GM Workshop

A community-created and maintained place for Game Masters of all systems to bounce ideas around. It's a place for inspiration and sharing tips.


Maiming rules showcase and review

   
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veradux View Post
Ah, but with the right material and a suit that isn't broken by piercing damage, I can laugh off their gunfire, sans heavy weapons. And, since I can forgo heavy armaments myself, I can invest more in armor, including a helmet, making it a much more likely situation. Plus, with a faster move speed, closing the distance or moving from cover to cover makes for a hidden blender of a character.
And with light armour the best DR you will get with less than 90,000 quid is only 8. AC can be rendered irrelevant with a simple change in ammunition, and their range is better than any other ranged weapon. Also they can just hop in a motorwagon, or failing that a carriage, and casually drive away from you while shooting back. A DR 8 is not invulnerability, every crit will beat it, so will some regular hits, and they can always just get a larger calibre firearm. Or good troops with specialization.

Quote:
I don't know where you get the idea that light armor and melee builds don't mix. Scrubbed Especially under your houserules where AC and DR are obscenely inflated, even for those light armor builds.
Okay, let me rephrase that. Light armour and melee builds designed to combat ranged builds don't mix.

Quote:
Ah, but you don't have 2hp, because you're not an NPC Commoner! You're a PC Expert who likely has 10-12 Con. A modern human is better represented by an Expert, as you pointed out in your own houserules.
Fair.

Quote:
Plus, taking the fall voluntarily means that d6 is now nonlethal.
Already accounted for.

Quote:
If you were landing on something vaguely soft, such as grass, you've reduced it to nothing!
Concrete.

Quote:
Or you're able to Take 10 and make the DC 15 Jump or Tumble check. Or, most likely, you were Taking 20, carefully clambering down in a few seconds rather than literally leaping off the ledge.
I can buy taking 10, it was an every day thing.

Quote:
Or, and this is where I'd put my money if I had any, Scrubbed and it was more of a 6-7ft drop, which is something I do when I forget my housekeys and hop the fence.
One bus stopped by an overpass (a low one) and the other stopped below it, so I hopped down.

Quote:
Ah, but you do need to actually be on fire (clothes or hair on fire) for the 1d6 to kick in. Not, as you said, barely touching a campfire. It's almost as if being on fire is a dangerous thing. Subsequent damage then requires an additional 6 seconds (one round) to do more damage.
But barely touching the fire will catch you on fire with RAW.

Quote:
2) I think that really shows the problem we're having. Rather than going "I can't find a macuahuitl in any of my official sources, can I have a location?" you immediately claim that there is none in any of the rules and then further assume that I'm using homebrew.
MM4, used by one of the Lizardfolk. Exotic Two-Handed B&S 1d12, 19-20/x4.
It would be on hell of a weapon in your setting. Made out of obsidian for that 4d8 damage and carrying two damage types for ignoring DR and a brutal crit range, you could so use that for an Aztec-Dragon/Lizardfolk section of the world. "Dangerous primitives" is a classic setting.
Unless that d12 is already obsidian.

Quote:
I'm not certain on what a higher threshold should be. Mostly because I am not in support of a higher threshold as you assume. I've thought about using a wound system, borrowing from the MMORPG Mabinogi, where real injury requires a medic with a bundle of bandages followed by magical healing. And where things like arrows cause much more injury per damage point compared to blunt weapons. I even have a homebrewed chart of harmful critical effects, such as loss of body parts and semi-permanent debuffs. They trigged on crit and the type of weapon effected what it did (Light Piercing weapons weren't going to hack off a limb, but a Two-Handed Slashing certain had a significant chance). My meatspace group enjoys it, but they're the kind of players that get excited when I break out the Deck of Many Things.

But I've never liked Damage Thresholds. They're too easy to meet for a big 'ol Am Barbarian type character whereas the knife master Rogue who has similar damage won't meet that threshold because he's attacking multiple times. And as the Swashbuckler fan, I don't like that.

If I were to use it, I'd probably say something like "when you roll maximum damage". This way, the indiscriminate hacking of a greataxe does a lot of damage, but the careful placement of a knife between ribs will be harder to patch up while also using my above "effects based on damage and weapon type".
Can you show me the full rules?

Quote:
Because you said a stray dog. A riding dog is a bred-for-war, trained-for-war, ready for the battlefield animal. The kind who's bite force can cause bruising even through equipment meant to protect against their bites. Not a mangy mutt in the back alley.
1. There's never been a stray large-breed dog?
2. A regular 40lb dog is a CR 1/3, same as a basic footsoldier.

