Members | Sign In
Modiphius > Mutant Chronicles RPG
avatar

About Combat

posted Mar 12, 2015 22:33:42 by Alakhai
I have started a new campaign with my players to introduce them slowly to the new system (we have been playing 2nd Edition until last summer and we have tested every alpha and beta of this system). Each week that a new portion of the book comes out I try to introduce these things in the story (this week we will use vehicle combat).

I have found some things that maybe I have misread or misunderstood.

-There is no penalty to shoot at a melee? For example, one of your friends is fighting in close combat or with a pistol at reach distance with an enemy. You can shoot freely to that melee without hitting your friend?

-Movement is favouring melee characters a lot. Example we have a fight inside a warehouse, with a lot of big boxes, machines and such. There are a few lines of sights and a lot of cover. You can move anywere with your move action to go Reach distance, and people with guns need to do the Withdraw action every turn, and that is your Standar Action! People with Close Combat weapons can move AND Attack you in the same turn, you cannot escape!


I have decide to use two "house rules" but it is better fix the game at this stage than houserule :P

If you shoot at a melee where are allies and you dont want to risk hit your friend, increase the difficult to hit 1 level. Weapons like shotguns increase the difficult in the same rate of their spread vale.

I am thinking in how to houserule the same situation with grenades and flametrowers.
============================
Vini, vidi, vici et fuit facilis. Alakhai
http://www.mutantchronicles.es/
page   first prev 1 2 3 4 5 next last
71 replies
avatar
JamesFischl said Mar 17, 2015 18:31:02
@james
Well, your problem is that you made the area one big zone when it should obviously be divided up into multiple ones. At the least, the shed should be its own zone within the field. And if "behind the shed" is a tactically important spot, it should be its own zone as well. So now you have in front of the shed, behind the shed, and the shed itself as zones. Yes, this means that the effective range of weapons may differ based on how you define zones. This game is more concerned with basing a map on its tactical situation than on its exact distances, however. I would again say that this kind of distortion isn't really that far off from trying to fit maps into grids and then adding things like debris or cover to the map that dont fit In an exact number of squares.

So yeah, when you make a zone map you need to think tactically and use the map to emphasize tactics. Being behind the shed makes sneaking less difficult but requires hopping the fence around the yard. Being in the shed provides cover. The shed can only exit into the front part of the yard, not the back. Things like that. Provided you're not trying to mode exact distances, the abstract zones can reflect most any kind of situation you come up with.


Let's consider this cinematic narrative example to go with your depiction of this situation and your plan for three zones: front-shed, rear-shed and inside-shed. I'm going to make a slight adjustment to the situation: the heroes want to sneak up to be immediately on both sides of the shed's door in preparation to breach. The heroes enter the yard, sneak up and stack up around the door. However one of them fails his stealth check, giving away his position. The cultist knows he's about to be caught and decides this is his time to strike. He leaps out of the shed and charges at the spot where he heard the noise, right outside. That's a likely, reasonable narrative that could easily happen in MC.

Now let's look at it in game terms. The heroes take their turn entering the zone and moving within it sneakily. They attempt and fail a stealth check. As they have used their turn moving stealthily and stacking up around the door their turn ends. The cultist's turn happens. He leaves the shed zone and move into the front-shed zone, then uses the remainder of his turn to move into melee range. Turn ends.


As you said earlier, "During those 6 seconds, your character could be anywhere in the zone, the same way the blow that actually hits an opponent might be the first swing of the sword or the tenth." However in the above situation when you compare the narrative description with the game-terms description the relationship breaks down heavily. The players have spent six seconds moving a much greater distance (approximately 50ft) for their turn. The cultist, however, moves a far shorter distance (less than six feet) and his opponents, per the narrative, are right outside the door. Yet the cultist can do nothing more than open the door, step forward, and get into position to strike during his turn. In what way does the game system serve the narrative there?

Further to my point, the narrative depends heavily on precisely-defined positions for both parties as do the parties' actions - especially our cultist. Yet those precise locations are absent from the game terms. The heroes really cannot be anywhere in the zone during that six seconds, as you said; they can only be at specific points to comply with the narrative. Yet by forcing the cultist to spend his entire turn moving because his opponents "could be anywhere in the zone" is ridiculous. I would expect a reasonable player to complain, and rightly so; it just doesn't make sense. Besides, going back to game terms, the cultist he's at a huge disadvantage as he is forced to cross zone borders. That's not to mention that the cultist takes as much time to charge out of his 36 square-foot toolshed during his turn as it takes the heroes to sneak to the middle of a 1,000 square-foot yard.

