toughness too useful

[Jason Kottler]

I've kept watching this and kept my mouth shut for a while, but the urge to open it has grown irresistable. I do apologize.

One of the interesting things about TRoS is that damage is more deterministic than many RPGs. Because you know your ST, your weapon damage modifier, and your Proficiency, you have a pretty good idea how much damage you can do on any successful hit. The damage only varies by the margin of success, right? Unless you've just poured a 15 die CP into an attack against a bound and sleeping opponent, that's not likely to be a very broad range. Compare this to a system where you roll NdX +/- Y for damage.

Take a GURPS game where you might roll 3d6-2 for damage on a successful hit. That ranges from 1 to 16, a range of 15, without being an extreme case, like the 15 die attack above. Note that there are 15 points of variance in a 16 point hit.

More typically in TROS you'll have ST 5 and a damage modifier of 1. Proficiency and reflex keeps CPs in the range of say, 10-15, of which usually less than 1/2 is spent on a given attack. So your total damage for a hit will be 6+[1 to 7] or from 7 to 13, with only 6 points of variance  in a 13 point hit.

Therefore, you know for sure that against a TO 8 character (uh...a naked TO 8 character...) that you'll never get more than 13-8=5 damage if he has no defensive successes. Maybe you'd better attack him in his sleep...or with a friend...or let someone else do it...or have a damned good reason for attacking him. An SA of 5 in the right place could do wonders for cutting this hulk down to size.

I don't think any of this indicates that the rules as written are broken. It seems clear from Jake's post that the GM is supposed to intervene in extreme toughness cases unless circumstances really justify it. I imagine a TO 8 character to be someone like Gregor Clegane from ASoIaF; huge, ungodly tough, and lacking in other areas.

I'm getting ready to run my first full-rules TRoS game soon and I plan on limiting my players to non-magical humans. But if someone wants a TO 8 character and can justify it in character terms, I'm not planning on stopping him.

Oh, and just for what seems to be the unofficial poll of this thread: In my view, knowing instinctively how to move is reflexive, and therefore part of Reflex. That's all part of not being hit in the first place. Toughness is just that, meat and muscle and sinew and gristle and bone and skin and even fat...and it works in your sleep. However, I'd say that all defense rolls in sleep are fumbled...

Mouth closing now.

[Lance D. Allen]

One of the interesting things about TRoS is that damage is more deterministic than many RPGs. Because you know your ST, your weapon damage modifier, and your Proficiency, you have a pretty good idea how much damage you can do on any successful hit.

You didn't say whether or not you thought this was a bad thing or not. I personally feel it's a good and natural thing. Anybody with training in any sort of martial art probably has a damn good idea of how much damage they're capable of, so it only seems natural that this is reflected in TRoS.

[Jason Kottler]

I'm sorry...to me, most interesting things are good. I agree, someone with martial training will have a good idea how lethal he is. My point was that there seems to be some debate over whether TO is in some way "broken" and I contend that the evidence that it is broken is weak.

[Tancred]

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

What if you used (ST-TO)/2? A bit more fiddly though.

[Vanguard]

Concerning an earlier issue -

Should the success of an attack against a completely immobile and unresisting target be predetermined. I.e: There's nothing around that requires the PC to conserve CP, so it is irrelevent how much he invests in the strike, and it's obvious that he's gonna roll enuff dice to succeed; then don't roll.

For the sake of roleplay, if u deem that rolling dice against a sleeping target breaks the atmosphere and hinders dramatic tension, then, I agree, you should forego the roll.

Same as I'd hate to play a game where u roll for tripping everytime u set foor on stairs.

But for me, TO still represents a person's physical ability to withstand punishment, awake or not :)


ps. Agreeing with earlier posts, I'd say that if u mess with the TO issue, then STR has to be altered accordingly. To do otherwise would render one stat more powerful than the other.

[Draigh]

Hey guys... I found this dead horse over here... Anybody got a bat?

I think most people forget the most basic rule to running a role playing game, the one that says "Use what works best for you."

In my opinion it's pretty silly to sit here and argue over the somantics of a metagame concept such as toughness.  I've seen and heard stories of some really tough motherfuckers in my day, and I don't see questioning it.
For instance, my uncle was a coal miner, and was caught in a cave in, and a 2000 pound slab of rock fell on him.  He survived.  When his friends eventually got the rock off of him he crawled out from under it with his back and shoulder blade broken.  Part of that can be attributed to willpower, but I would think that the majority of it can be called "toughness".  Or, what about the guy I read about as a kid that fell 18,000 feet from an airplane and hit the ground, breaking only his arm?  
I tend to agree with Wolfen that toughness could be, in part, our body's reflexive attemps to keep from getting hurt.  Think about it, say you're outside and a bug flies into your face.... before your brain and concious mind registers it, you've already blinked, and probably pulled your head back a little.

