2 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

My mistake. My main point still stands. Narration by RAW is not restricted in the way you say it is. And my simple example above doesn't use Knockdown.

Yes, and no. The narrative system does allow for a lot of flexibility, but it doesn't allow for completely contradictory narrative of what a hit or miss result on the dice signifies. A good narrative example of a miss resulting from simply no getting at least one net success, but also no net failures, (in other words, a Near Miss) would be the blaster shot just whizzing by mere millimeters from your ear, or the lightsaber passing fractions of an inch away from your throat. It would not be the armor deflecting a hit , since, that statement requires a hit to have landed, and, thus at least one net Success.

1 minute ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Doesn't apply to narration. Does this issue go away for you if we say "touch" instead of hit narratively? Or is your bare bones argument really that you cannot narrate in any way touching your target (or affecting them by being touched by anything else) if you failed the attack check?

No contact at all. On a failed roll, (no Net Successes) you miss .

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, and no. The narrative system does allow for a lot of flexibility, but it doesn't allow for completely contradictory narrative of what a hit or miss result on the dice signifies. A good narrative example of a miss resulting from simply no getting at least one net success, but also no net failures, (in other words, a Near Miss) would be the blaster shot just whizzing by mere millimeters from your ear, or the lightsaber passing fractions of an inch away from your throat. It would not be the armor deflecting a hit , since, that statement requires a hit to have landed, and, thus at least one net Success.

No contact at all. On a failed roll, (no Net Successes) you miss .

I'm glad we've finally got down to it.

This is extemely pedantic/literal in a way not supported by the rules. The rules don's say what you are saying. You're taking a section of a mechanics discussion where hit as a very specific meaning in the rules and then applying it outside that context where it no longer applies.

Again, your answer is very illustrative of your personal preferences in narrative interpretation. But that's what they are: your preferences. The rules leave this open for others to do so differently to their preferences. Those are the rules. You are applying your own preferences to "what a hit or miss result on the dice signifies". I know you don't think these are your preferences because of terms used in the mechanical rules sections but those aren't directly literally applicable to narrative interpretation.

Also other peoples preferences - like my example - don't amount to a completely contradictory narrative. My example above still stands. The narrative in no way contradicts the results of the check. Yes, I now your response: "But the check said you can't touch them". That's not what the check result means. But I'm glad the argument has been boiled down to it's essence.

21 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No contact at all. On a failed roll, (no Net Successes) you miss .

Just to go back to this specific point - if you play this way then grappling is impossible. Grapplers are in constant and strenuous contact. I don't think the rules preclude grappling. Failure and Success on a Skill Check are to be taken in context and narrated in that context to tell a story. It's that simple. A Failed Combat Check while grappling means you failed a particular pin or arm break or whatever and no damage was applied but you could have very well manipulate their body in some way like changing their position or whatever - that's what Upgrades/Downgrades and Boost/Setback come in for broad interpretation.

1 minute ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I'm glad we've finally got down to it.

This is extemely pedantic/literal in a way not supported by the rules. The rules don's say what you are saying. You're taking a section of a mechanics discussion where hit as a very specific meaning in the rules and then applying it outside that context where it no longer applies.

Again, your answer is very illustrative of your personal preferences in narrative interpretation. But that's what they are: your preferences. The rules leave this open for others to do so differently to their preferences. Those are the rules. You are applying your own preferences to "what a hit or miss result on the dice signifies". I know you don't think these are your preferences because of terms used in the mechanical rules sections but those aren't directly literally applicable to narrative interpretation.

Also other peoples preferences - like my example - don't amount to a completely contradictory narrative. My example above still stands. The narrative in no way contradicts the results of the check. Yes, I now your response: "But the check said you can't touch them". That's not what the check result means. But I'm glad the argument has been boiled down to it's essence.

I disagree. By definition , a hit is physical contact. In this case:

Quote

2 a : to cause to come into contact

She accidentally hit her head getting into the car.

b : to deliver (something, such as a blow) by action

c : to apply forcefully or suddenly

The rules, particularly as stated in the item Qualities Blast and Guided , specifically equate a failed attack to a miss . which, by definition means:

Quote

Definition of miss

(Entry 1 of 4)

transitive verb

1 : to fail to hit, reach, or contact

miss the target

So, by the very definition of the word , a failed attack, a miss , cannot even touch the target. It does not come into contact with the target at all . Otherwise it is not a miss.

And, am I being literal ? Absolutely. If I'm going to narrate something, I'm going to narrate it as it actually is. using proper literal meaning. And, I hold others to that same standard . A hit is a hit, a miss is a miss. There is no middle ground. Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, Despairs, add narrative effects on top of those two possibilities, but if you fail to hit, I expect it to be narrated as such. You miss .

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

So, by the very definition of the word , a failed attack, a miss , cannot even touch the target. It does not come into contact with the target at all . Otherwise it is not a miss.

And, am I being literal ? Absolutely. If I'm going to narrate something, I'm going to narrate it as it actually is. using proper literal meaning. And, I hold others to that same standard . A hit is a hit, a miss is a miss. There is no middle ground. Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, Despairs, add narrative effects on top of those two possibilities, but if you fail to hit, I expect it to be narrated as such. You miss .

Ok, great. No more need for discussion on this topic. That's your preferred interpretation of the rules - you quoted the dictionary at me not the narrative rules of the game - and others see it differently. To each there own, though I'm not really sure what you mean when you say you hold others to that standard other than as a GM you'd "force" your players to abide by your preferences. Other commenters in this forum are not your players and this thread is not a game of which you are the GM.

Just now, Jedi Ronin said:

Just to go back to this specific point - if you play this way then grappling is impossible. Grapplers are in constant and strenuous contact. I don't think the rules preclude grappling. Failure and Success on a Skill Check are to be taken in context and narrated in that context to tell a story. It's that simple. A Failed Combat Check while grappling means you failed a particular pin or arm break or whatever and no damage was applied but you could have very well manipulate their body in some way like changing their position or whatever - that's what Upgrades/Downgrades and Boost/Setback come in for broad interpretation.

Wrong. First off, Grappling isn't an attack . It's not a combat check . It's a maneuver . And, all it does is hinder a person from disengaging. I'm talking about an attack . I.E. a Brawl check, a Ranged check , a Melee check, a Lightsaber check. A failed attack misses, by definition. It does not make contact. If I throw a punch, and fail my attack roll, it misses completely . If I shoot at someone and fail my attack roll, it misses completely, if even by millimeters.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. First off, Grappling isn't an attack . It's not a combat check . It's a maneuver . And, all it does is hinder a person from disengaging. I'm talking about an attack . I.E. a Brawl check, a Ranged check , a Melee check, a Lightsaber check. A failed attack misses, by definition. It does not make contact. If I throw a punch, and fail my attack roll, it misses completely . If I shoot at someone and fail my attack roll, it misses completely, if even by millimeters.

Ha ha ha. Seriously Tramp, good luck to you and your gaming.

3 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Ok, great. No more need for discussion on this topic. That's your preferred interpretation of the rules - you quoted the dictionary at me not the narrative rules of the game - and others see it differently. To each there own, though I'm not really sure what you mean when you say you hold others to that standard other than as a GM you'd "force" your players to abide by your preferences. Other commenters in this forum are not your players and this thread is not a game of which you are the GM.

No. This thread is about trying to find a House rule solution to a rule that to many players and GMs does not make sense to them . That being armor providing Defense bonuses.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. First off, Grappling isn't an attack . It's not a combat check . It's a maneuver . And, all it does is hinder a person from disengaging. I'm talking about an attack . I.E. a Brawl check, a Ranged check , a Melee check, a Lightsaber check. A failed attack misses, by definition. It does not make contact. If I throw a punch, and fail my attack roll, it misses completely . If I shoot at someone and fail my attack roll, it misses completely, if even by millimeters.

It very much is an attack. It uses the brawl skill. Look at the brawl weapon stats. They very clearly include all the grappling results and then there are talents to add abilities to brawl checks.

1 minute ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Ha ha ha. Seriously Tramp, good luck to you and your gaming.

I'm being serious.

Just now, Daeglan said:

It very much is an attack. It uses the brawl skill. Look at the brawl weapon stats. They very clearly include all the grappling results and then there are talents to add abilities to brawl checks.

Not according the the Grapple talent.

Quote

GRAPPLE
Activation: Active [Maneuver]
Ranked: No
Trees: Martial Artist
Once per round, the character may perform the Grapple maneuver. Until the beginning of her next turn, enemies must spend two maneuvers instead of one maneuver to move from engaged range to short range of her

A Brawl check, as required to use a Garrote, or otherwise choke a target, is something else entirely. That's an attack . That requires a successful hit in order to first get a hold of the target before you can apply suffocating damage to him. Otherwise you miss , which means your attack fails to make contact. That is the difference between the Brawl attack to "grapple", and the Grapple maneuver.

15 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. This thread is about trying to find a House rule solution to a rule that to many players and GMs does not make sense to them . That being armor providing Defense bonuses.

It's supposed to be at least. Without counting like I did before, I'm guessing 95%+ of the posts here are about whether an attack implies an absolute "hit" or not and whether defense on armor should equate to deflecting attacks or not.

So can we get back to discussing solely options about house rules regarding armor for those that actually would like something different? Or should someone just start a new thread regarding the OP and let this one die?

2 minutes ago, Sturn said:

It's supposed to be at least. Without counting like I did before, I'm guessing 95%+ of the posts here are about whether an attack implies an absolute "hit" or not and whether defense on armor should equate to deflecting attacks or not.

So can we get back to discussing solely options about house rules regarding armor for those that actually would like something different? Or should someone just start a new thread regarding the OP and let this one die?

Well, it's because of the issue of whether or not armor "should" equate to deflecting attacks or not, and the like, which is the very impetus of trying to discuss options for house rules regarding removing Defense rating from Armor. If the OP, and others, including myself, didn't feel that armor should not have Defense ratings (because Deflected hits are not properly represented mechanically by Defense, but, rather, by Soak ), this thread would never have been started in the first place .

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The RAW says that for an attack to hit its target, you need at least one net success . Therefore, if you don't get at least one net success , you miss .

Sorry, that's just utter Bull@#$%.

It never says anything like that for a failure. You cant use words like "therefore" based off what a successful check looks like. That's just an assumption and it's one you've used to twist to your confining and literal argument this whole time. NOBODY agrees with you. Continue to think what you want but quit trying to force the dogmatic narrow view of the jedi on us.

The game doesn't agree with your viewpoint. We don't. Probably the Devs don't, I'd actually like to see what they'd say on it.

I truly do wonder if Tramp has ever played any edition of DnD from the last 30 years and ever got past the almost-sadistic laxity of that game's use of the word "level".

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm being serious.

Not according the the Grapple talent.

A Brawl check, as required to use a Garrote, or otherwise choke a target, is something else entirely. That's an attack . That requires a successful hit in order to first get a hold of the target before you can apply suffocating damage to him. Otherwise you miss , which means your attack fails to make contact. That is the difference between the Brawl attack to "grapple", and the Grapple maneuver.

I see you have never actually wrestled anyone. And a garrote is not really a good example. And pretty much any grapplling involves continues contact. So you are in contact whether you succeed or not. But only on a success do you accomplish your goal. This system IS NOT about hitting or missing. this system is about SUCEEDING or FAILING. with other narrative results possible.

1 minute ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Sorry, that's just utter Bull@#$%.

It never says anything like that for a failure. You cant use words like "therefore" based off what a successful check looks like. That's just an assumption and it's one you've used to twist to your confining and literal argument this whole time. NOBODY agrees with you. Continue to think what you want, quit trying to force the dogmatic narrow view of the jedi on us.

Yes, it does. I've already pointed out at least two passages where RAW specifically equates Failed attacks as synonymous with misses. Both Blast and Guided specifically refer to missed attacks. Ergo: failure equals miss . This, on top of the specific passages which state that Successful attacks are hits, clearly establishes that Success equals hit and failure equals miss .

Just now, BrickSteelhead said:

I truly do wonder if Tramp has ever played any edition of DnD from the last 30 years and ever got past the almost-sadistic laxity of that game's use of the word "level".

I've played D&D Basic , Expert , and AD&D 2d ED . And, Their level-based advancement was another reason why I eventually abandoned D&D in favor of other, better systems, such as FUZION , and its predecessor, Interlock , which utilize direct skill-based advancement.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

I see you have never actually wrestled anyone. And a garrote is not really a good example. And pretty much any grapplling involves continues contact. So you are in contact whether you succeed or not. But only on a success do you accomplish your goal. This system IS NOT about hitting or missing. this system is about SUCEEDING or FAILING. with other narrative results possible.

Actually, I got my Varsity letter in Wrestling. And attacks are about hitting or missing .

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, I got my Varsity letter in Wrestling. And attacks are about hitting or missing .

And yet you cant figure out that no matter what happens you make contact with your opponent. The difference being a success results in your opponent on the floor and a failure being you continue to try ans shove each other around trying to gain the advantage on your opponent. Your hitting or not idea does not work for grappling.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That would be completely contradictory to how armor really works. Soak ( Damage Reduction ) is specifically what armor does . That is all it does. Armor reduces damage from hits.

To start with, soak (damage reduction) is what in your opinion armour does.

To the **** with soak, but let’s agree that armour, in real life, reduces damage, as you call it. In this game you have two kinds of damage (ignoring strain): Wounds and Critical Injuries.

In this game, Wounds, are a rather unimpressive kind of damage, nothing really serious that can not be fully healed in a couple of full-day rest. Is this the sort of damage an armour prevents? Or is wearing armour preventing that bullet from perforating your lung? I guess we agree that armour, in real life, makes the difference between being badly injured by a bullet, or just being bruised.

Of course you can argue that what happens in the bullet case is that armour soaks all damage and that is why you don’t get your lung perforated. This is false in this game, because in this game soak is mainly dominated by character’s brawn and not by armour.

I have an armour with Soak 2 and I have Brawn 1, for a total soak of 3. I get shot by a gun with Damage 4 and the enemy activates a critical injury with his roll. I get 1 wound and a critical injury. The same shot against my colleague with Brawn 4 and no armour? he gets no damage and no critical injury. This not how things really work.

In the real world there is nothing like a guy with soak 4 and a guy with soak 1. If a bullet hits your chest, it will go through your skin, fat and muscles like nothing and it will stop at the bone (or shatter the bone as well, depending on the gun), no matter if you are 5 feet and 50 Kg or a professional Rugby player. What it will stop the bullet is the armour.

In my games, I wanted armours to mirror how critical they are for survival in a fight. I had two ways to do that:

1) I remove all soak coming from brawn and I leave soak entirely coming from wearing armour.

2) Leave soak coming from Brawn and giving armours the ability to prevent critical injuries, which in this game is the sort of damage that matters, as normal wounds go up and down like the sun.

I went for option two.

Finally, how really something works is not the best argument for this game, it is a terrible game at simulating (doesn’t intend to do it). Coming back to the 5 feet tall guy and the rugby player, we could agree that one can sustain a bit more of punishment than the other (bruises), the rugby player has a slightly higher wound threshold, I can take that. But damage reduction (soak) based on your brawn?? That is senseless.

21 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And yet you cant figure out that no matter what happens you make contact with your opponent. The difference being a success results in your opponent on the floor and a failure being you continue to try ans shove each other around trying to gain the advantage on your opponent. Your hitting or not idea does not work for grappling.

To make a grapple attack requires a successful hit on a Brawl check. If you fail to hit, you miss, and therefore fail to grapple the target. You fail to get a hold of your target. And, therefore, you fail to make contact with your target. And, yes, I have had this happen to me in wrestling matches, where I tried to grapple my opponent and failed to do so, missing him because he dodged me, stepping back as I lunged forward. I've also done the same to my opponents on more than one occasion. The Grapple talent is something completely different, since all that does is make it harder for enemies to disengage .

1 minute ago, Yepesnopes said:

To start with, soak (damage reduction) is what in your opinion armour does.

To the **** with soak, but let’s agree that armour, in real life, reduces damage, as you call it. In this game you have two kinds of damage (ignoring strain): Wounds and Critical Injuries.

In this game, Wounds, are a rather unimpressive kind of damage, nothing really serious that can not be fully healed in a couple of full-day rest. Is this the sort of damage an armour prevents? Or is wearing armour preventing that bullet from perforating your lung? I guess we agree that armour, in real life, makes the difference between beign badly injured by a bullet, or just being bruised.

Of course you can argue that what happens in the bullet case is that armour soaks all damage and that is why you don’t get your lung perforated. This is false in this game, because in this game soak is mainly dominated by character’s brawn and not by armour.

I have an armour with Soak 2 and I have Brawn 1, for a total soak of 3. I get shot by a gun with Damage 4 and the enemy activates a critical injury with his roll. I get 1 wound and a critical injury. The same shot against my colleague with Brawn 4 and no armour? he gets no damage and no critical injury. This not how things really work.

In the real world there is nothing like a guy with soak 4 and a guy with soak 1. If a bullet hits your chest, it will go through your skin, fat and muscles like nothing and it will stop at the bone (or shatter the bone as well, depending on the gun), no matter if you are 5 feet and 50 Kg or a professional Rugby player. What it will stop the bullet is the armour.

In my games, I wanted armours to mirror how critical they are for survival in a fight. I had two ways to do that:

1) I remove all soak coming from brawn and I leave soak entirely coming from wearing armour.

2) Leave soak coming from Brawn and giving armours the ability to prevent critical injuries, which in this game is the sort of damage that matters, as normal wounds go up and down like the sun.

I went for option two.

Finally, how really something works is not the best argument for this game, it is a terrible game at simulating (doesn’t intend to do it). Coming back to the 5 feet tall guy and the rugby player, we could agree that one can sustain a bit more of punishment than the other (bruises), the rugby player has a slightly higher wound threshold, I can take that. But damage reduction (soak) based on your brawn?? That is senseless.

No. It's not "my opinion" on how armor works. It is how armor works. This is verifiable and demonstrable fact . It is how body armor is rated, and what it does in reality. I've posted videos explicitly demonstrating this . It reduces damage from attacks that hit the wearer, potentially completely preventing damage.

An armored vest will, depending upon its rating, prevent a bullet perforating your lung. If it's good enough, it might also prevent bruising , or broken ribs, depending upon its materials, but that's not guaranteed. Hard armor will usually prevent more serious bruising, as well as cuts . though not necessarily all bruising . Soft armors will prevent cuts and the like. So, it does reduce wound damage, potentially stopping it entirely. Why do you think they wear padded body armor in Tai Kwan Do and Karate matches in the Olympics? It's to prevent cuts and bruises . Hence Soak . It doesn't just help against Critical injuries, it helps protect against all injuries. In fact, Critical injuries are usually the result of a lucky shot that bypasses armor by getting between the plates.

As for Brawn granting Soak, It does actually make some sense. The tougher someone is, the harder they are to damage, even bruise. The more frail they are, the more likely they are to bruise. A good example being my late grandmother, she bruised very easily from just brushing against a table. Her skin was that thin. By contrast, I don't bruise very easily at all. I really have to hit something hard to bruise.

You keep doing and interpretation on how armour shall prevent damage. Your interpretation is that it has to be represented by an in game mechanics called soak.

Are you using as an argument how your grandmother gets more bruised from brushing against a table than you do, to justify brawn-based soak that has to do with soaking damage from bullets, vibro-weapons and blasters!? You must be kidding!

In any case, I don’t find it worth my time to keep arguing with you about this point.

I hope your grandmother is good. I recomend bubble wrap armour, very high soak for threats lurking in the house.

1 minute ago, Yepesnopes said:

You keep doing and interpretation on how armour shall prevent damage. Your interpretation is that it has to be represented by an in game mechanics called soak.

Are you using as an argument how your grandmother gets more bruised from brushing against a table than you do, to justify brawn-based soak that has to do with soaking damage from bullets, vibro-weapons and blasters!? You must be kidding!

In any case, I don’t find it worth my time to keep arguing with you about this point.

I hope your grandmother is good. I recomend bubble wrap armour, very high soak for threats lurking in the house.

No, I'm using the example of myself compared to my late grandmother about how people who are in better shape (higher Brawn) can, and do resist injury in general better than more frail people.

By RAW, Soak reduces damage from a successful hit. After a successful attack, and damage is determined, you subtract the target's Soak from that damage before applying it to the target. That is RAW. It also reflects reality. It is also how most game system handle armor. a prime example being the FUZION system, which uses Stopping Power as its armor mechanic. You subtract the stopping power of the armor from any damage rolled on a successful attack, with some weapons being better at penetrating certain types of armor than others, ( Halving the armor's SP).

6 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm being serious.

Yeah. I know. So am I. I’m done arguing this point with you and wishing you good luck in your games.

You might actually attract constructive feedback to what you claim this thread is about if you’d spend your energy making suggestions and being explicit about what kind of house rule you’re looking for. It really does not seem that way - more like you are more interested in arguing minutia and very tangential topics (like narrating dice) to the death instead. If you spend 95% of your time doing one thing and not the other that’s what you really want (yeah, I know, in your head it’s all related and arguing with people for pages and pages and antagonizing every one left in this thread is accomplishing what?).

Sounds like the OPs house rule is what you’re looking for (did you really spend 16 pages arguing when the first post is what you wanted?) . If not I suggest you make your own suggestion and ask for feedback.

Good luck, if the OP’s house rule isn’t good enough then I don’t know that this system’s mechanics offer what you’re looking for especially given how obsessed with simulation over abstraction you are.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, I'm using the example of myself compared to my late grandmother about how people who are in better shape (higher Brawn) can, and do resist injury in general better than more frail people.

By RAW, Soak reduces damage from a successful hit. After a successful attack, and damage is determined, you subtract the target's Soak from that damage before applying it to the target. That is RAW. It also reflects reality. It is also how most game system handle armor. a prime example being the FUZION system, which uses Stopping Power as its armor mechanic. You subtract the stopping power of the armor from any damage rolled on a successful attack, with some weapons being better at penetrating certain types of armor than others, ( Halving the armor's SP).

How bout you go play fuzion and leave us alone? You seem to like it better

Don’t feed the troll