Effectiveness of ganging up

[decline]

i'm 100% sure in my case if i had been armed with anything they would have backed away quickly.  it was a case of courage in numbers.  but that obviously would not always be the case.  and i'm not one to promote everyone walking around armed with swords and guns and knives. 

in game terms i've often gone back to that scenario myself though as a reference.  figured it might be of some use here as not everybody has been so largely jumped.  i wish i had some sort of time reference to tell you as well, but sadly i'm not sure how long the entire thing took, next time i will try to check my watch. lol


i'm not sure you actually need a separate set of rules or bonuses for ganging up on someone though.  if you have something in place for fatigue and surprise attacks that would probably work just fine.  obviously the lone person is going to fatigue a lot faster and any attacker not being concentrated on would have a surprise bonus to hit and potentially for damage.  so it spirals down rather nicely and quickly without any special rule additions.

as weapon effectiveness was mentioned.  i don't know if your system has any kind of close up range worked into it, but that is going to be the swords real advantage there over a knife. a knife can be fast as hell but rather limited in its reach.  some simple engage/disengage rule might work that advantage out well.  where the one with the knife is constantly trying to get closer in and the sword person is trying to keep them at bay.  which in a gang up situation will fatigue them faster and the advantage or penalty for engaging/disengaging won't apply to everyone all the time as people come up behind the lone person.

hope that helps some, i'm having to type this rather quickly so can't really get too in depth.

[Seamus]

That is a good point Decline. I find most systems naturally take care of ganging up on their own. The fact that the character is outnumbered and surrounded usually is enough with most systems. If there are bonuses for hitting from behind, that helps even more.

[tleeuwenburg@gmail.com]

Hi all,

Thanks for your replies once again. I have been trying to figure out how to integrate some of that detail in a way which will work well in the game. In my game, every contested fight roll has the ability to damage either opponent. So (unless I change the draft rules), if 20 guys attack 1 guy, that 1 guy will get 20 opposed rolls and wouldn't have to be *that much* better in order to be able to easily defeat them.

My plan is currently to give each attacker +1 die for each degree of outnumbering. So two guys on one will each get +1 die to their pool for the opposed roll. However, perhaps the first attacker should get no bonus, the second gets a +1 the third gets +2 etc. That would be resolved by making each player move and attack, rather than moving each person then attacking in a separate phase.

Another option would be to have low movement rates. I like to run combats using a board with squares (or hexes if you can get them). I could give each player a movement of 1 rather than of say 3-6, which would make moving around much more part of the game. Or perhaps standard movement is 2, while faster characters could move 3 (a factor of two seems too great, a 2-3 ratio seems okay).

That way the attackers would really have to think about how they moved, and also defensive positions would be much more meaningful.

I agree that perhaps the best way to defend against a group of people would be to cripple one attacker and make the others too afraid to continue the fight. Obviously, if they put their lives at nought, it would be easy for a group to overwhelm even a well-armed opponent by a simple charge, accepting one or two losses but then simple weight of numbers would pummel the opponent. However, it seems less than satisfying to fully capture than in the game.

I would anticipate many fights being against nonhuman opponents who might also have different attitudes to deaths and losses. Perhaps all fights should carry some fear for humanoids, with a risk of running away if losses become too great. However, perhaps that's too much for the basic rules. Would a rule like that be part of the mechanics, or a special rule? I'm not sure.

Most fights would probably only involve a minor outnumbering -- usually no more than 2 to 1. However, I like the idea that movement is important, and that you could try to outnumber the enemy using your initiative in order to regain a numerical advantage more quickly.

I also do anticipate including rangers/shooters in the gaming system. I'm not 100% sure how best to do this. The simplest way would perhaps be to allow shooting to resolve before movement and melee, giving shooters a first-mover advantage in the game, but they would not get any outnumbering bonuses. Perhaps they could also be used to restrict enemy movement somehow seeing as movement is shaping up to be an important part of the game.

Cheers,
-T