The Unseen Servant forums

Hi all,

Picking up from viewtopic.php?f=21&t=5755, here's where we can discuss stuff out of character.

House rule - Longbows

As discussed with mjulius, longbows count as two-handed weapons as per The Black Hack (TBH) rules.

I am relieved that I went with light, medium, and heavy weapons instead for BLUEHACK™. Not only is it a Holmes-ism, it avoids things like (2-handed) short bows being counted as 1-handed weapons. I see the potential elegance of 1-handed and 2-handed as categories as you don't have to identify each weapon (which you do with light, medium, and heavy), but it breaks down once there is an exception.

Sorry, just thinking aloud!

A fair point.

As with most "lite" ruleset issues, the naming has a lot to answer for. If the rule was called "powerful weapons" instead, and still explicitly referenced two-handed weapons as an example, that might have cleared it up.

Thinking about it, there are plenty of weapons that should do more damage/be harder to use, as envisaged by the two-handed weapons rule, that aren't two-handed.

Vile, I hadn't thought about it like that. You're right, I guess no matter what, it still takes two hands to use. The [completely fabricated] distinction that I had in my mind was between the kind of bow that someone might use to shoot small game around someone's rural home and that used to launch a projectile across a battlefield or through armor.

Anyhow, 'powerful weapons' would have certainly been clearer. I like that the ruleset allows a different Holmesian flavor with your hack.

In PvM fights using The Black Hack, there isn't usually much rolling for the DM to do.

Unless it's PvMvNPCs, like we have right now.

Do you want me to make rolls out in the open, or are you happy for the magic/chaos to happen behind an imaginary DM screen?

Always trust the referee, I say.

Personally, I like to see the rolls—the mechanics are part of the fun of the game. Was that hit a squeaker? Nearly a crit? The troll did how much damage?!

In a situation where a character's response is conditional (If situation A, I do this; if situation B, I do that...) Would you rather we provide rolls for the various conditions, or would you rather we wait until you have informed us of what the course will be?

Also, some GMs ask that rolls and references to mechanics be hidden in spoiler boxes, while others prefer them out in the open. Do you have a preference at this point?

That's totally fair, and I think I agree. There may be times where I do hide the roll, but for most combat and that sort of thing, the "squeekers" etc. do add to the fun.

In terms of hiding rolls, I'd prefer not, as it makes the whole thing fractionally harder to parse. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, though, if anyone feels strongly?

I like the rolls open, for every reason Pulpatoon mentioned.

Picking out individual targets could be tricky, unless you don't care who you hit.
Any shots into the melee would be rolled at a disadvantage.

• Not caring who I hit = standard roll on a random target in the melee, correct?
  Shooting at specific target in melee with disadvantage, where do the missed arrows go? Is it another possible hit on a random target or simple miss?

I envisioned this as:

You declare a target, roll with disadvantage. If you hit, you hit the declared target. If not, random roll to determine who gets an arrow in the face, or whether the shot flies wide.

I'm open to suggestions as to how to manage the random roll, but 1dX seems simple enough for your average melee, where X is the number of combatants (-1 from X to remove the intended target from the mix, but +1 for the chance of missing everyone).

I don't want to nerf archers, however. We could modify the above by saying you would hit another combatant only if both of the disadvantage rolls miss.

Thoughts?

Hi all,

I've had requests from a couple of guys today, asking if they can join the game.

Any objections? IMO, 6 players is pushing it for a tabletop game, but more players for a pbp can only increase the game's lifespan.

My plan would be to run a parallel game for a few days, then slide the two together at an appropriately dramatic juncture.

Thoughts?

No objections here!

Wow, cool. Really interesting to have the players game into the game.

Sounds good to me.

Thumbs up!

I just realized...should I count each torch as a separate item? I'm used to just grouping them together, but perhaps I should leave a few outside the hole (or hand them off to others in the group) to avoid penalties on rolls. Sorry about the confusion!

No, torches count as a single item. Anything with a usage die counts as a single item.

It would make more sense to have resources take up slots based on the size of the usage die, but I'm fine with simplicity winning out over realism, when it comes to encumbrance.