What's new
  • 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
  • 📅 April 2024 is YE 46.3 in the RP.

Explosion Guide and Resources

Toshiro

Toshiro

Well-Known Member
Submission Type: Guide for calculating and tabling/graphing explosive weapon damage
Submission URL: https://wiki.stararmy.com/doku.php?id=wip:explosion_guide_and_resources

Faction: Setting-wide
FM Approved Yet? No, likely needs @Wes
Faction requires art? Not for this

For Reviewers:
Contains Unapproved Sub-Articles? No
Contains New art? Yes
Previously Submitted? No

Notes: This guide allows an explosive weapon to not just be created with one tier, but to have a full mapping of its destructive power as its shockwave travels from the epicenter (maximum damage Tier) to its maximum distance (Tier 0) and every Tier in between. As such, it also allows the easy mapping of an explosion's effects more completely, making explosive weapons more readily employed and understood. A weapon with even a small maximum Tier of DR thus has a whole spectrum of DR below it to work through before the shockwave finally peters out...and this lets us map exactly how it works.

Requesting @Fred to provide input, as a presumption about DRv3 is made to make a rule of thumb to allow this to work smoothly. Also has notable amounts of math and geometry to explain the logic, though comprehending the math and geometry is not necessary to actually use the system.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You want me to provide input. Okay. I guess I do make plenty of things explode, so, maybe I'm an authority on this?

Well, it's a lot of work. Kudos on that. A for effort.

But I have to say... this is the guideline I never knew I did not need.

I was skeptical at "Purpose and Use", I started giving this a half-lidded look when I was "Geometry and Math" thinking it sounded like a lot of trouble for little payoff while keeping in mind certain of the people I have in my charge like Doshii Jun and Tom... whom would probably go X_X reading this.

Then I started scrolling through the graphs while muttering "Nope. No. No, No... nononononono..."

I personally feel I'd rather see explosions inconsistently described than tied to this. Algebra and root numbers?

If what you wanted to convey was that explosions did full damage at the epicenter and, half-damage midway (1 tier less), and quarter damage (2 tiers less) at the edges of the affected area, I don't have much against it. I also don't have much going for it either, since I believe it's a generalization that won't be adhered to (I don't agree that every tier 12 warheads will have the same AoE ranges, and the same way to spread through them). But that's not for me to rule on.

If you want this to take off, the best constructive criticism I can give is to get rid of all the formulaes and graphs, instead using a picture example with an explosion and labelling it to show where it does full, half and quarter damage. Basically, your audience past approval process are roleplayers and storytellers - a lot of them are going to be turned off by the math and will instead turn to improvising. Others whom would understand might see this as a redundant "water is wet" article and decide to make their own spontaneous call too.
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
I personally feel I'd rather see explosions inconsistently described than tied to this. Algebra and root numbers?
Click to expand...
Bingo.

Even with the simple rules, why do we need this?

I believe we can leave these things to GMs. Tiers are a guideline. If we're worrying about imaginary potential damage done over imaginary distances, we are not writing; we are calculating.
 
Really, the only calculating that needs done is by the submitter to initially establish the ranges and put them in the article, or the person updating an old article. The GMs and players using the weapon would have a direct reference to look at. I can remove the square roots (those are there for comprehension anyway) and make it even clearer that the math needn't be read unless someone really wants to understand the nitty gritty.

If it is not actually desired by the player base, however, then the idea can be discarded.
 
You wanted my take on this. You have it. But please understand: my intent isn't to shut you down - I've given my opinion because you asked for it... but I get this uncomfortable impression that this is the second submission of yours that I seem to negatively affect and I don't really like it because there's tons of work and insight in what you do. For all I know, someone whom is a more frequent participant in the submission forum might love this to bits because they'd have a perspective on it that I'm blind to.

I'm not the player base - I can anticipate what some might think - but I can't speak for them. The real people that'll determine the value of your submission, really, are the mods and admins. I'd wait on them to weight on this before giving up.
 
Fred, I did ask for your input, especially on the interpretation of DRv3 being applied. Not all submissions are winners, and we'll see how many people want it, how many don't, if the form needs changed or simplified, etc. There are no hard feelings and you've done nothing wrong. There's no offense, bad blood, irritation, etc.

Simple fact is that as I work on revamping the Plumeria and Chiaki, it means looking at and analyzing the old stuff, some of which is really old. It means ideas pop up which may tinker with the setting's aspects rather than just the tech, and that's caused an unusual amount of re-imagining. Some of it will be good, some might not be.

The basic idea is that explosive weapons should be taken more seriously than the stats alone indicate, as that power doesn't just vanish but spreads out. Ships should protect their power armor from it more seriously, and a PA, for example, shouldn't be safe from a massive bomb just because it's outside the maximum AOE of its max Tier. This is an effort to change that, made as realistic as I can manage. It can be rejected or amended/simplified as needed, and I am open to input.
 
On one had this is a lot of words. It would probably work a lot better if you had this full version, and then also included a mini-version just with a quick conversion guideline. Even better if you could put in a quick table generator that would take in a number and spit out the DR tiers at X distance.


However Fred is also right: people don't really follow or care about the rules. The latest rule changes have broken things to the point where missile weapons are not approvable if you put stats on them.


Would I use this? Yes, that chart looks neat and I'd love to have one in my submissions... more infographics would be cool for starship stats. Also not having to do the geometry for this and being able to plug in a blast radius per distance is great.

A simplified back calculation would also be great in case I know the distance I am from the blast and want to work out DR tier.

Would other people use this? People are going to be against reading (though the pictures help a lot!). Figuring out how to get people afraid of 5th grade math to use this is basically impossible so you should just ignore them since regardless of what you do they won't be happy. A quick calculator without graphics would be best if you can get one together, and would likely solve all your problems here.
 
Zack said:
However Fred is also right: people don't really follow or care about the rules. The latest rule changes have broken things to the point where missile weapons are not approvable if you put stats on them.
Click to expand...

What "latest rule changes" are you referring to, @Zack?

@Toshiro I'll be posting a full-fledge post later this evening once I have access to my laptop.
 
This wouldn't pass the checklist because of this:
The submitted article is/has…
[ ] Easy to read and understand (not a lengthy mass of technobabble)
Click to expand...
 
Zack said:
On one had this is a lot of words. It would probably work a lot better if you had this full version, and then also included a mini-version just with a quick conversion guideline. Even better if you could put in a quick table generator that would take in a number and spit out the DR tiers at X distance.
Click to expand...

This would probably be ideal, maybe even an entirely separate page for the more complex maths that describe why it works that the people don't actually need to mess with.

Ametheliana said:
This wouldn't pass the checklist because of this:
Click to expand...
While I can certainly see your point, that technobabble is real-world math and geometry that explains exactly why the system is as it is. It's more for the benefit of those approving it/seeking to know the nitty gritty of why than people who would actually employ it. What recommendations would you make? Would putting the math on a separate wiki article be better?

ArsenicJohn said:
Oh God. Please don't.
Click to expand...
What specifically is your issue with this? Not asking you to defend your standpoint, merely to elaborate.
 
The 'This wouldn't pass the checklist' thing is exactly what I mean by the article is wordy. You are using a lot of words to convey a very simple concept. It would be better if you wrote more concisely, but that isn't your style.

A tier 15 blast with a size of 5m, is Tier 11 if you are 10m away.

The above gets lost when people look at the paragraphs of text.
 
This is, as well, a guide. Something Wes has said shouldn't go through submissions but are things he himself would need to look at. Thus, going to wait for Wes.
 
The amount of work you've put into this is incredible Toshiro, but I have to agree with some of the previous posters. If we were going to make a complex game system of some sort, this would likely see some place, but considering the heart of the site is RP, this is too much.
 
I need to change where to put the math. While there's a lot of math, the fact is that all but the last step is already done for the tech submitter, and that last step is a simple multiplication effort.

Also, is there a simpler way to describe shockwave propagation that can be recommended that isn't as off-putting to people then? I consider it a guideline just like DR is at its core, but hope that setting this up will make people keep in mind just how a shockwave propogates even if they don't use DR.

I could always just say "Because of the Inverse-Square Law, and the way barriers hint at Tier damage scaling, we can determine that every doubling of distance reduces the shockwave by two DR.", without going into detail, and go from there.
 
Last edited:
However this turns out, Tosiro, just know that you got the approval of the part of my brain that likes pretty graphs. XD
 
Toshiro said:
Really, the only calculating that needs done is by the submitter to initially establish the ranges and put them in the article, or the person updating an old article. The GMs and players using the weapon would have a direct reference to look at. I can remove the square roots (those are there for comprehension anyway) and make it even clearer that the math needn't be read unless someone really wants to understand the nitty gritty.

If it is not actually desired by the player base, however, then the idea can be discarded.
Click to expand...
Zack is his usually pugnacious self about the idea that "we don't follow rules," but the idea this be required for submissions is what made me think of players to start.

I wish we had many fewer submissions, but this math, even simplified, adds one more hurdle to we don't need. Submissions shouldn't require this for that reason alone.

Likewise, for players and GMs -- if you are holding true to this rule for your narrative, I think you're making it secondary, which it should not be. Measurements and math can be nice, but this takes it too far. For me, at least.
 
RPG-D RPGfix
Back
Top