Ive been gaming for decades and spent the last two and a half as a Paramedic in the field, instructor and EMS Coordinator. One thing that has always amazed me is how completely unrealistic damage application is in most RPGs. Ive played plenty and read countless more sets of rules and none, NONE of them get it even close to right. (the conventional HP being the absolute worst) Now I know Im not the only medically educated individual to ever game, certainly some game designers have had or enlisted the aid of someone who had a little medical background right? Why does it appear that there isn't even an attempt to represent trauma in a fairly realistic manner?
Now some will say trauma is just, well too deadly for fun games. Ok, I get it, but there are many ways to artificially reduce the potential for serious injuries prior to the character effect. To be honest it would far more realistic if targets were missed or grazed more rather than soaking up huge amounts of damage without effect.
It might be fun to discuss how damage systems could get it right.
For starters, and this is just a blurted out opinion here - trauma tends to lean towards the extremes. Meaning - when one is exposed to trauma, be it penetrating, blunt force or whatever.. the effects are typically very minor (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising etc.) or pretty damned serious (hemorrhage, broken bones, internal injury and so on) rarely is it in the middle. In addition, almost anything but the most minor of injuries SERIOUSLY inhibits the activity of the host. Lying down and groaning (or screaming) is the typical reaction to a great number of injuries be it in combat or a vehicle accident. Without immediate help most pass out or are as good as passed out very soon. Minor injuries almost always have annoying effects too, causing limping, pain upon movement of a limb, shaking, difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, shock effects leading to loss of consciousness, etc.
A patient of mine fell down a hill through a mesquite thicket. (think thorns) He was essentially uninjured except for dozens of superficial but painful lacerations and punctures. He was a mess, could barely stand, shock had him shaking like it was freezing outside and he could barely answer questions. This all without a major injury anywhere or a significant loss of blood. In most games we would have handed him a couple HP and played on.
Sure, there are those 'walking wounded' injuries such as a wound to the shoulder, broken nose, severely bruised thigh or whatever that allow heroes to grin and bare it and continue on but its incredibly rare. Ask any field medic that has served in combat. How many guys finished the day wounded but still functioning with more than superficial injuries. Few to none. If your hurt, your typically out.
Why do you think this sort of thinking has been avoided in most games?
Do you know of any systems that model it accurately?
I don't know that they model damage "accurately," but I think Harnmaster and TRoS get closer than most. There are plenty of other systems that are passably believable. For an HP system, MERP/Rolemaster isn't too bad simply because of the strong distinction between superficial damage and crits. BRP and RQ with their "meat points" and major wounds by location are solid as well.
Mostly I think games don't model damage realistically because it is either unfun, unfitting, or just too fiddly to do so.
Dude, Phoenix Command!
QuoteIt's quite realistic, if a bit more complex than average.
For example, let's say I have an MP5 submachinegun.
Let's say I'm an average soldier. My target is average too, that means 10 for his stats. He's wearing standard body armor. The range is 30 yards. He appears, moving at a rate of 4 yards a second, running, with no cover (for simplicity). He is firing from a standing position, from a proper firing stance. Let's say it's mid-day, for simplicity.
I aim for 2 seconds and fire a burst of 7 rounds. I'll not use time of flight of the bullet, because I haven't learned how yet.
And scrap that body armor too. Too complex for here.
Here's the process:
Add up aim modifiers.
Aim time: 2
Range: 9
Target size: 14
Shooter motion: 0
_______________
Effective accuracy = 25
Now I look up 25 on a table.
My odds of putting the burst in the correct location are at 97%. I roll a 37.
The burst is at the correct elevation, so I look up my minimum arc.
It is .7, so the burst has spread over 1.4 yards. My rate of fire is *7, so I look up on another table the chance of hitting with a ROF of *7 and a MA of .7.
The full-page table says I hit with 1 round.
Now roll for the hit location. I roll a 292 and look up on the Side Hit table ( I hit him in the side ) and the bullet passes through the man's liver and stomach.
Now I look up on one of the 64+ damage tables ( yes, there's a specific table for a side hit to the hip socket ) and find the one for a side hit to the stomach-liver.
It turns out to be table S15 ( Lower Chest - Stomach - Liver ) and I look up my weapon's damage and penetration for the specific range. The table is a 10x26 table.
That's right, 260 numbers, only for this specific angle and location.
My weapon's damage at 30 yards is 3, and it's penetration is 2.3. This is for FMJ ammo.
My weapon does 1200 Physical Damage, according to the table.
The man fails his knockout roll with only a 2% chance of remaining in the fight. He recieves no medical aid and dies after 2 minutes 58 seconds.
It is avoided in most games because most games are based on the "logic" of adventure fiction, wherein protagonists tend not to be killed regularly. The odds, for whatever reason, are in their favor. They get through fights wounded, but still going.
I can't speak to any system that "models this accurately." First and foremost, these are games, not models. By game I mean they usually have resource management concerns (Hit Points the party can sustain against Healing spells and potions, for example). In general the games want verisimilitude, but not the actual costs and consequences of constantly going into battle.
As for examples that come closer, I think, to what you are talking about, there are many, and others will list them.
A favorite of mine is Classic Traveller.
The "To Hit" system has modifiers for both range and armor, which reduces the chance for effective damage. (Not whether or not a shot hits, but whether any hit is effective. It is assumed many "misses" might be hits that don't do enough damage to penetrate armor or do enough damage to stop the character cold.)
Once hit, dice are rolled for damage. Characters have three physical characteristics: STRENGTH, ENDURANCE, DEXTERITY. Each is generated with a 2D6 roll, averaging 7, though each might be raised a point or two in character creation. These three characteristics track the health of the character as damage is applied.
Most weapons do 2D6, 3D6, or 4D6 damage. Rolled damage dice are applied against the characteristics, subtracting the number of pips from the value of the characteristics as chosen by the hit player. (If a 3D6 of damage produce a [2, 2, 5, respectively] then 2 points, and then 2 points, and then 5 points must be removed, one after another, from either STRENGTH, ENDURANCE, and DEXTERITY. By dividing up which dice pips are applied to the characteristics, the Player can work toward keeping his PC's characteristics from dropping to zero.
Example: A character with STR 8, END 8, and DEX 8 takes the damage dice described above. The player assigns the two 2 pip dice to his STR, and the 5 pip die to his DEX, ending up with STR 4, END 8, and DEX 3.
If a single characteristic is reduced to 0, the character is unconscious. If two characteristics are reduced to 0, then he is unconscious and seriously wounded (requiring a hospital and/or intense medical care). If all three characteristics are reduced to 0, the character is dead.
OF SPECIAL NOTE: The first time a character takes damage in a fight, all the damage dice rolled from the First Strike are applied against one of the three characteristics, chosen randomly. The odds are good then, though not certain, that the first blow or hit will be enough to drop a character unconscious from shock and trauma.
Again, I'm not saying this is what you are looking for, but I think it is closer than the examples you have been offering.
As for why Traveller was built this way, I think its' because Traveller's designer, Marc Miller, served as an Army Captain in Viet Nam.
Quote from: CRKrueger;935969Dude, Phoenix Command!
Yikes!
I'm sure they are out there. I think one of the original Conan RPGs had basically stamina/fatigue as "HP" then if you are actually struck serious wounds, like lose loss of an arm etc. I don't think HP are the worse if you look at them more as stamina, maybe you should lose some HP when in battle to reflect that.
We did something like this for several years in the late 70s and early 80s we treated a portion of HP as actual getting hurt, and there was some gruesome damage chart used. The rest were called combat survival points and represented stamina-like ability.
The problem with more realistic damage systems is they are realistic. That is in real life you get hit once with a sword and that is basically it, it's a death spiral from there if you are facing someone uninjured without a sword. What they become in games where I play them is combat is a lot of missing with a blow resulting in death, all sorts of special rules or actions need to be in place or PCs basically die every adventure that has combat. Or combat is avoided like the plague and rarely happens.
All in all HP seem to serve well enough, and you can set 0 HP as that point where you no longer dodged and are suffering adverse performance consequences. I've seen qualitative damage systems but they are harder to implement and no more realistic except for evocative names for just as unrealistic damage effects, but there are damage effects. They are a bear to use though as a GM if you want to be managing more than handful of opponents.
For me the later is the deal. For one-on-one type combats all this detail is worth it, but for larger group combats with say 6 PCs and 2-3 dozen opponents some level of abstraction is necessary to make combat tractable.
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964Ive been gaming for decades and spent the last two and a half as a Paramedic in the field, instructor and EMS Coordinator. One thing that has always amazed me is how completely unrealistic damage application is in most RPGs. Ive played plenty and read countless more sets of rules and none, NONE of them get it even close to right. (the conventional HP being the absolute worst) Now I know Im not the only medically educated individual to ever game, certainly some game designers have had or enlisted the aid of someone who had a little medical background right? Why does it appear that there isn't even an attempt to represent trauma in a fairly realistic manner?
The ShortHarnmaster, the only RPG with a combat system that pisses people off, in a good way. It very playable and resolves quickly.
GURPS is more abstract but accomplishes the same thing via a different method.
The Long The way Harnmaster injury work is that a given attack generates impact. There are different types of impact, piercing, blunt force, slashing, fire, etc. You subtract your protection (armor mainly, but sometimes magic it a low magic RPG). You cross index the remaining impact against the body part. The result will give you a save and a number of injury level. The injury levels reduce your skills (5% per injury level) and your attributes saves(for example Strength). The saves can be for keeping conscious, stumble, fumble, amputation, and death. It works well because they have a very well laid out chart that makes it quick and easy. And the character creation frontloads all this stuff.
http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/4001/harnmaster-combattables.pdf
The bookkeeping involves writing down each injury and it's injury level. For example a Upper Arm S3. A serious slash to the upper arm with injury level of 3.
here is a link to a review of the combat system. https://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9298.phtml
The rules are $10 http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/harn/cfg/single.cfg?product_id=4001L.
In contrast GURPS requires you to remember more rules. But it is easily mastered.
1) Your character has hit points nominally equal to your health. Heroic characters (150 points0 tend to have between 9 to 13 health hence 9 to 13 hit points.
2) If you take 1/2 your hit points in a single blow you need to make a health roll (equal to your health or under on 3d6) or you are knocked down and stunned.
3) If a limb is crippled you also have to roll #2 even if it less than 1/2 your HP.
4) For every point of damage up to 4 points you take a -4 penalty to your Dex and IQ for the next second.
5) For a Limb a major wound per #2 will cripple that Limb. For your hand or feet the threshold is your Hit Points divided by 3.
6) If the blow does twice the amount of damage to cripple the extremity then the extermity is destroyed (smashed, amputated, severed, etc, etc).
7) If you end up at 1/3 of your maximum hit points or less your Move and Dodge are halved (round up)
8) If you go below zero hit points you need to make a Health roll at the start of every second or pass out. For each full multiple of HP the roll is at additional -1.
9) At -HP you also need to roll a Health Roll or die. Roll for death at each multiple of your full HP.
10) At -5x HP you immediately die
11) At -10 x HP your entire body is destroyed.
Now in a normal 150 point campaign, characters either pass out or die within a few second (each combat round is a second) when they drop below to -1/3 hp. It known as a death spiral. But it possible if you have a high enough health and certain advantage that you can continue on for a while. However even then it a not good thing and you are certainly done for any further fights for a long long time.
Estar made me remember, Blackmoor had hit location and hit points per location and damage effects. Different location charts per creature type. I once thought this was the way to go, in the pursuit of verisimilitude, fun but very, very time consuming to use.
I recall Aftermath also had 30 hit locations, all of which could be individually armored and divided up hit points.
Quote from: CRKrueger;935969Dude, Phoenix Command!
Ok, I'll shut up and slink away now.
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964...Why do you think this sort of thinking has been avoided in most games?
Do you know of any systems that model it accurately?
Answered the first question but I think Traveller did it the best, has the feel you are talking about with very elegant implementation. I think it is a perfectly valid and fun gaming choice to make damage much more dangerous in an RPG. It's purely a matter of taste, but boy are there systems that get lost in the weeds trying to do it. :)
Quote from: CRKrueger;935969Dude, Phoenix Command!
I liked the Aliens game using a lighter version. I'd totally play either.
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964Why do you think this sort of thinking has been avoided in most games?
Death spiral.
Modeling shock and/or trauma (I'm not a medical expert, so bear with me if I misuse terms) are often modeled as penalties. The infamous days of critical hit tables that give penalties to losing an eye or getting a concussion spring to mind.
But then playing out a combat with a broken leg, blood in the eyes, and laying in a gutter isn't very fun. And if it's possible to severely incapacitate a target with a good hit or two, then the group is going to suffer, and the enemies are probably going to win, and you just wind up playing out the combat's near-inevitable conclusion, hoping for a lucky hit to swing the combat back.
Now, I'm not saying this is a terrible way to play. Certainly it can be fitting for a gritty game like Cyberpunk. But I can see why most groups don't go for it.
QuoteDo you know of any systems that model it accurately?
Cyberpunk 2020 tried. I'm not sure how accurate it was, but they did have rules for shock and wound states.
Quote from: CRKrueger;935969Dude, Phoenix Command!
Was that example hyperbole, or is Phoenix Command really that detailed? :eek:
I'm not a medical expert...but I've been on the receiving end of trauma, and I've seen others suffer trauma.
Combat is all fun and games until a level of force connects with the human body. Then, its blood, pain, shock, fall down, scream, bleed, flee and/or die.
Surprisingly, OD&D models this just fine with 0 level NPCS having 1D6 HP and weapons do 1D6 damage. Higher HPs isn't more man meat, but instead "luck and expertise" that allows killing blows to simply graze so the PC loses fatigue instead of meaty bits.
Traveller has always been a favorite, but very few characters in Traveller suffer 2 hits and keep standing.
Quote from: Spinachcat;935990Traveller has always been a favorite, but very few characters in Traveller suffer 2 hits and keep standing.
Tangental: But this is one of the reasons I love Classic Traveller's combat system so much, in conjunction with the free-wheeling Throw system to resolve any other action. If you get into a firefight in
Traveller, it means something has probably has gone wrong -- because who would
want to end up in a firefight?
The combat system encourages Players to come up with schemes that will avoid fights, sneak around, blackmail, bribe, retreat and come back another day, search out weak points and exploit them, strike from unexpected directions, make alliance to acquire overwhelming forces, set up ambushes to take out the enemy before he can fire back, and so on.
I love the system for that.
When human brains work as CPUs, then true sims can happen at the tabletop.
I think others have touched on this, but the reason is almost certainly because--in general--combat evolved into the focus of activity in RPGs. As such you needed it to be articulated, extended, and detailed, and you needed to give PCs not only a fair shake but a good deal of control.
It might be possible to achieve some of that in a realistic manner, but designers, GMs, and players by and large haven't found a better way than progressive injury.
A skirmish wargame can probably retain interest using a system of hit => roll a save => no effect or hors de combat because there are a lot of figures on a side, individual mortality is acceptable, and interesting terrain is probably a given, as is morale. This means the players will see a continuously evolving situation as the combat continues, with multiple decision points.
In an RPG one-on-one combat with a similar system, you basically have "nothing happens for a while, and then it's over". Hit points, or the slightly elaborated death spiral concept, give you a chance to see something happening over time, to which you can react.
That's not to say there aren't games that do "realistic" combat, and I'm sure there are games that give greater mechanical and non-mechanical emphasis to the soft factors of combat, individual maneuver, or non-combat activities, but I feel these are the reasons that most games take the approach of gradually wearing down combatants' physiques.
Albedo is another RPG with more realistic, and pretty damn lethal damage. It also has fatigue and combat panic as elements the PCs have to face. And post combat stress too on top of that. So you might survive the conflict (after possibly a long stay in the hospital even with advanced medical) but are a nervous wreck after.
CHAINMAIL has a realistic combat system. You get hit with a halberd, you die.
And after one or two adventures Dave Arneson started fiddling with it to make player characters live longer. In, oh, 1971.
Damn. It's a fucking game, not a medical simulation.
Quote from: CRKrueger;935969Dude, Phoenix Command!
Bio One, years earlier. Your character is shot, spend ten minutes rolling dice to determine how he is incapacitated or dead.
Because the odds of him being neither after a hit from a bullet is about 3 to 5%.
Never played Traveler but damn that's elegant. Very impressed.
It sounds like you just need a system with vitality/wounds and a hefty death spiral on the wounds. (Not nearly so bad as a straight death spiral, because the wounds aren't affected often.)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936005CHAINMAIL has a realistic combat system. You get hit with a halberd, you die.
And after one or two adventures Dave Arneson started fiddling with it to make player characters live longer. In, oh, 1971.
Damn. It's a fucking game, not a medical simulation.
Hahaha, I wanted to post the same thing:
In Chainmail, you (an individual in a unit) are either Up or a Casualty.
Unless you are a Hero, then you fight like X individuals (& take that amount of "hits" to kill).
Once it went from 1d6 Casualties per attack in mass combat to 1d6 "points of damage for a hit" in individual combat (note also the shift from 1-minute rounds to 6/10 second rounds), it left the old scale of play but kept a lot of the abstraction of the old scale. It's an odd "artifact" of how the D&D line evolved.
In my experience, players love to roll on critical charts and dealing pain and woe to those foes that they face. However, they are loath to have those same critical charts rolled against them.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936038In my experience, players love to roll on critical charts and dealing pain and woe to those foes that they face. However, they are loath to have those same critical charts rolled against them.
Agreed. The players tend to forget that critical hit and fumble tables are a "double-edged sword".
If that was a pun, it was intentional. And not a very good one at that.
(hangs head in shame)
I think a lot of games in tge 80s and 90s tried to capture more realistic approaches to this. Since I am not a medical expert in any way, no idea how successful they were. Most of them were a bit on the complex side. I think these days most gamers want something quick and most of their understanding of bodily injury is informed by the movies. If you can make a fast and intuitive, realistic system, people might like it. One thing though, realistic doesn't always equal more fun. I tried making unarmed combat rules for years that were informed by my experience from martial arts and full contact sparring. I was able to come up with stuff that matched what I felt was real, but I quickly realized that didn't resonate with most players. So I ended up junking the whole idea. You also run into people with similar expertise and experience disagreeing bitterly on how best to model it mechanically. You might run the risk of making a mechanic only EMTs and emergency room doctors appreciate if you are not mindful of that sort of thing.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936005....
And after one or two adventures Dave Arneson started fiddling with it to make player characters live longer. In, oh, 1971.
..
Gronan, since you were there did Dave ever use the hit location stuff that is in the Blackmoor supplement? If s,o how did it work out?
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;936040I think a lot of games in tge 80s and 90s tried to capture more realistic approaches to this. Since I am not a medical expert in any way, no idea how successful they were. Most of them were a bit on the complex side. I think these days most gamers want something quick and most of their understanding of bodily injury is informed by the movies. If you can make a fast and intuitive, realistic system, people might like it. One thing though, realistic doesn't always equal more fun. I tried making unarmed combat rules for years that were informed by my experience from martial arts and full contact sparring. I was able to come up with stuff that matched what I felt was real, but I quickly realized that didn't resonate with most players. So I ended up junking the whole idea. You also run into people with similar expertise and experience disagreeing bitterly on how best to model it mechanically. You might run the risk of making a mechanic only EMTs and emergency room doctors appreciate if you are not mindful of that sort of thing.
