TNE: Skills?

[Manxome]

My feeling is that having an opening that outright will not let your opponent through (or won't let them through with their mount, or their pet dinosaur, or whatever) is more of a plot device than an ability. It's got basically a 100% chance of working and it's highly dependent on specific details of your surroundings, so that's a way for the DM to say "if the prey reaches point X, he gets away (or the terms of engagement change)", rather than a way for a character to show how awesome he is.

If you have a general ability (that places only general restrictions on your surroundings, or none at all), it might target your opponent's mount, but it should be abstracted to the point that we can believe it might fail because your opponent is a really good rider, the mount is smart/dextrous/whatever, or you just don't execute it right. You just don't choose to narrate that as "going through a small window" unless you're willing to add something like "but the mount just squeezes through," "the mount breaks through the wall," or "the rider has to take a detour, but doesn't lose you."


Various thoughts...

Catharz suggested earlier that we might want the chase mini-game and the combat mini-game to blend seamlessly together. That sounds like it might raise too many problems (e.g. consistency of movement rates between chase and combat, deciding where a character is on the combat grid after he does an "obstacle course" gambit, etc.). However, it might be a good idea to have one chase round = one combat round, so that you can do the "run, I'll hold them off!" maneuver and have an easy way to know how much time you're buying (this also means that any status that affects both combat and chase scenes--like immobilization--only needs its duration expressed in one set of units). I also like the idea of being able to make an attack, cast a spell, or rescue a pedestrian as a chase action as well as a combat action (which fits in nicely with the previous point).

How about initiative? If you re-roll initiative every round, then "lead" effectively goes up or down one point every time the initiative order changes. That seems a bit weird, but it might be an acceptable way to introduce randomness, especially if it preserves consistency with the combat mini-game.

Angel's multi-chase brings up another point, which is that slowing down the runner is arguably an AoE attack when there's lots of people chasing him. By the same token, slowing down the pursuer is arguably an AoE attack when he's chasing multiple people. What if there are multiple runners and multiple pursuers? If we were tracking everyone's precise position on a map, we have a separate "lead" variable for every (pursuer, runner) pair, which becomes unmanageable rather quickly.


A system something like this might solve several problems:

Runners and pursuers can choose to operate as "groups" or not. If you're in a group, that means you're staying together (going in the same direction, at the pace of the slowest member); if you're not, that means that you're willing to separate (and probably will). Each pursuer (or group of pursuers) must designate one runner (or group of runners) they're chasing, and we only track the lead from the pursuer (group) to his target (group)--we normally ignore the relative positions of all other pairs of participants.

If you're in a group, you have to choose a gambit for the entire group (not one per participant), and you usually make a roll with the lowest modifier of anyone in your group (representing moving at the pace of the slowest member), though a few gambits let you use the highest (for things like breaking through obstacles, spot checks, etc. where one person's success can carry the entire group).

The runner (group) always picks a gambit before the pursuer (group). They each make a roll, and based on the difference between the runner's and pursuer's roll, the lead can increase, decrease, or stay the same. If multiple pursuers (groups) are tracking the same runner, the runner makes one roll, each pursuer makes a roll, and each pursuer individually gains or loses distance based on the difference in their rolls.

If you want to help another pursuer keep up, but you're not in a group with them, you need to do something special that directly affects the runner (instead of your gap). The main way you'd do this is with a special gambit (or maybe one from a small set) that isn't very good, except that it allows you to perform a standard combat action during this round of the chase (like making an attack, casting a spell, etc.). The other way is to choose a gambit that has a special effect--there could be gambits that reduce the runner's gambit roll (for all pursuers) for the current and/or next round, or ones that restrict his choice of gambits, etc.

Because this is a roll vs. roll model, rather than roll vs. target, you don't get to directly choose what your target defends with--however, some gambits are more or less effective against others; if the runner uses "double back," then maybe you get a bonus if you select a wis-based gambit (like "anticipate next move") and a penalty if you select a str-based one (like "bull through"). That's consistent with the "there's more than one way to do things" concept that Maxus suggested while still setting up a system of counters.


