Quote from: VisionStorm on March 30, 2022, 07:21:39 PM

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 30, 2022, 04:07:20 PM

QuoteI would much rather have 0 HP be that "Oh shit!" break away point, where you're too grievously injured to keep fighting (along with steep penalties for everything) and better try to run away. Then treat actual deal as a "Death Save" you have to make the moment you reach 0 or less HP, plus every time you take more damage from that point. That way you're still creating most of the desired effect without adding the complexity and bookkeeping of shifting cumulative penalties, or the death spiral factor the moment you get hit. Being at "0 HP" is also a more clear and obvious indicator that the game expects you to run away by that point, than to make it cumulative penalties and letting you figure it out once you're dead or spiraling down that path while surrounded by enemies.

But TBH point of epic fighting is well being bloodied. You were sort of annoyed the game is basically flowing between super-healthy and dead, now you opt for super-healthy and maybe-dead-but-anyway-ineffective. Give me greviously wounded dying warriors ripping throats of their enemies with last breath, dammit (TBH taking 0 as moment when you take penalties seems as arbitrary as adding penalties every dunno 20hp or smth.)

I'm not sure how what I proposed in that post prevents you from having the grievously injured warrior ripping someone's throat with their last breath. You could literally do that instead of running away, then probably get killed in the process. The difference is that what I proposed takes less work or bookkeeping and is less complicated than breaking your HP total down into multiple health brackets (which was the point of my post), and keeping track variable penalties depending how wounded you are, which additionally turns the whole thing into a death spiral, since each wound level diminishes your ability to avoid more wounds. In what I proposed that only happens once you're at 0 HP, which traditionally means death, but here I'm giving one last chance to run away (or die trying to reap someone's throat).

And while you could say that 0 is technically an arbitrary number, I disagree that it's AS arbitrary as taking cumulative penalties every 20 HP or whatever, cuz 1) those two things aren't even the same thing and one is more complicated than the other (which, again, was the point of post), 2) the second one creates death spirals (another point of my post), and 3) the number "0" represents the absence of something (in this case HP), which is a less arbitrary point to represent the "you're out of health—RUN!" danger zone than any number higher than 0.

One way that 0hp works better as a "fall over" point than as a "time to run" point is that it lets each PC decide their "point to run" based on their personal risk tolerance (though the system of recovery will matter; the threshold for someone running is different if they come back after every fight vs. everything in one day vs. a few points a day).

One thing I think 4E did well was its Bloodied value. Fluff-wise it was the first point in a combat where someone actually took a bit of physical damage... first blood in a duel for example. Mechanically it did nothing itself; though it did act as a trigger for some abilities; but it was mostly useful as a way to judge how an encounter was going because DM's were supposed to announce when a creature was bloodied.

If you were bloodied (down to half hit points) and the monster you were fighting wasn't... then you knew things were dicey. By contrast, if the monster has been bloodied and you've not yet reached that point yourself then you've got decent odds of winning the fight.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 30, 2022, 10:58:51 AM
In my experience running a realistic system, the problem comes down to disabling injuries, which can derail a scenario should a hero sustain a broken leg or arm.

Eh. It seems like you're just reiterating what systems with disabling injuries do. The big problem I see in realistic systems, particularly how they relate to my comment that you quoted, goes back to the realism is a foolish aim when you're dealing with fantasy. And I think a lot of people take that the wrong way. They take that as a green light that everything goes. Or that there will be no attempt at all for logic, consistency, or sufficient level of believably to suspend disbelief. And I think that misses the point. It's more like, how specific can you be about injuries in a systematic way that will also be applicable to something like an otyugh, a golem, or a slime?

Think of one of the "realistic systems" you have experience with. Now consider my example of Rasputin and ask yourself, is it possible within this system to have a human that is so tough that he'd be able to walk away, without disability, from a wound that would have killed an ordinary man, as a regular thing?

If no, then I have to ask, if this system can't even handle an rare and extraordinary but ultimately human individual, what chance does it have as being able to handle the pantheon of monsters I might expect to find in a fantasy RPG?

If yes, then you have the exact dilemma I was citing. It can arise regardless of the type of system you're using. People are going to disagree on whether it's possible for Rasputin to be so tough. Those who don't think it's possible will believe your system is flaws for allowing it. So cliches about how they differ don't provide answers to anything. The nature of the problem is not tied to any particular type of system.

QuoteHit point systems don't indicate *what actually happened* to an injured character, so it's hard to visualize, which contravenes the games' promise of looking explicitly like a movie. What does it mean to drop from 20 hit points down to 17?, for example. Some kind of hard-to-visualize huffing and puffing, which again isn't described. I'd say dealing with that fuzziness requires just as good a GM as running a realistic system does.

Well, like everyone else, I've been talking about hit point systems this entire thread. Only I'm careful to speak on specific systems. And what you're saying is not applicable to any of the systems I discuss. Let alone being generally true of hit point systems.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 30, 2022, 12:15:43 PM
Technically yes, at least in the way you see in forum discussions. But I've heard casual players with little experience with RPGs make off hand remarks a bunch of times about how silly HP are in certain circumstances. The difference they don't take it as seriously and don't care as much about the mechanics or the implications of them as more serious, system-oriented players. But even if they don't care, you can still see it in the expressions in their faces, and sometimes even their comments, when mechanics (not just HP, but other stuff as well) get in the way of what makes sense in any given situation. It's that feeling of disappointment when having to ignore verisimilitude, narrative flow and things that sound like they should be able to do if the rules did not state otherwise, in favor of what the rules say.

I play almost exclusively with casual gamers, and I've never seen it. Then again, under normal circumstances, I also don't encounter mechanics getting in the way of what makes sense in a situation. When I have seen examples of this, it's always one of two things. One is, someone at the table is hopped up on all this nonsense that nerds entertain for the sake of having nerdy arguments.

The other is not having a clear vision of what it is they're trying to do. Like, let's have everyone play 15th level characters but then bitch about the characters being so much tougher than anyone we've ever met that the experience is no longer relatable. People who do high level gaming with the understanding that they're doing high level gaming have no problem with any of this. And understanding high level gaming is high level gaming is not exactly a proposition that takes any kind of genius to understand. It takes more effort to not get it.

QuoteI'm not sure how what I proposed in that post prevents you from having the grievously injured warrior ripping someone's throat with their last breath. You could literally do that instead of running away, then probably get killed in the process. The difference is that what I proposed takes less work or bookkeeping and is less complicated than breaking your HP total down into multiple health brackets (which was the point of my post), and keeping track variable penalties depending how wounded you are, which additionally turns the whole thing into a death spiral, since each wound level diminishes your ability to avoid more wounds. In what I proposed that only happens once you're at 0 HP, which traditionally means death, but here I'm giving one last chance to run away (or die trying to reap someone's throat).

I see. I think I prefer more grit. Death spiral does not disturb me - because generally it's imposed both on heroes and villains usually. So yeah bloodied hero is more clumsy, but so is bloodied Doctor Wickedness.

I think I liked system used in Zweihander of all things. IIRC there was no HP but wound threshold determined by your Brawn score.
If damage was less than brown it was minor nuissance, but each multiplication of Brawn score were estabilishing worse conditions - I think like 6 or 7 till you get SLAIN! status.
And you roll for specific wounds with specific conditions so you could get bleeding wound that would kill you unatended but also was relatively slow and you could fought for another few minutes with mortal wound with lil hindrace, because blood loss was gradual. Which I think is kinda both cinematic (famous - pull your coat to show bloodied spot on shirt movie cliche) and realistic - because various mortal wounds can in fact leave you operational for long time.

Mortal wounds that make some bleeding in your intestines. Sure you gonna die from nasty sepsa. In 4 days. And for next 2 you can still fight as healthy.

QuoteThink of one of the "realistic systems" you have experience with. Now consider my example of Rasputin and ask yourself, is it possible within this system to have a human that is so tough that he'd be able to walk away, without disability, from a wound that would have killed an ordinary man, as a regular thing?

I think solution is different damage thresholds. The same numeric value on opponent attack can cause different effect.
Decapitation is gonna kill anyone. It's harder to decapitate someone with thick muscle Rasputiney neck.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 31, 2022, 01:57:15 AM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 30, 2022, 10:58:51 AM
In my experience running a realistic system, the problem comes down to disabling injuries, which can derail a scenario should a hero sustain a broken leg or arm.

Eh. It seems like you're just reiterating what systems with disabling injuries do. The big problem I see in realistic systems, particularly how they relate to my comment that you quoted, goes back to the realism is a foolish aim when you're dealing with fantasy. And I think a lot of people take that the wrong way. They take that as a green light that everything goes. Or that there will be no attempt at all for logic, consistency, or sufficient level of believably to suspend disbelief. And I think that misses the point. It's more like, how specific can you be about injuries in a systematic way that will also be applicable to something like an otyugh, a golem, or a slime?

Think of one of the "realistic systems" you have experience with. Now consider my example of Rasputin and ask yourself, is it possible within this system to have a human that is so tough that he'd be able to walk away, without disability, from a wound that would have killed an ordinary man, as a regular thing?

If no, then I have to ask, if this system can't even handle an rare and extraordinary but ultimately human individual, what chance does it have as being able to handle the pantheon of monsters I might expect to find in a fantasy RPG?

If yes, then you have the exact dilemma I was citing. It can arise regardless of the type of system you're using. People are going to disagree on whether it's possible for Rasputin to be so tough. Those who don't think it's possible will believe your system is flaws for allowing it. So cliches about how they differ don't provide answers to anything. The nature of the problem is not tied to any particular type of system.

I would say the Rasputin example is absurd. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, which is why I run a realistic system. I buffer it in certain ways, to avoid dramatically uninteresting results, but the idea that someone can "tough out" having his throat slit doesn't even simulate what happens in literature or movies. It takes away even the pretence of danger, and is on the order of high hit point characters swan diving off cliffs. Even Conan parries because his "meat" is inherently fragile. I can't cotton to games that disregard the fragility of man to such an extent. Conan might be so tough he might *continue to fight* after having his throat slit, but that doesn't change it from being a mortal wound to one he can shrug off. Soldiers have kept running after their heads have been shot off, after all, and a sufficiently tough individual might not even notice that he's taken a mortal wound until he's actually bled to death, but toughness as the capacity to continue fighting despite having sustained critical injuries differs from the fact *of* those critical injuries being critical. This is the genius of a system like Phoenix Command, which separates odds-of-dying from odds-of-losing-the-will-to-fight.

Slimes and similar monsters are special cases, where the usual hit-location and physical damage ratings don't seem to apply, and which I sometimes use hit points for, or describe what it takes to disassemble them, such as the cutting force needed to sever a carnivorous plant's tendrils, etc. I want to know exactly how the monster is taken apart, such as chopping at the golem's sigil or hewing away at its limbs. Otherwise, we can run into absurdities like a halfling successfully removing all of a dragon's "hit points." How exactly did the halfling do this? The magic of "high fantasy" I guess. Doesn't work for me.

Quote

QuoteHit point systems don't indicate *what actually happened* to an injured character, so it's hard to visualize, which contravenes the games' promise of looking explicitly like a movie. What does it mean to drop from 20 hit points down to 17?, for example. Some kind of hard-to-visualize huffing and puffing, which again isn't described. I'd say dealing with that fuzziness requires just as good a GM as running a realistic system does.

Well, like everyone else, I've been talking about hit point systems this entire thread. Only I'm careful to speak on specific systems. And what you're saying is not applicable to any of the systems I discuss. Let alone being generally true of hit point systems.

You referred to D&D. I'm referring to D&D or any system where a sufficiently tough character can shrug off mortal injuries as if by magic. To me, Phoenix Command's knockout value system is superior to hit points because it indicates when a character has simply had the fight knocked out of him. Ironically, high KV characters tend to die more often because they *don't* follow their instincts to retreat.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 05:29:31 PM

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on March 28, 2022, 11:57:16 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 11:25:39 AMEhhh, we played basic a little, but what kid can resist the lure of "advanced"?  I'd love to return to my medow... as soon as I figure out what that is.  And I don't think "munchkin" means what you think it does, either (I think you're looking for "grognard")...

No your a munchkin posing as a grognard.

I look forward to anyone who can show me how to "munchkin" AD&D...

Cleric/Fighter/Magic-User

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 31, 2022, 01:57:15 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 30, 2022, 12:15:43 PM
Technically yes, at least in the way you see in forum discussions. But I've heard casual players with little experience with RPGs make off hand remarks a bunch of times about how silly HP are in certain circumstances. The difference they don't take it as seriously and don't care as much about the mechanics or the implications of them as more serious, system-oriented players. But even if they don't care, you can still see it in the expressions in their faces, and sometimes even their comments, when mechanics (not just HP, but other stuff as well) get in the way of what makes sense in any given situation. It's that feeling of disappointment when having to ignore verisimilitude, narrative flow and things that sound like they should be able to do if the rules did not state otherwise, in favor of what the rules say.

I play almost exclusively with casual gamers, and I've never seen it. Then again, under normal circumstances, I also don't encounter mechanics getting in the way of what makes sense in a situation. When I have seen examples of this, it's always one of two things. One is, someone at the table is hopped up on all this nonsense that nerds entertain for the sake of having nerdy arguments.

The other is not having a clear vision of what it is they're trying to do. Like, let's have everyone play 15th level characters but then bitch about the characters being so much tougher than anyone we've ever met that the experience is no longer relatable. People who do high level gaming with the understanding that they're doing high level gaming have no problem with any of this. And understanding high level gaming is high level gaming is not exactly a proposition that takes any kind of genius to understand. It takes more effort to not get it.

I'm talking about stuff like not being able to sneak around in earlier editions of D&D cuz you're not a Thief or a Ranger, or not being able to let an arrow off at the start of a fight from a readied bow because "initiative". Stuff like that are just pure rules conventions that are jarring to people not used to thinking in terms of game "logic" because you totally could at least try to do them in real life (even if you're not good at them), but in the game you can't (unless the GM makes a ruling and handwaves them away) because the rules say you need a special ability or something. Or you have to wait your "turn", like it's possible for a guy 30 feet away to close the gap and make a melee attack before a guy with an arrow in their bow can let that thing fly.

Every time stuff like that comes up with someone new to the game comments get made, cuz it runs counter to what they would be able to do in real life. I don't even bother with initiative anymore cuz it just gets in the way and you don't really need it to handle order of actions, if you just go by readiness (ranged attackers with fast loading weapons go first) and proximity (melee within reach go before those closing the gap), or even just GM fiat or player coordination (players decide who in the party goes next).

QuoteYou referred to D&D. I'm referring to D&D or any system where a sufficiently tough character can shrug off mortal injuries as if by magic.

I mean yes and now. Simply speaking lost of 17 abstract hp means something different for peasant, and for 14 lvl warrior.
Of course it works only so, so - like for instance when such warrior take dragon breath to his chest without moving around, then illusion is kinda shattered (that's why I despise evasion feats).

But as long as we talking about physical melee damage hp are fine.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 31, 2022, 11:47:47 AM
I would say the Rasputin example is absurd. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, which is why I run a realistic system.

And that's fine. That's my point. People can't agree on what's reasonable and what's absurd. You can't pin that on mechanics. You also can't claim one system is realistic and the other not on this basis alone. The disagreement on what is reasonable and what is absurd is precisely at issue.

AD&D 1E is not altogether unrealistic. You have to understand that the baseline is 0th level men, and that the one-minute melee rounds are sort of like playing on 5x speed. Real life missile fire rates would be 5 times what it is in AD&D. Real life weight of arrows are one-fifth of what is suggested by the 1E encumbrance system. Cost of arrows in 1E are about 5 times what they would have realistically been. Hit rates for missiles are higher than the statistics we have for medieval battles--consistent with what the realistic chance of at least one arrow out of 5 fired would hit. It's realistic but abstracted so that you can play on a timescale that would allow you to actually play out a large scale battle. Given Gary's background in wargaming and how well read he was on the subject matter, I highly doubt it's a coincidence that these ratios hold.

Leveled characters are extrapolated from that baseline. The idea is that ~4th level characters are heroes and ~8th level characters are superheroes. If you don't want to do superheroes, no one is making you do superheroes. The mission statement for 1E was to provide as much fun for as many people for as long a time as possible. It would not have been better served by limiting the range of play to gritty realism.

QuoteSlimes and similar monsters are special cases, where the usual hit-location and physical damage ratings don't seem to apply, and which I sometimes use hit points for,

Well, that's the point of hit points. That they're simple and broadly applicable to enable doing a whole wide range of things. It makes more sense to me that that be the rule and wounds be the exception, which is certainly how D&D handles it.

QuoteOtherwise, we can run into absurdities like a halfling successfully removing all of a dragon's "hit points." How exactly did the halfling do this?

Play it out until you figure it out and come back and let us know. A highly experienced halfling thief utilizing the backstab ability to hit a vital area of a sleeping dragon seems like it would be a promising start.

QuoteYou referred to D&D.

