Stick with Atlantis, or wait for Godbound.

Quote from: Snowman0147;863584Stick with Atlantis, or wait for Godbound.

I am happy either way, but its ultimately over the group

Combat 301 tutorial thread

Quote from: Nexus;863576While I see you've come up with a personal viewpoint that's different

It's not "different". At least one of the developers is practicing the Japanese version of what I'm doing. Both involve swords, though.

Quotethe Developers along with, IME, ,most of those that use the system have said its a meta game concept that characters are unaware of beyond a general sense of who's "winning" and "losing" at any given moment.

And I strongly suspect they're just using concepts that are simpler to explain, but the actual inspiration of the system is coming from elsewhere.

Most importantly, it's not like I care. I mean, what does it matter if a system was inspired by meta-ideas, from real-world ideas, or from the aliens from Neptun*, if it accurately maps to reality?

And it does map to reality. So much so that it makes it easy to explain the system even to people that don't play RPGs, as long as said person knows what I'm talking about. I did explain EX3's combat system to someone I train with, literally in 5 minutes, using almost the words I'm using here (or actually less, because I didn't need to describe set-up actions). That was just to check whether it would sound meta. As I expected, it didn't.

*OK, that would be "meta-ideas" again:D!

QuoteIt has little direction connection to what's really happening in the imaginary space of the game world.

That's, frankly, bullshit. The book itself says fighters are aware of advantage and disadvantage. What kind of characters would have Melee 5 without understanding such basic notions?
Maybe they wouldn't know how much initiative they've got, but get serious. They would know whether the attack is likely to inflict a scratch, a heavy wound, or solve the matters. Any trained fighter does know that.

QuoteLike Hit Points Init is largely a pacing mechanism

If you want to take it as a pacing mechanism, you can. But it's not that in the game world, and I see no reason to add a meta-layer.
It's quite simple, really: the meta-layer is only there if you put it there. From my perspective, the whole complaint is based on people complaining about a mechanic being meta because they choose to treat it as meta. It's funny:).
(Also, it makes me suspect that some people have such an intense dislike for the developers, that they associate their work with whatever they hate most in RPGs, like meta-mechanics;). Hopefully, my suspicions are unwarranted).

QuoteThe books itself asserts this and that, in setting, there is no difference between a withering attack and a decisive attack (except when there is)

In the setting, maybe there isn't, because it's the same move.
And in real life, there's no difference between a lot of set-ups and the same move being used as an attack. A jab can be a strike, or a way to try and open up the enemy for the right cross to the chin.

Basically, I think the book is written in this way because one of the main complaints against Exalted 2e was "huge two-handed weapons kill, which doesn't allow me to play out the kind of battle narratives seen in the myths, legends (or fantasy, or whatever the complainer's preferred medium)".
So they're explaining how it fits the narrative. Seems normal.
Also, it's more likely most people interested in Exalted 3 would be interested in story mechanics, than all those people being interested to hear about moving your enemy's point half a foot to the side, breaking his balance, disrupting his stance's structure, or the like:D.

But here's what the book says on p. 190-191 on this matter.

QuoteThe default assumption is that a withering attack depicts a glancing blow.

Yeah, that's easiest to explain. I'd write it myself. Besides, it allows players without too much interest in such details to just go "I hit him".

QuotePlayers might use stunts to also depict successful withering attacks as near-misses that characters unbalance themselves avoiding, or put themselves into bad tactical positions parrying at the last moment

Totally agree - good description should count as a stunt.

QuoteWithering attacks must be described as serious combat maneuvers—they're usually intended as killing or disabling blows by the characters who make them.

Bitch, please. Only a moron keeps trying killing blows if your enemy keeps blocking.

QuoteYou might also describe a withering attack as a feint to draw your opponent off-guard, or an intricate kata intended to force an opening for a finishing blow.

Yeah, now we're talking!

QuoteWhat's not valid, ever, is "I wither him to steal some Initiative."

Let us repeat.
"I use the mechanic" is not valid, ever, for a meta-mechanic?
Why would that be, if you're intending it as a meta-mechnic, guys:D?

I mean, in D&D, it's fine going for "I hit him" and then you reduce his hit points. In Fate, you can say "I use a Fate point to add X to the scene". Meta-mechanics don't need to reference anything but themselves!
Why isn't it appropriate if the goal was another meta-mechanic;)?

QuoteInitiative is a system abstraction of momentum and tactical advantage—you have to do things to establish that advantage.

Yeah, I think we have an answer now!

QuoteIt isn't something combatants directly interact with in the setting.

This can be treated both ways, indeed. But 1) ease of explaining, and 2) letting people do whatever they please in their games, and 3) target audience, all can explain the ambiguity even by themselves.
More importantly, yes, Withering attacks aren't something specific simply because there are so many ways to achieve combat advantage. But achieving combat advantage is no fucking way an abstract, meta thing! That's what people go to watch on a fencing match!

*Well, technically, I've seen something quite similar in one other game, over a decade ago, but that one is unpublished. Maybe the people that wrote it, because other system weren't satisfactory given their martial art experience, are still playing it. We didn't quite keep in touch:).

Quoteand that players shouldn't "game" Initiative (except when they should).

Standard White Wolf-style speech that the book gives you before dropping you in front of 1234567890 cases where yes, you need to pay attention to the parts that are presumably OOC and unknown to the character (and on closer examination, often are quite observable IC). Does anyone pay attention:D?

QuoteMaybe I'm using the wrong term (it changes so fast and there's so much of it). Maybe disassociated would be a more accurate phrase?

I don't know whether you are, never quite got the difference between "disassociated" and "meta", myself. It doesn't help that a lot of people seemed to mean different things under "disassociated"!

"Disassociated" would likely make it easier for me to dismiss the criticism, too. From the definition I know, it implies that the mechanic exists only OOC and works "because", without the ability to be traced back to changes in the IC environment. And since I can trace Initiative changes to changes in the IC environment, that's obviously not the case.
Even if the developers said* that they were aiming for a purely meta-level mechanic, I'd only conclude that the developers have failed.

*This would have, at the minimum, be from a private conversation, because they've got too much vested interest in what they say publicly - and likely, in what they have the right to say publicly - for me to not doubt it if what they say contradicts the way the mechanic actually works.
And "it's all driven by meta-game concerns" contradicts the way the mechanic works.

QuoteSocial Interaction is only more freeform in the sense that there are no turns and specific initiative. Its just as, if not more so mechanically codified as it was in 2nd. Its basically the same system as 2nd just without the ticks and rounds. Not changes I disagree with. Trying to fit social interaction into a turn structure always felt even more artificial and stiff than putting physical  into one. But its not freeform in the sense of just roleplay or even "roll the dice and make stuff up". There are very regulated procedures involved.

...I wrote "more freeform". I didn't write "it's freeform now". You yourself agree it's less artificial now due to the lack of turn structures.
What is it that you're disagreeing with, exactly;)?

And it looks like we are back to Atlantis and will revisit Ex3 in 12 months time. Ah well. I gave it a shot.

I really think you did not get it, Asen. What you describe is exactly what Nexus is "accusing" the thing to do.

In game (and the book even says so) you do not differentiate between withering and decisive...each character always tries to "go for the kill", so to speak. So your solar Resplendent Twilight has no idea that there are two kinds of attacks or charms he can use for each an every instance of his combat. Sure, he can tell, story-wise, if he has the upper hand or not...but each time he attacks, he wants to definitely hurt/kill/defeat/incapacitate his opponent.

On the meta-level (no pun intended...or is there ) you are forced to differentiate between the two. You, as the player, have to decide if you use withering stuff or decisive stuff. Bam, meta! There are even two separate charm sets for it (and some combined etc. ). But what your character wanted to do, namely to hurt/kill/defeat/incapacitate only works with decisive attacks on the mechanical level. So...big discrepancy between in-story/world (however you want to call it) and what you have to do at the table.
And that is also what i understand is meant with disassociated mechanics.

Quote from: Anglachel;863680I really think you did not get it, Asen. What you describe is exactly what Nexus is "accusing" the thing to do.

In game (and the book even says so) you do not differentiate between withering and decisive...each character always tries to "go for the kill", so to speak. So your solar Resplendent Twilight has no idea that there are two kinds of attacks or charms he can use for each an every instance of his combat. Sure, he can tell, story-wise, if he has the upper hand or not...but each time he attacks, he wants to definitely hurt/kill/defeat/incapacitate his opponent.

On the meta-level (no pun intended...or is there ) you are forced to differentiate between the two. You, as the player, have to decide if you use withering stuff or decisive stuff. Bam, meta! There are even two separate charm sets for it (and some combined etc. ). But what your character wanted to do, namely to hurt/kill/defeat/incapacitate only works with decisive attacks on the mechanical level. So...big discrepancy between in-story/world (however you want to call it) and what you have to do at the table.
And that is also what i understand is meant with disassociated mechanics.

Thank you. That is the aspect of the combat system that I find off putting.

Quote from: Anglachel;863680I really think you did not get it, Asen. What you describe is exactly what Nexus is "accusing" the thing to do.

In game (and the book even says so) you do not differentiate between withering and decisive...each character always tries to "go for the kill", so to speak. So your solar Resplendent Twilight has no idea that there are two kinds of attacks or charms he can use for each an every instance of his combat. Sure, he can tell, story-wise, if he has the upper hand or not...but each time he attacks, he wants to definitely hurt/kill/defeat/incapacitate his opponent.

On the meta-level (no pun intended...or is there ) you are forced to differentiate between the two. You, as the player, have to decide if you use withering stuff or decisive stuff. Bam, meta! There are even two separate charm sets for it (and some combined etc. ). But what your character wanted to do, namely to hurt/kill/defeat/incapacitate only works with decisive attacks on the mechanical level. So...big discrepancy between in-story/world (however you want to call it) and what you have to do at the table.
And that is also what i understand is meant with disassociated mechanics.

Which is odd, because if you are either a real-world martial arts master or a neo-demigod with internal command of divine energy, you should KNOW how to distinguish between a merely debilitating ('withering') or lethal ('decisive') attack.  So that "metagaming" should actually be in-character.

Quote from: Nexus;863635Combat 301 tutorial thread

I have to say Mengtzu's apparent refusal to use either the male pronouns or even male characters unless required is odd. I remember when he was much less.. strident I guess is a good word?

In any casem its an interesting read but, for me, illustrates just how damn complicated the combat system is even for relatively small battles.

Quote from: Nexus;863711I have to say Mengtzu apparent refusal to use either the male pronouns or even male characters unless required is odd. I remember when he was much less.. strident I guess is a good word?

In any casem its an interesting read but, for me, illustrates just how damn complicated the combat system is even for relatively small battles.

I would have used the word 'ardent' but if you're going to be part of the TBP clique, you have to drink the Kool-Aid.

I went cross-eyed between the overly florid text and the overly complex mechanics.

Quote from: Nexus;863711I have to say Mengtzu's apparent refusal to use either the male pronouns or even male characters unless required is odd. I remember when he was much less.. strident I guess is a good word?

In any casem its an interesting read but, for me, illustrates just how damn complicated the combat system is even for relatively small battles.

I really don't care about the female/male disparity here. We can have years of all female example characters in RPG-examples before we reach any sort of parity - if that is something one strifes for.

However, what I take away from that thread is that everyone who said combat would run faster than in 2e is a liar and/or an idiot.
It still has all the same problems that 2e had in that regard.

Also it seems to me now, that paranoia combat wasn't the true problem in 2e, but the fact that combat is utterly brutal for anyone not a dedicated combat monkey, something that is certainly very much alive in 3e... so not even an improvement there.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;863718I would have used the word 'ardent' but if you're going to be part of the TBP clique, you have to drink the Kool-Aid.

Of course Mengtzu gets praised for it. I guess its like Volfer fighting in a posing pouch is "awesome" but the Empress' leg showing is a Hate Crime.

QuoteI went cross-eyed between the overly florid text and the overly complex mechanics.

Its a mixture of repetitive old stuff (Its the Storyteller mechanics we've seen for decades along with some familiar bits of 1st and 2ns Exalted) and dense new additions.

Quote from: Anglachel;863680I really think you did not get it, Asen. What you describe is exactly what Nexus is "accusing" the thing to do.

Alas, then I can conclude you did not read it, or didn't bother to understand it, Anglachel.
Because what I describe is explaining why the two things that are different OOC, are also different IC.

QuoteIn game (and the book even says so) you do not differentiate between withering and decisive...each character always tries to "go for the kill", so to speak.

Go back and see why that's simply untrue. I quoted the relevant passage that it's not "always going for the kill". It's "if you ain't got other ideas, describe going for the kill".
It's like accusing D&D that it doesn't represent skilled fighters because it ain't got "Feint" as a standard action.

QuoteSo your solar Resplendent Twilight has no idea that there are two kinds of attacks or charms he can use for each an every instance of his combat.

I'm not even talking about Charms. They stated they're not discrete techniques, though obviously that only applies to Solar Charms. Martial Arts and Sorcery, being cross-splat, are discreet techniques.
But if Solar Resplendent Twilight or Solar Dumb Dawn have Melee, Martial Arts or Brawl 2+ (which is also to be read as "more than most people in the Western World", if you're wondering)...well, yes, both Solars know this difference! The Resplendent Twilight might be a bit better at pointing out the differences, while Dumb Dawn, in accordance with his name, would refer to them as "you do this first", and "then stab him like this". But even he would explain that if you don't do the first thing first, the other one is unlikely to achieve much.

