Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

This is something im interested in, i for the most part skipped 3e, i did play a little pathfinder but it sounds kinda bonkers how powerful casters got.

Quote from: Brad on April 28, 2021, 09:44:19 PM
"Unified mechanics" make sense when you're incapable of playing an actual game.

Feels that way sometimes.

As if players lack the brain cells needed to parse more than 1+1. We see this in board games too. This idea that the players are not able to grasp anything more complex than Candyland.

As for why no unified system. That one is easy actually.
A: Gary loved making new systems and other peoples creations. This is how we got all these TSR games with different systems.
B: Alot of these disparate rules bits were things originally added on as the need came up and were kept as they worked. Or were submitted by the players and DMs out there.
C: TSR put out a few games with more unified systems. So did others. While others did not.

And news flash. 3e and on are... NOT unified systems. Not even close. Chargen uses one set, Combat uses at least two more, magic uses its own set. Environments and Random gen usually uses its own set. and so on.

Quote from: Omega on April 29, 2021, 12:11:35 PM
As if players lack the brain cells needed to parse more than 1+1. We see this in board games too. This idea that the players are not able to grasp anything more complex than Candyland.

I have been told that most jobs write their publicationsnforna 7th grade reading level cause anything more confuses people. Sounds like we need a Seasame Street for adults. Im all for more muppets in general.

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 12:15:22 PM

Quote from: Omega on April 29, 2021, 12:11:35 PM
As if players lack the brain cells needed to parse more than 1+1. We see this in board games too. This idea that the players are not able to grasp anything more complex than Candyland.

I have been told that most jobs write their publicationsnforna 7th grade reading level cause anything more confuses people. Sounds like we need a Seasame Street for adults. Im all for more muppets in general.

The load on the brain for a huge, single list of 50+ elements is relatively large.  That is, one mechanic, lots of items that use it. The load on the brain for a different mechanic for everything is also large.  People can argue all day long about the merits of one or the other, but both are sub optimal if the concern is load on the players' brains.

The ideal is 3-7 categories with relatively few elements in each one.  That doesn't necessarily mean 3-7 mechanics, because some categories might share or mostly share the same mechanics.  Nor does it mean that is the only consideration, because the cognitive load is a relative concern.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 29, 2021, 11:57:17 AM
I'm saying it is pointless to argue with you about this.  I provided the previous post in an attempt to make clear why I believe that, but it is more addressed to other participants that you, because I don't expect any self-reflection to occur on your part based on my comments, which you are already dismissing.  It would be stupid of me to believe anything else.  Is that clear enough for you?

And I'm saying that your assessment of me is meaningless* if you can't even be bothered to accuse me of things that I actually did. I even entertained the possibility that I may have issues to work with in my last post at this point right here...

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 11:49:59 AMBut if you can't even provide a quote or specific (real & relevant) examples of me doing the things you claim I did, then I can do nothing about it. Because even if I was going to take all your points at face value, with stone cold logic and no hard feelings getting in the way, and grant you that I may have some personal faults in my part or flaws in my reasoning that need fixing, I can NOTHING about them if you can't provide details on specific things that I actually did to address them. And you aren't. You're just going off some a personal dislike of me or things you may have seen me post in passing at some other point without addressing the specific things and actual arguments that are being said right now in this specific discussion.

...and accepted that the specific comments I made that you mentioned may have been dismissive and derisive...

QuoteAnd note that the only specific example that you gave was something that I've said in passing (that I'm assuming that you didn't like, since it was a dismissive and derisive statement on my part*), but not an actual argument that I made against anything anyone said here.

...which is part of what "self-reflection" and the capacity to change (assuming I actually did something that needs changing) is all about. Yet you're still claiming otherwise and dismissing me as someone incapable of "self-reflection". So why should I take any criticism you have of me seriously? It would be stupid of me to believe they are valid or that I'm the only one 100% at fault in whatever it is you're criticizing of me.


*not just to me on a personal/emotional/subjective basis, but objectively in terms of giving me actual actionable items I can work with to fix whatever problem you think I might have.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 09:13:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:34:54 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 12:50:52 AM
Why should what's essentially a magic attack roll (spell resistance) use a completely different mechanic from physical attack rolls? I'm not just thinking backwards from my preconceptions, I'm just recognizing that most of these things are just "action rolls" and there's almost zero reason to handle action rolls differently--even attack rolls vs skill checks. Because attack rolls are ultimately just a task roll vs a difficult value, where the difficulty value is the target's defense. You can handle all of that within the same difficult/ability value scale.

You're trying to use a roll based on magic to say that all real world probability distributions are the same?

You're trying to say that you have "real world probability distributions" for how magic works? Or that "real world probability distributions" even work or can be properly applied in a TTRPG?

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:52:52 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:34:26 AM

QuoteHaving a unified mechanic, in this situation, was bad design. It hurt player understanding and retention.

Except that it wasn't a unified mechanic by your own assessment in this very same post...

QuoteIt's a completely different mechanic, disguised as the same "unified" mechanic.

If you want to address the argument I built up over several paragraphs, we can have a conversation.

Right back at you, cuz I have yet to see you address one single specific point I've made (and I've made several with specific concrete examples, unlike 90% of what you've said), but merely dismiss them out of hand while making vague unsupported allusions to stuff you're not even providing concrete examples of, other than one instance about Strength checks and another dealing with Spell Resistance, both of which I addressed.

Where the fuck have you shown me the same courtesy at any point in this conversation? Go right ahead and quote me the post. I dare you.

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:52:52 AMBut if you're going to ignore that and pick those different elements out of context and pretending there's a conflict, when there isn't, we can't.

After all, if you want to argue dishonestly like that, why quote both those sentences? You could have just quoted the second one, because, based on your same "reasoning", that sentence contradicts itself. After all, I do say it's a different mechanic and then a comma later say it's the same mechanic, right?

(Nope. I'm clearly that apparent conflict to make the point that there are two different ways to use "mechanic".)

What context did I miss? WTF did you say in that post that wasn't addressed a dozen times over in other posts I've made or would change what I said in this specific post? I picked those two lines because they were the most relevant to the specific point I was trying to make, which you insist on ignoring while trying to throw implications about my supposed "dishonesty".

I mean, Jesus Motherfucking CHRIST you're haven't even acknowledged the fucking point, which is one I've made in other posts in this same thread, in order to sidestep argument to try get me on my supposed "dishonesty" or how apparently I'm now obligated to devote time out of my day (or night as was the case this time, as I'm lying in bed with insomnia and making the mistake of picking up my phone) and go through an entire wall of text and nitpick every point that was made.

You're accusing me of the things you're doing.

I was arguing that it's absurd to use magic in a discussion of real world probability distributions, literally the opposite of what you just claimed.

I went through every post you made in this thread to find all those concrete examples you said you provided. The only references to concrete mechanics I could find were: 1) a reference to how opposed rolls were handled in old school D&D. Which isn't a defense of unified mechanics, plus your memory was incorrect. 2) Doubling the bonus from attributes for attribute checks as opposed to skill checks. Which is a distinctly different mechanic, and so again not a great argument for a unified mechanic. Plus you admitted doesn't work in the d20 system (which we were discussing). And even if it did work, it solves the strength exceptionalism by making all other attributes function in that way, which defeats the purpose. And 3), in response to post where I said that disparate mechanics don't add a significant burden, you said you could just have a lookup table of target numbers. Which doesn't address how that's significantly better than an almost equally simple set of different mechanics.

None of those are concrete examples of how unified mechanics are superior.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 09:13:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:52:52 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:34:26 AM
As I've pointed out multiple times, you're pointing out D&D's failure to properly implement unified mechanics as an example of unified mechanics failing when in reality what's failing here is that the mechanics aren't even unified (by your own admission), when they could be as I already explained in my prior posts. It is perfectly viable to just handle spell resistance/penetration as a skill/attack roll if they just used the same ability ranges and characteristics, much the way do largely do now in 5e, where the Proficiency bonus applies to everything, including spell DC. But they didn't, and that why it's usually D&D 3e specifically that comes up in criticisms against unified mechanics, cuz critics insist on pointing out WotC's failure to properly implement actual unified mechanics in that edition as examples of the limitations of unified mechanics as opposed to WotC's failure to implement them.

