Hello folks,

I've come up with a potential damage/injury mechanic for the system I'm designing, and I would like to get y'all's opinions on it. I'll start by talking briefly about the system, then get into the injury mechanic.

The system: a success-counting dice pool system with three different types of dice. Standard dice (d6s) give give 0-2 successes per die (average = 1 per die), demoted dice (d4s) give 0-1 successes (average of .5), and promoted dice (d8s) give 0-3 successes (average of 1.5). Generally speaking, the number of dice you roll to make a check is equal to your relevant primary attribute (Might, Agility, Intelligence, &c) plus your skill (if applicable). Primary attributes for PCs generally range from 2-6, and skills range from 0-4. Situational modifiers, buffs, and debuff will promote or demote some number of dice.

Goals for the Injury Mechanic: The system's focus is heroic fantasy role-play (yes, I know, my buzzwords need work ), and I want the injury mechanic to reflect this. The PCs are capable of impressive and occasionally supernatural feats, but they are still mortal; they stay alive through tactics and active defenses (blocking, dodging, parrying), not by having a massive reserve of hit points. Descriptions of injuries should be supported by mechanics; i.e., an injury to the arm should impair your ability to fight. Injuries should be specific; I want characters to come out of a desperate battle with broken limbs, burns, and concussions, not with their HP reduced to 23% of maximum. On the flip side, I want injuries from a wide variety of damage types (crushing, cutting, heat, cold, acid, &c) to be able to be assigned on the fly, and I want to avoid having to look stuff up on a table every time a wound is dealt. With this in mind, here's what I have so far:

The Injury Mechanic. In general, injuries take the form of penalties to the victim's primary attributes. Attacks are resolved through two opposed rolls:

• Strike roll: determines if your attack hits the enemy. Attacker's Finesse+Weapon skill vs. target's Agility+Dodge, Might+Block or Finesse+Parry.
• Power roll: determines damage and other effects. Attacker's Might+Weapon skill or Spirit+Magic skill vs. target's Vigor+Might+Armor or Vigor+Spirit

If the Strike roll fails, your attack misses or is deflected, and no Power roll is made. If the Strike roll succeeds, your margin of success determines where your attack lands, how many primary attributes are affected, and how many dice are promoted on the Power roll:

• 1-2 successes: hits your target's Extremities. Penalizes one of target's primary attributes. Promote one die on Power roll.
• 3-4 successes: hits your target's Core. Penalizes two of target's primary attributes. Promote two dice on Power roll.
• 5+ successes: hits your target's Vitals. Penalizes three of target's primary attributes. Promote three dice on Power roll.

These locations are deliberately vague to allow for many different types of enemy morphology. For example, for humanoids, Extremities would be arms/legs, and Vitals would be head and major arteries; for a Beholder, on the other hand, Extremities would be lesser eyestalks, and Vitals would be the central eye.

Your margin of success on your Power roll determines how severe the penalties are:

• 1-2 successes: Minor Wound (-1 penalty)
• 3-4 successes: Debilitating Wound (-2 penalty)
• 5+ successes: Mortal Wound (-3 penalty).

Additionally, once you've been dealt a Mortal Wound, you must make a check at the beginning of every turn to stay conscious and avoid death.

The part I'm still trying to figure out is how to determine exactly which attributes are penalized by a given attack. For now I'm saying that it's the GM's call, based on any fluff that the players provide when describing their actions; for example, if the player says that she aims her swing for her opponent's legs, any resulting injury would penalize Agility (and possibly Might as well). There's more to the combat system than what I've described here (specifically, you can "spend" successes from both the Strike and Power rolls to use special abilities) but I just wanted to lay out the bare bones here.

So that's basically it. Does this mechanic seem functional? Does it seem fun? Please let me know if you'd like any more detail on the mechanic or on the system as a whole.

I think you need to simplify.  I feel that your system has too many steps, too many rolls, and too many moving parts.  It's fine if you want to go crunchy, but let's look at the steps you have in combat.

1. Aggressor rolls to attack, defender rolls to defend.
2. Calculate number of successes.
3. Compare agressor's successes to defender's successes.  How many dice are you promoting?
4. Aggressor rolls to attack, defender rolls to defend.
5. Calculate number of successes.
6. Compare aggressor's successes to defender's successes.
6. Apply penalties based on the results of step #3.

On top of these steps, the GM is expected to track these penalties individually for his own critters.  That might be too much work.

Here's how I might do it.

1. Aggressor rolls to attack, taking a dice penalty on his roll based on the defender's defense.
2. Calculate number of successes, which determines your promoted power dice.  (1-2 net successes = one promoted die, 3-4 net successes = two promoted dice, 5+ net successes = 3 promoted dice.)
3. Aggressor rolls Power, taking a penalty on his roll based on the defender's defense.
4. Calculate number of successes, which determines penalties.

Honestly, though, I think you need to do something more unique with the system.  Do something that makes your system really stand out from other games.  Right now, I'm seeing a fairly standard dice pool system, and it's not enough to bring in potential players.

Soak roll could be annoying unless the pool is less than the damage roll, on average, since otherwise you need two successful rolls in a row to hurt a target (so high whiff factor). I used to occasionally find Vampire annoying for that reason, after several buckets of dice were rolled you'd find that nothing happened...
Another thought is that if there's no clear method for determining which attribute is penalized, you could instead have a general wound penalty that affects all of them, barring called shots or the like. You could also do it randomly, or change the strike system so instead of multiple successes giving penalties to more attributes, they target more lethal attributes (minor Extremity = STR, major extremity =DEX (instead of core), Vitals =CON ?).

Suggestions that may or may not be helpful based on first impression:

1) Simplify the defense, such as the defender does not roll, but might reduce the attackers numbe rof dice, or demote them.

I Understand why one would want a rol vs roll, but it may be too clunky.

2) Use d6,d8,d10    d4s are the devil.

Thanks for the feedback, folks! First off, I agree that the system is pretty damn crunchy as written; thus far, I feel that it fits with my goals for the system, but I'm definitely open to ways to streamline the process. I'm considering keeping the Strike roll an opposed roll, but having the Power roll be made by the attacker vs. a low, static number (armor and other defenses would impose penalties to this roll). This would both reduce the number of opposed rolls and avoid the problem that Bloody Stupid Johnson pointed out (attacker potentially being unable to overcome resistances even on a successful hit).

Two more questions:

First, I get the sense none of y'all are huge fans of opposed rolls. I'll admit I have a weakness for them after many a year of playing Risk; being able to roll in your defense just makes it feel like you actually have some say in the matter (rather than just hoping that your attacker has shitty luck). Are their any particular factors that can make opposed rolls less clunky / time-consuming?

Second (mainly directed at Bill): why are d4s the devil? Is it because the hurt like a motherf***er when you step on 'em?

Quote from: Synchronicity;694802Are their any particular factors that can make opposed rolls less clunky / time-consuming?

.
One compromise approach I like from a couple of games is having a low 'Passive defense', but which can be boosted by an active roll if the defender opts to spend an action on it.
You could at least have defense rolls split vs. multiple attackers, so that large combats don't increase rolling so much.

Imo, if you're going to do crunchy, then go crunchy with it.  You start off crunchy but then go abstract at the end.  Don't do that.  Get crunchy all the way.  I want to see specific mechanical consequences for hitting specific locations, and you should include special locations on monsters.  Don't handwave the end process, get gritty with it.

Quote from: Synchronicity;694802Thanks for the feedback, folks! First off, I agree that the system is pretty damn crunchy as written; thus far, I feel that it fits with my goals for the system, but I'm definitely open to ways to streamline the process. I'm considering keeping the Strike roll an opposed roll, but having the Power roll be made by the attacker vs. a low, static number (armor and other defenses would impose penalties to this roll). This would both reduce the number of opposed rolls and avoid the problem that Bloody Stupid Johnson pointed out (attacker potentially being unable to overcome resistances even on a successful hit).

Two more questions:

First, I get the sense none of y'all are huge fans of opposed rolls. I'll admit I have a weakness for them after many a year of playing Risk; being able to roll in your defense just makes it feel like you actually have some say in the matter (rather than just hoping that your attacker has shitty luck). Are their any particular factors that can make opposed rolls less clunky / time-consuming?

Second (mainly directed at Bill): why are d4s the devil? Is it because the hurt like a motherf***er when you step on 'em?

I like opposed rolls; but they slow things down. The only way to keep them less clunky is to have the roll itself be a simple as possible. One die plus one number, for example.

As for d4's, I have an irrational hatred of them. Might be the fact you have to read the bottom, might be that they are not round enough. I don't have a good reason

Quote from: Synchronicity;694802Are their any particular factors that can make opposed rolls less clunky / time-consuming?

I'd say a lot of the opposition to them is coming from backgrounds which are more used to D&D - roll to hit, roll to damage. If your system doesn't roll for damage, then it's just roll to hit/roll to block. Damage would be base weapon damage+number rolled over target (possibly based on a table of some sort). I'd definetely go for opposed rolls in combat, they really capture the to and fro of battle.

Personally I completely avoid things like death spirals and hit locations, it's just too much accounting at the table. Sure each PC can track their own, but the GM has to track them for each creature in what might be an extended battle with fifty orcs, six trolls, an ogre mage, and fourteen goblins riding wargs. Just too much hassle.

Quote from: The Traveller;696576Personally I completely avoid things like death spirals and hit locations, it's just too much accounting at the table. Sure each PC can track their own, but the GM has to track them for each creature in what might be an extended battle with fifty orcs, six trolls, an ogre mage, and fourteen goblins riding wargs. Just too much hassle.

That's why Savage Worlds's extra system is so great.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;697276That's why Savage Worlds's extra system is so great.

I'd generally - as a matter of personal preference - avoid mook systems, although it's thematically fitting for SW's two fisted pulp setup. The PCs as superheroes are fine in superhero games, otherwise the edge of vulnerability generates a frisson of excitement that's pretty hard to manufacture when they can just wade through hordes of faceless foes.

Again though that's just personal preference - it's a bit like a classic pulp movie such as The Mummy with Brendan Frasier versus Pulp Fiction. In the former you have all the usual tropes, the big buildup, mooks getting nailed left and right, the Big Damn Hero eventually beating the bad guy and getting the girl. Which is fine, predictable but fine. In the latter you never know what the hell is going to happen next, important characters get killed sitting on the toilet, it's a roller coaster ride, messy, unpredictable, following few established paths. Glorious. My games play more like Pulp Fiction because the rules reject things like mook systems.

Going off of what The Traveller and Archangel Fascist mentioned, I've thought about using varying levels of detail for injury depending on the "tier" of the victim. So, in the example The Traveller mentioned, the fifty orcs would be considered Sword-Fodder: they automatically die when they take a Debilitating wound, making bookkeeping slightly easier (they're either uninjured, injured, or dead). The trolls and worg-riders would be Mooks: they die when they take Mortal Wound, providing a little more granularity and allowing for a sense of struggle/overcoming. Lastly, the ogre mage would be a Significant Actor (seriously need a better term for this...), and would track wounds just like the PCs.

That being said, when it comes right down to it, I agree with The Traveller; I like my encounters (and my campaigns, for that matter) to operate more along the lines of Pulp Fiction than The Mummy. Now to figure out to make the injury system support this...

On a side note: when it comes to damage/health systems, do you feel it's more important to track discrete injuries, or to track cumulative damage? Have you encountered any particularly elegant ways of combining the two?

Quote from: Synchronicity;698103On a side note: when it comes to damage/health systems, do you feel it's more important to track discrete injuries, or to track cumulative damage? Have you encountered any particularly elegant ways of combining the two?

This is something I've thought about a fair bit - updated a post on this fairly recently in the design archive (that I pimp at every opportunity ):
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?p=497236#post497236

Generally speaking I like HP-type mechanics so I view tracking cumulative damage is more important. Beyond that though there's a question of whether you try to scale damage so that total HPs are are meaningful number (slightly tricky),  individual damage rolls give meaningful numbers (quite tricky), both (extremely tricky) or neither (the default approach most systems use).

How tricky to design also depends how far you take it. Its not hard to say that for instance (damage roll > X ) means PC has taken a significant wound, -2 penalty to related actions depending on where it is, roll for location, but on the far end you could literally have damage values determining knockout chances from being hit over the head with a flowerpot, or likelihood that your Fireball can start a fire etc. Most systems that attempt this give very odd results because the damage really isn't scaled to be used that way, however.