The Genius of D&D

[Jordan]

Again, doubling, tripling, and quadrupling Hit Points is not the one and only way to power up characters. In a high-AC, moderate-hp system, a high-level Fighter wouldn't worry about "any schlep with a weapon in his hand," because he'd strike that "schlep" down, same as always. And, realistically, no "schlep" would approach Sir Lancelot to see if he might be the guy to score a lucky crit (and still die the next round).

Well, as someone already pointed out, barring extremely unusual circumstances, low-level scrubs will most likely only be able to hit a high-level fighter with a natural 20 under the current system. So simply raising his AC while lowering his HP will result in a big net loss for the fighter when he fights low-level scrubs. You mentioned that you could always tweak other rules to compensate for this, and that's fine, but if you do something like switching to armor as DR, you end up making the system more complicated. And D&D combat, especially in 3e, is designed to be as simple as possible. But if you can come up with a system that retains game balance and does what you want it to do, more power to you.

And as for the schlep trying to cut down Sir Lancelot, I think it's pretty unlikely too, but some people in this discussion seem to be saying that they want to be able to use low-level creatures to challenge high-level characters. I'm just saying that if you change the system to where a handful of low-level creatures can seriously threaten a high-level character, again barring extremely unusual circumstances, you've completely thrown out all game balance, and probably made the game a lot less fun for your players to boot.

 

[Numion]

Or hidden option (d), let them win the fight.

Just like in the beginning of the movie Matrix where the ordinary cops try to arrest Trinity. "Your men are already dead."

It's not the ordinary cops the D&D characters should be afraid, but the agents.

Thats the 'reality' of D&D and I happen to like it. I wouldn't want my players to surrender to 1st level commoners with x-bows. But I wouldn't want them to slaighter them either.

 

[William Ronald]

With 3rd edition, there is no reason why an orc can't be a 20th level character. Upper level heroes tend to take on the major villains.

 

[hong]

We're not talking about reducing the power level; we're talking about changing the mechanics for high power. In a high-AC, moderate-hp system, a high-level Fighter can wade into battle against hordes of spear-carriers, and he'll kill them as spectacularly as always. He'll Cleave and Whirlwind Attack them the same as always. Instead of getting whittled down though, getting hit most of the time, but only taking 5% of his Hit Points per shot, he'll get hit much, much less often -- but those hits might take 20% of his Hit Points at a time.

In much the same way that infrequent leveling up is more exciting than incremental improvement, fewer hits that do more damage are more interesting than consistently taking a few points of damage for twenty rounds in a row.

This is bad for gameplay. The advantage of ablative hp is that it allows for a more gradual, more manageable reduction in strength. Lots of relatively small hits give less variability in toto than a few relatively severe hits. The latter inflates the importance of getting a lucky critical, which ends the fight. This is not fun; in effect you're waiting for the first guy to roll a natural 20. The same effect has been observed in systems like GURPS, where fights between characters with extreme skill levels boil down to whoever gets the first crit in. It isn't fun in GURPS either.

This has been brought up countless times before, and the same arguments hold as they always have. Why are you bringing it up again?

 

[Bagpuss]

Re: Levels

I think D&D's levels are a bit too granular -- the jump is too big -- but I can see the advantage of meaningful jumps over incremental improvements. Again though, a Feat or Spell certainly seems significant and impressive.

Its interesting that the next most successful RPG system (could be wrong on this point) White Wolf's Storyteller system, also has has meaningful jumps, such as improved generation, disciplines, spheres, etc. They may be only one step on scale but each improvement gives a much greater power-level in most cases.

Although also incremental improvement in most of its skills, much like D&D.

 

[Erekose]

This is quite a thread!

I may have missed this - sorry if its already been mentioned - but . . .

Yes you do increase the challenge as characters increase so you could ask the "why bother?" question. (Although an early campaign against goblins compared to a later Underworld campaign against the Drow would be very different!)

However, I like to give my players a range of encounters as they progress up levels some a which will be relatively easy so that they can see how far they've progressed in the game world.

 

[Numion]

However, I like to give my players a range of encounters as they progress up levels some a which will be relatively easy so that they can see how far they've progressed in the game world.

I do that too, sometimes they're attacked by 60 normal goblins and sometimes by 4 purple worms. (60 goblins lasted a round against the 15th level group. It was pretty messy. )

If you use the planes in your game, it adds whole new options for adventures of high-level characters. So it's not just same-old-same-old with bigger nasties. Going to different planes also motivates some players, like 'Now we can take the battle to the enemy! To Abyss!'

 

[Desdichado]

Unfortunately, this thread has fallen from a discussion of Monte's article to one in which the merits of the specific mechanics he mentions are debated. In my opinion, that's completely beside the point.

Anyone who's ever played a game outside of D&D knows very well that the D&D way of doing things isn't the only way, and that other ways may work better, just as well or worse. There are tons of ways to give players "a carrot" without resorting to levels. There are tons of ways to focus players in a relatively easy chargen process without resort to classes. There are tons of ways to simulate combat without hit points. There are tons of ways to focus GMs on how to play the game and what to do with the game without dungeons.

It's ridiculous to say that D&D's methodology is a just-so superior product to anyone elses in any of these regards. Monte makes some good points about why these mechanics may be good, but fails to take into account the fact that many other games will actually do one or all of those same tasks better, and yet it still isn't a bigger seller than D&D. He makes no effort whatsoever to successfully link these mechanics causally with D&D's success. In addition, he often uses 3e examples for things that weren't true in earlier editions (flexibility of class design, being a notable example.)

