Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 11:07:27 AM
I've toyed with the idea of separating perception in nature, in social settings, in the underground, etc., as being different skills.

That made me think. Perception in Nature could easily come under survival, bushcraft, and tracking. It's just part of that other skillset. Then you still have to account for those that can't be surprised in certain situations which really is perception. And we have those that find traps and notice slopes and such. That's perception.

Perception really is just smeared all over the place.

Quote from: Ruprecht on November 11, 2022, 11:30:52 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 11:07:27 AM
I've toyed with the idea of separating perception in nature, in social settings, in the underground, etc., as being different skills.

That made me think. Perception in Nature could easily come under survival, bushcraft, and tracking. It's just part of that other skillset. Then you still have to account for those that can't be surprised in certain situations which really is perception. And we have those that find traps and notice slopes and such. That's perception.

Perception really is just smeared all over the place.

Yes, it is.  Which is why just making up a few perception "skills" and calling it done seldom works very well. 

Quote from: Effete on November 10, 2022, 07:28:44 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on November 10, 2022, 06:35:31 PM
Like I mentioned in my last post, nearsightedness and absent mindedness are not inherent traits of Intelligence. That sort of stuff is just better handled as type of "Flaw/Disadvantage". Spies and people who have to do a lot of INTELLIGENCE work (see what I did there?) or investigation also have to be pretty smart to do those jobs. Not every smart person is the stereotype or TV trope of the absent minded professor with glasses. In fact I doubt most of them are.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but the point I think Ruprecht was making is that nearsightedness and absentmindedness stem from a low Wisdom, and therefore to have a brilliant-but-forgetful wizard, you'd need the option for high INT and low WIS. What I agreed with is having the mechanical infrastructure to support such a build. DnD doesn't have "flaws" or "anti-feats" so that isn't really a viable option here, even though I agree that flaws would be the perfect way to represent such things as bad eyes or a wandering mind.

As much as I'd love to get lost in weeds over this discussion, the topic IS about OSR/DND. 

The ability to remember stuff is also technically based on Int as well, though. I don't think you really need Int and Wis separate just to RP a wizard as absentminded.

Quote

QuoteThe main difference between book smart genius and a cunning covert agent is their skills (and maybe that the agent also needs to invest in Dex or equivalent attributes), not that one needs Int and the other one doesn't.

Right. I'm not entirely convinced by the "book smarts v. street smarts" distinction for Int v Wis. That's simply just a difference of learning-by-reading versus learning-through-experience. Either way, knowledge is gained. You can learn about gang culture by living the life, or by studying dosiers and conducting interviews with felons. I'm not convinced that the method by which knowledge is obtained needs to be differentiated in the game; a single stat representing mental acuity can cover that, with the player filling in the details of what it means for their character.

I actually really like your idea of just four stats: physical strength, physical speed, mental strength, mental speed. I think that encapsulates everything perfectly. It might not even be that difficult to plug them into old school DnD. Hit points would just be determined by class (no need for an adjustment modifier), and WIS gets split between M.Strength and M.Speed (or whatever names they're given).

Yeah, I don't think reducing it to four stats would break old D&D too much. Melee/ranged stat associations would be basically the same. Wizard magic would stay the same. And Priestly magic would be changed to whatever Cha/Willpower is called, which still works thematically, since priests are supposed to lead their flock, and some definitions of "Charisma" are divinely/magic related.

Quote from: Ruprecht on November 11, 2022, 11:30:52 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 11:07:27 AM
I've toyed with the idea of separating perception in nature, in social settings, in the underground, etc., as being different skills.

That made me think. Perception in Nature could easily come under survival, bushcraft, and tracking. It's just part of that other skillset. Then you still have to account for those that can't be surprised in certain situations which really is perception. And we have those that find traps and notice slopes and such. That's perception.

Perception really is just smeared all over the place.

Some of those are more "lore" related than about detecting things, since being able to see a plant, for example, doesn't tell you that it's poisonous (Survival). Tracking is also based on knowledge, since finding a trail doesn't really tell you anything about who passed by there or which direction they took. Trap finding gets into the area of "too specific", though, unless it includes knowledge of disarming traps. But anyone could just notice a tripwire or whatever.

Granted, a lot of this depends on what we even mean with the word "Perception" and what's its scope in any given system. In d6 Star Wars it not only covers noticing sensory stuff, but also intuition, noticing lies/deception, sneaking around and even social skills of all kinds. In a system I've been working on "Perception" basically means "mental" agility, and covers problem-solving, reason and planning/strategy, in addition to noticing stuff of any kind (sense-related, or intuition), and is one of a dozen "disciplines"(general skills/talents) in the game.

It's only in those terms that I would consider Perception too broad for a single skill, and only if by "skill" we mean very specialized stuff. Otherwise treating Perception as a separate attribute you need to invest on would be punitive AF.

It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2022/05/skills-breakdown-of-5e-monsters-blog-of.html

My own clone, however, ALSO has a perception skills... but there are only ten skills in total, INCLUDING combat, spellcasting, and turn undead, thus making perception not as powerful in comparison.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 01:55:52 PM
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):

Don't entirely disagree, but the bolded part is not true. I just did a quick glance through the 5e Monster Manual and a lot of monsters don't even list skills, including some that I would think would have both, such as Displacer Beasts. When it does list skills, Perception does seem to be the most common, but it's not that ubiquitous, and it often lists other stuff instead, and Stealth only seems to show up when it's appropriate (but sometimes it's also absent, like in the Displacer Beast example).

Often (but not always), a monster will have Stealth, but not Perception (Shadows). Granted, they all list Passive Perception, but that's a different thing that everyone needs.

Another thing to consider is that if something is so common in play, such as the need to be alert of traps or sneaking enemies, you're gonna see examples of creatures or even PCs and NPCs taking skills to deal with that aspect of play just because they need it to survive. But that's not exactly an example of that skill being too powerful, but rather its associated tasks so prevalent it becomes necessary.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 09, 2022, 02:12:24 PM
I don't know the D20 Conan system very well, so this is more a general comment. I don't think HP increases are the issue in a vacuum, so much as HP being out of balance with the rest of the game. When setting out to modify D&D, a depressingly large number of designers seem to forget that attack bonus, defenses, HP and damage are all interrelated systems. Any tweaks made to one will always have knock-on effects on all the others. I've argued elsewhere and I stand by the contention that HP has to spiral upward in D&D because innate defenses don't increase by enough. ...

This is the first reason I have a problem with HP bloat - D&D has never fully dealt with the scaling issues that continual HP bloat induces into a system.

Primarily because it requires extensive playtesting when you have a near final draft of the game... Which no one does.

Quote from: ForgottenF on November 09, 2022, 02:12:24 PM
There's an additional problem in D&D though, which is the severe mismatch between magic and weapons when it comes to damage scaling. By 5th or 6th level the game has to account for the wizard's 6d6 damage (to multiple enemies) lightning bolt, and the thief's single weapon attack at 1d6+2. The HP bloat wouldn't matter if weapon damage scaled up with character level (or if enchantments added more additional dice rather than linear bonuses), or you could get rid of the exploding HP numbers if you heavily nerfed the spell damage. ...

I also feel HP bloat is bad game design is because it induces you to always be playing in a highly specific D&D zero to superhero mode, which always has the aforementioned scaling issues.

My second issue with the way most class/level systems scale things. The "power increase" is illusionary, because the games assume that you will always play against equivalent opposition. Hence the overly bloated monster manuals to keep up...

HP bloat games do certain genre's of fantasy very badly because PC's move out of the 'gritty' tier where other humans are a threat fairly quickly for long campaigns.

Not that the d20 system class/level systems couldn't be modded to do other genre's, but it requires ditching HP bloat - which no one does.

Quote from: jhkim on October 12, 2022, 07:17:11 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on October 12, 2022, 06:43:15 PM
So what is your thing?

My biggest issue is the "zero to hero" aspect of leveling. Over just a year or two in-game, D&D characters go from being schlubs barely better than average minions to being world-changing powerhouses. That should really come across as incredibly weird to anyone in the game-world, like "Why the hell are we getting so powerful so quickly?" It really messes with my suspension of disbelief.

Characters gain experience in other games, but the difference is usually far less. An experienced Call of Cthulhu investigator can be much more competent, but they're still just regular humans and easily killed. Superhero PCs can gain a lot of power, but they already started out as superheroes.

I had this discussion last week with my group. And we *never* had this problem in 1e or 2e because of the XP totals were so steep, leveling took a long time. It's something I experienced in Savage Worlds too where pacing is expected to be fast, and in-game time obviously is relative to actions taken over the course of a game, but even with downtime it seems a little "too fast". But I'm planning on my next game letting players get Advances but they can only Rank Up when I tell them they can (rather than after 4 Advances).

I wonder if bringing back the long XP totals in OSR/D&D would alleviate your (my own) perceptions?

Quote from: tenbones on November 11, 2022, 03:57:58 PM
I had this discussion last week with my group. And we *never* had this problem in 1e or 2e because of the XP totals were so steep, leveling took a long time. It's something I experienced in Savage Worlds too where pacing is expected to be fast, and in-game time obviously is relative to actions taken over the course of a game, but even with downtime it seems a little "too fast". But I'm planning on my next game letting players get Advances but they can only Rank Up when I tell them they can (rather than after 4 Advances).

I wonder if bringing back the long XP totals in OSR/D&D would alleviate your (my own) perceptions?

Far as I am concerned, there's only two solutions to that:  Either long time spent between coarse levels or more rapid advancement on finer levels.  It's a rubber band--the more you cram into a "level", the more time needs to be spent in it.

Quote from: VisionStorm on November 11, 2022, 02:53:42 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 01:55:52 PM
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):

Don't entirely disagree, but the bolded part is not true. I just did a quick glance through the 5e Monster Manual and a lot of monsters don't even list skills, including some that I would think would have both, such as Displacer Beasts. When it does list skills, Perception does seem to be the most common, but it's not that ubiquitous, and it often lists other stuff instead, and Stealth only seems to show up when it's appropriate (but sometimes it's also absent, like in the Displacer Beast example).

Often (but not always), a monster will have Stealth, but not Perception (Shadows). Granted, they all list Passive Perception, but that's a different thing that everyone needs.

You're completely right, "giving stealth and perception to all the monsters" was a figure of speech. The actual numbers are in the link I included in my comment.

Quote from: VisionStorm on November 11, 2022, 02:53:42 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 01:55:52 PM
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):

Don't entirely disagree, but the bolded part is not true. I just did a quick glance through the 5e Monster Manual and a lot of monsters don't even list skills, including some that I would think would have both, such as Displacer Beasts. When it does list skills, Perception does seem to be the most common, but it's not that ubiquitous, and it often lists other stuff instead, and Stealth only seems to show up when it's appropriate (but sometimes it's also absent, like in the Displacer Beast example).

Often (but not always), a monster will have Stealth, but not Perception (Shadows). Granted, they all list Passive Perception, but that's a different thing that everyone needs.

Another thing to consider is that if something is so common in play, such as the need to be alert of traps or sneaking enemies, you're gonna see examples of creatures or even PCs and NPCs taking skills to deal with that aspect of play just because they need it to survive. But that's not exactly an example of that skill being too powerful, but rather its associated tasks so prevalent it becomes necessary.

To elaborate on this, now that I bothered to read the blog in the posted link, I think that this is the result of an oversight, happenstance and perhaps bad design, rather than a true indicator of the broadness of Perception as a skill. Like I mentioned above, lots of creatures I thought maybe should've had these skills didn't. And taking into consideration that a lot of these are beasts or monsters, there are not a lot of other skills that would have been appropriate regardless (other than Athletics; way too many creatures lack this, despite it being so crucial to wild animals survival IRL). I mean, how many creatures can find use for stuff like Arcana, Religion, Persuade or Deception?

Social skills and Lore are really PC stuff. You can't really use social skills on PCs and creatures either know stuff the DM wants them to or they don't. Would it make sense if they did know Lore stuff? Sure. But they're not not stuff that would normally be rolled by monsters, so they probably didn't include them for a lot of creatures, either due to some oversight, bad design, or maybe even a conscious "gamey" design decision that monsters simply didn't need them, so they were omitted to keep their entries light and combat-focused.

But ultimately Stealth and Perception are two of the few skills that would actually be of any use to monsters or beasts. And lots (LOTS) of beasts have Perception at the very least in real life. So that probably has more to do with the fact that the skill is overrepresented in the Monster's Manual than the idea that the skill is too good. If anything, more creatures should have it, cuz it's a pervasive and outright crucial skill for wild life survival IRL, and too many creatures in the MM lack it that should have it.

Edit:

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 07:36:42 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on November 11, 2022, 02:53:42 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 11, 2022, 01:55:52 PM
It also depends on OTHER skills. If there are about 20 skills, a perception skill is just too broad - as 5e exemplifies by giving stealth and perception to all the monsters (and, curiously, not survival):

Don't entirely disagree, but the bolded part is not true. I just did a quick glance through the 5e Monster Manual and a lot of monsters don't even list skills, including some that I would think would have both, such as Displacer Beasts. When it does list skills, Perception does seem to be the most common, but it's not that ubiquitous, and it often lists other stuff instead, and Stealth only seems to show up when it's appropriate (but sometimes it's also absent, like in the Displacer Beast example).

Often (but not always), a monster will have Stealth, but not Perception (Shadows). Granted, they all list Passive Perception, but that's a different thing that everyone needs.

You're completely right, "giving stealth and perception to all the monsters" was a figure of speech. The actual numbers are in the link I included in my comment.

Yeah, just got done elaborating on that, above.

Just in passing, a thing that everyone has, is pretty much the mechanical reason for attributes in the first place.  Granted, there are plenty of edge cases.

Quote from: Jaeger on November 11, 2022, 02:57:10 PM

This is the first reason I have a problem with HP bloat - D&D has never fully dealt with the scaling issues that continual HP bloat induces into a system.

Primarily because it requires extensive playtesting when you have a near final draft of the game... Which no one does.

I agree, but I don't think it's beyond the wit of man to solve that problem. Several games have tried already, though I don't think any of them have nailed it. For example, Starfinder has its tiered weapon lists, where a level 17 sword might do 10d10 damage, and Shadow of the Demon Lord has a fairly large number of class abilities that add extra damage dice to weapon attacks.

Quote from: Jaeger on November 11, 2022, 02:57:10 PM
I also feel HP bloat is bad game design is because it induces you to always be playing in a highly specific D&D zero to superhero mode, which always has the aforementioned scaling issues.

A bit of a tautology there. You wouldn't call it "bloat" if it was well-implemented.

More importantly, That's only bad design if you don't like that style of game.

Personally, I've got room in my heart for both. I understand the appeal of a game where the PCs are kept within the realm of what a real-life human could realistically achieve, but if I want that, I'll play something like WFRP or Call of Cthulhu. D&D is a game of heroic fantasy, and personally I think it always was. Even in the older editions, the monster manuals are full of things that would easily steamroll even the most skilled human in the real world, and which you are fully expected to be able to fight. Once you've got PCs that can easily hurl around fire and lighting, or go toe-to-toe with a manticore, the "gritty realism" ship has sailed.

I'm fine with that. I don't often play D&D myself, but when I do, I just wish it was a better designed game of heroic fantasy.

I see a lot of people on forums like this one that are trying to turn D&D into something it never was, when IMO their time would be more profitably be spent playing or writing different games.

Quote from: Jaeger on November 11, 2022, 02:57:10 PM
My second issue with the way most class/level systems scale things. The "power increase" is illusionary, because the games assume that you will always play against equivalent opposition. Hence the overly bloated monster manuals to keep up...

That's a problem, but it's a problem more of campaign design than of core game design. There's no law that says you have to only throw on-level enemies at your players. You have to exercise moderation, so that the game doesn't become too easy, but I firmly believe that if you have high level PCs, you should occasionally throw low-level grunts in their path to get flattened, just to maintain the context for their power levels. 

Quote from: Jaeger on November 11, 2022, 02:57:10 PM
HP bloat games do certain genre's of fantasy very badly because PC's move out of the 'gritty' tier where other humans are a threat fairly quickly for long campaigns.

Again, I don't think any game can do every genre well. At the simplest level, a single goblin either is a credible threat to a high level character, or it isn't. There are pros to either approach. The low power approach is more realistic, easier to run, and possibly more difficult (though not necessarily). However, it reduces the feeling of character progression, which is fairly major part of the appeal of RPGs, and heavily limits what you can put into a game. If a lone goblin is a serious threat to a max-level fighter, you're going to have some problems implementing a dragon. Either the dragon is going to be so overpowered that the PCs can't confront it, or it's going to be not much more powerful than the goblin, which would be a little ridiculous. Realistic PCs wouldn't be able to explore the Elemental Plane of Fire, or even the Underdark. They'd be killed almost instantly.

All I'm really trying to say here is that there's a time and a place for high fantasy. For my money, it's best to just accept that that's what D&D does best, and move on to other games for the other experience.

Also, high player HP isn't the only way to make a high-powered game. Personally I prefer a game where HP stays relatively low, but player defenses drastically improve. That still leaves open the possibility of low-level enemy getting that one lucky shot. "Puncher's chance", essentially. But to make that work in D&D, you have to overhaul the system to the point where its basically a different game.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 11, 2022, 09:22:42 PM
Just in passing, a thing that everyone has, is pretty much the mechanical reason for attributes in the first place.  Granted, there are plenty of edge cases.

Everyone has Stealth IRL. They might not always be good at it, but pretty much anyone could try to sneak pass someone else, even if they're not a spy or a burglar or someone who's had training in covert ops.

Doesn't mean that Stealth needs to be an attribute.

Same with Combat or Athletics. Anyone IRL could pick up a rock or a hammer, and bash someone in the head with it, or throw it at someone else. Or attempt to climb, jump or whatever.

Doesn't mean Athletics or Combat are attributes. Broad skills? Maybe. But that depends on how abilities are handled in the system, and how broad "Athletics" is (does it also cover riding and acrobatic stunts?).

Granted, in old D&D Combat is a game stat, since everyone has a THAC0 or whatever to handle their ability to hit. But that's based on class and level, rather than rolled at random and set in stone like an ability score.

And Athletics could also be said to already be covered by Strength, while Stealth is already covered by Dexterity. Hence, negating the need for specificity while still addressing the fact that anyone could try those tasks. Just like anyone could fallback on Wisdom to try to notice stuff without turning this ONE thing anyone could try into its own Perception attribute.

Unless by "Perception" we mean this expansive thing that can cover a broad range of stuff beyond just sensory perception (like intuition, investigation, deductive reasoning, problem solving, and specialized knowledge like tracking, etc). Which leads us back to what do we even mean by "Perception"?

Whether something can qualify as a proper "attribute" (or at least a class of universal "broad skills") mechanically speaking vs "just a skill/specialty" is more a matter of definition and specificity, rather than whether or not everyone could kinda sorta try related tasks.

I've never seen D&D as particularly good at "high fantasy." The mechanics have always worked best at low levels, and struggled to meaningfully represent high fantasy.

Part of that is simply that this isn't a well defined term. Is high fantasy one warrior taking on 100 goblins, is it arm-wrestling a giant, lifting a mountain, or KO'ing Vishnu with a punch?

Quote from: Zelen on November 12, 2022, 10:43:41 AM
I've never seen D&D as particularly good at "high fantasy." The mechanics have always worked best at low levels, and struggled to meaningfully represent high fantasy.

Part of that is simply that this isn't a well defined term. Is high fantasy one warrior taking on 100 goblins, is it arm-wrestling a giant, lifting a mountain, or KO'ing Vishnu with a punch?

Genre designations are always a little sticky, and it's definitely a continuum, and most fantasy products float between designations. But we need terms to talk about it, so we have to make the best we can.  If I was forced to come up with a classification schema, I would probably grade things along a continuum of:

--"Realistic Fantasy": Highly grounded. The vast majority of the world is identical to our own, but the supernatural exists, and most people know it. Any fantastical elements are extremely scarce and usually not available to the protagonists. Protagonists are normal people without any supernatural ability whatsoever. They have no hope of overcoming monstrous or supernatural foes head-on. Game of Thrones might be an example here.
--"Swords and Sorcery": The world bears a substantial resemblance to ours. Protagonists have a skill level which places them outside what is plausible for a real-world human, but not drastically so. They rarely, if ever have access to outright magic or superpowers. Slaying monsters is possible, but an extraordinary feat, even for the heroes. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser would be the example.
--"Heroic Fantasy": The world is recognizably based on ours, but magic is quite prevalent, possibly to the point where it is integrated into the operation of society. Protagonists extraordinary people in the context of their world. They have extensive access to the supernatural, and are expected to be able to defeat monstrous or supernatural enemies. The Elric of Melnibone stories fit this, and it is also where in my experience, the vast majority of D&D takes place.
--"Mythic/Epic Fantasy": The world no longer operates according to real-world rules, instead working on the logic of myth and fable. Protagonists can approach godlike abilities, and are expected to be able to challenge godlike beings. Examples would include a lot of anime, Dark Souls, and the Silmarillion, but high-level D&D sometimes starts to reach this level as well.

That's still a highly imperfect system. Lots of fantasies pull elements from multiple catgories, and the continuum is still too limited. It doesn't cover outliers like "urban fantasy", science-fantasy or superhero stories, or tonal changes such the difference between "dark fantasy" and something more romantic.

For game purposes I think the useful criteria are how much supernatural power is available to the protagonists, and where they stand in relation to the world.

By 3rd or 4th level, D&D characters usually have a hefty amount of spells, magic weapons, and special abilities at their disposal. The power levels of the world change according to campaign setting, but I would say the majority approach is that there's usually a fair few higher-level classed characters around to keep the players in line, but most of the world is normal people.

You say that D&D isn't great at representing heroic/mythic fantasy, which I would agree with. I don't think it's marvelous at representing any genre. But I think it's worse at "Realistic" or "Swords and Sorcery" settings. In the absence of a proper skill system, taking out magic and special abilities strips most characters of most of their options (That's mostly an OD&D through 2nd edition problem. 3rd edition tried to remedy this, which may be why some of the lower-magic D20 games aren't too bad. But of course they walked back on that design direction in 4th and 5th edition). The "attack bonus vs. AC" system breaks down in the absence of magical equipment. The HP and damage system breaks down without magical healing.

Can you tweak the numbers in D&D to make it work for those less fantastical tones? Yes, but it takes a lot of tweaking. Personally I don't think any of the official editions do it at all well, as they are written.