Dodging headshots in ORE games
62 views
Skip to first unread message
Ross Payton
Dec 18, 2010, 4:37:29 PM12/18/10
to cult-...@googlegroups.com
I'm planning a Wild Talents campaign for the RPPR AP podcast (read about it here) but I know I need to master the rules for a campaign. I have a ok understanding of them so far which is fine for one shots but a full campaign requires greater comprehension. One of the problems I've had with ORE games is the dodging headshots conundrum.
Defense rolls to gobble up a successful attack require an equal or greater height than the attack roll. Thus, it's easy to dodge shots to the leg but extremely hard to dodge headshots (height 10). I don't like this. I don't see why dodging a shot to the head would be substantially harder than a shot to the legs.
I'm considering either ignoring height for defense rolls - which might make it too easy for defenders or give defenders a range they have to make - i.e. get the dodge height within 3 of the attack height.
What do you guys say?
--
Ross Payton
Defense rolls to gobble up a successful attack require an equal or greater height than the attack roll. Thus, it's easy to dodge shots to the leg but extremely hard to dodge headshots (height 10). I don't like this. I don't see why dodging a shot to the head would be substantially harder than a shot to the legs.
I'm considering either ignoring height for defense rolls - which might make it too easy for defenders or give defenders a range they have to make - i.e. get the dodge height within 3 of the attack height.
What do you guys say?
--
Ross Payton
Ross Payton
Dec 18, 2010, 4:37:41 PM12/18/10
to cult-...@googlegroups.com
Daniel Kane
Dec 18, 2010, 5:48:20 PM12/18/10
to cult-...@googlegroups.com
One way of looking at it is that 10 isn't necessarily "head" in particular, but a very good or lucky shot to something very important.
Also, while gobbling requires beating height and width, an action that provides you with cover or otherwise makes it difficult to hit your head only needs to beat the width. Helmets are also quite effective - one that provides HAR 1 goes a long way. Physical shields generally provide cover, if the character uses one. Keeping a shield between bullets and one's head isn't too good for Captain America, after all.
"Called shots" also work defensively - lose a die to set a remaining die to 10.
You could also choose to allow defensive rolls to squish spare width into height, if you so desire.
Also, while gobbling requires beating height and width, an action that provides you with cover or otherwise makes it difficult to hit your head only needs to beat the width. Helmets are also quite effective - one that provides HAR 1 goes a long way. Physical shields generally provide cover, if the character uses one. Keeping a shield between bullets and one's head isn't too good for Captain America, after all.
"Called shots" also work defensively - lose a die to set a remaining die to 10.
You could also choose to allow defensive rolls to squish spare width into height, if you so desire.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cult of ORE" group.
To post to this group, send email to cult-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cult-of-ore...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cult-of-ore?hl=en.
Darryl Green
Dec 20, 2010, 1:04:57 AM12/20/10
to Cult of ORE
Personally, I like that the game skews a bit in the favor of offense.
It keeps combat nice, short and sweet. If you want combat to be longer
there's nothing wrong with that, but that's what basically any rule
change that helps defenders does. Using the rules directly from the
book my games have had combat that has had a very high level of
tension because any given attack could end a character's life (or at
least deplete their Willpower).
From a realism point of view, while it is actually harder to shoot
someone's moving legs than their head, it's not easier to get your
torso out of the way, so you're not wrong that it's not necessarily a
perfect model of realism. My opinion is that there's nothing wrong
with that. I think the game is made better by having the hardest thing
to hit or defend be the head, or the four critical boxes, if you want
to think of them like that. (Incidentally, the reason that I regard
those boxes as head boxes is that if I start thinking of them as
"organ boxes" it stops making sense that a helmet protects, for
example, your kidneys. My own sense of realism seeps in there, I
guess.)
It keeps combat nice, short and sweet. If you want combat to be longer
there's nothing wrong with that, but that's what basically any rule
change that helps defenders does. Using the rules directly from the
book my games have had combat that has had a very high level of
tension because any given attack could end a character's life (or at
least deplete their Willpower).
From a realism point of view, while it is actually harder to shoot
someone's moving legs than their head, it's not easier to get your
torso out of the way, so you're not wrong that it's not necessarily a
perfect model of realism. My opinion is that there's nothing wrong
with that. I think the game is made better by having the hardest thing
to hit or defend be the head, or the four critical boxes, if you want
to think of them like that. (Incidentally, the reason that I regard
those boxes as head boxes is that if I start thinking of them as
"organ boxes" it stops making sense that a helmet protects, for
example, your kidneys. My own sense of realism seeps in there, I
guess.)
Joshua
Dec 20, 2010, 12:46:31 PM12/20/10
to Cult of ORE
I use two rules for Defense... Dodge and Block. Dodges care only about
Width. They reduce the incoming Attack's Width by their own. A 3x4
Dodge will allow you to get out of the way from a 4x10 Attack. Blocks,
on the other hand, care only about Height. They gobble dice from any
attack with a lower Height. Thus, a 3x8 attack can be Blocked by a
2x10 Block.
This does ramp up defenses some, but I feel like it helps things out.
In these cases, however, I only allow Defenses to "ruin" an attack if
they reduce it to 0x Width. 1x Width attacks do damage as if their
Width was 1x. So in the examples above, the Dodged 4x10 attack would
still do "partial damage" as if it were a 1x10 Attack. And the Blocked
3x8 would be reduced to a 1x8, but still harm the defender.
Width. They reduce the incoming Attack's Width by their own. A 3x4
Dodge will allow you to get out of the way from a 4x10 Attack. Blocks,
on the other hand, care only about Height. They gobble dice from any
attack with a lower Height. Thus, a 3x8 attack can be Blocked by a
2x10 Block.
This does ramp up defenses some, but I feel like it helps things out.
In these cases, however, I only allow Defenses to "ruin" an attack if
they reduce it to 0x Width. 1x Width attacks do damage as if their
Width was 1x. So in the examples above, the Dodged 4x10 attack would
still do "partial damage" as if it were a 1x10 Attack. And the Blocked
3x8 would be reduced to a 1x8, but still harm the defender.
Brian Moore
May 30, 2013, 3:54:55 PM5/30/13
to cult-...@googlegroups.com
Cool house rule, Joshua. If I ever finally get a WT game going, I will likely adopt it.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages