Resist Calls


Archived topics from the different rule forums.

Moderator: Admin

User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 2369

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:32 am

Location: Michigan

Post Tue Aug 22, 2006 4:07 pm

I'd throw an asterix on resist fear. Maybe it's not as observable but the crush thing puts it up a notch. If I called fear and the person had a shield like Nelkie's, most of my hits are going to hit it (actively blocking or not)and the attacker would know the difference.

Again, I'd still say throw them in the skills especially if not all need the call. That way you don't need exception verbage. Less words is better. It's alot easier if all I need to do is look at the skill description if it is needed or not. You way accomplishes this too but in a reverse order (ie if there's wording there you don't need to make the call) which seems sorta counter intuitative.

I like the idea of the role playing hits as a suggestion (sort of like those ones in the boxes you already have). Encouraging someone to role play a hit is cool, but I wouldn't make it mandatory. I mean I may have a good idea that a 30 boom will really hurt someone but it's just as impressive to see them get hit and just keep coming. I might rethink my strategy then.
My posts in no way reflect that of anyone else nor are they in any way official.
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1004

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:25 am

I would put an asteik for resist sleep and fear. You know if a person is affected by a sleep or not. They standing up fighting and than they fall down sleeping. Very obivous.

Wouldn't resist posion and disease be obvious in the fact the person wouldn't be turning green, throwing up, etc, but are fine and keep moving normaly? Not to menition resist posion needs to called becasue it will effect how ones attack a foe. If a person is posioned, than they can not use skills, and is defenseless. What's the point of posioning someone if you can't tell if it worked or not.
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 3094

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:42 pm

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 6:56 am

You get into an issue with the poison call if you want to be concerned with whether it worked.

Do they need to call resist/immune when they didn't take the poison due to armor? so now you can't tell if they are poisoned...so what do you do?
Travis Cole
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1004

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:01 am

Good point on the armor.

But I think having certain resesits being called and others not, cause unnecessary complication in the system. Keep it simple, if you resist something, call it.
User avatar

GM

Posts: 4122

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 3:49 pm

Location: Wouldn't you like to know

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:09 am

I would put an asteik for resist sleep and fear. You know if a person is affected by a sleep or not. They standing up fighting and than they fall down sleeping. Very obivous.


Exactly why there doesn't need to be an artificial "Resist" called when used. If they dont fall over, you know they are not affected by the sleep

Wouldn't resist posion and disease be obvious in the fact the person wouldn't be turning green, throwing up, etc, but are fine and keep moving normaly?

No

Not to menition resist posion needs to called becasue it will effect how ones attack a foe. If a person is posioned, than they can not use skills, and is defenseless. What's the point of posioning someone if you can't tell if it worked or not.


I think you are missing the point. Every thing will effect how you attack a foe. Thats not the criteria for calling a resist. The criteria is whether or not the fact that the effect was resisted is easily observable by an opponent during combat when close inspection is not possible or if the outcome of resisting the effect is not easily phys-repped or Role-played.
Wayne O
The Game Master Lite
Frag the weak, Hurdle the dead!
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 2369

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:32 am

Location: Michigan

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:07 am

WayneO42 wrote:I think you are missing the point. Every thing will effect how you attack a foe. Thats not the criteria for calling a resist. The criteria is whether or not the fact that the effect was resisted is easily observable by an opponent during combat when close inspection is not possible or if the outcome of resisting the effect is not easily phys-repped or Role-played.


See now we are getting into what the physical effect of an effect is. The rules try to avoid that so why make distinctions at all? I mean if I want my empath sleep to cause my enemies to have little zzz's floating above their heads, then that's not a rules impact, except when you start dictating whether or not said effect should be obvious.

Easy solution. All effects are obvious. All resists should be called. If my rage is that I turn into the Hulk, cool. If I'm poisoned while raging, it'd be obvious. Maybe that poison causes weird sores on my body too. Again obvious. The rules haven't and shouldn't dictate the roleplaying aspects of skills.
My posts in no way reflect that of anyone else nor are they in any way official.
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 3094

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:42 pm

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:21 am

dier_cire wrote:
WayneO42 wrote:
Easy solution. All effects are obvious. All resists should be called. If my rage is that I turn into the Hulk, cool. If I'm poisoned while raging, it'd be obvious. Maybe that poison causes weird sores on my body too. Again obvious. The rules haven't and shouldn't dictate the roleplaying aspects of skills.


Easy solution. No effects are obvious. No resists should be called. If my rage is that I get angry , cool. If I'm poisoned while raging, it'd be invisible . Maybe that doesn't poison causes weird sores on my body too. Again obvious. The rules haven't and shouldn't dictate the roleplaying aspects of skills.(same arguement could be made.)

That's what the entire argument has been. That you KNOW your effects work because it's OBVIOUS.(IT blood spirting,running in fear,etc.) (that obviousness is a ROLE PLAYING portion.) You are trying to get the rules modified to suit a roleplaying objective.
Last edited by cole45 on Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
Travis Cole
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 2369

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:32 am

Location: Michigan

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:02 am

But again, what's the harm in calling a resist on a non-obvious effect? Unless you are trying to be deceptive, there isn't. And conflict resolution should avoid deception.

and to the ninja edit:
I'm not asking for a roleplaying reason. I'm asking for clarity during combat. I've already given an example of this. Standing around calling a single call waiting for a response has nothing to do with roleplaying.
My posts in no way reflect that of anyone else nor are they in any way official.
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1004

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:25 am

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:34 am

What is gained by keeping resist's to one self and calling them when used?

