'Ammo check/roll' for melee weapons as 'weapon speed'
Moderator: Moderators
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
'Ammo check/roll' for melee weapons as 'weapon speed'
For a refresher on ammo rolls, they're a mechanic where instead of tracking individual bullets you instead roll to see if you've run out. Some games have you make an ammo roll every time you fire a weapon, other games have you make an ammo roll whenever a certain number is rolled when firing a weapon.
Ex: In Necromunda you use 6 sided dice and if you roll a 6 to hit you then need to make an ammo roll. High ammo capacity weapons like the lasgun succeed that check on a 2+, while low ammo capacity weapons like bolters need a 6+. It's a mechanic that encourages characters with bolters to consider bringing a good pistol as backup.
So the idea I got from that was to apply a similar mechanic to melee weapons with the 'ammo roll' not representing 'ammo expended' but rather have that 'ammo roll' represent a 'speed check' on how quickly the weapon can be brought to a ready position after an attack. So on a d6 the 'speed check' for some weapons would be...
punch/kick/headbutt/pommel bash/grab: 1+
dagger: 2+
longsword: 4+
great axe: 5+
Lets say that a 'speed check' is made every time a 1 (guaranteed miss) or 6 (likely a hit) is rolled. Succeeding at your speed check means your weapon is ready to use next turn as normal. Failing though means your weapon is unavailable to use for the following turn, so the barbarian who rolled a 6 to attack with his great-axe had it bite into the orc's skull and get stuck so for his next turn as he's yanking his axe out he punches an orc in the snotbox. For the knight who swung and rolled a 6 with his longsword slash he follows up with a pommel bash. For the assassin that missed on a 1 with his dagger strike he now moves in to grab and judo-slam his foe.
The goal of doing this is to occasionally break up the monotony of a character spamming their best attack ('I swing my holy avenger!') with a secondary attack action ('As our blades are locked I headbutt him!') or go for a 'stunt' ('I throw sand in his face!') or even force them to withdraw ('I take a step back and free my axe from his shield')
Ex: In Necromunda you use 6 sided dice and if you roll a 6 to hit you then need to make an ammo roll. High ammo capacity weapons like the lasgun succeed that check on a 2+, while low ammo capacity weapons like bolters need a 6+. It's a mechanic that encourages characters with bolters to consider bringing a good pistol as backup.
So the idea I got from that was to apply a similar mechanic to melee weapons with the 'ammo roll' not representing 'ammo expended' but rather have that 'ammo roll' represent a 'speed check' on how quickly the weapon can be brought to a ready position after an attack. So on a d6 the 'speed check' for some weapons would be...
punch/kick/headbutt/pommel bash/grab: 1+
dagger: 2+
longsword: 4+
great axe: 5+
Lets say that a 'speed check' is made every time a 1 (guaranteed miss) or 6 (likely a hit) is rolled. Succeeding at your speed check means your weapon is ready to use next turn as normal. Failing though means your weapon is unavailable to use for the following turn, so the barbarian who rolled a 6 to attack with his great-axe had it bite into the orc's skull and get stuck so for his next turn as he's yanking his axe out he punches an orc in the snotbox. For the knight who swung and rolled a 6 with his longsword slash he follows up with a pommel bash. For the assassin that missed on a 1 with his dagger strike he now moves in to grab and judo-slam his foe.
The goal of doing this is to occasionally break up the monotony of a character spamming their best attack ('I swing my holy avenger!') with a secondary attack action ('As our blades are locked I headbutt him!') or go for a 'stunt' ('I throw sand in his face!') or even force them to withdraw ('I take a step back and free my axe from his shield')
- Stahlseele
- King
- Posts: 5974
- Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 4:51 pm
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
Is this roll modified by anything?
If not, the 1+ Roll is useless as you can't roll less than 1 on most dice and should thus be left out.
If not, the 1+ Roll is useless as you can't roll less than 1 on most dice and should thus be left out.
Welcome, to IronHell.
Shrapnel wrote:TFwiki wrote:Soon is the name of the region in the time-domain (familiar to all marketing departments, and to the moderators and staff of Fun Publications) which sees release of all BotCon news, club exclusives, and other fan desirables. Soon is when then will become now.
Peculiar properties of spacetime ensure that the perception of the magnitude of Soon is fluid and dependent, not on an individual's time-reference, but on spatial and cultural location. A marketer generally perceives Soon as a finite, known, yet unspeakable time-interval; to a fan, the interval appears greater, and may in fact approach the infinite, becoming Never. Once the interval has passed, however, a certain time-lensing effect seems to occur, and the time-interval becomes vanishingly small. We therefore see the strange result that the same fragment of spacetime may be observed, in quick succession, as Soon, Never, and All Too Quickly.
- deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3459
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
In principle, I think this has merit. Encouraging a variety of maneuvers is probably a good thing, because ultimately, it makes the fights more interesting and memorable. In the event that a character's additional options are worse than nothing, it'll be just a bad thing. Ie, if recovering my greataxe is an action so I can either choose to do that or attack with a lesser weapon (and still not have my greataxe), I'd probably just recover the greataxe. If instead I don't get to use my greataxe for 1 round no matter what else I choose to do, I'd take the attack knowing I'll have my primary weapon available again, soon.
As long as it isn't too frequent and it applies to the enemies as well, this could work.
As long as it isn't too frequent and it applies to the enemies as well, this could work.
Last edited by deaddmwalking on Tue May 12, 2015 3:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Prince
- Posts: 2606
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 11:43 pm
- momothefiddler
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:55 am
- Location: United States
I dunno anything about 3e, the version most frequently ranted about discussed around here, but in GURPS 4e there are weapons that are Unbalanced, meaning you can't use them to attack and parry within the same second, and there are a (very, iirc) few weapons that, when used, become Unreadied and require one or more actions to Ready before they can be used again. Whips are the only thing I can think of in the latter category atm.
I'm not aware of anything where there's a randomized need to take Ready actions based on weapon.
I'm not aware of anything where there's a randomized need to take Ready actions based on weapon.
- Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
In principle I like the concept, but I have pretty heavy reservations about how much bookkeeping this could add in tabletop.
Obviously the point of this mechanic is to encourage characters to carry a backup weapon. But equally obviously, any such readiness roll will also apply to that backup weapon....so the optimizing player is going to look into quick-draw, armor spikes, extra limbs and ways to carry additional back-up weapons, and however those rules work out, you end up with a situation where characters may have to track readiness states for multiple weapons, potentially across multiple rounds.
So you probably have to limit weapon readiness to never requiring more than a 1 round reset on a failed roll - but you'll have to watch out in systems where characters get multiple attacks per round, because that can again potentially give you multiple weapons each in different states of readiness to track.
Obviously the point of this mechanic is to encourage characters to carry a backup weapon. But equally obviously, any such readiness roll will also apply to that backup weapon....so the optimizing player is going to look into quick-draw, armor spikes, extra limbs and ways to carry additional back-up weapons, and however those rules work out, you end up with a situation where characters may have to track readiness states for multiple weapons, potentially across multiple rounds.
So you probably have to limit weapon readiness to never requiring more than a 1 round reset on a failed roll - but you'll have to watch out in systems where characters get multiple attacks per round, because that can again potentially give you multiple weapons each in different states of readiness to track.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
What I have in mind is that whatever weapon you had that failed its speed check will be available to use in the turn after next, so it's only in your next turn that you have to use something else. So for Mr. Barbarian his turns may look like...
Turn 1) swings axe at orc, rolls 6 and prompts a speed check which he fails
Turn 2) headbutts an orc because his axe is not available for this turn
Turn 3) axe is ready to be swung again
As for modifying the roll, yeah I see 'power attack' as a maneuver which inflicts a penalty to your speed check so when Kirk clasps his fists together for a double-arm hammer there's a chance he becomes unbalanced while swinging so no such power attacks are available next turn.
