Damage modifier

[Trifletraxor]

Damage dealt in combat by natural, melee and thrown weapons are modified by the damage modifier, an attribute derived from a character's strength characteristic:

Strength (STR) : Damage modifier

• 01-06: -1D4
• 07-08: -1
• 09-11:  0
• 12-13: +1
• 14-15: +1D4
• 16-17: +1D6
• 18-19: +1D8
• ≥ 20:  (STR/10)D6
• ≥ 100: (STR/100)D100

* Round all fractions down

[Trifletraxor]

I should add that SIZ as a characteristic have been dropped from D100rules. The above rule should be easy enough to remember after hearing it once or twice. What do you think?

[Mankcam]

I would find a +d8 DB to be a little high for humans, even if we are talking Arnie strength

Edited May 17, 2017 by Mankcam

[Trifletraxor]

That's a valid point, but affects only one in 216.

I just checked the percentile distribution:

Damage mod,: New% vs. Old RQ3%

• -1d4:  9,3% vs.  0,1%
•   -1: 16,7% vs.  0
•    0: 36.6% vs. 60,0%
•   +1: 21,3% vs.  0
• +1d4: 11,6% vs. 39,2%
• +1D6:  4,2% vs.  0,7%
• +1D8:  0,5% vs.  0

Sort of surprised me to see how low the chance of having a +1d6 modifier with a natural roll the old rule actually gave.

[Sean_RDP]

Why do we still use negative modifiers? Why don't we start from ground "0" and move up? It is something I have been thinking about a lot myself. 

[Mankcam]

I've ignored negative damage mods for years, since about 1987. Works for me 

[Trifletraxor]

With a 0,1% chance for a human to have a -1D4 damage modifier with the old RQ3 rules, negative damage modifier wasn't much of an issue with the old rules either. But it sort of makes it just a damage bonus instead of a modifier. 3/5 have 0, while 2/5 have +1d4.

A more granular damage modifier emphasizes the importance of the STR characteristic for melee combat I think. I just started playtesting the rule now - with the result that one of the partymembers dropped from a +1D4 to a +1 modifier, but otherwise the rest stayed the same.

From what I can calculate the new modifier have a human average of +0,273, while the old had a human average of +1,002.

[Atgxtg]

I'd suggest dropping negative damage modifiers and instead bump weapon damage. So instead of 1D8-1D4 you just downgrade to 1d6 or even 1d4 damage. That might even be a good way to handle damage bonuses too, if you like. . 

I'd also suggest having the db progresses with one formula/rate rather than the three different rates you have now. It will make it easier to remember and get rid of the big jumps when you hit the break points. For example, as written something with STR 90 would get a 9D6 db (average damage of 31.5) while something with a STR 100 would get a 1D100 db (average damage 50.5). That's a big jump! 1D100 is more like 14D6 than 10D6 so you end up with about a 40% difference!

 

If you used (STR/140 or STR/150)D100, you'd get a better matchup and a smoother progression. You might want to look at (STR/33 or STR/30) D20s instead of D100s.

Or, if you wanted to do something radical you could just use a multiplier. So instead of STR 100 being 10D6 it could be 1D6x10.  

 

 

[Trifletraxor]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I'd suggest dropping negative damage modifiers and instead bump weapon damage. So instead of 1D8-1D4 you just downgrade to 1d6 or even 1d4 damage.

For the purpose of avoiding the instances of negative damage dealt?

Quote

That might even be a good way to handle damage bonuses too, if you like. .

Mixing bumping and adding would be confusing, so bumping up and down would make sense if one chose to use that mechanic. Is this the houserule you use in your games Atgxtg?

Quote

I'd also suggest having the db progresses with one formula/rate rather than the three different rates you have now. It will make it easier to remember and get rid of the big jumps when you hit the break points. For example, as written something with STR 90 would get a 9D6 db (average damage of 31.5) while something with a STR 100 would get a 1D100 db (average damage 50.5). That's a big jump! 1D100 is more like 14D6 than 10D6 so you end up with about a 40% difference!

