Manoeuver Declarations during Combat

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

I am unfamiliar with TRoS and I am trying to gain an understanding of the combat sequence and the design philosophy behind it. I've been playing with the combat simulator in order to gain some familiarity with the combat turn sequence.

The combat simulator has the attacker declare their manoeuver and the number of dice they're allocating to the attack, and then the defender declares their manoeuver and number of dice. Is this the same as the in-game sequence?

If so, I'm curious as to why the defender knows what the attacker is going to do, and how much effort the attacker is putting behind the attack, before deciding their response. This feels like too much information.

Cheers,

[Draigh]

The sequencing is correct, as you have described.  I can't speak for Jake, but it seems to me that the reason the attacker declares the manuver and number of dice allocated to it is to reflect that a trained martial artist can usually see what his opponent is doing, what kind of attack he's making, and how dedicated to it he seems to be.

I think another reason might be to keep things fair.  If you're throwing an attack to zone IV and I'm trying to block with a sheild, there's no gaurantee that you're not going to pad your rolls or even your CP unless you declare your number of dice thrown.

I could be off by a million miles, but it makes sense to me.

[Ingenious]

Yes, but the key factor being is that not ALL of our characters have reflexes and can sense all of that stuff. Which is why, in a game of average joe's.. I like to not have to show my combat dice until I roll them.
A Defensive roll however, does not matter... as the attack has already been swung, so it makes no difference if everyone knows how many dice you are going to throw.

*shrug* I could also be off in my thoughts as well.

-Ingenious

[Draigh]

It's very easy to keep from giving away exactly how many dice you have in your CP by "sandbagging" or not using all of your dice, so that you lull your opponent into a false sense of security.

[Ingenious]

Or by using feints or such I suppose.
But your point is noted.
However, that should be able to go both ways should it not? If an attacker can lull the defender into a false sense of security, could the defender also not do the inverse?

-Ingenious

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

I can't speak for Jake, but it seems to me that the reason the attacker declares the manuver and number of dice allocated to it is to reflect that a trained martial artist can usually see what his opponent is doing, what kind of attack he's making, and how dedicated to it he seems to be.

This seems a little fanciful to me. A feint or a beat or a stop works because the defender misinterprets the attacking manoeuver itself, let alone how committed the attacker is to the manoeuver.

I think another reason might be to keep things fair. If you're throwing an attack to zone IV and I'm trying to block with a sheild, there's no gaurantee that you're not going to pad your rolls or even your CP unless you declare your number of dice thrown.

If someone in the gaming group is prepared to cheat in order to win then it'll take more than a rules mechanism to sort out the problem.

If the defender doesn't know how many dice the attacker has committed to the attack I think it becomes inevitable that the defender will under or over commit at some point and probably very early in the combat. A 1 dice attack will be defended with ten dice or vice versa. Defending would become a guessing game with even more emphasis placed on obtaining and retaining initiative.

Yet we know that it is easier to defend than it is to attack in melee combat. The declaration sequence gives the right balance here, even if it doesn't seem to be simulating the real world directly.

I would like to know whether (at some point in the playtest for TRoS) the designers flirted with the idea of declaring attack/defense manoeuver in secret. Perhaps a grid of manoeuvers where the player places a dice on the manoeuver they want to perform, and then both reveal simultaneously? If the dice used was a d20 then the upper number could have been used to declare how many dice will be subsequently rolled.

Cheers,

[Ashren Va'Hale]

Having played with some swords in a sparring and freeplay scenario, I found that generally I could judge what the attack was and how much oomph was behind it if not consciously at least on some level that interpets VERY well into the system. Notice that the beat maneuver is precisely where it is because the defender can stop it and sees what is happening. The feint however occurs AFTER the attacker declares initial dice and teh defender declares defense, thus decieving the defender. The stop short also does not function is a dice v dice soprt of way and the rules also reflect well this maneuvers uinique characteristics.

