Successful Test Run of Alternate LWM Combat Rules

[Keystonegamingsociety]

I just ran a group today thought the LWM adventure found in S&P #88 - Radak's Revenge. Nobody in the group had played any Lone Wolf RPG material before and it went quite well. Everyone had a very good time and combat ran very smoothly under these alternate rules:

1) All characters (heroes and villains) acted independently in combat. Both rolled for damage in combat order. All rolls both dealt and received damage. This went very smoothly with no problems. Villains calculated combat ratio just like a hero would.

2) Enemies of a particular character class were fleshed out a bit more than the adventure called for - Cener Druid actually had disciplines, etc.

3) BIG CHANGE: I used an alternate combat results table - one that seemed to be much less deadly and not as inclined to assist the attacker but still balanced. I'll see if I can't post it here: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B2uzbA3nvbs6YmU3ZmE2ODUtMjIzMC00NDE0LTkxOTYtNGU0YTg2Mzg2Y2Zi&hl=en

Try this rules out yourself and see how they work. For me they worked wonderfully and made a lot more sense than how they are written originally.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

I forgot to give the details on the alternate combat results table in case you wanted to check it out:

I took off all "K" (kill) results.
I generally lowered the damage results as an overall trend.
I balanced the damage given and received between attacker and defender.
I add damage progression follow this order for every number increase in a column: First increase, add one point of damage, second increase, lower damage to attacker by one..... repeat to the end of column
EX: 0 - deal 5, take 4
1 - deal 6, take 4
2 - deal 6, take 3
I put ZERO first on the combat table, not last
I gave a slight bump up to damage results with a 9.
I gave a slight bump down to damage results with a 0.
I replaced "LW" with "A" for "attacker" and "E" with "D" for "defender"

Check it out and let me know what you think.

 

[Zager Krahl]

I just ran a group today thought the LWM adventure found in S&P #88 - Radak's Revenge. Nobody in the group had played any Lone Wolf RPG material before and it went quite well. Everyone had a very good time and combat ran very smoothly under these alternate rules:

1) All characters (heroes and villains) acted independently in combat. Both rolled for damage in combat order. All rolls both dealt and received damage. This went very smoothly with no problems. Villains calculated combat ratio just like a hero would.

2) Enemies of a particular character class were fleshed out a bit more than the adventure called for - Cener Druid actually had disciplines, etc.

3) BIG CHANGE: I used an alternate combat results table - one that seemed to be much less deadly and not as inclined to assist the attacker but still balanced. I'll see if I can't post it here: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B2uzbA3nvbs6YmU3ZmE2ODUtMjIzMC00NDE0LTkxOTYtNGU0YTg2Mzg2Y2Zi&hl=en

Try this rules out yourself and see how they work. For me they worked wonderfully and made a lot more sense than how they are written originally.

What is the point of this? Honestly?

Points 1) and 3) are re-inventing the wheel - you give NPC's attacks, but then water down the Combat Table as well. The original Combat Table took care of this more than adequately.

Point 2) should be noted that the Cener Druid class had been published in S&P 81/82, and those disciplines could have been used. Creating your own disciplines for the class would have been unnecessary.

I hate to sound like I'm losing my cool here, but I'm getting the distinct impression that you are wilfully misinterpreting most of the rules.

...which I find both annoying and funny, given that these books were written for a Young Adult market segment, who have been playing these books without issue for 25 years.

 

[beowuuf]

@Zager: They are alternate rules, and he's playtested them - quite within his rights, and he can even share them. Probabably best to let the thread alone instead of giving poor Mongoose people lots of negativity to wade through!


I would point out though, that every single tweak made does highlight why we interpret the actual rules as we do. Do enemies get to move and trigger combat rolls? It seems so, and yet there are core problems that can arise (never ending streams of creatures attackign and dying against high CS characters) that simply restricting to players choosing whom they take on resolves. I'm still o nthe fence, but see the logic of player only choice.

After all, narratively a GM can enforce certain players being in certain areas with limited options if they need to.

Enemies don't need to be autonamous to such a degree they do the same damage as players. And players don't need to be restricted to one sword thrust per round of combat. Enemies last one combat, unless they are special. One combat. Players must last for multiple adventures. A GM fights a war of attrition to ensure that poor decisions and not poor rolls determine their character's death. He doens't try to kill off players qith equivalent enemies each game, and doens't have to drag on a combat longer than it needs to.

I'm glad you have a good group and the rules work for you, but the idea is that new players more comfortable with storytelling and the LW gamebooks get to play. The more the game slits in to the imersion breaking 'and now enemy a moves, now enemy b moves, now you move' the better. D&D and other games need it, LW can be interpretted to work very fast, in a very player friendly way that keeps them engaged by keepign the player's character front and centre.

