Okay, I just touch you and...you explode.

[Callan S.]

I'm a moderately-sized guy.  My target is a moderately-sized guy.

I take an overhand vertical swing at him with a sledgehammer.  I'm an inch to his right.  Whoosh.

If that same swing is an inch to his left, I shatter the ball-and-socket joint of his shoulder.  His arm is probably dislocated, at least, and is entirely useless.  The pain will be excruciating enough that I can take ten seconds to do the next thing to him that I plan on doing.

When the damage values (an attacker with high STR, a weapon with a big damage bonus, a defender with pitiful TO) get really big, the damage on the tiniest hit gets really big.  Grazing someone on the forehead with a claymore does more damage than grazing someone on the forehead with a putty knife.  That's just the way physics works.

Two things:
1. He parries, but fails to do so enough. Your sledge hammers handle runs down the edge of his sword, bleeding off kinetic energy through it. When it hits the shoulder, sliding down it because its been pushed off course slightly (only slightly) by the parry...so it doesn't get to deliver all of it's kinetic energy to his body. Will this apply all your strength to him, or less?

2. Your doing an overhand vertical swing at him...what gave you this opportunity? Doing a massive swing looks great in the movies, but if someone parries your reduced to doing a follow up short chop or such (or drawing fully back and getting gutted). Short chops can't use the full strength of someone like the move you described can. Well, I hypothesize that, anyway.

[Callan S.]

having TO at 11 and 6 for platemail still sometimes wouldnt block someone with even a putty knife and all of their SA's going.

Sometimes? Yup, you're right, but how much is sometimes?  A PC with very good armor is very, very tough.  Since most encounters (at least in my campaign) don't involve NPCs with SAs, there isn't much that can stand up to a PC with heavy armor*snip*
-Jeff

'Cept a rotten couple of planks in wood bridge above a high river. Heh heh heh...completely wrong game mastering, but amusing none the less...

I'd also wonder about archers in various good spots. The rest of the group in leather or even chain can blend into tree cover somewhat (the same cover that lets you jump archers out). The 'tank'...I wonder.

Haven't thought hard on the math for that one, just an intuitive responce.

[Callan S.]

Regarding the "no glancing blow from dragons is possible" (as minimum damage is str + weapon + hit quality which has a minimum value of dead).

I think this comes down to the hit quality adding to the successes when it should multiply. However the maths behind that would slow the game down somewhat. But it should be something like damage = (weapon + strength) x (hit success / 4) or something (so a 4 success hit = 100% damage, 2 successes = 50% and so forth).

Yes, this is what I'm saying and it is a more pure form of what I'm saying than what I said! My suggestion is more abstract and simple so its easier to implement, though.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

more abstract but more simple at the same time... yeah... that made sense.

[Ingenious]

Well so long as you understand the definition of abstract, Ash.. it does make sense. abstract:

adjective
1. considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. not applied or practical; theoretical. c synonyms at theoretical.
While the next definiton states: 3. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
So, you just have to understand which definition is being used and in what context... same with any other word.

Now, as to these abstract and simple rules.. I would like to see them.

However, I do take note that the use of a dragon as an example of instant death regarldess of hit quality is not a good one. What is exactly the same however, is a lance. Lances use the strength of the horse that is charging.. combine that with the weapon and hit quality and a one success hit means death or near-death.
If you play your game so that running into a dragon isn't a common occurance, I'm reasonably certain that this is a non-issue. If 5 people are not strong enough to take on a dragon by themselves due to strength and one success killings... then have a whole town participate in the slaying of the thing. In other words, get some dragon-fodder in there.
This however, is only skirting the issue. But like what was said before, IT'S A FREAKIN DRAGON!!!!! It isn't a D&D dragon that someone can go toe-to-toe with for 30 minutes of real-time. It's big, it's nasty, it can bite you in half at a moment's notice... and it can send you flying like someone being launched from a cannon. It's supposed to be that brutal.

-Ingenious
Random fact: Jake currently resides in Murfreesboro, TN.... or so it says under his name in here. It also happens to be the home-town of General Douglas MacArthur's wife.

...I have too much time on my hands.

[failrate]

This is really turning into more of an argument than any kind of real discussion, so...

With each game, the designers and players must determine their abstraction level.  All games require a level of abstraction, unless they are being played out by humans with actual consequences, at which point it becomes real life.  See...  so the only way you will ever have completely accurate wounds is to actually get hit with a weapon.  Otherwise, you're going to deal with wounds in some other, symbolic and inaccurate, manner.

I posit that TROS's wound system is fair within the tactics as presented.  It's an adequate abstraction, and to attempt anything more accurate would only beleaguer the game...  and it would STILL only be somewhat accurate.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

Well so long as you understand the definition of abstract, Ash.. it does make sense. abstract:

adjective
1. considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. not applied or practical; theoretical. c synonyms at theoretical.
While the next definiton states: 3. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
So, you just have to understand which definition is being used and in what context... same with any other word.

Point conceded. I was thinking of the 3rd definition.

[Deacon Blues]

"my sledgehammer example"

Two things:
1. He parries, but fails to do so enough. Your sledge hammers handle runs down the edge of his sword, bleeding off kinetic energy through it. When it hits the shoulder, sliding down it because its been pushed off course slightly (only slightly) by the parry...so it doesn't get to deliver all of it's kinetic energy to his body. Will this apply all your strength to him, or less?

Okay, let's say, for the sake of argument, he throws up a weak parry and my attack smashes through it.  The way that's represented, in the game, is that I lose some of the net successes on my attack.  So I still do a significant amount of damage to him, but not quite as much.  To answer your question: yes, I would apply less damage to him.  In conclusion, TRoS' damage system seems true to life in that regard.

In real life, my untrained, instinctual response to a huge overhead swing from a sledgehammer would be to back way the f. up, not to try and parry it.  If I had my head about me, I might try to sidestep and close distance with him, taking advantage of his over-commitment to attack him once the blow missed.

In TRoS, both of those options are represented by the Full Evasion dodge and the Duck and Weave dodge.  In conclusion, TRoS' combat system seems true to life in that regard.

(In retrospect, I realize that it wasn't clear, in my original post, that I was defending TRoS's method of representing damage from a successful hit.  But I am, and I used that example to illustrate it, and, unless I'm missing something, you're just adding more strength to my point)

2. Your doing an overhand vertical swing at him...what gave you this opportunity? Doing a massive swing looks great in the movies, but if someone parries your reduced to doing a follow up short chop or such (or drawing fully back and getting gutted). Short chops can't use the full strength of someone like the move you described can. Well, I hypothesize that, anyway.

I never said it was the most tactically sound attack.  The debate was whether damage from Significant Attacks (a sledgehammer, a huge sword, a gigantic dragon's claw) was accurately represented by TRoS.  I don't see how your point #2 applies to that.

[kenjib]

The argument seems to be getting too complicated and the examples are too extreme.  To pare it down to a simpler example, it is mathematically impossible for a str 6 (fairly strong) person to successfully hit a toughness 4 (average) person with a str+2 weapon and deliver less than a level 5 wound (gruesomely messy).  However, in real life this would be quite possible for any number of reasons.  In addition to reducing realism, this makes any such attack an all or nothing proposition since a level 5 wound is the maximum effect.  There are no longer any degrees of success.

I agree that this is a flaw in the system that could somehow be improved upon, but I think that the solutions suggested detract more from the game in complexity than they add in realism to make them worthwhile for me.

[Anthony I]

In Kenjib's post his example seems to assume that you would want to hit your opponent with less than full strength- if you're trying to kill some one it makes sense that your blows are being delivered with full strength-and it's really hard to hit someone with a sword or mace or and other real weapon with the intent to kill them and not do so.  I know this was discussed on this forum before.... here is a quote from Jake dealing with this

Ah, now I get it now. Yeah, it's true that occasionally that crops up (but wait! What if he's wearing armor!), but it isn't too common. To add to that, it would pretty difficult to actually only wound someone with a longsword at a lvl1 or lvl2 wound IRL if you were really going for them. That's the intention behind the weapons with higher damage codes (as opposed to weapons with lower ATNs). Sure, a weapon with a lower TN will get more success (meaning more damage), but a weapon with a higher damage rating is guaranteed to really wreak havoc if it hits. I realize that in real combat there were "little" wounds, but very rarely would you experience anything like a level 1 (or maybe) 2 wound when attacked with a serious weapon and a serious opponent. That's one of the main reasons that weapons have both an ATN and a DR, instead of just one or the other.

Jake

from this thread All Right I'm a Believer

[Lance D. Allen]

What this discussion comes down to, what all discussions of this nature come down to, is very simply where we individually draw the line between reality and playability. The rules as they stand are imminently playable, but sacrifice a bit of reality. If the level of reality isn't high enough, every player should feel free to cuss and discuss until they find a house-rule that brings the level of reality up enough, but doesn't cross the line from the playability side. As we all draw that line at different places, your "one extra roll" may be my "way too many extra rolls".

As for me, I have a few houserules which aren't so much for the sake of reality as the "whoa, cool" factor, and just my personal preferences. I like the level of reality that TRoS defaults to, so I feel no need to make additional rules to add to that. My Over-damage rule doesn't really add much to the reality of the game, but it definitely adds, IMO, to the "whoa cool" factor, as it makes it possible (tho' difficult) to cut a man entirely in half.

Just keep in mind when having these discussions that unless there is a rule universally liked by everyone, including Jake and/or Brian, that everything discussed here is a house rule, and will not enter the game proper. Remember also that any rules which may enter the books that you don't like you don't have to use. (I hear tell Ron Edwards still uses the ST+3 damage for rapiers..) So while it is constructive to point out the weaknesses in a proposed idea so that the person proposing it can better consider how to do it, there is absolutely no reason to attack something simply because you dislike it or feel it unnecessary. If the discussion irritates you, don't participate, or read.

[Callan S.]

Well so long as you understand the definition of abstract, Ash.. it does make sense. abstract:

adjective
1. considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. not applied or practical; theoretical. c synonyms at theoretical.
While the next definiton states: 3. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
So, you just have to understand which definition is being used and in what context... same with any other word.

No# 1 is what I ment of course, as generally I thought that's usually how its refered in in the context of RPG's. For example, I think a HP system like D&D's is more abstracted/simplified to the point of not really as concrete as it RL counter part than TROS's damage system.

Now, as to these abstract and simple rules.. I would like to see them.

Well, the ones I made which are simple in my opinion are in the first post and in one of my posts on this page too, I think.

However, I do take note that the use of a dragon as an example of instant death regarldess of hit quality is not a good one. What is exactly the same however, is a lance. Lances use the strength of the horse that is charging.. combine that with the weapon and hit quality and a one success hit means death or near-death.

Very good example!! A Gorem would have done too, their fairly 'one hit and it may be over'. But the thing is, people have survived failed parachute jumps in RL. Now, I may be spitting in the face of mythology, but I think that's far more dangerous than a swing by a hypothetical dragon. I mean, the system seams to suggest you can parry the dragons fist, while that's not somthing you can do to a massive fall. Yet conversely a hit by a dragon, though parryable, is game over more so than a failed parachute jump, apparently.

If you play your game so that running into a dragon isn't a common occurance, I'm reasonably certain that this is a non-issue. If 5 people are not strong enough to take on a dragon by themselves due to strength and one success killings... then have a whole town participate in the slaying of the thing. In other words, get some dragon-fodder in there.
This however, is only skirting the issue. But like what was said before, IT'S A FREAKIN DRAGON!!!!! It isn't a D&D dragon that someone can go toe-to-toe with for 30 minutes of real-time. It's big, it's nasty, it can bite you in half at a moment's notice... and it can send you flying like someone being launched from a cannon. It's supposed to be that brutal.

*snip*

I mentioned dragons because they are an extreme. I get the feeling now its been looked upon that I mentioned it because I want cool ninja fights with dragons. Let me assure everyone, I was only interested in an extreme. I only put it into the context of a dragon to avoid 'But is that high a strength really relevant' questions. The strength, high or low, isn't relevant. It's the principle of how much of the strength you have can be applied in relation to accuracy, and how that can be modled.

[Callan S.]

"my sledgehammer example"

Two things:
1. He parries, but fails to do so enough. Your sledge hammers handle runs down the edge of his sword, bleeding off kinetic energy through it. When it hits the shoulder, sliding down it because its been pushed off course slightly (only slightly) by the parry...so it doesn't get to deliver all of it's kinetic energy to his body. Will this apply all your strength to him, or less?

Okay, let's say, for the sake of argument, he throws up a weak parry and my attack smashes through it.  The way that's represented, in the game, is that I lose some of the net successes on my attack.  So I still do a significant amount of damage to him, but not quite as much.  To answer your question: yes, I would apply less damage to him.  In conclusion, TRoS' damage system seems true to life in that regard.

In real life, my untrained, instinctual response to a huge overhead swing from a sledgehammer would be to back way the f. up, not to try and parry it.  If I had my head about me, I might try to sidestep and close distance with him, taking advantage of his over-commitment to attack him once the blow missed.

In TRoS, both of those options are represented by the Full Evasion dodge and the Duck and Weave dodge.  In conclusion, TRoS' combat system seems true to life in that regard.

(In retrospect, I realize that it wasn't clear, in my original post, that I was defending TRoS's method of representing damage from a successful hit.  But I am, and I used that example to illustrate it, and, unless I'm missing something, you're just adding more strength to my point)

I would be, if I were talking about evasion. However, I haven't been. I'm talking about engaging your foes weapon with your own.

2. Your doing an overhand vertical swing at him...what gave you this opportunity? Doing a massive swing looks great in the movies, but if someone parries your reduced to doing a follow up short chop or such (or drawing fully back and getting gutted). Short chops can't use the full strength of someone like the move you described can. Well, I hypothesize that, anyway.

I never said it was the most tactically sound attack.  The debate was whether damage from Significant Attacks (a sledgehammer, a huge sword, a gigantic dragon's claw) was accurately represented by TRoS.  I don't see how your point #2 applies to that.

The debate I started isn't about whether huge damage is represented. It's question why all the strength score is used on every attack, regardless of how much lack of skill on the part of the attacker has resulted in non optimum swings and kinetic bleed off to his foes weapon.

An optimum swing deserves the full strength score, I accept that.
The point is, combat isn't full of optimum swings. IMHO, they are few and far between. So why is the full strength score used regardless?

[Callan S.]

Kenjib: That's exaclty what I mean! Even though you don't like the complexity of my suggestion, at least you get the principle I was trying to reach with it. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

Anthony I: Kenjib isn't talking about someone who wants to use less strength on a hit. He's talking about someone who wants to use their full strength, but for whatever combat reasons, he doesn't get too. Although I appreciate the point of that quote from Jake, just because someone is 'really going' for someone else, doesn't mean they get what they want. I may want to start a swing from behind my head and cleave my foe in half, but if most of the force is bled off against a shield and I only get one success, I'm more likely to just crack a rib, surely? However, as in Kenjib's example, no, I don't just manage to crack a rib, I basically slam a level five attack into him. It's what the attacker wants (to use full strength), but is it REALLY what he deserves to do on that poor a hit?.

Wolfen: I think it's me. I'm not sure I'm getting my point across and people are instead recieving a really wierd idea that they think I'm pushing. My mentioning dragons didn't help either (eek, it was just supposed to represent an extreme that helps clarify things!). Things might be better if the concept I'm trying to get across was clear. But I'm out of ideas...the only two other posters who got it, got it right away (it sounded like they'd already thought about it before this thread). Anyone else I don't seem to be able to describe it to adequately. ARGH!

[Ingenious]

Okay I see your point with that, however... I still dislike the whole thing. Strength is added to weapon damage which is added to # of successes. Everyone always swings with full strength, unless feinting or stopping short or aiming to disable rather than kill. This is an optional rule of selecting how much force was behind your attack.

I have a strength of 7(almost double 'average'), hit someone with a flail to the chest with 1 success.
So that's 7+2+1. or 10.
Target has a toughness of 4, and has a breastplate of AV 6. i.e. a total of 10.
I barely scratched him. This shows what margin of success does in terms of hit quality.
Take a horse and a lance for example.
I hit someone with a lance riding on my destrier quality horse with one success.(str 14)
14+2+1. Or 17.
I hit same person in the chest and we end up with a level 7 wound there.
That still doesn't seem like a problem to me, being that there is a tremendous amount of kinetic energy involved.(Equal to one half the mass of the body times the square of its speed.)
So your only options in these types of situations, IMO... is either to duck n weave or run like hell.
Tired of 1 success level 7 wounds? Pick your fights better, or just fight smarter.
To kenjib: mathematically impossible for a character with a strength of 6 to successfully hit 'average Joe' who has a toughness of 4 with a strength +2 weapon and deliver less than a level 5 wound? Excuse me?
6+2+1 equals 9-4(TO) which in fact is a level 5 wound... however, Average Joe is not wearing armor. If Average Joe was wearing only leather armor at the location hit, we'd be talking about a level 3 wound... far less lethal, but sets up the character to swiftly die soon there-after.
If you're tired of that, maybe you can start going after someone in plate with that character... and see what happens.
Now, as to the strength compared to quality of the hit and such.
Why not just make it so that with each success over the margin, means 1 or 2 points of strength can be applied.
For example... my character has a strength of 7, but I only hit someone for 5 successes. I should then be limited to 5 strength, how this plays out in combat I do not know as I have not the time to playtest it.
This takes into account some of the strength was absorbed due to a parry(hence a hypothetical 5 successes instead of 7 or 8).

I guess that is all I can think of at the moment.
-Ingenious