Jump to content



Photo

House Rules


  • Please log in to reply
131 replies to this topic

#121 Lancer999

Lancer999

    Member

  • Members
  • 217 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:01 AM

 

  1. Point gun at enemy.
  2. True Aim
  3. Aim Again
  4. Cackle like a madman as enemy is obliterated.
  5. Repeat until you stand atop a pile of mangled bodies.
  6. Add footage to Demo Reel.

 

 

That is HILARIOUS!!!! ROFL!! LOL!!!  I am going to use that.  Ok, so the question...Since when can you aim 2ice??? I mean logically, you aim your gun and shoot.  Maybe you take a minute but that isn't aiming 2ice??!!!


"Make sure your shields are on Double Front, or you'll get your @$$ shot off!"


#122 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,599 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:24 AM

I think you are taking the idea of committing both maneuvers aiming too literally.  I think the intent is to represent a higher degree of effort and time spent lining up a shot.


My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#123 kaosoe

kaosoe

    Not the GM my players need, but the one they deserve.

  • Members
  • 1,762 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:32 AM

Concerning the True Aim house rule. I ran an AoR one-shot several months back. One of my players played a Gunner/Sharpshooter specifically because of True Aim. He grabbed all 4 ranks of True Aim. All of the usual combat-oriented players in my group, even the Gunner/Sharpshooter admitted that 4 ranks in True Aim was incredibly overpowered.

 

For a one shot, I had no problem (though I did burn some destiny points on that particular character, but it was all in good fun), but for a long-term game, I would definitely consider the strain penalty or something like that.

 

 

Keep in mind that this talent is an active talent, so he would not have to suffer the strain penalty (via house rule) if he does not wish to activate the talent. Thus regular aim is not affected and would not need to be.

 

TL;DR: When even my hard core power gamers admit a rule is broken and needs adjusting, something needs fixed.


Edited by kaosoe, 22 July 2014 - 10:35 AM.

  • Liloki, Revanchist, Jamwes and 1 other like this

Scavenger - On the d20Radio forums.

Pronounced: Kay - Oh - So


#124 Liloki

Liloki

    Member

  • Members
  • 186 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 10:35 AM

 

 

  1. Point gun at enemy.
  2. True Aim
  3. Aim Again
  4. Cackle like a madman as enemy is obliterated.
  5. Repeat until you stand atop a pile of mangled bodies.
  6. Add footage to Demo Reel.

 

 

That is HILARIOUS!!!! ROFL!! LOL!!!  I am going to use that.  Ok, so the question...Since when can you aim 2ice??? I mean logically, you aim your gun and shoot.  Maybe you take a minute but that isn't aiming 2ice??!!!

 

Yeah, outside of the stale combat macro aspect of it, it is rather amusing.

 

 

RAW you can do two consecutive Aim maneuvers for twice the effect. Narratively, it is taking extra effort/time to line up your shot.  So if you True Aim once and regular Aim once you can choose to get the two Boost from consecutive Aim variants and upgrades from ranks of True Aim.

 

Honestly, I knew it was a little off but didn't think it would be a big deal till I noticed he started trying to do this combo as much as possible no matter what was going on around his character. So I had to look into possible root causes and my assessment was that it being non-consequential to choose to True Aim every time was making it an automatic constant choice for him. Then there was also mention of desire for the Sharpshooter spec for the two easy additional ranks of it... not b/c the rest of the spec made sense for his character to deep spec into but just b/c those two additional ranks of True Aim are early.

 

I checked in with another friend of mine who is running his own game of AoR Beta that transitioned to full on AoR and asked if he had similar thing going on with the Sharpshooter in his game. He confirmed that was also the case. So to me that reinforces the "non-consequence no-brainer choice" aspect of True Aim RAW.

 

Adding a Strain per Rank cost would put it back in line with all the other combat Talents that give upgrades. So that is going to be part of the conversation I have with this player. Even if I don't end up instituting it this campaign, more than likely going to institute it in other campaigns going forward.

 

edit: removed double quote


Edited by Liloki, 22 July 2014 - 10:36 AM.

  • Jamwes and kaosoe like this

Episode recaps of my ongoing EotE game: https://plus.google....771928262/posts


#125 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 424 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 12:03 PM

Second, I said that was a change to True Aim that I was considering. Nice of you to fly off on a tirade about how I must be a bad GM to supposedly vindictively just insta-slam my player with this with zero discussion. Making a lot of assumptions just to insult someone b/c you don't agree with their opinion on a rule in a game table that you are not even a part of isn't rational.

Hmm. I didn't realize I was flying off on anything. I was responding to you directly saying you were thinking about changing a rule because you thought it was "boring". I'm sorry if you think what I said was harsh. But that is exactly what I think. By the way, the quote you pulled from my was directed to 2P51, not you. I guess I should have quoted him, but I posted right after he did. Then I did refer to your post. I stand by what I said. In your first post about changing this the only reason you said you were thinking about changing it was because you found it to be a boring tactic. I'm sorry I upset you when I said I didn't agree. 
 
I never said anything about intentionally keeping him from using his talents. I listed out some possible things that could happen in an encounter, I did not mean to make them all happen in row, right after another.
 
Thank you for pointing out why you don't like this talent so much. I do agree that if a player wanted to get all six of these, then that would be pretty crazy. But by then, how much XP does this guy have? What kind of enemies is he facing. They should have quite a few ranks of adversary! 
 
Making a lot of assumptions just to insult someone b/c you don't agree with their opinion on a rule in a game table that you are not even a part of isn't rational."
 
I never did insult you. I did say
"My problem with the post is where he says aiming and shooting is, so I am going to change the rules to penalize the player with True Aim to limit it him from doing it so much.  Sorry this is just lazy Gming and IMHO poor GMing." 
I never said you were a bad GM or a bad person. I did say IF that is your reasoning THEN...
 
This is a playful forum, perhaps you are reading my writing with venom that was never intended or included. 
 
I never said you can not do this proposed house rule. I actually gave you an alternative idea as well. 
 
I have never had anyone use this talent in my games yet, so I am interested in seeing why people think it is broke. I did state that I am only going with the ECRB, as all my other books are crossing the Atlantic right now. I still don't see how Two True Aims is a problem. I am staring to see how 3-6 true Aims can be a problem. 
Liloki, my intent was not to insult you and make you upset. 
-R2builder


Edited by R2builder, 22 July 2014 - 12:07 PM.

Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#126 Liloki

Liloki

    Member

  • Members
  • 186 posts

Posted 22 July 2014 - 07:45 PM

 

I never did insult you. I did say
"My problem with the post is where he says aiming and shooting is, so I am going to change the rules to penalize the player with True Aim to limit it him from doing it so much.  Sorry this is just lazy Gming and IMHO poor GMing." 
I never said you were a bad GM or a bad person. I did say IF that is your reasoning THEN...
 
I have never had anyone use this talent in my games yet, so I am interested in seeing why people think it is broke. I did state that I am only going with the ECRB, as all my other books are crossing the Atlantic right now. I still don't see how Two True Aims is a problem. I am staring to see how 3-6 true Aims can be a problem. 
Liloki, my intent was not to insult you and make you upset. 
-R2builder

 

Well, your initial reply did try to call me a bad GM based on the assumption that I was nerfing the player's character build mid-gameplay without any consideration/dicussion with said player.

 

Both of your replies carried the message of "Nothing wrong with True Aim, if you think so that's because you're a lazy/bad GM who can't challenge your players enough to do other things."

 

Given that you admit to not having any in-game experience with that Talent, perhaps it would have been better for you to start your responses with "why do you think this is broken? just b/c it's causing a repetitive gameplay decision?" instead of "it's not unbalanced, you're probably just bad at this."

 

Let's just both move forward.


Episode recaps of my ongoing EotE game: https://plus.google....771928262/posts


#127 Josep Maria

Josep Maria

    Member

  • Members
  • 615 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:53 AM

Another one!

 

We are considering to use "Force Leap" as Commit. We are studying it yet.


Be brave and listen to your heart.

5,981 Profile Views.


#128 ScooterinAB

ScooterinAB

    Member

  • Members
  • 218 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 12:44 PM

I think the only house rules my group uses (aside from on the spot rules decisions) are the seemingly common treatment of null rolls and some open interpretation of the Sense power.

 

For null rolls (those that generate no success or failure), we usually allow a reroll with the expenditure of time or require a new approach to the problem. This is due to the seemingly common mistake that a lack of success does not/should not create an intrinsic failure (which it apparently does). In combat, a null roll is still a miss, but elsewhere else, we narrate the result based on the situation.

 

For Sense, a situation came up in our last session where we basically entered a dark site cave. The GM was feeding me very basic info about sensing a disturbance in the Force by virtue of being a Force user, but also allowed me to use Sense to gain a little more info about the situation, despite the nature of the encounter not specifically being about a living entity or its thoughts/emotions. This was done because there wasn't really another way to handle it and it created an in-game way for me to investigate the situation rather than either handing me everything or simply not telling me anything (investigating made it more interesting).

 

In a prior EoE game though, the GM was quick to house rule everything and anything, citing that the game was too easy and wasn't written properly. He hastily increased difficulties in combat, handwaved rules, and actively punished players for doing things like taking Aim maneuvers, accusing use of cheating the system. What this meant was that I, as a player, couldn't read the rulebook and form strategies or understand what my character was capable of doing, since the GM had his own rules he was using and would just pull the rug out from under me whenever I tried ot do anything anyways.

 

As I grow older, I become less and less interested in house rules. For me, this isn't about RAW vs. not RAW. This isn't about making the game yours or whether designers are perfect or not. For me, changing a game's rules is about fault-finding and the butterfly effect. Instead of spending all of the effort in finding the faults of a game and trying to fix it, I prefer to just play the game. If there is something that isn't working, there are ways to work within the system to make it work without dramatically changing things and investing in fault-finding. I also recognize that after spending some years working in policy development and longer tweaking games and creating house rules, that changing things creates unexpected and increasing changes elsewhere in the game. The butterfly effect is a real thing and few seem to understand how it can destroy a game.

 

In the earlier example of the GM who changed combat difficulties and other rules, all this did was make the game harder for non-combat characters and escalate the game for combat characters. Those who could dumped into combat skills and abilities and those who couldn't were left behind. This escalated the game, since the GM then needed to create harder and more dangerous encounters to counter the more dangerous combat spec'ed characters, who were only made like that to counter the house rule that the GM made to make combat harder in the first place. And when I started to take Aim maneuvers to try and stay in the game, the GM pounced on me like a wild animal and escalated the game even further. All the GM got from increasing the difficulty of combat rolls was a nuclear arms race and further escalation that required him to make combat even harder as he pushed back. If he didn't do any of this, he could have simply scaled the difficulty of encounters and the tasks that were against us, rather than having to change the rules and then scale up the encounters against us in order to compensate when we tried to survive.

 

The same thing happened with me years ago with Deadlands, where we originally disregarded stun checks because it was an added complexity that we were having trouble dealing with. Not using with made combats very lethal and drawn out, yet trying to reintroduce them somehow makes combats even more dangerous because we weren't used to the rules. And don't get me started on D&D 3rd edition, where not one single GM I played with knew the rules. Every table had wildly different house rules, such that one player's experience at one table would actually destroy another table's game. To this day, I have no idea how to play D&D, and my group is still hesitant to touch some multi-book games due to all the house rules and third party material that were caked onto D&D. All this did was take options away from the players and confuse GMs.

 

So I prefer to spend my efforts learning to play the games I play as they are presented, not fault-find and try and fix problems that really don't exist, or problems that are only going to get worse if I try and "fix them." That's my take and that's what I advocate to new players and old. It's also easier to join a game with a new group if you know the rules as printed than if you only know a GM's house rules, because you may not even know they are house rules.



#129 Josep Maria

Josep Maria

    Member

  • Members
  • 615 posts

Posted 07 November 2014 - 05:19 PM

My updated, and in use, list of House Rules that one of the main goals is fit on canon :)

 

- Discarded Hyperdrive class and the security one and added max jump and comms range. "Plot Speed".

 

- Lightsaber: Breach X (Can cut any known material).

 

- Doesn't exist Cortosis because there isn't a known existence of a non-energy/magic based material that can resist lightsabers. (Exceptions: Zillo beast and "Magik" weapons)

 

- Ion Rarity is now 8+ and starships/vehicles with ion weapons isn't a "common" thing.

 

- Separation between Vehicle scale x5 (or light armored) and Starship scale x10 (or heavy armored).

 

- Stat modifications: AT-ST → HT 8

 

- Force Support: Each additional user let exchange 1 generated pip [LS ↔ DS]. The general cooperation rules still apply.

 

- Improved Evasive Manouvers: Speed 5+ → 2 Upgrades Difficulty, 2 Downgrades Attack

 

- In the space, if the target computer fails, the used difficulty to hit is the higher one from Silhouette or Distance.

 

- Shields

Have a value called Shield X: Add X Failures to the attackers roll if the base damage is the same or below the Shield Power value. If attacker weapons base damage is superior, Shields are used as normal rules (Setbacks).

 

- ALTERNATIVE: Character creation is based on NPC construction with the "pick up what you need tou build your character" idea.


Edited by Josep Maria, 07 November 2014 - 05:21 PM.

Be brave and listen to your heart.

5,981 Profile Views.


#130 JetH7

JetH7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 10 November 2014 - 12:10 AM

I always give Stormtroopers a disadvantage dice when firing projectile based weapons. xD


  • Josep Maria likes this

"And this life sentence that I'm serving,

I'll admit that I'm every bit deserving,

But the beauty of grace is that it makes life not fair"

-Be My Escape, by Relient K


#131 Daeglan

Daeglan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts

Posted 10 November 2014 - 04:16 AM

Just playing now but here's what the GM does:

 

-Rescaled the vehicle damage rules such that 5 points of personal damage equal 1 point of vehicle damage, not 10. This makes the E-Web match the auto-blaster and makes things like missile launchers and thermal detonators a threat to starfighters. Thermal detonators destroy starfighters in the Clone Wars show. 

 

-Swapped out the range bands for a grid. Makes combat much more straightforward. 

 

-When making a dice pool, the player rolls the good dice and the GM rolls the bad dice. We started doing this because we lacked enough dice but I kinda prefer it this way. 

 

-Our GM doesn't use the [minion]/[rival]/[nemesis] classification. At least not how it's written. An NPC will be treated as one of the three depending on the situation and narrative needs. Sometimes Stormtroopers are minions, sometimes they are rivals. Maybe this is how the rule is supposed to work but I'm not sure.

Thermal detonators are already a threat to vehicles. they have breach1 they ignore the first point of armor. Most small vehicles do not have much armor. 


  • Josep Maria likes this

#132 Daeglan

Daeglan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,400 posts

Posted 10 November 2014 - 04:17 AM

I think the only house rules my group uses (aside from on the spot rules decisions) are the seemingly common treatment of null rolls and some open interpretation of the Sense power.

 

For null rolls (those that generate no success or failure), we usually allow a reroll with the expenditure of time or require a new approach to the problem. This is due to the seemingly common mistake that a lack of success does not/should not create an intrinsic failure (which it apparently does). In combat, a null roll is still a miss, but elsewhere else, we narrate the result based on the situation.

 

For Sense, a situation came up in our last session where we basically entered a dark site cave. The GM was feeding me very basic info about sensing a disturbance in the Force by virtue of being a Force user, but also allowed me to use Sense to gain a little more info about the situation, despite the nature of the encounter not specifically being about a living entity or its thoughts/emotions. This was done because there wasn't really another way to handle it and it created an in-game way for me to investigate the situation rather than either handing me everything or simply not telling me anything (investigating made it more interesting).

 

In a prior EoE game though, the GM was quick to house rule everything and anything, citing that the game was too easy and wasn't written properly. He hastily increased difficulties in combat, handwaved rules, and actively punished players for doing things like taking Aim maneuvers, accusing use of cheating the system. What this meant was that I, as a player, couldn't read the rulebook and form strategies or understand what my character was capable of doing, since the GM had his own rules he was using and would just pull the rug out from under me whenever I tried ot do anything anyways.

 

As I grow older, I become less and less interested in house rules. For me, this isn't about RAW vs. not RAW. This isn't about making the game yours or whether designers are perfect or not. For me, changing a game's rules is about fault-finding and the butterfly effect. Instead of spending all of the effort in finding the faults of a game and trying to fix it, I prefer to just play the game. If there is something that isn't working, there are ways to work within the system to make it work without dramatically changing things and investing in fault-finding. I also recognize that after spending some years working in policy development and longer tweaking games and creating house rules, that changing things creates unexpected and increasing changes elsewhere in the game. The butterfly effect is a real thing and few seem to understand how it can destroy a game.

 

In the earlier example of the GM who changed combat difficulties and other rules, all this did was make the game harder for non-combat characters and escalate the game for combat characters. Those who could dumped into combat skills and abilities and those who couldn't were left behind. This escalated the game, since the GM then needed to create harder and more dangerous encounters to counter the more dangerous combat spec'ed characters, who were only made like that to counter the house rule that the GM made to make combat harder in the first place. And when I started to take Aim maneuvers to try and stay in the game, the GM pounced on me like a wild animal and escalated the game even further. All the GM got from increasing the difficulty of combat rolls was a nuclear arms race and further escalation that required him to make combat even harder as he pushed back. If he didn't do any of this, he could have simply scaled the difficulty of encounters and the tasks that were against us, rather than having to change the rules and then scale up the encounters against us in order to compensate when we tried to survive.

 

The same thing happened with me years ago with Deadlands, where we originally disregarded stun checks because it was an added complexity that we were having trouble dealing with. Not using with made combats very lethal and drawn out, yet trying to reintroduce them somehow makes combats even more dangerous because we weren't used to the rules. And don't get me started on D&D 3rd edition, where not one single GM I played with knew the rules. Every table had wildly different house rules, such that one player's experience at one table would actually destroy another table's game. To this day, I have no idea how to play D&D, and my group is still hesitant to touch some multi-book games due to all the house rules and third party material that were caked onto D&D. All this did was take options away from the players and confuse GMs.

 

So I prefer to spend my efforts learning to play the games I play as they are presented, not fault-find and try and fix problems that really don't exist, or problems that are only going to get worse if I try and "fix them." That's my take and that's what I advocate to new players and old. It's also easier to join a game with a new group if you know the rules as printed than if you only know a GM's house rules, because you may not even know they are house rules.

A null roll is a failure per the rules. You need an uncancelled success for it to be a success. Just FYI


  • Josep Maria likes this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS