When a Knight lunges out, and a Bassinet protects your snout, that's Armour-eh?

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
4,258
Reaction score
8,464
The thing is you don't have to guess. There's a firsthand account of how people hunt hippos today, or at least recently, posted in this thread. They go out in boats and throw spears at them, then herd the hippo where they want it and finish it off or let it die of blood loss. This idea that human beings with weapons can't go up against animals has got to stop. It has nothing to do with reality.
I didn't say that. I only said that setting a longsword like a spear wasn't a winning way to get that done. Anythewho, back to armour...
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
I didn't say that. I only said that setting a longsword like a spear wasn't a winning way to get that done. Anythewho, back to armour...
Yeah, I wasn't quoting you there. You said you were done with the hippo thing, so I'm not going to keep pressing you on it. Anyone else who gets in on the discussion, sure, but if you're done with it, that's fine with me.

Anyway, on armor. One thing that is seldom modeled in rpgs is fatigue, at least in combat situations. And that's one of the big disadvantages of armor, as has come up earlier in the thread. When they do come up, it's almost only in super-complex systems and it isn't something easily portable to a more rules-light system. Does anyone know of any simple rules for battlefield fatigue?
 

tenbones

Grand Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
5,122
I know folks like the "cool" kids on the block better like the latest edition of Mythras and Savage Worlds :wink: But like always GURPS has it covered without having to go into a mountain of math or mechanics.

Page 379 Core Book - Campaigns
View attachment 31782
But I don't wanna get into Piercing v. Blunt v. Slashing on top of multipliers and layering armor rules unless I can have a quick reference to some derived stat. Not to mention called shots + hit location etc. etc.

Then creating new damage types based on those modes? BLearGH. I should love GURPS. But I don't. I love the detail in their books... but it's like chewing chocolate-flavored gravel for cereal in terms of my current gaming tastes.
 

robertsconley

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
5,616
Problem with GURPS there though is the very variable bullet damage means bullet-resistant armor does not have the type of effect it should have, where a certain class of armor will stop a bullet of a given caliber at a certain speed, almost every time (the first hit at least).
In short you disagree with the numbers assigned by the authors of GURPS. That this

1623342720053.png

Is not worth this rating
1623342822333.png
1623342802694.png
1623342841938.png 1623342852409.png


I don't have an opinion on that as far as modern combat goes. What I do know from having participated in GURPS Playtests that these points are argued to death. That the authors are expected to and do the research. That while they don't get it 100% perfect it goes beyond what I seen other game authors do in the industry.

As far medieval combat goes, an area I am more familiar with, the numbers feel right to me are definitely in the ballpark of how things work in life.

The other thing people tend to forget that it not a blanket rating. There GURPS has numerous options to reflect how things work in life for weapons and devices. For example that advanced body armor is torso only. It does nothing for the arms, head, the neck, or legs. There are other factors a GURPS referee can use to account for how ballistic armor is used in life. You don't have to use the details but they are there if the group considers them important. And if you disagree with the number then change the numbers.


1623343136587.png
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
In short you disagree with the numbers assigned by the authors of GURPS. That this

View attachment 31783

Is not worth this rating
View attachment 31785
View attachment 31784
View attachment 31786 View attachment 31787


I don't have an opinion on that as far as modern combat goes. What I do know from having participated in GURPS Playtests that these points are argued to death. That the authors are expected to and do the research. That while they don't get it 100% perfect it goes beyond what I seen other game authors do in the industry.

As far medieval combat goes, an area I am more familiar with, the numbers feel right to me are definitely in the ballpark of how things work in life.

The other thing people tend to forget that it not a blanket rating. There GURPS has numerous options to reflect how things work in life for weapons and devices. For example that advanced body armor is torso only. It does nothing for the arms, head, the neck, or legs. There are other factors a GURPS referee can use to account for how ballistic armor is used in life. You don't have to use the details but they are there if the group considers them important. And if you disagree with the number then change the numbers.


View attachment 31788
Considering the Air Force actually went to court with Pinnacle over fraudulent claims that their armor had ben NIJ approved when it hadn't yet been so and that the SOV 3000 has actually had its NIJ class III rating revoked, yeah, I'm not so sure that GURPS models that one correctly. But that's beside the point, GURPS High Tech gave the Interceptor Body Armor with SAPI plates a rating of 35 too, that's pretty much an NIJ rating of III. That's supposed to protect against three hits of 7.62x51mm ball, at a muzzle velocity of up to 840 m/s. Okay, neat. So what damage does a 7.62mm bullet do in GURPS? 7d6. So that's anywhere from 7 to 42. So an armor rating of 35 is not proof against three such shots.

Type IIA is supposed to protect against 9mm Parabellum, but not 357 Magnum. Ok, in GURPS a standard 9mm does 2d6+2 points of damage, a 357 Magnum does 3d6. So 4-14 and 3-18. How do you model a vest that protects from one but not the other in a system with such varied and overlapping damage values? It's not about the research GURPS writers do, they generally do tremendous amounts of research and it is very good most of the time (specific problems with Dragonskin armor notwithstanding). It is simply a matter of the system not being built in such a way that it can actually accurately model how a bullet interacts with bullet-resistant armor.
 

robertsconley

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
5,616
But I don't wanna get into Piercing v. Blunt v. Slashing on top of multipliers and layering armor rules unless I can have a quick reference to some derived stat. Not to mention called shots + hit location etc. etc.
This is the ten cents overview. All the details of GURPS combat beyond treating it as a contest of skill (an option for those who really don't want to get into detailed combat) is basically found under the following three categories.

the to-hit roll
the defense roll
the damage roll
damage resistance
finally injury.

I don't know about other folks but when I think about combat whether it is sport, reenactment or roleplaying the reflect the details I tend to think about. How I am going to hit the opponent, how I am going to defend, what damage I will be dealing, how will armor mitigate that, and finally how does it affect the body?


Then creating new damage types based on those modes? BLearGH. I should love GURPS. But I don't. I love the detail in their books... but it's like chewing chocolate-flavored gravel for cereal in terms of my current gaming tastes.

So for modern weapons with all the options yeah it detailed. So first off they introduced piercing damage (pi), but not only that they have pi-, pi+, pi++. I focus on medieval fantasy so I don't deal with piercing much. But it basically impaling but accounting for the characteristics of small projectiles.

But let's step back what do the damage type in GURPS really amount too? Well they amount to two thing. Damage Resistance and Injury.

Some armor are not as resistant to some types of damage. So instead of a single Damage Resistance (DR) number they are written like 5/2 [5] with the [5] being a note telling you what the second number is use for. For example that can be a type of chainmail where it is 5 DR against cutting or impaling but only 2 DR against crushing.

Second it modifies the injury that occurs after damage resistance is subtracted. In Fantasy we basically impale, cut, or crush. So any impaling damage after DR is doubled, any crushing get multiplied by 50%, and crushing is unmodified. This reflect the relative trauma to the body each type of damage causes. If you play modern then bullets are not quite the same as dagger so you have piercing to reflect what they do.

Now there is a level of GURPS where your Hit Points are equal to your Strength, you buy a armor outfit that has a DR, and that is that. IF you get stabbed anything after the armor is double, cut it increased by half, crushed the damage is unmodified.

But if you want to use hit location, then that can modify the injury. Stab wounds in the eye are really bad, the same for the vitals.

There are more nuances but they are baked into the stats of the weapons and characters.

If you are talking melee weapons then damage is based on the character strength modified by the weapon. You have thrusting and swing damage. Swing does more and thrust does less. Runequest does something similar but strength is the small modifier on top of the weapon's base damage. With GURPS strength is primary factor for melee damage, and the weapon is the small modifier.

For Guns and other non-muscle powered weapons like Crossbows and Laser, the damage is fixed.

Rob's Note: The average character has 10 Strength therefor 10 hit points. Fighters will typically have 12 to 15 Str and a similar amount of HP.

1623344704774.png
1623344718299.png

1623344781746.png
1623344796606.png

Hope this helps clarifies things.



unless I can have a quick reference to some derived stat. Not to mention called shots + hit location etc. etc.

Well there is GURPS Lite which covers the basic of the above list.
 

robertsconley

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
5,616
Type IIA is supposed to protect against 9mm Parabellum, but not 357 Magnum. Ok, in GURPS a standard 9mm does 2d6+2 points of damage, a 357 Magnum does 3d6. So 4-14 and 3-18. How do you model a vest that protects from one but not the other in a system with such varied and overlapping damage values? It's not about the research GURPS writers do, they generally do tremendous amounts of research and it is very good most of the time (specific problems with Dragonskin armor notwithstanding). It is simply a matter of the system not being built in such a way that it can actually accurately model how a bullet interacts with bullet-resistant armor.
A 9mm bullet does pi (piercing), and a .44 magnum does pi+. To round out the list a 4.6mm bullet does pi-. I am not up on GURPS High Tech and modern combat so you better off reading those books to see how GURPS handle things at the highest level of detail.

As for the .357 they are only pi but the 3d6 damage means two things. That there is better than a 50-50 chance per bullet the target will suffer 1 point damage for the various TL 7 and 8 ballistic vests. And the Advanced Ballistic Vest aside, the rest have a max DR of 12 so you will need to score a 13+ on 3d6 to do at least 1 point of damage. And they have a Rate of Fire of 3. From playing GURPS for two decades I would not want to take those odds even if my character had a ballistic vest.

You could get the trauma inserts but the tradeoff are like in life. Extra bulk and weight for added protection that still only covers the torso area.
 

tenbones

Grand Poobah of the D.O.N.G.
Joined
May 31, 2018
Messages
2,427
Reaction score
5,122
I went through my "realisitc" phase years and years ago. (god I hate that term). Obviously it's not to say that it still doesn't inform me today. But now I focus on making realism "fun" in the service of the game vs. realism for its own sake. Yes I love all those details. But I don't want the rules to be the game that's actually played vs. describing as quickly as possible whatever it is we're doing with me moderating those things and keeping it consistent.

The system-mastery to operate ones games at that level is a real thing. All universal systems tend to have a higher bar in that regard because it requires the GM to tune the dials and levers to their liking and then of course keep that all humming in play. GURPS has a **lot** of dials and levers, which I'm 100% sure I could learn to use. I just have other systems I'm currently into. I know GURPS is one of those rare gorillas I've yet to wrestle with. At this stage I'm almost scared of becoming one of "those GURPS" people I have in my gaming groups in the past, heh.

