Tabletop Randomness

[Smoove_B]

Someone has been playing Dungeon Universalis.

Well, reading it. It really is the most RPG board game I think I've ever had the pleasure of trying to process.

[hepcat]

Seriously, just dive in. It plays in a surprisingly intuitive way. Everything just makes sense once you get going. Play a few practice standalone quests (they're in the back of the campaign book) and assume you'll make mistakes. Or just play the first mission in the campaign in book I as it's all about combat and doesn't introduce much beyond the simple mechanics for such.

I'm currently working my way through a few more scenarios of Chronicles of Drunagor before I go back to DUN. But it's funny how my first thought after opening Drunagor was "oooh, that's a mini i'm using in DUN for my dark elf assassin now!".

[Blackhawk]

I have no problem with that rule. Sounds realistic to me. How many times do you watch a show where two people are fighting and a third person with a gun is constantly being told to shoot, but refuses/hesitates because they aren't sure they'll hit the right person?

Answer: a lot.

You aim at the left or right and wait for the target. You don't close your eyes and hope to get lucky. Anybody who can shoot well enough to have a skill rating in a game could hit the right target 90% of the time. A chance on a critical failure? Absolutely. Equal chance to hit the ally? Unless they're rolling around on the ground, that's absurd.

There needs to be a friendly fire rule, but 50/50 isn't a good approach.

[Blackhawk]

Just to show you that there are other ways to handle it, here are some alternate takes on shooting into melee that I liked (or wrote.)

Savage Worlds: Any time innocent bystanders are a concern, if you roll 1 on your skill die a random adjacent target is hit. It's a 1 or 2 with a shotgun or on full auto. Since Savage Worlds skills are based on die size (a trained character rolls a D4, an expert rolls a d12), this is less likely with more skilled shooters.
D&D 5e: (My house rule) - if you're shooting into a melee and critically fail a roll, make an attack against AC 10 to avoid hitting an ally.
Pathfinder 2e (variant of the above) - if you miss your target by 10 or more, make an attack against AC 15 to avoid hitting an ally.

Note that in all three of those, the shooter's skill is a factor rather than blind random luck. Random luck isn't exciting or dramatic, and it isn't realistic. The master gunfighter, known to be a crack shot, who shoots guns out of people's hands doesn't get a 50/50 shot to hit his friend. Yeah, people hesitate shooting into a hugging match on TV all the time. They also frequently show one character knocked down and about to be skewered when someone from off camera drills the bad guy. For dramatic purposes, the hesitation is covered by the simple (but skill-based) risk of possibly hitting your friend, but the dramatic shot is covered by the character's skill allowing them to make the shot.

And to dig into the design philosophy more, blind luck sucks player agency out of the equation. Their choices in specializing in a skill (or not) are removed from the equation. With a skill based system, the player's choices matter again.

[hepcat]

I have no problem with that rule. Sounds realistic to me. How many times do you watch a show where two people are fighting and a third person with a gun is constantly being told to shoot, but refuses/hesitates because they aren't sure they'll hit the right person?

Answer: a lot.

You aim at the left or right and wait for the target. You don't close your eyes and hope to get lucky. Anybody who can shoot well enough to have a skill rating in a game could hit the right target 90% of the time. A chance on a critical failure? Absolutely. Equal chance to hit the ally? Unless they're rolling around on the ground, that's absurd.

There needs to be a friendly fire rule, but 50/50 isn't a good approach.

Honestly, it still sounds more realistic to me than 90 percent of the time you hit the right person in a constantly shifting mass of bodies. Unless you have a specific skill, as Smoove said. Again, shooting into a group (whether its two, three or more) should never be a good idea. It's been the standard in games that try for a little realism for ages for that very reason. As I said, I think it makes perfect sense.

But I like a little more realism in my games. That's why I get annoyed with dungeon crawlers and other such games that don't have disengagement penalties, for example. I think it's because I spent a lot of time in the world of miniature gaming, where that kind of realism is even more prevalent.

And to dig into the design philosophy more, blind luck sucks player agency out of the equation.

You should become strictly a Euro gamer.

[Blackhawk]

From my experience and training both with firearms and hand to hand (including hand held weapons), I still say that 90% is far more realistic. People fighting the way hand to hand is represented in most games are maneuvering around each other, yes, but they're not hugging and twirling. You can still pick a target in a knife fight.

Unless we're talking firing blindly into a mass of dozens or hundreds.

[hepcat]

Agree to disagree then. Real fights with hand held weapons are not graceful ballets. They’re ugly affairs with people clutching and shoving at each other. I fenced for years in high school and yes, that would be easy to fire into. There are rules about where you can step. But in a real fight to the death, rules of engagement disappear.

[Blackhawk]

Agree to disagree then. Real fights with hand held weapons are not graceful ballets. They’re ugly affairs with people clutching and shoving at each other.

At points, yes they are. The rest of the time (especially with trained fighters - which is usually what games are representing, skilled, trained warriors), they're people trying to keep their distance while they work for an opening. I've also fenced, and done European martial arts (both authentic and otherwise), and studied a little bit of kenjutsu (and some karate, judo, and tae kwon do, although not enough to call myself 'skilled' at any of them), plus I've had three different jobs that included regular hand-to-hand training, and have had to apply it on the job more than I care to remember (more in my few months as a bouncer than in the rest of my jobs combined.) You don't close unless you have to, and you don't let your opponent close unless you have to, unless you think you have an advantage that will allow you to win quickly. Until you feel like you have that advantage, you stay out of reach of your opponent's weapon, save for what you need to try to control it, and you don't let them change that by maneuvering - if they're trying to close on you, they feel that they have an advantage, and you act to deny them that by staying out of their reach unless you see them make a mistake. Yes, sometimes it does become a clutching, shoving mess, but that's the exception, not the rule when the fighters are skilled.

Not a graceful ballet, but not a constant grapple, either.

Now, if we're actually talking about grappling, I'd agree that there is very little room to choose a target, and yeah - traditional European swordsmanship does include a fair amount of grappling. But that is very rarely, if ever, what is being represented in a game when two characters are swinging knives/swords/chairs/wrenches at each other.

And anyone with combat training with a firearm is going to know how to hit a moving target, and how to wait for a clear shot. Which they have most of the time unless they're end-on to the confrontation.

But beyond that, yeah - I'd have to agree to disagree.

[baelthazar]

Not to be too, Nerdy, but I am going to bring my real-life Medieval expertise into this. When it comes to actual bows and crossbows, your men don't often use them in close-quarters combat strictly because you can't "wait until you have a clear shot." Unlike a gun, it takes time to line up the shot and fire and there are too many variables like sudden unexpected movements and wind speed.

If you have your archers fire at pitched battles, you have to be comfortable with collateral damage. Sometimes, leaders are (although the more interesting example is when the French sent the Genoese crossbowmen forward then, after the crossbowmen fired and were engaged, they did a cavalry charge right into both the enemy and the Genoese, with no worry about who got hurt).

Now you could make the argument that fantasy races, like elves, have preternatural abilities to aim (like slowed down "arrow time" in a game).

[Blackhawk]

Pitched battles are another matter entirely. If you are firing into ranked troops, 50/50 is reasonable.

I was into archery for about five years (sadly, the damage to my shoulder from my cancer surgery has made it impossible for me to ever draw a bow again.) You can only hold a draw for so long, especially with historical bows. But even then, in the situations replicated by RPG or skirmish combat, where you are talking about ranges that rarely exceed 25 yards, and two or three combatants, you should still be able to have some say in which one gets hit. Not zero risk, ever, but not 50/50.

[baelthazar]

From a game design standpoint, it is probably about balance. This way you don't always tank a creature and lock them down then use your ranged combat to deal the damage. It may be "gamey" but in games where close combat locks down movement, this prevents exploiting the system.

