Right now there appear to be two camps: Those who enjoy the inclusion of the 'gritty' rules and those that don't. There are also comments regarding minions, crossbow bolts, and how it doesn't feel very Heroic to be dropped by a mook with a good dice roll (although realistically, a crossbow bolt in a sensitive spot would provide exactly that effect).

A compromise has been proposed that might be of interest. I'll be discussing it more in depth with the other Campaign staff at our next meeting, but the basics are this: Minions and Commons cannot deal Wounds via damage (they can of course still deal damage based on a critical hit). Elites and Adversaries can. All enemies do gain one extra Wound since the Heroes can themselves deal these massive damage Wounds (though in the case of minions it rarely comes up).

This keeps the game feeling dangerous and having consequences, while ensuring that the consequences are not arbitrary. When you fall in battle, you will do so against a foe worthy of felling you (though their minions can whittle you down and cause you serious harm in the meantime).

Tangentially, for BIs specifically, consider the following option: Instead of rolling everything for a group of minions, we simply presume half of them hit their targets and deal damage, while the other half do not (or 1/4 if their opponent has exceptionally high avoidance relative to level). Statistically, the law of averages will even it out over the course of the entire BI. I don't know if this is something that GMs would want to widely adopt, but it's something I personally am considering using the next time I GM a BI.

Simple answer: No.

It may not be heroic for a minion to down a Hero, but there must be risk because otherwise what's the point of having a combat system at all? Also, as a writer if these "little guys" can't scare the Heroes, why bother including them? A Hero is someone who goes out in the world of danger and puts themselves in the line of danger for the greater good, not some immortal badass who can't be touched.

I'm inclined to agree with Cody. While it can be frustrating to be knocked down by a minion, I think it is important both for realism and balance that they remain a threat.

I want to write something a little longer and philosophical. But let me start with a core principle: Whatever you do please keep it simple. I don't want to worry about the "left handed gnomes on Tues exception." If its gritty then embrace that and let it be gritty. Getting a wound from a minion is gritty. If its not gritty then drop the rule, except for certain encounters with special big bads.

Okay. With that said let me back out to a larger picture: What is the tenor and tone the campaign is trying to hit? Why is the change in mechanics going to advance that goal?

I think the general tone of the campaign in the beginning was more or less "swashbuckling." No resource management. Fate is used to do "the impossible." Characters rarely drop. I think since the beginning there has been a decision of the campaign staff (consciously or not) to dial it back. For example the fate rules have been changed...which I currently like.

But I really don't know where on the dial the staff wants to hit. For example the Horror rules cut against a setting of swashbuckling. (But then the use of Fate to essentially ignore the Horror rules cuts against having a Horror rule in the first place...) In this sense on a mechanical level I something find A:RPG a little schizophrenic.

Henry has mentioned in the past a fondness for Conan and Soloman Kane. What we might call 2 fisted pulp action. I think that's where Witch Hunter was/is set. Or are we striving to hit a more epic fantasy note in Arcanis? I don't know. That makes it hard to offer meaningful commentary beyond something along the lines of, "I personally like or don't like "X."

I do know different rules platforms favor different styles of play. I have played (and enjoyed) 7th Sea, a RPG game of Pirates, where you pretty much have to declare you're going to try to catch and ride that passing cannonball over to the enemy ship to risk death. I have played (and love) Call of Cthullu, a horror RPG, where making (or missing) a single right/wrong "Perception" check can result in insanity and/or death.

And I would give different opinions on adopting or changing "gritty rules" for 7th Sea than I would for CoC. So again...where do we want the campaign to be set?

I whole heartedly agree, the tone of Arcanis can be erratic and it would help us as players and GMs to know exactly how it is meant to be pitched.
Going back to an earlier point as well: auto-hitting bad guys. In my opinion? No. Just no. In the strongest possible terms: no. It gets rid of the lucky hits and lucky misses to a purely mechanical exercise. It also means that there would be little point boosting your defences as the chances of getting hit will be just the same- as a player that's good if you want to free up those advancements for something but for everything else it's bad for game balance. It's also the rule of simplicity: one rule for everything rather than seperate rules for minions and commons etc.
Anyway. I can understand why mass combats would want streamlined but removing chance from them undermines the nature of the system.

I want to echo Eric's note about "Where does the campaign and staff see the Arcanis RPG Campaign falling in the spectrum of "low" to "high" fantasy?" These are not necessarily my 'recommendations' but just examples of how the answer to this question applies.

High Fantasy
If Arcanis is meant to be the stuff of heroes, going against impossible odds and performing incredible feats to save the world (High Fantasy), then the Gritty Rules applying to Elites and Adversaries makes sense. It also makes sense to restore "Do the improbable" with Fate (Changed from Impossible and given some guidelines for reasonableness). In this way, you have characters who are in danger (Minions/Commons can still drop people through Stamina loss, but it means that going up against the Big Bad Guys will have more meaning and the minions/commons can do their job of softening up the PC's). This will have the effect of fewer character deaths, with those that happen usually being a choice ("I dive in front of the demon lord's tail strike"), or at least having meaning in many cases (Being killed by the Lich Lord trying to take over the First City). In this type of setting, characters who are not combat oriented can still shine, and combat optimization isn't needed to survive. Missing out on a few combat skill points or defenses still means you can take a stand in combat and contribute without high risk of death.

It also means that when the val'Ossan pirate captain wants to swing down from the balcony and push the damsel out of the way to take the hit from the BBG, he can spend fate to do that. Horror can still be an option with the current Fate rules as there are numerous ways to avoid 'running away' (not heroic)

Low Fantasy
If Arcanis is meant to be the stuff of normal people clawing their way up, always fighting the odds, and eventually succeeding at becoming local heroes (Low Fantasy), then the Gritty Rules should apply to all enemies, as even. In fact, more of the Gritty rules could be implemented like the Critical Hit Effect (reduced Stat) to help bring home the grittiness to the rules. In this world, the characters struggle the entire way, and can often be brought down by lucky minions or commons. This scenario could keep the restriction on Fate and not allow doing the improbable, since the 'heroes' are not much better than normal folk and aren't able to call upon luck in such dramatic ways. Horror becomes more prevalent and the options to ignore Horror from Fate can be reduced such that a high Mettle is required and only the option to not run away remains. This will likely have the effect of more character deaths/turnover, with those happening at any time. In this type of setting, it's also likely that characters will be more geared for combat, forgoing the non-combat roles because the likelihood of death is so high.

These are 2 extremes and maybe Arcanis falls in the middle. However, I think it's important to define what Arcanis is trying to be before making mechanics changes to support that role.

John

Fantastic thread/discussion!

I'm not sure where I fall on the notion of only Elites/Adversaries being able to deal wounds, but it may be the best solution. I can see merit both ways.

I am a fan of actual risk, to me it is what makes the victories meaningful. I also think that there is often an 'assumption' on the part of players that any in-game situation (if it is a possible 'fight') that things have to be fair and balanced. Personally, I don't think that has to be the case. Some situations are just not fair so PCs cannot be reckless and stupid, but that does not mean they cannot still be heroic. But drawing weapons should not be something done too lightly.

I think one of the big appeals of the Game of Thrones (books and now tv show) is the tone of harsh reality. Readers/viewers have quickly figured out that even the most highly placed and powerful people in that world are vulnerable. This is not the norm in most fantasy settings. And that raises the sense of intensity and involvement and interest. Its not cut and clear how things will pan out between the 'heroes' and the 'villians' because at any time their story may get its final chapter. I like that and think its something Arcanis has rubbed up against and should explore further. I think actual danger in the rules helps bring this to the campaign.

So 20 minion dwarves pointing crossbows at a couple T3 heroes should still give them at least some significant pause in what they are doing. They should bide their time to act in a better situation. No character should be/feel indestructible, but they should also not be treated like chew toys all the time.

Combats should have meaning to the story, for the individual event and (on some occasions) in the larger scope of the campaign story. Combats should be part of the story, there is no reason the players and Chronicler should stop role-playing during a combat, in fact this is one of the best times to ramp that up!

