| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16217
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bren wrote: | | One additional modification I've been thinking about is allowing an attacker to save up the +1D6 bonus gains from several rounds of 'off balance' results against the defender. This would allow an attacker to save up a larger dice addition to allow for higher results. The reason for the change is to allow for a mechanism to break a stalemate. Since characters who have roughly the same lightsaber and force skills on average don't actually cause damage to each other on the Attack Results Table, they end up in a stalemate. This way an attacker can forgo a temporary advantage now to try to gain more temporary advantages later and combine those +1D6 bonuses to score a damage causing result. This also seems like what we see in the films. |
Or perhaps he could deliberately stack the results, so that if he has an Off Balance result from one round that carries over into the next, and then lands a successful hit, he could downgrade that hit to an additional Off Balance result, so that his opponent is now at -2D.
_________________
"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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Or perhaps he could deliberately stack the results, so that if he has an Off Balance result from one round that carries over into the next, and then lands a successful hit, he could downgrade that hit to an additional Off Balance result, so that his opponent is now at -2D. |
A few clarifications:
First, the off balance result gives a bonus of +1D6 to the attacker's next attack. It does not adjust the defender's scores at all.
Second, what I proposed was that an attacker who succeeded in getting his opponent off balance could choose to save the +1D6 to use on a later attack. The idea was that would over a number of rounds allow the attacker to build up a bonus to a single attack of +2D6, +3D6, or more. Think of this as an attacker maneuvering through a series of maneuvers to set his opponent up for one dramatic strike or killing blow. I proposed this option for two reasons: (1) opponents who have close to the same skills in lightsaber combat could be stalemated to the point that combat would never resolve. This allows a mechanic to break the stalemate by saving up smaller bonuses - but because the bonuses takes several rounds to accrue, an opponent who senses he is gradually being set up, may choose to withdraw instead (which we see Ventress and Grievous do repeatedly in the EU); (2) the gradual nature of the buildup followed by one decisive blow seems to mirror what we see in the films.
Third, included with the damage steps in the table is the ability for the defender to adjust the result by moving up one or more rows in the table at a cost of a temporary penalty (for at least the duration of the duel) to his lightsaber skill. The penalty would be -1D6 per row adjustment.
So I think what you propose is less affective than what I proposed. I wouldn't see any reason to forbit it, though I don't think it would be as advantageous as taking the higher result. With a higher result the opponent either chooses to incur a penalty to his lightsaber skill by -1D6 or more for the entire combat or he risks being wounded (or worse) which also causes a -1D penalty for the entire combat (or longer). Of course, I'm assuming that the defender would choose the temporary penalty rather than the wound.*
* If a GM is concerned about players not taking the temporary penalty, the GM could decide that the penalty is the default result and only once lightsaber skill is reduced to 0D does a wounding result occur. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | One additional modification I've been thinking about is allowing an attacker to save up the +1D6 bonus gains from several rounds of 'off balance' results against the defender. This would allow an attacker to save up a larger dice addition to allow for higher results. The reason for the change is to allow for a mechanism to break a stalemate. Since characters who have roughly the same lightsaber and force skills on average don't actually cause damage to each other on the Attack Results Table, they end up in a stalemate. This way an attacker can forgo a temporary advantage now to try to gain more temporary advantages later and combine those +1D6 bonuses to score a damage causing result. This also seems like what we see in the films. |
I had something like thisi in my system with the swordplay maneuver. Basically swordplay gave you a one shot bonus to the next round. Rather than saving up, you might just allow the attacker to trade off RA for additional bonus dice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I don't see that being different in what either you or I proposed. |
Exactly. That is why the 2D guy isn't getting hosed by my method..
| Quote: | Opps typo. correction is as follows:
STR probably should not be such a deciding factor in any fight. |
| Quote: | | If skills are equal then the Wookiee has an advantage under both what you and I propose. I think the Wookiee has more of an advantage than I care to allow in what you propose. But I'm not trying to persuade you to change what you are proposing, just to explain why I prefer what I proposed. Honestly they don't seem that different to me. |
One of the big differences is that it is possible to get a good hit in under my system. With your, the wound cap wil, well,l cap the wounds. It is even possible for the Wookiee to blow a soak roll and be incapacitated or killed. Which provides even more incentive not to be hit.
CPs probably won't play a big factor in lightsaber duels. Most will be using FPs, and thus won't be able to spend CPs until their FP pools run dry.
But this was just an option.
| Quote: | | he off balance +1D6 result applies to the attackers next lightsaber attack, not to the defenders actions. The attacker is assumed to have "set up" the defender by feinting, drawing him out of alignment, moving him to an unfavorable angle, etc. in preparation for a follow up attack. That's what I mean by off balance. |
I this this would work out better as a peanlty to the defender. For ne thing, it makes sense if the guy who is "off balance" suffers the peanlty. Plus it would work better than way when you have mutiple opponents. One guy could set up a foe for an ally.
| Quote: | | I'm not getting why you think this would be different with what you propose, nor why both would not want to avoid being hit. The Wookiee doesn't actually know that his opponent isn't adding to damage so it is a bit risky to assume he can withstand a hit. But he can equally make that assumption in your proposal, the only difference is if he has no dice to allocate, he can't trade off damage for parry or to hit. But he can choose where to spend CPs as can Wimpy. |
First off, why doesn't the Wookiee know. Are you going to do the allocation in secret? That will be a big pain in play, and impossible to check on, with variable skill and die loss.
Secondly, it7s not that muxh of a risk. The Wookiee can probably get a good idea of the opponent's damage dice based on what he opponent is rolling for attack and parry. And if you are dividing LSC among three things it is a lot harder to get a damage code that is really dangerous to the Wookiee with a wound cap. Chances are, if he opponent has a lot of damage dice, the wound cap will prevent him from benefiting.
| Quote: | | I think it is pretty similar in effect. Under your system the Wookiee wins. Under my system the Wookiee is also likely to win. That makes sense because he is the same except for STR where he is +3D superior. I am really having a difficult time understanding what you are objecting to. Is it more the damage result cap (which doesn't seem too different from your damage point cap) or more the dice allocation? |
I think the Wookiee wins is a gross asumption. And truth to tell, I think the Wookee's advatage is greater under your system! Why? Becuase in order to get a good damage reuslt against the Wookee in your system the Jedi must allocate a lot of dice to both attack (to get a high enough AR to get a good damage cap) AND damage dice to actually have a chance of scoring damage. Leaving himself wide open to the Wookiee, who can inflcit serious damage with the 5D default. So the Wookiee can probably et away with putting all his dice on parry and wait, or attack and ending the duel quickly.
| Quote: | | But single roll is 'going balanced' by fiat. |
Actually single roll is going both full attack and full defense by fiat.
| Quote: |
I like the tactical flexibility of being able to choose between attack, parry, and damage. |
I don't believe that will play out well. It really helps the Wookiee in this situation. In order for the 2D guy to really be able to threaten the wookiee he must pump attack and damage at the expense of defense, while the wookiee can either go all offense or all defense and let the default 5D damage do the work.
Without the A&P split the 2D guy has a chance of scoring a damage it without commiting suicide.
| Quote: |
And I like the possibility of a no effect vs no effect round of combat. With a single roll, except for the very rare tie result, someone always hits someone every round. |
I7m ot fond of the no effect result. There should be some result each turn, even if itis a push back. That said, somebody doesn't ALWAYS hit, becuase thelow end results are things other that strikes
| Quote: |
Not sure. I'll have to think about the ramifications of that. |
For starters it would keep people "honest". Doing a half hearted attack into a strong defense should be dangerous. Secondly, it would help you deal with forms.
I think that the negative side of the table would be like the postive side, but in reverse, adn with a 5 or 10 point "paried" gap where the defender gets nothing.
| Quote: | | Absent a mechanism that prevents a PC from using FPs I don't see a way around that if both opponents stubbornly continue to fight. I believe I mentioned quite a while ago that as a possibility. |
Well, we wee discussing alterate force point mechanics a few days back. Having Fps affect one roll, allowing mutiple Fps in a turn, and allowing them to be used after the roll could help to reduce the nuke effect.
| Quote: | | I think this was your question, apologies if it was not, but your quotes are a little messed up at the end. |
Sorry, that is what happens when I type against a deadline. :oops
| Quote: |
I'm not sure how you are proposing to treat FPs. For now, I am looking at leaving them the same as the RAW (doubling everything), but explicitly allowing a character to expend a FP on any skill prior to computing the effect. They would not be able to combine CPs and FPs though. So if you already started adding CPs to a roll, you could not then decide to spend a FP* and once you spent a FP, you could not then choose to spend any more CPs in that round. |
I'm in favor of spending FPs like hero points. I think that would help to balance off the nuke thing, and prevent the CP/FP problem. Cps are, in some ways better than FPs since they can be spent after the fact. But, I epct we wont see too many Cps spent until the Fps run out, since spending a CP makes a Jedi vulnerable. Some of those defensive spowers require the use of FPs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | I don't see that being different in what either you or I proposed. |
Exactly. That is why the 2D guy isn't getting hosed by my method. |
You and I are intuiting different answers. To me that says this needs some playtesting to determine which approach is 'better.'
| Quote: | | One of the big differences is that it is possible to get a good hit in under my system. With your, the wound cap wil, well,l cap the wounds. It is even possible for the Wookiee to blow a soak roll and be incapacitated or killed. Which provides even more incentive not to be hit. |
And I am assuming that to get a good hit the attacker will do one or both of the following first (1) pile up a series of off balance results against his opponent to set up a strike that allows dice to shift from defense to attack & damage. If, for example, he gains a +3D6 advantage he could shift those dice to damage for a bigger effect blow that would hurt the Wookiee. (2) Accumulate a series of Glancing Blows that force the opponent to take penalty dice against his lightsaber skill to to slowly whittle away at his opponent.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | he off balance +1D6 result applies to the attackers next lightsaber attack, not to the defenders actions. The attacker is assumed to have "set up" the defender by feinting, drawing him out of alignment, moving him to an unfavorable angle, etc. in preparation for a follow up attack. That's what I mean by off balance. |
I this this would work out better as a peanlty to the defender. For ne thing, it makes sense if the guy who is "off balance" suffers the peanlty. Plus it would work better than way when you have mutiple opponents. One guy could set up a foe for an ally. |
Setting up an attack is a good point. I like the positive bonus for the attacker as a contrast to the negative penalty for the row offsets against the defender. I think you would get the same effect by applying the bonus to the next attack - regardless of which attacker makes the attack. To accumulate bonuses the attacker has to somehow control whether the bonus is used immediately or accumulated and saved for a later round/attack.
| Quote: | | First off, why doesn't the Wookiee know. Are you going to do the allocation in secret? That will be a big pain in play, and impossible to check on, with variable skill and die loss. |
Generally it is how we play. We don't make all die rolls in the open. Typically the GM will only do it for (a) added drama - the player then knows no punches are being pulled with that roll or (b) the GM wants, for whatever reason, to have the player witness the die roll. Aside from perhaps hearing how loud the bunch of dice sounds or the continued bounce of a wild die, the players don't know the NPCs roll just the outcome, nor would they know (unless they somehow use sense to detect this) that the NPC has LS Combat power up. And since the allocation can change from round to round, even if the PC knew that the NPC rolled a 32 attack last round and a 43 parry. He doesn't know what, if any damage was added, not does he know how the dice will be allocated this round.
| Quote: | | I think the Wookiee wins is a gross asumption. |
And you might be right. I think only playtesting will tell. I think in the situations you are describing for my system, Wimpy will spend CPs to up his parry or attack. Wookiee will spend CPs to up his attack or his soak. I think it will net out the same, you don't. I'm happy to be proven right or wrong in play.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I like the tactical flexibility of being able to choose between attack, parry, and damage. |
I don't believe that will play out well. It really helps the Wookiee in this situation. In order for the 2D guy to really be able to threaten the wookiee he must pump attack and damage at the expense of defense, while the wookiee can either go all offense or all defense and let the default 5D damage do the work. |
I still like the tactical flexibility. Perhaps the solution is to change the AR Table so that instead of Glancing Blow defaulting to "maximum wounded' it defaults to -1D lightsaber penalty for the duel. Then only once lightsaber is < or = 0D does the result change to actual damage. That way the Wookiee can't just choose to rely on his STR 5D soak to fend of the unboosted damage of Wimpy, he, like Wimpy, needs to both attack and defend or see his lightsaber skill attritioned away to the point where Wimpy has a decisive dice advantage that he can put to a telling blow with extra damage. That would look like what we see in the films I think.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Not sure. I'll have to think about the ramifications of that. |
For starters it would keep people "honest". Doing a half hearted attack into a strong defense should be dangerous. Secondly, it would help you deal with forms. |
Still thinking.  My hesitation is this may make it harder for a character to choose to defend - which strings out combat - so instead they will more quickly most to stronger attacks. I would not make the defensive advantage side a mirror image of the attack side, but as you said, offset it.
| Quote: | | Well, we wee discussing alterate force point mechanics a few days back. Having Fps affect one roll, allowing mutiple Fps in a turn, and allowing them to be used after the roll could help to reduce the nuke effect. |
I haven't discarded the idea, I am seeing two problems.
(1) While it seems to work with simple LS combat It will require a lot of FPs to be able to do different skill actions, e.g. run across broken ground towards the opponents dodging their sonic beam (unparryable) fire then attacking with the lightsaber might require 3 FPs, force jumping, calling your dropped lightsaber, parrying, then attacking requires 3 separate skills and at least 4 actions, so again 3-4 FPs (4 if attacking and parrying are separate) to do it really well and cool. It seems like about 2-3 times the number of FPs will be required to simulate something close to the effects of second edition FPs.
(2) Is related to (1) I would like to change as few rules as possible to get the effect I want and, since we have pre-existing characters, I'd like things to be as backwards compatible as possible.
Thus both (1) and (2) are making me a little less sanquine about the idea of FP as super CPs.
I don't have a good solution for the FP nuclear issue yet. The FP=super CP just switches to tactical nukes, but enough tactical nukes equals a big nuke. I am mentally toying with a dramatic resolution along the lines of providing incentives to wait to use a FP.
For example:
(1) Assume a character can trigger a FP use defensively at any time before the damage result is determined. Now it is somewhat safe to wait and see if the bad guy uses a FP or DSP offensively before declaring a FP use for defense.
(2) Assume that a PC who uses a FP for offense in a scene before the action has reached a dramatic climax will lose the FP and not get it back. Combined with (1), this gives the player a bit more incentive to take the risk of waiting. Assume the same rule also applies to villains using FPs and DSPs - so the NPC has an incentive to wait.
(3) Assume some characters will be cautious and allocate dice to defense for a few rounds as they gauge how good their opponent is, at least until they guage relative skill levels or the dramatic climax is reached. This could even look like the sort of stand off and circling you see in some martial arts and samurai films and would provide a good opportunity for some dialog, attempts to convince the opponent to succumb to the Dark Side, come back to the light side, Dun Moch, etc.
Does it fix everything with nuclear FPs? Unlikely. But maybe it gets us a bit closer. I don't know which is the better solution or approach, who knows maybe it needs both. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We need shorter posts! *oops
| Bren wrote: | | [You and I are intuiting different answers. To me that says this needs some playtesting to determine which approach is 'better.' |
Says the same to me, too.
| Quote: | | And I am assuming that to get a good hit the attacker will do one or both of the following first (1) pile up a series of off balance results against his opponent to set up a strike that allows dice to shift from defense to attack & damage. If, for example, he gains a +3D6 advantage he could shift those dice to damage for a bigger effect blow that would hurt the Wookiee. (2) Accumulate a series of Glancing Blows that force the opponent to take penalty dice against his lightsaber skill to to slowly whittle away at his opponent. |
Well stacking off balance results wasn't an option when this was started.
Amnd all of the results assume that the 2D guy is around long enough to build up for a big attack.
[/quote]Setting up an attack is a good point. I like the positive bonus for the attacker as a contrast to the negative penalty for the row offsets against the defender. I think you would get the same effect by applying the bonus to the next attack - regardless of which attacker makes the attack. To accumulate bonuses the attacker has to somehow control whether the bonus is used immediately or accumulated and saved for a later round/attack. [/quote]
I suggest just letting the attacker transfer the bonus to an ally. Much like generating "spin" in SotC. If you allow someone to save up off balance results, then two or more opponents could bank all thier off balance results to one guy, setting of for massive hit.
| Quote: | | Generally it is how we play. We don't make all die rolls in the open. Typically the GM will only do it for (a) added drama - the player then knows no punches are being pulled with that roll or (b) the GM wants, for whatever reason, to have the player witness the die roll. Aside from perhaps hearing how loud the bunch of dice sounds or the continued bounce of a wild die, the players don't know the NPCs roll just the outcome, nor would they know (unless they somehow use sense to detect this) that the NPC has LS Combat power up. And since the allocation can change from round to round, even if the PC knew that the NPC rolled a 32 attack last round and a 43 parry. He doesn't know what, if any damage was added, not does he know how the dice will be allocated this round. |
I think that hurts the Pcs in a duel, since the GM knows the PC skills levels. I think quite a few Pcs can get blindsided by this approach. Yeah a few NPCs might get caught too, but they don't need to make it to next week.
| Quote: | | And you might be right. I think only playtesting will tell. I think in the situations you are describing for my system, Wimpy will spend CPs to up his parry or attack. Wookiee will spend CPs to up his attack or his soak. I think it will net out the same, you don't. I'm happy to be proven right or wrong in play. |
Yeah, I think playtesting is in order. Especially with people who think differently and use different tactics. I don't see ANY CPs being used, bcuase FPs will be used first. In most fights, with Fps according to RAW, not spending an FP when the other guy does is equivalent to being defenseless, unless you are a lot better than the other guy.
I seee the Wookiee spending a FP and going all offense, hoping to overwhelm the 2D Jedi. A 12D STR shoudl make the Wookie almost invincible with split dice.
| Quote: |
I still like the tactical flexibility. Perhaps the solution is to change the AR Table so that instead of Glancing Blow defaulting to "maximum wounded' it defaults to -1D lightsaber penalty for the duel. Then only once lightsaber is < or = 0D does the result change to actual damage. That way the Wookiee can't just choose to rely on his STR 5D soak to fend of the unboosted damage of Wimpy, he, like Wimpy, needs to both attack and defend or see his lightsaber skill attritioned away to the point where Wimpy has a decisive dice advantage that he can put to a telling blow with extra damage. That would look like what we see in the films I think. |
I handled that in my original dueling system by allowing the attacker to accumulate "AR". If you let the winner turn high ARs into more bonus dice, then 2D guy could out finesses the Wookiee by trading off those inefective "max wounded" results for bonus dice Then it would balance out, becuase the 2D Jedi wound not waste effort on weak attacks. He'd just build up a big die pool and then shift dice over to damage. And the threat of that would keep the Wookiee honest.
| Quote: |
Still thinking. My hesitation is this may make it harder for a character to choose to defend - which strings out combat - so instead they will more quickly most to stronger attacks. I would not make the defensive advantage side a mirror image of the attack side, but as you said, offset it. |
Consider this. What if really good parries maybe bonus dice to parry the way off balance does to attack.? Then the defender could actually free up defense dice and do more attacking. So defense would feed the offense.
| Quote: | haven't discarded the idea, I am seeing two problems.
(1) While it seems to work with simple LS combat It will require a lot of FPs to be able to do different skill actions, e.g. run across broken ground towards the opponents dodging their sonic beam (unparryable) fire then attacking with the lightsaber might require 3 FPs, force jumping, calling your dropped lightsaber, parrying, then attacking requires 3 separate skills and at least 4 actions, so again 3-4 FPs (4 if attacking and parrying are separate) to do it really well and cool. It seems like about 2-3 times the number of FPs will be required to simulate something close to the effects of second edition FPs.
(2) Is related to (1) I would like to change as few rules as possible to get the effect I want and, since we have pre-existing characters, I'd like things to be as backwards compatible as possible.
Thus both (1) and (2) are making me a little less sanquine about the idea of FP as super CPs. |
One I can get around. Two is a killer. But I think with 2 you are always going to have FP escalation.
| Quote: |
I don't have a good solution for the FP nuclear issue yet. The FP=super CP just switches to tactical nukes, but enough tactical nukes equals a big nuke. I am mentally toying with a dramatic resolution along the lines of providing incentives to wait to use a FP. |
Two thoughts. First FP-super Cps isn7t as bad as tac nukes, since I allowed for them to zeroout the AR. This willmake players a bit more careful about using them to attack with. THey could double up ther AR only to have it wiped out with a FP.
Secondly, the best way I can think of (other that HP/FPs) to get players not to use Fps in aduel would be NOT to give them back. Knowing that the lightsaber duel is almost certainly to be a "dramtically appropriate moment" really encoruages Pcs to shoot he moon. According to RAW, doubling up on Fps is quite likely.
[quote]
For example:
(1) Assume a character can trigger a FP use defensively at any time before the damage result is determined. Now it is somewhat safe to wait and see if the bad guy uses a FP or DSP offensively before declaring a FP use for defense. [/quoe]
Yup. And that is a good thing. It encourage players not to sse their FPs recklessly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was thinking. The way bonus dice are being turned into stackable currency, maybe the duel could revolved around the bonus dice. What if one side or the other can have bonus dice at any given time, and that they cancel out. That would give us the ebb and flow swordplay feel.
If defense accumlated bonus dice, then going defensive might be a good way to defend against a guy who is racking up a big bonus die pool.
The higher results on the AR table could be traded off for more bonus dice, allowingc haracters to build up for a telling shot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | We need shorter posts! *oops |
 Well at least the last few posts are more ageeable.
| Quote: | | Says the same to me, too. |
Let's share any results and data.
| Quote: | | Well stacking off balance results wasn't an option when this was started. |
No. But I am starting to think it is a really useful mechanic to address stalemates and it complements the penalty dice.
| Quote: | | I suggest just letting the attacker transfer the bonus to an ally. Much like generating "spin" in SotC. If you allow someone to save up off balance results, then two or more opponents could bank all thier off balance results to one guy, setting of for massive hit. |
That is fine as long as there is a rationale for them being able to fight cooperatively. I think that is a learned ability/skill. So characters who have fought together alot, or practice fighting together, or have some telepathy, lifebond, etc. that lets them work together, or someone makes a command roll to coordinate, or someone says - "hey lets drive him back towards the cliff...into the trees...etc." Practically there should be a rationale to cooperate and dramatically cooperation in a fight should create or strengthen ties between characters.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Generally...We don't make all die rolls in the open. |
I think that hurts the Pcs in a duel, since the GM knows the PC skills levels. I think quite a few Pcs can get blindsided by this approach. Yeah a few NPCs might get caught too, but they don't need to make it to next week. |
It would if I wanted to kill the PCs or if I was playing a challenge, the dice never lie style of play. But I'm not. But I take your point. And I think the characters should get some information about relative strengths and tactics. But that is where I see one or more rounds of circling or putting all extra dice on parry while you feel out your opponent comes into play. Overly impulsive fighters who immediately leap in swinging should be in the dark about the relative strengths.
