Damage Total

[momosnyx]

Is it just me, or has anyone else stumbled over the term "Damage Total"? When I first skimmed through the rules I thought that this refers to the total damage dealt in an attack.
Only during the second reading of the rules I understood that
total damage dealt = Damage Total x (attack roll - defense roll)
when the attack roll is greater than the defense roll.
A "total" implies something "final" for me. It may be the "total" of all abilities related to the attack, but it is not the final damage done.

This leads to some odd descriptions, e.g. on page 51 under Power Move: "To determine the base Damage Total of your Power Move Suite, refer to this table:". The term "base" and the rest of the sentence implies, that this value can be further modified, which is perfectly ok and intended with the Power Moves. But again the term "total" implies something final.

Maybe a better term would be "Damage Factor" which is for me much more neutral and hints at the rule to multiply it to get the total damage.

Additionally, I think it would be helpful to define a term like "Degree of Success" in the "Taking Action" chapter (value rolled - Difficulty number for normal actions; and value rolled - opposed value rolled for opposed actions).
Then the Degree of Success for an attack is the difference between the attackers and defenders roll.
And then
total damage = Damage Factor x Degree of Success

I know that Stephen Hawking once said that each mathematical formula in a book will drop the number of buyers by half, but I think in this case a formula helps...

(One might still argue that this is still not the "final" damage as some may be removed by Armour or Unnatural Resistance, but this would be nitpicking. Honestly )

[Clay]

I see your point. The original intent was a "total" of all damage bonuses, but it does seem awkward in certain situations. I think you might have an easier time if you do what I do and call it "DT" ^^

I think renaming this might result in breaking more than it clarifies, but it's something I'll keep in mind for a "second edition" As for the new formula, I'm inclined to agree with Hawking. There actually was a "Degree of Success" table, but I decided it was a rather useless table and removed it.

I haven't heard a complaint from anyone else, so hopefully my decision to not mess with DT will sit well with everyone.

Thanks again though for your attention to detail. If I only had you around BEFORE the book came out. ^_~

[momosnyx]

I see your point. The original intent was a "total" of all damage bonuses, but it does seem awkward in certain situations. I think you might have an easier time if you do what I do and call it "DT" ^^

It actually helps

There actually was a "Degree of Success" table, but I decided it was a rather useless table and removed it.

I think a clear definition of the term like "Degree of Success" := Attacker's Roll - Defender's Roll would help to make some wordings easier. One might even mention that a low DoS means a marginal success while a high DoS means a devastating victory, so that the GM can use this as a basis for his verbal descriptions of the outcome of the confrontation (Just as a guideline for colorful descriptions).
But I don't think that the table you mention would be useful.
Even when you consider an extended contest between two opponents, e.g. a game of chess, where several rolls need to be made until one of the opponents has accumulated a certain number of successes, you could simply use the numerical values.

Thanks again though for your attention to detail. If I only had you around BEFORE the book came out. ^_~

There's room for changes as long as there is "only" a PDF version...
And I'd volunteer to proof-read the coming publications