Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Arms and Armor Draft

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Arms and Armor Draft

    Ouch, you guys play hardball when you're telling me how to run my game. Please don't do that.

    Regardless to say we play in a more violent Westeros than some others. That works for us and is inspired by information from the Sworn Sword novel of Dunk and Egg. I understand that we have different visions of Westeros and different things works for each. Lets just leave it at that. Or we can have a long debate about Westeros and what is acceptable ways to play in it.

    Originally posted by Addicted2aa View Post
    So there really shouldn't be any combat in that situation if people have any form of self interest.

    Let's look a bit closer at this. The tax man knows he's at risk, because he's breaking the law, so he's going to bring protection. However since he's not trying to start all out war with the next house he can only bring a few men. So lets say he has that dozen. This is not a dozen Calvary, just a dozen regular toughs. Your players respond by sending a unit of professional warriors. They choose Calvary, I personally would use infantry because out numbering by 10 to 1 is better than 5 to 3, but still works. The Tax man is now out numbered, out classed(even green calvary should still be far better than the terriary NPC's the tax man has, as they use their horses stats) and on enemy territory where the local populace will likely turn against him. In short he has no real power. He may try to act indignant, threaten and bluster, but he will back down unless he's Joffery level stupid and entitled. Very unlikely.

    [sip]

    There are also plenty of other reasons it doesn't make sense. Do they take a squad of guards with them every time they leave the keep? Why? are they paranoid? They will certainly get the reputation of being so if they keep doing that. When in a city do they walk around surrounded by guards? If so, no one will ever start shit with them, they'll just murder them in their sleep or poison them. Basically that type of combat really shouldn't happen often. It doesn't happen often in the books and it didn't happen often in real life. In general it tends to be small fights with a few people or actual battles. [sip]
    1. I get what you're saying but I don't agree. The tax man knew he could get into trouble and didn't bring pushovers for the job. The things is that I don't want to havewave lots of stuff and, yes, I do play combat-heavy games because that what I'm mostly inspired for and what seems to work with my group. In regards to handwaving its both about not just the GM telling the players "this happened" but let them do stuff. Not to mention that handwaving can lead things very wrong. I once devised a scenario where a band of sellswords would ambush a patrol and I expected the fight to be fairly quick given suprised and all. Look at my astonishment when I play out the combat in the rules and the ambushers were the ones routed. My players notice that kind of thing and question it savagely.

    2. So essentially you're telling me that people with power don't mind getting stab and robbed because they might be considered odd if they bring protection when they are carrying around highely desierable loot? Getting stabbed in an ally by four thugs is way better than the off chance of someone going to the problem of poisoning you. Because if they did they could probably bring a whole bunch of friends to kill a lone man if the felt for it.

    Originally posted by easl View Post
    I agree with this. I would just add that if the situation were more evenly matched and both sides wanted to fight, I still wouldn't roll everything out. Even if your PCs are facing a powerful villain, you can probably just focus on the PC/Villain fight and have the minor NPCs respond as appropriate - when the PCs are defeated, the good mooks run or surrender. If the Villain is defeated or runs, the bad mooks run or surrender. Everyone plays RPGs differently, but I tend to want to spend game time with the players in the spotlight. Spending 20 minutes or heck even 10 minutes rolling out NPC-on-NPC interactions just isn't what I (or typically my players) want in a game. But YMMV.

    Well...depends on how you define 'few.' I suspect that there was no age in which 'unsanctioned' conflicts were chivalrous. Doesn't matter if it's 800 AD, 1800 AD, or 2018 AD, if you want to ambush your enemy in an alley and you think he's going to be with 2 friends, you bring 4. If you think he's going to bring 4, you bring 8. If he's Jaime Lannister, you bring 18. If you were the one gunning for a fight and you made it fair, you're doing it wrong. Of course, this principle should work against the PCs as often as it works for them: if the encroaching Lord in the scenario above *expected* the defending Lord to respond by bringing a cavalry unit, he should've sent three extra units of archers to hide in the woods, wait until the cavalry were engaged with the for-hire mooks, and then just slaughter the whole bunch, leaving no survivors. Dead men tell no tales. Then when king asks, its "attack? What attack? Lord Defendy is making base accusations, m'lord, with not one whit of proof! His men were likely killed by some ragtag bandits and he seeks to blame it on me to salvage his pride." (For the PC's, this situation is ripe for intrigue and plot. Maybe they are the only ones to escape, and now getting to court and *being believed* by the court when Lord Encroacher is looking to slander and undermine their credibility becomes a big story goal. Or maybe this puts them in the enemy dungeon. So many story possibilities!)
    Good post. Although I still have a problem with the handwaving.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Arms and Armor Draft

      Originally posted by Gurkhal View Post
      Ouch, you guys play hardball when you're telling me how to run my game. Please don't do that.

      ...Good post. Although I still have a problem with the handwaving.
      Thanks. I am not trying to tell you how to run your game. If your group likes to roll-out all the details, by all means do that. I was operating under the assumption that you thought the time spent doing that was too much, it wasn't enjoyable, and you wanted to figure out how to cut it (the time spent on NPC-NPC interactions) down. Well, there's no magic answer to that, just the obvious one: you cut the time down by not rolling it out in such detail. You substitute averages for rolls, or replace multiple rolls with a single roll, or eschew rolling some things altogether and just have what is best for the story happen. Or you go troop-style and have your PCs switch to playing the NPCs so you have 3-4 combats being rolled out in parallel rather than in serial.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Arms and Armor Draft

        Do we have any way of using dice to generate the stats of the weapons currently?

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Arms and Armor Draft

          I like to use the following from Cyberpunk:
          Don't use anything for the good guy NPCs, and Bad Guy NPCs except each round on their turn, each Mook rolls a single D6. On a "6" he kills some NPC mook enemy.
          This is for story Speed, and very sloppy accuracy. If you want to roll out every single attack it's simulationist to the extreme, but if it' was a movie scene, we would not see all these swings and misses in slow motion, which is what simulationist gaming attempts to do.

          But according to tghe rules, it's accurate. so in the end, figure out for one mook vs another what's his real chance, over time of eventually killing an enemy soldier, figure all of that out.

          As a purely numeric example not reliant on any game system: if the good guy needs to inflict 16 hit points on a guy to die, and his weapon does 4 points, and he's likely to hit 50% of the time, he's averaging 2 points per round. This means once every 8 rounds he kills an enemy. roll that d8 once for each guy, instead of calculating it all out, because in the end, the results STORY-WISE are the same.

          Same deal for games like Twilight:2000, or any game where the heroes are well above the mooks, mooks die on one hit, or they die on a level of damage like say 5 points. if the single damage in any hit by a PC is 5 or more that NPC is dead. if the hero hits the nPC for 4 points, he's "Wounded, but still up" you don't need to track hit points. you don't need to monitor all of that, just roll it out, keep moving on with the story.

          The main Primary NPCs kill one mook a round. Hero PCs you use the regular rules for their attacks and defenses.

          That's the really sloppy but fast way. 100% rules are not always the slow way, but the detailed way. or find a balance.

          I also do not have mooks fight past about 20-25% casualties unless they are desperate, up against a wall, fighting for families, etc.

          If your good guys are one-shotting bad guys, nobody is gonna stick around taking that punishment, just to "Be a combat challenge worth XP for your good guy PCs."

          Look at any number of other cool game systems for morale rules. Most of them are pretty good.

          Side notes: bar fights typically take forever unless there's a big size difference, one is drunk or one of them has some decent training.

          Much of human beings going into combat involves posturing and intimidation up to the point of battle. Then the side that is not confident backs down. Typically.

          We do these games to simulate the fantasy combats of westeros, and all too many of these dudes are willing to bleed out and die. But rolling that out takes forever.

          Comment

          Working...
          X