House Rules

Savioronedge
Posts: 325
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Savioronedge » Sat Oct 21, 2017 11:15 pm

It is thoroughly cinematic for the guy who has been holding the gun, waiting for his moment, to shoot the bad guy despite him being almost completely behind the hero's friend. The hero in question is always a well trained shooter, so requiring either the Sniper perk or making another perk with Sniper as a prerequisite makes perfect sense.

RamblingScribe
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:15 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby RamblingScribe » Sun Oct 22, 2017 9:44 am

I think that -4 is a pretty significant penalty. It is the maximum stymie, and it stacks with other penalties like stymie and range.

I do like the idea of a chance of hitting your ally, but I find the mechanic clunky.

I am thinking that the idea of a perk to remove this might be too good, unless it has multiple prerequisites or perhaps two stages that each reduce the penalty. Also, I would consider not allowing it to work in conjunction with burst fire.

I am just realizing that if you fire a long burst into melee, there is no mechanism for accidentally hotting multiple opponents.

RamblingScribe
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 3:15 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby RamblingScribe » Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:42 am

One more note on the -4 as an alternative to randomly hitting allies. If you use this but players are having trouble remembering it, you can treat it like cover. when people are fighting, they are creating a variable amount of cover that averages to a -4 penalty.

You could then use the rule that if you miss by the difference of the cover, they hit the cover, that being a different combatant.

I am in general not really keen on friendly-fire rules, but this option is more similar to existing rules, if that's the sort of thing you are after.

I would rather have a "friendly fire" card of some sort that players can play as a dramatic event. "Ranged attack hits ally instead of intended target. If played on another hero, each storm knight gains one possibility."

Rocketeer
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:18 am

Re: House Rules

Postby Rocketeer » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:15 pm

Savioronedge wrote:It is thoroughly cinematic for the guy who has been holding the gun, waiting for his moment, to shoot the bad guy despite him being almost completely behind the hero's friend. The hero in question is always a well trained shooter, so requiring either the Sniper perk or making another perk with Sniper as a prerequisite makes perfect sense.

Two of the more common cinematic scenes where this tends to happen are,
    A) The villain is restraining someone and attempting to use that person as a shield.
    B) The villain has essentially defeated someone and is attempting to deliver a Coup de Grace (often pausing for a moment to gloat, before doing so).
Both of these situations are relatively static, and a well aimed shot has a better chance of hitting it's intended target.

An example of shooting into an actual melee, where both combatants are actually still fighting, is from the movie “Skyfall”.
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
ShirtlessOBrien
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby ShirtlessOBrien » Sun Oct 22, 2017 7:59 pm

RamblingScribe wrote:I would rather have a "friendly fire" card of some sort that players can play as a dramatic event. "Ranged attack hits ally instead of intended target. If played on another hero, each storm knight gains one possibility."


*Puts away .50 calibre rifle, pulls out slingshot*

"Oh no I hit my friend!"

think that -4 is a pretty significant penalty. It is the maximum stymie, and it stacks with other penalties like stymie and range.


It's still not that big a deal in a lot of cases, especially since you can spend a Possibility after you roll. I think there's a good argument for preserving cases where it's categorically worse to be a Fire Combat specialist than to have some melee/unarmed capability. Making people take a perk and spend a turn Aiming still fulfils that goal I think, but not a -4, because you could easily have a a Fire Combat attack option that is still better than your melee/unarmed options even with that -4.

User avatar
bchoinski
Posts: 128
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:44 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby bchoinski » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:03 pm

ShirtlessOBrien wrote:
RamblingScribe wrote:I would rather have a "friendly fire" card of some sort that players can play as a dramatic event. "Ranged attack hits ally instead of intended target. If played on another hero, each storm knight gains one possibility."


*Puts away .50 calibre rifle, pulls out slingshot*

"Oh no I hit my friend!"

think that -4 is a pretty significant penalty. It is the maximum stymie, and it stacks with other penalties like stymie and range.


It's still not that big a deal in a lot of cases, especially since you can spend a Possibility after you roll. I think there's a good argument for preserving cases where it's categorically worse to be a Fire Combat specialist than to have some melee/unarmed capability. Making people take a perk and spend a turn Aiming still fulfils that goal I think, but not a -4, because you could easily have a a Fire Combat attack option that is still better than your melee/unarmed options even with that -4.


I frankly think the "aim negates" is the cleaner way to go. It self limits to a degree since many players don't want to only act once every two rounds, and it keeps it simple with the idea of aiming rather than just blasting away.

User avatar
ShirtlessOBrien
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby ShirtlessOBrien » Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:32 pm

bchoinski wrote:I frankly think the "aim negates" is the cleaner way to go. It self limits to a degree since many players don't want to only act once every two rounds, and it keeps it simple with the idea of aiming rather than just blasting away.


The goal of a game is to have fun, and clearly some people find the hassles of shooting into melee unfun. However these house rules enabling free fire into melee do take something away from PCs who specialise in melee and want to be able to protect themselves against ranged attacks (or force the enemy into friendly fire incidents) by getting into melee. If good guys can just Aim for a round and then fire into melee with no penalties then bad guys can too.

User avatar
Kuildeous
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Kuildeous » Mon Oct 23, 2017 9:49 pm

ShirtlessOBrien wrote:enabling free fire into melee do take something away from PCs who specialise in melee


What it takes away from melee fighters is the fear of getting shot by their teammates. On top of that, the melee fighters get to attack twice as often as the ranged fighters. I think this actually benefits the melee fighters more.

ShirtlessOBrien wrote:If good guys can just Aim for a round and then fire into melee with no penalties then bad guys can too.


Sure they can. And I may just do that for the bad guys who are considerate of their teammates. But that's one action not being spent shooting at the good guys. And that's a price I think my players would be happy to pay.
The Boneyard – Friends and foes within Tharkold's Blasted Land

Infiniverse Exchange Word template – Infiniverse Exchange template for MS Word users

User avatar
ShirtlessOBrien
Posts: 185
Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 9:55 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby ShirtlessOBrien » Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:30 pm

Kuildeous wrote:
ShirtlessOBrien wrote:enabling free fire into melee do take something away from PCs who specialise in melee


What it takes away from melee fighters is the fear of getting shot by their teammates.


Unless you are seeing some asymmetry I am not, this is all strictly zero sum. Everything you do to soften the restriction on firing into melee benefits ranged attackers on both sides compared to melee combatants on both sides.

It is just a question of whether you think, overall, ranged attackers have it too tough in TorgE and need help. Maybe they do. I think most people agreed they had it too good in OTorg, but the TorgE rules haven't yet been exhaustively playtested by dozens of groups all around the world.

I do think it's a bit problematic that the chance of hitting a friendly is insensitive to attacker skill and anything that fixes that without significantly changing overall game balance or introducing too much added complexity would be an improvement.

Mike McCall
Posts: 180
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:54 pm
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan

Re: House Rules

Postby Mike McCall » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:32 am

I'm happy to grab the Aim = no friendly fire rule for my games. I'm not sure if it's unbalanced, and honestly I don't care. It will alleviate frustration with ranged characters and has the right feel for Torg IMO. I'm just going to run with that.


Return to “Tangents and Miscellany (TORG)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests