What should a gol grunt NPC do against a PC with more dice(CP 14) and a very good bastard sword(TN's 5) that uses all of his dice on one attack?
Even if he goes for a full evasion, the PC will probably hit anyway, so there is a problem.

Go red red, full attack, and hope for the best. His only chance is luck. So he wants the fight to be as quick as possible, so that the odds have less of a chance to kill him.

ummm...run away and go get friends?
Or...die messily is always a fun option.

use a pike : )

svenlein wrote: use a pike : )

Option 1) Attack and hope he hits first.

Option 2) Steal initiative.

Option 3) Full Evade, and don't let him hit anywhere but in the chest, where the Gol has armor. If the PC attacks anywhere other than the chest, give him penalty dice for thrusting to the head, arms, or legs. This will even up the pools unless he goes for the chest, where it's nearly impossible to kill a Gol. Then, use all the dice but one in a dodge. Fudge the roll, if you deem necessary, and hit the PC with that last one die (if the PC has spent his dice, there's nothing he can do about it). No PC in his right mind will put his character into that kind of danger. The danger he can do something about is scary, but fightable. The kind of danger that he can't fight against, he has to simply stay out of.

Many of the suggestions here are about attacking first or stealing initiative. The problem is that a gol grunt is very slow(Ref 3).
Also, given that the PC has alot of dice(14) and a TN of 5, he will probably hit sooner or later, despite a full evasion.

Note that I don't want the PC to lose, just discourage him from using all the dice in one attack.
One idea might be to give him a shield or off-hand weapon. Thus he can make a sim block/attack. The block will hopefully wear the PC's attack down enough so that the gol has some dice left to retaliate with.

The pike idea has some merit. While I don't have pikes in my world, the gol could use a big polearm. That would shrink the PC's CP, making it easier to dodge.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Note that I don't want the PC to lose, just discourage him from using all the dice in one attack.

One idea might be to give him a shield or off-hand weapon. Thus he can make a sim block/attack. The block will hopefully wear the PC's attack down enough so that the gol has some dice left to retaliate with.

I agree with the above. In a situation where a vastly more competent PC faces off a Gol, then that gol should die. On an open field, no rocks, obstacles, or features that might be used to contrive an advantage against the PC, then, yeah, that lone Gol would best be finished with a sudden, agressive attack.

But such a situation is rare. A non-fanatical Gol will use anything around him to survive that attack. Whether it's moving on to precarious terrain, gaining height, or leading the PC into a natural trap, the Gol has a reasonable chance of escaping, or luring the PC into an ambush or trap (mudslide, scree, river, swamp, inn table, firepit, guide-ropes, etc...).

Those factors stop the PC from openly approaching single Gols, and hacking them systematically down as they come. The minute one Gol becomes two, or three, then the PC is in big trouble. None of this pansy - 'I have more hit-points than most third world countries' - with TROS.

So it still in the advantage of the PC to sneak upon that GOL without alerting it to their presence. TROS encourages this. Far more in keeping with epic fantasy for a bunch of heroes to use with and cunning to penetrate a villain's domain, than camp outside it's gates and take the host on mano-a-mano.

So yeah, sorry to have rambled on. But regarding that PC up there then, yeah, he might as well use all his pool on attack. But he'd be better off keeping his intent from the Gol until the very last instant lest that Gol becomes a tribe.

Mike Holmes wrote:

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Note that I don't want the PC to lose, just discourage him from using all the dice in one attack.

Why?

Why not just let himcut down the Gol? This guy is a badass. He should be cutting down Gols that easily. It's just that much more dramatic when he does it that way. If his character can get away with it, then the player is using a tactic that the character would. And that makes sense. Why are you trying to get the player to use some other tactic?

I'm having trouble with the context of this situation. Is there some Gol out there that you want to be more of a challenge to this character? Or are you simply looking for more of a challenge for the player? If the latter, then how about 2 Gols? That's going to suck, and believe me, he won't survive an all out attack on one.

Or how about him just encountering a tough Gol. The stats in the book are for yer average Gol. Make the next one a quick one with a bit more training.

But all-in-all, if you put this foe in front of this character, just let him gleefully slay relatively weak the enemy. Why not? Then present a deadlier enemy.

Mike

I think that the "tactical thinking" should come in the form of sizing up his opponent. There is a point at which the all-out attack is not a good idea at all. So vary Gols that he encounters. If he can't tell them apart perfectly in short order (and who could), he'll be forced to act more carefully.

