|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 5, 2014 3:11:42 GMT -5
I gotta say that I'm running with the majority opinion expressed here. I LIKE having solid facing rules a la Melee. It helped the tactical thinking part of a sword fight. At the same time, I like what George/Bret/et al have done with the reaction moves concept, in that it seems to better reflect what goes on in a one-on-one fight like that.
So I'd tend to go with the Melee declared facing at the end of Movement rule, but still let the players do a certain amount of jinking around with the reaction rules too (in other words, no "engagement" concept per se -- the decision as to whether or not to turn you back on one guy to fight another is pretty much it's own punishment/reward paradigm and doesn't need some sort of artificial "locking Zone of Control" effect to make it so). Part of that reaction decision could include a decision to change your facing by a maximum of one hexside as part of your Dodge or Counterattack or Defend option.
I also like what DCG has done to the thrown and missile weapons range rules -- though I can see that at some point DCG may have to come out with definitive answers on maximum missile weapons range. Heroes and Other Worlds (HOW) takes a shot at this with the ST x 4 hexes rule for range, but then he turns around and sets the limit for crossbows to a flat 48 hexes when the entire point of the Crossbow is that it substantially increased both range and hitting power and permitted even an unskilled person to use it at full effectiveness with minimal training. (That's why the church outlawed them -- because even an untrained peasant could kill a fully armored knight from great range and that was considered uncouth or something....) The bottom line is that he's at the very least got a good idea there. (And who knows? Maybe his reasoning makes sense for the crossbow limitation, but since he hasn't explained it in the rules, I don't fully understand it yet.)
As far as the other things brought up go, having a Wizard cast spells by rolling versus his IQ makes so much more sense to me that I wonder why I never thought of it in the old days. Another one of those "as soon as you said it, I went 'd'oh'" moments. And FAT as written seems much more intuitively efficient than adding another set of characteristics. For the most part, I love what Mr. Brandon did with his HOW rules (and have purchased most of his stuff), but I much prefer the FAT system (and the LAW system for experience and character growth, for that matter) to having a separate END characteristic. (That's a personal preference and not in any way intended to denigrate the sheer brilliance of much of his work <with an apologetic head nod in C.R.'s direction>.) I guess my personal philosophical problem with that sort of thing is that I see it as "mission creep" and pretty soon we are talking about adding WIS and CHA and CON and all that stuff and if I wanted that, I'd just play D&D and call it done. So I fully support DCG's call on opposing new characteristics being added. Likewise, I much prefer just sticking with the good old D6 for resolving everything instead of having 800 different shaped dice, all of which are necessary to play, and some of which, if gazed upon too long, will cause you to enter non-Euclidean and otherwise Lovecraftian realms Man was Not Meant to Know. Of course, YMMV and all that, and it's quite clear that I don't speak for anyone other than myself in this regard (or, at least, I HOPE it's quite clear).
Bottom Line: KISS applies, and I think the addition back in of more formal Facing Rules would actually simplify the game structurally somewhat -- especially given that the vast majority of us are playing it on hex maps with either counters or miniatures anyway. Okay. I'll shut up now.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 7, 2014 16:02:15 GMT -5
I gotta say that I'm running with the majority opinion expressed here. I LIKE having solid facing rules a la Melee. It helped the tactical thinking part of a sword fight. At the same time, I like what George/Bret/et al have done with the reaction moves concept, in that it seems to better reflect what goes on in a one-on-one fight like that. So I'd tend to go with the Melee declared facing at the end of Movement rule, but still let the players do a certain amount of jinking around with the reaction rules too (in other words, no "engagement" concept per se -- the decision as to whether or not to turn you back on one guy to fight another is pretty much it's own punishment/reward paradigm and doesn't need some sort of artificial "locking Zone of Control" effect to make it so). Part of that reaction decision could include a decision to change your facing by a maximum of one hexside as part of your Dodge or Counterattack or Defend option. I also like what DCG has done to the thrown and missile weapons range rules -- though I can see that at some point DCG may have to come out with definitive answers on maximum missile weapons range. Heroes and Other Worlds (HOW) takes a shot at this with the ST x 4 hexes rule for range, but then he turns around and sets the limit for crossbows to a flat 48 hexes when the entire point of the Crossbow is that it substantially increased both range and hitting power and permitted even an unskilled person to use it at full effectiveness with minimal training. (That's why the church outlawed them -- because even an untrained peasant could kill a fully armored knight from great range and that was considered uncouth or something....) The bottom line is that he's at the very least got a good idea there. (And who knows? Maybe his reasoning makes sense for the crossbow limitation, but since he hasn't explained it in the rules, I don't fully understand it yet.) As far as the other things brought up go, having a Wizard cast spells by rolling versus his IQ makes so much more sense to me that I wonder why I never thought of it in the old days. Another one of those "as soon as you said it, I went 'd'oh'" moments. And FAT as written seems much more intuitively efficient than adding another set of characteristics. For the most part, I love what Mr. Brandon did with his HOW rules (and have purchased most of his stuff), but I much prefer the FAT system (and the LAW system for experience and character growth, for that matter) to having a separate END characteristic. (That's a personal preference and not in any way intended to denigrate the sheer brilliance of much of his work <with an apologetic head nod in C.R.'s direction>.) I guess my personal philosophical problem with that sort of thing is that I see it as "mission creep" and pretty soon we are talking about adding WIS and CHA and CON and all that stuff and if I wanted that, I'd just play D&D and call it done. So I fully support DCG's call on opposing new characteristics being added. Likewise, I much prefer just sticking with the good old D6 for resolving everything instead of having 800 different shaped dice, all of which are necessary to play, and some of which, if gazed upon too long, will cause you to enter non-Euclidean and otherwise Lovecraftian realms Man was Not Meant to Know. Of course, YMMV and all that, and it's quite clear that I don't speak for anyone other than myself in this regard (or, at least, I HOPE it's quite clear). Bottom Line: KISS applies, and I think the addition back in of more formal Facing Rules would actually simplify the game structurally somewhat -- especially given that the vast majority of us are playing it on hex maps with either counters or miniatures anyway. Okay. I'll shut up now. I agree, mostly. Another Wizard's staff should be of no use/benefit to another wizard unless the other wizard starts putting his own FAT into the staff. Exploding is cool too but not sure it should be the default. It a new spell could be created so that a wizard could booby trap his staff. This opens up the possibility of giving players another choice - your party just killed a wizard. do you take his staff or leave it alone? it could go BOOM or it could be harmless. I would only one more stat. Something like EN or END. Why? To allow for races that are small and weak but hard to kill - like a halfling. I wouldn't want it to work like HOW's EN/ST where damage/FAT deducts from EN first, then ST. I would rather it worked like HP in D&D. Solid Facing declared at the end of movement but changing from reactions sounds perfect. New idea: Reactions have a FAT cost and forfeit movement phase of turn instead of the whole turn: Dodge (3/DX) FAT 1 - Avoid all damage from the dodged strike or thrown attack. Shield Block (3/ST) FAT 1 - Avoid all damage from the blocked attack. Parry (3/DX) FAT 2 - Avoid all damage from the parried strike.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 7, 2014 16:36:57 GMT -5
I guess my ideas about ST/EN/HP and creatures like halflings are campaign-specific, so I would like to retract that as a desire for core/official rules. I'm sure there are other ways of handling that too. One might be to halve all damage. Anyone have other ideas about how to create a PC race that is physically weak but can take a lot of damage? Also, on the reaction FAT costs mentioned above, I haven't tested enough to stand behind those costs/numbers. I really like the idea though, for the moment at least
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 7, 2014 23:34:58 GMT -5
I found my notes from the last time I played (it has been awhile). What follows are the custom rules I was using.
1. Damage + FAT does not count toward incapacitation; If FAT = ST, further FAT = Damage. If Damage >= ST, unconscious and dying. Must heal to Damage < ST at end of encounter or DIE. 2. Reactions: forfeit movement phase only Dodge (3/DX) FAT 1 - Avoid all damage from the dodged strike or thrown attack; move any adjacent space, not just away. Shield Block (3/ST) FAT 1 - Avoid all damage from the blocked attack. Parry (3/DX) FAT 2 - Avoid all damage from the parried strike. 3. Hobbits recover 1 point of Damage at the end of each combat encounter. Everyone recovers 1 point of FAT. 4. Spells and Reactions cost FAT whether or not they succeed.