AD&D 1E specifically. Where an attack in ordinary combat that brings a character down from 20 down to 17 actually is a hit, just like the game calls it. The game system also tells us whether or not it's a mortal wound--usually, the system is telling us its not. But hey, if the attack is from something like a vorpal blade, then that could indeed be a mortal wound and one that will indeed kill the character as instructed by the game system. It also tells us whether or not the attack was debilitating. Usually not, but if the attack is from a ghoul or a carrion crawler or a sword of sharpness or a subdual attack, and a whole long list of other possibilities, then it might be. And the system tells us exactly when it is and isn't. So if you were in fact referring to this game, your comment was just incorrect.

QuoteI'm referring to D&D or any system where a sufficiently tough character can shrug off mortal injuries as if by magic.

The word "sufficiently" implies it satisfies the conditions. This will always the case in every system that's robust enough to allow you to stat that sort of thing. And I just don't give accolades for the things a system can't do.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on March 31, 2022, 01:15:41 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 28, 2022, 05:29:31 PM
I look forward to anyone who can show me how to "munchkin" AD&D...

Cleric/Fighter/Magic-User

I have the stats for the whole party of PCs in my current (core 1E) campaign. One of the characters in the party actually is a Cleric/Fighter/Magic-User. And what I love about core 1E is there's a lot of thought given to the checks and balances. So while I can't say definitively that this character is actually the weakest party member, I find it hard to believe very many people would consider him the most powerful.

(Core 1E only allows this class combination for half-elfs, and this character is level capped given his attributes at C5/F6/MU6 in a party that otherwise ranges from 7th-10th level.)

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 31, 2022, 06:50:43 PM
I'm talking about stuff like not being able to sneak around in earlier editions of D&D cuz you're not a Thief or a Ranger, or not being able to let an arrow off at the start of a fight from a readied bow because "initiative". Stuff like that are just pure rules conventions that are jarring to people not used to thinking in terms of game "logic" because you totally could at least try to do them in real life (even if you're not good at them), but in the game you can't (unless the GM makes a ruling and handwaves them away) because the rules say you need a special ability or something. Or you have to wait your "turn", like it's possible for a guy 30 feet away to close the gap and make a melee attack before a guy with an arrow in their bow can let that thing fly.

I run core 1E BtB. I'm not sure if that's an early enough version for you. None of these things are even true for 1E.

Anyone can sneak around and do so successfully without a check. If you're unarmored or in leather armor and have soft-soled boots, you can generally move unheard as long as you stay more than 30 feet away from the subject unless the sentry has extraordinary hearing. If the sentry is specifically listening for you, then I give the sentry a check, but that's a base chance of 10% for one with normal hearing. And anyone can remain unseen simply by staying out of line of sight.

Regarding initiative, you cannot attack and close 30 feet in the same round at all. So the archer will certainly go first. It is possible to do a charge maneuver which will allow for an attack in the same round at the end of the movement. But to close 30 feet will take 2-3 segments (depending on exact movement rate), and so a readied arrow will still go first, though the archer probably will not be able to get both attacks in. Initiative at this initial encounter distance will be mainly for determine order of action for opposing archers.

Quote from: Wrath of God on March 31, 2022, 09:32:52 AM
I think solution is different damage thresholds. The same numeric value on opponent attack can cause different effect.
Decapitation is gonna kill anyone. It's harder to decapitate someone with thick muscle Rasputiney neck.

I was reminded of an example from Gary's Lejendary Adventure RPG which has a hit point system. Thicket Elfs and Grotto Elfs are especially fragile and can be knocked unconscious by ordinary attacks by weapons that deal shock harm. This is only a possibility if the elf's health is below a certain threshold (which is proportional to total Health). And it's also only possible if the attack does over a certain amount of harm. If both of these conditions are satisfied, the Elf gets a check against remaining health to remain conscious.

I find it interesting because, first of all, on this surface, this seems perfectly reasonable and intuitive. You'd expect the tougher/healthier individual elfs would be harder to KO. You would expect a more damaging attack to be more likely to KO the elf. And you'd expect the current condition of the elf to influence the chance for KO.

Second reason I think it's interesting is because there are three variables in play here. Proportion of total health, absolute harm, and absolute condition. But when people try to pin down the meaning of hit points, they strongly tend towards considering only one variable at a time.

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 31, 2022, 09:47:37 PM
Anyone can sneak around and do so successfully without a check. If you're unarmored or in leather armor and have soft-soled boots, you can generally move unheard as long as you stay more than 30 feet away from the subject unless the sentry has extraordinary hearing. If the sentry is specifically listening for you, then I give the sentry a check, but that's a base chance of 10% for one with normal hearing. And anyone can remain unseen simply by staying out of line of sight.

That still leaves out the possibility of moving pass someone closer than 30 feet or sneaking up to them. Which, unless I'm a Thief, Ranger or Monk IRL without realizing it, I can assure is a very doable thing I have done numerous times, even unintentionally.

QuoteRegarding initiative, you cannot attack and close 30 feet in the same round at all. So the archer will certainly go first. It is possible to do a charge maneuver which will allow for an attack in the same round at the end of the movement. But to close 30 feet will take 2-3 segments (depending on exact movement rate), and so a readied arrow will still go first, though the archer probably will not be able to get both attacks in. Initiative at this initial encounter distance will be mainly for determine order of action for opposing archers.

This is the first time I've ever heard that you can't move 30 feet and attack someone in D&D, unless you're wearing heavy armor or are a Dwarf or something. Though, most of my experience has been 2e and 3e.

In 2e humans (and similar sized) have movement rate of 12 and can move 120 feet in a one minute round, but may only move half that (60 feet) and still attack, which well within the 30 feet example I gave.

In 3e and later average movement speed is 30 feet per 6 second round or twice that (60 feet) in all out movement or charge. You may move up to your movement speed and still attack, but may only attack at twice your speed on a charge.

Neither of these editions use segments, so I'm not familiar with them, but none of that stuff you mentioned applies in them.

Quote from: VisionStorm on March 31, 2022, 11:39:22 PM
That still leaves out the possibility of moving pass someone closer than 30 feet or sneaking up to them. Which, unless I'm a Thief, Ranger or Monk IRL without realizing it, I can assure is a very doable thing I have done numerous times, even unintentionally.

It doesn't leave it out entirely. Under "normal" dungeon conditions, it's possible to get as close as 10 feet. And there's no limit to what is possible with extenuating circumstances. There's just a lot less certainty to it. That said, there's a big but here. It cuts both ways. It makes no sense to give these players a fair chance at sneaking past someone but not give them a fair chance at hearing someone trying to sneak past them.

Anyone can claim it's possible, they've done it. It's also true that I've heard someone coming at more than 30 feet. But 30 feet is a reasonable basis for a threshold. Beyond that, we're no longer talking about a gap between common sense and game logic; this is no longer something that is common sense but rather it's something that's contended.

QuoteThis is the first time I've ever heard that you can't move 30 feet and attack someone in D&D, unless you're wearing heavy armor or are a Dwarf or something. Though, most of my experience has been 2e and 3e.

Within 10' is the limit for closing to striking distance as a freebie in 1E.

IIRC the "realistic" range at which someone can be a threat to someone with a readied range weapon is up to 21 feet or so. And the charge maneuver holds to that pretty well, allowing someone with a 12" move to close 24 feet in a segment, or someone with a 9" to close 18 feet (which is close enough assuming their weapon is at least 3' in length).


The way I often describe the 1E DMG is it's a collection of oddly specific rules. It's almost as if Gary was saying, "Here's something that we see come up during play. Here's a way of handling it that worked really well." It's more a book of rulings than it is a book of rules. But it's because it's exactly that--seeing what questions come out of actual play and finding answers that satisfy common sense--it actually does have a decent rule for anything that comes up. More importantly, it sets an example, that rules are meant to bend to what seems sensible. Not the other way around.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 31, 2022, 11:47:47 AM
I would say the Rasputin example is absurd. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, which is why I run a realistic system.

This made me laugh. You run a "realistic" system to avoid the sort of "unrealistic" examples that actually happen in real life. OK!

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 31, 2022, 09:47:37 PM
And that's fine. That's my point. People can't agree on what's reasonable and what's absurd. You can't pin that on mechanics. You also can't claim one system is realistic and the other not on this basis alone. The disagreement on what is reasonable and what is absurd is precisely at issue.

Yep.

Quote from: Zalman on April 01, 2022, 10:41:58 AM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 31, 2022, 11:47:47 AM
I would say the Rasputin example is absurd. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, which is why I run a realistic system.

This made me laugh. You run a "realistic" system to avoid the sort of "unrealistic" examples that actually happen in real life. OK!

Care to clarify? Who shrugs off a throat slitting?

Quote from: Lunamancer on March 31, 2022, 09:47:37 PM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 31, 2022, 11:47:47 AM
I would say the Rasputin example is absurd. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, which is why I run a realistic system.

And that's fine. That's my point. People can't agree on what's reasonable and what's absurd. You can't pin that on mechanics. You also can't claim one system is realistic and the other not on this basis alone. The disagreement on what is reasonable and what is absurd is precisely at issue.

AD&D 1E is not altogether unrealistic. You have to understand that the baseline is 0th level men, and that the one-minute melee rounds are sort of like playing on 5x speed. Real life missile fire rates would be 5 times what it is in AD&D. Real life weight of arrows are one-fifth of what is suggested by the 1E encumbrance system. Cost of arrows in 1E are about 5 times what they would have realistically been. Hit rates for missiles are higher than the statistics we have for medieval battles--consistent with what the realistic chance of at least one arrow out of 5 fired would hit. It's realistic but abstracted so that you can play on a timescale that would allow you to actually play out a large scale battle. Given Gary's background in wargaming and how well read he was on the subject matter, I highly doubt it's a coincidence that these ratios hold.

Leveled characters are extrapolated from that baseline. The idea is that ~4th level characters are heroes and ~8th level characters are superheroes. If you don't want to do superheroes, no one is making you do superheroes. The mission statement for 1E was to provide as much fun for as many people for as long a time as possible. It would not have been better served by limiting the range of play to gritty realism.

Thank you for taking the time to explain this; I see the sense in it, even if it's the type of game I decline to play.

Quote

QuoteOtherwise, we can run into absurdities like a halfling successfully removing all of a dragon's "hit points." How exactly did the halfling do this?

Play it out until you figure it out and come back and let us know. A highly experienced halfling thief utilizing the backstab ability to hit a vital area of a sleeping dragon seems like it would be a promising start.

You're presuming, fairly enough, that the DM is interpreting things realistically. That's different from having a halfling defeat a dragon without using special attacks, as if by hacking at its ankles.

Quote

QuoteYou referred to D&D.

AD&D 1E specifically. Where an attack in ordinary combat that brings a character down from 20 down to 17 actually is a hit, just like the game calls it. The game system also tells us whether or not it's a mortal wound--usually, the system is telling us its not. But hey, if the attack is from something like a vorpal blade, then that could indeed be a mortal wound and one that will indeed kill the character as instructed by the game system. It also tells us whether or not the attack was debilitating. Usually not, but if the attack is from a ghoul or a carrion crawler or a sword of sharpness or a subdual attack, and a whole long list of other possibilities, then it might be. And the system tells us exactly when it is and isn't. So if you were in fact referring to this game, your comment was just incorrect.

I'm not familiar with the special attacks you mention, so I stand corrected.

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 01, 2022, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Zalman on April 01, 2022, 10:41:58 AM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 31, 2022, 11:47:47 AM
I would say the Rasputin example is absurd. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, which is why I run a realistic system.

This made me laugh. You run a "realistic" system to avoid the sort of "unrealistic" examples that actually happen in real life. OK!

Care to clarify? Who shrugs off a throat slitting?

Rasputin -- the person being discussed -- is literally a real life example of someone who "shrugged off" being shot is the chest, stabbed in the abdomen, and downing a 5x dose of poison. That's who.

Quote from: Zalman on April 02, 2022, 11:11:19 AM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on April 01, 2022, 11:06:47 AM

Quote from: Zalman on April 01, 2022, 10:41:58 AM

Quote from: Neoplatonist1 on March 31, 2022, 11:47:47 AM
I would say the Rasputin example is absurd. That's not the type of game I'm interested in, which is why I run a realistic system.

This made me laugh. You run a "realistic" system to avoid the sort of "unrealistic" examples that actually happen in real life. OK!

Care to clarify? Who shrugs off a throat slitting?

Rasputin -- the person being discussed -- is literally a real life example of someone who "shrugged off" being shot is the chest, stabbed in the abdomen, and downing a 5x dose of poison. That's who.

The stopping powers of bullets vary widely and their effects depend a lot on exactly where someone was hit. I recall a case where a 400 lb man was shot 12 times with a .22 pistol and lived to tell about it. The same goes for stab-wounds. You don't have to be particularly tough to survive being shot or stabbed. Poisons, I don't know. To sustain significant injuries and continue fighting requires mental toughness, but that has nothing to do with injury lethality. It doesn't mean Rasputin can have his carotids cut and keep on trucking.