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 12-10-2019, 08:41 AM   #281
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
That leads me to think that +3 or +5 to dodge such a non-attacking accidental collision might be appropriate: 1 step worse than normal max, 1 step better than cinematic max.
That could work, if you desire. shall we use +3?

Quote:
Weirdly, the "taking more than once second to telegraph" sounds a LOT like Springing Attack in MA, yet I don't think there's a bonus to defend against that... I guess maybe crouched legs tells you an attack is coming, but not necessarily from which limb or at which target like a wound-up fist does.
Springing attack is cinematic, isn't it? A lot of cinematic techniques are cinematic because realistically they're easy to defend against, even if the look cool. And it feels like you're winding up for the sake of power more than for the sake of hitting very accurately?

Quote:
I guess when thinking of that... merely stepping forward would not be that telegraphed at all... knowing someone is moving forward doesn't mean you know they just plan to barrel through you rather than attack you or try to evade you...
I would not count merely stepping into their hex as an attack. That's a step into close combat. As for taking the next step... that doesn't feel practical at all either, especially in close combat. As a GM I'd nix that without an evade. The other guy is in the way, and you don't have the momentum to walk through him.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2019, 12:50 PM   #282
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Cinematic techniques are all usable (example: dual-weapon attack, roll with blow) it's just that buying them up isn't allowed except in cinematic campaigns.

In terms of perceiving the difference of a foe doing a "he's trying to walk through me as if I weren't there" (which could totally be a non-attack thing that might happen to an invisible guy, for example, or if the walker was blind) versus "he's trying to slam me", I guess one of the bigger factors would be the randomness of it.

Slams, even if they are targeting a random hit location of opportunity, are presumably done with a non-random part of the body with non-random angles and non-random timing, to best inflict damage and best avoid taking damage while inflicting it.

That's why with an accidental collision, not only should it always do less damage than a defensive attack, and be less accurate than a Committed Attack (which can suffer a -2 to hit if you take an extra step, which is the worst possible, since the -4 for Move and Attack doesn't apply to slams) but also maybe should have a higher chance of inflicting injury to the "attacker" than an intentional slam.

The main problem there is... while intentional slams can do more damage than accidental ones (in baseline this is due to being able to take AOA:strong +2 bonus) the actual damage taken by the slammer doesn't appear to be different.

To represent that, maybe those who intentionally slam should somehow take less damage, like say when rolling what they take, apply a penalty similar to "defensive attack" to the dice of damage based on the HP of the person they hit?

That allows us to use the baseline collision damages unmodified, and also to make intentional slams a little more attractive, as presently they aren't, since it requires risking taking damage unless you are using a shield (Shield Rush) as a buffer to take it instead, or are wearing armor.

Another way to represent that might be to have "attack" slams specify the body part, while "non-attack" slams would always have to be rolled on a random hit location. But that's not always going to result in a difference.

Do you know if there are any "playing chicken" rules for driving that could be consulted here? It seems like a similar concept. Like you might only be walking into someone hoping that they will blink first and move out of the way ("I won't Evade... will you Obstruct?") and if perceiving the opponent isn't reacting to this (Bluffing?) a dodge/parry might be appropriate?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2019, 01:20 PM   #283
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
Cinematic techniques are all usable (example: dual-weapon attack, roll with blow) it's just that buying them up isn't allowed except in cinematic campaigns.
Wait what? That feels wrong. Surely some are just forbidden?


Quote:
The main problem there is... while intentional slams can do more damage than accidental ones (in baseline this is due to being able to take AOA:strong +2 bonus) the actual damage taken by the slammer doesn't appear to be different.


To represent that, maybe those who intentionally slam should somehow take less damage, like say when rolling what they take, apply a penalty similar to "defensive attack" to the dice of damage based on the HP of the person they hit?
Yeah, it's always felt odd to me that slammers took damage. In many ways, it'd be nice if the damage taken and knockback from a slam were mostly independent. And the knockback increased.

Also of interest is that if the defender parries the slam, no one takes damage, and no knockback is inflicted.


Quote:
Another way to represent that might be to have "attack" slams specify the body part, while "non-attack" slams would always have to be rolled on a random hit location. But that's not always going to result in a difference.
Yeah, that doesn't seem to capture the real difference. Its not about the arm vs the torso, its what angle of the arm or torso.

Quote:
Do you know if there are any "playing chicken" rules for driving that could be consulted here? It seems like a similar concept. Like you might only be walking into someone hoping that they will blink first and move out of the way ("I won't Evade... will you Obstruct?") and if perceiving the opponent isn't reacting to this (Bluffing?) a dodge/parry might be appropriate?
Each could roll will, and if either fails they back down. I don't know if I'd use that for an accidental collision between two foes though. A contest of wills sounds like it should be more intentional
__________________
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 03:22 AM.


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