Combat example

Cubicle 7 // 2018
OldPlayer
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:03 am

I find doing boss and key monsters and NPC profiles fun. The rest, low lvl monsters, work fine. We are all different I guess.

Yes Mr Zapp is likely a cool knowledgable dude but has been very vocal how he doesn’t like 4e basically everywhere on the internet and frankly comes out as a bit of a bitter old player 🤓. Like this thread which is to be honest ridiculous. If the encounter was to easy/unbalanced somehow it’s mostly the GMs fault unless luck was skewed and that’s it.

I mean... Give it a rest. If you dont like it don’t play it and may be let ppl who enjoy it go along with it and leave 4e discussions alone, be a grown up ? I mean why that crusade ?? Looks really childish to go on and on and on. The game is published. It’s not going to be Tzeentched into smthg else 😉

Opposed rolls are not a problem in 4e, they are good. Cumulative adv and +60 bonuses yes but easily fixed.

Also you are comparing core rules, 1,5 y out with a full grown system with all extensions and years of dev.

For my part I am very happy with 4e. I like the carreers a lot they dont pigeonhole you, the adventures are really good, the old world as grim as ever, starting set is top notch, combat is fast paced and the players are genuinely a bit scared of it which is great
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

OldPlayer wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:20 pm
Opposed rolls are not a problem in 4e, they are good. Cumulative adv and +60 bonuses yes but easily fixed.
opposed rolls are specifically a problem in 4th Ed., because they're done off a single die roll so there's no curve to balance against. this means both that all things being equal there's no way of telling who is going to win a roll and by how much, and that every advantage one side has is indirectly doubled as a +10 to one side's roll means there's now 10 that the advantage side can roll and automatically "win" and also 10 the disadvantaged side can roll and automatically "lose" meaning that every bit of skill has to be carefully balanced to avoid snowballing.

and that's before throwing in advantage and the overstacked bonuses. i normally leave off on this stuff but you came off as trying to goad zapp into picking a fight so i figured i'd correct you first.
Jareth Valar
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:16 pm

Orin J. wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:04 pm
OldPlayer wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:20 pm
Opposed rolls are not a problem in 4e, they are good. Cumulative adv and +60 bonuses yes but easily fixed.
opposed rolls are specifically a problem in 4th Ed., because they're done off a single die roll so there's no curve to balance against. this means both that all things being equal there's no way of telling who is going to win a roll and by how much, and that every advantage one side has is indirectly doubled as a +10 to one side's roll means there's now 10 that the advantage side can roll and automatically "win" and also 10 the disadvantaged side can roll and automatically "lose" meaning that every bit of skill has to be carefully balanced to avoid snowballing.

and that's before throwing in advantage and the overstacked bonuses. i normally leave off on this stuff but you came off as trying to goad zapp into picking a fight so i figured i'd correct you first.
For some it may be a problem, for others it's not. It's that simple. I've only Ron and played a few combat at the moment but they went smooth enough that I am looking forward to playing and running more.

Now, I'm not saying 4th doesn't have it's issues, ALL games do. Heck, one of my favorite have worlds/system has been destroying itself for several years now and the newest edition is, in my opinion, a disaster. But people like it, that's good for them and they can't be wrong in that, regardless of my thoughts on the system. I made my options known, they still looking it. That's good for them.

As for Zapp, he comes across as an arrogant a$$ that lost his stock portfolio when 2nd Ed folded. He has boldly stated time and time again that "he has determined" blah, blah, blah about 4th and 'look 2nd, up on this pedestal'. He comes across as he is the definitive authority and it's really pathetic IMHO.
easl
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:04 pm

Graak wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:45 am
What 4th edition provides intead is a crazy statistically-unstable mechanic that (thanks to opposed rolls and cumulative advantage) can be described as a ball that rests upon a hill: as soon as it goes one side it will snowball (the same happens when you start with a lot of advantage or a better stat than your opponent).
You're right for WS vs. WS. But I'm not sold on the idea that that's a great 4ed combat. Remember, advantage applies only to appropriate combat rolls (p. 164, under "Benefits of..."). Meanwhile, failing any contested roll or suffering any condition loses you all advantage (same page, under "Losing..."). I think the combat is supposed to be a bit more tactical (albeit abstract-tactical) than just trading blows. If you're facing an opponent who'h gotten some WS Advantage, you don't keep trying WS vs. WS, that's just stupid. You throw an Intimidate vs. their Cool roll at them to make them afraid. They don't get to apply their advantage to it, and since they've pumped all their Exp into WS, they fail and all that Advantage goes away. Or you throw a Stealth vs. Perception roll at them to 'move behind them.' You use an entangling ranged weapon on them. Ranged means can't be opposed by WS, and even if it doesn't damage them, the condition removes their Advantage. And so on. To extend your analogy, when the giant boulder starts building up speed as it rolls down the hill, you don't push back; you figure out a way to go around. What can you do to avoid having to deal with it head on?

The side being steamrolled by advantage should not merely keep doing the same thing over and over again. They should switch tactics. And that should go for both PCs and NPCs; when PCs rack up advantage, the NPCs should use their other skills and talents to so that the melee monster has to make different opposed rolls. That NPC non-combative priest leader type? Have them Blather the pit-fighting dwarf. Charm vs. Intel. Dwarf loses...loses all advantage and becomes stunned, losing possibly several rounds of doing anything. Or the NPCs should be looking to inflict conditions on them. And on the PC side, while the dwarf pit-fighter may greatly enjoy putting each and every experience point into his primary melee skill, someone else had better think about ways to inflict conditions or create other opposed rolls in combat, in case the GM decides to throw a 120-skill melee monster at the party. That Lawyer career is suddenly looking a lot more combat relevant, aren't they? Sure, the dwarf does more damage...but you can temporarily stun-lock an opponent, and that's really good too.

Lastly, p164 has this giant gray sidebar on it saying "Limiting Advantage." Limiting advantage is on the same rules-footing as using the deathblow rules: they are both optional sidebars. Both designer-recognized RAW options. It may not be the "base rule", but claiming we need a house rule to fix this is just plain wrong. The rule you're looking for is right there in the book, included as a designer-blessed option.
Graak
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:50 pm

Game-design is interesting to me, to the point I can see beyond Zapp's vocal way to express his thought/analysis and see the facts and the statistical reasoning beyond his opinion.
Can his manners be annoying to readers? Yes, of course. It depends on your patience.
Personally I got more annoyed by denialism or proposal for "simple fixes" to handle a statistically-crazy system, and I can understand were his salty comments come from, since I felt the same frustration with 4th edition CORE rules the very day they got presented (since my previous experience with games with opposed rolls mechanics, both RPGs and miniature, the issues this core mechanics bring in were evident to me) ...probably I would be even saltier if I dedicated years of RPGing trying to save 4th edition at all costs.

Having said that...
before the fight you are calling for (and no one is interested in) will ensue let me express some thoughts before this topic will be derailed into oblivion:

First off, this seems to be a little irrationale and emotion driven:
OldPlayer wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:20 pm
Also you are comparing core rules, 1,5 y out with a full grown system with all extensions and years of dev.
No amount of publications will ever save a problem born in the very core mechanic. And in NO WAY 2nd edition publications touched the core system to make it better with each published book. Are you familiar with 2nd edition? The system started and stayed the same through the whole line. Same with Dark Heresy and the whole FFG 40k lines, if it matters.
OldPlayer wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 6:22 am
And another thing. 4e is still relatively new. The more you play a system the better you get at it hopefully
With practice you will get better at anything: playing an out of tune piano, riding a bike with flat tire, ...it says nothing on HOW GOOD is the instrument you are using in the first place.

easl wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 7:35 pm
Graak wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 10:45 am
What 4th edition provides intead is a crazy statistically-unstable mechanic that (thanks to opposed rolls and cumulative advantage) can be described as a ball that rests upon a hill: as soon as it goes one side it will snowball (the same happens when you start with a lot of advantage or a better stat than your opponent).
You're right for WS vs. WS. But I'm not sold on the idea that that's a great 4ed combat. Remember, advantage applies only to appropriate combat rolls (p. 164, under "Benefits of..."). Meanwhile, failing any contested roll or suffering any condition loses you all advantage (same page, under "Losing..."). I think the combat is supposed to be a bit more tactical (albeit abstract-tactical) than just trading blows. If you're facing an opponent who'h gotten some WS Advantage, you don't keep trying WS vs. WS, that's just stupid. You throw an Intimidate vs. their Cool roll at them to make them afraid. They don't get to apply their advantage to it, and since they've pumped all their Exp into WS, they fail and all that Advantage goes away. Or you throw a Stealth vs. Perception roll at them to 'move behind them.' You use an entangling ranged weapon on them. Ranged means can't be opposed by WS, and even if it doesn't damage them, the condition removes their Advantage. And so on. To extend your analogy, when the giant boulder starts building up speed as it rolls down the hill, you don't push back; you figure out a way to go around. What can you do to avoid having to deal with it head on?

The side being steamrolled by advantage should not merely keep doing the same thing over and over again. They should switch tactics. And that should go for both PCs and NPCs; when PCs rack up advantage, the NPCs should use their other skills and talents to so that the melee monster has to make different opposed rolls. That NPC non-combative priest leader type? Have them Blather the pit-fighting dwarf. Charm vs. Intel. Dwarf loses...loses all advantage and becomes stunned, losing possibly several rounds of doing anything. Or the NPCs should be looking to inflict conditions on them. And on the PC side, while the dwarf pit-fighter may greatly enjoy putting each and every experience point into his primary melee skill, someone else had better think about ways to inflict conditions or create other opposed rolls in combat, in case the GM decides to throw a 120-skill melee monster at the party. That Lawyer career is suddenly looking a lot more combat relevant, aren't they? Sure, the dwarf does more damage...but you can temporarily stun-lock an opponent, and that's really good too.
I can see your whole "Hey, that enemy is "on fire", he's butchering us: let's distract him with some blahblah". It can be cinematic and in fact it has been seen in various movies (the 1st Guardian of the Galaxy had a scene like that in the last battle iirc).
But scenes like that should be the exception, otherwise every combat slips into a farce. I can't see a reliable way to manage 4th edition swingyness+snowball effect in that.

Orin J. wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 3:04 pm
OldPlayer wrote:
Sat Jan 18, 2020 2:20 pm
Opposed rolls are not a problem in 4e, they are good. Cumulative adv and +60 bonuses yes but easily fixed.
opposed rolls are specifically a problem in 4th Ed., because they're done off a single die roll so there's no curve to balance against. this means both that all things being equal there's no way of telling who is going to win a roll and by how much, and that every advantage one side has is indirectly doubled as a +10 to one side's roll means there's now 10 that the advantage side can roll and automatically "win" and also 10 the disadvantaged side can roll and automatically "lose" meaning that every bit of skill has to be carefully balanced to avoid snowballing.

and that's before throwing in advantage and the overstacked bonuses. i normally leave off on this stuff but you came off as trying to goad zapp into picking a fight so i figured i'd correct you first.
In short, this. Advantage only make it WAAAY worse.
I could spare some words in defense of D100 opposed systems though, an example: ECLIPSE PHASE. Why? Well, in EP combats should be scarce and dangerous (and you still can come back from death, btw), way scarcer that the usual WFRP published adventure implies, just to be clear (it's a post cyberpunk setting where hacking and social themes are at the same level combat is for games like D&D).
In EP the opposed rolls works like this "opponents rolls D100, if both succede the hightest wins".
I hope you guys can see the difference with 4th edition.
No Degree of Success is calculated and it has no implication on damage inflicted or bonus for attacking the round after (advantage).
Yes, it's swingy, but there are no mechanics that augment the swinginess into snowball effect!

Bye!
OldPlayer
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:03 am

Oh I am not sure I am the one that really wants to pick a fight ^^ I am quite happy overall with the game.And I am not trolling other systems forums explaining why they are bad.

Having done my share of fighting with orc costume and latex swords I find the combat rules realistic with the added realism that a single sword blow could very well be fatal. Even the huge bonuses for outnumbered fighting are realistic in that sense. Opposed tests may not be to your liking but they do reflect that quite well with the consequence that players quickly think twice before geting into a fight. Pretty realistic overall.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

OldPlayer wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 3:53 am
Oh I am not sure I am the one that really wants to pick a fight^^ I am quite happy overall with the game.And I am not trolling other systems forums explaining why they are bad.

Having done my share of fighting with orc costume and latex swords I find the combat rules realistic with the added realism that a single sword blow could very well be fatal. Even the huge bonuses for outnumbered fighting are realistic in that sense. Opposed tests may not be to your liking but they do reflect that quite well with the consequence that players quickly think twice before geting into a fight. Pretty realistic overall.
listen, if you're only here to stir the pot how about you leave the people discussing their problems with the system to discuss the problems with the system? you don't see me jumping into people's threads arguing with them for it's own sake. also the bonus for outnumbered isn't all that large so either you're playing a little different from the RAW or those LARPs are going very easy on you. not that i'd call boffo sticks realistic by any measure.
Graak
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:50 pm

I believe that we should be very careful when calling for “realism” to judge how good a RPG looks.
If we ever be to judge a RPG (especially fantasy RPG) from a realistic combat experience point-of-view apocalypse would ensue. And in that post-apocalyptic RPG-development setting only true historical fighters re-enactors should be given the right to write RPGs :P (because hiring them as consultants wouldn’t be enough: look at the crap Jurassic Park franchise brought us albeit they had a famous paleontologist as Horner as a consultant) :P

First off, LARPS are not what I consider to be realistic…but whatever…
For 2 years I’ve been into a Renaissance re-enactment group that bases its teachings on historical treatises written by fencing masters such as Fiore de’ Liberi and Filippo Vadi. From my direct (short) experience and mostly from the comments of my colleagues I’ve learnt one thing for sure: you can kick in the ditch everything RPGs have taught us in the last 30 years.

Some bits of experience…just for the flavor…

There is no such thing as “Free attack if you run away”. If you are fighting and suddenly turn your back and run the only thing your opponent could do is blinking twice and say WTF. Of course this is valid at fencing distance, if grappling or meleeing in very close quarter it’s another matter, but in that case fencing techniques are secondary compared to brawling capabilities. If we were going to be realistic I could accept an easy “Deceive test” to make your opponent believe you are attacking and then RUUUUN with no free attacks on your back.

You know what are the most offensive combat stance? The one with the shield on your hand. Having that big protection lets you go for all-out-attacks with much more impunity. The only game I’ve tried where this thing was effectively implemented was VampireTheRequiem (specifically I had Requiem for Rome), that lets you all-out-attack without losing your defense stat because shield covered that loss of defence. But, if in all honesty I don’t believe this realistic rule was intentional given the amount of other nonsense that system had.

You know what is the most defensive weapon? 2-handed swords (or similar 2 handed weapons). Why? Because of the distance you keep from your opponent. Man with sword+shield against man with 2-handed sword? 2-handed-sword-man is better start praying, all sword+shield-man has to do is crossing safe distance parrying a blow with his shield and then start storming the opponent with blows with his faster weapon. 2-handed swords were used mainly in tournaments and (zweihanders) to disrupt lance lines in field battles, in urban combat and in the close melee of infantry clash you should expect hand weapons (mainly blades) and shields (they got scarcer from medieval to reinassance because of changes in fighting style and bladed weapons…and fighting fashion). A warrior walks into a bar with a big big sword strapped on his back? Probably a clown that needs to show off. In addition we should also forget the whole “strapped on the back” weapons, if ever they were strapped there only for ease of transportation, not the ease of use/draw!

Armor? OH ARMOR! Literally FORGET about using heavy plate armor except for battlefields: they were expensive (nobles, knights and officers have those, and mainly on horse!), they need help to be worn on and most important they are cold as hell in winter and hot as a grill in summer. (I hear noises of D&D paladins crumbling away –and all the sacred D&D “balancement” with it- if this common sense realistic rule were to be applied).

Armor penetration? You better have a pick-axe or a mace (btw mace is especially good against mail, in almost ignores it by dealing a type of damage that mail was not meant to protect from!), otherwise you want to drop your opponent to the ground using every dirty move (comprising using your sword as a mace wielding it from the blade!) and than stab-stab him in the face/neck with a dagger or stiletto. Sword blades against plate are useless. There are a few good videos (hystorical coherent) on youtube showing how to fight a full-plated enemy with a sword: simply put you don’t use it as a sword…you use is as a mace aiming for the head or you use it to make leverage to disarm your enemy or making him fall to the ground.
…and yet most of people used swords and foils? Why? Because again, armor was rare and was used rarely.

