Forums of the Megaverse®

I want to try something, I want to challenge some rules and see what happens.

Ok, the Dodge Penalty, one loses an attack/action for attempting to dodge.

I'd like to remove that penalty and see how it plays out.

Totally remove the penalty, if that doesn't work for you then how about a -4 or -5 to next attack?

Try it, I'd like to hear how it works out.

I have a feeling that it won't significantly diminish game play and it might help not having to keep track of the attacks lost, etc.

We played a game of Rifts once where there was a fight between one player and an NPC. They both had auto dodge so it was pretty much what you are suggesting. We didn't do the penalty to the next action, but the combat was LONG. A lot longer than normal. Maybe it just felt that way since I wasn't one of the people in that combat.

ghost2020 wrote:I want to try something, I want to challenge some rules and see what happens.

Ok, the Dodge Penalty, one loses an attack/action for attempting to dodge.

I'd like to remove that penalty and see how it plays out.

Totally remove the penalty, if that doesn't work for you then how about a -4 or -5 to next attack?

Try it, I'd like to hear how it works out.

I have a feeling that it won't significantly diminish game play and it might help not having to keep track of the attacks lost, etc.

I don't think that flat out saying a dodge doesn't take an action is a good idea. Because most people, when they dodge something, are making a pretty big move that takes effort and leaves them briefly out of sorts and unable to effectively maneuver.
However, a skill or ability that lets someone do as you suggested might be a good idea. Make a snappy dodge move, then recover quickly, but at the cost of accuracy for your next move. It'd add a tactical element to the game if a player with that skill had to choose between losing an attack or taking the penalty.

And of course, there's also autododge for the martial artists and speedsters, which doesn't cost an action or impose a penalty but often has a lower bonus.

Well, I didn't want to get into a big discussion of the rule itself, I think we all know what it's about.

I'm just trying to go through and challenge some sacred cows to see how changing them would affect the gaming session.

ghost2020 wrote:Well, I didn't want to get into a big discussion of the rule itself, I think we all know what it's about.

I'm just trying to go through and challenge some sacred cows to see how changing them would affect the gaming session.

I think the effects would mostly be subtle. I don't play enough combat to really wrap my head around it though.

One thing we have toyed around with are the specifics of what is a 'parry' and what is a 'dodge', basing it primarily on distance.
I see "parry" as sometimes being a "dodge", like moving your head away from a punch or a small side step that doesn't significantly change your physical position in the fight. I see "dodge" as a complete change in position - like what is described in the book.
That is has some affects on the pace of a combat round and the nature of a fighter's abilities. For example, it allows characters to "parry" sword thrusts even if they are completely unarmed.

When I played TMNT we never used the dodge penalty.
Worked great for that style of game where you had the hero's fighting large groups of bad guys.

I agree with Doom here.

I have never penalised a dodge attempt. It's silly and makes it pointless. guns are pretty cumbersome and innacurate (which is why we invented burst fire weapons in the first place) so making them unable to be dodged (come on. natural roll -10? please.) seems counter to almost every heroic genre I can imagine.

True I have players frustrated when they lose actions due to dodging. In a brawling style game of Heroes unlimited, losing all your actions and being pinned because the punks with peashooters are negating your actions seems very anti to the genre (and sucks the 'unlimited' out of 'heroes unlimited')

I've been taking the lost action out of the target's total actions, and counting the dodge as being against all parties until their next action rocks around. it helps, and still keeps guns a little scary, but nothing that cannot be handled with a good right hook and a fist full of moxie.

Batts

Well, combat would take longer as you'd be missing more often.

On the other hand it would make combat involve more of a trinity of accuracy, toughness, and damage, all interacting with each other, instead of just accuracy (which isn't needed much in itself) and toughness.

I first started playing this way, and only within the past 6 years or so have we began using the original rule. Last group never used the -10 rule though.

Other than combat duration, I never saw any real difference between the two.

I have a ranged combat system that incorporates ideas from the Rifter article that had the ranged combat skills. It's worked pretty well for me and allows combat to be both cinematic and still somewhat plausible. Of course, I also keep the house rule that dodging AFTER you've used up your actions for the melee doesn't burn attacks from the next melee. Probably the least plausible element of my system, but it keeps my combats from being a simple game of numbers (i.e. the larger group wins by default because the smaller group has all its attacks eaten up by dodging).

I dunno, I can see some plausibility in that. Keep in mind I don't think of plausibility in a binary sense as if it's there or it isn't there. I think of there being amounts of plausibility - and I see some amount there Just because they are out of attacks their skill allows them to make, doesn't mean they suddenly freeze bodily to the ground for the rest of the melee - they can keep moving around.

One thing I've looked at is the shooting wild penalty - strangely in the text it indicates you do might do it after a dodge, of all things. I don't think it's official, but right there in the text seems to be a way of dodging and shooting - also it makes shooting more about skill (well, that is if you allow bonuses on the wild shot - not sure if wild shots by default allow that)

Warwolf wrote:I have a ranged combat system that incorporates ideas from the Rifter article that had the ranged combat skills.

Do you recall what book that article was in?