I know what is gained when they are call out when used
1. Less confusion by the PC's
2. Rapid change in combat stragies
3. Less fustration by the PC's trying to figure out what hurts X thing and what doesn't
4. A more enjoyable, smooth flowing game
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:50 am

cole45 wrote:"So purposefully withholding information that should be readily obvious just because your plot hinges on a particular resist or immunity is lame IMO."

That's my point. If it's NOT going to be apperent(and face it, sometimes it's NOT.) then they are not going to know. That said, the question becomes, who determines whether damaging a creature is apperent? Easy, THE GMS. that's why an description or instruction set was written the way it was.


MAYBE, JUST maybe, the plot is NOT about killing something, but making the players think about what it is they are doing.


What your intentions for the plot are are moot, the only issue is whether or not the PC should be able to tell if they are affecting you or not. And I really don't see how with medieval weapons and with damaging magic that it wouldn't be pretty obvious that damage is occuring unless the defender is covered by some sort of illusion.

I agree with your asterisk skills Wayne but I really don't think you need to have the part about not feigning, if you want to run away from battle screaming like a bitch you shouldn't be kept from doing so. :lol: I like your getting hit addition but it doesn't really say that you should call resists. Perhaps that part could be added to the calls section as well as the taking damage section. I also think you're on the right track to exclude the skills that don't fall under the should call. Make a rule and note the exceptions is always a better idea IMO.
Last edited by Peace420 on Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 2369

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 9:32 am

Location: Michigan

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:59 am

Peace420 wrote:Make a rule and note the exceptions is always a better idea IMO.


See to me it's like telling a kid (or me) "don't do that". All we hear is "do that". If you say "do this" (which happens to be the opposite of don't do that), we get it. If you only have individual rules in each section, there is no "don't do this".

It's like Rage saying you can use all your life point skills except those that say you can't versus Rage saying you can use these skills. The exception way is a lot tougher to remember.
My posts in no way reflect that of anyone else nor are they in any way official.
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 3094

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:42 pm

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:03 pm

*But again, what's the harm in calling a resist on a non-obvious effect? Unless you are trying to be deceptive, there isn't. And conflict resolution should avoid deception.*

let's use matt's example. You sleep a guard. The Guard resists but pretends to be dead. What do you do? You hit him a few times while he's down. that what you do. War is about deception. (not cheating. Deception is not cheating.)

and to the ninja edit:
*I'm not asking for a roleplaying reason. I'm asking for clarity during combat. I've already given an example of this. Standing around calling a single call waiting for a response has nothing to do with roleplaying.*

No, what you want is feedback that allows you to impliment your abilities in combat tactically. I applaud this. However what we have are single calls that represent multiple read world effects. And you are argueing for the simplist rule that is IN YOUR FAVOR.

And it is in your favor for the resists to be called. But it is not going to be that way for everyone.


What is gained by keeping resist's to one self and calling them when used?

I know what is gained when they are call out when used
1. Less confusion by the PC's
2. Rapid change in combat stragies
3. Less fustration by the PC's trying to figure out what hurts X thing and what doesn't
4. A more enjoyable, smooth flowing game

Well, to whit.

When resists are not called it
1. Adds to the confusion of your opponents, scaring them into unnessisary action. And we know that NEVER happens in combat in the real world.

2. When your resists are called, it allows the opponent to defeat your stratagy, unrealistcally giving them information they shouldn't possess.

3. Lessens the frustration of PCs who keep trying to use tactics to outmanuver their foes.

4. Allows for a more enjoyable, tension filled game.
Travis Cole
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 3094

Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 3:42 pm

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:09 pm

*What your intentions for the plot are are moot, the only issue is whether or not the PC should be able to tell if they are affecting you or not. And I really don't see how with medieval weapons and with damaging magic that it wouldn't be pretty obvious that damage is occuring unless the defender is covered by some sort of illusion. *

I agree with you, if and ONLY if we are talking about two regular guys. But it's high fantasy. There are all sorts of crazy creatures you won't be able to tell. PC VS PC, sure.
Travis Cole
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:15 pm

Not really, it works for both types of people the people who understand "don't do that" read it and note the occasions they can, the people that do better with noting when you can simply remember when they can. It makes for a much cleaner clearer system, if it doesn't say you can in the skill you can't do it as opposed to does the skill say that you can. I personally would rather err on the side of mre resists called than need be rather than confusion on whether it needs to be called. I would say the same for most skills and rules too.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
User avatar

Town Member
Town Member

Posts: 1116

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:33 am

Location: Smoky Haze

Post Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:23 pm

cole45 wrote:*What your intentions for the plot are are moot, the only issue is whether or not the PC should be able to tell if they are affecting you or not. And I really don't see how with medieval weapons and with damaging magic that it wouldn't be pretty obvious that damage is occuring unless the defender is covered by some sort of illusion. *

I agree with you, if and ONLY if we are talking about two regular guys. But it's high fantasy. There are all sorts of crazy creatures you won't be able to tell. PC VS PC, sure.


See I think no matter what you can tell if you're hurting someone or whether or not you've pushed them to the side and such. And I ALWAYS advocate that the GM's have the right to alter the rules for very special occasions but that should be rare and should have some solid reasoning behind it. And give me an example of something that wouldn't show effects of damage at all? Stone would chip, metal would ding and crumple, a water or wind elemental would offer resistance to your cleave as opposed to it passing through unhindered, even an uber self healer you'd see a gash even if it knitted itself as you gash.
Death=Adder

One of these days...I'm going to cut you into little pieces...

~Pink Floyd~
PreviousNext

Return to Rule Forum Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Designed by ST Software for PTF.