1e's Haste System

[nuclearwookiee]

To you 1e experts: Is the Rules Companion the first time 1e's haste system is discussed? If not, could you kindly point me in the right direction?
_________________
Obligatory postscript: It's your game; you do you.

[KageRyu]

To my knowledge it is the first time it is discussed in detail. I thought I had seen a note about hurrying in the 1E core rules but can not find it now.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra

[Pel]

Haste originated in the Rules Companion. It was one of the few broken changes introduced in that book and honestly it gave me a headache 30 years ago. We tried it and the combat rounds quickly devolved into declarations of haste, double haste, triple haste, and the penultimate double dog haste (I'm not joking).

Before long our Star Wars session more closely resembled a school yard taunting match as the players attempted to act and react at ever-increasing fractions of c. I even briefly pondered introducing relativistic effects before declaring a recess, scrapping haste, and happily going back to the simultaneous actions everyone enjoyed in plain vanilla 1E.

Sorry. Hadn't thought about that in a while and apparently had a lot to say on the subject.
_________________
Aha!

[Whill]

[CRMcNeill]

I browsed that rule when I got my copy of the Rules Companion a few months back, but never really took the time to grok it.

It almost sounds like the D6 version of D20's Attack of Opportunity mechanic...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[nuclearwookiee]

Thanks for the responses and info, everyone.

I'm wondering if 1e's haste rules couldn't be tweaked and combined with the later editions' initiative rules as a way to perform simultaneous actions. Here's how it could work. Determine initiative according to your preferred method. If you follow 2e R&E pp. 77-78, decide how many sides are in the battle and roll the highest Perception for each side. Then have the players declare how many actions their characters will take in the round. As usual, a character who takes more than one action in a round suffers a -1d multiple action penalty (MAP) for each additional action beyond the first. If a character who takes more than one action in a round wishes to perform two or more of those actions simultaneously, the character also suffers a -1d simultaneous action penalty (SAP) for each additional action performed simultaneously with the first. MAP and SAP are cumulative.

Example 1. A gunslinger wielding two pistols with a Blaster skill of 7d turns a corner and comes face-to-face with a pair of stormtroopers. The PC wins initiative, and his player declares two actions: a blaster shot at each trooper. But not wanting to give either trooper a chance to get a shot off, the gunslinger's player declares that the shots will be simultaneous. The gunslinger will make both attacks at 5d (7d skill -1d MAP for performing two actions and -1d SAP for performing two actions simultaneously), but both attacks will resolve before either stormtrooper gets a chance to shoot back.

Example 2. Let's say the gunslinger, who has a Running skill of 5d, is still worried about being shot at by the troopers. His player instead declares three actions: one shot at each stormtrooper and a movement action to get to cover. But again, the player doesn't want to give the stormtroopers a chance to react before completing these actions. So the gunslinger's player declares that all three actions will be simultaneous--i.e., he will fire both weapons at the same time while running to cover. Both attacks would be rolled at 3d (7d skill -2d MAP for performing three actions and -2d SAP for performing three actions simultaneously), and the gunslinger would roll only 1d for his Running check.

Example 3. For a more complicated example, a Jedi Knight wielding her lightsaber with a Control skill of 6d, a Sense skill of 6d, and a Lightsaber skill of 7d knows that she is about to be attacked by a Sith apprentice, but the Jedi wins initiative and decides to go first. The Jedi wishes to raise Lightsaber Combat (LSC), so her player declares two actions: the Control and Sense rolls required to raise LSC. But wanting to have the power up (to boost her parry roll) before she is attacked on the Sith's turn, the Jedi's player declares that the Control and Sense rolls will be made simultaneously. Both rolls will be rolled at 4d (6d skill -1d MAP for performing two actions and -1d SAP for performing two actions simultaneously). If the Jedi succeeds in raising LSC and then decides to roll her Lightsaber skill to parry on the Sith's turn, her Lightsaber roll to parry will be rolled at 7d (three actions = -2d MAP, two simultaneous actions = -1d SAP; which reduces her Sense skill from 6d to 3d and her Lightsaber skill from 7d to 4d; and adding her Lightsaber skill of 4d and Sense skill of 3d under LSC = 7d).

