DwD Studios

A player needs to manage his attacks vs defense and varies by circumstance. If you all out attack you haven't reserved any actions for defending. If your constantly defending creature attacks you might not have any actions left for attacking.

Also remember that as your chance of success goes down, your chance to critically fail goes up. In your example at 25% to hit opens the door to rolling 33, 44, 55, 66, 77, 88 or 99 thus critically failing.

I need to record a video on Action Management. :-)

Once you start doing it, and juggling the numbers between attacks and defenses, it gets more complicated than it seems in a hurry. Also, don't forget that even one extra opponent throws the equilibrium of the attack attack attack mentality. Maybe you kill the first one, but what if the second one does the same thing? I generally make it a rule not to attack below about 45% chance to avoid having such a high fumble chance, but that's just me.

If I understand the process correctly, it seems easy to abuse or at least very tempting to gamble recklessly. Then again, I could certainly be wrong.

If you can take all your actions at once, then it appears to make sense - when fighting a single opponent - to win initiative then declare "4 attacks". Each time I'm successfull with an action my opponent will need to take a defensive action. Even if I miss, I can try again and again (with an increasing penalty) before my opponent gets to do anything other than react. if I roll so poorly that I miss all 4 attacks, my opponent would've hit me anyway. Essentially, one-on-one, an attack is better than a defense because both participants burn actions at the same rate. If I miss one time out of 4, then sure, the opponent gets a free attack, but at -60% to hit so I'll take the chance..

On the other hand, if actions in the round go more like RuneQuest, whereby each participant gets one proactive action per initiative cycle (and as many reflexive actions as possible for that character), then I think I'd be more comfortable.

So in the Hurin example:
- in the first cycle he climbs the wall (DEX check), other participants do stuff
- in the second cycle he attacks (Melee -20%), other participants do stuff, including attack Hurin, so Hurin parries at (-40%).
- in the third cycle, he stands firm in case he needs to defend (-60%), other participants do stuff and the round ends. Hurin doesn't get a chance to try out his last action because standing firm is in itself an action.

An alternative would be for players to declare all proactive actions *before* rolling initiative. Then you'd want to be careful to save up a bunch of reflexive resistance actions - this seems most preferable to me and I don't think changes the game all that much.

It would be quite helpful for me to see more instruction on multiple actions, because unlike other games, players will always take multiple actions each round - which bodes well for cinematic awesomeness; it's screaming for chandelier swinging swashbucklery! In addition to describing the rules in more detail, it would be useful to see lots of actual play examples, especially where players try to take advantage of the system like I've talked about, and what the consequences are.

BTW, what I meant on the last bit in my OP was that a character with 65% in melee would be a fool not to take 4 actions (attack, defend, whatever) per round. Which means each round there will be a 5% action which seems flukey and a bit slow in play where everyone around the table rolls to beat some very low percentage.

I've been looking for a good fantasy game to introduce players to RPG-ing. For fantasy, I usually go the B/X D&D route but I kind of think that sets up expectations that influence future gaming regardless of the system. I looked at other game systems on the shelf, but I guess I wanted something new. I actually ordered the dead-tree BBF setting book a couple of weeks back and liked what I saw. Because there will be some new gamers, I'd like to make sure I've got the BBF system down.

Would this not be an infinite amount of actions, as any roll of 00-05 is automatically a success, regardless of any penalties?

What I've been doing is stacking a poker chip beneath a miniature every time they take an action, this makes it very easy to see what sort of penalties a character/monster is on at any given moment. :D

"players will always take multiple actions..." What I find is new players either take one action (their used to D&D'ish games) or take a lot (I warn them they won't be able to defend themselves). After a few rounds they "get it". Seasoned players know how to manage their actions in order to accomplish their goals.

I agree, play examples would be a benefit, or if GM's are recording their gaming session on On Air or Youtube. For my part I'd like to run a couple players through some encounters are record - to give people ideas what's possible. I'm trying to find time with Jeremy (who does the craziest things) and Mark (another crazy character).

Okay so I have a follow-up question that I've been wondering, if you are defending and say you have a weapon in your other hand, can you counter-attack when defending? If not, how can a player counter attack in the d00lite system?

1) All of the player’s actions are resolved on that player’s initiative
2) At the end of a round, there’s no... "hang on, I didn’t use up all my potential actions, I attack!" No good because of (1) above.
3) Players who win initiative have an advantage because they can dictate actions in the round. They have a disadvantage because they have to predict how many defensive actions they might require and bank accordingly
4) Players who lose initiative have an advantage because they can attack with impunity at the end of the round (there’s no need to keep an action or two to defend with later). They have a disadvantage because they may have no actions left at all!

The Example of Play threw me for a bit of a loop, mostly because it accurately reflects how play at the table works. When Gelf interrupted initiative order at the bottom of pg 30, I got confused as to when actions are resolved. But hey, at the table players get excited and chime in ahead of time. What I missed was the GM responding "Let’s resolve Harim’s action", that is, "Hold on Gelf, we’ll get to you in a sec".

I think that what I’d really like to see an example of a conflict as an OP, then open the forum to ask questions: could Zorgarth the Destroyer have tried this? What if Mulmee Starnoggin cast this spell then? For a BareBones system (or perhaps because of it), combat seems to have a lot of room for creativity, originality and tactics.

Thank-you everyone for responding to my question, this is a most helpful forum :)

Counter Attack: You must have at least one skill level in Warrior and a one-handed melee weapon. When successfully resisting a melee attack, make an immediate attack against that attacker.

Riposte: When hit by a melee attack, this character can make an immediate attack against that attacker.

I don't like these personally, doesn't give a character a chance to go-all-nuts to slay something. If you give counter-attack/riposte to characters then creatures and NPC's should be able to gain the same maneuver.

Yeah, I just know it's going to come up at some point. I think it's a good idea and would work well with the system since people would have to gauge how they do their actions based on the multiple action penalty. Perhaps they can only make a counter attack if they still have actions left and only after they've successfully defended against an attack? It would simulate the back and forth nature of fighting I think. Or maybe they have to make a successful Dexterity check to see if they can find an opening?

I dunno, just toying with the idea.

If the orc sprints and attacks me I strike before he gets a chance (he used 1 action to sprint, muhahha)
I wait until everyone has taken their action, then I'll decide what to do.
If the orc is heading towards the spellcaster, I try to get their first and attack.
I make a stealth skill check to hide, then I wait to strike at the best opportunity I'm presented with (one-shot killed a sea ogre this way. w00t!)

The game is fluid, both GM's and players have to react to each other. Hope this conversation helps.

Just had a w00t thought, if you're on G+ or Roll20.net I could start a hangout, we could pick some pre-gens and play out some encounters. It's like practicing. lol

As GM's remember you can think of triggers yourself. It's evil, but fun. The party was squaring off in a two-story barn against on ogre wearing multicolored platemail (it takes 4 human-sized armor to fit an ogre). The platemail was secured with rope, chains and binder-twine. Hidden in the second story were a group of goblins. The party lost initiative and the ogre charged after the lead character who looked the toughest. On their turn the party spread out around the ogre to put him at a disadvantage. One by one as they took their place (the only had to MOV, no action) I had ruddy goblins jump from above on top of them. Service Interruption!

Ya think after the first goblin jumping down the party would have realized there just might be more. :-)

What we began doing in our games at my table is taking one action at a time in initiative order. So for instance, if I have Amy, Bill and Jack at the table, and they roll 3, 6, and 7 for initiative, Jack takes one action, then Bill, then Amy, then we start back at the top. Defensive actions can be taken at any time.

I suppose there will never be a 'perfect' way to simulate real combat, but we felt more comfortable prohibiting the weed whacker attacks series of doom. hehehe

But doesn't that defeat the purpose how the system is supposed to work in favor of the usual d20 slap-fight way of doing things?

I like to playing cinematic characters. It's not just about "how many attacks can I take on my turn" although that's really really fun to drop 2 or 3 orcs on your turn! Ask any players who's done it. :-) It's about what I can accomplish on my turn.

In your initiative example, when do the bad-guys get to go?

At whatever point they roll, for instance, if they rolled a 5 they'd go between Amy and Bill, in order, until they run out of % as well.

You could limit a Riposte to when a character rolls a critical resistance vs an attack. That would make it much less common, and also provide a way to interrupt an attack chain.

The idea of a riposte is generally that you don't get hit by the attack. (Though you could, the idea is to use the person's attack against them.) I think you should flip the descriptions between counter attack and riposte. Riposte is a move from fencing in which you use your opponent's forward lunge against them to strike a point on them, whether with a thrust or behind your back. Coming in under the attack with a dodge or tapping your opponent's weapon out of the way, is often a part of this single, swift move.

Corjay, my inspiration came from here.
http://www.bloomilk.com/ForcePower?Id=61

You confuse people by calling me Corjay. It's not my real name and it is no longer my handle. It hasn't been for a few years now. I changed handles because I wanted to get the attention-seeking stalkers off my back and to reset any impressions people had of me based upon the activities of those stalkers. If someone were in witness protection, would you go on calling them by their original name or by their new name?

I have a quick question and this seemed the best place for it without starting a new thread. I was running a game and the heroes found themselves facing off against a pack of ravenous Plague Hounds. The Warrior was bitten and contracted the plague, as he failed a STR roll to resist the contagion carried by the hound that bit him. Does this STR roll count towards the multi-action penalty?

