Quote from: gleichman;641163And there's another game that passes all those tests too but no one is interested in that. .

that might tell you something...

Quote from: gleichman;641288Before I would even start with you- have you read any of the rules I use? If yes, do you feel that you understand them?

Would that be the rulesystems you mentioned? No, I don't feel any pressing desire to buy your books so you can make your point. Instead, you should sell me on your books. And if you can't do that then I'll spend my time and money elsewhere.

I'd also like to know when the hell escalating HP translated out to less lethality. Damage escalates as well, often more dramatically. There might be fewer deaths by luck later on, but fewer deaths overall? Hardly. Higher level enemies still kill higher level characters in a round or two - escalating HP just means low level foes no longer do the same thing.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641349How similar are non player characters and player characters in your game? (In terms of how many wounds they can sustain, their attack rolls, their defenses, etc). Are one hit kills possible?

Players, NPCs and Monsters all use the same rules so one is tempted to say they're identical except where they differ

What I think you're reaching for here is what advantage do the players have over their opponents to prevent TKPs 50% of the time. In concept it's the same one that exist in any game- in one or more ways they are simply better than what they are fighting with rare (and highly dangerous) exceptions. RPGs are biased for player success. In my campaigns, this is typically handled by the players knowing when to fight, and when not to fight. But adventure and would setup helps as well.

The PC advantage may be expressed in rather large number of ways, and it's important in battle for players to determine where they stronger than their foes, and where they are weaker. They may have stouter armor, they may move faster, they might have an advantage at range, in melee, in close combat, their teamwork may be better (I don't run Orcs like their a SWAT team let alone SEAL operatives), a edge in magic, etc. The factors that determine an advantage come from my different elements.

If they know themselves, and learn their enemies (something they must do quickly)- success is almost certainly theirs. If they don't, things will be rough for one or more PCs and I have had TPKs.

This is why I place such an importance on following the rules- the PC very lives hang in the balance as they pit strength against weakness while protecting their weakness. Thus they need to be certain of all the game mechanics that those factors depend upon.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Age of Heroes is designed for groups for with dissimilar skills and effectiveness to operate together, and do so successfully (think the Fellowship of the Ring, half the group were low level hobbits). This applies to NPCs as well and it's not uncommon to see a rather vast range of ability on both sides in a battle.

Yes, there is always the chance for a one shot kill. It can be very low (or under bad conditions, very high), but it's there except in rare cases.

Quote from: danbuter;641363The insanity rules do that, but they are also in genre, so I'm fine with them.

Exactly what I was referencing.

On the bright side, they're easy to take out or leave in according to taste.

Quote from: TristramEvans;641357How about where you claimed Call of Cthulhu had mechanics that "control or limit roleplay choices"? That leads me to believe you've never read nor played Call of Cthulhu, and your claim that Call of Cthulhu fails "to scale for the entire human (normal and heroic) range", which is not only not true, but also contradicts your point about games not supporting the genre their "supposed to emulate". Or where you said the "pace of decision" is too low in D&d. Maybe that applies to WoTC editions of D&D, but not even remotely to any TSR edition of D&D.

I don't even know what you mean by mechanics rewarding "non-genre behaviour", but your claim about OD&D "focusing on trivialities" bears no resemblance to any reality I live in.

Nope, no factual errors on my part there. You basically don't understand my point. Each of the above would take a thread to explore- feel free to make one however I will note this one thread is taking a bunch of my time as is.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641365Would that be the rulesystems you mentioned? No, I don't feel any pressing desire to buy your books so you can make your point. Instead, you should sell me on your books. And if you can't do that then I'll spend my time and money elsewhere.

I have no desire to sell you my game. In fact, I'd rather don't want to.

To your second point that I didn't quote, I've explained how a combat system (including escalating HP) actually doesn't alter lethality twice already. I don't think I'll repeat myself a third time.

Quote from: gleichman;641190Pointless ad hominem. It has nothing to do with my point and is an comment that only shows how petty you are.

