Character improvment in the various gaming systems

Leper · Post by **Leper** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:07 pm

cthulhudarren wrote:The same principle applies though. If a T-REx chomps down on your head... no matter how "advanced" of a human you are... You die.

In that case, I would either avoid describing the resolution of the attack that way, or model some sort of system where every attack involves multiple rolls. Like... probably 4 or 5 rolls to see if he managed to bite or missed but still hit with his snout, if his teeth grabbed an arm or if he's managed to swallow the whole of the head, soft tissue damage vs. skeletal, how much pressure was applied on a small variable scale, and possibly some sort of resistance roll for armor if I really felt like "more rolls=more realism."

In general, a t-rex succeeding on an attack (even a bite attack) does not mean the individual was actually bitten.

I am "arguing" for a system in that the level of physical punishment the human body can endure, that the physics of force and mass doesn't change a whole lot unless you have magic involved. Casting Stoneskin to make you harder to cut is okay. Character advancement would be more along the lines of better skills, casting defensive spells, better gear, better talents... even a heroic ability like deflecting an arrow with a sword. But the human body is still the human body.

Yes, it is. A system that even semi-accurately models such is going to need to be unfathomably complex. You may well enjoy it, but many people probably will not.

I realize that abstract systems like DnD are trying to model both skills, stamina, and physical toughness all in one number with HPs. I just do not enjoy that much abstractness in a game of combat.

Actually, I think HPs are a bit more abstract than that. (and have been from the start, according to Gary)

If you're trying to model HPs as actual bodily damage, then you're going to run into a number of problems with most implementations of an HP system. How did that guy take an axe to the face at 8am and then go jog cross country the rest of the day? (anything more than 0 hp means I'm good!) With systems where damage incurrs penalties then you invariably wind up with a death-spiral mechanic: initiative wins the fight, extra actions are unfathomably good. (SR & WoD)

So... it helps us to understand: what kind of abstraction is the kind you're looking to avoid, and why?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:13 pm

cthulhudarren wrote:I am "arguing" for a system in that the level of physical punishment the human body can endure, that the physics of force and mass doesn't change a whole lot unless you have magic involved.

Keep your low-level-ness out of my high level characters!

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:40 pm

cthulhudarren wrote:I am "arguing" for a system in that the level of physical punishment the human body can endure, that the physics of force and mass doesn't change a whole lot unless you have magic involved.

Then in the context of RPGs you are either arguing for a system where everyone gets magic or a place on a lot of ignore lists. Which one you want is up to you.

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:04 pm

I am "arguing" for a system in that the level of physical punishment the human body can endure, that the physics of force and mass doesn't change a whole lot unless you have magic involved. Casting Stoneskin to make you harder to cut is okay. Character advancement would be more along the lines of better skills, casting defensive spells, better gear, better talents... even a heroic ability like deflecting an arrow with a sword. But the human body is still the human body.

Then you need a setting where you don't fight anything but humanoid opponents, or magic is ubiquitous. The knight can become amazing at swordsmanship, he can parry and dodge the most skilled warriors of any realm, but the minute that dragon breathes fire on him, he's toast, because no level of human ability can make him take damage like that, unless he has some kind of magic protection that lasts the whole fight. The only way to kill the dragon in this setting without ubiquitous magic is either to sneak up on him Bilbo-style, or with a lucky shot in his weak spot Bard-style. That's not terribly epic. You can only reflavor human opponents so much. The point where you start fighting Trolls and Giants and Elementals and Dragons, your mortals' static Toughness score is insignificant next to their Magic score.

cthulhudarren · Post by **cthulhudarren** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:22 pm

Stubbazubba wrote:
Then you need a setting where you don't fight anything but humanoid opponents, or magic is ubiquitous. The knight can become amazing at swordsmanship, he can parry and dodge the most skilled warriors of any realm, but the minute that dragon breathes fire on him, he's toast, because no level of human ability can make him take damage like that, unless he has some kind of magic protection that lasts the whole fight. The only way to kill the dragon in this setting without ubiquitous magic is either to sneak up on him Bilbo-style, or with a lucky shot in his weak spot Bard-style. That's not terribly epic. You can only reflavor human opponents so much. The point where you start fighting Trolls and Giants and Elementals and Dragons, your mortals' static Toughness score is insignificant next to their Magic score.

There is truth here.

cthulhudarren · Post by **cthulhudarren** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:35 pm

Leper wrote: Actually, I think HPs are a bit more abstract than that. (and have been from the start, according to Gary)

If you're trying to model HPs as actual bodily damage, then you're going to run into a number of problems with most implementations of an HP system. How did that guy take an axe to the face at 8am and then go jog cross country the rest of the day? (anything more than 0 hp means I'm good!) With systems where damage incurrs penalties then you invariably wind up with a death-spiral mechanic:

So... it helps us to understand: what kind of abstraction is the kind you're looking to avoid, and why?

Yeah, I've always disliked HPs for that reason. Anything > 0HP and you are completely good to go, < 0 and you are unconscious.

I want something that is more descriptive, that will describe where you hit after making the skill check! Then you roll to see if you have penetrated their armor.

Descriptive yet still somewhat realistic. You can have your arm hacked off. Magic can be used to fix it, but I want weapons to do real damage, with real descriptions, not just... oh you lose 6 HPs.

I don't want to have to make up the descriptions myself, because I could always describe my attacks as hitting them in the face. And I enjoy the element of surprise when you roll for a hit location and find... oh I rolled a 12, I hit him in the chest with my arrow.

The real challenge is to find the system that only has the minimum amount of granularity that you want. Because more granularity is more rules.

TheFlatline · Post by **TheFlatline** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:38 pm

echoVanguard wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:I'm not really sure what you're calling a straw man, since at this point you clearly aren't talking about Rune Quest, but instead some d20 variant. In any case, a ~50% chance of dropping your weapon every time you roll a 1 is a 2.5% chance per attack of going butter fingers with a sword.

I don't think I have ever met someone who dropped their sword once every forty swings. Even fictional characters who are made fun of in fandom for dropping their weapons constantly (like the Winchesters in Supernatural) don't drop their weapons that often. That level of fumblage is so ridiculously high that it only has a place in low comedy. Very low. If an MC tried to pull that shit out in a "serious" game, I'd walk away from the table.

-Username17
An 'attack' in a TTRPG isn't always synonymous with a 'swing'. In our system (as in d20), an 'attack' is the outcome of a brief but focused period of combat, which may involve any number of swings, jabs, or shots.

Additionally, the ~50% fumble success metric is a shot in the dark, which doesn't happen to be correct - base chance (even if your character is nonproficient in their weapon and has the minimum possible DEX score) is 45%, and the chance for a character with bare-average DEX and proficiency in their weapon is 30%. A melee-focused character should usually have optimum DEX (upper 40% of the ability range), in which case the chance for failure is about 20%. Calculating all the percentages, the nonproficient palsied cripple has a 2.25% chance for a fumble, while Joe Average with Proficiency has a 1.5% chance (or roughly once every 75 periods of focused fighting). For a typical entry-level player character who has spent their points reasonably, the chance is right about 1% - and characters can acquire Weapon Mastery at level 2 if they feel the 1-2% chance is too high.

echo

Having seen and taken part in enough sword fighting, including live steel, fumble charts are bullshit. I've seen thousands of sword blows swung in earnest, and can't, for the life of me, ever remember seeing someone screw up and stab himself in the eye. Especially in full plate.

Hell, you don't even see people drop their swords from a bad swing except for the very most basic n00bs who are not proficient at all. You see disarms, you see "sundering" where you pop the sword out of their hand, but that's not a fumble.

What fumbles *should* do, if they do anything, is drop your defense. Bad footing, misjudged balance, severely miscalculating what your opponent is about to do, these things don't make you drop your weapon, they open you up to a counter attack.

How about this for a simple D20 fumble rule: On a natural 1, you open yourself up and provoke an attack of opportunity. This can be eliminated with weapon focus (or weapon specialization, the fighter alone gets one of them IIRC) making that feat reasonably more useful: You're good enough with that weapon that even your big mistakes aren't big enough to screw you in a fight.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:40 pm

How about this fumble rule: "if your last attack roll was a natural 1, enemies have the edge against you."

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:43 pm

Also, hacking off limbs and heads doesn't feel more realistic, it feels more cartoony, at least to me. As far as I know severing limbs is actually pretty difficult to do and much less likely than breaking bones or causing enough shock/bleeding/organ failure from repeated body blows to put someone down.

echoVanguard · Post by **echoVanguard** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:18 pm

TheFlatline wrote:What fumbles *should* do, if they do anything, is drop your defense. Bad footing, misjudged balance, severely miscalculating what your opponent is about to do, these things don't make you drop your weapon, they open you up to a counter attack...You're good enough with that weapon that even your big mistakes aren't big enough to screw you in a fight.

