Manoeuver Declarations during Combat

[Valamir]

Theres a couple HUGE problems to secret dice selection.

1) you turn the highly cerebral carefully fashioned combat mechanic into a guessing game.  Even if you have a range there's a HUGE difference between 6 and 10 dice.  Instead of being a wonderful match up mano-a-mano you wind up with "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong".  

2) This is not realistic.  Sword play was a serious business and a carefully studied science.  Masters didn't stake their lives on "guessing" right.  IN a real sword fight skill tells and secret CP allocation will turn the whole thing into luck.

3) People tend to think that the resolution system in TROS is finer than it is...since the pool is typically 10-15 dice, each die must be a fairly small fraction.  Wrong.  You get 5 wound levels.  Level 1 you generally shrug off.  Level 5 generally ends the fight.  There are only 4 steps between "Ignore it" and "dead".  EACH successful die is a wound level.  This is very very course resolution.  Being off by even 2 dice can be the difference between "just a flesh wound", and "oh shit I'm in trouble now".

Secret dice allocation is a HORRIBLE idea.  It will break the game.  Period.

[The Flashing Blade]

Valamir I appreciate the feedback.
And from the vehemence I will review my thoughts.
If you could expand upon your arguments though - as IMHO they actually go some way to reinforce my thoughts

[1) you turn the highly cerebral carefully fashioned combat mechanic into a guessing game. Even if you have a range there's a HUGE difference between 6 and 10 dice. Instead of being a wonderful match up mano-a-mano you wind up with "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong". ]

Is combat highly cerebral? - I would say it's instinctual. The system is - and as such can be cracked by percentages (as my players did) and the only risk is from freak dice roles.  It's then a case of "oh shit....I died because I rolled badly" as it is in every other game (anybody say D&D?).  In fact your line "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong" is probably the post-humous lament of every swordsman who's ever breathed their last breath.  Guessing wrong would kill you if someone's attacking you.

[2) This is not realistic. Sword play was a serious business and a carefully studied science. Masters didn't stake their lives on "guessing" right. IN a real sword fight skill tells and secret CP allocation will turn the whole thing into luck.]
Again is it?  If I pick up a sword it would be seriously dangerous (to me) but hardly a studied science.  Again I can only refer to literature where heroes defeat more powerful combatants on a poor decision made.  A "master" would still be able to allot dice to cover a range of possible dice allotted by the attacker and still have some spare.  As was written before what would be the difference visually between a 4CP thrust and a 5CP thrust?  I don't think realism enters into it.

I'll indulge myself with an example:
One of these 'Masters' has a combat pool of 20 and is facing number one pupil with a CP of 10.  Saying that the weapons are the same and they have a lower DTN than ATN number imagine the following scenerios:
Pupil I attack with 3 dice.
Master I defend with 4 dice (a proportional defense)
Pupil - aha I'm lucky - 3 successes!
Master (Doh!) - the chances are now I will get hit - I get 4 successes - luckily i defend. (Phew)
Now I open a Can of Whoopass on you grasshopper!!.

With the grouped numbers the combat would have been such:
Pupil I attack with a cautious thrust (1-5 dice).
Master hmmm cautious hey? well i better put in a 7 dice defense in case of a 5 dice attack
Pupil - 1 dice only - I get 1 success with my poke
Master - 5 successes on a defense.  I defend so easily (as they realistically would??)
Now given the extra effort put into the parry the master can only put 13 dice into the attack with which the pupil can defend with 9 - much more interesting - the decision keeps the combat alive for the pupil and actually lessens the luck factor based on clever tactics.

As i think through other examples the system still holds.

[3) People tend to think that the resolution system in TROS is finer than it is...since the pool is typically 10-15 dice, each die must be a fairly small fraction. Wrong. You get 5 wound levels. Level 1 you generally shrug off. Level 5 generally ends the fight. There are only 4 steps between "Ignore it" and "dead". EACH successful die is a wound level. This is very very course resolution. Being off by even 2 dice can be the difference between "just a flesh wound", and "oh shit I'm in trouble now". ]

It does make combat more risky - and lends a distinct advantage to those that attack first.  But again there is an argument that that is more realistic too.

