House rules for a new campaign

[Fluesopp]

Hi there. I’m probably going to start a Star Wars campaign in the near future using, surprisingly enough, the first edition. Having just re-read both first edition and second revised and expanded, I actually prefer the first. Anyway, these are some of the house rules I’m considering for my campaign. Comments and critiques are more than welcome.

- The Wild Die. A big improvement in the second edition. But after playing rpgs for almost 30 years, I’m beginning to think that the fun of fumbles is overrated. I’m not convinced fumbles add anything to a game beside making characters look stupid. Failure is enough. So I’m just going to use the rule for 6. Rolling a 1 on the wild dice has no effect.

- There is no skill called lightsaber. Jedis fighting with lightsaber use their dex attribute + sense to hit. And when a jedi fight with a lightsaber, there is no danger hurting oneself. Other people can use a lightsaber using the melee skill, but they hurt themselves (or their allies) when they roll 5 below the melee difficulty (see below). “Impossible” actions (fighting blind, blocking blaster fire etc) use just the sense skill.

- Melee weapons don’t have an inherent difficulty. The difficulty of making a melee attack depends on the target. If the target is unprepared the difficulty is 5, if the target is prepared but unarmed the difficulty is 10, if the target is armed and ready the difficulty is 15.

- Dodging and parrying: Using the dodge/parry skill doesn’t add to the difficulty of hitting. It replaces the normal difficulty, with a minimum bonus of +3

That’s it so far.

[Rerun941]

[garhkal]

I have always loved the wild die, and cannot see allowing it to have a benefitial effect without no corrisponding negative.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Grimace]

I agree, garhkal.

When people mention that they "can't see a fumble 1 out of 6 times" I never hear the same thing said for "can't see a bonus 1 out of 6 times". Why is that? Why can you only see the negative side as being bad, but keep the good side? Why is getting the bonus so easily acceptable but getting a negative so abhorrent?

If you're going to keep the Wild Die, keep both aspects of it.

Heck, take the suggestion of Rerun and roll an extra die to see if there's really a negative, or maybe it's a "close call". But don't get rid of the negative just because you don't want negative things to happen in the game. The thing that makes success so rewarding is because failure is always present. Take away the chance at failure rearing it's head, while only keeping the chance to increase success will diminish the reward of success over time.

[cheshire]

I think that's why I prefer the "plot complication" idea rather than the "critical failure" result. If someone rolls really high on a dodge roll, but rolls a 1 on the wild die, then it doesn't mean that they don't dodge out of the way... it just means that they dove for cover behind a stack of crates...

all of which are marked "EXPLOSIVES."
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.

[Fluesopp]

[Fluesopp]

[cheshire]

Well... fun is the goal. If they don't think it's fun, then modify things.

My players remember more 1 rolls than they do 6 rolls.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.

[Fluesopp]

Yes, fun is the goal. Always.

But no opinions on my changes to lightsaber combat or melee difficulties? Any potential pitfalls using these?

[Rerun941]

[Orion]

I've never played or even read all of 1st edition, so it's hard for me to comment on most of what you have written, but I will try.

With regard to Wild Dice and the 1, I believe you are mistakenly referring to it as a fumble and that is not the case. Even if you elect to use a complication, the roll may still have succeeded, it's just that things might have gone a little differently than originally planned. So if the character was trying to open a locked door, he might have done so but set off the alarm in the process or in combat his blaster may have discharged too much gas, increasing the damage of the shot, but emptying the magazine of gas, so now he needs to reload. I am also of the opinion that 1 in 6 is too often so I use the method described by rerun and I would like to point out that the subtraction method doesn't automatically mean failure either and can be thought of as distractions or interruptions that hamper the effort.

As far as your changes to lightsaber fighting goes, I don't feel that I understand enough about how it works in 1st ed to make any constructive comments.

Your change to melee combat makes all weapons equally easy to use, and that is just not the case. It requires less effort to hit a practice dummy with a dagger than a sword, and that only becomes amplified when the target is a living, moving creature. So you have effectively removed any reason for someone to take a weapon that has a lower damage code.

With Dodging and parrying, I'm not sure why you didn't go with R&E's effects completely. A Full Reaction adds to the difficulty and a normal Reaction replaces it, even if it is lower than the original difficulty. It is possible to zig when you should have zagged. Would doing so somehow mess up 1st ed.'s mechanics?

[garhkal]

[Yak Face]

I like your ideas about melee combat and may have to steal them. I've always thought that swinging a vibroax would not seem terribly complex when compared to swinging a club - at least not +10 worth.

My group has a few house rules that don't get a lot of use, but are intended to add some options that are otherwise difficult to adjudicate on the fly. Most are inspired by movie action or heroic stories. One such that I like:

Heroic Sacrifice

If a character is adjacent to the point where a concussion or fragmentation grenade lands, he may choose to sacrifice himself to save those around him. To do so he throws his body down on the grenade to muffle the burst. He rolls his dodge skill against the grenade skill of the thrower. If the dodge is greater than or equal to the grenade thrower’s roll, he manages to cover the grenade in time.

The character receives the maximum damage from the grenade +4D. The character DOES NOT gain the normal benefit of falling prone. This reduces the grenade damage by 4D for all those within the blast radius.

Any character that does this in the spirit of heroism is automatically awarded a force point if he did not use one, is guaranteed to get it back if he spent one, or may atone a dark side point, though it will probably be a posthumous award…

One other I like as GM, which I think nerfs the overly-convenient use of skill specialization from 2nd edition, is the following:

Specialization of Skills

Skill specializations may be taken in any knowledge skill other than “Technology.” This is done as described in the 2nd edition rules – basically it’s bought at 3 per die of starting dice spent, and improved for half the experience point cost.

For example, a character may specialize in a Language and thereby learn it quickly, or the Bureaucracy of a given system, or general knowledge about a specific Planetary System.

Any specializations outside of the Knowledge attribute must be approved by the GM, and must represent a genuinely special subcategory of an existing skill. A possible non-Knowledge specialization could be “Seduction” as a specialization of “Con.” It has very specific requirements, could have specific modifiers not generally applicable to other efforts to Con people, and certainly a very limited selection of potential targets.
_________________
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. -Sir Winston Churchill

[Fluesopp]

[cunning_kindred]