Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;797196I don't have a problem with HP as a game mechanic, but it's a question of how to represent it in the fluff. You can only say "you tried to hit him in the head, but nicked him instead" so many times before it gets tedious.

Some people actually give descriptions involving the weapon missing completely, or getting outright blocked, but still doing damage. That seems interesting, but might be confusing to players. Especially distinguishing an actual miss from a flavorful one.

Neither of the two original authors of the game ever gave any description beyond "You do x points" or "you take x points."

I do not give description of blows in combat, nor have I ever.  In fact, I actively hate it.

Quote from: talysman;797113It's not inconsistent internally. It's inconsistent with your mental model of how you interpret D&D. You are working on the assumption that you are modeling combat on a blow-by-blow level, and character level represents skill and class represents profession. That's not the way D&D was designed, although later contributors apparently had the same idea as you and complicated matters  If that's the model you want to play with, house-rule the game, find another game that uses that model (like Runequest or GURPS,) or write your own game.

The problem with threads like this is that they are never presented as "here's my solution to make D&D play the way I want it to play, in case anyone else is looking for the same thing." It's always "I don't like the way D&D plays, so D&D is broken." It's always about getting everyone to agree with you, and never about actually doing anything useful.

D&D doesn't need to be fixed; it's working fine. It just might not be working fine for YOU, as written. Complaining isn't going to help. Not everyone wants to play that way. Coming up with a solution that works for you, and sharing it with others like you, is what you need to do.

I not complaining I am musing about what seems to be an inconsistency in the abstraction... I was curious as to whether anyone else had thought about this seeming gap.
Of course the replies are uniformly "its D&D that is how it plays if you don't like it fuck off" How come everyone dogpiled 4e for the inconsistencies but aren't prepared to discuss the core rules with the same critical eye? Seems hypocritical.

And whilst D&D was originally a minutes combat round of too and froing no one thinks of it that way now and no one has done since about 1978 when it went mainstream. Take Kyle's example of his game with his girlfriend He doesn't say "the umber hulk and her fighter feinted a back and forth for a a minute then a blow snuck through" No one thinks about the combat like that since it moved from being a wargame with added role play to being a role playing game that included combat.

Quote from: Bren;797241Not one single duel in 31 years of gaming? How odd. Especially given how common duels are in fiction and were in real history.

He said unarmored duel to first blood; that's pretty rare in fantasy fiction (unless everyone's fighting without armor already, and even then to first blood is not a common objective).  It would seem strange in a game where armor is fairly intrinsic to combat effectiveness, but where non-armor magic items could provide better defense anyway.  Bloodied (half or more damaged) might be a more likely and reasonable thing, and could be considered first blood depending on your view of the HP abstraction.

In 37 years of gaming, I don't think my characters ever fought a duel, even with armor; I was a bystander to at least one duel and several jousting matches, and we used subdual damage rules in some cases (mostly a very unfair fight to capture a lone opponent such as a potential winged mount); there was also "practice combat" with weapons that did half damage and characters were defeated at <=3HP (although you could still be killed by a critical hit), from TFT.  The D&D duel was straight combat but not to the death (the loser could be healed by his friends).  The jousting matches used full hit points and a saving throw vs losing for anyone who missed when his opponent hit; constitution check vs death if your hit points were exhausted; combatants wore armor.  We should have used the rules from Chainmail per OD&D but nobody wanted to figure them out.  That's a very small number out of many, many combats.

I throw back at you your earlier answer from when I pointed out that your OD&D experience seemed oddly thin of wandering monsters:

Quote from: Bren;793951Well since we aren't at the same table it's kind of hard to prove that one way or the other.

I remember seeing the Die Hard explanation shortly after I got internet access back in the late 90's and it was like a glorious revelation sent from the heavens. I had all the issues everyone else did with HP up until that point in my life, and then they all just melted away. It had been covered in D&D numerous times but somehow it never really clicked with me until that moment.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;797196I don't have a problem with HP as a game mechanic, but it's a question of how to represent it in the fluff. You can only say "you tried to hit him in the head, but nicked him instead" so many times before it gets tedious.

Some people actually give descriptions involving the weapon missing completely, or getting outright blocked, but still doing damage. That seems interesting, but might be confusing to players. Especially distinguishing an actual miss from a flavorful one.

From my earliest experience, point deductions have often been described in terms of shifting advantage, the ebb and flow of a fight. Read some adventure stories, and you should pick up plenty of examples.

At least as often, several rounds pass without commentary. Again, one might be informed by the techniques of writers such as Burroughs, Howard and Leiber.

This is part of the art of dungeonmastery, and as with other elements part of the fun is the process of learning: a joint endeavor of dm and players.

Quote from: jibbajibba;796902I understand the need to abstract to a degree.
However, I don;t think these issues are simply minor and I think they come up quite a lot.
Note its not the abstration I don't like its the inconsistency of the abstration.

So take the fairly typical example of a duel between 2 warriors this is a standard trope and the duel to first blood is equally typical.
In the D&D system in a duel between 2 guys in no armour the guy that wins initiative has the upper hand. In a fight between an untrained Mook and our games equivalent of Conan or whoever if the mook wins initiative he has a 50% chance of winning the duel. So in effect he has a 25% chance of winning on the first round. Simple...

How do figure? Young Conan would be at least 4th, experienced freebooter Conan at least 8th; I think Gygax (in The Dragon) took him up to at least 18th, with several maxed-out stats (naturally including max or near-max hp).

QuoteNow my argument having fenced a bit when I was younger is that a high level fighter should get an innate AC bonus just like a high level monk. I get shouted down by the usual crew on here who say "no the high level fighters ability is based on his HP. You don;t understand D&d you are a wanker... etc etc ..."

Not by me. I advised looking at the results and going for whatever does what you want. You'll set yourself up for trouble if you pose as being "right" while people who like the game as it is are "wrong."

QuoteSo if we accept this premise then we should accept that the ability to dodge blows, which is part of HP, is partly dependent on Dexertity.. so why doesn't dexterity add to HP?

Because giving an AC bonus instead produced a game balance that pleased the people concerned. Note that originally constitution gave only +/-1, and Supp. I gave strength bonuses only to fighters and dexterity AC bonuses only to thieves. You can ask why those things arose, and why they were later changed, and maybe learn something from what you discover.

The bottom line though is that you apparently want something else again. The fruitful question is how best to get  that. Abstract theory was probably not very pertinent to Arneson and Gygax, who seem largely to have developed the game experimentally. Given the preponderance of that, there's a good chance that this is just the tip of your discontent, and you might find it productive at least to look to another rules set for a basis - if not indeed to abandon altogether trying to hack D&D, since you appear not actually to have got any work done but instead to have got bogged down in futile disputation.

QuoteBut instead Dex makes you harder to hit by improving AC. So it seems that some element of your AC is dependent of skill and reflexes but this is a skill you can never increase. The greatest gladiator in the world after 1000 bouts is still no better at avoiding being hit than he was the day he walked into the arena.. weird?

Weird in that hp themselves, along with saving rolls, contribute to his not getting run through with a sword, or killed with a treacherous envenomed blade. To insist on ignoring that makes for needless and nonproductive argument.

QuoteThis isn't an in depth analysis it's stuff that happens in every D&D session people swing swords at things and try to hit them.

It occured to me that people are fast to criticise say 4e with tripping oozes etc but aren't willing to put the same rational arguement to play on the original rules.

I like HP as a % so a 10 point hit on a guy with 20 HP is like a 3 point hit on a guy with 6HP. But then you need to change healing

Quote from: Phillip;797288How do figure? Young Conan would be at least 4th, experienced freebooter Conan at least 8th; I think Gygax (in The Dragon) took him up to at least 18th, with several maxed-out stats (naturally including max or near-max hp).

Not by me. I advised looking at the results and going for whatever does what you want. You'll set yourself up for trouble if you pose as being "right" while people who like the game as it is are "wrong."


Because giving an AC bonus instead produced a game balance that pleased the people concerned. Note that originally constitution gave only +/-1, and Supp. I gave strength bonuses only to fighters and dexterity AC bonuses only to thieves. You can ask why those things arose, and why they were later changed, and maybe learn something from what you discover.

