Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 10/13/2019 at 4:55 PM, Daeglan said:

Apparently you are not actually that invested in that because you can't seem to figure out a VERY basic thing about armor. Armor has 3 modes of stopping damage. Either spreading the force out such that it is no longer damaging. or redirecting the energy away from the wearer. or making it hard to discern where the person actually is.  Those 3 methods behave differently in real life. So mechanically they behave different in the game. But you are so fixated on failure meaning miss that you haven't caught on to the fact that all failure means in MOST game systems is you did not successfully accomplish your goal. Which can EITHER mean you miss entirely or you made contact but failed to do anything useful. It is almost like you are still using the D&D mindset that by the way does not consider armor to make you harder to hit. It considers armor to make you harder to successfully damage. But teenagers always take that to mean you miss. Which is incorrect. And yes GURPS improves this by separating Damage Reduction and Deflection and general difficulty to actually hit.  By your logic a failed computer check would mean the character couldn't get his hands on the keyboard. Your rigidity is a serious problem. Glad I dont have to play games with you. Because you fixate on the weirdest **** and skip over a large portion of the rules in that fixation. Like the fact that defense does not work the way you insist it does.

No, D&D armor makes you harder to hit. The armor value is applied to the attack roll, not the damage roll. That means the armor is making you harder to hit in that system, since that is what an attack roll determines. In fact, this was explicitly spelled out in 1st and 2nd ED AD&D. By contrast, in Cyberpunk, and MEKTON Z, armor actually makes you harder to damage, since, in those games, the armor's stopping power is subtracted from the damage roll, not the attack roll. That can be narrated differently depending upon the nature of the armor. A soft armor would be narrated as absorbing the impact, whereas hard armor would be deflecting the impact. The result is mechanically the same:  the damage is reduced. That is how armor works. 

Secondly, a cloak or large robes make your body shape harder to discern, thus making you harder to hit. Armor does not do that, however. Armor typically conforms to the shape of the body. Ergo, it does not make it hard to discern where the person is. And Deflection and absorption both do the same thing in the end. they both mitigate the damage that is done to the target. The difference is only in the rigidity of the material in question. The goal of any armor is the same: to reduce  the damage from a successful attack. All armor spreads the force of an attack, whether the armor is hard or soft. 

And no, in most game systems, in combat, and failure in an attack roll means you miss. Period, end of story. You did not hit your target at all. Try again. This is because, "Failing to accomplish your goal" on an attack roll, means failing to hit your target. The goal of shooting at someone (or swinging a melee weapon at them) is to hit them so that you can, in turn, potentially damage them. So, if you fail in that goal, you missed. It's not rocket science. 

On 10/13/2019 at 5:47 PM, micheldebruyn said:

This might not be the game for you then, as very few of any of  the mechanics represent how things actually work.

I disagree. The majority of the game mechanics make perfect sense for the setting, and isn't bogged down with "rules for everything" which often don't make sense, and arbitrary restrictions, like  with D&D (it's armor system isn't its only problem, believe me).  

And, the fact that the primary stat for armor is Soak, is a definite plus, and the saving grace here. All armors have a Soak value, only a few have a Defense value. And, only Heavy Robes have a Defense value and not a Soak value. However, Heavy Robes aren't armor. They're simply clothes. They're clothes that happen to be large, billowing, and shaped to obscure the silhouette of the body. This has the benefit of making you harder to hit. A such robes and also cloaks have the same effect in real life as well. In fact, an entire style of fencing relies on this very principle, combining the blade (usually a dagger or rapier) in one hand with a cloak in the other using the cloak to obscure your body, parry and, potentially, entangle your opponent's weapon as seen here: 

As such, the cloak, like Heavy robes, makes you harder to hit. That is Defense

On 10/13/2019 at 5:48 PM, Jareth Valar said:

And, how exactly, do things "actually work" in a universe that sound travels in space, people have been using a technology for centuries that beaches dimensional barriers and no idea HOW it works, has space wizards, etc.

If YOU want to play the game and hold to OUR world physics, go ahead. You will be only one of a small few I can imagine. Everyone else disagrees with you and no matter how you bold things or increase don't size I don't think you will convince anyone your way (an opinion, not factual physical law I might add) is correct.

This game is based on interpretation and description for a convention feel to the game. It's how it was designed. Is it bad design? No, not in my opinion. Do I have issues with some of its rules? Yes, I do. I also discuss then with my table and change then to suit our play style and game. I, however, will never take such an arrogant approach to say they are wrong and I am right. It's a matter of what works for each individual within the guidelines they have written.

So, for the record, you are right. For YOU that's how armor should work and does work. Kudos, I'll bake some cookies. For everyone else, they describe it for how things work best at their table. And guess what, THEY'RE RIGHT TOO!

if you think the rules are so crappy in certain regards, write your own. They make this great thing called Kickstarter. Means you can do something awesome without having to form out funds first.

If not, I would suggest checking yourself before you try to check other people and tell them they are wrong in how they play a make believe game in a make believe world.

You want real theoretical physics in gaming play Star Trek or Saganami Island (Honor Harrington).

There's a difference between representing fictional technology or "space magic", and representing how an object in the story which has actual real-world counterparts, that have actual real effects and functions that can be seen and tested. 

A blaster, is basically a gun. It shoots a "projectile" to hit a target and does damage. Yes, that projectile is a plasma beam, but it's fundamentally a gun. You shoot with it. A lightsaber is basically a sword. Sure, the blade is made of energy, but it's still a sword. You cut with it. Everything else is just "window dressing". Armor is armor, regardless of whether it's storm trooper armor, Mandalorian battle armor,  a shirt of mail, a 14th century full plate Knight's armor, or a US Army solider's flack vest with ceramic inserts. They're all encumbering to varying degrees, and they all to the same thing, they reduce damage from a hit. They do not make you harder to hit. This is something we can see and test. It doesn't matter the setting, or level of "reality". Armor is armor. It does one job, it mitigates damage. That is what it does. That is all it does. This is fact, not opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

This is fact, not opinion. 

You've obviously put a lot of thought and effort into this. It's a shame it's such a wasted effort since you clearly couldn't tell opinion from fact even with an electron microscope and a a chemistry set.

Abstractions are not facts, and the facts you do bring up are cherry picked as all h*ll. I'm not going to even bother with any of your arguments because you've been stuck in a loop repeating the same things and ignoring when they're refuted. You're not arguing, you're filibustering.

Absorbing a fixed number of "damage points" is as unrealistic as any other damage/armor system. It's fine not to like a certain way of how certain systems abstract things into game rules, but decrying them as bad and wrong because they dont fit your cherry picked standards of realistic representation of fictional universe that frequently flaunts the laws of physics not only makes you look like an idiot, but also a first class jerk.

But hey, that's something you do sooner or later in pretty much every thread you opinionate in, so I'm not surprised. I'm just curious if it's intentional? You can't possibly be unaware of it considering how often you've been told.

And if it's unintentional, why can't I recall ever seeing you apologizing? I must just have missed it, right?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, D&D armor makes you harder to hit. The armor value is applied to the attack roll, not the damage roll. That means the armor is making you harder to hit in that system, since that is what an attack roll determines. In fact, this was explicitly spelled out in 1st and 2nd ED AD&D. By contrast, in Cyberpunk, and MEKTON Z, armor actually makes you harder to damage, since, in those games, the armor's stopping power is subtracted from the damage roll, not the attack roll. That can be narrated differently depending upon the nature of the armor. A soft armor would be narrated as absorbing the impact, whereas hard armor would be deflecting the impact. The result is mechanically the same:  the damage is reduced. That is how armor works. 

Secondly, a cloak or large robes make your body shape harder to discern, thus making you harder to hit. Armor does not do that, however. Armor typically conforms to the shape of the body. Ergo, it does not make it hard to discern where the person is. And Deflection and absorption both do the same thing in the end. they both mitigate the damage that is done to the target. The difference is only in the rigidity of the material in question. The goal of any armor is the same: to reduce  the damage from a successful attack. All armor spreads the force of an attack, whether the armor is hard or soft. 

And no, in most game systems, in combat, and failure in an attack roll means you miss. Period, end of story. You did not hit your target at all. Try again. This is because, "Failing to accomplish your goal" on an attack roll, means failing to hit your target. The goal of shooting at someone (or swinging a melee weapon at them) is to hit them so that you can, in turn, potentially damage them. So, if you fail in that goal, you missed. It's not rocket science. 

I disagree. The majority of the game mechanics make perfect sense for the setting, and isn't bogged down with "rules for everything" which often don't make sense, and arbitrary restrictions, like  with D&D (it's armor system isn't its only problem, believe me).  

And, the fact that the primary stat for armor is Soak, is a definite plus, and the saving grace here. All armors have a Soak value, only a few have a Defense value. And, only Heavy Robes have a Defense value and not a Soak value. However, Heavy Robes aren't armor. They're simply clothes. They're clothes that happen to be large, billowing, and shaped to obscure the silhouette of the body. This has the benefit of making you harder to hit. A such robes and also cloaks have the same effect in real life as well. In fact, an entire style of fencing relies on this very principle, combining the blade (usually a dagger or rapier) in one hand with a cloak in the other using the cloak to obscure your body, parry and, potentially, entangle your opponent's weapon as seen here: 

As such, the cloak, like Heavy robes, makes you harder to hit. That is Defense

There's a difference between representing fictional technology or "space magic", and representing how an object in the story which has actual real-world counterparts, that have actual real effects and functions that can be seen and tested. 

A blaster, is basically a gun. It shoots a "projectile" to hit a target and does damage. Yes, that projectile is a plasma beam, but it's fundamentally a gun. You shoot with it. A lightsaber is basically a sword. Sure, the blade is made of energy, but it's still a sword. You cut with it. Everything else is just "window dressing". Armor is armor, regardless of whether it's storm trooper armor, Mandalorian battle armor,  a shirt of mail, a 14th century full plate Knight's armor, or a US Army solider's flack vest with ceramic inserts. They're all encumbering to varying degrees, and they all to the same thing, they reduce damage from a hit. They do not make you harder to hit. This is something we can see and test. It doesn't matter the setting, or level of "reality". Armor is armor. It does one job, it mitigates damage. That is what it does. That is all it does. This is fact, not opinion. 

You dont read the rules in anything do you? Because so far as @penpenpen noted you pick and choose what you read to fit your narrow sliver of what.you want to understand. So like @penpenpen i am not wven bothimg to read your wall of text. Because near as i can tell you dont comprehend what others say. It seems like you dont even really read what others say. You just repeat the same argumemt you posted previously. Only in a lo ger fashion with more emphasise as if that is gonna some. How change reality. Hint it wont. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, D&D armor makes you harder to hit. The armor value is applied to the attack roll, not the damage roll. That means the armor is making you harder to hit in that system, since that is what an attack roll determines. In fact, this was explicitly spelled out in 1st and 2nd ED AD&D. By contrast, in Cyberpunk, and MEKTON Z, armor actually makes you harder to damage, since, in those games, the armor's stopping power is subtracted from the damage roll, not the attack roll. That can be narrated differently depending upon the nature of the armor. A soft armor would be narrated as absorbing the impact, whereas hard armor would be deflecting the impact. The result is mechanically the same:  the damage is reduced. That is how armor works. 

There's a difference between representing fictional technology or "space magic", and representing how an object in the story which has actual real-world counterparts, that have actual real effects and functions that can be seen and tested. 

A blaster, is basically a gun. It shoots a "projectile" to hit a target and does damage. Yes, that projectile is a plasma beam, but it's fundamentally a gun. You shoot with it. A lightsaber is basically a sword. Sure, the blade is made of energy, but it's still a sword. You cut with it. Everything else is just "window dressing". Armor is armor, regardless of whether it's storm trooper armor, Mandalorian battle armor,  a shirt of mail, a 14th century full plate Knight's armor, or a US Army solider's flack vest with ceramic inserts. They're all encumbering to varying degrees, and they all to the same thing, they reduce damage from a hit. They do not make you harder to hit. This is something we can see and test. It doesn't matter the setting, or level of "reality". Armor is armor. It does one job, it mitigates damage. That is what it does. That is all it does. This is fact, not opinion. 

OK, you said earlier that the way D&D handles armor is one of the reasons you stopped playing it. D&D also had an option to split the AC into AC and DR (Damage Reduction for those who don't know). Was t popular? I have no idea, but I do know that of the 2-3 dozen players around where I was only 3 liked/used it, myself included. I prefer armor as DR/Soak to defense. However, if I want that as an option I will play/run games that give that to me. While you and I agree thoroughly on Mekton and Cyberpunk I don't see the comparison other that "See, these games get it right in my opinion". It's comparing apples and tomatoes, both are fruit but both used in mostly different ways.

As for real world correlations, you are correct, insomuch that we can interpret and understand the visuals. I disagree with the direct analogies though. Reasonable to do so, but I personally like to keep my sci-fi filled with wonder and unobtanium. Too much grounding in real life will bring it down for me. If that works for you, knock yourself out, just quit trying to drag everyone else into your personal paradigm.

As for your so-called "fact". I call total malarkey. I've sat through court cases with the "battle of the experts" for hours. Utter crap. Who is right? Yes. You bring "irrefutable proof" and someone else can bring some too. Even the "laws" of physics aren't "fact". 2 objects cannot exits in 2 places at the same time...not any more. I have read several articles on armor design and application (something you do when you rely on it to possibly save your life) and I have seen it argues ad-nauseum both ways. I have worn armor for years, both modern and archaic and I am in no way qualified to tell either side that they are wrong. Nor am I qualified in telling you that you are wrong in how you want the game to be, but neither are you in telling everyone else they are wrong. 

The game works the way it works because that's what the designers wanted and the playtesters agreed. Don't like it? Change it for your game. I'd personally be happy having a civil conversation on those merits. Don't want to change it for your game? Don't play it and go back to Mekton or Cyberpunk. I'm sure one of those would work rather well for a Star Wars setting. Heck, Cyberpunk Red is supposedly totally compatible with the Witcher RPG. It shouldn't be that difficult to put something together to represent the force.

Heck, I have my own issues with the way Defense is handled in the game. Like I have armor with 3 defense, I might as well stand here in the open field cover won't do anything for me. Guess what, I changed it and moved on. No one is wrong in liking the way the system is, it's their game, it's their choice.

Bottom line is "If you can fix the problem, fix it and quit complaining. If you can't fix the problem, get over it and quit complaining. Either way, quit complaining. It does no good."

Either way, I hope you find your zen so that you can finally be able to live with the fact everything doesn't always work the way we want.

Edited by Jareth Valar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

OK, you said earlier that the way D&D handles armor is one of the reasons you stopped playing it. D&D also had an option to split the AC into AC and DR (Damage Reduction for those who don't know). Was t popular? I have no idea, but I do know that of the 2-3 dozen players around where I was only 3 liked/used it, myself included. I prefer armor as DR/Soak to defense. However, if I want that as an option I will play/run games that give that to me. While you and I agree thoroughly on Mekton and Cyberpunk I don't see the comparison other that "See, these games get it right in my opinion". It's comparing apples and tomatoes, both are fruit but both used in mostly different ways.

As for real world correlations, you are correct, insomuch that we can interpret and understand the visuals. I disagree with the direct analogies though. Reasonable to do so, but I personally like to keep my sci-fi filled with wonder and unobtanium. Too much grounding in real life will bring it down for me. If that works for you, knock yourself out, just quit trying to drag everyone else into your personal paradigm.

As for your so-called "fact". I call total malarkey. I've sat through court cases with the "battle of the experts" for hours. Utter crap. Who is right? Yes. You bring "irrefutable proof" and someone else can bring some too. Even the "laws" of physics aren't "fact". 2 objects cannot exits in 2 places at the same time...not any more. I have read several articles on armor design and application (something you do when you rely on it to possibly save your life) and I have seen it argues ad-nauseum both ways. I have worn armor for years, both modern and archaic and I am in no way qualified to tell either side that they are wrong. Nor am I qualified in telling you that you are wrong in how you want the game to be, but neither are you in telling everyone else they are wrong. 

The game works the way it works because that's what the designers wanted and the playtesters agreed. Don't like it? Change it for your game. I'd personally be happy having a civil conversation on those merits. Don't want to change it for your game? Don't play it and go back to Mekton or Cyberpunk. I'm sure one of those would work rather well for a Star Wars setting. Heck, Cyberpunk Red is supposedly totally compatible with the Witcher RPG. It shouldn't be that difficult to put something together to represent the force.

Heck, I have my own issues with the way Defense is handled in the game. Like I have armor with 3 defense, I might as well stand here in the open field cover won't do anything for me. Guess what, I changed it and moved on. No one is wrong in liking the way the system is, it's their game, it's their choice.

Bottom line is "If you can fix the problem, fix it and quit complaining. If you can't fix the problem, get over it and quit complaining. Either way, quit complaining. It does no good."

Either way, I hope you find your zen so that you can finally be able to live with the fact everything doesn't always work the way we want.

I will say to be fair they designed the system so that armor counts as cover because that is what we see i. Movies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I will say to be fair they designed the system so that armor counts as cover because that is what we see i. Movies

I get that. One of the things I scratched my head at in the movies, but I still enjoyed the movies It just broke my groups suspension of disbelief for the game so we changed it for our table. Same with the max defense and a couple of other things.

My point was more that no system is perfect for everyone. There are usually things that you either out right hate or don't that just make you scratch your head and shrug, but fit the most part really enjoy the game. It's the purpose of house rules. And like the main rules, someone won't like your house rules.

Another point I was making was basically accept the game as is, change what you don't like or move on to one you do. Pretty simple to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...