| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Delkarnu wrote: | | I am now a player in your game. I want to trip a guard. Explain how the gambit mechanic works for me to do that. I have said exactly how I would do the rolls in mine. |
You are utterly convinced that this doesn't add anything.
I know differently. I have play-tested it with groups across the country for years.
Honestly, I think it has to be the most popular mechanic in every game I've run with it.
I've challenged you to run a session or two with it. I keep giving you examples, and you insist I've never given you examples. And now you call for more.
Again, you've yet to offer a single constructive comment. Yet the onus is on me to give you more examples?
You want to trip someone. I'd say that either you make a grapple first (separate action) or if you want a good trip in one action (there is more to it than sticking your foot out) and say you're going for a mule kick. In that case, I'd say it is two raises. Your difficulty goes up two levels.
At the end of the day, another GM could be saying, well I just upped the difficulty without calling it a gambit. However, the difference is that I have a consistent, stated mechanic for it. I let the players know the option is always available to them. And I don't rely on outside rules for each circumstance then.
For players who invest points in a form of Martial Arts, instead of then allowing then a maneuver like a trip, and saying other players can't attempt it unskilled, I'd allow the Martial Arts user to use that maneuver without the need for raises.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
enderandrew
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 15 Feb 2009
Posts: 68
Location: Omaha, NE
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ankhanu wrote: | | I don't think the rules are designed for a character (or ship) staying still behind cover... cover bonuses also apply to moving targets. It's really pretty simple, there are no complicated die roll additions beyond what you propose with your gambits. To give an example of how I would rule the prior idea of a ship dodging behind an asteroid for cover, let's set some parameters. |
The example in the book says a PC is hiding behind a wall, and someone shoots through the wall to hit them. It says the official mechanic is not to give a bonus to dodge, but to make the attacker shoot through the cover, and roll damage against the strength of the cover first.
Not a fantastic mechanic, if you ask me.
| Quote: | | If they meet/exceed the difficulty they get behind the asteroid, gaining a +3D bonus to the difficulty to be hit. If they fail, they get shot at normal difficulty. |
Anytime you can fairly resolve an issue in one die roll, as opposed to multiple die rolls, you're making life quicker and simpler. So, making me roll a separate 3D to determine the bonus is superfluous. A gambit simplifies matters a great deal here.
For each raise, you fly closer to the the asteroid and add more danger to your piloting roll, but for each raise I give you an additional 5 to your piloting dodge bonus. I just eliminated the 3D roll, the shooting through cover damage roll, etc.
| Quote: | GM determines a reasonable "Hull" rating for the Asteroid, and roll damage/resist as needed.
Single roll needed from both players and GM. Not too difficult. |
Except, the GM has to decide a hull rating which is extra work. And there are multiple die rolls, including rolling the 3D to see what the bonus is. And you either have to memorize which cover levels provide which bonuses, or consult a book.
Making up ratings on the fly, memorizing rules and multiple die rolls versus one die roll.
Which is simpler, honestly?
I'm beginning to wonder if people are arguing for the sake of arguing. You can't honestly tell me that the core rules are simpler here. Multiple steps are more than a single step. That is pretty objective.
| Quote: | | That's where modifiers come in... and thresholds. If you beat their roll by 5-9 you get x amount more for your goods, if you beat their roll by 10-14 you get y amount more, etc. Likewise if you are defeated, you would get less money for your goods than you wanted... |
L5R does the same thing, except raises can expand that. Let's say you tell me I am trying to haggle over selling goods. If I beat the roll by 10, then I will get X bonus. However, the player can attempt to gamble and raise the overall difficulty by 5 to get the same bonus. There is a greater benefit to the player if they succeed, but a greater chance they fail and don't make the sale at all. And even with gambits, if the player beats the now higher difficulty in a contested roll by another 10 points, you can award them another bonus. In L5R, this is often called a "free raise".