Another part of these complex systems is the slow things down so much you lose the feel of things happening quickly and somewhat chaotically. It turns combat into something more akin to filling out tax forms.
I think a better way to get the realism, and simulate the detriments of combat, is to hit the player smartly with a stick each time they are hit. This way it is more than just numbers on a page :) And if they die, well no beer and snacks for them for the rest of the game...I mean character death has really got to hurt.
Quote from: CRKrueger;935969Dude, Phoenix Command!
Thank you! Today, you are my hero. :D
Quote from: Ratman_tf;935989Was that example hyperbole, or is Phoenix Command really that detailed? :eek:
It is pretty detailed--everything in that example, as far as I can recall is real. And the example
is simplified. When I first read Phoenix Command decades ago, I thought it would be awesome for a combat simulation computer program, because that's the only way to make it work "real-time". A tablet app would be awesome for it.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936038In my experience, players love to roll on critical charts and dealing pain and woe to those foes that they face. However, they are loath to have those same critical charts rolled against them.
In the case of Aliens, no one expected to live through the scenario. Especially with the GM having Yautja statted. It really forced you to think out your strategy and to make judicious use of terrain and cover.
Good stuff everyone. I don't particularly have a desire or need for a more detailed system, I just wondered why they are so rare and have seemingly gone out of favor. Many of your reasons reflect my own.
As to the one "Its a game, geeze get over yourself" answer, I find that odd. Other arguments are made embellishing the importance of the integrity of the game, the freedom of action of the characters, the simulation v.s. story telling elements... and yet here 'Its just a game' is acceptable wherein if stated in one of those other discussions its heresy.
Some more thoughts on this. I haven't read much on historical battles, melees and one on one fights. I don't know how many life and death fights a warrior back in the day fought- did they have more combats or as many as an average player character has? It seems that with a super detailed wound system, at some point, your number is going to come up.
I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems. I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.
Quote from: Krimson;936060In the case of Aliens, no one expected to live through the scenario. Especially with the GM having Yautja statted. It really forced you to think out your strategy and to make judicious use of terrain and cover.
For one shots, I could see that being really cool and detailed hit locations and damage a nice add on.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936064For one shots, I could see that being really cool and detailed hit locations and damage a nice add on.
Tod's suggestion of an app is a really good one. The time spent pouring over tables is quite a bit and having something that can resolve things quickly could improve pacing and probably disturb players. Definitely good for one shot scenarios.
Quote from: Krimson;936068Tod's suggestion of an app is a really good one. The time spent pouring over tables is quite a bit and having something that can resolve things quickly could improve pacing and probably disturb players. Definitely good for one shot scenarios.
That would be cool. You know, I'm surprised there aren't more game related apps out there to make running more complex games easier. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Kenzer has a ipad one for Hackmaster that was supposed to be really good. I imagine that if there was a tablet program where you could just touch icons for range, cover, armor and all that and it spit out a target number or something.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936063I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems. I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.
I'd venture a guess that that's largely because most players don't like the idea of the dice making the decision for them about whether they should keep fighting or not, which is basically what morale rules that affect individual PCs boil down to.
Morale as a rule in mass combat systems that determine when the troops you're leading break and flee have shown up a little more often, but mass combat also doesn't show up in individual adventuring RPGs that often, again because it takes away from the emphasis on individual player actions that make critical differences to outcomes. Players generally prefer to be Frodo and Sam executing the critical sting action than they do Aragorn leading the defensive/distracting battle, in my experience anyway.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936063Some more thoughts on this. I haven't read much on historical battles, melees and one on one fights. I don't know how many life and death fights a warrior back in the day fought- did they have more combats or as many as an average player character has? It seems that with a super detailed wound system, at some point, your number is going to come up.
I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems. I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.
True that on Morale. As to combat, only thing that comes to mind right off is the comparison of time in actual conflict between WWII and Vietnam. I don't have the numbers at hand and will be horribly off target but I seem to recall that in WWII the typical GI was fighting only a day or two per month in service, perhaps less than that, while the Vietnam Grunt could expect to see action far more often. The result was a much higher chance of casualty for any one individual.
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964Meaning - when one is exposed to trauma, be it penetrating, blunt force or whatever.. the effects are typically very minor (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising etc.) or pretty damned serious (hemorrhage, broken bones, internal injury and so on) rarely is it in the middle.
(snip)
Do you know of any systems that model it accurately?
That is essentially hit points. Scrapes, bruises, superficial nicks with no serious effect until BAM you're down and bleeding out.
All these other systems (for good or ill) are trying to model the middle ground that is, in your experience, an edge case.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936063I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems. I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.
Yep. And I use some kind of morale system in every game I GM. I like to keep the foes tactics (or lack thereof :D) partly unpredictable.
Plus for games where combat can drag out (4th ed, Rifts, etc) it shortens a combat when the foes flee or surrender, instead of fighting to the bitter (and most often boring) end.
If a game doesn't have a morale system, I'll usually have to ad-hoc one from another ruleset.
First, define to me realistic health. Now get that formula, bring it to your health services workplace, and run it by your colleagues as if it is a useful quantification. Watch them look at you, look at all the complex medical equipment around you both, look at any medical journals laying about debating even more things, and then realize perhaps this might be an unfruitful line of development.
Finally return back to the joys of abstraction for their gaming simplicity! :)
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964Ive been gaming for decades and spent the last two and a half as a Paramedic in the field, instructor and EMS Coordinator. One thing that has always amazed me is how completely unrealistic damage application is in most RPGs. Ive played plenty and read countless more sets of rules and none, NONE of them get it even close to right. (the conventional HP being the absolute worst) Now I know Im not the only medically educated individual to ever game, certainly some game designers have had or enlisted the aid of someone who had a little medical background right? Why does it appear that there isn't even an attempt to represent trauma in a fairly realistic manner?
Because of all the ideas many people have from other games and fiction that doesn't do it that way, and the various justifications for it.
There are some games that have tried to some extent.
I'm certainly interested and in favor of trying.
I like GURPS for this pretty well, including the bleeding rules and effects of minor injury rules of Martial Arts, and some house rules which I tweak from time to time. I am always up for discussions about how to model realistic effects of injury in agonizing detail.
QuoteNow some will say trauma is just, well too deadly for fun games. Ok, I get it, ...
Well those people should just be allowed to continue to play how they play.
Quote... but there are many ways to artificially reduce the potential for serious injuries prior to the character effect. To be honest it would far more realistic if targets were missed or grazed more rather than soaking up huge amounts of damage without effect.
Yes. The gameplay can be about avoiding getting attacked effectively, avoiding and defeating attacks, hurting enemies and causing such effects before they do the same to you being one of them. And yes, the things that make the difference between a minor hit and a debilitating or killing one, such as armor (DR, typing) and hit location rules.
QuoteIt might be fun to discuss how damage systems could get it right.
Yep.
QuoteFor starters, and this is just a blurted out opinion here - trauma tends to lean towards the extremes. Meaning - when one is exposed to trauma, be it penetrating, blunt force or whatever.. the effects are typically very minor (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising etc.) or pretty damned serious (hemorrhage, broken bones, internal injury and so on) rarely is it in the middle. In addition, almost anything but the most minor of injuries SERIOUSLY inhibits the activity of the host. Lying down and groaning (or screaming) is the typical reaction to a great number of injuries be it in combat or a vehicle accident. Without immediate help most pass out or are as good as passed out very soon. Minor injuries almost always have annoying effects too, causing limping, pain upon movement of a limb, shaking, difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, shock effects leading to loss of consciousness, etc.
Yes. It also means that tactics can be about trying to get your enemies to do this before they do it to you, and so on, not just racing to reduce the enemy to zero hitpoints. And that characters can survive combat (because there are clear reasons to stay down rather than ineffectually try to make the enemy finish you off) without having powerful magic healing that removes consequences from combat.
QuoteA patient of mine fell down a hill through a mesquite thicket. (think thorns) He was essentially uninjured except for dozens of superficial but painful lacerations and punctures. He was a mess, could barely stand, shock had him shaking like it was freezing outside and he could barely answer questions. This all without a major injury anywhere or a significant loss of blood. In most games we would have handed him a couple HP and played on.
Yeah, and I just burned my right hand by grabbing a metal handle that just came out of a 450-degree oven. OMFG. Thank the gods I got it into cold water right away and soaked it for hours. I've had an interesting couple of days discovering all the things I can't do with only one left hand. If I had been in combat, I might have been able to TRY to use my right, but good freakin' luck to me - it probably would have been agonizing and ineffective and greatly worsened my injury. I also could barely get to sleep - as soon as it dried out after a few minutes, it would start to hurt like heck. Thanks to the immediate cold water and not using it, I'm now pretty much healed up two days later, though blistered and I probably shouldn't do much with it so it will heal more, as it feels like if I put any more than light pressure on the blisters it will be bad.
QuoteSure, there are those 'walking wounded' injuries such as a wound to the shoulder, broken nose, severely bruised thigh or whatever that allow heroes to grin and bare it and continue on but its incredibly rare. Ask any field medic that has served in combat. How many guys finished the day wounded but still functioning with more than superficial injuries. Few to none. If your hurt, your typically out.
Yeah, most people are out in one, but in some cases people do keep fighting despite major wounds, which makes it more tricky to model. In GURPS there are some rolls to see if you can keep fighting or not. Playing with those is one way to try to model such things. You can get people who continue to fight but then collapse or (if using the bleeding or infection rules) die without being injured again.
QuoteWhy do you think this sort of thinking has been avoided in most games?
Reasons that may lead to arguments. Probably we should start a thread in the Design forum so people can whine about "death spirals" and "no fun" here, while we quietly design things there.
QuoteDo you know of any systems that model it accurately?
I'd like to start with GURPS. Others could include Aftermath (IIRC) and Phoenix Command (which is mostly overkill even for me, and also didn't seem that great to me as despite its detail it still has growing hitpoints, and it has lots of interrelated tables with fixed numbers so it seems like even more of a nightmare to analyze and mod than it is to play).
Quote from: Opaopajr;936084First, define to me realistic health. Now get that formula, bring it to your health services workplace, and run it by your colleagues as if it is a useful quantification. Watch them look at you, look at all the complex medical equipment around you both, look at any medical journals laying about debating even more things, and then realize perhaps this might be an unfruitful line of development.
Finally return back to the joys of abstraction for their gaming simplicity! :)
That said I could totally write a damage subsystem to cover Ulcerative Colitis which could work for Crohn's in a pinch. :D
Quote from: krimson;936089that said i could totally write a damage subsystem to cover ulcerative colitis which could work for crohn's in a pinch. :d
too abstract!
Quote from: RunningLaser;936063Some more thoughts on this. I haven't read much on historical battles, melees and one on one fights. I don't know how many life and death fights a warrior back in the day fought- did they have more combats or as many as an average player character has? It seems that with a super detailed wound system, at some point, your number is going to come up.
I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems. I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.
That's why you use armor, tactics, and comrades (or soldiers, minions, etc), pick your fights, etc.
In medieval Europe, often the men at arms and especially peasants did much more of the dying than the nobles and knights, who had the best armor and would tend to surrender and be taken prisoner for ransom.
But medicine was not very good - injuries often led to death sooner or later, as well as lasting injuries, amputations, etc.
Having almost always played deadly tactical RPGs, yes it's slow and deadly at first, but then you learn tactics and caution and the rules become internalized (at least for me, or you find a GM who has mastered them) and relatively quick. Except in especially deadly games and situations, I don't see a whole lot of PC death, almost no TPKs, and lots and lots of combat. One of the main reasons I play is combat, and to face and overcome nasty situations using tactics and discretion.
Oh, and yes morale, though mainly we handle that through roleplaying. We know how deadly combat is, and unless we're intentionally just being crazy gung-ho, both PCs and NPCs run away or surrender when the odds look grim.
I also take into account combat awareness/sense, either by roleplaying or rules, so the experienced people have more freedom of detailed action than the inexperienced people.
The system that probably comes closest to modelling realistic injury is Synergy v2, used in Blue Planet, IMO, though Traveller and Harn come close, all without "soaking insane amounts of punishment":).
Also, there's a difference between the experience of a medic and the experience of people who have been fighting more than the average. The former have lots of stories about how much a minor injury can spoil your day, and tell you about the long-term consequences for someone's health, the latter are full of stories about people who took insane amounts of injury and kept coming at them and tell you how often injury fails to immediately stop an attacker;).
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;936072I'd venture a guess that that's largely because most players don't like the idea of the dice making the decision for them about whether they should keep fighting or not, which is basically what morale rules that affect individual PCs boil down to.
Whereas morale should affect the enemy so that every fucking fight with orcs or bandits doesn't turn into slaughtering each and every living thing.
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964Ive been gaming for decades and spent the last two and a half as a Paramedic in the field, instructor and EMS Coordinator. One thing that has always amazed me is how completely unrealistic damage application is in most RPGs. Ive played plenty and read countless more sets of rules and none, NONE of them get it even close to right. (the conventional HP being the absolute worst)
Actually, I'd argue that hit points, properly contextualized is among the MOST REALISTIC damage systems out there.
The problem is that way too many people associate hit points with meat points... so when you get 'hit' with an axe its not;
"You twist at the last second and the axe glances off your armor, costing you 5 hit points."
-its-
"The axe hits you squarely in the gut for 5 hit points."
If you use the former, where hit points represent a mixture of skill, endurance and luck then hit points are very realistic with, as you say, "trauma leaning towards the extremes." Lost hit points are fatigue and the very minor injuries (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising, etc.) while dropping to 0 hit points is when the combatant suffers "pretty damned serious" trauma (i.e. you take a sword to the gut, the mace shatters your arm, you go into shock).
As to the annoying effects of minor injuries you cite, as a paramedic I'm sure you're also aware that the human body is quite literally designed to ignore pain and most of those other problems in fight-or-flight situations. As such, applying penalties in the midst of combat for minor scrapes, bruises, etc. is probably LESS realistic than ignoring said penalties (at least until the fight is over).
The guys with hit points left after the fight are those "finished the day with nothing more than superficial injuries." Those who dropped to 0 hit points are the ones who are hurt and out (either dead due to lack of treatment or stable but incapacitated without magical healing).
One thing that I find can help avoid the Hit Points = Meat Points syndrome is to use some clearer terms. You SPEND hit points to avoid serious damage. You REGAIN hit points with rest/inspiration/etc.
It helps that in my preferred system most creatures, even fairly large critters like horses, have just 1 hit point (only skilled combatants have multiple hit points) and there's an automatic "catch yourself" rule for situations that would be fatal if you actuallly ended up in them where you instead end up disadvantaged on the edge of hazard unless the hazard's "damage" would drop you to 0 hit points (ex. you end up hanging by your fingers from the edge of the cliff if you have hit points left after spending hit points to avoid the falling damage or fall to your death if you don't have enough hit points left to avoid dropping to 0 hit points).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936101Whereas morale should affect the enemy so that every fucking fight with orcs or bandits doesn't turn into slaughtering each and every living thing.
When I run game store sessions or conventions, I always get a look of surprise from around the table when I start dicing for morale for the NPC opposition. It appears to be "not a thing" among contemporary referees they know.
The surprise ranges from "I didn't know that was a thing", to "Wow a referee is actually using morale". I explain to people it not that hard. If they take half, start making rolls, wisdom rolls, will save, whatever. If the leader is alive factor his charisma in. If they are down to a quarter to it again. For special cases look at it as if you are there and ask yourself what I would do. The answer is likely run but there are exceptions.
One huge issue with hitpoints as abstract representations of avoiding getting hurt, is that dodging and avoiding hurt does not operate (in reality) as a resource that gets used up on a linear scale.
It's used in many game designs to allow players to have enough hitpoints that they can expect not to get taken out right away, and so players can manage risks in ways that risk cannot be managed in reality.
Now, if you stick to a single hit-die and/or include mechanics for critical hits that can overcome a pile of hit points, you could mitigate that somewhat. But still, it's not realistic to have a system basically saying a hero has a pile of successful dodges that get used up, before which they can't actually be hurt and after which they do.
And, most hitpoint games I've seen very much do NOT do that. They're designed to bet PCs and "boss" NPCs to the point where combat is about grinding through a pile of hitpoints.
Quote from: estar;936116When I run game store sessions or conventions, I always get a look of surprise from around the table when I start dicing for morale for the NPC opposition. It appears to be "not a thing" among contemporary referees they know.
The surprise ranges from "I didn't know that was a thing", to "Wow a referee is actually using morale". I explain to people it not that hard. If they take half, start making rolls, wisdom rolls, will save, whatever. If the leader is alive factor his charisma in. If they are down to a quarter to it again. For special cases look at it as if you are there and ask yourself what I would do. The answer is likely run but there are exceptions.
I use the parley option pretty often. Surrender puts the enemies at a great disadvantage. Giving up your weapons, for example, can just get everyone slaughtered. Running means taking back attacks and runs the risk of being chased and dying tired. :D
In a parley, they might be able to give up a bit of treasure, or at least negotiate a withdrawl.
Assuming skirmish scale fights, of course.
I don't mind trauma systems, but the reason they don't get used much is that they're unheroic.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;935991Tangental: But this is one of the reasons I love Classic Traveller's combat system so much, in conjunction with the free-wheeling Throw system to resolve any other action. If you get into a firefight in Traveller, it means something has probably has gone wrong -- because who would want to end up in a firefight?
The combat system encourages Players to come up with schemes that will avoid fights, sneak around, blackmail, bribe, retreat and come back another day, search out weak points and exploit them, strike from unexpected directions, make alliance to acquire overwhelming forces, set up ambushes to take out the enemy before he can fire back, and so on.
I love the system for that.
This. Oh, so very much this.
One of the problems with the a couple of
Top Secret modules -
Operation: Rapidstrike and
Lady in Distress - is that they are commando missions in a system that makes gunfights potentially very deadly. Later modules reward stealth and guile, which is something the system rewards as well through the Contact rules.
And
Top Secret's combat system borrows heavily from 2
e Boot Hill. You get into too many gunfights in rapid succession after suffering even a light wound in a
BH fight and your character's chance of getting killed go up, a little at first, then a lot. Losing a single Strength point reduces your character's Speed and Accuracy; lose 50% or more of your Strength, and both Speed and Accuracy drop precipitously. And the kicker is that healing takes
weeks, so you're carrying those penalties for a long time if the wound comes from a bullet or blade. It means you think strategically about the risks you're willing to take.
My character's fucked this up a couple of times. In the first, Eladio was both drunk
and wounded when he was dry-gulched by a 'friend' and the only thing that saved his ass was that two of Bad-nose Bannerman's shots missed and the third resulted in a light wound of his off-arm. Only one of Eladio's return shots hit, but it caught the killer between the eyes and ended the fight. In the second, he suffered two light stab wounds - that still take three weeks to heal - and while he's recovering decides to show how tough he is by breaking mustangs. After getting thrown a couple of times and taking brawling damage - which heals in hours with rest that Eladio
didn't take - he runs into Shotgun Sally, a rustler and outlaw whom Eladio had shot in a previous encounter. Eladio's well below half his hit points - some from the stab wounds, the rest from getting thrown - and Sally can blast his ass before he ever gets his Shopkeeper clear of his shoulder holster, but though he shot her once before, Eladio also spared her and a friend when he could've killed them both, so he gets a reaction roll bonus, and what coulda turned into a fatal case of lead poisoning for my character instead resulted in a short and slightly tense conversation between the two as she smoked her cigarette.
Persistent wounds and death spirals make you think twice about choosing the ground on which you're willing to fight. In
Boot Hill, it's the unwritten rule which influences in- and out-of-character behavior: it rewards lying low, gathering intelligence, which in turn moderates the pace of the game such that campaign turns (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2016/02/campaign-turn.html) become significant.
Quote from: Chris24601;936109Actually, I'd argue that hit points, properly contextualized is among the MOST REALISTIC damage systems out there.
The problem is that way too many people associate hit points with meat points... so when you get 'hit' with an axe its not;
"You twist at the last second and the axe glances off your armor, costing you 5 hit points."
-its-
"The axe hits you squarely in the gut for 5 hit points."
If you use the former, where hit points represent a mixture of skill, endurance and luck then hit points are very realistic with, as you say, "trauma leaning towards the extremes." Lost hit points are fatigue and the very minor injuries (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising, etc.) while dropping to 0 hit points is when the combatant suffers "pretty damned serious" trauma (i.e. you take a sword to the gut, the mace shatters your arm, you go into shock).
As to the annoying effects of minor injuries you cite, as a paramedic I'm sure you're also aware that the human body is quite literally designed to ignore pain and most of those other problems in fight-or-flight situations. As such, applying penalties in the midst of combat for minor scrapes, bruises, etc. is probably LESS realistic than ignoring said penalties (at least until the fight is over).
The guys with hit points left after the fight are those "finished the day with nothing more than superficial injuries." Those who dropped to 0 hit points are the ones who are hurt and out (either dead due to lack of treatment or stable but incapacitated without magical healing).
One thing that I find can help avoid the Hit Points = Meat Points syndrome is to use some clearer terms. You SPEND hit points to avoid serious damage. You REGAIN hit points with rest/inspiration/etc.
It helps that in my preferred system most creatures, even fairly large critters like horses, have just 1 hit point (only skilled combatants have multiple hit points) and there's an automatic "catch yourself" rule for situations that would be fatal if you actuallly ended up in them where you instead end up disadvantaged on the edge of hazard unless the hazard's "damage" would drop you to 0 hit points (ex. you end up hanging by your fingers from the edge of the cliff if you have hit points left after spending hit points to avoid the falling damage or fall to your death if you don't have enough hit points left to avoid dropping to 0 hit points).
The problem is that there are better systems that achieve the "I negated the hit by spending resources" thing while making it clear that it's what they're doing.
Usagi Yojimbo by Sanguine is actually pretty good on that front. And I suspect that the results of wounds you didn't avoid would please the OP without being too detailed,you just need to know that getting slashed is bad for yourcontinued adventuring!
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964For starters, and this is just a blurted out opinion here - trauma tends to lean towards the extremes. In addition, almost anything but the most minor of injuries SERIOUSLY inhibits the activity of the host. Minor injuries almost always have annoying effects too, causing limping, pain upon movement of a limb, shaking, difficulty concentrating, blurred vision, shock effects leading to loss of consciousness, etc.
In my game there are only Minor or Serious injuries. The only effect Minor injuries give you is penalties, making you easier to hit and to injure, and to increase the chance of a Serious injury. Serious injuries take you out of the action. I hadn't intended it to be a serious model of trauma, just a fun abstraction!
To go off on a tangent, what version of Traveler would people recommend? Haven't done much with it besides make some characters with Mongoose Traveler...
Quote from: Chris24601;936109Actually, I'd argue that hit points, properly contextualized is among the MOST REALISTIC damage systems out there.
The problem is that way too many people associate hit points with meat points... so when you get 'hit' with an axe its not;
"You twist at the last second and the axe glances off your armor, costing you 5 hit points."
-its-
"The axe hits you squarely in the gut for 5 hit points."
If you use the former, where hit points represent a mixture of skill, endurance and luck then hit points are very realistic with, as you say, "trauma leaning towards the extremes." Lost hit points are fatigue and the very minor injuries (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising, etc.) while dropping to 0 hit points is when the combatant suffers "pretty damned serious" trauma (i.e. you take a sword to the gut, the mace shatters your arm, you go into shock)
The problem with this view of Hit Points is that when it comes to Healing, D&D Shits the Bed like Linda Blair after chugging a case of creamed corn. Everything about the Healing and Recovery systems, prior to 4e, whether natural or magical, directly points to Hit Points being "Meat Points".
Classic Hit Points have always needed adjustments to things like Falling Damage (which Gary fixed in Dragon) and Healing to really have the whole underpinnings of the system, namely that Hit Points aren't meat, make sense.
Quote from: Daztur;936146To go off on a tangent, what version of Traveler would people recommend? Haven't done much with it besides make some characters with Mongoose Traveler...
Mongoose Traveller 1st edition or Classic Traveller. Mongoose Traveller 2nd edition is OK as well.
GURPS does a pretty good job at moderate point totals if you avoid the cinematic rules and use the bleeding rules. The main thing that is needed to focus on wounds as injuries rather than just hit point loss is the separation of defensive skill from body/toughness. The questions, have you been struck? If so where, with what, and with how much force? These all have to be answered clearly without abstraction for trauma tracking to be worthwhile.
Such systems can be frustrating for players who like engaging in constant combat without suffering the gruesome consequences that such activity leads to.
Quote from: Xanther;936047Gronan, since you were there did Dave ever use the hit location stuff that is in the Blackmoor supplement? If s,o how did it work out?
If I may jump in, here; in my gaming with Dave the answer was 'yes'. We'd swing, he'd roll quickly, and tell us if we hit and where and what damage (very 'Narrativist' of him, I suppose) we do - and then we'd have the same thing done back to us on the return blows. We got more then a little risk-averse after our first skirmish in Blackmoor.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;936153GURPS does a pretty good job at moderate point totals if you avoid the cinematic rules and use the bleeding rules.
Well, if you do that and aren't bothered by armour of TL3 being underrated in comparison to melee weapons:). But other than that little nitpick, I agree.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936129This. Oh, so very much this.
One of the problems with the a couple of Top Secret modules - Operation: Rapidstrike and Lady in Distress - is that they are commando missions in a system that makes gunfights potentially very deadly. Later modules reward stealth and guile, which is something the system rewards as well through the Contact rules.
And Top Secret's combat system borrows heavily from 2e Boot Hill. You get into too many gunfights in rapid succession after suffering even a light wound in a BH fight and your character's chance of getting killed go up, a little at first, then a lot. Losing a single Strength point reduces your character's Speed and Accuracy; lose 50% or more of your Strength, and both Speed and Accuracy drop precipitously. And the kicker is that healing takes weeks, so you're carrying those penalties for a long time if the wound comes from a bullet or blade. It means you think strategically about the risks you're willing to take.
My character's fucked this up a couple of times. In the first, Eladio was both drunk and wounded when he was dry-gulched by a 'friend' and the only thing that saved his ass was that two of Bad-nose Bannerman's shots missed and the third resulted in a light wound of his off-arm. Only one of Eladio's return shots hit, but it caught the killer between the eyes and ended the fight. In the second, he suffered two light stab wounds - that still take three weeks to heal - and while he's recovering decides to show how tough he is by breaking mustangs. After getting thrown a couple of times and taking brawling damage - which heals in hours with rest that Eladio didn't take - he runs into Shotgun Sally, a rustler and outlaw whom Eladio had shot in a previous encounter. Eladio's well below half his hit points - some from the stab wounds, the rest from getting thrown - and Sally can blast his ass before he ever gets his Shopkeeper clear of his shoulder holster, but though he shot her once before, Eladio also spared her and a friend when he could've killed them both, so he gets a reaction roll bonus, and what coulda turned into a fatal case of lead poisoning for my character instead resulted in a short and slightly tense conversation between the two as she smoked her cigarette.
Persistent wounds and death spirals make you think twice about choosing the ground on which you're willing to fight. In Boot Hill, it's the unwritten rule which influences in- and out-of-character behavior: it rewards lying low, gathering intelligence, which in turn moderates the pace of the game such that campaign turns (http://black-vulmea.blogspot.com/2016/02/campaign-turn.html) become significant.
It was logic such as this that lead me to declare all systems that didn't feature persistent wounds and death spirals as unfit for roleplayers, about a decade ago:D. GURPS and TRoS made quite the impact after being introduced to some players who had only played D&D-alikes, and didn't expect that a single impact might lead to a broken hip.
(I still agree with the logic these days, but I don't think other systems are less worthy for choosing a different approach).
Luckily, at least some of my players are rather good at the lying low part, and they tend to draw the others with them;).
Quote from: Krimson;936089That said I could totally write a damage subsystem to cover Ulcerative Colitis which could work for Crohn's in a pinch. :D
I could write one for Infectious Colitis! We should compare notes one day!
Mine's more... "your booty just exploded, Breath save vs. suffering + damage. You temporarily lose CON and now have to take a System Shock roll."
Yup, you can poop yourself to death! :D
Quote from: Daztur;936146To go off on a tangent, what version of Traveler would people recommend? Haven't done much with it besides make some characters with Mongoose Traveler...
This could be a thread all on its own. There are many editions, each with its own answer to what different kinds of players want. How general should skills be; how many is too many skills? Should armor reduce the chance of an effective hit; or should it reduce damage once hit? What is the role of the Referee? And countless other questions. So many, that to get into any detail on this thread would be foolish.
I would add that even within Classic
Traveller there are differences. One can happily and successfully play with only Books 1-3 (the game was designed to played this way). And then there is eight years worth of published material for the Classic
Traveller line that in the view of some fulfills Classic
Traveller and makes it was it was always meant to be, and in the view of others is extraneous and gets in the way of the game.
I will say this, however, about Classic
Traveller, because it is very distinct from all the other versions.
It's the edition I like. (The rules I described upthread are from Classic
Traveller.) In particular, I like using only Traveller Books 1-3. (I have been writing posts about the value of only using Books 1-3 (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/traveller-out-of-the-box/).)
The reason I love them is because they are a product of their time: a SF response to Original
Dungeons & Dragons. They are loose, with a few specific mechanics, with the understanding the Players will be trying many things beyond the scope of the rules. The Referee is there as a
REFEREE, carrying the same responsibilities and ethos as a Referee impartially managing a conflict at a miniature war games table. He adjudicates the results of the PCs actions and the NPC/World either with his own judgement, or if uncertain of the outcome, the indifferent throw of 2D6. It's all very Player Skill, Not Character Abilities, and so on.
There really isn't a skill system, though it trick people into thinking there is one. Instead, there is this:
The Referee generate a number to be equalled on 2D6 and -/+DMs can be applied, ranging from skills, to especially high or low characteristics, circumstances of environment, tools available, previous character experiences, and whatever else the Referee and the Players think best.For people who want a consistent system that drains as much Referee judgement out of the possible, it's a broken nightmare. For those who love the possibilities of what RPGs were like in the mid-70s, its awesome.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;936072I'd venture a guess that that's largely because most players don't like the idea of the dice making the decision for them about whether they should keep fighting or not, which is basically what morale rules that affect individual PCs boil down to.
I figure that they work well for NPCs/monsters etc. They just shouldn't apply to PCs in most games, anymore than most systems allow diplomacy or persuasion skills to have their normal effects against PCs.
Another thing most games don't seem to deal with well is the way wounds evolve over time. A wound that fails to immediately incapacitate you can easily go almost unnoticed for several minutes or more; shock sets in some time after injury; effects of blood loss and swelling don't really kick in for tens of minutes or hours (unless a wound is catastrophic). I can't think off-hand of any game that has wounds evolve in this way. You could say there is no reason to do this because it wouldn't be fun, but there are so many hundreds of games with so many different styles of play, you'd think there would be somewhere in that vast ecosystem for this sort of realism.
Quote from: Opaopajr;936164I could write one for Infectious Colitis! We should compare notes one day!
Mine's more... "your booty just exploded, Breath save vs. suffering + damage. You temporarily lose CON and now have to take a System Shock roll."
Yup, you can poop yourself to death! :D
"It looks like you made your death saving throw and still have enough blood left in your body. The cleric attempts to insert an IV dock. Rolling perception to she if she can find a vein. Oooh... A bit of trouble. No worries she can try again. Roll d10 to see how many times it takes to find a vein. You are unable to take in any food or water for the next 2d4 days. Roll a diplomacy check to see if you can convince the guard... er... orderly to sneak you some ice cubes..."
Quote from: Opaopajr;936164I could write one for Infectious Colitis! We should compare notes one day!
Mine's more... "your booty just exploded, Breath save vs. suffering + damage. You temporarily lose CON and now have to take a System Shock roll."
Yup, you can poop yourself to death! :D
COLITIS: THE SHITTING
Coming Summer 2017 from White Wolf
Quote from: Larsdangly;936173Another thing most games don't seem to deal with well is the way wounds evolve over time. A wound that fails to immediately incapacitate you can easily go almost unnoticed for several minutes or more; shock sets in some time after injury; effects of blood loss and swelling don't really kick in for tens of minutes or hours (unless a wound is catastrophic). I can't think off-hand of any game that has wounds evolve in this way. You could say there is no reason to do this because it wouldn't be fun, but there are so many hundreds of games with so many different styles of play, you'd think there would be somewhere in that vast ecosystem for this sort of realism.
For what its worth,
King Arthur Pendragon does have rules that touch on what you're talking about, though perhaps not precisely. (Like most rules they are a form of abstraction and could be interpreted in much the way you are describing.)
Minor Wounds, if they are not taken care of properly can fester. Each wound (tracked separately during combat) needs its own attention and can cause its own problems Here's a sample from the rules:
QuoteDETERIORATION AND AGGRAVATION
Injuries or illnesses may grow worse over time rather
than better. If a character undertakes activity enough to
interfere with healing, or if he is not tended properly, then
he may take further hit point damage. This may be due to
blood loss, dehydration, infection, further illness, and more.
The damage from deterioration and aggravation indicates
the effects of all these factors.
Due to damage caused by deterioration and aggravation,
the final result of a week’s cycle of rest and activity
(see “Natural Healing”) may be rendered nil, or even a loss
of hit points. Chirurgery can stave off deterioration, but
only adequate bed rest can save an overly active character
from aggravating his illness or injuries.
There's more...
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964Now some will say trauma is just, well too deadly for fun games.
Not just that it's deadly, but that if you survive there are often long-term consequences. "I used to be an adventurer until I took an arrow in the knee," and all that. Nobody wants to roleplay 18 months of rehab.
Quotethe conventional HP being the absolute worst [...] trauma tends to lean towards the extremes. Meaning - when one is exposed to trauma, be it penetrating, blunt force or whatever.. the effects are typically very minor (scrapes, grazes, superficial cuts, bruising etc.) or pretty damned serious (hemorrhage, broken bones, internal injury and so on) rarely is it in the middle.
What you've posted is actually an argument for conventional D&D hit points, though without levelling. You're either fine and running around as actively as you choose - have at least 1HP - or you're down - 0 or less HP.
Quote from: XantherThe problem with more realistic damage systems is they are realistic. That is in real life you get hit once with a sword and that is basically it, it's a death spiral from there if you are facing someone uninjured without a sword.
Without the trouble of realism, you can get a similar effect from a simple HP system where levelling up in HP is limited. That's if you imagine HP as just damage absorbing potential, though I tend to think of it as abstracting parries and fatigue and the like.
Quote from: Chris24601;936109One thing that I find can help avoid the Hit Points = Meat Points syndrome is to use some clearer terms. You SPEND hit points to avoid serious damage. You REGAIN hit points with rest/inspiration/etc.
This is brilliant.
"He hits you. You die unless you spend..." DM rolls dice, "5 hit points." You are not suffering damage, you are spending fatigue and parries and so on.
Quote from: Larsdangly;936173Another thing most games don't seem to deal with well is the way wounds evolve over time. A wound that fails to immediately incapacitate you can easily go almost unnoticed for several minutes or more; shock sets in some time after injury; effects of blood loss and swelling don't really kick in for tens of minutes or hours (unless a wound is catastrophic). I can't think off-hand of any game that has wounds evolve in this way. You could say there is no reason to do this because it wouldn't be fun, but there are so many hundreds of games with so many different styles of play, you'd think there would be somewhere in that vast ecosystem for this sort of realism.
FFGS End of the World games model this in an abstractvway. You can essentially ignore wounds for a time until out of danger then they take effect once the adrenaline wears off. Odd thing is you get to kind of pick what you want to suffer from. Maybe it was the fall from that window that hurt your knee, or that guy at the bar landed a good one on your jaw you will be feeling for a week. Its a peculiar system but a good fit for the rest of the games mechanics.
Quote from: Tod13;936052It is pretty detailed--everything in that example, as far as I can recall is real. And the example is simplified. When I first read Phoenix Command decades ago, I thought it would be awesome for a combat simulation computer program, because that's the only way to make it work "real-time". A tablet app would be awesome for it.
I love Phoenix Command!
Any game where you can do 2.5 million points of damage by shooting someone through the eye is fucking hilarious!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;936179...
Without the trouble of realism, you can get a similar effect from a simple HP system where levelling up in HP is limited. That's if you imagine HP as just damage absorbing potential, though I tend to think of it as abstracting parries and fatigue and the like.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly, but I think "realistic damage" is one of the five stages of role-play, kind of like the five stages of grieving. More power to someone if they want to try their hand at it. I never found it worth the effort, as a player it sucks as there is usually more stuff trying to hit you, as a GM tracking damage effects for a dozen creatures or more, sheer nightmare. I use HP, I actually have something called critical HP (CHP). The CHP is the "real damage" the HP all the other abstraction.
I will admit I didn't read all the posts in here, so if I repeat I am sorry.
218 Games! uses an Armor Rate that is taken away before damage, and a chance to use a secondary attack to dodge.
The weapons also increase in damage with progressive rolls:
Roll a 1 (critical success) and you can roll again to double damage.
Most weapons have a limit of three increases with successes, but have a one shot kill at three Critical Success rolls.
Firearms can continue to increase damage to the target without limit, but also be used for one shot kills instead.
This gives our Characters a chance to deal serious damage with one strike.
We assume a low damage hit that is soaked by HP is the combination of a badly placed hit, and the skill of the target to dodge enough to lessen the effect.
A system sufficient to satisfactorily model injury and damage as it really is is also a system better done as a videogame or a tabletop assistant application, which is yet another reason for why you don't see them much in tabletop RPGs.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936063I'd say another thing that seems to have fallen out of favor would be morale systems. I haven't seen many games with a strong focus on morale.
I'd rather say that there was never a time when morale systems were
in favor.
Hands up, every D&D DM who used it.
I didn't, and I never played with a DM who did - neither in Germany nor in the US.
Case in point:
Quote from: estar;936116When I run game store sessions or conventions, I always get a look of surprise from around the table when I start dicing for morale for the NPC opposition. It appears to be "not a thing" among contemporary referees they know.
(But I
did apply morale-like decisions to certain NPC or monster groups, on a plausibility basis, without die rolls. Occasionally. Mostly in systems
other than D&D.)
I use morale checks. Reaction checks first though.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;936210Hands up, every D&D DM who used it.
*Puts hand up*
I also use random die rolls for the foe's tactics a lot of the time. I've told the story here before, but I once took out a half-giant fighter by having a bunch of giant beetles focus their attacks on him. Thankfully my player didn't slap me upside the head, but we did have a talk about how shitty a situation it turned into.
Quote from: Omega;936211I use morale checks. Reaction checks first though.
Reaction checks I haven't used much, though I have been trying to use them more often.
Quote from: Larsdangly;936173Another thing most games don't seem to deal with well is the way wounds evolve over time. A wound that fails to immediately incapacitate you can easily go almost unnoticed for several minutes or more; shock sets in some time after injury; effects of blood loss and swelling don't really kick in for tens of minutes or hours (unless a wound is catastrophic). I can't think off-hand of any game that has wounds evolve in this way. You could say there is no reason to do this because it wouldn't be fun, but there are so many hundreds of games with so many different styles of play, you'd think there would be somewhere in that vast ecosystem for this sort of realism.
Pendragon was mentioned. I think similar rules exist in TRoS, but frankly don't remember them.
My players in Fates Worse Than Death (the same system is used in Hoodoo Blues, Tibet, Kids World and In Dark Alleys and there's a generic ORC-Modern supplement) ran like hell to the doctor after each fight where they'd suffered Blood losses. After the first time they didn't, and then I notified the guy his wounds continue getting worse, and he was barely saved. Especially after infection set in, and they had to go get him antibiotics, because of course he had dumpstatted his Endurance.
The best part? Those wounds can and will incapacitate you. Bleeding to death slowly on a deserted street is totally an option:D.
And there should be such a rule in GURPS and Warhammer;).
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;936210I'd rather say that there was never a time when morale systems were in favor.
Hands up, every D&D DM who used it.
My hand goes up, too. Hell, I even use a variation of morale checks in non-D&D systems!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936176COLITIS: THE SHITTING
Coming Summer 2017 from White Wolf
That might be better than the useless shit they've been putting out lately like The Hurt Locker.
There's people who played D&D without morale checks? Huh...
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;936210I'd rather say that there was never a time when morale systems were in favor.
Hands up, every D&D DM who used it.
I use it in my
Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign, per the rules. (B/X D&D)
And I would use it in Classic
Traveller, per the rules. (Morale affects PCs as well in Classic
Traveller.)
I also use Reaction rolls.
I think all of this is fun stuff. The rules relieves me of being in charge of
everything, and make me more an impartial
interpreter of the world's actions on behalf of the Players rather than "a storyteller" or entertainer.
The world with these rules is richer and more unexpected, as they produce moments and results I never would have thought of.
Quote from: AsenRG;936162Well, if you do that and aren't bothered by armour of TL3 being underrated in comparison to melee weapons:). But other than that little nitpick, I agree.
I would say it is more that the basic conceptual system works. I haven't played since the jump to 4e, but in 3e, I had all sorts of nitpicks. GURPS Vehicles should be brought up, however, as a warning to people who want more realism in their gameplay--sometimes it just takes you down a rabbit hole where you're arguing minutia that in the end doesn't change what your characters will do.
Quote from: Daztur;936146To go off on a tangent, what version of Traveler would people recommend? Haven't done much with it besides make some characters with Mongoose Traveler...
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;936166This could be a thread all on its own. There are many editions, each with its own answer to what different kinds of players want. How general should skills be; how many is too many skills? How should skills be used? Should armor reduce the chance of an effective hit; or should it reduce damage once hit? What is the role of the Referee? And countless other questions. So many, that to get into any detail on this thread would be foolish.
I would add that even within Classic Traveller there are differences. One can happily and successfully play with only Books 1-3 (the game was designed to played this way). And then there is eight years worth of published material for the Classic Traveller line that in the view of some fulfills Classic Traveller and makes it was it was always meant to be, and in the view of others is extraneous and gets in the way of the game.
I will say this, however, about Classic Traveller, because it is very distinct from all the other versions.
It's the edition I like. (The rules I described upthread are from Classic Traveller.) In particular, I like using only Traveller Books 1-3. (I have been writing posts about the value of only using Books 1-3 (https://talestoastound.wordpress.com/traveller-out-of-the-box/).)
The reason I love them is because they are a product of their time: a SF response to Original Dungeons & Dragons. They are loose, with a few specific mechanics, with the understanding the Players will be trying many things beyond the scope of the rules. The Referee is there as a Referee. He adjudicates the actions of the PCs either with his own judgement, or if uncertain of the outcome, the indifferent throw of 2D6. It's all very Player Skill, Not Character Abilities, and so on. (There really isn't a skill system, though it trick people into thinking there is one. Instead, there is this:
The Referee generate a number to be equalled on 2D6 and -/+DMs can be applied, ranging from skills, to especially high or low characteristics, circumstances of environment, tools available, previous character experiences, and whatever else the Referee and the Players think best.
For people who want a consistent system that drains as much Referee judgement out of the possible, it's a broken nightmare. For those who love the possibilities of what RPGs were like in the mid-70s, its awesome.
Oh, I love this response!
Anyways, to Daztur's question. To put it in D&D terms, classic Traveller is very much OD&D, complete with a strong difference if you play with just the introductory 3 pamphlets or the expanded main set. Mongoose Traveller 1e is a B/X, BECM, or retroclone version. It smoothes and simplifies the system, perhaps stripping away some nuance you consider vital, but also makes it easy to get your friends who could care less to play (cTraveller, for instance didn't start out with non-military careers IIRC). If a die-hard OD&D player could sit in on their friend's B/X game and get X% of the same feel, I'd say the same percentage would be true of Mongoose 1e and classic Traveller. Traveller 5 (well, 5.09, 5 proper was pushed out before it was ready) is a big, expansive, GURPS 3e-style toolkit. If you want to be able to use a system to design the alien your PCs encounter using a consistent rulesystem, or the gun they are holding, it is good. If that is pointless rules for stuff you can decide by fiat, not so much. It is fine for what it is (and let's be clear, it is not meant to be used with all the subsystems turned on at once), but I'm not sure what it provides that GURPS or HERO system doesn't. There are also Traveller ports to D20, GURPS, and HERO. They are pretty much just the game universe that evolved in the later books in a different system (D&D equivalent: playing Greyhawk or Blackmoor using GURPS Fantasy). All the rest (MegaTraveller, Marc Miller's Traveller, Traveller: The New Empire, etc.) are AD&D-ifications of classic Traveller's OD&D. They exist, they each have their own quirks and benefits. If you started with them, they probably are the best for you, but it's hard to explain the benefit to an outsider.
Quote from: CRKrueger;936147The problem with this view of Hit Points is that when it comes to Healing, D&D Shits the Bed like Linda Blair after chugging a case of creamed corn. Everything about the Healing and Recovery systems, prior to 4e, whether natural or magical, directly points to Hit Points being "Meat Points".
Classic Hit Points have always needed adjustments to things like Falling Damage (which Gary fixed in Dragon) and Healing to really have the whole underpinnings of the system, namely that Hit Points aren't meat, make sense.
Nowhere in my original post were the words "D&D" used. There is no problem with the view of hit points I presented... there's a problem with D&D's implementation of hit points (which I fully agree has problems on that front).
I even mentioned that the system I use has "hit points = luck/endurance/skill" based rules for falling damage (you don't fall off unless you're dropped to 0 hit points and "damage" is based on the difficulty of avoiding the fall not the distance they could fall) and "healing" (recovery of hit points is proportional, quick and non-magical morale effects can both cost and restore hit points).
Just because D&D happens to be the first and most popular system to use hit points, does not make it the ONLY way to implement a hit point system in a game.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;936180This is brilliant.
"He hits you. You die unless you spend..." DM rolls dice, "5 hit points." You are not suffering damage, you are spending fatigue and parries and so on.
Exactly. Variable damage in this case is a very important component of the realism as it reflects how much of your endurance and luck you have to spend to avoid being skewered on the spot.
Its been mentioned that hit point as fatigue is too linear for a realistic system, but variable damage means its only a linear depletion at the macro scale (over the course of hundreds of rolls). But at the micro level of an individual fight (say 3-5 actual damage rolls) there will be times where there will be spikes (a series of good damage rolls and/or critical hits for extra damage) that will burn through those points far more quickly than the average and the opposite where what should have taken 3 hits on average to drop ends up taking 5-6.
It also would probably be a bit more realistic if the hit rates in your system remain fairly static (or cap quickly) while hit points and damage grow with experience. Once you've reached X level of competence you can almost always hit a target that isn't defending itself and its only the skill of the opponent that keeps hits from landing and those cost fatigue (and luck if such a thing is a real force in your game world). A skilled fighter is more efficient at conserving their reserves, but a large number of mooks can still overwhelm him as his efforts to dodge, parry and roll away from their attacks do slowly wear him down (i.e. deplete his hit points). Similarly, the skilled fighter is also more adept at making attacks which require their opponents to expend more effort to avoid (i.e. higher damage).
In this sense its also probably fairly realistic to keep the proportion of the damage that comes from the weapon used fairly low. A bigger sword can be a bit harder to avoid than a dagger, but the skill of the wielder plays far more of a role beyond the beginner levels.
Quote from: CRKrueger;936221There's people who played D&D without morale checks? Huh...
Plenty. I've seen, and been schooled by some old school youngin' BTB types, that moral checks were only for followers etc. based on the DMG. So every combat with a monster is to the death. Such thinking also seems to go along with little inability to think outside the box, or books. Needless to say avoid those games, and learn to figure this approach out before joining any these days.
Quote from: Omega;936211I use morale checks. Reaction checks first though.
Dungeon crawling (for example), even in really lethal systems, becomes much more survivable when those goblins not only don't want to fight to the death, maybe they don't feel like fighting at all today.
Irony moment: when people complain about old school D&D as being "roll playing, not roleplaying", they are the ones who never bothered to use reaction checks which spur all kinds of great roleplaying interactions.
Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;936226I use it in my Lamentations of the Flame Princess campaign, per the rules. (B/X D&D)
And I would use it in Classic Traveller, per the rules. (Morale affects PCs as well in Classic Traveller.)
I also use Reaction rolls.
I think all of this is fun stuff. The rules relieves me of being in charge of everything, and make me more an impartial interpreter of the world's actions on behalf of the Players rather than "a storyteller" or entertainer.
The world with these rules is richer and more unexpected, as they produce moments and results I never would have thought of.
My one time trying to GM Amber Diceless, I burned out on the system very quickly. GMed maybe a session or two (IIRC) before moving on.
Maybe I didn't grok the system well enough, but it felt like I was being asked to come up with the individial "dice rolls", and I just found it very tiring to have to decide who gets to hit, and who gets to evade, etc, etc, instead of letting the dice take some of the decision making off my shoulders. So I think there's a practical benefit from letting the dice provide results that the GM interprets too.
Quote from: Xanther;936239Plenty. I've seen, and been schooled by some old school youngin' BTB types, that moral checks were only for followers etc. based on the DMG. So every combat with a monster is to the death.
One does not seem to follow from the other. Running away is perfectly possible without a morale check. Are you sure it wasn't just the group?
Quote from: darthfozzywig;936241Dungeon crawling (for example), even in really lethal systems, becomes much more survivable when those goblins not only don't want to fight to the death, maybe they don't feel like fighting at all today.
That gives dungeons a very different atmosphere, which I like.
Goblins just run at the sight of you... or weirder still if they don't run but linger in the halls and doorways like transients... maybe follow at a distance to gather whatever refuse or corpses the party leaves behind.
Lonely beholders who just want to talk and trade stories.
Dragon loansharks who will let you borrow their treasure at a steep fee.
Like visiting a subterranean apartment block full of factions and agendas, but most things would rather be left alone or trade with you... but that gang of young kobolds running the halls on the 2nd level bully everyone and are always itching for a fight.
I've been lucky and most of the GMs I've played with seem to run things that way, rather than all creatures attack on sight.
Quote from: Xanther;936239Plenty. I've seen, and been schooled by some old school youngin' BTB types, that moral checks were only for followers etc. based on the DMG. So every combat with a monster is to the death. Such thinking also seems to go along with little inability to think outside the box, or books. Needless to say avoid those games, and learn to figure this approach out before joining any these days.
Since the word realism is in the OP, consider that combat can often be resolved in terms of seconds. A monster might not have time nor opportunity to flee in the heat of the moment, when adrenaline is pumping. It kind of reminds me of that video from a while back of the wolf jumping on the cougar, and then seconds later the wolf stumbles off and dies shortly afterwards likely because it's been disemboweled. The wolf didn't have time to realize it had been killed. It might not even have felt itself being gutted. I've had a few occasions where I was so wrapped up in what I was doing that I didn't notice I had cut myself on something until someone pointed out that I was bleeding, and that's just in the course of doing a job.
That aside, I use the Mentzer reaction table for everything. I have used morale rolls, but the Mentzer table gives me a good idea of the NPC/creatures's outlook. Sure you're supposed to only use it once, but if circumstances change then it merits another roll. Imagine being overwhelmed by an encounter and suddenly the foe stops, looks at the PCs and laughs, "Ha! You fight well. This amuses me, so I will not eat you... today."
With something like groups of goblins, if they are getting slaughtered and they have opportunity then it only makes sense that they would flee and be hesistant to fight again unless their master is scarier than the PCs. In that case, they might fight to the death because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;936161If I may jump in, here; in my gaming with Dave the answer was 'yes'. We'd swing, he'd roll quickly, and tell us if we hit and where and what damage (very 'Narrativist' of him, I suppose) we do - and then we'd have the same thing done back to us on the return blows. We got more then a little risk-averse after our first skirmish in Blackmoor.
Interestingly, Dave
never used hit location when I played with him.
NOTE FOR THE SLOW OF THINKING: This does NOT in the slightest mean that I doubt Chrine's experience.
My point (and I do have one) is that Dave, and Gary Gygax, and Jim Ward, and Mike Carr, and Frank Mentzer, and Rob Kuntz, and Phil Barker, et. al., were people with active imaginations, and they did things differently sometimes!
There IS no
ONE TRUE WAY of "Old School" gaming.
Quote from: Omega;936211I use morale checks. Reaction checks first though.
Exactly. Always.
Of course, I was a wargamer first, so morale checks were an understood part of battle. (and we understood that in hex and chit wargames like Avalon Hill, the morale checks were factored into the CRT)
Quote from: darthfozzywig;936241Dungeon crawling (for example), even in really lethal systems, becomes much more survivable when those goblins not only don't want to fight to the death, maybe they don't feel like fighting at all today.
Irony moment: when people complain about old school D&D as being "roll playing, not roleplaying", they are the ones who never bothered to use reaction checks which spur all kinds of great roleplaying interactions.
Oh Crom's hairy nutsack, yes. If I had a dollar for every time I encountered that I would be richer than Creosote.
Quote from: Xanther;936239Plenty. I've seen, and been schooled by some old school youngin' BTB types, that moral checks were only for followers etc. based on the DMG. So every combat with a monster is to the death. Such thinking also seems to go along with little inability to think outside the box, or books. Needless to say avoid those games, and learn to figure this approach out before joining any these days.
Gary Gygax, in his last few years, used to complain about the huge number of TPKs his kobolds at the entrance to Greyhawk were scoring. The players would roll characters and charge straight in; they wouldn't negotiate, they didn't look to the sides, they didn't look behind, when they started losing they never thought of withdrawing.
Sometimes the same group of players would have 3 or 4 TPKs in a single session, doing the same thing every time.
And Gary said it happened consistently for years, all over the country.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;936245One does not seem to follow from the other. Running away is perfectly possible without a morale check. Are you sure it wasn't just the group?
Oh you mean the players? Yes we'd run away plenty. But bravely mind, we'd only bravely turn our tail. :) I mean if nothing else just to speak in a silly British accent while doing so. It's the monsters that didn't seem to fear anything.
My answer was really just to illustrate that this was a way some people played even back in the day. I agree it was never the design intent of D&D but it was just one step below the killer DM mentality.
Personally, my own games and the ones I will play in more than once, morale is important. Coming from Squad Leader to RPGs myself how could it not be.
Quote from: Krimson;936257Since the word realism is in the OP, consider that combat can often be resolved in terms of seconds. A monster might not have time nor opportunity to flee in the heat of the moment, when adrenaline is pumping. It kind of reminds me of that video from a while back of the wolf jumping on the cougar, and then seconds later the wolf stumbles off and dies shortly afterwards likely because it's been disemboweled. The wolf didn't have time to realize it had been killed. It might not even have felt itself being gutted. I've had a few occasions where I was so wrapped up in what I was doing that I didn't notice I had cut myself on something until someone pointed out that I was bleeding, and that's just in the course of doing a job.
Couldn't agree more.
QuoteWith something like groups of goblins, if they are getting slaughtered and they have opportunity then it only makes sense that they would flee and be hesistant to fight again unless their master is scarier than the PCs. In that case, they might fight to the death because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't.
Well that is just the thing. I'm perfectly willing to believe I as a player don't understand what is motivating the goblins, but there was those DMs who had creatures fight to the death no matter what every time. Some would not even let you attempt to subdue because those rules only applied to dragons. If I had just seen this once or twice back in the day wouldn't say anything, but it was more prevalent than that and seemed to be a genuine, if misguided, mindset. Part of the reason may be there was no easy way to know different. These people really thought this was the way you were supposed to play. There was no internet to get an answer, you had to mail a letter in and hope you got an answer, usually through the Dragon magazine. Conventions, well people forget that airline travel was once considered very expensive (this is before the deregulation of the 80s) and driving cross country was not for everyone or every car. If you didn't live near a con location it was very hard to get there.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936266Gary Gygax, in his last few years, used to complain about the huge number of TPKs his kobolds at the entrance to Greyhawk were scoring. The players would roll characters and charge straight in; they wouldn't negotiate, they didn't look to the sides, they didn't look behind, when they started losing they never thought of withdrawing.
I mean they are kobolds after all. :) I'd seen that to, even when you remind them there is an easily accessible escape route. In general though never played that way or have players play that way. We were never about a fair fight, ambush, draw them out, attack from range, anything and everything to stack the odds. Tactics, tactics, tactics. I think those same folks who complain that every fighter is the same, all they can do is swing a sword decided to leave their brain on the table when they picked up a character sheet.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936263
There IS no ONE TRUE WAY of "Old School" gaming.
With tongue firmly in my own cheek and with great fellowship and humor I scream, "He's a witch, burn him!" :D ;) :p
Quote from: Chris24601;936238Nowhere in my original post were the words "D&D" used. There is no problem with the view of hit points I presented... there's a problem with D&D's implementation of hit points (which I fully agree has problems on that front).
I even mentioned that the system I use has "hit points = luck/endurance/skill" based rules for falling damage (you don't fall off unless you're dropped to 0 hit points and "damage" is based on the difficulty of avoiding the fall not the distance they could fall) and "healing" (recovery of hit points is proportional, quick and non-magical morale effects can both cost and restore hit points).
So hit points can be renamed Protagonism Points, then:)? Once they run out, you're subject to Hard Deprotagonization!
QuoteExactly. Variable damage in this case is a very important component of the realism as it reflects how much of your endurance and luck you have to spend to avoid being skewered on the spot.
Its been mentioned that hit point as fatigue is too linear for a realistic system, but variable damage means its only a linear depletion at the macro scale (over the course of hundreds of rolls). But at the micro level of an individual fight (say 3-5 actual damage rolls) there will be times where there will be spikes (a series of good damage rolls and/or critical hits for extra damage) that will burn through those points far more quickly than the average and the opposite where what should have taken 3 hits on average to drop ends up taking 5-6.