As these examples demonstrate, this proposed rule can be used to reproduce some combat maneuvers found in other gaming systems, such as dual wielding (examples 1 and 2) and spring attack (example 2). But these examples also demonstrate that the penalties for performing simultaneous actions add up quickly. This rule could be abused only by highly advanced characters when interacting with relatively low-skill adversaries (which imo, isn't the worst thing). And of course, the GM will need to decide which actions can be performed simultaneously.

Thoughts?
_________________
Obligatory postscript: It's your game; you do you.

[KageRyu]

Haste Rules as presented were a bit of a headache. I adapted a rule of thumb and modified version of the Haste rules, as well as a few other combat rules.

As a general Rule I never let anyone rush by more D than the Die code of their Dexterity (or Perception in certain cases) as these represent in game terms Physical adeptness and mental acuity respectively. It doesn't matter how good you inevitably become at a given task, the body and mind can only react so fast in a 5 second round.

Similarly, to keep multi-actions from getting way out of hand as Skill Die Codes rise and Force Points are spent - I never let any non-augmented character declare more actions than their Die Code of Dexterity. Again, the body only can move so fast. I normally do not count dice-less free actions against this, but depending on the situation may. Bonus actions from items, modified gear (Hare Trigger, repeaters, etc...) are not counted against this. I also applied this to D6 Modern's rules on Double Tap+ (can not more shots than 1 +Die code of Dex as a single action) to keep the rules from being used abusively... especially considering most automatic handguns rates of fire would not allow some of the fire rates I saw being described for bonus damage in the old WEG forums.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra

[KageRyu]

Forgot to mention - also with Haste/Hurrying, it only gave the first action the player made advantage over everyone else if rolling higher - and I had the players roll the Haste dice as a unique color and a 1 on any of them was a complication. It may seem harsh, but it definitely made haste a calculated risk and brought it under control. Many a sad time a player was rushing to throw down with his blaster and either caught the weapon on the holster and shot himself in the leg, or dropped the weapon, or fired off a wild shot causing very dramatic and colorful scenery damage. Bad guys too... they were not immune.
_________________
"There's a set way to gain new Force Points and it represents a very nice system, where you're rewarded for heroism, not for being a poor conductor to electricity." ~Jachra

[nuclearwookiee]

Thanks for your insight, KageRyu. To clarify, my proposed rule would not let a character that loses initiative change his place in the initiative order. If you lose initiative and the other side decides to go first, they will get to act before you do--no matter how much you rush your subsequent actions.

And as you point out, there are some natural barriers to doing too much. One of those is weapon fire rate; most pistols have a rate of only 1 per round. And of course a single weapon can't be in two places at the same time; therefore, even if fire rate isn't an issue, one weapon (except maybe for double weapons like a double-bladed lightsaber) cannot be used to make two simultaneous attacks.
_________________
Obligatory postscript: It's your game; you do you.

[CRMcNeill]

Interesting. I like it.

How would you combine it with the Quick-Draw rules from the HSatCS Sourcebook? Allow the gunman to stack a portion of his Blaster dice with Perception for Initiative?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[KageRyu]

[CRMcNeill]

I'm leaning more and more to the SAP concept suggested by nuclearwookie. In particular, I like how it very neatly parallels the MAP concept and stacks with it in similar fashion. Plus, the SAP acronym is easily remembered alongside MAP. I don't really see the need for a hard limit on how many actions you can take; your skill dice takes enough of a hit when stacking MAPs and SAPs to do that just as effectively.

As far as the Quick-Draw rules, I'd suggest a modification of the Dice Pool rule used in the RAW, with whatever dice the character chooses to allocate to Initiative being stacked with Perception, as opposed to being rolled on their own. The remaining dice in Blaster would be used for the shot accuracy, subject to MAPs and SAPs as appropriate.

I do need to consider how the SAP concept would integrate with dual-wielding weapons, though...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[nuclearwookiee]

[CRMcNeill]

A thought on the SAP concept; perhaps a better title would be Concurrent Action Penalty, or CAP. They have the same meaning, but concurrent is only three syllables to simultaneous’ five, so it flows off the tongue more easily.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[nuclearwookiee]