Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grendel_Khan" data-source="post: 8680673" data-attributes="member: 7028554">Since FitD is all about PC decisions, you need to be clear about the threat here. So saying that the toughs are flexing isn't necessarily enough. You should really let the PCs know that they'll have to go through them. The PCs then decide if they want to try some sort of diplomacy, or are going to attack.Now if the threat of the toughs has been clearly established, and the PCs start loading up anyway, you could have combat start with one or more of the toughs inflicting some sort of consequence before the PCs can react. In that case, someone would have to do a Restistance roll to avoid or reduce that consequence. In other words, initiative is more of a situation thing. In a straight-forward fight, you basically thinking of it as everyone is acting at once, and the actions the PCs take and the rolls they make (and other decisions, like using abilities, making resistance rolls, taking Devil's Bargains) might determine whether they take damage or don't. In a sense that's kind of a baked-in initiative roll—maybe the PC succeeded at an action that means they took the NPC down first. But if it's a more of an all-out melee scrum, and the PC is just wailing on dudes, then no degree of success will mean they come out unscathed. The best they can do is take out, push back—or whatever they said they wanted to do—as many enemies as possible while getting roughed up.But if the PC(s) decide to ambush someone, that's its own action, right? And success on that roll might mean attacking someone without taking damage in return. Likewise, being ambushed means only a Resistance roll or similar will help the PC(s) respond.Which is a long-winded way of saying that the fiction and the PCs' actions determine what we'd think of as initiative rolls in other games.As to the order of events, there's definitely some flexibility there, and to be honest I feel a little out of my depth giving advice about resolving two groups of opponents in a straightahead FitD melee situation. But the way I'd do it is to figure out the position, effect, etc. for the first player who pipes up with a proposed action ("I want to tackle the deserter to the ground!"), give space for others to say whether they're assisting that effort—provided it makes sense in the fiction that they can even react, if it was a surprising move—and probably go around the table to ask what everyone is doing, before starting in with the rolls and results. I think the exact order of what and when to resolve is flexible.But...I also think a lot of straightforward, evenly matched melee combats in FitD maybe aren't that interesting. As with other situations, ideally it's about the stakes, and the PCs' goal. Is it just about killing these toughs? Or is it about taking them down nonlethally, to avoid alienating the townspeople and creating more enemies? Is it about challenging the deserter to a "fair" fistfight to settle things? The flexibility of the system and the overall approach mean you can avoid defaulting to combat, the way we would in a lot of trad games, and have a wider range of narrative options and outcomes. Combat can still happen, and maybe even more times per session than in a trad game (since it's quicker to resolve), but it can be more of a narrative tool—fighting through a horde to get somewhere or to get away, for example. For this kind of scene, I'd focus on what's really at stake, which is probably more interesting than whether soldiers can murder some local tough guys. To me it's more about how the PCs want to deal with the town as a whole, whether that's earning their respect and trust, or striking abject fear into them, or whatever else they decide to try.</blockquote>

Verification