Frail & Sturdy - Is this necessary?

Is Frail/Sturdy Needed?


  • Total voters
    55
  • Poll closed .
The image of an Ogre shrugging off volleys of arrows, and requiring the attention multiple opponents to take them down is pretty iconic. As is the image of Elves adopting a mobile, agility & range based combat style to compensate for their races physical frailty. Dwarves being sturdy, hardy, short tanks, who take a lot of punishment but keep fighting. Goblins as frail, sneaky little creatures who take opponents down via swarm, and stealth tactics because individually they are weak and breakable.

In level based systems like Pathfinder, or Palladium character's ability to withstand damage is altered based on their <arbitrary IG group name>

In point buy systems like White Wolf, or 7th Sea, there are abilities which effect a character's ability to withstand physical punishment whose purchase cost varies based on the individuals <arbitrary IG group name>.

In Alliance I'd say it absolutely makes sense for biologically different races whose evolution has been subject to different pressures to have genuine physical differences i.e. Frail/Hearty. As far as game balance goes I think PCs being required to trade off purchasing increased body v. purchasing other skills is solid. Everyone starts at the same point, then allows a differentiation based on PC choice via point expenditure, with certain races being biologically predisposed to one or the other strategy. It also allows PCs a greater variety of idiosyncratic builds, which I am always in favor of.

TLDR I'd say the current Frail v. Hearty is a solid representation of what has become an accepted narrative in the Fantasy genre, and others, and enhances the realism of the game. I'd be fine with a math based cost re-balance, but not the elimination of Frail/Hardy.
 
The image of an Ogre shrugging off volleys of arrows, and requiring the attention multiple opponents to take them down is pretty iconic. As is the image of Elves adopting a mobile, agility & range based combat style to compensate for their races physical frailty. Dwarves being sturdy, hardy, short tanks, who take a lot of punishment but keep fighting. Goblins as frail, sneaky little creatures who take opponents down via swarm, and stealth tactics because individually they are weak and breakable.

In level based systems like Pathfinder, or Palladium character's ability to withstand damage is altered based on their <arbitrary IG group name>

In point buy systems like White Wolf, or 7th Sea, there are abilities which effect a character's ability to withstand physical punishment whose purchase cost varies based on the individuals <arbitrary IG group name>.

In Alliance I'd say it absolutely makes sense for biologically different races whose evolution has been subject to different pressures to have genuine physical differences i.e. Frail/Hearty. As far as game balance goes I think PCs being required to trade off purchasing increased body v. purchasing other skills is solid. Everyone starts at the same point, then allows a differentiation based on PC choice via point expenditure, with certain races being biologically predisposed to one or the other strategy. It also allows PCs a greater variety of idiosyncratic builds, which I am always in favor of.

TLDR I'd say the current Frail v. Hearty is a solid representation of what has become an accepted narrative in the Fantasy genre, and others, and enhances the realism of the game. I'd be fine with a math based cost re-balance, but not the elimination of Frail/Hardy.

I bolded a few parts, not out of criticism, but to emphasize the point I'm going to make.

Alliance specifically does not have characters with racial predispositions towards size or build. Sure, they might have superficial differences in biology (pointy ears, fur, gemstones literally growing out of their heads), but the only races that have an indicator of being "athletically advantageous" are hoblings and -some- kyn (represented by Racial Dodge). However, dwarves are only as short as the people who play them. You could put elf ears on my body, but you aren't going to turn me into a lithe-looking person by any means.

As a result, while I understand the desire to embrace and represent those fantasy stereotypes, which certainly have their mechanical places in tabletop games, I think there's something to gain in avoiding things like Frail and Hardy in our LARP system.
 
I bolded a few parts, not out of criticism, but to emphasize the point I'm going to make.

Alliance specifically does not have characters with racial predispositions towards size or build. Sure, they might have superficial differences in biology (pointy ears, fur, gemstones literally growing out of their heads), but the only races that have an indicator of being "athletically advantageous" are hoblings and -some- kyn (represented by Racial Dodge). However, dwarves are only as short as the people who play them. You could put elf ears on my body, but you aren't going to turn me into a lithe-looking person by any means.

