Why would I run backwards? If you don't have any hands on me I'd just sprint right past you and you'd be the one turning around, not me.

10 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Melee has initiative: Starting Range = Engaged - Melee Character attacks as normal

Ranged Character has initiative: Starting Range = Engaged - Ranged character elects to run and must make an Athletics check against Melee character being able to catch Ranged Character. Ranged character makes an Athletics check.

Success = Ranged character makes it to Short Range without suffering an AoO from the Melee Character

Failure = Ranged character will face a possible AoO by a melee character that is engaged with that specific ranged character before he can move out of range. Acharacter making an AoO cannot then pursue until their next turn.

This system isn't really set up for this kind of simulationist approach, and all you're going to do is bog the game down in minutia while you try to keep track of it all. If you really think somebody should get an advantage in a situation, toss in a blue die and call it done.

And again, if the melee character runs, do I get a free shot at them and if not, why not?

Jesus, this is all way too complicated and crunchy. If it bugs you that much, throw a blue or a black at the roll where appropriate and call it a day.

5 hours ago, 2P51 said:

Why would I run backwards? If you don't have any hands on me I'd just sprint right past you and you'd be the one turning around, not me.

If you can run fast so can your enemy, and if your enemy has a weapon with any kind of reach you're super ******.

5 hours ago, 2P51 said:

And again, if the melee character runs, do I get a free shot at them and if not, why not?

I agree that you would get a shot if they just run right in front of you or without cover.

4 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

If you can run fast so can your enemy, and if your enemy has a weapon with any kind of reach you're super ******.

I'd run in the opposite direction they swung. Why would I run backwards?

5 hours ago, whafrog said:

This system isn't really set up for this kind of simulationist approach, and all you're going to do is bog the game down in minutia while you try to keep track of it all. If you really think somebody should get an advantage in a situation, toss in a blue die and call it done.

I thought about that after I wrote it, and you're right. If you are going to play RAW just toss in a boost or setback and do the normal stuff. I am messing with Narrative Initiative in my own game though so I have some room for some sim type stuff that is also germane to in frame resolution. But yeah for RAW I agree.

20 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

I'd run in the opposite direction they swung. Why would I run backwards?

Are you thinking you could just juke and you're safe? Would this be like the first time your enemy ever used that weapon and fought someone? That's kind of silly man, if you know the guy has a gun and is dumb enough to try and run for range before shooting then you aren't going to stop, and you aren't any more likely to get juked than it is for him to mess up and stumble. I guess if Melee Man is determined not to move fast maybe that would work, like he's all stiff-legged and not wanting to break stance, but if you are trying to kill someone with a melee weapon, especially a long one that strategy of yours is risky at best.

Are you thinking more in game terms and maybe you are winning initiative and so the other character doesn't get to act? That's the only way I see this as a great strategy. Otherwise it would be better to shoot them or go for a grapple/takedown.

I'm just pointing out there's no good reason in real life or game mechanics to run backwards.

Plus in game terms if melee man missed I fail to see why they get a second chance to hit me if I choose to scoot.

1 hour ago, 2P51 said:

I'm just pointing out there's no good reason in real life or game mechanics to run backwards.

Plus in game terms if melee man missed I fail to see why they get a second chance to hit me if I choose to scoot.

Ah I see. Yeah I wasn't understanding. I 100% agree, running backwards is fail.

But isn't this just a way of trying to break free of the PC, NPC, PC way of resolving combat? I think that there are times in real actions where you sometimes get a good immediate follow up, or you get an opening, or your opponent screws up and you are able to capitalize. You can say well yeah but just simulate that with the normal order, but it's cantankerous and slow sometimes, and in the moment it's really cool to get a higher tempo of attacks sometimes. The drama of an NPC repeatedly battering a foe with a melee weapon while the defending PC is trying desperately to fend off the attacks. Minions are in the game to give this impression, but why are there not epic moments like this outside of a Triumph on a standard check.

Melee runs in and attacks Gun Guy, gun guy goes to run. Right there is a perfect time for an out of turn attack. It would be germane to the situation. But no, we need to go back to the initiative counter and see who is taking the next slot and it's not you Melee guy cause you already went. I believe the rules say that the GM can grant an extra action to a player in a round, but should usually refrain from doing so. I think this could be a good candidate for a reason to grant that action, just as the Melee guy disengaging poorly from a Ranged foe would be a good candidate for an extra action AoO. This to me replicates somewhat military initiative or momentum. Bad choices in combat can be fatal.

