Quote from: chirine ba kal;936161If I may jump in, here; in my gaming with Dave the answer was 'yes'. We'd swing, he'd roll quickly, and tell us if we hit and where and what damage (very 'Narrativist' of him, I suppose) we do - and then we'd have the same thing done back to us on the return blows. We got more then a little risk-averse after our first skirmish in Blackmoor.

Interestingly, Dave never used hit location when I played with him.

NOTE FOR THE SLOW OF THINKING: This does NOT in the slightest mean that I doubt Chrine's experience.

My point (and I do have one) is that Dave, and Gary Gygax, and Jim Ward, and Mike Carr, and Frank Mentzer, and Rob Kuntz, and Phil Barker, et. al., were people with active imaginations, and they did things differently sometimes!

There IS no ONE TRUE WAY of "Old School" gaming.

Quote from: Omega;936211I use morale checks. Reaction checks first though.

Exactly.  Always.

Of course, I was a wargamer first, so morale checks were an understood part of battle.  (and we understood that in hex and chit wargames like Avalon Hill, the morale checks were factored into the CRT)

Quote from: darthfozzywig;936241Dungeon crawling (for example), even in really lethal systems, becomes much more survivable when those goblins not only don't want to fight to the death, maybe they don't feel like fighting at all today.

Irony moment: when people complain about old school D&D as being "roll playing, not roleplaying", they are the ones who never bothered to use reaction checks which spur all kinds of great roleplaying interactions.

Oh Crom's hairy nutsack, yes.  If I had a dollar for every time I encountered that I would be richer than Creosote.

Quote from: Xanther;936239Plenty.  I've seen, and been schooled by some old school youngin' BTB types, that moral checks were only for followers etc. based on the DMG.  So every combat with a monster is to the death. Such thinking also seems to go along with little inability to think outside the box, or books.  Needless to say avoid those games, and learn to figure this approach out before joining any these days.

Gary Gygax, in his last few years, used to complain about the huge number of TPKs his kobolds at the entrance to Greyhawk were scoring.  The players would roll characters and charge straight in; they wouldn't negotiate, they didn't look to the sides, they didn't look behind, when they started losing they never thought of withdrawing.

Sometimes the same group of players would have 3 or 4 TPKs in a single session, doing the same thing every time.

And Gary said it happened consistently for years, all over the country.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;936245One does not seem to follow from the other. Running away is perfectly possible without a morale check. Are you sure it wasn't just the group?

Oh you mean the players?  Yes we'd run away plenty.  But bravely mind, we'd only bravely turn our tail.   I mean if nothing else just to speak in a silly British accent while doing so.  It's the monsters that didn't seem to fear anything.  
My answer was really just to illustrate that this was a way some people played even back in the day.  I agree it was never the design intent of D&D but it was just one step below the killer DM mentality.

Personally, my own games and the ones I will play in more than once, morale is important.  Coming from Squad Leader to RPGs myself how could it not be.

Quote from: Krimson;936257Since the word realism is in the OP, consider that combat can often be resolved in terms of seconds. A monster might not have time nor opportunity to flee in the heat of the moment, when adrenaline is pumping. It kind of reminds me of that video from a while back of the wolf jumping on the cougar, and then seconds later the wolf stumbles off and dies shortly afterwards likely because it's been disemboweled. The wolf didn't have time to realize it had been killed. It might not even have felt itself being gutted. I've had a few occasions where I was so wrapped up in what I was doing that I didn't notice I had cut myself on something until someone pointed out that I was bleeding, and that's just in the course of doing a job.

Couldn't agree more.  

QuoteWith something like groups of goblins, if they are getting slaughtered and they have opportunity then it only makes sense that they would flee and be hesistant to fight again unless their master is scarier than the PCs. In that case, they might fight to the death because they are afraid of the consequences if they don't.

Well that is just the thing.  I'm perfectly willing to believe I as a player don't understand what is motivating the goblins, but there was those DMs who had creatures fight to the death no matter what every time.  Some would not even let you attempt to subdue because those rules only applied to dragons.  If I had just seen this once or twice back in the day wouldn't say anything, but it was more prevalent than that and seemed to be a genuine, if misguided, mindset.  Part of the reason may be there was no easy way to know different.  These people really thought this was the way you were supposed to play.  There was no internet to get an answer, you had to mail a letter in and hope you got an answer, usually through the Dragon magazine.  Conventions, well people forget that airline travel was once considered very expensive (this is before the deregulation of the 80s) and driving cross country was not for everyone or every car.  If you didn't live near a con location it was very hard to get there.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936266Gary Gygax, in his last few years, used to complain about the huge number of TPKs his kobolds at the entrance to Greyhawk were scoring.  The players would roll characters and charge straight in; they wouldn't negotiate, they didn't look to the sides, they didn't look behind, when they started losing they never thought of withdrawing.

I mean they are kobolds after all.  I'd seen that to, even when you remind them there is an easily accessible escape route.  In general though never played that way or have players play that way.  We were never about a fair fight, ambush, draw them out, attack from range, anything and everything to stack the odds.   Tactics, tactics, tactics.  I think those same folks who complain that every fighter is the same, all they can do is swing a sword decided to leave their brain on the table when they picked up a character sheet.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936263
There IS no ONE TRUE WAY of "Old School" gaming.

With tongue firmly in my own cheek and with great fellowship and humor I scream, "He's a witch, burn him!"

Quote from: Chris24601;936238Nowhere in my original post were the words "D&D" used. There is no problem with the view of hit points I presented... there's a problem with D&D's implementation of hit points (which I fully agree has problems on that front).

I even mentioned that the system I use has "hit points = luck/endurance/skill" based rules for falling damage (you don't fall off unless you're dropped to 0 hit points and "damage" is based on the difficulty of avoiding the fall not the distance they could fall) and "healing" (recovery of hit points is proportional, quick and non-magical morale effects can both cost and restore hit points).

So hit points can be renamed Protagonism Points, then:)? Once they run out, you're subject to Hard Deprotagonization!

QuoteExactly. Variable damage in this case is a very important component of the realism as it reflects how much of your endurance and luck you have to spend to avoid being skewered on the spot.

Its been mentioned that hit point as fatigue is too linear for a realistic system, but variable damage means its only a linear depletion at the macro scale (over the course of hundreds of rolls). But at the micro level of an individual fight (say 3-5 actual damage rolls) there will be times where there will be spikes (a series of good damage rolls and/or critical hits for extra damage) that will burn through those points far more quickly than the average and the opposite where what should have taken 3 hits on average to drop ends up taking 5-6.

Or, you know...you could instead have a system that allows both the 1st level and the 10th level character to suffer the same amount of damage. Combat is opposed rolls, followed by a damage roll which could often incapacitate outright. Nothing surprising there, I think?
But if you lose the opposed roll and there's damage about to be suffered, you can reduce it to a flesh wound if you have one of a series of Gifts. One of them requires you to retreat. Another requires you to get angry and limits your further actions. There might be others, too.
However, once you use them, they're exausted, unless you use other Gifts that "power" the Defensive Gifts - stuff like Quickness for the "fast retreat" Gift, or Grit for the "Berserk" gift. And unlike the "basic" defense Gifts, once you use one of these Gifts, you roll a die to see if it's exhausted, say, trying to get 5 or more. So a single Quickness can last you quite a while if you keep rolling well...or it can be gone in one go, thus giving you variable damage.
Makes sense? It does to me. And it's immediately obvious how the damage system works.
As a bonus, you can also be good at fighting without necessarily being able to avoid all the falls.

QuoteIt also would probably be a bit more realistic if the hit rates in your system remain fairly static (or cap quickly) while hit points and damage grow with experience. Once you've reached X level of competence you can almost always hit a target that isn't defending itself and its only the skill of the opponent that keeps hits from landing and those cost fatigue (and luck if such a thing is a real force in your game world). A skilled fighter is more efficient at conserving their reserves, but a large number of mooks can still overwhelm him as his efforts to dodge, parry and roll away from their attacks do slowly wear him down (i.e. deplete his hit points). Similarly, the skilled fighter is also more adept at making attacks which require their opponents to expend more effort to avoid (i.e. higher damage).

Not sure about that. A skilled fighter also knows how to prevent you from defending successfully. At the very least you should have Vitality and Wounds, and then skill might be in getting straight to the Wounds by scoring a critical;).

QuoteIn this sense its also probably fairly realistic to keep the proportion of the damage that comes from the weapon used fairly low. A bigger sword can be a bit harder to avoid than a dagger, but the skill of the wielder plays far more of a role beyond the beginner levels.

If you make HP about avoiding attacks, yes....it could work. But then you should at least have the margin of success adding to the damage.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;936227I would say it is more that the basic conceptual system works. I haven't played since the jump to 4e, but in 3e, I had all sorts of nitpicks. GURPS Vehicles should be brought up, however, as a warning to people who want more realism in their gameplay--sometimes it just takes you down a rabbit hole where you're arguing minutia that in the end doesn't change what your characters will do.

Oh, sure, there is a point past which adding more calculation doesn't result in more realism! But then, adding more details might be just plain fun to the people who love thinkering with systems...even if at the end it's still the difference between a +2 or +3 that's at stake:D!
If someone finds it fun, who am I to object?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936263Interestingly, Dave never used hit location when I played with him.

NOTE FOR THE SLOW OF THINKING: This does NOT in the slightest mean that I doubt Chrine's experience.

