Is this a good idea to make combat a little easier?

[Aaron]

Ouch! But how does he do that? If both parties drop red dice, then this 10 CP guy just thinks 'Ah, time to go balistic' and uses all his dice. The only other way is to buy initaitive, which is expensive and tricky to do.

Its pretty easy for him Noon.  Valimir's one die attack is coming in the second phase, so he has no more dice to commit.  The opponent with the 3-4 dice just wears it and hits back.  No throwing red die for initiative and no need to buy it either.

I'd have to agree with Brian.  A 1 pt is just asking for trouble in the form of expulsion, BO&S, Grapple and may fav, as Brian pointed out, the smack back!
Aaron

[Valamir]

You're missing the point Brian.  The point is not a tournament combat between two players to see who is going to manipulate the system to greatest effort in order to get bragging rights on whose better.

The point is how can the GM run bad guys against a PC in a way that DOESN'T involve killing the player while fighting a scrub.  What you are saying is akin to the GM actively trying to kill the PC everytime he gets into combat which emphatically is a BAD idea.

#1) Giving mid level guardsman SAs of any kind is a very bad idea.  Heros have SAs.  Villains have SAs.  Important villain Henchment have SAs.  Important NPCs that the players aren't supposed to be killing (like the king) have SAs.  Mid level guardsman grunts should not have SAs.  Ergo...he does NOT have a luck point to spend on an automatic defense.

#2) Your goal as a GM should not to be to play every opponent your players face to the maximum of level of your own personal ability.  When your players fight someone who is better then they are you should pull out all the stops and tricks and let them have it (including the one you noted).  When your players fight someone who is less good then they are you should play them as being less good then they are which means leaving out some of the things in your bag of tricks.

Again this is not the "bitching move combos to kill your opponents" thread this is the "how to make combat a little easier" thread.

Besides...launching a simultaneous attack on me STILL has a 50/50 shot (assumeing I have an ATN of 6) of getting yourself killed even WITHOUT a luck point.  You'd be hard put to justify any character, let alone a hired hand willing to take that risk.  He'd have a split second to make that decision, any hesitation and the opportunity to launch a simo attack would be gone.  I don't see too many rent-a-cops willing to make that kind of sacrifice...at least not if you're playing them as actual people and not disposable NPCs.

[Michael Tree]

Back to the original question: that could work, but I don't believe it's the best way to do things.  First of all, what do those levels represent?  What happens when a character is hit by a weapon, but doesn't take damage by it?

One way to make combat less lethal, but just as dangerous, is to change the number of successes needed to inflict a given wound level.  Currently # of Successes = wound level inflicted, but to make combat less lethal you could change it to:

Successes  -  Wound level

1-----1
2-----2
3-4---3
5-6---4
7+ ---5

This way combat is still very dangerous, but a larger margin of success is needed to kill someone.

[Mike Holmes]

That might work Michael, but it all depends on why the poster wants to see the danger of combat reduced. If it's just to prevent characters from dying, your system should work well. But if it's so that characters can get hit, yet still fight, then it's problematic.

Mainboard, what's the specific problem you percieve? What do you want to accomplish?

Mike

[Brian Leybourne]

You're missing the point Brian.  The point is not a tournament combat between two players to see who is going to manipulate the system to greatest effort in order to get bragging rights on whose better

Yes, you're right, I was arguing from the position of a non-stupid opponent. What you seem to be saying is that if a player makes a stupid move like that, I should play the opponent even stupider to give the PC a break.

Now, I agree that there is a time for that kind of thing, particularly in the early stages of a campaign while the player is still learning the system. However, pandering too much to a player is simply going to teach them that they don't need to learn the nuances of combat because the GM always plays opponents really stupid. Eventually, they're going to come up against a good opponent, and they're going to throw a 1-die attack against him (because that ALWAYS works) and the opponent, who is now not being played stupidly, will spit and roast them. If I have done my job as Seneschal properly, that wont happen, because the time they did throw a 1-die attack, they found out how dumb that was, maybe because they took a level 2 or 3 wound in the process, and thus crossed that off their list of tactics, and went on to learn good moves.

There's a big difference between putting away most of my "bag of tricks" and playing like an idiot. At the end of the day, players are not going to have as much fun if they can see that no matter how badly they fight, the bad guys are always worse, they wont learn any better either.

Essentially, there's a difference between playing nice with your players to assist them in learning the system, and playing opponents as total morons, which doesn't do anyone any favors. If you never get burned, you don't know fires are hot.

Never had a player complain yet :-)

Brian.

[Valamir]

Quite honestly Brian you're doing a couple of things here that I think are wrong.  First you are dramatically underestimating the effectiveness of a single die attack.  Against an opponent with no SAs and comparable attributes its a near certain level 2 wound if you don't defend against it.  If the near certain isn't certain enough for your tastes.  Make it a 2 die attack, the above strategy still works just as good.  If you have a larger die advantage you can even make it a 3 die attack, whatever.  The point was to demonstrate the ease of fighting in life preservation mode.  You seem to be of the mind that launching a single die attack is a stupid thing and allowing it to work is even stupider.  I humbly submit that you are wrong.  If the opponent defends, the round is over, mission accomplished.  If the opponent launches a simo attack as you suggest I hit him guarenteed...GUARENTEED (as long as I have luck to spend and he does not) for what will almost certainly be enough damage to shock the rest of his die pool to 0 and leave his simo attack thwarted.  The odds of that happening are certainly high enough...do the math...to cause any sane opponent to think twice before using a simo attack as a counter move.  As long as you are playing said opponent as someone who cares about self preservation and not as a disposable list of stats willing to sacrifice himself for no good reason...its not justifiable to expect that kind of behavior.

Second calling a combatant who refuses to take a hit stupid is outrageous.  In a real combat you have a split second to judge the strength of the enemy's attack and decide to eat it.  Defending oneself is a pretty instinctive desire.  I would argue that you have to be pretty highly skilled as a swordsman before you'd even consider such a maneuver (while it doesn't do so in the book, I think the ability to simo attack instead of defend should be limited to certain minimum proficiency levels.  Its just a completely unnatural thing for a person to do unless they're very well trained.

Third, again, the example is of a typical guardsman.  Not a musketeer.  Not Rocheforte.  Generic Gate Guard#3.  Barring some special set of circumstances I refuse to believe that these guys are going to be all that self sacrificing.  They'd be far more likely to surrender or run away than allow themselves to be hit by a sharp pointy weapon on purpose for the sake of whatever handful of copper pieces they're being paid.  To think otherwise is (barring those special circumstances) just plum unrealistic.  

So no, I in no way am advocating playing stupid and pandering to anything.  No a one die attack in the situation I outlined above is NOT an outright stupid move

Its a simple process Brian.

I have Str 4 you have TO 4.  I have an Arming Sword Str+1 ATN 6 weapon.  You have 3 dice left. I target an unarmored area of your body (mid level guards are unlikely to be fully armored.  Hell, if that's your arms or your legs while you have a shield I get a free die and my attack is now 2 dice anyway.

I throw a 1 die attack at you, if you defend great.  You win the defense take the initiative and I have successfully gotten through the round with 0 damage and am 1 round closer to help arriving (which was the condition of the initial example).

You decide to throw a simo attack instead (regardless of it being a COMPLETELY unlikely and unrealistic move to do).  Fine I roll my 1 die.  I have a 50/50 shot of hitting you for a level 2 wound.  If I fail I spend a luck for another die which makes my chance a 75% chance to hit.  If I was fortuneate enough to be able to attack your arms that would be a 75% chance without luck and 87% chance with...that simo attack ain't looking so good now.  And if I roll really unlucky I burn the point (unfortunate) and get my 1 success and level 2 wound anyway.  Since Generic Guardman #3 should not (in my campaign would not) have any SAs to use, there is nothing you can do to stop this.  There is only a single location in the entire damage table (the thigh) where a level 2 cutting wound doesn't do at least 3 shock and plenty that do 5+.  That means the dice you were planning to simo me with are gone, and you likely get nailed for carryover or Pain loss next round.  Whoops.

Sorry.  You are wrong.  A 1 die attack in the situation outlined in the initial example is NOT a foolish attack.  Thinking it is and launching a simo attack against it...THAT is the foolish attack.  Period.

[Jake Norwood]

This is an important discussion--so I want it to continue--but let's reduce the emotional content a little.

Jake

[Valamir]

Sorry Jake, Brian, didn't mean to get excited.  Just got a little frustrated at the casual dismissal.

Of course, the above tactic was predicated on a specific set of circumstances.  That's to be expected all tactics should be based on the specific circumstances of the time.  One of the strengths of TROS is that there's yet to be found a single best technique to use always in every situation.

In a different situation, the above tactic would be foolish.  If the opponent's weapons was longer, it would be much more dangerous to give up the initiative and not try to land a hit to bring the range shorter.  If the PC had an abnormally low strength such that even generic opponents likely have superior TO, then a 1 die attack doesn't lead to a 2nd level wound and 1st level wounds don't do enough shock for the tactic to work (on the other hand if the PC has a high Str of 6 or even 7, 1 die attacks become even MORE effective).

Of course its all predicated on the idea of how to give players interesting fights without risking killing them by some unlucky rolls in what should be the throwaway battle (like Inigo killing the 3 guards in the hall way before pursueing Count Rugen...those guards are SUPPOSED to go down quick to highlight what a bad ass Inigo is and make the final duel that much more satisfying).

If that ISN'T the GM's intent; if say the players have gotten cocky and need to be taught a lesson, then suddenly the guard isn't Generic Guardsman #3.  He's Rodrigo whose driven to prove himself and one day join the King's Own.  Surprise, ole Rodigo has a couple of SA (like Drive and Luck).  Or this guardsman is Bull Finnegan an otherwise generic guard but with extra high Str and TO attributes.  There are many ways to teach humility if that is the GM's goal.  My point was to demonstrate that there are also many ways to avoid player kills without changing the mechanics to reduce lethality.

[Brian Leybourne]

Ralph, I'm not casually dismissing you, mate. I just know you're wrong :-)

Clearly, we have different play styles. You're welcome to play all your NPC's as morons, I'm happy for you to do that. I think you'll be teaching your PC's bad lessions though. Saying something like "I should let them do 1-die attacks because the opponent is a mook" is just asing for trouble when they come against non-mooks and they still think that a 1-die attack is a brilliant move.

I don't set out to kill my players, I set out to help them learn TROS combat, which is actually very deep, there are a lot of levels to it. If I allow them to keep getting away with stupid moves, they'll never learn any better, I would rather they had a chance to find out what works, and what doesn't and then they can develop their own effective style - that's one of the really cool things about TROS, that different players will develop totally different combat styles within the system. 1-die attacks are effective under the following situation: "opponent is a mook, being played very stupidly by the gm", and that's not something I want the players to learn.

Fun? Well, again this is down to personal taste. I personally never find it fun when the GM is blatantly playing NPC's specifically so the PC's can do anything they want and not be in any danger. The dish is bland without a little spice, you know. My players are the same. YMM(and apparently does)V.

As for your specific example, you still have a chance to fail, and much of the time when you succeed it means you have blown a luck die (perhaps permanently) which is no small matter either. I call that player foolishness - that luck point may have been very useful later, and are you prepared to risk your character on such a possibly foolhardy move? Oh, right - I forgot, there's no risk because the GM is playing really stupid.

And even that one success wont do you much good if I (say) do a Simultaneous Block/Strike with 2 dice for defense and 2 for attack (for guards with shields or parrying daggers anyway).

All I'm saying is that yes, your 1-die atack is a valid move, but only under such tightly specific circumstances as to make the game somewhat a farce anyway (IMO, of course). Not fun for us, but you're welcome to do it and have fun and that's great. The world would be a boring place if we all liked things the same.

Brian.

[Valamir]

I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from Brian.  You keep repeating the same thing over and over without actually refuting any of the facts that I've laid out.  I mean the thing's you're saying don't even make sense.  You've set up this straw man that I'm playing NPCs like morons and then spending time "proving" that this is a bad thing.  Well no kidding.  Playing NPCs like morons is a bad thing.  At not something I at any time advocated.  I did advocate playing NPCs to a level of ability consistant with the NPCs actual ability.  If an NPC is in fact a moron, then he should in fact be played like one.  If an NPC is in fact the greatest swordsman to ever live then he should in fact be played like one.  If an NPC is just a generic guard making minimum wage, then he should in fact be played like one.  That's standard roleplaying technique.  If you are suggesting that all NPCs regardless of their actual ability should be played to the maximum level of GM proficiency...then I'm afraid there is a serious disconnect, because that's absolutely ridiculous.

It's really not worth argueing over but you keep harping on this idea of my suggesting playing an NPC like a moron.  I'm not.  At all.  How is playing a guardsman like a guardsman playing him like a moron.  Explain to me for one second how you would possibly justify eating an attack.  Its you who are not playing the odds my friend.  I guarentee that if if the guardsman were your PC you would NOT NOT NOT simo attack in that situation unless you're suicidal.  A 75-87% chance of eating the big one instead of defending like a sane person.  No way.  You are not playing him "better" you're playing him like a suicidal idiot.  Simo attacks where you have a better than 50% chance of failing are STUPID.  The fact that you don't mind having the guard kill himself suggest to me that you're treating him like a pawn and not like a actual character who values his own skin.

But perhaps it is a matter of play style.  For me there is one purpose to henchmen and mooks.  To make the PCs look good.  Zorro does not get his ass kicked by Generic Soldier #5.  Robin Hood does not get whacked by Unnamed Knight #3.  Those fights exist for one purpose and one person only, to demonstrate the aptitude of the character.  The same logic applies to PCs in an RPG.  Having the master swordsman riddle seeker get his ass kicked by a nameless mook is so deprotagonizing its not even funny.  Mooks exist for one purpose and one purpose only.  To give the player just enough challenge to be fun before being defeated.  

