forums.cubicle7.co.uk
archive

If we could overhaul the whole thing, I think I would make it such that there was diminishing encumbrance to go along with the diminishing value of increased protection ratings.

So for example, what about an encumbrance schedule that looked more like this:
4 / 8 / 11 / 14 / 16

While the protection would be the same: 1d/2d/3d/4d/5d

Another way you could treat it is that for the Mail Hauberk (5d), you don't suffer the affects of Weary for your protection tests.

Also, they could be more creative with the Qualities for items, for example Mail Armor could have qualities such as "Awesome" or "Heroic" or whatever, that gave the wearers bonuses to Intimidate Foes or Rally Comrades. That fits with the romantic themes of Tolkien nicely. This would tromp a little on the Cultural Rewards, but they could also stand be re-tooled.

I think you could also allow Mail Coats/Hauberks to be more powerful if you also did not allow Heroes to start play with them (unless they had a cultural virtue that allowed them to). Then they would either have to buy them or find them.

Everyone seems to be assuming that armor and encumbrance must be a zero-sum game. I see no reason for this. If the extra protection from heavy armor does not mathematically balance out the extra fatigue it gives, then don't wear that armor.

There are plenty of reasons why someone might wear armor that protects them just a little bit more for a big increase in fatigue. The best is that they are more interested in surviving a fight than in winning it. Another is that they might not typically fight long enough to become weary.

This topic gets a big shrug from me.

Ah, but if it doesn't balance...

Then people like me can run the numbers through elfcrusher's system to find the most optimized equipment by culture that grants the greatest odds of success overall.

We could even then decree that this optimized gear is what the armies of those communities wear by state mandate.

Stormcrow wrote:Everyone seems to be assuming that armor and encumbrance must be a zero-sum game.

No, not really. If it were zero sum it would still be an uninteresting decision, but in a different way than it currently is uninteresting. Instead of being an obvious choice, it would be an irrelevant. What I (and I think others) want is an interesting decision, one that has trade-offs, pros and cons. A hard choice.

I see no reason for this. If the extra protection from heavy armor does not mathematically balance out the extra fatigue it gives, then don't wear that armor.

Well, we're not. It seems to only make sense for dwarves (and maybe that's why it's in there). But doesn't that sort of suck, that a major choice in the game isn't really a valid choice?

There are plenty of reasons why someone might wear armor that protects them just a little bit more for a big increase in fatigue.

Please give me a specific example; I'd love to run it through the sim.

The best is that they are more interested in surviving a fight than in winning it.

I'm not even sure what that means, unless it's some kind of contrived arena event. But if you're fighting orcs or trolls or spiders or any of the other standard adversaries, losing means you're dead.

Another is that they might not typically fight long enough to become weary.

Again, please explain what you mean by that, unless it's a contrived situation. If Heros are winning fights before they're even weary, in heavy armor, it means their LM is not challenging them enough and their armor choice doesn't matter one way or the other.

This topic gets a big shrug from me.

But you're chiming in....?

Elfcrusher wrote:What I (and I think others) want is an interesting decision, one that has trade-offs, pros and cons. A hard choice.

Why? What is the attraction of having trouble deciding what armor to wear?

But doesn't that sort of suck, that a major choice in the game isn't really a valid choice?

Not really. In any game, people usually pick their armor and stick with it forever, not because their choice is optimal, but because they don't find the process of evaluating armor interesting enough to repeat.

The only exception is a game like D&D where you may not be able to afford the armor you want. As soon as you can, or as soon as you find armor with just one more +1, you switch. Otherwise, you don't.

There are plenty of reasons why someone might wear armor that protects them just a little bit more for a big increase in fatigue.

Please give me a specific example; I'd love to run it through the sim.

Anyone who doesn't want to fight but has to, for instance. Especially those who aren't exceptional warriors. Say, a couple of hobbits sneaking through Mordor in orc-armor.

The best is that they are more interested in surviving a fight than in winning it.

I'm not even sure what that means, unless it's some kind of contrived arena event. But if you're fighting orcs or trolls or spiders or any of the other standard adversaries, losing means you're dead.

If every character's motivation is fighting, then that makes sense. That shouldn't be the case in this game.

Let's put it into context. The Fellowship of the Ring is completely armor-less, except for Gimli's mail, Boromir's shield, and, secretly, Frodo's mail (which mostly avoids the fatigue problem). Reason? Their hope is not in combat prowess but in stealth. Yet according to the wisdom in this thread, every single one of them should be wearing leather armor. And several of the Company are useless hobbits without any armor at all!

Another is that they might not typically fight long enough to become weary.

Again, please explain what you mean by that, unless it's a contrived situation. If Heros are winning fights before they're even weary, in heavy armor, it means their LM is not challenging them enough and their armor choice doesn't matter one way or the other.

You're presupposing that combat should be bringing a party to the brink of exhaustion every time in order for the game to be challenging. I believe this puts more emphasis on combat than is intended. However, if you're planning a combat-heavy game, by all means min/max your armor and play warrior-heroes. You should min/max character types too, right?

This topic gets a big shrug from me.

But you're chiming in....?

Yep. Feel the shrug.

This is surreal.

Stormcrow wrote: Why? What is the attraction of having trouble deciding what armor to wear?

Because that is the essence of what a game is, making interesting decisions. Now, maybe the hard/interesting choices you like to make have more to do with the RP side of things, or Encounters, or naming your character, but if the decisions were all easy you wouldn't have a good time.

Not really. In any game, people usually pick their armor and stick with it forever, not because their choice is optimal, but because they don't find the process of evaluating armor interesting enough to repeat.

Right...it's not an interesting decision in this game, it's just mathy.

The only exception is a game like D&D where you may not be able to afford the armor you want. As soon as you can, or as soon as you find armor with just one more +1, you switch. Otherwise, you don't.

But that's not an interesting decision, either...it's just a question of whether you can afford it.

Anyone who doesn't want to fight but has to, for instance.

That makes no sense. If you're worse off you're worse off, whether or not you want to fight.

Especially those who aren't exceptional warriors.

There's some real-world logic there, but unfortunately that doesn't map to the game mechanics. At all.

Say, a couple of hobbits sneaking through Mordor in orc-armor.

That's a storytelling reason and that's awesome, but if they're hobbits they're probably less well off in orc-armor, mechanically speaking.

But you do hit on a point...heavy armor should be fatiguing if you wear it all day.

If every character's motivation is fighting, then that makes sense. That shouldn't be the case in this game.

It has nothing to do with motivation and "wanting" to fight. This is a dangerous game and you shouldn't fight if you don't have to (my character is currently wounded and it SUCKS. No cure light wounds for you, mister.) That said, if you do fight you probably want to win.

Let's put it into context. The Fellowship of the Ring is completely armor-less, except for Gimli's mail, Boromir's shield, and, secretly, Frodo's mail (which mostly avoids the fatigue problem). Reason? Their hope is not in combat prowess but in stealth. Yet according to the wisdom in this thread, every single one of them should be wearing leather armor. And several of the Company are useless hobbits without any armor at all!

100% agree, but game mechanics are game mechanics, and they don't correlate perfectly to the fiction.

You're presupposing that combat should be bringing a party to the brink of exhaustion every time in order for the game to be challenging.

And you're putting words into my mouth. But if combat is never challenging then neither is the game.

I believe this puts more emphasis on combat than is intended. However, if you're planning a combat-heavy game, by all means min/max your armor and play warrior-heroes. You should min/max character types too, right?

Oh so now we're min-maxers, because we take an interest in the mechanics?

Yep. Feel the shrug.

I don't know, I just read a really long response on the forums. Not really feeling the shrug.

Play nicely please guys. Line by line rebuttals and passive aggressive posts are not in the spirit of these forums.

Andrew wrote:Play nicely please guys. Line by line rebuttals and passive aggressive posts are not in the spirit of these forums.

i was role playing a dwarf who has been stuffed in a barrel.

Lemme try one more tack. You're looking at armor only from the point of view of "character build." I'm looking at it from the points of view of verisimilitude and circumstance. Realistically, different sorts of armor do not equally balance out their pros and cons. Circumstantially, armor becomes far more interesting when you don't have your ideal choice, such as two hobbits sneaking across the plain of Gorgoroth in orc-mail: better too much protection than not enough.

I don't find the character-build angle to be compelling or even particularly interesting. You make your choice based on your perceived role—tank, skirmisher, missile-user, whatever—and that's the end of it. It is much more interesting to decide who would wear what kind of armor in what circumstance, assuming the existing rules reflect reality in a general way. There are perfectly valid circumstances other than "drawn-out melee in which the player-characters are roughly matched in ability by their opponents." What about a siege (quick combat, regain Heart endurance, another quick combat)? What if you have to chase your enemy long distances before you engage them (the Three Hunters)? What if you're already Weary but you're forced to fight? What if you're a dwarf with a bow (say, traveling through Mirkwood)? These are all circumstances in which some choice other than the ideal for "drawn-out, equally matched melee" might be better.

And there's no reason to say these circumstances are out of the ordinary—they're not if your game involves something other than, "Follow lead, long fight, follow new lead, have boss-fight."

And that's why I say meh to fiddling with the rules for armor. Doing so assumes only a single, straight-up fight to the death each and every time. That is what you're simulating. If that were all the game was about, that'd make sense. But the game is about so much more than fighting adversaries, and armor that is ideal only for that scenario is not ideal for everything.

I see what SC is saying here and I do tend to agree with most of it - he makes a great point.

The only caveat to the post however is that: many apparently feel that right now the "build" mentality is too easily orchestrated because the armors as designed are unbalanced. By trying to tweak them slightly may allow for less 'build' and more situational as SC espouses to.

In the end, there has be a thin line between verisimilitude and game balance. It is a game afterall. I feel in it's current form, the armor allows rules too easily creates an obvious choice. By making those decisions harder to be made because of pros and cons that have been suggested, it then comes down more on personal choice/flavor and allows for unique situations and needs to arise.

At least that's my opinion. But no doubt I have no desire to turn my game into just a series of cookie-cutter video-gamey encounters back to back with MMO style or society play style of optimal character builds.

Game-on,
Robert