death battle of two aren't going to fall for the same trick over and over again.

Also, I think that the activation cost should stand as it is. Most of the time, if you intend a beat, you know it's going to happen, so you aren't really changing the maneuver mid-step. Unless it specifically states an activation cost, I believe it should remain with no specific cost.

The usual disclaimer: This is how I would run it. I'm not dictating how you should run your game, nor the official stance on it.

[Jake Norwood]

1) How do you pull strikes?  Is there a chance of messing up and doing full damage?

2) (Modified) If feints are used as listed in the book, are they really useful(in your testing and demos) and how often or when do you use them?

1) There is no official way to pull strikes...truth be told I have no idea how to pull strikes in real life, unless you mean light sparring with wasters (wooden swords), where you maneuver the sword in real fast and the slow it for the actual hit. That sort of thing takes a reasonable degree of skill (but it's also what I'm good at). I don't have rules for that sort of thing right now, though in the past I've simply done "stick fights" bu having everyone fight for real and (1) not strike the head or thrust and by (2) putting everyone into padding. They then focus more on defense then offense, leading to smaller attacks and therefore no real damage on a hit.

A very reasonable way to do it would be to allow stronger characters to reduce their strength to, say, 3 for the purposes of damage. That'll keep wounds from becoming anything more than bruises and an occasional break (the historical and modern reality of such bouts), and will force the players to exercise a lot of control as they spar so that they don't injure their opponent for real...that's how we do it at practice over here.

(2) I didn't cover the feint issue because I felt that it had been dealt with accurately here on the forum. When you feint you generally use a small number of dice. If you opponent falls for it and also spends low, then you throw the rest of your pool into the feint and overwhelm him massively with your sudden feint.

Example: You attack with 3 dice (your CP is 13). Your opponent doesn't see the feint for what it is and defends for 4 (a pretty safe bet). You declare a feint and throw in 5 more dice for a total of 8 (it cost you 10 dice, but look at the odds now...8 to 4 is great!). So you both roll and simple probability (assuming TNs of 6 around) is that you'll beat him by 2 successes, inflicting a wound that will either end the fight or lead to it.

Now this is an extreme case...it might not always be a good idea to feint with everything, and there are times where a feint isn't a good idea, and going for that 10-die attack is the better option. Feints tend to win or lose a fight real fast.

I hope that helps. I'm always game for new maneuvers or mods on old ones.

Jake

[Rattlehead]

Well, I think the feint is covered. As for the stop short, let's not forget the roleplaying possibilites of it. Some people have characters that make a lot of use of intimidation, for example. They'd love to jump at an NPC enemy (particularly a novice swordsman who's already edgy) and see him wet himself. This also brings in the issue of morale, which isn't specifically covered in the book.

As for a beat, it seems to me that the purpose is to create an opening while preventing your opponent from attacking or defending effectively. You knock their weapon aside so as to prevent their parry. Rather than simply giving the defender a CP penalty (if he loses) why not do something more specific to hamper their attempts at defence on the next? Maybe state that the next defensive manuever they declare cannot involve the weapon that was struck with the beat? In that case, evasion would be allowed, but not a parry or counter. That is, of course, unless they have 2 weapons. Then again, if someone successfully performed a beat against me under this rule, I'd simply perform full evasion (TN 4). Since I wouldn't have had the initiative anyway, I'd be losing nothing by breaking off and causing a pause in the battle... I don't know of a way to make this work in game mechanics.

Ok, here's another idea: Make the beat similar to a double attack. The attacker spends dice on the activation cost. Then the attacker allocates dice for the beat and for the thrust which follows. Maybe put restrictions on the size of the attack dice, as in simultaneous block and strike. The defender allocates dice for the defense. If the defender is successful, he gains initiative as normal and the attacker has lost the dice from both the beat and the thrust (or maybe just the beat). If the attacker is successful with his beat, then the defender cannot defend against the thrust that follows the beat. If the defender is using a shield or other off-hand item (second weapon, cloak, etc.), then the defender can defend against the thrust, but the DTN for his defense is increased by the margin of success of the attacker. Alternatively, the DTN could be increased by an amount equal to the attacker's Reflex (or maybe Agility) Attribute. Of course, Evasion may or may not be allowed in defense against the beat under these rules. Hard to say, since the beat maneuver is supposed to be performed very quickly. That's what gave me the idea of combining the beat and the following thrust into one attack.

That seems like a pretty good way to do it. I would like to see the next edition of the book have this worked out - though not neccessarily using my way above. Just worked out to where it makes logical sense. I personally don't like to use "house rules", I prefer everything to be "official". That's why I pester you so much about how things are "supposed" to be done, Jake. :-)
I hope this is useful - sometimes I'm just blowing smoke....   ;-)

Later,
Brandon

[Brian Leybourne]

I've been thinking about Beat a lot (and playing with it as I design the new combat simulator) and it's actually quite useful, even as written.

The time to use beat is when your die pool is bigger than your opponents. For example, in the combat I was just doing, Geralt and Stefan had squared off in red/red initiative. Both missed each other, but Steffan botched and lost 4 dice on the next pass.

Next pass, it's red/white (to Geralt). Stefan has only 6 dice to Geralts 10. Now, Geralt could attack, but 10/6 is not really that much of an advantage and Stefan has a good chance of making a parry against 2 medium attacks (or he'll just full evade and wait until next turn when his die pool is refreshed totally). However, because we just picked initiative, beat is available. Geralt declares an 8 dice beat.

What does this mean? Well, firstly, if Stefan chooses not to defend himself, then Geralt keeps initiative, so even though he only has 2 dice left he's in no danger because Stefan wont be attacking him next exchange. If Stefan wants that initiative, he has to parry, and with only 6 dice vs 8 he doesn't have a great chance, and if he loses, he loses Geralt's margin PLUS the dice he defended with and probably ends up with nothing. Either way, defend or not, he's in a tricky situation. Geralt is relatively safe both ways as well - if Stefan doesn't defend, he'll get to attack with 2 versus (6-successes of 8 dice, expect 4 successes) so 2 vs 2 which is pretty even. If Stefan defends, he's got a good chance of an unopposed attack. And, he's made that gamble with almost no danger to himself. Even if he gets 0 successes, it's still his attack, and it's 2 attack versus 6 defense, which he'll lose but still has not been harmed.

I'm rambling, and probably hard to follow. I'm just excited that I found a situation where beat was really useful. And in this particular example, Geralt got 6 successes, and so followed up with a 2 die attack against a defenseless Stefan, nicely puncturing his face.

Now I just have to find a way to make Stop Short useful :-)

[Jaif]

I'm not sure how you think this is better.

Your way:

- Beat with 8, defender ignores (no dice).
- Next exchange, expected is 2 dice v 2 dice.
- Expected damage? None for the round.

My Way:

- Attack w/8.  If defender ignores he's dead, so he defends w/6.  I've got 2 dice on him, and can probably expect a slight hit.
- Next exchange, if I missed last time I still have 2 dice versus 0.  Another shot at a slight hit.
- Expected damage? A slight hit for the round.

This is assuming that attack/defense TNs are comparable, and that no armor is involved.  Armor just makes everything take longer. :-)

The bottom line is that beats, while they can be effective, never seem to be as effective as attacking.

-Jeff

[Jake Norwood]

The bottom line is that beats, while they can be effective, never seem to be as effective as attacking.

As much as I hate to, I have to agree here. The beat certainly isn't a ground-shattering maneuver IRL, but it is more useful than presently TROS rules suggest--at least in certain places.

I'm looking at something derived from the difference in your Proficiency and your opponent's perhaps, and/or something more akin to the feint, where you surprise you opponent with it.

Hmmm...

Jake

[Brian Leybourne]

As much as I hate to, I have to agree here. The beat certainly isn't a ground-shattering maneuver IRL, but it is more useful than presently TROS rules suggest--at least in certain places.

I'm looking at something derived from the difference in your Proficiency and your opponent's perhaps, and/or something more akin to the feint, where you surprise you opponent with it.

Hmmm...

Jake

Like the feint? Well, this is what was basically proposed above...

Attacker declares an attack (cut, thrust or bash) with X dice

Defender defends with Y dice

Attacker says "ha ha, I'm actually doing a beat). Note that this is probably only a relevant maneuver if the opponent attempts a parry or counter because othereise his weapon wont be extended to be beaten.

Attacker pays an activation cost? Only Case of Rapiers has a beat activation cost in the book, but maybe they should all be cost 1 for this change to the maneuver, because you're changing what you were doing - you had to make it look not like a beat or the opponent wouldn't have bothered defending.

Make the rolls. If defender wins, nothing happens (but they're both down dice) and defender gets initiative. If attacker wins, defender loses additional dice according to the margin of success, and attacker keeps initiative.

Note that I was just summarising other peoples suggestions, not coming up with it myself. It certainly sounds damn good to me.

Having said that, I now don't think the beat is useless as written, but I certainly think this would be an even better way of doing it. If you like, I could add it (or anything else you come up with) into the combat sim as an "optional rule" so people can play it out and see how it works.

Brian.

[Jaif]

I just had a thought.  I really haven't worked it through, but I'll write it down so I don't forget.

When you do a beat, you attack your opponent's weapon from the ready position hoping your opponent will over or underreact.  So, I propose this.

Mechanic: Once per match, only after a pause (or the start of combat), an attacker can declare a "beat" after the defender declares a parry or block.  This causes the attacker and the defender to use the dice remaining in their pool instead of the declared dice.

Again, I really haven't thought this through, but I thought I'd toss that out there.  The reason I said block, btw, is because it's possible to use the same concept to get someone's shield out of place.

-jeff