It takes a little extra time, but one thing I've been doing of late is creating monster and adversary reference "cards" for myself. At the top of EACH is a list of suggested tactics to help me in-game. Additionally, on these cards, I write out exactly how each special ability, edge, or power works so that I don't have to spend any time delving into books. Yeah, this won't really work if you're running something on the fly, but if you have the time, I highly recommend doing something like this to help better organize your thoughts.
Given how easy it is to succeed in SW, I've been experimenting with treating a Success as a minimal success or success at a cost - you just barely get what you want, maybe at a cost/complication. You need a Raise to get a success that doesn't have any complications/conseuqences.
Generally, I would say that is Rules as Written. The GM still gets to define what success means, so you can just be really restrictive about what a success is; ie, a zombie survivor game where you have them roll stealth to avoid alerting zombies as you pick up that packet of twinkies. A standard success is the zombies do not recognize where the sound is coming from but they hear something that gets them actively looking and a raise means you are just never heard. As long as you are clear about what you ate rolling for, it should not cause a problem. I also use the Parry formula to set passive scores for things; ie sneaking past guards with d8 notice is a 6 (8/2+2) as a good rule of thumb for establishing difficulties in game.
I use most of these, good to see I'm on the right track! :P Well, aside from re-rolling enemy initiative, and social conflict, I haven't had much chance for that yet. I never found SW too "Easy" for my players. I just find it wildly unbalanced (which, honestly I find fun). I've seen some staggeringly good rolls (Triple raise off a d4 persuasion roll), and some honestly frustrating failures from my players (Failing like 3 Spellcasting checks, when the players had already spent most of their bennies on an earlier fight). But we always find ways to make it work. Mind you, 2/3 of my players have very tanky characters. Our party's tank has Parry 8 and Toughness 10. Before she pops Protection on the entire party (She also never Wild Attacks, the idea scares her lol). The caster has toughness 8, which is still really good... And the new roleplayer has Parry 3, and Toughness 3. Yes, really. And his offense isn't phenomenal either (lacks enough strength for a real 2d6 bow). But he manages to make it work by getting the high ground and letting the other two weather all the blows until he gets a lucky Damage Raise. XD
It is my pet peeve that the Trait checks are in terms of a modifier but parry and toughness are in terms of a target number. Ie, parry is a 6 versus a -2 to hit. This causes confusion with new players. It should all just be phrased as the gm setting a target; roll a ie, 6 to succeed instead of "you get -2 on this roll." Consistency is not there in the nomenclature. Generally, I think throwing more wild cards at the players is a better option for increasing difficulty. Extras are used like goblin minions in 5e; fill in a scene but do not really use as the main course. Also take advantage of the creature's special features. Ie, a Hanging Judge in Deadlands returns to unlife if not hung, and that is pretty tricky to do and might require a few tries. I like Supernatural rules for ETU, the ghost can be demanifested by salt or iron, but you have to burn the body or an item of meaning to force it to move on. That having been said, the problem is usually because people do not like the fact SW does not handle big damned boss fights well. A dragon is going to feel like chopping a tree down instead of a fight because there are not a lot of incremental steps. Depending on the size, it can take extra wounds and has a huge toughness to overcome. It is a weaker aspect of the system as compared to others, but that is not really what it is designed to do.
Honestly, I do not hate the idea of converting Parry and Toughness to a modifier instead. Something to think about. It would take a lot of wording changes throughout SWAdE, but yeah, I don't hate it from the outset.I will have to think about that a little more. I have also been thinking a lot about boss fights. I think somewhere the problem with boss fights is we try to make creatures fit the rules of PCs, when they don't have. The GM doesn't play by the same rules the players do when it comes to action economy. I think there is more as well to do with that, but we will see as I think about that topic as well.
@@TheSavageGoose I do think that just setting a target number is easier to onboard new players as that is how most games do it, but either can work. I found with new players using both was more confusing. The fact you would have to clean up the entire core rules to use common nomenclature illustrates the problem. The wording for free rerolls in SWADE is a bit unclear too. That is another confusion point for new players, I found. As an optional rule, using the parry formula for getting modifiers for a passive skill works great; ie, sneaking past guards with a d8 notice is a 6 or better (8/2+2) or a -2 modifier to a 4. Great way to organically set penalties in a fair way that levels with the opposition, in my experiance. I found boss battles to be a weak point of the system because of the war game roots. Because bennies are used for everything and most dms do not give themselves all that many, it leaves the Bennie economy in the player's favor, which means they can drop bennies to steam roll a baddie if they go first and tend to have 5x the chances to go first. I am playing with giving the gm more actions for boss monsters and closing the Bennie gap is where the fixes are.
I also find that Support rolls make it difficult - basically a nearly cost free +1/+2 to every non-combat roll (there's always someone that could help in the party)
@TheSavageGoose sort of, it involves them in a risk free way grsnting bonuses to someone who already has a bias to succeed. I think I'd provide house rule it in the next game such tat support failure out of combat adds a penalty
This is a vid I've been looking for, thanks!
It takes a little extra time, but one thing I've been doing of late is creating monster and adversary reference "cards" for myself. At the top of EACH is a list of suggested tactics to help me in-game. Additionally, on these cards, I write out exactly how each special ability, edge, or power works so that I don't have to spend any time delving into books. Yeah, this won't really work if you're running something on the fly, but if you have the time, I highly recommend doing something like this to help better organize your thoughts.
Given how easy it is to succeed in SW, I've been experimenting with treating a Success as a minimal success or success at a cost - you just barely get what you want, maybe at a cost/complication. You need a Raise to get a success that doesn't have any complications/conseuqences.
Generally, I would say that is Rules as Written. The GM still gets to define what success means, so you can just be really restrictive about what a success is; ie, a zombie survivor game where you have them roll stealth to avoid alerting zombies as you pick up that packet of twinkies. A standard success is the zombies do not recognize where the sound is coming from but they hear something that gets them actively looking and a raise means you are just never heard.
As long as you are clear about what you ate rolling for, it should not cause a problem.
I also use the Parry formula to set passive scores for things; ie sneaking past guards with d8 notice is a 6 (8/2+2) as a good rule of thumb for establishing difficulties in game.
I use most of these, good to see I'm on the right track! :P Well, aside from re-rolling enemy initiative, and social conflict, I haven't had much chance for that yet.
I never found SW too "Easy" for my players. I just find it wildly unbalanced (which, honestly I find fun). I've seen some staggeringly good rolls (Triple raise off a d4 persuasion roll), and some honestly frustrating failures from my players (Failing like 3 Spellcasting checks, when the players had already spent most of their bennies on an earlier fight). But we always find ways to make it work.
Mind you, 2/3 of my players have very tanky characters. Our party's tank has Parry 8 and Toughness 10. Before she pops Protection on the entire party (She also never Wild Attacks, the idea scares her lol). The caster has toughness 8, which is still really good... And the new roleplayer has Parry 3, and Toughness 3. Yes, really. And his offense isn't phenomenal either (lacks enough strength for a real 2d6 bow). But he manages to make it work by getting the high ground and letting the other two weather all the blows until he gets a lucky Damage Raise. XD
It is my pet peeve that the Trait checks are in terms of a modifier but parry and toughness are in terms of a target number. Ie, parry is a 6 versus a -2 to hit. This causes confusion with new players. It should all just be phrased as the gm setting a target; roll a ie, 6 to succeed instead of "you get -2 on this roll." Consistency is not there in the nomenclature.
Generally, I think throwing more wild cards at the players is a better option for increasing difficulty. Extras are used like goblin minions in 5e; fill in a scene but do not really use as the main course.
Also take advantage of the creature's special features. Ie, a Hanging Judge in Deadlands returns to unlife if not hung, and that is pretty tricky to do and might require a few tries. I like Supernatural rules for ETU, the ghost can be demanifested by salt or iron, but you have to burn the body or an item of meaning to force it to move on.
That having been said, the problem is usually because people do not like the fact SW does not handle big damned boss fights well. A dragon is going to feel like chopping a tree down instead of a fight because there are not a lot of incremental steps. Depending on the size, it can take extra wounds and has a huge toughness to overcome. It is a weaker aspect of the system as compared to others, but that is not really what it is designed to do.
Honestly, I do not hate the idea of converting Parry and Toughness to a modifier instead. Something to think about.
It would take a lot of wording changes throughout SWAdE, but yeah, I don't hate it from the outset.I will have to think about that a little more.
I have also been thinking a lot about boss fights. I think somewhere the problem with boss fights is we try to make creatures fit the rules of PCs, when they don't have. The GM doesn't play by the same rules the players do when it comes to action economy. I think there is more as well to do with that, but we will see as I think about that topic as well.
@@TheSavageGoose I do think that just setting a target number is easier to onboard new players as that is how most games do it, but either can work. I found with new players using both was more confusing. The fact you would have to clean up the entire core rules to use common nomenclature illustrates the problem.
The wording for free rerolls in SWADE is a bit unclear too. That is another confusion point for new players, I found.
As an optional rule, using the parry formula for getting modifiers for a passive skill works great; ie, sneaking past guards with a d8 notice is a 6 or better (8/2+2) or a -2 modifier to a 4. Great way to organically set penalties in a fair way that levels with the opposition, in my experiance.
I found boss battles to be a weak point of the system because of the war game roots. Because bennies are used for everything and most dms do not give themselves all that many, it leaves the Bennie economy in the player's favor, which means they can drop bennies to steam roll a baddie if they go first and tend to have 5x the chances to go first.
I am playing with giving the gm more actions for boss monsters and closing the Bennie gap is where the fixes are.
I also find that Support rolls make it difficult - basically a nearly cost free +1/+2 to every non-combat roll (there's always someone that could help in the party)
I like it because it gets the other players involved in the game and in the action that is being focused on.
@TheSavageGoose sort of, it involves them in a risk free way grsnting bonuses to someone who already has a bias to succeed. I think I'd provide house rule it in the next game such tat support failure out of combat adds a penalty
Tl;dr - use all the rules
Accurate
Where is the cheatsheet of common penalties?
Whoops! I knew I'd forget something. Linked in description now!