Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1223078" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>Me too, after all, thats what house rules are for, taking a good game a making it BETTER for my game.The range to targets is a great example. The character makes decisions abou where to position himself and such. The mechnics affect those decisions when made by the player. They affect the actions chopsen and what is reasonable and what is not reasonable. As such, the MORE the player decisions (based on mechanics) are in sync with the character decisions (based on the character's view of the world and how things work) the more the game seems to make sense. The more divorced the factors that play into the players decision are from the world of the character, the less sense it seems to make.The bullet counting autfire seems very divorced when you look at the player decisions and the character decisions, the player knowledge and the character knowledge.  This seems to presume the results of that action are not relevent to the other events as well as knowledge of the targets defense score. I am sure in some cases that will be the case.EDIT TO ADD: FWIW, my system has one to hit roll and one damage roll per hit made. IIRC thats the same number of rolls as would be required in the official stargate, except that if you had the dice in stargate the damage rolls could be made all at once it. The one extra roll i add is the single d10 rtolled afterward for wasted shots, which obviously can be done after the action moves on to others.Why is that a good thing? Gothca... but the same sort of effect would be seen in a non-bullet counting system. The more accurate shooter would gets hits sooner in the sequence and with the right feats would mark off less ammo per increment. I agree that the system making a visible difference between these types of gunners is a good thing, i just think both mechanics do that.I don't, as such when i change a mechanic with a house rule i follow the feats that are affected and paty attention to them too. Figuring out how to fix toughness (as well as the other small hit point bonus abilities) when i ditched the hit points took a lot longer than the autofire feats did.Why? Why should i even want to make the decisional basis for what happens something totally divorced from what the character is making his decisions on? Daniel is not worrying about or spending decision making time on "how many bullets" and he wont be whether it is a perfect count system or a guess on the count random shift system. its not as much "can daniel count bullets accurately" but rather "is counting bullets a factor at all in his thinking.The factors which determine how many rounds he fires for daniel are very simple and easy to determine:1. Is the gun still firing?2. Is the bad guy still up? 3. Does it look like my shots are doing anything?Thats it. Each of those are perfectly applicable, describale, and useful pieces of info within the game as well as the character world. So why would i want to throw all those elements out and use instead a bunch of other parameters (what is the remaining ammo by 3, how many volleys do i want to fire beofre seeing any results)? It just seems more logical to base the factors that are used for the PLAYER decision mathc the factors that would go into the character making the decision. Here we go again.Maybe someday, we will be spared this nonsense.If you had read my posts, especiallyu my review from early in the thread, you will find that I endorsed the book, did a pretty good job at it iirc. In this review i said "While it does have flaws, the book is well worth its price and will serve a GM wanting to run a stargate game well from both a rules perspective and a genre setting perspective."and i said..."The "problems" are easy to fix (Well swapping out hit points takes a bit of effort) and relative to the good stuff are not that serious."and i then said..."As a final summary, i am using their book for my game, with my own house rules to plug the problems, so that should give you a rough notion of my overall feel. it is worth it."and even a little further back I said..."While i list these in brief, these two are big IMO. So, dont let the fact that I spend more bandwidth explaining the cons to give you reasons to believe the cons outweigh the pros."So, frankly, morganstern, if this is what you want to use to go off on this "blast a book" over is silly nonsense, then I guess we get a good notion of what kind of reasoned analysis and perception to expect from those people working on spycraft?Even though it may be totally lost on those who work on Spycraft, there is a difference between criticising a mechanic or even several mechanics in a game book and "blasting the book" and I did more than a little to bring that out in my review... even though that seemed lost on you.geesh.Maybe a caution about overzealous defenders going overboard against criticisms of any mechnics should be added to my reviews?[/QUOTE]

Verification