Hi all,
I've been discussing combat with one of my players and we realised that even unarmoured, a character with Toughness of 8 is unbelievably resilient to damage. It just doesn't feel right that such a character resists damage about as well as an average person in Chainmail!
Any comments?
I agree that the Toughness stat is a bit ... tough. Starting characters cannot have a Toughness of 8, by the way.
Actually, starting characters CAN have a starting Toughness of 8, provided they are from Cyrinthmeir or Stahl. There mey be other nations that provide a +1 to TO, but i am not currently aware of them, since i can't be bothered to check. :-)
Chargen rules state that the max of 7 in a stat is before national/racial modifiers...
I find it works out well because even with high toughness the character can still die and die hard and die fast. The key is to put them in places and situations that challenge them still. Multiple opponents in a tight space (no terrain roll possible) is a great way to do it. You can also raise your mook stats so they ahve bigger combat pools and higher strengths.
Also, if you give your NPC badguys strengths of 7-8 then pit them against the toughness 8 PC watch how fast that huge toughness marches into irrelevancy like the post war UN.
This same problem is in warhammer fantasy roleplaying game , usually it happens with dwarfs so it has been named naked dwarf syndrome. there is about thousand different ways to go around this but best is to lower thoughess score by 1/2 or in case of tros maybe 3/4 or do it like Ashren suggested ...make baddies more resilent too.
Quote from: PAD the MADHi all,
I've been discussing combat with one of my players and we realised that even unarmoured, a character with Toughness of 8 is unbelievably resilient to damage. It just doesn't feel right that such a character resists damage about as well as an average person in Chainmail!
Any comments?
This is a commonly noted problem. Being a career Munchkin, I naturally noticed it the same time I picked up the book.
And while you can still kill a TO 8 (armored) Stahlnish Knight with a good lance charge, I think something needs to be done to change the way TROS generates wounds.
Hello,
In all fairness, I agree with you, and my tendency as Seneschal is simply to cap Toughness below the starting minima for other attributes. Unpleasant, I know.
However, there's another side to this issue that I think a lot of realism-babble tends to obscure. We discussed this issue pretty thoroughly, I think, in this thread: Thinking of buying -- two concerns about combat (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4683). The Toughness issue is the second of the two concerns in the thread title, but both of the issues in there are related and worth reading about.
Fundamentally, TROS is not just a better Warhammer or a better GURPS. It's a very different game from the foundation up.
Best,
Ron
Quote from: Ron EdwardsIn all fairness, I agree with you, and my tendency as Seneschal is simply to cap Toughness below the starting minima for other attributes. Unpleasant, I know.
That's what I do. I limit Toughness to 6 in my campaigns. It works well, and requires no fundamental mechanics changes.
-Mark
This debate again :)
Seriously though, I have a PC in my game who has a TO of 8. He also was wearing armour. He still suffered a Level 4 break to his forearm, and a Level 3 Puncture to his groin (that hurt more) from one of the game's villains.
Personally, I wouldn't limit TO. If a PC wants to think of himself as really tough..fine. A PC's stats are all really relative to the NPCs with whom he deals (as noted above). Just increase the stats of the NPCs (same holds true for warhammer).
When playing warhammer, we dealt with the Naked Dwarf by allowing TO to only eliminate ST, not result in a negative wound amount (Eg ST6 vs TO8 = 0 not -2). We allowed TO to eliminate ST+1 for unarmored attacks and if metal armor was worn.
Seemed to work OK.
NT
Hmmm. That makes me think.
How about every point of armor "supports" one point of TO, but unsupported TO is halved, round down. Thus, a TO 8 individual is only TO 4 sans armor. Even with armor with a value of 4, he's only a 6 + 4 = 10 (rather than 12). Wheras a "normal" man is 4+4 = 8. That narrows things a bit. Of course, it leads to breakpoints, but they are ameliorated by the fact that with armor they shift. That is, for different armors, the breakpoint is at a different TO. Thus, the player won't play as much to breakpoints not knowint the armor that will be available at a given time, or for a given hit.
Alternately, do something like this, but double all the numbers going in instead of halving TO. Then make a 10 level wound chart to support it.
Mike
In his own thread, Eomann Voss offered the following solution:
"Toughness is the uber-attribute. I limited my players to a 6. Both have maxed it that high. I think toughness should be defined as a gift or flaw instead of an attribute, since it is so useful to have. 5 = minor gift and 6 = major gift."
Sounds a good idea; also, using low toughness as a Flaw...
Err... I fail to see a problem really. If a guy's tough he's tough. Throw someone with a similar strength at him an it means jack... throw someone with a high reflex and a decent amount of skill with a mass weapon at him and it mean very little even if he's wearing armor...
Hit him with a lance being carried by a knight on a destrier and that toughness and masterclass full plate may as well be paper.
Hell, one success with a longbow means a level zero wound... if the person with that longbow is any good (meaning a low average of three-four successes) and that toughness 8 guy is F'ed... and how many guys run around 24-7 with a great helm or even a chain coif on?
It's the senchal's job to counter the characters strengths... not limit them from the start.
Hell, one success with a longbow means a level zero wound... if the persoan with that longbow is any good (meaning a low average of three-four successes) and that toughness 8 guy is F'ed...
Hi again,
HAving (re) started a discussion, one thing has come up that bothers me a bit... increasing stats of the opposition.
If RoS is meant to be a 'realistic' game, then the vast majority of bad guys will have stats in the 4-5 range. Wouldn't feel right to me to generally up this. However, I do have a few NPCs out there already that have decent stats and combat pools.
Also I have no real problems with high toughness, just that it feels unrealistic (see above). I liked a couple of suggested ideas - capping toughness at the start and reducing effective toughness in unarmoured locations but probably won't end up using either (generally I keep rule changes to a minimum once I've started a game unless all my players also think it's a good idea)
Gotta go do some work now - look forward to further comments.
Paul
Agree with PAD here.
I don't like when the average NPC get tougher and tougher just because the PC's gets tougher. If so, then whats the point of becoming tougher?
I wouldn't up the average NPCs, but I would up the main NPCs. The average NPCs, a.k.a. mooks, are generally just there to provide a body count. Conan certainly didn't have any harder a time mowing down the nameless bad guys as he got tougher. But a nemesis should grow stronger, tougher and wiser as the player character does.
Remember also that part of the purpose of TO is to represent mean critter's innate armor, since TO an AV work the same way. It's one less stat to deal with when fighting a Hef, and makes them truly frightening. Keep human TO around 6 or less in your games, maybe up to 8 in very special circumstances, and keep the really high numbers for the critters.
jake
I agree with Wolfen. It is also what I meant more or less. Your average guard shouldn't get any better but the nemesis NPC should always present a challenge to the PCs in some form or another--either in combat or some strategic non-combat way. Otherwise it just becomes a boring hackfest.
A TO of 8 might make you a great warrior, but it also forces you to limit other attributes. That big warrior might be constantly outwitted by the quick, fast thinking thief or whatever.....
NT
Is there a maximum value for TO for humans at all? Besides 10, i mean.
Quote from: arxhonIs there a maximum value for TO for humans at all? Besides 10, i mean.
Not in the book, but if you do a search through the old forum messages (I think the thread may be in the "check here first" sticky, actually) you'll find that we've discussed this before and we came to the consensus that 7 was the human limit.
Not "official" but as official as you're likely to get, other than the 10 in the book.
Brian.
I have no problem with relatively high TO scores. Sure TO is useful, but it is mostly ever used in combat situations. If a character really wants to be tough, he or she will also need EN and HT - the stats used in conjunction with skills and such. Just emphasize the usefulness of the other two physical health/toughness stats outside combat (and in combat, as well - fatigue works nicely) and the problem should solve itself. After the TO 7 character catches a flu or something because of HT 3, the player is going to notice.
Not that any of my players did go overboard with TO - the highest TO is 6, I think, and the character is big hulking barbarian fellow.
Ruusu
Hi again,
The TO 8 character in my game is described by her player as 'Big Buff Buffy' !
Just thought I'd share that thought provoking comment...
Yes, she did have to sacrifice other stats, but the player enjoys playing a none too bright, socially inept warrior type. What's funny is that she is next in line to a noble title (I let her take it as one level below nobility as she has a Destiny to NOT rule her hometown in Stahl...) and so is likely to get herself roped into the fight against Gelure by another PC who is a Farrenshire knight.
Should be fun anyway.
I personally have two things that irk me about toughness: I don't think toughness should be similar to beast armor as Jake describes, because the way beast hide works is different from how toughness can work in a human. A thick, leathery hide DOES make it harder to cut through and reach muscle. But toughness hardly indicates a human's skin is thicker.
Second, I don't see how toughness reduces damage rather than how the damage is experienced by the individual -should a tough guy really fully ignore an attack that would have lobbed the arm off anyone else? Or should his arm be off anyway, but he wouldn't be lying on the ground screaming like a pig led to the slaughter? I can see people shrugging off attacks that cause surface wounds, but I don't see any intrinsic attribute in a person helping to prevent man-cleaver attacks. If someone has five excess successes with a great axe, it should mean something...
So I think some difference in how toughness and armor work would make sense, and I'd suggest making high toughness (together with health) size-dependent. Succeeding in an attack that can cleave a leg-sized peace of meat off a man should do just that, but a human leg-sized peace of meat has much less relevance for a blue whale...
Anyway, just brainstorming...
Hi,
I'd like to chime in again with my personal theory of TO..
Toughness is more than physical beefiness, IMO. It's also an instinctive knowledge on how to move, tense, relax, or whatever to decrease the effect of the blow. It's the instant when you know it's going to hit, and your body just reacts to lessen the impact. You roll with the punch, letting much of the force be absorbed by the movement of your body. You tense just right, allowing an oblique angled cut to skip rather than catch and cut deeply into your body. You relax, and simply let the force move you, rather than fully impact. In some cases, you might even lean into the strike, causing it to hit with a portion of the weapon that has less momentum and leverage.
A piece of paper probably has a TO of 0, yet if you toss it into the air, you won't manage to cut it in half with a greatsword (maybe a razor sharp katana, but nothing much duller). because it gives, rather than resisting.
Likewise with falling. A tough individual has learned how to take all sorts of impact, including that of his body to the ground.
This is my opinion, take it for what it's worth. But I personally believe TO is fine exactly as it's written in the book, though I'll admit it's damned inconvenient at times.
Well, that makes some sense. Especially it makes it more logical that you can improve your toughness. Now I only have to learn *not* to say "You hit him squarely in the neck" after a MOS of five only to follow with "and barely scratches him".
TROS combat is about meaningful combat; climactic, violent, terrible scenes that serve as watersheds for the story. I think Ron described TROS as having the premise, "what would you kill for?" And I think Jake used the terminology 'blood opera' once. In this view, how you are good is at least as important as how good are you. And in either case, why are you fighting is even more key.
Lets say you have a PC running around with a 9 TO. Congratulations, my boy, on the relative scale of TROS, you are nigh invunerable. What exactly does that mean, though?
Well... it means you're hard to kill. That's about it. It doesn't mean you can efficiently kill your enemies, or run them down if they choose to run. It certainly doesn't help you if challenge a guy to a duel, and he accepts & states the duel is to first touch (as opposed to death or 1st blood). If your job is to keep some innocent from being killed, there's plenty of opportunity for your high TO to be just plain tragic.
Then there is the bizarre reputation a guy with a high TO would have. Duelists who value skill would sneer at him, and rough-and-tumble types would constantly be challenging him. The point here is that a high TO character, just like any other character with an exceptional skill or trait, will eventually get a repuation that (s)he will need to deal with. If a player wants to min/max, this is not a trouble-free route. However, a high TO character could be fun to play, as long as everyone is on the same page about what he is.
toughness 8 is no more powerful than the pict with agility 8 and sneak at sr3. every stat can be wicked. Strength 8 makes toughness 8 irrelevant in combat while perception 8 makes a nasty archer who can kill toughness 8 with but a few longbow successes.
Quote from: Ashren Va'Haletoughness 8 is no more powerful than the pict with agility 8 and sneak at sr3. every stat can be wicked. Strength 8 makes toughness 8 irrelevant in combat while perception 8 makes a nasty archer who can kill toughness 8 with but a few longbow successes.
Exactly.
Quote from: Nick PagnuccoThe point here is that a high TO character, just like any other character with an exceptional skill or trait, will eventually get a repuation that (s)he will need to deal with. If a player wants to min/max, this is not a trouble-free route. However, a high TO character could be fun to play, as long as everyone is on the same page about what he is.
I like this. There is a price for everything. You can have that over-the-top attribute (I cap humans at 7, before any bonuses), but it
will draw attention. And perhaps not the most friendly kind.
As far as combat goes...sure, you may be hard to kill with a melee weapon in a stand-up fight, but, isn't that why I would find another means of ending your life? Poison? A knife in the eye (or behind the ear) while you sleep? Or, how about killing your family...slowly? Or, there's always the chaps with sharp and pointy arrows.
Point is this: a high TO might have a pleasant upside, but the downside can be downright nasty without having to powerup the bad guys. Just make them smart and ruthless.
Quote from: WolfenHi,
Toughness is more than physical beefiness, IMO. It's also an instinctive knowledge on how to move, tense, relax, or whatever to decrease the effect of the blow.
I agree entirely and this is how I've always interpreted TO. I also think you can interpret it as a TO fighter being less likely to get "set up" for the kill. Perhaps he is harder to push around or isn't worried about minor cuts and bruises so doesn't get move "out of position" too easily.
NT
Quote from: WolfenHi,
I'd like to chime in again with my personal theory of TO..
Toughness is more than physical beefiness, IMO. It's also an instinctive knowledge on how to move, tense, relax, or whatever to decrease the effect of the blow. It's the instant when you know it's going to hit, and your body just reacts to lessen the impact. You roll with the punch, letting much of the force be absorbed by the movement of your body. You tense just right, allowing an oblique angled cut to skip rather than catch and cut deeply into your body. You relax, and simply let the force move you, rather than fully impact. In some cases, you might even lean into the strike, causing it to hit with a portion of the weapon that has less momentum and leverage.
That, on the other hand, would make toughness dependent at least partially on awareness of the attack, which would again be a bit incompatible with the 'beast armor' type.
I'm with Toli on this, I think.
It would seem to me that after a certain point, this would be in the realm of character expression. At least if I was GM.
For example, let's say there were two players, both with a character with a TO of 6. One wanted to be a guy with a honed body that just moves right, and the other guy wants to make a big burly brawler. At this point, I say, "Uhm, ok." Two different characters, being roleplayed differently, but on one level mechanically equivalent.
Quote from: Nick PagnuccoI'm with Toli on this, I think.
It would seem to me that after a certain point, this would be in the realm of character expression. At least if I was GM.
This is good policy in general. I call it "effects first" play. Describe things in game terms, and then narrate them in any way that makes consistent sense externally. For the rules as written I think it's the best way to go in describing the effect.
Mike
QuoteThat, on the other hand, would make toughness dependent at least partially on awareness of the attack, which would again be a bit incompatible with the 'beast armor' type.
Correct, in a way. As I said, instinctive movements, and instinct relies on subconscious senses as much or more than conscious awareness.
On the other hand, if someone were asleep, or totally unable to react to an attack, I'd simply call them dead, if that's what the attacker intended.
For example: A man is manacled hands and feet, and is being carried by a pole run between the two. Another man ducks in close for a moment, and plants a knife in his ribs, angled to reach his heart. Man's dead in seconds, no chance to resist with TO.
That's how I'd run it, personally.
The way I see it, TO is the sleeping character, inert - the body's intrinsic ability to handle physical trauma, bashing and prodding, whilst in an immobile stance.
As such, I would apply TO to an attack against a prone man. His attacker doesn't necessarily know where to strike in order to inflict a killing blow. That's handled through proficiencies.
Assuming equal STR Vs TO, an attacker only needs 5 successes to kill however. That's quite easy with a full CP. But it also allows for the inept mugger; who only ends up poking the hero full of superficial wounds, whilst slicing him free of his bonds at the same time.
But that said; if someone is completely unable to resist, severely trussed up, and no one about to put pressure on the attacker, then fair enuff: the bloke cops it good proper.
And for the record :)
Then we simply don't see eye to eye, Vanguard. That's fine though, because it's a world where we're allowed our own opinions and interpretations. It makes me think though that if I ever get a chance to game with anyone here on the Forge boards that it might be a good idea to lay out any ground-rules and interpretations that the Seneschal is using prior to play.
...is that it has nothing to do with moving.
The stats that involve moving have names that suggest movement, like Agility and Strength.
TO is, quite simply, the character's ability to take a blow.
This can vary quite widely in humans. Humans are, in essence, all built on the same blueprint, but vary widely in size. A bigger human has larger bones, thicker skin, more layers of muscle and fat, etc.
More blood, even.
Quite frankly, a larger person can take quite a bit more damage without keeling over.
The problem is that TO allows, IMHO, *TOO* wide of a variance in the ability to take damage. Except in fights with kittens, the variable ability of humans to take damage rarely matters. Human skin, muscle, and sinew is NEVER equivalent to platemail in the ability to stop damage. In fact, it works in a very different way and should appropriately be modeled differently.
I think I've mentioned before that TO is the only stat that is never rolled. I'd like that to change.
One possible method:
Damage is reduced to "equal to number of successes"
TO is rolled against the (ST+Weapon damage stat)-(Armor Value)
Each success reduces the level of damage by 1.
Quote from: Bob RichterOne possible method:
Damage is reduced to "equal to number of successes"
TO is rolled against the (ST+Weapon damage stat)-(Armor Value)
Each success reduces the level of damage by 1.
I've been keeping out of this discussion, since I think TO works fine as it is, but just wanted to jump in on this.
This way looks ok, until you realise that Strength suddenly plays no part in the process. Shouldn't it? Couldn't Conan hit me harder with a sword (and thus do more damage) than Peewee Herman?
If you were going to do this system, I would suggest that maybe you add a strength rolled component in there as well (which would, on average, presumably more or less cancel out the toughness, just like it does at present).
Just my 2c
Brian.
Though the game strives for a lot of realism, I think TO helps to add a cinnematic element.
I have seen the TO 8 pc shrug off blows. I have also seen the TO 9 Gorem take a heavy blow and go down wimpering.
