Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ 3rd edition thoughts on screwing over the players
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 16 2006, 12:32 AM
OK, I just have one thought on how to better screw over the players when playing 3rd edition, and I'd like to ask you guys if you think it's a good way of doing things or not.
Do you think it would be a good idea to make people declare 2 simple actions at the same time before they can see the result of their first simple action?
So it wouldn't be, "I shoot him with my Predator, I see he went down, so I shoot the next guy." You'd have to make a decision ahead of time whether to shoot twice at the same guy or once at two guys.
What would be the point of doing this?
1.) It would make combat a bit more like wargaming since in wargaming you often are required to declare a bunch of actions before seeing how they are resolved. It means you need to be a little bit more conscious about probabilities and such as you play.
2.) It would help crack the unusually flawless efficiency that SR characters sometimes exhibit in the heat of combat.
3.) I imagine it would be a bit more realistic. Using two simple actions with an automatic would be a bit more like double tapping someone, where the two shots are in and of themselves a reflex you train to make extra sure the guy you're targeting is down.
4.) It would also make for more unpredictable and dramatic death since every time someone took a D wound from the first shot but had been targed for two shots he or she could easily be instantly killed by the second shot. As a GM that would give me more freedom to say things like, "$name's head explodes with your second shot spraying brains that look like spaghetti on the back wall" because the individual in question would be dead. Not just having a D wound and subsequently being ignored by everyone. As it stands if people pick and chose their targets with simple actions with super barely D wound inflicting efficiency I have to refrain from verbally gibbing anyone.
What do you think?
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 12:40 AM
I've done it before (back during SR2), but it seemed to encourage grenades and iniative pumping more than anything else.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 16 2006, 12:42 AM
I've been toying with this idea. If I were to implement it, and I might (at the very least I think I'm going to start enforcing the fact that airburst grenades explode at the end of the character's pass) I'd probably at least allow them to abort their second action after observing their first.
~J
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 16 2006, 12:43 AM
Well, grenades *should* be highly effective. And if we use SR 3 style initiative it would dilute the effect of initiative pumping, wouldn't it?
Posted by: OrphanProcess May 16 2006, 12:46 AM
Don't you take penalties for shooting at multiple targets in a pass? We take that to apply to both simple actions in our group, and try to get people to declare both actions in advance so we can calculate all bonuses/penalties etc. This lets people move before or after shooting, but still apply movement penalties to all shots shots, etc.
This makes me think the standard rules make you declare the entire pass, but I don't have a rulebook in front of me to check.
We're not the best about enforcing it though 
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 16 2006, 12:52 AM
| QUOTE (OrphanProcess) |
| Don't you take penalties for shooting at multiple targets in a pass? We take that to apply to both simple actions in our group, and try to get people to declare both actions in advance so we can calculate all bonuses/penalties etc. This lets people move before or after shooting, but still apply movement penalties to all shots shots, etc. This makes me think the standard rules make you declare the entire pass, but I don't have a rulebook in front of me to check. We're not the best about enforcing it though |
Hmm, that's an interesting thought. Have people declare more than just 2 simple actions ahead of time but also specify movement and all these other things. It would definitely add more of a wargaming aspect. I wonder if it would be administratively more difficult to handle or not.
Posted by: mmu1 May 16 2006, 12:58 AM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| I've been toying with this idea. If I were to implement it, and I might (at the very least I think I'm going to start enforcing the fact that airburst grenades explode at the end of the character's pass) I'd probably at least allow them to abort their second action after observing their first. ~J |
I knew there was a reason I got an MGL-12 instead of an MGL-6. It's because now I'll have to fire two grenades every pass, just to be on the safe side.
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 01:03 AM
| QUOTE (Wounded Ronin) |
| Well, grenades *should* be highly effective. And if we use SR 3 style initiative it would dilute the effect of initiative pumping, wouldn't it? |
Personally, as a GM, I hate grenades, and try to discourage their use whenever I can.