In my opinion, he's also much to quick to dismiss other factors that actually make much more sense. The learning curve for RPGs combined with the network externalities (the amount of people that play it) basically maintain an almost monopolistic grip on the market for D&D and likely will continue to do so for some time to come. While given groups may have no problem learning and playing other systems, if you change groups, pick up a new group, or whatever, what are the chances that they will be playing something other than D&D? Therefore, most games are read more often than they are played, and purchased much less often than D&D.

In addition, as this thread has pointed out, D&D offers the kind of gaming experience that most gamers want, I think, and is smart enough to really have tons of stuff out there flooding the market with product so that gamers can pick and choose and tailor the game to their tastes without have to build from scratch or modify things too much.

In short, if the things Monte claims about D&D are what makes it successful, then D&D is staring into the face of the grim reaper. Computer RPGs offer the same experience, and are much easier to pick up and play, further reducing the need for D&D to even exist. In my opinion, pen and paper RPGs that model something other than the CRPG experience, and allow for GMs and players to do something other than, essentially, play Might & Magic or Ultima are those that are successful. D&D can offer that, but certainly not because of any of the things Monte credits with its success.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

True CRPG's offer the same "carrots" but w/o the face to face experience of playing with ones pals.

 

[mmadsen]

Hit Point Scaling

[I should probably heed Joshua Dyal's words, but I can't resist discussing Hit Points.]

The advantage of ablative hp is that it allows for a more gradual, more manageable reduction in strength. Lots of relatively small hits give less variability in toto than a few relatively severe hits.

While that's certainly true, if our goal is to reduce variability, why are we rolling dice? And why are we rolling BIG dice -- d20 to hit, and often d8, d10, or d12 for damage?

Further, if hitting isn't necessarily hitting, why are we rolling for both to-hit and damage? Why don't we just have an Attack Point value we subtract from the other guy's Hit Point value each round?

Obviously we don't want an accounting war, and we do want some variability. There's a continuum here.

If we look at typical monsters along the power spectrum, we see that the damage they deal out increases to match the high Hit Points of high-level characters. This should surprise no one. CR-1/4 Goblins deal out 1d8-1; CR-1 Gnolls deal out 1d8+2; CR-2 Ogres deal out 2d6+7; CR-7 Hill Giants deal out 2d6+10; CR-10 Fire Giants deal out 2d8+15.

At every level, the opposition does enough damage to hurt the heroes and kill them in, say, three or four blows -- whether those are 7-point blows against a low-level Fighter or 24-point blows against a 10th-level Fighter.

Once we accept that everyone likes combat that takes three or four blows to finish someone, we can scale attack bonuses and damage versus defense bonuses (AC) and Hit Points a few different ways.

Right now, a 10th-level Fighter (79 hp) facing a Fire Giant can take about four shots (averaging 24 hp). Facing another 10th-level Fighter armed with a mundane bastard sword, he can take eight blows (1d10+5, averaging 10.5); versus a +1 sword he can take seven (1d10+6, averaging 11.5). Against a horde of 1st-level Warriors with spears, he can take countless hits -- 18 supposedly good shots (averaging 4.5).

If we halved the Fighter's Hit Points, he'd still be able to take two good shots from a 12-foot giant wielding a 12-foot sword -- or four good sword strokes from his equal, or nine spear thrusts from spear-carriers (who have a 1-in-20 chance of even hitting him). If we then make him twice as hard to hit, he's just as powerful as before, without all the hand-waving of hits that aren't hits, non-injuries that need healing, etc.

That's hardly the "wait for the crit" scenario painted as the only alternative to high-hp heroes. The brave Fighter hopes to slay the Fire Giant unscathed, but if he takes a hit, it really hurts. (Sounds right.) If he pairs off against his equal, he expects to take three or four good sword strokes before it's over, and he'll be sorely wounded -- but those blows won't all land in the first or second round. And he's still able to take an ungodly amount of punishment from the spear-carriers -- expecting 180 of their attacks before nine of them land and actually bring him down.

Or we could give everyone one Hit Point (or a single d4 Hit Die) and just ramp up their AC. That seems to be the Straw Man everyone's knocking down.

The latter inflates the importance of getting a lucky critical, which ends the fight. This is not fun; in effect you're waiting for the first guy to roll a natural 20.

In a variant D&D with both a Base Attack Bonus and a Base Defense Bonus, two high-level Fighters facing off would hit each other as often as two low-level Fighters facing off. Waiting for a natural 20 is quite an overstatement. And having enough Hit Points to withstand four hits versus eight quasi-hits is hardly waiting for one lucky shot to end the fight.

Again, there's a continuum. We can have all ablative defenses (hp) and no other defense (AC), or we can have no real ablative defenses (1 hp, 1d4 hp) and high hit avoidance (AC bonus with level), or we can choose any point in between -- all regardless of how heroic (powerful) or gritty (lethal) we'd like the system.

The same effect has been observed in systems like GURPS, where fights between characters with extreme skill levels boil down to whoever gets the first crit in. It isn't fun in GURPS either.

In GURPS -- which, by the way, always seems to get trotted out as the only alternative to D&D, one we have to take in toto -- a defender's defense roll is independent of the attacker's skill or attack roll -- unless the attacker scores a critical hit. Thus, "high-level" GURPS characters are unhittable conventionally -- they only fail their defense roll ~1% of the time -- and only fluke criticals land.

That's nothing like attack bonuses versus offsetting defense bonuses.