Bloody abstraction...

Which the majority of tabletop RPGs are by their nature. About the only RPG that claimed "realism" was FATAL and that ungodly abomination was about as far from "reality" as a sane mind could get.

But if you're that bent out of shape about it RPGs not being an accurate representation of reality, then I'd suggest finding another hobby, one that won't leave you in such a sour mood all the time.

Bloody abstraction...

I am sorry we can't run all of the physics equations in a game. It is all going to be an abstraction. There was a game that calculated all the paths a bullet took through a body etcetra. It was incredibly slow and boring.

There's a significant gulf between "we can't simulate real physics" and "eh, screw it, we'll lump an active attack-blocking defense into soaking damage because each round is like forever and it just represents some stuff that happened at some point, you figure it out".

But have fun with those strawmen you're building.

There's a significant gulf between "we can't simulate real physics" and "eh, screw it, we'll lump an active attack-blocking defense into soaking damage because each round is like forever and it just represents some stuff that happened at some point, you figure it out".

But have fun with those strawmen you're building.

We are playing star wars. And Do you want to be rolling for each defense of each blaster bolt shot at your character. I have played that game. It is called Palladium and while the setting is pretty awesome the mechanics? suck and are boring.

There's a significant gulf between "we can't simulate real physics" and "eh, screw it, we'll lump an active attack-blocking defense into soaking damage because each round is like forever and it just represents some stuff that happened at some point, you figure it out".

But have fun with those strawmen you're building.

We are playing star wars. And Do you want to be rolling for each defense of each blaster bolt shot at your character. I have played that game. It is called Palladium and while the setting is pretty awesome the mechanics? suck and are boring.

Palladium... that was a nightmare no matter what setting you were doing.

But that has nothing to do with whether the system does or does not treat combat as "roll a couple times to represent everything that happened for a large chunk of the time in the fight".

There's a significant gulf between "we can't simulate real physics" and "eh, screw it, we'll lump an active attack-blocking defense into soaking damage because each round is like forever and it just represents some stuff that happened at some point, you figure it out".

But have fun with those strawmen you're building.

We are playing star wars. And Do you want to be rolling for each defense of each blaster bolt shot at your character. I have played that game. It is called Palladium and while the setting is pretty awesome the mechanics? suck and are boring.

Palladium... that was a nightmare no matter what setting you were doing.

But that has nothing to do with whether the system does or does not treat combat as "roll a couple times to represent everything that happened for a large chunk of the time in the fight".

Then how would you do reflect? Because pretty much every way involves doing more rolls and slowing the game down to a crawl.

There's a significant gulf between "we can't simulate real physics" and "eh, screw it, we'll lump an active attack-blocking defense into soaking damage because each round is like forever and it just represents some stuff that happened at some point, you figure it out".

But have fun with those strawmen you're building.

We are playing star wars. And Do you want to be rolling for each defense of each blaster bolt shot at your character. I have played that game. It is called Palladium and while the setting is pretty awesome the mechanics? suck and are boring.

Palladium... that was a nightmare no matter what setting you were doing.

But that has nothing to do with whether the system does or does not treat combat as "roll a couple times to represent everything that happened for a large chunk of the time in the fight".

Then how would you do reflect? Because pretty much every way involves doing more rolls and slowing the game down to a crawl.

There are only two ways off the top of my head I'd handle an active defense that's effectively a pass-fail (such as a lightsaber either blocking or not blocking a blaster bolt, parrying or using a shield* in melee combat, etc...).

1) passively add to the difficulty of attacks that it would be applicable against.

2) actively roll it against incoming attacks that it would by applicable against.

Anything else, such as partial soaking, does not tie the feel of mechanic to the action being modeled.

* assuming one isn't that concerned with the parrying implement being breakable by the attack

There's a significant gulf between "we can't simulate real physics" and "eh, screw it, we'll lump an active attack-blocking defense into soaking damage because each round is like forever and it just represents some stuff that happened at some point, you figure it out".