The nice thing, is instead of needing a specific chart for haggling about how much you need to beat someone to get more money, the gambit system covers this (and again just about any scenario you can imagine) without the need for a separate bargaining chart. Even if a player never declares a gambit, the "free raise" can be a consistent mechanic across the board. For someone to get any type of bonus in contested roll, tell them they need 10 over the roll for a free bonus, otherwise they need to attempt a gambit.
| Quote: | | This doesn't require tables either, sound GM judgement will suffice. |
Except they write tables to cover scenarios like these, and then players will argue if you don't memorize them exactly. Having a base mechanic that eliminates tables and rules helps the players and GMs.
| Quote: | | Nothing is stopping them as the rules stand. |
I've never suggested otherwise. You keep repeating that players can do these things under the old rules, which I keep stating myself. I agree. I've never said they can't.
I've said having a consistent mechanic ENCOURAGES players.
| Quote: | | I think his point is that such rules don't even need to exist with the core rules as they are, and gambits don't really change this fact. |
Except the rules do exist, and for years people have complained about how D6 doesn't cover this scenario or that scenario. People keep calling for specific mechanics for specific scenarios, and WEG kept writing them.
_________________
Nihilism makes me smile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | | Delkarnu wrote: | | If I wanted to trip you, I would put my foot in front of yours without you noticing it. That is moving without being seen, hence a sneak role and only a sneak roll. No complex rules, no gambits. |
Anything that you want to do unseen is Sneak? What about pickpocketing? Or stealing a ship?
Combat moves are not governed by Sneak. |
This is because there is a difference between tripping a passing guard (which I would make a sneak roll) and knocking out somone's legs in combat, that is brawling. pickpocketing is, well, Pick Pocket. Stealing a ship? probably have to sneak on board.
You are taking a simple statement, extending it to an absurd degree so you can point a flaw out. This is flawed logic because through this entire thread, you have not expressed the ability to take any level of criticism or questioning of your way of doing things. Look at any other topic on this board and you will see people discussing topic to find a new and better way, not browbeating their opinions into other people as you seem to insist on doing.
All the initial responses to your suggestions have been reasoned questions about how your system improves the game, which you have consistently not put forth a convincing argument to get us to see your view. After that point, you are seeing frustration because you have attacked anyone who has not embraced your obviously enlightened views on D6 SW gaming.
I had asked repeatedly for better examples, and you have attempted to berate me for not accepting your list of things that will be improved as examples when you have not once shown how you system is better or more efficient than the existing system. I waited, and after 6 pages of back and forth you seem to have finally tried:
| enderandrew wrote: |
You want to trip someone. I'd say that either you make a grapple first (separate action) or if you want a good trip in one action (there is more to it than sticking your foot out) and say you're going for a mule kick. In that case, I'd say it is two raises. Your difficulty goes up two levels. |
Or, kick leg, opposed brawling roll. Simple and consistent. If its two actions (grab arm and then kick down) thats two brawling actions, -1D. Again Simple and consistent. By the way, thank you for finally figuring out what an example was other than just stating that your way of tripping is better.
| enderandrew wrote: | | At the end of the day, another GM could be saying, well I just upped the difficulty without calling it a gambit. However, the difference is that I have a consistent, stated mechanic for it. I let the players know the option is always available to them. And I don't rely on outside rules for each circumstance then. |
How is your way a "simple, consistent mechanic" either you decide on the spot how many gambits an action is (in which case it probably isn't consistent) or you have every possible complex action listed as x gambits so it can be ruled consistent.
Part of what makes SW great to us on the Pit, is that it is filled with lush detail that can go as deep as you want. I don't use the optional martial arts rules in the manner you talk about, but you keep using the martial arts optional rules as the main example of what is wrong with the system, when I have never used it or any specialization to show how an action can be done.
And no, I will not run my next game session using it, I just don't see a single advantage to it. You've now stated your example, and I don't see it as better than the existing ruleset. I have never had a problem with players being uncreative, or finding ways to challenge them.
If this systems is the vast improvement that you have stated it is, you should no problem presenting a reasoned argument with proper examples to illustrate your point, and answer the questions posed to you by the other members of this forum. The simple fact that every question seems to provoke this instinctive defensive response.
I have tried to find the source of your assertions, because I am always looking for ways to improve the gaming session, but I cannot continue to try to get a reasoned and thought out explanation of your mechanic. I did not want to lower myself to the realm of insults, because Rancor Pit has been a place of reasoned debate that I was proud to be a part of and did not want a place of idea exchange to become a verbal fight.
