| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2021 4:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| pakman wrote: | I really like the content of this thread - especially considering I am in a "house rule overhaul" of my game, as getting ready to start another campaign.
I like the normalization across damage types, and the addressing of the glaringly obvious gaps around starship system damage.
One question I have been pondering however is this;
Melee weapon strength damage.
I am still not abundantly clear on what the problem/gap is this change is to address.
Is it that melee "seems" too powerful compared to blasters?
Or that it gets out of control because wookies are broken?
(the wookie thing is another completely different problem....).
I mean, if the average person has 2D STR, then they do 1D damage - with most weapons only adding a few pips or a die - how are knife wounds (or swords) ever fatal? Are you counting on the defender rolling 1s and the attacker getting lucky with multiple 6's on the wild die?
this does not even account for the fact that two tough opponents with melee weapons (each say with 4D STR) are going to have to beat the odds even more (more dice equals higher averages on the defense roll).
Now, granted - other mechanics can come into play here - like if a character takes ALL of their actions on their initiative - then yes, melee can seem very powerful (I can draw my weapon, run up to you, swing and do damage).
As opposed to an action segment system (1st edition, if I recall) where the melee attacker gets shot before they can close.
So, can I ask - do we really need to reduce Melee damage?
If so, why?
* Because other D6 did it.
* Because wookies are OP
* Because it "feels" like blasters should be better?
(note: not trying to be rude or critical here - just want a better understanding - overall I think the work in this thread the vast majority can be tied to an issue with the current rules - I just want to understand this one).
Also, in my game we are using the actions segments - so maybe the problem is not as crtical. |
Yes, that's the problem, Strength-based damage sometimes being superior to blaster fire.
Please be clear that this wasn't just my issue. This was seen as a general flaw in the game system in the 90s, so it was officially updated in D6 Space, which for all intents and purposes is the third edition of the Star Wars D6 system (with all IP removed because WEG no longer had the SW game license at that point). The 'Strength Damage' concept ("half-strength") originated in D6 Space.
In my version I only tweaked the calculation of it to take full advantage of the natural gradation inherent in the D6 system – I added pips so there are no abrupt jumps of a full die in strength damage.
For unarmed brawling, I have the option of using full strength for stun damage or half-strength for normal damage. My son and I play tested both options a lot and it worked well. For melee weapons, it uses the "half-strength" but it is normal damage.
The other thing to consider is, my whole system is deadlier in general with my tweaked damage chart. So you can criticize any of it all you want, but you really aren't getting the full picture if you just take only a single aspect of it. It is my opinion that all of these modifications work best in conjunction with each other.
I've also included an option to make blaster weapons even slightly more dangerous by greatly reducing instances of soaking blaster weapons (which better reflects the reality of the films). It's more than just my "feeling" that blasters should be better. Per Lucas film evidence, armored soldiers are never shown to get up after taking one blaster bolt hit, which in game terms would mean they were incapacitated or worse. There are not even any wound results shown for stormtroopers, let alone soak. My system doesn't make that impossible (stormtroopers could have been wounded or less "offscreen"), but my system is a little closer to the reality of the films we see than RAW is. I feel it is a fair compromise.
Admittedly, I personally don't want melee weapons (or brawling) to outshine blaster weapons in the game because pew-pew is cool and fundamental to the setting. You seem to proceed from the premise of RAW is fine the way it is so why change it. My premise is that in this case, RAW (even R&E and D6 Space) still didn't quite get it right in the first place. But ultimately, I don't fundamentally change the R&E game. I tweak and fill in blanks.
If you don't have the issue that 'Strength Damage' addresses, then of course you should do what works for your game.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 429
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
Yes, that's the problem, Strength-based damage sometimes being superior to blaster fire.
Please be clear that this wasn't just my issue. This was seen as a general flaw in the game system in the 90s, so it was officially updated in D6 Space, which for all intents and purposes is the third edition of the Star Wars D6 system (with all IP removed because WEG no longer had the SW game license at that point). The 'Strength Damage' concept ("half-strength") originated in D6 Space.
In my version I only tweaked the calculation of it to take full advantage of the natural gradation inherent in the D6 system – I added pips so there are no abrupt jumps of a full die in strength damage.
