Quote from: estar;1080987Your point being?

It was a arbitrary decision, a judgment call by Gygax and Perren to define a Hero as worth 4 figures of ordinary warriors.

The whole thing is only necessary because we're not playing ordinary people in our RPGs (well, at least most games - Call of Cthulhu is more the outlier here). Heroes need increased survivability and there are various ways to do that. At least one of 2d20' metacurrencies does serve the same purpose.

Quote from: estar;1080987You don't need rules with a certain amount of granularity. You need a human referee who know the setting or genre of the campaign. The fundamental rule of all tabletop RPGs is that the players describes what they are doing as the character within the setting of the campaign to a human referee. Who then describes what happens as a result of their actions. The player considers what just happen and the loop repeats throughout the life of the campaign.

But prior we have specifically been talking about systems that simulate genre:

Quote from: estar;1080943You can get detailed about the above and list out every injury a character suffer. Or you could abstract to a single numerical number.  What makes a given system emulate it's genre or setting is the interplay of multiple mechanics like damage reduction, to hit rolls, damage avoidance, injury, etc.  Hit points are neither superior or inferior for this purpose.

In an abstract system, it's not the system that is cinematic or realistic, it's the GM's interpretation/narration. He fills in the blanks that the abstract mechanics leave. If we decide the outcome of a duel via a coin flip mechanic, I can spin an epic tale out of the outcome. But that's hardly satisfying and it's certainly not a simulation of genre or cinematic combat.

So if(!) we want genre sim, we need a certain amount of detail in the mechanics. Or viewed differently: the more detailed info that do conform to genre standards (or whatever) a rule system outputs, the more we can consider it a simulation/emulation of that genre. This is, of course, limited by other factors such as speed, complexity, playability, etc.

From that vantage point, a hero being worth 4 normal fighters in O&D is an early attempt at genre simulation. Or a very rough attempt at genre simulation.

Quote from: estar;1080987What I recommend instead of fussing over mechanics is describe in plain English how you would handle a campaign where combat is adjudicated like in cinema. Then craft a set of mechanics to fit that description.

I don't quite understand: if I want to emulate a thing, I need to study and ultimately replicate the patterns according to which it behaves. Which implies that the output of this process is mechanics that fill in some detail. In my case stuff like: not every "outnumberer" being always able to attack, attack sequences in 1-on-1s and combat events that feature in movie combat repeatedly.

In Modiphius' case, to return to the subject, they apparently thought replicating Momentum, Fortune and Doom was a good idea.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081071But that's hardly satisfying and it's certainly not a simulation of genre or cinematic combat.

From your point of view, not from mine.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081071In an abstract system, it's not the system that is cinematic or realistic, it's the GM's interpretation/narration. He fills in the blanks that the abstract mechanics leave. If we decide the outcome of a duel via a coin flip mechanic, I can spin an epic tale out of the outcome.

Referee are always filling the blanks. You ignore that the core of how tabletop roleplaying work. That the player describes what they do as their characters and the referee describes the result of their actions.

It may be that in order to properly describe the outcomes that a referee will resort to a dice roll. It may be that a single dice roll won't captures all the nuances so the rules of a game is used. Often done when situation involves combat.

However it broken down at the highest levels is it about the player describing what they want to do and the referee describing the outcome.

Many referee and groups are not interested in detailed games to figure out various outcomes. For them more abstract systems are sufficient with the referee filling out any details

To run a campaign where combat is like in the movies, then the referees needs describe the outcome of combat in a similar way. For most groups this will include breaking down what makes cinema combat work to a level of detail that they are interested in.

Given the stakes most groups want some of the nuances to be factored in. So they can do what they think best for specific situations.

To do this you start describing what make cinematic combat work the way it does and go from there.

For Gygax, Arneson it was enough to say that a ordinary warrior took only 1 hit to kill and that a hero took 4 hits to kill. Has a better chance to hit. Because they ran campaign where players didn't start out as hero, it was found to be more interesting to make 1 hit to kill = 1d6 hit points. It allowed low level fights to more than interesting and still preserved the overall balance of a hero versus ordinary warriors.

All the anecdotes and primary documentation we have describe Gygax, Arneson and later referee describing the result of combat much in the same way as you saw or read in Conan, Lord of the Rings, Sinbad, Jason and Argonauts, and Flynn's Robin Hood. Which all universally had the "hero" able to take on multiple less skilled opponents.

Ken St. Andre went a different route with Tunnels & Trolls as he thought D&D's take was unclear and stupid. Both sides rolls a number of dice, higher total wins, and the difference is applied as damage to the losing side.

Later Runequest combat developed by Steve Perrin to reflect his experience with the Society of Creative Anachronism. And Runequest became a popular alternative to D&D in part due to it's more flexible and realistic design.

Ignoring the various Fantasy RPGs that opted for the realism route. You have FASERIP for Conan (and Marvel Superheroes) along with Champions being adapted for fantasy as Fantasy Hero. There was the James Bond RPG and so on.

Now any of these "better" than D&D at cinematic combat? No. Nor were they worse. Most gave more details, allowed for more customization, or focused on different things. For example Tunnels & Trolls combat system was also meant to be used for mass combat by rolling larger numbers of d6s.

What separate cinematic combat from realistic combat is the ability for the hero to take on many lesser skilled foes. Far more than what it is realistic. When you break it down to individual swings, cinematic combat uses more showy styles and maneuvers that in real life would get the combatant killed. For example lifting a two handed weapon behind one's back and swinging it down with an impressive roar.

Something that can be explicitly detailed in the mechanics or left to the referee to describe as the outcome of a hit that does a lot of damage.


Again it starts with a description of what make cinematic combat work the way it does. And what level of detail is desired.

Quote from: estar;1081123From your point of view, not from mine.

If the gaming public would agree, we wouldn't have RPGs in the manner we do. We have all these elaborate rulesets exactly because a coin flip does not suffice.

Quote from: estar;1081123Referee are always filling the blanks. You ignore that the core of how tabletop roleplaying work. That the player describes what they do as their characters and the referee describes the result of their actions.

I don't think I am doing that. Again, the context has been a system emulating a genre (your words). If a system only gives you blanks (coin flip), I fail to see how we can consider that an emulation/simulation of genre without the terms losing all of their meaning. Emulation/simulation necessitates approximation of that which is being modeled at certain data points.

Quote from: estar;1081123However it broken down at the highest levels is it about the player describing what they want to do and the referee describing the outcome.

You're leaving out the task resolution mechanics which constrain the gamemaster in his narration. The point to a game's system is to provide constraints for both GM and the players - so that certain outcomes are not prone to negotiation by one side (if both sides agree to modify certain outcomes we call that houseruling). And that is exactly the point in simulationism: to have the unbiased dice tell us what happens, instead of the mood swings of the GM.

Quote from: estar;1081123Many referee and groups are not interested in detailed games to figure out various outcomes. For them more abstract systems are sufficient with the referee filling out any details  

Well, it's good to have alternatives on offer then, so that people who are not satisfied with D&D's and Dungeon World's level of detail, to name a gamist and a narrativist game, get to choose a different poison.

Quote from: estar;1081123Now any of these "better" than D&D at cinematic combat? No. Nor were they worse.

Hârnmaster is certainly better at realistic combat than D&D. And if a different system can simulate real life better than D&D, why should it impossible that yet another system can simulate cinematic combat better than D&D? It's not and it will be put on offer. And then gamers have more choice and they get to play whatever they're most comfortable with.

Quote from: estar;1081123Something that can be explicitly detailed in the mechanics or left to the referee to describe as the outcome of a hit that does a lot of damage.
Again it starts with a description of what make cinematic combat work the way it does. And what level of detail is desired.

I agree to that. Some of us gamers out here want more dice-generated info about what happens this combat round (and have these infos comply to the type of combat they're craving), instead of having highly abstract results and then the GM filling in these sweeping blanks with capricious empty rhetoric (see Matt Mercer's admittedly excellent, yet meaningless, narration).

These are the gamers I care about.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207see Matt Mercer's admittedly excellent, yet meaningless, narration

For most people, translating the rules-mechanics result "ogre loses 40 hp" into in-world terms, eg "you slice a deep wound across the ogre's chest", is far from meaningless. 4e players used to call it 'fluff', but that attitude is well out of fashion.

Anyway your posited system remains highly abstract - unlike a proper sim, it doesn't say WHY the characters don't get to attack - and still relies on GM translation to give any meaning to "You 3 can attack, you 3 can't".

Quote from: S'mon;1081213For most people, translating the rules-mechanics result "ogre loses 40 hp" into in-world terms, eg "you slice a deep wound across the ogre's chest", is far from meaningless. 4e players used to call it 'fluff', but that attitude is well out of fashion.

Well, it's where I have been at 15 or 20 years ago. Back then narrating all this elaborately and in a cinematic manner was quite exciting. But you grow out of it at some point when you stop and realize that it's the underlying rules that give a status change any weight. And even before that, before when cinematic games became all the rage sometime in the 90s or early 00s, I don't remember exactly when, it tended to live more in every participants' mind than explicitly in the GM's narration. Everybody would make up their own film upon realizing that the ogre just took 40 damage. So, captivating and vivid GM narration is good and fine (and I do give Mercer credit for it) but let's not overemphasize its importance either.

Quote from: S'mon;1081213Anyway your posited system remains highly abstract - unlike a proper sim, it doesn't say WHY the characters don't get to attack - and still relies on GM translation to give any meaning to "You 3 can attack, you 3 can't".

Well, it's not a scientific emulation. It's a genre sim RPG, so naturally you got to balance different aspects out. Genre sim just means that when in doubt you give preference to simulation concerns over game concerns. But only when in doubt. And it means that you strive for accuracy and detail - within your given complexity budget. Which usually also implies that you need to prioritize which things deserve more accuracy and which don't.

So, if you can show me a solution to the above problem that generates this information without adding any complexity, I'm all for adopting it. If you can't, I'm more inclined to spend the rest of my budget elsewhere as the main thing to me is preventing everyone attacking all the time.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207If the gaming public would agree, we wouldn't have RPGs in the manner we do. We have all these elaborate rulesets exactly because a coin flip does not suffice.

Where you and I disagree is the necessity of elaborate rulesets. My contention that how detailed a set of rules one uses is a preference not a requirement. One element of preference is how well does it work the with the way one thinks about the genre or setting.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207I don't think I am doing that. Again, the context has been a system emulating a genre (your words). If a system only gives you blanks (coin flip),

I fail to see how we can consider that an emulation/simulation of genre without the terms losing all of their meaning. Emulation/simulation necessitates approximation of that which is being modeled at certain data points.

Because you trapped in the misconception that the campaigns are defined by the rules it uses. Campaigns are defined by their setting as stated in plain English.

Campaigns are run by the players describing what they do as their character to a human referee. The human reference then considers the situation, and the character capabilities then describe the outcome. The loop is repeated for the various players and extends through the life of the campaign.

It only after all this occurs that do we get to a point where rule may be useful. If the referee judges that the outcome is uncertain or nuanced (like combat) then the rules of a game can be used as procedure to determine what happens.

To make more complex, based on their experience or knowledge, referees have different views over what is an uncertain outcome, what factor are important to include, and so on. Leading to several different methods of handling the same genre or setting.

A good example of this is Cubicle 7's The One Ring vs Adventures in Middle Earth. Both implement the same vision of Middle Earth Cubicle has using two completely different sets of mechanics. They did such a good job of it that the text of 90% of adventures and supplement are the same between both.

They were able to do this because they had a team knowledgeable enough about Middle Earth to boil down the essential elements to plain English and implement one way for TOR and another way for AiME.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207You're leaving out the task resolution mechanics which constrain the gamemaster in his narration.

Rulings come first and the only consideration at that point is how the setting works. Only when the outcome is uncertain do you decide on a procedure to resolve the uncertainty. Which likely will be a section from an RPG that was planned to be use at the beginning of the campaign.

But to clear is it the setting of the campaign that needs to used to determine the outcome. Not the rules. If the rules conflict with how the setting works then the referee needs to make a different ruling that is consistent how the setting works. If these conflict happen over and over again then a different system needs to be adopted that better reflects the setting of the campaign.

In regards the coin flip example that mechanics only is used when the referee decide it is useful to resolve the uncertain outcome. The referee is not forced to use it if they feel a more nuanced ruling is required. If they do, then it is on them for feeling that way. If it a result of a novice feeling that way after reading a RPG manual then it on the game author for incorrectly describing how tabletop RPG campaigns are to be run.
 

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207The point to a game's system is to provide constraints for both GM and the players

Wrong, the point to a game's system is two fold, one to describe how to resolve outcomes that uncertain in a way that is consistent with the setting or genre like combat or social interactions. Two describe elements of the setting in specific ways in the interest of understanding and playability, like character sheets and monster statistics.

That it, rules are not about how one runs a campaign using that setting or genre. Nor they are to provide constraints. The description of the reality of the setting is what defines the constraints.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207so that certain outcomes are not prone to negotiation by one side (if both sides agree to odify certain outcomes we call that houseruling). And that is exactly the point in simulationism: to have the unbiased dice tell us what happens, instead of the mood swings of the GM.

Well that is a bit of a disappointing statement. Why? Well it boils down to this.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207to have the unbiased dice tell us what happens, instead of the mood swings of the GM.

If you have a problem with a human referee who letting their mood swing effect their rulings then get a different referee. As Gronan has stated numerous times, rules don't fix stupid.

Incidentally CRPGS do what you describe in terms of being unbiased and consistent. I am assuming you are aware of the limitations that causes.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207(if both sides agree to odify certain outcomes we call that houseruling).

Houseruling is the norm not the exception. It is rare that a given RPG meets all the expectation that a group has about a setting or genre. That is there a substantial minority of the hobby dedicated to RAW is a side effect of various forms of organized play.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207Hârnmaster is certainly better at realistic combat than D&D.

That not accurate, Harnmaster is better at detailing realistic combat and explicitly includes many of the relevant factors as part of its mechanics. I have little issue with running realistic combat with using D&D as a foundation. Specially OD&D in the form of my Majestic Fantasy Rules.

To give that some context, when I run fantasy campaigns, I use my own Majestic Wilderlands setting. I been doing this on a on-going basis for 35+ years. Starting with AD&D, jumping to Fantasy Hero, then to GURPS for two decades, and now with my take on OD&D. Along with shorter side treks with Harnmaster, D&D 3.0, 4.0, and 5.0.

If you want to read what my campaign is like I suggest this series of blog posts by one of my players from a campaign I ran using D&D 5th edition.
https://gamingballistic.com/category/actual-play/majestic-wilderlands/

 I would also suggest obtaining a copy of the The One Ring and Adventure in Middle Earth to better understand the relationship of rules to setting/genre.

Along with a copy of Melee/Wizard and Into the Labyrinth to gain a better understanding of how wargames relate to RPGs.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207And if a different system can simulate real life better than D&D, why should it impossible that yet another system can simulate cinematic combat better than D&D?

That is not the claim I made.

My thesis is that D&D is no better or worse at portraying cinematic combat. That which system works "best" is the one that work with the way one thinks about cinematic combat. So I understand if D&D doesn't work for you in running a campaign involving cinematic combat.

Furthermore I stated to figure out anything about cinematic combat that one has to state in plain English its elements. Then you can see what it takes to implement with a given system. Or what to include if you are writing a new system.

My opinion which I stated that is likely to include the ability of a hero to successfully fight more weaker opponents than they could in realistic combat. That combat maneuvers that are showy and exaggerated would work well whereas in realistic combat they would get the combatant using them killed.  

Along with correcting many of the misconceptions you have about the history of the various mechanics that make up D&D and other aspects of tabletop roleplaying.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081207I agree to that. Some of us gamers out here want more dice-generated info about what happens this combat round (and have these infos comply to the type of combat they're craving), instead of having highly abstract results and then the GM filling in these sweeping blanks with capricious empty rhetoric (see Matt Mercer's admittedly excellent, yet meaningless, narration).

I am well aware what you are talking about and have extensive experience with hobbyist with your interests. If you were just describing how you run a campaign then I can see it working and have seen it work with other hobbyists who have a similar style.

However this debate throughout multiple threads is about your design for cinematic combat. And the many misconceptions you have about how tabletop roleplaying campaign works is negatively impacting your process.

It neither good or bad that your desired end result is a detailed set of rules. What is problematic if you ignoring or reject other design concept based on bad information. I been doing this long enough to have seen that leads to a set of rules that are more complex than needed. The author used more words or rules than what they needed to get the point across or include the details they thought important.

Which is you should in plain English start by listing the elements and factors that go into cinematic combat, and then design your set of rules around that list.

Quote from: estar;1081255Where you and I disagree is the necessity of elaborate rulesets. My contention that how detailed a set of rules one uses is a preference not a requirement. One element of preference is how well does it work the with the way one thinks about the genre or setting.

If you're emulating a thing via system (that was the context!) and that thing is not simplistic by nature, then a simplistic abstraction of that thing cannot constitute a high quality emulation. By definition. You may argue whether a high quality emulation of that thing is desirable to begin with or not. Sure. If not, start flipping those coins. But if(!) it is, you cannot in all earnest argue that a simple (if not primitive) emulation of a complex entity is a good approximation. See a simple coin toss as emulation of medieval combat with all its intricacies.

And since we're talking about system design (aka rules), it doesn't matter if you can make it work via creative interpretations or skillful rulings. Only the system/the rules matter in the context of system analysis.
Why are we doing this? For the classification of games; it's an academic purpose.

Quote from: estar;1081255But to clear is it the setting of the campaign that needs to used to determine the outcome. Not the rules.

You're still discussing actual play/campaigns as opposed to system design. That is beside the point. In evaluating a system for genre-compliance, we're not evaluating if a system can be interpreted creatively and somehow made to work similar to the given genre. Instead, we're taking the system at face value. At face value, the way hitpoints in D&D 5E work does not conform closely to how wounding in LotR, GoT or Conan works. Shadowrun's damage track is by comparison more accurate.
 

Quote from: estar;1081255Wrong, the point to a game's system is two fold, one to describe how to resolve outcomes that uncertain in a way that is consistent with the setting or genre like combat or social interactions. Two describe elements of the setting in specific ways in the interest of understanding and playability, like character sheets and monster statistics.

Well, granted, I have to backtrack my above words here; they were not precise. I should have said: "One point to rules is constraining both the GM as well as the players." It's not the only one for what you're saying about resolving uncertain outcomes is, of course, correct. But it's just one of the aspects of rules. Role-playing games are more than just that simulation of game worlds. They're games also. And games require rules.

Quote from: estar;1081255If you have a problem with a human referee who letting their mood swing effect their rulings then get a different referee. As Gronan has stated numerous times, rules don't fix stupid.

It's not about fixing stupid. It's about reassurance and predictability. Reliability.
If falling damage is 1d6 per 3 m and there is no house rule in place, then falling damage is going to be 1d6 per 3 m if there are no special circumstances (soft ground or whatever) to modify that. (Or unless the GM can make the case for a spontaneous house rule, of course.) And that is of value, independent of whatever GM you have.

You're neglecting the game aspect here. The GM is not only responsible for creating a consistent world. He's also refereeing a game while being bound to the rules of the game (with the usual caveats).

Quote from: estar;1081255My thesis is that D&D is no better or worse at portraying cinematic combat. That which system works "best" is the one that work with the way one thinks about cinematic combat. So I understand if D&D doesn't work for you in running a campaign involving cinematic combat.

You're continually making the same error. This isn't about if a system can be made to work to a given end. This is about taking a system as written (maybe as intended) and comparing that with the thing it's supposed to emulate. If you have a straight D&D-style hitpoints system where you don't get wounded and then continue to function at impaired levels and there is on the other hand an observable "death spiral" in many cinematic combats, there is a mismatch. It doesn't matter if you can gloss over that in actual play or if you're going to houserule it. From a viewpoint of pure system analysis, it's inaccurate.

What this inaccuracy means for actual play, if it is relevant to the fun you can have with the game, how easy it is to modify or of any of that is not important in this context. It's just for the classification of games.