Weapon/Armour Rating: A Lost Cause?

For those of you who recognize my avatar, you know that I am an opponent of weapon/armour ratings in pretty much all it's forms. I think that the training and focus of the person wielding the weapon (READ: skill and stunts) rather than the weapon itself.

Then came along Jadepunk (DTRPG link below) by +Ryan M. Danks, +Jacob Poss, and +Mike Olson. They have a really cool way of doing weapon rating, you get +X to the stress dealt, up to the lower of the Harmful rating or your margin of success. So if you have a Harmful 2 weapon, you get 1 additional shift of stress if you succeed by 1 shift, or 2 extra shifts if you beat their defense by 2 or more.

The armour rating rules are akin to what you're used to seeing, reduce the shifts of stress you take equal to the Protective level. Or, if you prefer, you can have a piece of armour with 1 or 2 stress boxes of its own.

Don't get me wrong, I love Jadepunk, but once I saw there was weapon/armour rating analogues, I liked it just a little bit less. Once I read the Harmful feature, it calmed my initial knee-jerk reaction a bit, though. Limiting the excess shifts to your MoS is a stroke of pure brilliance.

What does this have to do with anything? It makes me wonder, as I stated in the title, "is looking for a weapon/armour rating-free game a pipe dream?"

Are small differences like how much damage done/avoided so engrained in the RPG mindset that people feel a game is incomplete without them? Should I just give in and accept this as part of the hobby? The Harmful feature, I think, is a good middle ground between a tie wiping out a minion mob (with a Weapon:4) and a good hit being even better (Harmful 4).

I'm not sure I have an actual point, just wanted to vent a bit and ramble some more :p
Shared publiclyView activity