Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Fixing speed in melee?
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
Moon-Hawk
Lantzer-I like that too. A small advantage, and one that tips the scale in the case of a near-tie, but not something to ever let a speedy moron beat a slow master.
BitBasher
QUOTE (ACL)
*That* is far more believable in my opinion.
That's the only reason this conversation is still going. You have your opinion, and there are other opinions that are not yours, but that does not make them any less valid. Neither is right or wrong, whatever is best is whatever works best in your game with your players.
A Clockwork Lime
QUOTE (BitBasher)
QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime)
Never did understand why they handled ties like that for melee in the first place.

Then why try to argue the points you don't fully understand?

ohplease.gif

When have I argued anything about how ties are handled? I said I don't particularly like them and explained why, but nowhere else in the topic did I argue with anyone over their use in the game.

Now follow your own arrogant commands, Missing the Point Red Herring Man.
Zazen
I saw the point. Ignoring ties is one reason that you have a problem with the melee system. nyahnyah.gif
A Clockwork Lime
No, I'm dissatisifed with the way Reflexes are handled in melee combat. I also don't care for the ties-go-to-one-side-or-the-other rule (which specifically only applies to melee combat and a rare few other instances in the game -- so it was quite deliberate). Those are 1) two seperate things and 2) hardly the sum of how melee combat is handled.

But if either of you feel like arguing the point for why it makes sense and why NO chance -- none, zip, zilch, nadda -- for a tie should exist in melee, feel free to offer it up.
Entropy Kid
Well, ties going to the attacker is a benefit to those who go initiate an attack = those that go first = those with higher initiative. Then again, that reasoning breaks down since everyone gets a chance to attack, but higher initiative means more attacks. If you meant some reason that had anything to do with the way fighting "works" in the real world; I don't have one.

I like the idea of limiting counter attacks, but I don't know if I like one Simple Action for one counter attack. A Complex Action allows an infinite number of attacks in one turn (with added difficulty), and the difficulty of countering multiple enemies is built into Friends-in-Melee. Perhaps the spent Simple Action lasts until the next turn for the defender. When a character is out of turns, they still lose the ability to counter attack.

edit. Clarifying. I don't propose you change the rules in your game, but I'm curious about your opinion on my little revision.
A Clockwork Lime
I'm cool with just allowing one counterattack per available attack. We just enjoy the Simple Action aspect of it in our games. It demonstrates that an aggressive attacker can keep the opponent off balance (just enough to cause a counterattack, but not initiate a full attack themselves), while still giving the defender some options if and when his turn comes up, even if one of those isn't the ability to initiate an attack themselves. For instance, if he's facing multiple opponents he can "pass" his turn and use the remaining Simple Action to make another counterattack. Or he can use it to disengage and try to find cover. Or pull away and shoot a pistol. Or etc.
Zazen
QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime)
No, I'm dissatisifed with the way Reflexes are handled in melee combat.

I didn't say it was the only reason that you're dissatisfied (or even a particularly compelling one), but it is a reason. Attackers and counterattackers are on even ground in your game, so the problem is highlighted.


QUOTE
But if either of you feel like arguing the point...


I definitely don't.
Mardegun
I am just going to give my option without reading any posts ... so excuse me if I repeat what someone else said.

My in house rule for this is simple.
1) Attacker tn is 4 plus any modifiers
2) Defender can counter attack with a tn equal to the SKILL of the attacker or 4, which ever is higher. Normal modifiers apply.

For example an Attacker as a skill of 6 and Defender has a skill of 4. Even if the defender has more actions then the attacker, the defender is at a disadvantage.

This resolves all problems any of my SR groups have ever had with melee combat. The advantage clearly goes to the attacker, assuming they have any real skill and if the attacker doesn't have skill ... why are they doing melee attack?

As a black belt, this rule makes perfect sense. My discipline focuses on self-defense and it isn't easy. Defense is much easier when you are the aggressor. If you are reacting or 'responding' to a attack, you are at a significant disadvantage. Only with enough training can you effectively defend yourself from an attacker or group of attackers.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Cain)
Why should I waste time looking at the incoming attacks? It's not that difficult to block the main lines of attack without trying. Why do you think people hold up their arms in a combat stance?

Actually, just holding up your arms statically will get your ass kicked. But that's not my point and never has been. My point is that you can try and adapt to incoming attacks all you want, and hell, you can do it really well against a person moving faster than you, but that person will never be moving 5 times faster than any normal human being on Earth. You know why? Because you've never fought someone with fucking Wired 3. You have never fought the human equivalent. No one has. Shadowrun makes it absolutely clear that no amount of training, skill, or sheer ability will ever allow an unaugmented human being to react on the level of an augmented person. Even the absolute fastest person you've ever seen— even that competition shooter that can reload in 0.7 seconds— none of these people is even close to equaling an augmented human. This is the entire point of the Shadowrun system.

QUOTE (Cain)
You refuse to tell me how experienced you are in various martial art

Maybe it's because even though some of us may have been doing it since we were 4 and some of us may have trained under a variety of disciplines, we don't feel that real life experience has even the slightest bearing on a completely inhuman and unheard of level of speed. Maybe it's because the artistic implications of Shadowrun's system take license to dehumanize everyone, forcing people to shed their humanity in order to survive, and this is achieved through the numbers. Unaugmented humans cannot equal enhanced humans. This is the point of the system. If you take issue with that, go ahead, but drop the condescending, patronizing tone, and state right from the beginning that you want to rewrite the way Shadowrun handles initiative differences in normal human beings. Your or anyone else's experience has nothing to do with this.

QUOTE (Cain)
In reality, speed is a result of skill, and not the other way around. If you're super-skilled, you can reload a gun inside of 0.6 seconds. If you're super fast but unskilled, you'll never pull it off, regardless of how fast you can move.

Not in Shadowrun. Read above.

QUOTE (Cain)
Shadowrun slows things down for the sake of playability and sanity.

Actually, it slows things down half out of sheer ignorance of reality (or stupidity, depending on how you want to pronounce it) and half out of a desire to strip unaugmented human beings of their humanity. Which is more prevalent depends on where you are in the rules.

Please try and understand that regardless of what you have seen in real life, all of it, within the scope of Shadowrun's mechanics, falls under the normal, unaugmented human reaction of 3 + 1d6 to 6 + 1d6. At the absolute apex of unaugmented human capacity, there is 10 + 1d6. Never more. You want to rewrite that? Go ahead. But that's not the purview of this thread, and I'm getting the impression you don't even realize what you're doing.

QUOTE (Jason Farlander)
In SR terms, those youngsters might have a reaction of 1 or 2 higher than you. Thats not significant, and definitely nothing even remotely on par with the difference between augmented and unaugmented reflexes.

Exactly. Within the scope of SR's modeling of normal human capacity, the differences between normal people of varying reaction speeds is exceptionally slim to the point of being immaterial. That's what you get from a system designed from the ground up to revolve around reaction enhancement.

QUOTE (snowRaven)
I have to agree with Jason Here - each action isn't one attack.

That is important to remember. More to the point, if we are both normal human beings and, say, you get an initiative of 8 and I roll 7, we can engage in melee two times in 3 seconds: once of your volition, and once of my own. These melee actions are not single punches, kicks, or any specific movement at all— they are full sets of movements ending in one of us doing damage to the other. A person with an initiative of 51 against me is going to be able to do exactly what I can do once in 3 seconds, only he will do it six times faster.

QUOTE (mfb)
in the end, though, high init is no match for high skill.

And it shouldn't be. Unfortunately, high init is, at present, an opportunity to get ripped in half, even though you are moving at speeds a low initiative character can barely comprehend, because he can flawlessly intercept you with his exceptional skill, no matter how fast you are.

QUOTE (Lantzer)
The challenge for this thread is to define how to give speed freaks that edge they so deperately want

I really need to take issue with this. I started this thread, and it wasn't about giving speed freaks the edge they're foaming at the mouth for; it was about giving inhumanly, disturbingly fast individuals the edge that they should realistically get from moving 5 times faster than the fastest unaugmented human beings on Earth. That's a pretty big difference in concept. But, yes, I also wanted to do this without making things incredibly unbalanced and without completely devaluing the unaugmented (though, to some degree, I wonder if I should care; ranged combat already does these things).

QUOTE (Lantzer)
What'ya think? I visualize this as the speedier guy getting blocked and countered by his more-skilled opponent the first few times, but eventually his opponent is unable to keep up with his lightning-fast moves. I probably won't use it myself, as folks in my games have plenty of reasons to pick up wires already, but I think it should be fairly reasonable.

While I see your point about TN modifications being significant (hell, it's what I was worried about from the start), I do have an issue with speed, on a mechanicaly level, dumping straight into skill. That potentially raises some pretty significant questions about speed being a substitute for skill. In any case, while I don't feel the idea is without merit, I'm also not entirely sure I like what it's doing to skill, nor am I entirely sure it goes far enough, considering the speeds in question. But I do agree with Time: it is pleasantly elegant and intuitive.

QUOTE (BitBasher)
That's the only reason this conversation is still going. You have your opinion, and there are other opinions that are not yours, but that does not make them any less valid. Neither is right or wrong, whatever is best is whatever works best in your game with your players.

No, it's not. It isn't about opinion. At this point, I'm talking about incontrovertible fact. Whether or not human beings are capable of, in real life, acting quickly at speeds that would appear to match what Wired 3 can do in game is an issue of opinion. Whether or not unaugmented human beings can react in game on the level of a person with Wired 3 is not up for debate. They can't, and they never will.

QUOTE (BitBasher)
Then why try to argue the points you don't fully understand?

Um.

Look, Lime is right. Get that link out of your sig. He was rather obviously saying that he didn't understand why the designers would create a dynamic making it impossible for a tie to occur, not that he didn't understand the dynamic itself. This sort of dangerously logically infirm bullshit is not helping.

QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime)
But if either of you feel like arguing the point for why it makes sense and why NO chance -- none, zip, zilch, nadda -- for a tie should exist in melee, feel free to offer it up.

Personally, I felt they did it because they wanted to give the attacker a slight edge and never realized that it would make a melee test that didn't end up with someone taking damage an impossibility. Or if they did, they didn't realize that this was stupid. Personally, I've always read it as ties in successes going to the attacker, meaning no successes on either side is effectively a draw, but that can pretty obviously be taken either way. If you factor in other advantages, making ties do nothing is probably a good way to handle it.
Zazen
QUOTE (Arethusa)
Personally, I felt they did it because they wanted to give the attacker a slight edge and never realized that it would make a melee test that didn't end up with someone taking damage an impossibility.

This is flatly wrong. People use full defense all the time.


Anyway, I keep seeing this idea that it is wholly ridiculous that a slow person can react faster just because a faster person is attacking him. I ask, why then, is that slow person allowed to block more? I mean, doing 800 blocks in a round is just as silly as throwing 800 jabs.
A Clockwork Lime
If nothing more, it's a balance issue. It would make augmented reflexes too powerful and would be wholly unfair all around. It also falls in line with a similar rule from ranged combat that's found in the Cannon Companion, namely the optional Athletics and Dodging rule on page 97. At least philosophically.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Zazen)
This is flatly wrong. People use full defense all the time.

To clarify, with both caombatants trying to hurt eachother, it is impossible for the combat to end without someone at least resisting damage, which really isn't how it should be. Two combatants going at eachother quite offensively should still be able to go 3 seconds without one coming out on top.

QUOTE (Zazen)
Anyway, I keep seeing this idea that it is wholly ridiculous that a slow person can react faster just because a faster person is attacking him. I ask, why then, is that slow person allowed to block more? I mean, doing 800 blocks in a round is just as silly as throwing 800 jabs.

It's not, though. Blocks, dodges, and other fully defensive movements are generally more passive and easier to pull off if you're being overwhelmed than shifting the pressure back on your opponent and coming out on top. Is perfectly realistic, or perhaps even close? No. But it's definitely in the right direction. Personally, Speed Reach gives a more realistic advantage, in my opinion. It's also much more dangerous.

Also, Lime's got a point: dehumanizing or not, there's an element of balance that needs to be closely regulated.
Zazen
Since you both seem to admit that the blocking thing is not realistic but still a desirable part of the game, I submit that some people find counterattacking the same way. It's just personal preference.

Anyway, that's how it is with me. I happen to like the way counterattacking works, and its minor silliness has never been so extreme as to jerk me out of the game with feelings of disbelief. I find it a desirable part of the game.
A Clockwork Lime
I totally understand that and realize it really does come down to a personal preference. I'm just saying that as it stands, it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

In Shadowurn, boxing has got to be really boring, especially since it would almost never last more than a round (two minutes, or approximately 40 Combat Turns). With ties being ties, one can almost accept that it might be possible to last several minutes between two equally competent opponents. But as it stands... that's just not gonna happen.

Assume that average boxers are Body 6 and Strength 6. Their punches deliver 6M Stun on a tie. With Body 6 and even Combat Pool 6, that's not enough to reliably reduce each and every blow away to nothing, so they're going to be taking at least a Light wound every phase. And even for unaugmented boxers scoring only an Initiative of 9 or lower, 40 Turns is a loooong time. And that's just for one round.
Lantzer
A very long time. Of course (thinking back to plebe year) it _is_ a very tiring few seconds.

The sport in SR rules has a little hope due to the combat turns spent dancing around
and jockeying for position. Boxing is one of the many sports that consists of:

Begin!
wait
wait
wait
flurry of action
wait
wait
flurry of action
wait
flurry of action
DING!

Begin!...
Zazen
Even if you call ties full blocks the fight only lasts a few rounds. It's only remotely concievable that it lasts more than a minute. nyahnyah.gif


And I'm glad that my point came across. If we're going to be unrealistic about melee lets do it in the way that we like the best. smile.gif
John Campbell
Boxing gloves are padded to reduce damage, so they shouldn't do the full (Str)M barehanded damage. Might be 4M or 6L.

On the other hand, because TN modifiers are so overwhelmingly significant, the first guy who takes even an L Stun is almost guaranteed to lose every single pass after that, by increasingly large margins, and will probably go down within three passes.
Smiley
HELL yes. Once you start losing in melee combat, odds are, you're going to keep losing. (Just try hand-to-hand with a Fenrir Wolf when you already have a medium. But i digress...) Which is why i like this rule, being both speedy AND almost exlusively melee (and souped up with lots of pain resistance).
Jason Farlander
Actually I think Lantzer, despite his somewhat condescending attitude, is on to something... bonus dice do provide an edge without being as completely overpowering as TN mods.

I propose a simplification: every bonus die granted by reflex augmentation also counts as a bonus die in melee tests. As such, your unaugmented grand master martial artist with skill 8-9 will generally not lose to your wired III speed demon with a skill of 4-5... but when that speed demon starts getting into martial arts skill of 6-7 mr grandmaster is going to start feeling the hurting.

It might not be *as much* of a bonus as some people would like (limiting number of possible defense actions provides a much more powerful edge to augmented characters), but its certainly easy to calculate, that calculation stays as long as the character's initiative dice remain unchanged, and it provides a consistent edge that is more meaningful against low skilled opponents than highly skilled ones. I like it.
Entropy Kid
In my totally uninformed opinion, I suggest limiting the number of bonus dice to the applicable skill rating. Something doesn't seem right about a character with Unarmed Combat 1, but Boosted Reflexes 3 and Synaptic Accelerator 2 getting an effective melee combat skill of 6. If only using pure "reaction dice" it should probably also count as defaulting to an attribute. Do you think these dice should be allowed to add on to defaulting to Strength?
Arethusa
I'd say more that you should just limit the bonus to skill or half skill, assuming you want to go this route. Personally, I still dislike making speed and skill mechanical equivalents.
Jason Farlander
QUOTE (Entropy Kid)
In my totally uninformed opinion, I suggest limiting the number of bonus dice to the applicable skill rating. Something doesn't seem right about a character with Unarmed Combat 1, but Boosted Reflexes 3 and Synaptic Accelerator 2 getting an effective melee combat skill of 6. If only using pure "reaction dice" it should probably also count as defaulting to an attribute. Do you think these dice should be allowed to add on to defaulting to Strength?

Agreed on your first part. You could solve all of the problems you mentioned by treating the bonus dice as pool dice that are always available (refresh instantly).
Entropy Kid
Oh, I forgot to ask; Do magical increases to Initiative dice count too? Does it stack with the adept's Improved Ability? All things to consider.

QUOTE
Personally, I still dislike making speed and skill mechanical equivalents.
Well, that's understandable since in all these discussions I always lean toward things that are very similar to another existing rule or at least are minimal changes, while you want, in some cases, a complete over-haul of the existing rules. No perceived system superiority here, we're just coming from different places.

