Damage Rating Revision Discussion

Re: DR Revision Discussion

There are multiple ways of scaling damage. My favorite is the scale system proposed by Mekton Z. I do not have my books on me right now but they provide a stable system. If needed I can post those rules.

*grumble* cant find the books, must be in storage. But I looked over the rules on line and those are the wrong books. I will keep looking for the rules. ah well.. It will probably take a while, I have lots of games it could be in.. *shrug*

Re: DR Revision Discussion

I'm also pondering a 1-100 scale instead of 1-10.

Re: DR Revision Discussion

When will this get implented? I am considering just holding off the Wyrm (... Again) till DR is done to cause less hassle...

... Thing will have 30+ weapon options, in theory.

Re: DR Revision Discussion

Wes: Actually, the majority of players I've talked to that support the change have expressed they want a two-tiered system; the same 1-10 strength based on materials, but multiplied by a size number. Basically [Weapon Type x Scale].

That way we can more easily differentiate between, say, a conventional air-dropped cluster bomb that does little damage over a huge area [1x10] versus a Mindy aether rifle which does an extreme amount of damage over a tiny spot [10x1]. Or an starship main cannon [10x5] versus a nuclear ballistic missile [5x10].

This system would allow the use of scaling weapons so in ship writeups so it doesn't appear like PA carry battleship-caliber weapons, all while still avoiding all that mucking about with calculating weapon yields and specific AoE range numbers.

***
Addendum:

In my previous post I recommended a slight modification to this system; that armor stats be much higher than 1-10 (like [10, 100, 1000, 10000...] or [8, 16, 32, 64...]). This is simply because most SARP starships pack enough firepower to vaporize several, if not douzens of ships of the same model in a single minute. Using a scale may add a bit of complexity to the system, but it helps make battles last much longer which I hope will allow GMs to continue to make extended and epic combat scenes without having to ignore the DR system. This would also help fix the DR system in that it explains why things like DR 6 infantry rifles don't really hurt assault cruiser starship hulls.

Re: DR Revision Discussion

The idea of scale times type has merit. Each weapon type would be allocated a type rating. Then it is based on how big that weapon is. As to armor, each armor scale protects at a higher value. A human wearing a vest would only have a scale 1 protection, but the material would modify how much damage is blocked.

Re: DR Revision Discussion

*Nods* because I like to use high-damage, single point weapons, and most people go "Dude, you could, you know, kill a god with that" and I go "Yeah, but a 3-ft diameter hole isn't much use except as an emergancy airlock, expecialy since it takes a minut of close-proximity work to pull off... and the surface needs to be relativly flat. And that's a circul made by using a single poit cutter that acts like a cookie cutter..."


I'd have a lot of 7X1 or 10X.5 stuff...

I also like scatterguns which would be more like 3X7... or 3X10

Re: DR Revision Discussion

I don't know what my vote as a relative newbie counts for, but I think that Strangelove's proposal is a much more intuitive system then the current one.

Just increasing the size of the scale isn't really fixing the problem, as well as opening up a great deal of bickering over where exactly something belongs on the scale. With Strangelove's idea, so long as what each category entails is clearly spelled out (i.e. for damage 1 = mild cut or abrasion while 10 = annihilated on the molecular level, just for example) you have a good idea of where a weapon fits. You don't run into counterintuitive situations where, by the numbers, an infantryman with a rifle can take out a main battle tank.

Re: DR Revision Discussion

I was sort of why I made Starship, mecha and personnel scale damage in my other proposition. People apparently disregarded it because of the other thing I paired it with: damage modifier based on the weapon type used and the target material.

Re: DR Revision Discussion

Don't be mistaken; I really like your idea, Fred. But based on this thread and IRC chatter most of the opponents of DR revision seem to dislike it because of the complexity and number crunching needed. For that reason I tried to reach a compromise between accuracy and streamlining, so as to appeal to a larger majority and make virtually everyone happy.

It's not that your system is flawed. It's that SARP is historically an open-ended roleplay that worked without numbers, so leaping towards using a significantly more number-intensive system may seem threatening towards the more conservative roleplayers. However, this is a thread for debate and discussion; if you think your system will work then feel free to address any concerns people may have expressed and put forth your arguments on why it should be used.

Removing the DR System

Andrew and I have been discussing removing the DR system entirely, for the following reasons:

a) The DR system isn't really descriptive of the damage type.
b) People have consistently tried to get around correct DRs for armor and weapons.
c) Armor thickness isn't counted.
d) The system doesn't work well.

Eventually, we'd work out a new damage system and use that instead. But, for now, we want to eliminate the DR system and leave damage entirely up to GM determination.

Thoughts?

Re: Removing the DR System

I am entirely for the abolishment of the DR system in favor of story coming back to be the center of attention. We have spent far too much time arguing about a system that merely subjugates the GMs ability to use story as the determinate vs. technicality.

Restore the power to the GMs, lets get back to the story folks.

Re: Removing the DR System

Seconded, except for pvp and faction v faction battles, where someone with greater knowledge of the systems in use should be there for advice.

Re: Removing the DR System

Ah yes. That reminds me of a joke passed around in the IRC a few months back. The Luca DR System

One Rifle VS. An Entire Fleet armed to the literal teeth - and the odds are even (If you can manipulate the Rule of Cool and do good Storytelling)

I always figured that DR system got in the way of "Rule of Cool" type storytelling where improbable feats can be achieved. If all else fails, the DR system could just become a guideline rather than an explicit rule.

Re: Removing the DR System

The DR system was a tool to help GMs out in knowing how tough was something without having to bang their foreheads with vaguer statement like Very Heavy, Moderate and such... especially seeing some of those applied on scale going from light mechas to huge battleships.

I've had my own bouts of dissatisfaction with the DR system. I've had my own new iteration of it too. However, I wouldn't entirely shove it to the side yet. Until we get something better up, a flawed guide is better than no guide at all. I encourage less taking it literally and more judgment calls on the part of GMs until then.

There was a reason the DR system was initially put up - that reason still applies and I recall it was quite helpful in the beginning. As food for thought: Perhaps it's our attitudes about the DR system which is flawed more than the scale itself.

I'm for leaving some power of estimation still in the players hands, despite me quite relating with Andrew's argument. The DR system did help with one thing and it was having some consistency happen between one GM and another... seeing we are in a shared universe. Take, for example, how a NIWS in one of Wes' plot can be left behind and 'stall' a fleet of pursuing SMX warships while a NIWS in my plot can be stopped by the coordinated actions of a ship's crew.

Re: Removing the DR System

I think DR should remain around as only a 'reference tool', a sort of way of saying 'This thing is this tough', but only in that context. Damage Rating is hardly adhered to in RP, and a lot of damage effect is left up to the GM's imagination and need anyway, even with the DR looming somewhere backstage.

In the time I've been RPing under the DR system, at no point as a GM stopped and went about the task of subtracting points from shields and hull when a hit takes place. Instead, GMs go about using their imagination like good RPers should. I think, so long as we have GMs which are good at what they do, we do not need the DR system to tell us how to use our heads.

Re: Removing the DR System

The only way I see the DR system used is to force tech submitters to put a numerical value on the powers of their battle-oriented submissions. That's necessary because we were developing beyond Yamataian tech and we needed some way to measure things against each other.

If we really ever do get into an active, cross-faction war plot, that DR system is what will keep heads cool about damage. You can bet it'd be actively used, because it's supposed the independent arbiter of how damage is handled, and it allows GMs of crossing factions the luxury of not working together and pre-determining what dies and what doesn't.

GMs don't use it in their own plots because they don't have to, unless they draw in some other faction's equipment. A GM might not actively be doing the math in their head, but those numbers are subtly used as a gauge one way or another. I know I use them.

Re: Removing the DR System

I find myself having to agree with what has been said prior, but I find myself reticent to dump the main thing that makes inter-faction PvP vaguely viable. I personally try to keep the DR system in mind, but like most of the other GMs, I tend to use it as a guideline, more than anything else.

I was also working on a more comprehensive DR system, but hit several speedbumps trying to take several variables without making the system slanted, overly complex or too different from the status quo. Scaling to a 1-100 with two 1-10 variables seemed feasible, but it would have needed refinement, and it still might be subject to twisting by certain parties. So the current approach, for all it's flaws, is probably for the best.

I suggest we leave things as they are, and let GMs continue to do their own thing with the DR system. Some won't use it, some will, and others may be contented to attempt to create super-realistic scenarios, taking variables that the system doesn't, into account. I would suggest, that we allow several GMs to provide alternatives to the system and discuss it here in the GM Nook so that we have an effective model for all types of RP onsite, but especially PvP.

Re: Removing the DR System

a) This is true.
b) This is true.
c) This is true.
d) This is true.

One Rifle VS. An Entire Fleet armed to the literal teeth - and the odds are even (If you can manipulate the Rule of Cool and do good Storytelling)

Click to expand...

I do believe that was the premise for every scifi video-game novel ever written.
Wisdom beyond your years, Luca. Wisdom beyond your years.



I think what we really need to do is list pros and cons about a given submission so there's an idea of what soldiers could be trained to exploit, if they have been trained.

Instead of DR, it might be worth having a simpler yet more dynamic points system, including the decimal value but allowing GMs to overrule it within a set point range on given circumstance:

For example, if you get lucky and hit an armor in the joints or an engine of a starship, you critical hit it and the GM decides what stops working unless it's someone elses' plotship or something.

Maybe.

Re: Removing the DR System

I support sticking to requiring DR for submissions with weapons and armor, though more flexible in the case of armor (thickness), if only for PVP and as a guide so GMs know what they're dealing with.

Not to say it has to be used, but the DR system is alright for a rough idea.

As for using or rejecting it, it should remain on a GM Basis. I know I don't use it at all, except to approximate how the weapon or armor shapes up.

The DR System will at LEAST tell the difference between different Armors and Weapon Types, which is essential.

Re: Removing the DR System

So really it's not so much "this is how much damage it does" as "this is a loose guide".

Maybe DR should become EDR - Estimated Damage Rating.