Quote from: gleichman;641190What a sad and depressing statement. It has to come from someone who was basically defeated by nothing but horrible gaming experiences.

Quote from: gleichman;641190What a defeated small minded creature you are.

Quote from: gleichman;641190Are you too dense to understand English or too dishonest to carry on a real conversation?

Quote from: gleichman;641190One has to be blind to accept a system like this, be it willfully or through ignorance.

Quote from: gleichman;641190That anyone would fail to realize this outcome is a indication that they never really experienced it or thought about it. Denying is attempting complete ignorance of the subject.

Quote from: gleichman;641190if you're like others here (Sacrosanct)- likely too afraid to come.

Quote from: danbuter;641363The insanity rules do that, but they are also in genre, so I'm fine with them.

Even they dont affect roleplaying, anymore than say, taking damage in another system or contracting a disease. They set a loss condition, in that a character goes insane once their sanity is all lost, but it doesn't determine how the character is actually roleplayed, the nature of that insanity, nor any affect on the player's roleplaying choice beyond the awareness that something has caused them mental damage.

Quote from: TristramEvans;641377Even they dont affect roleplaying, anymore than say, taking damage in another system or contracting a disease. They set a loss condition, in that a character goes insane once their sanity is all lost, but it doesn't determine how the character is actually roleplayed, the nature of that insanity, nor any affect on the player's roleplaying choice beyond the awareness that something has caused them mental damage.

One of the biggest rule sections of the book is all the different insanities you inflict on your players, who then have to roleplay that insanity...

Quote from: danbuter;641379One of the biggest rule sections of the book is all the different insanities you inflict on your players, who then have to roleplay that insanity...

Weird. My editions lack such a thing.

Quote from: TristramEvans;641377Even they dont affect roleplaying...

You have a very odd opinion of what 'affect roleplaying' is, seem to forget the random insanity tables included in at least the early editions of the game, and also have a odd view of what ad hominem is.

On the last, it's not one's opinion about the statements of others (for example, you're posts are stupid is not 'ad hominem', it is at worse wasted bits and unfounded and at best an true statement). Rather it's saying that someone games byself in their mothers basement and therefore shouldn't be listened to when they talk about RPGs.

Actually it was also a lie as well as an ad hominem now that I think about it...

Quote from: TristramEvans;641381Weird. My editions lack such a thing.

Wow. I honestly thought you were trying to have a real conversation, but it seems you are just jerking people around. Anyone else on this forum have a Call of Cthulhu rpg that doesn't have a big section of insanities in it?

 (Call of Cthulhu does not mean Trail of Cthulhu or your own little homebrew. It means the Chaosium game).

Quote from: gleichman;641382.

On the last, it's not one's opinion about the statements of others (for example, you're posts are stupid is not 'ad hominem', it is at worse wasted bits and unfounded and at best an true statement). Rather it's saying that someone games byself in their mothers basement and therefore shouldn't be listened to when they talk about RPGs.
..

Whether or not your attacks on other poster's meets the standard of being ad homs, they are why you lose even the support of people sympathetic to your position here. You seem to have nothing but disdain for the board or anyone here. You complain a lot about people attacking you, but the truth is there would be almost no such attacks against you if you were not regularly insulting peoples' intelligence or jumping to conclusions about their gaming habits or motives.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641391Whether or not your attacks on other poster's meets the standard of being ad homs, they are why you lose even the support of people sympathetic to your position here. You seem to have nothing but disdain for the board or anyone here. You complain a lot about people attacking you, but the truth is there would be almost no such attacks against you if you were not regularly insulting peoples' intelligence or jumping to conclusions about their gaming habits or motives.

That's pretty much true. I sorta agree with some of his ideas, but he certainly doesn't make it easy.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641391You seem to have nothing but disdain for the board or anyone here.

I return exactly what I get. The will always be the case, any disdain I've shown for individuals here- they have earned.