To make comabt less deadly take their AGL + PRS divided by 2 to create a Body (BDY) stat. Body give the characters a few extra "levels" to absorb damage. These levels are subtracted from the damage first before the final wounds are applied. Think of them as "Wound Levels" if the damage exceeds BDY then it is reduced by current BDY amount then the "new" level is applied. And I ONLY use the body stat for PCs and main Villains.

Would this work or is this new rule and stat usless? Just looking for opinions...

Mainboard wrote: To make comabt less deadly take their AGL + PRS divided by 2 to create a Body (BDY) stat.

The easiest way to make combats less deadly for your PCs is to have their opponents use poor strategies: guards that are too scared to attack, or unskilled fighters who attempt maneuvers that deplete their combat pools. Just think of all the dumb things a character could do to get themselves killed -- and then have the NPCs do those things. It keeps your PCs alive, and educates the players on the perils of the system, keeping them focused on fighting smart.

JMHO.

Philip[/code]

I'll second Spunky's tip.

Jake

I'm not sure. Part of the charm of TROS for me is how your character isn't 'pillowed', for example, in games with hitpoints you start to get the mentalitly that before anything in the game world really matters to you, they have to get through X amount of hitpoints first. In TROS, it starts mattering to you straight away. There aren't any 'pillows' between you and the real world, so to speak.

Personally I'd go the other way. A lot of people seem to rave about other systems mook rules...ie rules for making weaklings the players can knock off at their leasure, by the dozen. Try this out.

One reason for doing this is that I'd suspect you'd still end up with PC or master villain dieing nastily, it would just take a lot longer in game and in real life.

Spunky I like your idea a lot! Far better than changing the game, you suggest altering the way they react to certain situations? That would be great. Now if only there was a list of examples and reactions.....

Maybe some could be put in the "The Flower of Battle" book. Or if Driftwood were interested in such examples and reactions perhaps some could be created for it?

Just some thoughts..

The best tip for making games less deadly that I've heard here so far is to make the limits on SA's much higher or do away with limits all together.

Suddenly driven heroes can do ANYTHING.

But a dagger to the head is still going to seriously cramp their style.

Bottom line on deadlyness in TROS is that the odds of dieing if you're fighting smart drop DRAMATICALLY with just a couple of dice difference in the CP. If you have 4 dice superiority you have to try REAL hard to get yourself killed (or the GM has to be trying real hard to kill you). If you have 6 dice superiority you can pretty much treat them as your bitch.

How hard is it to get 4 dice superiorty? Well, the single best a starting character (with no insight or racial mods) can get is 14 dice. Its not too hard to get 12. Its pretty easy to get 10.

Now if you take an opponent with Attributes B and Proficiencies C you get 43 points and 6 proficiency. 43 points is basically 4 in every thing with 3 at 5. Its therefor not too hard to take a typical guardsman type opponent and figure reflexes of 4 and proficiency of 4 (with 2 proficiency spent in other areas) or reflex 5 and proficiency 3. This gives a typical mid level guard type guy a combat pool of 8.

Any character who fancies theymselves any kind of swordsman is going to have at least CP 10 which gives them a sizeable advantage. Any character who fancies themselves a good swordsman is going to have CP 12 and with a 4 die advantage will own this guy. Any character who fancies himself among the best is going to have a CP of 14 and can smack this guy around like a rag doll.

Now I'm sure that a REALLY skilled master TROS combat *player* (like say Jake) could find a way to humble your 14 die blademaster with an 8 die guardsman...but that's not the purpose of what a GM is going to be trying to do. A good GM should play an 8 CP guy like an 8 CP guy...not like a 14 CP guy who left 6 dice at home that day. In other words, pretty straight forward competent fighting without alot of fancy deception and tricks (an 8 die guy isn't a moron after all).

Once you start "leveling up" and buying up proficencies and start hurling around 15 and 16 die pools the difference gets even greater. Beats, and stop shorts and feints become progressively more and more effective the larger the die advantage you have on your opponent.

What Ralph said. All his analysis also ignores the fact of SAs. The biggest way to keep heroes alive is to make sure that they believe in what they're fighting for. As long as the GM only puts stuff they care about in front of the characters, it's a sinch. Even against an equal opponent as Ralph points out, 4 dice of SAs give you the day likely, six dice, very likley.

