|
Just got my hardcover copy in the mail. It's a lot larger than I expected, and it looks even better on paper! Hoping to get a Star Wars-themed game of Strike! going soon, combining my two favorite things at the moment.
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2016 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
I totally forgot post about the game in the thread. Thanks Gharbad! Anyways, Exposed is a cool rule that I would be down for using in a game of Strike. I just have a few thoughts about it. Star Wars isn't exactly a gritty or highly deadly universe, but the shootouts do usually involve both sides taking cover and trading blaster fire, which makes me lean towards the rule as it does seem appropriate. However I have 2 ideas that I'd like to use to give it a more Star Wars feel. -Stooges and Goons do not get to use the Exposed rule. When stormtroopers are shooting at main characters (which the players certainly would be) they have pretty crappy aim, so I feel like this could be reflected by not giving cannon fodder access to Advantage on exposed targets. -Adding in gear that could be used in combat to give cover, like a Portable Defense Screen consumable that would create low cover wherever it is dropped. I'm also considering not letting Exposed apply to melee attacks, but I'm still thinking that one over.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
So tonight I ran a big boss battle for my players that was centered around a unique status that I came up with. My players are a group of mercenaries/rebels in Star Wars, and they were liberating a factory under Imperial control from a mad scientist and her army of rakghoul troopers and thralls. The party Necromancer uses nanobots as the fictional justification for her powers, and the scientist was using a version of her research to control the rakghouls. The rakghoul Goons were able to inflict the status Infected with their melee attacks, and the boss got to exploit it. The status did nothing on its own, but the boss got Advantage against anyone with the Infected status, and when attacking someone with it, she got a special second Effect line that she could apply instead of the normal one. The special Effect line would generally be a worse version of the original, like instead of getting Panicked or Frenzied the target would be Dominated. The Infected status was a Save Ends status, so you could get rid of it, but the Goons were actually pretty good at re-applying it and keeping constant pressure up on the team. The Goons had a special resurrection ability that allowed them to return after each death as a Stooge, but with a longer delay each time. On their first death they came back on their next turn. After that they had to wait a round. Then two rounds and so on. And each time they hit, they transferred the health to the boss and kept her healed. There were also a couple of normal enemies thrown in to keep them busy and not just whaling on the boss. The fight was pretty tough but they still came through only owing a Major Concession. It was a lot of fun designing the fight, and I want to do more mucking around with status effects in the future to have more interactions like this one. And my players have earned the Infested condition as part of getting their Strikes, so that will be fun to play with later on when it comes up. Also: the resurrecting enemies idea was Not Good. The players didn't like it because killing the enemies didn't feel like progress, and I didn't like it because keeping track of how many rounds each enemy had to resurrect was too much of a headache. I don't recommend it now that I've played with it for a couple of fights.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Covok posted:Serf posted a setting pack for Star Wars. Anyone mind reposting that? Just curious how it went again and can't find the O.G. thread it appeared in. It's mostly just Origins/Backgrounds, but I got u fam Star Wars Strike Backgrounds and Origins
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
Last night I finished off a seven month Strike campaign. Had a ton of fun running it. I cooked up a few systems to handle stuff like mass combat and streamlined fights that I'm thinking about refining and posting for people to use. I really love this system, as it captures my favorite part of tabletop gaming, tactical combat, in such a way that it is quick and easy to run but also has plenty of depth. And the out of combat sections have good systems that work together really well but are actually lightweight enough that they never feel like a burden. Strike rules. Looking forward to starting up another game soon.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
A Strange Aeon posted:That would cause a lot of narrative dissonance for me personally. It seems like a trivial matter to have the player select "Magic" or "Sorcery" as their big, "you do this every session at least" skill.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:"You must have Swordsman Skill written on your sheet, or else your character forgets how to use swords while not in combat" isn't untenable, as long as it's clearly stated up front. It's how Strike seems to work as written, but the rules ought to be more clear in the character building section about it, and suggest that almost all characters should have a Skill reflecting their tactical-combat capabilities. It is suggested in the Skills area that you pick a skill that you will be using at least once per session. The skill that most of your activities will be based around. In a heavily combat-focused game like Strike, you're probably gonna be spending a lot of time fighting things. That's why a lot of the more fighty Backgrounds have Appropriate Weapons as a skill choice. In my game, all the characters who used guns took Blasters as a skill for situations just like this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Normally, I would not expect a game to require redundant statement of the same thing; in this case, how I kill dudes. I've already got a class for that, why would I need a Skill too? If I were building a Rogue, I'd expect a sneaking skill to fit that "at least once per session" suggestion, and I'd be caught by surprise if the GM had me roll untrained when I tried to use my dagger outside combat for something analogous to what I do in-combat. I guess we're just at a difference of opinion then.  