"naked Dwarf" syndrome and a posible fix

[Turin]

Another solution would be to somehow incorporate toughness and strength in 1/2 steps.

Damage tables could be 1-2 equals a level 1 wound, 3-4 equals a two, etc.  Although armour would then have to be increased as well as weapon damage mods.  The problem would be that the effects of sucesses would have to be somehow increased.

Another option would be to treat toughness over 4 subtracted from Pain, shock and perhaps bloodloss.  Toughness under 4 would be an addition.

Real large creatures/beings could use toughness as it stands, or perhaps a combination.  A real large Gol could have a "true" toughness of 5, subtracting one from injury levels.

[aaronharmon]

Another approach would be to modify toughness by hit location.
OK, I teach my (very few, so far) self-defense students the value of poking enemies in the eye, and hitting enemies in the nuts, because, compared to the rest of the body, there is a disproportionate pain response in those areas.
I realize that this is incorporated into the damage charts, but it still takes a higher strength to achieve a level 1 wound to the eyeball on a TO 5 character than on a TO 2 character with the same level of success, but in reality I bet Bob Sapp (an extremely large and tough no-holds-barred fighter) would not allow an infant to touch his bare eyeball, and I am sure that any six-year-old could still cause some shock to him with a lucky shot to the balls.

[bottleneck]

Simple 'fix', based on merging some of the suggestions above:

roll dice, TN:6, for the *difference* between attacker ST and defender TO. Higher score is effectively <lower score> + successes.


e.g. a ST:6 mauling a TO:4 gets effective strength 4 + 2 dice, or avg 5 points [plus weapon base damage and #sucesses], a ST:3 poking a TO:7 gets "-4 dice" [effective toughness is 3 + 4 dice for defender]

For equal-stats combatants, no change at all. For granma (st:2) vs the naked dwarf (to:7) you'll avoid invulnerability _and_ the theoretical possibility of granma winning the contest. (best she can get is a draw).

possibly set a lower TN to make toughness/strength more powerful. The main point is that you are not invulnerable.

In our game, this does not apply to armor, only to 'natural toughness' and strength. Steel is harder than skin. [and armor-piercing weapons pierce steel better than brute strength].

[Aelios]

When reading this thread I see people trying to "fix" high ST/TO problems by limiting TO. But I think that you are solving the wrong problem by doing that.  Because high ST/TO can be realistic is non-combat situations imposing limits on TO is itself unrealistic.
In my opinion the problem is that a high TO counts for a much larger portion of defense than armor. Even a moderate TO of 4 is equal to the defensive power of some pretty heavy armor; giving a "naked dwarf" the same defense as a well armored child. And having a high ST counts for a large portion of the damage than the skill of the attack.
So the simple "fix" is to reduce the effect of ST/TO in combat by half. Only half of your ST counts toward damage, only half of your TO counts toward defense. Now armor and weapon skill becomes much more important and you don't have to place any limits on abilities. Combat will be just as deadly except in the cases of a very strong ST/TO against a very weak TO/ST. But that's what we are trying to "fix" isn't it?

[toli]

I still say the easiest thing is to allow TO to eliminate ST but no more.  No extra calculations etc.  

Thus, ST8 - TO8 = 0 and ST5 -TO8 = 0 not -3.  

You could also run any sort of variation on that:  

For unarmed attacks, TO might get it's full effect.  I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do much real damage punching a heavy weight boxer unless I got off a perfect shot...so ST5-TO8 = -3.

For cutting/stabbing attacks, TO might eliminate all but 1 ST damage damage, since the blade would still probably cut through flesh if it hit...

For blunt attacks TO would simple negate strength as above.

[Starshadow]

So... What part of the damage gets subtracted by armor? The ST or the successes?

If the ST part of damage is subtracted first, then TO is useless.

Why not leave it as it is? Some people _are_ tougher and more resistant to damage/wounds than others...

[James Buchanan]

Me..

I just do it this way.

If a character is hit where they have no armour. TO reduces damage to a minimum of 1.

This means, you might be the most hard ever, but if you keep getting hit, then you are going to die a death of a million cuts.

-James

[toli]

So... What part of the damage gets subtracted by armor? The ST or the successes?

If the ST part of damage is subtracted first, then TO is useless.

Why not leave it as it is? Some people _are_ tougher and more resistant to damage/wounds than others...

If you are asking me (as in my suggestion above), it doesn't matter.  TO just eliminates any bonus that high ST might give.  It isn't a matter of what gets subtracted first.  

I've played around with the following.  TO eliminates a maximum of:

ST + 0 for edged weapons (ST5 - TO8 = 0 then + weapon dam and succ)
ST + 1 for blunt weapons (ST5 - TO8 = -1)
ST + 2 for unarmed attacks (ST5-TO8 = -2)

although I do like the 'at least a level 1 wound' approach for no armor

NT

[Fleinhoy]

Now, admiddedly I haven't read all 4 pages due to my lack of time this morning, but here are a couple of lines:

The origin of Naked Dwarf Syndrome was, if I am not mistaken,  the old WFRP rules.
In that game I once played a Dwarf who ended up with a Toughness stat of 8. (Average for a Human is 3). This character proved quite killable by our DM since this was after more than a year of real time playing and many of the oponents we faced were also very hard indeed. As far as I have seen combat in TROS is even more brutal that the good ole' WFRP system so any character should be killable through some cunning use of the rules.

Now to the important part: as the GM it is part of your job to fudge the dice! Feel free to roll them behind your screen in order to sattisfy your players, but if you don't like the result, for one reason or another, just ignore it.

If you feel that one of your players need to be taken down a notch or two because he is getting cocky bout his high TO character just give that character a solid smack from one of his oponents. Sure rolle the dice, but if your NPC is incapable of hurting the guy that way, just tell the player a different result. Show him that no one is invulnrable in the game as in real life.

[Sir Mathodius Black]

I agree.  Although I try to minimize the amount of "cheating" perse, sometimes it is a necessity in order to keep things on the right track or make results that otherwise wouldnt be possible.

[bottleneck]

If a character is hit where they have no armour. TO reduces damage to a minimum of 1.

This means, you might be the most hard ever, but if you keep getting hit, then you are going to die a death of a million cuts.

yeah. I like that! Simple, no dice and no invulnerability.

When you _are_ armored, do you subtract AV and then treat as unarmored, or use the rules as written (e.g. should 7 net successes against plate be enough to cause a level 1 wound regardless of TO ?)



...on the other hand, a strong greatsworder may still inflict level 5 wounds without even aiming (1 dice attacks and such). But as I guess noone dares go in melee with a low-toughness character anyway, that may not be a problem.

[toli]

many of the oponents we faced were also very hard indeed.
Now to the important part: as the GM it is part of your job to fudge the dice!

This is in many ways the core of the matter.  It doesn't really matter if your character has a TO of 8 or 4.  The seneshal should provide a challenging campaign.  Hi TO characters can be challanged by other high TO characters or multiple opponents or non combat situations that have nothing to do with TO.  Having a starting character with 3 A priorities isn't that powerful...if the opponents also have 3 A priorities...

I've played a high TO character for a while.  His lack of social graces (Soc 2) have caused more problems than a high TO alone generally will get him out of.  Piss off the local knight and town and have 100 armed peasants chasing after you...a stint in the slave pits...being too stupid to figure out how to bribe the guards etc....

BEsides some bigass gol captain can always squash your head...NT

[Fleinhoy]

O yea, I forgot to mention that: in the socially complex world of WFRP this fellow's horrible Fellowsgip (Equivalent to Soc) stat gave him more trouble than his extreme physical stats could ever pull him out of.... hehe!

[Turin]

Hi TO characters can be challanged by other high TO characters or multiple opponents

This is not a good solution IMO regarding toughness.  What you are saying is to make the opposition toougher, which IMO hurts the "suepenion of disbelief".  For example:

There are normaly two guards at the gate, toughness of 4.  Because "tuff guy 8" is playing, the toughness on these guards increases to 6.  Of course, this also hurts the other PC's, who may not have as high of a toughness, unless the guards who fight the other PC's always have toughness 4, while tuff guys opponents always have toughness of 6.

It is a very contrived feeling, reminds me of old D&D type "dungeons", where all opponents are geared to the toughness of the party and you need to be a certain level to expect to live.

[toli]

This is not a good solution IMO regarding toughness.  What you are saying is to make the opposition toougher, which IMO hurts the "suepenion of disbelief". .....................


It is a very contrived feeling, reminds me of old D&D type "dungeons", where all opponents are geared to the toughness of the party and you need to be a certain level to expect to live.

My only point is really that the GM should be able to work to the strengths and weaknesses of the group or individual.  If your opponents don't get harder what's the point?  Then it all becomes too easy like having 400 hp and being indestructible.  That is not to say that EVERY guard should become a total tough guy, but the challenges that at group or individual faces should be tailored by the GM to, well, challenge the players...otherwise it's boring.  The challenge could be physical (TO8 bad guy who you have to fight) or mental (MA* bad guy who you have to out think).  It's not that difficult to put the TO 8 guy in a position where TO does do him any good.

If you don't like high TO, just limit it to 6 or some thing.