So the one thing missing from this game is the ability for PCs to fight each other. The problem comes from stances – which handle both the TN to hit and be hit – are one-sided and only allow one side to determine that TN. When you have 2 PCs, who's stance determines TN?

I ran into this in Tales of Wilderland during the Melee Contest. My players decided to duke it out rather than just declare a winner.

Here is the system I used (somewhat inspired by the Usagi Yojimbo RPG).

Most of the stuff is pretty normal

1. Select targets
(Usually this isn't an issue, but in my case, where it was everyone vs everyone I just had them point to their target on the count of 3)

2. Secretly select stance
(This works well with the stance standups I made for my PCs. They just pick the stance under the table.)

3. Reveal stance

4. Attack in stance order (forward, open, etc). Ties are broken with Wits score.

Now, to figure out what TN you use, compare the stance you are in with what your opponent selected.

Forward Stance trumps Open Stance
(overwhelming the more measured approach)

Open Stance trumps Defensive Stance
(taking the time to find holes in their defense)

Defensive Stance trumps Forward Stance
(easily avoiding the overextended attack)

If your stance trumps your opponent your TN to hit is the lower of the two. If your stance is trumped, your TN to hit is the higher. If they are the same, then it is as normal.
Example : PC1 in Forward Stance attacks PC2 in Defensive Stance. PC1's TN to hit is 12 while PC2's is 6.

This worked out great for the session – the players were all very engaged in the back and forth of stance selection – so I thought I'd share it. I've since considered reversing the trump system, but am on the fence.

Does anyone have any thoughts or see any issues?

For information purposes I've seen another option previously mentioned in the past, if the above resolution of 'paper/rock/scissors' doesn't appeal is as follows.

You could express the stances as a bonus or penalty rather than a fixed number, using open stance as a baseline at 9.

Forward: -3 to your TN to hit or be hit.
Open: no bonus or penalty
Defensive: +3 to your TN to hit or be hit.

Examples of PC vs. PC:

* If both PCs chose Forward, they are each looking at a TN of 3 (plus the other's Parry bonus).

* If Both PCs went Open they would have TNs of 9.

* If Both PCs went Defensive they would have TNs of 15.

* If one PC went Forward and the other Open then the Forward PC would have TNs of 6, the Open PC would have TNs of 6.

* If one PC went Forward and the other Defensive then the Forward PC would have TNs of 9, the Defensive PC would have TNs of 9.

* If one PC went Open and the other Defensive then the Open PC would have TNs of 12, the Defensive PC would have TNs of 12.

... Which interestingly I think shows that the stance choice of all melee opponents controlled by the LM in the RAW face the PCs with an Open stance.

I think I prefer yours though as its more interactive.

Uhm, why do you need rules for PCs fighting one another?

Why do you need to make these rules? Surely it's just a matter of determining the initiative at the start and then running the combat as normal?

Robin S.

What I want to know is why he seems to have PCs that want to kill each other?

I would discourage this. But if it's on, just take the woirst die roll TN for the selection, ie If one wants Forward (6) and one wants open (9), it's open (9) for both.

The system itself doesn't use stances for the bad guys, so if the entire party wants Open (9), it fights at open, with the enemy not getting a choice.

The same goes for fighting Forward, of course, player choice, but it feels right to me to prefer for the more difficult.

Again, I would not encourage this, it's too much like straight D&D of the old days... alignment problems etc. A game with PCs fighting each other, i'd just leave, or as GM not allow it. It's my experience multiple times that it causes distrust issues and poltical problems with and between players.

Firstly, some of these comments are sounding like the poster is suggesting that this should not be done and it reads like it's verging on BadWrongFun shenanigans. I really hope that's not an agenda people are pushing - I can't imagine that it is.

Secondly, I think some of you may have misunderstood the OP's primary intent. In my opinion its pretty clear Doc's created these rules not for 'players to kill the PCs of other players' as some of you are suggesting but as a way of resolving the tournament competition in the penultimate TfW adventure. Personally, when reading that adventure I can totally see where Doc is coming from. I'd suspect that there is a significant proportion of player groups that would find the proposed resolution in the book unsatisfactory, so what's been proposed above is a nice way of resolving any PC vs PC match-up.

Robin/Etarnon - I don't think your suggestions provide a satisfactory level of resolution when you consider that two players are involved. PC vs. PC combat/sparring doesn't have a 'passive' opponent with regard to stances in the way that standard combat works and going with the highest TN stance is a pretty uninspiring solution in my opinion. Also, initiative in a PC vs PC tournament is not as simple to establish as in usual combat, because of the nature of the tournament setting and the fact that both parties involved are PCs and therefore of narratively equal importance - which in my mind means they'd both be competing for the initiative.

Personally, I think Doc's proposal is a nice way of making the tournament play in the adventure far more interactive and exciting than it is and give players the opportunity to pit their PCs against one another in a 'safe' and acceptable environment. Its also interesting to see such rules in case PCs ever do come to blows - its certainly possible, and it also lends credibility to the system that it can be expanded for use in other types of game and genre.

Rich H & Doctheweasel

Sorry but you guys seem to have misunderstood me. What I meant is that I have actually run a PC vs PC combat already using RAW, the point I was trying to make being that Combat stances are (as I think it is mentioned in the rulebook) just a state of mind, therefore I don't see a problem if both PC's choose the same stance, because it is just roleplaying rather than rollplaying! (and no extra rules necessary)

The problem for the Loremaster is then simply how do you rule who wins Initiative (and therefore is considered the defender in the duel, as they would obviously have the advantage?

My own view was that the RAW were satisfactory, resolving ties in terms of Highest Wits, but in the actual example I ran I also checked with the players afterwards - they agreed that it really depends on the actual circumstances of the specific combat situation: the 'battlefield', why are the characters fighting each other, chance of Surprise etc.

Hope this explains my views a bit better. BTW, I can't comment on how TfW does it until I actually playtest the tournament!

Robin S.

I think that this is a pretty useful thread as it's opening up something not previously looked t on this forum(Afair).

I like the 'Trumps' idea. It's abstract and in keeping with the system.

Not so much in favour of the minuses and pluses system, it's a little DnDish.

As regards 'initiative' in a tournament situation, I would go with Battle tests. Greater Success trumps regular success etc. with highest Wits resolving any ties.

Thinking about damage in these situations.

1) these are friendly(ish) bouts. Normal Wounds don't apply. Endurance damage only. Follow the rules normally but, if you successfully Wound your opponent, they automatically surrender and leave the tourney field.

2) accidental wounds still occur when an 'eye' rune is rolled as part of a successful attack. Follow normal Wound procedure. A Hope point may be spent to avoid wounding or, accidentally, killing your opponent.

3) not all opponents are 'bloody minded'. Some know when they are on 'a hiding to nothing'.
Once the endurance damage sustained by such an NPC equals twice their (base) Hope score they too will bow out at the earliest opportunity. It is up to the LM to decide on whether the NPC might be 'Bloody Minded'.

Thoughts guys?

Robin S,
don't want to antagonize you, and maybe I have lost something... but you conducted a pc vs pc combat using the rules "as written"?
I have no trouble with initiative and such, but I cannot understand how you implemented the stance/target number system "RAW"

I don't know how experienced you are in posting on RPG sites, but be really wary about using the roleplaying/rollplaying comment - it doesn't present you, or your viewpoint, in a particularly positive light. That's all I'm going to say on that powder keg comment or we'll just get bogged down in it!

I think stances are far more than "just a state of mind". They are very much strategic - just take a look at the RAW for when PCs are allowed to enter Rearward stance and the limits on that, the combat options offered that are different for each stance, the varying TNs thereby determining difficulty to be hit and hit, etc. All those facets illustrate stances being strategic, a 'style' of fighting (for want of a better word), and very much affecting the options available to a combatant. I'm therefore not really sure what you mean by 'just a state of mind' and my previous comment to you is still relevant, so it isn't really a misunderstanding from my point of view - I just don't think you've explained what you mean fully or if you have then I don't think you're correct, sorry.

The main issue with trying to match the RAW to PC vs PC duels is that the rules basically assume no real stance for LM controlled NPCs/creatures. I think the design idea is that such oppponents aren't as narratively important as the PC and therefore don't need to pick a stance and also that it alleviates some burden from the LM and streamlines play. All good things when facing off against non-important creatures. This isn't really adequate for PCs though, as both parties want to make the decision with regards to their stance. Also, your option of "both PCs choose the same stance" really falls apart as someone with a lower combat skill (or being wearied) would prefer to go with a Forward stance (ie, lower TN so more chance of success) but someone with a high combat skill rating is going to prefer Defensive. So who decides? If you match them up, like you suggest, the only option is to really say you all fight in an Open stance, thereby avoiding favouring one type of player, but that's mechanically dull and lacks options within a duel. Most players I know would find that extremely unsatisfactory as it ignores a great part of the combat system and also which has added benefits in its design with regard to things like hanging combat options off of (ie, different options depending on stance).

I don't think the RAW fits this in a duel, which is very much not a 'usual' battle. You could apply a rule that attacks are simultaneous in a duel or go with Stance determining initiative but I feel you'd need something more than the RAW which explains Doc's proposal.

Sort of does, still lacking a detailed response though to really clarify (ie, comments around "just a state of mind"). Thanks.

It was mentioned over on RPGnet months ago so thought it would be nice to post here as an option. I don't like it either but, like I put in the post, it does point to LM creatures fighting in a permanent open stance when engaging PCs. Which I found more interesting to note than the actual rules system itself, and backed up my initial suspicions/instincts when reading the rules and playing the game.

I think that's a good alternative option.

