Help with some Damage Mechanics

[Reithan]

Ok, to avoid placing a TON of text into this post, a lot of this will be done by linking to posts already up on my personal development forum. As far as I can tell, this should be okay with the rules of this forum, as it says to link where large amounts of text are wanted.

For a quick background on the game itself, here's the POWER 19.
There are 2 relevant threads which describe the desired behavior of the damage system, these are here and here.

I'm looking for some more input on how I can get my "rules" to mesh with my ideal "play" and "feel" for the game. I'm sort of hitting some brick walls on my own, so I figured I'd see what input I could get from the great community here!

[Reithan]

I seem to be having some minor issues with my webhost again. If the forum errors out on you, just try again in 5min or so - it should work.

[Reithan]

I seem to be getting a lot of views but no replies - should I post some of the info from the linked posts here? I'm just not sure what to post without running into pages and pages of information posted.

[jag]

I read through your stuff, and two parts jumped out at me.  The first was your wish list for the damage mechanism, which wanted damage from weapons to be both 'realistic' and 'resistable', and results to be 'cinematic but believable'.  This puzzled me, because in my interpretation of these words, you are asking for basically contradictory things.  Presuming that weapons only increase in lethality between 'now' and whenever your setting takes place, 'realistic' damage from a weapon would not be 'resistable' -- already someone hit with a bullet is pretty much out of a fight, except in movies.  Similarly, 'cinematic' to me means stretching the bounds of believability so that the actors/characters can do exciting things that, well, we couldn't.  BUT, this is all in my interpretation of these words, so i was going to ask you for some examples of how you interpret these words, and find a resolution.  Luckily, you gave just that at the end of your second thread.

The common thread i read there is that a weapon that outclasses the armour someone is wearing is super lethal -- a knife to someone unarmoured or an anti-tank plasma weapon vs personal armour.  When the armour outclasses the weapon (elite urban troop vs gangs), at most the damage is minor and distracting, not debilitating.  So, without having given it much thought, i'd rank types of armour and weapons into tiers, eg:
Armour: Unarmoured, Soft (leather/padding/etc), Hard (metal/mesh/etc), Heavy (urban combat suits), Vehicle
Arms: Unarmed, Blunt/small blades, large blades/small firearms, heavy firearms/small lasery things, anti-vehicle arms.

Basically, if a weapon of a category greater than your armour hits you, you are going to suffer a serious effect -- maybe not lethal, but with a good chance to severely impair you.  If a weapon of a category less than your armour hits you, you suffer at most minor/distracting effects.  Cover adds to your effective armour -- crates plus Hard armour might be similar to Heavy armour.  Unarmoured but crouching behind a car might be vehicular.

Weapons at the same level as your armour have some chance of doing minor damage or doing severe damage.  Weapons one level above/below your armour have a chance of being knocked down/up one level, depending if you or they get some critical success.  Also, if situations warrant it (someone hits you while unaware), the attack might get a bonus to lethality level.

This is vague, but allows cases where a decently armoured person is just blown to shreds by a bomb, but a heavily armoured person can be peppered by small arms fire and not take appreciable damage.

A side suggestion is about your thought to have, with every hit, a chance to knock the person out/etc not apply at low levels of damage.  Although you said that you'd like this trait, i'd guess that that will involve a significant amount of annoying record-keeping and checks for an event with low probability, that if it happens will annoy the player ("Oh god, i go down after taking one round from a .22 when i'm wearing assault-core armour? that's so unfair!").  Perhaps there is some threshold probability (or other threshold) below which you don't check -- but once you reach it you have a 50% chance of getting knocked out.

Anyway, hope this helps.
james

[Reithan]

Thanks for the feedback! Do you mind if I put it up on my forum, I'll put it as a quote so you'll be credited.

I think we're about on the same page right now, which is great. I think you got exactly what I was getting at 'realistic' but 'resistable' means the damage is scary and lethal - but can be avoided, protected against or otherwise made not to kill you. 'Cinematic' but 'believable' means you have high-adrenaline heroic action, but it's explained - in most cases here by the high-technology setting.