My point (and I do have one) is that Dave, and Gary Gygax, and Jim Ward, and Mike Carr, and Frank Mentzer, and Rob Kuntz, and Phil Barker, et. al., were people with active imaginations, and they did things differently sometimes!

There IS no ONE TRUE WAY of "Old School" gaming.

No OTW? But...but...what are all those blogs and forums about, then?
BURN THE HERETIC!!!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936266Gary Gygax, in his last few years, used to complain about the huge number of TPKs his kobolds at the entrance to Greyhawk were scoring.  The players would roll characters and charge straight in; they wouldn't negotiate, they didn't look to the sides, they didn't look behind, when they started losing they never thought of withdrawing.

Sometimes the same group of players would have 3 or 4 TPKs in a single session, doing the same thing every time.

And Gary said it happened consistently for years, all over the country.

Why have we never heard of Gary's kobolds:p? They seem to deserve a blog post or at least a post here.

Quote from: Xanther;936275Well that is just the thing.  I'm perfectly willing to believe I as a player don't understand what is motivating the goblins, but there was those DMs who had creatures fight to the death no matter what every time.  Some would not even let you attempt to subdue because those rules only applied to dragons.

OK, that is funny:D!
And yes, I know it's coming from a misguided mindset. But it's still funny, precisely because I've met this kind of people;).

Quote from: AsenRG;936292Oh, sure, there is a point past which adding more calculation doesn't result in more realism! But then, adding more details might be just plain fun to the people who love thinkering with systems...even if at the end it's still the difference between a +2 or +3 that's at stake:D!

Oh, let's be clear, I spent much, much time building space stations and robots and the auxiliary craft and escape pods for the space station and had to make sure that the airlocks were for the right number of people so that the weights were right so the space stations fuel expenditures for station-keeping were right. I am aware, however, that none of that actually made my GURPS Space campaigns any better to be a player in. It was just for my own edification.

QuoteIf someone finds it fun, who am I to object?

Oh, I need to hear people say this more.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;936300Oh, let's be clear, I spent much, much time building space stations and robots and the auxiliary craft and escape pods for the space station and had to make sure that the airlocks were for the right number of people so that the weights were right so the space stations fuel expenditures for station-keeping were right. I am aware, however, that none of that actually made my GURPS Space campaigns any better to be a player in. It was just for my own edification.

There's understanding the background, and then there's GURPS Space:D?

QuoteOh, I need to hear people say this more.

Actually, I make it a point to apply this principle to all activities between consenting adults:p.

But yeah, more people should stop obsessing over the way other people play.
If you're spending a bunch of time preparing and having fun, good for you!
If you're complaining you need to spend a bunch of time to prepare for a game and you don't have the time, I might suggest ways to cut down the preparation time;). But that's not because I think preparing less is The One Way, it's because I've encountered the same issue once and are sharing my solution!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;936266Gary Gygax, in his last few years, used to complain about the huge number of TPKs his kobolds at the entrance to Greyhawk were scoring.  The players would roll characters and charge straight in; they wouldn't negotiate, they didn't look to the sides, they didn't look behind, when they started losing they never thought of withdrawing.

Sometimes the same group of players would have 3 or 4 TPKs in a single session, doing the same thing every time.

And Gary said it happened consistently for years, all over the country.

From the way you've described Gygax, it sounds like he wasn't a very good DM.

I mean, the first TPK I can understand, but after the 2nd, much less third! I'd be having a talk with my players about tactics and risk assessment. Or possibly packing it in and finding something else to do. Hell, maybe they played a lot of "safe" campaigns, and were having fun getting their asses kicked for a change. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Quote from: AsenRG;936308There's understanding the background, and then there's GURPS Space:D?

GURPS Spaces doesn't have starship construction rules. For that you need GURPS Spaceships and those rules are just a tad more complex than Classic Traveller. Only because Spaceship has more options.

As for world generation, just use classic Traveller. GURPS Space worldgen complexity is on par with the World Tamer's Handbook, or the full star system generation system of Traveller 5.

Quote from: Madprofessor;935974Yikes!

Played it once, Once.

Never again as the complexity was not worth the time.

This is pretty much why most games don't try that hard for realistic injury rules  , too difficult for good game play .  

Also as far as minor or  maimed  D&D does that pretty well, as Gronanan here once said "abstraction is the font of realism"

I am not a fan of 'realistic damage', but I do approve of the idea of using injuries against characters at critical moments.

Dr. Josef Tham's created a fantastic homebrew critical hit chart for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which became the basis of ZWEIHÄNDER Grim & Perilous RPG's injuries table. I highly invite you to all to check it out over at Winds of Chaos, as the injuries could be kitbashed backwards into practically any tabletop RPG: http://www.windsofchaos.com/?page_id=19