In these threads I like seeing all kinds of house rules and what suggestions people make for revision or just general comments. Even arguements for status quo are helpful as long as the post has a point (a point other than I'm right, you're wrong anyway). I like seeing the variety rather than trying to figure out The One Way of modeling a situation.
A Clockwork Lime
My problem with allowing a major reflex difference provide some kind of solid bonus is that it winds up making augmented reflexes a "must have" in melee situations. I really do like the idea of an unaugmented combatant being able to hold his own in a fight, but by giving some kind of Reach or die bonus, that kind of melts the concept right away.
Entropy Kid
QUOTE
My problem with allowing a major reflex difference provide some kind of solid bonus is that it winds up making augmented reflexes a "must have" in melee situations.
But aren't reflex enhancements already a "must have" for anyone using firearms other than a dedicated sniper? I get your point, but it's not totally unreasonable that quicker reflexes are better for all combat situations, not just gun fights.
A Clockwork Lime
It's not a must have, but it helps. Ranged attacks are pretty much one-sided; you shoot, they die. You're not vulnerable to a direct attack, let alone counterattack, due to your direct actions at any time during that exchange. Sure, the other guy(s) can shoot at you, but that's an independant action all its own.

Plus, as mentioned, reflexes are already pretty gosh-darn desireable even as they stand in melee situations now where they don't really mean much of anything. If you make it a must-have in melee, you make melee way too dependant on reflexes... at least for my personal tastes.
Jason Farlander
Entropy Kid: I would say yes on both. As a note, I personally use a houseruled version of the Improved Reflexes spell, so you might want to consider it more carefully. There are no compatability problems with improved ability because the bonus dice function as a pool.

ACL: I see your point, but I personally have no problem saying: sure, unaugmented characters can hold their own. They just have to be more skilled, or grant themselves some sort of personal edge (such as a weapon with reach) to do so. [Edit: Misread your first post, formulated different reply.]

Arethusa: While I do understand your reluctance to a certain degree, I also figure that the dice bonus is *very* similar to that granted by a reflex recorder or enhanced articulation. Those are clear canon examples of speed and precision of movement functioning as skill dice. Have you houseruled those?
Arethusa
QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime)
It's not a must have, but it helps. Ranged attacks are pretty much one-sided; you shoot, they die. You're not vulnerable to a direct attack, let alone counterattack, due to your direct actions at any time during that exchange. Sure, the other guy(s) can shoot at you, but that's an independant action all its own.

Plus, as mentioned, reflexes are already pretty gosh-darn desireable even as they stand in melee situations now where they don't really mean much of anything. If you make it a must-have in melee, you make melee way too dependant on reflexes... at least for my personal tastes.

I really can't say I agree here. Yeah, a gun in the hands of an unwired guy can still put down a street same wired to the max, but in a real firefight, that samurai will decimate 10 of those guys without a problem. I don't think they should be an absolute must for melee (and, to some degree, I can see the argument that they wouldn't be quite as beneficial in melee as in ranged combat), but I don't like them being mostly useless in melee either. Personally, I agree with Jason: an unaugmented person should be able to potentially hold his own, but he should have trouble doing so. eg, in the case of Speed Reach, go grab a sword.

QUOTE (Jason Farlander)
Arethusa: While I do understand your reluctance to a certain degree, I also figure that the dice bonus is *very* similar to that granted by a reflex recorder or enhanced articulation. Those are clear canon examples of speed and precision of movement functioning as skill dice. Have you houseruled those?

That's a good point, and I had forgotten about those, actually. To be fair, though, this reaches further than either of those examples. Still, I agree: there is some precedent in canon. Personally, were I designing a system, I probably wouldn't do it like that, but, no, I haven't probably wouldn't houserule those out.
Cain
To be fair, I've calculated the speed advantage at equal skill to be roughly 60/40 in favor of the attacker. To me, that's a sufficient edge. YMMV, of course.

However, one other house rule that I've been toying with is that both combatants have to soak melee damage when attacking. You both dish out your base damage to one another, and you use your successes to soak down the damage you take or stage up the damage you do. I also am toying with saying that you're on Full Defense until your action comes up; then you stay in whatever mode you selected until your next action.

Oh-- almost forgot, the person who's attacking is the one who does base damage. The other guy is dealing Base -1 Level; so the "attacker" in melee does Str M stun, while his opponent deals a base Str L stun. I really don't find it realistic at all that two equally-skilled combatants can't hurt each other in a clash.

