Variable Armor Points

[Joseph Paul]

You can reject RMS's point, but it is true. For one thing, few materlals are made to be "homogeneous" other than milk. Take a lot a modern engineering, everything has points that are stressed. Even if you went with a material that was strong, there is the fact that things like the type and angel of attack made a big difference is how effective something is in stopping an attack. Fighting materials need to balance between being hard enough to take the hit, and being soft/flexible enough to absorb the impact.

And those weak points that you don't want to worrying about, trapping trusting attack and the like, were exactly what the warriors on the battlefield were worrying about. It doesn't really matter how well the plate protects if you don't have a helm on. At the local armory, one thing worth noting is how the eye slits kept getting smaller over the years. You really have tunnel vision with most medieval helms. But if you didn't, you take a sword, spearpoint, or arrow in the eye.

So, a variable protection system makes sense. Especially if you are using general HP.

Oh yes you can have homogeneous metals. They are materials that have the same composition throughout and therefore have the same physical properties throughout. They are no weaker at one point than any other which is what I was trying to stress. There are non-homogeneous materials like pattern welded steel or mokume gane which is a fusion of non-ferrous metals that retain their individual properties. Poorly made metals that have inclusions of slag, carbon, or other crap are not as homogeneous and can exhibit flaws.

I am well aware of the need for particular properties in armour. While I am not an engineer several of my friends are and we have had looooong conversations about materials science. Like days worth.:eek: I have been pursuing knowledge of medieval armors for some time and have been interested in their composition and the effect that has on combat.

My point about the minutiae was that it was minutiae even to them and not worth worrying about. The evidence is that it seems to have worked as an armor for quite some time.

As for random protection making sense I have already laid out my arguments for why the rule as written doesn't make sense to me. I have not seen a counter argument more substantial than it gives the results that people want or expect. Badcat is partially right that games are about 'feeling realistic' or verisimilitude. What feels realistic is dependant on a persons experience and education in a subject. The rest of the time they are about wish fulfillment which ought to answer Badcat's question about why D&D stays on top. For me such methods snap my 'belief suspenders'. Some people like it and it works for them, giving them the results that they want. It falls short for me. Thats all.

I do not understand your intent with the rest of that passage as it was never brought up before. Can you clarify?

[RMS]

This is two different concerns. I have serious doubts as to the validity of your first point especially as expressed in the variable armor rule. I suspect that anything that would be expressed as a difference in a homogenous material would be far below BRP’s granularity. I don’t want to have to roll for the shot traps in a musculata cuirass catching a thrust for instance. Likewise while there may be some bad links in a hamata it certainly is not enough to warrant the kind of wide results that the present mechanic exhibits.

You are attacking something completely tangential to what I'm talking about here, btw. Read below.

I reject the first idea that a homogenous material has to have a weak spot relative to the rest of the material. It does not have to be any weaker in any portion of it than any other.

Plain and simple, that is incorrect. No material produced outside of a clean lab can be have such characteristics. However, all of this is completely beside the point since it has nothing to do with anything I've said up to this point. I've never once argued that hitting a single sheet of steel with the same force and angle should result in different armor protection. I've argued that hitting a steel breast plate vs. greeves vs. a helmet vs. articulated joints vs. unprotected areas should result in different levels of protection. Without detailed hit locations, rolling for armor makes perfect sense to simulate that....far more logical than using fixed values. Now, if you want to argue that rolled armor should be a tighter range or use a heavily center weighted distribution, that's fine with me.

This idea in modern peoples stems from the conceit that if it was done long ago it had to be an inferior product. There may be differences between pieces such as a helm and a vambrace but the relative thickness of material in a piece of armor has been proven effective by battle and the expected frequency with which that location will be struck

Claiming the variable armor rule simulates this is unreasonable as that mechanic makes a mockery of materials science.

You're supporting my argument now. Oh and btw, everything we're talking about is made of steel (or bronze) which can never be created without imperfections and which cannot even get close without modern, computerized methods. It's still beside the point, but I thought I'd just note.

