An Armor & Damage Rating System for a CPRG

[Elwro]

RU => UR

 

[HotSnack]

Though if the rules were designed for a computer game in mind, I don't think that's much of a problem.

On a related note a friend once invited me to a game of dnd, and I was slightly shocked to realise that people who play wizards have to roll the dice so many damn times (I guess making 10 separate dice rolls to determine the strength of my fireball just doesn't strike me as particularly fun).

 

[Sirbolt]

Must agree with that. As well, I'd like to point out that a fighter with a high skill might actually plunge forward instead of slashing backward as the player wanted because the fighter knows that backing at that point would put him in a dangerous situation knowing he's out of balance and is just asking for a riposte. The fighter knows better than the player How about that.

Haha, but that's the beauty of an RPG, it isn't YOU who's doing the fighting.

When it comes to armor, in my ideal game, there should be different rules for different armortypes. Full plate, for instance, is virtually unpenetratable with a common sword, unless you find a weak spot. This garbage with hitpoints needs to go too, when we have the computer doing the work for us there is no longer a need for a high level of abstraction. A turnbased game which simulated feints, lunges, characters loosing their footing and some kind of system that takes advantage of targets of opportunity while still leaving something up to the player would be fucking great. Ah, i'm imagining it now, a medieval/fantasy version of "UFO" with "realistic" damage. Pure tactical bliss.

 

[Higher Game]

Though if the rules were designed for a computer game in mind, I don't think that's much of a problem.

On a related note a friend once invited me to a game of dnd, and I was slightly shocked to realise that people who play wizards have to roll the dice so many damn times (I guess making 10 separate dice rolls to determine the strength of my fireball just doesn't strike me as particularly fun).

It's a lot more fun when a dozen die are thrown at once. :D

 

[denizsi]

I think aiming attacks, at least in the context of actual physical combat, seems a bit unrealistic. In the hurly burly of battle you're more likely to search for actual openings or momentary weak spots in the opponents defense then actively trying to hit any specific weak spot. I actually think that a fundamental understanding of how close combat works is a very important part when designing a combat system.

I think that depends more on the type of physical combat, as I believe the strategy changes dramatically from one figthing style to another. Even in a moment of a gained advantegeous counter-attack, there may just as well be multiple points on a target, suitable for achieving a successful hit, and people do make such momentary decisions, even in hurly of close combat.

Quality of such decisions are probably one of the things what makes some better than others. So, an aimed attack isn't any less valid than any other thing going on in combat.

I agree with saying that heavy armor = harder to dodge with, yet safer, light armor = easier to dodge with, yet less safe. I expect the same to be the case with shields, which is in my opinion another overlooked area of combat in games. Small, buckler-type shield should mean "easier to move with, harder to master and deflect with", whereas large shield requiring a greater effort simply for enduring the weight and the bulkiness of it, and greater strength for doing it efficiently.

 

[Sirbolt]

I don't know if you have any experience with close combat, but i've trained both Boxing and Krav Maga. Not weaponstyles, true, but it helps in getting an appreciation for how hard it would be to aim an attack at any part of the body at anytime in the combat. You do not "set out" to hit anything, you simply watch for momentary split-second lapses in defense and you act upon it without having time to think at all. Sure, the quality of the fighter is measured in how well he is able to appreciate the situation, his opponents skill and his own, therefore, leaving such attacks up to the players discretion, instead of the PC, is just plainly wrong. You can, however have aimed attacks with crossbows/bows and still have it feel realistic.

Were the bigger shields really that heavy? I think you'd actually be surpriseed if you ever got the chance to see an experienced knight with a kite shield and full plate. They could actually move pretty damn well, contrary to popular belief. Too bad that all that martial knowledge is lost.

 

[VenomByte]

I think whether or not it's possible to aim a shot at a particular body part is very much dependant on the weapon you are using.

I can only speak for fencing, but I can say it is certainly possible to set out to target a particular body part there, rather than simply watching for lapses/acting fast with little thought. In fact you really need to have a premeditated action, or you're likely to be beaten by someone who does.

But I do agree, the decision is for the PC to make, not the player. You never just 'decide' to hit someone somewhere, it's a weighted choice based on how you estimate they will react to a given attack.

 

[denizsi]

Were the bigger shields really that heavy? I think you'd actually be surpriseed if you ever got the chance to see an experienced knight with a kite shield and full plate. They could actually move pretty damn well, contrary to popular belief. Too bad that all that martial knowledge is lost.

I didn't say heavy. I said bulky. Regardless of weight ( unless it's paper weight perhaps ), bigger is harder to maintain. Experienced knights of course gotta move well, that's why they are experienced knights.

