Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

[Reality Czech]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

I'm not 100% sure I'd agree with that.

 

d20 has more than its share of "gearheads", and Traveller even coined the term "gearhead" to refer to someone who likes the number crunching aspect of RPGs. Hero certainly has its fair share, but I'm not sure that it's the largest number; if you want to go on percentage of "gamers playing system: likelihood of being fascinated by minutae", I'd say Traveller (the original game, certainly, and possibly New Era thrown in) has it beat (almost all Traveller players I've met fit this description), and if you want to go on sheer numbers, d20 is bound to win on sheer popularity.

 

Hero is a superior system to either, of course.

 

Ok, how about "a large number compared to almost any other gaming system"?

 

And if we're not fascinated by minutae, why are you and I having this semantic arguement?

[Jaxom]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

It's interesting to see how the tirades here have gone... And yes, I think they are tirades... I'm not really sure why something that was put forth as a comment to provoke discussion got such vehement support and attacks...

 

 

So here's the simple answer for Mr. Mullins as I see it.

 

First, variable attack effects mimic the "how well did I hit it" mechanic. Granted it is separated from the attack roll itself and you can argue that perhaps it should not be or you can use a critical hit mechanic of some kind. You can also use hti locations which, again, are decoupled from the actual hit roll. Regardless of the exact mechanic that you choose, the attacker is rolling his own poison.... If he does well or poorly, the worst streak he has is "I don't hurt anything."

 

Adding random elements to defenses brings a whole new problem into the game. It's been mentioned by some of the posters and in some detail. The main problem is the degree of variability but there are other problems as well. From a purely mechanical standpoint, variable defenses make it impossible to count on *any* defense. I could buy a suit of full armor and roll badly and get *zero* protection from it. A guy walks up and punches me barehanded and the effect is as if I had removed a piece of armor and allowed him to wind up on me. This *might* make sense for a knife finding it's way through a joint in the greaves, but it makes no sense for an open-handed punch. On the flip side, the current system means that an open-handed punch by a norm will *never* hurt a guy in full platemail. Seems to make more sense to me.

 

Further, the platemail example above highlights the exact problem with variable defenses and degree of variability... Heck, take the EC examples of people who coat themselves in some element... A guy with Ice Armor. A guy with Stone Armor and a guy wearing full steel platemail. Assuming that the body coverage is complete, should they all provide an equal minimum amount of Body and Stun protection? I don't think so, but taking the naive 1d6 totaled like damage approach, they certainly all provide zero Body protection. To prevent this, you wind up resorting to fixed Body defenses with some sort of variability on top of them. But the system already *supports* that. Take normal defenses and then defenses with activation or variable effectiveness.

 

Finally, the last problem with variable defenses is the player psyche problem that Cancer referred to. With variable attacks, the worst I can do is miss everything. With variable defenses, my bad luck doesn't keep me from hurting someone else... It makes me dead. We all have fights where we get unlucky and roll below odds three or four times in a row... Under the current system, your teammates mock you for being useless in the fight. Under a variable defenses scheme where defenses can go to zero the team instead helps you pick the concept for your next hero while they wash up the bloody spot where your last character was.

 

So, the proposal brings nothing new to the Hero system. It would force players into a mechanice which they could already choose for themselves under the current system. It increases the randomness in a fight and it means that a streak of bad luck kills a character more easily than under the current mechanic unless you modify the attack/damage system at the same time.

[BcAugust]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

As a long time player in WW systems, which has the variable defenses listed above... eek.

 

More seriously, even WW has left the rolled defense behind for a reason. It slows gameplay, can frustrate players on both sides of the equation, and leads to improbable results more often then fixed defenses.

 

For instance, I once had a combat, where one player had a fourteen dice damage pool, and the npc had six soak(defense) dice. Given the above, and that the player was an elder and this was basically a step above an extra... the fight went on for 10 actions, until another player stepped in that had unsoakable damage(Basically, an NND) and put him down. It was frustrating for the player, who complains about it till this day. And this happened, to various degrees, throughout that campaign.

