Real Roleplaying

Author Topic: combat movement abuse  (Read 1368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points 0/0
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #40 on: February 23, 2017, 02:28:33 PM »
Personally, Vector, I think the player in question was playing smartly within the rules, it is just that the rules need to be expanded a bit to make zones of control truly controlling, and to give characters an appropriate chance to react in a turn-based system. Free changes of facing when unengaged, and/or opportunity attacks for characters that push carelessly through an enemy's zone of control, would I think solve most if not all of the issues (they certainly have for us). But of course I am looking at this from an RM2/RMU perspective, and my solutions might not be apt for RMSS. I am just throwing them out there for those that might find them useful.

Although it's not really been an issue in my game, I'm going to present some of these ideas for ZoC Rules to my players next session.

So thanks to everyone for the great ideas!

Offline ardem

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • OIC Points 0/0
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #41 on: February 23, 2017, 06:03:08 PM »
Personally, Vector, I think the player in question was playing smartly within the rules, it is just that the rules need to be expanded a bit to make zones of control truly controlling, and to give characters an appropriate chance to react in a turn-based system. Free changes of facing when unengaged, and/or opportunity attacks for characters that push carelessly through an enemy's zone of control, would I think solve most if not all of the issues (they certainly have for us). But of course I am looking at this from an RM2/RMU perspective, and my solutions might not be apt for RMSS. I am just throwing them out there for those that might find them useful.

I agree the player is playing smartly and within the rules. This not the issue, as a GM if I was to use the same tactics when outnumbering  the players someone would be killed, a squishy at the back or whatever. Because in a room 10x10 squares you cannot create a link and someone could play Chinese checkers diagonal through a gap.

Any time in the past 'prior' to you joining Murder that I done something that remotely avoid the front ranks and goes for a squishy, there is an outcry from the players same is unrealistic BS as the NPC should be able to be blocked or stopped going to the back ranks. And its not about outsmarting the players, hell if this was board game where I wanted to win with the resources I have every battle would result in a party wipe, that not the point of RPG, it is a point in creating a challenge.

The problem is I do not want this game turning into chinese checkers because the rules allow it. I want it to what rolemaster tries to be a gritty realistic approach to combat.

I think I have made my choice, move and turn does not resolve the problem of chinese checkers.

I am going for a Moving Maneuver roll one level up from the base, and an opportunity attacks at 1/2 OB in you leave a zone of control square, even if it going into another zone of control adjacent to the player. Just the same as in DnD, so you go through multiple zone of controls squares you still only receive the one attack.

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,186
  • OIC Points 5/5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #42 on: February 23, 2017, 07:20:34 PM »
Something I think a lot of people fail to think about is that combat isn't a series of specific actions that start and stop on a player initiative or specific phase.  That's just how your allowed amount of actions is measured.

To give an example, in RMSS, if you move cast Bladeturn in Snap, move 20% in Normal, and attack in Deliberate.  You didn't stand still casting a spell, then suddenly shoot over to the foe, come to a stop, then perform your swing like wooden toy.  You cast Bladeturn as you moved towards the foe, making your attack (or series of feints, thrusts, etc) as you approached.

So 'going around' someone in melee shouldn't really be a matter of "But I have enough movement to do that!"  Always assume everyone involved in melee is continually moving.  This is why we assume two foes never get a flank on you.  Because the three of you are constantly moving and the person getting double-teamed is going to constantly keep the two foes on his forward flanks.  No, this isn't FULLY realistic, but melee will NEVER be fully realistic.  So some common sense rules need to be put in place that, unless given a very wide birth (i.e. the person would have to disengage melee in order to block you), you should be able to 'block' people.  All the people involved just need to remember melee combatants aren't static.  You don't just stand there taking turns swinging at each other.

Quote
This not the issue, as a GM if I was to use the same tactics when outnumbering  the players someone would be killed, a squishy at the back or whatever.
I realize you're trying to avoid being too deadly, but in the end I think your players will either need to position themselves better, learn they can't win every fight, or suffer the conditions any intelligent foe would create.
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (> = greater than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline MurderByNumbers

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • OIC Points 0/0
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #43 on: February 23, 2017, 09:57:18 PM »
Personally, Vector, I think the player in question was playing smartly within the rules, it is just that the rules need to be expanded a bit to make zones of control truly controlling, and to give characters an appropriate chance to react in a turn-based system. Free changes of facing when unengaged, and/or opportunity attacks for characters that push carelessly through an enemy's zone of control, would I think solve most if not all of the issues (they certainly have for us). But of course I am looking at this from an RM2/RMU perspective, and my solutions might not be apt for RMSS. I am just throwing them out there for those that might find them useful.

