Campaign Style: Munchkins Vs. Realism

[General Pain]

strangly I like where this is going

[Rupert Willies]

Yes, that is strange, indeed.. lol

Originally Posted by General Pain

strangly I like where this is going

[headquarters]

I will come up with a little snag rule /mishap rule that will apply for teh sheer bulkiness of objects as well as weight when considering encumberance.

now taking suggestions

[FMDeCorba]

My suggestion would be to have a Murphy scale from 1-10, where 1 is wearing regular clothes without special hoops or stuff velcroed on to it, 10 being the state of wearing heavy body armor in addition to carrying arms, ammunition and a backpack, entailing quite few straps and excentric objects strapped to the character.
When the M-factor has been decided at the GM´s discretion, a 10d is rolled a couple of times (5 for example) before the session starts, and the result is noted by the GM. All results below or equal to the assigned number equals a snag or mishap at a really bad time, and is distibuted freely during the ensuing session by the GM when he sees fit.

This way it will pay to reduce the mass of objects carried, and the GM doesn´t have to make extra die rolls during firefights, without the snags or mishaps becoming entirely arbitrary or whim-based.

[headquarters]

long those lines myself ,but more like pushing the work over on the player -making them take a Murphy roll whenever a round could be called combat -less for the GM to keep track of -

1-10 system the same .

[Rupert Willies]

Isn't this going a little overboard; the new rule would give us another of those silly 10% failure rules - you know even the best pilot in the world would still have a 10% failure rate. In this new case, an Olympic gymnast would still have a 10% chance of tripping over, wearing nothing but a leotard.

I think there should be either a roll against "dexterity" to avoid falling when tripping, or a 0 - 9 M-scale

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by Rupert Willies

Isn't this going a little overboard; the new rule would give us another of those silly 10% failure rules - you know even the best pilot in the world would still have a 10% failure rate. In this new case, an Olympic gymnast would still have a 10% chance of tripping over, wearing nothing but a leotard.

I think there should be either a roll against "dexterity" to avoid falling when tripping, or a 0 - 9 M-scale

I wasnt thinking a 10 % chance of fumbling at all times !

Practically equipped PCs wouldnt snag at all in my head - the "fumble roll" should be implemented after tallying up the total load,bulk,armour type and general assessment of this .

Say bulletproof vest and helmet,assault vest ,carbin/weapon ,sidearm and small backpack with a few extras in it - not encumbered -with training you can run about just like that .

level 0 on the scale of fumble -no rolls and can jump around and get down (!)

But say you kick it up a notch

sniper rifle,carbine,sidearms,heavier armour ,big backpack with loads of extras and weight -
level 1 on the scale of fumble -modified agility roll by penalty as well as rolling when making moves like diving for cover,rolling across the ground,crawling etc

and then you get to the antimaterial rifle,smg,carbine,3 sidearms,super heavy armour huge backpack with loads and loads of kit .

level 2 on the fumble.

heavy agility penalty and rolls every time combat is initiated where there are obstacles about -fumble rolls if attempting moves AND when moving around obstacles etc


something like this was my intention -but to "rule-ify it"...hmmmm