Quote:
But we have DR to negate your guns! Or just our very high ACs. Or our movement speed.
The Barbarian used in the examples are not muchkin-sized, they're extremely standard. We didn't even consider magic items, feats, or possible ACFs. Especially since they're 5th level. Especially since your guns aren't exactly impressive weapons to someone dedicated to ranged combat.
Which ones?

Quote:
Have you tested your numbers? Like, in an actual game over the course of multiple combats?
These maiming rules? No, of course not. The rest of the system? Most of it, yes. Some is still pretty new.

Quote:
Because it feels like you postulated on your own for a few minutes. I mean, it would be one thing if you were actually looking for feedback and criticism on your houserules, rather than meeting our concerns with "No, you're wrong because my Gnomes are cool!".
1. That isn't what I said.
2. You have not given me an alternative or any tweaks to compare to.
3. I must take a contrary position for this whole thing to work.

Quote:
Set up a game forum and we can run the numbers. We can help build some characters of a variety of power levels to test. It would certainly be better than assuming that we're wrong. Hell, if you're so sure of yourself, you've nothing to worry since gameplay should prove us wrong.
I never said I was sure of anything. I'm not. I am looking for ideas, and arguments for them. To get an argument for, I have to argue against. Scrubbed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Actana View Post
I'd like to add to this question with "have you tested your numbers in an open environment where everyone is allowed and free to speak their mind without being attacked?" Because it's easy to get noncommittal shrugs of "it's fine" by players who just don't want to speak up against the rules because they feel they'll be ostracized because of it.
Well, that's insulting. I don't shout down criticism. I don't even necessarily disagree. I am just trying to get more DETAILED feedback, with alternatives I can directly compare. I have asked for specific alternatives several times now, how about you provide one instead of insulting me?

You've been given plenty of alternatives, you're just refusing to see them. Use the Fort save in some capacity, scale the numbers differently, use mechanics that are featured in different systems, to name a few. It's not our job to design your system for you, especially when you're already using a ton of houserules that will take a considerable amount of time to cipher and understand, let alone apply in new design.

Scrubbed

Also, your stance of "I have to argue against criticism" is not conductive to anything. It is, in fact, counter productive to any sort of development of rules. Reviewing and testing rules is something that should be done with an open mind and considering viewpoints that you have not yet considered, not as a debate of "who is right and who is wrong". Criticism and review is not a debate, it's an appraisal of the presented product. Being overly defensive is hurting your position as you come off as arrogant and taking the position of "I'm right" against any criticism. I don't necessarily mean that as an insult and want to believe that it's not your intention, but it certainly is the effective result of taking that stance.


More edits: And for what it's worth, I mean the idea of players not wishing to offer criticism in-game to be a large cultural norm in gaming, not restricted to any particular games. There's a great deal of attitudes among both the player and the GM that the GM's rulings shouldn't be questioned which is hard to root out because to remove the attitude would be to go against the GM and one doesn't go against the GM. It's not unique to any game in particular, and it wasn't meant as an insult. I talk about the matter very often in great a many topic to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Actana View Post
You've been given plenty of alternatives, you're just refusing to see them.
Or you're ignoring my responses completely because they don't fit your narrative.

Quote:
Use the Fort save in some capacity,
Massive damage already has a fortitude save.

Quote:
scale the numbers differently,
That's too vague. I asked for a more specific suggestion.

Quote:
use mechanics that are featured in different systems,
It takes more than one day to read an entire system. Also, I have a life. Have you tried waiting?

Quote:
It's not our job to design your system for you, especially when you're already using a ton of houserules that will take a considerable amount of time to cipher and understand, let alone apply in new design.
Which is why I didn't ask you to. Where do you get this stuff?

Quote:
Scrubbed
Scrubbed

Quote:
Also, your stance of "I have to argue against criticism" is not conductive to anything. It is, in fact, counter productive to any sort of development of rules. Reviewing and testing rules is something that should be done with an open mind and considering viewpoints that you have not yet considered, not as a debate of "who is right and who is wrong".
Taking up a contrary position does not imply closed-mindedness. Especially if it just done for the sake of furthering the conversation. I don't see how you missed this, but I agree with many of the things said. I am just playing devil's advocate to keep the discussion going so when I sit down to digest it later I will have more to work off and will produce a better product.

Quote:
Criticism and review is not a debate, it's an appraisal of the presented product.
This isn't a product, it's a proposal. Reviewing a proposal is not the same as reviewing a finished product, and you can expect counter-proposals and discussions because a proposal can still be changed.

Quote:
Being overly defensive is hurting your position as you come off as arrogant and taking the position of "I'm right" against any criticism.
I am not being defensive, and my position is only "I am still undecided, so here is a counter-argument". I am not claiming to be right. In fact, I definitionally cannot be right as I have not made a decision to be right about.

Quote:
I don't necessarily mean that as an insult and want to believe that it's not your intention, but it certainly is the effective result of taking that stance.
And I am trying to inform you that I am not taking that stance.

Quote:
More edits: And for what it's worth, I mean the idea of players not wishing to offer criticism in-game to be a large cultural norm in gaming, not restricted to any particular games. There's a great deal of attitudes among both the player and the GM that the GM's rulings shouldn't be questioned which is hard to root out because to remove the attitude would be to go against the GM and one doesn't go against the GM. It's not unique to any game in particular, and it wasn't meant as an insult. I talk about the matter very often in great a many topic to begin with.
During a game, yes, that is correct. I take the time to ask my players after each campaign concludes, when I am no longer their DM, specifically to compensate for that. It is also why I visit forums to discuss things I am specifically, and I want this to be very clear to you, specifically NOT sure about. If I was certain this system was good as-is, we would not be speaking about it now.

I'm new to this thread, but I have a question for you: How many combat encounters do you expect your player characters to get through un-maimed, considering most of these maimings appear to be effectively career-ending?
That's my main problem with the proposed houserules: the possibility that they run a high risk for a character to lose their ability to contribute in combat.

Now, rules like that are fine for a campaign where you're either planning for the players to rapidly cycle through characters without getting too attached to or too invested in them (which would mean very light on the plot and RP), or a campaign where you want the players to avoid combat to begin with (and for that, D&D is a terrible system, since it's a combat simulator at heart and reduces any event that's not a combat to a single die roll), but a 'regular' D&D campaign with a dozen or more encounters for every level and players try to stick with the same characters throughout all of it will simply not happen for reasons of basic statistics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ikul View Post
I'm new to this thread, but I have a question for you: How many combat encounters do you expect your player characters to get through un-maimed, considering most of these maimings appear to be effectively career-ending?
That depends on how a condition treated with a 2nd-level spell is career ending.

Quote:
That's my main problem with the proposed houserules: the possibility that they run a high risk for a character to lose their ability to contribute in combat.
Noted. Does it change that assessment that such losses are usually temporary?

Quote:
Now, rules like that are fine for a campaign where you're either planning for the players to rapidly cycle through characters without getting too attached to or too invested in them (which would mean very light on the plot and RP), or a campaign where you want the players to avoid combat to begin with (and for that, D&D is a terrible system, since it's a combat simulator at heart and reduces any event that's not a combat to a single die roll),
I would disagree that D&D is a bad system outside of combat. My games tend to be quite heavy on roleplay, and I feel too many rules would be rather restrictive in social situations. My campaigns do also have a good amount of combat, if less than usual for D&D. Specifically, 2-4 encounters per level. I'm presently running a campaign here, for instance, where the PCs are small children and even they are on their fourth combat encounter. (Though they ran from one, avoided a second, beat a third but took off to avoid reinforcements, and we'll see how #4 goes.)

Quote:
but a 'regular' D&D campaign with a dozen or more encounters for every level and players try to stick with the same characters throughout all of it will simply not happen for reasons of basic statistics.
Except for the 2nd level spell that cures most of these status effects, the 4th level spell that cures most of the remaining ones, and the 7th level spell that cures the last ones.

Also, when the forum goes up, why not try playing some characters with various maiming injuries and see how debilitating they really are? I think a good player can compensate, but I'll have to see it in action to be sure.

Its been entertaining reading this thread. AvianMosquito, why did you post your rules? Did you want constructive feedback, or did you want people to tell you "great job"? You got a bunch of very good feedback, but your response was to try to argue why the people trying to help you are wrong and you are right. Were I an aspiring game designer, I'd be very happy to receive constructive feedback and make adjustments accordingly. Your rules and system don't seem too great, so you may want to rethink your response to criticism. Just some friendly advice.

Scrubbed

Or, perhaps, did you simply miss that post? I don't see how, but I suppose it is possible. If you really did miss it, then reading it now should clear things up. I'll wait.

I'm curious. When I put up a forum for testing (which was a suggestion in this thread) of various models (including some from this thread), scrubbed That's pretty clearly me listening to the people in the thread, isn't it?

Thread reopened after review.

The thread has been scrubbed (quite extensively) in order to facilitate a CONSTRUCTIVE discussion, in accordance with Myth-Weaver's Site Rules (most notably: Be excellent to each other).

Should the thread degenerate again, it WILL be relocked and offending parties WILL be infracted.





Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Last Database Backup 2018-01-20 09:00:08am local time
Myth-Weavers Status