Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is "Embattled", really?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    I think the main thing here is that while the idea of moving without disengaging works out fairly well while dealing with only two opponents in a functionally white room - the scenery being meaningless outside of stunts - it stops working well when there is some third point involved. Your two swordsmen fighting, if one is following as the other moves, are changing the distance they are from the archer shooting at one of them, unless he is also supposedly moving as the two swordsmen move. It's simple trigonometry. This gets further complicated if one of those points is realistically stationary, such as a tactically significant terrain feature. Put the archer in a guard tower and he can't realistically be moving to maintain his Long range from both swordsmen, therefore the two swordsmen can no longer be making significant motion in at least two directions.

    ​But fights in Exalted also rarely have just three combatants. Usually, you have the Circle, traditionally five individual characters, and the opposition, usually more than one character. Each of these characters are in different range bands relative to each other. A reflexive move action brings you nearer to more than one character and farther away from more than one character. If those characters aren't concentrated in two general knots, in order to preserve the tactical significance of ranged weapons embattled characters would often not be able to make any significant movement in any given direction. They would be rendered essentially stationary. Again, this is just basic trigonometry.

    If a character can move towards an objective without needing to take a Disengage, you are going to give an advantage to those characters who don't need to disengage. The Dawn Caste swordsman can keep fighting the Full Moon in melee, but he wants to get the Chosen of Archery dragged into the melee as well. This interpretation of disengage would be an obvious disadvantage to anyone trying to protect other characters or objectives by keeping opponents away from them.



    Masters of the Industrial Elements
    Upon the Rock of Tradition: The Memorial Exalted
    Ghosts: A Revision (2nd Edition)
    The Underworld (3rd Edition)
    ​From The Crucible: Crafting As A Struggle

    Comment


    • #47
      Sorry that I dropped out of this thread in the middle of the week; my new job was getting stressful so I couldn't afford to incur more stress from something ultimately unnecessary.


      CapitanTypo, you were responding to my scenario of a Water and Fire Aspect running through the desert until they both drew close enough to a river for the Storyteller to give it a set distance.

      Originally posted by CapitanTypo View Post
      Two people are in combat.
      The combat can move fairly freely around the landscape.
      If one person wants to move in a specific direction, then the other combatant can:
      - stay engaged in combat and move with them.
      - stand still and let them run away, ending the combat
      - use a gambit to grapple/trip/whatever and try to prevent movement

      If the person trying to move actually wants to leave combat and deny their oponent the choice of the actions above, then they have to use a disengage action.

      Isnt that about all there is to it?
      This is true, but I'm afraid I wasn't clear.

      In this scenario, the Water Aspect isn't seeking to use the river to escape, but to turn the tables in the fight. We know that at least one Water-aspected Brawl Charm makes use of existing bodies of water. The Fire Aspect had the tactical advantage in the hot and barren desert, but the Water Aspect would gain an advantage if she can reach the river.


      If the purpose of the Disengage action is merely to create distance from the opponent, that is fine. The Dodge-based action represents dodging and feinting enough to fool your opponent about where you intend to run, so that he goes one way and you go another. If this is what Disengage is about, then Vance's answers make sense and there is no logical wonkiness with how the rules represent the reality.

      But if that's all the Disengage does, then your embattling opponents can move Reflexively when you do, and you can move Reflexive when they do, such that both sides can range around the world freely without managing to create any distance between each other.



      But if the purpose of Disengage is to leave a range band that your opponent doesn't want you to leave, then there are some cases where a battle CANNOT range all over the city or desert. And these cases come up the moment that someone edits the scene by supposing the existence of some tactically advantageous feature, device, or character.

      Running all over the city, fighting bare-handed? As soon as you spot a weapon-seller you can steal from, suddenly the rules change and you cannot move unless you can also create distance from your opponent.

      Running through the forest? As soon as you spot a cliff's sheer drop that you can either use to leap to safety OR as something to Smash your opponent over, suddenly the rules change.


      Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

      My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Kyeudo View Post
        I think the main thing here is that while the idea of moving without disengaging works out fairly well while dealing with only two opponents in a functionally white room - the scenery being meaningless outside of stunts - it stops working well when there is some third point involved. Your two swordsmen fighting, if one is following as the other moves, are changing the distance they are from the archer shooting at one of them, unless he is also supposedly moving as the two swordsmen move. It's simple trigonometry. This gets further complicated if one of those points is realistically stationary, such as a tactically significant terrain feature. Put the archer in a guard tower and he can't realistically be moving to maintain his Long range from both swordsmen, therefore the two swordsmen can no longer be making significant motion in at least two directions.