What do you think? I never really tested this rule, so I don't know how it'll play.
Zazen
QUOTE (Cain)
To be fair, I've calculated the speed advantage at equal skill to be roughly 60/40 in favor of the attacker. To me, that's a sufficient edge. YMMV, of course.

To be really fair, that was only one particular case with skill levels at 6 and TN 4. We don't know about other cases than the single one that we studied.


For example, with 1 die at TN 6, the attacker has a mere 2% advantage.
Cain
True enough; but we're discussing skilled opponents. If an attacker only has a skill of 1, we all agree that he should be paste against a trained opponent, regardless of speed.

I'm more interested in what people think of the house rule I developed. I think it's more realistic, and it also solves what people see as a problem. Yes, the "attacker" can get hurt, regardless of how fast he moves; but he can also hurt the "defender" in the process.
A Clockwork Lime
I think this is your main problem, Cain. You keep assuming either two highly skilled opponents or one inferior one taking on one highly trained one.

Assume everyone has a Skill of 1 from this point forward.
Zazen
That doesn't really help much either. Give them some nice reach 2 whips and the combat is a woeful 85/15 split in favor of the attacker. Go speed racer.


The lesson? Throw statistics out the window and only address what we see to be broken in actual gameplay smile.gif
A Clockwork Lime
I'm not referring to stats. I'm referring to concepts. He wants to keep seeing a master somewhere in the equation. I'm asking him to see it as two or more Skill 1 opponents facing off.
Bearclaw
A thought occured to me in the shower this morning.
The turn based combat system is in no way realistic, so most of the fixes we're trying to attach to it are just clumsy or bulky or both.
Try this.

Melee attacks are handled as always. Both guys roll against a TN of 4, plus or minus modifiers.
If the attacker wins, he damages his opponent, staged up with extra successes. If the defender wins, he doesn't take damage. If the defender DOUBLES the attackers successes, he makes a successful counterattack, doing damage, and staged up by extra successes.
This gives the attacker a much bigger advantage, while still meaning that if you are outclassed, you are outclassed. This mostly fixes the speed issue without a lot of complicated rules.

Ex:
Bill the Samurai, Katana 9
Jim the security guard, Club 4

Jim attacks, gets 3 successes.
Bill defends, gets 7 successes.
Bill does Str +3 M

Bill attacks, gets 3 successes.
Jim defends gets 4 successes.
No one gets hurt.
BitBasher
At skill one, The defender has a 1 in 4 chance of winning, while the attacker has a 50% chance of winning. Assuming TN4 we get:

CODE
Sucesses:
Att...Def... Winner
 1     0     Attacker
 1     1     Attacker (ties win)
 0     1     Defender
 0     0     No one


Im fine assuming the skill is one, Lime, it proves the faster attacker already has a distinct advantage at equal skill levels, in the area if twice as likely (50% vs 25%) to hit the defender. Nifty.
A Clockwork Lime
<just rolls his eyes> It's amazing what little clue you have.

I couldn't care less about numbers or averages in this discussion. I'm discussing the actual logic used therein. Cain likes to argue along the lines of "it makes perfect sense that a slow grandmaster can whip around and destroy four superfast newbies who are attack him!!!" but that argument holds no water whatsoever if they're all newbies... even though the same exact effect is still possible. Skill level has NO place in this discussion as far as I'm concerned, it's a completely seperate aspect of the problem despite your preference to say it isn't.
BitBasher
So in a nutshell you want to argue the effectiveness of people who don't know what the heck they're doing?
A Clockwork Lime
Nope. I'm arguing about the stupidity of this particular rule despite skill level. It doesn't matter how skilled or how unskilled they are, in all cases they're gaining superhuman reflexes above and beyond mere mortal capabilities. Hell, they're even gaining reflexes up to four times or more (the penalties for multiple opponents is limited to +4/-4, not the actual number of them).

Some newb who just barely has Whirling comes under attack by 16 Force 1 ally spirits sustaining Increase Reflexes 3D6 on themselves somehow just transfered the equivalence of 64D6 dice and 16 or higher Reaction to that newb. Not only does he have a +1 TN bonus on his attackers, easily swaying the "ties go to the attacker" stupidity, but he's at FULL effectiveness against ALL 16 of those attackers, moving at blinding speeds beyond the comprehension of even immortal elves and great dragons. All thanks to his crappy skill of 1. He's attacking from every angle, at blinding speeds, with perfect accuracy and no worries about not being able to keep up. None whatsoever.

