Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > Play By Post

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-14-2019, 11:55 PM   #231
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

So where were we...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Red throws out a kick at Green's torso
..
he will either have to
run past red (go ahead, show your back)
or
burn a lot of energy stopping.
To "run past" you would I guess require spending 1 AP anyway on Evade... or to run INTO you would I guess require spending 1 AP to "Slam" you.

Either way, there's an expense of AP inconsistent with the idea of it costing 0 AP to maintain speed (which never made much sense to begin with)

Technical Grappling 21 has an interesting new rule which might hint at solution tool...
For a slam that continues through the target, subtract the damage rolled by the target from any remaining Move.
I assume "continues through" is an evade (made easier if you can manage to knock them down) but regardless of whether you get through, I think this sets precedent that you get free deceleration based on the damage a slam target does.

It wouldn't be going too far off from that to apply ANY crushing-based damage applied directly opposite your movement path as free deceleration in the same way.

Of course WHAT is applied in that direction is the question: punches or kicks might be straight forward but they can also be hooks coming in from the side which might not impede forward momentum as much as potentially redirect it.

I'm thinking if this kick hits me then I should subtract the damage from the move for free?

I'm thinking also that if someone tries to evade, perhaps rather than "get past you" it should be interpreted as "get to the hex behind you"?

If it's possible to impede that, I'm thinking perhaps it might imply some form of contact like parrying does? Unless of course you Obstruct via fear and making them come up short, like not wanting to run into the Human Torch to avoid getting burned.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2019, 10:39 AM   #232
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

An attempt to evade is certainly an attempt to get into the hex behind.

I think slam damage is special for the amount of force it imparts compared to the small amount of damage it does.

If the kick connects and does damage you're going to loose AP equal to the damage. If we want to count that as deceleration AP I think that's fine.

Evade and slam don't cost AP because they're movement though: they cost AP because they're attacks. slam more obviously so, but evade involves a lot more complex movement than simply going through their square.

I'd say that resisting an Evade can result in contact. It often does, and I'd say that if the evader wants contact then a successful resistance will involve it every time. I'm not sure about the other cases.

I'm cool with a failed evade attempt resulting in deceleration.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2019, 04:23 PM   #233
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
If the kick connects and does damage you're going to loose AP equal to the damage. If we want to count that as deceleration AP I think that's fine.
Even if a HT roll MoS mitigates that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Evade and slam don't cost AP because they're movement though: they cost AP because they're attacks. slam more obviously so, but evade involves a lot more complex movement than simply going through their square.
My charging AP for evade is due to it being a 'technique', mechanically I think it functions like a 'free action', much like with Roll With Blow, which also is not an 'attack' but which I justify charging AP due to it being a 'technique', which apparently always has a cost unless stated otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I'd say that resisting an Evade can result in contact. It often does, and I'd say that if the evader wants contact then a successful resistance will involve it every time. I'm not sure about the other cases.
I agree that perhaps a successful "obstruct" should count like a successful attack roll against the guy who attempted to evade.

To deal with the situation of "I want to avoid touching the guy I'm trying to run past", I think in that situation, if the evader does not want some kind of contact, then perhaps he should be able to roll a dodge against it, to pull back?

I have that kind of concern with parries too. You might be in a situation of "I want to punch this guy in the face, but if he puts his electrified-metal arm in the way of his face, I want to pull my punch back and avoid hitting that arm!"

Basically recognizing that the one you're trying to outmaneuver has guarded a specific zone and to stop the attack.

The best idea I have for that would be to treat it like a no-contact parry, but at -2 to skill (-1 to parry) for "doing two things at once" since you're attacking and then NCPing with the very same limb. A dodge could probably substitute as well.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2019, 10:19 AM   #234
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Even if a HT roll MoS mitigates that?
hmm. That's a good point. that might change things. Or it might not. Would it be too fiddly if it only counts if the AP is spent?

Quote:
My charging AP for evade is due to it being a 'technique', mechanically I think it functions like a 'free action', much like with Roll With Blow, which also is not an 'attack' but which I justify charging AP due to it being a 'technique', which apparently always has a cost unless stated otherwise.
Oh, that's right, we house ruled in evade costing AP, mostly because it obviously involves a lot of tricky movement. I still think the evade cost can count as acceleration towards slowing down. Its all about shifting around and misdirecting your opponent.

Quote:
I agree that perhaps a successful "obstruct" should count like a successful attack roll against the guy who attempted to evade.