So in short, when trying to translate from game terms to narrative nonsense occurs; it's more trouble than it's worth.
[Last edited Mar 17, 2015 18:57:50]
Signature goes here.
avatar
AmazingOnionMan said Mar 17, 2015 19:05:11
"Let's consider this cinematic narrative example to go with your depiction of this situation and your plan for three zones: front-shed, rear-shed and inside-shed. I'm going to make a slight adjustment to the situation: the heroes want to sneak up to be immediately on both sides of the shed's door in preparation to breach. The heroes enter the yard, sneak up and stack up around the door. However one of them fails his stealth check, giving away his position. The cultist knows he's about to be caught and decides this is his time to strike. He leaps out of the shed and charges at the spot where he heard the noise, right outside. That's a likely, reasonable narrative that could easily happen in MC."

Incompetent heroes that don't put one character to cover the door with an m516S...

That said, I don't see much of a problem here unless I look really, really hard. The MC-mechanics rely heavily on "theatre of the mind". Going by rounds before the cultist bursts out and the fight actually starts is somewhat unnecessary. Let the characters set themselves up, and if(when) someone messes up, it depends on the the GM and the situation to determine the actual positions and who can do what.
If they bungle when stacking up around the door, the cultist is free to charge directly into a reinforced boot - because that would be the logical result. If they bungle while closing on the shed, the situation could play out differently - thus putting a character with an m516S to cover the door.
Never let rules get in the way of the game.

"So in short, when trying to translate from game terms to narrative nonsense occurs; it's more trouble than it's worth"
The curse of abstraction.
[Last edited Mar 18, 2015 16:47:29]
I'm not always right!
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Mar 17, 2015 23:14:10
@James

So you had a guy not armed with any ranged weapons take cover inside a shed and have the brilliant idea to try bursting out of the shed in front of several armed and prepared people surrounding him and attempt to charge them before they gun him down? At that point, it's not really worth doing a combat encounter of a full party against one cornered person, or the GM should be using DSPs to edit the encounter more into the favor of the person (e.g. by giving him a ranged weapon, or calling for backup).

The reason the shed is its own zone is specifically because entering and leaving it takes extra time. The reason for having the backyard zone is so that characters can gun down the character from behind without him being able to return fire easily.

Also, as onion said, you should probably either skip using zones while players set up their ambush (which would allow you to design the zones based around what the players think is tactically important e.g. having a behind the shed zone if the players want to hide behind the shed), or have them use the exploit weakness action and follow up with a readied action for when the heretic pops out of the shed.

Honestly, the most abstract thing is the consideration that when you first cross the barrier between zones, you are narratively "somewhere in the border between these two zones" and its more the job of the players/GM to describe the location than it is the responsibility of the map to depict it. Keep in mind that players have a free action move somewhere within reach, so it's simple for them to use a move to cross zones, ask the GM "is there somewhere nearby to duck into cover?" and then either be told "Yes there is, as was already described," "Yes there is, if you want to pay a DSP," or "No there isn't, as already described." Basically, certain features of the battlefield don't arise unless the GM describes them when setting up the zone, or if they're added later through DSPs or Chronicle points.

So again, you're kind of missing the point of having the narrative rules/abstractions in combat. The idea is that it's unnecessary to play out surrounding one guy in a shed using the combat rules most of the time, and that when it is the combat rules should emphasize the tactical situation, and downplay other aspects. Basically, you're contriving a situation in which you purposefully don't make use of the rules/don't recognize the need to use them differently from a grid-based tactical rpg.
avatar
JamesFischl said Mar 17, 2015 23:42:06
So tactical issues aside (it's a hypothetical example, not a showcase of tactical ability) I would say that neither one of you has really fully addressed my point that the combat rules are so far abstracted that when you try to translate them to narrative terms it doesn't make sense. Or, as both of you pointed out, it places an unrealistic burden on the GM to narrate the flow of events or fill in detail. I think your responses illustrate that well.

I described events taking place in cinematic terms, something that's no different than what the GM would have to do for a group of players that were playing out those events. I still maintain that the situation could be such that it would be appropriate to play the whole sequence out in rounds, but that's a digression. In any case, both of you immediately had objections to how I had narrated it - in effect you were saying "But my players wouldn't have done that! They would have moved around the door differently! They would have covered it with a weapon!" and so on.

