Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

[schir1964]

This is just a discussion thread for an idea that was inspired by another thread. This thread could be considered a type of "What If" thread to kick around some ideas. I don't expect the ideas here to really go anywhere but would be curious as to thoughts and reactions to the idea.

 

So here we go...

 

What if Defense was not an automatic guaranteed value, but instead worked more along the lines of attack dice?

 

Given the following:

1d6 PD (3 Points Per Die)

1d6 ED (3 Points Per Die)

 

When attack damage dice are rolled, so are defense dice rolled. The totals add up identically and the total rolled on the defense dice cancel out the damage rolled. Defense Stun rolled cancels out Attack Stun rolled, and Defense Body rolled cancels out Attack Body rolled. If there is damage left over, that is the damage taken by the character.

 

So for normal defenses vs normal attacks, the Stun and Body are counted up identically, so it is possible for a normal attack to do Body Damage based on the roll for defense.

 

For normal defenses vs killing attacks, the Stun and Body of the defense is still counted up normally, but of course the Killing Attack will count Stun and Body up as per the normal and applied.

 

Thoughts/Cheers/Boos/Humiliating Laughter?

 

- Christopher Mulllins

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Thoughts/Cheers/Boos/Humiliating Laughter?

 

- Christopher Mulllins

 

 

To be honest, my initial instinct is 'what does this add besides more dice rolling and counting, lengthening potentially already glacial combats'?

 

Sorry, but ... I can't divine a point to doing so.

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

To be honest, my initial instinct is 'what does this add besides more dice rolling and counting, lengthening potentially already glacial combats'?

 

Sorry, but ... I can't divine a point to doing so.

Actually, I was kind of asking everyone else the question...

 

Why are Defenses a fixed dependable amount, besides removing dice rolling for the lazy? (8^D)

 

Seriously though, why are defences set at a fixed value that work every time, yet the damage from attacks are not?

 

The boring answer might be for simplicity, but yet the game encourages throwing around handfuls of dice for damage. What's one more set of dice to throw? If that were the only answer, then there are many other rules that should never have been put into the main book, simply because they add more dice rolling.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[wylodmayer]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Well, I don't know why defense are fixed, but I like them fixed because it simplifies my math as a GM.

 

I can guess pretty well about how much damage an attack with (x) number of dice will do, so I can know that (y) DEF will usually result in (z) net damage. If I have to roll DEF, too, that's just more uncertainty there; I have to match likelihoods of two independent trials against each other and that gets annoying.

[GAZZA]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

It's interesting the way these threads work out; on one side of the board, we have various proposals to reduce the randomness of an attack (cf the Killing Attack mechanics), and on this side we have a proposal to increase the randomness of defences.

 

I can't imagine it would cause anything to implode; you already have something similar in several published characters (with defences "only up to amount rolled on Absorption").

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Well in most RPG's, defenses are fixed, while damage is variable. This is an industry standard. Very few games that I'm aware of use fixed damage systems and even fewer use variable defense mechanic (the only one I can think of off the top of my head is the Storyteller systems World of Darkness setting. They even abandoned the variable defense mechanic for Exalted)

 

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with your proposal. It will make combats take a little longer, but only as long as it takes to count up the extra dice rolls.

 

And its a pretty easy mechanic to add to the game. Basically, each DEF is the number of dice rolled (PD6 equals 6 dice rolled).

 

Keep in mind that Resistant defense would not add up like a Killing attack....it would still add up like a normal attack, it would simply be able to reduce the damage of killing attacks.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

My objection to this idea is essentially the same as my objection to how STR works in the d6 System. Namely, I don't think it makes any logical sense.

 

In the d6 System, how much weight you can lift with your STR is determined by how many "successes" you roll on your STR dice. The problem with this is that it can lead to bizarre results. If I can lift the sofa today, I should also be able to lift the sofa tomorrow. Not so, in d6. Maybe I'll be able to lift it tomorrow... maybe I won't.

