Quote from: jhkim;653304In the case of #1, the system helps emulate the genre feature where the hero still fails some of the time - but when they really need to succeed at just the right moment, they always do.

Or else, as with hit points, the frangibility of the advantage means that overcoming a tough situation leaves them especially vulnerable down the line -- and they know it!

When they pay the price, there's that cause and effect rather than just a random bit of bad luck.

Quote from: Phillip;653308See the emphasis there? "Realism" is judged by the outcomes the model produces, not by the process of role playing. Many people find the other aspect more important to their enjoyment.

Yes, that's fine. Just admit that the draw is a meta-game one (enjoyment of a specific type of role-playing) and all would be good.

What not to do- Claim it's required to simulate the genre or claim that the draw is not meta-game.

Quote from: Phillip;653308To the latter point, I note that it seems very hard for you to explain in the forum what your methods are, whereas the "hero point" methods seem quite easily conveyed.

No one has asked what my methods are, so I see no need to talk about them.

But you are correct. They would be harder to explain as they are emergent results rather than the invoked results of Hero Points. This has its own downsides in that it requires tighter rule design (which in turn often means more complex rules).

Quote from: Phillip;653279Except that you are incoherently trying to have your cake even as you eat it.

Is "the Incredible Hulk (or similar)" the same as "badass normal," or are they different? Make up your mind one way or the other, and cut the weasel bait-and-switch crap.

The Incredible Hulk can hold up a mountain and leap two miles at a time. He's not badass normal. Conan is.

So "why can't Conan jump 50ft in the air" is a "if there is magic then impossible things must be possible for everyone" argument.

But I suspect you're just trolling anyway, so have fun with that.

Quote from: Grymbok;653319The Incredible Hulk can hold up a mountain and leap two miles at a time. He's not badass normal. Conan is.

Then stick with that, instead of playing rhetorical sleight of hand to build a straw man that makes great kindling for a blaze that sheds more heat than light and creates a distracting smoke screen from what we are really talking about.

A thought - gleichman's "principles of good game design" in the other thread reminds me of the Dogme 95 manifesto in film making. His approach is not one I would choose to follow, just as I would generally prefer traditional films to Dogme ones. But it's interesting to have these things out there, and looking at these kind of "stripped down" approaches can produce good ideas and innovations in the more mainstream sector.

For myself, the other thread (and the fact I found it hard to fundamentally disagree with many of gleichman's manifesto points) has helped me work through some issues I've been having recently with Savage Worlds, and gave me a useful structure to help think about what properties I wanted from a replacement system.

Quote from: Phillip;653323Then stick with that, instead of playing rhetorical sleight of hand to build a straw man that makes great kindling for a blaze that sheds more heat than light and creates a distracting smoke screen from what we are really talking about.

I really wish I could understand what the hell you think I wrote in my previous post. I acknowledge that I posted in a hurry and it was less than clear, but you seem to be indulging in some serious Kremlinology in order to be maximally offended by it.

Quote from: Grymbok;653277You see it a lot in fighter vs wizard arguments, in my experience. There are people who take the view that for D&D fighters to be competitive they must at level 20 be the Incredible Hulk (or similar). Since others prefer Fighters to exist at a more sort of "badass normal" level, this is where the "if there are fireballs then why can't Conan jump 50ft in the air" arguments tend to come in.

I don't know which arguments you are talking about, but I suspect the more common arguments aren't over the Incredible Hulk, but rather over various ostensibly human characters in different media.  

For example, there are characters like Batman in most comic portrayals, or over-the-top martial arts heroes like the Bride in the Kill Bill movies, or action movies heroes like James Bond in later movies with stunts like leaping onto a moving bus or hanging onto the outside of a plane.  These characters are ostensibly human in the fiction, but are capable of feats far beyond what is human in reality.  

This is quite different from movies without CGI and/or stuntmen on wires, like James Bond of the early films (Sean Connery) or Bruce Willis in the original Die Hard.

Quote from: jhkim;653334I don't know which arguments you are talking about, but I suspect the more common arguments aren't over the Incredible Hulk, but rather over various ostensibly human characters in different media.  

For example, there are characters like Batman in most comic portrayals, or over-the-top martial arts heroes like the Bride in the Kill Bill movies, or action movies heroes like James Bond in later movies with stunts like leaping onto a moving bus or hanging onto the outside of a plane.  These characters are ostensibly human in the fiction, but are capable of feats far beyond what is human in reality.  

This is quite different from movies without CGI and/or stuntmen on wires, like James Bond of the early films (Sean Connery) or Bruce Willis in the original Die Hard.

I (foolishly) got in to a long thread about this on TBP once. There were definitely people who seemed to think that high level D&D fighters needed to be way beyond even cinematic human levels of competence. So that's where my memory of the whole "in a world with wizards it means that fighters must be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" argument comes from. Obviously it may well be atypical.

Quote from: Grymbok;653341I (foolishly) got in to a long thread about this on TBP once. There were definitely people who seemed to think that high level D&D fighters needed to be way beyond even cinematic human levels of competence. So that's where my memory of the whole "in a world with wizards it means that fighters must be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound" argument comes from. Obviously it may well be atypical.

I can see where that comes from. I think it's the wrong approach, but yeah- I see where it comes from.

Quote from: Grymbok;653341Obviously it may well be atypical.

[insert Big Purple joke here]

Grymbok, the fundamental problem with your complaint was that it made a total hash of logic regardless of what revisionist Kool-aid you may have been fed.

As to the latter, however, from the very first publication of D&D, classed characters per se of any level -- never mind Fighter Lords -- have been by definition not normal men. They are fantastic figures just as much as Magic Users and Giants.

If revisionists have changed that in recent editions, it's a dubious accomplishment.

Quote from: Phillip;653355As to the latter, however, from the very first publication of D&D, classed characters per se of any level -- never mind Fighter Lords -- have been by definition not normal men. They are fantastic figures just as much as Magic Users and Giants.

They never came off that way to me, for the simple reason that nothing in the game or setting seemed real enough to allow it.

You can't have the fantastic without a believable mundane.

Quote from: Phillip;653355Grymbok, the fundamental problem with your complaint is that it makes a total hash of logic regardless of what revisionist Kool-aid you may have been fed.

As to the latter, however, from the very first publication of D&D, classed characters per se of any level -- never mind Fighter Lords -- have been by definition not normal men. They are fantastic figures just as much as Magic Users and Giants.

If revisionists have changed that in recent editions, it's a dubious accomplishment.

Well, much like "hit points aren't wounds", this is one of those things where for many players, their perception of the game has never lined up with the text. Yes, a high level fighter in D&D can survive a melee battle with a dragon. No-one's arguing against that. This is - in and of itself - plainly superhuman. However, that same high-level fighter cannot (unless he has a Belt of Giant Strength or similar) lift an elephant over his head.

Some people reconcile this by viewing high-level D&D fighters as possessing superhuman competence but not superhuman physical ability. This is my view, broadly, and is what I see as the Conan option.

Others take the view that actually high level fighters can/should be able to lift the elephant. This is the superhero fighter option.

There's a third way which seems contradictory to me, which is that the fighter is superhuman but still can't lift that elephant. That is to say, he's superhuman in the feats his HPs and combat charts allow him to do, but his STR may still be only 18 or less. I don't see the difference between this and Conan myself, but I've been assured in argument before that it is. And I think this is your view.

To be honest though these days, overall I'm more in the position that "scared of goblins" to "wrestling dragons" is too much of a power curve for a single PC. But that's a different debate.

However you slice that problem, though, the point is that the people who want to make their fighters even more superhuman are definitely not pressing a claim as to normal reality.

If they had been, then the line about "just because there are fireballs the laws of physics don't apply" would be simply irrelevant. In the actual event, it's also thoroughly incoherent; the rhetoricians on your team change horses in midstream!

Quote from: Phillip;653361However you slice that problem, though, the point is that the people who want to make their fighters even more superhuman are definitely not pressing a claim as to normal reality.

If they had been, then the line about "just because there are fireballs the laws of physics don't apply" would be simply irrelevant. In the actual event, it's also thoroughly incoherent; you change horses in midstream!

I still don't get the incoherence argument, but whatever. You do realise I'm not advancing this position, yeah? You said you'd never seen the "if there is magic then the laws of physics must be different for everyone" argument made, and I was just relating that I'd seen it in the fighter vs wizard debates over on TBP. If my summary of the position I don't agree with doesn't meet your standards for rigorous argument - I don't care. It's not my position anyway.

At this point I just wish I hadn't bothered to post in the first place!