Or, you know...you could instead have a system that allows both the 1st level and the 10th level character to suffer the same amount of damage. Combat is opposed rolls, followed by a damage roll which could often incapacitate outright. Nothing surprising there, I think?
But if you lose the opposed roll and there's damage about to be suffered, you can reduce it to a flesh wound if you have one of a series of Gifts. One of them requires you to retreat. Another requires you to get angry and limits your further actions. There might be others, too.
However, once you use them, they're exausted, unless you use other Gifts that "power" the Defensive Gifts - stuff like Quickness for the "fast retreat" Gift, or Grit for the "Berserk" gift. And unlike the "basic" defense Gifts, once you use one of these Gifts, you roll a die to see if it's exhausted, say, trying to get 5 or more. So a single Quickness can last you quite a while if you keep rolling well...or it can be gone in one go, thus giving you variable damage.
Makes sense? It does to me. And it's immediately obvious how the damage system works.
As a bonus, you can also be good at fighting without necessarily being able to avoid all the falls.
QuoteIt also would probably be a bit more realistic if the hit rates in your system remain fairly static (or cap quickly) while hit points and damage grow with experience. Once you've reached X level of competence you can almost always hit a target that isn't defending itself and its only the skill of the opponent that keeps hits from landing and those cost fatigue (and luck if such a thing is a real force in your game world). A skilled fighter is more efficient at conserving their reserves, but a large number of mooks can still overwhelm him as his efforts to dodge, parry and roll away from their attacks do slowly wear him down (i.e. deplete his hit points). Similarly, the skilled fighter is also more adept at making attacks which require their opponents to expend more effort to avoid (i.e. higher damage).
Not sure about that. A skilled fighter also knows how to prevent you from defending successfully. At the very least you should have Vitality and Wounds, and then skill might be in getting straight to the Wounds by scoring a critical;).
QuoteIn this sense its also probably fairly realistic to keep the proportion of the damage that comes from the weapon used fairly low. A bigger sword can be a bit harder to avoid than a dagger, but the skill of the wielder plays far more of a role beyond the beginner levels.
If you make HP about avoiding attacks, yes....it could work. But then you should at least have the margin of success adding to the damage.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;936227I would say it is more that the basic conceptual system works. I haven't played since the jump to 4e, but in 3e, I had all sorts of nitpicks. GURPS Vehicles should be brought up, however, as a warning to people who want more realism in their gameplay--sometimes it just takes you down a rabbit hole where you're arguing minutia that in the end doesn't change what your characters will do.
Oh, sure, there is a point past which adding more calculation doesn't result in more realism! But then, adding more details might be just plain fun to the people who love thinkering with systems...even if at the end it's still the difference between a +2 or +3 that's at stake:D!
If someone finds it fun, who am I to object?
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936263Interestingly, Dave never used hit location when I played with him.
NOTE FOR THE SLOW OF THINKING: This does NOT in the slightest mean that I doubt Chrine's experience.
My point (and I do have one) is that Dave, and Gary Gygax, and Jim Ward, and Mike Carr, and Frank Mentzer, and Rob Kuntz, and Phil Barker, et. al., were people with active imaginations, and they did things differently sometimes!
There IS no ONE TRUE WAY of "Old School" gaming.
No OTW? But...but...what are all those blogs and forums about, then?
BURN THE HERETIC!!!Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936266Gary Gygax, in his last few years, used to complain about the huge number of TPKs his kobolds at the entrance to Greyhawk were scoring. The players would roll characters and charge straight in; they wouldn't negotiate, they didn't look to the sides, they didn't look behind, when they started losing they never thought of withdrawing.
Sometimes the same group of players would have 3 or 4 TPKs in a single session, doing the same thing every time.
And Gary said it happened consistently for years, all over the country.
Why have we never heard of Gary's kobolds:p? They seem to deserve a blog post or at least a post here.
Quote from: Xanther;936275Well that is just the thing. I'm perfectly willing to believe I as a player don't understand what is motivating the goblins, but there was those DMs who had creatures fight to the death no matter what every time. Some would not even let you attempt to subdue because those rules only applied to dragons.
OK, that is funny:D!
And yes, I know it's coming from a misguided mindset. But it's still funny, precisely because I've met this kind of people;).
Quote from: AsenRG;936292Oh, sure, there is a point past which adding more calculation doesn't result in more realism! But then, adding more details might be just plain fun to the people who love thinkering with systems...even if at the end it's still the difference between a +2 or +3 that's at stake:D!
Oh, let's be clear, I spent much, much time building space stations and robots and the auxiliary craft and escape pods for the space station and had to make sure that the airlocks were for the right number of people so that the weights were right so the space stations fuel expenditures for station-keeping were right. I am aware, however, that none of that actually made my GURPS Space campaigns any better to be a player in. It was just for my own edification.
QuoteIf someone finds it fun, who am I to object?
Oh, I need to hear people say this more.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;936300Oh, let's be clear, I spent much, much time building space stations and robots and the auxiliary craft and escape pods for the space station and had to make sure that the airlocks were for the right number of people so that the weights were right so the space stations fuel expenditures for station-keeping were right. I am aware, however, that none of that actually made my GURPS Space campaigns any better to be a player in. It was just for my own edification.
There's understanding the background, and then there's GURPS Space:D?
QuoteOh, I need to hear people say this more.
Actually, I make it a point to apply this principle to all activities between consenting adults:p.
But yeah, more people should stop obsessing over the way other people play.
If you're spending a bunch of time preparing and having fun, good for you!
If you're complaining you need to spend a bunch of time to prepare for a game and you don't have the time, I might suggest ways to cut down the preparation time;). But that's not because I think preparing less is The One Way, it's because I've encountered the same issue once and are sharing my solution!
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936266Gary Gygax, in his last few years, used to complain about the huge number of TPKs his kobolds at the entrance to Greyhawk were scoring. The players would roll characters and charge straight in; they wouldn't negotiate, they didn't look to the sides, they didn't look behind, when they started losing they never thought of withdrawing.
Sometimes the same group of players would have 3 or 4 TPKs in a single session, doing the same thing every time.
And Gary said it happened consistently for years, all over the country.
From the way you've described Gygax, it sounds like he wasn't a very good DM.
I mean, the first TPK I can understand, but after the 2nd, much less third! I'd be having a talk with my players about tactics and risk assessment. Or possibly packing it in and finding something else to do. Hell, maybe they played a lot of "safe" campaigns, and were having fun getting their asses kicked for a change. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Quote from: AsenRG;936308There's understanding the background, and then there's GURPS Space:D?
GURPS Spaces doesn't have starship construction rules. For that you need GURPS Spaceships and those rules are just a tad more complex than Classic Traveller. Only because Spaceship has more options.
As for world generation, just use classic Traveller. GURPS Space worldgen complexity is on par with the World Tamer's Handbook, or the full star system generation system of Traveller 5.
Quote from: Madprofessor;935974Yikes!
Played it once, Once.
Never again as the complexity was not worth the time.
This is pretty much why most games don't try that hard for realistic injury rules , too difficult for good game play .
Also as far as minor or maimed D&D does that pretty well, as Gronanan here once said "abstraction is the font of realism"
I am not a fan of 'realistic damage', but I do approve of the idea of using injuries against characters at critical moments.
Dr. Josef Tham's created a fantastic homebrew critical hit chart for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay (http://grimandperilous.com), which became the basis of ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG (http://warhammerfantasyroleplay.com)'s injuries table. I highly invite you to all to check it out over at Winds of Chaos (http://www.windsofchaos.com/?page_id=19), as the injuries could be kitbashed backwards into practically any tabletop RPG: http://www.windsofchaos.com/?page_id=19
Quote from: estar;936327GURPS Spaces doesn't have starship construction rules. For that you need GURPS Spaceships and those rules are just a tad more complex than Classic Traveller. Only because Spaceship has more options.
As for world generation, just use classic Traveller. GURPS Space worldgen complexity is on par with the World Tamer's Handbook, or the full star system generation system of Traveller 5.
Thanks, but the point of the joke doesn't change if you say GURPS Spaceships instead:).
As for world generation, I can pick between Classic Traveller, T5 and a host of other RPGs that have
similar tables, Volant included. Luckily, though, I won't need to do it for a while;).
Quote from: Ratman_tf;936309From the way you've described Gygax, it sounds like he wasn't a very good DM.
I mean, the first TPK I can understand, but after the 2nd, much less third! I'd be having a talk with my players about tactics and risk assessment.
I do think it's part of a player's job to try to become a better player. Which means learning from experience. "We did X. We all died. Let us do Not-X next time."
I had one player go through 6 characters, including 3 in one session. That includes one time when, pursuing a thief down a tower, he said, "I jump off the tower and try to land on him!"
"You want to jump off an 80 foot tower?"
"Yes!"
Should I have had a long and educational chat with him about his characters jumping off 80 foot towers? Or does he have some responsibility to not be fucking stupid?
He learned. His 7th character lasted for months until we set aside the campaign. Now he's DMing.
He's DMing 3.5, by the way. I'm doing my best to bring AD&D1e into it. We have 12 men-at-arms, a cook, a steward, a stableboy and 3 labourers. We also hired an engineer. Plus cart with supplies, etc. With an armed party of 20 in all, interestingly we had no hostile random encounters on the way to the dungeon.
We camp outside the dungeon, take 6 men-at-arms in with the players, the rest stay back and fortify the camp. The men-at-arms carry each 3 flasks of oil, halberds, short swords and shields. The rogue goes ahead quietly and scouts, reports back to us. On contact with the enemy they biff oil and my character lights it up. If we stand our ground, it's "down halberds! out swords! shields!"; if we press forward, shields on back, sheathe sword, halberds hacking.
Raid on St Nazaire is our style. No fucking around.
Others may choose a stealthy approach. It doesn't matter. The point is to have a plan and stick to it. If that doesn't work, okay you withdraw if you can and come back and try something else. If you all die, then your next characters try something else.
A game is meant to be a challenge, and it is meant to require skill. And skill can be improved by deliberate practice. Over the years I have had a lot of kickback against the idea that playing rpgs is a skill. I don't know why, it must be all the cheat codes in computer games.
These things apply whether the game's injury system is "realistic" or not.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;936352I do think it's part of a player's job to try to become a better player. Which means learning from experience. "We did X. We all died. Let us do Not-X next time."
I agree.
QuoteI had one player go through 6 characters, including 3 in one session. That includes one time when, pursuing a thief down a tower, he said, "I jump off the tower and try to land on him!"
"You want to jump off an 80 foot tower?"
"Yes!"
Should I have had a long and educational chat with him about his characters jumping off 80 foot towers? Or does he have some responsibility to not be fucking stupid?
Both. I think the GM provides the input for the player to make decisions on. Sometimes that input isn't communicated effectivley. And so if a player is constantly failing, then I think the GM should take a moment to make things clear.
In your example, a simple "It looks like a fatal jump." would have done the trick. People have survived longer falls in real life, after all. Sometimes a simple "Are you sure?" question posed in the right tone of voice will do as well.
Quote from: AsenRG;936292Why have we never heard of Gary's kobolds:p? They seem to deserve a blog post or at least a post here.
It was shortly before Gary's death, and Rob Kuntz' Pied Piper forums crashed and died, alas, alas, alas.
These were convention games; Gary would go to a con to "run old style Greyhawk" and watch players run into the teeth of death. He said he was amazed at how often it happened in so many different places.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936263Interestingly, Dave never used hit location when I played with him.
NOTE FOR THE SLOW OF THINKING: This does NOT in the slightest mean that I doubt Chrine's experience.
My point (and I do have one) is that Dave, and Gary Gygax, and Jim Ward, and Mike Carr, and Frank Mentzer, and Rob Kuntz, and Phil Barker, et. al., were people with active imaginations, and they did things differently sometimes!
There IS no ONE TRUE WAY of "Old School" gaming.
Not surprised; I think you were doing Blackmoor with him in the middle 1970s, and we were doing it when our Tekumel PCs went there in Phil's campaign in the early 1980s and Dave took over the GM seat for about six months.
I think the difference was in how Dave perceived our play style; he'd been gaming with us as Capt. Harchar for almost two years, and I have a feeling that he was trying to prove to Phil that he was just as good a GM as Phil was. Just a supposition, knowing the two of them...
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936375It was shortly before Gary's death, and Rob Kuntz' Pied Piper forums crashed and died, alas, alas, alas.
These were convention games; Gary would go to a con to "run old style Greyhawk" and watch players run into the teeth of death. He said he was amazed at how often it happened in so many different places.
Seen the same things happen over the years, which is why I stopped doing convention games - too predictable. Which is why I was so astonished at how the Gary Con game went.
As I've noted in simmilar threads. People like to forget that in D&D recovery from wounds used to take weeks.
In BX it was 1d3 per day.
In AD&D it was 1 HP per day and characters with CON bonus didnt get to add that bonus till the second week. After a month they healed up fully. And if brought to zero HP you were totally out of it for 1d6 turns and were bedridden for a week even with magical healing. Going to -6 meant some disfigurement or other lasting injury was sustained.
Good point, Omega. This is in great contrast to the 3.5 I've been playing... 1/day normally, 2/day in good conditions, plus Con bonus each day...
I believe Rolemaster was aiming at something similar to what the OP describes. Their combat tables make hit points a relatively minor issue, but the crits and bleeding can really make life miserable.
Sure, Trond. Plus they were always entertaining.
But if we forget the numbers and look at the effects - how the characters would see it. Our OP said what he saw as a paramedic is,
1. people are either fucked, or okay, not much in between
2. once fucked, if saved they take some time to recover.
Having hit points with random damage, but you're running around as much as you like until you hit 0HP, at which point you're down and will take 1-4 weeks to recover... this simulates what he said pretty well.
Where it falls apart is with level-ascending AC; we don't find that an infantry company's sergeant major can take more bullets or is less likely to be hit than a newbie private. Maybe a bit tougher and harder to hit, but not like 2-8 times harder (assuming 2-8 levels with thus 2-8 times as many hit points).
Forget the numbers and look at how the characters would see it. And then it's actually not too bad.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;936397Where it falls apart is with level-ascending AC; we don't find that an infantry company's sergeant major can take more bullets or is less likely to be hit than a newbie private. Maybe a bit tougher and harder to hit, but not like 2-8 times harder (assuming 2-8 levels with thus 2-8 times as many hit points).
Forget the numbers and look at how the characters would see it. And then it's actually not too bad.
Though a seasoned veteran might know when to duck or what cover to get to better. This has actually been noted in modern warfare. And its true in other venues too. The experienced swordsman will know how to block and dodge better than someone new to it and they may well be able to predict your moves.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936375It was shortly before Gary's death, and Rob Kuntz' Pied Piper forums crashed and died, alas, alas, alas.
These were convention games; Gary would go to a con to "run old style Greyhawk" and watch players run into the teeth of death. He said he was amazed at how often it happened in so many different places.
Well, henchmen cost money. PCs come free;).
(Or I like to joke that that's the logic behind such behaviour. Never was able to really grasp it).
Actually, I've been told by people, including one (computer) game designer, that if you can reach a fight, it should be balanced in a way that allows them to take on it and win:). This is actually what prompted my "pre-campaign speeches". I want it to be clear that my game doesn't work on computer game logic.
Quote from: chirine ba kal;936377Not surprised; I think you were doing Blackmoor with him in the middle 1970s, and we were doing it when our Tekumel PCs went there in Phil's campaign in the early 1980s and Dave took over the GM seat for about six months.
I think the difference was in how Dave perceived our play style; he'd been gaming with us as Capt. Harchar for almost two years, and I have a feeling that he was trying to prove to Phil that he was just as good a GM as Phil was. Just a supposition, knowing the two of them...
I have an impression that such friendly rivalry is almost always to the benefit of the players, if not always to the benefit of the PCs:D!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;936397Sure, Trond. Plus they were always entertaining.
But if we forget the numbers and look at the effects - how the characters would see it. Our OP said what he saw as a paramedic is,
1. people are either fucked, or okay, not much in between
2. once fucked, if saved they take some time to recover.
Having hit points with random damage, but you're running around as much as you like until you hit 0HP, at which point you're down and will take 1-4 weeks to recover... this simulates what he said pretty well.
Where it falls apart is with level-ascending AC; we don't find that an infantry company's sergeant major can take more bullets or is less likely to be hit than a newbie private. Maybe a bit tougher and harder to hit, but not like 2-8 times harder (assuming 2-8 levels with thus 2-8 times as many hit points).
Forget the numbers and look at how the characters would see it. And then it's actually not too bad.
Do you mean "level-ascending HP"?
Quote from: Trond;936396I believe Rolemaster was aiming at something similar to what the OP describes. Their combat tables make hit points a relatively minor issue, but the crits and bleeding can really make life miserable.
Rolemaster modelled a different perspective than the OP's point. My interpretation of the OP is that minor injuries by themselves have little effect on their own but together they can add up to a big effect. Anything serious enough to have a big effect on it's own is probably serious enough to be debilitating. E.g.
Quote from: rgrove0172;935964A patient of mine fell down a hill through a mesquite thicket. (think thorns) He was essentially uninjured except for dozens of superficial but painful lacerations and punctures. He was a mess, could barely stand, shock had him shaking like it was freezing outside and he could barely answer questions. This all without a major injury anywhere or a significant loss of blood. In most games we would have handed him a couple HP and played on.
In contrast minor injuries in Rolemaster (hp loss) have no effect at all until 0hp, and you can collect major injuries left right and centre with only getting stun x rnds / lose hp / bleed hp results. Looking at the tables the "you die" or "you are completely incapacitated" results make up only a small proportion. Incapacitation seems to mostly result from hp loss or blood loss per round reducing you to 0hp.
It actually does fit well, except for healing.
The n00b with 4pts Meat, 4pts Endurance/Skill gets reduced to 2pts Meat, he's up tomorrow.
The veteran with 4pts Meat, 84pts Endurance/Skill get reduced to 2pts Meat, he'll be up after the next harvest. :D
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;9363971. people are either fucked, or okay
Those would be great status effects for a game:)
Quote from: JoeNuttall;936428Rolemaster modelled a different perspective than the OP's point. My interpretation of the OP is that minor injuries by themselves have little effect on their own but together they can add up to a big effect. Anything serious enough to have a big effect on it's own is probably serious enough to be debilitating. E.g.
In contrast minor injuries in Rolemaster (hp loss) have no effect at all until 0hp, and you can collect major injuries left right and centre with only getting stun x rnds / lose hp / bleed hp results. Looking at the tables the "you die" or "you are completely incapacitated" results make up only a small proportion. Incapacitation seems to mostly result from hp loss or blood loss per round reducing you to 0hp.
I'm not sure about RM 2 but RMSS gives -10 for every 25% of your hp taken.
Hackmaster 5th goes for the more "realistic" damage thing if I recall right. I no longer have the books, but I think each wound was tracked individually when it cam to healing. HM5 had penetrating dice- their name for exploding dice. My memory of it is so fuzzy I don't want to go much further, but if anyone here has experience with it, chime in.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936176COLITIS: THE SHITTING
Coming Summer 2017 from White Wolf
Sounds like a great match for the collaborative storygaming genre, stuffed full of player agency.
Maybe someone will start a LARP club for it in Germany.
