*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 10, 2022, 10:03:50 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4285 Members Latest Member: - Jason DAngelo Most online today: 72 - most online ever: 565 (October 17, 2020, 02:08:06 PM)
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Author Topic: Short damage question.  (Read 6922 times)
balthazor
Member

Posts: 4


« on: October 13, 2002, 11:51:00 AM »

I'm hoping someone can explain to me exactly how someone could die from fire/electricity/cold/etc. All I see on the chart is Shock and Pain, neither of which appear to be life threatening. Am I missing something?

Thanks
Logged
Jake Norwood
Member

Posts: 2261


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2002, 02:20:20 PM »

Actually, you're not missing something. And it's a good question. I'll thin about it.

Hmmm...interesting this hasn't come up before...

Jake
Logged

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -R.E. Howard The Tower of the Elephant
___________________
www.theriddleofsteel.NET
Holt
Member

Posts: 17


« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2002, 03:24:13 PM »

On the same sort of topic, Jake,

What is the healing target number for a wound that has a pain of 'All' ?

-Holt
Logged
Brian Leybourne
Member

Posts: 1793


« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2002, 03:41:56 PM »

Hmm.. that IS a good question.

How about this then (off the top of my head):

Whenever someone takes generic damage from fire or electricity, there is a danger of shock causing their heart to stop, or of the damage being so tremendous that they just shut down (it has to be pretty high, there are incidents of people surviving third degree burns over 95% of their bodies).

Shock: the character has to make an immediate HT roll against a TN set by the shock value of the wound (in the case of the level 5 "all" entry, call it 16). If this roll is failed, the character is having a heart attack caused by shock. Lose 1 HT point and roll again every round until succeeded or HT reaches 0 in which case the character has had a heart attack and died. This HT loss lasts until the wound(s) are completely healed, then comes back at a rate of one point a week (you only have a very slow recovery from heart problems). If multiple "generic" wounds are received, add the shock values together for the TN (you can't last long when electricity is lashing through you or fire is crisping you).

Physical damage: On the receipt of each "generic" wound, roll End against the final pain result (i.e. after the WP has been subtracted). If this roll is failed, HT reduces by 1, then roll again as above until succeeded or HT reaches 0.

That's just off the top of my head, might mean too much rolling.

Brian.
Logged

Brian Leybourne
bleybourne@gmail.com

RPG Books: Of Beasts and Men, The Flower of Battle, The TROS Companion
balthazor
Member

Posts: 4


« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2002, 05:16:14 PM »

I guess a concern also would be regarding the actual damage (i.e., loss of limbs, etc.) that would result from extensive burn damage.

For purposes of something like a lightning strike or a magical blast of fire, it would be easy enough to just use one of the other damage charts and alter the description to fit. At a glance, I'd lean towards the cutting charts. So the arm isn't severed, but instead charred to a crisp. But then the trouble comes when it's not a quick "blast" of damage, but say an arm covered in burning oil. The arm will eventually burn to a crisp, but not all at once.

Perhaps there could just be a cumulative wound effect. That is, fire "attacks" the effected area with X points of damage (minus TO) each round/minute/whatever, and the resulting wounds are cumulative. Then apply the new wound value to whichever chart. Just tossing out some ideas.

I just bought the game and have been reading through it this weekend, and I can't wait to try out a couple combats. Looks like a really interesting system, and what impresses me is how it does what it does without being rediculously complex. I'm actually surprised at how simple a system it really is, from a rules standpoint anyhow. But when I came across this damage issue, it made me think that maybe I wasn't understanding things as much as I'd thought.

Despite that little glitch, I stand somewhat in awe of a complex, realistic, and yet simple system. It's one of those things where you slap yourself and say "why didn't I think of that?".
Logged
Brian Leybourne
Member

Posts: 1793


« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2002, 05:30:57 PM »

Quote from: balthazor
I just bought the game and have been reading through it this weekend, and I can't wait to try out a couple combats.


On the home page (http://www.theriddleofsteel.net), you'll find a link to a TROS combat simulator (I forget who wrote it, some amazing paragon of a man, most likely). It's a pretty good simulation of how combat plays out in TROS, as long as you have a PC based system rather than a MAC (and at least Win95 or better).

Brian.
Logged

Brian Leybourne
bleybourne@gmail.com

RPG Books: Of Beasts and Men, The Flower of Battle, The TROS Companion
balthazor
Member

Posts: 4


« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2002, 06:03:39 PM »

Quote from: BrianL
Quote from: balthazor
I just bought the game and have been reading through it this weekend, and I can't wait to try out a couple combats.


On the home page (http://www.theriddleofsteel.net), you'll find a link to a TROS combat simulator (I forget who wrote it, some amazing paragon of a man, most likely). It's a pretty good simulation of how combat plays out in TROS, as long as you have a PC based system rather than a MAC (and at least Win95 or better).

Brian.


Yeah, I played around with that prior to buying the game. What I noticed was that the simulator seemed to make things look more complex than they really are. Now that I've read the underlying rules, I'd be interested to play with it some more and see how my perceptions have changed.
Logged
Brian Leybourne
Member

Posts: 1793


« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2002, 06:13:16 PM »

Really? Wow, that's the first time I have heard that.

Can you expand on the ways in which it seemed to make tros combat more complex? I certainly was under the impression I had kept it pretty simple and true-to-the-rules.

Also.. I assume you're talking about the windows based simulator, not the dos-based one.

Brian.
Logged

Brian Leybourne
bleybourne@gmail.com

RPG Books: Of Beasts and Men, The Flower of Battle, The TROS Companion
balthazor
Member

Posts: 4


« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2002, 07:10:41 PM »

Quote from: BrianL
Really? Wow, that's the first time I have heard that.

Can you expand on the ways in which it seemed to make tros combat more complex? I certainly was under the impression I had kept it pretty simple and true-to-the-rules.

Also.. I assume you're talking about the windows based simulator, not the dos-based one.

Brian.


So am I to assume that the "amazing paragon of a man" reference was rather tongue in cheek? Honestly, I didn't notice that it was your program. Good thing I didn't outright trash the thing. :)

I can't really specifically identify anything which led to my conclusion. Instead, it's just that most games I've dealt with give the basic "roll to hit, roll for damage" model, and any attempt to elevate this model to something more tactical and realistic has meant enormous rule complexity a la Chivalry & Sorcery, and usually resulted in just a more detailed version of "roll to hit, roll for damage". So when I was playing around with the simulator, without any knowledge at all of the underlying mechanics, and seeing what appeared to be a very tactical and realistic system, I probably just jumped to the conclusion that there's got to be some massive tangle of rules underneath all this.
Logged
Brian Leybourne
Member

Posts: 1793


« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2002, 07:40:53 PM »

Fair enough. Still, it obviously did it's job, which was that it intrigued you enough to make you want to buy the rules to see if they really were that complex, so it worked! :-)

One thing I did try to do was (at least in brief) explain for each maneuver what it was going to do if successful and what the cost/benefit was. It certainly helps if you have read the rulebook, but I do think it's quite possible to use without any knowledge of the rules (and I have heard from various people to that effect). Now that I think of it, it might be a good idea to add a help page that actually explains about how the CP is calculated and how often it refreshes, how many exchanges in a round, etc. I may add that stuff when I release the new version (that has/will have an AI to fight against).

Quote
So am I to assume that the "amazing paragon of a man" reference was rather tongue in cheek?


Well, either that or I have an ego the size of "Noo Yark". You be the judge... :-)

Thanks for your comments,

Brian.
Logged

Brian Leybourne
bleybourne@gmail.com

RPG Books: Of Beasts and Men, The Flower of Battle, The TROS Companion
Durgil
Member

Posts: 306


« Reply #10 on: October 14, 2002, 04:40:32 AM »

Quote from: BrianL
...there are incidents of people surviving third degree burns over 95% of their bodies.
Brian.
This sounds like something that has only become possible through modern medicine.  Would this also hold true for medieval times?
Logged

Tony Hamilton

Irmo
Member

Posts: 258


« Reply #11 on: October 14, 2002, 08:23:27 AM »

Quote from: BrianL
Quote from: balthazor
I just bought the game and have been reading through it this weekend, and I can't wait to try out a couple combats.


On the home page (http://www.theriddleofsteel.net), you'll find a link to a TROS combat simulator (I forget who wrote it, some amazing paragon of a man, most likely). It's a pretty good simulation of how combat plays out in TROS, as long as you have a PC based system rather than a MAC (and at least Win95 or better).

Brian.


ROTFL, Brian.
Oh, btw, I think I found some kinks in it... in one case, Rapier Case went against Cut & Thrust Kid, C&T made a double attack and RC decided to do a partial evasion. Now, what happened that the first attack was defended against successfully, and RC was asked if he wants to steal initiative. I said yes. The second attack, however, was a failure, and the initiative went to RC by default. Lo and behold, starting the second engagement, the simulator asked what C&T's attack is?! It seems with the first stealing of initiative, it went to RC, but the second loss of initiative gave it back to C&T??? I have the output saved, if you want to take a look at it.

Irmo
Logged
Irmo
Member

Posts: 258


« Reply #12 on: October 14, 2002, 08:27:49 AM »

Quote from: BrianL


One thing I did try to do was (at least in brief) explain for each maneuver what it was going to do if successful and what the cost/benefit was. It certainly helps if you have read the rulebook, but I do think it's quite possible to use without any knowledge of the rules (and I have heard from various people to that effect).


Yes, I played around with it for quite a while before buying the book. While having the book certainly provides a bit more insight into what makes sense and what doesn't, and what the weapons are supposed to look like (e.g. I had to learn the sheer futility of cutting with the rapier the hard way ;) ), it's entirely possible to get somewhere by trial and error.
Logged
Brian Leybourne
Member

Posts: 1793


« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2002, 11:30:13 AM »

Quote from: Irmo
Oh, btw, I think I found some kinks in it... in one case, Rapier Case went against Cut & Thrust Kid, C&T made a double attack and RC decided to do a partial evasion. Now, what happened that the first attack was defended against successfully, and RC was asked if he wants to steal initiative. I said yes. The second attack, however, was a failure, and the initiative went to RC by default. Lo and behold, starting the second engagement, the simulator asked what C&T's attack is?! It seems with the first stealing of initiative, it went to RC, but the second loss of initiative gave it back to C&T??? I have the output saved, if you want to take a look at it.
Irmo


Hmm, yeah, send me the output (bleybourne@hotmail.com). Sounds a little screwey - it should never under any circumstances ask you if you want to steal initiative BETWEEN the attacks of a double attack (in fact, it's not possible with the code I wrote...), so I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

Oh, hang on, now I see what you're saying. By steal initiative, you mean buy it with 2CP following a partial evasion, but then the second attack wasn't successfully blocked or parried thus it gace initiative back to the attacker.

Hmm... yeah, I can see how that might eventuate. Bummer. A very specific example though (like, it'll only be the case in a double attack versus a partial evasion where the partial evasion succeeds against the first attack but fails against the second), and it'll be easy enough to fix in the next version. Email me the output anyway, it'll remind me to make the change.

Brian.
Logged

Brian Leybourne
bleybourne@gmail.com

RPG Books: Of Beasts and Men, The Flower of Battle, The TROS Companion
Lyrax
Member

Posts: 268


« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2002, 01:33:40 PM »

There's also this problem:  It's supposed to be generic damage!  As a GM, I'd say that a lvl 5 fire wound simply destroys what it hits, a lvl 5 electrical wound stands a good chance of killing you (roll TO vs. Damage Rating)... but the chart doesn't need this, because it's supposed to be all-purpose.
Logged

Lance Meibos
Insanity takes it's toll.  Please have exact change ready.

Get him quick!  He's still got 42 hit points left!
Pages: [1] 2
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!