Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MyriadPro

Dealing with Too Much Soak

Recommended Posts

Everybody wants to be Chuck Norris... just for one day.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3Yc0OESVEQI

I was never a Chuck fan, I preferred Clint and da Schwarzenegger... but to each their own :)

 

In any case, not to get too far OT I don't remember seeing any of these guys in any of the SW films or anything quite like these types of moments. The SW films have a somewhat different feel to them then Spaghetti Westerns and 80's Action Hero films, there are heroic action scenes but without quite that over the top feel. The only scene I can think of is* maybe when Luke confronts Jabba in ROJ warning things will go bad for him if he doesn't let Han and Leia go, but then he gets dropped into the Rancor pit. Even when he does go off later on the air yachts it's still a bit frantic and you're not a 100% sure it's going to work out perfect. Not quite the same pay off as Chuck gunning down everyone in sight.

The Star Wars films are heroic, magical fantasies but they're still firmly placed in the real world as far as actions and consequences go. This IMO is what makes them so exciting, the bad guys will get their comeuppance but it's always touch and go for the heroes and every triumph comes with a sacrifice. I think if you loose this, if you go the Action Hero (al la Chuck & da Schwartz) or even too far into the Clint style you loose something of the SW feel, it's charm. Those guy's films had a lot of great things but they were never charming (Okay Kindergarten Cop was a little charming...).

 

 

*Edit: Okay maybe also one of Samuel Jackson's scenes in the Prequels but that's not going to win me over since I thought those films sucked...

Edited by FuriousGreg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

[Grabs Shakespearian_Soldier by the lapels]

We haven't saved in three hours.

 

Holy Baby Jesus and the Orphans! We gotta save this **** adventure! The fate the [fictional] world as we [the forums] know it depends on it!

 

I'm telling you, I got this!

 

07.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that you don't want to use a Rancor on him, but ... with the reputation that he should be building from his encounters, one of these times when he lands on a planet and asks if there is an Pit Fighting Arena, let his Reputation Precede him and if he doesn't pay close enough attention to the fine print of the contract that he signs to fight in said arena, put him against a Rancor. Hit him in his max WITH his Min.

Don't kill him, just let it wail on him until he has a couple of critical injuries (maybe one that temporarily or permanently reduces his brawn by 1). You can be all kinds of numbers beyond your would threshold and still be alive.

As long as you don't kill him and he isn't permanently maimed, he will have a story to tell later about how he once fought a Rancor and survived (conveniently leaving out the fact the he didn't beat it, it was called off).

Now if he manages to kill the Rancor (soak 12, Wounds 40), then you've got a whole different problem.

 

Let me know how it works out, because I am probably going to be facing this same problem in a few months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My answer to the original question is that the error is allowing the player to define the win condition. They have built a character with the implicit assumption that 'beating enemy in a fight' means victory. Realistically this is not the case. People seldom just fight for no reason. They're trying to gain control of something or get something or stop an enemy from doing something.

You should be defining victory in any scenario as some goal other than simply winning the combat. That's both much more fun and has greater realism. You can even win a fight and still lose. Imagine your task is to stop the Imperials killing the senator you're guarding. Do you think Anakin would be going "Yay! We won!" if Padme was shot? Imagine you're trying to stop them deactivating a force field or from escorting the person you're trying to capture away? Melee then becomes one way of achieving goals, not the victory condition. It's perfectly possible to be the strongest participant in a war or battle and for it to still be a disaster for you. Look at just about any war the US has started in the last twenty years. Scenes in which beating your opponents in a fight is the goal in and of itself, should be the exception not the rule.

Don't take on the players own assumptions or you'll never get out of the trap of players "winning" all the time. When you're trying to help the Bothans get off the Star Destroyer then melee is just one approach that your Marauder is likely to be focusing on. The other players will be finding their own solutions that fit their talents and the problem you are having will suddenly be much smaller.

Always remember what the purpose of a fight is. And if there isn't one, then the opponents should nine times out of ten not be fighting. And if there isn't one, then the players beating them accomplishes almost nothing anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I might do with this guy is make a Wookiee Nemesis who hates him for some reason. (Since he's a Trandoshan it's not a big stretch either). Let him go toe to toe with something that hits as hard as he does and is as tough as he is. Make this a recurring villain and you're good to go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that you don't have to challenge the guy in combat at all.  Challenge the others in combat.  Challenge the Super Soakers with social situations.  There are too many threads about how to deal with combat monsters .   Let those guys shine in combat.   Just make sure you let the other characters shine elsewhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that you don't have to challenge the guy in combat at all.  Challenge the others in combat.  Challenge the Super Soakers with social situations.  There are too many threads about how to deal with combat monsters .   Let those guys shine in combat.   Just make sure you let the other characters shine elsewhere. 