QuoteSure, he can tell, story-wise, if he has the upper hand or not...but each time he attacks, he wants to definitely hurt/kill/defeat/incapacitate his opponent.

No "story-wise". He can tell it, period. And any character with some understanding of fighting would know which actions are meant to give advantage, and which ones are meant to knock out, kill, or whatever.

QuoteOn the meta-level (no pun intended...or is there ) you are forced to differentiate between the two. You, as the player, have to decide if you use withering stuff or decisive stuff. Bam, meta!

So, same as differentiating between attack and charge;)? I mean, you swing a weapon at the end, isn't it the same:)?
(No, because what lead to that swing was different. Same as the difference between an attack with lots of Initiative or barely any at all).

QuoteThere are even two separate charm sets for it (and some combined etc. ). But what your character wanted to do, namely to hurt/kill/defeat/incapacitate only works with decisive attacks on the mechanical level.

Once again, I'm not even touching on Charms in this discussion, since I'm talking from experience. And unless you really think I'm much better than I am, I probably don't have Charms:D!

QuoteSo...big discrepancy between in-story/world (however you want to call it) and what you have to do at the table.

All of it stemming from missing the parts of the text that tell you that no, you don't have to have a discrepancy.

QuoteAnd that is also what i understand is meant with disassociated mechanics.

Except it doesn't actually work like that.
Here, try telling this to your players - it's not a houserule, it's the GM explaining what stunts are acceptable to go with each mechanical action.
If you describe an attack that's meant to kill, you will roll a Decisive.
If you want to go Withering, you have to describe something that's not meant to inflict immediate damage. (Note I said "damage", not "pain". Pain is fine, as long as it's not the pain from a stab wound).
Try to play a combat out with this, and report back. By all means, if you prefer, play it out yourself!

Quote from: Nexus;863695Thank you. That is the aspect of the combat system that I find off putting.

Then the part about not reading should, I'm afraid, apply to you as well.

Quote from: James Gillen;863701Which is odd, because if you are either a real-world martial arts master or a neo-demigod with internal command of divine energy, you should KNOW how to distinguish between a merely debilitating ('withering') or lethal ('decisive') attack.  So that "metagaming" should actually be in-character.

Exactly! That's why I keep telling that the book contradicts itself, but it mostly does so in order to provide a convenient "something to do" for people that can't describe it otherwise.
But as soon as you accept the above direction, there's no metagamey discrepancy.

BTW, I guess you mean "giving advantage" when you say "debilitating"? Because knocking someone out is what I'd call "debilitating", but it's a Decisive attack with a bashing weapon in the game. Withering attacks might inflict damage, but they don't deal fight-ending damage (nor, for that matter, anything you're at least likely to remember for the next few days).
But try it with the above guideline, and tell me if there's any discrepancy;).

Quote from: Nexus;863711I have to say Mengtzu's apparent refusal to use either the male pronouns or even male characters unless required is odd. I remember when he was much less.. strident I guess is a good word?

In any casem its an interesting read but, for me, illustrates just how damn complicated the combat system is even for relatively small battles.

First, I assumed that this is because of his desire for Maximum Fan Service:D.
Then he explained, somewhere on what would be the 6th page for you*, that it's due to him working on a game like that, Love and Labyrinths.
Obviously it's "not planning to acknowledge there's a male gender". Here's a post from David JP, explaining why. I actually found it when googling the game's name.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?748172-Calling-David-J-Love-amp-Labyrinths-Inform-Me!&p=19150540#post19150540

*"You" being "those that aren't using 100-posts pages", unlike me. It's all on the same page for me.

Quote from: Efaun;863720I really don't care about the female/male disparity here. We can have years of all female example characters in RPG-examples before we reach any sort of parity - if that is something one strifes for.

However, what I take away from that thread is that everyone who said combat would run faster than in 2e is a liar and/or an idiot.
It still has all the same problems that 2e had in that regard.

Also it seems to me now, that paranoia combat wasn't the true problem in 2e, but the fact that combat is utterly brutal for anyone not a dedicated combat monkey, something that is certainly very much alive in 3e... so not even an improvement there.

A flowchart someone put together over on Reddit.

Quote from: Ryan L.;863760A flowchart someone put together over on Reddit.

OK, I don't want to see an Exalted 3 proponent complaining about the complexity of Hero System combat ever again ...