Trapping Large Rooms

I think Dan likely has the truth of it. A nicely posted list in logistics, creating a consistent expectation per chapter (not per event) would be the expected norm-

Something like (example)-
Cabin A, B, C- 1 game room
Cabin D - 2 rooms
Main Tavern Area- 4 rooms
Tavern Private rooms- 1 room
Kitchen - 2 rooms
Mod Space- Per module setup based on tarps and flats- full space (if one big room)- 6 rooms
Etc
 
Will there have to be a hold? I am not so sure but this is something that can be revealed during the play test. Has anyone actually play tested a "game room" (or rooms) area of effect trap and how did it actually play out? Was a hold necessary, and if so what needed to be resolved?

When a trap goes off of course you call a hold. Check the trap to make sure it indeed was set off then you say the effect. What needs to be resolved? The trap effect needs to resolve. "Hold- Shatter trap. All targets are effected." Player A, "Ok no effect, no effect, got it got it got it, Marshal those were my 3 reagents, here take them." So when I mention resolved, I'm referencing the effect/spell, what ever you have and its applicable targets.
 
I think Dan likely has the truth of it. A nicely posted list in logistics, creating a consistent expectation per chapter (not per event) would be the expected norm-

Something like (example)-
Cabin A, B, C- 1 game room
Cabin D - 2 rooms
Main Tavern Area- 4 rooms
Tavern Private rooms- 1 room
Kitchen - 2 rooms
Mod Space- Per module setup based on tarps and flats- full space (if one big room)- 6 rooms
Etc

JP I like this. I also think that before the module if say "hey this mod house is a cave that you guys wandered up to, for trap purposes it consists of 5 game rooms", would also be a great thing to mention to the players. You could even try to keep it in game via the hook and some clever wording.
 
With regards to the statement "if there was a hard and fast size, then players/marshals could sit there and argue room is "larger or smaller" than the size set out in the rulebook and then headaches begin!"

With all due respect, I say poppycock! There is already verbiage written in the otherwise vague rule that negates this argument. Unless you are stating that you are worried that a player and a marshal are going to argue over a measurement (and last I checked, we've played for approximately 24 years with radius traps being 6' without it being an unsolvable problem) then you have the built-in caveat that a room larger than 1 "game room" requires additional traps to fill it out.

There are a whole host of other measurements in the rule book.

Again, please explain why making this one particular measurement variable is a value-add to the new rules.

If it helps frame your response, since you don't know me, I've been playing for 25 years, most of that a marshal and have been on staff in multiple chapters in the northeast. Not saying that makes me more knowledgeable about these new rules, just saying you don't have to create a frame of reference for me.

One thing, trap radius is 5' not 6'. Pg 145 Areas of Effect.

This is to make things easier. Especially for trappers. At the start of the game, the plot team will dictate what constitutes a "game room" and will dictate which of the larger buildings are X number of game rooms. Then, as a trapper, I know Y building requires X number of traps/trap tags. I go in, I set the trap(s), and I'm done. Now I do not have to find a marshal, I don't have to measure between all my traps, I don't have to expend 20 traps/phys reps to cover our tavern (yes it would take that many at least).

This rule makes it so much easier. A marshal will have to just check what building it is, and is there enough tags. No more having to go from trap to trap making sure the effect and the distance and measure to each person. Also, one trap means, one doesn't have to be missed by a marshal who wasn't there for them to be set up. A 30 second hold opposed to a 5 minute search for everything. Sounds WAY easier and WAY better for the game IMO.
 
Yeah, ok. 6 is next to 5 on my keyboard. My bad.

I see the argument on everything except size. Okay, so say that plot decides at the beginning of the adoption of new rules how many trap rooms each structure on site consists of, and they post this. That's perfectly fine if people only play in one chapter.
What's to prevent chapter A from stating that a 19' x 34' building is 2 "game rooms", but chapter B states 18' x 32' is 3 game rooms?

Also, I've read "at the start of the game"...just so we're clear, by "game" are we walking playing under ruleset 2.0, are we walking "game" = "event". Because allowing a "rule" to be interpreted differently not only from chapter to chapter, but event to event...
yeah, I don't have a polite phrase for that.
 
What's to prevent chapter A from stating that a 19' x 34' building is 2 "game rooms", but chapter B states 18' x 32' is 3 game rooms?
Absolutely nothing. That's exactly the sort of thing that I would prefer be left to local rules marshals. As long as the chapter policy is consistent from event to event, and as long as it's well-communicated to players, I don't see any issue with your scenario.
 
Also, I've read "at the start of the game"...just so we're clear, by "game" are we walking playing under ruleset 2.0, are we walking "game" = "event". Because allowing a "rule" to be interpreted differently not only from chapter to chapter, but event to event...
yeah, I don't have a polite phrase for that.

From event to event, plot can decide to change how something works. Different plot members have different views. Different Marshals have different views. It's completely plausible that they found that having only two traps for such a large room was too easy or unfair, so they increased it, or vice versa.
 
I'm i nagreement with ya Paul. We have a set of rules that we ALL follow as an Alliance. The fluidness of being able to play throughout North America. There were times where our interprtations were different (see DA, All White Tape vs. some White Tape) but we managed to all come to the agreement. Resulting in a standard rule/rules. I'm all for a hard Y'xZ' rule.
 
Calgary has been using "Game Rooms" for 2 years. It works very well. We let all PCs (and NPCs) know exactly how many Game Rooms each of our areas are. We have not had a problem to date.
 
I'm i nagreement with ya Paul. We have a set of rules that we ALL follow as an Alliance. The fluidness of being able to play throughout North America. There were times where our interprtations were different (see DA, All White Tape vs. some White Tape) but we managed to all come to the agreement. Resulting in a standard rule/rules. I'm all for a hard Y'xZ' rule.

The problem is not all buildings are built the same across the US and Canada. What happens when its a 10'x12' rule but we have cabins that are 10'x 16' or 11'x11'? do we make all of our rules based on one chapters buildings and force the rest of the Alliance to have to use two traps for each of their buildings? Wouldn't it be easier for each chapter to just set the guidelines? Especially for those of us who use 2-3 sites all with different types of buildings. Like Seth said earlier, each chapter can set how many wards it takes to ward a larger building, can't it just be the same for traps?
 
I wouldn't have a problem with the room sizes being different at different camps and/or chapters. As long as it is posted somewhere I could find it. The problem I would have would be if the room sizes changed at the same camp/chapter based on the marshal in the encounter.
 
You guys know that this is a role playing game. You know just because your mod physical build is 20x30 doesn't mean that your IG area is actually 20x30. I really think we are over thinking some things. I mean I can go on to say,
"What if the room isn't a cube but in fact an octagon shape?".

Calgary has been using "Game Rooms" for 2 years. It works very well. We let all PCs (and NPCs) know exactly how many Game Rooms each of our areas are. We have not had a problem to date.

I didn't know chapters can change the rules like that, one that is in the rule book and not open for interpretation.

In all fairness Cory, there have been many rules that have been misinterpreted, which is understandable, just pointing it out.
 
Back
Top