Soak, WW, and JLHeinig
brian thomas habing
JLHeinig in a thread on alt.games.whitewolf has claimed that
in WW mortals don't get soak at all, whether it is aggravated
or not.
1) Is this stated in any rule book in print?
2) Is this stated in any FAQ on the website before 6/22/98 when
the thread began?
3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
While it has long been debated multiple times whether or not
mortals can soak agg damage (and was I think clearly shown that
they don't get to in the canonical world of darkness), I don't
ever recall a thread arguing mortals got no soak until this one.
A brief perusal of the write up in Mage and Vampire and Werewolf
all say that the "target" recieves a soak roll with no reference
as to what there species is in regards to normal damage.
The mage FAQ as of 6/22/98 failed to contradict this, addressing
quite specifically only aggravated damage.
4) If this is true, then Stamina has no effect on combats that fail
to last an extended period of time. That is, a punch equally
affects Aunt May and Arnold Swarzanegger as far as what wounded
level it puts them at. Is this a desirable thing? Does it make
sense?
5) If this is true, then in the scene in "A Christmas Story" when
little Ralphie is fighting the bullie... in the world of darkness
the bully would be dead. Period. End of Story. Ralphie could be
expected to make roughly 40% of the single damage rolls on the 20
or so punches he threw (1 str) thus being 8 wound levels. Is this
a desirable thing? Does it make sense?
6) Is there ANY example where denying mortals a soak roll makes more
sense than, or makes the game more fun than, or makes the game more
realistic than, simply altering the difficulty to soak on some attacks?
(That is, some complain a mortal shouldn't be able to shrug off a
shotgun blast... I buy that, why not make it diff 8 or 9 to soak such
an attack? Because denying them a soak altogether gives us a plethora
of examples like the little Ralphie one above.)
In conclusion, I have greatly enjoyed many WW games and products, and
fine the system in general to be very good and require far less tweaking
than many other systems. HOWEVER, at first glance, entirely removing
the soak rolls of mortals against normal damage is the most poorly thought
out, silliest, most game damaging change I have ever seen done to a game
system.
Yes, I know we can choose to ignore that the rule exists (or should I say,
will exist once it actually appears someplace easily accessible to the masses
who don't frequent this newsgroup), but from my current standpoint,
as most of the people playing don't use the new rule (and all that I know
will ignore it) and since it seems to detract from rather than add to the
game, why make the change at all?
I of course reserve the right to grovel an apology should reasonable answers
be given to the six questions above. Until that time however I must conclude
that the mortals not soaking any damage rule is simply inane.
Brian Habing
usually very happy VtM player
who _was_ planning on buying 3rd ed
when it came out, but probably won't
if this rule is included
Deirdre M. Brooks
>1) Is this stated in any rule book in print?
Yes. Yes, it is. Vampire: The Masquerade, First edition. I was actually a
bit surprised to see it change in later rulebooks to allow mortals to have
a soak.
>3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
> While it has long been debated multiple times whether or not
> mortals can soak agg damage (and was I think clearly shown that
> they don't get to in the canonical world of darkness), I don't
> ever recall a thread arguing mortals got no soak until this one.
> A brief perusal of the write up in Mage and Vampire and Werewolf
> all say that the "target" recieves a soak roll with no reference
> as to what there species is in regards to normal damage.
The logic? The logic is that a knife or a gun is deadly to normal people -
I don't allow soaks for this kind of damage unless the target is undead or
has utilized magical protection of some sort - not even for Garou in homid
or lupus.
Consider this may be the result of developer discussion - even if it was
recent.
>4) If this is true, then Stamina has no effect on combats that fail
> to last an extended period of time. That is, a punch equally
> affects Aunt May and Arnold Swarzanegger as far as what wounded
> level it puts them at. Is this a desirable thing? Does it make
> sense?
Not necessarily, esp. if you use 'stun' type damage as per WoD: Combat, in
which case you can apply a soak to punches and other "non-lethal" attacks.
Simple solution, no?
>6) Is there ANY example where denying mortals a soak roll makes more
> sense than, or makes the game more fun than, or makes the game more
> realistic than, simply altering the difficulty to soak on some attacks?
Yes.
My chronicles. They're fun, and they deny mortals soak. Oh, well. Maybe
you're the guy who always asks me why I do that, and if it scares PCs off
from combat... I forget.
> (That is, some complain a mortal shouldn't be able to shrug off a
> shotgun blast... I buy that, why not make it diff 8 or 9 to soak such
> an attack? Because denying them a soak altogether gives us a plethora
> of examples like the little Ralphie one above.)
Not really, because those examples give us solutions such as the one I
outlined above.
>In conclusion, I have greatly enjoyed many WW games and products, and
>fine the system in general to be very good and require far less tweaking
>than many other systems. HOWEVER, at first glance, entirely removing
>the soak rolls of mortals against normal damage is the most poorly thought
>out, silliest, most game damaging change I have ever seen done to a game
>system.
It's not a change. The change was *giving* mortals soak rolls.
If you don't believe me, I will quote the reference.
>Yes, I know we can choose to ignore that the rule exists (or should I say,
>will exist once it actually appears someplace easily accessible to the masses
>who don't frequent this newsgroup), but from my current standpoint,
>as most of the people playing don't use the new rule (and all that I know
>will ignore it) and since it seems to detract from rather than add to the
>game, why make the change at all?
Because it's more realistic, and because it's yet to detract from my
games. Can't speak for anyone else. Really, my enjoyment of a game is not
based in how much punishment a human can absorb before falling over.
Why didn't you post this to a.g.ww?
>I of course reserve the right to grovel an apology should reasonable answers
>be given to the six questions above. Until that time however I must conclude
>that the mortals not soaking any damage rule is simply inane.
And it's unlikely you'll change your mind.
BTW, Final Nights may very well have this rule - but do you really want to
miss out on all of the background stuff because of a sentence, or at most
a paragraph? That seems rather extreme.
man...@geocities.com
In article <6mnh5q$lac$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
hab...@students.uiuc.edu (brian thomas habing) wrote:
<snip of stuff I agree with>
> Yes, I know we can choose to ignore that the rule exists (or should I say,
> will exist once it actually appears someplace easily accessible to the masses
> who don't frequent this newsgroup), but from my current standpoint,
> as most of the people playing don't use the new rule (and all that I know
> will ignore it) and since it seems to detract from rather than add to the
> game, why make the change at all?
>
> I of course reserve the right to grovel an apology should reasonable answers
> be given to the six questions above. Until that time however I must conclude
> that the mortals not soaking any damage rule is simply inane.
>
> Brian Habing
If the stun damage rules from WoD:Combat are used (and stun is kep soakable)
then not allowing mortals soak is OK. What you have in effect is the
bashing/lethal system from Aeon under another name. What route they will take
with 3rd edtition however remains to be seen.
People often criasise the White Wolf mechanics because of the botch
probabilities and high sice pools. IMHO this isn't much of a problem, look at
the figures and its a small blip of a few percent. The problem is that core
rules are left vaugue. Can mortals soak agg? Can they spend Willpower dor
auto successes? Do wound penalties affect soak rolls? Do 1's count on damage
an soak?
These are kwy things that, but no rule book answers these questions clearly
(or consitently between game lines). I have 10 pages of house rules, written
mostly to fill up the gaps White Wolf have left everywhere. Its one thing to
be able to ignore rules you don't like, its another not to have the rules in
the first place. If 3rd ed sort these issues out I will buy it, whatever it
says about mortals and soak. If tis more of the vague stuff, no thanks.
Mant
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
LenaFalk
>In conclusion, I have greatly enjoyed many WW games and products, and
>fine the system in general to be very good and require far less tweaking
>than many other systems. HOWEVER, at first glance, entirely removing
>the soak rolls of mortals against normal damage is the most poorly thought
>out, silliest, most game damaging change I have ever seen done to a game
>system.
I have to agree. Mortals are as given cannon
fodder-ish enough to Mages, Vamps and
Werewolves.
Comeon, give'em a chance ... ;-)
Lena
With a practial standpoint.
____________________
I'm a bitch - I'm a lover
I'm a child - I'm a mother
I'm a sinner - I'm a saint -
I do not feel ashamed
Meredith Brooks
Chris Anthony
xe...@user1.teleport.com (Deirdre M. Brooks) wrote:
> The logic? The logic is that a knife or a gun is deadly to normal people -
> I don't allow soaks for this kind of damage unless the target is undead or
> has utilized magical protection of some sort - not even for Garou in homid
> or lupus.
A knife or gun is generally deadly to your average Level 0 Joe? Probably. But
to someone who's been combat-trained, or has a high resistance to pain, or just
has so much body mass that the chances of the blade or bullet striking something
vital are as close to nil as makes no odds? Not really.
Soak isn't supernatural healing. Soak is moving yourself so that the bullet or
the blade doesn't _quite_ hit you in a vital spot, or rolling with a punch, or
hitting the ground running; it's the ability to let your body take a lot more
punishment than Average Joe could, simply because you know how to take it.
> Because it's more realistic, and because it's yet to detract from my
> games. Can't speak for anyone else. Really, my enjoyment of a game is not
> based in how much punishment a human can absorb before falling over.
I don't know about that. If your Hunters got killed every time they went into a
battle against a super, simply because the supers could take the damage your
Hunters dealt and the Hunters couldn't do diddly about the supers' damage, I
guarantee you'd get immensely frustrated in no time flat.
> Why didn't you post this to a.g.ww?
He did. So did you. So am I, it looks like. Check the header.
Chris Anthony
--
"Everyone here who is actually real, please raise your hand!"
-Simon, "Treasure Box"
sv...@ll.mit.edu
Brian Thomas Habing wrote:
> JLHeinig in a thread on alt.games.whitewolf has claimed that
> in WW mortals don't get soak at all, whether it is aggravated
> or not.
Although it's not 100% obvious, this is definitely implied from the
various texts (qv. "Using armor, mortals may gain a soak roll," "Using
vulgar magic, mortals may soak [aggravated?] damage," etc.)
> 3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
I don't think it was ever taken away, exactly -- just not made clear
that it was never there in the first place.
I have always gone for the halfway solution proposed by _Aeon_ (yes,
_Aeon_, not _Trinity_, damn your bones) -- categorize damage as 'bash'
(blunt trauma) versus 'lethal' (hack/slash/pierce/electrical/fire/etc.),
and assign soak (or lack thereof) accordingly. It seems to work very
well, giving supernaturals a definite edge, but not a ridiculous one
(after all, shooting mortals probably should at least seriously
inconvenience them, but punching them once or twice might not).
-- S. Skoog
brian thomas habing
xe...@user1.teleport.com (Deirdre M. Brooks) writes:
>>1) Is this stated in any rule book in print?
>Yes. Yes, it is. Vampire: The Masquerade, First edition. I was actually a
>bit surprised to see it change in later rulebooks to allow mortals to have
>a soak.
V:tM 1st edition is not a book in print. In fact it has been superceded
by _ALL_ of the rule books that follow it, _ALL_ of which (and there FAQs)
contradict it.
>>3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
>The logic? The logic is that a knife or a gun is deadly to normal people -
>I don't allow soaks for this kind of damage unless the target is undead or
>has utilized magical protection of some sort - not even for Garou in homid
>or lupus.
Even with 2 or 3 soak dice from an average stamina, knives and guns are
still hideously bad for mortals. What this rule says, is that if something
in human form gets in combat with a vamp or garou, in essence they are
instantly dead. Period. End of discussion. Do not pass go. Do not
collect 200 dollars.
>Consider this may be the result of developer discussion - even if it was
>recent.
I would be curious to know what they would have been saying that would have
gone against the experience of what seems from past threads to be a
majority of this newsgroup, all of the players I know personally, and
(since most players presumably use the books as written) the vast majority
of players out there.
>>4) If this is true, then Stamina has no effect on combats that fail
>> to last an extended period of time. That is, a punch equally
>> affects Aunt May and Arnold Swarzanegger as far as what wounded
>> level it puts them at. Is this a desirable thing? Does it make
>> sense?
>Not necessarily, esp. if you use 'stun' type damage as per WoD: Combat, in
>which case you can apply a soak to punches and other "non-lethal" attacks.
>Simple solution, no?
So in order to do basic combat and to stop tens of millions of children
from dying in playground fistfights we need to buy an optional combat
supplement?
Where is the division between lethal and non-lethal? Is a baseball bat
lethal or non-lethal? A sap? I don't own the combat book so would
be curious to know.
Additionally, if you could finish answering the above question, does it
make sense that a knife attack would put both Aunt May and Arnold
Swarzanegger at the same wounded level?
>>6) Is there ANY example where denying mortals a soak roll makes more
>> sense than, or makes the game more fun than, or makes the game more
>> realistic than, simply altering the difficulty to soak on some attacks?
>Yes.
>My chronicles. They're fun, and they deny mortals soak. Oh, well. Maybe
>you're the guy who always asks me why I do that, and if it scares PCs off
>from combat... I forget.
Your chronciles feature people who obviously don't want combat in there
games. What you are saying is that NO ONE should be able to run a mortal
game in which combat occurs, without having to resort to house rules.
>>In conclusion, I have greatly enjoyed many WW games and products, and
>>fine the system in general to be very good and require far less tweaking
>>than many other systems. HOWEVER, at first glance, entirely removing
>>the soak rolls of mortals against normal damage is the most poorly thought
>>out, silliest, most game damaging change I have ever seen done to a game
>>system.
>It's not a change. The change was *giving* mortals soak rolls.
Yes, you are quite right, it is a change from a rule book that is
now around a decade old and that the _VAST_ majority of V:tM players
have never seen. It is not a change from the rules that most people
know and probably play by.
>If you don't believe me, I will quote the reference.
I do believe you. Unfortunately you seem to be ignoring the practice in
virtually every field of human endeavor that the latest version is the
one that is "official".
>>Yes, I know we can choose to ignore that the rule exists (or should I say,
>>will exist once it actually appears someplace easily accessible to the masses
>>who don't frequent this newsgroup), but from my current standpoint,
>>as most of the people playing don't use the new rule (and all that I know
>>will ignore it) and since it seems to detract from rather than add to the
>>game, why make the change at all?
>Because it's more realistic, and because it's yet to detract from my
>games. Can't speak for anyone else. Really, my enjoyment of a game is not
>based in how much punishment a human can absorb before falling over.
You don't mind because you don't want combat to play any part of your games.
You are actually saying that your mortal characters with a soak roll
wouldn't be scared to death of fighting a vamp anyway? That they were to
eager to rush into combat even when they have a soak roll?
Some people actually like the mortal characters to be worthwhile antagonists
or characters in games tha don't totally sun combat. I'm sorry that
you can't seem to grasp that there exist people who actually like combat
in there games (or if you do grasp that, want to make the rules so that
they cannot do so.)
>Why didn't you post this to a.g.ww?
I did. I crossposted it to both groups.
>>I of course reserve the right to grovel an apology should reasonable answers
>>be given to the six questions above. Until that time however I must conclude
>>that the mortals not soaking any damage rule is simply inane.
>And it's unlikely you'll change your mind.
I may do so if the 'optional' rules in the combat book (which i haven't seen,
and so am going by what you have said) are included in the game. And you
_certainly_ do not seem likely to change your mind to allow that combat might
be a valid part of some peoples games involving mortals.
>BTW, Final Nights may very well have this rule - but do you really want to
>miss out on all of the background stuff because of a sentence, or at most
I have spent a lot of time working up my _own_ background to the WoD and
while I certainly enjoy the ideas in many of the WoD books as they pertain
to history and the like, I have no intention of rewriting the last x-years
of my campaign to allow me to use someone elses ideas at the expense of my
own.
On the other hand I was greatly looking forward to a book that condensed
the material no scattered throughout 4 or 5 V:tM books and that cleaned up
various holes and mistakes in said rules.
One of the most common 'house rules' that is discussed on the newsgroup, is
whether or not mortals and non-fortitude vampires should be able to soak
aggravated! And yet it appears the rule they are going to put in, in fact
goes in the opposite direction!?!? If this is an example of the kind of
fixes that they are going to be incorporating, then the book has absolutely
no value to me.
Brian habing
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Dr Manluv
Actually, humans do get a soak roll, even a brief perusal of the rules will
tell you so. Yes, the core rules would allow Ralphie to murder the Bully
::Ralphie, roll Conscience, please!::
In the Wold of Darkness supplement, Combat, they split the difference of
damage between Bashing (ie fisticuffs) and Lethal (ie bullets). While you can
kill someone by beating them to death, under these rules it would be a lot more
difficult.
Triniy actually incorporates this idea wholesale and goes further to state
that a normal human cannot soak Lethal hits without some form of armor or other
protection.
In closing, Ralphie, under a sane rules system, can eventually beat the Bully
to death but not before he gets pulled off of him and people can't get hit in
the chest by a bullet, sit up & say "Ow! That'll leave a mark!"
Brian Thomas Habing
sv...@ll.mit.edu writes:
>> JLHeinig in a thread on alt.games.whitewolf has claimed that
>> in WW mortals don't get soak at all, whether it is aggravated
>> or not.
>Although it's not 100% obvious, this is definitely implied from the
>various texts (qv. "Using armor, mortals may gain a soak roll," "Using
>vulgar magic, mortals may soak [aggravated?] damage," etc.)
Except where the books are quie clear going the other way.
See for example the wraith book page 233, and the mage book pg 257
as quoted in another post by Mant.
>> 3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
>I don't think it was ever taken away, exactly -- just not made clear
>that it was never there in the first place.
See the above two quotes as the first part of contradicting you.
Also see the Mage FAQ on the WW homepage that says that mages cannot
soak aggravated damage. It seems very odd to have to say this if they
normally get no soak at all? doesn't it?
Additionally see the questions then regarding mummies and ghouls...
>I have always gone for the halfway solution proposed by _Aeon_ (yes,
>_Aeon_, not _Trinity_, damn your bones) -- categorize damage as 'bash'
>(blunt trauma) versus 'lethal' (hack/slash/pierce/electrical/fire/etc.),
>and assign soak (or lack thereof) accordingly. It seems to work very
>well, giving supernaturals a definite edge, but not a ridiculous one
>(after all, shooting mortals probably should at least seriously
> inconvenience them, but punching them once or twice might not).
I would be perhaps amenable to allowing mortals a soak on non-lethal
damage and not on the rest (as was pointed out in Deirdre Brooks post
recommending using that rool from WoD combat)... however,
Jess Heinig's post in fact even over rules that (except as she notes
if you choose to use a 'house rule') by saying that mortals don't get
to soak at all.
> -- S. Skoog
Brian
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Andrew Bates
Brian Thomas Habing wrote:
>
> sv...@ll.mit.edu writes:
>
> >I have always gone for the halfway solution proposed by _Aeon_ (yes,
> >_Aeon_, not _Trinity_, damn your bones) -- categorize damage as 'bash'
> >(blunt trauma) versus 'lethal' (hack/slash/pierce/electrical/fire/etc.),
> >and assign soak (or lack thereof) accordingly.
>
> damage and not on the rest (as was pointed out in Deirdre Brooks post
> recommending using that rool from WoD combat)... however,
> Jess Heinig's post in fact even over rules that (except as she notes
> if you choose to use a 'house rule') by saying that mortals don't get
> to soak at all.
As the WoD rules stand currently, it is implied that mortals get no soak
at all. (Of course, developers can lay down the law for their own lines
-- I was lucky enough to get to revise Storyteller somewhat for Trinity
and put it in writing, and a little bird told me there are some rules
clarifications in the upcoming Vampire 3rd.)
But inevitably, the Golden Rule rears its ugly head once again: modify
the rules how you like to make it work for your game.
Bates
...watching in awe as the Golden Rule, mutated by radiation to gigantic
size, stomps through New York City and makes sure to wreck the hell out
of the Chrysler Building...
roooaar!
________________________________________
Andrew Bates
Trinity Developer
aba...@white-wolf.com
White Wolf Publishing, Inc.
<http:www.white-wolf.com>
Brian Thomas Habing
Andrew Bates <aba...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>As the WoD rules stand currently, it is implied that mortals get no soak
>at all.
I keep hearing this, but would like to know where in Mage 2nd Ed,
V:tM 2nd Ed, WtA 2nd Ed this is even implied? A reading of those
three books seems to imply just the opposite... and another poster has
posted a quote directly contradiciting this from Wraith even (although
I haven't checked that my self.) Additionally the Mage FAQ leaves the
distinct impression that they do indeed soak non-ag damage as it specifically
goes out of its way to say they don't soak ag.
(Of course, developers can lay down the law for their own lines
>-- I was lucky enough to get to revise Storyteller somewhat for Trinity
>and put it in writing, and a little bird told me there are some rules
>clarifications in the upcoming Vampire 3rd.)
So little Ralphie in "A Christmas Story" does indeed kill the bully
in the beating seen since the bully gets no soak from the flurry of
20 or so 1 die damage punches? (or should the utter lack of soak
be modified to discriminate between lethal and non-lethal damage?
and if this is the case, wouldn't saying so in these posts eliminate
a lot of confusion for those of us reading them?)
>But inevitably, the Golden Rule rears its ugly head once again: modify
>the rules how you like to make it work for your game.
Oh, most definately, but somehow the image of little Ralphie rotting in
a WoD prison compels me to write and voice my displeasure.
>Bates
Brian Habing
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Raindog
In article <358fa07d...@news.abs.net>,
Chris Anthony <ant...@earlham.com> wrote:
> A knife or gun is generally deadly to your average Level 0 Joe?
> Probably. But to someone who's been combat-trained, or has a high
> resistance to pain, or just has so much body mass that the chances
> of the blade or bullet striking something vital are as close to nil
> as makes no odds? Not really.
The World of Darkness is horror genre, not action genre. Damage
to mortals who aren't part of the Unseen World works just like it does
in the real world. And in the real world, I'm sorry to inform you,
humans are *exceedingly* fragile. Regardless of your ability to take a
fist to the face and laugh off the superficial damage (which will
probably heal inside a week, don't make any dates) a punctured lung
is gonna fuck your day up.
> Soak isn't supernatural healing. Soak is moving yourself so that
> the bullet or >the blade doesn't _quite_ hit you in a vital spot,
> or rolling with a punch, or >hitting the ground running; it's the
> ability to let your body take a lot more >punishment than Average
> Joe could, simply because you know how to take it.
You can 'take' a punch or a kick. You might even be able to
'take' a baseball bat. I've never seen someone take a bat or a pickaxe
handle to the side of the head and shake it off, but it's possible.
Note that taking punishment is by no means fun. You look like a side of
cubesteak and feel like shit afterwards, and if you do it for too long,
you you turn into a middle-aged boxer, complete with the obligatory
brain damage.
You cannot, however, 'take' a knife, axe or sword blow, nor can
you 'take' a bullet. If you get hit, you get hurt. Really hurt. Like,
'taking body levels' hurt. If you're lucky (he rolls badly on damage)
it may just be shallow. If you are unlucky, you die. Hence the reason
police are eager to wear bulletproof vests.
>I don't know about that. If your Hunters got killed every time they
>went into a >battle against a super, simply because the supers could
>take the damage your >Hunters dealt and the Hunters couldn't do
>diddly about the supers' damage, I >guarantee you'd get immensely
>frustrated in no time flat.
I think Dierdre (sorry, I know I'm missing your apostrophe, D.)
has made it clear that in fact she does not get immensely frustrated.
Smart Hunters don't try to go toe-to-toe against the Unseen becuase
most supernaturals are engines of nigh-unstoppable destruction. Sure,
the /shih/ do it, but they're supernatural creatures themselves.
G.
--
|Geoffrey C. Grabowski | Freelance JOAT-A | rai...@io.com | Swing Heil!|
"Make sure they play my theme song, I guess daisies'll have to do
Just get me to New Orleans and paint shadows on the pews
Turn the spit on that pig, kick the drum and let me down
Put my clarinet beneath your bed till I get back in town."
--Tom Waits, "Tango Till They're Sore"
--------------------- http://www.io.com/~raindog/ -----------------------
Brian Thomas Habing
rai...@eyrie.org (Raindog) writes:
>> Soak isn't supernatural healing. Soak is moving yourself so that
>> the bullet or >the blade doesn't _quite_ hit you in a vital spot,
>> or rolling with a punch, or >hitting the ground running; it's the
>> ability to let your body take a lot more >punishment than Average
>> Joe could, simply because you know how to take it.
> You can 'take' a punch or a kick. You might even be able to
>'take' a baseball bat. I've never seen someone take a bat or a pickaxe
>handle to the side of the head and shake it off, but it's possible.
>Note that taking punishment is by no means fun. You look like a side of
>cubesteak and feel like shit afterwards, and if you do it for too long,
>you you turn into a middle-aged boxer, complete with the obligatory
>brain damage.
The rules as quoted by the design staff thus far do not take this into
account. Little Ralphi in the Christmas Story is a murderer because
the bully gets "no soak period", not "no soak against lethal damage."
> You cannot, however, 'take' a knife, axe or sword blow, nor can
>you 'take' a bullet. If you get hit, you get hurt. Really hurt. Like,
>'taking body levels' hurt. If you're lucky (he rolls badly on damage)
>it may just be shallow. If you are unlucky, you die. Hence the reason
>police are eager to wear bulletproof vests.
So philosophically, what makes more sense, the damage being random and
the targets physical shape having no influence at all? or the damage
being fixed as determined by the successes to hit and the condition
of the target having some effect on how bad that is?
At present, under the "no soak." Stamina has no impact at all on combat.
>>I don't know about that. If your Hunters got killed every time they
>>went into a >battle against a super, simply because the supers could
>>take the damage your >Hunters dealt and the Hunters couldn't do
>>diddly about the supers' damage, I >guarantee you'd get immensely
>>frustrated in no time flat.
> I think Dierdre (sorry, I know I'm missing your apostrophe, D.)
>has made it clear that in fact she does not get immensely frustrated.
>Smart Hunters don't try to go toe-to-toe against the Unseen becuase
>most supernaturals are engines of nigh-unstoppable destruction. Sure,
>the /shih/ do it, but they're supernatural creatures themselves.
Where does it say Shih get soak? What about Mummies? Aren't they just
mortal bodies like mages?
And _EVEN WITH SOAK_ vamps and garou kick mortals asses. There is a
significant difference however between.
"The vampires blow crushes your arm, you stagger back, unable to feel
that side of your body, please roll willpower to maintain consiousness
and aim your gun."
and
"The vampires first action kills your character Kenny, please start making
up your next hunter. (Split die pool, two three die attacks, potence base
of three dmg each,... no soak.) The first celerity die pool does the same to
your char Sarah, and the second celerity die pool does the same to yours Bob."
> G.
Brian
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
be...@malcop.u-net.com
>> Soak isn't supernatural healing. Soak is moving yourself so that
>> the bullet or >the blade doesn't _quite_ hit you in a vital spot,
>> or rolling with a punch, or >hitting the ground running; it's the
>> ability to let your body take a lot more >punishment than Average
>> Joe could, simply because you know how to take it.
>
> You can 'take' a punch or a kick. You might even be able to
>'take' a baseball bat. I've never seen someone take a bat or a pickaxe
>handle to the side of the head and shake it off, but it's possible.
>Note that taking punishment is by no means fun. You look like a side of
>cubesteak and feel like shit afterwards, and if you do it for too long,
>you you turn into a middle-aged boxer, complete with the obligatory
>brain damage.
> You cannot, however, 'take' a knife, axe or sword blow, nor can
>you 'take' a bullet. If you get hit, you get hurt. Really hurt. Like,
>'taking body levels' hurt. If you're lucky (he rolls badly on damage)
>it may just be shallow. If you are unlucky, you die. Hence the reason
>police are eager to wear bulletproof vests.
Soak is about not getting the damage in the first place, armour adds
to your soak roll. I would actually say it's easier to soak certain
sorts of blade damage than impact damage because the skin is tougher
than a lot of people realise.
For example... A. knifes B. he hits and rolls enough damage to hit
something vital. B rolls Stamina and gets one success. The knife
hits a bone, gets embedded in tough muscle. Either way doesn't reach
its target... Different people can take different amounts of
punishment and impact damage can't be blocked quite the same way...
it's simple physical toughness
>>I don't know about that. If your Hunters got killed every time they
>>went into a >battle against a super, simply because the supers could
>>take the damage your >Hunters dealt and the Hunters couldn't do
>>diddly about the supers' damage, I >guarantee you'd get immensely
>>frustrated in no time flat.
>
> I think Dierdre (sorry, I know I'm missing your apostrophe, D.)
>has made it clear that in fact she does not get immensely frustrated.
>Smart Hunters don't try to go toe-to-toe against the Unseen becuase
>most supernaturals are engines of nigh-unstoppable destruction. Sure,
>the /shih/ do it, but they're supernatural creatures themselves.
I wouldn't play a mortal at all if that was the case because the fact
that if you are physically tough you don't take as much injury as
someone who isn't is a fact. It's harder for a knife to pass through
hardened muscle than flab and soak is a measure of that.(I don't know
about bullets but certainly they hit bone sometime). Certainly the
difficulty should be higher but it shouldn't be impossible.
Becka
Rebecca Sutton
be...@malcop.u-net.com
http://www.malcop.u-net.com
Deirdre M. Brooks
>xe...@user1.teleport.com (Deirdre M. Brooks) wrote:
>> The logic? The logic is that a knife or a gun is deadly to normal people -
>> I don't allow soaks for this kind of damage unless the target is undead or
>> has utilized magical protection of some sort - not even for Garou in homid
>> or lupus.
>A knife or gun is generally deadly to your average Level 0 Joe? Probably. But
>to someone who's been combat-trained, or has a high resistance to pain, or just
>has so much body mass that the chances of the blade or bullet striking
>something vital are as close to nil as makes no odds? Not really.
Large Size merit takes care of one of your statements, I believe. High
resistance to pain is covered by Stamina, although not in the manner you
think: if you take damage exceeding your Stamina, you can be stunned.
>Soak isn't supernatural healing. Soak is moving yourself so that the bullet or
>the blade doesn't _quite_ hit you in a vital spot, or rolling with a punch, or
>hitting the ground running; it's the ability to let your body take a lot more
>punishment than Average Joe could, simply because you know how to take it.
Soak is supernatural resilience. What you describe is "dodge." It
subtracts successes from your opponent's attack.
>> Because it's more realistic, and because it's yet to detract from my
>> games. Can't speak for anyone else. Really, my enjoyment of a game is not
>> based in how much punishment a human can absorb before falling over.
>I don't know about that. If your Hunters got killed every time they
>went into a battle against a super, simply because the supers could take
>the damage your Hunters dealt and the Hunters couldn't do diddly about
>the supers' damage, I guarantee you'd get immensely frustrated in no
>time flat.
If you're going into battle against a super in such a manner that they get
ample opportunity to fight back, you're doing it wrong.
Jess Heinig
> >> in WW mortals don't get soak at all, whether it is aggravated
> >> or not.
>
> >Although it's not 100% obvious, this is definitely implied from the
> >various texts (qv. "Using armor, mortals may gain a soak roll," "Using
> >vulgar magic, mortals may soak [aggravated?] damage," etc.)
>
> Except where the books are quie clear going the other way.
>
> See for example the wraith book page 233, and the mage book pg 257
> as quoted in another post by Mant.
>
> >> 3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
>
> >I don't think it was ever taken away, exactly -- just not made clear
> >that it was never there in the first place.
>
> See the above two quotes as the first part of contradicting you.
>
> Also see the Mage FAQ on the WW homepage that says that mages cannot
> soak aggravated damage. It seems very odd to have to say this if they
> normally get no soak at all? doesn't it?
>
> Additionally see the questions then regarding mummies and ghouls...
>
> >_Aeon_, not _Trinity_, damn your bones) -- categorize damage as 'bash'
> >(blunt trauma) versus 'lethal' (hack/slash/pierce/electrical/fire/etc.),
> >well, giving supernaturals a definite edge, but not a ridiculous one
> >(after all, shooting mortals probably should at least seriously
> > inconvenience them, but punching them once or twice might not).
>
> damage and not on the rest (as was pointed out in Deirdre Brooks post
> recommending using that rool from WoD combat)... however,
> Jess Heinig's post in fact even over rules that (except as she notes
> if you choose to use a 'house rule') by saying that mortals don't get
> to soak at all.
>
Wow. What a long post.
Like I said, if you wanna give mortals a soak, do it. The core
assumption here is that mortals can't soak damage. I do in fact like
Bates' Trinity ruling that allows a classification of "bashing" damage,
so that mortals can take punches but not, say, knives and bullets; if
you have Trinity, you can easily use those rules. If you don't, then
what are you waiting for? Go out and buy it!
Cheers,
Jess Heinig
WWGS
Deirdre M. Brooks
>xe...@user1.teleport.com (Deirdre M. Brooks) writes:
>>>1) Is this stated in any rule book in print?
>>Yes. Yes, it is. Vampire: The Masquerade, First edition. I was actually a
>>bit surprised to see it change in later rulebooks to allow mortals to have
>>a soak.
>V:tM 1st edition is not a book in print. In fact it has been superceded
>by _ALL_ of the rule books that follow it, _ALL_ of which (and there FAQs)
>contradict it.
The "in print" didn't register as it was somewhere between three and four
am, I'm sorry.
>Even with 2 or 3 soak dice from an average stamina, knives and guns are
>still hideously bad for mortals. What this rule says, is that if something
>in human form gets in combat with a vamp or garou, in essence they are
>instantly dead. Period. End of discussion. Do not pass go. Do not
>collect 200 dollars.
And this is different from genre conventions in *what* way? In any event,
except with high potence characters, I've very rarely seen any instant
kill shots.
>I would be curious to know what they would have been saying that would have
>gone against the experience of what seems from past threads to be a
>majority of this newsgroup, all of the players I know personally, and
>(since most players presumably use the books as written) the vast majority
>of players out there.
We know different players.
>>Not necessarily, esp. if you use 'stun' type damage as per WoD: Combat, in
>>which case you can apply a soak to punches and other "non-lethal" attacks.
>>Simple solution, no?
>So in order to do basic combat and to stop tens of millions of children
>from dying in playground fistfights we need to buy an optional combat
>supplement?
You're trying to build a straw man, yes?
>Where is the division between lethal and non-lethal? Is a baseball bat
>lethal or non-lethal? A sap? I don't own the combat book so would
>be curious to know.
I would imagine that's your decision. My own is generally that most clubs
aren't lethal.
>Additionally, if you could finish answering the above question, does it
>make sense that a knife attack would put both Aunt May and Arnold
>Swarzanegger at the same wounded level?
Yes, but Arnold might be able to stay on his feet longer - one of the many
uses of Stamina outside soaking - presuming he isn't stabbed again and
again.
>>Yes.
>>My chronicles. They're fun, and they deny mortals soak. Oh, well. Maybe
>>you're the guy who always asks me why I do that, and if it scares PCs off
>>from combat... I forget.
>Your chronciles feature people who obviously don't want combat in there
>games. What you are saying is that NO ONE should be able to run a mortal
>game in which combat occurs, without having to resort to house rules.
No, what I said was that *I* prefer these house rules because they make
more sense to me. Nor have I indicated a lack of combat in my games.
I have indicated that the players are more cautious about starting a fight
than they used to be, which is fine with me. I mean, I was tired of them
running up the barrels of technocrat guns and into the clawed hands of
HITMarks and completely soaking .50 caliber bullets.
There's drama, and then there's slapstick.
>>It's not a change. The change was *giving* mortals soak rolls.
>Yes, you are quite right, it is a change from a rule book that is
>now around a decade old and that the _VAST_ majority of V:tM players
>have never seen. It is not a change from the rules that most people
>know and probably play by.
Six years old, if that's around a decade I suppose you count in base six?
>>Because it's more realistic, and because it's yet to detract from my
>>games. Can't speak for anyone else. Really, my enjoyment of a game is not
>>based in how much punishment a human can absorb before falling over.
>You don't mind because you don't want combat to play any part of your games.
You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means. I don't want combat to *dominate* my games. I don't want the PCs to
start a fight every time things look slightly bad - which they did. You
know that character in "Things to do in Denver When You're Dead?" The one
who always fucked things up and started gunfights? Half the PCs were like
that.
>You are actually saying that your mortal characters with a soak roll
>wouldn't be scared to death of fighting a vamp anyway? That they were to
>eager to rush into combat even when they have a soak roll?
Yes, yes they were. They were willing to start a fight with *anything*.
>Some people actually like the mortal characters to be worthwhile antagonists
>or characters in games tha don't totally sun combat. I'm sorry that
>you can't seem to grasp that there exist people who actually like combat
>in there games (or if you do grasp that, want to make the rules so that
>they cannot do so.)
Now you're applying motives where they do not exist. My only concern is
that my game is fun, and whatever anyone else does is fine. If you want
mortals walking the streets bouncing bullets, go for it. I don't care. I
do like the idea that the ST system is more dangerous for mortals than I
thought it was, but that's just my own opinion.
You don't seem to grasp that mortals can be worthwhile characters or
antagonists without an automatic soak roll, which seems to me that the
only method of confrontation you can imagine is combat. I'm probably
wrong, but the general flavor of your posts suggests otherwise.
>>And it's unlikely you'll change your mind.
>I may do so if the 'optional' rules in the combat book (which i haven't seen,
>and so am going by what you have said) are included in the game. And you
>_certainly_ do not seem likely to change your mind to allow that combat might
>be a valid part of some peoples games involving mortals.
This is the third time you've said this: Repeating it over and over does
not make it true. I find combat to be quite valid. I don't find a
character who starts a fight every time things look remotely bad to be
realistic.
>One of the most common 'house rules' that is discussed on the newsgroup, is
>whether or not mortals and non-fortitude vampires should be able to soak
>aggravated! And yet it appears the rule they are going to put in, in fact
>goes in the opposite direction!?!? If this is an example of the kind of
>fixes that they are going to be incorporating, then the book has absolutely
>no value to me.
Even though it's fairly clear in VtM:2 that you can't soak aggravated
without fortitude?
>Brian habing
>hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Deirdre M. Brooks
> I think Dierdre (sorry, I know I'm missing your apostrophe, D.)
>has made it clear that in fact she does not get immensely frustrated.
>Smart Hunters don't try to go toe-to-toe against the Unseen becuase
>most supernaturals are engines of nigh-unstoppable destruction. Sure,
>the /shih/ do it, but they're supernatural creatures themselves.
Precisely.
Most of the players don't get frustrated - they take measures (get armor,
use Life 3, what-have-you...)
Brian Thomas Habing
xe...@user1.teleport.com (Deirdre M. Brooks) writes:
>Soak is supernatural resilience.
Not according to a direct quote from the mage book as
given by another poster... there the word natural was
explicitly used iirc.
-Brian
Brian Thomas Habing
xe...@user1.teleport.com (Deirdre M. Brooks) writes:
***apology in advance for inferring that you ran a totally no
combat game!!! replace that as curiosity as to how anyone
possibly lives through such an incident :-) ***
>>V:tM 1st edition is not a book in print. In fact it has been superceded
>>by _ALL_ of the rule books that follow it, _ALL_ of which (and there FAQs)
>>contradict it.
>The "in print" didn't register as it was somewhere between three and four
>am, I'm sorry.
S'okay :-)
>>Even with 2 or 3 soak dice from an average stamina, knives and guns are
>>still hideously bad for mortals. What this rule says, is that if something
>>in human form gets in combat with a vamp or garou, in essence they are
>>instantly dead. Period. End of discussion. Do not pass go. Do not
>>collect 200 dollars.
>And this is different from genre conventions in *what* way? In any event,
>except with high potence characters, I've very rarely seen any instant
>kill shots.
You don't that high of a potence. Two attacks from a char with three
potence = death when there is no soak.... but I see your point.
>>>Not necessarily, esp. if you use 'stun' type damage as per WoD: Combat, in
>>>which case you can apply a soak to punches and other "non-lethal" attacks.
>>>Simple solution, no?
>>So in order to do basic combat and to stop tens of millions of children
>>from dying in playground fistfights we need to buy an optional combat
>>supplement?
>You're trying to build a straw man, yes?
Did I succeed? Shouldn't the rules be able to deal with the obvious
straw men? I will point out that the posts by the WW staff have yet
to say "No soak against inherently lethal damage." They have said
"No soak period." If they meant punches could be soaked, then that
certainly changes things... but they haven't said that.
>>Where is the division between lethal and non-lethal? Is a baseball bat
>>lethal or non-lethal? A sap? I don't own the combat book so would
>>be curious to know.
>I would imagine that's your decision. My own is generally that most clubs
>aren't lethal.
Was just wondering if the rules said one way or the other... anyone
out there have a copy of the combat book handy to look it up.
>>Your chronciles feature people who obviously don't want combat in there
>>games. What you are saying is that NO ONE should be able to run a mortal
>>game in which combat occurs, without having to resort to house rules.
>No, what I said was that *I* prefer these house rules because they make
>more sense to me. Nor have I indicated a lack of combat in my games.
Ok. Thanks for the clarification.
>I have indicated that the players are more cautious about starting a fight
>than they used to be, which is fine with me. I mean, I was tired of them
>running up the barrels of technocrat guns and into the clawed hands of
>HITMarks and completely soaking .50 caliber bullets.
Ah... that would make things ugly! Wouldn't making the soak difficulty
for such bullets be 8 or 9 solve that?
As I asked in another post though... I am now curious as to what is more
logical...
i) After already having hit, the attacker has to roll damage based on the
type of weapon used and the effect completely ignores the targets stamina
or
ii) After having been hit by a weapon that has a fixed damage, the target
rolls a soak whose difficulty is based on the attack and whose die pool
is based on the targets stamina.
>There's drama, and then there's slapstick.
Quite true. Thousands of playground deaths are also a gruesome form
of slapstick.
>>Yes, you are quite right, it is a change from a rule book that is
>>now around a decade old and that the _VAST_ majority of V:tM players
>>have never seen. It is not a change from the rules that most people
>>know and probably play by.
>Six years old, if that's around a decade I suppose you count in base six?
Ok... ammend the above to six and reread it :-)
>>You are actually saying that your mortal characters with a soak roll
>>wouldn't be scared to death of fighting a vamp anyway? That they were to
>>eager to rush into combat even when they have a soak roll?
>Yes, yes they were. They were willing to start a fight with *anything*.
Wow... I can see how that would change things....
>Now you're applying motives where they do not exist. My only concern is
>that my game is fun, and whatever anyone else does is fine. If you want
>mortals walking the streets bouncing bullets, go for it. I don't care. I
>do like the idea that the ST system is more dangerous for mortals than I
>thought it was, but that's just my own opinion.
I apologize for applying motives that you did not have.
>You don't seem to grasp that mortals can be worthwhile characters or
>antagonists without an automatic soak roll, which seems to me that the
>only method of confrontation you can imagine is combat. I'm probably
>wrong, but the general flavor of your posts suggests otherwise.
It appears that I seem as combat oriented then as you do non-combat
oriented I guess... most of my games don't have it happen an incredible
amount of time... :::shrugs::: somehow though, I like the X-files more
with Mulder and Scully still being alive.... :-)
>>I may do so if the 'optional' rules in the combat book (which i haven't seen,
>>and so am going by what you have said) are included in the game.
