dra wrote:FBI statistics speak a lot about shot wounds. Sometimes a cop takes a lot of them and keeps going until his brain gets the message that bloke is dead. And other times one shot from low caliber into a foot resulted in death.
Show me a statistic giving a significant chance of instant, fight-stopping death from a low-caliber wound to the foot. Otherwise, I'm going to have to assume those deaths are due to complications from the injury, and not the injury itself, which is entirely beyond the scope of this discussion.
dra wrote:Negative. Force is mass times acceleration. F=ma. As you can see it's raw power + how fast can you move it. Weak characters do not have same punch as strong ones.
Regarding stamina... For example roman gladiators were overfeed to give them good muscles and some fat tissue to soften the blow. So I guess there is size modifier to some extent.
If you're going to argue that strength impacts damage, then you can't also argue that the strength 1 or 2 person should be as deadly as the strength 5 character, nor can we argue that someone who is 90lbs can take as much physical damage as a three hundred pound linebacker.
If you're going with absolute realism as the bar, then you have to contrive some system where your strength's effect is relative to the weapon you're using. Your ability to punch someone is radically different based on strength. Your ability to stab someone with a knife is slightly less so. Your ability to kill them with an axe significantly less so. Likewise, you'd have to make a similar table of how stamina's impact changes based on the kind of force encountered and the scale of it. Hitting someone with a fist is different than hitting someone with a mace, so the strength v. stamina table is going to have to be different for each weapon depending on its weight and what kind of damage it does. The difference in strength and stamina is going to be one way for someone throwing a punch, slightly less important for someone with a mace, significantly less important for someone trying to stab someone, and almost negligible when we get to something like a sword which is realistically going to ignore most of your natural resistance.
Someone else is welcome to come up with such a system. We'll even host it on the forums somewhere as an optional rule. For my part, however, I'm not interested in designing or playing with such a table. We've got too many fiddly bits as it is.
dra wrote:I'd say animals should have different rules than humans, that's correct and does not clutter game.
Your definition of "clutter" is different than mine. The more individual sets of rules I have to have in a game to represent a situation, the more cluttered it is going to be to me. Speaking of clutter:
Does it matter what has it?
At this moment if you create a pro warrior with 6 agility he is excllent at picking locks or pick pocketing.
Vampire the Masquerade had:
Stamina, Charisma, Manipulation, Appearance, Perception, Intelligence, and Wits.
I couldn't tell you about the new one, but your claim was "entire WoD" so that suffices to disprove it.
WHFRPG 1st edition had:
Movement, Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, Strength, Toughness, Wounds, Initiative, Attacks, Dexterity
, Intelligence, Cool, Willpower, and Fellowship.
2nd edition had:
Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, Strength, Toughness, Agility
, Intelligence, Willpower, Fellowship.
3rd edition had:
Strength, Toughness, Agility
, Intelligence, Willpower, and Fellowship.
Cyberpunk 2013/2020/3.0 had
, Tech, Cool, Attractiveness, Luck, Movement Allowance, Empathy, and Body type.
At a certain point, you have to define the scope of what you care to model. When you try to break down "everything that attributes can model" the chart comes up something like this
Right now everything in that left-most cluster is a function of either Agility, Speed, or a combination of one of those with something else. As it stands, I'm probably folding Speed into Agility again. Is it worth it to split Dexterity out of Agility? Coordination/control is either stat, which is not great design. Manual dexterity is obviously dexterity.. but everything else int hat is either agility, or a product of agility and some other stat. Is it worth it to add an attribute whose only use is "add to lockpicks, pickpockets, and maybe some trade skills?"
For a similar reason, I've been considering throwing Strength and Stamina into one stat as well simply because.. well. Look at the chart. Out of all the things listed, Strength represents exactly one of those - Physical strength. By quirk of the rules, however, it doesn't even govern that. You are required to have Stamina to use Strength for strength-based rolls anyway, but I digress.
I don't think the benefits of Dexterity being separate are worth its inclusion.
dra wrote:It's not about this or that game mechanics or GM... Example is about feelings of a player when something ridiculous happens.
Something ridiculous that isn't how our game is written
. It is beyond the scope of my power, influence, responsibility or even interest level to help you in situations where your GM may or may not do something that isn't how we've written the game to be played.. which brings us to:
Ok, let's see.
If 210 pounds 6,5" of Blackbeard is supposed to be any indication of his tougness, I should be a superman.
I have only 6 feet (181 cm) but atm I weight 93kgs (in the morning after taking a dump
) which makes 205 pounds. I have to confess however I am in middle of a cut. I started cutting weighting 100kgs (exactly 220 pounds). Having said that I have to admit the most I weighted was 106,5 kgs (234 pounds). That's with relative low BF of 20-22% (at the time it was not considered so fat as today
). Long story short - blackbeard is taller and skinner than me.
In your book that should make me Sta 6 character
And with that, I think I'm done with this topic.
If you ask questions, I'm happy to answer them. If you offer feedback or critique, I'm happy to consider them. I'm always willing to explain why we chose to do something, and people who have hung out here long enough know that I'm happy to fix something if it breaks or adopt new ideas if they work better than what we're doing for the purposes we're using them.
On the other hand, you made your point on page 2. You registered your criticism. By page 3, I'd responded to it. It's now page 6. You admitted early on that you weren't all that familiar with the rules, and you keep arguing points that are directly contradicted by the rules -- such as the above "what if my GM.." and now the fact that attributes actually mean something beyond simply being a bigger number.
We can talk about the pros and cons that come with different design choices, but there is no such thing as a game that is perfectly and completely realistic. Even with a computer, you would be hard-pressed to create an engine that perfectly replicates every possible combat outcome that happens in real life. Even scratching the surface of such in a tabletop game would be an unweildy chore to play and certainly require a far more granular system than we have. You would need way more than five wound levels and three damage types to actually account for a 1:1 match with the reality of damage on the body.
We chose where we wanted to put the balance point between simulation and abstraction for ease of play. We may further fine-tune it in the future, but I'm not unhappy with the thing now. Even you admit the thing is only an anomaly at the furthest ends of the spectrum and all of the proposed solutions seem less desirable from a playability standpoint.
Korbel wrote:Let's say you give them "natural" AV of 2 (thick fur, thick skin) and maybe +1 to AV from the sheer size (as I suggested before, the Large/Tough Edge gives you this wound reduction). So the total is AV3 (probably the biggest number you can expect, they're mammals after all).
Their claws deal +1 DR (well it's not +1, just 1... we're not adding Strength anymore... whatever).
In this scenario you only need a MoS of 4 to deal a level 2 wound. Totally possible, especially if one bear ambushes the other (or if you use alternative grapple rules, where higher FoS gives advantage... they just go into grapple and the stronger will probably deal a wound sooner or later). Level 2 wound means TN shift, so it becomes easier to get higher MoS - the end of the fight.
Bears, as a rule, don't ambush other bears. They challenge them for territory. And then, again, look at the way different rules would interact. Do you expect Sansa Stark to do as much damage with a kitchen knife as a 1200lbs grizzly bear? if both are just MoS+1c, then mechanically she will. If you're still on the fence, should there be a difference between 100lbs Sansa punching you in the face and a 395lbs Hafthor Bjornson punching you in the face? What about a silverback gorilla punching you in the face? At what point do we need to start making separate fist damage by weight class?