LWM combat question

[beowuuf]

I actually think of engaged as engaged. People throwing ranged attacks are unlikely to be in the main melee - unless, LW like, they are firing one shot before being attacked at the start of combat.

Those guys act in the battle order to fire in to melee, but if you are anywhere within swinging distance of a foe, you are going to be engaged or need to be engaging.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Actually, I believe you're wrong. When you attack with a ranged attack, you "target" you don't engage. Ranged attacks don't count toward Ganging Up... for example, four Giaks could be on one Kai Lord but that same Kai Lord could still be targeted with a ranged attack, only at the appropriate negative. The ranged attack would not receive any bonuses from ganging up.

Are you saying that once I've been attacked by a ranged combat I've got to evade combat to "disengage" before I'm able to attack any other character? I don't think that's the case.

Read my post above yours. Then read it again.

I'll make it simple: when the rules say all combatants have to be 'engaged', it means all combatants have to be doing SOMETHING.

A ranged attack is SOMETHING.
Casting a spell is SOMETHING.
Running for a better vantage point to shoot from is SOMETHING.
Jumping into a river to evade is SOMETHING.

Once again, I think you've read the rules wrong. I agree in principle that characters should be able to act freely in combat, hence, breaking the "engagement" rule. What goes for player characters should also apply to NPCs, right? Thus, the "all NPCs must engage in combat" rule interpretation is nullified.

Engaged doesn't mean "something." It means locked into melee combat.

Would you say that only four characters can fire an enemy at one other character? The rules state that only four characters can attack one character at a time. This only makes sense if they are engaged in melee combat.

What about a scenario where LW is attacked by four Giaks in melee combat - could arrows also be fired at him by more Giaks? Or is he already "engaged" to the max?

 

[Zager Krahl]

What goes for player characters should also apply to NPCs, right?

This is the crux of your entire misconception.

The LWMPGB system was designed around heroes. What applies to heroes does NOT apply to NPC cannon fodder. Play through some of the gamebooks and you might understand.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

What goes for player characters should also apply to NPCs, right?

This is the crux of your entire misconception.

The LWMPGB system was designed around heroes. What applies to heroes does NOT apply to NPC cannon fodder. Play through some of the gamebooks and you might understand.

Well, at least we finally understand one another. As for the gamebooks, got 'em all, read 'em, loved 'em. But LWM ain't the gamebooks. Play through some of the published LWM adventures and you might understand.

 

[Zager Krahl]

The LWM scenarios are centered around giving the players a chance to win - not about giving the NPC's a fair fight.

 

[Random Code]

Keystone, LW isn't the first RPG that has built its system unevenly to favour PCs as heroes. In many respects it reminds me of the Dragonlance SAGA system. In that game the GM (ie, opponents of the PCs) never actively took actions (ie, rolled dice or in that game's case played cards) against the PCs.

Players and their PCs were the active participants with respect to the mechanics of the system not the NPCs.

The above is a fundamental facet of the game's design and there's nothing wrong with it barring what could be solved with some official examples clarifying rule usage and maybe some houserules differentiating weapons and combat maneuvers a little more, maybe.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Keystone, LW isn't the first RPG that has built its system unevenly to favour PCs as heroes. In many respects it reminds me of the Dragonlance SAGA system. In that game the GM (ie, opponents of the PCs) never actively took actions (ie, rolled dice or in that game's case played cards) against the PCs.

Players and their PCs were the active participants with respect to the mechanics of the system not the NPCs.

The above is a fundamental facet of the game's design and there's nothing wrong with it barring what could be solved with some official examples clarifying rule usage and maybe some houserules differentiating weapons and combat maneuvers a little more, maybe.

Wow... so what was that again? I think even with houserules the system can still favor PCs. I'm not saying that everything should be an "even" fight between PCs and villains. I agree that official examples and tweaking the system could solve all of this.

 

[The Wolf]

The LWM scenarios are centered around giving the players a chance to win - not about giving the NPC's a fair fight.

They are indeed. They're created to offer a challenge that should ramp up as the scenario progresses, using the LWMPGB system as it stands and providing a series of encounters, combat or otherwise that allows the GM to tell a story.

The problem with many games, especially D&D is that it's based around hack and slash (unless you ramp up the XP for roleplaying), with PC's and NPC's all getting a turn at rolling the dice and having actions during a given round.

It's hard for a lot of people to break that mould and handle a game where the NPC's/Monsters/Cannon Fodder don't get a go themselves.

I'm not sure that Mongoose will come forwards with official examples, but I could be wrong since August is rather good at writing those kinds of things.

 

[Random Code]

Wow... so what was that again?

Pardon? Please explain this comment. Is it an attempt at snark or something else?