Re: Many-onto-one combats

From: Kevin Blackburn <kevin_at_...>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 08:50:47 +0100

In article <20030721235124.A18059_at_...>, Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...> writes
>On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:01:08PM +0100, Kevin Blackburn wrote:
>> I was assuming the benefits are likely to tail off about 6 attacks of
>> your size (though 20 rats might do the trick) - this was the point of my
>> comment "After this it seems likely that the multiple attackers will
>> severely get in each others way".
>
>Yes, sure, but when that happens may be a judgement call, specific to
>the situation, and it may be a matter of the benefit tapering off,
>rather than ceasing entirely, say. The basic principle extends to
>more than just close combat, after all, but to any contest situation.
>(How effective are multiple archers? Multiple debaters? Multiple
>supporters in a ritual? Etc.)

You're moving into areas where the benefits of many-onto-one are more limited, though still present. I think a judgement call rather than strict rules are the right way to go here.
>
>
>> I wasn't trying too hard for a
>> logarithmic progression, more what feels right - which I suppose is
>> against the spirit of my original post.
>
>I think a log. prog. was pretty instrinic to your idea that a doubling
>ought to be worth +20 (or any such idea that xX would be worth +Y...).

Sorry, I was unclear, logarithmic progression is key to the basic idea of contest ratings - it was the progression for two-onto-, three-onto-, etc. that was pulled out of thin air.
>
>
>> >> If we know two attackers rating as a pair, what should they be
>> >> individually? Well, the one has to basically win two contests, so it
>> >> sounds like each should be at (plus a mastery, minus five = +15). "Minus
>> >> five" because we concluded that for a contest ability +5 equates to
>> >> winning two combats in a row.
>> >
>> >What's the interest in working in this direction? This is essentially
>> >the same problem, of course, and hinges on the same basic question:
>> >how well do the Many combine with each other for a collective effect?
>>
>> Consider if the "two" are the PCs and the "one" the villain - the
>> players will want to make their own rolls, and thus need their own
>> bonuses. The original reasoning about the "many onto one" is of the
>> "many" taken as being a single rating. Alternatively, I wanted to know
>> what happens if a PC is the one and they say "I want to take down X, and
>> ignore Y".
>
>Ahhhh, working this way for the _bonus_ (or penalty) only, I getcha.
>Why not just apply it all as a penalty to the One?

I suspect to do it right, you'd have to subtract the bonus for one of the many, not for the many taken as a whole (e.g. 15 rather that 20 for two onto one), for the effect to be right. But this is where the complex rules pain sets in for sure.

> Or split the
>bonus up on an entirely narratively ad hoc basis?

Always an option! Though you do need to have an air of knowing what you are doing in front of the PCs
>
>
>> >> This is really a little too detailed for the rather free flowing Hero
>> >> Wars rules, but if something is going horribly wrong in what the rules
>> >> say and what feels right to happen, then pulling out the above rules
>> >> might help.
>> >
>> >I concur on both sentiments.
>>
>> Quite, though I hope it amuses.
>
>And if at least occasional use I think, just so long as we're clear
>it's not being presented in the spirit of, "always use this table".

Indeed. I may never actually use these ideas in practice, but they are useful to have "just in case".

Kevin Blackburn                         Kevin_at_...