Benedict wrote:To put things into place. When you answered "apparently so" it makes you a bad GM. Because you have not read the rules thoroughly, you do not understand basic functions, you juxtapose rules from similar rulesets to your convenience based upon your limited experience (I played few rpgs tros included) and high idea of yourself (desgined
few customs and can see poor rule where I see it).
The honest answer to your player should be that you don't know and you will look it up, the correct one should be that armor is superior to stamina because of its additional properties. So, no, its not an issue of aesthetics. Its an issue of you assuming you know something when you don't.
Funny thing is one ot the things that made me present idea of Bob to my players was armor and weapon properties. So no, my answer does not make me a bad GM. I do grasp the difference. That's why in my 1st post regarding this issue I wrote "armor properties aside".
And here you start running around in circles. Who's cherry-picking data? Does armor properties matter or not? And please, decide what the example is.
1. A SM6 unarmored character?
2. A SM6 toe-to-head clad in maille armor character?
3. A SM6 wearing a proofed plate full suit character?
If you have STA 6 and armor - you are a tank.
If you have STA 6 and no armor - you are more vulernable. At the sime time, if you stand next to STA 2 character without an armor - you have 3 times his damage soak. Worse than in case above.
Btw, there's no such thing as chainmail in the rules. Do your homework.
Ok. In my defence, I kinda took this paragraph from Flower Of Battle to heart. They might be wrong after all. Let's not play in guruus and mindless followers.
Mail armor may be more familiar to
many readers by the name Chain
Mail. In the real world, this is
actually a very modern term for mail armor,
however, and would not have been used in
the medieval period when such armor was
in common use. The terms Chain Mail and
Mail may be seen as interchangeable for all
intents and purposes.
Good example of fallacy: You disregard character creation in its entirety. Priorities.dra wrote:Fallacy : a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid
To have SM6 you must invest 5 ranks in Attributes leaving you 10 ranks for the other Priorities.
To have SM6 and full maille armor you need Attributes 5 and Class 2. 8 ranks left.
To have SM6 and full proofed plate you need Attributes 5 and Class 4. 6 ranks left.
Good example of fallacy is considering only fresh characters straight from factory. Also, ignoring system mechanics like Karma.
So if player A creates character with STA 6 and during game sessions aquire nobility, income and wealth, does it make his STA 6 go lower?
Do you consider rules to be good enough just to run first session or would it be a signature of good rules to be universal.
Claiming that grappling maneuvers are "advanced techniques" when you haven't even read them, or saying that SM6 soaks better than AV3 Metal armor are both fallacies.
Possibly. Or maybe if you read grappling in Tros you might have vauge idea of what it might look like? Anyways, I read them since that time and still want to run first sessions without it. And than increase number of manouvers.
A bad rule is not a fallacy. A bad rule is a flaw that needs to get fixed. A rule is not an arguement, it is a statement. Open up a dictionary to see the difference.
Rules are based on reasoning. For example rules of adding strenght to damage and deducting stamina were put into system not because it was a coin flip, but because there was obvious reasoning, that strong characters should have advantage over weak. This reasoning is correct UP TO A POINT only. Therefore there is a mistake in reasoning here which was put into rules.
How do you know that grappling maneuvers are "advanced mechanics" when you haven't even read them? Not only that, but you continue to pontificate instead of reading the rules,
then simply suggest that "grappling is OP than", just because they render your arguement invalid. Last time I checked they are basic maneuvers, not advanced, and
grappling is an essential part of any game simulating melee combat at any extent.
First of all , writing about grappling being OP was a joke. There was emoticon at the end there. Take a chill pill. I have no idea how they work so I never risked judging their influence on the system.
Second of all, I do not mind grappling in general. As I said, I prefer to learn new system in steps. Not just for my sake, for players too.
Thirdly, I don't think I refered to grappling as advanced manouvers, mearly advanced techniques. As in "first let's learn to fight before we will add magic system to the mix". Magic here being more advanced system.
And here come the rumblings. With all due respect, not only you have zero fighting experience, you pressume that you know too. If you came with an axe upon anyone with average combat experience, the most probable outcome would be you hacking your leg. Or him breaking your arms. The least probable would be you killing him.
First of all, I do have some experience with baton and boxing. Both things are kinda simillar in footwork and attacking patterns. Only difference are tools. I don't think there is so much difference between striking someone with a club of any kind and an axe. Exept for lethality of course. I also did some grappling with friends who needed some practice on mats. Nothing fancy but enough to respect all grappling techniques.
Second of all, I had a player once who was Krav Maga enthusiast. Once , during game we had an argument regarding disarming. After session we decided to run a test. I took a black marker and he wanted to show me that he can take away a knife from me just as in his classess. Well, he did after a short while. He took marker from me. Thing is his entire core, some of his legs and forearms were marked with black markings. He admitted it might be harder than in classes.
Thirdly : there is no fighting in argument provided (st 1 character swinging axe into sta 6 character). It's just your ill reading.
This is represented in the game by CP pools and grappling ruleset.
Wow. Coming from a dude who tried to sell iron abs as game's representatnion of someone fighting experience and zen sense
As someone with STR6 compared to STR2, AGI6 vs AGI2, etc. So what?
So having STR 6 character swinging harded than STR 2 character is not unrealistic.
Having AG 6 chracter swingin faster and better than AG 2 character is not unrealistic.
