[GM]Monster Attack/Defense Notation

[Nymdok]

Ive been spending alot of time working on a way to make monster skill notations more flexible to fit with the balance Ive been working and Id like some feedback.

The Goal is to make monster notation that can be quickly rebalanced for parties of differenet strengths such as in a printed, pre-packaged adventure.


Offense:

Normally monster attacks are noted as

Attack(Skill LVL):DmgDice + Adds WoundingType

Example:

Shortsword(14):1d+2 Cut

Im going to begin noting it like this in the adventure Im working on.

Attack(_____):[_____] WoundingType - Hit%, A Dmg add B for C HP vs D Avg HP

Hit% is the value read off the chart suitable for the Party's average AD.

A Dmg is the Expectation Dmg AFTER DR.

add B is the increase in damage for every C HP GREATER than D.

The Blank Spaces on the line (_____) is where Ill write in my balanced numbers after Ive figured them out. (Assuming this is printed out)

So lets do an Example. Lets say we want a clumsy foe that does poor damage.

Example:
Shortsword(_____):[_____] Cut - 30% 2 dmg add 1 per 3 HP over 13avg HP.

Lets say that our Party has these averages,
AD:13, DR 5, and HP 17

(Using the Balance One Sheet) We need a skill of 17 (DA to 15) to hit AD 13 30% of the time.

To get 2 dmg vs 5DR we need 7 DMG which is simply 2D.

Since the monster was set for a Party with Avg HP of 13, and our party has 17 we add +1 dmg for 2D+1.

So at a Glance we can See

Shortsword(17 DA 15):[2D+1]Cut- 30% 2 dmg add 1 per 3 HP over 13 avg HP.

For a different Party? Say AD 9, DR 2, and HP 10?

AD 9 => Attack 10 for 30%
2 Dmg after DR 1=> 1D
-1 Dmg to Drop from avg HP 13 to avg HP 10

Shortsword(9):[1d-1]Cut - 30% 2 dmg add 1 per 3 HP over 13 avg HP.

EASY!

Defense:

Now for Defense We normally notate Active defenses individually or as a delimited set of Values and Have specific DR. Id like to change that to:

Defense {_____}, DR{_____} - Hit% with X Dmg after Wounding.

So lets say that we want a monster that will get hit regularly, but as a thick hide or scales that will absorb damage.

Example
Defense{_____},DR{_____} - Hit 70% with 4 Dmg after Wounding

So for a party with averages of 17 attack and 3D damage with 1.25 average wounding we get

17 attack hits 70% of the time vs AD 8.
4 dm after 1.25 average wounding is 3.2 (or just 3) through DR.
Or party has average expectation of 10.5 so our monster needs DR 7.

Defense{8}, DR{7} - Hit 70% with 4 Dmg after Wounding

For a more humble party

Attack 13, DMG 1d+1, Wounding 1.5

We need

Defense{5}, DR{1} - Hit 70% with 4 Dmg after Wounding

EASY!

Nymdok

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Nymdok

EASY!

Nymdok

I doesn't look THAT easy :)

I feel like you are overthinking this whole game balance issue...
Is DnD4 responsible for the "challenge rating obsession" that is spreading on the forum?

[Collective_Restraint]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I doesn't look THAT easy :)

I feel like you are overthinking this whole game balance issue...
Is DnD4 responsible for the "challenge rating obsession" that is spreading on the forum?

I dont think DnD4 is responsible for that at all. I do see a lot of newbie GURPSers that are actively looking for info on how to correctly balance encounters.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Collective_Restraint

I dont think DnD4 is responsible for that at all. I do see a lot of newbie GURPSers that are actively looking for info on how to correctly balance encounters.

D&D 3.5 was the first place I personally encountered the idea that a roleplaying game adventure can be deconstructed as no more than a series of "encounters, that "challenge" is quantifiable metric, that encounters can be "balanced" mathematically like a chemistry equation, and that a good adventure consists of a specific ratio of encounters of given relative difficulties. Earlier versions of D&D certainly had the notion that tougher monsters were worth more XP, but I don't ever recall such a systematic approach, before 3rd edition.

[thulben]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I doesn't look THAT easy :)

I feel like you are overthinking this whole game balance issue...
Is DnD4 responsible for the "challenge rating obsession" that is spreading on the forum?

Why the negativity about combat balance? I think this lowers the bar for those new to GURPS so that the GM appropriately challenges their party. Combat is very different in GURPS than it is in other systems, so I think this is useful. Even if you don't use Nymdok's system straight up, you can see what factors he's using and use them to inform your decisions. When I get a couple more roundtuits, I'm going to try this with my group and see what happens!

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by thulben

Why the negativity about combat balance?

I am all in favor of combat balance; I am highly skeptical of "magic formulas" intended to automate the process of balancing encounters.
I think combat balance is too difficult to evaluate and to unpredictable, to allow for such formulas to be reliable.

Moreover, a little unpredictability adds to the fun; the risk of being incapacitated, or failing to save the Queen from her attackers makes the game more compelling. And if sometimes the PCs win too easily, they'll think that's because they are AWESOME before blaming it on poor gamemastering ;)

I think this lowers the bar for those new to GURPS so that the GM appropriately challenges their party.

I somehow feel that lines like this
"Shortsword(17 DA 15):[2D+1]Cut- 30% 2 dmg add 1 per 3 HP over 13 avg HP."
Do not really "lower the bar" for new players.
And I think that good ol' "GM cheating" can be way more effective to challenge the party... if the fight looks too easy, declare that one of the NPCs has Luck and allow him to reroll that one failed attack/defense. Or say that 2 more orks were hiding behind the corner.

If the fight looks too HARD, the GM can easily make it just right with a couple tactical mistakes...

Combat is very different in GURPS than it is in other systems, so I think this is useful.

I played my good share of different RPGs, many are similar to GURPS in combat rules (of course GURPS tend to be more detailed and often more 'exact').
I don't think GURPS fights are that difficult to balance when compared to other games.
If you play out 3-4 fights with the same PCs, you (as the GM) will soon realize what hurts and what doesn't, so even if you can't exactly predict how challenging will be a given fight, you rarely end up inadvertently killing (or boring to death) your players...

Even if you don't use Nymdok's system straight up, you can see what factors he's using and use them to inform your decisions. When I get a couple more roundtuits, I'm going to try this with my group and see what happens!

Praise to Nymdok for his work! This "research" can indeed prove useful to better understand how probabilities work in GURPS' fights.

I maintain that GURPS fights are unpredictable and *very* varied, so it is not easy to find some 'formula' that, for setting combat balance, is better than simple GM guess.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I am all in favor of combat balance; I am highly skeptical of "magic formulas" intended to automate the process of balancing encounters.
I think combat balance is too difficult to evaluate and to unpredictable, to allow for such formulas to be reliable.

Except that in an RPG combat is actually defined by a set probabilities and numbers that are known before the fight begins. No formula will balance 100% but asking for such a thing (or disparaging anything less) is a fallacy, since the tool is still very useful.

[Nymdok]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I doesn't look THAT easy :)

I feel like you are overthinking this whole game balance issue...
Is DnD4 responsible for the "challenge rating obsession" that is spreading on the forum?

If you have the PDF in front of you and a little practice, they're really easy :)

Originally Posted by Collective_Restraint

I dont think DnD4 is responsible for that at all. I do see a lot of newbie GURPSers that are actively looking for info on how to correctly balance encounters.

I dont konw whats responsible for it, all I know is that Im horrible at it and I believe that a little arethmetic can help.

Originally Posted by lexington

Except that in an RPG combat is actually defined by a set probabilities and numbers that are known before the fight begins. No formula will balance 100% but asking for such a thing (or disparaging anything less) is a fallacy, since the tool is still very useful.

Thats exatly what Im trying to get done. :)

Originally Posted by Lupo

I am all in favor of combat balance; I am highly skeptical of "magic formulas" intended to automate the process of balancing encounters.
I think combat balance is too difficult to evaluate and to unpredictable, to allow for such formulas to be reliable.

...

I somehow feel that lines like this
"Shortsword(17 DA 15):[2D+1]Cut- 30% 2 dmg add 1 per 3 HP over 13 avg HP."
Do not really "lower the bar" for new players.

And I think that good ol' "GM cheating" can be way more effective to challenge the party...

...

Praise to Nymdok for his work! This "research" can indeed prove useful to better understand how probabilities work in GURPS' fights.

I maintain that GURPS fights are unpredictable and *very* varied, so it is not easy to find some 'formula' that, for setting combat balance, is better than simple GM guess.

The forumlas/process arent meant to be Magic, only ballpark approximations. That said, its to complex to be evaluated with great precision, but not so complex that it cant be evaluated at all.

The stat line as written DOES allow you other options in flexibiliity that I havent presented here.

I dont know if it does lower the Bar for newbies. I hope it does. If nothing else, it gives them a place to start and a way to approach it with some basic arithmetic.

I abhor Dice Fudging. If your not going to use the results, then dice rolling is just some ceremonial part of a storyteller's session and it eliminates/reduces the gaming part of the game.

Thanks!

They are varied an unpredicatable, but even so, i think that looking at simple models gives us a ballpark to work from as opposed to unarticulated Guessing.

Nymdok

p.s. As always, if you try it out, PM or email me and let me know how it goes :)

[DukeofDellot]

I also dislike dice fudging...

You know it took me reading through it very slowly, I guess I was trying to make it more complicated than it actually is, but that is really simple... on the consumer end at least.

Keep up the good work.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I am all in favor of combat balance; I am highly skeptical of "magic formulas" intended to automate the process of balancing encounters.
I think combat balance is too difficult to evaluate and to unpredictable, to allow for such formulas to be reliable.

It seems like every time Nymdok starts a thread on his methods someone has to esoterically question the idea of balanced encounters in general. Why don't we start a new thread on the subject and let him get back to the specifics of his notation?