Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide Gold

[noclue]

Okay, in another sparks thread adding zones to combat was proposed as a way to encourage players to use the terrain for tactical advantage. That’s cool, but I like the abstracted nature of BW combat. Not wanting to rain on that parade, I thought I would create this thread put forward a revised set of Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide rules from the Adbu to achieve these ends without physical representation of the battlefield.

The Adbu advises that Burning Wheel “substantially awards forethought” and these rules would encourage players to assess the battlefield when possible to look for positional advantages. These assessments should naturally lead to descriptions of the area that should flesh out the battlefield with evocative imagery and useful details without needing to deal with zones.

Room With One Exit
+1D advantage to engage, but a +1 ob cumulative penalty to each positioning roll thereafter.

Fighting in Corridors and Atop Battlements
+1 ob penalty to positioning while in Neutral Stance.

Fighting With Your Back to the Sea (or a Wall)
+2 ob penalty to engaging or positioning, reduced to +1 ob penalty if in Aggressive Stance. +1 ob penalty to any Avoid actions.

Slogging Through Swamp, River and Sand
Defender gets +1D or +2D advantage to engage and positioning as long as the defensive position is maintained.

General Unpleasantness
+1 ob to positioning. +1 ob to any power or speed tests.

What do you think?

[Durand_Durand]

2D is a big advantage, 2Ob is a big[ger] penalty.

@noclue

Room With One Exit
+1D advantage to engage, but a +1 ob cumulative penalty to each positioning roll thereafter.

That cumulative penalty to positioning rolls is too much. +1-2Ob is fine, as more than that just gets real messy, real quick. Not too many combats will go beyond 3-4 exchanges unless combatants are heavily armoured.

@noclue

Fighting in Corridors and Atop Battlements
+1 ob penalty to positioning while in Neutral Stance.

Not that I’ve ever done a lot of fighting on Battlements, but I’d be thinking more along the lines of +1Ob penalty to Aggressive [less openings for attack] and +1D defensive [less area to defend].

@noclue

Fighting With Your Back to the Sea (or a Wall)
+2 ob penalty to engaging or positioning, reduced to +1 ob penalty if in Aggressive Stance. +1 ob penalty to any Avoid actions.

@noclue

Slogging Through Swamp, River and Sand
Defender gets +1D or +2D advantage to engage and positioning as long as the defensive position is maintained.

Swamp I’d simply probably make +1-2Ob [depending on viscosity] to every engagement action EXCEPT Let 'em Come. You loose boots in those places.

@noclue

General Unpleasantness
+1 ob to positioning. +1 ob to any power or speed tests.

I think GU is a good simple rule of thumb to guide the GM in his obs for terrain.

[noclue]

I tried to keep the rules somewhat in line with those in the AdBu. Fighting in Corridors penalizes maintain actions, but not closing or withdrawing in BWR. Overall, penalties and advantages are pretty close to those in the book.

[zabieru]

@noclue

I tried to keep the rules somewhat in line with those in the AdBu. Fighting in Corridors penalizes maintain actions, but not closing or withdrawing in BWR. Overall, penalties and advantages are pretty close to those in the book.

So shouldn’t that be more like a reduction of advantage for whoever holds the advantage currently, or a bonus to folks trying to gain advantage at a different weapon length?

[Dean]

I’d also like to see a better way to add terrain modifiers directly to the core BWG Fight rules without altering the abstracted nature of the conflict. The engagement zones idea is interesting, but I honestly don’t see many uses for it. It’d probably cause more problems than solve them.

My AdBu is still on loan to a friend, so I can’t yet reference the BWR rules for Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide. However, just going by what was written above, I feel that the rules are not being translated to BWG correctly….

@zabieru

So shouldn’t that be more like a reduction of advantage for whoever holds the advantage currently

I was thinking along those lines as well, applied to all the terrain modifiers. Engagement and positioning tests are abstract enough that they could take into account positioning to overcome terrain difficulties, not just working around your opponent’s weapon length, so that’s good. However, if both opponents are at equal weapon lengths, no disadvantage is generated anyways (which happens very often). I think it kind of goes against the point of applying terrain modifiers to the positioning tests if they can just be ignored. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t remember the AdBu rules being so easy to ignore.

What I would do is to directly alter the Disadvantage generated from engagement and positioning tests. This would significantly enhance the give-and-take nature of winning/losing Advantage, and you’d see Disadvantage penalties pop up for same WL opponents, which is an interesting dynamic.

Maybe something like this:

Room With One Exit
[ul]
[li]If you are engaged at your Disadvantage, you suffer a +1 Ob penalty in addition to the Ob penalty for your weapon length.
[/li][li]Furthermore, Disadvantaged combatants suffer a +2 Ob penalty to Disengage.
[/li][/ul]

Fighting in Corridors and Atop Battlements
[ul]
[li]If you are engaged at your Disadvantage, you suffer a +1 Ob penalty to all Change Stance and Beat actions.
[/li][li]Furthermore, Disadvantaged combatants suffer a +1 Ob penalty to Vie for Position.
[/li][/ul]

Fighting With Your Back to the Sea (or a Wall)
[ul]
[li]You suffer a +1 Ob penalty to Disengage.
[/li][li]If you are engaged at your Disadvantage, you suffer a +2 Ob penalty in addition to the Ob penalty for your weapon length. This penalty is reduced to +1 Ob if you are in Aggressive Stance.
[/li][/ul]

Slogging Through Swamp, River and Sand
[ul]
[li]Holding your ground when you’re bogged down is often a good idea. If you choose to Let 'Em Come, your opponent suffers a +1 to +2 Ob penalty to their engagement or positioning test (depending on the viscosity of the muck).
[/li][li]If you are in Defensive Stance and have Advantage, your opponent suffers a +1 to +2 Ob penalty in addition to the Ob penalty for his weapon length.
[/li][/ul]

General Unpleasantness
[ul]
[li]All combatants suffer a +1 Ob penalty to any Power or Speed tests.
[/li][li]If you are engaged at your Disadvantage, you suffer a +1 Ob penalty in addition to the Ob penalty for your weapon length. This stacks with the penalty to Power and Speed.
[/li][/ul]

Hmm, suddenly rushing that spearman guarding the treasure room doesn’t seem like such a good idea…. ^^

What do you think?

[noclue]

It’s cool, but I’m disinclined to add complexity back into Fight!, where you have to add additional modifiers if you’re at a disadvantage.

[Dean]

@noclue

It’s cool, but I’m disinclined to add complexity back into Fight!, where you have to add additional modifiers if you’re at a disadvantage.

Add complexity? +Ob disadvantage penalty versus +D advantage bonus is one of the most fundamental conceits of the game. Adding terrain modifiers to positioning and engagement rolls is more complex IMHO, as those mechanics already have a bunch of hard-to-remember modifiers.

If anything, my suggested variant might be too brutal. But terrain modifiers are brutal. They represent Disadvantages you’re pitted against in the conflict.

[noclue]

I would find remembering to add a modifier only if I’m engaged at a disadvantage in a particular area more difficult then just applying a modifier to vying for position.

[Dean]

@noclue

I would find remembering to add a modifier only if I’m engaged at a disadvantage in a particular area more difficult then just applying a modifier to vying for position.

But … we already have to remember to add a modifier only if we’re engaged at a disadvantage – the weapon length modifiers. Adding terrain modifiers in means we’d have to remember to use them one way or another. I think it’d be easier to remember adding them as disadvantage penalties, since that’s what they more logically seem to represent. But, to each his own game, I guess.

[Ten_of_Swords]

Maybe we can simplify it one more step? Something like this:

Constraining Terrain (a room with no exit, backed up against a cliff, a narrow hallway or tunnel, sucking mud, etc):constraining terrain limits your ability to move rapidly and unpredictably.
+1 or 2 Ob (GM’s choice) to Attack, Basic, Special actions and Avoid.
+1 or 2 Ob to Disengage.

Slippery Terrain (ice, scree, etc.): Slippery terrain is difficult to stand on. Moving suddenly makes you fall.
No speed advantage for Stride.
Any time you roll 0 successes on an action, you fall prone.
Standing requires 3 actions, not 2.

[Dean]

@Ten_of_Swords

Maybe we can simplify it one more step? Something like this:

Constraining Terrain (a room with no exit, backed up against a cliff, a narrow hallway or tunnel, sucking mud, etc):constraining terrain limits your ability to move rapidly and unpredictably.
+1 or 2 Ob (GM’s choice) to Attack, Basic, Special actions and Avoid.
+1 or 2 Ob to Disengage.

Slippery Terrain (ice, scree, etc.): Slippery terrain is difficult to stand on. Moving suddenly makes you fall.
No speed advantage for Stride.
Any time you roll 0 successes on an action, you fall prone.
Standing requires 3 actions, not 2.

Would work fine, although quite different from the Nowhere to Run, Nowhere to Hide rules.