I thought it was spelled out pretty well that you should pick a skill that is central to what your character does. If you shoot guns all the time, then that skill should be Guns, or Shooting I guess. eth0.n posted:And those few backgrounds that have combat skills? Just use them as knowledge or "show off" skills. There's a difference between knowing how to shoot guns at people, and knowing that this one is a 1941 German gun used on the Eastern front by the SS. Now this I don't think is true. I believe that skills have two ways of using them for the most part. One is actively practicing the skill, while the other is just knowing things because you have the skill. I don't have the book in front of me to check, but I don't think you even have to roll for the latter use. Also, Jim, I think the current wording of Speak With Dead is fine and very easily reskinned while fitting with the Necromancer's overall theme.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
The whole draw of Strike, to me, is the tactical combat system. Everything else is built around that. I run Strike because I want to have good tactical combat (which Strike does excellently), even if it might not fit into the genre of the game I'm running. To me that is the centerpiece of the game and the whole reason to run it. With that assumption, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask that players take a skill relevant to how they fight. If that seems like wasting a skill slot, just give it to them as a freebie?Scyther posted:One of my players learned Illegal Wrestling Moves not long ago. My players learned awesome skills like Instructional Pointing, Aggressive Negotiations, Vehicle Gunnery and Live Capture. Rolling 6s while Unskilled and naming a new skill is honestly one of the best parts of the game.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:So there's something I'm not clear on regarding the idea that players benefit from skills with a narrower scope in opposed checks because they're more likely to be more specialized rather than more generalized in comparison to whatever an NPC might use. The GM decides the scope of the NPC's skills, and unless you're dealing with an NPC with an unusually long presence in the game, the GM is going to be making that decision with knowledge of the existing scope of the PC's skills. And this decision has neither the rules-based structure of building an NPC's tactical combat abilities or the character-driven structure of simply deciding whether this NPC should be considered trained in this particular task. Rather, the question is whether, to use the example that's been kicking around in this discussion, the NPC should have the skill "guns," "assault rifles" and "shotguns" and "pistols" etc., or "close-range full auto assault rifles" and "long-range assault rifle sniping" etc. Or however you think they should described, the point is the scope, not the specific skills. I can honestly say that in my entire game we probably used opposed skill rolls less than ten times. And I don't think I paid much attention to the Specialists vs. Generalists rule, because most of my style is improvisational, it would feel lovely to arbitrarily say that the opposition had a more specific skill when I did not come up with their skills in advance. I pretty much can eyeball what an NPC would have as skills, but out of all the NPCs I made for the game I never gave any of them a concrete list of skills. So unless you're writing up these NPCs skill lists in advance, I wouldn't worry too much about the scope of their skills and just roll Opposed straight-up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
Okay, so I figure I'll post my Fight rules here. These are a riff on the Chase rules from the core book, and are meant to resolve one-on-one contests that are too meaningful or complicated for an Opposed roll, but not worth busting out the Tactical Combat rules. I came up with these after some difficulty dealing with a split-up party all doing different things. One weakness of Strike, I've found, is how to deal with conflicts while the party isn't all there. You don't want to exclude the rest of the group and can't come up with a reason to bring them all back together for Tactical Combat, so this was what I came up with. It's still rough and needs work, so I am open to critique and suggestions. Fight rules
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:The problem isn't being able to have them. It's being essentially forced to have them or else your character doesn't make much sense. I suppose a character that only knows how to fight competently in "interesting" fights, and is, I guess, too bored to bother with non-interesting fights could make some kind of sense, but it seems like a strange default, and not one most players would want. Give them a freebie combat skill. Done. Jimbozig posted:This is cool. It's giving me a Mouse Guard/Torchbearer vibe along with the obvious Chase rules influence. I'll look at these more critically later and see if I can break them, find out how long they take to run, etc. But on a first read-through, they look really cool. For Conditions, I had stuff written up for each of them, but took it out because I thought things were getting too bloated. I'll go back and see if I can strip them down and make them work. I'll work on more detail for the outcomes and see what comes of it. I'll put a few more hours into this and come up with something more comprehensive.