1st TROS(QS) session, question

[Loki]

Tonight my group made up their d20 characters into TROSQS characters (surprisingly easy, if you concentrate on their personalities and not powers). We ran some combats using the TROS Quickstart Rules and really liked it. It was really simple to run fights, and they resolved quickly. Plus the piles and piles of dice are a lot of fun.

One thing that came up during the combats is how to best resolve a combat with multiple characters. Our first combat was a 3 v 3 brawl that devolved to swords. We resolved each duel separately, and in the first duel a PC (who sadly was not wearing a helmet), lost a head after two rounds. The other two characters defeated their opponents in three or four rounds.

The player with the headless character wondered why his opponent didn't go help his comrades once his duel was over. A long discussion of the varying length of rounds ensued, the time after bringing down an opponent spent catching your breath, looking around, wiping gore out of your eyes, etc... :)

In the end the result of the combat was judged satisfactory, but the abstract question remains: how do you run combats where different duels resolve significantly faster (ie more than just a few seconds) than others?

We had the idea of running a combat until a "sensible" stopping point: a major wound, a round where no one attacks, someone breaking off melee, etc. Then switching to another duel, running it until another stop, etc. Then allowing characters to reassess, engage new opponents, etc.

The cool bit of story-telling in the beginning of the QS rulebook seems like it could work that way. The good guys are attacked, a furious exchange takes place, some people drop... pause to allow reassessment... and the bad guys all break off and run.

Any suggestions, anecdotes, etc on how to run these kinds of fights?

[Jasper]

I've always just considered the combat rounds in one combat to be basically equivalent to those in another, and then kept track of how long each one goes for.  So if one combat resovles in one round (happens all the time) and another is still going on, the winner of the first could jump over into the second...I'd probably require a round for this to happen though, depending on how physically far apart the combats are -- if they're right next to one another, maybe no time at all.

[Loki]

So if one combat resovles in one round (happens all the time) and another is still going on, the winner of the first could jump over into the second...

That makes sense. What if the first combat is longer than the second? So combat one takes 5 rounds and results in PC1 losing head. Combat two takes one round and PC2 survives. How do you deal with PC2 wanting to go help PC1 "before" his head is lopped off? With the degree of lethality, it's tempting to want to give players a chance to save each others' characters. Not to mention that 2v1 is such a huge advantage in combat that it's extremely likely a 2nd combatant joining a duel would change the outcome.

[Lxndr]

Well, handle all combat "rounds" simultaneously, rather than playing one whole combat out, then going to the next.

That could help.

[Draigh]

@Lxndr:

I've seen it done like that before, it tends to break down like DnD and gets to be an ugly mess real quick.  I don't recommend doing that.

YMMV

[Brian Leybourne]

It *is* difficult, for the very reason you describe.

I think the best way is simply to run each duel for a couple of rounds (or, as you say, until a logical satopping point) and then move onto the next, etc.

That way, theree's a reasonable chance that if one duel ends quickly there will be a chance to a character to go and help another. If it doesn't work out, well, that's one reason the rounds are variable length.

eg: Duel one takes 4 rounds, PC1 gets head chopped off. The next duel only takes 3 rounds and PC2 wins. PC2 says "But I could have helped PC1 by that time and he wouldn't have been killed". Seneschal replies that since rounds are 1-2 seconds in length, duel 1 actually took a shorter period of time than duel 2, even though it had more rounds in it.

Having said that, I actually fix all rounds at 2 seconds in my games (thus each exchange is 1 second), because it helps me assess when missile fire occurs etc, but the above works for canon tros.

Brian.

[Loki]

Having said that, I actually fix all rounds at 2 seconds in my games (thus each exchange is 1 second), because it helps me assess when missile fire occurs etc, but the above works for canon tros.

Brian, since you fix all your rounds at 2 seconds, does that mean you do the "round-the-table" D&D style? If not, what do you do when PC2 wants to "go back in time" and help PC1 before his head lands on the floor? Or is it just something that your group agrees to accept as one of the mechanics of the game?

