Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2012 15:05:51 GMT -5
...and now for my next annoying interesting discussion! this isn't specifically concerned with TFT or LAW. most rpgs assumes that a turn/round is about 6 seconds and have come up with some 'attack of opportunity' rules that i don't like. what if turns were only 3 seconds and, in the case of LAW, MA was DX / 5? at those rates, anything that can 'zoom' past or around you in one turn is just way too fast for you hit. how crazy is this idea? potential problems? opinions, comments? (i'm not suggesting changing LAW. this would be for a different but similar system.)
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jun 14, 2012 13:00:09 GMT -5
Hey, ewookie,
I think that would slow the game to a literal crawl. A DX12 warrior in chainmail and a small shiled has an adjusted DX of 9, so now his move is 4. If you divide by 5, you get a move of 1, or 2 if you round up. In that latter case, just about every warrior would have a move of 2. It would take forever to cross our standard 16 hex map to get at archers. I think that is the biggest problem, making archers way more powerful, but also this cuts down on any tactics that might rely on mobility - nobody would have a speed of more than three, if that.
Just my first thoughts.
Bret
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 13:19:13 GMT -5
yeah, i thought about the archer bit. that is the only thing that would bother me. to solve, i would make bows take 1 turn to load, 1 turn to fire; crossbows 2 turns to load, 1 turn to fire or maybe change the divisor...maybe 4 instead.
edit1: i picked 5 exactly to make starting characters move 2 but forgot about armor. so, i would definitely go with dividing by 4 instead.
edit2: not sure how significant it is in this scheme, but i was also thinking that you either move or take action but not both in one turn.
as far as moving across the 16 hex map, you really only do that in encounters. it would make them 'last a little longer' upfront (before melee began). i'm ok with that.
|
|
|
Post by gigglestick on Jun 14, 2012 15:17:05 GMT -5
1) I agree that this would slow the game to a crawl.
2) It adds more math and fiddly numbers.
3) More rules = less fun most of the time. TFT/LAW was never intended to simulate a real battle...even less so than things like D&D or WOD. It evolved from a tactical boardgame.
If you've ever played GURPS with its one second combat rounds, you probably had fun...and the combats took all day...
And move OR act truely slows the game down and would make it into even more of a boardgame and less of a RPG.
I see some of your point, but I think that, if anything, there needs to be quicker combat.
But that's just my 2 cp...
|
|
|
Post by klingor on Jun 14, 2012 17:58:31 GMT -5
Keep it simple. My approach (based on TFT/ITL) is (and I use it whenever I play a DCG game) 1) Side A with init moves and declares options for each character 2) Side B without init then moves, subject to any restrictions imposed by side A's movements. 3) Combat is then resolved in order of decreasing Adj Dx irrespective of side unless there is a tie, in which case the character with init goes first. This keeps it tight, without the granularity that slows the game up. After all, some poor sod has to keep track of all this (the GM). Make it easier for them. Cheers Colin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 19:30:43 GMT -5
hey collin, thanks for sharing that. i like it. to all: please keep in mind i'm not proposing changes to LAW, TFT, or any other DCG game. i've always wanted to make my own system and this is an idea i came up with to avoid all of the 'attacks of opportunity' and other stuff that occurs between turns. the shorter rounds and MA actually seems simpler and easier to manage to me. i guess i'm alone there. gigglestick: more math and fiddly numbers? it's MA = DX/2 vs. MA = DX/4. i don't see any extra math or fiddly numbers. also, i wasn't trying to be 'realistic' for my sake. this is actually the first game i've ever played using miniatures. we never used miniatures when I played D&D in the 80s. it was just like 'there's some baddies in this room. start rolling attacks or run away. i was under the impression that the purpose of miniatures is to give a more realistic feel to combat by simulating positional advantages/disadvantages. edit: i have a sneaking suspicion that 'other' rpgs had to come up with 'attacks of opportunity' because they evolved from games without miniatures with a 6 second turn/round. when they translated the game onto a grid with miniatures, they just inherited that time/length and figured 'well, a dude should be able to move 20-30 feet in 6 seconds'. then players got mad because an orc just brushed right by them on the orcs turn and they didn't get a chance to attack him. they didn't get the opportunity to attack because time was divided up into slices that are too big. instead of making the slices of time smaller, they just threw in 'attacks of opportunity', which seems like an exception to the normal rules. to me, rules with fewer exceptions are simpler. as for making combat take a long time, i just don't see it. maybe it's just me but once melee begins when i play, the only movement is moving a few (1-3) spaces to a new target after you killed your last target. as for move or act...would make it into even more of a boardgame goes...that's great! that's what i'm trying to do with my system
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2012 20:05:35 GMT -5
this is sort of a tangent, but to show that i am all about making combat flow fast and simple, would be to use the to-hit roll for damage also. say my DX is 12. to hit, i roll 1d20. if it's under 12, i hit. how much damage? subtract my roll from 12...but the damage is 'capped' by the 'max damage rating' of my weapon, which is 'capped' by my strength (meaning that i have to be strong enough to use that weapon) i like simple. i really do. that's why LAW is my favorite system. i really like that to hit, you roll against your own DX. the only other system i've seen like that is 3 Dice Dungeon but it's really just a dice game. rpg.brentnewhall.com/2011/12/3-dice-dungeon-a-solitaire-dungeon-crawl-game/
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Jun 15, 2012 8:17:48 GMT -5
Hey ewookie,
No problem, amigo, I know you aren't advocating changes to the LAW system!
I totally encourage you to come up with rules that feel good to you. The most important thing to do is to playtest them, and do it in a very critical manner, the same way scientists use the scientific method. That is, they form a hypothesis and then do their best to disprove it. If they can't, it is most likely true.
That is what you want to do with your rules. Run a few battles and do everything in your power to find the flaws. And you will, believe me! But you improve your system doing this, either adding or deleting or changing to eliminate the problems.
Kudos for throwing your thoughts out to the wolves!
One last point, not in response to you but another thought that was raised. TFT was absolutely designed to reflect combat more realistically. That is why it is played on a hex grid rather than abstractly, movement and facing are important, weapon type (like polearms) have more realistic rules, etcetera. That is why the armor and weapons are differentiated, and the wounds you take can have specific effects. When it came out in 1977, there were a quite a few people who adapted it to their D&D games because it was more realistic. GURPS took it to extremes with second-by-second action, too far in my opinion, but there can be no doubt that Melee was intended as a close simulation of battle.
Bret
|
|
|
Post by gigglestick on Jun 15, 2012 16:26:28 GMT -5
hey collin, thanks for sharing that. i like it. to all: please keep in mind i'm not proposing changes to LAW, TFT, or any other DCG game. i've always wanted to make my own system and this is an idea i came up with to avoid all of the 'attacks of opportunity' and other stuff that occurs between turns. the shorter rounds and MA actually seems simpler and easier to manage to me. i guess i'm alone there. gigglestick: more math and fiddly numbers? it's MA = DX/2 vs. MA = DX/4. i don't see any extra math or fiddly numbers. also, i wasn't trying to be 'realistic' for my sake. this is actually the first game i've ever played using miniatures. we never used miniatures when I played D&D in the 80s. it was just like 'there's some baddies in this room. start rolling attacks or run away. i was under the impression that the purpose of miniatures is to give a more realistic feel to combat by simulating positional advantages/disadvantages. edit: i have a sneaking suspicion that 'other' rpgs had to come up with 'attacks of opportunity' because they evolved from games without miniatures with a 6 second turn/round. when they translated the game onto a grid with miniatures, they just inherited that time/length and figured 'well, a dude should be able to move 20-30 feet in 6 seconds'. then players got mad because an orc just brushed right by them on the orcs turn and they didn't get a chance to attack him. they didn't get the opportunity to attack because time was divided up into slices that are too big. instead of making the slices of time smaller, they just threw in 'attacks of opportunity', which seems like an exception to the normal rules. to me, rules with fewer exceptions are simpler. as for making combat take a long time, i just don't see it. maybe it's just me but once melee begins when i play, the only movement is moving a few (1-3) spaces to a new target after you killed your last target. as for move or act...would make it into even more of a boardgame goes...that's great! that's what i'm trying to do with my system Slight misunderstanding. I'm not saying that its hard to do MA/4, but it does introduce more % into the game and whole numbers work a lot better. As for realism, I agree that most games have an AAO ruling (I hate how 3.5 went overboard and 4E went even further) to handle movement problems. Its a fine line for me...I want quick, streamlined combat. I also want some basic options. I think you should have a risk for passing next to a threatening foe, but it shouldn't be all or nothing for either side.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 17:05:40 GMT -5
yes, slight misunderstanding that is my fault...i meant MA/4 (rounded down)...just like how LAW does with MA/2. so there would be no fractions, remainders, and whatknots.
|
|
|
Post by klingor on Jun 15, 2012 18:51:59 GMT -5
Hello again, I've always liked the TFT idea that archers can fire twice per round if their Dx is high enough. The idea I have in mind is that an archer can shoot again in a turn if he has enough Dx, but also that the attacks are made on AdjDx and then (AdjDx - Min). For example, if a character with a Longbow ( 2 shots if AdjDx > 17) took a shot with Dx 18, he would get another shot when the count came down to zero (in my system, the combat portion for both sides in a turn goes in AdjDx order downwards). If the archer's Dx went to 19, he would get his first shot off on 19 and his second on 1 (19 - 18 = 1). This gives players the option to increase eg Bow skill and then either do more damage with 1 arrow or do the same damage more often. Cheers Colin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 22:08:52 GMT -5
that would be a very interesting solution in my 3-second round scenario. at first, i didn't follow you then i re-read your earlier post about how you do initiative/order of attacks. by the third read, i think i fully understand. i'm not too comfortable with it, but i think i got it.
you reminded me about the bow skill though. so, in my 3-second round scenario, i think i would make the bow skill 'fire once per turn; +1 each additional skill level'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2012 22:20:34 GMT -5
then again, i've thought of another alternative to 'attacks of opportunity' (instead of shortening the round) that may make things more interesting...REACTION: Shift. use it to get in the way. basically, it's Dodge without the dodging (move one space). orc trying to rush past you on his turn to attack your gorgeous, female mage ? shift into his path to force him to stop. his move would be cut short and he wouldn't get to attack you until his next turn but you lose your next turn. so you have to ask yourself, 'is she really worth it?' lol edit: then again, i'm toying with the idea of making Reactions cost Fatigue instead of turns. when i'm playing, i get disoriented trying to remember who gave up this turn and who didn't. however, in this scenario, i wouldn't count Fatigue toward 'incapacitation'. if your Fatigue = your IQ, you just can't React or cast any more spells...unless you are willing to start applying Fatigue as Damage. edit: hmm. i'm really liking that idea. it makes IQ as important to non-mages as ST is to mages.
|
|
|
Post by klingor on Jun 19, 2012 16:39:04 GMT -5
ewookie Hello, The idea I had in mind was one that I liked in TFT namely Zone Of Control (ZOC), as the games enjoyed in my (? misspent) youth were by Avalon Hill, SPI and others, which were basically hex-grid based. In the system I like to use (as I've described in previous posts) means that your options are more circumscribed and hence le, is dependent on GM fiat. However, when all is said and done, it is about enjoying the game. If some of my ideas strike a chord with you and your group then use them. If they don't, then don't. All the best Colin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2012 8:19:43 GMT -5
if anyone is interested, i have decided that shorter rounds is a bad idea. not because it slows combat down per se, but because it bogs down the use of missile weapons that require loading. i haven't played all of the published adventures yet but, so far, (and it is hard to imagine otherwise) melee heavily dominates combat most of the time. mainly, i just hate having to think too much about how to adjust the mechanics for something (bows, slings) that is not used that much to begin with.
i have come to love ZOC and attacks of opportunities.
|
|