"The win condition of the Fighter is to reach b2b contact"

[shinimasu]

There are some cases where Kiting the Ogre is perhaps optimal but not actually viable.For example the Ogre could have a higher base speed than the PCs, so while kiting a few rounds is possible, it could run one of them down in a round or so. Or maybe it has a few tricks like hurling rocks that punish ranged attackers. If the close attacks hit hard but the ranged punishment hits harder then there's some risk-reward there if there's mechanics that let PCs draw aggro or take cover.

It's not one to one but Ogre's scenario reminds me a little of Kingdom Death combat. There are a variety of optimal strategies players might gravitate towards. There are also monsters that punish those specific strategies. Range is very good, but also very hard to work with because bows limit your movement in return for granting range. Kiting works and works well but on some enemies it's hard to set up and not worth the effort.

It's essentially a dicepool system at heart so aside from being designed for GMless play, I think there's a lot to pull from there when it comes to playing the positioning game. You're not just thinking about how far you are from the monsters, but also where are they facing? Who counts as a threat right now? Does it punish you for hiding in its blind spot? Will it charge forward when you hit it or will it usually jump back? Are you risking being grabbed when you're adjacent? How far across the board can it hit you from, and can you close that distance before it gets a turn?

[OgreBattle]

Yeah, the "kite an ogre in an open field" example is what I don't want. I think the scenario, goals of parties involved is a big part in avoiding that kind of situation. I mention wargames a lot because it's Kill Team objective grabbing, hidden objectives, each side having different objectives that made the game interesting. Humorously most tabletop role playing games I've sat for imagination time were 'kill em all' as the win condition.

Minus a time factor, kiting a brutally effective melee opponent is what every semi-intelligent creature will do. Getting into toe-to-toe melee with an enemy that will wreck your shit is absolutely what they won't want to do. Your ruleset cannot simultaneously demand that people act moronically and punish them for it. There can be win conditions that involve avoiding the encounter, in which case shooting and drawing attention are more likely to cause problems than 'sneaking' (assuming you have rules for that), but killing your opponents is almost always a win condition.

If you have to get past the Ogre, killing the ogre is an effective way of getting past the Ogre. Arguably, it is more effective than sneaking because you don't have to worry about running into the ogre again while you're retreating, or the ogre following you and attacking from behind. Destroying your foe is a win state because there aren't very many ways that can continue to be a problem unless you will need something from that encounter that can only be provided willingly (like information). However, unless the players knew that this ogre has the combination lock to the BBEG's sock drawer, they don't need to worry about that. If they kill the BBEG, they can also spend unlimited amounts of time destroying/disabling the lock.

Anything you do that makes the ogre (or the fighter) more likely to win in melee ALSO ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO AOVID MELEE. You can try to apply some kludges like awarding XP by how close the PC comes to a TPK, but that's also likely to end up creating a TPK sooner rather than later. From the PCs perspective, survival is the minimum standard for a win-condition - holding territory or accomplishing objectives comes second to that.

Oh whoops, I meant to include that the ogre needs to have a goal and 'scenario win condition' too. Like running off with the cattle, killing the important target, bashing a hole in the wall. Say in Jackson Lord of the Rings there's that Uruk Hai who got pincushioned with arrows but his side's win condition was to detonate a hole in the wall. The context of the battle (siege, wall keeping orc legions out) made it interesting compared to an open field death duel.

Yeah making it "impossible to kill things at range" is going to feel to rigid and take away immersion, not what I want to do.
So if the goal of the player party is to kill the big melee monster that's not faster than a horse, then luring it into an open field can still be the adventure. Tracking it, luring it with its favorite food, maybe digging a pit without it noticing and so on is then the meat of the adventure. That's something I enjoyed with Monster Hunter I and early game MHW.

It's not one to one but Ogre's scenario reminds me a little of Kingdom Death combat. There are a variety of optimal strategies players might gravitate towards. There are also monsters that punish those specific strategies. Range is very good, but also very hard to work with because bows limit your movement in return for granting range. Kiting works and works well but on some enemies it's hard to set up and not worth the effort.

I've been meaning to play that, the monster deck looks fun.

[MGuy]

Why is the ogre being kited down on an open field by a party of horse archers an undesirable outcome?

We are talking about opposition against the players. If the players are riding horses and have an open field to act on these are prime conditions for players. If you're looking to challenge the players when they are in these conditions wouldn't it be better if the GM's random encounter table simply didn't generate Ogres with clubs as an option and instead Rock hurling giants instead? I think you're going to end up twisting yourself and whatever you're doing into pretzels trying to make sure Ogres with clubs can stand solo against a bunch of players with an open field to work with instead of having them operate out of caves or dungeons as something like DnD is assuming the players are going to be operating in a good deal of the time.

If you're looking for a win condition the Ogre's is likely to not be caught in the middle of a field to get arrowed down in the first place. That could even be a reason that the ogre hordes typically stay in caves and in mountainous/heavily forested areas because the civilized folk tend to arrow them down from the other side of the map whenever they peek their heads out.

[PhoneLobster]

Oh whoops, I meant to include that the ogre needs to have a goal and 'scenario win condition' too.

That doesn't answer deaddms criticism, doesn't follow from what you were previously saying about the ogre and kiting, which in turn wasn't actually relevant to what MGuy had said about trying to make players interact with environment more.

But whatever the important thing is that in your RPG world there is definitely a referee ready to blow a whistle once the ogre gets the cattle to the marked end zone, and to stop the fight once the ogre holes the wall or kills the VIP. Too bad, ogre won on points/at the end of the timer count down. Everyone stop fighting go home and think about your loss because the GM achieved the single simple abstract goal the GM set for himself with the resources he gave himself in the context he set for himself. .

Or not a referee. Just rocks fall you all die I mean unstoppable legions of orcs outside the wall or other absolute unstoppable forces that can enforce a win on an obscure otherwise abstracted single action. Players DO so love those non-interactive all powerful enforcement tools.

I mean the idea that your RPG might I don't know, just have rules for walls and that putting a hole in it isn't a "win condition" it just happens to be a single interesting event/tactic that routinely game mechanically happens during combats that end in defeats by normal means and that one single action alone doesn't unleash the horde of rocks fall you all die. That would be nuts right? (But I bet some times the ogre putting the hole in the wall doesn't auto win, I bet also that other times the players will be like "now we brought an army to a place and put a hole in the wall, and you will be like, ah, but it's not the goal this time and the army isn't special enough for rocks fall powers, because I'm betting in SOME of your mind palace scenarios holes in walls aren't auto wins.).

Oh but you lose focus and instead say kiting the ogre in a battle to the death is cool now. So I'm sure this is very legit high tier game design that ever gets pinned down on even one single thing that it definable is, wants or does.

And I'm wondering if we should extend existing forum rules to include not wishing Kingdom Death on people. I hear it is basically that absolutely abominable. The monster decks for instance, don't sound "fun" they sound like a blind draw nightmare that excises all possible tactics and choice from the game and replacing it by learning through attrition on the scale of multiple campaign restarts in a massive and accounting heavy "hard core" heavily luck based game system.

[OgreBattle]

Why is the ogre being kited down on an open field by a party of horse archers an undesirable outcome?

I think you're going to end up twisting yourself and whatever you're doing into pretzels trying to make sure Ogres with clubs can stand solo against a bunch of players with an open field to work

Naw not going for that. I meant to address that with "if the goal of the player party is to kill the big melee monster that's not faster than a horse, then luring it into an open field can still be the adventure. Tracking it, luring it with its favorite food, maybe digging a pit without it noticing and so on is then the meat of the adventure. That's something I enjoyed with Monster Hunter I and early game MHW."

and the "Uruk Hai with a bomb" example, where kiting with arrows would definitely kill the Uruk Hai in the open, but the scenario was "stop it from reaching the wall with the bomb" so fatal arrow wounds didn't have enough immediate stopping power.


So it's not "make killing stuff with ranged attacks mechanically impossible"
but
"set up scenarios and NPC behavior where kiting is not likely to occur, or continued kiting can cause players to lose on a time and position sensitive objective."

If you're looking for a win condition the Ogre's is likely to not be caught in the middle of a field to get arrowed down in the first place. That could even be a reason that the ogre hordes typically stay in caves and in mountainous/heavily forested areas because the civilized folk tend to arrow them down from the other side of the map whenever they peek their heads out.

Yeah that. I think it can be an adventure in itself to trap, ambush an enemy in that way.

----

[shinimasu]

It's not one to one but Ogre's scenario reminds me a little of Kingdom Death combat. There are a variety of optimal strategies players might gravitate towards. There are also monsters that punish those specific strategies. Range is very good, but also very hard to work with because bows limit your movement in return for granting range. Kiting works and works well but on some enemies it's hard to set up and not worth the effort.

I've been meaning to play that, the monster deck looks fun.

If you're not looking to shell out 400+ bucks to dissect the mechanics, tabletop sim has some mods for KDM. I find it too cumbersome to play on virtual tabletop but it's a good resource if I want to theorycraft some character builds for future runs.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Yeah that. I think it can be an adventure in itself to trap, ambush an enemy in that way.

Or you could just play and/or design a real class and not waste time on low-level Dumbass Melee Fighter Bullshit. I got kingdoms to save and demigods to kill, I do not have the narrative bandwidth for an adventure on how my Fighter Benoist lured the dragon to the clock tower for an epic showdown.

[shinimasu]

Yeah that. I think it can be an adventure in itself to trap, ambush an enemy in that way.

Or you could just play and/or design a real class and not waste time on low-level Dumbass Melee Fighter Bullshit. I got kingdoms to save and demigods to kill, I do not have the narrative bandwidth for an adventure on how my Fighter Benoist lured the dragon to the clock tower for an epic showdown.

I mean kind of depends on the scope of the game yeah? Sometimes you want magic superheroes and sometimes you want a desperate band of brothers trying to kill something way above their pay grade with sharp sticks and a lot of field hazards.

[PhoneLobster]

I mean kind of depends on the scope of the game yeah?

Does it though?

Lets note two things.

1) The plan would appear to be to do this to ALL combat encounters, even ones without ogres, but perhaps never to be definitely for sure all the ones with fighters. And fair enough, if this "non-defeat win objectives" plan is anything meaningfully worth mentioning it has to be for at least a very large proportion of all encounters.

2) OgreBattle has repeatedly casually and alarmingly conflated encounters, adventures and entire campaigns in his examples to indicate that he doesn't understand there is a difference. Scope, Scale, Time, and how much is being spent/wasted on what... isn't even a thing in this concept.

I'm guessing this game, and OgreBattle, and his ogre battles exist outside of time itself.

Though to be fair to OgreBattle, and to Lago's issue. Your own use of "scope"... isn't great... "But what if it was thematically appropriate?" isn't about scope and doesn't answer the criticism of "I don't want to spend my time constantly doing that".

[owlassociate]

...doesn't answer the criticism of "I don't want to spend my time constantly doing that".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your main criticism of OgreBattle premise just, "I'm not interested in the game you're proposing on a conceptual level"?

[PhoneLobster]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is your main criticism of OgreBattle premise just, "I'm not interested in the game you're proposing on a conceptual level"?

You are wrong. Now let me correct you with far too much detail.

That seems to be Lago's brief criticism of... this.

My main criticism of his idea is that it isn't one. It's an ever shifting mess of unrelated and insane nonsense and contradictions presented about as poorly as possible.

Ogrebattle cannot or won't meaningfully answer basic questions about it without spouting irrelevant nonsense that then raises further questions or criticisms by other posters, which is then answered with MORE unrelated nonsense that raises more questions and so on forever.

Lets try actually parsing his text at all.

Opening Post
Fighters should win on reaching base to base contact.
Like Conan does once in contact in a single blow.
Conan sometimes throws his sword or a chair. [???]
Getting in range in the first place is the risk for Conan.
So consider how you do that on a grid. [then stop and do something else apparently]
Fighting "hyper specialized melee characters" in melee if you aren't one should be deadly.
But kiting should be avoided. [whut, what happened to the "Conan's risk is even getting there"]
One way to do this is to offer a dichotomy of getting there and winning or getting defeated while out of range. [oh FFS kiting back again hey?]
?? [lack of appropriate connective language] ??
Reduce ranged attack accuracy dramatically beyond Conan throws a stool range. [???]

That was the opening post. It was that much god damn nonsense and it wasn't long.

Some people proposed some more random nonsense. Because people do that. Some people asked "wait if archer whut do?" and I asked "Fighter fights fighter what happun?". Not super hard questions to answer in "it's just filling out an idea" land.

He responded to fighting a fighter with...
I could use [by implication of his own words bad] over complex fencing rules, go read a whole thread somewhere, find it yourself.
Or I could use [by implication of his own words good] fast "normal" rules.
[To achieve what in either case ??? Oh and it increasingly becomes clear the real answer is "I'm doing the first one I myself described as having bad attributes and couldn't possibly describe the intention of in fewer words than that entire linked threads"]
And then reiterates that melee specialists win melee but says only by the proportion that they are melee specialists... which elaborates on and answers nothing.

He responds of all things to a simple "move or shoot" to prevent kiting with...
I saw a thing where archers could only effectively shoot into melees and otherwise missed their targets. I shouldn't claim realism, realism is bad, but if I rebrand realism as an example that's cool.
Archery is for ambushes and flank attacks.
Archery is bad at fighting melee dudes focusing on you [by context he means ones not yet in close range so actually NOW melee specialists win against range specialists UNLESS ambush/shooting into melee even when not at close range]
Archers need to bring melee dudes to fight melee dudes [BUT THEN WHAT HAPPUN?]
Archers should not just exclusively use ranged weapons [But they DO lose for not being "hyper" specialists with anything else right?]
Let me present the realism argument of the historic British longbowman... [how long did that anti-realism argument stance last exactly?]
Archers shouldn't deal sword level damage at range... [uh... okaaaay... where is this going...?]
WIZARDS should deal sword level damage at range! [WHUT!?]
Or maybe whurhammeralcemyblah [it guns isn't it. it's dwarfy dwarf wizardy bang guns. fuck archers specifically just hate on the bows only other ranged is fine I guess]
States he doesn't play RPGs these days, he plays war games. This justifies and interacts with nothing, but now we know.

In response to "wait" D&D already has disadvantages to range combat, what else do you actually feel is needed?
I want Bloodbowl + Killteam - clutter [that is word for word. Really.]
This just reminded me of non-kill based objectives in wargames! [again, actually said that]
I don't know much about burning wheel, so I will ask about it. [does not proceed to ask, so I guess that was the question]

In response to kiting is hard to get rid of and you should probably allow it...
There's this historic realism example some guy said of throwing rocks at people while fencing. [already forgot he said he shouldnt do that, again]
And only now after a quote on another topic and a fail irrelevant response to it I will separately get around to asking a largely unrelated question about Burning Wheel.

In response to an honestly very detailed and long explanation of how to do all-that-stuff-sort-of in Burning Wheel...
One line saying actually I think Bloodbowl knock off rules are already fine thanks.

In response to "I would like a system that makes choices interesting and variable and that seems to be about making the environment important"?
Yes. I don't want kiting an ogre in an open field to happen! [???]
Scenarios and goals for each side should avoid that! [????}
I want variable, asymmetrical, and secret win objectives just like in wargames! [?????]
Aren't RPGs silly for having combat encounters mostly revolve around defeating enemies!
Look at how games workshop lords of the rings wargames are like fantasy hobbit football! [...and? wait, didn't bloodbowl love cover enough of this? what even?]

