From early OD&D, (with its 1d6 hp PCs, 1d6 weapon damage, and modest spell damage rolls) to D&D 3rd Edition forward; there has been a wide span of relative power scaling employed to express the genre.

I'm sure the same thing has been witnessed in other genres too?

For some reason, I'm more comfortable with the early OD&D to AD&D power scale.  Seeing the huge inflation of the numbers as the editions progressed, was not an improvement in the enjoyment of the game; imho.

Do you have any strong preference, one way or the other?

While not 100% what you're asking for, I have a strong preference for PCs and NPCs to use the same mechanics. In simple terms, I really prefer for the only difference between a PC and an NPC to be who is controlling it, player or GM. The closer they are in that way, the easier it can be to meaningfully compare power levels. OTOH, those games where PCs are designed for marathons while NPCs are designed for sprints means that the power level comparisons always have to have tons of conditionals applied that might not be present in every game (e.g., D&D 5e's expectations on encounters per rest and rests per day skewing the hell out of challenge ratings).

D6 Star Wars is a system where PCs and NPCs are essentially interchangeable, while FFG Star Wars is far less so, and games where monsters don't even have the same stats as PCs (like many of the old D&D systems) are even worse in my eyes.

I like pre-3e and I like D6 System better than 3e+ D&D, but I dislike 3e's scaling most of all. 5e is acceptable.

I would prefer something similar to the math of 5E but on the BEMCI scale. Specifically, I think the bounded accuracy and scaling hit points is the right idea, but that the hit points and damage outputs increase too fast on the scale.  Mainly my objections are about handling time and the aesthetics of the experience, but the 5E scale also complicates things like falling damage when the scale runs off the charts.

I also like the scale a little more compressed in relative character hit points.  I'd prefer almost every character have either d6 or d8 hit points as a base, for example, with the tougher classes having some combination of a flat increase or other ways to mitigate damage.  Plus, I think starting at 1 die doesn't work as well as starting at 1 die plus some base amount--even something as simple as 5 + Con mod + Hit die.  Otherwise, the math at the start gets skewed, with all the things the designer does to mitigate that being worse than just bumping the starting hit points a little.

I don't care how NPCs are done (like PCs or not) as long as NPCs are easy to run.  The more complicated the system, the more likely there needs to be a simplified version for NPCs.   Contrawise, if the NPCs are supposed to work the same, then the main system better be relatively simple to account for that.

I tend to prefer 3e+ D&D mechanically in most respects, except for power scaling (and also excess bloat of abilities, which is a separate issue). I love the simplicity of 1d6 HP/damage as a base. I would prefer to just use a standard Hit/Damage die (likely d6) and stick with it as a universal (EVERYONE, PC or monster, has d6 HD, ALL weapons do 1d6 damage as a base), then just modify that base as necessary (warrior types get bonus HP per HD, large creatures get bonus HD based on size, weapons increase in damage at a +1/+2/+1d6* rate).

*like "Pips" in the D6 System.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1140961While not 100% what you're asking for, I have a strong preference for PCs and NPCs to use the same mechanics. In simple terms, I really prefer for the only difference between a PC and an NPC to be who is controlling it, player or GM. The closer they are in that way, the easier it can be to meaningfully compare power levels. OTOH, those games where PCs are designed for marathons while NPCs are designed for sprints means that the power level comparisons always have to have tons of conditionals applied that might not be present in every game (e.g., D&D 5e's expectations on encounters per rest and rests per day skewing the hell out of challenge ratings).

D6 Star Wars is a system where PCs and NPCs are essentially interchangeable, while FFG Star Wars is far less so, and games where monsters don't even have the same stats as PCs (like many of the old D&D systems) are even worse in my eyes.

I pretty much agree with all of this. I don't like broad inconsistencies in the way that PC and NPC abilities are handled. It just complicates things and makes them difficult, preventing the use of universal standards to quickly determine NPC abilities and match them up with PCs. And CRs are an utter mess.

I also think that class ability bloat complicates things further by making it more difficult to simply strap an NPC with a class and level with a standard set of easy to remember abilities, as I used to do back in 2e. Now I have to calculate NPC/creature HP and a bunch of other features (Proficiency mod, AC, attack damage, etc.) separate from levels in order to determine some nebulous "Challenge Rating", that's less than useless as a game tool, to know how many XP they're worth. In 2e I could just use number of HD or Levels as a base (which would also give me Saving Throws and combat abilities), then modify that value based on any special attacks the creature had and that would give me the creature's XP without having to calculate a bunch of things separately to determine some "CR" that still doesn't tell me what "level" (the thing that actually lets me gauge a creature's overall power compared to PCs) that creature is.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1140965I also like the scale a little more compressed in relative character hit points.  I'd prefer almost every character have either d6 or d8 hit points as a base, for example, with the tougher classes having some combination of a flat increase or other ways to mitigate damage.  Plus, I think starting at 1 die doesn't work as well as starting at 1 die plus some base amount--even something as simple as 5 + Con mod + Hit die.  Otherwise, the math at the start gets skewed, with all the things the designer does to mitigate that being worse than just bumping the starting hit points a little.

I've always solved this by treating level 3 as the default, which ensures that everyone has a nice buffer zone at the start, then grow from there, without having to rewrite the core rules completely. But it's always bothered me how absurdly minimal starting HP are in D&D, at one end of the spectrum, and how absurdly bloated they eventually get at higher levels, at the other end of the spectrum.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1140965I don't care how NPCs are done (like PCs or not) as long as NPCs are easy to run.  The more complicated the system, the more likely there needs to be a simplified version for NPCs.   Contrawise, if the NPCs are supposed to work the same, then the main system better be relatively simple to account for that.

Yeah, this is one of the reasons I utterly despise class ability bloat. I like to use classes and levels for NPCs in level-based systems, but having a bunch of fiddly bits baked into classes complicates that immensely. Specially when a lot of these tend to be just a bunch of conditional benefits that seem to exist mostly to pad character levels and give PCs "something" for the sake of getting something every level. I'd rather have a simplified core with consistent, easy to remember benefits, then treat special options like "feats" that you can safely ignore or use sparingly when improvising NPCs.

I had a longer post with numbers, but I think short and pithy is more useful for this topic.

PCs in my rules system fall into a middle range where they are significantly more powerful than the average human (they're basically in the top 1%), but there are still plenty of NPCs (a town of 1000 probably has about 10 who are in the ballpark of a PC) and many monsters who are as or significantly stronger than even the PCs (requiring PCs to act in groups in order to defeat them).

Numbers-wise; PC hit points start and end in the double digits (about 25 to start, 95 at max level) while NPCs and monsters start at 4 and while they can go as high as 528 (for a literal demon god), but most fall into the same range as PCs.

Oh, and since it came up in discussion; NPC/monster-building has several options in my system to fit the preferences of the GM. While each method has a category of NPCs/Monsters it's recommended for, you can use any method (except "check table") for just about any NPC or monster if you wish.

- "Full-PC" - build and run them just like a PC; an advantage of a system where just about every free-willed sapient creature is available as a PC. Recommended for omnipresent NPCs (ex. the knight NPC traveling with you on a quest).

 - "PC-Lite" - make build choices like a PC, but streamline the end result for ease of use. Recommended for major NPCs (ex. Big Bads and their Dragons).

- "Standard Build" - default for monsters that are only going to last a single fight, but can also be used for NPCs; numbers are in the same range as PCs, but the GM just picks within a range instead of calculating from race/class choices.

- "Check Table" - when you only need to know how good the fishmonger is at haggling, just pull a check modifier from the table (kinda like the d6 system's "best in a town, state, nation, etc" table) and go.

I recognize that there must be a separation between various threats.  Goblins, vs a T Rex, vs a Tarrasque, vs Cthulhu.  They can't be crammed too closely together, so they get spread out; but should that be 3hp to 200hp, or 3hp to 770hp?

I've always preferred the clean scaling of OD&D. There are so many aspects feeding into d6 for damage and HD, it would easy to make one small change and have it balloon on you. This is probably what happened in later editions.

Admittedly, the OD&D 1-minute round is a little wonky for some, and it probably comes from a lift/shift from the war game 1-minute combat round, but it lends itself well to the scale. Regardless of weapon, after one minute's worth of hits, misses and parries, it is possible there is enough damage (1d6) to kill a normal man (1d6 HP). This works for me.

My big dislike for Starfinder/Pathfinder 2e at the moment is the power scaling. At level 8 my caster has a +18 to mysticism skill checks. When you get to skill roll situations where one person is rolling +20 while another is at +1, IMO you have a problem.

I much prefer 5e's bounded accuracy. As for the HP bloat over earlier D&D, I do prefer OD&D's HP scaling but I don't mind the HP bloat too much. I feel like it doesn't really add anything to the game other than dragging out combat though. But that not a major sin.

Quote from: Razor 007;1141056I recognize that there must be a separation between various threats.  Goblins, vs a T Rex, vs a Tarrasque, vs Cthulhu.  They can't be crammed too closely together, so they get spread out; but should that be 3hp to 200hp, or 3hp to 770hp?

This is something that can vary too much depending on what the numbers are in the rest of the system, including level ranges, HD types (are they even used vs flat HP/level?), etc. But generally speaking I prefer to handle creature size as a separate component from level-based HD or equivalent elements, based on the creature's Size Category. Using 5e categories (which vary from earlier editions) I would give something like +4 STR, +2 CON, -2 DEX, +4 HD, and -1 AC per category above Medium (Large, Huge or Gargantuan). This would vary in systems using different (or more granular) size categories.

The benefit of handing size separately is that it provides consistent, easy to remember modifiers to reflect the overall effects of a creature's size, that can be applied on top of regular game elements applicable to every character or creature in the game. So that if I want a giant cleric, for example, I can just make a regular cleric of any level, just like I would when making any other character, then add extra HD based on their size category (Huge in 5e; or +8 HD using the numbers I gave above) to reflect additional HP due to body size alone (non-level related).

Quote from: Razor 007;1141056I recognize that there must be a separation between various threats.  Goblins, vs a T Rex, vs a Tarrasque, vs Cthulhu.  They can't be crammed too closely together, so they get spread out; but should that be 3hp to 200hp, or 3hp to 770hp?

Just for reference in my system;

- The weakest goblin is the Feral Goblin Slave: 4 Edge; 2 attacks for 2 damage.

- The closest equivalent to the T-Rex is the Elder Drake: 110 Edge; 1 Bite & 1 Tail Swipe for 22 damage each.

- An elder volcanic dragon is 400 Edge and it can claw at three targets for 40 damage each and breathe in the same turn for 20 damage + 20 every round until extinguished to everything in a 30' spray.

- The closest equivalent to the Tarrasque AND Cthulhu is the Dreadnought Golem (an aquatic pre-Cataclysm first-Godzilla film scaled rogue magitech WMD) and it's more often a timed mini-dungeon to fight through its insides to reach its core before it destroys an entire city vs. an actual monster you fight.

0e-1e-2e & 5e D&D both have reasonable scaling IME; the former has rather weak level 0 humans & rather weak god-monsters, working best at the mid range. 5e works well at bottom & top but has rather bloated hit point totals in the mid range. 3e D&D goes from too weak to grotesquely inflated; 4e D&D has silly inflated attack/defence numbers at higher level to cope with the system's level metrics, while many monsters have bloated hp even at low level - 100 hit point 'elite' goblin bosses and such.

I'm loving D6 system's power scaling; running Mini Six the only issue I'm seeing is that some big monsters die too fast. Dying too fast always beats dying too slow IMO though; that's why I ultimately prefer 1e & Mini Six's approaches.

Quote from: S'mon;1141148I'm loving D6 system's power scaling; running Mini Six the only issue I'm seeing is that some big monsters die too fast. Dying too fast always beats dying too slow IMO though; that's why I ultimately prefer 1e & Mini Six's approaches.

In D6, I've always felt it works best with scaling rules (Star Wars 2e). Have you used such a thing with Mini Six?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1141168In D6, I've always felt it works best with scaling rules (Star Wars 2e). Have you used such a thing with Mini Six?

Yes, Mini Six uses the add-dice-for-scaling rule. The problem is the Wound track has static values (around 4 pts) separating Stun-Wound-Incapacitate-Mortal Wound-Dead, scaled for man-size creatures. I'm looking at adding Scale value (in points) to each, so eg a +2D large creature would have 6 points between each station on the wound track instead of 4. +4D would have 8 points, and so on.

OTOH IRL you can kill an elephant with one bullet, and if I wanted 'grind' I'd be using hit points.