Easily memorable and simple math is difficult to combine with a single formula. STR 99 -> STR 100 is a big jump on average damage modifier dealt, but I'd actually prefer my PC getting 1D100 damage to 9D6 damage. With 1D100 you'd at least have a chance of survival!

 

 

[Trifletraxor]

If anyone of you have houseruled the damage modifier, I'd love to see what kind of variants you're using!

[Sean_RDP]

This is what I am playing with right now. Both really minimize the Damage Modifier. If wanted to ramp up the damage, I would use Test 2 and divide by 4 instead of 8. 

 

Test 1

(STR+SIZ)/10 (round )	Modifier
.6 to .9	0
1.0 to 1.9	1 or 1d2
2.0 to 2.9	3 or 1d4
3.0 to 3.9	4 or 1d6

 

Test 2

STR/8	Modifier
3 to 8	0
8 to 16	3 or 1d4
17 to 24	4 or 1d6
25 to 32	5 or 1d8

 

 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

For the purpose of avoiding the instances of negative damage dealt?

Well for one it's faster. For two, it seems to be something that they did in RQ a lot for small animals. So a bird might do 1D3 or 1D2 damage with it's claws instead of 1D6-1D4. 

2 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

Mixing bumping and adding would be confusing, so bumping up and down would make sense if one chose to use that mechanic. Is this the houserule you use in your games Atgxtg?

No, becuase of the way RQ treats db vs weapon damage. But I've seen in in other RPGs and like it quite a bit. For one thing it helps to avoid the hobbit with a greatsword problem. Namely that in game terms it makes sense for a small weak character to wield the biggest weapon it can handle in order to offset the damage modifier. Realistically, weapons act a levers and the small character would ususally be better off weapon a smaller weapon at full speed and effciency that a heavier weapon at a slower rate. 

2 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

Easily memorable and simple math is difficult to combine with a single formula. STR 99 -> STR 100 is a big jump on average damage modifier dealt, but I'd actually prefer my PC getting 1D100 damage to 9D6 damage. With 1D100 you'd at least have a chance of survival!

 

 

Well, there is a better chance of rolling low, and I suppose for normal characters the actual damage value become academic past a certain point. 20 points or 200, dead is still dead. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

If anyone of you have houseruled the damage modifier, I'd love to see what kind of variants you're using!

I've gone with (STR+SIZ)/4-5. Then converted that value to a die roll (the number is the average). It gives a slower, smoother progression that RQ, but is still fairly close. 

[olskool]

On 5/17/2017 at 2:46 PM, Trifletraxor said:

Damage dealt in combat by natural, melee and thrown weapons are modified by the damage modifier, an attribute derived from a character's strength characteristic:

Strength (STR) : Damage modifier

• 01-06: -1D4
• 07-08: -1
• 09-11:  0
• 12-13: +1
• 14-15: +1D4
• 16-17: +1D6
• 18-19: +1D8
• ≥ 20:  (STR/10)D6
• ≥ 100: (STR/100)D100

* Round all fractions down

I'm partial to smaller bonuses and penalties myself.  I still have my homemade chart for RQ3 from the 90's.

• 1-2:     -1D4
• 3-4:     -1D3
• 5-6:     -1D2
• 7-8:      -1
• 9-12:      0
• 13-14:  +1
• 15-16:  +1D2
• 17-18:  +1D3
• 19-20:  +1D4

I added 1 point to STR for every 10 points of SIZ over 10 that the character had.

 

Weapon Based Damage Bonuses:

I have recently been playing around with "Surplus STR bonuses" for weapons.   I use STR, DEX, and SIZ requirements for weapons just like RQ2 & RQ3 did.  This Stat based system prevents the "Halfling with a greatsword" that has already been brought up in this thread.   My one issue with the Damage Bonus was that a fighter would get the same bonus for using a greatsword (15 STR required in my game) as he did for using a shortsword (6 STR required in my game).  I have been kicking around using a "Surplus STR System" for weapon damage bonuses.  Under this system, any STR over the number needed to wield the weapon will net the user a damage bonus when using that weapon.  The number of Surplus STR points needed for each +1 to Damage would vary by weapon type (weight).  A greatsword might net a +1 per 2 points of STR while a dagger might require 6 points of Surplus STR for each +1 bonus.  This is a "work in progress" as I just started considering it.  For those still using SIZ, I add 1 to STR for every 10 full points of SIZ over the SIZ required to wield the weapon.  

 

[Mugen]

As for myself, I quite like the chart from RuneQuest SRD, based on STR+SIZ:

1-5 : -d8
6-10: -d6
11-15: -d4
16-20: -d2
21-25: 0
26-30: +d2
31-35: +d4
36-40: +d6
41-45: +d8
46-50: +d10

Over 50, the chart loses this nice +1 step per 5 attributes points progression.

It could be changed into this chart, based only on STR:

0-2: -d6
3-5: -d4
6-8: -d2
9-11: 0
12-14: +d2
15-17: +d4
18-20: +d6
21-23: +d8
24-26: +d10

[Trifletraxor]

10 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Well for one it's faster. For two, it seems to be something that they did in RQ a lot for small animals. So a bird might do 1D3 or 1D2 damage with it's claws instead of 1D6-1D4. 

Makes sense. I'm trying to avoid the D2's and D3s just out of personal preference, but 1D4-1 and 1 can work for lesser damage. 

Quote

No, becuase of the way RQ treats db vs weapon damage. But I've seen in in other RPGs and like it quite a bit. For one thing it helps to avoid the hobbit with a greatsword problem. Namely that in game terms it makes sense for a small weak character to wield the biggest weapon it can handle in order to offset the damage modifier. Realistically, weapons act a levers and the small character would ususally be better off weapon a smaller weapon at full speed and effciency that a heavier weapon at a slower rate.

STR requirements for handling a weapon can work, but you still have the problem that PCs with weaker characters can feel useless in combat situations. I'm dragging down greatsword/maul damage to 1D12 which help some, but not that much. Bit off topic, but have you added any advantages for using smaller, faster weapons?

[Trifletraxor]

8 hours ago, olskool said:

I'm partial to smaller bonuses and penalties myself.

Why is that?

Quote

Weapon Based Damage Bonuses:

I have recently been playing around with "Surplus STR bonuses" for weapons.   I use STR, DEX, and SIZ requirements for weapons just like RQ2 & RQ3 did.  This Stat based system prevents the "Halfling with a greatsword" that has already been brought up in this thread.   My one issue with the Damage Bonus was that a fighter would get the same bonus for using a greatsword (15 STR required in my game) as he did for using a shortsword (6 STR required in my game).  I have been kicking around using a "Surplus STR System" for weapon damage bonuses.  Under this system, any STR over the number needed to wield the weapon will net the user a damage bonus when using that weapon.  The number of Surplus STR points needed for each +1 to Damage would vary by weapon type (weight).  A greatsword might net a +1 per 2 points of STR while a dagger might require 6 points of Surplus STR for each +1 bonus.  This is a "work in progress" as I just started considering it.  For those still using SIZ, I add 1 to STR for every 10 full points of SIZ over the SIZ required to wield the weapon.  

That's a very interesting idea. As you point out, being strong sort of gives you a double bonus, first the bigger weapons and then the bigger damage modifier. I like it. Please tell us if you develope it further.

[Atgxtg]

9 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

Makes sense. I'm trying to avoid the D2's and D3s just out of personal preference, but 1D4-1 and 1 can work for lesser damage. 

I think I prefer the D2s and D3s-at least when handling smaller animals. I much rather see a housecat do 1D2 than 1D4-2 or some such. 

9 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

STR requirements for handling a weapon can work, but you still have the problem that PCs with weaker characters can feel useless in combat situations.

Yeah. The problem really isn't that big weapons are doing too much damage, but that with the way hit points work, smaller weapons become less of a threat than they are in real life. Getting stabbed by a pocket knife or shot by a .25 Pistol is no joke in real life, but is practically so in the game. 

 

9 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

I'm dragging down greatsword/maul damage to 1D12 which help some, but not that much.

No, not much, and it might create other problems. 

9 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

 

Bit off topic, but have you added any advantages for using smaller, faster weapons?

No, but I could certainly see doing so. But if could be tricky to do so with the way RQ does things. And the rules do give such weapons a higher base chance, but that get offset pretty quickly with experience. 