The bottom line though is that you apparently want something else again. The fruitful question is how best to get  that. Abstract theory was probably not very pertinent to Arneson and Gygax, who seem largely to have developed the game experimentally. Given the preponderance of that, there's a good chance that this is just the tip of your discontent, and you might find it productive at least to look to another rules set for a basis - if not indeed to abandon altogether trying to hack D&D, since you appear not actually to have got any work done but instead to have got bogged down in futile disputation.


Weird in that hp themselves, along with saving rolls, contribute to his not getting run through with a sword, or killed with a treacherous envenomed blade. To insist on ignoring that makes for needless and nonproductive argument.

Welll i usually run my heartbreaker, which fixes what i percieve as issues so meh. But here i am discussing d&d so talking  about  v&v separated hp into power and hits and how power included bonus for dex, int, etc as they determined that all of those things might help you avoid damage is a little moot right?

And i don't think the origins of the rules are of more than a passing interest as is the fact that stats gave a max +1. The definitive rules for d&d as they came to be codified were in 1e of ad&d surely? That was the flagship product.

Anyway as i noted i am merely discussing a percieved disconnect and looking for a logical discourse but perhaps i would do better discussing us immigration control on the fox news site :-)

Quote from: rawma;797279He said unarmored duel to first blood; that's pretty rare in fantasy fiction (unless everyone's fighting without armor already, and even then to first blood is not a common objective).

Never read the Three Musketeers or other swashbuckling cape and sword stories I guess. Robin Hood is also not much for the heavy armor. Neither through the travel prior to the big set piece battles are most of the companions in the Lord of the Rings (Frodo secretly and Gimli overtly being exceptions).

QuoteIt would seem strange in a game where armor is fairly intrinsic to combat effectiveness

Yes it might if you were focused solely on a game as game rather than on fiction (where armor is limited or absent especially when traveling or sleeping) or reality (where in fact many fighters didn't travel wearing all their armor).  

QuoteIn 37 years of gaming, I don't think my characters ever fought a duel, even with armor

Your loss, I'd say. But different groups find different things fun.

QuoteI throw back at you your earlier answer from when I pointed out that  your OD&D experience seemed oddly thin of wandering monsters:

That's an odd comment to recall. Especially since you are admitting you don't do duels. So that isn't in doubt. You suggested (incorrectly) that I wasn't using wandering monsters as a DM in D&D. When in fact, as a DM I always had wandering monsters. They are a key element of OD&D. They just aren't necessarily trying to kill the PCs all the time, every time. Which is why the rules included things like reaction rolls, chance to stop for food, etc. That's the part we disagreed on as you seemed to think that monsters couldn't be reasoned with, bribed, threated, outrun, etc.

I'm sorta stunned that Dave and Gary didn't describe combat. It's always been so integral to how I've played, but I began as a RPGer and became a wargamer years later.

Quote from: jibbajibba;797261How come everyone dogpiled 4e for the inconsistencies but aren't prepared to discuss the core rules with the same critical eye? Seems hypocritical.

Rose colored nostalgia is a powerful thing.

 

Quote from: jibbajibba;797261And whilst D&D was originally a minutes combat round of too and froing no one thinks of it that way now and no one has done since about 1978 when it went mainstream.

True. The one minute round was one of the RAW bits that I remember being tossed out consciously or unconsciously in the early days. It was something talked about by the RuneQuest fans as a taunt to D&Ders.

Quote from: Bren;797362Never read the Three Musketeers or other swashbuckling cape and sword stories I guess.

You have a serious reading comprehension issue.  I said fantasy fiction, and I qualified it with unless everyone's fighting without armor already.  If you're playing En Garde or in a similar milieu, you're likely to have more duels than any other kind of fight.  In a dungeon, not so much.  In the Briar King series, the dessrata (a fencing style) teacher advises his student not to duel armored knights but instead drop rocks on them.

QuoteNeither through the travel prior to the big set piece battles are most of the companions in the Lord of the Rings (Frodo secretly and Gimli overtly being exceptions).

Well, at last something that's fantasy.  But no duels where the characters took off their armor to fight to first blood.  The Fellowship was going for stealth and speed, and most of them armored up when the fighting got going.

