Sword & Scoundrel v0.2.1 Feedback Thread.

[thorgarth]

They always had a thing for heavy, rigid, armors, both for infantry and cavalry. They used several varieties of plates, from breastplates to smaller plaques, to lamelar, etc, som arrow heads with a similar design made sense.

"Varieties of plates". Heck no. Unless you are referring to shite like disc or mirror armor. That's the closest thing to plated (read, PLATED not PLATE) armor, and still not that far. RAW this shite is represented by segmented armor (3MR). Which also models things like lorica squamata/lamellar/scale, lorica segmentata/laminar, coat of plates, and brigandine armor.

If you are to argue that this kind of technology accounts for the creation of bodkins you'll also have to prove that the Romans had created bodkin arrowheads to counter it. Afaik they didn't.

I was referring exactly to that kind of stuff, varieties of plate as in Rigid Metal armors... mostly they used lamellar type armor (or thick animal hide, or mail) but in some periods they adopted plated pieces to supplement their armor, like the "cord and plaque" armor.

I didn't say that's why they invented an arrowhead with similar design to bodkin, what I said was that they had reason to do so, why it made sense, since they had rigid, metal, armors to defeat, even if said armors were not the state of the art European siege plate armor. In any case that shite its still a kind of plate armor, even if with a lower AV then more advanced plated armors. And the fact that they had reason to invent, as in practical need, also doesn't mean that they were bound to adopt such a technological solution. It didn't happen with other people.

But we diverge from the topic of this thread. Let's go back to feedback.

[thorgarth]

Taking a closer look at the Skirmish mechanics in general and specifically regarding "Melee", it seems to me that its not very clear how those mechanics directly relate with "Simple Melee" as they are explained on page 186-188.

Simply put, "Melee" as introduced to the player on page 183, under Skirmish mechanics, come into play "When two characters engage in melee combat, it is referred to as a bout. The bout is a kind of scene-within-a-scene that has its own time structure, organized into units called plays." We have nothing of the sorts in "Simple Melee". More so, its mechanics indicate that all is solved in a "simple" contested roll, even though escalation may occur, result of a tie. There are no multiple "plays", and as a general principle they do not carry from a round to another.

It doesn't seem logical to think that Simple Melee could not take place inside a Skirmish, BUT it does seem to me that the paragraphs on melee under Skirmish should directly address this distinction, and how the two mechanical approaches should be handled inside a Skirmish.



Which also brings me to another point related to how Social and Simple Melee are handled at a mechanical level.

Whereas the rules stipulate that such contest, indeed all contests, are simple affairs that should be handled with a single roll, no matter how prolonged and fluid the situation/task may be, I would prefer to see some more complex and/or prolonged contest being handled as extended contests (which are handled differently from Cascading rolls, where the contest "(...) must be broken down into individual, separate tasks that occur one after another sequentially. Each roll is made independently, with its own req."), meaning the contest would be made over several "rounds", read Contest rolls, each resulting in a partial MoS, which each party would add till the fixed duration was reached and then tallied for the final result. e.g. the GM decides the debate taking place at the "thieves guild" over which actions to take to "reprimand" the audacity of the city guard in the last month should take place over 4 rounds of discussion, at the end of which the party who had the highest partial MoS would win. On round 1 One-Eyed Willy managed 4 successes while Red-Hand Korbyn only 2, for a partial MoS of 2 in favor of Willy. In the Second Round Korbyn managed to secure a marginal success 3 to 2, for a partial MoS of 1. On the third and fourth round, Willy rallied and managed a partial MoS of 1 and 2. This means that Willy, managed to get a partial MoS of 5 (adding the MoS of three rounds in which he was successful), while Korbyn only a partial MoS of 1, which means Willy was the victor of this contest, with a MoS of 4.

This ain´te nothing new. Other games adopt similar approaches to mechanically solve some kinds of contests (Dark Earth JDR, a French RPG, comes to mind, especially since I've finally came around to read it after procrastinating for a "couple of years"), and I think it brings more drama and tension to the table. It even allows for the players to differentiate their approach to the contest from round to round, using a different skill, while still being in the same context and in the same direct task. And like I said above, this is different from Cascading roll, where EACH is independent, and arise from separate, independent tasks (being undertaken by the same player or not) which are sequential.

For instance, the example on page 19 ("for instance, using the Perform skill to influence the mood of a crowd to make them more susceptible to an Oration check to follow") I actually think it would fit better with this Extended Contest model, rather than the cascading, which is more appropriate from cases like the sequential use of Navigation, Seamanship and Weather knowledge to plot, react, pilot and reach the designated location over sea and during the winter, which would be done by, at least, 2 characters, the pilot and the captain.

Its just a suggestion.

[Benedict]

Taking a closer look at the Skirmish mechanics in general and specifically regarding "Melee", it seems to me that its not very clear how those mechanics directly relate with "Simple Melee" as they are explained on page 186-188.

Simply put, "Melee" as introduced to the player on page 183, under Skirmish mechanics, come into play "When two characters engage in melee combat, it is referred to as a bout. The bout is a kind of scene-within-a-scene that has its own time structure, organized into units called plays." We have nothing of the sorts in "Simple Melee". More so, its mechanics indicate that all is solved in a "simple" contested roll, even though escalation may occur, result of a tie. There are no multiple "plays", and as a general principle they do not carry from a round to another.

It doesn't seem logical to think that Simple Melee could not take place inside a Skirmish, BUT it does seem to me that the paragraphs on melee under Skirmish should directly address this distinction, and how the two mechanical approaches should be handled inside a Skirmish.

What you fail to address here is the modular nature of the game. Meaning that you can mix pieces from the toolbox as you want.

Example. 5 PCs face off the evil mastermind and his 6 goons. One PC is a ranged specialist, the others melee specialists. Villain is a melee specialist, goons are split in half (3 ranged 3 melee). That's a perfect setup for Skirmish and using Simple and Full Melee at the same time: all roll Sequence, ranged ppl have their shots at their round, PC vs Goon is handled with Simple Melee, and PC vs Villain is handled by Full Melee. In fact this happened once in my table.

The clause of "A melee action generally lasts until the end of a play in which someone has taken an injury worth recording, gained a significant upper-hand on their opponent (disarmed them, throw them to the ground, gotten them in a hold), or someone has been defeated (surrendered or slain). If after three full plays neither opponent has gained any real ground over the other, the action ends in a deadlock. The bout pauses and the camera moves on to the next character’s action as normal. The characters are considered to be locked in the bout and will both roll a red d6 next round as above. Actions will never end mid-play between tempos unless the bout itself ends with the death or surrender of an opponent mid-play." is there to ensure that when you handle it with Full Melee it won't carry on indefinitely, not to tell you you can't use Simple Melee in a Skirmish.

You could have ruled that the above fight matters enough so no Simple Melee is used; only Full Melee rules.

The game does not dictate which moving parts you will use; its up to the group to decide that. What it really dictates is how the selected moving parts work when you use them. If the majority of your players have melee specialist characters they expect to see Full Melee at some point. If you never plan on going there you should let them know before starting the game. If you went around RAW/RAI and hacked shite in there you should inform them before they even make characters. People are not into anyone's head.

Whereas the rules stipulate that such contest, indeed all contests, are simple affairs that should be handled with a single roll, no matter how prolonged and fluid the situation/task may be, I would prefer to see some more complex and/or prolonged contest being handled as extended contests (which are handled differently from Cascading rolls, where the contest "(...) must be broken down into individual, separate tasks that occur one after another sequentially. Each roll is made independently, with its own req."), meaning the contest would be made over several "rounds", read Contest rolls, each resulting in a partial MoS, which each party would add till the fixed duration was reached and then tallied for the final result.

Totally miss why you bring Cascades into this one. You may or may not use cascade inside a Simple Melee or Social Combat when dictated by context.

Cascading rolls can be proactively used to aid in a specific task, but more often they are called for by the GM when the success of one task may depend on the success of some previous effort.

Meaning that nothing prevents you rolling a Warfare > Simple Melee cascade to simulate your character is an expert tactician who can direct his group in the coming fight better.

e.g. the GM decides the debate taking place at the "thieves guild" over which actions to take to "reprimand" the audacity of the city guard in the last month should take place over 4 rounds of discussion, at the end of which the party who had the highest partial MoS would win. On round 1 One-Eyed Willy managed 4 successes while Red-Hand Korbyn only 2, for a partial MoS of 2 in favor of Willy. In the Second Round Korbyn managed to secure a marginal success 3 to 2, for a partial MoS of 1. On the third and fourth round, Willy rallied and managed a partial MoS of 1 and 2. This means that Willy, managed to get a partial MoS of 5 (adding the MoS of three rounds in which he was successful), while Korbyn only a partial MoS of 1, which means Willy was the victor of this contest, with a MoS of 4.

That's one way to do it. Personally I'd do it with Clocks.

A 4-Clock each of "One-Eye Willy wins" and "Red-Hand Robyn wins", and an 8-Clock "City Guard Storms The Guild House". Each Roll could represent a day. 4-Clocks are filled per the clocks rules according to MoS, 8-Clock gets a tick automatically per roll phase. So its 8 days (read=rolls) for Willy and Robyn to see who will decide what to do about the city guards before the guards assault the guild. With possible cascades (ie one or both of them might bribe other key figures in the guild) coming into each roll.

This ain´te nothing new. Other games adopt similar approaches to mechanically solve some kinds of contests (Dark Earth JDR, a French RPG, comes to mind, especially since I've finally came around to read it after procrastinating for a "couple of years"), and I think it brings more drama and tension to the table. It even allows for the players to differentiate their approach to the contest from round to round, using a different skill, while still being in the same context and in the same direct task. And like I said above, this is different from Cascading roll, where EACH is independent, and arise from separate, independent tasks (being undertaken by the same player or not) which are sequential.

For instance, the example on page 19 ("for instance, using the Perform skill to influence the mood of a crowd to make them more susceptible to an Oration check to follow") I actually think it would fit better with this Extended Contest model, rather than the cascading, which is more appropriate from cases like the sequential use of Navigation, Seamanship and Weather knowledge to plot, react, pilot and reach the designated location over sea and during the winter, which would be done by, at least, 2 characters, the pilot and the captain.

Totally agree its not new. Still I don't find it as dynamic and dramatic as mixing up Contests with Cascades and Clocks as I highlighted above.

TL/DR; Instead of hacking shite in there its better to look at what you already have in the Toolbox.

[thorgarth]

To avoid huge quotes that create massive text barriers I will address this in a simpler way.

First of all I reckon I'm in the right thread, right? This is the Feedback thread, right? In which people who read the rules give.... feedback, right?

Well, then.

First I did not fail to address the modular nature of the game. Quite the contrary. I stated that it was NOT logical not to think one could not use Simple Melee inside the Skirmish framework, which could happen concomitantly with any other option given, namely Full Melee. What I said was that under the skirmish rules, the paragraph related to melee seemed to point out directly only towards Full Melee by enunciating a melee combat structure only applied to Full Melee (namely the sub-structure by Plays). THAT is what I think should be address to make it clear that you could use one, or the other, OR both at the same time. Meaning, the introductory paragraph on page 183 should be re-written as to directly indicate that both approaches to melee combat are possible, and are not "forcibly" organized "into units called plays.".

Nothing more nothing less.

As for the reason you miss why I bring Cascading rolls I will try my best to explain... and it shouldn't be hard.

I mention Cascading rolls to differentiate it from the Extended rolls both at a mechanical level and at a subjective level. If I hadn't mentioned it I reckon someone was bound to boldly state that I "failed to address the fact that the rules already have a kind of extended or interlinked conflict mechanic".

Both mechanics are different and are NOT mutually exclusive. Yes, you most surely could roll Warfare to try to give you the upper hand in the coming fight, using it under the Cascading rolls mechanic, AND then adopt the Extended Conflict to play out the fight, which means that instead of a single roll made in a single round of skirmish, that fight would prolong through a given number of rounds, decided by the GM based on the importance, difficulty and or complexity of the situation at hand, using the mechanics I enunciated (or similar mechanics). Personally I would ponder the fact that the Warfare roll would only modify the initial round of melee combat, to account for the surprise of the tactical advantage used, up until the other side won one of the rounds.

And yes, I also pondered the use of clocks as a mechanism to apply the extended rolls, either as an alternative to partial MoS, with each round won filling a block of the clock or simply as a tracking system that established a final result at which point the combat was won even if the initially appointed duration was not yet reached (e.g. one of the parties had a massive success in the first round, with a partial MoS of 5, which led to the combat being finished by the second round where a partial MoS of one filled entirely the 6-Clock).

This is just a matter of personal mechanical interpretation of a fluid situation like combat (or any other type of conflict). I think solving it by a single roll (not counting cascading rolls that come to fruition only in an indirect or instrumental role or capacity) its not dramatic enough. I prefer to extend it over 3 or 4 rounds, IF and When the context dictates a more complex or important conflict.

As you can see I actually looked at what the toolbox offered. I just suggested a different approach... one who can or not be adopted by players and GM´s alike. After all the idea is to create a Toolbox, right?

[Benedict]

To avoid huge quotes that create massive text barriers I will address this in a simpler way.

Fuck no, I love my multiquotes and walls of text.

Joking aside, it helps keep things ordered and less confusing.

First of all I reckon I'm in the right thread, right? This is the Feedback thread, right? In which people who read the rules give.... feedback, right?

Correct. Did anyone claimed otherwise?

First I did not fail to address the modular nature of the game. Quite the contrary. I stated that it was NOT logical not to think one could not use Simple Melee inside the Skirmish framework, which could happen concomitantly with any other option given, namely Full Melee. What I said was that under the skirmish rules, the paragraph related to melee seemed to point out directly only towards Full Melee by enunciating a melee combat structure only applied to Full Melee (namely the sub-structure by Plays). THAT is what I think should be address to make it clear that you could use one, or the other, OR both at the same time. Meaning, the introductory paragraph on page 183 should be re-written as to directly indicate that both approaches to melee combat are possible, and are not "forcibly" organized "into units called plays.".

Ok, I can see your concern. In pg 183-184 it establishes Melee as a thing in Skirmish.

Note. I am capitalizing initials to mark game terms as opposed to words (Skirmish vs skirmish, Melee vs melee).

So, we know what Skirmish is and we also know that Melee can happen during a Skirmish, but we don't know what Melee is exactly per RAW. Reading some more we hit the next chapter. Melee.

Melee combat can be resolved through two different methods. Simple melee is a contested roll that builds on the simple conflict rules presented at the beginning of the book. Full melee is a more complex method that creates a kind of game-within-a-game, mimicking the ebb and flow of historical swordplay. The two can be used interchangeably depending on your group’s level of interest and experience with the system. The two can also be used together as a pacing mechanism, using simple melee to quickly resolve more trivial scuffles while reserving full melee for climactic clashes.

Your feedback is that in Skirmish it doesn't tell you under Melee (pg 183-184) that you can either use Simple Melee and/or Full Melee rules for resolving a Bout. You suggestion is that it should be explicitly spelled out in the Melee section under Skirmish that one can use Simple Melee, Full Melee, or a combination of these two. Noted.

From my point of view your feedback is counter-intuitive. You selectively keep text from RAW to establish a theory, and conveniently disregard anything else presented in RAW that counters your theory to support your point of view and create issues out of nothing.

READ : The two can be used interchangeably depending on your group’s level of interest and experience with the system. The two can also be used together as a pacing mechanism, using simple melee to quickly resolve more trivial scuffles while reserving full melee for climactic clashes

I would prefer to see some more complex and/or prolonged contest being handled as extended contests

I told you earlier but you don't seem to pick it up. I'll give you tho it was my fault because I was vague. This time I will be explicit. The game already has a system for handling extended Tests and Contests.

Clocks

Shot clocks are drawn whenever you need to track progress towards something that isn’t easily handled with a single roll.

Again you selectively keep what you want out of RAW. Your feedback is based on a fallacy - you state there is no way to handle extended actions that are not easily handled with a single roll - where there is.

Acceptable feedback would be something like "guys, clocks suck because of X and Y, my suggestion would be to resolve extended actions <insert suggestion here>". Just saying.

which means that instead of a single roll made in a single round of skirmish, that fight would prolong through a given number of rounds, decided by the GM based on the importance, difficulty and or complexity of the situation at hand, using the mechanics I enunciated (or similar mechanics).

Where exactly the rules state that Simple Melee is resolved with a single opposed roll that signifies a single Round of Skirmish? The basic time unit is the Scene. A Simple Melee conflict can last a Scene, not a Round. Note it can also be part of a Scene. How you will interpret that is open to you as the GM. You don't need the book to tell you.

Personally I would ponder the fact that the Warfare roll would only modify the initial round of melee combat, to account for the surprise of the tactical advantage used, up until the other side won one of the rounds.

What you describe happens in your suggestion of extended actions and partiall MoS. Nothing RAW about it.

And yes, I also pondered the use of clocks as a mechanism to apply the extended rolls, either as an alternative to partial MoS

Clocks are not an alternate to your suggestion. Clocks IS the RAW+RAI way to handle extended actions. Your partial MoS suggestion is the alternate. But I haven't seen so far one thing to support your suggestion over RAW (Clocks).

Does it do it better? Does it accomplish more? Is it easier? Explain.

This is just a matter of personal mechanical interpretation of a fluid situation like combat (or any other type of conflict). I think solving it by a single roll (not counting cascading rolls that come to fruition only in an indirect or instrumental role or capacity) its not dramatic enough. I prefer to extend it over 3 or 4 rounds, IF and When the context dictates a more complex or important conflict.

And that's where RAW kicks in and tells you. Depending on how want to handle it you can at least handle it as :

• A Simple Melee roll.
• A Skirmish, using only Simple Melee for Melee.
• A Skirmish, using both Simple and Full Melee.
• A Skirmish, using only Full Melee.

As you can see I actually looked at what the toolbox offered. I just suggested a different approach... one who can or not be adopted by players and GM´s alike. After all the idea is to create a Toolbox, right?

In reverse.

• The idea is not to create a toolbox. The toolbox is there. Feedback is required to see whether the blasted thing works or not. And if it doesn't work how to fix it.
• Anyone should be making suggestions on new tools and approaches. Witch two catches. One has to prove why the current tool doesn't work as intended, then prove how one's suggestion does it better. Otherwise its pointless banter.
• As I illustrated above you didn't looked at what the toolbox offers. Both for Melee and for Clocks. And if you did, it wasn't hard enough.

Cheers.

[thorgarth]

Again you fail to understand my point regarding Skirmish and Melee.. must be my fault entirely.

But I will try again, and make it as simple as I can. It doesn't need to explicitly state that you can use both Simple Melee and/or Full Melee, what it needs (in my opinion) is to not just state something that directs you to one of the options, and that is saying that Melee is organized in Plays, which, to my knowledge only applies to Full Melee, which may lead people to conclude that in Skirmish only Full Melee would be allowed, which we both agree was NOT the goal of the rule.

Rules shouldn't introduce a mechanic, describe it in a given way, and then, in a later chapter expand into various options that apparently go against what was said in the first place. Exceptions are Advanced or Optional rules, where appropriately identified.

If you think that the paragraph Melee under Skirmish is not ambiguous and cannot lead to confusion. Great. The fact that you seem to have a far greater understanding of the system and its evolution over various iterations though may create an obstacle to analyze how someone who's new to the system may view such introductions or explanations. And that was my goal, to make things easier for people reading the book for the 1st time, not people who know it inside out. But hey, I accept that it may just be me...

As for the Clock and the fact that you state that there are Extended rolls in the game.... well, let's start.

- Clocks are tools to track progress towards something that is prolonged, Right. (I actually stated in the previous post that Clocks could be used for just that). Did I kept that out? I was addressing the mechanics NOT the way to track progress, which indeed the book already provided...

- Alas, the scope to which the Clocks apply RAW (you do seem to like this type to language) are multiple Conflicts not a single conflict drawn out over several rolls, a distinction already applied RAW in the Cascading rolls mechanic. In the first case failing each conflict may result in different and multiple complications or simply fail to achieve the tasks intent, whereas no such thing occurs either in Cascading Rolls or in the Extended Roll as I introduced in this discussion.

- Also this various conflicts that work towards filling a given clock can be very disparaging in the actions undertaken and the timing in which they can be undertaken. They don't need to form a coherent, clearly defined and prolonged episode, rather they are different episodes, hence different conflicts, played over time towards the resolution of a goal.

That is my working theory, hence the reason to come up with the mechanic as I presented it.

Is it the best, or better yet, the only solution? No, I don't have the nerve to boldly claim that.

As for the Clock being an alternative, again you misunderstood what I wrote (but must be my poor domain of the English language, for which I apologize, but hey I'm not a native speaker). Its an alternative to partial MoS, as I introduced it in the mechanic, which could also be applied in such a way as to fill just a single segment per roll, independently of the partial MoS. In either way they are an alternative to the way Clocks are used RAW, read for tracking different Conflicts, "If the clock is tracking progress based on ability checks, a successful conflict fills one segment. On an MoS3+, two segments. On an MoS5+, 3 segments.", which is almost halfway to those two options I gave above.

