"Bounded Accuracy"

[Endless Flight]

I seem to remember the big issue was they made critical hits far too important.

Well, if you crit it went straight to Wounds, so critical hits were definitely important. It just made it so that even a level 20 had to watch out for a lucky shot by any mook.

 

[Endless Flight]

There were quite a few people who complained that you had to spend Vitality points in Star Wars d20 to use the Force. It always made sense to me.

 

[Panzerkraken]

There were quite a few people who complained that you had to spend Vitality points in Star Wars d20 to use the Force. It always made sense to me.

I liked it as well. It kept the Jedi in check with their power use.

 

[Ladybird]

I was toying with a system that used character's Initiative as ablative wounds; combat was in usual descending Initiative count order, but if you hit someone, they lost points from Initiative, to represent them keeping their head down and combat shock. Only if they ran out of Initiative points did they start taking actual damage. It also had the advantage that characters had a pool of points they could lose at the start of a combat, so they could realise they were out of their depth and act on that, and recovering them after a rest and some water made sense to me.

It worked okay, but with the issue that the numbers were very small and you'd inevitably end up with a many-way tie at 0.

 

[TJS]

I do think that a lot of the issues with HPs are in the way they scale.

Hit points never bothered me all that much at lower levels, because you can die in or or two hits in most versions of D&D, that feels pretty concrete to me. If the Orc just half killed my character with a single hit it, I can easily visualise what just happened it feels visceral enough, which is all I really want. It's that damage is rarely enough to achieve that at higher levels which is the problem. The scaling is asymmetrical. I think that makes sense if the game is really about spending most of your time at lower levels just trying to survive long enough to eventually reach a relatively high level (and by that I mean most likely anything between 4 and 9) - in that case you want the assymetry because otherwise you wouldn't feel you had necessarily achieved something. But in games where progression is expected you start to get bogged down.

It also doesn't help that from 4E on anything that can affect PCs that isn't hp loss has been removed or toned down dramatically.

There's also the whole getting it all back overnight which makes it feel cheap (and I'd argue this isn't really a modern problem - this has always been the case due to clerics).

 

[robertsconley]

Hit points never bothered me all that much at lower levels, because you can die in or or two hits in most versions of D&D, that feels pretty concrete to me. If the Orc just half killed my character with a single hit it, I can easily visualise what just happened it feels visceral enough, which is all I really want. It's that damage is rarely enough to achieve that at higher levels which is the problem. The scaling is asymmetrical. I think that makes sense if the game is really about spending most of your time at lower levels just trying to survive long enough to eventually reach a relatively high level (and by that I mean most likely anything between 4 and 9) - in that case you want the assymetry because otherwise you wouldn't feel you had necessarily achieved something. But in games where progression is expected you start to get bogged down.

In Runequest or any other skill based system you can think of that has more "realistic" injury counting. How long to do characters last in combat at the a different amount of experience? Is there ever a point where a character last two times a long? Three times as long? Etc.

In skill based system, how long a character last in a combat is a interplay of different elements on the character sheet. Likely the primary factor is higher skill levels allow the character to more readily defend themselves to avoid damage. Or to win opposed checks more often allow them to inflict more damage on their opponent than what they take.

Now imagine I take all that and collapsed most of it into a single total. That total determines how long the character lasts in combat. When it gets to zero the character is out of combat either incapacitated or dead. That what hit points represent. The only thing that 10 hit points say compared to 5 hit points that on average the character will last twice as long in combat.

Now the caveat is that not everything is collapsed into hit point and there still an interplay of numbers. So if one make hit points total too large relative to the other factor (like the chance to deal damage) then the result will produce something nothing like the skill based system.

 

[robertsconley]

LOL. Rob money is sitting *right here* just waiting for you.

As yet another follow up to this. One of the thing I am working on is the presentation of the rules. My opinion is that most campaign are hybrid, that they draw primarily from one system and the rest are mish-mash of other elements and mechanics from other system that the referee or group likes.

The traditional RPG core book is written as if most if not everything in a campaign will be based on what in the rulebook. That may be true for the first or second campaign that is run but less so as the referee becomes comfortable and starts weaving in their own ideas along with using other materials not related to the system.

