I`ve played Dragon Age and I want to compare it to WHFRP 3. DA combat is similar to WHFRP. Obviously its not abstract combat, but it behaves like that. For instance you can forget about setting up a line of PCs and stop the foes from entering the narrow hallway to attack your weaker wizard. basically you can move around and are seldom stopped by your enemies.

in warhammer the abstract combat functions much like that. But DA have aggresion meter or certain talents that makes you attract monsters away from weaker PCs.

in Warhammer there are no such actions cards that allow you to attract monsters, but it should be I think.

How do you handle combat, do you use some sort of logical sense intergrating Aggro into your desicion making? or you simply split up the enemies and divide them equally among your players?

would you like action cards that allowed you to attrackt monsters? or similar cards?

lets brainstorm here. How to make abstract combat better.

Mal Reynolds said:

Well, I wouldn't say you can forget about blocking paths in WHFRP. In our games, you can certainly block a path. If there's a narrow passageway and the Dwarf Warrior and Reiklander Watchman are standing shoulder to shoulder, engaged with the enemy, they're not going past unless they knock someone over or kill someone.

There isn't really a mechanical ruleset for governing this, you just have to apply some common sense to it.

The closest I can think of to a mechanical way of handling it is the Engagement system. If an enemy Engages you, then you will need to use a manoeuver to disengage, then another manouever to engage a new target within close range. This ends up resulting in a lot of extra wounds for the enemy if they end up having to move over any amount of distance to get to your "squishies".

To Darrett

Yeah you can come a long way with common sense. But whfrp combat is supposed to be abstract, which means that you are not supposed to use a tactical map or so.For instance take a look at the location card Secret Passageway. it gives an idea of how abstract it is. Since it basically says you can do, or interpret it that you can move past the guards. but no engagment in the narrow passageway can be larger than 4

I must admit that the whole abstract combat is hard to grasp. And that some compromises must be found, like that positioning of PCs do have an effect on combat, so there will be a tactical movement element in a supposedly abstract combat, since in abstract combat your positioning are only meant to be relatively and not specificly.

I might have misunderstood something here, so I will re-read the section about combat. But I think I am on firm ground here.

The simple way to do it would be a 'taunt' action card. You could make your own.

Taunt

Support

Cooldown 1 (So, normally usable every turn unless delays are generated)

Rank 1

Basic

-
Intimidate (Str) vs Discipline (WP)

-

Intimidate Trained

-

You must be engaged with one or more enemies. Taunt only affects enemies in the engagement you are involved in.

<su> All enemies in the engagement must attack you on their next attack or suffer <m> to their attacks.
<su><su><su> All enemies in the engagement must attack you on their next attack.

<bo><bo> The enemy is frustrated and suffers <m> to his attack.
<ba><ba> The enemy is enraged and gains <f> to his attack.

(Conservative side)

<cs> You suffer an immediate delay.

(Reckless side)

<cs> You suffer an immediate wound.

(formated for Strange Eons)

Note: Monsters would have this action as well, so be careful before you open Pandora's box.

I've played dragon age, (great game btw, beat it once on second play through) and the way I handle aggro is: enemies will target the most menacing hero first and will change there target if someone really tees them off, (a mage burning all the gobbos while there busy being ineffective versus an equally useless dwarf in full plate) Enemies also try to occupy the whole party so if there were 5 goblins they'd go:

2 on the mercenary (most menacing, carries deadly pistol)

2 on the elf (dealing massve damage with bow)

1 on the gambler (inflicting fair damage with rapier)

and none on stident or agent (Who are staying back, occasionally helping out)

This is for my party specifically but you can adapt everything to your own party of heroes, when in doubt logic prevails.

Call me old-fashioned if you like, but maybe the GM could just roleplay the monsters according to their natures and the circumstances.

Cheers

Sparrow

There are some location cards that already handle this to a certain extent. You mentioned the "Secret Passageway", which I think is the worst of that category (in that the mechanics of it are weird and hard to visualize). "Narrow Bridge" and "City Gates" do it much better. But sometimes you won't have a location card prepared that matches the site or situation. What to do then?

"Guarded Position" (and the Improved version) seems to be a good way to represent this, other than that it costs someone their whole action. The "My Life For Yours" action is better in that it only eats up one action out of every 5.

