Damage resolution

Abub's picture
November 18, 2014 - 10:11pm
So... a while back somebody posted here that the damage was supposed to be resolved simultaneously when I was talking about how my players hate systems with a declaration step in the combat sequence.

We used to play alot of Marvel Superheroic Roleplaying (FASERIP) and that system has a delclaration step before you roll initiative.  My players always complained about me using it.

So far they seem less offended by the SF declaration as it happens after initiative and is a boon to the initiative winner.

Anywho...  so I like the solution of making the damage resolutions and I'm trying hard to remember to stick to it (old habits of wanting to describe the action right after damage is rolled).

Anywho... by probably dumb question... is you would treat oppertunity fire phase damage as one "group" and then thier normal attacks as another one.  So... my player A declares he will fire once at a mook, but another player, player B, declares he will shoot twice, and one of those shots happens during an oppertunity attack.  Player B kills the mook in his oppertunity attack... now I have a belly aching player wanting to get to do something else since his action "got ruined".

So... is that how you would do it, resolve all the damage from opertunity attacks before going on to the next combat phase for regular attacks?  Tough Tit for the belly aching player who lost his attack that round?

PS -- I've been playing rate of fire such that you declare I'm going to shoot three times at X then you have to save one shot for X.  If you are shooting a lser pistol and three targets run into your field of fire, you can only opertunity shoot two of them and then during the main attack phase you shoot X once.
Now I'm assuming if nobody grants you an oppertunity attack... then in your normal attack phase you just roll three shots one right after the other.... right?


Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
November 18, 2014 - 11:45pm
A wasted shot is a wasted shot, two people firing can't make those shots return to their barrels and redirect them elsewhere after the fact. Consider how quickly a real life shooting can take place and a six second combat turn becomes an eternity by comparison.

In the end, as GM, you can simply decalre that the combined efforts of both players took the target down. And that is no stretch of the truth either.
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

KRingway's picture
November 19, 2014 - 1:41am
The player is the problem, as they're seeing combat as people waiting in line to fire - which is a bit like fist-fight scenes in movies where people hang back and attack someone one after the other. In reality, lots of weapons are being fired at once, and out of all the shots being fired a few hit their targets. It's not a surgical process. Watch any footage involving small arms combat and this will be come apparent, even if one side has the initiative at any given point.

Malcadon's picture
November 19, 2014 - 12:00pm
I'm not a fan of the default system. Players get really careless if they can take a fair amount of hits.

With damage, I use something akin to the Mini-Six or Silhouette system. With that, damage converts into thresholds like "flesh wounds" and "deep wounds". This makes combat quick and ugly, but it makes the players really think about tactics or even to engaging in combat. But that is fine, as in spite of the effort put into the combat mechanics, we like storytelling more than action, and we get board with protracted combat.

I also treat "initiative" as a tactical advantage than "who goes first." Individuals are prioritized by actions (shooters react before runners, runners can charge into melee, and so forth) and Reflexes (which sound way better than Reaction Speed). (It is entirely possible for two people to hit each other simultaneously, if they are equal in action and speed.) But Initiative is rolled to see who will be the first to declare one's actions. That is, if the players win, the GM would declare what the NPCs are doing that round based on what they can see, and the players can declare their actions based on what they know. If they loose, they would have to declare their actions first. I tie means nether side gets an advantage. Initiative is skipped in the first round if one side is surprised, but would be rolled normally on the next turn. This roll is based on a Tactics skill (I don't use PSAs), and is modified by Intuition. Its an odd system if you are accustomed to the classic "who goes first" method, but I like to keep the players on their toes.

What do you guys think?

Abub's picture
November 19, 2014 - 12:18pm
Mal, the default system works sort of like that with the winner getting the tactical advantage of knowing what the other side is doing before they commit to thier action.