But have fun with those strawmen you're building.

We are playing star wars. And Do you want to be rolling for each defense of each blaster bolt shot at your character. I have played that game. It is called Palladium and while the setting is pretty awesome the mechanics? suck and are boring.

Palladium... that was a nightmare no matter what setting you were doing.

But that has nothing to do with whether the system does or does not treat combat as "roll a couple times to represent everything that happened for a large chunk of the time in the fight".

Then how would you do reflect? Because pretty much every way involves doing more rolls and slowing the game down to a crawl.

There are only two ways off the top of my head I'd handle an active defense that's effectively a pass-fail (such as a lightsaber either blocking or not blocking a blaster bolt, parrying or using a shield* in melee combat, etc...).

1) passively add to the difficulty of attacks that it would be applicable against.

2) actively roll it against incoming attacks that it would by applicable against.

Anything else, such as partial soaking, does not tie the feel of mechanic to the action being modeled.

* assuming one isn't that concerned with the parrying implement being breakable by the attack

We already have the first and the second does not work well in this system. Which I believe is why they went the way they did. Just like making an attack roll is not a single shot. Which is why their method of reflect work well. it is also active in that it costs strain.

There's a significant gulf between "we can't simulate real physics" and "eh, screw it, we'll lump an active attack-blocking defense into soaking damage because each round is like forever and it just represents some stuff that happened at some point, you figure it out".

But have fun with those strawmen you're building.

We are playing star wars. And Do you want to be rolling for each defense of each blaster bolt shot at your character. I have played that game. It is called Palladium and while the setting is pretty awesome the mechanics? suck and are boring.

Palladium... that was a nightmare no matter what setting you were doing.

But that has nothing to do with whether the system does or does not treat combat as "roll a couple times to represent everything that happened for a large chunk of the time in the fight".

Then how would you do reflect? Because pretty much every way involves doing more rolls and slowing the game down to a crawl.

There are only two ways off the top of my head I'd handle an active defense that's effectively a pass-fail (such as a lightsaber either blocking or not blocking a blaster bolt, parrying or using a shield* in melee combat, etc...).

1) passively add to the difficulty of attacks that it would be applicable against.

2) actively roll it against incoming attacks that it would by applicable against.

Anything else, such as partial soaking, does not tie the feel of mechanic to the action being modeled.

* assuming one isn't that concerned with the parrying implement being breakable by the attack

We already have the first and the second does not work well in this system. Which I believe is why they went the way they did. Just like making an attack roll is not a single shot. Which is why their method of reflect work well. it is also active in that it costs strain.

Cost is tangential to active/passive.

The problem with having "Reflect" throw more dice into a pool is that any scaling quickly becomes a dice nightmare.

Best to just get comfortable with the abstraction and play the game as it was designed. If you're willing to embrace the abstractions, in my experience, your enjoyment of the game will be heightened and you will be happier with your gaming experience. Again, YMMV.

I did a write-up on Two Weapon Combat. It might be helpful.

There is an error in your summation. If you trigger the second weapon then that accuracy die is rolled then and added. So any additional dice or advantages or setback that the additional weapon brings to the table are rolled if that weapon is activated. The die is not ignored.

Answered by Sam Stewart:

The weapon used sets the pool. The second weapon is only used if you gain two Advantage to trigger the second hit. So only the first weapon sets the pool. So if the second weapon has penalties or bonuses that would affect the pool, such as adding Boost or Setback dice, these would not apply. However, if the second weapon has penalties or bonuses that are applied after the pool has been rolled, then those penalties or bonuses do apply if you trigger the second weapon to hit. So If your second weapon is Accurate, you won't get Boost dice. But if your second weapon has a laser sight that gives you an Advantage on a successful attack, then if you're successful and you trigger the second hit, then you gain the additional Advantage as well.

Nah, read your quoted answer again. The Accurate quality affects the dice pool, and is not applied after the pool has been rolled, and thus is ignored if it comes from your second weapon.

The problem with having "Reflect" throw more dice into a pool is that any scaling quickly becomes a dice nightmare.

Best to just get comfortable with the abstraction and play the game as it was designed. If you're willing to embrace the abstractions, in my experience, your enjoyment of the game will be heightened and you will be happier with your gaming experience. Again, YMMV.

Nah, not really. I want the mechanics to actually model something and match the "feel" of what's going on -- such as an attempt to block something actually being representing by an attempt, and a successful attempt resulting in that actual specific attack being blocked.

I have no problem with people loving this system, but this is a case where I'm so very glad I started reading these forums before I spent money.

The problem with having "Reflect" throw more dice into a pool is that any scaling quickly becomes a dice nightmare.

Best to just get comfortable with the abstraction and play the game as it was designed. If you're willing to embrace the abstractions, in my experience, your enjoyment of the game will be heightened and you will be happier with your gaming experience. Again, YMMV.

Nah, not really. I want the mechanics to actually model something and match the "feel" of what's going on -- such as an attempt to block something actually being representing by an attempt, and a successful attempt resulting in that actual specific attack being blocked.

I have no problem with people loving this system, but this is a case where I'm so very glad I started reading these forums before I spent money.

You are acting like an attack is a single sword swing or trigger pull. That is not what they are or how things behave in this system.

The problem with having "Reflect" throw more dice into a pool is that any scaling quickly becomes a dice nightmare.

Best to just get comfortable with the abstraction and play the game as it was designed. If you're willing to embrace the abstractions, in my experience, your enjoyment of the game will be heightened and you will be happier with your gaming experience. Again, YMMV.

Nah, not really. I want the mechanics to actually model something and match the "feel" of what's going on -- such as an attempt to block something actually being representing by an attempt, and a successful attempt resulting in that actual specific attack being blocked.

I have no problem with people loving this system, but this is a case where I'm so very glad I started reading these forums before I spent money.

You are acting like an attack is a single sword swing or trigger pull. That is not what they are or how things behave in this system.

Yes, I realize that. Thus, the comment you just quoted -- it's one of the things I'm very glad I learned before investing money. I want an attack to represent an attack, a block to represent a block, etc.

The problem with having "Reflect" throw more dice into a pool is that any scaling quickly becomes a dice nightmare.

Best to just get comfortable with the abstraction and play the game as it was designed. If you're willing to embrace the abstractions, in my experience, your enjoyment of the game will be heightened and you will be happier with your gaming experience. Again, YMMV.

Nah, not really. I want the mechanics to actually model something and match the "feel" of what's going on -- such as an attempt to block something actually being representing by an attempt, and a successful attempt resulting in that actual specific attack being blocked.

I have no problem with people loving this system, but this is a case where I'm so very glad I started reading these forums before I spent money.

You are acting like an attack is a single sword swing or trigger pull. That is not what they are or how things behave in this system.

Yes, I realize that. Thus, the comment you just quoted -- it's one of the things I'm very glad I learned before investing money. I want an attack to represent an attack, a block to represent a block, etc.

You do know that no system actually does that right? Aside from palladium. Largely because you end up with an extremely slow combat. It is just not worth doing in that manner.

The problem with having "Reflect" throw more dice into a pool is that any scaling quickly becomes a dice nightmare.

Best to just get comfortable with the abstraction and play the game as it was designed. If you're willing to embrace the abstractions, in my experience, your enjoyment of the game will be heightened and you will be happier with your gaming experience. Again, YMMV.

Nah, not really. I want the mechanics to actually model something and match the "feel" of what's going on -- such as an attempt to block something actually being representing by an attempt, and a successful attempt resulting in that actual specific attack being blocked.

I have no problem with people loving this system, but this is a case where I'm so very glad I started reading these forums before I spent money.

You are acting like an attack is a single sword swing or trigger pull. That is not what they are or how things behave in this system.

Yes, I realize that. Thus, the comment you just quoted -- it's one of the things I'm very glad I learned before investing money. I want an attack to represent an attack, a block to represent a block, etc.

You do know that no system actually does that right? Aside from palladium. Largely because you end up with an extremely slow combat. It is just not worth doing in that manner.

WEG d6, at least in the old Star Wars days.

HERO system.

White Wolf, at least in the pre-nWoD editions.

Etc.

I played Saga Edition with a GM who treated every hit with a lightsaber as an actual, physical hit. 2d8 damage takes a while to bring just about anyone down. It was the lamest I've ever felt wielding a lightsaber.

Kinda like watching two characters slug it out with lightsabers in KotOR. Watching, and thinking, "why aren't either of them bisected yet?"

Then when I took over as a GM, I took a friend's advice and used hitpoints as an abstraction, rather than "this is how much blood you have left" (ala Diablo II). Suddenly, the game felt like Star Wars.

And playing with such abstractions is what set me up to accept this system with open arms.

MaxKilljoy, have you not played this system yet?

...Just like making an attack roll is not a single shot. Which is why their method of reflect work well. it is also active in that it costs strain.

Cost is tangential to active/passive.

When you actively spend a resource, it is active. The Parry & Reflect talents are active, out-of-turn incidentals that cost strain to activate and function in such a way as to make combat rounds both meaningful and expedient. A character with a reasonable (on the low end) Soak of 4 and only 1 rank in Reflect can entirely negate the damage from a successful blaster pistol attack.

To me, that seems active enough.

The problem with having "Reflect" throw more dice into a pool is that any scaling quickly becomes a dice nightmare.

Best to just get comfortable with the abstraction and play the game as it was designed. If you're willing to embrace the abstractions, in my experience, your enjoyment of the game will be heightened and you will be happier with your gaming experience. Again, YMMV.

Nah, not really. I want the mechanics to actually model something and match the "feel" of what's going on -- such as an attempt to block something actually being representing by an attempt, and a successful attempt resulting in that actual specific attack being blocked.

I have no problem with people loving this system, but this is a case where I'm so very glad I started reading these forums before I spent money.

You are acting like an attack is a single sword swing or trigger pull. That is not what they are or how things behave in this system.

Yes, I realize that. Thus, the comment you just quoted -- it's one of the things I'm very glad I learned before investing money. I want an attack to represent an attack, a block to represent a block, etc.

You do know that no system actually does that right? Aside from palladium. Largely because you end up with an extremely slow combat. It is just not worth doing in that manner.

WEG d6, at least in the old Star Wars days.

HERO system.

White Wolf, at least in the pre-nWoD editions.

Etc.

WEG d6 star wars is good at first... has some serious power curve and force related issues. When you get higher in level things can become a slog or too easy. The Force quickly becomes an I win button. FFG star wars does seem to barrow heavily from WEG star wars. every character action involves about 4 rolls. so each round is going to take FOREVER. I roll to hit tally the number. They roll to dodge tally the number..Oh they still hit roll to damage and location...again you have to tally the number... then roll to prevent the damage...so on and so forth...

Hero is incredibly slow. It is a good system. but no one would ever call it fast.

white wolf has never been in my experience about combat.

Combat in FFG star wars is fast fun dynamic and really feels like star wars. More than any edition I have played and I have played them all. And I hate to break it to you all of the systems you listed are abstractions. And I would rather have a fun mechanic that is easy to use fast dynamic and fun...I don't find adding up d6s repeatedly to figure out what happened to be fun. The FFG system instead creates a single dice pool and things like cover, dodging, etc effect the pool. lightsaber parries when you really get down to it are just preventing damage. it being soak is really no worse than a die roll to see if you block the shot.. and really cutting down on endless die rolls is faster and way more fun.

...Just like making an attack roll is not a single shot. Which is why their method of reflect work well. it is also active in that it costs strain.

