Multiple combat rules

[splendid]

This has likely been discussed before.  There are two main approaches to handling simultaneous combat with multiple enemies. Most of the books do not include any encounters of this kind at all and simply state:

...Sometime you will treat them as a single monster; sometimes you will fight each one in turn.

All but one of the first ten books use this template; the exception is Starship Traveller, which varies considerably in many other respects as well.  Let's be kind and call it an experiment. 

So in fact the first book to provide clear instructions for handling multiple simultaneous combat is Talisman of Death:

Sometimes you will find yourself under attack from more than one person or creature.  When this happens, each will have a separate attack on you in each Attack Round but you must choose which one you will fight.  Attack your chosen target as in normal battle.  Against the other, you must throw for your Attack Strength in the normal way but, even if your Attack Strength is greater, you will not inflict a wound.  Just count this as though you have parried an incoming blow.  However, if your Attack Strength is lower, you will have been wounded in the normal way.

Emphasis added, obviously.

After this point, there's a period of experimentation, and the next 10 books show a lot of variation in the combat rules.  Mostly though, these do not affect multiple-opponent combat, just taking the one-at-a-time approach where needed.  Sword of the Samurai uses the same rules as Talisman; both are by Smith/Thomson; so it would seem the standard had now been set.

...Until Creature of Havoc introduces the following new approach:

Roll the dice for each of the combatants. Resolve your own attack against your chosen opponent as normal (if you win he loses 2 STAMINA points, if he wins you lose 1 STAMINA Point). Then you must compare your own Attack Strength (i.e, the one you have just rolled) against that of all the other opponents. Anyone with a higher Attack Strength than yours will score a hit against you. You cannot score hits against anyone except the opponent you chose at the start of the round, even if your Attack Strength is higher than one or more of the other opponents.

So, there are now two basic modalities: in some books, you make multiple attack strength rolls against each opponent; in others, a single attack strength roll must count against all opponents in the bout.

Beneath Nightmare Castle has but two encounters of this kind, and they both use the Talisman model. Phantoms of Fear uses the Havoc model.  Midnight Rogue is Talisman-style.  Battleblade Warrier and Portal of Evil both use Havoc rules.  Vault of the Vampire does its own thing for the couple of encounters where it matters.  Dead of Night sees a return to Talisman rules.  Black Vein Prophecy is also Talisman-style, just the wording is slightly different:

More often you will have to fight all opponents at the same time. At the beginning of each Combat
Round, decide which opponent you will be attacking. Then conduct the fight against that opponent as normal (following steps 1-7, above). Then follow the same steps against the next opponent.  However, this time you may not wound the second or later opponent. If your Attack Strength is higher, this simply means that you have parried your adversary's blow.

Keep of the Lich Lord: Havoc-style.
Legend of the Shadow Warriors: Talisman-style.
Moonrunner: Talisman-style.
Siege of Sardath: Havoc.  

Night Dragon, #52, introduces a third approach:

If you are told to fight your enemies all together, you should determine the Attack Strength for all the combatants individually each Attack Round. Only the combatant with the highest Attack Strength gets a damaging blow in during that Attack Round.  If you have the highest Attack Strength, you may choose which of your enemies you strike.

Spellbreaker: Talisman.
Legend of Zagor uses the Night Dragon rules.
Knights of Doom, Talisman.
Revenge of the Vampire: Night Dragon.
Bloodbones: Talisman.
Curse of the Mummy: Talisman.
Howl of the Werewolf: Talisman.

Discussion time!  What are the pros and cons of these styles? Which do you find works best?  Do you tend to enjoy these sorts of encounter, or find them confusing or difficult?  I've not checked: are the last few books just copy-and-paste template rules, or do they actually use the multiple combat mechanic effectively?

[a moderator]

The topic has come up before, in part because some fan authors hadn't noticed that there are different approaches, and unhelpfully wrote 'use the standard rules for fighting multiple opponents' or words to that effect in adventures they wrote.

Pedantic correction: the first simultaneous combat against multiple opponents is in The Warlock of Firetop Mountain, if you get into a fight with the Skeletons in the Boat House. That uses the approach that Talisman of Death would further down the line (as do the fight against the Goblins in Deathtrap Dungeon and a couple of fights in Caverns of the Snow Witch, to mention a couple of others that preceded Talisman).

Depending on the number of combatants, the extra dice-rolling in that version can become tiresome. Then again, the one used in Creature of Havoc increases the risk of taking multiple hits on account of one bad roll. And while the Night Dragon approach (which could also be called the Keith Martin variant, as (pedantry alert) he introduced it in Stealer of Souls and used it in most of his gamebooks) eliminates that risk, it also rules out wounding one opponent at the same time as being hit by another, which could make fights take significantly longer.

I think my least favourite variant is the first one, because of all the extra rolling involved. Not such a big deal when it's just two against one, but something like the fight at the start of the mini-adventure in Fighting Fantazine 8, which has six thugs attacking simultaneously, having to make 12 rolls rather than 7 every round would be horrendous.

The possibility, however slim, of rolling well enough that it should be possible to kill one enemy, yet never managing to land a blow on it because another opponent gets the highest Attack Strength each round, puts Keith Martin's approach into second place for me. In practice, the costs and benefits of this version tend to balance each other out, damage-wise, but the potential for extending fights by multiple rounds is a drawback.

So, despite the increased likelihood of taking severe damage, I favour the Creature rules. At least they're quicker.

[splendid]

Dec 3, 2021 3:40:09 GMT a moderator said:

The topic has come up before, in part because some fan authors hadn't noticed that there are different approaches, and unhelpfully wrote 'use the standard rules for fighting multiple opponents' or words to that effect in adventures they wrote.

I also assumed that there were standard rules that were basically adhered to throughout the series. Surely a great strength of FF's combat mechanics, my reasoning went, was that they had simple and consistent standard combat rules, with variations thrown in here and there for spice. It's only by shifting focus directly from Creature of Havoc to Talisman that I've picked up on the difference, and even then I'm surprised that no single method ever seems to have become 'the standard'.

Pedantic correction: the first simultaneous combat against multiple opponents is in The Warlock of Firetop Mountain, if you get into a fight with the Skeletons in the Boat House. That uses the approach that Talisman of Death would further down the line (as do the fight against the Goblins in Deathtrap Dungeon and a couple of fights in Caverns of the Snow Witch, to mention a couple of others that preceded Talisman).

Excellent, thanks; no need to excuse pedantry as far as I'm concerned. This is the sort of thing that would typically become a long blog post, if I was the sort of person to have a blog. So it turns out Warlock's the Ur-Text here; Talisman just the first to feature the method up-front in its rule text, rather than per-encounter in body text.

Depending on the number of combatants, the extra dice-rolling in that version can become tiresome. Then again, the one used in Creature of Havoc increases the risk of taking multiple hits on account of one bad roll.

Mm. And that risk is specifically mitigated against in Havoc by other unusual attributes of the player-character - the 1 in 6 death-blow chance; reduced STAMINA damage when struck. I wonder why later authors who adopted this approach decided to do so.

And while the Night Dragon approach (which could also be called the Keith Martin variant, as (pedantry alert) he introduced it in Stealer of Souls and used it in most of his gamebooks) eliminates that risk, it also rules out wounding one opponent at the same time as being hit by another, which could make fights take significantly longer.

Thanks again for the earlier citations. I should try these books, but I suspect this may be my least-favourite approach of the bunch. I'm really split between the ones I'm calling Talisman / Havoc, but I suspect a 6-opponent fight like the one you mention may not be much fun no matter how you run it.

[Peter]

I have to admit that I used Creature of Havoc rules as the standard when I was younger (with the earlier books) - it was quicker. And these books explained how to do it on the page itself, so that when I got to Talisman of Death and skimmed over the rules, I got confused when it said something like "if you defeat one of them, turn to this page, if you get the other's stamina down to 3, turn to that page". It was only then that I realised that multiple-opponent battles were a standardised, common feature in this book, rather than a one-off.

I agree with greenspine's comments. The hassle of multiple dice-rolls versus the risk of taking multiple hits in one attack round is something to weigh up. The Night Dragon method seems simpler but can take longer to resolve battles.

But which is more realistic? Which one more accurately reflects how a battle would actually play out? I would imagine that one attack strength for each combatant in each attack round makes more sense - you are only making a single move each round. Maybe only the one with the highest attack strength would make a hit, and their opponent would be busy mitigating the damage and unable to either hit back or hit anyone else.

[nathanh]

I prefer the method where you roll attack strength vs each opponent rather than just once, since it lessens the impact of a single unlucky roll. The expected outcome is basically the same, it just feels bad to roll double-1 and get murdered. Since I use a computer to roll all my dice and have coded the two systems, it's not more effort for me to use the many-roll approach.

I think I like the Keith Martin version the least since it reduces the impact of a second enemy with much lower skill than both you and your main opponent. The Keith Martin version has significantly different outcomes from the other two methods.

[philsadler]

I like the Havoc version for two reasons: Number one - it's quicker. Number two - it's perhaps a bit more intimidating/exciting because you can get wrecked. Which is why it's always important to play-test all of your battles!

[kieran]

Dec 3, 2021 8:35:09 GMT splendid said:

And that risk is specifically mitigated against in Havoc by other unusual attributes of the player-character - the 1 in 6 death-blow chance; reduced STAMINA damage when struck.

I believe the Seven Serpents (the nighthawk fight) was the first use of this method so I don't think SJ had the Creature of Havoc mitigations in mind when he came up with this method.

I definitely like the "Ian Livingstone" method best - time consuming, but less likely to result in taking a lot of damage and less annoying than the Keith Martin method where your blows that would have hit otherwise keep getting deflected.

[CharlesX]

Plus the Livingstone rule 'you fight with a Skill x ally, he may damage your enemy but your enemy may only damage you', for those instances where it's team you who has more than one. Almost ironic Livingstone invented the only form of FF multi-creature combat that's beneficial, given how tough most of his gamebooks are; you need two plus allies to stand a chance. Not Skill 6 ninjas, though  .

[a moderator]

Dec 3, 2021 18:54:38 GMT CharlesX said:

Livingstone invented the only form of FF multi-creature combat that's beneficial, 

So Ian wrote the bit in Citadel of Chaos where you and the short man fight against the tall man who wanted to sell a knife?

[CharlesX]

Dec 3, 2021 20:32:11 GMT a moderator said:

Dec 3, 2021 18:54:38 GMT CharlesX said:

Livingstone invented the only form of FF multi-creature combat that's beneficial, 

So Ian wrote the bit in Citadel of Chaos where you and the short man fight against the tall man who wanted to sell a knife?

No, and Steve wrote that before Ian, as well, didn't he? 🐑
   If I can defend my possibly - almost certainly - incorrect point, Ian's form of FF multi-creature combat was more often, and more on the true path.

[splendid]

I've put an encounter simulator online at granthony.github.io/FF/Sim.html which you can use to create an encounter with enemies of different stats, and play the encounter using either of the two main combat rules discussed above (or single-combat encounters.) This may be of minor interest, although I'm not certain to whom. You can download the html page and load it into Twine to see how this is implemented (you'll have to excuse various bits of irrelevant code left in from other projects.)

[terrysalt]

Me is who that is of interest to. The combat simulator I've been using doesn't allow for multiple opponents.

[philsadler]

I use Autofight which I can't find on the Internet anymore. Lucky I have a copy:

drive.google.com/file/d/1bCNk9NW4mUJtLXInmyPd8pHMXjwQy3Zk/view?usp=sharing

[terrysalt]

I just get a run time error if I try and run it. Thanks for the suggestion though.

