Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Observation Resolution (was "Here's an idea that will speed up combat")
Date: Tue Feb 12 11:40:01 2002
> The player decides to look as well as shoot just in case. He peeks out
> from
> some light cover and screaming (his free action) "PLATYPI ARE OUR
> FRIENDS!!!" (strange one that... too much headware) he lets loose with
a
> burst from his *overpowered SMG* as he checks out his targets in
greater
> detail. As he fills them with his hot, manly lead he finds that - oh
no! -
> he's just shot up the Little Old Ladies! The gang composed entirely of
> nice
> old woman and devoted to giving out cookies and milk around the 'plex.
> Their cats kill him in the next round and it isn't pretty.
>
> As such the player doesn't receive any particular advantage in
observing
> before shooting without making observe in detail a complex action. Of
> course... they do have the consequences of shooting first still.
>
> Belgand

ok.....nice theory Mark.....we'll test this one out at the paintball
range ok? You'll have 2 seconds to duck out from behind cover, see if
the people you're looking at have any of your opposing team's colors on
them as well as if there's anyone with your colors on them and then duck
back in and decide then pop out and shoot someone. If you CAN do this
I'll let your interpretation stand and it'll be proven a good
philosophy, if not the rule gets shot down cause you're trying to give
the person WAY too much to do in 2 seconds (which unless I'm way off is
what the initiative pass is supposed to be)
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Observation Resolution (was "Here's an idea that will speed up combat")
Date: Tue Feb 12 12:05:00 2002
> Well, what I'm doing is basically just the rules as they currently
exist
> in
> the book, but with a bit of interpretation to prevent people from
trying
> to
> observe first before shooting. Essentially as I put it you look at
them as
> you're shooting. What you described is definately two turns (observe,
> change position; shoot).
No no....not change position....look around the corner then step out and
shoot
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Observation Resolution (was "Here's an idea that will speed up combat")
Date: Tue Feb 12 13:25:02 2002
> Combat turns are three seconds long. I'm not sure checking out team
> colors is going to qualify as perceiving in detail, though, as that's
> something that can be picked up in a quick glance. To me, a detailed
> perception check, i.e. a simple action and a roll of dice, would let
our
> paintball player determine that three out of the five are hostile
targets
> and the one on the far left is holding an Angel. Based on my previous
> experiences paintballing I can tell you that I can't come up from
cover
> and scan across five targets and engage them all in three seconds.
Two,
> maybe three if they're close is the most I can do.

Ok.....and that's my point....that's a whole combat turn....not one
initiative pass....you've got a fraction of that....can you look,
recognize and still be able to shoot accurately in one second or less?
Personally I really doubt it...if you've only got an initiative of 15 or
max of 30 then yeah you've got a second per pass BUT anything above that
and you've got a fraction of a second in which you can accomplish a
given action
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Observation Resolution (was "Here's an idea that will speed up combat")
Date: Tue Feb 12 13:30:01 2002
> Ok, whatever, not getting into obsessive details it's still two turns
in
> my
> opinion given the way you described it. My point is that you merely
> resolve
> observe in detail as occuring at the same time as you're taking a shot
at
> the person you're observing and keep it as a simple action to do so.
None
> of this look, duck, shoot crap.
Ok but the point is if you look as you shoot you're hosing as you pop
out of cover, what's the point of observing what you're shooting? You'll
get told from the GM what you're shooting and if you're not looking
first chances are that you SHOULD be getting a blind fire modifier
because you're not seeing where you're shooting first....
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Gurth)
Subject: Observation Resolution (was "Here's an idea that will speed up combat")
Date: Tue Feb 12 14:15:20 2002
According to Mark M. Smith, on Tue, 12 Feb 2002 the word on the street was...

> Possibility 1:
> The player observes and makes his roll, the GM tells him that yeah he's
> facing down the Foos and he uses his other simple action to shoot them.

That's the BTB way of doing things.

> Possibility 2:
> The player declares his two actions for the turn. The GM then has him
> roll observe and tells him what he notices after he's already decided
> what to do. He could either shoot first while observing, shoot twice, or
> observe and delay action

Which means that what he actually does is take two Simple Actions, in this
order: Attack and Observe in Detail -- whereas the player could declare them
as Observe In Detail first and Attack second, your method is forcing the
player to always observe last. Which is why I like my method better, as it
lets players do things in any order they want, but they have to consider the
time it takes.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Dat is de kip voor het ei spannen.
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++@ UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--) O
V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t@ 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Observation Resolution (was "Here's an idea that will speed up combat"), you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!