![]() |
| ||
|
Visitor : ![]() ![]() ![]() |
General Chat. Posted by Derrick. | Group: 0 |
---|
Author | Message | Page: 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [all][bottom] |
Derrick GM, 5 posts Thu 16 Aug 2018 at 20:16 |
| |||||||||||
Mari player, 2 posts Fri 17 Aug 2018 at 21:05 |
| |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 1 post Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 04:40 |
That's likely to end up being scenario specific. GURPS Basic assumption is that you Dodge from where the gunmen is aiming, not the bullet itself exactly. There are more realistic rules which prohibit Dodging bullets, but those are optional.
Yes. That's not likely to come up in the Cowboys and Indians scenario though as it's far enough away that you cannot see the shooter. Or, if the shooter is clearly behind you and started there, making it an Attack from the Back, thus denying defenses (but that happens in melee as well).
Yeeesss.... hmmm. Let me double check. Ah here's the relevant rule:
| |||||||||||
Mari player, 3 posts Sat 18 Aug 2018 at 09:20 |
It's pretty clear that something like Billy Dixon's lucky shot at the 2nd battle of Adobe Walls (he shot a Comanche over almost a mile of distance, look it up) would not warrant a Dodge. What distance would? | |||||||||||
Derrick GM, 12 posts Sun 19 Aug 2018 at 19:17 |
Its all about awareness. The Comanche could have dodged, but didn't bother to. In this scenario, you get a dodge if you are aware of the shot. Hearing the shot won't count because of distance. You must be aware of the shooter's actions. And given that rule, I don't mind giving a dodge to anyone watching their enemy. | |||||||||||
Mari player, 5 posts Sun 19 Aug 2018 at 20:45 |
Alright, understood. | |||||||||||
Derrick GM, 15 posts Thu 23 Aug 2018 at 14:37 |
| |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 6 posts Thu 23 Aug 2018 at 19:55 |
Yeah, for my brain to get in order. It's been a long week without AC (it got fixed yesterday). I'll try to attended to this game tonight. | |||||||||||
Derrick GM, 20 posts Mon 27 Aug 2018 at 12:53 |
| |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 15 posts Sat 1 Sep 2018 at 20:06 |
| |||||||||||
Derrick GM, 30 posts Sun 2 Sep 2018 at 11:29 |
| |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 19 posts Thu 6 Sep 2018 at 18:22 |
If this were a bigger scenario (IE the Rifleman has a serious stake in sticking around and was a 'real' Character), there might be some long range combat as Rifleman takes shots from cover and uses guerrilla tactics with the Comanches trying to drive them off... but I don't see any reason. | |||||||||||
Derrick GM, 37 posts Mon 10 Sep 2018 at 12:37 |
Any opinions on the next fight? I'm interested in Knight vs. Dragon, personally... | |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 24 posts Tue 11 Sep 2018 at 19:59 |
| |||||||||||
Derrick GM, 38 posts Sat 15 Sep 2018 at 13:18 |
| |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 25 posts Sat 15 Sep 2018 at 19:27 |
No worries. | |||||||||||
Mari player, 26 posts Tue 18 Sep 2018 at 19:08 |
And since Evileeyore isn't really happy with how the Cowboys vs. Indians scenario went (I did not expect to hit with the musket either), I would propose a second Old West scenario. Maybe including a bit of roleplaying (but be careful with racial slurs in a non-adult game). I'd like to see good rifles and revolvers in effect, maybe with a simple open charge done by the Indians. It could even be against rifles and a Gatling Gun if you like. | |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 26 posts Tue 18 Sep 2018 at 19:49 |
Less 'unhappy', more 'ceases to be interesting' once a scenario becomes extremely lopsided. Sometimes it's fun to play out the "hold the line until you die" situation, but that's not what we have here.
Honestly, I think the original scenario would have worked fine with 4 archers and multiple chargers. It was that musket hit that turned tipped the scales immediately. | |||||||||||
Derrick GM, 42 posts Tue 18 Sep 2018 at 20:31 |
1) The successful stealth roll. This might have been weighted to the Comanche side. 2) The successful ranged hits. Not one, not two, but all three hit. And they could have easily all missed. 3) The failed HT rolls. We may want to institute a rule where a very pivotal roll may be waived to go the other way if its success ends the scenario in a way we feel is unsatisfying. maybe call it a "fateful wound". Of course, the take-aways here are: 1) numbers matter, even against technology 2) technology needs good conditions to operate 3) a party of two is very vulnerable to failure 4) tactics and skills other than weapon skills matter 5) the initiative in combat is really nice. 6) don't camp out with just you and a buddy in hostile country with 30 head of cattle. We do not have to run only one combat at a time, and all players don't have to join all combats. If you want to see how a pure mounted charge goes against the two cowboys, we can run that as well. It should be pretty darn quick. Both of you feel free to suggest scenarios, or bring up ones you'd like to see next. | |||||||||||
Mari player, 28 posts Tue 18 Sep 2018 at 21:34 |
My suggestion would be to do something where they have more of an advantage. Daylight, open charge, maybe a few more cowboys, maybe a gatling gun, no firearms for the Indians. The challenge to evileeyore would be to determine how many archers and melee warriors he could hold off with his force, so that it would become a close call but still a victory. We would test that theory then. | |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 31 posts Wed 19 Sep 2018 at 06:30 |
Eh. If all four ranged ambushers were archers, Pistol would probably still be up, even if they all hit (baring a multiple damage crit).
Nah. Combat turns on the die roll.
I was hoping more people would get interested. You should probably advertise this in the "Seeking Players" forum. | |||||||||||
Derrick GM, 45 posts Wed 19 Sep 2018 at 13:53 |
Does rpol have one? or are you talking about the sjgames forum? | |||||||||||
evileeyore player, 32 posts Wed 19 Sep 2018 at 21:34 |
link to another game There's an index of 'non-game' forums somewhere... |
[top] |