4e Mechanics & Rules Discussion

[Ursus Maior]

There aren't any rules for triumphant successes or abysmal failures in T2K4. You have the push mechanic, for bending your luck at the (possible) cost of damaging gear or taking stress or (physical) strain yourself, but beyond that, it's either pass or fail.

[unipus]

Personally, I still always interpret it otherwise. For many tasks, 4 successes paints a much different picture than 1 and I narrate it that way. For other tasks, I sometimes make it clear before the role what the stakes are, ie "One success here and you'll get him to walk away... but you're gonna need more than that to really convince him of anything" or "any successes and you'll climb the wall -- more than that and you get it done quickly and quietly" and so on.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

There aren't any rules for triumphant successes or abysmal failures in T2K4. You have the push mechanic, for bending your luck at the (possible) cost of damaging gear or taking stress or (physical) strain yourself, but beyond that, it's either pass or fail.

I found the bit that I referred to in the OP. It's not an outstanding success mechanic, per se, but it's close. It apparently only applies in certain situations, though, so not for opposed rolls, in general. Off the top of my head, I can't remember a situation where it does apply so, if you know of one, please share.

MULTIPLE SUCCESSES: A roll of 10 or higher on a single die
(only possible with a D10 or D12 of course) counts as
two successes. This means you can potentially roll up to
four successes with a single skill roll (two successes on
each die), if you are both skilled and lucky. With bonus
beyond the first one you can achieve additional effects, if explicitly stated in the rules.

-

[Raellus]

I find the Killing Blow (see below) rule to be a little odd in that it attempts to strictly limit player agency by forcing a roll to execute an action based on solely on willpower. I agree that there should be some sort of a psychological penalty for doing something so taboo (e.g. the +1 stress point seems reasonable), but blocking the action based on a failed roll just seems unnecessarily restrictive and arbitrary. Taking the Killer specialty seems like an expensive way to avoid these restrictions.

KILLING BLOW
A person who is incapacitated by damage is defenseless. If it’s a human being and you want to kill them outright, you must fail an EMP roll (roll one base die only). If the roll succeeds, you simply cannot force yourself to commit the deed. Even if the roll fails and you do kill the victim, you suffer 1 point of stress – killing in cold blood is not easy. If you have the Killer specialty (page 49) you can kill defenseless enemies without these negative effects.

At the risk of sounding sanguine and immoral, does the mechanic of having to pass an EMP roll before being allowed to deliver a killing blow seem reasonable to you?

Not to say that, as a player, I would ever want my PC to do this, but there might be circumstances where it's justifiable (a "mercy killing" to end the suffering of an untreatable, badly wounded enemy, for example). By the same token, as a Ref, I would make sure that if my players' PCs committed any unlawful killings, there would be IG consequences to contend with down the line (the OPFOR would commit even more resources to hunting them down, for example).

The Killing Blow rule seems even more odd given the following rule in the Ranged Combat section.

DEFENSELESS TARGET: If your target is in the same hex and immobile or unaware of you, you gain a +3 bonus.

So, the rules give you a bonus to physically take action against an incapacitated NPC, but then forces an EMP roll to actually carry it out. Why so many hoops? I don't quite get it.

-

[Ursus Maior]

I'm pretty sure these two rules are not necessarily about the same types of targets. The first one is about targets that are "incapacitated by damage" and thus defenseless. The other one is about a target that is "in the same hex and immobile or unaware of you".

Thus, the second type can still be very much a threat. And the second rule is about how easy it's technically to hit them, but shooting an immobile, incapacitated person is still emotionally hard.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Ursus Maior

I'm pretty sure these two rules are not necessarily about the same types of targets. The first one is about targets that are "incapacitated by damage" and thus defenseless. The other one is about a target that is "in the same hex and immobile or unaware of you".

Thus, the second type can still be very much a threat. And the second rule is about how easy it's technically to hit them, but shooting an immobile, incapacitated person is still emotionally hard.

You're right, but both rules could still apply in a Killing Blow situation. For example, an unconscious enemy in the same hex is both immobile and unaware of you, so the targeting bonus rule applies. I don't see how the Defenseless Target rule wouldn't apply, as it is written.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

By the same token I've never been a fan of games that use a "Coolness Under Fire" stat to limit / control what actions a character may or may not take. I'm not disputing the realism of these rules, I'm just not in favour of mechanisms that artificially restrict player agency - for me I see little enjoyment in playing a game where I'm told the only thing that my character can do is hug the bottom of a trench and pray because I failed a CUF roll (I'm equally opposed to 'inspirational leader' type rules that do the opposite - it's still an imposed restriction of player agency).

I'm conflicted about CUF mechanics. On the one hand, I agree with you completely about player agency. I believe that players should be able to willfully expose their PCs to enemy fire if they want to. Natural consequences will likely follow from such a decision.

On the other hand, I like the concept of CUF as a mechanic. I think it's way too easy for a player playing a game to decide to take IC life-or-death risks with his/her fictional avatar. If a PC dies, it's not that hard to roll up a new one, or walk away from the game. IRL, if one willfully takes a risk that will likely result in getting shot, the consequences are much more serious. IRL, the decision to expose oneself to incoming fire is much harder, and the vast majority of people will choose self-preservation over valor. In this instance, a CUF mechanic does limit player agency, but, at the same time, it adds a layer of realism.

So I guess, when it comes to whether or not to use CUF, it depends on whether Ref and/or players value agency or realism more. That's a conversation that I think Refs and players should before starting a campaign.

-

[unipus]

I somewhat agree. I do like that the rule tries to prevent murder-hoboism. I don't like that it places a firm prohibition on what the character does.

