forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

mogul76 wrote:Thanks for the interesting hint, Woodclaw. I don't know Lex Arcana, but the rule you are refering to correlates with my suggestion.

Well Lex Arcana was published only in Italy in 1993 - I'm not 100% sure, but I think it was the first published work of Francesco and Marco - the rules were extra simple. No, seriously, TOR is number cruching in comparison.

mogul76 wrote: Therefore, I'd be very grateful if more experienced Loremasters and players could provide me with feedback. Thank you in advance

I like the rule. Elegant and simple in regards to stances.


I would like to try it. My only addendum would be that I would also include the ability for OPEN stance to be the only stance in which a player can opt to select a "new" target, if/when his predetermined "engagement" dies during the "Forward" initiative turns.

Robert

Eh. I think any stance should be able to retarget. There's no other RPG system I know of save a couple antiquated NES games that has people forced to attack the already dead.

I know people keep referring to not being able to retarget as a video game mechanic, but I think the opposite is true.

The way the round works, you start by engaging an opponent (or them engaging you), and only after that do attacks happen. If your buddy takes out the guy you went to, then it doesn't make sense to be able to run over and fight someone else when all that has already been resolved. Why even have an Engagement phase?

Granted, there could be a narrative reason — like you were defending an ally so were close to their engagement — but overall I think that allowing retargeting treats combat as a game more than as a narrative.

doctheweasel wrote:I know people keep referring to not being able to retarget as a video game mechanic, but I think the opposite is true.

The way the round works, you start by engaging an opponent (or them engaging you), and only after that do attacks happen. If your buddy takes out the guy you went to, then it doesn't make sense to be able to run over and fight someone else when all that has already been resolved. Why even have an Engagement phase?

Granted, there could be a narrative reason — like you were defending an ally so were close to their engagement — but overall I think that allowing retargeting treats combat as a game more than as a narrative.

I agree with doc. The initiative resolution is done in order of stance for mechanics, but they are generally happening at the same time within a second of each other. Actually Paranoia kinda works like this, and the new Shadows of Esteren seems to work this way, as well.

It's the difference of these game that asks for engagements (intent) "BEFORE" resolution of the turn, vs 3.5 D&D /Pathfinder that resolves each persons turn in order of initiative and no intent is made before hand.


So I offered my house rule change as an incentive to use OPEN stance vs a numerical advantage/disadvantage of weighing the odds calculations (like deciding to power attack or not power attack or Combat Expertise or not combat expertise in Pathfinder) of selecting one of the other stances.

But I wouldn't let someone who is aggressively fighting in forward or actively trying to ward off one specific in defensive to suddenly shift their "engagement" on a whim.

Robert

Angelalex242 wrote:Eh. I think any stance should be able to retarget. There's no other RPG system I know of save a couple antiquated NES games that has people forced to attack the already dead.

One more comment on this issue - you're not being 'forced to attack the dead', your attack is happening nearly the same moment the creature earns his killing blow.

Most of the time, creatures don't completely collapse at the exact moment they're killed, there's often a little cinematic delay if you will as they realize they're 'dying'. Time for the other blow to be landed at the same time. This brings up doc's point of video-gamey critters dying/disappearing the moment they're destroyed.

Just food for thought.
Robert

Sure, but I'm thinking of things like the original NES Final Fantasy.

If you accidentally assigned two characters to attack the same monster, the monster dies, and the second character stupidly goes over there and attacks empty air, looking like a complete idiot in doing so.

That's the vision in my head I'm trying to avoid.

Player A:I killed the monster!
Player B:Great. I stab its already dead corpse. What a waste...

Angelalex242 wrote:Sure, but I'm thinking of things like the original NES Final Fantasy.

If you accidentally assigned two characters to attack the same monster, the monster dies, and the second character stupidly goes over there and attacks empty air, looking like a complete idiot in doing so.

That's the vision in my head I'm trying to avoid.

Player A:I killed the monster!
Player B:Great. I stab its already dead corpse. What a waste...

You're still envisioning sequential attacks. They are not sequential, but because it's a game and everybody can't talk at once they are handled sequentially.

If it makes you feel better, have everybody roll their dice at the same time, then you each can report your results in order.

Or change the rules to however is most fun for you. That works, too.

Elfcrusher wrote:

Angelalex242 wrote:Sure, but I'm thinking of things like the original NES Final Fantasy.

If you accidentally assigned two characters to attack the same monster, the monster dies, and the second character stupidly goes over there and attacks empty air, looking like a complete idiot in doing so.

That's the vision in my head I'm trying to avoid.

Player A:I killed the monster!
Player B:Great. I stab its already dead corpse. What a waste...

You're still envisioning sequential attacks. They are not sequential, but because it's a game and everybody can't talk at once they are handled sequentially.

If it makes you feel better, have everybody roll their dice at the same time, then you each can report your results in order.

Or change the rules to however is most fun for you. That works, too.

In my group, I find that when the narrations a of a combat round are happening, if I say, 'as Eswin thrust her spear between the troll's ribs, you [insert player's narration of their attack].' This keeps the simultaneous order, and at the end of the round I'll tally the damage totals up and usually give a dramatic recap of the action. Everyone gets to be involved, and it feels a bit more visceral this way.

SirKicley wrote:
I like the rule. Elegant and simple in regards to stances.


I would like to try it.

Oh, that's great! Please inform us about the outcome of your tests.

SirKicley wrote:
My only addendum would be that I would also include the ability for OPEN stance to be the only stance in which a player can opt to select a "new" target, if/when his predetermined "engagement" dies during the "Forward" initiative turns.

You could easily do this through a "special task" (Open stance: Engage New Opponent) which is only available to player characters who adopt an open stance.
However, I would only allow it to those player characters who are not any longer engaged by a (living) enemy.
Furthermore, I would increase the TN difficulty of the attack roll in that combat round by 2.
In fact, I think that I'm going to implement this as a house rule myself.
Thanks for your suggestion