Quote from: Itachi;1076717The answer is "at what cost?" The fact you can't die to a horde of mooks doesn't mean there isn't a cost in the form of time, damage, or lost opportunities.

Man, that's another good point; sure all the mooks died, but while you were busy punching through them, the king was assassinated. Great job hero.

Quote from: Azraele;1076707"Does not" and "Cannot" are worlds apart, mate.

Does Not refers to the outcome of the fiction: Conan didn't die that way (or at all, really)
Can Not refers to the mechanics of a game (a thing with a failure state) preventing an outcome from being possible ("You can't die to 100 serfs with sticks")

It's important to realize you're talking about something different here.

Could Conan die to 100 serfs with sticks?  He is a literary character so "Could" covers a lot of ground.  If you look at the Hyborian world it looks pretty deadly for everyone else that is not Conan.

Would you see Conan die to 100 serfs? No, of course not.

Quote from: Shasarak;1076732Could Conan die to 100 serfs with sticks?  He is a literary character so "Could" covers a lot of ground.  If you look at the Hyborian world it looks pretty deadly for everyone else that is not Conan.

Would you see Conan die to 100 serfs? No, of course not.

You would if he were a barbarian in D&D. Or rather, you could. And that is a desirable facet of the rules in the opinion of myself and many others.

You are free to disagree with that premise: but speaking from experience, I've not seen "Can't" or "Must" style design go to good places (look up the "2/7 filter" or "paranoia combat" in Exalted second edition, if you dare)

I can't DM a wish-fulfillment game ("this character type is conceptually invulnerable to insert-common-threat-here").  That's 4-6 individual mini-games playing out concurrently, not a group game.

Quote from: EOTB;1076737I can't DM a wish-fulfillment game ("this character type is conceptually invulnerable to insert-common-threat-here").  That's 4-6 individual mini-games playing out concurrently, not a group game.

But isn't that true for every game? A high level fighter will be invulnerable to low level mooks, for eg. As will be a high level mage to low level mind tricks, and a high level rogue to low level traps.

Are you saying characters should be all identical to each other, instead of having different strenghts and weaknesses?

Quote from: Itachi;1076743But isn't that true for every game? A high level fighter will be invulnerable to low level mooks, for eg. As will be a high level mage to low level mind tricks, and a high level rogue to low level traps.

Are you saying characters should be all identical to each other, instead of having different strenghts and weaknesses?

No? A high-level fighter can get killed when his HP drops to 0 from low-level sword attacks. That's a real thing. Magic-users can fail saves, Thieves can fail to detect a deadly trap. They can die. They have less a chance of that because they have better odds at succeeding, but that doesn't make them invulnerable to these failings and untimely demises. They'v just got a bigger margin for error is all.

Quote from: Azraele;1076744No? A high-level fighter can get killed when his HP drops to 0 from low-level sword attacks. That's a real thing. Magic-users can fail saves, Thieves can fail to detect a deadly trap. They can die. They have less a chance of that because they have better odds at succeeding, but that doesn't make them invulnerable to these failings and untimely demises. They'v just got a bigger margin for error is all.

Sorry I thought specifically about D&D here, where the chances of, say, a level 10 healthy and ready fighter dying to a single level 1 goblin is so small as to be considered null in practical terms. Theoretically though, you're right.

Quote from: Itachi;1076747Sorry I thought specifically about D&D here, where the chances of, say, a level 10 healthy and ready fighter dying to a single level 1 goblin is so small as to be considered null in practical terms. Theoretically though, you're right.

Yeah, that's true; just as a function of hitpoint addition, you'll have to whack a high-level fighter down like a tree if you're only doing d6 damage per (successful) strike.

But in that, we actually do see a nod to fiction; Aragorn doesn't go down to a single stab from an orc, Beowulf only died of dragon venom (after wrestling the thing with his bare hands), Heracles wasn't slain by the terrifying claw/claw/bit of the Nemean lion, etc. etc.

But it's a recognition, these high HP total, of the characters going beyond the mortal and becoming demigods and heroes of myth. There's an intentional drifting away from gritty reality (why do you think higher level characters transformed into gods?)

Older editions also capped even this; time was, level 14 was considered inhumanly powerful on the scale of Gilgamesh, and even then you're getting "+1/+2" additional HP per level, not a full hit die, after a certain level.

There is still a fairly large conceptual leap from "When at full health, in a straight fight, with this opponent, the odds are dying are so tiny as to be effectively null" as in the high level fighter versus goblin--versus "Same character and monster when the character has been beat up and gets caught with his pants down, the odds are still effectively null."   I'm thrilled with the first but highly annoyed by the second.

Quote from: Itachi;1076747Sorry I thought specifically about D&D here, where the chances of, say, a level 10 healthy and ready fighter dying to a single level 1 goblin is so small as to be considered null in practical terms. Theoretically though, you're right.

The more relevant parts are those not commonly used, as mentioned earlier.  

In AD&D 1E, 4 orcs can overbear a high level human fighter; the odds are decent.  It is common for humanoids to appear in multiples.  Character death from overbearing won't happen every time monsters attempt it, but neither will an experienced player feel the character isn't mortally threatened - this is a much, much better strategy for the orcs than trading sword swings with a Lord.  (And I think overbearing is also thematically appropriate, for those who place value on such things.)  

Overbearing is simply using Chaosium's Basic Roleplaying's % system in an AD&D sub-system.  It doesn't magically go from elegant to complicated because it switches book covers.  Many DMs don't use it, and the high-level fighters in such games enjoy greatly enhanced survival odds.

Quote from: Azraele;1076736You would if he were a barbarian in D&D. Or rather, you could. And that is a desirable facet of the rules in the opinion of myself and many others.

You are free to disagree with that premise: but speaking from experience, I've not seen "Can't" or "Must" style design go to good places (look up the "2/7 filter" or "paranoia combat" in Exalted second edition, if you dare)

What level Barbarian are we talking about though?  Orcs can be a good challenge up to 5th level but a 10th level Barbarian?  Myself and many others would disagree.

I can not really comment on Exalted though.

Quote from: Shasarak;1076755What level Barbarian are we talking about though?  Orcs can be a good challenge up to 5th level but a 10th level Barbarian?  Myself and many others would disagree.

I can not really comment on Exalted though.

Depends on the edition; as myself and EOTB point out, your tenth-level demigod can get punked by a handful of orcs in the wrong situation in early editions. Also, you're one failed save away from going splat if the just drop a boulder on you. No situation grants you categorical immunity to lower-level threats.

Even in systems with "mechanical invincibility", you could still be affected by weaker foes, couldn't you? Exactly how far does "He shouldn't die that way" warp the logic of the game's description? Is the GM judging the reasonableness of proposed deaths against their imagined physics, or against the "thematic appropriateness" of their outcome?

Your answer to that question is the more informative one for what you consider desirable in a game. For me? I prefer the physical model, or else I feel that I'm subjecting the entire game to a "this should be the ending because that's what I want" brand of bending the game (and the agency of my players) to my pre-supposed outcome.

Like anybody, I can't claim true impartiality (I'm a bit of a monty haul, I like seeing my players succeed). But I prefer to let the rules and my understanding of reasonable consequences inform my adjudication of outcomes, to temper my natural inclination with some more toothsome consequences and challenges.

Quote from: Azraele;1076757Depends on the edition; as myself and EOTB point out, your tenth-level demigod can get punked by a handful of orcs in the wrong situation in early editions. Also, you're one failed save away from going splat if the just drop a boulder on you. No situation grants you categorical immunity to lower-level threats.

In ADnD you had plenty of creatures that were flat out immune to anything that was not magic.  So a Demigod that could be punked by orcs just was not going to happen unless they were backed up by something else, maybe one of the Orcs chance of two magical items was a magical weapon of some sort.

QuoteEven in systems with "mechanical invincibility", you could still be affected by weaker foes, couldn't you? Exactly how far does "He shouldn't die that way" warp the logic of the game's description? Is the GM judging the reasonableness of proposed deaths against their imagined physics, or against the "thematic appropriateness" of their outcome?

Its not that hard to get an AC in the negatives which means that your Orcs need a 20 to hit unless you want to go the "oh they dont "attack" you they use the special overbearing rules which bypasses your AC" route.  And sure if you want to go that way then it is easy for the average DnD party to whip up a bunch of hirelings and then its just an army against an army situation.  No problem if you want to play that way.

QuoteYour answer to that question is the more informative one for what you consider desirable in a game. For me? I prefer the physical model, or else I feel that I'm subjecting the entire game to a "this should be the ending because that's what I want" brand of bending the game (and the agency of my players) to my pre-supposed outcome.

I dont really know anything about what you think is an accurate physical model or how you justify things like Hit Points within that model.  I would suspect that your model probably works pretty well at low levels and on the other hand the physical model of being breathed on with Dragon Fire or smashed by a Giants Axe does not result in a long adventuring career.

QuoteLike anybody, I can't claim true impartiality (I'm a bit of a monty haul, I like seeing my players succeed). But I prefer to let the rules and my understanding of reasonable consequences inform my adjudication of outcomes, to temper my natural inclination with some more toothsome consequences and challenges.

Of course we all do that which is why we can both come to completely different results of one guy wanting to punch out an army single handedly and another guy and his three buddies wanting to drag down a Demigod so they can beat him to death with their sticks.

Quote from: Shasarak;1076771In ADnD you had plenty of creatures that were flat out immune to anything that was not magic.  So a Demigod that could be punked by orcs just was not going to happen unless they were backed up by something else, maybe one of the Orcs chance of two magical items was a magical weapon of some sort.

Are you talking about normal weapons not working; needing a +1 weapon to get weapon damage?  That's a specific immunity.  You could drown a werewolf you had no magic to kill, or even use flaming oil (creature dependent, of course, if it had other factors that would negate various attack forms).  Immunity to non-magical weapons was only that.  Nothing else.



Its not that hard to get an AC in the negatives which means that your Orcs need a 20 to hit unless you want to go the "oh they dont "attack" you they use the special overbearing rules which bypasses your AC" route.  And sure if you want to go that way then it is easy for the average DnD party to whip up a bunch of hirelings and then its just an army against an army situation.  No problem if you want to play that way.



I dont really know anything about what you think is an accurate physical model or how you justify things like Hit Points within that model.  I would suspect that your model probably works pretty well at low levels and on the other hand the physical model of being breathed on with Dragon Fire or smashed by a Giants Axe does not result in a long adventuring career.



Of course we all do that which is why we can both come to completely different results of one guy wanting to punch out an army single handedly and another guy and his three buddies wanting to drag down a Demigod so they can beat him to death with their sticks.[/QUOTE]

Quote from: Shasarak;1076771In ADnD you had plenty of creatures that were flat out immune to anything that was not magic.  So a Demigod that could be punked by orcs just was not going to happen unless they were backed up by something else, maybe one of the Orcs chance of two magical items was a magical weapon of some sort.

Are you talking about normal weapons not working; needing a +1 weapon to get weapon damage?  That's a specific immunity.  You could drown a werewolf you had no magic to kill, or even use flaming oil (creature dependent, of course, if it had other factors that would negate various attack forms).  Immunity to non-magical weapons was only that.  Nothing else.

Quote from: Shasarak;1076771Its not that hard to get an AC in the negatives which means that your Orcs need a 20 to hit unless you want to go the "oh they dont "attack" you they use the special overbearing rules which bypasses your AC" route.  And sure if you want to go that way then it is easy for the average DnD party to whip up a bunch of hirelings and then its just an army against an army situation.  No problem if you want to play that way.

Yes, you're on the right track here.  1E was a tactical game.  Six heroes did not assault the 300 orc-village by themselves unless straights were pretty dire.  Most kings that died in battle didn't die because some other great man dueled them to death, they died because a mob of peasants overran their position, pulled them off their horse, held them down and knifed them.  

Small parties went to a dungeon where they could control the terrain much easier than in the wilderness.  

But when going to the wilderness, you put together an expedition.