Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

[The Souljourner]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

Actually, all this discussion of destroying the world made me realize something - damage and BODY *are* exponential... it's just implicit instead of explicit. By saying x2 mass or thickness or whatever is equal to +x BODY.... you've just defined BODY (and by extension, damage) to be exponential.

 

This is under the assumption that by exponential, we mean that damage is somehow related to real-world work used to destroy an object, and that the work required to destroy an object is directly proportional to its mass.

 

Since doubling the mass doubles the work required to destroy it, yet only adds +1 BODY, it must mean that +1 BODY is equal to doubling the amount of work required to destroy an object.

 

So.. damage and BODY are exponential... it's just that we don't pay points for them that way (which is exactly what you wanted). +1DC doubles the much real-world work that the attack does. This equates directly to the lifting chart, where you pay linearly for strength, but the amount you can lift is exponential.

 

[Edit]Sorry, just re-read the initial post....

 

So, I guess I don't understand what the problem is. Yes, every +1 BODY you buy doubles your theoretical damage soaking capacity... but because damage and BODY are both exponential to the same degree, you can relate the two linearly.

 

Yes, superheroes often have more defense and BODY than a tank, regardless of how massive the character actually is. They're superheroes, that's as it should be. You have to have this dichotomy, or one of two things happens - either super-strong heroes wouldn't be able to lift huge things, or they'd vaporize each other with the first attack that hit.

 

-Nate

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

The problem with exponential progression isn't with damage -- it's with x2 mass -> +1 Body.

 

If anything, a realistic x2 Mass should be -1DC from all attacks (so if two people are 1000x mass and striking with 1000x the force, the +10DC from 1000x force, and the -10DC for 1000x mass, exactly balance out, and you wind up with identical results to operating at regular scale).

 

If you want to have mechanics which are closer to standard Hero mechanics, x2 mass should be +1 Def (hardened), plus an additional +2 stun only defense. Body should not change (there are legitimate concept reasons for Body to be increased, but they're basically the excuses one uses for damage reduction -- high Body implies that you can be injured by small attacks, but it takes a really big attack to oneshot you).

 

There is something good in here: part of the problem with using DEF to simulate extra mass (as opposed to increasing BODY) is that the system allows NND doesBODY attacks and suchlike. What if you gained DEF, but a special kind: DEF that always works, no matter what you throw at it - so the DEF applies in full to AVLD/NND/AP/Piercing/killing/normal/BODY drain, whatever (note how I snuck that last one in? Subtle, huh?). Kind of UberDEF.

 

Of course you can wind up with silly results: doubling the mass of a blamanche eventually makes it so tough you can't cut it with a diamond drill, so I don't think we are necessarily 'there' yet with the perfect system, but it is an interesting idea (as is the +2 UberDEF for stun only for each doubling - then each 2xmass 'neutralises' 1 standard DC of damage.) 100metre man would have 16BODY uberDEF +32STUN uberDEF (for a total of 48uberDEF). In otherwords, he can ignore anything under a 17DC attack.

 

I have no idea how you'd cost that, but presumably you'd start at armour and PowerDEF, harden it a couple of times, add some: it would cost about 9 points for 1 uberDEF (6 if v STUN only) for a total of 21 points per doubling of mass. Hmmm. Not cheap, but we've got points to burn....

[Warp9]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

I'm not sure where you're seeing the problem specifically--is the problem that the earth is as easy to destroy as 50 separate people? Or are you saying that the statement itself wrong--or, did you agree with it

 

-Marco

 

Perhaps I should back up a bit and ask you some more questions about your stance. (BTW, I did look over your system, and it does have some very nice features. . . .)

 

 

Anyway, I have a question about the following statement from your editorial:

 

 

We think damage is linear--that means a character who is 4-times as strong as another does 4-times as much damage. We believe that's realistic.

Lets say we have a game like HERO where every + 5 STR means double the lift. . . .

 

So a 30 STR is 16 X as strong as a 10 STR. Do you believe that it is possible for that exponential based system to also grant X 2 damage for every 5 points?

 

Or to put it a different way, is it possible to set up such an exponential system so that 10 DCs represents double the damage of 9 DCs?

 

Assume the answer to that question is "yes." Then, if every + 5 STR gives +1 DC then wouldn't that mean that a 30 STR character would lift 16 times as much and do 16 times the damage as a 10 STR character?

 

Wouldn't that accomplish the same objective as your linear STR, but on an exponential scale?

