Re: Ranged Combat - excellent example

From: flynnkd2 <flynnkd_at_...>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:23:02 -0000

I agree mostly with the earlier poster that this example puts forward some solutions for use, but in the real world of gung hoe players is not overly relevant. Perhaps it is a hurdle that some GMs have getting past the AP=HPs to AP=actions, I know I am continually changing my views on how to resolve things and thus continually knocking my head into a wall to try to get myself to think in a different manner.

If my players see a mastery advantage due to position, they will ALWAYS go all out, knowing they have a HP to push it to two masteries and make it almost impossible to fail.

And then there is the mindset of not dying. I have been drumming into them for 6 months that -35 AP is dying, not dead. I did this to try to encourage them to take risks, to alter their style of play and to try to get them past the "kill all enemies D&D or be killed" mindset. So they have finally realised that I seem to be reluctant to kill them off without a good reason. A bad dice roll is not a good reason, ever! Even tho they put themselves at risk, a bad dice roll just sucks enough as it is. So unless I start reversing my policy (which I might do) I sought have got myself into the situation...

> Alternatively (or at the same time), you could use edges when there
is
> a lot of difference in risks. Then, you bid 10 points, but you have
an
> edge of ^10, so, if you win, your enemy lose 20 APs, but if you
lose,
> you only lose 10 APs.
>
> If you have a good position, without risks, of course you could try
to
> finish the fight, but then the narrator should apply some advantage
in
> game terms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Antonio

Now this is a nice idea. An archer at distance is sort of protected from bad effects unless pretty unusual. Might it not be a good idea to simply say that archery gets a ^10 edge unless forced into contact. Thus an archer can bid 10AP a shot without too much fear because he is protected from common failures by his edge. If something more dramatic happens then the edge wont be enough. Plus an archer would then naturally restrict himself to bidding 10AP as that is his buffer, which means his archery would be more drawn out (which I am told is a bit more realistic, single shot kills at range are hard to get, you need to be up close). The opponent then has to make a dramtic action against him to remove the edge he has - close range etc. Counter battery fire, archer vs archer could be exempt from this, it only applies when the opponent has no easily perceived way of effectively retaliating... and that concept could be applied in a lot of cases.

I have to admit that I always liked edges, and was sad to see them phased out mostly, but I could see why, they can get out of hand. But they still have their uses.

Powered by hypermail