It exacerbates the intiative effect, actually. Tactically it is best to spread damage as fast as possible, because a +1 Target Number makes the enemy about 50% as effective (not to mention the number of combatants that drop out at Light and Moderate Wounds). Thus, you never waste two shots on one target unless you have a moderate skill, in which case you need as many passes as possible to create kills.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 16 2006, 01:16 AM
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) | ||
Personally, as a GM, I hate grenades, and try to discourage their use whenever I can. It exacerbates the intiative effect, actually. Tactically it is best to spread damage as fast as possible, because a +1 Target Number makes the enemy about 50% as effective (not to mention the number of combatants that drop out at Light and Moderate Wounds). Thus, you never waste two shots on one target unless you have a moderate skill, in which case you need as many passes as possible to create kills. |
Well, the thing about grenades and direct fire is that non-launch grenades don't explode till your next pass, so they wouldn't be effective at close range when direct fire is available, right?
Unless you're saying your PCs had the init and loosed a whole lot of launch grenades into the enemy.
...
I dunno, dude. On the one hand as the GM I can see how you might be a bit annoyed that everyone was punked so quickly by grenades. But on the other hand, if several guys with grenade launchers got the drop on a squad at relatively close range, that squad probably should be pretty horribly savaged from a realism perspective.
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 01:25 AM
I agree on a realism perspective, grenades pretty much rule the field. Worse, they make horrible defensive weapons from a collateral stand point.
| QUOTE |
| Unless you're saying your PCs had the init and loosed a whole lot of launch grenades into the enemy. |
Every time. They "invented" a burst fire grenade launcher in game, as well.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 16 2006, 01:32 AM
It's a fair point in any case if you don't necessarily want combats to be pretty much one sided one way or the other. I guess it's a question of what you want in your game.
The way I see it if the PCs are going to successfully ambush a squad with grenade launchers they should have an excellent chance of wiping that squad out as that's the power of good planning and tactics. On the other hand, though, the enemies may have air support, artillery support, or just overwhelming numbers and control of the terrain. I think anyone would agree that turnabout is fair play when the squads call in for their artillery support.
Posted by: Birdy May 16 2006, 09:29 AM
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) | ||
I agree on a realism perspective, grenades pretty much rule the field. Worse, they make horrible defensive weapons from a collateral stand point.
Every time. They "invented" a burst fire grenade launcher in game, as well. |
Some comments on grenades:
a) SR has it backwards. IRL defensive grenades have the larger effective radius
b) If you use grenades on the defensive, do so from behind cover. A trench, a bunch of sandbacks etc.
c) If you use grenades on the offence, either throw them far enough or be in cover. Around a corner, outside the door etc.
d) Grenades come "some assembly required" (pull a security plug, screw in the fuse etc) Just where did the characters learn to do that
e) Grenade sump. A hole/bunch of sandbags to kick a grenade into. Thats why you count before throwing one, otherwise it might endsin such a hole
f) Wire mesh. Think Blues Brothers here. Works against launch grenades just as well
g) Grenades vs. Armor. There is a reason they call the protective vests "Shrapnel Vest" or "Flak Vest". Assume the average grenate is shrapnel, concussion/HE grenades are actually quite rare IRL.
h) Grenades are Military only! Assume ATF will investigate lost grenades quite seriously. Evem more so for Launched Grenades.
Posted by: Birdy May 16 2006, 09:33 AM
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) | ||
Personally, as a GM, I hate grenades, and try to discourage their use whenever I can. It exacerbates the intiative effect, actually. Tactically it is best to spread damage as fast as possible, because a +1 Target Number makes the enemy about 50% as effective (not to mention the number of combatants that drop out at Light and Moderate Wounds). Thus, you never waste two shots on one target unless you have a moderate skill, in which case you need as many passes as possible to create kills. |
But that is Meta-Gaming, using knowledge of the game mechanism to run a character. IRL I don't know damage levels and sucess. I do know that man have done some crazy things after receiving a mortal wound or three (i.e Rodger Young, Moros during the US Philipine Adventure in the early 20th century). Add in body armor and all the SR gadgets and the guy I just shot might not realize he is already dead and just shoot back.
Sadly SR's game system does not allow to seperate wounding effect from to-hit roles.
Posted by: hyzmarca May 16 2006, 12:37 PM
| QUOTE (Birdy @ May 16 2006, 04:29 AM) |
| h) Grenades are Military only! Assume ATF will investigate lost grenades quite seriously. Evem more so for Launched Grenades. |
Actually, most grenades have a J legality code. That's one step down from military only.
And, assuming that they don't have anything else on the runner, the penality for possessing a class J item is a simple 10,000 nuyen fine.
Grenade launchers, on the other hand, tend to be K.
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 01:18 PM
| QUOTE |
| IRL, I don't know damage levels and sucess. |
That can effectively be learned in game. It's also part of having high skill levels. Characters who regularly throw 12 dice with Smartlink and all the Vision Mods, learn quickly how hard they have to hit and how fast. If they know from experience that one shot put most people in similar situations into Deadly, then why would they start wasting shots?
Plus, SR mechanics are the real world for the characters. Military training and experience would reflect optimising tactics that can easily be matched to the dice.
Posted by: Birdy May 16 2006, 03:10 PM
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) | ||
Actually, most grenades have a J legality code. That's one step down from military only. And, assuming that they don't have anything else on the runner, the penality for possessing a class J item is a simple 10,000 nuyen fine. Grenade launchers, on the other hand, tend to be K. |
Makes no sense. The only group to use grenades (except Flashbang) is the Military. So I'd up the legality code.
Add in the reluctance of many units to hand them out and they should be rare on the black market.
Posted by: Birdy May 16 2006, 03:12 PM
| QUOTE (Kanada Ten) | ||
That can effectively be learned in game. It's also part of having high skill levels. Characters who regularly throw 12 dice with Smartlink and all the Vision Mods, learn quickly how hard they have to hit and how fast. If they know from experience that one shot put most people in similar situations into Deadly, then why would they start wasting shots? Plus, SR mechanics are the real world for the characters. Military training and experience would reflect optimising tactics that can easily be matched to the dice. |
I disagree. All the dice tell you is that you hit someone where it potentially hurts. You know nothing about his armor (i.e FormFitting under that coverall) or his bodymods (i.e an Automed). That's something a Smartgun can't tell you, neither can experience.
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 03:20 PM
| QUOTE |
| I disagree. All the dice tell you is that you hit someone where it potentially hurts. You know nothing about his armor (i.e FormFitting under that coverall) or his bodymods (i.e an Automed). That's something a Smartgun can't tell you, neither can experience. |
You don't really need to know all that as a PC. The vast majority of NPCs you kill do not have cybermods, nor do they have great need of concealed armor (armor can be spotted with a perception test, and bypassed with a called shot). Besides, if you didn't kill him, then the next PC will - so it's still better to shoot each one once.
Posted by: mmu1 May 16 2006, 03:55 PM
| QUOTE (Birdy @ May 16 2006, 11:10 AM) |
| Makes no sense. The only group to use grenades (except Flashbang) is the Military. So I'd up the legality code. Add in the reluctance of many units to hand them out and they should be rare on the black market. |
A lot of things should be really rare - like highly trained, heavily armed groups of career criminals running around, as a part of the unofficial warfare between extraterritorial corporations.
Besides, what "makes sense" in terms of weapon availability depends completely on the time and the place, and you're basing your assumptions on what goes on in modern day, first world countries. (And even there, grenades are IMO rare because they're just not all that useful in real-life criminal operations, and not because they're controlled effectively - if there was a demand, then in the US, they'd flood in from south of the border, just as drugs do.)
Anyway... Ever see footage of an open-air bazaar in, say, Somalia, or some other African country, with MMGs and RPGs ready for sale? Or read about how easy it is for gangs in Eastern Europe to get their hands on black-market ex-Soviet hardware? And that's without any extraterritorial corporations willing to sell to the highest bidder thrown into the mix.
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 16 2006, 05:56 PM
| QUOTE (mmu1) |
| Besides, what "makes sense" in terms of weapon availability depends completely on the time and the place, and you're basing your assumptions on what goes on in modern day, first world countries. [...] |
I'd say modern first world countries are a better comparison to 2060s first world countries than 3rd world shitholes are. I imagine there aren't any paramilitary groups lugging around heavy weaponry in plain sight through downtown Seattle in the SR world.
