Comments on: Weapons and Damage

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:16:57 +0000

@Erin Smale Yeah, pretty much. Keep in mind that the whole "RPG Theory" thing grew into a huge (albeit well-mannered) flame war and the forums were closed. I've read through most of the articles and posts and I still don't really get what they were driving at (classic academia). I figure that the GNS thing is more idealistic and that no game can really be "pure" simulationist or "pure" anything. It's just a matter of degrees.

By: Erin Smale

Erin Smale — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 00:59:16 +0000

@Jake : Thanks. Based on that, I don't think Chimera is simulationist from a strict standpoint - the mechanics are more focused on effects than exact causes. On the other hand, I personally prefer sandbox play, which I think is more akin to what you're saying about decisions and outcomes being based on in-game events. Do I have that right?

By: Jake

Jake — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:50:16 +0000

Simulationist means the game tries to simulate a real world/event/situation. Or the definition I prefer… simulationism is a GMing style where the decisions and outcomes are primarily determined by in-game events, and not out of game events (say, what makes a fun challenge or an interesting story).

By: Jason Pitre

Jason Pitre — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:10:50 +0000

@Erin Smale Sometimes the abstract theory can be handy, it lets me define a few problems. Pretty much boils down to the amount of realism in the setting. I build mine to minimize the rolling, so the only additional complexity are things like the weapon vs. armour conflict. We will see through my playtesting if it's fast enough at the gaming table though. Gotta say I loved the variables on effectiveness of armours in 2nd Ed D&D though. .-= Jason Pitre´s last blog ..Under Construction =-.

By: Erin Smale

Erin Smale — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 02:20:17 +0000

@Jason Pitre I can't speak to simulationist approaches, mostly because I don't properly know what that means. I suspect it's some game-theory thing that gamers talk about when they're not actually playing. But I take your point about weapons vs. armour. As I was writing this, the old Weapons vs. AC table from AD&D 1E came to mind. Ironically, that seemed more appropriate to non-variable weapon damage, since, in D&D, all you have to do is hit your target to do damage. And, IIRC, there were some low-damage weapons that did very well against some high-AC armours--if you were playing strictly by the rules, I have to think that it evened out the playing field fairly well. I do have thoughts about how various armours protect against certain attacks (like dagger vs. chain mail, or crossbow vs. plate, or staff vs. heavy furs, or even magic missile vs. leather). It's realism, but I find it bogs down play IMC. Then again, I'm all about speed at the gaming table these days, so YMMV.

By: Jason Pitre

Jason Pitre — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 01:47:31 +0000

Within your context, it seems to be a relatively appropriate and effective approach. The risks to that is that it’s quite far from the simlulationist approach which may or may not be your aim. I was always fascinated by the interaction of armor and weapons (the arms race) and that doesn’t seem to be represented in your approach. Chainmail can’t protect against a club or a stiletto for instance, which is why the weapons were used. Extrapolating can make it even more problematic, as full plate mail shouldn’t protect against lighting bolt’s terribly well.

I took the approach that weapons and armor gave static bonuses. Armor could only provide the full protective bonus if it is meant to stop a given weapon, provide a lesser bonus if it kinda works and provides no bonus if inappropriate. It may be the wrong tack for you to adopt my kind of approach, but I thought I would expound upon how I dealt with it.
.-= Jason Pitre´s last blog ..Under Construction =-.