Song of Swords' combat mechanics in Riddle of Steel

[Glidias]

Here are my observations of applying Song of Swords' combat rules to TROSlike games. THis writeup assumes you are familiar with the rules of a typical Riddle of Steel-like game. In my opinion, Song of Swords (SOS) is very similar to Riddle of Steel, and basically applied various mods to actually make Riddle of Steel workable, but still made something of their own, while still keeping various aspect of crunchiness since both TROS and SOS are more simulistic in approach. (I did read that BoB wanted to veer away from that aspect and involved something that's easier to run on the table). Anyway, with SOS combat mechanics, it's possible (though not necessarily recommended for a typical TROSlike), to even conduct interway multiple-vs-multiple combatant deathmatches within a single bout, without having to actually divide them into seperate "1 vs many" TROSlike bouts.

Below are my observations...
______________________

Song of Swords' rules for TROS: Codifying the Dynamics of Handling Multi-combatant combat

Targeting availability:
-------------------------------
The key to making multi-combatant combat workable in TROS is the Targeting mechanic in Song of Swords.

In Song of Swords, you can only deal an attack manuever against your chosen Target. Everyone can only can have 1 chosen target and this is publicly declared to everyone within the bout during the exchange step (in a specific turn order depending on player orientation and reflex stat) before actual manuevers are being declared. Whether you "have initiative" or not, is determined solely in the context of that target you chose and any given Orientation (Aggressive/Cautious/None/Defensive ) you might have had (or the lack thereof) in relation to other opponents who may/may not be targeting you back at the start of every combat Round. This allows multiple combatant party vs party combat (or free for all deathmatches) to work in an organised fashion, since the opponents (ie. who is threatned/being threatened) are determined at the start of every round.

At the start of every Combat round for the first exchange (and ONLY the first exchange!), only those individuals in a Paused State (or entering combat for the first time), must secretly adopt orientation to reveal it simulatenously among the rest of the other combatants in similar situation (like in Red/White TROS dice rolls). After that, he may, during the exchange step, be able to choose a "closeby" target, if he doesn't have one yet.

At the end of every exchange, orientation is removed from every individual. (set to "None").

For both exchanges, if you currently don't have a target assigned, a "closeby" target (if any) can be chosen during the exchange step.

Thus, if you currently don't have a target, you can choose a new target "closeby" to you during any exchange. If you are not entering the bout with any Orientation, "closeby" limits the scope of choice to any current opponent that is already targeting you. With an orientation adopted, "closeby" refers to ANYONE within the bout. However, if already already targeted by someone else within a given turn sequence of target-choosing for the exchange, house-rules might enforce "closeby" (especially in a gridless/mapless situation) to ONLY refer to those already targeting you (this disallows Aggressive/Defensive/None orientation characters to arbituarily target anyone in the bout if they are already targeted by other opponents, and they must choose from those opponents instead). Note that any individual character perks/exceptions may circumvent this optional houserule.

It is important to codify the "closeby" parameters as of above, in order to prevent unfair exploits.

During an exchange, among those without targets yet, Aggressive orientation characters (if any) choose their targets first in order of highest reflex first. Cautious orientation characters choose after that (in the same reflex order). Then Defensive orientation characters (in the same reflex order). Then anyone else without orientation(in the same reflex order).

Cautious characters automatically targets back the first opponent that targets them (if any) during the turn sequence, and so may be deprived of freely choosing their targets, though they have the advantage of adopting both Offensive/Defensive manuevers for the first exchange, unlike Aggressive characters that can only use Offensive Manuevers for the first exchange. For more information, refer to the Song of Swords' rulebook.

Generally, as long you're targeting someone that isn't targeting you back, you have initiative over him, and can deal an attack on him with initiative, so long as your orientation isn't Defensive orientation for that exchange (Defensive orientation limits you to using Defensive manuevers only for the first exchange, and the second exchange might be skipped as an individual Battle Pause if no opponent attacks you during the first exchange that demands a second exchange followup.). If that person is targeting you back as well, initaitive is resolved based off the relative orientations between mutually targeting opponents, with higher orientations (eg. Aggressive over Cautious/Defensive, Cautious over Defensive), automatically gaining initaitive over the other, or tied orientations having their initiatives resolved only during maneuver execution (for Aggressive vs Aggressive initiative contest), or determined before manuever declaration (for Cautious vs Cautious). Aggressive/Cautious orientations also beat those characters without any orientations (ie. Aggressive/Cautious over None). In some roguelike games with simulatenous movement of units per tick step, some units that enter late into battle may not have time to adopt orientation at the given step of the exchange, and thus enter battle without the ability to choose an orientation, but may still have time to pick a target on the current step if they weren't targeted already.

What if you already locked to a given target and wish to change to a new one "closeby" to you?

The only way to change to a new target that isn't targeting you back while already engaged to another target, is to perform a successful Full Evasion first against all opponents targeting you in order to fully untarget yourself (or kill off all opponents that are currently targeting you) in order to untarget yourself completely. This triggers a Paused situation for you where you can then freely pick a new target for the new Round after that. However, if there are people already targeting you, there are ways to change target to them quickly outside of the Full Evasion manuever. (where you can change target to another one "closeby", even during 2nd exchange as well.). As such, a Full Evasion can be executed as an unopposed defensive manuever (if no one is attacking you) as well, and requires only 1 success in order to pull through.

During your Manuever declaration turn, so long as you are not paused, you can optionally use the Change Target manuever (which yields a CP cost of 1CP) during an exchange to change to a new target opponent (who must also be targeting you back and the opponent must not be using a Defensive orientation) in order to attack the new target immediately. However, unless you buy initiative, you DO not gain initiative over that new target (since he targeted you offensively earlier before declaration of manuevers, while you weren't targeting him back) and are deemed to be attacking without initiative unless you also attempt to Steal Initaitive alongside with Change Target, which will lead to an initiative contest against the new target.

In summary for Change Target manuever, attacking an opponent that isn't your current target during the target yields an additional CP cost of +1CP for changing target, while changing target in order to contest for initaitive against that new target requires Steal Initaitive as well for an additional CP cost of XCP, which amounts to a total of (X+1)CP.

Alternatively, you can also successfully defend against such opponents' attacks with an initiative gaining defensive manuever on one exchange, and if successful, you can freely switch target to one of them for the next exchange. The implications of this tactic is discussed later on. But this method of changing target is highly situational.

Double attack manuevers must be dealt against your primary chosen target, but you may pick another opponent that is also targeting you for the secondary attack. Both attacks resolve simulatenously in relation to the primarily chosen target.


Resolving initiative in general:
----------------------
Initiative is determine individually in respect to the target you chose. In order to have initaitive, you must have a target. But having a target doesn't mean you have initiative. Also, both opponents targeting each other may both have initiative at the same time if they are deemed contesting for it. (eg. In typical Aggressive vs Aggressive) context, or when Stealing initaitive is done by one of them....Furthermore, losing initiative doesn't necessarily mean your opponent gains it. It all depends on the context and both combatants may end up not having any initaitive.

Some rules to take note for the TROS game for clarification:

If both the aggressor(ie. the one with initiative) and the defender(ie. the one without initaitive) rolls zero successes on their manuevers or neither party adopts an offensive manuever, while the defender is also targeting the aggressor back, the aggressor loses initaitive as well (so both will end up with no initiative in this context), resulting in a Battle Pause between both of them.

Attacking without initaitive will NOT allow you gain initiative even on a successful hit. Only Buying Initiative (which can only be done against your target who is also targeting you back) would allow you to gain back initiative (and doesn't necessarily require a successful hit), mainly just winning of the initaitive contest in order to get exclusive initiative over the other in both current and future exchanges. If, however, despite winning the initiative contest, neither party score any successes on the manuevers (ie. 0 successes for both sides), then both sides lose initiative and a Pause will ensue where both sides need to re-roll for initaitive via orientation next round.

If in buying/stealing initaitive successfully (ie. winning the initaitive contest), your counterattack was successfully defended aginst with an initaitive gaining manuever (eg. Quick Defense + Block combo ala Simulatenous Block and Strike), you will still lose the initiative for the next exchange. Conversely, like any regular attack with initaitive, as long as you achieve at least 1 dice success with a quality of success of >=0, you will keep any existing initaitive you might have had.

Using a purely evasive voiding manuever including Full Evade (without any attack) against your primary target will cause you to lose initiative when resolving those manuevers, regardless of success or failure, unless you pay any specific optional post-resolution costs for that manuever or have the required quality of success for that manuever to regain back initiative. This depends on the context of each manuever. For example, Riddle of Steel's Partial Evasion manuever (with a TN of 7) allows you to optionally regain initiative after a successful execution of the manuever of at least 1 quality of success, by paying 2 additional CP dice. Generally, I only allow the Partial Evasion manuever to only be usable once against your current target in response to any attack by him. Any generic evasive manuever done against opponents that aren't your target, or against the second attack of a Double Attack manuever, uses the Void manuever (as described in Song of Swords), with a TN of 8. The Void manuever can be used multiple times against each attack.

Resolving initaitive with Full Evasion/Flee:
---------------------------------------
A successful Full Evasion will cause both you and the other opponent that you successfully Fully Evaded against to lose both initaitive, thus causing a Pause between both of you. Depending on the nature of the Full Evasion (spatial movement), it may involve mutual untargeting as well.

Avoiding Full-Evade exploits:
------------------------------------
In Song of Swords, using a flee-like manuever like Full Evade is subjected to Mobility stat CP-usage cap rulings to avoid abuse/exploits (since full evade has a low TN and a character can often exploit his entire CP for it, especially for the 1st exchange) to try and pause the engagement.

If you use Full Evade, no other manuevers can be used except other Full Evade(s) against other opponents.

Resolving initiative against multiple opponents:
---------------------------------------------------
As always, whether you have initiative or not is determined solely in relation to your current Target. If the current Target isn't targeting you back, you always have initiative. Otherwise, your target is treated like a regular TROS opponent in determining initiative.

Defender automatically seizes individual initaitive over attacker if >=1 quality of success in defending (depends on the details of the defensive manuever actually), and ONLY if the attacker is the defender's current target.

If the defender successfully defended against one or any combination of opponents with the required quality of success to seize initaitive, those opponents that aren't his target are temporarily registered as "optionally seizable initiatives" for free-changing targets for the next exchange, and then he can freely and optionally change target to any ONE of those opponents to gain initiative over that new target at no additional cost for the next exchange. However, if he does change to a new target and his old target (if any) is still currently targeting him, his old target will re-gain whatever initiative he might had lost in the previous exchange. In some cases, this might still be advantageous if the old target has a lower reflex (so his manuever will always resolve later even when he has initaitive regained), or the new target you are changing to has a higher Reflex score (which means he always resolves his initaitive manuevers EARLIER compared to other people's initiative manuevers), so by seizing the initaitive from him while letting another regain back his initiative, you deprive him of that benefit.

For tabletop, this decision to set/change target with "optional seizable initaitives" may be made BEFORE the new exchange starts. For the roguelike, this decision is always made during the next exchange at the available targeting step before declaring manuevers.



Terrain/Mobility Manuever rolls to avoid multiple combatants or gain special advantages
-------------------------------------------------
Once targets are established, but before Manuevers are being declared, mobility manuevers/terrain rolls can be declared (at the cost of CP) in order to try and modify the targeting states of existing combatants or contest against opponent's mobility/terrainrolls. Thus, if you successfully "Threaded the Needle" against multiple opponents that are currently targetnig you, you may un-target yourself from them, preventing them from attacking you since attacks can only be dealt against your target. The actual rules to codifying this process is discussed elsewhere. Generally, moving to avoid being engaged by multiple opponents (ie. Thread the Needle mobility manuever) simply modifies the existing targeting states that existed during the previous step on successes, and this is a direct replacement over Riddle of Steel's Multiple Opponent's Terrain Roll.

Mobility/terrain rolls can only be done once per Round for the 1st exchange only.


Paused state:
------------------------------------------------------------
"Battle" pauses in this TROS game are determined within individual combatant contexts within a bout for better clarity, rather than as a bout-scale context found in various TROS treatises. Whether someone has lost his target or aquired/maintained his target during a bout, and his initiative status in relation to the target, etc. are factors that affect the state of Battle paused initiative FOR THE INDIVIDUAL only.

When Paused, a combatant has to secretly choose and reveal his orientation for the new round. Also, the 2nd exchange is skipped for that individual and the combatant cannot declare any manuevers for that exchange.

This individual calculation is determined by the following rules:

1. Pause is implied if both mutual opponents (currently targeting each other), do not have initiative and thus need to re-roll for initaitive next round by choosing orientation (skipping the 2nd exchange, if any). Both opponents are deemed to be paused, and can re-roll initaitive for the new round, but they maintain their current mutual targeting state.
This case can happen if both sides failed to land any successes on any given exchange rolls, or both sides were in Cautious/Defensive vs Cautious/Defensive orientation without any initiatives being taken/acted upon offensively for the 1st exchange.
Note that in any combination of one or both sides being outnumbered (ie. targeted by other enemies), either party may still end up defending (with only Defensive manuevers), against these other opponents that may still attack them on the 2nd exchange.

OR

2. Pause is also implied if you don't have a target, and no one else is targeting you, and in this Pause context, you can adopt both an orientation and re-pick a new target for the new round.For the new round, when re-picking a new target, you'll gain initiative over that target so long as the target isn't targeting you back with an orientation to contest against.
Conversely, Pause is NOT implied when up against multiple opponents and you lost your current target for whatever reason but you still may have other opponents targeting you. In this situation, you still have to choose a new target from one of opponents targeting you for the new round, and DO not gain initiative over the new target unless the new target you chose to switch to exists under optionally seizable initaitives. (which are available if you successfully defended against such opponents with an initaitive-gaining defensive manuever in the previous exchange)

OR

3. You are targeting someone else who isn't targeting you back, no one else is targeting you, and you somehow you do not have initiative for whatever exceptional reason. This usually SHOULD NOT happen (debug trace this exception..), since if you target someone that isn't targeting you back, you are deemed to ALWAYS have initiative and must deliberately un-target yourself from that target first (via Full Evasion) before you are considered Paused and can then pick both a new orientation and target for the new round.


For case 1, any form of taunting actions (if are targeting an opponent who is targeting you back) may happen during the Pause on the 2nd exchange, before the new round starts. Successfully taunting an opponent may force the opponent to have to use an Aggressive orientation in the next round. However, taunting is typically not available if you're still busy defending against another opponent's attacking on the 2nd exchange. Thus, if you're outnumbered, taunting is usually not possible.


Stance choosing availability:
-----------
In Song of Swords, there is no stance rule, but the stance declaration rule can be included as a house-rule before declaring orientation similar to any TROS-like game.

For the grid-based roguelike game, however, choosing stance is only available OUTSIDE of a combat exchange, when not engaged adjaciently in range against enemies. Once engaged in an adjacient grid square range to enemy, stance can no longer be adopted and only Orientation can be chosen instead for the first combat step of the exchange. In a typical roguelike game, stance is only revealed and shown BEFORE the combatants make close contact, and once orientation is required to be commited at close contact, stance can no longer be changed after that. This quickens the flow of the roguelike game by keeping the number of steps to resolve a given combat exchange minimal.

Thus, for the roguelike, in order to re-adopt BOTH stance and orientation, you need to fully disengage from enemies from any adjacient squares in order to readopt the stance.



### Multi-combatant resolution dynamics
------------------------

In Song of Swords, all manuevers (offensive or unopposed defensive manuevers) will resolve in reverse order of declaration among those with initiative first, and than among those WITHOUT initiative (ie. there are 2 key manuever initiative groups of players, those with and without initiative). Contested defensive manuevers, however, resolve at the same time against the offensive manuevers they are up against. Both offensive and defensive manuevers may freely exist in either of these groups (this codifies many aspects of Riddle of Steel's approach of aggressor/defender groupings in the core manual, since the way Riddle of Steel presented it sementically as "aggressors...then defenders" can be rather misleading when it comes to actual gameplay and it's more accruately described as "those with initiative first...than those WITHOUT initiative".

With the orientation/single-targeting system in place, determining whether an individual has initiative or not is a snap even in complex multi-combatant scenerios (eg. multi-vs-multi deathmatches). Even if using core TROS simplified orientation approach (ie. "Red" for Aggressive and "White" for a Cautious/Defensive hybrid orientation), the same principle applies. Once both targets and initaitives are determined and finalised for the exchange, manuevers can then be declared sensibly. Also, like in core TROS rules, there is a max limit to the amount of people that can target you. (ie. not more than 3 targeters) for the round, as described in the TROS treatise "not more than 3 people can attack you at the same time".

As a player, you can use the current exchange's declaration order to plan out your initiative in relation to other opponents that also have initiative. Eg., if you you have initiative over your target but are outnumbered by other opponents targeting you (obviously having "initiative"), but you happened to be the last person to declare your maneuver for that current exchange, then it means you'll still be the first one to always execute your attack maneuver (if any, but only directed against your target), among those with initaitive. Note that having a higher reflex stat compared to the rest of your opponents will give you an initiative edge over all other opponents, since it guarantees you always get to declare your manuevers last and resolve it first for every exchange.

Manuever declaration/resolution order is a particularly important consideration when having initiative among other opponents with initiative. For example, if you're a proficient dual-wielder considering to deal a Double Attack manuever on your current target and another opponent who is targeting you, and you think you're confident enough to dispatch off both enemies at once for that exchange without having to defend yourself, then do so. Doing this is viable if you happened to declare your maneuvers last (and thus can resolve first), dealing your strike on both enemies at once. Also note that the secondary opponent with imitative cannot buy/contest for initiative but have to stick to his current initaitive order (as per TFOB conventions that disallows explicitly stealing initiative when you already had initiative, though house rules might allow for circumventing this).

Conversely, for the secondary opponent with initiative, knowing that his dual-wielding target has yet to declare his maneuver (so the dual-wielding target will resolve first), in order to avoid being double-attacked by his target, he might still have to anticipate some form of Quick Defense (+2 CP cost penalty, aka. Opportunity Defense/Defense-on-Opportunity) to respond to such a cross-attack if his target does declare double attack on him. Another way is to adopt some form simulatenous blocking/striking combo first to protect himself, particularly if the CP cost penalty is lesser, though he has to "blindly" allocate a certain among of CP to deal against a possible double attack. As such, outnumbering an opponent who is dual-wielding (particularly a highly proficient dual-wielder with higher reflex as well) can still be fairly tricky/risky even if the dual-wielder isn't targeting you back directly, and would still require the attacker with initiative to still attack while anticipating the need for some form of defense as well.

Also note that when outnumbering and targeting someone (particularly a much stronger opponent) that isn't targeting you back at the moment, but he has yet to declare his manuever, one has to be reasonably careful, even when he isn't dual wielding. This is because he can still Change Target and buy initiative (a +(1+X) CP penalty), and deal a surprise attack on you while also defending (if needed) against his previously selected target, which means alpha striking (ie. expending all your CP) on an outnumbered enemy engaged with someone else , but hasn't revealed his maneuver yet, may still leave you open to not having enough reserved CP to adopt the necessary Quick Defense later on (+2 CP cost), if he does attack you. You should anticipate this if the friend/ally he is engaged with is severely weakened already (eg. knocked down, can't really act much..), and likely he might simply just Change Target to deal a cross-counter-attack against a "stronger" opponent (eg. such as you), especially if you chose to commit against him using all your dice, leaving little in reserve. Furthermore, if you entered the exchange with an Aggressive orientation, then no Quick Defense will be available (more elaboration on this is described later), since Aggressive Orientation only allows Offensive maneuvers for the current exchange. If outnumbering an enemy during the start of battle or after a paused situation, it's usually still better to adopt Cautious orientation.

Having the exact declaration initiative ladder order be shown to all players at the start of the exchange is an optional feature for the game, otherwise, the players can only derive this information solely based on the declaration turns being called out at the moment. Personally, I prefer not revealing the initiative ladder explicitly as it forces players to (particularly those in the middle of the ladder), to only rely on possibly "incomplete" information at the given time, simulating the uncertainty of battle. However, explicitly revealing at least the Reflex stat grouping/exact ladder, or combination thereof may provide good better info for tactical planning at the start, and may be a necessary logistical limitation/consequence in certain games without a GM hiding this information from players.

On a sidenote, typical reflex stats are usually along this scale:
<=2 - Extremely dull witted creatures
3 - Dull-witted creature/impaired human(drunk?)
4 - Normal human
5 - Gifted/trained human
6 - Abnormally gifted human
7 - Mutant-like reflexes

Most combatants would have a reflex of 4, but experienced/naturally gifted combatants may have a reflex of 5. If you are up against an opponent that always "always" seem to declare his manuevers later and resolve it first, perhaps he has a higher reflex score than you.

Overwatching:
For added flavor, there is an overwatching Sentinel perk (ie. sort of like a "Bodyguard" overwatching perk) that can/may always trump someone's target's manuever execution initaitive , even if that "someone" had declared his manuever earlier (and thus would conventionally resolve it later) compared to the target. This perk activates so long as the target isn't targeting the targeter back, but targeting someone else. In this situation, a dramatic consequential chain of other overwatchers with the same perk (and with initaitive) might have to trigger first prior to the current person in the existing initiative ladder resolving his attack manuever. There are different variants of overwatching perks, but one version requires a reflex contest to determine if the "sentinel" overwatcher manages to trump his target's initiative, and another version will ALWAYS trump their target's initaitive (ie. like in X-Com's sentinel perk). If revealed during declaration, players can deterministically trace the chain of possible/definite overwatcher triggers that will happen, based on existing manuever declarations already being made. During declaration, tabletop house rules might require revealing this "overwatching" card, though the actual "perk" card might be hidden or also requires to be revealed as well. Alternatively, the revealing of the card can be done as a surprise (ie. player drops card at the last minute before the GM attempts to resolve the given manuever).

### Declaration groups
--------------------------------------

Even though there are 2 main declaration groups as described in Riddle of Steel/Song of Swords (ie. those with initaitive and those without it), there are actually 3 declaration groups in practice.

The 3 groups are:

1. Those with Initaitive (lowest reflex to highest declare, resolve manuevers in reversed of this order)
2. Those without initiative (lowest reflex to highest declare, resolve manuevers in reversed of this order)
3. Quick Defenders/Responders*. (reflex order doesn't really matter here, resolve manuevers at same time against opposed offensive manuevers)

____

More on Quick Defense/Response:

\* eg. Quick Defenders/Responders refer to those with initiative, (in group 1), that may wish to respond to unforeseen attacks triggered by others (usually in group 2, but sometimes also in group 1), due to them stealing initiative, double-attacking, change-target attacking, or attacking without initiaitive. The person with initaitive can activate Quick Defense* against such attackers, or if against an initiative-stealer, he can allocate more dice to counter-contest against the reflex pool of the initiative-stealer, in order to reduce the stealer's chance of success.

Because of the targeting mechanics where only an attack manuever can be directed against your pre-designated target, Quick Defenders/Responders are only done by people in group 1 (ie. those with initaitive), because those in Group 2 (without initiative) will already have time to respond to attacks made by their respective opponents in group 1, since they declare their manuevers later compared to those in group 1.

A Quick Defense involves adopting a last-minute defense manuever in response to an unforeseen attack being made on you, with an additional activation cost of +2CP. For example, a similar manuever to Simulatenous Block & Strike can be done using an initial attack declaration + quick defense with Block later on, albeit depending on your proficiency, the overall activation costs might defer from the standard Simulatenous Block & Strike manuever done at once from the beginning (though in this case, the block portion CP will have to be allocated blindly against a possible counterattack that may/may not happen, which is why Quick Defense has it's advantages in allowing you to declare your defenses later.). If both costs are the same and Quick Defense is available, always opt for Quick Defense.

_______

### Aggressive vs Aggressive orientation dynamics:
No Quick Defense available

In an Aggressive vs Aggressive orientation situation (ie. so long as you are using Aggressive orientation for that exchange), you cannot adopt Quick Defense since only Offensive Manuevers are available for Aggressive orientation. If you are afraid of someone stealing initaitive and you intend to use Quick Defense instead as a counter for it, then you should probably use a Cautious orientation instead, but this would not allow you to gain initaitive over characters entering a round with Aggressive orientation.

Aggressive vs Aggressive (typical red vs. red) situations involves both opponents already commiting with initaitive to attack each other for that exchange, and so there's no further resolution required during declaration since no quick defense/pure-defensive manuevers are allowed for that orientation beyond commiting more dice for speed to win the reflex contest.

Note, however, that it's still possible to perform Simulatenous Offensive Manuevers (eg. Simulatenous Block/Strike) in the above situation, even when Aggressive, just like in Riddle of Steel. This is because such manuevers are listed under the "Offensive" category. However, house rules might prevent such a manuever from being used against multiple opponents during an exchange with Aggressive orientation (ie. attacking one character with a strike, and defending against another opponent with block.). If this house rule is used, simulatenous block/strike when Aggressive, is only valid in classic red/red orientation situations, versus the same opponent. This means if you're up against multiple opponents, you'd most likely use Cautious orientation if you have to attack and defend simultaneously between multiple enemies, unless you have an Aggressive perk/house-rule that bypasses such a limitation, or the game system limits the orientations to only 2 orientations (ie. Red/White as per classic TROS).

For Red vs Red opponents, the first person that has to declare his manuever , is at a significant disadvantage esecpailly if he wishes to use Simulataenous Block and Strike (the only viable option because he cannot use Quick Defense), since if he does include a defensive CP portion for any Simulatneous Offensive Manuever, he has to do so "blindly/predictively". To give lower reflex characters a fairer chance in this situation, a seperate reflex contest dice roll can be made when it comes to which party has to declare his manuever first. (Song of swords' latest version did include this rule.), providing a bit more advantage to a lower reflex contestant to "still stand a chance" of being able to declare later at times, rather than artificially always being forced to declare first.

__________________

[nemedeus]

I'm sorry for being rude, but what is the point of all this? It seems awfully complicated.

[Glidias]

Admittingly it's a long read that could be better organised, but it's because it codifies a lot of the aspects of TROS combat that is missing in the original, particularly "multi-combatant combat in Riddle of Steel" (<- does it even exist??), whenever the situation demands an engagement involving (X vx X vs X group of combatants). It also covers every tricky/ambigious situation I've encountered so far with vanilla TROS, and how they can be handled accordingly with a bit of SOS lens. Is there a way to handle bout scenerios involving 3 or more sides, or "last man standing deathmatches?

With the exception of some side house/flavor/rogue-like rules being mentioned in the writeup, most of it is simply standardization/clarification of various TROS situations when handling fights that go beyond 1 vs 1. (ie. among X set of combatants, regardless of the number of factions a combatant can belong to, and given the outcome of any previous exchanges.... who among them has initaitive, and who can attack who?, who can re-enter a combat round again...and when? Can i defend? Are "aggressors" with initaitive able to defend as well? etc. ).

Standardization/codifying of basic TROS rules is not complicating things. It's simplifying things.

______

One example:
With the targeting process done BEFORE declaration ( instead of doing it with Declare Manuevers as described in this particular implementation http://tros.thewestwinds.net/index.php? ... _Maneuvers ), it prevents the difficult issue of a particular combatant being severly disadvantage if he's forced to declare an attack first, knowing that anyone else from ANYWHERE can can target him along the sequence of declaration and that would lead to a chaotic situation of not wanting to declare anything at all as it becomes too much of a liability to self). Quick Defense ruling provides a failsafe to still be able to include a last minute Block , if he does come under attack by another opponent, but with targets determined beforehand, anticipating this becomes easier for the player since the scope of the engagement is narrowed per exchange.

Another example:
http://tros.thewestwinds.net/index.php? ... _Maneuvers
Also, during resolution of manuevers, there is no need to roll for Speed check among everyone to determine "who goes first". Instead, just resolve the manuevers accordingly in reversed order of when they were declared, providing a way for players to easily predict/anticipate plan what will happen ahead, ie. who gets to execute their manuever first), and only roll for Speed check if there's an initiative contest between 2 mutually targeting opponents with initaitive. With the "targeting" terminology set in place, determine when this is required is easy .

______

Of course, one could simply adopt the "easy way out" by simply coming up with your own set of houserules to dissolve all engagmeents to 1 vs X among of combatants only, but sometimes, that's not so interesting. And anyway, that process can be also codified into a standard ruleset with the Orientation/Targeting mechanic in play.

______

Even in 1 vs X type of engagements, a single-target reference also simplifies/standardizes the question of whether a particular character "has initiative or not" within a given exchange. In fact, implementing this rule for a roguelike+TROS/SOS hybrid i'm creating ( (http://www.manapool.co.uk/mana-pool-gui ... oguelikes/) that incorporates TROS/SOS combat mechanics...as knowing how TROS goes, you can't just casually bump rush stronger opponents.), it standardised a lot of the conumdrums that I encountered when basic TROS rules assumptions were made. In fact, despite the addition of TROS combat/dice-rolling mechanics, the design of the roguelike still comes up appearing very simple/fast-paced and could still pass off like an action-rpg, which is good...because roguelikes NEED to be simple. (I know this isn't fair because a videogame can do all the crunching in the backend unlike tabletop). Bump rushing enemies is still possible if the enemies are set to be significantly weaker than the player, where the auto-pilot/ai choosing of manuevers can still done if the player is lazy in making "the best" decisions. What's more, you can physically move about during each exchange of combat within the roguelike....sort of like having the "you must move at least 3 feet per exchange" sort of rule in in TROS. (Currently, it's only melee, because that's what core combat in TROS is about anyway, and exchanges occur within making contact of enemy units at adjacent squares), and all the standard processes of choosing orientation (if needed), target choosing (if needed), movement/mobility direction and rolls, etc. are done continually per step, using basic arrow keys, before the manuever menu/slider comes up with a default setup that can be customised if the player wishes to, and then another touch of the key to commit that action. During combat, the player keeps track of his CP, the current melee exchange number, and his positioning on the grid as he moves about with the arrow keys.

By upgrading the standard TROS rules to the SOS rules for the roguelike, it provided more flexibility, yet also more clarity in codifying various key tricky aspects of combat when dealing with a 1 vs X combatant situation. (ie. I wanted to avoid all possible exploits). By including the single "target" variable, the single "initiative" flag now had proper meaning without having to maintain a seperate "array of initiatives.." between multiple opponents.

On a sidenote, I'd probably be including BoB's "Stealing Reflex Roll at TN7 vs TN6" as an optional house rule, for the "Quick-Responder group" when someone attempts to steal initiative but the original attacker wishes to contest for speed as well, since it may be a good way of preventing people from overly-exploiting stealing initiative by making it slightly more riskier on the stealer's part (having to roll at a disadvantaged TN) against someone that still has dice in reserve. Again, these are some balancing options that would have to be experimented with once actual gameplay (with all the rulings) are up beyond the working bare-bones flow setup. On the whole, I actually like the standardised TN approach that BoB uses (much simpler), but it's obvious this can't be introduced into existing TROS/SOS as it's too revolutionary a change and would affect balance severely.

______

[thirtythr33]

I'll agree it is kind of complicated, but there are some good ideas on here. For example, I like the ideas:

as long you're targeting someone that isn't targeting you back, you have initiative over him, and can deal an attack on him with initiative

and

all manuevers (offensive or unopposed defensive manuevers) will resolve in reverse order of declaration among those with initiative first, and than among those WITHOUT initiative

The idea about initiative could be adapted to solve the problem BoB had in trying to figure out initiative or reach advantage in 1v Many situations. higgins and I already had some lengthy discussions about which combatants weapon lengths should be considered in these scenarios, but we (or atleast I) didn't consider the the idea that the lone combatant might have a divided attention.

The idea about reverse order resolving manuevers won't necessarily slot well into BoB since it would break a lot of the current systems, but it could serve for some interesting discussion. I especially like the reimagining the old idea of initiative being about speed and "who gets first action advantage" and changing it into being something about who reacts better and "who can take in more information better and make a better final decision". There are not many RPGs which reward the last action advantage through information gained.

Thanks for the write up Glidias.

[nemedeus]

The idea about reverse order resolving manuevers won't necessarily slot well into BoB since it would break a lot of the current systems, but it could serve for some interesting discussion. I especially like the reimagining the old idea of initiative being about speed and "who gets first action advantage" and changing it into being something about who reacts better and "who can take in more information better and make a better final decision". There are not many RPGs which reward the last action advantage through information gained.

Honestly, i've seen it a dozen times. For example, The Dark Eye does it like that.
I myself think it's just too much bookkeping, and it "feels wrong", i guess? While it's very true that initiative is about judging the situation, there is an argument to be made about confidence and fear*, too.

*Is there any game with a good fear mechanic? Besides the Best Mechanic Ever (TM), which is Fate's Compels. I'm not kidding, i really do think it's the best mechanic ever invented. It should also not be seen as an endorsement of Fate, because Fate doesn't have enough meat for my taste.

[thirtythr33]

It might be a cultural difference then, because I haven't played Dark Eye or many other RPGs that do it that way. I do see it in board games and card games a lot though.

As far as fear mechanics go, I think Dread is pretty stellar. If that is too indie for you, I have heard good things about Nemesis (uses the One Roll Engine). But, oddly my favourite Horror game doesn't have a fear mechanic at all, and that is Don't Rest Your Head (also done by evil hat productions). Absolutely amazing game, but you might not see it's genius after a single reading of the rules.

[Khopeshflag]

I'm sorry for being rude, but what is the point of all this? It seems awfully complicated.

And I'm truly sorry about that but it's just the way we are at SoS, we need this sort of stuff. We don't have 19 different daggers just for giggles we are compelled to have them.

We're your nerdy brother and to frank you were pretty nerdy to start with, so you can imagine where that leaves us.

[EinBein]

I'm sorry for being rude, but what is the point of all this? It seems awfully complicated.

And I'm truly sorry about that but it's just the way we are at SoS, we need this sort of stuff. We don't have 19 different daggers just for giggles we are compelled to have them.

We're your nerdy brother and to frank you were pretty nerdy to start with, so you can imagine where that leaves us.

Have you read BoB's approach? Isn't it wonderfully slim and easy compared to SoS's? You can summarize all and everything in a few bullet points and no one needs to remember the sequence and details of actions announced:

If there is a one against many situation (max. three on one, no space for more):

• all involved combatants allocate CP for a positioning test
• character with the highest number of successes is declared the winner
• winner's side gets initiative

If winner was lone combatant:

• winner can chose one opponent for the phrase

If winner was one of the outnumbering party:

• MoS1-2: two fighters of their chosing can attack this phrase
• MoS3+: three fighters can attack this phrase
• all attackers announce actions
• defender must split his CP
• when successfully defending against any attack, lone combatant gains initiative in next tempo

If positioning roll was a tie:

• multiple fighters have initiative
• lone fighter can chose one opponent

Just great

[Cruxador]

I'd like to point out that being written quickly and going quickly in play aren't the same thing. SoS rules could, perhaps, be written to be easier to understand, but in doing so they'd lose robustness in some instances. However, there's a reason that if you ask how to learn the game, people won't say "read the book" but "come into Roll20 and we'll teach you".

That said, the main dev said that this will be simplified at some point.

[Glidias]

For any sort of turn-based games, tracking individual targeting initiatives always require more bookkeeping and is more granular. Perhaps, this is a disadvantage in Song of swords when it comes to tabletop. (Not too much of a problem for videogames/counter-heavy boardgames, since book-keeping can be easily be tracked on the backend and visually shown (ie. target colored crosshairs/facing markers, etc. for example) and it's only a question of design for the latter case.

Having blob-based initiative makes it simpler to manage since the entire team (ie. outnumbering party) acts as a single blob unit and it's simply a matter of "which side has initaitive" vs "which of these individuals have initiative?. Assuming it's only 2 sides, that's just a single global boolean flip variable to take into account instead of a "target"+"initiative" variable to keep track off per individual. The focus therefore shifts more towards the narrative aspect of gameplay between 2 parties.

An "oddity" with the blob approach, though, is that a single member may end up being the weakest link because he would end up feeding over his entire team's initiative to the lone member that can now attack fully with initiative (assuming the lone member still has CP left to respond). However, this weakest-link "oddity", can still happen in Song of Swords (though of a lesser case) since the outnumbered defender can switch over his target to the new one he successfully defended against in order to "gain initiative". However, in SoS, it won't necessarily guarantee the lone member to have maneuver execution initiative priority over all of his opponents except his target only, ( it depends further on the Adroitness(tros Reflex) stat of the individual character and his declaration initiative order for that exchange in relation to the other opponents), but even then, his attacking initiative scope is still tied to a single target...but in BoB, he'll always have initiative over all opponents and can attack anyone now, because initiative is simply tracked between sides, not between individuals. Nevertheless, this "oddity" is rather slight, as a lone combatant is already rather disadvantaged already and the "lack of individual precision" with blob/side-based initiative isn't too much of a problem in most gameplay situations.

Also, I assume though, that despite having blob-based initiative, the advantage dice you gain for any subsequent counter-attack on the next tempo (or a followup attack within the same tempo), is still tied to the opponent you successfully defended against and can't be arbitrarily applied on anyone within the blob.