While I can agree with some of of your reasoning here, putting an inferior fighter(no offense, BB:))into the ring with a heavyweight champion on the champion's terms really doesn't factor into it.

If we still are going to throw BB into the ring, my advice is to take a cheap and hard groinshot and hope for disqualification before his opponent gets back up.

Quote from: Catelf;641305Check how the rules work again, ok?

I don't have to where my statement was true. I really don't care that success chance also increased, that's expected and if it wasn't the case I'd call that out as well.

Quote from: Piestrio;641311I swear I'm tempted to buy Age of Heroes and review it, simply because I suspect it'll be hilarious.

It costs too much, and is basically unreadable. Try the Voynich Manuscript, it's clearer.

Seriously, it's a bunch of home rules and it wasn't written to explain anything. It is a reference for my own groups, nothing more.

Just ask John Morrow, he unwisely got a copy and I think he still has a headache.

Quote from: gleichman;641308Further I answer in more detail the underlying reality to your statement that a "realistic' system must...". See my post prior to this one.

I didnt find your response convincing. Realisitc combat is going to be, on the whole, more lethal than D&D combat, and you are saying your game is realistic but not as lethal as D&D. That is what I am having trouble squaring. You can get around this by avoiding combat or by pulling punches. I am not saying it is wrong for you to pull punches. But clearly if you are, you are now in the same position you are accusing everyone else of being in: which is working around the system by throwing weaker foes at the party to get the result you want. Again, nothing inherently wrong with that except you were bragging how much more realistic your approach is than HP (but you scale the foes so it plays out an awful lot like HP).

QuoteIsn't going to happen with Age of Heroes. You can however use HERO.

You fairest test would be to play with an experienced group that already knows the rules and operates well with them. It takes time to master a system so that it runs smoothly- you've had years playing D&D and it's fair that a test includes similar experience with another system.

I'd invite you to my game, but you're likely too far away and if you're like others here (Sacrosanct)- likely too afraid to come.

I am in Boston. If you are in my area, you are welcome to come to my house and demonstrate the game if you like. If not, feel free to send me a pdf copy of your game. Like I said, I am happy to give it a fair reading and I think you would be surprised by how well I can seperate our online hostilites from my assessment of the system. I would basically base it on how well it achieves its stated goals.

Quote from: baragei;641312If we still are going to throw BB into the ring, my advice is to take a cheap and hard groinshot and hope for disqualification before his opponent gets back up.

He could also jump out of the ring and make a run for it.

Quote from: gleichman;641088Don't be silly, there are games that don't hit any of those flags or that can be adjusted to remove the flag with little effort or even (in the case of most editions of HERO) no rule changes.

Having read the rest of the thread, I feel I am being exactly as silly as the argument deserves, because it's a fucking silly argument, and I say this even as I agree with you that specifically engaging with a game's mechanics can and should be a pleasure in and of itself.

Quote from: gleichman;641310Correction, I'm modeling the Fantasy Genre combat (specific works are listed in the book). This is closer to reality than D&D by far, but it's still not an attempt to model reality.

Okay, that is fair. But if that is the case, I do wonder why you are taking such issue with Hp for not being highly realistic or not simulating anything. i understand why you might not personally like HP, but I mean the fantasy genre is filled with characters who play an awful lot like high level D&D PCs with buckets of HP. I someone wanted more realistic games, something a bit more like Excaliber say, I could see feeling HP fall short. But they seem a good fit for emulating 300.

Quote from: gleichman;641316He could also jump out of the ring and make a run for it.

We're discussing fighting, not running.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641315I didnt find your response convincing.

Pity, it doesn't get more simple than this.

PC Winner: D&D character damaged, needs healing
                AoH character likely undamaged, likely doesn't need healing
               
PC loser: D&D character down, maybe dead or dying. Need heals or rez.
             AoH character down, maybe dead or dying. Needs heals or rez.  

It's clear that the greater risk here is borne by the D&D character. The real risk of combat is determined not by the combat system- but by the healing rules.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641315Realisitc combat is going to be, on the whole, more lethal than D&D combat, and you are saying your game is realistic but not as lethal as D&D.

No, I'm saying that it simulates works of fantasy (again specific list in the book) and is more realistic than D&D. Not that it is realistic. This is also covered in the designer notes in the book.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641315(but you scale the foes so it plays out an awful lot like HP).

No I don't, the matrix above shows the difference in outcome. Meanwhile the process to reach those outcomes are completely different.

What remains the same is that nearly all RPGs have a bias for PC victory as a base assumption. That's why we don't have 50% TPKs or worse.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641315I am in Boston. If you are in my area, you are welcome to come to my house and demonstrate the game if you like. If not, feel free to send me a pdf copy of your game.

To far for me. I don't travel much these days.

No one is getting a PDF.

Again, find a HERO group for your test.

Quote from: gleichman;641291These are what some house rule critical hit systems attempted, and if I recall correctly in a way a feature of one of the D20 versions of Star Wars.

Such an approach is better, but I have two problems with it.

The massive damage threshold was definitely pulled from Star Wars Saga, so you remember correctly.

QuoteThe First is that it undermines the core abstraction of HP (which is after all the whole point here) and safe and predictable combat it offers, and if one is going to do that- why not just remove the abstraction? There is little point in having what is in effect two damage resolution systems for a single game. Complexity without need.

In my case, the purpose of hp has partly changed. With the scaling threshold, as you point out, some foes can't wound their opponents with the same frequency. So hp constitutes a method that the weaker side can use to wear down the stronger side. This is besides the simple combat-duration-limiting that it achieves (and that might be harder to pace and balance and houserule in a system with levels, barring an hp system).

QuoteThe Second is that typically such massive damage is only possible within a limited range, or is very rare to the point where players see it as a lightning strike from random luck instead of a feature of common battle to be planned for. Many of them (massive damage on a roll of a 20) have no counter-tactic.

The odds of wounding will vary depending on the wound system. In my case it's about 50/50 between equally matched and equipped foes. There are unrelated mechanical elements (such as active defense) that can key damage and wounds taken, at least partly, to player decisions.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641318I someone wanted more realistic games, something a bit more like Excaliber say, I could see feeling HP fall short. But they seem a good fit for emulating 300.

I saw no one in 300 being hit by a sword and not caring. They were either unharmed, slightly wounded (loss of one eye), or dead- there were not counters ticking down their HP.

And try as they might, those Persians couldn't seem to get the Spartan's HP to drop under any conditions, and there wasn't even any clerics around casting cure light.

Quote from: This Guy;641317Having read the rest of the thread, I feel I am being exactly as silly as the argument deserves, because it's a fucking silly argument, and I say this even as I agree with you that specifically engaging with a game's mechanics can and should be a pleasure in and of itself.

So you're willing to say that I exclude all games even when I'm clearly not?

Why in the would you think any thread no matter how silly justifies lying about what someone says?

Quote from: beejazz;641323So hp constitutes a method that the weaker side can use to wear down the stronger side.

Why not use fatigue rules? Or just rename HP fatigue?

That's basically what LotRO does, it calls HP morale. Thus a player never dies, instead he's considered to have fled the battle.

Quote from: beejazz;641323The odds of wounding will vary depending on the wound system. In my case it's about 50/50 between equally matched and equipped foes. There are unrelated mechanical elements (such as active defense) that can key damage and wounds taken, at least partly, to player decisions.

Well, it at least sounds better than D&D.

Quote from: beejazz;641323The massive damage threshold was definitely pulled from Star Wars Saga, so you remember correctly.

WotC's d20 Call of Cthulhu had the damage threshold and IIRC that predates d20 Star Wars by quite a bit.  The threshold was also really low in that game, like 10 HP, making combat fairly lethal at all levels of play.

It actually worked well there as higher level characters could go through more 'adventuring' that caused HP loss before backing off, but something actually trying to kill you didn't need to unload a pocket full of bullets or swing you about the room with it's tentacle for a dozen rounds to whittle down your HP.

Quote from: gleichman;641313I don't have to where my statement was true. I really don't care that success chance also increased, that's expected and if it wasn't the case I'd call that out as well.

Your statement isn't true in practice.

The fumbles removes sucesses, but since the successes increases nomally far more than the fumbles, then the actual risk for a failed attempt still decreases with increased skill.
The thing is that you held up the fumble rule as a "you get worse the better you get", and that is not true.
.. However, you aren't alone in having that impression, or giving that impression.