Mentioned by others is a third idea that the variable armor represents the angle of attack of the weapon or other innumerable factors. If you strike the armor the same way each time there should be no difference in how it resists the action of the weapon. I posit that the weapon is the active factor in this and that it already has a mechanic that represents striking a material for outcomes from the best to the worst, namely the weapon’s damage roll. I do not see any reason to further penalize the attacker by making him face armor that randomly gets stronger nor the defender for the reverse.

That's a reasonable position. The problem, as noted above, is it doesn't take into account where the blow lands. Does the blow hit the unarmored legs, the armored chest, a joint, or what.

Re: MRQ’s rule for skill loss in armor- Yuck!

Agreed completely. We can agree there. Nobody would bother with armor if it was that detrimental to fighting ability. Now, my proposed houserule would be to use that penalty only for fatigue checks and for certain skills, like swimming.

Several people have lauded the variable armor rule for speeding play. How does the fixed armor rule slow things down? Would a weighted average value help speed play?

I suspect part of the speed is the fact that variable armor is associated with a lack of hit locations: the roll, the location-by-location armor, and the location-by-location hp. However, it also takes people down fast. The average roll for the heaviest non-Melnibonean armors in SB are below the fixed armor values in RQ, and of course it only takes one minimal armor roll to take someone out.

[RMS]

This is a tangent that I should probably leave alone, but since it started in response to my post...

Oh yes you can have homogeneous metals. They are materials that have the same composition throughout and therefore have the same physical properties throughout. They are no weaker at one point than any other which is what I was trying to stress.

I'm sorry but this could only be created on a very limited basis in very specific circumstances. You can create metals that don't exhibit the imperfections on any kind of macro-level, but they do exist at the atomic level to some extent and definitely will in any metal worked prior to the 20th century. Better metals are worked so that these imperfections are minimized, which is what distinguishes higher grade steels* in the premodern world.

* No doubt the base quality of the local ore had some significant input to the final quality of the steel (or bronze) too.

I am well aware of the need for particular properties in armour. While I am not an engineer several of my friends are and we have had looooong conversations about materials science.

It's interesting that you use that to bolster your argument, and yet reject what I've said and I'm an engineering professor in RL.

[Enpeze]

Is fixed armor better or variable armor? This is not a question I care. I like both because both are pure BRP concepts and it depends on my mood and the specific setting which of the two armor variants I include for the module.

But this forum is beginning to make me wonder if the new book is going to be worth my bothering with. I pretty much have all the rules I want, so I am beginning to question why I even need another copy of what are essentially the same rules I already use in one form or another. Maybe I should just crank up my computer and compile my own houserules.

Hey buddy, of course you will buy it, like us all. Where in the world do you get a collection of all great BRP rules in one single book? No more tedious searching in piles of old mould-infested elfquest booklets "damned where is this...hmm..mutation rule?"

[soltakss]

Hmmm, methinks that arguing something on the atomic level is getting a bit far from AP in BRP ......

Everyone knows that any rule in BRP or any game is reasonable to non-experts but completely unreasonable to experts.

All rules are compromises between realism, complexity and playability.

Whether random armour is a better compromise over fixed armour, I haven't a clue. But they are both reasonable compromises, in my opinion.

I 'm not sure how the structure of alloys at the atomic level helps decide that, though.

[RMS]

Hmmm, methinks that arguing something on the atomic level is getting a bit far from AP in BRP ......

Everyone knows that any rule in BRP or any game is reasonable to non-experts but completely unreasonable to experts.

All rules are compromises between realism, complexity and playability.

Whether random armour is a better compromise over fixed armour, I haven't a clue. But they are both reasonable compromises, in my opinion.

I 'm not sure how the structure of alloys at the atomic level helps decide that, though.

Well, to be fair I'm pretty sure that Joseph Paul went that direction because he misunderstood what I was talking about. I don't have a problem with that, and to be fair nobody is arguing that the atomic level should be considered when developing RPG mechanics. There is some tangential discussion that went over there, but that's part of the fun of the internet.

[Sorloc]

Hmmm, methinks that arguing something on the atomic level is getting a bit far from AP in BRP ......

Everyone knows that any rule in BRP or any game is reasonable to non-experts but completely unreasonable to experts.

All rules are compromises between realism, complexity and playability.

Whether random armour is a better compromise over fixed armour, I haven't a clue. But they are both reasonable compromises, in my opinion.

I 'm not sure how the structure of alloys at the atomic level helps decide that, though.

That's for sure...

further, as far as I'm concerned, anything above 80% homogeneous is close enough for system purposes.

[badcat]

As I said earlier, I have used both, and the reason I prefer variable is that it makes running a game easier. For the rest, I enjoy both for the very different feel they give the combat and outfitting options and all. Two different flavors, as it were.

[Joseph Paul]

Well, to be fair I'm pretty sure that Joseph Paul went that direction because he misunderstood what I was talking about. I don't have a problem with that, and to be fair nobody is arguing that the atomic level should be considered when developing RPG mechanics. There is some tangential discussion that went over there, but that's part of the fun of the internet.

You are correct. I have been in and out all day and haven't been able to address your last couple of posts. Hopefully tomorrow.

Joseph Paul

[Atgxtg]

Here we go...

Quick trip to the atomic level-just try to make something like that, especially with medieval techniques. Imperfections and foreign substances exist to some extend in even modern metallurgy.

Back to the Macroverse-that said, you don't want a homogeneous material for combat. Virtually every weapon and armor requires a mix of materials. Good swords, both western and eastern, were made with strong/hard cutting edges and a softer core to give them "spring". The best bows were composite in nature, and axes, maces, etc. all benefited from a combination of materials. Generally it comes down to making several trade offs. Also, as far as armor goes, a composte material protects better than a homogeneous one. IN general it is the same problem as with the sword. What is hard to cut is usually bad at abosrbing the kinetic energy, and what is good at abosrbing the energy is usually easier to cut. A good example would be Kevlar. Decent for absorbing energy, but fairly easy to cut through.

By the time you did work up something homogeneous that would provide ample protection, it would probably be too heavy/bulky to wear.

As for the rest, well coverage is a big factor that is rarely "covered" in BRP. FOr instance in RQ, vambraces (or occuasionally vambraces and rebraces) are considered to protect the arms. Historically, such protection left gaps that could be easliy exploited, avoiding the armor. THis was fairly eventent in RQ2, with it's Iron Age type of armor. A warior might have "Plate Greaves" on his legs, but the legs were unprotect above the shins. So variable protection makes sense. Even medieval armor tended to leave the backs of the legs exposed, as well as the armpits (the first to save weight, the latter for mobility). Full protection didn't really exist unil the latter middle ages, when the "maximillian" and jousting armors were developed. Just about the time when weapons technology supassed armor.

Now interestingly enough, this sort of coverage was adressed in ONE BRP product-ElfQuest. Since the ElfQuest elves don't wear much armor, but were gaming in a RQ3 ruleset, the designers gave them a POWx3% roll to see if their jewelry was hit and absorbed some AP damage, like armor. Something like that could be expnaded to adjust weight and coverage.

Now another argument for variable armor is that medieval armor was never homegenous, but was always a combination of overlapping materials. FOr instance, a strike against a knight dressed in "plate armor" might hit "plate" but might also hit a spot not covered by the plate, but protected by one or even two layers of mail (most joints for much of history), or cloth padding. So right there you could, in RQ terms have AP scores from 23 (plate+mail+mail+padding) down to 1 (padding).

Add to that the fact that medieval armor is made thicker in some spots that others and the argument for variable protection is strong.

[Atgxtg]

If I take a fixed-torso robot and put a _(weapon)_ in its hand, then secure a suit of armor to a post, such that the weapon always swings with the same force, and strikes the same exact spot, then it should do the exact same damage, yes?

So, weapon damage should be fixed, based on the weapon, an (possibly variable) add for strength, then a reduction for armor in the location less a variable penalty based on movement of the target.

God, I'm getting bored just describing this...

...I think I watch too much Mythbusters...

Yes, if you are running an RPG around robots in a fixed position conducting the same exact attack on a fixed target. That's exactly how you can rate the inherent accuracy of a firearm. But firring from a bench rest against a fixed target with as consistent ammo as you can get.

But that's go nothing to do with combat. Look at baseball. Every swing would be a Home Run. if baseball worked that way. Same with combat. People rarely hit the same exact spot, not do they use the exactly same amount of force, nor hit with the same angle, nor does the target stay fixed. Attackers change the force of their attack to conserve energy AND help to mask thier true strength. The best hit I even got on someone in real life was thanks to a "fumbled" parry (the guy circled parried clockwise instead of counter-clockwise and got clocked). That my friend stepped into the attack and added forced to it with the circular parry all led to the attack landing with a lot more force that I had put into it.

If yo've been watching that much Mythbusters, you'll see just how hard is is for them to make some experiments "reproduceable". And that's with controlled conditions (or at least, as controlled as you can get with Adam on the set. )

[RMS]

As I said earlier, I have used both, and the reason I prefer variable is that it makes running a game easier. For the rest, I enjoy both for the very different feel they give the combat and outfitting options and all. Two different flavors, as it were.

I will just note for the record here that I've happily used both and have no problems with either for game play. I've played a lot of SB1-3 over the years and played the system pretty much straight out of the book and have been very happy with it. I've played far more RQ than anything else over the years and have been happy with it. I have tweaked some of it's combat more at times to get a feel/approach I like better but have never bothered with variable armor.

[badcat]

I seem to remember that Ken St. Andre suggested, even recommended, in SB1 that subsystems from RQ could be used in Stormbringer, such as strike ranks and fixed armor. The system has always been interchangeable and flexible that way.

[Kloster]

Hello,

First of all, count me in favor of fixed armor+localization table.

One house rule we used (with RQ) to solve the problem of having some armor (like plate) that are difficult to go over, but don't absorb damage well once they are overcome was to add a Damage Threshold to each type of armor.

If I remember well, for plate, DT was 10 but AV (Armor Value) was only 6. If damage is less than 11, nothing goes through. If damage is over 10, only 6 is substracted to damage.

I'm sorry, but at that time, the computer I had was using an odd format floppies and I can't read them anymore so I don' have access to all the values we ended to use.

The system worked well for RQ, but we never used it for other settings, so I have no idea to the in play results it would bring with firearms.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[drohem]

Some people have sorely underestimated the skills and abilities of ancient armorsmiths. Armorers were able to make armor pieces that were of uniform thickness and density, and we would be hard pressed to duplicate with today's technologies. I don't accept that as an arguement for variable armor points.

[Atgxtg]

Some people have sorely underestimated the skills and abilities of ancient armorsmiths. Armorers were able to make armor pieces that were of uniform thickness and density, and we would be hard pressed to duplicate with today's technologies. I don't accept that as an arguement for variable armor points.

But not with uniform coverage, or able to protect all areas equally. Through most of histroy, armor had exposed areas.Prior to Gothic plate, all armor had vulnerable spots. Tere were actually weapons made speficially to exploit such gaps.

Maille was probably the best as far as overal coverage went, and it tended to be vulnerable to certain types of attack. Maille was also best when forged out of iron, rather than steel, since the softer metal would deform and bend rather than break. That led to the armor degrading during combat, and one reason why armorers were kept busy.

Take a trip to a decent armory, and have a look a real armor. There are all sorts of areas to go for. IT is not like it's a forcefield.

Realistically, every attack is aimed somewhere. The "roll for location after you hit" thing is very unrealistic. When you swing, thrust, shoot, or whatever, you are actually aiming to hit somewhere, and if you do hit it is usually near the spot that you aimed at. So the eyeslits, neck, armpits (a major weapsot), joints, and any exposed areas are valid targets and would reduce the effectiveness of any protection.

With RQ2 Greeky style armor, a man in plate actually has most of his arms, and legs exposed, and is vulnerable at the neck and at the eyes and face. That's why the hoplites used those big shields.

So variable protection makes a lot more sense than a fixed number.

[Enpeze]

Realistically, every attack is aimed somewhere. The "roll for location after you hit" thing is very unrealistic. When you swing, thrust, shoot, or whatever, you are actually aiming to hit somewhere, and if you do hit it is usually near the spot that you aimed at. So the eyeslits, neck, armpits (a major weapsot), joints, and any exposed areas are valid targets and would reduce the effectiveness of any protection.

While you right in saying that there are vulnerable spots which reduce the effectiveness of protection, I think that you overestimate the ability to "aim" every hit in an active way. Having been a martial artist (jiu jutsu) for several years I know that there is often not much time to choose actively the spots where you want to hit. Then you have to react to mistakes and attacks of your sparring partner (or enemy) or to react to tactical situation. Then you do use techniques rather instinctively.

So the way BRP presents combat with rolling the hitlocation may not be the most realistic, but is fully acceptable in an gaming environment, especially in combination with aimed blow spot rules.

[Nightshade]

Realistically, every attack is aimed somewhere. The "roll for location after you hit" thing is very unrealistic. When you swing, thrust, shoot, or whatever, you are actually aiming to hit somewhere, and if you do hit it is usually near the spot that you aimed at. So the eyeslits, neck, armpits (a major weapsot), joints, and any exposed areas are valid targets and would reduce the effectiveness of any protection.

Well, yes and no; the truth is, targets move after an attack is launched to try and avoid it; even with gunfire there's a two body problem involved. So its entirely possible for an attack to land far afield. That said, there's something to be said for the approach Greg Porter used in Timelords and its related games where you chose a target area (with appropriate penalties) and near-misses scattered to nearby areas (said areas including missing right off the body, of course, and this became more likely with something like a headshot where there's a lot of open space around the target, than aiming at, say, the chest, where a lot of the scatter would hit other targets that still mattered).

[Atgxtg]

I did say "usually" not always.

One of my favorite methods for reflecting this, and easily swipable was the metod used in Flashing Blades. When conducting an attack, the attack picked a location and if successful, he would roll 2d20 for hit location, and pick the result that landed closest to the spot he was aiming at. So, for example, If he was aiming at the head, and rlled Right Leg, or Chest, it would be a chest hit.

Very easy to do, adds very little complexity. Every once in awhile, you still get the "aimed at head, hit in foot" thing, too.

There are even some better aiming systems in other RPGs, the one in Timelords is my overall favorite, but it doesn't adapt as easily to BRP.

But as far as varaible AP goes, the problem is that the fixed AP/hit location system doesn't leave the gaps in. For instance, a 1-3 Right LEg hit location, protected by 8 point plate greaves is 100% protected in RQ. Variable is more relasitic, since a good chunk of that leg is exposed. Anthing above the kneecap is avoiding the plate.

[Nightshade]

While you right in saying that there are vulnerable spots which reduce the effectiveness of protection, I think that you overestimate the ability to "aim" every hit in an active way. Having been a martial artist (jiu jutsu) for several years I know that there is often not much time to choose actively the spots where you want to hit. Then you have to react to mistakes and attacks of your sparring partner (or enemy) or to react to tactical situation. Then you do use techniques rather instinctively.

So the way BRP presents combat with rolling the hitlocation may not be the most realistic, but is fully acceptable in an gaming environment, especially in combination with aimed blow spot rules.

And there's certainly something to this, too; when the opening is presented, you use it, you don't wait around for the one you want.

[Nightshade]

But as far as varaible AP goes, the problem is that the fixed AP/hit location system doesn't leave the gaps in. For instance, a 1-3 Right LEg hit location, protected by 8 point plate greaves is 100% protected in RQ. Variable is more relasitic, since a good chunk of that leg is exposed. Anthing above the kneecap is avoiding the plate.

That's more an issue of deciding how fine a gradient you care about. You could set up a location system that dealt with the gaps; you'd just have to make the locations finer, and that's more trouble than its worth to most people. On the other hand, using both locations _and_ variable armor adds one extra die roll to every exchange, and _that's_ more trouble than its worth to most people too; and using just variable armor without locations eliminates some benefits that don't have to do with armor of the hit location system. So it comes down to what you care about and how much overhead you're willing to pay to get it.

[Atgxtg]

That's more an issue of deciding how fine a gradient you care about. You could set up a location system that dealt with the gaps; you'd just have to make the locations finer, and that's more trouble than its worth to most people. On the other hand, using both locations _and_ variable armor adds one extra die roll to every exchange, and _that's_ more trouble than its worth to most people too; and using just variable armor without locations eliminates some benefits that don't have to do with armor of the hit location system.

Using just varable armor has some benefits, too. Especially with a major wound chart. YOu trade off some detail for other types. You can get delayed fatalities and chopped off noses in Strombringer, but you lose hit locations. I don't think that the fixed AP and hit location system is superior to the variable AP and general HP system. Just different. The variable system does make runing NPCs easier.

So it comes down to what you care about and how much overhead you're willing to pay to get it.

The ultimate truism about any game. Probably about Life in general. Is what you are getting worth the trouble of the overhead? Some would say yes, some would say no. I know a lot of D&Ders who don't use hit locations or any sort of active defense, and to them RQ/BRP is more overhead than they are willing to pay for.

Personally, I'd ike to take advantage of the fact that we use a 20-sided die for hit location and divide the body into 20 sections, and then work up the coverage. But that's me.

[Nightshade]

Using just varable armor has some benefits, too. Especially with a major wound chart. YOu trade off some detail for other types. You can get delayed fatalities and chopped off noses in Strombringer, but you lose hit locations. I don't think that the fixed AP and hit location system is superior to the variable AP and general HP system. Just different. The variable system does make runing NPCs easier.

I might agree to the latter, but I'll note that a hit location system could handle the delayed death easily enough (Timelords did, after all) and if you chose to use a finer tuned hit location system, the chopped off nose/ear business (assuming you _want_ to do that). While I don't think variable armor is a great evil, the methods used, as others have noted, typically produce too wide a range of protection for some suits. It also doesn't make fine-tuning armor particularly easy (in RQ, for example, it wasn't hard to prioritize protecting your critical locations; I have to conclude you'd need special rules in the SB type systems to do that).

The ultimate truism about any game. Probably about Life in general. Is what you are getting worth the trouble of the overhead? Some would say yes, some would say no. I know a lot of D&Ders who don't use hit locations or any sort of active defense, and to them RQ/BRP is more overhead than they are willing to pay for.

Sure. There's a reason that "active defense" systems (i.e. those that have a roll for that in addition to the attack roll) are probably the exception rather than the norm in the hobby. There are pretty complex and sophisticated systems that avoid that, far as it goes.

[Atgxtg]

Nightshade,

I agree with most of you points here. In fact, I even went so far as to work up a "delayed death" type option for my BRP variant that was inspired by Timelords. It wasn't as finely grades as Timelords, but went with a more "scratch/light wound/serious wound/mortal wound) sort of approach.

I also agree that the current variable armor system from Stormbringer is a little too random, since it uses a linear distribution for the most part, rather than some sort of bell curve. As it stands, a warrior has as much chance of getting no protection from his plate armor(1d10-1) as of getting 9 points. But I think it isn't any more flawed than the plate vambraces protecting the entire arm equally.

As for protecting critical location with variable armor. There is a way to do so fairly easily, and it was done in MERP/RM. It's the general armor that it the obstacle not the variable damage. The full body armor in Magic World had the same problem.

But both approaches are valid, and present compriomises in complexity in favor of ease/speed of play. Pendragon uses General HP, General AP, no locations, and a Major Wound rule, and doesn't play too badly for it.

It all depends on what people want.

[RMS]

A really simple houserule I've always used in RQ is to allow someone to pick high or low for targeting melee weapons. Then they can roll 1d10 or 1d10+10 and use the standard tables. I never was completely satisfied with blows falling anywhere, but at the same time I think some randomness to reflect that you have to take your chances when they're presented is reasonable.

I like the idea of allowing Specials to shift an attack one location too, but haven't tried it.