The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Help! Combat Too Slo-o-ow
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Gamemasters -> Help! Combat Too Slo-o-ow Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
* He doesn't trust that the people who say "drop the blaster" won't actually shoot him even after he surrenders.


On the surrender side, that is actually a good point. I had one group who were well known for killin and torturing prisoners they got. THEN They b**** and moaned as to why even goblins they fought were fighting to the death after word got out of what they were doing.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
On the surrender side, that is actually a good point. I had one group who were well known for killin and torturing prisoners they got. THEN They b**** and moaned as to why even goblins they fought were fighting to the death after word got out of what they were doing.
Yes, I happened to be rereading Paying the Piper, one of David Drake's Hammer's Slammers novels. It mentions the fact that the Slammers accept, and even encourage surrender of their opponents. One reason being that they hope that the same courtesy will apply to their troops. It also mentions the unpleasant future fate of those who execute surrendering Slammers once they catch you.

Now if I were the leader of a bunch of goblins. I'd start recruiting allies from the other likely victims of this bunch of sadists. Then I'd chop up, devour, or burn every last bit of the bodies of any of those PCs we could catch, capture, or kill. Here I'm assuming that no intact body messes with any in universe resurrection. And if not, what the heck, protein is protein. Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had a pc in a sw game almost get into a party fight after we took surrender of 8 Imp stormies. All 8 were fresh recruits we took out on their shuttle coming from the training academy. NONE were armed (their gear was on a separate shuttle), and being they were out were not a threat.
Of the 4 other pcs and 7 npcs we had.
3 pcs/3npcs voted to slit their throats and toss them out the airlock.
1 pc was on the fence
4 npcs were on my side about NOT wanting to kill them.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
I had a pc in a sw game almost get into a party fight after we took surrender of 8 Imp stormies. All 8 were fresh recruits we took out on their shuttle coming from the training academy. NONE were armed (their gear was on a separate shuttle), and being they were out were not a threat.
Of the 4 other pcs and 7 npcs we had.
3 pcs/3npcs voted to slit their throats and toss them out the airlock.
1 pc was on the fence
4 npcs were on my side about NOT wanting to kill them.
So these are non-force sensitive hard core anti-Imperials with a bad backstory of Imperial oppression or attrocities?

I just watched Ride with the Devil about a bunch of Missouri Bushwackers. I could see a lot of those guys doing that. But they had atrocity back stories to help support their hatred and merciless attitude and despite that not all the group was comfortable with the viciousness.

Last group of stormtroopers my PC, Bren, ran into there was one wounded survivor. I used one of his medpacs to first aid him, we cuffed him, and we had to guard him and take him with us as a prisoner because he had surrendered (or maybe just kneeled there disarmed and swaying helplessly while I pointed my lightsaber at his throat) and I knew (well really, really strongly suspected) that the local population would have killed him and possibly not quickly. We also had to take the mad scientist and his assistant as well. And I'm pretty sure that the mad scientist will be trouble at some point - even fairly trusting Bren thinks that will be the case. Oh the burdens of being one of the good guys. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IIRC of the group, 3 were non force sensitive, me and the last PC were force sensitive (heck iirc he was wanting to find someone to learn the force from)..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vanir
Jedi


Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

both me and my main RPG buddy have german family backgrounds and use SWRPG to assuage a little curiosity about the Nazi-theme elements of the game to explore some of our past.

So we've both done a lot of WW2/Nazi research and tend to incorporate it into the game. One of the interesting things we turned up, was the Sonderkommando/Einsatzgruppe teams on the Eastern Front, the concerted efforts to murder literally truckloads of russian children just to wipe the slavic race from the annals of history as anything but serfs.

And the fascinating thing, is that some of the most brutal, the most psychopathic, the most dangerous figures in the entire German arsenal who did these things, were school teachers and football players and things like that back home. They were armchair experts, with university degrees and rank authorities provided by special nazi programs that had everything to do with how you agreed, not how you answered.

Some of the most brutal Holocaust perpetrators, were what would appear no different to some politically active university students today. It's just that you could tell their hate mongering had little rationalé.
But they just looked like dumb kids. In fact the German Army term for these particular SS field commanders was "Golden Pheasant."

That was part of the lesson you know.




here's another thought, anecdotal and totally subjective, my grandma taught me this bless her heart.
you face an army soldier and your goals are basically the same, he just has a different opinion to you.
you face an ss soldier and he honestly just wants to kill you personally, it's very very personal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vanir wrote:
And the fascinating thing, is that some of the most brutal, the most psychopathic, the most dangerous figures in the entire German arsenal who did these things, were school teachers and football players and things like that back home. They were armchair experts, with university degrees and rank authorities provided by special nazi programs that had everything to do with how you agreed, not how you answered.
That's a different backstory to the American Civil War example. But the behavior should be rooted in character backstory. To repeatedly kill truck loads of children the character needs some rationale and that has to come out of the backstory - whether it is one of personal tragedy and loss or one of bigotry, hate, indoctrination, and obedience to authority all being used to dehumanize the hated foe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
That's a different backstory to the American Civil War example. But the behavior should be rooted in character backstory. To repeatedly kill truck loads of children the character needs some rationale and that has to come out of the backstory - whether it is one of personal tragedy and loss or one of bigotry, hate, indoctrination, and obedience to authority all being used to dehumanize the hated foe.

I think there are a few people in this world evil enough to kill a truckload of children without bothering to dehumanize them first.

It's popular these days to ask why people do evil things, and to try and explain it in their past, but sometimes people are just evil, and they do evil things because it benefits them.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vanir
Jedi


Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed Fallon is right Bren, although I know you're an inquisitive and smart guy. But there is a danger you sometimes learn the hard way, whereby you start to believe mechanical rationalé behind elective behaviour. The elusive identification of disembodied evil.

There are centuries worth of literary works challenging this all too human wont to believe the best in people, at point blank.
It is not that some people are evil, but all evil people either choose to be, or are misunderstood. There is morality in determining which, but there are no in-betweens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fallon Kell wrote:
I think there are a few people in this world evil enough to kill a truckload of children without bothering to dehumanize them first.
I suspect that those folks are sociopaths who have already dehumanized pretty much everybody outside themselves already.

Quote:
...but sometimes people are just evil, and they do evil things because it benefits them.
You say evil, I say conscienceless killer...po-tay-to...po-tah-to. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Crimson_red
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 113
Location: British Columbia, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:17 pm    Post subject: A step backwards Reply with quote

In regards to speeding up combat, I was intrigued by cheshire's suggestion:
cheshire wrote:
In addition to determining initiative for the players, I find that it allows things to move more quickly if you ask each person how many actions they want to perform, and allow them to perform those actions before moving on to the next person. You sacrifice some realism, and it's a further departure from the RAW, but I think it moves things along.

One of the aspects of combat I had the most trouble tracking, as a GM, was character actions, in addition to turns/rounds. With that in mind, I'm curious of the effects of this change to handling multiple actions.

I certainly see an advantage to the GM as that is one less thing to track and its potential to reduce overall game time, but I can also see some cons, notably this would lengthen the time to complete each player's turn and thus the time other players would have to wait between turns. It would also seem to reduce tactical choices and combat dynamics by spending all actions at once instead of adapting them to the changes of combat.

I guess I'm mostly interested in how this change has played out for those who have tried it, Advantages and disadvantages in making the change and so on.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacRauri
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Posts: 47
Location: Twin Cities MN

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 11:06 am    Post subject: Re: A step backwards Reply with quote

Crimson_red wrote:
In regards to speeding up combat, I was intrigued by cheshire's suggestion:
cheshire wrote:
In addition to determining initiative for the players, I find that it allows things to move more quickly if you ask each person how many actions they want to perform, and allow them to perform those actions before moving on to the next person. You sacrifice some realism, and it's a further departure from the RAW, but I think it moves things along.

One of the aspects of combat I had the most trouble tracking, as a GM, was character actions, in addition to turns/rounds. With that in mind, I'm curious of the effects of this change to handling multiple actions.


Back when my friends and I first started playing we looked at the Combat Sense ability that states the Jedi doesn't need to roll initiative but gets to decide when he acts during the round. We scratched our heads a bit, but clearly this ability was supposed to enable the player to take ALL of their actions before their opponents could even take ONE--save defensive skills. Many hacked up stormtroopers later we decided this was too powerful.

I struggle too keeping track of multiple actions while keeping the flow of combat going. Especially now that my gaming group has grown to 6 players--larger than I've ever managed as a campaign before. I've toyed with the idea of trying Cheshire's suggestion. It might work nowadays too. But I shudder to think of the devastation my high school friends' rodian gangsters would have wrought had they been able to take ALL of their shots before even needing to dodge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have seen some gm's like you were who decided it meant jedi could do everything before anyone else. Others who made it where the jedi automatically pics in the round order when he wishes to act.. BUT if doing more than 1 action, still has the chance someone else goes before his 2nd.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MacRauri
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 26 Nov 2011
Posts: 47
Location: Twin Cities MN

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Do you know the rationale for the different rulings on combat sense? Our experience was that if the jedi could choose to take all of their actions at once very little was left alive to even threaten the other player characters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sat Dec 17, 2011 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MacRauri wrote:
Do you know the rationale for the different rulings on combat sense? Our experience was that if the jedi could choose to take all of their actions at once very little was left alive to even threaten the other player characters.
Force Powers PDF page 10 wrote:
First, the Jedi may choose when he wishes to
act that round—no initiative rolls are necessary
while the power is in effect.


To me this says the Jedi gets to choose her order of initiative without needing to roll, not that she can choose to take multiple actions before anyone else can act. We always treated it as the Jedi decided when to take her first action. Her later actions then alternated with the remaining actions for all the other characters. So she couldn't act three times before anyone else could act.

After a while, we just eliminated the Combat Sense power from our list of powers as too unbalanced due to the +2D skill bonus at no MAPs cost. In passing I note that Combat Sense was added in the Sourcebooks based on the Zhan trilogy not in the main rules and it still is not listed in the Revised and Expanded rule book - so eliminating it as a regular Jedi power doesn't seem out of line with designers' intentions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Gamemasters All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0