There's still more weird cases that we may need to worry about, of course--what happens if A is chasing B is chasing C?

[angelfromanotherpin]

If you can't describe a consistent set of outcomes for the action then it's dumb, regardless of the level of abstraction.

What part of the outcome is inconsistent? Either the gambit succeeds and lead is affected, or the gambit fails and lead isn't affected. That's the part we care about - does the quarry get away?

I have no interest in playing the chase game on the battlemat. It's for when people have left the battlemat.

It was my intention that shooting a gun at a person means that you stopped chasing them. You still get to shoot at them (Hope you hit!). If you're using a more fine grained set of chase positions (as in your example), failing to continue chasing for a round could just add 1 to your quarry's lead.

If you can (1) be chasing and use your standard action for a gambit or (2) just all out run and use your move and standard, you're probably going to get farther doing the second.

People shoot while running all the time. All you give up is your chance to affect the lead in exchange for the chance to affect the quarry's hit points. So shooting on the run won't get any closer. Now if you actually stop running to aim and fire, that might straight-up spend lead for a better chance to hit with the 'ranged attack' gambit.

Using ranged attacks in chases has other issues too: how do you determine range or LoS for an attack?

Range is based on whatever measure we decide to use for lead. LOS is usually determined by the environment. If the chase is in the featureless wastes of Kansas, you have LOS. A chase through mythic Baghdad probably grants significant cover. A chase through the twisty catacombs under Rome would probably deny LOS altogether.

[CatharzGodfoot]

1204762895[/unixtime]]

If you can't describe a consistent set of outcomes for the action then it's dumb, regardless of the level of abstraction.

What part of the outcome is inconsistent? Either the gambit succeeds and lead is affected, or the gambit fails and lead isn't affected. That's the part we care about - does the quarry get away?

I have no interest in playing the chase game on the battlemat. It's for when people have left the battlemat.

I'm complaining about how you distill your abstraction into story, not how the math works.

If your descriptions are inconsistent and largely overlapping, your abstraction is too specific. If they aren't, you can't describe a gambit easily defeated by being mounted as 'jumping through a window', regardless of whether the chaser is mounted.

As for the map, running a classic dungeon adventure means that you're in a specific range of locations at every point in your chase. If you can't run away through routes which are already fixed and detailed, your system is next to useless in D&D.


[edit]
Everything else I hear you on. Attacks as gambits would work so long as those attack were int fact not attacks but actually gambits that look like attacks and require that you be capable of making that attack normally.
[/Edit]

[angelfromanotherpin]

If your descriptions are inconsistent and largely overlapping, your abstraction is too specific. If they aren't, you can't describe a gambit easily defeated by being mounted as 'jumping through a window', regardless of whether the chaser is mounted.

I don't understand this paragraph. Could you rephrase, please?

As for the map, running a classic dungeon adventure means that you're in a specific range of locations at every point in your chase. If you can't run away through routes which are already fixed and detailed, your system is next to useless in D&D.

D'oh! You are correct. Man, it's been so long since I ran a game in a mapped dungeon I literally forgot about this situation and its attendant issues. I'm honestly not sure if any chase minigame functions in a context as restrictive as a mapped-to-the-five-foot-square dungeon. You might have to resort to conventional tactical movement and maneuvers in that case. Most of the time, that sort of environment doesn't support a particularly long chase before it hits another encounter anyway.

[edit]Everything else I hear you on. Attacks as gambits would work so long as those attack were int fact not attacks but actually gambits that look like attacks and require that you be capable of making that attack normally.
[/Edit]

Cool. That was sort of an important bit for me.

[Manxome]

1204768662[/unixtime]]As for the map, running a classic dungeon adventure means that you're in a specific range of locations at every point in your chase. If you can't run away through routes which are already fixed and detailed, your system is next to useless in D&D.

