I've GM'ed the system for a few sessions now and love it, but I think the next session is going to raise the complexity a bit and I wanted to get some insight by more experienced GMs here.

Without naming the source, we're running one of the pre-written scenarios, heavily modified so it works with our campaign. Let's just say there was a fight in a certain Maguffium plant and the bad guy (we'll call him Klaatu Barada, a Nikto ) has a jetpack. Klaatu jumps from the floor level onto a moving crane. I already see in the rules that he needs to make a piloting check to do so, so that's no problem.

Now one of the PC's, who was up on the catwalk, decides to leap across to the crane and grapple Klaatu, possibly knocking one or both off the structure and down to the floor below (range short). That's where I'm not sure how to resolve the action.

• Is it an athletics check that (if successful) will influence (on the same turn) an immediate brawl check? Or do I combine the activities into a single roll of some sort?
• If successful, how does having a PC latched onto Klaatu affect his attacks?
• Likewise, if Klaatu or the PC wind up with enough negative results to tumble off the crane, do one or both of them get a chance to make a grab to hold on, or are they heading to the floor automatically?
• Could a falling character spend a Destiny point to grab hold of the crane?

I had read a while back that ideally even complex actions should boil down to one check, but I'm not sure I see that as an advantage if you have to shoehorn too much into one roll.

The are various way of solving this.

1) Allow this athletics check as a manoeuvre, if successful let threats or advantage have an effect on the Brawl check. I could use and accept this solution, its more rolling but its fair. I guess. Depends how far away the character has to tumble/jump.

2) Require an Action for the Athletics check, but an appropriate amount of advantages downgrades it from an Action to a manoeuvre, for instance 3 or 4 advantages or a Triumph, this frees up the Action again and you can Brawl. I'm not a particular fan of this solution.

3) Use the combined roll setup from two weapon fighting (page 210 I think ). Since brawl and athletics both are based on Brawn, the characteristic is the same, then pick the worst of the two skill (i.e. the one with the fewest ranks), and then pick the most difficult of the two checks. Success means that both the leap/jump and attack both succeeded, failure means you can decide whether they fell, managed to jump over there, but gaining no attack or whatever you want.

4) Have it take two rounds, one round for movement and Action for jump/tumble - the next one would be attack. This could evolve into a type of chase around the warehouse, with lots of athletics and coordination checks needs to be made to keep up and avoid falling. It will take longer, but can also be more intense. just remember that one roll of the dice, one skill check equal as much time as it needs, by which I mean its not necessarily 6 second, it can be up to a minute, even a minute and a half of in-game action generated from one check, the more drama and flavour the better.

Spending a Destiny point to grab onto a crane? Certainly! I cannot see why not, you can even make it more dramatic, a tiny hand rail at the bottom of a ladder (unseen until that moment), just centimetres above boiling metal or some evil smelling chemical (or the common bottomless pit), and from there require some Athletics for climbing, and a Discipline check for Fear of falling

The are various way of solving this.

3) Use the combined roll setup from two weapon fighting (page 210 I think ). Since brawl and athletics both are based on Brawn, the characteristic is the same, then pick the worst of the two skill (i.e. the one with the fewest ranks), and then pick the most difficult of the two checks. Success means that both the leap/jump and attack both succeeded, failure means you can decide whether they fell, managed to jump over there, but gaining no attack or whatever you want.

[Edit] just thought of this; opposed skill check of PCs Athletics vs. NPCs Brawling check

Yes, if going for the either the combined check, or separate checks within same round, apply at least one upgrade to the difficulty (in addition to whatever else you base the difficulty on), or just add a challenge die.

Thanks Jergergryte! These all seem like reasonable solutions. I'm not particularly a fan of #4 though, since it would probably play out like this:

Round 1:

Player: I want to jump across and tackle Klaatu.

GM: OK, roll for athletics.

Player: success!

GM: OK, you're aboard the crane. That's all you can do this round. Klaatu shoots you in the face at point blank, then jetpacks away.

I guess the problem here is the jetpack movement is already set up in the text as a maneuver.

I think the issue with #3 for me is you automatically take your worst possible combination of the skills and difficulties as the basis of a single roll. Players with 2 weapon fighters will pay the necessary XP in a build that offsets that sort of penalty, but in an impromptu situation like this there may be too much disincentive to go for theatrical heroics. That said, I suppose the worst skill will likely be acrobatics for the PC in my my original example, and, in the separate check scenario, blowing the athletics check would cancel the opportunity for the brawl check anyway since at that point the PC is more concerned about not faceplanting on the factory floor.

I do like the single roll aspect, and emulating the 2 weapon mechanic is interesting in theory. I guess the key is to make it challenging without being prohibitive, and with the promise of a good payoff for success.

Opposed tests of Athletics vs Piloting. In the next turn if they are still engaged goto Brawl/combat checks.

Edit: probably with a boost or two to the jetpack guy. KISS all the way.

To be honest with you if I was on a hanging ball I would try to block him from landing on or grabbing me. Which is why I think the opposed roll is the best way to go. Athletics vs brawl

Bladerunner and archon: I think your suggestions are good ones, but they're getting close to touching on what some others found to be a flaw in the system: why isn't a standard attack roll opposed? Particularly a melee/brawl attack, when a defender's skill should "realistically" come into play? Why should the attack I described be special in that regard?

Ostensibly the target (Klaatu) has a brawl skill better than the standard 2 difficulty for a melee check, but if we're talking about opposed checks, what if his brawl was actually terrible? Say 1 die? So it would then actually be harder to tackle him standing on a floor (standard 2 difficulty) than it would be on a moving crane (1 difficulty)? That calls the whole concept of a standard fixed (non-opposed) difficulty into question. Yeah, you could probably make a case for brawl vs athletics in this scenario, but I think the stronger case could be made to just leave the 2 difficulty for the attack (KISS) or else allow the target's skill to actually matter.

But I digress. I think the maneuver check followed by an attack check (likely modified by the maneuver's degree of success) is the way I'd like to go. I think that approach also works pretty well at sorting out how the symbols affect the overall action.

btw...part of my issue with the combined check using the lesser skill is the attacker's brawl (or melee) skill doesn't even enter into the equation with the combined checks as described. Part of the point of having all the skill points is to be able to not just succeed, but succeed more decisively. With the two checks, the attacker has to take a real chance with the athletics roll (likely something they're less capable of doing well), and failure is a Bad Thing, but if they succeed, they've now got Klaatu just where they want him.

I do agree that the attack roll itself should be against an increased difficulty.

Bladerunner and archon: I think your suggestions are good ones, but they're getting close to touching on what some others found to be a flaw in the system: why isn't a standard attack roll opposed? Particularly a melee/brawl attack, when a defender's skill should "realistically" come into play? Why should the attack I described be special in that regard?

The simple answer is it's much easier to say add 2 difficulty dice to hit, instead of his characteristic is 3 and skill of 2 so that's ....

Meh, it really wouldn't take much work, and there's room for somewhat creative middle ground. Set the difficulty as # Difficulty Dice = Agility, Brawn, or Melee (if armed) whichever is highest. The GM (and player) could simply note this as Close Combat Defense and it's a static number to use from then on. And it's not quite as formidable as a fully opposed roll (i.e. no automatic red dice if the defender is skilled, etc.). It strains credulity to think that a person with brawl 5 would be as easy to punch as someone untrained in hand to hand.

I'm not trying to derail my own thread here, I'm merely pointing out that it's odd that you'd do an opposed check in a situation that doesn't inherently favor either party (one's on a crane; the other's jumping to it) but would go with straight difficulty 2 if they were on a solid surface.

I'm not trying to derail my own thread here, I'm merely pointing out that it's odd that you'd do an opposed check in a situation that doesn't inherently favor either party (one's on a crane; the other's jumping to it) but would go with straight difficulty 2 if they were on a solid surface.

I guess like arm wrestling both are trying to win, I.e. opposed roll.. Here I think of one person trying to jump to the ball and the other trying to stop/avoid that from happening, opposed roll. Just my thoughts anyway.

I'd probably just have them roll Athletics. This seems more hinged on the jump and followthrough rather than on some fancy footwork or grappling afterwards. Make it opposed and throw in some setback dice.

Usually in these situations, I let the player choose which skill they want to use, and then resolve the other part of the action with advantages. Most cases I've seen it come up in when doing things stealthily. I will offer the player a choice (do you want to get the item or not be seen) and then use the skill for that one. It allows them to choose which is more important and better ensure the success of that part.

Actually I like doc's idea the best. because you put it back into the players hands. let them tell the story and you give them an upgraded challenge die or two and tell them if they get a despair they slam their head on the crane and fall to the ground stunned or knocked out for a round. then you have everyone invested in that one roll and the players can write their own story. Also making the player choose which is more imoprtant gives the game more depth and a life like feel to it. we all make those choices everyday. so why shouldn't their characters have to make those same decisions?