Armor Discussion

Since Dieter mentioned it, and Im sure we are all a little concerned with things related to this, lets talk about how we can make things a little more manageable. Im with Dieter on this one, in todays world soldiers often leave their armor behind because its hot, ill-fitting and uncomfortable. We could never convince a gamer to do such unless we impose restrictions that arent necessarily realistic. I have two ideas to forward.

1. All characters in armor go after unarmored characters in Dex order.
2. No half moves when wearing armor.

This might sound harsh, but I think it will lead to better gaming. Now, instead of relying on walking through damage, we would have to be cognizant of the scene and try and find cover, rather than just wading through bullets or lasers. This proposal is only for the current space idea, nothing else.

Whining

Tell me why this idea sucks. Matt, mention how this is just hand waving and doesnt really accomplish anything. Gabe, you tell me how this has nothing to do with the rules in the books. Ben can mention how it will make certain characters not viable. Or you can all surprise me.

--Gdaze-- *cries* No, I do think something should be done about armor. For one, we could do what you did in Space Opera, minus to LR, so some weapons and armor make you go slower. I dunno about no half moves, but maybe just docking some points off the movement trait? Also if it isn't very high tech armor, huge minuses to per rules. As armor tends to be more clunky too, we could so something like... diving for cover and stuff is much harder, and getting up is as well. I mean could you imagen falling to one knee in armor AND taking off a shot? But b'ah, not going so much for realism but more making armor not some awesome thing that lets us skip through bullets. Also wearing armor for long periods of time could give minuses to dex or con rolls. That is one suggestion in the Equipment Guide.

Another idea is activation rolls for certain kinds of armor. Perhaps the ones that allows for more flexablity? A 13- or 14- might seem like a good chance, but it only takes one 2D6 RKA to really fuck someone up if it gets through.

I don't mind going against the rules, as long as its kinda universal ya know! Maybe this should have been posted below.

--Gdaze--Surprise Cockfag!

--Matts 12:55, 13 February 2007 (MST)hand waving, et cetera, essential drama of the scene, what does it matter in the big picture anyways

--Jason 13:01, 13 February 2007 (MST)I think what it does is change the perception of the reality we are trying to create. We can say all day long that its a gritty place, but when dudes are walking around in armor getting shot eleventy-billion times with no effect, thats not gritty, its anime. I think it might have a greater effect than it at first seems.

Better Ideas

One of you schmucks will have a better idea, so post it here already.

--Matts 13:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)How about just an LR penalty for most armor? Cyberpunk balances armor pretty well with stacking REF penalties.

Also, keep in mind that it may be illegal, like it is in California! If we don't want players to have armor, artificially limit access to it!

--Gdaze--Oh something else I have always liked is the aba...ablative? However you spell it... system from Mekton Zeta Plus. That is, as armor is hit, it losses defense. So yeah you can maybe take a few well places hits, but only for so long.

--Jason 13:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)Limiting access only works for so long, eventually someone will find some if they dedicate themselves to doing so. I think that if armor were expensive and not very effective it could seriously mitigate how much players use it. So, if we combine both things you guys suggest: Armor costs thousands of credits AND has the Ablative limitation. In Hero that means each time its penetrated it gets a reduced activation roll.

--Gdaze-- Right, or just getting rid of that version of Ablative. In the system I metioned, everytime you take an attack your armor goes down one def, so in this case everytime your hit you go down 1 PD or ED. Then there are like special types that don't go down quite as fast. I'm not saying, nor did I, that we have to use exactly this way. Also isnt' this an idea section? So I don't really see that Matt's and my idea needs to be combined right off the bat...

--Matts 13:20, 13 February 2007 (MST)What's the goal with this? To basically eliminate armor from play? If that's what we want to do, we should do it, not engineer rules that eliminate it from play as a side effect. If a universe is "gritty", and armor is rare, there's a reason it's rare, and that reason applies to the players. If someone dedicates themselves to getting it, tough cookies, you should have dedicated yourself to getting something more attainable.

I mean, if I spent the whole PA game looking for a spaceship, that doesn't mean I'd find it.

--Gdaze--You did? Sarah would have helped! Anyway, I don't think we are looking to eliminate it. Just make it so it isn't a the best thing since sliced bread. Its like in Space Opera. Grenades were nice but when I used them against other armored targets they did hardly anything, actually almost nothing at all. So not to eliminate, but give it some disadvantages to go with the protection it provides.

--Jason 13:27, 13 February 2007 (MST)I believe telling players they cant do something is a bad idea. If armor is rare, maybe its because its expensive and not super effective. This means if players really want it, they can have it, knowing their shortcomings. But in general, people just dont wear armor much. Just saying something is rare with no explaination seems like a cheap and bad solution, lets make a reasonable explaination for why.

Grenades are terrible vs armored targets IRL btw. Flak armor barely stops even the smallest of bullets but virtually guarantees survival vs grenade shards (at least of the covered area). In fact, even in WWII there were numerous stories of soldiers (who wore no armor in those days) being within a few feet of a grenade explosion and suffering little to no damage.

--Edmiao 13:32, 13 February 2007 (MST) with armor limited, everyone has to agree before hand that they won't have a coniption fit when their precious character dies. with the ablative idea, that would be permanent decrease in the armor's effectiveness with very difficult to repair.

--Gdaze-- Yeah or make it not even able to repair of too much damage has occured, or easier if very little. You know, up to the GM and all that. As for grenades in that, I felt that even against normal weapons armor really protected us well, almost too well. Of course we had some pretty nice shit. I for one would like to see armor with more limitations just because I think it would help estsablish a feel for wearing it. Slower movement, minuses to dex, falls apart after damage, all of these would be fine.

--Edmiao 13:42, 13 February 2007 (MST) this is kind of what i did in Jin and no one is wearing armor. maybe it's a genre thing also.

--Matts 14:29, 13 February 2007 (MST)I don't see a functional difference between crippling the effectiveness of armor and just excising it from your campaign.

--Jason 15:42, 13 February 2007 (MST)There is a quantitative, functional difference between 0 and slightly greater than 0, but that isnt the point here. You have made it clear that the interaction is the most compelling story element for you, and by just eradicating something from a campaign what you effectively do is remove the interaction. By developing an interesting explaination for something you want to achieve (granted, through social engineering) you bring the campaign itself to life through interaction.

--Matts 16:19, 13 February 2007 (MST)Yes, but by introducing new rules to the system, you add more volatility. What if you want your players to face armored goons, but then the goons are hamstrung by the rules you've implemented? More importantly, what is more arbitrary about just saying "armor is limited, rare, and you won't get any" than imposing arbitrary gameplay restrictions? Personally, when I was GM, I had a hard enough time keeping track of all the rules in the WHFRP system, and there aren't even that many. So I'm opposed to extra rules on these kinds of things because they're difficult to consistently apply, at least for me.

--Edmiao 17:00, 13 February 2007 (MST) Therein lies the key statement "at least for me" because look at the myriad rules that Jason and Ben implemented for PA. seems to still work. I on the other hand will be forgetting what rules i have modified for Jin constantly.

Coniption Fits

Ed makes a good point. Keep the coniption fits to a minimum, and all coniption fits related to character death should be confined to this section of the wiki.

--Edmiao 13:38, 13 February 2007 (MST) to my knowledge, only one character has actually died in all the games we played: Senju. and Gabe had coniption fits for months about it. the only other character to nearly die is Robert, and Gabe is still having coniption fits about that (see above). Wait, why do Gabe's characters always die?

--Matts 13:39, 13 February 2007 (MST)My character died in Cyberpunk.

--Jason 13:40, 13 February 2007 (MST)Gabe has the 15 point disadvantage '2x Effect from Coniption Fits'.

--Gdaze--Actually Wik nearly died. Also Justin's character died in the first Superhero RP we played as well.

--Edmiao 13:44, 13 February 2007 (MST)forgot about wik. and Justin's character, forgot that too, but he died in the last session, so the loss is less felt and more poetic. cyberpunk was BED (before Ed)

--BenofZongo 14:34, 13 February 2007 (MST)I can think of at least seven characters that died on saturday. In the cyberpunk game, Dieter's character died in the first session. Matt's character in supers got killed but then miraculously resurrected due to GM weakness. Hunter got killed but survived because of a rules misreading in falls. Dieter's character got killed twice in PA and saved using the poly-cell. Shennong almost got killed by a hit to the vitals by the dogs. Hunter, Pierre, and Wik nearly got killed while being captured by the big top.