Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:41 pm

If the idea is to take 20 to chip away at the steel wall with your spoon then you basically are going Edmond Dantes.

Which I can actually deal with. A murderhobo is obviously stronger than Edmond Dantes so it can take less time.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:05 am

Axebird wrote:
zugschef wrote:REALISMZ
I'm not really into realism at the expense of other aspects of the game, but some things just get a bit silly. I'm fine with an exceptional character with high strength or some other effect being able to penetrate a steel wall with a toothpick. But not a commoner.

So, some basic mechanics which shouldn't offend you.

Steel wall, AC 30.
Commoner, +0 to hit.
High level Brb, +25 to hit.

The rule about hitting on a 20 applies to catching creatures off-guard in the chaos of battle, not tunnelling through steel. If you want to get fancy with weapon breakage on hard targets, you can lower the AC, but it's probably not worth it.

To support the DR-bypass mechanics, you might set it up as AC 30, 20 vs adamant, or you might chuck those mechanics out as undesirable and just introduce mining mechanics that are different to your combat attack functions. Lots of possibilities depending how often your legendary masters want to tunnel in combat-time, or how you integrate it with magical burrowing or earth-gliding monsters.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 4:36 am

So let's say you wanted to be remotely realistic with injuries and first aid in a game. I know that's a tall order and not even a particularly worthwhile goal. But what would a medi-kit contain and how would it affect your "hit points"?

I figure you'd have coagulants/bandages/spray-on-glue to stop the simple "bleeding out" thing. Presumably, if the game is set in the future you could probably have pills that cause your body to mass produce more blood (or nano-replicators that convert into the correct blood type). Because each drop of blood contains a hit point or something.

Presumably stimulants would help stop you from going into shock (though I imagine once you start going into shock, you're in no condition to jab yourself with a needle and need someone else to do it), and can also keep you going long enough that you're less likely to take further injuries and be killed. Painkillers would also broadly do the same thing - it's easier to stay active and not just slump down for the killing if you can't feel the damage.

Is basically everything else just there to prevent infections and other forms of "if you survive this battle, you're going to be really uncomfortable later or die of complications", or are there other things that would benefit the recipient "right now"?

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:47 am

Things that help right now include..

[*]Stabilising breaks. Broken bones and such continue to cause damage if moved, tearing tendons and nerves and veins and all sorts. Pain is your friend there.
[*]Allowing clots to form. Pressure reduces blood flow and aids clotting, which stops you dying of blood loss. Large wounds may require very low blood volume before they can begin to clot, which is hard on your heart and brain.
[*]Calming the patient. A reduction in heart rate, blood pressure, and brain activity are all super good for people with too little blood in them right now.
[*]Shock. Unfortunately, the patient's body will try to induce this state all on it's lonesome in ways that make them fall over and bump their heads (which can kill you). Hurt people should sit the fuck down.
[*]Infection. So dirt in a wound, objects in a wound, open wounds, missing flesh, dirty bandages, dirty water to wash in. Lots of things cause sepsis, which kills you.
[*]Things like concussion effects, which will clear up, then get worse again, then clear up, and leave you very vulnerable to worse concussions for weeks or months afterward. Getting even little bumps soon after a concussion can devastate the brain, and kill you.

There's also air in the chest, and blood in the mouth or throat. Objects, breaks, or wounds that make breathing difficult in general can be bypassed or removed.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:51 am

Koumei wrote:So let's say you wanted to be remotely realistic with injuries and first aid in a game.

...

But what would a medi-kit contain and how would it affect your "hit points"?

You are going to fail from first principles.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 8:31 am

Yeah, I suppose at the point where you admit that people have "a bunch of hit points" and that stabbing someone moves them closer to death in the same exact way that setting them on fire does, realism is out the window.

Perhaps I should have said "So you have a game where people have hit points, and you want medikits to restore hit points. How do you describe it without actually mentioning hit points?"

I'm willing to accept that they actually don't actually do anything that would equate to "regaining hit points", merely "stopping additional complications from rocking up and killing you later on".

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:21 am

Related to my Tabletop Elder Scrolls question-

Because the offerings of the internet suck, I'm looking at either picking a system and writing ES stuff for it, or making an ES system from scratch.

I just know that at least one person in the group will ask "Why not use a d% system/Rifts?"

Can someone (Teacher Frank?) help me out by giving an artist who stopped math at Algebra 2 (and didn't pay attention) a run down as to why d% systems are bad, and how, precisely, they see a d% roll over system working, as opposed to a d% roll under?

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:41 am

Fundamentally the only reason you would ever use a d100 system instead of a d20 system is because you wanted additional granularity and the difference between 2% and 0% was important.