As for the multiple opponents thing, they help. He may still win, but that small difference (the terrain roll) may make the difference between him thinking twice about how to attack.

And as you pointed out, the Block/Attack is I think the best resonse by far. In fact I think in this case it would usually mean that the Gol wins handily.

Mike

well you could always have the two gols, be a swordsman and a Slinger Carring a sword. Then the gols with an Extremely simple terrain roll will have the swordsman stay with the slinge untill the charachter being pelted runs away or chargews in, then the slinger draws sword and the pc faces 2 swordsmen.

Or just give the single Gol the chance to shoot at the PC from range before the PC closes.

Ungruk don't like humies. Ungruk pick up big rock! Bye, bye, stupid humies.

This is another solution. Yet another is to make a Gol who has enough Dice to block the Bastard Sword thrust with his shield... plus one for good measure.

There may be no one who agrees with me but here goes,

Is the PC who's using his whole dice pool doing it because he knows that if he does he'll win, or is he doing it because it's the nature of his character?

If he's doing it because that's what his character would do, then let him, just make sure that he fights like that most the time, if he doesn't penalize him with some SA loss (perhaps a drive if it fits)

Think of the stories that would be told of the swordsman who only strikes once, using his entire force of will against his opponents. People would fear getting into a fight with the PC, and rightly so...but, and this is a big one...he will lose eventually, and when he does, he'll lose big. Then all the stories will be postumous, they will be tales told by swordmasters to their students about the folly of not thinking one step ahead in a fight.

If, on the other hand, he is doing it because he knows that he will win against a Gol if he does, then I agree with most of the above posts. Make the Gol a better fighter, or use more of them, terrain...etc.

Sorry for thinking too much about story and character instead of specific combat tactics and rules (which were covered very well by the previous posts anyway) it's just the way I tend to think when I run games.

-Holt

Good point Holt.

Had he been a berserker there would have been no problem, but he is a silk-wearing sophisticated person of style. Even though he as a true bastard with Bad Reputation(the flaw), it still desn't fit very well with the fighting style in question.

Or is it perhaps so that it is a good tactic against inferior(i.e. smaller CP) foes to use all dice. In that case, I'll just let them use a shield-wall, those slinger-swordsmen, bows, wolf-cavalry, snipers, elite troops and whatnot.

Let him do it. There's nothing wrong with it for any character...it's his choice. My experience is that while many will fall to the left and to the right, sooner or later he'll roll poorly, and then he'll die.

Also, any opponents with shields, secondary weapons, longer range, or friends will cause him a lot of trouble and either kill him or wisen him up.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Also, any opponents with shields, secondary weapons, longer range, or friends will cause him a lot of trouble and either kill him or wisen him up.

You could also just have him face a (human?) opponent who has an unknown amount of dice. Make it clear that the PC has no idea how skilled this man is. If the PC isn't cautious, you can make the dude have a CP of 16-18 dice, and kill the PC. Very messily. Why? Because the PC did something stupid. I don't usually kill my PCs, but I will if they do something stupid.

I really must respectfully disagree with Lyrax's last post. In my opinion killing a PC on purpose like that is not only bad form, but also bad GMing. And could cause problems with the group if the player finds out you made up his opponents CP after he declared his attack, with the intent of killing him.

Why does the GM have to go out of his way to punish players for being stupid? In my experience game mechanics take care of such characters nicely. If you run a consistent campaign, stupid PC's will sort themselves out just fine without any GM intervention.

Jake's post was more on the button. The law of averages says sooner or later the PC will be slotted by his opponent if he continues to attack in that fashion. All it takes is one bad roll, and the player has no one to blame but himself.

A question for Mokkurkale: Why do you want to force this player to change his playing style? Just make the adventure and let them run with it. A Gm should not try to make a player roleplay/fight with his charactor the way YOU want him to. It kinda defeats the purpose of it being "his" charactor.

Players will pick up on the fact that you're trying to change/discourage the way they play, or kill them off because you don't like thier playing style. The bad feelings that would create would be detremental to a long term playing group.

Just stick to worrying about making good adventures; let the players worry about thier charactors. In my experience it makes for a happier group all around.

