gleichman wrote:
> On Jul 11, 7:21 am, Peter Knutsen <p...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>It's also idiotic to
>>assume that a character's skill at *shooting* a weapon affects the
>>chance of a jam.
>
> Not completely.
>
> Not holding a recoil operated weapon correctly for example can vastily
> increase the chance of jamming depending upon the exact weapon and
Thanks for that piece of information.
> details. And often skill in the weapon also reflects proper
> maintainance and ammo selection both of which can greatly influence
> matters. Each firearm has it's own quirks, and knowledge of them helps
> one avoid them.
Yes, but I have a need for keeping weapon combat usage skill separate
from weapon maintenance skill.
Also, there's the issue of range modifiers. For point-blank shots you
get +1 bonus die, which would make jams less likely for such shots, and
for long-range shots you roll fewer dice, making jams more likely.
Worse, a 3-shot burst gives you one bonus die, and firing full-auto
gives you 2 bonus dice, making jams *less* likely - which I'm sure would
be *backwards* from how actual firearm jamming probabilities work.
> However your percentages are really out whack with respect to jam
> chances, so it would be a exceedingly poor method in any event. Of
What percentages? The roll mechanic is a generic usage roll mechanic; it
was never created specifically for the purpose of simulating firearm jams.
As you may not now, in the last couple of decades (with Hero System -
and, interestingly, Quest FRP - being among the very few exceptions) it
has become customary in RPG rules systems to have a single roll mechanic
which is used for both to-hit (and to-parry/dodge/block) rolls in combat
and for non-combat skill rolls.
> course I wouldn't touch your dice mechanic with a ten-foot pole in the
> first place, but it's your game.
If you have any specific criticism of the roll mechanic, I'd like to
hear it. I examined it thoroughly some years ago (thinking that perhaps
I'd use it for some minor side project, which I then lost interest in),
and it works 100% as it should, in terms of probabilities:
Higher skill always means higher chance of success and lower chance of
failing and Fumbling, and lower skill always means lower chance of
success and higher chance of failing and Fumbling.
>>The GM gets 6 weekly Bad Luck points for each PC, plus a further 6
>>monthly Bad Luck Points for each PC.
>
> The last thing I'd want as either a GM or a player is a game mechanic
> that specifically requires the GM decide when and how to screw his
Keep in mind, in a three-player campaign, the GM doesn't get 18 weekly
Bad Luck points that he can distribute as he sees fit. He gets 6 BL
points for the first player character, 6 BL points for the second player
character, and 6 BL points for the third player character.
Of course my intent is for the GM to rarely target a PC's strong spots,
so if one character is using a revolver and has the Meticulous Weapon
Maintenance binary skill, so that the cost of a jam is raised from 3 to
5 BL points, I'd expect the GM to almost never spend BL points to jam
that character's revolver, but instead spend them on other things.
Likewise, if a PC has a weak spot, such as low Agility (for slipping) or
Dexterity (for avoiding item droppage), the GM is expected to go after
that.
It boils down to the fact that **** happens in real life (especially in
combat, and during adventuring-like situations), and it's not
particularly easy to achieve all of that happening in an RPG, normally,
because many RPG actions, such as movement (even over a slippery
surface) or holding on to a weapon or other item (when you're fatigued
and your hands are all sweaty), do not require any skill rolls or
attribute checks.
The Bad Luck point system is one way to actually make **** happen, while
still keeping things in check, so that each player character gets his
quota of bad luck.
There is room for favouritism. If the GM likes George and dislikes Tim,
he can spend his BL points inefficiently on George's character (e.g.
always going for a weapon jam, even though George's character uses a
very well-cared for revolver), while he does what he is supposed to do
when it comes to Tim, which is to go after weak spots.
> players. I'm sure there's a style of play where this is accepted and
> expected, but it's a very alien one to me. Fumble mechanics and the
> like are generally accepted because they take the matter out of the
> GM's hands, so you're bucking gaming nature here. Which is something
I don't see much of a problem. The BL points of all incidents are
player-knowable, so if a player is concerned, he can keep track of the
GM's BL point expenditure. If he notices something amiss, such as the GM
not spending his full quota on one particular PC, the track-keeping
player can talk to the GM about it, and if the problem then persists the
player can confront the GM with an accusation of cheating.
> you seem to enjoy doing.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
|
