No Second Edition Love?

[BroccoliRage]

OK I've done that. Of course I never got initiative on the toughest guy I've ever assaulted (my old Hapkido instructor) unless he wanted me to, but on lesser foes (those a few belts above me) INITIATIVE WAS EVERYTHING. A good first blow to the head can stun and slow down your opponent so you can get more blows in. In fact, this was the only way I could ever really beat these guys, if I got a head shot in first then pounded and took them down while still stunned. Of course if your punches are weak then it doesn't really matter who gets hit first.

With a lethal weapon inititiative is even more important. Just let someone hack you with a katana first, then you hack at them. I think you will find getting initiative is all that matters.

Of course swinging first doesn't mean hitting first since the toughest opponents (see Hapkido instructor) seem to effortlessly block your attacks and turn them against you. But again D&D has no skill differential based hit system, glomming that aspect of combat into HP. So "blocking" I assume is subsumed into having more HP. Thus, in D&D at least, doing hit point damage first, by getting initiative, is critcally important.

Being a combat vet, I disagree. But that's not the point of my post.

And all you really did was strengthen my argument. D&D and every other roleplaying game is a terrible simulation of reality. No amount of rolling dice and making marks on a piece notebook paper is ever going to come close to simulating real life or death combat (neither is hapkido class, it's far too controlled. Your teacher would have found himself in some deep s**t if he started killing off his students, as well as without income ). Controlled situations like martial arts classes and boxing matches and the like are not the same as fighting to kill. That's why US military combatives are not allowed in martial arts tournaments, because there's a difference in fighting to compete and fighting to kill.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not dogging hapkido or saying it is incapable of killing anyone. I'm saying that study/practice within the confines of a class, it's not the same thing, particularly when you're both working froma a common and accepted framework.

Now, go down and pick a fight with a random, tough looking stranger. The toughest looking one you can find. IF he really is tough, who hits who first really isn't going to matter. It matters who lands a blow with the most strength. D&D, and RPG's period can never hope to simulate that, really. Most fights between people are chaotic, heated exchanges, very few folks are collected.

As the Brown Bomber said, "Everyone has a plan until they get hit." D&D can match that form of chaos because it the complete opposite: it's a SET OF RULES meant to represent something extremely chaotic. IAre RPG's fun? Hell yeah! Are they good simulations of reality? Absolutely not. Arguing the realism of a system is the same as arguing your favorite shade of clear.

PAinting the lilly and guilding refined gold. Superfluous and silly.

 

[Hussar]

As the Brown Bomber said, "Everyone has a plan until they get hit." D&D can match that form of chaos because it the complete opposite: it's a SET OF RULES meant to represent something extremely chaotic. IAre RPG's fun? Hell yeah! Are they good simulations of reality? Absolutely not. Arguing the realism of a system is the same as arguing your favorite shade of clear.

However, you're extrapolating a bit here. Just because RPG's don't simulate combat well, doesn't mean they chuck out all realism. Combat is only one part of the game. And, yes, you're right, D&D doesn't really do it justice. However, there are large swaths of the game where realism is entirely feasible.

As was mentioned earlier, you're basically saying that because part of the game is unrealistic, all elements of the game must be unrealistic.

 

[tx7321]

D&D and many FRPGs are like reality because the laws of nature (for the most part) apply. If you throw an apple up in the air it will come down. All the players walk to the table with the same shared view of the reality your going to be in (a fantasy land with magic and dragons), and agree this is "playing make believe time" in an organized fashion, and within 1 persons general description.

The rules you use to determine the order in which things go, and when things die in combat is what the rules cover. Besides being a way to randomize what things happens when, they really don't matter at all (the DM could make it up in his head). All that matters is that everyones there sharing the same understanding of the fantasy setting.

1E had a minute long combat sequence. Thats about as crazy as you can get. Still, it works very well because it resolves who wins and who looses. And in 1E's case it does it "better" IMHO then 3E because it uses tables and house rules to mystify (thus de-gamify it to the player) the experiance. The player should feel a since of control (rolling dice) but shouldn't be able to calculate everything too clearly.

Also, the rules do need to simulate reality a bit. For instance, it should be easier to jump over a 4 foot pit then a 12 foot pit. It should be easier to hit someone in no armor then to hit someone in plate with knowledge on how to use it. So, its a combination of "realism" and what you would expect with abstraction.

 

[prosfilaes]

And all you really did was strengthen my argument. D&D and every other roleplaying game is a terrible simulation of reality. [...] PAinting the lilly and guilding refined gold. Superfluous and silly.

Have you ever checked a prediction of what the weather is going to be? A lot of people do, and a lot of money goes into those predictions. But the best they can do is a terrible simulation of reality. Do you dismiss them as superfluous and silly?

It's not about being perfect. It's about simulating reality where a lack of reality annoys the people playing the game. It's about taking reality into account along with a number of other factors when designing the game. (And I feel using D&D to paint all roleplaying games is quite unfair; GURPS and Rolemaster, along with other games, have put quite a bit more importance into reality.) We've pointed out at least a dozen cases where reality was important in D&D.

Again, in movies, armor doesn't seem to do much good; Conan and Robin Hood don't seem any more vulnerable than the people in plate mail. But D&D makes wearing armor important in direct proportion to the amount of protection it offers in real life. AD&D 1e also notoriously offered a wide array of pole arms that just about nobody used in gaming and didn't appear in fiction, but appeared in reality; apparently it was important to EGG to simulate reality in the weapons list.

 

[Hussar]

D&D and many FRPGs are like reality because the laws of nature (for the most part) apply. If you throw an apple up in the air it will come down. All the players walk to the table with the same shared view of the reality your going to be in (a fantasy land with magic and dragons), and agree this is "playing make believe time" in an organized fashion, and within 1 persons general description.

Almost with you here. Although, that last bit, about 1 person's general description, bugs me a bit since I've always tried to get my player's actively involved in driving the campaign. I feel that my player's have likely been spoonfed campaigns in the past where the DM had entire control of his own private railroad and any deviation was punished with the flaming booger of the gawds. YMMV.

The rules you use to determine the order in which things go, and when things die in combat is what the rules cover. Besides being a way to randomize what things happens when, they really don't matter at all (the DM could make it up in his head). All that matters is that everyones there sharing the same understanding of the fantasy setting.

Entirely agree.

1E had a minute long combat sequence. Thats about as crazy as you can get. Still, it works very well because it resolves who wins and who looses. And in 1E's case it does it "better" IMHO then 3E because it uses tables and house rules to mystify (thus de-gamify it to the player) the experiance. The player should feel a since of control (rolling dice) but shouldn't be able to calculate everything too clearly.

Nope. Not even a little. Sorry, but, many people who played also DM'd. Those tables weren't mysterious and house rules were always shared in common. It didn't take too long to figure out something's AC - if I roll a 15 and a 14 and only hit once, it's not rocket science. Plus, the idea that opaque rules somehow helps with immersion is ridiculous. It is far more jarring to have to constantly stop and play Calvin-Ball whenever you wish to do something out of the ordinary than to have transparent rules that everyone agrees on.

Also, the rules do need to simulate reality a bit. For instance, it should be easier to jump over a 4 foot pit then a 12 foot pit. It should be easier to hit someone in no armor then to hit someone in plate with knowledge on how to use it. So, its a combination of "realism" and what you would expect with abstraction.

Agree 100%. With the added caveat that if it is more difficult to hit someone with no armor on, there bloody well better be a good reason.

 

[Rothe]

Being a combat vet, I disagree. But that's not the point of my post.

And all you really did was strengthen my argument. D&D and every other roleplaying game is a terrible simulation of reality. No amount of rolling dice and making marks on a piece notebook paper is ever going to come close to simulating real life or death combat (neither is hapkido class, it's far too controlled. Your teacher would have found himself in some deep s**t if he started killing off his students, as well as without income ). Controlled situations like martial arts classes and boxing matches and the like are not the same as fighting to kill. That's why US military combatives are not allowed in martial arts tournaments, because there's a difference in fighting to compete and fighting to kill.

I agree, I think we are reinforcing each others arguments. D&D has features that make it a terrible simulator. RPGs that try (but will fail) to include all the variables are both poor simulator and often poor games. I agree on the difference between fighting in a controlled situation and not. There are many things we were not allowed to do which are the first things you would do in a fight to the finish.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not dogging hapkido or saying it is incapable of killing anyone. I'm saying that study/practice within the confines of a class, it's not the same thing, particularly when you're both working froma a common and accepted framework.

Certainly. Sparring in class was far different than any real fight I've been in. But you did ask for the toughest guy, and my Hapkido instructor was the toughest guy I ever struck, my proudest moment followed by a very painful one as he took me down.

Now, go down and pick a fight with a random, tough looking stranger. The toughest looking one you can find. IF he really is tough, who hits who first really isn't going to matter. It matters who lands a blow with the most strength.

I think that supports my point. The more damaging the blow the more important it is to hit first. The most important thing, IME, is to get in the "first" really damaging blow. With fists it can be hard to land a single crippling blow on someone your evenly matched with or who out matches you, with a shotgun at 5 feet, not so hard I'd imagine.

On "realism" you seem to equate it with exact simulation. I don't necessarily think that is the usage bandied about here or that saying some RPG approach is more "relaistic" than another is pointless. It probably should be limited to more "realistic" in a certain situation since for playability you may sacrifice "realism" in one area for that in another.

For me, some game rule is more "realistic" when the game consequences of the rule match corresponding reality better, not the actual rule mechanic itself. Thus, highly abstract rules can be more "realistic" than detailed rules that attempt to include multiple real world variables; and IME abstract rules often are more "realistic" because they start with getting the result versus adding details and hoping the result falls out.

For example, a rule that makes a spiked chain the best weapon is "unrealistic" in my view. Humankind has been trying to kill itself with melee weapons for millenia, if the spiked chain was really the superior weapon eveyone would have been using it no matter how hard it was to train with. Or a rule that let me throw a longsword as accurately as a spear would also have some "realism" problems in my book.

 

[RFisher]

I generally don't think a PC's chance of success at something should be a complete mystery to the player.

Neither, however, do I think the player should have to look things up in the book or that the book even needs to be comprehensive so that the player can.

Rather, the DM should tell the player what their PC thinks their chances are. Whether in general terms or in DC or another mechanic.

The player should ask the DM if the DM hasn't volunteered the information. The players--no matter which PC is acting--should give their input to the DM. They should remind the DM of circumstances that might provide a modifier. They should advocate for why a specific ability or skill applies.

The DM should consider the player's input. Whether by rules or DM judgement, the important thing is that the results are as close to acceptible by group consensus as possible. Whether that be some sort of gritty versimilitude or wuxia-esque cinematics.

The players must be willing to give the DM the benefit of the doubt & let him make the final decision--& thus the mistakes. They must be willing to forgive when he makes mistakes.

I don't care if you're playing 1e, 2e, or 3e; whether by-the-book or fast-and-loose. That's the way it should be.

Well, at least that's my opinion. That's my goal.

 

[Remathilis]

1E had a minute long combat sequence. Thats about as crazy as you can get. Still, it works very well because it resolves who wins and who looses. And in 1E's case it does it "better" IMHO then 3E because it uses tables and house rules to mystify (thus de-gamify it to the player) the experiance. The player should feel a since of control (rolling dice) but shouldn't be able to calculate everything too clearly.

IMHO it doesn't.

Lets see. A 2nd level fighter attacks a chainmail wearing orc.

In 3.X, the fighters bab (+2) plus str (+2 for sake of argument) is added to a 1d20. This is compared to the Orcs AC (10 +5 chain total 15). The player knows the first half of the equation (1d20 +4) the DM knows the other half (15). Neither side is static (the fighter charges, the orc goes on the defensive, etc). Hence, the PC only has to worry about one side, the DM the other.

In 2e (its still is the subject of the thread) the fighters THAC0 is 19, and he still has a +2 to hit. The orc's AC is now 5. The PC rolls 1d20+2, subtracts that from 19, and determines if his remainders is <5. There are still modifiers for both sides of the combat, and the PC is doing 1/2 the work still.

In 1e (by your discussion) the PC rolls a 1d20 and adds his +2 bonus. He gives a total. The DM now determines (by chart) what that answer equates to (17 for a ftr2 is AC 2) and cross-references that against the orcs AC (2 >5, so a hit). The DM now is handling the bulk of the work. The PC has no idea if he missed the Orc due to poor ability or good AC. However, the DM has to constantly be doing that math for all players all the time.

Quick! A fireball explodes on a group of PCs. A 5th level fighter, a 3rd/3rd level fighter/mage, a 6th level thief, and a 4th level cleric all have to save vs. spell. What do they have to roll higher than to succeed? Can you do it without looking?

That is why at least 2nd edition took the mystery of the saving throw tables and thac0 tables and PUT THEM IN THE PHB (pages 91 and 101 of the first printing, I can find them in the dark). Because it made the DM's life simpler. 3e just streamlined those numbers so that they aren't so arbitrary.

I couldn't see looking up every characters to hit and to save every level, every time its needed. However, if you can, more power to you.

 

[BroccoliRage]

I agree, I think we are reinforcing each others arguments. D&D has features that make it a terrible simulator. RPGs that try (but will fail) to include all the variables are both poor simulator and often poor games. I agree on the difference between fighting in a controlled situation and not. There are many things we were not allowed to do which are the first things you would do in a fight to the finish.

That's actully the point, though.

Look at RPG's. See you want to have some boundaries of realism, but I alreayd stated that about three posts back. The players and DM need to have an accpted and agreed upon understanding of how physics and nature work in the fantasy milieu. And using the real world as the basis for that is perfectly acceptable, and the easiest thing to do. However, would you sacrifice great gameplay for greater realism? Many folks would, I would not.

So, in the example of the longsword and the spear...what if a DM were to nerf that rule, because the game is moving along so fast and to allow that one tiny mistake would only add to the momentum. Would you complain about realism flaws?

I wouldn't. I'm not expecting a realistic experience. Combat was only one example of mine, really. LEt's take...say...the Wealth mechanic of d20 modern. It's an easy mechanic to use (though it could use some tightening up), and isn't very realistic at all. But it's so fast and adds alot to gameplay, and eliminates minor details. I want to play an RPG, not Papers and Paychecks (no offense, Stu).

 

[tx7321]

Hussar: "1 person's general description, bugs me a bit since I've always tried to get my player's actively involved in driving the campaign. I feel that my player's have likely been spoonfed campaigns in the past where the DM had entire control of his own private railroad and any deviation was punished with the flaming booger of the gawds. YMMV."

-What I meant was that the DM creates the world in his mind and then describes it as the players move about it freely. I too am no fan of railroads.

REM: "In 1e (by your discussion) the PC rolls a 1d20 and adds his +2 bonus. He gives a total. The DM now determines (by chart) what that answer equates to (17 for a ftr2 is AC 2) and cross-references that against the orcs AC (2 >5, so a hit). The DM now is handling the bulk of the work.

-Ahhhhhhhh I'm lost. All the DM does is look on the fighter table to see what a 2nd level fighter needs to hit AC 7 (or whatever the AC of the monster is). The DM does the same for the monster. What the heck are you talking about? Looking at tables is brainless work, a 6 year old can do that part.



There is no work thats what the tables are for. If you consider moving your head work...then I guess its work.

The PC has no idea if he missed the Orc due to poor ability or good AC. However, the DM has to constantly be doing that math for all players all the time.

-What math. 1E doesn't have math it has tables. Thats why it has tables, so you don't have to do math.

Quick! A fireball explodes on a group of PCs. A 5th level fighter, a 3rd/3rd level fighter/mage, a 6th level thief, and a 4th level cleric all have to save vs. spell. What do they have to roll higher than to succeed? Can you do it without looking? "

Thats why I look at the table. I can figure that out in about 10 seconds. The F/M you just use the best save table (so M for magic).