Sorry about that. I thought the question was simpler than it apparently is.
>I
>think its unfair to Roderick to try to discern what he meant from how
>well he managed to implement particular terminology changes thrust
>upon him too.
? I can't claim to understand the last part of that statement... If you really want to bring Roderick into this, I have to point out that my interpretation is the one in line with explanations and examples he has posted to this list.
But you don't want to make this an argument about what the rules say, or what the authors meant, do you? I mean, you and Wulf say that I lack solid support for my "attacker=actor, defender=opponent" thesis. Fine, I agree that it's not a proven fact, but your opposite thesis is unsubstantiated to at least the same degree. So we're just going to go round in circles...
The question is about how best to work with what we've been given. You (and Wulf and Henrix) claim that HW combat is not about two (or more) people taking turns to bash each other, I think that to some degree it is. You say that attack and counterattack can happen within the space of one exchange, I'm more comfortable breaking things up so that a failed attack just means the defender is setting up for the counterattack that will happen when his own turn to act comes around. Why? Partly because I want a consistent method of visualizing what's going on in a combat situation. After all, combat is one of the more common varieties of contest, and making everything up on the fly every time just isn't going to cut it. Yes, the effects will vary depending on what abilities are used, but 95 times out of 100 everybody will be using Close Combat, a skill that can be applied either offensively or defensively. Sure, the most realistic way of doing things would probably be to ask every defender every exchange exactly how he is trying to defend, and if he says something about using his weapon give him the edge. But that's impractical, you need to choose one method or the other and stick with it unless some special circumstance warrants an exception. And I happen to think the "trading blows" paradigm offers the clearest view of what's going on. No, I don't mean that one exchange equals one blow. But I have an even harder time picturing every exchange as a frenzied flurry of blows from both parties. What I think the order of action represents is the initiative shifting back and forth, and when you're _not_ the one with the initiative your choice of actions is somewhat more limited. You can't choose to ignore the fact that a weapon is headed your way and wind up for your own attack instead. Well, you could, but that's what the rules call a fumble. If you're smart you avoid or parry the attack while trying to get the initiative back on your side. And yes, on a really good result this could even be interpeted as the "boot to the groin" someone mentioned. Just not a spearpoint through the eyeslit.
As for my fears about game balance:
>>But what happens then is that characters with superior equipment and/or
>>magic become pretty much unstoppable.
>
> No, what happens is that people with superior Fighting skills
>and fighting gear win Fights. Remember, an edge only takes effect if
>you win - significantly superiour ability is much nastier than a big
>edge.
Yes, but a "significantly superiour ability" in HW terms is one that
criticals significantly more often. Sure, then it doesn't matter much how
big anybody's edge is. But hopefully most combats will be between more
evenly matched opponents.
And armor ranks, translating into a handicap for your opponent, take
effect if you lose. My concern is that if armor protects on every result
that goes against you, even when you're the attacker, good protective
gear can make you nearly invulnerable. Sure your adversary can bid high
to get past it, but that has serious potential to backfire - especially
if your weapon rank counts against him then. And you yourself can
consistently bid so that, should you happen to lose the exchange, it will
still be reduced to the minimum of 1. Your enemy's only recourse here
would be to switch to another ability, like magic that doesn't concern
itself with your armor. If he lacks such abilities, he's a goner.
So to paraphrase from the "ambiguous feats" discussion, I think combat is one area that should be rigidly defined as doubtful and uncertain... in the sense that the outcome of a fight shouldn't always be obvious just from a glance at the stats.
Powered by hypermail