New GM - Deadlands

[S Ferguson]

I watched the vids on the Combat Tracker specifically, and didn't notice any automation with calculations or targeting.

I will watch them again, as well as others. Thanks for the videos btw. They are great.

You don't "target" (in the 3.5e/4e sense of targeting) in SW. You just select whoever you're rolling against (or let the GM know from the tooltips over the icons) and take 'er from there. Most of the predone calculations are done "behind the scenes," the CT is mainly a card dealt initiative order for your attacks. The modifiers alter condition dependent so adding mods is the same as in 3.5e/4e. That's really all there is to worry about in SW (who you're attacking with what and how much damage do you do). I haven't watched the video, but I'm sure Doswelk or others (like me) would answer any questions you have. Hope this helps.

Cheers,
SF

[chipmafia]

I'm used to the 4E combat tracker. For instance, when I roll an Attack vs. AC, it takes that attack roll, measures it against the AC (hit or not). Then, I can drag the damage onto the mob, automatically reducing his hit points.

I recognize the vast difference in rules (and frankly, I like SW ruleset much better though I've yet to play a game yet) but I don't guess the combat track decides whether you hit, then measure damage against toughness?

That's kinda my question. If it doesn't, the calculations aren't hard at all. Just curious.

[S Ferguson]

I'm used to the 4E combat tracker. For instance, when I roll an Attack vs. AC, it takes that attack roll, measures it against the AC (hit or not). Then, I can drag the damage onto the mob, automatically reducing his hit points.

I recognize the vast difference in rules (and frankly, I like SW ruleset much better though I've yet to play a game yet) but I don't guess the combat track decides whether you hit, then measure damage against toughness?

That's kinda my question. If it doesn't, the calculations aren't hard at all. Just curious.

No it doesn't. The roll is made vs. your opponents parry, or vice versa in melee combat and against an agility roll to dodge, depending on range and setting. There really are too many circumstances that pop up in SW that's a little different than the organized (I think sometimes too organizesd) structure of a 4e combat. For example the Joker Bonus, which if you're dealt a JOker you can go first or interrupt anyone else's maneuvers. Different mechanics = different way of handling things is the way I see it.

Cheers,
SF

[Doswelk]

From what I've seen of 4e (never having played it, just read the rules and watched some FGII vids) it needs the level of automation that FGII provides, Savage Worlds does not.

Savage Worlds is meant to be fast, fun and furious and players can change things on the fly that I think that full automation would actually slow things down!

e.g. player wants to wild attack (+2 to hit, +2 to damage, -2 parry).

I can create an effect stating that the player has wild attacked, put a turn count of 1 on it and a -1 of the modifier (so that each turn it takes 1 off the turn count), this will remind me that the player did a wild attack and is at parry -2.

If the ruleset supported it I could find a condition/modifier and apply to the player that reduces his parry by -2 automatically.

OR the player can just reduce his parry by 2 on his character sheet so if I need to check his parry I just look at his stat on the combat tracker, you can be sure he will put his parry back up next turn!

Savage Worlds 3.4 (soon to be released) with Ikael's extension is a fast to use ruleset that (in my opinion) does not need any more automation, but that's my view.

Again any queries/questions/suggestions post them up PW/Ikael and myself all love Savage Worlds and FGII and want it to be the best it can be!

[Ikael]

From what I've seen of 4e (never having played it, just read the rules and watched some FGII vids) it needs the level of automation that FGII provides, Savage Worlds does not.

Savage Worlds is meant to be fast, fun and furious and players can change things on the fly that I think that full automation would actually slow things down!

e.g. player wants to wild attack (+2 to hit, +2 to damage, -2 parry).

I can create an effect stating that the player has wild attacked, put a turn count of 1 on it and a -1 of the modifier (so that each turn it takes 1 off the turn count), this will remind me that the player did a wild attack and is at parry -2.

If the ruleset supported it I could find a condition/modifier and apply to the player that reduces his parry by -2 automatically.

OR the player can just reduce his parry by 2 on his character sheet so if I need to check his parry I just look at his stat on the combat tracker, you can be sure he will put his parry back up next turn!

Savage Worlds 3.4 (soon to be released) with Ikael's extension is a fast to use ruleset that (in my opinion) does not need any more automation, but that's my view.

Again any queries/questions/suggestions post them up PW/Ikael and myself all love Savage Worlds and FGII and want it to be the best it can be!

I also agree that SW ruleset's combat tracker does _not_ need anymore automatization, but I it can be enhanced other ways. For example I would like see more advanced effect handling, such that you can have "Wild Attack" effect and when GM applies it into combatant it will automatically apply combat condition modifiers. Like I said this would be more like enhancement not automatization. I have already looong list of things I want to do for SW after v3.4 is out there, but combat tracker has just become my current target one subject. I am very open to hear suggestion how it can be enhanced. (I already have small list of ideas I got from Doswelk some time ago).

PS:

I can create an effect stating that the player has wild attacked, put a turn count of 1 on it and a -1 of the modifier (so that each turn it takes 1 off the turn count), this will remind me that the player did a wild attack and is at parry -2.

Why... why do you need to put the -1 there to decrease your effect's duration. What sense is there to put other than -1? If for some reason the duration should be decreased more than one (I bet this doesn't happen every round) you can just adjust the duration manually. Personally I think effect's duration should have three different methods to consume it: Permanent (there is no duration), drop duration by one every round (how it currently works), drop duration by one and when the time expires, ask if the duration should be refreshed (for the maintainable powers)


EDIT: I bet discussion is going off-the-topic

[S Ferguson]

I also agree that SW ruleset's combat tracker does _not_ need anymore automatization, but I it can be enhanced other ways. For example I would like see more advanced effect handling, such that you can have "Wild Attack" effect and when GM applies it into combatant it will automatically apply combat condition modifiers. Like I said this would be more like enhancement not automatization. I have already looong list of things I want to do for SW after v3.4 is out there, but combat tracker has just become my current target one subject. I am very open to hear suggestion how it can be enhanced. (I already have small list of ideas I got from Doswelk some time ago).

You're just adding more "automatizing" under the label of "enhancements" here. Watch your semantics. Anything that helps automatically apply something is... well call a spade a spade.

Why... why do you need to put the -1 there to decrease your effect's duration. What sense is there to put other than -1? If for some reason the duration should be decreased more than one (I bet this doesn't happen every round) you can just adjust the duration manually. Personally I think effect's duration should have three different methods to consume it: Permanent (there is no duration), drop duration by one every round (how it currently works), drop duration by one and when the time expires, ask if the duration should be refreshed (for the maintainable powers)


EDIT: I bet discussion is going off-the-topic

Yep, that just derailed the train.

[Ikael]

You're just adding more "automatizing" under the label of "enhancements" here. Watch your semantics. Anything that helps automatically apply something is... well call a spade a spade.

It's not automatization if you want to cut some manual work If I could get attack and damage resolution in just three mouse clicks then it would be automatization These stuff _can_ still requires human mind to do calculation and decision so personally I don't count that _automatization_ as people tend to call in this forum. But yeah, semantics might and go wrong sometimes. Still enhancement is something that's half the way automatizating the ruleset :P

[S Ferguson]

It's not automatization if you want to cut some manual work If I could get attack and damage resolution in just three mouse clicks then it would be automatization These stuff _can_ still requires human mind to do calculation and decision so personally I don't count that _automatization_ as people tend to call in this forum. But yeah, semantics might and go wrong sometimes. Still enhancement is something that's half the way automatizating the ruleset :P

Well in that case the human still has to take a manual action to move her/his lazy butt and idle mind and push the mouse around and click once.

[Ikael]

Well in that case the human still has to take a manual action to move her/his lazy butt and idle mind and push the mouse around and click once.

As you can see, it's not about automatization :P just Enhancing.

[S Ferguson]

As you can see, it's not about automatization :P just Enhancing.

Oh so "enhancing" is the new term on the block. How could I have ever have missed that one....