Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5852706" data-attributes="member: 54877">Either forked or here is fine.&nbsp; It is a different approach, but there should be enough cross-over between the two to make discussion of both fruitful.&nbsp; &nbsp;For example, one of the things that immediately occurred to me reading your post was that such a system was in some ways similar to the Mongoose Runequest II &quot;combat maneuver&quot; system.&nbsp; MRQII doesn't have any direct concept of gaining or losing &quot;CAs&quot; by being ignored.&nbsp; However, because CAs are spent on defense, anyone being ignored is automatically much more effective.&nbsp; Another big difference is that getting hit hard in MRQII is more a feature of bad luck or running out of CAs.&nbsp; That is, it punishes being engaged more than it rewards being disengaged--which is often a characteristic of systems that require active defense.&nbsp; &nbsp;It wasn't clear to me whether your system does require active defense or not.&nbsp; I guess that I'm looking to either avoid active defense or at least do it differently than many systems have done, both for ease of handling and to keep well away from the &quot;punish&quot; aspect of being engaged.&nbsp; Specifically, I don't want to add something that makes a single creature being engaged by several opponents any worse than it already is--such as effectively locking down actions to defense.&nbsp; Getting ganged up on is already bad enough--thus the attractiveness of focus fire.&nbsp; &nbsp;Consider a solo fight, such as a dragon.&nbsp; If the dragon can &quot;engage&quot; with is breath weapon, then he can keep things on an even footing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5852706, member: 54877"] Either forked or here is fine. It is a different approach, but there should be enough cross-over between the two to make discussion of both fruitful. For example, one of the things that immediately occurred to me reading your post was that such a system was in some ways similar to the Mongoose Runequest II "combat maneuver" system. MRQII doesn't have any direct concept of gaining or losing "CAs" by being ignored. However, because CAs are spent on defense, anyone being ignored is automatically much more effective. Another big difference is that getting hit hard in MRQII is more a feature of bad luck or running out of CAs. That is, it punishes being engaged more than it rewards being disengaged--which is often a characteristic of systems that require active defense. It wasn't clear to me whether your system does require active defense or not. I guess that I'm looking to either avoid active defense or at least do it differently than many systems have done, both for ease of handling and to keep well away from the "punish" aspect of being engaged. Specifically, I don't want to add something that makes a single creature being engaged by several opponents any worse than it already is--such as effectively locking down actions to defense. Getting ganged up on is already bad enough--thus the attractiveness of focus fire. Consider a solo fight, such as a dragon. If the dragon can "engage" with is breath weapon, then he can keep things on an even footing. [/QUOTE]

Verification