Quote from: chirine ba kal;1027004On the other hand, if simple honesty is in question, then I'm out. If it's a common issue in today's games, then you can count me out of them, too.

No that's not at all what I'm saying. See my comment to Gronan. And really you two aren't all that much older than me. Heck to me the old WoD still seems like a new fangled way of making game rules really difficult to read by printing weird blotchy shadowy shit all over the page.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1027003There is a difference between "trust to be infallible" and "trust to be honest."

I think the distinction I was trying to make is that I expect the GM to "try to be honest." Trying and succeeding being two different things. I see dice and/or rules as one method to help the GM succeed in being honest.

QuoteI'd bet a nickel none of us will remember.  In which case, I'd say no harm, no foul.

I notice you only bet $0.05. I'm old and forgetful now, but there was a time when I probably would have remembered.

Look, one of the most basic things about human beings, gamers or otherwise is, "If it's not detailed in some fashion, then it's assumed that it's impossible."  It takes exceptional thinkers or spelled out details for people to think outside of the box.  ANd for the record, I ain't one of the exceptionals.

I fell into the trap back in my AD&D and other gaming days:  If it's not in the rules, it's not possible.  It was a major roadblock for Champions or HERO System.  It took well into the 1990's for me to grasp that if it's not there, you can just add it.  A little game named Feng Shui taught it to me.  Some people never will, even if you tell them so.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1027135Look, one of the most basic things about human beings, gamers or otherwise is, "If it's not detailed in some fashion, then it's assumed that it's impossible."  

That's how computer games, chess, and pretty much every board game ever work. Traditionally tabletop RPGs tended to be considerably less rigid and far more open-ended. Which accounted for much of their appeal, actually.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1027135Look, one of the most basic things about human beings, gamers or otherwise is, "If it's not detailed in some fashion, then it's assumed that it's impossible."  It takes exceptional thinkers or spelled out details for people to think outside of the box.  ANd for the record, I ain't one of the exceptionals.

I fell into the trap back in my AD&D and other gaming days:  If it's not in the rules, it's not possible.  It was a major roadblock for Champions or HERO System.  It took well into the 1990's for me to grasp that if it's not there, you can just add it.  A little game named Feng Shui taught it to me.  Some people never will, even if you tell them so.

Miniatures wargames often tend towards minimalism.  Movement rates, missile fire, melee, morale.  But NOTHING on tactics baked into the rules.  At least way back when it was expected that you'd read up on the period and learn about things like the Genoese crossbowmen being driven into the French knights at Agincourt, or about the desirable effect of flanking a unit already in battle.  And when you tried them in a game, one little paragraph... sometimes only a sentence... in the rules suddenly became key.  But "how to fight an army" was not included in the rules.

D&D scales better than most systems. That's one of the reasons for its appeal.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1027157At least way back when it was expected that you'd read up on the period and learn about things like the Genoese crossbowmen being driven into the French knights at Agincourt, or about the desirable effect of flanking a unit already in battle.  And when you tried them in a game, one little paragraph... sometimes only a sentence... in the rules suddenly became key.  But "how to fight an army" was not included in the rules.

But, in general, there were actual rules that made (for instance) flanking actually be advantageous, right?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1027506But, in general, there were actual rules that made (for instance) flanking actually be advantageous, right?

Flanking was advantageous because in formation fighting the key to firepower was how many men you can bring to bear on the opposing formation. If If I am using a formation that is arrayed in a ratio of 12 across to 3 deep.  From the front I can bring 12 men to bear. Depending on the time period and the weaponry, the deeper rank add in as well.

If attacked on the flank the target can only bring 1/4 of the firepower they can from the front. While the attacker still can use their full capability.

There doesn't need to be any special rule for flanking. Just a general rule that governs how many can attack while in formation. The natural consequences of geometry will provide the inherent advantage that flanking gives.

In my experience with older miniature rules, where flanking is explicitly given some type of modifier it is found in the morale rules along with being attacked from the rears. Historical references are filled with accounts on how devastating it is to a unit's morale and cohesion being attacked from the side and flanked.

Having experienced it the mass field battles in the SCA it quite accurate. While in formation you can only see so far and when something hits from the side or rear it looks like a tidal wave about to hit and you feel exposed as all hell. Very easy to make a decision to flee.

Quote from: estar;1027508There doesn't need to be any special rule for flanking. Just a general rule that governs how many can attack while in formation. The natural consequences of geometry will provide the inherent advantage that flanking gives.

In my experience with older miniature rules, where flanking is explicitly given some type of modifier it is found in the morale rules along with being attacked from the rears. Historical references are filled with accounts on how devastating it is to a unit's morale and cohesion being attacked from the side and flanked.

Well, those rules that governs how many can attack while in formation fit my definition of "actual rules that made flanking actually be advantageous" (apparently I wanted to emphasize the actual-ness), even if they aren't exclusive to the flanking situation.

I have barely done any wargaming, but I have vague recollection of playing a game sometime as a young teen, where I played "strategically" -- trying to get elevation, flanking, even getting surprise -- and then us looking up in the book what advantages that gave me, and being sorely disappointed that I'd spent a lot of time, possibly subjected myself to a bunch of dice rolls and maybe some missile fire and the like, and only like one of those conditions actually giving a mechanical benefit. I was wondering if that was a common occurrence (and remember, the cobwebs of time and whether we were playing right in the first place could be a factor).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1027519Well, those rules that governs how many can attack while in formation fit my definition of "actual rules that made flanking actually be advantageous" (apparently I wanted to emphasize the actual-ness), even if they aren't exclusive to the flanking situation.

However the rules that governs how many can attack while in formation don't explicitly say flanking in advantageous. It is a consequence of how those rules work in a battle.

The problem that many complain about is that the basic rule of tabletop roleplaying campaigns is that we are playing characters that interact with settings. The unstated implication is that we can do anything as those characters that within their capabilities within the setting. For example if the setting in part is based on a fantasy version of western medieval Europe then I can attempt to find or remove a trap. That the odds of doing that would be based on my character's dexterity, intelligence and perhaps training as represented by my level in a particular class.

Yet many, in treating RPGs as a game instead of a tool for adjudication, would view the fact that since finding/removing traps isn't mentioned as an explicit ability therefore the character is prohibited from attempting to do it.


Moreso even if it a low probability of success for example trying to make a viable potion just using my intelligence without anything else justifying

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1027519I have barely done any wargaming, but I have vague recollection of playing a game sometime as a young teen, where I played "strategically" -- trying to get elevation, flanking, even getting surprise -- and then us looking up in the book what advantages that gave me, and being sorely disappointed that I'd spent a lot of time, possibly subjected myself to a bunch of dice rolls and maybe some missile fire and the like, and only like one of those conditions actually giving a mechanical benefit. I was wondering if that was a common occurrence (and remember, the cobwebs of time and whether we were playing right in the first place could be a factor).

Having done a lot of live action roleplaying and reenactments, a lot of the benefits from the situations you mention are more about the geometry of the encounter than a better to hit chance. For example elevation eliminates a lot of line of sight issues. Plus it is likely what I am using to elevate myself provides a barrier or at least will slow down any enemy trying to get to me. Surprise means that the enemy is not reacting as fast as you are. You get inside of his decision-action loop and do more than your opponent can with better information.

Still there are situation that should give mechanical bonuses. For example in GURPS with defense rolls, multiple attacker quickly causes the defender to run out of things he can do to defend himself. There isn't time to parry multiple opponents with any decent chance of success. And that represented by the rules on rolls beyond the first one for a particular defense. In D&D where defense is wrapped up in Armor Class and hit points, multiple attacks has to be handled differently. And many editions are silent on the topic forcing the referee to come up with own ruling for when it makes sense.

But even if the referee declines to do so. The mere fact that the party created a situation where multiple attackers are beating down a single opponent is an advantageous one. And for many groups a sufficent advantage that they are happy with. For myself I adopted 5th edition Advantage and Disadvantage mechanics and I grant advantage to attack made when a character attacking an opponent and has an ally on the other side.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1027519Well, those rules that governs how many can attack while in formation fit my definition of "actual rules that made flanking actually be advantageous" (apparently I wanted to emphasize the actual-ness), even if they aren't exclusive to the flanking situation.

I have barely done any wargaming, but I have vague recollection of playing a game sometime as a young teen, where I played "strategically" -- trying to get elevation, flanking, even getting surprise -- and then us looking up in the book what advantages that gave me, and being sorely disappointed that I'd spent a lot of time, possibly subjected myself to a bunch of dice rolls and maybe some missile fire and the like, and only like one of those conditions actually giving a mechanical benefit. I was wondering if that was a common occurrence (and remember, the cobwebs of time and whether we were playing right in the first place could be a factor).

I would call those "shitty rules".  Once one had a bit of experience, the criteria for evaluating historical miniatures rules was "do they give close to historical results."

Maybe I'd say "you had to look in the rules to see that flanking worked, rather than learning that flanking worked by reading the rules."

It was so long ago that I don't even know what system it was. Perhaps we entirely missed those "one little paragraph... sometimes only a sentence"s you alluded to. I was just wondering if that was a common occurrence.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1027557It was so long ago that I don't even know what system it was. Perhaps we entirely missed those "one little paragraph... sometimes only a sentence"s you alluded to. I was just wondering if that was a common occurrence.

Seems to me that there are wargames with issues, but in general, serious wargames tend to be good at providing effects of terrain and position and other circumstances, and they tend to focus on trying to make those make good sense, as modelling that sort of thing tends to be one of the main focuses of a wargame.

Yes.

This is not to say that there aren't plenty of shitty wargames out there.

True.