That's circular reasoning. You're arguing that we should force everything into a single probability distribution, ignoring the differences between the probability distribution of say bashing down a door, expertise in a skill, and taking high risk actions in a stressful situation, because a unified mechanic is good. And that a unified mechanic is good, because we can force all those different things into the same mechanic.

No, it isn't. You are pointing to something that IS NOT "unified mechanic" (but could be unified, as I've explained) as an example of how unified mechanics don't work. That logic does NOT follow. You can't point to something that isn't a "thing" as an example of how that thing doesn't work.

And all of this stuff about not taking into account the differences in probability distributions between different types of actions is obfuscating bullshit because those probability distributions don't exist. There aren't any objective, real world probability distributions of bashing a door or expertise in a skill, etc. that we have accurately calculated and could go find in a website somewhere so we could use them in the game, and games with disunified mechanics, like old D&D, sure as fuck don't take them into account. They just make them up based on whatever the designer (or GM) FEELS is like an appropriate probability distribution.

This is a fucking game at the end of the day. FUCK real life, uber accurate "probability distributions" that NOBODY uses in ANY system anyways.

This might be the underlying reason why we seem to be talking past each other.

There are objective, real world probability distributions. Some of these are more formalized, others are less so, but they're real and objective. We know, for example, that strength tends to matter a lot. A small difference can be the difference between succeeding almost all the time, or not at all. That's why we have weight classes in wrestling, for instance. By contrast, differences in other attributes tend to be much less severe. We also know how skills work. In many professional skills, success is basically assured for someone who is skilled. You can always make a pot, or a sword, of reasonable quality. Conversely, creating a masterwork or a piece of art can be a shot in the dark. Other skills can be far more erratic at all levels, like social skills. And the results of amateurs can be highly swingy.

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 12:11:11 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

This is something im interested in, i for the most part skipped 3e, i did play a little pathfinder but it sounds kinda bonkers how powerful casters got.

If you look at the warrior classes* from 1E/2E -- fighter, ranger, paladin -- they all get multiple melee attacks as they advance in levels. More to the point, taking those multiple attacks didn't require them to stand still.  The extra attacks might come at the end of the round (1E and 2E seem to differ on this) but you could move up to half your movement rate and still attack (2E). Fighters could specialize and bump their multiple attacks up as well.

(* 1E monks got multiple open-hand strikes as well when they advanced high enough.)

So a 7th level fighter specializing in longsword would get 2 swings a round (fighter 7 gets 3 swings every 2 rounds, bumped up to 2/1 by specialization). And he could advance up to half his full movement rate doing so.

What 3E did was completely gimp this by requiring almost all multi-attack rolls to be part of a full attack. This only hammers the martial combat classes; rogues can still sneak attack even if they take one swing, and most spellcasters can't cast more than one spell a round anyways without using Quicken Spell.

Ironically, 5E fixes this by giving the Extra Attack ability at a certain level to fighters, monks, etc, letting them take an extra swing as part of an attack action.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 01:42:52 PM

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 12:11:11 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

This is something im interested in, i for the most part skipped 3e, i did play a little pathfinder but it sounds kinda bonkers how powerful casters got.

If you look at the warrior classes* from 1E/2E -- fighter, ranger, paladin -- they all get multiple melee attacks as they advance in levels. More to the point, taking those multiple attacks didn't require them to stand still.  The extra attacks might come at the end of the round (1E and 2E seem to differ on this) but you could move up to half your movement rate and still attack (2E). Fighters could specialize and bump their multiple attacks up as well.

(* 1E monks got multiple open-hand strikes as well when they advanced high enough.)

So a 7th level fighter specializing in longsword would get 2 swings a round (fighter 7 gets 3 swings every 2 rounds, bumped up to 2/1 by specialization). And he could advance up to half his full movement rate doing so.

What 3E did was completely gimp this by requiring almost all multi-attack rolls to be part of a full attack. This only hammers the martial combat classes; rogues can still sneak attack even if they take one swing, and most spellcasters can't cast more than one spell a round anyways without using Quicken Spell.

Ironically, 5E fixes this by giving the Extra Attack ability at a certain level to fighters, monks, etc, letting them take an extra swing as part of an attack action.

Thanks for the explanation

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 01:58:58 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 01:42:52 PM

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 12:11:11 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

This is something im interested in, i for the most part skipped 3e, i did play a little pathfinder but it sounds kinda bonkers how powerful casters got.

If you look at the warrior classes* from 1E/2E -- fighter, ranger, paladin -- they all get multiple melee attacks as they advance in levels. More to the point, taking those multiple attacks didn't require them to stand still.  The extra attacks might come at the end of the round (1E and 2E seem to differ on this) but you could move up to half your movement rate and still attack (2E). Fighters could specialize and bump their multiple attacks up as well.

(* 1E monks got multiple open-hand strikes as well when they advanced high enough.)

So a 7th level fighter specializing in longsword would get 2 swings a round (fighter 7 gets 3 swings every 2 rounds, bumped up to 2/1 by specialization). And he could advance up to half his full movement rate doing so.

What 3E did was completely gimp this by requiring almost all multi-attack rolls to be part of a full attack. This only hammers the martial combat classes; rogues can still sneak attack even if they take one swing, and most spellcasters can't cast more than one spell a round anyways without using Quicken Spell.

Ironically, 5E fixes this by giving the Extra Attack ability at a certain level to fighters, monks, etc, letting them take an extra swing as part of an attack action.

Thanks for the explanation

I will state for the record that if someone can present a contradicting argument, I'll listen. And if their logic is sound enough, I would have to change my tune.

But I don't think I'm wrong here. I think we went from 'linear warrior quadratic wizard' to 'linear warrior logarithmic wizard'.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on April 28, 2021, 11:16:09 PM

Quote from: Pat on April 28, 2021, 09:38:52 PM
I'm really looking for an argument why unified mechanics are better. Because a lot of people seem to think it's obvious they're better, but I almost never see anyone express why.

They're simpler. In theory, they make the game more accessible to newbies. In practice this just makes room for more complexity elsewhere.

People gave the example of RQ as having a unified mechanic - well not exactly, because the attributes were generated with d6es, the damage was done with d4, d6, d8, etc, and the actions with percentile. And - comparing to D&D, as well as your rolling to hit the opponent could roll to dodge or parry, which was a different level of skill to their attack, and then instead of armour making it harder to be hit, it subtracted damage, and... okay now we look at magic and... hoo boy... So they simplified one area and complicated another.

It's like how soldiers historically have always carried a total of about 35kg. When equipment is made lighter, their commanders just load them up with more of it.

Likewise, when a unified mechanic is brought into the game, the authours just add other stuff instead. So even as they "simplify" the game, the pagecount goes up and up.

Most games will have at least a certain amount of complexity and general fuckery. Choose the game whose fuckery you enjoy.

Dragon Quest is an even better example of this point than RQ is.  DQ has surface unified mechanics.  Boy does it.  It only uses d10s.  It uses percentile, roll under like RQ for almost every pass/fail thing.  It uses 1d10+mod (where the mod can be negative) for almost every effect.  Occasionally it will use 2d10 or some variant for a curve, but those are relatively rare. 

Then every single rule is almost a special case of how those mechanics get applied.  There is no unity at all in rulings or even in the default values involved.  Now, in fairness to DQ it is also very much designed to model outcomes and it is a built in core assumption of the rules that the players barely interact with them.  The rules are really just guidelines for the GM to make a ruling.  It merely chooses to "model outcomes" by having notes in each special case and expecting the GM to adjust on the fly. 