We really should walk carefully when try to judge how good a RPG is by how realistic it feels, first of all because the typical conception of realism is VERY biased and uninformed.

Specifically in this thread realism was not called an issue of the system (or have I missed a comment?) that instead has some problems with statistics and its implications in gameplay (at least for me THIS is the problem, I’ve given up about realism in fantasy games since a while :D ).
User avatar
totsuzenheni
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:38 pm

Graak wrote:
Mon Jan 20, 2020 2:28 am
I believe that we should be very careful when calling for “realism” to judge how good a RPG looks...
Broadly speaking, from what i have listened to and watched, i think your description of realistic combat is correct. I think i'd love to have this in an RPG, at least as the baseline.
CapnZapp
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:15 am
Location: Norsca

Graak wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:44 am

Capn, I really can't express how much I appreciate your suffering journey into 4th edition and your detailed, rationale analysis.
Thank you
easl
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:04 pm

I can't see a reliable way to manage 4th edition swingyness+snowball effect in that.
Fair enough. Do you think the Optional sidebar on p164 is a reliable way to manage 4th edition swingyness?
Graak wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:38 am
Game-design is interesting to me... Personally I got more annoyed by denialism or proposal for "simple fixes" to handle a statistically-crazy system
Do you consider using a sidebar, written into the core book itself, to be denialism or an annoyance? Because I tend to think sidebars in a core rule book to be more like "designer blessed rules intended to provide system flexibility for a variety of different group play styles."
OldPlayer
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:03 am

Great post Graak. Thanks for that. My point should have been formulated in an other way. It does feel to me like the devs are doing LARP themselves !

Realism is always part of the topic when we discuss RPG rules. More or less depending on the game. Less in Toon or D&D and a lot more in wfrp. The ambition/goals of the designers on that front impacts hugely. And obviously it may not be to everyones liking.

Orin, only modification we have so far is that we halved the combat bonus table, maxed adv at +20 and I write my own key ennemies profiles. It has worked well for us we are having fun but granted we are far from 5k XP. All the 5 players are still below 2K.

Instead of asking people who actually play the game and enjoy it to leave (it’a 4e forum) why don’t you give it a try ?
OldPlayer
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:03 am

easl wrote:
Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:52 am
I can't see a reliable way to manage 4th edition swingyness+snowball effect in that.
Fair enough. Do you think the Optional sidebar on p164 is a reliable way to manage 4th edition swingyness?
Graak wrote:
Sun Jan 19, 2020 1:38 am
Game-design is interesting to me... Personally I got more annoyed by denialism or proposal for "simple fixes" to handle a statistically-crazy system
Do you consider using a sidebar, written into the core book itself, to be denialism or an annoyance? Because I tend to think sidebars in a core rule book to be more like "designer blessed rules intended to provide system flexibility for a variety of different group play styles."
Yes. So far for me it has been as simple as that.
Nothing to get annoyed at.
mormegil
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:48 am

Just to add my 2 cents. I see no problem concerning snowball effect. 90% of the time is taking the player's side and the rest 10% the players have several options to change it. The way I say it, most important thing is the player's narrative and the game is spot-on on this, along with some serious challenges to the players health.

Is it perfect? no. Is it enjoyable? yes.

Why some people who did not try the game yet - their words - seem to be vocal about it is something to really consider.

Another thing to consider is if not C7 then who will take the mantle of the Old World?

