Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Lancer999

House Rules

195 posts in this topic

My gamers are abusing Aim Aim Shoot. I'm tired of it. Honestly, I think they are too, but Aim Aim Shoot is just too good. I want to make Aim cost 1 strain, so if you want to Aim Aim Shoot, that's 4 strain you just took. Orrrr maybe I should just have a talk with my gamers, and tell them winning isn't everything, and please do cool things when I draw all these cool maps and they just stand in place and aim aim shoot.

 

What do you guys think?

They must not have much else they are spending Strain on.  I use AX2 in fights but at times have to cool it because of Strain issues.  Not sure what constitutes abusing it though in your opinion.  Seems like if you start imposing too many contrivances to discourage it constantly you're kind of abusing the rules too don't you think? Without details of encounters I can't really say one way or another honestly.

Edited by 2P51
Ranger1060 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably shouldn't have said "abusing", and should have said "cheesing/spamming". I'll throw in about 40% combat, and they still just spam it. I also failed to mention that I've already been taking their strain from other sources, as suggested. They can't always do a double aim, similar to P251's post, but when they feel like their strain is lowering, they do single aim instead.

 

I guess I do have to have the chat with them. I mean, what's the point of playing fun combat if the players aren't going to make it fun?

 

One of the players is an exception to this though. He's doing just fine, not spamming X2 Aim as nearly as much. I kind of want to reward that style of play, but he's not always successful as X2 aim is. Maybe reducing the house rule nerf so that it's just 1 strain for the first aim?

 

There's the three main approaches to a player problem like this: 1. Resolve the problem out of game. 2. Correct the problem with in-game situations. 3. House rule. I'm thinking this could be a good situation where the house rule is merited, and everyone can stand to benefit from it.

Edited by hencook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to encourage more dramatic narrative I wouldn't do that with punitive actions because no one likes getting smacked.  I would instead use the carrot and not the stick. Have someone do the ol 'jump through the air shooting two pistols at once while diving behind cover' and give them an Aim and an Upgrade for cinematic flair. How about the no handed cartwheel while firing move?  Running off the wall firing, ala Matrix?  Our Marauder did the 'leap from the catwalk double handed over head vibro axe chop' and the GM gave him bonuses for the cinematic combat move.  The 'aim' shouldn't be to penalize players for using a maneuver that both works mechanically, as well as, makes perfect realistic sense (aiming guns makes them more accurate) it should be to reward dramatic cinematic combat moves in a similar fashion.  Just my opinion.

Edited by 2P51
kaosoe, Ranger1060 and iandimitri like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hit them where it hurts = XP.  If they are not doing anything interesting they get crap xp, the minimum.  If they start doing exciting things they get more xp.  Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40% doesn't sound too bad. My players use it about as often as that and it doesn't seem a problem. I ran an AoR beta game a few months ago. I had a player who rolled a gunner/sharpshooter with 2 ranks in True Aim. When he double aimed he got to upgrade twice as well as get his 2 boost die, that's a bit more frustrating.

2P51 and willmanx like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.

 

I run a really unconventional game, in that I'm not using the Starwars Setting, I'm doin a weird SciFi Mashup thing.

 

Here's my current working list:

 

Custom List of Races

(Pulled from a variety of SciFi sources).

Custom List of Equipment

(Mostly comprehensive, but slug-guns are arguably as good as energy weapons, just different, and there are some stun-only weapons as well).

Custom List of Vehicles

Mostly terrestrial vehicles, slying vessels are uncommon, hyperdrives are very uncommon. Travel is mostly by stargate.

 

Core Worlds/Outer Rim are now Civilized Cultures/Uncivilized Cultures.

Finesse Melee Skill is a thing (its what's used for Lightsabers, Lightfoils, Whips, Rapiers, etc.)

Pilot Terrestrial and Pilot Space are now Drive and Pilot. Drive covers Land/Sea craft, Pilot covers Air/Spacecraft.

 

Character Creation: Characters start with 5k credits worth of stuff, and the group starts with 20k in vehicles; and The "Base" XP is only for attributes. Players then get a 100xp headstart, with which they buy skills and talents and whatnot, but can buy no skills above 4.

 

Disengaging from melee: In addition to the usual maneuver to disengage from melee, you can spend an additional maneuver to disengage safely. if you don't, your opponents (so long as their melee/finesse/brawl is at least rank 2 and they're not using an improvised weapon) can preemptively use a maneuver from their next turn to get a free attack on you now. If they hit and either do damage or trigger a quality (for weapons that dont do damage) you take the hit, and fail to disengage. If you still have an action, you can try to use the action still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also using the the house rules for astrogation posted by FreeXenon

 

and the following for the fly / drive maneuver

 

FLY / DRIVE

Pilot Only: Yes

Silhouette: Any

Speed: Any

This starship maneuver reflects the simple act of moving the ship or vehicle closer or further away from something at its current speed. The number of starship maneuvers required for a ship or vehicle to move through a given number of range bands is dependent on its speed. It is important to remember that range is based on the moving ship's perspective, ant is not a measure of actual physical distance.

 

  Moving between one range band and the next always takes two maneuvers with the following exceptions:

Speed 0: The ship or vehicle is not moving and cannot use this starship maneuver until it accelerates.

Speed 1: One starship maneuver to move within Close range of a target or object.

Speed 2: As Speed 1, plus one starship maneuver to move from Close ↔ Short range

Speed 3: As Speed 1, plus one starship maneuver to move from Close ↔ Short and Short ↔ Medium

Speed 4: As Speed 1, plus one starship maneuver to move from Close ↔ Medium range

Speed 5: As Speed 1, plus one starship maneuver to move from Close ↔ Medium and Medium ↔ Long

Speed 6: As Speed 1, plus one starship maneuver to move from Close ↔ Medium and Medium ↔ Extreme

Edited by Yepesnopes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since force users are all but extinct,i allow force powers to be upgraded at a rate of 1 upgrade per two scenarios,with the expenditure of xp as normal.So if the character has all three force powers,they must choose which force power they will spend the xp on to upgrade once.This takes longer to really master force powers,as it should be.(This may change once the Force and Destiny rule book is released next year.)

2P51 and kaosoe like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UPDATE

 

- Lightsaber: Breach X (Can bypass anything not-based on energy).

- No use of "Cortosis" because seems that doesn't exist in Canon any non-energy saber resistant material.

- Separated Vehicle (or light armoured) and Starship (or heavy armoured) scale. x5 and x10. We are still looking for "possible bugs".

- We decided to let several Force Commits to use and stack.

- Character creation based on NPC constructions called "Pick what you need to build up your char".

 

Tests and future houserules:

 

- Also we are considering that shields gives also Soak or Armor. We are still studying it.

- Again we are considering to use the active combat skill as Defense or another similar is substract active combat skill and add it to Defense.

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have decided to change the Limited Ammo ranks on concussion missile launchers and proton torpedoes.added through Upgraded Weapons. Currently, both have Limited Ammo 3 which seems really low to me. The text says that proton torpedoes are larger and that fewer are carried, so I am going with this:

 

Concussion Missile Launcher: Limited Ammo 6 (Mods: 2 Limited Ammo +3 Mods)

Proton Torpedo Launcher: Limited Ammo 4 (Mods: 2 Limited Ammo +2 Mods)

Josep Maria likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, I almost forgot to mention that I only allow launchers in forward or aft launchers (with the corresponding Firing Arc). Turret-mounting launchers on small starships doesn't seem appropriate for Star Wars.

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just asking, I don't remember it Happy, in Clone Wars there isn't any ship/droid/vehicle with rotating missile launchers?

I'm not very familiar with Clone Wars. I'm also not too concerned with non-starship vehicles having turret-mounted launchers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And we can't make them Rapid Fire?? :)

In my own games, I've still ruled that the YV-929's launchers have Slow-Firing 1, and I won't be allowing rapid-firing launchers.

Lancer999 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another houserule that we are considerating.

 

He have discarded Hyperdrive class and backup hyperdrive and added Lightsyears max distance jump. We are still investigating about it. Our speed is "plot speed" XD If ever appears a clear reference on canon, maybe will change it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auto-Fire and all things related.  Curious what others are doing or considering.  My GM and I had a conversation and knocked about some ideas for reining it in a bit so it doesn't unbalance things.  I was curious about what else others have done.  These are what we are considering although haven't implemented anything in particular yet.

 

-No Jury Rigging to lower the Advantages needed to trigger the effect.  This one is pretty much a done deal in my GMs eyes.

 

-Hard cap on the number of AutoFire shots allowed per burst with number TBD.

 

-AutoFire rating similar to a linked rating, allowing for variation to the hard cap rule and possibly the option to mod it.

 

-Setting default Difficulty at the multiple target level for all AutoFire attacks, so +2 Difficulty.

 

-Scaling Advantage requirement upward similar to increasing attributes, so for example, the second shot would occur with '2' Advantages, the '3rd' would require 3 Advantages, the '4th' would be 4, and so on.

 

We haven't play tested anything yet and I'm curious what other ideas anybody might be considering or have implemented.

Ranger1060 and willmanx like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

-Scaling Advantage requirement upward similar to increasing attributes, so for example, the second shot would occur with '2' Advantages, the '3rd' would require 3 Advantages, the '4th' would be 4, and so on.

 

This one looks great - I'll consider using it in our games.

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my players is a melee focused droid with an intense love of dueling (he used to be a gladiator). The fact that most adversaries don't have much in the way of defensive talents made us rethink how melee difficulty checks work. That, and he also thinks that his four ranks in melee should in some way affect the difficulty of someone striking him with a sword. So we came up with this rule:

If a target is wielding a melee weapon, then attacks against that target made with a melee weapon use the target's melee skill as the difficulty for their attack check. Essentially it's an opposed melee check, and failure just means that the attack failed. Defense Ratings still factor in.

It's made duels with Nemeses much more interesting, as the first person to strike doesn't automatically win because of the minimal difficulty of a melee check. Also it's led to my player finding interesting ways to disarm his opponents so that the melee difficulty drops to the default two purples. He's make sunder checks and trying to shoot vibro-knives out of peoples' hands- it's awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my players is a melee focused droid with an intense love of dueling (he used to be a gladiator). The fact that most adversaries don't have much in the way of defensive talents made us rethink how melee difficulty checks work. That, and he also thinks that his four ranks in melee should in some way affect the difficulty of someone striking him with a sword. So we came up with this rule:

If a target is wielding a melee weapon, then attacks against that target made with a melee weapon use the target's melee skill as the difficulty for their attack check. Essentially it's an opposed melee check, and failure just means that the attack failed. Defense Ratings still factor in.

It's made duels with Nemeses much more interesting, as the first person to strike doesn't automatically win because of the minimal difficulty of a melee check. Also it's led to my player finding interesting ways to disarm his opponents so that the melee difficulty drops to the default two purples. He's make sunder checks and trying to shoot vibro-knives out of peoples' hands- it's awesome.

So basically it is like the defender is parrying with his melee weapon, right?

Josep Maria likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making Brawl/Melee opposed means that ranged weapons become the preferred hand-to-hand weapons. Why would I try to mix it up against a resisted check when I can shoot them with Difficulty 2 (or Difficulty 1 if I spend a single maneuver to step out of melee)? Besides, for most characters, a good blaster does better damage too.

Josep Maria likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Auto-Fire and all things related.  Curious what others are doing or considering.  My GM and I had a conversation and knocked about some ideas for reining it in a bit so it doesn't unbalance things.  I was curious about what else others have done.  These are what we are considering although haven't implemented anything in particular yet.

 

-No Jury Rigging to lower the Advantages needed to trigger the effect.  This one is pretty much a done deal in my GMs eyes.

 

-Hard cap on the number of AutoFire shots allowed per burst with number TBD.

 

-AutoFire rating similar to a linked rating, allowing for variation to the hard cap rule and possibly the option to mod it.

 

-Setting default Difficulty at the multiple target level for all AutoFire attacks, so +2 Difficulty.

 

-Scaling Advantage requirement upward similar to increasing attributes, so for example, the second shot would occur with '2' Advantages, the '3rd' would require 3 Advantages, the '4th' would be 4, and so on.

 

We haven't play tested anything yet and I'm curious what other ideas anybody might be considering or have implemented.

If the players weren't as understanding as you were, I could see where these rules could rub them the wrong way, but it sounds like this won't be a problem for your group. I'm curious to see how these rules turn out. Keep us posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2P51,

Interesting list of options for further nerfing auto-fire.

 

On the "hard cap on # of extra hits", I'm thinking a good guideline would be 1 + number of skill ranks.  This way, someone that's really good with heavy weapons is going to be able to make those extra shots count.

 

I think between that and disallowing Jury-Rigged to reduce the advantage cost of Auto-fire, it should help reduce the issues that your table has with Auto-fire while not over-complicating matters.

willmanx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0