Some parts of Eastern Europe might be a closer match, because the SR North America has gone through similar societal breakdown. This would allow older hardware, including RPGs and grenades, to be readily available on the black market. But getting caught with that shit would still have consequences far worse than a 10,000 nuyen fine.
Posted by: Teulisch May 16 2006, 06:12 PM
smoke gernades are fairly common. you can find em at some paintball games. flashbang, the swat team uses those. still fairly common stuff.
when you get into explosive gernades... i would agree that the regular manufactured type are a bit hard to get. but a homemade gernade is evry possible. I can see some guy with the skills putting together explosives with short timed fuses, and selling them as gernades. duct tape and nails, makes for some good shrapnel.
best thing to remember, SR has many factors making weapons more availibe than in the real world.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 16 2006, 06:42 PM
By canon, wearing a submachine gun while walking down the street in Vegas will not get you a second look by law enforcement. I think we can assume grenades aren't too high on the priority list, especially considering their tiny threat radii (must have been a redesign).
~J
Posted by: John Campbell May 16 2006, 06:45 PM
On the other hand, carrying a walking stick will get you fined.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 16 2006, 07:02 PM
The cops don't care about guns, but Reach plus Friends in Melee, now that's something to be afraid of.
~J
Posted by: Shrike30 May 16 2006, 07:11 PM
For what it's worth, SR4 requires actions to be declared before resolving any of them. It works well for my group (and makes the gameplay a little smoother).
If you tend to have players watch for people going down, then swapping to the next target, there's an easy fix if you don't want to do it the "declare - resolve" way... when the NPC gets hit, he goes down. Down, however, does not always mean dead, or even out of the fight, and PCs sometimes learn that lesson when they catch a shotgun blast in the flank.
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 07:31 PM
Yeah, but in SR4 you should have a sensor package looking out for that.
Posted by: Shrike30 May 16 2006, 07:41 PM
Hey, that's what Perception checks are for. You want to tell me what kind of sensor package most PCs carry that would tell the difference between a guard who got killed and fell to the ground behind a low wall, and one who got hit hard and fell down behind a low wall?
It's not like a gunfight is the kind of place where you can make hundredth of a second decisions about "is he still alive or has he just not fallen over yet?" I'm personally a fan of the declare-resolve method.
Posted by: Telion May 16 2006, 07:46 PM
While enforcing the actions first helps, I've found that straining the use of combat pool is generally more effective. Whenever someone takes a shot at the character, make him decide how much combat pool he wants to use to dodge if any, he doesn't know if its going to hit. having a dozen shots taken at you will drain the pool fairly quickly.
for a non-adept with 12+skill this would move the combat to being primarily offensive to a defensive one. Show the characters how to use cover effectively to save combat pool.
also when it comes time when your surrounded by guards.... you generally think twice about moving to the open, seeing as how you can't dodge only the ones that hit.
also remember that guards could have a few points of combat pool too, I usually assign them average attributes so 2-4 CP depending on effectiveness.
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 07:50 PM
| QUOTE |
| You want to tell me what kind of sensor package most PCs carry that would tell the difference between a guard who got killed and fell to the ground behind a low wall, and one who got hit hard and fell down behind a low wall? |
A motion sensor on your back with threat recognition software linked to your PAN-AR.
| QUOTE |
| ...I've found that straining the use of combat pool is generally more effective. |
I found TN modification worked well, too. Nothing quite like Full Darkness and Partial Cover.
Posted by: Shrike30 May 16 2006, 07:52 PM
I wasn't aware motion sensors worked through walls, Aliens-style. Cool...
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 07:53 PM
| QUOTE (Shrike30) |
| I wasn't aware motion sensors worked through walls, Aliens-style. Cool... |
He has to get up to shoot them in the back.
Posted by: Shrike30 May 16 2006, 08:20 PM
Not really. If they're trying to move past where he fell down, they'll enter his field of view. Even if he does stick his head back up, if it's done on his pass, the best they can do is pull out a Free Action kept in reserve to try and get out of the way.
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 16 2006, 08:24 PM
| QUOTE (Shrike30 @ May 16 2006, 03:20 PM) |
| Not really. If they're trying to move past where he fell down, they'll enter his field of view. Even if he does stick his head back up, if it's done on his pass, the best they can do is pull out a Free Action kept in reserve to try and get out of the way. |
Why? After they shot everyone, didn't they Delay? And if not, they can always use Full Defense. All the sensor is there for is to prevent Surprise. They'll get a Perception test as they sneak by him, neh?. They should be able to tell if he needs another bullet or two just from the way he's cluchting the gun.
Posted by: blakkie May 16 2006, 08:25 PM
| QUOTE (Shrike30 @ May 16 2006, 01:41 PM) |
| You want to tell me what kind of sensor package most PCs carry that would tell the difference between a guard who got killed and fell to the ground behind a low wall, and one who got hit hard and fell down behind a low wall? |
Microphone. It's a tough one to pick out his breathing behind a solid barrier like that, but there's a chance especially if there is something else behind to reflect the sound up over the ponywall. Also, depending on composition of the barrier, a milliwave sensor might be able to detect motion of gear or cyberware the guard is carrying.
Basically it's just like a Perception test to hear them. If you had a camera running your could do a quick PIP slow-mo replay to help you identify if buddy likely bought the farm or is just playing it smart by taking a dive.
However that isn't nessarily a lock to figure out if they are dead or not.
Posted by: Austere Emancipator May 16 2006, 08:42 PM
It's probably not a question of taking a dive on purpose. If getting hit doesn't make you fall down, then falling down voluntarily is pretty unlikely.
It's almost impossible to tell whether or how badly http://www.militaryspot.com/videos/video8.htm is injured as he falls down. It takes about 1.5-2 seconds for him to move after the impact -- nowhere near fast enough for the shooter to figure out he's uninjured in one Initiative Pass.
Seeing through walls is great, but detecting breathing, heartbeat, etc., are pretty useless if you have to immediately figure out if someone is out of the fight. The human body may well continue these functions for several CTs after most fatal hits.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 16 2006, 11:36 PM
| QUOTE (Telion) |
| While enforcing the actions first helps, I've found that straining the use of combat pool is generally more effective. Whenever someone takes a shot at the character, make him decide how much combat pool he wants to use to dodge if any, he doesn't know if its going to hit. having a dozen shots taken at you will drain the pool fairly quickly. for a non-adept with 12+skill this would move the combat to being primarily offensive to a defensive one. Show the characters how to use cover effectively to save combat pool. also when it comes time when your surrounded by guards.... you generally think twice about moving to the open, seeing as how you can't dodge only the ones that hit. also remember that guards could have a few points of combat pool too, I usually assign them average attributes so 2-4 CP depending on effectiveness. |
You know what? I really like that idea. I think it would certainly enhance a gritty/realistic look and feel.
Posted by: Wounded Ronin May 16 2006, 11:41 PM
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator @ May 16 2006, 03:42 PM) |
| It's probably not a question of taking a dive on purpose. If getting hit doesn't make you fall down, then falling down voluntarily is pretty unlikely. It's almost impossible to tell whether or how badly http://www.militaryspot.com/videos/video8.htm is injured as he falls down. It takes about 1.5-2 seconds for him to move after the impact -- nowhere near fast enough for the shooter to figure out he's uninjured in one Initiative Pass. Seeing through walls is great, but detecting breathing, heartbeat, etc., are pretty useless if you have to immediately figure out if someone is out of the fight. The human body may well continue these functions for several CTs after most fatal hits. |
In the past, both myself and others, as players, have used play dead tactics to stop taking fire after being hit. But from what you say that shouldn't work at all, at least not within the space of one combat turn.
What do you think? Should play dead tactics be ineffective until a full combat turn after they have been initiated? That way, you *might* be able to survive another hit or two and fall down acting dead, but it would be a hell of a risk.
Posted by: James McMurray May 17 2006, 04:37 AM
It's worked iun my group and would continue to work now. The problem is that you don't neccessarily know if you knocked them down because they're dead or because they suffered knockdown from the force of the blow. Some people put an extra round into you just incase.