Turn 1) swings axe at orc, rolls 6 and prompts a speed check which he fails
Turn 2) headbutts an orc because his axe is not available for this turn
Turn 3) axe is ready to be swung again
As for modifying the roll, yeah I see 'power attack' as a maneuver which inflicts a penalty to your speed check so when Kirk clasps his fists together for a double-arm hammer there's a chance he becomes unbalanced while swinging so no such power attacks are available next turn.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Tue May 12, 2015 5:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Knight
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2013 5:02 am
I could see dex-like stats modifying the roll too. So you can have low dex brutes overextend themselves even when they're using just their fists.
In fact, speaking of overextending, what about adding in something that modifies your AC/"Get out of the way" stat/Enemy attack rolls based on your ready roll. So you swing with a club, over extend yourself, and the rogue has a nice view of your ribs to stick a knife in. That might be getting too complex, but I could see it as something like "if you fumble and then fail your ready roll, you over extend and are 2 points easier to hit. If you crit and succeed your ready roll, you are 2 points harder to hit."
But so this would just be for games that don't give iterative attacks?
In fact, speaking of overextending, what about adding in something that modifies your AC/"Get out of the way" stat/Enemy attack rolls based on your ready roll. So you swing with a club, over extend yourself, and the rogue has a nice view of your ribs to stick a knife in. That might be getting too complex, but I could see it as something like "if you fumble and then fail your ready roll, you over extend and are 2 points easier to hit. If you crit and succeed your ready roll, you are 2 points harder to hit."
But so this would just be for games that don't give iterative attacks?
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Re: 'Ammo check/roll' for melee weapons as 'weapon speed'
But is rolling dice really the best way to accomplish this? Seems like you're removing player agency to hand players an additional failure (or suck) chance.OgreBattle wrote:The goal of doing this is to occasionally break up the monotony of a character spamming their best attack ('I swing my holy avenger!') with a secondary attack action ('As our blades are locked I headbutt him!') or go for a 'stunt' ('I throw sand in his face!') or even force them to withdraw ('I take a step back and free my axe from his shield')
It seems like it'd be a better idea to make secondary attacks / stunts / force to withdraw a better option than just using your best attack every round.
That way players can feel rewarded when they use that stunt to disarm their opponent, so the other player can pick up their weapon and force them to surrender at gunpoint or whatever.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
That's a little like saying "Are you sure rolling is the best way to determine how much damage I deal? Seems like you're removing player agency." The proposed system isn't determining what attack or action you make, it's determining whether circumstances allow you to use the same attack again.
The player still says "I hit it with my axe," but now the world, simulated by the random numbers generated by the dice, might say "you hit, and your axe is now stuck for a round." And then the player makes another choice based on that circumstance.
Moreover, it's not necessarily an additional failure or suck chance. That may be the case in D&D, where unarmed<armed<spell, but in a hypothetical game made with this system in mind, it's possible to set things up so that it is not inherently vastly inferior to headbutt someone compared to swording them.
While secondaries/stunts/etc might be more robust and less deterministic, Ready Rolls would have the benefit of simplicity. Roll your attack die, roll your ready die. You can do that at once. Depending on the weapon/damage system, you might be able to determine To Hit, Ready, and Damage in a single roll of multiple dice.
The player still says "I hit it with my axe," but now the world, simulated by the random numbers generated by the dice, might say "you hit, and your axe is now stuck for a round." And then the player makes another choice based on that circumstance.
Moreover, it's not necessarily an additional failure or suck chance. That may be the case in D&D, where unarmed<armed<spell, but in a hypothetical game made with this system in mind, it's possible to set things up so that it is not inherently vastly inferior to headbutt someone compared to swording them.
While secondaries/stunts/etc might be more robust and less deterministic, Ready Rolls would have the benefit of simplicity. Roll your attack die, roll your ready die. You can do that at once. Depending on the weapon/damage system, you might be able to determine To Hit, Ready, and Damage in a single roll of multiple dice.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
No it ain't like that at all. Not being allowed to take certain actions is not the same thing as being able to pick actions that have (partially) randomized results. Don't be an idiot.Prak wrote:That's a little like saying "Are you sure rolling is the best way to determine how much damage I deal? Seems like you're removing player agency."
You might want to reread the proposed system.Moreover, it's not necessarily an additional failure or suck chance. That may be the case in D&D, where unarmed<armed<spell, but in a hypothetical game made with this system in mind, it's possible to set things up so that it is not inherently vastly inferior to headbutt someone compared to swording them.
The goal of doing this is to occasionally break up the monotony of a character spamming their best attack ...
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
My point is that denial of an option for one turn due to circumstances which would realistically not be entirely under the character's control is not removing player agency. You're right, the damage thing is a false analogy, but how about it's like saying "Fire immunity on a monster removes player agency from the wizard because he can't cast fireball?"ishy wrote:No it ain't like that at all. Not being allowed to take certain actions is not the same thing as being able to pick actions that have (partially) randomized results. Don't be an idiot.Prak wrote:That's a little like saying "Are you sure rolling is the best way to determine how much damage I deal? Seems like you're removing player agency."
I fail to see what's incongruous here. "Unarmed isn't inherently sucky" and "discourage the spamming of your best attack" aren't mutually exclusive. If a punch did damage only slightly behind manufactured weapons, or if you could take "headbutt the fuck" as an action that did little damage but had a chance to daze for a round, those would be attractive options but not things you'd want to use all the fucking time.You might want to reread the proposed system.Moreover, it's not necessarily an additional failure or suck chance. That may be the case in D&D, where unarmed<armed<spell, but in a hypothetical game made with this system in mind, it's possible to set things up so that it is not inherently vastly inferior to headbutt someone compared to swording them.The goal of doing this is to occasionally break up the monotony of a character spamming their best attack ...
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Denial of the best option. Thus when it is available you're shooting yourself in the foot if you're not using it.Prak wrote:My point is that denial of an option for one turn due to circumstances which would realistically not be entirely under the character's control is not removing player agency. You're right, the damage thing is a false analogy, but how about it's like saying "Fire immunity on a monster removes player agency from the wizard because he can't cast fireball?"
Fire immunity can remove player agency, yes. It can potentially mean the player can't go to fire-area.
If your mechanic barely has any impact, but still requires table time and requires players & the DM to process a lot of information, you're probably better off removing it.I fail to see what's incongruous here. "Unarmed isn't inherently sucky" and "discourage the spamming of your best attack" aren't mutually exclusive. If a punch did damage only slightly behind manufactured weapons, or if you could take "headbutt the fuck" as an action that did little damage but had a chance to daze for a round, those would be attractive options but not things you'd want to use all the fucking time.
Gary Gygax wrote:The player’s path to role-playing mastery begins with a thorough understanding of the rules of the game
Bigode wrote:I wouldn't normally make that blanket of a suggestion, but you seem to deserve it: scroll through the entire forum, read anything that looks interesting in term of design experience, then come back.
Ok, so what's being discussed here introducing a d6 roll to weapon attacks and speed ratings to weapons. If you roll your weapon's speed or better on the attack, then you can bring it back to bear, if you roll under, your weapon is unavailable for your next action for whatever reason.
I want to make sure you and I are on the same page, ishy, because you're sounding like an idiot.
So, if you're playing, say, a barbarian with a great axe, your weapon's speed rating is 5, and roughly 2/3 of the time it will be unavailable to use the turn after a successful attack, and you will need to do something else. This is to encourage diversity of attack options used and make battles more cinematic and less monotonously grindy.
No specific method has been laid out, but this roll is supposed to be modified in some way. I proposed dex, and a barbarian could reasonably be expected to have a decent dex due to their light armour situation. So that 5 might be a 4, or a 3, quite reasonably, meaning that the chance of the barbarian losing his best option might drop to 1/2 or even 1/3. If you allowed muscle power, rather than just agility or reaction speed, to modify the roll, it's possible that the barbarian would have an even better rating.
Now, if you introduced this as a tack-on to D&D 3.X, yes, it would fuck over martial types, as they are forced to forsake weapons or use shitty unarmed attacks. However OgreBattle's OP makes no mention of D&D. One might use this in an entirely new system where weapon attacks do not vastly outpace unarmed attacks, and so it is more fluff and perhaps a minor disadvantage that promotes diversity of tactics.
Now, if you instead used a system which randomly dictated what options you had available at any given moment, a Winds of Fate sort of thing, or something, I could see how one might think it negatively impacted player agency. But this does not, and to suggest otherwise is one of the stupider things I've seen here.
I want to make sure you and I are on the same page, ishy, because you're sounding like an idiot.
So, if you're playing, say, a barbarian with a great axe, your weapon's speed rating is 5, and roughly 2/3 of the time it will be unavailable to use the turn after a successful attack, and you will need to do something else. This is to encourage diversity of attack options used and make battles more cinematic and less monotonously grindy.
No specific method has been laid out, but this roll is supposed to be modified in some way. I proposed dex, and a barbarian could reasonably be expected to have a decent dex due to their light armour situation. So that 5 might be a 4, or a 3, quite reasonably, meaning that the chance of the barbarian losing his best option might drop to 1/2 or even 1/3. If you allowed muscle power, rather than just agility or reaction speed, to modify the roll, it's possible that the barbarian would have an even better rating.
Now, if you introduced this as a tack-on to D&D 3.X, yes, it would fuck over martial types, as they are forced to forsake weapons or use shitty unarmed attacks. However OgreBattle's OP makes no mention of D&D. One might use this in an entirely new system where weapon attacks do not vastly outpace unarmed attacks, and so it is more fluff and perhaps a minor disadvantage that promotes diversity of tactics.
Now, if you instead used a system which randomly dictated what options you had available at any given moment, a Winds of Fate sort of thing, or something, I could see how one might think it negatively impacted player agency. But this does not, and to suggest otherwise is one of the stupider things I've seen here.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Re: 'Ammo check/roll' for melee weapons as 'weapon speed'
Hey, maybe you could go even further and invent a version of D&D where you're forced to mix up your actions by making a bunch of abilities usable only 1/encounter or even 1/day! That would be even better!OgreBattle wrote:The goal of doing this is to occasionally break up the monotony of a character spamming their best attack ('I swing my holy avenger!') with a secondary attack action ('As our blades are locked I headbutt him!') or go for a 'stunt' ('I throw sand in his face!') or even force them to withdraw ('I take a step back and free my axe from his shield')
So.
Axe, axe, axe, axe, axe. That's bad.
Axe, axe, axe, punch, axe, axe. That's good, especially one in four fights.
0: Eh. Shouldn't it be, axe-sweep, smash!, axe-pull, close combat, elbow-axe.
Like 4e D&D wanted to be, only wasn't. More, what options you might randomly win for having attacked with your axe, or what circumstances provide various axe-options. So round 1 you won a random trip and succeeded, round 2 the smash was available vs an unbalanced opponent, round three you won a pull option and grappled, and kept grappling, but then won free and got an extra axe. Sometimes you win nothing, maybe often you win nothing with bigger weapons, but get a lot of grapples with a dagger.
1: Your weapons may be getting stuck more when you get better with them, though if it only costs 1 attack rather than 1 round it's not a big deal. If it couldn't carry into your next round it would also save bookkeeping, base 2 attacks per round.
Just generally, people prefer a bonus to a malus though. Giving someone a free "not axe" is going to be way more popular than losing their axe for a round. In GURPS, no one uses unbalanced weapons without the Strength to ignore that, it's just a bad feeling.
Axe, axe, axe, axe, axe. That's bad.
Axe, axe, axe, punch, axe, axe. That's good, especially one in four fights.
0: Eh. Shouldn't it be, axe-sweep, smash!, axe-pull, close combat, elbow-axe.
Like 4e D&D wanted to be, only wasn't. More, what options you might randomly win for having attacked with your axe, or what circumstances provide various axe-options. So round 1 you won a random trip and succeeded, round 2 the smash was available vs an unbalanced opponent, round three you won a pull option and grappled, and kept grappling, but then won free and got an extra axe. Sometimes you win nothing, maybe often you win nothing with bigger weapons, but get a lot of grapples with a dagger.
1: Your weapons may be getting stuck more when you get better with them, though if it only costs 1 attack rather than 1 round it's not a big deal. If it couldn't carry into your next round it would also save bookkeeping, base 2 attacks per round.
Just generally, people prefer a bonus to a malus though. Giving someone a free "not axe" is going to be way more popular than losing their axe for a round. In GURPS, no one uses unbalanced weapons without the Strength to ignore that, it's just a bad feeling.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Considering that this idea is based off of an ammo roll in the first place, an ammo roll. The bow-user's special hail of doom attack has a higher chance of failing a check so save it up for finishing the fight.MGuy wrote:How do ranged weapons work in this set up?
Yeah that's another way to do it, toss out the 'ammo check' mechanic and give people bonus attacks with different weapons if they either...tussock wrote: Just generally, people prefer a bonus to a malus though. Giving someone a free "not axe" is going to be way more popular than losing their axe for a round. In GURPS, no one uses unbalanced weapons without the Strength to ignore that, it's just a bad feeling.
1) Roll above what's needed to hit, so your axe bites deep AND you get to smash their face in with a headbutt
2) Roll barely below what's needed to hit, so your ax whiffs BUT it opened them up to a nasty headbutt attack
The secondary effect also includes non-attack actions like shifting away.
Or make it even simpler: "If you roll an even number (hit or miss) you can make a secondary action" so half of the time a rogue gets bonus movement when he attacks, hit or miss.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Wed May 13, 2015 3:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
What kind of game is this mechanic supposed to be even used for? Hell, what game do you have in mind for the straw model?
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
This reminds me of adventure mode in Dwarf Fortress, where for each attack you choose a location first then an attack source. Obviously you don't want that level of detail but something like it would be really interesting.
Maybe you're Conan and your attack options are:
* speed 3: kick / 3 dmg (nl)
* speed 3: shove / imposes penalty
* speed 1: Rhand: dagger slash / 1d4 dmg
* speed 1: Rhand: dagger stab / 1d4 dmg
* speed 2: Rhand: punch / 2 dmg (nl)
* speed 3: Lhand: scimitar slash / 1d6+1 dmg
* speed 2: Lhand: scimitar pommel strike / 1d4+1 dmg
* speed 1: headbutt / 1 dmg
Maybe you have a speed die you roll every round, add something like your agility. So, 1d6+2 for Conan. Conan gets to spend his result of 4, he chooses a kick and a dagger stab. Next round he gets an 8, but he used kick and dagger stab last round and this round he has to pick something else. Scimitar slash, shove, scimitar pommel strike add up to 8, but next round he has to use other attacks.
Maybe you're Conan and your attack options are:
* speed 3: kick / 3 dmg (nl)
* speed 3: shove / imposes penalty
* speed 1: Rhand: dagger slash / 1d4 dmg
* speed 1: Rhand: dagger stab / 1d4 dmg
* speed 2: Rhand: punch / 2 dmg (nl)
* speed 3: Lhand: scimitar slash / 1d6+1 dmg
* speed 2: Lhand: scimitar pommel strike / 1d4+1 dmg
* speed 1: headbutt / 1 dmg
Maybe you have a speed die you roll every round, add something like your agility. So, 1d6+2 for Conan. Conan gets to spend his result of 4, he chooses a kick and a dagger stab. Next round he gets an 8, but he used kick and dagger stab last round and this round he has to pick something else. Scimitar slash, shove, scimitar pommel strike add up to 8, but next round he has to use other attacks.
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Dungeon crawls with 4-6 people against weaker foes that outnumber them, stronger foes they outnumber, and the occasional mirror match.Lago PARANOIA wrote:What kind of game is this mechanic supposed to be even used for? Hell, what game do you have in mind for the straw model?
Perhaps turn it into a mordheim/necromunda style vs miniatures game