[philsadler]

Hmm. I don't know what to say. Maybe try the compatibility settings? Although mine runs 'as is'. Has anyone else got a copy of this program? I can't find it anywhere anymore.

[terrysalt]

I tried that and it just says a file is missing or invalid. Not to worry though, I can just keep using the same stuff I've been using this whole time. I'm curious to see if anyone else can get it working though.

[philsadler]

Just realised that it's an exe file and I doubt your virus checker will let you open it, so I got the original zip from my backups and put that there instead:

drive.google.com/file/d/18yElW3KkyiupvDQ4ufPFbYOGwWpviAbu/view?usp=sharing

If that don't work, I'm out of ideas.

[terrysalt]

Progress! It installed but if I run it, it says "out of memory".

[philsadler]

I give up.

[terrysalt]

Can't say I blame you. I'm still curious to see if other people get it working though.

[splendid]

Dec 11, 2021 11:04:39 GMT terrysalt said:

Can't say I blame you. I'm still curious to see if other people get it working though.

No luck - "Run-time error '7': Out of memory." This is with windows emulation on linux, so definitely a long shot.

[scouserob]

Mind blown. 🤯

I always thought it was the Creature of Havok rules across the entire series.
Roll once yourself and compare all enemies to that.

Wow! 😮

I need to brush up on my reading comprehension skills.

I’ve not been this surprised since realising that Bronn was Jerome of Robson and Jerome fame!!

[Pete Byrdie]

I think I first played multiple combat rules in Scorpion Swamp against goblins. I might be mistaken. But I remember thinking, 'This is going to be a difficult fight with a lot of rolling.' I think I prefer the Havoc method for its fewer rolls, which are particularly tedious and soul destroying when you know some opponents can hit you but you can't hit them, but yes, it does mean rolling a low attack strength means getting hammered badly in one attack round.

Either way, I did think both main methods were an ingeniously simple solution to adapt what is a very simple one-on-one combat system to multiple opponents. Afterwards, it started to feel odd that opponents seemed to line up waiting to be slaughtered. Although, that's not unlike what you often see in movies, where even if opponents are attacking a protagonist together they often seem to wait before advancing until the protagonist has parried a blow and can turn to him. (Not just a protagonist; Darth Maul against Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon for example. Watch closely and you see one jedi holding back while Maul parries a strike from the other.)

Upthread, someone asked which system is more realistic. In most circumstances, multiple opponents against a single, similarly armed combatant ends in defeat for the solitary fighter. There's actually not much an individual can do, certainly not in the open, to even defend against two opponents attacking at once. Things become more complicated if the individual is using a polearm against swords, or has a shield, or is wearing a full plate harness. But, let's face it, this is fantasy, and you should have a chance against three opponents if you're a folkloric hero character. Even if you have a SKILL of 7, perhaps.

[lt]

Nov 1, 2022 11:59:00 GMT Pete Byrdie said:

Upthread, someone asked which system is more realistic. In most circumstances, multiple opponents against a single, similarly armed combatant ends in defeat for the solitary fighter. There's actually not much an individual can do, certainly not in the open, to even defend against two opponents attacking at once. Things become more complicated if the individual is using a polearm against swords, or has a shield, or is wearing a full plate harness. But, let's face it, this is fantasy, and you should have a chance against three opponents if you're a folkloric hero character. Even if you have a SKILL of 7, perhaps.

Well, I guess the hero would put himself in a postion that favors himself and limits opponents from coming at him (or in a more gradual manner at least), here are two clips I found regarding Bruce Lee vs mobs, one from Enter the Dragon, where he positions himself against a wall or obstacle as to limit opponents from reaching him, the other from Fist of Fury (it's Cantonese subbed but you get the idea), here he's surrounded but opponents are wary on getting near him.





Well, it's great action anyways, cheers.