Members,

Here's where some of our senior members can contribute their home tested methods for dealing with tricky campaign situations. This is not a place for the discussion of the official rules as established by the makers of the game, but rather a place for some of out more creative friends here on the boards to share their own revisions, and or inventions, that they feel aid in successful gameplay.

No kicking, biting, or gouging, and certainly no munchie hoarding.

If you're eating sardines, you can hoard them all you want.

TAG

i like doing reverse declarations for initiative. The person with low inits declares their action first, then second lowest declartes next, and so on. That way the person who wins initiative can make the action that would be of the greatest benefit to their goal, becasue when the round starts they will act first, and people with lower initiatives can be in essence, 'beaten to the punch'. if a player wants to change their action after declaration, they may only do so to perform a defensive action, and only if their character makes a successful Psyche feat roll.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 09:48AM by The Last Duskblade.

I agree. This is how you do initiative in the old WoD system as well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 09:49AM by The Last Duskblade.

Isn't that assuming that somehow the guy getting the initiative has read the minds of his opponents to know what they're up to when he's tailoring his attacks to the actions of his opponents? Given a turn is just 6 seconds that seems little time without some kind of super-power (like Spider-man's Danger Sense) to determine what everyone's going to do and pick a course of action that will hamper or otherwise derail that before they can finish acting on it.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 09:49AM by The Last Duskblade.

It's not reading minds. It's seeing what your opponents are going to do a split second before they fully act. It's a benefit of initiative and I wholeheartedly agree with the system.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 09:49AM by The Last Duskblade.

Hmmm. I think thats an interesting idea as well>



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 09:50AM by The Last Duskblade.

Guys, please change the title of your post to match the house rules your sharing. That'll make it nicer for those searching through it when this thing gets to being in hundreds of posts long.

It's an interesting idea, and one that I myself am sort of half-and-half on. One can reasonably argue that skilled and experienced combatants could pick up on subtle body language that could reveal what a given opponent is about to try, but to me it seems to mainly apply in regards to physical actions and combat, as various powers might give absolutely no tip-off. Still, it's a potentially useful idea worth trying out to see how well it might work for one's own games and players.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 09:49AM by Redman II.

Ah... initiative.

I like the rules as written (you knew I'd say that) where everyone declares their actions, the Judge determines if said actions are possible (i.e. is a character's Agility high enough to even attempt to Dodge laser fire?) and assesses modifiers (Does Spider-Man have to roll a Wall-Crawling FEAT to scale the wall, is Quicksilver moving fast enough to cause attacks against him to have neg CS applied...) and then initiatives are rolled. Characters Dodging that round roll their Agility to determine how many neg CS to apply to declared shooting / throwing and charging atttacks against them. Highest initiative acts first.

In the spirit of House Rules though... over the years D&D rules crept into our games and we had to turn bonuses to initiative to minuses so that numerically lowest initiative roll went first. Other than that, it was the same.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2009 08:43PM by The Last Duskblade.

Well, my issue with oldschool initiative is the person with low initiative has the benefit of knowing all declared actions before his or her own. That seems counter-intuitive when this is supposed to be the guy who is pretty much caught flat footed in the round, with every single other person who is supposed to have had been quicker on the draw and be at an advantage, is in truth giving him the opportunity to take an action that's at greatest benefit since he knows what everyone else is gonna do first. Losing initiative means that in essence everyone else got the jump on you to some degree or another. Doesn't it make more sense that the person who wins initiative should have such an advantage? Reverse declarations does just that. And it's not really akin to proto-telepathy, in that after a declared action is stated, it is still possible to changew action to a defensive posture. So if we're talking an evasion scenario, it's possible the guy with low init is able to not only evade a blow, but potentially be in superior position to attack the following round. It feels more balanced and does a better job to simulate what I feel is the true spirit of initiative.

I the reverse declarations is something better suited for a table game than a pbem. Punstarr made that point to me and I have to agree.

CapoCastillo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, my issue with oldschool initiative is the
> person with low initiative has the benefit of
> knowing all declared actions before his or her
> own. That seems counter-intuitive when this is
> supposed to be the guy who is pretty much caught
> flat footed in the round, with every single other
> person who is supposed to have had been quicker on
> the draw and be at an advantage, is in truth
> giving him the opportunity to take an action
> that's at greatest benefit since he knows what
> everyone else is gonna do first. Losing
> initiative means that in essence everyone else got
> the jump on you to some degree or another.
> Doesn't it make more sense that the person who
> wins initiative should have such an advantage?
> Reverse declarations does just that. And it's not
> really akin to proto-telepathy, in that after a
> declared action is stated, it is still possible to
> changew action to a defensive posture. So if
> we're talking an evasion scenario, it's possible
> the guy with low init is able to not only evade a
> blow, but potentially be in superior position to
> attack the following round. It feels more
> balanced and does a better job to simulate what I
> feel is the true spirit of initiative.

Personally I don't mind telling the character with the lowest rolled initiative that by the time his turn to act came around, the faster character already had him knocked out (that is, if the faster character knocked him out.)

"As you attempt to get out of the way of the Hulk's fist..."

The beauty of declaring actions BEFORE intitiative is rolled is that random element that could have characters with no initiative modifiers possibly rolling higher than characters with initiative bonuses.

You have to separate "player-knowledge" from "character knowledge"

A player might know what another character is doing.

But his character doesn't.

To this point I agree with you. In a chat or table top setting it can be resolved rather quickly, but in PBeM the resolution of init declarations could take forever.

Mr Happy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I the reverse declarations is something better
> suited for a table game than a pbem. Punstarr made
> that point to me and I have to agree.

Dead Sidekick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have to separate "player-knowledge" from
> "character knowledge"
>
> A player might know what another character is
> doing.
>
> But his character doesn't.

Yeah, at my table, when a player's-knowledge gets abused as character knowledge, we called it Crystal Ball Playing and I dock 1000 Karma from that player's current Karma collected and I do Karma Debt with a Cap of -1000 and they can't use the karma once they are in debt. They can't use karma for manipulating dice rolls, purchasing powers or talents until they get out'a debt. It keeps the players honest. I've only had to do this once in my 20 years gaming, And once was enough. Every new player was informed by veteran players not to abuse that rule. It makes for a long character development if broken.

I don't know if anyone else does this, but we use a comparative agilty rule for singular or very small group combat... this is based on the idea that someone who can dodge bullets is not going to have much issue with doging a typical-speed combination, even if it's thrown by a skilled fighter... and the bullet dodger wouldn't really have to sacrifice action to do so, since they could put themselves in superior position to counter while avoiding the blow at the same time (think "Matrix" or "Interview with the Vampire"). This only applies to singular or very small group combat, since in large combat, you aren't focused on everyone who could be trying to hit you. We say that for every rank above 1 CS higher a person's agility is than their opponent, that person's opponent get a -1 CS CS to their fighting rank to hit them (or whatever rank they are using for that attack)... conversely, the faster person would get a similar bonus to hit the slower opponent. So that if someone who is a fairly quick normal person (good Agility) was fight someone who is impossibly fast (Amazing Agility), the person with Amazing agilty would get +3 CS to hit the much slower person and the much slower person would get -3 CS to hit the much faster person... Those of you who are naturally very quick know that there is a humungous advantage to fighting a much slower person that transcends simply being able to dodge their attacks easily, and that's just from a standpoint within the limits of human agility.

I think that some of these principles make sense, but I don't think i can truly stand behind this rule. part of the reason is special effects. not only are you giving someone with a higher agility a better chance to hit, but you're also giving them a higher liklihood to score slams, stuns, or kills. Further, from a character creation standpoint, if you're able to design your character to any degree when you judge (who knows, maybe you go by strict random generation) then there's a definite advantage to going cheap on fighting and just going for a full load on agility, since in a good number of scenarios, it will allow you to substitute your agility advantage into better fighting.

I thing a better method might be someone who has a +2cs or better agility advantage can substitute agility for fighting in Evasion Feats. That way they more often than not won't get hit, get an attack bonus the following round, and character generation can act more balanced. but i think at root here is an impulse to treat high endurance as de facto superspeed, which are very different things. besides, I don't think the average gymnast can outbox me.


JJE Wrote else does this, but we use
> a comparative agilty rule for singular or very
> small group combat... this is based on the idea
> that someone who can dodge bullets is not going to
> have much issue with doging a typical-speed
> combination, even if it's thrown by a skilled
> fighter... and the bullet dodger wouldn't really
> have to sacrifice action to do so, since they
> could put themselves in superior position to
> counter while avoiding the blow at the same time
> (think "Matrix" or "Interview with the Vampire").
> This only applies to singular or very small group
> combat, since in large combat, you aren't focused
> on everyone who could be trying to hit you. We say
> that for every rank above 1 CS higher a person's
> agility is than their opponent, that person's
> opponent get a -1 CS CS to their fighting rank to
> hit them (or whatever rank they are using for that
> attack)... conversely, the faster person would get
> a similar bonus to hit the slower opponent. So
> that if someone who is a fairly quick normal
> person (good Agility) was fight someone who is
> impossibly fast (Amazing Agility), the person with
> Amazing agilty would get +3 CS to hit the much
> slower person and the much slower person would get
> -3 CS to hit the much faster person... Those of
> you who are naturally very quick know that there
> is a humungous advantage to fighting a much slower
> person that transcends simply being able to dodge
> their attacks easily, and that's just from a
> standpoint within the limits of human agility.

While talking with someone the other day I thought I'd mention this house rule for consideration, given the way things are so costly for characters when it comes to increasing their FASERIP and/or powers. Allow for them to have the particular stat or power advance by one point when they manage a successful red feat with said power or stat. So someone with a Good (14) Strength for example manages to push himself and pull of a red feat he advances to Good (15), rather than requiring he have to spend 140 karma to advance that point. It's not something that'll happen very often and helps simulate growth under extreme tests of their powers and stats. Plus helps stimulate RP related to the growth of a particular stat. For example the character trying to increase Strength engaging in weight training working hard to get in a red feat and improve it by a point.

I'm using a similar house rule, but they have to roll 5 red feat, before they advance 1 point. this applies both to FASERIP and any power tha character uses.

I'd add a caveat that you can't spend karma to have gotten the red FEAT. Otherwise it's way too easy to steadily spend less than 100 karma to advance Unearthly abilities point by point... especially if you're cresting.

it is set in that way, too, I've just forgotten to wrote it here... but I'm a mean GM in regarding of the Karma (Xp in other games). I don't like when someone levels up per 3-5 game session


Punstarr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd add a caveat that you can't spend karma to
> have gotten the red FEAT. Otherwise it's way too
> easy to steadily spend less than 100 karma to
> advance Unearthly abilities point by point...
> especially if you're cresting.

Daelon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm using a similar house rule, but they have to
> roll 5 red feat, before they advance 1 point. this
> applies both to FASERIP and any power tha
> character uses.

That seems pretty expensive given how unlikely someone is to pull off five red feats with any particular ability or power. Even with karma that'd be difficult to manage given how one doesn't tend to end up with that much karma to freely spend at those kinds of levels.

Punstarr Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd add a caveat that you can't spend karma to
> have gotten the red FEAT. Otherwise it's way too
> easy to steadily spend less than 100 karma to
> advance Unearthly abilities point by point...
> especially if you're cresting.

Just where are there any games with stats that high? From what I've seen bandied about having even Amazing rank in something is rare to get approved let alone Unearthly. Plus you still have some need for that Red feat rather than just paying to get a red to advance, otherwise it's kind of ridiculous to try for a red in a situation where you only need a green. Just like rolling a Red Strength feat to lift something easy shouldn't provide you any growth (you weren't really testing your limits and pushing them back).

well, in my party every character has a Monstrous ability or power and they rolled it in front of me.

as for rare red FEATs... we plays from 4pm to 9pm, and in every game session there are at least 1 or 2 succesful red feat for every player and I we don't roll so many. I guess we have good dices or we are lucky, but it's true.

if every red FEAT shifts 1 point up the given stat, then they will upgrade too soon for my taste.

this gives them the feeling that they develop their abilites with hard work and get an award for the especially hard FEATs, and they always can spend Karma to speed up the process.

Even if the stats are lower, say Incredible... to raise something from Incredible 40 to Incredible 41 would cost 400 karma. If getting a red FEAT allows you to automatically progress to 41, you're still saving at least 301 karma for each bump if you spend the karma to get a red result. That's pretty cheesy and it would get abused fast. I'm just saying I'd add in that the roll has to be a natural red result. Otherwise I like the idea.

An interesting idea, and one I think I'll discuss with my co-GM for our tabletop game. I agree with the observation that the circumstances should reflect a legitimate need for a Red Feat to reflect pushing oneself further, and I also tend to agree with requiring it be a natural Red Feat rather than Karma-enhanced success to qualify for the 1 point stat/power boost.

As far as Cresting costs go, I'm thinking that's probably good as it is, requiring a bit more expenditure of dedication to shift up into a new rank.

Thanks I like the idea although I'm not sure that getting to use karma to get that red feat would be too cheap, given how overpriced things are in the game. Particularly if you're starting with starting level stats for the PC and trying to work up to the 'mature' level (one rank above starting). You could then decide to slow it since with the general range of stats you're talking 14 points to move each FASERIP up to the standard rank number of the next level, that's 98 points overall. A lot of red feats to pull that off and that doesn't count any powers that they have. As long as they have to have the red feat to succeed or are pushing it because they must (pushing Incredible Fighting to get a Red Feat to get in three attacks that round) it seems like they ought to benefit at least a little from it and enjoy some growth like the rules are skewed against.

The way I do advancement for FASERIP/Powers is simply charge the next point value times 10. So for instance if you're going from Excellent (20) to Excellent (21), you pay 210 points of Karma. I also don't charge anything for cresting. I find that this makes karma expenditures not only viable for purposes of immediate rolling, but by saving up for a few sessions, you can make legitimate advances as the campaign progresses. Also, the lower you are in the column tables, you can see real column advancement in a relatively short amount of time, but as you get into more significant ranges, about Incredible level and above, advancement takes more time, experience, and effort.

For Talents, i simply charge 100 Karma, plus an in-game justification for the advancement. Contacts are earned strictly via role play.

Also, the total karma earned in game i distribute to all players at maximum value. i don't take the total and divide it amongst the players. It's fast simple and has been pretty effective for me as a Judge.


I do like the idea of the natural 100 as an avenue of advancement, but I'd want it to be more than once. i'm not sure if 5 is the right number for me, but I think the idea has merit.