With stupid rules like that in question, stupid examples are just as valid.
BitBasher
I see your point, but in reality, outside of a completely fabricated example like the one above, I have never, ever had that happen in a SR game. I don't think I've ever seen more than 3 consecutive melee tests in a row before the outcome was a foregone conclusion. Since it has never come up, and I don't see it coming up in the future unless someone goes out of their way to try, I don't see a problem with it.

I can completely agree things get stupid when you deliberately try to make them stupid, but in game I have never even had close to that problem.
Bearclaw
So Lime, what do you think of my idea. It seems some what to fix the problem that was origonally brought up, mostly, doesn't it?
Arethusa
Is your argument seriously that broken rules don't need fixing because they don't come up much?
A Clockwork Lime
I was just using a stupid example to demonstrate the problem as clearly as I could. Sure, it rarely comes up, but that is the part that people (myself at least) find dissatisfying about it.

Your rules have a lot of potential, Bearclaw, or at the very least goes a long way to avoiding some of the biggest problem with it. However, I don't have a problem with a standard counterattack. I don't think it should be any more difficult than it currently is most of the time. My beef is with the number of counterattacks available under the current rules. smile.gif
Zazen
QUOTE (BitBasher)
Im fine assuming the skill is one, Lime, it proves the faster attacker already has a distinct advantage at equal skill levels, in the area if twice as likely (50% vs 25%) to hit the defender. Nifty.

Now try TN 6 nyahnyah.gif

The statistics aren't helpful. In general the attacker has more of an advantage as the TN goes down, but there isn't any good in-game reason for that.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Arethusa)
Is your argument seriously that broken rules don't need fixing because they don't come up much?

From an end-user point of view, you have to weigh the problems caused by the broken-ness of the rule against the problems caused by creating a new rule to cover for it. If the broken-ness very rarely or never comes up, it's pretty obvious it's more troublesome making up new rules for it.

The game designers can't fall back on that, but they won't be doing anything to the rules any time soon anyway.
Arethusa
QUOTE (Zazen)
In general the attacker has more of an advantage as the TN goes down, but there isn't any good in-game reason for that.

Actually, I'd say there is. This is one place my real life experience definitely does have some applicability, and in that experience, at very low levels of skill, the aggressor is really at an advantage.

[edit]

QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
From an end-user point of view, you have to weigh the problems caused by the broken-ness of the rule against the problems caused by creating a new rule to cover for it. If the broken-ness very rarely or never comes up, it's pretty obvious it's more troublesome making up new rules for it.

The game designers can't fall back on that, but they won't be doing anything to the rules any time soon anyway.

That argument cuts both ways. If you don't care enough about your game to fix at least the fairly glaring problems, I guess that's your call, but why go on and expend effort trying to convince everyone else that they shouldn't fix it?
BitBasher
QUOTE
Is your argument seriously that broken rules don't need fixing because they don't come up much?
No, Im saying I feel no need to fix the rules because outside this board, in over 10 years it has never, ever come up in my game. Not once ever have we said "Man that is just way too unrealistic to handle". And a chunk of our group have had martial arts training.

QUOTE
The statistics aren't helpful. In general the attacker has more of an advantage as the TN goes down, but there isn't any good in-game reason for that.
There's no reason for many of the quirks of the SR d6 system, but I drastically prefer it over the alternatives I have seen, particularly d20.
Austere Emancipator
QUOTE (Arethusa)
If you don't care enough about your game to fix at least the fairly glaring problems, I guess that's your call, but why go on and expend effort trying to convince everyone else that they shouldn't fix it?

Seriously. Read through this bit again and think. I won't rolleyes because there's enough of that going on in this thread already.
A Clockwork Lime
It wouldn't be so mad if one part of it wasn't such an easy thing to fix (limiting the number of counterattacks a character could make) or that the other wasn't a deliberate move outside established rules (ties going to the attacker).

All they have to say is something like "ties are ties" and "characters are limited to one counterstrike (or maybe one-half their skill level in counterstrikes) per phase."

Two little changes like that would go a long way to making it more believable all around.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012