 

I agree in theory, but do they shine when (for them) combat's a cakewalk, or when they overcome outrageous odds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Signature Abilities are set up so Marauders and Mercenaries overcome outrageous odds.  Even if you don't use those abilities, there should be characters that will become of the same power level as Jedi.   If you are wanting a game that is more gritty then you will have to House Rule and restrict the drek out of the game.   Think about the Heavy.  They are designed to be a walking weapon platform.  If you don't want them in your game you might as well restrict the whole Hired Guns career because those guys are going to be very powerful and they were designed to be so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Signature Abilities are set up so Marauders and Mercenaries overcome outrageous odds.

 

Even if you don't use those abilities, there should be characters that will become of the same power level as Jedi.

 

Think about the Heavy.  They are designed to be a walking weapon platform.  If you don't want them in your game you might as well restrict the whole Hired Guns career because those guys are going to be very powerful and they were designed to be so.

 

I think that's why I don't like the minion killin' SA.  If a single dice roll and a destiny point is enough to leave you with a fight where you now significantly outnumber your enemies, it doesn't sound like you've "overcome outrageous odds" to me.  I guess the sense of achievement I feel has always been directly proportional to the difficulty of, um, achieving something.

(It actually sounds like something I'd take if I hated combat.  Like, "This is so dull - any way we can speed this up and get back to the adventure?")

 

Hired Guns attaining Jedi Guardian-level badassery? - absolutely.  If Jedi were unbeatable except by other Jedi it'd make the Star Wars universe that much less varied.  I certainly hope the Jedi Specs aren't overpowered compared to EotE/AoR stuff.

 

Player choice is very important to me (I'm more often a player than a GM, to be honest).  I don't think I'd ever stop someone taking a Spec, but I'd feel obligated to warn them if I thought a game wasn't going to make full use of their choice.

"Yeah, you can play a heavy.  But heavy weapons are Restricted.  If you choose to use them you will draw a lot of attention to yourself - local "police", the military, bounties placed on your head (probably dead or alive, too, given how dangerous you'll be)."

If they went ahead, fine.  If the game changed from desperate criminals trying to stay one step ahead of the law to The Expendables - and the other players were okay with that - I'd be fine with that, too.  If they were happy to play the confident guy who breaks out the hardware when everything goes to hell, I'd be fine with that, too.

Edited by Col. Orange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sort of the opposite problem,

 

My DM whom proports to be fair and give any and all characters a chance to shine....just seems to go out of his way to always give us a fight.

 

I've called him out on there always being a fight even when we're actively trying to avoid one the last few games.

 

As such my fellow players are going out of their way and having almost every character be some form of soak monster, from using lots of Enduring and/or Superiored Power Armor and Brawn 5/6 min.

 

But the reason why this is happening is that in our last three play sessions we've come across groups, and by groups I mean our first encounter was 2 groups of 4 with us being a party of 5, of Cyborg Rivals who are wielding Cyberweaponed Disruptor pistols, plus 40 criticals just got one of our party members killed this past sessions. -_-

 

I mean what can we do?

 

edit: basically what can i say to try to change the tone of the game without pissing him off or offending him.

Edited by Venters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build pacifists.  Nothing but pacifists.  Every week he'll martyr the PCs and every week your doctors and scholars and slicers will return with different names - fragile yet immortal.  And after around the ninth time you can ask, "Are we allowed to have fun yet?"

(See this response is why I'm sometimes accused of being passive-aggressive.)

 

 

Seriously, it sounds like you've had a word with him by yourself (which is cool - you're friends, so you don't want to try and shame the guy), but if he's unwilling to change based on your friendly chat, it's time to talk as a group.  Not to him - with him.  And not about him - about the game.  (Sounds like you know that.  ;))

At the start or end of a session ask everyone if they think there's too much combat.  Bring up the elements you'd like to see more of (trickery and social engineering, stealth and sneakiness, puzzle-solving and tech savvy - whatever) and ask everyone what they enjoy (use examples from your GM's game where you can).  Talk about the tone of the game - does this feel like any of the films?  (I don't know the context of the cyborg death squad, but it sounds more Warhammer 40k than Star Wars, to be honest.)

