I use an optional rule (that i think is in one of the beginner box sets) where vehicle weapons do normal damage to characters, but always have Breach and automatically inflict a critical wound (rolled randomly as normal).

That way, you players can heroically try and take on a walker and getting hit doesnt instantly "red mist" them, but there will be a lot of hurt if things last too long.

Of course the players do have to come up with ways to defeat the vehicle given that they are not normally carrying heavy weapons...this normally involves climbing up the outside (or otherwise getting on top of it), bypassing the hatch lock and taking out the crew.

On 1/24/2017 at 6:19 PM, HappyDaze said:

Only do that if you want a combat victory to be the only outcome. Typically, if PCs think they can win, then they'll fight without considering other options. Sometimes it's better to put an unwinnable fight on the horizon and see if the PCs still go for it. If they do, don't cheat them of a justly deserved defeat.

99 times out of 100, a group of PCs will want to defeat the big metal monster by shooting it full of holes. If they don't have the tools to defeat it, their characters will die. That is not fun.

The 1 out of 100 are the people who have a history with narrative and non-traditional RPGs.

6 minutes ago, Concise Locket said:

99 times out of 100, a group of PCs will want to defeat the big metal monster by shooting it full of holes. If they don't have the tools to defeat it, their characters will die. That is not fun.

The 1 out of 100 are the people who have a history with narrative and non-traditional RPGs.

That's total rubbish. Traditional gamers know there are fights that lead to nothing but death and misery. It's the narrative types that believe the story must go on and thus death's not an outcome they should have to worry about (because, as you say, it's "not fun").

2 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

That's total rubbish. Traditional gamers know there are fights that lead to nothing but death and misery. It's the narrative types that believe the story must go on and thus death's not an outcome they should have to worry about (because, as you say, it's "not fun").

I guarantee you, it is not rubbish. Trad games have instilled the "see the bad guy, kill the bad guy" action as the standard conflict resolution response because trad games pull from the D&D/Chainmail model. When your game is 75% combat resolution rules and maybe a quarter-page sidebar on how to make a single roll to resolve a social conflict, it sets up a very predictable response in gamers.

The alternative is to not a stat up a vehicle for vehicle vs. PC combat but rather treat it like force of nature and require a series of non-combat skill tests to survive it. The onus is then on the GM to immediately present it as a skill challenge, not blankly ask "What do you do?" and go along with the PCs' inevitable demise. Because that's a garbage way to run a game and no positive behavior modification has been gained.

13 hours ago, Concise Locket said:

99 times out of 100, a group of PCs will want to defeat the big metal monster by shooting it full of holes. If they don't have the tools to defeat it, their characters will die. That is not fun.

The 1 out of 100 are the people who have a history with narrative and non-traditional RPGs.

Calling everything that is not a Dungeons and Dragons ripoff non-traditional … is a rather narrow definition. Especially considering the reputation of d&d dungeon crawling outside of the united states. Even more so considering that even most d&d clones had to move past that dungeon crawling model to survive on the market, at least in europe

Though the states are a complete different market with different expectations and different habits.

The early versions of D&D certainly encouraged avoidance and even retreat when appropriate. This was before encounters were expected to be balanced. If you wanted your neophyte band of adventurers to go on a dragon hunt, you could. You'd likely die well before you ever get to the dragon, but if not, it would help you find your back to character creation in short order. If that was "boring" for the players, it was their responsibility to take a different approach.

As a player playing a PC, my choice is "RUNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

VERY FAST!

A few thoughts:

Remember the Aiming rules: PC can take the aim maneuver and 2 setback dice instead of a boost to target a specific component. I've used this to allow weak spots with half-armor (soak 15 for an AT-ST) to be hit or even the pilots themselves (through the oh-so-convienient eye-slits). I typically don't let them gain an auto-critical hit by doing this, but let them do things that enhance their chances with temporary effects. Something like aim at the knee joint and cause it to misstep so that it can't bring it's weapons to bear on the PCs this round, or hitting the weapon so that the targeting sensors have to recalibrate, or causing smoke that blinds the drivers, immobilizing it for a turn, etc.

Allow Blast weapons to affect the drivers on a Triumph or 4 advantage: A grenade right between the eye-slit is going to hurt the guys inside (just saying).

Give Vehicle Weapons the Blast Quality equal to their damage x2 and Knockdown. Allow the gunners to trade successes for advantages to activate blast or knockdown. That way you can narrate that a successful hit was deliberately targeted to the center of the group of PCs to hit more of them rather than vaporizing just one of them (which is more how we see them used in the movies anyway).

And as everyone has said- Terrain, Terrain, Terrain. Remember that what is passable terrain for the PCs may be impassable or difficult terrain for a walker/vehicle. Also if there is substantial cover then taking a maneuver to take cover could grant 2 setback dice and taking two maneuvers to take cover (spending 2 strain or downgrading your action) can break line of sight (vehicle can't attack you) until the walker takes two maneuvers to reacquire you.

On 1/27/2017 at 1:47 AM, SEApocalypse said:

Calling everything that is not a Dungeons and Dragons ripoff non-traditional … is a rather narrow definition. Especially considering the reputation of d&d dungeon crawling outside of the united states. Even more so considering that even most d&d clones had to move past that dungeon crawling model to survive on the market, at least in europe

Though the states are a complete different market with different expectations and different habits.

I can only speak to the United States game market and I didn't say rip-off. D&D rip-offs would be the modern-day OSR revivalists which rip-off the early 1970s D&D. Traveller was also released in the mid-1970s and, while it didn't use the same resolution mechanics, it was still a class-based system that focused on combat as the primary resolution mechanic. GURPS, Champions , and Shadowrun broke with classes but they were still combat focused. It wasn't until Vampire in 1991 when storytelling became codified and fighting was de-emphasized.

Considering that traditional games make up 95% of US RPG purchases - basically split between Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder - it's a little naive to think that the behaviors instilled by those games don't carry over into non-trad games.

In open terrain, mech/armor forces rule: Run/Dodge/Get the PooDoo Outa There!

However, urban terrain/ mountainous terrain/ swampy terrain/ heavy vegetation terrain (OK, any and all adverse condition terrain): Infantry reigns supreme. Why do you think it is so difficult for the US and Allies to root out Taliban insurgents? When the Infantry has weapons that can harm the mech/armor forces, it's usually a done deal. (requires coordination and proper use of terrain and sound tactics) If the Infantry doesn't have weapons at the ready to defeat the mech/armor forces, they can slow/bog down the enemy until bigger guns show up (artillery, air support, resupply) or another option presents itself like the Ewoks improvised.

If your PC's try to straight up wild west "High Noon" it, you may want to look at their INTELECT and CUNNING scores. Anything above a 1 will let the PC know this is a deathwish. Your CHARACTERS may have "scores" "higher" than your PLAYERS personal experience. The players may "need" reminders or hints. All too often, we play extremely intelligent and cunning characters (genius level and above) with average to very high average IQ players (not meant as insult). Simple truth: high IQ can play/act low IQ a whole lot easier than a low IQ can play/act a high IQ.

Disclaimer: None of this is meant as an insult or slight. Just bluntly saying that sometimes the GM should take a pause out of game to help PC's understand something that the character could/should know, but might be out of the player's realm of expertise.

My 2 credits, MTFBWY

On 1/29/2017 at 7:21 PM, FinarinPanjoro said:

Allow Blast weapons to affect the drivers on a Triumph or 4 advantage: A grenade right between the eye-slit is going to hurt the guys inside (just saying).

Without homebrew this is actually a point of encounter design. There are a lot of vehicles that are open topped, allowing blast attacks to easily apply to drivers and passengers (not to mention aimed attacks).

There are a few vehicles out there that look really good on paper, but when you consider the lack of protection to the crew they aren't so great (Hutt floater I'm looking at you!)

1 hour ago, Ghostofman said:

Without homebrew this is actually a point of encounter design. There are a lot of vehicles that are open topped, allowing blast attacks to easily apply to drivers and passengers (not to mention aimed attacks).

There are a few vehicles out there that look really good on paper, but when you consider the lack of protection to the crew they aren't so great (Hutt floater I'm looking at you!)

Ah, but if you ask Tramp, the Hutt is within the floater.

And the appeal of the Hutt floater is in having an inexpensive (and non-Restricted) way to bring devastating firepower to the battlefield with at least as much mobility as a foot soldier packing a rifle. In that, it excels; it is salty death on a cracker.