Quote from: AsenRG;936217... The best part? Those wounds can and will incapacitate you. Bleeding to death slowly on a deserted street is totally an option:D.
And there should be such a rule in GURPS and Warhammer;). ...
There is in GURPS, starting with the bleeding and disease rules. Season to taste.
This is my chart for Mythras' (RuneQuest 6) injuries:
(http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h15/Bilharzia/wunde-r.png)
Mythras *is* hit point based, but per body location and each location has fairly low points. Any worn armour subtracts from damage. It's not necessarily a super-realistic system when it come to the details of wounds but it has a pretty good "feel" in play that you're getting something approaching realism, not just for wounds but the feel of combat as a whole.
To the OPs point - I suspect some of the assumptions about wounding are in some way influenced by *modern* combat with the effects of supersonic bullets, which have different effects than slower moving ancient weapons, this is where the "all or nothing" properties of wounds might in part come from. The other thing to consider is for the most part the game systems are emulating *fiction* not necessarily reality which is a bit different from the "it's just a game" get-out clause - the fiction might actually be close to "real" combat, wounds, etc. but nevertheless there's a lot of dramatic licence, so the games (especially something like RQ/Mythras) are going after the fiction more than 'reality' even if the fiction is gritty low fantasy in the style of Joe Abercrombie, or Robert Howard etc.
Quote from: Bilharzia;936451The other thing to consider is for the most part the game systems are emulating *fiction* not necessarily reality which is a bit different from the "it's just a game" get-out clause - the fiction might actually be close to "real" combat, wounds, etc. but nevertheless there's a lot of dramatic licence, so the games (especially something like RQ/Mythras) are going after the fiction more than 'reality' even if the fiction is gritty low fantasy in the style of Joe Abercrombie, or Robert Howard etc.
Well, the thing to remember is Pete is a fairly serious reenactor from what I understand, and while I don't know how deep he is into ARMA, HEMA, studying fechtbuchs, etc, he's out there wearing armor, wielding weapons and getting bruised and bloodied, so I don't know that it's entirely accurate to say that the combat system is modeled on fiction as opposed to reality. The combat special effect system in particular seems designed to model his
real experiences with the weapons rather than Mongoose's Feats like "Pantherish Twist" etc which
were an attempt to model the fiction of Howard and the pastiches.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;936397...
Where it falls apart is with level-ascending AC; we don't find that an infantry company's sergeant major can take more bullets or is less likely to be hit than a newbie private. Maybe a bit tougher and harder to hit, but not like 2-8 times harder (assuming 2-8 levels with thus 2-8 times as many hit points).
...
Yes, kind of. Though during a barrage, the experienced men taking cover promptly and properly are much less likely to be hit than less experienced troops who may lack such reactions/practices. But unlike having a pile of hit points, there's no guarantee anyone outside a tank won't be hit and killed by the first incoming round.
Of course, not just with Pete but the original RQ was written, as far as the combat was concerned, by Steve Perrin who was a SCA member and enthusiast. I'm not saying the realism isn't there but when it comes to wounds, specifically, there aren't any especially serious consequences until you get to "serious" wounds, and even then you can heal fairly quickly. Only "Major" wounds take a significant time to heal if it's without magic and those wounds will give you permanent injuries.
Quote from: Skarg;936448There is in GURPS, starting with the bleeding and disease rules. Season to taste.
I knew it! Though I didn't remember the rules, amazingly enough...
Quote from: Bilharzia;936451This is my chart for Mythras' (RuneQuest 6) injuries:
Link deleted by Bilharzia's request - AsenRG.
I like your approach:).
QuoteTo the OPs point - I suspect some of the assumptions about wounding are in some way influenced by *modern* combat with the effects of supersonic bullets, which have different effects than slower moving ancient weapons, this is where the "all or nothing" properties of wounds might in part come from.
Yeah, I have the same suspicions at times.
QuoteThe other thing to consider is for the most part the game systems are emulating *fiction* not necessarily reality which is a bit different from the "it's just a game" get-out clause - the fiction might actually be close to "real" combat, wounds, etc. but nevertheless there's a lot of dramatic licence, so the games (especially something like RQ/Mythras) are going after the fiction more than 'reality' even if the fiction is gritty low fantasy in the style of Joe Abercrombie, or Robert Howard etc.
Expecting CRK intervention in 3...2...1...oh, wait!
Quote from: CRKrueger;936452Well, the thing to remember is Pete is a fairly serious reenactor from what I understand, and while I don't know how deep he is into ARMA, HEMA, studying fechtbuchs, etc, he's out there wearing armor, wielding weapons and getting bruised and bloodied, so I don't know that it's entirely accurate to say that the combat system is modeled on fiction as opposed to reality. The combat special effect system in particular seems designed to model his real experiences with the weapons rather than Mongoose's Feats like "Pantherish Twist" etc which were an attempt to model the fiction of Howard and the pastiches.
:D
I just had a feeling you'd reply to this.
(And I can confirm that RQ6/Mythras has been amazingly easy to explain to the people in the same HEMA group as me, but that's not because of its injury system).
Quote from: Bilharzia;936468Of course, not just with Pete but the original RQ was written, as far as the combat was concerned, by Steve Perrin who was a SCA member and enthusiast. I'm not saying the realism isn't there but when it comes to wounds, specifically, there aren't any especially serious consequences until you get to "serious" wounds, and even then you can heal fairly quickly. Only "Major" wounds take a significant time to heal if it's without magic and those wounds will give you permanent injuries.
That seems fairly realistic to me, if you add rules for the wounds worsening over time;).
Quote from: Skarg;936447Sounds like a great match for the collaborative storygaming genre, stuffed full of player agency.
Maybe someone will start a LARP club for it in Germany.
I'd have an excuse to stat Glen Frey. :D
Well I have been running an all out HarnMaster game set in Harn that is very realistic to say the least. When people with Daggers can oneshot kill a person, like in real life, I think it's quite real. You have Bloodloss, Minor, Serious and Grievous wounds to contend with that just lower your ability to carry on a fight plus Fatigue levels that do the same. You can in the right locations cut off a limb or get a Mortal wound chance, which isn't that hard to do, that can kill instantly. Players think twice before just starting a fight, they tend to talk their way out of a jam and tend to be a bit more polite in taverns.
I keep toying with the idea of picking up Harnmaster. I have the battle supplement- Battlelust. But HM scares me a little- there's so much, so very, very much for it. My little wallet cringes looking at it.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936511I keep toying with the idea of picking up Harnmaster. I have the battle supplement- Battlelust. But HM scares me a little- there's so much, so very, very much for it. My little wallet cringes looking at it.
I kinda feel the same way;).
Quote from: CRKrueger;936452Well, the thing to remember is Pete is a fairly serious reenactor from what I understand, and while I don't know how deep he is into ARMA, HEMA, studying fechtbuchs, etc, he's out there wearing armor, wielding weapons and getting bruised and bloodied, so I don't know that it's entirely accurate to say that the combat system is modeled on fiction as opposed to reality. The combat special effect system in particular seems designed to model his real experiences with the weapons rather than Mongoose's Feats like "Pantherish Twist" etc which were an attempt to model the fiction of Howard and the pastiches.
I have to admit, I have had my fair share of deep cuts from nicked sword blades, bone fractures, concussions and worst of all, ripping my left knee apart in a tournament. However, atop my love of historical combat I am even more into battlefield pathology reports from ancient and medieval grave excavations. Fascinating stuff! ;)
Yes, the special effects in Mythras/RQ6 were based on a lifelong study of various martial arts, whereas the underlying mechanics came from my frustration in trying to replicate in RPGs what I did as a matter of course during fights. The Physical Damage rules - like in most games - are merely a simplified model, but there's a very careful balance between game design and reality, to keep fights dynamic and exciting.
Quote from: Pete Nash;936546However, atop my love of historical combat I am even more into battlefield pathology reports from ancient and medieval grave excavations. Fascinating stuff! ;)
I was reading one just last week and it was pretty grim. Bodies with a dozen stabs to the face sort of stuff.
Also a lot of evidence of really serious injuries that healed prior to the person's last battle.
Quote from: Pete Nash;936546However, atop my love of historical combat I am even more into battlefield pathology reports from ancient and medieval grave excavations. Fascinating stuff! ;)
Who doesn't love it:)?
Once I get REH's Conan RPG (2D20) one of the house rules / mods I'm intending on creating is a realistic damage system.
I'm thinking along the lines of different injury types, effects and durations based on the type of weapon and hit location, as well as the quality of the hit vs the resilience of the victim.
I'm also thinking that this system could be used generically with any RPG or genre of RPG with either no or very minor modifications.
Rgrove- you could always use your experience and write up system neutral guidelines for applying realistic injury results to a game.
Quote from: CRKrueger;936429It actually does fit well, except for healing.
The n00b with 4pts Meat, 4pts Endurance/Skill gets reduced to 2pts Meat, he's up tomorrow.
The veteran with 4pts Meat, 84pts Endurance/Skill get reduced to 2pts Meat, he'll be up after the next harvest. :D
The rookie took one hit/scrape/near miss/round of combat.
The veteran waded through possibly dozens, or more to get down to their last.
Least in D&D we thought of it as partially a factor of being mentally drained as well as physically exhausted. The low level "kids" bounce back from being trounced pretty quick. But the seasoned warrior needs alot more time to work up the urge to go back at it even.
Or other explanations why. Though in AD&D at least once you hit or pass 30hp everyone heals up the same no matter the level (not counting CON). Also in AD&D the rookie is more likely to go to zero HP which means a whole week of being a bedridden invalid. Or just plain dead in BX.
Quote from: Omega;936613The rookie took one hit/scrape/near miss/round of combat.
The veteran waded through possibly dozens, or more to get down to their last.
Least in D&D we thought of it as partially a factor of being mentally drained as well as physically exhausted. The low level "kids" bounce back from being trounced pretty quick. But the seasoned warrior needs alot more time to work up the urge to go back at it even.
Or other explanations why. Though in AD&D at least once you hit or pass 30hp everyone heals up the same no matter the level (not counting CON). Also in AD&D the rookie is more likely to go to zero HP which means a whole week of being a bedridden invalid. Or just plain dead in BX.
I didn't say there was no difference or overall effect, I said the healing
rates were goofy. If you assume the last few hit points are meat damage before you fall, then those should heal slower then all the Fatigue on top of it. But, we're finding out that the optimum recovery time for a Marathon runner is what, 6 weeks, so maybe Gary was on to something after all. :D
Quote from: Bluddworth;936569Once I get REH's Conan RPG (2D20) one of the house rules / mods I'm intending on creating is a realistic damage system.
I'm thinking along the lines of different injury types, effects and durations based on the type of weapon and hit location, as well as the quality of the hit vs the resilience of the victim.
I'm also thinking that this system could be used generically with any RPG or genre of RPG with either no or very minor modifications.
When you finish it, post it up.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936577Rgrove- you could always use your experience and write up system neutral guidelines for applying realistic injury results to a game.
You mean something like this?
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/92589/Trauma
Quote from: AsenRG;936484I like your approach:).
I keep posting this without having asked permission from Pete & Loz, I should note it's a repeat of the wound conditions from Mythras, with a mostly not-relevant illustration I made for my roll20 game as I kept forgetting the consequences and differences between serious & major, although it's not really that difficult. Afaik it's pretty close to what is in Mythras Imperative, but this is from the full rules.
On the subject of survivability of wounds I remember seeing something about evidence from 'Dark Ages' skulls in the UK - apparently there are numerous skulls found with healed head wounds which show slices of skull missing :eek: which have fully healed. This suggests some fairly nasty head wounds, almost certainly acquired in a battle, which nevertheless have lead to a recovery.
Quote from: AsenRG;936622You mean something like this?
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/92589/Trauma
Yup! Just like that:)
Quote from: AsenRG;936292Or, you know...you could instead have a system that allows both the 1st level and the 10th level character to suffer the same amount of damage. Combat is opposed rolls, followed by a damage roll which could often incapacitate outright. Nothing surprising there, I think?
But if you lose the opposed roll and there's damage about to be suffered, you can reduce it to a flesh wound if you have one of a series of Gifts.
You mentioned Synergy/Blue Planet earlier, and I share your considered judgment of its merits. ;) I did eventually do a cinematic mod with hit points/hero points/ablative plot armor points layered over the wound system for a one-shot game (that turned into more of a four-shot). You lost the opposed roll by 5, you're about to get hit -- spend 5 points of APA or we're resolving damage. It was fast, fun, and created some cool dynamics and cinematic combat tactics ("You might have to let a guy punch you, but you can't let him stab you").
Quote from: AsenRG;936162It was logic such as this that lead me to declare all systems that didn't feature persistent wounds and death spirals as unfit for roleplayers, about a decade ago:D.
Persistent wounds in
BH may affect movement as well as Speed and Accuracy. When my character encountered Shotgun Sally outside the Trail Dust, he'd taken a serious (brawling) wound to his leg when he was thrown breaking one of the mustangs. That meant my character could only walk, at half speed, until he rested and recovered the lost strength. Knowing Eladio was slow and shaky wasn't nearly as worrisome as the fact he couldn't run and dodge.
Quote from: Greg Benage;936646You mentioned Synergy/Blue Planet earlier, and I share your considered judgment of its merits. ;) I did eventually do a cinematic mod with hit points/hero points/ablative plot armor points layered over the wound system for a one-shot game (that turned into more of a four-shot). You lost the opposed roll by 5, you're about to get hit -- spend 5 points of APA or we're resolving damage. It was fast, fun, and created some cool dynamics and cinematic combat tactics ("You might have to let a guy punch you, but you can't let him stab you").
"Let someone punch you to avoid a stab" is a fully real tactic, which might be necessary in some situations, though it could backfire:).
However, that post doesn't talk about a Synergy mod, because the Gifts that let you avoid it 1) exist in-universe and 2) are detailed in the system.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936650Persistent wounds in BH may affect movement as well as Speed and Accuracy. When my character encountered Shotgun Sally outside the Trail Dust, he'd taken a serious (brawling) wound to his leg when he was thrown breaking one of the mustangs. That meant my character could only walk, at half speed, until he rested and recovered the lost strength. Knowing Eladio was slow and shaky wasn't nearly as worrisome as the fact he couldn't run and dodge.
Yes, but even without the system specifics: he had low, low chances due to the wound. If the GM didn't play Shotgun Sally as a real NPC who might, le gasp, feel grattitude, he would have most likely bit the dust.
That's the most important point, with the specific effects of wounds being more system-specific;).
Quote from: AsenRG;936653If the GM didn't play Shotgun Sally as a real NPC who might, le gasp, feel grattitude, he would have most likely bit the dust.
That's the most important point . . .
I need to write that blog post, on 'social skill' in
Boot Hill, a game with neither skills nor a 'Charisma' stat.
I think BRP with hit locations turned 'on' (i.e., original runequest) is probably the best compromise between quasi-realism and fussiness when it comes to damage and injury. It is really intuitive and simple to fold into the normal flow of play, outcomes jive with normal human experiences, and the path to keeping yourself alive is heavy armor or being outrageously more skillful than your opponent. That checks all my versimilitude boxes.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936654I need to write that blog post, on 'social skill' in Boot Hill, a game with neither skills nor a 'Charisma' stat.
Yes, you need to, definitely:)!
Quote from: Larsdangly;936663. . . outcomes jive with normal human experiences . . .
Yeah, that's really what it's about, i'n'it?
If my character gets shot in the arm, I expect him to be slower and less accurate if he uses that arm to shoot. If he gets a lance in the leg, I expect it to slow him down. If he takes a tomahawk to the head, I expect him to be disoriented. If he takes a bunch of wounds, I expect him to be less capable overall. And if he's wounded, I expect him to remain less capable while he heals.
Boot Hill throws all those switches.
Quote from: Omega;936613The rookie took one hit/scrape/near miss/round of combat.
The veteran waded through possibly dozens, or more to get down to their last.
Least in D&D we thought of it as partially a factor of being mentally drained as well as physically exhausted. The low level "kids" bounce back from being trounced pretty quick. But the seasoned warrior needs alot more time to work up the urge to go back at it even.
Or other explanations why. Though in AD&D at least once you hit or pass 30hp everyone heals up the same no matter the level (not counting CON). Also in AD&D the rookie is more likely to go to zero HP which means a whole week of being a bedridden invalid. Or just plain dead in BX.
It may or may not be a good way to design a combat simulation. However, it's entirely logical as game design where hit points are a valuable resource, and loss of a valuable resource must incur a penalty.
Let's say we have 2 8th level fighters with 40 HP. After the dungeon adventure, one has taken 4 HP of damage, the other has taken 24 HP of damage.
The second fighter has lost more of a vital resource than than first, so that fighter must pay a higher penalty to be restored to full function.
Honestly, I stopped worrying about what "hit points" represent years ago. They represent hit points.
Yes, I've tried more "realistic" combat systems including RQ and several I wrote myself. I now use OD&D. I want to play a game of exploration and adventure, not WOUNDING: THE CONVALESENCE.
Mileage and all that.
Quote from: CRKrueger;936616I didn't say there was no difference or overall effect, I said the healing rates were goofy. If you assume the last few hit points are meat damage before you fall, then those should heal slower then all the Fatigue on top of it. But, we're finding out that the optimum recovery time for a Marathon runner is what, 6 weeks, so maybe Gary was on to something after all. :D
Apparently they did do some research. Just not sure how much. But its possible that the longer recovery times for higher level characters equates to the often proportionately longer amounts of time they are getting beat up or in really high danger situations.
Not a good example but compare myself and one of my players. Im a casual biker and tire out pretty quick. But after a breather Im back at it. The other player is a marathon biker who has gone fair distances. But sometimes overdoes it and is then recovering a day or more later. Or boxing comparing an amature who goes down in one punch but is back up in probably a few minutes where as a professional may go for several rounds and then be recovering for possibly days after.
In the end make of it what you will. Theres one or two articles in Dragon on other approaches like a wounds system to determine healing time instead. But personally I dont think that maps to well to the nebulous situational stuff HP is in D&D.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936673I want to play a game of exploration and adventure, not WOUNDING: THE CONVALESENCE.
(http://www.picturesanimations.com/l/lol/BIGLOL25257E18.GIF)
And that's why it's great there are all kinds of games out there to choose from. One size most definitely doesn't fit all.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936673Yes, I've tried more "realistic" combat systems including RQ and several I wrote myself. I now use OD&D. I want to play a game of exploration and adventure, not WOUNDING: THE CONVALESENCE.
Mileage and all that.
Pretty much what the original Albedo is too. And I prefer the more nebulous nature of HP as it can be anything really. Thats a great design aspect and its something you see alot through D&Ds early rules. Its hilarious that one of the most narratively open RPGs gets derided by narrativists as being anything but.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936683(http://www.picturesanimations.com/l/lol/BIGLOL25257E18.GIF)
And that's why it's great there are all kinds of games out there to choose from. One size most definitely doesn't fit all.
That should be repeated more often:).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936375These were convention games; Gary would go to a con to "run old style Greyhawk" and watch players run into the teeth of death. He said he was amazed at how often it happened in so many different places.
Most GMs are softies and don't challenge players. [because they want to have fun with friends!]