As for the duration of Simple Melee that was what I inferred from the rules. In Skirmish time is structured in Rounds. In each Round players can do one dramatic thing, referred to as an Action. This structure plays well with the structure of Full Melee with its plays and tempos. "If after three full plays neither opponent has gained any real ground over the other, the action ends in a deadlock. The bout pauses and the camera moves on to the next character’s action as normal. The characters are considered to be locked in the bout and will both roll a red d6 next round as above." Meaning it can last over several rounds, taking several actions, but that seems to apply RAW only to full melee, which plays out over several rolls, over several sub-time structure units. Whereas Simple Melee is done with a single roll, using the "basic" rules for conflict, and "costs" 1 action (at least I haven't seen anywhere where the opposite is stated, and as such I'm just applying the default), which means one round, unless a tie is the outcome and the parties decide to escalate.

Why do I say it takes a round. Well because it takes an action to do so, and the results are derived from a single roll, hence the conclusion that its solved in a round. Which makes it easier to objectively count time in the case of having simple melee in a skirmish where other intervening parties opt to use other options available in a skirmish, be it red, white or 2d6.

The GM CAN adjudicate differently, and judge that a Simple Melee takes place over 3 rounds, for instance, but should say that from the start so that other members not directly involved in the simple melee may act in the default round sequence.

As for the Toolbox argument I think its self explainable. But hey, you may be right and I just didn't looked hard enough...

[Korbel]

I think you're right, thorgarth, the Skirmish rules they look like they set Full Melee as the default mode.

[thorgarth]

Pg 190. Box "The Bout in Brief"

"3. First Tempo. The aggressor declares the maneuver they are using,
what they are targeting, and with how many dice. They deduct any
AC from their dice pool. The character who is defending declares
with which maneuver they are defending and with how many dice.
They also deduct any AC from their pool. The two maneuvers are
rolled in contest and resolved. Victor takes initiative. Ties favor the
attacker.

4. Second Tempo. The character who now has initiative repeats the
process from the last tempo, but using their remaining dice pool.
Declare maneuver, target, and number of dice. Pay AC. The defender
declares their maneuver, their dice, and pays any AC. Both sides roll.
Winner resolves their maneuver."

The different enunciation between the first and second tempo may generate ambiguous interpretations regarding what maneuvers are actually resolved. Whereas in point 4 - Second Tempo the text clearly states that the winner, and only the winner, resolves their maneuver, in the case of point 3 - First Tempo, it may lead readers to think that the maneuvers of both attacker and aggressor are resolved, despite whoever wins the contest, which seems to me contradictory to what´s intended, and indeed the basic conflict mechanics, which states that its the side that rolls the most hits that accomplishes their intent.

I think the text should adopt the same phrasing for both Tempos, one which makes it clear that only the victor resolves his action. (neither the looser who, if not already, becomes the defender, nor the aggressor in the case of a tie, even though he keeps the initiative). The exception to this seems to be the 1st Tempo of the 1st play of a Duel when both parties roll a Red Dice.

[Benedict]

As for the Clock and the fact that you state that there are Extended rolls in the game.... well, let's start.

I don't state anything. The rules state it.

Alas, the scope to which the Clocks apply RAW (you do seem to like this type to language)

Welcome to the internet where people use acronyms to make conversation and conveying ideas shorter and easier. You want me to say Rules as Written instead of RAW every single time? Fine. Copy-paste is just two keyboard shortcuts away.

Alas, the scope to which the Clocks apply RAW are multiple Conflicts not a single conflict drawn out over several rolls, a distinction already applied RAW in the Cascading rolls mechanic. In the first case failing each conflict may result in different and multiple complications or simply fail to achieve the tasks intent, whereas no such thing occurs either in Cascading Rolls or in the Extended Roll as I introduced in this discussion.

Wrong. Rules as Written a Clock is one of :

• A single Conflict drawn out over several rolls.
• A tracker counting down to something that will happen.
• Any combination of these two.

"the Extended Roll as I introduced in this discussion"
Lets take a peak at this again.

Which also brings me to another point related to how Social and Simple Melee are handled at a mechanical level.

Whereas the rules stipulate that such contest, indeed all contests, are simple affairs that should be handled with a single roll, no matter how prolonged and fluid the situation/task may be, I would prefer to see some more complex and/or prolonged contest being handled as extended contests (which are handled differently from Cascading rolls, where the contest "(...) must be broken down into individual, separate tasks that occur one after another sequentially. Each roll is made independently, with its own req."), meaning the contest would be made over several "rounds", read Contest rolls, each resulting in a partial MoS, which each party would add till the fixed duration was reached and then tallied for the final result. e.g. the GM decides the debate taking place at the "thieves guild" over which actions to take to "reprimand" the audacity of the city guard in the last month should take place over 4 rounds of discussion, at the end of which the party who had the highest partial MoS would win. On round 1 One-Eyed Willy managed 4 successes while Red-Hand Korbyn only 2, for a partial MoS of 2 in favor of Willy. In the Second Round Korbyn managed to secure a marginal success 3 to 2, for a partial MoS of 1. On the third and fourth round, Willy rallied and managed a partial MoS of 1 and 2. This means that Willy, managed to get a partial MoS of 5 (adding the MoS of three rounds in which he was successful), while Korbyn only a partial MoS of 1, which means Willy was the victor of this contest, with a MoS of 4.

To make it clear. Your suggestion as presented from a mechanical point of view states:

• Round 1: Willy scores 4 hits. Korbyn 2 hits. Partial MoS2 for Willy. Korbyn 2 vs Willy 0.
• Willy scores 2 hits. Korbyn 3 hits. Partial MoS1 for Korbyn. Korbyn 2 vs Willy 1.
• Partial MoS1 for Korbyn. Korbyn 3 vs Willy 1.
• Partial MoS2 for Korbyn. Korbyn 5 vs Willy 1.
• Net MoS4 for Willy who succeeds.

Rules as Written. When handled with the Clock system presented:

• Both characters establish a 4-Clock of his own. They start rolling Contests.
• MoS2 Willy. Willy Clock+1.
• MoS1 Korbyn. Willy Clock +1 vs Korbyn Clock +1.
• MoS1 Willy. Willy Clock +2 vs Korbyn Clock +1.
• MoS2 Willy. Willy Clock +3 vs Korbyn Clock +1.
• At this point Willy is one step from winning, while Korbyn is 3 steps away from winning.

In what regard exactly is the Partial MoS suggestion better than the Clock system Rules as Written?

Why do I say it takes a round. Well because it takes an action to do so, and the results are derived from a single roll, hence the conclusion that its solved in a round.

The GM CAN adjudicate differently, and judge that a Simple Melee takes place over 3 rounds, for instance, but should say that from the start so that other members not directly involved in the simple melee may act in the default round sequence.

Rules as Written a single Round represents 10-20 seconds = a single Simple Melee roll = up to three Full Melee Plays.

If the GM decides that a Simple Melee resolves in more than one Round in Skirmish suddenly you can have a Simple Melee with your opponent lasting lets say three Rounds. This means his archer buddy can take three Shoot Actions at you while you face off with your opponent. Not Rules as Intended (RAI).

[thorgarth]

"(...)and conveniently disregard anything else presented in RAW that counters your theory to support your point of view and create issues out of nothing."

So you accused me... Just saying!

But its good to see that you already dropped the 1st point I argued (Skirmish text Melee needing to be re-written). You may have different opinion, which was stated, and moved on. Great.

But then... First "Where exactly the rules state that Simple Melee is resolved with a single opposed roll that signifies a single Round of Skirmish? The basic time unit is the Scene. A Simple Melee conflict can last a Scene, not a Round. Note it can also be part of a Scene. How you will interpret that is open to you as the GM. You don't need the book to tell you." but now "Rules as Written a single Round represents 10-20 seconds = a single Simple Melee roll = up to three Full Melee Plays."

Yes, I wonder why in the hell I come up with the idea that Simple Melee would be solved in a single round. Oh wait, you actually now state that RAW a Single Melee Roll= up to three Full Melee Plays WHICH = a Round, because "If after three full plays neither opponent has gained any real ground over the other, the action ends in a deadlock. The bout pauses and the camera moves on to the next character’s action as normal. The characters are considered to be locked in the bout and will both roll a red d6 next round as above."

Can the GM decide otherwise? Well, yes, of course, here as with pretty much every rule since he IS the GM, though I don't think this should be the fulcrum of an argument when interpreting rules RAW, now should it. The "simple" fact is that RAW Simple Melee seems to be solved in a single roll in a single round. Which, weird enough, seems to be what I said before but somehow didn't made sense.

Regarding the Clock and how I was WRONG... simple enough to explain (though it shouldn't need to, really). The statement "(...)the scope to which the Clocks apply RAW are multiple Conflicts not a single conflict drawn out over several rolls(...)" was not made in absolute terms. The other Two situations to which it is applied RAW DO NOT bear any relevance to this discussion, hence I didn't see any reason to quote them.

But what you now Stated regarding "A single Conflict drawn out over several rolls." does not find support in said rules. What the rules unequivocally state is "If the clock is tracking progress based on ability checks, a successful conflict fills one segment. On an MoS3+, two segments. On an MoS5+, 3 segments." Meaning EACH conflict adds up, filling the clock as described, which means several possible CONFLICTS, NOT a single Conflict over several Rolls. Which is completely different from a Single conflict played over several rolls, simply because each conflict can result in the introduction of complications, and could actually also lead to several cases of Escalation.

That´s the reason Escalating Rolls make the point of stating that its only a single conflict, though with several rolls.

Which I wrote in previous posts.

As for the benefits of Partial MoS as I introduced I will come to this later, since I'm already late for important business...

Cheers.

[Benedict]

"(...)and conveniently disregard anything else presented in RAW that counters your theory to support your point of view and create issues out of nothing."

So you accused me... Just saying!

Obviously. And?

But its good to see that you already dropped the 1st point I argued (Skirmish text Melee needing to be re-written). You may have different opinion, which was stated, and moved on. Great.

Thought of dropping it to spare you the aggravation but you won't let it rest. Whatever keeps your boat floating.

But then... First "Where exactly the rules state that Simple Melee is resolved with a single opposed roll that signifies a single Round of Skirmish? The basic time unit is the Scene. A Simple Melee conflict can last a Scene, not a Round. Note it can also be part of a Scene. How you will interpret that is open to you as the GM. You don't need the book to tell you." but now "Rules as Written a single Round represents 10-20 seconds = a single Simple Melee roll = up to three Full Melee Plays."

Yes, I wonder why in the hell I come up with the idea that Simple Melee would be solved in a single round. Oh wait, you actually now state that RAW a Single Melee Roll= up to three Full Melee Plays WHICH = a Round, because "If after three full plays neither opponent has gained any real ground over the other, the action ends in a deadlock. The bout pauses and the camera moves on to the next character’s action as normal. The characters are considered to be locked in the bout and will both roll a red d6 next round as above."

Can the GM decide otherwise? Well, yes, of course, here as with pretty much every rule since he IS the GM, though I don't think this should be the fulcrum of an argument when interpreting rules RAW, now should it. The "simple" fact is that RAW Simple Melee seems to be solved in a single roll in a single round. Which, weird enough, seems to be what I said before but somehow didn't made sense.

But then... First "Where exactly the rules state that Simple Melee is resolved with a single opposed roll that signifies a single Round of Skirmish? The basic time unit is the Scene. A Simple Melee conflict can last a Scene, not a Round. Note it can also be part of a Scene. How you will interpret that is open to you as the GM. You don't need the book to tell you." but now "Rules as Written a single Round represents 10-20 seconds = a single Simple Melee roll = up to three Full Melee Plays."

The rub here is that you assume and imply that Simple Melee and Full Melee are used only in Skirmish.

Exhibit A


Only under Skirmish a Simple Melee resolution lasts one Round. Only under Skirmish three Plays of Full Melee last one Round.

My response was explicit in this regard; if you as the GM decide that a Simple Melee resolution under Skirmish will last three Rounds you break the game because you allow other combatants to make three Shoot actions.

Regarding the Clock and how I was WRONG... simple enough to explain (though it shouldn't need to, really). The statement "(...)the scope to which the Clocks apply RAW are multiple Conflicts not a single conflict drawn out over several rolls(...)" was not made in absolute terms. The other Two situations to which it is applied RAW DO NOT bear any relevance to this discussion, hence I didn't see any reason to quote them.

But what you now Stated regarding "A single Conflict drawn out over several rolls." does not find support in said rules. What the rules unequivocally state is "If the clock is tracking progress based on ability checks, a successful conflict fills one segment. On an MoS3+, two segments. On an MoS5+, 3 segments." Meaning EACH conflict adds up, filling the clock as described, which means several possible CONFLICTS, NOT a single Conflict over several Rolls. Which is completely different from a Single conflict played over several rolls, simply because each conflict can result in the introduction of complications, and could actually also lead to several cases of Escalation.

I quote it again cos this is hilarious.

But what you now Stated regarding "A single Conflict drawn out over several rolls." does not find support in said rules.

Two instances in the book that support what I said. One is a Test, the second is a Contest.

Exhibit B

Do explain how a Recovery Clock signifies Several Conflicts and not one Conflict (Heal Wound Lv x) over many rolls.

Exhibit C

Do explain how a Pin Clock signifies several Conflicts and not one Conflict (Pin Opponent) over many rolls.

Exhibits A, B, and C illustrate why I stated that you bend Rules as Written by diregarding pieces to your liking in order to support theories.

That´s the reason Escalating Rolls make the point of stating that its only a single conflict, though with several rolls.

Which I wrote in previous posts.

[thorgarth]

"Thought of dropping it to spare you the aggravation but you won't let it rest. Whatever keeps your boat floating."

Well, so far only three members gave their feedback regarding this issue. The third agreed with me on this matter... But thank you for sparing me the aggravation.


Next... I do NOT imply nor assume such thing. The book states several times that combat can happen inside a Skirmish or not. Duels are a very good example. What I was analyzing was how combat worked inside a Skirmish, meaning focusing on how melee mechanics combine with the skirmish framework, given how melee actions are described under, well, Skirmish. Do not try to re-direct...

That takes care of Exhibit A

Regarding Exhibit B... Well, Recovery Checks actually just follow the base principle stated, namely, under Shot Clocks "If the clock is tracking progress based on ability checks, a successful conflict fills one segment. On an MoS3+, two segments. On an MoS5+, 3 segments." Recovery checks are individual conflicts, checked with a differentiated frequency based on level of activity of the recovering character. I do not see ANY evidence that suggests that this rolls are not what they seem to be, individual conflicts done consecutively based on the appropriate frequency.

Agamemnon could clarify this for us though, since I too would like to see how this should be applied, because if what I say its valid then there is the potential for a complication for each unsuccessful recovery contest, whereas if your interpretation is correct I don't see how this plays out, because if this is only a single conflict, spread out over several roll (one for each recovery), then only when the last roll was made, which is a complete unknown, and if such a roll was a failure (which actually would mean it would not be the last recovery roll on the same very prolonged conflict, which would make it... awkward) would there be a chance for a complication. This interpretation (yours) just don't seem logic or easy to apply... Unless there are no chance for a complication in Recovery Rolls.

Regarding Exhibit C

The same applies here. Each roll is an independent Conflict, which, IF successful fills a given amount of Segments, BUT if it fails means the hold is broken, no matter how many segments are already filled.

If they were just multiple rolls over a single Conflict how would you apply said result? Taking the example of Cascading rolls, for me the only Conflict that objectively is based on several rolls, the result is attributed to the Conflict, not to the individual rolls, which only modifiy the next role to the ultimate roll that tests the most relevant ability to achieve the intent. Which doesn't seem to apply in this case, since each and every Roll could spell, if "won" by the defender, the break of the Hold.

"As long as the Hold (or Strangle) is maintained, the TN clock persists. If you release the maneuver (by declaring another maneuver, or switching your target location) or the target successfully defends at any point, they escape your grasp and their TN clock immediately disappears.

Like I stated above for the recovery roll, it seems to follow the general principle enunciated under "Shot Clocks", "If the clock is tracking progress based on ability checks, a successful conflict fills one segment. On an MoS3+, two segments. On an MoS5+, 3 segments."


Finally... I do not make this statements or interpretations in bad faith, trying to withhold relevant parts of the rules just to make my points. I make them because its what I think and believe to be correct, and which CAN be proven wrong. And IF I seem to miss some rules, its not on purpose, BUT unlike you I do not contend to know this rules inside out. IF I miss some rules, be it supportive or not of my interpretations, its because I actually failed to identified them OR haven't yet analyzed them in any depth.

Making assumptions that I act in bad faith seems a bit...unreasonable.

At least from my part the only thing I'm trying to achieve with this feedback and discussions is to better understand the system and help correct it, based on my perception,. I do NOT see this as an exclusive to keep arguing for the sake of arguing or to win the "bicycle" (as we say in Portugal). Hell, I have enough of that in court...

[Benedict]

Finally... I do not make this statements or interpretations in bad faith, trying to withhold relevant parts of the rules just to make my points. I make them because its what I think and believe to be correct, and which CAN be proven wrong. And IF I seem to miss some rules, its not on purpose, BUT unlike you I do not contend to know this rules inside out. IF I miss some rules, be it supportive or not of my interpretations, its because I actually failed to identified them OR haven't yet analyzed them in any depth.

Making assumptions that I act in bad faith seems a bit...unreasonable.

And where exactly did I accuse you of acting in bad faith? As we say in Greece : "the one who has the fly flies", which roughly means that only someone acting in bad faith would protest that he is not acting in bad faith even when no one accused him of doing so.

Anyway, despite both of us being literate in English, one thing is most probable here : a language barrier. We may write in English but we think in our respective mother tongues, making all this a tumbled mess.

In all honesty, and no disrespect intended, I feel like you're trolling me at this point.

To paraphrase one of my favorite writers.


Cheers.

[Agamemnon]

I've been half-following this argument, mostly to see what the two of you shake out of it. As near as I can tell, the entire thing boils down to "Skirmish-to-melee should be more clear in that it allows for you to go to simple conflict." followed by "I want an additional extended conflict system."

To the first, you can boil anything in the game down to a simple conflict if you want. That's the first rule written for the core mechanic. To that point, simple melee is a specific type of simple conflict. The first paragraph in melee explicitly states:


Anywhere you can choose to use one, you can choose to use the other. Skirmish points towards specifics of full melee because the specifics being discussed only apply to full melee. If you're using simple melee, you don't need to worry about the number of plays involved in single action. You make the roll and move on, the way you would any other melee. That's the point of simple melee.

Moving to the extended conflict: clocks already allow you to track progress over time to a goal too large to be resolved with a single roll. I've also been considering a more formalized application for things like chase scenes and so on where a bit more adjudication could be useful. The one place I don't really see it being that useful is the one you've been using as an example: extended conflict for simple melee.

I'm not sure what is gained from that. The whole point of simple combat is that you can resolve the thing and move on. Insofar as I can tell, the sole effect would be allowing you to drag out a simple melee over multiple skirmish actions, but that seems somewhat misguided given that many full melee bouts can be resolved inside of the three plays of a skirmish action. Most fights are pretty well decided in that time, short of two very skilled opponents and/or a lot of heavy armor. And if you really want to spend more game-time and attention on combat, you can always switch to full melee and have the blow-by-blow fight.

That said, if you really want to prolong the thing for whatever reason, you have tools available to you. Throw a clock on it for either side and do a series of opposed rolls, filling in the clocks for each party as they lose. You've effectively recreated D&D combat and the two sides can kick each other's shins until someone falls down. Enjoy.

[thorgarth]

Finally... I do not make this statements or interpretations in bad faith, trying to withhold relevant parts of the rules just to make my points. I make them because its what I think and believe to be correct, and which CAN be proven wrong. And IF I seem to miss some rules, its not on purpose, BUT unlike you I do not contend to know this rules inside out. IF I miss some rules, be it supportive or not of my interpretations, its because I actually failed to identified them OR haven't yet analyzed them in any depth.

Making assumptions that I act in bad faith seems a bit...unreasonable.

And where exactly did I accuse you of acting in bad faith? As we say in Greece : "the one who has the fly flies", which roughly means that only someone acting in bad faith would protest that he is not acting in bad faith even when no one accused him of doing so.

" You selectively keep text from RAW to establish a theory, and conveniently disregard anything else presented in RAW that counters your theory to support your point of view and create issues out of nothing.", "Exhibits A, B, and C illustrate why I stated that you bend Rules as Written by diregarding pieces to your liking in order to support theories." This type of judgment amount to saying that I acted in bad faith...

And no Benedict, I´m not trying to troll you or anybody else. Shit I have half the time I need to accomplish the things I like to do. And like I said, my only goal is to better understand the system so that I can:

- Understand its limits and limitations;
- Better apply it;
- "Hack" it where I think I can adapt to my personal taste.
- Try to bring my interpretation and personal view to the table.

Nothing more nothing less.

Cheers m8.