TheRPGSite

Here's my heretical thoughts on combat, in no particular order:

Armor prevents damage. This can be done in game by preventing hits, or by absorbing damage. Statistically, either way works just fine. It doesn't matter for game purposes which method is used. Ultimately, the point is reducing average damage taken. Conceptually, people understand absorbing damage better, but it is often simpler to abstract that to preventing hits. So, go for reducing damage if the flavor is more important, and go with preventing hits if speed of resolution is more important.

Initiative can be thought of two ways as well, though both focus on "when". These are "when you do something" or "when you do something that matters." In a game that attempts to model the real world or a fairly realistic genre, a look at statistics says the vast majority of blows or shots attempted fail, even when the person acting is trained. Thus with the first concept of initiative, you tend to get get a very short round, with lots of misses, either by target avoidance, blocking and parrying, or by a low chance of hitting. The second concept leads to long rounds with a much higher chance of hitting, but very few actual attempts over that round, because the misses are assumed and not attempted. Changing the ratio of hits over time higher leads to non-realistic combat, which may be your design goal.

Damage in the real world is mostly random. People have survived multiple hits with a machine gun, and died from a single stab with a kitchen knife, yet if you ask people which is deadlier, they will say the machine gun. In games, damage is what you want it to be. In a gritty game, a single stab with a kitchen knife should potentially kill, while in a cinematic game, a character should be able to absorb multiple potentially deadly blows. The problem, of course, comes in modeling the real world, where both should be true. A gritty game need not be realistic, and occasional cinematic results should be expected in a realistic game. With tools like wound levels and penalties, you can make a game seem grittier than it is without them. With tools like luck and hero points, you can make a game seem more cinematic than it would otherwise. Find the sweet spot you want in the game, and build the rest around it.

-clash

I must be a heretic...because I'm pretty much agreeing with your points and observations 100%

I love you, you damned hippy.

"What clash said."

I'm Mcrow, and I approve this message. :)

Blinks...

MWA?

-clash

Heretical thoughts on combat would be more like: You don't need to hit to succeed. You just need to successfully threaten.

Quote from: DwightHeretical thoughts on combat would be more like: You don't need to hit to succeed. You just need to successfully threaten.

That's why God gave unto roleplayers the Intimidate Skill/Intimidation Check. :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHere's my heretical thoughts on combat, in no particular order:

Armor prevents damage. This can be done in game by preventing hits, or by absorbing damage. Statistically, either way works just fine. It doesn't matter for game purposes which method is used. Ultimately, the point is reducing average damage taken. Conceptually, people understand absorbing damage better, but it is often simpler to abstract that to preventing hits. So, go for reducing damage if the flavor is more important, and go with preventing hits if speed of resolution is more important.

And some of us go for both...silly rabbit!

Quote from: flyingmiceInitiative can be thought of two ways as well, though both focus on "when". These are "when you do something" or "when you do something that matters." In a game that attempts to model the real world or a fairly realistic genre, a look at statistics says the vast majority of blows or shots attempted fail, even when the person acting is trained. Thus with the first concept of initiative, you tend to get get a very short round, with lots of misses, either by target avoidance, blocking and parrying, or by a low chance of hitting. The second concept leads to long rounds with a much higher chance of hitting, but very few actual attempts over that round, because the misses are assumed and not attempted. Changing the ratio of hits over time higher leads to non-realistic combat, which may be your design goal.

hmm, sounding familiar....

Quote from: flyingmiceDamage in the real world is mostly random. People have survived multiple hits with a machine gun, and died from a single stab with a kitchen knife, yet if you ask people which is deadlier, they will say the machine gun. In games, damage is what you want it to be. In a gritty game, a single stab with a kitchen knife should potentially kill, while in a cinematic game, a character should be able to absorb multiple potentially deadly blows. The problem, of course, comes in modeling the real world, where both should be true. A gritty game need not be realistic, and occasional cinematic results should be expected in a realistic game. With tools like wound levels and penalties, you can make a game seem grittier than it is without them. With tools like luck and hero points, you can make a game seem more cinematic than it would otherwise. Find the sweet spot you want in the game, and build the rest around it.

