Quote from: Necrozius;917944Context, context, context and more context.

Rogue is sneaking around or infiltrating some building guarded by mooks? Hell yes: auto kills.

Except that the slip up or failure to kill is going to get you in combat ASAP. Thats the risk of trying to sneak attack.

Now if Im pretty sure that the Rogue can kill the guard in one go, especially with a really good sneaking roll. Then sure. No point in rolling really. Though Id probably still ask for the to-hit just to see if things go weird as they off this poor shlub. Critical? Decapitation! Rolled a 1? Hit him so hard the knife broke. He's still dead though.

Quote from: Omega;918122Except that the slip up or failure to kill is going to get you in combat ASAP. Thats the risk of trying to sneak attack.

Now if Im pretty sure that the Rogue can kill the guard in one go, especially with a really good sneaking roll. Then sure. No point in rolling really. Though Id probably still ask for the to-hit just to see if things go weird as they off this poor shlub. Critical? Decapitation! Rolled a 1? Hit him so hard the knife broke. He's still dead though.

Yep, that's what I'm thinking. There are still risks and consequences but I don't see the point in making damage rolls if the guards are mooks. Sure other things could go wrong (knife breaks, guy screams, body falls over a balcony, someone else saw it happen etc...).

But yeah, raiding a castle of elite professionals or whatever... that's another matter.

Quote from: Arminius;917778Ultimately true, but for your group you need to consider the impact, on enjoyment, of how you interpret the rules one way or another. It seems to be a truism but you need to get it out of the way in order to have a conversation that doesn't descend into more vapid truisms or sophistry.

In this case there are a bunch of interesecting elements including fairness of treatment between PCs and NPCs, and what it means to be "high level" particularly in D&D, along with your interpretation of hit points. In my opinion, high-level characters, if not high-HD monsters, all deserve to benefit from "fictive oomph".

This takes us to the meaning of the imaginary action vs dice roll. As people have said, the to-hit/damage roll can be interpreted as a resolution of the whole question "Do I successfully get into position for the insta-kill?" rather than taking the latter as established purely by description and/or stealth rolls. As such, just as a high-level character has improved saves that can be seen as any combination of luck, sixth-sense reaction, hardiness, and skill--all of them overcoming what might otherwise be sure death based on previous description--so the higher hit points and the dice roll can mean the big baddy standing at the battlement just plain ain't gonna be dispatched that way. He also won't be frozen by being caught flat-footed by a guy with a crossbow. Is it realistic? No. But at some point the leveling up process breaks free of realism and you just have to accept under some circumstances (based on your reading of the rules) Kirk/Bond/Conan is always going to find a way, or get lucky, and avoid the surprise killing blow.

Of course, some players want the "fictive oomph" of everyone set to low or zero, as not everyone wants to game heroic film fiction. If players do want realism and don't want dramatic scale-tipping, these questions can be handled by explicit rules (and/or GM estimates) for position, detection, and injury.

Sure, that's what I meant when I wrote

Quoteyou need to consider the impact, on enjoyment, of how you interpret the rules one way or another.

(Minor point: what I mean by "fictive oomph" is the quality of fictional protagonists that they tend to benefit from things going their way, by pure chance or coincidence. In the best stories, it's made extremely plausible yet there's no denying the hero's good fortune in spotting an enemy in the mirror, having a haystack to land in, etc. It's my own coinage so I can't really complain, but I don't know what you're trying to make it mean aside from "preference".)

If players want pure realism then there are ways to get it. It could be that a trained commando will be able to silently dispatch an unsuspecting guard with near 100% certainty. But to be realistic, there still should be risk at some point in the overall situation--the question is when and where, starting with the decision to infiltrate the castle and ending when the PCs get back home. You can get this either by enforcing the factor of "the unknown" or by abstracting "the unknown" through randomness.

For example, as you come upon the guard, what exactly determines that "the guard doesn't hear you, he is looking out over the battlement seemingly oblivious"? Has the GM previously determined that the guard is in this location at this time, that he's looking in that direction, that he's inattentive? If yes to all the above, then fine, he's dead meat. If not, then there's a step missing, which could be handled by resorting to the dice. In D&D you kinda have that with the stealth roll, but what about PCs who don't have the stealth skill? It seems to me that once you figure out the baseline for a character who lacks the skill, the skill should enhance rather than substitute for that base chance.

Quote from: Skarg;918165Of course, some players want the "fictive oomph" of everyone set to low or zero, as not everyone wants to game heroic film fiction. If players do want realism and don't want dramatic scale-tipping, these questions can be handled by explicit rules (and/or GM estimates) for position, detection, and injury.