IOW, the rules are not particularly lethal unless the player plays stupidly, or fails to ensure that his character is fighting for what he believes in.

The fact that this makes for great play should not be lost on anyone.

Mike

Quite. Another thing to keep in mind is the ability to fight defensively while waiting for help. By fighting defensively I mean more than just defensive stance and dropping the white die (though that's a good way to get an extra 2 dice).

Consider, you have 10 dice and your opponent has 8 dice. Lets say your opponent throws 4-5 dice at you in his initial attack. You defend with all but 1 of your dice. Your 9 dice against his 4-5 give you a very good chance of defending and taking initiative. You have only 1 die to attack with but so what. Your attack does nothing against the 3-4 dice your opponent has left, but you've just delayed an entire round (note you need to keep 1 die to attack with so you don't forfeit initiative).

After a couple rounds of this your opponent gets irritated and throws 7 dice at you. Ok, a couple possibilities here. You could continue with the above tactic but 9 dice vs 7 isn't quite as safe (especially if you have a TN disadvantage) but barring a horrible roll or a high damage opponent you should survive without much damage (especially if you have 4 point armor or better). Or you could play safer and just throw the full evade which gives you a better TN to beat and breaks the action bringing another round to a close. Or you could go ballsy here and throw a counter (especially if you have a TN advantage or a bunch of luck available). That makes it 7 dice vs 7 dice but if you win you'll have 3-4 attack dice against his 1 remaining defense die.

TROS makes it pretty easy to play the sit back and wait for your opponent to make a mistake game (no doubt stemming from Jake's actual experience). You don't really start seeing PC death unless they're trying real hard to look like Conan and kill their enemy instantly in the first couple rounds -- like generally gets me in trouble...;-)

The best way for a GM to keep the casualty level low is just to make sure that if you are going to throw in a "throw-away" fight just to liven things up, or force the characters to deal with a few mooks before getting to the villain, just make very sure that they have AT LEAST 2 dice and preferably 4 dice LESS then the PCs in their pool. Whether this comes from inferior pools or the presence of applicable SAs for the PCs or some combination doesn't much matter.

Once the players get used to the idea that with a little thought and careful planning they can pretty much kill anybody with 4 dice less than them in relative safety, they'll be that much more scared when they find out the main villain has 4 dice more and the tables are turned. Course, if you want to really put the fear in 'em make the main baddy 8-12 dice more and watch 'em scramble for SAs just to make things even.

Fights against guys with low CPs can still be pretty cool in terms of making your character look cool. Throw in an opponent with a huge ST and TO, but little actual proficiency who is feared as a bully about town. Sure, he seems tough until he's got a foot of steel in his chest. At which point it looks like your character just easily felled a half-giant.

Make enemies socially fearsome, but poor in combat. Uo until a fight the person with the most will to fight is the more dangerous. In the actual fight, it's the more prepared opponent who'll win almost always. Keep in mind how rare it is to actually be well trained, and the heroes will mow through their very real seeming foes.

Mike

Valamir wrote: Consider, you have 10 dice and your opponent has 8 dice. Lets say your opponent throws 4-5 dice at you in his initial attack. You defend with all but 1 of your dice. Your 9 dice against his 4-5 give you a very good chance of defending and taking initiative. You have only 1 die to attack with but so what. Your attack does nothing against the 3-4 dice your opponent has left, but you've just delayed an entire round (note you need to keep 1 die to attack with so you don't forfeit initiative).

I don't know about that Brian. A 1 die attack has a 50/50 shot at a success. Assumeing my strength is equal to his toughness and I'm using a Str+1 weapon thats a level 2 wound to an unarmored location (fighting fully armored opponents is a whole different nut). A quick glance through the damage tables shows 3+ shock for virtually every level 2 wound there is. Far from doing nothing, that 1 die attack just wiped out your 3-4 dice and likely left you with some carry over or small amount of Pain to dink you with next round. For the opponent to attempt a simultaneous attack like that...especially knowing that if he does I HAVE to spend luck to keep him from getting that attack...is almost suicidal.

