Closed Remove DR Stats?

[Wes]

Over the last 24 hours, and on many occasions, I've had members of the site get into argument over argument over numbers for the damage rating system and I'm sick of it. Damage rating numbers have become the site's number one source of conflicts and drama. At this point I propose we remove them entirely for the sake of everyone's sanity. This is a literary RP done by way of writing.

If you agree with this, please upvote it. If not, downvote it.

 

[Soban]

I agree with this, I think as a site we've moved away from the need for any sort of system. PvP is uncommon and not a central focus. As a site, we don't need to have specific damage ratings for things.

Now, there are some GMs who do prefer some sort of system, indeed, I have toyed with the idea of some sort of tournament arc where it would be useful. I think we shouldn't put any impediments in the way of GMs creating their own systems of rules. However, they aren't site wide things.

 

[raz]

DR is useful because it gives members something to look at to inform what a weapon's prose means. But if you want to get rid of it then make the call. I upvoted this proposal the last time it came up, but it failed because everyone came out of the woodwork to make one of their three posts a year to downvote the proposal.

I think the problem is people who don't contribute meaningfully to SARP jumping in to give their opinions on what power levels certain things should have. I'm tired of these people who do nothing having their opinions taken as equal to those of us who actually contribute tons to the site and setting every day. This is absolutely infuriating. I planned to spend today and this weekend RPing but have to deal with the possibility of going back to edit years of RP due to a DR retcon forced by people who don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Lizalopod]

I agree with removing DRs and shifting to a more general and more open way of measuring how damage is dealt and recieved. Star army is a roleplay based site, not an rpg, and situations often call for some creative thinking and flexibility which these kinds of numbers aren't really great for. It's best to just use common sense to make an estimated guess at how much a weapon would damage something using other examples in roleplay as a basis in my opinion.

Not to mention the arguments these have been causing recently, which have been pretty annoying to watch... like jeez guys, it's a roleplaying site, not real life >.>, yall don't need to be at each other's throats for a number on the internet.

 

[Cowboy]

I agree with Liza. It's not worth the drama.

 

[Fred]

I don't think you can escape it.

You're talking about real-life nomenclature. If a weapon is anti-personnel, anti-materiel. SARP adds a few other comparison, but a SARP dialogue such as "Load up on Nodal Support Drones, they're good anti-personnel weapons" is a thing.

DRv3 standardizes some terms, and - based on the concept of lethality - illustrate how a weapon performs in a non-ideal scenario/or the reverse . Makes sure people are using the same language. But it didn't introduce damage ratings - damage classification were a thing within articles before then. They just collectively didn't make sense from article to article.

You might as well say the wiki is a source of drama. Or that the settings submission forum is a source of drama.

If it is removed, I predict:

• It will take work to edit the wiki in a fashion where you will essentially be removing useful information;
• It will leave a vacuum where people will find reasons related to the absence to make each other butt-hurt;
• In a year or two, DRv4 or an equivalent will happen.

You need to find a better way of making people get along, or better curating these kinds of discussions. The Aether Pulse Cannon was a whole lot of arguments "carried out of endurance". People should put their argument on the table, not be allowed to put down the arguments of others, and some form of authority comes in and makes the call.

I stress: this is a failure of discussion moderation; the topic itself isn't at fault. "Look for your problems in the right places," is what I think this comes down to. Right now, DR is being set as the scapegoat, and the underlying cause will go unaddressed.

Your current increase in these topics is because someone is taking the pains to industriously update outdated articles. That's why it feels like it's happening more often. If you want less of it, put that on a freeze for awhile.

 

[Damaske]

I feel that the DR system is more of a guild line and that it can be a limiting factor to stuff—something to give it a set power, within the setting. I have upvoted this But I ask that we KEEP it a as guideline and not a solid limiting factor like it is now. YES, I know of the subject that started this drama lama, and have kept out of it as it was something that I felt was not my place. BUT this is something that will affect me and I want to Voice my thoughts on this.

To retcon something that has been in effect to lower damage tier despite how it has been played is absurd and a big double middle finger to everyone that has used said item. If something is to be retcon ed then the item needs to be adjusted to FIT the current tier that it has been played as, NOT reduce it to the level it has been written as in the wiki/website. This also has its issues but I feel it is the lesser of evils, as it might snowball into a chain of retcons that lead to many changes setting wide.

So I suggest that not a full throwing out of the DR system but it moved over to more of a guidelines and not a set in stone like it is now. It will allow setting up special GM setting powerful "plot armor" like events but will keep it more in line with the rest of the setting.

 

[Arbitrated]

I was talking with Liza briefly in DMs about this, and have decided to voice an opinion on this.

I believe that an official system on rating what damage weapons are capable of inflicting is important for understanding the setting and cohesively reading the stories within.

That being said, I do think that there are some ways the current system (DRv3) could be improved. It may be worth simplifying the system into fewer levels or tiers - "anti-personnel", "anti-power-armor", "anti-vehicle", "anti-starship" and "anti-capital-ship" for example. A system that uses these terms would allow a person to look at a weapon and quickly assume what it could be capable of. Translating this into an in-character perspective, it's very logical to believe a small handheld weapon wouldn't tear apart the armor of a tank, but something bulkier and carried on the shoulder would be more of a threat.

A simpler system reduces the amount of reading necessary to comprehend a weapon your character is using or being attacked with - this means more time can be spent writing!

In this way, I fully agree with Damaske - a simpler system being used more as a guideline would be extremely beneficial.

 

[Soban]

I think Damaske, Fred, and Arbitrated have a good point that the current system does provide good information about what the weapons in the setting do. It's hard to get away from the fact that some weapons are capable of different amounts of damage. The DRv3 system does provide a good way to talk about that.

 

[Rizzo]

I want to personally apologize to the community for being the cause of friction in this situation. Creating dramas was never the intention I set out with. It’s hard work updating articles that have actually been causing new players certain degrees of confusion. It was after becoming a GM that I realized how important it is to update our articles.

I think Fred perfectly summarized the situation we are in. Removing damage rating systems would not fix the problem and I would argue it would make it much much worse. I know DRv3 isn’t an easy conversion, and people don’t like seeing numbers go down. I can perfectly understand why it would look like a Nerf @Damaske. But you and the community at large may be surprised to know that I agree with your assessment about not retconning a nerf to weapons.

That is why I did not Nerf anything.

All of my assessment is written for review. I would be happy this weekend or when our schedules align to show anyone the numbers and explain it on VC. There was no Nerf, the new damage system just reads differently. I was careful to match the new rating to the IC representation of each item.

If permitted, I would also be happy to do a Hollander style presentation on how DRv3 works, and maybe even try to trick @Fred into doing it with me. Look guys, I opposed the system before I understood it and after studying it and watching how it worked I became a huge fan of what this powerful tool can do for our writing. It is a point of reference that helps us as Science Fiction writers maintain a united sense of scale despite the well earned stereotype!

 

[Wes]

Thank you for your feedback and votes everyone. We had a LOT of votes on this (at least 10 people) and I wish everyone could see them because the current count is zero but it was as high as 5 at one point so I know there was a lot of votes both ways. But it appears that there isn't support for removing the DRv3 system, because it is legitimately useful as a common measuring stick. But I'm also glad I asked and it's good to do a "vibe check" every once in a while to see if the way we're doing stuff is still working and what people want. That's what this forum is for--so I can tell if my ideas are what the community as a whole wants of if it's just me. I just get frustrated with drama that starts over a single number - in this case I spent basically my entire day (after my roof repair) on a DR related issue.

Also, thanks Rizzo and I hope you do that presentation. I'm going to move this thread to closed.