Should Abort be automatic?

[Markdoc]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

You are right that DFC is the most glaring problem. If I am reading it right' date=' you can DFC as part of a dodge, to avoid AoE attacks (but not single target attacks). Even if you limit it to avoiding AoE you STILL have the same logic problems though, if Mr Incredibly Fast AoE Attacker is trying to hit Mr Slow, especially if Mr IFAoEA has small AoE attacks.[/quote']

 

I see that as a plus, not a problem, since small AoEs usually smell of what our French cousins call "le fromage" - especially since a DEX roll is required, making success far from certain. And to be honest, I don't really see a panic reaction (an abort) giving mr Slow a change to get away from Mr Fast's attack as a problem in the first place. Being able to take an abort (assuming you haven't already acted that phase) is automatic ... success is not!

 

To be clear I'm not suggesting there is a problem with the aborting mechanism, which is straightforward, but with the logic, or lack of logic, of allowing abort to be automatically effective.

Let us try a more realistic example:

 

1. 6 SPD 24 DEX 8 CV super v

2. 3 SPD 15 DEX 5 CV agent (x4 agents)

 

It makes sense for the agents to abort to dodge every time they are attacked by the super because then they equal the CV of the agent, and they can avoid attacks over 1/3 of the time. Once they are dodging they retain the benefit until they next act. They probably will not WIN but they will delay the super a lot longer then is perhaps warranted AND once the super attacks one of them, they know the rest are 'safe' to attack with multiple attacker bonuses and coordination. They could get lucky and take him down.

 

Obviously this is not a gamebreaker, but it does not really make sense that the 'twice as fast' superhero should have even these problems.

 

You say there is not a problem with the mechanism, I'm looking for a reason for the mechanism in the first place.

 

I'm still not seeing a problem here: either gamewise or logic-wise. Aborting simulates the real life "Imma outa'here" panic reaction and fills a real (and frequently needed) use in play. Those two needs are sufficient for me, though we could probbaly think of more.

 

cheers, Mark

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

We can argue about what those tactics actually should be but we stray from the point; what need does abort being automatic actually fill? What would the downside of taking away automatic aborting be? If we had never had it would we perceive a need for it?

It gives you the certinity that you can always abort to dodge (except for the segment in wich you attack). The active defense is a important part of hero and that you can take your phases early (with no adverse effect) means you don't have to hold your phases.

 

Without it you eitehr have to hold your phase alltogehter, or be unable to defend yourself reliably in the next few segments.

 

Two things Chirstopher.

1)What does END have to do combat values?

It has to do with exhaustion. Every try to hit your target costs endurance/charges. Especially with Block any attack (no mater how weak) could break your sequence.

 

By the way' date=' I noticed the discussion went from agents to elite agents. I agree that if I was using elites, then they would use things such as dive for cover. However, so far I have been using VIPER standard agents and since my version of these agents are goons with "super" guns, they don't have the training to do all those fancy manuevers! [/quote']

My point exactly. Don't play the agents smarter then they should be. Normal agents have "not the best battle plans" written onto thier sheet. Especially when fighting agaisnt people multiple times stronger and faster than them.

The normal 275 point agent (Champions 6E) doesn't even has a teamwork or tactic skill - despite it being much more usefull and power that +2 CSL for thier main attack.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

What powerlevel was the Super? Was he perhaps a brick with enough defense or a martial Artist with enough DC that he could ignore active defense at all?

 

What difference does it make to the discussion of whether Abort should automatically allow the defensive action to go first? We're not talking about whether the Super succeeds in aborting, but whether the agent(s) do.

 

If so' date=' he does not wastes phases on aborting and still will take the enemy down.[/quote']

 

He wasn't using any phases on aborting in my example, and no one is saying that the ability of the agents to abort means that the hero will not eventually take them down. I, at least, am saying that it does not seem prima facie reasonable that the fellow reacting to being attacked can always manage to react in time for the attack to be affected. This seems less reasonable the greater the discrepancy in reaction time (measured by SPD, DEX or what have you) between attacker and defender. It seems like the fellow with the better reflexes would be more likely to be able to react in time to affect the attack which he is reacting to.