The to hit and damage effect is particularly relevant to this discussion.  Every damage roll is 1d10+mod, typically ranging from a small minus for very weak weapons on up to +7 or +8 for big ones.  Since armor is damage reduction, the effect is that dagger against unarmored target is about the same as great sword against plate target.  (Shield make you harder to hit.)  Couldn't be simpler for the players--roll the d10 and add a number.  Basic comparison and subtraction when they get hit.  This is coupled with a critical hit system that keys off of less than 15% or less than 5% of the change to hit--where the chance to hit is modified for a host of factors before checking if you meet one of those thresholds.  In other words, there isn't even unity of feel on this--convoluted means to determine if you hit coupled with bog simple damage.  (Not counting all the special cases for damage that the GM needs to keep track of and resolve.)

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
Part of the problem is that the 'action economy mechanic' isn't as well defined in 1E/2E as it is in 3E (move/standard/free/etc). I can't even find it in 1E, but thankfully 2E explains that 'you can move up to half your normal rate in a round, and still attack'.

In 1e you can't move more than 10' and attack, unless you are Charging into melee.

Quote from: S'mon on April 29, 2021, 02:43:06 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
Part of the problem is that the 'action economy mechanic' isn't as well defined in 1E/2E as it is in 3E (move/standard/free/etc). I can't even find it in 1E, but thankfully 2E explains that 'you can move up to half your normal rate in a round, and still attack'.

In 1e you can't move more than 10' and attack, unless you are Charging into melee.

Where is that? I can't for the life of me find it in the old 1e scans.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 01:42:52 PM

Quote from: Slambo on April 29, 2021, 12:11:11 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on April 29, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
discussion I had with a friend about how 3E nerfed combat classes.

This is something im interested in, i for the most part skipped 3e, i did play a little pathfinder but it sounds kinda bonkers how powerful casters got.

If you look at the warrior classes* from 1E/2E -- fighter, ranger, paladin -- they all get multiple melee attacks as they advance in levels. More to the point, taking those multiple attacks didn't require them to stand still.  The extra attacks might come at the end of the round (1E and 2E seem to differ on this) but you could move up to half your movement rate and still attack (2E). Fighters could specialize and bump their multiple attacks up as well.

(* 1E monks got multiple open-hand strikes as well when they advanced high enough.)

So a 7th level fighter specializing in longsword would get 2 swings a round (fighter 7 gets 3 swings every 2 rounds, bumped up to 2/1 by specialization). And he could advance up to half his full movement rate doing so.

What 3E did was completely gimp this by requiring almost all multi-attack rolls to be part of a full attack. This only hammers the martial combat classes; rogues can still sneak attack even if they take one swing, and most spellcasters can't cast more than one spell a round anyways without using Quicken Spell.

Ironically, 5E fixes this by giving the Extra Attack ability at a certain level to fighters, monks, etc, letting them take an extra swing as part of an attack action.

Even more so in 2e and 5e those extra attacks aren't penalized whereas in 3e they are.

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 01:34:36 PMYou're accusing me of the things you're doing.

I was arguing that it's absurd to use magic in a discussion of real world probability distributions, literally the opposite of what you just claimed.

Looking back on it, I think I misread what you said in that part of your post.

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 01:34:36 PMI went through every post you made in this thread to find all those concrete examples you said you provided. The only references to concrete mechanics I could find were: 1) a reference to how opposed rolls were handled in old school D&D. Which isn't a defense of unified mechanics, plus your memory was incorrect. 2) Doubling the bonus from attributes for attribute checks as opposed to skill checks. Which is a distinctly different mechanic, and so again not a great argument for a unified mechanic. Plus you admitted doesn't work in the d20 system (which we were discussing). And even if it did work, it solves the strength exceptionalism by making all other attributes function in that way, which defeats the purpose. And 3), in response to post where I said that disparate mechanics don't add a significant burden, you said you could just have a lookup table of target numbers. Which doesn't address how that's significantly better than an almost equally simple set of different mechanics.

None of those are concrete examples of how unified mechanics are superior.

None of those were necessarily arguments that unified mechanics are superior, but addressing specific points you made.

