Author Topic: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop  (Read 12200 times)

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« on: 08 February 2017, 21:47:04 »
Does anyone else have issues with the way that ATOW integrates with Battletech?
We integrated our characters pretty heavily at the beginning but as time went on and scaled it back more and more.  Couple of the major problems were that:

#1 Edge - Can only be used to modify a skill roll, so you can make an enemy miss but you can't make an enemy reroll the location that decapitates your mech.

#2 PC Fraility in General - Even when we boosted the effects of edge, when a PC took damage from a head hit or falling they were prone to going unconscious or even dying in 3 hits at most. Never made sense that the the PCs, aka the Heroes, were more frail than the average tabletop Mechwarrior.  Maybe the intent is that you swap out all the guys for ATOW NPCs but that's a bit of a pain.

In the end our ATOW got scaled way back and we used tons of modified rules.  Out of mech combat was also reduced or eliminated due to the extreme lethality.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #1 on: 08 February 2017, 23:19:36 »
Hmm re-reading the rules on page 42 I'm honestly not sure why you shouldn't be able to spend an Edge point to force a hit location roll to be re-rolled but the wording does seem to support that interpretation.

Something I don't think most people would mind if it got house ruled.

As far as head hits if that's hits to the character's actual head then yeah I see even a shot or two being a problem.  If you mean the head of a mech getting hit, well I'd have to take a few guesses at what it actually the problem there.

Out of mech combat is intended to be very hazardous where cover and good armor are very important to survival.  Still there are some rules for increased survivability in aToW and the Companion.  Still though a review of the kind of modifiers being applied might be beneficial.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #2 on: 09 February 2017, 02:51:59 »
I'm talking about damage to a battlemech's head

If an LB-X pellet, hits the head of an Atlas. The pilot, in Battletech, needs a 3+ to stay conscious.

If you're a Mechwarrior from ATOW, take the default one from page 94 you've got BOD 5 and WIL 4

Damage from head hits is 1B/3, basic cooling vest is 1/2/0/1

So assuming it hits the vest, it's reduced to 2 damage and takes the health down from 10 to 8 with 2 wounds inflicted.

Con Roll is a 7, -1 for 25% damage, so the character needs an 8+ to stay conscious. Good luck
And remember Con isn't a skill roll, so no edge again.

Why the huge disparity?  Even if you manage to stay conscious, you just got a +1 to all actions which means you're now a 5/6 pilot and you're useless for the rest of the game. Unless you got a Medipack, then you remain a 4/5. But if you used a medipack then you just took a strength 2 drug, which means after the battle if you're that basic Mechwarrior you need to take that 4 BOD and 5 WIL and subtract it from 18 to 9, and then add the drug strength to 11 for the base number you need to avoid getting addicted. Which you can reduce with med skills, but if you're treating yourself you'll go to what maybe a 9 or an 8?

Needless to say we house ruled a lot of this stuff. But it is strange that they brought in the 2d6 system to the RPG to make it work better with the boardgame and then created a system where a PC Mechwarrior couldn't take a scratch in battle without becoming an immobile target.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4877
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #3 on: 09 February 2017, 04:02:49 »
More interestingly, most of this is avoided if you invest in the MW Combat suit, which as far as I can tell, is going to reduce the damage you take to 0 per hit, something that doesn't happen in the boardgame until you invest in something like pain shunts and/or dermal armor.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #4 on: 09 February 2017, 16:53:08 »
Edge can be burned on an attribute check.  It is right there in the first line on page 43.

Other options:

Option 1:  Use the reduced lethality rules in aToW itself that state the damage becomes fatigue instead of wounds since it was reduced by armor.

Option 2: Could just fudge it to use the better armor of the standard neurohelmet which is 4/4/3/2.

Option 3: The aforementioned better kit.  Another alternative is a Tanker's Smock.  It counts as a cooling vest and is 3/5/5/3 and isn't as expensive or as rare.

Option 4: Some combination of the above.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #5 on: 09 February 2017, 21:22:26 »
Consciousness Check isn't an attribute check.

The drug addiction check would be.

Options aside, the fact that the base character is significantly worse than its board game equivalent is perplexing at best.  One would think that would be an appropriate baseline to start from.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #6 on: 10 February 2017, 00:06:55 »
Well that depends on which option you use because keep in mind in aToW the damage or check does not become progressively worse/harder to avoid for getting hit in the head.

Option 1 means you don't need to make consciousness checks for a long time.  Heck depending on character actions it may be possible for them to not have to make any consciousness checks until the Head location is destroyed.  Further depending on actions of the character they may not even have to take fatigue modifiers.  I'd consider that a massive increase in durability.

Option 2 means that no damage is even taken and thus again no modifiers or consciousness checks ever.  I'd also consider that a massive increase in durability.

Option 3 again means no damage again.  So again the head could be destroyed before the Mechwarrior even takes any pilot damage or accrue and injury/fatigue modifiers.  Again something I'd call a massive improvement in durability versus the tabletop counterpart.  This option doesn't even make use of any optional rules.

An example of option 3's tanker smock:

A hit to the head inflicts 1B/3 to the mechwarrior.  If it goes to the torso and thus the example tanker's smock we see it has a ballistic rating of 5.  5 is greater than 1 and thus reduces the 3 BD by 4 points.  This negates all the damage and because it was not greater than 5 damage the smock is not degraded.

Maelwys

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4877
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #7 on: 10 February 2017, 02:27:39 »
I think he gets all that, he's just rather surprised at the fact that there seems to be such a discrepancy between the two systems with the basic idea of a MW, not necessarily "How can I get to this point."

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #8 on: 10 February 2017, 10:48:39 »
It does seem to be a question of point of view/philosophy.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #9 on: 10 February 2017, 12:56:40 »
Thanks for the help and work arounds monbvol, though I have to tell you that most of your ideas don't work.

If for example you use lethality reduction and equip a MW character with a tankers smock or combat suit, then it doesn't prevent them from falling unconscious. Tankers protects against head hits and Combat suit does okay as well, but for falling damage, that is- damage to the mechwarrior when the mech falls, it's deals 1M/3 damage which will deal 1 or 2 fatigue damage depending on the armour.

This is the not fatigue like running or exerting yourself, but fatigue damage and the same as a subduing attack, and will mean a consciousness roll where there's no base injury modifier but you still have a 7+ to remain conscious. So even with the best armour, as soon as you trip on a piece of rubble there are very good odds you're taking a nap.

The neurohelmet is, a cheat, and though it protects against falling and heat hits, an ammo explosion will still deal 8 Subduing damage and put most character unconsious. This is of course less likely but at this point you're using house rules anyway so . . .

Our group had a house rule where the Conscious roll of 7 remained, but you'd subtract the character's BOD score and then add the wound score. So if you had a 5 BOD character who took two wounds, you'd need a 4+ to remain conscious. (7-5+2=4). It worked fairly well though still left even tough characters on the wrong side when compared to NPCs.


I  hope if a new edition of the RPG ever comes out they take these sorts of ideas into consideration.  Our group would like to integrate it with the base game but we've all but abandoned it at this point.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #10 on: 10 February 2017, 13:16:02 »
Actually the reduced lethality rules 192 don't say that the damage becomes subduing.  It only says fatigue.  Subduing is a special damage type so I'd expect it to be mentioned if the intention was to have this damage be considered subduing instead of just regular fatigue.

And there is the option of layered personal armor if that's still not good enough.

Then traits like pain resistance and toughness can help quite a bit too.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #11 on: 10 February 2017, 13:24:10 »
It specifically says Fatigue damage, and has a parenthetical note expressing that it's treated as much.  That normally means subduing, because that's the only type of attack that inflicts fatigue damage. So my money is on it being a subduing attack and that the writer simply failed to express it concisely.  The rules in ATOW are not very clear in many cases. We could always ask on the errata forum.

Either way yeah, there are theoretically work arounds but,
A - Layered armour goes against the fiction which always portrays Mechwarriors in their skivvies, or a pair of shorts, and nothing else
B - There should be a middle ground between invulnerable and highly susceptible, the only way to do that is to adjust the consciousness roll base from 7+ to something much lower.
« Last Edit: 10 February 2017, 13:31:38 by UrQuanKzinti »

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #12 on: 10 February 2017, 15:00:12 »
In a RPG sometimes a GM or group does just have to fudge things or make decisions of what works for their group.

As far as the whole cooling vest and skivvies thing that is something I have no issue just saying is a propaganda/recruitment piece more than what the actual typical mechwarrior wears.

But yeah I don't think I disagree with you that to more accurately reflect Battletech as a whole the TN should have a lower base for consciousness.  So don't mind me if I start to ramble out some thought experimentation on the matter.

Injury modifier can never exceed -4(-5 is a dead character).  Fatigue depends on Will attribute and is a bit trickier thanks to the combination of how easy it is to recover and that once you get past a certain point you just pass out anyway.  Elemental Phenotype is a max of 10 so without passing out the maximum is -9.  So plus 2 for Will of 10.  Pain Resistance offers ignoring -1 injury modifier.  Medkit gives another +1.  So a total of -9 to the roll with a base TN of 7.

Here my initial thought was making it 3 like the first pilot hit in tabletop might make it too low but doing the math and adding in other considerations I'm not so sure it would be too low now.

DarthPJB

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #13 on: 12 February 2017, 00:29:00 »
I'm talking about damage to a battlemech's head

If an LB-X pellet, hits the head of an Atlas. The pilot, in Battletech, needs a 3+ to stay conscious.

If you're a Mechwarrior from ATOW, take the default one from page 94 [/snip]

Con Roll is a 7, -1 for 25% damage, so the character needs an 8+ to stay conscious. Good luck
And remember Con isn't a skill roll, so no edge again.

Why the huge disparity?

Perhaps I wholey misunderstand this conversation, but I'd like to summerise my understanding just to be certain.
"Why does my human being being shot in the head fall unconcious
meanwhile my human being inside the cockpit of a 100ton Mech not fall unconcious".

If my reading above is correct, surely the reason is evident?
The phsyical shock of being in a cockpit hit by an LBX-10 is no doubt like being in a car crash.
The phsyical shock of having even a bolt-action rifle round hit your helmet is potentially leathal.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #14 on: 12 February 2017, 01:13:02 »
Perhaps I wholey misunderstand this conversation, but I'd like to summerise my understanding just to be certain.
"Why does my human being being shot in the head fall unconcious
meanwhile my human being inside the cockpit of a 100ton Mech not fall unconcious".

If my reading above is correct, surely the reason is evident?
The phsyical shock of being in a cockpit hit by an LBX-10 is no doubt like being in a car crash.
The phsyical shock of having even a bolt-action rifle round hit your helmet is potentially leathal.

No, the summary of my conversation is "Why does my Mechwarrior PC not behave in the same way as a Mechwarriors in the Battletech board game."

We brought Player Characters into our boardgame campaign to represent the players, with normal Battlemech pilots as their subordinates, and despite the PCs supposed to be "heroes", they were in fact much weaker than their boardgame counterparts.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #15 on: 12 February 2017, 13:23:36 »
*nod*

To a certain extent the system is predicated around the idea you should prevent your character from getting to that point in the first place and there are certainly some options that can help with that.

Still I do tend to agree once a PC does get to that point a TN of 7 does seem too high.  At first I was a little bothered with the thought that 3 might be too low for anything but worst case scenarios but digging into some real life incidents I don't think I'm actually that bothered by the idea that PCs can suffer some pretty severe injury without a huge risk of falling unconscious.

RunandFindOut

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Master of the LolCat Horde
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #16 on: 12 February 2017, 16:50:29 »
Truth is the whole getting knocked unconscious thing is more a trope than reality.  It's actually very rare for injury to cause unconsciousness, even horrible and inevitably fatal injuries usually leave the dying conscious.  Screaming and moaning and calling for help.
One does not just walk into Detroit

She ignored the dragon, and Freddy Mercury who arrived to battle it with the Power of Rock.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #17 on: 13 February 2017, 03:20:42 »
Maybe someone should make a game where instead of a con check, you just have a shock check or whatever state a character would succumb into when they're unable to do anything further.  Injured, conscious but helpless, or maybe the number of actions degraded to a point where they're nearly helpless.

John Maclean would have a very high threshold.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #18 on: 13 February 2017, 11:51:06 »
Well you certainly can start using some of the existing frameworks for that.  The injury and fatigue modifiers making things more difficult, hit location effects, and other status effects like bleeding all would seem to provide at the very least a starting point.

ZombieAcePilot

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #19 on: 18 February 2017, 07:01:34 »
TLDR: Change falling damage to 1M/2 and use Total Warfare's difficulties for pilots passing out (if they don't have +1 to their WIL linked bonus, bump their difficulties up or down to match the change).

aToW tells us to use 6's for the unknown stats of people on the tactical scale. So our theoretical pilot has 12 Wounds he can take before he is D.E.D. Dead. Falling inflicts 1m/3 against pilots. If our pilot is in his cooling vest, He gains no protections (as the 1m AP cancels out the 1 armor the cooling vest gives in melee). Thus our boy dies on his fourth fall. Thats 2 hits less than our mechwarrior in TW. Our aToW mechwarrior does fair better against mech head shots, only taking 2 damage (as the cooling vest has a ballistic BAR of 2). Thus he could survive 6 headshots (if his mech could take 6 headshots without having it's head blown off with him in it).

Now, there is one big hitch in this whole thing: the damage numbers for falling are off. If you look at the standard falling damage rules you will see you take damage equal to 0.2 x meters falls. Mechs fall 1 hex when they go down. 1 hex is six meters tall. Thus we plug in the numbers and get 1.2 damage (which rounds up to 2). The AP of the fall is equal to 0.1 x meters fallen, an so equals 0.6 (rounds up to 1). Our final value is 1M/2. With this damage code we take 2 wounds per fall and will die in 6 falls (where we take damage, as you can still make a pilot roll to avoid taking damage). Now that we are dying in equal fashion to TW mechwarrior, lets look at passing out.

As I previously mentioned, TW characters have a 6 in all their attributes. This means they get +1 for linked attributes. Since we are taking 2 damage, our wound modifier will be -1. So far we are at a wash, but remember that we are wearing a helmet and strapped in, not falling like a rag doll onto concrete. We can at least say conditions are good (we're sitting on a command couch which must have some level of padding). That gains us a +1, meaning we are now in the positive. I'd take it a step further though and say that since we haven't fallen yet and we have specific gear which is meant to keep us safe in a crash (safety harness/crash webbing and a helmet) we have it very easy. Thus we net another +3 for a total of +4 to our roll to not knock out. We need to roll a 3, which is identical to what Total Warfare pilots have to make on their first roll.

The next time we fall and take damage we have taken 4 damage. This is above 25%, but below 50%, so we now have a -2 for our wound penalty. Given the nature of falling hard repeatedly, out gear will be less effective and we will be more vulnerable. Thus our difficulty will drop to merely easy. Final calculations are thusly +1 (linked attribute) -2 (Wound penalty) +1 (Good conditions) +1 (easy) = +1. We need to roll a 6 or better, which is one higher than our TW compatriot.

Damaging fall #3 brings us up to 6 wounds taken. As this is 50% of our total wounds, there is no increase in penalty. Our easy check becomes average though, meaning we're going to lose 1 to our total. Our modifier is +0 and we need to roll a 7. This is equal to the third roll from the TW pilot.

Damaging fall #4 sees our wounds taken rise to 8. Now above half, but less than 75%, our wound penalty rises to -3. Further, we slide another down the scale from average to difficult. Thats another 1 off our modifier. We end with a -2 modifier and need to roll a 9 or higher. We're actually doing better than out TW pilot, he needs a 10 this roll.

Damaging fall #5. Our wounds are at 10. We have breached 75% and thus are up to a -4 wound penalty. The difficulty has become very difficult and goes from -1 to -3. Adding up our total looks grim. Our pilot has +1 (linked attribute) + 1 (good conditions) -4 (wound penalties) -3 (Very difficult) = -5 modifier, we need a 12! This is worse than our TW pilot who need an 11.

Damaging fall #6, both pilots die.

Using this model our numbers are within 1 of the Total Warfare numbers for every roll. It is easier once and more difficult twice. Do remember though, that aToW characters have edge that TW pilots don't, so this isn't as big of a factor as you might think. What it does illustrate though, is that you could use the TW difficulties with almost no appreciable difference to the outcomes. The only adjustment needed would be to account for lower or higher linked attribute modifiers.

You could also just asses the difficulty once. Rather than going from +3 to -3 on the difficulty, you could choose to use a +0 every time instead. Players would thus need 6's to stay conscious (including the wound penalty) on the first roll. Thats a 72% chance to make your roll. Roll 2 & 3 would have a 58% chance of success. Roll 4 would have a 42% chance of success. Roll 5 would have a 28% chance of success.

Using TW's numbers, you'd have 92% on roll 1, 83% on 2, 58% on 3, 17% on 4, & 8% on 5.

Using my AtoW method we need 92% on 1, 72% on 2, 58% on 3, 28% on 4, & 3% on 5.

