Topic: Wound Mechanics (long-ish)
Started by: Felderin
Started on: 4/5/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 4/5/2002 at 10:56pm, Felderin wrote:
Wound Mechanics (long-ish)
I lurk here frequently, but rarely (all right--never) post. I'm making some revisions on my personal role-playing system (something my group has used for nearly ten years, in various incarnations), however, and wanted to bounce some ideas off the forum.
The game is Fable. I've posted it online before. It's not up currently (website redesign).
First, a little background. The primary goal of the game is simplicity. I believe that mechanics should be transparent. A few of my rules of design were: no charts, nothing to look up during play, use as few different mechanics as possible, use adjectives rather than numbers to describe game mechanics, and employ simple die rolls that require no math. Action resolution involves rolling a single difficulty die versus a single Trait die; the relative difficulty and the level of skill determine which dice you roll. So if your Trait is Fair (d8) and the difficulty is Great (d10), you roll a d8 against a d10. Like I said, simple. One twist is that the game has no set attributes. Each character is described by a short list of Traits that are, typically, unique to that character. In short, the player defines the Traits that they want based on their character concept, the GM assigns a cost, the player purchases them with Character Points.
The problem is this: the current system for keeping track of wounds breaks a few of my own design rules. It uses a chart of sorts (albeit a really simple one that's on the character sheet). It involves math (albeit just simple subtraction). It adds another mechanic to the game, and forces me to use numbers to describe weapons and armor. It also doesn't quite do what I want it to do. Here is the way it works:
***
Every mortal creature is capable of sustaining nine wounds. It doesn’t necessarily take nine hits to kill something. A single blow can be mortal if the player is good (or lucky) enough. Wounds are arranged in order from bad to worse, and might look something like this on a character sheet:
1 Just a Scratch
2 Stings a Bit
3 Leaves a Scar
4 Haze of Pain
5 Sickening Crunch
6 Blood Everywhere
7 Something Broken
8 Death’s Door
9 Mortal Blow
Each of the nine slots indicates a wound that the character can sustain. The higher the number of the Wound, the more severe it is. Every successful attack always causes exactly one Wound. The severity of the wound depends on the Trait check that attack. Simply subtract the loser’s die roll from the winner’s to determine the level of wound.
Some items—weapons, for instance—may grant a bonus to attack rolls or damage. The weapon’s description will note any modifiers (+0, +1, +2, and so on). If you strike your foe with a Rapier (+1 attack), you can add one to whatever you roll when you make your action check. Because damage is a direct result of how well you perform your attack, this not only increases the likelihood that you will land a blow—it also increases the potential damage you could cause. Some weapons only grant bonuses to damage—a War Club (+1 damage) offers no bonuses to your attack roll, but if you land a hit, it increases the level of wound that you inflict by one.
Of course if your opponent is also wielding a weapon, they might get their own bonuses, and that can help even the odds. It’s always easier to fight an armed opponent if you have a weapon of your own.
If somebody does manage to wound you, armor can help soften the blow a bit. Armor modifiers appear as negative numbers (-1, -2, -3, and so on). Armor modifiers have no affect on Action checks—instead they merely modify damage. If you don a suit of Chain Mail (-1 damage), and your opponent successfully attacks you and the dice indicate that you should suffer a level 3 wound (Leaves a Scar), the armor bumps that down to a level 2 wound (Stings a Bit) instead.
***
That's pretty much it. Mechanically, this system works pretty well, but it requires too much addition and subtraction (especially with the armor and weapon modifiers thrown in), and fails to do a few things that I'd like it to do.
What I want is a simpler system that avoids the attrition-based damage model ("hit points") that most games use. I want a system that isn't too deadly, but which allows for the possibility of one-hit kills (something I like to call "the Smaug principle;" Bard killed Smaug with a single arrow, and to me that feels more appropriate to heroic fantasy than the tedious process of chipping away at hit points that you get in other games).
A few alternative ideas that I've been kicking around:
First, make "Health" a Trait. Everyone has it. Perhaps by default it starts at Average, or perhaps it's based on race. Weapons and armor are also described like Traits. In combat, your attack (Trait vs. Trait) roll determines whether or not you hit, then you roll Weapon vs. Health (or Armor, if you have any) to determine how much damage you do.
Pros: It's simpler. It uses the same mechanics that Action resolution already uses, so it's fewer rules to learn.
Cons: It's an extra die roll (currently, damage is a part of the Action check itself). Damage is no longer tied to skill, but is rather dictated solely by the "Trait level" of the weapon. And how would damage work, specifically? Perhaps a successful blow lowers your Health Trait by one level (temporarily). But where is the possibility for the Smaug Principle? And what if you fail the Weapon vs. Health/Armor roll? Does your successful attack do no damage?
Alternately, a successful attack (Trait vs. Trait) roll might indicate that you do some baseline of damage--lower the target's Health by one level, for instance. Then the Weapon vs. Health/Armor roll would determine whether you do even MORE damage. Perhaps subtract the Health roll from the Weapon roll, and that's how many levels your Health drops? No, that's back to math again. Perhaps it's an open-ended roll system. You roll Weapon vs. Health, and if you lose, then you just do the baseline damage (Health goes down one level). If you win, Health goes down one level and you roll Weapon vs. Health again. And so on. That satisfies the Smaug Principle (and with a nice probability curve, too), but it's a lot more die rolls. It does eliminate the math, though.
Thoughts? Suggestions?
On 4/6/2002 at 12:07am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Wound Mechanics (long-ish)
You might like to have a look at my S game on my site. It uses a similar system to yours. S expresses damage and armour in the same system as skill and attributes, using D4 - D12. It's here: http://valley.150m.com/S/. Basically S uses one or more Damage versus Armour rolls to determine the effects of injury. Damage results are Scratch, Wound, Unconscious/Out, Death, Butchered, and so on. Characters can accumulate any number of Scratch and Wound, but only the worse one out the remaining. For NPC mooks, successful damage vs armour takes them out of the fight. I hope that helps!
On 4/6/2002 at 12:40am, Le Joueur wrote:
More Detail Please
Felderin wrote: The game is Fable.
The primary goal of the game is simplicity. I believe that mechanics should be transparent.
A few of my rules of design were:
• no charts,
• nothing to look up during play,
• use as few different mechanics as possible,
• use adjectives rather than numbers to describe game mechanics,
• employ simple die rolls that require no math.
Action resolution involves rolling a single difficulty die versus a single Trait die; the relative difficulty and the level of skill determine which dice you roll. So if your Trait is Fair (d8) and the difficulty is Great (d10), you roll a d8 against a d10. Like I said, simple. One twist is that the game has no set attributes. Each character is described by a short list of Traits that are, typically, unique to that character. In short, the player defines the Traits that they want based on their character concept, the GM assigns a cost, the player purchases them with Character Points.
The problem is this: the current system for keeping track of wounds breaks a few of my own design rules.
• It uses a chart of sorts (albeit a really simple one that's on the character sheet).
• It involves math (albeit just simple subtraction).
• It adds another mechanic to the game, and forces me to use numbers to describe weapons and armor.
• It also doesn't quite do what I want it to do.
I know this sounds obvious, but have you considered making 'whatever gets wounded' a trait as well? That way if someone wants to play an ogre, they'd take a trait related to how tough they are. You must have some way of dealing with activities that affect characteristics that the target has no trait for, that would serve for characters without a 'whatever gets wounded' trait.
Felderin wrote: Here is the way it works:
Every mortal creature is capable of sustaining nine wounds.
• Just a Scratch
• Stings a Bit
• Leaves a Scar
• Haze of Pain
• Sickening Crunch
• Blood Everywhere
• Something Broken
• Death's Door
• Mortal Blow
Each of the nine slots indicates a wound that the character can sustain. The higher the number of the Wound, the more severe it is. Every successful attack always causes exactly one Wound. The severity of the wound depends on the Trait check that attack. Simply subtract the loser's die roll from the winner's to determine the level of wound.
I can't really say anything here because I do not know how many 'trait levels' there are, but do you really need this many wounds? And does the system do nothing to differentiate between how tough a dragon is and how tough a princess is?
How about this? Things at the extremes (like dragons and princesses) probably have a trait related to how tough or 'soft' they are. When one is hit, the difference (when it is in favor of the attacker) between the dice is a wound trait. (The character gains the trait of 'woundedness.') If another hit is higher (the last hit was one higher than the defender's dice this one is three higher), it creates a 'wound trait' at the new level and replaces the old one. (This means it'll take more than one hit per each 'trait level,' because hits less than or equal are ignored, done right we could get the probabilities up to about nine on average. If we knew how many 'trait levels' there are.)
Felderin wrote: Some items-weapons, for instance-may grant a bonus to attack rolls or damage. The weapon's description will note any modifiers
Whoa, stop. Why don't weapons have traits too? That would appeal to goal C, wouldn't it? Then swords of renown could have some really clever traits, ones that count even outside of combat. Anyway, you could take the above and say that if the wound trait created by a weapon is less than the weapons 'wound inflicting trait,' the wound inflicted is increased by one.
Felderin wrote: If somebody does manage to wound you, armor can help soften the blow a bit. Armor modifiers appear as negative numbers
[Snip.]
the armor bumps that down to a level 2 wound (Stings a Bit) instead.
That would be pretty much what I was saying, except you're using numbers when you could be using traits instead (Remember goal C?). And once again the bonus of using traits for items can add to the fable quality of play.
Felderin wrote: What I want is
• a simpler system that avoids the attrition-based damage model ("hit points") that most games use.
• a system that isn't too deadly, but which allows for the possibility of one-hit kills (something I like to call "the Smaug principle;")
• I hope the example I gave is the 'simpler' you might be looking for (per goal C).
• I'm not too sure you can put that into a mechanic like you present. Smaug died at the height of the story, not as a result of a randomly good roll. If you have some kind of modifier, a 'story trait' that could add to how well the archer does (or could determine how many 'retries' the archer gets going for the kill) or how poorly Smaug does, based on where they are in the story. I think that would be a better evocation of the "Smaug principle," rather than a mechanic that suggests to the Hobbit he might as well take a poke at old Smaug on the off chance he scores really well (destroying the whole epic quality of the ending).
On your other ideas:
Felderin wrote:
• First, make "Health" a Trait. Everyone has it. Perhaps by default it starts at Average, or perhaps it's based on race. Weapons and armor are also described like Traits.
• In combat, your attack (Trait vs. Trait) roll determines whether or not you hit, then you roll Weapon vs. Health (or Armor, if you have any) to determine how much damage you do.
• A successful attack (Trait vs. Trait) roll might indicate that you do some baseline of damage--lower the target's Health by one level, for instance. Then the Weapon vs. Health/Armor roll would determine whether you do even MORE damage.
• Perhaps subtract the Health roll from the Weapon roll, and that's how many levels your Health drops?
• Perhaps it's an open-ended roll system. You roll Weapon vs. Health, and if you lose, then you just do the baseline damage (Health goes down one level). If you win, Health goes down one level and you roll Weapon vs. Health again.
• I still suggest leaving most characters without it (average becomes invisible). Using a 'woundedness trait' that isn't compulsory appeals to satisfying goals B and C from the above. (And the 'toughness' related traits would work like armor when they suit.)
• Adding more rolls again conflicts with goals C and E. I'm telling you hang with goal C; make everything have traits.
• I always thought that a 'lighter hit' on a heavily wounded foe pretty much amounted to nothing (otherwise, why not attack by throwing daggers at the Ogre, you'll wear him down eventually). What I describe above captures this idea; hitting a 'Fairly wounded' foe has no effect unless you do him a 'Great wound.' (You might even consider damage that equals wounds bumps it up a notch, but I discourage this.)
• That's similar to what I was suggesting where a 'Great toughness' would bump down a hit for 'Fair damage,' except rolling twice fails at both goals C and E.
• Maybe, but if you really want to enhance the "Smaug principle," I'd suggest making the open-ended rolls occur only when the story calls for it. Maybe giving the ongoing story a running 'climactic trait' and it determines how many cycles of 'open-endedness' happen; exmpli gratia, the closer to the 'ending,' the more open-ended.
Ultimately, my message is go with goal C; give everything traits. (My suggestion is to increase a trait you have to beat it cleanly.) How do you think that works?
Fang Langford
On 4/6/2002 at 7:05am, Felderin wrote:
RE: Wound Mechanics (long-ish)
I know this sounds obvious, but have you considered making 'whatever gets wounded' a trait as well?
That was kind of what I had in mind with the "Health" Trait, except that it's something that every character has all along, not something they gain while they are wounded. Your idea has merit too, though. I'll have to mull that over.
You must have some way of dealing with activities that affect characteristics that the target has no trait for
Yeah. Rather than take the approach that a character summary is all-inclusive, this system only highlights those Traits that are noteworthy. So if your character's strength isn't noteworthy (for instance), then there is no need to have a "Strength" Trait. These are called "Common Traits," and if the player ever has to make an action with a Common Trait, they roll an Average die (d6). The GM is the arbiter of what does and does not constitute a Common Trait for any particularl character. It's pretty much a common sense thing, though.
I can't really say anything here because I do not know how many 'trait levels' there are
One for each type of die:
Feeble = d4
Average = d6
Fair = d8
Great = d10
Phenomenal = d12
Legendary = d20
Most Traits actually fall within the Fair to Phenomenal range; it's up to the GM to allow or disallow PCs to take Traits at Legendary. Depends on the type of game you want to run, really. You can also take negative (Feeble) Traits, of course.
And does the system do nothing to differentiate between how tough a dragon is and how tough a princess is?
Actually it does. Because damage is actually a function of combat skill in the current system, it's pretty tough to touch them at all, let alone do grevious damage. To score a Mortal wound, for instace, you'd need to beat the dragon's roll by 10. If the dragon is rolling a d20 in combat and you are rolling, say, a d10, that's a pretty tall order.
I know it's kind of a weird abstraction to have Health tied to combat skill like that. Then again, most wound systems are comprised of pretty weird abstractions. Like I said, I want to change it.
Smaug died at the height of the story, not as a result of a randomly good roll.
Yeah, yeah. My point is that combat victories in hit point-driven systems are never quick and dramatic--randomly or otherwise. They are always a relatively slow process of wearing the opponent down. I know the death of Smaug was a literary device, but in my experience that sort of thing is pretty exciting for players when it happens by chance, too.
Ultimately, my message is go with goal C; give everything traits.
Well, I do like the idea of everything in the game being expressed in Traits. It's certainly consistent. =)
My concern with the system you suggest is that it might make combat drag out even longer, which is definitely not what I want. I can envision a situation where two combatants exchange fruitless blows for several turns, each unable to injure the other further because both are already heavily injured. From a strictly simulation point of view, I think a person would become more and more susceptible to damage as they get weaker, which is why the Health Trait makes sense. As your Health gets lower, your ability to avoid damage decreases. That also has the added benefit of naturally dramatic pacing--as combat progresses, each successive blow becomes an even greater danger and things get more tense. It also allows for better distinction between the Princess (Average Health) and the dragon (Legendary Health... good luck, you'll need it).
I do like the idea of Traits for both weapons and armor, though.
On 4/6/2002 at 9:47am, Bankuei wrote:
RE: Wound Mechanics (long-ish)
I like the idea of the wound trait being "earned" up, sort of like "It's a Fair-ly deep wound" or "You're in Great agony"... You can have the rank start low, roll against the default die(whatever you use for "unskilled") unless the victim has a toughness trait, and the first success indicates stun or incapacitation, a second roll to determine if death results.