Here's a quick hack that preserves player agency but is still appropriately brutal:
- If you fail your EMP roll*, then you can kill the victim as you wished. You take the 1 stress.
- If you pass the EMP roll (and thus fail at being able to kill them in cold blood), you can still choose to do it anyway. However you now must take 1d6 stress, and if this incapacitates you, then you roll to pick up a trauma response as normal! You thought it would be easy to kill someone up close, huh?


* note that this is the actual rule. You have to FAIL the empathy check, not pass it!

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by unipus

Here's a quick hack that preserves player agency but is still appropriately brutal:
- If you fail your EMP roll*, then you can kill the victim as you wished. You take the 1 stress.
- If you pass the EMP roll (and thus fail at being able to kill them in cold blood), you can still choose to do it anyway. However you now must take 1d6 stress, and if this incapacitates you, then you roll to pick up a trauma response as normal! You thought it would be easy to kill someone up close, huh?

I like it. IMHO, this is a better approach than the official one, as it allows for both player agency and IC consequences.

What are your thoughts on CUF mechanics, in general, and 4e's, in particular?

-

[Ursus Maior]

I see the problem with player agency and agree that it is a sub-optimal solution to a problem that actually does exist. It's not far fetched to think that a party might get pinned down totally in one round and wiped out or forced to surrender in the next, without having the chance to act at all.

This might, of course, offer new chances to role-play, e. g. a surrender scene or a flight etc. However, this might not be an enjoyable part of the game as it's quite literally forced upon the players as much as their characters.

However, since I decided to use the Bravo Zulu rules option from the Discord server, which basically introduces a limited amount of "dramatic change tokens" for enhanced player agency, I will allow the use of one of these Bravo Zulu points to immediately break out of suppression. It gives the players a choice to trade a rare resource and regain agency for their character.

I found these rules on the Discord server.

[swaghauler]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm conflicted about CUF mechanics. On the one hand, I agree with you completely about player agency. I believe that players should be able to willfully expose their PCs to enemy fire if they want to. Natural consequences will likely follow from such a decision.

On the other hand, I like the concept of CUF as a mechanic. I think it's way too easy for a player playing a game to decide to take IC life-or-death risks with his/her fictional avatar. If a PC dies, it's not that hard to roll up a new one, or walk away from the game. IRL, if one willfully takes a risk that will likely result in getting shot, the consequences are much more serious. IRL, the decision to expose oneself to incoming fire is much harder, and the vast majority of people will choose self-preservation over valor. In this instance, a CUF mechanic does limit player agency, but, at the same time, it adds a layer of realism.

So I guess, when it comes to whether or not to use CUF, it depends on whether Ref and/or players value agency or realism more. That's a conversation that I think Refs and players should before starting a campaign.

-

I use the CUF rules that TW2K13 has written modded to V2.2 for this as well. I allow the PC to roll [WILL + CUF] to perform the deed (there still may be psychological consequences). There are some things that need to be determined before the roll can be made though...

1) The intended target/targets is/are: Violent and the PC has witnessed them causing harm to innocent civilians or the PC's own party. = EASY test.

2) The intended targets are RUMOURED to have committed atrocities and have attacked the PC's party with extreme violence. = ROUTINE test.

3) The intended targets were very hostile and have attacked the PC's party and the fight has just concluded. = AVERAGE test

4) The PCs came into a fight (possibly to help a 3rd party) with the intended targets but had no interactions prior to this fight. = FAIRLY DIFFICULT test

5) The PCs have no prior contact but are being told that the intended targets have committed atrocities. = DIFFICULT test

6) The targets are innocent civilians or unresisting wounded soldiers that the PCs did not just fight or interact with. = FORMIDABLE test

7) The targets are innocent children (or puppies/kittens) = IMPOSSIBLE test

I believe, as someone who has exchanged fire with a 10-year-old skinny in Africa and pointed a gun at perps on three separate occasions in the civilian world, that the psychological implications of such acts are much greater than many people believe they are. Those implications are often every bit as damaging as physical wounds, so I instituted this mechanic as a "blend" between reality and player agency.

I don't know IF I even hit that kid, but I DO KNOW that after the ambush on our convoy ended, he was laying in the street... DEAD... with 3 holes in his chest and that any one, or even all three of those bullets COULD BE MINE! That uncertainty is both a blessing and a curse. I don't really KNOW that I killed a kid, but I cannot say that I didn't either. I can STILL close my eyes today and see him as clearly as if it were yesterday firing that AK with the stock tucked under his arm. For those of you who have read my past postings, this was the same (and sole) ambush we had where the RPG rocket skipped off of the ground, went under our HEMMET, and blew a hole in the stone wall across the street as we were entering the Moge near 4 Circle North (heading to the Port from Kismayo on the South). God Bless the 2nd MEU for responding to our call for assistance fast and in force.

[unipus]

Man, that's a story! Sorry you had to go through that. What you describe is the same reason for firing squads... it's so the executioner has some doubt/deniability about whether THEY are the one that did the killing.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

At the risk of sounding sanguine and immoral, does the mechanic of having to pass an EMP roll before being allowed to deliver a killing blow seem reasonable to you?

No, it doesn't seem reasonable to me. I'm aware of instances where this situation has come up in games and I'm not disputing that it can potentially be a difficult topic but player agency should be primary. I don't think you're sanguine or immoral, I think for me the challenge is how the group deal with the consequences, both IC and OOC.

By the same token I've never been a fan of games that use a "Coolness Under Fire" stat to limit / control what actions a character may or may not take. I'm not disputing the realism of these rules, I'm just not in favour of mechanisms that artificially restrict player agency - for me I see little enjoyment in playing a game where I'm told the only thing that my character can do is hug the bottom of a trench and pray because I failed a CUF roll (I'm equally opposed to 'inspirational leader' type rules that do the opposite - it's still an imposed restriction of player agency).