 

[Imbecile]

I think whether or not it's possible to aim a shot at a particular body part is very much dependant on the weapon you are using.

I can only speak for fencing, but I can say it is certainly possible to set out to target a particular body part there, rather than simply watching for lapses/acting fast with little thought. In fact you really need to have a premeditated action, or you're likely to be beaten by someone who does.

But I do agree, the decision is for the PC to make, not the player. You never just 'decide' to hit someone somewhere, it's a weighted choice based on how you estimate they will react to a given attack.

I like the idea of a more intricate weaponry/armour system although I confess that I tend to approach things from a gameplay first perspective. Having said that I think that it would be great if different weapon and shield types offered more strategic options than simply more damage, or better protection.

Most RPGs offer an additional variable in terms of weight, encumbrance and a reduction of magical and stealth abilities and that’s nice, but Id like to see more modifiers along the lines that were initially suggested by the op.

It would be nice if each weapon and armour type had a specific set of vs modifiers, and better if the same went for the material type.

So a steel spear might get a +1 +3 vs Iron Plate – or something along those lines.

I’d like to see stats play a bigger role in combat too, (and I know this will land me in hot water) but without taking any of the combat decisions away from the player. To feel involved in the combat, and enjoy it, I need to play an active role – but there's no reasons that the player cant be the active controller, while still being guided by his characters stats.

Different weapons could receive different bonuses depending on the situation (+2 if you are on a slope above your opponent) and so fighting in a way appropriate to his armour and weaponry could reward the player.

If these bonuses became effective as you reach higher levels, i.e. You only get the +3 spear bonus vs Plate once you have achieved a decent level of appear usage, then you would be encouraged to play as your character would – approaching combat with different weaponry and different tactics depending your situation and your characters level.

 

[denizsi]

You do not "set out" to hit anything, you simply watch for momentary split-second lapses in defense and you act upon it without having time to think at all

I did have quite some "close combat" experience in the most primitive form back in high school, due to the extremely high population of bully and dumbass students, and me being an arrogant dickhead. Being a regular guy with no such training nor even a well-built body, I had my moments of such decisions, where a very small fraction of just one second felt longer. One such experience that comes to mind is when this guy dragged me to WC; there we strived for a few seconds and we both stood up, and he kicked me in the balls. It hurt, but I managed to charge at him anyway. I grabbed his hair, and I was so immensely furious that I wanted to move his head into the mirror and I could do that with ease in that moment. It occured to me that if did it, something serious could happen to him and put me in serious trouble, so I just threw his head sideways, causing him to fall and ran away.

If even I had such moments, then I believe it's only logical to think that experienced combatants could surely have such decisions.

Besides, the first strike in a combat is always an aimed strike. From there on, it may flow in natural way, until one of the combatants gain an opportunity, but such an opportunity can not mean just one, instinctual strike. And giving the player that opportunity is still an important decision in my opinion. PC gains the opportunity because of the skills, player decides what to at least attempt to do. This may range from choosing to attempt to disarm to actually hit, or kick, I don't know. But that decision is an important one apart from skills, and I believe in its importance of giving that decision to player.

I agree that a complete ability to perform aimed combat wouldn't be realistic anyway. In this context, aiming zones in Fallout could be taken a step further, so that the success chance and impact effectiveness ( among other things perhaps ) of a specific aimed zone on the body could vary according to the current situation, combatants' positions, stances and last moves in relation to each other. It could be improved, it's just not right to throw the whole thing out of the window.

 

[Nog Robbin]

This sounds like it would work reasonably well with a system I proposed (find a thread called mixed concepts - it was more about party set up etc. but had a section on fighting). It was a sort of hybrid between real time and turn based - it would allow for a more flowing fight scene, but with the player making tactical decisions etc. Some people wouldn't like it - it would feel like the system is playing for them. To an extent it would be - but only based on the rules for the character that the player sets.

Anyway, away from that, the system you have proposed seems fairly in depth - too much so for a manually controlled game. Thankfully a PC should be able to keep track of the statistics.

One thing I have discussed before (at ESF of all places - where such things are regularly ignored), was the idea of different armours being resilient to different sorts of attacks, and weapons being able to produce various attack types. For example slashing/chopping piercing, crushing damage. Any given weapon would have a rating for each damage type for each attack type. So a sword slash would have lowest piercing, high slashing/hopping, and low crushing. A sword thrust would have high piercing and low slash and lowest crush. A mace swing would have highest crush. Armours would be better at absorbing the differing attack types. A lot would be speculative - eventually you would find that a plate/chain combo pretty much beats anything else, and if the characters had the mobility that trained knights had you wouldn't have much reason to choose anything else (other than cost). For game terms, however, you may need to give decent reasons for wearing the "lesser" armours other than just the weight/cost.

 

[Oarfish]

Cost could be a reasonable enough control on its own. Decent armor was totally out of the reach of most people. There's also the expense / skill requirements of keeping it functional - you are not going to want to wear a breastplate that's got a 3 inch dent in it.

Near invulnerability to those not suffieciently equipped (assuming they dont drag you to the ground and stick a knife though your visor) could also counter the need to have retarded hit point abstractions, where all of a sudden you gain the ability to shrug off blows because you killed 300 rats in the last week.

The end game armour in fallout worked pretty well in that respect, and would if anything be slightly less believable than the advantage you would gain from charging about in articulated plate in a world where only a close range crossbow bolt , multiple foes or a similarly armed adversary would be a threat.

It would also be nice to see a game where wearing armor 24/7 is penalised somehow. Like a chafing critical roll or something.

 

[kingcomrade]

An essay on the various points of interest of a hypothetical duel between a samurai and an european knight: http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

Stuff like this is pretty interesting. I was skeptical at first about the quality, but the guy turned out to take more than just fighting styles into account. The bit on culture is dead on, culture is a very important factor in warrior skill and style. He also did a bit of word dropping which let me know he knew what he was about (shock warfare, ritualized, stuff like that). I'm being a little pretentious here, but I've got a small library on military culture in my closet.

For example, if you stuck your average European medieval swordsman or whatever up against the average Arab counterpart, the Arab is going to be the better warrior, but the reason for that is simply that average Europeans don't put as much emphasis on personal prowess and ritualized skill at arms that a lot of other cultures did. To use a broad generalization, Europeans fight in rank, and the bulk of Western armies have typically been made up of chunks of the "middle class" (which varies from time to time, I really just mean the common man). For example, Greek soldiers were mostly small landowners (farmers). This is why the weapons of European warfare are the ones that allow the most people to do the most damage. Crossbows, pikes, guns, the Roman stabbing shortsword and tower shield combo. There are special cases, like Britain, where there is a broad base of very skilled warriors (longbowmen).

I remember reading this thing by a Japanese fighter pilot (WW2) who was saying something very much similar to this, that Japanese fighter pilots put a lot more emphasis on personal skill at dogfighting, while Americans were tended to work together as a team (he put responsibility on their playing football as children, but it's part of the Western military culture).

I just wanted to add, in response to someone else's question: It depends on what type of shield. Greek (especially) and Roman shields were very heavy (you had to be fairly athletic to use it for any period of time), but they granted near invulnerability if you were formed in ranks (this is in conjuction with shoulder armor and helmets). Greeks shields were actually concave so that you could rest the lip of the shield on your shoulder to help support the weight. I'm also pretty sure they were made of bronze, if I recall correctly. Made them nearly unbreakable and perfect for a pike charge/shock warfare.

 

[kris]

For example, if you stuck your average European medieval swordsman or whatever up against the average Arab counterpart, the Arab is going to be the better warrior, but the reason for that is simply that average Europeans don't put as much emphasis on personal prowess and ritualized skill at arms that a lot of other cultures did.

You don't know what you talk about. We didn't really have any "Average medieval swordsmen", swordsmen where almost exclusively knights. The average Arab counterpart couldn't stand up to a average knight. Of course knights wasn't really that numerous.

 

[kingcomrade]

That's why I said "or whatever." I wasn't talking about knights, I was talking about footsoldiers, common infantrymen. And Roman soldiers were swordsmen, and I'd say they were pretty numerous, though not medieval, but the same thing stands. Their strength was organization, not skill. They were a meat grinder, not skilled swordsmen. Put your average Greek soldier up against the average Persian soldier and you get the same result, because for most of its history, Greece didn't have a standing army, just a citizen's levée which relied upon formation and the choc impact of charging pikemen in rank.

 

[Oarfish]

Put your average Greek soldier up against the average Persian soldier

*Cough* Spartans. They emphasised teamwork as well of course, that's kind of implicit fighting in a phalanx. They were hardly an undrilled levy though - getting 5000 men in heavy armour to run towards the enemy without breaking formation requires a fair amount of discipline. Or average for that matter, given they scared the shit out of your average non Spartan Greek.

 

[aweigh]

It would also be nice to see a game where wearing armor 24/7 is penalised somehow. Like a chafing critical roll or something.

Well, in D&D you have to take off your armor before you go to sleep or you incur penalties when you wake up. Aside from that, nothing else comes to mind.

Also, putting it back on takes some time, so if bandits drop in on your group during the night you can't just stand up and say "i put my rhino plate on lolol".