Good point. Though I would say that the system also needs to handle cases where you're in an area that is not specifically mapped out, so it probably shouldn't revolve around 5' squares or anything like that.

As long as you haven't mapped out every single rock and tree, I don't think this will affect most of the gambit ideas suggested so far (we were already supposing that certain ones can only be used in certain general types of environments).

However, it does suggest that we need to keep track of the actual distance covered by each party, rather than just their relative positions.

I think we can plausibly say that the runner gets to choose the direction (as long as he stays in terrain appropriate to his gambit) and the pursuers follow, with maybe a few special-case exceptions for "cut him off at the pass"-style gambits. Given a direction and a distance, determining position shouldn't be hard.

We do have one other major problem, though: in mapped areas, two runners may go in the same direction, even if they're not part of a group. In this case, the pursuers may theoretically be able to get closer to runner A by declaring that they're following runner B, thereby ignoring the effects of A's gambits (assuming B is weaker or more cooperative). That's going to require some finessing.

It seems kind of similar to the A chases B chases C problem, though--maybe there's a solution that will handle both?

You could, of course, just turn gambits into combat actions that create obstacles in your wake or resist obstacles in your path...but then you don't have any way to represent the difficulty of trying to track a target and anticipate his movements (as opposed to running towards a fixed point), which seems kind of important.

[Draco_Argentum]

Gunfire during a chase scene doesn't normally kill anyone. Its there to make the other guy more cautions and therefore slower.

I think the chase points idea has more merit than the lead version. Reduce to zero = win gives a definite end point. Having some variable fluctuate up and down and hoping it passes the upper or lower limit can easily produce very long chases.

[JonSetanta]

So, what now, Chase Points? Reduce your foe (chaser or chased) to 0 by X variety of means and the chase is over?

[Manxome]

1204784991[/unixtime]]Gunfire during a chase scene doesn't normally kill anyone. Its there to make the other guy more cautions and therefore slower.

Say rather that if gunfire during a chase scene does kill someone, the chase scene is over. But there are certainly chase scenes that end because one participant incapacitated the other with an attack.

Gunfire also frequently destroys vehicles/equipment, which in turn affects the chase.

1204784991[/unixtime]]I think the chase points idea has more merit than the lead version. Reduce to zero = win gives a definite end point. Having some variable fluctuate up and down and hoping it passes the upper or lower limit can easily produce very long chases.

What do the chase points represent, then? What prevents you from instantly starting another chase as soon as you lose the current one?

If we're using distance, then if the pursuer wins, it means you're forced into combat mode (and probably can't get back into chase mode without somehow incapacitating the pursuer or getting a certain distance away), and if the runner wins, it means the pursuer no longer knows where he is, and so cannot follow (and is forced into search mode, or gives up).

If you use "chase points" that mean something other than how far away you are--and keeping in mind that we still need to know what your position is during the chase, for reasons Carthaz outlined--what happens at the end of the chase that logically prevents you from saying "I start running [away/after him] again."

You could maybe have it represent fatigue, or something like that--that would probably need to tie in closely with the combat system...

[SphereOfFeetMan]

My thoughts on the issue: (and cobbling together much of the previous posts)

-You don't want the chase mini-game to be something that the players hate; something that takes away their character's agency.
-You don't want there to be an ugly transition between a chase scene and combat.
-How interesting a chase scene can be is wholly dependant upon the richness of the environment. Cover, concealment, obstacles, uneven terrain, multiple potential escape routes, or creature "extras" are needed for a chase.
-A chase scene can occur in a mapped or unmapped area, it is merely dependant upon the 'richness' of the area.
--The mapped dungeon complex is generally unsuitable for a chase scene not because it is mapped, but because the rooms are empty, the exits are known, and the rooms are restrictive.


Given the above, I think the following should be the base chase rules:
-Chases only occur in combat rounds. That is, Flee/Chase Gambits are an action choice in addition to the default combat actions.
-The target uses a gambit (based on their favored ability) to use the environment to meet the 3 goals of fleeing:
--Disrupt Line of Effect
--Outrun Pursuers
--Lose Pursuers

So, a basic Flee gambit would be the following:

Chase Gambit (Flee)
Name: Obstacle Course
Description: You weave in and out of obstacles to obscure yourself and slow down your enemies.
Check: Dexterity
Action: Full round
Movement: 4x base normal speed (You can make as many turns as you like)
Success: You gain 1/4 cover and 1/4 concealment versus you pursuers. Cumulative on successive rounds.

And a basic Pursue Gambit would be the following:

Chase Gambit (Pursue)
Name: Juggernaut
Description: You plow through all the obstacles your quarry has put between himself and you.
Check: Strength (vs Quarry's Dexterity check)
Action: Full round
Movement: 4x base normal speed (You can make as many turns as you like)
Success: You negate 1/4 cover and 1/4 concealment versus your quarry. Cumulative on successive rounds.
Success by 5+ points: Same as Success, but you move 5x your base normal speed.
Failure: You have to chose between negating your target's cover/concealment and moving 3x your base speed, or moving 4x your base speed and not negating your target's cover/concealment.

Once the quarry has achieved total concealment, they make an Escape Gambit check. If they succeed on this they escape. Possible Escape Gambits would be: Disguise, Outdistance, Double-back, Hide, etc. Different successful Escape Gambits could offer different options.

For example, a Disguise EG allows you to meld into the crowd and observe your pursuers. An Outdistance EG allows you to get to your destination twice as fast as normal combat movement rules allow. Etc.

Once the Pursuers have gotten close enough to their target so that they threaten him, they get to make a Capture Gambit check. This could be like Afap's suggestion: Tackle, Convinced to stop, or Cornered. Or it could be a trip or grapple check.

Regarding how long each group can keep the chase going (chase hp): Using a Chase Gambit takes twice the equivalent effort of running. Once your Constitution check fails, you can no longer use a Chase Gambit. (Hooray for Endurance )

[JonSetanta]

Ach... a worthy 'fatigue' system is a whole new can of worms.

[Draco_Argentum]

1204788487[/unixtime]]
What do the chase points represent, then? What prevents you from instantly starting another chase as soon as you lose the current one?

The ability to keep fleeing/chasing just as hit points represent the ability to keep fighting.

If we're using distance, then if the pursuer wins, it means you're forced into combat mode (and probably can't get back into chase mode without somehow incapacitating the pursuer or getting a certain distance away)

Since one of the objectives is to be able to flee combat what stops you from just fleeing the resulting combat?

If you use "chase points" that mean something other than how far away you are--and keeping in mind that we still need to know what your position is during the chase, for reasons Carthaz outlined--what happens at the end of the chase that logically prevents you from saying "I start running [away/after him] again."

Keep in mind that distance isn't the only determiner of escape. How many chase scenes end when the quarry runs around a corner and into a crowd and the pursuers come around the same corner and stop, realising that they have lost? What about when a sneaky type gets out of LoS then does some neat hiding trick?

Presumably you can't run away again if you already have no chase points. They're arbitrary like hit points. So they need a recharge mechanism of some form.

You could maybe have it represent fatigue, or something like that--that would probably need to tie in closely with the combat system...

I'd just have the chase end effect depend on what gambit took the last chase point. Similar to having whatever takes your last wound determine what your corpse looks like.

[Manxome]

1204790169[/unixtime]]Presumably you can't run away again if you already have no chase points. They're arbitrary like hit points. So they need a recharge mechanism of some form.

With hit points, I have at least a general idea of what they represent in the narrative (usually level of injury), and having 0 hit points has an absolutely clear narrative and game mechanical effect (usually unconscious or dead, depending on the system).

Does zero chase points mean you can't move? If so, then losing a chase appears to automatically mean you lose the following combat, and running away from someone for a while (to reduce their chase points) might be a good strategy for killing them. That seems to smash a number of proposed abstractions.

If not, then exactly what do you mean when you say you can't run?

1204790169[/unixtime]]

If we're using distance, then if the pursuer wins, it means you're forced into combat mode (and probably can't get back into chase mode without somehow incapacitating the pursuer or getting a certain distance away)

Since one of the objectives is to be able to flee combat what stops you from just fleeing the resulting combat?

Just to double-check, you did read the passage you quoted, right? I realize that's possibly not a complete solution, but you could actually argue it's inadequacy rather than ignoring everything I say in my own defense.

I see two basic options:

1) You can't enter chase mode if you're deep in combat. You must be a certain distance away from all active opponents to enter chase mode, period.

2) Catching up to someone doesn't exit chase mode. It just means you're close enough that you can use gambits that attempt to damage or immobilize the target while they continue to run; chase continues until one of you is unwilling or unable to continue chase mode (where "unable" actually means that you're immobile from a narrative perspective, like if your legs are broken or you're turned to stone).

#1 means that chase mode can't be used to flee combat until you've already used combat tactics to extricate yourself. #2 means that you pretty much need to be able to conduct combat while in chase mode. But I don't see any other possibilities that make sense.

[PhoneLobster]

Chase points are by far the superior model.

I'd use them myself in my own chase resolution if I used a HP type system at all.

Regardless your chase attacks need to deal special chase damage that eventually prevents you from playing chasey again for a while.

Its a fairly basic requirement. Determining if you are allowed to play chasey based on arbitrary distances from combat (where is the edge of that anyway?) or having "Gotcha, Smack, Run Away! Gotcha, Smack, Run Away!" are both pretty unsatisfactory.

The only other option than depleting some sort of abstract chase resource is if you genuinely blend combat and chasing so that chasing is just something that determines weird "on the run" relative positional advantages (or some equivalent) in between regular combat actions for certain combats that get to be special "chase" combats. And I don't like that option for a number of perfectly good reasons.

[CatharzGodfoot]

I think the 'fatigue can of worms' is worth opening.

Inflicting status effects for extended sprinting seems reasonable. Having the final successful gambit determine the outcome of the case (and therefore inflicting the appropriate status, as outlined above) ties in with this nicely and keeps quarries from immediately running away again.

I do agree that there are significant advantages to using HP-equivalents (possibly even HP) in a chase. The fact that eventually at least one of the two quantities goes to zero is huge (although you still need to deal with ties).
The disadvantages are not insignificant, even outside of combat. If you're outrunning the police and they keep calling in new cars, you simply can't win. That may be a good model realistically, but it's a bad model for this game. Characters should, however, be allowed to join a chase in progress.

Another advantage of lead is as follows: You're outrunning a pack of orcs, but they win the chase with a 'you're surrounded' gambit. Just as it seems like you're about to die, a balor comes screaming up for no apparent reason. The orcs take off running. Elminister isn't with you, and you take off running too.

If you were both using chase points, both you and the orcs are probably going to get fire-whipped all the way to hell. If you were using lead and status effects, both you and the orcs are running at a disadvantage, but at least you can. At with both you and the orcs throwing your gambits into throwing off the balor, you may just escape (although the 'I only have to run faster than the orcs' principle may apply).

[Manxome]

You know, you can arrange a lead mechanic so that chases reliably end in a timely manner, if you want. You just give whoever's closer to winning a bonus on their die roll, or give one side a bonus as the chase goes on, or even just multiply the total change per round (in whatever direction) by larger coefficients as the chase goes on. There's lots of ways to ensure the chase ends.

Here's another issue: if running out of chase points doesn't mean that you can't fight, what prevents you from running away while still in combat mode? Just keep on moving as quickly as possible away from your opponent.

The entire point of having a chase minigame in the first place is that the combat minigame doesn't handle chases well. We want to be able to say that, at some point, you are forced out of combat mode and into chase mode if you keep moving away from your opponent (and he keeps following). I'm not sure exactly where that point should be, but I'm pretty sure we're going to have a problem when we hit it if one party "can't enter chase mode" for purely abstract reasons.