I mean, I've seen this referred to as an 'action economy', wherein the player decides how to spend his actions to best effect. Do I try and dodge that attack even if it makes my own attack less likely to hit, or do I take the damage knowing I'll likely deal damage to the enemy on my turn? But in this instance, it's the character's body fighting off the effect of a disease, which would surely happen in the background regardless of whether the player wants to take the action or not. He can hardly expect the white blood cells to not oppose the virus on the grounds that it'll make it harder to hit the plague hound back.

Another example would be when a Wizard casts Illusion, a player can hardly decide whether or not to make the Log roll to see through the illusion, his brain is going to automatically decide whether or not it believes what it sees/hears/feels/etc.

So, in a nutshell, should natural resistance checks as described above count towards the multi-action penalty when it is not within the player's ability to decide whether or not to actually take the action?

I don't tend to use disease or poison much, but in the case of the illusion, I'd assume it's a little more active. If I remember right, those rolls are supposed to occur first on the following round after you're hit, and it's automatically your first action. You could then justify the penalty as the player reeling from the effects of the poison or disease or whatever. Then again, for a disease or poison that's not going to affect the player during combat, I'd likely have them make a normal resist roll after the fight's over altogether, but that's just my opinion.

For the illusion of course, that depends on how you see magic as working, but I always saw resist rolls against illusions as trying to unravel what you see before you. In other words, you take a second to look for the flaws, figure out what doesn't fit, then if you 'get it', the rest falls apart (to your eyes anyway) like a house of cards. Again, that's just my view of it.

If a warrior is busy hacking and slashing their opponents (i.e. spending actions), they're not going to bother to notice that the dragon approaching is but an illusion. As a rule, in encounter time every time the dice hit the table, it counts as an action.

mikeawmids, Clarence in Wonderland nailed it, "Every time you roll the dice it counts as an action." Easy to remember, for everyone.

In your example, "But in this instance, it's the character's body fighting off the effect of a disease, which would surely happen in the background regardless of whether the player wants to take the action or not." The character is feeling the effect and grunts through it, he's overcoming by raw strength or force of willpower. He can't change his body chemistry, but he can try to stave it off.
---

"Wizard casts Illusion" - let the players decide if they want to verify what they are seeing OR ask them for a LOG check minus caster level. Kinda like, "give me a perception check." to see if you notice something odd.

Then again, a jerk like me who has a couple of seconds while he's running from the bad guys might run up the clock tower, cast fly on himself and make an illusion to make the ledge seem wider than it is, then I'll "walk" out on the ledge, cowering from the guys trying to catch me, only to see them pull a Wile E Coyote off the ledge. Sometimes what isn't there that you hide can be as important as what is there that's a fake.

Thanks for the answers guys! I only ask because the guy playing the Warrior was getting annoyed, as he was having to roll STR to throw off the effects of the infection at the start of every round (and he kept failing), defend against further attacks (from the two hounds harassing him) so by the time it was his turn to act (his intiative rolls were pretty dire), he was already on a minus 60% penalty (and his Warrior Melee skill was only 58%). :(

Like many things, we built a framework and expect a GM to adjudicate, leaning on his preferences and experiences from other games.

Three cheers! Hip-hip-hooray!
That's why I'm playing this game... It works beautifully as is, and it doesn't break when I tinker with it.

NOTE: As a GM, I don't typically let players know the damage, I ask them, "Would you like to resist." If they ask, "How much damage?", I'll say something like, "The attack was dead on (high damage), or he was off balance when attacking (light damage) or "You don't think you'll be able to dodge (crit success)."

Hope that helps.

AH, right. I assumed that he had to make the roll. I could not imagine how (in game) a character could choose whether or not to resist the effects of poison. :p

Well, I think we are all saying that resisting/rolling-dice is a conscious decision on the part of a character. Suspend your disbelief that the body fights off poison on it's own. hehe

But if you want to say you have to make the roll, then roll with it! Serious, it's your call and a great way to tie up characters actions. Muhahahaha!

Realistically, with a few extremely toxic exceptions, posion doesn't act within seconds anyway, and diseases generally take about 3 days (as a rule of thumb) to incubate before you begin showing symptoms. Think like, the crone who poisoned Bulvai in The 13th Warrior. It took hours to kill him and he suffered almost no effect immediately.

The -20% per action tends to lead to a fast death if the player is attacked by 2-3 assailants at once.

Let's say Bob the warrior is attacked by 3 assailants:
Bob's Warrior melee skill is 60
attacker 1, first strike, he defends at 60
attacker 1, second strike, he defends at 40

attacker 2, first strike, he defends at 20
attacker 2, second strike, he defends at 5 (only a crit will defend)

attacker 3, first strike, he cant defend
attacker 3, second strike, he cant defend

or of course, he doesn't take the minus's on his actions and take the hit... still the same outcome, lots of damage in a single round.

A very fast death to the PC if he doesn't get help or lucky dice on his part or bad luck on the GMs dice.

Bob had better hope he wins initiative and figures out some way to incapacitate one of the thugs. Otherwise take some hits and then run away. Standing around fighting 3 foes is just asking for it.

Next time, hopefully Bob will make sure that he has a tactical advantage before engaging so many foes :)

In addition, Bob should have some armor to soak damage. If he is carrying a shield, add +20 to physical resistance checks. If he is human add +10 to all resistance checks.

If Bob is outnumbered 2:1 he would use half DEX for this resistance check. Using 60 from the post above:
1st defense 30% 60/2
2nd defense 10% 60/2 -20
3rd defense 0%

It can be a deadly game. During a play test of one of my adventure, Mark and I were almost killed by a pack of dogs. lol

So what about if one is being attacked by two archers? Is dodging out of the way 1/4 DEX? I'm assuming that being disadvantaged is not a quantifiable state, you are or you ain't, so max penalty is 1/2 DEX. That's how I've been running it anyways.

Hmmm... being outnumbered is tough enough vis-a-vis the multiple-action economy.

I keep it simple, 1/2 DEX. After the first dodge, the character is at 1/2 DEX-20. Oh ya, it's adds up!

Speaking of multi-actions, in response to the community we recorded our first tutorial video last night. Make sure your Dork shields are up before viewing!

So, Bob gets a half dex to get out of the way of the attacks. And then it dwindles from there. Can he not use his warrior skill to actually parry the attack, instead of dodging?

1. DEX resistance: This is diving for cover resulting in the PRONE condition
2. Half-DEX resistance: This is trying to dodge out of the way but stay on your feet
3. MELEE skill: This is parrying with a weapon or using a shield. Can only parry another melee weapon
4. Take-the-pain: No action and hope your DR takes away some damage.

Excellent! This is what I was thinking as well and the way my players like to do it.

In my games I do not count this as a negative. The minus 20% per action is a game rule for player actions. The player is not actively doing anything to fight the disease, his body is. He has no control of it. He cannot decide to stop his anti-bodies this round, to continue fighting the hound, and then next round turn the anti-bodies back on.

If you do make it count as an action, you might as well tell the player that "you were bitten, so you are at a -20% for everything until your cured"

I re-read this and then raised another question.
Because he is outnumbered, 2:1, his defense is half his dex?

What is it was a 1:1?

That's sort of an issue with the, what's the word I want, conglomeration of resistance checks in BBF. If you look at pg 32, there are Proactive Aware checks for DEX: dodging, diving free of an explosion; and there are Reactive Unaware Resistance checks like resisting poison, keen perception; and there are borderline cases: defending against magical mind powers.

When a player rolls to defend against a physical attack (dodging), the resistance roll counts as an action. When they roll to defend against magic, what would you do? Certainly if it's something like a Charm one could imagine the PCs psyche actively fighting against the spell. But other magical resistances aren't so obvious - I don't think one "actively" works to disbelieve an illusion.

So I think the "resistance check = action" is abstracted a bit to keep the ruleset tight.

But of course, I think this is a reasonable place to house rule!

I like the dramatic tension of a character having to decide to make a STR check against poison...

GM "OK the giant snake attacks you Biff and scores with a bite. You take 14 points damage"

Biff "I gotta kill this thing and I need all my actions. I will skip my STR resistance check this round and attack."

Bob "Hey, maybe the snake ain't poisonous."

GM "Maybe..."

• 2:1 - man to many, see Disadvantage pg. 33 "You are outnumbered two to one or more in melee (2:1)"
• 1:1 - man to man
• Resisting mind/poison/physic/etc. We kept the "rolling dice = action" concept to keep the game lite. Also, in other games you take damage from an effect and like it, for example; "Ongoing 5 damage, save ends." We like like the idea of a hero summoning enough STR to stave off poison, or grit his teeth making a WIL check to resist Charms.

Nothing that can't be house ruled, just keep a list handy so you know how you've ruled in your games. Post it here so others can enjoy.

Ha, I should post some of these answer as DwD so you know it's official and if you don't _bad things will happen_

We initiate order99 on you and your players!
We get clearance from Clarence in Wonderland to pawn you.
We have Nitehood ka-KNIGHT you over the head.
We sick a Neolithicwolf on you, your families, your families pets and the mailman who never closes the mailbox!
Etc.

" I..i'm a Bad Guy? I'M A BAD GUY?? When did THAT happen?"

-Michael Douglas,from Falling Down. :)

I'm a therapist. I'll just ask them how they feel about it until they scream. ;)

Clearance granted.