 

You obviously think that the "senior citicen" has no chance at all. Should never have one. I can agree on that. So why are you rolling it out at all? When you roll dice' date=' you want the Chance to fail being part of the action. You wanted chances to fail, you got chances to fail. It's like saying "you have to roll system operations to turn on the light" and then complain about the chance that your Player Charactes can fail that roll.[/quote']

 

Your grasp of the obvious seems to have failed. I think it is reasonable that the senior citizen should have a chance of not being able to react quickly enough for his action to impede the attack. I also think the likelihood of the defender - ANY defender - reacting quickly enough should reasonably depend, at least in part, on the relative capabilities - reaction speed, etc. - of the two individuals. I also think that we have, in Hero RAW, chosen to ignore these reasonable expectations in the interests of permitting the defender to have a better opportunity to defend. And finally, I think that there may well be game settings and tones where that RAW would appropriately be modified to NOT ignore these reasonable expectations.

 

Then the GM plays the Mooks beyond thier abilities. So we are again at your "a bad GM will missuse that rule" deadbeat argument.

 

OK, the typical VIPER agent has better stats and training than a professional soldier or police officer, but letting him use tactics is playing him beyond his abilities. Funny - we don't suggest a middle aged scientist struck by lightning and given bizarre superpowers, coming in with no combat training or experience, should not be permitted full access to all the combat maneuvers, nor the choice to use them intelligently. The "solution" of plot induced stupidity for most or all NPC's is not a solution.

 

Because the PC has a brain and is the protagonist' date=' while the Agent is just an extra to somewhat even the fight/have a little danger?[/quote']

 

The PC may well be a high school student randomly chosen by a floating spaceship to be gifted with superpowers. How does that make him more entitled to use reasonable tactics than a trained combatant? Personally, I don't envision VIPER handing a bunch of new recruits a blaster and a uniform and saying "Now get out there and FIGHT, boys!" I envision them as actually training their recruits, which is one reason their recruits are so vastly superior to the "average human" when they show up in uniform with a blaster.

 

It boils down to two possibilities:

1. This agent is not overly relevant. Wheter you just stop tracking him after reaching -10 or track his recovery and let him surrender/slip away - he is out of combat.

2. He is relevant/would again go into the fight after being barely recovered. You track his recovery either way.

When both techniques/approaches have the same result, wheter you use one or the other makes no difference.

 

"Combatant" and "relevant" are not synonyms. If that one VIPER agent can slip away, he:

- may be able to grab the McGuffin while everyone else is busy;

- might be able to call in reinforcements;

- can certainly report back to HQ with a report on who attacked them, and what powers and tactics they used;

- is not available to be questioned by the heroes

 

Those all seem to be potentially relevant from where I sit, even though they don't involve any to hit or damage rolls. YMMV.

 

DFC vs. HTH is a last ditch effort. As I see my source material' date=' it has the advantage of being relatively sure way to avoid the attack, at the expense of putting you in a very disadvantageous position.[/quote']

 

As has already been pointed out, it is a pretty effective choice for an overmatched opponent, especially if he has teammates.

 

Your point eludes me. It probably aborted to Dive For Cover.

 

It aborted to Invisibility and Desolid, I think.

 

But I understand the point' date=' it does make you think-how cn that happen? Myself I just chaulk it up the some of the vagrancies of the game.[/quote']

 

Yup. So I'd say this thread is about "how to we make that 'how can that happen' less likely. Perhaps it happened by a fluke that could never recur (ie he rolled a 3 when he needed one), but right now it happens automatically.

 

By the way' date=' I noticed the discussion went from agents to elite agents. I agree that if I was using elites, then they would use things such as dive for cover. However, so far I have been using VIPER standard agents and since my version of these agents are goons with "super" guns, they don't have the training to do all those fancy manuevers! [/quote']

 

I don't find "jump out of the way" all that fancy. I do think VIPER does more than hand the guy a rifle and say "go to it".

 

My point exactly. Don't play the agents smarter then they should be. Normal agents have "not the best battle plans" written onto thier sheet. Especially when fighting agaisnt people multiple times stronger and faster than them.

The normal 275 point agent (Champions 6E) doesn't even has a teamwork or tactic skill - despite it being much more usefull and power that +2 CSL for thier main attack.

 

I see very few Supers with Teamwork or Tactics. And most have no combat training as rookie Supers. Why would they have superior battle plans with these four guys they happened to meet up with to the plans devised over years or decades of the organization opposing them using and training their agents? Seriously, agents aren't trained in "If a Super hits you dead on, we are down one agent for an extended time, or possibly forever, so get out of his way"?

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Btw Hugh my standard VIPER agents do have lower stats to reflect their more normalness. I used Type 1 from the Gadgets books and I even gave them speed 2. (Though spped 2 is boring when fighting my daughters speed 6, perhaps I'll switch them up to speed 3).

 

And I keep musing that (at least as of 5th ed) Dive for Cover is considered an optional manuever. Even though in every game I've played in, its considered a standard manuever.

[Christopher]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Your grasp of the obvious seems to have failed. I think it is reasonable that the senior citizen should have a chance of not being able to react quickly enough for his action to impede the attack. I also think the likelihood of the defender - ANY defender - reacting quickly enough should reasonably depend' date=' at least in part, on the relative capabilities - reaction speed, etc. - of the two individuals.[/quote']

And there is the trick:

Dive for Cover does not suffer from the problem of relative skills. That is it's advantage. It's ONLY advantage.

But it also suffers from much more penalties than ANY other defense Maneuver. And it usually is a one shoot - it only affects one attack, not "everything until your next phase". Indeed it makes you much more vulnerable to follow up attacks (and seriously, don't come with the press again; they are armed, that is a fight, they are valid targets as long as they haven't give up or are out of comission).

 

OK' date=' the typical VIPER agent has better stats and training than a professional soldier or police officer, but letting him use tactics is playing him beyond his abilities. Funny - we don't suggest a middle aged scientist struck by lightning and given bizarre superpowers, coming in with no combat training or experience, should not be permitted full access to all the combat maneuvers, nor the choice to use them intelligently. The "solution" of plot induced stupidity for most or all NPC's is not a solution.[/quote']

One is a protagonist. A unique being in the world. With it's own set a powers, skills, complications, characteristics, etc. A set he propably shares with nobody else.

 

The other a non-protagonist, whose point value is based on "being just enough to be relevant to the supers in a fight" (275 vs. 400 points super). They don't even have points set back to personalize them a little. They all have the same Complciations. They have a basic person INT, no Tactics or Teamwork roll. They also have a martial Arts package wich Includes Martial Dodge and Martial Block, so they are propably better of doing this instead against single target attacks.

 

Letting the agents not use Dive for Cover against HTH-Attacks makes totally sense. And any defense but dive for cover takes relative power into consideration already.

 

 

As I understand neither Hugh nor Sean are arguing that Aborting (to DFC) should be less reliable for Heroes/Superheroes and Villains. All you two argue is that it should be less reliable for unrelevant characters (Agents).

If you really apply that houserule, then you make aborting less reliable for Agents, but also PC's/Villains.

So if you just wouldn't use DFC to much for Agents, you don't have to penalise everyone for using it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

And there is the trick:

Dive for Cover does not suffer from the problem of relative skills. That is it's advantage. It's ONLY advantage.

But it also suffers from much more penalties than ANY other defense Maneuver. And it usually is a one shoot - it only affects one attack, not "everything until your next phase". Indeed it makes you much more vulnerable to follow up attacks (and seriously, don't come with the press again; they are armed, that is a fight, they are valid targets as long as they haven't give up or are out of comission).

 

The big DFC advantage for a large group of lower SPD characters who are likely to be taken out with a single shot (or, perhaps Stunned with the first hit and KO'd with the next), and unlikely to be missed by that single shot, is dragging out the inevitable. Let's assume spread Blast can hit three agents (a much more common tactic for dealing with agents if one has no AoE option) and reliably Stun them, or a single target blast will drop the agent reliably (so these are definite mooks). If the agents just stand there and take it, they get no action anyway. If they Abort to DFC, they get a shot at forcing the Super to use another action on them, which is potentially one more attack their teammate can fire off.

 

Let's go back to that 12 agent structure. They have 3 SPD, and our hero has a 6 SPD.

 

(a) No Abort to DFC - every phase, Super hits 3 targets, Stunning them the first hit and KO'ing them the second. What happens?

 

- Phase 12, he Stuns three of them. The other 9 blast him. [Mooks - 9 OK, 3 Stunned; 3 Wounded, 0 KO'd; hero has taken 9 attacks].

- Phase 2, he KO's the three he stunned.

- Phase 4, he Stuns 3 more. The other 6 blast him. [Mooks - 6 OK, 3 Stunned; 3 Wounded, 3 KO'd; hero has taken 15 attacks].

- Phase 6, he KO's the three he stunned.

- Phase 8, he Stuns 3 more. The other 3 blast him. [Mooks - 3 OK, 3 Stunned; 3 Wounded, 6 KO'd; hero has taken 18 attacks].

- Phase 10, he KO's the three he stunned.

- Phase 12, he Stuns the last 3. He wins. [Mooks - 0 OK, 3 Stunned; 3 Wounded, 9 KO'd; hero has taken 18 attacks; hero has won the battle].

 

( No Abort to DFC - every phase, Super attacks 3 targets, 2 abort and one is hit, Stunning him the first hit and KO'ing them the second. What happens?

 

- Phase 12, he Stuns one of them, 2 Dive. The other 9 blast him. [Mooks - 11 OK, 1 Stunned; 1 Wounded, 0 KO'd; hero has taken 9 attacks].

- Phase 2, he KO's the one he stunned, and Stuns the 2 that used DFC [Mooks - 9 OK, 2 Stunned; 2 Wounded, 1 KO'd; hero has taken 9 attacks].

- Phase 4, he Stuns 1 more and 2 DFC. The other 6 blast him. [Mooks - 8 OK, 3 Stunned; 3 Wounded, 1 KO'd; hero has taken 15 attacks].

- Phase 6, he KO's the three he stunned. [Mooks - 8 OK, 0 Stunned; 0 Wounded, 4 KO'd; hero has taken 15 attacks].

- Phase 8, he Stuns 1 more and 2 DFC. The other 5 blast him. [Mooks - 7 OK, 1 Stunned; 1 Wounded, 4 KO'd; hero has taken 20 attacks].

- Phase 10, he KO's the one he stunned and Stuns the two that used DFC.[Mooks - 5 OK, 2 Stunned; 2 Wounded, 5 KO'd; hero has taken 20 attacks].

- Phase 12, he Stuns one more and 2 DFC. That leaves 2 who attack [Mooks - 4 OK, 3 Stunned; 3 Wounded, 5 KO'd; hero has taken 22 attacks].

 

PS 12: KO'd agents are either deeply KO'd or recover a bit, but are still far from conscious. Any who do manage to recover slink away.

 

- Phase 2 he KO's the three that were Stunned [Mooks - 4 OK, 0 Stunned; 0 Wounded, 8 KO'd; hero has taken 22 attacks].

 

- Phase 4 he Stuns one and 2 are prone from DFC, one fires [Mooks - 3 OK, 1 Stunned; 1 Wounded, 8 KO'd; hero has taken 23 attacks].

 

- Phase 6 - KO the stunned guy and Stun the DFC guys [Mooks - 1 OK, 2 Stunned; 2 Wounded, 9 KO'd; hero has taken 23 attacks].

 

- Phase 8 - hit all three, stunning 2 and KO'ing one, battle over in Phase 10.

 

Case (a) - agents get to fire 18 times and keep the hero busy for a turn. Case ( they fire 23 times, a significant increase, and keep the hero busy almost twice as long. I find that a significant increase.

 

Can we get different results by changing up the targets? Probably, but the Aborting Agents will still outlast their "Stand and fight" counterparts.

 

Can they use Martial Dodge or Martial Block instead? Sure. If they have a base DCV of, say, 5 (pretty common) and Our Hero is OCV 8, Martial Dodge will be even more more effective, as their bonus DCV will continue in their "off" phases, so they will still be missed more than hit. They can drag things out even longer. And it seems fair to believe that, if they are trained in those maneuvers, they have at least an idea of when they will be effective. If DFC is more effective, they would reasonably use that instead.

 

The specifics of the example are not crucial. The simple point is that the ability to Abort while outnumbering the opponent makes the agents a greater threat, and a much greater timewaster, than they otherwise would be.

 

One is a protagonist. A unique being in the world. With it's own set a powers' date=' skills, complications, characteristics, etc. A set he propably shares with nobody else.The other a non-protagonist, whose point value is based on "being just enough to be relevant to the supers in a fight" (275 vs. 400 points super). They don't even have points set back to personalize them a little. They all have the same Complciations. They have a basic person INT, no Tactics or Teamwork roll. They also have a martial Arts package wich Includes Martial Dodge and Martial Block, so they are propably better of doing this instead against single target attacks.[/quote']

 

If one wants full verisimilitude, one should fully stat out each agent. They are likely a bit different. But we use one set of stats as a simplifying assumption. They all have Everyman skills that we don't define that would make each a slightly different character, but those abilities aren't going to come up in play, so we leave them as cannon fodder.

 

We can always assume they each have another few points in complications and some more character points that are used to buy individually personalizing things that don't come up in play. The characters perceive them as Faceless Hordes because that's the efficient way to run them, not because they are Clone Troopers exactly identical in all ways. If we want to dig deeper, we can, but what's the point?

 

You place them at 275 points. Given a standard Heroic character is 150 or 175, and those PC's are reasonably viewed as pretty elite, I suggest these agents are elite as well. I would not deny a 175 point Heroic character geared up with 100 points of equipment as "a mook; doesn't use any tactics and forgets most of the maneuvers", so why should I deny the agents the same advantages? These are trained agents - they should act like it. They should, "realistically" (and I use the term in the verisimilitude sense, not the "in the real world" sense) have an equal or better understanding of small unit tactics, and possibly even agent vs Supers combat, than most Supers. We didn't see their previous experience, but they don't spring fully formed from the void- they have a history, and experience.

 

Letting the agents not use Dive for Cover against HTH-Attacks makes totally sense. And any defense but dive for cover takes relative power into consideration already.

 

Why is it HTH? For HTH, it's worse. Block works well. Getting three agents close together to attack HTH at the same time is pretty tough, so picking them off is even slower going. And we're not really talking about "the defense", although we have definitely gotten bogged down in DFC, taking relative ability into consideration. We're talking about Abort taking relative ability into consideration. The Agent is able to react to Dodge or Block every time, without fail, just as he can attempt to DFC every time, without fail. In fact, DFC is the only defense that can utterly fail (not enhance DCV or provide the potential to nullify the attack), as it's the only one that requires a roll by the user to pull off.

 

As I understand neither Hugh nor Sean are arguing that Aborting (to DFC) should be less reliable for Heroes/Superheroes and Villains. All you two argue is that it should be less reliable for unrelevant characters (Agents).

 

I think the agents make for a good example due to the wide disparity in ability across the board, but I don't think it's unreasonable that the slow, ponderous Brick should have a tougher time Aborting to address an attack just launched by a speedy Martial Artist. I think any fix I adopted would apply across the board to leave a chance an Abort would not cut the line in front of an action in progress, but at this point I believe we are discussing "should any change be made at all", and not "what would that change be".

 

However, let us assume that we want, in this specific campaign, Abort to be less reliable. If you Hold a phase, you can attempt to interrupt another target's action by making an opposed DEX roll. Defensive actions, RAW, have two advantages over other actions in this regard. First, you can use a future phase to implement them, not just a held phase. Second, you win the opposed DEX roll automatically. So what could we change if we want to change the feel?

 

We can change Abort:

 

- we could just disallow Abort entirely. I don't like that approach, but it's an option. You want to be able to react in any way, you must have a held phase. No advance planning means you take what's dished out between your actions.

 

- we could allow Abort to any action (movement, attack etc.). So when Speedster zooms in, you can Abort to DFC, or Dodge, or Trip, should you so desire. Assuming no change to the defensive vs offensive rules (next issue - wait for it!), the DFC or Dodge works automatically, but you need an opposed DEX roll to pull off the Trip.

 

- or we could just change the list of things you can abort to, somewhere between the two.

 

We can change the DEX roll rules:

 

- perhaps someone with a Held Action or an Abort can automatically move before the person whose action is reacted to. This would make for very dynamic, and very confusing, combat. It also seems to make the held action or the Abort overpowered, but it's an option.

 

- maybe every action taken out of turn imposes an opposed DEX roll, so you need to roll to Dodge, Block or Trip that incoming speedster. Now offensive and defensive choices are on a more level playing field, reducing the power of defensive choices.

 

- maybe that opposed DEX roll gets bonuses for certain actions. Let's assume we want an advantage for defensive actions, but not for them to be automatic. Perhaps they get a +4 to the opposed DEX rolls, so they are much more likely to succeed (but suddenly 8 DEX Grandpa trying to Abort against 38 DEX speedster is not an auto success by any stretch - Speedy still has the better roll in a situation that disparate). Perhaps Abort imposes a -1 or -2 DEX roll for every segment before your next phase, so the quicker you try to Abort after your last phase, the less likely you are to recover from your last action and successfully implement this one. Maybe that penalty does not apply to defensive actions, so they are easier to abort to (similar to RAW) but not automatic (unlike RAW). Perhaps you get a bonus for a held action (maybe +1 or +2 for every phase since you could have acted).

 

If you really apply that houserule' date=' then you make aborting less reliable for Agents, but also PC's/Villains.[/quote']

 

Yes, we do. That was the initial discussion point, wasn't it Sean? What implications will this have for the game? How will it change the dynamic, and how would combat strategy and tactics likely evolve to recognize these changes? I noted early on that it would definitely mean characters reliant on activating their defenses a la Force Field would become much rarer (if not in construction, certainly as they get killed off in Seg 12 in practice). It would make attacking now and relying on an Abort next segment much less effective as a tactic. No doubt, we would see issues in play that cause us to fine tune our choices (eg. maybe -2 per segment is overly hindering Abort as compared to my desired combat feel, so it needs to be reduced to -1, or perhaps that bonus for defensive actions leaves them more reliable than we wanted, so it needs to be cut down).

 

It seems like this would present options for customizing your game, the feel of your campaign specifically. Aren't options a good thing?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

They have a basic person INT' date=' no Tactics or Teamwork roll.[/quote']

 

OK, let's ignore the question of what INT allows you to do (ie whether Professor Hawking should be more skilled in combat tactics than a street tough). The question this raises for me is the extent to which combat options should be denied to characters lacking tactics skills, teamwork skills, etc.

 

Should we look to the players trying putting together a battle plan, and remind them that none of their characters have the Tactics skill, so their plan should be full of holes, or do we allow some basic tactical planning without the skill? If the agents need the skill to manage basic planning, then so do the PC's.

 

Should we deny the PC's the ability to leverage some basic synergies between their abilities because they have not purchased the Teamwork skill? "Fastball Special? NFW - you'd both need Teamwork 15- to pull that one off!" The GM is certainly within his rights to require a roll to co-ordinate, and the Teamwork skill enhances that, but I don't believe the lack of the skill precludes characters trying to strike as a unit "All together now - one, two, three". It just limits the likelihood they will succeed.

 

The agents should be no less able to exercise tactics and teamwork than PC's with the same skills (or lack thereof).

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

The agents should be no less able to exercise tactics and teamwork than PC's with the same skills (or lack thereof).

 

Why should they? Here is a few reasons why agents shouldn't:

 

Representing source material/Tropes: If playing Star Wars, Stormtroopers don't show that they are highly skilled though the claim is made. But according to TV tropes, one reason was as Princess Leia said "They let us go" perhaps they missed on purpose. Also ninja never attack in groups, always one at a time.

 

Roleplaying Combat: Take VIPER for instance, I have the standard agents not using optional manuever because they are just goons with technology. The five-man team from the BBB of course they have more of the optional rules, they are trained agents designed to take on supers.

 

Metagame: If I run a more Romantized (versus Realistic) game, why should I give mooks an advantage over the hero or the villian? I don't have as deadly killing attacks for the game for the same reason.

 

Game master: I don't want to use the rule because a)I'm not familiar yet with it. It slows down the game. c) Players aren't familiar with it and I'm teaching the basics first.

 

Like I said previous, I do see reasons why the agents should be able to use the rules too. But to me, it comes down to (as with just about everything else in this game) is it going to enhance the game, and fun for all? If yes, then add it, if no then don't.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

Representing source material/Tropes: If playing Star Wars' date=' Stormtroopers don't show that they are highly skilled though the claim is made.[/quote']

 

They don't? Seems like they:

 

- did OK taking Tantive IV.

- had little difficulty tracking R2D2 to the Lars Moisture Farm

- almost fooled the PC's into believing that was a Sand People attack

- had Mos Eisley locked down pretty good - the Falcon barely got out

- found Hoth and effectively invaded the Rebel Base

- occupied Cloud City and kept it under wraps for quite a while

- prevented the Rebellion leaqrning about that second Death Star through most of its construction (building a spacecraft the size of a small moon must require a lot of resources directed to one location, and not one likely to use those resources for more obvious means)

- kept them from realizing it was operational, and backed up by a huge fleet, until the trap was sprung

 

And that's just direct from the movies.

 

Are they "not highly skilled" or are the PC's "even more skilled"? The rebellion didn't seem to accomplish much without the PC's - are they all a bunch of unskilled clods too?

 

Roleplaying Combat: Take VIPER for instance' date=' I have the standard agents not using optional manuever because they are just goons with technology. The five-man team from the BBB of course they have more of the optional rules, they are trained agents designed to take on supers. [/quote']

 

Take the stats for those "goons with tech" to a heroic game and I suspect they're a more than credible threat to the PC's!

 

Metagame: If I run a more Romantized (versus Realistic) game' date=' why should I give mooks an advantage over the hero or the villian? I don't have as deadly killing attacks for the game for the same reason. [/quote']

 

Absolutely. To me, the tools for the game are the discussion point here. If we adopted the "hard to abort against someone more skilled" rules in a more realistic game, would that benefit the game? Let's have dials that can be tuned to "romantized" and "realistic" to suit the specific game! Maybe one of those is "you must have X character points to have access to these maneuvers".

 

Game master: I don't want to use the rule because a)I'm not familiar yet with it. It slows down the game. c) Players aren't familiar with it and I'm teaching the basics first.

 

Then it's just an optional rule we chose not to use, not a tactic that only one side is capable of using. Setting the dials to "less complex" seems perfectly valid to me.

 

But to me' date=' it comes down to (as with just about everything else in this game) is it going to enhance the game, and fun for all? If yes, then add it, if no then don't. [/quote']

 

What if the answer is that it adds to the fun for some and detracts for others? It's easy to make decisions when there are no tradeoffs.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

They don't? Seems like they:

 

- did OK taking Tantive IV.

- had little difficulty tracking R2D2 to the Lars Moisture Farm

- almost fooled the PC's into believing that was a Sand People attack

- had Mos Eisley locked down pretty good - the Falcon barely got out

- found Hoth and effectively invaded the Rebel Base

- occupied Cloud City and kept it under wraps for quite a while

- prevented the Rebellion leaqrning about that second Death Star through most of its construction (building a spacecraft the size of a small moon must require a lot of resources directed to one location, and not one likely to use those resources for more obvious means)

- kept them from realizing it was operational, and backed up by a huge fleet, until the trap was sprung

 

And that's just direct from the movies.

 

 

Exactly Hugh, I don't think I was as clear as possible. Take all that you said and when Princess Leia said that was too easy, they let us go. The theory on TV Tropes says that perhaps the Stormtroopers on the Death Star missed on purpose and knew that they were going to be hit, now that's some discipline! But what does everyone it seems remember? That Stormtroopers can't hit squat. WEG had stats for stormtroopers that weren't that good.

[Ninja-Bear]

Re: Should Abort be automatic?

 

What if the answer is that it adds to the fun for some and detracts for others? It's easy to make decisions when there are no tradeoffs.

 

True, it couldn't be as simple as I said