I'll get around to it I'm sure.
 

robertsconley

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
5,616
At this stage I'm almost scared of becoming one of "those GURPS" people I have in my gaming groups in the past, heh.
If it helps, I played GURPS for over two decades and found that I am totally out of step with hard core GURPS players. I participated in a couple of playtest but it wasn't my cup of tea. The sad thing is that I am not opposed to "better numbers" or a different set of mechanics that more accurate to how reality work. I like the revision to medieval armor they made in the Low-Tech PDF series.

I just don't care about debating it. I am more focused on the nuts and bolts of how to get a setting going in a campaign. And getting players up to speed quickly and comfortable with the choices. GURPS is great provided the referee, prepare various cheat sheets of how the campaign works in GURPS terms and mechanics. The most complicated parts of GURPS are the worldbuilding stuff. The only problem the rest have is the number of option. But once a character is done, I can boil everything the players need to know in two or three pages.

The strength of GURPS for me is that anything I described in terms of how it would look if I was actually there can be covered by the mechanics.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
A 9mm bullet does pi (piercing), and a .44 magnum does pi+. To round out the list a 4.6mm bullet does pi-. I am not up on GURPS High Tech and modern combat so you better off reading those books to see how GURPS handle things at the highest level of detail.

As for the .357 they are only pi but the 3d6 damage means two things. That there is better than a 50-50 chance per bullet the target will suffer 1 point damage for the various TL 7 and 8 ballistic vests. And the Advanced Ballistic Vest aside, the rest have a max DR of 12 so you will need to score a 13+ on 3d6 to do at least 1 point of damage. And they have a Rate of Fire of 3. From playing GURPS for two decades I would not want to take those odds even if my character had a ballistic vest.

You could get the trauma inserts but the tradeoff are like in life. Extra bulk and weight for added protection that still only covers the torso area.
The small, normal and large piercing damage only modifies damage that gets through the DR of the armor, it has no effect on armor penetration. And ballistic armor does not work that way. The variable damage rolls simply don't interact well with extremely detailed modeling of armor types and hit locations. This isn't me dissing GURPS, this is me pointing out that GURPS doesn't really handle ballistic armor very well, and really not armor in general in my opinion.
 

Chris Brady

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2019
Messages
2,399
Reaction score
2,057
With Armor Class is all comes back to these charts from Chainmail.

View attachment 31768

View attachment 31769

In a wargame meant to handle hundreds of combatants fighting hundreds of combatants, you want things to be quick and easy. Nor you care much about the in between results. Either the target was dead or alive is pretty much the only thing one had time for.

So the Man to Man chart works by comparing weapons being used against the armor of the target. The main combat table was concerned about a set of equipment that includes both weapons and armor versus another set of equipment.

The result were similar to both either the target(s) were alive or dead (or out of the fight at least).

The alive or dead part got expanded into hit point as a binary result proved not fun for a campaign focused on playing individuals. But idea of Armor as the factor remain consistent as it transformed into Armor Class. But instead the odds being determined by what weapon being used it was primarily determined by how experienced the character was.

The consequences of this path of development is that D&D Armor Class (and hit points) never address what injuries the character suffered. Or even if the weapon attack actually touched the target. Instead with the switch to hit point it focuses on combat endurance. As a result it makes sense that armor would increase the length of time you can fight until you were taken out. Just as it made sense in chainmail that armor would make the target easier or harder to kill.

However if one consider known whether a weapon attack actually hit, or have a clear idea of the injuries suffered by the character. Then you need something like Runequest or GURPS which add extra steps to resolving a round of combat.

The advantage of Armor Class is that it is fast. However without an explanation like above it looks arbitrary and folks have trouble visualizing the action. The advantage of adding in a Damage Reduction step is that it is easier to visualize. Probably makes corner cases like knocking something out of a target's hand easier to adjudicate. But the downside is an increase in mechanical complexity.

All and all I prefer how Runequest, GURPS, etc. handle armor as damage reduction. However since I figured the above out, I haven't had any issues adjudicating or describing similar results using Armor Class.
Yeah, a MASS COMBAT based WAR GAME. And artefact that frankly it needs to end. But it's my opinion as always.
 

xanther

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
1,536
The thing is you don't have to guess. There's a firsthand account of how people hunt hippos today, or at least recently, posted in this thread. They go out in boats and throw spears at them, then herd the hippo where they want it and finish it off or let it die of blood loss. This idea that human beings with weapons can't go up against animals has got to stop. It has nothing to do with reality.
Not saying humans can't. My view is respect to melee, and mano-y-hippo. Sure can throw spears from a distance and slowly wear them down, given enough time and spears. No one is arguing against that, I think. It is more the idea of going into melee. Humans took down mammoth and whales as well, but with tactics, numbers. But the D&D version of man hacks at hippo with sword...seems lacking.

I will have to look up these folks who hunt hippos with spears, that's got to take some guts and planning. have seen the videos where male hippos charge boats, they don't flee them.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
This armour debate reminds me of the old saw about Value for money - Fast, Quick, Cheap - pick 2.

So in a game context what are the variables of what we are trying to model, and what are the principles we are looking to balance?

Can we say:

Verisimilitude - the outcome of the interactions of weapons and armour feels real for it's genre
Ease of resolution - how many decisions, checks of details and rolls of dice are needed
Choices of character & play - that there are choices of weapon and armour that are different and have game tradeoffs (i.e. encumbrance/damage absorbtion/accuracy/cost/training difficulty/whatever)

Can we agree these as the probable tradeoffs for a combat system in a roleplaying game context? If we can does that help the discussion and why we might individually prefer one system or another?

Or is this debate about realism as much as we can judge that ,allowing for the fact that we are modelling the impact of 11' tall humanoids wielding hammers the size of the knight they are trying to mash?
I'd say that yes, there is a tradeoff. Everyone seems to agree...but whether there are so-far silent dissenting voices, I can't guarantee.


Kind of, but it isn't really a "choose 2 out of 3" of those. I want all 3 of those, but perhaps not to the same degree as others. When it comes to weapons and armor I am in particular less concerned about specifics of realism/verisimilitude in the small details than I am about the realism/verisimilitude of combat outcomes/choices. A more holistic view if you will. If a pollaxe is a better weapon than a rapier against a guy in full plate, but a rapier is really good against unarmored opponents, then I'm generally happy. Detailed rules often fall into what I consider a trap of ever increasing detail for the sake of realism, but end up actually decreasing the actual realism in play, because not all aspects were modeled for. Individual changes must always be weighed against "ok, but what does this do to the system as a whole". Say you start out with a simple system of roll to hit, roll for damage, all weapons do 1d6 damage. Ok, so every weapon is the same. Well, you say that swords should be better than daggers, so you give the weapons different damage dice, or at least bonuses to the die roll. Ok, but now a mace and a sword are always the same, or one is always better than the other. Ok, so you add rules for armor penetration, and then reach, and then specific hit locations etc etc etc and you just need to keep going. In the end, you need to find a set of rules that will lead to the expected outcomes and choices but doesn't become so insanely rules heavy that it is too cumbersome to use. And different rules will be differently cumbersome to different people, and their level of tolerance for cumbersomeness will differ too.
...and yes, if your game starts giving illogical results after adding rules to make it more precise? You're either back to the drawing board, or you need to change those rules you added, because they ain't doing what they're expected to!


All and all I prefer how Runequest, GURPS, etc. handle armor as damage reduction. However since I figured the above out, I haven't had any issues adjudicating or describing similar results using Armor Class.
Yes, and you'd notice that I never said that AC is unusable. But the thread started with me disputing the idea that AC is also the more realistic option as opposed to DR...:thumbsup:

I don't want to derail things... but this thread reminds of me why I much prefer to abstract damage avoidance by the skill of the opponents and leave the absorption abstraction to the armor.

Fantasy Craft (if we're keeping to "D&D") did this by assigning Defense Value based on Class level progression with obvious combat types having stronger progression. This also meant casters could effectively wear armor.

Talislanta does this - as your penalty to hit anyone with a melee attack is their total +hit bonus your opponent has with whatever weapon they're using to actively defend.

Savage Worlds does this by assigning a derived Parry rating based on the Fighting score of the melee opponent.
Yes, that's my preferred approach as well, obviously...

I never understood why D&D never went this way. It seems to thread a lot of needles in the AC debate that's raged for decades.

Well, the people who would claim it means the End Days Are Nigh as a result miiiight have something to do with it...:grin:


In the context of RPGs, or in the context of played games?
I'm pretty sure he's referring to RPGs.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
Not saying humans can't. My view is respect to melee, and mano-y-hippo. Sure can throw spears from a distance and slowly wear them down, given enough time and spears. No one is arguing against that, I think. It is more the idea of going into melee. Humans took down mammoth and whales as well, but with tactics, numbers. But the D&D version of man hacks at hippo with sword...seems lacking.

I will have to look up these folks who hunt hippos with spears, that's got to take some guts and planning. have seen the videos where male hippos charge boats, they don't flee them.
In the link I posted, he said they used spears to chase off the hippo if it went after the boat. I haven't found a reference for actual mano-a-hippo, though obviously at least chasing it off is possible.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
A AsenRG Ok, I found one, I don't think it was the one I was thinking of but it's one I had on my shelf. Dark Sagas. The game uses 2d6+attribute vs target number for most things. Attributes range from 1-10, with 6 as max during character creation. Combat Ability is one of the core attributes, so to attack you roll 2d6+combat ability+mods (Warriors get +1 to attack with any weapons, dwarves get +1 to attack with hammers and axes, etc), against a static defense target number of 7+Quickness (another attribute, so 1-10 with 6 max at start)+ armor bonus (ranging from +1 for light armors like a gambeson or buff coat to +4 for full plate, with a shield being another +2). Hit points are determined at start depending on your class, ranging from Physique (again, 1-10 with 6 max at start) + 8 for Wizards, to Physique +20 for Dwarves.