Our fumble rules worked similarly to this (temporary defensive penalty) for quite a while during internal testing, but we found that they felt pretty boring. When we introduced the self-disarm fumbles and rare thrown-weapon fumbles, they generated excitingly rare diversions in combat which occasionally changed the outcome of the encounter significantly. In one test, a non-proficient character fumbled and accidentally threw his weapon into an enemy who was hiding in a crowd and preparing an ambush, spoiling the enemy's advantage completely. It's one of the cases where we found that verisimilitude lost out to more interesting gameplay.

echo

BearsAreBrown · Post by **BearsAreBrown** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:37 pm

Or just remove fumbles completely because they're fucking dumb.

You rolled a 1. Your result is 19 lower then it could be. That's enough.

GâtFromKI · Post by **GâtFromKI** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:02 pm

cthulhudarren wrote:I am "arguing" for a system in that the level of physical punishment the human body can endure, that the physics of force and mass doesn't change a whole lot unless you have magic involved. Casting Stoneskin to make you harder to cut is okay. Character advancement would be more along the lines of better skills, casting defensive spells, better gear, better talents... even a heroic ability like deflecting an arrow with a sword. But the human body is still the human body.

It works in a game with all-caster or a game with no-caster.

Or you gets some D&D 3-clone: you have the casters and the NPC-classes.

Leper · Post by **Leper** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:21 pm

cthulhudarren wrote:I want something that is more descriptive, that will describe where you hit after making the skill check! Then you roll to see if you have penetrated their armor. Descriptive yet still somewhat realistic. You can have your arm hacked off. Magic can be used to fix it, but I want weapons to do real damage, with real descriptions, not just... oh you lose 6 HPs.

I think you may be mistaking "more dice rolling" with "more realistic."

Read the spoiler box.

Mechanics can have unrealistic results. Mechanics can also have results that closely model what genuinely happens in reality.

Do not mistake "results" with "process." No mechanical process is realistic. Ever. EVER. Rolling 1 d20 is no more or less realistic than rolling 2 or 10 or 400,000,000--even in some weird situation where you genuinely have 400,000,000 variables, those variables will not exactly map to 5% increments in each discrete case.

So, we at some point have to accept that we can have no exact process that is realistic.

That leaves us with results. "2d6+6 damage" is only part of a result. The genuine, final result is both the numerical value and the end description we give to that value. If the result is 9 and we describe it as "9 damage" that's our end result. If we describe it as "the crossbow whizzes past your character's face, close enough to take a few stray strands of hair with it and causing the blood to pound in your ears as you realize how close you've come to death," then that is our end result.

If you think "9 damage out of your HP pool of 90" equates to "the t-rex eats your head, now its your turn" then it is not the system that has created an unrealistic result (whatever the system that lead up to that may be) but you, as the individual who created that result. YOU chose to think "9 damage equates to having your head bit off, and also I can continue to keep going without a head."

Are hitpoints realistic? Intrinsically, no. Nor are damage tracks with penalties or armor that absorbs damage or prevents hits or any other system out there.

They all have the ability to be described realistically, however.

I don't want to have to make up the descriptions myself, because I could always describe my attacks as hitting them in the face.

I find the bolded part to be most probably the most important part of your post.

And I enjoy the element of surprise when you roll for a hit location and find... oh I rolled a 12, I hit him in the chest with my arrow.

Many people enjoy the element of surprise. There are many ways to introduce that element of surprise without demanding a game system "carry your imagination" for you by describing everything you do. Quite frequently, such systems also surrender all pretext of realism in an effort to "surprise" you and tell you what you are doing since you can't be arsed to think of it on your own.

The real challenge is to find the system that only has the minimum amount of granularity that you want. Because more granularity is more rules.

Not entirely, but it most frequently is, yes, and this is indeed one of several good benchmarks to look at when trying to decide if you will like a new system or not. I don't think it's the most important, but it certainly is a valid criteria.

Leper · Post by **Leper** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:34 pm

BearsAreBrown wrote:Or just remove fumbles completely because they're fucking dumb.

You rolled a 1. Your result is 19 lower then it could be. That's enough.

I generally agree. The only "fumble result" rules I've seen that I actually enjoyed allowed you to (at the player's option) count the fumble as a hit, but your weapon broke.

It worked (for me) because:
[*]It was optional.
[*]The option was under the player's control.
[*]Magic weapons weren't really a part of the setting, so you weren't about to lose a huge amount of finite resources (cash) over a 5% per attack chance.
[*]While not intrinsically realistic (weapons do break, but hopefully not 5% often) the element of player choice kept the instances of actual breakage to a pretty "normal" level.
[*]In exchange for the penalty, there was a clear advantage given. (A hit result that would have been a miss otherwise)
[*]That exchange of penalty for advantage introduced a further discrete opportunity for tactical exploitation in the system.[/list]

CCarter · Post by **CCarter** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:53 pm

Josh_Kablack wrote:The posts in this thread don't make any damn sense, so I'm gonna answer the thread title instead:

Good work Josh! (not being sarcastic). But yeah cthulhudarren seems from post content to be interested in "character improvement" with regard to hit points/survivability only (and is one of those guys with a realism hardon).

Also, you can tell that he's evil because he has an "-ar-" in his name, like Shadzar and Elennsar.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:27 pm

CCarter wrote:Also, you can tell that he's evil because he has an "-ar-" in his name, like Shadzar and Elennsar.

Like you?

CCarter · Post by **CCarter** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:34 am

Yeah, you got me.
I may flip out any post now...

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:40 am

Don't worry, I've got "ar" in my name too.

So there's a very good chance I'm evil.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:07 am

I knew I should have gone with Charmomile.

shadzar · Post by **shadzar** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:57 am

Chamomile wrote:I knew I should have gone with Charmomile.

isnt that a pokemon?

cthulhudarren · Post by **cthulhudarren** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:17 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote:How about this fumble rule: "if your last attack roll was a natural 1, enemies have the edge against you."

This is indeed close to one of the fumble results. It is called 'ripost'. Basically, you have left yourself open and the enemy gets to attack you immediately.

I don't have an issue with what everyone has been saying regarding fumbles. That is the stuff that house rules are made of.

cthulhudarren · Post by **cthulhudarren** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 12:28 pm

Leper wrote:
I don't want to have to make up the descriptions myself, because I could always describe my attacks as hitting them in the face.
I find the bolded part to be most probably the most important part of your post.

I figured someone would jump on that comment. I definitely see your points, but I find the resolving attacks against hit locations to be a great catalyst for creating descriptions, not the end-all of descriptiveness.

A spear strike to the leg is can be "He pushes past your shield, making a gash in your thigh." or "You jab your spear deeply into his foot, crunching bone." all depending on how much damage is done and how many location hit points the target has left.

I find this method more satisfying.

I fixed the quote tag, but I don't know if I got the attribution of the quotes correct. If not, please report the post again and give me the info I need to fix it - assuming, of course, that cthuludarren doesn't fix it. --Z

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 2:18 pm

cthulhudarren wrote:
RadiantPhoenix wrote:How about this fumble rule: "if your last attack roll was a natural 1, enemies have the edge against you."
This is indeed close to one of the fumble results. It is called 'ripost'. Basically, you have left yourself open and the enemy gets to attack you immediately.

No, there's a difference. My idea doesn't punish people for making extra attacks, and indeed rewards extra attacks, even pathetic ones at -15, because they give you more opportunities to roll something that's not a 1 and then stop.

EDIT: Also, someone has one too many closequotes.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 3:56 pm

CCarter wrote:Also, you can tell that he's evil because he has an "-ar-" in his name, like Shadzar and Elennsar.

Oh I'm so close ... only off by one vowel.

cthulhudarren · Post by **cthulhudarren** » Wed Oct 19, 2011 4:05 pm

RadiantPhoenix wrote: No, there's a difference. My idea doesn't punish people for making extra attacks, and indeed rewards extra attacks, even pathetic ones at -15, because they give you more opportunities to roll something that's not a 1 and then stop.

I played in one campaign where just because the MC bought a critical fumble deck, we fumbled every time we rolled a one. I even argued that we should at least have to "confirm" a fumble like a crit, but the ruling was no. That really pissed me off as I was a melee type. He also had the critical hits deck and I hated that too because it essentially nerfed all my crits, I had a X3 weapon and most of the crit cards had x2 damage.

I don't believe in robbing players of iterative attacks if they roll a one.