|
FATE
Home Page |
Some discussion and examples of Exchange-based Combat, to hopefully clarify things.
The original post writer described the situation of multiple people in the combat, doing different things. Anyway, another thing that I had a little problem with was a combat situation where one of the PCs (PC 1) was shooting at an NPC's flank whilst that NPC was attempting to spray bullets at another PC (PC 2) lying on the ground in front of him. This second PC was fully aware that he was about to be sprayed.
We're using exchange-based combat rules, so I handled this by having all characters roll like this:
This sort of worked: NPC hit PC 2, PC 2 got Clipped, PC 1 hit NPC, NPC went down.
However, although the results seemed realistic (to me and the players) I was aware that it was more to do with luck that judgement. I was a little unhappy because the NPC had a high(ish) firearms skill and got to compare this with PC 1's firearm throw in order to avoid being hit - that's just plain silly in my mind! This is a problem with exchange-based combat - for two melee opponents it makes sense, but our situation was like a strange mix between melee and missile combat. This is where I think FATE's exchange-based 'rules' break down a bit. I got away with it this time... :)
I found myself tempted (and not just in combat) to try to take the 'average' of two skills in some situations but wasn't really confident that I could it in a fair manner without having thought about it properly first.
Fred Hicks responded: [1]
PC1 and PC2 are on the same side. They're both rolling, and they're both rolling at +1 due to a simple Superior Numbers advantage. Since PC2 is doing something defensive, if he gets the highest result, it won't wound the NPC, obviously.
Treating this all as a single exchange, all three roll with the "goal" of a single result coming out the other side of it.
I think it's important overall when dealing with exchange-based stuff not to think of it as a single set of simultaneous actions, but instead as 'a short-duration sequence of such.
The situation Ben describes -- for me, at least -- is one that looks a little something like: NPC comes in, guns blazing, as he spots PC2 running around the scene. PC1 maneuvers into place fires from his flanking position as PC2 ducks, dodges, weaves, and dives for cover.
Now, in a standard game with initiative based action, is that a "single combat round" or is it several? It could be either, but exchange-based doesn't care, so long as it can look at that as a single exchange -- a sequence of moments of rising tension culminating in a significant moment which produces a decisive result (PC1 hitting NPC; PC1 missing NPC but buying PC2 time to get to safety; PC1 making his move too late, resulting in PC2 getting wounded).
Fred later added: [2]
In a case where both PC1 and PC2 beat the NPC's roll, the GM is perfectly in keeping to a) wound the NPC according to PC1's MoS and b) gauge the effectiveness of PC2's maneuver based on that MoS.
And in a very similar situation (B1 shooting at G1, G1 shooting at a fleeing B2 -- does G1 get a superior weapon advantage on B2?), Fred suggested: [3]
The "superior weaponry" could be fine, so long as G1 is prevented from deciding to hit B1 on a success. On the other hand, B1 does have a gun, too, and so both sides have guns within the context of the exchange. So on that perspective, G1 doesn't really enjoy a weapon superiority, since he is facing covering fire within the same exchange, from a gun-wielder.
''This is one of those "It's the GM's call" situations, where you have the burden of having to be consistent in
all other similar situations. My personal inclination on this is to toss the superior weaponry thing. But that doesn't make it the only right way to do it. Just make sure that once you do it, you keep doing it that way.''
Another situation is presented:[4] I came across another multidirectional combat that caused some puzzlement/irritation for one of the players. He (PC1) was trying to shoot this creature in the back whilst it was trying to leap at another PC (PC2) and flatten them. I had PC1 throw a firearms check, PC2 throw a wrestling check, and I threw a wrestling check for the creature.
Now previously that creature had been attacking PC1 and using it's Claw skill of Average. Now it was attempting to Wrestle PC2, it had a skill of Fair. PC1's player was annoyed that he was now opposing a skill level of Fair instead of just Average - he was right when he said that why could the fact that the creature is performing a different action at someone else make his hit harder? I applied modifiers for a flank attack on the creature, so PC1 did hit and wound it, but it left all of us with a feeling that the mechanics hadn't working properly in that case.
I'm wondering if anyone can see how I could have better handled this, because the only other way I can see to resolve this problem is to switch to a tactical combat rules (which I would really not like to do!)?
Fred Hicks responded:
Well, thinking on my feet, I'd probably have tossed off some explanation about how when the creature was Clawing, it was waving its arms around, making itself a bigger target, and when it was wrestling, it was able to do things like, oh, put the other PC in the way of the shot.
But some players will look at that and not only properly detect that as quick-footed bull, but also decide that they aren't willing to suspend their disbelief enough to accept that bull. That can be a problem.
Not having been there, I'm not sure I can "directly medicate" the circumstances (but I'll talk about some ideas a little further down). But I will fall back to some more familiar ground with the discussion of it: I do not see exchanges as a set of single actions by all the parties involved. What people are doing when they're selecting what skill to bring to bear is deciding what the "tag" skill is for the sequence of events represented by their throw of the dice. The creature could be running around the room, flashing its claws, but the wrestling is the "tag" activity it's doing, and its rating in that skill represents its general effectiveness under such circumstances.
