House Rules

User avatar
Kuildeous
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Kuildeous » Thu Oct 26, 2017 11:26 am

I like the clarified version. And while the second die roll is an anomaly in Torg, I think I can live with it. I don't think it'll happen that often. Aim usually only happens when there's something tough or hard to hit, which generally rules out mooks.

I think when I get my group going (starting the final Day One adventure tonight with probable conclusion next week), I'm going to pitch both variant ideas and let the group decide. I kind of hope they go for my idea since it's simpler, but the allure of the possibility of aiming and shooting in one turn could win out.
The Boneyard – Friends and foes within Tharkold's Blasted Land

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

User avatar
Gargoyle
Posts: 1700
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:20 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Gargoyle » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:11 pm

Kuildeous wrote:I like the clarified version. And while the second die roll is an anomaly in Torg, I think I can live with it. I don't think it'll happen that often. Aim usually only happens when there's something tough or hard to hit, which generally rules out mooks.

I think when I get my group going (starting the final Day One adventure tonight with probable conclusion next week), I'm going to pitch both variant ideas and let the group decide. I kind of hope they go for my idea since it's simpler, but the allure of the possibility of aiming and shooting in one turn could win out.


Your idea is still great. It has the significant advantage that all you have to do is to modify the Firing into Melee rules to begin with "Unless you used the Aim action last round,...".

I just dislike Aim because it really does feel like losing a turn since you just say "I aim this round" and you're done. Anything that causes people to lose a turn like that is less than fun IMO, so I think my variant has some more gameplay potential and interesting decision making, and gives combat characters a good reason to have a decent Mind attribute, but at a cost in complexity.
"That old chestnut?"

Gargoyle

Savioronedge
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2017 11:55 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Savioronedge » Thu Oct 26, 2017 9:53 pm

I love the variant.

Maybe, if you feel the 10 is too easy, (I agree the 'dodge' idea doesn't work) add difficulty modifiers for cover? And if you like that direction but still feel it is too hard, give the non-mishap Failure result a +4 to Aim the next round...this way, the SK has to decide if they are going to use another turn "throwing good money after bad," or try something else with the incentive of, "If I try again, I didn't completely waste this turn."

Mishap should be something along the lines of "The character has really messed things up. She cannot perform any action related to ranged combat with this weapon until she spends a round fixing the situation."

User avatar
Gargoyle
Posts: 1700
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:20 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Gargoyle » Fri Oct 27, 2017 10:06 am

Savioronedge wrote:I love the variant.

Maybe, if you feel the 10 is too easy, (I agree the 'dodge' idea doesn't work) add difficulty modifiers for cover? And if you like that direction but still feel it is too hard, give the non-mishap Failure result a +4 to Aim the next round...this way, the SK has to decide if they are going to use another turn "throwing good money after bad," or try something else with the incentive of, "If I try again, I didn't completely waste this turn."

Mishap should be something along the lines of "The character has really messed things up. She cannot perform any action related to ranged combat with this weapon until she spends a round fixing the situation."


I think the default DN of 10 can be challenging, but I'm ok with that; if it were easy, then I wouldn't make them roll in the first place, and I don't want this to be a better option all the time. I'm going to try it as written above; I think it just needs some playtesting. Sometimes things look great on paper but are too time consuming or fiddly at the table.
"That old chestnut?"

Gargoyle

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

Re: House Rules

Postby RamblingScribe » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:27 pm

I've been thinking about multi action and multi attack penalties. While I appreciate the one roll resolves all, and the cinematic all or nothing success, I sometimes would prefer variable success levels.

My current idea is that the penalty to the first action is equal to the total number of actions. Each additional action has the penalty increased by the number of actions. The player decides which action/attack gets the biggest penalty.

So:

2 actions @ -2/-4
3 actions at -3/-6/-9
4 actions at -4/-8/-12/-16
Etc.

This will make the penalties overall worse, but on the first action not as bad.

But mainly, I prefer if someone shoots at 4 identical enemies, they can hit 11, 2, 3, or 4 of them.

Another option would be to assign a total penalty value of 2x number of actions, and let the players divide the total among the actions within specific parameters.

I will be happy to hear opinions on this.

User avatar
Kuildeous
Posts: 1328
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby Kuildeous » Mon Oct 30, 2017 10:04 pm

RamblingScribe wrote:Another option would be to assign a total penalty value of 2x number of actions, and let the players divide the total among the actions within specific parameters.



Of all the games I've seen that allow for multi-action, I don't think I've seen one that gives the players agency to determine their own penalties. Interesting.

I bet this could be facilitated with penalty chips that the player can use to make little stacks. That may make adding easier for them and ensure that no penalty is overlooked or duplicated.
The Boneyard – Friends and foes within Tharkold's Blasted Land

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

User avatar
Etan Krel
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 11:57 am
Location: Nîmes, France

Re: House Rules

Postby Etan Krel » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:57 am

RamblingScribe wrote:I've been thinking about multi action and multi attack penalties. While I appreciate the one roll resolves all, and the cinematic all or nothing success, I sometimes would prefer variable success levels.

My current idea is that the penalty to the first action is equal to the total number of actions. Each additional action has the penalty increased by the number of actions. The player decides which action/attack gets the biggest penalty.

So:

2 actions @ -2/-4
3 actions at -3/-6/-9
4 actions at -4/-8/-12/-16
Etc.

It looks like you are reverting to oTorg where the player decided which action/attack gets the biggest penalty.

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

Re: House Rules

Postby RamblingScribe » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:11 pm

Etan Krel wrote:It looks like you are reverting to oTorg where the player decided which action/attack gets the biggest penalty.


Kind of. The thing I never liked in oTorg was that if you were doing multiple actions, you may as well do a million. The first penalty was always -2 and the second -4 (or dn+2/+4 really), and then after that they got worse, but even if you did 10 actions, the first action never got harder. Torg E fixed that, but removed the sliding scale of success.

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

Re: House Rules

Postby RamblingScribe » Tue Oct 31, 2017 4:30 pm

I was having a conversation with one of my players the other day, and the one thing he doesn't like is dramatic skill resolution. I have a number of thoughts on why that is that might be circumstantial but the one concrete issue is the rounds where no step is available.

I had overlooked the rule that you can still perform the next step as an approved action to get a card, but that only partly addresses the problem. Unless I am missing something else, there is no requirement for (or consequence for not) doing anything related to DSR on a round when a step isn't available. I can certainly describe situations why the next step isn't available, but it is easier if the implication is that they are still working on it.

Also, I generally prefer DSR in the middle of other action like combat, so there are usually other things to do. It seems weird that there is a situation where the players decide to stop defusing the bomb and shoot at gospogs or whatever, but mechanically these things are not tied together. Again, I can say, "the gospogs were getting to close for you to work, so you shot them. I know you missed, but it made them back off enough that you can defuse the bomb next round." But I am retroactively justifying their choice based on the letter not being on the card.

My proposed "fix" is that on a round where your current step is not listed, that step is potentially deteriorating. If you don't attempt it, the dn of that step will be increased by 2 on future rounds. If you attempt it and get a mishap, the dn is increased by 1. If you attempt it and fail, the dn does not change. If you succeed, the dn of that step goes down by 1 per success level, maximum 3.

I think this will make it more of a choice for them, and seem less like they are waiting for the letter to come up.

ZorValachan
Posts: 588
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:02 pm

Re: House Rules

Postby ZorValachan » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:26 pm

If you stop performing that counter-ritual to shoot the gospog, your magic energy disperse and you are fatigued. Or you stop pulling out a stela, so the DD sends 2 more minions to defend it cause you let off the pressure. A metal piece of the plane wing fell off cause you weren't paying attention when fixing the engine, +1 for the pilot's Air Vehicle DN. Pulling out your gun to shoot is easy, holstering it again will give you a +1 to DN, or you can drop it.

All could be viable choices, if you feel deviation from the DSR is making it stupid instead of dramatic. Like a self imposed complication. Just let the players be aware of this.
- Leamon Crafton Jr.
Infiniverse Exchange author:

The Paraverse: An entire alternate Cosmverse
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/237607/

The Knights of the Road: Archtypes designed as a Storm Knight group
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/228365/


Return to “Tangents and Miscellany (TORG)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hawaiianbrian and 3 guests