Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 07:31:41 PMHowever, I have to quote your earlier remarks to make a point: Reasonable to whom?

A fair point. But I would add: there's reasonable process, and then there's reasonable outcomes.

I am not really concerned with reasonable processes, I am more concerned with reasonable outcomes. Whether we get those reasonable outcomes by using AC/HP, ascending or descending AC, tarot cards or whatever, I don't care. So long as the unreasonable process isn't burdensome, such as flipping between charts in 10 different books.

I believe that, given they're depicting a magical world, the systems of AD&D1e, B/X and OD&D give reasonable outcomes without a burdensome process. Likewise RuneQuest and a few other games.

As an aside, my own preference is for a grittier game. I read a great blog recently where he presented some ideas for - well, it's basically preparing magical items, generally of limited uses. You can see hints of similar things in AD&D's material components, and in the DMG there's also a list of ingredients required for various potions. I think you could have a good campaign where this was just about the only magic, no spells, just enchantments requiring obscure ingredients and conditions and sacrifices.

As for combats, I'd happily keep AC and HP - but past about 3rd level I can't really see more HP being anything but movie-style fantasy. Instead extra hit dice would just be, "roll, keep best." For example at 3rd level a fighter would throw 3d10 for their HP, at 4th level throw 4d10 and keep 3, at 5th 5d10 and keep 3, and so on. If a common man has 1-6 HP, then the fighter trends towards being as tough as 5 of the toughest common men. Which is pretty damned good.

But then you'd have to limit fireballs, etc, similarly.

I agree with most of what you say. HP inflation is tough to explain past a certain level, for sure.

Where I disagree is outcome vs process. To me the process is more important, possibly much more important. Combat that requires interesting decisions and that is easy to visualize can be quite satisfying. There is also drama in how a combat can swing, especially when you hit that sweet spot of tactics and luck. It may even be more fun to die in a rip and tear fight that swings wildly at the end, than to survive a hit, miss, hit, hit, miss slogfest. An outcome needs context to be appreciated and is not itself the kind of war story that players tell after the game. Rather, it's the time Darius's hand flew off trailing tendon and gore when we fought the minotaur. Yeah, we killed the beast, but come on, dude has a hook hand now.

I suppose I don't really know what a reasonable outcome is or why it should be a goal in itself. If the process is reasonable, then the outcomes will be reasonable because opposing participants can manipulate the process to their opposing ends. To complete my strawman, you could ask a computer to spit out reasonable outcomes in less than a second but that would dull as dishwater.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 13, 2021, 10:58:53 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 12, 2021, 11:18:43 PMYou know, considering the drought and general dry conditions right now, you might want to be careful with any fire.  All those straw-men you've surrounded yourself with are liable to go up in a heartbeat, and you'd be in a world of hurt...

I don't even hate AC or streamlining. But classic fans are the only ones that have unironically told me that the past systems having glaring problems was a good thing because it made you aware that homebrewing was an option (and then also said it didn't have any said flaws at the same time). That system mastery = the game getting easier (and that being a feature of the game and not every game ever). I have heard more rediculous defenses thrown in the defense of 0D&D then I have of any other system. And there are things that 0D&D does better, but so many of the defenses I have heard are just ludicristly baised.

To continue this pained metaphor: Im not surrounded by strawmen. Just a group that insists on wearing and building everything out of straw.

And I've heard none of those thingsin this thread.  So you are arguing against things no one here has said.  That's the literal definition of strawmaning.  Or maybe you should just stop listening to the voices in your head...

In OS D&D:

- THAC0 grows a lot, AC not as much
- HP grows a lot, damage not as much

You must combine these two things to see high-level PCs are tough because of their HP (and saves), not AC.

It doesn't HAVE to be this way; barbarians (and maybe monks?) get unarmored AC in 5e and IIRC old editions too. But this is the way it usually works.

In GURPS, we have the opposite: attack and defense grow, HP not as much.

In 4e, IIIRC AC raises with level for everybody.

It is mostly a matter of taste.

Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 05:21:30 PMSounds pretty adaptable to various system and actually takes them into account. So it scales pretty much 1:1 with bonus to hit/thac0/whatever youre using?

Yes, having a clear distinction between a roll to hit and a roll to damage opens up space to more clearly represent certain game effects, notably guns and magical attacks. By having attacks that avoid armor, such as guns, or magical attacks that can be avoided by dodging gives the DM more opportunities to create more variety in attack types.

