duncan_disorderly
Mongoose
I really like the idea of using the Metagaming rules in GFC, both as a game in it's own right, with players taking on an entire organisation, rather than the individuals who make it up, and as a way of generating adventure seeds for PC's who are involved with those factions, but looking at the rules more closely, it looks like either the Editor cut out large amounts of text, or failed to send the submission back to the author to finish off...
# Physical Conflict is either aimed at the Assets or the members of the rival organisation, and the aggressor must chose which at the outset of the conflict - but it makes absolutely no difference rules-wise - shouldn't an attack on the assets reduce Wealth?
#The side that wins Initiative can choose Attack, Mitigate or Defend, the loser can only chose Defend, but will get to counter-attack if they survive the initial assault. If he choses attack then an Attack vs a Defend gives an opposed roll (whose range of results do not match the range of given effects ...). If he choses Mitigate then he foreits his attack, but gets to reduce the effect of an attack against him (in an unopposed roll) when he is counterattacked. If he choses to defend then presumably we skip straight to the counterattack, where he is now the defender. I'm not sure why you would ever chose to do this...
#After the attack, the defender gets to counterattack If the original attacker chose to mitigate then this is an unopposed roll, but the damage will be reduced, depending on the result of the mitigation roll. If the original attacker chose to defend then this is identical to the Attack vs defend above. If the original attacker chose to attack, then presumably they are now treated as defending?
#Political and Social Conflict are given separate entries on the random events table, are subsiquently described as being very similar, but are apparently identical as they don't appear to be differentiated in the rules - except that some of the tables are described as being for "political conflict" - should there be similar tables for "social conflict" too, or should the entries on the random events table be combined ?
# Physical Conflict is either aimed at the Assets or the members of the rival organisation, and the aggressor must chose which at the outset of the conflict - but it makes absolutely no difference rules-wise - shouldn't an attack on the assets reduce Wealth?
#The side that wins Initiative can choose Attack, Mitigate or Defend, the loser can only chose Defend, but will get to counter-attack if they survive the initial assault. If he choses attack then an Attack vs a Defend gives an opposed roll (whose range of results do not match the range of given effects ...). If he choses Mitigate then he foreits his attack, but gets to reduce the effect of an attack against him (in an unopposed roll) when he is counterattacked. If he choses to defend then presumably we skip straight to the counterattack, where he is now the defender. I'm not sure why you would ever chose to do this...
#After the attack, the defender gets to counterattack If the original attacker chose to mitigate then this is an unopposed roll, but the damage will be reduced, depending on the result of the mitigation roll. If the original attacker chose to defend then this is identical to the Attack vs defend above. If the original attacker chose to attack, then presumably they are now treated as defending?
#Political and Social Conflict are given separate entries on the random events table, are subsiquently described as being very similar, but are apparently identical as they don't appear to be differentiated in the rules - except that some of the tables are described as being for "political conflict" - should there be similar tables for "social conflict" too, or should the entries on the random events table be combined ?