I think you actually hit at something I didn't quit key in on in my own descriptions, which is why it's great to have some outside insight sometimes. Yeah, every time the damage is avoided or resisted, it's a case of armor. I mean to include also damage being resisted due to targets moving too quickly to get a hit on, or through doging or agility, but in all the listed examples, yes it just boils down to armor.

There are 'fringe examples' I suppose, where a particularly low-caliber weapon, or a particularly glancing shot could accomplish little to nothing against an unarmored foe - but this seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. I think I will probably go in a direction similar to what you've presented, but I'd like to break it down more, into a full spectrum of 'ratings' rather than just category chunks. Just something with a TOUCH more 'crunch' to it.

I'm pretty sure I did suggest a threshold for checking unconsciousness/death, though I was having misgivings about how high or low to set it, as well as how quickly damage would accrue on a target. Other effects though, like bleeding, broken bones, lost limbs, etc should be available from the beginning, starting with smaller effects and moving up as the target becomes more injured - or suffers more extreme damage. System for which still undefined, of course.

This still, of course, leaves the problems of, now that we have these ratings, how do we use them? How is the amount of damage inflicted determined, tracked, and how is it used? How are 'side-effects' determined and used, and when do you finally succumb to your injuries?

Well - back to work on it I suppose.

Thanks again!

[jag]

Thanks for the feedback! Do you mind if I put it up on my forum, I'll put it as a quote so you'll be credited.

That's why we're here.  And feel free to quote it/this/whatever.

I think you actually hit at something I didn't quit key in on in my own descriptions, which is why it's great to have some outside insight sometimes. Yeah, every time the damage is avoided or resisted, it's a case of armor. I mean to include also damage being resisted due to targets moving too quickly to get a hit on, or through doging or agility, but in all the listed examples, yes it just boils down to armor.

I'd argue that these last cases are in fact types of 'misses'.  If you get a glancing blow from a firearm that's annoying but not debilitating, i'd call that (an extremely lucky) near miss, which could well have some minor game effects (interrupting actions requiring concentration, etc).  If you actually get hit by a round from a kalishnakov, you are pretty much out.  Broken bones, shock, blood loss, etc.

There are 'fringe examples' I suppose, where a particularly low-caliber weapon, or a particularly glancing shot could accomplish little to nothing against an unarmored foe - but this seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. I think I will probably go in a direction similar to what you've presented, but I'd like to break it down more, into a full spectrum of 'ratings' rather than just category chunks. Just something with a TOUCH more 'crunch' to it.

To run with my hierarchy of "lethality levels" (which should be ditched as soon as it doesn't work anymore), i'd give weapons within a level a damage rating.  Between lethality levels the damage rating is inconsequential -- all that matters is the difference of level.  Thus maybe a Kalishnakov has a damage rating of 4, a browning 50mm a DR of 7, and a explosive-round pulse-rifle a DR of 10.  Someone in assault armour would have a pretty good shot of only taken 'minor' damage from an AK, but a pulse-rifle has a much greater probability of causing a debilitating injury.  However, those subtleties are lost on someone who's unarmed -- they are just out of luck.  Similarly, although being hit with a kick vs a sword makes a big difference to someone who's unarmed, it has about the same effect (ie, momentum transfer) on someone who's in assault armour.

You can also have high DR weapons with a lower lethality level than the armour have significant non-debilitating effects.  Ie, dropping a heavy table on someone in assault armour probably won't take them out of the fight or even hurt then significantly, but it will still likely knock them to the ground (which might make them more vulnerable to later attacks...)

I'm pretty sure I did suggest a threshold for checking unconsciousness/death, though I was having misgivings about how high or low to set it, as well as how quickly damage would accrue on a target. Other effects though, like bleeding, broken bones, lost limbs, etc should be available from the beginning, starting with smaller effects and moving up as the target becomes more injured - or suffers more extreme damage. System for which still undefined, of course.

I think you might quickly run into a system that's too crunchy to be played at 'cinematic' speed.  I'd identify the small classes of effects that you care about -- where a class might incorporate several causes.  Ie, an effect class might be "out of action", which could include being knocked to the ground, shocked, stunned, or just panicked confusion.  Then the GM or player can narrate what actually happened.  Of course, this is just my style, but i find it a nice compromise between speed, exciting colour, and tactical consequences.

This still, of course, leaves the problems of, now that we have these ratings, how do we use them? How is the amount of damage inflicted determined, tracked, and how is it used? How are 'side-effects' determined and used, and when do you finally succumb to your injuries?

That, ultimately, is heavily dependent on the micro-details of your design goals, if which you are the sole expert.

james

[Reithan]

I'd argue that these last cases are in fact types of 'misses'.  If you get a glancing blow from a firearm that's annoying but not debilitating, i'd call that (an extremely lucky) near miss, which could well have some minor game effects (interrupting actions requiring concentration, etc).  If you actually get hit by a round from a kalishnakov, you are pretty much out.  Broken bones, shock, blood loss, etc.

Yeah, I think things like that would be narration at times where there's a tie between attack and defender. It'd just be a 'near' miss which might cause a slight inturruption or 'ow - that hurt!", but no real damage.

To run with my hierarchy of "lethality levels" (which should be ditched as soon as it doesn't work anymore), i'd give weapons within a level a damage rating.  Between lethality levels the damage rating is inconsequential -- all that matters is the difference of level.  Thus maybe a Kalishnakov has a damage rating of 4, a browning 50mm a DR of 7, and a explosive-round pulse-rifle a DR of 10.  Someone in assault armour would have a pretty good shot of only taken 'minor' damage from an AK, but a pulse-rifle has a much greater probability of causing a debilitating injury.  However, those subtleties are lost on someone who's unarmed -- they are just out of luck.  Similarly, although being hit with a kick vs a sword makes a big difference to someone who's unarmed, it has about the same effect (ie, momentum transfer) on someone who's in assault armour.

You can also have high DR weapons with a lower lethality level than the armour have significant non-debilitating effects.  Ie, dropping a heavy table on someone in assault armour probably won't take them out of the fight or even hurt then significantly, but it will still likely knock them to the ground (which might make them more vulnerable to later attacks...)

Well, originally attacks had a few stats in the system, which I think I'll still keep. Penetration, Damage and Type mainly. Penetration I think will end up controlling what "lethality level" the attack is, which damage will be the "damage rating" you were mentioning. A low Penetration, high Damage attack, like having a hardwood table dropped on you from a 3rd story window would indeed not breach you example of assault armor, but still would transfer enough force to possibly knock you out, and most definitely knock you over.

Vice versa, a high Penetration, low Damage attack, like high-end tranquilizer gun (can't think anything else that would fit that profile off the top of my head) might breach the armor, but wouldn't (just from the dart itself - the 'payload' is another issue) do much damage to you.

I think you might quickly run into a system that's too crunchy to be played at 'cinematic' speed.  I'd identify the small classes of effects that you care about -- where a class might incorporate several causes.  Ie, an effect class might be "out of action", which could include being knocked to the ground, shocked, stunned, or just panicked confusion.  Then the GM or player can narrate what actually happened.  Of course, this is just my style, but i find it a nice compromise between speed, exciting colour, and tactical consequences.

Yeah, that was the basic idea. Things like bleeding, shock, organ damage would all be classed as some sort of "Shock &/or Trauma", Stuns would all be classes together, Limb loss would all be the same class, etc. The intial idea right now, is taking damage, depending on how much damage you've already taken, what you got hit by and how 'big' of a hit it was would create a certain point value for the damage. The defender would then have to spend those points on 'side-effects' pulled from a list based on the attack's "Type". Certain side effects would have stepped effects and could be 'bought' more than once, like Truama - the more times you buy it the more blood you're losing per round (or however you narrate it).

The balance between crunch and speed is something that a lot of systems run into and I think if I can get this right it should still be fairly fast while still providing a lot of neat options and 'visuals' for the players (and the GM).