Feedback Needed: DR v3

[raz]

feedback from dozens of users

Very little of the feedback was taken into account or implemented, and was mostly explained away in a generally condescending fashion that failed to address any concerns. Fred brought the submission back from hiatus after 6 months with this note:

A lot of people whom had disagreement with it have left.

He just waited for all of the people who didn't like what he was doing to quit the site. I think our community should be aware that they're voting on something that saw very little actual change from user feedback.

 

[Navian]

I read the article, my problems with it were solved. It's still missing some things, but not as much as the old DR system was missing.

 

[Legix]

Very little of the feedback was taken into account or implemented, and was mostly explained away in a generally condescending fashion that failed to address any concerns. Fred brought the submission back from hiatus after 6 months with this note:

He just waited for all of the people who didn't like what he was doing to quit the site. I think our community should be aware that they're voting on something that saw very little actual change from user feedback.

Well, if those people left and it's been back for... I think a few months now, then why mind? It was put to a vote, equally so with the discussion receiving TONS of clarification and discussion today alone. And it still has more time left before the vote closes. Overall, I think the fact most of the concerns could be EASILY shot down or mitigated to GM flavor or just more expansion of our current content, then like... it seems that it might have been a problem only with said members who might have been working on submissions or simply not liked that it'd make mecha relevant among a sea of power armor and fighters.

TLDR: I understand skepticism, but it honestly hasn't been able to get many/actually concerning FACTS against it currently. Beyond, of course, thematic arguments such as "one shot" mentality... which is still logical even in sci-fi. See almost every other sci-fi and modern setting for examples. I think it'll be useful and improve things, but we'll definitely be improving it further with possible additions and tweaks. No doubteronni.

 

[raz]

SADRv3 does a poor job of giving exact definition to the interactions between the damage dealer and its target without knowledge of the current iteration of the DR system. This is a patch that should have been plugged in to what we have, and, as it stands, is a huge mess of convoluted prose that is factually a half finished method for discerning damage on target. I am surprised anyone can read it end-to-end and say it's an improvement.

As Zack said, it's a step back. GMs can already do whatever they want in RP. If we're going to have an optional reference system then it should be precise like the current version is.

 

[CadetNewb]

Can you give an example of what you're talking about @raz ?

 

[Legix]

I think it's in relation to damage, but if so, then I'd like to indicate there are many tables explaining how that damage might be reflected. And it's also locational in terms of where players shoot that matters now, rather than how before the stats could allow just shooting something in the foot a whole bunch until it died.

 

[raz]

Can you give an example of what you're talking about @raz ?

New system:

• My M6 Daisy is tier 5, which encompasses its handheld shield.
  • It also has t5 energy shields! Thank god I scrolled all the way down and saw that energy shields existed! Hooray!
• It's getting shot at by a Ripper Power Armor's shoulder-mounted 50mm atmospheric gauss cannon.
  • Which is new tier 4 (according to similar ADR conversions)
• A shot hits!
  • tier 4 is one below tier 5, so my shields take 25% damage. Wew lads!
• Fast forward: Four more shots hit!
  • Okay so my shields should be totally gone and I took a single hit of "Heavy damage!"
    • Hurts, and I'm banged up with maybe some of my AIES systems down.
      • But I can obviously still fight! My shields took four hits at this tier difference, so I should be good to go with only one penetration!
• Two more shots hit! They probably didn't hit the exact same spot because that's not realistic
  • Am I done? My shields were done after four hits at this tier difference, and now my armor has only taken three. I'm in pretty bad shape but...
    • Since I play a galactic space hero, I think I can take a few more!
• Daisy gets shot again
  • GM: You're dead. Beyond dead. You should have been dead after those last two, tbh.
    • B-but that's not what the DR reference tables say! I should just take more bruises! I am a Neko ubermensch! I would have played differently!
      • GM: Well, you should have interpreted the open-to-interpretation damage example tables like I did :3

Current system:

• My M6 Daisy has 8 SP and 8 more SP worth of shields on the armor/mecha scale.
  • I have 16 SP! And four more SP if I get hit in my handheld shield!
• It's getting shot at by a Ripper Power Armor's shoulder-mounted 50mm atmospheric gauss cannon.
  • Which is ADR 3
• A shot hits!
  • ADR 3 impacts my armor, taking it down to 13 SP!
• Fast forward: Four more shots hit!
  • That's 12 more damage!
    • It broke through my shields and only have one SP left! I'd better retreat before the GM puts a 50mm slug through my chest!
      • I do not want to rely on my handheld shield's 4 extra SP!
• The player seeks safer refuge because they don't want to die, or at least plays accordingly since they can use DR as a hard-and-fast guideline for what their GM might do.