I had the same problem with high kill events many years ago, but after a player freaked the fuck out at a con game, I made the point to do a GM introduction and discuss WTF the players would be experiencing at my 4 hour con event. The majority of players sit down expecting a Disney ride with cake and cheers at the end. If you tell them up front that the NPC villains (not the GM) is going to do their best to kill them, you get a different playstyle at that table. Not always 100% smarter, but usually 50% smarter. My returning con players would often give my GM speech for me to new players sitting at the table.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936673Yes, I've tried more "realistic" combat systems including RQ and several I wrote myself. I now use OD&D. I want to play a game of exploration and adventure, not WOUNDING: THE CONVALESENCE.
That's makes sense when it comes to wounds, piles of HP create a problem when in adventure mode though:
D&D
Haakon Slash, (8th level fighter 40 HP) opens the door and is faced with the surly Norty the town guard, pointing a heavy crossbow at his chest "drop your weapons and come with me"
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his sword, Norty fires, criticals, 20 damage! Haakon continues his walk and lops off Norty's head.
RQ
Haakon Slash, (Barbarian warrior, 6AP armour, 8 HP chest) opens the door and is faced with Norty,
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his longsword, Norty fires, criticals, Norty gains two special effects, he chooses Bypass Armour and Maximise Damage, rolls Chest for hit location, Haakon goes to -2 in his chest, fails his Endurance roll and is knocked unconscious for 10 minutes.
Quote from: Bilharzia;936735That's makes sense when it comes to wounds, piles of HP create a problem when in adventure mode though:
D&D
Haakon Slash, (8th level fighter 40 HP) opens the door and is faced with the surly Norty the town guard, pointing a heavy crossbow at his chest "drop your weapons and come with me"
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his sword, Norty fires, criticals, 20 damage! Haakon continues his walk and lops off Norty's head.
RQ
Haakon Slash, (Barbarian warrior, 6AP armour, 8 HP chest) opens the door and is faced with Norty,
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his longsword, Norty fires, criticals, Norty gains two special effects, he chooses Bypass Armour and Maximise Damage, rolls Chest for hit location, Haakon goes to -2 in his chest, fails his Endurance roll and is knocked unconscious for 10 minutes.
* checks watch * Meatpoint O'Clock again already? Damn.
Quote from: Bilharzia;936735That's makes sense when it comes to wounds, piles of HP create a problem when in adventure mode though:
D&D
Haakon Slash, (8th level fighter 40 HP) opens the door and is faced with the surly Norty the town guard, pointing a heavy crossbow at his chest "drop your weapons and come with me"
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his sword, Norty fires, criticals, 20 damage! Haakon continues his walk and lops off Norty's head.
RQ
Haakon Slash, (Barbarian warrior, 6AP armour, 8 HP chest) opens the door and is faced with Norty,
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his longsword, Norty fires, criticals, Norty gains two special effects, he chooses Bypass Armour and Maximise Damage, rolls Chest for hit location, Haakon goes to -2 in his chest, fails his Endurance roll and is knocked unconscious for 10 minutes.
With older editions of D&D, wasn't it a one minute turn on top of being abstracted? Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just maybe not work for blow by blow combats. In your example with D&D, while Norty rolled a critical, well, he's a town guard and shooting at Haakon, who's title is Superhero according to my fuzzy AD&D level title memory. So Norty's awesome just isn't awesome enough. Skims off Haakon's armor, he loses some abstracted HP and proceeds to show Norty the error of his ways. Or something, I don't know. I generally suck at these things.
*every time I read level titles I read it as level titties.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936743With older editions of D&D, wasn't it a one minute turn on top of being abstracted? Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just maybe not work for blow by blow combats. In your example with D&D, while Norty rolled a critical, well, he's a town guard and shooting at Haakon, who's title is Superhero according to my fuzzy AD&D level title memory. So Norty's awesome just isn't awesome enough. Skims off Haakon's armor, he loses some abstracted HP and proceeds to show Norty the error of his ways.
My point is that at a certain level a D&D PC is immune to certain things and can act accordingly - ie. know that they can take a hit like that with the certainty that they are in no danger, like they are, yes, a superhero. It's presumably an untended consequence of HP inflation and character leveling that personally I find jarring, whereas I'm not so bothered about sepsis not being modeled.
Quote from: Bilharzia;936745My point is that at a certain level a D&D PC is immune to certain things and can act accordingly - ie. know that they can take a hit like that with the certainty that they are in no danger, like they are, yes, a superhero. It's presumably an untended consequence of HP inflation and character leveling that personally I find jarring, whereas I'm not so bothered about sepsis not being modeled.
I know your point, and it's shit. Only somebody who is very young or too stupid to shit unassisted referees like that.
This "discussion" has been had countless times before, including at least once in this forum in the past year. I see no need to rehash the inanity again.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936743With older editions of D&D, wasn't it a one minute turn on top of being abstracted? Doesn't mean it doesn't work, just maybe not work for blow by blow combats. In your example with D&D, while Norty rolled a critical, well, he's a town guard and shooting at Haakon, who's title is Superhero according to my fuzzy AD&D level title memory. So Norty's awesome just isn't awesome enough. Skims off Haakon's armor, he loses some abstracted HP and proceeds to show Norty the error of his ways. Or something, I don't know. I generally suck at these things.
*every time I read level titles I read it as level titties.
Or if the referee is not very young or is not too stupid to shit unassisted, "The guard is too close to miss. Hit points be damned, if he hits you you are in trouble."
There was no "coup de grace" rule in original D&D because Gygax didn't think the players would be so stupid as to need something that obvious pointed out.
Quote from: RunningLaser;936743*every time I read level titles I read it as level titties.
This, on the other hand, is pure gold.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936756I see no need to rehash the inanity again.
Back to rotating gifs then.
Quote from: Bilharzia;936735That's makes sense when it comes to wounds, piles of HP create a problem when in adventure mode though:
D&D
Haakon Slash, (8th level fighter 40 HP) opens the door and is faced with the surly Norty the town guard, pointing a heavy crossbow at his chest "drop your weapons and come with me"
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his sword, Norty fires, criticals, 20 damage! Haakon continues his walk and lops off Norty's head.
In AD&D that would be an insta kill with the crossbow as Hakkon isnt attempting to dodge or defend himself. Roll new character and maybee this time not be a smug moron at my table ok? Go ahead and jump off the cliff while you are at it. You are in for a real surprise there too.
Much the same in BX. You arent in combat and so it may well be insta-death there too.
Quote from: Bilharzia;936745My point is that at a certain level a D&D PC is immune to certain things and can act accordingly - ie. know that they can take a hit like that with the certainty that they are in no danger, like they are, yes, a superhero. It's presumably an untended consequence of HP inflation and character leveling that personally I find jarring, whereas I'm not so bothered about sepsis not being modeled.
The game is NOT the rules. That's the problem here. The DM is well within his rights to rule that Hakkon eats a bolt and dies because he decided to be stupid in the face of a clear and present threat to his life.
Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;936796The game is NOT the rules. That's the problem here. The DM is well within his rights to rule that Hakkon eats a bolt and dies because he decided to be stupid in the face of a clear and present threat to his life.
Omg u r deprotagonizing me
Enough hit points should mean, that Hakkon did! dodge in the last moment and only got grazed - or the game is breaking down on many more edges too.
Quote from: Maarzan;936808Enough hit points should mean, that Hakkon did! dodge in the last moment and only got grazed - or the game is breaking down on many more edges too.
Pre-3e D&D had rules in place to handle killing someone in one blow no matter what their HP. And one of the old examples was someone just standing there and letting themselves be shot or stabbed and promptly dropping dead. Simmilar to the guillotine example some use. The PC could have 100 HP but they arent in combat so HP dont apply. Just as you can insta-kill a held or sleeping target in older editions. 5e playtest actually had that rule.
Quote from: Bilharzia;936735That's makes sense when it comes to wounds, piles of HP create a problem when in adventure mode though:
D&D
Haakon Slash, (8th level fighter 40 HP) opens the door and is faced with the surly Norty the town guard, pointing a heavy crossbow at his chest "drop your weapons and come with me"
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his sword, Norty fires, criticals, 20 damage! Haakon continues his walk and lops off Norty's head.
RQ
Haakon Slash, (Barbarian warrior, 6AP armour, 8 HP chest) opens the door and is faced with Norty,
Haakon casually walks up to Norty swinging his longsword, Norty fires, criticals, Norty gains two special effects, he chooses Bypass Armour and Maximise Damage, rolls Chest for hit location, Haakon goes to -2 in his chest, fails his Endurance roll and is knocked unconscious for 10 minutes.
D20 Fantasy Craft: Haakon has 15 Wounds, 40 Vitality, 4 HP armour.
Norty fires, critical, 20 damage which bypasses vitality and goes straight to Wounds. The armour takes 4 off, but Haakon still goes down like a punk at -1 Wounds and starts dying (or maybe, if he's got 1 more Wound, becomes merely unconscious).
Also, you should be clear whether you're playing a game where a less skilled enemy pointing a ranged weapon at you is a threat you can deal with, or a threat you must negotiate to avoid. I mean, I prefer the latter, but it's just a different preference, not the end-all be-all* Rule Of Good Roleplaying. And even I play games where the rules make it abundantly clear that a weaker enemy pointing a gun or crossbow at you isn't
that much of an issue.
You can still negotiate with him to conserve resources and to avoid announcing your presence, and probably would want to do that, BTW.
I still prefer Mythras. But there's room for other preferences, too.
*Unless you're playing EABAv2 and taking the name way too seriously:D. (And even then the author himself advises against that, so it's your choice how seriously to get it:p).
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936756I know your point, and it's shit. Only somebody who is very young or too stupid to shit unassisted referees like that.
This "discussion" has been had countless times before, including at least once in this forum in the past year. I see no need to rehash the inanity again.
I'm with you;). There's room for all kinds of fun in this hobby.
Funny enough, most people agree that if a Godbound or Exalted character has a crossbow pointed at him at point-blank range, what we can expect is him dodging to taking the attack on his chest and then disarming, knocking out or killing the attacker. But the same people have an issue with HPs doing the same.
I'm almost tempted to tell people that HP/Vitality are a magical resource granted to adventurers by the gods and demons who enjoy watching their strugles. Said resource prevents deadly blows/Wound damage, then trying a game out with some retroclone or with Fantasy Craft. I've got enough people in my group who dislike HP that it would be an interesting experiment if I can design a suitable character sheet;).
Quote from: Omega;936809Pre-3e D&D had rules in place to handle killing someone in one blow no matter what their HP. And one of the old examples was someone just standing there and letting themselves be shot or stabbed and promptly dropping dead. Simmilar to the guillotine example some use. The PC could have 100 HP but they arent in combat so HP dont apply. Just as you can insta-kill a held or sleeping target in older editions. 5e playtest actually had that rule.
I only know this rule in regard to totaly helpless people.
Surely this is a disadvantaged situation, but any unarmoured victim of a thiefs backstab is in an even less advantageous situation and the thief is just getting his multiplier.
Would you allow any PC to autokill anything he can get in point black range on a relatively stationary target wit a crossbow?
D&D has positioned itself with its hit point buffer. So it has to live with it in my optinion. Anyone who goes into a fight with someone or something carrying a lethal wepaon is risking it and getting "realistic" here when ignoring the rest looks like an assholemove for me.
From the realistic side I also don´t the the surefire kill here too. Sure you have a bigger chance to get hurt (and probably killed) here than in other situations but especially with armor, shield and a nit so experienced foe and a lot of places the bolt can go without killing you immediately (even from just a few feet distance).
And with enough on stake and especially with a loaded cleric in the background a severe injury could be worth it.
So my resumee: play the fitting system for the situations you want to create and don´t mess with things not suited.
"Waah waah waah the rules say I have 45 hit points boo hoo."
Tough shit. Act like a moron, die like a moron.
As referee, the rules are my servant, not my master. And I always have plenty of players so don't pull your whiny ass "viking hat" bullshit on me.
Of course, I don't play with imbeciles or crybabies, and that prevents an amazing number of problems.
(Okay, I'll admit that as referee, I would tell the player "At this range if he fires he WILL kill you, hit points be damned." But after I've said that, anybody who says "I have 45 HP, I can take it!" deserves to die.)
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936849"Waah waah waah the rules say I have 45 hit points boo hoo."
Tough shit. Act like a moron, die like a moron.
As referee, the rules are my servant, not my master. And I always have plenty of players so don't pull your whiny ass "viking hat" bullshit on me.
Of course, I don't play with imbeciles or crybabies, and that prevents an amazing number of problems.
(Okay, I'll admit that as referee, I would tell the player "At this range if he fires he WILL kill you, hit points be damned." But after I've said that, anybody who says "I have 45 HP, I can take it!" deserves to die.)
Now, I
would rule differently:).
But that last line makes it fine by me, as a player or a Referee. As long as the player understands that the HP rules wouldn't apply and thus can account for all relevant factors, I don't see the problem;).
Quote from: Maarzan;936814I only know this rule in regard to totaly helpless people.
Surely this is a disadvantaged situation, but any unarmoured victim of a thiefs backstab is in an even less advantageous situation and the thief is just getting his multiplier.
Would you allow any PC to autokill anything he can get in point black range on a relatively stationary target wit a crossbow?
D&D has positioned itself with its hit point buffer. So it has to live with it in my optinion. Anyone who goes into a fight with someone or something carrying a lethal wepaon is risking it and getting "realistic" here when ignoring the rest looks like an assholemove for me.
1: If the PC just stands there and gets shot then they ARE the equivalent of a totally helpless victem. Thats the point.
2: If the NPC just stupidly stood there and let themselves be murdered. Yes. Dead on the spot. If though they are unaware. Then make a roll to see if you surprise them. Theres a big difference between "I let them stab me" and "Damn this job is bor-Oh fuck!" The DM has to judge each situation.
3: Your opinion is not only wrong. Its not even supported by the rules. Try again please.
I have no problem with an 8th level fighter with 40 HP taking the hit and slaying the guard. It's very Conan to me, especially as HP isn't meat points. By 8th level, that fighter has learned how to twist at the last second to save his neck, letting the bolt graze his shoulder as his sword swings up into the guard's crotch and hacks him in twain. Damn, that bolt was a crit and did 12 points! 40-12 = 1/3 loss so the fighter felt that and now he's only 28 HP going into whatever mess is ahead.
But that's what I want out of Sword & Sorcery.
Other gamers, however, have the right to be wrong and like something else, and perhaps even play RPGs other than those I prefer.
Poor, poor souls, but alas such is the price of freedom.
The key to the Haakon discussion I think is whether the player is obviously metagaming to be a prick or not.
Does Haakon's player know he has 40 Hit Points and the Crossbow is going to do 1d8 and so he knows he will not die, therefore acts like he's the Terminator or something and calmly walks toward the NPC just because he wants to be cool? Fuck him, he's not dodging, he's got 4HPs like a 0-level. Same thing with the guy that describes swan diving off a tower headfirst. You're making no attempt to stop damage - guess what, you don't.
Does Haakon's player charge the NPC, describing running in and dodging, perhaps even trying to get cover, then he falls under the standard combat rules and his Skill, Luck, and Endurance kick in as Hit Points. Same thing if he walks calmly in and says he's juking when he sees the guy pull the trigger.
Quote from: Spinachcat;936864I have no problem with an 8th level fighter with 40 HP taking the hit and slaying the guard. It's very Conan to me, especially as HP isn't meat points. By 8th level, that fighter has learned how to twist at the last second to save his neck, letting the bolt graze his shoulder as his sword swings up into the guard's crotch and hacks him in twain. Damn, that bolt was a crit and did 12 points! 40-12 = 1/3 loss so the fighter felt that and now he's only 28 HP going into whatever mess is ahead.
But that's what I want out of Sword & Sorcery.
Other gamers, however, have the right to be wrong and like something else, and perhaps even play RPGs other than those I prefer.
Poor, poor souls, but alas such is the price of freedom.
I think there were situations... um, God in the Bowl.... where somebody got the drop on Conan with a missile weapon and he knew he was in trouble.
Also, your example is "I try to dodge out of the way as I close in with the guard," as opposed to the original example which struck me at least as more of "Ho Ho I laugh at your puny crossbow, little NPC." Your example engages with the imaginary situation instead of merely the rules.
Quote from: AsenRG;936666Yes, you need to, definitely:)!
Done. (https://promisecity.blogspot.com/2016/12/reputation.html)
One place I never feel GURPS works very well is that crossbow. Because once you dodge it, and if you have a shield and or drop, you'll probably dodge it, it takes forever to reload. Black powder firearms are in the same boat. As written, it's too easy to dodge one shot wonder weapons. Though, bear in mind, if you fail to dodge, you probably aren't getting any closer to the shooter.
Quote from: David Johansen;936921One place I never feel GURPS works very well is that crossbow. Because once you dodge it, and if you have a shield and or drop, you'll probably dodge it, it takes forever to reload. Black powder firearms are in the same boat. As written, it's too easy to dodge one shot wonder weapons..
They were meant for massed fire at a similarly massed target.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936925They were meant for massed fire at a similarly massed target.
Hush, you and your "having some fucking idea of history."
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936899Done. (https://promisecity.blogspot.com/2016/12/reputation.html)
Thank you:). It seems I've been using Boot Hill's social system modifiersfor quite a while now...
If you had added the Shotgun Sally example, too, this post might have doubled as "playing realistic and interesting NPCs", too;).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936925They were meant for massed fire at a similarly massed target.
And from behind walls or mantelet during a siege.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936872I think there were situations... um, God in the Bowl.... where somebody got the drop on Conan with a missile weapon and he knew he was in trouble.
That hack REH didn't read his Gygax!!!
Or maybe Conan only had 12 HP left and knew a crit would kill him. Some PCs smarten up when their HP are low.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936872Also, your example is "I try to dodge out of the way as I close in with the guard," as opposed to the original example which struck me at least as more of "Ho Ho I laugh at your puny crossbow, little NPC." Your example engages with the imaginary situation instead of merely the rules.
As the DM, I like to give PCs (not players) the benefit of the doubt in regards to their expertise. The player isn't an 8th level fighter, but his PC is and knows WTF is up in melee. For me, HP and class attributes reflect what the PC knows and can do.
But I'm not a realism guy. I want Bruce Lee melee and Matrix gunfights.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936925They were meant for massed fire at a similarly massed target.
Sure and GURPS discusses that in the rules and missile fire is relatively weak compared to D&D because the range penalties are pretty extreme, -4 at ten yards and worse if the target is moving, not to mention a better than fifty percent chance of dodging after that. It takes people some time to accept that loading a bow takes two or three seconds or loading a crossbow takes five or more especially if you've got a cranquin or windlass. Sure it pumps out the damage but if it never hits anyone. That speed / range table is the reason I find it easier to get people into Rolemaster. The discovery that a long bow isn't a combination high powered sniper rifle / machinegun all rolled into one is almost as unsettling as discovering that a katana is just a really nice sword that can't cut through three inches of oak in a single blow.
Quote from: Spinachcat;936936That hack REH didn't read his Gygax!!!
Or maybe Conan only had 12 HP left and knew a crit would kill him. Some PCs smarten up when their HP are low.
Nope. Not only was he was on full HP, but was young and arrogant to boot. ;)
'I am the watchman, knave,' answered Arus, bracing his rocking courage. 'Stand where you are;
don't move or I'll loose a bolt through you.'
His finger was on the trigger of his arbalest, the wicked square head of the quarrel leveled full on
the other 's broad breast. The stranger [Conan] scowled, and his dark face was lowering. He showed no fear,
but seemed to be hesitating in his mind as to whether he should obey the command or chance a sudden
break of some kind. Arus licked his lips and his blood turned cold as he plainly saw indecision
struggle with a murderous intent in the foreigner 's cloudy eyes.
Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936926Hush, you and your "having some fucking idea of history."
What, you mean English longbowmen didn't fight like Legolas?
Quote from: AsenRG;936928Thank you:).
You're welcome.
Quote from: AsenRG;936928If you had added the Shotgun Sally example, too, this post might have doubled as "playing realistic and interesting NPCs", too;).
Gotta save something for future posts.
Quote from: David Johansen;936949The discovery that a long bow isn't a combination high powered sniper rifle / machinegun all rolled into one is almost as unsettling as discovering that a katana is just a really nice sword that can't cut through three inches of oak in a single blow.
(https://media.tenor.co/images/ad97e3919fe278206e85b0fc48e89178/raw)
The hell you say!
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936969What, you mean English longbowmen didn't fight like Legolas?
The hell you say!
1: A really good archer could pump out quite a few arrows in short order. But the average one was probably not. Theres a thread from a while back on that subject.
2: A good longsword performs about the same. But looks cooler. so nya! :cool:
Quote from: Pete Nash;936958Not only was he was on full HP, but was young and arrogant to boot. ;)
So 2nd level OD&D Conan. Lucky to have 12 HP and probably up against one of us DMs who give arbalest's more damage and bonuses than heavy crossbows.
Quote from: Spinachcat;936994So 2nd level OD&D Conan. Lucky to have 12 HP and probably up against one of us DMs who give arbalest's more damage and bonuses than heavy crossbows.
At that point Conan was a seasoned veteran of battles since he was in the thick of it even at a young age. Also. Literature does not translate to game rules. Ever. Conan is in the example while young and arrogant. Still someone whos participated in one or more viscious raids and knows that being run through something vital with a pointy object is going to kill him no matter how good he is. Does he take the risk or not?
Also. Nice try but thats not a viable example as Conan isnt standing there
letting the guard perforate him.
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936969What, you mean English longbowmen didn't fight like Legolas?
Oh, sure. I suppose next you're going to claim that the English longbowmen didn't use their shields as surfboards and ride them in battle.
Quote from: Omega;937029At that point Conan was a seasoned veteran of battles since he was in the thick of it even at a young age.
Back when D&D used level titles, a first-level Fighter was designated a "Veteran". So second level, as Spinachcat suggested, would be a cut above the typical veteran. That seems to fit a "seasoned veteran".
Conan, about the time of God in the Bowl, had certainly killed a whole lot of people, fighting as a Cimmerian. He hadn't yet traveled the world, served as or commanded either Pirates or Free Companions, so while extremely dangerous he was still, as Ned Two-Trees would say, "young and full of beans". It's clear from that story, he was pretty sure he could take the guys in the house, even when he had the arbalest pointed at him - or at least kill enough to get away, relying on his speed and strength.
In OD&D, he's probably 2nd level, maybe 3rd, with the other guys first level.
The problem is, in OD&D, Conan is unarmored, so aside from being able to chop down a couple per round (if you're using that rule whenever it first appeared), Conan probably isn't going to make it. Is he dodging, moving, whether trying to get away or close for the kill? That's his hit points, which they are going to be whittling away.
In Mythras, Conan being a Cimmerian and well, Conan, that means he probably has decent stats so a good initiative and being unarmored helps here. So if he wins initiative, he can use techniques like Outmaneuvre to prevent getting wolfpacked, and with his skills and stats being higher, his chances of evading, outmaneuvering, etc. successfully are much higher compared to the lower skilled guards. The expenditure of Hit Points (aka Fatigue) will set in, but more slowly then it will in D&D as those near misses don't cost a resource hit point spend to turn them from wounds to fatigue. As a result...
- OD&D - Young Conan's confidence is really bravado, the system doesn't give the player the tools to be realistically someone like young Conan, unless you want to kick his level up to 4th or something. The system just isn't granular enough, level is the only real determinant.
- AD&D - Using Gary's Barbarian class from UA, and most of the guards being 0-level, now we're getting much closer to the reality of that fight. Conan will be probably cutting down a couple guards per round, as his weapon now probably does more damage than their HD, and he gets multiple attacks, plus greater Str bonus to damage. His AC and HP bonuses from the Barbarian class better reflect Conan's "Tiger-like" grace and power. This fight, Conan's abilities do match his confidence. He will probably win this fight, killing them all.
- Mythras - Conan doesn't really have any special abilities, he just comes from a culture that will grant him better physical stats and higher weapon skills due to the hostile nature of his upbringing. Those natural stats and higher skills, mean he will be attempting the same types of maneuvers that any fighter would against superior numbers, but, he'll have a better chance of doing them. However, the Mythras combat system being what it is, he'll probably not be fighting to kill them all, because a single critical can ruin your day. So, outnumbered, he'll be doing what Conan always does when outnumbered and no real motivation to kill, he'll kill whoever he needs to, to get away.
So, despite having the most detailed combat system out of the three, it's actually Mythras that best matches the fiction, without any narrative stuff needed. (Arguably, it also better matches what might happen in real life, but for a lot of people, that's not even needed or desired.) Granted, Mythras does have some optional narrative stuff, like Luck Points and Passions, but they aren't needed to make that fight seem Howardian.
What's my point? The system you use has to have the capacity for the detail you require.
Too simplistic is also too generic, there's no room to maneuver in dealing with special circumstances, there's not enough granularity.
Too complicated is too slow. A 10v10 is fast in OD&D, still fast in AD&D, not all that fast in Mythras if you're using all combat options for every combatant.
Of course, "Too" is completely relative. It's going to vary by player, GM, table, type of game, etc.
Quote from: CRKrueger;937098(snipped)
So, despite having the most detailed combat system out of the three, it's actually Mythras that best matches the fiction, without any narrative stuff needed. (Arguably, it also better matches what might happen in real life, but for a lot of people, that's not even needed or desired.) Granted, Mythras does have some optional narrative stuff, like Luck Points and Passions, but they aren't needed to make that fight seem Howardian.
What's my point? The system you use has to have the capacity for the detail you require.
Too simplistic is also too generic, there's no room to maneuver in dealing with special circumstances, there's not enough granularity.
Too complicated is too slow. A 10v10 is fast in OD&D, still fast in AD&D, not all that fast in Mythras if you're using all combat options for every combatant.
Of course, "Too" is completely relative. It's going to vary by player, GM, table, type of game, etc.
There's a good reason why Mythras and Conan's stories fit like a glove. Both actually reflect some level of understanding of what a skilled fighter can do to less skilled opponents, and how much of an issue multiple opponents can be:).
We have mentioned before on this forum that at least one of Mythras' authors is a pretty serious reenactor. My limited experience with reenactment shows that there are many people who have a kit but no real skills.
On his side, Howard was quite a good old-school boxer, according to the accounts I've read. Given his upbringing, that probably means he's faced a few weapons from the wrong side, too, and street fights aren't always one on one;).
Quote from: Black Vulmea;936925They were meant for massed fire at a similarly massed target.
Exactly, I ran a GURPS campaign where everybody was a city guard. One the tools they adopted was a max strength crossbow they called a Knight Killer. Individually it was pretty hit or miss even with a 13 or 14 skill. However with five PCs lets loose a volley at the start of the round something went down and that enough to give them the edge on some tough foes.
Quote from: David Johansen;936921One place I never feel GURPS works very well is that crossbow. Because once you dodge it, and if you have a shield and or drop, you'll probably dodge it, it takes forever to reload. Black powder firearms are in the same boat. As written, it's too easy to dodge one shot wonder weapons. Though, bear in mind, if you fail to dodge, you probably aren't getting any closer to the shooter.
I've had several hunting crossbows so my dad and I could go after deer and coyote- all three were recurves. After using them for a while, I can heartily say that they would be the last thing I would ever take adventuring- ever. All three went down the road.
Quote from: CRKrueger;937098Conan, about the time of God in the Bowl, had certainly killed a whole lot of people, fighting as a Cimmerian. He hadn't yet traveled the world, served as or commanded either Pirates or Free Companions, so while extremely dangerous he was still, as Ned Two-Trees would say, "young and full of beans". It's clear from that story, he was pretty sure he could take the guys in the house, even when he had the arbalest pointed at him - or at least kill enough to get away, relying on his speed and strength.
Right. Which HP maps well enough. Conan knows that he has a chance, not necessarily a good chance, to take someone down due to his confidence in his own speed and skill. Which is totally different story from someone just standing there and letting they guy shoot them.
Quote from: estar;937103Exactly, I ran a GURPS campaign where everybody was a city guard. One the tools they adopted was a max strength crossbow they called a Knight Killer. Individually it was pretty hit or miss even with a 13 or 14 skill. However with five PCs lets loose a volley at the start of the round something went down and that enough to give them the edge on some tough foes.
I occasionally pair a high Dexterity marksman with a high Strength loader. Those 18 ST crossbows are nasty. If they ever hit at least.
Before GURPS 4e, average dodge with no encumbrance is 5. You can hit the dirt to get that up to 8, which is well below a 50% chance, and involves you hitting the dirt, making you vulnerable and needing to spend some turns standing up.
Moreover, it seems to me that the point that the crossbow was brought up for in this thread was to show that when you have more hitpoints than a weapon can do, that you can know you won't be taken out by that weapon (barring a GM ruling that would be acknowledging that the hitpoint system can't handle some situation well). The issue is the certainty that you can't be immediately taken out, when in the real situation, there would be some chance. It applies in general to any time where the HP of some character is larger than the max possible damage from attacks - you know you aren't going to be taken out right away. If that represents rest, mental resources, luck, or something, that's a bit surreal because those things don't really get used up the way hitpoints do. But many players really hate having a risk of "getting one-shotted" and/or want to be able to manage risk of defeat as a resource that way, and/or are just used to all the piles of games that do use hitpoint systems to pad the effects of attacks. It is a clear trade-off that sacrifices some realism, though.
In GURPS, it's entirely possible that Conan, even though he's likely to shred foes left and right, might get hit by a single lucky attack and be taken out. Play is about moving and acting to minimize the risks.
Quote from: estar;937103with five PCs lets loose a volley at the start of the round something went down
And even if it didn't go down, it might suddenly recall an urgent appointment elsewhere.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;937155And even if it didn't go down, it might suddenly recall an urgent appointment elsewhere.
Like at the surgeon's.
Quote from: Skarg;937135Before GURPS 4e, average dodge with no encumbrance is 5. You can hit the dirt to get that up to 8, which is well below a 50% chance, and involves you hitting the dirt, making you vulnerable and needing to spend some turns standing up.
In earlier editions, a small shield or leather torso armor makes your dodge 7 which goes up to ten. A medium shield and mail brings your dodge up to 11 and Conan has the Strength needed to remain unencumbered doing so even with his bastard sword in one hand.
I know the flat +3 in fourth edition defenses can seem a bit high but it's less stackable than the first to third edition Passive Defense.
That being said, if you want to speed up GURPS 4e and make it deadlier, stripping that +3 is a good way to do it and probably more realistic.
Personally, I wish they'd made the all out attack with missile weapons +4 instead of +1 as that would cancel out the punitive range penalties and no dodge against bullets is much more realistic than any dodge at all. It makes getting under cover and shooting from cover the winning strategies they should be.
One of the pitfalls of realistic damage is that it can potentially go a bit too far. Too much detail or rolling. I cant think of any that go overboard. Though there must be some out there that have? (RoleMaster?)
Albedo has a realistic combat system and gets the job done in two or three rolls. I believe a few others do it in about 4-5. To me at least past 4 and it starts to feel a little tedious every round.
Last year I was playtesting a hardcore spy RPG where you roll 1D6 for damage and 6+ = you're dead. It's all about being very careful to avoid fights unless necessary. For PCs, I use the "you only live twice" rule where once per session, they can ignore a kill shot. So far, the players have enjoyed the tension and the fact that guns kill PCs, but lethality like that really limits the audience. When we playtested my other game with near zero combat realism, I got more feedback the game was "fun" by the same players even though they preferred the hardcore spy game overall.
Quote from: David Johansen;937197In earlier editions, a small shield or leather torso armor makes your dodge 7 which goes up to ten. A medium shield and mail brings your dodge up to 11 and Conan has the Strength needed to remain unencumbered doing so even with his bastard sword in one hand.
I know the flat +3 in fourth edition defenses can seem a bit high but it's less stackable than the first to third edition Passive Defense.
That being said, if you want to speed up GURPS 4e and make it deadlier, stripping that +3 is a good way to do it and probably more realistic.
Personally, I wish they'd made the all out attack with missile weapons +4 instead of +1 as that would cancel out the punitive range penalties and no dodge against bullets is much more realistic than any dodge at all. It makes getting under cover and shooting from cover the winning strategies they should be.
The GURPS I run has more 3e than 4e in it (and many house rules), and stacking PD from armor was an early target of the house rules, because you're right. The +3 in 4e seems to me an attempt to remove the stacking while retaining the basic balance, but yeah, it messes a bit with the typical balance in situations I tend to run, because many people end up with higher dodges than they used to have.
(Note though that adding heavy leather and a shield can also drop your dodge a point or two due to encumbrance, and is not likely to end up helping much or at all against a heavy crossbow since it'll likely overpenetrate (blowthrough limit) anyway.)
However, since I always also use a map, causing someone, especially a strong foe, to hit the dirt to get a +3 to dodge is often a very valuable result, since it takes the foe out of combat for a while and makes him immobile and vulnerable in several ways.
And of course, it's all not the point of this tangent of the thread, which is that there is still a decent chance of being hit and seriously injured, maimed or killed by one crossbow bolt, where that is not true in a system where a person may have several times as many hitpoints as a crossbow can possibly do in combat (unless the GM decides to ignore the hitpoint system and rule that you are drilled, but then that's not really the hitpoint system, that's the GM inventing a way of handling it that doesn't use the hitpoint system).
The way you cancel out range penalties is to aim with a weapon that has an Acc modifier. Otherwise you're trying to fire as soon as the weapon can be fired, which probably should be iffy unless you have great skill.
As for house rules, try having the dodge bonuses take into account encumbrance and/or the maneuver being used by the target. +3 may be fine for someone using Move or All Out Defense without encumbrance, but could be lowered by encumbrance and other maneuvers.
I think dodge makes decent sense against ranged attacks (even bullets) for people who are being evasive. Without dodge, someone with enough skill or accuracy can be very very sure to hit, more than reality seems to back up in situations where the target is moving unpredictably. When the target is holding still, then yes, no dodge. In a shootout between people at range sheltering behind cover, unless they see someone about to shoot at them and elect to move out of their own position, then there would be no dodge.
And yes, Conan in GURPS is very fast and powerful. I don't have a Conan book handy but it seems to me his dodge was around 9 before PD/encumbrance, but of course he still really doesn't want to risk that if he doesn't have to, so as with all characters, he's much more formidable if he moves carefully (e.g. moving so there are foes and obstacles between him and people trying to shoot him, whenever possible).
Conan also has Luck which gives a reroll once an hour. Which is good.
The thing is that realistic combat hit ratios would be very unpopular with most players. Dodge lets them have their shooting range level accuracy while reducing the actual hit ratio and survivability a bit.
But yeah, 4e makes it a bit easier to hit with ranged weapons as there's no snap shot rule (-4 if you don't aim and effective skill is below n) But it also did away with the +4 to hit a stationary target. It still, sort of exists in the form of situational modifiers but it's not written into the rules.
All told GURPS 4e is a little more cinematic but still harsh compared to many systems. I think post Heroes Unlimited Palladium is still a worst offender with its SDC and HP totals. AC in D&D is actually a pretty big factor. Even at tenth level, AC 7 Conan in a loin cloth is a lot more vulnerable than AC 2 Conan in chainmail with a shield.
Quote from: David Johansen;937259
The thing is that realistic combat hit ratios would be very unpopular with most players.
I agree. If I played a game with WWI hit averages (1 hit per 10,000 rounds fired*), I'd be a bit annoyed too. :D
*disclaimer: random statistic found by Googling and taking number from results page without actually clicking any links. Point being, real-life hit statistics are pretty low. Police jurisdictions reveal officer hit percentages ranging from 10% to 30%--maybe cops are stuck at level 1?
Quote from: Tod13;937278I agree. If I played a game with WWI hit averages (1 hit per 10,000 rounds fired*), I'd be a bit annoyed too. :D
*disclaimer: random statistic found by Googling and taking number from results page without actually clicking any links. Point being, real-life hit statistics are pretty low. Police jurisdictions reveal officer hit percentages ranging from 10% to 30%--maybe cops are stuck at level 1?
That's what I meant about the to-hit and dodge numbers making sense.
Anyone remember Trenchfoot? The World War I game where the one of the most common things your men do is slip and fall down in the mud?
Sounds good for a war game:).
Quote from: Skarg;937283That's what I meant about the to-hit and dodge numbers making sense.
Anyone remember Trenchfoot? The World War I game where the one of the most common things your men do is slip and fall down in the mud?
Hahah yeah, that one is still on my shelf. Think I still have pages of written orders for attackers, all of which would come to naught once the slip-n-slide fun began.
Level titties... even bosoms? Balanced busts? :confused: What is the most colorful descriptor? Which rolls off the tongue best? :p
Quote from: Tod13;937278I agree. If I played a game with WWI hit averages (1 hit per 10,000 rounds fired*), I'd be a bit annoyed too. :D
*disclaimer: random statistic found by Googling and taking number from results page without actually clicking any links. Point being, real-life hit statistics are pretty low. Police jurisdictions reveal officer hit percentages ranging from 10% to 30%--maybe cops are stuck at level 1?
WWI (and later wars) has a lot of suppression fire, so I'd only use 1:10000 stats if the mechanics of the game reflected that, but it is still fun to think about. A realistic WWI RPG would be horribly depressing ("You've been shot going over the line. roll 3d6 for how many hours you spend twitching a Spandau ballet on the barbed wire before dying. Now roll up a character for
Wraith: the Great War").
The 10-30% for cops is fairly well emulated in GURPS (my knowledge is still back in 3e), Hero Systems (knowledge 4th-6th ed.) and some other games in that you start with a reasonable 8-14 or less on 3d6 guns check, but almost immediately start racking up penalties for range, lighting, opponent cover, whether you are set and aiming or just pulling off a snapshot, etc.
Quote from: Opaopajr;937637Level titties... even bosoms? Balanced busts? :confused: What is the most colorful descriptor? Which rolls off the tongue best? :p
I'm partial to level titties, because advancing in levels should totally give you bigger breasts if you so desired:D!
That would explain all the fantasy armor. It fit when I bought it at first level!
I wonder if you could adapt some convoluted table system for damage onto a spreadsheet and then maybe output it to a PDF with drop downs? I have seen something similar used for character creation in either Mutants and Masterminds/Marvel Heroic though the principle should be the same. The nice thing about using a PDF in this way is that you would always get the same result depending on what data was entered, in case a player wanted to dispute it.
Quote from: David Johansen;937683That would explain all the fantasy armor. It fit when I bought it at first level!
Combining the problems with art and systems to resolve them both? I can only commend that approach;)!
Also, now I want to run a game with level titties:D!