Topic: Thursday's Topic.... How Critical are Critical Charts?

[Cory Magel]

If you do have have 10 million ways to die then that is what you are describing above.
MDC

Really?  That's funny, I just picked up that book in a store a few months back and haven't opened it yet.
(It was selling for crazy prices online, but I found a hobby store about 40 miles away that had it at cover price).

I took a quick look, it's actually right next to my desk.  It still needs differing critical charts for the 1H and 2H versions of weapons.

[markc]

 Yes the crit charts are the same, but it does not fit my game style but Yammahopper loves it.
MDC

[Grinnen Baeritt]

My view on critical tables is that they are fun to read, but do we REALLY need quite so many?

There has been many discussions on subjects such as hit location and ambush and such like...

My view has always been that the description given in a critical table is there simply as fluff (i.e. making it fun to read)...but is subject to adaptation to fit the situation. It is the magnitude of the details, the type of injury sustained additional hits caused, stun... and all that are the bits we actually need and to a degree even these should be subject to modification based on intent and situation. The basic rule should be the higher the result the more effective the critical.

Basically, the description element of a critical should really come from a descriptive elements introduced to suit the situation by the GM or an intended result specified by the Player. The magnitude of the result is based on the roll.

What this means is that there could be a considerable "trimming" of the number of critical charts... by simply stating the certain rules elements of a critical result are predetermined based on the weapon type.. lets say Stun results (for blunt) vs Hit's/rnd (for Blades). Intent, might alter these results, determined by the application of certain skills and/or modifiers or specified locations.

[Ecthelion]

Personally I very much like critical tables. And I also think that for many people it is easier and faster to look up a result on a table than to run some calculations to generate the result. What I also don't like about the calculation approach is that there is less variation to the results, since the damage simply rises in a linear way the higher the result is. With the existing RM tables some of the criticals deal out more stuns but little penalty to actions, others deal out a lot of bleeding etc. For me the approach with the existing RM tables just offers more thrill when it comes to criticals. Admittedly newer ICE critical tables, like in HARP's Hack & Slash or RMU Arms Law are just as boring, since they seem to be based upon such a formula.

[yammahoper]

The nice thing about an equation or threat ranges is the information can easily be recorded on the character sheet, thus the player and GM readily have access to the data.    So the tables have to be deconstructed with a simpler mechanic to express the data.

For critical ranges, this isn't difficult.  My experience is devising  hits delivered mechanic is problematic.  Fortunately, what seems problematic to me may well seem easy to another.  I'm sure there is a viable mechanic (besides the easy answer of move ALL damage to the critical tables).  I also think the hits delivered deconstructed rule should be tied to St mod.  A fey may inflict a serious wound with minimum concussion damage while a Giant pummels his foe even with minor critical damage.

[Thom @ ICE]

I find it interesting that people are indicating that the data in the table is boring when it shows a continuous progression as results increase.


Isn't that the desired result?  You roll better, you do more damage.  Maybe I'm not understanding the concern.


If I were creating critical charts from scratch (so no need to worry about complexity), I would use a mechanic similar to the following:


Each weapon has a % factor for Hits, 3 critical types equating to bleeds, stuns, injuries, and Special.
Hits = H%      Bleeds = B%      Stuns = S%    Injuries = I%  Special = X%
Result Roll = R


Final Impact (everything rounds down) = H%*R,    B%*R,   S%*R,   I%*R,   X%*R
H is the easiest one. It results in a #. 
B gives a # of bleeds per round, severed limbs, damaged organs, etc.
S gives stuns, knockdowns, broken bones, damaged organs, etc.
I gives maneuver penalties, damaged equipment, broken bones, etc.
X gives special impact such as entanglement or disarming, etc.
There would be only one critical chart for each type of critical.


A mace might have a rating of -    H35% / B10%/ S30%/ I20%/ X5%
The end result = 60
Hits = 21
Bleeds Critical = 6
Stun Critical = 18
Injury Critical = 12
Special Critical = 3


For Bleeds a 6 may indicate minor cuts and -1 hit
For Stun an18 may indicate stun 1 round and -4 hits
For Injury a 12 may indicate bruising, -5 on next action
For Special a 3 may indicate no significant impact


Impact = 26 hits, stun 1 round, -5 on next action


The longbow ratings might be   H25% / B35% / S10% / I25% / X5%
The same end result = 60
Hits = 15
Bleeds Critical = 21
Stun Critical = 6
Injury Critical = 15
Special Critical = 3


For Bleeds a 21 may indicate deep wound yielding 2 bleeds, and -5 hits
For Stun a 6 may indicate minor disruption to movement, -1 hit
For Injury a 15 may indicate muscle injury, -10 until healed
For Special a 3 may indicate no significant impact


Impact = 21 hits, bleed 2/round, -10 until healed


The issue with this is that even if the factors are generally easy values to work with, you still have a relatively complex resolution (5 multiplications) which would mean either a pregenerated chart, or a calculator tool. 


If you are going to use charts or tools, then why not have the various armor types provide bonus protection depending upon damage type – some reduce stuns, others reduce bleeds, or injuries, or everything.  This then leads to RM type critical charts, but it connects the Result to the Impact and gives a wide variety of results rather easily.

[intothatdarkness]

The nice thing about an equation or threat ranges is the information can easily be recorded on the character sheet, thus the player and GM readily have access to the data.    So the tables have to be deconstructed with a simpler mechanic to express the data.

For critical ranges, this isn't difficult.  My experience is devising  hits delivered mechanic is problematic.  Fortunately, what seems problematic to me may well seem easy to another.  I'm sure there is a viable mechanic (besides the easy answer of move ALL damage to the critical tables).  I also think the hits delivered deconstructed rule should be tied to St mod.  A fey may inflict a serious wound with minimum concussion damage while a Giant pummels his foe even with minor critical damage.

Hits delivered for firearms is pretty easy to calculate, actually, but in a sense it does tie to St (muzzle energy). I always allowed a St bonus to concussion damage in my RM games (we used the d20 stat bonus to reflect that...so the giant did do massive concussion damage even with no crit).

[Cory Magel]

When creating a crit chart I assign a point value to each effect and increase the overall point value of the critical as they move up the chart.
It's been a while, so I no longer have the values I used, but to give an example (and these numbers are very vague guesses)...
1 Hit = 1 Point
1 Bleed/Burn = 3 Points.
1 Stun = 2 Points
1 Stun No Parry = 3 Points
-10 Penalty = 3 points
...and so on.

Then I just look at the nature of the type of attack assumed (Slash, Pierce, Krush, Fire, whatever) and favor the chart slightly more heavily to those effects (and sometimes it will be more than one).  So, Slashing will have more Bleeding, Pierce might have a little more internal damage, Crush will cause more penalties, burning will obviously cause more burning, and so on.

Having a base formula to work from is definitely needed, but you also need to just 'eyeball' them so they don't become too predicable/mechanical (RMU's first go at Crit Tables was awful - aside from any balance concerns they were far too predictable for my taste).

[Thom @ ICE]

But here's the question on predictability....
Since the dice rolls are random, and the results should be different each attack, does it really matter if you can predict the outcome of an 86 based upon the result you had from the 84? 


Actually, if you use a formula it is almost always more likely to have predictable results (that's what the formula does), but it also gives you the ability to populate separate charts for every weapon and every individual roll if you want.


Note: This assumes that you are not playing HARP with Damage Cap where everything progresses until you start getting the damage cap result every time you roll the dice.


The part you don't get in the case of using the formula is the description, but even that should be able to be coded into a formula.


You <attack style> your <weapon> and catch your foe in the <body part>. The <weapon> <attack style2> the foe's <body part> for <descriptor> damage.


Attack Style =  swing, chop, stab, smash
Weapon = sword, axe, spear, club
body part = head, hand, stomach, groin, chest, neck
attack style2 = slices, dices, smashes, cleaves, cuts, pulverizes
descriptor = almost none, only a little, some pretty good, nasty, major, awesome, critical, death-dealing.


With the correct assignments between result and body part, descriptor and attack style2, combined with proper selection of weapon, which defines attack style and attack style2 - it becomes an auto-generating description.


Assume it was a high roll with an axe.

You chop your axe and catch your foe in the neck. The axe cleaves the foe's neck for death-dealing damage.
Or a club on a low roll

You swing your club and catch your foe in the funny bone. The club barely hits the foe's funny bone for almost no real damage.

[markc]

 I am with Cory that I prefer an over all formula that increases the defining formula for the crit in question.


  As a side note I would like to see a way to have an increased vale for hits but a decrease vale for the crit value. For example 10 A, 11 A, 12 B, 15 A, etc. But as I have been fiddling with this while solving computer problems it can expand the chart a bit.
MDC

[markc]

About HARP type combat or strait formula based combat:
 What the groups I played HARP with found was that the strait formula based ideas was not to out liking as it seemed lacking in some way. BTW one group had extensive experience in RM(RM2/SS/FRP) and the other none. Both decided the liked Arms Law based systems a lot better and one group stayed with HARP and the other went back to RMSS.
 
Note on Strait Formula based Crit values:
 For myself just having a strait formula the kicks out an ever increasing number of hits and other crit specific values took away some of the RM magic. It made combat ho-hum and increased the perceived math intensive nature of RM combat. would this be true even in a computer based app, IMHO yes it would unless you did not publish a PnP version of the rules.
MDC

[Witchking20k]

I personally think there should be 1 attack chart that basically allots X Hits/increment of 5 then 3 then 2 over the base TN of 50 + DB.  Then you add weapon and subtract Armor.  Basically, what I think the formula for HARP was intended to be.

Critical Charts I'm a complete radical on- I think they should be based on your target.  Give monsters "classes" and let your players have loads of fun cutting a swath through hordes of Vermin and Minions and then run in to a Monster and have their pride re-adjusted.

[yammahoper]

How about...each weapon is rated for first hit number and first crit number.  So a mace could be 70/92.  Armor then provides the spread for critical types (S/P/K).  So AT 18 could be +22/+15/+25

An attack of 70 or higher hits for just hits.  92 or higher crits and lands hits.   mace would increase its crit damage for every 25 over 92. 

Using the current critical tables resolves the same.  A new damage system could indicate an additional type of wound per 25 point step over 92.  Bone, bleed, stun, organ, nerve, etc.

[Witchking20k]

I like the cut of your jib Yamma   LOL- have a great weekend!

[Ecthelion]

I find it interesting that people are indicating that the data in the table is boring when it shows a continuous progression as results increase.

Isn't that the desired result?  You roll better, you do more damage.  Maybe I'm not understanding the concern.

Yes, it is overall the desired result, at least for me. But that does not mean that hits, stuns etc. delivered have to be linear throughout the table. The existing RM Arms Law tables do deliver better results for better rolls overall (no need to argue over individual entries), but the results are not that easily predictable, so that rolling a critical always involves some thrill, like "will I deal a stun to the orc, so that he can't strike back or only some bleeding".

[yammahoper]

I like the cut of your jib Yamma   LOL- have a great weekend!

Thank you. I get to start a new campaign this Saturday with some old characters so I should indeed have  very great weekend.

 

[jdale]

Each weapon has a % factor for Hits, 3 critical types equating to bleeds, stuns, injuries, and Special.
Hits = H%      Bleeds = B%      Stuns = S%    Injuries = I%  Special = X%
Result Roll = R

I don't think the problem here is predictability so much as uniformity. Above a certain threshold, every result has hits AND bleeding AND stun AND injury penalties. The existing charts (which were created more along the lines that Corey mentioned) vary this, so one result might only give bleeding and the next only stun. Not only does that create more variability, it's also less work for the GM to have fewer types of damage per result. Bleeding has to be tracked, injury penalties have to be tracked, stun has to be tracked.

Now using a formula for the attack table rather than the crit table, there are only two things to track (hits and crit severity) so it's fine to use a simple progression like that.

[Thom @ ICE]

Thanks.....  got it
Basic progression on attack
Mixed progression with alternating rates similar to a good ole game of buzz buzz

[Cory Magel]

jdale has it right.  I want critical charts that mix up the effects (as in RMFRP and before), not just increase the same effects as you move up the chart (as in RMU).

[yammahoper]

Variable effects with a progressive damage system...so, what if the higher attack results indicate more damage but the type of damage is determined randomly?

An elegant mechanic for this...