That arises, I would argue, the combat rules only allow for a small amount of that kind of definition to occur, hence the discontinuity between game world and narrative. Hence the burden of the GM to fill in gaps and make rulings on how the action plays out in a narrative sense that a combat system should not require. Because there are no defined positions within a zone - as Nicholas pointed out you are assumed to potentially be at any point within a zone at any time during a round - you cannot say that you are moving next to the door. You cannot dictate your path through a zone either as doing so makes no sense. You only can say you are moving into or within the zone. To state your exact position brings up the issue I raised earlier that only adds to the difficulty of translating game system to narrative: why is it so time-consuming for the cultist to move a few feet to where his target is, according to the narrative in each and every instance no matter what?

Because the combat system does not adequately inform the GM and players how to construct the narrative the GM must supply huge amounts of information. I would argue a good combat system does that in such a way to make it easy to construct a narrative. Any details the GM must supply are of little to no consequence to the outcome of the encounter.
Signature goes here.
avatar
AmazingOnionMan said Mar 17, 2015 23:54:02
@James
I feel the combat system as a whole is ..unfulfilling, but zones I have no problem with.
I suspect it is a matter of playstyle and comfort zones(heh). As I said previously, I would have preferred all bases covered instead of just one.
I'm not always right!
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Mar 18, 2015 00:19:26
A quick note: Currently, the rules for movement are a bit unclear on how the Adjust Stance action works. In one place, they say it allows you to move anywhere within reach. In another, it allows you to move anywhere in the same zone. I am assuming that the former is the intended ruling for it.

We both addressed you by saying that you were essentially not using the rules as intended. You originally set up a combat that consisted of a single zone and wondered why it was tactically uninteresting in regards to movement. Then you used a modified example with multiple zones, including a zone specifically designed to be difficult to get into or out of, and wondered why that zone was so difficult to get out of.

Besides which, characters are free to state their position within a zone (behind cover, pressed against the shed, standing in the middle of the yard, etc.). I didn't point this out, but when you are in a zone, you are typically going to be within Reach of something. Maybe it's the shed. Maybe it's another character. Generally, you are either going to be "in a zone" not near any distinguishable landmark, or "In reach" of a landmark such as cover or a person, etc. Moving into an adjacent zone with a restricted action will generally only put you "in the zone" unless the barrier between zones is a landmark, in which case you would be within reach of it. So basically, if you move between the front and back yard, your position is basically anywhere within the yard that isn't by a landmark, because there's no real barrier between the zones. Moving from the shed to the yard, though, has a barrier in the form of the door, which will delay your movement and mean that at best you end up immediately adjacent to the shed door.

And for specific things:
both of you immediately had objections to how I had narrated it

I objected to how you translated your narrative to the rules. And the example I gave you was assuming that the cultist was going to hide out in the shed. If you wanted him to be able to easily burst out of it, you could just say that it counts as being in heavy cover and that he's within reach of that cover.

Hence the burden of the GM to fill in gaps and make rulings on how the action plays out in a narrative sense that a combat system should not require.

I'd argue that the GM is able to just make up a couple tactical things he thinks are important, and base the rest of the zones off of what the players think are tactically important. So the work gets divided up.

Because there are no defined positions within a zone

See above, but you can have a defined position of being "within reach" of something. Of course, you may be moving around this thing you're within reach of, hence the notion of never knowing someone's exact position. It's true that my example wouldn't have "you go on the left and you go on the right" make much difference or even be used for abstract zones unless the zone map includes them, but those things don't really make much difference in a regular grid combat to begin with.

You only can say you are moving into or within the zone.

Not true. You can easily describe where you are going in a zone, but note that you can't get within reach of most things in the zone unless the zone is particularly small, or the landmark is already established to be right by the border of the zone.

You cannot dictate your path through a zone either as doing so makes no sense

Unless the GM draws out obstacles on a tactical map, why would you need to dictate your path? If the GM takes the time to draw these out, he can just as easily describe/point them out in the zone map. Again, if something is tactically significant, it gets written down, otherwise it's ignored.

why is it so time-consuming for the cultist to move a few feet to where his target is

Because the zone setup I established has the cultist having to take the time to exit the shed, charge at, and engage his target. If you wanted the cultist to be able to charge out more easily, make the shed just act as a piece of concealing cover. You could also say that all of the players right beside the shed are within reach of it, thus allowing the heretic to be instantly within reach of them when exiting.

