Jump to content

Lecram

Members
  • Content Count

    117
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Lecram

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Canada
  1. This is a great idea! Each session, untrained PC's can get better and add more dice to their weapons. Nice.
  2. I'm doing one-shot adventures. Maybe 2 or 3 sessions at most. Kind of "survive the night" type scenarios. That said " I have since hacked this game into a different (more robust) system, that has many similar qualities as this one, just more granularity, and it works really well for my tables more crunchy/long-term interests." I guess this was my goal. But since I don't know the nuances of the system, I don't know the best way of doing it. I'll just have to take your advice regarding the minutiae of the stats and the negative dice. The system is fine, and worked well with my group so far...but being unable to defend an attack irks me somewhat and I was trying to find a fix. I didn't feel the system was broken or anything, but it did feel like an oversight. If I'm trying to achieve my goal in the 'wrong way', as you say, I wonder if there's still a 'better way' that won't lead to power creep. Monsters have stats that range from 3-5. the latter being the strongest opposition(unless they want to fight Cthulu itself) which I'll build up to and save for more tense scenes. Given that we are doing a one-shot, they'll be playing with their starting stats. That said, I may do an extended campaign for one of my groups at a later date, but I'm not really looking to house-rule anything for them (unless we find something worth using). I'll look at your house-rules. Thanks for your help.
  3. I like the freedom of being able to add dice based on the story, situation, to add suspense etc... But I'm a bit worried about being too hand-wavey about it when it comes to this. I wouldn't want players feeling they're being treated unfairly because I'm constantly giving some of them extra dice all the time but not others. Which is kind of why I wanted to standardize something. It would cross over with all stats: social and mental. It's just that, I think, physical tends to get most of the full-blown conflicts. Although, I plan to do social conflicts. So, other players who've invested in mental or social stats would get the same privilege...but less frequently. The fact that adding both positive/negative dice is kind of arbitrary, does standardizing some of it break the game? I'd have to go through creature stats...I'm a bit worried about Monsters decimating my players.
  4. The games I play are mostly co-operative story-telling games. So I'm very familiar with how they work. I've also played super crunchy games and know the difference. That said, there is an amount of 'simulation' in every game. A higher stat equates to a more likelihood of success. This simulates the fact that someone who is more agile/charismatic/smarter is more likely to succeed on those tasks. If I wanted to get really crunchy, I could make every attack an opposed test. This would probably be the best way to 'simulate' a real combat situation. But this seems like it would bog down the game unnecessarily. I'm, mostly, looking for a balanced tweak to take into account a person's skill when opposing attacks, which is only one part of the game - The whole campaign won't be combat - but, To me, it makes better story-telling if the UFC fighter can actually defend against attacks better than the sedentary couch potato and the story would flow more naturally if the rules actually supported that. 1) I addressed this already, I think 2) Which is why I want to tweak slightly. So they are slightly less flat. And I don't want Huge gaps. I want subtle, observable differences, though. 3) I was wondering whether or not a 1 dice difference was significant. I've only played one session, so I don't have a good grasp as to how much it effects the game. This is why I'm seeking advice, obviously. 4) Requiring more successes to hit sounds interesting. How would you do it? When would your require more hits? GM fiat or would you base it on something specific? It seems tougher than just adding a dice. Also, it's not the kind of thing I'd want to do arbitrarily or with GM hand-waviness I want something more concrete so the players know what they're getting into and so that some players don't think I'm being overly generous to some while being hard on others. Regarding negative dice, fighting a skilled opponent seems more dangerous than fighting an unskilled one, so I could see applying negative dice to an unskilled/unfit fighter's dice roll. So, I don't think I'm "barking up the wrong tree". I'm playing this game rules 'as is' with one group but different groups have different preferences. I think tweaking rules to accommodate different playing styles is part of any rp game. I Know the next group I will run this for will want to show-case their fighting abilities. The important thing is making it balanced. What I'm really worried about is the monsters will obliterate my players with this house rule. But I'd need to check monster stats to be sure. If you think, as a player who's experienced with these mechanics, that Positive Features and the few extra dice are enough to add the flavour of 'skill', then I'll have to take your word for it. Like I said, I haven't played enough to know, which is why I'm asking questions in the first place. I can't know if my suggested house-rule would 'break the game' without having played it enough. The other important thing is this would go across all three stats: mental, physical, social. It's just that physical combat is much more prominent than mental or social as those are more likely to use the opposed test mechanic.
  5. It's not so much attacking that I'm trying to balance (or it is...but in a backwards sense). What I'm saying is that, by your example, despite the fact that you have two vibroswords, those +4 do not apply when you are being attacked by an enemy. And the fact that you are trained in those swords makes absolutely no difference. A Zombie attacking civilian office worker attacks with, let's say, 3 positive dice. A Zombie attacking a trained swordsman attacks with....3 positive dice. So, it has the exact same chance of hitting both targets. Which doesn't sit well with me. A trained swordsman should be able to parry a blow. It should be harder to hit them. So, if the Office worker has a low defending stat, the zombie will get extra dice to hit. If the trained swordsman has a high stat, the zombie will get no bonus...and might even get a negative dice.
  6. 1) the office worker will have other talents and abilities that he can lend the group....but this is not the issue I'm concerned with...I guess I used a bad example. 2) I'm more concerned that the Highly Trained Combatants' skills are kind of irrelevant and the players will get frustrated. It's not that I mean to pin PCs against each other, it's more that trained PC's are no better at avoiding attacks than untrained. A Deep One attacks at a fixed amount of positive dice regardless of who they are attacking. The skill of their target doesn't play into how well they will hit. If they roll 3 positive dice against a Trained swordsman, they'll also be rolling 3 positive against the Office Worker. In my eyes, the trained swordsman should have a better chance at deflecting a blow or dodging. With my house-rule, the Deep One might get an extra positive dice against the office worker but no extra dice against the Swordsman...or, even, a negative dice against a swordsman. Does that clarify?
  7. In a situation like this, why not just resolve the issue with an opposed test? What's more important: how much trauma they take or the fall-out/result of what happens after someone wins the fight? Just decide what the outcome will be for the winner/loser and roll the dice once. A long, drawn out fight seems like lots of pointless dice rolling when you could move the game forward quicker. This way a fight could end in a draw, which would would also have interesting role playing possibilities. Alternately, just finish the fight when someone reaches their second row of stress boxes. Are they fighting to the death or just trying to knock the other person out? Chances are the loser will go unconscious or get their bell rung hard enough to quit long before they take enough stress to die, so no need to use all 9 boxes.
  8. I'm not actually playing zombies...but the Wrath of Gods. But, I figured my question is mainly mechanical and there seems to be more people posting here so I thought I'd also post it here. So, firstly, I understand how to run a combat but I'm not happy with how it works and want to house-rule it. I'm looking for advice. Here is my problem: The people I'm running the game for have extensive training in a variety of weapons, martial arts and firearms. Now, one of their group has none of the aforementioned skills. He's just a guy who works in an office. With a new game and the point-buy system, everyone is on a fairly even playing field - with the exception of Features, which the trained fighters will use to enjoy extra positive dice. But, if you take player UNTRAINED and pit him against player TRAINED in combat, there is almost no difference in the ability to hit. There may be a 1 point difference in stats and, an extra positive dice but, with a lucky hit, the UNTRAINED character is almost as likely to hit. Example: Trained: skill 3 +1 dice base; + 2 dice (sword) +1 dice (positive feature: Trained swordsman) total dice: 4 positive Untrained: skill 2 +1 dice (base); +2 dice (swords) -1 dice (negative feature: Sedentary job): total dice: 3 positive; 1 negative There is no dodge rules incorporated into the game. A trained, highly skilled martial artist/military trained individual should have a huge advantage over an completely untrained person. I thought about doing all combat as opposed tests, where successes from dodges cancel successes from attacks but, I think that would draw combats out unnecessarily. The solution I'm toying with is this: -The attacker gets +/- dice based on the difference between the defenders stat. Example 1: attacker has a 3; defender has a 2 - Therefore, attacker gets to add 1 positive die to his attack (5 postitive) Example 2: attacker has a 2; defender has a 3 - Therefore, attacker must add 1 negative die to his attack (3 positive; 2 negative) Thoughts? My concern is survivability when fighting some of the bigger beasties in the book and general game balance.
  9. Hi, I'm running the Cthulu scenario and I have some questions about combat. So, firstly, I understand how to run a combat but I'm not happy with how it works and want to house-rule it. I'm looking for advice. Here is my problem: The people I'm running the game for have extensive training in a variety of weapons, martial arts and firearms. Now, one of their group has none of the aforementioned skills. He's just a guy who works in an office. With a new game and the point-buy system, everyone is on a fairly even playing field - with the exception of Features, which the trained fighters will use to enjoy extra positive dice. But, if you take player UNTRAINED and pit him against player TRAINED in combat, there is almost no difference in the ability to hit. There may be a 1 point difference in stats and, an extra positive dice but, with a lucky hit, the UNTRAINED character is almost as likely to hit. Example: Trained: skill 3 +1 dice base; + 2 dice (sword) +1 dice (positive feature: Trained swordsman) total dice: 4 positive Untrained: skill 2 +1 dice (base); +2 dice (swords) -1 dice (negative feature: Sedentary job): total dice: 3 positive; 1 negative There is no dodge rules incorporated into the game. A trained, highly skilled martial artist/military trained individual should have a huge advantage over an completely untrained person. I thought about doing all combat as opposed tests, where successes from dodges cancel successes from attacks but, I think that would draw combats out unnecessarily. The solution I'm toying with is this: -The attacker gets +/- dice based on the difference between the defenders stat. Example 1: attacker has a 3; defender has a 2 - Therefore, attacker gets to add 1 positive die to his attack (5 postitive) Example 2: attacker has a 2; defender has a 3 - Therefore, attacker must add 1 negative die to his attack (3 positive; 2 negative) Thoughts? My concern is survivability when fighting some of the bigger beasties in the book and general game balance.
  10. Based on that answer: Since Heavy weapons generally have the longest range, and pistols have the shortest range, it seems to make sense to make the penalties based on range, since Heavier weapons would be louder and thus be heard from farther away. Add an additional +10 for SA and +20 for FA. Twin-linked would be considered one step higher (Single = SA, SA=FA) How are these for modifiers to awareness: Extreme range +0 Long +10 Regular +20 short+30 Point Blank + 40 So to hear a weapon firing in full auto at point blank would be +60. The silencer would have a -20 to the above modifiers and would halve the range increments for the weapon. The other thing you could do is have individual modifiers based on Weapon Class or type of damage…but that starts to get complicated…
  11. Answer: That will really depend on the weapon, and the GM's call. The –20 would be to the Awareness (Perception) Test that the GM might call for in that situation (which might already be modified due to circumstances, such as already being noisy around the players or them being occupied with doing something else). There aren't any hard rules for hearing the weapon fire though, but we may address that in the update on the errata. Lasweapons do make a loud "crack" sound when they fire, so they really aren't any more quiet than most other weapons and a silencer would indeed be useful. The heavier the weapon, the louder it fires, is a good rule of thumb though, and automatic-fire shots would be louder than a single shot. Tim Huckelbery
  12. @ coolzyg We don't have that problem. Usually we try to make sure all the knowl. areas are covered among the group, but often we'll overlap in case people fail checks. Knowledge checks are used to reveal clues about not only WHAT our foe is, but where, when, how. Failing a check could result in missing whole story arcs for a long time until we get another clue leading us that way. It also results in walking into ambushes and having other nasty stuff happen. Sometimes knowledge lets you know where potential caches are etc… In other words, our GM is evil and we like to stay in the "know". Also, just because your group knows all the fluff, it doesn't mean they know what you have planned. Knowledge skills give clues as to what your adversaries are doing, where they are staging attacks, hiding their loot. It gives PC's a window to see some of the nasty stuff the GM has planned… So, while I like the idea of Knowledge skills giving an edge to the PC's, I don't think it necessarily has to be a mechanical one in combat. Although, if would if they learned where an enemy might be meeting and then staged an ambush….
  13. MILLANDSON said: Perhaps it's worth sending a Rules Question (link at the very bottom of the page) to ask about the normal range for detection? I did. Now we wait.
  14. Saibot said: Apart from that, you can just say that their allies can destroy/distract one enemy horde or group of somewhat equal foes each combat. For example, you have the PCs, their CSM allies and they fight many loyalist SM, then the player's CSM would take out an equal number of loyalist SM right out of the fight. Just like that. Apart from that, you just fight as if the CSM and "distracted" loyalist SM would not even be there, just describing their fight "in the background" in narrative terms. I like this method. Then you do a few rolls every now and then to see how well they're doing, how many losses they take, taking into consideration any Command roles/powers the PC's used.
  15. Aldares said: So, if I get it: Critical wounds are a second threshold, and assuming the player is still alive with the effects, he can take 1 wound up to 10 times on any location no matter the type of damage? And if a player with 3 wounds takes 13+ damage he is killed (unless he has True Grit)? And the only effect to apply is the total value of the critical wounds, so it is better to take one 3 wounds shot than taking 3 times one wound? If he took one 3 wounds he'd only suffer the effects of crit 3 on the table. But if he took 1 critical wound 3 times, he'd suffer the effects of crit 1, for the first hit, then the effects of crit 2 for the second, then the effects of crit 3 for the 3rd hit. So yeah, getting hit once is better than getting hit 3 times.
×
×
  • Create New...