Trinity RPG - Soak rules too chunky

[Ayre el KaBeer]

I've been a fan of the Trinity soak rules since I first read them, it makes sense for soak not to be rolled, however what looks great on paper is causing too much lag in my current campaign. It might seem hard to believe but it would be quicker to roll dice than go with the automatic soak (hard to explain), not to mention that my players know exactly what my npc's soaks are. I've been trying to come up with an alternative but keep falling flat on my arse, what I've got so far:

#1. Going back to old (wod) rolled soak rules. It decreaces pc/npc survivability, but does allow for gm to not tell players what npc soak is.

#2. Same as above but successes x2. Alittle chunky itself but does boost the effectiveness back to that of autosoak.

#3. Keep current system but gm makes all damage (or even all combat) rolls. Some players will have a fit, and the rest will when the gm fails too many (you know, just one) rolls, and also puts more work on the gm's plate.

#4. Player rolls total damage pool, then soak subracts successes rather than dice to roll. Makes soak way too effective (this is how I do vehicle soak).

P.S. I hope I'm not the only one with this problem, my players (the usual gm's of the group) noticed this aswell.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

Anyone? Anyone at all? I know I'm being impatient but this has been buggung me for at least a month.

[ProfPotts]

Ok - I can't see why the auto-Soak appraoched would take more time, so you're on you own with that one.

To me auto-soak makes a lot more sense than rolling, especially after experiencing the WoD version ruining many a good game (e.g. a puny human gang member manages to cut-up a Crinos Werewolf real bad - 'cos the Garou's player Botched the Soak roll). It also makes stuff like body armour worth the Dex-loss trade-off (if you're rolling, then you're better off keeping the Dex & dodging lots).

The only real issue I see you're having is the fact that your players can work out the Soak totals of the NPCs. I guess if they're unable to keep themselves from acting on that information, then the best idea is for you to roll all the dice yourself - & ignore the blighters when they complain about bad rolls.

On the other hand, since they won't be seeing the rolls anyhow, how will they know (unless they cheat) that the roll was crap?

Rolling yourself also means you have greater lee-way to fudge rolls (either way) for dramatic effect. A PC makes an awsome speech & fires a shot that should plug the bad guy between the eyes & send him falling from the cliff-edge he's on, thus concluding the story, but the damage roll is a botch? If the players see the roll then you either loose the dramatic moment to botch sillyness, or fudge the roll & make them feel like they haven't earnt the victory. If the roll is made by you & hidden, then you can look at the dice (behind your screen or whatever), shake your head & blink in disbelief, then anounce that - due to unbelievable luck on the player's part - the critical shot hit dead on, & the nearly-indestructable villain is dead! That sort of approach also helps to ensure that the PCs don't get too cocky about their abilities - thus maintaining suspense the next time they meet a villain.

This will hardly increase the ST's workload by an enormous amount - you'll have dice to hand to roll for the NPCs anyway, & really should know how many dice the various PCs get for their damage rolls in any case.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

Ok - I can't see why the auto-Soak appraoched would take more time, so you're on you own with that one.

Like I said it's really hard to explain, but it has been taking longer to resolve combat rounds this way than by me just saying "roll your soak" and getting their response.

I've always liked the idea of the GM rolling everything but, I know my group they won't like it one bit. I know they don't cheat (I keep an eye on 'em for starters ::tongue *), but it's the idea they succeeded that gives them a bigger kick out of things.

*I trust them, I do... Hell even Pat admitted he failed a roll, how could I not trust that?

[ProfPotts]

I still can't see how asking for a number of rolled Soak successes takes longer than applying a Soak total that you should already know? ::confused

It's not like you're taking away from the player's success if you just roll the stuff that should be secret - after all, they're still rolling to hit the target, right? I guess you could just chuck out random damage altogether - take Soak off, say, half the attack's damage pool & that's your result. That way you're not 'stealing' the player's rolls, & they still don't get to know the target's Soak (unless you then go on to tell them exactly how many Health Levels they inflicted - which kinda' defeats the point here). I don't like that approach though.

Question - in your games do you allow the players to roll reflexive Awareness to detect stuff that they'd not necessarily know about, or do you roll that sort of thing in secret? It's all in the same ball-park as the damage / Soak roll thing. With some rolls it's just better for the atmosphere of the game if the ST rolls them in secret. Hell ::devil , I randomly roll dice & grin maniacally at the players whenever there's a dull moment, or they ask if they sense anything - whether there's a need to or not. Sometimes I'll ask what a character's dice pool is on something, roll in secret, check the dice, & then just act as if nothing happened - it really freaks the players out, & make's sure that they don't know if the rolls I make are 'real' or not. I promise you, it all adds to the atmosphere & enjoyment of the game.

It's really just a case of establishing a certain style of STing, & sticking to it. After a while the players will all get used to what you're doing, & not give it a second thought. After all, they're there for the story, right?

[madcat82]

Why not write down there soak value?? I mean then you dont have to ask them, and the game runs a lot smother...

Number two, they knowing how much the enemy have in soak. Ok, this is a little trickier, but madcat got a remedy even for this. Give the npc a fixed value that is autosoak and roll the rest. I would probably give them 30% automatic soak and then roll the rest. Simple as that. ::biggrin

And if your players start to complain, inform them that they are the winning part in this...

Well, thats my two cents, hope it helped. ::tongue

[Ayre el KaBeer]

(unless you then go on to tell them exactly how many Health Levels they inflicted - which kinda' defeats the point here).

That's just it, under normal soak they know... The rules make sure they do, soak detracts from their total damage pool, then roll, successes achieved = damge inflicted. I've checked this repeatedly to make sure I haven't got it wrong, they know the soak as soon as they're told "subtract X number dice from your damage".

Again with things taking longer, they just do, I haven't figured it out myself but something that should take 5 seconds tops ends up wasting close to a minute

Question - in your games do you allow the players to roll reflexive Awareness to detect stuff that they'd not necessarily know about, or do you roll that sort of thing in secret?

That so far has been mood dependant, if things are tense then they get to roll (lets face it they're on the alert then), if things are fairly loose then I roll a die to see which player hapened to get a chance to spot then I make the roll.

After all, they're there for the story, right?

Errr... Maybe, I may know all the rules, and I even have an overall plot (some truck sized holes mind you ::wink ), but I'm not a great gm. To put it mildly, I forget certain things or I get a massive case of gm's block. I do have good sessions, though, its just the sub standard sessions that pop-up ruin it for everyone. On the plus side I am getting better, I just need to prepare some more, though some of the most fun was when I was going completely on the fly.

[Gideon]

Hmm,

I may not be purely cannon with how we run our Trinity game

(maybe we do, its been while since I actually "read" the literal rules),

but the way we play it, the players never know the exact soak of the npcs. I have them role their skill pool for their attack, they tell me how many successes they have I note it on paper. If they roll any successes they get to roll damage dice, if they do then I tally up the Health Levels of damage, adhust it with soak and I describe it in english, "well you did hit him, but his ablative armor seems to have absorbed must of it..." My players have learned how certain weapons work against Aberrants and how a plasma rifle is overkill for a street beggar (don't ask). We have alwats kept the soak of the NPC off the counter. It makes me work during combat, but I keep good notes and have a couple pads of paper for keeping it straight. Never have soak or slow-downs been a problem for us. Mind you we changed the effect that soak reduces net successes.

It may seem unbalancing to some, but in play it works fine. The players live longer and the NPCs do too. I have only had to tweek the high end armors (only once at that). We have talked about redoing the Armor soak values, but so far we are having too much fun to worry about it.

Gideon

[phoenix]

I agree with Gideon and Prof - why don't you keep all the dice-rolling and stats to yourself, only telling them to the players in the form of description? It only makes sense for your players to know your NPC's soaks to some extent, after all, they have a pretty good idea of how much damage they can take after they get to know them. For example, I have only a general idea what Glacier's damage pool is, but I know that without claws he can throw a punch that the Hog can more or less ignore, but that Virus cannot. I can even convert that to the assumption that small-arms fire would probably not affect Hog, but might kill a Virus.

[Ayre el KaBeer]

I think I'm finally getting this GM'ing thing, ran the best session I have ever run last night and it was an absolute ball (for me and I think for the players as well). The players are actually trying to figure stuff out! how cool is that? No combat took place but most of what happened was them holding an entire crew at (coil)gunpoint and began interrogating. They managed to get me to jump my game by 3 chapters, and I realised how many pointless sessions this saved. The other plots/chapters that they've touched on will hopefully still come through but the order has simply been shuffled and I can quite comfortably live with that since it's helping me refine my technique. I still haven't discussed taking over all combat rolls with them but I don't think they'll mind too much, especially if I don't use my VtM dice and just use the groups collection... We gamers are far too supersticious! ::unsure

[Shopping Mal]

... Auto-Soak a problem?

Auto-Soak is a GODSEND. I often found stuff like what Prof. Potts said (the robber did HOW much damage to my Fenris?) Rolling soak took too long, and left me too many opportunities to slip up and run numbers out loud (don't hurt me, I'm new to ST'ing).

I haven't played Trinity, but I'm assuming that the soak rules are the same as in Aberrant. Inferno the PK throws a punch dealing 6 damage. He rolls 5. Generic Evil Bastard #332 has a natural soak of 3, plus 1 for his reinforced clothing. Inferno does 1 damage.

To me, this seems right. If I'm punching someone with above-average stamina (and armour into the bargain) it's gonna take a while.

I'm personally bumping UP soak for our new Aberrant game. I'm sick of BaseJump tackling a Nova to death within 2 turns.

[Asbjørn]

That would be an overly effective, but in my mind tolerable way to do it. The only problem is that that's not what the rules say.

Soak is applied before damage is rolled - which has already been stated, i know... ::rolleyes In your example, Inferno would subtract Generic Evil Bastard #332's 3 soak from his 6 damage dice and roll 3 dice for damage effect.

The problem with this - I think - is that you as an ST either have to do all the rolls yourself or tell the players how much soak the bad guys have. I don't like either version...

[Shopping Mal]

Oh... Never noticed that. ::blush

That's rather silly.

I can see why auto-soak in that case is a bugger.

[VictorHFrost KSC]

The problem with this - I think - is that you as an ST either have to do all the rolls yourself or tell the players how much soak the bad guys have. I don't like either version...

Ok, I'm really not trying to sound picky here, but why does your players knowing their adversary's soak bother you? In story terms the characters will know after their first encounter with Baron Titanium that he's a touch bullet resistant anyway. They'll know to bring bigger guns next time. In game terms the auto soak cuts the ST think time almost in half. Unless there's a misc modifier the players can then totally keep track of the damage they deal and you can keep track of the damage the NPCs deal, streamlining the whole process. And if there's anywhere in a game that streamlining is handy it's combat.

I dunno, I just don't get it.

Victor

[metaphysician]

Old thread, I know, but. . .

Why is it such a bad thing for the players to figure out how much soak the bad guy has? IC, the characters will know basically how tough the guy is based on how much effect their weapons have, anyway, unless the guy is too tough to hurt at all.

[Blue Thunder]

Exactly. And if the enemy hits you with a Quantum Bolt, you'll get a general idea of how much automatic damage it causes based on how much of your soak affects the damage. I mean, you can hear the ST rolling dice. If you hear a few dice hitting the table, you can rest easy. But if he has to use both hands to cup them all, and if it sounds like a cabinet of dishes just fell over when he rolls, you should have a good idea of how many dice the enemy has to roll.

[Finbar]

If that happens, I am rolling up a new character ::blink ...

FR

[Alistaire]

We've never noticed a problem with it. Yeah, it does seem a little odd, given experience with other games, but it's never detracted from our games. My only problem with it is in power levels. Shopping Mal's example is about tough guys fighting. Take for instance two perfectly normal humans fighting, 2 in STR and STA. 2-2=0 damage rolled, requiring additional rule of minimum 1 damage always done (I hate band-aid rules). Now, take guy with STR 2 fighting guy with STA 5. 2-5=-3, no negatives so round up to 0, exact same effect. Or guy with 1 STR. These fights would take bloody forever! The added damage from added success to hit help a little, but again, not so much for the little guys (DEX 2 means +1 dmg, occasionally). These rules only seem to matter to strong and tough characters, preferably ones that significantly outmatch their opponant.

That being said, again, it has never really detracted from our games. We take Trinity with a bit less dose of realism because it's action-adventure. WoD soak sucks, yes, giving bad results more often than Trinity, but then, it's the World of Darkness. It's supposed to suck! That's why botches are so much easier to get there too. Trinity is about heros, and hope, and all that good stuff.

[metaphysician]

Old thread, but something that occured to me. . .

Why can't the 'puny human' rule be applied to all damage and attacks? If the proverbial STR 1 guy tries to punch out a STA 5 powerhouse, the result is he'd do no damage at all unless he could make a really accurate attack. . . but why is that a bad thing?

[Alex Green]

IMHO it's not a bad thing.

[SkyLion]

IMHO it's not a bad thing.

,,

Depends on the flavor you are going for. Personally Im in favor of ignoring ping damage altogether..never needed it in the WoD. If you can't be the soak...tough cookies, find another way. IMHO this works better for portraying superbeings. Like how noone can stop Juggernaut so they have to herd him around or get his helmet off and use psionics...

[Finbar]

Of course you never needed it in the WoD; you either kill things quickly or they kill you quickly, and the winner regens, making it pointless.

Things are a bit more....complex when it ibvolves abbies....

FR

[SkyLion]

I just dont believe a person who soaked all damage should have a ping rolled to hurt them. Or to make it more believable say you could be pinged but it would never make you more than bruised. In other words a ping shouldnt be able to cripple maim or incapacitate. If you soaked it all and it gave you a bruise (as the ping rules say) it shouldn't be able to do much more. Personally I think ping damage is stupid. Power of a Go..oops, that was the STICK that broke Geryon's back. My Ass.

[Arashi]

I think Ping damage sucks, too.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to do without it altogether, so the idea came up for using an extra set of "healthlevels".

These health levels aren't used for normal damage, they just report ping damage. Getting ping damage fills up one slot. When you have as much slots filled as is your Stamina+Armour rating, you take one health level of real damage. Then you start a new set of slots.

Filled slots in the Ping damage heal automaticly during one scene if the charakter is able to rest.

This provides that a huge mass of little damage can accumulate to real damage, but the guy with Str 1 has no real chance to hurt the guy with Sta 5 just because he got luckya for a few dice rolls.

It gives a method for handling small damage, too. Things that aren't worth a full health level, but the GM thinks should at least be noticed by the character.

I didn't test the rule yet, so it sounds good for me, but I don't know if it works good, too.

[Alex Green]

Hmm.

[SkyLion]

Wow Alex! That's the single weakest post I have ever seen you write! (No offense intended...just saying, c'mon you've got to have some thoughts about that more than "Hmm").