-clash

I guess I agree though what you conflate here is play style and system. I dare say you can get a similar effect with proper narration (and I mean that word like it appears in the dictionary bitches! ;) )

That said, I think you are speaking around what I call the Elements of a game. Those aspects of play style the group enjoys.

Bill

Quote from: DwightHeretical thoughts on combat would be more like: You don't need to hit to succeed. You just need to successfully threaten.

Quite so.

I had a system, way back when, where I played with the idea of totally dropping anything that would be considered combat. It would all be a battle of wits or intimidation. Essentially, it would allow for defeating your opponent in a debate or in combat with a similar system. I used it for a pulp setting I called "Bizaar Tales!". PRetty simple system when you boiled it down using stats as your Conviction and Courage. The beauty of it was the ability to swap in any stat, make up a new one, and model something I had not seen in the original design.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAnd some of us go for both...silly rabbit!

Of course. You can go partly damage absorbing and partly hit avoiding. That works perfectly well too.

Quotehmm, sounding familiar....

It's one way of handling combat. If you have 10 six second rounds and a 5% chance of hitting each round, that is statistically identical to having a one-minute round with a single 50% chance of hitting. The first increases the handling time and flavor, the second decreases both. You can again go somewhere between the two. I'm not trying to exclude the middle, just mark out reference points.

QuoteI guess I agree though what you conflate here is play style and system. I dare say you can get a similar effect with proper narration (and I mean that word like it appears in the dictionary bitches! ;) )

That said, I think you are speaking around what I call the Elements of a game. Those aspects of play style the group enjoys.

Bill

System and playstyle naturally conflate, which is why you get a different experience playing one game as opposed to another. You can force any game to match any playstyle, but it's usually easier to get the playstyle you want by matching it with a system predisposed to that playstyle. That's why the forge guys correctly say ""system matters." It does matter. Other things, like setting and group practices, also matter though, so system isn't the only thing that matters, and it isn't necessarily the most important thing.

I think what you are calling Elements of a game are a group of nebulously related things that taken together establish the overall flavor of a game. Am I correct?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceBlinks...

MWA?

-clash

I'm being dense. What does MWA mean?

Quote from: One Horse TownI'm being dense. What does MWA mean?

It's the sound I make when I am utterly shocked and surprised. :D

-clash

I thought it was more the sound my grandmother used to make when she planted a big sloppy wet kiss on my cheek when I was a kid.

Quote from: HinterWeltQuite so.

I had a system, way back when, where I played with the idea of totally dropping anything that would be considered combat. It would all be a battle of wits or intimidation. Essentially, it would allow for defeating your opponent in a debate or in combat with a similar system. I used it for a pulp setting I called "Bizaar Tales!". PRetty simple system when you boiled it down using stats as your Conviction and Courage. The beauty of it was the ability to swap in any stat, make up a new one, and model something I had not seen in the original design.

Bill

Yeah? So where is it?

Quote from: James J SkachYeah? So where is it?

And did it survive contact with the PCs? :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceOf course. You can go partly damage absorbing and partly hit avoiding. That works perfectly well too.



It's one way of handling combat. If you have 10 six second rounds and a 5% chance of hitting each round, that is statistically identical to having a one-minute round with a single 50% chance of hitting. The first increases the handling time and flavor, the second decreases both. You can again go somewhere between the two. I'm not trying to exclude the middle, just mark out reference points.

I was agreeing. My math minor was in statistics...;)

Quote from: flyingmiceSystem and playstyle naturally conflate, which is why you get a different experience playing one game as opposed to another. You can force any game to match any playstyle, but it's usually easier to get the playstyle you want by matching it with a system predisposed to that playstyle. That's why the forge guys correctly say ""system matters." It does matter. Other things, like setting and group practices, also matter though, so system isn't the only thing that matters, and it isn't necessarily the most important thing.

I doubt we will agree on this. I think we are closer than my initial reaction puts us. I have always read "system matters" as that is the only thing that matters. I tend to believe it is nothing more or less that an element in play. You can increase the amount an element matters though. So, if you wanted to play an RPG like a board game then you could make it so system is the only thing that matters.

