Jump to content

taegins

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About taegins

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/19/1992

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bellingham
  1. Well, I'm still tweaking how I'd run it in the future, and i guess i was a little sheepish in the explination of my ideas. Basically I counted all, or at the least most, skills as being able to be team-worked. instead of just a few. I also started the upgrade process from the level of their baseline. So, for example, if the single rival had two ranks of brawl and brawn 4, and it was a group of three of them, the roll was YYGG from the base line, and then upgraded to YYYY from the two extra people. I was thinking a triumph could be used to have the attack go again at YYYG, to simulate another hit getting in but this didn't come up in the game. I did combine the hits the group received into the segmented WT like Minion Groups. I also rolled crits, and had them apply to the whole group, rather than marked to a single individual. I'm still considering how to handle talents. Should lethal blows for example simply work for the group, or should that stack as the group works together? One could just as accurately say that I am simply using stronger, slightly changed, minion groups. The stat blocks I started from during the customization were Rivals, which led me to call them "Rival Groups" here. Part of the point, for me at least, is to have a quick way to convert given stats into usable adversaries, letting me get more mileage out of the given resources that I have already computerized for myself. Additionally, its nice for my players not to know whether the 'group of XXXXX' is a minion group or something stronger before they engage. Of course I could change my narrative style, and I try to do so often, but this helps cover the slip ups.I think the idea could even work well with Nems at a high enough level of PC's. Let them come up against a crack squad of dangerous foes that function ridiculously well as a team or some such. To answer invictus, it actually made book keeping much easier. rather than having 9 slots for different rivals I had three, that I tracked as one. It made my life easier than keeping up on all of them, but still lasted a little longer than cardboard minions do. Again, the purpose of this idea, for me, was never to replace minions, just to add a little insecurity to my players minds, and give me as the gm another option to roll out from tie to time.
  2. Recently I've been thinking of some experimental things to add for unorthodox combat situations. To often I find that my players try to play the elimination game against opponents that I have added with the intention to rush players along/add tension and excitement to otherwise dull check rolls. Sure this is a fun and great method for the final battle, but when the point of an encounter is to hack into the mainframe to get data because the players know going against the full might of (insert villain's name here) is suicidal, I find that I am either forced to leave a few players hanging as the scene plays out for the slicer/stealth guy, or get tugged into a combat situation where the fighters methodically eliminate every minion before the other players try to move on to their task. There are a couple solutions I have thought up to add a surprise that jostles the players out of their tactical habits narrativly. The first one is Rival groups. The point of these is simply to scare the PC's without putting the part at risk of a TPW. What i did last week was Introduce a large number of weak rivals, and run them as minions with a few key changes. The first was to not insta-kill on crits. the second my marauder's vibro-great sword DIDN'T cleave the head off his enemy instantly, he panicked, and started to think out of the box. Now, the PCs could have fairly easily dealt with the group presented before them. But this small change got them back into the story, and gave them a reason to think that they don't quite have have me figured out. I talk abut this with one necessary understanding. This is something that should only be done rarely. It should be used sparingly because if the players ever decide to lay into the rivals, they will 1). learn they can still beat them bloody in combat, and 2) the combat will take longer ( the lack of inst kills) and the Critical hit becomes devalued. Even understanding this I welcome feedback and criticism. as well as other ideas for this kind of unorthodox combat situation.
  3. An option I have used to keep everyone involved is splitting up initiative rolls. If a player rolls the highest initiative they get first choice as to if they want to use it. If they desire they can offer up their slot for a group choice of pc, but they always get over ride for their slot when they roll. It won't make the mêlée character get ALL the glory, but it allows them to take some when it works for the story.
  4. The way I see the source books is that you have the career books and then source books that connect to the core book they are associated with. Edge of the empire needs more room for your freelancers to roam, hence setting books. Age of rebellion needs more information the civil war that's going on, so we get rebel bases and strong holds first, and I'm guessing the next will be empire strongholds and presences. The question then becomes how Force and destiny could be advanced. This makes me think that a 'sith histories and ruins' style book could be possible. And then a book focusing on Jedi training/ temples and history. after all this we might get something akin to a "Star Wars Legacies" Series, winch would help play happen in the old republic(force and destiny connection) Clone wars (Age of Rebellion Connection) and ... well I'm struggling to find a edge of the empire legacy option...
  5. The aim rule does specifically mention that you can do this for two setbacks. Is there a reason you prefer this change? Thanks!
  6. What about Crits though. I'm away from Book and my players and I tend to avoid, for now, the auto-fire guns because of ow they stick out like a sore thumb on sneak/urban/smuggler missions, which my campaign runs. It seems to me that The gunslinger has Lethal Blows because with the tree you can throw around Crits like Crazy to kill mooks or aim for a knock out on a protected Nemesis (who is using squad rules).
  7. I understand the want to have a great character, and am not in any way trying to critique you personally. But this sort of outlook can, in a general and not-being-applied-to-you sense, be really frustrating to see as a GM. Min/max ing IS a right wrong thing if it goes beyond your GM's ability to believably deal with it. Players have a responsibility to the game and more importantly the group just as much as the GM does. If I, as a player, noticed I was causing the GM issues with my play style, or inhibiting other players from having fun, its really important that I then stop acting/building in the manner that I am, even if that means specifically building a less min/maxed character than I am used to or would ideally play. this is why I warn my players before a game starts that 1- everyone else at the table matters equally and even my (as the GM) fun and enjoyment needs to be taken into account, and 2- i am not opposed to kill characters specifically because thier play is hurting group dynamic. If another player complains to me, talks to the person at fault, and nothing changes. that Character will die the next session (usually in a fun/epic way instead of a 'you fell and tripped of a cliff' way)
  8. Other considerations are what kind of campaign you GM is running. If your fighting the Empire tooth and nail in battle scenes, i would sugest AOR as the starting point. If the campaign starts with a lot of smuggling and running stuff for the Hutts, then i would choose a starting point in EotE
  9. Well, my first thought would be that a hit on a specifically aimed for part of a target would deal damage, and an effect to that target. so aiming for a leg gets you damage plus loss of a free maneuver the next round (or some other such narrative based result). If you aim hit, AND have the advantages to crit i could see not rolling and just applying the crit that makes sense. you Aim for the eye, hit, and get advantages you spend on crit, THEN as a GM i blind him. (plus damage)
  10. that is a long list my friend. For a first Campaign i would suggest just using a ship, as it allows more flexibility for you as a GM. if you decide to do it all in one system or on one planet their docked ship can act as their living quarters....like a mobile home. I would also advise a one session test game where you hit a little of each skill. probe the weaknesses of the party and figure out what they can handle before you do a whole lot of work that may need to be redone or scratched after either a tpw or they prance through unscathed. this can be the last of the session zero day, and can let you introduce a face NPC or two that you will use in any case or decision from the rest. other than that, sounds great and Have fun!
  11. THIS!!! I understand the desire to let a check be rolled again, but this comes with a few negative symptoms. Firstly, it devalues the intensity of a check. The way I see it, when I'm playing, i want to hang on every roll. Be at the edge of my seat as the dice bounce and tumble. I succeed, or I fail that action in that moment. As a GM I view it as part of the consequences of actions, if you want to try something you can, but you have to live with the result. Each roll means less to the player if they think they will get another chance at it. The second issue that can come from re-checks is that it can make room for misunderstanding of the narrative system of the Game. these checks don't represent a single feeble attempt. they represent the totality of the actions the player will or can use. Trying to unlack a door? the check isn't a single tap on the lock pick (or lock breaker) its a few minutes worth of tinkering. The social checks are the same. Narrativly that check represents whether or not the NPC is effected by anything the characters throw at her/him for that encounter. Unless your players are okay with multiple charm/coercion checks being made against them it gives the players the wrong idea of what their characters are in the universe. Even combat isn't done in single action. each roll is 1-5 minutes of action and fighting. of course all this is completely Subjective. its just my take. My alternative would be to not tel them how the result effects the action, but to instead respond in character. either really fearful and lying (to afraid) or stoic and unconcerned (calling their bluff). I wouldn't;t call for another roll until the situation was significantly altered; they shot him in the leg and shoulder and he is bleeding onto the ground, they talked him down from hysteria with charm checks, they knock him out and try again more leverage. also remember that you don;t need to have them roll if you want the direction to take a certain direction, you can let it roleplay out organically if you like the direction of the conversation.
  12. Yep, one of the selling points of Casual was an astrogation chart.
  13. Yeah, it was. I guess the post's title could have been a little more accurate. Sorry about that. But I did mention like 90% of the Gunslinger talent tree, so its not entirerly inaccurate. I was just talking to a friend about the grenade possibility, the only issue i see is the need for a massive amount of advantages to get everything going. Two to activate the second Grenade, and four to have both Blast. I guess this would make a GREAT combo with the Demolitionist Tree, as Grenadier could help reduce that issue.
  14. As a GM, my first thought is that My Nemesis would be super powerful. 2 Adversary, HA. At that level of Exp my Combat Nem is going to run with a min of four Adversary, as well as some defensive talents (dodge, side step). Or perhaps you give the guy stealth out the Wazoo. First round *poof* the Nem is invisible, suspended from the ceiling, and Drawing a nasty Disruptor rifle that complements his 5 levels of Lethal Blows. If the player(s) wants to actually build something like this and use it, I don't stop short of escalation. If the Player(s) have fun, build clever and creatively powerful, but narrative based characters, the foes stay similar, deviously and strangely powerful, but narrative based
  15. Interesting note about Minions. I've found them essential in my games DMing. Instead of throwing them out, i tend to just make them a little tougher/stronger. Just Curios, whats your party built of?
×
×
  • Create New...