Jump to content

Aurelianus

Members
  • Posts

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • GM Points

    0

Everything posted by Aurelianus

  1. Outcome: Incomplete

    Date:

    Number of Players: 4

    Gatemaster: Aurelianus

  2. Sorry, I think I’m not being clear enough on some points, and it’s causing confusion When I say 100m, I mean 100m2. To me that’s the absolute upper limit for encounter size for multiple reasons, chief among them are real world feasibility and limits of the system. Because of the real world feasibility I agree with your OP that 1 square = 2m is the easiest way to represent that on an actual table top. It ends up being roughly equivalent to the normal 1 square = 5ft anyways. Encounters on that scale would be like the SGC operation to rescue Sha’re and the captured Abydonians on P8X-873 in Forever in a Day or the battle in Heroes pt1&2. Huge fights with tons of combatants. Those would fit on the largest available commercial grid maps. The vast majority of all encounters would be much smaller. I wasn’t clear that I was talking about the absolute biggest size, and I think that caused the most confusion. Additionally the variables I used were examples on how to build the encounter from the beginning to discourage metagamey ranged antics. It’s hard to sit and snipe if everybody is inside, hostages might get killed if the attack isn’t quick enough, or it’s not smart to start a sustained long range assault when there’s air cover or a patrol in the area. Those aren’t traps waiting to be sprung, it’s information that helps the players know what difficulties their plan needs to overcome.
  3. It’s not about railroading or taking away player agency. It’s about effective encounter building, and how the rule set creates difficulties if you’re not careful. For example, the village set they started using on the show around season 8. They fought Jaffa, Wraith, and Ori on it. Each encounter was different, had episode specific stuff, but it was still the same set. What could break an encounter in that village is setting up the party with sniper rifles on a distant hill and trying to take down a Jaffa patrol in the village from 1500m away, and then having the Jaffa run at them for 125 rounds of combat while the party just rolls dice until they kill them. So how do you keep the players from inadvertently or intentionally breaking combat? The Jaffa take hostages, hide in buildings, both, call for backup, there’s a glider patrolling, the list is endless. The point being you don’t want to let the weapons range break every encounter, so you account for it. The goal should be to build encounters in a way that encourages creative thinking and tactics versus exploiting design limitations of the game system. The easiest way to accomplish that is to stick to about 100m as an active combat area. Anything outside that probably shouldn’t warrant initiative being rolled. Which again isn’t to restrict the players, just allow for solidly built encounters.
  4. You make a lot of good points, and I think the crux of the issue is how all that translates to representation on the tabletop. I don’t think it’s necessary to get into the realism or granularity of real world firearms beyond some really basic points, because to do otherwise invites breaking the entire game framework D&D 5e is in many respects grounded in melee combat, and the ranges reflect that. Even most of the longest range spells and weapons top out at 120ft before you start rolling at disadvantage. If we take into consideration the constraints of tabletop play, the action portrayed within the show, and the limits of the system itself, combat over 200ft is so rare as to be non existent in most cases, and that should be the cornerstone of every combat encounter. Especially when we consider that one of the baseline enemy NPC’s will be wielding a 3m/60m weapon. That means every Jaffa will be rolling at disadvantage outside of 3m, and it becomes clear, at least from a GM perspective that you want to keep the majority of combat under 100m. Which happens to be just under the size represented by many commercial RPG battle maps. Almost every Tau’ri weapon’s range can exceed that scope though. Which to me means that the GM has to put a modicum of effort into properly setting up encounters. Cover from forests, buildings, any type of obstacle cutting down sight lines and visibility, as well as other environmental factors should level the playing field as much as possible. And that’s with a smaller battlefield. Because with a 500m open field, a squad of enemy Jaffa with Ma’Toks is going to have almost 36 rounds of movement and dashing as an action before they can even fire inaccurately. That wouldn’t be fun to play as a PC or GM. That’s why I don’t think the straight adaptation of 5e’s short/long range is necessarily the best option. I think maybe adopting something more along the lines of CQB/Battlefield for range might be more productive. Specific weapons would have their own modifier or roll conditions. Kind of like how it’s already set up how the P90, MP7A1, and SR9TC are all “longarms”, but in reality the bullpup design of the P90 is ideally suited for CQB, whereas the SR9 would fulfill a DMR role. This would enable players to utilize the mission prep more effectively by increasing player choice. If you know that the next mission is underground in caves, you’re probably not going to want to bring a sniper rifle, in fact maybe someone should bring a shotgun. Plus the variations are already more or less present in 5e with some weapons with the versatile trait where the damage dice gets upped when wielded two handed. Simply having CQB/Battlefield apply versatile to one or the other depending on the weapon would be the easiest way.
  5. I think Algernon hit the nail on the head, but do see where the physical real world limitations come in as well. The short range/long range from D&D just doesn't really account for modern firearms. The actual FNP90 has an effective/maximum range of 200m/1800m. I think instead of tying effective and short together you simply have close/effective as mentioned with the usual disclaimer that anything over effective is made with disadvantage. Even then the effective range will probably never come up too often since if we look at the skirmishes or even pitched battles on screen there was always a plot reason to be close such as capturing a prisoner or freeing one, obtaining some tech or intel, ideal terrain for an ambush, or most often the gate itself being a natural choke point and/or focus.
×
×
  • Create New...