TheRPGSite

1. I just did the math on fumbles and a lvl 1 fighter in banded mail or plate with a two-handed weapon will kill himself  every 164 swings, due to combined self inflicted damage.
This is assuming the average hp of 9 and average stats all around. (A flimsy fighter with 2hp and average stats will kill himself after 36 swings)

If a ruler is sending a bunch of heavy armored fighters to kill defenseless peasants and a bunch of lightly armored fighters, the lightly armored ones would return victorious and the armored ones would have all suicided themselves in the process.

I know the rule set isn't supposed to be simulationist but don't you think this is ridiculous?

2. Doesn't it make combat a bit ludicrous when fighters use deeds in every single attack? They don't have any reason not to. The rules even say, if the player doesn't specify the deed his signature deed can be assumed.

Quote from: Incantatar;9706181. I just did the math on fumbles and a lvl 1 fighter in banded mail or plate with a two-handed weapon will kill himself  every 164 swings, due to combined self inflicted damage.
This is assuming the average hp of 9 and average stats all around. (A flimsy fighter with 2hp and average stats will kill himself after 36 swings)

If a ruler is sending a bunch of heavy armored fighters to kill defenseless peasants and a bunch of lightly armored fighters, the lightly armored ones would return victorious and the armored ones would have all suicided themselves in the process.

I know the rule set isn't supposed to be simulationist but don't you think this is ridiculous?

2. Doesn't it make combat a bit ludicrous when fighters use deeds in every single attack? They don't have any reason not to. The rules even say, if the player doesn't specify the deed his signature deed can be assumed.

I can't speak to the second, but to the first-
I would have to look at the math, but I think the heavily armored ones would still kill the lightly armored ones, even if the heavily armored ones would have more friendly fire casualties. Regardless, the rules are set up for the benefit of play as player characters. The average level 1 fighter with 9 hp will probably level before they take 164 swings. The flimsy fighter with 2 hp will probably die before they get a chance to kill themselves. First level characters face ridiculously deadly situations all the time, and self inflicted wounds are just one of them. That's part of the appeal (although some might disagree and say that by 1st level, you should be past stabbing yourself to death, given that there already is a 0-level funnel). Regardless, the fumble system is designed for how the PCs experience it, not how that extrapolates to a band of heavily armored NPCs. Is it gamist? Unapologetically so, as far as I can tell (although I confess I have read the game far more than I have played it).

DCC has the best combat ever. Best rules for doing weird shit in combat and best rules for crits/fumbles that pack in flavor without being too heavy.

"In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs."

-- Murphy's Rules

Any game that uses a d20 and has iterative attacks as well as critical failure on a one becomes increasingly dangerous as you level, to show this can work both ways.

1 Attack: 5% chance to roll a 1
2 Attacks: 9.75%
3 Attacks: 14.26%
4 Attacks: 18.55%
5 Attacks: 22.62%
6 Attacks: 26.49%

Quote from: Incantatar;9706181. I just did the math on fumbles and a lvl 1 fighter in banded mail or plate with a two-handed weapon will kill himself  every 164 swings, due to combined self inflicted damage.
This is assuming the average hp of 9 and average stats all around. (A flimsy fighter with 2hp and average stats will kill himself after 36 swings)

If a ruler is sending a bunch of heavy armored fighters to kill defenseless peasants and a bunch of lightly armored fighters, the lightly armored ones would return victorious and the armored ones would have all suicided themselves in the process.

I know the rule set isn't supposed to be simulationist but don't you think this is ridiculous?

Warriors and Dwarves both have an exclusive class ability to burn a Luck point to negate a fumble. Putting that together with the fact that a fighter is unlikely to make 164 swing at first level, it seems a largely abstract problem.

Quote from: Krimson;970707Any game that uses a d20 and has iterative attacks as well as critical failure on a one becomes increasingly dangerous as you level, to show this can work both ways.

1 Attack: 5% chance to roll a 1
2 Attacks: 9.75%
3 Attacks: 14.26%
4 Attacks: 18.55%
5 Attacks: 22.62%
6 Attacks: 26.49%

"Dangerous" is a misleading term. By the time I Warrior gets a second attack at 5th level, they will have a larger HP cushion to absorb a self-inflicted wound.

Also, the Warrior that is making one attack around is going to take longer to defeat an opponent and face more attacks from opponents. The one make two attacks is going to face significantly fewer attacks against the same opponent. I think having one attack is a lot more dangerous.

Man, don't worry too awful much about mathing things out like this. Just roll your Deeds dice and slice some motherfucking orcs to ribbons.

EDIT: To expand, this is already a game where you're going to lose multiple characters on their first adventure. It's deadly on purpose. Just roll with it and roll up some 0-Level n00bs for the meatgrinder if your fighter ends up lopping their own head off.

We've been playing DCC for a couple years now and the only direct deaths from 'fumbles' have been because of the magic users

Quote from: Baulderstone;970713Warriors and Dwarves both have an exclusive class ability to burn a Luck point to negate a fumble. Putting that together with the fact that a fighter is unlikely to make 164 swing at first level, it seems a largely abstract problem.



"Dangerous" is a misleading term. By the time I Warrior gets a second attack at 5th level, they will have a larger HP cushion to absorb a self-inflicted wound.

Also, the Warrior that is making one attack around is going to take longer to defeat an opponent and face more attacks from opponents. The one make two attacks is going to face significantly fewer attacks against the same opponent. I think having one attack is a lot more dangerous.

That would depend if your critical fail system simply does more HP as damage or uses another system that includes dismemberment and/or decapitation. Hit points will not pad against losing a limb.

Quote from: Krimson;970731That would depend if your critical fail system simply does more HP as damage or uses another system that includes dismemberment and/or decapitation. Hit points will not pad against losing a limb.

I'm talking specifically about DCC where you can't dismember or decapitate yourself with a fumble.

Quote from: Baulderstone;970737I'm talking specifically about DCC where you can't dismember or decapitate yourself with a fumble.

I was more pointing out how absurd numbers can exist in various game systems. I think if the original assertion was such an issue, we would have heard about it by now.

Quote from: Krimson;970740I was more pointing out how absurd numbers can exist in various game systems. I think if the original assertion was such an issue, we would have heard about it by now.

Fair enough. I agree we would have heard more if it was a real problem. DCC gets a lot of actual play. That fact that Warriors can spend Luck to avoid fumbles show that this issue was even thought about and addressed before the game was released.

I thought DCC was an adventure game. Not a war game.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;970813I thought DCC was an adventure game. Not a war game.

It's all fun and adventure until you stab yourself in the head.

Interesting math fact. In DCC combat if you roll an Attack Die larger than a d20 your chance of scoring an automatic hit goes down!  The highest number possible on Attack Dice of d20 and larger is always the highest number on the die... So a d20 will score an automatic hit 1 in 20, a d24 will score 1 in 24, and a d30 will score an automatic hit only 1 time in 30.

Granted a fighter probably has a greater chance of scoring a critical because all they need to do is beat their critical threat range, and they will probably be scoring high enough to hit their for anyway at 24 or 30, but against those rare high armor class foes their chances of an automatic hit decrease as the dice get "better".

Quote from: DavetheLost;970826Interesting math fact. In DCC combat if you roll an Attack Die larger than a d20 your chance of scoring an automatic hit goes down!

Warriors' Mighty Deed dice goes up as well though... meaning that at higher levels they're more likely to pull off combat stunts as well as adding that dice result to their attack and damage.
I'm not sure how that all balances out though...

Quote from: DavetheLost;970826Interesting math fact. In DCC combat if you roll an Attack Die larger than a d20 your chance of scoring an automatic hit goes down!  The highest number possible on Attack Dice of d20 and larger is always the highest number on the die... So a d20 will score an automatic hit 1 in 20, a d24 will score 1 in 24, and a d30 will score an automatic hit only 1 time in 30.

Granted a fighter probably has a greater chance of scoring a critical because all they need to do is beat their critical threat range, and they will probably be scoring high enough to hit their for anyway at 24 or 30, but against those rare high armor class foes their chances of an automatic hit decrease as the dice get "better".

This is correct, and one of those almost perfectly stupid rules that make me wonder whether some game designers use their skulls to store leftover oatmeal. Come on, people, we should be better than this after 43 years of roleplaying games!

Quote from: Larsdangly;970905This is correct, and one of those almost perfectly stupid rules that make me wonder whether some game designers use their skulls to store leftover oatmeal. Come on, people, we should be better than this after 43 years of roleplaying games!

And yet, although the d24 or d30 makes less likely a certain hit, it also allows you to roll 21-24 or 21-30 on your to-hit roll, right? So the movement from d20 to d24 or d24 to d30 has both positives and negatives? Is that oatmeal-headed stupidity or the game working exactly as intended?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;970925And yet, although the d24 or d30 makes less likely a certain hit, it also allows you to roll 21-24 or 21-30 on your to-hit roll, right? So the movement from d20 to d24 or d24 to d30 has both positives and negatives? Is that oatmeal-headed stupidity or the game working exactly as intended?

My rationalization is that an automatic hit from the highest number on the die reflects dumb luck. As your combat die increases, you are more likely to hit based on skill and rely less on luck.

If a high-level warrior is fighting something with enormous AC and wants to rely on reckless luck, they can always choose to roll a d20 if they genuinely feel that will improve their chances. I'm guessing fights where this is actually the case will be very rare.

Quote from: Incantatar;9706181. I just did the math on fumbles and a lvl 1 fighter in banded mail or plate with a two-handed weapon will kill himself  every 164 swings, due to combined self inflicted damage.
This is assuming the average hp of 9 and average stats all around. (A flimsy fighter with 2hp and average stats will kill himself after 36 swings)

If a ruler is sending a bunch of heavy armored fighters to kill defenseless peasants and a bunch of lightly armored fighters, the lightly armored ones would return victorious and the armored ones would have all suicided themselves in the process.

I know the rule set isn't supposed to be simulationist but don't you think this is ridiculous?

Except no fighter ever perishes due to fumbles, because of a class skill.

Quote2. Doesn't it make combat a bit ludicrous when fighters use deeds in every single attack? They don't have any reason not to. The rules even say, if the player doesn't specify the deed his signature deed can be assumed.

First, the ridiculous notion is that a high-level fighter wouldn't do that every round.  
Second, not even a high level Warrior achieves a Deed every time, and a first level one gets a Deed only a quarter of the time even against unarmoured rabble.

The Deeds in DCC are pretty much just the combat maneuvers of RQ6/Mythras and the Feats of D&D... but less codefied, more reliant on Player imagination. You use them whenever you can, which isn't on every attack.

Quote from: Simlasa;971004The Deeds in DCC are pretty much just the combat maneuvers of RQ6/Mythras and the Feats of D&D... but less codefied, more reliant on Player imagination. You use them whenever you can, which isn't on every attack.

Yes, that's exactly why I said it's ridiculous if a high-level Warrior doesn't get one of those on most successful attacks.

Quote from: Incantatar;9706181. I just did the math on fumbles and a lvl 1 fighter in banded mail or plate with a two-handed weapon will kill himself  every 164 swings, due to combined self inflicted damage.
This is assuming the average hp of 9 and average stats all around. (A flimsy fighter with 2hp and average stats will kill himself after 36 swings)

As Baulderstone points out, this isn't strictly true, since warriors can negate fumbles with Luck.

Incidentally, Baulderstone, you must be the same guy from AVC and a couple other places, I think.  You always seem to be on the money.

Quote from: Incantatar;970618I know the rule set isn't supposed to be simulationist but don't you think this is ridiculous?

Gonzo is,  by definition, somewhat ridiculous.

Quote from: Incantatar;9706182. Doesn't it make combat a bit ludicrous when fighters use deeds in every single attack? They don't have any reason not to.

No - this is one of the things that makes DCC the best FRPG of all time.  Let me put it to you this way: ever see Venture Bros?  To me, the DCC warrior let's you play as Brock Samson.  Here's Brock demonstrating a Mighty Deed:

(Note: advance to 45s - not supported in the embedded link)

Quote from: Edgewise;971077As Baulderstone points out, this isn't strictly true, since warriors can negate fumbles with Luck.

Incidentally, Baulderstone, you must be the same guy from AVC and a couple other places, I think.  You always seem to be on the money.

Thanks. That is indeed me.

QuoteGonzo is,  by definition, somewhat ridiculous.

You make an excellent point here yourself.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;970704"In a thirty minute Runequest battle (Chaosium) involving 6000 armored, experienced warriors using Great Axes, more than 150 men will decapitate themselves and another 600 will chop off their own arms or legs."

Try running that combat in 30 minutes with one character per player.

I've been running a fortnightly DCC game for five years now, and not only has no one ever killed themselves with a fumble, but there's never even been a situation where a fighter has had to spend a luck point to save themselves from a fumble.