Quote from: languagegeek;734711Quick question. Why not triple each characters wound limit? Then you wouldn't have to do the extra success rating calculation, you would apply the damage directly.

I actually did that with the Rev 2 version, and it didn't work out very well. Too much paperwork. So I changed it back. (I believe my exact quote was "we never use Result to mean anything. Period.")

All mechanics run off Success Ratings: Skill Challenges, Combat Challenges, Non-Lethal Attacks, Combat Interaction Skills, Pushes, other stuff. (I've only posted Skill and Combat Challenges. The others are coming.)

The Rule of 3 also matches the dice well. For example, when Skill = CR (or Attack = Defense), 3 SR (Spectacular Success) takes a +9 roll, which is a 1% chance (also, the highest result on the dice). Succeeding spectacularly 1% of the time makes perfect sense.

Rule of 3 also means that I have more room to play around with when choosing bonuses and penalties. A compressed dice scale, say using d4's (ranging from -3 to +3, thus matching the SR's) wouldn't be the same odds (+3 is 6.25%), and it would make even a +1 bonus a monster benefit. I'd have to clamp down hard on how many bonuses you could get, and probably have to implement a D&D 3e style "type" mechanic for bonuses and penalties.

In other words: it didn't work in testing, and there aren't any better alternatives to the SR system. (Plus, the familiarity with the other mechanics: if you can count by 3, you can play the game.) Long way 'round to get to that point, but...

Let me know if I overlooked anything or didn't explain it well. It's late here and I'm kind of punchy.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;734202I then shot at the pixie with the other sample characters, from the most pathetic specimens of humanity imaginable to experienced PC's, who each used three different weapons, ranging from a large caliber assault rifle (an AK-47), to a highly lethal laser pistol, and even a plasma rifle designed to burn holes in the side of tanks.

So, how did the rule fare?

The least skilled characters did nothing with any weapon less powerful than the AK. Even with the AK, they only barely succeeded, getting 0 SR (meaning they only did Shock damage). Even if we assumed a roll of +9, the best possible attack, they still couldn't have killed the pixie. Upgrading to the laser pistol did more damage, obviously, but it took the insane damage of a plasma rifle for them to kill the pixie outright.

Does this mean that a  "pixie-gun" would have to be bigger than an elephant gun?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;734202In other words, while the results don't exactly duplicate a traditional split, the mechanic didn't break down even in this extreme situation. (I even ran the numbers with a ninja pixie, Skill 22 or "one of the best in the world", and a super-pixie, Skill 30 or "the best in all history". Even with that extreme a character, the rule didn't break.) I'm not saying it's perfect, adjustments may yet need to be done, but so far it appears solid.

I'm still a big fan of the split method, however, as long as your system gives results you are looking for, then that is the important thing.

Quote from: warp9;734865Does this mean that a  "pixie-gun" would have to be bigger than an elephant gun?

It means you need higher skills if you're going to shoot "one of the best in the world".

Quote from: warp9;734865I'm still a big fan of the split method, however, as long as your system gives results you are looking for, then that is the important thing.

Just see what I do next. :hmm:

(A quick tangent, to explain some important stuff.)

It's Easy To Hit
pt. 1

I want you to do an experiment for me. Set up a man-sized target. It can be a person, a cardboard cutout, or whatever, so long as it's 6 feet tall or so (2m for our non-American readers).

Then stand 12 feet (4m) away from it and make a pistol with your fingers. (You know, like you did as a kid.) Now point at the target. Imagine pulling the trigger on a pistol.

How easy would it be to hit that target?

According to knowledgeable people I consulted, even those with no experience shooting pistols would be able to hit that target at that distance, 6 times out of 6. It's a dead easy shot.

Using the CR scale of ∞ Infinity, that's CR 0, Routine. Most people never even have to roll, we just take it as read that they'd hit it.

Unless some kind of adverse circumstances apply — darkness, fear, the target moving — it's really easy to shoot a man-sized target at that range. (I'll talk about these circumstances in a bit.)

Punching someone who's standing next to you? Also pretty easy.

There's news footage of people standing on the street, minding their own business, when an assailant runs up, smacks them across the back of the head, and runs off. The person drops to the ground, and later dies.

It's much easier to shoot or smack people — and kill them — than is generally assumed, at least so far as the mechanics are concerned.

I'll talk more about the mechanics next post.

When You Assume
pt. 2

The assumption with this system has been that Skill = not being hit. A high Melee skill = not being hit. A high Dodge = not being hit. Therefore, defending = not being hit. But that's not how combat works.