Having STA 6 character breaking knifes with his abs is however
dra wrote:1/2 ST (rounded down) + DR + MOS - 1/2 SM (rounded down) - AVdra wrote:1. It's simple
No, it adds another level of calculation.
Well, what can I say... If taking a number from 1 to 6 and halving it is another level of calculation for you... No wonder we can't reach a basic understaning.
Another level of calculation would be for example asking players to roll for his stamina or adding some other attributes or for example checking table 4.14.34 in which we have modifiers of ST-SM differences for damage...
Taking one number instead of second is not another level of calculation.
dra wrote:2. It does not affect any math in game
It does, see above.
I can admit. I might have make my case here a bit clouded. What I meant was:
If you for example make a rule that was used in TROS mainly that STA would only soak as much damage as ST you change wounds dynamics. You increase avarage wound level in the system. Therefore you increase lethality. You can either adapt to it by decreasing damage ratings or increasing wound levels capacity and so on.
In case you divide in halfs it just trimms the results. In fact, it's another mistake on my part. It would be -3/+3 (since 1 rounded down would be 0 and 6 rounded down would be 3). So you do not change deadliness of game since as one of more popular arguments here stated : you will mostly encounter ST/SM 3-4 warriors. So what it does is just trimming down range and cutting most extreme examples. So no change in game math as what weapon do what.
dra wrote:4. The only thing it does is make game more realistic in places where it matters...
In your mind maybe.
Well not in my mind since virtually everyone is agreeing that yeah, it is more realistic, but...
Even you if you consider "narrative aspect of stamina" as thinking that yeah, putting a knife into smn's belly is not a nice thing.
dra wrote:5. ... and fix some inbalances.
Some imbalances that also exist in your mind. Go do some testing first, then come up with numbers to prove their existence.
Onan The Barbarian, unarmed, unarmored. STA 6, ST 3. CP 14. Char A armed in a knife. St 2, STA 2, CP 8.
B suprises A in a public bath (1/2 CP = 7). B attacks with a dagger with entire CP. Rolls 5 succesess. A rolls all in his defence. Terrible luck! 0 successes. A whooping MoS 5 succeses. Atack gets into belly and thaaan... 1 wound level. 2 impact. Just a scratch.
He fails to defend himself, got a knife thrust into his belly...iron abs
Other way around? Bloodbath.
Onan The Barbarian is wearing among other things munition breastplate and attacks Char B that has STA 3, ST3, CP 14 (low rank warrior?) that has a shield and mace (+1b , crushing). Onan rolls 6 dice, Char B activates Deflect and strike with 2 cp, invest everything he has (12) into defence counting on a followup. Onan rolls 2 succeses, Char B rolls whooping 9 succeses. MoS is ok. 7 succesess of followup. Atack straight to torso, crushing ignores rigid so with 4 dice char B rolls 2 successes. Damage resolve ... 3 + 1b + 7 MoS - STA 6 - AV 4 = ... lvl 1 wound to abdomen Bump. Impact 2.
Other way around ? 4 lvl wound to the abdomen. Ruptured internal organs (pancreas 1-3, stomach 4-6) and internal bleeding. BL1, instant KD, KO3 (to not vomit)
Same hit, same armor. World of difference.
In addition it creates an imbalance that is not there: Dead Levels.
I don't care if it affects one roll or every roll in the game. Dead Levels is the easiest way to enforce minmaxing in a game. I want to play a game, not play accountant.
Than don't. What's the point of just 1 dice extra in MoS?
And here we come full-circle to the start. Really? Only Korbel took the time explaining the rules?
Ones that was my issue. I initially said that only thing that's keeping armor in contention was armor properties. Showing me that they do work was not necessary.
In case you haven't noticed, this is not a GM story driven game.
It's the exact opposite.
If you want to narratevily get rid of player assets because it suits your story you can do it, you are the final arbiter as GM after all. But you won't be playing BoB in this case. You'd be playing DnD with BoB's ruleset at best. If you claim though that your version is BoB, that makes you a douchebag of a GM and a douchebag of a person. Because
you'd be discrediting the creators and cheating your players.
I wrote specifically that I do not want to "get rid of player assets". I embrace them. That makes me a cool dude not a duchebag
But specially for you, scene:
Onan, a greater noble with 51 knights at his disposal is in alcove with his new fling. Lady Mellisa is an excellent lover. Onan looses concentration for a few seconds and than ... gets stabbed in stomach by traitorous bitch. She has ST1 (ok?) and rolls to his suprise MoS of 6! Dagger hits his 6pak and ... bends Sorry ,no, Lacerates skin without puncturing it.
Unless you want to call me a douchebag and enter the alcove with 51 knights, in that case, they roll perception roll in order to grab her hand.
Unless you ask them not to look , that's just Cunning roll.
What you fail to understand isn't that YOU can get around SM6. What you fail to understand is that PLAYERS can get around SM6.
Why would they face sth like that?
[/quote]To put it simply. It's not YOUR game. It's everybody's game. If you don't like it play something else.
By everybody do you refer to:
1. Our group of players?
In this case I have to laugh it off. They keep coming. I have a problem of having to say no to them mostly since with sessions of more than 3 players I tend not to be satisfied with results.
2. By "BoB Community"?
In this case I have to ask: or else?
What are you going to do? Call rpg police on me?
We as a group play in a way we feel like playing and will be playing whatever we want
Relax dude, you got so frustrated over some abstractive atribute on imaginative heroes swining virtual swords. Don't be so serious about it.