Now, this system does have some ability to increase your HP, so it isn't a perfect match. Experience points let you buy new spells, languages, literacy or for warriors combat styles, but it also lets you increase your attributes, which includes Physique, up to 10. If you increase your Physique, your HP will increase accordingly. You can also buy extra hit points (or magic points for powering spells) separately from attributes, but a maximum of 10 extra . So if you are a Warrior, You might start with 20 HP (Physique 4, +16 for being a warrior) and you'd be able to buy your way up to 36 HP if you spent all your experience points on Physique and hit points. In a D&D 5e campaign, this would be like going from a level 2 Fighter (typical HP 20), to a level 4 Fighter (typical HP 36). In OSR terms, maybe more like 3-4 levels of increase instead of 2, and starting from level 3-4, but still not a massive increase.
Well, I'd like to point out that going from 20 to 36 is nothing short of a massive increase. Like, in a game like RuneQuest a corresponding upgrade would be basically impossible. In a game like GURPS, that would be like going from Str 15 to Str 27...so "more XP than you'd get in many campaigns".
It only gets worse if we're talking about a Wizard. This one starts with 12 HP in Dark Sagas, and can go to 28...which is more than doubling it.

So no, while it's not as massive as in D&D, it still follows the same model, sorry...

And is it just me, or didn't Dark Sagas allow for active defenses? I seem to remember something like that:shade:!
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Well, I'd like to point out that going from 20 to 36 is nothing short of a massive increase. Like, in a game like RuneQuest a corresponding upgrade would be basically impossible. In a game like GURPS, that would be like going from Str 15 to Str 27...so "more XP than you'd get in many campaigns".
It only gets worse if we're talking about a Wizard. This one starts with 12 HP in Dark Sagas, and can go to 28...which is more than doubling it.
You know you can buy HP separately in GURPS right? So start with ST 10, no extra HP and it’s like going to ST 14, extra HP 4 (the increase is times 1.8) Fully doable in a GURPS campaign. Remember, we’re talking about a character that ignores everything else and goes hard for an increase in HP only. Meanwhile in RuneQuest 6/Mythras you can go from a total of 27 HP (at CON 11 SIZ 13) to 37 by going hard for extra CON (CON 18, SIZ 13). Sure it’s an increase by 1.37 rather than 1.8, but it’s in the same ballpark. In Magic World you can go from 12 HP (again, CON 11, SIZ 13) to 21 (CON 21, SIZ 21). That’s an increase of … 1.75, so almost exactly the same as a Warrior in Dark Sagas focusing only on improving their Physique and HP.
So no, while it's not as massive as in D&D, it still follows the same model, sorry...

I really don’t think it fits in the same model at all. The increase in HP allowed is on the upper end of what can be achieved in many game systems that aren’t normally seen as having inflating hit points, but nevertheless allow for increases in stats and/or hp directly. The increases seen in D&D meanwhile are automatic and dwarf the increases possible in Dark Sagas by a lot. A starting level Wizard doubling their hp? Yeah, common result in old D&D of going from level 1 to level 2. In 5e, you typically have to wait for level 3 before you’ve doubled your HP, but considering the pace of leveling has increased that isn’t longer in play time.
And is it just me, or didn't Dark Sagas allow for active defenses? I seem to remember something like that:shade:!

Dark Sagas, like many OSR games or even D&D 3.x, allows you to change your stance, exchanging attack bonus for defense, or the other way around. If that is an active defense, I’m not sure there are any but the simplest OSR games without them.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Not saying humans can't. My view is respect to melee, and mano-y-hippo. Sure can throw spears from a distance and slowly wear them down, given enough time and spears. No one is arguing against that, I think. It is more the idea of going into melee. Humans took down mammoth and whales as well, but with tactics, numbers. But the D&D version of man hacks at hippo with sword...seems lacking.

I will have to look up these folks who hunt hippos with spears, that's got to take some guts and planning. have seen the videos where male hippos charge boats, they don't flee them.
Here’s the thing. Going into combat with a hippo can kill you. It’s dangerous. But you know what else can kill you? A man in a suit of armor wielding a lance and sitting on a big horse. A Panther tank barreling down at you among the hedgerows of Normandy. An American soldier in the jungles of Vietnam, backed up by napalm-dropping jet planes. Getting into a fight with any of these carries a significant risk to life and limb (I mean forget hippos, the greatest killers of humans every year are other humans), but people did it, all the time. Just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean it can’t be done, or won’t be done. People wouldn’t go crab-fishing off the coast of Alaska if they weren’t willing to risk life and limb for profit.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
You know you can buy HP separately in GURPS right? So start with ST 10, no extra HP and it’s like going to ST 14, extra HP 4 (the increase is times 1.8) Fully doable in a GURPS campaign.
Except your math is off, since you are talking about Warriors in your Dark Sagas example.
Str10 is a GURPS wizard, at best...and even those usually get Str 11 to get their crippling thresholds higher (which also prevents them being stunlocked).

Which means that in Dark Sagas, you could get an increase times 2,25. So for a Wizard, you should get to 22-23 HP in GURPS. Sure, you can buy them...but raising Strength to 18 (which also has other applications, and you are raising it in Dark Sagas, so the equivalent development requires you to raise it in GURPS as well) and adding another 5 HP extra is 105 bonus XP. That's what, about 21 adventures? Which might not conclude in

With Str 15 for a warrior, you'd get an increase times 1.8...let's be generous: Str 23, 4 extra HP, or 120 XP.


Remember, we’re talking about a character that ignores everything else and goes hard for an increase in HP only.
Definitely.
Also, most of them don't, so in practice, the increase in HP is minimal, even if allowed in theory.


Meanwhile in RuneQuest 6/Mythras you can go from a total of 27 HP (at CON 11 SIZ 13) to 37 by going hard for extra CON (CON 18, SIZ 13).
Actually, raising attributes there is rather harder, and getting to Con 18...I'm not sure it's even possible without major magic:shade:!

Also, RQ6/Mythras doesn't use a single number, so the "increase from 27 to 37" is actually 1-2 points per locations. That's about 30%, on average and can still be lost in one good hit. So no, the situation is not even close!

Besides, I don't know why you keep comparing those to Dark Sagas. In RQ/Mythras/GURPS it's your active defenses that matter. No fighting PC ever has survived a campaign merely by raising HP in those systems:grin:!

So no. Dark Sagas does allow inflating hit points, just restrains it - probably for a more low-powered feel.

Dark Sagas, like many OSR games or even D&D 3.x, allows you to change your stance, exchanging attack bonus for defense, or the other way around. If that is an active defense, I’m not sure there are any but the simplest OSR games without them.
Nope, doesn't count (I was just too tired to check myself last night, sorry:thumbsup:). But I'm still not persuaded that an increase of 1,8-2,25 times your starting HP is "not significant". Less significant than in D&D, sure. Fitting the same model? Yeah, I'd say yes to that as well.

And either way, even if we accept it as "not really significant" - maybe you do have better things to spend the advancement on, so it doesn't happen in play, like it seldom happens in GURPS/RQ/Mythras, IME - I'm still not persuaded it's a good model:shade:. Guess I'd have to see it in play...but that's increasingly unlikely.
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Except your math is off, since you are talking about Warriors in your Dark Sagas example.
Str10 is a GURPS wizard, at best...and even those usually get Str 11 to get their crippling thresholds higher (which also prevents them being stunlocked).

Yeah, but a level 1 Dark Sagas character clearly starts off weaker than a typical super-heroic 250 point GURPS character. The templates for Bandit, Knight and Slayer in GURPS Fantasy for 4th edition all have ST 11, which changes the math only slightly. So I think my example holds here. After all, if the character in Dark Sagas went hard for HP at the start, they would actually start higher (22 for a Warrior) and end up in the same place (36) with maxed out XP. That's an increase of 1,63, not 1,8.

Which means that in Dark Sagas, you could get an increase times 2,25. So for a Wizard, you should get to 22-23 HP in GURPS. Sure, you can buy them...but raising Strength to 18 (which also has other applications, and you are raising it in Dark Sagas, so the equivalent development requires you to raise it in GURPS as well) and adding another 5 HP extra is 105 bonus XP. That's what, about 21 adventures? Which might not conclude in

With Str 15 for a warrior, you'd get an increase times 1.8...let's be generous: Str 23, 4 extra HP, or 120 XP.

STR 15 is extreme though, as I noted above. That's where you end up, not where you start.

Definitely.
Also, most of them don't, so in practice, the increase in HP is minimal, even if allowed in theory.
Exactly, the actual increase in Dark Sagas and GURPS and BRP systems is likely to be far less than the max allowed.

Actually, raising attributes there is rather harder, and getting to Con 18...I'm not sure it's even possible without major magic:shade:!
You gain +2 to an attribute (for a normal human) for every experience roll you dedicate to training that attribute rather than improving skills (but the gains disappear if you stop the rigorous training). So +6 to CON is 3 exp rolls, +8 is 4. That's doable, it's just sacrificing all other potential for "maxed out physical endurance, huah!" just like in the Dark Sagas example.

Also, RQ6/Mythras doesn't use a single number, so the "increase from 27 to 37" is actually 1-2 points per locations. That's about 30%, on average and can still be lost in one good hit. So no, the situation is not even close!

It's a flat 2 to every hit location actually. How significant that is depends on what it started as. If you asked someone "X increases by 0-120%. Is that closer to the situation where Z increases by 0-40%, or closer to the situation where Y increases on average 900%, but really anywhere between 80 and 8100%?" where do you think they would land on that? Because the latter is old style AD&D where you could start with 1HP and stop rolling hit dice at level 9 (but still adding a fixed number of HP for future levels) with 81 HP.
Besides, I don't know why you keep comparing those to Dark Sagas. In RQ/Mythras/GURPS it's your active defenses that matter. No fighting PC ever has survived a campaign merely by raising HP in those systems:grin:!

Because we're talking about raising HP to an insane degree. You can do it in both Mythras and Dark Sagas. In Dark Sagas raising Quickness on the other hand will raise your AC, preventing you from getting hit in the first place (just like raising your combat skills in Mythras or GURPS will). I don't think your best chance for survival in Dark Sagas is raising your HP either, we're looking at someone just going "moar HP!!!!" in all systems here. That's the main difference between Dark Sagas and D&D actually, which places Dark Sagas far closer to BRP or GURPS than standard D&D in this regard. In D&D your HP rise automatically. In Dark Sagas, GURPS and Mythras you have to decide to invest your resources into becoming tougher, which has an opportunity cost. XP in Dark Sagas, Character Points in GURPS, Exp rolls in Mythras can all be used to increase other abilities, skills, talents or what have you. In D&D you just automatically get more HP as your character also gets better at other stuff.

