Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 5042943" data-attributes="member: 1645">While I agree that "unforeseen consequences" can be an example of "plausible deniability", I strongly believe that complex systems routinely exhibit much more complex behavior than people expect -- and the way that we handle such systems is to repeat whatever seems to be working and to stop doing whatever doesn't seem to be working.  Hence, tradition -- which is equated with superstition now, but which was considered vital to almost every society throughout history.Anyway, that's an aside, although it may provide useful context for my "real" point.I think you're arguing past me, because you assume that anyone kill-able in one shot is weak and not powerful -- which is indeed the case in a game like D&D, with its escalating hit points.My point was not that proto-D&D made heroes powerful by accident.  That was the intent.  My point was that the manner in which it made them powerful created "unrealistic" consequences.Again, the problem is not that a hero is powerful; it's that the nature of his power is, in effect, immunity to the first three hits he takes.If the hero's power had been reflected in a huge to-hit bonus, that wouldn't have felt jarringly unrealistic.  If the hero's power had been reflected in a huge defensive (AC) bonus, so they he only got hit one-fourth as often, that wouldn't have felt jarringly unrealistic either.In fact, he could have been even more powerful, while remaining far more plausible.  High power does not mean low realism, and low power does not mean high realism.  It depends on the nature of that power.</blockquote>

Verification