[freeroleplay] [Fringe] Conflict System

[Pitt Murmann]

On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 14:54:47 [+0000], Ricardo Gladwell wrote:

> > The latter has rules for propagating conflict
> > from one form to the other,
> 
> How do you mean?

If a Dog happens to be in either type of conflict and finds her
chances to best her opponent by the means provided by that type of
conflict slip away, she can switch to the other type, respectively,
to tap her resources related to that other type. This works for both
directions and is (probably) supposed to reflect the attacker's
desparately clinging to all he can muster.

> I'm not sure the outcomes of physical combat are always so clear cut
> either, but I see your point. But does that matter when we have a human
> (the GM) arbitrating the rules and deciding on what makes a successful
> social conflict without the need for formal rules?

Excellent! This would perfectly reflect my point of view regarding RPGs
in general and tactical conflict resolution in particular. Have the
players set aside the rules and play a _role_ playing game instead of a
tactical CoSim, relying on common sense instead of die rolls.
[This is the dramatist speaking.]

> Can't the "quality" of an attack can actually be divided into two
> properties: the "precision" (how closely the attack hit home) and the
> "strength" (how hard the blow was and thus, how much actual harm was
> inflicted).

I'm a stubborn person. I'm still clinging to the postulate that a
particular weapon does the same amount of (abstract) damage as long as
it is wielded by the same fighter and as long as the circumstances do
not change considerably. This is more evident for thrown and missile
weapons as it is for melee weapons, but even the latters' physical
properties do not change very much unless you call upon quantum
mechanics or theory of relativity. Consequently, Precision would be
perfectly enough to model the underlying variability.

> 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.

It doesn't? I agree that it may be easier to step out of the way of
a giant's spiked club than it is to dance away from a rapier's point
because of the rapier's (and its wielder's) Finesse that adds to its
Precision. I'm not a surgeon and have difficulties to quantify the
amount of Damage a piercing weapon does. It probably hurts. But I'm
perfectly sure that I do not want to stand in the way of that giant's
crushing club either.

> Surely the fighter's agility or physical coordination also plays a role
> in whether the hit actually strikes true?

Absolutely. See the previous paragraph on this.
 
> > 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. By separating the roll for attack and
> damage you separate the concerns so that you can add an extra layer of
> strategy and perhaps even realism to the game.

Matter of factly, armor does not prevent its wearer from being hit and,
being cumbersome and heavy, rather hampers the defender's movements or
even renders certain acrobatics impossible.

Strategy and realism, as I see it, would only be flattened if the
Quality of the attack would not be taken into account, which is not what
I am saying. The quality of the attack that surpasses the defender's
block's Quality (Precision?) is well taken into account when determining
the amount of damage done, as is the type and size of the used weapon.

> Couldn't a ferocious and bitter insult also be countered by another
> ferocious and bitter insult?

It can, resulting in two (or more) people shouting at each other.
However, ferociousness might also be countered by wits, especially if
other people are around and get into the act of the snake tongue making
the red head ridicule. That's what I meant by "environment and
circumstances".

> Why should we not sub-divide the "quality" into different kinds of
> qualities? Such as finesse or strength?

Two sides. Two points of view. That's a developers' mailing list.
 
> >  What
> > instead matters is the context, the environment and the circumstances.
> 
> How is that different to physical combat?

It isn't, really. Doesn't physical combat usually also take certain
circumstances into account? - Higher ground, cover, tight surroundings?

Regards,

  - PM