You can also handle it through glacial XP pacing, setting demographic norms, level caps, etc. to keep outlier heroics, well, outliers. Lots of ways to change the setting conceits with the basic engine. Seems like a lost art nowadays, controlling one's campaign through setting, pacing, or editing. There's definitely a cultural preference for Salvation Through Widgetry.

Quote from: Arminius;918237Sure, that's what I meant when I wrote

(Minor point: what I mean by "fictive oomph" is the quality of fictional protagonists that they tend to benefit from things going their way, by pure chance or coincidence. In the best stories, it's made extremely plausible yet there's no denying the hero's good fortune in spotting an enemy in the mirror, having a haystack to land in, etc. It's my own coinage so I can't really complain, but I don't know what you're trying to make it mean aside from "preference".)

If players want pure realism then there are ways to get it. It could be that a trained commando will be able to silently dispatch an unsuspecting guard with near 100% certainty. But to be realistic, there still should be risk at some point in the overall situation--the question is when and where, starting with the decision to infiltrate the castle and ending when the PCs get back home. You can get this either by enforcing the factor of "the unknown" or by abstracting "the unknown" through randomness.

For example, as you come upon the guard, what exactly determines that "the guard doesn't hear you, he is looking out over the battlement seemingly oblivious"? Has the GM previously determined that the guard is in this location at this time, that he's looking in that direction, that he's inattentive? If yes to all the above, then fine, he's dead meat. If not, then there's a step missing, which could be handled by resorting to the dice. In D&D you kinda have that with the stealth roll, but what about PCs who don't have the stealth skill? It seems to me that once you figure out the baseline for a character who lacks the skill, the skill should enhance rather than substitute for that base chance.

Yes, exactly. I'm really interested in the details of cause and effect, and gaming those out, or at least having appropriate abstract rules that give chances that make sense, as opposed to narrative choices or rules or GM choices that don't make sense to me.

The GM is much more important than the rule set. This last post of yours would give me confidence in your GM assessment of the odds, even if we were playing a game system I wasn't impressed with. And I have played systems I do like with GMs who apply the rules in ways that botch many situations, making the more detailed rules pointless or counter-productive.

For "fictive oomph", I was imagining a factor that would have things go the PC's way for no concrete reason other than that it does because they're special. I'd rather model the actual qualities of the character that lead to things going their way, than just have things go their way and then make up reasons later. I could even see it still being abstract and using the same mechanic, but I'd want to think of it as "actual oomph" or oomph from various qualities that are below the detail level of the sim but still have and effect. The fictive part is the issue for me.

So for example the actual historical Red Baron had amazing success in aerial dogfights in very deadly conditions, and the reasons could be abstracted into a generic factor, and I'd be satisfied as long as it worked out as I imagine it correlates to reality. That is, I'd give him very high chances to survive encounters and get kills, particularly against lesser pilots, but there would always be some chance of failure, injury or death, so I wouldn't want a pile-o-hitpoints mechanic unless there were also at least some small chance of an unexpected immediate demise. I imagine that there may have been other pilots who were just as good as he, but who just happened to catch a bullet much sooner.

And, I'd also be very interested in a simulation that did a decent job of actually modeling many of the factors that go into making that oompf, and that allow players to get involved in making the decisions that lead to appropriate adjustments to the odds of one outcome or another. i.e. a game that is actually about the situation and the causes and effects and risks of that situation, and not just about "the Red Baron was SO great and legendary and makes a great story and puffs my ego to fantasy roleplay as him".

Not to say that it's badwrongfun if some players do want to have mechanics that just drive story expectations or PC life insurance and don't mind it being fictive rather than reason-based.

Quote from: Opaopajr;918240You can also handle it through glacial XP pacing, setting demographic norms, level caps, etc. to keep outlier heroics, well, outliers. Lots of ways to change the setting conceits with the basic engine. Seems like a lost art nowadays, controlling one's campaign through setting, pacing, or editing. There's definitely a cultural preference for Salvation Through Widgetry.

Yeah, good point. D&D seems much more interesting to me with very low level caps (or hitpoint caps) and again the GM can make all the difference.

Quote from: Opaopajr;918240You can also handle it through glacial XP pacing, setting demographic norms, level caps, etc. to keep outlier heroics, well, outliers. Lots of ways to change the setting conceits with the basic engine. Seems like a lost art nowadays, controlling one's campaign through setting, pacing, or editing. There's definitely a cultural preference for Salvation Through Widgetry.

That's because Game Designers can't sell Good GMing, what they can do is sell mechanic after mechanic in a snake-oil attempt to prevent Bad GMing.