Yep, agree with all those. Look to be really nice ideas/options.

Thanks Rich.

Just wondering what to do to replace the Wound In a PvP situation if an 'Edge' roll is made on the Feat Die?

A further increase of Stamina Loss seems logical, if a little boring. It seems that a PC should not just be forced to abandon the bout.

Thoughts?

Perhaps go with winding them... So, if using Doc's rules you could go with not being able to alter stance for a round where your PC is winded? Or another options could be a temporary penalty to your next action until you recover from being winded? Or perhaps they pick up a number of Fatigue Points (like you do on failed travel checks), which could potentially cause weariness or push them further into such a state?

I think this is a great addition for single combats, not only pvp (i.e. a personal challenge against an enemy champion). Thanks!

Actually, that's a really good point as well and another option for its usage.

As far as why would the PCs fight each other, there is a melee contest in ToW that is for sport. The adventure assumes that the party will just name one of their team a winner after defeating everyone else (since there can be only one winner), but my party wanted to find out the old fashioned way.

It was all with wooden weapons (which, as per the adventure, DO inflict wounds, but have an Injury rating of -6).

The beauty of rules is that they are guidelines. We were asked what are opinions are, I gave mine.


I think since PCs vs some enemy get to choose their stance, then it is PC choice.

But since you'd have two opposing sides to me thos choices make it such that if one wants to keep opening, all speed being equal, you'd have to take the worst result.

Two forward meet at forward. to open meet at open, forward vs open means as forward closes, open opens. so go with open.

That fact that it doesn't work for others, go forth and write thy own intricate highly detailed combat system fit for USMC snipers with wind and bullet drop, if it thrills you.

I want to chuck a d12 and say okay X endurance, next. Because I gave up playing D&D with trip, and whirlwind attack and all of it.

And I'm really curious as to where rollplaying vs... became a flame war, a la stormwind fallacy from wotc forums.

People want to argue, and they will.

They way i say the glance at the post of this player vs. player, I didn't know it was a tournament. I will still state, I suggest don't do this. It sets a dangerous precedent.

And I am pushing it as wrong bad fungus or whatever.



.

Hey 'Doc', if you like I can put your rules and Halbarad's options into my House Rules pdf if you want? Where there are alternatives (eg, initiative, declaring targets, etc) then I could present them as such rather than go with one or the other. That okay for you?

Here you go: http://rpgtalk.wikia.com/wiki/Role-playing...us_roll-playing . It pretty much states the many issues people have with it, so no real point debating it further.

... These kind of comments aren't really welcomed in the community, Etarnon. I'll put it down to you being a new member (just seen your join date) but seriously dial it back a little. By all means put together clear and constructive counter-arguments or objections but don't engage in some of the comments you have above - it doesn't support constructive debate and will just turn people off of what you're saying. Thanks.

Steady now fellers. Let's all get along. This is usually a very respectful and polite forum, and it will be staying that way.

oh, here we go...

Knock it off. I will not give out any more pleasant warnings.

No, it's no problem. I am new here but have been around the hobby for a while.

The players I am recruiting for two different groups for this are pretty excited, in fact thrilled by the abstract nature of stances, since they came from 4th edition D&D, and my own 2nd edition game to this system.

Sure, that would be cool.

The only thing I did for declaring targets was when it was a free-for-all, I had them point to their target at the count of three, and then reveal their stances. After that it was one-on-one. I didn't set up anything specific for team vs team.

Yeah Rich. Mine are just a few quickly thought out ideas. Feel free to use them as you wish.

Etarnon, how did you get D&D players to be thrilled by the abstract nature of stances? My group took forever to get their minds around the idea, and D&D 4e was all they'd ever played.

They hadn't played D&D before they met me, except for one guy in my group an old gaming buddy.

They asked on my meetup for a DM. I selected 2nd edition D&D and drew this Eastron Talea Campaign map with Campaign Cartographer 3 in a week:

http://s293.beta.photobucket.com/user/Etar...tml?sort=3&o=18Eastron Talea Map

We played and since it was 2nd edition, it was simple.

I always promoted more roleplaying, & less emphasis on combat, and didn't write plots that were combat as the staple generator of dramatic tension.

More things like intrigue and wilderness hunting for survival, and plots and machinations.. religious strife between factious rival religions.

So they instantly got the idea of easier to hit and be hit up front, and front guys guard the bowmen in the back.

We already did stuff moderately similar to the guide / lookouts / hunters etc ideas.

so all of that wrapped in a one ring package.. I suggested we put Tslea on hold till late spring 013, and they all agreed, and that's how it went.

Okay-doke, gents. Here you go:

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/79541775/The%20Great%20Melee.pdf

Very nice Rich. You should probably put this as a link in your signatures it doesn't get lost.

Good point. I think I will add it to that big house rules document and do a link to that.

EDIT: Now done.

Exactly what I was thinking...
Thanks for the imo great idea!