Many high-tech and ultra-tech settings feature powerful weapons which, when they hit a human (or human-like) character, will likely either disable that character or kill them outright.
This is quite realistic. However, for many cinematic campaign styles, having the characters either disabled or perfectly fine is not very appropriate either - there should be some intermediate state between these two where the characters are not actively injured yet still feel pressured. And encouraging characters to wear armor is also not necessarily the best choice for such campaigns.
A classic example is Star Wars. Lightsabers are deadly! And so are many weapons - yet the people who do wear armor (i.e. Stormtroopers) tend to be mooks, while the heroes are lightly armored or not at all armored.
So here is a thought how to handle this: When in a fight, important characters (player characters and "named" NPCs, but never mooks) who get hit according to the normal rules are not actually hit - instead they get one or more levels of "Combat Disadvantage" (depending on how dangerous the weapon they are attacked with is - a pistol might rate one level, while a lightsaber might rate two and a heavy weapon four). This functions similar to the "Basic Abstract Difficulty" from GURPS Action - it applies to all skill rolls during the fight, including "to hit" rolls (but not to defenses), and models under how much "pressure" they are from the fight.
For every round during which they are not attacked, their Combat Disadvantage is reduced by one. For every round during which they use an All-Out Defense, the Combat Disadvantage is also reduced by one.
If the Combat Disadvantage becomes too high (-10, perhaps), then any attacks that hit them really do hit (which is when armor becomes useful after all). Alternatively, after each "theoretical hit" you could roll 3d - if the result is equal or lower than their current level of Combat Disadvantage, then it's a real hit.
As a side effect, this encourages teamwork - combatants should try to assist characters on their side whose Combat Disadvantage becomes too great, perhaps by drawing fire away from them or attacking their attackers.
Finally, suitably cinematic characters might buy levels of a "Combat Advantage" advantage (perhaps costing 10/level?). This does not give them any direct bonuses, but each level will cancel one level of Combat Disadvantage during a fight.
Your thoughts?
This is quite realistic. However, for many cinematic campaign styles, having the characters either disabled or perfectly fine is not very appropriate either - there should be some intermediate state between these two where the characters are not actively injured yet still feel pressured. And encouraging characters to wear armor is also not necessarily the best choice for such campaigns.
A classic example is Star Wars. Lightsabers are deadly! And so are many weapons - yet the people who do wear armor (i.e. Stormtroopers) tend to be mooks, while the heroes are lightly armored or not at all armored.
So here is a thought how to handle this: When in a fight, important characters (player characters and "named" NPCs, but never mooks) who get hit according to the normal rules are not actually hit - instead they get one or more levels of "Combat Disadvantage" (depending on how dangerous the weapon they are attacked with is - a pistol might rate one level, while a lightsaber might rate two and a heavy weapon four). This functions similar to the "Basic Abstract Difficulty" from GURPS Action - it applies to all skill rolls during the fight, including "to hit" rolls (but not to defenses), and models under how much "pressure" they are from the fight.
For every round during which they are not attacked, their Combat Disadvantage is reduced by one. For every round during which they use an All-Out Defense, the Combat Disadvantage is also reduced by one.
If the Combat Disadvantage becomes too high (-10, perhaps), then any attacks that hit them really do hit (which is when armor becomes useful after all). Alternatively, after each "theoretical hit" you could roll 3d - if the result is equal or lower than their current level of Combat Disadvantage, then it's a real hit.
As a side effect, this encourages teamwork - combatants should try to assist characters on their side whose Combat Disadvantage becomes too great, perhaps by drawing fire away from them or attacking their attackers.
Finally, suitably cinematic characters might buy levels of a "Combat Advantage" advantage (perhaps costing 10/level?). This does not give them any direct bonuses, but each level will cancel one level of Combat Disadvantage during a fight.
Your thoughts?
Thoughts on abstract "Combat Disadvantage"
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire