Quote from: S'mon;1085044For a game with routine and frequent combat, having an extra die rolled on every attack is a huge deal.

Not really. An extra roll is consumes 5 to 10 seconds. So if your combat lasts 35 or 40 instead of 30 minutes that is, as far as I am concerned, fairly immaterial in the face of the disadvantages (less variability and helplessness while it's not your turn).

It IS a a bigger deal though when you couple an active defense with HP bloat because then combat starts to drag more due to the combined effect. So it might not be suited to modern day D&D.

Quote from: S'mon;1085044The occasional opposed check when eg grappling works fine, but IME opposing a defence roll to the attack roll does not work in D&D.

I agree for the above stated reasons as far as any D&D session with an abundance of HPs is concerned. Otoh, E6 games and the like should do fine though. After all, there's an abundance of functional RPGs with an active parry. Characters don't have the buffer of modern day D&D HPs though if the active parry has a high enough success chance.

Quote from: S'mon;1085044It works fine in a game like Runequest*

..which doesn't have HP bloat, so it fits the pattern described above....

Quote from: S'mon;1085044D&D's focus on routine small group combat argues for simplicity of resolution IME.

To the contrary: small group focus games (5-12 combatants) can afford an extra parry/dodge roll. It's mid-sized battles (15-25 or even more participants) where it becomes a bigger factor.

Quote from: S'mon;1085044*Actually I remember we hated the whiff factor of the Parry roll in Runequest and went over to an opposed roll-high check, Attack vs Parry.

Is hitting more often and reducing enemy hit points from 100 to 92 more fun than hitting more rarely but doing more damage every time you hit? Personally, I prefer the latter paradigm - you are in potential danger from the get-go. It's more tension-inducing.

Quote from: Kael;1085229Opposed rolls also decrease statistical variance so you get less randomness. I like randomness!

More rolls = less randomness?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085308More rolls = less randomness?

It always has...as you move toward an infinite number of rolls you are going to approach the statistically average result.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1085315It always has...as you move toward an infinite number of rolls you are going to approach the statistically average result.

That's not quite correct; it depends on how the rolls are related to each other. We're not adding up or taking averages here.

For example, whether you hit an enemy on 16+ in D&D (+4 to hit versus AC 20) or you attack in WFRP with WS 50 against an enemy who can parry with WS 50, it's the same thing regarding the success chance. However, it is MORE random because the additional die roll means the defender can have an unlucky streak or a lucky streak in a combat and so can the attacker.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085327That's not quite correct; it depends on how the rolls are related to each other. We're not adding up or taking averages here.

No...the more rolls you make the more the outcome results will match the theoretical probabilities of the situation.  That can be a single roll vs. target number, it can be opposed rolls...and it even applies in this case of 1 roll vs TN that can then be countered by an opposed roll.  

Example: (SWAG numbers)

I need an 11+ to hit on a d20....I will hit 50% over many rolls
If you get a parry opportunity (say you have to equal or exceed my roll)...Then I hit 50% of the time and you will block about 28% of my hits.
Over time this means that I will succeed in damaging you about 36% of the time.
It will give the same results, over time, as a single roll system that sets my TN at a 36% success rate.

It may not be as 'engaging' for both players and it may not easily allow for stuff like criticals on 'both' sides (although you could create a combat table which does this)...but it doesn't 'inherently' make the results more random on its own.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085308More rolls = less randomness?

Yes.

Opposed rolls create a bell curve rather quickly compared to a single roll against a static target number. Opposed dice pool rolls are the most extreme version of this phenomenon to the point where the outcome is almost completely predictable.

For instance, a single opposed roll where each side throws a single die looks identical to the triangular shape of 2d6, etc.

A single linear roll (aka a single die of any size) rolled against a static number is the most variable since the shape is, well, linear.

FWIW, the Central Limit Theorem says that as you approach about ~30 samples (rolls in our case) even linear distributions become a bell curve. So for all those idiots who complain about D&D's "randomness" after about 30 attack rolls (or whatever) your abilities have become bell curved anyway because that's how nature works.

Math is fun.

No, it still depends on how the rolls relate to each other. The Central Limit Theorem applies to the addition of independent random variables. So it doesn't apply here at all.

Look at the 2-dimensional tables for, let's say, Block here:
https://projects.inklesspen.com/fatal-and-friends/images/14470f59529fad89bf873c216cec61106f437b0db1778f0b91f1248d38b9d610.jpeg
You CAN fit the different results (10 unique ones) into a single die roll, I suppose, but it probably wouldn't be good game design. Therefore breaking it up in 2 rolls increases the number of random outcomes you can realistically generate. Or, if you look at all the dice rolls being made during the course of an entire adventure - they produce random outcomes you can't emulate with a single dice roll.

In general: more rolls = more randomness in games. You're not increasing randomness by NOT letting a player take a test in a given situation.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1085342No...the more rolls you make the more the outcome results will match the theoretical probabilities of the situation.  That can be a single roll vs. target number, it can be opposed rolls...and it even applies in this case of 1 roll vs TN that can then be countered by an opposed roll.  

Example: (SWAG numbers)

I need an 11+ to hit on a d20....I will hit 50% over many rolls
If you get a parry opportunity (say you have to equal or exceed my roll)...Then I hit 50% of the time and you will block about 28% of my hits.
Over time this means that I will succeed in damaging you about 36% of the time.
It will give the same results, over time, as a single roll system that sets my TN at a 36% success rate.

It may not be as 'engaging' for both players and it may not easily allow for stuff like criticals on 'both' sides (although you could create a combat table which does this)...but it doesn't 'inherently' make the results more random on its own.

This assumes you roll to hit against a flat AC and a party roll.

That wouldn't be the case, you still hit 50% of the time. If you could hit on 11+, you can now possibly hit on a 2.

Quote from: estar;1084995Up until the release of D&D 3.0, a major reason for hobbyist to switch to alternatives is that they had more choices in order customize their characters.

The point being that this demonstrates that for D&D fans simplicity (and by extension speed) doesn't trump everything else.

Quote from: estar;1084995I am relaying the comments made by the dozens of players I refereed or interacted with over four decades.

I have been in these discussions before. I am more or less aware of the viewpoint of D&D players. What is hard to find out, however, is how much of their take is based on blind brand loyalty/successful marketing and how much is valid points regarding the system. I used to be much less cautious than I am now about it and ascribed it out-of-hand to brand loyalty.

Suffice to say (again) that I find it hard to see the cons of an active defense outweight the pros, much less clearly so. I will agree that inflated hitpoints and an active parry are not a good combination though.

Quote from: estar;1084995You are aware of the relative size of D&D+Pathfinder+OSR versus the rest of the hobby?

Yes but that's immaterial, to return to the above question, to figuring out if HP bloat works without the D&D brand attached to it. I guess it probably kinda/sorta does when you're supposed to play at a superheroic level.
If you want to assess its viability without the brand, you have to forget D&D and directly derived games and their market share.

Quote from: estar;1084995I don't think of the editions of D&D do a good job in explaining this. Or the whole concept of that a player can do anything as long as it is consistent with the setting and what been described about their character, irregardless of what the system says or implies.

A recent discussion on enworld leads me to think you might be right. But I'm not an expert on the subject.

Quote from: estar;1084995I disagree backed by my experience in the past ten years by my example describing things, along with teaching and coaching players in my campaigns.

I don't think it's rocket science to come up with a solid description. Having consciously observed various cinematic combats helps though.

Quote from: Kael;1085373Yes.

Opposed rolls create a bell curve rather quickly compared to a single roll against a static target number. Opposed dice pool rolls are the most extreme version of this phenomenon to the point where the outcome is almost completely predictable.

For instance, a single opposed roll where each side throws a single die looks identical to the triangular shape of 2d6, etc.

A single linear roll (aka a single die of any size) rolled against a static number is the most variable since the shape is, well, linear.

FWIW, the Central Limit Theorem says that as you approach about ~30 samples (rolls in our case) even linear distributions become a bell curve. So for all those idiots who complain about D&D's "randomness" after about 30 attack rolls (or whatever) your abilities have become bell curved anyway because that's how nature works.

Math is fun.

Except that we are not talking about independent variables. Rather we are talking about a algorithm i.e a procedure where the outcome of the next step is dependent on the odds of the first step.

For example in GURPS one does not need to make a defense rolls unless the attack is successful.

In system with opposed rolls like Fate it doesn't matter if it both sets of die are rolled inpendently. They can be treated as a single throw with the outcome plotted as probabilities.

To use a simplistic example a graph can be plotted for the results of a d6-d6. It doesn't matter I throw both dice, or you and I throw each dice. It still winds up being a d6-d6. Even you have modifiers and it still a (d6+x)-(d6-y). The the odds of the first being 1 or higher (or a 0 or higher in some cases) feeds is used to evaluate the next step in the procedure.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085547No, it still depends on how the rolls relate to each other. The Central Limit Theorem applies to the addition of independent random variables. So it doesn't apply here at all.

I never said it applied hence the "FWIW."

I was just mentioning the fact that over time and as a population increases, linear rolls will trend towards standard deviations (bell curve.) So as you make d20 attack rolls, for instance, the results will naturally fall within standard deviations over time which many people who don't understand probabilities overlook. Apply it or not as you wish.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085547In general: more rolls = more randomness in games. You're not increasing randomness by NOT letting a player take a test in a given situation.

In that sense, I understand what you're saying. I was thinking about "opposed rolls" in the more commonly-used RPG sense (dice pools, high roll wins, etc.)

Quote from: estar;1085567Except that we are not talking about independent variables. Rather we are talking about a algorithm i.e a procedure where the outcome of the next step is dependent on the odds of the first step.

Thanks for the clarification. "More rolls" I interpreted as "dice pools," not "more opportunities to decide stuff." When I think of an "opposed roll" I think of a virtual dice pool as the term is commonly understood. Sorry for the confusion, carry on...

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085557I have been in these discussions before. I am more or less aware of the viewpoint of D&D players. What is hard to find out, however, is how much of their take is based on blind brand loyalty/successful marketing and how much is valid points regarding the system. I used to be much less cautious than I am now about it and ascribed it out-of-hand to brand loyalty.

So in your view D&D hobbyists for idiots for liking what they like, subject to corporate mind control, and it can't be because of the intrinsic merits of the system.

I have a harsh opinion about argument that relies"blind brand loyalty/successful marketing. I may not "get" why an individual likes Chivalry & Sorcery 1st edition, famous for its dense presentation, and why it sings to them. But I recognize it does and for that individual it works and works well.

When X is something that millions enjoy for decades on end. Then my conclusion would be there something there other that the cop out of "evil corporate mind control".

Before debut of the OGL and the rise of the internet it hard to get a read on this. Because once TSR or Wizards sunset an edition the lack of any means of communications between groups meant that fans of a former edition were left on lonely islands.

The internet changed that and revealed that there were thousands still playing every previous edition of D&D. Particularly by the 2000 when the Internet became widespread. Then the OGL came along and give a clear path for fans to support their favorite editions. Then came the whole D&D 4e fiasco which didn't open up the top slot to a different RPG but enabled a  company to leverage the previous edition back into the to spot.

I submit that there is a preponderance of evidence that D&D is a classic in every sense of the word.

And to be clear nothing I said above should be taken that you personally are required to like D&D in any edition. Your questions in this and other posts are about why other hobbyists like D&D.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085557Suffice to say (again) that I find it hard to see the cons of an active defense outweight the pros, much less clearly so. I will agree that inflated hitpoints and an active parry are not a good combination though.

It is a matter of taste. It not rational. It all about preference and how one thinks about the elements that a RPG addresses. Through many campaign and session, I developed a handle on what the boundaries for various editions to whether something is D&Dish or not. Mostly by listening, observing, and not arguing about preferences.

This came about by observing, listening, and above all not i

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085557Yes but that's immaterial, to return to the above question, to figuring out if HP bloat works without the D&D brand attached to it. I guess it probably kinda/sorta does when you're supposed to play at a superheroic level.

Numbers are material. Chess, Go, Checkers are a classic boardgames because millions continue to choose to play them decade after decade.  

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085557If you want to assess its viability without the brand, you have to forget D&D and directly derived games and their market share.

It called Pathfinder and the various OSR RPGs. The OGL prohibits the use of trademarks without another license.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085557A recent discussion on enworld leads me to think you might be right. But I'm not an expert on the subject.

Neither am I am just well-read within the hobby. Start with Playing at the World, along with Hawk and Moor and draw your own conclusions. May want to pop over to Dragonsfoot and the OD&D discussion forum and do some reading.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1085557I don't think it's rocket science to come up with a solid description. Having consciously observed various cinematic combats helps though.

The hit point mechanic has no other detail other than how long one lasts until they can't fight in a melee combat. Until one understands that and why it came about then they are either going to be frustrated or make a different RPG system where the mechanic does mean something beyond how long you last until you can't fight or die.

Like GURPS where hit points is a representation of injury capacity based on mass with the average human set at 10.

Some options that seem to work with hit points as combat endurance and still keep the campaign recognizably D&Dish are:

1) Going to zero is not death but unconsciousness

2) A relatively large amount of damage suffered in a single combat round result in a saving throw.

3) Increased damage on a high number or a natural 20. Either by doubling the damage, or rolling extra dice.

4) If you don't die going below zero, you make a saving or suffer a lasting injury rolled on a chart.

Which is these work better for a campaign is entirely based on personal preference. Many do not prefer the above and just go with hit point below zero is death. I personally use variants based on #1, and #3.

Quote from: Kael;1085571Thanks for the clarification. "More rolls" I interpreted as "dice pools," not "more opportunities to decide stuff." When I think of an "opposed roll" I think of a virtual dice pool as the term is commonly understood. Sorry for the confusion, carry on...

You can use anydice to get a chart of the odds for various methods of rolling dice.
https://anydice.com/

Quote from: estar;1084274... You claimed that no other RPG system had the same elements as D&D, I replied with two counter examples, the fact that the company folded 1983 is not germane to the point I was making.

I specifically said: "...virtually all of D&D's early competitors failed miserably on more than one of these points."

They can have similar elements yes - but that does not mean they hit on the design points the same way. I think that there are system differences in how they measured up to D&D's 5 points that would have kept TFT and T&T from really challenging D&D in a perfect world anyway...

But, I think we are actually talking past each other. To your larger point of "good enough' I'm in complete agreement.

It's not enough to merely mimic the design of the market leader, people have to perceive that you are offering an objectively better product, to make a switch worth the trouble.

D&D from its beginning to early 80's to the 3e era +5e was certainly "good enough".

Any potential competitor would have not only had to have a great system that matched or exceeded D&D on all 5 points. But they would have had to put out enough support, and been successful enough that they could then be around for when TSR made a misstep. (Assuming they didn't screw the pooch themselves business wise.)

In 20/20 hindsight, that is one tall fucking order. Good enough + Market Leader = No can defend.

Quote from: Skarg;1084292...
4. Easily understood setting? I suppose, but I don't see it being any easier to understand than some other RPG settings. Actually, it seems really hard to GM the way I want to, because of how gonzo and overwhelming all the suggested weird monsters/magic/alignments/races etc are. What I think did/does make the "setting" accessible is that there is tons of content published for all the DMs who can't or don't want to make their own settings.
...As someone who has always found D&D unappealing and some other RPGs much more appealing, it doesn't look to me like D&D had/has any compelling design aspects responsible for its success ...

I used to think the same way.

I find the D&D class/level based, zero to hero, inflating HP default play paradigm just rubs me the wrong way.

But then I started paying attention to the majority of the hobby =D&D, and started to notice some trends...

People actually Like: "...how gonzo and overwhelming all the suggested weird monsters/magic/alignments/races etc are"

They like zero to hero. They like the way the class/level system engages them.

That's when I started to realise maybe is not all those 'other people' who like D&D, "just because it came first", maybe its me.

I have definite preferences that generally push me away from D&D as game I want to play. But D&D seems to hit the nail on the head with a lot of other people.

So I came to an inevitable conclusion...

Quote from: Skarg;1084292...Again, that's down to the early arrival and store presence and publishing tons of content versus new games trying to start from scratch..

Being first, while very powerful, isn't enough if the elements for long term success aren't already there.

And whether by design or accident D&D just got some stuff right from the get-go.

And I think it is also important to note they didn't just sit on their laurels but from 74 to the early 80's - in a ten year period, they released no less than 4 versions of the game, continually refining the formula. They were savvy enough to "good enough" upgrade their game. A trend that we see again in 3e and 5e.

Here's what's dumb: OD&D/BECMI is dumb because it doesn't reflect the modern wave of gaming.

They were FIRST. They were almost essentially spit-balling TTRPGs. So when you say "AC was dumb and backwards", I say "Compared to what?"

I have the Rules Cyclopedia (hardback, mint). You can run levels 1-36 with it. Even the "Gods-as-Gamers" Mentzer rules. So everything you need for super-long campaigns.

Most of the people that "diss" D&D are hipsters, looking for social proof from non-D&D games that give them credence.  That's okay.

But the fact that people still run BECMI to this day is proof that "the new edition or new game" is group-specific.

I have not seen anything from PF or newer editions of D&D that dismiss.But I know there is a variance,