Suggestions for modding damage
 

Hello,

I've been considering adjusting the rules to makes combat more dangerous and was wondering if anyone here did the same or has any suggestions.

I don't want to rebuild the rules from scratch though - only tweak them. I still want to be able to use the rule book as the basis for combat resolution for as much as possible.

I was thinking of simply halving character's hit points. This would mean I could still use the weapons stats in the rule book and on Paul's site without unnecessary work.

Anyone have any different ideas (or anything critical of mine)?

Thanks.

I modify the hits of a character to;

Head = Con x2
Chest = Str+Con x2
Others = Str+Con x1.5

I also modded damage and use d4 for hand to hand combat, d6 for melee weapons and d8 for firearms and explosives. Works pretty well for me.

new damage rules
 

got some here

http://thebigbookofwar.50megs.com/DOX/0-House%20rules/

just a little ways down on the page

also we changed from D6 to D12 to make more deadly .

rigorous use of critical hit rules etc will make a lot more dangerous.

I’ve been tempted to change the damage rule system, too. That matter always arise controversy. Finally we continue using the v2.2 damage rules, being very careful to apply all of those “little details” that, without directly affecting the hit points of the characters or the damage of the weapons, can have an important impact (stun, knockdown, lost of consciousness, lost of actions, initiative reduction, double damage to the head or to the chest if damage roll >= d20 roll, etc…).

So, we are using the v2.2 rules with the only (but important) modification of the tables provided by HQ in this thread:

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.p...t=damage+rules

Note that difficulty levels must be adjusted if you’re using v2.2.

I used to add 2D6 to small arms damage, but I recently changed the house rules page to use a d10 instead of a d6 for damage, at the suggestion of members of this board. It's less confusing. A d12 might be even better, but it's not a standard T2K die, and not everyone who plays T2K might have one. (I'm not even sure where any of my physical dice are; the last time I ran a PBeM, I used a computer program.)

computer die roller
 

you have link to good dice roller program ?

Not a link that functions anymore. The program is called Dice Roller Deluxe, and it was freeware when I downloaded it back in the Windows 3.1 days. It still works under Vista. It's a damn good program.

The screen name in the "About" window is Boaz zemeR. The email address listed is laor@isdn.net.il, and his site is listed as http://welcome.to/the-labyrinth, but neither work anymore. I can't post it because I can't get a hold of this guy.

This is what I've done, except legs have same hits as chest. Works for me.

Found a page you can download it from:

http://www.ahazu.com/adnd/programs.php

Thanks all.

I've been considering "tweaking" the damage rules for an essentially v2.2 rules PBeM I'm running (which means that I have time to do the maths and this won't slow down game play) to make the system more dangerous and I wondered what people thought of the following two options as they are different to those outlined already in this thread.

Option 1: For each shot calculate the Margin of Success (MOS) by subtracting the dice roll from the target number (this is based on how the Twilight 2013 rules work). For example if the target number is 12 and the dice roll is 3 then the MOS equals 9 (12-3=9). When calculating the damage add the MOS to the damage dice roll, i.e. if your weapon has a damage rating of 2 then this particular shot does 2d6+9 damage. Now this system doesn't work properly with the armour penetration rules so that needs to be worked out. I'd probably also include a rule that a MOS 0 shot is an automatic scratch wound that just inflicts 1 point of damage, overriding the damage dice roll (assuming that the hit wasn't blocked entirely by armour).

Option 2: When rolling the d6 for damage allow them to "explode", i.e. if you roll a 6 then re-roll and add. For example if you hit with a weapon that has a damage rating of 2 and the 2d6 roll was a 6 and a 3 then the 6 would re-roll and add. If you then roll a 5 on the re-roll then the total damage would be 14 points. If the re-roll is also a 6 then you keep on rolling and adding.

I'm also considering applying both of these options together, though that could be too lethal!

What do people think of these options and can you pick any faults in them?

Thanks for any comments.

Mahatatain.

1. For the first option, I like the idea to modify the damage accordingly to the Margin of Success. But i would discard to use a "fixed" modifier to add to the damage roll. I will suggest you an idea adapted from the game "Fading Suns". Simply divide the MOS by three (round fractions down) and this will be the number of additional 6 sided dices added to the normal damage of the weapon. As an advantage, you can apply the rules regarding the armor value as usual, once you know the total number of damages dices, the armor value of the target and the penetration of the weapon. For the Outstanding Success in the "to hit" roll, you can ignore it. Taking into account the MOS will be enough.

2. For the second option, the old Star Wars (D6) system used a similar rule, but only taking into account one of the damage dices (usually in a different color). For that dice, a result of 6 meant "add and reroll". A 1 meant "substract the higger roll".

IMO, the first option is the better. The skill and the actions of the character (aiming, p.e.) will affect the MOS and, in this way, the damage roll.

WOW
 

WOW, you can never know what surprises you're going to find when you Google your own name :)

I didn't know my program is still being used today, I was sure that computer games killed traditional RPG…
I developed it about 10 years ago.
And I was working on implementing more AD&D 2E modules (like character generator and inventory management), but then Baldur's Gate came out and I dropped the development, seeing I can't compete with progress (and 3rd edition D&D was around the corner anyway).
Maybe I should repost DRD?
If you guys think I should give it a polish, I might just do that.

Waiting to hear from you.

Bzemer,

Wow indeed!

It's fantastic to hear from you. Indeed, sit-down RPGs are still being played. A friend of mine says that depending on how you look at it the numbers indicate there are more players than ever but the hobby is so fragmented you'll never see the day when one game will dominate the market like D&D did in its heyday. Well, I guess it still does to an extent, but you know what I mean.

For that matter, few "dead" games are really all that dead, especially on the net. Doing a quick search of active games on rpol.net, I see there are at least a few that are running with the AD&D 2nd edition rules.

At any rate, I would love to have a copy of your program. I run Play-by-Email/Play-by-post games and although I have a collection of dice by my computer, finding the space and rolling can sometimes be a real pain. I'm sure someone else with better computer skills could do the polishing!

Tony

I'm currently playing in two 1st ed AD&D games online and one face to face. :p

Just to say that I've been using this suggestion and found that it works very well (though no PC has actually been hit yet and that will be the true test!).

Rather than modding damage, has anyone considered modifying the healing rates? They seem quite fast, as written, and players might be more careful with their characters if they know that sucking gut wound is going to take them out of play for longer....

Thoughts?

The V1 healing rates are much closer to reality (can take MONTHS to recover from some wounds). Obviously this is no good for an RPG without magical or hitech rapid healing....

Indeed. After I introduced an item which provided almost miraculous healing in my campaign it completely changed the whole dynamic. There was no other item like it in the entire world and sometimes instead of healing you it consumed you but it was still extensively used. And of course, he who controlled the item controlled the party. It pretty much cemented Po's bizarre leadership cult.

I'm still undecided as to whether the campaign would have been better or worse without it. The thing is, in my experience if PC deaths result in no one from the original party being alive, continuity is lost. I've seen campaigns die as a result. Its just a pity in the case of my campaign that continuity was maintained in the personage of Major Anthony Po..

Some one on here had a speed healing drug statted out called CEAR (Cellular Enhanced Accelerated Regeneration) which I borrowed for use in my campaign. I've a hard copy of the notes for it somewhere.....

I think that that depends on whether it's a total party wipe out or a gradual loss and replacement of characters. If PCs die and are replaced gradually then the story you are all telling together simply changes direction to some extent but it doesn’t need to result in the death of a campaign. Continuity can be maintained but depending on what the PCs are doing that can be worked around by the GM.

Targan,

Dude.

Without a doubt that's the most disturbing thing you've posted yet about the Angel of Death, aka "God-King Po". If a game of mine was in danger of fading away for some reason, but I could save it by delivering what is an essentially a magic resurrection potion in the hands of a complete psychopath, I'd still let it die with honour and dignity. Like the Twilight Zone episode "Still Valley", about how a Confederate soldier has the chance to bring victory to the Confederacy by making a deal with Satan:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAaLnXG5NjY

That said, I've seen campaigns die and lose focus without PC death being a factor. I've seen other games where all the original PCs have died and/or players drop out over time but maintain cohesion and focus.

Successful teams, military units, private companies and organisations of all kinds function over time because they are ultimately bigger than the individuals that are a part of them. In some sense (some more than others) the people that form them share a vision or goals or a role that transcends them.

Tony