Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Quicker Combat
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 07:56:19 -0600 (MDT)
How does this sound for speeding up combat?

Characters may only act *once*, on their initiative (one complex action
or two simple actions plus a free action).

I thought of doing this a long time ago but realized that Increased
Reflexes loses a lot and is no longer worth the cost. Then I had an
idea.

The real question would be: would adding the bonus gained from
Increased Reflexes to both Reaction and Quickness, and adding the dice
gained to both Initiative and Combat Pool (or Vehicle? Pool for
Riggers) be a good balance if one decided to change the initiative
rules as above?

I.e., A Sam with increased reflexes II could have the following stats.
(Forgive me if the math is a little off, I'm at work and don't have my
books with me. And, I decided to figure Reaction before adding the
bonus to Quickness.)

S B Q I W C R Initiative
4 5 5(7) 4 4 3 5(7) 5(7)+3d6

Skills: Unarmed Combat 5

Combat Pool: 5(7)


-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 2
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@****.orion.org>
Subject: Re: Quicker Combat
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 11:25:16 -0500 (CDT)
On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

> How does this sound for speeding up combat?
>
> Characters may only act *once*, on their initiative (one complex action
> or two simple actions plus a free action).
>
> I thought of doing this a long time ago but realized that Increased
> Reflexes loses a lot and is no longer worth the cost. Then I had an
> idea.
>
> The real question would be: would adding the bonus gained from
> Increased Reflexes to both Reaction and Quickness, and adding the dice
> gained to both Initiative and Combat Pool (or Vehicle? Pool for
> Riggers) be a good balance if one decided to change the initiative
> rules as above?
>
> I.e., A Sam with increased reflexes II could have the following stats.
> (Forgive me if the math is a little off, I'm at work and don't have my
> books with me. And, I decided to figure Reaction before adding the
> bonus to Quickness.)
>
> S B Q I W C R Initiative
> 4 5 5(7) 4 4 3 5(7) 5(7)+3d6
>
> Skills: Unarmed Combat 5
>
> Combat Pool: 5(7)
>
>
> -David

I don't think so. It works fine for straight dice-rolling and such, but
you run into a problem when a person with Wired Reflexes kills an
antagonist and wheels to face another opponent-in the same round. That
can't be duplicated in your system. That, personally, is _the_ benefit to
Wired Reflexes. But, then again, it's your game. If your players are
happy, you're happy, what's it matter to any of us? I understand your
concern, especially for people who don't have any boosted Reflexes drek,
because they end up sitting around twiddling their thumbs. I've never
really found it of great concern though, because most of my players have
some sort of boost, whether it be spell, phys ad power, or
cyberware/bioware. Another, subtler way to fix this would be stigmatize
the people with boosters. Using the rules in Cybertechnology, you could
make them roll for jumping the gun, _every round_. Or give 'em a milder
form of TLE-x or CCSS (Like the 'black shakes' in _Johnny Mnemonic_ (AS
much as I hate to even acknowledge that that horride pustule on my
television that they laughingly called a movie even exists). Subtly get
across the poiint that people who move faster than normal are an offense
to God and man. Convince them hard enough and they'll be shedding th
boosted stuff in no time, solving your problem.

PAX
Mark Fender
Death
Scurge
Avaris
Message no. 3
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Quicker Combat
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 10:53:34 -0600 (MDT)
Mark D. Fender wrote:
|
|On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, David Buehrer wrote:
|
|> How does this sound for speeding up combat?
|>
|> Characters may only act *once*, on their initiative (one complex action
|> or two simple actions plus a free action).
|>
|> I thought of doing this a long time ago but realized that Increased
|> Reflexes loses a lot and is no longer worth the cost. Then I had an
|> idea.
|>
|> The real question would be: would adding the bonus gained from
|> Increased Reflexes to both Reaction and Quickness, and adding the dice
|> gained to both Initiative and Combat Pool (or Vehicle? Pool for
|> Riggers) be a good balance if one decided to change the initiative
|> rules as above?

[snip: example]

|I don't think so. It works fine for straight dice-rolling and such, but
|you run into a problem when a person with Wired Reflexes kills an
|antagonist and wheels to face another opponent-in the same round. That
|can't be duplicated in your system. That, personally, is _the_ benefit to
|Wired Reflexes.

How about if I added: Each level of Wired Reflexes gives the character an
additional Simple Action (two Simple Actions can be exchanged for one
Complex Action). This would allow the wired character to take down multiple
opponents.

|But, then again, it's your game. If your players are
|happy, you're happy, what's it matter to any of us?

It may not matter to any of you. You may be content with the system the
way it is. And I'm not suggesting that anyone should change the game.
What matters to me is that there are a lot of very intelligent people
on this list and I would value any input they might have before I go
off half-cocked and make a change for the worse. I've posted ideas of
mine to the list before to have them successfully shot down, much to my
relief. If I had made the change it might have taken me several games
before I realized that it wasn't working. And if I make enough bad
choices then I won't have any more players. This list, for me, is a
great sounding board.

|I understand your
|concern, especially for people who don't have any boosted Reflexes drek,
|because they end up sitting around twiddling their thumbs. I've never
|really found it of great concern though, because most of my players have
|some sort of boost, whether it be spell, phys ad power, or
|cyberware/bioware. Another, subtler way to fix this would be stigmatize
|the people with boosters.

I'll check Cybermancy again. I didn't read that one well enough I guess :)

And, I am planning future runs around roleplaying and not combat. I've been
playing **&* *way* to long.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 4
From: "Mark D. Fender" <mfender@****.orion.org>
Subject: Re: Quicker Combat
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 14:49:54 -0500 (CDT)
On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

> Mark D. Fender wrote:
> |
> |On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, David Buehrer wrote:
> |
> |> How does this sound for speeding up combat?
> |>
> |> Characters may only act *once*, on their initiative (one complex action
> |> or two simple actions plus a free action).
> |>
> |> I thought of doing this a long time ago but realized that Increased
> |> Reflexes loses a lot and is no longer worth the cost. Then I had an
> |> idea.
> |>
> |> The real question would be: would adding the bonus gained from
> |> Increased Reflexes to both Reaction and Quickness, and adding the dice
> |> gained to both Initiative and Combat Pool (or Vehicle? Pool for
> |> Riggers) be a good balance if one decided to change the initiative
> |> rules as above?
>
> [snip: example]
>
> |I don't think so. It works fine for straight dice-rolling and such, but
> |you run into a problem when a person with Wired Reflexes kills an
> |antagonist and wheels to face another opponent-in the same round. That
> |can't be duplicated in your system. That, personally, is _the_ benefit to
> |Wired Reflexes.
>
> How about if I added: Each level of Wired Reflexes gives the character an
> additional Simple Action (two Simple Actions can be exchanged for one
> Complex Action). This would allow the wired character to take down multiple
> opponents.
>
Off the top of my head, that sounds more reasonable. The only problem I
can think of it's way too Essence Unfriendly to pay 3(!) Essence to get a
boost af another Complex Action. I'd probably lower the costs for such
implants by a smidgen (And maybe even lower the Drain for Increased
Reflexes/Reaction and decrease some phys ad costs). Other than those
tiny changes, your system sounds ready for a playtest!

PAX
Mark Fender
Death
Scurge
Avaris
Message no. 5
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Quicker Combat
Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 14:30:00 -0600 (MDT)
Mark D. Fender wrote:
|
|On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, David Buehrer wrote:
|
|> Mark D. Fender wrote:
|> |
|> |On Mon, 8 Jul 1996, David Buehrer wrote:
|> |
|> |> How does this sound for speeding up combat?
|> |>
|> |> Characters may only act *once*, on their initiative (one complex action
|> |> or two simple actions plus a free action).
|> |>
|> |> I thought of doing this a long time ago but realized that Increased
|> |> Reflexes loses a lot and is no longer worth the cost. Then I had an
|> |> idea.
|> |>
|> |> The real question would be: would adding the bonus gained from
|> |> Increased Reflexes to both Reaction and Quickness, and adding the dice
|> |> gained to both Initiative and Combat Pool (or Vehicle? Pool for
|> |> Riggers) be a good balance if one decided to change the initiative
|> |> rules as above?
|>
|> [snip: example]
|>
|> |I don't think so. It works fine for straight dice-rolling and such, but
|> |you run into a problem when a person with Wired Reflexes kills an
|> |antagonist and wheels to face another opponent-in the same round. That
|> |can't be duplicated in your system. That, personally, is _the_ benefit to
|> |Wired Reflexes.
|>
|> How about if I added: Each level of Wired Reflexes gives the character an
|> additional Simple Action (two Simple Actions can be exchanged for one
|> Complex Action). This would allow the wired character to take down multiple
|> opponents.
|>
|Off the top of my head, that sounds more reasonable. The only problem I
|can think of it's way too Essence Unfriendly to pay 3(!) Essence to get a
|boost af another Complex Action. I'd probably lower the costs for such
|implants by a smidgen (And maybe even lower the Drain for Increased
|Reflexes/Reaction and decrease some phys ad costs). Other than those
|tiny changes, your system sounds ready for a playtest!

I'll play with the essence cost over the next couple of days and see
what I can come up with. Thanks for the input.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 6
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Quicker Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 11:44:12 +0100
David Buehrer said on 7:56/ 8 Jul 96...

> How does this sound for speeding up combat?

You can't stop trying to fine-tune SR combat, can you? :)

> Characters may only act *once*, on their initiative (one complex action
> or two simple actions plus a free action).
>
> I thought of doing this a long time ago but realized that Increased
> Reflexes loses a lot and is no longer worth the cost. Then I had an
> idea.

I've seen this idea before, and I believe some people happily use it. I
personally don't like it, even though it does give slower characters more
things to do.

> The real question would be: would adding the bonus gained from
> Increased Reflexes to both Reaction and Quickness, and adding the dice
> gained to both Initiative and Combat Pool (or Vehicle? Pool for
> Riggers) be a good balance if one decided to change the initiative
> rules as above?

Probably. It would at least compensate a little bit for the extra Combat
Pool dice and meters of movement that the character would normally get.
Although I think that, if you want to do this, you should add it to the
Quickness only for deciding how far the character can move, not for
figuring his actual Quickness for Quickness Tests.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
You know how difficult it is to fake your own death?
Only one man pulled it off: Elvis.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 7
From: dbuehrer@****.org (David Buehrer)
Subject: Re: Quicker Combat
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 07:27:47 -0600 (MDT)
Gurth wrote:
|
|David Buehrer said on 7:56/ 8 Jul 96...
|
|> How does this sound for speeding up combat?
|
|You can't stop trying to fine-tune SR combat, can you? :)

<sheepish grin> Nope.

It's not that I think SRII's combat rules are bad, just awkward. Add
that to the fact that I like to play with the rules of a game and see
if I can come up with something better, and you end up with me posting
possible changes. Its probably all part of some attempt to fulfill my
desire to write my own roleplaying game. Consider yourself lucky that
I've kept my ideas concerning dice and skill tests to myself :)

BTW, thanks for your input. It was very helpfull.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking alliances like
underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.html~~~~~~
Message no. 8
From: "Gurth" <gurth@******.nl>
Subject: Re: Quicker Combat
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 12:29:49 +0100
David Buehrer said on 7:27/ 9 Jul 96...

> It's not that I think SRII's combat rules are bad, just awkward. Add
> that to the fact that I like to play with the rules of a game and see
> if I can come up with something better, and you end up with me posting
> possible changes.

Same thing here, except that I try to add to rules instead of change them
wholesale. I think I've made most of the changes I need to SR over the
past few years, though...

> Its probably all part of some attempt to fulfill my desire to write my
> own roleplaying game. Consider yourself lucky that I've kept my ideas
> concerning dice and skill tests to myself :)

Write a game and put it up on the web somewhere -- I for one would be
sure to download it :)

> BTW, thanks for your input. It was very helpfull.

That's what we're here for, isn't it?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Advertising: Your right to ignore.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Character Mortuary: http://huizen.dds.nl/~mortuary/mortuary.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U 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?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Quicker 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!