I've included Ben's situation description below for
reference.

I think there may have been a small problem of
"overpowering" the NPC's firearms skill, unless you were
looking for them to be particularly lethal, but set that
aside.

Here's how I'd handle it.

PC1 and PC2 are on the same side. They're both rolling,
and they're both rolling at +1 due to a simple Superior
Numbers advantage. Since PC2 is doing something defensive,
if he gets the highest result, it won't wound the NPC,
obviously.

Treating this all as a single exchange, all three roll
with the "goal" of a single result coming out the other
side of it.

* If the NPC gets a result that beats both PC1 and PC2's
rolls, he wins the exchange and a result is recorded
based on the MoS of his firearms roll vs PC2's evade
roll. Example: NPC - Great; PC1 - Fair; PC2 - Good. PC2
is Clipped (MoS 1).

* If the NPC doesn't beat both the rolls, and PC1's roll
beats the NPC's roll, then PC1's "covering fire" has
wounded the NPC, keeping the NPC from hitting PC2.
Example: NPC - Great; PC1 - Superb; PC2 - Good. NPC is
beat by PC1, at least, with an MoS of 1 - the NPC is
Clipped (MoS 1).

* If the NPC doesn't beat both the rolls, but PC1's roll
doesn't beat the NPC's roll, then PC1's "covering fire"
has not wounded the NPC, but PC2 has probably gotten out
of the way. Example: NPC - Fair; PC1 - Average; PC2 -
Great. PC2 has beat NPC by an MoS of 2 - a
"non-wounding" result equivalent to Hurt, which is
pretty solid and should last longer than the next move
-- so PC2 has probably managed to take cover and hide
effectively while the NPC was busy trying to take cover
himself from PC1's fire.

I think it's important overall when dealing with
exchange-based stuff not to think of it as a single set of
simultaneous actions, but instead as a short-duration
sequence of such.

The situation Ben describes -- for me, at least -- is one
that looks a little something like:

NPC comes in, guns blazing, as he spots PC2 running
around the scene. PC1 maneuvers into place fires from
his flanking position as PC2 ducks, dodges, weaves, and
dives for cover.

Now, in a standard game with initiative based action, is
that a "single combat round" or is it several? It could be
either, but exchange-based doesn't care, so long as it can
look at that as a single exchange -- a sequence of moments
of rising tension culminating in a significant moment
which produces a decisive result (PC1 hitting NPC; PC1
missing NPC but buying PC2 time to get to safety; PC1
making his move too late, resulting in PC2 getting
wounded).

That's how I tend to handle these things, at least. :)

On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, Ben wrote:

> Anyway, another thing that I had a little problem with was
> a combat situation where one of the PCs (PC 1) was
> shooting at an NPC's flank whilst that NPC was attempting
> to spray bullets at another PC (PC 2) lying on the ground
> in front of him. This second PC was fully aware that he
> was about to be sprayed.
>
> We're using exchange-based combat rules, so I handled this
> by having all characters roll like this:
>
> * PC 1 - firearms skill
> * NPC - firearms skill
> * PC 2 - evade skill (which they didn't have, so used
> Mediocre)
>
> This sort of worked: NPC hit PC 2, PC 2 got Clipped, PC 1
> hit NPC, NPC went down.
>
> However, although the results seemed realistic (to me and
> the players) I was aware that it was more to do with luck
> that judgement. I was a little unhappy because the NPC had
> a high(ish) firearms skill and got to compare this with PC
> 1's firearm throw in order to avoid being hit - that's
> just plain silly in my mind! This is a problem with
> exchange-based combat - for two melee opponents it makes
> sense, but our situation was like a strange mix between
> melee and missile combat. This is where I think FATE's
> exchange-based 'rules' break down a bit. I got away with
> it this time... :)
>
> I found myself tempted (and not just in combat) to try to
> take the 'average' of two skills in some situations but
> wasn't really confident that I could it in a fair manner
> without having thought about it properly first.
>
> I'm interested to hear how other GMs would have handled
> that. I want to keep combat simple and exchange-based , in
> the literal sense.

--
Fred Hicks <iago AT iago DOT net>
"Curse you iago and your fast fingers!" - Rob Donoghue
Fate RPG - http://www.evilhat.com/fate/