This still has some rough edges, but when I'm describing play in such circumstances as a GM, I tend to embellish as a way of smoothing those over. "Okay, Creature and PC2 grapple with one another, it's a tense moment, and for a while there, Creature definitely seems to be the stronger one. PC1 gets into position, takes aim -- it's PC2's head in the way, hold off -- then there it is, PC2's gotten the Creature into the line of fire -- PC1 shoots! It's a hit!"
That said, here's a semi-tactical idea. The "multiple attacker" bonuses are meant as a way to address the effects of multiple combatants in a single set of actions. If you're running into problems doing a single exchange that has two on one, you have the option of tossing the multiple attacker bonuses and instead treating the single exchange as two exchanges. This lets you select appropriate skills in both circumstances for the creature's actions. Further, it still gives the multiple attackers an edge in numbers because the single one (the Creature) is rolling twice, can only consider one of its rolls to be the one that is an "attack" (all others would be maneuver results if it succeeded), and has the "opportunity" to burn aspects twice as fast.
There's another thing that I tend to do as a GM, though, which helps me avoid this particular discrepancy. I stick to one skill -- or I keep all "attack" skills on the same level (Wrestling and Claw at Fair, or at Average -- no disconnect). And, heck, my writeup for adversaries often looks like this:
Creature (Competence: Fair)
And I'm done. I save the real detailing for characters and creatures that have some real recurrence and need for depth. If they're just there to chew on the characters a bit and then get driven off or die -- no point in it.
Another Fred Hicks exchange. [5]
I do.
I could see a 'Tactical' or 'Battlefield Awareness' or similar skills making a difference in whether you get shot but how well you shoot something yourself has nothing to do with not getting hit in my mind (other than if you eliminate the other guy before he can shoot you). Having ranged combat be a roll of shooting skill vs. shooting skill feels like giving the combatants a 'ranged parry'which is incredibly silly in my mind.
You're drilling things down to a too-atomic level if that's where the problem is. If you're doing shooting skill vs shooting skill, then you're in a situation where you're doing an exchange-based combat, right? Exchanges are not about "I take one shot", they're about an exchange of gunfire.
If you're going to use exchange-based combat, your skills should reflect multiple combat considerations, which include the defensive elements -- finding good cover, recognizing the gun the other guy's using and counting shots taken, and more. A skill in "Pistols" is, in an exchange-based combat world, never simply "how good of a shot am I".
More Fred Hicks goodness.[6]
Turn-based involves each party having a "turn" pursuing a small goal, potentially meeting some resistance to that goal (in the form of defensive skills, whatever). Exchange-based broadens the timescale just a bit, allows for that goal to be somewhat wider and in active contest with one or more other goals. Turn-based has a very broad timescale by comparison, and the goals are proportionately wider as well.
Still more Fred Hicks.[7] I think my ideal model for an exchange-based fight is a segment of a fencing duel from a classic hollywood movie. I think Errol Flynn's sequence of cuts and parries driving Basil Rathbone back a few paces (from one section of the set to another) as he tries to defend himself against the hero's grinning assault is a single exchange (probably ending with poor Basil getting Clipped).
That's intentional and present in my notion, at least, of exchange-based fighting because I wanted a system that gave me the satisfaction of making combat involve enough contests (declarations of goals/actions, die rolls to achieve them) to feel meaty and real, but wanted the combat to run fast -- and to have enough "stuff" going on in it -- that it felt like a good, important scene straight out of a movie.
What I didn't want was for a few sword-strokes to take orders of magnitude longer than it took to describe the scene...
Another [Landon Darkwood]? observation on how exchange-based combat allows more color (seeking general superiority bonuses) than more crunchy combat rules:[8] So we're trading this:
"I can move six squares in a round, and this creature has a facing of 2 squares and is looking that way... if I cut this diagonal, I should be able to get into flanking position this round. Will take an attack of opportunity, but averaging out the creature's attacks so far, I think it's a worthy calculated risk, being as that I still have 52 [H Ps]? anyway. Its attack bonus can't be higher than +8."
For this:
Player 1: "You break left and I break right, and I'll use those fallen pillars for cover as I'm making my way around. Try and distract him, and see if you can get to a higher vantage point - it'll be easier to stick steel in his face that way. Once I'm in position and we're flanking him, this'll be a bit easier, too."
Player 2: "Okay... can I spend a Fate Point to get a fallen pillar or some rubble on that side too, so I can get to the upper tier of the plaza?"
GM: "Okay."
Player 1: "That'll be +1 for numbers, +1 to you for position, +1 to me for cover in the defensive exchange while I'm moving, and then +1 for flanking later."
Player 2: "We fraggle rock."
Player 1 and GM: "... What?"
See also Gun Thoughts, Combat Skills. Combat Rules, Exchange-based Combat |