So no. Dark Sagas does allow inflating hit points, just restrains it - probably for a more low-powered feel.


Nope, doesn't count (I was just too tired to check myself last night, sorry:thumbsup:). But I'm still not persuaded that an increase of 1,8-2,25 times your starting HP is "not significant". Less significant than in D&D, sure. Fitting the same model? Yeah, I'd say yes to that as well.

That increase would be significant. But so would the increase from ST 11 with no extra HP to ST 15 with 4 extra hp in GURPS, and both would indicate a single-mindedness toward increasing your characters beefiness. You can't take the absolute extreme from Dark Sagas and compare it to normal characters in GURPS (or way beyond normal in the case of starting with a 15 ST) and BRP systems. A more standard Dark Sagas character might increase Physique from 4 to 7 (6 gives you a damage bonus), and probably not buy any extra hit points, but say he buys 2. That gives an increase for our Warrior from 20 to 25 HP.
And either way, even if we accept it as "not really significant" - maybe you do have better things to spend the advancement on, so it doesn't happen in play, like it seldom happens in GURPS/RQ/Mythras, IME - I'm still not persuaded it's a good model:shade:. Guess I'd have to see it in play...but that's increasingly unlikely.
Sure, but that's true for everything. You asked for a system that did this, not one that you'd like :smile:

Found the system I was looking for originally btw, 17th century minimalist, but since I haven't purchased it yet I can't go into detail on it as of yet.
 
Last edited:

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
Yeah, but a level 1 Dark Sagas character clearly starts off weaker than a typical super-heroic 250 point GURPS character. The templates for Bandit, Knight and Slayer in GURPS Fantasy for 4th edition all have ST 11, which changes the math only slightly. So I think my example holds here. After all, if the character in Dark Sagas went hard for HP at the start, they would actually start higher (22 for a Warrior) and end up in the same place (36) with maxed out XP. That's an increase of 1,63, not 1,8.
Yeah, but it should be about on par with a normal 150-pts GURPS character. Just a guess, of course. It's hard to compare point-buy to a class system:smile:.

STR 15 is extreme though, as I noted above. That's where you end up, not where you start.
No, I've started at Str15, with a 150pts PC. And yes, I got higher, I think to about 18?
This was related to the character being an axe fighter, though, which benefit immensely* from high Strength! And he left death and destruction in his path, that's for sure:wink:!


*As in, "not needing to spend a round to balance your weapon", which is a sizeable benefit that improves your ability to both attack and defend.

Exactly, the actual increase in Dark Sagas and GURPS and BRP systems is likely to be far less than the max allowed.
That's exactly what I said.
And it's still likely to be much greater in DS, because that's basically your "defense skill". In GURPS/BRP/Mythras, you'd want...higher defense skill.
Please tell me again which one is closer to reality...:thumbsup:

You gain +2 to an attribute (for a normal human) for every experience roll you dedicate to training that attribute rather than improving skills (but the gains disappear if you stop the rigorous training). So +6 to CON is 3 exp rolls, +8 is 4. That's doable, it's just sacrificing all other potential for "maxed out physical endurance, huah!" just like in the Dark Sagas example.
Except you can't even get to 4 XP rolls. The standard amount is 2, with a +1/-1 based on Charisma. So...no, you really can't do that in Mythras...at least not per RAW! (Side note: hey, Fenris-77 Fenris-77 you want to read that:tongue:!)

Sorry, I didn't want to point it out...

It's a flat 2 to every hit location actually.
OK, I don't remember the table. But as I said, 1-2 points...it's just the upper limit.


How significant that is depends on what it started as. If you asked someone "X increases by 0-120%. Is that closer to the situation where Z increases by 0-40%, or closer to the situation where Y increases on average 900%, but really anywhere between 80 and 8100%?" where do you think they would land on that? Because the latter is old style AD&D where you could start with 1HP and stop rolling hit dice at level 9 (but still adding a fixed number of HP for future levels) with 81 HP.
OK, that's just a loaded example and you know it:shade:. Because you could start with full 10 HP and then only add 8 points, too. For most characters...neither extreme would happen.
But yes, "increase by 0-120%" seems closer to AD&D to me. Anything with 80+% seems closer to it to me, if you're asking.
Keyword: seems. You obviously disagree, and it's a personal opinion. So can we say it's a borderline example?


Because we're talking about raising HP to an insane degree. You can do it in both Mythras and Dark Sagas. In Dark Sagas raising Quickness on the other hand will raise your AC, preventing you from getting hit in the first place (just like raising your combat skills in Mythras or GURPS will). I don't think your best chance for survival in Dark Sagas is raising your HP either, we're looking at someone just going "moar HP!!!!" in all systems here. That's the main difference between Dark Sagas and D&D actually, which places Dark Sagas far closer to BRP or GURPS than standard D&D in this regard. In D&D your HP rise automatically. In Dark Sagas, GURPS and Mythras you have to decide to invest your resources into becoming tougher, which has an opportunity cost. XP in Dark Sagas, Character Points in GURPS, Exp rolls in Mythras can all be used to increase other abilities, skills, talents or what have you. In D&D you just automatically get more HP as your character also gets better at other stuff.
Agreed. But the thing that makes DS closer to D&D in my book is that raising your Quickness by 1 in a 2d6 system isn't going to do much for your defense, unless you were already close to the "breaks" in the probability line (say, bumping the TN to hit you from 9 to 10, or 10 to 11, or 11 to 12...)
But raising it from 6 to 7? Please, give me 5-10 HP instead, I'mma needing'em:gunslinger:!

That increase would be significant. But so would the increase from ST 11 with no extra HP to ST 15 with 4 extra hp in GURPS, and both would indicate a single-mindedness toward increasing your characters beefiness.
Not nearly as much, IMO. But again...let's call it a contested example, and move on, OK?

Sure, but that's true for everything. You asked for a system that did this, not one that you'd like :smile:
Of course not! If I asked for systems I'd like, you'd be in a tough spot:grin:!
But I'm asking you "how many people you think would like it"... that's a fair question, right?
Hey, let's scratch that one, it's not like you're going to do market research for them.
Instead: do you think combat in Dark Sagas is closer to actual combat than D&D? Further from reality? Either way, why?

Found the system I was looking for originally btw, 17th century minimalist, but since I haven't purchased it yet I can't go into detail on it as of yet.
Great! Do you own it?
If so, can you just check the 40 pages and answer the following:

Does armour use AC or DR? Is armour upgrade expected?

Is your defense dependent on a defense skill/attribute, which changes (like Dark Sagas)?

Do you have active defense?

How many HP the characters have? We already know they're not going up.

How do you increase characters' defensive abilities?
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Yeah, but it should be about on par with a normal 150-pts GURPS character. Just a guess, of course. It's hard to compare point-buy to a class system:smile:.


No, I've started at Str15, with a 150pts PC. And yes, I got higher, I think to about 18?
This was related to the character being an axe fighter, though, which benefit immensely* from high Strength! And he left death and destruction in his path, that's for sure:wink:!
You may have started with such a character, but as I have noted, the character templates the game provides you with reckon that ST 11 or 12 is good for a historical melee fighter. And a hard one too, a Knight for instance. A score of 15 or more is considered Amazing and draws constant comment. That can not be considered to be the same as a 4 in a system where stats go up to 10 and can start between 1 and 6. No human templates in GURPS have those kinds of ability scores.

*As in, "not needing to spend a round to balance your weapon", which is a sizeable benefit that improves your ability to both attack and defend.


That's exactly what I said.
And it's still likely to be much greater in DS, because that's basically your "defense skill". In GURPS/BRP/Mythras, you'd want...higher defense skill.
Please tell me again which one is closer to reality...:thumbsup:

Did you miss the fact that you can raise your defense ability too? No, because you respond to it later. So what are you saying here? What do you think you're pointing out? Do you think Quickness being directly added to your Defense Value makes it somehow not your primary defense skill? What?

Except you can't even get to 4 XP rolls. The standard amount is 2, with a +1/-1 based on Charisma. So...no, you really can't do that in Mythras...at least not per RAW! (Side note: hey, Fenris-77 Fenris-77 you want to read that:tongue:!)
I'm sitting with the RuneQuest 6 book right here (I never cite rules from memory, always from source material). From page 109:

The number of Experience Rolls given in any one sitting should be between two and four, but it can be lower or higher depending on how long it has been since the last set of rolls and how well the characters performed or have been played.
It is recommended that all characters be given the same number of Experience Rolls, which helps maintain fairness and parity in character progression - although even with the same number of rolls characters may progress at different rates, as the mechanics for Experience Rolls illustrate.
The only exception to this guideline is where a character gains an additional roll (or suffers a reduction in rolls) for their Experience Modifier sas described on page 13. This modifier should only be permitted in situations where the character can put their influence to good use or suffer its consequences, such as returning home at the conclusion of a scenario.


So two to four, then modified. I checked and the same guideline appears on pages 71-72 of Mythras. So since "between two and four" includes both three and four, I think I'm right here.


OK, I don't remember the table. But as I said, 1-2 points...it's just the upper limit.

I never remember, I always check the books.

OK, that's just a loaded example and you know it:shade:. Because you could start with full 10 HP and then only add 8 points, too. For most characters...neither extreme would happen.
But yes, "increase by 0-120%" seems closer to AD&D to me. Anything with 80+% seems closer to it to me, if you're asking.
Keyword: seems. You obviously disagree, and it's a personal opinion. So can we say it's a borderline example?

I don't think you read what I wrote. I specifically mentioned that it was between 80% (that would be going from 10 to 18 HP) and 8100% (going from 1 to 81 HP) and on average 900% (5.5 HP to 49.5 HP, complete averages). I covered every base there. But you're saying that 20-36 (an extreme) is closer to 4.5-49.5 (an average) than it is to 10-18 (another extreme)? Because I can't tell you how wrong that is mathematically.

Agreed. But the thing that makes DS closer to D&D in my book is that raising your Quickness by 1 in a 2d6 system isn't going to do much for your defense, unless you were already close to the "breaks" in the probability line (say, bumping the TN to hit you from 9 to 10, or 10 to 11, or 11 to 12...)
But raising it from 6 to 7? Please, give me 5-10 HP instead, I'mma needing'em:gunslinger:!

What? Raising the target number from 6 to 7 is the second best improvement you can get on 2d6, you just reduced your opponents chance to land a damaging hit on you from 72.2% to 58.3%, the only better one would be from 7-8 (58.3% to 41.7%). Going from 10 to 11? That's reducing your chance to get hit from 16.7% to 8.3%, a much smaller reduction (insofar as a 2d6 system will allow). And you aren't getting 5-10 HP, you're getting 2 extra HP for that price.
Not nearly as much, IMO. But again...let's call it a contested example, and move on, OK?

No. It's an example that shows you can do exactly the same amount of raising HP in GURPS as in Dark Sagas, I'm not going to let you discount is as not very similar when it is in fact very similar just so you don't have to deal with the similarity.
Of course not! If I asked for systems I'd like, you'd be in a tough spot:grin:!
But I'm asking you "how many people you think would like it"... that's a fair question, right?
Hey, let's scratch that one, it's not like you're going to do market research for them.
Instead: do you think combat in Dark Sagas is closer to actual combat than D&D? Further from reality? Either way, why?

In the way it plays out? I haven't played enough Dark Sagas to really be able to tell. And it depends on which D&D system you're using. Compared to most OSR systems or something like AD&D? Dark Sagas starts you out as far more able to survive combat than a 1st level OSR/TSR character, way more heroic than the typical "1-2 hits get past your armor and you're dead" experience of low level D&D. On the other hand, your character typically stays in that range, becoming a somewhat better hero. In OSR/TSR games your character goes from really no better than a typical soldier, guardsman, cutpurse or what have you, to that kind of tough badass that still has to think before charging in but should be able to handle some mooks in combat just fine that you start out as in Dark Sagas. But then they move beyond that a bit too. But realism? Sure, as long as you keep in mind that HP don't translate to meat points in D&D, then they both come in as having fairly realistic outcomes, until you start to get up to parody levels and as long as you realize you're running more heroic fantasy and less "Battle of the Somme simulator 3000".

Great! Do you own it?

You think I had time to buy it and read it in between me writing "since I haven't purchased it yet I can't go into detail on it as of yet" and your response to that post written less than an hour later?

If I'm going to be continuing this conversation, I'd like to have some indication that you actually read my posts and aren't just skimming over them. Because right now that seems to be exactly what you're doing as you're missing or ignoring things I write and outright contradicting yourself from point to point too.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
You may have started with such a character, but as I have noted, the character templates the game provides you with reckon that ST 11 or 12 is good for a historical melee fighter. And a hard one too, a Knight for instance. A score of 15 or more is considered Amazing and draws constant comment. That can not be considered to be the same as a 4 in a system where stats go up to 10 and can start between 1 and 6. No human templates in GURPS have those kinds of ability scores.
We also didn't use templates:thumbsup:. "Those are for NPCs" was the prevailing sentiment in my circles when we were into GURPS.
Not having a great-strength template only serves to confirm that...

Did you miss the fact that you can raise your defense ability too? No, because you respond to it later. So what are you saying here? What do you think you're pointing out? Do you think Quickness being directly added to your Defense Value makes it somehow not your primary defense skill? What?
I'm pointing out that your defense is split between HP and Quickness, halfway between D&D and GURPS. That's why I wrote "contested example"...as in, you can look at it from either direction, and you'd be right. The two of us are now arguing which side is truer, basically:shade:.
I'm sitting with the RuneQuest 6 book right here (I never cite rules from memory, always from source material). From page 109:

The number of Experience Rolls given in any one sitting should be between two and four, but it can be lower or higher depending on how long it has been since the last set of rolls and how well the characters performed or have been played.
It is recommended that all characters be given the same number of Experience Rolls, which helps maintain fairness and parity in character progression - although even with the same number of rolls characters may progress at different rates, as the mechanics for Experience Rolls illustrate.
The only exception to this guideline is where a character gains an additional roll (or suffers a reduction in rolls) for their Experience Modifier sas described on page 13. This modifier should only be permitted in situations where the character can put their influence to good use or suffer its consequences, such as returning home at the conclusion of a scenario.


So two to four, then modified. I checked and the same guideline appears on pages 71-72 of Mythras. So since "between two and four" includes both three and four, I think I'm right here.
Great. Except I've never seen a campaign where the basic number wasn't set at 2 rolls, so I'd forgotten it.
Conversely, I don't quote rules other than from memory, unless the matter is really important/I'm feeling passionate about. This argument, surprising for an argument about weapons&armours...is neither. Sorry.
I mean, you do know that there are fantasy creatures attacks that armours would grant zero protection against (like a giant's swung club) - or I haven't seen you disputing it - and you're still arguing that AC is closer to reality*, which is how that argument started? Sorry, I don't feel passionate about rebuffing that argument.

*Unless I've missed you admitting that it's really not. In that case, I'd owe you an apology indeed:devil:!


I never remember, I always check the books.
Good for you:thumbsup:.

I don't think you read what I wrote. I specifically mentioned that it was between 80% (that would be going from 10 to 18 HP) and 8100% (going from 1 to 81 HP) and on average 900% (5.5 HP to 49.5 HP, complete averages). I covered every base there. But you're saying that 20-36 (an extreme) is closer to 4.5-49.5 (an average) than it is to 10-18 (another extreme)? Because I can't tell you how wrong that is mathematically.
Here's the difference: you're talking about it mathematically. Your argument regarding Mythras confirms that.
Meanwhile, I'm looking at it from the POV of "how it plays out at the table".
"You can now withstand 10 strikes instead of 1" is what your average gives for D&D.

"You can now take twice the amount of strikes you could before" is what happens in Dark Sagas. That's roughly going from 4 to 8 normal strikes before going under. (Most strikes in Dark Sagas were 1d6 IIRC, though I don't have the book on this computer)

"You can now withstand a strike that would have felled you before, but the next one is going to do you in anyway" is what happens with the +2 increase per location in Mythras. So you went from 1 to 2 strikes unarmoured, maybe from 2 up to 3 if you had a good starting point. Oh, and a real critical is still going to end you in one fell sweep. (Ignore Armour, Maximise damage, add damage bonus).

And yes, "you can withstand an extra strike" is much further from "you can withstand twice the amount of strikes (that wasn't 1 to begin with)". At least for me, YMMV...and I suspect the mileage varying is the basis for this thread.

What? Raising the target number from 6 to 7 is the second best improvement you can get on 2d6, you just reduced your opponents chance to land a damaging hit on you from 72.2% to 58.3%, the only better one would be from 7-8 (58.3% to 41.7%). Going from 10 to 11? That's reducing your chance to get hit from 16.7% to 8.3%, a much smaller reduction (insofar as a 2d6 system will allow). And you aren't getting 5-10 HP, you're getting 2 extra HP for that price.
Again...mathematically.
In practice, we don't calculate percentages, there's 3 areas of defensive ability. "You get hit a lot", "you get hit occasionally", "it's a surprise when you get hit at all".
9 to 10 moves you from the second to the third row. 6 to 7 leaves you in the first one (over 50% odds of a hit landing).

No. It's an example that shows you can do exactly the same amount of raising HP in GURPS as in Dark Sagas, I'm not going to let you discount is as not very similar when it is in fact very similar just so you don't have to deal with the similarity.
Sorry, but I don't plan to cover this. "You can do this stuff, but nobody does" hardly impacts the actual game at the table...just like it's meaningless how many Ox-Bodies you could get in Exalted 2, to give you a similar example:devil:!
In the way it plays out? I haven't played enough Dark Sagas to really be able to tell. And it depends on which D&D system you're using. Compared to most OSR systems or something like AD&D? Dark Sagas starts you out as far more able to survive combat than a 1st level OSR/TSR character, way more heroic than the typical "1-2 hits get past your armor and you're dead" experience of low level D&D.
Great. And this only confirms my comparison from before.

On the other hand, your character typically stays in that range, becoming a somewhat better hero. In OSR/TSR games your character goes from really no better than a typical soldier, guardsman, cutpurse or what have you, to that kind of tough badass that still has to think before charging in but should be able to handle some mooks in combat just fine that you start out as in Dark Sagas. But then they move beyond that a bit too.
Yeah, and I already said "resulting in similar, but more restricted advancement" in my previous post.
You read that one, right?


But realism? Sure, as long as you keep in mind that HP don't translate to meat points in D&D, then they both come in as having fairly realistic outcomes, until you start to get up to parody levels and as long as you realize you're running more heroic fantasy and less "Battle of the Somme simulator 3000".
But the whole thread started with the assertion that AC is closer to reality. So realism kinda matters, here:thumbsup:!

You think I had time to buy it and read it in between me writing "since I haven't purchased it yet I can't go into detail on it as of yet" and your response to that post written less than an hour later?
Well, I'm pretty sure I've seen the buying part on RPG forums. Not necessarily the reading in one hour, though it's 40 pages...which is what, 40 minutes?

Just one question: if you don't have it, how do you even know it uses AC instead of DR armour? There are OSR titles out there that have made that change. So I assumed you're about to buy it.
Mistaken assumption, it seems, but it seemed fine when I was writing it:grin:!

If I'm going to be continuing this conversation, I'd like to have some indication that you actually read my posts and aren't just skimming over them. Because right now that seems to be exactly what you're doing as you're missing or ignoring things I write and outright contradicting yourself from point to point too.
Apologies for misunderstanding your intentions! Is that fine now?
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
We also didn't use templates:thumbsup:. "Those are for NPCs" was the prevailing sentiment in my circles when we were into GURPS.
Not having a great-strength template only serves to confirm that...

I'm pretty sure the design intent was for your Attributes to be generally lower in GURPS 4th edition than 3rd, so maybe that's the disconnect. I always saw the templates as "good starting point, pick one of these and then add in what's missing." They'd make sure you didn't miss a crucial skill for your character etc.

I'm pointing out that your defense is split between HP and Quickness, halfway between D&D and GURPS. That's why I wrote "contested example"...as in, you can look at it from either direction, and you'd be right. The two of us are now arguing which side is truer, basically:shade:.

Not in Dark Sagas no, there HP function more like they do in GURPS or BRP, as pure "this is how much of a beating you can take". Your defense is all in your AC.

Great. Except I've never seen a campaign where the basic number wasn't set at 2 rolls, so I'd forgotten it.
Conversely, I don't quote rules other than from memory, unless the matter is really important/I'm feeling passionate about. This argument, surprising for an argument about weapons&armours...is neither. Sorry.
I mean, you do know that there are fantasy creatures attacks that armours would grant zero protection against (like a giant's swung club) - or I haven't seen you disputing it - and you're still arguing that AC is closer to reality*, which is how that argument started? Sorry, I don't feel passionate about rebuffing that argument.

*Unless I've missed you admitting that it's really not. In that case, I'd owe you an apology indeed:devil:!

I'm arguing that Armor as Hit Reduction and Armor as Damage Reduction are around the same level of realism in general, but Hit Reduction yields more realistic results for the same level rules complexity at a lower level of rules complexity, while Damage Reduction may yield more realistic results for less rules content at a higher level of rules complexity (but that's a higher level than I am interested in most of the time). So at the simpler end of the rules spectrum, AC will be more realistic than DR for the same amount of rules, but at the most complex end, Armor as DR is probably going to result in more realistic outcomes.

Good for you:thumbsup:.


Here's the difference: you're talking about it mathematically. Your argument regarding Mythras confirms that.
Meanwhile, I'm looking at it from the POV of "how it plays out at the table".
"You can now withstand 10 strikes instead of 1" is what your average gives for D&D.

"You can now take twice the amount of strikes you could before" is what happens in Dark Sagas. That's roughly going from 4 to 8 normal strikes before going under. (Most strikes in Dark Sagas were 1d6 IIRC, though I don't have the book on this computer)

"You can now withstand a strike that would have felled you before, but the next one is going to do you in anyway" is what happens with the +2 increase per location in Mythras. So you went from 1 to 2 strikes unarmoured, maybe from 2 up to 3 if you had a good starting point. Oh, and a real critical is still going to end you in one fell sweep. (Ignore Armour, Maximise damage, add damage bonus).

And yes, "you can withstand an extra strike" is much further from "you can withstand twice the amount of strikes (that wasn't 1 to begin with)". At least for me, YMMV...and I suspect the mileage varying is the basis for this thread

Much further from that then what? Again, we're comparing three situations here. Is going from maybe 4 hits to maybe 8 hits closer to 2 hits to maybe 3 or 1 hit to 25 hits?

You've also decided not to really respond about Magic World, where you can go from a total of 12 HP at start to a total of 21 HP by increasing your stats. The standard damage there is 1D6-1D8, with a few extra points for damage bonus. So an average of maybe 5-6 HP per die. So you've gone from taking around 2 hits unarmored to being able to take around 4 hits unarmored. Is Magic World a game with inflating hit points because this is theoretically possible despite no one actually doing this in play? If not, then why is Dark Sagas when it is in the exact same position?

Again...mathematically.
In practice, we don't calculate percentages, there's 3 areas of defensive ability. "You get hit a lot", "you get hit occasionally", "it's a surprise when you get hit at all".
9 to 10 moves you from the second to the third row. 6 to 7 leaves you in the first one (over 50% odds of a hit landing).

That's ... not true for me. I don't think one should generalize from oneself too much. It is way too common to think of oneself as normal, even if one isn't.

Sorry, but I don't plan to cover this. "You can do this stuff, but nobody does" hardly impacts the actual game at the table...just like it's meaningless how many Ox-Bodies you could get in Exalted 2, to give you a similar example:devil:!

But your whole discussion here has been about a thing nobody does (only buys extra Physique and Hit points) in Dark Sagas. So why is a Warrior going from 20 HP to 36, which never actually happens, a thing that defines hit point advancement in Dark Sagas but someone going from 11 ST to 14 ST and 4 extra HP in GURPS something that can be entirely discounted in GURPS? If you're concerned with what actually happens at the table, then why focus on the extreme outlier in one system but discount all extreme outliers in other systems? Either you should focus on what is actually done at the tables, in which case you're talking about Warriors going from 20 to maybe 25 HP in Dark Sagas and Wizards probably not increasing HP at all, or you should focus on the most extreme outliers in all the systems. You can't mix and match, that's a dishonest comparison.

Great. And this only confirms my comparison from before.


Yeah, and I already said "resulting in similar, but more restricted advancement" in my previous post.
You read that one, right?

Yes, and I disagree that it is particularly similar, other than how any character advancement systems at all are similar to each other. D&D has a classic "zero to hero" advancement scheme, where your character starts out as ordinary and can go on to become a great hero, or die trying (or die fleeing in a panic from an angry skeleton, whichever happens). Dark Sagas has what I consider a more traditional approach, certainly more common in rulesets that aren't D&D or based on D&D, namely that characters start out very competent and then improve somewhat. This is the main difference. Another one, but one that ties into it, is that it isn't level based advancement. In level based advancement characters uniformly become better at doing whatever it is they do. In more freeform advancement, as seen in Dark Sagas or TFT or GURPS or Magic World, advancement is often lateral. Your character learns a new skill, learns a new language, learns a new (but not necessarily more powerful) spell etc. You can also shore up weak points your character had, so maybe the comfortable academic Wizard becomes used to harsh travel and going without food, while maybe the Warrior learns how to read and how to handle himself in high society. So no, I think the styles of advancement present in both games are very different.

But the whole thread started with the assertion that AC is closer to reality. So realism kinda matters, here:thumbsup:!
For a given value of rules complexity yes, not as a whole and always. Mythras combat rules are incredibly more detailed than Dark Sagas, you're not exactly comparing like to like there.
Well, I'm pretty sure I've seen the buying part on RPG forums. Not necessarily the reading in one hour, though it's 40 pages...which is what, 40 minutes?

Just one question: if you don't have it, how do you even know it uses AC instead of DR armour? There are OSR titles out there that have made that change. So I assumed you're about to buy it.

I don't. I don't imagine it spends much time on armor at all since it is set in the 17th century and clearly focuses on adventurers of the time. Feathered hats and well-maintained mustachios are the order of the day, not so much chain mail and shields. Even on the battlefields of the day armor was on its way out, or already out.
Mistaken assumption, it seems, but it seemed fine when I was writing it:grin:!


Apologies for misunderstanding your intentions! Is that fine now?
Apology accepted, captain Needa.
 

CRKrueger

Eläytyminatör
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
5,218
Reaction score
9,625
Sure you can set it against a hippo charge. Just plant the hilt in the ground, keep your hands on the blade (a normal longsword technique anyway) and aim it toward the hippo. The hippo is very low off the ground so it'll run into it even if it is shorter than a typical spear.

And sure it's a silly argument, but I spent pages using statistics and facts to try to convince people that wolves aren't human killing machines and most predatory wolf attacks have been against children.
When people hunt big game in Africa with spears, they go not as single spies, but in battalions. Dozens, sometimes a hundred or more for an elephant hunt. Yeah they’ll kill the animal, but translating that into a one on one fight is wishful thinking.

Carrying a sword vs. a hippo gives the human the advantage? Ok, sure...(backs away slowly making no aggressive movements).
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
When people hunt big game in Africa with spears, they go not as single spies, but in battalions. Dozens, sometimes a hundred or more for an elephant hunt. Yeah they’ll kill the animal, but translating that into a one on one fight is wishful thinking.

Carrying a sword vs. a hippo gives the human the advantage? Ok, sure...(backs away slowly making no aggressive movements).
According to this source (The Bandala Method of Hunting Elephant on Foot from Sudan Notes and Records vol 13 no 2, 1930), six men was a standard elephant hunting group in Sudan. Not a single man, but not battalions either. Armed with spears, the objective was to hamstring the elephant by attacking its legs, or hit it in the belly when it ran past.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
According to this source (The Bandala Method of Hunting Elephant on Foot from Sudan Notes and Records vol 13 no 2, 1930), six men was a standard elephant hunting group in Sudan. Not a single man, but not battalions either. Armed with spears, the objective was to hamstring the elephant by attacking its legs, or hit it in the belly when it ran past.
Sounds about right to me.
I'm still wondering about the unarmed techniques that would be used, though. Yes, I mean that other thread:evil:!

I'm pretty sure the design intent was for your Attributes to be generally lower in GURPS 4th edition than 3rd, so maybe that's the disconnect. I always saw the templates as "good starting point, pick one of these and then add in what's missing." They'd make sure you didn't miss a crucial skill for your character etc.
I've mostly played 4th.
Also, no, the attributes only got higher in 4e due to the change to flat prices, IME. Str especially got a major boost.

In 3e, escalating costs made it harder to calculate the tip-off where you need to stop purchasing up the attribute. In 4e, you just count your skills related to an attribute. If there's more than 5 skills on IQ and DX, you buy the attribute up after you devote 2 points to each. If you have 10+ such skills, you buy them at 1 point and buy up the attribute as high as you can. Simple aritmethics.
Not in Dark Sagas no, there HP function more like they do in GURPS or BRP, as pure "this is how much of a beating you can take". Your defense is all in your AC.
Doubling up your HP isn't related to taking the same hits reduced? I find it hard to believe...

Which is another disconnect that could be avoided with less expanding HP-as-meatpoints.

I'm arguing that Armor as Hit Reduction and Armor as Damage Reduction are around the same level of realism in general, but Hit Reduction yields more realistic results for the same level rules complexity at a lower level of rules complexity, while Damage Reduction may yield more realistic results for less rules content at a higher level of rules complexity (but that's a higher level than I am interested in most of the time). So at the simpler end of the rules spectrum, AC will be more realistic than DR for the same amount of rules, but at the most complex end, Armor as DR is probably going to result in more realistic outcomes.
OK...that I could accept:thumbsup:. I mean, I wasn't considering it like that, and balked instinctively against the idea. Maybe I shouldn't have.
But since I haven't considered it, I'm not persuaded either...:shade:

So let's consider a couple case studies, OK?

In particular, let's compare two pairs of systems*: Traveller Classic and Cepheus Engine/Mongoose Traveller on one side, and Talislanta 1/2 vs Talislanta 4/5 on the other.
I would suggest also comparing OD&D with an OSR clone that uses DR, but for now, the only one I can think of is Crimson Blades...and that's a Chainmail-inspired d6 dicepool system. Not close enough like the other two. We should compare CB to something like EPT, which also has the "multiple attacks" element, or Spellcraft&Swordplay, but then those two use different dice...so in a word: it gets messy there.

Best to stick to systems that are close enough to start with that minor difference, no?

So: present your argument for the higher realism of one of those or both, please!
I'm going to present my argument that Cepheus/Mongoose Traveller is about equal at realism to CT. Can't make an argument on Talislanta, I only know 4/5.

