Zero Damage Result
 

Dear Fantasy Trip Forums,

I never thought this would happen to me.

It started out as a typical ITL session running through The Death Test. Then in the heat of combat, one of the players rolled three 1s on a javelin throw at a bear and did...no damage.

How could this happen? According to this forum's strict interpretation of the rules (New Pole Weapon Rules thread), and relying only on the text contained within ITLs pages, one can roll a Triple Damage Result (3 ones) and score no damage with any of several weapons.

There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth at the game table. Questions included,

"WHAT?"
"Come ON! Are you serious?!"
"Why cant we roll three different damage dice if it's x3?"
"How does a critical hit with any weapon do NO DAMAGE?!"
"Come ON! What is your problem?"
"Does that mean we can get negative damage results?"
"Your game sucks!"

We got through it. In the interest of fairness I let her roll three damage results and add them together.

This brought up the possibility of any zero-damage result. With a number of weapons, it's possible to hit (even automatically hit with a 5) and get no damage or even negative damage. Personally, I don't like this. I think armor does a fine job of representing the case of a hit that does no damage and doesn't make the player feel like he/she is getting a bad deal.

I feel like this would have been discussed already and in some depth, but I did some forum searches (not my strongest skill, admittedly) and didn't find anything relevant aside from the Pole Weapon discussion I cited, above.

I'd like to hear if there's an official position on this from SJG and if so, what it is. I appreciate the thoughtful replies of the forum.

Thanks!

-Carl

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

I'd go with a house rule borrowed from an optional rule in D&D.

Don't roll one set of damage and multiply - roll two/three sets depending on the critical hit.

In addition, for the first set, don't roll but assume it did maximum damage.

Ex. Rapier normal hit is 1d6, double damage is 1d6+6, triple damage is 2d6+6

You may also want to house rule that any set that comes up with a zero result actually does a minimum of 1 damage.

Thrown Rock normal 1d-4, double damage 2 plus 1d-4 (minimum of 1 on that set) for a minimum of 3 total damage, triple damage would be minimum of 4 total damage.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

What about...

"On a triple damage result the damage done is triple the rolled damage or maximum weapon damage, whichever is the higher."

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Rolling zero damage has been asked about several times on this forum. So it's clear that there is a notable portion of players who balk at rolling zero damage, even more so on double or triple-damage results.

Of course, there are also players who don't feel it's a problem (including, apparently, the original designer, and I don't remember any Q&A during the original run about it), and of course the targets tend to enjoy the possibility of light weapons doing no damage even on a 3 on the to-hit roll.

The main counter-point I see is that it's using one of the lightest weapons in the game that creates a possibility for zero damage, and if you change that, then it over-represents the weaker weapons. Rolling a 3 or 4 doesn't take skill or anything but luck into account, but the damage a weapon does is a meaningful thing, and using a more potent weapon will remove the chance of zero damage.

Other points to consider:

* It's not really clear in the rules whether you're supposed to roll a multiplied number of dice (which is what we did), or roll the usual dice and then multiply. The latter may seem simpler and more intuitive, but multiplying the dice is actually specified in the only place I remember - in the Death Test 2 explanation of torch damage versus monsters who take double damage to fire - 1d-2 becomes 2d-4. Using more dice greatly reduces the odds or rolling zero damage (and also reduces the odds of rolling maximum damage). It also is pretty fun to roll and hear and see more dice rolling at once (assuming you have enough dice at hand).

* It probably makes sense to check in with your players to see how they feel about the issue.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

We never considered that "triple damage" could mean "triple the number of dice and modifiers." Surely if that was the intention then that's what would have been written in the rules? Double and triple damage was always clear to us: rolled Damage x2 or3.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

So it might seem, but somehow that's not what we thought.

And is there anyplace that actually says which it is, other than that place in Death Test 2 where it says to double 1d-2 to 2d-4?


