A Strange Damage Progression

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Narmical, if it were rounding up as Xenopulse says, then that attack of 8 on a character who has lost 7 levels already would take 5 levels from the character; still over half.  I understand your point, but my take is that any gamist can disagree with the way a system handles damage with defense and soak.  Many perfectly good, gamist-oriented systems have enemy traits which reduce the damage that players deal.

The only time this rule even matters is when you're making an attack that would not kill a character flat out.  Meaning: You're not slitting their throat or shooting a hole in their head.  These are surface wounds that cause no other effect but to cumulatively kill a person.  As Xenopulse mentioned, effects that penalize a victim are handled through a separate mechanic.

The point being that, in this system, none of these attacks would kill the opponent individually anyhow.  If you actually make an attack that would normally kill the person, then you kill that person, no matter how much damage they've already taken.  Otherwise, you're just giving them a hernia or concussion or whatever.

-Jason T.

[Justin Nichol - BFG]

Yea, but I dunno, I could imagine a bunch of people not attacking an enemy because they'rewaiting to charge up a power or because they can't throw their partys most powerful attack, which would lead to some diluting and metagaming where all the characters somehow acted as though their first attack was the most important which isn't necessarily true to life or fiction.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

There is some work that needs to be done on setting up exactly how attacks work.  I don't see the situation you bring up as posing a problem.

One way or another, if you hold back on an attack, you're not doing damage that would otherwise be done.  Wasting time in a tactical RPG has its own disadvantages, up to and including "your character could die while you're waiting around." 

Think about it this way:

Party's most powerful attack is a 10, but it takes 4 rounds to charge up.
Another party member can attack during this time with a 4 each time, doing a total of 10 damage (if they were all versus the same opponent), or simply not attack.
If the Low-Powered character does attack those four times, the powerful attack will take damage to a 15, when it would otherwise have been only 10.
If the Low-Powered character waits 4 rounds, the high powered character attacks with a 10, and it takes another 2-3 attacks after that just to get the damage about as high again, costing a total of 6-7 rounds for damage which could have been done in 4.
In a "fun" RPG, this powerful attack couldn't be powered up unless there is some necessary factor to powering up, otherwise there's no point to the time requirement; i.e., combat has already started, meaning the character is already under fire while charging.  Those could be a precious few rounds you're wasting.

-Jason T.

[xenopulse]

I'm getting a lot of good stuff out of this conversation. Especially the parts about not wasting rounds and powering up attacks. Cool. I was already thinking of using powers that have a primary and a secondary effect; often the primary being damage and the secondary a condition, with follow-up attacks being empowered (or enabled) by the conditions.

For example: throw a bigass fireball. Primary effect is damage (searing) on target, secondary is condition (burning) on area of target. People who use fire magic draw tokens from nearby fire conditions, so now they've caused damage AND increased their token pool per round. (And non-fire-resistant enemies in the burning area are going to take damage now, too.)  More tokens mean better powers.

Feel free to keep on talking if you guys have more insight   I need a day or two to digest and consider.

[contracycle]

Yea, but I dunno, I could imagine a bunch of people not attacking an enemy because they'rewaiting to charge up a power or because they can't throw their partys most powerful attack, which would lead to some diluting and metagaming where all the characters somehow acted as though their first attack was the most important which isn't necessarily true to life or fiction.

"Fire when you see the whites of their eyes".  There can be very good reasons for withholding from an immediate attack in favour of one you expect to be more effective later.

I think the point about "dooming a gamist to do half damage for the rest of the combat" is valid, but can be solved by making the damage points non-linear.  If all you are engaged in is delivering attritional damage until all the enemies points are gone, this is a valid concern, but if there is a significant transition from having suffered 8 points of damage to having suffered 9 points of damage, the fact that there is a halving step in the math will be incidental.  You will still have delivered a significant attack.

Also the fact that system works in 2-point steps does not seem much of a concern to me,although I would have to see the rest of it.  But in principle this could be exploited, as has been suggested, by putting a special condition on odd numbers.  Say, you always round down unless your sword has the quality "vorpal" or whatever; or, you round up against unarmoured opponents, and down against armoured opponents, etc.

[Narmical]

Narmical, if it were rounding up as Xenopulse says, then that attack of 8 on a character who has lost 7 levels already would take 5 levels from the character; still over half. 

minor point. If you round up, the numbers change slightly, and there is still no way to do full damage.

Yes there are lots of games that have damage reduction and soak and stuff. but in those cases there isnt a diminished return.

My point is: Enimys who have hit points way greater than your attack strength might break the spirt of the system.
one point of the system was to diminish the ablity for a layering of small attacks to kill right? there could be a situation were instead of adding 100 cat scratches into a kill, you adding 100 sword stabs. the only diffrence being flavor.

Seccond idea. I havent seen fist of the north star, but im told its very similar to dragon ball et al. Im asuming the battles follow the sturcture (as many anime do) of the chars starting out using week attacks, then pulling out the big super duper specal kill everything attack right at the end.

it would be cool to capture that in some way.

maybe it all ready does.
If you have 2 attacks
Poke -- 4 damage
Kill everything -- 10 damage (useable once per battle)

and bad guy has 18 wounds

if you use kill everything first, then all pokes
10+2+2+2+2 = 18 wounds in 5 attacks

if you use kill everything last.
4+2+2+10 = 18 wounds in 4 attacks

i you save your big powerfull attack for a death blow you win one round earler... very gameist.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

"Diminished Return" only applies when you think in terms of how other systems use the numbers.  Remember, these numbers only exist in the first place as an abstraction.  HP is not a real, tangible thing. 

Think about a woodcutters axe going through a tree.  If, each time, the axe is able to go 1/8 of the way through the tree, but a "successful hit" only constitutes hitting a tree in a general area, but not in the same specific spot every time, then there are naturally diminishing returns.  It will take plenty more than 8 swipes to fell the tree.  However, an ax swing that hits 8 times as hard will go all the way through and fell it in one, because it's all directed in one shot. (disclaimer: hardness of swing measured in game damage rather than real physics)

The idea about damage with killing intent (as opposed to damage with blinding or disabling intent) in this system is that a hit does constitute whatever opening you may have at the time.  You may end up causing wounds which, inherently, do not stack.  So, in this sense, there aren't diminishing returns: you're still causing every wound that you otherwise would.  It's just that two different wounds, assuming each insufficient to kill on their own, with no stacking quality, are not going to kill a character.

Your statement about 100 sword stab wounds not killing a character is a different issue.  Remember, such a character would have to be able to endure an attack the power of 51 of those same sword wounds at once in order to survive 100.  That means, that character would have to be some sort of behemoth at least.

In your final example, the "Final Attack" breaks the stacking rule (I assume that was your point, though).  According to my logic (I'm not trying to imply that Xenopulse is in complete congruence with me here), such a final attack would have to exploit the damage the enemy has already taken.  It would have to use the already existing wounds to the attacker's benefit.  It can kill someone, not simply of its own power (10 < 18), but can use wounds to do greater damage (8 + 10 = 18 > 14).  Such attacks that break the stacking rules may indeed be included in the system, and may make it more interesting.

Arguing from a gamist standpoint (as you do) rather than simulationist, however, you can think of the extra rule as a level of complication in the decision which the gamist is making.  Gamists like a fairly high level of complication in their decisions.  Otherwise, the game becomes too easy.  Numerically diminishing returns is not something that is hated by all gamists.  It creates another twist to their calculative exploitation that drives their interest in the game.  Gamists in general accept rules as long as they do not remove the Gamist's ability to profit from their strategy.  With this system, we are already seeing such ways of profiting.

-Jason T.