In short the rules reflect very well on how things work in a fight.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Having played with some swords in a sparring and freeplay scenario, I found that generally I could judge what the attack was and how much oomph was behind it...

So you're saying that from your experience in real-world melee combat that as a combatant you could judge when the attacker was putting 6 fifteenths of their effort into a slashing attack to the shoulder prior to deciding what you're response should be?

Fair enough.

Cheers,

[Anthony I]

Ian,

You may be reading Ashren's reply too literally.  You can easily tell how much oomph the attacker is putting into his blow by how far he is moving his arms and from where the blow is originating- in real life I can see if its a blow with a "lot" or a "little" oomph.  But "lots" & "little" don't translate well to game mechanics for what TROS is doing.  Therefore the combat pool.

Could I tell you if you were using 5/16's of your strength vs. 6/16's- no.  Could I tell you if you were striking hard vs. soft?  Yes, unless you feinted- therefore the manuvers in the TROS system.  It's a really slick and elegent system, I just wish my regular game group liked it.

(Just realized I basically repeated everything Ashren already said)

[Salamander]

a fellow scholar, and while we will most likely never meet, has it right in my book. I have trained with the longsword since January, 2003 and know where he is coming from. You can readily tell how much heat a guy is putting into his swing and the better you are, the longer you will wait before you commit to defence or counter (counter is the German way!) so as to make it harder for him to feint.

As for an inexperienced opponent not being able to know what the other guy is doing, I think that is covered in the CPs...

Fighter A: 15CP in Longsword.

Fighter B: 5CP in Cut & Thrust.

If both players are close in their skill then we know which character is most likely to walk away from this one...

[Jake Norwood]

This has floated a few ways, and I can't address it all, but...

This seems a little fanciful to me. A feint or a beat or a stop works because the defender misinterprets the attacking manoeuver itself, let alone how committed the attacker is to the manoeuver.

True. In TROS terms these maneuvers alter die flow. Sometimes, as with the beat in TROS rules, it's chess-like, relying on set-up. In others, like the feint, it's more like what you describe. It's all there, though, I promise.

I would like to know whether (at some point in the playtest for TRoS) the designers flirted with the idea of declaring attack/defense manoeuver in secret. Perhaps a grid of manoeuvers where the player places a dice on the manoeuver they want to perform, and then both reveal simultaneously?

At great and painful length, I assure you. We opted away from grids of manevuers for two reasons:

1) elegance. As is there's quite a bit of referencing to do in-combat, especially early in one's play career. This is an area where we opted for abstraction over detail. In the end we/I decided that the current layout was the most efficient and functional.

2) it's what the "old masters" appear to have been able to do, and as such it's constantly described in the source manuals, etc. Things like "if he strikes hard at your left ear, then respond by doing x, but if he comes in softly react by doing y, and if he feints, counter by doing z" I'm happy to say that as my own skill and study with a sword has moved forward, that this is the way it works. I'd be lying if I said I understood that when I penned TROS...I'm just glad that it's turned out to be in agreement.

The best thing to do would be to play against a live human and see what permutations start happening. You'll find that thinking 2 moves ahead--where you have no idea what the attack is going to be--becomes a very real issue. It's very cerebral, really.

Jake

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

I would like to know whether (at some point in the playtest for TRoS) the designers flirted with the idea of declaring attack/defense manoeuver in secret. Perhaps a grid of manoeuvers where the player places a dice on the manoeuver they want to perform, and then both reveal simultaneously?

At great and painful length, I assure you. We opted away from grids of manevuers for two reasons:

1) elegance. As is there's quite a bit of referencing to do in-combat, especially early in one's play career. This is an area where we opted for abstraction over detail. In the end we/I decided that the current layout was the most efficient and functional.

