Engagement Confusion

So, I have been running Fight! for a while with my group. We love it, of course. However, the engagement rules still have me a little confused. Specifically, engagement during a big, messy melee.

For instance, in our game this Sunday:

Ganoveth injured and scared off his opponnent (failed steel, run screaming), so he assessed and noted that his buddy, Thelor, was in some trouble with his opponnent.

Next exchange, Ganoveth indicated he wanted to assist Thelor and double-team the baddie giving him grief. However, as Ganoveth made his way over Thelor, I wanted another baddie to try and engage HIM.

Who needs to roll to engage who? Am I making this out to be more confusing than it should be?

Here’s what I think it should be:

Baddie 1 and Thelor remain engaged. No roll necessary.

Ganoveth must test to engage Baddie 1 – If successful, Baddie 1 will be threatened by both Ganoveth and Thelor. If unsuccessful, Baddie 1 maneuvered so that – for the moment – only Thelor (who is was orginally engage with) can strike him.

The new Baddie 2 who is trying to engage with Ganoveth must test to engage him. If successful, Baddie can strike Ganoveth. Further, if Ganoveth was successful in engaging with Baddie 2, HE might get double-teamed!

Does any of that make sense?

Also, if Baddie 2 is engaged with Ganoveth and Ganoveth is engaged with Baddie 1, does that me that Thelor is also engaged with Baddie 2 (through a sort of “engagement chain”? If not, how do I answer the players who say, “He’s RIGHT NEXT to my friend? Why can’t I hit him?”

Thanks, and sorry if this is damn confusing. :slight_smile:

Take a deep breath.

If Ganoveth is unsuccessful, he is at a disadvantage against Baddie 1.
If Baddie 2 is unsuccessful, Ganoveth has him at his advantage.
Baddie 2 and Thelor can’t strike each other no matter the outcome since they haven’t engaged one another. He’s not “right next to” anyone. He’s on the other side of Ganoveth. Are you going to ram your spear through Ganoveth to get to his opponent?

-L

Breath taken. :slight_smile:

I guess my main question is who can strike (i.e. Engage) whom. Is the answer that you can Engage whomever you wish at the beginning of an exchange as long as they are within X strides (10, I think?). I thought there was a way to remain disengaged from somebody while going after someone else, but I don’t have my book handy.

I know it is meant to be abstract, but I admit to having some trouble describing what transpires so that X is at a disadvantage to Y, but Y has the advantage to Z. It feels very nebulous to me and, although my players are having fun, I feel I’m doing a disservice by not being able to describe how, what, and why a combat situation develops as it does. I mean, I like the chaos and fluidity, but want to give my players a solid snapshot of how everything is on that moment.

You can only take actions against someone you’ve Engaged with.

So in the above example, following Luke’s explanation, Baddie 2 & Thelor can’t take actions against one another.

I don’t think there’s any way for Baddie 1 to prevent Ganoveth from engaging him except to disengage from Thelor. He could select Disengage as his maneuver and Thelor and Ganoveth would have to test against him. Only the ones who beat him would remain in the fight with him (at advantage), right?

And that makes sense. If you’re fighting the prince and his bodyguards come running in, there’s really no way to keep fighting the prince without fighting the bodyguards, too. I know what you’re saying… maneuver the prince between you and the bodyguards. But that seems like it would be really hard and mostly up to the prince.

If Baddie 2’s intent was to stop Ganoveth from reaching Baddie 1, I would probably tell Ganoveth that if Baddie 2 wins the maneuver roll he doesn’t engage Baddie 1 at all. Baddie 2 heads him off before he can reach Baddie 1. Of course, if Baddie 2 just cares about stabbing Ganoveth then let him reach Baddie 1.

True, but what about the reverse? The bodyguards are trying to keep you AWAY from the Prince. As I read the rules right now, they (and I, as the GM) can do nothing if the player announces, “I Engage the Prince” – even if he has a whole phalanx of guards surrounding him. That’s why I feel like I’m missing something. In that scenario, the Prince would obviously want to remain unengaged and let his bodyguards do the work. How can he do that?

If Baddie 2’s intent was to stop Ganoveth from reaching Baddie 1, I would probably tell Ganoveth that if Baddie 2 wins the maneuver roll he doesn’t engage Baddie 1 at all. Baddie 2 heads him off before he can reach Baddie 1. Of course, if Baddie 2 just cares about stabbing Ganoveth then let him reach Baddie 1.

I would probably tell him the same thing. But Ganoveth would have every right to ask me where I got such a notion. I don’t like to resort to, “'Cause I said so, that’s why!” when dealing with players. :wink:

So, is there justification for that interpretation in BWG?

Well, there’s the Intent rules. If Baddie 2’s Intent is to stop Ganoveth from reaching Baddie 1 and he wins the maneuver roll, then he gets his intent, right? I had the same problem as you awhile ago and we had a whole discussion about a knifeman trying to reach a king with bodyguards with and without surprise. Basically advice to me boiled down to Intent. You have an Intent, the GM decides the Ob, you roll. If you hit the Ob, you get your Intent (unless the GM decides it’s not a possible intent, like flapping your arms to fly up to the parapet or something).

Here’s a link to the thread I’m on about.

Wow, thanks for pointing out that thread. Great read, and somewhat reassuring to see I’m not the only one having some problens reconciling the Fight! rules with the game fiction.

Your feeling is appropriate. It’s your job as GM to describe stuff. You should describe it.

“Y steps up to Z and catches him flatfooted while managing to circle away from X’s nasty looking hammer. It’s going to be a stretch to hit him.”

[FONT=arial]

Player: “I Engage the Prince!”
Guard: “I move between the Prince and his attacker!”
Gm: “Looks like we’re not in Fight yet. Versus Speed test, if you win you slip past the guard. If the Guard wins he’s between you and the prince and you have to find a way through.”

If its a phalanx of guards they contribute helping dice.

[/FONT]

Well, that’s a little snarky. I do describe stuff. However, as evidence by the long thread Ten Swords pointed out, the rules don’t make it eminently clear what (if anything) is supposed to be happening so that the rules make sense. For instance, nowhere in BWG does it say you cannot directly engage the Prince who is surrounded by a dozen armed guards. The only mention of intent playing any role in Fight! I could find is at the very beginning of the section, with this:

[i]Rich announces, “I’ve drawn my sword; I’m entering the fray.” That’s his intent. A pretty guarded one, but that’s cool.[/i]

Note that the paragraph above this makes clear that this is how you start a fight, not what you do to determine whether it’s time for a fight.

Player: “I Engage the Prince!”
Guard: “I move between the Prince and his attacker!”
Gm: “Looks like we’re not in Fight yet. Versus Speed test, if you win you slip past the guard. If the Guard wins he’s between you and the prince and you have to find a way through.”

If its a phalanx of guards they contribute helping dice.

Sure. Sounds good to me. But where is this in the book?

I do love Fight! – the chaos and the scripting is great – but, to me, the engagement rules feel artificial, taking place in this very nebulous space which I find difficult to describe to my players. Now, don’t get me wrong. I dislike minatures. But with BWG you can’t even use a map because then you really have to figure out exactly what a +5 Ob really means in a sword vs. missile engagement, and there are no tools to do that.

Cue Everyone: “Use the greatest tool at your disposal, friend: Your immmmagination!”

Well, yeah, but what that really means is GM fiat.

Obviously, though, I’m missing something because everyone else seems to be doing okay.

Not to keep Great Striking a dead horse, but I think the crux of my issue came to me as I was writing my previous post:

The Engagement rules as I understand them are out of tone with the rest of the book. That is, while BWG communicates to the GM, "Say ‘yes’ whenever possible,’ the Engagement rules feel like a big barrel of “No.”

A conversation from one of our games:

ME: Okay, you’re at a +5 Ob to whack the archer.
PLAYER: Why? Is he running all over the place?"
ME: Yes.
PLAYER: Coward. Forget it, I go after one of the knights.
ME: You can’t.
PLAYER: Why?
ME: Because you engaged the archer.
PLAYER: Yeah, but I lost and my character isn’t dumb enough to chase him around for five good axe-swing’s worth of time. He’d chop the guy next to him.
ME: I know, but… That’s what the rules say.

The player agrees, but rolls his eyes and his suspension of disbelief is damaged. This is one example, but I’ve encountered a number of others. I’m not at all convinced it’s the rules, as much as my understanding of them.

Page 461 of BWG:

If you’re coming to the aid of an outnumbered ally, you may engage one of his attackers at the start of the exchange. Pick your target; if you win, you can peel him off and engage him one on one. If you lose, your target can choose to engage you or pass you off to his partner.

Assuming that no-one disengages (or someone tries to disengage and fails), what we have is a 2x2 melee, which should be broken up into two 1x1 melees according to the preferences of whoever won the initial positioning test. If Ganovet beats Baddie Two’s engage roll, then he can have his pick of the two baddies, with Thelor having to fight the other one. If Baddie Two wins, then he gets Ganovet and his partner stays engaged with Thelor. The important point to remember is that once you enter the fight, you’re going to have to be fighting someone until either you or your opponent successfully disengages, or you or your opponent becomes incapacitated.

