5
\$\begingroup\$

By default, there is an element of retaliation in defending with style, where you gain a boost, but what about using simultaneous combat rules instead? In simultaneous combat, attackers take damage on an unsuccessful attack proportionate to the success of the defender.

John, a player, rolls +5 when trying to attack an enemy.
Said enemy rolls +6 for its defense. It retaliates, dealing 1 stress to John.

What effect does this have on the way the game runs?

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Answerers: keep in mind that evaluating a house rule should be done from playtest experience with the house rule, not theory guesses. \$\endgroup\$ – SevenSidedDie Sep 3 '15 at 14:50
7
\$\begingroup\$

It would have to make sense in the narrative, which it might not. A lot of combat behaviours don't have clear retaliations:

  • Making a ranged attack against someone without a ranged weapon
  • Kicking someone while they are down
  • Attacking someone who doesn't want to fight back / is only defending
  • Fighting with a large group of people
  • Using Provoke who doesn't know you well enough to emotionally hurt you

As such, it would require a lot of GM intervention to constantly describe how this happens or a lot of exceptions to the rule in general.

If you want to handle it mechanically, it's better to use a Stunt for it. I think there is one in the Fate SRD as an example, but I cannot find it. But I think it went something like

When you Defend with Style in melee combat, you may choose to inflict a 2-stress hit instead of receiving a Boost.

That ties it to the character and rules out most situations where it doesn't make sense, without requiring modifications to the main rules.

\$\endgroup\$
-1
\$\begingroup\$

I think it would be a great idea to play this way. The problem is: how do you handle something else than duels?

When you only have 2 opponents, that's easy. But when 3+ characters are fighting together, you have to figure a way to cope with initiative, which is easier to deal with when combat is asymmetric.

You'd have to do away with Conflict rules I believe, which work only upon an asymmetric-combat assumption, and adopt an ad-hoc resolution (i.e "He does that, what do you?", "I respond with that", and figure out which skills to roll) everytime a fight happens.

\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.