Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RenleyRenfield" data-source="post: 9606119" data-attributes="member: 7044197">Good point!&nbsp;&nbsp; I personally would still stick to success with complications, and one of the complication suggestions would be to handle &quot;what interesting thing happens when neither side wins&quot; or &quot;what interesting thing comes up in a stalemate&quot;.But making it a overall success with complications you can do as you suggest, handle ties/nulls.&nbsp;&nbsp; But if the players/GM want, there is also room in the rules for &quot;you did it and here is how things went pear shaped from it.&quot;&nbsp; and many other options.&nbsp; By taking the stress off the GM to carte-blanche choose the whole result, you are just making it quicker and easier to come to any given resolution.&nbsp; And letting the player succeed in some way as the core of that result wont hinder things like ties or nulls.&nbsp; just my 2c.&nbsp; otherwise yes, I agree with you there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Sure, and that is combat.&nbsp; Combat is one of the few &quot;mini games&quot; within most rpgs where rules can differ.&nbsp;&nbsp; So a roll to attack can be handled different than roll to climb the cliffside.&nbsp; If you so choose.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even still, success with complications is fine in combat as it gets rid of &quot;nothing happened&quot;.&nbsp; When a attack is made, and defense negated it = nothing happened.&nbsp;&nbsp; The attacker is no closer to winning and the defender is no closer to losing.&nbsp; Its a non-result.&nbsp;&nbsp; If instead defense caused a complication on the attacker, then something happened.&nbsp; The defender gets a hurt, but now the attacker is wide open, off foot, weaker, etc etc...I am a fan of &quot;why do characters have to be invincible?&quot;&nbsp; It's ok to get stabbed, but don't make it too punishing, make it interesting, and leave opportunity for reprisal from taking the hit.&nbsp; This helps things resolve faster anyway. again just my 2c as to why i design the way i do... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That's valid and interesting point.&nbsp; As I think it over... hmmm.....I regularly hunt and kill with guns and bows. I hunt big game, easily human sized and bigger with bows and guns. Both are deadly as heck.&nbsp; D&amp;D ruined peoples concept of just how deadly bows are.&nbsp; Especially modern ones.&nbsp; And there then are crossbows... amazing at killing.&nbsp;&nbsp; So I am not sure what un-fun means there. In my world, where killing is real, range is about two things = how long do i have to aim to take the shot, and is it in range at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; because within &quot;effective range&quot;, if I hit, the animal is either dead or gravely wounded. Bow or gun, is largely the same = dead.&nbsp; On the most rare occasions is a second shot needed.In fun adventure time rpg stuff... that's up to the pulp fiction of the author and what they want to model.&nbsp; Are you looking for Legolas? Robin Hood?&nbsp; Conan?&nbsp; Saving Private Ryan?&nbsp;&nbsp; How do you want your gun/bow/sword&nbsp; combat to feel and play out? The game I wrote is set in the 1960's.&nbsp;&nbsp; So we have common guns of pistols, less common rifles and machine guns.&nbsp; And common knives (and very uncommon swords).&nbsp; The game is far more about fictional position than range.&nbsp; So my rules reflect that.&nbsp; Instead of just adding rules for range and dodge as a base fact, I have &quot;situation&quot;.&nbsp; If you have the time to get a long rifle, aim, calm, and shoot = either there is no roll at all, we just deal with consequences/fallout of your target dying.&nbsp; Or you roll to see if you made the shot, which = amounts to the same result as not needed to shoot (target is dead, deal with consequences) ; and with the additional possible result of &quot;you missed and now there are other consequences&quot;. If your character is the one being shot at... we do the same in reverse.&nbsp; Are you taking precautions to stay out of LOS/Danger?&nbsp; If not, the guy shoots you and you deal with the consequences.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you are being defensive and aware, then make you defense roll.&nbsp; just like above, one result is - you get shot, deal with the consequences, and also possible you make your defense so they miss, deal with the new consequences.Where in all that was &quot;range&quot; even relevant, other than &quot;can the shot be made at all?&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; In a run-and-gun situation = its the same, with the only difference being the fictional position of &quot;now that we are running/moving we are all hard targets, so that adds new complications.&quot;yrmvmostly I am just blathering about wider options&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I dunno, the text it self you had explaining the rule around Attribute Bonuses made sense to me, i understood your rule text well enough.&nbsp; So I am not sure I am clear what clarification the image is going for here.....side note: I marked &quot;rules make sense mostly&quot;, the doc was easy enough for me to understand.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="RenleyRenfield, post: 9606119, member: 7044197"] Good point! I personally would still stick to success with complications, and one of the complication suggestions would be to handle "what interesting thing happens when neither side wins" or "what interesting thing comes up in a stalemate". But making it a overall success with complications you can do as you suggest, handle ties/nulls. But if the players/GM want, there is also room in the rules for "you did it and here is how things went pear shaped from it." and many other options. By taking the stress off the GM to carte-blanche choose the whole result, you are just making it quicker and easier to come to any given resolution. And letting the player succeed in some way as the core of that result wont hinder things like ties or nulls. just my 2c. otherwise yes, I agree with you there. :) Sure, and that is combat. Combat is one of the few "mini games" within most rpgs where rules can differ. So a roll to attack can be handled different than roll to climb the cliffside. If you so choose. Even still, success with complications is fine in combat as it gets rid of "nothing happened". When a attack is made, and defense negated it = nothing happened. The attacker is no closer to winning and the defender is no closer to losing. Its a non-result. If instead defense caused a complication on the attacker, then something happened. The defender gets a hurt, but now the attacker is wide open, off foot, weaker, etc etc... I am a fan of "why do characters have to be invincible?" It's ok to get stabbed, but don't make it too punishing, make it interesting, and leave opportunity for reprisal from taking the hit. This helps things resolve faster anyway. again just my 2c as to why i design the way i do... :) That's valid and interesting point. As I think it over... hmmm..... I regularly hunt and kill with guns and bows. I hunt big game, easily human sized and bigger with bows and guns. [I]Both are deadly as heck.[/I] D&D ruined peoples concept of just how deadly bows are. Especially modern ones. And there then are crossbows... amazing at killing. So I am not sure what un-fun means there. In my world, where killing is real, range is about two things = [I]how long do i have to aim to take the shot[/I], and is it [I]in range at all.[/I] That's it. because within "effective range", if I hit, the animal is either dead or gravely wounded. Bow or gun, is largely the same = dead. On the most rare occasions is a second shot needed. In fun adventure time rpg stuff... that's up to the pulp fiction of the author and what they want to model. Are you looking for Legolas? Robin Hood? Conan? Saving Private Ryan? How do you want your gun/bow/sword combat to feel and play out? The game I wrote is set in the 1960's. So we have common guns of pistols, less common rifles and machine guns. And common knives (and very uncommon swords). The game is far more about fictional position than range. So my rules reflect that. Instead of just adding rules for range and dodge as a base fact, I have "situation". If you have the time to get a long rifle, aim, calm, and shoot = either there is no roll at all, we just deal with consequences/fallout of your target dying. Or you roll to see if you made the shot, which = amounts to the same result as not needed to shoot (target is dead, deal with consequences) ; and with the additional possible result of "you missed and now there are other consequences". If your character is the one being shot at... we do the same in reverse. Are you taking precautions to stay out of LOS/Danger? If not, the guy shoots you and you deal with the consequences. If you are being defensive and aware, then make you defense roll. just like above, one result is - you get shot, deal with the consequences, and also possible you make your defense so they miss, deal with the new consequences. [I]Where in all that was "range" even relevant, other than "can the shot be made at all?" [/I] In a run-and-gun situation = its the same, with the only difference being the fictional position of "now that we are running/moving we are all hard targets, so that adds new complications." yrmv mostly I am just blathering about wider options :) I dunno, the text it self you had explaining the rule around Attribute Bonuses made sense to me, i understood your rule text well enough. So I am not sure I am clear what clarification the image is going for here. .... side note: I marked "rules make sense mostly", the doc was easy enough for me to understand. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification