The Gaming Den

For my 'english' (really it's a writing/grammar class, but I guess it's more of a free-form english class with just a refernce text and the readings we pick on our own) class we get to pretty much dick around and write about whatever we want.

So long as it's well written, I can pretty much submit anything that I want and have it be written about games (go me and hooray for my communications 200 proff).

So, for my next personal essay I'm going to write about why "conan" (aka, anyone that most people associate with being a sword-user) loses in most games and why that's wrong.

I'm going to start with, "it's unthematic for fighters to not win", and whip out the following:

Gilgamesh (an actual historical dictator that used a military coup, hanging around a wierdo hippy from the desert and successful raiding of 'monsters' (read: nearby communities) for loot to become what is probably the first recorded 'warrior hero'.

Cui Cullahn (Cúchulainn) (warp spasmed so big that at the end of battles birds could fly in and out of his wounds, I shit you not). Could only be killed by being tricked into being crippled, crippled by eating his namesake (a dog's meat) and attacked by hundreds of enemies at once after tying himself to a stone. All of that after just fighting his near equal for three days in a row of one several hour long duel per day.

Hercules: Off of the top of my head I can recall his achievements being: killing snakes with his bare hands as an infant, saving Prometheus from the "Xian" vulture, grappling with death itself for a whole night to save a friends wife.

Of course Hercules was famous for his 12 labours (although I think he did more like 14): choking the Nemean Lion, burning and burying the Leneran Hydra, Killing the Bronze Birds of X with hydra venom, cleaning the Stables of 'whatever', The Hind of Diana, kidnapping Cerberus, getting the golden apples by tricking Atlas (that's 7 of his 12 labous, but he had some added b/c one or two were said to 'not count' b/c he got paid),

Theseus: son of poseidon; kills three powerful bandits on his way to Athens (the man w/ the bronze club, the man w/ the streching bed + headman's axe, the man with the pine-tree challenge); kills the minotaur

Conan: Wins by being not-magical, just smart, resourceful, by leading and of course, by being really big and strong.

Samson: Has long hair which is made of win. Kills a whole army of Phillistines using just an ass' jawbone. No, seriously, just a jawbone of something the size of a horse. He also strangles a lion to death and is exceedingly clever in making riddles (so much so that his rivals need to cheat and get his wife-to-be to get it out of him); is strong enough to break a whole temple from the inside (poor architecture notwithstanding).

Sigurd: Kills a dragon w/ a sword (I think it's Sigurd...maybe I mean his father, or his son; they all had fairly similar names; I'm talking about the one that kills a dragon by outwitting it and stabbing it as it passes over a trench that he hid in)


Some other names to add/replace what I have might be good, but that's more than enough. I was thinking of doing more 'modern' stuff like Roland, but classical mythology is more solid imo. I'm using conan since he's iconic.

I'll prolly strip Theseus to save on space and time.


Next I'll go with "everyone has to bring equal amounts of awesome to the game"

nature-man is a giant bear or dinosaur, plus does stuff, like make forests tangle people up or call down snowstorms in july to freeze evil "monster" loggers to death.

sneaky-man is able to toss lit oilskins or stab people in the eyes or kidneys, killing them fast.

faith-man is empowered by thier faith, and that means he can create fire or become a physical manifestation/enforcing avatar of their beliefs.

makes-physics shut up-man is able to make physics shut up and does stuff like shoot fire bolts, or fool enemies with illusions, or have them sink in mud that used to be solid ground, or fly or go invisible or scream at someone and kill them.

So sword-guy needs to do stuff equally cool, if not the game is boring for them, and eventually others.


So they need to either trick his enemies into making mistakes b/c he's been around or is clever, or just be able to go into Warp Spasms like Cucullhain


I'm not sure what my 3rd point should be... examples of ideas stolen from mythology (aka, the above parapgraph).


Anyway, advice would be appreciated. I'll post here what I will end up submitting if anyone cares. In any case, just writing this helped me get my head in gear to write it.

Thanks to anyone who helps.

[edit]
Also I seriosly plan on reffering to RoW and
The Pungent Smell of Mildew

as "sources"

and probably wikipedia articles. -_-; although I've got a book on greek mythology I can reference, I can probably 'make-up' my Ron. Howard refernce by quoting passages that I can find online or grab a book from the library.

I don't have anything on welsh mythology, since what I first read was a book I borrowed from the library.

I'll probably go tomorrow...later today to get some 'sources'.


Although, to be honest I don't think the prof is going to be a real stickler for anything except what is written. He seriously said have at least one source, and it can be an internet source if you want. So the books will be overkill/useless.

Judging__Eagle at [unixtime wrote:1192947815[/unixtime]]
Sigurd: Kills a dragon w/ a sword (I think it's Sigurd...maybe I mean his father, or his son; they all had fairly similar names; I'm talking about the one that kills a dragon by outwitting it and stabbing it as it passes over a trench that he hid in)

I think you mean Sigfried.

As far as using more modern sources, Conan is pretty modern himself. Less than a century old is short-term in this case.

That sounds like an interesting essay. I'm a little confused by the title ... why is it "the horrible radius?"

The Pungent Smell of Mildew

For some reason count url didn't work in my OP.

OK in that case you really need to point to the classic counter example (there are two famous ones; one from fantasy and one from adventure) where the Grey Mouser throws a dagger into the eye socket of the big bad curse casting black wizard effectively killing him on the spot.

For some reason we take it for granted that fighters should do a lot of meele. We grumble about the wielders of the bow/crossbow/gun. Still we forget about the people who will throw anything at an opponent, even for a slight advantage. Throwing things was a major form of combat for centuries.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1193020164[/unixtime]]OK in that case you really need to point to the classic counter example (there are two famous ones; one from fantasy and one from adventure) where the Grey Mouser throws a dagger into the eye socket of the big bad curse casting black wizard effectively killing him on the spot.

Hmm. I think that, assuming you're thinking of the adventure example I think you are, Indiana Jones counts as the wizard and the guy with the scimitar is his meleeing bitch in that scenario.

Of course, there's also the one where the Mouser ties a wire to his swordhilt and then uses it to a) ground spells cast at him, and also b) channel them back at the casters.

But the Mouser owns spellcasters pretty hard in general.

Frank and K's Fighter does those things with the foil series of abilities. I do like that.

...But that tangles this thread with the condition track threads - and really, there needs to be 'and you take the unit out of combat' abilities. If there aren't, then there literally isn't anything standing in the way of some group attempting to do something.

There needs to be check abilities...

...But how to put that into an essay? I don't even understand the arguments where magic is always superior because it can break physics, and everything else sucks because they can't.

-Crissa

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1193032075[/unixtime]]
...But how to put that into an essay? I don't even understand the arguments where magic is always superior because it can break physics, and everything else sucks because they can't.

What part of that don't you understand?

From my brief consideration of the subject, I see to places you can get confused:

1) Why Group A not having to follow the rules of Group B is a problem.

2) How anyone can see #1 as anything but a problem on its face.

Which is your issue?

No, I don't understand the #0, 'It's magic, so it's okay.' argument. Either Magic has limits, and so does everyone else - or magic doesn't have limits, and neither does anyone else.

-Crissa

I completely understand magic being allowed to break the rules - more or less because it isn't in this Universe, and isn't confined by our rules.

I just see this as a problem in-game. I figure the best way to do it is to say "Truly unmagical people are commoners. Fighters are magical. They have magic flowing through them. When they swing their sword, it has so much accumulated arcane energy that it cuts mountains in half. When they get immersed in dragon breath, the magic inside their body repels the flames/ice/acid/lightning/random stupid breath weapon of the week."

It lets them do level-appropriate stuff of all sorts, but still means that, instead of waving their arms about, they do stuff by doing what fighters do best.

And yes, it should cripple them in Anti-magic fields. Just like casters. But also like casters, they can stand outside the field and make things happen inside them (Orb of X as opposed to hurling a boulder, the magic going into the process as it leaves their hands, then physics taking over).

So you still have your "Magic is awesome and doesn't follow normal rules", which appeals to people like me who hate the real world and specifically want awesome stuff that defies the real world. You still have people balanced and doing level-appropriate things regardless of class. You have a reason why the fighter is hulking out, growing twice his size and smashing a castle to pieces - without knowing how magic works. You also have this remaining balanced whenever arbitrary "lol no magic" effects crop up.

Because when you rebalance everyone properly, you have to keep in mind the "all or nothing" stupidity that WotC used to "balance" things before, like AMFs.

Getting back to the subject, I think that the problem with fighters is not "the horrible radius" but instead the problem is that casters have "the glorious radius." It is perfectly acceptable within the genre for a caster to have a large area of effect multiple target attack. It is gernally considered a violation of the most vile sort for a fighter to have a large area of effect multiple target attack.

It only gets worse with each edition. Consider the balance between spell, meele, and bow through the various editions. In 1st edition (which was itself far from perfect) casters had their spells on a per day basis. Meele was on a one per round basis, although fighters could have multiple attacks per round depending on the circumstances. Bow attacks were multiple per round and fighters had a better multiple.

There is also a genre problem as well. It is not a question of merely magic is allowed to break the rules but a question of magic is allowed to break the genre. We allow magic to be psudo technology and let the casters get away with it but we give the fighters pure hell for wanting to do likewise. What is, after all, a fireball, but a glorified hand grenade? What is, after all, a stinking cloud, but a poison gas attack?

No, the technological glass ceiling should be broken by all character types, not just by the casters alone. The moment you introduce casters into the game you cease making this a medieval simulation game. Every class needs their own way to suspend disbelief in the name of awesome.

Anti-magic is an interesting subject, but it has been done poorly in the various editions and each edition only makes it worse. Back in 1E the group at R.P.I. home brewed a good system based on an anti-magic radiating substance called "Cold Iron." It was extreemely powerful but it took a whole round of the material to be in a stationary location for the area to void all magical effects.

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1193041802[/unixtime]]No, I don't understand the #0, 'It's magic, so it's okay.' argument. Either Magic has limits, and so does everyone else - or magic doesn't have limits, and neither does anyone else.

I've always seen as magic as being mostly flavor text.

I mean, is there really much difference between.

You shoot a ray of fire and deal 4d6 damage, or you throw a hand axe and deal 4d6 damage? Sure, one is fire damage and the other is slashing or whatever, but besides that, there's not really much difference.

tzor at [unixtime wrote:1193068057[/unixtime]]
There is also a genre problem as well. It is not a question of merely magic is allowed to break the rules but a question of magic is allowed to break the genre. We allow magic to be psudo technology and let the casters get away with it but we give the fighters pure hell for wanting to do likewise. What is, after all, a fireball, but a glorified hand grenade? What is, after all, a stinking cloud, but a poison gas attack?

I think you have it the wrong way round. Fireballs should be a fact of life. I seriously wish they were in the real world. A grenade is just our crappy attempt to make do. Someone says "Man, I really wish I could throw something to make those people explode." and they pay someone else to invent the hand grenade.

Likewise, dragons have spent a lot of time not existing and not breathing fire everywhere, even though they clearly should do both, and somewhere deep down, people know this. But they make do. At some point in history, someone has probably said "I need to be able to set people on fire from a distance." And thus, the flamethrower was made.

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.
Any technology, distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced."

So it really isn't genre breaking. Casters SHOULD be doing those things there. Some things, sure, they don't fit the idea of "caster", based on any given person's definition. Almost every form of scrying I have ever seen on TV involved using a television, or spilling tea into a dish where the result turns out like a TV, including tapping it to regain focus when the tuning is out. So I don't see scrying as magical, even though there are plenty of sources saying "it's traditional".

But the ones you mentioned, that's exactly what it's about. It's simply a case that fighters shouldn't be banned from doing so. A mage points at you and you explode, whereas a fighter grabs a rock - which just happened to consist of things like sulphur, sodium and other random crap - and hurls it. Because magic runs through his veins, it gets infused with energy, and when the rock hits something, it explodes.

Koumei wrote:
But the ones you mentioned, that's exactly what it's about. It's simply a case that fighters shouldn't be banned from doing so. A mage points at you and you explode, whereas a fighter grabs a rock - which just happened to consist of things like sulphur, sodium and other random crap - and hurls it. Because magic runs through his veins, it gets infused with energy, and when the rock hits something, it explodes.

"What do I do? I'm throw rocks that kill armies. I'm a fighter."

Koumei at [unixtime wrote:1193071107[/unixtime]]
But the ones you mentioned, that's exactly what it's about. It's simply a case that fighters shouldn't be banned from doing so. A mage points at you and you explode, whereas a fighter grabs a rock - which just happened to consist of things like sulphur, sodium and other random crap - and hurls it. Because magic runs through his veins, it gets infused with energy, and when the rock hits something, it explodes.

Eh, I dunno. This sort of thing just seems kinda cheesy to me.

I really like to keep the nonmagical flavor of fighters. It's okay to have your fighter do crazy Jackie Chan style stunts, but when he starts turning into Gambit... eh. If I wanted to play a superhero game, I'd rather just play a superhero game.

I always thought that magic still worked under rules and limitations, only that their limits were higher than non-magic equivalents. Part of the association with magic, from my understanding, is allowing you to exceed your limits; meaning those who do not have magic are at an inherent disadvantage, and the level of disparity varies with the genre (10th level fighter beats 1st level wizard).

You still have to follow rules and have limits, but magic has a different standard.

Your idea that a game doesn't allow fighters to be awesome while letting casters do so is somewhat misleading. There are many a game where the fighter mows through hordes of enemies (God of War is a good example, but must any high kill-count shooter). The games where casters rule are frequently the same situations where an archer would probably do about as well, and it's simply melee bosses that have the 'rape radius' and they are much easier to make than other types...though magic immune monsters aren't unheard of either.

As for RPGs, I think the largest contender (but not sole) for the imbalance is the whole Save-or-Die mechanic in general. Evokers in 3e, for instance, are largely considered mediocre at best. It's generally not heard of for sword swings to provoke SoD mechanics, and the times they do are for a level of detail in the rules that few want to contemplate because they can't ever go part-way on a mechanic.

virgileso at [unixtime wrote:1193078314[/unixtime]]
As for RPGs, I think the largest contender (but not sole) for the imbalance is the whole Save-or-Die mechanic in general. Evokers in 3e, for instance, are largely considered mediocre at best. It's generally not heard of for sword swings to provoke SoD mechanics, and the times they do are for a level of detail in the rules that few want to contemplate because they can't ever go part-way on a mechanic.

But save or die for a sword is like perfectly reasonable.

The idea that sword attacks for some reason can't be save or dies is some kind of crazy sacred cow.

Swords kill people. It's all they do.

Hmm, I like that too.

Make a Ref save, or Die?

Heck, we could have the whole system work with essentially only using SoD attacks; only instead of SoDs, the failure to make the save results in a checkbox being filled. Once all of your Physical or Mental check boxes are filed, you collapse.

Every creature gets one of each check every 5 HD.

All classes get Fort, Ref or Will saves forced depending on weapon (Piercing = Fort, Slashing = Ref, Bludeoning = Will?); they get one such SoD per +3 BaB per encounter. So, 1 t 3, 2 at 6, 3 at 9 and 5 at 15.

Maybe Full BaB classes can deal out SoDs with any weapon, up to once per BaB per encounter.

Partial BaB classes have to choose a weapon type that they can use.

Half BaB classes already rely on SoD spells/effects, so dice dice for them.

Also, every SoD effect no longer will kill; it would simply fill out a checkbox, making 'anticlimactic' battles a thing of the past.

Also, it would mean that every class doesn't need all good saves to compete with casters.

So, the Barbarian could be charmed, but trying to Finger of Death or Phantasmal Killer her would take a couple of successes, and you might die before then.

HP could still be retained, but the ability to end fights really fast via these modified SoD's is a potentially handy option.

How about: Fodder causes HP damage, and little of it. They also have 1 or 2 boxes of each save.
Elites, bosses and PCs get SoDs, and check boxes to resist them. I'm imagining three progressions: Awesome, mediocre and awful.

Awesome: starts at 2, becomes 7 near the final level
Mediocre: Start at 1, becomes 5 near the end.
Awful: Starts at 0, becomes 3 near the end.

We are so smart around here.

This is something I can support. And I do agree that swords are designed for killing people, so there really isn't anything wrong with making them SoD attacks - whether it's a special class feature for some classes, or just how things work in general.

We're sort of getting into M&M territory here. That game eliminated HP altogether, and added a "Toughness" save. All effects cause you to make one of the four saves, and you are either unaffected (save) or something bad happens to you, depending on how badly you fail.

It follows the condition track idea, sort of - "If they fail their Reflex save, they are Entangled. If they fail by 10 or more, they are Held motionless."

HP is an abstraction anyway.

Why not abstract some more?

Like three different sets of HP?

Health Points: How much damage you can take before you're out of action.
Hit Points: How many hits you can take...
Happy Points: How many attacks you can be subject to before you fall into a depressing stupor of hopelessness and despair.

In Violence, the RPG game of Gratuitous Bloodshed, there were hit points and pain points. Hit points were for measuring your life, pain points were for measuring how long it took to knock you unconscious or break from torture.

Link

No, I mean, we have 3.. (edit..4) damage tracks.

1. HP, works the same as it always does
2. Body (Representation of Fort saves)
3. Energy (Representation of Ref Saves)
4. Mind (Representation of Will Saves)

Which is bad since more than 2 damage tracks is stupidly large book keeping (unless everyone has the same progression of they`re PCs, in the manner that The Taken suggested), but folding Fort and Ref into the same spot is probably a bad idea as well.

Only real characters get Body, Energy and Mind, everything else gets HP and dies to SoDs.

Classes with Martial Weapon Proficiency can use weapons to force a SoD on an enemy once per point of BaB per encounter. Save DCs are equal to 10+ 1/2 BaB + Ability to Hit modifier. Save types forced are equal to...whatever they want to use.

Classes without Marial weapon proficiency are stuck with the same rate (1 per +1 BaB per encounter), but obviously have less to use overall since they have less BaB (perhaps these should have 1 weapon SoD per day or adventure per point of BaB?).

They deal weapon SoDs based on weapon type used (Piercing = Fort, Slashing = Ref, Bludeoning = Will; mixed damage types in a weapon use the are attackers choice (making bite attacks on a druid pretty hawt, since they get all 3 to choose from, but that's unintended).

All of this meaning that we probably need a different base mechanic.