Well, it depends the style of game.I may have missed the statement in you're OP, but is there a reason you appear to be married to traditional dice mechanics? Don't get me wrong, the bell curve is a beautiful thing, and your ideas to play with it are intriguing, but again, I wonder if it's necessary. If one were to design a crunchy game in this day and age, with smart phones, tablets, laptops and desktops, why do we really need dice at the table (aside from the fun of rolling)?
Yeah, I'm trying to do several things at the same time. In the computer game the character has no background whatsoever. Blank for a reason.My focus is really on the character generation side, with a system of packages representing periods of time that are translated into increases or decreases in various metrics including natural attributes, skills, relationships and reputation, wealth and so on. The packages provides a timepath for the character career which hides nitty-gritty choices while allowing a player to create a character they want.
Yeah, I know OSR. But the idea of OSR is about going "old-school" and make it relevant again. My point is that the "true" old school was about the wargaming complex ancestors of RPGs, not their "storytelling" side that is much more a modern bent. Even the simplification trends came after the 80s.I wouldn't say OSR is just the retroclones and minimalist designs.
Sword's Path: Glory does at least some of what you want.This is true especially for those parries. RoleMaster doesn't seem to be discrete at all, even if it's, in theory, conceived to be so. You have your single or multiple attacks, and RMU seems to move away from the idea that those sword-swings are abstracted (seemingly having faster phases). I like the idea of a discrete swing of the sword, maybe modified so you have an actual tactical control of it, and then have the opponent react through active defense. RuneQuest is overall simpler, but it allows this. An attack goes against an active defense, both parties make their action and roll the dice. In RoleMaster instead the "parry" is just allocation of points to a sort of passive defense, so that the attack isn't directly "blocked", by a discrete reactive action, but merely de-powered, by simply subtracting the value from the roll, and so stay lower on the resolution table.
There is no match between what is happening in the idea of simulated combat, and what's happening on that table.
Sword's Path: Glory does at least some of what you want.
I cannot find the exact quote, but the idea is that they built this system because they had access to those mainframes. The formulas they used to build the tables were extremely complex. They put the data in a computer and the computer produced those tables. But we have none of that stuff that was the input, we only have the tables themselves as the output, we don't have the formulas.Of the LE guys, he said they (and he) were JPL geeks in Pasadena who bashed orc heads on weekends, and had access to computer number-crunching back when mainframes were leet.
SP:G is what you get when five off-duty engineers lock themselves in a room and they want some realism. It models able-bodied, right-handed humanoids (he said it scaled down to dwarves really well, 4’2" guys with 40" vertical leaps in armor) down to 1/10 second impulses, with linear and rotational acceleration rates, and every single swing. For damage, they modeled weapon tip shapes, body target areas, and the volumetric intersections thereof, and assigned hit point density values based on things like muscles/nerves/brains.