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 09-29-2019, 03:35 PM   #251
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Anyway, so where we left off, you threw a kick, and I was deciding on how to actively defend against it. Whatever a choice, a retreat can't be used due to move and attack... would that apply to slips/sideslips/drops too?

I think I was wondering whether to parry or dodge and if that would make a difference with AP being charged to decelerate myself or to spend AP to try to evade, with the "spend no extra AP and move forward normally" not exactly being an option...

MA225 interestingly mentions "tricky to evade (-1 to enemy’s Dodge)."

So in a way, if I am moving through your hex (because I don't decelerate) in effect the evade sort of operates like a dodge against a free attack you got against me, by merit of being placed exactly in the middle of the hex, on target in my path...

You can opt not to make that attack (ie choose not to Obstruct) in which case I would move past without rolling a contest...

It seems like there would be something like 2 options if the intent is for consensual bypass (no attempt to obstruct) though:

1) person in way makes an effort to move aside, spending AP so the bypasser need not
2) person in way makes no effort to move aside, so bypasser would need to spend AP to make sure they didn't collide
3) both spend AP to move aside, requiring less effort from each ("let's both move to our respective left" or "let's both move to our respective right)
4) accidental obstruction when trying to compensate for each other but in a direction that ultimately needs to no resolution (ie Red moves to his left, Green moves to his right, they ultimately move in the same overall direction)

These are all minor variations of course, I don't know if any of it would amount to 1 AP or 2 AP increments for comparison, would work a lot better if using 0.1 AP increments, maybe tied to a bonus/penalty to a roll so that more energy spent would be decreased likelyhood of a collision, so long as it's coordinated.

Actual coordination would seem a lot like a Teamwork roll. Failure might mean a random chance of choosing the right or wrong action of your teammate, either helping or impeding them.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2019, 01:33 PM   #252
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
Anyway, so where we left off, you threw a kick, and I was deciding on how to actively defend against it. Whatever a choice, a retreat can't be used due to move and attack... would that apply to slips/sideslips/drops too?
I would assume so, but there is room for argument.

Quote:
MA225 interestingly mentions "tricky to evade (-1 to enemy’s Dodge)."
That refers to dodging not evading though. Its talking about Tridents.

Quote:
So in a way, if I am moving through your hex (because I don't decelerate) in effect the evade sort of operates like a dodge against a free attack you got against me, by merit of being placed exactly in the middle of the hex, on target in my path...
Something like that.

Quote:
It seems like there would be something like 2 options if the intent is for consensual bypass (no attempt to obstruct) though:

1) person in way makes an effort to move aside, spending AP so the bypasser need not
2) person in way makes no effort to move aside, so bypasser would need to spend AP to make sure they didn't collide
3) both spend AP to move aside, requiring less effort from each ("let's both move to our respective left" or "let's both move to our respective right)
4) accidental obstruction when trying to compensate for each other but in a direction that ultimately needs to no resolution (ie Red moves to his left, Green moves to his right, they ultimately move in the same overall direction)

These are all minor variations of course, I don't know if any of it would amount to 1 AP or 2 AP increments for comparison, would work a lot better if using 0.1 AP increments, maybe tied to a bonus/penalty to a roll so that more energy spent would be decreased likelyhood of a collision, so long as it's coordinated.
On the other hand, these characters aren't exactly working together to not hit each other. They're trying to conserve energy while beating the crap out of each other.

I do think Green ought to spend some AP here: he's moving quickly, enough that he can't really dodge. My guts say that if he doesn't take effort to attack, evade or stop, Red should be able to stop which ever of those approaches he takes.

They're not in close combat, so Green could turn just a little and run past without passing through the hex, I think.

Quote:
Actual coordination would seem a lot like a Teamwork roll. Failure might mean a random chance of choosing the right or wrong action of your teammate, either helping or impeding them.
Sure, if you wanted to roll for everything. I'm not sure that I would. But I can certainly see a GM getting tired of players abusing that and making them roll.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 01:37 AM   #253
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
My guts say that if he doesn't take effort to attack, evade or stop, Red should be able to stop which ever of those approaches he takes.
But if I don't make an effort to do those things, then I wouldn't make any kind of approach...

IE there's no neutral...

An interesting question for example: what would happen if I was suddenly stunned and forced to take a "Do Nothing" on my next turn?

The maximum acceptable Move for a Do Nothing is 0. You can't move at all...

So would that mean....

1) someone who is stunned is forced to spend AP to decelerate to 0?
or...
2) a stunned person maintains their momentum in the direction they were traveling?

This could be mutually exclusive from a knockdown (where you might think the damage inflicted by the ground somehow provides free 0AP deceleration) since it isn't just Major Wounds that could cause a Stun state, but also an Affliction which puts you into Stun (must Do Nothing) status without knocking you to the ground.

If the answer is 2) instead of 1) then we still have the problem of what happens if momentum carries me through your hex to your rear hex... if that's a free no-AP evade, a free no-AP slam... since they're forced to "Do Nothing" it doesn't seem like choosing to Slam/Evade would be a reasonable option.

Stunned people CAN make active defenses at -4 though... as well as roll to maintain a grapple (if someone tries to Break Free) at -4, and those things DO consume Cole's Action Points... so a Do Nothing wouldn't necessarily mean an inability to spend AP...

I guess it's just a contrast in concept:
  • 1) coast wherever (random chance of accidental evade or accidental slam?)
    2) coast through my foe (slam)
    3) coast around/under/over my foe (evade)

2 or 3 would be AP-costing and give control, but 1 wouldn't cost AP if you take a "0 AP to maintain momentum" rules approach.

That's why I'm thinking maybe the solution is some sort of "you consume 1 AP per second to remain standing" type thing, but somehow mitigated by a role penalized by your present rate of travel, so that the faster a speed you maintain, the more AP you lose, while it costs less AP to keep your balance while moving at slow speeds (or not moving at all).

Like where you make a HT roll to mitigate AP loss from injury, instead make a HT roll to mitigate AP loss from keeping your balance while momentum carries you forward.

That or just charge a fixed rate based on speed, which would work better with fractional AP, for example:
  • 1) lying consumes 0 AP per second (most restful way to Do Nothing)
    2) sitting consumes 0.1 AP per second (next most restful way)
    3) standing consumes 0.2 AP per second
    4) kneeling/crawling/crouching consumes 0.3 AP per second
    5) each multiple of your Basic Speed (round up) you are in motion (whether due to momentum from previous turn or knockback or acceleration from present turn) consumes 0.1 if lying/sitting or 0.2 if standing or 0.3 if crawling, although either 0.2 or 0.3 can be reduced to 0.1 as soon as one voluntarily adopts a sitting or lying posture as a free action

Any ideas on tweaking that? I'm not 100% sure on (4) all I know is I can stand comfortably a lot longer than I can kneel/plank/crouch and the rates scaling with movement beyond rest are based on B387's Movement Point tiers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
They're not in close combat, so Green could turn just a little and run past without passing through the hex, I think.
Good point, though I've never liked the "front-left and front-right take just as much effort to enter as front-centre" weirdness. I begin to picture a guy sprinting around a central hex somehow at just as much speed as he can go forward. That's not how momentum works =/

It's a simple way out of the dilemma for our purposes, but still avoids the problem.

Since what we're talking about would not be an intentional slam (where I would roll at DX to hit you) but more like an accidental hit...

"Striking Into a Close Combat" (B392) begins that you strike into close combat at -2... then the last paragraph talks about how if you miss, you may accidentally hit something else...

I'm thinking of this example. Let's say I am Dorothy running down the Yellow Brick Road... let's say a brick is 6 inches long, that rounds up to (B19) SM-6 (for 7 inches) and +1 for being an elongated box would make it SM-5...

B404 allows Trampling if your SM exceeds something by 2, so Dorothy can Trample that Brick using an Attack. This would be at the usual -5 to hit it, but with -2 (since the brick is sharing a hex with other bricks) it is -7... and if Dorothy misses stepping on her intended brick, she then follows SIACC rules to see if her Trample attack hits a different brick instead...

This is rolled randomly to determine which target (which seems kind of strange, you'd think there'd be a higher chance to hit the more adjacent bricks, much like "Scatter" rules) and the lower of 9 or Dorothy's modified Trample skill (DX10-7 = skill 3!) is used to roll to see if she hits those other bricks...

Ultimately this would mean Dorothy would possibly miss ALL the bricks (not enough likely exist in a 1 yard hex to guarantee she'll roll three ones to get a critical success, the only way her Trample could hit!) and somehow Trample nothing at all...

This also leads to problems like if a hex was full of mice (literally no space free of a mouse) that even though you should miss the one you intend to squash, you ought to squash some other one (there being no place to aim free of mouse) with the only solution basically being that either you treat the mice as a collective entity (swarm) so probably the solution to make sure Dorothy will definitely trample one brick is to treat a brick road like a Swarm.

B461 "Any attack against a swarm hits automatically. The swarm gets no defense roll."

That's a weird bit though... ie you can automatically Stamp Kick a swarm of rats even if that swarm is occupying the same hex as their Rat King master, there's no chance of accidentally stomping on Rat King's foot or leg?

The problem with automatic hitting is there's nothing to apply the -2 to, and no way for a miss to result in a 9 or less roll to accidentally hit other targets in the hex... IE to accidentally knock into you when I'm just trying place my foot on a piece of the Yellow Brick Swarm...

Maybe swarms should just be +4 to hit, like if you were to target the hex containing the swarm (B414 Attacking an Area) ...

Perhaps moving through an area could function somehow like a Bombardment AE? Like there's a random chance (8 or less, modified by Size Modifier) of bumping into every target occupying that hex, which they can actively defend against?

Perhaps since it's like a "melee bombardment" it could be defended against at +2 like it was a Telegraphic Attack?

Last edited by Plane; 10-08-2019 at 01:57 AM.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2019, 01:01 PM   #254
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
An interesting question for example: what would happen if I was suddenly stunned and forced to take a "Do Nothing" on my next turn?

So would that mean....

1) someone who is stunned is forced to spend AP to decelerate to 0?
or...
2) a stunned person maintains their momentum in the direction they were traveling?

The maximum acceptable Move for a Do Nothing is 0. You can't move at all...
As a GM, I'd could see a justification either way, depending on how he was stunned. Mental stun is probably #2, while physical stun is probably #1. I'd probably tack on a slow non-AP cost deceleration for the mental stun, and for the physical stun they'd be rolling vs. DX to avoid tripping and falling down if they had to burn the AP. Stunning seems like it would be VERY hard on your AP in general.


Quote:
Stunned people CAN make active defenses at -4 though... as well as roll to maintain a grapple (if someone tries to Break Free) at -4, and those things DO consume Cole's Action Points... so a Do Nothing wouldn't necessarily mean an inability to spend AP...
Doing "Nothing" at -4 does seem like a common occurrence. I'd be ok with allowing an evade at an additional -4 , perhaps with the caveat that its capped at 9 or something.

That still leaves us with possible collision damage though.

Quote:
That's why I'm thinking maybe the solution is some sort of "you consume 1 AP per second to remain standing" type thing, but somehow mitigated by a role penalized by your present rate of travel, so that the faster a speed you maintain, the more AP you lose, while it costs less AP to keep your balance while moving at slow speeds (or not moving at all).
That's a rabbit hole all of its own, but it might work. That's a LOT of rolling though.

Quote:
Good point, though I've never liked the "front-left and front-right take just as much effort to enter as front-centre" weirdness. I begin to picture a guy sprinting around a central hex somehow at just as much speed as he can go forward. That's not how momentum works =/
Limiting the free hex direction change to 1 per second seems like a good compromise.

Quote:
Since what we're talking about would not be an intentional slam (where I would roll at DX to hit you) but more like an accidental hit...

"Striking Into a Close Combat" (B392) begins that you strike into close combat at -2... then the last paragraph talks about how if you miss, you may accidentally hit something else...

I'm thinking of this example. Let's say I am Dorothy running down the Yellow Brick Road... let's say a brick is 6 inches long, that rounds up to (B19) SM-6 (for 7 inches) and +1 for being an elongated box would make it SM-5...

B404 allows Trampling if your SM exceeds something by 2, so Dorothy can Trample that Brick using an Attack. This would be at the usual -5 to hit it, but with -2 (since the brick is sharing a hex with other bricks) it is -7... and if Dorothy misses stepping on her intended brick, she then follows SIACC rules to see if her Trample attack hits a different brick instead...

This is rolled randomly to determine which target (which seems kind of strange, you'd think there'd be a higher chance to hit the more adjacent bricks, much like "Scatter" rules) and the lower of 9 or Dorothy's modified Trample skill (DX10-7 = skill 3!) is used to roll to see if she hits those other bricks...

Ultimately this would mean Dorothy would possibly miss ALL the bricks (not enough likely exist in a 1 yard hex to guarantee she'll roll three ones to get a critical success, the only way her Trample could hit!) and somehow Trample nothing at all...

This also leads to problems like if a hex was full of mice (literally no space free of a mouse) that even though you should miss the one you intend to squash, you ought to squash some other one (there being no place to aim free of mouse) with the only solution basically being that either you treat the mice as a collective entity (swarm) so probably the solution to make sure Dorothy will definitely trample one brick is to treat a brick road like a Swarm.

B461 "Any attack against a swarm hits automatically. The swarm gets no defense roll."

That's a weird bit though... ie you can automatically Stamp Kick a swarm of rats even if that swarm is occupying the same hex as their Rat King master, there's no chance of accidentally stomping on Rat King's foot or leg?

The problem with automatic hitting is there's nothing to apply the -2 to, and no way for a miss to result in a 9 or less roll to accidentally hit other targets in the hex... IE to accidentally knock into you when I'm just trying place my foot on a piece of the Yellow Brick Swarm...

Maybe swarms should just be +4 to hit, like if you were to target the hex containing the swarm (B414 Attacking an Area) ...

Perhaps moving through an area could function somehow like a Bombardment AE? Like there's a random chance (8 or less, modified by Size Modifier) of bumping into every target occupying that hex, which they can actively defend against?

Perhaps since it's like a "melee bombardment" it could be defended against at +2 like it was a Telegraphic Attack?
RPGs have always struggled with dense formations. Which is odd, given their roots.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2019, 02:15 PM   #255
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
As a GM, I'd could see a justification either way, depending on how he was stunned. Mental stun is probably #2, while physical stun is probably #1. I'd probably tack on a slow non-AP cost deceleration for the mental stun, and for the physical stun they'd be rolling vs. DX to avoid tripping and falling down if they had to burn the AP. Stunning seems like it would be VERY hard on your AP in general.
Mechanically I'm not sure how much difference there's meant to be between mental/physical stun except for whether your roll vs HT or IQ (or Will if fear check) to get out of it. Buying up basic attribute defences being priced differently would be one, as that's 10/20/5 depending (and fear itself I think has a leveled perk for Will rolls ONLY against fear)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Doing "Nothing" at -4 does seem like a common occurrence. I'd be ok with allowing an evade at an additional -4 , perhaps with the caveat that its capped at 9 or something.
One thing that occurs to me, is that while in the original system during a Do Nothing you could roll to resist someone trying to break your grapple, in Technical Grappling attempting to resist someone using Break Free is done as an Active Defense, either a Dodge or a Parry...

It actually becomes way harder since -4 on an active defense is much tougher to overcome than -4 on a quick contest, but that's fine, because the idea of someone stunned and unable to attack being competent at maintaining grapples is hard to accept to begin with.

The idea of replacing quick contests with attacks/defenses was also adapted in Pyramid to rolls to use Possession (and resist it) so now I'm wondering how feasible it might be to do this with other kinds of contests, like Evade/Obstruct contests...

In both cases they deal with introducing 'points' though. Due to "Mental Control Points" I like to refer to TG's "Control Points" as "Physical Control Points" instead...

What if a third kind was something like "Hex Control Points" and it had to do with how much influence you have over your own and another's relative positioning? It'd fall somewhere between the others since it would be a mix of mental and physical influence...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
That still leaves us with possible collision damage though.
Yeah, and ways to make it less impressive than intentional collisions without making them non-damaging and without boosting intentional collisions to unbalanced levels.

Which is why accidental collisions being unlikely to strike (max 9 or less) and easy to avoid if they do (like telegraphed) seems like a way forward without tweaking damage too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
That's a rabbit hole all of its own, but it might work. That's a LOT of rolling though.
Yeah, you roll HT to mitigate AP loss any time you take damage by comparison, but due to active defences people aren't rolling every turn.

If you were rolling anyway (like with rolling to step/trip instead of to hit/miss, as I think I brought up before) the ⅒ AP system could be used.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Limiting the free hex direction change to 1 per second seems like a good compromise.
Charging for the hex changes when moving front-left and front-right is a solve, as I'd like to charge for all rotations to incentivize less mobility for conserving energy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
RPGs have always struggled with dense formations. Which is odd, given their roots.
Chess-like battle maps? Is that where D&D began?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2019, 10:17 AM   #256
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
Mechanically I'm not sure how much difference there's meant to be between mental/physical stun except for whether your roll vs HT or IQ (or Will if fear check) to get out of it. Buying up basic attribute defences being priced differently would be one, as that's 10/20/5 depending (and fear itself I think has a leveled perk for Will rolls ONLY against fear)
Fearless is 2/level, not a leveled perk, but the point stands. I don't think the difference was made on the basis of balance though. I think its just a rather natural reflection of the behavior its attempting to emulate. The traits mentioned do a LOT more than break stuns though, and I don't think stun is that large a part of their utility... but I also don't play much combat.

Quote:
One thing that occurs to me, is that while in the original system during a Do Nothing you could roll to resist someone trying to break your grapple, in Technical Grappling attempting to resist someone using Break Free is done as an Active Defense, either a Dodge or a Parry...

It actually becomes way harder since -4 on an active defense is much tougher to overcome than -4 on a quick contest, but that's fine, because the idea of someone stunned and unable to attack being competent at maintaining grapples is hard to accept to begin with.

The idea of replacing quick contests with attacks/defenses was also adapted in Pyramid to rolls to use Possession (and resist it) so now I'm wondering how feasible it might be to do this with other kinds of contests, like Evade/Obstruct contests...

In both cases they deal with introducing 'points' though. Due to "Mental Control Points" I like to refer to TG's "Control Points" as "Physical Control Points" instead...
What pages and books would I look this up in?

Quote:
What if a third kind was something like "Hex Control Points" and it had to do with how much influence you have over your own and another's relative positioning? It'd fall somewhere between the others since it would be a mix of mental and physical influence...
For another game, it could be interesting. I thought we were staying out of TG for this fight.

Quote:
Yeah, and ways to make it less impressive than intentional collisions without making them non-damaging and without boosting intentional collisions to unbalanced levels.

Which is why accidental collisions being unlikely to strike (max 9 or less) and easy to avoid if they do (like telegraphed) seems like a way forward without tweaking damage too much.
That could work... I still think damage should be mitigated though.

Quote:
Charging for the hex changes when moving front-left and front-right is a solve, as I'd like to charge for all rotations to incentivize less mobility for conserving energy.
I don't like charging for rotations unless you're moving, and moving fairly fast. I think that its important not to charge too much AP for "Footwork"

Quote:
Chess-like battle maps? Is that where D&D began?
There's a comic telling the story.

Tabletop RPG's grew out of wargaming, and in many ways replaced it. Dave Arneson's group (which was the model Gygax worked off of) was a bunch of wargamers who started playing with smaller units and working more and more story into their play.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 10:37 AM   #257
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

*learning history now*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackm...mpaign_setting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainmail_(game)
dood

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
What pages and books would I look this up in?
B371 "If your foe is stunned, he rolls at -4; if he falls unconscious, you are automatically free!"
TG35 "In Technical Grappling, breaking free is no longer a Quick Contest. It is an attack, directed at the grapple rather than the opponent." .. "Your foe may “defend” using Parry or Dodge."
Pyramid 3/83 pg 27 has Ponce's "Possession Under Control" idea of using "Mental Control Points" for Possession, adapted from TG.

I also noticed while checking this that Pyramid 3/103 has Christopher Rice's "Stability Points" which would be interesting for Possession and GURPS Horror stuff.

I'd probably call them MSP (Mental Stability Points) though, since "stability" can be a physical concept too, like how it appears on TG and how postures like crawling are described as "three point", so since points (generally limbs like legs/arms) provide stability, you might describe them as "physical stability points".

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
For another game, it could be interesting. I thought we were staying out of TG for this fight.
I think it just hasn't come up yet since my low-DX attempts to grapple you have failed. I sorta figured your low ST was the reason you hadn't grappled (since your Control Points would not be impressive) since you would otherwise have a huge advantage grappling in the classic system both due to your DX and also because you can attack competently with more than just fists, meaning if you used hands to grapple you could kick and bite/butt accurately where I could not.

Post 1: "I'd like to try out some of Doug Cole's add-ons... Control Points from Technical Grappling an Action Points from "The Last Gasp" in Pyramid 3/44 if you have access to either."
Post 13: "Wow, we're playing full Douglas Cole then? All right."

Technically I had only said "some of" though, and only one thing from Pyramid outside his canonical printings. Much as I like the HT rolls to mitigate crushing damage he has in his blog ("Shrug It Off") we haven't used that since it's not in an actual book, and it would probably make the fight drag on too long.

Although... if we HAD been using SIO, I might've make more All-Out / Committed attacks against you since my higher HT would've occasionally functioned like higher DR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
That could work... I still think damage should be mitigated though.
One aspect of mitigation would be the randomized aspect, where you might do a targeted hit on a vulnerable location with an intentional slam, the target would be random with accidental slam.

Another being the inability to get "strong" +2/+1 bonuses... plus the idea of making it suffer the "defensive attack" damage penalty.

To mitigate it below defensive attack, we might involve the next tier of penalty using technique design.

MA100 has the worse of -2 or -1 per die for defensive attack, or +1 to an enemy's defenses if you were grappling/grabbing since grapples don't have damage toe penalize. In TG I think this was changed though (no bonus to target's defence) since you have the Control Points roll to apply the "damage" penalty to.

MA90 rates the damage penalty that Defensive Attack suffers as being worth +4 to skill, whereas a fixed -1 to damage is only +2 to skill. I think we would want accidental hits to be at least 1 tier below defensive attacks, meaning +6 to skill.

MA91 rates +1 to any defense made by opponent as +2 to skill, which basically scales with how Telegraphic Attack works (+2 to defenses and +4 to hit)

So if there was some way of calculating some large basic penalty for accidental hits, and then applying whatever combination of damage penalties and defense bonuses seems appropriate to pay for it.

The very weird thing about accidental hit rules (B392) ...

flat 9 or the number you would have had to roll to hit him on purpose, whichever is worse.
Is that this means that people with low DX / low skill / blindness basically are very unlikely to accidentally hit anything, even giant targets.

