• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at [email protected] or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy
  • 📅 May and June 2024 are YE 46.4 in the RP.

Approved Submission [Mechanic] Damage Rating Revision

Eistheid

Retired Member
Inactive Member
Submission Type: Narrative driven damage guidelines.
Submission URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=fred_s_damage_rating_revision

Notes: Much of default the form doesn't really apply since this isn't a typical setting submission. I hope you don't mind me removing those components.

This is probably going to take some work to get finalized. I will however be more than happy to fill in blanks and update this as we go along. Additionally post-approval I'll be happy to update old DR values as needed, likely including both systems for a while to smooth over the transition.

A final note, the article will probably need to be moved to a new page location as I believe the current one is just WIP storage.

As has been determined the final call of what is done comes down to GM fiat. As such it is best to view this as intended: A set of guidelines to help players and GMs understand the effects of what they're working with rather than hard rules that must be adhered to.
 
This suggestion has been implemented. Votes are no longer accepted.
Doshii, the problem you are describing has never exsisted in sarp.

Losing HP means you take damage, this is intuative for most people. If you want more elaboration than that you can layer on all sorts of systems, critical hit tables, incapacitated/dead HP levels, ect. Even FATE tokens work here (And are by far the best solution for story driven RP by far).

What you are presenting is a straw man argument just to serve your intrests.

Sure there is room to improve the DR system but this current version does little to address people's concerns. From what I understood previously a low time to kill was undesireable as Wes wanted to keep battleships as beefy, long lasting, combatants in a fight.
 
Losing HP means you take damage, this is intuative for most people. If you want more elaboration than that you can layer on all sorts of systems, critical hit tables, incapacitated/dead HP levels, ect. Even FATE tokens work here (And are by far the best solution for story driven RP by far).
Fewer systems is better to me. This is where we deviate. I believe I tell a better story than numbers. That's why I like v3. Fewer rules is just right.

And we've been blessed with good GMs that haven't let this problem happen. You're right. I prefer it not be possible for any GM to let it happen. That's not a strawman; it's protecting what we have for the future.

'd like it to tell me what happens in a way that generates ideas, when it just stops right here it seems less useful to use than to keep in the back of my mind as a suggestion, while otherwise ignoring it.
In that sense, you have to go back to the weapon and see what it does. The lack of suggestion is so you can fill in those details ... or not. Power is yours!
 
You do not seem to understand that saying wounded or saying 50% HP left is the same thing.

Not do you address how this new system would provide any protections that the old system wouldn't.

You also don't seem to square how this is less rules, or how less rules mean you'll end up having more control over how GMs do things.

---

It seems like the site is pretty heavily against this change for a variety of reasons and repeating yourself isn't helping talk anyone over to your side.
 
You do not seem to understand that saying wounded or saying 50% HP left is the same thing.

Not do you address how this new system would provide any protections that the old system wouldn't.

You also don't seem to square how this is less rules, or how less rules mean you'll end up having more control over how GMs do things.

---

It seems like the site is pretty heavily against this change for a variety of reasons and repeating yourself isn't helping talk anyone over to your side.
GMs always have power. They can simply remove someone or ask them to leave for the betterment of their plot.

Ssssstop. Your argument that a % = the definition of wounded is also bogus for a few reasons. A written damage state will always have more potential for role play around it than "80% HP left broski, ''tis but a scratch". It also forces people to think. Killer, that one. Doshmeister is repeating himself because you're oblivious to the clear faults in the enti- oh wait, you're protecting a version that makes the site a number-crunch thing you could potentially abuse in the long term as players or GMs to meta situations. I mean, the whole system does that but V2 does it the most.

Rather than defend the old system, you people could try to say what you think could improve the V3. But that's silly, since you can't improve something inherently kinda dumb and doesn't see use beyond 4 people who are likely the only real opposition.
 
Somehow, I'm not worried about the reality you see, Zack. I'm also on my phone, so forgive my brevity.

Wounded and 50% HP aren't the same thing. Wounded begs the question of how. 50% HP doesn't. I want the question answered.

V3 also begs the question. V2 doesn't. That's the protection. It makes players and GMs detail because it doesn't provide easy math answers to narrative questions.

V2 is more rules if you use the system. We're free to ignore the systems, which is a great boon for the site. If you use v3, fewer rules.

You want to add more rules to v2, propose that. You're talking, but where's the submission from you fixing this?
 
How does wounded beg the question of how and 50% go doesn't?

I also don't see how wounded begs the question of how?

I completely understand the argument you are making, and I am saying it is wrong. You are repeatedly asserting what you are saying is true, which doesn't make it so.

---

All the stuff you are saying can't happen with the current rules is stuff that is already going on, and not just in my RP.

The rules work fine for what they are intended to do, which is to stop power creep. I also don't see a need to rebalance how sarp works (But I'd be ok with low time to kill as I think it makes ship designs cleaner)

It would be a lot easier to just quietly roll out FATE tokens behind the scenes, which I've already done, and it led to 188604 blowing all of the current RPs out of the water in terms of popularity.

How is the RP that you GM running?
 
Ah, so we're going that low. Nice. It is the Trump years now, after all.

You know how it begs the question. Legix showed you, if you care to read. I also think you unfairly disparage just how much your players and their ideas make 188604 popular. As does the freewheeling setting. Those are more important than tokens. You gave players freedom. So does this system.

The plot I help GM wins awards for narration and story and will continue to do so.
 
It's tricky. If a starship gets hit in such a way that it loses main power, even if it's taken less than '5% damage' overall, it's less functional in combat than a ship that's taken 85% damage but still has power, sensors, RCS, and at least one weapon operational... unless the ship that took '5% damage' has weapons that don't require the power plant. This is why I prefer a systems-based approach, HP just doesn't tell you what happens (worse, it usually implies nothing serious happens until it reaches a certain threshold.)

Zack, please don't assign blame in a manner that implies correlation equals causation (and worse, the specific causation that suits your argument.) It's distracting and doesn't really tell us anything more sophisticated than 'don't eat the red berries! They summon demons. Eat the green berries, they'll bring you luck'.
 
Last edited:
Guys, stay on topic!

How much merit GMs have deserved or earned is besides the point for the purpose of this thread. It's not an issue of trusting a GM either, so cease bringing up that argument. If you want to be in a plot under a certain GM, you accept him as arbitrator. If you come to have an issue with it, you try to solve it behind closed doors, rather than finger point in public. If that doesn't work out, you escalate to staff.
End of story.

This thing, it's using a location-based approach; just as Navian just said. Any argument raised naysaying this in favor of: no DR system or back to hit points is besides the point. Wes wants change, he likes this, and you can accuse me of anykind of power trip or abuse by private conversation - but this is the way so far that he said he'd like to move forward (which is incidentally why I'm back to doing this). At this point, with the number of key people that have endorsed this and the steps culminating up to this (2 past threads besides this one), dissenting opinion does not get to veto this... no matter how much the same people repeat themselves or show your lack of approval.

I know DR/NTSE stuff is often contentious. I'm going to ask that the naysaying be reduced to a minimum - you said your piece and you're going to have to agree to disagree. My goal is to keep working on it until it's in the best state possible- if you want to contribute to that, feel free to add your piece. If not, please refrain from posting the gist of your same opinion further. Once in a proper state, Wes will decide if he approves or not. If you want to debate his decision, feel free to go up to the man.
 
Last edited:
Admin note: Certain members who failed to be civil or whose posts were off-topic have been prevented from making further replies to this topic. Some posts were also removed by staff members.
 
Where is this a location-based approach? I don't see anything in the article that mentions anything about locations that might be hit, or the possible consequences of damage to those locations. The lethality table has been improved, but... it's still very vague.

If things like what 'quite lethal' means when applied to all kinds of different targets are open to interpretation, it gives more freedom to GMs, though it makes the RP less consistent for those reading it, and the consequences of using (or being hit by) weapons less predictable for players when they move between plots. I don't know where we want to be on that scale. It's still possible to sort of figure it out by comparing a given weapon to one the player is familiar with outside the RP, which could reduce issues like someone vastly underestimating the power of a rifle with 15mm bullets or a powerful plasma weapon that only looks like a rifle. Still, that only works if a clear reference point is available.

I'm concerned that the system still doesn't give much idea what happens when something gets shot, it just vaguely qualifies the 'lethality' of the attack. Maybe some examples would help? A shot that paralyzes someone isn't lethal, but it's still pretty serious. Would that be under 'potentially lethal'? Which category does a starship losing its engines fall under, what would knock down a running mecha? What level is a cargo ship spilling its cargo on? Is the system not supposed to answer these questions?
 
