Ask Your GMs.   Posted by Garrion.Group: 0
Octavian
 player, 6 posts
 Aquilonian Mercenary
Fri 6 Oct 2017
at 14:19
Re: Ask Your GMs
Rodriguez:
In reply to Razuli (msg # 7):

Thats fine! I would roll damage in the next GM post next time then.

I say that you still cannot defend against attacks that did not hit you in the first place though...
Or what is the general opinion on that?


I think that would be a fair way to do it.

There is nothing wrong with modifying the tabletop rules for smoother PBP flow, but if the players have the new advtsnge of knowing what to dodge. Then we shouldn’t be able to stockpile momentum by dodging attacks we know have failed.

I am not opposed to eliminating the tabletop format in this game as often as people post,

Which I’d imagine being
GM post 1 “NPCs” attack you X times”
player post 1 “I defend Y times with these rolls}”
GM post 2 “You suffer from these effects/you avoid all damage”

But I totally see a need to condense


Which raises  2 questions though.

We are going need some back and forth when players attack, right? Cause there are momentum spends to think of.

So when we attack won’t there be a small exchange as well

Players: We attack with these rolls
GM: responds with the defense rolls describing if we hit or not
Players: give momentum spends and roll damage
GM: here is the results of your damage


And most importantly: how many attacks am I dodging? It looks like we’ve agreed on 2 but I just want to be clear
Garrion
 GM, 46 posts
Fri 6 Oct 2017
at 15:38
Ask Your GMs
In reply to Rodriguez (msg # 8):

That would not be fair to many with talents that allow them to benefit from a successful reaction. Things like riposte and others that slip my mind at the moment allow the defender to exploit a successful defense, whether the attack missed or not.

However, this is the reason for declaring intent before the dice hit the table. Otherwise there would be a large amount of defends being made every time an attack fails, either to exploit or farm Momentum while also conveniently keeping Doom spends to a minimum.

The choice really should be made prior to the outcome for balance reasons. I'm not just saying this as GM, but it also affects me as a player too. I dont think w need to slow the game down by waiting for responses, but declaring intent to defend during your turn takes care of that.

Scene: 2 PCs are facing 3 known archers at medium range and two swordsmen at short range.
Round 1: PC 1 acts taking minor and standard, declares intent to defend against know archers but relying on companion to stop the melee combatants. PC 2 acts taking minor to engage and standard and declares intent to defend against melee opponents, trusting the archers will not shoot into melee. GM acts for all NPCs. Archers do indeed attack PC1. One melee opponents attacks PC 2 but the other manages to move past and engage with PC 1. GM determines result with dice rolls, resulting in 1 archer hit and 2 misses on PC 1. The melee NPCs both hit their targets. The GM gains 4 Doom for the defenses (no Doom for PC 2 to defend against the second swordsman since he didnt attack him) and rolls on behalf of the PCs as applicable. PC 1 succeeds against his archer attack but also used 2 Doom to defend against the missed shots. Unfortunately, he failed to defend against the melee attack and is hit. Damage is rolled. PC 2 succeeds his defense with Momentum to spare. This will be held in reserve when his next action is taken to see if his reaction allowed any immediate counter-actions.
Round 2: PC has riposte so he uses the Momentum generated on the defense to make a counter attack and then proceeds with his turn.

Alternatively, and maybe easier on the GM, would be for characters to make a singular defense roll when they declare intent to defend that will apply to all applicable attacks. This could be good if it is a great roll, or bad if it sucks, but it should all average out.

Thoughts?
Razuli
 Player, 10 posts
 Zamoran Thief
Fri 6 Oct 2017
at 17:09
Ask Your GMs
My thoughts are I play this game on the table top and I am now playing it online. I go with the rule solution that speeds the game and limits back and fourth rules talk. Most players will defend themselves against an attack and spend the doom to do it. Let's not waste a day or three to find out by asking and let them decide after.

As far as one roll, I do not think that is a good idea. The die rolls in this game swing big. Once faced with the attacks made during the GMs action the player makes the required defense rolls and then if they have something like riposte they make that attack.

I would suggest we that each GM turn and player turn show what round # they are acting in to avoid confusion.

For example.

Round Three: Reactions

Razuli easily dodges the arrows.


Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)

reaction defence
where he rolls dice ad talks mechanics




Round Three: Actions


Razuli moves to close range to and attacks the enemy.


Spoiler text: (Highlight or hover over the text to view)
Razuli's action
Minor action close
Standard action attack

Than razuli rolls dice and puts them here



To reduce confusion and speed things up. For instance I am not sure at the moment if it Razuli's turn or not.

This message was last edited by the player at 17:10, Fri 06 Oct 2017.

Garrion
 GM, 47 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 17:47
Ask Your GMs
You all have really good points and I'm kinda torn on the best way to handle it.

As Octavian brought up you have to have 2-way interaction throughout the process anyway to account for Momentum spends once the margin is determined. So therefore making defense reactionary after the roll won't really eliminate that pause as the attacker (if they win) then has to add in any Momentum spends to modify the outcome.

Razuli does make his argument well that a reactionary roll does eliminate one step of delay as you pause between declaration and action as the game intended. I completely agree with this and we do NOT need any additional pauses. He also mentioned (which has been said also by others I play with outside this camp) that is is foolish to never defend despite adding to doom and it really should be the default action all the time.

This brings me to our options again as I try to break them down as much for myself as anyone else:

#1 Always On (Interactive PC/NPC Attack):
Post #1 - Attacker makes attack roll and preemptively rolls standard damage in the instance that they win.
Post #2 - Defender always rolls defense (if the appropriate NPC type) spending Momentum/Doom with no option not to, unless Doom is empty for NPCs and then they have to forgo defense (this could get nasty for NPCs if Doom runs dry).
If the Attacker wins, damage is applied and remaining Momentum/Threat is banked or used (leading to post #3).
If the Defender wins:
A. Nothing happens and we move on.
B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again.
Post #3 (optional) - Attacker uses Momentum/Threat to enhance attack outcome and it is applied behind the scenes.

#1 Always On (Alternative NPC Attack):
Post #1 - NPC makes attack roll and GM can go ahead and roll defense on behalf of the PC (adding to Doom).
If the NPC (Attacker) wins, damage is rolled and applied, and Threat can be used to immediately enhance the outcome.
If the PC (Defender) wins:
A. Nothing happens and we move on.
B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again using the primary "Always On" method.

(This option is very speedy, especially for NPC attacks if the players are willing to concede to GM rolling defense. The only snag could be players wanting to add dice to their defense, which the GM could simply verify via PM before he posts and forgo a complete player post. This allows the resolution in a single post.)

#2 Preemptive PC Declaration:
(PC intent to defend has been previously established in their action post, therefore this only applies to NPC attacks. Otherwise PC/NPCs use options #1 or #3 for their attacks/defenses. The ONLY difference here is that PCs have the option to forego defending.)
Post #1 - NPC makes attack roll and GM can go ahead and roll defense on behalf of the PC (adding to Doom), ONLY IF THEY DECLARED INTENT when they took their action. Otherwise they will forego defending.
If the NPC (Attacker) wins, damage is rolled and applied, and Threat can be used to immediately enhance the outcome.
If the PC (Defender) wins:
A. Nothing happens and we move on.
B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again using the primary "Always On" method.

(This option is very speedy, for NPC attacks if the players are willing to concede to GM rolling defense. The only snag could be players wanting to add dice to their defense, which the GM could simply verify via PM before he posts and forgo a complete player post. This allows the resolution in a single post.)

#3 Choose After (Interactive PC/NPC Attack):
Post #1 - Attacker makes attack roll and preemptively rolls standard damage in the instance that they win.
Post #2 - Defender chooses to defend or not and makes roll, spending Momentum/Doom based on choice.
If the Attacker wins or Defender chooses not to defend, damage is applied and remaining Momentum/Threat is banked or used (leading to post #3).
If the Defender wins:
A. Nothing happens and we move on.
B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again.
Post #3 (optional) - Attacker uses Momentum/Threat to enhance attack outcome and it is applied behind the scenes.

(This option really only varies from #1 in the fact that defense is an option and decided after the roll. This actually slows things down if the NPC is attacking as the GM then has to wait on the PC to declare and roll up a post, eliminating the option for him to move forward. This forces the 2-3 post requirement every turn opposed to the 1 post option for NPC turns. As discussed previously it also minimally affects the Momentum/Doom economy by cherry-picking your defense reactions.)

If players are unwilling to concede to the GM rolling their defenses for them then everything is a wash and there is no difference at all in the posting requirements. As detailed above the most economic options are #1 and #2 IF the players are willing to allow proxy GM defense rolls.

Just for grins and giggles let's look at the RAW tabletop method.

RAW Method (Interactive PC/NPC Attack):
Post #1 - Attacker declares attack dice and target.
Post #2 - Defender chooses to defend or not and amount of dice, spending Momentum/Doom based on choice.
Post #3a - Defender Chose not to defend so Attacker wins and rolls damage. Banking or spending Momentum/Doom as desired to enhance. Turn is done IF no defense.
Post #3b and #4 - Attack/Defense rolls are made.
Post #5 - If the Attacker wins, damage is applied and remaining Momentum/Threat is banked or used to enhance.
If the Defender wins:
A. Nothing happens and we move on.
B. He uses a defensive ability to counterattack and deal damage. Starting the process over again.

(As you can see the RAW method is much more intrusive to the posting economy by requiring 3 posts minimum if no defense up to 5 if there is. None of the options provided above are this costly. The main gameplay balance difference is that by RAW you know the dice # but not the result when declaring defense. Via PbP you will get the results of the roll before committing your dice which gives some insight. IMO this is minimal though because you never know what the dice may do and it flips both ways for PCs or NPCs.)

If I had to choose now that I have broken it down, I would go for option #2 or #1 with the allowance for the GM to roll proxy defenses after verifying bonus dice. This will knock most turns down to 1-2 posts.
Razuli
 Player, 11 posts
 Zamoran Thief
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 21:13
Ask Your GMs
I suggest #3.

Easiest and any advantage it offers gets offset.
Garrion
 GM, 48 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 22:10
Ask Your GMs
In reply to Razuli (msg # 13):

That one is the one that requires the most posting. You were saying you wanted the least posting possible. Unless what you are trying to say is that you don't want the GM making your defense rolls for you. In which case that is understandable. I'm just confused on the reason for your choice.

If #3 is chosen then I suggest a missed attack gets no Reaction. If the attacker misses, you simply move on and the turn ends. This will speed up posts and minimize blatant exploitation of what you know is guaranteed reaction bonuses or Momentum/Threat. The attacker simply missed to the point where the defender was unable to even do anything suficient with it to capitalize on the moment.

In conclusion #3 grants:

  • Faster play (at least faster than RAW)
  • Know the outcome of the attack roll and base damage potential prior to the decision to defend.
  • No opportunity to defend and capitalize on Momentum/Threat or defensive exploits if the attack misses outright.


I think these thing balance each other fairly well and they will apply to both PCs and NPCs.

Unless there are any further objections/suggestions I say we run with it and move on with the story.

I also agree with Razuli's comment earlier about posting scenes/rounds. I did this in the Star Trek game to keep track of the event cycle (as most of you know since you are in it).

This message was last edited by the GM at 22:27, Sat 07 Oct 2017.

Rodriguez
 GM, 13 posts
Sat 7 Oct 2017
at 22:20
Ask Your GMs
I am fine with #3
Octavian
 player, 8 posts
 Aquilonian Mercenary
Sun 8 Oct 2017
at 01:48
Ask Your GMs
In reply to Rodriguez


I am cool with the “final” version of 3

So we are ready to dive into a long distance exchange
Where we are out “gunned” and out manned.

Most excellent
Razuli
 Player, 12 posts
 Zamoran Thief
Sun 8 Oct 2017
at 02:22
Re: Ask Your GMs
Garrion:
If #3 is chosen then I suggest a missed attack gets no Reaction. If the attacker misses, you simply move on and the turn ends. This will speed up posts and minimize blatant exploitation of what you know is guaranteed reaction bonuses or Momentum/Threat. The attacker simply missed to the point where the defender was unable to even do anything sufficient with it to capitalize on the moment.


I disagree, in this system missed attacks are an opportunity. You still pay doom and still risk complications. the change I am suggesting is pretty minor. that is a big change.
Octavian
 player, 9 posts
 Aquilonian Mercenary
Tue 10 Oct 2017
at 13:29
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Razuli (msg # 17):

And not to continue this conversation too far.

But would Number 2 be a way to mitigate this “over defending to mine momentum” concern which i share but since I’m always a player I should just keep my mouth shut and take every advantage I’m given. (My concern is we spend 1 threat but are going to gain more in momentum minus a terrible roll...which just feels off)

But overall I am cool with method 2,3, or 3 modified
Garrion
 GM, 49 posts
Wed 18 Oct 2017
at 04:42
Re: Ask Your GMs
I didn't follow whether the opposition defended against our attacks or not. I wasn't sure if they didn't or if it was just an oversight to make their rolls.

If they didn't then I want to use Momentum to add Pierce to my shots and ignore cover. This should give 5 damage and an Injury to the chief's son.
Rodriguez
 GM, 17 posts
Wed 18 Oct 2017
at 05:58
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Garrion (msg # 19):

Maybe I am misunderstanding the rules but if I dont get a reaction that means I cannot defend against an attack, no?
Garrion
 GM, 50 posts
Wed 18 Oct 2017
at 12:13
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Rodriguez (msg # 20):

Correct, it depends on the NPC type. I just didn't know if the "leader" was above the mooks and got reactions.
Rodriguez
 GM, 18 posts
Wed 18 Oct 2017
at 12:24
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Garrion (msg # 21):

From the rules it seems he loses this ability if he leads a squad.
Garrion
 GM, 51 posts
Thu 19 Oct 2017
at 04:42
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Rodriguez (msg # 22):

You seem to be correct, but...

"In the case of a Squad, the Leader will always be the last to suffer damage under normal circumstances, with the Minions in the Squad being taken out of action first. Attackers may spend two Momentum on an attack in order to pick the Leader out from within a Squad — this is a called shot, no different to picking a specific hit location. A Squad whose Leader has been slain immediately becomes a Mob.

Being composed of Minions, Mobs cannot attempt Reactions. Even though Squads are led by Toughened creatures, a Squad cannot attempt a Reaction either."

So based on that they do not get a defense, but since I did not spend 2 Momentum on a called shot to hit the leader then I will hit a minion instead. That can be narrated that even though I was targeting the leader a minion stepped in the way and took the shot.

I could use my 2 Momentum to hit him but it would only deal 2 damage. I think I'd rather spend the Momentum to avoid the cover and that 5 damage will take out one of the minions in the squad (also removing one of the shots against me, the last one being the 9).

Also, what is our current Momentum/Doom count? It helps a lot when it is posted on each GM turn.
Rodriguez
 GM, 19 posts
Thu 19 Oct 2017
at 05:41
Re: Ask Your GMs
quote:
I could use my 2 Momentum to hit him but it would only deal 2 damage. I think I'd rather spend the Momentum to avoid the cover and that 5 damage will take out one of the minions in the squad (also removing one of the shots against me, the last one being the 9).

Also, what is our current Momentum/Doom count? It helps a lot when it is posted on each GM turn.


Ok, makes sense. I will update my post with the current Momentum (5) and Doom (20!)
Octavian
 player, 12 posts
 Aquilonian Mercenary
Thu 19 Oct 2017
at 14:56
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Rodriguez (msg # 24):

And so to help work through my sling attack.

I rolled 3 successes but does that over come the range (slings are medium range) or cover ? Any excess momentum I can spend?
Rodriguez
 GM, 21 posts
Thu 19 Oct 2017
at 19:03
Re: Ask Your GMs
At medium range only on success is required to hit and their light cover gives them 2D soak against damage that you can pierce with momentum if you want.
Octavian
 player, 13 posts
 Aquilonian Mercenary
Thu 19 Oct 2017
at 22:28
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Rodriguez (msg # 26):

I will spend momentum to do so.

Should I post that choice in the IC thread or do you want to just post the results?
Rodriguez
 GM, 22 posts
Fri 20 Oct 2017
at 05:35
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Octavian (msg # 27):

I will add it to my last post.
With your bonus damage its just enough to take out one angry warrior. Could you please add the sling and your Talents to your character sheet? Its pretty helpful for me so I can bcheck what you guys are capable of. :)
Octavian
 player, 14 posts
 Aquilonian Mercenary
Fri 20 Oct 2017
at 12:01
Re: Ask Your GMs
In reply to Rodriguez (msg # 28):

Yeah. Sorry I thought I had “finished” the sheet but I apparently deities the abilities and skills and saved the rest for later. Oops.

The weapons are there and the talents are listed, I didn’t have time this morning to format them, I’ll do that soon.
Rodriguez
 GM, 23 posts
Sat 21 Oct 2017
at 14:09
Re: Ask Your GMs
Round 3 already started (I probably should make it clearer when posting.)and Ketei already made his attack.
Its still a long way down requiring 3 successful climb checks (or two more difficult acrobatics checks and a climb check) as long as you get fired upon. Otherwise one check will be enough.
Garrion
 GM, 58 posts
Thu 1 Mar 2018
at 19:56
Re: Ask Your GMs
What's the status of your GM readiness Rodriguez? I know you have a lot on your plate. We have had a long lull here and I hate for this to stagnate to the point of lost interest like other games. If you need to hand over the reins don't be shy.

PS. I see Jolly is back to posting Conan game stuff again.
Rodriguez
 GM, 35 posts
Sun 4 Mar 2018
at 15:24
Re: Ask Your GMs
You are right... I have barely any time to play in the other games I probably stop making myself believe I will find  some time to move my own forward soon.

I think its a good idea if someone else starts another tale independent of this one and I will come back for this one once my second job stops eating all my free time.
Garrion
 GM, 59 posts
Mon 5 Mar 2018
at 03:01
Re: Ask Your GMs
Sounds fair enough. I'll run a couple small adventures to get our feet wet and then go from there. Give me a bit of time to pool everything together.

1. I'll set up a Discord channel as you know I'm fond of. (https://discord.gg/8QRPH8n)

2. I'll select the adventure I want to run.

3. I'll get the roll20 site set up for our more intricate battle scenes. (https://app.roll20.net/join/2595196/ptjXqw)