Please, when you want to have a reasonable discussion, exchange ideas like an adult, and not pout any time someone doesn't accept your idea as the immediate, correct implementation, continue to post your ideas and I will be happy to debate their merits and flaws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankhanu
Vice Admiral
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3089
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | | Ankhanu wrote: | | If they meet/exceed the difficulty they get behind the asteroid, gaining a +3D bonus to the difficulty to be hit. If they fail, they get shot at normal difficulty. |
Anytime you can fairly resolve an issue in one die roll, as opposed to multiple die rolls, you're making life quicker and simpler. So, making me roll a separate 3D to determine the bonus is superfluous. A gambit simplifies matters a great deal here.
For each raise, you fly closer to the the asteroid and add more danger to your piloting roll, but for each raise I give you an additional 5 to your piloting dodge bonus. I just eliminated the 3D roll, the shooting through cover damage roll, etc. |
You're displaying a lack of understanding of how modifiers work. A +3D modifier does NOT necessitate a die roll. +3D indicates the lower threshold of Moderate, ie. 11-13. If you don't want to roll 3D and add it to the base difficulty, pick an appropriate number from the Moderate difficulty range. No die roll necessary.
So, say the attacker in the example is firing from Medium range, a Moderate difficulty, let's say 15 for simplicity and because it's a threshold you approve of. Our hero, having success in the dodge behind the asteroid gains a +3D cover bonus... but the GM doesn't like extra dice rolls (s)he can simply choose an appropriate number from the Moderate range, let's say +12; increasing the difficulty of the attack to a simple bit of arithmetic to a new difficulty of 27. The attacker makes their attack versus this new difficulty... still a single die roll by each participant.
| enderandrew wrote: | | Ankhanu wrote: | GM determines a reasonable "Hull" rating for the Asteroid, and roll damage/resist as needed.
Single roll needed from both players and GM. Not too difficult. |
Except, the GM has to decide a hull rating which is extra work. And there are multiple die rolls, including rolling the 3D to see what the bonus is. And you either have to memorize which cover levels provide which bonuses, or consult a book.
Making up ratings on the fly, memorizing rules and multiple die rolls versus one die roll.
Which is simpler, honestly? |
If a simple additive concept is tough, well, I dunno what to say really.
1/4 cover = +1D (or if you will +3)
1/2 cover = +2D (or +7)
3/4 cover = +3D (or +12)
Full cover = protected by item
Most items have a Strength rating of 2D to resist damage (stated in the core rule book)... that's pretty easy to remember. If you want it to be stronger for your purposes... you can increase it. Pretty simple and quick.
| enderandrew wrote: | | I'm beginning to wonder if people are arguing for the sake of arguing. You can't honestly tell me that the core rules are simpler here. Multiple steps are more than a single step. That is pretty objective. |
With Gambits, you still have to make judgement calls on additive difficulty thresholds... you still have to make the same judgements on the bonuses that are applied...
Again, maybe I'm daft, but I'm seeing the same number of steps and the same in-game effect. You accuse us of arguing for the sake of it... but from my perspective it really looks like you're implementing a "change" for the sake of making a change... all the while maintaining the status quo. Parsimony suggests leaving a sleeping dog lie (to mix colloquialisms).
| enderandrew wrote: | L5R does the same thing, except raises can expand that. Let's say you tell me I am trying to haggle over selling goods. If I beat the roll by 10, then I will get X bonus. However, the player can attempt to gamble and raise the overall difficulty by 5 to get the same bonus. There is a greater benefit to the player if they succeed, but a greater chance they fail and don't make the sale at all. And even with gambits, if the player beats the now higher difficulty in a contested roll by another 10 points, you can award them another bonus. In L5R, this is often called a "free raise".
The nice thing, is instead of needing a specific chart for haggling about how much you need to beat someone to get more money, the gambit system covers this (and again just about any scenario you can imagine) without the need for a separate bargaining chart. Even if a player never declares a gambit, the "free raise" can be a consistent mechanic across the board. For someone to get any type of bonus in contested roll, tell them they need 10 over the roll for a free bonus, otherwise they need to attempt a gambit. |
How does beating a Gambit at +5 difficulty by 10 differ from beating the base difficulty by +15? How does the gambit system of beating difficulties by large degrees remove the "need" for a chart (I've never needed a chart for something like this, by the way) if you're still giving increasing bonuses for increasing degrees of success??
| enderandrew wrote: | | Ankhanu wrote: | | This doesn't require tables either, sound GM judgement will suffice. |
Except they write tables to cover scenarios like these, and then players will argue if you don't memorize them exactly. Having a base mechanic that eliminates tables and rules helps the players and GMs. |
Rules lawyers are going to happen, even in the most loosely defined and free rule systems. It is up to the GM to understand that Rule 0 is to be respected... likewise, it is the GM's responsibility not to abuse this "rule".
| enderandrew wrote: | | Ankhanu wrote: | | Nothing is stopping them as the rules stand. |
I've never suggested otherwise. You keep repeating that players can do these things under the old rules, which I keep stating myself. I agree. I've never said they can't.
I've said having a consistent mechanic ENCOURAGES players. |
Maybe I've just been blessed in that my players are interested in making the most out of their character's abilities and think about ways to ensure that. Likewise, I've been blessed with GMs who encourage creativity (but temper it with reasonability as well... we players like to try the outlandish at times)
| enderandrew wrote: | | Ankhanu wrote: | | I think his point is that such rules don't even need to exist with the core rules as they are, and gambits don't really change this fact. |
Except the rules do exist, and for years people have complained about how D6 doesn't cover this scenario or that scenario. People keep calling for specific mechanics for specific scenarios, and WEG kept writing them as optional supplements if GM's felt they increased the playability and enjoyability of the game. |
Bold is mine.
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.
Donate to Ankhanu Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Obviously, enderandrew, you must have missed the point of my post back on the first page. Your rules are house rules. People may use some of them, they may ignore others. All the talking in the world isn't going to make people accept your rules as the "new" core rules for D6. They are house rules...your house rules. Plain and simple.
Plus, as Ankhanu pointed out, you seem to lack a basic understanding of some of the rules of D6. I'm not sure if you're just so worked up about getting people to accept your rules, or understand your rules, or if you really don't quite understand the basic rules of D6. Perhaps before you think about rewriting the core rules of D6, you become very familiar with the basic rules of D6 as it is now. That might make further parts of this conversation more productive.
And for the record, I know how raises work in L5R. I know why they're included in L5R. I don't feel that the "raise" system, retitled to be the "gambit" system, is necessary for the D6 system. While the D6 system is similar to the L5R system, they are not the same so what works well for one won't necessarily work well for the other. If it works for you and your group...great. Just don't try to make others accept it, which is what it seems like you're trying to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obidancer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 230
Location: New York, NY
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enderandrew wrote: | | obidancer wrote: | | Quote: | | drop with the personal attacks. They are unwarranted. |
And uncalled for. Sorry that happened.
Now, you wanted detriment, I think I can bring you detriment.
I'm a Master Mechanic, The hyperdrive broke and the moderate repair would cost 10000c {this is an example! my brain fails to recall the price of this sort of repair!  } to do it. Our team doesn't have that sort money right now, close but definitely not there yet. I call for a gambit, after all I'm a Master Mechanic I can handle harder difficulties. I want (like you mentioned earlier) to reduce the price of the repair for a harder repair roll.
What do you offer for this gambit? |
I'm not sure this is a detriment unless you think the gambit is abusive. If as a GM you don't think the players can pull off the repair unless they have the parts, then you just say they can't.
The GM still has to authorize everything.
I can't simply say I am going to impale Vader's armor with tofu, how many raises is that?
However, if the players are close on costs, then it might not be unreasonable for them to substitute parts, try to make their own, or jury rig a different solution.
As for how I'd adjudicate that particular scenario, it depends how much money the players have, what resources are available, and if there was a decent mechanic who had any reasonable knowledge to justify coming up with a jury-rigged solution.