To deal with the situation of "I want to avoid touching the guy I'm trying to run past", I think in that situation, if the evader does not want some kind of contact, then perhaps he should be able to roll a dodge against it, to pull back?

I have that kind of concern with parries too. You might be in a situation of "I want to punch this guy in the face, but if he puts his electrified-metal arm in the way of his face, I want to pull my punch back and avoid hitting that arm!"

Basically recognizing that the one you're trying to outmaneuver has guarded a specific zone and to stop the attack.

The best idea I have for that would be to treat it like a no-contact parry, but at -2 to skill (-1 to parry) for "doing two things at once" since you're attacking and then NCPing with the very same limb. A dodge could probably substitute as well.
That's a tricky situation, and one I've looked at a few times, mostly in the context of destructive parries. Here's the thread I made on it
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2019, 12:38 AM   #235
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
hmm. That's a good point. that might change things. Or it might not. Would it be too fiddly if it only counts if the AP is spent?
A bit fiddly yes, and punishes those who have DR to prevent injury, which would prevent the AP loss.

Instead of the AP loss from HP loss (injury) I think just the "damage is deceleration" from grappling (1:1) except that might be a bit excessive...

Another might be simply to calculate knockback and consider each yard of knockback to be 1 y/s deceleration?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Oh, that's right, we house ruled in evade costing AP, mostly because it obviously involves a lot of tricky movement. I still think the evade cost can count as acceleration towards slowing down. Its all about shifting around and misdirecting your opponent.
Evasion should totally reduce someone's maximum speed somehow... in GURPS terms the 1 Movement Point you would spend auto-evading allies should apply here, which could result in reducing how many yards you moved that turn, which should probably count as the new momentum you'd have to accelerate from.

Someone who doesn't sacrifice that Movement Point (and that Action Point) would instead be at some risk of a collision...

Basically this is sort of a "running into a door is free" ... to distinguish between "I ran into an invisible door I didn't see, and thus did not choose an attack maneuver for" vs "I saw a door and intentionally shoulder-tackled it".

The latter should be more damaging to the door, a reward for an intentional attack, but the former should still be capable of SOME damage.

There's little gap (aside from AOA:Strong) I can see between colllision rules and slam rules to account for this though...

I'm wondering if maybe we borrow the thrust-based slam rules from Dungeon Fantasy and apply some basic penalty to maie it inferior to defensive attack Slams?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2019, 08:49 AM   #236
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
A bit fiddly yes, and punishes those who have DR to prevent injury, which would prevent the AP loss.

Instead of the AP loss from HP loss (injury) I think just the "damage is deceleration" from grappling (1:1) except that might be a bit excessive...
I think I agree with those.

Quote:
Another might be simply to calculate knockback and consider each yard of knockback to be 1 y/s deceleration?
Maybe. does it make sense that kicking a guy in full plate slows his speed without tiring him or giving him pause?


Quote:
Evasion should totally reduce someone's maximum speed somehow... in GURPS terms the 1 Movement Point you would spend auto-evading allies should apply here, which could result in reducing how many yards you moved that turn, which should probably count as the new momentum you'd have to accelerate from.
Yep. I feel like it could be stated more clearly and cleanly. Perhaps evading, whether through friend or foe, reduces movement by at least 1 yard, possibly up to a full 1 AP of acceleration change, and costs 1 AP?

Quote:
Someone who doesn't sacrifice that Movement Point (and that Action Point) would instead be at some risk of a collision...

Basically this is sort of a "running into a door is free" ... to distinguish between "I ran into an invisible door I didn't see, and thus did not choose an attack maneuver for" vs "I saw a door and intentionally shoulder-tackled it".

The latter should be more damaging to the door, a reward for an intentional attack, but the former should still be capable of SOME damage.

There's little gap (aside from AOA:Strong) I can see between colllision rules and slam rules to account for this though...
Maybe we should just reverse the AOA:Strong bonus into a penalty for "Accidental" collisions. Instead of +2 or +1/die its -2 or -1/per die?

Quote:
I'm wondering if maybe we borrow the thrust-based slam rules from Dungeon Fantasy and apply some basic penalty to maie it inferior to defensive attack Slams?
Is there a page reference for this?
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2019, 01:40 AM   #237
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
does it make sense that kicking a guy in full plate slows his speed without tiring him or giving him pause?
Slowing his speed while still having him pay the AP costs for his full speed is basically like making it more tiring to move the same distance.

