"I hate math"

[ashockney]

Another issue which may or may not have been covered is that the reliance on derived values also tends to slow things down - when buffs/spells/poisons change the value of a stat and suddenly a dozen other derived/related values (attack/AC/hp/skills) change.

One option I toyed with, but not very seriously, is to eliminate bonus stacking issues but setting an arbitrary cap. For one setting you could say "all bonuses stack, but to a maximum of +5", for another setting you could say "all bonuses stack but to a maximum of +(character level)/2". Eliminate bonus types all together. Would it work? I don't know.

BTW nice to read a ten-page thread where everyone has remained civil!

Cheers

Plane Sailing! It's great to hear from you. Please elaborate on your "high level" gaming experiences for us.

I think you've identified a very critical addition to the pitfall list. The ease with which the "hours" of pre-work that players put into their higher level characters...which are subject to change!

Dispels, curses, poisons, negative levels, ability drains, all have a difficult and frustrating effect on these challenges.

I like the simplicity of your recommendation, too. In 2nd Ed, I recall there was a point where we implemented an "ego rule" (I believe from a Dragon Mag article) that worked well to help manage the "high level" magic item train.

I also want to share my complements to everyone who's particpated in this rather lengthy thread. Thank you for keeping it civil, and I hope interesting, for everyone involved.

 

[ashockney]

A published adventure has a limited amount of space.

Additionally, the original comment was about how the stat blocks in high-level modules stopped listing variations. I think this is also, in part, because lower-level modules are geared (somewhat) toward new DMs who need more hand-holding while getting used to the system. At higher levels, this would be less necessary.

I would pay MORE to have a better module that was easier for me to run. Less conversion = less time spent on my part "re-writing" the adventure. Low or high level. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ashockney]

Much like D&D, come to think of it. Hrm - WOTC = FASB? Naaaaah, I doubt it.

But the stacking rules make things a lot easier, and if you treat things like triggers (I minored in IS. it resolves things like the rogue example quite nicely.

Redhawk

ROTFLMYO...It's a conspiracy!

Triggers? Please elaborate.

 

[mmadsen]

Heh. That's a lot like the draft of a minimalist RPG I have, which I called IVDICIA (judgements). It's basically: The judge determines the percentage change of success based on the character stats, the situation, common sense, & his best judgement. Then the player rolls d%.

From the aforementioned kriegspiel article:

The system for finding the results of combat in a free kriegspiel is classically simple. First of all the umpire looks at the position of each side: how many and what type of troops are involved; how their morale is bearing up; and what orders they have been given. He next considers the ground on which the action will be fought, and any special tactical problems which either side might encounter; whether there are any obstacles in the way of an attacker; whether a flank attack might be possible, and so on.

When the umpire has all relevant information at his disposal, he ought to be able to give an informed opinion on the probabilities of the result. He will not simply say something like 'The French infantry hassuccessfully stormed the hill', but will quote possibilities, such as: 'The French have a 50% chance of storming the hill successfully; a 30% chance of capturing half of it, while disputing the rest; and a 20% chance of being totally repulsed. High scores favour the French'. It is important that the umpire is as specific as possible with these figures, as this forces him to consider all the factors involved in the combat and to think through the full implications of his decision. He must also be clear whether a high dice roll will be good or bad for the attacker, i.e., whether the top 50% (a die roll of 5-9) or the bottom 50% (a roll of 0-4) will mean the hill has been carried. In this case he has stated that the high score will be good for the attacker.

This isn't too different from old-school D&D -- or 3.5E, once you move away from combat and have to rely on an arbitrary DM-set DC:

I wrote it when I realized that OAD&D had an unwritten metarule: Figure out the odds & then pick an equivalent die roll. (Notice how Gygax's writing often focuses more on the odds than the die roll. He writes "1 in 6" rather than "1 or 1d6".) Everything in the book is just an example of implementing that metarule.

 

[Saeviomagy]

And, arguably, no more flawed that a heavily simplified numerical simulation that's playable enough to be included in a pen-&-paper RGP.

No. The players just have to cut him some slack. Besides, the GM can always leverage the knowledge of his players in making decisions.

Well, the problem here is that you're starting to contend with differences in imagination, especially in a game where large portions are not rooted in the real world at all. Even those parts that ARE rooted in the real world within D&D are the realm of relatively thin-on-the ground hobbyists.

If noone in the group is an expert in horseriding, who's to say what can or cannot be done? If noone in the group is an expert in archery? In caving?

Far better IMHO that someone who spends the time to investigate this stuff makes those calls.

Come to think of it, even back in my worst rules lawyery, argumentative youth, when we played a free form game I uncharacteristically didn't argue with the GM.

Was it a campaign or a one shot? Was it a dungeon crawl?

Well, that's not been my experience. Every GM I've played with has been unbiased enough. Heck, argumentative players can see bias even where there isn't any.

There is a thread on this board that includes stories where the GM flat-out broke the rules in order to kill off characters (or at least certain aspects of characters). There are others where players have problems because the GM keeps changing the rules under their feet. And these exist when there IS a more-or-less stable ruleset.

 

[mmadsen]

Well, the problem here is that you're starting to contend with differences in imagination, especially in a game where large portions are not rooted in the real world at all. Even those parts that ARE rooted in the real world within D&D are the realm of relatively thin-on-the ground hobbyists.

As an aside, that's one argument for a lower- (or rarer-) magic game -- it's better grounded in reality.

If noone in the group is an expert in horseriding, who's to say what can or cannot be done? If noone in the group is an expert in archery? In caving?

And who's to question that non-expert judgment?

Far better IMHO that someone who spends the time to investigate this stuff makes those calls.

While I've been playing a bit of a devil's advocate, I do agree that a handbook full of rules and guidelines from the experts makes perfect sense. The problem is that the mathematical models the "experts" come up with are often quite complex without actually yielding realistic results. (You can put "realistic" in quotes, if "realistic" fantasy bothers you.)

Do the rules, as written, actually provide a better simulation than simple guidelines plus DM fiat? We certainly rely on the latter for most decisions, after all.

Naturally, the less you trust your DM, the more you want spelled out in the rules. The more you trust your DM, the more you can rely on his judgment, and the less you have to consult the rules and add up modifiers.

 

[RFisher]

If noone in the group is an expert in horseriding, who's to say what can or cannot be done?

Well, the rulings don't have to stand up to scrutiny by anyone outside the group, so they don't need to be any more expert than the knowledge available in the group. Less so since the players should be willing to compromise their own perceptions a bit. It's the referees world, so it operates by his fundementals laws. Though referees should likewise give due consideration to player...questioning of those laws.

I guess one big difference in my play style from my younger, more argumentative days, is that I don't assume my understanding of how the world works matches the DM's. I tend to ask the DM questions to understand how things work in his world before trying things. "Do I think I'd be able to...?"

Was it a campaign or a one shot? Was it a dungeon crawl?

We played free form campaigns. Some of them had plenty of dungeon crawling.

There is a thread on this board that includes stories where the GM flat-out broke the rules in order to kill off characters (or at least certain aspects of characters). There are others where players have problems because the GM keeps changing the rules under their feet. And these exist when there IS a more-or-less stable ruleset.

Yep. Those problems occur no matter how heavy your ruleset is. So, a heavy ruleset appears to not be a solution to those problems.

I've certainly shared such concerns about free form style, even (or maybe especially) using just a free form magic system in an otherwise more structured system. In practice, however, I've found free form games or elements to not be significantly more subject to such problems.

I'm not saying free form is the one true way. Heck, the majority of the games I've played have not been heavily free form, and I don't expect that to change. Although, these days the way I run any system leans a bit more towards a free form style.

Free form may not work for everyone or for every group, but I think there are a lot of groups that it would work for if they'd give it a try.

 

[ashockney]

Here's another pitfall. The variety of choices at higher level. Does it need to be so unnecessarily complex?

For example, a 5th level wizard vs. a 20th level wizard. 10 spells vs. 50 spells to choose from. This isn't factoring the exponential effect of magic items (staves, wands, scrolls, and miscellaneous magic).

 

[mmadsen]

Here's another pitfall. The variety of choices at higher level. Does it need to be so unnecessarily complex?

Certainly it doesn't have to be so complex; as I mentioned before, you can play a superhero game, like Mutants & Masterminds -- where everyone is quite powerful -- without the minutia of high-level D&D.

In many ways, D&D expects players to wield lots of weak magic. Magic item costs aren't linear, but exponential, making multiple weak items less expensive than one powerful item. Spellcasters increase the number of spells they can cast per day, not just the power of the spells they can and do cast. And so on.

In contrast, a typical superhero only has a handful of tricks, often just variations on a single theme (fire, ice, whatever), but he's powerful nonetheless. (On the other hand, some heroes, of course, have a utility belt full of tricks...)

 

[ashockney]

So, I've finished a little project that this thread got me started on.

I went to the SRD.

I mapped out every combat action, racial modifier, class modifier, feat modifier, spell modifier, and magic item modifier.

916 for those keeping score at home. I've not double checked it (or tryed to combine modifiers for simplicity). That's still to come.

From this, I believe I'll be able to build the Dungeons and Dragons SRD combat formula, with the appropriate number of options under each variable.

Yep, I know I'm a nerd. Like you're not.

From this, the formula can hopefully be simplified.

Any thoughts? Any interest?