|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 21, 2013 18:28:13 GMT
There are three Daleks (Multiple Opponents / Cooperation Rule), and the leader Dalek makes the roll for all three with a +2 for each extra Dalek for a total of +4 to its Coordination + Marksmanship of 5. It rolls another average 7 for a total of 16. This is the difficulty the Doc has to roll against with his Reaction. Say, doesn't the Multiple Opponents rule only apply to simple conflicts, strictly speaking? It's presented in the simple conflict rules, and never gets mentioned during the extended conflict rules. The title of the section is "MULTIPLE OPPONENTS (SIMPLE CONFLICT)." Is there an example somewhere of an extended conflict using the Multiple Opponents rule?
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 751
|
Post by Rassilon on Jun 22, 2013 10:54:09 GMT
There are three Daleks (Multiple Opponents / Cooperation Rule), and the leader Dalek makes the roll for all three with a +2 for each extra Dalek for a total of +4 to its Coordination + Marksmanship of 5. It rolls another average 7 for a total of 16. This is the difficulty the Doc has to roll against with his Reaction. Say, doesn't the Multiple Opponents rule only apply to simple conflicts, strictly speaking? It's presented in the simple conflict rules, and never gets mentioned during the extended conflict rules. The title of the section is "MULTIPLE OPPONENTS (SIMPLE CONFLICT)." Is there an example somewhere of an extended conflict using the Multiple Opponents rule?That’s why I specifically wrote ‘Multiple Opponents / Cooperation Rule’ ! I thought most people would pick up on that - I’m sorry if it’s not clear as I wished it would be. In fact, reading the rules as presented, I'm not surprised it needs further explanation. 'Cooperation' and 'Multiple Opponents’ are effectively the same rule. Cooperation is not exclusively limited to only simple or extended conflicts, so as the rules are written, that option stands for both. The Daleks example is valid. They still get exactly the same +2 for each extra Dalek for a total of +4 added to the leading Dalek’s roll to hit, in a Simple or Extended Conflict. Quote: Cooperation (p.41 GM Guide 11th Doc Edition) 'Sometimes a task is so tricky or complicated, the characters are going to have to call in some help. Many hands make light work and all that. In such cases, one character will take the lead and make the roll. For every additional character with a suitable Skill that helps, add +2 to the leader’s roll. The Gamemaster may put a limit on how many people can help in any given circumstance, and which Skills are suitable to assist.'Now, considering Multiple Opponents (p.44 GM Guide 11th Doc Edition); verbatim, it does indeed list Multiple Opponents as ‘Simple Conflict’. This is kind of misleading I suppose, since as mentioned, the Cooperation rules are mechanically exactly the same as Multiple Opponents rule and are not limited to Simple Conflicts. Strictly speaking, and I guess this is where the rules could be clearer, there is no real difference between a Simple and Extended conflict since an Extended Conflict is just a more detailed break-down of a simple conflict, specifically to sort actions into initiative phases. This states it in the description: Extended Conflict (p.45 GM Guide 11th Doc Edition) Resolving smaller tasks with just one dice roll is all well and good, but if the situation is more intense or involved, such as a chase or fight scene, you may wish to break the action down into a series of rolls. Not only does this add tension, but it also allows you to create more involved and exciting action scenes as the tables turn quickly with a good or bad roll.'
So, in summary, ‘Cooperation Rules/Multiple Opponents’ are interchangeable and should stand in both Extended and Simple Conflicts. I'd like to hear extra input on this from the forum, and perhaps official input, as the rules as written need a bit more clarity.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 22, 2013 19:30:25 GMT
But then the caveat that multiple opponents only work together in simple conflicts is kind of pointless, no?
I think the real purpose of the Multiple Opponents rule in simple conflicts is to make a complicated situation fit into the mechanics of the simple conflict, which is "side A rolling whatever versus side B rolling whatever." What you roll does not necessarily have anything to do with what the other side rolls; there are no reactions.