The 'pause' I guess would be if he suffered shock/stun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Perhaps evading, whether through friend or foe, reduces movement by at least 1 yard, possibly up to a full 1 AP of acceleration change, and costs 1 AP?
Yeah it would cost at least 1 MP and 1 AP, not sure about how to calculate higher costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Maybe we should just reverse the AOA:Strong bonus into a penalty for "Accidental" collisions. Instead of +2 or +1/die its -2 or -1/per die?
That seems to put it on par with Defensive Attack, still thinking a 1y/s defensive slam might be better than a 1y/s "step" collision

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Is there a page reference for this?
Pg 40 of the "exploits" book from http://www.sjgames.com/dungeonfantasy/ changes Slams to both parties suffering thrust-2 crushing with a bonus based on yards moved in relation to the Speed/Range Table. It's now ST-based instead of HP-based.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2019, 08:37 AM   #238
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Slowing his speed while still having him pay the AP costs for his full speed is basically like making it more tiring to move the same distance.

The 'pause' I guess would be if he suffered shock/stun.
You know what, I think that makes sense: you're slowing him down, but if he's not defending or taking damage, he's not actually expending "action". I'm happy with it.

Quote:
Yeah it would cost at least 1 MP and 1 AP, not sure about how to calculate higher costs.
I'm not sure that higher costs would ever come up, can you give an example.

Quote:
That seems to put it on par with Defensive Attack
Which isn't a bad starting point.
Quote:
still thinking a 1y/s defensive slam might be better than a 1y/s "step" collision
Could you explain this more?

Quote:
Pg 40 of the "exploits" book from http://www.sjgames.com/dungeonfantasy/ changes Slams to both parties suffering thrust-2 crushing with a bonus based on yards moved in relation to the Speed/Range Table. It's now ST-based instead of HP-based.
That's a fine way to do slams. I'm game.

*********************************************
So I think we're converging on a solution here.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2019, 09:08 PM   #239
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I'm not sure that higher costs would ever come up, can you give an example.
I was thinking posture/direction but on 2nd thought those are already present costs that evasion stacks with.

So I guess perhaps giving some kind of 'extra effort' options for evasion, like maybe a +2 like defenses can enjoy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Could you explain this more?
I suppose it would be something like, if someone could use steps to make no-attack slams, they could try that using All-Out-Defense, and then not even bother trying a Defensive Attack at all, unless Defensive Attack slams were somehow better than "step slams".

Although I guess if you used Defensive Attack's step to do a short-range slam you could use your other attack some other way (grab/punch) or maybe to do a 2nd slam.

2 slams against the same target in a single turn seems off somehow though. I wouldn't be surprised if it was banned somewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
That's a fine way to do slams. I'm game.
Well the idea I had would be to add thrust-based slam damage to attackers (since it is intentional, it uses ST) and then you add the usual HP-based collision damage both ways too. This would also make slams more attractive as an attack because they're sort of biased against low-HP attackers who end up suffering more.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2019, 11:01 AM   #240
ericthered
Hero of Democracy
 
ericthered's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: far from the ocean
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
I was thinking posture/direction but on 2nd thought those are already present costs that evasion stacks with.

So I guess perhaps giving some kind of 'extra effort' options for evasion, like maybe a +2 like defenses can enjoy.
I'd say that's more like extra effort for an attack, but yeah, that's a possibility on the table. It will still cost extra AP though.


Quote:
I suppose it would be something like, if someone could use steps to make no-attack slams, they could try that using All-Out-Defense, and then not even bother trying a Defensive Attack at all, unless Defensive Attack slams were somehow better than "step slams".

Although I guess if you used Defensive Attack's step to do a short-range slam you could use your other attack some other way (grab/punch) or maybe to do a 2nd slam.

2 slams against the same target in a single turn seems off somehow though. I wouldn't be surprised if it was banned somewhere.
I wouldn't think that steps would be capable of automatic slams. I've been maintaining steps are a different kind of movement, and I think that helps with resolving this. At close combat distance, I think the effort of a step just keeps you in contact with your foe, and anything likely to damage or move him takes enough effort and coordination to be considered an attack.

Quote:
Well the idea I had would be to add thrust-based slam damage to attackers (since it is intentional, it uses ST) and then you add the usual HP-based collision damage both ways too. This would also make slams more attractive as an attack because they're sort of biased against low-HP attackers who end up suffering more.
So you want to double up slam damage? I don't disagree that in gurps pushes, shoves, and collisions can be rather tame, especially at the man to man level, but I think that gives the character with higher ST a distinct disadvantage from the default rules, and this is a house rule, so it falls into the "maybe next fight" category.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.