Interesting. Thanks for all your effort in writing this up. I wonder if there have been any rumours about updating H+I to the new Mythic rules? Probably not and probably easy to do on the fly, but I thought I'd ask in case it's just over the horizon.

Quote from: Bren3) Framing Combat
This one is new. I recently moved to a more flexible system of Initiative that avoids switching from character to character each round based on initiative. Instead I stick with one character for one or more rounds until there is either a resolution or a cliff hanger where it makes sense to switch points of view.

From the first, switching between characters based on initiative as H+I describes worked well for keeping the players engaged. However it had one problem. Several players complained that their recollection of the fight was very stochastic or stroboscopic and they couldn't follow the flow of the combat. To resolve that we ended up going back after a short fight or at stages in a longer fight and describing the flow of combat. This was a bit cumbersome, but it worked.

However, as the players increased in power they mastered actions. Mastering some actions, like Parry or Riposte gives the master an additional free action. Heroes and Villains in H+I get two actions each round: one major action (often an attack) and one minor action (like a feint or a reaction like a parry). However very experienced characters who have mastered maneuvers get more actions. So a deadly duelist like our hero, Captain-Lieutenant Gaston Thibeault fighting the villainous sword master, César de Mala Cassanha, might look like this.

Round 1
Gaston gets the initiative, he attacks with Bladework (his major action).
Cassanha parries (free action), then ripostes (free action).
The riposte would have barely succeeded, but Gaston dodges (his free action), then ripostes (free action).
Cassanha parries (his minor action).
Cassanha now acts. He lunges (his major action).
Gaston parries (his minor action) which ends the round.
WHEW! Okay, now on to round 2 which might look similar.

As you can imagine if you are playing Guy de Bourges, you might forget what happened in your last combat after listening to the long exchange between Gaston and Cassanha. Now this sort of very long round only happens when the PC has mastered multiple maneuvers and the opponent is a Villain who has also mastered multiple maneuvers. Which is not the usual encounter in H+I, but such encounters have happened more than a few times over the years we have played.

So currently what I am doing is to combine several rounds to provide a clear sense of flow for each character and to hopefully run combat long enough to reach either a conclusion or a minor cliff hanger. What I get ends up being a bit more narrative and looking a bit like the way Framing works in Regime Diabolique.

This is one of those moments where an entirely new vista of possibilities opens up in my mind. One of those "I would never have thought to do that but it seems so obvious" moments. Thank you.

Quote from: Bren;828811Korgul,

Good post and very good points, most of which I agree with wholeheartedly.

Social conflict feels a little awkward sometimes. It certainly requires practice for players and GM if they aren't used to that sort of system. One of my players is really good at using the system. It part that is because she is just that good, but in large part I think it is because she likes and is used to the point-counterpoint of debate and she likes the British style of debating which I'd say the social conflict in H+I fits well with. I find I am better able to GM the conflict when she is running the PC involved.

What I find works pretty well for all of us is to have a brief OOC conversation to set up the object of the conversational conflict (if it is unclear) and maybe set some stakes (if they are unclear).  One thing I find players sometimes struggle with is losing composure in a social conflict. They often don't want their character to lose and so setting a stake ahead of time by at least considering - "so if you character loses the argument and is humiliated, what would that look like?" can help.

My experience was similar. I'll say more about that in another Q&A post.

There are optimal patterns, but they aren't simply character specific they are character-and-opponent specific. The tactics that a PC may use against the agile and tricky Aramis may be very different when the PC faces the mighty Porthos...or often they should be. Players that ignore their opponent's strengths and weaknesses are often badly surprised when their favorite combination doesn't work and they get beaten by the NPC.

EDIT: What sorts of duelists have you seen in play? What move combinations have they favored?

I don't remeber the details, since the campaign finished two or three years ago. Maybe part of the problem is that the two characters were very focused (An assassin with an exceptiolally high daring low might and abissimal flair, and a spy/priest with an exceptionally high flair, low daring and abissimal might). I remember one of them going all riposte and lounge, the other feinting,  cape parryng and impressing enemies into submission (generating a massive ammount of fortune point in the process thank to some school mastery bonus combo). I remeber that when I wanted to really mess with them I had to make them fight mighty opponents who shoved and grappled them.


As for the social conflict rules, maybe they were just not for me. I really prefer unobtrusive rules, in that area.

Quote from: Stainless;828827Interesting. Thanks for all your effort in writing this up. I wonder if there have been any rumours about updating H+I to the new Mythic rules? Probably not and probably easy to do on the fly, but I thought I'd ask in case it's just over the horizon.

No idea. BASHAMAN might know, but I've mostly seen him post at the TBP. If you post there you might ask the question or see if he pops in here.

Quote from: Korgul;828840I don't remeber the details, since the campaign finished two or three years ago. Maybe part of the problem is that the two characters were very focused (An assassin with an exceptiolally high daring low might and abissimal flair, and a spy/priest with an exceptionally high flair, low daring and abissimal might). I remember one of them going all riposte and lounge, the other feinting,  cape parryng and impressing enemies into submission (generating a massive ammount of fortune point in the process thank to some school mastery bonus combo). I remeber that when I wanted to really mess with them I had to make them fight mighty opponents who shoved and grappled them.

Yeah, characters with a good Might can use tactics like Bind and Disarm that can totally ruin the day of characters with average or poor Might. Gaston Thibeault uses Bind and Disarm a lot. However it doesn't work against a very high Might, low Savvy character. Against that sort switching to Feint and Bladework will tend to work better. That's part of the brilliance of H+I is there are real tactics that make sense in game that a player can use. But the 2d6 roll is swingy enough that a character can just rely on Fortune Points and luck to succeed with less optimal maneuvers.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;828829This is one of those moments where an entirely new vista of possibilities opens up in my mind. One of those "I would never have thought to do that but it seems so obvious" moments. Thank you.

You are welcome. Glad you found something you can use.

Was reading that witch write-up: so magic exists in this game? I thought it was more like a Sun King era swashbuckling game; is it capital-F Fantasy by default per the rules?

Quote from: Matt;829367Was reading that witch write-up: so magic exists in this game? I thought it was more like a Sun King era swashbuckling game; is it capital-F Fantasy by default per the rules?

Not at all; there is a chapter on including the supernatural if you want it, but it certainly isn't capital-F Fantasy by default.

Quote from: Matt;829367Was reading that witch write-up: so magic exists in this game? I thought it was more like a Sun King era swashbuckling game; is it capital-F Fantasy by default per the rules?

Currently the in game date is February 28, 1624. Louis XIII is King and the Sun King is not yet even a twinkle in Anne of Austria's eye.

Magic is an option. Also, the supernatural is an option, comedy is an option, historical is an option, big damn heroes is an option, PC sorcerers is even an option. There are lots of options.

When discussing the pitch for the game with the players we agreed on a low to no supernatural game. Thus, so far in the campaign we have had 3 sessions out of 158 where there was an actual, no bullshit Jack, supernatural thing for the PCs to interact with.

The frequency of supernatural interaction may increase. The game world is in motion. I thought the PCs would mostly be heroic King's Musketeers. The two King's Musketeers dropped out or went on hiatus and now most of the PCs are in the Cardinal's Guards. A couple of weeks ago through some amazingly good fortune and a bit of clever strategy, three of the PCs defeated or fought to a draw the Three Inseparables.

For those who still have questions to ask about H+I or who are interested in my campaign, I recently started a blog to talk about Honor+Intrigue, my H+I campaign, historical campaigns in general, roleplaying in general mostly using H+I as the example, and pretty much anything else that strikes my fancy without being too off topic.

Stop by sometime and chat or see if there is anything you can use.

Here's the link.

Hey, guys. Color me late to the party. I just found out about this thread and Bren's blog. Amazing stuff. I think that idea of framing combat by characters is pretty neat, too.

Regarding Magic in the game, there is a chapter, deliberately near the end of the book, called "Mysteries, Horrors, and Wonders.". This chapter is **Entirely** optional and is for if you want to put some supernatural stuff in your game. It includes an alternate history of the world involving evil supernatural forces and rules for using "Historical" Hermetic magic like talisman crafting, alchemy, and divination. It also has "Clockwork-Punk" gadgetry you can make for those who want to go fantastic in other ways. The secret history part- you can take it or leave it; it says this is one possible explanation for how/why this stuff exists and why it works. There are also magic-based (or monster hunting) secret societies detailed in this section as well. It also has rules for NPC "Black Magic" which are much more flashy and potent magic than what is recommended as available to PCs (but as was said, with modifications Sorcery could be available to PCs). I began working on a magic supplement a while back, in fact, for those who want an "Elves, Wizards, and Dragons, and such" fantasy but it remains unfinished. I will get back to it at some point.