I mean, if I have initiative and I declare a 1 die attack on you, and you say "ok, screw defense, I'm hitting him simo with 3 dice", you're right that would be bad for me. It would force me to permanently burn a point of luck for a free success to guarentee my 1 die attack hits. Knowing that...I can't think of many people who'd take that risk...let alone a guardsman just trying to do his job for a couple coins.

That's certainly one possible counter, but I don't see it as a very high probability one, and hense would be hard put to justify having ye ole generic bad guy willing to leap to his own death.

Brian Leybourne wrote:

Valamir wrote: Consider, you have 10 dice and your opponent has 8 dice. Lets say your opponent throws 4-5 dice at you in his initial attack. You defend with all but 1 of your dice. Your 9 dice against his 4-5 give you a very good chance of defending and taking initiative. You have only 1 die to attack with but so what. Your attack does nothing against the 3-4 dice your opponent has left, but you've just delayed an entire round (note you need to keep 1 die to attack with so you don't forfeit initiative).

Except that what actually happens is he sees your 1-die attack coming and ignores it, using his 3-4 dice to attack you simultaneously. Neither of you have defence, but your 1-die attack is probably going to do nothing to him, while his undefended 3-4 die attack will hurt you, possibly/probably enough to turn the tide in battle...

Brian.

Valamir wrote: I mean, if I have initiative and I declare a 1 die attack on you, and you say "ok, screw defense, I'm hitting him simo with 3 dice", you're right that would be bad for me. It would force me to permanently burn a point of luck for a free success to guarentee my 1 die attack hits.

Noon wrote:

Ouch! But how does he do that? If both parties drop red dice, then this 10 CP guy just thinks 'Ah, time to go balistic' and uses all his dice. The only other way is to buy initaitive, which is expensive and tricky to do.

You're missing the point Brian. The point is not a tournament combat between two players to see who is going to manipulate the system to greatest effort in order to get bragging rights on whose better.

The point is how can the GM run bad guys against a PC in a way that DOESN'T involve killing the player while fighting a scrub. What you are saying is akin to the GM actively trying to kill the PC everytime he gets into combat which emphatically is a BAD idea.

#1) Giving mid level guardsman SAs of any kind is a very bad idea. Heros have SAs. Villains have SAs. Important villain Henchment have SAs. Important NPCs that the players aren't supposed to be killing (like the king) have SAs. Mid level guardsman grunts should not have SAs. Ergo...he does NOT have a luck point to spend on an automatic defense.

#2) Your goal as a GM should not to be to play every opponent your players face to the maximum of level of your own personal ability. When your players fight someone who is better then they are you should pull out all the stops and tricks and let them have it (including the one you noted). When your players fight someone who is less good then they are you should play them as being less good then they are which means leaving out some of the things in your bag of tricks.

Again this is not the "bitching move combos to kill your opponents" thread this is the "how to make combat a little easier" thread.

Besides...launching a simultaneous attack on me STILL has a 50/50 shot (assumeing I have an ATN of 6) of getting yourself killed even WITHOUT a luck point. You'd be hard put to justify any character, let alone a hired hand willing to take that risk. He'd have a split second to make that decision, any hesitation and the opportunity to launch a simo attack would be gone. I don't see too many rent-a-cops willing to make that kind of sacrifice...at least not if you're playing them as actual people and not disposable NPCs.

Back to the original question: that could work, but I don't believe it's the best way to do things. First of all, what do those levels represent? What happens when a character is hit by a weapon, but doesn't take damage by it?

One way to make combat less lethal, but just as dangerous, is to change the number of successes needed to inflict a given wound level. Currently # of Successes = wound level inflicted, but to make combat less lethal you could change it to:

Successes - Wound level

1-----1
2-----2
3-4---3
5-6---4
7+ ---5

This way combat is still very dangerous, but a larger margin of success is needed to kill someone.

That might work Michael, but it all depends on why the poster wants to see the danger of combat reduced. If it's just to prevent characters from dying, your system should work well. But if it's so that characters can get hit, yet still fight, then it's problematic.

Mainboard, what's the specific problem you percieve? What do you want to accomplish?

Mike

Valamir wrote: You're missing the point Brian. The point is not a tournament combat between two players to see who is going to manipulate the system to greatest effort in order to get bragging rights on whose better

Quite honestly Brian you're doing a couple of things here that I think are wrong. First you are dramatically underestimating the effectiveness of a single die attack. Against an opponent with no SAs and comparable attributes its a near certain level 2 wound if you don't defend against it. If the near certain isn't certain enough for your tastes. Make it a 2 die attack, the above strategy still works just as good. If you have a larger die advantage you can even make it a 3 die attack, whatever. The point was to demonstrate the ease of fighting in life preservation mode. You seem to be of the mind that launching a single die attack is a stupid thing and allowing it to work is even stupider. I humbly submit that you are wrong. If the opponent defends, the round is over, mission accomplished. If the opponent launches a simo attack as you suggest I hit him guarenteed...GUARENTEED (as long as I have luck to spend and he does not) for what will almost certainly be enough damage to shock the rest of his die pool to 0 and leave his simo attack thwarted. The odds of that happening are certainly high enough...do the math...to cause any sane opponent to think twice before using a simo attack as a counter move. As long as you are playing said opponent as someone who cares about self preservation and not as a disposable list of stats willing to sacrifice himself for no good reason...its not justifiable to expect that kind of behavior.

Second calling a combatant who refuses to take a hit stupid is outrageous. In a real combat you have a split second to judge the strength of the enemy's attack and decide to eat it. Defending oneself is a pretty instinctive desire. I would argue that you have to be pretty highly skilled as a swordsman before you'd even consider such a maneuver (while it doesn't do so in the book, I think the ability to simo attack instead of defend should be limited to certain minimum proficiency levels. Its just a completely unnatural thing for a person to do unless they're very well trained.

Third, again, the example is of a typical guardsman. Not a musketeer. Not Rocheforte. Generic Gate Guard#3. Barring some special set of circumstances I refuse to believe that these guys are going to be all that self sacrificing. They'd be far more likely to surrender or run away than allow themselves to be hit by a sharp pointy weapon on purpose for the sake of whatever handful of copper pieces they're being paid. To think otherwise is (barring those special circumstances) just plum unrealistic.

So no, I in no way am advocating playing stupid and pandering to anything. No a one die attack in the situation I outlined above is NOT an outright stupid move

Its a simple process Brian.

I have Str 4 you have TO 4. I have an Arming Sword Str+1 ATN 6 weapon. You have 3 dice left. I target an unarmored area of your body (mid level guards are unlikely to be fully armored. Hell, if that's your arms or your legs while you have a shield I get a free die and my attack is now 2 dice anyway.

I throw a 1 die attack at you, if you defend great. You win the defense take the initiative and I have successfully gotten through the round with 0 damage and am 1 round closer to help arriving (which was the condition of the initial example).

You decide to throw a simo attack instead (regardless of it being a COMPLETELY unlikely and unrealistic move to do). Fine I roll my 1 die. I have a 50/50 shot of hitting you for a level 2 wound. If I fail I spend a luck for another die which makes my chance a 75% chance to hit. If I was fortuneate enough to be able to attack your arms that would be a 75% chance without luck and 87% chance with...that simo attack ain't looking so good now. And if I roll really unlucky I burn the point (unfortunate) and get my 1 success and level 2 wound anyway. Since Generic Guardman #3 should not (in my campaign would not) have any SAs to use, there is nothing you can do to stop this. There is only a single location in the entire damage table (the thigh) where a level 2 cutting wound doesn't do at least 3 shock and plenty that do 5+. That means the dice you were planning to simo me with are gone, and you likely get nailed for carryover or Pain loss next round. Whoops.

Sorry. You are wrong. A 1 die attack in the situation outlined in the initial example is NOT a foolish attack. Thinking it is and launching a simo attack against it...THAT is the foolish attack. Period.

This is an important discussion--so I want it to continue--but let's reduce the emotional content a little.

Jake

Sorry Jake, Brian, didn't mean to get excited. Just got a little frustrated at the casual dismissal.

Of course, the above tactic was predicated on a specific set of circumstances. That's to be expected all tactics should be based on the specific circumstances of the time. One of the strengths of TROS is that there's yet to be found a single best technique to use always in every situation.

In a different situation, the above tactic would be foolish. If the opponent's weapons was longer, it would be much more dangerous to give up the initiative and not try to land a hit to bring the range shorter. If the PC had an abnormally low strength such that even generic opponents likely have superior TO, then a 1 die attack doesn't lead to a 2nd level wound and 1st level wounds don't do enough shock for the tactic to work (on the other hand if the PC has a high Str of 6 or even 7, 1 die attacks become even MORE effective).

Of course its all predicated on the idea of how to give players interesting fights without risking killing them by some unlucky rolls in what should be the throwaway battle (like Inigo killing the 3 guards in the hall way before pursueing Count Rugen...those guards are SUPPOSED to go down quick to highlight what a bad ass Inigo is and make the final duel that much more satisfying).

If that ISN'T the GM's intent; if say the players have gotten cocky and need to be taught a lesson, then suddenly the guard isn't Generic Guardsman #3. He's Rodrigo whose driven to prove himself and one day join the King's Own. Surprise, ole Rodigo has a couple of SA (like Drive and Luck). Or this guardsman is Bull Finnegan an otherwise generic guard but with extra high Str and TO attributes. There are many ways to teach humility if that is the GM's goal. My point was to demonstrate that there are also many ways to avoid player kills without changing the mechanics to reduce lethality.

Ralph, I'm not casually dismissing you, mate. I just know you're wrong :-)

Clearly, we have different play styles. You're welcome to play all your NPC's as morons, I'm happy for you to do that. I think you'll be teaching your PC's bad lessions though. Saying something like "I should let them do 1-die attacks because the opponent is a mook" is just asing for trouble when they come against non-mooks and they still think that a 1-die attack is a brilliant move.

I don't set out to kill my players, I set out to help them learn TROS combat, which is actually very deep, there are a lot of levels to it. If I allow them to keep getting away with stupid moves, they'll never learn any better, I would rather they had a chance to find out what works, and what doesn't and then they can develop their own effective style - that's one of the really cool things about TROS, that different players will develop totally different combat styles within the system. 1-die attacks are effective under the following situation: "opponent is a mook, being played very stupidly by the gm", and that's not something I want the players to learn.

Fun? Well, again this is down to personal taste. I personally never find it fun when the GM is blatantly playing NPC's specifically so the PC's can do anything they want and not be in any danger. The dish is bland without a little spice, you know. My players are the same. YMM(and apparently does)V.

As for your specific example, you still have a chance to fail, and much of the time when you succeed it means you have blown a luck die (perhaps permanently) which is no small matter either. I call that player foolishness - that luck point may have been very useful later, and are you prepared to risk your character on such a possibly foolhardy move? Oh, right - I forgot, there's no risk because the GM is playing really stupid.

And even that one success wont do you much good if I (say) do a Simultaneous Block/Strike with 2 dice for defense and 2 for attack (for guards with shields or parrying daggers anyway).

All I'm saying is that yes, your 1-die atack is a valid move, but only under such tightly specific circumstances as to make the game somewhat a farce anyway (IMO, of course). Not fun for us, but you're welcome to do it and have fun and that's great. The world would be a boring place if we all liked things the same.

Brian.

I have absolutely no idea where you're coming from Brian. You keep repeating the same thing over and over without actually refuting any of the facts that I've laid out. I mean the thing's you're saying don't even make sense. You've set up this straw man that I'm playing NPCs like morons and then spending time "proving" that this is a bad thing. Well no kidding. Playing NPCs like morons is a bad thing. At not something I at any time advocated. I did advocate playing NPCs to a level of ability consistant with the NPCs actual ability. If an NPC is in fact a moron, then he should in fact be played like one. If an NPC is in fact the greatest swordsman to ever live then he should in fact be played like one. If an NPC is just a generic guard making minimum wage, then he should in fact be played like one. That's standard roleplaying technique. If you are suggesting that all NPCs regardless of their actual ability should be played to the maximum level of GM proficiency...then I'm afraid there is a serious disconnect, because that's absolutely ridiculous.

It's really not worth argueing over but you keep harping on this idea of my suggesting playing an NPC like a moron. I'm not. At all. How is playing a guardsman like a guardsman playing him like a moron. Explain to me for one second how you would possibly justify eating an attack. Its you who are not playing the odds my friend. I guarentee that if if the guardsman were your PC you would NOT NOT NOT simo attack in that situation unless you're suicidal. A 75-87% chance of eating the big one instead of defending like a sane person. No way. You are not playing him "better" you're playing him like a suicidal idiot. Simo attacks where you have a better than 50% chance of failing are STUPID. The fact that you don't mind having the guard kill himself suggest to me that you're treating him like a pawn and not like a actual character who values his own skin.

