I've run several sessions of the game now, but they always tended to get rather freeform because I still don't quite understand the extended conflict rules. Specifically, I'm having trouble getting my head around mixing social, mental and physical combat into the same conflict. This problem cropped up in one game I ran for example, when one member of the group wanted to talk the enemy out of killing them and another wanted to shoot. The talker went first of course, but the "damage" his talking did wasn't enough to defeat the enemy. Then the shooter went and shot, also not defeating the enemy. When it was the talker's turn again, I couldn't figure out how his talking could realistically ever convince someone who had now been shot to surrender. Is there something I'm not getting? Am I just too deeply ingrained in rules-heavy games?
tl;dr - how do other GM's mix the different types of "attack" in extended conflicts so that it actually makes sense?
I'd say there are still things the talker can do - get between the shooter and the monster for one thing, make a lot of noise about telling the shooter not to do that (again), but it would certainly merit a penalty to further attempts.
One thing I can say within the bounds of my NDA is that the Primeval RPG includes a system for calming down creatures, and another PC attacking them will increase their anger, so it's a question of when to fire the tranquilliser dart.
Post by Captain Rachel on Aug 14, 2011 19:29:35 GMT
I've run two games so far. 1st was a one-shot (Judoom) 2nd was 3/4 sessions long and I made it up myself. When I ran Judoom I tried to use the book's combat system... and I didn't really like how it worked. So when it came time for me to run my 2nd game I decided to jiggery-pokery myself a new system, which worked pretty well and which I plan to use in my upcoming long game. Part of the reason I've done this is because my players are used to playing in D&D type games (mostly D&D 3.5) but the main reason was my own dislike of the DW combat system.
Basically I decided to use an initiative system, where everyone rolls and the dice decide who goes when. I've got two different sorts of rolls that I use to determine the combat order.
For ambushes: Everyone rolls 2 d6 + Awareness and add/subtract for any traits that effect awareness (For example: Keen Senses would + 2) The player / NPC who rolls the highest number goes first, the lowest number goes last. If anyone gets the same number roll 1 d6 and higher number goes first.
For situations when your players know they're about to get in a fight: Everyone rolls 2 d6 + Resolve and add/subtract for any traits that affect resolve. (For example: Cowardly would -2) The player / NPC who rolls the highest number goes first, the lowest number goes last. If anyone gets the same number roll 1 d6 and higher number goes first.
For both of these situations I only have my players roll initiative once. That initiative lasts for the duration of the conflict. Players / NPCs can hold their actions. (So someone who rolled a 10 can wait until the 5s go to act.)
“Nothing is predetermined; it is determined, or was determined, or will be determined.” -Winter’s Tale by Mark Helprin