For unarmed brawling, I have the option of using full strength for stun damage or half-strength for normal damage. My son and I play tested both options a lot and it worked well. For melee weapons, it uses the "half-strength" but it is normal damage.
The other thing to consider is, my whole system is deadlier in general with my tweaked damage chart. So you can criticize any of it all you want, but you really aren't getting the full picture if you just take only a single aspect of it. It is my opinion that all of these modifications work best in conjunction with each other.
I've also included an option to make blaster weapons even slightly more dangerous by greatly reducing instances of soaking blaster weapons (which better reflects the reality of the films). It's more than just my "feeling" that blasters should be better. Per Lucas film evidence, armored soldiers are never shown to get up after taking one blaster bolt hit, which in game terms would mean they were incapacitated or worse. There are not even any wound results shown for stormtroopers, let alone soak. My system doesn't make that impossible (stormtroopers could have been wounded or less "offscreen"), but my system is a little closer to the reality of the films we see than RAW is. I feel it is a fair compromise.
Admittedly, I personally don't want melee weapons (or brawling) to outshine blaster weapons in the game because pew-pew is cool and fundamental to the setting. You seem to proceed from the premise of RAW is fine the way it is so why change it. My premise is that in this case, RAW (even R&E and D6 Space) still didn't quite get it right in the first place. But ultimately, I don't fundamentally change the R&E game. I tweak and fill in blanks.
If you don't have the issue that 'Strength Damage' addresses, then of course you should do what works for your game. |
Thank you for the detailed and well thought out answer.
I am aware of the changes in Space D6,openD6 etc. and other derivatives - which all happen to follow a similar pattern - (i.e. reduced melee damage). I just had never had an answer from an actual fellow gamer.
You are indeed correct - that when taken in conjunction with the other changes (i.e. the lower thresholds for wounded, and incapacitated) it does not require as strong an outlier for a melee weapon to be damaging.
I will have to do some testing to see what works best for my game - and the references to which I measure it (my group we are all big fans of the Clone Wars and Mandalorian series in addition to many of the films).
As always of course, as in any game system attempting to represent a cinematic setting - it is not always possible to model what is depicted in heroic fantastical scenes - especially when trying to come up with decent rules for both players and their opponents.
thanks again for your response.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pakman wrote: | Thank you for the detailed and well thought out answer.
I am aware of the changes in Space D6,openD6 etc. and other derivatives - which all happen to follow a similar pattern - (i.e. reduced melee damage). I just had never had an answer from an actual fellow gamer.
You are indeed correct - that when taken in conjunction with the other changes (i.e. the lower thresholds for wounded, and incapacitated) it does not require as strong an outlier for a melee weapon to be damaging.
I will have to do some testing to see what works best for my game - and the references to which I measure it (my group we are all big fans of the Clone Wars and Mandalorian series in addition to many of the films).
As always of course, as in any game system attempting to represent a cinematic setting - it is not always possible to model what is depicted in heroic fantastical scenes - especially when trying to come up with decent rules for both players and their opponents. |
You hit the nail on the head. Sometimes it seems that a lot of us tinkerer GMs are trying to make a game system that works as a functional basis to run the plot of the films through it as a simulation. That is not only not possible, but also not at all necessary.
The purpose of the game is not to simulate the films. The purpose of the game is to create original stories with mostly original characters that seem like they could take place in the same universe as the films. If we are doing that and having fun with it, mission accomplished.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pakman wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | As always of course, as in any game system attempting to represent a cinematic setting - it is not always possible to model what is depicted in heroic fantastical scenes - especially when trying to come up with decent rules for both players and their opponents. |
You hit the nail on the head. Sometimes it seems that a lot of us tinkerer GMs are trying to make a game system that works as a functional basis to run the plot of the films through it as a simulation. That is not only not possible, but also not at all necessary.
