Current music:

Kraftwerk - Computer World

Broad Scope combat and other stuff
I'm not happy with the rules for combat. (I know, how many times have you heard that one). I've been bothered for a while about Broad Scope versus Focused Scope when it comes to combat. I see the distinction working okay for all other conflicts, but combat seems forced to be Focused Scope.

How can you expect someone to make a single Broad Check using Marksmanship when he's being attacked by chain-wielding zombies crazed orc berserkers thugs intent on melee. I don't feel it models the necessary need to duck and weave, even if the Character is going to shoot each attacker, rather than punch them. How do you work in Martial Arts checks? I suppose if the Check failed, you could just narrate that your shots went wide as the thugs piled on you, or something. So that wouldn't be so bad.

Now let's consider the case of the thugs having ranged weapons. Does it make sense to have one Check of the Character's Marksmanship against theirs? Should it be against the attackers' average Marksmanship, or each attacker's Marksmanship? I suppose that could work too.

Consider, though, that both these cases assume both sides just stand and take the hits, so to speak. But what about the strategy that comes out in turn-based combat? And what about a team of Characters against the NPCs?

I suppose it mainly comes down to this: I don't want a game where combat devolves to the standard d20 strategies, unless the Players want it to. I want to encourage Broad Scope play, heavy on the description.

I propose the following to address the issue:

• I introduce a new Ability, Combat, whose Check Cap is derived from the average Check Caps of Marksmanship, Martial Arts, Thrown, and Strategy (Psychic players should also average in their Psychokinesis CC, if PL>0).
• Broad Scope combats will be resolved by Opposed rolls against the opponents' Combat Abilities.
• Each Character involved in the conflict rolls his own Combat Check; each NPC involved gets his own Combat Check.
• The side with the most successes wins the conflict.
• A success represents a Character/NPC subduing one or more opponents, while taking only minimal damage (or none).
• Any Characters or NPCs who failed their Combat Checks are wounded, possibly gravely.
• As the difference in successes increases, so does the damage done to the losers.
• As the number of successes for the losers increases, so does the damage done to the victors.
• Don't like the results? Spend from your Chutzpah Cache to revisit the conflict in Focused Scope (everyone get ready to roll initiative). 
• The Players narrate the conflict, regardless of whether they win or lose, unless they go into Focus.
• Now I just need to figure out how to deal with damage. 

Note that I mentioned the Strategy Ability, which no longer exists as a stand-alone Ability. I've also been mulling over a revisiting of the Abilities layout. I'm not really happy (there I go again!) with the Applied Science and Knowledge Abilities and their Specializations. Yeah, it gets the job done, but it's rather unrealistic to expect the level of generality in training that the main categories imply. Just look at Noshi, for example. There is a lot in the current AS Ability that can not be explained by his background. That tweaks me. The Renaissance Man is no more; or at least hard to come by. So, I'm considering bringing back the separate Ability tracks for the sciences, engineering, humanities, etc. You want to be a chemist? Great, take Chemistry as an Ability. That Ability represents both Knowledge and Applied Science, joined where before they were held separate. Likewise for Physics, Sociology, even English Literature. Where does the Applied come from for the latter two? Sociology can be used to manipulate people on a large scale, as could Psychology on a small scale, for that matter. English Lit could be used for decent writing, critiquing, et cetera. So the "soft sciences" and humanities would be useful for social conflict, as long as the players were clever enough. The hard sciences would be useful for item creation and fixing things. Any of them might be useful for solving problems if used appropriately.

Thoughts?

Slaintè,
Q