Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
RPG Combat: Sport or War?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 7726704" data-attributes="member: 6775031"><p>I may have been less clear on that point than I could have been. What I said is that the characters we care about are not different from any random peasant <em>except</em> in ways which the game actually represents. What I <em>meant</em> is that they don't have plot armor or narrative protection, and they don't have any special benefits as protagonists. They <em>can</em> withstand a greater amount of trauma without dying, as their HP statistics reflect.</p><p>Every character in D&D that we care to model is very likely wearing armor and/or is some kind of wizard. One of the least ridiculous things that Gary ever said is that the exceptional HP capacity of high-level characters is derived largely from their armor (in the case of fighter types) or from background enchantments that aren't worth modeling directly (in the case of caster types).</p><p></p><p>For example, while it is incredible that a fighter might have 100hp, that fighter is <em>probably</em> also wearing +3 plate armor, so we can attribute much of the fighter's ability to survive a giant's axe swing to the incredible enchantment on that armor which reduces the obviously-lethal impact into something more reasonable. Even though the mechanics don't <em>actually</em> say that the enchantment works that way, it's a reasonable enough assumption under the vast majority of circumstances, so it's a valid concession toward keeping the game playable.</p><p>It's not as simple as a number or formula giving an unrealistic outcome. Those sorts of things happen all the time, and they aren't a huge deal. The issue is with the <em>logic</em> by which the formula was generated. </p><p></p><p>The game said that making a single-use terrain-based attack (like dropping a ceiling on someone) should deal damage comparable to an encounter power (or something like that, it's been a while since anyone has quoted page 42), because that way they're strong enough that you would want to use them but they wouldn't completely upstage your actual powers or trivialize an entire combat. And that's <em>not</em> valid logic, because it requires meta-gaming in order to adjudicate. The mechanical effect of a physical process <em>can't</em> depend on what the DM <em>wants</em> it to be; it can only depend on actual in-game intrinsic characteristics, if it's supposed to hold any sort of objective meaning at all. That sort of meta-gaming would only be a reasonable concession to playability <em>if</em> your highest priority was making sure that combat was balanced.</p><p></p><p>Whether a falling rock does 3 damage or 300 damage, or damage equal to the square root of its mass times the cube of the distance fallen, it's not a big deal. If it does <em>as much damage as the DM thinks it should, based on circumstances</em>, then that's vague but also fine. If it does <em>not enough damage to kill anyone except mooks, because otherwise it would be boring</em>, then <em>that</em> is entirely unacceptable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 7726704, member: 6775031"] I may have been less clear on that point than I could have been. What I said is that the characters we care about are not different from any random peasant [I]except[/I] in ways which the game actually represents. What I [I]meant[/I] is that they don't have plot armor or narrative protection, and they don't have any special benefits as protagonists. They [I]can[/I] withstand a greater amount of trauma without dying, as their HP statistics reflect. Every character in D&D that we care to model is very likely wearing armor and/or is some kind of wizard. One of the least ridiculous things that Gary ever said is that the exceptional HP capacity of high-level characters is derived largely from their armor (in the case of fighter types) or from background enchantments that aren't worth modeling directly (in the case of caster types). For example, while it is incredible that a fighter might have 100hp, that fighter is [I]probably[/I] also wearing +3 plate armor, so we can attribute much of the fighter's ability to survive a giant's axe swing to the incredible enchantment on that armor which reduces the obviously-lethal impact into something more reasonable. Even though the mechanics don't [I]actually[/I] say that the enchantment works that way, it's a reasonable enough assumption under the vast majority of circumstances, so it's a valid concession toward keeping the game playable. It's not as simple as a number or formula giving an unrealistic outcome. Those sorts of things happen all the time, and they aren't a huge deal. The issue is with the [I]logic[/I] by which the formula was generated. The game said that making a single-use terrain-based attack (like dropping a ceiling on someone) should deal damage comparable to an encounter power (or something like that, it's been a while since anyone has quoted page 42), because that way they're strong enough that you would want to use them but they wouldn't completely upstage your actual powers or trivialize an entire combat. And that's [I]not[/I] valid logic, because it requires meta-gaming in order to adjudicate. The mechanical effect of a physical process [I]can't[/I] depend on what the DM [I]wants[/I] it to be; it can only depend on actual in-game intrinsic characteristics, if it's supposed to hold any sort of objective meaning at all. That sort of meta-gaming would only be a reasonable concession to playability [I]if[/I] your highest priority was making sure that combat was balanced. Whether a falling rock does 3 damage or 300 damage, or damage equal to the square root of its mass times the cube of the distance fallen, it's not a big deal. If it does [I]as much damage as the DM thinks it should, based on circumstances[/I], then that's vague but also fine. If it does [I]not enough damage to kill anyone except mooks, because otherwise it would be boring[/I], then [I]that[/I] is entirely unacceptable. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
RPG Combat: Sport or War?
Top