Question about combat – I’ve only played a couple sessions, and both have been with different GMs, both of whom have handled combat differently. Now, it says in the book that there’s only one roll for Launch Assault or Open Fire, and then depending on the result, the GM and player narrate the following fight. The way I interprete that is you make a roll, then (on a success) clean up the “threat” you made it against, whether that is all the enemies around or just one group of them. Then, against a different threat, you would make another roll. But one of my GMs handled it where you make the roll, then just deal with a single enemy, or just a few, but then that roll persists, you could say, for the entire battle, and whatever combat action you take automatically has that level of success. I know this is a confusingly worded post, but some explanation on the system would be appreciated. Thanks!
Question about combat – I’ve only played a couple sessions, and both have been with different GMs, both of whom have…
Question about combat – I’ve only played a couple sessions, and both have been with different GMs, both of whom have…
The scale of the roll for conflict resolution is unspecified, possibly because it needs to be fictionally justified. Your Smuggler-with-a-heart-of-gold might only be able to take out one or two enemies at a time, but the Crazy-girl-but-sleeper-agent-assassin can probably take on an entire room full of guys at once.
I could see playing with the narration and persisting a single roll if the scale of two rolls are off – if those two characters were in the same fight, the former might roll multiple times in the span it take the latter to complete their action.
I handle combat as such: if you are facing a group of enemies whether you roll launch assault or open fire is dependent on HOW you are fighting them. If you roll 10+ you are straight up successful in defeating that group. 7-9 maybe you only defeat a few, and therefore maybe another roll is needed. Or maybe it takes longer than expected and another group comes in to help. On 6- you fail.
So was he making you do multiple rolls when you hit 10+ the first time? Or was it on 7-9? If it’s the latter that makes sense to me. But it has to make narrative sense.
I personally like the idea from Trollbabe that each character has a “scale” attached on how many people their actions affect. So a Personal Scale means 1-v-1 for combat rolls, a Group Scale means you can take on a small group… Village, City, Country, World, etc.
It wasn’t that he was making us roll multiple times; rather, he let us compete the action that triggered the move, then moved on with the story, rather than resolving the whole conflict. It was also a bit of him not letting the players narrate their actions in the fight, but we talked about that and figured it out.
I think it’s all dependent on the narrative. If you say you want to duck and weave behind cover, moving for better positioning while firing at the enemy then you roll +mettle and if you roll 10+ you take out all of the Opposition. If you roll 7-9 maybe you do maybe you don’t. You do defeat them but something happens. Maybe only a few are killed and the rest retreat and regroup. Maybe they call in reinforcements. Maybe another faction comes in and ruins your day. But you still defeated them
The first scenario is correct. You make a Move against a Threat, then resolve the threat (either eliminating it (10+), reducing/changing it (7-9) or evolving/activating it (6-)). If a new threat presents itself, it needs to be handled by a separate Move.
The second scenario, in which your overall effectiveness in a big fight is determined at the beginning, could theoretically work, but the game wasn’t designed that way. Mostly because any result other than a 10+ becomes very frustrating or strange: no matter what you try, you’ll always not-quite eliminate the threat, or always get hurt, or always fail, etc.
Just thinking out loud .. I was thinking that enemy groups would be split organically rather than numerically. Meaning that you don’t split by even numbers, but with their positions and tactics. You could have one threat being 8 troopers closing in front of you, another threat being 3 stealthy/flanking troopers and then a lone sniper on the roof being another threat. When you have a large opposition, they would logically try to split and out flank you anyways. Then players then take action to adress each individual threats, and unadressed threats raise a free move from the gm, whatever that is. Also, some threats could be addressed with non offensive action. A PC could hack the door or operate a crane to block the way.
Etienne Lefebvre totally man. That’s a good way to do it
Yes indeed Etienne Lefebvre . I refer you to page 49. Enemies can be grouped in multiple ways, usually by the danger they pose (one mech = 3 elite troopers = a dozen grunts, etc) or by their task/tactic (several rushers – a half dozen gunners – four stealthy flankers – the two dudes on the comms calling for for support)