This is just a First Thought I have that I am trying to refine and wondered who else may have gone down this road.

I am considering changing the numerical static damage on weapons (ie. 3d6) to a generic goal/effect type descriptor such as light (submission) serious (disable / knockout) and deadly weapons. 

Degree of success from attacks would be based off of the initial roll instead of a subsequent damage roll.  For reference I was hoping to go with the difference of success between two players using dice pools ranging from about 1 to 10 dice.

A character would have the 3 types of wounds listed on their sheet.  The Player would make checks versus the total number of wounds of they type to see if they succumbed to that effect.

A character who received more light wounds than they could “save versus” would be submissive as a slave is to a whip.

A character who received more serious wounds than they could “save versus” would be disabled, out of combat, have limited actions or just be knocked unconscious.

A character who received more deadly wounds than they could “save versus” would finally succumb to death.

Granted, I don’t have anything in stone about how wound cross over or how a character could use a light weapon, such as a dagger to cause a deadly wound.  I think though it might be more related to what the Player wants to achieve instead of how the dice roll.

A dagger is clearly a deadly weapon, even though it is small. It may be helpful to rename these damage types something like "pain," "knockout," and "lethal" damage, since lethality and size are not directly related. Depending on the kind of game that this system is designed for, pain damage may come up so infrequently as to be not worth including, since even an unarmed attack can knock out or disable someone.

There are some things that weren't clear to me when I read your description: when would a character save against the number of wounds they have suffered? Only at the moment when they are hit? More often? And would this mean that weapons of the same damage type would all be equally effective? This may be fine, as long as you're not using this system for hard simulationist purposes. In fact, the system I'm working on treats all weapons equally. My motivation was to try to keep all possible character concepts balanced and playable.

So what's your motivation? What do you feel that this system can cover well?

Hi Byron, welcome to the forge!

I'm a bit direct, please forgive. When the character is rendered disabled or submissive, are you looking for a responce from players? If so, is it something like a 'Awwww no!!' and like getting a genuine emotional shock?

Callan wrote:
Hi Byron, welcome to the forge!

I'm a bit direct, please forgive. When the character is rendered disabled or submissive, are you looking for a responce from players? If so, is it something like a 'Awwww no!!' and like getting a genuine emotional shock?

billvolk wrote:
A dagger is clearly a deadly weapon, even though it is small. It may be helpful to rename these damage types something like "pain," "knockout," and "lethal" damage, since lethality and size are not directly related. Depending on the kind of game that this system is designed for, pain damage may come up so infrequently as to be not worth including, since even an unarmed attack can knock out or disable someone.

There are some things that weren't clear to me when I read your description: when would a character save against the number of wounds they have suffered? Only at the moment when they are hit? More often? And would this mean that weapons of the same damage type would all be equally effective? This may be fine, as long as you're not using this system for hard simulationist purposes. In fact, the system I'm working on treats all weapons equally. My motivation was to try to keep all possible character concepts balanced and playable.

So what's your motivation? What do you feel that this system can cover well?

Curses & Spite.  I screwed up the quote on the last post obviously. 

billvolk wrote:
There are some things that weren't clear to me when I read your description: when would a character save against the number of wounds they have suffered? Only at the moment when they are hit? More often?

I'd agree with the idea of wound/damage types, but not on the weapons. After all a swiss army knife in the heart will kill you, and so can a punch in certain cases. So the location hit has much to do with it. Cross ref hit location and weapon type, perhaps with modifiers for power of blow, and affects from any armour/protection worn.

JW

Hereward wrote:
I'd agree with the idea of wound/damage types, but not on the weapons. After all a swiss army knife in the heart will kill you, and so can a punch in certain cases. So the location hit has much to do with it. Cross ref hit location and weapon type, perhaps with modifiers for power of blow, and affects from any armour/protection worn.

JW

Hello,

Byron, if you can, check out some of the existing games which have refined this idea. One is Cyberpunk, which uses no hit points or anything like that at all, just wounds and severity. Another is HeroQuest, which has an abstract but effective method, once you get used to it, based on how many points the player bid before rolling. Still another is Sorcerer, in which damage is only defined by penalties to later rolls, and nothing else.

Best, Ron

Yes calling the desire before hand by the attacking player, the "defender" woudl be looking to reduce the number of success to zero. One could also allow for the fact that that the attacker could be aiming to wound but get too many success' and end up with a kill result?!

JW

Byron wrote:

Callan wrote:
Hi Byron, welcome to the forge!

I'm a bit direct, please forgive. When the character is rendered disabled or submissive, are you looking for a responce from players? If so, is it something like a 'Awwww no!!' and like getting a genuine emotional shock?

No, not really, I don't expect to get an emotional response from the players through system alone.

Byron, here's a thing to think about - or, if you've thought about it already, tell us how it affects your design: What function will combat have in your game?

For example, do you want a game where:

- each fight is hyper-realistic, where characters and NPCs can suddenly die (as in real life) by sheer bad luck?
- players are able to see what's coming, pull out in time, and think tactically about how much more damage their character can withstand?
- combat rules are sketchy and in the background, not really affecting play that much?
- combat rules are mostly there in order to see how (in)effective characters are at performing different actions?
- combat rules are there as creative constraints, framing how players can talk about their actions?

There are very many possible reasons for having combat rules, and each of those reasons means you have to think a little differently about how you design your system.