What might be the solution would be to do what Greg Porter did in his Timelords RPG. In that game there is a "Wounding" skill that character can take that ups weapon damage. it's deigned for small weapons, Bigger weapons don't need in, and it's not worth the bother for such weapons. 

[olskool]

 

12 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

Why is that?

 

I believe that large damage bonuses, like easily acquired magic, create an "arms race" where the GM must continue to introduce ever larger weapons (and monsters) to compete with the ever larger weapons and ever heavier armor that the players upgrade to.  In real life, most combatants wouldn't do this.  A number of real-world historical figures continued to use the same weaponry they started with throughout their careers.   In fact, if you look at the real world weights of swords you can see just how close swords of disparate length are in weight.  Short swords run from around 1kg to 1.25kg in weight.  Arming or war swords run between 1.5kg to 1.75kg (with broadswords being on the higher end).  Very wide bastard swords may touch 2kg but most long swords run the SAME weight as arming swords despite their longer blades and handles. Claymores or Zweihanders normally only run from 2.5kg to 3kg at the most (for the ones actually used for fighting and not ceremonies).  What were the makers trying to achieve with longer (but lighter) blades?  In my opinion, it was "reach."  They were trying to extend the range at which they could engage the enemy.  In fact, if one looks at many different weapon types, you immediately realize that most weapons fall between 1.2kg and 2 kg in total weight.  This is the "sweet spot" that balances "heft" and "maneuverability."   The primary difference is in how the weapon's weight is distributed.  So what does this mean in game terms?   To me, this means that the difference in damage inflicted is not as widely varying as most games depict it. Therefore, I reduce several weapons' damages to reflect this reality.

To increase the "distinction" between weapon types, I use Reach as an attribute as well as varying *Weapon Speed (represented in Strike Ranks) by weapon type.  I also set minimum standards for STR, DEX, and SIZ for EVERY weapon.  Since the weapons' damages have less variation and there are greater differences in Reach and SR, my players often take weapons like Short Swords, and Hand Axes where they might originally have opted for Greatswords or Great Axes.  I'm happy that I have managed to curb the "arms race" in my own campaign because I can now use weapons to introduce "color" to my NPCs.

Here are a few examples of my weapons:

• Dagger =  Reach: 1m, SR: 1, Damage: 1D4, AP: 3, HP: 20
• Shortsword =  Reach: 1m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D6, AP: 6, HP: 20
• Hand Axe =  Reach: 1m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D4+2, AP: 3, HP: 15
• Broadsword (1H) = Reach: 2m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D8, AP: 8, HP: 20
• Battle Axe (1H) = Reach: 2m, SR: 3, Damage: 1D8+2, AP: 6, HP: 15 
• Bastard Sword (1H) = Reach: 2m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D10, AP: 10, HP: 20
• Greatsword (2H) = Reach: 2m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D12, AP 10, HP 20 
• Great Axe (2H) = Reach: 2m, SR: 3, Damage: 1D10+2, AP: 8, HP: 15
• Poleaxe (2H) = Reach: 3m, SR 4, Damage: 2D6, AP: 6, HP: 12 
• Light Javelin, (Primitive) = Reach: 2m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D4, AP: 2, HP: 8 (used HTH)
• Light Javelin, (HTH) = Reach: 2m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D6+1, AP: 4, HP: 10
• Heavy Javelin, (HTH) = Reach: 2m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D8+1, AP: 6, HP: 12
• Light Spear (Primitive), Short = Reach: 3m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D4, AP: 3, HP: 8
• Light Spear, Short = Reach: 3m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D6+1, AP: 4, HP: 8
• Light Spear, Long = Reach: 4m, SR: 3, Damage: 1D6+1, AP: 4, HP: 8
• Heavy Spear, (Primitive) = Reach: 3m, SR: 3, Damage: 1D6, AP: 5, HP: 10
• Heavy Spear, Short = Reach: 3m, SR: 3, Damage: 1D8+2, AP: 6, HP: 12  
• Heavy Spear, Long = Reach: 4m, SR: 4, Damage: 1D8+2, AP: 6, HP: 12
• Mace, Single Stick = Reach: 2m, SR: 1, Damage: 1D4, AP: 4, HP: 10
• Mace, (Ball Head) = Reach: 2m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D6, AP: 6, HP: 15
• Mace, Heavy (flanged) = Reach: 2m, SR: 2, Damage: 1D8, AP: 8, HP: 15  