Cost is tangential to active/passive.

When you actively spend a resource, it is active. The Parry & Reflect talents are active, out-of-turn incidentals that cost strain to activate and function in such a way as to make combat rounds both meaningful and expedient. A character with a reasonable (on the low end) Soak of 4 and only 1 rank in Reflect can entirely negate the damage from a successful blaster pistol attack.

To me, that seems active enough.

And strain is a resource you need to manage carefully if you want to keep fighting. There are a bunch of talents you can activate to add to a die pool to effect whether someone damages you. Most cost you a resource to use. And thus in my mind are active. But they are active in a way that is very fast to use.

Based on the narrative nature of FFG's abstraction the exact mechanic is extremely flexible. All you need to do is just change how you describe Reflect. If how it's explained in the book doesn't suite you then just describe it in a way that works for you. The mechanic itself is extremely flexible and this system actively encourages you to be creative in how you set up the scene and how you describe what's going on.

As such abstraction in this game is only a problem if you let it be a problem. If "soaking" doesn't work for you then don't describe Reflect as a soak. Just say the character is reflecting back shots fired.

Honestly this system is extremely elegant in making Star Wars your own and I'm not sure why people have trouble with abstraction when it's a key element to how flexible this rule set is.

You are acting like an attack is a single sword swing or trigger pull. That is not what they are or how things behave in this system.

Yes, I realize that. Thus, the comment you just quoted -- it's one of the things I'm very glad I learned before investing money. I want an attack to represent an attack, a block to represent a block, etc.

You do know that no system actually does that right? Aside from palladium. Largely because you end up with an extremely slow combat. It is just not worth doing in that manner.

WEG d6, at least in the old Star Wars days.

HERO system.

White Wolf, at least in the pre-nWoD editions.

Etc.

WEG d6 star wars is good at first... has some serious power curve and force related issues. When you get higher in level things can become a slog or too easy. The Force quickly becomes an I win button. FFG star wars does seem to barrow heavily from WEG star wars. every character action involves about 4 rolls. so each round is going to take FOREVER. I roll to hit tally the number. They roll to dodge tally the number..Oh they still hit roll to damage and location...again you have to tally the number... then roll to prevent the damage...so on and so forth...

Hero is incredibly slow. It is a good system. but no one would ever call it fast.

white wolf has never been in my experience about combat.

Combat in FFG star wars is fast fun dynamic and really feels like star wars. More than any edition I have played and I have played them all. And I hate to break it to you all of the systems you listed are abstractions. And I would rather have a fun mechanic that is easy to use fast dynamic and fun...I don't find adding up d6s repeatedly to figure out what happened to be fun. The FFG system instead creates a single dice pool and things like cover, dodging, etc effect the pool. lightsaber parries when you really get down to it are just preventing damage. it being soak is really no worse than a die roll to see if you block the shot.. and really cutting down on endless die rolls is faster and way more fun.

What's all this? You made the assertion that no system treats individual combat moves as distinct actions/rolls, and I listed three that do.

I did a write-up on Two Weapon Combat. It might be helpful.

There is an error in your summation. If you trigger the second weapon then that accuracy die is rolled then and added. So any additional dice or advantages or setback that the additional weapon brings to the table are rolled if that weapon is activated. The die is not ignored.

Answered by Sam Stewart:

The weapon used sets the pool. The second weapon is only used if you gain two Advantage to trigger the second hit. So only the first weapon sets the pool. So if the second weapon has penalties or bonuses that would affect the pool, such as adding Boost or Setback dice, these would not apply. However, if the second weapon has penalties or bonuses that are applied after the pool has been rolled, then those penalties or bonuses do apply if you trigger the second weapon to hit. So If your second weapon is Accurate, you won't get Boost dice. But if your second weapon has a laser sight that gives you an Advantage on a successful attack, then if you're successful and you trigger the second hit, then you gain the additional Advantage as well.

If the second weapon is activated, you'll get non-dice bonuses, such as advantages, threats, extra successes, etc. But the dice are ignored. Basically, the pool is rolled once and that's it. You don't get additional dice after the pool is rolled; as far as I know, that never happens (retroactive dice).

As an example... you roll the pool, get two advantages, and activate the second weapon. The second weapon is inaccurate, so you roll a setback. You get two threat, which cancels out the advantage you used to activate the second weapon it just doesn't work. That's why, in Sam's explanation, you don't roll the boost die, but you do get the advantage for the laser sight.

I did a write-up on Two Weapon Combat. It might be helpful.

There is an error in your summation. If you trigger the second weapon then that accuracy die is rolled then and added. So any additional dice or advantages or setback that the additional weapon brings to the table are rolled if that weapon is activated. The die is not ignored.

Answered by Sam Stewart:

The weapon used sets the pool. The second weapon is only used if you gain two Advantage to trigger the second hit. So only the first weapon sets the pool. So if the second weapon has penalties or bonuses that would affect the pool, such as adding Boost or Setback dice, these would not apply. However, if the second weapon has penalties or bonuses that are applied after the pool has been rolled, then those penalties or bonuses do apply if you trigger the second weapon to hit. So If your second weapon is Accurate, you won't get Boost dice. But if your second weapon has a laser sight that gives you an Advantage on a successful attack, then if you're successful and you trigger the second hit, then you gain the additional Advantage as well.

If the second weapon is activated, you'll get non-dice bonuses, such as advantages, threats, extra successes, etc. But the dice are ignored. Basically, the pool is rolled once and that's it. You don't get additional dice after the pool is rolled; as far as I know, that never happens (retroactive dice).

As an example... you roll the pool, get two advantages, and activate the second weapon. The second weapon is inaccurate, so you roll a setback. You get two threat, which cancels out the advantage you used to activate the second weapon it just doesn't work. That's why, in Sam's explanation, you don't roll the boost die, but you do get the advantage for the laser sight.

And what about passive effects? Defensive and/or Deflect on the second weapon would work normally even if I didn't attack with it first?

You are acting like an attack is a single sword swing or trigger pull. That is not what they are or how things behave in this system.

Yes, I realize that. Thus, the comment you just quoted -- it's one of the things I'm very glad I learned before investing money. I want an attack to represent an attack, a block to represent a block, etc.

You do know that no system actually does that right? Aside from palladium. Largely because you end up with an extremely slow combat. It is just not worth doing in that manner.

WEG d6, at least in the old Star Wars days.

HERO system.

White Wolf, at least in the pre-nWoD editions.

Etc.

WEG d6 star wars is good at first... has some serious power curve and force related issues. When you get higher in level things can become a slog or too easy. The Force quickly becomes an I win button. FFG star wars does seem to barrow heavily from WEG star wars. every character action involves about 4 rolls. so each round is going to take FOREVER. I roll to hit tally the number. They roll to dodge tally the number..Oh they still hit roll to damage and location...again you have to tally the number... then roll to prevent the damage...so on and so forth...

Hero is incredibly slow. It is a good system. but no one would ever call it fast.

white wolf has never been in my experience about combat.

Combat in FFG star wars is fast fun dynamic and really feels like star wars. More than any edition I have played and I have played them all. And I hate to break it to you all of the systems you listed are abstractions. And I would rather have a fun mechanic that is easy to use fast dynamic and fun...I don't find adding up d6s repeatedly to figure out what happened to be fun. The FFG system instead creates a single dice pool and things like cover, dodging, etc effect the pool. lightsaber parries when you really get down to it are just preventing damage. it being soak is really no worse than a die roll to see if you block the shot.. and really cutting down on endless die rolls is faster and way more fun.

What's all this? You made the assertion that no system treats individual combat moves as distinct actions/rolls, and I listed three that do.

And I explained why doing so sucks. and lowers your fun. And they are still abstractions. as all games have to abstract.