Hi,

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

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

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

Cheers,

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

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

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

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

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

-Ingenious

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

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

-Ingenious

Hi,

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

Ian,

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

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

(Just realized I basically repeated everything Ashren already said)

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

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

Fighter A: 15CP in Longsword.

Fighter B: 5CP in Cut & Thrust.

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think this is no problem.

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

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

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

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

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

/rant

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

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

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

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

Would be interested to hear ideas on this -

Rick

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.

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.

The Flashing Blade wrote:
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.

As i think through other examples the system still holds.

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.

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.

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

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

The Flashing Blade wrote: 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.

Hi,

The Flashing Blade wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

The Flashing Blade wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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 Flashing Blade wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

"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

Hi,

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.

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

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

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?

Draigh wrote: 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?

Draigh wrote: 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.

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?

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.

Hi,

Jake Norwood wrote: (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.

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

Hi,

Valamir wrote: 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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Ingenious. I have already addressed everything you just said in the post directly above yours. The underestimating of your foe comes in because you don't know how many dice your foe has.

The underestimating of an attack comes in when you figure X dice will be enough to block his attack, but he rolls well and you roll poorly and your defense turns out to be inadequate.

Re: Brute force in the "dark ages"

There is absolutely no evidence prior to the victorian era that the dark ages were lacking in highly developed "sciences" of fighting, but there is considerable evidence to the contrary. The idea of two fully armored men slugging away at one another is completely fictional, and has been since the victorians and their romantic 18th century predecessors came up with the idea.

In addition to actual physcial evidence supporting the idea of well-thought out systems of what could be called scientific approaches to combat throughout the last 3,000 years without break, there's an issue of basic logical argument. It is absurd to assume that a continent that exhibited sophisticated forms of combat from the early greek period through the late roman period suddenly gave them up only to mystically re-discover them in 1296 AD. 800 years of not knowing the best way to kill a man with the tools that technology allowed, sandwiched between 2 of the most sophisticated? Impossible and unfounded.

What I'm saying is that a medieval melee did not have more to do with brute force, and that idea is entirely a product of poorly educated authors from the last 300 years. Was strength an issue? Absolutely, it always has been in physcial hand-to-hand combat. But not more so than now (in fact, weapons are equilizers. The modern UFC fighter relies on much more brute force than evidence would propose that our western ancestors did).


On a more productive note, the real issue here (I think) is whether or not the current declare-and-roll method is sound from both a playability perspective and a simulation of source material approach. I say that it is, and while I would present the ideas differently, I agree with the bulk of Valamir's points and responses.

Jake

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 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.

Valamir wrote: 1) Completely untrained peon with a CP of 4 goes up against a knight with a CP12.

Valamir wrote: 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...

Hi,

Valamir wrote: Ingenious. I have already addressed everything you just said in the post directly above yours. The underestimating of your foe comes in because you don't know how many dice your foe has.

The underestimating of an attack comes in when you figure X dice will be enough to block his attack, but he rolls well and you roll poorly and your defense turns out to be inadequate.

...how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

Does TRoS model this combat with as much authenticity as it does the combat of the highly trained? Or does the lack of manoeuvres, the increased chance of fumbling, and the rarity of successes make it more slapstick than realistic? I don't know -- and I look forward to finding out.

Hi,

Jake Norwood wrote: What I'm saying is that a medieval melee did not have more to do with brute force, and that idea is entirely a product of poorly educated authors from the last 300 years. Was strength an issue? Absolutely, it always has been in physcial hand-to-hand combat.

Ian.Plumb wrote:

Valamir wrote: 1) Completely untrained peon with a CP of 4 goes up against a knight with a CP12.

To make this relevant to what I'm talking about, how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

Valamir wrote: 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...

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: ...how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

Jake Norwood wrote: Very, very well, I believe. This aspect of combat was very carefully playtested. With or without terrain rolls, it mirrors those experiences that I have seen, read about, and informally tried. Is there a specific break-point that you're worried about?

Ian.Plumb wrote: Does TRoS model this combat with as much authenticity as it does the combat of the highly trained? Or does the lack of manoeuvres, the increased chance of fumbling, and the rarity of successes make it more slapstick than realistic? I don't know -- and I look forward to finding out.

Jake Norwood wrote: Also, according to historical records, such fights usually ended up with both fighters tossing their weapons away to resort to bare hands...

Ian-

Ah, so that's what the problem is! BF&I, for me, isn't the same as brute force and ignorance. I apologise for using a term that obviously has no specific vernacular connotation outside our area. BF&I -- the way we use it -- means physical strength.

I am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
I am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Maybe the discussion of strength would be better divided between military/civilian combt than medieval/ren. combat.
I've always found the time divisions dark ages, middle ages/medieval, renaissance to be pretty ignorant, but pretty useful at the same time for generalization.
But back to the strength thing. A good rapierist in 1590 wouldn't need the strength of a man at arms in 1450 (though it's always useful if you've got it). What's the psi to run someone through with a rapier? Negligable. What's the psi to cut a man down with a military blade while he's wearing a jack? The more the better. Ever done free play with foiled rapiers? If you train in medieval methods, you probably won't be able to break a sweat. Tried to flourysh for 5 minutes in complete armour? It definitely takes a lot of training and exercise. Soldiers require strength, for civilian warriors, it's just a plus.

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: I am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Camillus wrote: Generally speaking most arts depend on the careful application of force in precise places to achieve their effect. The skill is in manouvering so that you can launch an attack that your opponent cannot dodge or intercept. They very rarely go for the force on force approach because that guarantees victory for the bigger, stronger fighter and generally favours tactics that in turn are open to exploitation by a more skilled opponent...

Hi,

Ian.Plumb wrote: Ah, so that's what the problem is! BF&I, for me, isn't the same as brute force and ignorance. I apologise for using a term that obviously has no specific vernacular connotation outside our area. BF&I -- the way we use it -- means physical strength.

I am intrigued though by what you're saying -- the thought that a rennaisance duelist requires as much strength when facing an unarmoured opponent as a medieval warrior requires facing an armoured opponent. That seems counter-intuitive, though I'm content to accept the research.

Jake Norwood wrote: Physical strength, then, is an important issue, even in the Ren period. George Silver in 1590 said that if two untrained men duel at the rapier, then the better wrestler will win. If they are equal wrestlers, then the stronger man will win. Strength was equally important in earlier periods, but I would hesitate to say more so.

Ian-

I was thinking more in terms of it taking more strength to cause a wound through armour with a longsword than it does to cause a wound on an unarmoured opponent with a rapier, rather than using strength to deliver the blow per se.

Hi,

Jake Norwood wrote: Ian- I hope it doesn't feel like we're picking on you; I know I'm not.

I'm glad you brought this up. While it does take more strength to injure with a cut than a thrust (and therefore a longsword than a rapier), this is currently worked into the DR of TROS weapons. The second issue is the idea of "causing damage through armor." TROS allows this sort of thing to happen with very strong characters, but I dare say that that's unrealistic! I think that injuring a man in armor with a longsword cut would be horrifically difficult. The sword would break before the armor would--or at least that's what the research is showing. This is one area that I chose to go with playability and more modern conceptions of things instead of what was really going on. In all honesty, it's largely because at the time I didn't know any better. I am glad, however, that much beyond a lvl 1 wound is uncommon in TROS AFAIK, which sounds about right to me. It's the anti-armor weapons that I'd worry about--picks, axes, polearms.

Jake

Good point, I use the alternate rule, which isn't really such a big difference enough to call it that, that whatever damage that surpasses the AV, is blunt, regardless of the weapon. Simple and realistic. You can still try to beat someone down with your sword if they're wearing armour, but it represents the impacts and what they do, not a weapon cleaving the armour. It's GMs call whether it makes sense for a thrust to pierce or bypass the armour, or if a gorem with a bill cleaves it with a rage cut, or excalibur goes at it hehe.

Ian.Plumb wrote: While I think TRoS is going to work beautifully in our environment, is it the sort of environment that a TRoS player wants?

Valamir wrote:

Ian.Plumb wrote: To make this relevant to what I'm talking about, how does TRoS model the CP12 knight being overrun by six CP4 mallots? Does it do so with the same feeling of authenticity as it handles the duel?

I think so yes. The knight is in a bit of trouble. Base rule is he'd wind up splitting his pool of 12 against 6 opponents which if he tried to take them all on at once would be 4 dice to 2. Pretty likely to get killed.

Instead he'd be advised to use Terrain Rules to maneuver. This works by sacrificing dice out his CP for a roll that gives him the privelege of only fighting some of his attackers. Not having the book handy I can't remember what the difficulty would be, but the knight would give up say 4 dice to face two opponents. The other 4 opponents are considered to have been maneuvered out of position to attack that round. This leaves the knight with 8 CP which makes it 4dice to 4 dice. Still pretty risky.

I see everyone's point of view on this and finally understand it.
However, I would take note with Brian... that he's meaning melee combat, or so I hope. There can be many many more opponents on top of that with ranged combat, and all of them might only have MP's of around 6 or 7 or less. The knight is screwed in this situation, unless he has help.. but hopefully a knight isnt going to go single-handed into a peasant revolt without some bodyguards.

-Ingenious

In general I think if you've got 3 or more people shooting arrows at you that you're scrood anyhow. But that's just my opinion..

Hello,

I watched that discussion attentively with a high interest. I'm a new member, so let me introduce myself shortly. I'm a Ph. D. physics student. I played RPGs since a good 10-12 years now. I heard of TRoS not long ago on another board and I look foward to play it. I took some ken-jutsu lesson at my university for about 2 years now and I'm currently reading german and Italian longsword books now (no longsword school around here :-( ). Principally Meyer's book as I think it's well written and understandable.

Back more or less on topic: german longsword basic positions and strikes are more than highly similar to katori shinto ryu sabre positions and strikes from what I gather... And from a historical point of view, I once read somewhere (wow credible information ;-) ) that pretty much all of the "civilized" world's swordfighting styles (and wrestling styles presumably) originates from the greeks. In other words, the greeks at pretty much nailed it down. The rest is just some sort of "dialiects" influenced by culture. And armor I guess...

Back on topic: About strength and long sword. Since the sword's movement is basically circular, the energy delevered by a cut depends on the angular momentum of the blade. Considering the relatively low weight of swords, I would guess you don't need to be that strong to make an as hard a strike as necessary/possible. I don't really have the feeling that a much stronger person will strike so much more efficiently. On the other hand, on some defenses, strength becomes much more important. That being said, I never wielded a real weapon so take it as you will.

w/r/t strength and wielding longswords

Olympic weightlifters have the best ten metre sprint of any olympic athelete, including the sprinters.

My experience of using broadswords and longswords is that the stronger guys were faster than the weaker guys absolutely. They also had the option to power through your parries. And greater strength lent them greater endurance so they could just play with you for a bit then smear you when you started to fatigue.