Page 3 of 3

Re: Keeping track of modifiers

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:20 pm
by utsukushi
Part of me wants to emphasize that Greymarch set it up to give you the modifier of the majority, not just the worst, but... I'm not sure I don't like "the worst" more, even as a player. It would be easy to game "the majority"; Intimidate two out of three with only a -2, then your friend can shoot the three. Eternity actively encourages that kind of thinking. If you go with just taking the worst, then if your Intimidate isn't good enough to get the whole group, your friends have to decide what to do with that, and that's more interesting.

I still largely prefer allowing the per-piece modifiers, but they can bog things down and this is, indeed, lovely.

Kuildeous wrote:Sure, all four steps show up on the card, but is it reasonable that the player solves the hieroglyphic puzzle AND pulls the rusted lever across the room AND runs across the dart corridor AND climbs up the rope to press the button? Okay, not really.

Firecracker could've done it. :cry:

More seriously, though, it is conversely not realistic that one character can't solve the puzzle while another grabs the lever and another runs across the corridor and climbs the rope to press the button, and the rules expressly forbid that. Or that the one with Mage Hands can't just ignore the corridor-running-rope-climbing part and just press the button from the lever, for that matter, but if the DSR calls for a Dodge and a Strength (Climbing) roll, the players aren't really allowed to just skip steps C and D because it makes "sense".

And being able to complete whatever steps are on the card is too important, mechanically, to take away. It's built into the DSR system. I can't imagine how frustrating it would be to get the ABCD card and be told we can realistically only do A and B, and then fail the DSR because C just doesn't come up again in the next few cards! Grrr.

Re: Keeping track of modifiers

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 6:57 pm
by Greymarch2000
Yeah the whole majority thing was just something that I remembered from Warhammer 40K I think 3rd edition? 4th? I don't even know anymore.

TBH I've found that after a few sessions it's not too difficulty to keep track of all the modifiers because on the player side at least you're likely to see the same combinations coming up again and again.

Re: Keeping track of modifiers

Posted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 7:15 pm
by utsukushi
Ooh, and technically rounding for the majority means using fractions, and given how much people complain about addition and subtraction I don't think that's going to fly. :lol:

Re: Keeping track of modifiers

Posted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 3:21 pm
by mystic101
Greymarch2000 wrote:One area that you can streamline is if some enemies targeted by something have an additional modifier associated with them like vulnerable or what have you and others don't only apply it if it applies to the majority of the opponents. If they shoot at 6 edeinos, 2 of which are vulnerable then don't consider it. If they specify they're shooting at 3 of them including the vuln ones count all 3 as vuln.

Kuildeous wrote:Well, that just floored me. It has precedence too. You know how you don’t get to reroll the first die if only one of your multiple actions is Favored? Or that you don’t reroll 20s if any of your actions is done unskilled? So that could easily support the idea that you only benefit from Vulnerable (or Very) if they all are. There is elegance in its simplicity.

I, also, think that's a brilliantly simple solution that goes elegantly with the rules as currently implemented. I'd be perfectly content with it, if sitting at a table where that was a house rule. If a re-mastered Torg Eternity core edition ever comes about, maybe the developers will keep that in mind as one possible way to streamline things in the future.