Page 13 of 24
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:53 am
by Elennsar
Elennsar, you've said that you wanted fairly realistic combat, but now you want every opponent to be a threat? It seems you want characters to be wary even around 5 year olds, but really, where will it all end? Is a human infant a threat? A bunny? A fly?
Just because you can't take on infinite five year olds doesn't mean that you will lose to a five year old.
Last time I checked, five year olds weren't opponents either.
Not-so-well-organized spearmen, on the other hand, are opponents and are a threat if not addressed properly - even if they're much less able than you.
And seriously, people just went over this with you. In D&D, Legolas doesn't "ignore" the orc, he chooses to defend against the orc instead of taking it out first. Combat isn't a frickin passive activity in D&D, the system just assumes that your character isn't being a complete idiot.
1) Legolas will probably be missed by the orc (high AC).
2) If he isn't missed in that sense, he's probably still "missed" by the orc because of high hit points.
That doesn't encourage DOING anything to deal with the orc, that encourages ignoring him.
He's not even a distraction in D&D. Despite the fact he's waving a sword in your face, you can go on your business as if he wasn't there.
You can claim the character is dodging and evading and whatever until the internet dies, but there's no visible difference other than pure, abstract fluff between ignoring him and "dodging and evading and whatever" - which doesn't appear to be what Legolas feels like. Despite the fact we know he can dispatch the orc ridiculously easily, and he knows that.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 5:49 am
by norms29
will you please make an effort to distinguishg between the player and the charactor! it is making your posts painful to read.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:07 am
by Elennsar
Sure - though I'm fairly sure the context makes it clear in the above post.
Will try to do so in the future - I tend to assume the context is enough, but that's me.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:29 am
by norms29
obviously it's not enough for you, because when people ask you questions pertaining to one, you give answers that are explicitly refering to the other.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:37 am
by Bigode
Elennsar wrote:Last time I checked, five year olds weren't opponents either.
You fail, retard.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:48 am
by violence in the media
Elennsar wrote:
If this forum is supposed to contain rants, then deal with the rants. If not, change the description so that ranting is not permited.
Right, because everyone's going to totally overlook the fact that someone's being a douchebag because they're technically staying within posted rules on a casual forum.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:18 am
by JonSetanta
Bigode wrote:Elennsar wrote:Last time I checked, five year olds weren't opponents either.
You fail, retard.
.. ouch. I've known about that tragedy for years. Not meant to be a verbal jab, but do you read the news, Elennsar?
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:51 am
by Elennsar
obviously it's not enough for you, because when people ask you questions pertaining to one, you give answers that are explicitly refering to the other.
Example?
You fail, retard.
(yes, I know the original contains a link)
I know of and am already upset by the fact there are times and places children fight other than Narnia)
And of course, we're trying to represent that here.
Show of hands. Who is making rules for that?
Right, because everyone's going to totally overlook the fact that someone's being a douchebag because they're technically staying within posted rules on a casual forum.
Ranting in a forum where it says "stuff about rpgs, including rants" is somewhat more than "Technically".
.. ouch. I've known about that tragedy for years. Not meant to be a verbal jab, but do you read the news, Elennsar?
I'm going to quote the earlier part of my post first:
me wrote: And of course, we're trying to represent that here.
Show of hands. Who is making rules for that?
I don't read the news very much, but I know there are places in the world that use child soldiers.
Now, maybe your characters fight in those areas, or areas like those, but nothing I recall has ever represented that as a rpg.
And of course, in those circumstances (the link's reference, again) - 5 year olds can kill you. In Arturius or Sword and Sorcery or any of the other circumstances being discussed, they're not opponents, so even if you want "all opponents to be taken seriously", they don't count in those.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 6:45 pm
by Avoraciopoctules
Elennsar wrote:
I don't read the news very much, but I know there are places in the world that use child soldiers.
Now, maybe your characters fight in those areas, or areas like those, but nothing I recall has ever represented that as a rpg.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_Ranks ... ying_game)
Child soldiers in the Warsaw Uprising.
EDIT: The part in parentheses is part of the link, but the URL tags are misbehaving.
EDIT 2: RPGnet review:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13431.phtml
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 9:28 pm
by Shiritai
So, Elennsar, since you seem to want every character action to be declared by the player, every combat to be potentially lethal, and also want the characters to be your brand of "heroic", the only system I can think of that meets those criteria is LARPing with live weapons.
Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:53 pm
by Roy
Shiritai wrote:So, Elennsar, since you seem to want every character action to be declared by the player, every combat to be potentially lethal, and also want the characters to be your brand of "heroic", the only system I can think of that meets those criteria is LARPing with live weapons.
But... is it Rocket Tag?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 1:21 am
by Elennsar
Oh yes, I recall reading of that in reference to...something. Dimly, wasn't sure - thanks for pulling this out.
I withdraw the point about no rpg doing it.
I still stand by the fact that it has no bearing on Arturius because you're never going to face five year olds in combat.
So, Elennsar, since you seem to want every character action to be declared by the player, every combat to be potentially lethal, and also want the characters to be your brand of "heroic", the only system I can think of that meets those criteria is LARPing with live weapons.
No. What I want is if a character is dodging and weaving about for what they're doing to bloody well be dodging and weaving - with whatever skills and limitations (kind of hard to aim a bow and dodge acrobatically at the same time) and whatever that takes.
If Legolas is supposed to regard the orc as a problem worth noticing, the mechanics where he probably won't be "hit" and if he is "hit" he won't be hurt don't represent that very well at all.
As for every combat to be potentially lethal: Does no one but me (and Leress?) notice the Sword of the Samurai game?
Seriously, whether or not you care for it as a model for a rpg, its a pretty darn good game.
I would like every combat where you are supposed to regard the opposition as capable of killing you is capable of generating that outcome - it may be easily prevented, but they have to be able to be able to do it.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:16 am
by SunTzuWarmaster
Why not just have a houserule something like:
"If you spend a full round studying your opponent, you automatically hit on the following round."
There, now an army of orcs is positively LETHAL to high level characters.
---
You cannot have you cake and eat it too. Monsters are either non-threatening or threatening. You cannot stand an orc next to an oliphant and say that they are both very threatening to a character.
That is not to say that 200 orcs is not threatening (the natural 20 always hits, so we do care), just that individual monsters have different power levels.
Sorry, I think that I am feeding the troll.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:20 am
by cthulhu
Cielingcat wrote:
That is specifically not what he wants. He does not want the illusion of risking death-he wants every single action the PCs take to have a very real chance of ending with them dying.
Sure, but that is assuming what people say they want is the same as what they actually want.
Which it demonstrably isn't.
Using the Conan and Arthurian legend material repeatedly as a touchstone is enough to demonstrate this: He wants a game that feels risky, where the protagonist eventually wins through after a number of edge of the seat contests, or goes down in a blaze of glory in the final boss battle.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:22 am
by Elennsar
You cannot have you cake and eat it too. Monsters are either non-threatening or threatening. You cannot stand an orc next to an oliphant and say that they are both very threatening to a character.
You can say that ignoring the orc is very bad, even though the oliphant is the bigger threat.
2d4+3 damage is not very threatening to a 10th level character - so even if you do make the orc automatically hit, Legolas doesn't care.
If taking that amount of damage was a problem - the orc would almost certainly (certainly?) miss if it was actually an attack roll, but if it was a free hit he would deal it - that wouldn't be too bad.
And Legolas does seem to care, which is why he gets the orc out of the way and then does the arrow trick on the oliphant.
Which it demonstrably isn't.
Using the Conan and Arthurian legend material repeatedly as a touchstone is enough to demonstrate this: He wants a game that feels risky, where the protagonist eventually wins through after a number of edge of the seat contests, or goes down in a blaze of glory in the final boss battle.
What I want is a game where if the characters are supposedly at risk, they are.
Period. Full fucking stop.
If Conan is supposed to go through ten ordinary guards without it being potentially lethal, then the game should reflect that. If he's supposed to regard that as potentially lethal, it should be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPATm2IjgBc&NR=1
Having the heroes be at the same risk as the mouse when they're supposed to be really at as much risk as this:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/2224082241/ is not desirable, plain and simple.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:52 am
by cthulhu
Sure, but I'll bet you like 20 bucks that if you actually played in a game trying to maintain a story arc etc, where the players actually had a 20% chance of actually dying whenever they fought an orc: and thus in D&D terms it was extremely unlikely they'd reach level 2, you'd find it pretty much sucked.
Heck, if you played Lord of the Rings with this system, Its about 90% probable that the fellowship would be wiped out by the black rider before they'd left the shire.
That would of course never happen in the books/game because it is to disruptive to the plot/plot if the main character/all the PCs died before the opening credits had finished.
This is the disconnect between what you think you want (actual risk) and what you actually want (illusionary risk).
The only game type in which actual risk works is 1 vs 1 games
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:15 am
by Elennsar
No. What I want is actual risk that can actually be overcome.
Yes, if the orc hits you in the head you could be very dead. So stop the Emperorless fucker from hitting you in the head!
However, if the orc can't hit you in the head to begin with, and/or if he hits you in the head it doesn't matter, then there isn't any risk.
I don't want illusionary risk. I want overcomable risk. I want to know that if Jack Aubrey (picked as I'm watching this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loW1rlQWQQU as I type) is risking his life that his life is actually at risk - it may well be possible for him to deal with that and survive far more than any man has a right to, but he has to do something about it.
If he wants to avoid having an attack cut his head open, leaving himself open for his head to be cut open would probably not be a good idea - though it might work.
I don't want "Jack can't die. He's the hero. Heroes can't die."
If Jack, by contrast, isn't actually at risk by something, then the rules should represent that - but if Jack is supposed to treat something as deadly, it had better be capable of killing him.
I don't want Tom and Jerry in my games and I don't want someone claiming to represent Conan or Aragorn or Arthur when that's what we really see.
Constant inevitable and invariable failure by the villains is boring at best.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:51 am
by SunTzuWarmaster
Yea. I'm done.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:09 am
by RandomCasualty2
Elennsar wrote:No. What I want is actual risk that can actually be overcome.
Yes, if the orc hits you in the head you could be very dead. So stop the Emperorless fucker from hitting you in the head!
So how exactly do you expect this risk to be overcome? Just by the adventurers declaring "I try to block his attacks."
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 6:18 am
by Elennsar
So how exactly do you expect this risk to be overcome? Just by the adventurers declaring "I try to block his attacks."
In something with finite defences, or where a sure and certain defence is possible (as distinct from one where your defence may or may not work) but at cost to your mobility and/or offensive abilities, that's not bad.
Its not reasonable when you have no reason not to say "Of course I block his attack." - but something like how a Dodge screws with your Aim is not bad at all.
Yes, the orc can hit you in the head and that's a real risk. Yes, you can defend against it with one of your finite actions.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:30 am
by JonSetanta
How many "defend" actions are in reserve, how often do they refresh, and in what ways can one use them?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:38 am
by Elennsar
Let's say...
One for each defence - so if you have a sword and a shield, you have two.
If you're really skilled, you get a bonus.
They refresh each round - but if you're threatened by five enemies, you have to decide (see the DECIDE link a page or so earlier in this discussion) what to do.
Of course, you can also dodge (unlimited) - but dodging is harder.
That's one way to do it.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:43 pm
by Cielingcat
So you have 2 defenses, and any enemies who can penetrate that defense have a real chance of killing you. If you're facing 5 enemies, you have 3 real chances of dying every round.
How are characters supposed to survive the first fight of a campaign?
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:48 pm
by Fallen Hero
If you would want to go that route, then you need to limit the number of threatened spaces that can be occupied. As in you can have 3 occupied without hitting something when you miss then after that, the mooks are hitting their friends in the head or removing their defenses/attack ability everytime they swing.
Does that make sense? I think I'd rather give my PCs / receive an AC which applies to all attacks made on me.
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 10:53 pm
by Psychic Robot
Possible solutions to the "real chances of dying" that I think people are overlooking.
1. Avoid combat. Stealth, diplomacy, bribery, whatever.
2. Surrender is possible.
3. Everyone reaching 0 HP != TPK. It might be capture instead.
EDIT: I still think Elennsar should run WoD.