Edit: Ah, actually there is one, on Turn 5 of the combat example in ITL, the result is doubled rather than rolling double dice.


(BTW, another reason to roll more dice is it preserves the possibility to do any amount of damage, not just even multiples of 2 or 3.)

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Mathematically, 1d+1 times 2 is 2d+2

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Yes, it all depends on your outlook on a "lucky" hit. Does it mean you were extraordinarily lucky to hit or extraordinarily lucky to do damage?

As you've pointed out, different groups lean different directions.

For me, nothing moves the Suckometer to 11 faster that doing a "critical" hit and doing zero damage.

That's already accounted for by armor's damage reduction.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

I'm not a Mathematician, but it seems to me that;

if you roll 1 Damage dice the chance of getting a 6 is "1 in 6" or 16.7%. So on a double damage roll you have 16.7% chance of getting 12 Damage points.

If you roll 2 Damage dice, the chance of getting a 12 is only 2.78%.

So you're far better off, in terms of maximum (and minimum) damage if you multiply rather than adding more dice.

I'm sure the mathematical types can either verify this or otherwise.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

DISCLAIMER: This is what I remember from the probability and statistics class I took in the 80s, although I did check it just now with Google :)

You are correct. You can represent each die as a discrete random variable with a linear distribution. Adding more and more of them together gives you a fatter and fatter normal distribution with the extreme values happening less often and the middle values happening more often. This does have the advantage of making zero damage happen less frequently but it can still happen.

Personally, I like Blades & Black Magic's approach:

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Yes, if by better off you mean "more likely" to occur.

1d6 (then multiply by 2)

equal chance you get 2/4/6/8/10/12 damage (average 7 damage)

2d6

1/36 chance for 2, 1/36 chance for 12
2/36 chance for 3, 2/36 chance for 11
3/36 chance for 4, 3/36 chance for 10
4/36 chance for 5, 4/36 chance for 9
5/36 chance for 6, 5/36 chance for 8
6/36 chance for 7

Average 7 damage.

Yes, harder to get the extremes but the average damage is the same either way.

That's why I like max damage for the first set, roll for the second (and third as applicable)

So, with a 1d6 weapon doing double damage, you do 1d6+6 for equal chance of 7,8,9,10,11,12 (average 9.5 damage)

Again, not right, not wrong. Just, for me, thematically what a "critical hit" is in my mind.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

I agree with Skarg. We used to always just multiple the number or dice and modifiers. Javelin's 1-1 triple dmg = 3-3. It is a simple solution and really with melee simple is often the better way to go. Also it spreads the damage over a bell curve.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

I've always played that double damage was a damage roll x2 and triple damage was a damage roll x3.

However, I can see now where there are other points of view.

How about a house rule where Double damage is a damage roll x2 or a minimum of 2 points damage and triple damage is a damage roll x3 or a minimum of 3 points damage.

I had other alternate thoughts after reading these posts:

• a crit hit with a saber or shortsword (that can give a negative damage value when crit damaging) might hit the bear in such a way as to 'not do damage' but might slice off enough fur to reduce its armor value in that area to Zero. Next attack on that animal would be at 0 armor.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Unfortunately the only definition is in the example of combat I would probably prefer rolling multiple dice, that does seem to resolve this issue.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Thanks for all the discussion. You've all given me a lot to think about.

For my own games, I'm going to say that any successful hit does at least 1 damage -- this is to cover either Zero or negative damage results from dagger, saber, a thrown rock, sling, small bow, javelin, net, whip, and sha-ken. My rationale here is that you can miss and do no damage, and you can hit someone in armor and do no damage. I think hitting someone without armor and doing no damage is just too much. At the same time, I think a dagger's damage at 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is just fine.

For critical hits, I'm going with roll all the dice and multiply the constants. It seems to me to be the most fair method as it will more likely yield results from the middle of the probability curve (versus the ends).

For the silly stuff, like negative damage, that's not a thing. Although my own strict interpretation of the rules indicates negative damage, or "healing", is very much a thing -- but I am a software engineer and 1d6-2 will result in -1.

Software engineer's spouse says, "Go to the store and buy a loaf of bread, and if they have eggs, pick up a dozen." So the software engineer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.

I hope I don't embarrass myself in a tournament. :-P

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

It starts to matter a lot when you have something like a swarm of unarmed weak people or a hail of light rocks or something with lots of hits but they only do 1d-4 or something.

In that case, they're designed to usually not do serious damage, but sometimes cause real injury.

Making them all do at least 1 damage in that case is big change in effect.

1d-4 is 0 0 0 0 1 2, or average 0.5 per hit.

1d-4 (min 1) is 1 1 1 1 1 2. or average 1.167 per hit.

Get hit by ten 1d-4 hits, and with no minimum, you probably take about 5 damage. With a minimum 1, you probably take about 12 damage. Big difference.

i.e. Minimum 1 removes the ability to have small damage effects.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Armor accounts for this nicely. Even if the target were only wearing cloth in your example they’d take 1 damage from the entire exchange. And none if they were wearing leather.

In some ways it makes the game less deadly if we allow zero damage on successful hit results. I can see how that would be an advantage, having now played a half dozen attempts at the Death Test.

Still, I feel like the game is more fair if you do damage when you hit, even with a thrown rock.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Against people without no armor or shield at all... :)

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

exactly.


I personally go a little crazy when I get ANY critical hit, and subsequently roll a very low damage,... it's like wtf?

what good is a a heroic critical hit (presumed you slipped your blade in past an opening in his armor, struck a nerve center, etc...) if it results in NO actual damage?

The day that a "regular" strike with a shortsword, especially a marginal hit just squeaking in under your adjDX delivers MORE damage, than your companions heroic "triple" damage critical hit with his two-handed sword, is the day that you say... Really?

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Because addition is associative.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

The easy fix is that you can't do damage less than 1 hit per die rolled. Thus, a 3d-27 die roll will do a minimum of 3 hits.

But why do something easy when you can make backhanded insults instead?

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

wait...

If that is the easy fix, then what do you do with a weapon like a Cutlass where it's damage rating is 2d-2? 0-10 hits Averaging 5 hits

so... The Cutlass is actually a 2-10 hit weapon? averaging 5.5 hits?

granted it's not a game changer, but would impact combat effect if opponents were armored, vs: unarmored.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Players desire to advance their characters. Once in awhile a setback occurs. it's one reason we play the game.
Everyone should laugh, thank Karma (the substitute GM) and remember it fondly thru the years. Though it may take longer for some to come to that conclusion.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Also compare to the alternative ST 10 weapon, the Hammer, at 1d+1. It averages 4.5 per hit. And compare to the ST 11 small axe at 1d+2, which averages 5.5 per hit.

i.e. Changing the damage rules to satisfy people who get upset when they roll zero damage, skews the weapon balance, which already includes mostly weapons which can't roll zero damage.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

I follow what you're saying and have certainly seen a fair proportion of players react this way.

Especially in GURPS, where critical success can happen much more often if your skill is high (so it's not just an equal chance for everyone) but the only certain result is the target doesn't get their usual active defense, and a roll on a critical hit table is made to see what happens ... with lots of nice juicy interesting results ... and common results also being actually there is no additional special effect.

It seems to me that there is a common and natural reaction that people feel like rolling a 3 or 4 ought to be great and special. As JustAnotherJarhead wrote above, "heroic" - but the rules don't really say it's heroic - it's doubled or tripled, which can be an enormous effect (recently someone in one of my games practically one-shot-killed a dinosaur with a light crossbow that way), but it does require a damage roll as well, and can turn out not to be that great.

So it seems to me that on the one hand, some players may tend to add a lot of meaning and expectation to a low roll, and it can feel disappointing both to them, and to have to let down their excitement. On the other hand, altering the rules does sway the game balance, and if the great effects are given to a random roll that's only based on luck, that can mess with the way the game works in ways that other players may not appreciate (e.g. there are also players who like the way it works as written, and other who don't like critical hits at all, etc).


Really this is a House Rules thread - players can easily alter the rules on this, if they can agree.


Personally I'd much rather have some minimum amount on a to-hit roll of 3 or 4, than have all weapons have a minimum damage, because that has very little effect on the average weapon damage, and it seems to me there's a choice of weapons where only a few can roll zero in the first place.

(I'm not sure why players who are so upset by rolling zero damage end up choosing the weapons that can roll zero damage.)

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Can anyone point out a Zero damage example in any of the rule books that doesn't have armor as a factor?

In other words, is there an example in ITL or Melee or Wizard where someone rolls damage for a dagger, javelin, small bow, etc and rolls a 1, resulting in no effect? I've been combing and have found nothing.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

No, I cant.

But you bring up a good point, there should be one scenario.

I know in my own experience , it was always the dude with the small bow, and the cutlass that would land a first shot, well placed hit...but come up with zeroes , and it happened enough, I was like...screw that!

Too many times in a battle, where your whole party is trying desperately to fall the mighty beastie... and its 5 hits here, then 4 hits there, then 6 hits....then...zero!

And if it had just been 1 more hit it would have mattered, like a DX penalty, or a knock down situation etc...

I nearly fanned a few times in the old rules , when I two fisted my bastard sword, in a time of need, praying for some high numbers to match my amazing to hit roll...only to roll 3d6-2 and get a 1, a 1 and a 2. Damn! My party was like...really???

Yea, it sucked. Lol

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Again, it's a trade-off. If you want to avoid zero damage, use a weapon that does more damage. They become available at ST 9.

All of the weapons that can do zero damage have a valuable benefit that seems to me more significant than the chance of doing zero damage, except if it particularly annoys you or the situation really calls for doing at least a point of damage. e.g.:

A javelin is a pole weapon, with all its attendant advantages.

A cutlass/saber does up to 10 damage for a ST 10 weapon, as often as it does zero, and averages 0.5 damage more than a hammer (the throwable ST 10 weapon which guarantees at least 2 points of damage, but only a max of 7).

A short bow is a ST 9 missile weapon that even a 32-point character could shoot twice per turn.

If you say they can't do zero damage, you'll be removing one of their drawbacks and making them better, bending their balance against the available choices that already do minimum 1 damage (e.g. rapier, hammer, spear, horsebow, almost any other weapon...).

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

the history of my past TFT adventures is full of tales of enemies or heroes rolling zero damage even after a critical hit. I cannot see a problem since damage, combat, wounds and critical results are somewhat abstract.


Simply we figure that for a reason or another the hit landed where it does not harm the target despite the (apparently) good to hit roll.

Nobody ever complained on this since 1987.

If it can help consider that even in the best and more complex tactical wargame ever created, Advanced Squad Leader (AH/MMP),it's quite possible that a critical hit or another good roll resolves in a NE ( No Effect )

So nothing strange or new for us.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

The arrow pierces Norm's wine skin, spilling it on the dungeon floor. Enraged, the dwarf raises his battle axe and charges.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Over the years, I have had a number of characters that consistently miss or do little or no damage. Rolling high when they need low and low when they need high.


I have also found that the group gets a lot of enjoyment out of that character's predicaments. I have been tremendously frustrated by these characters and have retired them as quickly as possible, but the rest of the group seems to have just taken it in stride.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Exactly the Spirit of the game I'm talking about.

Enjoy the game even if your character is now grout filling, it's HOW he got there that will be remembered.

Grout....my next character's name. Her parents never did have high expectations of her anyway.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

No disrespect intended, honorable ecz, but to me, this statement ranks among the least believable I have ever heard with respect to RPGs. I've been playing RPGs for a long, long time. I've never been around a more vocal group of complainers and subjective judges of "fairness" than RPG players. It's a player complaint about this issue that drove me to start this thread, so "never?" I guess your mileage may vary. Mine certainly does!

I'm new to Melee. Before the Kickstarter showed up I think I might have heard TFT (or Wizard or Melee) mentioned once or twice, and I've been playing RPGs and Wargames since about 1979. TFT has long been a unicorn system to me: never actually seen in the wild. I don't have any "experienced" players to guide me on this journey aside from you all. I only know one guy who actually played Melee and Wizard from way-way back, and it was so long ago he didn't remember anything at all. Also, he was a kid then.

Aside from the Squad Leader mention -- and it's been at least 30 years since I've played that game, so I'm taking that poster's word for it -- I don't recall any RPG (war games are different!) where a successful hit could result in no damage without some kind of rule-exception in the form of a power/talent/spell/condition/whatever. But that said, a Zero Damage result rule is very war game-y, and Melee is much closer to a war game than an RPG. If any of that is true, then I can see why this rule exists. What gives me pause is that I would think there would be at least one example in the text of this occurring. It seems pretty significant to me, and all three rulebooks fail to bring this up as an example across numerous examples of combat.

I have another game tomorrow. It's the continuation of the one that prompted this topic. I'm going to present all this information to them, including the statement from ecz that no one has ever complained about this in 32 years! That'll show 'em. ;-) But seriously, there may be a very good reason that Zero Damage on a successful hit is an expected result and I'm starting to think that it might make the game less deadly. The argument about "lighter" weapons having other advantages is a good one, too.

I need more reflection on this. I'll let you know what the feedback from my group is.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

Yes, it's even harder to believe when the forum for this very game has a House Rules sub-forum!!!

And even fewer where a "critical" hit does zero damage.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

See Steve Jackson's other RPG, GURPS, for another RPG where you can hit for zero damage, and where the median results on the Critical Hit and Critical Head Hit tables are "no special effect".

As someone who started with TFT and then GURPS, and who has tried but others but has always preferred Steve's RPG's, one of the main features for me has always been that (yes, like wargames, and unlike typical RPGs) the rules and stats are actually making an effort to behave like the situation. A weak attack (e.g. improvised weapons, a torch, a light weapon) may well hit but do no significant damage on the scale of TFT ST because that mostly makes sense and is a good representation of the situation. (e.g. if a Rapier or Horse Bow does 1d6, a dagger or Short Bow should do less than that. And there needs to be a way to represent attacks that might hurt you some but may not (1d-3, 1d-4, 1d-5).


Well TFT does have only three short (two merely one-on-one) examples of combat, and since only the lightest in the game have any chance of doing zero damage, it's not liable to come up (IIRC, only the Magic Fist attack in the Wizard example could have rolled zero damage).

"Any hit always does at least 1 damage" would be gamey in a way that TFT's rules logic generally is not. If players really want to, of course they can house rule otherwise.


Yes, it does make it less deadly, especially in situations where there are a large number of light attacks, such as a barrage of sling shots or rocks... or unarmed attacks by ordinary not very strong people.

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

when I say "nobody complained since 1987" I mean that everyone quietly accepted the rules as written and applied by the GM (me) AT MY TABLE*. Zero problems, zero requests to house rule differently the zero damage thing. Probably someone could have a different opinion about the rule that makes possible a zero damage even after a critical hit, but *OUR GROUP never discussed it around a table.

This has to do with the knowledge of other systems ( I mentioned SL/ASL) where the dice results open a wide range of effects and aren't automatically themselves the effect. Hence the mere equation low roll= high damage simply does not apply all the times and we are (were) aware of this.

Please do not take too literally what one non-English native speaker says ;-)

reason for editing: *could be you misread my phrase thinking I was talking in general and not referring to my group of players?

Re: Zero Damage Result
 

A wineskin of Absorbsion!

Small wineskin, large wineskin, bullhide armored wineskin.