crayon
12-10-2011, 06:12 AM
Proposal
That in addition to the current game mechanic which allows us to "power up" within combat, that we have a mechanic that allows us to temporarily "power down" an opponent (in the loosest sense). I also propose that taunting be attached to the latter, while the former takes on the guise of something else.
Reasoning
It affords the player more combat possibilities; while a player who is playing aggressively may want to take the chance to power up an attack, a player who is on the defense may want to take the chance to weaken their foe's offense.
From a mechanical standpoint, I'm thinking that "powering down" within the current system would mean that either the opponent would have a negative modifier to whatever attack they roll or the player would have a positive modifier to their defensive roll. From a narrative standpoint, this would be seen as the opponent being less accurate in their attack and therefore the hero being better able to defend against (and should counter attacks be introduced in a sequel, this would add an additional layer of depth).
Why update the taunting context?
With the above in mind, I also think that throwing the opponent "off their game" so to speak, and altering their turn instead of yours, fits much more in line with taunting an opponent. Taunting is generally seen as something that affects your opponent, and not something that directly affects you.
Now, it could be argued that powering up the player's attack roll represents the enemy being angered and therefore with lower defenses. This is true, although typically the player's attack doesn't take place until after the enemy has already attacked whereas narratively a taunt shouldn't really have such a delayed effect. Perhaps even more important from a narrative standpoint, is that a in a group battle a taunt towards Opponent A shouldn't provide a player with any benefits against Opponents B, C .. N, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case now.
And what about the attack modifier?
Keep it as it is, but rename it to a generic "Charge" or whatever you like. I think we're all familiar with characters who become stronger for one or several attacks, and likewise we can probably all think of a narrative justifications that explain why. Moving taunt and changing this to something generic would allow the player to role play their character and envision it as whatever they want, be it a magical buff, emotional flashback, straight up 'raaarrgh' power-up, etc.
Pure conjecture here, but I'm also thinking that giving this buff some kind of generic self-describing charge type of name would be easier for new players to conceptualize, especially those with an RPG background who have used similar a similar combat function.
That said...
While I said to keep the attack modifier as it is, I wonder if perhaps it could be made more of an attractive option? I'll duly admit that I don't use it very often because of how easy it is to lose it (so anyone who does swear by its effectiveness I'd love to hear your thoughts), and I'm just thinking that maybe having the player effectively "pass" their opponent a free turn for the opportunity to hopefully land a more powerful attack on the next turn is enough of a penalty?
While I haven't completely thought out the implications I will note that this is how it's been approached (i.e., no loss on hit) in several boardgames and strategy rpgs I've played. Maybe CBH presents a different situation than them; maybe it doesn't. Just something worth thinking about anyway.
That in addition to the current game mechanic which allows us to "power up" within combat, that we have a mechanic that allows us to temporarily "power down" an opponent (in the loosest sense). I also propose that taunting be attached to the latter, while the former takes on the guise of something else.
Reasoning
It affords the player more combat possibilities; while a player who is playing aggressively may want to take the chance to power up an attack, a player who is on the defense may want to take the chance to weaken their foe's offense.
From a mechanical standpoint, I'm thinking that "powering down" within the current system would mean that either the opponent would have a negative modifier to whatever attack they roll or the player would have a positive modifier to their defensive roll. From a narrative standpoint, this would be seen as the opponent being less accurate in their attack and therefore the hero being better able to defend against (and should counter attacks be introduced in a sequel, this would add an additional layer of depth).
Why update the taunting context?
With the above in mind, I also think that throwing the opponent "off their game" so to speak, and altering their turn instead of yours, fits much more in line with taunting an opponent. Taunting is generally seen as something that affects your opponent, and not something that directly affects you.
Now, it could be argued that powering up the player's attack roll represents the enemy being angered and therefore with lower defenses. This is true, although typically the player's attack doesn't take place until after the enemy has already attacked whereas narratively a taunt shouldn't really have such a delayed effect. Perhaps even more important from a narrative standpoint, is that a in a group battle a taunt towards Opponent A shouldn't provide a player with any benefits against Opponents B, C .. N, which I'm pretty sure isn't the case now.
And what about the attack modifier?
Keep it as it is, but rename it to a generic "Charge" or whatever you like. I think we're all familiar with characters who become stronger for one or several attacks, and likewise we can probably all think of a narrative justifications that explain why. Moving taunt and changing this to something generic would allow the player to role play their character and envision it as whatever they want, be it a magical buff, emotional flashback, straight up 'raaarrgh' power-up, etc.
Pure conjecture here, but I'm also thinking that giving this buff some kind of generic self-describing charge type of name would be easier for new players to conceptualize, especially those with an RPG background who have used similar a similar combat function.
That said...
While I said to keep the attack modifier as it is, I wonder if perhaps it could be made more of an attractive option? I'll duly admit that I don't use it very often because of how easy it is to lose it (so anyone who does swear by its effectiveness I'd love to hear your thoughts), and I'm just thinking that maybe having the player effectively "pass" their opponent a free turn for the opportunity to hopefully land a more powerful attack on the next turn is enough of a penalty?
While I haven't completely thought out the implications I will note that this is how it's been approached (i.e., no loss on hit) in several boardgames and strategy rpgs I've played. Maybe CBH presents a different situation than them; maybe it doesn't. Just something worth thinking about anyway.