The purpose of the game is not to simulate the films. The purpose of the game is to create original stories with mostly original characters that seem like they could take place in the same universe as the films. If we are doing that and having fun with it, mission accomplished. |
I would argue that the purpose of the game rules should be to simulate the universe portrayed in the films as accurately as possible, in order to facilitate the creation of original stories within the setting. As such, if the game rules allow something to commonly occur that is almost never seen on-screen, then we should at the very least question why the game rules are written the way they are, and whether or not there's a better way to do it.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm...
It's my interpretation of "reality" that melee weapons (especially technologically advanced ones) are (and should be) way more deadly than blaster fire is (or should be).
To use a real life analogy: a spear will do much more damage to a living creature than a bullet will.
A medieval sword can sever a limb clean off (or decapitate, etc.). Imagine applying some modern cutting technology to an archaic concept like a sword. Imagine, for example, a sword with a chainsaw blade. Or a plasma cutter as a knife. Or a blade that vibrates at hyper sonic frequency to increase it's cutting power.  
What makes guns useful is the velocity of the projectile: there are two benefits: it can't be "dodged" or "evaded" and it has a level of penetration that renders heavy armors obsolete (though technology has caught up, and now, relatively light armors can stop bullets outright, even though they may not protect against knives/arrows etc).
What makes melee weapons useful is the kinetic and (bio-)mechanical force behind them. By swinging a weapon in an arc, for example, the impact force is multiplied according to the distance from the fulcrum point. Due to the much greater mass of a melee weapon vs. a bullet, there is a much larger potential for energy transfer (or, a lower multiplier is required to achieve adequate momentum to penetrate/damage a target).
In any case, it seems to me that blasters do significant damage to a very small part of the body (high PSI, little actual destruction), while melee weapons cause larger scale destruction over a larger area of the body. There are pros and cons to each:
Blasters have a greater requirement for precision in order to incapacitate/debilitate a target. Melee weapons have a higher chance of incapacitating/debilitating a target at the expense of being easier to defend against (getting shot in the arm may or may not weaken the arm under combat stress... getting cleaved in the arm by a sword may sever the arm partially or completely, rendering it useless).
Now, in the game... we do have a dodge skill that is just as easy to train as a melee parry skill.... so that's something to consider.
However, from a game balance perspective, it makes sense to me that the risks involved with melee combat should be worth the payoff: melee damage should (in a well balanced system, IMO) always out damage their blaster/ranged weapon counterpart (heavy vs heavy, long range vs greater reach, etc.).
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fair points. I think this ties in with my recent attempts to rebalance the Dodge skill. In order to make good use of the damage potential of a melee weapon, you have to get close enough for it to be effective, yet pretty much every on-scene blaster fight that doesn't involve a Jedi with a lightsaber invariably devolves into characters ducking for the nearest bit of cover and shooting at each other from relatively static positions. No one ever really attempts to dodge in the manner described by the Dodge skill. Which is as it should be, because a character with an axe charging a guy with a blaster rifle gives the shooter multiple opportunities to shoot the axeman before he gets close enough for his weapon to be effective.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Fair points. I think this ties in with my recent attempts to rebalance the Dodge skill. In order to make good use of the damage potential of a melee weapon, you have to get close enough for it to be effective, yet pretty much every on-scene blaster fight that doesn't involve a Jedi with a lightsaber invariably devolves into characters ducking for the nearest bit of cover and shooting at each other from relatively static positions. No one ever really attempts to dodge in the manner described by the Dodge skill. Which is as it should be, because a character with an axe charging a guy with a blaster rifle gives the shooter multiple opportunities to shoot the axeman before he gets close enough for his weapon to be effective. |
This really depends on the distance. In general, we say that anyone within 21 feet is more dangerous to a shooter than a shooter is to him. This is certainly true if the weapon is holstered/slung at the "start of the round." Unless the shooter is already on target, of course (which is still no guarantee, but... that's what dice are for).
In essence, if you tell a shooter who's weapon is holstered, "that man over there who is 21 feet from you is about to charge you and stab you with a knife when I say 'go'," the shooter will not have enough time to engage a known threat, even when he has the initiative (that is, has already anticipated the other guy's actions).
Even if the weapon is in hand, that requirement for precision that is not inherent to melee weapons really begins to negatively affect the perceived superiority of guns (blasters) compared to melee weapons.
In any case, guns are not (nearly) as deadly/destructive as melee weapons, impact for impact, and like for like (a rimfire bullet might compare to a pencil as an improvised weapon, while a 9mm might compare to a pipe wrench or a dagger; a .223 might compare to being run through by a rapier or something).
By way of example, Rocky Marciano is recorded as throwing a punch at 925 foot pounds with a boxing glove on.
For perspective:
Typical 115gr 9mm: 356 foot pounds of muzzle energy
Premium Self Defense 124 gr 9mm: 396 foot pounds
One example of a hunting cartridge in .44 magnum: 975 foot pounds.
Note that these numbers are "at the muzzle" (or, 10 feet from the muzzle; they diminish considerably over distance, though a blaster bolt might not).
Imagine how much deadlier a punch would be with 925 foot pounds behind it if instead of a boxing glove, there was a spiked knuckle; or using the same put-your-body-weight-into-it technique but with a spear or a sword instead...
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting
Last edited by Naaman on Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:41 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 3:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, let's assume one character has a Vibro-Axe and the other has a Blaster Rifle. Maximum Short Range on a Blaster Rifle is 30 meters. If he's outside of 20 meters, the Axe-Man has to make at least an All-Out Move (assuming a Base Move of 10) to get close enough to attack the Shooter. And making an All-Out Move means that character can't make any other actions that round, including a Dodge roll. That means that, even if the Shooter loses initiative, he still gets a free unopposed Blaster roll against the Axe-Man. In fact, because of the vagaries of the Initiative system, the Axe-Man will finish the round at Point Blank Range and unable to Dodge against a Blaster Rifle that does 5D Damage.
I'm aware of the 21 foot Rule, and it is a factor in my wanting to transition from the 2E range-in-meters system to a uniform range band system, where Point Blank is effectively the same thing as Melee Combat range. However, at the moment, this is the system we've got.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Okay, let's assume one character has a Vibro-Axe and the other has a Blaster Rifle. Maximum Short Range on a Blaster Rifle is 30 meters. If he's outside of 20 meters, the Axe-Man has to make at least an All-Out Move (assuming a Base Move of 10) to get close enough to attack the Shooter. And making an All-Out Move means that character can't make any other actions that round, including a Dodge roll. That means that, even if the Shooter loses initiative, he still gets a free unopposed Blaster roll against the Axe-Man. In fact, because of the vagaries of the Initiative system, the Axe-Man will finish the round at Point Blank Range and unable to Dodge against a Blaster Rifle that does 5D Damage.
I'm aware of the 21 foot Rule, and it is a factor in my wanting to transition from the 2E range-in-meters system to a uniform range band system, where Point Blank is effectively the same thing as Melee Combat range. However, at the moment, this is the system we've got. |
In any case, 21 ft is approximately 7 meters, which is less than typical single move action distance... we could just rule 10m is "point blank" or "within charging distance." FWIW, charging distance in d20 is "double the character's move" which would work out to about 60 feet (20m). The character can attack upon completion of the movement.
If this were ported over, I'd be inclined to further sub divide it into a charge action (a double move--20m--plus attack, spread over two turns [not necessarily rounds]) and a "lunge" action (single move plus attack, all in one turn). What would make it a "charge/lunge" as opposed to a move-and-then-attack would be some kind of bonus/penalty (in d20, you get a +2 bonus on the attack roll, and a -2 penalty to armor class/defense).
Either way, for something like this to work, D6 would need a "charge" mechanic whereby a move and attack can be performed as parts of a single action.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 5:08 pm Post subject: Star Wars Damage D6 |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | The purpose of the game is not to simulate the films. The purpose of the game is to create original stories with mostly original characters that seem like they could take place in the same universe as the films. If we are doing that and having fun with it, mission accomplished. |
I would argue that the purpose of the game rules should be to simulate the universe portrayed in the films as accurately as possible |
You and all GMs should define your measures of accuracy how you wish and make the game to your liking. But I stand by my sentiment that it is not necessary to make the game so accurate that it simulates every little thing you see in the films.
For example, take wound levels. Someone may watch a film and say, "See that effects of that wound right there? That doesn't exactly match any of WEG's wound statuses. We must change them to account for that one instance." In the game, if characters never experience that one wound status, that doesn't mean the game doesn't adequately simulate the universe. The other wound statuses that are in the game can still make the adventures seem like they take place in the same universe as the films.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | in order to facilitate the creation of original stories within the setting. As such, if the game rules allow something to commonly occur that is almost never seen on-screen, then we should at the very least question why the game rules are written the way they are, and whether or not there's a better way to do it. |
From one tinkerer GM to another, I wholeheartedly agree. Like the perennial stun damage discussion. The game rules commonly allow for stun to be tactically superior to normal damage, but we almost never see blaster stun damage on-screen. I questioned it, and tweaked it so normal damage is tactically superior again. Just like in the films, in my game stun is only used when it is important to not kill the target.
| Naaman wrote: | ...Now, in the game... we do have a dodge skill that is just as easy to train as a melee parry skill.... so that's something to consider.
However, from a game balance perspective, it makes sense to me that the risks involved with melee combat should be worth the payoff: melee damage should (in a well balanced system, IMO) always out damage their blaster/ranged weapon counterpart (heavy vs heavy, long range vs greater reach, etc.)... |
Naaman, you are very experienced soul and like always, you are heavy with the real world. Did you have any feedback specific to my damage system for the cinematic world of Star Wars that this thread is devoted to? It's worth mentioning here that by the numbers, my whole overall system is a little deadlier than RAW.
In the films, we see a lot of unblemished armored soldiers go down in from a single blaster bolt, and none are shown to get back up, which in game terms would be incapacitated or worse. The observation that the updated mechanic addresses is that melee weapons in the SWU should not be so OP over blasters.
Am I to understand that you oppose D6 Space's and/or my "half-strength" damage for strength-based weapons? Is RAW, where you add your full Strength to the weapon's damage code, better in your opinion?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 6:43 pm Post subject: Re: Star Wars Damage D6 |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
Am I to understand that you oppose D6 Space's and/or my "half-strength" damage for strength-based weapons? Is RAW, where you add your full Strength to the weapon's damage code, better in your opinion? |
Nah. Just throwing in another perspective for consideration.
For example, using the same reasoning I posted above, I could justify the way you prefer to run damage.
In SW, the primary means of dealing damage is with blasters. Blasters (like bullets) are designed to penetrate soft fleshy targets. They (or, rather, their analog, bullets) are designed specifically to cause trauma to vital organs. Without striking a vital organ, a blaster (that is, the SW version of a bullet), the damage would not be as significant as damage from, say, a vibro-blade (that is, a sword) striking the same area.
That said, because blasters rely on dealing damage directly to the internal organs, whereas melee weapons rely on dealing damage from the outside in, it can be reasonable to have the standard damage rules catering to blasters, and have modified rules for melee.
If I go with this logic, though, it would require modifying the attack roll/reaction roll mechanic to make it harder to actually deal "full" damage with a blaster than to deal "full" (that is, half strength) damage with a melee weapon. In other words, the blaster relies on a "critical hit" in order to deal its full damage, while the melee weapon can be "avoided" but any hit by a melee weapon is bad news, whereas a significant number of "hits" with blasters (bullets... or, "ranged attacks" at normal personal scale) may have no appreciable effect during the few seconds or minutes that cover the combat encounter.
Since blasters (bullets) can't really be "dodged" because they cannot be tracked by normal eyesight, this makes critical hits easier to achieve. Essentially, I might require that in order to deal "full" damage with a blaster, a character must roll at least x over the dodge roll (say... 5 or maybe 10 depending on your tastes and game pacing, etc.). Whereas any success with a melee weapon would deal it's full (half strength) normal damage ("critical" hit or not)
In short, the blaster would suffer a damage penalty for not hitting a vital organ, while the melee weapons have a built in penalty because vital organs tend to be more difficult to damage from the outside in (due to protective skeletal structures, fatty tissues and large masses of muscle that absorb impact who's PSI is diminished by being spread across a larger area than a blaster bolt (bullet) would be.
Sorry... that was really wordy but I don't have time to edit right now... 
