What would you say of a single escalating pool of hp alongside wounding on massive damage? Curiosity here more than anything, and I can give more detail if you need it.

My preferences are half-similar with yours, in that I like rules to function as a context for interesting tactical and strategic decision making but (from what I've read) I've got a much higher tolerance for abstraction vs your need for simulation, and I think most folks have a higher tolerance for abstraction than I do.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641280Every method does have a trade off. if you want a game that simulates real combat, you can get a heck of a lot closer than D&D. the two big drawbacks you may hit are complexity/game speed and the fact that realistic combat means characters who fight get hurt a lot longer and more easily.

You'd be surprised I think if you actually played at my table.

Complexity judged by handling time is lower than mid-to-high level AD&D while characters are no more easily hurt (as long as they aren't tactically stupid).

And for game speed- as I've said before, I've done single session battles with hundreds of figures on the table using the full combat rules. My typical combat is 20 figures or more.

You trade-offs are a lie.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;641283And yet you are unable to demonstrate and explain them, whereas if they existed and you were familiar with them in that degree of detail you'd have no problem illustrating them.

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

Quote from: gleichman;641287You'd be surprised I think if you actually played at my table.

Complexity judged by handling time is lower than mid-to-high level AD&D while characters are no more easily hurt (as long as they aren't tactically stupid).

And for game speed- as I've said before, I've done single session battles with hundreds of figures on the table using the full combat rules. My typical combat is 20 figures or more.

You trade-offs are a lie.

I would argue if your players characters are not more easily hurt, then your combat system probably isnt very realistic (or you are pulling your punches).

Quote from: beejazz;641284What would you say of a single escalating pool of hp alongside wounding on massive damage? Curiosity here more than anything, and I can give more detail if you need it.

These 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 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.

The 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.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641290I would argue if your players characters are not more easily hurt, then your combat system probably isnt very realistic (or you are pulling your punches).

Perhaps you should step into the ring with the current world heavy weight champion boxer and show me just how easily you can hurt him before making that claim?

If you're not willing to do that, and you're not willing to attempt to play the rules I'm talking about, perhaps then you should just take me at my word- or call me a liar and end this exchange.

I love escalating hit points, at least for the first few levels. After that, I think characters get too many, and then the whole damage/HD scales increase to silliness.

For example, let adventurers get 1 HD per level up to level 4. After that, either cap them completely or give them 1 hp per level. That way they are tougher than your average peasant, but not nigh-immortal like many high-level characters are.

Quote from: gleichman;641293Perhaps you should step into the ring with the current world heavy weight champion boxer and show me just how easily you can hurt him before making that claim?

I know I really shouldn't, but the logic here being...?

Quote from: gleichman;641293Perhaps you should step into the ring with the current world heavy weight champion boxer and show me just how easily you can hurt him before making that claim?

If you're not willing to do that, and you're not willing to attempt to play the rules I'm talking about, perhaps then you should just take me at my word- or call me a liar and end this exchange.

I would get destroyed by Klitscho, as would you. I never said skill shouldn't matter, but if you are just putting the players up against unranked opponents who are past their prime, then you are pulling your punches. If they are getting less hurt in your super realistic combat game than D&D it tells me you are either crafting scenarios that pit them against artificially weaker foes or your system isn't highly realistic. Are your player characters all championship boxers against a world of chumps? To me that isnt realistic. It is great for stuff like james bond or conan, but it isnt a simulation of a realistic world.

As for your game, I am more than happy to read it. Send me a copy and I will do so (whether I can recruit players is another matter entirely....that depends on the quality of the system).

Either way, my point is all things being equal, a realistic combat system is going to be lethal. Even if you only account for things like sepsis your lethality is going to be way higher than a game like D&D. I the game is just fist fighting, perhaps not. But if the game involves swinging swords at people and/or shooting guns, I would expect a realistic system to be way more lethal once combat does occur (even if the players are being cautious).

Quote from: baragei;641299I know I really shouldn't, but the logic here being...?

It should be rather clear. He claims that it must be easier to hurt people if the system was realistic and the target didn't have a huge stack of hit points. I was giving him a chance to prove that.

But let's cover this in more detail.


The simple truth is that character defeat isn't changed no matter what system is used. In Thunderdome two men enter, one man leaves, that's just what happens. The only thing that changes is the process that determines who's left standing on the battlefield, not the outcome.

Thus one can spend their time chipping away at D&D HP to determine the victor, or one can use a a completely different system like say Age of Heroes, or one can fight in real life. Any of these produces a victor and a loser with a rare draw here and there. Each uses a very different process with different degrees of realism (D&D- none, AoH- some, real life- total).

Importantly there is also a diffference in aftermath for the winner.

In D&D, at mid-to-high levels the victor is very likely going to be damaged and will need to be healed to be at full defensive ability for the next battle. This is because his defensive skill is represented by his HP, and that was chipped away a bit in the battle.

In Age of Heroes by contrast, the victor likely to be completely undamaged or insignificantly damaged and need no healing at all and can move immediately to the next battle or a victory party. Here he's less injured than his D&D counter part. Or he may have taken a minor injury that left him still standing but perhaps slighly impaired- in which case he needs healing just like his D&D counterpart.

Now for the loser, there is no difference. Both the defeated D&D and Age of Heroes character are serious injured and out of the fight at best- they may be dead or dying at worst. Whatever the case, what happens to them next is determined not by the combat rules but by the healing rules.


So in practical terms, BedrockBrendan is completely off base when he claims characters in my game are easier to hurt. The truth is the manner if you example the above possiblities is actually the opposite- they are *less* likely to be hurt.

That 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;641184The Story Teller movement of WoD, covering for a resolution system that increased the fumble chance as skill rose.

This sentiment is incorrect in practice, even though it is "technically" correct:
See, the Success chance increases far more with higher skill, than the risk for Fumbles, unless the task in question is extremely hard.

Check how the rules work again, ok?

Except for that, i agree with that a set of rules should work on its own, even when one doesn't use roleplaying, fluff, fudging or houserules to hide, adapt, or fix it for different situations.

However, i must point out, that the analogy with the ploughs ledas to another possible toxic topic ... that may have to be adressed in a very careful manner:
"The best system" debate.
I am along the wargame/boardgame - lines there:
If it uses too many rules, or rules that is unimportant, or even unuseable, then those rules, at best, takes up space for no reason, and at worst, is confusing, and thereby hindering new players.

I have already noted that i do not agree with your Red Flag list, though, but i may agree on a few parts of it, after proper explanation, as now.

Quote from: gleichman;641303So in practical terms, BedrockBrendan is completely off base when he claims characters in my game are easier to hurt. The truth is the manner if you example the above possiblities is actually the opposite- they are *less* likely to be hurt.

That 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.

I never claimed characters in your games are easier to hurt, I said if your game really is more realistic, then they should be easier to hurt and kill. In real life, a shot through the heart would kill me, and it would kill Mr. klitschko. A sword through the belly is going to have much the same effect on either of us. If your game is modeling real life combat, then I expect it would be more dangerous to player charaters, unless you are just throwing unskilled mooks at them. If they are ever facing opponents with the same or greater skill, then the outcome ought to be more lethal. In D&D you can take a battle axe to face and keep on trucking because HP dont realistically model combat. In a game that realisitcally models combat, an axe to the face is going to be much more lethal.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641301I would get destroyed by Klitscho, as would you. I never said skill shouldn't matter, but if you are just putting the players up against unranked opponents who are past their prime, then you are pulling your punches.

All RPGs pull their punchs my friend, and you know it- or should.

If we put players up against foes that always have a equal chance of winning, we'd get a TPK 50% of the time. People will generally quit such a campaign.

Do you have a 50% TPK experience? 25%? 10%? 5%? 1%? The answer defines how much YOU pull your punches.

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

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641301As for your game, I am more than happy to read it. Send me a copy and I will do so (whether I can recruit players is another matter entirely....that depends on the quality of the system).

Isn'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.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641307I never claimed characters in your games are easier to hurt, I said if your game really is more realistic, then they should be easier to hurt and kill.

Answered in a previous replay to a different poster.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641307If your game is modeling real life combat

Correction, 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.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;641307If they are ever facing opponents with the same or greater skill, then the outcome ought to be more lethal.

Answered in a previous post.

I swear I'm tempted to buy Age of Heroes and review it, simply because I suspect it'll be hilarious.