Hi, I'm back!

So in the Surreality Engine I had it written that the loser in any dangerous conflict took damage based on the dice they rolled. This is very much in keeping with the core idea of giving players as much control of their characters fates as possible but runs into the issue of two men fighting, one who is a tiny little guy and the other a hardened warrior. The warrior is actually going to tend to take more damage when/if he loses the fight than our scrawny wimp...

Of course he is much less likely to actually lose which works out pretty nicely.

It gets less clear when these two square off and fight a robot. The robot is much stronger than both of them and is likely to win in either case. The warrior now is more likely to be floored because of it while the wimp could walk away relatively unharmed. In this system they both have about the same number of 'hit points' so suddenly the warrior is at a disadvantage due to his superior abilities.

I tried it out the more traditional way, with the victor dealing the damage, but It feels wrong so I am obviously still uncertain about it.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated and might help to knock loose whatever was in my head when I wrote it this way.

-Will

Isn't this inherently covered by the fact that the robot will attempt to deal more damage to the individual it perceives as the bigger threat?

[CONTROL PARAMETER 1: DEFEND TARGET]
[CONTROL PARAMETER 2: TAKE DOWN ASSAILANTS]
[CONTROL PARAMETER 3: MINIMIZE POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO SELF OR TARGET]

The little guy is less able to do damage, so he is ignored until the big guy is taken care of. The wimp isn't walking away unharmed, he's scurrying away in the shadows while the big guy is acting as a distraction.

Just an idea.

V

That's what keeps me from dumping this concept entirely and returning to attacker based damage. It makes a kind of sense to have those who are putting the most out there be the ones taking the most risk. And usually the ones with the most dice in a given dangerous stunt will have the most resources to help them overcome it and deal with the consequences of failure.

It gets a little weird when you are talking about threats outside of combat. Should the experienced rock climber be more hurt in a fall? It starts to get murky as well when other factors start adding to the event, like a parachute or an amulet of protection. Since these are used to determine a level of success against a danger right now they add to the risk you are taking as well.

This feels like it should be less of a problem than I am making it, but still I ponder

-Will

This Surreality Engine sounds interesting. Do you have a link to more information about how the game/mechanics work?

It does sound like this method could lead to strange outcomes that just don’t make sense in and out of combat.

Instead of the character doing damage to themselves based on what they rolled, maybe that roll could instead be a modifier increasing or decreasing the damage leveraged towards them. I have no idea of how your system works or if this would even be possible.

Will wrote:
Hi, I'm back!

I was generally looking for bigger picture views of the question, but I'd be delighted to have specific feedback as well.

I last mentioned Surreality Engine here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=26378.msg252441#msg252441

It's changed a good chunk since then but the core concepts and the part in question (on page 11 of the pdf) are the same. I am calling the current version the Augean Stables Edition as I am cleaning up all the crap and rewriting the fantastically lackluster examples of play.

-Will

Will, thanks for the link to your system. It does seem pretty simple overall and is still functional. At least it seems to be.

I think your best bet at this point would be to do a few play testing sessions to see how different situations actually resolve. You can see if the damage resolution fits how you intended play to run and you can get feedback from some players.

With some experience and feedback you can probably refine this into what you are really looking for.

I think your problem might be caused by defining 'damage' dice as those that roll 3 or less. That number is not related to anything else in your game and it costs you flexibility.

How about instead saying that you take damage equal to the lowest die you rolled. Someone only rolling one die might take up to 6 damage, but every die rolled increases your chance of only taking 1 damage.

Erudite wrote:
Will, thanks for the link to your system. It does seem pretty simple overall and is still functional. At least it seems to be.

Erudite wrote:
I think your best bet at this point would be to do a few play testing sessions to see how different situations actually resolve. You can see if the damage resolution fits how you intended play to run and you can get feedback from some players.

With some experience and feedback you can probably refine this into what you are really looking for.

Falc wrote:
I think your problem might be caused by defining 'damage' dice as those that roll 3 or less. That number is not related to anything else in your game and it costs you flexibility.

How about instead saying that you take damage equal to the lowest die you rolled. Someone only rolling one die might take up to 6 damage, but every die rolled increases your chance of only taking 1 damage.