Quote from: Brian LeybourneQuote from: Bob RichterOne possible method:
Damage is reduced to "equal to number of successes"
TO is rolled against the (ST+Weapon damage stat)-(Armor Value)
Each success reduces the level of damage by 1.
I've been keeping out of this discussion, since I think TO works fine as it is, but just wanted to jump in on this.
This way looks ok, until you realise that Strength suddenly plays no part in the process. Shouldn't it? Couldn't Conan hit me harder with a sword (and thus do more damage) than Peewee Herman?
If you were going to do this system, I would suggest that maybe you add a strength rolled component in there as well (which would, on average, presumably more or less cancel out the toughness, just like it does at present).
Just my 2c
Brian.
Strength DOES play a part in that equation. Actually, TO is rolled in opposiiton to ST.
ST does NOT cancel out TO under the current rules unless the two are EXACTLY equal. What are the chances of that? Probably about 1 in 4 or 5, given that STs (or TOs) above 7 are pretty rare, as are either stat below 3.
Still doesn't happen that much, unless your opposition is designed to take on your characters, at which point why have a TO stat?
A simple solutions would be to let TO eliminate ST "successes" but not more. That is, TO 8 and TO 6 have the same effect vs. ST6. Both reduce the bonus from ST to zero but no more. That makes TO important, the calculation simple, but doesn't let TO dominate in a way that seem unrealistic.
Quote from: Bob RichterST does NOT cancel out TO under the current rules unless the two are EXACTLY equal. What are the chances of that?
Ah, that would be why I said "more or less". After all, given that the average for both is 4, they
more or less cancel each other out in the current system.
Brian.
I just read a great thread about a TROS game in the actual play page. It mentioned a combat focused character who really did poorly since he sacrificed other skills and stats for combat. This really shows why toughness is NOT the uber stat people say. So what if toughness is high? It means nothing in certain circumstances - like social play, sneaking, and political intrigue etc.
Just my 2 copper bits.
What about halving Strength before adding to weapon damage and halving Toughness before adding armour?
That way things stay the same for 2 combatants of even physique, but the range of benefit from high Toughness (or high Strength) is much more limited.
It's also pretty easy to keep track of, and seems to require no other rules changes.
Quote from: TancredWhat about halving Strength before adding to weapon damage and halving Toughness before adding armour?
If I had a dollar for every time that suggestion has come up...
Sorry Tancred, not meaning to take the piss, there's just certain things that seem to come up again and again on this forum :-)
Brian.
The basic problem with that option, Tancred, is that it creates breakpoints. Assuming you round up (as it'll always be .5), you'll only ever see odd stats. Lot's of 5s and 7s, and the occasional 3. Not much range. The only time characters will have an even number is on the way to the next odd number.
Mike
I've kept watching this and kept my mouth shut for a while, but the urge to open it has grown irresistable. I do apologize.
One of the interesting things about TRoS is that damage is more deterministic than many RPGs. Because you know your ST, your weapon damage modifier, and your Proficiency, you have a pretty good idea how much damage you can do on any successful hit. The damage only varies by the margin of success, right? Unless you've just poured a 15 die CP into an attack against a bound and sleeping opponent, that's not likely to be a very broad range. Compare this to a system where you roll NdX +/- Y for damage.
Take a GURPS game where you might roll 3d6-2 for damage on a successful hit. That ranges from 1 to 16, a range of 15, without being an extreme case, like the 15 die attack above. Note that there are 15 points of variance in a 16 point hit.
More typically in TROS you'll have ST 5 and a damage modifier of 1. Proficiency and reflex keeps CPs in the range of say, 10-15, of which usually less than 1/2 is spent on a given attack. So your total damage for a hit will be 6+[1 to 7] or from 7 to 13, with only 6 points of variance in a 13 point hit.
Therefore, you know for sure that against a TO 8 character (uh...a naked TO 8 character...) that you'll never get more than 13-8=5 damage if he has no defensive successes. Maybe you'd better attack him in his sleep...or with a friend...or let someone else do it...or have a damned good reason for attacking him. An SA of 5 in the right place could do wonders for cutting this hulk down to size.
I don't think any of this indicates that the rules as written are broken. It seems clear from Jake's post that the GM is supposed to intervene in extreme toughness cases unless circumstances really justify it. I imagine a TO 8 character to be someone like Gregor Clegane from ASoIaF; huge, ungodly tough, and lacking in other areas.
I'm getting ready to run my first full-rules TRoS game soon and I plan on limiting my players to non-magical humans. But if someone wants a TO 8 character and can justify it in character terms, I'm not planning on stopping him.
Oh, and just for what seems to be the unofficial poll of this thread: In my view, knowing instinctively how to move is reflexive, and therefore part of Reflex. That's all part of not being hit in the first place. Toughness is just that, meat and muscle and sinew and gristle and bone and skin and even fat...and it works in your sleep. However, I'd say that all defense rolls in sleep are fumbled...
Mouth closing now.
Quote from: JasonOne of the interesting things about TRoS is that damage is more deterministic than many RPGs. Because you know your ST, your weapon damage modifier, and your Proficiency, you have a pretty good idea how much damage you can do on any successful hit.
You didn't say whether or not you thought this was a bad thing or not. I personally feel it's a good and natural thing. Anybody with training in any sort of martial art probably has a damn good idea of how much damage they're capable of, so it only seems natural that this is reflected in TRoS.
I'm sorry...to me, most interesting things are good. I agree, someone with martial training will have a good idea how lethal he is. My point was that there seems to be some debate over whether TO is in some way "broken" and I contend that the evidence that it is broken is weak.
Quote from: Mike HolmesThe basic problem with that option, Tancred, is that it creates breakpoints. Assuming you round up (as it'll always be .5), you'll only ever see odd stats. Lot's of 5s and 7s, and the occasional 3. Not much range. The only time characters will have an even number is on the way to the next odd number.
Mike
What if you used (ST-TO)/2? A bit more fiddly though.
Concerning an earlier issue -
Should the success of an attack against a completely immobile and unresisting target be predetermined. I.e: There's nothing around that requires the PC to conserve CP, so it is irrelevent how much he invests in the strike, and it's obvious that he's gonna roll enuff dice to succeed; then don't roll.
For the sake of roleplay, if u deem that rolling dice against a sleeping target breaks the atmosphere and hinders dramatic tension, then, I agree, you should forego the roll.
Same as I'd hate to play a game where u roll for tripping everytime u set foor on stairs.
But for me, TO still represents a person's physical ability to withstand punishment, awake or not :)
ps. Agreeing with earlier posts, I'd say that if u mess with the TO issue, then STR has to be altered accordingly. To do otherwise would render one stat more powerful than the other.
Hey guys... I found this dead horse over here... Anybody got a bat?
I think most people forget the most basic rule to running a role playing game, the one that says "Use what works best for you."
In my opinion it's pretty silly to sit here and argue over the somantics of a metagame concept such as toughness. I've seen and heard stories of some really tough motherfuckers in my day, and I don't see questioning it.
For instance, my uncle was a coal miner, and was caught in a cave in, and a 2000 pound slab of rock fell on him. He survived. When his friends eventually got the rock off of him he crawled out from under it with his back and shoulder blade broken. Part of that can be attributed to willpower, but I would think that the majority of it can be called "toughness". Or, what about the guy I read about as a kid that fell 18,000 feet from an airplane and hit the ground, breaking only his arm?
I tend to agree with Wolfen that toughness could be, in part, our body's reflexive attemps to keep from getting hurt. Think about it, say you're outside and a bug flies into your face.... before your brain and concious mind registers it, you've already blinked, and probably pulled your head back a little.
I've rambled a little bit, but I hope I've demonstrated my point... Some people are just fucking tough, deal with it. Find a group of roleplayers who are intrested in playing a character who is not just a combat god, or give them a reason to become what you want them to, but don't try to mess up the simplicity of this beautiful system that Jake has made for us just so you can feel better about the bunch of cheesedick warhammer players you've got in your local gaming group breaking everything.
*steps down from the soapbox*
Okay, first. Draigh, I agree with you, Jake did a fab job on TRoS, and screwing with it is not something I agree with.
Next, I look at the whole toughness thing as those intangibles and even a whole set of factors that decide if your gonna take the abstract idea of "damage" or not. Could be the character drank a lot of milk as a kid, has muscles like iron wire, is bloody big, is.... the thing is it doesn't matter, it is there, it works for me.
Are we trying to second guess the creators for the sake of second guessing the creators? In midevil times most swords were not Razor Sharp, and therefore someone could just shrug off those kinds of wounds, almost as though they were wearing plate, if they were hearty enough. In addition, even with a 4-6 average, you forget that plate STACKS. Therefore it is the equivilant of a person with a toughness of 2-3 wearing plate, or a 6 wearing chain.... Excuse me if i got these numbers wrong, i don't have the book in front of me at the time
Quote from: Warboss GrockAre we trying to second guess the creators for the sake of second guessing the creators?
Nothing wrong with second guessing RPG rules is there? Most of the time the only people who'll even know are you and the people you game with. The chances of one set of rules satisfying all it's players as published seems pretty small.
Anyway, tinkering's good fun!
