Why must numbers go up?

[Wiseblood]

Only if you insist that all tasks must be possible by all actors. If you instead have a band of tasks that apply to a character of a given level, with tasks below that level becoming automatic successes, and tasks above that level still out of reach, then you have a potentially infinite range.

I was largely talking about 4e. Where alll characters are advancing at the same rate. Offensively, and defensively read as attack bonus, AC/Ref/Fort/Will. I understand why these increase but if you also increase damage you have to increase hit points. If only offense and defense went up HP damage could safely remain the same. More skilled apponents would be very difficult to harm by less skilled apponents.

Conversely if damage and hit points were to increase instead of offense and defense characters and creatures would be more deadly and more resilient thereby creating a limitation on who would be able to deafeat them.

Having both go on at the same time is really just increasing the amount of time to resolve an action by having more(bigger numbers) math.

If you disagree that's cool. The players sitting at my table IMO take a long time to sort through all of the bonuses and penalties and resolve an action.

Correction: Cumulatively they will take a long time wasting just a few more seconds each round for every combat and the rate continues to climb because of the ever increasing numbers due to leveling.

 

[Garthanos]

I was largely talking about 4e. Where alll characters are advancing at the same rate. Offensively, and defensively read as attack bonus, AC/Ref/Fort/Will. I understand why these increase but if you also increase damage you have to increase hit points. If only offense and defense went up HP damage could safely remain the same. More skilled apponents would be very difficult to harm by less skilled apponents.

A skilled defense (or attack for that matter) takes less absolute energy and is less stress inducing and relies less on luck to perform than an unskilled one... these are three factors that hit points do represent... (no that doesnt mean they necessarily progress... but if skill reduces the cost...a way to represent that is to inflate the hit points ... conversely if it takes more desperate energy to minimize an attack.... that attack does more hit point damage).

A game called RuneQuest had static hit points... but whenever somebody wanted to represent fatigue things got complicated... and if you wanted people with heroic luck you had to add extra mechanics as well.... mental fatigue/stress was a festure of the magic system and so not too bad.

Oh and skill effectively doesnt decrease the intensity of wounds.. unless you introduce another mechanic for it...

Yes buying the above argument is sim oriented... and works better at fending off snooty RQ claims to being so much better at simulating than it does for keeping inflating damage and hit points

 

[pemerton]

The random component diminishes relative to level. Level 1 with class skill and favourable stat = +6 rolling a d20. The random component represents over 3x the level component. Level 20 with class skill and favourable stat = +30 rolling a d20. The random component represents under 1x the level component.

As Ariosto said, this isn't really accurate. What matters is not the ratio of bonus to d20, but the ratio of difference between bonus and target, to d20. The poing of 4e having "fixed" the maths is to minimise the variation in this latter ratio. It remains in the vicinity of needing 10+ on d20 to succeed in combat, and a bit less (2+ to 5+ or so) in skill challenges.

 

[pemerton]

Sometimes meaningful interaction between people counts for a lot more than a successful attack vs. diplomacy.

I don't fully except the contrast you're drawing here. In my own experience, the introduction of social skills and social conflict resolution into a fantasy RPG increases the amount of meaningful interaction and political/social content in the game, because it gives the players a framework in which to underake such activity with some way of working out how successful their attempts are likely to be.

 

[Chrono22]

Guys, you don't have to use a simple d20 roll to have mechanical support for interaction-based conflict resolution. There are more comprehensive, true-to-life methods- that offer superior support.
And just using a d20 roll as often as not gets in the way of such interactions- because a player either has to retcon his initial plans or speech, or he is forced into a direction he doesn't want to go by poor die rolls.
For example, a card-based minigame in relation to fame,infamy, personality traits and specific uses of an interaction skill could offer much more flexibility than some d20.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I was largely talking about 4e. Where alll characters are advancing at the same rate. Offensively, and defensively read as attack bonus, AC/Ref/Fort/Will. I understand why these increase but if you also increase damage you have to increase hit points. If only offense and defense went up HP damage could safely remain the same. More skilled apponents would be very difficult to harm by less skilled apponents.

Conversely if damage and hit points were to increase instead of offense and defense characters and creatures would be more deadly and more resilient thereby creating a limitation on who would be able to deafeat them.

Having both go on at the same time is really just increasing the amount of time to resolve an action by having more(bigger numbers) math.

As far as combat goes, hit points do a fine job of representing increasing toughness. Sure that gate guard might be able to score a hit against a heroic higher level fighter but he will be doing damage that represents possibly no more than the energy expended to parry it and he certainly won't be standing after receiving the returning blow.

Of course the implications of this mean that large numbers of those guards will be able to eventually wear down that super fighter which is more satisfying for the types of games I enjoy playing. Automatic misses due to nothing more than level discrepancy remind me of MMO mechanics.

In such games a level 40 warrior taking on a level 65 monster simply cannot hit. You can bring 100 such warriors to the battle and not be able to scratch the monster because the mechanics are written to prevent you from doing so.

If hit points and damage dealing ability are supposed to represent how much tougher one thing is than another, then the only purpose of massive bonuses to hit and defense are to artificially define what is allowed to interact with what. In reality it makes the entire level concept as a measure of relative power meaningless.

The situation reminds me of one that cropped up in the Babylon 5 space battle game. The game was point based but the raider fighters could not so much as scratch a Mimbari fighter. So a single Mimbari fighter taking on 1,000,000 raider ships would win 100% of the time.

This is the kind of thing I see scaling hit/defenses doing.

 

[Ariosto]

In my own experience, the introduction of social skills and social conflict resolution into a fantasy RPG ...

Interpersonal influence was introduced before the combat rules in the original RPG!

The effects of charisma (which is routinely underlined) on henchmen and loyalty (reason #1 why it would be no "dump stat" if that were even possible) are the very first thing to follow the basic explanation of abilities. Charisma gets a whole section to itself at the top of page 11 of D&D Vol. 1.

Pages 12-13 are devoted to related matters, starting with languages. Non-Player Characters (including monsters) get extensive treatment, including a 2d6 Reaction Table and Loyalty and Morale factors. The combat system does not come in until page 18.

Charisma is noted as a modifying factor, and one could easily quantify various aspects of it along the lines of specialized "social skills" ratings in some later games.

However, the particulars of a situation can make a huge difference! It's easy to assume some subtle nuances of "how" in a skill factor, but the "what" tends to be a very, very important part of the "why" shaping a response.

Whacking someone with a weapon is simply something one does to him if he fails to avoid the blow. Persuasion or influence, on the other hand, is likely to depend largely on "what's in it for me" from the "target's" perspective.

So, if things are to make any sense at all, it is IMO necessary to work out how successful an attempt is likely to be on the basis of what is being attempted.

 

[Umbran]

If hit points and damage dealing ability are supposed to represent how much tougher one thing is than another, then the only purpose of massive bonuses to hit and defense are to artificially define what is allowed to interact with what. In reality it makes the entire level concept as a measure of relative power meaningless.

Not meaningless, just more complex.

The basic thing is that very little in the game is there only to serve a single purpose. We are, for example, trying to not only represent toughness, but do so in the framework of a tactical game with complexity enough to be interesting, and flexibility to represent many concepts.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Having both go on at the same time is really just increasing the amount of time to resolve an action by having more(bigger numbers) math.

Roll-to-hit + roll-for-damage is a sacred cow that really needs to be slaughtered, IMO. I'd kind of prefer either-or, not both.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Of course the implications of this mean that large numbers of those guards will be able to eventually wear down that super fighter which is more satisfying for the types of games I enjoy playing. Automatic misses due to nothing more than level discrepancy remind me of MMO mechanics.

This is the kind of thing I see scaling hit/defenses doing.

Well D&D does have tools you can use to adjust the situation to something you prefer. Critical hits will push damage through if you have enough attackers going at someone. You also have the option of using minions to simulate a lot of weaker units ganging up on a single powerful hero.