>>One of the most common 'house rules' that is discussed on the newsgroup, is
>>whether or not mortals and non-fortitude vampires should be able to soak
>>aggravated! And yet it appears the rule they are going to put in, in fact
>>goes in the opposite direction!?!? If this is an example of the kind of
>>fixes that they are going to be incorporating, then the book has absolutely
>>no value to me.
>Even though it's fairly clear in VtM:2 that you can't soak aggravated
>without fortitude?
Yes. Because in the opinions of everyone in my play group is that it makes
it absolutely totally insane for anyone without fortitude and claws (or a
lupine) to enter into combat. Not that it should be a nice happy experience,
but saying "the gangrel wins" seems a bit harsh....
Brian habing
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Brian Thomas Habing
Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> writes:
> Like I said, if you wanna give mortals a soak, do it. The core
>assumption here is that mortals can't soak damage.
Like I said, why would the design staff want little Ralphie to be
a murderer because he punched the bully a dozen and a half times?
>I do in fact like
>Bates' Trinity ruling that allows a classification of "bashing" damage,
>so that mortals can take punches but not, say, knives and bullets; if
>you have Trinity, you can easily use those rules. If you don't, then
>what are you waiting for? Go out and buy it!
Ah to have the money to get every good product out there.
So, is it likely that V:tM 3rd will have the "non-lethal" damage rule?
and actually say somewhere that Mortals don't get a soak?
By the way, because it isn't said enough probably, in spite of the
above gripes, I really do appreciate all the effort you folks put in!
>Cheers,
>Jess Heinig
>WWGS
Brian
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
be...@malcop.u-net.com
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:33:04 -0500, Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com>
wrote:
> Wow. What a long post.
>
> Like I said, if you wanna give mortals a soak, do it. The core
>assumption here is that mortals can't soak damage. I do in fact like
>Bates' Trinity ruling that allows a classification of "bashing" damage,
>so that mortals can take punches but not, say, knives and bullets; if
>you have Trinity, you can easily use those rules. If you don't, then
>what are you waiting for? Go out and buy it!
hmmm... mage (2nd ed) page 252?
"soak: A target may make a roll to see how much damage she "soaks up"
because of her NATURAL hardiness. The target rolls stamina
(difficulty 6); each success reduces the damage by one." (emphasis
mine.
And the distinction is a load of crap... (I'm sorry but it is) a
person with high stamina will probably have a hardened musleculture
which will blunt a knife blow, quite possibly stopping it reaching
something vital. Ever tried to cut through gristle? If armor gives a
soak roll so does stamina, simply because it is among other things a
partial measure of your natural bodily armor.
Brian Thomas Habing
be...@malcop.u-net.com writes:
>And the distinction is a load of crap... (I'm sorry but it is) a
>person with high stamina will probably have a hardened musleculture
>which will blunt a knife blow, quite possibly stopping it reaching
>something vital. Ever tried to cut through gristle? If armor gives a
>soak roll so does stamina, simply because it is among other things a
>partial measure of your natural bodily armor.
But it does make sense that the effects of the damage are different
doesn't it? i.e. the damage done in a boxing match isn't the same
as that done by knife strokes is it?
And the muscle structure should be a lot more effective against
a switchblade than a 50 cal rifle....
>Becka
Brian
be...@malcop.u-net.com
>But it does make sense that the effects of the damage are different
>doesn't it? i.e. the damage done in a boxing match isn't the same
>as that done by knife strokes is it?
of course, but saying you can't soak a knife blow is stupid.
>And the muscle structure should be a lot more effective against
>a switchblade than a 50 cal rifle....
oh, yes, I'm not at all sure bullets should be soakable... or if they
are it should be diff 10 and 1 level for each two or three successes.
and I happen to think you should be able to botch a soak roll. If you
do it finds the gap and does extra damage.
>>Becka
>
>Brian
Bryant Durrell
In article <6mpgqu$bs3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
<blak...@technologist.com> wrote:
>In article <6motrp$b...@eyrie.org>,
> rai...@eyrie.org (Raindog) wrote:
>> The World of Darkness is horror genre, not action genre. Damage
>> to mortals who aren't part of the Unseen World works just like it does
>> in the real world. And in the real world, I'm sorry to inform you,
>> humans are *exceedingly* fragile. Regardless of your ability to take a
>> fist to the face and laugh off the superficial damage (which will
>> probably heal inside a week, don't make any dates) a punctured lung
>> is gonna fuck your day up.
>
>You can slip in the shower and die instantly. You can catch a bullet
>in an artery and bleed out in a matter of seconds. You can die from
>an alergic reaction to a bee sting. But, people have also walked away
>from falls from thousands of feet in the air, kept charging a machine
>gun nest after catching a half dozen bullets, or survived massive doses
>of poison that should have killed 10 men...
All true.
Now, out of a thousand people who fall 5,000 feet -- how many survive?
I'm not sure we need to worry about the outliers, here...
--
Bryant Durrell [] dur...@innocence.com [] http://www.innocence.com/~durrell
[----------------------------------------------------------------------------]
"Proper words in proper places make the true definiton of style."
-- Jonathan Swift
John Edward Mayall III
On 23 Jun 1998, brian thomas habing wrote:
<snip>
FWIW, here is how our group handles soaking while playing V:tM. It's
not the official answer or clarification that you're looking for (and
seemingly are not going to get), Brian, but it may be helpful.
* Vampires with no Fortitude soak non-aggravated damage at a 6 and
aggravated damage at an 8.
* Vampires with Fortitude soak all damage at a 6. Additionally, they
get some extra bonuses ala the LARP rules at some levels to tempt
players into spending points on Fortitude and not just pumping Stamina
temporarily.
* Humans and Ghouls with no Fortitude soak blunt trauma (referred to as
Stun damage in WoD: Combat, I believe) at a six and 'lethal' damage at
an 8. Aggravated damage can not be soaked.
* Ghouls with Fortitude soak stun and lethal damage at a 6 and
aggravated damage at an 8.
* Since we don't much enjoy dealing with cross-over issues, we have no
other-super-type PCs. Other super NPCs are converted into V:tM terms or
free-styled at ST discretion.
* As a caveat, ANY type of character can ALWAYS spend one Willpower to
automatically soak a single wound of ANY type during a soak roll (or
lack thereof).
Yes, I know, this is not the most comprehensive or realistic system, but
it's simple and easy to use, hence our adoption of it.
--Johnny Mayall--jmayall@jove.acs.unt.edu--http://people.unt.edu/~jmayall--
But the lies we live will always be confessed in the stories that we tell.
-Orson Scott Card
Phaelin
Raindog wrote in message <6motrp$b...@eyrie.org>...
{snip part of the Great Debate}
> You can 'take' a punch or a kick. You might even be able to
>'take' a baseball bat. I've never seen someone take a bat or a pickaxe
>handle to the side of the head and shake it off, but it's possible.
>Note that taking punishment is by no means fun. You look like a side of
>cubesteak and feel like shit afterwards, and if you do it for too long,
>you you turn into a middle-aged boxer, complete with the obligatory
>brain damage.
> You cannot, however, 'take' a knife, axe or sword blow, nor can
>you 'take' a bullet. If you get hit, you get hurt. Really hurt. Like,
>'taking body levels' hurt. If you're lucky (he rolls badly on damage)
>it may just be shallow. If you are unlucky, you die. Hence the reason
>police are eager to wear bulletproof vests.
Um, I hate to tell you, but several years ago, I saw a TV interview with
a guy who was shot in the head with a crossbow bolt by his freaked-out
roommate. Yes, the bolt *completely* penetrated his skull. During the
interview, they showed X-rays taken at the ER before the bolt was removed.
It had entered the back of his head and was sticking out the front. Sorry
to get gross, but the shaft of the quarrel was actually *inside* his brain,
running *through* it. The victim suffered no noticeable brain damage.
After the bolt was removed and he spent some time recovering, he felt fine.
Heck, he even described how he was still walking around while the bolt was
in his head! He answered the door for the cops when they arrived!!
Granted, these sorts of occurrences are very rare. HOWEVER, it proves
that humans are not *quite* so fragile as everyone on this newsgroup seems
to want to believe.
}snip comment about Deirdre and her players getting frustrated in Hunter
games{
>
> I think Dierdre (sorry, I know I'm missing your apostrophe, D.)
>has made it clear that in fact she does not get immensely frustrated.
>Smart Hunters don't try to go toe-to-toe against the Unseen becuase
>most supernaturals are engines of nigh-unstoppable destruction. Sure,
>the /shih/ do it, but they're supernatural creatures themselves.
>
But how much fun would a game be without at least *some* dramatic
conflict? You mean that you expect people to play in Hunter Chronicles and
*never* fight supernaturals in person? Hello? Am I the only person that
sees this as unreasonable? Because with this no-soak rule it's exactly what
you would have to do. After all, statistically speaking, the very first
time you fought a supernatural it would be practically *guaranteed* that
someone in the group would die!
Phaelin,
who thinks this "no-soak" business is just plain silly
Phaelin
Deirdre M. Brooks wrote in message <6mpsmu$n7p$1...@user1.teleport.com>...
>In <6mp4r7$4ra$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> hab...@neyman.stat.uiuc.edu (Brian
Thomas Habing) writes:
>
>>xe...@user1.teleport.com (Deirdre M. Brooks) writes:
>
>>***apology in advance for inferring that you ran a totally no
>>combat game!!! replace that as curiosity as to how anyone
>>possibly lives through such an incident :-) ***
>
>Okay.
>
>>>And this is different from genre conventions in *what* way? In any event,
>>>except with high potence characters, I've very rarely seen any instant
>>>kill shots.
>
>>You don't that high of a potence. Two attacks from a char with three
>>potence = death when there is no soak.... but I see your point.
>
>Actually, unless the vampire spends a blood point or willpower point for
>the attack, the potence just can't kill, unless it's *really* high.
>Unconsciousness is likely however.
>
>Clarify: Punches and kicks do bashing damage, and are fully soaked unless
>the WP/BP is spent, at which point it's lethal, and 1/2 Stamina counts (I
>never clarified that - in my game lethal attacks are soaked with 1/2
>Stamina).
I keep seeing this. Those in favor of the no-soak rule keep referring
to bashing and lethal damage. OK, folks, please let me remind you that
those distinctions DO NOT appear in the core rulebooks, but rather in
supplements that not everyone has. As far as I know, the ONLY core book
that does make the distinction is Trinity and it is not a WoD game, and is
hence not a part of this debate.
This debate is about statements the developers (well, one of 'em anyway)
have made on this NG that directly contradict what is implied in most WoD
core books. (ie, That the developers have stated mortals cannot soak,
whereas the core books make no such distinction, referring simply to "the
target" soaking as Mr.Habing said).
The whole thrust of his argument (IMHO) is in the interpretation of core
rules. He has posed the question (paraphrased): Why should people have to
buy a supposedly optional supplement just so the combat system is not
ridiculous and unworkable when dealing with mortal characters? I have yet
to see anyone tackle this question directly.
Because folks, I hate to tell you this, but: the system *is* unworkable
with the no-soak rule! (IMHO, anyway). You may laugh at the idea of kids
pummelling each other to death on the playground and accuse others of being
Trolls or just plain whining, but if you use this rule that sort of thing is
entirely possible in your game! Just how realistic is that?
I've also noticed others (I think it was Jess Heining himself) comment
that Magi *are* allowed to soak. Why? Because they're PC's and it makes
the game more fun. My answer is (and I don't really want to offend anyone
with this): So? Why should the body of a mage automatically work
differently than anyone else's? After all, not every mage has the Life
Sphere.
All I want is for the game to be consistent. That's all. I know it's
asking a lot, given many of the cosmological inconsistencies in the WoD, but
can't we at least have the blasted *mechanics* work the same?
Phaelin
who apologizes if any of the above offended anyone
blak...@technologist.com
In article <6motrp$b...@eyrie.org>,
rai...@eyrie.org (Raindog) wrote:
> The World of Darkness is horror genre, not action genre. Damage
> to mortals who aren't part of the Unseen World works just like it does
> in the real world. And in the real world, I'm sorry to inform you,
> humans are *exceedingly* fragile. Regardless of your ability to take a
> fist to the face and laugh off the superficial damage (which will
> probably heal inside a week, don't make any dates) a punctured lung
> is gonna fuck your day up.
True, in RL, humans can be knocked off rather easily - sometimes.
You can slip in the shower and die instantly. You can catch a bullet
in an artery and bleed out in a matter of seconds. You can die from
an alergic reaction to a bee sting. But, people have also walked away
from falls from thousands of feet in the air, kept charging a machine
gun nest after catching a half dozen bullets, or survived massive doses
of poison that should have killed 10 men...
Killing people in RL is one of the most unpredictable of endeavors.
The basic storyteller system (including soak) does a pretty good job
of representing that without getting hideously complex or unplayable.
Mind you, with the soak rules, it errs a bit on the side of survival -
which, if you talking PCs or NPCs you're planning to use latter is
a *good* thing (and if your talking throwaway 'crunchies' that are just
there to get killed anyway, well, don't bother to roll the soak). ;)
But, without the soak rules, all characters become equally easy to
kill. That gets a bit odd, and it makes it harder to build a character
and have him be a definitively 'tough' guy or for that matter, a
decidedly 'fragile non-combatant,' since everybody has the exact same
HLs and damage rolls don't care who the damage is being done to.
--- |
Blake 1001, Virtual Adept, Disciple ---|-.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/1317/ '-|---
|
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Patrick James Burke
On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 22:01:12 GMT, be...@malcop.u-net.com wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 1998 16:33:04 -0500, Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Wow. What a long post.
>>
>> Like I said, if you wanna give mortals a soak, do it. The core
>>assumption here is that mortals can't soak damage. I do in fact like
>>Bates' Trinity ruling that allows a classification of "bashing" damage,
>>so that mortals can take punches but not, say, knives and bullets; if
>>you have Trinity, you can easily use those rules. If you don't, then
>>what are you waiting for? Go out and buy it!
>
>hmmm... mage (2nd ed) page 252?
>
>"soak: A target may make a roll to see how much damage she "soaks up"
>because of her NATURAL hardiness. The target rolls stamina
>(difficulty 6); each success reduces the damage by one." (emphasis
>mine.
>
>And the distinction is a load of crap... (I'm sorry but it is) a
>person with high stamina will probably have a hardened musleculture
>which will blunt a knife blow, quite possibly stopping it reaching
>something vital. Ever tried to cut through gristle? If armor gives a
>soak roll so does stamina, simply because it is among other things a
>partial measure of your natural bodily armor.
>
I do not know if the difference is significant enough to
warrent a soak. I would not give a standered roll anyway ( maybe one
at diff 8 or 9). I do like the bashing rules though. However is there
any provistion for the classic man who can kill with his bare hands?
>Becka
>
>Rebecca Sutton
>be...@malcop.u-net.com
>http://www.malcop.u-net.com
>
Regards;
Dr. Daemeon Lethe
Donald Bachman
In alt.games.whitewolf sv...@ll.mit.edu wrote:
: Brian Thomas Habing wrote:
:
:> JLHeinig in a thread on alt.games.whitewolf has claimed that
:> in WW mortals don't get soak at all, whether it is aggravated
:> or not.
: Although it's not 100% obvious, this is definitely implied from the
: various texts (qv. "Using armor, mortals may gain a soak roll," "Using
: vulgar magic, mortals may soak [aggravated?] damage," etc.)
The text in mage is different--A character with body armor can add
dice to her soak rolls. That implies that even without armor a soak
roll is normal.
:> 3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
: I don't think it was ever taken away, exactly -- just not made clear
: that it was never there in the first place.
It seems quite clear that mages have one. Mage are repeatedly identified
as mortals.
I can see no reason why possession of an Arete greater than zero should
qualify one to soak in contrast to an Arete of zero not allowing soak.
: -- S. Skoog
Donald
Brian Thomas Habing
John Edward Mayall III <jma...@jove.acs.unt.edu> writes:
>On 23 Jun 1998, brian thomas habing wrote:
><snip>
>FWIW, here is how our group handles soaking while playing V:tM. It's
>not the official answer or clarification that you're looking for (and
>seemingly are not going to get), Brian, but it may be helpful.
<snip various very reasonable ideas>
But I can still dream can't I? :-)
Thanks for the thoughts!
-Brian
Ale...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6mnh5q$lac$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
hab...@students.uiuc.edu (brian thomas habing) wrote:
>
>
> JLHeinig in a thread on alt.games.whitewolf has claimed that
> in WW mortals don't get soak at all, whether it is aggravated
> or not.
>
>
I'm not sure, but I was always under the impression that only vamps and weres
got natural soaks, to simulate the gets-shot-in-the-chest-and-staggers-for-a-
moment-then-grins-wickedly effect (tm).
> 2) Is this stated in any FAQ on the website before 6/22/98 when
> the thread began?
>
Coulddn't tell ya.
> 3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
> While it has long been debated multiple times whether or not
> mortals can soak agg damage (and was I think clearly shown that
> they don't get to in the canonical world of darkness), I don't
> ever recall a thread arguing mortals got no soak until this one.
> A brief perusal of the write up in Mage and Vampire and Werewolf
> all say that the "target" recieves a soak roll with no reference
> as to what there species is in regards to normal damage.
>
Target reveives a normal soak if they normally get one.
> The mage FAQ as of 6/22/98 failed to contradict this, addressing
> quite specifically only aggravated damage.
>
> 4) If this is true, then Stamina has no effect on combats that fail
> to last an extended period of time. That is, a punch equally
> affects Aunt May and Arnold Swarzanegger as far as what wounded
> level it puts them at. Is this a desirable thing? Does it make
> sense?
>
The game system is built around combat between two or more supernaturals and
between supernaturals fighting humans. When you design a game system, it can
never apply equally well to all situations - it has to have certain situations
in mind, and it will work better with those situations than others. No, it
doesn't make sense that Aunt May and Arnie soak punches equally, but it does
make sense that neither Aunt May nor Arnie much phase Kindred or Garou with
their punches.
> 5) If this is true, then in the scene in "A Christmas Story" when
> little Ralphie is fighting the bullie... in the world of darkness
> the bully would be dead. Period. End of Story. Ralphie could be
> expected to make roughly 40% of the single damage rolls on the 20
> or so punches he threw (1 str) thus being 8 wound levels. Is this
> a desirable thing? Does it make sense?
Here's what I would do - People hit with fists and kicks thrown by ordinary
people without extensive boxing or martial arts training get a soak, so
schoolyard bullies don't die frequently. For *Serious* attacks - things
which would be classified as deadly weapons under the law including the fists
of Bruce lee and Evander Holyfield - only the appropriate type of being gets
a soak. Hence, vamps get shot in the chest and make a funny face - mortals
get shot in the chest and drop like a sack of sh*t.
>
> 6) Is there ANY example where denying mortals a soak roll makes more
> sense than, or makes the game more fun than, or makes the game more
> realistic than, simply altering the difficulty to soak on some attacks?
> (That is, some complain a mortal shouldn't be able to shrug off a
> shotgun blast... I buy that, why not make it diff 8 or 9 to soak such
> an attack? Because denying them a soak altogether gives us a plethora
> of examples like the little Ralphie one above.)
>
See above.
> In conclusion, I have greatly enjoyed many WW games and products, and
> fine the system in general to be very good and require far less tweaking
> than many other systems. HOWEVER, at first glance, entirely removing
> the soak rolls of mortals against normal damage is the most poorly thought
> out, silliest, most game damaging change I have ever seen done to a game
> system.
>
So don't use it.
> Yes, I know we can choose to ignore that the rule exists (or should I say,
> will exist once it actually appears someplace easily accessible to the masses
> who don't frequent this newsgroup), but from my current standpoint,
> as most of the people playing don't use the new rule (and all that I know
> will ignore it) and since it seems to detract from rather than add to the
> game, why make the change at all?
>
I don't think it's a change. I've been playing the game since VtM one, and I
never remember mortals getting soaks. A few weeks ago, a new person to my
game was playing a Mage and insisted that he got a soak roll, and I just kind
of looked at him "You want a what? How? You're a mage - lots of potential,
but you break easy..." Oh well.
> I of course reserve the right to grovel an apology should reasonable answers
> be given to the six questions above. Until that time however I must conclude
> that the mortals not soaking any damage rule is simply inane.
>
> Brian Habing
> usually very happy VtM player
> who _was_ planning on buying 3rd ed
> when it came out, but probably won't
> if this rule is included
>
>
This is a silly reason to buy or not buy a game book. It's a thirty dollar
book, and I can tell you your options right now - mortals get a soak or they
don't. If the option you like or that you don't like is in VtM 3rd, then you
should just use the one you like. Now, there are still 200+ pages of other
stuff that are affected little by this change unless you want them to be, and
your going to decide to buy it or not buy it based on a rule that can be
summed up in a sentence, when you're going to use the one you want
regardless. Oh well.
Deirdre M. Brooks
>xe...@user1.teleport.com (Deirdre M. Brooks) writes:
>***apology in advance for inferring that you ran a totally no
>combat game!!! replace that as curiosity as to how anyone
>possibly lives through such an incident :-) ***
Okay.
>>And this is different from genre conventions in *what* way? In any event,
>>except with high potence characters, I've very rarely seen any instant
>>kill shots.
>You don't that high of a potence. Two attacks from a char with three
>potence = death when there is no soak.... but I see your point.
Actually, unless the vampire spends a blood point or willpower point for
the attack, the potence just can't kill, unless it's *really* high.
Unconsciousness is likely however.
Clarify: Punches and kicks do bashing damage, and are fully soaked unless
the WP/BP is spent, at which point it's lethal, and 1/2 Stamina counts (I
never clarified that - in my game lethal attacks are soaked with 1/2
Stamina).
