Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

[TaxiMan]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Re: the original post - I admit the "problem" is a minor one (and have from the beginning). I can subtract one, except if I roll a "1".

 

Few seem to admit that the rules are a little bit wonky for no purpose.

 

 

Interesting.

 

 

Anyway, I've said my piece. Thanks for the discussion! And I got a neat new idea from BNakagawa, so that was good.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Why change the stun multiple? Either because you don't like the 1d6-1 (minimum 1) rule: there is something of a lack of elegance to it - or because you don't like the stun lotto - or because you don't like the mechanic being different from most of the rest of the system - or you think it is plain wrong that killing attacks deliver more stun and body on average (after defences) than a point cost equivalent normal attack.

 

the best fix for killing attacks I've seen is simply this: buy killing attacks exactly the same way you buy normal attacks, but apply to resistant defences as per teh current rules. No difference whatsoever between killing attack and normal damage delivered for a given point investment, killing attacks become far more of a flavour thing in superhero games but still retain nasty goodness in heroic campaigns.

 

Of course there are a significant number of people who like killing attacks for the exact same reasons I suggested you might not like them.

 

You can't please all of the people all of the time. Well, you can but you either need to seriously audit your population or implement a pretty impressive mandatory brain surgery program.

 

Bottom line is that killing attacks and the stun multiple mechanic have been here so long they have squatter's rights and there is nothing you can do but change them in your own game. I know I have.

[archermoo]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Re: the original post - I admit the "problem" is a minor one (and have from the beginning). I can subtract one, except if I roll a "1".

 

Few seem to admit that the rules are a little bit wonky for no purpose.

 

 

Interesting.

 

 

Anyway, I've said my piece. Thanks for the discussion! And I got a neat new idea from BNakagawa, so that was good.

 

I don't "admit" it because I don't agree with your opinion.

 

There is a difference between a x0 and a x1 StunX. There is also a difference between a x1 and a x2, and a x2 and a x3. So it isn't "no purpose". You don't feel that that purpose is worthwhile. Others of us do.

 

You find it "interesting" that some of us aren't willing to admit that your opinion is true. I find that statement of yours interesting in and of itself. *shrug* Each to their own.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

The simple answer is CHARTS = BAD.

 

Charts are bad?

[Dust Raven]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Few seem to admit that the rules are a little bit wonky for no purpose.

 

I'll admit the rules are at least a little bit wonky, but in this case it's for a very good reason. Minimum damage and fairness.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

There is a difference between drawing blood and taking BODY damage. I assume that if you had received 10 such cuts you would not have been much closer to death' date=' even though taking 10 points of BODY should at the very least have left you disabled if not dying.[/quote']

I don't know, but considering how much blood there was, I think I might have been significantly closer to death if I had had ten such cuts and was bleeding ten times as fast. And who knows how long I might have continued to bleed had I not noticed the cut? The cut was on my foot, and I was standing, so it was very convenient for the blood to just drain out. Gravity was not on my side.

 

In a case where it was such a dangerous wound, what does it matter that you didn't notice? STUN does not equal pain; all STUN does is measure how close to unconsciousness you are.

I think STUN *does* equal pain, most of the time. Sure, there may be some attacks whose SFX cause some sensation other than pain, but fists, bullets, sticks, knives, fire, electricity, etc., all cause pain. STUN doesn't just measure proximity to unconsciousness, it also measures whether or not you are (or how close you came to being) stunned. And Stunned usually means you can't act due to the intensity of the pain you are experiencing.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Charts are bad?

Yes. Because you either have to memorize them, or look up the results each time. With the dice directly method, you look on the dice themselves and there's your results with no cross referencing required.

 

And in case anyone is interested, the 2d6-take-the-lowest method gives an average of 2.527777. Slightly lower than the standard of 2.666, but with a chance of a 6 result. I like it.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

the best fix for killing attacks I've seen is simply this: buy killing attacks exactly the same way you buy normal attacks' date=' but apply to resistant defences as per teh current rules. No difference whatsoever between killing attack and normal damage delivered for a given point investment, killing attacks become far more of a flavour thing in superhero games but still retain nasty goodness in heroic campaigns.[/quote']

The problem with this approach is that KAs become obviously better than normal attacks for the same price. That's not a flavor thing, that's a munchkin thing. (notice my American spelling)

 

I've toyed with the idea of doing something similar, however: Let KAs be bought 5/d6 like normal attacks, but they do -1 STUN per die, and both 5's and 6's count as 2 BODY damage, rather than just 6's. This gives the exact same average results as the standard rules, while eliminating the STUN lotto. (We've discussed this before, you can search the boards for a more complete discussion.)

[Dust Raven]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I don't know' date=' but considering how much blood there was, I think I might have been significantly closer to death if I had had ten such cuts and was bleeding ten times as fast. And who knows how long I might have continued to bleed had I not noticed the cut? The cut was on my foot, and I was standing, so it was very convenient for the blood to just drain out. Gravity was not on my side.[/quote']

Since I never saw your cut, I can't possibly know. I'll take your word for it.

 

 

I think STUN *does* equal pain, most of the time. Sure, there may be some attacks whose SFX cause some sensation other than pain, but fists, bullets, sticks, knives, fire, electricity, etc., all cause pain. STUN doesn't just measure proximity to unconsciousness, it also measures whether or not you are (or how close you came to being) stunned. And Stunned usually means you can't act due to the intensity of the pain you are experiencing.

I'll agree the vast majority of things that cause STUN loss are pain related, but that does not mean pain = STUN and vice versa. There are Ego Attacks with the SFX of euphoria or sleep, STUN Drains with the SFX of "off switches" and even NND attacks with the SFX of knockout gas or chloroform (which causes no pain at all, just knocks you out). Even in the case of your cut, you were taking STUN but didn't even know it (just not enough to really matter). Should you have bleed long enough, you would have passed out (loss of STUN) due to blood loss.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I don't know' date=' but considering how much blood there was, I think I might have been significantly closer to death if I had had ten such cuts and was bleeding ten times as fast. And who knows how long I might have continued to bleed had I not noticed the cut? The cut was on my foot, and I was standing, so it was very convenient for the blood to just drain out. Gravity was not on my side.[/quote']

 

Do you think you would have simply kept moving until you dropped dead (BOD damage), or would you first have passed out from loss of blood (STUN damage)?

[BNakagawa]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Mmm...me likes charts. But then again I played ChartLaw for years.

 

ewwww...

 

Then again, ChartMaster never had a chart for random prostitutes....did it?

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I'll agree the vast majority of things that cause STUN loss are pain related' date=' but that does not mean pain = STUN and vice versa. There are Ego Attacks with the SFX of euphoria or sleep, STUN Drains with the SFX of "off switches" and even NND attacks with the SFX of knockout gas or chloroform (which causes no pain at all, just knocks you out).[/quote']

Which is exactly why I said, "most of the time."

 

Even in the case of your cut, you were taking STUN but didn't even know it (just not enough to really matter). Should you have bleed long enough, you would have passed out (loss of STUN) due to blood loss.

Good point.

[Vondy]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Just use a backgammon die and get it over with.

[Dust Raven]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Just use a backgammon die and get it over with.

And you take... x32 STUN!

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Yahtzee STUN multiplier!

[BNakagawa]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

scrabble stun multiplier!

 

(this works by simply drawing one tile out of a full scrabble set and reading off the number value of the letter)

 

You can get a blank which is worth 0, or as high as a 10 (q or z) but you're more likely to draw a 1.

[archermoo]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

ewwww...

 

Then again, ChartMaster never had a chart for random prostitutes....did it?

 

Well, the core rules didn't...

[JamesG]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I've toyed with the idea of doing something similar' date=' however: Let KAs be bought 5/d6 like normal attacks, but they do -1 STUN per die, and both 5's and 6's count as 2 BODY damage, rather than just 6's. This gives the exact same average results as the standard rules, while eliminating the STUN lotto. (We've discussed this before, you can search the boards for a more complete discussion.)[/quote']

 

I've toyed with this idea as well, but the averages are not exactly the same. The average stun is significantly less using this method. For instance:

 

30 AP of normal damage
6 Body avg
21 Stun avg

30 AP of standard KA
7 Body avg
2.67 avg Stun Mult
18.67 Stun avg

30 AP of Modified KA (6d6-6 for STUN, bonus BODY on 5,6; no BODY on 1.)
7 Body Avg
15 Stun Avg

 

It still may be workable, as a way to eliminate the stun lotto, but I'm concerned it goes too far the other way, hosing KAs.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

The problem with this approach is that KAs become obviously better than normal attacks for the same price. That's not a flavor thing, that's a munchkin thing. (notice my American spelling)

 

I've toyed with the idea of doing something similar, however: Let KAs be bought 5/d6 like normal attacks, but they do -1 STUN per die, and both 5's and 6's count as 2 BODY damage, rather than just 6's. This gives the exact same average results as the standard rules, while eliminating the STUN lotto. (We've discussed this before, you can search the boards for a more complete discussion.)

 

I'm wondering why you don't just give a bonus body for 6s and treat 1-5 as 1 body.

 

It's almost the same thing, averages the same as above and eliminates a step.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I've toyed with this idea as well, but the averages are not exactly the same. The average stun is significantly less using this method. For instance:

 

30 AP of normal damage
6 Body avg
21 Stun avg

30 AP of standard KA
7 Body avg
2.67 avg Stun Mult
18.67 Stun avg

30 AP of Modified KA (6d6-6 for STUN, bonus BODY on 5,6; no BODY on 1.)
7 Body Avg
15 Stun Avg

 

It still may be workable, as a way to eliminate the stun lotto, but I'm concerned it goes too far the other way, hosing KAs.

I may not have been completely clear: I meant to *keep* the minimum 1 STUN per die. In this case the averages are exactly the same. If you don't keep the minimum 1 STUN/d6, you get the same averages that you'd have if you let the STUNx for a regular KA to be 0.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I'm wondering why you don't just give a bonus body for 6s and treat 1-5 as 1 body.

 

It's almost the same thing, averages the same as above and eliminates a step.

Just a personal preference. It gives greater variance in the results, less frequent average results.

[JamesG]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I may not have been completely clear: I meant to *keep* the minimum 1 STUN per die. In this case the averages are exactly the same. If you don't keep the minimum 1 STUN/d6' date=' you get the same averages that you'd have if you let the STUNx for a regular KA to be 0.[/quote']

 

I don't get what you are saying here. Can you please elaborate? Going back to your original post, are you saying "Let KAs be bought 5/d6 like normal attacks, but they do -1 STUN per die with a minimum of 1 per die". (bold added by me)

 

This only raises the average stun for 30 AP from 15 to 16. Still short of the 18.67 avg stun that 30 AP of standard KA does.

 

Or am I totally misunderstanding you?

[JamesG]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I'm wondering why you don't just give a bonus body for 6s and treat 1-5 as 1 body.

 

It's almost the same thing, averages the same as above and eliminates a step.

 

Because doing it that way creates a high "floor". For instance, with 30 AP (6 dice) you would ALWAYS do at least 6 Body. If you do it the suggested way (no Body on 1, 2 Body on 5 and 6) you can have results lower than 6 Body.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

I don't get what you are saying here. Can you please elaborate? Going back to your original post' date=' are you saying "Let KAs be bought 5/d6 like normal attacks, but they do -1 STUN per die [b']with a minimum of 1 per die[/b]". (bold added by me)

 

This only raises the average stun for 30 AP from 15 to 16. Still short of the 18.67 avg stun that 30 AP of standard KA does.

 

Phil's model keeps average BOD the same, bit does lower the average stun. If you wanted a system where average STUN is closer to the current model, the closest I think you can get is to add STUN normally, then subtract 1 STUN for every 3d6 of attack, to get an average of 9.5 per 15 AP, versus the present 9 1/3, a minor increase to average Stun.

[JamesG]

Re: Change the STUN Multiple Rule?

 

Phil's model keeps average BOD the same' date=' bit does lower the average stun. If you wanted a system where average STUN is closer to the current model, the closest I think you can get is to add STUN normally, then subtract 1 STUN for every 3d6 of attack, to get an average of 9.5 per 15 AP, versus the present 9 1/3, a minor increase to average Stun.[/quote']

 

Hmm, or you could do -1 stun per 2d6, for an average of 9 stun per 15 AP. Slightly lower than the regular average of 9.33, but not dramatically so. And dividing by 2 on the fly is easier than 3.