Then again, maybe tenbones tenbones could weigh in here on Tal/OMNI.

And robertsconley robertsconley could you weigh in on whether you'd consider CT more or less realistic than Cepheus/Mongoose?

*Those are quite close, so the comparison should be able to focus on the armour/wounding mechanics, right? Much, much, MUCH closer than Dark Sagas/other OSR and GURPS:grin:!
And they are all roughly at your preferred level of complexity, AFAICT.

That should be more useful than arguing...about arguing in the first place:devil:. Right?

You've also decided not to really respond about Magic World, where you can go from a total of 12 HP at start to a total of 21 HP by increasing your stats.
Sorry, can't comment on systems I haven't read at all. What am I to say in this case?
That's ... not true for me. I don't think one should generalize from oneself too much. It is way too common to think of oneself as normal, even if one isn't.
I don't think of myself as normal...OK, no, not in that sense:grin:! I mean, I don't think everyone shares my tastes. Can't speak about the majority, because it's a fool's errand: the majority of people have never ever played an RPG.
So it's a hobby where just engaging puts you in a minority (unlike, say, sex, drinking, or playing cardgames:tongue:).

But your whole discussion here has been about a thing nobody does (only buys extra Physique and Hit points) in Dark Sagas. So why is a Warrior going from 20 HP to 36, which never actually happens, a thing that defines hit point advancement in Dark Sagas but someone going from 11 ST to 14 ST and 4 extra HP in GURPS something that can be entirely discounted in GURPS? If you're concerned with what actually happens at the table, then why focus on the extreme outlier in one system but discount all extreme outliers in other systems? Either you should focus on what is actually done at the tables, in which case you're talking about Warriors going from 20 to maybe 25 HP in Dark Sagas and Wizards probably not increasing HP at all, or you should focus on the most extreme outliers in all the systems. You can't mix and match, that's a dishonest comparison.
Well, you have a point there. But that's why I asked you how much people raise HP in Dark Sagas: I haven't played it. Your answer was...inconclusive. So I defaulted to "I'd probably do it, based on the typical enemies encountered". Which might be an erroneous decision, but still, I haven't played it, so can't comment.

OTOH, I can definitely say that in GURPS, it usually only happens with specific character concepts. In BRP/Mythras? Never seen it once.

Yes, and I disagree that it is particularly similar, other than how any character advancement systems at all are similar to each other. D&D has a classic "zero to hero" advancement scheme, where your character starts out as ordinary and can go on to become a great hero, or die trying (or die fleeing in a panic from an angry skeleton, whichever happens). Dark Sagas has what I consider a more traditional approach, certainly more common in rulesets that aren't D&D or based on D&D, namely that characters start out very competent and then improve somewhat. This is the main difference. Another one, but one that ties into it, is that it isn't level based advancement. In level based advancement characters uniformly become better at doing whatever it is they do. In more freeform advancement, as seen in Dark Sagas or TFT or GURPS or Magic World, advancement is often lateral. Your character learns a new skill, learns a new language, learns a new (but not necessarily more powerful) spell etc. You can also shore up weak points your character had, so maybe the comfortable academic Wizard becomes used to harsh travel and going without food, while maybe the Warrior learns how to read and how to handle himself in high society. So no, I think the styles of advancement present in both games are very different.
Agreed.
For a given value of rules complexity yes, not as a whole and always. Mythras combat rules are incredibly more detailed than Dark Sagas, you're not exactly comparing like to like there.
Also agreed. So let's focus on the analogical games, OK?
I don't. I don't imagine it spends much time on armor at all since it is set in the 17th century and clearly focuses on adventurers of the time. Feathered hats and well-maintained mustachios are the order of the day, not so much chain mail and shields. Even on the battlefields of the day armor was on its way out, or already out.
Then how was it relevant to the thread at all:shock:? I mean, I asked for an example of an OSR game that uses AC without escalating HP and without active defensive actions... if it doesn't use AC-style armour, it just has no relevance!


Apology accepted, captain Needa.
Thank you, Colonel Meebur Gascon:grin:!

(I had to google who Needa was, and still have no idea what's the similarity).
 

raniE

Resident animal hater
Joined
Feb 10, 2019
Messages
887
Reaction score
1,359
Sounds about right to me.
I'm still wondering about the unarmed techniques that would be used, though. Yes, I mean that other thread:evil:!


I've mostly played 4th.
Also, no, the attributes only got higher in 4e due to the change to flat prices, IME. Str especially got a major boost.

In 3e, escalating costs made it harder to calculate the tip-off where you need to stop purchasing up the attribute. In 4e, you just count your skills related to an attribute. If there's more than 5 skills on IQ and DX, you buy the attribute up after you devote 2 points to each. If you have 10+ such skills, you buy them at 1 point and buy up the attribute as high as you can. Simple aritmethics.

What the design intent was and how you played it are not the same things. The templates give a pretty good idea of where the designers thought appropriate attribute levels lay, and they're almost all in the 8-12 range. I find it interesting that you pull out this math here, but refuse to consider math when talking about whether raising your defense stat by 1 is worth it in Dark Sagas.

Doubling up your HP isn't related to taking the same hits reduced? I find it hard to believe...

Which is another disconnect that could be avoided with less expanding HP-as-meatpoints.

It's better to not be hit at all. And as I've stated repeatedly, you don't actually double your HP in practice. You add a small handful.

OK...that I could accept:thumbsup:. I mean, I wasn't considering it like that, and balked instinctively against the idea. Maybe I shouldn't have.
But since I haven't considered it, I'm not persuaded either...:shade:

So let's consider a couple case studies, OK?

In particular, let's compare two pairs of systems*: Traveller Classic and Cepheus Engine/Mongoose Traveller on one side, and Talislanta 1/2 vs Talislanta 4/5 on the other.
I would suggest also comparing OD&D with an OSR clone that uses DR, but for now, the only one I can think of is Crimson Blades...and that's a Chainmail-inspired d6 dicepool system. Not close enough like the other two. We should compare CB to something like EPT, which also has the "multiple attacks" element, or Spellcraft&Swordplay, but then those two use different dice...so in a word: it gets messy there.

Best to stick to systems that are close enough to start with that minor difference, no?

So: present your argument for the higher realism of one of those or both, please!
I'm going to present my argument that Cepheus/Mongoose Traveller is about equal at realism to CT. Can't make an argument on Talislanta, I only know 4/5.

Then again, maybe tenbones tenbones could weigh in here on Tal/OMNI.

And robertsconley robertsconley could you weigh in on whether you'd consider CT more or less realistic than Cepheus/Mongoose?

*Those are quite close, so the comparison should be able to focus on the armour/wounding mechanics, right? Much, much, MUCH closer than Dark Sagas/other OSR and GURPS:grin:!
And they are all roughly at your preferred level of complexity, AFAICT.

That should be more useful than arguing...about arguing in the first place:devil:. Right?

No, I think I'll talk about the concepts instead, which is what I've been talking about, and exemplify through referring to systems I actually know. I've never played Traveller or Talislanta and couldn't tell you the first thing about edition differences between them.

Sorry, can't comment on systems I haven't read at all. What am I to say in this case?

It's a BRP system, like Mythras or Call of Cthulhu. STR, CON, DEX, CHA, POW, INT SIZ. Uses total hit points instead of hit location HP, just like CoC. How much more than that do you need to know in order to know if 21 HP is more than 12 HP?
I don't think of myself as normal...OK, no, not in that sense:grin:! I mean, I don't think everyone shares my tastes. Can't speak about the majority, because it's a fool's errand: the majority of people have never ever played an RPG.
So it's a hobby where just engaging puts you in a minority (unlike, say, sex, drinking, or playing cardgames:tongue:).

Yes, but even then you can think of yourself as normal or typical in the specific group (see people assuming everyone who played RPGs as a kid was bullied for it)

Well, you have a point there. But that's why I asked you how much people raise HP in Dark Sagas: I haven't played it. Your answer was...inconclusive. So I defaulted to "I'd probably do it, based on the typical enemies encountered". Which might be an erroneous decision, but still, I haven't played it, so can't comment.

OTOH, I can definitely say that in GURPS, it usually only happens with specific character concepts. In BRP/Mythras? Never seen it once.

Inconclusive? What I've said on it is "Warriors going from 20 to maybe 25 HP in Dark Sagas and Wizards probably not increasing HP at all" and that nobody actually increases HP to the max possible, just like in GURPS and Mythras. How is that inconclusive?

Agreed.

Also agreed. So let's focus on the analogical games, OK?

Then how was it relevant to the thread at all:shock:? I mean, I asked for an example of an OSR game that uses AC without escalating HP and without active defensive actions... if it doesn't use AC-style armour, it just has no relevance!
You asked for a game, I said I was sure I'd seen such a game somewhere, then I started clicking around OSR titles on Drivethru and found it again. Since it probably doesn't involve much armor it probably isn't a great fit, but what did tyou want me to do, lie about it? Say I couldn't find the game I vaguely remembered?

Thank you, Colonel Meebur Gascon:grin:!

(I had to google who Needa was, and still have no idea what's the similarity).
You've never seen The Empire Strikes Back?
 

robertsconley

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
5,616
And robertsconley robertsconley could you weigh in on whether you'd consider CT more or less realistic than Cepheus/Mongoose?
Well they are both in the ballpark but in different ways.

General Comments
Traveller in various editions has a lot of scope but not as much depth as something like GURPS other RPGs with a detailed focus on guns and other weapons. Traveller always had just enough.

Traveller was developed by a bunch of hex and counter wargamer folks (GDW) and this aspect never went away over the years.

From all accounts Marc Miller was a "wing it" kind of referee and this is reflected in the early rules. But it leavened by Miller's experience in wargames.

Classic Traveller
The core combat system with its range band is pretty abstract. Over it's life it developed three distinct combat systems, the original core, snapshot, and Azhanti High Lightning/Striker. I personally use a hybrid of snapshot and core.

Traveller Referee Reference (Best printed as four page booklet).

The major flaw of Classic Traveller combat is it 15 second combat round. It action economy is off putting to modern gamers but they get used to it quickly. Basically everybody moves in initiative order. Then attacks happen simultaneously. Snapshot uses action points but I found you don't need it. It basically amounted to if you do something it knocks off of your movement. With 1 AP = 5 feet or 2 meters. I kept the original distinction of everybody move then everybody fires (at the same time).

Cepheus
Overall it way easier to deal, much more rationally designed reflecting the fact it was made over 30 years later. How you are injured has not change. Combat rounds are shorter at 6 seconds. Action Economy works with initiative, and character get to take actions including attack during the turn.

Which is better?
I have to say that everybody moving, doing stuff, and then resolving combat feel more like a gunfight than folks taking a turn order. While taking a turn order feel better for melee combat.

My friend who as a US Marine, a master sergeant, and served for 20 years, when given a choice wanted to use CT over Cepheus combat. But he did have a problem with the numbers Marc Miller used. So came up with a replacement chart and we used Armor as Damage Resistance from Cepheus.

The Azhanti High Lightning/Striker combat system also used Armor as damage resistance. So the concept is not alien to Classic Traveller.

Alternate Traveller Combat Table.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
What the design intent was and how you played it are not the same things. The templates give a pretty good idea of where the designers thought appropriate attribute levels lay, and they're almost all in the 8-12 range. I find it interesting that you pull out this math here, but refuse to consider math when talking about whether raising your defense stat by 1 is worth it in Dark Sagas.
For NPCs.
If anyone wants to use them for PCs...well, you know, all templates leave you with maybe half your points again, or more. You know how many stats you could get higher:grin:? (Or add a martial art or two, or a power, or a magic trick...)
The beauty of classless systems!


Damn it, now I want to play GURPS:grin:!

It's better to not be hit at all. And as I've stated repeatedly, you don't actually double your HP in practice. You add a small handful.
So you still add... :tongue:

No, I think I'll talk about the concepts instead, which is what I've been talking about, and exemplify through referring to systems I actually know. I've never played Traveller or Talislanta and couldn't tell you the first thing about edition differences between them.
Sure, but then you're universally going to compare apples to oranges.

The difference between Talislanta 1st and Talislanta 5th edition are...possibly numerous in many departments, but the characters are backwards compatible (mostly). Except 1e uses AC, AFAIK, while 5e definitely uses DR armour.

Classic Traveller uses weapon-vs-armour tables that determine chance of success. Other features: almost no increase of "HP" (there aren't any, your physical stat are being reduced), simultaneous initiative, and defensive reactions - though those are actually possibly far more useful in close combat. If you want better odds in ranged combat, go for cover!
Might not help you much at point-blank range, though.

Cepheus has a system with a unified attack throw, which is almost regardless of weapon. It also has the same defensive reactions and no increases in "HP" as Classic, despite the over 40 years difference, but armour is DR. OTOH, you add your margin of success to the damage, so it could well negate the armour...and it allows for called shots, and on a 6+ MOS (TN is 8, you add skill+attribute bonus+2d6).
In comparison, Classic doesn't account for MOS...though it makes hitting a bit easier, since some weapons actually give you a bonus depending on the armour. In some cases, this virtually guarantees a hit.
And IMO, while the weapon vs armour systems are very good, I'd probably reduce most bonuses by 1 or 2. Also, Cepheus allows me to bypass armour with called shots (difficulty depending on the spot aimed for), and/or luck on the dice.

It's a BRP system, like Mythras or Call of Cthulhu. STR, CON, DEX, CHA, POW, INT SIZ. Uses total hit points instead of hit location HP, just like CoC. How much more than that do you need to know in order to know if 21 HP is more than 12 HP?
In particular, I'd need to know:

Are there rules for "massive hits" (say over a threshold)? Like rolling on a table with extremely unpleasant results?
How does armour work?
How big is damage bonus?
Does it have rules like Martial Arts in BRP? Like Maneouvres in Mythras?
What does a Critical (and Special, if those are used) success do? Any autokill rules, as in Stormbringer?

12 to 21 HP increase might be much...or it might be next to nothing. Depends on the above.

Yes, but even then you can think of yourself as normal or typical in the specific group (see people assuming everyone who played RPGs as a kid was bullied for it)
Luckily, I don't suffer from said illusion.

Inconclusive? What I've said on it is "Warriors going from 20 to maybe 25 HP in Dark Sagas and Wizards probably not increasing HP at all" and that nobody actually increases HP to the max possible, just like in GURPS and Mythras. How is that inconclusive?
I seem to remember you saying you hadn't played it much? So I assumed you might not have seen anyone actually trying to raise it.

You asked for a game, I said I was sure I'd seen such a game somewhere, then I started clicking around OSR titles on Drivethru and found it again. Since it probably doesn't involve much armor it probably isn't a great fit, but what did tyou want me to do, lie about it? Say I couldn't find the game I vaguely remembered?
Nope, but I was assuming "a game you know well". Because, as you can see, I'd ask additional questions.
No big deal, I asked the authors on Drivethru "how do characters survive, then":devil:.

You've never seen The Empire Strikes Back?
You think I remember the names of 2-bit characters from a movie I've seen last probably 15 years ago:grin:?
Thank you for the confidence, but...are you an avid Star Wars fan? Do you think it's "normal" for RPG players to be Star Wars fans:tongue:?
 

xanther

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
1,536
Here’s the thing. Going into combat with a hippo can kill you. It’s dangerous. But you know what else can kill you? A man in a suit of armor wielding a lance and sitting on a big horse. A Panther tank barreling down at you among the hedgerows of Normandy. An American soldier in the jungles of Vietnam, backed up by napalm-dropping jet planes. Getting into a fight with any of these carries a significant risk to life and limb (I mean forget hippos, the greatest killers of humans every year are other humans), but people did it, all the time. Just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean it can’t be done, or won’t be done. People wouldn’t go crab-fishing off the coast of Alaska if they weren’t willing to risk life and limb for profit.
What has any of that got to do with if D&D and how "armor" is handled does a decent job of mano-y-hippo in a stand up melee fight?
 

xanther

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
1,404
Reaction score
1,536
...I'm arguing that Armor as Hit Reduction and Armor as Damage Reduction are around the same level of realism in general, but Hit Reduction yields more realistic results for the same level rules complexity at a lower level of rules complexity, while Damage Reduction may yield more realistic results for less rules content at a higher level of rules complexity (but that's a higher level than I am interested in most of the time). So at the simpler end of the rules spectrum, AC will be more realistic than DR for the same amount of rules, but at the most complex end, Armor as DR is probably going to result in more realistic outcomes.
...
That is where I disagree.
I'm arguing that armor as hit reduction yields less verisimilitude than armor as damage reduction, fundamentally. As armor as hit reduction then need to make special cases for touch, and when the "armor class" includes non armor related hit reductions. That is regardless of how damage and hit avoidance do to skill are implemented or not.

Also I couldn't give a whit about realism, but many of the original stabs at armor as damage reduction go that route, a build it from bottom up. So the examples of overly complex armor as damage reduction are many. It's verisimilitude and ease of play.

Armor as hit reduction struggles with verisimilitude it is designed with one set of assumptions, usually human armored combat. These assumptions do not apply to say an explosion, or being touched, or if you fall. In these cases your armor is not going to stop you from being hit (it is not all or nothing), or help you avoid being touched (likely would make it easier to just touch you) and it isn't going to stop the hit you take from falling. All of this is can be addressed, by adding rules and exceptions and another AC for touch.

Yet all of this could be avoided from the start if one just has armor as damage reduction and/or conversion. Which makes sense as that is what armor does, it makes you harder to hurt not harder to land a hit.

It really can be as simple as this. Assume 4 damage situations: (A) Melee Combat, (B) Touch Attacks, (C) Area Damage, and (D) Fall Damage
Armor as hit reduction by itself (a single AC) can handle A straight up and well, if you add in a second "touch AC" it can handle B straight up.
Now on C and D, just can't, not with any feel of verisimilitude.
Now on C the D&D thing I hear is oh that is a saving throw...which just shows armor as AC doesn't work for this situation and the saving throw approach also ignores the protection (damage reduction) armor can give.

Armor as damage reduction, A, B, C and D are all handled straight up with a single number that provides damage reduction. No need for touch or a saving throw to address these situations. Sounds both simpler and greater verisimilitude to me.

Complexity is also in the eye of the beholder, and I also view it as the level of utility one gets out of the added complexity or the added simplification. I find the "simplicity" and verisimilitude of armor as hit reduction rapidly disappears when take a step away from two armored humans slugging it out.
 

AsenRG

Legendary Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
7,951
Reaction score
8,018
That is where I disagree.
I'm arguing that armor as hit reduction yields less verisimilitude than armor as damage reduction, fundamentally. As armor as hit reduction then need to make special cases for touch, and when the "armor class" includes non armor related hit reductions. That is regardless of how damage and hit avoidance do to skill are implemented or not.

Also I couldn't give a whit about realism, but many of the original stabs at armor as damage reduction go that route, a build it from bottom up. So the examples of overly complex armor as damage reduction are many. It's verisimilitude and ease of play.

Armor as hit reduction struggles with verisimilitude it is designed with one set of assumptions, usually human armored combat. These assumptions do not apply to say an explosion, or being touched, or if you fall. In these cases your armor is not going to stop you from being hit (it is not all or nothing), or help you avoid being touched (likely would make it easier to just touch you) and it isn't going to stop the hit you take from falling. All of this is can be addressed, by adding rules and exceptions and another AC for touch.

Yet all of this could be avoided from the start if one just has armor as damage reduction and/or conversion. Which makes sense as that is what armor does, it makes you harder to hurt not harder to land a hit.

It really can be as simple as this. Assume 4 damage situations: (A) Melee Combat, (B) Touch Attacks, (C) Area Damage, and (D) Fall Damage
Armor as hit reduction by itself (a single AC) can handle A straight up and well, if you add in a second "touch AC" it can handle B straight up.
Now on C and D, just can't, not with any feel of verisimilitude.
Now on C the D&D thing I hear is oh that is a saving throw...which just shows armor as AC doesn't work for this situation and the saving throw approach also ignores the protection (damage reduction) armor can give.

Armor as damage reduction, A, B, C and D are all handled straight up with a single number that provides damage reduction. No need for touch or a saving throw to address these situations. Sounds both simpler and greater verisimilitude to me.

Complexity is also in the eye of the beholder, and I also view it as the level of utility one gets out of the added complexity or the added simplification. I find the "simplicity" and verisimilitude of armor as hit reduction rapidly disappears when take a step away from two armored humans slugging it out.
That's more or less how I see it as well:thumbsup:.
 
Cthulhu Mythos - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
Top