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks! Instead of making a hit location determination to determine severity of damage, I interpret the damage result to determine hit location. High damage results are the vital organ hits. Very high to-hit rolls can increase damage, so this takes into account that shooters try to hit the vital organ area and they can by either hitting your mark well or by getting lucky. Although melee damage may be technically different, I do the same thing (interpret the game mechanical results). I don't see the need to further complicate a cinematic adventure game with these differences because it is very easy to come up with a reasonable outcome based on the outcome of the rolls. YMMV.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2021 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Thanks! Instead of making a hit location determination to determine severity of damage, I interpret the damage result to determine hit location. High damage results are the vital organ hits. Very high to-hit rolls can increase damage, so this takes into account that shooters try to hit the vital organ area and they can by either hitting your mark well or by getting lucky. Although melee damage may be technically different, I do the same thing (interpret the game mechanical results). I don't see the need to further complicate a cinematic adventure game with these differences because it is very easy to come up with a reasonable outcome based on the outcome of the rolls. YMMV. |
Yeah. A lot of my interpretations as to what happens are determined after the dice rolls.
However, I see the appeal of determining hit location prior to damage results for groups who prefer to draw a stark line between the meaning of a dodge roll and the meaning of a strength roll. Allowing for a superfluously high attack roll to "retroactively" increase damage is certainly a way to address both camps. I say "retroactively" because at the time the attack is declared, we already know how much damage it is supposed to do, but the hit roll may modify it after the shot is attempted.
There will always be nuanced situations where one or the other is more representative.
_________________
.
SpecForce Combat Elements
All About Lightsabers: Designing, Building, and Fighting |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 429
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2021 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again - interesting thread.
So, after doing a bit more research I found something interesting;
The later systems (D6 space, OpenD6, D6legend, Mythic D6, etc.).
The ones which use 1/2 your strength as a bonus to melee - have some other differences.
First - many of these systems use body points (hit points) either instead, or in conjunction with Wound Levels. This means damage is more cumulative - and less thresholds like Star wars d6 (so lesser damage adds up more over time).
Secondly, in many instances, the melee weapons do more damage than they do in star wars in proportion to ranged weapons - i.e. they don't need the full STR bonus as much.
Taking that into consideration I don't think I am going to use the later system strength damage change.
Again, each of us has to do what we think works best for our game and interpretations.
thanks for the excellent discussion.
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pakman wrote: | Again - interesting thread.
So, after doing a bit more research I found something interesting;
The later systems (D6 space, OpenD6, D6legend, Mythic D6, etc.).
The ones which use 1/2 your strength as a bonus to melee - have some other differences.
First - many of these systems use body points (hit points) either instead, or in conjunction with Wound Levels. This means damage is more cumulative - and less thresholds like Star wars d6 (so lesser damage adds up more over time).
Secondly, in many instances, the melee weapons do more damage than they do in star wars in proportion to ranged weapons - i.e. they don't need the full STR bonus as much.
Taking that into consideration I don't think I am going to use the later system strength damage change.
Again, each of us has to do what we think works best for our game and interpretations.
thanks for the excellent discussion. |
I appreciate your observations. Personally, I despise hit points and many other D&Disms in RPGs. Body Points are slightly better because there are wound statuses attached to the % of loss ranges, but it is still "points" of health. In SW D6, small result point outcomes, (Damage Roll > Damage Resistance Roll by 0-3) are still directly accumulative over time, to passing out instead of wounds. My system is deadly enough, so I like the SW D6 stunned result/accumulation better.
The SW D6 wound system is still accumulative in that even a stun gives you a penalty to all actions, and that penalty hurts your reaction rolls and makes it more likely to get wounded. Wounds likewise increase your odds of further wounds, and being incapacitated decreases your side's odds from winning the battle (because they have to save you). And SW D6 is accumulative in that multiple wound statuses accumulate to worse wound statuses. These two factors (not even considering stun accumulation) multiply your odds of dying. And this is even in RAW without my tweaks that make it slightly worse.
Regarding Strength Damage and melee weapons, I use result point damage bonuses for very high to-hit rolls over the difficulty too. I should codify that into the web page.
But yes, each of us has to do what is best for our games.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
