[Options System] Intro / wounding system

[Raeth]

Intro
Hello-hello. I'm Nick. I've been working on a system for several years now, mostly all on my own. My system, called the Options System for now, focuses on realism. I call it the "Options" system because once I have the variables and values all laid out for realistic terms, it should only take tweaking of said variables to shift to a cinematic or anime feel or whatever.
    Realism is certainly hard to convert into dice and numbers, particularly if you want to keep a calculator out of the deal, so once I translate the reality part, I break it down into simpler concepts. I'm very persistent and refuse to stop analyzing a particular subject until I feel I have it represented correctly. As such, my paths may become very detailed and complex, and many people have told me I overanalyze things. I'm a bit of a perfectionist, but I appreciate it for the quality end-result, particularly when it's sufficiently simple.
    I'm also a computer programmer, about to finish my associate's and move to my bachelor's. I'll earn a bachelor's in both software engineering and game programming. I relate a lot of my system to object-oriented programming concepts, which I feel are a solid basis for a lot of thinking anyway.
    So! I've already developed much of the system, but I'm struggling, and I understand the value of other like minds, of support, of feedback. Also, writing everything out and presenting it for consideration helps me to think things through and critically, objectively analyze. The realm of my mind is not the clearest, no matter how well I feel I analyze things. You know how it is...things make a lot more sense once you get them out of your mouth or down on paper...or down on the keyboard, as I guess it stands. So, yeah. Much of my writing is like thinking aloud.
    Anyway, to provide the whole of my system in this one post would be...crazy, at best. Does this site have any wikis welded to it for people to lay our their systems with, or are there some that people commonly use around here?

Wounding System
At the moment, I'm working on my wounding system. Because bodies have different depths to reach vital organs, I'm attempting to make a subsystem to represent it. After all, a 2" blade may puncture a thin-framed, slight-muscled person's organs, but it isn't likely to do so with a large-framed, heavily-muscled person. I want my system to be applicable to any sort of setting...it should work as well with humans as it does with rocs or giant ants or..whatever.
    I may not even use such a system, but until I flesh it all out, or at least begin to, I won't know what I think for sure.
    The premise of needing to understand the depth of wounds is that once an attack breaches any sort of defense, it's important to see if it's even possible to connect with bones, major arteries, vital organs and whatnot. A short sword may work wonders on a human, for instance, but it isn't likely to do much but rip up muscle in something of the more-ginormous variety.
    Anyway, I break my analysis down into different attack types: thrusting, slashing, and swinging.

Swinging
Swinging has a fundamental mechanism, I feel, but different weapons implement it in different ways. Bludgeoning weapons..bludgeon (synonyms, anyone, please?), and bladed weapons chop.

Bludgeoning
With bludgeoning weapons, it's more of a matter of compressing materials, transferring momentum and so on. Once the arc of the swing deviates enough from perpendicular, the compression is no longer reasonably-linear.
    Imagine taking a war hammer to the gut...there isn't much for bone in the abdomen, but if you squash the intestines enough, bad things will happen. Well, for the instant it hits perpendicular, the weapon compresses the organs against the spine (spine bending and body displacement aside). As the swing continues, the organs continue to compress...I feel that once this line of compression deviates more than 30°, the compression is no longer as effective; hence, the depth of the attack can only be to the point where the arc reaches 30° deviation from a perpendicular connection point with the target.
    Does 30° seem appropriate? Maybe a larger angle? Apart from smashing someone's guts in, would the concept apply equally well to taking a sledge to a slab of stone?

Chopping
On the other hand, bladed weapons, when swung with the purpose of chopping (as opposed to slashing), do plenty of damage regardless of the deviation of the original hit. The attack depth is again limited, however; in the best case, the furthest in a weapon can go is the length of its blade, unless the force of the crossguard or shaft or handle or whatever is enough to forcibly separate any material that stands in its way.
    Torque (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/torq2.html#tc) shows how drastically force suffers the closer to the axis of rotation the point in question draws, not to mention the relative lack of sharpness between an axe head and the shaft that supports it, amongst other examples. Perhaps there are some examples in which my approximation is wrong? Any ideas?


Do things seem reasonable so far? Any thoughts, critiques?

[whiteknife]

Well, what you've got there seems to be good, although the task of trying to come up with a realistic system that can be easily adjusted to a cinematic/anime feel as well as cope with fantasy creatures sounds hard, especially on things with different anatomy or in genres where knowing the exact depth of a sword swing doesn't matter. However, it is nice to know such things occasionally, and in the right setting such details can add a lot to the game. I hope your system succeeds, I think that there needs to be more good realistic systems aside from the ones that are just endless charts and lists.

Anyways, what you've got there seems to be fine (I'm not an expert on physics or anything like that, so I won't comment on the angle of entry stuff).

One thing I'm thinking though: hope does your system cope with the huge slow down normally associated with systems trying to be realistic? Obviously, I don't know anything about your system specifically, but I think that this is a very important issue, especially during combat when people aren't going to want to be slowed down a lot just figuring out where exactly a hit went (although quickness isn't the only issue of course, especially if fights are short).

[dindenver]

Nick,
  I think on a physics-scale, most weapons are a wash as far as energy transfer goes, no? I mean smaller lighter weapons can reach much higher velocities and larger heavier weapons reach must lower velocities, but have more weight behind the swing. So that in general, the same person will deliver about the same energy with different weapons limited by the weight/speed of the weapon.
  And, in your angle of attack calculation, I think you are forgetting surface area... If I hit your abdomen with a large flat surfaced hammer head on, sure, I will have the energy transferred in a very linear fashion to the impact site. But, if I swing at an angle, I may have aslightly smaller energy transfer from a purely linear perspective, but the surface area that that energy is transferred across is also reduced providing for an equal (if not greater) foot pound per square inch of energy.
  And back to the angle of attack, if your angle of attack is upwards, then you are compressing the intestines into more vital organs on the way to the spine, potentially even life threatening organs like the liver, etc. And if its downward, you can catch the colon, bladder, etc. So, I am not sure if angle of attack would, in fact, reduce the damage produced, do you?

  I just don't know. You say you want to simplify these physics concepts, but I don't see how you can do it in a pen and paper game and still end up with a playable game. I have faith that you can do it, but I don't know what THAT game would look like or if I would want to play it. Good luck man!

[chance.thirteen]

I have a similar mind set to Nick, in terms of the realism I would like to see, and yet wanting it to still be playable. I've found that reading BTRC's Guns Guns Guns was helpful in understanding the physics of these things.

In the end you get things like GURPS having certain weapons do double damage after 1-2 points in a given location (same as BTRC's old Timelords/Spacetime/Warpworld model), or the Special Impale result in old Runequest. You want something to measure impact or generic damage done, and then a way to translate that into lethality and trauma depending on what delivered the damage, and where on a body.

The question is do you really want to end up with a game where a flight of arrows really can take out a chartacter because it got right through a crack in their armor (Good enough for Richard III) or fell due to shock from an otherwise non-life threatening injury? It's gritty, and if you want more cinematic then you have to find another place to put the currency the characters have to survive the travails of the dangerous world, other than hit points, or "no one gets an infection".

[Raeth]

...the task of trying to come up with a realistic system that can be easily adjusted to a cinematic/anime feel as well as cope with fantasy creatures sounds hard...

Yeah...I'm not quite sure how I'll do it, but I figure I should save it for when the time comes. As far as anatomy, I'm going to keep things simple and just assign a certain depth at which point vital organs are likely to exist. I don't care if it's 100% accurate; I just want it to be reasonable.

I hope your system succeeds, I think that there needs to be more good realistic systems aside from the ones that are just endless charts and lists.

Thank you. I hope for its success also..in the absence of endless charts and lists. Just means more work for me. =)

One thing I'm thinking though: hope does your system cope with the huge slow down normally associated with systems trying to be realistic?

I've taken a couple of standpoints on this topic: One, I'm hoping that my system will just be simple enough that combat goes by pretty smoothly, pretty quickly, regardless of being a realistic system. Again, it's a ton of work for me, but my mind's pretty busy and my job is pretty slow. Two, I've considered having simplified versions of combat for scenes of less import, in the "Options" name. I'll have to see once the system is fairly finished.

...most weapons are a wash as far as energy transfer goes, no?

I might say so, but from what I understand, scathing force is a matter of kinetic energy, the whole KE = mv² thing. As such, velocity is more important.
    More importantly, however, a character's maximum attack speed in my game comes from an agility/power statistic, so in theory, as long as they are strong enough to wield a given weapon without penalty, they should wield the ~heaviest weapon they can to inflict the most damage.

I think you are forgetting surface area...

In what I had yet presented, yes, it would seem that way. I should mention that I classify weapons in terms of impulse and in terms of scathing force. Scathing force is the kind that destroys material on impact, regardless of how the material flexes or reacts. Take a pickaxe to piece of glass, say. On the other hand, impulse (transfer of momentum) causes an object to "reflect" away from a given impact, perhaps to the point of shearing.
    I could be wrong, but in the absence of anything better, I feel these explanations are solid. Of course, my ignorance is the exact reason I'm sitting here typing. =)

...I am not sure if angle of attack would, in fact, reduce the damage produced, do you?

I might not have explained myself clearly here. Your ideas on upward and downward angles are excellent; thank you. However, I meant more of side-to-side. (I briefly and vaguely remind myself of Mr. Miyagi here; I'm a bit of a quote machine at times.)

I just don't know. You say you want to simplify these physics concepts, but I don't see how you can do it in a pen and paper game and still end up with a playable game.

I'm not really sure, either. In the end, I may find that it just plain isn't possible. Over the years I've accepted the unplayability (is that a word? Firefox's spell check thinks it is) of raw physics, not to mention my incapability of grasping it all. Really, "a playable game" is still my main goal; I don't care how realistic it is if people find the game more like work. I'll continue to simplify and represent/symbolize concepts in simpler rules until my game sates me.

I have faith that you can do it, but I don't know what THAT game would look like or if I would want to play it. Good luck man!

Thank you and thank you. I don't know what the game looks like, either, but maybe sometime in the next year or two we'll all see it. =)

I have a similar mind set to Nick, in terms of the realism I would like to see, and yet wanting it to still be playable. I've found that reading BTRC's Guns Guns Guns was helpful in understanding the physics of these things.

I'll have to look into it...thanks for the reference. =)

...do you really want to end up with a game where a flight of arrows really can take out a chartacter because it got right through a crack in their armor[?]

Um, kind of yes, kind of no. I know people don't have much love for this kind of possibility...not happening to themselves, anyway. It might be pretty not-glorious to happen to the enemy commander, either...but, I'm really unsure of just how I would translate a crack in the armor..at this moment. Right now, I want to translate combat to the point where such a thing can happen quickly and reasonably, and see if other internal controls keep it..tasteful, for lack of a better word. Fun, maybe?

It's gritty, and if you want more cinematic then you have to find another place to put the currency the characters have to survive the travails of the dangerous world, other than hit points, or "no one gets an infection".

Indeed. I hadn't really considered infections..thank you, I think. I can imagine someone out there is moaning to themselves about how I'm just increased my game's complexity..or maybe it's just me, moaning about it inside my own head. Anyway, that's why I keep calling my system "Options"...the only kind of infections I want to see in a cinematic setting are..gangrene, or something. =P
    I hate hit points. Though I can understand possible explanations for them...I don't generally dig the inconsistency with which they are implemented. If I use them, it will only be to represent how wounds can stack upon one another and to provide some familiarity to those who are used to them..hit points, not wounds. I hope none of the players are used to wounds.



More later. Thanks to everyone for reading, and especially responding. =)