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

Now recruiting in PbP forum!
ericthered is online now   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

Now recruiting in PbP forum!
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2019, 02:30 PM   #284
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Wait what? That feels wrong. Surely some are just forbidden?
It's kinda vague upon review... MA82
These techniques are so risky – or so unlikely to be effective in a real fight – that few reputable real-world schools teach them.

This doesn’t mean they’re impossible, only that a martial artist needs Trained by a Master or Weapon Master to improve them.

Anybody can attempt a cinematic technique at default, if the GM permits.

The GM is free to forbid a technique – even at default – if he feels it would spoil the game’s “feel.”
They seem to fall under the "GM has the final say" (which I think applies to EVERYTHING) but it's sort unclear which is the default. Like whether "no, but GM can opt them in" or "yes, but GM can opt them out".

Much like "optional" (but realistic) rules like bleeding or cumulative injury to limbs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
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.
I figure since you have a "shove with weapons" option (MA112) for any "rigid" weapon, that one's own body should also count as a rigid weapon and one should be able to shove with one's body in general, not just hands (standard shove) or feet (push kick).

If someone was using something weird like just their head, one elbow or one knee, I would apply the -1 per die penalty you get when doing 1-handed shoves (which also applies to one-armed shield shoving).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Also of interest is that if the defender parries the slam, no one takes damage, and no knockback is inflicted.
If parries worked more like Power Parry in GURPS Powers (roll the damage of your attack, subtract it from the incoming attack) if we treated subtracted damage like DR, then it should still cause knockback.

I like that idea, of someone who is parrying being driven back not because they're INTENTIONALLY retreating, but because the force of the blows actually carries them backward.

Given how crazy-hard it is to cause knockback (a ST 10 human punching another ST 10 human is very unlikely to inflict the 8 damage required to knock them back 1 yard) it doesn't seem much of a gamechanger to have it work that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
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.
I think the simplest way would be to use traditional slam/collision rules on chances of injury to the "attacker" when they're not attacking (ie much more likely to get injured)
..
while in the case of "I'm actually using an attack" slams, ignore the standard rules and instead, use the "Hurting Yourself" rules that all other unarmed attacks use (1 damage per 5 damage you inflict)

That would represent how people slamming intentionally angle themselves to minimize injury to themselves.

After all, when I think about how people body-check a door to try and knock the door down... WHY would someone ever do that if there were lower chances of injury by just elbowing / kicking the door?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2019, 11:40 AM   #285
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
They seem to fall under the "GM has the final say" (which I think applies to EVERYTHING) but it's sort unclear which is the default. Like whether "no, but GM can opt them in" or "yes, but GM can opt them out".

Much like "optional" (but realistic) rules like bleeding or cumulative injury to limbs.
Of course, I think we explicitly said we're using the cinematic techniques at default for this game.

Quote:
I figure since you have a "shove with weapons" option (MA112) for any "rigid" weapon, that one's own body should also count as a rigid weapon and one should be able to shove with one's body in general, not just hands (standard shove) or feet (push kick).

If someone was using something weird like just their head, one elbow or one knee, I would apply the -1 per die penalty you get when doing 1-handed shoves (which also applies to one-armed shield shoving).
I agree: you can shove with just about any part of your body, though some parts are much less effective. I'm wondering what the difference between a slam and a shove are now. They're treated very differently, but I'm not sure that they should be.

Quote:
If parries worked more like Power Parry in GURPS Powers (roll the damage of your attack, subtract it from the incoming attack) if we treated subtracted damage like DR, then it should still cause knockback.

I like that idea, of someone who is parrying being driven back not because they're INTENTIONALLY retreating, but because the force of the blows actually carries them backward.
Using it only for stopping slams and calculating knockback that happens anyways sounds solid.

Quote:
I think the simplest way would be to use traditional slam/collision rules on chances of injury to the "attacker" when they're not attacking (ie much more likely to get injured)
..
while in the case of "I'm actually using an attack" slams, ignore the standard rules and instead, use the "Hurting Yourself" rules that all other unarmed attacks use (1 damage per 5 damage you inflict)

That would represent how people slamming intentionally angle themselves to minimize injury to themselves.

After all, when I think about how people body-check a door to try and knock the door down... WHY would someone ever do that if there were lower chances of injury by just elbowing / kicking the door?
I think that rule set is fair.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Now recruiting in PbP forum!
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-24-2019, 08:10 AM   #286
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I'm wondering what the difference between a slam and a shove are now.
Shoves begin with establishing light contact with bent limbs and then force is applied to extend the limbs, so there is more push but less impact. Knockback is largely due to grinding.

Slams are hits (like punches) begin with no contact and the force is applied mostly prior to contact happening so that there's a sudden impact/deceleration near full extension of limbs. Knockback is largely due to built-up momentum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
They're treated very differently, but I'm not sure that they should be.
I could definitely see acknowledging intermediate forms between pushing and punching, like if we viewed push as 100% knockback and punch as 50% knockback 50% damage, you might also do 75% knockback and 25% damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Using it only for stopping slams and calculating knockback that happens anyways sounds solid.
The "subtract your shove damage" approach to parrying a slam seems like it would make sense for the "I'm trying to slow them down, not divert them left or right" especially if success doesn't mean they automatically evade you like with a dodge.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2019, 10:24 AM   #287
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
Shoves begin with establishing light contact with bent limbs and then force is applied to extend the limbs, so there is more push but less impact. Knockback is largely due to grinding.

Slams are hits (like punches) begin with no contact and the force is applied mostly prior to contact happening so that there's a sudden impact/deceleration near full extension of limbs. Knockback is largely due to built-up momentum.

I could definitely see acknowledging intermediate forms between pushing and punching, like if we viewed push as 100% knockback and punch as 50% knockback 50% damage, you might also do 75% knockback and 25% damage.
What about contact that begins light, but has momentum behind it? I'd think that'd be more common than a push/punch hybrid?

I while slams might have an impact profile similar to a punch, I suspect the choice of striking surface and the area effected will produce more of a push than a strike.

Quote:
The "subtract your shove damage" approach to parrying a slam seems like it would make sense for the "I'm trying to slow them down, not divert them left or right" especially if success doesn't mean they automatically evade you like with a dodge.
I agree. Shall we use it?
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Now recruiting in PbP forum!
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2019, 01:22 PM   #288
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
What about contact that begins light, but has momentum behind it? I'd think that'd be more common than a push/punch hybrid?
You mean like someone is already running but they try to cushion their initial contact with someone before transferring that momentum so it's a slower transfer and less of a shock?

I guess I can't conceive how mechanically it would differ from a punch/push hybrid...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I agree. Shall we use it?
You mean like you roll ST*2 based thrust to determine basic damage to compare to HP-minus-two to determine how many yards of knockback the parry gives to slow down the effective speed of the collision?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2019, 08:14 AM   #289
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
You mean like someone is already running but they try to cushion their initial contact with someone before transferring that momentum so it's a slower transfer and less of a shock?

I guess I can't conceive how mechanically it would differ from a punch/push hybrid...
because its based on slam rules, not punch rules.


Quote:
You mean like you roll ST*2 based thrust to determine basic damage to compare to HP-minus-two to determine how many yards of knockback the parry gives to slow down the effective speed of the collision?
Yes.

I would like to finish this fight before 2021. What do we need to move forward?
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog

Now recruiting in PbP forum!
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-01-2020, 01:24 PM   #290
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
What do we need to move forward?
I think I need to make a notepad and keep track of stats there so I don't have to keep scrolling to past posts to remind myself :) It gets harder and harder the more tangents...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane (March 21) View Post
You had brought up a good point earlier though, being at 7/12 HP is entirely due to suffering 5 HP to my left leg
..
You lost 3 HP to a torso hit but there is no need to track that since it didn't even hit the first tier ("Injury over 1/3 HP: -1 to DX for all purposes.") which would require a total of 4 HP to the torso (I really should be trying to do that!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane (March 30) View Post
I'm at 1/12 AP 8/12 FP 5/12 AP and lying down!
correction: 2/12 AP + 8/12 FP + 6/12 HP, still lying down of course
..
For that reason... yeah I actually am at 1/12 AP in the end. Losing 2 less AP than I previously thought was countered by forgetting to apply two separate 1 AP costs (Breakfall and "Facing and Posture Changes")
I was searching for instances of "HP" and I can't seem to find any since then, so I assume neither of us was injured since these?

I assume you're still at 7/10 HP from the torso hit and I seem to have went from 7/12 to 6/12 HP but I can't figure out where =/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane (November 18) View Post
That's right...
..
The throwing of this kick reduces your AP by 1... this seems to be where we last discussed your AP, so I think you were at 8/10 and then spent 2 reducing yourself to 6 AP so now you're down to 5/12?
..
I was down to 9/12 AP last I think... so an active defense attempt will reduce me to 8/12 AP.
..
Trying to figure out where I was... my base dodge is normally 9, but due to being at 9/12 FP, I suffer a -1 HT -1 DX penalty which reduced my Basic Speed enough that Dodge is 8...

+1 One Foe... I guess I could get another +2 by using Feverish Defense (AP from 8/12 to 6/12) so that I can roll against 11.... Not going to bother with Acrobatic since that's bound to fail. I'm not forgetting any other possible bonuses am I? I rolled an 8! Success! I didn't need to use Feverish at all... AP waste fail.
So I think AP-wise I'm at 6/12 you're at 5/10 .. ?
FP-wise you're at I'm at 9/12 and you're at... I want to guess 8/10 but I'm not sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane (November 22) View Post
Aug 5th since you retreated you were 1 yard off, so my remaining 1 yard of momentum brought me into your hex again (as mentioned Aug 6)
Aug 8th you did a retreat+dodge against a punch..
..3 months of distraction about AP and deceleration..
Nov 18th I finally decided to dodge the punch and succeeded
..more AP discussion..

So I guess where we're left off is since I don't want to spend AP to prevent an impending accidental (non-attack non-slam) collision so we should first roll to see if it happens (9 or less?) or if we somehow miss colliding and I get a free evasion attempt (at -4?) from my residual momentum.

My thoughts are kinda muddied on where we left off. Probably no point dwelling on damage if it might not happen at all. If it does, I'll let you piece together something based on the ideas thrown around?

If you agree on that 9 or less randomness would you roll it?

If it succeeds, I guess either of us could treat it like an attack and make a defence against if if we wanted to?
Plane 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 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.