I agree the player is playing smartly and within the rules. This not the issue, as a GM if I was to use the same tactics when outnumbering  the players someone would be killed, a squishy at the back or whatever. Because in a room 10x10 squares you cannot create a link and someone could play Chinese checkers diagonal through a gap.

Any time in the past 'prior' to you joining Murder that I done something that remotely avoid the front ranks and goes for a squishy, there is an outcry from the players same is unrealistic BS as the NPC should be able to be blocked or stopped going to the back ranks. And its not about outsmarting the players, hell if this was board game where I wanted to win with the resources I have every battle would result in a party wipe, that not the point of RPG, it is a point in creating a challenge.


I see, I was not aware of this prior issue.
Personally I do think the players should be forced to using tactics/positioning especially vs an intelligent opponent.. but that's me. I think we have too much "leeroy" happening which is excused as "role play". I don't buy that as all of our characters have survived to level 10+, been in plenty of combats, and most of our physical characters come from some militaristic backstory.
For any of us to be "leeroy" should come at severe consequences at this point...as that character wouldn't of survived to level 10+ anyway.


The problem is I do not want this game turning into chinese checkers because the rules allow it. I want it to what rolemaster tries to be a gritty realistic approach to combat.

This is also why i think people need to be forced to treat combat with care and thinking not just RAAARRRRRRRR ALL YOUR BASES BELONG TO ME type actions. We should be having some positioning, we should be trying to cover each others flanks/rear. We should be doing this while limiting access to our support party members.

I think I have made my choice, move and turn does not resolve the problem of chinese checkers.

I am going for a Moving Maneuver roll one level up from the base, and an opportunity attacks at 1/2 OB in you leave a zone of control square, even if it going into another zone of control adjacent to the player. Just the same as in DnD, so you go through multiple zone of controls squares you still only receive the one attack.

Maneuvering roll to walk?  :o on even, flat, paved surface? ???



Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,577
  • OIC Points 25/25
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #44 on: February 23, 2017, 11:13:10 PM »
For the reason that Cory mentions, I always require a contest of maneuver skills when one character tries to outmaneuver another, e.g. circling around to get behind them. It's not that running around on an even, flat, paved surface is difficult, but the rolls show which character is doing it better. So instead of a "Chinese checkers" approach where we go one at a time in artificial fashion, I depend on the character's skills and rolls to see how well they do.

Of course I expect that a character who is primarily a flanker should be good at those maneuvers and will often succeed. But that's ok, they've invested DP in being good at it.

Offline Hurin

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,754
  • OIC Points 0/0
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #45 on: February 24, 2017, 12:52:03 PM »
For the reason that Cory mentions, I always require a contest of maneuver skills when one character tries to outmaneuver another, e.g. circling around to get behind them. It's not that running around on an even, flat, paved surface is difficult, but the rolls show which character is doing it better. So instead of a "Chinese checkers" approach where we go one at a time in artificial fashion, I depend on the character's skills and rolls to see how well they do.


That is a simple way to do it; do you find it slows the game down though JDale? How often are you rolling for these things, and how do you decide specifically who gets to move where? For example, if someone is trying to maneuver to someone's rear, and the mover beats the stationary target's roll by say 5, how do you decide how far to the rear he gets? Is there partial success (e.g. he gets flank not rear), or what would be the threshold for full success? Or is that just decided on an ad hoc basis by GM judgement?

Questions like these are perhaps easily answered, but personally, I prefer a system that doesn't need a lot of rolls or GM adjudication, because I feel these things slow down the game and add an element of judgement that can cause friction between GMs and players.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points 0/0
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #46 on: February 24, 2017, 01:05:09 PM »
Maneuvering roll to walk?  :o on even, flat, paved surface? ???

In fairness I think he is just proposing maneuvering rolls for contested movement through zones of control.

I have an idea! How about all battles in this campaign be fought with each side forming a shield wall?

No pesky movement issues then.  :P

Offline jdale

  • RMU Dev Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,577
  • OIC Points 25/25
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #47 on: February 24, 2017, 01:15:39 PM »
For the reason that Cory mentions, I always require a contest of maneuver skills when one character tries to outmaneuver another, e.g. circling around to get behind them. It's not that running around on an even, flat, paved surface is difficult, but the rolls show which character is doing it better. So instead of a "Chinese checkers" approach where we go one at a time in artificial fashion, I depend on the character's skills and rolls to see how well they do.


That is a simple way to do it; do you find it slows the game down though JDale? How often are you rolling for these things, and how do you decide specifically who gets to move where? For example, if someone is trying to maneuver to someone's rear, and the mover beats the stationary target's roll by say 5, how do you decide how far to the rear he gets? Is there partial success (e.g. he gets flank not rear), or what would be the threshold for full success? Or is that just decided on an ad hoc basis by GM judgement?

