| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 5:57 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Orion wrote: |
Thank you for bringing that up, I had intended to in my previous post but was called away from the comp, so I didn't get to it. I have friends that are currently and previously in the military that I had discussed that with, but as my info is second hand, I feel it's better coming from you.
|
Your welcome orion. Some times it does pay to be military.
| Quote: | | The Wild 1 can keep players from becoming too complacent in their skills that have high die codes. Without it, players will eventually reach a point with some of their skills that things can start to become routine, with your only option of combating this being raising the difficulties, which can cause them to start complaining |
Plus it reminds them that regardless of how skilled they are, lady luck may make them fail. Take a look at the films for instance of how often we saw complications.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fluesopp wrote: | This is true. Both systems are abstractions. The difference is in the initial assumptions about combat. Perhaps this is stems from the content of the games? AD&D came from dungeon-fighting and seems to assume close quarter melees. RQ focused on, among other things, bison riding lancers  |
I agree with your conclusion, as game designers create their combat systems around the feel that they want for the game.
| Quote: | | That is an interesting solution. I didn't actually plan on making reach matter, but I'll have to ponder this. |
A couple of things to think about while your pondering:
The Roman Gladius, called a short sword by some and a long dagger by others, is probably the sword responsible for the ending the most lives in history. It was short enough, that it was easily used in close quarters combat, long enough to get a bit of reach and heavy enough to help build momentum with a swing, these things also made it an effective parrying weapon. All in all a very versatile weapon. The point I'm trying to make with this is in the daggers case, when it exceeds the first tier difficulty but not the second, I would allow it to damage it's opponent to reflect this versitillity. It is after all being balanced by a lower damage code.
Allowing shorter weapons more options to hit than their longer brethren combined with their lower damage codes, would return a semblance of the original rules intent of differing difficulties to use them. It also gives players a reason to select a weapon that isn't the hardest hitting available, they would have to choose between versatility and heavy damage. Of course, it might take a bit of tweaking to get the balance just right.
| Fluesopp wrote: | Yes this is correct. But a lesson I leared from the roleplaying game Reign is that it is important to consider the balance between offence and defence. Making defence effective can give you drawn out combats and cautions players. Favoring offence can help you get furious combats and crazy stunts from the players. This can be complicated balancing act, but for Star Wars I'd like to err, if I have to, on the side of offence. But perhaps I'm favoring offence so much that the characters won't survive. Only time will tell. I'll let you know.
When it comes to dodging into harms way, I have no problem believing what you say. It actually makes perfect sense. But here I'm with Rerun941: realism isn't the main point. In a game, I'd be reluctant to punish players for taking actions. If you invest a reaction and take the corresponding MAP, then I think assuring at least some pay off is more fun for all. |
Your comments on the balance between offense and defense are interesting. With the removal of Full Reactions, you are favoring the Offense, but with capping the low end of a Dodge at +3 your favoring the Defense. Whether or not they balance each other out is something, as you say, only time will tell.
Realism doesn't have to be the main point to advocate an uncapped Dodge. This links back to what I was saying about the purpose of the Wild 1. Anytime a character uses a skill, they should be concerned about possible failure. A Dodge is a skill roll, like any other, except it does not have a set difficulty, however players should look at the current difficulty to hit them as the difficulty for the dodge, if that difficulty is to high for their comfort level, then they shouldn't dodge. Now since you listed fun as a reason that you don't like the Wild 1, think about this: A game that always goes the way you want it to also stops being fun after the initial thrill wears off, this can even happen if it starts to mostly go the way you want it to.
Here is the beauty of the Wild 1, and I'll use Rerun's method to illustrate it, because I'm a firm believer in giving players a mechanic that they can look to when something bad happens as opposed to rules that I can use to justify my actions, if you follow me. Anytime a player rolls a skill there is about a 17% chance that the Wild 1 will show up, this will give them a small "Oh, no" moment, but since were using a second die to determine the outcome of the Wild 1, 67% of the time nothing will have happened and the players will be able to breath a sigh of releif and perhaps even feel that they got lucky even if they failed the skill roll, depending on how you have used complications prior to this. Now their emotional intensity is going to vary with the importance of the roll, but in my opinion anything that can make a player worry about their success post roll is a good thing. It's something we as GM's can use to help them enjoy the game more, because they are emotionally involved. I'm just trying to make sure you understand what your giving up by not including it.
| Fluesopp wrote: |
Oh, and I'd just like to say that I'm very grateful for all replies and critiques. You have a really good thing going on this board. It is a long time since I've stumbled across a board that is more helpful and friendly.
Thanks guys |
I'm happy to be a part of that experience. I enjoy these kinds of discussions as they make me look at existing rules, both official and house, with new eyes, causing me to question if they need tweaking for improvement or not. So I will also thank you for providing me the enjoyment of this discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, garhkal. I missed your post.
| garhkal wrote: | | Your welcome orion. Some times it does pay to be military. |
It terms of RPG's, I find my military friends to be invaluable sources of information. In terms outside the normal parameters of this forum, let me just say, Thank you for serving.
| Quote: | | Plus it reminds them that regardless of how skilled they are, lady luck may make them fail. Take a look at the films for instance of how often we saw complications. |
I think you may have stated my point more clearly than I did, it was definitely more succinctly put. And I think I'll add that I can't think of a single good story that I have read that didn't have the characters overcoming complications at least at one point in it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fluesopp
Cadet
Joined: 31 Mar 2009
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2009 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I got to try out some of my house rules last week. Some worked as expected but others need tweaking.
A bit about the game:
Started the game by playing the final scene of episode IV on DVD, and then proceeded directly to the evacuation of the rebel base. The characters were a Mission Group attached to a x-wing squadron that were ordered to relocate to Elrood sector (from the Planets collection) and establish a base. But the imperials were already closing in and the characters had to fight/run from a swarm of TIE fighters to get outside Yavin’s gravit well, and then jump to hyperspace. The players decided to establish a base inside one of the space hulks orbiting the Korad-system. What a great location for a base!
Memorable moments: Both the group’s YT 1300 and the Brash Pilot’s x-wing lost the nav-computer in the fight. The YT 1300 was repaired by the group’s tech on the exact moment the squadron jumped to hyperspace (diff 30), and the brash pilot flew his bird into the cargo bay of the Medium Transport that carried the squadron’s supplies. Also only seconds before the squadron jumped and also at difficulty 30. I rolled all dice in the open, and both players knew that if they didn’t make those rolls they’d be stranded with a couple of squadrons of TIE fighters. Tense!
So to the house rules.
- I found that giving a minimum of +3 to dodge worked well. The players felt that it often paid off to spend an action dodging, even though they didn’t have all that many dice.
- Wild Die. Hardly a house rule, but anyway. Despite complaints from my players that I constantly rolled exceptionally well (I did), this worked as well as expected. But I also learned that you guys were right about the rule of 1. The wild die do lack something with just the rule of 6. So I’m going to bring back the rules for complications, but with the following addendum. On tests that resolve something with just one roll, a 1 will always be a complication (unless the GM says otherwise). If you succeeded and roll a 1 at the same time, you still succeed but something happened that might need a different roll. Sneaking through an imperial base and rolling a success and 1 on the wild die, might mean that you have to bypass some sensors with a security roll. Or perhaps con an officer that thinks you are the technician he is waiting for. Rolling a one on combat tests will always be subtract the highest die.
- Didn’t get to test the lightsaber combat rules. But the guy playing the jedi seemed to be ok with them on paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
