Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[Theory of Games]

@Theory of Games

I always base leveling and attributes of a character in fiction based on what they actually are observed to do, not on the "aura" around them. Of course, since the fiction writer wasn't making the scenario to be 100% congruent to a set of game rules, and since neither the scenario nor any RPG are perfectly realistic, there is never an exact match. But I think my take comes pretty close as a translation even if ultimately this is all a set of opinions.

Yeah my first mistake here was even entertaining a conversation about "What if John McClane was a D&D character". D&D could never ever do Die Hard or anything resembling it. Next point ---

If your PC did fine it was because you cheated. Straight up. You fudged the dice.

We didn't fudge dice, but we did use tactics like avoiding fights with a lot of stealth and negotiation. If that's cheating then you're playing the game wrong

I played 1e AD&D too long not fudging the dice to believe otherwise. And yes, I am well aware being asked for a saving throw is itself failure, but way to many 1e AD&D saving throws come down to by the numbers 50/50 save or die, and way too many get forced on you by non-passive NPCs etc to believe any of this.

You have your experiences and I have mine. Clearly, your group(s) played a more haphazard style of D&D.

I know my players in the era were fudging, because their average rolls were probably around a 15. I have observed players never roll under a 10 for most of a year. I tolerated it because it wasn't worth fighting over, I didn't want to strain friendships and as long as the other players weren't complaining to me I wasn't being hurt.

We rolled out in the open so there was no question of results, even during chargen. If we failed a roll, we failed - it's just a game

Both strawman and a lack of genre awareness.

Your use of the term "Strawman" here makes no sense BTW

Not only does access to metacurrency not mean that characters don't "winwinwin" all the time in every situation, but the heroic fiction that inspires games of this sort always comes down to the hero being able to reliably win against the odds.

Win in the end, but most if not all fictional heroes take a beating before they eventually win. It's how drama works.

The hero of a movie or novel always has plot protection that doesn't exist in a purely random universe.

In your opinion. I say the heroes are exceptional people, like McClane, Legolas, Ethan Hunt, James Bond, Conan, ect. Every day real people survive near-death experiences because they were skilled and/or lucky - no plot armor required

I perma-killed like 8 characters in a party of 6 by 10th level in my last D&D campaign despite metacurrency, not counting two uses of raise dead as kills, and untold numbers of occasions PCs got down to -6 or -9 hit points and frantic first aid checks and unusual tactics like bull rushes were necessary to save a dying PC. Not sure how much higher the death toll would be without metacurrency but it would be a good deal higher.

Or - if those were your characters - you might just suck at playing the game. If it was other players in your group, sucking might still apply. After running ttrpgs for various groups for decades on- & offline I've learned many players are terrible at roleplaying. Especially combat (which I think is why so many players rage against 'combat-intensive' rpgs) as few players (and GMs) understand that studying real-world combat strategy actually helps at the table

Metacurrency allows me to play the game without always metagaming as a GM, putting on kid gloves and minding all the scenarios where on average you kill 35-50% of the party just to randomness.

Ultimately, I'm not knocking Metacurrencies altogether. It's like with riding a bike: some people can just jump on & ride, while others need a helmet and pads for added protection. Metacurrencies are protections for those who need them

So are hit points. In the most basic form they help you not die from attacks that can theoretically kill you. They, in fact, at some point make it impossible without other mechanics that bypass them in some fashion. The fact they're a narrow metacurrancy doesn't make them less of one.

Luck applied as an ablative value is a metacurrancy. That's often just what a metacurrancy in a given game represents, at least in part.

Metacurrencies are spent in exchange for temporary advantages. Hit Points don't work like that. At least not in most of the ttrpgs that have them

Not reliably. If you think otherwise, your sample size is too small.

Well Metacurrencies aren't 100% reliable in all situations either. But the big difference is a lucky roll is the strong natural foundation of emergent gameplay. What Metacurrencies do is turn organic natural roleplaying into a manufactured staged sort of storytelling. Now if you like canned storygaming, then Metacurrencies are clearly very valuable - but I like knowing that everything that happens in-character is natural and spontaneous (including failure)

I'm sorry, but I think you're simply wrong here. I started with OD&D and I saw PCs die in droves. I saw more of them do so in RQ.

As I stated above, IME PC death usually has more to do with poor roleplaying than how an rpg system functions. There's tactics to every game. But, I will also concede that older editions of D&D were decidedly deadly - a perk IMO

If your claim is nothing resembling metacurrancy is required to survive with any consistency in games with quasi-realistic damage rules and regular combat, I just have to firmly say all evidence I have is you're wrong, and if you've seen otherwise in such games you've seen amazing streaks of good luck on the players parts.

Your evidence. Are you suggesting that older edition D&D PCs never survived? None of them? Are all the stories of groups getting to levels 7-10 and retiring their PCs all vicious lies?

I'm not talking about "occasional". I'm talking about regular failure leading to character losses. To the point in RQ I had, by about a year in, a literal sheaf of sheets from dead characters. At the lower levels in OD&D it was even worse.

Well, sometimes we just roll bad. One thing about dice rolls though: they're fair. What happens, happens. No staged or manufactured outcomes or plot armor. But, I understand some people enjoy storytelling exercises as opposed to playing a ttrpg. To each their own

 

[Celebrim]

We didn't fudge dice, but we did use tactics like avoiding fights with a lot of stealth and negotiation.

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.

You have your experiences and I have mine. Clearly, your group(s) played a more haphazard style of D&D.

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.

Your use of the term "Strawman" here makes no sense BTW

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.

Win in the end, but most if not all fictional heroes take a beating before they eventually win. It's how drama works.

Not sure how this is a rebuttal.

Every day real people survive near-death experiences because they were skilled and/or lucky - no plot armor required

So this one is particularly interesting because it says a lot about human narrative. Real stories are retroactively created. We have survivors bias. We tend to pick the stories to tell that are interesting. 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". 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.

After running ttrpgs for various groups for decades on- & offline I've learned many players are terrible at roleplaying. Especially combat...

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.

Well Metacurrencies aren't 100% reliable in all situations either. But the big difference is a lucky roll is the strong natural foundation of emergent gameplay. What Metacurrencies do is turn organic natural roleplaying into a manufactured staged sort of storytelling. Now if you like canned storygaming, then Metacurrencies are clearly very valuable - but I like knowing that everything that happens in-character is natural and spontaneous (including failure)

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ok. That is to my mind an extremely unique situation, for one thing, not something you would expect or assume. Also, from what you're saying, the only acceptable answer to the particular situation you've presented is that the PCs cannot die until they get back to a place where you're comfortable introducing a new PC. If that's the case, just tell the players that their characters are immune to death for the duration of the adventure. I mean, it's true, right? Why hide it?

Making something less likely is not making it impossible. There may be a value to the risk being there, but that doesn't mean making it expected is desirable, and in a given serious combat in games without something buffering it and a serious approach to combat, that's often the case. The only reason it wasn't a regular problem in the local RQ campaigns were we had a habit of having everyone play two characters, so you were less likely for both of them to go down, but 8-14 character groups are not attractive or practical for a lot of people, either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Like I said, if it's a problem for others, that totally fine, but it's because they have concerns and expectations I don't. I will not speak for anyone other than myself, and I don't see a lot of value in talking about what's popular unless you're trying to market to them.

Objecting to other people talking about what's important to them and common like only the first part is true is pretty much turning every discussion into a you-versus-them thing, however, which is just what you did here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I agree, I actually give out some extra metacurrency (the Fate Points I mentioned in my last reply), just so I don't have to be (as) careful about the scenarios I put together... use your brain, make choices, know there's a safety net - but it won't hold up if you keep pursuing a stupid or dangerous course of action. (In my game, Inigo would have died to the second stab, as I only allow one Fate Point to be spent per encounter - you can't just "gut through it" with Hero Bennies!)

Well, most metacurrancy systems if used even vaguely in the fashion suggested aren't going to pave over really, really dopey play. A Savage Worlds character (where basic chance to avoid ranged combat is fairly minimalist, barring special abilities) who insists on getting in a firefight without using cover or the like is going to burn through Bennies awfully fast.

Metacurrancy can be used to buffer people who can't be bothered to think about how they play, and there are people out there like that, and if that's what the GM has, its what he has; but that's not its main function.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Yeah, where the idea comes from that metacurrancies are the perfect immunity to risk I don't know; it certainly doesn't apply to any I'm familiar with.

(Ironically, other than hit points in traditional D&D in some degenerate situations because of how they worked).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Making something less likely is not making it impossible. There may be a value to the risk being there, but that doesn't mean making it expected is desirable, and in a given serious combat in games without something buffering it and a serious approach to combat, that's often the case. The only reason it wasn't a regular problem in the local RQ campaigns were we had a habit of having everyone play two characters, so you were less likely for both of them to go down, but 8-14 character groups are not attractive or practical for a lot of people, either.

If you can't handle having a PC die in a given situation (for whatever reason), then you should tell the PCs their characters are immune to death in that situation. Making it unlikely still leaves the possibility that it happens and creates as you suggested an untenable circumstance. IMO either you're ok with it happening or you're not.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Objecting to other people talking about what's important to them and common like only the first part is true is pretty much turning every discussion into a you-versus-them thing, however, which is just what you did here.

There's no versus. I have no problem with differing opinions. I just don't see a good reason to extrapolate that opinion to a bunch a theoretical people you don't know.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If you can't handle having a PC die in a given situation (for whatever reason), then you should tell the PCs their characters are immune to death in that situation. Making it unlikely still leaves the possibility that it happens and creates as you suggested an untenable circumstance. IMO either you're ok with it happening or you're not.

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

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's no versus. I have no problem with differing opinions. I just don't see a good reason to extrapolate that opinion to a bunch a theoretical people you don't know.

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.