I've been at this forum long enough to know that this subject has been covered to death on several occasions, but I have been discussing various ideas for at least the last month now with some members on this forum, and I think I have come up with a method that is fairly easy to handle and can allow for a more heroic effect in fantasy combat. First, I'd like to acknowledge those that have helped me develop this proposal: arxhon, Mike Holmes, Mokkukalfe, and Wolfin, who I had the pleasure of meeting a couple of weeks ago when my company sent me to Tempe, AZ. for some training.
One of the most frequently offered opinion for controlling characters that want to overload their character's Toughness score is to set a limit on a Human TO of like 6 or 7 because of its importance in combat. There has never been any talk of limiting the other attributes to similar values, and I think that there should be some uniformity with all of the attributes. Something else that I thought about was the large type of fantasy creatures that characters sometimes find themselves up against. In the TRoS book, giants have a ST of 20 and a TO of 13. What kind of scores would Smaug the Golden have! You can forget about the single arrow death shot from Bard in The Hobbit with the current rules.
The way I was thinking it could be handled is to simply roll a number of dice equal to their ST score with a TN of 6 and use that number to determine the DR instead of just adding the full ST score. In turn, the defender rolls a number of dice equal to their TO with a TN of 6 to determine how much damage is negated instead of their full TO score.
This method does have two extra rolls every round - one by the attacker and another by the defender, but that only happens when the attacker has one or more successes above a defender. It also allows for players to make their character's TO score as high as they want. It would also make it more possible for a Man to give a serious wound or even kill the very large fantasy creatures that can some times be encountered in a fantasy world such as Weyrth, Hârn, or even Middle-earth.
As an afterthought, you could also adjust that TO/ST TN by 1 or 2 up or down for an individual character as a flaw or gift to account for a very hard or soft upbringing.
Well, that's all for now. Let's hear your comments, suggestions, and questions.
As I happened to have been sitting down and talking with Tony (who is a very cool guy with a lot of interesting ideas!) when this idea was solidified, I can be considered somewhat biased. However, I think it a viable idea for those who have issues with TO as it currently stands, but who, like me, dislike the idea of limiting one stat, but not others.
In addition to this idea, it can be optional that 1-6 points (equivalent to armor) of this TO can be converted to "hard armor" for creatures with scaly hides, or some form of natural armor which is above and beyond their natural "toughness". This would allow for that single scale which is "bare as a snail without it's shell" which was the downfall of mighty Smaug.
I was thinking of a method a little bit more drastic.
Get rid of the stats STR and TOU, and replace with MUS (Muscle) and BLD (Build).
Then, you have two new derived stats: STR and TOU.
STR is based on BLD and MUS, and TOU is based on HLT and BLD.
They may be straight averages, or you could use STR = (BLD + MUS)/3 +2, and TOU = (BLD + HLT)/3 +2, to get a more restricted scale that's still centred around 4. It also reigns in the higher scores pretty effectively.
Build could be used in a variety of ways - as a difficulty for your own sneak rolls, or rolling with falls, for example!
The sticking point for me is that MUS is a fairly useless stat on its own.
if you have issues with toughness go for the first method I say, unless you like math and would like a good calculator session in character creation.
in the land of laziness, the simplist plan is king.
I'm of the opinion that instead of trying to limit your players, have a clearer idea of what type of game you all want to play. If your group wants to keep it gritty, limit TO- if you want more "heroic" character types, don't limit TO.
Don't get me wrong, tinker with your game as much as you like, I just think its easier for the game group to have clear idea of what they want to play, then use the rule set that meets your needs.
I've drifted games for years, mostly because the idea that "system matters" never occured to me. Now that I've grasped that, I would rather just find a game mechanic that meets my groups needs, for that type of game, and use it- instead of trying to make something else fit.
Quote from: Anthony II'm of the opinion that instead of trying to limit your players, have a clearer idea of what type of game you all want to play. If your group wants to keep it gritty, limit TO- if you want more "heroic" character types, don't limit TO.
Isn't that precisely what is going on?
Quote from: Ashren Va'Haleif you have issues with toughness go for the first method I say, unless you like math and would like a good calculator session in character creation.
<grin> How bad does your mental arithmetic have to be to need a calculator to divide the sum of two single digit numbers by three?
Note that the method I suggested is no more complex than that used in TROS already (divide by 3 instead of 2).
Having said that, the idea does change sats pretty drastically, so I don't know if even I like it - but I thought it was wrth mentioning.
Quote from: Anthony II'm of the opinion that instead of trying to limit your players, have a clearer idea of what type of game you all want to play. If your group wants to keep it gritty, limit TO- if you want more "heroic" character types, don't limit TO.
By heroic Anthony, I mean that a character is capable of doing something extraordinary, like slaying a giant. In that scenario, you are already starting off with a range disadvantage, but even if you do hit, you have to do more than 13 points of damage to wound him. My method doesn't tip the scales, it just gives the chance for the character to get all or most of his ST into a swing or lounge with a great roll, and the giant to be caught off guard by the ferocity of the attack and roll poorly on his TO. Odds are that the giant will still tear your character a new hole, so players are advised to only inter the fight with such creatures when their characters can utilize their SA's, but I have put in place a little more randomness to the situation to make for a more varied range of outcomes. Also keep in mind the above example with the giant could have an opposite result or the same thing happening when an opponents attacks you.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, Lance (AKA Wolfin). It was very nice to meet some one like you from the forum and get a chance to share ideas. I sure hope to meet more people from this forum at Gen Con this July.
Quote from: DurgilMy method doesn't tip the scales, it just gives the chance for the character to get all or most of his ST into a swing or lounge with a great roll, and the giant to be caught off guard by the ferocity of the attack and roll poorly on his TO.
I like what your system does, but I dislike rolling multiple D10s - the attack rolls for me are more than enough. :)
Quote from: demiurgeastarothI like what your system does, but I dislike rolling multiple D10s - the attack rolls for me are more than enough. :)
I understood from the beginning that this would turn a lot of people off, but I stand by my method and feel that like anything else new, it just takes a little bit of time to get used to. The dice pools should, in most cases, only have 3 to 7 dice. Plus, there aren't any rolls made unless the attacker has a margin of successes over the defender.
QuoteIsn't that precisely what is going on?
Not as I understand the thread. I'm not talking about changing the system mechanics, I'm talking about the group deciding before hand what limits you want to put on character design.
Don't get me wrong, I like these type of threads, I'm just wondering aloud if it's neccessary to change "the system" as opposed to just communicating within your group what you want your boundries to be?
If the system doesn't meet your groups needs is it better to change the system or change systems?
Quote from: Anthony I
If the system doesn't meet your groups needs is it better to change the system or change systems?
If only a couple of elements of a system need to be tweaked, but the majority of the system with its underlying mechanics is fine, then it's better to change the system than top change system. There's nothing sacrosanct about published rules.
Quote from: DurgilBy heroic Anthony, I mean that a character is capable of doing something extraordinary, like slaying a giant.
I used heroic because I couldn't think of a better opposite of gritty- hope it didn't cause any confusion.
QuoteIn that scenario, you are already starting off with a range disadvantage, but even if you do hit, you have to do more than 13 points of damage to wound him. My method doesn't tip the scales, it just gives the chance for the character to get all or most of his ST into a swing or lounge with a great roll, and the giant to be caught off guard by the ferocity of the attack and roll poorly on his TO. Odds are that the giant will still tear your character a new hole, so players are advised to only inter the fight with such creatures when their characters can utilize their SA's, but I have put in place a little more randomness to the situation to make for a more varied range of outcomes. Also keep in mind the above example with the giant could have an opposite result or the same thing happening when an opponents attacks you.
I'm not questioning your method, it makes sense to me. I just don't see it as an improvement to the existing system. If one of my players in my upcoming TROS game wants to make a TO 8 ST 7 combat monster- well ok, the player is telling me what they want to play. I don't have a problem with that senario.
As to your giant example- I do see that a ST 4 guy will have next to no chance causing 14 successes so he can cause a level 1 wound. And, if you are planning on having PC's fight giants hth and have any hope of winning then I agree, you may need some type of fix.
too bad this isnt a new idea...
you already do this in white wolf games... there is no real auto successes, unless you have potence...
playing werewolf, you'd roll all your damage, to determine how much you do, they roll their soak..
i am of the camp though, that thinks that less dice is always better
Quote from: prophet118i am of the camp though, that thinks that less dice is always better
I'm sitting here laughing cause I'm in the opposite camp- give me more dice to roll, more I say. Thay was one of the things that I liked most about WW games, dice pools.
I know that mathematicly its probably an illusion, but I feel that my chances are better in a fortune system with more dice. I like that illusion.
Frankly, I don't really like dice pool mechanics, and it was a negative when I considered getting TRoS - but despite that, I like the game, hence why I hang out here.
The only dice pool game mechanics I truly like is "Godlike."
What I find amusing, though, is that i'm working on a game mechanic myself that is slightly dice-poolish. I wonder what that says about me? :/
Heh.
Speaking of (slightly off-topic here), in the Articles section of The Forge, in article by Mr Ron Edwards about game mechanics making a difference, he made a reference to an RPG called Zero and how it revolutionized dice mechanics for task resolution.
He wasn't referring to Spaceship Zero, right? Does anyone know what game he was referring to, and what was so revolutionary about it?
Zero is a game where you are a member of a Hive mind and "wake up" one day. Very Matrix-esque in some ways. Frankly I forget how the mechanics work, but it might be a Fortune in the Middle (FitM) thing.
Mike
Hi there,
Zero resolution is grossly Fortune-in-the-Middle. This is the game that introduced the "free and clear announcements" and order-set-by-resolution-roll concepts which I adapted for Sorcerer. It also has a very unusual, well-designed improvement system which I am pretty sure no one understands except for people who've played the game over the long term.
The game is not called Spaceship Zero, but just "Zero." It was written by Lester Smith and illustrated extensively by Stephen Stone (in fact, the game was in part designed based on the illustrations in the first place). It was published in 1994 by the short-lived company Archangel Entertainment, along with another brilliant game called Extreme Vengeance by Tony Lee.
Best,
Ron
Ah, thanks. I know what game you are talking about now, and at one point I ALMOST picked it up.
I just DID for $9.00 at half.com (http://half.ebay.com/index.jsp). Man, I'm such an RPG junky!
Give some feedback once you get it :)
Not a problem. I just got the confirmation saying it will take 5-15 days to get to me.