These variations quelled my desire for a Constitution or HP like stat/attribute.
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 8, 2014 12:39:55 GMT -5
This response is kind of sideways to the stuff you wrote above, and actually is me wandering off on a philosphical digression of sorts....
Honestly, I have a few problems with FAT as currently embodied. I agree -- I don't like the way HOW does END either, but I guess my problem with FAT boils down to, "so, when you get real tired, you suddenly have a wound that has to heal like a regular wound does?" Again, I spent 20+ years in the military, and the first couple of those were in the infantry, and I've BEEN really, really exhausted -- to the point where I could barely put one foot in front of another, and I never suffered any "wounds" because of it (unless I fell down a hill with a 60lb backpack on or something -- which I never did).
So it just seems clunky to me.
What ARE the effects of fatigue in the real world? Well, you get really, really tired. You can't do heavy work anymore. You lose situational awareness. You make stupid mistakes. But you don't suddenly start bleeding from some part of your body.
So what would FAT rules look like in "my perfect world?" Well, you would expend FAT just like you do now in the game, to cast spells. You would expend FAT to perform particularly strenuous physical tasks, like say, combat, or scaling a cliff by rope, or lifting some amount of weight in excess of your normal load (or to perform long ones, like hiking 20 miles). But when you've exhausted FAT, you can no longer cast spells (you can't concentrate enough to do so anymore) and your combat rolls are at some kind of DX penalty (in TFT, I would say either a -4DX or -3DX, but here, maybe not so much) for everything you try to do. You can no longer walk carrying large loads (you can walk, but you can't carry anything while you do so), and your Movement Allowance is halved. You can't conduct a charge attack, or run, or swim (you can try to swim, but definitely at a -4DX adjustment for possible drowning -- or maybe even a 4/DX check now). You would be at a severe disadvantage to notice things that you would normally notice, or perform tasks you could normally perform -- any IQ, DX or ST based skill check or "saving throw" would be performed at +1 die on the check; so if you're using your "detect traps" skill against a 4/IQ trap while you're exhausted, you actually have to make the roll at 5/IQ, and so on.
FAT recovery would be a bit more structured than the current "handwavium" activated method. Maybe you recover 1 point of FAT for every 30 minutes (or hour, depending on what you think is right for your campaign -- personally, I like the 30 minutes rule better) of complete rest -- which requires a little more attention to time passage on the part of everyone, but can easily be summed up by the FM simply saying; "You all managed to each get six hours of sleep (even after pulling your two-hour guard stint), so you each get 12 FAT back." (Staffs would recharge at the same rate.) But no one would suffer any wounds from excess FAT -- they just lose the ability to fight well, pay attention, cast spells, or basically do anything competently that requires any form of energy to perform.
So I guess I'd agree with your comments above that go towards the "FAT is FAT and wounds are wounds, and never the twain should meet" idea. Getting tired is a problem above and beyond the getting hurt part of the equation. The way I used to handle this in TFT was to use the old paradigm from SPI character-driven games: a FAT loss is indicated with a "/" through a box on the character sheet, while a wound is indicated by completing the "X." "X's" heal at the healing rate, and "/" come back much faster.
I'm not sure that I would agree that Dodging should cost more FAT than simply swinging a sword. Let's face it, when you're in combat, you have a LOT going on, and it seems to me the more energetic effort is actually put into attacking (I used to fence competitively, and it's much easier to parry, block or get out of the way than it is to lunge or conduct a Balestra, for example). I'd say that a more "realistic" (as well as simpler) method of assessing FAT loss is to simply state that for every N number of combat rounds, the character loses one point of FAT. And if you run out of FAT in the middle of a fight, the penalties for being exhausted immediately apply -- which could be a real source of excitement to whoever managed their resources that poorly! Again, going back to my own (admittedly limited when it comes to fighting in armor and with shields -- okay, non-existent is more like it) experience, I'd say for every minute of combat, you lose a point of FAT (that would be every 12 rounds of combat), but maybe a higher loss rate would be more appropriate. Any SCA members out there that can provide some insight into fatigue loss during a good old fashioned armor and shield donnybrook?
I pretty much agree with most of what you said though -- barring the above exceptions based on my personal...well..."dissatisfaction" seems like to strong a word for it, but concern over how FAT works in the current rules. And that's a good idea on the "Wizard's Booby Trap" spell, though we'd need to think it through a bit more (can a Wizard booby trap ANYTHING? Or just something like a staff?). Another alternative: the staff explodes if touched by anyone other than the Wizard (which destroys the staff) and anyone or anything holding or physically in contact with the staff takes 1D6 damage. That both prevents anyone from using the staff, and punishes anyone picking it up. It also is commensurate with the damage a regular Wizard's Staff did in combat in the TFT days. If you use the "Staff of Power" concept from TFT, then increase the damage to the non-Wizard holder to the equivalent of being struck with that staff in combat. The booby-trap effect would simply be a part of the "Staff" or "Staff of Power" spells required to create the staff in the first place under the old TFT paradigm. (Edited to add: I should probably change this to read; "anyone who touches the Wizard's staff without his permission" and if he's dead or unconscious, he can't give permission....)
You do have a valid point about Hobbits and the like being generally too small and weak to make decent warriors/Wizards -- thus, defacto, tending to relegate them to the "thief" role willy-nilly -- without some kind of "buff," but maybe the above FAT rules work for them too -- only increase their FAT recovery rate to DOUBLE a human's recovery rate. Thus, every 30 minutes, a Hobbit or other qualified race recovers 2 FAT points instead of 1. That means the halflings (and probably any creature that you consider to have an unusually strong or resilient constitution, such as Dwarves or whatever) would be up and ready to move again long before anyone else.... You could apply the same rule to their healing rate too. All you have to do is note which races benefit from a "generally superior constitution." If you wanted to go that way, you could also make "strong constitution" one of those "talents" (as opposed to "skills") that players can choose one or two of when they first create their character.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 8, 2014 14:49:10 GMT -5
I have thought of handling FAT, etc. the way you describe above. It would be more realistic. It would also be more tedious and less fun. Thus, I prefer my KISSer method.
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 9, 2014 10:51:41 GMT -5
I'm a bit rusty on the rules right now, but I think I agree with jlv in the macro sense. Whenever this issus pops up, I always wonder why we don't just assign a negative modifier to IQ, DX and ST based on cumulative fatigue. Perhaps starting at 5 cumulative fatigue a -1 adjustment is applied to IQ, DX and ST for every 5 or fraction of 5 fatigue. For instance, 5-9 fatigue = -1 adjustment; 10-14 = -2, and so on. Furthermore, could this be expanded to melee combat? Again, very rusty on the rules, but what if every 5 active rounds of melee combat resulted in 1 fatigue point? So, 25 rounds of combat would result in a -1 multiplier. Of course, you'd have to keep track of combat rounds and who was active when, but it might be a way to "grind" a party down through continual fighting. Just thinking out loud....
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 9, 2014 11:05:32 GMT -5
I agree with jlv in the macro sense as well. I just don't like the book-keeping. These are some interesting ideas though.
|
|
julie
Full Member
Posts: 171
|
Post by julie on Apr 9, 2014 11:44:01 GMT -5
... Whenever this issus pops up, I always wonder why we don't just assign a negative modifier to IQ, DX and ST based on cumulative fatigue. Perhaps starting at 5 cumulative fatigue a -1 adjustment is applied to IQ, DX and ST for every 5 or fraction of 5 fatigue. For instance, 5-9 fatigue = -1 adjustment; 10-14 = -2, and so on. I really like this idea, nukesnipe. Truth be known, my house rule is I use Fatigue to power spells, nothing else. When Fatigue runs out, you can't cast spells; it has no effect on anything else. This idea makes Fatigue more useful, while keeping it simple. Good thought!
|
|
|
Post by nukesnipe on Apr 9, 2014 15:07:28 GMT -5
Thanks for the kind words, Julie. I have to be stingy with my "good" ideas as I'm only allowed a few each year. Continuing to confess my rustiness with the rules, I can't remember if LAW has a "too heavy" rule for weapons, where one suffers a penalty for trying to use a weapon that requires more strength than they presently have. I seem to remember TFT having a -4DX modifier for that situation. That mechanism and the fatigue mechanism I was banting about might not mesh so well. Of course, it would take 25 rounds of melee combat to get to that point.... More thought is obviously required....
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 9, 2014 16:49:45 GMT -5
Well, YMMV I guess. I tend to like a little more structure in my healing and fatigue recovery rules, just as I like TFT/LAW because it offers more structure to the combat part of the game than D&D ever did. Tedious? Perhaps, but helpful too. If you ever really want to prove a point on fatigue, get your regular crew of FRPG-ers outside, equip them with 60 pounds of gear and have them walk a mile. Or even just half a mile. At the end of the experiment, they'll have a much greater respect for fatigue rules and the like.... At the same time, I suppose if you were running 20 players it WOULD become somewhat burdensome, though I tend to transfer most of that burden onto the players (it's their character, they need to keep track of it) and only occasionally spot check on something just to keep everyone honest. Really, my role amounts to simply telling them how much fatigue they regain after resting, or how much healing they do per day. Of course, if we go with nukesnipe's idea (which also seems very logical and straightforward to me) my role would expand to saying, after every five rounds of combat, "Okay, everyone suffers a -1DX adjustment for the next five rounds!" (Which, by the way, also incentivizes the players to get on with the fight rather than lollygagging around.) Of course, people can run their campaigns anyway they want, but I think I'll try giving nukesnipe's idea a run and see how I like it. I find that players generally find it easier to "suspend their disbelief" in a fantasy game world where sorcery works if you can provide a reasonable explanation of why that is, and the rest of the game rules conform logically to normal physical laws -- people are sort of odd that way....
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 9, 2014 18:08:59 GMT -5
So, no one uses the official Fatigue rules? Particularly,
This is good to know.
I don't mind Fatigue turning into damage (or injury). I look at like this: if you're extremely tired and you push yourself too hard, you're going to injure yourself. Think pulled muscle or sprained ankle etc. Turning fatigue into damage at some point is much less annoying to me than having to remember and update ST, DX, and IQ every so often.
|
|
|
Post by jlv61560 on Apr 9, 2014 23:39:56 GMT -5
I feel like you're being hostile here. If you don't like my ideas, don't use them.
Plus you are changing the basis of the discussion -- I never said fatigue shouldn't affect the character, I simply offered some thoughts on how that might be better reflected in order to avoid the entirely specious conversion of fatigue loss into a sucking chest wound, how fatigue might be gamed to show a more realistic version of its effect on task performance, and how fatigue recovery could be better regulated and defined.
Moving on now.
|
|
|
Post by platimus on Apr 10, 2014 7:12:06 GMT -5
I feel like you're being hostile here. If you don't like my ideas, don't use them. Plus you are changing the basis of the discussion -- I never said fatigue shouldn't affect the character, I simply offered some thoughts on how that might be better reflected in order to avoid the entirely specious conversion of fatigue loss into a sucking chest wound, how fatigue might be gamed to show a more realistic version of its effect on task performance, and how fatigue recovery could be better regulated and defined. Moving on now. Changing the basis of discussion? We were talking about Fatigue rules/handling. Hostility? I was just explaining that damage from Fatigue isn't necessarily a 'sucking chest wound' or 'blood spurting out of the body'. Damage is simply a number representing an amount of injury. I fail to see the hostility in that. If you feel so threatened and insecure, perhaps it is best if we both moved on.
|
|
|
Post by mister frau blucher on Apr 10, 2014 9:45:49 GMT -5
Hey, guys,
This has been a great discussion! I did not see any hostility, only a candid discussion. This is the internet, so it is sometimes easy to misinterpret the intent behind someone's words. Let's not argue about who killed who - this is a happy occasion! Kissing and making up is not permitted on these boards, but a respectful "Aw, shucks" and moving forward is encouraged! We're here to talk about games - and this one has become in-depth.
It is fascinating to get everybody's take on the Fatigue issue. I play it as written - when you get a combination of FT and ST damage that equals or exceeds your ST, you are out. You are not killed unless actual damage exceeds your ST (unlike Melee). So if you have ST 12 and you have 10 FT damage, and then 2 points of damage from a dagger thrust, you are KO'ed but not KIA'ed.
But I understand the views here. And I don't have any problem with people playing it by their own houserules. Our rules are very light and leave lots of room for customization.
Great discussion, guys!
Scott - by my count, you have a minimum of two solid ideas left in you this year!
Bret
|
|