In response to, "no wait seriously making melee deadly encourages archers to kite"
Oops did I forget to mention ogres need other abstracted single action win conditions too? [??? Really ?]
Like running off with cattle. [No. Just. So much no on that example]
Or killing like the one special guy. [By reaching melee. Which is how it apparently wins. With or without this condition]
Or holing a wall [By reaching melee with the wall. So it and others can also reach melee with archers. Thus "wining" what, double twice?]
Like in the epic battles of lord of the rings movies. [ugh]
Which is more interesting than kiting an ogre in an open field. [so... by admission even more unrelated to anything]
Yes making it impossible to kill things at range is NOT what I want to do! [For this next five seconds at least, but not consistent with previous stated desires in the slightest]
If the goal is to kill ogres that are weak to being kited in open fields then instead of that encounter the party should go on an entire adventure where they lure it there and like dig a pit or something.
That would make it cool.
I like computer games.
someone suggests playing what really does appear to be the biggest expensive sick joke in board game RPG hybrids ever generated by kickstarter for no good reason at all
Yes I want to play that! The secret decks of killer tpk hard core monster abilities you are supposed to randomly draw from in game without ever seeing them first sound fun!

In response to "why is kiting ogres so bad, it looks like things are becoming a mess to make melee ogres competent"
Naw not going for that. [really, You aren't trying to do the accidental bad thing even people doing it don't want to do? Well that solves that then!]
Actually reiterate the "make an encounter into a whole adventure maybe with a pit or something" complete with "I like computer games" as if people missed it the first time but NOW it's relevant.
Reiterate the lord of the rings [movie since it needs specifying] example only now arrows can "definitely" kill the melee beasts, but cannot stop them winning by making melee contact with something. [Did archers need yet another way to lose here?]
So now killing stuff is possible. But archers will like, lose on points or something instead if anyone dares to kite/stand on a wall shooting inevitable doom in a futile manner as it approaches.
If ogres just didn't go into open fields much wouldn't them losing when they do be ok?
Yes it should be an entire adventure instead of an encounter! [No one else said that. No one.]


So yeah. There ARE some through lines with consistency.
Like fuck archers and only archers specifically, again and again in every possible way, other ranged, probably fine, definitely wizards and boom sticks are.
Like, wargames and computer games are cool can't stop loving on fucking bloodbowl, name drop all the RPG and board games that sound like they've ever been fashionable and could lure a reply out of a fan but don't like, interact with the relevant mechanics in the discussion, just bloodbowl will do fine already thanks.

But there is so much nonsense and contradictions and insanity and total failure to engage with meaningful responses to anyone... even those might be accidental.

A meaningful discussion of an idea like this would START with a description of what it intends to do more broadly than in one single conan/an ogre vs fucking scum bag archers who should die in a hole I hate them nerf nerf nerf.

When it comes to further interactions it took all this time to scrape out of the gaps "melee wins at close range" "melee wins at long range" "archers need to bring melee to win against melee" and "archers can beat melee by killing it but it still wins on points with a suicide bomb".

I would have preferred, if, when prompted, we got a single specific plain English brief yet relevant answer on the fighter v fighter. Then we could have moved on to archer v archer, wizard v fighter, wizard v archer, any other archetypes all so far unmentioned, varying range bands and terrain, group match ups, outnumbering, and what all this "definitely not kiting but doing something to try and keep conan from reaching melee before you can kill him with probably not arrows because fuck them specifically" even looks like. Then we could at least know... what this even wants to be, then you could consider talking about what it actually does and how it does it or could do it or could do it better.

It's not that this idea couldn't maybe in an alternative universe be smart, hell, or even just routinely ordinary to the point of excessive familiarity. But in the form it is presented it is relentless stupid at every turn.