| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 440
Location: Arizona, USA
|
 Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2022 9:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | So, as far as the chart on the OP, the new version would read:1-10 = Winner receives +1D to Initiative.
11-20 = Anticipate (Winner may re-declare their actions after the loser has declared theirs)
21+ = Surprise (Loser is Surprised, as described above)
Thoughts? |
I learned from this forum earlier this year that in 2ER&R that you no longer declare actions, just the number of actions you will be taking in a round. I had been doing this wrong for... well since 2E R&E came out. However, with that in mind, the Antinicipate result of 11-20 difference doesn't really work. We you just assuming 2E prior to R&E with this rule? If you no longer declare actions, how could this result be modified?
Edit: 2E R&R corrected to 2E R&E. Second Edition Rest and Relaxation is where you sit back and watch other people play!
Last edited by Dr. Bidlo on Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2022 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't recall that conversation, and frankly, it seems a silly premise to me that a character could declare that they're going to perform a certain number of actions in a very short period, then basically go into a holding pattern until they decide what those actions are. AFAIAC, characters have to declare the actions they are taking at the beginning of the round, and the only modification allowed is if they need to roll a reaction skill, or something happens that interrupts those actions (like being Wounded).
IMO, the 2R&E initiative and combat round system is good, but it isn't perfect. I also use Concurrent Action Penalties to allow high-level characters to perform multiple actions per "turn" (in the initiative sequence) at the cost of increased penalties. My reasoning is that someone like Jerry Miculek should not be required to take one shot, then stand around waiting for a squad of stormtroopers to shoot at him before he can shoot back.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2022 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Bidlo wrote: | | I learned from this forum earlier this year that in 2ER&R that you no longer declare actions, just the number of actions you will be taking in a round. I had been doing this wrong for... well since 2ER&R came out. However, with that in mind, the Antinicipate result of 11-20 difference doesn't really work. We you just assuming 2E prior to R&R with this rule? If you no longer declare actions, how could this result be modified? |
| Whill wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | A lot of this stuff is already effectively covered by skill dice bonuses. A lot of what you suggest (or at least something similar to it) I have earmarked for incorporation into an improved write-up of the Tactics skill from the 1E Rules Companion. My plan is to replace the "1-10 = +1D to Initiative" result with a D6 Chart, with options like +1D to Initiative, +1D to Gunnery, +1D to Shields, +1D to Piloting, etc. The commander who gets this result of either choosing one specific result or making two rolls on the table for random bonuses. This, in turn, will be stacked with the Anticipate (Redeclare) and Surprise results, depending on how well the commander rolls on Tactics. |
This already requires tactics to be rolled before Initiative as it is. The problem with the "Anticipate (Redeclare)" outcome is that actions are now rolled as they are declared with outcomes immediately determined. 2eR&E very intentionally removed the flawed declaration phase from rounds, so this seems like a vestige of older editions that no longer applies. |
I had originally replied in the other thread that linked to this thread, before seeing it discussed here. So I deleted it there and shared it here, acknowledging that Bidlo raised the same point first while I was working this morning.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I don't recall that conversation |
The Round, in all editions. You didn't participate in that conversation, but now I really wish you had.
| Quote: | | and frankly, it seems a silly premise to me that a character could declare that they're going to perform a certain number of actions in a very short period, then basically go into a holding pattern until they decide what those actions are. |
Silly? Wow. Minority opinions are welcome, but you are describing the majority of users here with that characterization. This is a fundamental, essential premise of R&E. Declaring all actions at the beginning of the round bogged down combat/action. See the thread I linked above for every iteration of the combat round. It changed every single sub-edition because until they finally got it right by removing the declaration phase.
The purpose for declaring the number of actions of the round with the first action was for MAP calculation purposes, applicable to all actions the character does in the round (only possibly increased mid-round by reactions that occur along the way).
There is no "holding pattern." Each person's turn is an action, that all happen in a sequence. Actions flow one into the next and each player decides on each action based on the actions that have already happened in the round up to that point. "Holding pattern" implies to me that a player is only concerned about their own actions and just waiting for their turn to come around them. The GM and every player is an audience for the rest of the actions that happen in between their own, but it is an interactive play because every characters actions are a part of the whole.
Combat happens much smoother in R&E, and it is much easier for everyone to only remember a number of actions/MAP than to remember all the actions they declared. And declaration in advance forces characters to do actions that may no longer be relevant by the time the action occurs.
| Quote: | | AFAIAC, characters have to |
As far as you are concerned? I remind that the forum guidelines state (1) R&E is the default version of the official rules being discussed (so by default "house rules" are starting with R&E as a basis and building on that), (2) to be clear on RAW when house ruling the game, and (3) to not pass off our you house rules as RAW. "AFAIAC" is a vague qualification at best. We can do better by being more specific. What you should be saying is something along the lines of "In my game system..." or "My house rules indicate..."
| Quote: | characters have to declare the actions they are taking at the beginning of the round, and the only modification allowed is if they need to roll a reaction skill, or something happens that interrupts those actions (like being Wounded).
IMO, the 2R&E initiative and combat round system is good, but it isn't perfect. |
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. My opinion is the result of my experience with playing every sub-edition in the evolution of the game as they came out. The combat round literally got better with every step of the journey. R&E intentionally revised the game system of Blue Vader in a handful of key ways (combat, movement, etc).
Your imperative feels like the declaration stage is important because your tactics rules depend on it, and if so, that is of course your prerogative. But it is not a good argument for the rest of us why the old way is better and the current way is silly.
In my opinion, the R&E combat round is virtually perfect. I come to that conclusion because (1) it was the best of the bunch, (2) I haven't seen it improved upon by anyone else, and (3) I haven't come up with anything better. I have tweaked Initiative, but after Initiative is determined, my combat round is the same.
By describing it as "not perfect," that strongly implies there is something at least better (even if also not perfect). What is better? Blue Vader's? do you feel the combat round reached its pinnacle with Blue Vader, and then it got went too far in R&E?
Regardless, I never realized how incomplete your personal game system was presented here until now. The combat round is basic to any game system. If your house rules include a different combat round than R&E's, then we really need you to create a post dedicated to your combat round and put it in your Index. Your Tactics rules have little context without this.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 440
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2022 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Whill, you just saved me time getting my thoughts together and in finding the thread. You pretty much covered all the points I was going to make and more. I personally love the elegance of declaring the number of actions and since imementing it, it has REALLY streamlined my games. However, both my players and I do still fall into the trap of declaring actions before we snap out of it and say "nope, just the NUMBER of actions now...".
No more silly cases like when you declaring a dodge, so your opponent runs up and punches you in the face or shooting at a TIE Fighter that already blew up earlier in the round.
However, I cannot fault any opinion favoring earlier iterations of the round. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2022 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dr. Bidlo wrote: | Thanks, Whill, you just saved me time getting my thoughts together and in finding the thread. You pretty much covered all the points I was going to make and more. I personally love the elegance of declaring the number of actions and since imementing it, it has REALLY streamlined my games. However, both my players and I do still fall into the trap of declaring actions before we snap out of it and say "nope, just the NUMBER of actions now...".
No more silly cases like when you declaring a dodge, so your opponent runs up and punches you in the face or shooting at a TIE Fighter that already blew up earlier in the round. |
Of course, at the beginning of the round when players (and GMs) determine the number of declared actions that a character will do, they have a tentative plan in their head for those actions. But by not pre-declaring them, they are not stuck with them if the course of the round changes things. And no pre-declaration means less metagaming, on the part of the GM and the players both. Declaring only the number of actions allowed D6 to adhere to the MAP concept. In my view it was win-win-win all the way around.
| Quote: | | However, I cannot fault any opinion favoring earlier iterations of the round. |
Sure. But in my experience, GMs usually choose to run an earlier edition for its perceived relative simplicity and/or because it is the only version they ever played. And those GMs tend to be all-or-nothing, sticking with an entire edition's ruleset and rarely house ruling much. Those GMs often fail to realize the evolution of the D6 combat round, because if they did they would see that the combat round actually gets easier with each version, and that you can mix and match ruleset components among systems.
I've suggested in multiple SWD6 communities the idea I first proposed in that thread, that a GM could easily back-port the R&E combat round (with reaction rules) into 1e, and the result would still work and make 1e even simpler than it is. So far, no one has countered that supposition with a single objection.
But I've also seen the opposite case of GMs who house rule heavily and they can't improve one thing because it dominoes into other things.
In my game, the tactics skill can provide minor bonuses that work with the existing R&E combat round. Sometimes tactics this round can help the next round. But for a lot of things, I am comfortable with situational GM fiat more than some GMs are.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2022 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
Of course, at the beginning of the round when players (and GMs) determine the number of declared actions that a character will do, they have a tentative plan in their head for those actions. But by not pre-declaring them, they are not stuck with them if the course of the round changes things. And no pre-declaration means less metagaming, on the part of the GM and the players both. Declaring only the number of actions allowed D6 to adhere to the MAP concept. In my view it was win-win-win all the way around.
|
Exactly. IF i say declared four shots, at each of the 4 enemies, but by the 2nd shot, 3 of them have now dropped by my allies shots, then two of my other shots are wasted.
Where if i just say "I am doing 4 actions", and two shots is all i need, that leaves 2 actions for other things.. Such as using one for a dodge, and the other say to move.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2022 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | Exactly. IF i say declared four shots, at each of the 4 enemies, but by the 2nd shot, 3 of them have now dropped by my allies shots, then two of my other shots are wasted.
Where if i just say "I am doing 4 actions", and two shots is all i need, that leaves 2 actions for other things.. Such as using one for a dodge, and the other say to move. |
Yeah, R&E's solution to the combat round problem was so simple it's genius. With only a number of actions declared, a character is free to use them however the player wants every time it is their turn. At any point a character get attacked and chooses to do a reaction roll, the player then chooses if they want to do the reaction as an additional action (increasing their MAP by 1D for that reaction and any remaining actions that round), or to use one of the declared action slots with no additional MAP.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 440
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2022 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One thing I have noticed though, especially from the last game I ran, my players tend to declare a number of actions and not use them. Fir some reason, they get hung up on the free cautious move action. They either think it takes and action or think they can take a Mive using an action IN ADDITION to their free cautious move. I am trying to reinforce there is only ever one move in a turn, but the distance is based on the 'level' of speed.Speed.
But in regards to Tactics... using the 2E R&E rules for rounds, how would the table be modified for the win by 11-20 result since the redeclare actions option is no longer valid?
My group is perfect to test out these rules and we play regularly, so I can test out just about any idea and give both ideological and playtest feedback. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2022 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay...
It has always been my interpretation that, when a character declares their intended actions at the beginning of the round, those declared actions are effectively "locked in", and that the only thing stopping those actions from occurring as declared is if something happens to interrupt them (mainly, getting Wounded or suffering some sort of effect that otherwise cancels them out). The only exception would be to drop a declared action in trade for a reaction skill roll of some sort.
The bare bones version of the "Redeclare" option in the proposed Tactics skill is intended to operate approximately like this:PC Group: "We're going to break cover and run away this round."
Stormtrooper Squad: "We're going to run out from behind our own Cover and chase them."
PC Group: "We now redeclare that we're going to stay behind our Cover and shoot the stormtroopers when they come out into the open." In the context of my Dogfighting Rules, it might be something like:PC Pilot: "I'm going to continue trying to shoot down the TIE Interceptor."
NPC Interceptor Pilot: "I'm going to continue trying to shoot down the X-Wing."
PC Pilot: "I redeclare that I'm going to make a break for it and accelerate to All-Out in order to disengage from the fight." The idea is to represent faking an opponent into committing to one course of action, then changing your own action to take advantage of an opening created.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2022 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
That i can see, as a use of a good tactics roll. Allowing one side, to 'call out what they want to do, THEN ONCE they see what the enemy's doing, re-declare to change what they initially plan.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2022 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | That i can see, as a use of a good tactics roll. Allowing one side, to 'call out what they want to do, THEN ONCE they see what the enemy's doing, re-declare to change what they initially plan. |
Exactly. However, for it to work, it's dependent on my read of the Combat Sequence, in that once actions are declared, the combatants are committed to them, barring specific exceptions that would interrupt them.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2022 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | It has always been my interpretation that, when a character declares their intended actions at the beginning of the round, those declared actions are effectively "locked in", and that the only thing stopping those actions from occurring as declared is if something happens to interrupt them (mainly, getting Wounded or suffering some sort of effect that otherwise cancels them out). The only exception would be to drop a declared action in trade for a reaction skill roll of some sort. |
OK, it seems there has been a misinterpretation of R&E. The only edition that has both initiative and a declaration phase in the round is Blue Vader 2e, but that has all reaction rolls rolled before all action rolls. Since you have reaction rolls rolled as they are needed in the round (undeclared up front like in R&E), your interpretation of RAW's combat seems to be more like a hybrid of Blue Vader and R&E. See below.
| Quote: | 2e BLUE VADER (1992)
1. Initiative
2. Declaration
3. Rolling Defensive Skills
4. Rolling Actions
2e REVISED AND EXPANDED (1996)
1. Initiative
2. Rolling Actions |
For your convenience (and anyone else's who is reading this thread and may be confused), I have pasted the relevant text about the round from R&E below.
| To GMs, Bill Smith wrote: | 1. Initiative
Decide how many sides are in the battle— normally there's just two: the player characters and whoever they're fighting. However, sometimes there will be three or more sides — for example, you may run a battle where the player characters, Imperial stormtroopers, and a group of pirates are all shooting at each other.
The character with the highest Perception on each side rolls that attribute. The character who gets the highest roll gets to decide whether his side acts first or last in that round. (Re-roll in the event of a tie.)
(Sometimes it makes sense to act last — by letting the other side go first, you can react to their actions.)
...
2. Roll Actions
The first side acts now. The character with the highest Perception goes first. The player tells you how many actions he's making this round and you assign the multiple actions penalty. Then, the player rolls his character's first action.
Acting in Perception order (highest to lowest), every player tells you how many actions his character is making and rolls his first action.
(If the gamemaster characters go first, you just have to know how many actions each character is taking, assign the multiple actions penalties, and have the characters take their first actions.)
This process is repeated for each character on the second side. (If there are three or more sides, these characters now take their first actions.)
After every character has taken his/her first action, the characters on the first side take their second actions. (Again, go in Perception order.) Characters without second actions are skipped. Then the characters on the second side roll their second actions... and so on.
This process continues until every character on both sides has taken all actions.
Each action occurs as it is rolled — a split-second after any actions that have already been rolled and a split-second before the next action that's rolled.
Characters can't "skip" actions and wait to go later in the round.
After everyone has completed all actions, the next round begins or you can switch back to "scenes."
[2e Revised and Expanded p.77-78] |
It was a very intentional game design choice to eliminate the declaration phase from the game, to reduce complexity, maximize gameplay flow, and reduce metagaming. If you are still certain you don't want to use R&E's round above, then please read at least the OP of this thread where I lay out the rounds for all six editions. If you decide to go with a non-R&E round as-is, then that needs clearly stated for context in all your applicable house rules (and you can always link to my post for ease).
If you decide to go with a hybrid or otherwise house-ruled combat round for your rules, then we need a dedicated post for that and please add it to your stats/rules index. It is vital for house rules like this that depend on a non-standard combat round.
Not having these clarifications makes some of your posts confusing as to what RAW is and if your rules work with the RAW round or not. If anyone is still confused on R&E's combat round, then please read and ask questions in the thread linked above, because the the whole point of posting that was to eliminate rules misinterpretations affecting discussions like this one.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | The bare bones version of the "Redeclare" option in the proposed Tactics skill is intended to operate approximately like this... |
A final note is, Blue Vader is the only variation of 2e that has a declaration phase in its combat round but Blue Vader does not have any tactics skill at all. Rules for using tactics skills only appear in the final variation of each edition, the 1e Rules Companion and 2eR&E. The tactics rules in R&E pointedly do not depend on haste and declaration since those were replaced by other mechanics in Blue Vader and R&E, respectively.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2022 12:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | If you decide to go with a hybrid or otherwise house-ruled combat round for your rules, then we need a dedicated post for that and please add it to your stats/rules index. It is vital for house rules like this that depend on a non-standard combat round. |
I'll be going the hybrid route, likely with some house rules, as well. However, Darth Reality is hitting me hard at the moment, and the concept is somewhat nebulous, and thus not ready to post.
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Mon Nov 07, 2022 10:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 440
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2022 10:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Darth Reality is the most terrifying of them all... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 440
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2022 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have another game coming up pretty soon and it will be a Capital ship combat with my characters getting surprised from a rear attack by who they think it an allied Imperial commander. I definitely want to put Tactics into play and am just checking to see if you have a beta version of some house rules fir Tactics that I could try out and give feedback? If not, I have my own house rules to use but I am always interested in trying your rules to see if they can replace mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