[xenopulse]

Hmm. If I keep the mechanism as it is, there will be plenty of times when it all just turns into a battle of attrition after all. If one big hit doesn't take out the opponent, the next one is almost guaranteed to. Because if I need to do 15 damage, I know I can't do it with my 12-point attack, but I'm guaranteed to do it with 12+12. So the first attack is always known to be non-lethal, and the second is always known to be lethal (unless I roll for damage, but that causes variances that bring small and big attacks too close together and that I'd like to avoid).

What if an attack has a chance to take out the opponent, based on how much damage it does. If that doesn't do it, some of that hit remains as a wound and adds to the chance of all consecutive wounds, because it weakened the opponent. That keeps the spirit of the original idea, but should make each hit more interesting, right? And it takes out the certainty of how many hits take someone out without introducing the option of your

Let's say a 12 point hit means that you have to roll your Toughness dice and get 12 points or more to keep on standing. Depending on your Toughness, that might be easy or difficult.  If you don't make it, you're out. If you do, you take a 6-point wound (half of the damage). The next time you get hit, you have to add those six points. So another 12-point hit is going to require a 18-point Toughness check. And if you make that, the next time you add both 6-point wounds and have to make a 24-point check. And so on.

I just realized that there might be some variant D&D rule that went something like this with Fortitude saves, but I can't recall where I saw that...

[xenopulse]

Oh! Follow-up idea: This way, you can actually have some powers that are better at taking people out but leave small wounds, and others that don't have a big Toughness check associated with them but deal higher lasting damage. That means more strategic options about short-term versus long-term, and when to time your taking-out attack.

[Narmical]

that increasing dificult check sounds cool.

I dont remember a d and d varian that used it.

however 7th sea (pre d20) had a similar mechanic

there were 2 kinds of wounds, flesh and dramatic

you had to save vs flesh wounds + damage or take a dramatic wound.

You new idea would capture the usefullness of the big death blow

[FzGhouL]

Alright,

I think your system is unique and extremely clever. I like it from all points of view.

My question is more on the front end of things: How is damage taking place in the first place?
The trigger mechanic for damage can drastically alter how your accruing of damage takes place.

Also, I also would like to re-raise the issue of less strategic options for characters, should the trigger be static and easily controllable.
Overall, I am extremely impressed with this simple and elegant mechanic. Hopefully your trigger has synergy with it.

~Mohammad

[FzGhouL]

Hey,

I've been thinking about your idea a bit more.

If you intend on keeping gameplay as quick as possible, then it seems fine with minor tweaking.
If you want a more strategic or realistic style of play, think about a seperate "shock" value where repeated minor attacks are actually beneficial.

Thanks,
Mohammad

[xenopulse]

You want an overview of how the whole thing works together? Phew... okay. This is all still in draft stage, but I'll try to give you an example of how I'd like it to go.

This is a token-based game.  That means you gain tokens in certain ways and then expend them to use your powers.  Think Iron Heroes, only here tokens are much more fundamental, tactical, and useful.  One layer of strategy here is that tokens are earned in very different ways. There are regular tokens that you store and use up, and virtual tokens. Virtual tokens are not stocked up from round to round, you have to spend them right away. But they also don't count against your Pool limit and they're basically free tokens every round as long as you meet the prerequisites.

For example, you have Blood powers.  Your character has the following abilities:

Blood Pool II: you can hold 10 Blood Tokens
Vampirism: you gain x Blood Tokens by drinking someone's blood (can't be used during combat)
Bloodline I: You have a virtual Blood Token available every round as long as you have at least 5 regular Blood Tokens in your pool.
Weakness to Fire II: Your saving throw against fire damage is at -4 and you take 50% more damage from fire attacks.
Resilient III: Your damage saving throw gains a +6 bonus.
Power Attack: An attack action that uses a Blood Token for increased damage.
Celerity: An interrupt action that costs a Blood Token and raises your defense by +4 against the interrupted attack.

Let's say you have 5 Blood Tokens in your pool.

You are facing someone with the following abilities:

Flame Pool I: You can hold 5 Flame Tokens.
Inhale Fire: You gain 2 Flame Tokens if your area or yourself are burning, and 1 Flame Token from every adjacent burning area, up to a maximum of 5 Flame Tokens per round.
Firestorm: An attack action that uses Flame Tokens.

Now, the other character is attacking you with Firestorm.  The details for the power are:

Name: Firestorm
Cost: 3 Flame Tokens
Attack: +6 (+8/+10)
Save: fire 10 (12/14)
Effect: Fire Damage 2 (3/4) against all targets in area; inflict burning on area

The numbers in parentheses are boost numbers.  You can raise to the next higher number by spending additional Flame Tokens. Each boost has to be bought separately, so spending one additional Flame Token will either get you a +8 attack OR a +5 save requirement OR more inflicted damage.  If you completely boost up this power, you're spending 9 Flame Tokens.

So now the other character is using the power on you,  not boosting anything.  Let's say you use up a Blood Token to interrupt with Celerity and gain a bonus on your defense roll to completely dodge the attack.  The attacker gets to roll a +6 strike and you roll a +4 defense roll.

You used up your virtual token, leaving you with your regular 5 Blood Tokens. However, if you're using up one or more of those tokens on your turn this round, you won't qualify for the virtual token anymore next round.

Alright, on with the attack.  Say it hits.  You first have to save against fire to see if you stay conscious or even die.  The base save difficulty from the power is 10.  You've got +6 to saves against any damage, but -4 from your fire weakness, leaving you at +2.

Whether you make the save or not, you're taking 3 points of fire damage (2 plus 50% from your weakness).  Next time you make a save, you have a 3 point penalty.

Also, the area you're in is now burning.  This means two things: if you stay in it, the burning condition will work as an independent attack on you every round until it burns out.  It also means that your opponent is gaining Flame Tokens if she is in or next to that area, thereby feeding her own powers. As you can see, a vampire would be smart to quickly and decisively end a battle, because the flame powered opponent is going to turn the whole battleground into an inferno and steadily grow more powerful.

Wow. Examples take up a lot of space. That's how I imagine it'll work at this point, anyway.

Additional parts of the game will be lots of combos and aids that encourage a party to work together as a team, style tokens earned through cool narration that can be used as boosts for any power, and similar things.

[Valamir]

Hey, this looks alot more crunchy than Beast Hunters (not as a negative feature).  But I think if you keep all of the powers working along the same kind of format you can keep things manageably playable.

If each power has its own rules / exceptions / minor differences than you can't play off the character sheet (unless the character sheet is pages long describing the powers in detail.  If each power pretty much works the same way mechanically (i.e. Attack +6 (+8, +10) works the same as Attack +4 (+6, +8) regardless of whether the power is "fire" or "claws") then you can learn one set of token manipulation rules and apply those right from the sheet without needing alot of cross referencing.  That sort of manipulation can be a lot of fun.

Question:  NPCs and GM characters...this could be alot of tracking work...any shortcuts in mind?

[xenopulse]

Hey Ralph,

Yeah, this is specifically meant to tickle the mechanical-tactical nerve that Beast Hunters suppressed in favor of the full-on narrative focus. Hence the crunch

I am trying to develop a basic system for all of the powers. They will all have the same way of being listed, with cost, attack, effect, and so on, and all of them listing boosts the same way. One additional layer of complexity there will be the conditions one can inflict (like burning).

As for NPCs... there'll be mooks and bosses, seeing that this is based on Fist of the North Star and similar sources. So the mooks will be easy fodder and will either have mook rules or just don't use tokens, only plain attacks. Bosses need to be statted out, but there'll be ability packages provided for that. So if you're meeting a vampire on the road, you look in the book and get all the basic Blood powers that the typical vamp has.

I do expect that this will be quite a bit of work for the GM if the player group is large and there are several bosses involved, but at the level of crunch that I would like, I'm not sure yet how to facilitate that.