There's a boxing maneuver called "caging". When attacked by an opponent, the boxer "cages", putting both hand up in front of their face, allowing their opponent to pound on them. Punch after punch after punch lands. But the guy getting pummeled isn't taking damage — the guy hitting him is! He's tiring himself out (i.e. fatigue or Shock). When he's tired, the defending boxer begins striking back at the weakened opponent.

He defended himself, by letting himself get hit. Melee skill means (in part) knowing when you should let a blow land, because that's the smart play.

Functionally speaking, the Melee skill allows you to minimize damage, whether you got hit or not. It's mostly damage reduction, not just hit avoidance. (And maybe the mechanics should reflect this.)

And attack skill isn't just about hitting. It's easy to punch someone. Any asshole can do it. What's difficult is to land blows with sufficient force as to hurt your opponent.

Attacking is about doing damage and defending about avoiding it. (Something else that should make its way into the mechanics.)

That gives us three concepts we need to incorporate:

1.) It's pretty easy "to-hit".

2.) Defense skill is about reducing or avoiding damage, not if you got hit or not.

3.) Attack skill is about maximizing the damage of attacks.

I'll talk about how to do this next post.

Makin' Mechanics
pt. 3

Let me butcher a quote: Like laws and sausages, those who love game mechanics should never see them being made. That definitely applies to this thread. That said, let's make some mechanics.

These are the ideas I want to build into the combat mechanics:

1.) It's pretty easy "to-hit" (in most circumstances).

2.) Defense skill is primarily about reducing or avoiding damage, not if you got hit or not.

3.) Attack skill is about maximizing the damage of attacks.

(Why these three? See the prior two posts.)

So, how do these three ideas fit into the combat mechanics?

The base mechanic is the same as before: attack Skill + Damage = Attack Rating; defense Skill + Toughness = Defense Rating. Roll the Attack, read the Success Ratings as Wounds (+1 Shock for any level of Success).

The defense Skill of the character represents their default Defense in any combat situation. That is, in any situation where they're alert for attacks and are trying to defend themselves. It applies against all attacks in a round.

By adding the defense Skill to the Defense Rating, it reduces damage. Sometimes by blocking or other maneuvers, sometimes by not being hit.* The GM determines which when describing the scene. This covers #2.

Attack Skill, by adding to the Attack Rating, increases Damage. That addresses #3.

What about #1? If a character isn't aware they're about to be attacked, they do not get the benefit of their defense Skill — their Skill is treated as 0 when calculating their Defense Rating. This happens during a sudden ambush, when an infiltrator knifes an unaware guard from behind, or a sniper takes a shot at a patrol.

The rules cover all three goals. There is one last wrinkle, however:

Aren't there times when it isn't easy to hit targets? Yes, and I'll talk about that next post.

- -

* When you take no damage from an attack, you might have been missed. Or hit, for no damage. Or hit, for cosmetic damage (bleeding, bruises, etc.) The mechanic doesn't distinguish, and the GM decides which when describing the outcome.

Wait... Is It Actually Easy To Hit?
pt. 4

From the first post: "Unless some kind of adverse circumstances apply — darkness, fear, the target moving — it's really easy to shoot a man-sized target at [close] range. (I'll talk about these circumstances in a bit.)"

So let's talk. One of the necessary parts of a combat system are mechanics that deal with adverse circumstances.

Is the target far away? That's range. Is the gun difficult to aim? Accuracy. Is there thick smoke on the battlefield? Concealment.

There are several more, and all of them make it harder to hit a target. Fortunately, there's a specific mechanic for that: Skill Penalties.

Skill Penalties reduce the attacker's effective Skill (and can even reduce it below 0). If your Skill with, for example, Thrown Weapons is 15 and you have a -3 Skill Penalty, it's effectively a 12. When you calculate your Attack Rating, you use Skill 12 instead of 15. Since such penalties can reduce your Skill below 0, if you have a Skill of 5 and -6 in Skill Penalties, your effective Skill is -1.

All Skill Penalties stack. If you have -3 from Wounds (Impaired) and another -3 from Shock (Impaired again), plus -3 from Range, your total Penalty is -9.

If your effective Skill is reduced to 0 or lower, you are Stymied. In addition, you cannot nominate a specific target to shoot at. You can, however, shoot at an area.

Skill Penalties cause attacks to be less effective. If they negate the Skill of the Attacker, he'll be much less effective. (Stymies hurt. A lot.)

It can be easy to hit targets, depending on circumstances. For those cases where it isn't, Skill Penalties reflect that mechanically.

Concision At Last!
pt. 5

These messages have been one long thesis to explain the game's combat mechanic, why it is plausible, and how high-damage weapons fit into the system. So let's summarize.

1.) Combat Challenges are Attack Rating vs. Defense Rating, result read as Lethal Damage (1 Wound per SR, + 1 Shock). Attack Rating is Skill + Damage, Defense Rating is Skill + Toughness.

2.) When you are surprised or otherwise not expecting an attack, your effective defending Skill is 0.

3.) When you're ready for combat, your defense Skill is normal. It applies to all attacks during the round. (Unless you're Incapacitated, and so unable to defend yourself.)

4.) The defending skill is mostly about reducing damage. Defense might involve avoiding hits, but only as a means to an end: avoiding damage.

5.) The attack skill is all about causing as much damage as possible. Weapons only help.

6.) Weapons which do a lot of damage don't help you hit more. They just add to damage.

7.) Certain situations might cause you to miss. In game terms, these are expressed as Skill Penalties, which impair your attacks and can make it impossible to select a specific target.

All in all, the combat rules take into account most major elements pertinent to combat. More, they do so in a manner that, while definitely not the norm for RPG's, is plausible. Most importantly of all, the mechanic is simple and easy to implement.

It's that last which makes it most useful. "As simple as practical" is one of my chief guidelines when it comes to rules, and these definitely qualify.

All mechanics are compromises with reality. But these compromises make for a vastly simpler game. Which is (mostly) the point.

Designers can't argue with players: something that isn't fun, isn't fun. But you can explain odd mechanics in such a way that they make sense. Players still may not enjoy them, but they very well may accept them.

This is a sidebar which will appear in the actual rulebook, explaining the combat mechanic. (Which is why I have all the "we's": it's the editorial "we", not arrogance. Honest.)

The Oddity of Rolling Once
pt. 6

Fighting for your life is a whirling, confusing, chaotic mess, and game mechanics allow us to impose a modicum of order on the chaos. They give us the illusion of clear and reliable and exact laws that govern a brawl, when in reality there are no such laws.

∞ Infinity rolls once for combat, and that one roll determines if you hit and how much damage the target takes, if any. This feels weird to people used to a traditional to-hit/damage split. It seems weird because we only roll once, and we don't have an exact number that you need to beat in order to hit.

In real life there is no difference between to-hit and damage. An attack is just an attack, and how well you did determines how much damage you do. So that's what the mechanic does.

In real life, the point of defending isn't to avoid every single blow, but to protect yourself (even if you get hit): to reduce the damage taken. So that's what the skill does.

In real life, the point of attacking is to hurt or kill your opponent, to do damage. So that's what the skill does.

Fighting for your life is a whirling, confusing, chaotic mess, but the combat mechanic imposes a modicum of order on the chaos. And since combat is chaotic, and since the exact answer isn't relevant to the mechanic, we leave it up to GM's to decide if this specific Failure on a Combat Challenge means you missed, or you hit but didn't hurt them enough for them to notice.

You have the same answer as a traditional mechanic, and we take into account the exact same factors as a traditional mechanic, and we give a balanced and reasonable outcome, like many traditional mechanics. But the way it's done seems odd, because we do it in a different way.

Give it a chance in play, is our suggestion. You may come to prefer it. We certainly have.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;735776∞ Infinity rolls once for combat, and that one roll determines if you hit and how much damage the target takes, if any. This feels weird to people used to a traditional to-hit/damage split.

Actually, that part does not seem strange to me. I can see the randomness of damage being linked to how good of a hit you had.

 Mayfair's DC Heroes is a pretty good example of this kind of thing. . . . In that system, there was still a split between the Action/Opposition (where you figure out if you hit or not), and the Effect/Resistance phase where you figure out how much damage you did. But there was only one roll, and, assuming you managed to score a hit, then a high value on the to-hit roll would carry over to the damage phase.

Quote from: warp9;735782Actually, that part does not seem strange to me.

"It seems weird because we only roll once, and we don't have an exact number that you need to beat in order to hit."

That's what feels weird.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;735783"It seems weird because we only roll once, and we don't have an exact number that you need to beat in order to hit."

That's what feels weird.

Yeah OK. I admit that part does feel weird.

Maybe I should have actually read what you wrote a little more closely before posting.

Quote from: warp9;735786Maybe I should have actually read what you wrote a little more closely before posting.

'S okay. I had to reread it, just to make sure I hadn't mangled something.

Another FAQ-ing Pun?
Tangent, pt. 7

Last night, one of my No-Men asked me some important questions. They deserved some good answers. (Note: The questions have been rephrased, to turn definitive statements into questions.)

Q1: Is the Dodge skill realistic?

A1: Nope. It isn't even slightly realistic. If I ever wrote a "brutal, real-world combat" version of these rules, it wouldn't include that skill. It might include a maneuver to dodge (spend a Shock and buy a move to throw yourself out of the way, this causes a -5 Skill Penalty to the shot), but not the skill.

It is, however, perfectly suited for an action-movie. And this is an action movie game.

Q2: How does the Dodge skill work?

A2: How do Hit Points work? Sorry, my bad. That was rude of me.

The Dodge skill — whether against arrows, bolts, or bullets — is about trying to get the attacker to miss. And, failing that, to hit an extremity or other non-vital location. Dodge, dip, duck, dive, turn your body to the side…

Like I said, not realistic. But it's realistic enough for an action-movie game. In 24 years, I've yet to hear a single complaint about the skill. I assume that means players and GM's are cool with it.

Q3: How do you "reduce the damage" from a bullet by dodging? Isn't it pretty much hit or miss? And if it hits you, aren't you hurt pretty bad?

A3: Not necessarily. There are grazing shots, where a person is hit with a bullet, but not deeply wounded. That's a real-world event. Then there's the ubiquitous mainstay of the cinema: flesh wounds.

Any time you're hit for Shock or no damage (as always, DM's call to split the difference between "miss" and "hit, no damage"), it's a flesh wound. Flesh wound = cosmetic damage (hurt, a little blood). (See John McClane in the good Die Hards.) You'll have to first aid it later, but it isn't a Wound or even Shock.

(The same sort of thing applies to unarmed and melee: "hit, no damage" and Shock can cause flesh wounds - bruises, shallow cuts, split lip, loose teeth. In fact, I encourage it. It makes fights more colorful.)

The Dodge skill turns Wounds into Shock, Shock into flesh wounds, and flesh wounds into misses. Wounds and Shock are Damage, flesh wounds and misses aren't. The process is no more unreasonable than allowing a Dodge skill in the first place.

(One more FAQ post tomorrow. What can I say, he asked a lot of questions.)

FAQ Attack (and Damage)
pt. 8

This is the second FAQ post.

Q4: You keep saying that big guns don't make you more accurate. But it sure seems like they do. Whassup?

A4: I want to restate the mechanic, then give the system assumptions that apply.

• Attack Rating is weapon Skill plus Damage Rating.
• Defense Rating is defense Skill plus Toughness.
(Then roll the dice once and generate Damage.)

The question is: since Damage Rating increases Attack Rating, doesn't that mean you hit more often?

No. But to answer that, I need to restate a few of the axioms undergirding the mechanics. (Sans supporting evidence. Just the bare statements.)

1. It's easy to shoot/punch/stab people, under optimal conditions, so the base "to-hit" CR is 0 (Routine).
2. Less than optimal conditions are represented by Skill Penalties.
3. If no Skill Penalties apply, the base CR to hit anyone is a 0.

That's attack. What about defense? Back to the axioms.

4. Combat is a confusing, whirling, chaotic mess. There are dozens of factors that could be considered when adjudicating any given blow. We do not explicitly account for all of them, or even a majority of them. We focus on those that are critical to game play.

5. Defense skill is focused on reducing damage, so they do not usually increase the base "to-hit" number. They can, in a few instances, but usually they don't.

6. Because defense Skill rarely applies "to-hit", the actual "to-hit" number is usually 0, sometimes varying slightly higher.

Why is it so low?

Because that number — usually 0, but sometimes varying a few points upward of that — only includes a couple of factors. Other factors make it harder to hit, and could increase it, but those get added in other places. The number is low, because nothing directly increases it.

Those "make it harder to hit" factors go into Skill Penalties (primarily) and also go into reducing damage. They do not increase the base "to-hit" difficulty. So it stays low. The "to-hit" CR is usually 0 and if not, near 0.

So people hit all the time?

No. Skill Penalties are applied in less than optimal conditions, which causes people to miss. But if no Skill Penalties apply, the "to-hit" CR is 0 or near 0.

And that's low enough that even the weakest and most incompetent character can score a "hit". (Again, when there's no Skill Penalties, so under optimal conditions.) "Hit, no damage", usually, even with a BFG (because of Skill and Toughness), but they could at least plausibly hit.

They won't, most of the time, but it is allowed for. It can happen.

And in the real world, too.

Once again: The "to-hit" is 0, all by itself. With Skill added in, it's usually 0, but can be higher, always within a couple of points. (We don't pick an exact number.) Skill Penalties are what cause you to miss (among other things). And we don't call out the to-hit number, because we don't need to.

The mechanic works. It's theoretically sound, and it's balanced.

Big fraggin' weapons don't let you hit more often and they don't break the game. Even an untrained Barney-Fife-alike who gets ahold of a plasma caster can't break the system over his knees and laugh maniacally as all foes fall before him.

The rules don't allow it. The rules are plausible, plausible enough for an RPG, and more than plausible enough for an action-movie RPG.

And that's "Whassup?"

(One more FAQ tomorrow. Not as long, hopefully.)