On 06/10/2017 at 0:50 AM, 2P51 said:

That's still unbalanced.

Actually having a fear check when you are under a barrage of fire is actually one of the examples given when a fear check might be necessary. Albeit perhaps not for a battle hardened veteran.

Just now, syrath said:

Actually having a fear check when you are under a barrage of fire is actually one of the examples given when a fear check might be necessary. Albeit perhaps not for a battle hardened veteran.

Never said it wasn't, but letting the melee guy automatically impose a consequence on the gun guy, but giving the melee guy a chance to avoid any consequence is still not balanced.

31 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Never said it wasn't, but letting the melee guy automatically impose a consequence on the gun guy, but giving the melee guy a chance to avoid any consequence is still not balanced.

Maybe im misreading this but wasnt the suggestion is that the melee guy has the fear check because he is getting shot at.

5 hours ago, whafrog said:

Bears don't have pants

What kind of lewd game are you playing, man?

5 hours ago, whafrog said:

Well I guess that's better than embarrassing yourself with a double post.

9 hours ago, whafrog said:

I think this isn't an accurate representation. The answer isn't just "You can do anything." The answer is "You can do anything, and here's a list of possibilities within a scale to get your imagination flowing. If you can't think of anything in a short period of time, no problem, we'll apply one of the defaults according to the scale." And all those defaults are already listed, as weapon qualities, Advantage/Triumph expenditure, the Crit chart, etc.

Basically, the value system is right there. It's not lacking, you're just not seeing it (yet).

Edit: this is kind of poignant, as I'm having a similar argument with a friend who is GMing D&D5. He's new to it, and carries a lot of baggage from "the good old days", including specialized crit charts, fumble charts, etc. That's all fine, but he has no sense of scaling. In D&D5, a crit means rolling double damage dice. That's it. He wants more interesting options, which is cool, but in order to scale the effect, it basically has to be worth a second damage roll. That is the value of a crit. So he could replace it with knocking someone prone, or dropping someone's pants, or passing a +2 benefit to the next PC, or...any number of fairly minor tactical options with amusing side-effects. Then I asked: why do you need a chart? Now that you know the rough scale, why not just create it on the fly? Bears don't have pants, so if you include those kinds of effects, they aren't always applicable, and you either need more charts, or give up.

The zen of it is, the more you codify, the less you're prepared for...

Yeah and in practice if I'm being honest much of these designs don't get much use. I think I like the idea of keeping it in a certain range of choices because what I don't want are stupid choices. The tables and charts are a reaction to years of people doing stupid ****. You don't want to come out and say it's stupid or tell them what to do, but just letting it ride starts to get old too, because incrementally stuff happens that starts to wear down the feel of the game. I think I like to change the rules because it gives me a new paradigm that I can tailor a bit without outright digging right into agency. If it's in the rules it's in the contract.

I do think I will end up seeing it your way though. It's not fun to admit that, but I will.