So support or at least keep silent and transfer adventures and any other thing you deem worth to the edition you like. At least if you really love the franchise.
User avatar
totsuzenheni
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:38 pm

mormegil wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:08 am
Another thing to consider is if not C7 then who will take the mantle of the Old World?
Not that i don't want a company such as Cubicle 7 to produce official material for WFRP, but i think there would be quite a lot of people who would produce a lot of material for WFRP if Games Workshop hadn't (as i'm led to believe) clamped down on unofficial fanzines and the like. I think the heyday of WFRP was in many ways the Hogshead and Black Industry period when there was a plethora of unofficial fan material being produced, as there is now for Zweihander. Anyway, that's another topic for discussion in another thread perhaps.
User avatar
Orin J.
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:39 pm

mormegil wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:08 am
Just to add my 2 cents. I see no problem concerning snowball effect. 90% of the time is taking the player's side and the rest 10% the players have several options to change it. The way I say it, most important thing is the player's narrative and the game is spot-on on this, along with some serious challenges to the players health.
so it's not challenging to the players, but there's a risk? that's not a good dynamic. this is why i hate the "player's narrative" argument, it leads inexorably to removing the system itself in favor of just giving the players what they want and removed the rewarding feeling of overcoming a challenge. that overcoming the odds has been key to the warhammer setting since it's inception, and removing what makes WFRP unique isn't beneficial. if you don't like what made the warhammer world interesting to play in you should reassess what you want out of WFRP or at least keep silent and transfer adventures and any other thing you deem worth to the homebrew you like. At least if you really love the franchise.
Graak
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:50 pm

Capping Advantage is a mandatory thing to do to make the game at least playable IMO, from what I’ve read and from the little I’ve tried.

Do I think that’s a RELIABLE way to reduce swingyness?
Ehm, no: all it does is reducing snowballing (reducing an amplification effect tied to how Advantage works). Swingyness is an intrinsic property of “dN VS dN” tests.

As I’ve already explained when I wrote about Eclipse Phase having swingy tests is not a problem by itself (as it’s not a problem in the Infinity miniature game for example). But I personally think over-interpretation of those tests IS. What I mean with “over-interpretation”? I mean deriving too many things from that swingy test, specifically WFRP4 derives damage value from that (and gives a bonus to the next round). If there were a separate Damage roll the “to-hit” and “damage” rolls would statistically “compensate” in the long run, giving the system a resemblance of predictability (average values and such) and a chance to control it. But that’s not the case, WFRP has condensed the whole combat in one type of swingy test, that’s what does not work imho.


Regarding trying WFRP4, I’m (I should say WAS) a forever GM. So I have to judge (and possibly try) a given game before showing it to my group of lazy players. I have no chance to join a WFRP4 group as a player for the moment. I ditched games after a rapid read…however for WFRP4 I tested how combat works in a few “white-room” fight tests…and it looked like a mess to me, I can’t express it differently. I have not played it but I’ve tried it. And the issue was not my “expectations”, but the fact that the combat tests I’ve run felt completely chaotic! Are you familiar with the “chaos theory” example in the first Jurassic Park? The scene where Ian Malcom takes the hand of the botanist and proceed to leave a drop a water on the top of her knuckles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mpifTiPV4

That’s exactly what I felt when playing those tests: (“my hand grabbed by a flirty mathematician?...hell no!”) great divergence from starting conditions (unless starting condition is deeply disproportionate by itself), forcing an outcome from an opposed roll with direct consequences on Damage and on next round’s rolls too.
Blathering fast-talking character are not always there to save the day circumventing de-facto the whole concept of fighting (as I’ve said: if it happens once it’s fun. It it’s the rule than it becomes a farce! …but hey, the whole 1st edition tone was close to a farce in several occasions!).


Last but not least: it is better if I do not comment on the whole “So support it or at least keep silent” part.
OldPlayer
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:03 am

Graak wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 1:09 pm
Capping Advantage is a mandatory thing to do to make the game at least playable IMO, from what I’ve read and from the little I’ve tried.

Do I think that’s a RELIABLE way to reduce swingyness?
Ehm, no: all it does is reducing snowballing (reducing an amplification effect tied to how Advantage works). Swingyness is an intrinsic property of “dN VS dN” tests.

As I’ve already explained when I wrote about Eclipse Phase having swingy tests is not a problem by itself (as it’s not a problem in the Infinity miniature game for example). But I personally think over-interpretation of those tests IS. What I mean with “over-interpretation”? I mean deriving too many things from that swingy test, specifically WFRP4 derives damage value from that (and gives a bonus to the next round). If there were a separate Damage roll the “to-hit” and “damage” rolls would statistically “compensate” in the long run, giving the system a resemblance of predictability (average values and such) and a chance to control it. But that’s not the case, WFRP has condensed the whole combat in one type of swingy test, that’s what does not work imho.


Regarding trying WFRP4, I’m (I should say WAS) a forever GM. So I have to judge (and possibly try) a given game before showing it to my group of lazy players. I have no chance to join a WFRP4 group as a player for the moment. I ditched games after a rapid read…however for WFRP4 I tested how combat works in a few “white-room” fight tests…and it looked like a mess to me, I can’t express it differently. I have not played it but I’ve tried it. And the issue was not my “expectations”, but the fact that the combat tests I’ve run felt completely chaotic! Are you familiar with the “chaos theory” example in the first Jurassic Park? The scene where Ian Malcom takes the hand of the botanist and proceed to leave a drop a water on the top of her knuckles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-mpifTiPV4

That’s exactly what I felt when playing those tests: (“my hand grabbed by a flirty mathematician?...hell no!”) great divergence from starting conditions (unless starting condition is deeply disproportionate by itself), forcing an outcome from an opposed roll with direct consequences on Damage and on next round’s rolls too.
Blathering fast-talking character are not always there to save the day circumventing de-facto the whole concept of fighting (as I’ve said: if it happens once it’s fun. It it’s the rule than it becomes a farce! …but hey, the whole 1st edition tone was close to a farce in several occasions!).


Last but not least: it is better if I do not comment on the whole “So support it or at least keep silent” part.
Yes I read Mandelbrot in my student days ! That jurassic parc borrow was cheap but what else would you expect from Hollywood 🤓.

Swingy is good. Predictability kills the fun.
Some people like coffee, some like tea.

I do think you over react to it. Fights do swing from time to time of course and novice PCs can die one shot from a very bad roll (I am fine with that). But as GM unless you failed when balancing the encounter it’s not hard to keep things reasonnably under control and fine tune the feeling of danger in key moments with PCs in tier 2/3.

Regarding dmg coming from the same roll, the risk of being one shotted at low level is the same more or less as in 1e but without the boring miss miss miss misssssss. At higher xp and with some equipment you can survive a very bad roll. And use a cap on Advantage.

My experience so far is that the system makes the players carefull, more likely to want to think some kind of plan ahead of throwing their PCs into a fight D&D style and it puts emphasis on using your talents to eek out or get back an edge. It’s definitly not boring. No whiff, pace is fast and furious and power creep threshold is quite high (that dwarf with 120+ melee and 20 soak but that’s just far far far away and not even worse discussing)

Finally get a good pdf that recaps all tables conditions weapons talents all rules spreads around the core book.
easl
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:04 pm

OldPlayer wrote:
Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:01 pm
Fights do swing from time to time of course and novice PCs can die one shot from a very bad roll (I am fine with that). But as GM unless you failed when balancing the encounter it’s not hard to keep things reasonnably under control and fine tune the feeling of danger in key moments with PCs in tier 2/3.

Regarding dmg coming from the same roll, the risk of being one shotted at low level is the same more or less as in 1e but without the boring miss miss miss misssssss. At higher xp and with some equipment you can survive a very bad roll. And use a cap on Advantage.

My experience so far is that the system makes the players carefull, more likely to want to think some kind of plan ahead of throwing their PCs into a fight D&D style and it puts emphasis on using your talents to eek out or get back an edge. It’s definitly not boring.
Thanks OldPlayer. Would you consider, after your next play session, writing up here a summary of one of the party's combat scenes? I greatly appreciated CapnZapp's write-up. It illustrated very well his concern with the bestiary section. (Though speaking only for myself, it didn't do much in the way of convincing me the core mechanics were horribly broken).
OldPlayer
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Dec 22, 2019 9:03 am

Sure, it can take a bit of time as my group is now back in town and heavy fighting is not on the menu (well things tend not to go as I planned so lets see about that!)

Ok, read this you lazy GMs 😀 complaining on the bestiary:

https://lawhammer.blogspot.com/2020/01/ ... s.html?m=1
Last edited by OldPlayer on Thu Jan 23, 2020 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply