Re: [HOE] Explosions are their own reward, or something.

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

>A quick example of how this would work for us, and why John changed the MD 
>rules:
>
>We'll use Loki's scenario, and I'll add more details:
>

[lots of snippage]

Your example more accurately represents at least what I have found to be a 
"typical" situation, and what we discovered when we did real-life use of the 
system.  Thanks.  :)

Although it does note one potential abnormality - Sheol could have 
potentially taken damage to no locations (by rolling a 1), while Shrink took 
damage to 4 locations (rolling a 6).  This isn't a critical problem, but it 
does seem a little odd.

***

>So, sorry for the long explanation, but that should take  only a couple 
>minutes to resolve, once you're comfortable with the rules.  It is more 
>dice rolling, but the alternative is:
>
>GM:  Big Red, you catch a mortar round!
>
>Big Red: No biggie.  Can I use the explosion to get a plus on my leap 
>towards that house we forgot to clear?
>
>GM:  You'll be taking 5d10 damage. (rolling.) That's 4 wounds.  (rolls 
>4d20)  2 to the guts, one to the arm, and one to the head.  Your armor 
>cancels the guts and head, and (rolls d6) the blast sneaks past your armor 
>for one wound to the arm.
>
>Big Red:  Here, have a white chip.  There's plenty more where that came 
>from.  Hey guys, I'll stand here while they keep firing at me.  Sheol, can 
>you whip up a quick counter-battery simulator so we can shoot back at them?
>

We're not disputing that in some cases the old rules resulted in ineffectual 
explosions - only that the new system is flawed in _two_ particulars:  1) it 
is much more lethal _and_ 2) it is more die-rolling intensive (not 
necessarily complicated).  One or the other would be acceptable, but both 
result in a thumbs-down from our group.  Your mileage, of course, may vary.  
Doesn't make anyone a liar. :)

The other problem with the extra die-rolling is...it would be fine on its 
lonesome.  But combat is already a remarkably unwieldy die-rolling process 
anyway.  A non-optimal single bullet in combat requires you to:  Roll to 
hit, roll to damage, roll for location, roll for stun recovery check, roll 
for wind.

(HTH combat requires a roll for damage _and_ a Strength check.)

And as for burst and stuff...ugghh.  :)

Now, we're willing to tolerate the existing die-rolling, obviously, or we 
wouldn't be playing Deadlands/HoE  :) .  But did we really need a "fix" to a 
system that requires even more die-rolling...?

A new massive damage rule could simply have doubled the final damage or used 
whatever constant you wish to apply until the amount of damage done by the 
Massive Damage equals the effect intended.

In other words, in the example above for the "old" rules, 24-29 was rolled 
on the 5d10 of damage to Big Red (27.5 is the average, maybe slightly higher 
when you factor in Acing).  As noted this means 4 wnds, and 2 to the guts.  
Simply saying to double that total from 27.5 to 55 would result in 9 wounds 
(4-5 to the guts).  If that isn't good enough, use a triple constant (6-7 
wounds to the guts).  Or whatever the playtest team(s) found to be the best 
result.

Simplify the system further by applying the constant directly to the wounds 
rather than the damage-total.  Reduces the number of hit location rolls.

>Thanks for hanging in on this looooonnnng post!
>
>

Again, the more "real-life" examples of what I described earlier (but 
otherwise was about the same as what I said - I just phrased it 
more..."mathematically") are appreciated.

And it's given me a better feel for how to "fix" the system for our in-house 
use.  I never said we were happy with the original system as far as...well, 
impact - only that the new system goes to far the other way and slows down 
the game much much further.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com