It is currently Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:57 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yeshom wrote:
...but for the purpose of rules, a cuirass doesnt't give AV to the shoulders on overhead strikes, right?


This depends on how you are implementing the accumulation of armour. For example, do you allow a character to simply have pauldrons? If so, that isn't practical -- paudrons attach to the curaiss. Similarly, do you allow a character to simply have a curaiss? If so, that isn't really practical -- a curaiss is a part of an overall suit of armour -- whether the curaiss be over chain or quilt or part of a suit of plate armour. So it comes back to your armour system -- are you allowing characters to mix and match their bits of armour, or are you requiring more historical armour "suits"?

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:30 pm
Posts: 32
At the moment, it's mix-and-match. I rely on the player to give the character a useful and realistic combination. Until I got the more important things done, it doesn't seem worth it to put work into code that checks whether a certain combination of armor is realistic or not. I was thinking of adding some preset combinations, like those on TFOB p.29.

But again, I conclude I'll leave my cuirass as it it, without AV to the shoulders on overhead strikes :)
Thanks for the input!

Another question: MRB p. 85 states that "shields act as armor offering almost total protection to the off-hand front side of the body". Does that mean that a Thrust to the chest (XII), for example, must be declared to either the left or right side of the body? If that were true, I needed to have two different TargetZone buttons in the 'Sim for that, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yeshom wrote:
Another question: MRB p. 85 states that "shields act as armor offering almost total protection to the off-hand front side of the body". Does that mean that a Thrust to the chest (XII), for example, must be declared to either the left or right side of the body? If that were true, I needed to have two different TargetZone buttons in the 'Sim for that, right?


No need to declare -- it is assumed that if you are performing any attack that, where possible, you are trying to avoid armour. So thrusting to the chest is assumed to be trying to avoid the shield.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:30 pm
Posts: 32
Ok, that makes sense, and it's easy to implement. A shield just doesn't give protection against Chest, Belly or Abdomen Thrusts, and that's it :)

Here's the next one:
Say the attacker declares a beat against my sword, and I declare a cut, but I don't want to steal initiative. If he succeeds with his beat, should I
1) be unable to perform my cut (as it would realistically make sense, I think)
2) be unable to perform my NEXT maneuver (i.e. a parry) with the sword
3) lose my cut AND my next maneuver?

*nag nag*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:37 pm
Posts: 205
Yeshom wrote:
Say the attacker declares a beat against my sword, and I declare a cut, but I don't want to steal initiative. If he succeeds with his beat, should I
1) be unable to perform my cut (as it would realistically make sense, I think)
2) be unable to perform my NEXT maneuver (i.e. a parry) with the sword
3) lose my cut AND my next maneuver?


Assuming I've read the question right; if the beat is successful you will lose the cut, and you won't be able to use your sword for your next maneuver. You'll still be able to dodge, but you won't be able to parry, counter or attack and steal initiative. Of course, if you have a sword and shield and he beat your sword, you can still use the shield to block.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:30 pm
Posts: 32
Great, that's just what I thought and what I coded :D

Thanks! I'll try to fix up a release now..


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:30 pm
Posts: 32
Ok, v0.1.3 is up!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Double Attack (sloppy rules wording IMHO)
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:30 pm
Posts: 32
*sigh* The more I stick my nose into the MRB (Book Three mainly), the more I find it's wording highly insufficient. It's probably because I am approaching it with a "how do I put this into code"-mindset, but over and over again it just doesn't seem precise enough. It seems that Jacob and the team didn't put too much time into editorial work (and this is meant as constructive criticism, not flame. Bring out an edited new edition, and I'll happily buy it! :) )

Here's the question: MRB p.60, Double Attack: It says I can divide my dice on this attack between both weapons and attack. Does that mean I can pick any kind of maneuver for each weapon, or just basics like Bash, Cut, Thrust. Or could I do, say, an Evasive Attack with one, and a Bind-And-Strike or a Feint with the other? Or do I pick one attack, but perform it once with each weapon? :?

If there is any collection of rephrased maneuver descriptions to be found, please let me know. Or maybe I should write one :D

Cheers,
Yeshom


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Double Attack (sloppy rules wording IMHO)
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yeshom wrote:
The more I stick my nose into the MRB (Book Three mainly), the more I find it's wording highly insufficient. It's probably because I am approaching it with a "how do I put this into code"-mindset, but over and over again it just doesn't seem precise enough.


TRoS has the only RPG system where the player is as much responsible for success in a fight as the character and it's capabilities. Great character + new player won't win the fight against great player + average character every time. There aren't many systems where that is the case. However, the demands on the referee are just as great as on the player. The system expects the referee to understand how combat works -- not just how the combat system in TRoS works, but how real melee combat works. It is a tricky system which is probably why it is so rewarding to play.

