Quote from: Grymbok;653359To 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.

I agree with this.

Quote from: gleichman;653311They 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).

I think thats articulating the idea of what is being meant by a 'strong' or 'weak' system better, that the rules should directly give workable numbers so that the PCs don't have to use luck or willpower in order to survive or take down opponents.

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; the rhetoricians on your team change horses in midstream!

Can we move on from this yet?
D&D has basically never had luck points or willpower points aside from Eberron or 4th Edition, and isn't particularly germane to the discussion, for a change.
Its always just let the dice fall where they may, followed by the occasional resurrection.

Quote from: gleichman;653299You might be surprised depending upon what we're talking about. Why are there such things as 'Errors' in baseball for example? And I know my chance of hitting a target of a certain size on the firing range to a level greater than that represented in many RPGs- that's why I go to the firing range.

Those examples have nothing to do with, nor explain attributes common in any RPG though. So its not really an argument.

QuoteBut really that's all besides the point. Game design does not provide the odds because it thinks the players know the exact numbers, it provides the odds so that the action can be resolved.

Then there's no reason to enshrine those mechanics as "realistic" when they obviously are not then, right?

QuoteI'm guessing that you completely missed the extensive notes and house rules on Deadlands on my websites, and all the posts about Shadowrun I've made over the years. Or the post where I detailed our experiences with the then newly released James Bond game back when. In short, don't make up lies about my history and claim it as a debate point. Either find out on your own or ask.

What I didn't miss was the multiple times in other threads where you've been unable/unwilling to back up a claim about manymany games you've laid criticism to, so not a merry-go-round I'm going to dance around again. Three random RPGs is not really "experienced" in the field of RPG systems, especially with the generalized comments you make about them.

Quote from: Grymbok;653274The problem with "extra effort" is that a lot of what people do in RPGs is the kind of life-of-death stuff that would cause "real" people to put in extra effort. I totally get the line of thinking that says "OK my character would be trying really hard to kick this door down because his cat is behind if and the room's on fire". But how often do PCs kick down doors where they're not too bothered about the result?

As is true in many things, I think that FASERIP Marvel has one of the best implementations of this concept. You say what level of success you want, and pledge to use Karma to get there if needed. Then you roll the dice, and if you come up short, you add Karma to get you where you need to be. If you don't have enough Karma to get there, then all your Karma is used up and you fail anyway.

Now of course it's possible to have enough Karma that you can succeed no matter what you roll, so it likely doesn't pass the Gleichman barrier for 'not being metagaming'. But I think that for a lot of people it's a solution that would work well.

I agree with all that, enthusiastically. FASERIP and Outlaws of the Water Margin are the two games that really excel IMO at the use of that mechanic.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653408Those examples have nothing to do with, nor explain attributes common in any RPG though. So its not really an argument.

I have never claimed that specific odds are realistic or unrealistic except in extreme cases, I do however claim that players knowing the odds produces more realistic outcomes for skilled PCs for the reasons noted.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653408What I didn't miss was the multiple times in other threads where you've been unable/unwilling to back up a claim about manymany games you've laid criticism to, so not a merry-go-round I'm going to dance around again.

The only merry-go-round I've seen here is people like yourself moving the goal posts after I soundly answer a point. Much like you just did here- to 'undefined claims by me' that don't even give me a chance to response because they are so vague.

You're one of the worse about that.

Quote from: gleichman;653412I have never claimed that specific odds are realistic or unrealistic except in extreme cases.

No, you've made the claims certain mechanics where more "realistic".

QuoteI do however claim that players knowing the odds produces more realistic outcomes for skilled PCs for the reasons noted.

Advocating one form of meta-gaming ("players know the odds beforehand"), doesn't really work when you use that as the main criticism (right or wrong) of other mechanics, however.

QuoteThe only merry-go-round I've seen here is people like yourself

Online posters?

Quotemoving the goal posts after I soundly answer a point.

What goalposts did I set and then move?

QuoteMuch like you just did here- to 'undefined claims by me' that don't even give me a chance to response because they are so vague. You're one of the worse about that.

If you say so.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653413No, you've made the claims certain mechanics where more "realistic".

Yes I have. The falling mechanics in RQ are more realistic than those in D&D, are those governing missile fire.

Only the most foolish would contest such things.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653413Advocating one form of meta-gaming ("players know the odds beforehand"), doesn't really work when you use that as the main criticism (right or wrong) of other mechanics, however.

