Greymarch2000 wrote:I mean you could just say the other ones were further back and didn't see/hear clearly. What the player decides for rules purposes and what the character are trying to are not necessarily the same thing.
Pretty much that. It’s not that you’re deciding that you want to make 5/6 of the group run away. The Storm Knight probably is being very intimidating. Or tricky. Or infuriating. Or slippery. But those moves only have a mechanical effect based on the player’s decision independent of what the character's desires.
I like the idea of better results yielding more targets, but that doesn’t jive with the current model of taking penalties based on the number of actions/targets before rolling. Is there a way to make it jive? Perhaps there is a house rule that can reach middle ground.
Like, maybe each additional success level increases the affected targets by 2x. To be fair, it uses a lesser effect. So for example, say you’re intimidating 3 mooks. Then your options are:
Standard: S/Vthe 3 mooks.
Good: VS/VV the 3 mooks OR V/S the 3 mooks + 3 additional
Outstanding: Player’s Call the 3 mooks OR VS/VV the 3 mooks + 3 additional
At first I was thinking of keeping it at Outstanding because that’s the limit of combat too. When someone suggested adding +1BD for each 5 beyond Outstanding, it was pointed out that there would be an imbalance between attack skills and interaction skills, which have a cap. Perhaps if each 5 beyond Outstanding gave interaction skills another doubling of targets, then that is more in line with the oft-proposed rule of letting attack skills go beyond Outstanding.
Hmm, this is an interesting concept. I’d have to weigh the impact of multi-target penalties and doubling. I suspect there’s a sweet spot that makes it an obvious choice, which can make interaction skills vs. mobs kind of boring. But this could possibly benefit players who take a penalty and players who roll exceptionally well.