But perhaps it is a matter of play style. For me there is one purpose to henchmen and mooks. To make the PCs look good. Zorro does not get his ass kicked by Generic Soldier #5. Robin Hood does not get whacked by Unnamed Knight #3. Those fights exist for one purpose and one person only, to demonstrate the aptitude of the character. The same logic applies to PCs in an RPG. Having the master swordsman riddle seeker get his ass kicked by a nameless mook is so deprotagonizing its not even funny. Mooks exist for one purpose and one purpose only. To give the player just enough challenge to be fun before being defeated.

This requires a certain level of trust between player and GM. The player has to trust that the GM isn't out to get him. That the opponent who is obviously a mook, is in fact a mook, and not a surprise PC killer in disguise. That when an opponent is not simply a mook that the GM will have signalled this so the player can respond appropriately. The GM has to trust the player not to abuse the situation and go hog wild killing everything because everyone that isn't a named villain is a mook.

You're right about one thing. TROS combat is very deep. Deep enough that you should know that sometimes a 1 die attack is a very valid tactic and sometimes its not (just like any other move). And no not just in a farcical situation. You're obviously not actually reading what I wrote since I explained it in detail. If you were you'd realize that I just kicked your simo attacking guardsman's ass with a 1 die attack. The numbers are right there. Demonstrate the error. If you're not willing to actually put the numbers to the test than you're just argueing opinion rather than fact.

It just occured to me why you might not be seeing the value in a one die attack Brian even against the threat of a simo attack by the target. Are you aware that the attacks are not, in fact, resolved simultaneously. The initiative holder completes his full attack first, and then the target, if he has dice remaining gets to attack.

If the attacks were in fact simultaneous, then you'd be right, I'd have a 1 die attack coming at him and he'd have a 3-4 die attack coming at me with niether of us getting a defense. All else being equal, I'd be the loser in that exchange.

But given that the 1 die attack goes first, results in a level 2 wound and thereby eliminates all his dice before his attack gets launched, that's not the case. In fact, in that case it really doesn't even matter if he HAS a luck SA, since he'd never have the chance to use it.

The technique is even more effective if I have a very high strength and a Str+2 damage long sword (such as the character I've been practicing with). If I have a strength of 6, he's taking a level 2 wound even if his Toughness is 7. If his TO is only 4, he's dead...from a single die attack. Make it a Thrusting attack with a Str+3 Rapier and its even worse.

So even aside from all of the stuff about whether the guard would actually use a simo attack or "playing him dumb", the numbers are pretty plain about the futility of using a simo attack as an effective counter (something the rule itself mentions).

Sigh.

Of course I understand how combat works. I had to learn it's nuances very carefully to write the combat sim.

You're missing my point, and I can't be bothered trying to make it again. You win, since that seems to be important to you.

Brian.

<sigh> It has nothing to do with winning. Although I will admitt to being a little testy when a perfectly valid (and demonstratably effective) tactic is casually brushed off as foolish without any effort made to explain the reasoning. If I am missing your point it is simply because you have yet to make one. While I have outlined time and again the specific details of how such an attack works out mechanically and under what circumstances it is effective (basically any time the opponent has only 3 dice left in his pool and and Str+X damage is > opponent's TO) you have yet to respond with any specifics demonstrating to the contrary.

Barring that I'm afraid there can be nothing left to discuss. No hard feelings I hope, but I remain unconvinced.

Aaron wrote:

Noon wrote:

Ouch! But how does he do that? If both parties drop red dice, then this 10 CP guy just thinks 'Ah, time to go balistic' and uses all his dice. The only other way is to buy initaitive, which is expensive and tricky to do.

Its pretty easy for him Noon. Valimir's one die attack is coming in the second phase, so he has no more dice to commit. The opponent with the 3-4 dice just wears it and hits back. No throwing red die for initiative and no need to buy it either.