And yes, historical bows, depending on the type, don't allow you to hold your draw to aim at close quarters long. The English Longbows required around 80-120 lbs of draw, which is a lot. Mongol, Magyar, and Avar style short bows, however, are a different story. They could fire those while riding on horses, and they often fired them at close quarter combatants.

Crossbows are another matter, although collateral damage was expected. After all, Richard the Lionheart was killed by a teenage with a crossbow.

[Blackhawk]

Better than what happened to Henry II of France!

[hepcat]

Henry II of France died from a wound he got in a jousting tournament, not a ranged attack. Unless I'm missing some context here?

[baelthazar]

Henry II of France died from a wound he got in a jousting tournament, not a ranged attack. Unless I'm missing some context here?

Yes, he did. But it was a broken lance tip right in the eye. Although, technically, they both died of sepsis.

[Smoove_B]

Sounds like they both rolled a 1 on a d20 and someone was consulting a critical fail table.

[baelthazar]

Sounds like they both rolled a 1 on a d20 and someone was consulting a critical fail table.

Well, the boy who fired the crossbow at Richard got a nat 20, at any rate. He really did want to kill the king for killing a family member. Richard even pardoned him.

[hepcat]

Henry II of France died from a wound he got in a jousting tournament, not a ranged attack. Unless I'm missing some context here?

Yes, he did. But it was a broken lance tip right in the eye. Although, technically, they both died of sepsis.

I'm convinced everyone pre-1900s died of either sepsis or syphilis.

[Blackhawk]

Henry II of France died from a wound he got in a jousting tournament, not a ranged attack. Unless I'm missing some context here?

In 'absurd and embarrassing ways to go for medieval royalty', he wins.

[Blackhawk]

Sounds like they both rolled a 1 on a d20 and someone was consulting a critical fail table.

Then someone has been playing old school. About 10 years ago a reenactor died exactly the same way - lance splinter in the eyeslit - while filming for Time Team.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm convinced everyone pre-1900s died of either sepsis or syphilis.

Porque no los dos? Sepsyphilis!

[hepcat]

That's tr.....wait a minute...did you just call me porque!?!? I'M BIG BONED, DAMN IT!

[Blackhawk]

Sounds like they both rolled a 1 on a d20 and someone was consulting a critical fail table.

Then someone has been playing old school. About 10 years ago a reenactor died exactly the same way - lance splinter in the eyeslit - while filming for Time Team.

Ah, here's a Reuters link.

[Isgrimnur]

That's tr.....wait a minute...did you just call me porque!?!? I'M BIG BONED, DAMN IT!

Piggy

[hepcat]

Coincidentally, I wanna see that movie. It's getting rave reviews. But it's definitely not for everyone.

[Blackhawk]

That's tr.....wait a minute...did you just call me porque!?!? I'M BIG BONED, DAMN IT!

Now I know why you don't want people shooting into close combat!

[hepcat]

Because I don't understand Spanish?

[Blackhawk]

Characters with Big Boned use a Large base, which means that they get extra dice assigned when determining random targets.

Fat characters, of course, do not. That would just be mean.

[hepcat]

porque?

[Blackhawk]

Didn't work. I am well aware that I am big boned AND fat.

[hepcat]

[baelthazar]

Didn't work. I am well aware that I am big boned AND fat.

Being of delicate frame and constitution, I always wondered how people made their bones bigger.

[Isgrimnur]

PRACTICE!

[Blackhawk]

I always wondered how people made their bones bigger.

Spoiler:

[baelthazar]

I always wondered how people made their bones bigger.

Spoiler:

THAT'S NOT MY BAG BABY!

[hepcat]

It doesn’t go over your bag.

[Blackhawk]

Don't kink shame.

[baelthazar]

Don't kink shame.

Unless your kink is to be shamed.

[Isgrimnur]

Don't kink shame.

Unless your kink is to be shamed.

Explicit consent by all parties is required.

[hepcat]

porque?

[Blackhawk]

That's all folks!