        ​But fights in Exalted also rarely have just three combatants. Usually, you have the Circle, traditionally five individual characters, and the opposition, usually more than one character. Each of these characters are in different range bands relative to each other. A reflexive move action brings you nearer to more than one character and farther away from more than one character. If those characters aren't concentrated in two general knots, in order to preserve the tactical significance of ranged weapons embattled characters would often not be able to make any significant movement in any given direction. They would be rendered essentially stationary. Again, this is just basic trigonometry.

        If a character can move towards an objective without needing to take a Disengage, you are going to give an advantage to those characters who don't need to disengage. The Dawn Caste swordsman can keep fighting the Full Moon in melee, but he wants to get the Chosen of Archery dragged into the melee as well. This interpretation of disengage would be an obvious disadvantage to anyone trying to protect other characters or objectives by keeping opponents away from them.
        All very true!

        And my concern is that Charms written with very specific justifications for working with or against the Disengage action would suddenly cease to work in this "two dudes running all over the city until some third tactical element is introduced" scenario.

        For example, let's suppose there might be an Earth-aspected Athletics Charm that supplements the reflexive Athletics-based check against a Disengage action.

        If the Disengage action is ALWAYS about Character A struggling to leave a range band that Character B doesn't want him to leave, then Character B can use this Earth-aspected Charm with the rationale that she's created a MASSIVE WALL OF ROCK that automatically beats any Dodge-based roll that Character A could make.

        This same Charm would be curiously inapplicable in a scenario where both swordsmen can run all over the place without a Disengage action.


        Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

        My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Klaek View Post
          Except the disengage action is not about moving when an opponent does not want you to move.
          Not move, Move with a capital letter. As in, the Move action, rather than the ability to move in general. The capitalization is important, because the Manipulation Attribute refers to something very specific that does not include such ideas as "the physical manipulation of objects".

          Likewise, the Move action is very specifically the ability to depart from your current range band, which is what being Embattled prevents without a successful Disengage action. An Embattled character is free to move around inside the current range band, which is why she can Disengage at all; but with her opponent cutting off all avenues of escape with quick thinking and fast footwork, she cannot leave her abstracted location.

          Yet she can move; in order to prevent her from moving at all, her opponent would need to grapple with her.


          Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

          My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

          Comment


          • #50
            If I get it, you point a flaw : Moves works well with 2 peoples, but if you add a landmark it goes weird and needs ST meddling.

            Stereotypical situation like "you SuperDawnWarrior cannot go retrieve your fallen weapon because you failed to disengage against WeakYetSignificantOpponent".

            The rules don't tell us HOW his Athletism prevent you from moving or what the consequences could be if you just ignored him.

            Yet disengage says (p198) that if you fail "there’s simply no opportunity for the character to safely escape his enemies".

            I'd say in such situation to represent the "I'm OK with Not Safe" use the ambush rule (get your defense to zero) + the opponent can use his reflexive Move out of his turn. (+/- one free attack?)

            Damn. I just got back to "attack of opportunity". I guess that is a question to ask the devs.


            French Exalt & ST & ToolMaker [Website]
            Advanced Character Generator Thread, Excel Version & LibreOffice Version
            Familiar Generator Thread & Libreoffice Version

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Refhi View Post
              If I get it, you point a flaw : Moves works well with 2 peoples, but if you add a landmark it goes weird and needs ST meddling.

              Stereotypical situation like "you SuperDawnWarrior cannot go retrieve your fallen weapon because you failed to disengage against WeakYetSignificantOpponent".

              The rules don't tell us HOW his Athletism prevent you from moving or what the consequences could be if you just ignored him.

              Yet disengage says (p198) that if you fail "there’s simply no opportunity for the character to safely escape his enemies".

              I'd say in such situation to represent the "I'm OK with Not Safe" use the ambush rule (get your defense to zero) + the opponent can use his reflexive Move out of his turn. (+/- one free attack?)

              Damn. I just got back to "attack of opportunity". I guess that is a question to ask the devs.
              Another option is to give free Initiative to the opponent. Turning your back to run from an opponent with a deadly weapon sounds like a great opener for a stronger Decisive attack.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                Not move, Move with a capital letter. As in, the Move action, rather than the ability to move in general. The capitalization is important, because the Manipulation Attribute refers to something very specific that does not include such ideas as "the physical manipulation of objects".

                Likewise, the Move action is very specifically the ability to depart from your current range band, which is what being Embattled prevents without a successful Disengage action. An Embattled character is free to move around inside the current range band, which is why she can Disengage at all; but with her opponent cutting off all avenues of escape with quick thinking and fast footwork, she cannot leave her abstracted location.

                Yet she can move; in order to prevent her from moving at all, her opponent would need to grapple with her.