It isn't. It never is. and particularly when it comes to ES, wholly fuck it isn't. ES is not about small granular fucking random chances. Even in Morrowind, you would have something that was like 50% chance to go off, and you would increase a stat by 5 at level up, and it would suddenly be like 75% chance to hit.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:44 am

So you have a game where people have hit points, and you want medikits to restore hit points. How do you describe it without actually mentioning hit points?

The hit point loss has to model something that will kill you at some point in the future if not correctly attended to, and the healing represents attending to it. People who fall over for lack of hit points aren't dead, they're just in intense pain or shock and have to pass some checks at some point to avoid dying later.

A system like GURPS where you can go very deeply into negative hit points and have to make adjusted checks of some form to stay in the fight, that would be best. The further negative, the quicker the death if not healed, but it's not much harder to make heal checks to stabilise them.

If you have long-ass downtimes (or magic, bacta tanks, whatever), most of the rest wouldn't matter. Life flight, 12 surgeries, and six months in rehab? Cool, what did everyone else do?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:48 am

Kaelik wrote:Fundamentally the only reason you would ever use a d100 system instead of a d20 system is because you wanted additional granularity and the difference between 2% and 0% was important.

It isn't. It never is. and particularly when it comes to ES, wholly fuck it isn't. ES is not about small granular fucking random chances. Even in Morrowind, you would have something that was like 50% chance to go off, and you would increase a stat by 5 at level up, and it would suddenly be like 75% chance to hit.

Yeah, it's just a "source-slave sacred cow" thing. People want a Tabletop ES game to have skills measured between 1 and 100 because the game does it. I could see maybe doing something where you had a rating for skills between 1 and 100, but you actual mod was somewhere closer to 1-20. It's not really necessary, but it is skeuomorphic for ES.

John Magnum · Post by **John Magnum** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:54 am

It seems pretty defensible to use a d100 and increments of 5 instead of a d20 because you think "Succeed 75% of the time" is easier for players to parse than "Succeed on 6+". But a physical d100 is less wieldy, however you implement it. Not a slam dunk for either one over the other.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:03 am

I wholeheartedly support using a d20 RNG that is cleverly disguised as a d100 RNG by going from 1-100 but never, ever doing anything that is not in increments of 5. Not only is it immediately obvious what the percentages are, it makes the game look Elder Scrolls-y. And while that is not worth sacrificing good mechanics for, you do not actually have to meaningfully change d20 mechanics at all to convert to a d100.

Granted, this may be partially influenced by the fact that I play online and I do not have to deal with actually rolling a pair of d10s and determining a double-digit result from them. Maybe that's a lot more irritating than it seems.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:07 am

Chamomile wrote:Granted, this may be partially influenced by the fact that I play online and I do not have to deal with actually rolling a pair of d10s and determining a double-digit result from them. Maybe that's a lot more irritating than it seems.

Anything that requires you to have two different colored dice is already something that is annoying as fuck. Having to keep track of which is which can fuck with some people who roll before thinking, but also pointlessly object to sensible precautions like one color always being the tens for everyone.

John Magnum · Post by **John Magnum** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:11 am

Probably the "easiest" way would be to roll an icosahedron with sides labelled 5, 10, 15, ... , 100. But those icosahedrons aren't widely-available, so it's still not very easy.

...You Lost Me · Post by **...You Lost Me** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:22 am

What are good settings/adventures/methods for avoiding intra-party conflict? In my gaming group, every campaign has people fighting over ownership of ships, loot, status, etc.

Would it be good to do post-Wish economy 3e? How should I avoid people wanting to be group leader / captain?

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:29 am

John Magnum wrote:Probably the "easiest" way would be to roll an icosahedron with sides labelled 5, 10, 15, ... , 100. But those icosahedrons aren't widely-available, so it's still not very easy.

I was just thinking of expressing skills similarly to ability scores in 3.x, where you have your score, and then a smaller number that actually sees use during play. The larger nymber only matters for prereqs and such.

erik · Post by **erik** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:22 pm

In this case the FAQ makes sense. Both in 3.0 and 3.5 the weapon descriptions totally support gauntlets using your unarmed damage whatever that may be.

Gauntlet 3.0 wrote:Gauntlet: These metal gloves protect the hands and let character's deal normal damage with unarmed strikes rather than subdual damage. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet.

Gauntlet 3.5 wrote:This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

Either edition it is just turning your unarmed damage from subdual to lethal and is otherwise considered and unarmed attack. A monk using monk unarmed damage with gauntlets should be beyond reproach (as long as they use hands to hit).

I think the questionable aspect of the FAQ is whether otherwise being treated as an unarmed attack for improved attack progression, and surprise-surprise they pissed in the monk's face there.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 4:45 am

Prak_Anima wrote:No, it works

No it doesn't.

Prak_Anima wrote:A Gauntlet makes an unarmed strike deal lethal instead of nonlethal damage. Usually this will be 1d3, because normally a person does 1d3 damage with an unarmed strike.

No, it is always 1d3 because the rules say it is always 1d3. No part of the text for Gauntlet contradicts the table which specifically states that a medium Gauntlet does 1d3. So all medium Gauntlets do 1d3. Because the rules say they do.

Prak_Anima wrote:A monk's unarmed strike does more damage than normal.

Which doesn't matter, because Gauntlets do not allow you to do lethal damage in the amount you otherwise would have, because that is not a rule that exists anywhere, the rule is 1d3.

Stubbazubba · Post by **Stubbazubba** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:19 am

Kaelik wrote:
I did not attack Prak for anything in that post, I told him he should apply the reasonable person standard to rules as an analogy to the law, because it isn't applied to the laws in the law.

Wait, what? You mean this:

You don't get to invoke the reasonable person standard.

...is a suggestion that he should apply the standard?

zugschef · Post by **zugschef** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 6:27 am

One thing is clear: a gauntlet attack is not a weapon attack because it specifically mentions it being an unarmed attack. I think the whole debate depends on if you insist on the table or not. If you don't then monk unarmed strike damage obviously counts when using a gauntlet. But who the fuck cares? Monks aren't even proficient with unarmed strikes, so let them die in a fire.

ACOS · Post by **ACOS** » Mon Jul 14, 2014 1:26 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote: Also I had asked a question previously about which domains in Pathfinder were good for picking up for my tetori/qigong monk in a mythic game that I think got sidetracked with the gauntlet discussion, if anyone has an opinion on that, that would be great.

I don't know enough about Pathfinder to answer your question; I just realize that this is probably getting lost due to end-of-page, and thought I'd do you a solid.
Hope it works.

fectin · Post by **fectin** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:12 pm

Are the various versions of Ars Magicka gradual improvements, or is it DnD/Shadowrun-style wildly different every time?

Either way, what is the best edition?

Voss · Post by **Voss** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:01 pm

Prak_Anima wrote:
Kaelik wrote:Fundamentally the only reason you would ever use a d100 system instead of a d20 system is because you wanted additional granularity and the difference between 2% and 0% was important.

It isn't. It never is. and particularly when it comes to ES, wholly fuck it isn't. ES is not about small granular fucking random chances. Even in Morrowind, you would have something that was like 50% chance to go off, and you would increase a stat by 5 at level up, and it would suddenly be like 75% chance to hit.
Yeah, it's just a "source-slave sacred cow" thing. People want a Tabletop ES game to have skills measured between 1 and 100 because the game does it. I could see maybe doing something where you had a rating for skills between 1 and 100, but you actual mod was somewhere closer to 1-20. It's not really necessary, but it is skeuomorphic for ES.

Which is weird, since the ES developers actively abandoned it. Twice. And in fact, stats altogether. Which is good, because their attribute/leveling system was a horrible pain in the ass designed just to be a time waster.

To level under their attribute system, you specifically went out of your way to get 10 skill increases for skills related to a single attribute. And you did this for 3 attributes. You specifically didn't play organically, and you didn't raise any skill that affected other attributes (or a desired skill for an 11th+ time) because that was wasted and fucked level optimization. I have zero idea why'd you'd want to replicate that in a pen and paper environment.

Seriously, if you got the 10th ding in a combat skill, that was a signal that you immediately stopped questing/fighting and jumped in place for a while.

Longes · Post by **Longes** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:03 pm

fectin wrote:Are the various versions of Ars Magicka gradual improvements, or is it DnD/Shadowrun-style wildly different every time?

Either way, what is the best edition?

The last one. Fifth, I think.

Avoraciopoctules · Post by **Avoraciopoctules** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:20 pm

Koumei wrote:Yeah, I suppose at the point where you admit that people have "a bunch of hit points" and that stabbing someone moves them closer to death in the same exact way that setting them on fire does, realism is out the window.

Perhaps I should have said "So you have a game where people have hit points, and you want medikits to restore hit points. How do you describe it without actually mentioning hit points?"

I'm willing to accept that they actually don't actually do anything that would equate to "regaining hit points", merely "stopping additional complications from rocking up and killing you later on".

"Injecting a hypo of medical nanites can cure a wide variety of physical damage. Microscopic fractures or cuts in muscle and bone are knitted together, chemical imbalances created by poison or fatigue are counterbalanced, and lost biomass is replenished."