[Warp9]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

Of course you can wind up with silly results: doubling the mass of a blamanche eventually makes it so tough you can't cut it with a diamond drill, so I don't think we are necessarily 'there' yet with the perfect system, but it is an interesting idea (as is the +2 UberDEF for stun only for each doubling - then each 2xmass 'neutralises' 1 standard DC of damage.) 100metre man would have 16BODY uberDEF +32STUN uberDEF (for a total of 48uberDEF). In otherwords, he can ignore anything under a 17DC attack.

I wouldn't mind just subtracting DCs. A giant character might have a -10 DC modifyer. Any attack below 11 DCs will do no harm, and a higher DC attack will be modified to downward by 10 DCs (a 15 DC attack becomes a 5 DC attack).

 

And as for the results being silly, I don't think so. If you understand that attacking a large object with a diamond drill is more like attacking the Earth with a light sabre.

 

The light Sabre does not bounce off, but it doesn't do any real damage either. The idea is that so little damage was done that it was just a "drop in the ocean."

 

A Light Sabre is not a powerful enough weapon to attack a planet, or a mountain (you'd need a much higher DC attack for that). But you could choose to attack a tiny part of the mountain (maybe one hex on the mountain side).

 

I'd let the attacker choose what he wants to attack (Single Hex, Mountain, or Planet, etc. . . ). But if he tries to "bite off too much" then his attack will be wasted.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

We discussed the supposed exponentiality of 2X Mass = +1 BODY in another thread recently; and I've come to think we've been looking at this all bass-ackwards: 2X Mass doesn't make you twice as hard to kill; it only makes you a little harder to kill. Anyone who plays Hero knows that a character with 11 BODY is not twice as hard to kill as one with 10; he's 10% harder to kill. There is a good reason for that: BODY and damage are not exponential. Only lifting is exponential. Not throwing, not leaping, not BODY, and not damage.

 

Think about it: Despite their incredible mass even a whale or other large critter can be killed with a tiny bullet or harpoon. That's because size only provides so much extra protection; but even a relatively minor hit can still destroy an aorta or the brain (or in an inanimate object a fuel line or power line) and kill/destroy the target. (In a simple object such as a wall, a big enough single hit or a bunch of small ones can do enough damage to destroy the structural integrity and "kill" it.) When you get right down to it, all BODY is is a characteristic for calculating resistance to being killed/destroyed. So each doubling of mass correctly makes the target somewhat harder to kill, but it becomes less and less efficient at doing this as mass increases.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

We discussed the supposed exponentiality of 2X Mass = +1 BODY in another thread recently; and I've come to think we've been looking at this all bass-ackwards: 2X Mass doesn't make you twice as hard to kill; it only makes you a little harder to kill. Anyone who plays Hero knows that a character with 11 BODY is not twice as hard to kill as one with 10; he's 10% harder to kill. There is a good reason for that: BODY and damage are not exponential. Only lifting is exponential. Not throwing, not leaping, not BODY, and not damage.

 

Think about it: Despite their incredible mass even a whale or other large critter can be killed with a tiny bullet or harpoon. That's because size only provides so much extra protection; but even a relatively minor hit can still destroy an aorta or the brain (or in an inanimate object a fuel line or power line) and kill/destroy the target. (In a simple object such as a wall, a big enough single hit or a bunch of small ones can do enough damage to destroy the structural integrity and "kill" it.) When you get right down to it, all BODY is is a characteristic for calculating resistance to being killed/destroyed. So each doubling of mass correctly makes the target somewhat harder to kill, but it becomes less and less efficient at doing this as mass increases.

 

Ah thank you for putting this a way i've thus been unable to express.

 

The ability to Damage is a factor of Offensive vs. Defensive. The ability to get killed has nothing to do with the issue of how big you are or how much Body you have.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

Hmm. Whatever. You're all thinking about it too hard. It's a wall!

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

Hmm. Whatever. You're all thinking about it too hard. It's a wall!

 

no, no, no.

 

It's a metaphor for life, which we are emulating in a game in the vain hopes of understanding the universe and the meaning of it all.

 

really.

[Fox1]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

The ability to Damage is a factor of Offensive vs. Defensive. The ability to get killed has nothing to do with the issue of how big you are or how much Body you have.

 

The constant ability to redefine reality in order to increase one's own sense of realism is one of the interesting mindset of gamers that never ceases to amaze me.