In play, I found that increasing AC with level doesn't really affect the game as much as it would appear as there is a built in assumption, even in AD&D, that higher level characters will have better AC than lower level characters. This is true even of monsters. If you do a numerical analysis of monster HD vs AC in the Monster Manual, you'll see that the vast majority of monster fall into a fairly narrow range with the exception of a few outliers (such as Pixies).

In these versions of D&D, this increase in AC is achieved through the artificial means of giving players better and better magical armor.

But, if the AC increase is encoded into the rules, the effect that I noticed is, instead of forcing characters to armor up as they level, a high level character already has significant defensive ability and need armor less and less for survival. Thus a high level fighter can wade into an army of scrubs wearing nothing but a loin cloth Conan style.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on December 13, 2021, 06:44:44 PM
It's common for the media, politicians and so on to use precision to imply accuracy. If I predict, "the reserve bank interest rate will go up next year," it's probably going to be accurate, but it's not very precise, so nobody will be impressed even if I'm right. If I say, "it will go up by 1.22579%" it's so precise that people assume it must be accurate, and even if I turn out to be wrong I'll still be an authority people will call on to appears on news shows as a talking head.

The precision implying accuracy thing is a reasonable inference.  In engineering school we're taught to use no more decimal places than can be justified by the precision and accuracy of our instruments.  If I say something is 1.0645 m long, I may be wrong, but I used 5 places because I'm confident that the actual length is between 1.06445 and 1.06454.  Of course one can't count on the news services to make any reasonable conclusion based on numbers.  I can't count the number of times they've given statistics followed by a conclusion and a few seconds thought on my part showed that the latter did not actually follow from the former.

Unfortunately, HP systems also raise the problem of healing rates, which, in the case of 5e, have reached ridiculous levels.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 13, 2021, 10:16:10 PMAnd I've heard none of those thingsin this thread.  So you are arguing against things no one here has said.  That's the literal definition of strawmaning.  Or maybe you should just stop listening to the voices in your head...

Im mostly having a laugh at your expense.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on December 14, 2021, 07:49:49 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 13, 2021, 10:16:10 PMAnd I've heard none of those thingsin this thread.  So you are arguing against things no one here has said.  That's the literal definition of strawmaning.  Or maybe you should just stop listening to the voices in your head...

Im mostly having a laugh at your expense.

Decades of experience have taught me the word "strawman" is literally meaningless on RPG forums. There are certain foibles common among most people and exaggerated in gamers. Lack of ability (or more like lack of willingness) to understand what a person you're arguing against is actually saying is one of those things. And that leads to passing around the claim of strawman like a hot potato.

There's no reason to use the term. I can simply say most of the posts here have me scratching my head wondering what games these people are even playing. Yeah. There are many editions to D&D. And there are multiple common interpretations within some editions. And there are games under the OSR that are not exactly D&D. So there is more than enough reason to expect other people's experiences will differ from mine.

At the same time, though, it makes the comments even more absurd as they assume more universality than is justified. These criticisms are reflections on the critic. All these different options at your fingertips, and you opt for the one that you hate? It's like, seriously dude, are you even trying to have fun when you game?

That's what I would say rather than strawman.

It occurred to me that hirelings were expected to be more common in the older rule sets. A party of 5 could really number 10-20 when counting all the help, at least that's my understanding. If that party fights a similar-sized group of monsters, then yes, HP/AC would be a welcome abstraction. In the games I run, the party typically has just 1 or 2 followers and often they are non-combatants. Larger combats...maybe that's what I'm missing.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 14, 2021, 10:23:14 AM
It occurred to me that hirelings were expected to be more common in the older rule sets. A party of 5 could really number 10-20 when counting all the help, at least that's my understanding. If that party fights a similar-sized group of monsters, then yes, HP/AC would be a welcome abstraction. In the games I run, the party typically has just 1 or 2 followers and often they are non-combatants. Larger combats...maybe that's what I'm missing.

Same thing applies to large parties, whether PC or NPC.  Also monsters, of course.  The more combatants you have, the simpler the mechanics *must* be to have the game move at a pace reasonable to the group.  There's wiggle room based on the skill, attention, etc. of the players, but it is only moderate wiggle.  That is, with dedication, a group of say 7 players with 5 NPCs might use a system that for most groups would only be reasonable for 5 players and 3 NPCs, but for any given group there is still a cut off.

The Mongoose Conan game has a system where you had Parry, and Dodge defense.  In melee combat a character could use Parry or Dodge as their Armor Class, but for ranged attacks Dodge was used. 

Dex bonus was added to Dodge, and Str bonus was added to parry.  This allowed low dex/high str characters to he something other than punching bags in melee.

Each class had it's own bonuses to Dodge and Parry based on the level of the character.

Armor was damage reduction.

Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PM
So I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee

Because both fighter and wizard can be armed with melee weapons and thus in the end it becomes a wash. The fighter has a greater selection of weaponry, but in the end be it fighter polearm or wizard dagger, it equals out as "armed" and is abstracted away in the general effort for survival in one minute rounds.

Further everyone in 2e has access to Optional Rule Parry. They explain why Parrying is optional rule because it is typically assumed -- PCs are typically acting beyond only defensively. But if you still want it here is an optional rule. Parry requires you to not move, Parry takes up all your actions, no spellcasting either. Parry gives you AC +1/2 your level benefit, or if a fighter AC +1/2 your level plus one benefit. e.g. lvl 2 Wizard can Parry for -1 to their AC; lvl 2 Fighter can Parry for -2 to their AC.

There are further optional methods strewn throughout various editions. For example 2e Complete Fighter Handbook has an additional optional rule Parry which involves using one's own attacks to make a "Parry attack roll" to cancel out a specific opponent's anticipated oncoming attacks. This further favors the fighter as they typically have more additional attacks to sacrifice for such declared anticipating defense.

Basically, it's out there optionally, and it's been available for a very long time, you just gotta look. It isn't the core method because such combat granularity is not the core priority for play. But for those who want it, and want it in different ways, yes D&D did it already (and probably in other ways new to you too). 

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 10:09:48 PM
I agree with most of what you say. HP inflation is tough to explain past a certain level, for sure.

IMHO the reason that other non-D&D games with fixed Hit points (which are explicitly treated as 'meat points'), had some form of 'Fate' or "hero point" mechanic, was to help the PC's be 'heroic' in spite of the occasional random bad die roll.

Until 5e you never saw a 'hero point' mechanic of any kind because that was assumed as part of the HP bloat.

The higher in level your PC got, the more "herioc" he became.

For D&D, HP bloat = meat points + hero point mechanic, all rolled into one.

Naturally that lead to some incongruities with verisimilitude at high levels - but the intent in early D&D was that around level 10 or so domain play kicks in...

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 13, 2021, 10:09:48 PM
Where I disagree is outcome vs process. To me the process is more important, possibly much more important. Combat that requires interesting decisions and that is easy to visualize can be quite satisfying. There is also drama in how a combat can swing, especially when you hit that sweet spot of tactics and luck. ...

IMHO interesting combat can be done in several ways. Even with "AC" based systems.

It is simply a matter of not locking up viable combat options in specific character classes.

Quote from: rytrasmi on December 14, 2021, 10:23:14 AM
It occurred to me that hirelings were expected to be more common in the older rule sets. ... Larger combats...maybe that's what I'm missing.

It's not just larger parties. Straight-up speed of combat resolution at the table is also a worthy goal.

In my star wars homebrew system (count successes Die pool, d6 dice, success on 5-6) I had the PC's roll for their defense.

Now I don't, I just have the PC's and NPC's roll to the equal or over a target number DV (Defense value) Which is just the average roll the PC would make for their defense anyway. i.e. If the number of dice they would have rolled for defense is 6 then their DV = 2.

And I'm not looking back.  Why?

Its not just that 4-5 pc's have one less roll each per round. All the NPC's also make one less roll each per round.

My PC's will typically go against storm troopers or other bad guy mooks 2-3 times their number. One less roll per round from everyone adds up, and speeds things up noticeably.

Do I loose some granularity from PC's/NPC's making heroic rolls or bombing out miserably? Yes. But I have found those trends to balance out in the offense rolls at the table anyway.

And most importantly: In play, at the table, my players don't notice the difference during the heat of the action.

Even better, the guy who actually has to run the game (me), now makes only half the rolls I used to during combat.

Win, win.

For me, a system like Rune Quest has to really deliver a unique experience to justify the additional complication it brings to combat during play. Especially for the GM running the game that has to track armor and hit locations for multiple combatants.

Not to mention the additional rules buy-in that the players have to invest in to really make a system like that sing during play.

The variability of player rules buy-in alone makes RPG's with AC or similar systems the GM's game of choice for their groups.

Quote from: Ocule on December 12, 2021, 04:24:23 PMSo I've been thinking, why is an unarmored fighter just as easy to hit as an unarmored wizard. Why doesn't the game factor in your ability to parry blows at least in melee

And that's how a thousand fantasy RPGs got their start...

I do enjoy active defense rolls, D&D is faster without them. Note I did not say better.