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:I take it you disagree? It's a matter of taste. I don't mind a broad skill that covers something as big as combat scenarios. Others don't. I never had any issues running the game with a broad combat skill and I didn't even give it to them as a freebie.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Maybe I'll just say that everyone has the "Tactical Combat" skill. With the exception of one character in my game, everyone had one combat skill. Most of them had Blasters, and one had Lightsabers. I recommend letting them personalize it a little.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:This is cool. It's giving me a Mouse Guard/Torchbearer vibe along with the obvious Chase rules influence. I'll look at these more critically later and see if I can break them, find out how long they take to run, etc. But on a first read-through, they look really cool. Okay, so I've been thinking about this, and here's what I've come up with provisionally: Minor Conditions give a -1 to your roll. Major Conditions give Disadvantage. As for what happens in the case of a double knockout, I wrote down 6 rough ideas. You could roll for one or choose whatever you think is best. Draw - Neither party can get the upper hand. You're not going to be able to settle this one in a conflict, you're too evenly matched. You have to withdraw and find another way. Fate intercedes - Your contest is broken up by outside forces. A friend or foe separates you, the building starts to collapse, or the crowd riots and sweeps you both away. Mutual destruction - You both lose. You both are knocked unconscious, you mortally wound each other at the same time, or you both slip up and cannot recover. Compromise - You find another way to settle your differences. Tired, bloody or just annoyed, you decide to work out a different resolution where you both get something you want. Distraction - Something happens that draws your attentions away. Your friends are put in harm's way, you have to work together against a mutual foe, or you are both drawn apart by greater obligations. Shifting goals - The reason that you were fighting is gone. Someone has snatched the golden idol, the diplomat is shot in the crossfire, or the audience has lost interest and the mob has dispersed. I can see where some of these overlap, and I'm considering making the consequences more concrete, but this is what I've managed to brainstorm on my lunch break.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:You can find you a 5'10" Idahoan in 30 seconds on Google: they list college basketball players' heights online. Whereas we've been talking about this for a week and nobody's come up with a good story from their game about how great it was that everyone had 'Katanas.' As I've said before, the players in my game had either "Blasters" or "Lightsabers" and those skills pretty easily resolved all combat-without-tactical-combat situations.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2016 12:38
|
|
|
homullus posted:Also, Slowed is 2, not half. Something I consistently forget. But I like it better this way because it is equally bad no matter how fast the affected target is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
Kaja Rainbow posted:So I've got a player who has an concept of a Summoner as an immigration officer. He talked about banishing extraplanar outsiders by denying their travel visa to this plane. I love this idea, and was thinking of giving him something similar to the Necromancer's command undead encounter power, that sends an extraplanar entity back to their plane. Basically a similarly situational encounter power. Would that be overpowered? I would allow this purely because of how good the concept is. I would just keep the power in mind when designing encounters. Also make sure the other players are cool with someone else getting a freebie.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Hey Jimbo, for The Boss Kit, it says "A handful of people follow you and help you. They have some useful Skills. Pick 2 appropriate Skills for them. They are also Flawed. Pick 1 Flaw for them." Does every member of this crew get 2 Skills and a Flaw or is it just 2 Skills and a Flaw for them as a group?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 11:36
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:2 skills and a flaw for the whole group That's what I figured after reading the advances more closely. Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Good luck Jim. I hope everything turns out okay.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
I've run one complete game via Roll20 and I'm running another right now. The game moves fast outside of combat, and slows down once you're in the tactical game. But the reward of watching the players pull off crazy bullshit is worth taking the extra time. I can't imagine running it without voice, at least for the combat. It would take ages.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
Kaja Rainbow posted:Could I ask for some help? I'm thinking of running a test session of simplified Strike (no tactical combat, just six skills and a complication for every character) based on Star Wars. The thing is I'm having some trouble thinking up sheets for everyone (I'm going with pregens since they're all first time roleplayers). I'd like to have six pregen characters ready just in case. I actually ran a Star Wars Strike game for a while, and I kinda went overboard when coming up with the Origins/Backgrounds for the game, so feel free to steal anything you want from right here
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:34 |
|
|
Put me down as another person who would absolutely run a playtest of Kazzam.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2021 16:40
|
|