1) Was mostly a nitpick I had, and the mechanic I mentioned was based on stuff I read during 2e era. Not sure it was mentioned in the PHB specifically or if I got it from a supplement or something (may have been one of the Complete X books, but don't recall). It's possible that mechanic was never used in earlier editions. And the point I was clumsily trying to make was that if disparate mechanics don't necessarily handle it better then there's no solid argument against unified mechanics coming from that angle either. Granted, this is only focusing on a specific 2e mechanic vs 3e or unified mechanics in general, so it's not exactly a slam dunk argument, but more like a reinforcing one.

2) Doubling the attribute bonus is essentially treating the attribute bonus as the skill bonus, which is essentially the same thing, assuming that they're on the same scale. Additionally this deals with how attributes vs skills are handled in specific systems, which can vary a lot between systems and is an issue of implementation rather than unified mechanics per se. In a system I have in the backburner, for example, I use a single "Might" attribute to handle Strength/Constitution (physical power/resilience) functionalities, and a Strength skill (or "discipline", which is a type of general skills I use in the system to cover all core actions in the game) to deal with the more specific function of the application of physical power and force. Since Strength is in line with other disciplines in terms of modifier ranges, and disciplines get the highest range of all abilities, this specific issue disappears in that game. A high Strength always has a significantly higher impact than someone who doesn't develop it.

I also mentioned that it doesn't work with D&D 3e specifically (not the d20 System in general), but that it does in 5e (which is a d20 System variant AFAIK). And this thread isn't about 3e specifically, but about about unified mechanics in D&D in general. And our specific argument wasn't just about 3e either, but about unified vs disunified mechanics, which are not limited to just 3e. But your specific examples apply only to 3e, which makes it an argument that's valid only against 3e's implementation, not against unified mechanics in general.

I also don't see how making all attribute work the same way with my proposed fix defeats its purpose when most opposed raw attribute rolls will be based on Strength anyways. And I not sure how giving other attributes the same treatment would make them work inappropriately either. If whatever you're doing relies on raw ability weighting the odds in favor of that raw ability makes sense. In situations that it doesn't, the roll will almost invariably be based on a skill. I can't think of a raw attribute roll that would be badly skewed with double modifiers. If you're trying to think faster than someone else, for example, having a higher Intelligence should give you a distinct advantage over someone with lower Intelligence. Unless the check relies on specific knowledge, at which point we're talking about a knowledge-based skill roll, so raw ability double bonuses won't apply.

3) Looking up a single table that you can easily memorize in most cases, or working from basic guidelines, like DC 10 base, +5 per difficulty step (as handled in d20), is much simpler than looking up specific rules for every edge case. Plus handling most action rolls as a skill check rather than as a generic 1-2 in 1d6, for example, grants me additional options and granularity when defining character talents, such as how perceptive they are, or their knowledge of certain matters, such as stonework. And it also allows me to pit character talent vs specific gradients of difficulty on a case by case basis, such as when handling Strength checks to bash a weak door vs a stronger one.

Some disunified mechanics also have issues in an of themselves. In the case of old Magic Resistance, for example, the roll was basically a fixed % made by the DM (as opposed to by the player in the case of 3e Spell Resistance) IN ADDITION to and before the Saving Throw was made (using completely different 1d20 vs target number mechanics) to completely negate the spell right off the bat. Which is a clunky mechanic that completely ignores caster ability or degree of power, so that a creature with 80%+ MR could completely undermine a high level spellcaster, unless they had a spell that allowed them to bypass MR (which only reduced the % by a certain amount and the spell wasn't even in the PHB, but a separate supplement in 2e at least, IIRC). Granted, some people might be OK with that, but I generally despise character or creature abilities that undermine other abilities or game effects, unless there's a solid reason for it, like in the case of poison vs constructs (which should obviously have immunity to poison, as non-living creatures).

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 01:34:36 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 09:13:49 AM

Quote from: Pat on April 29, 2021, 06:52:52 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 29, 2021, 03:34:26 AM
As I've pointed out multiple times, you're pointing out D&D's failure to properly implement unified mechanics as an example of unified mechanics failing when in reality what's failing here is that the mechanics aren't even unified (by your own admission), when they could be as I already explained in my prior posts. It is perfectly viable to just handle spell resistance/penetration as a skill/attack roll if they just used the same ability ranges and characteristics, much the way do largely do now in 5e, where the Proficiency bonus applies to everything, including spell DC. But they didn't, and that why it's usually D&D 3e specifically that comes up in criticisms against unified mechanics, cuz critics insist on pointing out WotC's failure to properly implement actual unified mechanics in that edition as examples of the limitations of unified mechanics as opposed to WotC's failure to implement them.

That's circular reasoning. You're arguing that we should force everything into a single probability distribution, ignoring the differences between the probability distribution of say bashing down a door, expertise in a skill, and taking high risk actions in a stressful situation, because a unified mechanic is good. And that a unified mechanic is good, because we can force all those different things into the same mechanic.

No, it isn't. You are pointing to something that IS NOT "unified mechanic" (but could be unified, as I've explained) as an example of how unified mechanics don't work. That logic does NOT follow. You can't point to something that isn't a "thing" as an example of how that thing doesn't work.

And all of this stuff about not taking into account the differences in probability distributions between different types of actions is obfuscating bullshit because those probability distributions don't exist. There aren't any objective, real world probability distributions of bashing a door or expertise in a skill, etc. that we have accurately calculated and could go find in a website somewhere so we could use them in the game, and games with disunified mechanics, like old D&D, sure as fuck don't take them into account. They just make them up based on whatever the designer (or GM) FEELS is like an appropriate probability distribution.

This is a fucking game at the end of the day. FUCK real life, uber accurate "probability distributions" that NOBODY uses in ANY system anyways.

This might be the underlying reason why we seem to be talking past each other.

There are objective, real world probability distributions. Some of these are more formalized, others are less so, but they're real and objective. We know, for example, that strength tends to matter a lot. A small difference can be the difference between succeeding almost all the time, or not at all. That's why we have weight classes in wrestling, for instance. By contrast, differences in other attributes tend to be much less severe. We also know how skills work. In many professional skills, success is basically assured for someone who is skilled. You can always make a pot, or a sword, of reasonable quality. Conversely, creating a masterwork or a piece of art can be a shot in the dark. Other skills can be far more erratic at all levels, like social skills. And the results of amateurs can be highly swingy.

But do we have the specific numbers, and can they be effectively applied to the game? We "know" that strength has a significant impact on strength related tasks. But what are the specific numbers (not in terms of weight press, but probability-wise) and how do we apply them in the game? And is trying to make minute aspects of the game mechanics as "realistic" as possible always feasible or even desirable? Some of this stuff is just hard to emulate in game terms regardless of the style of mechanics used. Most action rolls in gameplay deal with quick and dirty stuff, rather than prolonged tasks where you can sit your ass for hours until you get them done, at which point the skill check might be more about how fast you can get it done (or whether you can get it done in X amount of time, before the baddies show up), as opposed to whether you can get it done or not.

Quote from: Omega on April 29, 2021, 12:11:35 PM

Quote from: Brad on April 28, 2021, 09:44:19 PM
"Unified mechanics" make sense when you're incapable of playing an actual game.

Feels that way sometimes.

As if players lack the brain cells needed to parse more than 1+1. We see this in board games too. This idea that the players are not able to grasp anything more complex than Candyland.

As for why no unified system. That one is easy actually.
A: Gary loved making new systems and other peoples creations. This is how we got all these TSR games with different systems.
B: Alot of these disparate rules bits were things originally added on as the need came up and were kept as they worked. Or were submitted by the players and DMs out there.
C: TSR put out a few games with more unified systems. So did others. While others did not.

And news flash. 3e and on are... NOT unified systems. Not even close. Chargen uses one set, Combat uses at least two more, magic uses its own set. Environments and Random gen usually uses its own set. and so on.

Complexity causes mechanics to take more time at the table. We saw this play out in 4th editon, where combats could take hours to finish. I'm capable of doing more than 1+1 at the table, but I also want a system that's "elegant" (accomplishes more for less effort) and intuitive. That gives us more time doing fun stuff and less time looking up fiddly rules and figuring out stuff.