The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: psychoticbarberQuick overview of the system for Damage used by the Hero System: [...]

Interesting. But alas, it has the same flaws as HP. Punching someone repeatedly in the face is piling up penalties as if the person was shot right in the chest with a shotgun. There is no difference to the system if someone was shot with a large-caliber rifle, or punched half a dozen times in the face and got stabbed in the leg.

Well, true gritty realism is possible under the system too, but personally I find tracking those kinds of things boring and time-consuming, not to mention my own particular love of heroism over realism ;)

Quote from: Stargate525That's ridiculous.

That's like saying you died from a shot to the arm, and nevermind the other six shots you've taken.

Your point of view is equally ridiculous. You basically say that punching someone 5 times in the face is equally lethal than stabbing him in the guts, or shooting him in the chest. Wow, it's really a wonder that bar brawls don't turn into slaughterfests repeatedly.  :roll:

HEY!!

Neither one of you is ridiculous.  You're both trying to hammer out a better system.
(I hate coming over to this thread.  It's the only thread as confusing as that idiotic Celtricia mish-mash...)

I think the stun and body system is good, except that the affect of shock, concussive repetition, and punch-drunkenness are not taken into account enough.  The issue you both have is you are both taking an extreme position in your 'how does 2 broken legs affect a slug to the chest' example.  
And the reasopn you are both having a problem is you are looking for 'what affect is going to happen' as opposed to 'what affect could happen'.

What I mean by this is that people do die from getting punched in the face too much.  But people do survive being shot in the chest as well.  The comment was made that a guy with a broken leg has the same chance to survive a gunshot to the chest as an uninjured person, and the rejoinder was a question about the affects of shock.  
So your system is fine as long as you set up some kind of a fortitude save and penalty for becoming disconcerted, punch-drunk, or slipping into shock.  This might even allow you to reduce the bonuses to HP (and get a slightly more realistic game) as someone fortitude will affect how they handle a wound as wellas how many wounds they can take.

what if we take the stun and body setup, but put in a save whose Dc increases for each successive wound?

that's on the right path, i think.

i have a question to adress us all with: If someone goes into shock, how will that be dealt with, and how do we determine if someone goes into shock?(i know we already talked a tad about shock, but we didnt go into detail)

The "problem" is, how realistic do we want the system to be? Do we want a system where every attack bears the (although by armor and personal toughness probably highly reduced) risk of being lethal, or do we want a system where a character needs to be shot three times in the torso to finally die?

I know that people can die from seemingly innocent injuries and others survive horrible wounds. But that's just the point: the guy who dies from a punch to the face suffered a critical wound and failed his resistance check, while a guy that survived a gun shot wound in the chest "only" suffered a serious wound (or a cricial wound and made his check). That's the very reason why I absolutely abhor hit-location systems. In 99.999% of those systems, hits to the arms or legs are always more or less harmless, while hits on the head and center torso are usually always lethal. Regarding this assumption, I'll just point to this. It always matters what is damaged, not where the attack lands.

Also, I think we have 2 incompatible stances regarding the actual application of damage. I personally prefer "grim'n'gritty" systems where - very similar to real life - [unarmored and untrained] people die when the lead starts flying, and injuries are to be taken seriously, putting a character out of business for possibly weeks or months. Remember my example with my wizard and the orc some time ago? How in all hells would you roleplay a generally dangerous situation where you exactly know that your character cannot die in one round because he has X amount of HP? Of course HP are a very easy mechanic, but it sacrifices almost anything of realism, elegance, and reliability. I just find it hard to keep suspension of disbelief when that dragon's been chewing on the fighter for 3 rounds, while being able to break a tank in two with just a single bite. Luck and combat experience only goes so far, and HP past level 10 push it too far.

I'm not saying that the Body/Stun system is bad. Actually, I find it much better than standard HP (less points to wade through, each physical attack also deals stun damage, reliable way to deal nonlethal damage). But it still is unrealistic, and has the "no worries, I can take another wound like that and it'll be gone by friday" problem (from what I've read so far).

Also, every HP system I know has the inconsistency regarding damage. How would you describe a level 1 wizard with Con 10 getting hit for 20 damage? How would you describe a level 20 barbarian with Con 28 getting hit for 20 damage? See my point? Blows with exactly the same force/intensity are treated in multiple different ways, which is imho very inelegant and inconsistant.

Anyways, I retain my stance that a non-HP mechanic would be better for the system. It actually encourages more thinking on the players' part as they can't assume that their XYZ HP will get threm through every battle, it will encourage more realistic actions because combat is dangerous even to hardened veterans (come on, a level 20 paladin or barbarian could eliminate whole goblin tribes by himself!), and it will be easier to understand for new players as they know from real life that knifes/guns/grenades are fucking dangerous (and not just "what does '5 damage' mean?").

Okay, this looks less and less like an hp problem than it looks like a DAMAGE problem.

Let's give everyone 100 hitpoints. That's it. Now, if we scale the damage of the different weapons to this system, a 5hp wound is the same across the board. What the difference is is how much damage you do at a particular level, and how that damage is reduced via defense, dodging, and similar.

Quote from: Stargate525Okay, this looks less and less like an hp problem than it looks like a DAMAGE problem.

Let's give everyone 100 hitpoints. That's it. Now, if we scale the damage of the different weapons to this system, a 5hp wound is the same across the board. What the difference is is how much damage you do at a particular level, and how that damage is reduced via defense, dodging, and similar.

Sounds like the 8-stat system I'm working on. All peoples have 20hp, and if you loose it, you are out of the fight. 20 luck damage means you fall into an open sewer, 20 stabbing damage means you got stabbed in the face, and 20 fire damage means you're dinner. A mix of fire, stabbing and luck damage means that you've lost blood enough blood and accumulated enough trauma from burns that a simply tripping on your belt buckle knocks you out of the fight.

Quote from: Stargate525Okay, this looks less and less like an hp problem than it looks like a DAMAGE problem.

Let's give everyone 100 hitpoints. That's it. Now, if we scale the damage of the different weapons to this system, a 5hp wound is the same across the board. What the difference is is how much damage you do at a particular level, and how that damage is reduced via defense, dodging, and similar.

However, this throws the problem that everyone can take exactly the same amount of damage before going down - from the barely visible mosquito to the commoner to the dire hog to the ogre to the great red wyrm. It's basically what Shadowrun did in its early (pre 4e) versions, and that was the source of quite some heated debates. Also, you'd have to make attacks deal an insane amount of base damage (30++). If you didn't you wouldn't actually solve anything but give every character the HP of a level 10 barbarian.

The problem is actually quite easy to identify, and I already gave my analysis about it in the "Hit Points and Verisimilitude: How important?" thread. The problem mainly occurs when characters can take a fixed, static, predefined amount of damage before going down. It makes combat calculatable (is that even a word?). In such systems, damage is not static. A wound of a given intensity (amount of damage) has not the same consequences for different characters ("20 damage vs level 1 wizard, 20 damage vs level 20 barbarian"). This is the central point. If you think about it, the wound form a large caliber handgun is equally dangerous for the trained US marine as it is to the frail dancer.

To make a system remotely realistic, you'd have to change it around: damage is fixed and static, while the amount of injuries a character can take is morphic and variable. A blow dealing 8 points of damage should (ideally) be equally important to a level 1 character as to a level 20 character. That'd be the first big step. The second step would be to avoid "wound stacking". The system would have to track each wound seperately. The argument that it would become too complicated is a non-issue, as a few wounds would be sufficient to put most characters out of comission anyways.

So, what should the ideal system look like? First, damage should be static while a PC's actual damage capacity is unpredictable and variable. A player should never be able to say "oh, that's nothing, I can take three more of those wounds without problems". Second, wounds should not stack. No WoD/Exalted like wound track, where punching a guy 7 times in the face hard is equal to running him through with a sword. No DnD like HP mechanic, where blows are actually utterly irrelevant until you get dropped to below 0. Third, damage should be abstract, therefore no hit location mechanic. As said earlier, it's important what gets damaged, not where the blow lands. A hit location system not only cuts into the DM's freedom of description, but also almost always makes blows to the head instantly lethal.

As a final note, the system suggested by Stargate has the same "ironman" problem he critized with my own previously made suggestion. There will be some kind of combination of armor, feats, ability scores, etc that makes a character basically immune to any attacks with a damage of X points or less. However, I think I have an idea to solve that. If I may forward you to my ideas for the Tri20 system. Skills work quite differently there, and a similar mechanic could be used for damage. Each check results in an "action value" ("check result - 10" for skill checks, "check result" for attribute checks). Now, if damage had also an "action value" and that value determined the wound intensity there possibly could be a way to make it work. *too tired to think right now* Hmmm....

Quote from: Ra-TielHowever, this throws the problem that everyone can take exactly the same amount of damage before going down - from the barely visible mosquito to the commoner to the dire hog to the ogre to the great red wyrm. It's basically what Shadowrun did in its early (pre 4e) versions, and that was the source of quite some heated debates. Also, you'd have to make attacks deal an insane amount of base damage (30++). If you didn't you wouldn't actually solve anything but give every character the HP of a level 10 barbarian.

Er, no. Using your example, let's say Bob the commoner hits each of your critters with a hammer.

The mosquito will take some exorbitant amount of damage (probably in the mid-hundreds) and die, because he's itsy bitsy and has nothing to him.

The Commoner might take 30-50 damage, a serious abrasion, maybe a cracked bone.

The hog would be 20-30, the ogre lower than 20, and the dragon probably nothing (because I'm sorry, a HAMMER won't do squat against him).  

You're too close to D&D. The 'hitpoints of a level 10 barbarian' means nothing here. Everyone has 100 hitpoints. Size becomes a much bigger factor, as does armor. Your level  20 barbarian might be harder to hit, but unless he has magic or similar, he'll still be taken down by a sword thrust to the gut if he has no armor.

As it looks right now, weapons in this system will probably have a multiplier, and the character would use their strength or similar.

The thing you're missing is that these 'hitpoints' are not denoting the same amount of 'life' (for lack of a better word) in every creature. It's simply 1/100th of the punishment you can take before dying.  

Quote from: Ra-TielThe problem mainly occurs when characters can take a fixed, static, predefined amount of damage before going down. It makes combat calculatable (is that even a word?). In such systems, damage is not static.

And again, if you're using numbers in your health system, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TELL WHEN YOU ARE AT HALF HEALTH.

Quote from: Ra-TielA wound of a given intensity (amount of damage) has not the same consequences for different characters ("20 damage vs level 1 wizard, 20 damage vs level 20 barbarian"). This is the central point. If you think about it, the wound form a large caliber handgun is equally dangerous for the trained US marine as it is to the frail dancer.

Your wrong, the damage is static, the HITPOINTS are not.

The problem is your hitpoints (ability to take damage) scales up. My system doesn't do that.

Quote from: Ra-TielTo make a system remotely realistic, you'd have to change it around: damage is fixed and static, while the amount of injuries a character can take is morphic and variable. A blow dealing 8 points of damage should (ideally) be equally important to a level 1 character as to a level 20 character.

Hey look, when everyone has 100 hitpoints, 8 damage shows the same relative injury ACROSS THE BOARD.

Quote from: Ra-TielThat'd be the first big step. The second step would be to avoid "wound stacking". The system would have to track each wound separately. The argument that it would become too complicated is a non-issue, as a few wounds would be sufficient to put most characters out of comission anyways.

Bull. Your great Wyrm dragon will die from the bloodloss of a hundred rapier stabs (100 injuries dealing 1 damage) as it will from the massive concussion of 2 huge ballista bolts (2 wounds dealing 50 damage). You still have to track each of those separately.

The nice thing about my system is, that if you're still hellbent on tracking each one individually, you can assign specific damage thresholds, both for health remaining and damage taken in a swing, and they'll apply correctly to every creature that uses the system.

Quote from: Ra-TielSo, what should the ideal system look like? First, damage should be static while a PC's actual damage capacity is unpredictable and variable. A player should never be able to say "oh, that's nothing, I can take three more of those wounds without problems".

But don't you do that all the time in real life? Just the other day I got hit by a baseball. I knew I could take three more without problems. Why can't the PCs do the same? And if the character's ability to take damage is variable, you're saying he could be hit with five gunshots and live, while taking one in a few months and dying? How is that static damage? It was the same gunshots!

Quote from: Ra-TielSecond, wounds should not stack. No WoD/Exalted like wound track, where punching a guy 7 times in the face hard is equal to running him through with a sword.

With damage thresholds and damage penaties, as touched upon above, this won't be a problem. You do agree though, that two sword-stabbings of equal damage should stack, correct? Else I wish you best of luck in this.

Quote from: Ra-TielNo DnD like HP mechanic, where blows are actually utterly irrelevant until you get dropped to below 0.

Again, damage thresholds will cover general 'beaten up,' and specific wound penalties will cover the massive lung collapse.

Quote from: Ra-TielThird, damage should be abstract, therefore no hit location mechanic. As said earlier, it's important what gets damaged, not where the blow lands. A hit location system not only cuts into the DM's freedom of description, but also almost always makes blows to the head instantly lethal.

Agreed.

Quote from: Ra-TielAs a final note, the system suggested by Stargate has the same "ironman" problem he critized with my own previously made suggestion. There will be some kind of combination of armor, feats, ability scores, etc that makes a character basically immune to any attacks with a damage of X points or less.

Which is true in any system. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. If I'm a dragon, clad in full plate, with scales of iron underneath that and the magical ability to regenerate small wounds, I should not, will not, or realistically be taking damage measured in 1/100ths of my total from the guy trying to kill me with a hammer.

Quote from: Ra-TielHowever, I think I have an idea to solve that. If I may forward you to my ideas for the Tri20 system. Skills work quite differently there, and a similar mechanic could be used for damage. Each check results in an "action value" ("check result - 10" for skill checks, "check result" for attribute checks). Now, if damage had also an "action value" and that value determined the wound intensity there possibly could be a way to make it work. *too tired to think right now* Hmmm....

Confused. Post with examples, then I'll proceed to tear it apart.

Quote from: Stargate525Er, no. Using your example, let's say Bob the commoner hits each of your critters with a hammer.

The mosquito will take some exorbitant amount of damage (probably in the mid-hundreds) and die, because he's itsy bitsy and has nothing to him.

The Commoner might take 30-50 damage, a serious abrasion, maybe a cracked bone.

The hog would be 20-30, the ogre lower than 20, and the dragon probably nothing (because I'm sorry, a HAMMER won't do squat against him).  

You're too close to D&D. The 'hitpoints of a level 10 barbarian' means nothing here. Everyone has 100 hitpoints. Size becomes a much bigger factor, as does armor. Your level  20 barbarian might be harder to hit, but unless he has magic or similar, he'll still be taken down by a sword thrust to the gut if he has no armor.

As it looks right now, weapons in this system will probably have a multiplier, and the character would use their strength or similar.

The thing you're missing is that these 'hitpoints' are not denoting the same amount of 'life' (for lack of a better word) in every creature. It's simply 1/100th of the punishment you can take before dying.

You didn't mention anything of a multiplier in your last post. You just said that everyone had the same 100HP.

Quote from: Stargate525And again, if you're using numbers in your health system, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TELL WHEN YOU ARE AT HALF HEALTH.

NO! In my system a character can take an undefined number of wounds. He only dies when he suffers a critical wound and fails his Toughness/Resistance/Health/whateveryouwanttocallit check. Other than that, he can keep on taking wounds until he's put out of the action by an impossibly large wound penalty. In my system numbers would only be used to represent a character's resistance and make it possible to calculate his ability to withstand wounds. Now, last time I checked, one-half of "undefined" was still "undefined". ;)

Quote from: Stargate525Your wrong, the damage is static, the HITPOINTS are not.

The problem is your hitpoints (ability to take damage) scales up. My system doesn't do that.

So, does you rolling 20 points of damage for your attack mean the same thing for every possible target? Or is it possible that the

Quote from: Stargate525Hey look, when everyone has 100 hitpoints, 8 damage shows the same relative injury ACROSS THE BOARD.

Didn't you just speak of a damage multiplier based on size or something above? This makes damage again flexible, as a fly will finally take a different amount of damage as an ogre, which in turn takes us back to the old problem. Running a person through with a sword kills him (eg 100 damage), while running an ogre through with a sword only hurts him (eg 50 damage). You're confusing what I'm talking about. I'm NOT talking about the wound the character takes, but rather about the intensity of the attack, the wound the attack WOULD inflict.

Quote from: Stargate525Bull. Your great Wyrm dragon will die from the bloodloss of a hundred rapier stabs (100 injuries dealing 1 damage) as it will from the massive concussion of 2 huge ballista bolts (2 wounds dealing 50 damage). You still have to track each of those separately.

Huh? First you say a hammer won't do squat against a dragon, now you make him die from some rapier pokes. Now, what is it? Setting the poison aside for a moment, do you die from 100 bee stings? Or from 100 ant bites? Sure, it hurts alot, and you probably would not want to touch the skin there, but it's NOT a lifethreatening injury. Each is a minor inconvenience at most, but the pain and distractions do sum up and make it a bad thing to want to try.

Quote from: Stargate525The nice thing about my system is, that if you're still hellbent on tracking each one individually, you can assign specific damage thresholds, both for health remaining and damage taken in a swing, and they'll apply correctly to every creature that uses the system.

That would mean
# tracking damage in numbers
# calculating damage with arbitrary size multipliers
# constant comparison against wound tresholds
# and finally constant considering of your penalties

Quote from: Stargate525But don't you do that all the time in real life? Just the other day I got hit by a baseball. I knew I could take three more without problems. Why can't the PCs do the same? And if the character's ability to take damage is variable, you're saying he could be hit with five gunshots and live, while taking one in a few months and dying? How is that static damage? It was the same gunshots!

Ok, let's try something. I'll take my pathfinder knife (solid 12cm blade), and stab you in the leg. Now, can you tell me how much more I have to do that until you die? How much more I must run a 6" solid steel blade into your thigh before, perhaps, cutting the main artery and inflict a lethal wound on you? How often would I have to stab you in the guts? In the chest? Can you tell me? If not, your argument is mood. ;)

Quote from: Stargate525With damage thresholds and damage penaties, as touched upon above, this won't be a problem. You do agree though, that two sword-stabbings of equal damage should stack, correct? Else I wish you best of luck in this.

This is another problem. Just because two attacks inflict the same amount of damage does not mean they inflict the same actual wound. Say, if one attack dealing 50 damage means a broken hip bone, do ALL attacks dealing 50 damage mean a broken hip bone? If not, then a character is suddenly dead because he suffered two NON-CONNECTED serious wounds to two different organs or extremities. So, you said earlier that 30-50 damage would mean a broken bone. Now, an adult's body has some 180 bones to break, and only a few broken bones are actually possibly lethal injuries by themselves (hip, upper thigh, spine, skull)...

Quote from: Stargate525Again, damage thresholds will cover general 'beaten up,' and specific wound penalties will cover the massive lung collapse.

But if you track damage with thresholds and wound penalties anyway, why would you need to have HP/body points/etc at all? In the end, it doesn't matter how much damage you've taken, but what injuries you suffered.

Quote from: Stargate525Which is true in any system. I'm sorry, but that's how it is. If I'm a dragon, clad in full plate, with scales of iron underneath that and the magical ability to regenerate small wounds, I should not, will not, or realistically be taking damage measured in 1/100ths of my total from the guy trying to kill me with a hammer.

So, what was the reason again why you complained about my suggestion for a system earlier, as you now admit the problem persists with any system?

Quote from: Stargate525Confused. Post with examples, then I'll proceed to tear it apart.

The basic system can be found in the Tri20 thread in Meta. I'm currently a bit short of time and can't post a detailed example now, sorry. But I'll get to that later.

~~~

As a side note, I don't know why you're so argumentative and agitated about this matter ("Bull", etc). A friendly discussion trying to solve a problem and finding a good solution does not improve from the participants throwing around hard words...

Quote from: Ra-Tiel

Quote from: Ra TielI'm not saying that the Body/Stun system is bad. Actually, I find it much better than standard HP (less points to wade through, each physical attack also deals stun damage, reliable way to deal nonlethal damage). But it still is unrealistic, and has the "no worries, I can take another wound like that and it'll be gone by friday" problem (from what I've read so far).

I have one main issue with this: As a player, I don't think I'd find much fun in being close to dying but not running away because I didn't know better. I think it's better accept a little bit of that meta-gaming to help the players make better, more interesting, and more fun tactical decisions.

If this system is meant to portray heroism rather than realism, I don't think there is much of a problem with players knowing how close their characters are to death.

First of Ra-Tiel, using 'bull,' for me, is actually only mildly annoyed.

I don't really see what forcing you to track a whole mess of different wounds adds to the gameplay.

You system still has issue with the 'pummel him for five hours and not kill him' syndrome, wheras mine does not.

I am allowed to add on to my system, as are you.

I don't see how your system is inherently better than mine, simply because yours doesn't use a point system. You do realize that you system has a major Achilles' Heel in the fact that if someone can't score a critical wound on another, it's impossible for one to kill the other, even if he were to completely imobilize the person and stab him in the eye.

You're being far too rigid with your descriptions. A successful attack by a sword doens't mean that the person has been 'run through.' It can mean any number of things. Yes, a human will die easier than an ogre, because an Ogre is HARDER TO KILL. That's like asking why shooting someone with a pistol kills them, but only makes the bear angry.

For your bee analogy, replace bee with orc and human with 20th level barbarian. Oh look, we're back at square one, what fun!

the multipliers will not be arbitrary any more than the damage dice currently are arbitrary. I don't see my system being inherently more difficult than yours, with mine your tracking the same thing as yours (minor to severe wound penalties) and only deal with thresholds when you dip below a certain number.

Yes, my argument breaks down because you give a bad example. Lovely. I note you didn't address the bottom part of that little paragraph, so pull it across.

You're contradicting yourself! How do this;

QuoteThis makes damage again flexible, as a fly will finally take a different amount of damage as an ogre, which in turn takes us back to the old problem. Running a person through with a sword kills him (eg 100 damage), while running an ogre through with a sword only hurts him (eg 50 damage).

and this;

QuoteThis is another problem. Just because two attacks inflict the same amount of damage does not mean they inflict the same actual wound. Say, if one attack dealing 50 damage means a broken hip bone, do ALL attacks dealing 50 damage mean a broken hip bone?

work happily together?

I'm not saying we should have a chart that spells out for the DM what every single hitpoint damage means. You seem to imply that hitpoints is just a backdoor hit location table. It's up to the DM to decide what damage 50 hitpoints is. He just needs to keep in mind that that kind of trauma takes someone from perfectly healthy to halfway dead. That fact that you're bringing location of the wounds seems to be that you're advocating a hit location chart. Are you?

INjuries and damage are the same thing. You can't have taken little damage but sustained a huge injury just like you can't go swimming without getting wet.

I agree that every system has the potential for the Ironman problem, but I believe my system makes the possibility of it far less likely to occur in the player's favor, which is as it should be.

As I said above, no hard words have been thrown. If you're objecting to the word 'bull,' you probably shouldn't have entered an argument with a member of a debate team.

Quote from: Stargate525[...] debate team.

Then you have apparently a substantially different understanding of rhetoric than I do. I learned that in debates you try to keep your points as factual as possible, without resorting to swearing or other comments that attack the other participant's point without facts and arguments. Also, I learned to precisely quote and refer the points I'm talking about. Please don't take this as an ad hominem, but I've made similar observations in other forums as well, which sort of frustrates me.

I think that our positions are just too different to come to a general agreement in this regard. Also, I've been noticing that seemingly most of the ideas and suggestions are made by me. I really don't want to hog the spotlight here, and will step back from posting in here to give others the opportunity to present their own ideas. After all, this thread is about the "campaign builder's system" and not "Ra-Tiel's system".