toughness too useful

[Nick the Nevermet]

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.

[Mike Holmes]

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.

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

[Lance D. Allen]

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.

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.

[Vanguard]

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 :)

[Lance D. Allen]

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.

[Bob Richter]

...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.

[Brian Leybourne]

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.

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.

[Shadeling]

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.

[Bob Richter]

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.

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?

[toli]

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.

[Brian Leybourne]

ST 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.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

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.

[Tancred]

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.

[Brian Leybourne]

What 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.

[Mike Holmes]

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