|
Post by Zero on Jul 14, 2010 14:23:45 GMT
Honestly, I was nebulous about that too. I agree that Longarms should affect Stealth more than pistols, but giving the free pistol slot and a total Stealth penalty of 1 for three guns was iffy as well. You have a point that carrying one gun probably shouldn't ding you.
Oh well, guess that's why we're playtesting. Worst case, we see how this plays out, tweak and run again.
|
|
|
Post by askhati on Jul 14, 2010 14:38:06 GMT
It should be: if you carry more than one weapon, you take -1 Stealth for every weapon after the first. You also get one free Sidearm, which does not contribute towards this limit.
I.e. Two Sidearms = One Sidearm, One Longarm = no penalty Any other combo = take -1 per second weapon on
|
|
|
Post by Zero on Jul 14, 2010 15:26:58 GMT
*sigh* Designing games is hard.
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Jul 14, 2010 17:16:12 GMT
I'm going to try something. Check the other boards shortly.
|
|
|
Post by Zero on Jul 14, 2010 19:08:04 GMT
Ack! The Stealth penalties you're applying are pretty harsh. Rifle + pistol = -2? (-1 for two guns, -1 for longarm)
|
|
|
Post by askhati on Jul 14, 2010 19:45:24 GMT
The original FW rules on firearm encumbrance were simple: every weapon after the first gives a -1 penalty, stacking per weapon.
We keep the same rules, except that you can now add a free pistol to the count.
I think we over-complicated it somewhere along the line and lost the gist of what it all means.
|
|
|
Post by Zero on Jul 14, 2010 19:49:20 GMT
I'm really curious to see what Zipp's doing. I'm not opposed to trying things out.
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Jul 14, 2010 21:46:32 GMT
Well, I think the idea here is that we all agree carrying weapons lowers stealth and we all agree that bigger weapons should have more of a penalty than a smaller weapon.
I'll admit the penalties are harsh, but then I think they would be if someone were carrying a shotgun, a rifle, and an uzi. Stealth also covers dexterity, so this takes into account weight.
The gameplay effect is that players have to specialize more. If someone like Maria wants to carry around a rifle, that's probably going to be her weapon of choice. Someone else might be the pack-mule of the group, carrying all the items, but will use small guns that don't apply to stealth penalties.
|
|
|
Post by Zero on Jul 14, 2010 23:08:31 GMT
You know, I wrote out a long, poorly thought out diatribe about why things were the way they were, and started to analyze the weight of items and how they'd affect movement.
Then I deleted it.
Ishir's sake, Zipp, I've watched the games you've run, and I have no doubts about what you do and what you're capable of. You're making some interesting tweaks and changes to the rules as written, but considering what you've been doing with LW, I know you know what you're doing.
Let me be succinct. It's not how I would've done it, but your reputation precedes you. I am *itching* to see where this game goes. ;D
|
|
|
Post by askhati on Jul 15, 2010 7:15:04 GMT
Heh, we're all curious to see how it works out.
May I ask who is playing Ross, Dicer and Vasquez? Seems I'm the only co-designer who's not a GM... Although I get to play a hot techie with a feathercut!
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Jul 15, 2010 9:04:30 GMT
Thank you for the kind words, Zero! I'm no master when it comes to numbers, I'll admit, but I've played enough games to have a basic sense of how rules play out. I'm not sure that my ruling is the best solution, but I am curious to see how it affects the play and I think we'll learn a lot from watching this game.
I really appreciate you hanging around the forums. It's nice to have a second pair of eyes watching the rules and giving suggestions.
Already I think that Freeway Warrior will fall distinctly into the "one-shot" style games. Based on how deadly it can be, I think it's destined to remain one-shot. I don't mind that, though. Actually, I think it's nice to have a one-shot game and not have to be worried about huge over-arching campaigns that burden themselves with their own plots (my huge over-arching Lone Wolf endeavors notwithstanding).
I also think it solves the issue of setting DC for skill tests, which was getting to be difficult for me to calculate. If you don't have to take levels into account, it makes it much easier to find the proper DCs. It does suggest some changes to character creation, mostly with the more variable stats as I've been discussing...
Let's see if I recall who is playing who, Askhati...
Kijuro is playing Jake Ross, who was accidentally created when he thought we were playing in 2020 and he described a character who got stuck in Bend while looking for a place to snowboard "eight years ago." We both liked the idea of a nutty guy trying to snowboard in the apocalypse so much that we kept him.
Maria Vasquez is played by the formidable Johntsf, who we all know as resident quiz champion here at PA. I really like the concept for his character a lot.
Jeremiah Dicer is played by a man named Jacek, who I believe comes from the mongoose forums. He's put a lot of thought into his character's back story so I hope he doesn't eat a headshot on the first combat.
|
|
|
Post by askhati on Jul 15, 2010 9:38:25 GMT
Ah, I have Kijuro and Jacek in my Ruel game as well, both playing druids. Interesting lot thus far.
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Aug 16, 2010 19:42:59 GMT
Why don't I see the document on this page? Am I missing it...?
|
|
|
Post by Zipp on Aug 16, 2010 19:43:41 GMT
Nevermind... saw it.
|
|
|
Post by askhati on Oct 12, 2010 6:40:56 GMT
Hmm... So we are back here again. Zero, what are these 'drastic changes' that zipp mentioned? You are not aiming to make ranged combat as complex as the Classic BattleTech rules, are you...?
|
|