Fred's musing on Damage Ratings

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting, but I don't see how five tiers of damage is going to be less complicated than three tiers.

Because each of those damage grades also imply damage values, Wes. We're essentially going from 15 damage values (5 per grade) to a total of five. We'd also be doing it in a way that would be less a straightjacket, and more an expectation setter - which was why the DR system was implemented in the first place. It'd also fix the PDR grade, which has been thus far very redundant.

In a way, it's actually an hybrid of the 1-10 scale and the one we have now, and turned into a better tool for our interactive medium - which is the messageboard text post.

I also introduced means to track damage differently in a way that would support what seems to be dominating roleplay styles more coherently, in ways that would tie consistently with the 2011 revisions, and also satisfy a great many disagreement we've had in the past with detractors.

After all, the detractors wouldn't have been complaining with as much vehemence as they've had if there wasn't a good reason for it.

I'll go on and address Nashoba's views. I'm not surprised by them, to be honest. Nashoba's presence on these board don't portray a time when the current DR system was not implemented - I can understand being conservative about it.

...and it's not like I disagree with him too. There's a clear difference between a knife and a gun's shot bullet: both can kill and disable the struck location, but the physics behind the bullet makes it far more lethal.

In that same vein, I also do think that the artwork of NAM power armors justifies them being tougher than their Yamataian counterparts.

I also do think that a Irim-class gunship ought to be tougher than a Vampire-class patrol vessel, even though in this proposal, they'd both be in the same category. Same for a battletank and an helicopter - the VTOL being a lot more brittle.

I could go on. Point is, this all can be detailed. I can make exhaustive lists and arbitrarily scale the elements within to define light, medium and heavy armors. Scoutships, frigates and destroyers. Cruisers, carriers and line battleships.

The problem with that is that it would be directive, rather than indicative. The purpose of the Damage Rating System should not be to dictate the many possible nuances possible, it should be a tool that provides the users with an expectation on the role of the tool they have and what they can accomplish.

Straightjacketing what the DR system covers to account for every opportunity is ultimately a self-defeating endeavor as it is ultimately the role of the Game Master to flesh these things out in the many instances in which they may occur.

Not to mention that ultimately, the mental picture is much more important for GMs decisional whims than the actual numbers are - in the roleplay, fewer pay attention to what's actually armored out of durandium or yamataium and much more on dramatic imagery - where armor is present, it is treated as armor. Detailing that further is case by case and done also on whims, rather than the presence of information on any stat sheet.

In fact, the more precise the Damage Rating System becomes, the less useful it becomes. This setting is SARP, not SARPG - it is meant to be a roleplay, with our writing and the text fluff in our setting bring the primary driving force behind our writing. Not stats and number crunching - not as prevalent as they appear to have become.

After all, this all started when I tried to understand what the Sakura's positron railgun could accomplish. As long as that understanding is met by our playerbase.

The LASR and the plasma rifle the Yamataian M6 Daisy uses: One delivers damage with high velocity kinetic impacts, the other with concentrated heat impact. Both are potent anti-armor weapons but with their own quirks which only truly spring out from their natures: the LASR will chew through armor and soft targets pretty quickly while the plasma rifle will burn targets (and also hinder regeneration) as well as have an easier time harming exotic armor materials and defensive barriers.

Does that mean that one is truly stronger than the other? Not really, they just have different applications that their descriptions and their use while roleplayed will define, just as a GM will also rule over the results on the materials hit - LASR projectiles against zesuaium armor, for example, don't do so well compared to the plasma rifle's energy-based discharge.

These interpretations, the means to support them consistently while allowing the freedom of GM case-to-case depictions, is what this needs to support.

I feel this has some merit and should warrant some more attention. Not only that it could rectify some prior 'wants' of some of our playerbase. So why not give it a shot and see? Maybe do a trial run, see where improvement can be applied if it is needed and present the finished product to the players. The old system worked to a degree but variation wasn't at all high. Since while we were constrained to a set bracket for our hull and shield SP's, I saw flying gun bricks that did the same thing the older system did: Total Annihilation in a single volley.

Fred's descriptions of combat in the miharu plot, and especially the power armor jaunt going on right now is a good indicator of this system being used.

It works very well, actually.

Alright, so this thread's basically been ignored for almost two weeks, something that frankly a bit disturbing. Disturbing because this isn't the first time that a proposed revision has been derided and questioned by the old guard and eventually treated to mokusatsu. This is a subject that warrants more discussion yet, and ignoring it isn't going to make the problems attached to it go away.

Some people might argue that there is no problem, but those people are simply content to abusing the system and accusing other people of not knowing what they're talking about. I won't name them, because their names are well known enough. Others will argue that we don't need any more complications to the system, but the fact that the system doesn't properly represent everything it is supposed to encompass make things unnecessarily complicated.

The breaking of the scale into five relative scales of damage and scale perfectly addresses the problems we've had in the past with the DR scale being abused and not accurately reflecting how things should be. Big vehicles feel big, big ships feel big, and we get a clearer picture of how things stack up to one another. It's always bothered me that large vehicles are literally only marginally better than miniscule ones, that small vessels are pound per mound, nearly magitudes tougher and more powerful than larger ships.