Quote from: Warboss GrockAre we trying to second guess the creators for the sake of second guessing the creators? In midevil times most swords were not Razor Sharp, and therefore someone could just shrug off those kinds of wounds, almost as though they were wearing plate, if they were hearty enough. In addition, even with a 4-6 average, you forget that plate STACKS. Therefore it is the equivilant of a person with a toughness of 2-3 wearing plate, or a 6 wearing chain.... Excuse me if i got these numbers wrong, i don't have the book in front of me at the time
a)It's medieval
b)Swords weren't razor-sharp because they don't need to be. You can do plenty of damage even with an unsharpened sword, because it's still plenty of force on a small surface. No, you can't really shrug that off.
Take a look at http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/TestCutting/TestCuttingEvent2.htm
Scroll down to the last row of un-thumbnailed pics.
QuoteA closer look. The raw fresh beef shoulder was sheared
almost clean in two --and from an unsharpened blade!
IIRC, John Clements mentions in his book that they found a guy at Wisby who had both legs hewn off, apparently with one stroke -though I'd suspect an axe at work there...
I think what we are witnessing in this thread is 90% due to the number of narrowly defined attributes that TROS has. This is the HUGE unspoken danger of attribute proliferation...that being that most things one could discuss are actually a combination of several factors it the same time.
This means either a) use fewer attributes so that a single number represents all of those varied factors at once (what I call the "Ragu" approach...as in "its in there"). or b) use even MORE derived attributes.
This last is not my favorite way to design a game but is probably the simplest solution for TROS. In fact, given how Reflex, Knockdown, Knockout, and Move are all derived...I'm surprised there isn't a derived Soak stat already.
See, here's the thing. Toughness as narrowly defined by the attribute makes no sense. There is absolutely no conceivable way that the world's toughest human can withstand a full bore sword swing equally as well as a less tough human wearing plate. Currently Joe Tough = Joe Wimp + Plate. It is analytically absurd...when one limits Toughness to just the specific definition of the attribute.
What's REALLY going on with the Toughness stat however, is an amalgamation of all the different ways a person can mitigate injury to himself without the benefit of armor.
There's an alertness component: the target's ability to see a blow coming quickly enough to react to it.
There's a quickness component: the ability to roll with the blow and lessen its impact
Theres a size component: simple physics tells us that larger objects can absorb more punishment.
There's a strength component: as much as additional muscle mass makes better protection than flesh and fat.
There's a "toughness" component: some bodies just can take more punishment.
There's a Will component: much of physical toughness is actually mind over matter.
Taking all of these factors into account the TO reduction for damage isn't all that nonsensical. The problem is really just that the number is tied only to Toughness.
A simple solution would be to create a new Derived attribute, one that accounts for some of these other factors so we're not just talking about the ability of flesh to avoid being sliced. Further any time you start adding and mixing attributes you create a much greater concentration around the mean. It would be MUCH more difficult to have a TO 8 character if there were 2 or 3 attributes being averaged into the stat.
Now adding them all together would be a bit pointless, since your variation would go to nill. But we should be able to come up with a good compromise.
Lets see:
What about the Alertness and Quickness Component...well, we already have Reflex, and thats a crucial stat. For game reasons we really don't want to give any MORE importance to Wit and Agility. Besides, Reflex contributes to the Combat pool, so rolling with the blow can be said to already be part of the defense roll...Scratch that.
Will: Will checks are already used to shrug off shock and pain, and while I think "mental toughness" has farther reaching implications than just "grin and bear it" we don't necessarily want to build it in again.
Strength: Well, Strength isn't a part of damage absorbtion any where, and I really think it should be. BUT, if we weaken TO by averaging it down with a derived attribute, Strength will have an advantage already so we really don't want to make it even MORE important. So for gaming reasons, leave that out too.
So what are we left with? Why not simply TO and Health?
I mean really, how many people use Health as a source of freebie points. Has anyone actually made a combat oriented character with a Health of 6 or 7? I haven't. Health is important for avoiding disease and healing faster...
Big whoop. Why? Because most of the time disease is rarely a feature of RPG play, and while healing quick is important...even with a high health its going to take along time anyway. The three options are 1) you're good enough to not get hurt. 2) Your dead. 3) you're spending months recovering. Most of the time the difference between spending 2 months recovering and 4 months recovering is not important...the game is going to wait until you're better to continue anyway (most of the time).
So we can afford to let Health slide a bit to perk up those all important Strength, Toughness, and Reflex stats and some of the others that have more immediate and obvious impact.
So...Best of all worlds here in my book. So much so I might make it a permanent House Rule.
TO is replaced with (TO + Health)/2 for damage calculation purposes.
By averaging TO down, you lower the TO score to a more reasonable level without having to resort to arbitrary score caps...while simultaneously breathing new importance into the games least used (IMO) stat. AND you do it in a manner for which there is already ample precident in the game.
I don't see a downside to it.
Yeah, Doesn't sound half-bad.
And, as you explained, it does balance out Health a little bit. Currently, it is a neglected stat. As Valamir stated, the threat of combat in an RPG is generally gonna be more prevalent than threat from disease. And the consequences of a bad health role less dramatic.
Still don't know if it's necessary though ;)
I love the idea of a 'Yoda'-style dude; weak on TO but high in HT, who'll crumple from a solid punch but never catches colds.
And I similarly like the thirty stone brick shithouse; high on TO but low in HT. Fueled on twenty pints of larger and a doner kebab, he'll mow his way through a crowd of teenagers without feeling a thing or breaking a bone, then promptly collapse from the inevitable corronary.
ps. And i'm not just some kneejerk anti-tweaker. I just love the crisp simplicity of TROS.
One tweak I'm considering implementing as house allows an attacker to adjust their location hit rolls.
I want my PCs (and NPCs) able to aim for specific locations; to go for that cool stab through the throat, or that poke in the eye. And actually succeed.
Before dice are rolled, the attacker can spend additional CP. Each point spent allows him/her to adjust the D6 result accordingly.
Dunno if this has been suggested before on other posts?
Take care
I still say the simplest thing is to allow TO to negate ST but not create a negative wound level, at least for bladed or punture weapons. Thus ST6-TO8 = 0. Therefore all is does is to remove your oppenents strength bonus but not make you invulnerable. For unarmed attacks the full TO value might apply. I can't see myself KOing a heavy weight boxer under any circumstances.
I wouldn't be averse to a derived "soak" attribute that combined reflex and TO. Any one who has play contact sports knows that the ability to take a hit is based both on mass (TO?) and the ability to roll off the hit (reflex or some thing). One might argue, however, that since reflex is part of CP there is no need for SOAK.
I always thought that Runequest had reasonable reasoning in basing damage on ST and Size, while hit points were based on size and constitution. It changes how you interpret ST a bit (kind of a measure of fitness not just brute force but brute force per size).
NT
Quote from: toliI still say the simplest thing is to allow TO to negate ST but not create a negative wound level, at least for bladed or punture weapons. Thus ST6-TO8 = 0. Therefore all is does is to remove your oppenents strength bonus but not make you invulnerable. For unarmed attacks the full TO value might apply. I can't see myself KOing a heavy weight boxer under any circumstances.
Been staying out of this thread, like the game as it is, yadda yadda yadda.
That said, I quite like this suggestion. It slightly downplays TO to keeping it the opposite of ST, but not allowing you to soak sword wounds with it (for that, you need armor). Nice, very good suggestion.
Brian.
Quote from: toliI still say the simplest thing is to allow TO to negate ST but not create a negative wound level, at least for bladed or punture weapons. Thus ST6-TO8 = 0. Therefore all is does is to remove your oppenents strength bonus but not make you invulnerable. For unarmed attacks the full TO value might apply. I can't see myself KOing a heavy weight boxer under any circumstances.
NT
I like it. It does not alter the mechanics (my beef) and deals with what I think many people are concerned with here.
Nicely done toli.
Thank you....thank you....
NT:)
QuoteI still say the simplest thing is to allow TO to negate ST but not create a negative wound level, at least for bladed or punture weapons.
My immediate reaction was; You mean that isn't the way it's meant to work? It seems so obvious, but if it's not specified in the rules I can certainly see how toughness becomes a monster stat. Don't know if I'd have remembered to include it when I set up a game though, so it's good of you to bring it up.
Kudos!
Quote from: Brian LeybourneQuote from: Bob RichterST does NOT cancel out TO under the current rules unless the two are EXACTLY equal. What are the chances of that?
Ah, that would be why I said "more or less". After all, given that the average for both is 4, they more or less cancel each other out in the current system.
Brian.
That's using a definition of "more or less" which totally alters the thrust of your argument, especially considering that it's now the difference between a nasty bruise and an imploded skull. :)
You get an idea of just how sick TO is when you realise that with TO 8, you just don't have to block sometimes. After all, it's not often that you'll forgo the use of armor just because you CAN. :)
Actually, I'm mostly just bothered that there isn't a single case I can think of where TO is actually ROLLED.
It's not like TO is any worse than HP or something. Actually, it's considerably better.
It's just not Perfect.
I call TO rolls against skills pretty frequently.
Jake
Yeah, agreed.
Toli's suggestion is most sound. Shall be using it.
Take care
Quote from: Jake NorwoodI call TO rolls against skills pretty frequently.
Jake
Give me an example?
I've never seen fit to do so.