Realistic Combat

[painandgreed]

Right, but you aren't quite getting hit. Not getting hit would be gracefully side-stepping the attack (miss due to Dex bonus), letting the weapon glance off your armor (miss due to armor bonus), or easily deflecting the blow with a well-placed shield (miss due to shield bonus). Getting hit and losing hit points might be variously described as lurching out of the way at the last moment and suffering only a scratch, absorbing a bruising blow that dents your armor, or straining beneath your shield under the force of your attack.

Not quite, because any attack that does hit point damage would inflict a save versus poison if the weapon were poisoned and would reveal damage resistance if present. There are probably some other examples. This would not happen if hit point loss could be near misses or deflections. Either you hand wave it and simply describe every attack caused by a poisoned weapon as a scratch and those from normal weapons as near misses and don't worry about it, or you admit that hit point loss comes from actual hits in all cases.

Similar things happen in cases of spells where you can save for half damage. Even though it's a reflex save (such as fireball) you can't really explain it as jumping out of the way, because said target could be in a position where they can't move or defend themselves yet still save.

 

[Pbartender]

Not quite, because any attack that does hit point damage would inflict a save versus poison if the weapon were poisoned and would reveal damage resistance if present. There are probably some other examples. This would not happen if hit point loss could be near misses or deflections. Either you hand wave it and simply describe every attack caused by a poisoned weapon as a scratch and those from normal weapons as near misses and don't worry about it, or you admit that hit point loss comes from actual hits in all cases.

Not necessarily... Remember, with things like poison, if you save, you don't get poisoned (or diseased or whatever). Failing the save is a near miss that scratches you, infecting you. While a successful save is likely the near miss doesn't quite touch you.

In other words, you play the individual descriptions by ear.

Similar things happen in cases of spells where you can save for half damage. Even though it's a reflex save (such as fireball) you can't really explain it as jumping out of the way, because said target could be in a position where they can't move or defend themselves yet still save.

You've never seen action movies, where the heroes are seemingly unharmed by explosions?



No... It's ducking behind your shield, or covering your face with your cloak, or simply turning away and covering your head with your arms in time to minimize the worst of the damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now, I no longer have a forum on these boards, but I can sticky threads (at least the ones I start). So I have this quasi moderator request to make.

Mythusmage - having previously had a hosted forum gives you no moderatorial authority in the public fora, quasi- or otherwise.

Please refrain from the 'moderator voice' bit.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[shilsen]

Aha... when you phrase it like that it can see where you're coming from. I focus more on the trappings of the milieu(s), which more closely mirror mass-market pulp and epic fantasy.

No argument there.

My first thought when hearing D&D called mythic is: "But Jason didn't try to sell the Golden Fleece so he could buy a +3 keen, ghost-touch spear and a +1 pelta with heavy fortification."

Knowing Jason, if it was a +2 Princess, on the other hand...

That's an interesting observation. I'd add, "but its campaign settings (including the implied one),usually do Conan much better than Cuchulainn."

Also true, which is why I've always had problems with the way the implied setting works, and why I like Eberron as much as I do. It tends to account better for the existence of such characters (partly by making them incredibly rare) in the same world as Pete the 1st lvl commoner than any published setting I've seen.

I'm thinking in terms of their utility as modeling tools. I agree with you (now) that D&D does mythic well by mid level or so. How would M&M fare? How does "M&M doing mythic" stack up to "D&D doing heroic"?

I think the former ("M&M doing mythic") is probably a little easier than the latter, if simply because of the modular version of M&M. And the fact that M&M has the somewhat built-in expectation of much less serious power escalation than D&D does, as I mentioned before. So all you'd need to do is start the PCs off as PL10-12 characters in a world of mostly PL1-5 people. You could do the same thing in D&D, but then you'd have to drop XP and level advancement very quickly, if not right off the bat.

Yes. A PC starts off like a character of the The Black Company and ends up, as you say as Achilles or Arjuna (or one of the bad-guy magicians from The Black Company).

Every single time, if you play long enough and the character survives... I'm interested in ways to make that ascent toward demigodhood a little more fine-grained.

I think M&M would work well for making it more fine-grained, and if going with D&D, I'd probably go with starting the PCs off at a higher level and significantly slowing down the level gain process. Also, maybe break up the things gained over a level and have each gained after a few sessions, so there's the sense of a more gradual progression. You know, something like having the skill pts of the next level gained after three sessions, the saves after another three, BAB after three more, hit pts after another three, and spellcasting and/or special abilities after the final three. This is just what I'm making up off the top off my head, so there'd be much better methods if one spent some time on them.

(Not that I'll do that in the CITY game. I'm starting to enjoy the though of those characters as the peers of Odysseus... mainly because of how f****** absurd it is.)

OK. Sure. So then... does M&M offer any significant advantages for running a D&D-like game in which the characters power level changes radically?

Again, right off the top off my head:

Advantage - M&M does radical change occurring in a fine-grained manner (1 pp per session rather than a level jump after a number of them) better.

Disadvantage - The class based system is just simpler to track than a modular system.

Advantage/disadvantage (depending on where your preference lies) - Combat is likely to be more unpredictable in M&M, esp. at higher PLs, due to the reliance on a save rather than hit pts. It would probably be somewhat similar to high-level D&D with a lot more incpacitating spells.

Are their specific advantages at certain power levels?

Does it breakdown somewhere?

These are really hard for me to say, since I just don't have the experience or, more importantly, the time spent reading and thinking about M&M. I do think it's a very strong and robust system, so I don't think it would really break down, but it's definitely easier for a well-informed player to powergame in M&M than in D&D, I think. Due to the modular nature of the game, just running core M&M is similar, I think, to running D&D with a whole heap of supplementary materials allowed, since there's a very high payoff for synergizing multiple abilities and powers. That's one reason why I think M&M requires a little more rules-savvy from the DM if run right out of the box than D&D (if running core D&D only).

I'm not sure if that answered your question, but there's my 2 pp (yes, I always overestimate).

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim, perhaps you have forgotten that you are posting on a public messageboard. One does not need to have been previously involved to enter a conversation.

1) I was in an on topic discussion with Dremmen. Various points were made on both sides.
2) Dremmen pointed out that somethings I said came off badly. I agreed. I was far more condescending than I should have been. I immediately apologized and tried to explain why I had held the position I did.
3) Dremmen and I reached some agreement. Hard feelings forgotten. Understanding increased. Peace, love and joy ensued. Yada yada, all the usual racket that comes from a good argument.

You'd think it would end there.

4) A moderator felt the need to condescendingly pat us on the back for acting well, like adults.
5) Sometime much after by gones were by gones, iwatt felt the need to try to draw some flames by mischaracterizing what I said and reopened a closed personal disagreement. Note, he had really nothing at all to say or add on the non-personal part of the discussion. It wasn't even, "You realize don't you that they changed the rules in 3.5 edition so that you could no longer use a knife to power attack?", or anything remotely like a civil post.
6) Long after by gones were by gones, now some moderator is on me for what I said to Dremmen way back in point #1. If Dremmen and I can put that behind us, why in the world can't a moderator? And more over, he's mischaracterizing what I said by carefully truncating the quote, and putting words in my mouth. In case someone didn't know, I rather detest it when people do that. That little preposition you left out is rather important. I'm not admitting to anything I haven't already admitted to, without your help thank you very much. Your extra commentary is not helpful, however cathartic it may be to jump into something and throw your elbows around. If you wanted to rant at me, send me an email. Since you insist on ranting in public, I will too.

Let's be clear. I can slam people's points and arguments all day, without slamming people (if I'm careful, which I wasn't in this case and for which I already apologized). There is nothing uncivil about disagreeing strongly with people's arguments, points, or even behaviors. If there was, then being a moderator would be the height of incivility, because thats exactly what I'm being 'slammed' for - unfairly I might add.

Nothing like being in an argument with someone that can pull the authority card, "It doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right. I'm in authority so you are automatically in the wrong for disagreeing with me."

Or, even better, "You don't get to be an exception to the rules. Only I get to be an exception to the rules."

I'm done with the thread. You don't need to ask.

 

[mmadsen]

[Can we please leave the disputes behind us? Perhaps we could even edit out the flames, counter-flames, and moderation...]

Does anyone have anything to say about bringing morale into the game in a bigger way? As I've been saying, I think, if anything, it adds to the heroic flavor of the game to have enemies shake with fear, run away, etc. (Granted, running them down might not feel quite so heroic...)

 

[replicant2]

Does anyone have anything to say about bringing morale into the game in a bigger way? As I've been saying, I think, if anything, it adds to the heroic flavor of the game to have enemies shake with fear, run away, etc. (Granted, running them down might not feel quite so heroic...)

It actually makes a lot of sense to have morale in the game. I'm not sure if you necessarily need a mechanic for that; I'd leave it up to DM fiat (even though monsters in older versions of D&D had morale scores). It just doesn't make sense that monsters--particularly intelligent humanoid creatures--should always fight to the death.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Nothing like being in an argument with someone that can pull the authority card, "It doesn't matter if I'm wrong or right. I'm in authority so you are automatically in the wrong for disagreeing with me."

In this case, you're automatically in the wrong for arguing about a moderation post in the thread.

'The Rules' is an announcement at the top of the forum, including the following:
If you really, really disagree with a moderator's position on a [moderating] issue, please don't argue about it on the boards. That means no calling out of moderators, no challenging their decisions in the thread, and certainly no attempts to go over a moderator's head. The moderators all discuss such things amongst themselves, and no moderator or admin is ever going to override another. If you honestly feel that you have been treated unfairly, please contact the moderator in question privately and discuss it with them. The end result may not be the one you were seeking, but we will do our our best to be fair.

If you want to contact any of the moderators, our email addresses are available in a thread in the Meta forum.

In the mean time, see you in three days.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[mmadsen]

It actually makes a lot of sense to have morale in the game. I'm not sure if you necessarily need a mechanic for that; I'd leave it up to DM fiat (even though monsters in older versions of D&D had morale scores). It just doesn't make sense that monsters--particularly intelligent humanoid creatures--should always fight to the death.

I wouldn't want a complicated mechanic -- I'm sure I've made already made the point that complicated mechanics are generally neither more fun nor more realistic -- but having a mechanical guideline could go a long way. First, it would set some basic guidelines -- namely that most creatures will run away the moment they think they're in any danger. Second, it would give a mechanical reason for wearing gleaming gold-chased armor and wielding a glowing sword, etc.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I don't think it's an issue for PCs, or for ordinary people raised in say, a quasi-Mongol horde, but modern middle-class city-slickers don't like to shoot people.

The necessary psychology to be a highly effective killer is an achievement that requires a lot of brutality along the way.

It is an imperfect book, but Richard Rhodes' Why They Kill examines this issue in some detail.

I would note that it became a common practice for the knightly classes to ship their sons off to allies/relatives for their training to manhood. Probably the main advantage is a father may love his son and therefore cannot be counted on inflict the necessary degree of authoritarian violence. The child must soak up this violence and learn to enjoy dishing it out ot others if he is going to excel at the violent & ruthless professional that is knighthood.