Questions like these are perhaps easily answered, but personally, I prefer a system that doesn't need a lot of rolls or GM adjudication, because I feel these things slow down the game and add an element of judgement that can cause friction between GMs and players.

You really only need a roll for the things that are interesting. Do I get flank? Does that foe get flank on me? Am I able to get past that foe, or stop that foe from slipping past me? So if a roll happens, which I don't find is particularly often, it's something that is often interesting to the player and adds a little suspense.

It does mean the game is more like a roleplaying game with skills and less like a combat board game. That means more decisions by the GM.

Offline Hurin

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,754
  • OIC Points 0/0
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #48 on: February 25, 2017, 02:39:27 PM »

You really only need a roll for the things that are interesting. Do I get flank? Does that foe get flank on me? Am I able to get past that foe, or stop that foe from slipping past me?

Ok, I understand your point better now. One thing though I was trying to get at though is that a lot of these cases are not absolute either/or cases (wasn't there a term for them in RM2? can't remember it right now). Rather, many of these cases admit partial success or degrees of success. So someone is trying to get as close to the troll's rear as possible (as unappealing as that sounds), or as far past the guard at the city gate as he can. Here it seems you not only need a two-roll contest, but GM adjudication on top of it to see the degree of success. So the way you are doing it here both slows the game down (opposed rolls) and requires adjudication. I recognize that there is some fun and tension in the opposed rolls, but if they happen frequently for basic movement then I think that the fun will wear out pretty soon, and the necessity of GM judgement has no benefits that I can see.

Quote
It does mean the game is more like a roleplaying game with skills and less like a combat board game. That means more decisions by the GM.

I'm not really sure GM adjudication is a necessary feature of roleplaying. Take the spell roll for example. We used to require two rolls to cast a spell: ESF roll and then attack roll. Now we've combined them into a single roll. Has that reduced the roleplaying aspect of the game? I would say no.

Maybe we just have a difference of philosophy here, and I understand why you want to keep doing things the way you've been doing them. For me though, the benefits of removing the need for rolls for routine movement actions, and simultaneously removing the need for GM adjudication, far outweigh any potential roleplaying benefits (even if they do exist).
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

Offline Cory Magel

  • Loremaster
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,186
  • OIC Points 5/5
  • Fun > Balance > Realism
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #49 on: February 25, 2017, 02:57:44 PM »
I have an idea! How about all battles in this campaign be fought with each side forming a shield wall?
No pesky movement issues then.  :P
Yes, kill each other in a more civilized, gentlemanly manner!
- Cory Magel

Game design priority: Fun > Balance > Realism (> = greater than).
(Channeling Companion, RMQ 1 & 2, and various Guild Companion articles author).

"The only thing I know about adults is that they are obsolete children." - Dr Seuss

Offline vector

  • Initiate
  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • OIC Points 0/0
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #50 on: February 26, 2017, 04:12:15 PM »
Any time in the past 'prior' to you joining Murder that I done something that remotely avoid the front ranks and goes for a squishy, there is an outcry from the players same is unrealistic BS as the NPC should be able to be blocked or stopped going to the back ranks.

Now there's the rub. Your player, and MurderbyNumbers, need to understand what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I really believe that NPCs and PCs should operate under the same rules.

If they leave their flanks exposed and spell casters vulnerable then they should suffer the same fate as any of MurderbyNumbers victims. Sometimes a party has to retreat when things start to go wrong. I occasionally set up a potentially mismatched encounter opportunity to remind the players that the world does not scale around them like some sort of video game.

If you insist on poking your nose in a dragon's lair at 5th level I WILL KILL YOU! Well, not me, the dragon will.

Offline Hurin

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,754
  • OIC Points 0/0
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #51 on: February 26, 2017, 05:19:23 PM »
It is sure amazing how much the battle changes when the enemies have one more party member than the PCs. Suddenly, the PCs are all watching their flanks and rears.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

Offline MurderByNumbers

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 12
  • OIC Points 0/0
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #52 on: February 27, 2017, 12:27:31 AM »
It is sure amazing how much the battle changes when the enemies have one more party member than the PCs. Suddenly, the PCs are all watching their flanks and rears.

Isn't that half the fun?

Offline intothatdarkness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,649
  • OIC Points 0/0
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: combat movement abuse
« Reply #53 on: February 27, 2017, 08:44:47 AM »
It is sure amazing how much the battle changes when the enemies have one more party member than the PCs. Suddenly, the PCs are all watching their flanks and rears.

I always liked using archers in overwatch positions. Nothing says "I see you" to a flanking PC like an arrow in the breadbasket...
Darn that salt pork!