ok

so

There are, or may be, a few misunderstandings about why I have chosen to some things certain ways.

My PM is always open for questions of this nature, and I am happy to debate any point.

Hopefuly, I will not give the impression that I am seaking permission.

---

Damage;

When I first played TORG, I thought the damage system was awesome: the better the hit, the better the damage. Only, RAW isn't that; it's the luckier the hit, the better the damage.

I have tried Eternity's Bonus Dice; but that's the better the hit, the more chances for lucky damage.

And there's this game's optional rule. Result Points truly is "The better the hit, the better the damage," but there's no glancing blow. You can't do below base damage, so every hit is a solid blow.

---

Proposal for thought/discussion:
RAW with a modifier to Damage Bonus of (=INT(ABS(ASV-DSV)/3)*SIGN(ASV-DSV)
ASV=Attacker's Skill Value  |  DSV=Defender's Skill Value
The rest is Excell Formula code
This is essentially applying a modified Power Push of the skill difference to the Bonus Number

So, if your skill (after Options) is 22 to hit attacking something with a 10 dodge, the difference of 10 converts to a +3 damage bonus, so when you roll a 2 (-10) and hit, you apply the -10 & +3 net -7 to damage. And if you need a +9 bonus to hit and roll a 28, you only get +6 (+9 -3) to damage.

I'm not sure this is worth the effort. I don't know if I want to introduce this for the next fight, next act, or next adventure. I do want to test it out and see if it fixes or at least touches upon the issues I have with current damage systems.

If an attacker's Intimidate is 35 and the defender's is 5, a Player's call result is guaranteed; only in Hit-Damage can someone with that overwhelming superiority fail to do anything after succeeding with the task under RAW. Under BD, he gets 2 bonus dice, if he didn't roll a 1.

---

Thoughts?

Stick with the torg as written

It works. It works for games where you play it for years. It scales well. It's well thought out. It allows multiple character types because they have play tested it and the games creators reacted to feedback

Accuracy has hardly anything to do with damage: default assumption is 'aim at center of mass'. If you hit the center of mass 1 millimeter closer than not, it makes no different. If you want want accuracy to make a difference take a head shot (i.e. a vital blow) again after a certain point accuracy makes no more difference. Either you hit the thing you were trying to or you didn't.

In the real world luck has a major part to play in damage. Stab someone with a rapier in the guts and maybe they are fine. Maybe they die. That's the way it is. Remember Luck is under the character's control. We have cards, we have possibilities

Most importantly: the game works. You can play with published monsters. You can play published scenarios (if you toughen up the baddies - but you can do it and it works - which you can't with the 'accuracy result points' rule). You can adjust bad guys to create different types of threats... it's really hard to do that if you break the system in the way the 'results point' system shatters it.
This message was last edited by the player at 10:27, Sat 01 Aug 2020.

In reply to SaviorOnEdge (msg # 1):

My thought is to use the damage RAW.

But I am saying that as someone who is in the far minority of "I like the glass-jawed ninja effect."  I think it actually fits the Torg setting quite well.

Cinematically, often a person who can't hit the broad side of a barn with their pistol will take shot after shot after shot at the slick ninja missing and missing again... then they'll land one hit and blow him away.  They never have a glancing hit in those cases.  It's fun.

My other thought is, I'll play whatever way you want to run it and I'm happy.  Even if it's just temporarily to test out your new rule which I had a hard time reading let alone understanding (to be fair, I'm laying down and my brain doesn't work as well when I'm laying down).

In reply to SaviorOnEdge (msg # 1):

I may have misunderstood, but I thought it was based on result points, which is how I developed my character.

But I guess one thing I should clarify is if this is only damage or all effect rolls, such as miracles and spells.

In reply to Whistler (msg # 4):

Only Damage. Every thing else, Effect is still RAW.

I like Result Points for damage better than RAW because I think being able to hit the heart on every shot, compared to needing a 1:1000 shot to hit at all should matter to damage; I don't like luck being more important, and skill being inversely Effective for damage.

But, Result Points makes every hit a solid hit. There is no "grazing" with straight line Result Points, and I don't know if I like that.

The intent of this proposal is to allow for grazing hits from either bad luck or lack of skill, while allowing for higher skill values to mitigate bad luck.

I should start by saying that whatever we end up playing it's all good. I have played and enjoyed diceless and lightweight systems. I feel the result points system is almost identical to diceless as it happens, and that's OK. ROFL stomping our way through the scenarios can be fun. I want to do RP more than combat

So here this is just about games design and rules. I like games design and rules. I am a mathematician by trade, and I like modeling the real world, or modeling 'movies and comics'. There is emotion attached to this, because I get excited about modeling things, but the level of emotion is that of a 'chat in a pub over a beer'.

Aiming
It's the moment of aiming that when what you aim at makes a difference

• If you aim of the center of mass and hit you will do damage appropriate for weapon, the armour and the toughness
• If you hit a millimeter further away you do the same damage
• If you hit a centimeter further away you probably do the same damage (depends if you  were aiming for the eyes or not)
• If you hit three centimeters further away you probably do the same damage
• As long as you get a solid blow you probably do the same damage

In maths we have a technique known as 'reduction to absurdity' and the following two examples do a reduction to absurdity just as a way of demonstration that in the real world the theory is wrong.

• if you are aiming for the center of mass and exactly hit it you clip the heart. If you are less accurate you have a chance of bullseyeing the heart.
• If there is a hole in the armor, and you are off target and hit the weakness you do more damage. The more accurate you are the less chance there is of hitting the armour.

Another way of viewing the issue of accuracy

The bullet doesn't suddenly change what it is hitting when you are more accurate

• If you aim 'at the person' if you are more accurate you will hit closer to the center of the mass.
• If you aim more accuractly you don't suddenly hit the head instead of the chest
• If you aim ultimately accuractly you don't suddenly hit the eyes instead of the head

Torg handles this adequately well. it has vital shots. Actually I think the rules could be a tiny bit improved: if you aim for the eyes and miss you might still hit the head... But that's such a small difference that I am not too worried about it from a 'realism' point of view.

Realistic????
Can someone explain to me how 'once the bullet has landed within a centimeter or two of the target' it's somehow 'realistic' that suddenly we hit the eyeballs instead of the center of mass? It doesn't feel realistic to me at all. I can see it for melee combat a little. In melee I don't 'aim' attacks. I rely on muscle memory and body coordination at the point of collision. But it's only a little.

Most game systems decouple the 'tohit' from 'the damage' because for most people it's more realistic. Many add in 'critical rules' to capture luck. Concrete examples: d20 (all variants that I am aware of including all the pathfinder), AD&D, Mutants and Masterminds, Torg. There are exceptions: White Wolf, Shadowrun (almost the same system anyway), Rolemaster (laughs... that's a well broken system). These systems that couple the two ideas were designed from the ground up with the coupling... Torg isn't. Torg is designed from the ground up with the two being separate.

For missile combat it's (for me) totally unrealistic

Locations
If you want a more realistic accuracy based systems add locations and put an accuracy modifier and a damage modifier on the location. You can have two flavours. One is 'if you don't say what you are aiming for it's the chest' (which is what every police officer is trained for I think). The other is 'you randomly roll location'.

I've run with these kind of location rules and Torg die rolling for over 10 years and they are quite good (we were just doing 'Aylse' in a non possibility based game for most of the time). In melee combat we mostly used random locations, in missile it defaults to chest because that's what you are 'supposed' to aim for if you aren't doing something special

I think it's a degree of complexity not needed in RPOL. In tabletop it's good because people like rolling die in tabletop, and it adds more to the drama.  I've tried location systems in RPOL and most people just forget to roll them. That's why I think the vital blow rules are good

Accuracy having some effect
I use the following (house) rule to simulate the importance of accurately hitting the target

• You exactly hit it's a 'grazing blow': maximum one stun
• You hit but only by 1 or 2:  it's a 'glancing blow' (does half damage after armour subtracted)
• You hit by 3 or more:  you do full damage

This captures my feelings on the realism of accuracy, and the limits of it's ability to do damage. The location you hit is the one you aimed at, and we don't have bullets teleporting away from the chest to the head when a high bonus number is rolled. If you hit it solidly you do good damage.

Effects: Mostly none when players attacking bad guys. Players tend to 'roll well, or roll bad'. When they roll bad not much happened anyway, and when they roll well it's exactly in line with the game designers aims and objects. When the bad guys hit the players though, it gives the players a big bonus in survivability which I like. Basically it fixes the glass ninja problem.

This has no impact on the games designers calculations and allows me to use standard scenarios and models. It doesn't have the flaws of the 'result point based' system while still having accuracy being really important

Flaws of the Result points system
The flaws include

• Destroys (and I mean destroys not weakens) the value of toughness and strength. Dex already is the best physical attribute, and suddenly it becomes better at doing damage than strength (which is all strength does), and at not taking damage than toughness (except for surprise attacks it is just better). Anyone who has tough>dex or str>dex (as long as they have about 6 points of toughness/str) is measurably inferior to a person that has dex > any other physical attribute. This is not anywhere near as much the case in the standard rules.
• The damage done by weapons is for some characters +10 to +15 more than the game is designed for. That makes it fantastically hards for the GMs to create monsters that are a reasonable challenge. For reference +10 can turn 2 stun into 'you are dead'. This turns the game into 'might as well be diceless rules systems' (which are OK we just need to realise it).

Them's fightin' words!  ;)

I enjoyed your write up and talk of emulating realism but I would counterpoint (in this case) that Torg mechanics were not designed to be an abstraction of realism but an abstraction of summer blockbuster movies.  Realism does not apply to Torg much there (the way I look at it).

I completely agree with your assessment of the flaws of the results points system.

And like you, I'm happy as a clam to use whatever rules are decided upon.  No matter what Apeiros wants to use I'm still going to be delighted playing classic Torg.

@comic/movie
Yes. Totally agree.

And while feng shui is better at this (more fighting talk!! ) Torg is better for a long running game. You can actually have characters progress and the game still work (unlike d20/pathfinder were eventually the game just snaps)


That's why I have the house rule that makes the players more resistant. I always remember a quote 'the law prevents rich and poor alike from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges'. In this case the players are the rich people: the rule mostly helps them

In reply to Sapphire (msg # 8):

I don't think I have expressed my concern or my request properly.

Concern: The guy who is good enough to hit a 5cm disk flipping through the air while aiming through a mirror and shooting over his shoulder has a 40% chance of accidentally grazing his target's foot while aiming center mass, while the in the Stalanger who's never seen a gun before will only ever hit a vital organ. (Vital Blow +4 -10 R =-6 14 DV =8 vs basic Edeinos 1 shock, vs needing a +9 to hit giving 13 on Damage Results). But the Result Points method means Nobody gets glancing hits...and I don't like that either.

What I am looking for here is feedback specific to this Push method of Skill affecting the Luck without completely overpowering it.
This message was last edited by the GM at 17:24, Mon 03 Aug 2020.

Do the opposite: Leave the damage as it is, but make the damage less if you have a glancing blow

That way you fix the issues with the results point system, and can continue to use publishing material. It works well, and does not cause any game design / character creation issues.

I don't know why you want to increase the damage the players do. That's the bit that has taken the torg game designers a lot of effort to get sorted. They did an OK job. They could have done better (always you could do better) but it's not bad. Power escalation is rarely the correct solution.

I don't think there is any solution that involves increase the damage that doesn't just give the problems with the results point system.

Sometimes I hate doing this on my phone.

That's exactly what this Push method is supposed to do. For Deadey Jones who can hit a rattlesnake of a planned three ricochet shot around a blind corner targeting off of sound alone, his skill means unlucky hits are less likely to actually be glancing, but still do less damage than a "normal" hit even from a normally trained shooter; meanwhile, the person who barely knows which end to point is more likely to do Glancing damage, even with a barely lucky enough shot.

There is no perfect solution. I see potential problems with my proposed method, and I am concerned that these are things that no one has mentioned.

'Making' Dex an Uberstat is not a valid complaint, in my opinion, because it already is, RAW. Making Strength and Toughness less valid for characters is a concern with RSP, but shouldn't be with this proposal, and it should be noted (I may have to Clarify) that Classic TORG did allow for different skill/stat combinations, so the Bruiser could find ways to justify Intimidate:Str rolls or potentially Intimidate:Tou.

I need real, Mathmatically sound, concerns/likes about this proposal. Comparison to RAW or RSP needs to be Math. My examples have been extremes, because that's where I find RAW breaks. Note that with A|D skill values within 3 points, this IS RAW.

And I do note, "I signed up for Result Points," is a valid argument for This Game, just not against my proposed method in general.

So I ask again, any thoughts, concerns, directly related suggestions on this proposed method of Damage determination?
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:11, Mon 03 Aug 2020.

Accuracy isn't damage unless you aim for a special place.

If Deadeye Jones wants to shoot for the eyeballs of his enemy he can do so: the rules cover that: Vital Blows are great. They trade accuracy for damage in a way that is easy to understand and probably reasonably in line with both reality and movies/comics.

If Deadeye Jones is just shooting for the center of the mass of the target, then all his incredible accuracy means is that he is likely to hit the center of the mass of the target. And thus he will be doing the same damage as anyone else that hits the center of the mass of the target.

If he is aiming by sound, again the important question is 'did he hit where he was aiming for 'yes/no/glancing'. If he manages to get the center of mass, then hurrah he does the same damage as anyone else that hits the center of mass. Or if aiming for the eyeballs, the same damage as anyone else that lands his blow on the eye balls.

Again vital blows capture this quite well.

Glancing blow
If you want glancing blows why not just say that if you 'only just hit' or 'if you just miss' you do less damage. That kind of captures the essence of what a glancing blow is: it's less damage because you only just hit. It's not 'more damage than the bullet is designed to do'.

I do it by making it so that 'you need a good sucess to get a solid blow'. You could just as easy do it the other way round and say 'if you just miss the blow you do half damage'.

I think I don't understand your drivers for the power push method. If it's glancing blow, just do less damage unless you land a solid blow. Any rules work: power pushing the damage, or dividing the damage by 2 (less brutal) or subtract three or....

Just don't do 'add to the damage if it's not a glancing blow' and then you won't break anything.

If your motivation is to speed up combat, then just give everyone a +3 to +10 bonus to damage. You don't need to link it to the already killer attribute of dex. You can if you want but then what about the people that are playing barbarians?

Rules should be simple
Torg rules are already very complex. I only added the glancing blow system I use because I feel it's important for player survival. It might be a step of complexity too far, I'm not sure.

I am not clear what is the end goal of this rule change.

Yes, I understand Torg damage has its quirks and yes it is not realistic. However, Torg isn't realistic game.

There is a common mistake that realistic=more complex rules.

I always felt this kinda missed the point, more complex rules in my experience end up with less time playing and more time spent on rule books, chart and discussion about silly things like +0.4% increase.

Realistic game come from the fluff, the feeling that the game world behave like the real world. In how people react to you and how the results of your actions (as interpreted by the GM) are described. Another option is by removing the system from the front line, players that are blind to the system will tend to judge thing more like the real world and not by a set of arbitrary rules that at best allows you to model a task resolution system.

So I agree with Sapphire, Torg rules are complex (some in a good way and some in a bad way), in all honestly I don't see the added value of this change or the debate about it.

A point to think about, there are 11 players listed atm, only three posted on this board. I think this is a clear indication that this is more bothering the GM than any of us.

So my I'll say go for it change the rules (unlike Sapphire I have little trust in the Game Designer balance system) work with however make you happy but I humbly request that if you do this, please take the mechanical burden on yourself. Let me (and anyone else who wishes) describe their actions and handle the whole complex task resolution.

In reply to Ben Altman (msg # 13):

Thank you, Ben.

Added complexity is a valid concern, and one of the reasons I am NOT making this change in this game right now, nor ever unless Everyone starts to feel like the current Rules (RSP) are a problem. From feedback so far, that's not the case.

If this were an Eternity issue, I would post it on the Plaza for wider feedback. However, this would be a major overhaul of the Eternity Combat System vs a tweak to Classic's.

I really don't care about 'DA ROOLS'. The rules, in fact the entire game exist for us to have fun. Do what suits you best Ap.

I will say that I find the GJN issue is prevalent at high skill values, which I suspect we won't hit in a PBP game. I recall playing an elf with a 22 Melee Weapons skill, and that GJN hit me hard!

My 13 Unarmed Combat skill is going to get me hit a lot anyway, so GJN won't be a factor for this starfish.

@Whistler
We already have people with 22 in their skill for to hit. And we have others that don't

So please note that your character is now seriously sub optimal. If we were playing the results point damage, then someone with 22 in their to hit would be doing +9 every single attack just because of the tohit. If it's 'only' a powerpush, then they are 'only' doing +4 damage on top of whatever you are doing... with every blow.

We have other people whose character concepts will be rendered 'seriously sub optimal' by this kind of rule change. Anyone in fact that has toughness or strength > dexterity.

I get that some people don't care if the damage in the game is dramatically lifted, or if it becomes almost impossible for the GM to field monsters against us because some people will just ROFL stomp them: using the one on many rules to instantly kill them, while others can't even damage them.

I care about the impact on the characters, on the way that amplifying the value of the already best attribute makes such character concepts as 'barbarian' or 'tough guy' pointless: they are less damaging and less tough than someone that takes dex.

It's all very well saying 'go with what will be fun' but there are a lot of people playing in the game, and many of them haven't predicted the consequences of such majorly broken house rules have on their characters. (For me a broken rule is one that makes some characters pointless, or makes it impractical to field monsters... so this is broken)

This is Pierre. I don't consider him sub-optimal. Wouldn't care if he was either, he is fun to play.

Ah, sorry for speaking out of ignorance. I hadn't figured out how to see other people's sheets yet. I made an uninformed assumption on how far along the game is.

I like the result points add that was in Masterbook, but MB was also configured that way. Torg was not. So I get that using the result points can yield unforeseen changes.

I'm fine either way. I just didn't realize we were at the point where GJN would start showing up.

How did someone get a 22 on a starting character?

I was curious about that myself.  My highest skill is 16 which I thought was pretty darn high.

@Whisler, one can not see other characters here.  Not to my knowledge at least.

Sapphire is talking about this roll from Pierre:


...I actually count 21, and while it's not a big difference, this was before Apeiros tweaked that everything-boosting spell - I believe that change will bring it down to like, an 18 or 19?

It is true that even without the spell at all, starting from a Dex of probably 7, he'd still have an 18 to hit, but that's the Jammer.  That's... how it's written.  The Jammer itself is a +6 just to start, and Eyekill and Skill Chips are common choices, so presumably everything is totally balanced for it, right?  Since it's how the devs wrote it?  Sorry, I agree with the comment that I don't believe Devs get everything right, especially on the first try, and it was clear that the result point thing didn't make any difference on that attack either way.  Pierre is going to, as you say, ROFL stomp a lot of things no matter what rules we use - he's just a well designed character that way, even before his custom stripes.

I do think it's significant that the result point rule is offered as a suggestion in the R&E rules, and they talk about the pros and cons, and nowhere do the say anything about it completely shredding the balance of the entire system.

Sapphire - your overall breakdown of why high skill shouldn't matter more than base damage is worryingly well thought out.  I have to admit I've never made a concerted effort to kill anybody and it kind of feels like you have, and if that's the case all I can offer is my sympathy for whatever put you in that position.

In a game sense, though, I do feel like skill should matter.  I do see what you mean about how it devalues Strength and Toughness, but I think Pierre demonstrates that firearms in general already do a lot of that, as, in fact, they just do.  Yes, the RP rule makes certain concepts less viable, but I find it makes melee and unarmed combatants more viable relative to gunslingers, while the RAW shifts that balance uncomfortably.  The example you're using, of Pierre's high starting bonus, much more clearly demonstrates this to me than the flaws you're trying to show with result points -- his equipment bonuses are overwhelming either way.  Whichever way you go he's still getting a +11 to hit and a base damage of 23 and that's just a BFG being a BFG.

I've mostly stayed out of this because I'm not as deep in the weeds of these rules as you guys are, and as a business woman, of course, Koharu mostly isn't affected anyway.  But like Whistler, she was kind of built with the assumption that we were using the RPR.


Total, total aside, but since I'm here, I think that's a lot more true in Eternity than oTORG.  oTORG seemed to be trying a lot more for a "realistic" model of what it would be like if reality suddenly had to interact with our fiction, and Earth in oTORG is largely just... earth, not the 'Die Hard' reality they made it in Eternity.

Where Eternity is Die Hard, Classic is McClintock.

Different degrees but both Cinimatic.

Both have Puddies; neither have Zords. Both accept, "Look, Air!" as a valid Trick.

I was just recently devistated to remember there is no Shape Plants miracle in Classic, but my Edeinos Optant, Buddy, would never have wasted one of his few miracle slots on it in Eterny, and thus would still not be able to use it in Aysle... ... ...

Hopefully, my Eternity Players are not getting too tripped up on the differences, and the Classic only players are doing ok with the Eternity traits I am using.

Thank you all for your input.

It is hard to call a setting realistic where you have a werewolf, elf priestess and a psychic soldier in it :) but for me Torg was always realistic because the world felt like it. There were always level of complicity that Eternity shallowed out into simple Good vs. Bad. No rule made Torg feel more real for me but the setting itself.

As for damage, unlike Sapphire I see the Gun combat skill not as your ability to hit (it is called Gun combat not Aim/Accuracy) but your ability to maximize your attack. As there are no hit location in Torg, the degree of success/damage indicate how well you hit. Roll poorly and it is a grazing hit to the arm, roll average its a hit to the center of mass, roll high its a head shot etc.

I don't know if I'm misreading or misinterpreting, but that's the point... there is no connection between one's skill and how well one hits (i.e. damage).  Damage is completely based on how well one rolled, now how skilled one is.  I'm talking baseline here... skill comes into play with things like Vital Blow of course.

In reply to Matthew Matherson (msg # 25):

Yes, that is my problem with RAW. If a character is good enough to hit their target with a Vital Blow on a 2, meaning they are at least 18 points better in base skill, they then hit for -6 damage. This is not some kid with a lucky glancing blow; this is a trained, probably highly experienced attacker landing a head shot for 2 shock. I don't like it.

This is why this game is RSP. However, I am becoming less thrilled with this option because there is NO glancing Blow this way. It's miss or Full Hit.

I am not happy with my proposed solution, either, which is one reason it is not being implemented here....

In 20ish years, when I am retired and all my kids are out of my hair, I will come up with the perfect solution, well, perfect for me, anyway.
This message was last edited by the GM at 19:05, Thu 06 Aug 2020.

I wasn't making a point in favor or against RAW/RSP just pointing out how I saw the skill.

Aperios, I understand your issues with RAW but if I may suggest a different way to look at it. The roll in RAW represent the general success level. Roll poorly and it means you failed at the task.

Skills represent your training and your ability to turn a failure into a success. So if you are highly skilled you'll be able to make a shot that 90% of people would miss but it would still have a good chance being a weak shot because it was a poor roll.

The character in your example rolled a 2, this mean that for 99% of people this would be a failure because the character is such an awesome shot he was able to "rescue" his shot and score a hit.

For such character it isn't about hitting, it is more about the luck for getting the shot in the right place. The character can adjust his chances by going to a vital blow and other options less skill people would have issues with.

But it does bring back the oddity that if you have low skill, then if you hit at all, it's always a perfect shot straight through the eye.

What about the option in the book, to use the lower of both options?  That brings back grazing  hits (even for highly skilled people with very bad rolls, which I think Ben's point describes well) but still stops pure luck from completely overwhelming skill -- if the child with the slingshot rolls high, the trained operative still knows how to mitigate that, too.

It doesn't solve Sapphire's problem because it does still weigh in favor of Dexterity, but for the same reasons, it doesn't have the RAW problem of firearms making everything else obsolete. (With the admission that firearms making everything else obsolete is more realistic.  But it's less fun.)

And the math on it is very quick -- just a "greater than/less than" between your result points and the bonus number.  The only tricky bit is remembering to subtract things like Full Auto if you end up going with the result points.

@Koharu
It's not an oddity at all in the standard system.

In the standard system you aim at a target and then if you land the blow you hit the target. That's the normal usage of the meaning of aim

So with the standard system

• if you aim at the center of mass and roll high you hit the center of mass
• If you aim at the eyes and roll high you hit, but if you roll low you miss.
• That's in line with reality, and movies and comics and expectations

Sure the gun skill is 'how good you are'. So if you are really good you can take the chance to aim at the eyes. The standard rules cover this really well. They don't end up teleporting bullets from the place you aimed at to the place you wish you'd aimed for after you see the die you rolled.

The biggest win of course of standard rules over the game-breaking add ons we are discussing is that it doesn't break the game, destroy the value of any physical attribute other than dex, and allows for the GM to field opponents that are a challenge.