There are ways to do this with pure description, but that will often be met with disinterest by some players. This may be the sim guy in me talking, but if you can reflect it mechanically then I think it will be more poignant.

2 hours ago, Archlyte said:

If you can run fast so can your enemy, and if your enemy has a weapon with any kind of reach you're super ******.

Any kind of reach pales next to weapon with any kindnof range. I'd much rather try to outrun a guy with a spear than a guy with a rifle.

Just now, HappyDaze said:

Any kind of reach pales next to weapon with any kindnof range. I'd much rather try to outrun a guy with a spear than a guy with a rifle.

Yeah. You can't even outrun super slow blaster bolts and they only go like 70 mph or something. So if you have a gun you should probably shoot. I've seen combat shooting instructors do just fine against an opponent in arm's reach. But for ages this wasn't how combat was done, and in those ages of hand to hand weapons they had no trouble killing people without guns, and I imagine many of them ran. A bow/crossbow would be useful if you didn't want to chase them, but I can't imagine that was always the case where you get the guy running in the background and the guy in the foreground draws his missile weapon and downs him. To be good with any kind of melee/brawl fighting you have to be good on your feet and have good cardio.

4 hours ago, Archlyte said:

But isn't this just a way of trying to break free of the PC, NPC, PC way of resolving combat? I think that there are times in real actions where you sometimes get a good immediate follow up, or you get an opening, or your opponent screws up and you are able to capitalize.

All this is already built in. There's a crit that allows you to attack again. If the NPC rolls some Threat, you can apply Strain, which may take them down, and can be narrated as a swift kick to the groin. You can pass boost dice narrated as the PC grabbing the NPC's shirt, slowing him down so the next PC can line up a clean shot.

Trust me, I wondered where all these tactical elements were too when I first started playing. Eventually I realized, this game is as tactical as any on the market. However, instead of pages and pages of codified BS with lists of specific conditions (that inevitably miss something), this game flips the responsibility to the GM and players to invent on the fly as they see fit. What they have done is provide a scale of effect, so that 1A provides minimal benefit, and 1T is more intense. It's your job as the GM to adjudicate the scale (and provide options on the fly if necessary).. Note this is different from other games where you job is to know the rules, or at least where to look them up.

This means you are free to do what you are suggesting any time you feel it's appropriate. You don't need no stinkin' list of conditions. If a PC is in difficult terrain or prone and rolls a Despair, and you feel it's appropriate, having the NPC attack again isn't a stretch.

Also consider that all the wall-of-text rule options you've already produced are approaching the length of the RAW combat rules, and you're only dealing with one situation. How many more situations will you attempt to codify before you realize it's all built in already?

21 hours ago, 2P51 said:

My immediate response would be where is the new maneuver for the gun user to lay down suppressive fire and inhibit someone from being able to close distance?

its not a maneuver its called suppressing fire and causes strain damage on a missed check. Do it enough and it causes them to be narratively defeated, most minions would "die" on two missed checks with the maximum 4 ranks of it, and most nemesis with 4 or 5, just from missing

6 minutes ago, syrath said:

its not a maneuver its called suppressing fire and causes strain damage on a missed check. Do it enough and it causes them to be narratively defeated, most minions would "die" on two missed checks with the maximum 4 ranks of it, and most nemesis with 4 or 5, just from missing

I'm aware of the Talent specifically. I was more speaking generally to the fact if there is a new maneuver that bestows the melee PC a AOO where is the application for a range PC to slow/prevent being engaged by melee adversaries.

10 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

I'm aware of the Talent specifically. I was more speaking generally to the fact if there is a new maneuver that bestows the melee PC a AOO where is the application for a range PC to slow/prevent being engaged by melee adversaries.

Many of the choices open to a melee player are also available for the ranged player, while it is narratively harder to use a ranged weapon to cause a knockdown you can

Called shot to the legs,

use advantage/triumph/destiny points to prevent or cause things like the terrain between you and the target to become rough terrain,

while there are less options to mess with movement than a melee/brawl character, if you think about it, it should be as there are less ways of messing with movement with a weapon that causes damage the way a slugthrower or energy weapon does,edit if you think about it brawl has even more options than melee, again for good reason

you also have options like --- bola which are great for entangling.

