FUDGE Damage Proposal
Peter F. Delaney
1. As it stands, Wound Resistance is not nearly as useful as it should
be. Remember that the way wounds work is a detraction from skills, and
the way it is implemented, no matter how much WR you have if you get it
reduced by a *fixed amount* you are seriously in trouble.
2. To fix this, we could use the multiplication idea proposed earlier.
Set each weapon a "multiplier" for damage. Multiply this by the result
of the combat roll comparison. For example, a knife could be x2,
longsword x4, or whatever. Strength is implemented as a bonus to the
multiplier (probably +0.5 per level above the base).
3. Now, to make WR useful, use it as hit points. Each time you are
hit, WR is reduced by one level for every point that came out of the
multiplication above. Whenever it drops below Poor, it "wraps" back to
its original level, but you take an Actual Wound.
4. Wounds are just like you have them set up -- one gives a -1 to
skills, two a -2, etc. You can set the number of Actual Wounds you
want. I suggest Scratched/-1/-2/Crippled/Unconscious/Dead as the
divisions.
Advantages:
a) This allows larger creatures to have a very high (superhuman) score
in Wound Resistance, a normal attribute. For example, your dragon might
have Wound Resistance (Superb+6). It would be very difficult to wound
this creature!
b) Armor is easy to implement as a bonus to WR that does not go away
from hit to hit.
c) Wounds are now relative to the toughness of a creature, instead of
just relative to the damage of the weapon.
Disadvantages:
a) Weapons would have to be recalibrated. This could actually be an
*advantage*, though, if you include guidelines on tailoring the damage
of weapons to desired lethality.
b) Healing, already problematical, is now made even more complex. How
does the "reduced" WR regenerate? Does it come back at the end of the
round if you are not wounded? Etc.
c) There are three steps to this. (1) Roll and compare, which is sort
of slow; (2) multiply, which is quick; (3) subtract through your Wound
Resistance, which will be slow unless you translate the Wound Resistance
to a number. The old system has only two steps, roll and compare and
then *simple* subtraction. The real difference here is that the
subtraction is of larger numbers with a wrap around effect, so damage
takes a while to compute.
.
Pe+eR Delaney, CMU, Pittburgh, PA ... Compuserve: 73750,3667
Internet: black...@cmu.edu ... Local: pd1x
"I do not question our existence, I only question our modern needs."
-Pearl Jam
Steffan O'Sullivan
>1. As it stands, Wound Resistance is not nearly as useful as it should
>be. Remember that the way wounds work is a detraction from skills, and
>the way it is implemented, no matter how much WR you have if you get it
>reduced by a *fixed amount* you are seriously in trouble.
True, true. However, the proposal you make is a step more complex than
I want FUDGE to be. It's easy to fix subjectively, of course - I'll
have to think on a simple objective fix.
>c) There are three steps to this. (1) Roll and compare, which is sort
>of slow; (2) multiply, which is quick; (3) subtract through your Wound
>Resistance, which will be slow unless you translate the Wound Resistance
>to a number. The old system has only two steps, roll and compare and
>then *simple* subtraction. The real difference here is that the
>subtraction is of larger numbers with a wrap around effect, so damage
>takes a while to compute.
I see your problem with the current system, but I think your suggestion
is a bit too complex. More later, as it incubates in the back of what
passes for a brain over here . . .
--
- Steffan O'Sullivan s...@oz.plymouth.edu
Travis Works
How this for an idea:
Have several levels of damage (Scratched, Hurt, Very Hurt, Crippled, and Dead,
for example). Scratched = no effect, Hurt = -1 to skills, Very Hurt = -2,
Crippled = can't do anything, Dead = dead.
Now for the fun part: assign each wound a Damage Level (from Terrible to
Superb, or whatever range you are using). Then make a roll against the Damage
Level, using Wound Resistance/Constitution, whatever. If you get 2 or more
levels higher than the Damage Level, you are Scratched. If you get within
one level (+/-) of it, you are only Hurt. Two levels below, Very Hurt,
four levels below = Crippled. If you are already wounded, a Hurt result
moves you up one level of damage, a Very Hurt moves you up two, and a Crippled
moves you up three (Scratched is no effect).
Seems like a nice, simple, workable system to me. Comments?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I used to trust the media to tell me | I used to think that only America's
the truth, to tell us the truth | way, our way was right
But now I see the payoffs | But now the holy dollar rules
(.sig reduced to 4 lines)
-Travis Works
gt7...@prism.gatech.edu
--
John H Kim
>Set each weapon a "multiplier" for damage. Multiply this by the result
>Strength is implemented as a bonus to the multiplier...
>
>Each time you are hit, WR is reduced by one level for every point that
>came out of the multiplication above. Whenever it drops below Poor, it
>"wraps" back to its original level, but you take an Actual Wound.
I think this messes with the relative difference between the levels,
however. There is a *huge* (factor of 2) difference between Terrible and
Poor in this system, while there is only a 16% difference between Great
and Superb, for example. If you are going to use levels like this, I suggest
you do not call them by the same names as the attribute levels, since they
work very differently - it is confusing to have to remember that 'Terrible'
in Wound Resistance means something different than, say 'Terrible' in Health.
>
>Advantages:
>This allows larger creatures to have a very high (superhuman) score
>in Wound Resistance, a normal attribute.
Note, however, that this does not allow for beings of sub-Terrible
Wound Resistance. You can say, for example, that for Terrible - 1, the being
takes two wounds for every hit. Still, the level of detail here is very
different than at high WR.
>
>Armor is easy to implement as a bonus to WR that does not go away
>from hit to hit.
I assume by this you mean that armor subtracts a certain amount
from each hit - so each hit is reduced by two, for example?
>
>Disadvantages:
>c) There are three steps to this. (1) Roll and compare, which is sort
>of slow; (2) multiply, which is quick; (3) subtract through your Wound
>Resistance, which will be slow unless you translate the Wound Resistance
>to a number. The old system has only two steps, roll and compare and
>then *simple* subtraction.
Note that it also requires additional tracking of WR *and* wounds
as separate quantities. This is good for those who want greater detail in
their 'hit points', but bad for those who want additional simplicity.
I would like to make a comment about this as compared to my
suggested 'Wounding-as-a-Contest-between-Damage-and-fixed-Wound-Resistance',
where you track wounds separately from WR, which remains constant. This has
the same advantages of handling large creatures and armor simply.
It also handles small creatures with as much detail as large, and
uses *no new mechanics*.
Disadvantages are:
1) It is impossible to track these 'small-scratches-to-large-creatures'
represented by the sliding WR scale. Instead, if you attack a large creature
many times, you have (obviously) an increased chance of causing a light
wound. If you want additional detail in your wounds, you can add 'super-
light wounds' which would have no immediate effect, but can combine to form
light wounds.
2) Another disadvantage is that it does not distinguish between being
bigger, being tougher, and having armor. This is just part of the simplicity
of FUDGE: WR represents as one quality how tough you are to hurt, representing
both size/toughness and hardness of skin.
Someone might complain that a large creature can be nickel-and-dimed
to death, whereas armor can *completely* negate some attacks: mostly light
edged weapons (i.e. razors, etc.). This is to some extent true, but for most
purposes I think this is not important, and can be handled on a case-to-case
basis for the exceptions. For example, armor does *not* completely negate
blunt attacks, heat attacks, etc. It should be possible to nickel-and-dime
an armored fighter with these.
If you want to try to distinguish between these attacks, that's
fine, but I think the system will be a bit too complex for FUDGE.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kim | "ALERT: /Earth is 75% full - please delete
jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu | all extraneous people."
Columbia University |
Steffan O'Sullivan
I'm trying to understand your proposal. It sounds interesting, but I
don't quite get it.
>Now for the fun part: assign each wound a Damage Level (from Terrible to
>Superb, or whatever range you are using).
How is this damage level assigned? Strictly subjectively, or is there an
objective way?
I see that the rest is a simple Unopposed roll, with degree task equal
to the damage level, but specialized results, relative to Hurt. But I
just don't get the first step yet . . .
Peter F. Delaney
> I think this messes with the relative difference between the levels,
> however. There is a *huge* (factor of 2) difference between Terrible and
> Poor in this system, while there is only a 16% difference between Great
> and Superb, for example.
I agree with you, actually. I sent an email message to Steffan about
some of this (less math, though, us psychology types don't deal well
with these number thingies). The purpose of the modified system was to
preserve the names of the levels while making Wound Resistance into
something useful - because as it stood at last revision (haven't yet
seen the 12/12 version) WR was not important except insofar as it
prevented total incapacitation for slightly longer. But it does not
preserve the correct curvature around "average", which makes the system
deficient.
A linear system of "hit points" is better for this, IMO, and easier to
understand. I don't actually like the modified WR system I suggested
very much, and in fact I discarded it while working on UNS as being too
complex and hard to intuitively balance. One of the things that FUDGE
seems to want is a high degree of intuitive understanding - and this WR
system does *not* provide for that.
> Note, however, that this does not allow for beings of sub-Terrible
> Wound Resistance. You can say, for example, that for Terrible - 1, the
> being takes two wounds for every hit. Still, the level of detail here is
> very different than at high WR.
True. But it seems reasonable to expect that the scale will be set up
relative to the "main actors" in the campaign. Detail is likely to be
pretty compressed when stomping ants and hacking up rabbits if you're
human. Either they're unhurt, hurt, or dead (for rabbits) or unhurt or
dead (for ants).
> I assume by this you mean that armor subtracts a certain amount
> from each hit - so each hit is reduced by two, for example?
Sure, sounds like what I had in mind. Of course, you get the same
problem as you noticed before. My leather armor gives a bonus of +1
level, and *wow* I'm mondo if my score is terrible - my WR just
*doubled*! While the same leather armor to someone who's pretty tough
means nothing, nil, niente, nada, rien...
> I would like to make a comment about this as compared to my
> suggested 'Wounding-as-a-Contest-between-Damage-and
>-fixed-Wound-Resistance', where you track wounds separately
> from WR, which remains constant.
Hmm, this sounds nicer. I haven't read your system, unfortunately,
since I'm in the middle of finals right now. But this sounds superior
and simpler.
John H Kim
>> I would like to make a comment about this as compared to my suggested
>
>Hmm, this sounds nicer. I haven't read your system, unfortunately,
>since I'm in the middle of finals right now. But this sounds superior
>and simpler.
That may also be because I didn't detail it because I'm also in
the middle of finals. @-)
The basic idea was pretty much the same as Travis someone-or-other
proposed: Wound Resistance is a constant attribute which represents a
combination of size, toughness, armor, etc. Each attack is given a rating
on the Terrible to Superb scale, and then damage is resolved as a contest
between Damage and Wound Resistance.
The Damage Rating for a given attack will generally have the degree
of success added to it, but not always. For explosions, poison, and others,
there will be no 'hit successes' to base damage off of - they will have a
fixed Damage Rating. (This case is not described by the present FUDGE
'objective damage' system). In general, damage will be determined similarly
to the present system: maybe a base level for type of attack, +/- for Strength
in muscle-powered weapons, and +N for the degree of success of the hit.
The degrees of success for the Damage vs. WR will have a fixed
result: Scratch, Hurt, etc. (as on the subjective damage scale). These will
then be added together by some fixed rules: maybe two wounds of the same type
combine to make a wound of the next higher type, maybe they are just added
up the way wounds are now.
IMO, this has the advantage of more intuitive scaling than either
Peter's or the present FUDGE damage systems, and you don't have to write
down a different damage scale for each Hit Points stat: there is only one
sequence to remember.
We've already discussed the scaling problem in Pete's system. The
present system has a similar weakness. Two people of equal skill with
Terrible Strength and Terrible Hit Points in a slugfest will be unable
to hurt each other: their damage modifier is -4 (-2 for Str, -2 for unarmed
combat), and they can never hit by more than 4. OTOH, two people of equal
skill with Superb Strength and Superb Hit Points will damage each other
fairly quickly. This is not very intuitive.
If you adopt Wound Resistance as described above, then it is very
clear how it scales. Someone with Good WR will take an Good attack the
same way that someone of Fair WR will take a Fair attack.
This introduces more variability into damage than the present system
(since damage is determined by *two* contests), but I don't think that is a
bad thing. I dunno - what do other people think?
