The Genius of D&D

[Arthur Tealeaf]

Armor as DR would probably end up making goons with X-bows less efffective. Because these guys aren't going to be throwing attacks with good damage modifiers - they only do 1d8 with that crossbow - attacks will just bounce off the armor. After a certain point, you might not even bother rolling because their maximum damage is less than the DR with the exception of crits. And if you're giving an AC bonus, then they have a poor confirmation roll. 10th level characters will still be invulnerable to loser guards with crossbows. Problem not solved.

Just use Ken Hoods Grim-N-Gritty System!

Then the guards could just use called shots to hit parts of the body not covered in armor! Its harder to hit, but its more realistic. And more gritty...

 

[Victim]

A skill or level based Defense/AC just doesn't work that well. After a certain point, additional bonuses stop mattering because there's a minimum chance to hit. At that level, it doesn't matter how good you are, because your enemies will hit as often for an equal effect.

If you can only envision HP loss as a character taking the hits on the chest, then you're missing the point of abstract damage. The Tank-man can take enormous wounds and ignore their effects. Dodgy-womanj umps and twists around the swings. After a certain point, both will go down because Tank-man has taken too much damage and Dodgy-woman runs out of room to evade. Both are treated the same way to prevent the mechanics from favoring one archetype.

Sine we keep using the MAtrix for examples, I;d like to see how some of the other fights would work with "real" damage as opposed to abstract and an evasion skill. In fights with Agents, the parties involved clearly take lots of punishment. We see fists that rip chunks out of stone absorbed by an apparent human. HP/AC works for just about all the fights, Defense/Wounds (or whatever) doesn't.

Why shouldn't the mechanics support heroic, elite characters not dieing stupidly instead of DM fudging?

 

[Ace]

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

I mean, mid to high level PCs are SUPPOSED to be powerful. They are SUPPOSED to be able to dodge the blows and take the hits. I mean, they are the cream of the crop. How fun would it have been if Gandalf accidently got speared 2 days into the journey by a wandering orc? Not very. It's like saying to a player "Ok, well, the crossbow bolt from Farmer Joe kills you. I don't care if you have 645 hit points, it kills you. No, no save. You die. Period."

Mid to higher level PCs shouldn't fear some level 1 warriors with crossbows. They have no reason to. That's not metagaming, that's knowing that you can kick their pitiful asses anyday of the week, and twice on Tuesday. There are other things for you to intimidate teh PCs with.

Absolutely when Realism is called for use GURPS. It works great for that type of game.

Heck if brutal slaughter is what is called for try Riddle Of Steel, 1 decent hit will kill anyione, begger or king...

IMO D&D styled games are just what people want to play. It isn't classes, levels, hit points points or anything else its just D&D pushes all of the right fun buttons.

It delivers more fun per hour for most people than well everything else.

Now If there were a better player "network there" are lots of people who would play other games. The thing is the other systems play base is highly divided.

There are manyRolemaster people who won't touch BRP or GURPS or whatever. And vice versa.

95% of people will play D&D and thats good enough to get a game almost anywhere in the US

 

[Umbran]

That's a good explanation. But, it's subjective.

As if the success of a game could be based on anything else? Of course it's subjective.

Game success is not governed by hard mathematical, objective laws. It's governed by what people like, en masse. Game success is a matter of collective taste and fashion. Even your oft mentioned "network externalities" are important for subjective reasons - having many players means it is more probable that a new gamer will find a group he likes to play with. Because without that liking, he'll stop playing.

What matters is most definitely not what any particular individual in this discussion thinks is important. Maybe for you, Mr. Dyal, Rounser's synergy among D&D's various systems does not feel strong. Fine. But your individual taste does not factor notably into the success of the game. It is instead the taste of the masses that counts. In order to understand why D&D is so big, we must not get stuck on our own individual likes and dislikes, but on the likes and dislikes of gamers as a group. We must think like a horde, not like ourselves.

 

[Jordan]

Use Ken Hoods Grim-N-Gritty system!

He might not have more than 30 hit points, but his skill with weapons still mean he can finish off three of them before they can shoot, the other two can't hit him because of his skill in evasion (his defense score, which increases with level) and the one bolt that hits him still will bounce harmlessly of his dragonhide armor because it reduces damage instead of raising AC.

Unless one of them rolls a critical hit. Then the epic hero who's slain dragons, demon lords, hideous beasts, etc., just got killed by a guy with a part-time job as a castle guard. That may be something that could "realistically" happen, but it's definitely not any fun for the player. Unless the system you're talking about doesn't have critical hits, then literally anyone under the sun has a chance to kill any character, no matter how powerful, just by virtue of a single lucky roll or two. How much fun is it for a character who's faced down dragons, giants, and devils (oh my!) to have to cower in fear whenever anyone points a crossbow at him?

IF they hit him, he might die, but because of his skill, it's unlikely that they do. It wouldn't be fun in The Matrix if Trinity--in the beginning of the film--just stood there, taking bullet after bullet, kicking their asses. No, she is just as vulnereable as anyone else, but her SKILL saves her ass. As it should be.

And this is the case in D&D as well. Hit points are an abstract used to represent skill. A well placed blow from a greatsword will kill a skilled, healthy fighter just as easily as it will a sickly grandmother. But the fighter is a lot more skilled at avoiding that well placed blow than the grandmother is. Sure, the guy swinging the greatsword might make contact - but the fighter is going to be dodging, rolling away, blocking with his weapon at the last second, doing all sorts of things the grandmother isn't capable of. That's what hit points represent, not the fighter just standing there while his opponent chops away again and again.

 

[WSmith]

And this is the case in D&D as well. Hit points are an abstract used to represent skill. A well placed blow from a greatsword will kill a skilled, healthy fighter just as easily as it will a sickly grandmother. But the fighter is a lot more skilled at avoiding that well placed blow than the grandmother is.

But they are also used to represent health. It just doesn't seem right that Cure Serious WOUNDS restores the skill one has to dodge blows. That is were many people find it difficult to swallow.

Hence the inception of the VP/WP. At first I liked the idea. Now I am not so fond of it. I prefer a simple one pool to keep track of health.

I think the defense/level bonus is a good idea.

I really need to get WOT. I have a feeling it is just right for me.

 

[Luddite]

V/WP and Defense v. HP and AC

Each of these have their uses. In a traditional High Fantasy Power Monger DnD game (which I like to play) then HP/AC is great.

Yet when I want to create a low-magic (or even rare to no magic) there is a problem. As characters level, their Attack values increase, but their defencive ablity does not. DnD solves this by assuming that a Character of a particular level will have various magical bonuses to AC. But if we do not have that "Magic" then when two high levels meet in the street, the first to go will kill the other character.

So in low-magic games I would like to have character level based defense values. And my preference is that Armour provides DR.

Is one system better then the other? no. Each one provides a different feel to the game and combat. Throw in Ken's "Grim and Gritty" and you now have yet another option.

But back to the topic. HP/AC is simple, and provides a heroic model that many people are comfortable with. What we have now, is that WotC is able to add different methods (VWP/Def) that gamers can mix and match to meet their requirements. d20 could be come the Legos of the RPG world. Which in my mind would be the next step of Genius

-The Luddite

 

[Jordan]

But they are also used to represent health. It just doesn't seem right that Cure Serious WOUNDS restores the skill one has to dodge blows. That is were many people find it difficult to swallow.

Any abstract system is going to have problems when you try to look at it with a "real world" view. I can understand why it wouldn't make much sense that a 1st level character who's opened from top to tails can be fully healed with a Cure Light Wounds spell, while a 10th level character who just has a few nicks and scratches won't be fully healed by that same spell.

There comes a point where the only way to play is to suspend your disbelief. In a world where people can toss fireballs around, I don't really have any trouble accepting inconsistency in healing spells. But that's just me. If someone wants to play a more gritty, realistic, low-magic game, I can understand why they might have some problems with the hit point model. But if someone wants to play that type of game, D&D probably isn't the best system to use anyway.

 

[WizarDru]

There comes a point where the only way to play is to suspend your disbelief. In a world where people can toss fireballs around, I don't really have any trouble accepting inconsistency in healing spells. But that's just me. If someone wants to play a more gritty, realistic, low-magic game, I can understand why they might have some problems with the hit point model. But if someone wants to play that type of game, D&D probably isn't the best system to use anyway.

Which was exactly the point I think Monte was trying to make. D&D is a GAME. I like GURPS a lot. I used it as my primary system for 15 years, after AD&D 1e lost it's shine. It did a lot for me. But I enjoy D&D 3e's abstract combat much more, from a 'fun' perspective. Hit points don't make any sense at all, it's true....but as numerous folks mention above, it's a fairly simple mechanic to grasp for even the beginner, and it works 'good enough' for what it's intended to do.

No one's denying that some folks don't like the default feel of this part of D&D or that part. The point is that the root game is PRETTY DAMN GOOD. This should be obvious, or we wouldn't all be here arguing about it.

 

[Anabstercorian]

The way I deal with the Hit Point Conundrum is simple - Hit Points are a supernatural quality of the game world that represent an unusually powerful life force. Anything above 4 hitpoints for a human represents a supernatural ability to instantly heal wounds with a sudden flash of light as you burn spiritual energy. Almost everything in the world has this ability. No, it's not traditional, and you'll never see it in any fantasy novel, but it's cool.
It even works nicely with the optional "realistic" rules. If you got Clobbered, sucking up such a massive chunk of your spiritual reservior was draining to you. If you're Coup De Graced, they slammed the weapon in to the wound, held it there, and twisted as your wound sizzled, seared, tried to heal, and then you finally died, five seconds or so later - Thus the full round action. And when you're healed, you're renewing your spiritual energy supply with a surge of positive life force. Negative energy cancels out your positive energy supply, and so on. Try it. It's wacky and cool.