From:  (Spike)
Newsgroups: rec.games.design
Subject: Re: net.rpg
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:53:13 GMT
Followup-To: rec.games.design
Organization: GE Power Generation

In article <KETIL.92Nov16154050@sandel.ii.uib.no>, ketil@ii.uib.no (Ketil
M. Malde) wrote:
> 
> >>>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:45:14 EEZ, towo@swob.nullnet.fi (Mika Toivola) said:
> 	Mika> Yes, I say two systems, one used normally, the other in
> 	Mika> "mass combat" situations (or when playtime is running
> 	Mika> out :-)
> 
> I think combat, and most other things should be detailed down as much
> as you like.  The levels of detail for combat could be:
>   
>  1 fighting one-on-one in full, blood soaking detail, hit for hit
>    (use this for advanced player-vs-npc battles)
>  2 fighting one-on-one in a quick way, roll a couple of dice, smack -
>    he's dead (npc-vs-npc, optional for players perhaps)
>  3 Fighting group-vs-group
> and perhaps
>  4 Army vs army
>    

Excellent suggestion!

> In a war, this means we could have several levels of detail going on
> simultaneously, battles without PC's in them could be done the
> army-vs-army way, with PCs mostly level 3, when a 'platoon'  (or
> whatever) with pc's in it is fightning, perhaps detail it even more.
> 
> I'm not sure how this would work, especially with respect to
> interfacing winth magic systems etc.  Solution?  Screw magic :-)
> 

Multiple frownies!!!!
(Frownies are opposite of smiley's yes?)

> 	Mika> Yes. Note that in figuring out the damage we should not
> 	Mika> take into account the skill, since it was already used
> 	Mika> in checking how well the blow hit. You are stuck with
> 	Mika> the D100 now, let's get the basics straight first, you
> 	Mika> seem to be fine-tuning already :-)
> 
> I'd like the 'default' hit locations to vary with weapons used, i.e. a
> slashing weapon will have a tendency to hit arms and head, a
> piercing/stabbing/thrusting weapon should have a tendency to hit the
> torso. 

How about varying them by the type of *attack*? Slashing with a sword
and slashing with a halberd shouldn't differ greatly in hit location, IMHO.

> 
> > Of course your head HP would be lower than f.ex chest HP, so a
> > violent, smashing or crunching attack to the head should be able to
> > finish off the victim. Or at least send him dreaming.
> 
> This is good.  Keep the values absolute!
> 
> Perhaps we could have different HP according to different kinds of
> damage?  A knife couldn't do much to a brick wall, but a sledgehammer
> could.  Or something like Twilight armor modifiers.
> 

First, *why* would head HP be less than chest HP? The head is protected
by a hard layer of bone, where there is little more than skin and muscle
protecting some *extremely* vital organs in the torso. I *will* grant,
however
that the brain is more vulnerable than the aforementioned.

Different HP according to different damage? I don't like it. I think that
GURPS'
crushing/cutting/impaling damage modifiers is the best example of how to 
handle different damage types, although I don't feel they go far enough.
(Lasers impaling, the same way spears are? Come on!)
 
> [NPC stats]
> > Same stats is the most elegant solution. Makes for a simpler combat
> > system too, when you can just turn the cards around.
> 
> Perhaps on a less detailed scale, esp. if they're not too important,
> or you have to draw them up in a hurry.
> 
> > They should be weighted, like 3d6, 4d6 (minus something?) Well in fact
> > a 0-99 range would perhaps be nicest, but harder to load. 10d10? 
> 
> 5d20 :-)  I like the 0-99 range, but remember dragons should also be
> included in this range.  If a man has a strength of ~20, I don't see
> why a troll shouldn't have 60 or so, and dragons perhaps 100.  Maybe
> even more?  Perhaps we shouldn't even have limits on stats?
 
Remember, we may also want to work supers/heavily chromed 
cyborgs in here as well.

Spike
Newsgroups: rec.games.design