Stances (opinions - question of balance)

LoganSaj · 03-26-2005, 09:40 AM

With the elimination of body language use in combat from 3/e, my group and I found that a certain color to the description of fights was lost. This idea is to promote the possibility of adding that color back into peudo-mechanics. The following is a simple concept as a foundation of such a reinvention:

Very passive (usually unaware of threat)
* ranged - weapon holstered, rifle/bow slung, etc.
* melee - weapon sheathed, etc.
* hand-to-hand - hands casual, footing relaxed, etc.

Passive (unaware of threat, but slightly cautious)
* ranged - hand on weapon, but still holstered, slung, etc.
* melee - hand on sheathed weapon, ready to drawn, etc.
* hand-to-hand - balanced shifted defensively, etc.

Neutral (cautious, aware of potential threat)
* ranged - weapon drawn but not raised or aimed, etc.
* melee - weapon unsheathed but relaxed, etc.
* hand-to-hand - hands free and open, footing shifted, etc.

Aggressive (aware of threat, ready to attack)
* ranged - weapon raised, finger aside trigger, aimed at ground or near threat, etc.
* melee - weapon raised and held between self and threat, etc.
* hand-to-hand - balance shifted, ready to strike, etc.

Very Aggressive (threatened, about to strike)
* ranged - gun drawn & aimed, finger on trigger, arrow drawn and aimed, etc.
* melee - weapon raised, balanced shifted to strick, etc.
* hand-to-hand - fist reared, footing shifted, etc.

This could, of course, be more intricate by adding more side effects to the stances, such as modifiers to feint, fast-draw, order of attack, reaction rolls or even attack and defense. For example, a trained warrior could take a very passive stance as a lure for attack, and launch a surprise strike. It could also be adjusted to "defensive" instead of passive.

Any thoughts?

Gudiomen · 03-26-2005, 01:24 PM

Interesting classifications. But I don't understand what you're supposed to use it for/with... I guess you could choose your stance, or the GM could choose it in an event to determine how alert you are... is that about it, or did you have something else in mind?
Oh, and none of these things would require a body sense roll, they're pretty obvious...

LoganSaj · 03-26-2005, 01:46 PM

I understand that they're obvious - but only if that is truly your intentions. That's why I said "For example, a trained warrior could take a very passive stance as a lure for attack, and launch a surprise strike."

The whole point is to come up with a way to replace the body language roll (not body sense ;) ) from 3/e, and to add a little more color to combat.

For simplicity, say for example, two completely indepenedent individuals meet for the first time in the wilderness by complete surprise. What do they do? The first thing is usually a reaction roll. And that roll could be affected by their posture/stance. For completely neutral persons with no reason to harm one another, that's pretty much it. BUT, what if one (unbeknownst to the other) was there to kill him. If he took an aggressive stance, the defender would be more likely to take action. What if the "assassin" took a very passive stance to lure him into a fatal handshake? This sort of thing could apply here. It could even apply to groups.

Obviously the whole thing is optional.

Ze'Manel Cunha · 03-26-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoganSaj

For simplicity, say for example, two completely indepenedent individuals meet for the first time in the wilderness by complete surprise. What do they do? The first thing is usually a reaction roll. And that roll could be affected by their posture/stance. For completely neutral persons with no reason to harm one another, that's pretty much it. BUT, what if one (unbeknownst to the other) was there to kill him. If he took an aggressive stance, the defender would be more likely to take action. What if the "assassin" took a very passive stance to lure him into a fatal handshake? This sort of thing could apply here. It could even apply to groups.

Obviously the whole thing is optional.

Have you ruled out the Evaluate Maneuver?
What don't you like about it? The lack of contest of skill?

LoganSaj · 03-26-2005, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Have you ruled out the Evaluate Maneuver?
What don't you like about it? The lack of contest of skill?

No, I didn't rule it out. I just didn't include it here. But it would certainly could be included. However, evaluate always gives the same effect - without any sort of situational modifiers, etc. This means that anyone, regardless of their "body language" level aggression, can receive the bonus. Also, do you automatically know if someone is "evaluating" you?

HeroPenguin · 03-28-2005, 01:42 AM

I would say that any character with any skill in any melee combat skill would automatically be able to sense an opponent Evaluating him as long as he could Evaluate them himself. Those with cinematic MA powers could sense when others were Evaluating him even if he couldn't see them (the classic "your murderous intent gave you away." situation).

I like the idea of stances. Have you considered making bonusses and penalties for various maneuvers while in these stances? For example, in a Very Passive stance, you would be at a penalty to all combat skills due to your being flat-footed (I don't have the book handy, but I'm sure this is in the rules, I just don't know the numbers), and in a Defensive stance, you would be at a bonus to retreat and to make and avoid feints, etc., and in an aggressive stance, you may be at an inverse penalty due to your advancing state, i.e. you're not paying attention to the subtleties of an opponent's movements as much as you're focussed on your own advance. I'm not entirely sure how to work something like this, particularly without turning it into another version of the differences between All-Out Attack, All-Out Defense, Wait, Attack, and the other normal maneuvers, but it seems like a really interesting concept for a martial arts-heavy campaign.

As an aside, I heard that in 3e, there was a "form familiarity" system, for opponents fighting enemies that were using unfamiliar martial arts styles. How did that work, exactley? Was it a simple familiarity attached to the appropriate combat skills, or was it more complicated?

Edit: I suppose it may be unecessary, but I figured I may as well note that two of my most marked interests in campaign concepts at the moment are Supers, and cinematic martial art theater ("kung-fu theater" is so limiting... XD), which don't necessarily have to be seperate things. I could imagine using a great number of martial arts options in a Supers campaign, particularly one with a Batman-style hero running around.

LoganSaj · 03-28-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeroPenguin

I like the idea of stances.

Thanx! Glad somebody does ... ;-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HeroPenguin

Have you considered making bonusses and penalties for various maneuvers while in these stances? For example ...

Yes, but I had not come up with any specifically, no. But it would certain stand to reason that there could be some pros/cons to doing so.

03-26-2005, 09:40 AM	#1
LoganSaj Fist-Wavin' Shatner Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: US - VA	Stances (opinions - question of balance) With the elimination of body language use in combat from 3/e, my group and I found that a certain color to the description of fights was lost. This idea is to promote the possibility of adding that color back into peudo-mechanics. The following is a simple concept as a foundation of such a reinvention: Very passive (usually unaware of threat) * ranged - weapon holstered, rifle/bow slung, etc. * melee - weapon sheathed, etc. * hand-to-hand - hands casual, footing relaxed, etc. Passive (unaware of threat, but slightly cautious) * ranged - hand on weapon, but still holstered, slung, etc. * melee - hand on sheathed weapon, ready to drawn, etc. * hand-to-hand - balanced shifted defensively, etc. Neutral (cautious, aware of potential threat) * ranged - weapon drawn but not raised or aimed, etc. * melee - weapon unsheathed but relaxed, etc. * hand-to-hand - hands free and open, footing shifted, etc. Aggressive (aware of threat, ready to attack) * ranged - weapon raised, finger aside trigger, aimed at ground or near threat, etc. * melee - weapon raised and held between self and threat, etc. * hand-to-hand - balance shifted, ready to strike, etc. Very Aggressive (threatened, about to strike) * ranged - gun drawn & aimed, finger on trigger, arrow drawn and aimed, etc. * melee - weapon raised, balanced shifted to strick, etc. * hand-to-hand - fist reared, footing shifted, etc. This could, of course, be more intricate by adding more side effects to the stances, such as modifiers to feint, fast-draw, order of attack, reaction rolls or even attack and defense. For example, a trained warrior could take a very passive stance as a lure for attack, and launch a surprise strike. It could also be adjusted to "defensive" instead of passive. Any thoughts? __________________ . "As always, your lightest touch commands obedience." Character: Senator Gracchus Actor: Derek Jacobi Movie: Gladiator

03-26-2005, 01:24 PM	#2
Gudiomen Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: in your pocket, stealing all your change	Re: Stances (opinions - question of balance) Interesting classifications. But I don't understand what you're supposed to use it for/with... I guess you could choose your stance, or the GM could choose it in an event to determine how alert you are... is that about it, or did you have something else in mind? Oh, and none of these things would require a body sense roll, they're pretty obvious...

03-26-2005, 01:46 PM	#3
LoganSaj Fist-Wavin' Shatner Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: US - VA	Re: Stances (opinions - question of balance) I understand that they're obvious - but only if that is truly your intentions. That's why I said "For example, a trained warrior could take a very passive stance as a lure for attack, and launch a surprise strike." The whole point is to come up with a way to replace the body language roll (not body sense ;) ) from 3/e, and to add a little more color to combat. For simplicity, say for example, two completely indepenedent individuals meet for the first time in the wilderness by complete surprise. What do they do? The first thing is usually a reaction roll. And that roll could be affected by their posture/stance. For completely neutral persons with no reason to harm one another, that's pretty much it. BUT, what if one (unbeknownst to the other) was there to kill him. If he took an aggressive stance, the defender would be more likely to take action. What if the "assassin" took a very passive stance to lure him into a fatal handshake? This sort of thing could apply here. It could even apply to groups. Obviously the whole thing is optional. __________________ . "As always, your lightest touch commands obedience." Character: Senator Gracchus Actor: Derek Jacobi Movie: Gladiator

03-28-2005, 01:42 AM	#6
HeroPenguin Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Union City, CA	Re: Stances (opinions - question of balance) I would say that any character with any skill in any melee combat skill would automatically be able to sense an opponent Evaluating him as long as he could Evaluate them himself. Those with cinematic MA powers could sense when others were Evaluating him even if he couldn't see them (the classic "your murderous intent gave you away." situation). I like the idea of stances. Have you considered making bonusses and penalties for various maneuvers while in these stances? For example, in a Very Passive stance, you would be at a penalty to all combat skills due to your being flat-footed (I don't have the book handy, but I'm sure this is in the rules, I just don't know the numbers), and in a Defensive stance, you would be at a bonus to retreat and to make and avoid feints, etc., and in an aggressive stance, you may be at an inverse penalty due to your advancing state, i.e. you're not paying attention to the subtleties of an opponent's movements as much as you're focussed on your own advance. I'm not entirely sure how to work something like this, particularly without turning it into another version of the differences between All-Out Attack, All-Out Defense, Wait, Attack, and the other normal maneuvers, but it seems like a really interesting concept for a martial arts-heavy campaign. As an aside, I heard that in 3e, there was a "form familiarity" system, for opponents fighting enemies that were using unfamiliar martial arts styles. How did that work, exactley? Was it a simple familiarity attached to the appropriate combat skills, or was it more complicated? Edit: I suppose it may be unecessary, but I figured I may as well note that two of my most marked interests in campaign concepts at the moment are Supers, and cinematic martial art theater ("kung-fu theater" is so limiting... XD), which don't necessarily have to be seperate things. I could imagine using a great number of martial arts options in a Supers campaign, particularly one with a Batman-style hero running around.