How lethal is too lethal for an ostensibly realistic game without being too unfun?
It the chance of a random mook just straight decapitating a pc with a lucky swing inherently bad design?
Just ask your players if they find a brutal system fun.
If that's what you like, make sure it's clear to your players going in.
I've personally never played a system like that, but I could see myself entertained by it because I wouldn't get too attached to my toon.
>>48287351
No it's true to life or 'realistic' for want of of a better word.
Most fights end when one side manages to get a strike in and kill the other person, not from a slow whittling down of hit points until somebody falls over from enough scratches. Fatigues certainly a factor but it represents somebody being tired and therefore leaving themselves open.
Even in modern terms a tank is going to go down in one when an RPG gets a lucky shot at it, not when it's hit points are slowly chipped away enough.
From a game play perspective it's very swingy and most people dont find it fun because your players can die based on random rolls of the dice from anybody who can hold a sword.
If your group are on board go for it though it makes fights scary and forces them to only decide to fight when absolutely necessary as the risk is huge.
>>48287351
If you're playing a realistic game, then a realistic chance of that happening is just something the players have to be made aware of before hand. The amount of fun had is entirely dependent on the people playing. I've played with guys who had the most fun in game worlds that would be familiar to a loony toon, and some that could only enjoy games as realistic as possible. Needless to say they didn't like playing together, but if you are in a realistic game then being offed by some random cunt is just a risk that needs to be accepted by the players.
It's not a matter of good or bad design, just talk to your players and ask them how lethal they want it. Better than trying to guess.
Even in a system where HP is involved, it doesn't represent the subject getting nicked and cut in a shallow fashion endlessly.
Eventually the kill-shot happens, and it can be quite swift if you're a lowbie getting surprised critted by a minotaur or something such.
Dark Heresy manages this quite well, you can kind of scale the lethality of attacks easily with stuff like righteous fury. My players generally like high lethality settings as it makes it a bit more realistic, and makes sure each encounter isn't just a D&D HP smash and they have to think about the easiest way to solve problems, often without using violence.
>>48287409
Would making hits that don't overkill a certain amount merely incapacitating rather than lethal be a good compromise?
Maybe wearing a helmet increases the number of excess damage that needs to be done for it to be an instant kill in addition to making it just harder to damage the head.
Currently I'm playing with a build that uses exploding dice and I'm definitely finding it to be like you describe, with fights going on for a few clashes with maybe the occasional minor wound or blade sliding off mail until one guy gets a really good stab in the other's face because he either over extended and used his entire dice pool on a fool hardy first attack which in my opinion is totally fine, but what bothers me is when they save dice to parry or dodge but just roll like total shit and get killed, that's what I'm worried is unfun.
I could just increase the injury threshold of your average human hero considering they only have 3 hp, but then you get into dnd abstract hit point territory which is starkly against my design goal of creating a set of mechanics that themselves choreograph the combat.
>>48287441
I'm perfectly happy with the big fuck off boss monster one hitting careless players, what worries me is militia man with sword rolls like a pro and instakills the viking veteran pc.
I suppose the solution is just not to throw fodder at them and to make every fight tense and important.
>>48287480
Actually yeah, a system of injuries would be a middle ground of sorts although it as well would severely cripple the character going forwards.
Take Jamie Lannister as a fictional example. When he loses his hand he loses the entirety of his identity , it's a huge moment for the character. He still goes on adventuring and doing things but he's very much hugely gimped which everybody makes a point of.
I honestly think beyond whatever mechanical crunch you go for you need a really well put together robust campaign for something like this to work , real characters as real people who are able to overcome things beyond swinging swords a lot of the time and have to live with their mistakes and so on.
The players will need to be appropriately penalised as characters for sustaining massive injuries but not lose their usefulness in the narrative.
A more hack and slash game will just result in players just wanting to roll new characters or pretend that Peg Leg McGee isn't that much different without a leg which defeats the purpose in the first place.
>>48287480
When kings and powerful people went to battle they tended to have not only the best armour and weapons available but also a bodyguard of people the enemy would have to get through before they could touch them. They also tended to be mounted which gave them reach and mobility to get out of sticky situations.
They wouldn't be in the front line toe to toe with a viking unless they fancied getting their head cleaved off.
Sure the likes of Caesar or Alexander would fight alongside their men but it was done in a very controlled manner in order to boost morale at important battlefield moments and they certainly weren't engaging in skirmishes.
Consider this:
<
>>48287351
Twilight 2000 is just about the cutoff threshold for not being fun anymore.
>>48288008
>dwarven child Ostur Nubirek grabs the cave troll by the neck
>the cave troll vomits
>the part is torn off and flies in an arc
>the cave troll is dead