 

You guys tell yourself whatever you need to believe in order to use the rules in the book. I'll just play the game and have fun.

[Warp9]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

We discussed the supposed exponentiality of 2X Mass = +1 BODY in another thread recently; and I've come to think we've been looking at this all bass-ackwards: 2X Mass doesn't make you twice as hard to kill; it only makes you a little harder to kill. Anyone who plays Hero knows that a character with 11 BODY is not twice as hard to kill as one with 10; he's 10% harder to kill. There is a good reason for that: BODY and damage are not exponential. Only lifting is exponential. Not throwing, not leaping, not BODY, and not damage.

 

Think about it: Despite their incredible mass even a whale or other large critter can be killed with a tiny bullet or harpoon. That's because size only provides so much extra protection; but even a relatively minor hit can still destroy an aorta or the brain (or in an inanimate object a fuel line or power line) and kill/destroy the target. (In a simple object such as a wall, a big enough single hit or a bunch of small ones can do enough damage to destroy the structural integrity and "kill" it.) When you get right down to it, all BODY is is a characteristic for calculating resistance to being killed/destroyed. So each doubling of mass correctly makes the target somewhat harder to kill, but it becomes less and less efficient at doing this as mass increases.

There are two points here.

 

1) The idea that BODY should not go up in direct proportion to mass.

 

2) The idea that BODY should follow a linear pattern while mass goes up exponentially.

 

The first I can agree with; the second I do not agree with.

 

Imagine a Mile High Monster. Such a creature would be roughly 1,000 times at tall as a normal person, and 1 billion times the mass. Using the pattern of +1 BODY per 2 X Mass, you'd get + 30 BODY. That means that such a creature would have about 40 BODY.

 

By the argument you've put forward, you are suggesting that this Mile High Monster should only be about 4 times as hard to kill as a normal person.

 

That does not hold up from my point of view.

 

Imagine trying to shoot such a creature. Lets say that you have a 50 cal bullet which can punch through a meter of flesh. From the Mile High Monster's perspective, 1 meter depth is like a millimeter would be to a normal person. And that 50 cal bullet size would only make a microscopic hole from the Mile High Monster's perspective.

 

What would happen if a normal human was poked to a depth of 1 mm with a needle of microscopic width? Are you telling me that this would have 25% of the impact of being shot with the 50 cal bullet? You wouldn't even be able to see the whole, would you even feel it?

 

 

I am willing to accept that a Mile High Monster might not be 1 Billion times as tough as a normal human. But I do not accept that linear based value of 4 times as tough either.

 

Even though the creature is 1,000,000,000 times the mass, it is only 1,000 times the height. I would be willing to accept that the creature's toughness could follow the same pattern as height.

[Warp9]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

You guys tell yourself whatever you need to believe in order to use the rules in the book. I'll just play the game and have fun.

It's good to see you've given up your attempts to modify the HERO firearms rules.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

There are two points here.

 

1) The idea that BODY should not go up in direct proportion to mass.

 

2) The idea that BODY should follow a linear pattern while mass goes up exponentially.

 

The first I can agree with; the second I do not agree with.

 

Imagine a Mile High Monster. Such a creature would be roughly 1,000 times at tall as a normal person, and 1 billion times the mass. Using the pattern of +1 BODY per 2 X Mass, you'd get + 30 BODY. That means that such a creature would have about 40 BODY.

 

By the argument you've put forward, you are suggesting that this Mile High Monster should only be about 4 times as hard to kill as a normal person.

 

That does not hold up from my point of view.

 

Imagine trying to shoot such a creature. Lets say that you have a 50 cal bullet which can punch through a meter of flesh. From the Mile High Monster's perspective, 1 meter depth is like a millimeter would be to a normal person. And that 50 cal bullet size would only make a microscopic hole from the Mile High Monster's perspective.

 

What would happen if a normal human was poked to a depth of 1 mm with a needle of microscopic width? Are you telling me that this would have 25% of the impact of being shot with the 50 cal bullet? You wouldn't even be able to see the whole, would you even feel it?

 

 

I am willing to accept that a Mile High Monster might not be 1 Billion times as tough as a normal human. But I do not accept that linear based value of 4 times as tough either.

 

Even though the creature is 1,000,000,000 times the mass, it is only 1,000 times the height. I would be willing to accept that the creature's toughness could follow the same pattern as height.

 

Your Mile High Monster not getting hurt by a .50 Cal gun is best modeled by High Def. which goes hand in hand with Large Mass and Thick Skin - not just Body.

 

You Can Not take on stat/aspect such as Body and assume it represents Everything about a creatures size. It's a measure of how hard it is to Kill AFTER you breach the things DEF.

 

An elephant gun is a .500 Caliber weapon, kills elephants pretty handily and they're very large creatures compared to humans.

[Fox1]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

An elephant gun is a .500 Caliber weapon' date=' kills elephants pretty handily and they're very large creatures compared to humans.[/quote']

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

There are two points here.

 

1) The idea that BODY should not go up in direct proportion to mass.

 

2) The idea that BODY should follow a linear pattern while mass goes up exponentially.

 

The first I can agree with; the second I do not agree with.

 

Imagine a Mile High Monster. Such a creature would be roughly 1,000 times at tall as a normal person, and 1 billion times the mass. Using the pattern of +1 BODY per 2 X Mass, you'd get + 30 BODY. That means that such a creature would have about 40 BODY.

 

By the argument you've put forward, you are suggesting that this Mile High Monster should only be about 4 times as hard to kill as a normal person.

 

That does not hold up from my point of view.

 

Imagine trying to shoot such a creature. Lets say that you have a 50 cal bullet which can punch through a meter of flesh. From the Mile High Monster's perspective, 1 meter depth is like a millimeter would be to a normal person. And that 50 cal bullet size would only make a microscopic hole from the Mile High Monster's perspective.

 

What would happen if a normal human was poked to a depth of 1 mm with a needle of microscopic width? Are you telling me that this would have 25% of the impact of being shot with the 50 cal bullet? You wouldn't even be able to see the whole, would you even feel it?

 

 

I am willing to accept that a Mile High Monster might not be 1 Billion times as tough as a normal human. But I do not accept that linear based value of 4 times as tough either.

 

Even though the creature is 1,000,000,000 times the mass, it is only 1,000 times the height. I would be willing to accept that the creature's toughness could follow the same pattern as height.

You misunderstood me. I suggested no type of progression for determining BODY by mass, linear or otherwise. I was merely observing that 2X Mass = +1 BODY clearly does not automatically equate to being twice as hard to kill. Mass at best equates only to a starting point for calculating BODY. The GM can adjust that number upwards or downwards as he sees fit. Clearly your theoretical Mile High Monster could have an enormous amount of BODY, or he might have only 40. It's up to the GM to decide how tough he wants said MHM to be to kill.

 

If mass were the sole determinant of how much BODY something should have, then 99% of all supers and heroes should have only 10 BODY because they are normal human size. Clearly this is not the case.

[Fox1]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

If mass were the sole determinant of how much BODY something should have' date=' then 99% of all supers and heroes should have only 10 BODY because they are normal human size. Clearly this is not the case. [/quote']

 

It is in my campaign.

 

Well actually 9-11, but the concept applies.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

It is in my campaign.

 

Well actually 9-11, but the concept applies.

And what percentage of Hero gamers do you think your campaign represents? 0.001%? You've made it pretty clear you're not running a "straight out of the book" campaign anyway.

 

In my own 23+ years of playing Champions, I don't recall ever seeing a PC with only 10 BODY. I'm sure they're out there, but I'd even bet most of them are not front line fighters but rather Egoists and the like.

[Black Rose]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

Hoy! I resemble that remark

 

Do feel free to drag more in like this one though. Stunning work on JAGS.

I'm particularly fond of the Skill system. The Super Powers construct is also an intriguing build.

[Fox1]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

And what percentage of Hero gamers do you think your campaign represents? 0.001%? You've made it pretty clear you're not running a "straight out of the book" campaign anyway.

 

It's lonely at the top end of the bell curve. So very lonely.

 

The point is that there is no system barrier to BODY = MASS with 2x or any other replacement progression. Any problems in this area are like most problems with HERO- self created.

[Marco]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

Perhaps I should back up a bit and ask you some more questions about your stance. (BTW, I did look over your system, and it does have some very nice features. . . .)

Thanks! That's always wonderful to hear!

 

Or to put it a different way, is it possible to set up such an exponential system so that 10 DCs represents double the damage of 9 DCs?

 

Assume the answer to that question is "yes." Then, if every + 5 STR gives +1 DC then wouldn't that mean that a 30 STR character would lift 16 times as much and do 16 times the damage as a 10 STR character?

 

Wouldn't that accomplish the same objective as your linear STR, but on an exponential scale?

Yes--if I understand that right, I agree. If a character in Hero with a 30 STR did 16d of damage it would be directly porportional to his lift as I understand it.

 

DC Supers kind of took a stab at this (although they were linear too, in the end) by using a DEF system similar to what was discussed here: even without armor a charater with a 10 STR wouldn't hurt a character with 16 BODY.

 

-Marco

[Sean Waters]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

It's lonely at the top end of the bell curve. So very lonely.

 

The point is that there is no system barrier to BODY = MASS with 2x or any other replacement progression. Any problems in this area are like most problems with HERO- self created.

 

 

Currently, defences are incapable of replacing increased BODY to represent the type of invulnerability that large (and by that I mean 'very large indeed') creatures/characters have BECAUSE there is always a way around defences in HERO. NND Does BODY is a case in point.

 

Whilst I fully acknowledge the arguments about human physiology having 'soft spots' - heart and brain and so on, not all concepts have the same problem: amorpho-lad has a non-differentiated physiology, being a gestalt entity created from cooperating single celled organisms. The ability to harm him SHOULD be going up in proportion to him mass, or, at least the harm he can take should.

 

Moreover the way that HERO deals with softpoints (if you chose to) is hit locations - the softpoints are easier to harm, or, at least, can't take as much damage.

 

Maybe there ought to be a power 'No hit locations' for 10 or 20 points you can buy in appropriate campaigns. Hmmm. Automaton rules....can't remember....

 

Mind you that doesn't deal with the problem of how to relate BODY to mass. Like I say, it seems to me that the problem arises mainly because 8 hits causing 1 BODY past defences is the same as one hit causing 8 BODY past defences.

 

I'm not sure there is a solution except, possibbly, on a campaign by campaign basis. So Fox1 quite rightly says it isn't a problem in his world: I'd be interested though to know if you have any huge creatures/heroes/villains and how they play out in practice.

[Fox1]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

So Fox1 quite rightly says it isn't a problem in his world: I'd be interested though to know if you have any huge creatures/heroes/villains and how they play out in practice.

 

Huge critters certainly exist in my campaigns. Very rarely as PCs.

 

The primary reason I've avoided any problem along the lines you describe is already presented up on my website: see Miscellaneous Rules -> Hit Location and Damage.

 

BODY damage is not cumulative in my campaign, thus 8 hits for 1 BODY each does not equal a single 8 BODY hit in any meaningful respect. I've never understood why HERO thought it wise to treat BODY like D&D hit points. Didn't even believe it did until years after I started playing it.

 

Thus under my house rules BODY functions as a pure damage threshold in my campaign, not as hit points. If you don't do more than half BODY+ in a single attack, the effect is painful and causes bleeding/stun, but is in no other way significant.

 

Bleeding under some cases could present a danger, however large creatues already have some protection under my house rules and its easy enough to buy more if needed.

 

 

Even without this simple 'fix', I don't consider the problem significant. There are a number of things HERO doesn't do well, and the best solution is often to either build around it on a individual basis (any number of powers with proper advantages and limits can protect amorpho-lad from being nicked to death if you wish) or set up your campaign stuff that the problem is avoided from the start (no amorpho-lad in the setting).

 

Every game system has its strengths and weakness. Not all of them are suited for the same use as a result. HERO at it's heart is for over the top comic book action. Someone wanting more reality at the core of the game system than that should really seek a different game system.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant_gun

 

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=439739

[Fox1]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

man you are such a worthless piece of scum.

 

Oh I know elephant guns exist.

 

I'm just laughing at someone who has no clue whatever about the actual reality of them and how they relate to whole family of weapons. It's like a blind man having been told of color attempting to tell Leonardo that the Last Supper would look better with more reds.

 

You're are just funny. Clueless and funny.

 

[ghost-angel]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

Oh I know elephant guns exist.

 

I'm just laughing at someone who has no clue whatever about the actual reality of them and how they relate to whole family of weapons. It's like a blind man having been told of color attempting to tell Leonardo that the Last Supper would look better with more reds.

 

You're are just funny. Clueless and funny.

 

 

EDIT: you know what, nevermind. talking to you is not worth the time or effort.

[Fox1]

Re: Why exponential progression doesn't work for damage

 

EDIT: you know what' date=' nevermind. talking to you is not worth the time or effort.[/quote']

 

At least I'm not the guy who basically said "Size doesn't matter as far as killing something. Elephants are big and people kill elephants with *elephant guns*".