I have wrestled with this concept in the past and decided to decouple the to-hit (skill) and damage (strength/weapon) rolls. The key is to consider the game effects when you choose to couple or decouple variables like that.

When we couple to-hit and damage, we are buying into a few specific game effects. For instance, we favor fast/skilled fighters over hulking brutes. We reduce the types of characters and opponents that can be made. What if I want an ogre who is powerful, but does not hit that often? This is a dangerous opponent, since he can kill any PC in a single shot, but since he is unskilled, he rarely hits. You can't make that guy if the system couples skill and damage to a high degree.

Also, what other variables are coupled to skill? If defense and initiative are somehow coupled to skill, then your fighter who hits most often also does the most damage and furthermore, he always strikes first and is immune to counterattack because of his defense. Even though it is hidden through a number of stats and sub-stats, your combat skill is THE single character aspect to buy/raise.

I am not saying that it is a bad idea. It might work very well given the type of game you are making. What I am saying is to always consider the possibly hidden effects of coupling variables. (And the same goes for any mechanical choice.)

I tend to prefer systems where physical condition and skill are both important; generally speaking as your skill increases in melee combat, so too does your physical condition, I'd say, so you can't really separate them out.

I also prefer systems where your "quality" of success affects your damage.  HarnMaster isn't bad this way, though there aren't rules for "called shots" as such; you can "aim high", "aim low", or "aim middle", but you'd have to house rule if someone wanted a "called shot to the head", for example.  (And, actually, regarding the first point, I think HM gives too little emphasis to your Strength, etc.; your physical condition does have an impact, but it's pretty minimal.)

To be honest I think most RPGs tend to give the flabby novice too much of a chance for that freakishly improbable shot to the Elder Sensei's groin - sure, it happens, but I'd say it's below a 5% or even 1% chance on any given strike.

Of course once ranged combat comes into the picture, especially firearms, the picture changes dramatically...

Quote from: cmagounI have wrestled with this concept in the past and decided to decouple the to-hit (skill) and damage (strength/weapon) rolls. The key is to consider the game effects when you choose to couple or decouple variables like that.

When we couple to-hit and damage, we are buying into a few specific game effects. For instance, we favor fast/skilled fighters over hulking brutes.

Unless weapon choice determines how you use the weapon and how you use that skill. Then, a hulking brute doesn't lose out if he is as acomplished at using that strength as the skillful duellist with a rapier, who uses his hand-eye co-ordination. Edit: I should point out that special abilities are going to be available to simulate some of the things that you mention. But for human protagonists, the skill + weapon damage = damage is what i'm aiming for.

QuoteAlso, what other variables are coupled to skill? If defense and initiative are somehow coupled to skill, then your fighter who hits most often also does the most damage and furthermore, he always strikes first and is immune to counterattack because of his defense. Even though it is hidden through a number of stats and sub-stats, your combat skill is THE single character aspect to buy/raise.

Another good point, you're right in that lumping all things into skill does cause some problems. Better people will win unless you come up with ways to bypass their advantage. Not a bad thing for what i'm considering, but something that requires a bit of thought.

Thanks for your input.

Quote from: cmagounFor instance, we favor fast/skilled fighters over hulking brutes. We reduce the types of characters and opponents that can be made. What if I want an ogre who is powerful, but does not hit that often? This is a dangerous opponent, since he can kill any PC in a single shot, but since he is unskilled, he rarely hits. You can't make that guy if the system couples skill and damage to a high degree.

This is a good point; however, it's basically a matter of balance. You can arrange things so that within the human scale, skill affects damage as much as (or more than) strength, and still include strength in such a way that an ogre's enormous strength will give you the "hulking brute" effect.

Granted this doesn't hold in a game that goes for high abstraction as in the last sentence of my previous post.

Quote from: One Horse TownThat also goes for called shots in RPGs. Take a penalty to hit, to target a specific area. What i'm saying is what if the skill of the combatant already covered called shots? His skill enables him to cause more damage because he automatically targets an unarmoured or vital area, causing more damage. No need for mechanical modifiers, his advanced skill takes that into account already in inflicting more damage than a less skilled person.

This is actually how it works in Iridium Lite. Your proficiency (level of skill with the weapon) determines your chance of Targeting.

As to the rest, well, obviously I agree. Where you hit is important. However, my solution is to make the target areas worth different Fortitude. So, your head has less FP than your arm. I know, not perfect but a good compromise I believe.

Bill

Quote from: One Horse TownI don't agree with that statement fully. If all real combat involves is bashing at each other until your brute force and ignorance won out why do/did people engage in combat training at all? I think that armour is the real decider in RL medieval combat really and so hacking away was the best option, but surely skill gives you the advantage even there? Otherwise why train at all? Can the guy who happens to be wearing armour and waving a sword for the first time really match the trained warrior equiped likewise, just because he is strong? I'm not so sure. He might hold out for longer than a weaker novice, or might get lucky, i guess.

I am not saying skill isn't important. Skill was used in medieval combat was in learning how to apply your raw strength. It wasn't like how fencing training was conducted. The difference between football training with quarterbacks and wide receivers versus football training with offensive and defensive linemen. Quarterbacks and wide recievers need a lot of agility and dexterity compared to strength, linemen need strength. Both trained to learn skills to successfully completed task involving the different physical abilities.

Medieval Combat was about forceably beating your opponent into submission or death. And there is skill involved in that. Just not the same type of skill you associate with making called shots.

Quote from: One Horse TownThat also goes for called shots in RPGs. Take a penalty to hit, to target a specific area. What i'm saying is what if the skill of the combatant already covered called shots? His skill enables him to cause more damage because he automatically targets an unarmoured or vital area, causing more damage. No need for mechanical modifiers, his advanced skill takes that into account already in inflicting more damage than a less skilled person.

And I am saying that works as your ONLY option if the fantasy subgenre has a lot of fighting styles that involves called shots. A Three musketeers RPG would not suffer having that as main rule for increasing damage.

However for something set in the middle ages or earlier that would not work as the ONLY option. A lot of fighting occured where the attacking wasn't trying to find weak points in the person's armor but was trying to hit him as hard as he can anywhere he can.

I am not talking about madmen just beating the hell out of the person either. But about trained fighters going after each other. The series of parries, feints, blocks, grabs, kicks, gouges, and dodges would be designed to get the hardest blow in that they can land while still protecting themselves. This style is not like fencing at all.

Of my two currently published Task Resolution sub-systems, one separates skill and damage, the other couples them, but in the end it's not that important.

The standard StarCluster percentile TR sub-system has separate chance of success and quality of success rolls. Skill only increases the chance of success, but that relates directly into quality in two ways:

1: Since you are hitting more often, over time, your damage will be greater, all else being equal.

2: Since players can move points to/from chance of success from/to quality of success on a 1:1 basis, and to and from initiative as well, a higher chance can directly lead to better quality transparently, in any increment, as the player wants it.

The StarPool dice pool TR sub-system conflates chance of success and quality of success. Its central mechanic is roll 1+skill d20, under TN stat, count successes, quality = (successes * 20) + modifier. Weapons, for instance, give a damage modifier like +20 or +0. As skill goes up, chance goes up and quality goes up, but with diminishing returns.

In either sub-system, skill is more important than stat, and randomness is more important than weapon, which is the way I like it.

-clash

We basically agree then estar, although we seem to be talking at cross purposes somewhat. I don't care what type of skill is used, if it is used and therefore there is a reflection of that in your effectiveness beyond simply being able to hit someone. How you use that skill, what form it takes, which combat type or fitness training you are using is irrelevant to me really. It's an abstraction. Someone skilled in the use of a 2-handed sword will suffer just as much faced with someone as skilled as he is with a dagger, except the weapon damage of the two weapons isn't the same. Put the dagger wielder in armour and you may level the field. Put a wrestler in with the 2-handed sword guy and if he is as skilled, his dodges will be just as effective as any parry and his attacks just as lethal as the sword guy (again, with the difference being the weapons, stun damage vs kill you dead damage in this case).

Edit: I think the main problem with this method is that although your skill is reflected, combat may become a bit predictable, so some sort of random element is needed (Clash!). Ponder, ponder.

Quote from: One Horse TownThat also goes for called shots in RPGs. Take a penalty to hit, to target a specific area. What i'm saying is what if the skill of the combatant already covered called shots? His skill enables him to cause more damage because he automatically targets an unarmoured or vital area, causing more damage. No need for mechanical modifiers, his advanced skill takes that into account already in inflicting more damage than a less skilled person.

Doesn't that actually give more skilled people a disadvantage compared with their skilled counter-parts in other systems?

In Hypothetical Game, if I have a skill such that I can make a called head-shot 80% of the time then ... that's my only choice.  I can't (for instance) make a shot to the body for less damage, but some guaranteed distraction, at 99%.

In HERO (for instance) if I have a skill such that I can make a called head-shot 80% of the time then I can choose to do that, or I can make a shot to the body for less damage, but guaranteed distraction, probably like 99% of the time.

Same skilled guy has a relative disadvantage in Hypothetical Game vs. HERO.  Yes?

You should be comparing the relative advantage of skilled to unskilled across the two systems.

I.e., not A - A', but (A - B) - (A' - B').

The abstraction part got lost somewhere.

My thinking is this:

More skilled = more success = more damage. This can be an abstract measure of called shots in other systems, but without a mechanical penalty for doing so can't it? You are skilled, therefore you are assumed to be aiming for sensitive spots, therefore you achieve more damage.

The key to creating some strategic play during combat would then lie in choice of weapon and combat 'style' with skill in different weapons opening up different strategic choices. Clubs might knock people backwards, rapiers might disarm people, axes might cripple equipment etc. Just spitballing here BTW. :raise:

Quote from: ClaudiusI don't agree that strength in Rolemaster has very little effect on damage. Skill in Rolemaster is very important, but strength can pump your combat skill a lot.

How so? At least, without magical or giant strength? (using RM2 here, since I'm not familiar enough with RMSS to do any character creation off the top of my head)

A starting average fighter type is going to have a +10 strength bonus and a +25 skill bonus. As he levels, he'll get at least +10 per level (probably +15) until he's gotten 10 ranks in the skill. Unless he finds magic, his strength will stay the same.

A starting min-maxed (and probably cheating) fighter is going to have a +25 strength bonus, which will be lowered when you average it with his agaility (unless he's definitely cheating or insanely lucky enough to roll 100 twice out of his 10 stat rolls). However, since he's min-maxing, he'll have 9 ranks in his weapon to start, for a +45.

Strength helps, but it's never a higher bonus than your skill. And since both bonuses play equally into how much damage you do (all they do is bump you up a line on the chart), strength will never be more important than skill, and without lots of min-maxing and a little luck/cheating it will usually be a lot less important.

Some examples:

Joey Average: +10 str, +10 agility, +25 skill: total bonus = +35, strength is only ~40% of his damage potential, and that will plummet as he levels.

Grungo the slow: +25 str, +0 agility, +45 skill: total bonus = +62, strength is less than half his bonus, and will drop as he levels, albeit not as sharply.

Hercules the Broken: +30 strength, +30 agility, +45 skill bonus, +10 from background option, +20 from a magic weapon: total bonus = +105, strength is less than 1/3 of the bonus.

Basically, because (without spells or items to double your damage via strength) every single bonus to hit you get; be it magic, skill, stats, positioning, etc; is as important as strength. And because strength is comparatively harder to increase almost any other bonus source, strength's roll starts off low and gets lower as your level (and hence your skill and gear) go up.

For example, I don't have the book handy, but IIRC a peasant striking someone from behind (+35) with a base +20 to hit is going to do the exact same damage as a super strong (+35) warrior swinging a weapon unfamiliar to him (and getting only +20 to hit because of it).

Admittedly, it's been a long time since I played regularly. Am I missing something?

Quote from: One Horse TownSeems to me that most games seem to equate skill at arms as a better chance to hit an opponent rather than an ability to inflict more damage due to expertise. Sure, some games give you an extra point of damage or two as you advance levels and are able to get new special abilities or feats that allow you to inflict more damage, but what about your skill being the main contributor to damage inflicted and not the weapon you are using or your strength?

Could not skill at arms allow you to hit the areas that will inflict more damage rather than relying on simply being able to hit with a meaty weapon and relying on your strength?

Well, in SilCore (and Synergy and a couple other games with similar mechanics) the hit roll has quite a large impact on damage, and you can only get a decent hit with skill and/or talent. Take a pistol-type weapon for example. It might have a Damage Multiplier of 12. If the margin of success of the hit roll is 1, that's just a grazing wound - it hurts, but not enough to impair the target. Make that hit roll a 3, and you've just inflicted a Deep Wound - enough to take the target down a decent portion of the time. Skill equals a higher likelihood of solid hits in that system. For melee weapons, the base damage a character does is based on strength, size and skill - so a highly skilled character can have base damage comparable to a larger, stronger, but lesser skilled character. Of course in melee combat strength and size are always going to be determining factors in how hard you hit - what the ratio is with skill is going to really depend on who you talk to.