>>>So in order to do basic combat and to stop tens of millions of children
>>>from dying in playground fistfights we need to buy an optional combat
>>>supplement?
>>You're trying to build a straw man, yes?
>Did I succeed? Shouldn't the rules be able to deal with the obvious
>straw men? I will point out that the posts by the WW staff have yet
>to say "No soak against inherently lethal damage." They have said
>"No soak period." If they meant punches could be soaked, then that
>certainly changes things... but they haven't said that.
No, but Jess said he liked it, I think...or was that Andrew? I lost my
scorecard.
>>>Where is the division between lethal and non-lethal? Is a baseball bat
>>>lethal or non-lethal? A sap? I don't own the combat book so would
>>>be curious to know.
>>I would imagine that's your decision. My own is generally that most clubs
>>aren't lethal.
>Was just wondering if the rules said one way or the other... anyone
>out there have a copy of the combat book handy to look it up.
It says "just fists." I imagine that you could choose to just stun with
nearly any melee weapon (as long as you aren't using sharp edges) if you
know how to use it properly.
The BBoBA is actually quite useful, IMO. But then, I also play GURPS, if
that means anything.
>>No, what I said was that *I* prefer these house rules because they make
>>more sense to me. Nor have I indicated a lack of combat in my games.
>Ok. Thanks for the clarification.
No problem. Thanks for the nice replies before escalation. Seriously. :-)
>>I have indicated that the players are more cautious about starting a fight
>>than they used to be, which is fine with me. I mean, I was tired of them
>>running up the barrels of technocrat guns and into the clawed hands of
>>HITMarks and completely soaking .50 caliber bullets.
>Ah... that would make things ugly! Wouldn't making the soak difficulty
>for such bullets be 8 or 9 solve that?
Well, I don't use soak numbers. I total damage dice, subtract soak, *then*
roll damage. It cuts down on the dice rolls.
>As I asked in another post though... I am now curious as to what is more
>logical...
>i) After already having hit, the attacker has to roll damage based on the
>type of weapon used and the effect completely ignores the targets stamina
>or
>ii) After having been hit by a weapon that has a fixed damage, the target
>rolls a soak whose difficulty is based on the attack and whose die pool
>is based on the targets stamina.
I prefer the first...simply to reduce complexity. There was a first
edition combat system which utilized variable soaks. It was quite deadly,
to be honest, but required even more paperwork than the BBoBA.
>>There's drama, and then there's slapstick.
>Quite true. Thousands of playground deaths are also a gruesome form
>of slapstick.
Quite true.
>>Yes, yes they were. They were willing to start a fight with *anything*.
>Wow... I can see how that would change things....
Yeah... Admittedly, they aren't powergamers, or poor roleplayers, it's
just that they often saw a fight as the best way out of a situation. I'd
rather that other options be considered first - as it is, they've lost
some opportunities by opening fire.
(Hey, when the HIT Mark points a .75 caliber smg with five rotating
barrels at you, and says "Freeze," you don't walk away).
>I apologize for applying motives that you did not have.
Thank you.
>>You don't seem to grasp that mortals can be worthwhile characters or
>>antagonists without an automatic soak roll, which seems to me that the
>>only method of confrontation you can imagine is combat. I'm probably
>>wrong, but the general flavor of your posts suggests otherwise.
>It appears that I seem as combat oriented then as you do non-combat
>oriented I guess... most of my games don't have it happen an incredible
>amount of time... :::shrugs::: somehow though, I like the X-files more
>with Mulder and Scully still being alive.... :-)
It's a perfectly acceptable option to utilize a soak for mortals if you
want to enhance survivability. I prefer the *players* work out ways to do
that within the context of the game world, however (but then, that's my
normal solution - figure it out in-game).
>>Even though it's fairly clear in VtM:2 that you can't soak aggravated
>>without fortitude?
>Yes. Because in the opinions of everyone in my play group is that it makes
>it absolutely totally insane for anyone without fortitude and claws (or a
>lupine) to enter into combat. Not that it should be a nice happy experience,
>but saying "the gangrel wins" seems a bit harsh....
Armor allows for soaking of aggravated, also, not everyone has claws. If
you're good in a fight, you might not *need* fortitude.
Here's a fight scene, btw:
how would a fight between a 10th generation Brujah (Physical attributes at
5, Clan Disciplines at 5) and a 10th generation Gangrel turn out (same
numbers)? Think in terms of my favored rules and your favored rules...
(I tend to go for the Brujah either way if it starts off face to face. If
the Gangrel has surprise, it tends to tilt toward the Gangrel slightly.
Pure genius, of course, will give the contest to the Gangrel).
>Brian habing
>hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Moiner
> Here's what I would do - People hit with fists and kicks thrown by ordinary
> people without extensive boxing or martial arts training get a soak, so
> schoolyard bullies don't die frequently. For *Serious* attacks - things
> which would be classified as deadly weapons under the law including the fists
> of Bruce lee and Evander Holyfield - only the appropriate type of being gets
> a soak. Hence, vamps get shot in the chest and make a funny face - mortals
> get shot in the chest and drop like a sack of sh*t.
I never needed to rob my mortal players of a soak to have them be afraid--
very afraid--
of combat. Our VTM chronicle started as a hunter's chronicle, and I was
more than
willing to give them soaks against bullets-- with a proviso. Based on the
knowledge that
many people who are shot often do not even realize that they have been shot
*at*the*time*,
even though they are slowly bleeding to death, I used to keep track of the
amount of actual
damage rolled. The person may soak all the damage of the bullet, meaning
that there is no
discernible effect *during this three second block*, but that damage will
slowly accrue, and
the person may bleed to death without medical help. The characters were
worried that they
would die, and very troubled by the length of time it would take for them
to heal. Giving them
a soak allowed them to be in the scene-- they were plaenty scared of their
antagonist as his
van rolled away. They'd shot him but not put him in torpor. I looked over
the character sheets
of their Brujah antagonist's fellow gang members, and said, "Eenie, Meenie,
Miney--- hey,
you're the asshole who brought the cops to my door!" crumpled up the
offending member's
character sheet, and then gave Frank ten more blood points. The player on
his way to the
hospital was scared enough at the notion that his antagonist now had not a
scratch on him,
while he would be unable to walk for several weeks.
Combat wasn't the rule in our game, and in fact it always left the parties
involved badly
damaged, psychically, physically, or otherwise. It was the fact that it was
what they wanted
least to face that often made it a good final confrontational motif for our
stories.
--
If you must send spam,
here are the email addresses of the current board of
the Federal Communications Commission:
Chairman Reed Hundt: rhu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner James Quello: jqu...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Susan Ness: sn...@fcc.gov
Commissioner Rachelle Chong: rch...@fcc.gov
Rev. Will, Gator-at-Large
hab...@neyman.stat.uiuc.edu (Brian Thomas Habing) wrote:
>The rules as quoted by the design staff thus far do not take this into
>account. Little Ralphi in the Christmas Story is a murderer because
>the bully gets "no soak period", not "no soak against lethal damage."
Don't you think that mechanics are designed to take advantage of a
given genre? "Christmas Story" does not take place in a genre where
the protatgonist is a supernatural force. Using this as an example,
while somewhat entertaining, is absurd. I think that maybe all this
talk of numbers and rolls has clouded the minds of people playing a
system known as "Storyteller".
In my games, I don't generally allow 'unnamed' mortals very much in
the way of die rolls at all. If Brandon "The Axe" wants to go and
hack up some street performers to slake his ravenous thirst for blood,
what is a puny mortal going to do about it? It's not dramatic to even
play the combat, better to just describe it. On the other hand, if
Axe wants to confront long time mortal NPC Vinnie "The Fish" Garapudo
and his bodyguard, Meat...well, then they get soak rolls.
Dramatically appropraite and helpful in pacing your sessions, I think.
David Johnston
sv...@ll.mit.edu wrote:
>
> Brian Thomas Habing wrote:
>
> > JLHeinig in a thread on alt.games.whitewolf has claimed that
> > in WW mortals don't get soak at all, whether it is aggravated
> > or not.
>
> various texts (qv. "Using armor, mortals may gain a soak roll," "Using
> vulgar magic, mortals may soak [aggravated?] damage," etc.)
Why are these words of wisdom only put in peripheral books? (Leaving
out Dark Ages where they are depriving mortals of soak rolls so they can
screw the peasants, and I naturally approve entirely.)
>
> > 3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
>
> I don't think it was ever taken away, exactly -- just not made clear
> that it was never there in the first place.
Mage page 257: A target may make a roll to see how much damage she
"soaks up" because of her natural hardiness. The target rolls Stamina
(difficult 6);
Not made clear? It seems pretty clear to me that mages normally get a
soak along with everyone else including mortals, but let's look at the
combat example and see what it says (Atropos is a Mage. Shadow is her
player):
"She estimates the beast's Strength to be about 5 (enough to hurt but
not enough to demolish the mages) and rolls two health levels of damage
to Atropos. Shadow tries to soak it but fails."
Does that seem in the least ambiguous to you? Honestly, it's like
somebody put the New World Order in charge of game development all of
a sudden. (Barney sez violence is baaad!).
>
> I have always gone for the halfway solution proposed by _Aeon_ (yes,
> _Aeon_, not _Trinity_, damn your bones) -- categorize damage as 'bash'
> (blunt trauma) versus 'lethal' (hack/slash/pierce/electrical/fire/etc.),
> and assign soak (or lack thereof) accordingly. It seems to work very
> well, giving supernaturals a definite edge, but not a ridiculous one
> (after all, shooting mortals probably should at least seriously
> inconvenience them, but punching them once or twice might not).
>
> -- S. Skoog
man...@geocities.com
In article <6mo3vm$2fs$1...@user1.teleport.com>,> In <6mnh5q$lac$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> hab...@students.uiuc.edu (brian thomas
habing) writes:
>
> >1) Is this stated in any rule book in print?
>
> bit surprised to see it change in later rulebooks to allow mortals to have
> a soak.
I remember that rule, but Vampire 1st isn't in print anymore, and since we
have sencond edition all the 1st ed rules are gone now. Not everyone remebers
the first edtion rules.
IIRC in 1st the difficulty for damage varied with the targets Stamina, so
tougher targets were harder to hurt. Now all damage/soak are difficult 6
something else is needed to reflect that.
> >3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
> > While it has long been debated multiple times whether or not
> > mortals can soak agg damage (and was I think clearly shown that
> > they don't get to in the canonical world of darkness), I don't
> > ever recall a thread arguing mortals got no soak until this one.
> > A brief perusal of the write up in Mage and Vampire and Werewolf
> > all say that the "target" recieves a soak roll with no reference
> > as to what there species is in regards to normal damage.
>
> The logic? The logic is that a knife or a gun is deadly to normal people -
> I don't allow soaks for this kind of damage unless the target is undead or
> has utilized magical protection of some sort - not even for Garou in homid
> or lupus.
>
> Consider this may be the result of developer discussion - even if it was
> recent.
Great, having decided mortals can soak they should stick with it. Mortals are
so vulnerable anyway that giving them some soak seems required. And what about
punchs and kicks? Now the average Joe can kill the toughest guy in the world
with seven or wight punchs. Indeed, kill him as easily as the wimpest guy in
the world.
I can see this turning up in Vampire revised, so we have core rulebooks
contradicitng each other (since Wraith explicitly says mortals can soak).
> >4) If this is true, then Stamina has no effect on combats that fail
> > to last an extended period of time. That is, a punch equally
> > affects Aunt May and Arnold Swarzanegger as far as what wounded
> > level it puts them at. Is this a desirable thing? Does it make
> > sense?
>
> Not necessarily, esp. if you use 'stun' type damage as per WoD: Combat, in
> which case you can apply a soak to punches and other "non-lethal" attacks.
> Simple solution, no?
Simple yes, but what about people who don't have WoD Comabt? Is it too much to
ask for the fundemantal rules in the rulebook?
<snip>
Mant
Niilo Paasivirta
After reading these, I've decided to start using a new house rule:
since vampires aren't really living creatures, they do not really have
Stamina. Thus, they cannot soak any damage, except with Fortitude.
--
<a href="http://www.jyu.fi/%7Enp/index.html"> Niilo Paasivirta </a>
Niilo Paasivirta
Niilo Paasivirta <n...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>After reading these, I've decided to start using a new house rule:
>since vampires aren't really living creatures, they do not really have
>Stamina. Thus, they cannot soak any damage, except with Fortitude.
And to clarify it a bit: they never get to use Stamina for soaks,
just the Fortitude.
But it is not just this one ridiculous mortals-cannot-soak rule; I wonder
what other major mistak... rule clarifications are being planned for "3rd
edition Vampire"?
WW's WWW page is completely unreadable these days, can't possibly check
anything from there.
It is very unlikely that I (or most of the local players) will even
buy a third edition so soon after buying the current books, but just
in case.
man...@geocities.com
<snip>
> The game system is built around combat between two or more supernaturals and
> between supernaturals fighting humans. When you design a game system, it can
> never apply equally well to all situations - it has to have certain situations
> in mind, and it will work better with those situations than others. No, it
> doesn't make sense that Aunt May and Arnie soak punches equally, but it does
> make sense that neither Aunt May nor Arnie much phase Kindred or Garou with
> their punches.
If they sytem can't handle both, its fataly flawed. Since most RPGs can manage
this, I sure the Storyteller system can as well.
> > 5) If this is true, then in the scene in "A Christmas Story" when
> > little Ralphie is fighting the bullie... in the world of darkness
> > the bully would be dead. Period. End of Story. Ralphie could be
> > expected to make roughly 40% of the single damage rolls on the 20
> > or so punches he threw (1 str) thus being 8 wound levels. Is this
> > a desirable thing? Does it make sense?
>
> Here's what I would do - People hit with fists and kicks thrown by ordinary
> people without extensive boxing or martial arts training get a soak, so
> schoolyard bullies don't die frequently. For *Serious* attacks - things
> which would be classified as deadly weapons under the law including the fists
> of Bruce lee and Evander Holyfield - only the appropriate type of being gets
> a soak. Hence, vamps get shot in the chest and make a funny face - mortals
> get shot in the chest and drop like a sack of sh*t.
Another proponent for Aeons bashing/lethal system.
<snip>
> > In conclusion, I have greatly enjoyed many WW games and products, and
> > fine the system in general to be very good and require far less tweaking
> > than many other systems. HOWEVER, at first glance, entirely removing
> > the soak rolls of mortals against normal damage is the most poorly thought
> > out, silliest, most game damaging change I have ever seen done to a game
> > system.
> >
>
> So don't use it.
I don't mind
> > Yes, I know we can choose to ignore that the rule exists (or should I say,
> > will exist once it actually appears someplace easily accessible to the
masses
> > who don't frequent this newsgroup), but from my current standpoint,
> > as most of the people playing don't use the new rule (and all that I know
> > will ignore it) and since it seems to detract from rather than add to the
> > game, why make the change at all?
> >
>
> I don't think it's a change. I've been playing the game since VtM one, and I
> never remember mortals getting soaks. A few weeks ago, a new person to my
> game was playing a Mage and insisted that he got a soak roll, and I just kind
> of looked at him "You want a what? How? You're a mage - lots of potential,
> but you break easy..." Oh well.
Actually your player is right. Mage is quite clear that Mages get to soak. In
VtM 1st editon, mortals could soak. However in the VtM 2nd edition, WtA 2nd
edtition, Mage 1st and 2nd Editions, Wraith 1st and 2nd editions and
Changeling 1st and 2nd edition mortals could soak.
Mages break easily even when they can soak anyway.
> > I of course reserve the right to grovel an apology should reasonable answers
> > be given to the six questions above. Until that time however I must
conclude
> > that the mortals not soaking any damage rule is simply inane.
> >
> > Brian Habing
> > usually very happy VtM player
> > who _was_ planning on buying 3rd ed
> > when it came out, but probably won't
> > if this rule is included
> >
> >
>
> This is a silly reason to buy or not buy a game book. It's a thirty dollar
> book, and I can tell you your options right now - mortals get a soak or they
> don't. If the option you like or that you don't like is in VtM 3rd,
then you
> should just use the one you like. Now, there are still 200+ pages of other
> stuff that are affected little by this change unless you want them to be, and
> your going to decide to buy it or not buy it based on a rule that can be
> summed up in a sentence, when you're going to use the one you want
> regardless. Oh well.
I'll probably get the book but if it has this rule I'll be anoyed as it will
mean the different game lines can't even agree on how mortals work.
Mant
man...@geocities.com
In article <6mogmc$hg3$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>
> >>1) Is this stated in any rule book in print?
>
> >Yes. Yes, it is. Vampire: The Masquerade, First edition. I was actually a
> >bit surprised to see it change in later rulebooks to allow mortals to have
> >a soak.
>
> by _ALL_ of the rule books that follow it, _ALL_ of which (and there FAQs)
> contradict it.
And some people don't have vampire 1st, hell some play other white wolf games
and don't even own vampire.
If for example I only played Mage or Wraith I would have two books that gave
me every reason to belive mortals soaked (and one that speciifcally sadi
humans can soak).
From her other posts its clear that Deirdre uses an unoffical system that
sounds like a good solution. However, its not the solution(s) White Wolf are
giving us.
> >>3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
>
> >The logic? The logic is that a knife or a gun is deadly to normal people -
> >I don't allow soaks for this kind of damage unless the target is undead or
> >has utilized magical protection of some sort - not even for Garou in homid
> >or lupus.
>
> Even with 2 or 3 soak dice from an average stamina, knives and guns are
> still hideously bad for mortals. What this rule says, is that if something
> in human form gets in combat with a vamp or garou, in essence they are
> instantly dead. Period. End of discussion. Do not pass go. Do not
> collect 200 dollars.
I've always seen successful soak not as the weapon bounces off, but that the
target keeps going through the pain and damage. Like all the movies when the
hero is shot but keeps on going, where as wehn a mook is shot they fall over.
> >Consider this may be the result of developer discussion - even if it was
> >recent.
>
> I would be curious to know what they would have been saying that would have
> gone against the experience of what seems from past threads to be a
> majority of this newsgroup, all of the players I know personally, and
> (since most players presumably use the books as written) the vast majority
> of players out there.
Me too.
> >>4) If this is true, then Stamina has no effect on combats that fail
> >> to last an extended period of time. That is, a punch equally
> >> affects Aunt May and Arnold Swarzanegger as far as what wounded
> >> level it puts them at. Is this a desirable thing? Does it make
> >> sense?
>
> >Not necessarily, esp. if you use 'stun' type damage as per WoD: Combat, in
> >which case you can apply a soak to punches and other "non-lethal" attacks.
> >Simple solution, no?
>
> So in order to do basic combat and to stop tens of millions of children
> from dying in playground fistfights we need to buy an optional combat
> supplement?
>
> Where is the division between lethal and non-lethal? Is a baseball bat
> lethal or non-lethal? A sap? I don't own the combat book so would
> be curious to know.
It's not that explicit, but generally any weapon, even a blunt one, is lethal.
> Additionally, if you could finish answering the above question, does it
> make sense that a knife attack would put both Aunt May and Arnold
> Swarzanegger at the same wounded level?
>
> >>6) Is there ANY example where denying mortals a soak roll makes more
> >> sense than, or makes the game more fun than, or makes the game more
> >> realistic than, simply altering the difficulty to soak on some attacks?
>
> >Yes.
>
> >My chronicles. They're fun, and they deny mortals soak. Oh, well. Maybe
> >you're the guy who always asks me why I do that, and if it scares PCs off
> >from combat... I forget.
>
> Your chronciles feature people who obviously don't want combat in there
> games. What you are saying is that NO ONE should be able to run a mortal
> game in which combat occurs, without having to resort to house rules.
To true. Having played some mortal (not Mages, just mortals without numina)
games I can tell you they are immensley fragile and a scared of being shot
when they can soak the damage.
> >>In conclusion, I have greatly enjoyed many WW games and products, and
> >>fine the system in general to be very good and require far less tweaking
> >>than many other systems. HOWEVER, at first glance, entirely removing
> >>the soak rolls of mortals against normal damage is the most poorly thought
> >>out, silliest, most game damaging change I have ever seen done to a game
> >>system.
>
> >It's not a change. The change was *giving* mortals soak rolls.
>
> Yes, you are quite right, it is a change from a rule book that is
> now around a decade old and that the _VAST_ majority of V:tM players
> have never seen. It is not a change from the rules that most people
> know and probably play by.
It is a change, its a change back, but still a change from the current rules.
About 90%+ of White Wolf players have never played vampire 1st edition, its a
chnage for them.
There are now something like a dozen sourcebooks out there for playing
mortals, and not one of them mentions the rule. Its in no current core
rulebook, players guide or ST handbook or and FAQ on the website. How exaclty
are people beyond this newsgroup supposed to know it exisits? In fact given
that the exact opposite is in print, I can't see why anyone who is playing
buy the "staight" rules who never saw vampire 1st would even give it a
moments thought, certainly thats the case with all the players I know or have
gamed with (a few dozen that).
man...@geocities.com
In article <358FBE...@ll.mit.edu>,
sv...@ll.mit.edu wrote:
>
> Brian Thomas Habing wrote:
>
> > JLHeinig in a thread on alt.games.whitewolf has claimed that
> > in WW mortals don't get soak at all, whether it is aggravated
> > or not.
>
> Although it's not 100% obvious, this is definitely implied from the
> various texts (qv. "Using armor, mortals may gain a soak roll," "Using
> vulgar magic, mortals may soak [aggravated?] damage," etc.)
What about the Wraith text that says wraiths and humans can soak damage? Or
the Mage text that says soak represents the natural hardiness of the target?
Or all the references ot armour I can find say it _adds_ to your soak dice.
Admittedly I'm only using obsucre refences, Vampire, Werewolf, Mage, Wraith
and Changeling 2nd editions.
All the refences to magick letting you soak (and they don't say its vulgar to
soak, just heal) are to aggravated damage. Its been established that mortals
can't soak aggravated, but never (excet vampire 1st and possibly the section
on armour in V:tDA) that mortals can't soak.
If mortals can't soak at all, why would the Book of Mirrors, WoD Sorcerer,
and Frontier Secerets all say they can't soak agg? Wouldn't that be
superfulus? And shouldn't they just say can't soak?
> > 3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
>
> I don't think it was ever taken away, exactly -- just not made clear
> that it was never there in the first place.
>
> I have always gone for the halfway solution proposed by _Aeon_ (yes,
> _Aeon_, not _Trinity_, damn your bones) -- categorize damage as 'bash'
> (blunt trauma) versus 'lethal' (hack/slash/pierce/electrical/fire/etc.),
> and assign soak (or lack thereof) accordingly. It seems to work very
> well, giving supernaturals a definite edge, but not a ridiculous one
> (after all, shooting mortals probably should at least seriously
> inconvenience them, but punching them once or twice might not).
>
> -- S. Skoog
Fine, it seems a common solution. But its not what we are beeing told. Its
great to have White Wolf developers online, and Jess has been really helpful
(despite some totaly unwarranted abuse) and has nothing but my upmost
respect, never the less since what he says a) makes no sense (unless you
start changing the rules further an add bashing/stun which isn't what he
said) and b) directly contradicts what I have in my rulebooks, I'll just have
to asume its worng.
Of course it may appear in Vampire revised, then I'll even more contradicions
in between my rulebooks and just ignore it, beacuse I run Mage and Mage books
even implies anywhere mortals can't soak normal.
As an aside, how about keeping everyone happy and giving both options in
vampire revised then leave it to ST to choose, rather than giving one and
telling STs they can ignore it. Several RPGs have different options for
levels of lethality in the game, and it works well.
man...@geocities.com
In article <358FF6...@white-wolf.com>,
> >
> > >I have always gone for the halfway solution proposed by _Aeon_ (yes,
> > >_Aeon_, not _Trinity_, damn your bones) -- categorize damage as 'bash'
> > >(blunt trauma) versus 'lethal' (hack/slash/pierce/electrical/fire/etc.),
> > >and assign soak (or lack thereof) accordingly.
> >
> > damage and not on the rest (as was pointed out in Deirdre Brooks post
> > recommending using that rool from WoD combat)... however,
> > Jess Heinig's post in fact even over rules that (except as she notes
> > if you choose to use a 'house rule') by saying that mortals don't get
> > to soak at all.
>
> As the WoD rules stand currently, it is implied that mortals get no soak
> at all.
The please, why do my rule books explicitly tell me otherwise? And where is it
implied? I can find no reference anywhere, and my pshycic powers aren't what
they used to be.
>(Of course, developers can lay down the law for their own lines
> -- I was lucky enough to get to revise Storyteller somewhat for Trinity
> and put it in writing, and a little bird told me there are some rules
> clarifications in the upcoming Vampire 3rd.)
So different lines within the ST system can have different rules for mortal
soaking? My mortal in vampire can't soak, but my mortal in Wraith can? What do
I do in crossover? Count the books that say they can vs those that say they
can't and the one with the most wins?
> But inevitably, the Golden Rule rears its ugly head once again: modify
> the rules how you like to make it work for your game.
It would be nice to have really common alterenatives (mortals soaking, vampire
stat limits with blood) given as options in the rules, and let the ST choose.
> Bates
> ...watching in awe as the Golden Rule, mutated by radiation to gigantic
> size, stomps through New York City and makes sure to wreck the hell out
> of the Chrysler Building...
>
> roooaar!
What have you created? Its a monster ;)
Raindog
In article <6mpuqo$moi$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Phaelin <pha...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> Um, I hate to tell you, but several years ago, I saw a TV interview with
>a guy who was shot in the head with a crossbow bolt by his freaked-out
>roommate.
The question to ask here is twofold. First, is a soak roll
necessary to simulate this? After all, it could just be the result of a
bad damage roll. However many dice of agg you're doing with your Seven
Blizzard Annihilating Clawstorm Kick, you can still always roll
pathetically and fail to seriously injure even frail Aunt May.
Second, let's take genre into account. How important is it, in a
horror genre game, to give mortals every chance for miraculous survival?
I find somehwat less than compelling the arguments that without a soak
against blades and bullets Hunters won't be able to go toe-to-toe with a
Cainite and walk away without a fatality or three. Perhaps this is the
cause of vampire hunter's long-standing tradition of staking their prey
at high noon and burning them to ashes, rather than playing Mike Tyson's
Punch-Out with them?
With the chances of miraculous survival already available from
cruddy damage rolls, I don't see any particular reason that normal
mortals need a soak against bullets, blades and whatnot. Both common
sense and genre favor giving the Unseen a sizable advantage.
I personally would be fairly generous with this advantage. As I
suggested elsewhere, I personally would allow any character whose damage
track was on the 11225 pattern to soak bullets and other lethal attacks.
These characters are either deeply supernatural (and thus magically tough
as well as subject to the protection of the genre) or action-oriented
Hunters like the /shih/, SF0 and Project Twilight, who are in many ways
part of their own genre.
Characters with 12345 damage tracks are too close to the sunlit
world to gain the benefits of supernature. These include Hunters
Hunted-pattern Hunters, Mediums, Arcanum scholars and mortals made with
the VPG2 Mortals generation rules. I'd also probably add in SF0, /shih/
and PT agents operating outside their own genre; Mulder and Scully can
take on the undead hordes, but the nebby FBI agents in _I Was A Teenage
Ecoslasher_ aren't going to do so well.
Obviously, these are just house rules, but they provide an easy
rule of thumb for the dividing line, one which places most characters in
the protected region while still emphaszing the gulf between the
supernatural and the merely normal. It also leaves 'Investigator' type
characters like Arcanum operatives, Hunters and Mediums on the outside
looking in, which is I think quite appropriate for their respective
genres. All of the 12345 characters involve prying into things better
left unprised, and I think their primarily investigatory genres work
quite well with theie vulnerability emphasized.
>Phaelin,
G.
--
|Geoffrey C. Grabowski | Freelance JOAT-A | rai...@io.com | Swing Heil!|
"Make sure they play my theme song, I guess daisies'll have to do
Just get me to New Orleans and paint shadows on the pews
Turn the spit on that pig, kick the drum and let me down
Put my clarinet beneath your bed till I get back in town."
--Tom Waits, "Tango Till They're Sore"
--------------------- http://www.io.com/~raindog/ -----------------------
Joshua Bardwell
Phaelin (pha...@nospam.mindspring.com) wrote:
: sees this as unreasonable? Because with this no-soak rule it's exactly what
: you would have to do. After all, statistically speaking, the very first
: time you fought a supernatural it would be practically *guaranteed* that
: someone in the group would die!
You've never played Hunters, Inc. have you? The strategy for that game is:
1. Find out where vampire sleeps or hides out.
2. Spend three weeks staking out the place, laying land mines and booby traps,
and buying expensive rocket launchers, grenades, and assault rifles.
3. Get six of your best guys and rush him and hope he dies in the first or
second round of combat, 'cause if not, somebody's going down.
It's a fun as hell game, though...
J
--
Joshua Bardwell | "Always remember to never forget:
jo...@cc.gatech.edu | The places you've gone,
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt6234b | The people you've met."
| - TCJ
Araknid
This frenzy of posts is quite impressive, getting close to the "Baba Yaga vs ... "
thread from a year or so back for sheer percentage of posts currently devoted to it
or parallel threads :)
I think the biggest problem with the combat system in WoD is an intended design flaw
... it's damn simple ... which is great in terms of story but makes "war gaming"
with it a recipe for complaints about what is or isn't realistic. Even the refined
rules in Trinity suffer from the linear damage track that works more or less like 7
hit points. If you want "realism" in your WoD combat I suggest the arduous task of
adapting the wound system from Millennium's End, which treats most wounds
individually but factors in total impairment from all wounds received in terms of
how likely your character is to be on the floor dying. It also has separate rules
for shock, bleeding to death etc. that take into the account the location and nature
of each wound. Adapting the whole system would be exceedingly difficult but various
features of it might be ported across without too much trouble.
OTOH, if you can't be bothered with a more complex system then allowing someone
resistance to damage (soak) based on how important they are to the plot works well
(for an extreme example of this see the Hong Kong Action Theater RPG) <g>.
Darian Webb
owner of too many RPGs ... just ask my poor bookshelf.
sv...@ll.mit.edu
man...@geocities.com wrote:
> I've always seen successful soak not as the weapon bounces off, but
> that the target keeps going through the pain and damage. Like all the
> movies when the hero is shot but keeps on going, where as when a mook
> is shot they fall over.
Whether intentionally or unintentionally, you're quoting the _Feng Shui_
rules nearly word for word: 'Heroes get a chance to survive damage;
mooks don't. Use whatever works for your story.'
It's a pretty decent rule for Storytelling on the fly.
-- S. Skoog
"You think this is shot? This ain't shot! There's no bullet in here!"
[_Under Siege 2: Dark Territory_, a
textbook soak if ever I've seen one]
Jess Heinig
My goodness, how many times do I have to say it?!?
*You don't give mortals a soak roll — unless you, as Storyteller,
decide otherwise.*
It's that simple.
If you're going to NOT buy a book because it says something you don't
like, then you're gonna be pretty disappointed because I guarantee that
just about every book will have something that you don't like somewhere
in there!
That's the essence of the Golden Rule. Use what you want to use.
Oh, and as for Ralphie and the bully: yep, Ralphie would've killed
him. You haven't seen many real-life fights, have you? People break
easy. One of the reasons that few schoolyard fights end in any
fatalities is that (a) the combatants rarely inflict much damage in the
first place and (b) the fight usually ends as soon as one side or the
other takes a small amount of damage. If you actually let a schoolyard
fight go on for quite a while, and you have one or more kids beating up
on a lone victim, there's a pretty damn good chance that the victim will
wind up in the hospital.
As some other posters have said, I see no need to give normal mortal
humans a soak roll in a game that is intrinsically horror-oriented.
Heck, I don't give mages a soak roll, even for the characters of
players. The suddenly have to think on their feet a lot more; no more
mages leaping into the fray, flinging around magick and shouting "No
worries, I can soak all of his attacks!" It's a great way to dissuade
people from fighting.
Fighting is a last resort. It's nasty and brutal. That's the same
reason that vampires get no soak roll against aggravated damage without
Fortitude: fire and sunlight and werewolves are BAD NEWS! You DON'T want
to fight them!
Use whatever the heck you like. If you want a more "combat-heavy"
game, start giving people easier soak rolls. If you want to discourage
fighting, take 'em away. Pretty simple.
Cheers,
Jess Heinig
White Wolf Game Studio
blak...@technologist.com
> I don't think it's a change. I've been playing the game since VtM one, and I
> never remember mortals getting soaks. A few weeks ago, a new person to my
> game was playing a Mage and insisted that he got a soak roll, and I just kind
> of looked at him "You want a what? How? You're a mage - lots of potential,
> but you break easy..." Oh well.
>
He was right. Mages get to soak. Just look at the Mage rulebook. Of
course, if your game was primarily Vamps rather than a full-scale
crossover, it'd make sense to change that rule (but then it would also
make sense to have him play a 'mage' that was just a mortal with a few
Thaumaturgy paths...).
In fact, until BoS, mages could soak Agg.
Andrew Bates
man...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> aba...@white-wolf.com wrote:
> >
> > As the WoD rules stand currently, it is implied that mortals get no soak
>
> implied?
Lemme put it this way: When I was revising Storyteller for Trinity, I
asked the various developers what aggravated damage really was, how it
differed from "normal" damage, and how mortals factored into the
equation.
The consensus: mortal bodies consider aggravated and "normal" damage
pretty much the same -- stuff that'll kill ya, and quickly. In other
words, no soak. (The developers I spoke with agreed that the Bashing
damage I put together for Trinity would be soak-able by mortals in WoD.)
This isn't canon -- if nothing else, I'm not a WoD developer and have no
authority to speak on that game universe. But it is what I garnered from
conversations with developers of that setting.
Sorry, but I don't have the time to go through the various books and
point out relative ambiguities at the moment. I have deadlines with
which I must cope.
> >(Of course, developers can lay down the law for their own lines
>
> So different lines within the ST system can have different rules for mortal
> soaking? My mortal in vampire can't soak, but my mortal in Wraith can? What do
> I do in crossover? Count the books that say they can vs those that say they
> can't and the one with the most wins?
I'm not sure what constraints the WoD developers must work under, so I
can't answer that with any degree of certainty. What do you do in
crossover? Whatever you want. The rules aren't gospel. If you think it
makes more sense for mortals to soak, then have them soak. If you think
they shouldn't, then don't let them. If you want to swipe the Trinity
Bashing/Lethal soak rules, do so.
> > But inevitably, the Golden Rule rears its ugly head once again: modify
> > the rules how you like to make it work for your game.
>
> It would be nice to have really common alterenatives (mortals soaking, vampire
> stat limits with blood) given as options in the rules, and let the ST choose.
It certainly would. I tried to do that in Trinity, f'rinstance (Lethal
soak based on high Stamina, using "extras" who have only half the normal
number of Health Levels, etc). I imagine if a developer feels strongly
enough to put clarified rules in an upcoming supplement for his line,
he'll do so.*
Bates
* It's impractical to revise the currently-published core rulebooks. As
I noted before, though, there are some modifications to the rules in
Vampire 3rd. Hopefully those refinements adequately address concerns
folks have about Storyteller rules.
________________________________________
Andrew Bates
Trinity Developer
aba...@white-wolf.com
White Wolf Publishing, Inc.
<http:www.white-wolf.com>
John Edward Mayall III
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 Ale...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> No, it
> doesn't make sense that Aunt May and Arnie soak punches equally, but it does
> make sense that neither Aunt May nor Arnie much phase Kindred or Garou with
> their punches.
Here, actually, I disagree a bit. I think the horror of fighting a
supernatural is not so much that it can just shrug off blows. It's
when a mugger gets the drop on the bastard, slits its throat, and
watches it fall gurgling to the pavement. Then as he's walking off
with his ill-gottne gains, he hears a scraping behind him. He turns
around and sees what he thought he left behind as a corpse get back up,
and he SEES the throat wound close before his very eyes. And he can
only stare like a stunned monkey as his knife clatters to the ground,
and the vampire calmly rips his throat out with its teeth.
--Johnny Mayall--jmayall@jove.acs.unt.edu--http://people.unt.edu/~jmayall--
But the lies we live will always be confessed in the stories that we tell.
-Orson Scott Card
David Johnston
>
> Not according to a direct quote from the mage book as
> given by another poster... there the word natural was
> explicitly used iirc.
Let's face it. Humans have no will to live.
blak...@technologist.com
In article <6mqder$i...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi>,
n...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi (Niilo Paasivirta) wrote:
>
> After reading these, I've decided to start using a new house rule:
> since vampires aren't really living creatures, they do not really have
> Stamina. Thus, they cannot soak any damage, except with Fortitude.
>
Bravo!
David Johnston
Ale...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > 3) What was the logic in taking the soak away from mortals?
> > While it has long been debated multiple times whether or not
> > mortals can soak agg damage (and was I think clearly shown that
> > they don't get to in the canonical world of darkness), I don't
> > ever recall a thread arguing mortals got no soak until this one.
> > A brief perusal of the write up in Mage and Vampire and Werewolf
> > all say that the "target" recieves a soak roll with no reference
> > as to what there species is in regards to normal damage.
> >
>
> Target reveives a normal soak if they normally get one.
Not that they ever told us who gets a soak and who doesn't.
I mean, don't you think that would have been a good thing to
to put in Combat!? Of course the intriguing aspect about this
new rule (and make no mistake, as far as Mage is concerned, this
is very much a new rule) is that the distinction between normal
and aggravated damage has once against been successfully erased
vis a vis mortals. I find that incredibly funny given the time
that was spent arguing the issue.
At what point does Brawling become lethal damage then? If you have any?
> I don't think it's a change. I've been playing the game since VtM one, and I
> never remember mortals getting soaks. A few weeks ago, a new person
The rule isn't in VTM ed 2. I don't recall it being in VTM ed 1, and
since they just copy the combat rules from game to game in absence of
specific desired changes...
to my
> game was playing a Mage and insisted that he got a soak roll, and I just kind
> of looked at him "You want a what? How? You're a mage - lots of potential,
> but you break easy..." Oh well.
Note to self. All...Akashic Brother...Martial Artists...must have Life
3 at character creation...
>
> > I of course reserve the right to grovel an apology should reasonable answers
> > be given to the six questions above. Until that time however I must conclude
> > that the mortals not soaking any damage rule is simply inane.
> >
> > Brian Habing
> > usually very happy VtM player
> > who _was_ planning on buying 3rd ed
> > when it came out, but probably won't
> > if this rule is included
> >
> >
>
> This is a silly reason to buy or not buy a game book. It's a thirty
Oh I don't know. It's pretty silly to buy a 3rd edition when you have
the 2nd anyway. It's sillier if it doesn't have any changes you want.
David Johnston
> > people without extensive boxing or martial arts training get a soak, so
> > schoolyard bullies don't die frequently. For *Serious* attacks - things
> > which would be classified as deadly weapons under the law including the fists
> > of Bruce lee and Evander Holyfield - only the appropriate type of being gets
> > a soak. Hence, vamps get shot in the chest and make a funny face - mortals
> > get shot in the chest and drop like a sack of sh*t.
>
Now that's an interesting approach. I wouldn't mind being dead nearly
so much if I at least got a chance to hit back.
The real problem with being a hunter who doesn't get a soak, is that
hunters so rarely get the upper hand anyway. Any vampire who
isn't indestructible tends to be sneakier than any human, and many are
both. D. may say "Any smart hunter wants to avoid a face to face
confrontation" but the reality is the hunter's preferences are not
necessarily at issue unless he consistently finds stupid prey.
David Johnston
Deirdre M. Brooks wrote:
>
> In <6motrp$b...@eyrie.org> rai...@eyrie.org (Raindog) writes:
>
> > I think Dierdre (sorry, I know I'm missing your apostrophe, D.)
> >has made it clear that in fact she does not get immensely frustrated.
> >Smart Hunters don't try to go toe-to-toe against the Unseen becuase
> >most supernaturals are engines of nigh-unstoppable destruction. Sure,
> >the /shih/ do it, but they're supernatural creatures themselves.
>
> Precisely.
>
> Most of the players don't get frustrated - they take measures (get armor,
> use Life 3, what-have-you...)
Armor? What armour? This is the 20th century. There is almost no
armour that is effective against punches or knives. (Which given how
lethal punches suddenly are, is very strange). That leaves you with
Life 3.
What else? Is there _any_ other recourse for a human being?
The troublesome aspect about this rule is it's lack of realism. There
really are people who are harder to kill than other people. At the
least they could replace the lost soak with a Stamina roll to avoid
death and recover from injuries so that human Stamina would be good for
something.
Oh well... At least I guess that finally settles the issue for anyone
who was toying with the idea that Rasputin was a human being. Under
this new rule, there is no way that he could have been.
Brian Thomas Habing
Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> writes:
> *You don't give mortals a soak roll unless you, as Storyteller,
>decide otherwise.*
Quite true. In fact I love the 'golden rule'.
> It's that simple.
However:
1) ALL FIVE of the core books either directly state or infer that mortals
get soak.
2) You have directly countered that saying no mortals don't get any soak
at all period.
3) Almost all of those who have posted that they don't let mortals soak
have either said they really like the bashing rules or use something
similar to them.
4) I have been waiting three days now to find out if the following get
a soak or not in the canonical world of darkness.
a) Mummies (is Neith a combat monster or easy to wipe the floor with)
b) Shih (are they alone among hedge magey types to get soak???)
c) Fae
d) Garou in there natural form
It seems quite clear that WW should probably make it clear in all
future books exactly who can soak what, AND given that two of the people
who really liked the soaking bashing damage for mortals were on the design
staff, that they should probably include that also.
> If you're going to NOT buy a book because it says something you don't
>like, then you're gonna be pretty disappointed because I guarantee that
>just about every book will have something that you don't like somewhere
>in there!
The reason for me saying I wouldn't buy the book because of stuff like the
above is:
I already own: VtM, VtM players guide, players guide to the sabbat, etc..
I would like the new book because my VtM book is now bindingless and because
I would like to have all the important rules _CLARIFIED_ and in one place.
If the clarifications are like this example, then it doesn't do me much
good to get the book... If the book included the bashing rule for mortals
and actually said explicitly who could soak what, and did fix some of the
other rules wholes... sure I'll give you my money. If not, I have credit
cards to pay off.
I don't really need it for any new background information since either:
a) it will most likely contradict the several years of work that have gone
into the various games I am currently in... or b) be stuff I probably
shouldn't know if its for a new game I would be a player in.
> That's the essence of the Golden Rule. Use what you want to use.
The essence of good game writing and publishing is to try to not leave
gaping wholes in the game that require constant application of the
golden rule. I thought KotE did a pretty good job on this account.
Various older VtM books, not so much so.
> Oh, and as for Ralphie and the bully: yep, Ralphie would've killed
>him. You haven't seen many real-life fights, have you? People break
>easy.
>One of the reasons that few schoolyard fights end in any
>fatalities is that (a) the combatants rarely inflict much damage in the
>first place and (b) the fight usually ends as soon as one side or the
>other takes a small amount of damage. If you actually let a schoolyard
>fight go on for quite a while, and you have one or more kids beating up
>on a lone victim, there's a pretty damn good chance that the victim will
>wind up in the hospital.
???????
