The Genius of D&D

[WizarDru]

I'm more than a bit perplexed by people's reactions to my statement that people enjoy combats that last three or four hits (per combatant, on the receiving end). Carnifex said, "Maybe you do, but I have seen no evidence in other players... that this is something that 'people want'," and hong simply declared it "A meaningless statement."

I get the feeling no one read my lengthy post on Hit Point Scaling -- or it was terribly unclear.

Quite possibly. I'll be honest, I've lost track of what we're arguing here. Originally, I thought this was primarily an argument of Monte's opinion that D&D's 'sacred cows' were, in fact, it's greatest strengths. What is the point of contention about the combat system and hit points, exactly? I'm not being facetious, here...I really don't understand what we're discussing. Is it mmadsen's dissatisfaction with the versimilitude of the hit point mechanic, and others support of same?

mmadsen obviously enjoys one flavor, folks like carnifex, another. If mmadsen is contending that it's a trivial task to change the system to use an alternate, low hp variant, swell. I don't agree, as it sends dozens of rules sprialing into re-evaluation and testing, IMHO. That said, I understand his dissatisfaction with it, and see nothing wrong with it. I just don't prefer that style. As it stands, it seems like each complaint about a low-hp system results in another patch, and cumulatively, it's far too much work for a little more suspension of disbelief, to me.

 

[Henry]

WizarDru's point is one I have made in other threads on this topic. People will keep leaving D&D and coming back to it - because of whatever special quality it is that make it D&D. Whether it's classes, levels, and good old dungeon crawls, or whether it's the "network externalities."

D&D is like Pepperoni as a Pizza topping -- it's one that 90% of the population agrees on, if you're trying to get people to agree on something to eat together. Not everyone LOOOOVES pepperoni, not everyone would prefer it as their #1 choice topping - but if you can agree on it with the other person, then it's cool with you too.

I personally believe that it's simpler qualities are what bring people to it on a recurring basis, and that it is what is behind this "network externalities." I'm not sure if my cricle of known 39 RPG players is an aberration or not, but EVERY ONE of them, of ages from 11 to early 50's, started their RPG experience with D&D. It is not a group of people who have all ever necessarily interacted with one another, nor learned at the same time - but every one of them learned D&D as their first Pen and Paper RPG.

(In this I do not count the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books, since they are not RPG's in the truest sense of the word, but rather multiple-choice stories with no rules.)

If these people were to ever find themselves in a situation to play together again (since many of them no longer play RPG'S due to tiem and priorities), the one game you would be most likely to get them to play again - was old-fashioned, dungeon-hopping, greatsword-wielding-fighters, and spell-bashing wizards.

 

[Arthur Tealeaf]

[/color]
One small problem there. D&D games are not books. They are games. If the player knows that he can never die because his DM won't let him so the "story" isn't ruined, then the game loses its sense of challenge and the fun is gone. It's not the DMs fault if the player characters die. It's the way the game is. That's an inherent risk in everything that the player characters do, which is what makes the game exciting. Not the overarching plot of the game.

I disagree completely that good DMs shouldn't let lucky shots kill PCs.

Okay, sorry, that is kind of a choice of styles of play.
But what I meant is that the Dm should try and give the Illusion that the players can easily die, but still make sure they don't die in such a boring and bland way! It can be hard, but It's definately worth it in the end.
I also agree that there should be an inherent risk in everything the players do, but its still no fun! I would rather have them because they stuck their noses up into something they shouldnt then from a lucky shot in a random encounter. That is what I meant, though my previous argument was badly formulated.

[/color]

Dude, have you read the player's handbook? This is described in some detail there. It really shouldn't be a surprise.

Yes, I've read it, but I still find it silly. I think AC should be AC, and HP should be HP, instead of HP being a mix of both. It can get silly. If you are bound to a pole and defenseless and you survive the coup de gras, then why do you still have as many hit points as you would have if you were criticalled for the same amount of damage? You couldn't exactly "roll with the blow" when bound to the pole. Thats why I think they should be seperate things.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I give up.

The game is well tested. All the rules "work" in the sense that you can play them. I am in no mood to rewrite them from the ground up. If someone else wants to, more power to them.

Moving on to a new thread ...

Irda Ranger

 

[mmadsen]

Originally, I thought this was primarily an argument of Monte's opinion that D&D's 'sacred cows' were, in fact, it's greatest strengths. What is the point of contention about the combat system and hit points, exactly?

If I may trace the argument back a bit, it started with Monte Cook's contention that Hit Points aren't just a simple-to-use mechanic, but that they scale well. If there's one complaint about Hit Points, it's not that they're too simple; it's that they don't scale well. Many, many people complain about how many Hit Points high-level characters have and how that distorts things (zero fear of a dozen crossbowmen, healing potions not curing minor scratches on heroes, etc.).

That turned into a broader discussion of Hit Points, AC, etc. If I could make just one point about Hit Points, it's that D&D's high-hp, low-AC system is not the one and only way to have a simple system with a heroic flavor.

mmadsen obviously enjoys one flavor, folks like carnifex, another.

Actually, I think other mechanics can yield the same epic flavor without some of the glaring inconsistencies. I'm not arguing for a grittier flavor. I'm trying to clarify that the dichotomy between simple and heroic vs. complex and gritty is a false dichotomy.

If mmadsen is contending that it's a trivial task to change the system to use an alternate, low hp variant, swell. I don't agree, as it sends dozens of rules sprialing into re-evaluation and testing, IMHO.

When I say that the system could just as easily use a higher-AC, lower-hp methodology to acheive epic flavor and playability, I'm not saying that cranking out house rules and testing them is just as easy as using the existing system with no changes. I'm saying that the system could just as easily have been designed that way -- but it wasn't.

 

[Victim]

Okay, this may seem odd, but one thing I've considered is making things more about HP. Instead of a Reflex save, spells would do damage to "Relfex points" and HP. Evasion would allow you to take the attack on straight reflex instead of both. These Saving throw points would refresh over time, but much faster than HP. They'd kind of have fast healing or something. I think that this would model lots of heroic type things much better.

For example, X is attacked by hasted wizard. First, a lightning bolt flies toward X, and he attempts to dive out of the way. Then another lightning blot or fireball is aimed at him. It seems somewhat odd that his chance to dodge the second blast is equal to his chance against the first. He may dive out of the way of the first bolt, and the 2nd is aimed to catch him in midair, or the fireball goes off directly behind the cover he's using. After dodging one blast, X probably won't be in as good of a position to dodge the next. If he's amazingly good, maybe he flips over the cover just as the fireball strikes to dodge it, or throws something into the air as he sees the 2nd bolt getting primed so that the action-reaction drives him away from the worst of it. But he'd have to be amazing good to dodge both - thus having a huge reflex point total.

If a hero is captured and evil doers use magics to twist his mind, when does he succumb to their influences? Right now, he has an X% chance of folding against each attack. Granted, that with a good save it's unlikely that he'll quickly fold, but it's still a chance. It should probably take a long time to wear him down and break him. With Will points, it would take some time, depending on how good the rolls were. But he wouldn't fold instantly.

Also, using resistance points would be more consistent with HP. It's somewhat inconsistent to have one attack work on attrition and another to work on a X% avoidance chance.

 

[Bonehoard Taffer]

In his famous rant, John Wick bitched about the PHB being "just a collection of rules" - which, IMO, is one of the things that make D&D so attractive. With the plethora of goodies (monsters, spells and other assorted tools), one can make a world of his/her own.

It is kinda expected, too (unless you use a prewritten setting - which may sell well, but my gut feeling is that there are still more people playing in homebrews than in, say, FR or GH). You can build the standard "generic fantasy universe", or something based on Howard, or Caribbean pirates, or an Ice Age with psionic mammoths, etc. Sure, most of these homegrown worlds are like 1000s and 1000s of other D&D campaigns, but that isn't a problem, since this act of creation (and the attachment you have to your own "child") makes it worth more than something written by ten people in a year. Your own scratch paper is *always* more valuable, no matter what John "Hey! My orks ride reindeers!" Wick is telling you.

Last time I checked there were several games that were setting specific. For some people that's part of the fun. Games like Call of Cthulhu, Wheel of Time, Farscape, James Bond 007, Star Wars, the DC & Marvel Super Heroes games, Dune, the Various Elric Games, Pendragon, Elf Quest, and MERP are some of the ones that come to mind. Sure you can use any of those rules for any setting you want but stray too far and the universes flavor that the game setting that those rules were originally written for ceases to exist. Obviously, people still like playing in pre determined settings. Similarly, if people don't want to participate in a universe that's as pre determined as the ones I mentioned there's still the many generic fantasy settings that are being produced right now under the OGL; which I'll wager that most started out as someone elses "scratch paper." Just because someone elses scratch paper got published doesn't make it an inferior world.

 

[Nasma]

Personally I prefer D&D as it is, without the high AC, low hitpopint method. The reason is tactics.

If I am going to die from two hits (as mmadsen suggested with the fire giants) there is a lot of risk involved. If I am hit once then I would probably run away, not wanting to take the risk of dying from the next blow, thus shortening combat and giving me less opportunity to out think my opponent. If I can take four hits however I can keep on fighting for longer, before the risk outweighs the benefit.

Something that no-one has mentioned yet is this: I will NOT die from 4 hits (or 8 or whatever) because when I get low on HP I will drink a potion or get healed. This makes the combat longer, more tactical and more epic. Having a similar effect is the fact that it is a party of PCs against the villain(s). This means that when the lead fighter is injured he can withdraw to heal up or use a ranged attack and let the cleric take the brunt of the attack. This again lengthens combat and allows more oppurtonity for enjoyment.

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Okay, this may seem odd, but one thing I've considered is making things more about HP. Instead of a Reflex save, spells would do damage to "Relfex points" and HP. Evasion would allow you to take the attack on straight reflex instead of both. These Saving throw points would refresh over time, but much faster than HP...

There's something a bit similar in certain versions of Traveller.

You have combat pools for doing extra damage, making full strength melee attacks, and dodging attacks. Each pool is set equal to its respective ability--STR, END, and DEX. Pools refresh fully at the end of combat.

Off the top of my head, I suppose you could do something along the lines of the following...

A successful REFL save could allow you to dodge an attack, with points subtracted from your dodge pool (equal to DEX) equal to the difference between the attack roll and the number needed to hit. In some sense, this would give you a heightened AC that would gradually diminish as the combat wears on. Of course, if HPs remain as they stand, this will make combats longer.

Here's another odd thought that just popped into my head as I was typing...

Rather than calling them Hit Points, simply call them Hero Points. This semantic sleight of hand might be enough to address the issue for some, if not...

You could then allow characters to expend these points to accomplish other things besides simply absorbing damage--this would certainly help to deflate some of the larger HP totals.

As to magical "healing"--since its source is divine, I just always assumed that, in addition to actual healing, it also restored divine favor, supernatural luck, etc. faster than would otherwise be possible.

 

[Nasma]

I love the hero point idea thorvold. It changes nothing rule wise, but eliminates all of the realism concerns.