This way, you keep the base mechanic, combat goes quicker(if the average is D10, it takes what, D4,D6,D8, D10...4 or so hits before you're getting really dicey with the odds of survival, and most folks will be stunned or ko'd before then right?
chris
On 4/6/2002 at 3:19pm, Le Joueur wrote:
I'm Not Explaining It Right
Felderin wrote:Le Joueur wrote: I know this sounds obvious, but have you considered making 'whatever gets wounded' a trait as well?
That was kind of what I had in mind with the "Health" Trait, except that it's something that every character has all along, not something they gain while they are wounded. Your idea has merit too, though. I'll have to mull that over.
You must have some way of dealing with activities that affect characteristics that the target has no trait for
Yeah. Rather than take the approach that a character summary is all-inclusive, this system only highlights those Traits that are noteworthy. So if your character's strength isn't noteworthy (for instance), then there is no need to have a "Strength" Trait. These are called "Common Traits," and if the player ever has to make an action with a Common Trait, they roll an Average die (d6). The GM is the arbiter of what does and does not constitute a Common Trait for any particularl character. It's pretty much a common sense thing, though.
Then what I'm saying is, instead of having a compulsory trait like "Health," have a "Common Trait" and call it "Wounds" for everyone and make it so that it "isn't noteworthy" or absent when healthy. (You could therefore have a knight with a wound that never heals, a permanent "Wound" trait.)
Felderin wrote:Le Joueur wrote: I can't really say anything here because I do not know how many 'trait levels' there are
One for each type of die:
Feeble = d4
Average = d6
Fair = d8
Great = d10
Phenomenal = d12
Legendary = d20
Most Traits actually fall within the Fair to Phenomenal range;
Le Joueur wrote: Smaug died at the height of the story, not as a result of a randomly good roll.
Yeah, yeah. My point is that combat victories in hit point-driven systems are never quick and dramatic--randomly or otherwise. They are always a relatively slow process of wearing the opponent down. I know the death of Smaug was a literary device, but in my experience that sort of thing is pretty exciting for players when it happens by chance, too.
Then your point doesn't satisfy how I expect most would interpret "The Smaug Principle." On the other hand, the system I was proposing could become quick or dramatic. It's already pretty quick; instead of nine levels of wounds like you previously described, I am only suggesting four (Fair Wounds through Legendary Wounds; which sound fatal to non-Legendary individuals). You only have to beat a foe by four levels to 'take them out.' Dragons become harder because they not only reduce your likely level of Wounding, but also because they're 'tougher' bumping down all but the most 'epic' of hits. If you add a open-ended mechanic for only the most climactic scenes, this would become very dramatic too.
Using your Great hero (d10) versus the Legendary dragon (d20) example, my toughness suggestion, and as much as I understand of your combat engine, the hero has 77½% of missing entirely, a 15% chance of scoring a 'just a' wound, and a 7½% of taking the dragon out in one hit; this is all without any open-ended mechanic! Is that good enough chance?
Felderin wrote:Le Joueur wrote: Ultimately, my message is go with goal C; give everything traits.
Well, I do like the idea of everything in the game being expressed in Traits. It's certainly consistent. =)
My concern with the system you suggest is that it might make combat drag out even longer, which is definitely not what I want. I can envision a situation where two combatants exchange fruitless blows for several turns, each unable to injure the other further because both are already heavily injured.
I dunno, that sounds like a lot of fables as they make it to the silver screen; two matched combatants, one good, one evil, beaten and bloody, taking hit after fruitless hit until the hero summons up enough script-immunity to strike down his foe in a fit of epic soliloquy.
Besides, the Great hero has a 7½% of scoring a killing blow on the Legendary dragon at any time. In nine hits that works out to about killing half the time (unless the hero comes up with some modifier to improve his chances); considering the starting odds, I think that sounds about right. If I read your system right, it will take nine hits to finish an opponent off, a little piece at a time.
Felderin wrote: From a strictly simulation point of view,
I hate to say this, but now you're asking for the impossible; a realistic fable. Either things can get legendary or they can simulate reality, not both. It's a hard choice, but you're going to have to decide which is more important to you and let the other go. Will your game simulate reality, or will it be the stuff of legend?
Felderin wrote: I think a person would become more and more susceptible to damage as they get weaker, which is why the Health Trait makes sense. As your Health gets lower, your ability to avoid damage decreases.
In the design trades we call this a 'death spiral.' Once you get hit, there becomes less and less reason to fight. Frankly after playing in such games, you learn to either avoid combat at all costs or run the minute you take a scratch. In hard-core mechanics circles, death spirals are avoided like the plague because of this effect. With this in mind, do what you will.
Felderin wrote: That also has the added benefit of naturally dramatic pacing--as combat progresses, each successive blow becomes an even greater danger and things get more tense. It also allows for better distinction between the Princess (Average Health) and the dragon (Legendary Health... good luck, you'll need it).
You're going to have to point out some examples of how this is 'natural,' because it sure doesn't sound that way to me. In realistic terms (to over-simplify), most people continue fighting almost as though uninjured (unless grievously so) because of the adrenaline rush of combat, only to collapse from their wounds later. If you make 'realism' you goal, you are going to have to do a bit more research.
Felderin wrote: I do like the idea of Traits for both weapons and armor, though.
Thank you. I hope my advice at least stimulated some thought for you. Your game sounds quite interesting and I like your design goals. I wish you luck in satisfying them.
Fang Langford
On 4/6/2002 at 4:32pm, Felderin wrote:
RE: Wound Mechanics (long-ish)
If I read your system right, it will take nine hits to finish an opponent off, a little piece at a time.
Not exactly. You CAN kill someone that way. Eventually, attrition will take them down. But you can also kill them in a single blow, if it's good enough. Looking at my first post, I think that I forgot to post the important part of the system. I was tired, it was a cut and paste thing. Basically, you don't need to inflict nine wounds to kill someone. You only need to inflict one Mortal (level nine) wound. The rest of the wound slots exist so that it's possible to kill an opponent by wearing them down, if you can't manage that one deadly blow. When you inflict a wound, you mark off the appropriate wound on the chart. If you inflict a wound in a slot that is already marked off, you mark off the next higher slot on the list. If THAT slot is also marked off already, you go to the next one. And so on. So it's possible to kill an opponent, eventually, even if you can only inflict minor wounds.
Like I said, I actually like that part of the current system. But I might be willing to sacrifice it for something simpler that's more in keeping with my design goals.
Then what I'm saying is, instead of having a compulsory trait like "Health," have a "Common Trait" and call it "Wounds" for everyone and make it so that it "isn't noteworthy" or absent when healthy. (You could therefore have a knight with a wound that never heals, a permanent "Wound" trait.)
It's an interesting concept. It kind of turns the whole thing on end. A few more issues, however:
1. This would be the only instance in the game in which a high character Trait level is used to describe something bad. I.e. having any other "Phenomenal" Trait would be considered a Good Thing. So there is a consistency issue.
2. What are the adverse effects of wounds? With the Health model, each wound reduces your ability to withstand damage, since each wound lowers your Health, and Health is what you roll against to avoid wounds.
3. Some opponents would be completely unable to kill other opponents. Of course, this only occurs at the extreme ends of the scale (even if a Feeble (d4) attacker rolled a 4 vs. a Legendary (d20) defender's 1, it wouldn't be enough to kill the defender), so maybe it's not a terrible thing.
1 and 2 are worth consideration, however.
Either things can get legendary or they can simulate reality, not both.
This isn't the discussion I wanted to get into, but for the record, I don't accept that at all. Many real world legends are based on actual events--they aren't merely dramatic creations. It's perfectly possible to have a "legendary" game within the context of an internally consistent simulated reality. It won't be dramatically driven, but that's another matter. For the record, I prefer good simulation to good narrative. I find that if you provide players with a consistent and interesting setting, the narrative pretty much creates itself.
Frankly after playing in such games, you learn to either avoid combat at all costs or run the minute you take a scratch. In hard-core mechanics circles, death spirals are avoided like the plague because of this effect. With this in mind, do what you will.
I am aware of this effect. There are two mechanics in my system that are intended to counter this, at least to the extent that players will not live in eternal fear of getting into a fight. First is armor, which provides a "constant" buffer in games that are combat-centric. The second is the Character Point system. Players are awarded CPs as experience, and they have a number of different uses. One of those is to force the reroll of any one die, at any time. So if somebody lands a killing blow on your character, you can spend a CP to reroll it. The downside is that CPs are also used for character advancement, so players won't spend them lightly.
You're going to have to point out some examples of how this is 'natural,' because it sure doesn't sound that way to me.
I meant naturally dramatic (as in, the combat gets more dangerous with each blow), not naturally realistic. But the combatants will continue to fight as though uninjured (the "adrenaline rush"), because wounds affect only their ability to avoid damage, not their ability to inflict it.
I hope my advice at least stimulated some thought for you.
It has. I like many of your ideas, and they have inspired a few new ones of my own. I don't mean to sound overly critical--I only play Devil's Advocate because debate always leads to better design concepts. Whic is, of course, why I posted here to begin with. =)
On 4/7/2002 at 2:25am, Le Joueur wrote:
RE: Wound Mechanics (long-ish)
Felderin wrote:Le Joueur wrote: Then what I'm saying is, instead of having a compulsory trait like "Health," have a "Common Trait" and call it "Wounds" for everyone and make it so that it "isn't noteworthy" or absent when healthy. (You could therefore have a knight with a wound that never heals, a permanent "Wound" trait.)
It's an interesting concept. It kind of turns the whole thing on end. A few more issues, however:
• This would be the only instance in the game in which a high character Trait level is used to describe something bad (i.e. having any other "Phenomenal" Trait would be considered a Good Thing). So there is a consistency issue.
• What are the adverse effects of wounds? With the Health model, each wound reduces your ability to withstand damage, since each wound lowers your Health, and Health is what you roll against to avoid wounds.
• Some opponents would be completely unable to kill other opponents. Of course, this only occurs at the extreme ends of the scale (even if a Feeble (d4) attacker rolled a 4 vs. a Legendary (d20) defender's 1, it wouldn't be enough to kill the defender), so maybe it's not a terrible thing.
1 and 2 are worth consideration, however.
• Since it "turns the whole thing on end," perhaps it could be looked at as a trait of one character 'tagged onto' another; as in, "That's the Phenomenal Wound I dealt to the dragon." After all, such is a good thing for you. Besides having a Phenomenal Wound it quite consistent with a tragic fable.
• Can I ask a small question? Why are you so married to the idea of adverse effects of wounds in combat? I don't understand the attraction, please explain. I mean, to me, it's a turn-off for getting anywhere near combat. Beyond that, isn't death an adverse enough effect of wounding? The only effect, mathematically, of having the lowering of 'health' causing damage to be more likely is precisely identical to not doing it and simply having fewer 'hit points.' What does having the feeling of a 'death spiral' add to the game? (I can provide parallel examples if necessary.)
• Under what I am proposing, a Feeble Knight with an Average Sword, scoring his best 4 against a Legendary Dragon's worst 1 would still be doing a Phenomenal Wound! (and that still occurs 1 time in 80). If he has a Legendary Sword (or that arrow used on Smaug), it would bump that up to a Legendary Wound. Do you think a Feeble Knight should be able to able to slay a Legend under normal circumstances? (A Legendary Climactic point in the story could also do the 'bumping.')
Felderin wrote:Le Joueur wrote: Either things can get legendary or they can simulate reality, not both.
This isn't the discussion I wanted to get into, but for the record, I don't accept that at all. Many real world legends are based on actual events--they aren't merely dramatic creations. It's perfectly possible to have a "legendary" game within the context of an internally consistent simulated reality. It won't be dramatically driven, but that's another matter. For the record, I prefer good simulation to good narrative. I find that if you provide players with a consistent and interesting setting, the narrative pretty much creates itself.
Now you're confusing two different kinds of legends. The are no incidences of dragons or magic in the real world. What makes them legendary is that they are a step above 'real world' legends. I still maintain that those 'step above' legends are inherently unrealistic and therefore those legend are mutually exclusive with realism.
