On Mon, 12 Jul 2004, Dave Hill wrote:

> SCENARIO 1:
>
> G1 and G2 and B1 and B2 are shooting at each other as a
> group ("My goal is to perforate the other side, whilst
> avoiding being perforated myself"). I think I get the
> one-on-one, and one-on-many combats, but the many-on-many
> -- in particular how to judge success and damage -- is not
> clear to me.
>
> If the effective rolls are, highest to lowest,
> G1-G2-B1-B2, who, if anyone, gets damaged by whom?
>
> If the effective rolls are, highest to lowest,
> G1-B1-G2-B2, who, if anyone, gets damaged by whom?

The first question to answer here is whether or not there
are two exchanges or one exchange going on here.

Are G1 and G2 concentrating their fire on a single
opponent (both on B1)? Or are they each firing at a
different one? In the latter case, I'd keep things simple
for myself and say that B1 and B2 are returning fire to
the ones shooting at them, and call it two exchanges.

In any other case, it's a single exchange, and in a single
exchange, a given 'side' only needs one winner to score a
hit. G1-G2-B1-B2 or G1-B1-G2-B2, G1 is the highest roller
in both cases, and scores a hit against the opponent of
his choice (I'm betting he'll pick B2 in order to make use
of that margin of success -- or, if you're a stickler for
target declarations, then it's against the one he said he
was going after). In both cases, G2 assisted the victory,
but it isn't his roll that determines the MoS of the
victory.

This is all IMO, though; other GMs should feel free to
judge the results in a fashion they feel is appropriate.

> A more complex iteration of Scenario 1. B1 and B2 are
> charging G1 with their motorcycles; G1 is shooting back at
> B1. G2 is safely up on a car and kicking at both B1 and
> B2.
>
> Is this one big set of rolls (i.e., all the Bs and Gs are
> rolling against each other, no superior numbers involved),
> or is it two different rolls (G1 vs B1 and B2; G2 vs B1
> and B2)? I suspect the former; G1 has to deal with both B1
> and B2 in his combat actions (not just a shot, but
> shooting and dodging), and the Bs have to deal with both
> the Gs.
>
> Does this change any of the who-damages-whom questions
> from Scenario 1?

Not really. If it's a single exchange, it's a single
exchange.

Your "superior numbers" observation is the most telling,
here -- even if G2 is rolling lower, the fact that he
helped the numbers be *equal* here helps keep the other
guys from getting a big bump in the form of the numbers
advantage.

> What if the bad guys win, even though they could not, in
> fact, damage G2.

G2 is *kicking* at guys running past on *motorcycles* with
a lot of *velocity* on their side. How is it they couldn't
damage him? I'll set that aside, though. ;)

> Does any damage G2 should (if they choose to allocate it
> her way) get occur simply through "the superior driving of
> the cycles past you cause you to over extend, slipping and
> falling, leaving you at -1 next round/hurt and -1 for the
> combat/etc."?

There are a number of ways you could interpret this. G2
could get spun around, hurt, or more simply, left in the
dust, with a lot of distance to cover for his next action
(in the case of a "clipped" result) as the fight has moved
beyond his easy range for action (sounds like he's on
foot; they're on bikes with motors). The momentary -1
could actually affect a roll, or could simply operate as
an obstacle that G2 has to work his way around rather than
participate in the next exchange.

> SCENARIO 3:
>
> B1's goal is to take out G1 (shooting). G1's goal is to
> take out B2 (shooting). B2's goal is to run away.
>
> I said that this was a single combat, with the B side
> getting a +1 "superior numbers" bonus (G1 was having to
> split attention between two Bs), but the G side getting a
> "superior weapon" bonus (going against the person trying
> to get away, not shooting back).
>
> Another player said that there was no "superior numbers"
> involved because it was really two different combats
> (since B1 and B2 weren't coordinating their attacks).

Well, B1 is "laying down some cover fire" -- oh, look, you
said that:

> I see this as the same to the scenario Fred described here
> (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FateRPG/message/493),
> where superior numbers were given (but no superior weapon
> bonus); B1 is acting as "covering fire" for B2,
> coordination or not. Am I (so to speak) on target with
> this?

The "superior weaponry" could be fine, so long as G1 is
prevented from deciding to hit B1 on a success.

On the other hand, B1 does have a gun, too, and so both
sides have guns within the context of the exchange. So on
that perspective, G1 doesn't really enjoy a weapon
superiority, since he is facing covering fire within the
same exchange, from a gun-wielder.

This is one of those "It's the GM's call" situations,
where you have the burden of having to be consistent in
all other similar situations.

My personal inclination on this is to toss the superior
weaponry thing. But that doesn't make it the only right
way to do it. Just make sure that once you do it, you keep
doing it that way.

> SCENARIO 4
>
> G1 is going against B1 and B2. G1 gets an MoS of 7 over
> both B1 and B2. Based on a reply that Fred made a while
> back
> (http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/FateRPG/message/1999),
> I ruled that either one of them was Out, but if G1 wanted
> to take damage both of them, it would make both of them
> Injured (one step down).
>
> G1 suggested tossing in a Fate Point to up the MoS to 8.
> Could that feasibly raise things to make both of the Bs
> Out?

That depends on whether you think what I was suggesting is
*step based* or *margin based*. An MoS of 7 and an MoS of
8 is the same *step* (taken out). So using my "hit
multiples by dropping steps" suggestion (I'm calling it a
suggestion on purpose), the fate point to add 1 would not
substantially change the result.

The way _I_ approach things is with a sort of mook rule,
where mooks are easy to drop in droves (each 'step' on a
ladder could simply represent one mook taken out), but
named characters (which B1 and B2 may be) can't both be
taken out with a single roll.

> I suspect the meta-answers to a number of the above is:
>
> 1. I'm thinking too atomically for exchange-based combat,
> and should look at things from a more gestalt perspective.
> Which is likely true, but it's a difficult challenge for
> me to grasp.

When all else fails, draw a web connecting the folks
together, then draw circles around the separate groupings
that are left.

Consider:

G1 <-> B2 G2 <-> B1

(G1 is shooting at B2, who's shooting back; G2 is shooting
at B1, who's shooting back)

I can circle two separate groups with the above, so it's
two exchanges.

G1 <-> B1
\-> B2
G2 <--/
\----> running for cover

(G1 is laying down suppressing fire against both B1 and
B2; B1 is returning fire to G1, and B2 is trying to put
G2 down; G2 is running for cover.)

That's clearly a single exchange -- there's no way to
close off groups without cutting webs.

> 2. I shouldn't ask what the specific rule is; I should
> determine first what the effect is I'm going for. So if
> it's a cinematic sort of thing, then, hell, yeah, let the
> roundhouse kick from atop the car knock out both the
> cyclists, if the MoS is high enough.

Exactly.

> Or if we're talking gritty realism, then, no, it's not
> possible to take out two people that way, though both
> could be injured (the kick hits one, he falls off his
> cycle, crashing into the following other guy, who also is
> dismounted, and both tumble, injured, to the ground).

Yep.

> Any thoughts or feedback are welcomed.

Good researching skills, man. ;)

--
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/