Load Bearing Rules in TTRPG

[aramis erak]

If verisimilitude is that important to someone than I humbly suggest Savage Worlds probably isn't the right game for them. But the funny thing about verisimilitude is that we all have our own lines in the sand and they might look wacky to someone else. You accept X but you can't accept Y?

What I accept and what I consider ideal are quite widely different. When running DLR, I added Guts back in. And I was using Deluxe 2016, so I had those separate physical skills. Their merge in SWADE is why I stayed with SWD16; I had SWADE already when I decided to run DLR. And PotSM is older still... 2006... and has them separate. (Yes, I just checked both)

It's one of those issues where edition selection matters. When I run Robotech (am waiting for the new SavW version from the preorder) I will probably not find it an issue, and use SWADE and the unified Athletics. I don't find it ideal to merge them, and for settings where it creates a verisimilitude issue, I can always split them again. Robotech won't be one where it bugs me; 19th C settings, it does.

And I do agree: Savage Worlds isna gonna be me choice for many settings... but for DL or PotSM, and for Robotech, it's got the right tools for my tastes in other areas. (Which said, I do have the SMG and Palladium Robotechs, as well. I didn't get on so well with SMG's Robotech during playtest. Clumsy dice mechanics.)

I do feel SWD16 was a sweet spot for Deadlands — I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If verisimilitude is that important to someone than I humbly suggest Savage Worlds probably isn't the right game for them. But the funny thing about verisimilitude is that we all have our own lines in the sand and they might look wacky to someone else. You accept X but you can't accept Y?

Give me an argument where I'm comfortably tolerant to disregard realism that doesn't have the phrase "hit points" in it, and we'll talk. That's always the example people use.

 

[aramis erak]

The question is, again, how many people notice in most such games?

I'd susspect you do from the way you've constructed that, but that doesn't make it any more significant in practice than is the fact I'm sensetive to the fact that shooting a rifle and shooting a handgun can vary considerably, and there are quite a number of people who historically were quite good with one and at least mediocre with another. And that doesn't seem a trivial issue in a Western game--except to most people it is.

I notice a lot of minor things in games. Especially things that close off character concepts or which violate historicity of pseudohistorical settings in places other than intended changes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I notice a lot of minor things in games. Especially things that close off character concepts or which violate historicity of pseudohistorical settings in places other than intended changes.

Which is, to make it clear, legit. My only point is that, as @MGibster more or less references, one can seriously question whether Savage Worlds is your game. The Atheltics thing was in line with what it did with all of its other skills, which was to lump like crazy.

I mean, the great truth is how much to lump or split such things (and to some degree, with attributes) is always going to be a trade-off in some ways, so where someone wants it to land is a matter of taste and estimating what will serve the end users.

(I've seen one game that did sort of a tiered approach where you could sort of unpack attributes and skills into finer detail as you wished on a campaign level, but its kind of complicated in that regard and I'm not surprised its not an approach I've seen it much).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Give me an argument where I'm comfortably tolerant to disregard realism that doesn't have the phrase "hit points" in it, and we'll talk. That's always the example people use.

Really want me to get into traditional armor class and how it and the combat system works instead? I'm perfectly willing to do so.

 

[MGibster]

Give me an argument where I'm comfortably tolerant to disregard realism that doesn't have the phrase "hit points" in it, and we'll talk. That's always the example people use.

I like zombie fiction even understanding your typical Romero zombie is simply an impossibility. But while I can accept the fantastical premise of something like The Walking Dead and enjoy it, it doesn't follow that I can accept everything that follows. Our skulls are very tough. It's almost like our brainpans were designed specifically to protect the most important organ in our bodies. But watching the Walking Dead would give you the impression that our skulls had all the tensile strength of a ripe pumpkin. Characters would use flimsy knives to puncture skulls, one character frequently cut through skulls with nary a nick to her katana, I remember another where uses the butt of his rifle, one with a folding stock, to bludgeon a zombie to death (more death) when he likely would have just destroyed his stock. So, yeah, I can accept the dead rising from the grave to nibble on the flesh of the living, but every time I saw pumpkin strength skulls it kind of took me out of the show. I have a friend who won't watch anything with zombies unless they're specific about it being magic. He's fine with a necromancer raising the dead but not with the idea of a virus or non-supernatural explanation.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not that this needs to be an argument, but bone decays too, not just flesh. Microbial activity breaks down the collagen structure within the bone (bioerosion) and the acids produced be a range of microbial activities also further weaken the bone.

I'm not sure I want to model the process in my eld games though. Maybe a putrefaction rating indexing a range of armor class...

 

[Micah Sweet]

Really want me to get into traditional armor class and how it and the combat system works instead? I'm perfectly willing to do so.

Great! Let's do it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Great! Let's do it.

Not sure this is the thead for me to ramble on about the differences between getting through parry and other defenses and weapon penetration and kinetic transferance.