[gregkcubed]

ok, i was one of the players last night with loki..

I think the way it worked out was fine.. we tried to pick the fights that we thought would go the fastest and run those first (except for the first trial combat where the "ex-d20-monk" found that his fists couldn't get through steel and was eventually head-splatted.)

First impression, super fun combat system. I think the tricky part is going to be for us to get out of our d20 habits of "rounds" and actions and such and get used to the idea that these battles happen quite quickly.

We didn't get a chance to test it out, and there aren't any examples IIRC in the QS docs: are 2 x 1 combats just slaughterfests? Does the outnumbered guy have to try to keep his dice pool in reserve? Obviously running out of dice due to shock or having to defend too many times would result in some rather funny blood-letting events.

gk3

[Brian Leybourne]

Brian, since you fix all your rounds at 2 seconds, does that mean you do the "round-the-table" D&D style? If not, what do you do when PC2 wants to "go back in time" and help PC1 before his head lands on the floor? Or is it just something that your group agrees to accept as one of the mechanics of the game?

No, we don't do it that way. I move around to make tyhings as dramatic as possible, stick with one pairing for a few rounds, move to the next etc. They always get a chance to help each other out. What happens if one is in serious danger and another turns out to have been available to help...?

Honestly, it's not really come up.

My players don't get into fights unless they're important, and when they're important (i.e. SA's are firing off) then they don't tend to lose. However, it is true that if someone starts to fare poorly, I will usually move away from them and onto others, so that if the others get finished they can help the struggling ones. I don't get too overly anal about exactly how many rounds and/or seconds each pair takes, to be honest. It's just useful when someone is sitting up a tree firing off arrow shots and you want to know the exact exchange that the arrow lands in. That fixes those guys at 2 second rounds, but the paring off to their left who DON'T have missile fire involved can still have variable length rounds, giving fudge time if it's needed.

Essentially, yeah, we avoid getting too anal about it, and as I said, my players know that combat in TROS is not to be entered into lightly. Most combats they get into they already know they're going to win.

We didn't get a chance to test it out, and there aren't any examples IIRC in the QS docs: are 2 x 1 combats just slaughterfests? Does the outnumbered guy have to try to keep his dice pool in reserve? Obviously running out of dice due to shock or having to defend too many times would result in some rather funny blood-letting events.

Not at all, I have seen plenty of 2-on-1 fights. As long as the "1" keeps his head and uses terrain to his advantage it's quite doable, especially if, as I said above, the fight is important to him and he has SA's to his advantage. I also use an expanded terrain ruleset (which may make its way into TFOB, but that depends on Jake) which helps out there too.

Bloodloss? Yeah, that's nifty. I have seen edgy fights won by wounding the other guy and then keeping defensive, harrying him just enough that he can't stop to bandage, but otherwise staying defensive to keep the danger level right down, and wait until he bleeds out. That's a pretty good tactic if you're outclassded but you can get a single bleeding wound in.

Brian.

[Stephen]

[Not at all, I have seen plenty of 2-on-1 fights. As long as the "1" keeps his head and uses terrain to his advantage it's quite doable, especially if, as I said above, the fight is important to him and he has SA's to his advantage. I also use an expanded terrain ruleset (which may make its way into TFOB, but that depends on Jake) which helps out there too.

Part of the problem is that there are no terrain rules in the QS book; all but the barest bones of the combat system were left out in order to save space (and, I confess, to give people incentives to buy the main book).

If you think you're getting a cool combat system now, you really should try the complete package.  It is worth the investment, believe me.

[Loki]

Heh, yesterday one of the guys in the group ordered it. :)

[Mulciber]

Brian: ". . .expanded terrain ruleset. . ."
Me: <perk>

So I'd like to see these, if they don't go in to FoB.  Please.

Best,
Will

[Brian Leybourne]

If it doesn't go into TFOB (which it probably will) then I'll put it on a webpage somewhere as long as Jake doesn't mind (which he probably wont).

Brian.