During an extended conflict you might invoke the Cooperation rule to quicken the conflict, but this is really a shortcut: the two Daleks are not helping the other Dalek hit a single target; they're independently trying to hit a target.
|
|
|
Post by Escher on Jun 22, 2013 22:01:57 GMT
During an extended conflict you might invoke the Cooperation rule to quicken the conflict, but this is really a shortcut: the two Daleks are not helping the other Dalek hit a single target; they're independently trying to hit a target. I thought they were concentrating fire on one target? GMs book p44 "In the case of ranged combat, where a massive weight of fire can be brought to bear on a single target, there is no limitation on the number of participants who may add to the Leader’s roll."
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 23, 2013 2:41:17 GMT
Yes, but they're talking here about how many opponents can physically gang up on you, and this is still in the "Multiple Opponents (Simple Conflict) section.
Let's imagine a situation in which a single player character stood face-to-face with a dozen archers (arrow-damage is 1/3/4). Now, assuming that for some reason the character fails to escape, and the archers all shoot, let's consider what happens. (In other words, it's an intentionally exaggerated situation to show off the effects of the rules.)
In an extended conflict, if we lump the archers together into one roll, that's one archer rolling Coordination and Marksmanship, with a +22 bonus, against the PC's dodge of Awareness and Coordination. Assuming all attributes and skills are 3 and all rolls are 7, the archers will get a total of 35 while the PC gets a total of 13. The archers have a Fantastic result, meaning they do... 4 whole measly points of damage. Instead of being a pincushion, our PC gets away with easily survivable damage.
But as an extended conflict in which each enemy is rolled for separately, each arrow has the potential to do up to 4 points of damage. Sure, not every arrow will hit, and most won't get a Fantastic result, but enough will hit to go way over 4 points.
Again, I'm not saying I expect to see single PCs facing off against dozens of opponents in a game. Rather, I simply mean to show that the Multiple Opponents rule may only apply to simple conflicts because the writers needed to find a way to cram multiple fighters into a single us-vs-them roll. When running an extended conflict, where there are reactions that last for the round, there is no need for an us-vs-them roll to resolve everything. Thus, Multiple Opponents only applies to simple conflicts, where it is needed.
Also again, I'm not saying you can't use Multiple Opponents in an extended conflict as a shortcut, but you're going to be doing some arbitrary guesswork when it comes to applying damage.
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 751
|
Post by Rassilon on Jun 23, 2013 11:22:32 GMT
Yes, but they're talking here about how many opponents can physically gang up on you, and this is still in the "Multiple Opponents (Simple Conflict) section. Let's imagine a situation in which a single player character stood face-to-face with a dozen archers (arrow-damage is 1/3/4). Now, assuming that for some reason the character fails to escape, and the archers all shoot, let's consider what happens. (In other words, it's an intentionally exaggerated situation to show off the effects of the rules.) In an extended conflict, if we lump the archers together into one roll, that's one archer rolling Coordination and Marksmanship, with a +22 bonus, against the PC's dodge of Awareness and Coordination. Assuming all attributes and skills are 3 and all rolls are 7, the archers will get a total of 35 while the PC gets a total of 13. The archers have a Fantastic result, meaning they do... 4 whole measly points of damage. Instead of being a pincushion, our PC gets away with easily survivable damage. But as an extended conflict in which each enemy is rolled for separately, each arrow has the potential to do up to 4 points of damage. Sure, not every arrow will hit, and most won't get a Fantastic result, but enough will hit to go way over 4 points. Again, I'm not saying I expect to see single PCs facing off against dozens of opponents in a game. Rather, I simply mean to show that the Multiple Opponents rule may only apply to simple conflicts because the writers needed to find a way to cram multiple fighters into a single us-vs-them roll. When running an extended conflict, where there are reactions that last for the round, there is no need for an us-vs-them roll to resolve everything. Thus, Multiple Opponents only applies to simple conflicts, where it is needed. Also again, I'm not saying you can't use Multiple Opponents in an extended conflict as a shortcut, but you're going to be doing some arbitrary guesswork when it comes to applying damage. There is no rule in the book that prohibits Multiple Opponents / Cooperation from being used for Extended Conflicts. It also doesn't state how damage from Multiple Opponents is applied - this is why these points need to be officially clarified.The Primeval RPG - which uses the Vortex system (same as DWAITAS), may shed more light on this. For multiple opponents it states: MULTIPLE OPPONENTS (Primeval RPG p.91-92)
If there are multiple people involved in a conflict, it can be easier to divide the bad guys into groups and use the Cooperation rules. Let’s say Abby, Connor and Nick are hiding from a pack of a dozen Compsognathus dinosaurs. This is an opposed roll of the ARC team’s Ingenuity + Subterfuge against the dinosaur’s Awareness.
