SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

To Hit What? Best Task Task Resolution for ATTAAAAAACK!!!!

Started by tenbones, January 10, 2020, 02:13:53 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Skarg

Quote from: amacris;1118917Been there. If it's any consolation, your response still seemed thoughtful!
Thanks, it helps! :-)

I had to save this one before saving because it tried to do it to me again for this post.


Quote from: amacris;1118917I agree that this case exists, and is good. But I'd argue there also exists a Case 4 which is like Case 1 except there is a good interesting tactical game, too. The method of attack resolution and damage is orthogonal to whether there are other factors of interest.
It's orthogonal in one sense, but I think that in abstract combat systems, the hitpoint "buffer" ends up being the way players can manage to keep their characters alive through managing that, and so both in terms of that tactic, and in terms of how many players think of hitpoint representing characters' ability to dodge, parry, and do smart things to avoid being hurt, it ends up in a sense filling the need for those tactical and logical elements, whereas in a game with a detailed literal mapped tactical combat game, instead of filling those needs with hitpoints, those needs are filled partly by the tactical elements and other literally(rather than abstractly)-represented ways to avoid injury. That is, a game without other ways to avoid getting hurt needs hitpoint buffers but a game that offers other ways to avoid high chances of dying, doesn't have the same need.


Quote from: amacris;1118917There is also a Case 5, which blends Case 1 and Case 2. For instance, MERP is somewhat attritional (you have hit points) but it also permits critical hits that can maim or kill you even if you're at maximum hit points. That system would be represented [in my parlance] as:
Elite fighters frequently hit each other and slowly attrit each other, but infrequently crit and kill each other
Elite fighters frequently crit and kill weak fighters
Weak fighters sometimes hit and slow attrit strong fighters, and very rarely crit and kill strong fighters
Weak fighters frequently hit each other and slow attrit each other, and infrequently crit and kill each other.
This case 5 is essentially my preference too, and (depending on the details) what GURPS is (or can be) like.


Quote from: amacris;1118917OK. I respect your preference. As it happens, I personally think something like Case 5 is my own sweet spot for enjoyment; but my preference does not seem to be what most other people think is most fun, as they complain that games like MERP are "way too deadly" and "Aragorn shouldn't be able to get one-shotted by any orc" and so on. In my recent playtesting for ACKS Heroic Fantasy, I had to tune-down critical hits substantially because players hated the risk of their high level PCs getting slain by a nasty MERP-style crit.
Your goals for your publications and/or the people you play with would be different from my goals as a player, GM, or any game I'd want to publish.

I dislike typical attritional abstract combat systems enough that I find their popularity annoying and not a reason to want to play or publish anything like them.

I also feel that many players think they like what's familiar, and many have not experienced the types of gameplay I like, because there are so many games with styles I don't like. But I have rarely had new players actually complain about games I've run.

I also have seen many complaints by people who think TFT or GURPS is too deadly, but it seems to me just haven't experienced (play with a good GM and/or) that if you learn good tactics, use caution, bring enough people to combat, and have strong enough characters, that PC death can/does tend to be extremely rare.

And I think the Aragorn notion you mentioned is even shown to be untrue - he gets knocked off a cliff and should have died but not for a miracle, the Fellowship runs from goblins, Boromir gets taken out by a few Uruk-Hai - when Boromir gets hit by the first arrow, he's in a cinematic version of what they'd complain was a "death spiral". So if what they think they want is LOTR, I think they don't know what they're talking about.

I think such players also basically don't realize/admit it but essentially think they want plot armor or GM protection from serious permanent loss, while pretending to be playing a game and overcoming danger. I see it even with some TFT and GURPS players - many players think they want danger and to play an adventure situation, but their expectation (which they probably wouldn't admit to or express as I would) is that they get to show up and have their characters get to have cool adventures that seem dangerous but really don't require them to do anything but sit there and say they go along with the railroad plot and say they attack and don't do anything too stupid and they're guaranteed they won't die, won't lost a leg, won't have their magic items break or be stolen, will get steadily rewarded with new loot, magic and abilities, etc etc. And I very much am not interested in playing that or providing that. That is available in tens or hundreds of thousands of derivative games that seem like a terrible waste of effort and talent to me.

Ok, that was a rant. My point being that I see attritional combat as part of a pattern of typical play styles that I find very uninteresting. And that I suspect is popular largely because it's common and conventional, more than that people wouldn't enjoy other styles if they were exposed to good versions of them.


Quote from: amacris;1118917Based on my own studies of real world combat and occasional participation in fighting sports, I think that most forms of fighting between relative equals involve, in part, getting worn down slowly until you fail. One clear exception is a Wild West gunslinger's duel. Even in an unarmored sword fight where one hit can kill, both sides tend to be very cautious and deliberate - meaning fatigue and exhaustion become huge factors. In any extend gunfight, fatigue, exhaustion, fear, suppression, etc. are huge factors. Modern military doctrine is very much "use firepower to wear down the enemy until he's shellshocked and shaken, then assault him". Etc. And from time in the boxing ring and shooting range, as soon as the adrenalin wears off, you're exhausted as heck.
Yes. I just want to represent such things distinct from the representation of physical wounds.


Quote from: amacris;1118917OK, sure. I certainly don't dispute that in real life, the first side to get injured is often hugely disadvantaged. However, I think your preference here is a rare preference. Most gamers I have played with do NOT like to have penalties from injuries, most GMs don't want to have to keep track of injury penalties for mobs of NPCs, and most design theorists worry that penalties from injuries create a failure cascade where a slight advantage becomes compounded into a bigger and bigger advantage. Anecdotally, when I ran Cyberpunk 2020 (my go-to system for years), every player who could would get a Pain Editor and Adrenalin Shock/Surge Chip so that they didn't have to worry about pain penalties from wounds.
Again, what popular conventional thinking is, at most makes me sigh and not be interested in the games that follow it.

And again, there seem to be common ideas that aren't really about my experience. Countless times I've seen people comment "I don't like death spirals", but they're generally not talking about (and have never seen) the game experiences I enjoy. I also would much rather master and use a slightly more complex rule, than endure a game that's just a slow race to 0 HP. Effects of injury mean I can likely avoid being injured by injuring a foe first, and that if I get injured, I need to focus on not getting injured again until I'm not reeling and can regain an advantageous situation, and hopefully my comrades will come try to help me out. I want those to be things that happen in combat. I do not want to hack up an assailant only to have them keep attacking me with no penalty.

I remember playing Fallout 3 and being very immersed in it, carefully sneaking about and a bandit appeared right around the corner from me who I managed to shoot first, twice in their shaved unarmored head! . . . and they then proceeded to shoot me with no penalty to their action at all. And I lost interest after more demonstrations of how it was a hitpoint whittle-fest (but with realistic graphics showing ridiculous visual interpretations of hitpoint attrition combat).


Quote from: amacris;1118917My bottomline isn't to tell anyone that they game they love sucks or whatever. Simply that if you're designing a game for wide appeal, attritional combat seems to be preferred by players over non-attritional combat because they don't find whiffing fun and they don't find randomly getting whacked fun. Heck, this preference shows up not just in tabletop RPGs. It's everywhere.
- Virtually every MMO uses attritional combat - and the most popular games are hugely attritional with carefully calculated "damage over time" and so on
- Virtually every CRPG uses attritional combat - again, the most popular games are hugely attritional with carefully calculated "damage over time" and so on
- Virtually every fighting game uses attritional combat - compare the popularity of Mortal Kombat to Bushido Blade
- Even the majority of mass market FPS use attritional combat where you lose Health and get Health Packs to heal - the one exception I can think of is Counterstrike, which I personally love but which continues to stand out as the exception to the rule
Yeah, and again, I am not designing a game for that demographic of "wide appeal", and I don't equate commonness of a convention, or popularity of the games, to be a reason to do so too, nor even a real vote of preference. Most people who like games are used to these conventions and have little/no experience with other types. And even if most people really did have an essential preference for it, I don't, the people I like playing with don't, I don't see any reason to play, run or make a game I don't like, etc.

I could rant about FPS games too but I'll (mostly) spare everyone.

I will mention other examples of FPS games that aren't hitpoint whittle-fests where a submachinegun bullet does 5% damage because of how "not fun" and "unpopular" it would be if a gun combat game made it "too" possible to get shot and killed:
The Arma series
The Ghost Recon / Rainbow 6 / Rogue Spear series
The Hidden and Dangerous series
The Operation Flashpoint series
The Delta Force series
The Red Orchestra series
The SWAT series
Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix
Raven Shield
various deadliness mods and/or settings for Team Fortress 2, Unreal, Battlefront, etc.
various settings and mods that make deadly games more deadly (Red Orchestra, Arma)

amacris

Quote from: Skarg;1118982[lots of good thoughts]

Thanks for the thoughtful response. Since we've both been clear in distinguishing our personal vs perceived market-wide preferences, I fear I don't have any particular bombastic rhetoric to offer back...  

My one comment is with regards to attrition vs. non-attrition systems and tactics. I think you're right that Hit Points can be used as a buffer against the need for tactical planning. Conversely, however, I have seen many non-attritional RPGs end up having to rely on Luke Points/Fate Points/Hero Points/Bennies to get around the deadliness and basically offer a meta-attrition instead. Warhammer has its Fate Points, Cyberpunk has Luck Points, Mekton has both Luck Points and (in Zeta) Maneuver Points, Savage Worlds has Bennies, etc. The number of truly non-attritional RPGs with detailed tactical combat doesn't seem very big -- what's your go-to list? GURPS?

In any case it sounds like you enjoy realistic combat systems and have found a gaming group that does too and that's honestly about the best one can hope for in gaming, I think -- a group that enjoys what you enjoy. We're all in our own tiny niche of preference, so it's nice to find others in the same niche.

VisionStorm

Quote from: estar;1118965Or it how reality works if all one does is whack away at an opponent. Fortunately in reality people don't just stand around and whack away at each other. Positioning and maneuvers need to be incorporated to give players the same option to overcome a target defense as people do in life.


That route is good for a quick resolution. But it is an abstraction that omits various details. Which some hobbyist may feel those are important to consider. In which case the designer is on the same path as the authors of GURPS, Runequest, Riddle of Steel as to what to incorporate.

For example one common tactic melee fighter use are various forms of wrestling moves for example a body slam to knock the opponent down, or to trip your opponent. There are moves to pin your opponent's weapon so you can use a second weapon to attack. Things that are not countered just by a shield block, parry, or dodge.

For example in GURPS one has the option to feint with your dex and weapon skill, or do a beat with your strength and weapon skill, or to perform a ruse with your IQ and weapon skill. The end result is the same, the opponent is now out of position causing their defense to be reduced.

Or you could try for a a body slam which can be defended against but counts as a heavy weapon which makes blocks and parries less effective.

Like in life, the combat mechanics of GURPS allow you tailor your tactics to the situation and specific abilities of the character. GURPS expects players to treat combat more than just opponents whacking away at each other on a static battlefield.

I'm not sure this mechanic accurately illustrates the way things actually work in real life. From what you tell me these parry attempts don't even seem to take opponent skill or the quality of the blow into account, so that a character would have the same chances to parry a poorly skilled fighter's attack as they would a highly skilled fighter or a well-placed blow. But in my experience from sparring matches and training martial arts, opponent skill and attack placement does matter. Granted, a lot of sparring matches are a bunch of blocks compared to how things handle in RPGs that use AC or simple opposed rolls, but those people aren't trying to kill each other. If you see a UFC match, however, where fights are all out like they're trying to kill each other, and a LOT more attacks connect--there's way less blocking and much more "OMG! Did you see that guy's teeth fly across the fighting mat? Jesus Christ!"

There is also a lot of movement and positioning in a real life fight going on that are highly situational and impossible to illustrate in terms of the game rules beyond just fighting skill--the more skilled you are the better you are at positioning yourself in a way that could maximize the effectiveness of your blow. But all of that is thrown away if you can just parry an attack with zero regards for opponent skill. And you don't need block-heavy combat mechanics to include special maneuvers, like trips and feints, in the game. Almost all games include that regardless of how combat mechanics work.

VisionStorm

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1118963Not at all. If none of your damage gets through, the fact that it would triple if it did isn't of much use. Sword edges and even glaive edges are almost useless against plate (and some monsters) and not great against mail but you can cut up unarmored peasants and hobgoblins in no time.

IDK, I guess it depends on how much damage attacks do or armor mitigates. It just seems to me that if an attack does triple damage it would be able to overcome armor even if that armor is 50% higher against that type of attack, since the extra damage would be higher than the extra armor. But again, that would depend on how much damage we' talking about beyond just percentages.

Chris24601

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119048IDK, I guess it depends on how much damage attacks do or armor mitigates. It just seems to me that if an attack does triple damage it would be able to overcome armor even if that armor is 50% higher against that type of attack, since the extra damage would be higher than the extra armor. But again, that would depend on how much damage we' talking about beyond just percentages.
I get what WillInNewHaven is getting at. It's basically because humans in armor are not homogeneously dense/hard and different materials respond to different forces differently.

Traditionally slicing attacks are excellent against flesh, lousy against metal. Piercing attacks are better at punching through armor, but don't cut flesh open nearly so much (incidentally one reason for wearing certain fabrics under armor was because arrows didn't pierce it after penetrating the armor, they pushed a generally sanitary piece of cloth into the wound; reducing blood loss and risk of infection).

There are two ways to model this.

One way to model this is to use the same damage for everything (say 2d6+5), but assign different DRs to different attacks (say DR 5 vs. piercing, DR 15 vs. slashing). The issue with this though is that it fails to account for the fact that, even when it does penetrate the piercing attack creates less wound trauma than the slash would... it's just universally the better weapon to use against that target.

The more accurate way to model it is with a single DR (say 10) and the multiplying the damage by its type AFTER seeing how much the armor stopped (say 1x for piercing, 3x for slashing). Let's say you have a piercing attack that does 15 damage and a slashing one that does 12. The piercing attack does 5 damage (15-10=5), but the slashing one does 6 (12-10=2x3=6).

But against DR 11, the piercing attack does 4, and the slashing attack does just 3 and against DR 12, the piercing attack is still doing 3, but the slashing attack is blocked entirely. And the poor unarmored sod takes 15 from the piercing attack and a whopping 36 from the slashing attack.

Basically it's an attempt to more precisely model the difference between weapon types and how armor interacts with them.

One could go even more precise, assign the weapon three different damage values based on how they deliver damage (a swung sword is primarily cutting, but there's some bashing and even a little piercing at part of connecting with the target) and give the armor different DRs against each damage type and then multiply the results of what makes it through by the damage type. Then you could throw in hit locations to further differentiate the damage dealt AND track the cost in fatigue to both the attacker and defender from the action.

But something that complex is really only useful when you've got a computer to do the calculations for you. Since we're in the realm of table-tops and dice, a level of abstraction well below such detail is required to keep the game from getting bogged down to the point of being unplayable.

tenbones

Just wanted to say - I'm loving this discussion. I'm really chewing on all these posts in consideration. I've already changed my thinking on several things I hadn't even considered. But keep it rolling. There is a lot of good stuff here even beyond my current design needs. I think it's good simply for the sausage-making  for anyone else out there GMing or building their own mousetrap.

Skarg

Quote from: VisionStorm;1119047I'm not sure this mechanic accurately illustrates the way things actually work in real life. From what you tell me these parry attempts don't even seem to take opponent skill or the quality of the blow into account, so that a character would have the same chances to parry a poorly skilled fighter's attack as they would a highly skilled fighter or a well-placed blow. But in my experience from sparring matches and training martial arts, opponent skill and attack placement does matter. Granted, a lot of sparring matches are a bunch of blocks compared to how things handle in RPGs that use AC or simple opposed rolls, but those people aren't trying to kill each other. If you see a UFC match, however, where fights are all out like they're trying to kill each other, and a LOT more attacks connect--there's way less blocking and much more "OMG! Did you see that guy's teeth fly across the fighting mat? Jesus Christ!"

There is also a lot of movement and positioning in a real life fight going on that are highly situational and impossible to illustrate in terms of the game rules beyond just fighting skill--the more skilled you are the better you are at positioning yourself in a way that could maximize the effectiveness of your blow. But all of that is thrown away if you can just parry an attack with zero regards for opponent skill. And you don't need block-heavy combat mechanics to include special maneuvers, like trips and feints, in the game. Almost all games include that regardless of how combat mechanics work.
In GURPS, a generic attack with no preparation can be defended with the usual active defense skill level, unless the attacker manages a critical hit, the odds of which go up with high skill (i.e. either a very low 3d6 roll, or make your skill roll by 10, up to a point).

However, there are several ways to make a more skillful attack that can reduce enemy defenses. One is to do a Deceptive attack, where you use some of your skill to reduce your opponent's defense all in one attack move. Another is to spend one or more turns Evaluating, waiting for a good opening, which increases your effective skill for your next attack the more you do it, up to a point. Another is to Feint, which is a contest of skills which if you win, reduces your foe's defense by the amount you made it. Rapid Attack, if you can pull it off (or allies helping you out by attacking the same foe) can also reduce/consume the foe's defenses. There are various other techniques as well in GURPS Martial Arts, for people who want more detail.

But players who are new to the game or who don't think about it much may end up just doing simple Step and Attack repeatedly, which against a skilled foe can tend to mean they're likely to have their attacks avoided a lot, and some players may decide GURPS is just like that before they learn otherwise.

Skarg

Quote from: amacris;1119019Thanks for the thoughtful response. Since we've both been clear in distinguishing our personal vs perceived market-wide preferences, I fear I don't have any particular bombastic rhetoric to offer back...  

My one comment is with regards to attrition vs. non-attrition systems and tactics. I think you're right that Hit Points can be used as a buffer against the need for tactical planning. Conversely, however, I have seen many non-attritional RPGs end up having to rely on Luke Points/Fate Points/Hero Points/Bennies to get around the deadliness and basically offer a meta-attrition instead. Warhammer has its Fate Points, Cyberpunk has Luck Points, Mekton has both Luck Points and (in Zeta) Maneuver Points, Savage Worlds has Bennies, etc. The number of truly non-attritional RPGs with detailed tactical combat doesn't seem very big -- what's your go-to list? GURPS?

In any case it sounds like you enjoy realistic combat systems and have found a gaming group that does too and that's honestly about the best one can hope for in gaming, I think -- a group that enjoys what you enjoy. We're all in our own tiny niche of preference, so it's nice to find others in the same niche.
Yes, I've had very compatible people to play/with, and pretty good radar for avoiding players and games I'm not going to enjoy playing with. I also tend to GM a lot, and seem to be able to translate for new players well enough that they don't tend to have issues with the style.

I agree that there are few non-attritional RPGs with detailed tactical combat. My "go-to" games are GURPS and The Fantasy Trip. There are (or in most cases I know of, were) some others I don't like as much in the details, though, such as the Dark City Games TFT spin-offs for fantasy, wild west, and sci fi games, the non-superhero HERO games (e.g. Danger International), Avalon Hill's James Bond RPG, Task Force Games' Delta Force, the infamously overly-complex Phoenix Command.

trechriron

Quote from: estar;1118716Harnmaster ...
What version is this? (just curious)

Quote from: Toadmaster;1118943I voted #5 as I don't think HERO really fits ...

I personally consider it #3 (basically a roll vs. an opponents TN) but it could be #1 because DCV/DMCV are essentially AC with different names...
Trentin C Bergeron (trechriron)
Bard, Creative & RPG Enthusiast

----------------------------------------------------------------------
D.O.N.G. Black-Belt (Thanks tenbones!)

trechriron

To contribute...

I find opposed rolls to be tedious. It just makes combat take too long. I really like the AC/TN approach to streamline things. Also, in practice I find my players are not super tactical, nor do they maneuver around much. Games like Mythras or AGE my players often don't choose stunts, etc. I personally love these kinds of options, but I think most players don't invest the time to learn a system at that depth. So generally speed/ease-of-play tends to win out in the majority of the people I play with.
Trentin C Bergeron (trechriron)
Bard, Creative & RPG Enthusiast

----------------------------------------------------------------------
D.O.N.G. Black-Belt (Thanks tenbones!)

tenbones

Quote from: trechriron;1119068To contribute...

I find opposed rolls to be tedious. It just makes combat take too long. I really like the AC/TN approach to streamline things. Also, in practice I find my players are not super tactical, nor do they maneuver around much. Games like Mythras or AGE my players often don't choose stunts, etc. I personally love these kinds of options, but I think most players don't invest the time to learn a system at that depth. So generally speed/ease-of-play tends to win out in the majority of the people I play with.

That is my experience too. I suspect that it comes from the mentality of "If I have to be creative and it's not giving me an express bonus to do I'm not going to do it".

This is true of the stunt-system in Talislanta where it says essentially "Tell the GM the stunt you wanna do - he'll tell you the penalty and effect if you succeed." They don't even bother. In my current game I'm outlining specific things they can DO with mechanical benefits to skills and combat, and it's definitely helped.

Skarg

TFT (and original GURPS) started with games that were ONLY the ancient/medieval combat system, and creating characters for it with only combat-relevant stats and equipment.

The next products for TFT and GURPS were Death Test and Orcslayer, both solo-able adventures that are mainly a context for a series of tactical battles which will be challenging or difficult for new players who have not learned tactics yet, but will be much easier for characters who have. Players in them will tend to learn by dying in some or even many cases. If the GM doesn't at least make it clear that using bad tactics can and will lead to death and dismemberment or weeks resting up wounds, the players may not get how there's a game of survival that they can/should do something with. Of course one should tell the players the expectation is they may likely die, and that that's expected and fine and part of the fun of these games.

These are fun games by themselves, great for teaching the game, and for teaching/learning the value of tactics, what works and what does not, in what situations.

Similar can be done in an RPG campaign either by running arena or practice/training combats or by having situations in an RPG campaign where there are distinct situations where it's fairly clear that the outcome is being driven by the situation and what people do about it.

Another technique is to have a PC or NPC character who knows tactics giving them tips and/or orders, and/or teaching by example.

Steven Mitchell

When I GM, there are two conflicting things (relevant to this discussion) that I want the system to do:

A. Handle large numbers of players, allies, and foes with as little handling time as possible (considering mechanics but also the communication flow, initiative, etc.).
B. Provide many different options for player choices that map to something they can visualize their characters doing in the game world and that provide the players chances to make real choices with a lot of back and forth between players and GM.

You could say I don't really care for "Armor Class" and "Hit Points", but I very much do like how well they work.

For the longest time, I tried to split the difference (by house ruling Hero System or GURPS, for example). This tactic works for some time, but ultimately wears me out trying to juggle it.  Plus the necessary compromises gradually become less than satisfactory.  The longer I go with the compromises, the more difficult it is to ignore them.  Learning a more complex system really well (even when the players do too), doesn't solve Issue A sufficiently to satisfy me.  For example, you can get to where 5 or 6 players can rip a Hero battle along pretty darn quick, but it inherently doesn't scale well in numbers of characters involved once you go much over that (especially not away from Champions, where the foes could easily outnumber the characters 2 or 3 to 1).  

This is also why D&D 3.*/PF are easily the version of D&D I dislike the most (with 4E sort of irrelevant to the point).  Piling a bunch of options on D&D to provide more customization is another big chunk of compromises, and makes the underlying system more difficult to tweak in ways that I want.

I finally realized that our groups were better off addressing those needs in different systems.  A good version of D&D (or something that works more or less like it), runs well in satisfying Issue A.  Then when I'm doing my own design or house rules, that lets me pursue something like opposed rolls and other complications separately, not worrying about scaling.  Or rather, I do worry about scaling, because I'm just built that way.  But at least when I'm explicitly designing to satisfy Issue B, the compromises can make the scaling secondary to the primary aims.  

Thus all my design is very much not like D&D, not because I dislike D&D but because I'm fine with D&D the way it is, and want other things that aren't so available for a change of pace.

VisionStorm

Quote from: Chris24601;1119054I get what WillInNewHaven is getting at. It's basically because humans in armor are not homogeneously dense/hard and different materials respond to different forces differently.

Traditionally slicing attacks are excellent against flesh, lousy against metal. Piercing attacks are better at punching through armor, but don't cut flesh open nearly so much (incidentally one reason for wearing certain fabrics under armor was because arrows didn't pierce it after penetrating the armor, they pushed a generally sanitary piece of cloth into the wound; reducing blood loss and risk of infection).

I know this part, I just have my doubts that multiplying slashing damage x3 wouldn't undermine the mechanic by making the damage so high it would ignore armor being "better" against slashing attacks and still inflict more damage, unless the damage is completely random and rolls really low.

Quote from: Chris24601;1119054There are two ways to model this.

One way to model this is to use the same damage for everything (say 2d6+5), but assign different DRs to different attacks (say DR 5 vs. piercing, DR 15 vs. slashing). The issue with this though is that it fails to account for the fact that, even when it does penetrate the piercing attack creates less wound trauma than the slash would... it's just universally the better weapon to use against that target.

That's not necessarily the case. Piercing attacks only need to pierce through over an inch of flesh to potentially kill a someone. You don't need to hack someone apart to kill them, you just need to cut deep enough. And piercing weapons are way better at doing that than slashing weapons, especially against an armored opponent. A slashing weapon would rarely cut through a plate armor more than a piercing weapon would be able to pierce deep through it. The plate would get in the way of the blade continuing to slice through, even if the blade manages to punch through a portion, but it won't be able to stop a piercing attack once it already broke through cuz the piercing attack doesn't need extra room to cut--it just needs a hole to dig through.

Quote from: Chris24601;1119054The more accurate way to model it is with a single DR (say 10) and the multiplying the damage by its type AFTER seeing how much the armor stopped (say 1x for piercing, 3x for slashing). Let's say you have a piercing attack that does 15 damage and a slashing one that does 12. The piercing attack does 5 damage (15-10=5), but the slashing one does 6 (12-10=2x3=6).

But against DR 11, the piercing attack does 4, and the slashing attack does just 3 and against DR 12, the piercing attack is still doing 3, but the slashing attack is blocked entirely. And the poor unarmored sod takes 15 from the piercing attack and a whopping 36 from the slashing attack.

A lot of this assumes that slashing weapons are better at cutting through armor than they really are, as I explained above. And piercing damage would be minimal even on the rare instances it manages to make somewhat more damage than slashing attacks. When in reality piercing weapons are some of the most effective weapons against armor, especially if they're strong enough to punch through.

Quote from: Chris24601;1119054Basically it's an attempt to more precisely model the difference between weapon types and how armor interacts with them.

One could go even more precise, assign the weapon three different damage values based on how they deliver damage (a swung sword is primarily cutting, but there's some bashing and even a little piercing at part of connecting with the target) and give the armor different DRs against each damage type and then multiply the results of what makes it through by the damage type. Then you could throw in hit locations to further differentiate the damage dealt AND track the cost in fatigue to both the attacker and defender from the action.

But something that complex is really only useful when you've got a computer to do the calculations for you. Since we're in the realm of table-tops and dice, a level of abstraction well below such detail is required to keep the game from getting bogged down to the point of being unplayable.

Yeah, I have my doubts about overly complex systems. I like to have some degree of simulation, but tend to rather compromise with an abstract rule that's "close enough" than drag play too much with complicated mechanics. If I add Weapon vs Armor rules to my game I'm probably making them optional rules that can be modularly added or ignored based on group preference, and I'm probably simplifying them as well, as I mentioned in the post WillInNewHaven was replying to.

  • Slashing: +50% to DR.
  • Armor Piercing: -50% to DR.
  • Everything Else: Unmodified DR.

Steven Mitchell

I'll just note in passing in regards to piercing versus slashing that "kill the enemy" is not the goal.  Get the enemy to quit or be unable to fight any longer is the goal.  Certainly, killing them is one way to do that.  But piercing having a higher kill rate (or quicker kill rate or however you want to work it, assuming even that is true), isn't desirable in and off itself if the slashing has a distinct advantage on removing enemies from the fight.  

Of course, that says nothing one way or the other about the proper way to model it.  Though I do think once you get into that level of detail about the modeling, such concerns are perhaps appropriate to what the model is attempting overall.