According to the WW rules,
each punch or kick thrown by the typical grade schooler that connects
would have a 50% chance of doing 1 point of damage.
In real life, the bully is SOAKING the punches. Why not make that explicit
in the rules? I was in plenty of fights in grade school or saw plenty
where the 'victim' got whacked pretty hard several times... and didn't
leave with so much as a bruise. Adding the soaking blunt damage rule
fixes this problem. In spite of your above protestations otherwise,
leaving it out makes the situation completely stupid (at least in the eyes
of virtually everyone who has responded to this thread).
> Fighting is a last resort. It's nasty and brutal. That's the same
>reason that vampires get no soak roll against aggravated damage without
>Fortitude: fire and sunlight and werewolves are BAD NEWS! You DON'T want
>to fight them!
Very true. But by failing to allow for soaking of blunt trauma you aren't
just saying that combat is dangerous (which many of the posters here have
found it to be with a soak roll), you are saying "you _WILL_ die."
> Use whatever the heck you like. If you want a more "combat-heavy"
>game, start giving people easier soak rolls. If you want to discourage
>fighting, take 'em away. Pretty simple.
Very true. But if you, the other designer whose name I forgot (sorry),
and virtually every other poster to this thread who doesn't give mortals
soaks, either likes or uses the idea of letting them soak blunt trauma,
then why not add that as an official rule?
>Cheers,
>Jess Heinig
>White Wolf Game Studio
Thanks again for all your
hard work (well, except for
the soaking stuff :-) )
Brian
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Brian Thomas Habing
Andrew Bates <aba...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>Lemme put it this way: When I was revising Storyteller for Trinity, I
>asked the various developers what aggravated damage really was, how it
>differed from "normal" damage, and how mortals factored into the
>equation.
>The consensus: mortal bodies consider aggravated and "normal" damage
>pretty much the same -- stuff that'll kill ya, and quickly. In other
>words, no soak. (The developers I spoke with agreed that the Bashing
>damage I put together for Trinity would be soak-able by mortals in WoD.)
The question then raises as to how the exact opposite is either directly
stated or implied in the five core rule books....
>I'm not sure what constraints the WoD developers must work under, so I
>can't answer that with any degree of certainty. What do you do in
>crossover? Whatever you want. The rules aren't gospel. If you think it
>makes more sense for mortals to soak, then have them soak. If you think
>they shouldn't, then don't let them. If you want to swipe the Trinity
>Bashing/Lethal soak rules, do so.
You are correct, the WW rules aren't gospel. They are however the
only thing to go by when you join a new gaming group or wish to discuss
the game with others.
>It certainly would. I tried to do that in Trinity, f'rinstance (Lethal
>soak based on high Stamina, using "extras" who have only half the normal
>number of Health Levels, etc). I imagine if a developer feels strongly
>enough to put clarified rules in an upcoming supplement for his line,
>he'll do so.*
>Bates
Brian
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
>* It's impractical to revise the currently-published core rulebooks. As
>I noted before, though, there are some modifications to the rules in
>Vampire 3rd. Hopefully those refinements adequately address concerns
>folks have about Storyteller rules.
Very true. But somehow stating something on the net that directly counterdicts
what is implied or explicitly stated by at least 5 of the rule books
and at the same time not having that on the web page FAQs is far from
practical also.
blak...@technologist.com
In article <35911B...@white-wolf.com>,
je...@white-wolf.com wrote:
> Heck, I don't give mages a soak roll, even for the characters of
> players. The suddenly have to think on their feet a lot more; no more
> mages leaping into the fray, flinging around magick and shouting "No
> worries, I can soak all of his attacks!" It's a great way to dissuade
> people from fighting.
Hehehe... Speaking just as a player & ST, you can't count on soak rolls.
I mean, I managed to come up with a 10d soak pool (and Charmed Life) and
*still* got zero-success soak rolls. Anyone who thinks a large
soak pool makes them somehow invulnerable, is going to die.
> Fighting is a last resort. It's nasty and brutal.
That's funny, that was precisely my reaction when I read the Storyteller
combat rules for the first time.
> That's the same
> reason that vampires get no soak roll against aggravated damage without
> Fortitude: fire and sunlight and werewolves are BAD NEWS! You DON'T want
> to fight them!
Y'know, fire & sunlight do from 1 to 3 HL per turn, while a particularly
tough Garou can slash you for 11 dice of damage several times in a single
turn. I can see fire and sunlight being *very* hard or impossible for
a Vampire to soak, to make them creadible dangers. But, even if you're
soaking with a 5 Stamina, the Garou's still a quizinart of doom.
> Use whatever the heck you like. If you want a more "combat-heavy"
> game, start giving people easier soak rolls. If you want to discourage
> fighting, take 'em away. Pretty simple.
Actually, in an odd way, disallowing soak makes combat more tennable.
Soak makes combat unpredictable. W/o soaks, you can count on bushwaking
a victim and killing him before he retaliates. If Agg damage can't
generally be soaked, a mage can be pretty confident that, if he Enchants
the bullet for his .50 cal sniper rifle, he can kill his target. If
mortals can't soak, Vampires & Weres can be very confident that they
can slaughter a mortal hunter with thier superior speed from Celerity
or Rage. Combat becomes predictable enough to be a very viable tactic.
Though I'd hessitate to call it 'combat-heavy' since most combats will
be very short, consisting of determining surprise, rolling to hit,
rolling damage, and burrying the dead.
--- |
Blake 1001, Virtual Adept, Disciple ---|-.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/1317/ '-|---
Phaelin
Raindog wrote in message <6mqktp$q...@eyrie.org>...
>In article <6mpuqo$moi$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
>Phaelin <pha...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Um, I hate to tell you, but several years ago, I saw a TV interview
with
>>a guy who was shot in the head with a crossbow bolt by his freaked-out
>>roommate.
>
}snip comments about horror genre and damage tracks.{
You do realize that the different wound penalty damage tracks are *NOT*
indicative of the toughness of a character type, but were rather a rules
change from one edition of the game to another, don't you? As has been
pointed out elsewhere, going by your system, members of the Inquisition
don't get to soak but FBI agents do. Now I ask you, of those two groups,
which one is more supernaturally inclined? Wouldn't it be the Inquisition
(the guys that can have True Faith and work miracles)?
What all of us that are against this "no soak" rule for mortals are
complaining about is this: IT IS NOT CONSISTENT. It is ridiculous to give
Mortal A a soak roll just because he has an Arete, and Mortal B dies from a
punch delivered by Aunt May (I know I'm exaggerating). All we want is for
the rules to make sense. I know that it's really bad and mean of us, bet we
would like for the mechanics of the game to be playable and sensible as
written, rather than have to invoke the Golden Rule for every tiny thing
just to have an enjoyable game.
Phaelin
verkuilen john v
Well the Mage 2nd edition rules, unless my memory is disappearing (always
possible) allow soak for nonaggravated attacks. It is right there in the
combat section in Phil's usually pretty clear prose. Aggravated attacks, Rip
the Man Body and other vulgar life magick, for instance, can be countered
with magick only. Seems pretty clear to me.
I use somewhat different rules and am inclined to ALWAYS give humans a soak
vs. anything, perhaps at a high difficulty, but that's another story. It's
not as if that those couple dice of Stamina dramatically improves survivability
against the really massive attacks, but it seems reasonable against much
smaller attacks like guns and knives, which people do survive all the time
(check real world casualty records), albeit not happily without medical
attention.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Some people are so defined in what they want and expect that they will
not be able to hear or see beyond that point." --Robert Fripp
be...@malcop.u-net.com
>What all of us that are against this "no soak" rule for mortals are
>complaining about is this: IT IS NOT CONSISTENT. It is ridiculous to give
>Mortal A a soak roll just because he has an Arete, and Mortal B dies from a
>punch delivered by Aunt May (I know I'm exaggerating). All we want is for
>the rules to make sense. I know that it's really bad and mean of us, bet we
>would like for the mechanics of the game to be playable and sensible as
>written, rather than have to invoke the Golden Rule for every tiny thing
>just to have an enjoyable game.
I still keep having this riculous vision of a mortal jumping out and
trying to knife another mortal who also has a knife.
"Hold on," says dying ghoul, "How did you do that?"
"Simple,"says the other, "I was created via Mage's rules and can
soak... you were made with the Vampire rules so you can't."
Oh and it's not Arete that's the turner in mage, hedgies can soak as
well. WoD: Sorcerer page 84 under Botching.
"If some sort of damage seems appropriate, assume you take one Health
level for each level in the path or ritual. This damage can usually
be soaked, although certain catastrophes (wounds that rip open instead
of heal) might sidestep the usual soak roll."
Becka
Rebecca Sutton
be...@malcop.u-net.com
http://www.malcop.u-net.com
Bruce Baugh
I'm almost certainly going to regret saying anything about this, but...
The Storyteller system is not realistic. I'm sure this will come as a
real shock to some of you, but the mechanics were created in the first
place to serve the Gothic-Punk <tm> vision, and later extended to a
variety of other styles that are mostly (though not exclusively) horror.
So the key question should be fidelity to genre rather than to reality.
If you want really realistic mechanics, the combat system is the least
of your worries. You'll want different handling of attributes, different
approaches to personality mechanics, and a lot more. You'd be better off
figuring out how to adapt the Discipline/Arcanos/etc. mechanics to a
different rules set altogether.
To work within the Storyteller system is to accept a very coarse level
of resolution within a framework that generally downplays detailed
resolution of any mechanical element. And to work within the World of
Darkness is to accept a setting in which some emotions and themes get
favored at the expense of others.
I happen not to see these as weaknesses. I'm a strong-genre player
myelf, and I like many of the styles the WoD offers. If I were bent on
realism, I'd go elsewhere for it.
The chronicle I'm running right now is a Wraith: Great War playtest, and
my inspirations are people like (for the period) M.R. James, Wilfred
Owen, Alain Remarque, and Franz Kafka. Mortals are frail. At least most
of them are; some are tempered by the historical matter of the war and
other forms of suffering. The solution seems simple: most mortals don't
soak, but people with experience dealing with a particular kind of
battle can soak damage in some sense related to that. Brawlers deal with
damage inflicted by Brawl and Martial Arts; soldiers can soak some kinds
of melee weapons; and so on.
But note here that I started by figuring out what it is I'm doing in the
chronicle, and then set mechanics to suit. If I were running a different
sort of chronicle, I might make different decisions. (Depending
on who the Spectral PCs end up dealing with, I probably will.
That's likely to be more action-oriented.) Mechanics serve the
situation, not vice versa.
I have precisely no problem with the idea that different people in the
World of Darkness have different experiences of damage. That's true in
reality, and it's true in the source materials. A universal solution is
not necessary, since no chronicle is universal. The rulings given in the
various games seem appropriate in their various contexts, to me.
--
http://brucebaugh.home.mindspring.com/
Rolegaming, writing tools, miscellany
"It's raining my soul, it's raining, but it's raining dead eyes."
Guillaume Apollinaire, La Nuit d'avril 1915, on enemy fire.
Brian Thomas Habing
bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) writes:
>I'm almost certainly going to regret saying anything about this, but...
>The Storyteller system is not realistic. I'm sure this will come as a
>real shock to some of you, but the mechanics were created in the first
>place to serve the Gothic-Punk <tm> vision, and later extended to a
>variety of other styles that are mostly (though not exclusively) horror.
>So the key question should be fidelity to genre rather than to reality.
We are not asking the game to be totally realistic.
All we are asking is that when a simple rule allows for the game
to be more realistic and not harm game play that it be used,
and that if a rule has been changed, that said change either appear
in print of at least on the FAQ.
-Brian
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Bruce Baugh
In article <6mre9n$2n0$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
>All we are asking is that when a simple rule allows for the game
>to be more realistic and not harm game play that it be used,
>and that if a rule has been changed, that said change either appear
>in print of at least on the FAQ.
And I'm saying that realism is irrelevant or at any rate quite a low
priority, that attempting to impose one game's ruling on a specific
point universally adds nothing to the game (and may well detract), and
that this is one heck of a fuss to make over a point that no Storyteller
I know ever spent more than about five minutes on.
That is to say, I think you're being very silly about this. It's not
clear to me from the goals you site (or at least the examples you
provide) that the Storyteller system can ever be very satisfying for
you. You aren't going to get realism in any event, not with the
compressed nature of attribute and ability rankings, just for starters.
This is not a game about realism, but about supernatural dread,
existential despair, magical realism, symbolism, Romanticism, ecstatic
visions, and like that.
I'm also unconvinced that it's necessary to publish diff lists for the
games. The ruling for a game is what's in the game and in the FAQ.
The actual developers, you'll note, have said repeatedly over the years
that in their opinion crossovers usually don't work. Some have said it
more emphatically than that. Well, this is one reason among many.
Different soak rolls contribute to different tones, along with lots of
other stuff. For your own game, settle on a style and run with it.
Raindog
In article <6mrbre$qms$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
Phaelin <pha...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>You do realize that the different wound penalty damage tracks are *NOT*
>indicative of the toughness of a character type, but were rather a rules
>change from one edition of the game to another, don't you?
Sorry, but you're wrong. I hold here a late-printing Vampire
Players Guide 2nd Edition. Pg. 31, lower right hand corner. Why, it
appears to be a 12345 Damage Track. And here, in my copy of Mediums, they
also soak 12345. In fact they do this in direct contradition of the
'standard' mortal body levels printed on pg. 236 of THE BEAST.
Mediums is hardly a book on the ancient side of the canon -- I
remember quite clearly getting my release copy from Rich last GenCon
while I was working on Doomslayers, because I needed it for the Spectral
Cults and Orphic Circle sections.
Arcanum scholars /also/ have a 12345 track, despute the fact
that, lo and behold, my Mage 1st edition book has 11225 track on the
character sheet, and IIRC Arcanum came out after Mage 2 anyway. Some
people get 12345 sheets even in the year of the Ally (when Ghouls,
Kinfolk, Kinain and Sorcerers all got 11225) and likewise for year of the
Hunter. Project Twilight agents are 11225, but Inquisitors and Arcanum
Scholars are 12345. Obviously, there's a thematic issue at work here, or
else Production has a serious problem with not throwing out old
sheet templates.
>pointed out elsewhere, going by your system, members of the Inquisition
>don't get to soak but FBI agents do. Now I ask you, of those two groups,
>which one is more supernaturally inclined? Wouldn't it be the Inquisition
>(the guys that can have True Faith and work miracles)?
As I pointed out in the article you just followed up, PT, SF0 and
/shih/ are very much operating in their own genre. It's the Modern
Monster Hunter genre. Quite popular in anime and a certain TV show
recently made into a movie, but not at all in the tradition of humans
meddling with the Unseen. As PCs, they definitely need insurance against
damage. As NPCs, I'd think seriously about the tone of the campaign I was
running before I decided if they were merely mortals or more human than
human (yeah).
>What all of us that are against this "no soak" rule for mortals are
>complaining about is this: IT IS NOT CONSISTENT. It is ridiculous to give
>Mortal A a soak roll just because he has an Arete, and Mortal B dies from a
>punch delivered by Aunt May (I know I'm exaggerating).
I don't think that to be necessarily the case. Storyteller isn't
a 'realistic' series of games, but a series of games about supernatural
horror and the occult, with overtones of action. As a general rule of
thumb, in occult or horror, power flows from the world of the unseen and
the supernatural. It's perfectly reasonable to me that John Byzantine,
Sorcerer, clutches his designated hero zone and turns, his face white, to
see his girlfriend's body slumped in a pool of blood as the while his
unknown assailants' car accelerates away into the night -- /even if
Byzantine was an NPC and the girlfriend was the PC in the scene/.
Face it -- when 9' tall werewolves leap out of the spirit world
to battle gibbering toxic mutants in business suits for the fate of the
world, realism is fading fast as a legitimate argument for this or that
rule.
>All we want is for
>the rules to make sense. I know that it's really bad and mean of us, bet we
>would like for the mechanics of the game to be playable and sensible as
>written, rather than have to invoke the Golden Rule for every tiny thing
>just to have an enjoyable game.
The soak rule has been the subject of more house ruling,
modification and debate that probably any other facet of the Storyteller
system, except maybe coincidental magic. I think so many people have so
many different impressions of what 'making sense' means that at this
point a majority of the readers will dislike /any/ clarification or
comprehensive rewrite and immediately modify it to work in a 'better' or
'more realistic' fashion.
Personally, I would use a genre-driven approach. Obviously, you
would not. I think Brian is just acting out in public at this point, and
will hate anything unless it exactly duplicates his no-doubt extensive
set of house rules. And as for what the guys at White Wolf are thinking
("...if beings that alien to our experience can be said to 'think' as we
understand the word..."), I just write books for 'em -- they don't tell
me nuthin'.
>Phaelin
G.
--
|Geoffrey C. Grabowski | Freelance JOAT-A | rai...@io.com | Swing Heil!|
"What the Hell are they thinking? Good God, if I wanted pointless
depravity I wouldn't be reading a game, I'd be fucking my dog."
-Ian Turner
--------------------- http://www.io.com/~raindog/ -----------------------
Brian Thomas Habing
rai...@eyrie.org (Raindog) writes:
> Personally, I would use a genre-driven approach. Obviously, you
>would not. I think Brian is just acting out in public at this point, and
>will hate anything unless it exactly duplicates his no-doubt extensive
>set of house rules. And as for what the guys at White Wolf are thinking
>("...if beings that alien to our experience can be said to 'think' as we
>understand the word..."), I just write books for 'em -- they don't tell
>me nuthin'.
No, I will not hate anything out there that does not duplicate whatever
house rules I am using in the particular game.
I would be quite happy with the: 'mortals can't soak' rule
IF
1) It actually appeared in any of the main books or at least in the
FAQs instead of merely as an implied rule in one of the alternate
time books and in posts to this NG.
AND
2) A solution to little Ralphie killing the bully with his flurry of
one strenth punchs was dealt with. Such a solution in fact has
been supported by at least two WW design people in various incarnations
of this thread, and I have yet to see any negative comments towards it.
Would I use that rule in games I STed? I don't know... maybe some variation
on it at least. Would I like to play in a game where mortals recieved
no soak roll at all? absolutely not.
>|Geoffrey C. Grabowski | Freelance JOAT-A | rai...@io.com | Swing Heil!|
Brian
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Brian Thomas Habing
bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) writes:
>>All we are asking is that when a simple rule allows for the game
>>to be more realistic and not harm game play that it be used,
>>and that if a rule has been changed, that said change either appear
>>in print of at least on the FAQ.
>And I'm saying that realism is irrelevant or at any rate quite a low
>priority, that attempting to impose one game's ruling on a specific
>point universally adds nothing to the game (and may well detract), and
>that this is one heck of a fuss to make over a point that no Storyteller
>I know ever spent more than about five minutes on.
You certainly don't actually mean that you find realism irrelevant to
the game. "My Brujah flies over to the window." "What???" "Realism
isn't that important, pretend gravity doesn't work and think of
what a neat picture it makes."
I haven't spent much game time fussing over the point. We give mortals
soaks. Period.
I fail to see however how it is too much to ask that a rule which
virtually everyone who has posted her that they like better than the
UNPUBLISHED YET STILL OFFICIAL rule, be incorportated into a book a
great many of us will probably be spending some of our hard earned $$$
on.
And how you can concevably say the issue of mortals soaking is irrelevant
would instantly make me pity any players you ever ran through a mortal game.
Is it secondary to the plot and story? certainly!! It is however of
vital importance in the actual play!
"The 300lb bad guy rounds the corner and charges." "We unleash the 20
kindergardeners with 1 strength on him, he's dead cuz they get at least
seven points through."
It's a stupid example that they could officially deal with in very, very
little time.
>That is to say, I think you're being very silly about this. It's not
>clear to me from the goals you site (or at least the examples you
>provide) that the Storyteller system can ever be very satisfying for
>you. You aren't going to get realism in any event, not with the
>compressed nature of attribute and ability rankings, just for starters.
>This is not a game about realism, but about supernatural dread,
>existential despair, magical realism, symbolism, Romanticism, ecstatic
>visions, and like that.
I don't want total realism.
What I want is something that minimizes the absurd non-realisms when
it is trivial to do so.
What I want is for the design staff to not come out with rules that
make such absurd examples possible in the canoncial world (the only
one that ports from group to group, as people I haven't met probably
don't know what house rules I use), especially when those rules
directly contradict the direct wording of one of the core rule books,
and at least contradict the implications of the other four.
>I'm also unconvinced that it's necessary to publish diff lists for the
>games. The ruling for a game is what's in the game and in the FAQ.
In that case Mages still get to soak damage, as the rule they cannot
has appeared neither in the FAQ or rule book.
>The actual developers, you'll note, have said repeatedly over the years
>that in their opinion crossovers usually don't work.
Which then explains HK and the sections in the back of the books because...?
>Some have said it
>more emphatically than that. Well, this is one reason among many.
>Different soak rolls contribute to different tones, along with lots of
>other stuff. For your own game, settle on a style and run with it.
There are not different soak rolls in the various games.
I do have my own house rules, and do play with them.
I don't think it is too much to ask for WW to deal with a problem like
this in print, or at least on there web page, when the solution is so
simple.
Brian Habing
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Bruce Baugh
In article <6mrgv1$4v3$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, hab...@neyman.stat.uiuc.edu (Brian Thomas Habing) wrote:
>You certainly don't actually mean that you find realism irrelevant to
>the game.
I certainly do. I am here opposing realism to genre fidelity, as I have
done in each post to this thread. I am seldom concerned with what is
"realistic" in my games; I am above all concerned with getting the tone
right. Realism interests me only to the extent that it supports or at
least does not contradict this.