With these game breaking add ons, anyone that has a physical attribute > dex is self-nerfing, and the GM cannot actually buff the opponents in the books and scenarios to be even slightly a challenge without making it so that they make half the players redundant. Thus we have the option with these game breaking rules of ROFL stomping everything, or having a situation where the opponents will wipe us. There is almost no possibility of a middle ground... because the game was not designed with these house / optional power excalation rules in mind


There is 'reality' and then is 'what is the impact on the game'. I think it's clear that some of us don't agree on what is realistic (I think the standard rules are far more realistic: I don't like my bullets teleporting) and more important the impact on the game is good.

If a rule is more realistic but breaks the game, then it's a bad rule. These rules we are discussing are universally bad rules.

No-one has yet commented on the observation about dex (I think) in game design. No one is coming up with examples of how we can avoid a broken game if we adopt these rules. I think these are far more helpful examples than talks about 'what is realistic'

I haven't commented up to now, but a point has been raised that I thought I'd highlight: there's been discussion about what's realistic or not. I think instead, maybe we should ask ourselves, "What kind of story do we want to be in?" That's not to say, "What genre of story?", but rather, "How is the action portrayed in that story?"

In RAW oTorg, it's a Glass Ninja world. And that's okay. It's not like the real world, necessarily, but in many stories the world does work that way. Many Star Wars movies are GN worlds. People shoot blasters at each other, or swing light sabers at each other, and no one gets hurt at all until they get hit . . . and when they do finally get hit, they usually immediately keel over dead, or more rarely are only grievously wounded, like Luke losing his hand (he soaked most of it). It's a world of Glass Ninjas. And that's okay.

There are also stories that are Curb Stomp worlds, where Dexterity is supreme and those who are highly skilled and dexterous rofl-stomp others. That's not dependent on genre. There are Western movies where it pays to be well-rounded physically, because the characters are brawling in bars (Str), holding their liquor (Tou), and also getting into showdowns (Dex). There are other Western movies that are Curb Stomp worlds, like the Sharon Stone movie The Quick and the Dead. In that movie, Dex is supreme, and there is no chipping away at someone, or dodging attacks like a glass ninja until one lands. The more Dexterous and skilled gunfighter just blows away the less dexterous fighter on the first attack, every single time.

I actually liked The Quick and the Dead a lot for its characterization, mood, and themes. I liked its message of female empowerment in a hostile world, and the action was exciting to watch as an audience member.

. . . But I don't think I'd want to play a roleplaying game in that world, though, or any other Curb Stomp world. If it's a choice between the two types of stories, I'd choose Glass Ninja over Curb Stomp. In Glass Ninja, you get to dodge lots of attacks before one hits, and then when it does connect, it's serious. You have to spend that Possibility to soak, and you might not get rid of it all,like Luke didn't, because the hits are so very heavy when they land. That seems more exciting than tearing opponents apart on every attack, like a curb stomper would.

I guess I'm more of a fan of glass ninja stories at heart. I'd rather dance around a little bit with the foes instead of just tearing right into them. That has its place . . . I'm glad Sita got to rip some heads off in the intro fight, to establish the horror themes she's operating under. I wouldn't want every fight to be curb stomping or Dex-supremey, though. And that may affect what rule set we end up going with.

So, my suggestion is to ask ourselves, What kind of movie do all of you want your characters to be in? Maybe that would be more illuminating for us. Just my two cents. Thanks for reading such a long post.

I have not suceeded at my communication check:

in RAW: only, only, ONLY, Highly Skilled and talented individuals can 1 Aim at center mass and hit the foot. Incompetant combatants will always hit center mass or better if they hit at all, but the guy who actually should hit center mass with every shot aimed that way doesn't.

in RAW: only, ONLY, Highly Skilled and talented individuals can 2 Aim at the "eye", hit presumably the eye and do nothing to their target. Incompetant combatants, meanwhile, if they are lucky enough to hit get full benefit of their targetting.

3 this is not in line with Reality, Movies, nor Comics. Hawkeye and Green Arrow would be useless characters in RAW, while Longshot wold be pure awesome (he is anyway, but still) and would steamroll everything in his way.

RSP fixes these issues, but the way I can fix anything with a 2# ball pean: it usually has to be repaired afterward.

I havedetermined the proposal that started this thread doesn't help anything, realy, either.

I say just keep what works for you and don't worry about the rest.

In the end a long debate about rules, while the RP threads dry up, is more damaging for a RPol game than any rule or house rule you'll make.

Move on and focus on the story.