DEF vs. Thickness of Object

[Brian Stanfield]

1 hour ago, RDU Neil said:

Would be interested in your thoughts.

 

This will take me some time to digest. I’ll let you know. 

[Brian Stanfield]

On 5/13/2019 at 10:49 AM, RDU Neil said:

 

Here is the thread where my alternative END rules were discussed.
 

 

Would be interested in your thoughts.

 

 

I like your discussion. Hugh really pushes it, but I like what everyone came up with. 

 

I prefer heroic games, so I'll probably never be able to apply what you're doing with END, except perhaps for Fantasy HERO. I've been trying to come up with a way to balance spells, AP caps, and END for a long time, and haven't come up with anything yet that doesn't seem arbitrary. Your ideas on END usage gives me something to work with. I'd like to have AP caps and END usage that is integrated into the campaign rules in a way similar to what you do with the Pushing cap. This gives me a lot to think about.

[RDU Neil]

13 hours ago, Brian Stanfield said:

 

I like your discussion. Hugh really pushes it, but I like what everyone came up with. 

 

I prefer heroic games, so I'll probably never be able to apply what you're doing with END, except perhaps for Fantasy HERO. I've been trying to come up with a way to balance spells, AP caps, and END for a long time, and haven't come up with anything yet that doesn't seem arbitrary. Your ideas on END usage gives me something to work with. I'd like to have AP caps and END usage that is integrated into the campaign rules in a way similar to what you do with the Pushing cap. This gives me a lot to think about.

 

Heroic level games where the use of special abilities and powers are difficult and rare but generate a dramatic effect while being very exhausting... I think that is a GREAT place for more traditional END rules... and in fact remove ways to make reduced END possible. I'd just figure out a formula that shows "X END per action = Y Actions before REC/vulnerability is necessary, and how many RECs before back to full" as a way of comparing playability. Can certain characters effectively "go forever" with their main action/attack... while others are effectively limited like they had charges? That kind of balance needs to be very clear, and are the players ok with how that will actually come about in the game?  "Hey... the warrior can only really swing a sword, but he can do it all day... the Wizard gets maybe three actions... but they will be whoppers!  Are we ok with that?" (e.g. only).

Again, I just feel there has to be a better way to get to the dramatic moment of, "We've driven back the first wave, but gods, I can barely lift my sword!" where usually it is all about tactical rule playing, "If we rotate front line fighters every three actions, then no one ever runs out of END and everyone is always at full STR."  I hate that stuff, though a lot of people think that kind of thing is what gaming is all about.