So yes, this requires a bit of work on the GM's part to define the situation tactically, but this, I think will encourage tactical combats, as the players and GM have to actually focus on the tactical situation when designing the map, and use the zones to call out tactical considerations specifically using the different rules.
avatar
JakeBernstein said Mar 18, 2015 00:22:57
Can we discuss some of the other issues that have been brought up? I'm interested in hearing from Nick and Onion and others about other stuff that maybe we can focus on fixing with house rules (even if we take different stances on how best to do it).

From memory, I can recall:

1. Combat modifiers
2. Ammo consumption and Munition weapons.
3. Burst/autofire rules
4. Momentum banking (this one seems potentially very problematic).

What else?
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Mar 18, 2015 01:16:53
1. Combat modifiers

Copying from the table from page 70 (the preview of the skills chapter), I think you could just apply the following modifiers to combat.
Melee: Combinations, Lighting, Difficult Terrain, Disruption or Distraction, Encumbrance, Poor Oxygen, Poor Weather, Random Motion
Ranged: Combinations, Lighting, Difficult Terrain, Disruption or Distraction, Distance, Encumbrance, Poor Oxygen, Poor Weather, Random Motion

Honestly, that would basically cover it.

2. Ammo consumption and Munition weapons.
3. Burst/autofire rules


I honestly kind of like the idea of having 1 Reload be spent to activate a weapon "Super Attack." Some example effects could be Momentum Spends worth 2-3 momentum, gaining Additional Weapon Qualities (such as with the Ammo quality that already exists), granting a bonus momentum, or automatically activating existing weapon qualities.

Weapons with very large magazines or great full auto capability could spend more, thus increasing the effectiveness of their super attack.

4. Momentum banking (this one seems potentially very problematic)

I don't know if you read my posts about it in the Infinity forum, but here is the issue. Banked momentum has a maximum of 6. It can, RAW, be spent to add successes to any roll, regardless of whether the roll failed or not. A single d20 is worth (attribute+expertise+focus-repercussion range)/20 successes, meaning that only the most skilled character will have a d20 worth more than 1 success. This means that banked momentum is both more useful than the 1d20 you get for spending DSPs, AND is more easily renewable (especially if the GM inadvertently gives you a lot of 1 difficulty rolls). This in turn discourages the spending of DSPs for any roll which you have enough banked momentum to succeed at, because you can gamble on generating enough successes on your own, and know that the remainder will be covered by banked momentum. If you get lucky on the gamble, banked momentum will increase. So basically, the DSP economy that is required for the GM to run his end of things ends up being crashed. This doesn't even get into the fact that Reloads are also pretty expensive and represent a big chunk of how much someone can carry, and end up being worth about 1d20+half a momentum (for the 1 damage die). Plus, reloads can be lost by bad luck or GM declaration, which banked momentum cannot.

So what can fix this? Well, first off, I think that banked momentum should only be allowed to be spent on successful rolls, unless a special ability or talent says otherwise. I'm not sure if that would entirely solve the issue, but it would definitely help, as players would have to depend on DSPs to succeed at rolls, but could use banked momentum to make them better. And you could still have someone with a special ability in command who allows people to use banked momentum to succeed at their next roll.


avatar
JamesFischl said Mar 18, 2015 01:26:21
Ok I think I get it a bit better now. Nicholas and OnionMan, I appreciate your patient and detailed explanations to my questions. I can see a bit more about how the system as written is coherent and usable. I think ultimately, at least for myself, this is coming down to preference. My opinion is that I am used to a combat system being an objective tool used by both players and GM to determine the results of combat events and to inform how the GM should construct a narrative for those combat events.

The difference I see is that MC3's system is much more focused towards providing the GM a chance to narrate and continue to fabricate story. It's still participatory in a simplified sense but only enough for the GM to glean the basic actions of the characters s/he does not control so that they can be woven into the narrative.
Signature goes here.
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Mar 18, 2015 01:44:39
The difference I see is that MC3's system is much more focused towards providing the GM a chance to narrate and continue to fabricate story.


This is almost completely right, except for the fact that it also has the expectation that players make things up, too. Here's the basic flow of thought/narrative for a combat encounter.
1) The GM establishes a scene and NPCs. He describes the environment. (This is pretty much the same in any rpg)
2) The GM starts writing out a map (This is the same as any tactical rpg)
a) The GM divides up the zones based on what he thinks might be tactically important in the scene (this is similar to placing landmarks on a tactical map, but does require some more system mastery on the GM's part)
b) Optionally, the GM can elicit input from players on the map, such as asking them to add in features.
c) The GM labels each zone by its primary feature, and notes down any other landmarks within the zone
3) Characters are placed within the map (same as any other tactical rpg)
4) Combat proceeds as normal (same as any other rpg)
a) it may come up during combat that a player asks about a part of the environment that hasn't been established, or describes a part of it. This can either be noted down on the map or remembered. If it's particularly advantageous to the player, the GM may require the player to pay a Chronicle Point or DSP.
b) the same thing may come up for the GM, but in this case he would in most cases pay DSP to edit the scene unless it's something neutral that he is noting. This includes cases where a player may ask to have something exist in the narrative that wasn't already established, and the GM says no.
5) Anything previously established in combat by people's narrative description holds true for later in the combat

So really, the biggest differences in how the GM acts are that they need to take different factors into account when designing the initial map, and that they have a specific mechanic that allows them to directly edit a scene in progress. The biggest difference for players is that the game allows them to also edit a scene in progress, and gives them currency to do so with. Basically, players can add things to the narrative up until the point where the GM determines it's giving them an advantage and makes them pay, or the GM disallows it and has to pay himself. The GM can also add things to the narrative, but again has to pay to add things advantageous for the enemies. However, once something has been added, it cannot be taken away unless someone takes it away in the narrative or through paying DSPs or CPs for it. In this way, you have a battlefield that is only as detailed as it needs to be, with rules in place to keep people from just making up whatever they want.
avatar
JakeBernstein said Mar 18, 2015 03:28:29
Combat Modifiers

I think you covered it. This one is pretty easy. I'm not a fan of the oddity that assault rifles are less effective at close range, but that's easy to deal with.

Autofire

So, I'm not quite sure what you meant by this:

As far as the burst fire rules go, I know that the original implementation was vastly overpowered. Getting up to 3 extra d20s (which could each be worth an extra momentum for damage or something else), AND an extra damage die was a bit too overpowered. The current implementation seems okay, as it's similar to spending a DSP with an added effect of extra damage. Is it as good as what you get for spending banked momentum? Eh, not really, but I've already made it known that banked momentum kind of breaks the economy of the game as an easily renewable resource with no drawbacks to its use and a powerful effect. So as it stands, spending one of you very limited stock of reloads gives a fairly paltry effect. I think that bumping it up to adding 1d20 and 2 damage dice per reload spent could be a good compromise. I also agree with you that the naming of the different firing modes doesn't really fit with what those firing modes actually mean in combat.


Looks to me like nothing has changed--every Reload you spend gets you a d20 and a damage die, up to 3d20 and 3 damage dice. I still think that's a terrible mechanic for a great many reasons, a major one being that it lets you blow through armor with light weapons just by shooting a lot--a burst from an MP-105, for example, does 1+[DS]4 plus up to 2d20 and [DS]2 more. That's a maximum of up to 4 extra momentum and 4 extra damage for a total of 8 extra damage (granted, that's a supremely good roll)!

I prefer leveraging Spread and using Momentum to allow more bullets to hit but without allowing Momentum to be spent to increase damage on autofire attacks (which gives a reason to use single shots). This means that a light autofire weapon won't be routinely damaging guys in heavy armor, which feels better to me. Anyway, that's how I will probably do it, but that may not be for everyone.

Banked Momentum

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I read the banking momentum rules to only allow up to 6 banked GROUP momentum. That's powerful, but it's not the same as getting up 6 momentum for each PC. Considering that the only way to bank momentum is to not spend it when you get it, it's a trade-off of saving up those successes for later. Plus, they disappear at 1 momentum per turn (I might allow some kind of Leadership task to maintain group momentum, but that's neither here nor there right now). So, I don't know if that's too powerful or not, but if banked momentum is limited to 6 for the whole group, that's not so bad.

Finally, I would agree that banked momentum can only be used to add to a successful skill test. I'm not sure RAW indicates differently, but it's a bit ambiguous.
avatar
Nicholas Simpson said Mar 18, 2015 04:09:29
I'm not a fan of the oddity that assault rifles are less effective at close range, but that's easy to deal with.


I still think that some weapons should have multiple effective ranges, as it adds another way to distinguish them from each other. Maybe not all assault rifles, but have some special ones that are good in multiple ranges.

Looks to me like nothing has changed--every Reload you spend gets you a d20 and a damage die, up to 3d20 and 3 damage dice.


In the original draft, stuff that had Autofire 3 would gain 3d20 and 3[DS] just for spending a single reload. The change is that you have to spend 1 Reload per extra d20/[DS], and that the firing mode of a weapon determines how many reloads can be spent at once.

a burst from an MP-105, for example, does 1+[DS]4 plus up to 2d20 and [DS]2 more. That's a maximum of up to 4 extra momentum and 4 extra damage for a total of 8 extra damage (granted, that's a supremely good roll)!


On average, you're looking at it dealing about 4 damage. That's before factoring damage bonus from high attributes, though, as well as not taking extra momentum into account.

I prefer leveraging Spread and using Momentum to allow more bullets to hit but without allowing Momentum to be spent to increase damage on autofire attacks (which gives a reason to use single shots). This means that a light autofire weapon won't be routinely damaging guys in heavy armor, which feels better to me. Anyway, that's how I will probably do it, but that may not be for everyone.


So you're saying that each reload you spend on autofire would add +1 Spread? I like that idea well enough, but it could result in lots of extra hit locations being rolled. Still, it's not likely to happen THAT often. Honestly, I like the idea of spending reloads to increase Spread quite a bit. Or you could even differentiate further and say that spending 3 reloads gives a weapon Blast and Spread 1, to reflect the realistic use for full auto (clearing out a room).

That would still require something special for munitions weapons, though. As it stands, the issues are that 1) it makes sense to track individual rockets and individual hand grenades, 2) it makes less sense to track individual launcher grenades when grenade launchers can hold a dozen at once, and 3) it could unbalance the game to allow someone to have infinite grenades. Probably the simplest solution to that if using the above rules for autofire would be to have each Munition weapon list a value beside it and allow the player to ignore encumbrance of munitions loaded into that weapon up to the listed value. So the value may range from 1 for small pistol launchers to 12 for the huge drum fed launchers. That way you prevent players from having infinite ammo, but allow them to carry the amount of grenades/rockets depicted in the actual art without crippling themselves.

Considering that the only way to bank momentum is to not spend it when you get it, it's a trade-off of saving up those successes for later.

You'd be surprised how many skill rolls can come up that just allow you to bank momentum. Dodge rolls. Skill rolls involving moving. Observation and stealth rolls. Given that there is no limit to the number of rolls that players may make that don't involve spending momentum for attacks, it's not difficult to quickly build up momentum. The limit of 6 is also not that big of a deal if you use the strategy of not spending DSP if you can cover the roll with banked momentum, as you enter a sort of boom/bust cycle with banked momentum. It doesn't seem that high, but with a small group of 2-3, you won't be hitting that limit too much, and with a large group, you'll be able to cycle through people using the momentum them generating more.

Finally, I would agree that banked momentum can only be used to add to a successful skill test. I'm not sure RAW indicates differently, but it's a bit ambiguous.

The example of play with one of the characters investigating the sewers has him use banked momentum to make a failed test into a successful one. It's not mentioned explicitly in the chapter on momentum, though.

This does bring up one of my other big issues, though. It's unclear whether any roll can apply any momentum spend, particularly the ones that allow extra actions to take place. Can a dodge roll spend the momentum to use swift strike and get an extra action? There needs to be clarification on what actions can use what momentum spends.
avatar
AmazingOnionMan said Mar 18, 2015 11:26:49
Nicholas is far more eloquent than me when it comes to system analysis. I just register that things rub me the wrong way.
There are things I like here, but there are also things I'm not a fan of. The mechanics of combat are disguised by fairly labyrinthine probabilities (which I'm neither interested in, nor really competent to, working out). Abstractions and metamechanics do not help in this regard.
I just assume the designers have made the right choices when crunching the numbers.

To be honest, I'd sooner run it with another system than try to fix it - while I can't put my finger on it, the mechanics smell of "pull this string here, and those totally unrelated pair of pants over there drop". Though, I still haven't read the entire, finished game, and if you guys come up with good tweaks..
[Last edited Mar 18, 2015 16:48:34]
I'm not always right!
avatar
JamesFischl said Mar 18, 2015 16:07:40
To be honest, I'd sooner run it with another system than try to fix it - while I can't put my finger on it, the mechanics smell of "pull this string here, and those totally unrelated pair of pants over there drop". Though, I still haven't read the entire, finished game, and if you guys come up with good tweaks.


Yeah that's my feeling too. Apoc and I will probably give the as-written rules a shot with our group but likely we will instead do a GURPS conversion or hope that Modiphius releases some more detailed combat rules.
Signature goes here.
avatar
JakeBernstein said Mar 18, 2015 16:15:19
On this forum, I'm just Jake. :-)
Login below to reply: