The forge of the universal RPG and General Gaming System collectively created by the Brothers Smith. This System is to reduce confusion and enhance gameplay so that no one gets stabbed in the leg by a blunt pencil or given a black-eye for basing reality from a fantasy movie. "Rather than rules we are designing RPG Tools."
WHAT is NEW: Check the Right side bar to the NEW description of attributes. Do you like the new look?
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Continued Conundrums
This section is reserved for foreseen problems and possible solutions. Comments must reflect Ron's revised combat system.
After rereading your proposals in "Ron's Ultimatum" I noticed that there is a contradiction regarding Simultaneous Attacking and Attacking with Initiative. You said that one of the options for the player with the higher initiative is that the can chose to attack first. How does this work when both attacker and defender roll their attack dice at the same time? This means that YOU might be the one the does not show up for dinner at 5 if you attack first!! Where is the advantage to this? This problem also is part of a solution that would explain Sneak Attacks. Let's discuss this in more detail.
(I thought about that exact thing right after I wrote and sent it!) -
-But rather than going back and commenting on it, I realized that technically it's actually correct for two situations I can think of; Sneak Attacks and Saving a teammate from Sneak Attacks.
(In brief contrast, I never exactly clarified WHAT direction the Defender was facing. But, it was assumed in the writing that the Defender was facing the Attacker.)
Hence, so far, I have not explained in detail how Sneak Attacks work, so I'll do that now:
- The most important rules governing Sneak Attacks are derived from the direction that the playing pieces are facing.
In the System, it is assumed that a character has a "visual response" angle of 270* (45* behind each shoulder - for a total of 90* on their back side.)
This is represented as the back two corners of each playing piece's base. Simply draw a straight line from the center through the corners, and that's the character's blind spot. (Much wider than Warhammer's rules - but closest to reality, since people are know to turn their heads once in a while!)
So Sneak Attacks can only be accomplished by characters whose Point of Origin, (or P.O.O. like Kregg would say)...is from within the Enemy's blind spot. An Attacker cannot simply wander into the Enemy's blind spot and scream, "SNEAK ATTACK!!"
Meaning that if a playing piece moves toward a number of enemies, the player must make sure not to go too deep and put enemies in his blind spot. If such an event should happen: "Hero goes for the kill, but doesn't realize that an enemy is charging him from behind..." ...you would hope that a teammate jumps in and saves him. This is simply accomplished when it's the teammate's turn. He moves his piece forward and places it up against the attacking enemy.
At this moment, the Defending teammate would want to attack first. Even though THEIR combat is simulataneous, he is forcing the Attacker to fight him instead of hitting his buddy from behind first.
If the attacking enemy still goes for the Sneak Attack, but doesn't have enough dice left over to defend himself from the defending teammate, ..he won't be coming home for dinner at 5
The Weapon die is quite ambiguous. How do we determine what weapons receive what dice? Some of the weapons that were mentioned in "Ron's Ultimatum" were the sword and a halberd, that were labeled as a d6 and a d12, respectively. Now these were stated to help clarification and were not set in stone (I presume... correct me if I am wrong). These numbers seem very subjective and based upon maybe one item. There needs to be a better system that allows for any melee weapon to be included, even fictional weapons or the epitome of weapons---the Lightsaber.
Let's breakdown the characteristics of what makes a weapon GOOD at striking and defending.
1.) The length: This is an important feature in both attacking and defending. The further you are from your opponent the less chance they have of striking you. By having the longer sword you are able to keep your opponent at bay. It is like the mean uncle with the long arms. He simply puts his hand on your head while you flail about futilely.
2.) The balance: A well balanced weapon allows for multi-directional attacks. It also can be wielded at greater speeds.
3.) The weight: This is referring to the total weight of the weapon, not the balanced weight. A sword could be balanced perfectly between the hilt and the blade, but if the total weight is fifty pounds it will be slow and cumbersome.
4.) The amount of different attacks. A weapon that can be wielded to perform a variety of different motions of attacks is less predictable by the defender. Defending a weapon with little variety of attacks is like playing Mario Brothers it is always the same, reacting always in one way, eventually you learn the tricks and overcome it. A weapon with multiple attacking heads will produce greater variety.