[RandomCasualty]

1204770198[/unixtime]]
D'oh! You are correct. Man, it's been so long since I ran a game in a mapped dungeon I literally forgot about this situation and its attendant issues. I'm honestly not sure if any chase minigame functions in a context as restrictive as a mapped-to-the-five-foot-square dungeon. You might have to resort to conventional tactical movement and maneuvers in that case. Most of the time, that sort of environment doesn't support a particularly long chase before it hits another encounter anyway.

The dungeon chase is better handled via the bad guy dropping minions and traps in his way on a battlemap. Some of the chase mechanics you may also want to bastardize, like knocking over something like a barrel as you're running to slow down your enemy.

A chase mechanic would be better to handle settings you havent' mapped out, like a chase through a forest or a city or whatever.

[RandomCasualty]

1204822239[/unixtime]]I think the 'fatigue can of worms' is worth opening.

Inflicting status effects for extended sprinting seems reasonable. Having the final successful gambit determine the outcome of the case (and therefore inflicting the appropriate status, as outlined above) ties in with this nicely and keeps quarries from immediately running away again.

I do agree that there are significant advantages to using HP-equivalents (possibly even HP) in a chase. The fact that eventually at least one of the two quantities goes to zero is huge (although you still need to deal with ties).

I'd handle fatigue with three categories: Out of Shape, Normal and Superhuman.

basically, your categories depend on how many "chase turns" you can remain in a chase. So if you haven't achieved your goal by then you get fatigued and basically automatically lose. So if your fatigue runs out and you're the pursuer you automatically lose your quarry, if you're being chased, you get caught. People with equal endurance tend to get tired at the same point, so they can continue the chase, though both are fatigued at that point and going somewhat slower.

That gives a natural advantage to endurance, because it means that you just need to maintain the status quo against people who have less endurance than you do.

[Draco_Argentum]

1204792525[/unixtime]]With hit points, I have at least a general idea of what they represent in the narrative (usually level of injury), and having 0 hit points has an absolutely clear narrative and game mechanical effect (usually unconscious or dead, depending on the system).

Thats wounds in TNE. HP are some kind of abstract ability to not get stabbed in the face.

Just to double-check, you did read the passage you quoted, right? I realize that's possibly not a complete solution, but you could actually argue it's inadequacy rather than ignoring everything I say in my own defense.

Umm, no. You're arguing for something so you get to explain how it deals with the objections people raise. Now the quoted text was about there being some vague mechanic stopping people from going straight back to chase mode. Whatever system gets used needs to answer that question.

Most importantly this system is intended so that running from combat is an option that actually works. As opposed to 3.x where it probably doesn't work and if it does its an auto success. There absolutely has to be a reason why you can run from a fight but when you get caught and sucked back into combat you can't just run again.

This kills Catharz's off the cuff suggestion of using HP IMO. 'Oh shit run!' is meant to be an option. If combat is depleting your ability to run thats counter productive.

Here's another issue: if running out of chase points doesn't mean that you can't fight, what prevents you from running away while still in combat mode? Just keep on moving as quickly as possible away from your opponent.

Good point. I suggest making chases like combat. If anyone says chase time its chase time. So if someone uses combat movement to get away a chase will probably start. This might be a problem with horse archer vs. slow melee though.

[angelfromanotherpin]

I recommend that chase can only be started by a character who is more than one round's worth of movement from anyone who wants to chase them. Otherwise they're still in combat. They can declare it at the end of their own movement if they want. So you have to be further from a light cavalryman than an encumbered dwarf to declare that chase is on.

Also, one could make chase even more like regular combat, and have chase points and lead 'wounds.'

[CatharzGodfoot]

1204855022[/unixtime]]Most importantly this system is intended so that running from combat is an option that actually works. As opposed to 3.x where it probably doesn't work and if it does its an auto success. There absolutely has to be a reason why you can run from a fight but when you get caught and sucked back into combat you can't just run again.