For instance, it happened in a game I was running at GenCon a while back. A guy popped up out of full cover to shoot through a window. He took a couple shots then got hit fairly hard and knocked down but without taking a lot of actual damage. When his ass came around again he surprised everyone by popping back up to toss in a grenade because they all assume dht down = dead.
Posted by: Unrest May 17 2006, 05:13 PM
I am completely with the OP on this one. It makes no sense to just roll damage secretly and give the players only a vague description of what was done to the npc. Or just point out that any players abusing ooc information to determine their characters actions will be penalized in an old-school method that may or may not involve a falling mountain or a time warping bus.
Instead lets just add more rules to bog things down. I love the concept of declaring your entire action phase beforehand but why stop there? Since your average turn of combat is supposed to simulate three seconds of real life one can realistically assume that most people will not be able to process what is happening all around them fast enough to react. So any characters with logic/intelligence scores less than three have to declare their actions for both this round and the next. This includes free actions. Those more intellectually swift characters with higher than three in those stats must still declare this every other turn, however if they succeed in a composure test they can change the free action of the next round. Of course that composure test should be made with the proper negative modifiers for stress and being under fire.
Posted by: Kagetenshi May 17 2006, 05:34 PM
I like it. Done.
Wait, though—sure smart people are smart, but shouldn't they also have to make a Quickness test to see if they physically can change actions? And moving at that speed, I think there should be a Body test to make sure they don't strain anything. Plus a Willpower roll to not piss their pants in fear. Also, you should probably lie to your players a lot to make sure no one has 720-degree vision.
~J
Posted by: Shrike30 May 17 2006, 05:42 PM
I've seen a number of systems that have the players declare their actions in ascending Initiative order, and then they're resolved in descending Initiative order. People can change up their actions if what they were going to do becomes inappropriate (the object they were going to grab is destroyed by a rocket) but usually take a penalty for doing so.
Asking players to declare 2 actions sometimes (sometimes, because complex actions eat their whole pass) is really not going to "bog down gameplay." In execution, I've found it usually speeds up combat, because the player is not asked to reassess his tactical situation between short bursts.
Posted by: Unrest May 17 2006, 08:55 PM
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| I like it. Done. Wait, though—sure smart people are smart, but shouldn't they also have to make a Quickness test to see if they physically can change actions? And moving at that speed, I think there should be a Body test to make sure they don't strain anything. Plus a Willpower roll to not piss their pants in fear. Also, you should probably lie to your players a lot to make sure no one has 720-degree vision. ~J |
Points I had forgotten. I can see this implemented with little trouble.
"Congratulations you succeeded your composure test but failed your quickness test. Causing you to sprain your ankle, you failed your body test with a critical clitch which means you broke both your ankles and you glitch-succeeded your willpower test so you didn't piss yourself but you did shit your pants."
I can see the point in declaring both simple actions Shrike though I just don't really see it necessary. Though its the GM's call if you want to include another house rule.
Posted by: Shrike30 May 17 2006, 08:59 PM
I don't have to house-rule anything. I play SR4, where it works like this as per RAW 
Posted by: Kanada Ten May 17 2006, 09:07 PM
| QUOTE |
| In execution, I've found it usually speeds up combat, because the player is not asked to reassess his tactical situation between short bursts. |
Really? I found it made them take forever deciding what two actions to make. After instating the declaration, we followed with a no discussing it with other players a few games later, and then tried limiting the declaration time. I found it more annoying than fun, and tossed them all.
Posted by: Shrike30 May 17 2006, 09:39 PM
It's probably player-dependent. My guys take a bit to decide on something, but telling them they have to decide on two somethings with the same logic process really doesn't take much more effort. Usually, it breaks down to "shoot the guy twice, shoot two different targets, or shoot and do something else..."
Posted by: stevebugge May 17 2006, 09:51 PM
In my games I told my players that doing a damage asessment of your shot counted as a simple action (Observe or observe in detail) this really stopped the I shoot then decide what to shoot next play quite a bit.
Posted by: Shrike30 May 17 2006, 09:54 PM
That's probably a valid approach per RAW. I give my players a decent description of what happens (as the die roll is made behind my screen) and go on with life.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)