It’s an art, not a rule. One hopes to be describing the situation well enough that when a player says “I engage the Prince” everyone around the table tilts their heads and goes “Eh? How?” For instance, there’s no rule that says you can’t test to engage someone inside the castle behind the moat of lava. Yet if a player announced that at the table, everybody would look at them like they were crazy: “Uh, buddy, don’t you need to test Climbing and maybe Swim Through Lava first?” The existence of guards around the prince is not so cut and dry. Depending on the details and what the guards do, they might stop you from engaging him, or they might just make it harder or stab you on the way in.

I’d consider the GM’s description successful if it creates in the minds of the players a conception of the guards as a thing that complicates the act of engaging the prince. If they either ask how to get past the guards, or make a plan to deal with them first, you did your job. If they all seem to think that “I engage the Prince” is a perfectly reasonable action and that any penalty is “GM fiat,” you’ve failed.

Your archer example is wonky. “Five axe-swings worth of time” is ten actions, does his character really have B10 Reflexes? Where is the knight? If the knight is not engaging the PC, it makes perfect sense to me that it might take just a moment to dash towards the archer, lunge, fall short, turn around, locate the knight (who is, presumably, doing his own thing and not necessarily standing right where he was before), move over to where he is, and enter fighting distance safely. Perhaps about as long as it takes for his buddy to dash towards the knight, feint, swing, dodge, step in and try to grab his wrist, fail, and duck away. Thus, engage a new target at the start of the next exchange.

Perhaps the disconnect there is that your player didn’t realize the archer would try to run? Or didn’t understand what the Disadvantage rules did? It sounds like he’s actually asking for more of a retconn: not so much “I want to quit chasing the archer and go after the knight” as “I didn’t really want to chase the archer at all, I only wanted to hit him if he wasn’t going to run. Can I hit the knight instead?”

Again, I have trouble parsing this into narrative language on the fly. I can recite the rules to the players, but it feels stolid and contrived and not at all what Fight! is supposed to be, which is chaotic and exciting.

Also – in your example – why should Thelor get stuck with the leftover? He gets to test to engage, also.

I get what you’re saying, Zab, but what I’m trying to communicate is that – according to the rules – there is no reason a player shouldn’t be able to say this. And if he does, I as a GM have no defense against disallowing other than, “Because I say so.” Now, my players trust me and will go with my ruling, but I’d rather not have to resort to that on something that actually seems pretty critical to me.

Your archer example is wonky. “Five axe-swings worth of time” is ten actions, does his character really have B10 Reflexes?

What do you mean? Swinging an axe is one action. He has a B5 Reflexes. I know you need to “rest” after two strikes, but that doesn’t alter how much time it takes to swing.

Where is the knight? If the knight is not engaging the PC, it makes perfect sense to me that it might take just a moment to dash towards the archer, lunge, fall short, turn around, locate the knight (who is, presumably, doing his own thing and not necessarily standing right where he was before), move over to where he is, and enter fighting distance safely. Perhaps about as long as it takes for his buddy to dash towards the knight, feint, swing, dodge, step in and try to grab his wrist, fail, and duck away. Thus, engage a new target at the start of the next exchange.

Except that’s not what would happen. He dashed toward the archer, realized immediately he couldn’t reach him (Ob +5 happens right away) then spent the whole Exchange running after him, swinging his axe twice, trying to grab at air, and generally looking like a fool. Players don’t like having choice taken from them, and that’s what he felt like happened.

It seems to me that there are two problems cropping up here. The first is the “prince and guards” scenario, the second the “fleeing archer” scenario.

Nor is there, according to your reading* of the rules, any reason I can’t test to engage you, right now. There’s no rule saying I must be within one hundred miles to engage. No rule saying your locked door can keep me out. Have you had a big problem with folks declaring Engage against NPCs they want to kill who are thousands of miles away? Or a lot of pushback when you make rulings like “you’ll need to get out of your prison cell before you can Engage the warden?” No? Then obviously the process I’m describing is working on some level: your players are taking (at least some of) your scene descriptions as restricting their tactical options.

Can you make this more concrete? Have you actually had trouble with situations where a player wants to test to engage someone and you have ruled that they cannot test without first doing something else to make engagement possible, and either your players have called foul or you have felt like your ruling was inappropriate? Can you tell us what actually came up in play?

As for the fleeing archer…

If you want to set up the action to make the PC look silly, I sure can’t stop you. It’s just as reasonable, lacking that desire, to say that he spent the exchange trying to corner him as he dodged around the tables (or rocks, if outdoors), twice getting close enough to strike but not quite landing the blows, and even catching hold of the archer’s wrist at one point before having it wrenched away. Positioning is NOT a static process that happens before Volley 1, Action 1. It is an ongoing give-and-take that occurs all through the exchange. This is why it is possible for a knifeman to stab a spearman. They didn’t set their positioning at the start of the exchange and then stand still while swinging; if that had been the case, the knifeman would simply be unable to reach. Instead, the spearman has advantage: he’s doing a better job of controlling angle, distance, and measure this exchange. The knifeman can slip in and cut him, but it’ll be harder for him.

*I would contest you on this point: mechanical interpretation of the fiction is the GM’s job. For instance, on pg 73, the rules state that in addition to describing the world, the GM “uses the game mechanics to reinforce those descriptions.”

I just wanted to weigh in on the issue with the axeman chasing the archer, and try to give my five cents without sounding snarky.

You need to make a player in your axeman’s situation understand the ramifications of his actions. Yes, he can choose to try and chase down the archer, but it will take a full exchange. I am unsure as to what the process of “engaging” would otherwise entail? Giving an earnest attempt att getting to an archer who doesn’t want you to with your melee weapon isn’t done in a heartbeat, and you can hardly know if you will succeed or not until you try.

It seems to me you interpret this as some sort of “stage” taking place in a separate time to the actual combat actions, but it is all a part of the action. It is resolved at a specific time in the pure game mechanics, but this is a separate issue. I don’t think the +5 Ob “happens instantly” - it doesn’t happen at all until you start scripting actions and they receive that negative modifier.

Right… it’s like how “Let it Ride” sometimes leaves you in a place where your actions are doomed to failure but you do them anyway because that’s the wager you made. You roll Circles to find a member of the palace staff willing to sneak you in to top the Duchess, and your GM says that if you fail, your contact will actually be sneaking you in to see the Duke and a brace of his soldiers. You roll the dice and you fail, well that sets a date between you and the Duke and his soldiers. It’s no fair welshing on that bet and having your character change his mind when he gets to the moat.

Same deal with chasing the archer, right? You fail the maneuver roll, so you’re going to be outmaneuvered in the chase, but you’ve committed to undertaking the chase (at least for an exchange). Your character doesn’t know he’s not going to catch the archer until he tries a bit.

Not true at all. It comes down to one of the cores of Burning Wheel: intent and task. As a GM it’s your job to evaluate an intent and decide whether it’s valid. If it’s not, then the player can’t accomplish the task.

What Devin is getting at is that engaging the prince through/past that phalanx of guards is an invalid intent. Just like you wouldn’t let a character try and fly by flapping their arms, it makes sense to not let them attack the prince with dozens of guards in the way.

And of course this is where hypotheticals get tricky, because I keep thinking of ways that depending on how a scene with a prince and guards is set up, I might still be able to do something directly against the prince.

Wait, wait. Maybe I’m not reading this right, but it seems like Leo is saying that he understands the rules but is having a hard time describing how they look in the game to his players.

There’s no GM fiat or “reason a player shouldn’t be able to say this.” The rules are there and clear. A is engaged with B. B has X penalty. But players are pushing back, as they are wont to do, because they want to be heroes and want the scene to shape to their imagining, rather than that of the GM and the text.

I’m sure you won’t be surprised when I tell you to start with the rules and stick to the rules. They provide a neutral arbiter, a framework for you all to build on. They’re a static reference point from which we build consensus!

In nearly every rule I create, I provide you with a framework built by numbers—advantages, penalties, and opportunities. It’s up to you to interpret this framework in a way that makes sense, in a way that’s evocative to your players.

So, the rule says you’re not engaged with an opponent thus you can’t attack him. A player howls, “BUT WHYYYYYY?”

“Because that’s what the rules say” is a poor response in any game. We all know it’s the answer. But sometimes we need a little more dressing on our salads.

This is the moment for you, the GM, to step up. Take a moment to imagine the scene. Who is where, what’s going? Now do a little scene math. If character A can’t attack NPC C, what is true? Well, something must be in the way, or he’s farther away than you thought, or you’re hard pressed at the moment and can’t get to him.

If a player then wants to change the dynamics of that scene, “BUTTT IIII WANNTTT TOOO ATTTACCKKK HIMMM,” the rules provide! But the opportunity comes at a certain juncture, not simply when we desire it. In this case, the opportunity to engage comes at the start of the next exchange.

And if a player has engaged at his disadvantage, he cannot simply whine his way out of the situation. He must weather this storm for the moment and do what he can at the next opportunity. And responsibility for making that medicine go down rests heavily on the shoulders of the GM. A player petulantly declares, “This is stupid. I would do the smart thing. All the time.” The GM nods and smiles and says, “Yes, at the beginning of the next exchange. Right now, you’re pinned down.” Or you’re out of reach of that other guy or you’re trouble and need to concentrate lest you be shot through the throat. Or something similar.

RPGs are wonderful because they are games of imagination, but they are imagined based on a framework of rules communicated verbally moment to moment by a group of players. Sometimes we need simply get back to our roots and slather on a lavish description full of problems, hurdles and hiccups. Something that everyone can really dwell on in that long moment. A description of why the rules are working the way they are can galvanize everyone and also help us understand the rules better.

-Luke