Re: [s-d] Re: [s-b] [auto] Wonko submits p188

["Daniel Peter Lepage" <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The explainations are just fluff I assume? I glad we can at least agree on
> the attributes.

Yeah, they're fluff. In fact, they don't even need to be there; I'll just
create Strength and leave it at that, so you can create the other two
however you want.

>> These
>> effects are cumulative; that is, if multiple stats are low or high, then
>> multiple modifications are applied.
>> }}
> So if you have 5hp,cp and ap you roll a d0 but if you have thirty you roll
> a d6? Interesting.

I figured that a player who is panicking, nearly asleep, mostly dead, and
weak to begin with shouldn't be able to do much anyway.

>> {{
>> == Combat ==
>> Once per period, each player may Attack another player in the same room.
>> The
>> Attacking player is henceforth referred to as the Attacker; the player
>> being
>> attacked is the Defender. Both players are said to be In Combat with
>> each other,
>> and each ceases to be In Combat with anyone else [[Thus, player A can
>> attack
>> player B to stop B's combat with player C]].
> So the main way to cease combat is continue combat?

You can cease fighting either by mutual agreement, by beating the other
guy, or by having a third player come in tackle one of the guys.

>> Any player who is In Combat may Stand Down, signifying that they wish to
>> stop
>> fighting. At the end of the period, if two players In Combat with each
>> other
>> both Stood Down, then they cease to be In Combat.
> So the two players have to agree to stop fighting?

Right.


> Now I'm probably going to need to change my combat prop into something
> else simply because your comes later and has a better chance of passing.
> Hopefully I can persuade you to make some changes.
>
> I don't think the amount of damage done should follow the system you have.
> While there is a chance someone  with lower strength could win it seems
> anyone who has fuller stats could beat up another player over a few
> periods. Also if two players have the same stats then it just becomes a
> matter of who is the better dice roller.

I do think that two identical players should be equally likely to beat
each other. I think the weak vs. strong player problem could be resolved
by having a tradeoff between different skills, so that if you're a very
strong player you'll also be a very stupid player. Then some Talismans
would only be useable by smart players (who would tend to be weak players
as well) but would make fighting either easier or avoidable.

> Also I think if you have the same weapon and the same skill lvls should
> always do the same damage but with one exception:
>
> The catastrophic failure roll.  To see if you Hit(most
> common),Missed(occasionally) , had a catastrophic failure(rare)  or an
> exceptional hit(also rare).  This way you know if you stand a chance but
> there is still the possiblity of things going horribly wrong.
>
> Also I'm not sure If I like having skills be a direct function of stats.
> You could just as easily have stats be the only attributes and just add
> complex formulas in.

Hmm. Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I meant for skills to be independent of
stats, but be affected by them. So your strength starts at 6; if you're in
top shape, it goes up to 9, and if you're dazed, bruised, and confused
it's only 3; but you could do things that would increase or decrease your
base strength as well. Maybe if you make your way to the Gymnasium of the
Damned deep below the surface of the earth you can work out for 1 point of
Strength per nweek, but if you get attacked by Bloodsucking Giraffes you
lose Strength, and so on.
So stats don't determine skills, but they can influence them.

> Now about being forced into combat. Why not have it so you get two actions
> a period.  So you have to decide between fighting back, running away,
> using a potion, ect. Also instead of being completely stifled if someone
> wants to pick a fight why not just give them glancing blows if you try to
> run away. So if you really didn't want to die you could run and use a
> potion every period and hope the closet doesn't have someone in it.

I don't think my combat system as it stands will result in much damage
being dealt, and I don't intend it to. The fact that you force somebody
into combat is precisely the point of this: I see fighting as a tool not
for killing someone, but for keeping them from doing things.

The eventual goal is to create team-based games like Capture the Flag
within the House. My style of combat would work well in that, I think,
because there are many opportunities for teamwork. For example, imagine
that a teammate of yours has captured the flag and is taking it back to
base. An opponent with very high Strength is coming at your flagbearer
quickly, and will probably get the flag back if e catches up. So
basically, you tackle em to buy time for the guy with the flag. You know
you can't beat this guy, 'cause e's too large and strong, but you don't
need to beat em, you just need to delay em long enough for the guy with
the flag to reach the Spiral Stair and get to the Front Hall so that your
ally up in the Conservatory can Lower the Sconce and trap the big guy in
the Storage Room with a Sinking Stair.

The other thing I was thinking of adding is Stunning, where if you beat
the other guy by seven or more you Stun them and they can't do anything
next period. That way a strong guy might be able to get out of a fight by
hitting eir opponent hard enough to Stun them and then running away; a
weak player could get some Talisman that helped them Stun players and use
it to escape combat, etc.



_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss