yeah I understand.
but anyway, I am quite curious what would break in the game if I used “defend stops feint, feint stops attack, nothing stops defend” method, that sorts out reckless attacking without relying on overly harsh compromises.
I will definitely find out on my next session (in a few weeks). any ideas?
Moved this portion of the discussion here. It’s its own topic. Discuss.
My two cents:
Defend has a counter because not having one could lead to one side (or both) constantly putting their disposition at max every volley by scripting multiple (or even just one) Defend.
Suffice it to say, that’d be pretty boring and say good-bye to risk.
It’s made doubly worse because, under your proposed system, Defend now also stops Feint. That gives the Defend action taker yet another independent test to boost disposition.
Essentially, you’re limiting the potential for the conflict to end (by “nerfing” Attack) and making conflicts mundane or highly risk averse (by essentially boosting Defend to an extreme).
Okay, so let’s start from scratch. Ditch the current conflict system and rebuild on a simple roshambo.
You have three choices at every step: Attack, Defend, Maneuver. Let’s just leave feint out of it because, well, its presence would produce potentially unmatched pairs. It’s gotta be 3.
Let’s also leave out scripting. There’s no point in prescheduling your plays if every outcome is a binary “i win u lose” result. Hopefully the logic behind this is apparent.
And finally, I think probably both sides get a dispo-hitting roll in the event of a tie. We both attack? We both get hit.
Would Defend and Maneuver have any special in-game effect? IOW is everything a hit against dispo (per Attack), ultimately? Or would Defend produce a dispo-generating effect and Maneuver produce a buy-a-bonus effect?
p.
As I said in the original thread, I think you’re setting yourself for frustration. I’m guessing that a 20-30 minute conflict with the original rules will turn into a 80-120 minute “let’s hope we get lucky and the opponent is unlucky”.
(edit)
Attack, in the Rules As Written (RAW) version, essentially says one of two things, depending on the situation:
(1) “I am attacking so we can achieve the goal.”
(2) “I am attacking so we can get a compromise if we lose.”
Defend, in the Rules As Written version, essentially says one of two things, depending on the situation:
(1) “I am defending so that we survive until my teammate can attack.”
(2) “I am defending to recover losses, so we can achieve the goal with lesser or no compromise.”
Maneuver is …
“I am defending so that we survive, and I want to gain an advantage in the next action.”
Feint is …
“I am trying to stop my opponent from defending himself.”
So the question is, when you use your modified version, how does it change these definitions?
My issue is, if all the options are mechanically equivalent what is the point of selecting them at all? You could roll a versus test, winner reduces disposition by the margin of success each round and produce similar results. Two lists of statistics meet on the field of battle and exchange a brutal torrent of random numbers at eachother. Delaying / healing actions are supposed to be risky attempts to lengthen the battle till you are hopefully in better position: They are even that way in good old D&D (though not as much 4e were every power can be a crazy mix of attack/heal/buff/debuff/maneuver). Essentially this proposal tries to make attacking all the time less attractive by making any selection meaningless, which sort of cuts the soul out of the conflict.
Yup. Any fight mechanic that allows for heavy defense gets boring really quickly.
And that’s why the RAW attack is pretty powerful (ie, nothing “stops” it)
So under this system, there will be a lot more one-sided exchanges – especially the Feint versus Attack. Your choice of moves becomes very critical, as opposed to the current system where there are more key “safe” moves.
Question: When Defend is against Feint, then presumably the feinting side gets nothing. Does the defending side roll against the standard independent obstacle of 3? I would recommend so, though it does lessen the impact of this and thus makes feint more attractive. In contrast, Feint versus Attack is devastating for the attacker.
So under this system, there will be a lot more one-sided exchanges – especially the Feint versus Attack. Your choice of moves becomes very critical, as opposed to the current system where there are more key “safe” moves.
Question: When Defend is against Feint, then presumably the feinting side gets nothing. Does the defending side roll against the standard independent obstacle of 3? I would recommend so, though it does lessen the impact of this and thus makes feint more attractive. In contrast, Feint versus Attack is devastating for the attacker.
I agree that it is going to slow things down, though I’m not sure by what factor.
I try to analyze reasons to use actions in raw and alternative method (alm)
RAW
attack
defend
feint
maneuver
ALM
attack
defend
feint
maneuver
so bottom line is that in ALM will be F and D used more often than in RAW on expense of less using now overused A (M is equally useful in both RAW and ALM). but as F is active action, only the increased use of D will potentialy prolong the conflict. but as D, althrought safest action, is passive, there is no good reason to use it very frequently if I want to win and not stalemate the conflict.
does it make sense or did I miss something?
under RAW, a strong defend or maneuver can result in no gain from an attack.
And assuming both sides have the same dice pools, defense and maneuver usually use a higher rated Nature vs a lower rated Attack.
Corvus,
This is going to seem like a dumb question, but your post doesn’t use RAW terminology, so I have to ask. Do you understand the difference between an Independent and a Versus test?
Just to point it out since you didn’t mention it, but Defend is only Ob3 when it’s an Independent test, otherwise in a Versus test you’re concerned with margin of success, instead.
Maybe that’s what Luke’s question was referring to?
This will sound dismissive but it’s not meant to be… please do not underestimate BWHQs playtesting-fu. I have every faith these kids know how to squeeze the most fun out of their games.
So what would it break? Well we’ve already explained that it would lengthen combat. It was also mentioned that it removes real choice from the game. I think it was also noted that your choices are important conceptually as well. ie. If you’re choosing Attack your making a pointed decision to push forward without regard for your own safety, etc.
I think those three things are pretty compelling reasons to let dogs lie.
BW/MG is not a linear game. It’s not all about disposition and winning and losing. It’s about difficult choices and how willing you are to deal with the consequences of those choices. If the players are not interested in playing a game about consequences then these games may not really be right for your group (not saying that’s the case, and I know Luke says it all the time… I guess I am just out here waving the flag but hey, sometimes that’s what is needed to get the ideas across.
Corvus, the spin on that question would be, knowing you’d risk these four things - speed, choice, concept and consequences, what would the benefit of having a “balanced” conflict resolution system be? Is “using each choice more often” worth these things? I’d love to hear detailed retellings of your games where your players are slugging it out with AAA. I suspect if everyone is satisfied with the results of “winning” all the time it is probably due to compromises not being levied or discussed well enough. Compromise is the final FU you get to shiv the winner with. If it doesn’t feel like that and send story in great directions I would hazard a guess that you need to push harder. I realize your question was “setting aside compromise” but ultimately, as stated earlier, why not just do versus tests then?
I hope this comes off as helpful,
hijaacks the thread
DON!!! Long time no see! Then again, I haven’t heard from Pat and Ryan either. You might remember me as that “weird filipino guy playing a Ranger/Barbarian/Fighter/Cleric multiclassed character”.
Anyway… back to the thread.
I suspect if everyone is satisfied with the results of “winning” all the time it is probably due to compromises not being levied or discussed well enough.
I kinda asked that question in the other thread (in Lockhaven). I’m not certain it got answered. Here’s some quotes and references:
Do you understand the difference between an Independent and a Versus test?
Yes I do. But I was just concerned with ‘negating’ the ability altogether.
Guys I really did get your point some 20 posts ago: Harsh compromises lead to more careful fighting and caring more about final disposition. And my compromises were clearly not harsh enough.
But frankly I dont know if I will be able to really come up with some reaaally tough compromises. Anyway I consider the case closed.
Stormtower, I dont remember fine technical details, but nobody used AAA exclusively, it was mostly combination of attacks and maneuvers, nobody used feint more than once and defend was used few times only if the disposition was really low.