The above comparisons only use single weapons against single targets. Were we to add more or different weapons of different tiers into the mix, the new DR system would be even more confusing for the end user. In both cases, damage is ultimately up to the GM, who is probably not using the numbers from the current system anyway. But at least under the current system, everyone can be generally on the same page for what is probably happening.

The current system is also far simpler. There is legit no arguing against that.

Before the poll closes, go read some combat RP and put it through the new system after reading the entire wiki entry. You get what you vote for.

 

[CadetNewb]

In all honesty @raz , even with your own example of the new system, it's dependent on the GM RPing it out with the player. That is to say, the GM has to detail the damage being taken to the player regarding the location, severity, and such things, whereas the current system is more like an HP bar. Depending on how the RP goes, if many of the shots don't land close enough for an example, then the Daisy would continue to survive. Meanwhile, if impacts overlap or are on top of one another, that's likely to be a penetration. If the GM fails to properly RP this out and detail it, then that's on them.

So far, it looks like this gives flexibility to the GM and story narrative, which is overall more useful than a hard pool of points.

 

[raz]

Thanks for restating the paragraph after the bullet-pointed comparisons and then ignoring the point I made in relation to that. Par for the course with you.

 

[CadetNewb]

I say that again because it's the whole point of the new damage system; you're arguing against its core feature, which I honestly like. Again, it's not as clear cut as the older number system, and again, that's the point.

 

[Navian]

I'm pretty sure 'my shields are down, I'm taking heavy damage' isn't a situation where a player should ever be able to know whether the next shot is going to be the killing blow or not. So... even with those examples, I like the outcome of the first example better than the one where the PC knows exactly what's going to happen next and can make an informed decision by predicting when they're going to run out of luck (and make an in-character decision based on a gaming abstraction, at that).

 

[raz]

Sounds like what people want is to abolish damage ratings altogether. Which would be great, in all honestly. But if we're going to have a "system" to serve as a basis of comparisons for technologies, then that system should have well-defined meaning to it.

 

[Navian]

No, the main reason to have damage ratings is so that people don't confuse a rocket that can take out a motorcycle wheel with one that can one-shot a tank, or a skyscraper, or even a battleship, understand the difference between 4mm and .50 cal, muskets and gauss cannons, or use a weapon that could destroy a city (or planet!) against a starship only a few hundred meters long while only causing moderate damage instead of vaporizing it completely.

The purpose of DR isn't to create a game system that can be played, it's to give an understanding of how powerful different weapons are in the RP, and to a lesser extent, how well the setting's ultra-tech vehicles and their barrier screens can stand up to them, in comparison to more conventional targets. It's for comparisons and conveying unintuitive information, like that the NSP is far more powerful than any modern-day sidearm.

 

[raz]

it's to give an understanding of how powerful different weapons are in the RP, and to a lesser extent, how well the setting's ultra-tech vehicles and their barrier screens can stand up to them

It's actually supposed to give those understandings to an equal extent. Current version does a better job of representing both attack and defense values for simulation.

 

[Zack]

"It's up to the GM" is basically an admission the system doesn't work. If a player is being treated unfairly they should be able to point to the rules and make their case. The new system doesn't allow for that.

If you want a system that covers how things interact, you should use something like D20 modern.

If you want a system that can be used for telling a story, you use FATE.

This system seems to have the worst of both. We can't sim anything with the system because it isn't complete enough for that and the players can't reasonably be expected to know what will happen.

 

[Navian]

I don't think it does, because V2 puts very clunky constraints on the size classes, prohibits the use of weapons optimized for use on larger targets than the platform carrying them, and uses an HP system, which has its own bag of problems. It also has the weird effect that, somehow, it's possible to destroy a capital ship by shooting it with enough point defense fire... V2 has a lot of serious flaws.

I don't think the DV system is meant for 'simming' anything, and if we design one that works for that purpose, we've made a mistake. It's a guide to how powerful weapons in the setting are, not a tool for generating simulated battle results.

 

[Fred]

Ahem. Not a debate thread. You know where that discussion is.

Cadetnewb asked a question. Raz answered. Who'se opinion is right is beyond the purview of this thread. Just state your position and move on.

 

[CadetNewb]

My impression is that this system is meant to facilitate RP by acting as a general guideline, and not to serve as a by-the-numbers game system @Zack . For its intended purpose, I think it works quite well. Additionally, if it's not preferred for your plot, you can always use a D20 modern or FATE. Correct me if I'm wrong though Fred.

 

[Zack]

I mean, if the official position of the submission mods is to just ignore and not use the system because it doesn't work very well, then I guess I am ok with that.

 

[CadetNewb]

Well, it is meant to be a guideline right? What I disliked a lot about the old one was that a lot of people treated it as an end-all-be-all kind of thing when it really wasn't supposed to be, making it harder to deal with flaws in the system itself. This fixes a lot of its problems, and I'm glad to have that. If you got ideas for improving it though, the actual submission thread is where you'll want to post.