Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="mmadsen" data-source="post: 4199026" data-attributes="member: 1645">Oh, I agree completely -- except that I would contend that no one has really tried.  Most games that have tried to be "realistic" have aimed for complexity and detail, not realism, and they have largely ignored playability and fun.Anyway, it's easy to make a system that's as simple as AC/HP and a better model of reality, if not as much fun.  In fact, it can be even simpler than AC/HP.  As Philotomy Jurament points out, the original Chainmail effectively subsumed hit points into armor class -- a "hit" was a telling blow, good enough to take an enemy out of combat.  AC makes a lot more sense without hit points; it's just the one number that represents how hard you are to hurt.  (Chainmail actually presents a table of weapons vs. armor classes, with a target number to roll on 2d6 to kill an enemy.)I would say that Men & Magic made an effort to increase the "fun" by introducing hit points and damage.  I don't think it was a well thought out idea, but as long as weapons did one die of damage and fighters could take one die of damage, it worked out fine.  It drew out the tension from a single 2d6 roll to a d20 roll and another d6 roll, and it gave characters some sense of "hanging in there by a thread" if they managed to survive a hit or two.  A "hero" had four hit dice, and surviving four otherwise-deadly wounds seemed heroic.What I find odd is that attack bonuses went up slowly, and AC didn't go up at all with level, but hit dice skyrocketed.Anyway, I can easily see a system with one d20 roll to hit (vs. Ref), followed by one d20 roll to hurt (vs. Fort + Armor), with fate points usable to modify either roll.  A character could be tough without plot protection (Smaug) or weak but with plot protection (Bilbo, Frodo).</blockquote>

Verification