Be prepared to compromise, obviously.  It's his game too, so the elements he enjoys need to be present as well.  There's a balance to be struck that'll leave everyone happy.

Edited by Col. Orange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like he would rather be playing another RPG.  You could always suggest a game system/genre more suited to primarily combat.

This system works fine for running combat focused games. The trick is having everybody at the table wanting the same kind of game. As long as everybody has the same expectations, all will work out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Build pacifists.  Nothing but pacifists.  Every week he'll martyr the PCs and every week your doctors and scholars and slicers will return with different names - fragile yet immortal.  And after around the ninth time you can ask, "Are we allowed to have fun yet?"

(See this response is why I'm sometimes accused of being passive-aggressive.)

Shouldn't that be pacifist-aggressive in this case?

Sorry - really, sorry. I couldn't help it. :)

 

Seriously, it sounds like you've had a word with him by yourself (which is cool - you're friends, so you don't want to try and shame the guy), but if he's unwilling to change based on your friendly chat, it's time to talk as a group.  Not to him - with him.  And not about him - about the game.  (Sounds like you know that.  ;))

At the start or end of a session ask everyone if they think there's too much combat.  Bring up the elements you'd like to see more of (trickery and social engineering, stealth and sneakiness, puzzle-solving and tech savvy - whatever) and ask everyone what they enjoy (use examples from your GM's game where you can).  Talk about the tone of the game - does this feel like any of the films?  (I don't know the context of the cyborg death squad, but it sounds more Warhammer 40k than Star Wars, to be honest.)

Be prepared to compromise, obviously.  It's his game too, so the elements he enjoys need to be present as well.  There's a balance to be struck that'll leave everyone happy.

Actually, respectfully I'm going to disagree here. The reason being that whilst some people are able to handle everyone suddenly bringing complaints to them, for many people it makes them feel like they're being turned on by a group, ganged up on, and generally to feel bad / act defensively. A co-ordinated response from the players is good, but perhaps individual approaches saying essentially: "we don't want to have to make combat-optimized characters, we'd like to be broader, but we feel we wont survive in your game if we don't min-max everything".

Note there are other reasons why a GM might be putting all this in the game than them enjoying combat. For example, in my Shadowrun games there was frequently some horrifying opposition. The reason wasn't because I wanted to over-match the players or run a meat-grinder. It was because that was the opposition I felt was realistic for a given scenario. My D&D-background players constantly wondered why I was throwing all this horrendous opposition at them. Whilst on my side of the screen, I kept wondering why on Earth they'd go crashing into a secure corporate facility without preparation. Eventually they realized that, figuratively speaking, the dragon lived on the mountain whether they went to the mountain or not, and that they were actually in control of whether they wanted to face it. (To a degree, at least). Perhaps your GM is like that - simply constrained by what they think is appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, first post for me:

 

I've actually just started my first game of EotE, and we have a player who has a very similar build, Trandoshan tank (though I only know that he is a Hired Gun, not his spec). One of the ways that our GM really challenged him was by incorporating skills into combat in ways that allowed him to tank all he liked, while giving other characters (like mine) who are skill-based to still contribute.

 

One encounter in this campaign had us stumble upon a damaged, but hostile, assassin droid. Until this point, the Trandoshan had been the stereotypical "Let me hit it!" style, and still got to do that for this battle, but he hurt for it. Though he could not destroy the droid (who had been crippled by several reds and blacks), he played distraction while my droid stealth-slicer hacked and shutdown the droid from behind. It was a great time because we had to balance the combat between strength and skill, and so it was very memorable.

 

Just a thought, but it would be a fun type of fight to bring to your Trandoshan tank. Maybe he has to hold off a (perhaps weakened) rancor or acklay while his allies hack into a terminal for a gate, or clear a path through a host of enemies. Heck, maybe even push him to use the "Trandoshan Smash!" philosophy by making the creature plow into and cut down the other enemies. It makes for a good opportunity to explore other avenues of roleplaying for him, while keeping the focus on tanking. That way, you push him to where you would like him to be in the party, whilst letting everyone (including you) allow the story to develop under their own power.

 

That said, I am no GM (though I am considering trying it out this summer), but it is just some nice food for thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...