Yeshom wrote:
Here's the question: MRB p.60, Double Attack: It says I can divide my dice on this attack between both weapons and attack. Does that mean I can pick any kind of maneuver for each weapon,


No. Double Attack is the manoeuver. The defender is then restricted to the defensive manoeuvres listed. Obviously the attacker must have two weapons in order to perform the Double Attack manoeuver. Keep in mind that a defensive parry only blocks one of the attacks, so to parry both you would need two weapons or a weapon and a shield -- thus Double Parry or Parry and Block respecively. The defender can split their pool between manoeuvres too -- a partial evade and a parry, perhaps, to simulate leaping aside while parrying. A single Evade is successful if it causes both attacks to miss -- you don't have to split CP into two evade rolls -- bearing in mind that you can't Evade if you attacked on the previous Exchange.

I hope that helps. It isn't simple because the system expects the referee to rule out illogical combinations based on the circumstances or to add terrain rolls if the current context demands.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:30 pm
Posts: 32
Thanks a lot for the feedback, Ian, but I have the feeling I didn't state my point clearly enough. It's not that I have a problem with the combat system itself (I love it!). I neither feel the need for it to be more rigid nor "optionless". I just have the feeling that many things aren't worded precisely enough and therefore leave room for misinterpretation where such could be avoided.
I totally understand your point of view. You say that many decisions are left up to the referee's common sense about combat, and IMHO this is the best way to handle most situations where the rules aren't clear in any RPG. I'm just saying that what I read of the TROS combat rules could, in many places, be more precise / distinct / clear. I feel I know Jake's intention, but it's just not hammered out into words properly.
To stick to our example, double attack,
- does it count as a slash (no ini bonus) or a thrust (+1 to initiative) in a red-red situation?
- does it do cutting or piercing weapen (when using a sword, for example)?
- what range am I at after successfully using it with both my weapons? The shorter weapon's reach? The longer?
- when evading, do I roll once for each attack, or do I just compare the successes of one roll to both attack rolls?

Please tell me if I am missing the point or haven't read the rules properly. I just got home from a night out with the boys, and what I wrote might just be bollocks :)

:D

G'night all!
Yeshom


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yeshom wrote:
Thanks a lot for the feedback, Ian, but I have the feeling I didn't state my point clearly enough. It's not that I have a problem with the combat system itself (I love it!). I neither feel the need for it to be more rigid nor "optionless". I just have the feeling that many things aren't worded precisely enough and therefore leave room for misinterpretation where such could be avoided.


Wording can often be made clearer but only in the eyes of the individual reader. To get your point across clearly to even the majority of people would require several different wording of the same thing -- we all read as if the author is writing from our specific context rather than theirs.

I'm not suggesting you're asking for any change to the system. I simply point out that TRoS is predicated on the idea that the referee has a good understanding of melee combat and is expected to filter the illogical player choices -- Double Attack: Thrust to Left Foot 1, Thrust to Face 13 -- themselves by explaining in practical terms why the character is physically unable to do as the player requests. The alternative is to spend literally pages detailing which combinations of attacking manoeuver and defensive manoeuver cannot be performed in specific contexts. Great for coding but impractical from a gaming perspective.

Yeshom wrote:
To stick to our example, double attack,
- does it count as a slash (no ini bonus) or a thrust (+1 to initiative) in a red-red situation?


It depends what the attacker is doing. If they specify:

Double Attack: Longsword slash to Left 4 Shoulder, Shortsword thrust to 11 Abdomen.

Then weapon length mods and ini mods and so on are applied to each of the attacks.

Yeshom wrote:
- what range am I at after successfully using it with both my weapons? The shorter weapon's reach? The longer?


Most often the shorter. There are I guess circumstances under which it would be the longer.

Yeshom wrote:
- when evading, do I roll once for each attack, or do I just compare the successes of one roll to both attack rolls?


One roll, full CP. The defender is leaving the scene, not positioning themselves for another exchange, so it's all dice in and if the total successes beats the best total of successes on either attack then the Evade is successful.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:30 pm
Posts: 32
Ok, I think I got it now. The player declares his intention, and the referee judges whether he can do it or not, or with what terrain rolls, dice limitations and what not.

For the purposes of my little piece of software, this is of course rather difficult to do :). I will try to come up with some plausible double attack-combinations and offer those to the players.

Thanks again Ian, you've taught me an important lesson on how to read TROS rules!

Yeshom


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:37 pm
Posts: 205
Quote:
Most often the shorter. There are I guess circumstances under which it would be the longer.


I'd guess that if both attacks hit, the shorter. If only one attack hits, it'd be the range for that one weapon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Quote:
Most often the shorter. There are I guess circumstances under which it would be the longer.


Hector wrote:
I'd guess that if both attacks hit, the shorter. If only one attack hits, it'd be the range for that one weapon.


This is a good general rule as it lets you take the point of view that the shorter range attack failed because the distance wasn't right.

On the other hand, TRoS being TRoS:

Double Attack: Shortsword Thrust to 11 Abdomen, Katana Draw Cut Slash to 4 Shoulder

Given that both attacks are successful the attacker could state that the Draw Cut was the second blow and that the character is now at the correct Katana distance, having moved to that range with the draw cut.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: A new TROS Combat Sim..
PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Yeshom wrote:
Ok, I think I got it now. The player declares his intention, and the referee judges whether he can do it or not, or with what terrain rolls, dice limitations and what not.


For me, this is spot on.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group              Designed by QuakeZone