Jake! (or anybody else qualified to answer)
You've said a few times yourself that the armor penalties in tRoS are a bit to hefty. If I wanted more realistic penalties, what would they be?
My world is a 11th-12th century one(though there are exceptions), so I'm mostly interested in chainmail.

How about no penalties at all?

People don't make armor that impedes people in combat. To do so is just suicide. And armor can be made that does not impede. So that's how it's made IRL.

I've said this a jillion times. What armor is, is heavy. Watch the encumberance rules, and even moreso fatige. These can be problematic, potentially. The fatigue factor is why people don't wear armor a lot. Wearing armor in combat is about the most draining thing I can imagine (I've worn thirty pounds of kevlar in combat training, it's no fun at all). So as soon as a warrior safely can, he takes his armor off.

The reason that armor penalties exist in games goes back to TFT (Proto GURPS) where these penalties were added for game balance. They are in no way realistic. The problem that one gets if one drops these penalties, then, is that every player with an ounce of Gamism in him will immediately go for the heaviest armor available. Why? Because just like IRL, it is an advanage to wear the heaviest armor available.

Why, then IRL, did people wear leather armor when chainmail was available? Because leather is infinitely cheaper. It is something that anyone can wear and not get fatigued over time. It's something that a commoner can get away with wearing - any commoner wearing chain will be asked what lord he works for as a knight or man-at-arms, and probably detained for questioning if he can't answer (the assumption being that he killed such a person to get the armor).

In other words there are social, cultural, and personal reasons that have nothing to do with combat. But again, most role-players will try to get around this stuff so that they can be more effective where it "counts" as far as they are concerned, that being in combat. So penalties slip into even the most realistic games to make the lesser armors seem like better options. Interestingly, TROS even with the penalties, does make heavier armors substantlively better than lesser ones. But it still mitigates a bit as well. And interesting midle ground.

Also as intresting, D&D is more realistic in its approach in that it does not penalize wearers of heavier armors. But that's because classes are restricted to certain armors, and buying armor is expensive (which functions with the way D&D handles gold as an important empowering metric). IOW, you don't get platemail in D&D until you get enough gold. The better armor is a reward.

The question of whether or not to drop the armor penalties is only answerable by looking at your players styles. Are they really into the "realism" of the setting? Then they will select the appropriate armor. Are they into "winning" or "powergaming"? If so, then keeping the balancing penalties is probably a good idea. It makes te question of armor more of a tactical decision, which is what they enjoy.

Mike

Wohoo! You've confirmed what I've always suspected.
If I go hard enough on the other, more "real" penalties, I think it will do nicely without any penalties.
I'll just use the fatigue rules and perhaps some overheating and skill penalties(e.g. knitting in armored gloves or swimming in plate).
Using money as a limit is something I've always wanted but I have no feel whatsoever when it comes to the tRoS money system. Just how much is much? What is a good reward? How much does it cost to keep yourself alive? Aaargh.

I'm going to back up Mike, generally, with a few add-ons.

First, the chief problem with armor is weight and fatigue.
Second is visibility--you can't see jack wearing most helmets. I wanted CP loss to reflect this.
Third, it does restrict mobility, just not nearly as much as some folks think. You can cartwheel in the stuff, but it isn't as easy.
Fourth, it's uncomfortable, and if even one piece comes loose then it's very uncomfortable.

For TROS I tried to take these factors into account and average them out into penalties to the CP. Note that the penalties for anything on the torso are minor or non-existant, but when your arms and legs are armored the penalty goes up due to basic leverage and weight/inertia issues. Leg armor impedes all but basic footwork to a small degree, slowing it down if nothing else.

The reason that I say they're too high is that an "average" guy has 8CP (4 Reflex, 4 Proficiency), and many suits therefore cut him down to half. That's too high. OTOH, your average "fighter" or TROS knight has, say, 10-13CP, which makes the penalties stiff but still reasonable. Since "average" fighters probably weren't running around in full plate, the penalties seem workable, if not perfect.

Jake

why not make the penalty 1/3 of your CP pool?

Well there is some debate here on how much effect armor has. Stonger guys would suffer less effect than weaker guys for wearing plate. But the truth of the matter is that while well made Full Plate Armor doesn't IMPEDE movement... (make it impossible to lift a sword) It does hinder movement (maKe it harder ... all that weight on your arm) and slower to react (momentum). If you want to simulate this wear excersize weights on wrists and ankles all day long..... then do some sort of martial kata. While it is true that you will adjust to the wieghts over time and they will fatigue you less... you'll always be quicker without them. This momentum effect is where i believe most of the CP penalty for full armor, and movement comes from. How accurate are they? good question... I've never worn a 60 lbs of armor... I know aht happens when i wear a 60 lb backpack while hiking in the mountains though. I know how much my foot speed changes from sneakers to hiking boots. I don't have a problem accepting Jakes penalties as close enough. The last thing we need are huge tables of armor penaltied based on user strength and ammount of time armor is worn, etc...

I've seen film of people in plate doing cartwheels.... I've never seen film of them landing it though.... since they didn't show that... I assume it went badly. Again, there is all that momentum they have to deal with... same reason you don't see many fat gymnasts

Hinder is a much better word, yes. Not impede, HINDER.

As for cartwheels, I've done it in poorly made stuff and landed, if not gracefully, at least on my feet.

Jake

Hmm, right... How do I start?

I actually have worn armour. From chain shirts, to chain hauberks, to chain hauberks and plate breastplates, and scalemail (many years of Live-roleplay and reenactment). Occasionaly braces as well but nothing heavier than that. I've never worn full articulated plate for example (a la Knight-in-armour)

I've worn such for days at a length and done treks across country (week-long adventures where time-in is 24 hours a day - you tend to wear minimal armour at least till bedtime) Not that uncomfortable, strangely.

What wearing armour comes down to is fatigue. It doesn't really feel that heavy when you're wearing the stuff (although, like roller-skates, once you've taken it off you definitely feel the difference). But after minutes of intense, strenuous action, you get knackered that much quicker and your muscles easily strain. So regarding fatigue rules, spot on Jake.

And armour DOES impede movement to some degree. It's like the difference betweeen being naked and wearing a stiff leather coat. You're still manouvravble just not quite as much. It takes that much more effort to stretch so far, and your parry can be just that tiny bit more awkward and slower.

And the third factor would be vision restriction. Wearing a helm really screws you up. Even one with an open face buggers up your hearing and restricts peripheral vision. So again, regarding CP rules for armour and helms, I kinda agree with Jake. I see what you mean by saying that they're a little bit too harsh, but not by that much as I see it.

An inexperienced fighter might well lose half his CP (a maximum of four lost successes regarding parries and attacks) so what is the advantage of wearing all that steel? I'd say that he's gained six! automatic successes in case he should get hit. And because he can rely on the armour he can go for outright attack (That's +2 CP) and putting that many more dice into his attack. A wise defender would put much in defence, leaving both fighers (regardless of outcome) with few dice each for the next exchange (advantage thus remains the same)

So, yeah, regarding armour, I'm happy with the rules. The only problem I see concerns ppl with less than 6CP. This means that in full plate with shield and full helm, they can't even react.

But I'd just say that CP can never go below 1 (or maybe 2 - one for each round) before shock and other modifiers are applied.

Take care

Sorry, by IMPEDE I meant HINDER. So yeah, agreed with Jake and Thirsty. Was just elaborating on their points rather than contradicting.

Jake Norwood wrote: As for cartwheels, I've done it in poorly made stuff and landed, if not gracefully, at least on my feet.

Jake

Sooo....
Helmet CP loss is for loss of hearing/vision.
I'm still confused about the pot helm CP los however.
Breastplate CP loss is the because it's rigid.
Chain or plate on the arms or legs makes you a little slower and thus hinder movement.

Regarding plates, is it the plates on the joints that are the major problem?
Should greaves give any CP loss?

Mokkurkalfe wrote: Sooo....
Helmet CP loss is for loss of hearing/vision.
I'm still confused about the pot helm CP los however.

Breastplate CP loss is the because it's rigid.
Chain or plate on the arms or legs makes you a little slower and thus hinder movement.

Regarding plates, is it the plates on the joints that are the major problem?
Should greaves give any CP loss?

So it's either CP loss or fatigue then?

EDIT: And perhaps a PER penalty.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: So it's either CP loss or fatigue then?

EDIT: And perhaps a PER penalty.

Mike Holmes wrote: [

Breastplate CP loss is the because it's rigid.
Chain or plate on the arms or legs makes you a little slower and thus hinder movement.

Again, these are the "Iffy-est" to me. As our experienced chain wearing friend above attested, it's just added weight. My experience with added weight is that you can go just as fast, or very nearly so. It just takes even more effort to do so. In combat you aren't going to let laziness make you an easier target, or allow it to let the opponent slip away. You will make that armor go full speed. It will just cost you a lot in terms of fatigue.

Yeah, I had to do all sorts of crazy stuff like that in basic. River crossings, etc. And I agree it's not easy. But again, I think that that has more to do with letting the fatigue set in. You move more clumsily to try and conserve energy. In a battle you will dig deep. Still eventually, you will fatigue. Fatigue does take the form of CP losses in TROS. And they do accumulate quickly, more quickly presumably with armor. That's still what I mostly advocate. Still, you're abslutely right that Jakes system works just fine as is. Nobody said otherwise. Just tweaking for kicks.


Along the same line of discussion, a cool system that some few other systems use, is to allow one to dig even deeper into fatigue to cancel current fatigue penalties. This, of course, fails at some point, but until then, you act at full value. I really like systems like that. What it means is that you can either choose to push hard and drain fast, or drain more slowly, but be more clumsy in the meanwhile.

Here's how I'd do it for TROS. You accumulate fatigue as normal (or perhaps faster than the rules would indicate, and certainly faster in heavy armor). Then, you can "push" to eliminate these penalties. For each die you push you accumulate another point of fatigue. I'd have to look more closely at that. The most you can push is equal to, say, twice your Endurance (or Health?). In any case, at some point you start to fail to be able to cover your current penalties.

What this does is further incentivize quick kills, and resting. And resting is oh so realistic in duels and the like. Anyhow, it gives the player control over another tactical decision to make each round.

Cooler, extend this rule logically, and allow "pushing" to allow the character to exceed his normal die pool limit. So you can go all out on the first attack with a monster pile of dice. But if the defender survives, you'll be hurting bad, next round when you are really fatigued, and he is not at all.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:
Cooler, extend this rule logically, and allow "pushing" to allow the character to exceed his normal die pool limit. So you can go all out on the first attack with a monster pile of dice. But if the defender survives, you'll be hurting bad, next round when you are really fatigued, and he is not at all.
Mike