Last edited:
I'm concerned about that the system still doesn't give much idea what happens when something gets shot, it just vaguely qualifies the 'lethality' of the attack.

This is very on point. Having previously been asked in this thread, as well as privately, what could be done to address the issues I have with the proposed system, I think reintroducing some kind of SP system is really important. I'll share those thoughts here.

Percentages mean little without some sort of HP or SP system to measure them against. Saying "around 7% damage to Barrier" means nothing because it's 7% of nothing. GMs can already tell the narrative however they want and having SP doesn't mean that we have to hack away through points to get stuff done in RP. SP is simply a measure/stat to let people know how tough something is.

The current system does the following better than this quote from the new system:
It is a guideline to help GMs and Players determine whether the equipment suits their application before reading the equipment's article to better understand how to best apply the equipment.
We want the new system to be an improvement, it should actually be more useful than what presently exists. As it stands, the proposed system is a step back that doesn't address the reasons DR exists in the first place: to balance equipment against other equipment for submission.

The secondary reason DR exists, which is "to help GMs and Players determine whether the equipment suits their application" is also under-served by the new system because the new system, again, has no measures for the severity of damage within it. So people who look to DR are going to go from "well, I should do this much damage against this thing and what the GM said seems close enough, guess everything's good" to "wow, I'm going to assert my Player's Rights and ask for a retcon because the GM is being a total jerk-face who just wants to kill my dude."
 
Fred's been working very hard on this but I haven't seen a lot of people actually supporting him. I'm kind of worried that the revisions are basically unpopular at this point. I think maybe we need to put the thing in a "final" form and then have players vote on whether or not we should adopt it. This would show whether or not the new system has a "mandate" from the site membership.
 
I'm concerned that the system still doesn't give much idea what happens when something gets shot, it just vaguely qualifies the 'lethality' of the attack. Maybe some examples would help? A shot that paralyzes someone isn't lethal, but it's still pretty serious. Would that be under 'potentially lethal'? Which category does a starship losing its engines fall under, what would knock down a running mecha? What level is a cargo ship spilling its cargo on? Is the system not supposed to answer these questions?

I had examples in before, but I was told it was no positive. It sounded like "V3 doesn't work because it needs examples to be understood".

I certainly was inclined to include more on it. I'll make sure to do that on my next update, and you can tell me what you think of it. :)
 
I think the '7%' means '7% of the barrier something in that weight class will have', though that does cause confusion if not everything in the same weight class has the same barrier strength.

If we do have 'structure points', I'd definitely want them decoupled from systems damage, or even lethality. They're more useful for determining how hard it is to make a target totally disintegrate, which is seldom the objective of any attack... usually, the goal is just to make it stop functioning, dead or alive, and in most other cases the goal is to capture it intact.

Structure points don't help in either case. They can be used as a basis for determining a 'damage threshold', but we could also just cut out the middleman and set those thresholds separately, including one for total destruction, unless it's important to know when something disintegrates due to cumulative damage. I don't see this coming up very often.

I like that V3 is a move away from 'depleting hit points' being the means to achieve victory, since it just doesn't make sense for someone to suddenly die from a shot in the toe because they 'have low HP', or the inverse, for them to be temporarily invincible to common attacks until their HP is reduced. Still, it is nice when barriers can provide that benefit, since they can increase the tension in a more plausible way.
 
Last edited:
The table here, right? (link repost so that you don't have to look in the previous pages for it)

I went for percentile here because it's commonly what shows up in science fiction regarding shields being damaged. It also seemed to be a more genial way of tackling my saying that barrier shielding don't handle damage as location specific as striking directly on target, so they can soak on 2 potentially lethal hits.

Say I'm having a Plumeria shot by another doing a fly-by with the Type 31 Dual-Cannon turrets. If one shot connects, since the weapon is 2 steps down from what it's shooting at, the shielding might be reduced by 12% (or 10, 15, whichever suits the GM's fancy at the time). If both shots connect (on the weapon's page, we see that it's dual-barreled - the DR sytem doesn't take into account rate-of-fire or multiple uses, only what each use does) then the barrier there would've been reduced by roughly 25% because of those two combined shots.

If the Plumeria is caught barrierless, then those shots would have likely damaged the armor without immediately breaching it. The armor was scorched, torn at, ablated or somesuch and it left scars. Firing subsequent shots at that very same location with that weapon might savage it further and the hull would threaten to buckle. It might on the same hit at that exact same place... or might not if subsequent shots end up striking different areas of the ship because it's pilot made a roll to expose armor in better condition.

What a potentially lethal weapon does is be able to incapacitate/kill the target in a single use. For a man, a pistol or a knife serves - the knife can breach the skin and reach important organs, if those are the brain or the heart, then they can result in death. It's about the same for a barrierless M6 Daisy armor hit by a focused beam from an aether-saber rifle, and whatever was behind it locally could be charred beyond recognition. For our previous Plumeria target: a Positron Railgun is the exact same tier, so, the implication is that in a single use, it'd be capable of breaching the hull and striking at a vital component like the engineering housed aether generators, the bridge, the main computer, or perhaps anti-matter ammunition storage. Historically, in the YSS Sakura plot, that happened. An unshielded Sakura-class gunship was struck by a positron railgun and was instantly destroyed (some catastrophic generator failure, probably).

If the shot hits (or was aiming at) the sublight engines, then the outer covering was breached and you're looking at significant damage there too. Or it could be a flesh wound where the attack just explodes a cargo bay open. But it's not the article's job to tell you where you'll hit; that's for your GM's narrative to pick that up.

The objective once you're in the know is that I'm hoping that when you're at the tactical seat of a Plumeria chasing down an NMX destroyer than you know your positron cannons are really effective weapons against it. That your "Medium Anti-Starship Positron Railgun" is suitable against a "Medium-sized Starship" and that with one well-placed shot, once you get through its shields, you can kill it. As for your heavy anti-mecha turrets, well, you'd quickly realize they're not quite at the 'medium-sized ship' level, but they should still be able to damage it and eventually take it down. As for your Heavy Anti-starship torpedoes, those pack a huge punch; they're your ticket into savaging that destroyer big-time, or could be your chance at giving significant hurt to bigger cruisers.

'Purpose' is kind of fluff in most weapon article, but here, we'd use it to define that. Then the rest of the weapon description lets you know the detail of the weapon from range, to rate of fire, to area of effect. In the above-linked positron railgun article, we see the purpose which is anti-starship, and then "damage 4". Which is not greatly evocative to someone new to the site that's not in the know. But if he sees it's an "Medium Anti-Starship" weapon without the damage bit, he can deduce that it's going to be a fairly good weapon against mid-sized starships. Probably more on smaller units, and less on bigger ones.

Personnel and Power Armor fall in the same spot of "there's a person behind the protection", while vehicles and starships fall in another. My plan is to give you something like two table-equivalents of examples to see how each fares.
 
Last edited:
Changelog:
https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=fred_s_damage_rating_revision

- Practically rewrote the entire article
- Changed 'Class' reference to 'Tier' to avoid confusion with 'Ship Classes'
- Many supplementary examples provided in an effort to make this as evocative as possible.
- Special attention given to article submission and backward compatibility.
- Giant Robot Dinosaur with laser eyes included

@Wes
I consider this article feature complete. Though it may require content correction, it is no longer a draft and should be functional. It can probably be improved with links to things it references, but I'd like to know what you think of the content before going the extra mile for that.

@CadetNewb
I'd like your input. Firstly on your understanding of how it works (it's the same, but I tried re-explaining it; tell me how that works out for you), and at least a good third of it was me trying to make it more NTSE friendly at least to an equal degree to SADRv2 so I'd like to know what you think of that as a mod.

@Doshii Jun
provided Wes at least greenlights the content, if not use of it, I could use an editing pass. As you've said earlier, I'm not a native english speaker.
 
Last edited:
I like it. I might interpret it differently than described, for example I'd probably come up with some ways for light and negligible damage to cause more than cosmetic inconveniences, especially if the shots hit the joints of an armour suit. I especially like the description of different barrier arrangements.

I noticed the LASR is given as an example of a heavy anti-personnel weapon, though it looks like it was ADR 3 in the previous version. I'm a bit confused about that. I'd also suggest merging the 'vs. lightly protected personnel' and 'vs. heavily protected personnel' tables into just 'vs. personnel' since their content is mostly redundant. Overall, though, I think I'd be ready to use this, as-is.
 
Last edited:
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top