QuoteYes it might if you were focused solely on a game as game rather than on fiction (where armor is limited or absent especially when traveling or sleeping) or reality (where in fact many fighters didn't travel wearing all their armor).

If you want to emulate that sort of fiction, then you should play a game where armor isn't a significant factor.  We got attacked in D&D without armor on occasion, as with people not on watch while camping or at home; we tried to minimize that danger, and it had nothing to do with duels.

QuoteThat's an odd comment to recall. Especially since you are admitting you don't do duels. So that isn't in doubt. You suggested (incorrectly) that I wasn't using wandering monsters as a DM in D&D.

I'll let anyone who is interested (that is, pretty much nobody) read the original exchange; it was not about your DMing, and I never suggested that you didn't use wandering monsters, and I only described wandering monsters as unprofitable and sometimes unavoidable and therefore to be minimized.

I noted the comment at the time because it indicated you were likely a defensive, condescending snob who thinks his play style is the perfect standard and that anyone who differs is odd.  And here you are, doing it again ("Not one single duel in 31 years of gaming? How odd.")

As to not doing duels: I said only that I didn't recall ever engaging in a duel; I specifically said that jousts and even a duel had occurred in my campaigns, but not unarmored and not to first blood.  You can't declare this odd without knowing what my characters were (mostly not fighters and not honor bound enough to have to accept challenges) or what the campaigns were like (more like LOTR than the Three Musketeers).

Having thought about it further, I will retract my previous statement regarding my own participation in duels; my 3rd level magic-user once fought, unarmored, a kobold, to the death (although by luck that happened to be the first successful hit), but only because we got sucked into a stupid arena of the gods who demanded combat (each PC alone, with no spell use) and the kobold was the minimal opponent I could select, and of course magic-users couldn't use armor.  Not that I thought of it as a duel at the time, but hey, unarmored, rules enforced by the gods themselves, first blood in the form of killing my opponent with one dagger hit.  I am therefore an amazing super-duper-role-player and can ooze pomposity throughout all forums like a slug's trail.

Jibbajabba, I've also been wondering why AC doesn't gain a bonus like "to hit" for many years as well. We finally had it in 4e, and the inevitable result was AC inflation so you wound up +14 vs. AC 24...or essentially +0 vs. AC 10.

In my games, I am all cinematic. Heroes take wounds that would slay lesser men, blows that chop off heads and arms of henchmen do little more than slice and slam the mighty PCs...until that final blow.

The AC/HP thing was a major issue for the early RPG designers of Tunnels & Trolls, RuneQuest and Palladium Fantasy were certainly they focused on dodge / parry as being your defense instead of how much slammage you can take.

There is no good answer here. There is no reason for anyone to be defensive about the problems with D&D abstractions, but I don't blame anyone for giving up on trying to make sense of them either. At some point, we gotta say "its a game" and either be okay with that, or move on to another RPG whose abstractions are less glaring for us.

I like FATE's conditions, but I can't deal with Aspects. There is nothing inherently wrong with Aspects, or my inability to deal with them, but it means that I'm not a customer for Fate products.

The game plays well, that's what matters to me.

And I've gone back to one minute rounds and all weapons do 1d6.

And it's glorious.

Quote from: rawma;797377You have a serious reading comprehension issue.  I said fantasy fiction, and I qualified it with unless everyone's fighting without armor already.  If you're playing En Garde or in a similar milieu, you're likely to have more duels than any other kind of fight.  In a dungeon, not so much.  In the Briar King series, the dessrata (a fencing style) teacher advises his student not to duel armored knights but instead drop rocks on them.



Well, at last something that's fantasy.  But no duels where the characters took off their armor to fight to first blood.  The Fellowship was going for stealth and speed, and most of them armored up when the fighting got going.



If you want to emulate that sort of fiction, then you should play a game where armor isn't a significant factor.  We got attacked in D&D without armor on occasion, as with people not on watch while camping or at home; we tried to minimize that danger, and it had nothing to do with duels.



I'll let anyone who is interested (that is, pretty much nobody) read the original exchange; it was not about your DMing, and I never suggested that you didn't use wandering monsters, and I only described wandering monsters as unprofitable and sometimes unavoidable and therefore to be minimized.

I noted the comment at the time because it indicated you were likely a defensive, condescending snob who thinks his play style is the perfect standard and that anyone who differs is odd.  And here you are, doing it again ("Not one single duel in 31 years of gaming? How odd.")

As to not doing duels: I said only that I didn't recall ever engaging in a duel; I specifically said that jousts and even a duel had occurred in my campaigns, but not unarmored and not to first blood.  You can't declare this odd without knowing what my characters were (mostly not fighters and not honor bound enough to have to accept challenges) or what the campaigns were like (more like LOTR than the Three Musketeers).

Having thought about it further, I will retract my previous statement regarding my own participation in duels; my 3rd level magic-user once fought, unarmored, a kobold, to the death (although by luck that happened to be the first successful hit), but only because we got sucked into a stupid arena of the gods who demanded combat (each PC alone, with no spell use) and the kobold was the minimal opponent I could select, and of course magic-users couldn't use armor.  Not that I thought of it as a duel at the time, but hey, unarmored, rules enforced by the gods themselves, first blood in the form of killing my opponent with one dagger hit.  I am therefore an amazing super-duper-role-player and can ooze pomposity throughout all forums like a slug's trail.

It is a bit odd that none of the pcs or npcs you ever ran ever called out at opponent. I know i have done it dozens of times, as a challenge in a courtly intrigue game, as a bar fight, as a precursor to a pitched battle where the champions meet on the field, as a challenge between 2pcs or as a whole adventure thread based arround an annual dueling competition.

My favourite however has to be when a barbarian pc insulted a cavalier and the cavalier demanded justice and the barbarian, as the challenged party agreed but unarmoured with knives in the circle. The cavalier pc of course at this point pissed himself to get out of the fight as he realised the barbarian (1e ua version) would have an ac of 2 vs his ac of 9, and had nearly twice as many hp.... Hohoho try to roleplay your way elegantly out of that...

Anyway i have always assumed that duels emerged fairly naturally out of playing make believe in a world with lots of weapons and lots of folks bigging up the honourable knight schtick. Just goes to show every table is different.

Quote from: Spinachcat;797379Jibbajabba, I've also been wondering why AC doesn't gain a bonus like "to hit" for many years as well. We finally had it in 4e, and the inevitable result was AC inflation so you wound up +14 vs. AC 24...or essentially +0 vs. AC 10.

In my games, I am all cinematic. Heroes take wounds that would slay lesser men, blows that chop off heads and arms of henchmen do little more than slice and slam the mighty PCs...until that final blow.

The AC/HP thing was a major issue for the early RPG designers of Tunnels & Trolls, RuneQuest and Palladium Fantasy were certainly they focused on dodge / parry as being your defense instead of how much slammage you can take.

There is no good answer here. There is no reason for anyone to be defensive about the problems with D&D abstractions, but I don't blame anyone for giving up on trying to make sense of them either. At some point, we gotta say "its a game" and either be okay with that, or move on to another RPG whose abstractions are less glaring for us.

I like FATE's conditions, but I can't deal with Aspects. There is nothing inherently wrong with Aspects, or my inability to deal with them, but it means that I'm not a customer for Fate products.

Ah ha civil engagement which can lead to discourse....
So how do you roll with the 4e style hp recovery model that has rolled in 5e?
I like it and have been using a wound/vitality model for over 20 years with hp recovety fast (i set 10% of max hp per hour as the rate but short rest, hd, and long rest is a much slicker mechanic.) and wound being low and slow to heal and never increasing.
In 5e i am trying to smooth the join between magical healing and wounds. Its tricky as the party's main healer is a paladin. So not sure a single lay on hands, now 5points per level, should heal a wound. I think probably  (we have wounds =3+str bonus +con bonus so pcs have between 2 and 6wounds in this party

Quote from: rawma;797377I am therefore an amazing super-duper-role-player and can ooze pomposity throughout all forums like a slug's trail.

Indeed you do ooze pomposity. To paraphrase Lando Molari, you have arrogance and stupidity in one post. How efficient.