The ranged character may have less , but certainly doesn't have no options.

If a character starts off at medium range and has initiative against a melee character, if they shoot first then move twice , the melee /brawl character needs 4 maneuvers to close distance, to be honest its the melee characters that have the more difficult job and HAVE to use these tactics to even get to engaged range to begin with, once their the ranged character CAN be in a world of pain , but how many opportunities has the ranged character had to do things like

pull down a cart/stand shelving unit so as to make the terrain , rough behind them (2/3 advantage on. a check or a dedicated athletics check)

Shoot out a drum of water , also dropping water or even worse, toxic liquid between you and said melee character (Destiny Point / Triumph on roll)

Cause the target to get a blow to the leg (called shots, either causing them to lose a maneuver or if the GM rules maybe even lose their free maneuver for the rest of the encounter, ensuring they spend 4 strain per round to keep up)

I could go on with the options available. Many of these options also have counters for those prepared for it (free running over and around obstacles, force leap over , the talent that lets you ignore rough terrain, being good enough that the attack misses etc)

As a melee character Im constantly having to come up with tactics to make the range work in my favor (like using a Destiny Point to plant rough terrain, behind my opponents to slow them up)

27 minutes ago, syrath said:

As a melee character Im constantly having to come up with tactics to make the range work in my favor (like using a Destiny Point to plant rough terrain, behind my opponents to slow them up)

Isn't this as it should be?

And, one of those tactics could always be "pick up a ranged weapon and return fire." Just because you choose to use melee doesn't mean the bad guys should be cooperating to make it easier for you to murder them.

7 hours ago, whafrog said:

All this is already built in. There's a crit that allows you to attack again. If the NPC rolls some Threat, you can apply Strain, which may take them down, and can be narrated as a swift kick to the groin. You can pass boost dice narrated as the PC grabbing the NPC's shirt, slowing him down so the next PC can line up a clean shot.

Trust me, I wondered where all these tactical elements were too when I first started playing. Eventually I realized, this game is as tactical as any on the market. However, instead of pages and pages of codified BS with lists of specific conditions (that inevitably miss something), this game flips the responsibility to the GM and players to invent on the fly as they see fit. What they have done is provide a scale of effect, so that 1A provides minimal benefit, and 1T is more intense. It's your job as the GM to adjudicate the scale (and provide options on the fly if necessary).. Note this is different from other games where you job is to know the rules, or at least where to look them up.

This means you are free to do what you are suggesting any time you feel it's appropriate. You don't need no stinkin' list of conditions. If a PC is in difficult terrain or prone and rolls a Despair, and you feel it's appropriate, having the NPC attack again isn't a stretch.

Also consider that all the wall-of-text rule options you've already produced are approaching the length of the RAW combat rules, and you're only dealing with one situation. How many more situations will you attempt to codify before you realize it's all built in already?

Sage advice, and I accept it as such. I think that the issue is that something about the way RAW has resolved for me so far hasn't felt as flexible as I think it is. I can see that some of this is just me being new to the system compared to other games I have played. I do attempt to codify this stuff, but I mainly do it to bolster my memory as far as how things can be resolved. I generally use charts and tables because I will sometimes forget cool options, but I also like building that stuff. I think to just use RAW because that has all of these possibilities already built in is a good thing, and I also think that maybe you feel that I am narrowing possibilities by having pre-made schema for some of these situations. I also think those are valid concerns and something you see a lot in new gamers. They will try to narrow things down to simple choices or to have A condition always yields B result. When I play RPGs though I generally employ my Tao of RPGs: that each situation is resolved in it's own way independent of cultural expectations in the hobby, previous situations of the same sort, and rules that may inhibit the thing from occurring in its best form. I think that would be more in line with what you are advising me, and so perhaps we can be in agreement on that side of it.