This requires a certain level of trust between player and GM.  The player has to trust that the GM isn't out to get him.  That the opponent who is obviously a mook, is in fact a mook, and not a surprise PC killer in disguise.  That when an opponent is not simply a mook that the GM will have signalled this so the player can respond appropriately.  The GM has to trust the player not to abuse the situation and go hog wild killing everything because everyone that isn't a named villain is a mook.  

You're right about one thing.  TROS combat is very deep.  Deep enough that you should know that sometimes a 1 die attack is a very valid tactic and sometimes its not (just like any other move).  And no not just in a farcical situation.  You're obviously not actually reading what I wrote since I explained it in detail. If you were you'd realize that I just kicked your simo attacking guardsman's ass with a 1 die attack.  The numbers are right there.  Demonstrate the error.  If you're not willing to actually put the numbers to the test than you're just argueing opinion rather than fact.

[Valamir]

It just occured to me why you might not be seeing the value in a one die attack Brian even against the threat of a simo attack by the target.  Are you aware that the attacks are not, in fact, resolved simultaneously.  The initiative holder completes his full attack first, and then the target, if he has dice remaining gets to attack.

If the attacks were in fact simultaneous, then you'd be right, I'd have a 1 die attack coming at him and he'd have a 3-4 die attack coming at me with niether of us getting a defense.  All else being equal, I'd be the loser in that exchange.  

But given that the 1 die attack goes first, results in a level 2 wound and thereby eliminates all his dice before his attack gets launched, that's not the case.  In fact, in that case it really doesn't even matter if he HAS a luck SA, since he'd never have the chance to use it.

The technique is even more effective if I have a very high strength and a Str+2 damage long sword (such as the character I've been practicing with).  If I have a strength of 6, he's taking a level 2 wound even if his Toughness is 7.  If his TO is only 4, he's dead...from a single die attack.  Make it a Thrusting attack with a Str+3 Rapier and its even worse.

So even aside from all of the stuff about whether the guard would actually use a simo attack or "playing him dumb", the numbers are pretty plain about the futility of using a simo attack as an effective counter (something the rule itself mentions).

[Brian Leybourne]

Sigh.

Of course I understand how combat works. I had to learn it's nuances very carefully to write the combat sim.

You're missing my point, and I can't be bothered trying to make it again. You win, since that seems to be important to you.

Brian.

[Valamir]

<sigh> It has nothing to do with winning.  Although I will admitt to being a little testy when a perfectly valid (and demonstratably effective) tactic is casually brushed off as foolish without any effort made to explain the reasoning.  If I am missing your point it is simply because you have yet to make one.  While I have outlined time and again the specific details of how such an attack works out mechanically and under what circumstances it is effective (basically any time the opponent has only 3 dice left in his pool and and Str+X damage is > opponent's TO) you have yet to respond with any specifics demonstrating to the contrary.

Barring that I'm afraid there can be nothing left to discuss.  No hard feelings I hope, but I remain unconvinced.

[Callan S.]

Ouch! But how does he do that? If both parties drop red dice, then this 10 CP guy just thinks 'Ah, time to go balistic' and uses all his dice. The only other way is to buy initaitive, which is expensive and tricky to do.

Its pretty easy for him Noon.  Valimir's one die attack is coming in the second phase, so he has no more dice to commit.  The opponent with the 3-4 dice just wears it and hits back.  No throwing red die for initiative and no need to buy it either.

I'd have to agree with Brian.  A 1 pt is just asking for trouble in the form of expulsion, BO&S, Grapple and may fav, as Brian pointed out, the smack back!
Aaron

Oh, the second exchange!

Ahhhh, I'm just vaguely remembering that option to just take it if you want. You probably guessed, I was thinking that with initiative from the high defense, only he could attack with one dice. I forgot you can just take it and hack back. I'll have to remember this in case my players try it too much.

In terms of grunt NPC's, it isn't exactly what a rent a cop would do I think. But then again humans are funny creatures. If one rent a cop runs in and see's his rent a cop buddy dead on the floor, it might not be about money any more...he might throw everything in. And I don't even mean SA's, just throwing what he's got in.

[Callan S.]

Ehh, looking it up I think Valamir is right, though the term 'simo attack' is missleading. It should be called 'Take it like a bitch then attack'...page 77, revised edition

"Finally, should the loser wish to attack during the next exchange (normally impossible), he has two choices. First, he may simply declare an attack. The winner attacks and resolves damage first; if the loser has any dice left, he can attack. This is a foolhardy maneuver."

The other option is buying init.

Brian, don't you have the unrevised version of the game? Is this bit in it?