As a space opera setting, SARP conveys the fantasy through the scale of the events. Kilometer-long battleships flanked by hundreds of fighters. Great space fortresses. Space combat involving hundred of ships fighting on planes and battle lines. We sell the setting on wonderment, fantasy and the adventure of space. That your grand and powerful cruiser can be blown apart by a single volley from a "pocket battleship" or the myriad vessels that have been made to imitate the style (I'm not innocent of this) is frankly... destructive to the fantasy.

As a tool for storytelling, having this degree of clarity that the extremely skewed DR/SP system we have now does not offer would be an immense boon. Everything would fall into place nicely and people might be less likely to design with the goal of beating the pants off of other designs.

I have more to say about how we should execute these revisions, but I'll leave with this, for now.

It's been the elephant in the room for... what? Two, three years? The problem isn't going to get any better with time, and telling people they're seeing a problem that doesn't exist is just going to push them away from the site.

So please, consider that.

I think the current system works well. Most factions have the same damage, the same ship sizes, and the same defense, which makes things fair and allows us to focus on roleplaying.

Wes, I look at your plot and Nashoba's... and you both aren't really following the DR system all that closely and instead go with 'what feels right at the time'.

'What feels right at the time' is pretty much what the proposal for this thread depicts, which inherently makes it more accurate to your GMing style.

I agree, I can live with the current system. Status Quo is from your stance (and mine) easier to deal with. However, the present DR system is still flawed, simply upon account that you did not allow me to implement it as I proposed and made some adjustments to it to see it approved - adjustments that have since then raised significant concern. I'm fairly positive going along with this will disarm many concerns that have been raised while still allowing us to perform with the system having much more fidelity with how we do things.

Even you must have noticed. You must be as tired as I am to see someone crop up and begin yet another discussion on how it could be done better - or worse, how it's so bad that having no such system at all would be better.

I've made my arguments already - and bear in mind I submitted the last system so I'm hoping you'd think I'd have some credibility. If you payed attention to the proposal, the benefits should already be as plain as day to you. Aside from Uso, Gabriel and Nashoba there were many whom reacted positively to it.

If you're yet unwilling to see such through despite this, I'd offer a compromise: open this discussion to our memberbase at large and see what their response is. If feedback continues to be positive, I'd think it'd make for a very strong argument by itself. Also, with more minds providing constructive input, perhaps this can be even streamlined into something more attractive.

Also, as someone else stated, once Fred has fleshed out all the details, we could run it through a test-drive before we fully use it. Have it approved only for Fred's plot, he implements it, gets feedback from his members, and then we all sit down and have a lovely discussion as to whether it worked better than the current system.

And I know, Wes, one of your concerns is probably going through and editing the wikis, but the beautiful thing is we don't need to do that all at once. If you simply found like 10 volunteers, you would just need to go to the current DR page, go to the backlinks, and each time these 10 volunteers go on they could just edit 5 or 6 pages (because it should only take a minute or two at most to edit that information) and eventually (yes it might take a couple months) all of the pages would be changed.

I'm going to run through a comparative description of both damage systems being discussed here, let me know if I get anything wrong.

Present DR said:

"You are hit by a class five weapon, your shields mitigate two points from their stock of ten and your hull takes the rest..." *determine specific narrative effects*

Click to expand...

Fred's DR said:

"You have been hit by a medium capital weapon, your shields are weakened and your hull has taken some of the damage..." *determine specific, narrative effects*

Click to expand...

Given that a hard-line numbers approach is both cumbersome to use in a narrative game and irritating to a good portion of the playerbase (as I so painfully discovered with my own attempt), I would support further development of Fred's idea. As Uso said, it's still a numbers system, but it IS easier to use in a narrative game because of the redefinition of terms.

I for one would volunteer a portion of my time to adjusting DR changes of this was eventually implemented in a refined format.

I think the current system works well. Most factions have the same damage, the same ship sizes, and the same defense, which makes things fair and allows us to focus on roleplaying.

Click to expand...

Dear Wes, Nashoba.

I am not going to sit quietly and allow conservatism to stonewall this. You, and I, have a playerbase to cater to and we've been receiving negative feedback on this for quite some time. Besides, the conditions of the above quote is maintained just as much with the proposed fix so it actually was a rather poor answer.

Especially considering I've already playtested this and that this ends up being far more faithful with how we run things.

If you're yet unwilling to see such through despite this, I'd offer a compromise: open this discussion to our memberbase at large and see what their response is. If feedback continues to be positive, I'd think it'd make for a very strong argument by itself. Also, with more minds providing constructive input, perhaps this can be even streamlined into something more attractive.

Click to expand...

I've already made this appeal, and it's being ignored so far. I'm going to appeal again: move this thread over to the NTSE forum so that the playerbase can chip into it.

...and this wouldn't be just to shut me up. If it's answered positively to, you're going to have to get out of your comfort zone and compromise too. Heck, as the creator of the previous iterations, my assurances should've meant something - did I not earn that kind of credibility already?

Sorry if I sound blunt, but the way you've been going around the issue is starting to feel insulting. Please quit stonewalling and help this along instead.

Fred,

I am not Stonewalling.

My issue has not been satisfactorily resolved.

I remain opposed to the idea of having every weapon in the same class having the same destructive potential. It flies in the face of reality and common sense.

The destructive force of a .38 Special is not the same as an FN P90. In your system they would both be in the same class and have the same results.

This 'narrative' approach without some controls, will make how effective a weapon is vary from plot to plot even more than it does now.

As long as this issue is not resolved, then this idea will not get my nod.

And so, it is undeserving of being transferred to the NTSE forum and seeing more people pitch in opinions to refine the idea? Bovine excrement, dude.

You and I are in disagreement on the issue you've presented. I don't think you actually do check, beyond the submission process, the amount of SP a Mindy armor has and how it copes with weapon's fire. I think you just have a mental picture of what the Mindy's power armor is like and that you have your weapons react to that mental image. SP 6 and ADR 3 ends up being very irrelevant in those circumstances; and it's not like the Daisy armor's SP 8 amounts to a whole lot more in the same mental image.

This is why I view the light, medium or heavy armor classification within a grade as irrelevant. That damage allocation has always been more the province of a Game Master than anything else and I don't see what micro-managing to obtain those values in hard rulings that will never be able to cover everything due to our chosen medium and differing narrative perspectives achieve. This isn't a computer game where everything is conveniently calculated for you on the fly - the processor for our roleplay is our head and our imagination and there's much more benefits in going along with that.

I'd rather allow for a degree of inconsistency that's going to end up being GM-adjudicated (because we all know the anti-personnel military combat knife is not the same lethality as the anti-personnel katana); than apply it harder and see it consistently broken and ignored.

But the above is where we differ in opinion. It is not credible ground not to allow this conversation to reach more eyes - sending it to the NTSE forum can be just as beneficial as it can be detrimental to it.

How will more people seeing this address the concerns Wes and Nashoba have brought up?

It won't. It'll temper or override them.

So your plan is to just overlook legitimate problems with the proposal?

How about putting your energy into fixing up the proposal instead of complaining that it is being overlooked because of the refusal to change it?

That might be based on a flawed assumption, Uso.

Nashoba aired a concern, not a constructive comment. He didn't introduce how to make it better.

Nashoba is also striking a point which is one of the fundamentals of the proposal. I probably can't change it since it would in fact debunk the aims for it. I've explained why already and Nashoba should already understand but apparently the reason why has little to no value to him. That, however, does not make the endeavor wrong.

Is Nashoba's argument valid? It is - I could've been in his shoes awhile ago. But it's also striking at the very root of one of the problem of the DR system on our forum roleplay medium. Given SARP's existence as a 'freeform' roleplay and the past precedents it has had in the past, I feel that he is missing something that matters greatly, and that he's blind to contextually because the present DR system is all he's known.

Therefore, I end up being in the situation where I have to convince Nashoba that he's in error and not seeing the point. Not appreciating the point. Irony is, given a year or two more time, and Nashoba will probably be able to appreciate my "stick to the things that matter" stance more.

We need to regain something we've lost here, and dividing by 5 grades with 3 values each (light, medium, heavy) isn't actually going to help all that much. It actually largely overshoots beyond the fundamentals. Until SARP returns to tech-races, or becomes either a pen-and-paper game or a computer gain, it's extra fat that needs to be cut off since it's not actually helping us, and fetters us in needless ways.

Given that, no, I do not feel Nashoba's disagreement is enough a reason to stop this, not when the support has otherwise been overwhelming - especially when this does not hinder his roleplaying style and might support better the roleplaying style of others. 8 people in this forum is not a small number. It's more than enough reason, if the two admins have any respect for their opinions, to be given the benefit of the doubt.

The benefit of the doubt is all I'm asking, and I think this thread and my past efforts have obviously earned me/us that. If this is for our entire community, then let it be exposed to them to comment on. I also ask for the willingness to compromise beyond this status quo rather than give us the lofty "We're admins, we don't like that, shut up" treatment (okay, I exagerate, but it reads like that between the lines).

As requested, I've moved this thread to the NTSE forum.

Submission Rejected.

Heh. No.

I quit.

From what I've read, the point was to get the opinion of regular posters, but it's rejected the moment it finds its way here? I'm confused by this. Is it rejected by NTSE, or rejected from a GM standpoint?

Anyway, I've been asked to comment, and I like the idea, even though it's not as comprehensive against every weapon class within its subcategories. That's the entire point from what I read. The idea is to use some common sense to determine the details of the damage within each niche and simply define its niche. Those who try to apply math to it will run into problems because that's just not what it's designed to accomplish.

Now, I am worried that things will become thebest-thebest again to a degree, but really, that's the job of the tech mods to prevent on a case-by-case basis in the first place. The only real function I've seen DR actually be useful for thus far is making things easier for the tech reviewers and providing a vague-yet-very-flawed idea of how powerful the weapons should be...and with larger mecha entering the setting, it isn't working so well anymore.

Moved at Fred's request to the main Roleplay & Setting Discussion Forum.