reducing handling time without sacrificing (much) detail: a demonstration
Kyle Van Pelt:
Quote from: Callan S. on November 04, 2011, 06:51:50 PM
Could you possibly cover alot of detail ground by having a single point of extra damage the GM can either assign or not assign? As he sees fit from his judgement of prior fiction? So in this way, sometimes the GM might decide that since you were using a shotgun and the dude just walked out of a doorway right in front of you, yes, the extra point of damage is added?
Hey Callan,
I can't speak for Marshall, but I know for my system, a situational bonus like that would either be covered in the system (my shotgun rules account for close-range blasts) or would result not in an extra wound (you take 2 Heavy wounds from the shot), but a staging up of that wound (you take a Critical wound from the shot).
That being said, it would simplify things just to have a point you can add or subtract from the attack for "situational bonuses". That way, I could just remove the rules for close-range shotgun blasts and say "If the target is very close to your attack, the DM may choose to add a point of damage", or something like that. There's definitely some merit to that, although I don't think that's what I'm aiming for.
It's a good idea, though, and I think sub-consciously a lot of DMs do this already. I know I've done it a few times when DMing Shadowrun. In one instance, a player put the end of his shotgun barrel to a guy's torso and pulled the trigger. His armor would have reduced the blast quite a bit, but I said that since it was such a violent attack, I would stage the damage up by one.
Callan S.:
Quote from: Kyle Van Pelt on November 06, 2011, 01:00:25 PM
It's a good idea, though, and I think sub-consciously a lot of DMs do this already. I know I've done it a few times when DMing Shadowrun. In one instance, a player put the end of his shotgun barrel to a guy's torso and pulled the trigger. His armor would have reduced the blast quite a bit, but I said that since it was such a violent attack, I would stage the damage up by one.
Yeah, that's idea. It's just that when that extra stage of damage isn't actually in the rules (ignoring the golden rule, for now), then it sets up a precident that if someones really adamant about the fiction they say, the rules should be broken again ("It's a roleplay game after all!"). Then the adamant fiction gets bigger, the breaking gets bigger and so on, again and again...I think if there was any edge to be found in playing by the rules, that edge is quickly lost. Anyway, just a quick idea. So on with the show!
Marshall Burns:
Quote from: Callan S. on November 04, 2011, 06:51:50 PM
Could you possibly cover alot of detail ground by having a single point of extra damage the GM can either assign or not assign? As he sees fit from his judgement of prior fiction? So in this way, sometimes the GM might decide that since you were using a shotgun and the dude just walked out of a doorway right in front of you, yes, the extra point of damage is added?
Sure, that's a possible solution. Things that you'd have to look at there would include guidelines (I'd prefer very rigid ones, if I was playing) for when to stage up/stage down damage, and who's in charge of this decision, and how does that reconcile with his other responsibilities in facilitating the game?
In the case of MADcorp, I wanted something random (because I like games that occasionally stake an entire situation on a gamble), and something objective, or close to it. The only judgment calls here are, does the attacker get a bonus/penalty die on his HIT roll, and what kind of damage does the attack inflict? And the latter is only a concern if you start adding weapons that aren't covered in the rules.
A large portion of the rest of the game rests on the Referee's judgment calls, so I thought it would be good to have at least one avenue of interacting with a problematic situation (and in this type of game, "let's try shooting it" can be legitimately described as such) to recourse to if the judgment calls are all against you at the moment.
Like the lethality of the system, the decision to use dice is just another stylistic decision.
Callan S.:
Quote from: Marshall Burns on November 08, 2011, 07:41:05 AM
Sure, that's a possible solution. Things that you'd have to look at there would include guidelines (I'd prefer very rigid ones, if I was playing)
I'd think this rigidity, if any, is better generated by the group being told to set their own conventions in play (and how much those conventions border on being social contract, if at all). Part of the value of such rigidness is actually how much it aligns with ones own psychology on the matter (otherwise you'd just use board game style rules), and the group who plays it might easily think in very different ways from the game author.
Quote
In the case of MADcorp, I wanted something random (because I like games that occasionally stake an entire situation on a gamble), and something objective, or close to it. The only judgment calls here are, does the attacker get a bonus/penalty die on his HIT roll, and what kind of damage does the attack inflict?
It depends if your to hit mechanism is a binary hit/miss - if you take D&D's +2 for circumstances (assigned by GM judgement) for example, then it only affects the attack roll 1 in 10 times. So 9 out of 10 times the GM's judgement doesn't matter. Basically in a binary hit/miss system, a GM assigned bonus to hit probably wont affect play much at all.
Quote
A large portion of the rest of the game rests on the Referee's judgment calls, so I thought it would be good to have at least one avenue of interacting with a problematic situation (and in this type of game, "let's try shooting it" can be legitimately described as such) to recourse to if the judgment calls are all against you at the moment.
Does the GM decide whether you can go to combat? Anyway, these are just my notes on the above subjects presented in a 'in case it's of use' way, not a 'you have to talk about this' way. I hope it's of some use.
Marshall Burns:
Quote from: Callan S. on November 08, 2011, 02:34:53 PM
I'd think this rigidity, if any, is better generated by the group being told to set their own conventions in play (and how much those conventions border on being social contract, if at all). Part of the value of such rigidness is actually how much it aligns with ones own psychology on the matter (otherwise you'd just use board game style rules), and the group who plays it might easily think in very different ways from the game author.
Callan,
This concept is interesting, although unfortunately would be a derail for this thread. Do you have any design or AP related to this sort of thing to start another discussion about it? 'Cause I'm interested in talking about it. I dunno, maybe I can dredge up some AP of my own to start a thread.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page