[Secret dice allocation is a HORRIBLE idea.]
It may be - haven't decided yet.

[It will break the game. Period.]
It may do but I don't think you've proved that.

Rick

PS - sorry I don't know how to do the quotes on this forum yet.

[Valamir]

Is combat highly cerebral? - I would say it's instinctual. The system is - and as such can be cracked by percentages (as my players did) and the only risk is from freak dice roles.  It's then a case of "oh shit....I died because I rolled badly" as it is in every other game (anybody say D&D?).  In fact your line "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong" is probably the post-humous lament of every swordsman who's ever breathed their last breath.  Guessing wrong would kill you if someone's attacking you.

Well, I'm not a practioner, but several here are.  I'm sure Jake will chime in with his experience.  But everything I've read about real combat suggests that it was studied like a science.  In the renaissance scholars would learn swordsmanship right along side geometry, philosophy, and natural science.

Instinct?  Instinct is what you obtain after many many months of near constant drill and training.  

Thinking logically about dice and probabilities is a far closer approximation of the mental discipline of a swordsman than guessing a number and hopeing you get it right.

There are already rules for stop short and feints to account for those times when the swordsman is trying to sucker their opponent.

As i think through other examples the system still holds.

You will almost never be in a fight where you have a 10 die advantage on your opponent.  The difference between a good swordfighter and a great one is 5-6 dice.

As was written before what would be the difference visually between a 4CP thrust and a 5CP thrust? I don't think realism enters into it.

This is a completely backwards way to look at it.  You can't "sim" a sword fight with dice.  The best you can do is convey an appropriate feel.  The appropriate feel for a sword fight is a contest of wit and training.  Of discipline and knowledge.  Of out thinking your opponent.

The dice system for TROS conveys this feel.  
Secret allocation does not.  Secret allocation turns a sword fight into a shot in the dark.

It does make combat more risky - and lends a distinct advantage to those that attack first.  But again there is an argument that that is more realistic too.

I'd be interested in hearing where that argument comes from.  There are entire schools of weapon training predicated on the counter...where the idea is to be the guy who attacks second.

I think you have a rather strange view of what a sword fight looks like.

It may do but I don't think you've proved that.

I feel confident that i've played with the system enough to know how it works.  You may think that your "range of dice" idea gives a close approximation of the relative strength of the attack.  But it does not.  

Here's how it would work.

a) you select a number of dice but only tell me the range.
b) I guess
c) if I'm right I say whew, if I'm wrong I'm dead.

Why am I dead?  Because I either threw too few dice (and being too few by even 2 dice is the difference between in the fight, and out of the fight) or I threw too many.  If I threw too many, then you have a huge advantage for the second exchange in which case I die again.

Or, we both go so conservative in hording dice for defense that nothing ever happens.

Basically the entire combat comes down to a guess.  You might as well just play "pick a number between 1 and 10 and if you're right you win, and if you're wrong I win" and not even bother with the dice.  If you can't see that, its only because you haven't played enough with the system.

It wouldn't work.  And fortuneately its not necessary for realism.

PS - sorry I don't know how to do the quotes on this forum yet.

Surround the text with

or highlight it and use the quote button at the top.

[Brian Leybourne]

I'll indulge myself with an example:

With the grouped numbers the combat would have been such:
Pupil I attack with a cautious thrust (1-5 dice).
Master hmmm cautious hey? well i better put in a 7 dice defense in case of a 5 dice attack
Pupil - 1 dice only - I get 1 success with my poke
Master - 5 successes on a defense.  I defend so easily (as they realistically would??)
Now given the extra effort put into the parry the master can only put 13 dice into the attack with which the pupil can defend with 9 - much more interesting - the decision keeps the combat alive for the pupil and actually lessens the luck factor based on clever tactics.

Hey Blade,

The issue I have with your example is that you have taken a guy with a 10CP and a guy with a 20CP and balanced the fight between them. This should not be.. the 20CP guy can and should be able to wipe the floor with the 10CP guy as and when he wants. That's a massive range.

Try running your example with two guys who are close in CP (say both have 10), and you'll see that by having to always overestimate on defense, the guy who defends in the first exchange will be woefully unable to do much on the second exchange and will be squewered.

But good thoughts nonetheless, welcome to the fourm.

Brian.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Is combat highly cerebral? - I would say it's instinctual. The system is - and as such can be cracked by percentages (as my players did) and the only risk is from freak dice roles.  It's then a case of "oh shit....I died because I rolled badly" as it is in every other game (anybody say D&D?).  In fact your line "oh shit...I died because I guessed wrong" is probably the post-humous lament of every swordsman who's ever breathed their last breath.  Guessing wrong would kill you if someone's attacking you.

Well, I'm not a practioner, but several here are.  I'm sure Jake will chime in with his experience.  But everything I've read about real combat suggests that it was studied like a science.  In the renaissance scholars would learn swordsmanship right along side geometry, philosophy, and natural science.

If I may make an observation. A rennaisance-period duel is entirely different to a 12th century tournament melee. IMO, TRoS models the former brilliantly and the latter -- where there is less science and more Brute Force and Ignorance -- less successfully.

Swordsmanship was indeed studied like a science in the rennaisance -- but does that make the execution of that skill a science? Astrology was studied as a science -- does that make its practice a science?

In terms of the acquisition of fighting skills, do you think that most combatants in any period gained fighting skills by attending the school of a master?

Thinking logically about dice and probabilities is a far closer approximation of the mental discipline of a swordsman than guessing a number and hopeing you get it right.

That is a judgement call. For some, the fact that the better warrior has a larger dice pool is enough to distinguish the adept from the inept without the need to telegraph the precise details of an attacking manoeuvre. The last thing we want are a bunch of role-players with Palm Pilots running probability programs at the gaming table.

You will almost never be in a fight where you have a 10 die advantage on your opponent.  The difference between a good swordfighter and a great one is 5-6 dice.

That's interesting. I'd have expected that to be the case without SAs. Given the premise in TRoS that the skilled warrior picks their fights wisely (that is, when their SAs are firing but not, presumably, when their opponents are firing), I would have thought that the gap would be greater on a low-to-regular basis rather than seldom.

As was written before what would be the difference visually between a 4CP thrust and a 5CP thrust? I don't think realism enters into it.

This is a completely backwards way to look at it.  You can't "sim" a sword fight with dice.  The best you can do is convey an appropriate feel.  The appropriate feel for a sword fight is a contest of wit and training.  Of discipline and knowledge.  Of out thinking your opponent.

Is it though? In a rennaisance-period duel time and movement are generally not an issue -- you have as much time as you need and they are generally fought in places where there is room to move. By eliminating these environmental constraints, the swordsmen are indeed able to execute their manoeuvres like a chess game. Most parries are with distance. An attack always exposes the attacker to the risk of a counter. And so on. TRoS covers this combat environment brilliantly.

But other combat environments from other periods may not work this way.

Playing one of four pikemen walking abreast down a winding street with another three rows of four pikemen behind you, ordered to clear the street ahead of rebellious mallots, may not fit the TRoS mode of combat quite so easily. Success depends on maintenance of the formation, not the defeat of an individual opponent.

IMO, from what I've read it looks like TRoS is currently predicated on the idea that combats are usually resolved one-on-one with people who have been highly trained. It handles this combat environment brilliantly. On the other hand, not everyone games in an environment where these premises hold true.

It does make combat more risky - and lends a distinct advantage to those that attack first.  But again there is an argument that that is more realistic too.

I'd be interested in hearing where that argument comes from.  There are entire schools of weapon training predicated on the counter...where the idea is to be the guy who attacks second.

Surely this is period-specific? How many crusader knights were trained to receive the enemies' blow and then riposte?

Here's how it would work.

a) you select a number of dice but only tell me the range.
b) I guess
c) if I'm right I say whew, if I'm wrong I'm dead.

Why am I dead?  Because I either threw too few dice (and being too few by even 2 dice is the difference between in the fight, and out of the fight) or I threw too many.  If I threw too many, then you have a huge advantage for the second exchange in which case I die again.

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Firstly, in the above example, if the defender throws more dice and is successful then they win initiative for the second phase. Isn't that the case?

