The Genius of D&D

[hong]

Re: Hit Point Scaling

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

I noticed.

And as said before: playtest, and post results. Ideas are a dime a dozen, execution is what counts.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Good point, Joshua Dyal. Too bad those side issues are so damnably interesting (and controversial).

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.

Absolutely, but Monte does have a point that people like D&D -- not simply in spite of its "flaws" but often because of them. As I've been saying, other games that try to offer up alternatives that make more sense are really offering up much more complicated rulesets or much deadlier combat or whatever. Many people want a simple, heroic game, and the attempts to fix D&D have generally led to complicated, unheroic games, not a better D&D. (I think most of us agree that 3E acheived a better D&D, even if there's always room from improvement.)

There are tons of ways to give players "a carrot" without resorting to levels.

Are they as easy though? As well codified? A group of 10-year-olds can set up adventures that (more-or-less) follow the rules with leveling up and gathering treasure as rewards.

What are some good alternatives? We know people like big enough power-ups that they feel important (the gambling analogy). I think Feats and Spells achieve that. A +1 to a few skills doesn't feel like much. An extra Hit Die is quite a bit.

People also like power-ups in the form of magic items. We definitely know that.

Codifying fame and reputation into a Glory score wouldn't be too hard. Guidelines for NPCs treating heroes with respect, giving them free meals, calling them by superlative epithets, etc. could go a long way toward players' wish fulfillment.

Simple rules for moving up in social power would also work well. After all, a great warrior in real life is usually a guy who's won a few battles and now leads a great army. A natural progression into positions of power would make a great "carrot".

Part of that could be acquiring important friends and allies. If your character is an official Friend of the Elves (complete with elven leaf talisman) or of the Great Eagles and can call in their aid, that's not a typical D&D power-up, but it works.

Everyone loves magic mounts and animal allies. Getting a Griphon, or Talking Tiger, or Winged Horse, or Unicorn -- c'mon, everyone loves that.

Pendragon offers some unconventional progressions (for gaming, not for real life); characters marry, have kids, run the manor, and pass the adventuring mantle onto the next generation.

There are tons of ways to focus players in a relatively easy chargen process without resort to classes.

I guess d20 Call of Cthulhu does a good job of that.

There are tons of ways to simulate combat without hit points.

But which ones are simple and work?

There are tons of ways to focus GMs on how to play the game and what to do with the game without dungeons.

Even the transition from mindless dungeons to sensible dungeons is hard for most young DMs to make. What are some good guidelines for new DMs to write "real" adventures? Guidelines that are easy to follow.

 

[WizarDru]

Re: Hit Point Scaling

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



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.

Probably because few game systems have been around as long as GURPS & D&D. Why Vampire is never presented is beyond me. That said, you're wrong concerning the lack of correlation between attack and defense, in part. Parrying is a DIRECT correlation to one's attack ability (usually 1/2 or 2/3, depending on the weapon, with additional bonuses added). Therefore, a sufficiently high level combat can result in round after round of waiting for a critical to land.

 

[mmadsen]

Re: Re: Hit Point Scaling

That said, you're wrong concerning the lack of correlation between attack and defense, in part. Parrying is a DIRECT correlation to one's attack ability (usually 1/2 or 2/3, depending on the weapon, with additional bonuses added).

I said that "a defender's defense roll is independent of the attacker's skill or attack roll", not that a defender's defense roll is independent of his own attacking skill.

If your Defense roll is 15 or less, it doesn't matter whether you're attacked by Zorro or the town drunk; you avoid the attack on a 15 or less (on 3d6).

 

[Mordax]

Hrm...this thread is too cool to pass up posting on.

My group switched from GURPS to 3E when the PHB came out, and we've been loathe to go back.

It really has nothing to do with the genius of D&D, so much as the money...
*drumroll*
Money spent on *playtesting*.

D&D has immense playtesting resources, that are unmatched by any other company. This is why 3E works, IMO. The same ideas, hatched by a smaller company, never would've grown into something useful. (This is why GURPS requires so much patching - they just can't afford to iron it out properly.)

So I s'pose I'm in the "first guy corners the market" camp, but for a different reason than most.

If D&D had been a scifi game that focused on cool space battles with very gradual progress, instead of levels and dungeons, I think that's what we'd be discussing here, today.

As for Vampire not being brought up:
I was actually thinking about the White Wolf stuff. As of 3E, it's very good at simulating heroic action. I've been tempted to use it for something - anything but their setting - for some time.

One thing I like about their system, and sorta wish D&D or GURPS did, is that being wounded actually causes lingering skill penalties...

As for ablative hp:
Well, I'll side in favor of ablative hp as a good mechanic, just for the sake of argument. Here's the train of thought:

In GURPS, if I have a very skilled swordsman - good enough for a Parry 15, say - I can block any sort of blow with almost perfect success. If a giant swings a log at my head, and I'm allowed a Parry at all, I'll stop that log dead. There isn't even an official mechanic for reducing my chance of success on the basis of a superhuman attack.

(This matters in, like, Supers games - a normal strength martial artist can parry Superdude all day long.)

In the same situation, in D&D (I have a high level fighter with decent AC and a ton of hp), the giant is likely to hit and cause a couple dozen points of damage...representing the exact same active defense, and the fact that parrying a log is going to hurt, no matter how agile you are.

 

[rounser]

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.

Here's a reason for you : synergy. Many other game systems do one or two of these tasks better than D&D. It is not ridiculous to suggest that, on the whole, D&D's collective strengths are compelling enough to out-compete other systems with different sets of strengths and weaknesses.

I believe that D&D's aces up it's sleeve extend a lot farther than just Monte Cook's examples, which are restricted to several rule-based fortes and one cultural forte, and beyond Ryan Dancey's explanation of D&D's success, which revolves around the player network (and incidentally, effectively dismissing any reason for the popularity of the game being due design factors). I've mentioned several more in this thread which I find equally as compelling as their explanations, perhaps even moreso in some cases.

To add another one, the fantasy genre has an appeal about it that was not only enough to launch the industry of roleplaying, but was also enough to launch the industry of trading card games in the form of Magic: the Gathering. I doubt that this is a coincidence, and so you can add that to the list of "ridiculous just-so suggestions" of superiority. The whole is often greater than the sum of it's parts, IMO, and it is no more ridiculous to suggest that D&D as a complete game is more "fun" than other RPGs than it is to say that D&D is made obsolete by another game that aces it on a specific area.

 

[WSmith]

Monte said:

Compared to many other RPGs, character generation is quick and stat blocks are small, meaning that character generation and writing out stats didn't take away time and focus from creating adventures. Who wants to create an adventure for a system with stat blocks that go on for over a page, and can take over half an hour to create a single NPC?

While I disagree with a lot of what Monte says, I agree that this statement is more powerful than one can gather from just glancing at it.

I think 3e is simple for us, the experienced gamer. I think it is a little taxing for the newcomer, and takes some getting used to. Why?

*The word "level" for use of both spells and character levels, when the two don't correspond in a linnar fashon (What do you mean I can cast a 3rd level spell until I am a 5th level wizard?)

*The use of the word "actions." (partial, standard, move only, ME, full) I love the way Spycraft just call them half and full actions. That would clear up mucho for a neophyte.

*Character generation can be a little longer than it should be for a new player, without the assistance of a playing friend.

However, with those aside, the simplicity that makes D&D as big as it is, goes back to the boxed Basic sets. Here is my theory:

Although numbers are nigh to be found, I would venture to say many (at least half) of D&D players started with the Basic D&D game.

Because of the nature of the BD&D game, character creation was so simple and fast, you could be playing in just a few minutes. Plus, while there were restrictions, there were no restrictions. Yes, if you were a magic-user you could not wear armor. However, you didn't need game mechanics to develop the background of what we now call skills and feats. The player could come up with whatever BG he wanted, and was not funnelled by the CharGen picks beyond class. He had a small amount of restrictions to create an archtype, and the rest was let to the imagination. Imagination and interaction is what hooks people on RPGs. Not Rules.

Your character could fit on one side of one piece of paper, and still have plenty of white space. Place the BD&D sheet next to the 3e sheet. The 3e sheet looks a little daunting. Again, this is conductive to bring in a new player.

The character's role was CLEARLY defined, (both a strength and weakness, but more on that in a minute.) The fighter's job was to fight. The MU was to cast spells, the thief was to do all the sneaky stuff, the cleric to heal. Judging on what the player wanted the character to do, you would pick the class and get your set bene's. There were no decisions to be made beyond that, except maybe spells and equipment. Even then, the choices were kept to a minimum for simplicity's sake.

DMs had to improvise and create a lot of rules on their own. This may be good or bad for the players depending on the impartiality of the DM, but it did make the game seem even more like the DMs, with his ad hoc resolution systems.

So, you get to play and have fun with friends from level 1-3, where a lot of the issues that many of us have about AC, HP, DR, etc. don't even matter. Everything seems to work. But you eventually want more options. So, you either get the PHB, DMG, MM, or the ED&D boxed set, and you are now hooked like a junkie!

Fast forward to 2000. The sacred cows are kept. Why? We all know to "keep the old school happy" reason, but do we know why they kept the Vancian, AC, HP, classes, and levels? Not because of us old timers getting disoriented without them, but because of what they meant and how simple they were to the new players many of us were in the late 70's and early 80's. Realistic or not, they do work.

 

[Desdichado]

rounder:
Here's a reason for you : synergy. Many other game systems do one or two of these tasks better than D&D. It is not ridiculous to suggest that, on the whole, D&D's collective strengths are compelling enough to out-compete other systems with different sets of strengths and weaknesses.

That's a good explanation. But, it's subjective. Again, and I posted this on the other thread where this first came up: I'm not suggesting that D&D's mechanics are bad necessarily (although personally I believe that past editions had truly horrendous mechanics, that's neither here nor there with my argument) merely that the mechanics it does have are not so inherently superior to amount to the game's success. I don't think Monte's article really makes any attempt to (nor could it) relate these mechanics causally to the success of D&D, so its completely an opinion piece. Granted, Monte's in a position in the industry where it pays to at least listen to his opinion, but in this I don't think he's correct.

I believe that D&D's aces up it's sleeve extend a lot farther than just Monte Cook's examples, which are restricted to several rule-based fortes and one cultural forte, and beyond Ryan Dancey's explanation of D&D's success, which revolves around the player network (and incidentally, effectively dismissing any reason for the popularity of the game being due design factors). I've mentioned several more in this thread which I find equally as compelling as their explanations, perhaps even moreso in some cases.

I think they are too, and I think that a lot of issues go into the success of D&D. However, I think most of them are cultural rather than design related. I guess I fall closer to the side of Ryan Dancey's opinion on this issue than Monte's.

To add another one, the fantasy genre has an appeal about it that was not only enough to launch the industry of roleplaying, but was also enough to launch the industry of trading card games in the form of Magic: the Gathering. I doubt that this is a coincidence, and so you can add that to the list of "ridiculous just-so suggestions" of superiority. The whole is often greater than the sum of it's parts, IMO, and it is no more ridiculous to suggest that D&D as a complete game is more "fun" than other RPGs than it is to say that D&D is made obsolete by another game that aces it on a specific area.

Bingo! I mentioned that in my first post here, although I think it mostly got overlooked: I think D&D was partly successful because it tied into something that our culture was really looking for. The fantasy hero (of some type or another) is an important cultural archetype, and I'm not sure that without starting in the genre it did, RPGs would ever have really taken off. But that's admittedly rank speculation on my part...

 

[Arthur Tealeaf]

I'll ask again: If the PCs always have to worry about being killed by any schlep with a weapon in his hand, what's the point of levelling up? How much fun will it be for a player triumphantly returning from an epic adventure against a clan of giants to be killed by a ragtag band of 1st level bandits who ambush him on the road?

If you are killed by a ragtag band of 1st level bandits, your DM SUCKS!!!!!!

A good DM would never let this happen!

It's as if Tolkien, while writing Lord of the Rings (the characters were just as frail as most other people/dwarves/elves/hobbits) rolled on a random encounter table for every few hours of travel, rolled some orcs, played out the battle and ended the book because everyone was unlucky and were killed. THE END.

Any good Dm wouldn't let this happen, but instead use that high rate of lethality to make the game more realistic and exciting (and ofcourse, gritty... hehe), but still keeping that heroic feeling. It wouldn't be cool if every character in LOTR just ignored all the orcs attacking them, "because they were so skilled". Just because you have to fight for survival, doesn't mean you have to die all the time. After all, thats what DMs are for. If not, we could just have a DM machine which slavicly followed every rule and let the dice determine every outcome.

Blah...

 

[Arthur Tealeaf]

This is also a concept that's well grounded in fantasy storytelling. Picture Heklor Bloodaxe, legendary barbarian who's killed the Great Hydra of the Marshes and the Dragon Lord of the Thunderstrike Mountains staring down a half-dozen castle guards who likely have never seen combat outside of a practice room. Why should he be afraid of these people? He knows he could kill three of them before any of them could get a shot off, two of them are shaking so badly there's no way they'll hit him, and the one bolt that might strike home will bounce harmlessly off his dragonhide armor

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.

There you go.

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.