 

It makes sense for STR damage to vary, because sometimes you don't hit your target squarely, other times you may hit it perfectly, etc. But STR lifting capacity should be almost constant. What little real-world variance there is would probably be inconsequential in an RPG.

 

Likewise, since DEF in the HERO System is primarily based on the material in question, it makes little sense to me how that would substantially vary. A steel bar is a steel bar. It shouldn't get less "steely" because I rolled badly, or suddenly behave like Unobtainium because I rolled well. If my pocketknife can't damage it today no matter how hard I hit it with the knife, then it shouldn't be able to damage it tomorrow either, just because I roll lousy tomorrow.

 

My .02...

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

I think Derek hit the nail on the head - logically defenses shouldn't change. Any variable due to how squarely the target was hit is already accounted for with the damage roll. If there is a weak spot in the defenses, add and Activation roll or Vulnerability to a certain attack.

 

That said, one aspect of the d6 defenses that appeals to me is the fact that the defenses are more effective against STN than BDY. This would result in fewer people getting KOed and more people getting killed, which I think is appropriate in Fantasy genres especially (is it so unheroic to deliver the coup de grace to a fallen foe). I realize that the HERO system started as a superhero game, and for that genre the current setup is just fine. But for most other genres it doesn't work as well. In many of my games, I give the villains extra PD/ED only vs. STN to represent painkilling drugs, berserker rage, psychosis driven adrenaline, or just general toughness, but I haven't seen that kind of build in general, and it often seems a bit forced just for the sake of good gameplay.

 

______________________________________________________

Those who are too big for their britches will be exposed in the end.

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

My objection to this idea is essentially the same as my objection to how STR works in the d6 System. Namely' date=' I don't think it makes any logical sense.... [/quote']

This a good point and it also applies to Attacks. They also don't make any sense with the basic rules, which is what we are talking about here, not any of the optional rules that add complexity or genre specificity.

 

It makes sense for STR damage to vary' date=' because sometimes you don't hit your target squarely, other times you may hit it perfectly, etc.[/quote']

Actually, this doesn't make any more sense, since the current system doesn't actually mimic this. If it did, then the damage delivered would have some sort of direct correlation with how successful the attack was. The current system has no correlation between the Attack Roll and the Damage Roll. So damage is completely random in spite of rolling a perfect hit (3) or just barely hitting (Whatever the miminum roll be).

 

An example of such a system would be Rolemaster. The Attack Roll and Damage Roll are directly tied together. They are actually combined into a single roll. Can't get much more tied together than that.

 

Likewise' date=' since DEF in the HERO System is primarily based on the material in question, it makes little sense to me how that would substantially vary.[/quote']

Easy, let's take your steel beam. Surely you are not suggesting that a steel beam is just as strong from every direction/angle/section are you. If that were the case, there wouldn't be any need to shape steel into different shapes/thicknesses for bridges.

 

So no, physics says that a steel beam isn't as strong from one moment to next based on the angle (not necessarily different location) of the attack.

 

So much for real world simulation by the Hero System.

 

It is an interesting argument, and would make sense for Rolemaster, but not Hero.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

So no, physics says that a steel beam isn't as strong from one moment to next based on the angle (not necessarily different location) of the attack.

 

So much for real world simulation by the Hero System.

But rolling dice to determine defense would vary by far more than subtle nuances of angle. For example, according to 5ER page 448, an I-Beam has 9 DEF and a telephone pole has 5. If the DEF of these objects was determined by random roll, you could easily have situations where an attack was allowed to affect the I-Beam (made of steel) just as much as the telephone pole (made of wood). All that would have to happen would be for the i-beam to roll a couple points below average, and the telephone pole to roll a couple of points above.

 

Any system that would allow wood and steel to situationally have the same resilience doesn't make any sense to me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Actually, this doesn't make any more sense, since the current system doesn't actually mimic this. If it did, then the damage delivered would have some sort of direct correlation with how successful the attack was. The current system has no correlation between the Attack Roll and the Damage Roll. So damage is completely random in spite of rolling a perfect hit (3) or just barely hitting (Whatever the miminum roll be).

 

The basic system - with no optional rules - has no critical hits. The 3d6 roll to hit determines either that you succeeded, or that you failed. It does not determine the degree of success or failure. That degree of success or failure is determined by the roll of the damage dice.

 

If I added a roll for Defenses, I suppose we should also add a roll for defensice combat. You roll 3d6 and add your OCV, and I roll 3d6 and add my [DCV - 11]. Highest roll succeeds.

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

But rolling dice to determine defense would vary by far more than subtle nuances of angle. For example' date=' according to 5ER page 448, an I-Beam has 9 DEF and a telephone pole has 5. If the DEF of these objects was determined by random roll, you could easily have situations where an attack was allowed to affect the I-Beam (made of steel) just as much as the telephone pole (made of wood). All that would have to happen would be for the i-beam to roll a couple points below average, and the telephone pole to roll a couple of points above.[/quote']

Since no one has actually posted what an I-Beam or a Telephone Pole might be represented with my suggestion, I don't know how you can come to any premise or conclusion on the situation you described.

 

However, to summarize your point, which is a valid one by the way, is that changing a fixed result mechanic into a variable result mechanic of approximately the same values, wild and odd results may occur. This is true.

 

Sidebar: Which is interesting since this is the exact same complaint about the Killing Attack mechanic.

 

But I never suggested that changing the current defense mechanics should translated into the new method at the approximately the same value. What value they should be translated to, I have no idea.

 

But the law of dice averages also need to be considered here. The more dice rolled (which would mean at least 3 dice or perhaps 4 dice for a I-Beam and maybe just 2 dice or 3 dice at most for a Telephone Pole) the less often the extremes will occur and the wildness gets more tame.

 

And let me point out, Hero was never intended to mimic actual reality, but cinematic reality, which operates on rules that make no sense in true reality. So it may not be the best method to support the current system.

 

Any system that would allow wood and steel to situationally have the same resilience doesn't make any sense to me.

I agree in general. But I didn't suggest that. (8^D)

 

And again, using the current system method for attacks makes no sense either. It would have made more sense to have the Set Effect rule be the default rule, and have the dice rolls as an optional rule. Just like the damage of "Pistols/Rifles" attacks may be reduced (per the rules) by rolling less dice makes no sense. Many GMs enforce a Limitation that forces max damage, but the rules don't actively support that build.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

The basic system - with no optional rules - has no critical hits. The 3d6 roll to hit determines either that you succeeded' date=' or that you failed.[/quote']

Exactly! That was my point. Derek was suggesting that the basic rules somehow mimiced the reality of a better hit for more damage, poor hit for less damage variability. I was pointing out that the basic rules don't support this.

 

It does not determine the degree of success or failure. That degree of success or failure is determined by the roll of the damage dice.

Except that skills suggest the exact opposite effect. If the damage roll determined the degree of success, then skills that increase your accuracy (degree of success) would affect the damage rolled but instead they affect OCV which is your Attack Roll not the Damage Roll. So it would seem that accuracy (degree of success) is tied to the attack roll, and thus damage is just a random roll that doesn't reflect accuracy.

 

If I added a roll for Defenses' date=' I suppose we should also add a roll for defensice combat. You roll 3d6 and add your OCV, and I roll 3d6 and add my [DCV - 11']. Highest roll succeeds.

Don't we sort of have this already with Dodge, Block, and other combat skills?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Just to get the thread back on track.

 

So far, it seems that the main reason for the defenses to be a static value is for simplicity.

Or perhaps it may be a carryover from Wargames which may have influenced the RPG Industry.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[GAZZA]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

It's interesting that Rolemaster was brought up as the "combined attack and damage" example, when in fact DC Heroes is (IMHO) a much better example of the same principle (both because - again, IMHO - it's a superior system to Rolemaster, and also because I would have thought more Champions players were familiar with it).

 

In fact I recall someone did a Champions conversion back in 4th ed days that more or less imported the combined table idea from DCH.

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

It's interesting that Rolemaster was brought up as the "combined attack and damage" example, when in fact DC Heroes is (IMHO) a much better example of the same principle (both because - again, IMHO - it's a superior system to Rolemaster, and also because I would have thought more Champions players were familiar with it).

 

In fact I recall someone did a Champions conversion back in 4th ed days that more or less imported the combined table idea from DCH.

Well, I was more interested in the Sci-Fi genre early on and still am to a certain degree (Well World Campaign). I went from Traveller to Spacemaster to Hero. So I only know about Rolemaster due to Spacemaster.

 

Also, I don't read comics, nor did I when I was young. So I might be considered an oxymoron since I truely enjoy the Superhero genre or perhaps the ideals behind it, yet I'm not familiar with the medium that created the genre.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Good attempt by Chris to bring things back on track - I will deviate again. Reading this I was thinking that there might (as per a long past thread) be an argument for increasing the number of dice rolled for damage based on the success of hit and decreasing them for the amount of defences you have.

 

At the end of the calculation if you have dice to roll they go directly to STUN and BODY - which would have implications for lethality indices (something that only occurred to me as I typed).

 

Perhaps the current system facilitates the do lots of STUN and little BODY....

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Perhaps the current system facilitates the do lots of STUN and little BODY....

 

I think the current system drives towards attacks which do lots of STUN and limited, if any, BOD. STUN damage before defenses will be about 3 to 3.5x BOD damage on average. With defenses applying equally to STUN and BOD, any character whose defenses are low enough to seriously risk BOD damage will spend a lot of their time Stunned or KO'd.

 

Consider a game where 12 DC is the norm. 15 BOD on 12 normal dice is pretty uncommon, but a character with 15 Def who rarely or ever takes BOD takes an average of 27 Stun per hit.

 

This could be mtigated for killing attacks by sharply controlling resistant defenses, but that's not evident in most games or published material, to my knowledge.

[GAZZA]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

I think this is an artefact of HERO having descended from Champions. But HERO works much better for lower level ("heroic" rather than "superheroic") games than (say) GURPS does for higher level games - hit locations and low resistant defences can make HERO acceptably lethal if that's truer to the genre.

[TheJudge]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

all things in real life are set a certain level of toughness/resistence that does not chage with all things remaining equal. exapmle one a human hiting a brick wall and doing nothing but the next day the same human under the same circumstances hitting the same wall doing damage does not make since. That's my ruling on it. I could elaberate but I wont.

[GAZZA]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

all things in real life are set a certain level of toughness/resistance that does not change with all things remaining equal. example one a human hitting a brick wall and doing nothing but the next day the same human under the same circumstances hitting the same wall doing damage does not make since. That's my ruling on it. I could elaborate but I wont.

Off hand, the only system I've played that simulates this would be Amber. And maybe not even that. Actually, I tell a lie - I think the original Marvel Superheroes had a non-random damage mechanic, so that would count as well.

 

Assume a normal human has say 8 STR, then anything with a DEF of less than 5 he might be able to damage one day, and not the next (maximum BODY damage he can roll is 5). Any system that uses a randomiser for damage (be it d20, GURPS, Hero, RQ, or whatever) will show some degree of unpredictable results.

 

Obviously rolling the defence and the damage increases the randomness, but it's a difference of degree rather than kind, and there's already plenty of common ways to do this in Hero (I already mentioned the Absorption-as-defence trick, but there's also any defences with an Activation Roll or Ablative, albeit not in quite the same way).

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

And let me point out, Hero was never intended to mimic actual reality, but cinematic reality, which operates on rules that make no sense in true reality. So it may not be the best method to support the current system.

- Christopher Mullins

 

An excellent point Mr. Mullins.

 

On that topic, creating a game that would mimic reality would be amazingly complex; you have to cut corners somewhere. And one of the corners cut is the way defenses are handled between your enemies and inanimate objects, which is why comparing the defense of an steel I-beam to a wooden telephone pole is not the same as comparing the defenses of a normal human to Captain Stupendous, or comparing Captain Stupendous to the I-beam.

 

Just to take a real world example, steel is used in construction because it has a high average strength with little deviation. Barring specialized ammo, a steel plate is always bulletproof. Compare that to a tempered glass window. Tempered glass is also quite strong (okay not on the level of steel, but bear with me), but it only takes an invisibly small microcrack to weaken it. Consequently most of the time you could break your hand punching tempered glass, but sometimes just a tap will shatter it; sometimes tempered glass shatters by itself.

 

How would you "realistically" build that in HERO? Steel would have a high fixed defense, but the tempered glass would have a variable defense (or maybe an Activation roll). But is that kind of accuracy worth the extra complexity? At some point you have just let the GMs use their judgement and sense of dramatic flair to cover some of those situations. The rules provide a framework, but even the rule book itself says the GM has the final say.

 

____________________________________________________________

"Houston, we have a problem..." - do you even need to ask?

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

... Consequently most of the time you could break your hand punching tempered glass, but sometimes just a tap will shatter it; sometimes tempered glass shatters by itself.

 

How would you "realistically" build that in HERO? Steel would have a high fixed defense, but the tempered glass would have a variable defense (or maybe an Activation roll). But is that kind of accuracy worth the extra complexity? At some point you have just let the GMs use their judgement and sense of dramatic flair to cover some of those situations. The rules provide a framework, but even the rule book itself says the GM has the final say.

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that Steel would have a high fixed defense. I would say that Steel has a range of defense just like every thing else, but the difference would be that the beginning of that range starts farther up the scale.

 

Same thing with the Tempered glass, it is just that the beginning of the range starts farther down on the scale than steel does.

 

This is how attacks currently work with the rules. All I'm suggesting is that if it works with attacks why shouldn't it work with defenses also.

 

Now to address the "realisticness" question. Hero wasn't designed to mimic reality in that way. And I'm not suggesting that it should. If one wanted to be realistic, cutting weapons can do more damage than blunt weapons based on the type of defense they are applied to and vice versa.

 

To mimic that kind realism would overburden Hero with innumerable limitations and advantages and the character sheet would end up being 50 pages long. To handle that properly you'll end up with a system like Rolemaster or something similar where they type of attack is categorized and cross-referenced with the type of defense it is applied to.

 

Should Hero try to mimic this realism, no. However, realisim was used as the supporting argument for how Hero works, and I was pointing out that the current system doesn't support it.

 

And we are back to my initial summary as to why Defenses are fixed.

Apparently it is for simplicity sake alone.

I was just hoping there was more to it than that.

I personally feel it may also be partially due to the paradigm of wargames and RPGs in general (this is how it has always been done).

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

On that topic' date=' creating a game that would mimic reality would be amazingly complex; you have to cut corners somewhere.[/quote']

Wanted to come back to this because it is important.

 

Yes, reality is amazingly complex, and yes, creating a game system will require that somewhere at some pont you will have to cut corners.

 

My question was why this corner (defenses) and why this type of cut (fixed)?

 

And you seem to agree that it was for simplicity sake alone.

 

Now if we agree on this, then the question becomes, do we have to make this type of cut at all and possibly make other changes to keep the simplicity desired in place?

 

I don't know.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Well' date=' I wouldn't necessarily say that Steel would have a high [i']fixed[/i] defense. I would say that Steel has a range of defense just like every thing else, but the difference would be that the beginning of that range starts farther up the scale.

 

Same thing with the Tempered glass, it is just that the beginning of the range starts farther down on the scale than steel does.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

Yes, tempered glass has an inherently lower DEF, but my real point was that the DEF of the glass is much more variable than that of the steel. The DEF of steel might vary by 5%, but the DEF of tempered glass could vary by 90% or something.

 

I think the reason the attack is the variable and the defense is fixed is just because it feels more intuititive. It seems more reasonable to say the attack did little damage because it was a glancing blow than because it hit a particularly strong section of armor. And then for the sake of simplicity you only roll one set of dice instead of two for any given hit.

 

I think the idea of certain spots of defense being lower is mostly against human opponents, not inanimate objects like a brick wall. But that is why we have hit locations.