5.) Sturdiness: A weapon that is more sturdy and does not bend when hit will provide better defense. Compare a wooden staff to a iron chain. When the staff being held by two hands spaced apart is hit it stops an attack pretty well. Yet, when a chain in the same situation is hit it will give inversely proportional to the strength of the wielder, thus reducing the ability to defend.
I would like to digress a little to talk about how distance affects the effectiveness of a weapon. I have just mentioned that a longer weapon aids in keeping your opponent away and allows you to continue to attack, thus giving an advantage to attacking and defending. Yet, this can be a two-edged sword, if your opponent gets too close. Think about a castle guard carrying a halberd (great length) fighting an expert Grappling-ranged fighter. At first the guard will have the advantage due to the distance. But, if the fighter gets into a closer range the halberd becomes more useless due to its length.
All of these elements should be reflected in the numbers/dice we assign a weapon and still be simple.
I propose that a weapon be comprised of two elements: The die and a distance/range bonus.
The die will represent the total weight and the balance of the weapon. The amount of attacking heads and variety of attacks influence the weapon die.
The range bonus is a conversion of the weapon's length. The bonus is a constant number and is added to the roll of the dice (just like the shield). This represents the defense bonus that is gained by keeping your opponent at a distance. Since the length of the weapon is a constant, it is logical that the range bonus be a constant also. However, this bonus is lost when the opponent passes the threshold of the range (penalties might even apply to some weapons). This actually will begin to explain movement during combat. Players will discover that by moving closer to their opponents or by moving away from their opponents' advances they will find greater advantages.
(I will continue this thought later, and how it measures against the Lightsaber)
Commenting on our discussion over the phone and after reading through your proposal, here's what I agree with and here's what I think needs change:
1) AGREE - We definitely need a standard weapon and armor chart like Hero's Qwest. We will call it the Armory - simple enough. (There will be two of these charts, one for Fantasy, and one for Sci-Fi.) This will not be a cumbersome chart, nor a lengthy chart. It will have about 5 basic weapons and their respective dice. It will have 2 shield sizes and their respective bonuses. It will also list a few types of Armor and their stats. - It will however, have a 'key' that allows players to calculate new or strange weapons that aren't on the chart, so they can fit them into the game. (This equation will be determined - just like Movement, etc. is calculated before the game.)
I DISAGREE - I strongly disagree that we should be adding any type of Bonus constant to any weapon die, unless you're using a shield. I realize that it's done all of the time in other game rules, but after seeing the overwhelming evidence in the Dice Program results, I am 200% convinced that it's a completely bogus conception that does not reflect reality, nor is it mathematically accurate.
Here's an alternative: If you want to reflect "different levels of advantage" in certain weapon situations, use different dice.
Let's compare the two results and see what happens.
Situation 1 - Bonus constant In this situation, the Pikeman uses a d12 with +2 at long range (1"), and then lose his bonus at short range. He will also have a shield of +2. This would mean that on his weapon roll, he is guaranteed to roll a 5 or higher, and he can roll up to a 16!. When he "loses" his bonus to an advancing swordsman, he still will roll a d12 +2 for the shield. You've created a Monster!
Comment: do you agree that it's hard to get past the tip of the pike (d12) but once you do, the combat rating of the shaft of the pike is like a staff? (~d6)
Situation 2 - Dice variable In this situation, the Pikeman uses a d12 at long range, and then loses it at short range if he is beaten. This Pikeman also has a shield of +2. If the Pikeman is beat at long range, he then uses the die that is the equivalent to a staff (d6). No bonuses necessary. Bonuses adds unnecessarily complication to the rolls, it doesn't match standard rules - and it's absolutely not mathematically accurate.
2) I AGREE - That weapon data should be classified so that it falls under certain ratings. And by taking those ratings, a player can throw then into a magical equation (not yet conceived) that produces one die.
I KNOW - that it will be more comlicated than you think. Don't underestimate the Pandora's box that you are about to open when it comes to weapon classifications. There's entire compendiums dedicated to the stuff. You've already listed a few "catagories". I would like to add a few more to the list and also go into both PROS and CONS of each catagory: - Length - Balance - Weight - # Damaging Points - Sturdiness - Width - Quality - Magic or technology built in.
General Assumptions Length - Longer is better for long range, but shorter is better for close range. (Pikes vs knives) Balance - Balance allows quicker and more accurate movement, but lowers it's final impact damage. If it's easy to start, it will be easy to stop. Weight - Must match close to character's strength. Increases impact damage but reduces speed and accuracy. If it's hard to start, it will be hard to stop. # of Damaging Points - A double-bladed sword has potential to inflict more damage than a one-sided sword. Sturdiness - Great for swords and axes, but maces, chains and whips must be flexible. Width - A wide sword can block more area (like a thin shield), but cannot "get through" and stab as effective as a fencing sword. Quality - How was the weapon made and what material was used? Is the blade/spike sharp, and will it stay sharp after battle? Will the handle break during a fight or when dropped? Magic or Technology - Is the weapon a light saber or chain saw? Does it shoot electricity during combat? Does it glow in the dark, cause fear in an enemy to reduce their combat Skill?
I DISAGREE - that we should have tons of catagories. It's stupid, and it doesn't even make the game 'funner'.
This is just scratching the surface of a very complex and abiguous endevor, that I don't want to deal with.
"A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush"
We have bigger fish to fry right now, so let's settle on some basic weapon combat dice and call it good: - Knife = d4 (d6 damage) - Axe = d6 (d10 damage) - Sword = d8 (d8 damage) - Spear = d10 (d6 damage) - Pike = d12(d6 combat close range) ___________________________________
I like your approach, Ron. Look back, though, at your example of the Halberd. First, a halberd is a two-handed weapon thus eliminating the chance of having a shield. Second, in the first proposal, the halberd would still have the same maxima as a d12. Meaning that with the bonus the maximal total would still be 12 or lower (i.e. d10+2, d4+4). In my opinion, a halberd is not a d6 in close combat, but a d4. The reason it is not equal to a staff is the large imbalanced chopping head. So if we look again at my proposal we see that the halberd should reflect a d4+4. The reason I like the bonus more that two dice is that is simple. Is that not what we strive for? Notice that most weapons that have an advantage at long range require two hands (i.e. halberd, spear, etc.)
5 comments:
After rereading your proposals in "Ron's Ultimatum" I noticed that there is a contradiction regarding Simultaneous Attacking and Attacking with Initiative. You said that one of the options for the player with the higher initiative is that the can chose to attack first. How does this work when both attacker and defender roll their attack dice at the same time? This means that YOU might be the one the does not show up for dinner at 5 if you attack first!! Where is the advantage to this? This problem also is part of a solution that would explain Sneak Attacks. Let's discuss this in more detail.
What a keen observation!
(I thought about that exact thing right after I wrote and sent it!) -
-But rather than going back and commenting on it, I realized that technically it's actually correct for two situations I can think of; Sneak Attacks and Saving a teammate from Sneak Attacks.
(In brief contrast, I never exactly clarified WHAT direction the Defender was facing. But, it was assumed in the writing that the Defender was facing the Attacker.)
Hence, so far, I have not explained in detail how Sneak Attacks work, so I'll do that now:
- The most important rules governing Sneak Attacks are derived from the direction that the playing pieces are facing.
In the System, it is assumed that a character has a "visual response" angle of 270* (45* behind each shoulder - for a total of 90* on their back side.)
This is represented as the back two corners of each playing piece's base. Simply draw a straight line from the center through the corners, and that's the character's blind spot. (Much wider than Warhammer's rules - but closest to reality, since people are know to turn their heads once in a while!)
So Sneak Attacks can only be accomplished by characters whose Point of Origin, (or P.O.O. like Kregg would say)...is from within the Enemy's blind spot. An Attacker cannot simply wander into the Enemy's blind spot and scream, "SNEAK ATTACK!!"
Meaning that if a playing piece moves toward a number of enemies, the player must make sure not to go too deep and put enemies in his blind spot. If such an event should happen:
"Hero goes for the kill, but doesn't realize that an enemy is charging him from behind..."
...you would hope that a teammate jumps in and saves him. This is simply accomplished when it's the teammate's turn. He moves his piece forward and places it up against the attacking enemy.
At this moment, the Defending teammate would want to attack first. Even though THEIR combat is simulataneous, he is forcing the Attacker to fight him instead of hitting his buddy from behind first.
If the attacking enemy still goes for the Sneak Attack, but doesn't have enough dice left over to defend himself from the defending teammate, ..he won't be coming home for dinner at 5
Does that clarify that a bit?
The Weapon die is quite ambiguous. How do we determine what weapons receive what dice? Some of the weapons that were mentioned in "Ron's Ultimatum" were the sword and a halberd, that were labeled as a d6 and a d12, respectively. Now these were stated to help clarification and were not set in stone (I presume... correct me if I am wrong). These numbers seem very subjective and based upon maybe one item. There needs to be a better system that allows for any melee weapon to be included, even fictional weapons or the epitome of weapons---the Lightsaber.
Let's breakdown the characteristics of what makes a weapon GOOD at striking and defending.
1.) The length: This is an important feature in both attacking and defending. The further you are from your opponent the less chance they have of striking you. By having the longer sword you are able to keep your opponent at bay. It is like the mean uncle with the long arms. He simply puts his hand on your head while you flail about futilely.
2.) The balance: A well balanced weapon allows for multi-directional attacks. It also can be wielded at greater speeds.
3.) The weight: This is referring to the total weight of the weapon, not the balanced weight. A sword could be balanced perfectly between the hilt and the blade, but if the total weight is fifty pounds it will be slow and cumbersome.
4.) The amount of different attacks. A weapon that can be wielded to perform a variety of different motions of attacks is less predictable by the defender. Defending a weapon with little variety of attacks is like playing Mario Brothers it is always the same, reacting always in one way, eventually you learn the tricks and overcome it. A weapon with multiple attacking heads will produce greater variety.
5.) Sturdiness: A weapon that is more sturdy and does not bend when hit will provide better defense. Compare a wooden staff to a iron chain. When the staff being held by two hands spaced apart is hit it stops an attack pretty well. Yet, when a chain in the same situation is hit it will give inversely proportional to the strength of the wielder, thus reducing the ability to defend.
I would like to digress a little to talk about how distance affects the effectiveness of a weapon. I have just mentioned that a longer weapon aids in keeping your opponent away and allows you to continue to attack, thus giving an advantage to attacking and defending. Yet, this can be a two-edged sword, if your opponent gets too close. Think about a castle guard carrying a halberd (great length) fighting an expert Grappling-ranged fighter. At first the guard will have the advantage due to the distance. But, if the fighter gets into a closer range the halberd becomes more useless due to its length.
All of these elements should be reflected in the numbers/dice we assign a weapon and still be simple.
I propose that a weapon be comprised of two elements: The die and a distance/range bonus.
The die will represent the total weight and the balance of the weapon. The amount of attacking heads and variety of attacks influence the weapon die.
The range bonus is a conversion of the weapon's length. The bonus is a constant number and is added to the roll of the dice (just like the shield). This represents the defense bonus that is gained by keeping your opponent at a distance. Since the length of the weapon is a constant, it is logical that the range bonus be a constant also. However, this bonus is lost when the opponent passes the threshold of the range (penalties might even apply to some weapons). This actually will begin to explain movement during combat. Players will discover that by moving closer to their opponents or by moving away from their opponents' advances they will find greater advantages.
(I will continue this thought later, and how it measures against the Lightsaber)
Commenting on our discussion over the phone and after reading through your proposal, here's what I agree with and here's what I think needs change:
1) AGREE - We definitely need a standard weapon and armor chart like Hero's Qwest. We will call it the Armory - simple enough. (There will be two of these charts, one for Fantasy, and one for Sci-Fi.) This will not be a cumbersome chart, nor a lengthy chart. It will have about 5 basic weapons and their respective dice. It will have 2 shield sizes and their respective bonuses. It will also list a few types of Armor and their stats.
- It will however, have a 'key' that allows players to calculate new or strange weapons that aren't on the chart, so they can fit them into the game. (This equation will be determined - just like Movement, etc. is calculated before the game.)
I DISAGREE - I strongly disagree that we should be adding any type of Bonus constant to any weapon die, unless you're using a shield. I realize that it's done all of the time in other game rules, but after seeing the overwhelming evidence in the Dice Program results, I am 200% convinced that it's a completely bogus conception that does not reflect reality, nor is it mathematically accurate.
Here's an alternative: If you want to reflect "different levels of advantage" in certain weapon situations, use different dice.
Let's compare the two results and see what happens.
Situation 1 - Bonus constant
In this situation, the Pikeman uses a d12 with +2 at long range (1"), and then lose his bonus at short range. He will also have a shield of +2. This would mean that on his weapon roll, he is guaranteed to roll a 5 or higher, and he can roll up to a 16!. When he "loses" his bonus to an advancing swordsman, he still will roll a d12 +2 for the shield. You've created a Monster!
Comment: do you agree that it's hard to get past the tip of the pike (d12) but once you do, the combat rating of the shaft of the pike is like a staff? (~d6)
Situation 2 - Dice variable
In this situation, the Pikeman uses a d12 at long range, and then loses it at short range if he is beaten. This Pikeman also has a shield of +2.
If the Pikeman is beat at long range, he then uses the die that is the equivalent to a staff (d6). No bonuses necessary. Bonuses adds unnecessarily complication to the rolls, it doesn't match standard rules - and it's absolutely not mathematically accurate.
2) I AGREE - That weapon data should be classified so that it falls under certain ratings. And by taking those ratings, a player can throw then into a magical equation (not yet conceived) that produces one die.
I KNOW - that it will be more comlicated than you think. Don't underestimate the Pandora's box that you are about to open when it comes to weapon classifications. There's entire compendiums dedicated to the stuff. You've already listed a few "catagories". I would like to add a few more to the list and also go into both PROS and CONS of each catagory:
- Length
- Balance
- Weight
- # Damaging Points
- Sturdiness
- Width
- Quality
- Magic or technology built in.
General Assumptions
Length - Longer is better for long range, but shorter is better for close range. (Pikes vs knives)
Balance - Balance allows quicker and more accurate movement, but lowers it's final impact damage. If it's easy to start, it will be easy to stop.
Weight - Must match close to character's strength. Increases impact damage but reduces speed and accuracy. If it's hard to start, it will be hard to stop.
# of Damaging Points - A double-bladed sword has potential to inflict more damage than a one-sided sword.
Sturdiness - Great for swords and axes, but maces, chains and whips must be flexible.
Width - A wide sword can block more area (like a thin shield), but cannot "get through" and stab as effective as a fencing sword.
Quality - How was the weapon made and what material was used? Is the blade/spike sharp, and will it stay sharp after battle? Will the handle break during a fight or when dropped?
Magic or Technology - Is the weapon a light saber or chain saw? Does it shoot electricity during combat? Does it glow in the dark, cause fear in an enemy to reduce their combat Skill?
I DISAGREE - that we should have tons of catagories. It's stupid, and it doesn't even make the game 'funner'.
This is just scratching the surface of a very complex and abiguous endevor, that I don't want to deal with.
"A bird in the hand is worth more than two in the bush"
We have bigger fish to fry right now, so let's settle on some basic weapon combat dice and call it good:
- Knife = d4 (d6 damage)
- Axe = d6 (d10 damage)
- Sword = d8 (d8 damage)
- Spear = d10 (d6 damage)
- Pike = d12(d6 combat close range)
___________________________________
I like your approach, Ron. Look back, though, at your example of the Halberd. First, a halberd is a two-handed weapon thus eliminating the chance of having a shield. Second, in the first proposal, the halberd would still have the same maxima as a d12. Meaning that with the bonus the maximal total would still be 12 or lower (i.e. d10+2, d4+4). In my opinion, a halberd is not a d6 in close combat, but a d4. The reason it is not equal to a staff is the large imbalanced chopping head. So if we look again at my proposal we see that the halberd should reflect a d4+4. The reason I like the bonus more that two dice is that is simple. Is that not what we strive for? Notice that most weapons that have an advantage at long range require two hands (i.e. halberd, spear, etc.)
Post a Comment