I'm not going to tell a diplomat who has never touched an engine, roll a 30 and you magically fix it via blind luck. However, if the standard repair is say a 20, and they have to substitute one part for another, then it might be a 30 for them. |
Why does it has to take 5 sentences of defensives arguments to start answering a simple question, in hope to listen to your way, and you end up not even answering the question and worst start make me feel like you haven't even read the question:
"it depends how much money the player have"
- it says: they are close to 10000, but not there yet.
"it depends if there was a decent mechanic who had any reasonable knowledge to justify coming up with a jury-rigged solution. I'm not going to tell a diplomat who has never touched an engine, roll a 30 and you magically fix it via blind luck."
-it says (twice): I'm a MASTER mechanic, what has the diplomate anything to do with it?
"if the standard repair is say 20.."
-it says: the MODERATE repair cost 10000c. Weren't you the one complaining about arbitrary numbers?
Anyway. I'll take the 30 instead of 20. that's one 'increment' I believe. Since you haven't yet arbitrary set the bonus for the cheaper repair, I'll have to make it up for you, let's say the repair is down to 8000c.
Allow me to continue my demonstration:
A few months later, the hyperdrive gets damaged (it's now in the exact same conditions as the previous example) at the end of an adventure and you plan a great new adventure where they'll have to accept the job of a dangerous loan shark in order to get the 10000c necessary for the repair. But the Master mechanic declare "I'll take two raises to reduce the cost of the repair to bring down to maximum 7500c, money we do have if we all ship in... I'll salvage the part from all the ship that were destroyed during the last battle... " (something like that - this is an EXAMPLE to show some sort of creativity from the player, since tha's what you hoping for anyway)
Now what would you do (please don't mention any diplomats...)?
- You can accept, and if the player succeed his roll (now what 45?) then change your plans for the adventure. But you defending in your post making life easy for the GM, so I doubt we'll go this way.
- As you stated you can simply deny the option, like you mentioned many of us do. But then the player will certainly complain. He's been creative and gambit against a much higher difficulty. Why? because you've set a specific set of Mechanics that become golden rule - "I can achieve more by betting more" - and with precedents directly linked to the mechanic - " I could save 2000c with one raise and now can't get just an extra 500 with a additional raise".
Now that I find detrimental, sorry. Too much working around the mechanics (that you've set yourself) for the sake of a nice stoy telling. You could of course come up with many other ideas, like Delkarnu did, but those decisions would be pretty much arbitrary, wouldn't they? And you're against arbitrary rulings. (though arbitrary => referee => gamemaster... all related)
Furthemore, what I'm arguing about in the way you approached the subject is that you don't intend on sharing a house rule you find great, like Grimace suggested, and accept that many, many people won't really find it useful and attractive to even consider implementing in their game, but you opened this post with the noble intention of creating a communitary 3rd Edition, and instead of trying to hear the feedback of other long term gamemasters and players alike and find the weight and measures of what you bring to the table, you preach about a house rule made on obviously misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or/and lack of knowledge or memory of core rules. I encourage you to persist in the creation of this Edition, as, like many people mentioned -including yourself- the 2.5 has its flaws. Scales for instance, the Force, for some.
The idea - if the project is to live and be accepted - is to discuss, hear the ideas, objections, comments of many, and find a middle ground, where all agree the best decision has been taken.
Pointlessly trying to defend an idea that obviously nobody seems to like isn't going to bring any credibility to the project as nobody wants a collection of your house rules in a pdf called '3rd edition'. And try to be openminded as to accept people may not agree with you, may not have to agree with you, and many will probably never agree with you.
Remember, the way you approach things can change a lot how you perceive them. Ask Obi-wan.
_________________
www.obidancer.com - RPG Character Portraits and Art.
Malicia "Rogue" Darkholmes - Character in Alcon's Thractin Campaign |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankhanu
Vice Admiral
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3089
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Grimace and Obidancer for steering us back on track... figuring out what does and doesn't need fixing, rather than, well, bickering about a moot point.
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.
Donate to Ankhanu Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14305
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No, it isn't. Are you even reading what I'm writing? A normal bargain check just sees if I can sell the item to you as an opposed check. However, with a gambit I can change the situation. Instead of just selling it, I want to attempt a harder sale to drive up the price, or change the terms of the deal. |
Then you have obviously forgotten the bargaining skill.
Quoted from the book.
Seller beats buyer
21+ = Price is three times market value
16-20 = price is twice the local market value
11-15 = price is 1.5 times market value
6-10 = Price is 25% higher than market value
3-5 = Price is 10% higher
Buyer beats seller by
3-5 = price is 90% of market value
6-10 = price is about 85% of value
11-15 = price is 75% of market value
16-20 = price is 65% of value
21+ = price is 50% of value.
That is right out of the book, so how am i wrong?
| Quote: | | PCs are 2D to 4D. Humans are 1D to 4D. Read the GM guide. |
I have and all stats i see show humans as being 2d to 4d. Unless age or other disfigurements drops them below minimums.
| Quote: | By your assertion, since non-hero humans have only 12 attribute dice, and all six attributes have a minimum of 2D, then every single non-hero human is exactly 2D, 2D, 2D, 2D, 2D and 2D.
Seriously? |
Exactly. Look at the book. All mooks such as guards, thugs and stormtroopers start out at 2d in all attributes and skills, then it goes to list any that are higher than that.
| Quote: | | Except they write tables to cover scenarios like these, and then players will argue if you don't memorize them exactly. Having a base mechanic that eliminates tables and rules helps the players and GMs. |
There is only the one for bargaining.. so how is that outlandish.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay (cracks knuckles), here's your answers. Remember, all opinions have a money-back guarantee (they're free, get it....)
| Quote: | Difficulty numbers aren't so fuzzy. The standard difficulties are now: Very Easy 5, Easy 10, Moderate 15, Difficult 20, Very Difficult 30, Heroic 35, Legendary 45. Rolling a set number of dice to determine a random difficulty slows down the game, and it is frankly entirely too random. It isn't fair to say the a medium range shot is a 13 difficulty one day, and 15 the next, unless circumstances change. So standard difficulties should be a set base number. These numbers can still be modified by other factors.
|
I've always used numbers in 5's. Why would one roll for a difficulty?
| Quote: | | Implement a "Gambit" system, akin to the bidding system in L5R. This makes gameplay far more interesting than always declaring the same boring combat actions over and over again. This system would also help facilitate and cover many other areas I've seen fan rules address. When declaring actions, players may take gambits. A gambit is a more specific action that increases the difficulty. A standard gambit raises the difficulty one level. However, really specific actions may raise the difficulty multiple levels at the GM's discretion. A standard combat gambit may be a called shot which raises the difficulty one level, but also does an additional dice of damage. However gambits can be used for anything you can imagine and the GM will allow. A standard medium range blaster shot is a 15 difficulty. A head shot might be a 20. Trying to shoot the blaster out of a stromtrooper's hands might be a 25. Trying to shoot a comlink out of someone's hands might be a 35. |
This is a complicated way to explain an existing mechanic. If you make an action more complicated, the difficulty increases.
| Quote: | | To keep the game cinematic, dynamic and entertaining, a GM may award "stunt" dice. When a player declares an action, the GM may give the player bonus dice for a particularly daring stunt. If the stunt is particularly clever and original, the GM may award 1D. If the stunt is particularly bold and selfless, the GM may award 1D. If the stunt is particularly well timed in a climactic scene, the GM may award 1D. These bonuses do not double with force points. These bonuses are awarded solely at the discretion of a GM, after a player commits to their action. Players can not assume that stunt dice will be awarded. This may seem excessive, but understand that it is difficult to come up with original ideas consistently. This rewards clever and entertaining roleplay. Players should never be awarded stunt dice for actions or maneuvers they have pulled before. There is also a very fine line between bravery and stupidity. Attacking Lord Vader with a stick of tofu is not particularly clever or dramatic. Trying to draw the fire (and hopefully dodge the fire) of an E-Web turret so others can safely escape might be seen as a bold and selfless move that grants the player a stunt die. Again, this is completely at the discretion of a GM who may never award any stunt dice. This idea is inspired by White Wolf's fantastic Exalted game |
Interesting idea. We award brownie points (from the old Ghostbusters game). You can use them like cp's only to add to dice rolls.
