[HOE] Massive Damage ...

[The Baron Samedi <baron11@netmcr.com>]

> Now, in my opinion, this seems...well...wrong.  I thought the
> original rules worked very well and actually gave players a chance at
> surviving.  With the new MD rules, explosions are much more
> deadly.
>
> So, I ask you, which system do you like and why?
>
> Dr. Nukem

I use the new Rules. In HoE, they are significantly deadlier. 
Sometimes, however, they are a bit too deadly.  I have on more then
one occasion contemplated discussing with my group if they want to keep
them or not.

One thing they did do was put some bite into massive damage powers. 
several times, we looked down on Nuke and Soul Burst because we figured
the massive damage limited them. Now that is the least of our
worries.


Loki said:

"Yes. My opinion? I like it. The comment in Iron Oasis about PCs
dropping
grenades and riding it out with a few chips is very, very true, and if
you use
the mook rules, like I do, where unimportant NPCs get killed by
massive
damage, no save, the disparity in the old massive damage rules is
worse.

People should *respect* and be *afraid* of explosions. As it is, under
the old
Massive Damage rules, a mjority of the PCs survived being virtually on
top of
a green robe's Ground Zero explosion! It strains suspension of disbelief
in a
game that requires a lot of suspension anyway.

And on the flip-side, it means the PCs explosives can actually do
something to
major NPCs.

        

-Loki"

I never, ever use the Mook rules, so that was not a problem.  I was
running the GZ fight Loki mentioned, and he is 100% correct.  Only
one PC and one allied NPC died.  4 PCs and 1 friendly NPC
survived.

OTOH, In Weird West, the new rules work strongly to the PCs benefit,
since neither side uses dynamite too often.  They do, however, have
PCs with Soul Burst and Geyser who have become killing machines. 
Course they can fight a Huckster but that can be problatic for my card
draws.

John Goff said:

"Seriously? To make a dynamite explosion a deadly event. :-)

Joking aside, I had a mad scientist (as a player myself) wearing a 
bulletproof vest detonate a stick of dynamite on his chest. We played it
out 
by the rules, and he walked away from it virtually unscathed. It cost him
5 
chips (and the vest soaked two wounds), but that's a little unrealistic
IMO.

One of our playtest groups actually had a player who would deliberately
drop 
grenades at his feet in a crowd of "mooks" because he'd
realized the damage 
would most likely drop them, but leave him relatively unscathed.

Use of dynamite and grenades in this fashion (in our opinion) should not
be 
rewardsd. :-)

We use the rules in my game here, and when someone lights a stick of
dynamite, eveyone ducks. OTOH, there's also a capricious element involved
as 
well. A mad scientist in the group recently got a catastrophic failure
with 
his flamethrower inside a crowded saloon. In addition to the 12 or so bad
guys in there, one PC was caught in the blast. He got lucky, caught a
blast 
pocket and walked out unscathed.

However, all that said, if you like the old DL rules better, keep using
them.
John"

I agree with this, but consider it as much a weakness in the Mook rules
as anything.
That said, as you say, it makes dynamite what it should be-nasty.

Allan Seyberth said:


"I found this out a while ago - one stick of dynamite by the old
rules is not sufficient to kill a pc.
Now - three sticks pretty much does the trick. :-)
------------------- 
Allan Seyberth 
darious@darious.com 
Deadlands fan site -
http://www.darious.com/deadlands/index.html"

um, what he said.

TBS