Sure it does. Your statement is a bit like telling someone that the wheel is a poor model for a door and therefore one can't use it for a tire.

Deciding where and when to depend upon the meta-game is an important part of game design. Again, see Layers of Design.

Quote from: TristramEvans;653413What goalposts did I set and then move?

First you claim that I clearly had no experience with Hero Point mechanics and that such experience was necessary to judge them (i.e. a goal point). Beside being silly in itself (one does not have to be bite by a snake to know it's not a good thing), it was untrue and after presenting proof (i.e. long standing links showing my experience with said systems)- you moved the goal post without even admitting my success at the previous one.

Very dishonest, and indication of a person not worth talking to. Which is why you've long been in my ignore list and why I say now stop overriding it and responding to you again for a while.

Hopefully at a future date, you'll grow up.

Quote from: gleichman;653415Yes I have. The falling mechanics in RQ are more realistic than those in D&D, are those governing missile fire. Only the most foolish would contest such things.

What was that about goal-post shifting? lol. Not even on topic for the thread.

QuoteSure it does. Your statement is a bit like telling someone that the wheel is a poor model for a door and therefore one can't use it for a tire.

No, that analogy doesn't work.

QuoteDeciding where and when to depend upon the meta-game is an important part of game design.

Not really.

QuoteFirst you claim that I clearly had no experience with Hero Point mechanics and that such experience was necessary to judge them (i.e. a goal point).

Actually I said this:

"I'm guessing you don't know many games that use these or the varied approaches to it."

It's only a few pages back, so no reason to lie.

QuoteBeside being silly in itself (one does not have to be bite by a snake to know it's not a good thing), it was untrue and after presenting proof (i.e. long standing links showing my experience with said systems)- you moved the goal post without even admitting my success at the previous one.

No, you brought up 3 systems that you claim to have experience with. This did not in anyway disputed my assertion, rather reinforced it.

QuoteVery dishonest, and indication of a person not worth talking to. Which is why you've long been in my ignore list and why I say now stop overriding it and responding to you again for a while. Hopefully at a future date, you'll grow up.

As I said earlier, the merry-go-round. :rotfl:

Quote from: Grymbok;653359There'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 think you are missing some of the nuance in this particular argument.  This is all coming down to perception of "realism" for a purely mundane person (the Fighter).

QuoteI 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.

There is no difference.  The argument for a non-superhuman Fighter is mostly one that would also disallow a lot of Conan-esque feats of competence.

The argument for this 3rd option is that Conan is already a supernaturally endowed combatant by virtue of doing things that aren't "realistically" accomplished by some mere mortal sword swinger, so your "Conan option" and this 3rd option are the same thing.  

It's just a matter that you see Conan as a fundamentally non-supernaturally endowed character and others fundamentally cannot buy into that notion, so they present the 3rd option of, "Yes you can be Conan-esque if you agree that Conan's eminently cheesy abilities are as superhuman as lifting an elephant."

Quote from: jhkim;652998I would note that most systems without such hero points don't have a representation of extra effort or concentration.  

A limited example of extra effort - for example - is Pushing in the Hero System, where a character spends extra endurance to increase their Strength or power.  This has no effect on skills, though - even though there is finite mental concentration and effort that can effect how different attempts turn out.  

I once bought Luck with 2 extra dice of Luck bought with Costs END and Costs x10 END.

JG

I didn't mind X points in Marvel, I didn't mind them in Buffy, I didn't mind them in D&D 3.5 when my GM implemented a home brew system for them in his game. I don't prefer systems with or without them, to be honest. All I prefer is that if they're implemented there are clear, precise rules for how they're given out (one per level is a method I like) and, more importantly, how they can be used.

I don't think they're a meta-rule or indicative of a "storygame" tendency or anything like that. At least not more so than taking ten on a roll is.

I'm surprised at how much people here will rail at people for not trusting the GM to make up rulings and modifiers on the fly that are good and fun, but don't seem to trust the GM to hand out special points.

You either trust your GM or you don't. Its the same issue.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;653742I'm surprised at how much people here will rail at people for not trusting the GM to make up rulings and modifiers on the fly that are good and fun, but don't seem to trust the GM to hand out special points.

You either trust your GM or you don't. Its the same issue.

Except that I am criticizing it from the PoV of the GM, not the player.

Quote from: TristramEvans;654089Except that I am criticizing it from the PoV of the GM, not the player.

That's fair. I was referring to the people who said they don't like playing in games where the GM hands out the bennies/etc.