Looking at how the three ways to do it play out, I'd say your best bet is to stick with TW's numbers. With them and my modified fall damage you should have pilots who can take a few hits, but pass out before they flatline. Pilots who want to push the limit can leverage their edge to do so.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #20 on: 18 February 2017, 12:06:05 »
Slight correction there.  Attributes do not provide modifiers until 7, not 6.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #21 on: 19 February 2017, 16:09:46 »
I think the condition modifiers only apply to skill/attribute checks, not consciousness checks.  But I do appreciate the huge amount of time you obviously invested into that study.

Though I must say that ATOW seems flawed in that regard from the outset. Why is consciousness a straight check for everyone? Why did they not make it a function of both BOD and WIL power? Though with double attribute checks being at a 18-BOD/WIL that would make con checks even worse :P

I dunno, overall I think I prefer 3rd edition. ATOW is very lethal.

ZombieAcePilot

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #22 on: 19 February 2017, 20:07:49 »
I think the condition modifiers only apply to skill/attribute checks, not consciousness checks.  But I do appreciate the huge amount of time you obviously invested into that study.

Though I must say that ATOW seems flawed in that regard from the outset. Why is consciousness a straight check for everyone? Why did they not make it a function of both BOD and WIL power? Though with double attribute checks being at a 18-BOD/WIL that would make con checks even worse :P

I dunno, overall I think I prefer 3rd edition. ATOW is very lethal.

Yeah, I'm trying to find a way to like the game, but it seems like catalyst forgot to play test the thing (very catalyst). I honestly don't know what to make of attributes. You obviously don't want negative linked modifiers, but positive mods are such a huge investment! Some of the stats are useful for other derived stats (damage, wounds, movement, fatigue, etc), but on the whole I feel like the don't do much until you have to make an attribute check. I'm not sure how often those are supposed to come up, but unless you have a 5+ you will have less than a 50% chance of success before modifiers. The there are the consciousness checks that make no sense! Most people who get shot or stabbed don't immediately faint 50% of the time. I think if I run the game I'm going to have to restructure those checks wholesale.

I like the concept of aToW in that it integrates with the other BT products, but the actual rules need revision. Some changes to certain rules and the amount of starting points for characters could see it become much more viable. I'm just disappointed at catalyst (again) for dropping the ball.

RunandFindOut

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 1331
  • Master of the LolCat Horde
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #23 on: 19 February 2017, 22:51:39 »
I'll admit that I don't generally play aToW, I bought the pdfs to mine for things to use in other rpg systems.  Last time I was in a campaign that was mixed rpg/tabletop we used cyberpunk2020 to represent personal scale and when the action switched to mechanized combat we switched to straight tabletop play.
One does not just walk into Detroit

She ignored the dragon, and Freddy Mercury who arrived to battle it with the Power of Rock.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #24 on: 19 February 2017, 23:22:28 »
As a beta tester of aToW I will take some responsibility for not identifying a lot of issues that aToW has and doing more to fix them before it became a finalized product.

Well it is an interesting question about what value you should get to for attributes.  Dexterity, Reflexes, and Intelligence all link to so many skills that getting a +1 link modifier on even one of those stats can give you a lot of skill rolls that are now much more likely to succeed.

Strength's usefulness depends on how detail oriented you want your RPG.  Yeah it adds extra damage if you punch someone or stab them with a knife but it's real main usefulness is something that it lets the character carry more stuff but quite often I find that is something that doesn't always get taken into consideration.

Body and Will translate directly into durability.

That leaves Charisma and Edge.  Honestly those two do seem to have the least value in being worth investing in.

Consciousness does really seem to need a lower starting TN I admit.

I do like aToW's basic concepts though, especially in contrast to MW3ED's wildly imbalanced character creation system, but will admit most of the problems I have with it are in providing enough support for adjudicating a fair number of things.

ZombieAcePilot

  • Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #25 on: 20 February 2017, 00:05:00 »
Strength's usefulness depends on how detail oriented you want your RPG.  Yeah it adds extra damage if you punch someone or stab them with a knife but it's real main usefulness is something that it lets the character carry more stuff but quite often I find that is something that doesn't always get taken into consideration.

Using encumbrance rules is a must. While they may be a pain, they are a major balancing factor in many games.

monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #26 on: 20 February 2017, 10:50:11 »
While personally I agree there are gaming groups don't like getting bogged down in those kinds of details or like a more cinematic gaming experience and don't really pay attention to such things.

Tai Dai Cultist

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7127
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #27 on: 20 February 2017, 13:12:27 »
As a beta tester of aToW I will take some responsibility for not identifying a lot of issues that aToW has and doing more to fix them before it became a finalized product.

