The Damage System (continued)
As with the relationship with armor and toughness, I do not like it when an average person with a knife is no more dangerous than a really strong guy (normal human scale--no super-strength) with his fists. It seems to me that having an actual weapon, whether sharp or blunt, is better than raw power. This does not mean that power should not count for anything, but I have not found the ratio that feels right.
Part of the issue is that I do not know what combat should feel like. Maybe my assumptions are wrong and the things that bother me are fine and it is only my lack of experience and physical intuition that is the problem. So the alternative (and not a bad alternative) is to not worry about realism and go with what makes a good game... Not that I know how to do that either. But rather than get into a moan-fest, I'll continue my train of thought.
What I imagine is that the damage done by a weapon can be plotted on a three-dimensional graph, with axes for quality of hit, weapon size/deadliness, and wielder strength. For guns and similar weapons, strength is ignored (though ammo types can certainly be substituted if you want to get that detailed). In general, I imagine that all weapons will do the same damage if the hit is very weak (glancing blow) or very strong (critical hit). The weapon type and strength differentiate damage when the blow is somewhere in between.
Most game systems make it so that strength always helps, even on weak blows. Or that smaller weapons have no chance of matching the deadliness of larger ones. And unless there are (often complex) critical hit and/or location rules, knife wounds are rarely deadly enough to worry about initially. Basically, I want my cake and eat it too. I want complex results from a simple system. I'm trying to get 3D, non-linear results out of a 1D system.
Huh. That actually helps.
Part of the issue is that I do not know what combat should feel like. Maybe my assumptions are wrong and the things that bother me are fine and it is only my lack of experience and physical intuition that is the problem. So the alternative (and not a bad alternative) is to not worry about realism and go with what makes a good game... Not that I know how to do that either. But rather than get into a moan-fest, I'll continue my train of thought.
What I imagine is that the damage done by a weapon can be plotted on a three-dimensional graph, with axes for quality of hit, weapon size/deadliness, and wielder strength. For guns and similar weapons, strength is ignored (though ammo types can certainly be substituted if you want to get that detailed). In general, I imagine that all weapons will do the same damage if the hit is very weak (glancing blow) or very strong (critical hit). The weapon type and strength differentiate damage when the blow is somewhere in between.
Most game systems make it so that strength always helps, even on weak blows. Or that smaller weapons have no chance of matching the deadliness of larger ones. And unless there are (often complex) critical hit and/or location rules, knife wounds are rarely deadly enough to worry about initially. Basically, I want my cake and eat it too. I want complex results from a simple system. I'm trying to get 3D, non-linear results out of a 1D system.
Huh. That actually helps.
Labels: Roleplaying
posted by Patrick at 10:15 PM
<< Home