I'd have to agree with Brian. A 1 pt is just asking for trouble in the form of expulsion, BO&S, Grapple and may fav, as Brian pointed out, the smack back!
Aaron

Ehh, looking it up I think Valamir is right, though the term 'simo attack' is missleading. It should be called 'Take it like a bitch then attack'...page 77, revised edition

"Finally, should the loser wish to attack during the next exchange (normally impossible), he has two choices. First, he may simply declare an attack. The winner attacks and resolves damage first; if the loser has any dice left, he can attack. This is a foolhardy maneuver."

The other option is buying init.

Brian, don't you have the unrevised version of the game? Is this bit in it?

Noon wrote: Ehh, looking it up I think Valamir is right, though the term 'simo attack' is missleading. It should be called 'Take it like a bitch then attack'...page 77, revised edition

Noon wrote: Ehh, looking it up I think Valamir is right, though the term 'simo attack' is missleading. It should be called 'Take it like a bitch then attack'...page 77, revised edition

Brian, don't you have the unrevised version of the game? Is this bit in it?

Your point is that a one-dice attack opens up for a plethora of counter-maneuvers, right?

Brian Leybourne wrote:

You're going under the assumption that he can only defend otherwise he's toast, but that's Simply. Not. Right.

A 1-die attack against 3 or 4 dice? You think him counterattacking is a poor move...?

You might miss, in which case you're dead or seriously screwed.

You might have underestimated his toughness, in which case he's not hurt and you're seriously screwed.

He might do a sim block/strike in which case you're seriously screwed.

He might do an evasive attack with 1 die and +2 or +3 difficulty for you, making it more likely that you miss and you're seriously screwed.

He might launch a defensive grapple, easy against a single die and he's halfway toward pinning or tossing you (semi-seriously screwed).

He might do a counter, and you just gave him extra free dice next round (even if he only gets one or two extra, that's more than he would have had otherwise).

He might block open and strike, you lose dice next round.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

Luck dice, smhuck dice. Not all characters have luck and even if you do it's a waste to use them to save yourself from the effects of what was a stupid attack in the first place.

You guys keep missing my point. Forget it. Move on to another topic. This one is dead.

Brian.

I'm amused that you agreed the topic was dead, but still wanted to get the last word in. Still, that's probably what I'm doing right now :-)

I hear all your points, and raise you a "not all characters take luck as an SA, most I come across only take it when they can't think of 5 'real' SA's", plus a "even those who do take luck will save them for Count Rugen and not use them on Generic Guardsman 4", and most especially a "so your entire argument is based on knowing exactly how many dice an opponent has left, which may well be valid in your games but IMC I never let players know that kind of info".

I was also going on the assumption (stated earlier) that we were talking 3 or 4 dice, you are talking exactly 3 which I agree limits options.

I consider 3-4 still a reasonably good proficiency (you're not a master, but you've been trained, and you're certainly better than a boy with a stick unless Jake is playing the boy), especially since most maneuvers are available by a prof of 4. OTOH, 3-4 seems to be quite poor in your games. This is a matter of style and opinion, no right or wrong.

So we're both right, in our own games. Lets leave it at that while we're still friends :-)

Brian.

Anyway, one good point has come from all this, I think. Train your players, at least a little. So that they can make reasonable decisions, and see (or at least debate) the ramifications of their choices like Ralph and Brian can. While untrained as players, they are susceptible to a lot of needless suffering at the hands of nameless guards who, after all, can only be played so badly and be realistic. This is one surefire way to reduce any percieved deadliness in the system.

In fact if they get really good, you may have to keep up as GM to make sure it doesn't get too easy for them. I think either of these guys would trounce me with as many as a four die advantage.

Mike

Yeah, but Jake could kick both our asses with one die tied behind his back :-)

Brian.

(edit: For some reason, I typed 'kiss both our asses'. Ahem, not quite what I meant *grin*).

LOL.

Damnit, stop that, you'll get me fired. Yep, in a scene that I'll never let him forget, Jake beat Ralph's (Valamir) monster warrior character playing a boy with a stick.

Of course, I shoudn't make fun, that was months ago just after we got our copies of the book, and I'd bet Ralph is gonna have his character kick my character's ass when they next meet to prove he's done his homework. Better get to the simulator to work out some.

Mike