I have been working on an alternate, quick resolution system for the melee mechanics. They use basic skill resolution and helping dice to reduce an entire combat to one (or two or three) rolls.

you can check out what i have so far here. (Sorry for not posting them in the forum; i am a formatting junkie and i hate the way html text looks.)

I have been playing around with these rules in my group for a couple months. However, this is the first time they have been formally written out. Therefore I must warn you that they are alpha alpha alpha.

OK?

let me know what you think.

-Luke

Quick note to say I'll get on this as soon as I find a free time slot.

I have just taken a quick look at it and I find that it may be quite useful.

A few questions:

1) Why is the IMS based upon 1, 2, and 4 successes and not 1, 3, and 5?

2) Why is VA not a factor? It's such a simple thing to figure out. If my gang is armed with axes and is fighting men in chain, why should a 4+ roll save them?

3) Shouldn't there be a "Cut Down" option for the victors after a battle? You have Flee and Surrender, but what about those cold-hearted men who would hack at their opponents backs as they fled?

Looked these over...REALLY great stuff here Luke. Couple of discussion points.

1) Can you describe more the differences between "Drive them Off" and "Sharp Clash". The only mechanical difference I saw is that in "Drive them off" success in the vs. roll results in the enemy falling back. In "Sharp Clash" success in the vs roll leads to a Steel Test, and only if the Steel Test is failed does the enemy fall back. I would almost recommend eliminating "Drive them Off" as an option and just go with "Sharp Clash", incorporating the DtO text into the general description of the Clash of Arms system.


2) In the helping rules you describe adding a die for every additional member of the gang. I didn't see an upper limit. Is there a limit as to how many additional members you can get an advantage from at once...a diminishing returns effect. I would think something like each die requiring that many more additional men...1 guy gets +1D, it takes 2 more guys to get another +1D, 3 more guys to get another +1D, etc...something like that perhaps...although there be repurcussions for the knock aside rules that is perhaps not insurmountable.


3) The group rules are really very good, the idea of capturing a mob or small unit in a simple roll complete with captures and such is quite effective. Two questions arose from reading.

a) The section on knocking aside refers to dice being set aside as the result of a clash representing men being knocked aside, but i don't see an indication of how many dice. Is it 1 die is knocked aside for every net success of the winner?

b) The section on multi die gang members (individuals who add more than 1 die to the total) discusses knocking aside whole members. How do you decide. In a group of mixed 2 die members and 1 die members, if 2 dice are knocked aside is this two 1 die members or 1 2 die member. In a group that is entirely 2 die members, what is the effect of 1 die being knocked aside?



4) These rules are VERY VERY Hero Wars-esque (which as a big fan of HW is a good thing IMO). In Hero Wars simple combat comes down to a single d20 roll. But prior to that roll a player examines his sheet and the situation to find other skills that may apply or situational modifiers to claim etc. Rolling for those first feeds advantage into the final d20 roll, so in the end you're final roll is pumped up with all manner of advantages (the narration of which gives color to the fight).

In BW, same thing except BW is a dice pool system and the related skill (called Forks) and other advantages add 1D to the die pool directly without need for a roll. I offer the following section from page 6

It is vital to remember that advantages are not fixed, they can come from anywhere and it is up to the player to negotiate for them with the GM

At the start of the combat, both opponents should declare their skill being used, their weapons, their Forks, special equipment, and any traits, instincts, and beliefs called upon.

taepoong wrote:
1) Why is the IMS based upon 1, 2, and 4 successes and not 1, 3, and 5?

2) Why is VA not a factor? It's such a simple thing to figure out. If my gang is armed with axes and is fighting men in chain, why should a 4+ roll save them?

3) Shouldn't there be a "Cut Down" option for the victors after a battle? You have Flee and Surrender, but what about those cold-hearted men who would hack at their opponents backs as they fled?

Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the notes! Let me see if I can answer some of your questions:

First off, I've never seen, played or had explained to me what Hero Wars or any of that Hero Quest Rune Glorantha madness is. I am flattered by the comparison, though. But it just goes to show you how hard it is to do something original with dice these days.

differences between "Drive them Off" and "Sharp Clash".

upper limit

The section on multi die gang members (individuals who add more than 1 die to the total) discusses knocking aside whole members. How do you decide.

net successes?

attriting individual's dice

recovering knocked aside dice

But the limit would have more to do with the carry of the leader's voice and the gang's ability to see him

abzu wrote: Hi Ralph,

Thanks for the notes! Let me see if I can answer some of your questions:

First off, I've never seen, played or had explained to me what Hero Wars or any of that Hero Quest Rune Glorantha madness is. I am flattered by the comparison, though. But it just goes to show you how hard it is to do something original with dice these days.

I imagine DTO to be a quick and wild melee, full of whoops and hollers, smacks on the head and kicks in the pants. No real damage is intended except bruising and fear. A Sharp Clash is meant to be more of the Yojimbo/Sanjuro/Rashomon style of fighting, where both sides are terrified of each other and don't want to get hurt. The problem is that players would never submit themselves to a SC when they can DTO. Without belaboring the point too much, I think playtesting would smooth this out. Perhaps a GM could call for a Sharp Clash based on certain conditions?

upper limit

This will require more playtesting to truly answer. But my first instinct is to stick to the letter of the rule: Whole members go first. So if one die is knocked aside, then a "single die ganger" goes. Think of it as the experienced members using their wits to survive. It's also possible to allow the victor of that exchange to choose his targets. Again, only time and testing will tell.

It's a fair adaptation and it could easily be done. But it doesn't hold to the BW aesthetic that combat is immediately painful and deadly. Having the net successes translate into wounds for the individual drives that point home nicely, i think. And it lends itself to the quick resolution: one roll determines victor and wounds.

Ralph! These are supposed to be simple rules! Simple, simple, simple!
In this version, I am going to leave Knocked Aside as it is.

Ralph,
I'll tell ya, the main reason for having DTO rules vs Sharp Clash is reducing the entire engagement--combat and steel tests-- to one single roll. Now, in a case like this where you are risking little, you gain little. The only benefit is pushing your opponent back a dozen or so paces. In DTO a player could call on his higher Steel as an Advantage.

Sharp Clash is two rolls, combat then Steel. Also, this has a greater chance of a tie. Both sides could likely make their Steel tests. Especially if these are large gangs. I see this as another level of complexity, beyond the basic Clash roll/rule. Thus it gets a separate entry.

But, as I said, this discrepancy doesn't fit in on paper yet. Only dice and roleplay can determine its fate!

terrain...

complete replacement

drozdal wrote:
Hmm - haven't we talked about it yesterday? ;]

it's a shame you won't get to try them at gencon... I am going to have your butt scripting and in looooovvvvee with it.

Luke,

I just had a chance to look over your new quick combat rules and I very much like.

Interestingly, my players have been complaining about scripting and asking for quicker rules, and these should fit the bill. I think some of the complaints come from a 4-player party with only one strong fighter, but they will be thrilled with the new rules to speed up combat.

hi brennan,

glad to see you are back. I was getting worried.

the rules are meant to be used in conjunction with scripting. That manticore battle you mentioned on BW.org would definitely be script-worthy.

Sandy, I think, will be dissappointed that his White Fire only counts as an Advantage in melee. No death-inducing feats of sorcerous electricty in these rules. However, if used judiciously, I think they'll work quite nicely. Honestly, I use them nearly every session.

-L

Luke,

I'm not saying I will completely abandon the scripting method, but scripting will definitely be reserved for combats of the most serious sort. I think part of my groups' frustration was rising from the fact that we have an archer, a sorcerer, a knight, and a blacksmith as our characters. The smith is quite slow, and also has the Lame trait, and the knight was essentially the only character fully participating in scripted combat (everyone else spends most of their actions waiting).

Having seen how combat works when you DO have a character get up close and personal, I'm kinda happy to be sitting back and casting spells.

My first active experience with BW was a "Brawler" type character. Strong, tough, good, but without a lot of armor. The combination of the Steel rules as written and the TN penalties mean that, one-on-one, first one to get a hit past the armor wins the fight.

neb,
i've got to disagree. you did one combat where you got your ass kicked because you didn't know what you were doing. It had little to do with numbers. You were out-scripted. And this was largely because you chose to make a slow, lumbering bruiser with very low Reflexes. AND because you happened to be the victim of a concerted aftack from 4 Orc spearmen. I think these factors had as much to do with your character's performance as the superficial wound DN penalty.

I'll be interested to see what you think of these new variants. Because in this system, wounds are more of an after thought. You can be captured or run off without taking any wounds at all.

-L

abzu wrote: I think these factors had as much to do with your character's performance as the superficial wound DN penalty.

Which leads to the following question. If you accumulate 3 superficial wounds, when you get the third one and go from a +2DN penalty to a -1D penalty, do you make a Steel test at that point? Or is Steel test only if you take a -1D penalty all in one blow?

One of the things I hadn't really realized - and I'm not sure I consider it a feature:

You deliberately created a combat system that requires players to learn it in detail and use those details to their advantage. The combat system is a separate wargame in the middle of the roleplaying experience. Something on the level of Squad Leader.

I've been playing it like every other combat system in every other game out there: I am not the combat expert. My character is. I say, "go over to that guy and hit him. " And it happens. Not in BW. . .

While there is a difference between "standing your ground while parrying" and "moving a step back while parrying"- and a combat expert should know to do the latter- I'm not sure it's a difference that the player should be keeping track of.

I'm glad you're working up an alternative combat system for people who don't want the microfine details.

Did some playtesting of the Simplified Melee rules.

Used the Bloody Clash mechanic, 4-LP characters.

• Spider vs Orc.

Orc wounded badly, injected with poison and driven off.

• Troll Ironshield, Spider Hunter-Seeker, Wolf Black Destroyer, and Orc Black Hunter vs Elven Prince (4-LP but with Cloak, Mail and Sword.)

Elven prince killed HORRIBLY.

• Troll and Spider vs Wolf and Prince.

Wolf and Prince killed horribly (one incidental, mark and superb hit for each of them).

Tons of advantage dice tossed back and forth in all clashes.

What we found was that choosing the leader for the exchange was crucial. A leader with diverse skills--a lot FoRKs--is utterly necessary. FoRKs can't be knocked off with the Lowest Common Denominator or with Knocked Aside rules.

Spider and Troll traits make for sick Advantages.
Certain advantages trigger other advantages (P1: "I want to use my Stealthy as an advantage. P2: "Since he is using Stealthy, I call on my Keen Sight trait.") Which is how it should be.

The longest process was anteing up advantages, which only took a few minutes. After that the combat was over shockingly quickly. I highly recommend the Brutal Fight aftermath rules. Wild Fight is fun, Ugly fight is so-so (but very very quick to resolve).

Using Bloody Clash these rules were no less nasty than typical BW combat. Admittedly, all of the thinking aspect of BW combat is eliminated and a lot of the dramatic details with it. But all of the players blanched at how quickly the opposition wilted, and could definitely see many uses for such rules.

-L

nebulous menace wrote: You deliberately created a combat system that requires players to learn it in detail and use those details to their advantage. The combat system is a separate wargame in the middle of the roleplaying experience.

where are these mechanics currently posted ... I cannot find them

epweissengruber wrote:
where are these mechanics currently posted ... I cannot find them

Have found them.

Thnx