Maybe there are some adventures and story lines that aren't so serious, so there is room for some variance. But for the main stories, to me there is certainly a much more serious and dangerous feel I get from what is written.

So yeah, clarifying what sort of feel the setting has would help decide how to make game rules decisions.

I am becoming more and more of the opinion that any new rules for the campaign should come from the books, and that making up rules that only apply to the campaign are probably not good in the long term. ( I'm not disparaging any existing rules ie the change in Fate thats needed for the campaign)

I think the gritty rules will be just fine for the time being ( so long as we put out some rules for T1 and T2 to be able to deal with wounds somehow

The one thing missing from this conversation so far is what the impact of wounds actually is and what the risk of death truly is. To die in the game requires the following:

1. Vanquished by wounds
2. Failing the TN 15 stabilization roll

The Stabilize spell can be used when a character gets dropped by a wound as a push action, if it's available. The character can make the stabilization roll. Alternatively, a Fate point can be used to automatically make the TN 15 stabilization roll. All characters will have at least 1 Fate point, most likely 3 or more with shirts, spells and talents.

There's also an optional rule at the back of the Codex of Heroes to avoid death by taking a permanent flaw related to the wound taken that would kill the character. This could be missing an arm, missing an eye, Lame or possibly a Phobia. This option would kick in after the other options were exhausted. For a player that wants to be heroic and still live, there are multiple ways to be wounded and stave off death.

My understanding is that unless there is a way within a mod to heal a wound, wounds are at least healed between mods.

So, what's the impact of wounds in a mod?
Each wound imposes a -1 penalty to all action skill rolls until healed. A TN 25 Mettle check allows the character to ignore the effects of the wound i.e. penalty. A character may also spend a Fate point to ignore the effects of wounds. You can also use the wound as an opportunity for RP outside of the combat as it carries on. It makes the combat feel more real. Think of how heroic a character will seem starting at 3 wounds, down 2 and risking being dropped by wounds but refusing to give up. As I mention above, there are ways to avoid dying. It can certainly ratchet up the tension in a combat though.

How many wounds does an average PC have?
At a Vigor of 3, a PC has 3 wounds available to them (2 for passive +1 for Massive damage rules being in effect). At a Vigor of 5 they have 4 wounds available to them. As such, even a couple of massive hits won't risk a character's death unless they have a Vigor below 3.

So how likely is it that a PC will die?
Take as a starting point the BI from Origins. There were 62 characters present under the rules and a lot of wounds handed out. Over the course of the BI my character took 7 wounds and I heard of another taking 11. With that and the other wounds dealt, there was only 1 character death. In that case as Henry as stated, the Player chose to not to spend a Fate point to prevent the character from dying. The risk was certainly there and trust me I definitely looked up the rules for dying as my character got close, but no one died who didn't choose to. It may be that when the character died was an ideal heroic moment.

I've played or GMed 3 mods since Origins. We've used massive damage rules in every occasion. There have maybe been a handful of wounds done by massive damage so far and in I think all cases the dice open ended. They have sped up combats a bit and added a bit of additional urgency and sense of risk.

When you think of an exciting movie, there is risk and a sense of not knowing how it's all going to work out. When you think of an exciting story - your story - through a mod, knowing that you escaped death again is more exciting than say a sporting event.

As I detailed above, there are ways to avoid death already available (spell, stabilization check, fate point expenditure) and easy to add (permanent flaw).

This feels like a net improvement with some risk, but risk that can be mitigated.

Based on past BI experience massive damage seems to be the norm for them, even if it isn't used in standard mods. I can't imagine they will change that. They are Battle Interactives. A player can always design a character specifically for play in BIs if the one they normally play isn't a good candidate for them.

I hope this helps provide at least a common point of reference for continued discussions. If I've missed something, please let me know and I'm happy to update this write up.

With a sweep of his hat,

Paul

Paul...dont forget that if you are vanquished via Wounds and take a wound...you are dead (there is a limit to the amount of physical damage a body can take). No Heal roll. (Although, the Fate can still save you, I believe).