Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

Damn it!

I think your reasoning is correct for DF, I just don't think it's broadly applicable to other genres. And I think most of the protests are due to greater familiarity with those other genres than GURPS DF.

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

I can't help but compare the point value with that for Berserk. It's just as bad a disadvantage, at least by value.

I think part of the confusion last night was some players misinterpreting the harpy as "down" as in "lying down limply and clearly out of the fight" as opposed to the actual case, being "not in the air and stunned", which is a very very different sort of "down".

Regarding Minnizig's brief career as a kinetic kill weapon, I was already pulling out my Emergency Backup Minotaur :D

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

So what's the final decision? Bloodlust is a "lock on target" disad that also requires you to use an extra turn stabbing/chopping/smashing your target after it's down? Under what circumstances can you switch to a new target without killing your initial one? If you're fighting a goblin and an ogre joins the fray, can you switch to the ogre as a greater threat since they're both trying to kill you? Or does that require a self-control roll?

I want an axe enchanted with Throw Spell. -1 per yard sucks.

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

It's a judgment call, but I'm inclined to something like this:

a) If possible, you will strike killing blows. If killing blows are suboptimal because of armor issues, you can go for crippling blows against limbs.
b) If possible, you will finish off wounded/crippled foes before moving to deal with fresh ones.
c) If possible, you will finish off unconscious foes before moving a substantial difference to deal with fresh ones. If that means spending a couple of seconds murdering people instead of helping an ally... its a disadvantage.
d) If you're targeted by multiple foes, you can deal with active foes before insuring unconscious ones are dead.
e) If you're targeted by multiple foes, you can engage them in any order you like and can switch between them freely. You still need to resist to not follow-up on a substantially wounded foe.

So if Wolfgang is fighting a bunch of goblins, he needs to cut at each one's head if possible. If he stuns one, he'll strike at it again instead of dealing with another. If he drops one to the ground, he can ignore it as long as others are attacking him. If an ogre shows up while all this is happening, he can switch to fight the ogre. If the ogre is heavily armored, he can cut out its legs or whatever - but he'll want to finish it off immediately instead of dealing with the goblins if he manages to take out a leg. If he beats back all the goblins and the ogre, he'll launch a flurry of Rapid Strikes to cut off their heads before running over to help the other PCs who are struggling against other goblins.

It's an easy resistance roll, so I don't think this is a horrible interpretation.

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

We have different interpretations of the disadvantage. The one-line summary is "You want to see your foes dead.", not "You want to see your foes dead to the exclusion of all else." As long as the character didn't stop fighting before satisfying his Bloodlust, I'd call it good. But it's not my game.

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

These seem fine.

These two seem mutually contradictory, especially the last sentence on e. If I am allowed to deal with active foes before making sure of the unconscious ones, and can switch between them freely, why do you have to roll not to follow up on a substantially wounded foe? Do you mean you have to roll to not kill them once everyone is dealt with, or you have to roll to not kill them immediately when someone is still trying to stab you in the back?

Why the head? Is whacking them with an axe in the torso not considered a "killing blow"?

Again, how is this being able to switch targets freely?

It seems that you want Bloodlust to be a "must exploit any weakness" disad. Is that an accurate summary? So long as everyone is an equal threat to you, you can do whatever you want. But as soon as one enemy is disadvantaged, you have to press that disadvantage in an attempt to kill them even if there are other enemies that present a more immediate threat.

This seems fine.

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

Well, the point is that in a DF game murdering your enemies is less of a disadvantage than in a normal game. If Bloodlust and Beserk are to be the same point cost, the disadvantage for Bloodlust has to be upped.

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

worth bearing in mind, that for helpless or unconscious foes the rules for instant death applies. No rolls needed, you just kill them.

So once they are down, you basically 'only' pay another round to make sure they stay down. That is, if your attention is not demanded by someone else engaging with you.

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

Not being able to sneak past a sentry or take prisoners seems like a decent disadvantage.

Re: Review of Play: The Saga of the Westmarch DF Game
 

If someone is still standing, they're still a threat. The guy who is stunned and standing is just as dangerous as the one who is swinging at you.

Torso is fine, but simply cutting off arms is not going to do it.


No, I think of it more as "wounded doesn't diminish threat" attitude. Just because you stun someone, doesn't mean that they won't stab you in a back in the second after they recover. They're just as much of an offensive threat as ever - they're just more vulnerable and so should be targeted first.

I'm not penalizing people for resisting disadvantages, so I don't think that starting with the extreme position and letting people roll the dice for control is too much.