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
>Each attack is given a rating
>on the Terrible to Superb scale, and then damage is resolved as a contest
>between Damage and Wound Resistance.
Yes, I had originally put this in the very first version of old SLUG, but
later dropped it as an extra die roll. It also doesn't quite make sense
that someone could hit the same person twice in a row with exactly the
same amount of strength in the blow, have the other person blow their
parry by the same amount, and do 4 points of damage one time and 0 points
another . . .
OTOH, it is elegant . . .
>For explosions, poison, and others,
>there will be no 'hit successes' to base damage off of - they will have a
>fixed Damage Rating. (This case is not described by the present FUDGE
>'objective damage' system).
Okay, thanks, I'll add in a line about such damage.
> We've already discussed the scaling problem in Pete's system. The
>present system has a similar weakness. Two people of equal skill with
>Terrible Strength and Terrible Hit Points in a slugfest will be unable
>to hurt each other: their damage modifier is -4 (-2 for Str, -2 for unarmed
>combat), and they can never hit by more than 4.
Hmm - *could* two such people damage each other?
>OTOH, two people of equal
>skill with Superb Strength and Superb Hit Points will damage each other
>fairly quickly. This is not very intuitive.
As I've said before, this area desperately needs playtesting. I'm not
sure about the "not intuitive" part though - it actually sounds pretty
right on to me.
> This introduces more variability into damage than the present system
>(since damage is determined by *two* contests), but I don't think that is a
>bad thing. I dunno - what do other people think?
I think it may be a bad thing, but am open to discussion. To be honest,
a damage roll is one aspect of *any* RPG that I've never understood - why
should damage be so variable, once you've determined who won the contest
and by how much, and how strong they are, etc.?
John H Kim
>jh...@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (John H Kim) writes:
>>Each attack is given a rating on the Terrible to Superb scale, and then
>>damage is resolved as a contest between Damage and Wound Resistance.
>
>Yes, I had originally put this in the very first version of old SLUG, but
>later dropped it as an extra die roll. It also doesn't quite make sense
>that someone could hit the same person twice in a row with exactly the
>same amount of strength in the blow, have the other person blow their
>parry by the same amount, and do 4 points of damage one time and 0 points
>another . . .
Well, depending on what people think, the Contest part of it can
just be pulled out, and we can just compare directly the values for Damage
and Wound Resistance. This speeds things up, and the Contest can be kept as
an option for more random sorts of damage like falling damage, landslides,
etc. where a hit roll is not involved.
Of course, the Contest can also be kept for those who think that
similar blows always do the same damage.
>
>>Two people of equal skill with Terrible Strength and Terrible Hit Points
>>in a slugfest will be unable to hurt each other: their damage modifier
>>is -4 (-2 for Str, -2 for unarmed combat), and they can never hit by
>>more than 4.
>
>Hmm - *could* two such people damage each other?
Yes, they could, the same way even smaller and weaker creatures can
damage each other, such as munchkins, cats, rabbits, etc. To some degree this
is just an elegance complaint - the system handles larger creatures with more
detail than it handles smaller creatures. I think the easiest way to see this
is to compare a fight between two tigers, two lynxes, and two tomcats.
I think Wound Resistance which accounts for both size and toughness
may be easier to deal with than Hit Points and Armor separately. Again,
something to be playtested, I think.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>>
>>>Two people of equal skill with Terrible Strength and Terrible Hit Points
>>>in a slugfest will be unable to hurt each other: their damage modifier
>>>is -4 (-2 for Str, -2 for unarmed combat), and they can never hit by
>>>more than 4.
>>
>>Hmm - *could* two such people damage each other?
>
> Yes, they could, the same way even smaller and weaker creatures can
>damage each other, such as munchkins, cats, rabbits, etc.
I don't think so, John. What we are talking about are two creatures very
weak *for their size.* The average rabbit is not weak for its size, but
a Terrble Strength rabbit (or human or giant) is. So a Terrible Strength
human could still hurt even a Superbly healthy rabbit, but I'm not sure
how easy it would be for him to hurt a human.
>I think the easiest way to see this
>is to compare a fight between two tigers, two lynxes, and two tomcats.
Right - no problem. But this is different.