Well it is an interesting question about what value you should get to for attributes.  Dexterity, Reflexes, and Intelligence all link to so many skills that getting a +1 link modifier on even one of those stats can give you a lot of skill rolls that are now much more likely to succeed.

Strength's usefulness depends on how detail oriented you want your RPG.  Yeah it adds extra damage if you punch someone or stab them with a knife but it's real main usefulness is something that it lets the character carry more stuff but quite often I find that is something that doesn't always get taken into consideration.

Body and Will translate directly into durability.

That leaves Charisma and Edge.  Honestly those two do seem to have the least value in being worth investing in.

IMO Edge provides its own self-evident incentive for investment (more EDG = more rerolls).  I haven't looked closely at the chart of what skills link to what attribute, but it seems that there is a fair number of social type skills linked to CHA.  As always, certain skills/traits are more or less useful to play depending on the nature of the game.  But Leadership is a pretty combat-relevant skill (initiative bonus) and Training is a skill that is relevant no matter what kind of campaign you're playing (wanna spend XP on skills? better have a trainer around..).  Besides, CHA has another meta factor going in its favor: a lot of people like to play characters that are pretty and/or facemen.

UrQuanKzinti

  • Sergeant
  • *
  • Posts: 157
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #28 on: 20 February 2017, 13:29:48 »
If a rule is ignored by players I would say that has more to do with the rule than it does the group that rejects it.

Rather than require players to add up the weight of their gear, rules could for example simply impose limits on what characters can carry. Maybe a character can carry two weapons, one of which can be a rifle.

Maybe gear has strength requirements, with easy to calculate penalties for it. Use a weapon that's too heavy? Accuracy penalty. Wear armor that's too heavy? Speed & Melee penalty. Maybe melee weapons have a DEX requirement, etcetera.

Those sorts of rule provide tangible, cinematic effects without the need to add up the weight of potentially 10-20 different items like batteries for your micro-communicator.


monbvol

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 13278
  • I said don't look!
Re: Fraility of PCs on Tabletop
« Reply #29 on: 20 February 2017, 19:27:21 »
IMO Edge provides its own self-evident incentive for investment (more EDG = more rerolls).  I haven't looked closely at the chart of what skills link to what attribute, but it seems that there is a fair number of social type skills linked to CHA.  As always, certain skills/traits are more or less useful to play depending on the nature of the game.  But Leadership is a pretty combat-relevant skill (initiative bonus) and Training is a skill that is relevant no matter what kind of campaign you're playing (wanna spend XP on skills? better have a trainer around..).  Besides, CHA has another meta factor going in its favor: a lot of people like to play characters that are pretty and/or facemen.

Charisma's main problem is that you can get bonuses to it without having to raise it high enough to get Link Attribute Bonus thanks to Attractive and Gregarious, which leads into my next point.  Charisma has nothing to do with the actual physical appearance of a character(unless your group wants it to).  I've known plenty of people that would not win a beauty contest but had the gift of gab and plenty of pretty people who I'd have trouble spending extended periods of time with.

Edge's problem is if you're really using enough to have more than 2-3 points, well I'm not sure I'd want to be part of such a campaign and would seriously question my dice and the GM's dice.

If a rule is ignored by players I would say that has more to do with the rule than it does the group that rejects it.

Rather than require players to add up the weight of their gear, rules could for example simply impose limits on what characters can carry. Maybe a character can carry two weapons, one of which can be a rifle.

Maybe gear has strength requirements, with easy to calculate penalties for it. Use a weapon that's too heavy? Accuracy penalty. Wear armor that's too heavy? Speed & Melee penalty. Maybe melee weapons have a DEX requirement, etcetera.

Those sorts of rule provide tangible, cinematic effects without the need to add up the weight of potentially 10-20 different items like batteries for your micro-communicator.

Personally I don't mind having to add up the weight of my gear because I am organized enough to keep track of any changes after having determined the weight of my initial gear, so system's like aToW and D&D 3.5/Pathfinder's approach don't actually bother me at all.

I have seen some interesting solutions along the lines of what you suggest and I certainly don't begrudge people if they want to take a less detailed approach, thus my taking a hopefully more philosophical tone/approach in my post on the matter.

All in all there will likely never be a perfect solution.
« Last Edit: 20 February 2017, 19:38:03 by monbvol »

 

Register