Again, you have to make concrete, explicit decisions about what you want your game to be capable of. I don't care what real world legend you care to name, but if you make a system that brings the death of Smaug down to that level, I'll have to say you're marginalizing the epic fantasies.
The thing is that isn't a bad thing. If you choose to have legends no more potent than in the real world, then a system that makes no special accomodation to what point in the climax the story is, works perfectly. On the other hand, if your legends really reach for the stars, not rewarding climactic gambles at the appropriate time will sap the story of its 'reach for the stars' climaxes. It's two different games and I'm going to have to argue that you can't do both simultaneously.
Felderin wrote:Le Joueur wrote: You're going to have to point out some examples of how this is 'natural,' because it sure doesn't sound that way to me.
I meant naturally dramatic (as in, the combat gets more dangerous with each blow), not naturally realistic. But the combatants will continue to fight as though uninjured (the "adrenaline rush"), because wounds affect only their ability to avoid damage, not their ability to inflict it.
I think you're missing my point. In drama, it is rarely used that combat gets "more dangerous." That's not in any dramatic convention I am familiar with. I think you're talking about what is intuitive at least to you. Losing the ability to avoid damage after suffering some is counter-intuitive to me, at least.
Besides, if a fatal blow is at any time possible, than it cannot be less dangerous than that. In other words, this escalation you cannot seem to give up on is trumped by the fact that any blow can be fatal.
Felderin wrote:Le Joueur wrote: I hope my advice at least stimulated some thought for you.
It has. I like many of your ideas, and they have inspired a few new ones of my own. I don't mean to sound overly critical--I only play Devil's Advocate because debate always leads to better design concepts. Which is, of course, why I posted here to begin with. =)
This is precisely and only the effect I wish to have. Word of advice, what we're doing here isn't Devil's Advocacy (I should know, I am a Field Director at Large, for the Regional Devil's Advocacy Office), this is Aristotelian dialogue, much like the American legal system is based on. I too, have no intention to sound critical, my only goal is to get you to look at what you've got from 'outside the box' so that you can comfortably feel that it is what you intentionally chose to do.
Fang Langford
On 4/7/2002 at 3:09am, Felderin wrote:
RE: Wound Mechanics (long-ish)
Why are you so married to the idea of adverse effects of wounds in combat?
I'm not, really. Most games don't model this at all. It's just kind of a nice extra with the Health Trait system. But you are correct--it's not that big a deal either way.
Do you think a Feeble Knight should be able to able to slay a Legend under normal circumstances?
I certainly don't think it should be easy, but it bothers me to make it completely impossible. Even a child with a knife should be able to kill a dragon eventually, if he keeps whittling away at it. And, you know, if the dragon doesn't hit back. All right, that's a dumb example. But you get what I mean.
I still maintain that those 'step above' legends are inherently unrealistic and therefore those legend are mutually exclusive with realism.
That's beside the point, though. The role-playing setting--any role-playing setting--is fictional, dragons or no. The issue is whether game decisions are driven by dramatic necessity or by the rules of simulation. Like I said, in general, I prefer the latter. Not because I dislike drama (I don't), but because I think there is a unique variety of drama that evolves naturally out of simulation. It's not story-driven, of course--it's character driven. Ultimately, I think that a game about the characters (rather than about a story that the characters happen to be cast in) is more interesting for the players.
Of course that's a personal taste thing. Your mileage may vary.
On the other hand, if your legends really reach for the stars, not rewarding climactic gambles at the appropriate time will sap the story of its 'reach for the stars' climaxes. It's two different games and I'm going to have to argue that you can't do both simultaneously.
That depends on whether you define "reward" as winning. Characters reaching for the stars and stumbling can be just as interesting. Again, your mileage may vary.
In drama, it is rarely used that combat gets "more dangerous."
I'm defining drama here as "the quality of being arresting or highly emotional." If you prefer a different word, however, use "tension."
Besides, if a fatal blow is at any time possible, than it cannot be less dangerous than that.
That's a good point.