[freeroleplay] [Fringe] Conflict System

[Samuel Penn]

On Saturday 02 December 2006 14:54, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 00:27 +0100, Pitt Murmann wrote:
> > If the quality is high, the defender, who attempts not to be hit, must
> > provide a high quality defense to prevent the attacker from landing a
> > blow. This is often resolved by subtracting the defense from the offense
> > to determine a total quality, be it a number of successes, a difference
> > of two intermediate values, or whatnot. Once the quality is determined,
> > the damage has been dealt and there is no need to make another die roll
> > to involve an additional random factor.
>
> That would be a simpler, faster and perfectly viable system, but at a
> corresponding loss of strategy IMHO: the above system doesn't easily
> model a strong but slow or a weak but agile fighter. Depending on which
> ability is used for attack rolls (Strength or Agility) only one kind of
> tactic will prevail.

You could fix the damage done. A person with Strength 3 does 3 damage.
Maybe a really good hit does +1, a glancing blow does -1, and another
modifier for having a big weapon.

This means you only need to roll for the 'to hit', whilst still being
able to model weak/strong attackers. A glancing blow has a chance of
knockdown if the strength is high enough, whilst a solid hit has a
chance of putting you out of the fight or killing you.

> > The defender may wear armor to reduce
> > the effect of the attack, but the quality of the attack should be
> > determined by the homonymous action and not an additional damage roll
> > that renders the defense a make-or-break deal.
>
> Why not? Armour doesn't prevent you from being hit, it only mitigates
> the damage. Similarly, a dodge action doesn't reduce damage but allows
> you to avoid being hit altogether.

Actually, a dodge can reduce damage - if you're moving away from a blow,
it will have less impact (I've seen this demonstrated, and it works
well if you're in mail or plate).

> > The same applies to social conflict. Given the environment and
> > circumstances, the ferociousness and bitterness of an insult is
> > determined by an attack that can be countered and reduced in a similar
> > way by the respective rhetorical or logical means.
>
> Couldn't a ferocious and bitter insult also be countered by another
> ferocious and bitter insult?

Leading to a flame war...


The way HarnMaster works is that there are certain types of attack,
and certain types of defence (for physical combat). There's a grid
that then gives you the results based on success/failure. Certain
defences are good against some attacks, but useless against others.

This might work well in social combat - logic doesn't work well
against insults. Different onlookers may also come away with a different
impression of who won - some people may think the insults funny,
and therefore effective, whilst more logical witnesses may see them
for what they are and realise the insulter didn't have a leg to
stand on.


-- 
Be seeing you,                         http://www.glendale.org.uk
Sam.                        Mail/IM (Jabber): sam at glendale.org.uk