| Quote: | | I seee the Wookiee spending a FP and going all offense, hoping to overwhelm the 2D Jedi. A 12D STR shoudl make the Wookie almost invincible with split dice. |
One thing I am still considering is making FPs either active or defensive. So an active or attacking FP would double STR for damage, lightsaber attack, etc. but not STR for soak or lightsaber parry. A defensive FP would double dodge, lightsaber parry, and STR for soak but not attack or STR for damage. Some skills like jump or running might be doubled by either. I'd combine this with allowing spending a 2 FPs in a round, one for both attack and defense. This way to get the doubled soak and attack the Wookiee has to spend 2 FPs, but Wimpy can parry with only one FP (though he won't be able to do enough damage to hurt the Wookiee with a doubled soak). This allows a defender to try to attrition away an attacker's FP total by only doubling defense, while if the attacker only doubles his attack he may risk the defender attacking (though I'm not sure how that works if he automatically gets to add a FP for defense).
| Quote: | | He'd just build up a big die pool and then shift dice over to damage. And the threat of that would keep the Wookiee honest. |
That's what I'm thinking.
| Quote: | | Consider this. What if really good parries maybe bonus dice to parry the way off balance does to attack.? Then the defender could actually free up defense dice and do more attacking. So defense would feed the offense. |
That may be good, but it works against the idea of the attacker spending 2 FP and the defender only spending 1 FP, since the attacker then gets the advantage on his doubled defense vs. the defenders singled offense. I still think this needs more thought and or playtesting to see if it is beneficial or detrimental to the goal.
| Quote: | | One I can get around. Two is a killer. But I think with 2 you are always going to have FP escalation. |
Maybe, what is your fix or workaround for (1).
| Quote: | | Secondly, the best way I can think of (other that HP/FPs) to get players not to use Fps in aduel would be NOT to give them back. Knowing that the lightsaber duel is almost certainly to be a "dramtically appropriate moment" really encoruages Pcs to shoot he moon. According to RAW, doubling up on Fps is quite likely. |
Yeah, that is basically what I was going for with the idea of the FP used offensively being lost unless it occurs at a dramatically appropriate time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:22 pm Post subject: Optional Force Point Use |
|
|
Here is an idea that came to me today. This would work with the idea that atgxtg originally had of using temporary penalties to the lightsaber skill to track the gradual wearing down or defeat of an opponent. It may be a way to help counter the nuclear force point problem.
Optional Force Point Use: Reset
Allow the use of a Force Point to reset the temporary penalty accumulated in Variant Dueling combat to zero. In some respects this is analogous to the Rocky Effect - where we see a character losing, losing, losing until with a burst of inspiration they are suddenly winning, winning, winning. Indiana Jones does this quite a bit as well.
• This would allow a character to offset all his accumulated temporary penalties to his lightsaber skill.
• This may even allow a character to, in effect, offset an opponent’s use of a FPs in two or more rounds with just a single FP by resetting the accumulated penalties from those rounds to zero.
• Option: only allow the use of a FP for reset if the character has not already used a FP for attack in this combat.
• Option: only allow the use of a FP for reset if some other mechanism provides that as an option, e.g. something like the TORG Drama Deck or the Pendragon use of Passions for inspiration. I don't really know what an appropriate mechanism would be in Star Wars.
