This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Multiple foes  (Read 4342 times)

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Multiple foes
« Reply #15 on: December 07, 2006, 03:34:25 PM »
I dislike the d20 RPG, but one thing it has going for it is the notion that all types of conflicts are resolved the same. One key rule runs everything (roll a die, add modifiers, check against standard Target Numbers).

ADRP is kind of like that, but both the modifiers and TN's are improvised. I like a freestyle system such as this, but sometimes it would be nice to have a rule of thumb or two to go by. Not enough to encourage min/max gamers to work the system, but enough for a GM to have a better guide (particulary for a novice GM!).
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

James McMurray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • J
  • Posts: 4790
Multiple foes
« Reply #16 on: December 07, 2006, 06:49:29 PM »
Quote from: SunBoy
Actually, in what you could call a "rules-light" sytem, no, it is not. The system's job is to provide the GM with methods and gudelines on how to deal with different situation. Do you now by heart how much 167+24 equals to? Figures. But I think it would be safe to assume that you could find it out using a simple method.

See above. The real question here is that you find that "rules void" a flaw, while I find it an advantage. Consider the hundreds of books, movies and comics where bad guys ambush good guys: two out of three times, good guys escape, and even win the day. Now consider what happens when the good guys are the ambushers. Four out of five times they suceed, and the conditions are not necessarily different. Amber is a highly evocative game, were WHAT happens is much more important than HOW it happened mechanically.


Please go here. I've been saying that for several pages in a thread, although I think amber may go too far. I can't tell for sure though until I get a chance to read it, which probably won't be until after X-mas.

SunBoy

  • Intellectual Slapstick
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
Multiple foes
« Reply #17 on: December 07, 2006, 09:36:36 PM »
WOW!! And here I was, blissfully ignorant, thinking OUR theory and design forums were nerdy!!!
Mate, I won't even start laughing at the geekness of the a+b+j*e+%H+%ยท&/($%&=FUN!!! one of them (I just KNOW somehow he'll read this and want to beat the crap out of me) posted. It not because the formula its completely screwed (wich it is), it's just the whole... nerdiness of the thing. Thanks, Jimmy, you made my night. And yes, by the way, I see your point more clearly now. I really hope you like the system in the end, if only because more people playing it means more reason to republish it. And, as someone (I think it was Finarvyn, but I'm to lazy to look it up now) pointed out, once you play it, the whole idea seems much clearer. I actually love the freedom it gives, but I can definitely see how it can be difficult to grasp.
"Real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

James McMurray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • J
  • Posts: 4790
Multiple foes
« Reply #18 on: December 07, 2006, 09:45:06 PM »
I'll read the game over the Christmas break. Then I'll send an email to the group describing it. Whether their responses are mostly laughs at the diceless nature or not will tell me whether I'll play it or not.

But even if I don't play it with them, if I really like the game I'll run it over at rpol.

SunBoy

  • Intellectual Slapstick
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 669
Multiple foes
« Reply #19 on: December 07, 2006, 10:22:33 PM »
Good luck, then.
"Real randomness, I've discovered, is the result of two or more role-players interacting"

Erick Wujcik, 2007

Otha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • O
  • Posts: 365
Multiple foes
« Reply #20 on: December 08, 2006, 06:23:42 AM »
Quote from: SunBoy
I think it will eventually come down to tactics. The game is very rich in tactical maneouver description, and each holds advantages and disadvantages of its own...


I think that's actually the point... they DON"T hold advantages and disadvantages of their own.  They have no inherent advantages or disadvantages besides what the GM actually gives them, no intrinsic mechanical weight.  What this thread was originally about, is how people assign that weight to multiple foes.  It's clear that different GM's assign it differently; some even make it so that it's a PENALTY rather than a bonus to have people help you.
 

James McMurray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • J
  • Posts: 4790
Multiple foes
« Reply #21 on: December 08, 2006, 10:35:24 AM »
It's a fairly commonly held belief amongst martial artists that in melee combat having more than 4 people attacking someone is detrimental as you start to get in each others' way. Some folks may change that number, but pretty much everyone agrees that there's a practical limit to where you start to lose effectiveness with multiple combatants.

Likewise having multiple people attacking who don't know what they're doing can be detrimental, as they'll also get in each others' way. Perhaps a general guideline of what skill levels you need to actually contribute would help. I'd definitely say that if you're too far below your opponent you can't help fight him, as he'll practically ignore everything you do.

It would have to be a general guideline of course, as many other things would come into play as well, such as terrain. Four people in a field will fight better than 4 people in a hallway.

Otha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • O
  • Posts: 365
Multiple foes
« Reply #22 on: December 09, 2006, 11:50:43 AM »
Quote from: James McMurray
It's a fairly commonly held belief amongst martial artists that in melee combat having more than 4 people attacking someone is detrimental as you start to get in each others' way. Some folks may change that number, but pretty much everyone agrees that there's a practical limit to where you start to lose effectiveness with multiple combatants.


Longspears, bows, crossbows... heck, ROCKS.

The more people you have, the more options you have.  "Okay, you four hold him there.  You eight, you jump in if one of them falls.  The rest of you, pick up anything you can throw.  If those twelve don't take him down, start throwing."


Quote from: James McMurray
...Perhaps a general guideline of what skill levels you need to actually contribute would help. I'd definitely say that if you're too far below your opponent you can't help fight him, as he'll practically ignore everything you do.


"Too far" is... how much?  Ten points?  One ladder rung?  Two?

Quote from: James McMurray
It would have to be a general guideline of course, as many other things would come into play as well, such as terrain. Four people in a field will fight better than 4 people in a hallway.


Right, and how many could fight in an open plain?  Six?  Eight?  What if they had spears?

Here's the root of my point...

How much knowledge of martial arts, tactics, etc. does a GM need to be able to adjudicate a fight?  How much does a player need, to emulate someone with first rank in warfare?

The answer OUGHT to be, "none" shouldn't it?

But you seem to be giving a different answer.
 

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Multiple foes
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2006, 12:44:54 PM »
I don't think "GM's knowledge of martial arts" should be the defining quality here.  The defining quality ought to be the player's ability to effectively communicate and convince the GM of his actions in a way that the GM finds it plausible that they succeed.  If your rank is higher than an opponent's, the default is that they will, barring the unexpected, so you don't have to work very hard.  If your rank is lower, then the default is that they will not succeed, so you have to work that much harder.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Multiple foes
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2006, 03:20:50 PM »
Quote from: RPGPundit
I don't think "GM's knowledge of martial arts" should be the defining quality here.  The defining quality ought to be the player's ability to effectively communicate and convince the GM of his actions in a way that the GM finds it plausible that they succeed.

Essentially, I believe we agree on this point. The one caution I would mention is that just because a player is good at something should not indicate that their character is good as well.

In other words, if two characters are having a martial arts contest I would want to be certain that a lesser character being run by a more knowledgable player doesn't get some sort of unfair advantage. I have a friend with a lot of martial arts training, and I woudn't want him to skimp on Strenght points because he knows he can "fake it" with terminology better than his peers and win anyway

I like Erick's example of chess in the ADRP rulebook, where a player without chess understanding can still win by detailing vague and general statements of tactics (start aggressively but protect my king, that kind of thing).
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

James McMurray

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • J
  • Posts: 4790
Multiple foes
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2006, 04:38:44 PM »
Quote from: Otha
"Too far" is... how much?  Ten points?  One ladder rung?  Two?


I have no idea, and would love a guideline.

Quote
Right, and how many could fight in an open plain?  Six?  Eight?  What if they had spears?


I don't know, and would love a guideline.

Quote
The answer OUGHT to be, "none" shouldn't it?

But you seem to be giving a different answer.


Not at all. I agree. I was just tossing out a few idea that might be useful since there isn't a guideline.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Multiple foes
« Reply #26 on: December 09, 2006, 11:04:35 PM »
Quote from: finarvyn
Essentially, I believe we agree on this point. The one caution I would mention is that just because a player is good at something should not indicate that their character is good as well.

In other words, if two characters are having a martial arts contest I would want to be certain that a lesser character being run by a more knowledgable player doesn't get some sort of unfair advantage. I have a friend with a lot of martial arts training, and I woudn't want him to skimp on Strenght points because he knows he can "fake it" with terminology better than his peers and win anyway

I like Erick's example of chess in the ADRP rulebook, where a player without chess understanding can still win by detailing vague and general statements of tactics (start aggressively but protect my king, that kind of thing).


Yup, but in my experiences I have found that generally the player who is a self-styled "expert" in this sort of thing will not be the most convincing (at least not DUE to that), if anything he will be the one who will complain that something the other guy said that sounds really cool and plausible is "Impossible" because of some reason he has fathomed in his would-be-bruce-lee mind.

Again, like most RPGs, you don't actually need to be well-versed in a subject, you just have to be good at imagining and describing.

Arguing based on what's "realistic" is usually a sign that you're not doing well.

RPGPundit
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Otha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • O
  • Posts: 365
Multiple foes
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2006, 09:06:23 AM »
Quote from: RPGPundit

Again, like most RPGs, you don't actually need to be well-versed in a subject, you just have to be good at imagining and describing.
RPGPundit


So the better you are at convincing the GM you're right, the more your character will succeed.

The standard method of doing that is improvising (AKA pulling stuff out of your ass) and being eloquent about it.

That's what it all boils down to, isn't it?
 

finarvyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1646
Multiple foes
« Reply #28 on: December 10, 2006, 09:32:00 AM »
Quote from: Otha
So the better you are at convincing the GM you're right, the more your character will succeed.

The standard method of doing that is improvising (AKA pulling stuff out of your ass) and being eloquent about it.

That's what it all boils down to, isn't it?

Not quite. Keep in mind that if two characters aren't similar in attributes, then the weaker one really has no chance for success. What we're talking about would be two similar combatants, and the rules are vague as to what constitutes "similar".

Once the GM determines that the two characters are close enough together, then there are several factors which can come into play. If one of them has devised in advance a clever strategy or trick that would give him the edge, that might tip the balance. If one of them has a greater Endurance and it is a long-lasting contest, that might tip the balance. And, yes, if one of them has an eloguent way of presenting his actions, that might tip the balance.

Not the only factor, but certainly one of the many which the GM will take under advisement as he determines how the storyline unfolds. The BS-er may get an edge in some cases, but the better attribute wins most often.
Marv / Finarvyn
Kingmaker of Amber
I'm pretty much responsible for the S&W WB rules.
Amber Diceless Player since 1993
OD&D Player since 1975

Otha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • O
  • Posts: 365
Multiple foes
« Reply #29 on: December 10, 2006, 10:18:46 AM »
Quote from: finarvyn
Not quite. Keep in mind that if two characters aren't similar in attributes, then the weaker one really has no chance for success. What we're talking about would be two similar combatants, and the rules are vague as to what constitutes "similar".


And the GM determines what similar is.  If the player can convince the GM that the attributes are similar enough, then he has made up for the lack of points with his persuasive ability.  Hence, he succeeds more as a result.

Quote from: finarvyn
Once the GM determines that the two characters are close enough together, then there are several factors which can come into play. If one of them has devised in advance a clever strategy or trick that would give him the edge, that might tip the balance. If one of them has a greater Endurance and it is a long-lasting contest, that might tip the balance. And, yes, if one of them has an eloguent way of presenting his actions, that might tip the balance.


Whether or not a strategy is clever enough, is up to the GM.

Whether a trick is dirty enough is up to the GM.

Whether or not Endurance figures into the conflict is up to the GM.

Both of these can also devolve on player eloquence.  Perhaps not always... but often enough that it makes a difference.

Quote from: finarvyn
Not the only factor, but certainly one of the many which the GM will take under advisement as he determines how the storyline unfolds. The BS-er may get an edge in some cases, but the better attribute wins most often.


My point is that anything except the points on the sheet (and not always then) devolves on convincing the GM that you've met the requirements for winning.  Eloquence and creativity.

And you know, not even the creativity needs to be there.  Someone with the time to read through the volumes of play descriptions online can probably amass a considerable library of dirty tricks and clever strategies to pull out when he needs one.

Perhaps this is why Amber seems to work best in PBEM, when the players have the time to be at their most eloquent.