Another weapons topic

[Jasede]

I really don't think people or children unable to understand something like "2d4" or unable to figure it out within seconds of using a weapon in-game and looking at the combat log should be playing this sort of game and neither should any design decisions take their ignorance into account.

 

Designing for the ignorant leads to too easy, too simple games, stripped of all complexity. When you streamline something too much it becomes unrecognizable.

 

Examples? New X-Com, Civilisation 5, new Syndicate, every modern RPG ever. A collection of watered down mechanics, so simple a child could do it. The irony being- when we were children we played far more difficult and complex games, such as X-Com Enemy Unknown, Theme Hospital, Might & Magic and so on. We didn't have any problems with them. So why would we want to play games now, as adults, that are simpler than the games we grew up with? It boggles the mind. Does the industry assume our intellects deteriorate as we reach adulthood?

Edited October 29, 2012 by Jasede

[Hormalakh]

Edit: Wrong post.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Hormalakh

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

What do you guys think?

 

Honestly, I don't like it very much. It seems to be much more complicated than 2-8 damage.

 

Personally I love the idea of a damage range plus a static bonus, like 2-12+5. It shows the player the base range of damage the weapon will do and what bonus they will get to damage.

[Larkaloke]

The first two options are essentially the same, except that there are no actual dice involved, so I picked the second one. I do prefer a range of numbers, because that allows for a stronger or weaker hit (but not strong enough to be a critical). A set number feels too flat to me.

 

I don't much care exactly what numbers the range is, though, or how they are achieved; so long as they make some sense and I can figure them out. And, although I would tend to think this goes without saying, so long as the numbers that come out aren't absurdly high.

[Tamerlane]

OP really shouldn't have used 1d8 as the example for the poll, as that is technically the same as 1-8, yet different number sets (like my aforementioned 2d6) do yield actual differences.

[TheDogProfessor]

I'm against static bonuses, unless a fudge-dice-type modifier was used a la Dresden Files RPG, as I feel that it takes away the random element that is iconic of the IE games. I believe that it also adds the tactical element as each fight will play out slightly differently. I'm also opposed to x-y damage as, unless accompanying text would clarify, it doesn't show distribution, which is important.

 

Out of the three options, I would prefer xdy. As Jasede pointed out, it's really not that difficult to figure out and can show the distribution. The normal distribution ideas are interesting as they avoid the D&D jargon and can display distribution of damage. However, there are probably many people wanting to play this game that do not understand or have never been exposed to the normal distribution. This could be problem as it is more difficult to understand than the xdy system. If the devs were to come up with an accessible way in which to display the normal distribution data (personally, I think that graphs would look weird in the game. Graphs in the inventory screen? What is this?) I would support that option.

[SGray]

I'd prefer something like 3+1d5 or better 2d4 - ie more reliance in weapon damage, with still some random parts. Higher damage output could be mitigated by implementation of partial success on hit for attacks (like direct hit/not solid hit/glancing hit/miss), not binary hit/fail as usual.

Not really seeing reason to split single hit in two separate fully random parts. Such split Its good for tabletop games, but has no reason in cg where you could have more complex calculations and overall more numbers in background.

[Hormalakh]

I'd prefer something like 3+1d5 or better 2d4 - ie more reliance in weapon damage, with still some random parts. Higher damage output could be mitigated by implementation of partial success on hit for attacks (like direct hit/not solid hit/glancing hit/miss), not binary hit/fail as usual.

Not really seeing reason to split single hit in two separate fully random parts. Such split Its good for tabletop games, but has no reason in cg where you could have more complex calculations and overall more numbers in background.

 

Not only should a skilled playe be more likely to hit an enemy, they should also be more effective with a weapon, causing more damage.

[Hormalakh]

I'm against static bonuses, unless a fudge-dice-type modifier was used a la Dresden Files RPG, as I feel that it takes away the random element that is iconic of the IE games. I believe that it also adds the tactical element as each fight will play out slightly differently. I'm also opposed to x-y damage as, unless accompanying text would clarify, it doesn't show distribution, which is important.

 

Out of the three options, I would prefer xdy. As Jasede pointed out, it's really not that difficult to figure out and can show the distribution. The normal distribution ideas are interesting as they avoid the D&D jargon and can display distribution of damage. However, there are probably many people wanting to play this game that do not understand or have never been exposed to the normal distribution. This could be problem as it is more difficult to understand than the xdy system. If the devs were to come up with an accessible way in which to display the normal distribution data (personally, I think that graphs would look weird in the game. Graphs in the inventory screen? What is this?) I would support that option.

 

If you take the xDy system, you can show it too. It just occurred to me that the normal distribution works with dice. So if you want a standard deviation that's more narrow, you use more dice. If you want "skilled weapons handler" to make a difference you just add an offset (without increasing the total to hit).

 

4d6, 3d8 and 2d12 are (almost) the same range but have different standard deviations. Add an offset like -2 or +3 (but no more than 24 or less than 0 to hit) and you'd get a skill adjustment. So I guess the dice system could work to describe that system after all.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Hormalakh