As a result, while I understand the desire to embrace and represent those fantasy stereotypes, which certainly have their mechanical places in tabletop games, I think there's something to gain in avoiding things like Frail and Hardy in our LARP system.

But you require me to imagine people walking towards me in tabards to be different things for story/combat benefit all the time. Why can't we have a rule about their sturdiness?

Also orcs are physically better at every one at swinging a sword, hence they get half price weapon skills. Anyone with resist poison are suppose to be healthy and hardy, for lack of better word. Elves until recently couldn't wield two handed weapons because they were frail.

So there is precedent that there are "frail and sturdy" races already. And with the limitation of once a level, it's not like it will be bought excessively. It's pretty well controlled.
 
I think the point being made sometime earlier was missed.

While in most fantasy settings, there are races that are -- in these terms -- frail and sturdy. However, in those same settings, they have something that offsets their physical girth. Elves, in particular, are lithe and nimble, as noted by a few. So, while an Orc may be able to take eighty arrows to a single knee, the Elf just won't get hit. We're addressing half of that only, with a "I guess your bones are hollow, what's it like being a bird that's as mobile as that orc?" approach.
 
But you require me to imagine people walking towards me in tabards to be different things for story/combat benefit all the time. Why can't we have a rule about their sturdiness?

Also orcs are physically better at every one at swinging a sword, hence they get half price weapon skills. Anyone with resist poison are suppose to be healthy and hardy, for lack of better word. Elves until recently couldn't wield two handed weapons because they were frail.

So there is precedent that there are "frail and sturdy" races already. And with the limitation of once a level, it's not like it will be bought excessively. It's pretty well controlled.

Orcs are better with weapons, sure, but they aren't stronger. That's the distinct difference between Prof and Superhuman Strength! ;)

Dwarves have essentially mutated to Resist Poison. They're not "extra healthy," they're X-Men.

There's a reason nobody really gives a crud about 1 or 2 Body at earlier levels; they have exceedingly minimal impact shortly afterwards. Adding Frail/Sturdy takes that minor descriptive coloring to an excessive degree, in my opinion. I certainly don't think it adds to the game in thematic degree as much as it would take away from a player's ability to enjoy various ways to enjoy a race.
 
Does that mean those that don't like Sturdy/Frail would prefer the 1.3 method of just having -Body at L1? Or a recurring automatic benefit/penalty every 10 Body like in the 0.8 version?

Also, why is the Frail/Sturdy considered an excessive issue now and not when the Body benefit/penalty was once per 10 Body back in the 0.8 iteration? I don't understand where this negative reaction is coming from because it feels very ... spontaneous. Especially since Frail/Sturdy only affects those that purchase Hearty. If it isn't purchased it isn't a penalty/benefit.
 
Does that mean those that don't like Sturdy/Frail would prefer the 1.3 method of just having -Body at L1? Or a recurring automatic benefit/penalty every 10 Body like in the 0.8 version?

Also, why is the Frail/Sturdy considered an excessive issue now and not when the Body benefit/penalty was once per 10 Body back in the 0.8 iteration? I don't understand where this negative reaction is coming from because it feels very ... spontaneous. Especially since Frail/Sturdy only affects those that purchase Hearty. If it isn't purchased it isn't a penalty/benefit.

Just because its being posted about in 0.9, doesn't mean it wasn't an issue in 0.8. I believe my response to the 0.8 iteration was "Well, I'll find something else to do with my time." :)

Seeing as the proposal packages are, well, packages unto themselves, I imagine it would either:
  1. Go through as proposed
  2. 1.3's -1/+1 body remains
  3. No body difference between races (This is my ideal output)
  4. Something else entirely
The fact that Hearty exists suggests that, in some scenario, it's supposed to be taken. Whether that's for high-level build/experience soak, or for tanking character builds, something else, who knows. But, the fact that somehow its framing 'Frail' races as weaker, inherently, rather than simply more agile (I know I keep saying this), it suggests that every Elven Army is even on a weaker footing that Humans, for instance, while systematically incapable of fighting High Orcs -- they have more available body, from a fighting force standpoint, and thus equal-level, equal-skilled fighters will simply see the Frail race fall over before the Normal or Hearty race runs out of body.
 
The fact that Hearty exists suggests that, in some scenario, it's supposed to be taken. Whether that's for high-level build/experience soak, or for tanking character builds, something else, who knows. But, the fact that somehow its framing 'Frail' races as weaker, inherently, rather than simply more agile (I know I keep saying this), it suggests that every Elven Army is even on a weaker footing that Humans, for instance, while systematically incapable of fighting High Orcs -- they have more available body, from a fighting force standpoint, and thus equal-level, equal-skilled fighters will simply see the Frail race fall over before the Normal or Hearty race runs out of body.

This confuses me immensely. I don't understand how 5 XP for a Human Fighter to get +5 Body, vs. 4 XP for an Orc Fighter, vs. 6 XP for an Elf Fighter, constitutes framing the 'Frail' races as weaker and more likely to fall down. Either the Elf has to spend a little more time than the Human to toughen their Body the same amount, or that Elf will get a Parry/Riposte/Eviscerate/etc.

I may just not be understanding the consternation. Is it that 'Frail' races are getting penalized on a skill purchase without a commiserate benefit to another skill purchase?
 
I guess? Its addressing half an issue. If races are supposed to be:
  1. "Hearty"
  2. "Normal"
  3. "Frail"
Then if there's a penalty on one end and a bonus on the other, it makes sense for the reverse, if it follows the stance of this whole ordeal.
 
I think it better frames as 'These races have to train harder to get tougher' in that context.
 
This confuses me immensely. I don't understand how 5 XP for a Human Fighter to get +5 Body, vs. 4 XP for an Orc Fighter, vs. 6 XP for an Elf Fighter, constitutes framing the 'Frail' races as weaker and more likely to fall down. Either the Elf has to spend a little more time than the Human to toughen their Body the same amount, or that Elf will get a Parry/Riposte/Eviscerate/etc.

I may just not be understanding the consternation. Is it that 'Frail' races are getting penalized on a skill purchase without a commiserate benefit to another skill purchase?

I feel that, in fantasy games, there's things that offset the frail races. In the classic D&D, Elves have a penalty to Con. But they have a bonus to Dex, meaning that for all their frailty, that increased ability makes them harder to hit. In other sources of fantasy, Elven magic users are superior magic users; this stereotype is also not represented.

I'm okay with mechanically balanced penalties, where a race is inclined towards a specific method of fighting, but Frail races only have the penalty, and no corresponding advantages other than Hoblings and their controversial Racial Dodge.

I should add that I'm equally against Dryad armor penalties, racial penalties to Read Magic, elves being unable to use two-handed swords, etc etc.
 
I feel that, in fantasy games, there's things that offset the frail races. In the classic D&D, Elves have a penalty to Con. But they have a bonus to Dex, meaning that for all their frailty, that increased ability makes them harder to hit. In other sources of fantasy, Elven magic users are superior magic users; this stereotype is also not represented.

I'm okay with mechanically balanced penalties, where a race is inclined towards a specific method of fighting, but Frail races only have the penalty, and no corresponding advantages other than Hoblings and their controversial Racial Dodge.

I should add that I'm equally against Dryad armor penalties, racial penalties to Read Magic, elves being unable to use two-handed swords, etc etc.

Elves have resist command (a whole effect group) and half cost on archery. For a minimum of tiny ear caps that make ears pointed. In exchange they don't get to buy hearty at the same cost as humans or hardy races. (The rules still say all weapon restrictions have been removed, so your argument there is gone, check the first paragraph of under racial changes). At this point, they have a 1 point change on a skill (which isn't even mandatory to buy and has very limited buys). All for small ear tips. I think that elves should have penalties. Something. Anything. And hearty costing 1 extra build for one specific skill ONCE A LEVEL is perfectly acceptable.

Wylderkin/Dark Elves/High Orcs/Ogres have the most make up/prosthetics. They don't get enough in my opinion. Dark Elves do get boned a bit by frail, but it's not a make or break skill.

Would frail/sturdy be less of a problem if the amount of body granted by hearty decreased to 3 and cost of hearty dropped across the board by 1? That way the skill gives 1.5 times what a fighter gets in 10 xp? Instead of 2.5 times.

Or are you guys just against flavor and penalties at all?
 
Or are you guys just against flavor and penalties at all?

I'm against lop-sided, poorly executed flavor/penalties. But your snark is noted.

If this was presented as "Here's Hearty -- Body is hard for you lithe races; and here's Evade -- Getting out of the way is hard for you chunky races", this wouldn't be a discussion for me. Instead, its "Here's Hearty and Frail -- remember how two handed swords were 'too complex' for you to figure out? Yeah, its like that." As presented, this is the set-up for additional penalties, because otherwise it would have simply been built into Hearty, not a separate section that only impacts a single skill.
 
I'm pretty sure that if it wouldn't be absolutely horrific for the database, frail and sturdy would be something like:

Frail: Requires 1 extra Build (XP) to gain a body point
Sturdy: Requires 1 fewer Build (XP) to gain a body point

Just like the current phrasing, it would have a drastic effect on fighters than on scholars, and it would still have an effect that continued throughout the life of the character.

However, I am certain that would be beyond frustrating to program into the database, which is why that isn't the proposal (if it isn't hard to program, might I make a suggestion?).

-MS
 
I'm against lop-sided, poorly executed flavor/penalties. But your snark is noted.

If this was presented as "Here's Hearty -- Body is hard for you lithe races; and here's Evade -- Getting out of the way is hard for you chunky races", this wouldn't be a discussion for me. Instead, its "Here's Hearty and Frail -- remember how two handed swords were 'too complex' for you to figure out? Yeah, its like that." As presented, this is the set-up for additional penalties, because otherwise it would have simply been built into Hearty, not a separate section that only impacts a single skill.

What other penalties? There hasn't been any other penalty like this. There has been a doubling for skills ((which is gone mostly). There has been a precedent for subtracting build for being a certain race. This is the same thing. Only it also has a penalty so as to also differentiate between humans and elves. And it's for a skill that will probably not be purchased as much because of instant take outs (yeah the extra body doesn't help with evis/term/high power slay/assassinate).
 
Elves have resist command (a whole effect group) and half cost on archery. For a minimum of tiny ear caps that make ears pointed. In exchange they don't get to buy hearty at the same cost as humans or hardy races. (The rules still say all weapon restrictions have been removed, so your argument there is gone, check the first paragraph of under racial changes). At this point, they have a 1 point change on a skill (which isn't even mandatory to buy and has very limited buys). All for small ear tips. I think that elves should have penalties. Something. Anything. And hearty costing 1 extra build for one specific skill ONCE A LEVEL is perfectly acceptable.

Wylderkin/Dark Elves/High Orcs/Ogres have the most make up/prosthetics. They don't get enough in my opinion. Dark Elves do get boned a bit by frail, but it's not a make or break skill.

Would frail/sturdy be less of a problem if the amount of body granted by hearty decreased to 3 and cost of hearty dropped across the board by 1? That way the skill gives 1.5 times what a fighter gets in 10 xp? Instead of 2.5 times.

Or are you guys just against flavor and penalties at all?

There have been posts by Owners that have stated that racial abilities and advantages/disadvantages have nothing to do with costuming/racial difficulties. They are not intended to be "balancing." This is why 1.3 Sarr have pretty hefty penalties (and, I'd like to remind you that those penalties are why we chose to play Kyn!), with the same makeup requirements as Kyn. It's why Biata, who have pretty mild advantages have the penalty of not being able to use an entire type of magic. It's why MWEs get a pretty sweet set of advantages with pretty minimal cost.

It's because "balance" is absolutely authored to be irrelevant. I'm actually okay with this. I don't think Racial power should be balanced against Racial costuming, because the idea of buying power with good makeup kinda irks me.

I don't think there's any justification for penalties that make up a significant disadvantage over the time of the character is good for the game.
 
Back
Top