Reconciling Damage

With Modos RPG, I've taken two steps forward in redefining physical "damage":

- Physical damage is your opponent's progress toward his combat goal (often decapitating you),
- Favorable attacks deal a minimum of 1 damage,

and one step back:

- Weapons tend to deal more damage as they get larger.

The first two rules make damage more abstract - it's not a "hit" or a "wound," but something that indicates how close you are to losing. The second is more concrete - things that make bigger gashes can do more damage.

Are these ideas necessarily at odds? Is a character's lifespan decidedly shorter when going up against a claymore versus a knife? Note that characters, PCs in particular, have the agency to say what the outcome of an opponent's attack was on themselves, so Meat-lovers can say they took a wound, while Fate-followers can call the damage a well-earned parry. Both take the same damage.

I ask because I'm about to set the new version in digital stone and value your ENsights.

I actually don't understand your idea of a goal. You say "often decaptiating you", but are there different goals and you (or the enemy) may selct one? What influence would the goal have on your damage mechanic?

What is the design goal behind having bigger weapons deal greater damage?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea - if your goals align with the feeling (and mechanical incentives) it produces. This kind of rule strongly suggests that the real warriors are wield greatswords and huge axes. Rapiers and daggers are for weaklings.

This fits perfectly with some games, but may be problematic in others. And trying to patch it with additional rules leads to a heavy, complex system that is harder to learn and more prone to abuse.

Jan van Leyden said:

I actually don't understand your idea of a goal. You say "often decaptiating you", but are there different goals and you (or the enemy) may selct one? What influence would the goal have on your damage mechanic?

Click to expand...

That was just a nod to reality. The point is that damage isn't a hit, or cut, or bleeding, or what-have-you. It's progress. Just a measuring stick. Now, since you have to be progressing toward something, I mentioned just one of the many endpoints that combat progress, damage, can reach.

So no, there's no goal-table. Like most other things in the game, why to fight is up to the player.

steenan said:

What is the design goal behind having bigger weapons deal greater damage?

I'm not saying it's a bad idea - if your goals align with the feeling (and mechanical incentives) it produces. This kind of rule strongly suggests that the real warriors are wield greatswords and huge axes. Rapiers and daggers are for weaklings.

Click to expand...

The design goals were to help differentiate weapons and include the excitement of chance. And, honestly, to better make use of all dice. There are corresponding features to the die types, inherent in the size of the weapon:

d4 - tiny weapon - requires one hand, easy to conceal.
d6 - small weapon - requires one hand, easy to carry.
d8 - medium weapon - requires one hand, harder to carry.
d10 - large weapon - requires two hands, hard to carry (unless it's hafted).
d12 - special weapon - usually two handed, varies.

It does imply that -some- warriors wield greatswords and greataxes. These are also the warriors who can't be bothered with a shield, so I hope they're pretty nimble too. Or able to slay in short order. One tradeoff the game makes is that you're either attacking or defending with each action, so in most cases you're vulnerable to damage every time you attack.

...so to come full circle, and rephrase a bit: are special weapons, on average, more useful/advantageous in combat than tiny weapons? Does the answer require an abstract or concrete definition of damage?