A new basis for PRE atatcks

[Sean Waters]

It is no secret that I do not particularly like Hero PRE attacks.

 

OTOH do recognise that 'morale' can and should play a part in Hero, or any rpg.

 

Freakishly enough I think this is one best left to discretion. PRE attacks, as Hero defines them, do not apply to characters in any genre, period.

 

PRE attacks as I understand them*, occur in every genre.

 

Here is how I'd do it, let to my own devices. This is a dice based system but should allow a lot of GM discretion:

 

1. There is no such thing as the 'Look at my magnificence and surrender' mechanic: you want that, you shell out for mind control.

 

2. If one side has a winning streak and the other doesn't (or has a losing streak) THEN morale can crumble. Roll PRE (9+PRE/5), aiming to get 11 or less, subject to penalties.

 

3. A winning/losing streak is this:

a) The first time in a combat that one side succeeds with all it rolls to hit and the other side fails with all its rolls to hit.

The first time one side takes a casualty (KO or death)

c) One side rolls several excellent hist (8 or less) in a turn and does not tae any casualties

 

4. The Penalties are as follows (all -2):

a) A character of equivalent power on the team is 'one shotted'

The majority of the team are at 1/2 stun or less

c) The majority of the team have taken Body dmage in this combat

d) Something spectacular happens which prejudices the team

e) Other side clearly has an overall 'power' advantage

 

5. A 'leadder' character can use social skills to offset penalties for others: roll PRE and every +2 improves friendly morale checs by +1

 

6. Every character rolls individually (or of therere are a lot per unit: eg per 4 or per 16 individuals) or whatever. On a fail:

-1 or -2: lose 1/2 phase

-3 or -4: must take a defensive combat maneouvre next phase

-5 or -6 or more: must retreat at least 1/2 move and can only take defensive maneouvres next turn

-7 or more: surrender

 

Thoughts?

 

 

*Something shocking or unexpected happens and it causes some people to hesitate or even causes some to have a collapse of courage

[secretID]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

I'm with you on the overall goal, and especially on #1.

 

I'd rather see the things in 4 and 5 (and 6, I guess) all factored together, and possibly tweaked. I know that sounds like moving back toward the present system, but you can just say that instead of PRE attacks whenever you want, there's a periodic check, or a check when something hits a tipping point, or something like that. I guess my point is that I wouldn't give the #3 items such special status.

[Trebuchet]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

I couldn't agree more about #1. OTOH, I don't allow PRE attacks to affect more than mooks or normals anyway. Heroes and named villains might hesitate or possibly even retreat, but I'm more inclined to base that decision on an INT roll based on the tactical situation and PsychLims like Overconfident or Never Retreats.

 

If Galactus can't get the Fantastic Four to simply give up despite being 200 feet tall and wielding literally god-like powers, I'm not going to accept that Presence Man can do it just because he bought a 50 PRE. That just means any Interaction Skills he bought are at incredible (19- or better) levels.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

There's different kinds of PRE attacks: general intimidation, inspirational leadership, barking orders. There's "Come on. Give me the gun." There's "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

 

I think that we should have separate Skills to handle each of these, and do away with the CHA, CHA+10, CHA+20, etc. mechanic. Only problem is, I still can't figure out how to do Mind Control.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

There's different kinds of PRE attacks: general intimidation, inspirational leadership, barking orders. There's "Come on. Give me the gun." There's "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

 

I think that we should have separate Skills to handle each of these, and do away with the CHA, CHA+10, CHA+20, etc. mechanic. Only problem is, I still can't figure out how to do Mind Control.

 

I think a lot of what we currently use PRE attacks for could and should be done with skill rolls and role playing. I suppose this idea is more of a morale rule than a direct replacement for PRE attacks as we know them.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

I'm with you on the overall goal, and especially on #1.

 

I'd rather see the things in 4 and 5 (and 6, I guess) all factored together, and possibly tweaked. I know that sounds like moving back toward the present system, but you can just say that instead of PRE attacks whenever you want, there's a periodic check, or a check when something hits a tipping point, or something like that. I guess my point is that I wouldn't give the #3 items such special status.

 

This is very much a work in progress and I welcome any ideas as to how it might be refined.

 

The #3 items could be seen as examples as to thinkgs that could test courage. It may be that you could buy bonuses for certain situations: veteran soldiers are less likely to break under fire than green recruits.

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

3. A winning/losing streak is this:

a) The first time in a combat that one side succeeds with all it rolls to hit and the other side fails with all its rolls to hit.

The first time one side takes a casualty (KO or death)

c) One side rolls several excellent hits (8 or less) in a turn and does not take any casualties

One problem with this is that it depends very much on the size of a "side". In a one-on-one match, every hit will trigger (a), and in big matches, ( is very common, but shouldn't matter much.

Perhaps better:

a) The leader or primary champion of a side falls.

More than half of a side has fallen while less than one-third of the opposing side has fallen (major characters and mooks counted and tested seperately).

 

- Klaus

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

One problem with this is that it depends very much on the size of a "side". In a one-on-one match, every hit will trigger (a), and in big matches, ( is very common, but shouldn't matter much.

Perhaps better:

a) The leader or primary champion of a side falls.

More than half of a side has fallen while less than one-third of the opposing side has fallen (major characters and mooks counted and tested seperately).

 

- Klaus

 

 

Sounds good: maybe also for one on one combat being down to 10 or less STUN, or 0 or less BODY - it is usually quite rare for people to surrender but this might encourage it!

[secretID]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

Adding specificity to my earlier comment...

1. There is no such thing as the 'Look at my magnificence and surrender' mechanic: you want that' date=' you shell out for mind control.[/quote']

Absolutely. And you no longer have to wonder why you would Drain/Suppress PRE instead of just buying PRE.

 

2. If one side has a winning streak and the other doesn't (or has a losing streak)

I like this, but I would define the streaks differently.

 

3. A winning/losing streak is this:

a) The first time in a combat that one side succeeds with all it rolls to hit and the other side fails with all its rolls to hit.

The first time one side takes a casualty (KO or death)

What was already said.

 

c) One side rolls several excellent hist (8 or less) in a turn and does not tae any casualties

I don't like the extra effect of luck. Hmm...or is it extra? Anyway, I think it's redundant at best, but maybe I'm missing something.

 

Instead of the #3 list, I'd like something like:

- opposing side obtains [X] unanswered hits in a row

- substantial shift in odds against your side - no good ideas at the moment for defining "substantial"

- "Something spectacular happens which prejudices the team"

 

Then, instead of just penalties, I'd like factors:

- one side and/or the other is down to 1/2 stun or less

- majority on one side and/or the other has taken BODY

- clear power advantage either way

- visible leader(s) on one side and/or the other successfully using PRE appropriate skills

- "A character of equivalent power on the team is 'one shotted'" - applied either way

- other stuff?

 

6. Every character rolls individually (or of therere are a lot per unit: eg per 4 or per 16 individuals) or whatever. On a fail:

-1 or -2: lose 1/2 phase

-3 or -4: must take a defensive combat maneouvre next phase

-5 or -6 or more: must retreat at least 1/2 move and can only take defensive maneouvres next turn

-7 or more: surrender

I like this. I think I'd rather have the roll vs. EGO. Defensive PRE has never made much sense to me.

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

Nice guidelines I would say, esp. #1 (although I might let an Interaction skill be used in place of Mind Control in some cases). I do think there should be some kind of PRE mechanic, just not necessarily the PRE chart, or at least not without the GM being able to overrule it as needed. Unfortunately, arbitrary rulings by the GM like that tend to irritate players, hence the need for a mechanic to govern it.

 

I think PRE attacks should work more like a Change Environment type of ability, where it might force a PRE roll or EGO roll (either as a skill vs. skill type contest or with penalties as you noted), and failure on the part of the victim means they lose an action and/or some DCV. The amount of time or DCV lost would depend on how badly the roll was failed. I have not really thought out exactly how that would be implemented, but it seems to me it would keep PRE attacks from being quite so powerful.

[Karmakaze]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

I think a lot of what we currently use PRE attacks for could and should be done with skill rolls and role playing. I suppose this idea is more of a morale rule than a direct replacement for PRE attacks as we know them.

 

There can be some question about when a PRE Attack would be better or worse than a PRE roll.

 

Consider the Pulp trick of summoning a taxi by hiking a skirt up past the knee. Probably a PRE roll (with a COM roll as complimentary, until 6E, anyway ) (Arguably Streetwise could come in there somewhere as well.) Launching a PRE Attack on the taxi driver would be kind of an odd way of doing that.

 

Now what if the PC isn't trying to summon a taxi, but to stop traffic. (Maybe she wants to cause a traffic jam to slow a getaway car, or something). Again, the PRE roll makes sense, but a PRE Attack also works.

 

Now the same PC wants to cause a distraction so her friends can slip out of a cocktail party unnoticed. You could use the same PRE roll to see how she affects the crowd as a whole. Or... use the PRE Attack and then the characters in the audience with resistance to Presence can have a chance to notice while the rest are mesmerized - which I think works better than the flat skill roll.

[secretID]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

There can be some question about when a PRE Attack would be better or worse than a PRE roll.

 

Consider the Pulp trick of summoning a taxi by hiking a skirt up past the knee. Probably a PRE roll (with a COM roll as complimentary, until 6E, anyway ) (Arguably Streetwise could come in there somewhere as well.) Launching a PRE Attack on the taxi driver would be kind of an odd way of doing that.

 

Now what if the PC isn't trying to summon a taxi, but to stop traffic. (Maybe she wants to cause a traffic jam to slow a getaway car, or something). Again, the PRE roll makes sense, but a PRE Attack also works.

 

Now the same PC wants to cause a distraction so her friends can slip out of a cocktail party unnoticed. You could use the same PRE roll to see how she affects the crowd as a whole. Or... use the PRE Attack and then the characters in the audience with resistance to Presence can have a chance to notice while the rest are mesmerized - which I think works better than the flat skill roll.

I'd call those Seduction.

[Sean Waters]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

There can be some question about when a PRE Attack would be better or worse than a PRE roll.

 

Consider the Pulp trick of summoning a taxi by hiking a skirt up past the knee. Probably a PRE roll (with a COM roll as complimentary, until 6E, anyway ) (Arguably Streetwise could come in there somewhere as well.) Launching a PRE Attack on the taxi driver would be kind of an odd way of doing that.

 

Now what if the PC isn't trying to summon a taxi, but to stop traffic. (Maybe she wants to cause a traffic jam to slow a getaway car, or something). Again, the PRE roll makes sense, but a PRE Attack also works.

 

Now the same PC wants to cause a distraction so her friends can slip out of a cocktail party unnoticed. You could use the same PRE roll to see how she affects the crowd as a whole. Or... use the PRE Attack and then the characters in the audience with resistance to Presence can have a chance to notice while the rest are mesmerized - which I think works better than the flat skill roll.

 

 

You could use an Acting roll: those members of the audience not taken in by the performance (acting margin of success v an opposed roll, say Perception, or even acting (She's putting that on - I wonder why?)) might get suspicious and look around.

 

I've often thought we could be more logical about our interaction skills:

 

Argue: INTv INT - convince someone of a logical proposition

 

Bluff: PRE v PER - convince someone of a proposition based on lies or spurious logic

 

Bribe: PRE v EGO - convince someone of a proposition be appeal to self interest

 

Dissemble: INT v PER - prevent someone from getting information out of you by bending the truth

 

Distraction: COM or PRE v EGO - keep someone's attention on you

 

Intimidate: PRE (or maybe STR) v EGO - convince someone of a proposition by threat

 

Persuasion: PRE v EGO - convince someone of a proposition by appeal to emotion

 

Torture: EGO v EGO - convince someone of a proposition by physical and/or psychological force

 

 

Something like that. then specific skills (acting, bureaucratics) would be done with some sort of skill adder of specific levels.

[Kenn]

Re: A new basis for PRE atatcks

 

There's different kinds of PRE attacks: general intimidation, inspirational leadership, barking orders. There's "Come on. Give me the gun." There's "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die."

 

I think that we should have separate Skills to handle each of these, and do away with the CHA, CHA+10, CHA+20, etc. mechanic. Only problem is, I still can't figure out how to do Mind Control.

 

Prince Humperdinck: First things first, to the death!

 

Westley: No. To the pain!

 

Prince Humperdinck: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.

 

Westley: I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.

 

Prince Humperdinck: That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.

 

Westley: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.

 

Prince Humperdinck: And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.

 

Westley: I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.

 

Prince Humperdinck: And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.

 

Westley: WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.

 

Prince Humperdinck: I think your bluffing.

 

Westley: It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.

 

(slowly rises and points sword directly at the prince)

 

Westley: DROP... YOUR... SWORD!