Extinction Event Alpha test

[Ardem]

There are already +1 modifiers for firearms in melee range for long barrel guns, cause it hard to hit a person who swinging an axe at you having said that, the best thing a person can do when the other has a gun is a grapple.
Grapple should be used more as in real life it used more to defend once self against a gun or knife, If you in melee range and the opponent has a gun first thing you try and do is grapple his pistol hand so he cannot aim it at you.

[cmdisc]

<perks up> I like that idea actually. I don't have a copy of the rules and modifiers and can't access them unless you have the server up, but it sounds like cover from ranged and grappling in melee should be pretty common. That and thumping your target as you dance around him to stay on the move. What are the rules for Grappling? (really wondering now if my next toon will be a gun-toting aunt or a cage fighter).

A few other things you asked feedback on:

I looked at the Attributes you have and I saw them lining up nicely in two groups; Physical and Mental. Strength and Intelligence seemed to come together as the physical and mental counterparts of prowess. Coordination and Perception seemed related in their focused acuity. And Determination and the other stat I can't recall atm (Bodily Resiliency or some such?) come together as the physical and mental versions of fortitude. If this is the case, it argues for Coordination and Perception as being the Initiative-contributing Attributes as these are related to speed and finesse. High Intelligence doesn't always mean fast off the mark. Many great thinkers, philosophers, and theologians were "slow and steady" as it were. As smart as Einstein was, he would never be able to outdraw Billy the Kid. =D

Also about "Rule of 1", if you want to keep it where 1's strip successes, maybe include a "Rule of 10" where 10's add an extra success. A 10 means you've already succeeded, so an extra one doesn't mean much in itself other than a bit more info on a knowledge check, and that extra one is what would get stripped when a 1 shows up in the same roll, thereby protecting any other successes you might have gotten. An idea anyway. Otherwise maybe just remove the whole "strips a success" thing as you've suggested on the previous page. That way Critical Failures would just pop up when no successes are generated but one or more 1's rear their ugly heads. I don't know what this does with the odds of one appearing, but frankly I thought the 10% crit fail rate that you're aiming for seems a bit high. In a gunfight police and soldiers can fire off dozens and dozens of shots without shooting themselves, their friends, or jamming their weapons. :P

[Ardem]

Critical Failure does not always mean nasty, I use the example the other day where we were testing you character in a gun fight and you rolled a critical failure, the failure was you thought you fired all your shots. A quick check of the pistol would of seen you had not and you can move on. I chose that event cause you had a skill in hand guns, I would not choose that event if you had a 7 in hand guns.

Think of it not so much as Critical failure but GM Event, sometimes it will be not nice but livable, sometimes it will be nasty, taking into account skill, attempted action. Also some critical failures prevent a person attempting the same thing aka a lock smith who jams a wire in the lock and the wire breaks. No harm to all.

Shooting a friend or a well maintained weapon jamming, only a foolish gm would do that, how about a fly buzzed your eye and now you got to duck losing sight of your enemy for one round. Yes it gives a GamesMaster power to be evil, but those GamesMaster suck. A good Gamesmaster will give some interesting doses of reality. But a foolish skill attempt deserves a foolish event.

Aka a person leaping from a bank crossing water that is 2-3 feet, which is covered in all sort of rocks and uneven ground which is ankle height and then tries a round house kick, deserves to fall down in the river, against those very dangerous rocks. I considered myself in my hay day to have a (4) in coordination now I am a 3 I would never attempt such a feat I know I would fall on my face and beak something. <sorry argol>

We need to play a couple more games before I would consider changes this yet but I am taking on board your thoughts as well.

To give you a sense of how I approached the ruleset here was to make you not feel like a hero. Most games out there are made to aim for you to win this game mechanics are not set you up to fail. This hopefully passes the sense of desperation and hopelessness the characters would feel, as if everything was against them. This ruleset I know is not for the faint hearted, if I changed it to be too easy I could not convey those thoughts. D&D I can come across dragons and feel invincible or 10 orcs without a sweat I know the game mechanics are on my side. My aim is to create a game opposite to that, but still obtain fun out of it, yup a hard thing to do.

I think I need to convey this in the manual at the beginning so people know what they are in for.

[cmdisc]

I understand your thought process. I think it is a good thing that Critical Failure means something different with you. Of all the tables and house rules in the games I've played before, my understanding of a Crit Fail usually has come to expect something nasty. Hence my reaction to "He wants 1 of every 10 rolls I make to screw me over? I know this game is a non-heroic grim-n-gritty setting, but really now..." But what you're describing isn't so bad. They're more like hiccups in the action than massive failures as when your gun blows up in your face.

And just to be clear, all I'm tossing out are thoughts, ideas, and questions for clarification. I'm the type that likes to pick apart the rules, house rule things, and hop on message boards to discuss or even argue certain points. Of course once the Game Developers make their intentions known through a posting or a FAQ, then the matter is settled. Well you're the Developer here, so my focus is not to argue the rules. They are whatever you say they are. I'm more like offering a different angle to view them from. But in the end, no toe stepping intended.

In the meantime, I'll try to shut up now and let others post their thoughts on here. It's been quiet. And if you get a chance to give a quick summation on the Grapple rules, I'd be interested in those.

[Ardem]

No they are great ideas and what seems obvious to me needs to be obvious to the GM. So I need to spell out in the manual, what a critical failure really means. Fortunately this is all the feedback I need.

No Toe stepping felt. I like to be challenged, sometimes I am stubborn and sometimes I can be shown a better way, and this process is exactly what I was after else I would of said nothing about alpha test and said hey who want to play this game

Did you get the manual I sent in the private messaging?

Review Tackling and Grappling.

[cmdisc]

I didn't notice the message because my Perception score is really low. That or I flubbed the roll. Got it now. Not a problem with the request; I'll use it just for my familiarization with the rules. Thanks.

Incidentally would throwing a rock at a target fall under armed combat? Or is that a straight Coordination check? I see you describe Coordination as "The ability to physically catch, deflect, aim, strike or avoid objects." I wasn't clear on if that applied to combat at all, or just other things...like catching a branch before you tumble down a hill and break your crown (poor Jack). I'm curious about the various applications of the Attributes and how they differ from regular Skill Actions as the rules do not have the two interrelated, but that's something that can be discussed and worked out as we play.

[Ardem]

Do you always find my flailing

Throwing should be a coordination check, I realized this after combat when Eliza threw a rock, she used a melee check. Coordination would be also like throwing a grenade on target, or tossing someone a magazine. I have ummed and arggh about this one, should throwing be a skill or coordination check for combat?? for me throwing is not really something that is learnt. I have tossed throwing knives which I never learnt and did as good a job as if I was throwing a rock. Special throwing objects such as a javelin and boomerang, do need a technique so there is an element of skill. Thoughts...

[cmdisc]

Thoughts are percolating, but I did say I'd shut up and give time for other people to chime in on this. I'll sleep on it tonight. If I still think it's worthwhile to toss out there, I'll post it tomorrow sometime.

[cmdisc]

Ok, I said I'd shut up, but since no one else is chiming in so far...

I think Throwing is a perfect example of Actions that are in the grey area between Attribute checks and Skill checks. It seems to me that things like throwing are actions that anyone can try to do without any training or skill. So that would suggest it’s an Attribute check. Yet, a person is perfectly capable of learning proper throwing techniques and increasing their accuracy without actually increasing their Coordination. Sports Athletes and Olympians everywhere train to do exactly that. This would then point to a Skill check.

So which is it? I’ve looked through the ruleset and noted several actions that I think fall into the same grey area; possibly an Attribute check, but can be improved like a Skill. A few of them are Climbing, Jumping, Deception, and Stealth. Others are Grappling, Throwing, Running (long distance training), and Cooking. There are a couple more that I think should be included also (like Diplomacy, Intimidation, Trading, and Memorizing), but that final list (if there is one) is up to you.

So what do you do with these grey areas? Maybe you have some better ideas, but off the top of my head, I would suggest:

Treat all these actions as Attribute checks. Jumping was a Skill? Now it’s a Strength check (or Coordination check if you’re so inclined). Then introduce a new feature of the game called “Talents.” When you take a Talent you choose a specific Attribute action; lifting, throwing, grappling, intimidating, etc. You have trained this use of your Attribute extensively using tried and true techniques to optimize your ability. That action enjoys a -1 bonus to TN. If you take another Talent on the same action, then you gain an “Advanced Talent” and enjoy a -2 bonus to TN. Basically you’ve focused intensively on this ability. Maybe you could even take it a 3rd time (call it “Masterful Talent”?) for a -3 bonus. And how many of these “Talents” do you start with? Say 5 or more to distribute between the various Attribute checks.

The beauty of this idea is that you don’t have to define every single action that can happen within an Attribute before the game begins. You’re free to play the game and discover new uses for them as you go. Plus this tightens up Skill definitions and means Skills will be actions that must be trained first in order to use. So a 0 in a Skill means you truly can’t do it. No more grey areas.

Maybe off the rails, but thoughts?

[Ardem]

I may be thick, cause I am not actually following your concept.

I see what you mean by grey areas. However to me climbing is definitely a skill, jumping perhaps grey, deception is a skill as is stealth. Throwing is grey, grappling is grey cause it could be a skill as in weaker opponents taking down a bigger person cause they know martial arts or college wrestling. Diplomacy, Intimidation and Trading are all skills. Memorising I would put under intelligence but I understand that intelligence does not always mean memorizing, but I want the aspect of the ruleset streamline.

I think I need to think of this any think about the grey areas.