Instead of rolling a dozen times, once for each dinosaur, the GM divides the dinos into three groups of four. He then nominates a lead Compsognathus for each group, who makes the Awareness roll. The other three dinos in the group aid the leader, each of them gives him a +2 bonus. Effectively, each of the three groups rolls Awareness +6 when trying to find its target, and each of the ARC team members rolls against one of the groups.
You can also use these Multiple Opponents rules to model squads of soldiers or packs of predators in combat. Instead of making an attack roll for every soldier in Captain Becker’s security squad, for instance, just have each soldier aid Becker, so he makes a single attack roll with a huge bonus.From this, we gather that 'Multiple Opponents' is not specifically a Simple Conflict option. In the Primeval rules, there is a 'Simple Conflict' rule, but it in no way implies anywhere that the 'Multiple Opponents' option is specifically tied to that. Again, this might be a problem with the way it is described in the DWAITAS GM's guide - which is why we need official input here from the Cubicle 7 writers. In your example, you are grouping all the archers into a single group. It's intended to be used to split a large group of opponents into several smaller groups. Rather than individually roll 12 archers' attacks, we can split them into 3 groups of 4 archers each, with a total roll of 19 per group (1 Archer in each group with Coordination 3 + Marksmanship 3, roll of 7, +6 for the 3 extra archers); verses the PC's total roll of 13, which is a BAD result. Three groups do 3 points each, reducing three of the character’s attributes to zero. Back to the original problem, we need clarification on this from Cubicle 7.I've never had an issue interpreting the rules as they are, and this is the first time an issue concerning Multiple Opponent rules, as they stand, has arisen, but it's obvious there is an issue here regarding clarity, from Stormcrow's contention of the rules as written, and as they are interpreted. Can anyone from Cubicle 7 please comment?
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 24, 2013 13:36:50 GMT
In your example, you are grouping all the archers into a single group. It's intended to be used to split a large group of opponents into several smaller groups. You can only draw that conclusion if you already know that Multiple Opponents can be used in extended conflicts; you can't use that to support Multiple Opponents as an extended-conflict rule. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I agree that clarification would be nice. I'm just saying that, by the book, it appears that Multiple Opponents is an extension of the Cooperation rule, added to fit extra opponents into the one-on-one nature of simple conflicts. If you're using an extended conflict, Multiple Opponents is not needed because your chosen action does not have to be opposed to exactly one enemy roll. Remember, in a simple conflict, there is no initiative, or dodging, unless you want dodging to be your action for the conflict. It's simply "whatever it is I'm doing versus whatever it is you're doing, and only one of us will succeed."
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 751
|
Post by Rassilon on Jun 24, 2013 14:18:03 GMT
In your example, you are grouping all the archers into a single group. It's intended to be used to split a large group of opponents into several smaller groups. You can only draw that conclusion if you already know that Multiple Opponents can be used in extended conflicts; you can't use that to support Multiple Opponents as an extended-conflict rule. I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I agree that clarification would be nice. I'm just saying that, by the book, it appears that Multiple Opponents is an extension of the Cooperation rule, added to fit extra opponents into the one-on-one nature of simple conflicts. If you're using an extended conflict, Multiple Opponents is not needed because your chosen action does not have to be opposed to exactly one enemy roll. Remember, in a simple conflict, there is no initiative, or dodging, unless you want dodging to be your action for the conflict. It's simply "whatever it is I'm doing versus whatever it is you're doing, and only one of us will succeed." So in summary, what are you saying? Is my use of the three-group Daleks in the example incorrect? I don’t see that it is. All the examples and references I’ve given are correct. I'm 100% with you to be absolutely rules-legal but I’m not quite sure what you are arguing for or against now.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 24, 2013 15:15:22 GMT
In your example you're running an extended conflict, where there is no rules-mechanical reason to combine Daleks with the Multiple Opponents rule. Each Dalek gets its own roll, the Doctor may roll a (single) reaction to dodge, and anything else the Doctor wants to do in a round is handled at the correct time with action rolls. In an extended conflict, the rules give no indication that three Daleks firing three separate shots should be treated as a single Dalek firing a single shot and somehow assisted by two other Daleks to make that shot more accurate.
Multiple Opponents appears to be a special case of Cooperation, used only in simple conflicts to deal with the fact that a PC's single action roll can only be opposed by a single action roll. The MO rule simply crams all those opponents into one roll to satisfy the requirements of a simple conflict, and has no other application.
Again, this is my reading of the text; I am in no way telling game masters how to run their games!
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 751
|
Post by Rassilon on Jun 24, 2013 16:33:14 GMT
In your example you're running an extended conflict, where there is no rules-mechanical reason to combine Daleks with the Multiple Opponents rule. There is no mandatory rules-mechanical reason to combine Daleks with the Multiple Opponents rule, but the game allows you the option to do so, which I have done. There is a game reason to combine the three Daleks with the Multiple Opponents rule and it's all about Pacing. This is a GM call. Since this topic is about an example of actual play (Multiple Actions & Penalties), it is relevant to show an organic example of part of a game session. It might not be how you run your own games, but some people do run them like this. Each Dalek gets its own roll, the Doctor may roll a (single) reaction to dodge, and anything else the Doctor wants to do in a round is handled at the correct time with action rolls. In an extended conflict, the rules give no indication that three Daleks firing three separate shots should be treated as a single Dalek firing a single shot and somehow assisted by two other Daleks to make that shot more accurate. They are not 'assisting' the other Dalek literally. It simulates the difficulty of the Doctor to duck into cover facing 3 shots, which is harder than facing a single shot. As I said earlier, the game does permit you to group together several opponents and fire as one unit. In the same situation, facing 30 Daleks, I would again split them into samller groups as per the Multiple Opponents rule, which is valid, and roll once per group. If you would prefer to roll 30 individual Dalek shots seperately, then as you say, I'm not going to tell you how to run your games. Multiple Opponents appears to be a special case of Cooperation, used only in simple conflicts to deal with the fact that a PC's single action roll can only be opposed by a single action roll. The MO rule simply crams all those opponents into one roll to satisfy the requirements of a simple conflict, and has no other application. If your continued argument is that 'There is no literal written example of Multiple Opponents being used in an Extended Conflict' then you are preaching to the converted. I know there isn't. I've contact Cubicle 7 about it -but there is an example in the Primeval book. This has derailed the original context of the thread so I'm moving this to the Rules Discussion section.
|
|
|
Post by Pertwee on Jun 24, 2013 17:07:41 GMT
What we have here is an issue of context. Is the roll a simple conflict involving two sides trying to achieve a goal before the other or is it a case of large scale combat, where the numbers are frightening (and, from the GM's point of view, unwieldy)? Both can involve weapons and a world of hurt for the player, but how they are handled depends entirely on the situation.
Let's take Mickey vs. the Cybermen, from the 10th Doc edition. The Cybermen want to shoot Mickey, while Mickey wants to convince them not to do that. This is not a combat situation, per say, as Mickey is using Convince to fast-talk the metal men into taking him prisoner instead of deleting him. The Cybermen in this case aren't really just 'shooting' him: they are also trying to get a shot off before he convinces them otherwise (remember, there is no precedence of actions in Simple Conflict so this is a legitimate interpretation of that result). If Mickey wins, he managed to fast-talk them before they fired. IF the Cybermen win, they fired before he could make a convincing argument. There is no need for cooperation, as the result is a forgone conclusion. Just how many of the Cybermen shoot him could be judged by their level of success (say one shot for each level) or you could just say all of them hit him, or one of them (Cybermen are nothing if not efficient) or whatever. In the end, it only really matters if they use a non L or S form of attack anyways, because Stun is Stun and Dead is Dead unless Story Points are involved.
Now let's look at our archer example from above. There are a few problems with this example, as I far as I can see:
1. If you are going to use this as a Simple Conflict, you really need to have well defined results for what will or won't happen and much of that is GM judgement, as with the Mickey situation above. For instance, if the character is trying to Fast-Talk the leader of the archers out of trying to pin-cushion them, or has a device that will throw a force-field at the last moment, then sure, make it a simple conflict, but do not then mess around with complex combat rules. Make a judgement like 'if you don't succeed, you will be pin-cushioned by 3D6 arrows' or even 'If you fail, you will be shot full of arrows and die' if the situation warrants it. Don't futz about with combat intricacies, like multiple opponents or aiming or whatever. That's all a forgone conclusion, it is the result we are interested in, not the tactics.
2. Even if this were an Extended Action, you are not really applying the Multiple Opponents rule properly, anyway. The idea is not to roll them all as one with a +22 to hit. Group fire like this should really be split into smaller chunks, units (which is why I thought it should be called UNIT Fire) of a half dozen individuals at most. Only make a group large enough to do the individual job of making sure that a single shot lands on target while allowing other units to do the same. I suggest actually keeping group fire reduced to units no bigger than the highest Convince + Presence of whomever is taking the shot. This makes large groups of creatures something that PCs should fear as opposed to the lone Cybermen, who often has a hell of a time trying to nail a dodging PC (which is probably why all stories with lone monsters tend to rely on said monster using stealth and ambush to achieve their goals).
3. So what if characters get away with only 4 points of damage from a cloud of arrows? Unless it is really ludicrous (like a PC standing still in the middle of an open field) it should be a given that they will find chunks of cover or some other reason (known as script immunity) that allows them to take so little damage. They are the heroes, so it is not unheard of for them to survive such an impossible situation with only a scratch. All you have to do is describe how they did it i nan exciting way using phrases like 'skin of your teeth' or 'you need a new jacket as this one is full of holes.' And if they are just standing still with their arms out because they know the 'rules' won't kill them, then let them reap the whirlwind, interpret the rules with iron GM judgement and say 'Ok, you take a dozen arrows at 4 points of damage each' or something else that makes them appreciate that the integrity of the story comes before the rules.
All that being said, yes, the MO rules apply to both sort of conflict. Look at it from this point of view: the Simple Conflict section is about general conflict rules, while the Extended one is about more detailed conflicts, but the rules for simple conflicts still apply. If we never mentioned the basic rule again (Attribute + Skill + 2D6) you wouldn't assume that it didn't apply to the other rules in the book. In the same manner, Simple Conflict rules don't simply stop functioning just because we don't spend page space reiterating them for Extended Actions. It is all part of Conflict Resolution, whether it be combat, convince or hypnosis.
To use it properly, however, you also need to understand that while it does apply to both, it isn't always the right tool in your GM toolbox to use. Rassilon's example above is a perfect example of where you should use it. In order to really ramp up the risk factor and, as a result' the drama of the rolls, the Daleks are going to be smart and try to blanket the area to prevent the Doctor from moving too freely to avoid their fire. The archer example as a Simple Conflict, however, is the wrong place to use it. It relies on a dry, technical reading of the rules as opposed to a thematic interpretation and ruling based on them (i.e. an arrow does 4 damage, therefore a sky full of them could pretty much kill an elephant, much less a PC). So it isn't as cut and dried as Simple vs. Extended, its all situational.
|
|
|
Post by Stormcrow on Jun 24, 2013 19:06:33 GMT
Thanks, Pertwee. A very helpful response!
|
|
Rassilon
Administrator
Grand Administrator
Posts: 751
|
Post by Rassilon on Jun 24, 2013 19:49:26 GMT
Moved to Rules Discussion.
|
|