I've said this before in this newsgroup and others. I am the King of
Genre. I live with realism in the rest of my life; I game for what
realism cannot do for me.
How people deal with damage is a function of genre.
Explaining to people that they don't mean what they just said they did,
on the other hand, is merely rude.
>And how you can concevably say the issue of mortals soaking is irrelevant
>would instantly make me pity any players you ever ran through a mortal game.
You'd have to ask my playtesters, but I haven't heard any
particular complaints.
>What I want is something that minimizes the absurd non-realisms when
>it is trivial to do so.
"Absurd" is in this context a value judgment. Jess and Jim have given
explanations for why they prefer two different approaches, and both make
sense to me. Other folks have explained their preferences for others,
and they also make sense to me. I'm not even sure I know what your view
_is_, because it's so buried in rhetoric about the evils of others'
preferences.
If you want us to agree on the superiority of your view, you'll have to
point us at a source of truthometers or rectitudoscopes, because
otherwise it all looks to me like a matter of taste.
And a few people posting a whole lot of messages is not the same thing
as general demand.
Brian Thomas Habing
bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) writes:
>>You certainly don't actually mean that you find realism irrelevant to
>>the game.
>I certainly do. I am here opposing realism to genre fidelity, as I have
>done in each post to this thread. I am seldom concerned with what is
>"realistic" in my games; I am above all concerned with getting the tone
>right. Realism interests me only to the extent that it supports or at
>least does not contradict this.
You snipped the example I placed here.
Namely, a player has his Brujah fly up to the third window using
no powers of flight, merely because it looks good.
>Explaining to people that they don't mean what they just said they did,
>on the other hand, is merely rude.
You snipped my example, changing the context I was making, and then
called me rude?!?!
>>What I want is something that minimizes the absurd non-realisms when
>>it is trivial to do so.
>"Absurd" is in this context a value judgment. Jess and Jim have given
>explanations for why they prefer two different approaches, and both make
>sense to me. Other folks have explained their preferences for others,
>and they also make sense to me. I'm not even sure I know what your view
>_is_, because it's so buried in rhetoric about the evils of others'
>preferences.
I have now posted what my view is at least five times.
Namely that mortals not being able to soak no damage at all leads
to many examples that many people find absurd. Further that the simple
solution to this in the canonical rules (soaking blunt trauma) has had
no one post any negative comments I have seen, and is in fact called
a good idea or used by almost all of those who otherwise were posting
"mortals don't soak period."
In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to misrepresent the point
I was trying to make in the post you responded to, as well as what
I am asking of the game design staff.
Brian Habing
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Raindog
In article <6mrgv1$4v3$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
Brian Thomas Habing <hab...@neyman.stat.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>"The 300lb bad guy rounds the corner and charges." "We unleash the 20
>kindergardeners with 1 strength on him, he's dead cuz they get at least
>seven points through."
The rule I think should be changed is brought up in discussion,
and I release my titanic straw man to destroy it with his six dots of
/Argumentum Ad Absurdam/!
Tell me, how often do mortals get set upon by hordes of cannibal
schoolchildren in /your/ game? It can happen, but it sure isn't all that
common. Rules are designed to model the general average of situations --
if the rules were sufficient to run without intepretation and oversight,
the game would be playable withouta GM. The only thing WW needs to do to
prevent absurdities like that is say "These rules cannot be complete --
literal-minded players may warp or distort them for inane reasons. The ST
must act as a moderator, and is empowered to deal with such monkeys by
saying 'No, you can't.'"
Pretty much sounds like the Golden Rule to me, huh? That's
definitely what I'd invoke to deal with someone who showed the degree of
gamesmanship you're demonstrating. The game is not Kindergarten: The
Tusseling, and its rules are not generally well-suited to modelling
actions taken by mortal characters under sixty pounds. Yes, you guessed
it, "you have to be as tall as me to ride the World of Darkness!"
You might also have noticed that the stats for toy poodles aren't
all they could be either. Pushing the system past the low end of the
scale and then complaining because irregularities result is pretty lame.
>Brian Habing
>hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
G.
--
|Geoffrey C. Grabowski | Freelance JOAT-A | rai...@io.com | Swing Heil!|
blak...@technologist.com
In article <6mrbre$qms$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
"Phaelin" <pha...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
<SARCASM irrevocably ON for this entire post>
> }snip comments about horror genre and damage tracks.{
>
> You do realize that the different wound penalty damage tracks are *NOT*
> indicative of the toughness of a character type, but were rather a rules
> change from one edition of the game to another, don't you? As has been
> pointed out elsewhere, going by your system, members of the Inquisition
> don't get to soak but FBI agents do.
Which makes as much sense as everything else that's been said on the topic.
> What all of us that are against this "no soak" rule for mortals are
> complaining about is this: IT IS NOT CONSISTENT.
Look, this is Storyteller we're talking about, there's no need to
belabour the obvious.
> It is ridiculous to give
> Mortal A a soak roll just because he has an Arete, and Mortal B dies from a
> punch delivered by Aunt May (I know I'm exaggerating). All we want is for
> the rules to make sense. I know that it's really bad and mean of us, bet we
> would like for the mechanics of the game to be playable and sensible as
> written, rather than have to invoke the Golden Rule for every tiny thing
> just to have an enjoyable game.
That's what the Golden Rule is there for. It's not so you can customize
the game to fit your individual Chronical, it's so the designers can
concentrate on mood and setting instead of wasting time designing
the system. After all, as should be obvious from the traffic here and
in other newsgroups, the typical roleplayer is much more interested in
tinkering with rules minutiae than in designing a setting for his
game or capturing the right mood with the character he's playing.
blak...@technologist.com
In article <6mrd2k$1nb$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
ja...@ux6.cso.uiuc.edu (verkuilen john v) wrote:
>
> Well the Mage 2nd edition rules, unless my memory is disappearing (always
> possible) allow soak for nonaggravated attacks. It is right there in the
> combat section in Phil's usually pretty clear prose. Aggravated attacks, Rip
> the Man Body and other vulgar life magick, for instance, can be countered
> with magick only. Seems pretty clear to me.
As a matter of fact, until the Mage FAQ came out, it was pretty clear that
Mages could soak both normal and Agg damage... The only reference to
something that couldn't be soaked was vulgar life magick.
> I use somewhat different rules and am inclined to ALWAYS give humans a soak
> vs. anything, perhaps at a high difficulty, but that's another story. It's
> not as if that those couple dice of Stamina dramatically improves
> against the really massive attacks, but it seems reasonable against much
> smaller attacks like guns and knives, which people do survive all the time
> (check real world casualty records), albeit not happily without medical
> attention.
That's another point. The standard healing times assume medical attention,
but we don't have much of a guideline for what happens without medical
attention. I can handle the idea of a character (even a normal) taking
a fairly serious (good damage roll) gun shot wound and yet being relatively
unimpaired (good soak roll). Still, that guy should be in some serious
danger if he just decides to walk around with a bullet in him for the
rest of the day. I don't know what game mechanic would be apropriate,
but it seem to me that a character that gets smacked for a few sepparte
1 HL wounds that he fails to saok shouldn't be in much danger of dying
subsequently, while a character who get hosed with a couple of massive
6+ HL wounds, but rolls spectacular soaks (and ends up the same few
HL down) should be lucky to make it to a hospital in time...
Andrew Bates
Brian Thomas Habing wrote:
>
> Andrew Bates writes:
>
> >The rules aren't gospel. If you think it makes more sense for mortals
> >to soak, then have them soak. If you think they shouldn't, then don't
> >let them. If you want to swipe the Trinity Bashing/Lethal soak rules, do so.
>
> You are correct, the WW rules aren't gospel. They are however the
> only thing to go by when you join a new gaming group or wish to discuss
> the game with others.
True enough. But the Golden Rule's in there, too. You can go by that
when you join a new group or talk to others, and it says much what I
just did above.
> >* It's impractical to revise the currently-published core rulebooks.
>
> Very true. But somehow stating something on the net that directly counterdicts
> what is implied or explicitly stated by at least 5 of the rule books
> and at the same time not having that on the web page FAQs is far from
> practical also.
Unfortunately, we're constrained by the resources at our disposal. This
point strays from the subject at hand, though. I've explained things as
well as I'm able from my point of view. I recommend taking up any
further concerns directly with the specific developers for the game
lines in question.
Bates
David Johnston
man...@geocities.com wrote:
>
> In article <358FF6...@white-wolf.com>,
> aba...@white-wolf.com wrote:
> >
> > Brian Thomas Habing wrote:
> > >
> > > sv...@ll.mit.edu writes:
> > >
> > > >I have always gone for the halfway solution proposed by _Aeon_ (yes,
> > > >_Aeon_, not _Trinity_, damn your bones) -- categorize damage as 'bash'
> > > >(blunt trauma) versus 'lethal' (hack/slash/pierce/electrical/fire/etc.),
> > > >and assign soak (or lack thereof) accordingly.
> > >
> > > I would be perhaps amenable to allowing mortals a soak on non-lethal
> > > damage and not on the rest (as was pointed out in Deirdre Brooks post
> > > recommending using that rool from WoD combat)... however,
> > > Jess Heinig's post in fact even over rules that (except as she notes
> > > if you choose to use a 'house rule') by saying that mortals don't get
> > > to soak at all.
> >
> > As the WoD rules stand currently, it is implied that mortals get no soak
>
> The please, why do my rule books explicitly tell me otherwise? And where is it
> they used to be.
>
> >(Of course, developers can lay down the law for their own lines
> > and put it in writing, and a little bird told me there are some rules
> > clarifications in the upcoming Vampire 3rd.)
>
> So different lines within the ST system can have different rules for mortal
> soaking?
<Valley Girl>: Well yah!
Of course they can. That's the inevitable result of having separate
basic rules for every line.
My mortal in vampire can't soak, but my mortal in Wraith can? What do
> I do in crossover? Count the books that say they can vs those that say they
> can't and the one with the most wins?
Pick the one that has the most PCs and that one wins.
>
> > But inevitably, the Golden Rule rears its ugly head once again: modify
> > the rules how you like to make it work for your game.
>
> It would be nice to have really common alterenatives (mortals soaking, vampire
> stat limits with blood) given as options in the rules, and let the ST choose.
They handle that by just giving them all as mutually conflicting rules
so everything is optional and nothing is official.
>
> > Bates
> > ...watching in awe as the Golden Rule, mutated by radiation to gigantic
> > size, stomps through New York City and makes sure to wreck the hell out
> > of the Chrysler Building...
> >
> > roooaar!
>
> What have you created? Its a monster ;)
>
> Mant
blak...@technologist.com
In article <6mrds5$35g...@news.mindspring.com>,
bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>
> I'm almost certainly going to regret saying anything about this, but...
>
> The Storyteller system is not realistic. I'm sure this will come as a
> real shock to some of you, but the mechanics were created in the first
> place to serve the Gothic-Punk <tm> vision, and later extended to a
> variety of other styles that are mostly (though not exclusively) horror.
> So the key question should be fidelity to genre rather than to reality.
>
> of your worries. You'll want different handling of attributes, different
> approaches to personality mechanics, and a lot more. You'd be better off
> figuring out how to adapt the Discipline/Arcanos/etc. mechanics to a
> different rules set altogether.
Now that you mention it, someone's done that:
http://www.javaman.to/mageplugin.html
lets you adapt the Mage magick system to the Fuzion ruleset. Fuzion
is freely available on the web. It's put out by Hero Games, who also
did Champions. Fuzion isn't has good as Champs, but it's oodles better
than the core Storyteller system (from a purely mechanical standpoint)
and not as horridly complex as Hero System/Champions 4th Ed was.
You can download Fuzion from the Hero Games site:
> But note here that I started by figuring out what it is I'm doing in the
> chronicle, and then set mechanics to suit. If I were running a different
> sort of chronicle, I might make different decisions. (Depending
> on who the Spectral PCs end up dealing with, I probably will.
> That's likely to be more action-oriented.) Mechanics serve the
> situation, not vice versa.
>
> I have precisely no problem with the idea that different people in the
> World of Darkness have different experiences of damage. That's true in
> reality, and it's true in the source materials. A universal solution is
> not necessary, since no chronicle is universal. The rulings given in the
> various games seem appropriate in their various contexts, to me.
It's fine until you get to a crossover situation, but that's true of
virtually all the rules. ;) Another point, though. As you mentioned
above, different mechanics will work better in different chronicles...
on Mage game, might do well with no one soaking, another with mages
soaking normal damage, and another (Say a SoE pulp adventure) with
mages soaking normal & agg damage. So, though it makes some sense for
the various games to have different rules, it would also make sense
to keep more of the core system intact, and instead /suggest/ that
Storyteller make this or that modification for this or that sort of
chronicle. That way, the players can be confident that, having played
one game, they now know the core system, and the ST can easily tell
what of his choices he should let the players know. This avoids little
problems like the Vampire ST telling the Mage player "of *course* you
don't get to soak anything, whatever made you think that?"
--- |
Blake 1001, Virtual Adept, Disciple ---|-.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/1317/ '-|---
|
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
blak...@technologist.com
In article <6mriv0$6i2$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
hab...@neyman.stat.uiuc.edu (Brian Thomas Habing) wrote:
> Namely that mortals not being able to soak no damage at all leads
> to many examples that many people find absurd. Further that the simple
> solution to this in the canonical rules (soaking blunt trauma) has had
> no one post any negative comments I have seen, and is in fact called
> a good idea or used by almost all of those who otherwise were posting
> "mortals don't soak period."
OK, you've said 'no negative comments' a few times, so I have a negative
comment to make.
I definitely don't like the Aeon/Trinity compromise you-can-soak-clubs
but-not-bullets thing. Characters should always soak. Without soak,
everybody is walking around like a D&D character with 8 hit point.
"Hi, I'm Irving the Accountant, I have never been in a fight in my
life, I have 8 hit points." "Hi my name's Ahnuld, I am a world-class
bodybuilder and fictional action hero, I have 8 hit points" "Hello,
I am Shreds-the-Wyrm, Rank 5 Garou Ahroun with years of brutal
combat experience, I stand 9 feet tall in Crinos form, I have 8 hit
points" "Hi there, I'm Andre, I have a glandular defect and am about
8 feet tall, I'm actually in rather poor health, but my Huge Size
Merit gives me 9 hit points" "Hi name's Joe, I was hit by 12 machine-
gun bullets in Normandy, but I was still able to run in close enough
to lob a grenade into the pill box, I have no idea how I did that,
since I have 8 hit points"
Hmm... all WoD characters must be 1st level clerics.... yeah, and
Huge Size means you have a 15 con...
Joshua Bardwell
blak...@technologist.com wrote:
: in other newsgroups, the typical roleplayer is much more interested in
: tinkering with rules minutiae than in designing a setting for his
: game or capturing the right mood with the character he's playing.
Well, duh! Writing a setting or creating a character takes _thought_! Why
would anybody want to do that?!
J
--
Joshua Bardwell | "Always remember to never forget:
jo...@cc.gatech.edu | The places you've gone,
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt6234b | The people you've met."
| - TCJ
Brian Thomas Habing
Andrew Bates <aba...@white-wolf.com> writes:
>> >* It's impractical to revise the currently-published core rulebooks.
>>
>>Very true. But somehow stating something on the net that directly counterdicts
>> what is implied or explicitly stated by at least 5 of the rule books
>> and at the same time not having that on the web page FAQs is far from
>> practical also.
>Unfortunately, we're constrained by the resources at our disposal. This
>point strays from the subject at hand, though. I've explained things as
>well as I'm able from my point of view. I recommend taking up any
>further concerns directly with the specific developers for the game
>lines in question.
I did exactly that and was very happy with there responses!
Even if we bitch about what you end up doing, its still better than
most of the stuff out there, and you are all certainly very helpful!
Thanks for your time!
>Bates
Brian Habing
hab...@stat.uiuc.edu
Deirdre M. Brooks
In <6mqder$i...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi> n...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi (Niilo Paasivirta) writes:
>After reading these, I've decided to start using a new house rule:
>since vampires aren't really living creatures, they do not really have
>Stamina. Thus, they cannot soak any damage, except with Fortitude.
I was trying not to reply, because I've already stated my position:
But come ON, man, there is such a thing as too much absurdity.
>--
> <a href="http://www.jyu.fi/%7Enp/index.html"> Niilo Paasivirta </a>
Bruce Baugh
>http://www.javaman.to/mageplugin.html
>
>lets you adapt the Mage magick system to the Fuzion ruleset. Fuzion
Funky. I'll have to check that out later tonight. I strongly approve of
folks working out crossover; someday I'll finish up my notes on Wraith
in Everway.
>mages soaking normal & agg damage. So, though it makes some sense for
>the various games to have different rules, it would also make sense
>to keep more of the core system intact, and instead /suggest/ that
>Storyteller make this or that modification for this or that sort of
>chronicle. That way, the players can be confident that, having played
Now there's some truth to this. Also on my list of personal projects -
and higher-priority than EverWraith - is an essay about how various
elements of game mechanics influence genre considerations. Material for
a companion volume, too.
Black_...@hotmail.com
On 24 Jun 1998 11:30:19 +0300, n...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi (Niilo Paasivirta)
wrote:
>After reading these, I've decided to start using a new house rule:
>since vampires aren't really living creatures, they do not really have
>Stamina. Thus, they cannot soak any damage, except with Fortitude.
>
>--
> <a href="http://www.jyu.fi/%7Enp/index.html"> Niilo Paasivirta </a>
That is STUPID. That makes Vampires much too weak against soak!! I
don't know why anyoney would want to be that weak....You don't have
many PC's do you. It doesn't matter if vampires are living or not!!
Can they move? YES...Then they can use stamina....if somebody has no
stamina they would get winded even standing up....EVERYTHING WOULD BE
IMPOSSIBLE
Phaelin
Raindog wrote in message <6mrg4t$v...@eyrie.org>...
>In article <6mrbre$qms$1...@camel29.mindspring.com>,
>Phaelin <pha...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
}snip my original statement{
> Sorry, but you're wrong. I hold here a late-printing Vampire
>Players Guide 2nd Edition. Pg. 31, lower right hand corner. Why, it
>appears to be a 12345 Damage Track. And here, in my copy of Mediums, they
>also soak 12345. In fact they do this in direct contradition of the
>'standard' mortal body levels printed on pg. 236 of THE BEAST.
> Mediums is hardly a book on the ancient side of the canon -- I
>remember quite clearly getting my release copy from Rich last GenCon
>while I was working on Doomslayers, because I needed it for the Spectral
>Cults and Orphic Circle sections.
> Arcanum scholars /also/ have a 12345 track, despute the fact
>that, lo and behold, my Mage 1st edition book has 11225 track on the
>character sheet, and IIRC Arcanum came out after Mage 2 anyway. Some
>people get 12345 sheets even in the year of the Ally (when Ghouls,
>Kinfolk, Kinain and Sorcerers all got 11225) and likewise for year of the
>Hunter. Project Twilight agents are 11225, but Inquisitors and Arcanum
>Scholars are 12345. Obviously, there's a thematic issue at work here, or
>else Production has a serious problem with not throwing out old
>sheet templates.
Ok, I admit that my understanding of the reason for the different damage
tracks is quite possibly (or even likely) to be wrong. Now I would like for
you to sit there and with a straight face explain to me why these different
damage tracks make a lick of sense, WITHOUT using the excuse of genre.
Hence the following example. Note that I used flame-retardant material, so
this Straw Man is very hard to burn. :) (just kidding)
Kyle is 6' tall and weighs in at a very muscular 200 lbs. He is very
healthy (ie, has never smoked, done drugs, been ill, etc). He is a black
belt in karate.
Steven is Kyle's twin brother. They are identical in all respects.
Steven is also a black belt.
Steven and Kyle each get wounded when part of a ceiling collapses. They
each take enough damage to put them at Mauled. Fortunately, they aren't
totally buried, but each has a beam or something over his legs. Kyle
struggles to move the beam on his legs. He can't. The pain from his wound
is just too much. Steven moves the beam off his legs and then helps his
brother out.
Once outside Kyle looks with amazement at his brother. "How'd you do
that?" he asks.
"Simple." Kyle responds with a grin. Since you're a security guard for
the Arcannum you use the 12345 damage track so your 5 Strength is almost
completely nixed. I'm a security guard at the FBI, so I get the 11225, and
still had an effective strength of 3. Sorry bro."
I understand your argument about genre. I really do. I even partially
agree with it. In my opinion, one can take such things just a little too
far, though. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to have a consistent
(not necessarily "realistic," just consistent) set of rules for normal human
beings in the game. As it stands, the WoD is inhabited by several different
subspecies of human (after all, their bodies obviously work differently),
plus all the different varieties of supernatural critters running around. I
know I'm probably going to have the Golden Rule quoted at me yet again. And
I simply have this to say: the Golden Rule should NOT be an excuse used by
game writers to cover their obvious and glaring mistakes. THAT leads to
grossly inconsistent books. Which considering that the darn things are NOT
free, it's really annoying. But the current trend seems to be that just
because someone writes or has written for a particular company, they can
obviously do no wrong. I hate to say it, but game writers are just people
too and they can make mistakes, given the ENORMOUS amount of pressure they
work under vis a vis deadlines and such. And in my opinion, the "mortal
soak mess" and these different damage tracks are just two examples of those
mistakes. The opinions of others may be different, and all are just as
valid. I just wanted to be heard, that's all.
I'll shut up now.
Phaelin
David Johnston
Bruce Baugh wrote:
>
> In article <6mre9n$2n0$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> >to be more realistic and not harm game play that it be used,
> >and that if a rule has been changed, that said change either appear
> >in print of at least on the FAQ.
>
> And I'm saying that realism is irrelevant or at any rate quite a low
> priority, that attempting to impose one game's ruling on a specific
> point universally adds nothing to the game (and may well detract), and
> that this is one heck of a fuss to make over a point that no Storyteller
> I know ever spent more than about five minutes on.
It's irritating to find out that the all the rulebooks you have use
"unofficial house rules" rather than actually giving the rules.
Personally I think a bigger problem is, if you use this new rule, how
do you make Stamina anything except an exercise in flavour?
blak...@technologist.com
In article <6mruc4$tk_...@news.mindspring.com>,
bruce...@mindspring.com (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
>
> In article <6mrthr$o4k$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, blak...@technologist.com
wrote:
>
> >http://www.javaman.to/mageplugin.html
> >
> >lets you adapt the Mage magick system to the Fuzion ruleset. Fuzion
>
> Funky. I'll have to check that out later tonight. I strongly approve of
> folks working out crossover; someday I'll finish up my notes on Wraith
> in Everway.
>
It's interesting, and doesn't take to long to read. Not really a crossover
though. You see, Fuzion is the near-polar-oposite of WoD, being a game
system with no setting. Rather like GURPS, but not as hideously complex,a
and a lot faster and more fun to play as a result.
> >mages soaking normal & agg damage. So, though it makes some sense for
> >the various games to have different rules, it would also make sense
> >to keep more of the core system intact, and instead /suggest/ that
> >Storyteller make this or that modification for this or that sort of
> >chronicle. That way, the players can be confident that, having played
>
> Now there's some truth to this. Also on my list of personal projects -
> and higher-priority than EverWraith - is an essay about how various
> elements of game mechanics influence genre considerations. Material for
> a companion volume, too.
>
Cool. That would be interesting. Also suggests an alternative to
crossover madness... instead of saying "when supernatural critter A
uses power B on victim X who has defenses Y & Z, but Q is not present,
add the total of line 17 to the square root line 33 to compute your
total tax owed, unless, of course, you happen to be in the Umbra..."
you could say something like: "If you want to maintain an air of taught
mystery in your chronicle, you should make supernatural senses
inconvenient to use and unreliable, OTOH, if you want to quickly bring
different characters together, a simple ability like Per+Awareness or
Aura Site should be able to detect the presence of various
supernaturals..."
Bruce Baugh
>you could say something like: "If you want to maintain an air of taught
>mystery in your chronicle, you should make supernatural senses
>inconvenient to use and unreliable, OTOH, if you want to quickly bring
>different characters together, a simple ability like Per+Awareness or
>Aura Site should be able to detect the presence of various
>supernaturals..."
Bingo. That's the approach I prefer to bring to as many such questions
as possible.
Rev. Will, Gator-at-Large
>2) A solution to little Ralphie killing the bully with his flurry of
> one strenth punchs was dealt with. Such a solution in fact has
> been supported by at least two WW design people in various incarnations
> of this thread, and I have yet to see any negative comments towards it.
The solution to this little quandry that you have forved down out
collective throat is really quite simple. It DOES NOT happen in the
WoD, so anything you say about it is perfunctory at best, and at
worst, some of the most mindless semantic flotsam I have ever seen
drift to shore on the weak tides of a near-stangnant, brackish,
algae-infested, bug-spawning ocean of a brain.
You senseless, petty, childlike, insisitant whining about how
important it is to have a 'cannonical ruling' on this rules issue is
among the most flagrant long-term trolls I have even been witness to.
If this issue is serious enough to you that you /honestly/ went to
these great lengths to browbeat developers into answering your inane
questions, then you are indeed lacking some essential human spark that
I have never known even the most banal people to lack. I weep for
your players.
Rev. Will, Gator-at-Large
>Here, actually, I disagree a bit. I think the horror of fighting a
>supernatural is not so much that it can just shrug off blows. It's
>when a mugger gets the drop on the bastard, slits its throat, and
>watches it fall gurgling to the pavement. Then as he's walking off
>with his ill-gottne gains, he hears a scraping behind him. He turns
>around and sees what he thought he left behind as a corpse get back up,
>and he SEES the throat wound close before his very eyes. And he can
>only stare like a stunned monkey as his knife clatters to the ground,
>and the vampire calmly rips his throat out with its teeth.
Very nice image! Very dramatic. Among my favorite archetypical
situations from the genre, actually.
You like that, too?
So run it like that!
See? Easy.
Bruce Baugh
>It's irritating to find out that the all the rulebooks you have use
>"unofficial house rules" rather than actually giving the rules.
>Personally I think a bigger problem is, if you use this new rule, how
>do you make Stamina anything except an exercise in flavour?
As I noted in an earlier post, I'm providing soak rolls for mortals
where I think them appropriate. Stamina coutns then. And even if one has
no soaking, a fair number of abilities use it.
Niilo Paasivirta
<black_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>n...@kanto.cc.jyu.fi (Niilo Paasivirta) wrote:
>>After reading these, I've decided to start using a new house rule:
>>since vampires aren't really living creatures, they do not really have
>>Stamina. Thus, they cannot soak any damage, except with Fortitude.
>That is STUPID. That makes Vampires much too weak against soak!! I
>don't know why anyoney would want to be that weak....You don't have
>many PC's do you. It doesn't matter if vampires are living or not!!
>Can they move? YES...Then they can use stamina....if somebody has no
If they move, that is Dexterity + Dodge. Not Stamina.
>stamina they would get winded even standing up....EVERYTHING WOULD BE
>IMPOSSIBLE
Hey, my house rule actually helps Vampires!
First: since mortals, homid garou, mages, hunters, etc. do not get
Soak rolls any more, Stamina is almost an useless attribute. So,
not many PCs will bother taking a high Stamina. They will spend their
precious points to other attributes, supernatural abilities, and perhaps
to some nice merits.
Now, when Stamina is also made useless to Vampires, they don't need to
waste points into it either. Thus, they get extra points to spend! :-D
Doesn't this sound as sensible as the reasons for not allowing Soaks
for mortals? Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far I've understood:
- This is horror genre, so mortals must die.
- Developers think crossovers do not work, so mortals do not
get Soak.
- Some Official Books say mortals don't get soak. Not any of
the basic rule books; you should have bought the book <X>,
go buy it now.
- ST games are not supposed to be realistic.
- Humans are so fragile.
- There are different genres, so mortals can not Soak.
And the solutions include such pearls as:
- If you want mortals to get Soak, use some other, realistic
combat system then, stupid!
- You're supposed to fix all the rules! Buy our books and
change all the rules manually!
But, anyway, I will keep buying new WW books as much as usual.
(That is, none. The only book I owned was 1st Edition Mage, but I gave it
away, to a collector. :)
Thomas McKinnell
In article <6mpuqo$moi$1...@camel19.mindspring.com>,
Phaelin <pha...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote:
>Raindog wrote in message <6motrp$b...@eyrie.org>...
>
>{snip part of the Great Debate}
>
>> You can 'take' a punch or a kick. You might even be able to
>>'take' a baseball bat. I've never seen someone take a bat or a pickaxe
>>handle to the side of the head and shake it off, but it's possible.
>>Note that taking punishment is by no means fun. You look like a side of
>>cubesteak and feel like shit afterwards, and if you do it for too long,
>>you you turn into a middle-aged boxer, complete with the obligatory
>>brain damage.
>> You cannot, however, 'take' a knife, axe or sword blow, nor can
>>you 'take' a bullet. If you get hit, you get hurt. Really hurt. Like,
>>'taking body levels' hurt. If you're lucky (he rolls badly on damage)
>>it may just be shallow. If you are unlucky, you die. Hence the reason
>>police are eager to wear bulletproof vests.
>
>
> Um, I hate to tell you, but several years ago, I saw a TV interview with
>a guy who was shot in the head with a crossbow bolt by his freaked-out
>roommate. Yes, the bolt *completely* penetrated his skull. During the
This isn't even new, by the way. In the late 19th century, a railway
worker named Phineas Gage was at the site of some rock blasting.
Unfortunately one charge went off prematurely, and a 6 foot long shaft
of steel over an inch in diameter passed in through his face, just to
one side of his eye, and out through the top of his head. Now, I'm not
saying he walked away, and I'm not saying he was quite the same afterwards.
Neither would be true. He's one of the classic early neurology cases,
one of the ones they quote to medical students (which is why I know it ;).
In fact, the reason he was so studied was that it was able to deduce from
what he _couldn't_ do, and the changes in his personality, some of what
the functions of the structures in the brain had been that had been spiked.
But he survived.
I could quote equally ridiculous things that have been survived, at
least temporarily.
Basically, it's too hard to die in the WoD in some ways (bloodloss, for
eg. To kill a mortal from bloodloss you have under the rules to take
70% of their blood (1HL/BP). 40% blood loss is the severest classified
level of blood loss in RL medicine, while in other ways, it's way too
easy (if you don't have a soak roll for mortals).
My own personal taste is to vary the difficulty of the soak, according
to what the instrument of harm is.... I set blunt trauma at 5 or 6,
depending on weapon and my mood, knives etc at 6, and guns at 8.
Afterall, we see nothing wrong in varying difficulty for soaking fire
damage.
I think, incidentally, WW are right to make vampires tougher than mortals,
but then, according to a strict reading of the rules, to kill a leech,
even with agg damage, you have to remove all their blood points as well
as all their health levels. For a PC that's up to 22 HL's!!
I _don't_ let mortals soak agg damage, in the same way I don't let
vampires soak it (with the exception of claw damage, where I DO allow
an increased diff soak roll on stamina alone) unless they have fortitude.
This might give vampires a taste for going back to traditional values, and
using teeth and claws, rather than sporting loud, expensive and illegal
firearms, which will only attract attention ;)
Tom
ps, before anyone complains, no, on this raw telnet link to my dodgy
UNIX site, I can't delete out other peoples remarks. Or not so I can
still read what's left. Sorry.
>interview, they showed X-rays taken at the ER before the bolt was removed.
>It had entered the back of his head and was sticking out the front. Sorry
>to get gross, but the shaft of the quarrel was actually *inside* his brain,
>running *through* it. The victim suffered no noticeable brain damage.
>After the bolt was removed and he spent some time recovering, he felt fine.
>Heck, he even described how he was still walking around while the bolt was
>in his head! He answered the door for the cops when they arrived!!
> Granted, these sorts of occurrences are very rare. HOWEVER, it proves
>that humans are not *quite* so fragile as everyone on this newsgroup seems
>to want to believe.
>
>}snip comment about Deirdre and her players getting frustrated in Hunter
>games{
>
>>
>> I think Dierdre (sorry, I know I'm missing your apostrophe, D.)
>>has made it clear that in fact she does not get immensely frustrated.
>>Smart Hunters don't try to go toe-to-toe against the Unseen becuase
>>most supernaturals are engines of nigh-unstoppable destruction. Sure,
>>the /shih/ do it, but they're supernatural creatures themselves.
>>
>
>
> But how much fun would a game be without at least *some* dramatic
>conflict? You mean that you expect people to play in Hunter Chronicles and
>*never* fight supernaturals in person? Hello? Am I the only person that
>sees this as unreasonable? Because with this no-soak rule it's exactly what
>you would have to do. After all, statistically speaking, the very first
>time you fought a supernatural it would be practically *guaranteed* that
>someone in the group would die!
>
>Phaelin,
>who thinks this "no-soak" business is just plain silly
>
>
>
Patryk Adamski
As the night train rode on,
Raindog paused, then remarked:
> The rule I think should be changed is brought up in discussion,
> and I release my titanic straw man to destroy it with his six dots of
> /Argumentum Ad Absurdam/!
> Tell me, how often do mortals get set upon by hordes of cannibal
> schoolchildren in /your/ game? It can happen, but it sure isn't all that
A Ventrue sicks a bunch of kids on a ghoul using his Majesty power.
A Tzimisce neonate meets Mike Tyson clone.
A knight in shining armor faces weaponless and frenzied Toreador neonate.
Mortals don't get soak, unless they are important to the story, right?
*sigh*
"Annabelle, whack him quickly, he's weak cuase he has no part in the
grander scheme of things"
"Justus, that girl lived thru my kick! I think our Fate is sealed!"
*sigh again*
Damn the realism, damn the mechanics.
Why cannot things be simple, like:
- Mortals Soak all damage (with the average Soak of 2 it won't do them
much good), but:
They are stunned for a round if the damage-before-soak
exceeds their Soak Pool.
3 health levels nad 5 to-hit successes are required to stake
a vampire, hence any result of 3+ clean health levels and
5+ successes on to-hit roll are _instantly fatal_ or at the
least _instantly incapacitating_ to any Mortal.
- Soak and to-hit difficulty are adjusted at ST's discretion to
reflect advantage (lately, an Assamite Neonate has managed to
decapitate a Brujah Prince ... a blow with a sword to Prince's
neck with Obfuscate as an additional factor ...
to-hit diff: 4 (it's a surprise, but it's his neck, damn it)
soak diff : 8 (you did not see it coming, pal)
And that's how poor Crispin, Prince of Malaga, died.
And that's why Kindred fear Assamites.
And that's why I like Quietus for its power of Disease...
Patryk, who knows he's gona get flamed for this by those who
prefer to stick to original rules and those, who'll just
say "It's yours, so what?"
PS. IMHO, Assamites don't need Potence or Protean ...or Thaumaturgy
for that matter. Two Assassins with Celerity of 2 and Quietus of 2
will quickly lower targets stamina to zero causing a heart attack
(a mortal target, a Garou for example) or torpor (in case of a vampire)
--
*-
| Patryk Adamski, email send to dji...@student.uci.agh.edu.pl |
-*
"Who are you?"
"I am a good man who changed his mind."
Lord of Illusions
Jason Nyte
If you don't want players fighting, you could do the same thing to any
other character type as well, not just mages.
I would like to know what purpose there is to buying a rulebook when we're
told to do a 180 on the rules within? Such as Garou in homid are now NOT in
all ways identicle to a human? For "human's can't soak agg", does that mean
that human's can't soak sunlight and a silver chain that thwaps them in the
head? Thing is, while a human may not have any special powers to keep
himself alive, he also doens't have any specific weaknesses.
You continue to say that mortals just "bleed and die". Well, in a recent
incedent, my ghouled mortal did just that WITH soak. You see, he didn't
have the ability to shift and make the damage disappear and jack his
stamina up several notches. He didn't have Magick to otherwise increase his
defensice capacity. He didn't even know how to use the powers that being a
ghoul provided (ie, pumping his stats and hadn't learned fort.) Those two
soak dice did suprisingly little against a vampire using a pistol w/armor
piercing rounds. Didn't even last one round.
--
Jason looks around and finds a nice, sunny, grass covered spot to lay down
and take a nap.
If one would look closely, one might note the feline look to his eyes that
say "Nothing really bothers me."
Jess Heinig <je...@white-wolf.com> wrote in article
<35911B...@white-wolf.com>...
> My goodness, how many times do I have to say it?!?
>
> *You don't give mortals a soak roll — unless you, as Storyteller,
> decide otherwise.*
> It's that simple.
> If you're going to NOT buy a book because it says something you don't
> like, then you're gonna be pretty disappointed because I guarantee that
> just about every book will have something that you don't like somewhere
> in there!
> That's the essence of the Golden Rule. Use what you want to use.
>
> Oh, and as for Ralphie and the bully: yep, Ralphie would've killed
> him. You haven't seen many real-life fights, have you? People break
> easy. One of the reasons that few schoolyard fights end in any
> fatalities is that (a) the combatants rarely inflict much damage in the
> first place and (b) the fight usually ends as soon as one side or the
> other takes a small amount of damage. If you actually let a schoolyard
> fight go on for quite a while, and you have one or more kids beating up
> on a lone victim, there's a pretty damn good chance that the victim will
> wind up in the hospital.
> As some other posters have said, I see no need to give normal mortal
> humans a soak roll in a game that is intrinsically horror-oriented.
> Heck, I don't give mages a soak roll, even for the characters of
> players. The suddenly have to think on their feet a lot more; no more
> mages leaping into the fray, flinging around magick and shouting "No
> worries, I can soak all of his attacks!" It's a great way to dissuade
> people from fighting.
> Fighting is a last resort. It's nasty and brutal. That's the same
> reason that vampires get no soak roll against aggravated damage without
> Fortitude: fire and sunlight and werewolves are BAD NEWS! You DON'T want
> to fight them!
> Use whatever the heck you like. If you want a more "combat-heavy"
> game, start giving people easier soak rolls. If you want to discourage
> fighting, take 'em away. Pretty simple.
>
> Cheers,
> Jess Heinig
> White Wolf Game Studio
>
blak...@technologist.com
In article <Ev3s4n.DLs.0.sta...@dcs.ed.ac.uk>,
to...@tardis.ed.ac.uk (Thomas McKinnell) wrote:
> I could quote equally ridiculous things that have been survived, at
> least temporarily.
>
> Basically, it's too hard to die in the WoD in some ways (bloodloss, for
> eg. To kill a mortal from bloodloss you have under the rules to take
> 70% of their blood (1HL/BP). 40% blood loss is the severest classified
> level of blood loss in RL medicine, while in other ways, it's way too
> easy (if you don't have a soak roll for mortals).
Not that I'm an apologist, but, if you think of Vampires as feeding of
'life force' as well as blood (as evinced by the way that fresh blood
is more nourishing than that pilfered from blood banks, for instance),
then it makes some sense. The 'dregs' - that last 60% or so of the
physical volume of blood left after the victim is dead - is simply
less nourishing to the vamp.
> I think, incidentally, WW are right to make vampires tougher than mortals,
> but then, according to a strict reading of the rules, to kill a leech,
> even with agg damage, you have to remove all their blood points as well
> as all their health levels. For a PC that's up to 22 HL's!!
Ouch. Even without that, they can still enhance thier stamina, spend
BPs to heal HLs, and *don't die* from normal damage. That make's em
plenty tough, right there.
Andrew Bates
Brian Thomas Habing wrote:
>
> Andrew Bates <aba...@white-wolf.com> writes:
> >I recommend taking up any further concerns directly with the
> >specific developers for the game lines in question.
>
> I did exactly that and was very happy with there responses!
>
> Even if we bitch about what you end up doing, its still better than
> most of the stuff out there, and you are all certainly very helpful!
>
> Thanks for your time!
Well, good! Glad things worked out.
Rebecca Sutton
On 25 Jun 1998 12:18:02 GMT, "Jason Nyte" <ny...@ods.ods.net> wrote:
>I would like to know what purpose there is to buying a rulebook when we're
>told to do a 180 on the rules within? Such as Garou in homid are now NOT in
>all ways identicle to a human? For "human's can't soak agg", does that mean
>that human's can't soak sunlight and a silver chain that thwaps them in the
>head? Thing is, while a human may not have any special powers to keep
>himself alive, he also doens't have any specific weaknesses.
Agg damage is as far as I can tell supernatural damage. Damage from
claws of changing breeds and protean equiped vampires, certain magicks
(and certain hedge magics) and similar.
It's also damage created by the supernatural weaknesses of various
supernaturals.
It's the supernatural nature of agg damage that makes it unsoakable
for humans.
I would imagine that wyrm toxin damage counts as supernatural as well.
anyway you catch my drift.
Becka
Rebecca Sutton
be...@malcop.u-net.com
http://www.malcop.u-net.com
David Johnston
Bruce Baugh wrote:
>
> In article <3591D...@telusplanet.net>, David Johnston <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> >It's irritating to find out that the all the rulebooks you have use
> >"unofficial house rules" rather than actually giving the rules.
> >Personally I think a bigger problem is, if you use this new rule, how
> >do you make Stamina anything except an exercise in flavour?
>
> As I noted in an earlier post, I'm providing soak rolls for mortals
> where I think them appropriate. Stamina coutns then. And even if one has
> no soaking, a fair number of abilities use it.
"Running" is the only one that comes to mind. What others are there?
David Johnston
Joshua Bardwell wrote:
>
> blak...@technologist.com wrote:
>
> : in other newsgroups, the typical roleplayer is much more interested in
> : tinkering with rules minutiae than in designing a setting for his
> : game or capturing the right mood with the character he's playing.
>
> Well, duh! Writing a setting or creating a character takes _thought_! Why
> would anybody want to do that?!
<Shrug> There is no basis for disputation in those matters for the most
part.
Greg Shetler
Chris Anthony wrote:
>
> A knife or gun is generally deadly to your average Level 0 Joe? Probably. But
> to someone who's been combat-trained, or has a high resistance to pain, or just
> has so much body mass that the chances of the blade or bullet striking something
> vital are as close to nil as makes no odds? Not really.
>
Sorry, but this is just typical D&D, movie-myth misinformation. Just
the use of "level 0" indicates the source of this information: gaming
books.
As the son of a special forces doctor, a martial artist, and as a
medieval sword-fighter, let me say that weapons do just as much damage
to the "average level 0 joe" as to the "highly trained professional with
a high tolerance to pain".
> Soak isn't supernatural healing. Soak is moving yourself so that the bullet or
> the blade doesn't _quite_ hit you in a vital spot, or rolling with a punch, or
> hitting the ground running; it's the ability to let your body take a lot more
> punishment than Average Joe could, simply because you know how to take it.
No. It is the body's ability to continue operating despite the damage
that has been done. Nothing more. No skill, no training, nothing of
the sort goes into soak. It has nothing to do with "levels" of
experience, talent, skill, or whatever.
> I don't know about that. If your Hunters got killed every time they went into a
> battle against a super, simply because the supers could take the damage your
> Hunters dealt and the Hunters couldn't do diddly about the supers' damage, I
> guarantee you'd get immensely frustrated in no time flat.
I don't think so. It *would*, however, go very far toward steering the
game away from just being a bunch of shoot-em-ups and combats. Like,
making the Hunters be a little subtle about their methods, rather than
just going toe-to-toe with the vamps.
> Chris Anthony
Greg