D&D General D&D Combat is fictionless

[FrogReaver]

But Imagine it!!! Whenever there is an attack, you have to roll to make contact, roll to bypass shield/parry, reduce damage through armor, apply heroic resistance, divine luck, moral (each with its own subsystem) and more. That's make each attack a seven step process but it's a small price to pay for immersion.

It's not just the process in such a system, it's also the risk of random death.

 

[Garthanos]

But Imagine it!!! Whenever there is an attack, you have to roll to make contact, roll to bypass shield/parry, reduce damage through armor, apply heroic resistance, divine luck, moral (each with its own subsystem) and more. That's make each attack a seven step process but it's a small price to pay for immersion.

Exactly... mechanics are ball park for a reason

 

[reelo]

It's not just the process in such a system, it's also the risk of random death.

What of it?
Random death is realistic. Combat is inherently dangerous.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I don't think Gandalf is overly magical. Looking at Aragorn's ability to lead (eg Gimil entering the Dimholt) or Faramir's similar ability (as per my quote upthread) or Gandalf's ability to lift the hearts of the defenders as magical is in my view a distortion of the work.

In a 4e representation of these PCs, I think it would be fair to give Gandalf Healing Word (he is a messenger of the Valar - an angel, as JRRT noted in some of his correspondence) whereas Aragorn and Faramir would have Inspiring Word (they are inspirational battle captains) but that tells us the origin of their power. (In 4e, this is the power source.) It doesn't tell us the nature of the effect, which is to be ascertained from the keywords and mechanics.

The relevant keyword in this context is healing, with the mechanical concomitant of hit point recovery. And we know that this includes the shoring up of resolve (which JRRT describes as the lifting of hearts).

I can understand the possible aesthetic criticisms of this sort of fiction, and hence of a RPG system that emulates it. But I don't think there is any puzzle about the mechanics and the fiction in itself.

To be clear, I am making no criticism of your assertions. It was with the fact that when @Lyxen was offered two literary examples of a character's power to heal/raise morale/egg people on, their issue seemed to be:

1) Gandalf is a "demigod wizard" and is a poor example
2) Henry V doesn't do magical things, so he can't be a good example either

This narrow remaining space (somewhere between Kenneth Branagh and Ian McKellen?) would seem difficult to attain. I suggested facetiously that a D&D character might fill it.

More broadly, literature abounds with examples of "rousing words" of one kind or another and I really don't understand this fixation on whether it is "magical" or not from a mechanical perspective.

 

[pemerton]

My initial reaction was Shield is a great example. Then I thought more about it and I don't really have a problem with the shield spell. I think that's because I don't view the attack roll as 'final' until everything that can effect it is accounted for. Personally that initial high attack roll translates into the fiction as the enemy is about to hit the me. The fictional action I'm taking is to Shield myself with magic. IMO that tracks very well with the mechanics I'm invoking on the player side.

Is it fair to say that you see position on the grid as "locked in" in a way that is different from the attack roll and result in the Shield example?

(This isn't meant as a gotcha in any way. It's meant to try and steer the discussion back onto some of the territory @clearstream was carving out upthread.)

 

[pemerton]

To be clear, I am making no criticism of your assertions. It was with the fact that when @Lyxen was offered two literary examples of a character's power to heal/raise morale/egg people on, their issue seemed to be:

1) Gandalf is a "demigod wizard" and is a poor example
2) Henry V doesn't do magical things, so he can't be a good example either

This narrow remaining space (somewhere between Kenneth Branagh and Ian McKellen?) would seem difficult to attain. I suggested facetiously that a D&D character might fill it.

More broadly, literature abounds with examples of "rousing words" of one kind or another and I really don't understand this fixation on whether it is "magical" or not from a mechanical perspective.

All I'll add to this is that I find readings of LotR that focus on Gandalf is a wizard/divine agent to be frustrating because they leech out of the story all the human and moral meaning that JRTT was trying to invest it with. Framing Gandalf as Cure Light Wounds-style "magical" healing - a sort of divinely inspired ibuprofen that works in a purely "mechanical"/automated fashion - completely misses the point of his role, and Faramir's, in the siege, in contrast to Denethor (who does use people, even his own son, in a purely machine-like fashion).

I should add that I think this appreciation of LotR is independent of whether or not we, as readers and RPGers, share Tolkien's moral and theological views. We can disagree with him on those matters but still admire and feel the force of his work. I can love the film Hero, and appreciate the power of its vision, without necessarily myself supporting Chinese nationalism or its account of the individual's duty to the nation.

 

[pemerton]

What of it?
Random death is realistic. Combat is inherently dangerous.

OK, but does that mean we want our RPGing to be randomly and inherently deadly to our characters?

I mean, life - for many, much of the time - is inherently adventureless. Even dull, and sometimes horrible on top of that. But most RPGs don't try and emulate that!

 

[MichaelSomething]

What of it?
Random death is realistic. Combat is inherently dangerous.

Indeed... (warning: cursing!)

 

[clearstream]

Ah but I agree with all this, never said the contrary. What causes me problem is Martial Power healing wounds.

That seems to be a strictly definitional problem. It sounds (to me at least) that your 'martial power' concept excludes the possibility of the sort of instant hit point recovery that we usually call 'healing'. I take it you're focused on the fiction not the mechanics as written (per your responses about shield).

Given that your martial power concept excludes healing I think the argument cannot be advanced. You'd either have to add healing to your concept, or others would have to exclude it from theirs. Perhaps the focus should be on the question - why isn't healing in your martial power concept? Given that so far as the game mechanics are concerned, it seems to be.

Take Rocky. To me he seems like a pretty martial character. He several times rallies using... martial power? Or if not, why not?

 

[clearstream]

Hitpoints are a metacurrency.

GM: The orc stabs you through the chest with its sword, you die.

Bob the Fighter's Player: Oh, I don't like that, I'll spend my hitpoints to prevent that.

GM: Okay, spend <clatter> 7 hitpoints.

Player: Okay, I had 10, so I have three left.

GM: Cool, the orc stabs at you but you manage to twist out of the way at the last minute and only take a shallow gash across your ribcage. The second orc swings his mace and <clatter> smashes your skull in.

Player: Um, hitpoints, again?

GM: Sure, spend <clatter> 5.

Player: Gulp, I only have 3.

GM: Okay, you drop to 0, and you die, crushed skull.

Player: Oh, wait! I invoke dying!

GM: Sure thing, you drop to zero, the mace has struck the crown of your head, but whether or not it was a fatal blow or a glancing one is yet to be revealed, make a death saving throw!

Player: Yes! <clatter> NO! A 1.

GM: That's two saving throw fails, looks like it's getting close to curtains!

It's a good framing. Take a look at the blood magic rules that came with the Earthdawn DM's screen (and similar in other RPGs). The concept of spending or investing HP to buy effects is treating them like a currency. I also like your 'I invoke dying' perspective: it elucidates the mechanic.