My responses to this topic are entirely my opinion, how I
would make judgement calls in my game. It's not
"official", any more than any other GM's opinion is
official. In other words, it is Law -- but only in games
I'm running.

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004, Adrian Price wrote:

> This reminded me of a question I had about handling
> missile combat where one side is attacking and the other
> only defending or trying not to be hit.
>
> How does this mesh with the standard FATE rules for
> weapons and armour? Normally you'd compare like with like,
> weapon with weapon and armour with armour. But if only one
> side is attacking, how is the attacker's armour relevant?
> As it stands if both guys are wearing kevlar they'd be no
> armour advantage, but if the attacker has kevlar and the
> defender none, the attacker gets a +1 bonus.

I tend to consider armor relevant only in mutually
attacking circumstances, so I just wouldn't add it in in
such a case. I could probably be convinced to consider the
armor situation for a guy who was solely defending, if
applicable.

One thing to remember about the superiorities notion is
that it can change from exchange to exchange. The choices
you make and the circumstances you're in change from
exchange to exchange, after all, and those affect what
superiorities can be claimed (this is why the swordfighter
gets his superior weapon advantage right up to the point
where he gets lured into the cramped alleyway by the
knife-fighter).

If the armor thing doesn't sit right with you, I recommend
taking it out of the superiorities notion and blending in
other notions as you like. In the developmental run of
Fate (let's call it Fate 0.0), we had the dramatic weapons
and circumstances thing going, but were using Advanced
Armor. Worked pretty good, too.

> Comparing weapons is a little different, but still
> potentially problematic - the defender isn't firing, but
> instead is devoting that energy into not being hit. It
> doesn't seem fair that the attacker gets a superior weapon
> bonus just cause he's the only one shooting.

Well, IMO, he gets it because he's attacking at range and
the other guy isn't. You bring a knife to a gun fight, and
decide to run away. You think just because you aren't
using your knife, the shooter doesn't have an advantage on
you at 30 feet?

> This makes me think in these cases the attacker's weapon
> should be compared to the defender's armour for the
> purposes of determining combat advantage.

If that fits your sense of plausibility, go for it, man.
But if you're going for exchange-based combat, you gotta
make sure your method applies equally well in both
"lopsided" (only one attacker, with the other guy
defending or running or whatever) and "balanced" (both
trying to attack and injure the other guy) scenarios.

I'm noting this because I'm thinking about taking your
idea into the "balanced" scenario. We've both got guns,
and we're both not wearing kevlar. Does that mean we both
get Superior Weaponry? (That may well be the answer,
and it's entirely fine if it is! But it's something you need
to make sure _you're_ okay with.)

I haven't seen the necessity in my play, at the least.
There are several thoughts on how to medicate this
situation, including:

* An "all out defense" rule, where you give up the option
to wound the other guy (nevermind if it wasn't even an
option) in order to get a bonus on your defense roll.

* A "superior focus" notion, which pops up whenever
you're focusing on a *singular* task -- such as defense
-- in an exchange. This is All Out Defense in essence,
but it's wearing "superiority" clothes, and can be said
to drop away if both folks decide they're going to
spend the exchange trying to out-maneuver each other
instead of a one shoots/one runs setup (and thus it
"milds" the advantage of the shooter -- he may have
Superior Weaponry and Superior Position, but if you're
responding with Superior Focus, his effective net bonus
is only +1).

* Doing scene-based or turn-based combat instead of
exchange-based combat. I'm not being flip. Turn-based
lets you comfortably sit in notions of
attacker/defender, which defuses most of the objections
that're coming up, and scene-based lets you expand
circumstances to a wide enough slice of time that it's
inevitable that _some_ amount of mutual attack and
defense is going to occur in it.

I think it's important to realize -- and for us to clarify
-- that exchange-based combat is not best realized as
something broken up into slices of everyone-doing-a-
single-thing-simultaneously (which, for me, places it a
little too closely to intitiativeless turn-based stuff).
It's more like a sequence of small-scale or short-duration
scene-based fights. Single die rolls still encompass a
_set_ of actions. Just not a very big set -- at least, how
I see it.

Turn-based involves each party having a "turn" pursuing a
small goal, potentially meeting some resistance to that
goal (in the form of defensive skills, whatever).
Exchange-based broadens the timescale just a bit, allows
for that goal to be somewhat wider and in active contest
with one or more other goals. Turn-based has a very broad
timescale by comparison, and the goals are proportionately
wider as well.

Or, to make my point with sound effects (assume each +
mark is a case of a die roll -- or pair, if there's
another party involved):

Turn-Based

+ *bang* *zing!* "You missed!"
+ *bang* *thud!* "I'm hit!"

Exchange-Based

+ *bangbangbang!* *b-bang-d-bang-bang!* *runrunrun*
*pant* *bang!* *thud!" "I'm hit!"

Scene-Based

+ *bangbangbangbang* *b-bang-d-bang-bang!* *runrunrun*
*pant* *bangity-bang!* *CRASH!*
*bangitybangitybangitybangity!* *VROOOOOOM!*
*SKREEETCH!* *buddabuddabuddabudda* *bang!* *clatter!*
"Grenade!" *leap!* *struggle!* *BOOOOOM!* "We've won
the day!"

--
Fred Hicks * "Curse you iago and your fast fingers!" - Rob Donoghue
Co-Author of Fate - Managing Editor of Fudge Factor - The 'fan' in fanatic
Fate RPG * http://www.faterpg.com/ Fudge Factor * http://www.fudgefactor.org/
Plink * http://www.rainlikely.com/ Jim Butcher * http://www.jim-butcher.com/