This kills Catharz's off the cuff suggestion of using HP IMO. 'Oh shit run!' is meant to be an option. If combat is depleting your ability to run thats counter productive.

Er, doesn't using hit points ensure that you can't start running again after being caught?

You don't like the idea that running away gets more difficult as a fight goes on. I think it makes perfect sense, and I also think that it makes sense that total defeat in a chase is equivalent to combat defeat.

A rational character should always be thinking 'Is this the time for me to run away?'. Having most extended combats end in the `defeated` try to run away is dumb.
Similarly, a smart character trying to flee will be thinking 'Should I stop and fight now? Am I going to loose this chase anyway?'

So you serve the purposes of limiting the total 'chase time + fight time', ensuring that a foes will usually surrender or die at the end of a chase, and ensuring that foes don't always try to run away when their HP reach zero.


How's this for making characters use the chase mechanics as appropriate: You can't make a double move or all-out run. You have to take your standard/move/boost/press/free/whatever actions as normal or go into chase mode.
If you're really fast you can still use your move action to get away, but if you're more than twice as fast as your foes you're going to win a chase anyway.

[Draco_Argentum]

I dunno, that would mean the party dwarf could almost never run. ie the party pretty much can't run without pissing off the dwarf's player.

[Crissa]

Yes, but that does make sense. That's why Gimli is unceremoniously picked up and hauled away.

-Crissa

[Manxome]

1204856054[/unixtime]]How's this for making characters use the chase mechanics as appropriate: You can't make a double move or all-out run. You have to take your standard/move/boost/press/free/whatever actions as normal or go into chase mode.
If you're really fast you can still use your move action to get away, but if you're more than twice as fast as your foes you're going to win a chase anyway.

I don't see how this helps unless you have an inherent speed advantage in moving towards an opponent vs. away from an opponent. Just taking away double move on both sides still means that the faster guy has 100% escape chance and the slower guy has zero.

Though it probably means the slower guy gets a few more parting shots, as long as he has a ranged attack...

[CatharzGodfoot]

1204863337[/unixtime]]
I don't see how this helps unless you have an inherent speed advantage in moving towards an opponent vs. away from an opponent. Just taking away double move on both sides still means that the faster guy has 100% escape chance and the slower guy has zero.

The slower guy just goes into chase mode to catch up.

[Manxome]

1204868635[/unixtime]]

1204863337[/unixtime]]
I don't see how this helps unless you have an inherent speed advantage in moving towards an opponent vs. away from an opponent. Just taking away double move on both sides still means that the faster guy has 100% escape chance and the slower guy has zero.

The slower guy just goes into chase mode to catch up.

As long as you move faster in chase mode than your fastest combat-mode movement, what does that have to do with whether you can double-move in combat mode or not?

Umm, no. You're arguing for something so you get to explain how it deals with the objections people raise.

And the people raising objections get to acknowledge my proposed solutions to their objections, even if those solutions aren't 100% fully fleshed out. They don't get to quote my solution and then repeat the exact same objection as if I said nothing at all; they have to actually point out an inadequacy of the solution.

You also get to explain how the system you're proposing handles the objections that I raise. Let's see how you're doing on that:

Here's another issue: if running out of chase points doesn't mean that you can't fight, what prevents you from running away while still in combat mode? Just keep on moving as quickly as possible away from your opponent.

Good point. I suggest making chases like combat. If anyone says chase time its chase time. So if someone uses combat movement to get away a chase will probably start. This might be a problem with horse archer vs. slow melee though.

My Objection: Since you're proposing that losing a chase doesn't immobilize you, it seems you can just run away while in combat mode after the chase ends, which is exactly what the minigame is supposed to prevent.

Your Answer: We'll just say that if anyone wants to enter chase mode, we enter chase mode.


Yeah, nice answer to a completely different problem. We were just in chase mode, and it ended because the runner is no longer "allowed" to be in chase mode. Going back into chase mode is definitionally off the table unless we're scrapping the "chase point" idea you like so much, or losing all your chase points actually incapacitates you. Care to try again?