It came to me, when writing the script for my stand-up comedy, about how I'm married to a Russian spy, because she learnt to throw grenades in school.
Grenade Damage, and your game.
Older Grenades had a sleek shell, but, being manufactured in older mills, under time pressure, the often had flaws. the thin wall on one side would result in the shell breaking too fast in one direction, sending out a spray of shrapnel in very specific directions.
The Blast would, according to some fascinating videos on YouTube, blow out mostly in two directions, starting from the thin side, and breaking left and right of that. The thicker side would be propelled away from the thin side.
In Gaming terms, this would be a d4.
a 1 would result in minimal damage, ringing in the ears, possibly knocked unconscious and possibly a small shrapnel striking the target for minimal d4 damage. (In D&D and other leveled health system, this is d4 per level of the target, to simulate full impact, then minus AC & level from the total to account for dodge)
a 2 would be the bulk, striking the victim with full force, but large enough to smash against armour, and or skin, causing a massive wound, broken bones, and small gashes, possibly killing, but little enough to still be survived. likely 2d6 damage (in DD12 single damage)
a 3 and a 4, would be the worst of it, the spread of shrapnel, being flung at such high speeds and in small enough particles, would rip though the victim, in multiple places, likely severing arteries along the way. likely 5d6 damage (in DD12, separated damage) , plus all 6s causing a critical. instant death is likely.
Game Styles effect
The thing is, if you think about this, the d4 is nominating if you live or die, 1 = most likely living, 2 = decent chance of living, small chance of death, 3 & 4, small chance of living, impaired, but high chance of death.
In certain game styles (mostly narrative), they mitigate damage, they add extra health potions, or the damage is always small increments or as part of the greater whole, is valueless (d4 damage to a 10th level barbarian in D&D? just a scratch) which takes away the believability of the game, and turns it into a cartoon. (the Whiley coyote, can swallow a grenade and merely burp our some smoke (d4 damage) Its done to allow the plot to continue, because the people there are not playing a game that has a plot, they are telling a story with some rules.
Narrative:
So, How would this grenade work in such narrative games? Well, you could have a blast temple, 4 angles. If the character to be hit is a player character or someone vital to the narrative, have the 'thin' side point in their direction.Like in the movies, the blast goes off, but they are merely temporarily blinded or deafened, while nearby in the other 4 directions, the other NPCs or opponents would take the damage and be killed or incapacitated.
This can allow GMs and Players of Narrative games the opportunities to do realistic damage, yet maintain the plot.
Of course, if two or more players are in the blast zone, maybe someone takes one for the team, so the 'real' hero can live on.
Old School
Old school, of course you just roll d4 and see which side hit the player, the template approach can add some more interest, as once you've ascertained the players damage direction, you can see where other damage may have occurred.
Blended
My own approach has been OSR based, but I do like a good exposition, knowing that the grenade has '4' directions of damage, I'll roll at first to see what the 'initial damage directions' were going to be, but I might have the 'safe' side hit the boss or a specific minion, and have the most dangerous blast take out some of the less important minions. If on the other hand a PC is in the radius, I'll roll the die, then let the players make a 'dive' to the safe side, if they fail and their in the main blast, well, sorry folks, death claims another soul. technically I gave the players an out, letting them see in advance the blasts direction, so they make a choice to dive for the safe direction, its less OSR, but allows the story to proceed 75% more often.
Conclusion
What's your take on it? is there another approach that I've not thought of? Let me know in the comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment