Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641418You're right about this. I started in strong support - he's losing me because he keeps making empty, meaningless statements and not backing himself up.

I'm not going to take look at the system myself because 99% of all systems don't meet their design goals at best and he hasn't established himself as the 1% - a part of which is articulating your design decisions and their reasoning.

If he could do that well only the idiots would oppose him. But he can't or won't.

That is my point. He can blame "modern culture" or people being "weak" all he wants but the fact is being courteous has long been a basic expectation in any discussion. It isnt about people feeling personally offended by his statements, its about people not liking dicks. You can be right about 99% of everything, but if you ooze arrogance and come off as a prick people won't take you very seriously.

Quote from: beejazz;641416For myself, I see a difference between courtesy and respect.

Courtesy is automatically given to people you don't know and/or have no information on. Once you find out about them, courtesy gives way to reality.

BTW, this effort by BedrockBrendan and others is just a more clever version of Ad Hominem that they typically turn my threads into. Not really happy with how they are doing in an exchange about gaming they instead switch it to an exchange about my posting style- i.e. I'm rude and thus no one should pay attention to what I say about gaming.

I consider it a simple admission that they've ran out altitude, air speed and ideas.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641422That is my point. He can blame "modern culture" or people being "weak" all he wants but the fact is being courteous has long been a basic expectation in any discussion. It isnt about people feeling personally offended by his statements, its about people not liking dicks. You can be right about 99% of everything, but if you ooze arrogance and come off as a prick people won't take you very seriously.

What I like about this forum is that even people such as that aren't shown the door just on that basis. That is also what I don't like about this forum. A bit of gloves-off to and fro can be cathartic and even fun, and it's nice not to have to look over your shoulder, but the downside is that habitual thread derailers like Gleichman get more airtime than they should.

Then again, the remedy as I've mentioned is straightforward, the ignore option. Really makes this a more pleasant experience all round, even if I use it very rarely, usually only when I've decided the poster is more interested in disruption than contribution. For example, in the role of the GM thread linked in my sig, I politely asked if he'd offer his point of view and join in after his usual commentary, to which the response was something like "most gamers are weakling fagz0rz anyway", and that was that.

Quote from: The Traveller;641427For example, in the role of the GM thread linked in my sig, I politely asked if he'd offer his point of view and join in after his usual commentary, to which the response was something like "most gamers are weakling fagz0rz anyway", and that was that.

First, I don't use terms like that. And second, I was far from the only person telling your that your goals in that thread was completely wrongheaded.

Btw, interesting that you don't include the full thread in that link so that people can easily see that you fell flat on your face.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641418You're right about this. I started in strong support - he's losing me because he keeps making empty, meaningless statements and not backing himself up.

At least be honest, I "lost" you because I don't like D&D.

Quote from: gleichman;641426Courtesy is automatically given to people you don't know and/or have no information on. Once you find out about them, courtesy gives way to reality.

BTW, this effort by BedrockBrendan and others is just a more clever version of Ad Hominem that they typically turn my threads into. Not really happy with how they are doing in an exchange about gaming they instead switch it to an exchange about my posting style- i.e. I'm rude and thus no one should pay attention to what I say about gaming.

I consider it a simple admission that they've ran out altitude, air speed and ideas.

This detour began with an exchange between you and tristram. I am happy to continue with the previous discussion. You answered my question about npcs versus pcs, which satisfied my curiosity on the point.

No one is saying you should be ignored, just that you would be less ignored, less attacked, if you posted more politely. You will notice I wasn't encouraging anyone to take you less seriously. Your underlying points are still what they are. But even people here who agree with you admitted your style made it very hard to engage in the discussion. So I wouldn't try to spin that back on me or anyone else.

Quote from: gleichman;641426Courtesy is automatically given to people you don't know and/or have no information on. Once you find out about them, courtesy gives way to reality.

This applies more IRL and less online for a number of reasons. Firstly because I actually don't know the people I'm talking with. Secondly because the conversation is public and at least functionally between groups and not just individuals. Thirdly because I'm here to talk and courtesy is a conversational facilitator. There is no middle ground for me, where a person is both worth talking with and being rude to. I take it as a personal failing when I slide into that because it serves no actual purpose. I have literally no interest in what anyone deserves, so it does not become a factor as such.

QuoteBTW, this effort by BedrockBrendan and others is just a more clever version of Ad Hominem that they typically turn my threads into. Not really happy with how they are doing in an exchange about gaming they instead switch it to an exchange about my posting style- i.e. I'm rude and thus no one should pay attention to what I say about gaming.

I think you've misunderstood them. They're warning you that no one will pay attention, not instructing bystanders not to. If anything there are those of us who see value in your analysis and would like to see it better packaged, better spread, more widely discussed, etc. That and your manifestos and personal preferences are a little anemic compared to some of your better work (no offense meant).

As before, I don't mean to digress except that you seem to have taken an interest in the topic yourself. If you're still interested, we can keep going or move to PM. If you're defending yourself against a perceived attack it may be best to just move back to gaming stuff.

Quote from: The Traveller;641427What I like about this forum is that even people such as that aren't shown the door just on that basis. That is also what I don't like about this forum. A bit of gloves-off to and fro can be cathartic and even fun, and it's nice not to have to look over your shoulder, but the downside is that habitual thread derailers like Gleichman get more airtime than they should.

Then again, the remedy as I've mentioned is straightforward, the ignore option. Really makes this a more pleasant experience all round, even if I use it very rarely, usually only when I've decided the poster is more interested in disruption than contribution. For example, in the role of the GM thread linked in my sig, I politely asked if he'd offer his point of view and join in after his usual commentary, to which the response was something like "most gamers are weakling fagz0rz anyway", and that was that.

I am still holding out hope for Gleichman. It is Good Friday afterall

Quote from: beejazz;641434If you're still interested, we can keep going or move to PM. If you're defending yourself against a perceived attack it may be best to just move back to gaming stuff.

I'm good with taking it to a PM.

One last note here. I'm frankly of the opinion that if you were correct about the motives behind BedrockBrendan's (and others action) that's where they would have taken it- PM.

But they didn't. What's the rule they broke? Oh yeah, 'praise in public and criticize in private'- but it's more about them than me.

Quote from: gleichman;641437But they didn't. What's the rule they broke? Oh yeah, 'praise in public and criticize in private'- but it's more about them than me.

I could be wrong, but I always understood this to do with sports teams and performance (not any kind of social rule). Needless to say, I don't agree with it. particularly on a forum. I only PM posters if I fully trust them with private communication. Anything else I do publicly.

For what it is worth I am sincere in hoping you change your posting style. I think you are smart and I like having intelligent people post here (even if I disagree with them) because it ups everyone's game. If you were less of a jerk, a lot of posters would follow you.

Quote from: gleichman;641417Is this true also of bows and arrows at least for characters without a shield or a special ability to dodge said weapons? I'd likely have a problem if not.

It doesn't, but only because when it did it made bows far too effective for their cost. If you want a more realistic results you'd want to do this.

QuoteHmm, as written too slow for my tastes. I would expect a very rapid recovery of the majority of the lost fatigue with only a fraction (per loss... session to pick a word) need rest overnight.

We tried this, no one was interested in the extra bookwork and detailed time-tracking needed to actually implement it. If you have players who enjoy such things, it would be easy to add. (You can get 20% of your fatigue back once a day by resting in a safe place for an hour while eating a warm meal, however).

In my next project (Lords & Wizards), I'll include optional rules for both of the above. I'll be surprised if many people actually use them, however.

QuoteDoes falls go straight to body damage?

Falling damage is 1d6 FP/1 BP per 10 feet fallen (although a save can reduce that for short falls).

QuoteWhat about area effect attacks? If those don't go straight to Body how do you explain the character avoiding them?

That depends on the type of area effect attack. Some do automatic body, some do not. For others, it depends on whether or not you make your saving throw.

QuoteHow are touch attacks resolved?

Touch attacks that don't have to penetrate armor to be effective are rolled as if unarmored.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641422That is my point. He can blame "modern culture" or people being "weak" all he wants but the fact is being courteous has long been a basic expectation in any discussion. It isnt about people feeling personally offended by his statements, its about people not liking dicks. You can be right about 99% of everything, but if you ooze arrogance and come off as a prick people won't take you very seriously.

I don't care if he says his thing nice or mean. I care what he says. Right now, that's nothing. He shows no interest in changing that.

If he were a dick, but right, I'd completely support him. Problem is, he seems to only want blind support, else he wouldn't spurn my attempts at understanding.

Quote from: gleichman;641430At least be honest, I "lost" you because I don't like D&D.

I knew you didn't like D&D from the start. You lost me when you continually refused to defend your favored system. If it's so superior you could easily demonstrate how. But I don't do blind faith.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641454Problem is, he seems to only want blind support, else he wouldn't spurn my attempts at understanding.

If I wanted blind support, I'd be a lot nicer. Same if I was selling something. Neither are goals of mine.



To be honest, there are two problems I have with your requests:

1. I don't believe your "attempts at understanding", I think I'm being baited by someone who is a diehard D&D fanatic who really is only interested in pushing his own agenda at my expense and time.

If I've read you wrong, that's on me and I'm sorry. But that's how I read you and I don't trust you. I don't know how to fix that or even if I should attempt to.


2. In truth I don't like talking about my game's specific mechanics. The rulebook is a really a stripped down 262 pages of what are in effect notes and charts for nothing but the pure rules of a game (i.e. no fluff, no explanations, and lots of assumptions about previous knowledge). It was made for my own players and couple of people I 'met' online. No one else.

So the thing is, everything in those 262 pages all interlink to produce the whole. I can't cover them in a forum post or even multiple ones.

But that's not the real killer, the real killer is that it's not helpful to try. This thread has seen me say more about them than I have in years. And I didn't get a single comment after I did. No one who asks actually *wants* the answer, it just goes into black hole.

Besides, I know the reaction here would be worse than the reaction to HERO. You can sense the board recoil in horror. I'll do threads like this to measure the current mindset of the crowd here, but I'm not interested in blowing my own horn to a group of people who would with pure certainty hate the sound of it.

Quote from: gleichman;641345The high level version:


Closest published system with a similar mechanic would be 1st edition Runequest.

It's been decades, but as I recall RQ used location specific (head, chest, arms, legs, etc) 'hit points' (nothing like the D&D sense) that were rather small and fixed values like 3-6 points and weapons that did commonly 1d10 damage. Armor directly subtracted, but there were degrees of success on the attack roll that could easily overwhelm the armor protection.

Equaling a location's HP in a single strike would 'disable' it, and higher damage levels would result in more serious wounds capping out at lost limbs and death.

Age of Heroes is very similar to that. Where it differs is how strikes and parries/dodges are determined as AoH was designed to scale much better than Runequest did (scaling was always RQ's biggest failing).

Reduced to the most simple concept, the goal of combat in Age of Heroes is to manuever on the grid and work with your team in ways that enhance your character's skill such that you're never struck in combat while of course striking and disabling your foes (ideally preventing them from good manuever and teamwork along the way).

If successful, you win the battle completely undamaged. If not, many injuries are minor and you may still win. And there is of course the chance that you're seriously jacked up if you have a failure in tactics or a run of horrid luck.

I might like to hear more about the scaling, evasion elements, and especially how evasion is keyed to the grid.

On the scaling, is AoH level-based? You may have covered this elsewhere but if you have I've forgotten. Part of the reason I chose my wound system was because scaling damage so mooks are less likely to wound high level characters would be relatively difficult in that context. If you used the RQ solution and scaled with level, I might be interested to hear a bit more of that.