Quote from: flyingmiceI think what you are calling Elements of a game are a group of nebulously related things that taken together establish the overall flavor of a game. Am I correct?

-clash

Yes. More than that though, they may change scope on how you wish to evaluate your play experience or the game you want. You can take it down to Elements of a system, play style, setting, or whatever is important to you. Alternatively, you can zoom out to the point of taking those elements as a whole. System can be "gritty". Then you can take it down to what elements make it gritty to you.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceIt's the sound I make when I am utterly shocked and surprised. :D

-clash

Ah, in the internet world of acronyms, i thought that was one i hadn't heard of! :)

Quote from: James J SkachYeah? So where is it?

Buried in my paper notes in a moving box. ;)

Personally, in 1989 when I came up with it, it just would not have played on the industry market. So, I shelved it.

However, I played it for about a year and a half. The ending part was a Vampire game that was set in the near future. Dark brooding goth stuff but actually quite entertaining.

Ah, memories...

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI was agreeing. My math minor was in statistics...;)

I doubt we will agree on this. I think we are closer than my initial reaction puts us. I have always read "system matters" as that is the only thing that matters. I tend to believe it is nothing more or less that an element in play. You can increase the amount an element matters though. So, if you wanted to play an RPG like a board game then you could make it so system is the only thing that matters.

Then we do agree. I also think the "system matters" mantra is usually read as "system is the only thing that matters," and that is wrong. It's an important element, but not the only, or even most important.

QuoteYes. More than that though, they may change scope on how you wish to evaluate your play experience or the game you want. You can take it down to Elements of a system, play style, setting, or whatever is important to you. Alternatively, you can zoom out to the point of taking those elements as a whole. System can be "gritty". Then you can take it down to what elements make it gritty to you.

Bill

OK. Got it.

-clash

If this is heretical, I don't wanna be sacred! :D

Quote from: HinterWeltBuried in my paper notes in a moving box. ;)

Personally, in 1989 when I came up with it, it just would not have played on the industry market. So, I shelved it.

However, I played it for about a year and a half. The ending part was a Vampire game that was set in the near future. Dark brooding goth stuff but actually quite entertaining.

Ah, memories...

Bill

Won't it be fun to play it with me when you unpack your boxes after moving closer! :D

Quote from: ReimdallIf this is heretical, I don't wanna be sacred! :D

Y'know, this is not the usual reception my ideas get...

-clash

Clash, Bill, I'm not talking about an Intimidate Skill, I'm talking Weapons Skill. I threaten by attacking. I push the opponent around and achieve my objectives by coming close to hurting them. Maybe even injuring them or breaking their gear, or blowing up background behind them (their buddies, those under their command in a military unit, etc.).  So you'd have [mostly] non-lethal combat with guns/swords/munitions/etc.  More psychological than true physical damage but definately an action based vs. tea at high noon banter.

EDIT: Although if nobody backs down I suppose you'd eventually you'd get to the point where you've got bodies.

EDIT2: Although it could work for cartoon type stuff too. You'd got that one particular theme in anime/Chinese films that sort of links to their cultural past where you have sword wielders, primarily, disrobing their opponents effectively laying them bare. Physically and metaphorically.

Quote from: DwightClash, Bill, I'm not talking about an Intimidate Skill, I'm talking Weapons Skill. I threaten by attacking. I push the opponent around and achieve my objectives by coming close to hurting them. Maybe even injuring them or breaking their gear, or blowing up background behind them (their buddies, those under their command in a military unit, etc.).  So you'd have [mostly] non-lethal combat with guns/swords/munitions/etc.  More psychological than true physical damage but definately an action based vs. tea at high noon banter.

EDIT: Although if nobody backs down I suppose you'd eventually you'd get to the point where you've got bodies.

Umm - I thought that WAS using Intimidation! That's the way my players do it! Use the Intimidation skill instead of your weapon skill to operate your firepower for maximum scariness. Maybe I'm more flexible than most GMs on how skills work? In my games, skill descriptions are usually short sentences, and they overlap a LOT. There's always more than one way to skin that pesky cat!

-clash

Quote from: DwightClash, Bill, I'm not talking about an Intimidate Skill, I'm talking Weapons Skill. I threaten by attacking. I push the opponent around and achieve my objectives by coming close to hurting them. Maybe even injuring them or breaking their gear, or blowing up background behind them (their buddies, those under their command in a military unit, etc.).  So you'd have [mostly] non-lethal combat with guns/swords/munitions/etc.  More psychological than true physical damage but definately an action based vs. tea at high noon banter.

EDIT: Although if nobody backs down I suppose you'd eventually you'd get to the point where you've got bodies.

EDIT2: Although it could work for cartoon type stuff too. You'd got that one particular theme in anime/Chinese films that sort of links to their cultural past where you have sword wielders, primarily, disrobing their opponents effectively laying them bare. Physically and metaphorically.

Um, that was what I was talking about. The details of the "conflict" had everything to do with dueling wits or intimidation or physical harm. It did not matter so much as the contest was a means of interaction more than a "tick the HP off" method.

For example, it did not matter what weapon you used beyond ranged or mele. It all did the same "damage". You could win a fight by using your gun to defeat a person's courage, essentially reducing them to an intimidated state. Think Bogey films and when Bogey pistol whips a wussy boy to get info out of him.

It was a lot of fun to play since after folks got the play style it helped with a lot of descriptive play.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceMaybe I'm more flexible than most GMs on how skills work?

Perhaps. :) Would they be able to kill people (bystanders) rolling the Intimidate dice? Me I'd be inclined have them use both Skills (however that works in the system, some handle it more smoothly than others). Still I'm talking about it being the norm, that the combat system is built around this.

Quote from: HinterWeltUm, that was what I was talking about. The details of the "conflict" had everything to do with dueling wits or intimidation or physical harm. It did not matter so much as the contest was a means of interaction more than a "tick the HP off" method.

For example, it did not matter what weapon you used beyond ranged or mele. It all did the same "damage". You could win a fight by using your gun to defeat a person's courage, essentially reducing them to an intimidated state. Think Bogey films and when Bogey pistol whips a wussy boy to get info out of him.

It was a lot of fun to play since after folks got the play style it helped with a lot of descriptive play.

Bill

Oops, got behind on the thread and posted before I should have. I hadn't read all the intervining posts. :o  So we are talking out of sync here.

Quote from: DwightPerhaps. :) Would they be able to kill people (bystanders) rolling the Intimidate dice?

It would depend on the situation entirely. If those bystanders were helpless, they don't need to roll at all to kill them. Rolling Intimidate would change the effect of the killing.

QuoteMe I'd be inclined have them use both Skills (however that works in the system, some handle it more smoothly than others). Still I'm talking about it being the norm, that the combat system is built around this.

Since all skill work exactly the same in my system, you can do this by just changing the default assumption. That's a group level issue, not a design level issue.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWeltUm, that was what I was talking about. The details of the "conflict" had everything to do with dueling wits or intimidation or physical harm. It did not matter so much as the contest was a means of interaction more than a "tick the HP off" method.

For example, it did not matter what weapon you used beyond ranged or mele. It all did the same "damage". You could win a fight by using your gun to defeat a person's courage, essentially reducing them to an intimidated state. Think Bogey films and when Bogey pistol whips a wussy boy to get info out of him.

It was a lot of fun to play since after folks got the play style it helped with a lot of descriptive play.

Bill

My point about "surviving contact with the PCs" was alluding to the well known ability of PCs to be able to ignore torture or any type of non-physical in-game coercion.

in other words, did the PCs have to play by the same rules, and did they resent it if so? :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceSince all skill work exactly the same in my system, you can do this by just changing the default assumption. That's a group level issue, not a design level issue.

See, now that's the Heretical Crazy Talk™ I'm speaking of. ;)

Quote from: flyingmiceMy point about "surviving contact with the PCs" was alluding to the well known ability of PCs to be able to ignore torture or any type of non-physical in-game coercion.

in other words, did the PCs have to play by the same rules, and did they resent it if so? :D

I've found that the people that do have a problem with that kind of thing I can generally quite happily game without. Buh-bye to "My character is more stubborn and pigheaded than yours is, and I'm going to show it by being more stubborn and pig-headed than you."