Secondly, if, as the defender, throwing two dice more or less than the attacker is the difference in the fight then, by the same argument, the defender is dead if their total CP is two or more dice less than the attacker. The attacker would declare all of their dice in the initial attack, the defender would be forced to decare all of their dice for the defense, it would be two or more less than the attacker, they would die.

Personally, I think it is inevitable that someone will create a character sheet for TRoS that includes a probability grid. The Probability Grid will show the player, at a glance, how many dice to throw as the defender to achieve a particular probability of successfully defending an attack of a particular number of dice. Not everyone would choose to use such a character sheet -- all those who prefer the Art of War to the Science of War -- but those that do will reduce combat to a numbers exercise and will be able to play the numbers more effectively.

On the other hand, declaring manoeuvres/dice in secret doesn't work with TRoS because any game design is an integrated package. Underlying the combat system and its playtest is the rule that the defender knows what manoeuvre and how many dice are inbound. Change that and the flow-on effect would be complicated. Personally I don't think that there is any need to change the system.

Cheers,

[Draigh]

Ian.Plumb wrote:

If I may make an observation. A rennaisance-period duel is entirely different to a 12th century tournament melee. IMO, TRoS models the former brilliantly and the latter -- where there is less science and more Brute Force and Ignorance -- less successfully.

I'll have to disagree with you there, Ian.  Even a grand melee breaks down into fights between two or three people at a time, which TRoS models quite well.  If I remember correctly, you stated earlier that you've not had any experience with TRoS combat other than the combat simulator, which is, with all due respect to Brian, not a wholly accurate reflection of how combat works.  It's pretty damned close though.  


Ian.Plumb wrote:

Swordsmanship was indeed studied like a science in the rennaisance -- but does that make the execution of that skill a science? Astrology was studied as a science -- does that make its practice a science?

You're arguing somantics here.   Art or science, the fact that swinging a yard long piece of steel into someone will likely injure them doesn't change.


Ian.Plumb wrote:

In terms of the acquisition of fighting skills, do you think that most combatants in any period gained fighting skills by attending the school of a master?

They learned from someone who knew more about it than they did.  Anyone can seem to be a master when you're ignorant.  My point here is that  the techinques of any effective fighting style don't just fall out of the sky, people work together and teach each other and refine their knowlege.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

IMO, from what I've read it looks like TRoS is currently predicated on the idea that combats are usually resolved one-on-one with people who have been highly trained.

This is not always the case.  I would wholeheartedly suggest purchasing the book to fully get a grasp of the system.  You won't get it in the Sim, you won't pick it up here, and none of us can tell you about it and lend any great level of proficiency in it.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

Firstly, in the above example, if the defender throws more dice and is successful then they win initiative for the second phase. Isn't that the case?

Yes, but assuming the combatants are evenly matched, the initial defender (who now has the initiative and the role of aggressor) is at a disadvantage because he has thrown too much of his CP into defence on the initial excange.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

Personally I don't think that there is any need to change the system.

I agree.

[Jake Norwood]

"Is it hot-hot-hot, or cold?"

Sorry, couldn't resist. That's a joke from SNL, for the uninitiated that are going "huh?"

I'll take a few issues on here, but probably not all.

Re: Combat as Art or Science
It's both, as stated by it's earliest European practicioners. I could dig up a date for quotes that that effect if need be. The idea of brutish men trying to kill each other without an element of "science" is patently flawed, however, and is really a product of the victorian age's tendency to revise history in a way that makes modern queer-theory look very tame. The earliest extant treatise on armed combat method within medieval Europe comes from the 1200s, and shows a tremendous amount of sophistication. In the 1300s you have tremendous works of very scientific approaches to personal violence. In fact, the differences between what we see in 1350 and 1650 are really only in the details--it's clear that little had changed but nomenclature and organization. This same phenomenon is evident in modern American prisons, where the prisoners train each other with shanks (knives) in techniques that are startlingly similar to the german and italian methods of the 1400s. How's that? When your life depends on it, it becomes a science. No wonder that the greatest leaps in science are always in times of war.

I find it not only senseless that fighting was ever based on "brute force and ignorance" for any space longer than a few years, but I feel that the weight of historical evidence from the earliest Greek civilization to the modern army. I cannot reccomend a book called "Carnage and Culture" enough at this moment.

Re: Grouping instead of specific quantities.
A specific quantity of dice is not a specific number of successes. Each gither gambles on how many of those incoming dice will be successful. Fate has allready decided, but the defender doesn't know what the decision is. Fighting is about gambling, but not guessing. Thus a swordsman that says "guessed wrong" really means "I took the wrong risk." This plays out beautifully in TROS combat. Understand also that I--perhaps as well as anyone anywhere--understand the flaws in converting real-world fighting to the tabletop of TROS...but it's still pretty darn accurate. Oh, and for the record--I wouldn't defend with 4 against 3 unless I was feeling really confident or had some luck dice laying around!

Also, Ian wrote "Again I can only refer to literature where heroes defeat more powerful combatants on a poor decision made." Excellent! I agree! It was a poor decision, not a guess! I've done it in TROS (Ralph/Valamir can testify) and I've done it in actual bouts with all manner of weapon. It happens, but it's a brain fart or a bad gamble--not a guess!

Re: the meaning of such groups
Here's another problem with grouping as you described, from a playability standpoint. If your standard "town guard" has only 8CP (entirely possible), then he is only capable of 2 cautious attacks, or one cautious and one all-out of some sort. I've been put "in the ring" with guys who definitely have only 5 CP dice "In real life" (hah), but they came at me with 2 big swings. Nonetheless, I encourage playtesting your idea to see if we're right, or full of it. It's the only way to be sure. Otherwise you're just taking our word for it.

Good discussion, but definitely hot hot hot.

Jake

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

If I may make an observation. A rennaisance-period duel is entirely different to a 12th century tournament melee. IMO, TRoS models the former brilliantly and the latter -- where there is less science and more Brute Force and Ignorance -- less successfully.

Even a grand melee breaks down into fights between two or three people at a time, which TRoS models quite well.

In a tournament melee there is a press, and an individual fights with their mates in order to isolate and capture an opponent. Rather than one-on-one combat, an effort is made to retain formation. It is these elements that I suspect, without having played the system, that TRoS may model less well than it does the duel.

If I remember correctly, you stated earlier that you've not had any experience with TRoS combat other than the combat simulator...

Your memory has betrayed you.

Swordsmanship was indeed studied like a science in the rennaisance -- but does that make the execution of that skill a science? Astrology was studied as a science -- does that make its practice a science?

You're arguing somantics here.   Art or science, the fact that swinging a yard long piece of steel into someone will likely injure them doesn't change.

This is possibly the finest example of taking a quote out of context that I have seen this year. Well done! The author made the observation that swordsmanship was a science, studied in the same manner as geometry -- the inference being that swordsmanship's application is as scientific as geometries'. Hence the need for a rebuttal. Nobody believes that swordsmanship is like geometry in its application.

In terms of the acquisition of fighting skills, do you think that most combatants in any period gained fighting skills by attending the school of a master?

They learned from someone who knew more about it than they did.  Anyone can seem to be a master when you're ignorant.  My point here is that  the techinques of any effective fighting style don't just fall out of the sky, people work together and teach each other and refine their knowlege.

A craftsman doesn't receive training in a fighting style. Nor does a prostitute. Nor the priest, nor the nun. And so on down through the vast bulk of people who live in any given period. There is no science to fighting when these people are the combatants.

Cheers,

[Valamir]

Lots of strange preconceptions about what fighting looks like from some of these posts.  Somewhere along the line the general gaming public bit hook line and sinker into the myth of the "dark ages" where brutish barely articulate barbarians bashed at each other with mighty thews until someone won.  That and they've generally read way to many crappy fantasy novels.

Human intellegence hasn't changed for thousands of years.  We have more accumulated knowledge now, but we are not appreciably smarter than men living 1000, 2000, 10,000 years ago.

Weapons are dangerous.  People who use weapons for a living will learn to use them well.  Fighting intelligently was not invented in the renaissance.  

Now, if someone wants to argue that people with 0 proficiency, or perhaps with proficiency lower than required to qualify for the basic maneuvers shouldn't get the advantage of knowing the attacker's dice in advance.  Fine.  That's probably a workable house rule.  I think its highly unnecessary as someone with a combat pool that low will get wiped up and down with no problem anyway...all such a rule would do is make him go from completely outclassed and certain to die, to completely outclassed and certain to die squared.  But if it makes one more comfortable with the rules...go for it.


To give specific answers to some specific statements.

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Firstly, in the above example, if the defender throws more dice and is successful then they win initiative for the second phase. Isn't that the case?

Yes.  Only as the new attacker you'll have wasted dice that you should have to throw into your attack.  But since you overestimated, you don't have them and the defender has alot more dice that you.  You attack.  The defender uses a simo block and strike or other similiar offense oriented defense and you're dead.

Secondly, if, as the defender, throwing two dice more or less than the attacker is the difference in the fight then, by the same argument, the defender is dead if their total CP is two or more dice less than the attacker. The attacker would declare all of their dice in the initial attack, the defender would be forced to decare all of their dice for the defense, it would be two or more less than the attacker, they would die.

A 2 die difference IS a noticeable advantage.  The weaker party will need to use a good bit of skill to overcome it.  A 4 die difference is a significant advantage.  The weaker party better be very skilled in the system or very lucky.  A 6 die difference is a dominant advantage.  TROS is a game that will punish you for being too cocky, but with a 6 die advantage...you don't have to be that worried (just don't get cocky).  At 8 dice...its pretty much scoffing time (except for the possibility of that really bad roll that keeps you on your toes).

With secret allocation you completely screw with this relationship.  All of the sudden the 4 die advantage guy finds himself at a 2 die disadvantage for no better reason than he guessed a number wrong.  No player skill.  No character skill.  Just a random guess.  It simply won't work.

Personally, I think it is inevitable that someone will create a character sheet for TRoS that includes a probability grid. The Probability Grid will show the player, at a glance, how many dice to throw as the defender to achieve a particular probability of successfully defending an attack of a particular number of dice. Not everyone would choose to use such a character sheet

So... What is the phobia about probabilities? How does this hurt the game?  Answer:  not at all.  

In some games there is no real strategy to the system itself.  Alls the "to hit" roll does is add randomness which has to be planned for...and so knowing the probability takes even that rudimentary strategy away

But in TROD there is absolutely zero problem with knowing exactly how many dice at DTN 6 it takes to defend a 6 die ATN 7 attack with 95% certainty.  ZERO problem.  TROS's system works because of the choices players make making them more knowledgeably actually helps the sytem.

-- all those who prefer the Art of War to the Science of War -- but those that do will reduce combat to a numbers exercise and will be able to play the numbers more effectively.

This isn't a question of Art vs. Science.  Its the difference between being prepared and not being prepared.  Honestly, my feelings regarding those who don't want to take the time to be prepared is simply "Too bad".

TROS is a system that requires the players to think.  It is not a purely character driven system where all the player has to do is decide to attack or not and then roll some dice.  Player's skill is an important factor.  

There is nothing wrong with learning everything you can about how to win a fight.  This isn't in the least bit "gamey" its a perfect simulation of how real people with real weapons fought.  They prepared.  They took the time to learn how to fight well.  In reality that meant understanding their equipment and how to use it.  In the game that means understanding probabilities and how to use them.

But in truth, you don't really need a probability table.  Understanding "more dice is better" and rolling dice pools often enough to get a feel for the range of successes a given roll will produce is perfectly fine.  Roll 8d10 20 times and you'll have pretty much the same knowledge on the range of likely results as someone who did the math and calculated the standard deviation (at least enough to make sound judgements on how many dice to roll if you want to be sure, and how few you can get away with if you want to take a risk).  It doesn't take a stats whiz to figure out how to use the dice effectively.

On the other hand, declaring manoeuvres/dice in secret doesn't work with TRoS because any game design is an integrated package. Underlying the combat system and its playtest is the rule that the defender knows what manoeuvre and how many dice are inbound. Change that and the flow-on effect would be complicated. Personally I don't think that there is any need to change the system.

On that we're in full agreement.

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

(Art or Science?) It's both, as stated by it's earliest European practicioners. I could dig up a date for quotes that that effect if need be. The idea of brutish men trying to kill each other without an element of "science" is patently flawed, however, and is really a product of the victorian age's tendency to revise history in a way that makes modern queer-theory look very tame.

For me, this is incorrect. The reason it is incorrect is because we're talking about different things.

An RPG combat system caters for all combat that takes place within the gaming framework. TRoS combat looks like it is designed to cater for combat between warriors. Based on this premise, what you've said here is correct to some degree (I'd still argue that combat between heavily armoured warriors has a larger degree of Brute Force involved in its resolution than than that of a rennaisance duel).

Is that the bulk of combat that takes place within the gaming environment though? I would argue that combat between those of military training is rarer than that between those without. And combat between those without seldom results in a death.

Perhaps TRoS will model the scenes of a bourgeois uprising, or a tavern brawl, or any other non-military combat. I look forward to seeing it in action.

Also, Ian wrote "Again I can only refer to literature where heroes defeat more powerful combatants on a poor decision made."

Not my quote. ; ^ )

Cheers,

[Ian.Plumb]

Hi,

Lots of strange preconceptions about what fighting looks like from some of these posts.  Somewhere along the line the general gaming public bit hook line and sinker into the myth of the "dark ages" where brutish barely articulate barbarians bashed at each other with mighty thews until someone won.  That and they've generally read way to many crappy fantasy novels.

Are you saying your argument is based on these misconceptions or someone else's? If your own then look, don't be so harsh on yourself. There is a lot of miseducation that we need to de-program from the general gaming public. Concepts like gaming environments where there is little if any rule of law, yet trade is possible and a centralised government.

Nobody has actually stated what you are railing against.

What was said was:

1) The outcome of a rennaisance duel had little to do with brute force.

2) A medieval melee between heavily armoured combatants had more to do with brute force.

Nobody has said that the latter was all about brute force.

Cheers,

[Ben Lehman]

I'm not a martial artist of any significant caliber, but just as a mathematical observation:

Guessing is, effectively speaking, a randomized element.  If you want to include it, you should take out the other random element (die rolling) and just use chits.  Doubling up your randomization does funky things to your probability.

Which is another way of saying that the guessing and such of a sword-fight are already included in the TRoS system -- they are imbedded in the die rolls that you make after you declare intentions (and think about it -- what ELSE are you rolling for?)  It all depends on where you want your randomness to come from, and debating it is a bit like debating rolling d3 vs playing RPS.  The TRoS system is built around dice-driven probability -- replacing it with guessing-game based probability in any effective manner will most likely involve a completely gutting and reshaping of the rules engine.

yrs--
--Ben

[Valamir]

For me, this is incorrect. The reason it is incorrect is because we're talking about different things.

An RPG combat system caters for all combat that takes place within the gaming framework. TRoS combat looks like it is designed to cater for combat between warriors. Based on this premise, what you've said here is correct to some degree (I'd still argue that combat between heavily armoured warriors has a larger degree of Brute Force involved in its resolution than than that of a rennaisance duel).

Is that the bulk of combat that takes place within the gaming environment though? I would argue that combat between those of military training is rarer than that between those without. And combat between those without seldom results in a death.

Perhaps TRoS will model the scenes of a bourgeois uprising, or a tavern brawl, or any other non-military combat. I look forward to seeing it in action.

It doesn't matter.  You are really predicting a problem that doesn't exist.  Its a rule that adds nothing to the outcome of the combat.  A rule that does nothing is not a very good rule.


What do I mean by this:  some examples.

1) Completely untrained peon with a CP of 4 goes up against a knight with a CP12.  Under the rules as written how does this combat end.  Badly for the peon.  He's dead as quickly as the knight wants to kill him.  So what if his player knew exactly how many dice the knight threw.

Lets say you play with a rule that says the peon's player doesn't know because the character isn't good enough to.  Ok.  So what.  Whats changed?  You just made the fight tougher for the guy who's going to get his ass beat anyway.  Net benefit to the game...zero.

2) Lets have 2 peons square off against each other.  Both have CP 4.  At this low a level they don't have any real access to maneuvers, and any player skill is going to be minimal because there simply aren't that many choices on what to throw...you only have 4 dice.  So the end result is going to pretty much be random.  Who ever gets the better rolls will win.  Mostly luck.

Again lets say you're playing with a rule that says niether of these guys is good enough to judge his opponent so dice allocations are made in secret.  Ok. you've just made the battle...even MORE random.  It was going to be decided by luck anyway, its decided by luck now.  Net benefit to the game...zero.

Why add a rule that does nothing?


Further I think those suggesting that the uncertainty of the secret allocation would be a good thing are forgetting that there's a big source of uncertainty to the game already.  See the knight doesn't KNOW the peon only has 4 dice.

Some might think that the added uncertainty of using a range of rolls would keep the knight guessing a little bit if he didn't know exactly what the peon was going to throw.  But that's already built into the game as is.  The knight doesn't know the peon only has 4 dice.  He might be an 8 or 10 die peon.  So a wise knight player is going to face the peon cautiously because of that uncertainty.   This is equally true of knight on knight combat also.

The uncertainty effect is already present in the system as is.  Again.  Why add a rule that does nothing?


Another thing that I think people are missing out is how the die pool is calculated.  Its Reflex + Proficiency.  Reflex is unlikely to be higher than 6 for most characters.  For average joe nobody its most likely going to be 4 or 5.

To that is added the Proficiency.  Proficiency implies knowing what you're doing.  An average nobody with only 2 levels of proficiency is going to have a CP of 6 maybe 7.  The typical guy who knows his way around a sword is going to be 12-13.  The beginner who knows a little is going to be 8-10.  The advantage of the expert to the novice is already built into the CP difference.

Someone who truly has no proficiency at all is going to have a very low CP.  Period.  There is no case possible where a complete newb whose never held a weapon is going to have a CP of 10.  It just can't happen.  If he's got a CP of 10-12 then he's had training of some kind and knows (to some extent) what he's doing.

It really isn't any clearer than that.

[Ingenious]

Valamir, IMO, your views are defeated by the simple fact that under the premise of knowing how many dice someone throws... there is no way for a character to under-estimate his foe. I had done this in my first session, the under-estimating of a guy that I didnt know had a combat pool of almost 30 with his SA's firing. I figured a level 3 wound to the neck would have weakened him enough for me to get my licks in.. but alas, it was not so. So in turn, when I wedged my halberd into the guy's left clavicle.. I excepted him to be out of dice.... but alas, it was still not the case. And this leaves my combat-geared character to almost shit his pants and run. But another level 4 to the same area did enough to give him a blood loss of around 40-50.. and I finished him off with a level 5 thrust to the head.

I much would rather see the possibility of being under-estimated, over-estimated, etc etc... rather than not see it at all. It ads a HELL of alot more flavor to 'oh, so he is only throwing X number of dice?... well then I will counter by throwing X number of dice'.
::edited to note that there is still SOME level of possibility of under/over estimation of an opponent.. but only to the level of ATN and DTN numbers he is trying to acheive. This system would therefore rely more on LUCK to win a battle, not just skill or knowing how many dice the guy has. And as we know, luck in a battle had little to do with it historically

::edit #2 And if you further want to make things more realistic... rather than having the proficiency level and reflex equal the number of dice you throw and rely on a weapon's ATN... why not also have the amount of proficiency reflect that in a lower ATN? perhaps for ever 2 or 3 levels of profciency, rounded down... lower the ATN by 1.

::edit #3 Funny story about under-estimating someone. As I have first had experience with it now that I remember. Now, as a few of your know... Zaziel was a student of fencing. Having had a curiosity of this for some-time, I challenged him to a duel. I had no helmet, a foil... he had the helmet, and a plastic light-saber. Needless to say I under-estimated his skill with a plastic light-saber used as a rapier... and got stabbed in the eye.(level 0 wound, contact forced out of socket) Now then, if he had the foil AND the helmet.. I'd probably be looking like a pirate now.

-Ingenious
God = Me.

[Draigh]

To whom it may concern:

If the rules don't make sense to you, or if you have a better idea, by all means, play it.  If it works for you and your group, more power to you.  Hell, for all I care, you can throw spitwads at each other and call it Riddle.  There are many here who understand the line of thought and reasoning behind the system as it stands, and agree that it's the most logical.  If you aren't one of those, then do it however it suits you.  

This whole thread just seems argumentative.

Can we agree to disagree?