Damage Rating Conversion Chart

Why do we seek to add more complexity to a pretty well balanced and simple system? Sorry I wasn't here for the bulk of the discussion, but it doesn't seem like anyone is concerned with keeping it streamlined and easy to use (having gone back and read the thread a few times). No matter the revision version, it's definitely a more complex and confusing system than what we have.

But if this system is accepted in some form, it'd be nice if someone with experience as a copy editor (wink wink-ington) or professional word-person could rewrite all of the non-table text. Brevity is important when we're not writing prose and a lot of what's presented here is really purple when it should be strictly instructional. Plainest English, please. Additionally, please use decimal instead of percentage form on the lethality table. It's a more intuitive way of presenting something the end user has to calculate—you see decimals used on the current DR tables for a good reason.

It's important the author considers who this system is for: the entire SARP community, not just the esoteric preferences of one plot or GM. The article's voice should reflect that and it currently does not.

Because encouraging hit points in a narrative is wrong. There's nothing balanced about something which has proven overtime incompatible. The current DR system has more become a ruling stick for the NTSE forum than something that actually helps people.

While the article's language is something is am not comfortable with, it's going to change for more informal because every time I had to explain something about it. In the beginning I thought getting help to make it more official/formal would make for a more professional approach. In experience, though, this seems to have backfired. But there's essentially nothing overly arcane with the notion of lethality; if I stab you with something, you will hurt a lot. If I stab you with something and that you're wearing protection, you'll probably hurt far less. Zack has a very vocal opinion in that respect, but it's proven to be a minority. IF I can fix the language, I'm hoping that'll settle his concerns.

I'm not adverse from using decimals. I just come from a sci-fi culture where I'm used to hearing "shields down to 75%".

@Wes I wanted my 15 sample size scale since the beginning, but you know the opposition I faced towards it. People felt strongly if allowing more detailing by increasing the sample size. Some other complained the starship sample size was unfairly large in comparison (blegh). Some people (many gone now, though) seemed pretty happy with the expansion from 3 to 5 samples in each category. I still think 15 worked better, but the feedback for the 5 sample size per category has been positive enough for me to strongly consider commiting to 25 total.

There doesn't seem to be any problems with D20 systems including hit points and having a narrative. Nor does the problem seem to be with the mechanics of the rules as they are fairly simple and there isn't much left that is effectively S+ Tier gamebreakingly overpowered.

The problems we've had with the rules seem to be that the rules aren't fully written down, and that the rules don't allow for certain things (single high powered weapon systems and that weird spot between fighter craft/tanks and small starships/mecha) both of which have solutions on the table so to speak.

This system tries to address the weird spot between fighter craft and tanks which is a step forward but what are we having to give up for that?

This adds a huge layer of complexity which is bad for a rules system.

This also throws out hit points in exchange for a nebulously defined percentage system. In the process it also induces a massive retcon, a lot of additional work tweaking the wiki, and starts us off with a new rules system which is going to inevitably require additional patches down the road to fix up. To make things worse, adding all these additional tiers is going to make it harder to retcon and patch down the road (compared to, for example: having a weapon base type link that would go to another page so when we edit a weapon type it updates all weapons of that type).

---

I think the same results could be achieved by just allowing more Starship SP 5 vehicles. As it is I don't see what this system would allow that the previous system wouldn't besides adjusting for that uncanny-mecha-valley.

Normally I would re-iterate that I know what I'm talking about here, but I really shouldn't have to. I'm pretty much batting 1000 when it comes to predicting how rules changes will affect this setting.

My question was:

raz said:

Why do we seek to add more complexity to a pretty well balanced and simple system?

Click to expand...

It wasn't really answered.

Fred said:

Because encouraging hit points in a narrative is wrong.

Click to expand...

Who is encouraging this? The only experience I've actually had with this kind of arbitration was on your plot, tbh. I don't think what @Zack is saying about narrative and HP is the same thing as you think he is saying.

Fred said:

There's nothing balanced about something which has proven overtime incompatible.

Click to expand...

Incompatible with what? Don't get me wrong, the expansion of DR categories is really cool and I think it'll help increase precision on the scale, which seems to be the root of most problems with current DR. But the core DR system is currently really well balanced. Please give specific examples of how the current system has proven incompatible over time instead of just saying it doesn't work. Because stuff still gets approved and combat RP still occurs.

Fred said:

While the article's language is something is am not comfortable with, it's going to change for more informal because every time I had to explain something about it. In the beginning I thought getting help to make it more official/formal would make for a more professional approach. In experience, though, this seems to have backfired.

Click to expand...

I just read the article again to make sure this comment isn't wrong: Most of the text is a series of strung together clarifications that build on each other. Examples have examples. Just be clear from the get-go.

I just read the article again to make sure this comment isn't wrong: Most of the text is a series of strung together clarifications that build on each other. Examples have examples. Just be clear from the get-go.

Click to expand...

Just to build on this idea: A good rule is one that can be explained quickly and easily. You shouldn't need an example, but having one isn't a bad thing.

On the other hand if there are lots of exceptions to the rule, or you need multiple examples, then the rule is starting to get complex. That doesn't mean it is a bad rule but it would certainly be better if it didn't need those additional examples.

Raz, can I be upfront and say that this isn't the submission thread. That this was submitted ahead of time as far as I'm concerned and that far too many people have puttered around with this (some around my back) for my tastes? That I am somewhat fed up with seeing yet another person coming late, going "well, this isn't right" like he's an authority on the topic... after there's been three threads of iterations on this very question already... for over a year now?

Of course, your opinion should matters. It's not like you're not being polite. It's not like you don't have credibility. But it doesn't change my F--- that feeling on the matter. I already asked that the submission be put on ice. It's been so compromised on that even I am not comfortable with it. Someone submitted it before I felt it was ready, and I've gotten only drama out of it. If only I could go for the version Wes linked, but I can't - people threatened galactic-level meltdowns (though most of them are leaving or have already left, so, I dunno).

I cannot deal with you being critical of it right now. I haven't recovered yet from being burned the last time; and I mean to prioritze more selfish efforts first, because experience teaches that SARP as a whole has rarely been grateful for the times I bent backwards for it. Neither am I ready to put up with Zack again, I'm at a point where I don't care what he says - he's just another person on the internet that's wrong and doesn't get it. My patience for it is just... not there.

So, please, kindly leave this alone for now.

Thanks