'Crunchy' scene-resolution

[Lxndr]

Not necessarily the "speediest."  Just the "winner."  You could suck at speed, but still "win."

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Windthin, you're misinterpreting Clinton's description of the Burning Wheel's "scripting" mechanic. It doesn't operate as a pre-planned set of events for a scene or scenario; it's a framework of moves during combat that can be pre-empted or changed during resolution. Despite the name, it ends up being profoundly un-scripted in application.

Everyone, to see some older discussion of issues raised in this thread, see The four steps of action and Task vs. conflict and scene vs. action. Both of them were posted in response to my essay "GNS and related matters of role-playing," so if you haven't checked that out yet, it might interest you too.

Best,
Ron

[Mike Holmes]

I think that The Riddle of Steel might be up your alley. It has lot's of nifty tactical play, but combats are still resolved in short order. Basically it makes combat, shorter, more realisitic and more dramatic all at once.

Look for it in the forum on the Indie Games page here on the Forge.

Mike

[Sir Thomas]

I think that The Riddle of Steel might be up your alley. It has lot's of nifty tactical play, but combats are still resolved in short order. Basically it makes combat, shorter, more realisitic and more dramatic all at once.

I was under the impression that TRoS' combat was quite complex. Is that incorrect?

[Jack Aidley]

This is an interesting suggestion, but how would you suggest determining who?  Furthermore, how do you apply this to a combat with many participants on both sides?  If this becomes a matter of survival of the speediest... well, this would be the most extreme example I've seen.  Also, where do non-damage-inducing actions fall into place?  Do you assume they happen unhindered?  This idea, I feel, needs a little more fleshing if it is to work.  You might really want to go to a rolling init, constantly moving, and forego rounds altogether then.

Unfortunately identifying the problem is much easier than fixing it. Particularly with 3e's already complicated mix of variables. I'd atart by dropping initative altogether. Then the attack rolls would be made simulataniously (sp?) the highest result being the winner. Which, of course, immediately leaves the problems of multiple attacks and armour to be resolved. Multiple attacks could be resolved as one-sided rolls (i.e. only the one with the extra attack can 'win' the other can only avoid being damaged), multiple participants could be resolved in the same way.

Then, of course, all the damaging spells would need to be rebalanced, and we still haven't dealt with armour, or feats. Hmmm.... Probably there's too much work to be done for it to be worth refitting 3e to work this way, but I maintain it's a good principle for combat design.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'survival of the speediest', I was envisioning a roll made by each side based on their skill determining the winner, not a speed check.

[Mike Holmes]

I was under the impression that TRoS' combat was quite complex. Is that incorrect?

Sorta?

Depends on what you consider complex. Yes, the strategy is complex, but that, I take it is not a problem. In fact, you'd like to keep that part of things intact, right? As far as technical stuff during combat, it's not too extreme. The most complicated part is understanding what the maneuvers do; playing without them would be a pretty simple game (and would work, too).

There are some "little rules" here and there to learn, but not too many. Most importantly, however, since combat is not attrition, you only play a few rounds at most. Meaning that combats resolve quickly, realistically, strategically, and dramatically.

How about this, it's only more complex than D&D in it's strategy. Basically, anything that makes the combat longer, or more complex is a good thing in TROS, something that you'll enjoy in play.

Mike

[Windthin]

Hello,

Windthin, you're misinterpreting Clinton's description of the Burning Wheel's "scripting" mechanic. It doesn't operate as a pre-planned set of events for a scene or scenario; it's a framework of moves during combat that can be pre-empted or changed during resolution. Despite the name, it ends up being profoundly un-scripted in application.

Hmmmm... I see.  I will have to take a look at this, definitely, but this sounds like a case, then, of action and reaction, of attack and counterattack from a set series of moves?  Just trying to get a feel for what I will be looking at here.

As for Mr. Jack's response... I had been under the impression you were thinking of some sort of speed check.  A matter of skill checks... now that is an interesting possibility, I admit, though that does feel like it removes speed entirely.  This seems then to become more a matter of dancing about each other, looking for openings, the parry and thrust, and the blows that land are the blows clearly that found the openings they sought.  Yes... I can see this now.  How it might be done... well, it holds possibilities.  And it seems to favor the skilled while leaving the less-skilled a chance, something I do appreciate.