                "Your current range band" is not some physical location on a grid to move out of. Range bands are is an abstraction of general distance between combatants. The assorted movement actions, including move and disengage are about changing that distance. A move action changes your range band relative to one actor, and may or may not change your distance to other actors.

                A failure to disengage is a failure to change the relative distance between you and your opponents. It is not a failure to leave some designated grid position. If a move action is not dramatically changing your position relative to the combatants you are embattled with, you can use it.

                Now what can be considered a reasonable move in the circumstance of not breaking close range would be reasonably up to ST discretion. Turning and running to move from long range to medium range of a distant archer certainly would be inappropriate. But taking a few steps to move towards the tree at short range for cover.

                One thing I would like to see in the system is a representation of how the superior fighter can direct the flow of movement. This can be dramatically described with initiative and stunts when there are no significant land marks around. However when there are landmarks around it becomes you moving the other person.





                Comment


                • #53
                  Unless there some sort of official ruling on this whole thing I'm just going to end up eyeballing it as the ST. I'm thinking I'm probably going to let it be decided on who has higher initiative unless there's a real common sense reason not to.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                    If the purpose of the Disengage action is merely to create distance from the opponent, that is fine. The Dodge-based action represents dodging and feinting enough to fool your opponent about where you intend to run, so that he goes one way and you go another. If this is what Disengage is about, then Vance's answers make sense and there is no logical wonkiness with how the rules represent the reality.
                    Here's where you have a major problem

                    The rules don't represent reality. They never have, nor were they ever intended to, and any attempt to relate the rules to any concept of 'reality' is a pointless endeavour.

                    The rules (more so in 3E than any previous edition) are meant to reflect the conventions of action movies and anime, especially in fight scenes.

                    The whole 'embattled/disengage' concept that results in characters using their reflexive move action every turn to take the fight across the landscape is not meant to represent the reality of having someone tied up in combat, but rather the melodramatic approach to combat that sees two samurai running through a bamboo forest, unable to turn their backs on each other, or the martial arts masters who leap from tree-top to -tree-top, leaving the concerns of the mortal army far below.

                    Of course they don't make sense in reality. They're not supposed to.




                    Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                    But if that's all the Disengage does, then your embattling opponents can move Reflexively when you do, and you can move Reflexive when they do, such that both sides can range around the world freely without managing to create any distance between each other.

                    But if the purpose of Disengage is to leave a range band that your opponent doesn't want you to leave, then there are some cases where a battle CANNOT range all over the city or desert. And these cases come up the moment that someone edits the scene by supposing the existence of some tactically advantageous feature, device, or character.

                    Running all over the city, fighting bare-handed? As soon as you spot a weapon-seller you can steal from, suddenly the rules change and you cannot move unless you can also create distance from your opponent.

                    Running through the forest? As soon as you spot a cliff's sheer drop that you can either use to leap to safety OR as something to Smash your opponent over, suddenly the rules change.
                    None of these scenarios change the way the situation works.

                    Picking up a weapon doesn't change the fact you're in combat with a foe - it just means they now have a sword and the nature of the fight changes. Jumping off a cliff doesn't change the fact you're in combat with a foe, it just means that instead of fighting on a cliff top you're now fighting in the water below.

                    Ultimately, if you try to move in combat then you give a choice to your opponent. Do they follow or not?

                    The brawler, chasing his target around the city, see's her pick up a blade. The brawler now tries a disengage action to flee back over the rooftops, but failing the action, the person with a sword is able to follow and the fight continues.

                    Fighting in the forest, one person sees a cliff and leaps for freedom. Their foe has a choice - jump and follow, and thus remain in combat, or let them go. The choice belongs to the opponent. If the person leaping from the cliff did so to try and escape, they would have to perform a disengage action which, if successful, takes the choices away from the other fighter. Itf it fails, the foe gets the choice of action.


                    Visit me at Tales of Grey - my RPG Game-Master's blog.

                    "If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy, I could have won" - I gave you all, Mumford & Sons

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by CapitanTypo View Post
                      The rules don't represent reality. They never have
                      Can you point to another case where the rules suddenly and radically change the kind of actions they are supposed to represent?


                      Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

                      My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sunder the Gold View Post
                        Can you point to another case where the rules suddenly and radically change the kind of actions they are supposed to represent?

                        Every single roleplaying game I've ever played. You need to read the rest of that section and not take a quote out of context.


                        Visit me at Tales of Grey - my RPG Game-Master's blog.

                        "If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy, I could have won" - I gave you all, Mumford & Sons

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          To clarify, rules in RPGs don't represent reality - the rule define the kind of actions permitted within a genre-framed narrative world. Totally different propositions.


                          Visit me at Tales of Grey - my RPG Game-Master's blog.

                          "If only I had an enemy bigger than my apathy, I could have won" - I gave you all, Mumford & Sons

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by CapitanTypo View Post

                            ...
                            The brawler, chasing his target around the city, see's her pick up a blade. The brawler now tries a disengage action to flee back over the rooftops, but failing the action, the person with a sword is able to follow and the fight continues.

                            Fighting in the forest, one person sees a cliff and leaps for freedom. Their foe has a choice - jump and follow, and thus remain in combat, or let them go. The choice belongs to the opponent. If the person leaping from the cliff did so to try and escape, they would have to perform a disengage action which, if successful, takes the choices away from the other fighter. Itf it fails, the foe gets the choice of action.
                            It would be fine if it was clearly established that it was to be handled like this. But many people argue that no, if the brawler fails the disengage he somehow just can't get back to the roof top because of something the swordsman did that is covered by a Dex+Ath pool, instead of him being able to keep up with the brawler (which that ool reflects pretty neatly).

                            I think that it boils down to what narrative is given to the enemies' "contest the disengage" choice. In some cases there is narrative sense in footwork and cornering to keep someone from something. In other cases it should mean they are chasing and willing to follow.

                            What is being discussed is battlefield control through movement and it's restriction.

                            Should a disengage contest victory be enough to keep that water aspect from the river? He is not trying get distance between him and the fire aspect, he is just trying to reach another point in the scenery. Can the fire aspect stay put and somehow anchor the water apsect with no "real" action of his own, or the disengage contest simply mean he can follow the water aspect to the riverside?

                            EDIT: Also I like Therian 's suggestion that it could be linked to Initiative. If the person trying to disengage has higher Initiative then it means the contesters must follow, instead of cornering him. Still doesn't solve the "brute force, don't care what you do to me", but feels like a step in the right direction.
                            Last edited by TGUEIROS; 08-20-2017, 09:28 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by TGUEIROS View Post
                              It would be fine if it was clearly established that it was to be handled like this. But many people argue that no, if the brawler fails the disengage he somehow just can't get back to the roof top because of something the swordsman did that is covered by a Dex+Ath pool, instead of him being able to keep up with the brawler (which that pool reflects pretty neatly).
                              The Dex+Ath pool could reflect the swordsman sprinting and maneuvering so that he always stands between the brawler and whatever path he might take to get back up on the roof. Which makes perfect sense.

                              It doesn't make sense if the brawler is the size of an ox. Merits can cover that, though.

                              Just for a man and an ox having an exclusive running duel, where neither side is looking to Disengage, any difference in size, weight, or strength doesn't matter at all.

                              (As for a man bulldozing through another man who is trying to cut off his escape, the bulldozing would be represented by attempting a Smashing attack or a grapple gambit that transitions into a Restrain or Throw maneuver, followed by a Move action.)


                              I think that it boils down to what narrative is given to the enemies' "contest the disengage" choice. In some cases there is narrative sense in footwork and cornering to keep someone from something. In other cases it should mean they are chasing and willing to follow.
                              Outside of the exclusive running duel where no one needs to Disengage to change scenery, I don't see where the narrative of "Embattling = chasing and willing to follow" applies.

                              Again, two opponents of equal size can physically interpose themselves to cut off escape. An opponent of significantly greater size can be granted a Merit representing their ability to reflexively Disengage from significantly smaller opponents.


                              What is being discussed is battlefield control through movement and it's restriction.

                              Should a disengage contest victory be enough to keep that water aspect from the river? He is not trying get distance between him and the fire aspect, he is just trying to reach another point in the scenery. Can the fire aspect stay put and somehow anchor the water apsect with no "real" action of his own, or the disengage contest simply mean he can follow the water aspect to the riverside?
                              EXACTLY.

                              Still, I acknowledge that the exclusive running duel is the weird exception to the rule system that probably only happens when the two players and the storyteller (or the storyteller and the player in question) agree to such a thing. It's an edge case scenario that Storytellers bring upon themselves. So, they can deal with the funkiness that results.
                              Last edited by Sunder the Gold; 08-20-2017, 10:20 AM.


                              Formerly Inugami, formerly Tornado Wolf.

                              My RWBY Blog on Tumblr: Semblances, Kingdoms, Grimm, and more!

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Sunder the Gold

                                My point has little to do with the "running duel narrative". It has to do with movement without the stated intention of the disengage action, that is to put distance between you and your enemies in Close Range.

                                The more I think about it the more I feel that disengaging should only be used to get an extra free move away from the opponent, not be a test to be able to move away at all.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X