Quote from: DwightI've found that the people that do have a problem with that kind find I can generally quite happily be without when I game. Buh-bye to "My character is more stubborn and pigheaded than yours is, and I'm going to show it by being more stubborn and pig-headed than you."

Ha! Good way to handle it! :D

But basically, this involves a group level buy-in.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceThen we do agree. I also think the "system matters" mantra is usually read as "system is the only thing that matters," and that is wrong. It's an important element, but not the only, or even most important.

I've talked to people who are seen as saying this at some length.  So I'm going to open that box up just a little further.

A lot of the time, what comes across is "To you, designer, system matters most - the procedures, rules, techniques of play.  Because it's all you've got to work with when designing."

Before you finish reacting to that, even rephrased, another odd shot.  

In theory, the bits of game advice in Amber, which describe techniques that aren't hard and fast rules?  Those are also part of the overall idea of  system that the designer should be concentrating on.

As I see it, redefining system as "the whole body of stuff the group does" has an upside - it's more holistic.  The downside is that because it's a redefinition, the brain sometime slips a gear, and you get the designer who believes that, but actually goes sideways on those examples and techniques, instead just playing clever games with numbers.

...When the word "system" is in there, it's a problem endemic to "indiehood".  Take the word out, and you've seen the same problem everywhere...

...How many game design discussions start with "Check out my GM advice on combat encounters!  Isn't it wicked inspiring?".


EDIT: Shit, I'm threadjacking.  Uh...   If this is an interesting topic to anyone, we can has new thread?

Quote from: flyingmiceBut basically, this involves a group level buy-in.

As do any rules. It is just not as expected by people that have played games where it is not the case, which is a lot of games. Or maybe it's just a lot of people because so many play D&D? ;)  Further it cuts a little closer to the player's control of the character, so it needs a little more delicate technique. IMO not just buy-in when they start playing but buy-in on specific situations to help mitigate the "my character is out of my control" feeling it can give.

Quote from: flyingmiceMy point about "surviving contact with the PCs" was alluding to the well known ability of PCs to be able to ignore torture or any type of non-physical in-game coercion.

in other words, did the PCs have to play by the same rules, and did they resent it if so? :D

-clash

Yes, the players did. It went great. Essentially, the system was such that it made sense on both sides. I like egalitarian systems so no mook rules for me.

Bill

Quote from: DwightAs do any rules. It is just not as expected by people that have played games where it is not the case, which is a lot of games. Or maybe it's just a lot of people because so many play D&D? ;)  Further it cuts a little closer to the player's control of the character, so it needs a little more delicate technique. IMO not just buy-in when they start playing but buy-in on specific situations to help mitigate the "my character is out of my control" feeling it can give.

Yep! That's something players are justifiably squeamish about. It requires trust.

-clash

Quote from: HinterWeltYes, the players did. It went great. Essentially, the system was such that it made sense on both sides. I like egalitarian systems so no mook rules for me.

Bill

Very cool! It sounds like fun! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceVery cool! It sounds like fun! :D

-clash

Posted it in a different thread if you want look it over. It's only two pages.

Bill

Quote from: flyingmiceHere's my heretical thoughts on combat, in no particular order:

Since this thread is apparently filled with heretics, I'm going to be the heretic and disagree with some of your points.

You say that "Armor prevents damage. This can be done in game by preventing hits, or by absorbing damage. Statistically, either way works just fine. It doesn't matter for game purposes which method is used. Ultimately, the point is reducing average damage taken."  The problem that taking hits is not necessarily the only way that a character can take damage so while in combat they can be the same statistically, once a character falls into a pit with metal spikes on the bottom or has to run through a fire, you either wind up ignoring the armor or introducing a to-hit roll so that some damage can be statistically reduced.

Basically, if armor prevents/reduces damage, one can pick a representational way of modeling that by having armor, well, reduce damage (because that's what it does) or pick a non-representational way of modeling the reduced damage that relies on some other element such as reduced chances to hit.  While the later might save some time, it's far less flexible because it ties the implementation to things that the real thing aren't tied to.  In the case of armor reducing the chance to hit, it ties armor to combat and being hit, which makes situations where the character isn't being hit harder or less intuitive to implement.

But the bottom line is that I think that given a choice, a game designer should work with representational models over non-representation models unless there is a significant reason to prefer the latter, and I think it's no mistake that the biggest points of complaint about D&D -- armor class, hit points, and levels -- are the areas where the abstraction is least representational.

Next, you tackle initiative and compare short combat rounds with lots of misses to longer combat with fewer misses, both of which average out to a certain number of hits that balance out over time.  Assuming that misses are built into initiative creates a problem because it assumes that when a character misses, they won't chance their course of action.  For me, initiative and combat rounds are also about coordinating and sequencing actions across many characters.  In those cases, a character may change their mind and do something different without actually having done something that matters, such as coming to the aid of a companion in trouble.  There is also an issue of how far a person can move in a given period of time.  D&D lets a character moving 30 feet in a 6 second combat round.  If we extrapolated that to a 30 second round, that would be 150 feet per found.  Again, it's no surprise that games with long combat rounds with artificially slow movement rates generated a lot of Murphy's Rules because they want to keep characters from flying off the map in a single round.

As for random damage, I would tend to agree that damage can be pretty random but I think it's really a combination of random and deliberate elements and how much of a role each one plays will depend on the situation.  The sniper taking out a target will do very deliberate damage based on how well they do while a person getting shot in a chaotic firefight may suffer very random damage.  Not sure if that's worth modeling, though.

Quote from: John MorrowBut the bottom line is that I think that given a choice, a game designer should work with representational models over non-representation models unless there is a significant reason to prefer the latter, and I think it's no mistake that the biggest points of complaint about D&D -- armor class, hit points, and levels -- are the areas where the abstraction is least representational.

Agreed John. IMO Mechanics ideally should reflect the illusion you wish to create for your players. This of course is impossible to reach, however the abandonment of it completely shouldn't be a upfront goal.

And there wasn't anything Heretical in the orginial post. It could have been a original D&D apologist rant.

Quote from: gleichmanAgreed John. IMO Mechanics ideally should reflect the illusion you wish to create for your players. This of course is impossible to reach, however the abandonment of it completely shouldn't be a upfront goal.

And there wasn't anything Heretical in the orginial post. It could have been a original D&D apologist rant.

Good! The Orthodoxy has arrived!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceGood! The Orthodoxy has arrived!

-clash

I don't think John or I represent any sort of Orthodoxy in rpgs. If anything we're the Heretics here. The idea that rpgs should be representative instead of abstracted has always been a minority opinion.

More so online, but even in the Market Place where D&D has always defined Orthodoxy.

Quote from: DwightHeretical thoughts on combat would be more like: You don't need to hit to succeed. You just need to successfully threaten.

When I saw "heretical thoughts on combat", I was expecting someone to say that Armor is supposed to avoid damage, not reduce it.
:D

Oh, wait, Clash did say that was cool too! hehe

Another area where abstracted mechanics seem to cause problems are in the wildly popular idea of generic "conflict" resolution mechanics that treat a shouting match as being the same as a deadly duel.  The problem that I've seen in reviews of several "hippy games" is that while their mechanics work fairly well for one-on-one battles, they don't work so well when you have several different character and opponents all acting at the same time.  In some ways, they look like stage plays where each actor takes their time to say their line and then the next actor goes and so on.  That's because they were designed with discreet one-on-one challenges in mind and because they are not representational, don't necessarily scale well to large multiple actor conflicts or deal with simultaneous actions very well.

Quote from: John MorrowThat's because they were designed with discreet one-on-one challenges in mind and because they are not representational, don't necessarily scale well to large multiple actor conflicts or deal with simultaneous actions very well.

I've seen this same mistake made with more tradition combat systems. All the focus is on making a one-on-one battle interesting and it comes at the cost of overly-complex and even unworkable rules when one attempts to apply them to the tradition rpg adventuring party (or larger groups).