*Weapon Speed and Strike Ranks are done differently in my game.  I use a randomized SR that counts down to 0.  I determine SR by giving characters a Base Strike Rank determined by dividing DEX and WILL (I added this... See my post in the thread The POW Economy in BRP's forum for more on this) by 5.  To this Base Strike Rank, you add a 1D6 roll and then count down.  This "inverses" SR for weapons with lighter faster weapons having lower SRs and heavier, slower weapons having higher SR's.  Reach takes care of a weapon's length (and characters must often move to get into "range" with a weapon).  Weapon's Strike Ranks range from 1 to 4 based on how much a weapon weighs and how "unbalanced" it is.     

This is just how I keep weapon "balance" in my game.        

[olskool]

16 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

That's a very interesting idea. As you point out, being strong sort of gives you a double bonus, first the bigger weapons and then the bigger damage modifier. I like it. Please tell us if you develop it further.

 

My initial thoughts for Surplus STR would be:

• Great Axes, Greatswords, Mauls, Morningstars, and Poleaxes would do +1 Damage per 2 STR.
• Bastard Swords, Battle Axes, Heavy Maces, Warhammers and Picks, Quarter Staves, and Military Flails would do +1 Damage per 3 STR.
• Broadswords, Bo Staves, Hatchets/Hand Axes, Maces, Grain Flails, and Heavy Spears (2"+ shaft with large metal shrouded point) would do +1 Damage per 4 STR.
• Shortswords, Rapiers, Single Sticks, and Light Spears (thin shaft and small spear point) would do +1 Damage per 5 STR.
• Daggers, Primitive Spears (stone point or just fire-hardened points), and Light Javelins would do +1 Damage per 6 STR.

As I have previously stated, I add +1 to Surplus STR for every 10 points of SIZ over a weapon's required SIZ to use.  In my game all Damage bonuses will be converted to Die Rankings... ie a +3 Damage Bonus becomes +1D3.  You do not have to do this if you don't want to, though.   You can also use these weapons to compare the effectiveness of non-human weapons.  A Halfling Shortsword would compare to a dagger while a Halfling sized Greatsword would be like a Longsword in performance (Damage and Reach).  At the other end of the spectrum, a Great Troll's Bastard Sword would probably equal a Human's Greatsword, while a Great Troll sized Greatsword would be unwieldable by Humans due to the SIZ requirement.    

Anyway, these are my initial ideas on the Surplus STR Damage Bonus.  Please note that I haven't playtested this yet.

Edited May 20, 2017 by olskool

[olskool]

There is one other, slightly simpler Damage Bonus option which I had considered and have not abandoned yet.  That would be to SUBTRACT the weapon's Required STR from the Character's STR score.  I would add 1 to the Character's STR score for every 10 points of SIZ over the SIZ required to use the weapon (for games still using SIZ).  The remaining STR would then be divided by 5 (rd) to determine the bonus Damage based on STR.  This could be either a straight bonus (expressed as say +2 Damage) or as a Bonus Die (ie +1D2) at the GM's whim.  I haven't playtested this yet either.

[Mugen]

4 hours ago, olskool said:

There is one other, slightly simpler Damage Bonus option which I had considered and have not abandoned yet.  That would be to SUBTRACT the weapon's Required STR from the Character's STR score.  I would add 1 to the Character's STR score for every 10 points of SIZ over the SIZ required to use the weapon (for games still using SIZ).  The remaining STR would then be divided by 5 (rd) to determine the bonus Damage based on STR.  This could be either a straight bonus (expressed as say +2 Damage) or as a Bonus Die (ie +1D2) at the GM's whim.  I haven't playtested this yet either.

Question is : What would be the benefit of doing such relative damage bonuses, compared to a universal one ?

Sure, you'd have less damage values such as 2d8+1d6 or 3d6+1d4, but you'd need to compute a different damage value for each weapon on your sheet.