There may however be times where someone isn't willing to spend a whole action. Since combat is so abstract, they should still be able to interpose themselves to some extent. Rather than making it impossible to attack someone, I'd just apply situational dice modifiers. If the PCs take position behind someone or something, that gives a misfortune die or two to any attacks against them. I'd also let the person in front spend a manouevre to add a misfortune die to attacks against someone behind them, in parallel to the normal assist rule. May even give the person in front an extra fortune die on attacking the enemy who just tried to muscle or reach past them.

On top of that, as others have said, the GM should roleplay and narrate as makes sense. If the Soldier is standing out front waving a sword and shouting, the orcs should probably consider them more of a threat and react accordingly. Meanwhile, the Student standing behind the soldier is relatively safe until and unless they do something that draws attention. (Or unless the Orcs outnumber them by such a margin that some can afford to completely ignore the angry guy with the sword.)

I have to agree that the common sense rule needs to apply here. The role of the GM is to support the ideas of the players, not to find ways to screw them over because the rules do not spell out that you cannot block a passage. If their plan is to stand guard in the passage way, that should totally work for a few rounds.

Even in DA, you can actually block a doorway, but after a while of combat, it's possible for a character to finally slip through the crack. Pretty realistic to me.

One part of combat which never seems to get played up is that it's not static, in that you're not just planting yourself into a 5 foot square and nothing but a game effect can force you to move. That's why I love the abstract combat because the idea is that you're whirling around, circling your opponent, surging forward, forced to retreat. You don't have to mess around with all that stuff, it's just there.

Personally I would say that if characters try to block a passage and somebody is trying to force their way past, then look at the action cards being played and make some decisions. Blocks? Ako. Parry? You have to side step to make that work so less so Dodge? Well you have to physically move away from the point that you were protecting and guess what? The only way to move is straight back. And what attack cards are they playing? What stance are they in?

If enemies are really just trying to force their way past to the juicy wizard, then that's a Perform a Stunt action vs the warrior's weapon skill.

My point here is that it's the GM's job to making combat scenes different and variable. You have tools, like the abstract movement, location cards, boons, banes, fortune and misfortune dice. They are not meant to shackle you but to give you ideas to promote more exciting situations (such as combat). A scene in a narrow passageway MUST play out totally different than a scene in the forest, which MUST play out different than a scene on a slippery bridge and so forth.

There are already quite a few cards that can be used to that effect to influence your target to attack you instead of someone else.

Gallows said:

Good point. Hadn't thought of it that way, but it would be a good use of all those cards that say "You influence the target".

Mal Reynolds said:

I'm not really seeing what you're saying then.

Yes, distances are supposed to be abstract, but that doesn't mean you gain the ability to move through solid objects. Your GM should be describing things in such a way that it is easy to picture what is going on without a tactical grid of any kind. If your group is moving into a dead-end cavern chamber, and the GM indicates that the group of Skaven you've been pursuing have turned and are preparing to charge, it should be fairly obvious that you can block passage to the Skaven by standing in the doorway. You can even have your Wizard stand in the hall behind.

No grids necessary. It just makes sense.

As far as location cards, they're really a guideline. It's something that you use as long as it makes practical sense; if you use the secret passageway, it is clear that the intention is that you charge in, and you must replace a friendly character in the combat. So if there are two PCs in the passageway fighting two Orcs, you can't move an Orc out of the way without forcing a check of some kind. He's not going to simply allow you to shove him aside. In addition, if you move your team's Envoy out of the way, you can't have him magically move through the physical barrier that is the group of Orcs.

NezziR said:

Now we talking, love the Taunt action card, and that it should be basic. It certainly gives me ideas. And from here we could have Improved Taunt action card, and maybe 1 or 2 variations or similar cards.

But as Gallows suggested there is a few cards in the game that have a similar effect or at least can be used as a aggro modifier. that is also an excellent idea and at least worth exploring to see if they can be used in such a matter.

good gaming

Here's an idea for a card,

Protect:

while this card has a recharge token on it target ally in close range gives x misfortune dice to any one attacking them, x is equal to the number of white dice you give any one attacking you.

you may place or remove a recharge token on this card at any time on your turn.

if you have resilience trained you may protect extra allies equal to the number of ranks you have in the skill.

With regards to taunting enemies to favour attacking you rather than another character, it may be possible to view this as a manoeuvre (instead of using any one of the action cards discussed and thus losing you action for the round). Maybe the description could read;

Manoeuvre: Taunt - (pre-requisite close or engaged range from the target) You taunt the enemy causing it to attack you in preference to others (or suffer one misfortune to attack another), if within the realms of reason as determined by the GM. Due to the nature of the rage boiling inside of you and the increase in your tension, this manoeuvre will always cost one Stress OR increase the parties tension by one step.

I hope that makes sense, and is possibly even useful to someone.

Alp

James Sparrow said:

/start rant

This man speaks truth.

I swear, years of D&D 3E, 3.5E, and 4E have burdened the role playing community with a need for a rule for every little action. I don't need a Taunt action card, I try to come up with something appropriate to hurl at an enemy along with my blade. My GM has the enemy who's attention I am trying to grab react appropriately based on my tone, words (if they understand me) and the effectiveness of my actions. In other words... it's role played.

WH3E cannot be approached with the same mindset of ruthlessly exploiting every loophole in the system that the d20 derivatives encourage. It is a noble attempt to marry newer concepts in streamlining references and skill resolution with the openness to storytelling inherent in older systems - AD&D first and second edition, and the White Wolf games come to mind. But to succeed players and GMs need to step back 10-20 years and realize that they are telling an interactive story, with the chains of game mechanics loosened. This requires a return to thought, judgment, and restraint as well, but the rewards are well worth it.

/end soapbox

I'm going to have to agree with James Sparrow and Haggard on this one.

Monsters should act accordingly to the situation and not upon some rules set to enforce their behavior. As a frequent GM, I try to understand the enemies that the group is fighting and play them as such. For example, a Beastman faced with a Dwarf Ironbreaker and a Reiklander Soldier breathing down its neck would have little reason to suddenly decide the Student in the back cowering behind a rock is a better target. It's just a bit of common sense.

Now the situations can change and there are many different situations that can arise, but the abstract combat system can be used to help in most situations. If the players are fighting in a room, maybe the Ironbreaker and the Soldier tell the Student to get in a corner and they'll stand in front of him (hopefully protecting him). It's a dialogue between the GM and players to determine what is in combat area and what is not. And as a GM, you'd be surprised at how creative players can get with what they would like to do opening up a whole host of new things.

GM: "While on an Old Dirt Road on the way to Talabheim, a group of bandits accosts you!" "Student, you're up! What would you like to do?"

Student: "Is there a ditch deep enough I can jump in near the wagon so I can keep my head down?"

GM: "Sure. Go for it."

Student: "Then I leap into the ditch and attempt to keep myself as inconspicuous as possible as to not draw the immediate attention of the bandits."

GM: "Alright Ironbreaker you're up next. These bandits are coming down the road shouting, their weapons brandished."

Ironbreaker: "Cuing off of what the student is doing, I'd like to try to keep him safe. I'll charge into the first group of them making as much noise as possible to draw their focus."

GM: "Your bellowing sure got their attention. It's not every day they ambush a group that has a Dwarf encased in armor running to challenge them!"

With a little dialogue, the combat will play out before you and the abstraction helps lead a combat into something very fluid and fun.

James Sparrow said:

Right! This is no Computer Game it's Pen, Cards & Paper RPG.

I'd kinda be careful with any agro style mechanics, because quite simply it's a way to give the players (and take away from the GM) control over how enemies react or behave.

On a side note too the Dragon Age RPG doesnt have agro management stuff in it so far either

Hi thanks for all the responses.

Been very interesting to read them. First Loswaith raises an interesting question that using some sort of Aggro mechanics rules in WHFR, will undermine the GM`s authority when it comes to controlling his monsters. I Can see that can happen.
But what about the players choice? If he wants to try to attract monsters to attack him, how to solve that? Both actions cards and maneuvers have been suggested by constructive forumites. And both ideas seems interesting.

People also have suggested common sense, and yeah good GM would need that.