I've rambled a little bit, but I hope I've demonstrated my point... Some people are just fucking tough, deal with it.  Find a group of roleplayers who are intrested in playing a character who is not just a combat god, or give them a reason to become what you want them to, but don't try to mess up the simplicity of this beautiful system that Jake has made for us just so you can feel better about the bunch of cheesedick warhammer players you've got in your local gaming group breaking everything.

*steps down from the soapbox*

[Salamander]

Okay, first. Draigh, I agree with you, Jake did a fab job on TRoS, and screwing with it is not something I agree with.

Next, I look at the whole toughness thing as those intangibles and even a whole set of factors that decide if your gonna take the abstract idea of "damage" or not. Could be the character drank a lot of milk as a kid, has muscles like iron wire, is bloody big, is.... the thing is it doesn't matter, it is there, it works for me.

[Warboss Grock]

Are we trying to second guess the creators for the sake of second guessing the creators?  In midevil times most swords were not Razor Sharp, and therefore someone could just shrug off those kinds of wounds, almost as though they were wearing plate, if they were hearty enough. In addition, even with a 4-6 average, you forget that plate STACKS. Therefore it is the equivilant of a person with a toughness of 2-3 wearing plate, or a 6 wearing chain.... Excuse me if i got these numbers wrong, i don't have the book in front of me at the time

[Tancred]

Are we trying to second guess the creators for the sake of second guessing the creators?

Nothing wrong with second guessing RPG rules is there? Most of the time the only people who'll even know are you and the people you game with. The chances of one set of rules satisfying all it's players as published seems pretty small.

Anyway, tinkering's good fun!

[Irmo]

Are we trying to second guess the creators for the sake of second guessing the creators?  In midevil times most swords were not Razor Sharp, and therefore someone could just shrug off those kinds of wounds, almost as though they were wearing plate, if they were hearty enough. In addition, even with a 4-6 average, you forget that plate STACKS. Therefore it is the equivilant of a person with a toughness of 2-3 wearing plate, or a 6 wearing chain.... Excuse me if i got these numbers wrong, i don't have the book in front of me at the time

a)It's medieval
b)Swords weren't razor-sharp because they don't need to be. You can do plenty of damage even with an unsharpened sword, because it's still plenty of force on a small surface. No, you can't really shrug that off.

Take a look at http://www.thearma.org/spotlight/TestCutting/TestCuttingEvent2.htm

Scroll down to the last row of un-thumbnailed pics.

A closer look. The raw fresh beef shoulder was sheared
almost clean in two --and from an unsharpened blade!

IIRC, John Clements mentions in his book that they found a guy at Wisby who had both legs hewn off, apparently with one stroke -though I'd suspect an axe at work there...

[Valamir]

I think what we are witnessing in this thread is 90% due to the number of narrowly defined attributes that TROS has.  This is the HUGE unspoken danger of attribute proliferation...that being that most things one could discuss are actually a combination of several factors it the same time.

This means either a) use fewer attributes so that a single number represents all of those varied factors at once (what I call the "Ragu" approach...as in "its in there").  or b) use even MORE derived attributes.  

This last is not my favorite way to design a game but is probably the simplest solution for TROS.  In fact, given how Reflex, Knockdown, Knockout, and Move are all derived...I'm surprised there isn't a derived Soak stat already.

See, here's the thing.  Toughness as narrowly defined by the attribute makes no sense.  There is absolutely no conceivable way that the world's toughest human can withstand a full bore sword swing equally as well as a less tough human wearing plate.  Currently Joe Tough = Joe Wimp + Plate.  It is analytically absurd...when one limits Toughness to just the specific definition of the attribute.

What's REALLY going on with the Toughness stat however, is an amalgamation of all the different ways a person can mitigate injury to himself without the benefit of armor.

There's an alertness component:  the target's ability to see a blow coming quickly enough to react to it.
There's a quickness component:  the ability to roll with the blow and lessen its impact
Theres a size component:  simple physics tells us that larger objects can absorb more punishment.
There's a strength component:  as much as additional muscle mass makes better protection than flesh and fat.
There's a "toughness" component:  some bodies just can take more punishment.
There's a Will component:  much of physical toughness is actually mind over matter.

Taking all of these factors into account the TO reduction for damage isn't all that nonsensical.  The problem is really just that the number is tied only to Toughness.

A simple solution would be to create a new Derived attribute, one that accounts for some of these other factors so we're not just talking about the ability of flesh to avoid being sliced.  Further any time you start adding and mixing attributes you create a much greater concentration around the mean.  It would be MUCH more difficult to have a TO 8 character if there were 2 or 3 attributes being averaged into the stat.

Now adding them all together would be a bit pointless, since your variation would go to nill.  But we should be able to come up with a good compromise.

Lets see:

What about the Alertness and Quickness Component...well, we already have Reflex, and thats a crucial stat.  For game reasons we really don't want to give any MORE importance to Wit and Agility.  Besides, Reflex contributes to the Combat pool, so rolling with the blow can be said to already be part of the defense roll...Scratch that.

Will:  Will checks are already used to shrug off shock and pain, and while I think "mental toughness" has farther reaching implications than just "grin and bear it" we don't necessarily want to build it in again.

Strength:  Well, Strength isn't a part of damage absorbtion any where, and I really think it should be.  BUT, if we weaken TO by averaging it down with a derived attribute, Strength will have an advantage already so we really don't want to make it even MORE important.  So for gaming reasons, leave that out too.

So what are we left with?  Why not simply TO and Health?

I mean really, how many people use Health as a source of freebie points.  Has anyone actually made a combat oriented character with a Health of 6 or 7?  I haven't.  Health is important for avoiding disease and healing faster...

Big whoop.  Why?  Because most of the time disease is rarely a feature of RPG play, and while healing quick is important...even with a high health its going to take along time anyway.  The three options are 1) you're good enough to not get hurt.  2) Your dead.  3) you're spending months recovering.  Most of the time the difference between spending 2 months recovering and 4 months recovering is not important...the game is going to wait until you're better to continue anyway (most of the time).

So we can afford to let Health slide a bit to perk up those all important Strength, Toughness, and Reflex stats and some of the others that have more immediate and obvious impact.

So...Best of all worlds here in my book.  So much so I might make it a permanent House Rule.

TO is replaced with (TO + Health)/2 for damage calculation purposes.

By averaging TO down, you lower the TO score to a more reasonable level without having to resort to arbitrary score caps...while simultaneously breathing new importance into the games least used (IMO) stat.  AND you do it in a manner for which there is already ample precident in the game.

I don't see a downside to it.

[Vanguard]

Yeah, Doesn't sound half-bad.

And, as you explained, it does balance out Health a little bit. Currently, it is a neglected stat.  As Valamir stated, the threat of combat in an RPG is generally gonna be more prevalent than threat from disease. And the consequences of a bad health role less dramatic.

Still don't know if it's necessary though ;)

I love the idea of a 'Yoda'-style dude; weak on TO but high in HT, who'll crumple from a solid punch but never catches colds.

And I similarly like the thirty stone brick shithouse; high on TO but low in HT. Fueled on twenty pints of larger and a doner kebab, he'll mow his way through a crowd of teenagers without feeling a thing or breaking a bone, then promptly collapse from the inevitable corronary.


ps. And i'm not just some kneejerk anti-tweaker. I just love the crisp simplicity of TROS.

One tweak I'm considering implementing as house allows an attacker to adjust their location hit rolls.

I want my PCs (and NPCs) able to aim for specific locations; to go for that cool stab through the throat, or that poke in the eye. And actually succeed.

Before dice are rolled, the attacker can spend additional CP. Each point spent allows him/her to adjust the D6 result accordingly.

Dunno if this has been suggested before on other posts?


Take care

[toli]

I still say the simplest thing is to allow TO to negate ST but not create a negative wound level, at least for bladed or punture weapons.  Thus ST6-TO8 = 0.  Therefore all is does is to remove your oppenents strength bonus but not make you invulnerable.  For unarmed attacks the full TO value might apply.  I can't see myself KOing a heavy weight boxer under any circumstances.

I wouldn't be averse to a derived "soak" attribute that combined reflex and TO.  Any one who has play contact sports knows that the ability to take a hit is based both on mass (TO?) and the ability to roll off the hit (reflex or some thing).  One might argue, however, that since reflex is part of CP there is no need for SOAK.

I always thought that Runequest had reasonable reasoning in basing damage on ST and Size, while hit points were based on size and constitution.  It changes how you interpret ST a bit (kind of a measure of fitness not just brute force but brute force per size).

NT

[Brian Leybourne]

I still say the simplest thing is to allow TO to negate ST but not create a negative wound level, at least for bladed or punture weapons.  Thus ST6-TO8 = 0.  Therefore all is does is to remove your oppenents strength bonus but not make you invulnerable.  For unarmed attacks the full TO value might apply.  I can't see myself KOing a heavy weight boxer under any circumstances.

Been staying out of this thread, like the game as it is, yadda yadda yadda.

That said, I quite like this suggestion. It slightly downplays TO to keeping it the opposite of ST, but not allowing you to soak sword wounds with it (for that, you need armor). Nice, very good suggestion.

Brian.

[Salamander]

I still say the simplest thing is to allow TO to negate ST but not create a negative wound level, at least for bladed or punture weapons.  Thus ST6-TO8 = 0.  Therefore all is does is to remove your oppenents strength bonus but not make you invulnerable.  For unarmed attacks the full TO value might apply.  I can't see myself KOing a heavy weight boxer under any circumstances.

NT

I like it. It does not alter the mechanics (my beef) and deals with what I think many people are concerned with here.

Nicely done toli.