[Trifletraxor]

14 hours ago, olskool said:

I believe that large damage bonuses, like easily acquired magic, create an "arms race" where the GM must continue to introduce ever larger weapons (and monsters) to compete with the ever larger weapons and ever heavier armor that the players upgrade to.  In real life, most combatants wouldn't do this.  A number of real-world historical figures continued to use the same weaponry they started with throughout their careers.   In fact, if you look at the real world weights of swords you can see just how close swords of disparate length are in weight.  Short swords run from around 1kg to 1.25kg in weight.  Arming or war swords run between 1.5kg to 1.75kg (with broadswords being on the higher end).  Very wide bastard swords may touch 2kg but most long swords run the SAME weight as arming swords despite their longer blades and handles. Claymores or Zweihanders normally only run from 2.5kg to 3kg at the most (for the ones actually used for fighting and not ceremonies).  What were the makers trying to achieve with longer (but lighter) blades?  In my opinion, it was "reach."  They were trying to extend the range at which they could engage the enemy.  In fact, if one looks at many different weapon types, you immediately realize that most weapons fall between 1.2kg and 2 kg in total weight.  This is the "sweet spot" that balances "heft" and "maneuverability."   The primary difference is in how the weapon's weight is distributed.  So what does this mean in game terms?   To me, this means that the difference in damage inflicted is not as widely varying as most games depict it. Therefore, I reduce several weapons' damages to reflect this reality.

I've never found the damage bonus to be a big part of the "arms race" as it's a relatively static bonus, in my group it's been gear acquisition and magic that have turned groups unplayable in the end. But I have problems curbing it, as a couple of munchkin players really enjoy the powergaming bit. I've tried to slow it down, but haven't eliminated it. What do you do for "reward"? Or do your group consist more of "real" roleplayers?

Your observations on weapon damage are really spot on. I'll be limiting the greatsword damage to 1D12 too, but didn't have the great argument for it that you've just given.

Quote

To increase the "distinction" between weapon types, I use Reach as an attribute as well as varying *Weapon Speed (represented in Strike Ranks) by weapon type.  I also set minimum standards for STR, DEX, and SIZ for EVERY weapon.  Since the weapons' damages have less variation and there are greater differences in Reach and SR, my players often take weapons like Short Swords, and Hand Axes where they might originally have opted for Greatswords or Great Axes.  I'm happy that I have managed to curb the "arms race" in my own campaign because I can now use weapons to introduce "color" to my NPCs.

What rules do you use for Reach?

[olskool]

17 hours ago, Mugen said:

Question is : What would be the benefit of doing such relative damage bonuses, compared to a universal one ?

Sure, you'd have less damage values such as 2d8+1d6 or 3d6+1d4, but you'd need to compute a different damage value for each weapon on your sheet.

Computing a damage bonus is no different than computing differential hit probabilities on your sheet and we all do that without complaint.  This would also be done during character creation or "administrative time" before or after a game session and not during play.   Therefore, it really has no negative effect on play time. 

 The real issue is that the Damage Bonus System is currently "broken."   Let's talk about RQ2's basic DB calculation where you average SIZ and STR to get a Damage Bonus.  So let's say that I'm above average in SIZ & STR and I average a 17.  This would not be uncommon in a typical game.  I now do 1D6 extra points of damage with every weapon I use.  If I hit you with an axe I get +1D6.  If I hit you with a plastic "spork," I do at least 1D6 more damage.  If I slap you, I do 1D3 + 1D6 damage.  On the other hand, if you are basically normal and average a 12 for SIZ & STR, you get no bonus.  Do you really think it is "fair" or "balanced" that I can do 9 points of damage with my bare hand while you can only do 7 points of damage with a shortsword or 10 points of damage with a battle axe?  It is examples like this that prompted me to change the Damage Bonus Chart AND look closely at weapon damages.    

[olskool]

9 hours ago, Trifletraxor said:

I've never found the damage bonus to be a big part of the "arms race" as it's a relatively static bonus, in my group it's been gear acquisition and magic that have turned groups unplayable in the end. But I have problems curbing it, as a couple of munchkin players really enjoy the powergaming bit. I've tried to slow it down, but haven't eliminated it. What do you do for "reward"? Or do your group consist more of "real" roleplayers?

2

I posted an example of the type of "arms race" I'm referring to in my reply to Mugen above.  In that example, I'm pointing out just one consequence of "min-maxing" a character to do damage in combat (as that relates to the characteristics used for determining a damage bonus... note that those characteristics are also used in the attack bonus too). 

I have always been an avowed "realist" when it came to GMing my worlds.  Equipment is EXPENSIVE and most adventurers start very poor.  In addition, swords and armor can be damaged in combat forcing the purchase of newer equipment.  I always enforce the purchase of replacement equipment such as rope, torches, and fire-making equipment.   I also did NOT change the price of training or magic.  What I DID do though, is bring money down to a more realistic level.  In my game (an RQ2-RQ3 hybrid game), the average town resident made about 100 Guilders/Lunars a YEAR.  My treasure hoards were based on this level of coinage availability instead of the 1000 Lunar level that Chaosium seems to have used originally.  I have significantly increased the cost of most metal armors because real world metal armors were very expensive even in the Classical Age.  This makes metal armor "treasure" in my game.  If the characters cannot wear it, they can sell it.  Metal (even broken weapons) has tremendous value as a resource in the ancient world.  It takes a large amount of effort and several key resources to smelt metal.  This means that even "cheap" metal weapons and armor have significant value as recycled materials.  This also applies to wood, cloth, leather, and other materials.  The problem becomes getting that stuff to the people who will buy it (or in a great many instances TRADE SOMETHING ELSE for it).  

The previous paragraph now leads me to my next "adjustment" to... Treasure.  I made some changes to keep my games from becoming "Monty Haul Campaigns"... yes, I'm dating myself now, how many of you out there remember "Let's Make A Deal" from TV?  If you open your wallet or look at your bank statement RIGHT NOW, how much money do you really have on you?  If you're like most of us, probably not much.  This is because your "Wealth" is not really measured by how much money you have on hand, but rather by how much "stuff" you possess.  I use the same concept with treasure in my game.  If you look at your typical monsters you will find that most of them earn a living "raiding others."  This wouldn't generate much coinage.  It would, however, generate tons of "stuff" (literally).  Many of my "treasures" involved casks of beer, sacks of wine, bolts of cloth, and piles of broken/cheap weapons and armor.  All the things you might find in a cave full of "caravan robbers."  Ransom is also "well and alive" in my game.   You will probably want to bring a pack mule and a hired guard (to watch the mule while you're in the "dungeon") if you game with me.   Oh... and pack mules are kind of expensive and they need to eat.  Once back in town, you need to trade or sell all of that loot.  Sometimes, the "loot's former owner" shows up to claim it (usually someone powerful).  This often results in Persuasion rolls in order to coax a "reward" or "future favor" out of the former owner.  Taxes may need to be paid on the "loot" (I can hear my players saying "damned Lunars" now).  Now you must seek someone to sell (or trade) that loot to.   Most of my "traders" lived by the ideal of "buy low, sell high."   Getting rid of "loot" used to put my players straight in the crosshairs of  Snirvin The Dwarf Trader... "I'd rather lick the fungus from a Troll's toes than pay THAT FOR THIS!"  Next week the characters would witness Snirvin selling something for 5 times what he had paid THEM for it.  He was the most hated NPC I ever had that wasn't killed during the campaign.  Sometimes, you may need to "rub elbows" with the rich (maybe to cash in that "favor" they promised you).  This means that you're going to need at least one pair of nice clothes.  Are you going to carry those around in your backpack?  What if you acquire more "stuff" than you can carry?  This usually results in the party members renting or building a home.  Homes and rentals can get expensive fast.  That's added costs for the party.      

As you can see, in my world, "Powergaming" has to take a back seat to "paying the bills."  What all this ends up doing is forcing the players to make hard choices about "stuff" versus "training"  and limiting characters to a bare "handful" of treasured items such as that "favorite sword" or "my father's old plate cuirass."   Ironically, I have never had a player say that they wouldn't game with me again.  In fact, most of my players seemed to enjoy the struggle to rise from poverty.