I don`t mind the patronizing tones of Haggard and James Sparrow. But honestly if every solution to a problem in rpg is “…you could just role-play it” is hardly a contribution to a problem, it’s just stating the obvious or needlessly. For exactly what is roleplaying? For me is using rules and game mechanics to navigate an imaginary fantasy landscape through an artificial created alter ego.

Roleplaying is about story-telling…NO its not, not at least for everyone. There is as much reason we play rpg as there is role-players around. But it is an important part, (at least for me) but it’s not all. I am also a boardgame junkie, and I love the boardgame elements of WHFRP. For me as GM, being able to integrate seamlessly the rules and mechanism into the story is as vital and important for me as the story goes.

We all have different reasons to play warhammer. And no reasons are more important or “right” than that of another gamer.
If you think that your gaming and style is more sophisticated and avant-garde, than you probably take the game too serious. After all its just a game.
And please don`t ***** D&D, it’s a fine game.

And now back on track, thanks for the brainstorming you guys gave me some good ideas.

Good gaming

alp said:

Actually, the existing rules already cover this for a GM and players that use them to their full extent. In any encounter you can use skills as a maneouvre. It's a short step to let players use either Intimidate/Guile/Leadership to influence monsters to attack them instead of weaker monsters. The GM then has the opportunity to say yes, but with a twist. Make the test opposed (vs Int or WP?) and make up some standard results on chaos stars and comets (perhaps a chaos star means that the monster will do +1 damage on his next attack, a comet might indicate that you get to remove recharge from an active defense). But keep the results very basic since it's not an action but a normal skill check. Add misfortune dice if the monster is highly unlikely to fall for cheap taunts or has just taken loads of damage from the ally you want to protect. If the check succeed the monster has to add 1 misfortune die when attacking a specific ally (or just rule that the monster attacks the "taunter").

That's somewhere in between a formal taunt rule and having the GM decide on everything. There is lot of stuff you can do with the 3e system if you're using it creatively. Use the Perform a stunt card to make really cool stuff, but don't forget that manoeuvres can also be used to do minor things. If you as GM want these maneouvrs to have a risk of failure, make sure that you require skill checks to be made.

Allowing things like this as maneouvres also increases the amount of tactical decisions a player has to do and makes the standard use of maneouvres (assist) less common.

Gruntl

this was very enlightening. your idea was briliant, I will look into it. But I think you have given me the solution

thanks and good gaming

Mal Reynolds said:

The solution to a great many problems in RPGs is roleplaying, as it is in this case. You ask what is roleplaying, and the answer is devastatingly simple: it's playing a role. Rules are just there to deal with the bits you can't roleplay, like picking a lock or punching someone.

You also ask how can a player can attract monsters to attack his character. The solution is that the player says something along the lines of, 'My character shouts, "Oi! Ugly!" at the goblin.' Or he, throws a rock at its head. Or both. The GM then makes a judgement based on circumstances. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Cheers

Sparrow

Gruntl.

That is it exactly. No need for further rules, etc, to detail a mechanic already in place. A formal taunt or challenge is really a 'Social' encounter that happens to occur during a combat - quick interlude for social encounter and then back to the combat. Trying to divert the attention of monsters use a skill check. Simple, straight-forward and easy within the current RAW.

Thanks for showing this in a better light.

Alp

I do think part of what concerns me regarding any sort of mechanic-based "taunt" is the potential for the creation of the typical MMORPG party.

After all, why invest in Wounds increases if you can have your Ironbreaker completely set up for damage mitigation. Combat begins, Ironbreaker uses his multi-target taunt, spam heals!

Of course, if a situation like that were to arise when I were the GM, I'd probably set up a situation in which that Ironbreaker was forced to make multiple Agility checks or fall into some violently churning water.

Having trouble swimming with that Gromril plate, good Sir? Let's save some time, go ahead and roll up a new character while we continue.

Just to clarify, I generally don't view it as GM VS Players, but if the palyers are starting to lean toward obvious munchkinism, such as wanting some sort of aggro meter complete with snap-taunts, then my "I hate World of Warcraft" hat goes on.

James Sparrow said:

I agree with this.

Monsters aren't programmed robots. They are individuals, with their unique personalities and quirks, even in combat !

Roleplay is the answer to this problem.