• Option: It could also be used to cancel out an attacker’s accumulated attack bonuses. Q: Is this beneficial or harmful to making combat interesting, cinematic, but not stalemated?
Anyway it's an idea. Not sure yet if it moves things in a useful direction or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting, but IMO abit too much.
I think the long term effect would be to prolong the fights. Somebody with a lot of FPs would probably get a lot of resets. And two guys with osts of FPs would have a very long fight.
Maybe rather than a flat reset, there was some sort of skill roll (Stamina?) that determined how much you got back? Sort of like a second wind. An maybe each successive use during the duel is one difficulty level higher? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without some other limitations, I agree that Rest would extend the length of the duel.
My initial thought is it would work best if it Reset included this option:
• Option: only allow the use of a FP for reset if the character has not already used a FP for attack in this combat.
That way only a character who is staying on the defensive throughout the fight can do multiple resets. Once they go offensive with FPs they can no longer reset. The idea here is to provide an incentive not to immediately use a FP in a lightsaber fight.
I like the following option both as a way of preventing too many resets and also as a way of limiting when a FP can be used, but I don't see a good way in the system to implement a mechanism for inspiration.
• Option: only allow the use of a FP for reset if some other mechanism provides that as an option, e.g. something like the TORG Drama Deck or the Pendragon use of Passions for inspiration. I don't really know what an appropriate mechanism would be in Star Wars.
Stamina makes sense if the temporary penalty is actually due to fatigue - but in that case it seems that it should apply to all skills not just lightsaber combat. And that has negative consequences for allowing a character to retreat when they are losing. Since Jedi often have lightsaber combat among their best skills, they can still duel past the point where they can effectively use run or jump to get away.
I was actually thinking the penalty is not so much physical fatigue as it is losing confidence in one's ability to defeat the opponent. That's why I see the winner more easily regaining lost dice than the loser after the combat is over. But I could see stamina also factoring in somehow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16217
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | • Option: only allow the use of a FP for reset if some other mechanism provides that as an option, |
Wild Dice?
_________________
"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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 3:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Willpower might be an idea.
Another possibility might be that the character must score a hit of some sort to get the morale boost. Like in the old swashbuckling films where the hero scores a minor cut on the bad guy and regains his confidence.
I don't really see someone regaining their confidence if on the defensive. Not unless they are making a joke of the opponent's attacks. And the system as written doesn't do anything with parries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16217
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had a thought for another thought for an optional result chart. This one is based on Movement, and would be a good fit for Form IV.
Move Result
11-14 = Feint (Opponent is successfully decoyed by a false maneuver, and is at -1D for the rest of the round and all of the following round)
15-18 = Sidestep* (As Feint, but the duelist is now standing at his opponent's side, and is at -1D+2 for the rest of the round, and -1D for the following round)
19-22 = Pass* (As Feint, but the duelist is now behind his opponent, placing the opponent at a serious disadvantage. He fights at -2D unless he makes a standard move action with associated MAPs to turn around and face his opponent).
23+ = Confound* (The opponent is so thoroughly confused by the duelist's maneuver that the duelist can make an unopposed strike, with a maximum damage result based on the following table)
23-26 = Wounded
27-30 = Incapacitated
31-34 = Mortally Wounded
35+ = Killed
*All of these moves can be described artistically, with Force-assisted leaps, somersaults, floor-slides, etc.
I just wrote this up off the top of my head, but I'd appreciate some input.
_________________
"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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2011 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this optional result chart based on lightsaber vs. lightsaber or is it based on some sort of Movement skill? I assume the former, but just want to be sure.
It is not clear, is the -(1D+2) penalty from sidestep applied to the Form IV user, his opponent, or both?
Otherwise the table seems interesting. You'd want to see how it compares to a basic table though. Are you thinking each form would have a separate table? EDIT: Never mind the last question. I see you answered that on the Seven Forms thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