2) it's what the "old masters" appear to have been able to do, and as such it's constantly described in the source manuals, etc. Things like "if he strikes hard at your left ear, then respond by doing x, but if he comes in softly react by doing y, and if he feints, counter by doing z" I'm happy to say that as my own skill and study with a sword has moved forward, that this is the way it works. I'd be lying if I said I understood that when I penned TROS...I'm just glad that it's turned out to be in agreement.

A couple of points in response:

1) I'm glad that you abandoned the manoeuver grid and declaring manoeuvers in secret. Whether deliberate or inadvertent, it neatly ensures that the defender has an inherent advantage over the attacker. It also stops the objective of the attack being to "trick" the defender into under/over committing on the number of dice rolled.

2) The more I read TRoS and read the posts of its advocates here in the forum the more it feels to me like TRoS combat is absolutely perfect for simulating dueling, less acurate for melee combat, and would break down somewhat for "military" combat (say formation combat, even on a small scale). I'm not refering to the mechanics breaking down per se but rather the sense that the mechanics are producing the most accurate result.

3) In a real world gaming environment, unless you are running a scenario set amidst a military campaign chances are that almost everyone you meet will not have had combat training. How do you think TRoS will cope with scaling down to such an environment?

I know TRoS is going to be a joy to play. Our gaming group has agreed to take a break from our usual game to play TRoS. I'll be running a character generation and rules learning session, followed by a scenario designed for two four hour sessions, early in the New Year.

Cheers,

[StahlMeister]

It's a really slick and elegent system, I just wish my regular game group liked it.

Just let them play TROS only one time and You'll have them!!!
I had a D&D fixed group, never playing another Fantasy RPG. I only told one of them that I had a new system which is THE game.
One evening, only one session and everyone was fascinated and fell in love with TROS.

I think this is no problem.

[Lance D. Allen]

Quick note/rant: I love TRoS. I dislike DnD greatly. TRoS is a great game.

But that does not mean that TRoS will be accepted with open arms by anyone who tries it. It also does not mean that it is your failing as a Seneschal if your group doesn't like it. Likewise, it is not a flaw with your group.

TRoS does an awesome job of satisfying certain goals and preferences in play. It doesn't satisfy certain other goals. It's not designed to.

DnD is a great game for people who enjoy certain types of play. This type of play is not inferior. The magic system in DnD is not inferior to TRoS's just different. The combat system is not inferior. The character class/level system is not inferior. I dislike all of these aspects of DnD, but that does not make them bad, only bad for me.

We're all here, presumably, because we love TRoS. That doesn't make it right to badmouth other games. We're most all of us here on the Forge because we like certain indie games, or just the idea of independently owned and published games, but that doesn't mean it's good to badmouth mainstream, corporately owned games. We can discuss perceived flaws in a game, we can compare and contrast and point out why we like TRoS better, but to call these games which have, in one incarnation or another, satisfied gamers for many years bad is a disservice to the industry as a whole.

/rant

Okay, I'm done. Just been seeing alot of this lately, although not all aimed at DnD.

[The Flashing Blade]

Hi,
First time writing to this forum - still trying to digest all the info on here.

I have a lot of sympathy with Ian's initial query regarding declaring the amount of CP allotted in secret.  During my play testing with an experienced group of players they had pretty much got the combat risk factor down to a science and would allot their CPs accordingly.  in response to some of the replies to the thread I can only say - I've never tried sword fighting but a childhood spent boxing taught me that the difference between a tentative jab and a solid jab is not that easy to tell before your ears start ringing, you avoid them both the same.

I am looking at the idea of giving indicators rather than actual amounts.  So 1-5 CP is a jab or poke or quick slash whilst 6-10 would be a solid blow or lunge.  11-15 would be called something else but still give the opponent an indicator.  This could go on "inhuman", to point where it is simply too quick to judge whether it's 30 dice or 50 dice in the attack.
The safety conscious PC would then probably always choose a higher number of dice to defend with.  It essentially makes combats more risky and the daring combatent either wins quickly or ends up dead.

Would be interested to hear ideas on this -

Rick