Regarding BOL Mythic Edition, there are no plans to change the H+I rules (though you might have recognized the Mass Combat rules in Mythic Edition from Honor + Intrigue). There are 2 reasons for this: 1. Nobody has approached me about doing a revised edition to update it. 2. I don't think it is necessary from a mechanics perspective. That is not a criticism of BoL:ME; it is just a different design approach. A couple examples:

I am happy with the weapons write-ups and how armor works, etc. I would have to completely change the equipment list (and drastically simplify it) if I were to switch weapons over to how they work in Mythic Edition.   Changing the equipment might also impact game balance. The fact you could one-shot kill somebody with a dagger in H+I was a deliberate goal of design (for those wanting to know how, you do a Called Shot while Lunging with the dagger). With Mythic edition rules for weapon damage (which don't really add flat modifiers but instead alter the dice rolled), this would not really work as well as it does. Weapons would generally do less damage, making Yielding Advantage and spending Fortune less necessary and people less fragile, which might extend fights.

I am happy with many other mechanics as-is that are different in Mythic. For example, Initiative in Mythic is now a Combat Ability, replacing Brawling. In H+I, I think Brawling being its own separate thing is fine; not every courtier who can swing a sword knows the first thing about throwing a punch. Likewise a wrestler might have little skill with a blade.  It would also lessen the importance of Savvy in Combat, when one of the design goals was "Every Quality will be useful in combat." Savvy's most useful combat function is adding to Initiative (followed by adding to Parry/Riposte and Ranged attacks). Every quality usually has a constant benefit that applies to everyone in combat (Might adds to Lifeblood and damage, Daring adds to Fear Checks and for the attack types that generally do damage, and Flair gives extra Fortune Points) and also an optional use for specific maneuvers (and every Quality has several that utilize it). Initiative modification is the constant benefit of Savvy, and without it, it becomes less valuable. Likewise, I could see Initiative becoming "the dump stat" for Combat Abilities, while making Melee even more of "the god stat" by giving it prowess in unarmed combat as well as armed.

A lot of these mechanical and stylistic considerations have to do with what genre we are evoking. Swashbuckling (at least of the Richard Lester / Princess Bride / PotC sort that I favor) and Sword and Sorcery are different genres with different conventions. In a land of barbarians, I think fist-fights are more common than they are among the genteel nobles of the 17th century (though certainly some were skilled in it). It also allows more variation of fighting styles.

Quote from: BASHMAN;839475Hey, guys. Color me late to the party. I just found out about this thread and Bren's blog. Amazing stuff. I think that idea of framing combat by characters is pretty neat, too.

Thanks. That means a lot to me.

QuoteRegarding Magic in the game, there is a chapter, deliberately near the end of the book, called "Mysteries, Horrors, and Wonders.". This chapter is **Entirely** optional and is for if you want to put some supernatural stuff in your game.

I like that it is optional. We opted for a low to no magic campaign. The first loup garou the PCs encountered was actually a madman who lived in the wild. Which meant they were as surprised as their PCs when they encountered a real loup garou. That wouldn't have been possible in the same way if the magic was mandatory or integral.

QuoteEvery quality usually has a constant benefit that applies to everyone in combat (Might adds to Lifeblood and damage, Daring adds to Fear Checks and for the attack types that generally do damage, and Flair gives extra Fortune Points) and also an optional use for specific maneuvers (and every Quality has several that utilize it). Initiative modification is the constant benefit of Savvy, and without it, it becomes less valuable. Likewise, I could see Initiative becoming "the dump stat" for Combat Abilities, while making Melee even more of "the god stat" by giving it prowess in unarmed combat as well as armed.

This is what I see as the elegance of the system you created. There is no dump stat, but the stat choices made actually determine the optimal moves for that character. Which will be different for a character with different stats. I love the variation in fighting styles that this provides.