| Quote: | Dice rolled from spending character points can not trigger complications from rolling a 1, however if you roll a 1 on a character point die, then you may not spend further character points. If you still have not hit the difficulty number, then you have failed in that roll. This rule will have players screaming "No Whammys!" before each character point roll.
|
First: a 1 does not trigger a complication on a character point roll. Second: just make players declare how many dice they are going to add- no additional adding.
| Quote: | Lightsaber dueling is now an advanced skill with a prerequisite of 5D in Lightsaber. Martial Arts is now an advanced skill with a prerequisite of 5D in Brawling. Specific forms of dueling (lightsaber forms) or martial arts may be taken as separate advanced skills. Thusly you could have an advanced skill in Lightsaber Form V, and a different skill in Form VI. You can also have a skill in Martial Arts - Echani and Martial Arts - Teras Kasi. Each die in of these advanced skills provides the player with a specific gambit or maneuver that they can use without raising their difficulty. Thusly, if they learn "Trip" via Teras Kasi, they may use that move with a standard Brawl attack without raising the difficulty via gambits. Someone untrained in martial arts may attempt a trip manuever, but they must utilize gambits and raise their difficulty.
|
I don't like it, but if if works for you- more power to 'ya.
| Quote: | | Rolling a 1 on the wild die always incurs the standard penalty listed in the core rules (drop the 1, and the highest die). Complications are optional and at GM discretion. But if a GM determines there is a complication, it occurs as well as the penalty. This keeps dice rolls fair. A GM can't replace a penalty with a complication to alter the dice result. |
So you're giving the character a penalty and a complication? I don't consider that fair.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankhanu
Vice Admiral
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3089
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | Quote: | | Rolling a 1 on the wild die always incurs the standard penalty listed in the core rules (drop the 1, and the highest die). Complications are optional and at GM discretion. But if a GM determines there is a complication, it occurs as well as the penalty. This keeps dice rolls fair. A GM can't replace a penalty with a complication to alter the dice result. |
So you're giving the character a penalty and a complication? I don't consider that fair. |
That's how I've always played the game, actually. It's not so bad, remember, complications don't necessarily mean failure, and don't have to be directly related to the skill the complication was rolled on. Even with the penalty, the character isn't guaranteed to fail and the complication result should push the story along, rather than just be randomly detrimental.
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.
Donate to Ankhanu Press |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Obi-Jon-Kaliburr
Ensign
Joined: 09 Feb 2009
Posts: 34
Location: Bury, UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an example of a Complication:
The PCs are trying to sneak into a fortification. They locate a maintenance ladder, starting climbing. Half the group makes it to the top ledge. Two players fail their Climbing rolls. KRAK! The ladder breaks. The Complication is the distance from ledge to ground is too far for the PCs to lower a rope. The PCs have to locate a new point of ascendency. They find a vertical, scaleable length of piping a few blocks away. A Complication occurs when one PC fails to climb it (the pipe - under remote computer control - reconfigures to supply its content to another system). The PC has to wait until the pipe returns to its former position. The group eventually reforms, but the complications have cost them valuable time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jamfke
Admiral
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
Posts: 4675
Location: Tennessee
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
A player in one of my games recently had a complication pop up while duking it out with a handful of starfighters during the intro to the adventure. Her NPC copilot was firing at the fighters from a turret mounted laser cannon. His dice roll was more than enough for a solid hit, but he rolled a 1 on the Wild Die. I ruled that the shot went off without a hitch, but the cannon malfunctioned, and had to be shut down for repairs. The fighter he was targeting got destroyed, but they lost one of their weapons. Luckily, they had another turret...
_________________
Check out some of my games at DriveThruRPG!
Role Players Direct |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
I love giving the complication that the shot uses all of the remaining ammo and gas, hits the target for a bunch of extra damage, but melts the barrel.
_________________
This new hand, it's a fightin' hand! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14305
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
One of my fave complications to give is as you fire, the power pack drops out of the gun.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Delkarnu
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 02 Sep 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Saratoga Springs, Upstate NY
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
or they forgot to check the weapons they took off a stormtrroper, and it only has one shot left. Next combat it shoots fine for the first round, and then *click*
_________________
This new hand, it's a fightin' hand! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