Salvation Through Widgetry - I love it.

About von Richthofen, I'm sure he was a skilled flyer. However, although I haven't read a detailed account of all his victories or a summary analysis, I seem to remember reading a list of "instructions" to his men which suggest that a lot of his success came simply from never giving a sucker an even break. I  remember things like "don't get into a dogfight", "attack while diving out of the sun", "always ambush", "don't get isolated/stay with your wingman". In short he took a very scientific, organized approach which paid dividends not only in maintaining situational awareness and avoiding tunnel vision but also in maintaining energy needed for maneuver.

On top of that, he was probably lucky. Again, not saying he wasn't good, but war is chaotic and the difference between survivors and victims often comes down to luck, especially over the long haul. In the end Richthofen's luck ran out (and he also may have violated some of his own rules by fixating on a target). So you can't reliably replicate his performance or that of any of the other aces such as Bishop, Fonck, or Rickenbacker without either (a) accepting that the particular names of the top-scorers and survivors is going to be different from history, even if the distribution is similar, or (b) adding in an artificial fudge factor/luck factor to recreate what is really a post-facto survivor bias.

Quote from: Opaopajr;918240You can also handle it through glacial XP pacing, setting demographic norms, level caps, etc. to keep outlier heroics, well, outliers. Lots of ways to change the setting conceits with the basic engine. Seems like a lost art nowadays, controlling one's campaign through setting, pacing, or editing. There's definitely a cultural preference for Salvation Through Widgetry.

Well.
A good GM can house rule and hand wave and make the game go well.

However, a good GM running a game that matches the mechanics and expectations doesn't have to break PC expectation, and this is where really memorable games happen.

A good rule set can mitigate some idiocy, but can't make up for a bad GM.  However, the proper setting/system/game match in the hands of a good GM is the best combo.  And having the system help fulfill the expectations of the players and the game being played is just less lifting the GM has to waste time doing.

Quote from: rgrove0172;917270So many times the backstab/sneak attack doesn't work out like the mercy kill its supposed to - at least in theory and it always causes frowns. Most will agree that if you come up behind someone unawares and have any skill at all, they are TOAST. It doesn't matter if they are Uber-level Billy Bad Ass, a knife in the head is pretty effective, as is a bow shot to the neck, a spear to through the chest, an axe beheading you or whatever.

I have, many times, simply allowed the player to dispatch the NPC if they aren't anybody important and reward them for their stealth but when its a major NPC you hate to jump passed the rules that far. (Despite what some will remember from my other posts, I do follow the rules a vast majority of the time.)

So whats the answer? Should you just let the thief get his +1d6, doing a pretty good number on the guard but then let the armored and better armed guard turn around and start beating the shit out of him despite his awesome sneakiness? Or do you just let him kill him and move on?

House rules maybe? Quadruple super damage? Instant Kill Shot possibility?

1: Except backstab/sneak isnt the insta-kill you seem to think it is. Therein lies the problem. Its akin to believing that if you shoot someone with a gun, (or an arrow) then they die instantly.

2: The thing here is that the thief has just snuck up on the guard. Nothing else. Assuming from the mere 1d6 sneak attack damage then this is a level 1-2 Rogue. Still relatively fresh out of training. This guy has alot to learn. Like. Oh. Better vital points. Or better angles to slip in under armour. Or even just how to better judge the odds of pulling off an insta-kill. (Around level 5 if its against a bog standard 5e Guard.)

3: If the sneak was really good then add another die of damage. Possibly look at the massive damage rules since sounds like they scored well more than half the guards HP so that might apply. Or the Rogue can learn the hard way that they still have alot to learn about this stabby-stabby stuff.

4: Look first at the existing rules and then look at what bonuses might apply. But keep in mind the characters level vs the target. Sometimes its just not possible due to the target being more alert or just plain lucky. But after a point things like this being done to low level NPCs IS possible. By level 5 the Rogue has as noted in earlier comments an average 14 damage output from backstab that exceeds the Guards 11 HP before you even apply stat bonuses with just a dagger. Add in an extra die of damage for a really good sneak or to-hit and yes the guards toast.

With a little prep and some gold spent even a level 3 can pull that off by using a rapier. Average of 11.5. At level 1-2 though even with a rapier and poison your average is 10.5. So a really good sneak and/or to-hit might warrant. Or good enough stat mod. Or the aforementioned massive damage rules.

Otherwise gently remind the player that their character is still kinda new at this. Or dramatically describe this guard turning around and facing the Rogue with a freaking knife sticking out of his neck or a hole going through him you can see through! ...cue Terminator BGM...

Quote from: LordVreeg;918509Well.
A good GM can house rule and hand wave and make the game go well.

However, a good GM running a game that matches the mechanics and expectations doesn't have to break PC expectation, and this is where really memorable games happen.

A good rule set can mitigate some idiocy, but can't make up for a bad GM.  However, the proper setting/system/game match in the hands of a good GM is the best combo.  And having the system help fulfill the expectations of the players and the game being played is just less lifting the GM has to waste time doing.

True, eventually you have to assess the system used honestly to see if it provides the feel desired. But expectations are one of those things that's notoriously hard to manage in a group, let alone communicate. I'm personally OK with "authorial/artistic control" to the "directing raconteur," as it were. As long as the GM is getting the expected result, or at least know how close they are with minor adjustments, I feel they're golden.

When the system matches stylistically the GM's setting vision, I am not going to recommend discarding it if the issue is merely syncopation.

My big point is people forget that just because you accept a system does not mean all features are 'On' let alone at 'Full Throttle' for 'Max Velocity'.

Case in point, TSR D&D spoke extensively about zero magic campaigns and not using (or severely editing) magical classes. Game still works fine in that milieu; perhaps that's due to being partially designed with no-magic settings in mind. Either way that example shows there was little in the way of re-syncopating the system to table expectations. System shopping was not as needed, and not my first 'go to' answer when conflict arises.

Basically, like clothes, find the style you need, get it in the correct size, then tailor as needed to proper fit. That said, a good amount of clothes is really retreading the same foundational patterns. At that point you acknowledge most work is really fabric choice, fit, & details. D&D is like the men's 3-piece suit of rpg systems — by the time you got it down you already know so much about pattern and fit, fabric and details shouldn't overwhelm you.

Quote from: Arminius;918505About von Richthofen, I'm sure he was a skilled flyer. However, although I haven't read a detailed account of all his victories or a summary analysis, I seem to remember reading a list of "instructions" to his men which suggest that a lot of his success came simply from never giving a sucker an even break. I  remember things like "don't get into a dogfight", "attack while diving out of the sun", "always ambush", "don't get isolated/stay with your wingman". In short he took a very scientific, organized approach which paid dividends not only in maintaining situational awareness and avoiding tunnel vision but also in maintaining energy needed for maneuver.

Yes, I'd say that's very true, though there were also other factors (he himself mentioned marksmanship - few pilots had much ability to hit). It's also why I like simulationist games that model the situation so that players get choices about what to do and how to approach situations, and have them have logical consequences that flow from lower-level mechanics, instead of being unavailable because the game abstracts everything, or even allows those choices but abstracts the cause & effect (e.g. a game designer might decide that an approach always has the same sort of effect, but a detailed simulation would show that it only has that effect with certain circumstances/enemy-tactics, but not others, which can be more complex (or impossible) to represent at an abstract level, compared to a detailed one).

QuoteOn top of that, he was probably lucky. Again, not saying he wasn't good, but war is chaotic and the difference between survivors and victims often comes down to luck, especially over the long haul. In the end Richthofen's luck ran out (and he also may have violated some of his own rules by fixating on a target). So you can't reliably replicate his performance or that of any of the other aces such as Bishop, Fonck, or Rickenbacker without either (a) accepting that the particular names of the top-scorers and survivors is going to be different from history, even if the distribution is similar, or (b) adding in an artificial fudge factor/luck factor to recreate what is really a post-facto survivor bias.

Absolutely. He could've been shot or crashed on day one, while others who did die sooner might have been as good or better but just caught a bullet. When you insist someone have a predictable survivability, you force fate in an unrealistic way. I want to play in a game where it is about actually being in the situation modeled, and I don't believe in predestiny, fate, or super-heroes. I do believe in exceptional people, but also in the lethality of weapons and accidents, etc. I am very interested in the challenge of making choices and thinking of clever logical tactics and trying to beat hard situations. I am not interested in just playing a certified uber or winning character with mechanics that don't have much to do with the situations they pretend to be about.

In old-school D&D, an "attack on a totally unaware opponent" IS a backstab. It's what a backstab is supposed to be about. It's only in later editions where a rogue can backstab in 1000 different ways, often while looking a totally-aware opponent right in the face.  It's why I can't stand later-edition rogues.

Quote from: CRKrueger;918428That's because Game Designers can't sell Good GMing, what they can do is sell mechanic after mechanic in a snake-oil attempt to prevent Bad GMing.

Salvation Through Widgetry - I love it.

Yeah, that's good.  Back in my coding days we referred to that as "putting on so many patches it looks like The Mummy."