02-26-2019, 11:04 AM | #1 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
I was looking at this and thinking about completely revamping the damage system using it.
(Also, did you know the forum allows nested lists? I didn't, but I thought I'd give it a try).
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
02-26-2019, 12:00 PM | #2 |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
Play it. Love to see how it works. The reason I didn't do the protection angle is subtracting logs is real division, but your system sidesteps this nicely.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
02-26-2019, 03:58 PM | #3 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
One potential sticking point: Melee weapon damage adds. In the normal human range using modest weapons, it's actually pretty close to just keep it as is. It would make an ogre swinging a halberd utterly terrifying, though I'm temped to call that a feature rather than a bug.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
02-26-2019, 10:54 PM | #4 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
I'd like to see someone run a statistical analysis on how Conditional Injury works as written. For xd6, what Wound Potentials can you get, and what are the probabilities of each? How does this distribution change as you apply DR to reduce the damage roll?
Once I have that information, I'll have a better idea about how to go about replacing regular damage rolls. My suspicion is that the distributions are heavily biased toward the top end, and that they don't carry all that much: maybe two or three points downward, rarely more than that. And because more dice means that the sum tends to cluster more, I don't expect the number of dice to have much of an effect on how concentrated the resulting Wound Potentials are. If this is the case, I might recommend rolling, say, three dice? (exact number pending on the statistics), reading “6” as zero, and taking the lowest of them, and using the result as a penalty to the attack's rating, which would be set at the upper end of the range of Wound Potentials that the equivalent damage dice pool would generate. I wouldn't be going for strict duplication of the existing results; just a relatively simple technique that would give a halfway reasonable approximation of them. |
02-26-2019, 11:02 PM | #5 |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
Another possibility is to ditch the damage roll entirely, including any sort of “now roll dice to adjust the effective Wound Potential of an attack”, and instead base that adjustment on the margin of success: say, succeed by zero or one, reduce effective Wound Potential by 3; succeed by two, reduce it by 2; succeed by three, reduce it by 1; succeed by four or more, don't reduce it.
|
02-27-2019, 01:15 AM | #6 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
Quote:
I've now got a ST table I intend to use with this, but it also borrows heavily from my version of the Know Your Own Strength rule, so it shares almost nothing with the vanilla table. The game I intend to test this under is a western, so unless they run afoul of a bear or something, damage should be either read from a firearm stat-line or from "normal human" levels of ST.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
|
02-27-2019, 05:51 AM | #7 |
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
Replacing the damage roll with a simple 1d roll (abstractly representing how well the attack hit) is something I’ve considered, although my system treated lower rolls as better (to keep with the general “roll low” mentality of GURPS). I’ll be away from home for a while, but when I get back I’ll check my notes and see how it would play with this. It was a part of my planned Armor Overhaul, which basically got abandoned (well, frozen, which is part of why my blog hasn’t had updates in such a long time) when I couldn’t figure out how to model real world armor penetration properly (and yet in a gameable fashion, ready for appropriate cinematic modifications).
__________________
GURPS Overhaul |
02-27-2019, 02:57 PM | #8 | ||
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
Quote:
Quote:
And I'm using the term “Attack Strength” deliberately: it's very much the same thing as Striking Strength, but for attacks that aren't muscle-powered. |
||
03-24-2019, 01:15 PM | #9 |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: Conditional Injury (Pyramid #120) thoughts
So I've been putting a lot of thought into this (game has not started up yet, so no actual in-play testing). Caution: Big changes to GURPS ahead.
ST only directly affects ST rolls and Basic Lift - using a variant on the KYOS system. Instead of directly setting damage and HP, it instead provides a range which WP and RT would normally fall within (which must be purchased separately). Since ST 9, 10, and 11 would all give the same base WP and RT, a linear cost seemed unfair, and I wanted to avoid a lumpy cost progression. Converting weapon tables has proven a bit of work. I'm approximating by saying swing is a flat +1. Additions (or subtractions) to damage (e.g. the +3 part of Sw+3) are halved and rounded away from zero. This can create extremes very different from what would happen if you just applied Conditional Injury to standard GURPS damage as originally written. I'm thinking of giving weapons a max damage stat, to cover the "effective ST for damage purposes cannot exceed triple the weapon’s minimum ST" rule, but it shouldn't really come into effect in my game.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|