There is also the issue of clunk. Clunk is not always bad, as it provides a framework for how things can be done which can have a soothing effect on players' sense of vertigo. If for instance we say that RAW has infinite responses to any issue, we can say that anything is valid as a response under RAW, which can make it seem as if all responses are on the table and equal. That provides no comfort to someone who gets into the situation but may be at a point where they would like some help in determining how they should proceed. QUESTION: What should I do? ANSWER: You can do anything-- While this may be satisfying for you, other people may find this to be unhelpful as it lacks expectations, lacks a value system for how to proceed, and has only the context of the original dilemma, which in TTRPG can be extremely nebulous at times depending on the skill of the narration. By providing some sort of optional framework for specific problems we can introduce a schema that can be accepted, modified, or refuted. The tradeoff being that the Infinite has become less Infinite in appearance, and there could be some delay as the schema may have additional steps instead of the RAW solution which already has its own steps. You can argue that less is always more, but I don't think that is something that you can prove other than from the standpoint of assigning less steps a universal superiority over the opposite. More steps could yield a better result, it could provide the players with a reason to try another solution, etc.

11 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Isn't this as it should be?

And, one of those tactics could always be "pick up a ranged weapon and return fire." Just because you choose to use melee doesn't mean the bad guys should be cooperating to make it easier for you to murder them.

Yeah I think this is super important. Getting tunnel vision in such a situation would get you killed. In most circumstances the character doesn't need to be Han Solo to hit with a blaster at close range, and while they may have trained with their sword they shouldn't try to use a tool for the wrong job. If they have no other choice then sure, but if you have the option of not bringing a knife to a gun fight maybe you should take that option.

2 hours ago, syrath said:

Many of the choices open to a melee player are also available for the ranged player, while it is narratively harder to use a ranged weapon to cause a knockdown you can

Called shot to the legs,

use advantage/triumph/destiny points to prevent or cause things like the terrain between you and the target to become rough terrain,

while there are less options to mess with movement than a melee/brawl character, if you think about it, it should be as there are less ways of messing with movement with a weapon that causes damage the way a slugthrower or energy weapon does,edit if you think about it brawl has even more options than melee, again for good reason

you also have options like --- bola which are great for entangling.

The ranged character may have less , but certainly doesn't have no options.

I don't think you're getting I'm not the one that proposed this, so yah, anyway.

1 hour ago, Archlyte said:

While this may be satisfying for you, other people may find this to be unhelpful as it lacks expectations, lacks a value system for how to proceed, and has only the context of the original dilemma, which in TTRPG can be extremely nebulous at times depending on the skill of the narration.

I think this isn't an accurate representation. The answer isn't just "You can do anything." The answer is "You can do anything, and here's a list of possibilities within a scale to get your imagination flowing. If you can't think of anything in a short period of time, no problem, we'll apply one of the defaults according to the scale." And all those defaults are already listed, as weapon qualities, Advantage/Triumph expenditure, the Crit chart, etc.

Basically, the value system is right there. It's not lacking, you're just not seeing it (yet).

Edit: this is kind of poignant, as I'm having a similar argument with a friend who is GMing D&D5. He's new to it, and carries a lot of baggage from "the good old days", including specialized crit charts, fumble charts, etc. That's all fine, but he has no sense of scaling. In D&D5, a crit means rolling double damage dice. That's it. He wants more interesting options, which is cool, but in order to scale the effect, it basically has to be worth a second damage roll. That is the value of a crit. So he could replace it with knocking someone prone, or dropping someone's pants, or passing a +2 benefit to the next PC, or...any number of fairly minor tactical options with amusing side-effects. Then I asked: why do you need a chart? Now that you know the rough scale, why not just create it on the fly? Bears don't have pants, so if you include those kinds of effects, they aren't always applicable, and you either need more charts, or give up.

The zen of it is, the more you codify, the less you're prepared for...

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Isn't this as it should be?

And, one of those tactics could always be "pick up a ranged weapon and return fire." Just because you choose to use melee doesn't mean the bad guys should be cooperating to make it easier for you to murder them.

I agree completely, this is exactly as it should be, in exactly the same way that a player letting a melee character run right up to them should expect to have problems running away.

Im not a fan of adding AoO in this game as it would be a death sentence to be honest, forcing a player to take an extra maneuver yo get away, is fine with me given how difficult you can make it for people to get that close (being surrounded is a different matter), but also many of the options suggested for making it even more difficult to approach a ranged character also unnecessary. Although Id like to add a further response to an earlier question to follow