Quote from: gleichmanI don't think John or I represent any sort of Orthodoxy in rpgs. If anything we're the Heretics here. The idea that rpgs should be representative instead of abstracted has always been a minority opinion.

More so online, but even in the Market Place where D&D has always defined Orthodoxy.

D&D defines D&D, not orthodoxy among designers

Outside of D20/OGL, how many games released since 1980 use DR armor?

My estimate is about 85-90%, based on games I have read/played/run. WHat do you estimate?

Inside the D20/OGL universe, how many games use DR armor?

I couldn't estimate that since I never buy D20/OGL games.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceD&D defines D&D, not orthodoxy among designers

Outside of D20/OGL, how many games released since 1980 use DR armor?

OK.  So why do you think that is?  

I think it's because, having seen the problems caused by certain abstractions in the D&D system, designers tried to avoid repeating the same mistake.  Non-representational abstractions can work quite well in board games where the options are limited and understood.  Non-representational abstractions caused problems when they were transferred into role-playing games because the options are fairly unlimited and not always understood up front.  Thus an abstraction that treated armor as a reduced chance to hit worked fairly well in a miniature game limited to units hitting each other in combat but not so well once those characters started to fall down pits, running through fire, getting stabbed while unconscious, and so on.

Quote from: flyingmiceD&D defines D&D, not orthodoxy among designers

D&D defines orthodoxy for the hobby, i.e. the largest group of players. I'm really not so interested in what the designers think on this point.

It would seem obivious to me for example that they would either become part of the Orthodoxy (and wear the D20 label) or reject it in order to offer a different product. That you and others as part of that rejection select damage reduction instead of damage avoidance for armor isn't all that interesting by and of itself.

Rather I find it more interesting that most players are good with damage avoidance and seem unconcerned with the representation costs thereof.

And I find it interesting that you consider Designers more important (i.e. they define what Orthodoxy is) than customers and market share. But that's another subject I suppose.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  So why do you think that is?  

I think it's because, having seen the problems caused by certain abstractions in the D&D system, designers tried to avoid repeating the same mistake.  Non-representational abstractions can work quite well in board games where the options are limited and understood.  Non-representational abstractions caused problems when they were transferred into role-playing games because the options are fairly unlimited and not always understood up front.  Thus an abstraction that treated armor as a reduced chance to hit worked fairly well in a miniature game limited to units hitting each other in combat but not so well once those characters started to fall down pits, running through fire, getting stabbed while unconscious, and so on.

Of course. There's the orthodox position. Thank you, John! :D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceInside the D20/OGL universe, how many games use DR armor?

Since D&D 3e added that for somethings, particularly objects but also some really special natural/magical 'armor', I'd say a fairly good number of them as well. ;)

It isn't a real Heretic Party till the Orthodoxy arrives. :thepope:

Quote from: DwightSince D&D 3e added that for somethings, particularly objects but also some really special natural/magical 'armor', I'd say a fairly good number of them as well. ;)

That was my understanding, but since I don't deal with these games directly, I couldn't say.

Quote from: DwightIt isn't a real Heretic Party till the Orthodoxy arrives. :thepope:

Indeed! For a while there I was worried!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceOf course. There's the orthodox position. Thank you, John! :D

So what's the heretical position and does it have to do with the aliens that met with Ross Perot before the 1992 election according to the Weekly World News?

Quote from: John MorrowSo what's the heretical position and does it have to do with the aliens that met with Ross Perot before the 1992 election according to the Weekly World News?

A heretical position is anything which is not orthodox. There is no "the" heretical position.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHere's my heretical thoughts on combat, in no particular order:

John beat me to the punch here, but while I generally agree with you, I felt the urge to swing by and dispute.

Quote from: flyingmiceArmor prevents damage. This can be done in game by preventing hits, or by absorbing damage. Statistically, either way works just fine. It doesn't matter for game purposes which method is used. Ultimately, the point is reducing average damage taken. Conceptually, people understand absorbing damage better, but it is often simpler to abstract that to preventing hits. So, go for reducing damage if the flavor is more important, and go with preventing hits if speed of resolution is more important.

This is the big one. Statistics can be misleading.  How do you model poisoned weapons then? Or acid?   Are magic weapons more accurate, more damaging, or both?   Yes, if none of those are remotely a concern, than certainly you can speed up play be reducing armor to a 'chance to hit'.   Of course, this leads to a new problem, the 'wiff factor'.  People hate the wiff factor, as a result we see games where players have abnormally high chances to hit one another, and much seeking of ways to increase chances to hit in combat.  Its less 'painful' in game play to have your opponents heavy armor absorb all or most of the damage than simply to 'miss'. Missing implies you aren't very good, and we like to think our heroes are good at stuff.

Quote from: flyingmiceInitiative can be thought of two ways as well, though both focus on "when". These are "when you do something" or "when you do something that matters." In a game that attempts to model the real world or a fairly realistic genre, a look at statistics says the vast majority of blows or shots attempted fail, even when the person acting is trained. Thus with the first concept of initiative, you tend to get get a very short round, with lots of misses, either by target avoidance, blocking and parrying, or by a low chance of hitting. The second concept leads to long rounds with a much higher chance of hitting, but very few actual attempts over that round, because the misses are assumed and not attempted. Changing the ratio of hits over time higher leads to non-realistic combat, which may be your design goal.

Actually, like the armor thing, this almost seems to be a defense of D&D (from you? Say it ain't so, clash... ), as like the armor thing, D&D is pretty much the only game in town with really long rounds.

There is an interesting sidebar in my recent melee vs ranged thread pointing out that in a real melee combat out and out missing is virtually impossible. Defending certainly exists, but just 'missing'? Not so much.  It shouldn't take a full minute of exchanges to get to the meaningful hit (and really, if that's your goal anyway, then what the roll SHOULD resolve is actually how long it takes to get there, in essence you determine your average DPS, vs your opponents...) even accounting for skilled opponents.  I'm not a fencer nor a fencing buff, but from SCA fighter practices I can tell you that a 'long fight' may only last a minute or two, and they don't even have to worry about 'minor injuries and blood loss'... just sweat and fatigue.

You are really talking about pacing, which is more than initiative and length of rounds, but you really fail to deliver any insight at all here.  More importantly you miss the fact that abnormally stretched rounds that focus on the 'important moment of truth' fail to work. People try to force them into a roll equals a swing mindset all the time, its an abstraction that, when coupled with rolls certainly, fails to sink in.

Quote from: flyingmiceDamage in the real world is mostly random. People have survived multiple hits with a machine gun, and died from a single stab with a kitchen knife, yet if you ask people which is deadlier, they will say the machine gun. In games, damage is what you want it to be. In a gritty game, a single stab with a kitchen knife should potentially kill, while in a cinematic game, a character should be able to absorb multiple potentially deadly blows. The problem, of course, comes in modeling the real world, where both should be true. A gritty game need not be realistic, and occasional cinematic results should be expected in a realistic game. With tools like wound levels and penalties, you can make a game seem grittier than it is without them. With tools like luck and hero points, you can make a game seem more cinematic than it would otherwise. Find the sweet spot you want in the game, and build the rest around it.

-clash

Milleniums End, of all the games I've owned, probably did it best (and worst).  You had diagrams of bodies with twenty-five 'locations', you had tables and charts. It was faster and more accurate than Pheonix Command, and it was a royal pain in the ass. A knife COULD kill you in one hit and a machine gun COULD just wound you a lot. And you'd probably bleed to death more than anything else.

The lesson I drew from it, at the end of the day? Not worth it.  Still don't like inflating hit points, still don't much like hit points in general, but I'd far rather deal with something abstracted than worry about ME's fiddly bits.

Quote from: SpikeJohn beat me to the punch here, but while I generally agree with you, I felt the urge to swing by and dispute.

Cool, Spike! Thanks for popping in! The place needed a little ozone. :D

-clash

Always happy to oblige.  I've been on a warpath on the internet for a while, so its nice to be able to pop off a few smites without worrying too much about hurt feelings afterwards...