| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 911
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2019 2:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Tupteq wrote: | You bumped the topic, so let me criticize your idea 
|
By all means, good sir. I like talking about this, even if it convinces no one.
And now may I offer further insight into my reasoning?
A good shooter can indeed use skill and experience to judge where a target will be. Whether this is leading a moving target, or waiting for an opponent to pop his head up over that wall he is hiding behind.
Fully acknowledged, and preserved in the system I have outlined with the called shot option I believe.
I have done what I have done, and offer it to others if they wish based upon:
Game Play factor:
Perhaps your Star Wars gaming experience is different, but in the games I would run, the duration of a firefight was decided by how well the two sides could soak the damage being dealt by the other, not whether or not they were getting hit;
Players did not want to take cover because it didn't seem to help. If the opponent was lower level, they could take him out pretty quick without wasting actions with dodge let alone cover. If the opponent was of higher level, it wasn't worth it to take cover and lose dice because they probably wouldn't be able to consistently beat the shooter's attack roll. They would have to wait for those low-rolls by the opponent that intersected with their own high-rolls.
They wanted to maximize their returning firepower instead.
As a result, we never got any protracted firefights, like you see in ANH for instance, when the heroes are pinned down by fire on the detention level and have to escape into the garbage chute. In my view, it's not that the stormtroopers can't hit....its because the heroes are taking cover.
The heroes aren't soaking damage because they aren't getting hit.
So my changes are two fold; blasters have been made more deadly, and taking cover has been made quick, efficient and effective.
Now we get the cinematic blaster fights where the players trade shots back and forth with the bad guys while coming up with decisive plans of action in the mean time. It's not over in 4 rounds with all the bad guys dead or all the players dead. It might last several rounds and end with one side or the other retreating under cover.
Model reality:
As said above, a shooter's skill is important. But let us not forget the benefit of cover. If we assume that every blaster shot that is not a 'called shot' is an attempt to just hit; ie center-of-visible-mass, then the smaller amount of the body you expose is going to make it more difficult for the shooter to hit you.
This is represented by the bonus dice provided by the cover.
I am going with the assumption that the shooter, if he makes his range-based target number is going to hit center-of-visible-mass. It just so happens that the mass of the target might not be visible at that moment.
Action beats re-action. Whether the target pops his head into the spot the shooter has selected really depends more on the action of the target, not the shooter, right?
The target, say hunkered down behind a wall, doesn't HAVE to pop up at all.
And when he does, it might be a littler further down the wall. It might be for just a split second, or for long enough to return a shot.. That is up to the target...and no amount of skill from the shooter is going to be able to make the target expose himself. When/if he does expose himself the shooter has to then react...
My core rationale:
When infantry advance on an enemy, they keep their bounds very short from point of cover to point of cover. We used to say "up-he-sees-me-down", which is the estimated time for a shooter to notice you, take up a sight picture and squeeze the trigger. By the time you say that phrase you need to be in cover again; even if that cover is just prone in the grass.
Taking a bound in the proper time frame or less has a fixed difficulty.
I have chosen it to be 20. It might be better as 30 or 15, but I chose 20. If you make that timing, you won't be hit.
The better cover you have, it's easier to not be hit.
If you are out in the open, you still have to use your dodge and it still gets depleted, so against multiple or determined opponents you are soon going to be unable to make that 20.
A character who gives himself an incredibly high dodge skill is potentially unbalancing. A 6D dodge will avoid an incoming blaster shot about 50% of the time even without cover. But that quickly drops for a second and third incoming shot. I'm fine with that.
A 10D dodge will really mess with the system; but no more so than a 10D blaster skill will in RAW.
Summary:
Yes, it's not perfect. No system is. But it is quick and easy and gives the cinematic feel I was looking for. If you also desire that running exchange of blaster fire and characters that are always thinking about where their next piece of cover is going to be, I urge you to give it a try. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | At the risk of side-tracking your discussion, what's your take on the Static Defense rule from the Min-Six ruleset? |
Are you asking me?
I'm not familiar with Mini-Six, but I am familiar with d20, which also uses static defense.
Personally, I think that static defense is appropriate for mooks, but PCs and major villains may be better off (from a dramatic standpoint, not statistical) rolling their reactions.
But! If the static defense rules have an option whereby the player can make choices that increase his defense on a round by round basis (such as "fighting defensively" or "total defense" or having a feat like combat expertise in d20, etc.) then I can see a static defense working for D6. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tupteq
Commander
Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Posts: 285
Location: Rzeszów, Poland
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | A fair critique, but I'll offer that avoiding being shot at point blank range would be much easier than at close or medium range: the closer you are, the larger a movement the shooter has to make to adjust to your movement. The bigger the gun, the more true this is.
If you are within "charging distance," there is a decent chance of not getting shot (a shooter who is already aiming at you has the advantage, though, just to be clear).
Guns work best when you have plenty of space. An opponent who has a reason to fight back (even if unarmed) is better off being very close to a shooter. A jedi with a lightsaber at point blank range DEFINITELY has the tactical advantage over someone with a blaster... and if the shooter has any idea what he's up against, he'd probably think twice about shooting at such an opponent... unless he is either naieve or supremely confident in his skill. |
I think you are mixing two things - dodging at point-blank range seems to be quite hard (you can easily point at someone jumping in front of you). Bullet has travels very short distance, so you don't need to carry of trajectory, target speed, also target is large and you don't need to be precise to a single degree.
Other thing is that at point-blank range you can actually parry a weapon itself as it was a melee weapon. I'm allowing this in my games (with bare hands, melee weapon etc.) and it's usually more appropriate tactic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 10:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
For whatever its worth, I'm drawing on experience.
Hitting a moving target is hard enough. The farther away (up to the point right before external ballistics begins to matter) the easier it is to hit a moving/hostile target.
I appreciate that you include brawling parry as an option within melee distance. I'd recommend using the brawling skill instead of baster to make attacks at that range, though. Of course, a hit deals blaster damage, not brawling damage.
In any case, FWIW, I maintain that shooting within 2-5 yards at a moving, hostile target is much different than shooting at paper on the gun range. Tracking the movement is not as easy as it may seem, although, if you want a "Hollywood-style" shootout, then shooters should only ever hit or miss if it serves the story.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: |
In any case, FWIW, I maintain that shooting within 2-5 yards at a moving, hostile target is much different than shooting at paper on the gun range. Tracking the movement is not as easy as it may seem, although, if you want a "Hollywood-style" shootout, then shooters should only ever hit or miss if it serves the story. |
I concur in as much as it comes to motor-skills tracking.
Another example of this, (exaggerated by the mechanisms involved) is in tank gunnery. (**Full disclosure my only personal experience with tank gunnery is in a simulator!!)
Tanks trying to hit a moving target up close vs far away. The turret has to make gross movements to track a close target...but merely fine adjustments to track a distant target.
For the calculation of having intercept a moving distant target is a different sort of difficult. With small arms, the speed of the projectile coupled with the maximum range of the weapon makes it *almost* moot.
It's the difference between leading your target by half of its width or maybe a little bit more. Fairly easy to develop an instinct for.
In active-shooter close quarters training I often see people miss (simmunition) shots against moving close targets coming at them down a straight hallway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