Fighting with this style tend to be very, very boring and with the tactical touch of a refrigerator.
Though I should perhaps say that he has changed now, since he faced an NPC with higher CP than his. He was aware of that, or at least aware of that the NPC was very good. All dice on attack, the NPC countered and got lots of dice against none. While the PC survived after some help from his friend, he has now learned a very valuable lesson and will have to limp for some time.

Yes, I'm sure combat the way the player "used" to fight got nauseating with its repetition, and had the tactical finess of a hurled brick. But fighting that way is the players decision to make, not ours as GM's.

And it sounds as if this were splendidly resolved in the best way possible! The player was in a situation where he knew the score and had ample information to not act stupidly. He then acted like an idiot and was promptly punished for it (Through the mechanics of the games fighting system!)

And you didn't have to go out of your way to set the PC up for the fall - he did it though his own stupidity. (Assuming you didn't intentionally set him up - see the above about bad form).

Anyway I guess what I'm trying to say is that as GM's we should be neutral towards the PC's playing styles. we should not form personal likes or dislikes.
Because the moment we say to ourselves "I don't like the way he's playing his charactor, I'm going to do something about it." That's the moment the game goes from from PC's vs. the game world to PC's vs. the GM. Which is not good for any campaign.

The fight with that NPC was kinda of a setup actually, but to the PC's advantage. That time, there was three PC's against this lone NPC. It was like a touch of what might happen, but under controlled circumstances. Had it been a one-on-one, or if his friends had been busy, he would have been slaughtered. That would be to harsh, even if realistic.
Now, should he ever face any tough opposition(purely for roleplaying reasons this time) I can sit back, knowing that he knows that an all-out attack on a superior enemy is very foolish. Should he do it anyway, he'll die, but he had one chance to learn his lesson, and I would feel no regret.
He still uses a *lot* of dice against inferior enemies, though, but that doesn't bug me at all. If it works, it goes.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: He still uses a *lot* of dice against inferior enemies, though, but that doesn't bug me at all. If it works, it goes.

Well, the average gol grunt or soldier is very often inferior, since the PC is getting good. Those times he encounters more skilled baddies, including better-than-usual "average guys", I usually hint at the fellas skill after a PER roll. If he fails, I say that he cannot guess the skill of this opponent, making him, and anyone with some sense, more careful.
If he OTOH fumbles, he may be in for a suprise(this foe is clearly no match for you...). This happened once, and caused much laughter and glee among the other players.

IMO a Per roll is too easy, it indicates that anyone can do it, where as I think that it actually takes training to be able to look at another person and see the way they're standing, how fluid their movements are, how confident they look etc and be able to judge how good they are.

Sounds like a perfect use for the skills "body language" and/or "style analysis" to me.

Brian.

BrianL wrote:

Sounds like a perfect use for the skills "body language" and/or "style analysis" to me.

Brian.

Then I'll just change it to a Style Analysis then.

I assumed Style Analysis as well. But I'd also assess a penalty on such a roll unless the character had seen the opponenet fight. If I coma around a corner, and see a Gol, and rush to attack it, I have little time to assess it's ability. I always assumed that the Style analysis roll would be to determine the ability of a character who I'd seen fighting a bit. Watch long enough, and it becomes a simple matter.

But often you will have no time to assess your foe. In that case, I'd allow a roll, but with a TN that was say five higher. For each exchange, I'd lower the TN by one, to a min of, say one or two less than the Style Analysis normal TN. Something like that.

In fact, you can probably tell more about an opponents ability pre-fight from their body language. OTOH, people can fake body language. With a successful roll, an opponent should be telegraphing a number that is higher or lower than his actual CP based on the number of successes he rolls. Make it a Body Language roll itself or something. So the ability to detect a character's actual CP would be based off of a contest of the two character's body language skills, in effect.

I'd also consider rolling all combat dice in secret. So that a player can guess how many are being rolled, but does not know for sure. He can just sim this in narration to the player ("He's coming with an unbalanced strong overhead attack" probably means most of his dice.) Making rolls to size up the opponent even more important. This is very dramatic, and realistic. Gives you something to do on those exchanges where both throw white.

This means that the GM should play dumb as well. The opponents should have no idea what the players are doing exaclty either. In any case, not knowing how many dice the opponent will use will make people play defensively, and this is also realistic. May draw combats out a little, and make those small wounds a bit more common. Certainly will make players play more tactically, which is what we're looking for, right?

Mike

I'll agree with Mike, except to re-emphasise that all CP rolls (attack, defense) are made "on the table" for all to see. That way an observant player would konw an opponent's CP by the end fo the first round, assuming his opponent is using them all. It's fun sometimes to not use them for 2 or 3 rounds and let the players get comfy and start planning around it, then "YIKES! The bad guy's got 4 more dice!?! Where'd those come from???"

It's a great expression.

Jake

I'm sure that works if the character survives. But not using all your dice could be fatal. Still, if one were to play very defensively, one could survive until the opponent got complacent....

Still, I'd like to see what would happen with all rolls hidden. Anyone willing to try out a test of this? I think it would have a cool feel.

Mike

You have to tell the defender *roughly* how intensely the attacker is attacking. Otherwise, it sucks to defend.

Like I said. Just give a hint. Or have a roll for it Ala the above discussion). That's extensive, but would be cool, IMO. Sucking to defend means, generally, rolling more dice, just to be sure. Which is fine with me. It means more parrying, and feeling the opponent out before someone gets bold, and goes deep.

I really think it might be cool. Again, it means that the player's tactics in determining his enemy's tactics become just that much more important (normally part of dice rolls, but can be extracted here if we like). Anyhow, just something to toy with.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm sure that works if the character survives. But not using all your dice could be fatal. Still, if one were to play very defensively, one could survive until the opponent got complacent....

Still, I'd like to see what would happen with all rolls hidden. Anyone willing to try out a test of this? I think it would have a cool feel.

Mike

Though some good points have been raised in this thread, I basically agree with Jaeger.

I've had DMs, Refs, Seneschals, Storytellers, etc..., come up to groups in the past with a kind of 'fuck up one tiny aspect of my plot and you're sandwich, mate' attitude. And it's very frustrating.

Out of the window goes all effort at roleplaying. You're purely intent on surviving the maniac's adventure. Not fun, and not heroic. Heroes survive cos they're fighting with conviction, not cos they've made astronomically fluky dice roles over the last half-hour.

Take care

I hate to resurrect an months-old threat, but I had to respond to this.

Jake Norwood wrote: I'll agree with Mike, except to re-emphasise that all CP rolls (attack, defense) are made "on the table" for all to see. That way an observant player would konw an opponent's CP by the end fo the first round, assuming his opponent is using them all. It's fun sometimes to not use them for 2 or 3 rounds and let the players get comfy and start planning around it, then "YIKES! The bad guy's got 4 more dice!?! Where'd those come from???"

I imagine that the maneuver described is a counter of some kind, although a counter doesn't involve opening your defence, as far as game mechanics are involved. It could, of course, involve an opening when the story is told, so to speak.

It is in there, but it has to be "figured out." I do it all the time, and it works amazingly well. It's a combination of things, one of which is the counter manevuer. If this "move" was allready in there, how much fun would there be in figuring out what the Riddle is?

Jake

Would that be the same move you used to beat my burly Savraxen berserker with a boy armed with a stick Master Norwood?

Valamir wrote: Would that be the same move you used to beat my burly Savraxen berserker with a boy armed with a stick Master Norwood?

Valamir wrote: Would that be the same move you used to beat my burly Savraxen berserker with a boy armed with a stick Master Norwood?

Yeah, except the "boy" with the stick lost. It just took a while. :-)

Brian.

Brian Leybourne wrote: Yeah, except the "boy" with the stick lost. It just took a while. :-)

Brian.

Jim DelRosso wrote:

Brian Leybourne wrote: Yeah, except the "boy" with the stick lost. It just took a while. :-)

Brian.

Yup. So'd the guy in GoT. It's the while that it takes that's interesting. :-)

Ah. My mistake. :-)

I like to think the boy with the stick would have lost in our game too, but since he was only 13 and the son of the chief whose tribe had us surrounded I chose not to press the issue ;-)

Valamir wrote: I like to think the boy with the stick would have lost in our game too, but since he was only 13 and the son of the chief whose tribe had us surrounded I chose not to press the issue ;-)

Jake Norwood wrote: I kicked your trash fair-and-square ;-)

And soon after, Jake has one of the tribes' elite warriors is tugging on my Kazak mustachio, just *daring* me to get into a mix-up with him . . .

I declined. 'Cause this guy wasn't carrying a stick.

(Well, no, that's not really why I declined - but enough with the "I was lucky enough to play at GenCon" talk. My take is that there's plenty of options and strategizing with the dice on the table, no need to hide 'em.)

Gordon