Really the only penalty that would make sense here is actually size modifier, since if you are hitting a random location in the hex, only SM would affect how much space in the hex they're taking up.

B392's SIaCC rules sort of need some modification to be more believable here, though I realize they're in there to balance out low-DX blind guys from having a higher chance of accidentally hitting people than intentionally doing so.

We could fix that though by having any miss (even a miss against a guy you were aiming for) having the same randomized after-chance.

B91's custom technique rules might have a fix there:
"Special Benefits: Each built-in exemption from the usual rules gives -1 to the default penalty."

Since the "whichever is worse" aspect is one of the built-in rules, if we ignore that, then people could just roll against a flat 9 however bad their modified skill would normally be... although I think that's just to ignore one half of WIW, so if modified skill doesn't matter, you'd still use a 9... because why should your skill/DX/vision matter when your secondary target is an accidental one?

Although due to the -1 to hit for Special Benefits, that should be a flat 8 instead. Since 8 is the maximum, the GM can then just add on other disadvantages (-3 to damage, +2 to opponent's defenses) as needed for things like "attack-esque things that happen without actually attacking".

On that line, since M65 basically changes a punch (thrust-1) to thrust-2 (-1 to damage fixed) plus the worst of -2 and -1 per die, that's basically a +6 penalty a tier below the damage penalty to Defensive Attack, as suggested above.

This is also seen at M75 for Jam except thrust-0 kicks become thrust-1 plus worst of either -1 per die or -2.

Do you think accidental colissions should be penalized like this (like Aggressive Parry and Jam, both less damage than Defensive Punch and Defensive Kick) or worse?

One thing I'm not 100% sure on how you'd play is if you took Defensive Attack and then made a Jam or an Aggressive Parry, if you would apply Defensive Attack damage penalties to the damage made by active defences. That could result in something even lower, like a thrust-4 aggressive parry becoming a thrust-6 aggressive parry.

If anything, I'm wondering if standard operating procedure should invert in that case, like maybe someone taking All-Out Defense should get +2 not just to their parry, but their bonus to hit if their parry succeeds and a bonus to damage if that roll hits? *shrug*

Plus one thing I hadn't thought about... since you roll to hit each time on secondary accidental targets, do you think that's additional chances to roll a critical miss? To roll a critical hit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
I don't like charging for rotations unless you're moving, and moving fairly fast. I think that its important not to charge too much AP for "Footwork"
Yeah I forgot my earlier idea of just paying AP for Movement Points and then being able to spend MP without paying further AP until it runs out. That would spread out and not deplete someone too much with 60-degree turns and 3ft shuffles.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2019, 12:27 PM   #258
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
B371 "If your foe is stunned, he rolls at -4; if he falls unconscious, you are automatically free!"
TG35 "In Technical Grappling, breaking free is no longer a Quick Contest. It is an attack, directed at the grapple rather than the opponent." .. "Your foe may “defend” using Parry or Dodge."
Thank You

Quote:
Post 1: "I'd like to try out some of Doug Cole's add-ons... Control Points from Technical Grappling an Action Points from "The Last Gasp" in Pyramid 3/44 if you have access to either."
Post 13: "Wow, we're playing full Douglas Cole then? All right."
Ok, I see it. huh. I wonder why I thought we weren't using it.

We can apply it to evading, I suppose. How do you "spend" the hex control points though? and what do you spend them on?

Quote:
Technically I had only said "some of" though, and only one thing from Pyramid outside his canonical printings. Much as I like the HT rolls to mitigate crushing damage he has in his blog ("Shrug It Off") we haven't used that since it's not in an actual book, and it would probably make the fight drag on too long.
Too long? this fights the fastest thing on the forum! JK.

Quote:
Although... if we HAD been using SIO, I might've make more All-Out / Committed attacks against you since my higher HT would've occasionally functioned like higher DR.
Yeah, anytime you work with Doug it seems that ST and HT get better. Which isn't a bad thing.

Quote:
One aspect of mitigation would be the randomized aspect, where you might do a targeted hit on a vulnerable location with an intentional slam, the target would be random with accidental slam.

Another being the inability to get "strong" +2/+1 bonuses... plus the idea of making it suffer the "defensive attack" damage penalty.

To mitigate it below defensive attack, we might involve the next tier of penalty using technique design.
Making equivalent to a defensive attack in damage is probably sufficient.

Quote:
The very weird thing about accidental hit rules (B392) ...

flat 9 or the number you would have had to roll to hit him on purpose, whichever is worse.
Is that this means that people with low DX / low skill / blindness basically are very unlikely to accidentally hit anything, even giant targets.

Really the only penalty that would make sense here is actually size modifier, since if you are hitting a random location in the hex, only SM would affect how much space in the hex they're taking up.
Range should probably also apply, and targets not trying to avoid being hit might be +4 easier.

Quote:
Plus one thing I hadn't thought about... since you roll to hit each time on secondary accidental targets, do you think that's additional chances to roll a critical miss? To roll a critical hit?
Yes. If you're randomly swinging into a target rich environment, you're asking for luck to do something one way or the other. That's how people get hurt. On the other hand, I'd be cautious about letting a player stack up too many of those rolls unless the situation really calls for it. I'd just as likely give a bonus to hit one of many similar objects as roll several times.
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-27-2019, 09:00 PM   #259
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: A Challenger Appears! Green versus Red

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
We can apply it to evading, I suppose. How do you "spend" the hex control points though? and what do you spend them on?
No idea, still pretty much a hypothetical idea... but my guess is that such a concept would also somehow incorporate Feints/Beats since that's also a quick contest?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Making equivalent to a defensive attack in damage is probably sufficient.
Somewhere out there is some kind of defensive slammer who will get mad though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ericthered View Post
Range should probably also apply, and targets not trying to avoid being hit might be +4 easier.
Not sure what you mean by range, by the time you're slamming someone you are sharing the same hex

Avoiding being hit was I thought covered by using active defenses (ie someone doing AOA like a berserker isn't avoiding) I think it's moreso the kinda-passive aspect of defense of "you're moving around so it's harder to target you"

Which is where the whole "what do I roll to stab the unconscious guy immobile on the ground" bonuses come in.

I guess I just figured he'd be 0 on the Speed aspect of the Speed/Range table, but I suppose a Berserker who is All-Out-Attacking (while remaining in his hex) would also be 0, which is why I think earlier I just figured to tally up their Basic Speed for each attack or defense they make and add that to however many yards they moved.
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-28-2019, 09:44 AM   #260
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
No idea, still pretty much a hypothetical idea... but my guess is that such a concept would also somehow incorporate Feints/Beats since that's also a quick contest?
No, such a system would be about controlling the hex, not about getting bonuses to attack.

You could make a system where swordplay is treated as a grapple, with "weapon control points" being added up and spent to try and hit, but that's a different kettle of fish and a rather ambitious project.

Quote:
Somewhere out there is some kind of defensive slammer who will get mad though.
He has his defense bonus to keep him happy. And a defensive slam is a particularly weird attack.

Quote:
Not sure what you mean by range, by the time you're slamming someone you are sharing the same hex
I'm talking about rolls to hit nearby targets in general, not specifically slams.
Quote:
Avoiding being hit was I thought covered by using active defenses (ie someone doing AOA like a berserker isn't avoiding) I think it's moreso the kinda-passive aspect of defense of "you're moving around so it's harder to target you"

Which is where the whole "what do I roll to stab the unconscious guy immobile on the ground" bonuses come in.
I think there is a little of both "you don't get bonuses to hit the immobile guy" and "they get a dodge".
__________________
Worlds Beyond Earth -- my blog
ericthered is online now   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 05:56 PM.


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