Re: Armor proposal 1

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Wright Frazier wrote:

> 
> That is way out of wack for average stats or good examples.  I have in
> my years at AQ had only 1 character with stats like that on those 4.
>

(John sighs and omits the "for argument's sake" clause)

(in syllabicly enhanced (c) monotone)

OK, guys, presume the STR and AGI are 15+, but the average attribute value
is exactly 10.5.  I mean the mean attribute value will be 10.5, to clarify
in the event median or mode is used rather than mean because I really
really don't want to confuse you here.  In that manner, the hypothetical,
that is, not real, but concieveable, subject may indeed not be deviant
from the statistical norm across the value of his attributes.
 
> > 
> > To add 2 to the dv of the most protective, unmodified armor makes it
> > IMPOSSIBLE to hit on an unmodified roll of a d20.
> 
> No, they still hit on a 20.  a 20 ALways hits.
>

You are correct, I misspoke

However, I did make the point in a previous post that a 20 wouldn't crit,
not that a 20 wouldn't hit.
 
> Did we say any penalties?  No.  Read what we say and stop spewing.
> We've said the penalties are too harsh.  Read the proposal.  Penalties
> are still absolutely there, they are just lessened in the proposal.
>

I am not saying the mechanics of AP1 or AP2 are any more or less valid
than the existing mechanics.

Indeed, I have said that you have yet to illustrate using the criteria set
forth in the argument for AP1 and AP2 that said proposals are in any way
more balanced for use within the game than the existing rule set.

I'm saying that:

Through the course of our argument, I have not invented a criterion for
evaluating the (for lack of a better term) growth of the armor industry.

Because my discounting of some of the criteria has been dismissed out of
hand, I have refined my argument to include ONLY criteria that have been
presented in favor of the new armor proposals.

Now, lets examine the criteria:

War drives innovation in armor and weapons

Armor's purpose is to protect those who use it

Armor will be innovated until it protects as well as possible
(Or, people will wear the best armor they can)

The majority of the population is below rate 5

Armies are uneconomical because they take people out of the work place

Standing armies are especially uneconomical because they perminently take
people out of the work place

Specialized troops are uneconomical because they remove people from the
work place and require relatively expensive training

Wars are fought to get/hold power/wealth.

OK so far, let me emphasize, AGAIN, I didn't come up with ANY of the
above criteria.  

Let's look at the logic:

If wars are fought for power or wealth, then a (if not THE) major cause
for war is economics (stability or change).

If war drives innovation for armor and weapons, then economics drive
innovation for armor and weapons.

If armies (especially standing armies) and specialized troops are
uneconomical, then, they will only be present when needed.

If the general population makes the work force, and if armies remove
people from the work force, then armies are made up of a section of the
general population.

If the majority of general population is under rate 5, then the majority
of an army is also under rate 5.

If people will wear the best armor they can, then all members of an army
will wear the best armor they can. 

If the majority of the army is under rate 5, then most cases of armor use
occur between people under rate 5.

So far, everything looks good.

As pointed out above, a 20 always hits, or, no matter how protective your
armor, you will be hit 5% of the time.

Evaluating the case above with 1-handed weapon, helmet, shield, and plate
(the most "advanced" armor, at least in terms of protection) yields the
results that, indeed, only a 20 hits.

If armor will be innovated until it protects as well as possible, and
economics drives armor innovation, then armor ought not be innovated past
where it is now because a form exists indeed DOES protect as well as
possible (at least when evaluating the most common occurance of armor
use, though I grant that the specimen used in the evaluation had
attributes that were above average.)

Regardless, using the criteria presented to advocate the above proposals,
one can disprove the argument they were used to construct.

(Don't make me use the Wookee defence ... this is Chewbacca, a Wookee from
the planet Kashyyyk ...)  :) 

Further, if I suspend both arguments entirely, and merely state that DV's
ought to go up by 2 because armor doesn't protect enough, then those who
engage opponents increase their mods so they may have the same chance to
hit.

If their net change to hit becomes 0, then, obviously, armor does not
protect enough, lets raise it another 2DV

then those who engage armored opponents increase their mods to have the
same chance to hit

then net change to hit becomes 0.

If net change to hit becomes 0, then it's time to increase armor again
...

(and then the gun is invented)

Again a line of thinking that was discarded, yet the "real world" example
of it happening was cited again and again as a reason that armor ought to
be innovated.

> Noone says you have to run a combat beast. Try an auger.  People already

My only current character IS an auger ... he doesn't fight.

I also don't recall proposing AQ as being "all about combat"

> buy up their mods to hit the big monsters with high DVs.  Your points
> above are invalid.  Get a character concept and stick with it.  Do you
> want to play the guy who tries to be the best swordsman in the world?

And Alex, (who never wore armor) died after being pummelled to death in
fear of being killed from behind by a pink bunny ... he was also cursed
for a while into being a pacifist ... though he DID hold an entire army
off for a few rounds single handedly, and was going to be the best
swordsman in the world (in his own mind).

Hell of a lot of fun character.

wearing armor has nothing to do with how good a warrior the character is
or percieves he is.  It has nothing to do with skill or any other
experience cost.  (save for the guy that makes it).

> Do you want to play a mediocre swords man?  Up to you.  Regardless of
> armor benefits or penalties, GMs will still use them or not use them.
> The point of all this, which you can't seem to grasp, is that armor
> penalties are silly and ridiculous for what the armor is.

movement penalties can be offset with the wonderfully inexpensive skill,
sprinting.

the minuses to resistance checks can't be offset short of mutates or other
exceptional stats, but that was never addressed in deapth within any of
our arguement.

as such there are mechanisms in place that deal with the penalties armor
bestows upon the wearer that are addressed in AP1 and 2.

I have yet to see how armor is unbalanced compared to other forms of DV
increase

> 
> Flat out, Jaernian armor protects the torso, shoulders, and upper
> arms.  No more.  Saying that that slows you to 1/2 or 1/3 of your
> normal movment is foolish.
> 
> Wright
> 
> 

Aha. We seem to be having a mechanical vs. conceptual disagreement here.
I give a rat's ass about what armor looks like, feels like, or tastes
like.

By addressing the problem as being "unbalanced" one puts forth that the
mechanic doesn't fit within the existing mechanics of the game.

You're saying here that the concept of armor you have for AQ, when looked
at in the real world, does not jibe with the concept of armor that exists
in AQ.

I'm saying the mechanics for armor ... an incremental trade off in
movement rate (as neither of us address the minuses to resistance checks
in detail) yields an increase in defensive value ... is balanced.  In
fact, plate armor and all the accessories protects as well as it can.

Further, by expending eps, one can offset the movement penalties.

This does balance with expending eps to get a dv boosting spell without
movement penalties.

-- John