Houserule for more interesting ties in combat

[Lexis]

Hi, this is sort of a long and complex thing to post as a first message. I am eager to probe the minds of experienced BRP'ers though.

I am planning to start a new fantasy campaign soon, soon after Magic World and some other things I just ordered from Chaosium reaches my mailbox. I am fairly familiar with BRP already so I expect to be able to start quickly. I have started thinking about some tweaks though. Here is one and I would appreciate your thoughts on it.

I think it is annoying and a bit random when a fight between skilled opponents devolves into a series of ties until someone rolls a special success. The obvious fix would be to do highest-roll-under-skill wins, pendragon style, but my players dislike it for emotional reasons. Another obvious fix would be to let the best margin of success win, but that causes math of two or even three digit numbers which is quite annoying.

So, I am planning to do this:

Resolve attack and defense as usual. If there is a tie, it has the regular effects of a tie (no damage, etc) but either side might have gained a tactical advantage. Both parties of the fight roll 1d10 + skill/10. Rolling high is better. The one with the best result gets a tactical advantage of the difference between the rolls.

This advantage can be accumulated during the fight. Once you have an advantage of 10 or more, you can spend 10 of this advantage to improve your degree of success one step at one time (failed to success, success to special and so on).

This means that if someone with a skill of 120% ties three times in a row against someone with a skill of 80%, the more skilled person will on average have accumulated an advantage of 12 and will be able to boost the next result one step.

I am also considering other uses for advantages, like gaining a temporary bonus against the same opponent for the duration of the fight, or even a semi-permanent bonus against the opponent until the opponent increases in skill. These would represent learning to exploit a weakness in the opponent's fighting style

Obligatory boring example:

Sneaking into a castle late one night Niall walks right into a guard patrolling the inner wall. Both draw their swords and prepare to fight. Niall has a skill of 123%, the guard has a skill of 71%. Niall lunges forward and stabs with his sword (success), the guard takes a step back and diverts the thrust with his own blade (success). A tie, Niall rolls 1d10 (4) + 12 = 16, the guard 1d10 (4) + 7 = 11. Niall gains an advantage of 5.

The guard counters with a slash at Nialls face (success) but Niall ducks (success). Another tie, another roll. Niall: 1d10 (8) + 12 + previous advantage (5) = 25, the guard: 1d10 (6) + 7 = 13. Niall increases his advantage to 12.

Niall steps forward and slashes at the guards side (success). The guard, a bit off balance, bring his sword up to block (success). Niall twists his sword viciously and manages to stab the guard past his parry. (Niall spends 10 of his advantage to gain a level of success).

Thoughts?

[Baragei]

I think this sounds fairly neat. Gaining advantage in a round could also lead to some neat narration of the combat scene.

The only two things that doesn't quite sit with me is the extra d10(enough dice already), the other thing is edited away as I skimmed the OP too quickly:p

What about failed rolls - do they count as "negative" advantage? If so, whiffing your attack could be a veritable death sentence.

Edited March 31, 2013 by Baragei

[Lexis]

One option would be to use the original d100 roll. The [tens part of the skill] - [the tens dice] would give approximately the same results as d10 + [tens part of skill]. Then there is one less roll but slightly worse math.

I haven't completely decided about failed attacks. Having fenced a bit, I am sort of attracted to the idea of a clumsy attack being really dangerous for the attacker. If I go that route I'd probably require a skill roll to exploit the mistake (and give bonus advantage for winning it). With multiple opponents it would then be a bit of a tradeoff; do I exploit my advantage or do I save my unmodified parry skill for the next attacker.

A bit more expanded use of advantages, brainstorm:

* 10: improve the result of a contest against the same opponent one step in your favor

* 10: gain a temporary bonus of 10% against this opponent, picking this multiple times is cumulative up to a max of +30%. After this fight, the bonus is halved but persists until the opponent improves in skill.

* 5: deny the opponent the opportunity to attack you this round, e.g. by tactical maneuvering or because the opponent is off balance or cautious.

* 5: sidestep or feint, give the opponent a one time -20% to defend against the next attack.

* 5 (if that leaves you with at least 10): make the attack a very close call. It still misses but in a suitably intimidating way. Perhaps a few hairs are cut from the opponents head, perhaps a piece of decoration is lost from the armor. It sends a message to intelligent self-preserving opponents and causes a lull in the fight against the opponent. The opponent is free to choose to attack again (NPCs might need a roll).

* 5: maneuver well. Use this to keep the opponent between you and an enemy with a bow, or to give your friend with a throwing axe a better line of attack against this opponent. Laws of physics still apply, at least as far as they already did.

[RosenMcStern]

We have been using something similar to this for RuneQuest for some weeks, and it works fairly well. The one difference is that there is no additional skill roll, just the plain "high roll wins", and the winner gets a non-damaging combat maneuver that does more or less what your brainstorming says, plus a couple other special effects. The end result is the same, the battle turns into a slow accumulation of advantages until a finishing blow bypasses the parry.

[frogspawner]

We have been using something similar to this for RuneQuest for some weeks, and it works fairly well.

You have? Doesn't RQ6's fancy Combat Manoeuvre mechanism solve the 'interminable fights between high-levellers' problem, then?

[RosenMcStern]

Good Things can be made better. RQ combat manoeuvres offer a better solution than BRP - which in turn is a solution to the old nuisance of endless combat in RQ3 - for low tech settings, but they can be perfected or suited to different tastes, nonetheless. Using this technique shifts the focus of combat manoeuvres from improving the effect when you hit to planning a technique that makes you more likely to hit later. It makes the game feel more swashbuclers and less Conan the Barbarian. If your game involves mainly fighting big monsters who do not parry or have a low combat skill score, this particular kind of modification will not improve your game at all, and might detract from fun. OTOH, if you fight mainly armed humanoids, it may provide a better experience.

[pansophy]

I can see this kind of rules might be valid for fantasy/historical settings, but it does nothing for modern/future ones. I would prefere something that is useful for both genres, so it would be attractive to more people.

Maybe something like counting the amount of successes each side archives and after a certain amount is reached, the battle is won by a "technical" advantage. This could result in the other side surrendering, taking a more defensive stance or fleeing. This kind of rules would be more "strategical" and not as detailed, but they would represent a more realistic way a battle is fought.

The problem I have with most RPG battles is, that the PC's enemies mostly fight until death. I know, this is up to the GM, but I have rarely seen foes running away. And all the combat manoeuvres in modern RPGs add tactical detail, but leave out the aspect of strategic decisions. It is mostly an all or nothing fight, where only one side will survive the battle.

Just my 2 cents.

[frogspawner]

The problem I have with most RPG battles is, that the PC's enemies mostly fight until death. I know, this is up to the GM, but I have rarely seen foes running away.

True 'dis. But in my experience the PCs never run away. Does this just balance that?

So... maybe a "technical advantage" mechanic would solve the problem. Something like, once the 'advantages' reach a certain threshold, then the other side is somehow disadvantaged, i.e. all attacks halved? (E.g. the others have gained better cover or height, or the disadvantaged side 'tires', or whatever - making it daft to do anything but run away?)

[pansophy]

Maybe. Personally I handle these situations when they come up and make up some situational modifiers, but maybe this type of rule can be expanded to simulate mass combats as well.

Maybe Rosen comes up with a nice rule in his modern supplement he will be writing?

[RosenMcStern]

Which modern supplement? I have already written such a rule.

Chapter 4, Paragraph "Strike Rank deduction"

[pansophy]

Hi Rosen,

it was just a long shot ... Nice rule you wrote. Will we see it in a BRP supplement sometime?

Personally I like your works, and if shipping to AU would not be so expensive, I would buy some more books - instead of the PDFs. But I really hope you'll put out a nice modern or sci-fi setting sometime that gets me as interested as Merry England or Rome or Crusaders.

[filbanto]

This is an interesting concept. Thank you for sharing. If you were using miniatures I could envision a mechanism like this to force your opponent to give ground or into an unfavorable position rather than the more abstract method outlined. I'll have to think on this one.

[pansophy]

@Lexis: you could also rule that the character with the lower roll is allowed to spend a Power Point to gain a higher success level. Or two or three points for a success level, depending how heroic you want it. This also would make Power Points important for fighters or warriors or in a non magic setting.

The player then could decide how important the battle is for him and the limit of PPs a character has also limits the use of them.

[RosenMcStern]

@Lexis: you could also rule that the character with the lower roll is allowed to spend a Power Point to gain a higher success level. Or two or three points for a success level, depending how heroic you want it. This also would make Power Points important for fighters or warriors or in a non magic setting.

The player then could decide how important the battle is for him and the limit of PPs a character has also limits the use of them.

This rule is already in the book as "Fate points" on page 176. The only difference is that here you propose to give this opportunity only to the high roller (i.e. the combatant who got a marginal victory).

[pansophy]

@Rosen: Is it? Oh! Never seen it! Thanks for the heads up.