[casualplayer]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Defense is more or less costed out already as d6 for 5pts, and it's a O END power with standard effect on the die roll. Season to taste, add Damage Resistance for Armor or Costs END for FF. FW is an aberration, more like a derivation of Transform.

[GAZZA]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Ok' date=' how about "a large number compared to [b']almost[/b] any other gaming system"?

 

And if we're not fascinated by minutae, why are you and I having this semantic arguement?

Touche.

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

First' date=' variable attack effects mimic the "how well did I hit it" mechanic...[/quote']

I understand this viewpoint and I respect it. I just don't agree with it, and that's ok.

 

...The main problem is the degree of variability but there are other problems as well. From a purely mechanical standpoint' date=' variable defenses make it impossible to count on *any* defense. I could buy a suit of full armor and roll badly and get *zero* protection from it. A guy walks up and punches me barehanded and the effect is as if I had removed a piece of armor and allowed him to wind up on me. This *might* make sense for a knife finding it's way through a joint in the greaves, but it makes no sense for an open-handed punch. On the flip side, the current system means that an open-handed punch by a norm will *never* hurt a guy in full platemail. Seems to make more sense to me...[/quote']

This problem has already been addressed by using the suggestion by Hugh.

 

Clarification: It is incorrect to say that a bad roll may get "zero" protection. Even using the original idea, you will still get 1 Pip Per Die of reliable defense.

 

Further' date=' the platemail example above highlights the exact problem with variable defenses and degree of variability...[/quote']

See above.

 

Finally' date=' the last problem with variable defenses is the player psyche problem that Cancer referred to. With variable attacks, the worst I can do is miss everything...[/quote']

See above.

 

I understand and respect your opinion.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Okay, I've had time to go over the rules again.

 

Using the standard rules, Joe Normal can escape from a Concrete Wall cell. It will take some time and effort, but the wall will eventually crumble.

 

Using the standard rules, Joe Normal can't hurt someone in Full Plate Armor. And hurting them with a Dagger is also extremely iffy. It will take a lot of time like the example above, but the difference is that the wall isn't fighting back. (8^D)

 

I leave it as an excersize for the posters to find the rules that led me to these conclusions. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Reality Czech]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

......

 

I leave it as excersize for the posters to find the rules that led me to these conclusions. (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

I cut and pasted the above statement into Google search, the top result was this. I don't know whether this helps any, but it was a fun 30-second experiment.

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Defense is more or less costed out already as d6 for 5pts' date=' and it's a O END power with standard effect on the die roll. Season to taste, add Damage Resistance for Armor or Costs END for FF. FW is an aberration, more like a derivation of Transform.[/quote']

I kind of did a reverse engineering thing to come with the basic construct. I noticed that the Set Effect could also be used in this fashion, but didn't bother to mention it.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

I cut and pasted the above statement into Google search' date=' the top result was this. I don't know whether this helps any, but it was a fun 30-second experiment.

Nice... (8^D)

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Mike W]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Well, I think part of it is based on cost. Defenses are cheaper(and are supposed to be cheaper) than attacks. If they worked the same way mechanically, then you'd probably have to raise the price on all defenses which would cause you to have to think about repricing everything else.

 

Primarily, however, I think the best reason for having fixed defenses is to make the attack damage a bit more predictable and reduce the variation in damage you take from a given attack. If you have a 12d6 attack and I have 25DEF, then I can expect to take around 17 STUN and can take no more than 47 STUN(and anything over about 25 is going to be VERY unlikely). I can also feel safe that I won't take any BODY damage. In other word's I can be "bulletproof" up to a certain point. If I had to roll my DEF every time I was attacked, I'd have to buy a several extra dice of DEF to make sure I never took BODY - or buy a ton of BODY to make sure it doesn't matter. 25 DEF would only work out to about 8d6 of DEF at 1 die for every 3 pts spent. So that same 12d6 attack would now do on average a little less STUN(14 points) but with more variation(it would be a once in a million shot but I COULD take as much as 64 STUN and the chances of me taking 25 STUN would go up a lot since now I could take all that extra STUN by EITHER the other guy rolling high or me rolling low.). More importantly, I would now take an average of 4 BODY each turn. In order to avoid taking BODY, I would have to buy the same number of DEF dice as what the attacker had in his attack power. This means that fights in such circumstances could last a very long time since I would also take, on average, 0 STUN. But if I stick with the 8d6 to make the STUN amounts I take balance decently, I would have to buy a boatload of BODY to make sure I survived a each fight - not mention probably needing regen or some other accelereated healing power to avoid spending lots of time on the "injured list".

[Jaxom]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Re: Mike W's idea, I think you'd wind up trying to find a balance that looks like 1d6 rXD (any resistant defense, counted like KA dice) is going to cost 1-2 points or the system is going to get whacked, at least at the supers level. The reason the system gets whacked going this route is that the brick becomes an impossible concept.

 

Now, although it has not been explicitly stated, Mr. Mullins has adopted the mechanic suggested by Hugh in some way and is now positing a combination of fixed and variable defenses. In terms of whether or not this merits consideration as a valid mechanic, I don't have any objections. The point of my response was that IT'S ALREADY THERE. It's not a requirement for anyone but the idea of variable defenses is already in the system. Armor limited to the amount of absorption rolled was already mentioned. If a player wanted to treat all his defenses or some portion of them as variable the limitation precedent already exists.

 

If a GM, similarly, wants to use this for his characters and inanimate objects, it is certainly available. Regarding player builds a value is already pretty well defined (which covers the combat angle). The non-combat angle which was already discussed and largely discarded is trickier because the idea of giving an item DEF is not so straight forward in terms of point costs (but then it really doesn't have to be beyond balancing for the campaign). If you wanted to continue the discussion with regard to items which have DEF, then you'd need to examine the mechanics and what you felt was desirable which reopens the pandora's box of what is and is not combat mechanics. I think that's an answerable question and could be dealt with but has not been to this point in this thread.

 

The crux of this though, which got ignored the last time I posted it, is that this is nothing new for the system. Variable defense and even partially variable defenses already exist in the system and players tend to avoid them unless they have a specific concept in mind. I don't generally support forcing the players to adopt the mechanic but if a GM wanted to he could require it just like he could say we're not allowing MAs in this campaign. Further, the value of the variable defenses limitation is already well defined in examples linked to Absorption in a number of characters in the literature.

[schir1964]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

...In terms of whether or not this merits consideration as a valid mechanic' date=' I don't have any objections. The point of my response was that IT'S ALREADY THERE...[/quote']

Fair enough.

 

BTW: I repped you for this post just due to it's thought provoking nature.

 

...If you wanted to continue the discussion with regard to items which have DEF' date=' then you'd need to examine the mechanics and what you felt was desirable which reopens the pandora's box of what is and is not combat mechanics. I think that's an answerable question and could be dealt with but has not been to this point in this thread...[/quote']

Some of us on the boards have delved into objects and how they should/could be treated and there isn't an easy solution.

 

The crux of this though' date=' which got ignored the last time I posted it, is that this is nothing new for the system...[/quote']

Forgive me if I'm reading too much into what you are suggesting here.

 

It seems you are suggesting that Variable Defense could be handled as a straight limitation onto defenses (with the limitation requiring a dice roll).

 

Thus (I'm just guessing on concept and cost here):

6 Physical Defense (Variable Defense -1): 3 Points

 

Is this close to what you are suggesting?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Give it a try, Schir1964, and see if it adds to the fun and emulation of genre. Build a character with tiered DEF with progressive Activation Rolls (No Act., 14-, 11-, 8-, 5-) and see how it works. Handwaive it so that one die roll works for all the activations, for the sake of speed.

 

Personally, I'm with Cancer. Sometimes the dice would just leave you a man of tissue paper instead of a man of steel and players would be disgruntled as a result.

 

Pretty much exactly what I was going to suggest. Have a brick with base PD/ED of 20/20 with an extra 5/5 at each step or something similar.

 

I think it's needlessly complex to do it for everthing and everyone (heck, why not roll your Dex dice to see what your CV is this phase? ) but for some characters could be a cool construct. Using other SFX definitions and things like Combat Luck a similar setup would make some of the "normal" super-fighter supertypes have a chance against mega-damage without always bouncing weaker attacks.

[Jaxom]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

It seems you are suggesting that Variable Defense could be handled as a straight limitation onto defenses (with the limitation requiring a dice roll).

 

Thus (I'm just guessing on concept and cost here):

6 Physical Defense (Variable Defense -1): 3 Points

 

Is this close to what you are suggesting?

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

That is exactly what I am suggesting. The precedent is well established with things like "armor, only up to the amount rolled for Absorption". Instead of having a power, Absorption, you simply replace that with "X-number of dice". It's still exactly the same limitation but represents a different special effect which is all about how Hero is designed. The value of the limitation never changed based on the amount of absorption you took so there is no reason barring GM fiat that you could not apply it here.

 

Heck, you could even build partially variable defenses by taking the first 10 points of armor without the limitation and the next 6 with the limitation. I think that covers every possibility that has come up in this thread.

[Ganesh]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

Just to get the thread back on track.

 

So far, it seems that the main reason for the defenses to be a static value is for simplicity.

Or perhaps it may be a carryover from Wargames which may have influenced the RPG Industry.

 

- Christopher Mullins

 

One other reason -- I think one wants roughly so much predictability and so much randomness in one's game, in particular when one's dealing with the "does my character live or die?" subsystem. Rolling for both damage and defense means that a high damage roll and a low defense roll leaves Lots Of Body the only real protection against death by paper cut (and play some of those old storyteller system games at some point for some rather goofy examples -- places where a mage survives a car crash with hardly a scratch, then gets splatted by getting punched by a twerpy kid).

 

Having only one thing rolled -- damage or defense -- seems to give the "expected level of randomness." So yes, that's a holdover from all the games that have gone before, but it's not an entirely poor one.

 

I think the reason that damage is rolled instead of defense is that doing damage feels active, and rolling dice feels active. Similarly, you roll to hit, and you roll when using a skill -- rather than rolling to Be Missed, and the door lock rolling to Not Be Picked. I think this largely is so that players get to roll a lot more, because players like rolling shiny dice. Yay dice!

 

If you could make it genuinely symmetric, so that rolling for defense and rolling for damage were equivalent, then you could probably just have the players roll dice or the GM decide to roll dice if he wanted. I was in a Feng Shui game at one point, where dice rolls are entirely symmetric, and it wasn't uncommon to hear the GM say "Big Boss attacks each of you three on a 16. Roll to see if he misses."

[zornwil]

Re: Theory Discussion: Defense Alternative

 

I'd back up the comment that you'd want to avoid this variable defense due to the uncertainty it introduces for the hero to survive reliably under predictable circumstances - or, if you want to fix that, you end up with an even-more-complex sort of dice rolling, either lots of d6s and count BOD or the like, depending on just how variable you want it.

 

But it's an interesting idea. For more chaos in battle, it would work well.

 

I disagree with Derek's comment that it doesn't make sense, in particular even using his own example of the d6 "I can lift the sofa today but can't tomorrow" - now, assuming of course that one properly jiggers the probability, to me, it makes FULL sense that some days I can lift the sofa and some days I can't IF we are speaking of what I feel we should be in an RPG, not "can I possibly lift this" but "can I lift this right now in a crunch."

 

To me the issue is not realism-realism (modeling reality as we know it) but of play behaviors and what we expect of the player behavior when the PC is in a crunch situation. My feeling is that in HERO we need certain factors to be reliable. I think Jaxom stated it really well in his first post in the thread.