That's my thoguhts afetr goign back and forward over it.

I'm still trying to play the RAW to get a feel for them. If I'm doing any PvP stuff, I might look at these normalised rules to take the lethality out of combat.

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

Thank you both for your replies...

Zager - I didn't WRITE disciplines for the Cener Druid... I actually fleshed out the characters in the adventure using the material published in S&P. As the adventure is published it doesn't give any NPCs disciplines (there are four noteworthy ones in that adventure - an adventuress, two knights, and the druid.)

My "modification" was simply to make the NPCs more fully fleshed out like real characters would be.

And, dude, just because the rules are written that way doesn't make it the BEST way. My rules modifications don't complicate combat in the slightest - in fact, the CLARIFY combat.

The combat results table I brewed up is balanced and avoids attacker-friendly results like the original table has. If you're going to have villians attack you either need a completely alternate villain table or a balanced one everyone can use.

The balanced one works because if the hero is at +6 the enemy rolls at -6 - hence, even when attacking the lower CS character still usually takes more damage.

Zager - Here's my challenge to you... get five other guys together and run the entire Radak's Revenge scenario exactly as the rules say to do it and exactly as the adventure is written. Let me know how that goes for you.



Beowolf, you're a fair minded dude who considers the facts. You recognize that as written the combat system is far from perfect and no matter what requires some tweeks to make the system actually playable let alone resolve simple combat scenarios that occur in every session. Thanks for your reasonable tone, man.



All I was looking for when I started this was rules clarifications which apparently don't exist in a manner that makes sense.

I'm satisfied with my homebrews and I am happy if I've caused folks to think a little deeper about the rules and try to apply some common sense patches.

 

[beowuuf]

Don't take my reasonable tone for acceptance of you saying the core system is broken though! I was saying all your tweaking points out why we were using a basically untweaked version, though every GM does put some little part in.

An example would be welcome to see how it is supposed to work. But as written, it basically works.

 

[Zager Krahl]

KS, the problem with your entire approach is that you are trying to re-write everything to suit your point of view - without appreciating why things ARE THE WAY THE ARE.

Look at the gamebooks, where all of this started:
- when Lone Wolf attacks an enemy with the same CS, who deals the most damage?
- when Lone Wolf attacks for that one round, does the damage on the Damage Table represent only his attack, or the net result of the entire round of combat between him and the target?
- if Lone Wolf had only a 50% chance of surviving against an opponent with the same CS, how likely would he have been to survive any of those books? (do the math here if it helps)

 

[Keystonegamingsociety]

KS, the problem with your entire approach is that you are trying to re-write everything to suit your point of view - without appreciating why things ARE THE WAY THE ARE.

Look at the gamebooks, where all of this started:
- when Lone Wolf attacks an enemy with the same CS, who deals the most damage?
- when Lone Wolf attacks for that one round, does the damage on the Damage Table represent only his attack, or the net result of the entire round of combat between him and the target?
- if Lone Wolf had only a 50% chance of surviving against an opponent with the same CS, how likely would he have been to survive any of those books? (do the math here if it helps)

Sorry, man. Wrong. I agree that the CRT is bent towards LWs favor which is a problem. I'm not trying to change all of the rules - just have them make sense. To do that, you need a balanced CRT. I think we can all agree that one on one combat is simple and straight forward like in the books. It is multiplayer combat that breaks this system wide open.

As for the 50% chance of surviving, have you actually PLAYED this system? Because I've got to tell you that disciplines increase the PCs survival rate GREATLY. Multiple characters have MULTIPLIERS to their damage. And, in general, PCs have higher CSs than NPCs. It's the truth!

Even on a balanced CRT, player advantage is still alive and well, my friend.

 

[Zager Krahl]

Sorry, man. Wrong. I agree that the CRT is bent towards LWs favor which is a problem.

Why? It has been this way for 25 years - and it has been this way for 25 years because the author of the game wants it that way.

I'm not trying to change all of the rules - just have them make sense. To do that, you need a balanced CRT.

Why? It has been this way for 25 years - and it has been this way for 25 years because the author of the game wants it that way.

As for the 50% chance of surviving, have you actually PLAYED this system? Because I've got to tell you that disciplines increase the PCs survival rate GREATLY. Multiple characters have MULTIPLIERS to their damage. And, in general, PCs have higher CSs than NPCs. It's the truth!

...which was exactly what I hoped you would cotton on to. The game mechanics favour the players. That is why, with a Combat Ratio of zero, the player will still do more damage than the NPC in most cases.

Why? It has been this way for 25 years - and it has been this way for 25 years because the author of the game wants it that way.

Even on a balanced CRT, player advantage is still alive and well, my friend.

Glad you noticed.

Why? It has been this way for 25 years - and it has been this way for 25 years because the author of the game wants it that way.

 

[Random Code]

Keystone, the CRT favours the PCs - its that type of game. If you run a combat-centric game it is needed as the PCs are exposed to more risk (read damage) than any of their opponents. What I mean by this is that the PCs are involved in every combat that the GM runs, opponents are involved in (on average) one combat as they will be defeated in their first combat.

I think you need to review your design goals. It may be easier just to run LW with another system rather than shoehorn the one in the book to fit as I don't think you're aligned with it. Which is fine; a game system can't possibly meet everyone's requirements.

 

[Zager Krahl]

If he still does not get it, we should get Dever in here to explain it to him.

 

[Random Code]

If he still does not get it, we should get Dever in here to explain it to him.

If he's happy with his house rules though, then let the guy get on with it. Personally, I'd just use another system that better supported my RPing system requirements but houseruling/rewriting game systems has existed since RPGing Year 0.

I think Keystone needs to accept criticism if he's going to post rules here and others need to accept him using them, even if some of us believe he's not grasping the original rules and their purpose.

 

[Zager Krahl]

I'm fine with him using whatever system he wants - but when he comes in here and starts complaining about how broken the system is, and has been right from the start... It rankles.

 

[Random Code]

Yeah, I know. Maybe give the fella a break?

He's just joined the forum and he obviously thinks he's onto something (ie, straight into posting fixes, etc). He's not necessarily wrong in what he's trying to do (ie, clean up the rules/combat), but he's gone a lot/little too far for some people's tastes and his language comes across as a bit "this is fact, use it!" in a fair few places.

Like that's never happened on the interweb before! :wink:

I don't agree with how far he's gone but I do agree with where he's coming from. There are no decent combat examples clarifying complex encounters, but encounters that nevertheless are pretty common in multi-PC RPGs. I think the rules should have been built up more in the new LW books to describe combat rounds and actions/movement within those rounds because the game isn't about solo play like the books. Personally, I think Keystone's re-write has gone too far but I can understand where his motivation comes from. I think he's also after different things in a system than the LW rules are built for.

I dunno, Zager... Maybe you both need to reign in your tone but as the senior of the two on this forum, and someone that has written up some great classes, I reckon the ball's in your court to keep your cool and offer advice in a constructive way. I'm sure Keystone will follow suit, and if not, just ignore his posts!

Hope that helps to diffuse things and wasn't too 'fatherlike' or condescending! I didn't mean it to be and if it was, apologies, and I'll step away from this.

EDIT: We were both a bit tough on 'Pneumonica' when he posted his thief class than I think we needed to be so I think we need to improve on how welcoming we are!

 

[Zager Krahl]

Ever heard the saying "Don't p*ss on my battery and tell me it's raining"?

But yes, this issue is not worth it. We were all misguided at some point.

 

[August1]

I agree with Random completely on this. This got way too heated way too fast. I absolutely agree with Keystone's right to post as he feels and I definitely applaud him for his ingenuity. His alternate rules look quite interesting and for the tone of game he seems to want to run, they look really solid.

By the same token, Zager's got every right to be upset by what did seem to be very 'these rules are broken and her's a dozen reasons why and by the way, here's me fixing everything, see?'. It did seem confrontational (though again, the constructive manner of actually offering a solution instead of just complaining was appreciated).

Let's ease back, smile, be happy we are all gamers and move on from here.

Oh, and as a note, 'let's get Dever in here to explain it'? I probably would have gone with 'let's ask Mr. Dever to come and explain things' myself. Just a thought.

-August

 

[Zager Krahl]

All of this could have been avoided - in the past, and in the future - if Mongoose just did what everyone has been asking for: post some examples!

I will apologise for the severity of my reaction, but not for the points I made. I logged in after the weekend to suddenly find the forum cluttered by five or six "THIS IS ALL WRONG AND I HAVE THE ANSWERZ!" threads... And by the time I got to this one, my fuse had shortened beyond its usual length.

However, I will iterate this point again: if Mongoose does not provide a definitive voice in this argument by providing clear examples, the situation will NOT go away, and WILL be repeated in future.

And the more it gets repeated, and the more we have to try to explain by groping in the dark ourselves, the worse the tempers will get, and then... Well. Let's not point out the obvious problem down that route.

 

[Random Code]

Completely agree with both your posts above, guys. Well said.