Quote from: James J SkachYeah? So where is it?

And did it survive contact with the PCs?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceOf course. You can go partly damage absorbing and partly hit avoiding. That works perfectly well too.



It's one way of handling combat. If you have 10 six second rounds and a 5% chance of hitting each round, that is statistically identical to having a one-minute round with a single 50% chance of hitting. The first increases the handling time and flavor, the second decreases both. You can again go somewhere between the two. I'm not trying to exclude the middle, just mark out reference points.

I was agreeing. My math minor was in statistics...

Quote from: flyingmiceSystem and playstyle naturally conflate, which is why you get a different experience playing one game as opposed to another. You can force any game to match any playstyle, but it's usually easier to get the playstyle you want by matching it with a system predisposed to that playstyle. That's why the forge guys correctly say ""system matters." It does matter. Other things, like setting and group practices, also matter though, so system isn't the only thing that matters, and it isn't necessarily the most important thing.

I doubt we will agree on this. I think we are closer than my initial reaction puts us. I have always read "system matters" as that is the only thing that matters. I tend to believe it is nothing more or less that an element in play. You can increase the amount an element matters though. So, if you wanted to play an RPG like a board game then you could make it so system is the only thing that matters.

Quote from: flyingmiceI think what you are calling Elements of a game are a group of nebulously related things that taken together establish the overall flavor of a game. Am I correct?

-clash

Yes. More than that though, they may change scope on how you wish to evaluate your play experience or the game you want. You can take it down to Elements of a system, play style, setting, or whatever is important to you. Alternatively, you can zoom out to the point of taking those elements as a whole. System can be "gritty". Then you can take it down to what elements make it gritty to you.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's the sound I make when I am utterly shocked and surprised.

-clash

Ah, in the internet world of acronyms, i thought that was one i hadn't heard of!

Quote from: James J SkachYeah? So where is it?

Buried in my paper notes in a moving box.

Personally, in 1989 when I came up with it, it just would not have played on the industry market. So, I shelved it.

However, I played it for about a year and a half. The ending part was a Vampire game that was set in the near future. Dark brooding goth stuff but actually quite entertaining.

Ah, memories...

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI was agreeing. My math minor was in statistics...

I doubt we will agree on this. I think we are closer than my initial reaction puts us. I have always read "system matters" as that is the only thing that matters. I tend to believe it is nothing more or less that an element in play. You can increase the amount an element matters though. So, if you wanted to play an RPG like a board game then you could make it so system is the only thing that matters.

Then we do agree. I also think the "system matters" mantra is usually read as "system is the only thing that matters," and that is wrong. It's an important element, but not the only, or even most important.

QuoteYes. More than that though, they may change scope on how you wish to evaluate your play experience or the game you want. You can take it down to Elements of a system, play style, setting, or whatever is important to you. Alternatively, you can zoom out to the point of taking those elements as a whole. System can be "gritty". Then you can take it down to what elements make it gritty to you.

Bill

OK. Got it.

-clash

If this is heretical, I don't wanna be sacred!

Quote from: HinterWeltBuried in my paper notes in a moving box.

Personally, in 1989 when I came up with it, it just would not have played on the industry market. So, I shelved it.

However, I played it for about a year and a half. The ending part was a Vampire game that was set in the near future. Dark brooding goth stuff but actually quite entertaining.

Ah, memories...

Bill

Won't it be fun to play it with me when you unpack your boxes after moving closer!

Quote from: ReimdallIf this is heretical, I don't wanna be sacred!

Y'know, this is not the usual reception my ideas get...

-clash

Clash, Bill, I'm not talking about an Intimidate Skill, I'm talking Weapons Skill. I threaten by attacking. I push the opponent around and achieve my objectives by coming close to hurting them. Maybe even injuring them or breaking their gear, or blowing up background behind them (their buddies, those under their command in a military unit, etc.).  So you'd have [mostly] non-lethal combat with guns/swords/munitions/etc.  More psychological than true physical damage but definately an action based vs. tea at high noon banter.

EDIT: Although if nobody backs down I suppose you'd eventually you'd get to the point where you've got bodies.

EDIT2: Although it could work for cartoon type stuff too. You'd got that one particular theme in anime/Chinese films that sort of links to their cultural past where you have sword wielders, primarily, disrobing their opponents effectively laying them bare. Physically and metaphorically.

Quote from: DwightClash, Bill, I'm not talking about an Intimidate Skill, I'm talking Weapons Skill. I threaten by attacking. I push the opponent around and achieve my objectives by coming close to hurting them. Maybe even injuring them or breaking their gear, or blowing up background behind them (their buddies, those under their command in a military unit, etc.).  So you'd have [mostly] non-lethal combat with guns/swords/munitions/etc.  More psychological than true physical damage but definately an action based vs. tea at high noon banter.

EDIT: Although if nobody backs down I suppose you'd eventually you'd get to the point where you've got bodies.

Umm - I thought that WAS using Intimidation! That's the way my players do it! Use the Intimidation skill instead of your weapon skill to operate your firepower for maximum scariness. Maybe I'm more flexible than most GMs on how skills work? In my games, skill descriptions are usually short sentences, and they overlap a LOT. There's always more than one way to skin that pesky cat!

-clash

Quote from: DwightClash, Bill, I'm not talking about an Intimidate Skill, I'm talking Weapons Skill. I threaten by attacking. I push the opponent around and achieve my objectives by coming close to hurting them. Maybe even injuring them or breaking their gear, or blowing up background behind them (their buddies, those under their command in a military unit, etc.).  So you'd have [mostly] non-lethal combat with guns/swords/munitions/etc.  More psychological than true physical damage but definately an action based vs. tea at high noon banter.

EDIT: Although if nobody backs down I suppose you'd eventually you'd get to the point where you've got bodies.

EDIT2: Although it could work for cartoon type stuff too. You'd got that one particular theme in anime/Chinese films that sort of links to their cultural past where you have sword wielders, primarily, disrobing their opponents effectively laying them bare. Physically and metaphorically.

Um, that was what I was talking about. The details of the "conflict" had everything to do with dueling wits or intimidation or physical harm. It did not matter so much as the contest was a means of interaction more than a "tick the HP off" method.

For example, it did not matter what weapon you used beyond ranged or mele. It all did the same "damage". You could win a fight by using your gun to defeat a person's courage, essentially reducing them to an intimidated state. Think Bogey films and when Bogey pistol whips a wussy boy to get info out of him.

It was a lot of fun to play since after folks got the play style it helped with a lot of descriptive play.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceMaybe I'm more flexible than most GMs on how skills work?

Perhaps. Would they be able to kill people (bystanders) rolling the Intimidate dice? Me I'd be inclined have them use both Skills (however that works in the system, some handle it more smoothly than others). Still I'm talking about it being the norm, that the combat system is built around this.

Quote from: HinterWeltUm, that was what I was talking about. The details of the "conflict" had everything to do with dueling wits or intimidation or physical harm. It did not matter so much as the contest was a means of interaction more than a "tick the HP off" method.

For example, it did not matter what weapon you used beyond ranged or mele. It all did the same "damage". You could win a fight by using your gun to defeat a person's courage, essentially reducing them to an intimidated state. Think Bogey films and when Bogey pistol whips a wussy boy to get info out of him.

It was a lot of fun to play since after folks got the play style it helped with a lot of descriptive play.

Bill

Oops, got behind on the thread and posted before I should have. I hadn't read all the intervining posts.  So we are talking out of sync here.

Quote from: DwightPerhaps. Would they be able to kill people (bystanders) rolling the Intimidate dice?

It would depend on the situation entirely. If those bystanders were helpless, they don't need to roll at all to kill them. Rolling Intimidate would change the effect of the killing.

QuoteMe I'd be inclined have them use both Skills (however that works in the system, some handle it more smoothly than others). Still I'm talking about it being the norm, that the combat system is built around this.

Since all skill work exactly the same in my system, you can do this by just changing the default assumption. That's a group level issue, not a design level issue.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWeltUm, that was what I was talking about. The details of the "conflict" had everything to do with dueling wits or intimidation or physical harm. It did not matter so much as the contest was a means of interaction more than a "tick the HP off" method.

For example, it did not matter what weapon you used beyond ranged or mele. It all did the same "damage". You could win a fight by using your gun to defeat a person's courage, essentially reducing them to an intimidated state. Think Bogey films and when Bogey pistol whips a wussy boy to get info out of him.

It was a lot of fun to play since after folks got the play style it helped with a lot of descriptive play.

Bill

My point about "surviving contact with the PCs" was alluding to the well known ability of PCs to be able to ignore torture or any type of non-physical in-game coercion.

in other words, did the PCs have to play by the same rules, and did they resent it if so?

-clash