Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[Micah Sweet]

Again, I don't think the idea that frequency matters should be hard to engage with.

You're the one who said you don't want the player stuck without a PC for a while. Why allow the possibility? What advantage does that give you? Is it less "not fun" if there's a small chance of death and boredom versus no chance? I thought keeping the players playing was the top priority here?

 

[Theory of Games]

Yep. I hear you. I have seen this sort of thing before too.

"Stealth": An entire party casts invisibility on everyone and then claims it can move in perfect silence for hours with drawn bladed weapons while maintaining perfect distance and no hilarity ensuing.

"Negotiation": "I roll to seduce the dragon"

The thing is, I do understand that in 1e AD&D the initiative roll is the later stage of combat, but that's an example of why 1e AD&D is unhealthy, not an example of why it is healthy. When you understand that the dungeon in Glacier Rift of the Ice Giant Jarl is designed to nerf the giants to give the PCs a chance, then we can talk about stealth and negotiation profitably.

Well. AD&D is terrible because the DMG is book of curses on the head of whichever DM is crazy enough to try to run the tangled mess. All because Gary didn't want to pay Dave royalties any longer. Really Gary?

My college group came in 2nd out of several score participating groups in a DragonCon tournament scenario. My current group is a bunch of wargamers. But whatever, clearly they are tactically inept.

Exceptional, no doubt, but not the rule.

Let me be specific then. It is a strawman to suggest that if you have metacurrencies you can't lose. All metacurrencies tend to be both ablative and limited, in that they can be eroded and there is a certain level of randomness that produces a result higher than they can mitigate against. Hit points are very much a case in point. They do reduce lethal blows to mere scratches in the narrative, but they can be expended quickly by reckless play or else absolutely overwhelmed by certain heavy blows. Metacurrencies that protect against attacks that bypass hit points are really no different, in that if you expend your currency too fast you'll be unsafe when you really need it, and even with them you can still roll "two ones in a row" or some other low roll. Indeed, "two fives or less in a row" is a really common situation that should be occurring all the time.

Well I said "winwinwin" but of course they won't win always. You're using implied extremes to make a point. And when Metacurrencies run out, the group can still "win the game". But once everyone loses all their HP

So this one is particularly interesting because it says a lot about human narrative. Real stories are retroactively created.

Not always but continue

We have survivors bias. We tend to pick the stories to tell that are interesting.

"Interesting" is subjective but go on

Reality winnows down who the story is about and then as historians we retroactively pick the ones out of the thousands or millions that were interesting either as "comedy" (in the literal since of happy ending) or "tragedy".

Some stories have nothing to do with reality but resume

We avoid telling the stories of the meaningless deaths or the ones that lacked struggle. Often we massage those "real stories" to fit our preferred dramatic tropes, so that close inspection of the real events finds nothing like the story we heard.

"Meaning" is subjective and every human being experiences struggles, no matter how gifted and/or wealthy but okay

Roleplaying and combat are radically different things. Even after 15 years playing together, they are pretty terrible at roleplaying but they are pretty amazing at combat. And I haven't never died in a con game, was a finalist in online Bloodbowl tournaments back in the day, and generally am used to winning any game I play more than my share. You wouldn't survive my games. I can just tell already.

I've been a GM too long to enjoy playing anymore, but I still sometimes dip a toe in an online game to try out a new system. Playing can be fun and I don't play careful anymore - I've learned the fun is in being reckless IMO

Give everyone 4 hit points and then come back and tell me about this again. There is nothing organic and natural about hit points or any other RPG mechanic.

I'm not talking about "mechanics"/rules - I'm talking about gameplay. But I'll agree to disagree as the wall between us is too high

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because when I'm talking design, I'm not just talking about me, as I've told you many times by now. Most people talking design aren't just talking about themselves, and I'm including numerous people I've talked to who are anything but theoretical, so really, get over that.

So you are looking to market something to people? What are you designing, and who's your target audience?

 

[Thomas Shey]

You're the one who said you don't want the player stuck without a PC for a while. Why allow the possibility? What advantage does that give you? Is it less "not fun" if there's a small chance of death and boredom versus no chance? I thought keeping the players playing was the top priority here?

No, actually, @rmcoen did. I just agreed that its an unfortunate situation a lot of players dislike.

The thing is, that can describe any number of things in games that are the consequence of otherwise valuable elements of them, too. Wanting less of something is simply not the same as wanting none of it. Salt is good on a lot of food. Too much of it is not good, so managing the amount is worthwhile. And different people want or tolerate different amounts.

 

[Theory of Games]

What's the topic again? Realistic combat that's simple:

There is none. But whoever makes such a game will be very wealthy very quickly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So you are looking to market something to people? What are you designing, and who's your target audience?

Does design thought require actually following through, especially when its in the context of discussing what's good? Since when?

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, actually, @rmcoen did. I just agreed that its an unfortunate situation a lot of players dislike.

The thing is, that can describe any number of things in games that are the consequence of otherwise valuable elements of them, too. Wanting less of something is simply not the same as wanting none of it. Salt is good on a lot of food. Too much of it is not good, so managing the amount is worthwhile. And different people want or tolerate different amounts.

Right, sorry. Forgot you weren't the poster of the example since you've spent a lot of digital ink defending it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What's the topic again? Realistic combat that's simple:

There is none. But whoever makes such a game will be very wealthy very quickly.

The question ends up being "How realistic?" "How simple?" and "What other elements are important while getting there?" Without qualifying those, its entirely doable; there was discussion of some simple approaches several pages back that would not have to be complex. They just might not be realistic enough for some people.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, sorry. Forgot you weren't the poster of the example since you've spent a lot of digital ink defending it.

Because I think its somewhat of a good idea, but I do not accept its an all-or-nothing situation, which seems to be what you're demanding here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does design thought require actually following through, especially when its in the context of discussing what's good? Since when?

No, but if you're not designing for what you enjoy, and you're not designing for an audience, what is this all about?