So my thought is why not design the ability to kit bash into the product presentation in the first place. Instead of coming out with Ye Olde Giant Book of stuff. Have smaller books of stuff that work as part of a larger whole but also can work with similar systems. In my case that would be the spectrum of D&D classic editions. So the Lost Grimoire of Magic works as a standalone expansion of magic user along with some useful campaign material. Or it works as the arcane magic system sourcebook for the Majestic Fantasy RPG. And it is accompanied by commentary exposing it's "DNA" so referee can figure out exactly how to incorporate the material.

 

[AsenRG]

In Runequest or any other skill based system you can think of that has more "realistic" injury counting. How long to do characters last in combat at the a different amount of experience? Is there ever a point where a character last two times a long? Three times as long? Etc.

In skill based system, how long a character last in a combat is a interplay of different elements on the character sheet. Likely the primary factor is higher skill levels allow the character to more readily defend themselves to avoid damage. Or to win opposed checks more often allow them to inflict more damage on their opponent than what they take.

Now imagine I take all that and collapsed most of it into a single total. That total determines how long the character lasts in combat. When it gets to zero the character is out of combat either incapacitated or dead. That what hit points represent. The only thing that 10 hit points say compared to 5 hit points that on average the character will last twice as long in combat.

Now the caveat is that not everything is collapsed into hit point and there still an interplay of numbers. So if one make hit points total too large relative to the other factor (like the chance to deal damage) then the result will produce something nothing like the skill based system.

Yeah, and it's that "collapsing", along with the idea of "guaranteed survivability until the track runs out", that some of us dislike. I don't know why, but you seem to be trying to explain that they work the same, when the reaction should tip you off that to some of us at least, it's not the same in the slightest.

I mean, AFAICT, 4e was achieving the same goals as any other edition of D&D, and some goals that other editions professed to have, but failed at accomplishing. And yet some people just didn't like how it did that!

 

[robertsconley]

Yeah, and it's that "collapsing", along with the idea of "guaranteed survivability until the track runs out", that some of us dislike. I don't know why, but you seem to be trying to explain that they work the same, when the reaction should tip you off that to some of us at least, it's not the same in the slightest.

What you are talking about is degradation of capabilities. There are some skill based system who have that and some that don't. If that a important feature, if you are going with a hit point based system then yes you will have to build it in somehow. Like hit points itself it will more abstract and not flesh out the details that GURPS or Harnmaster have. But at the high level it can work similarly.

While I consider the results equivalent I don't consider how those results to be achieve equivalent. Hit points work better with how some people think, and skill based/injury work better with how others think. Which is why diversity is good. However it been my experience that not everybody shares my taste for GURPS and Harnmaster that more abstract system with less detail like hit points is "good enough".

 

[AsenRG]

Oh, I don't question why you've switched to OSR systems, robertsconley . You've explained it in the past eloquently enough.

My point is that some of us aren't planning on making this same transition, simply because for us it's not the same, and no matter how many more people are playing with HP tracks, it's never going to feel satisfactorily to us.

 

[Voros]

There's also the whole getting it all back overnight which makes it feel cheap (and I'd argue this isn't really a modern problem - this has always been the case due to clerics).

That's what I found in earlier editions as well. In terms of rests in 5e it is easy to just use the alternate short and long rest rules in the DMG.

To me though I've never had an issue with the swifty escalation of HP and power in D&D, to use a tired OSR phrase it is a feature not a bug. Trying to turn D&D into a gritty game like RQ or WFRP is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. D&D has always been a more heroic game and that power curve has always been part of its success.

 

[AsenRG]

That's what I found in earlier editions as well. In terms of rests in 5e it is easy to just use the alternate short and long rest rules in the DMG.

To me though I've never had an issue with the swifty escalation of HP and power in D&D, to use a tired OSR phrase it is a feature not a bug. Trying to turn D&D into a gritty game like RQ or WFRP is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. D&D has always been a more heroic game and that power curve has always been part of its success.

What about Fantasy Fucking Vietnam?

 

[Séadna]

What about Fantasy Fucking Vietnam?

"Charlie never made it out of the Owlbear's lair. He was a good hobbit. I still hear the screams"

 

[AsenRG]

"Charlie never made it out of Owlbear's lair. He was a good hobbit. I still hear the screams"

Exactly.
Your future power is built on the corpses of today's companions...and henchmen...and torchbearers..and other hirelings! You used your lifepower to get your supernatural resilience to damage, didn't ya?

 

[TJS]

Ha. I just discovered this injury system is in the 3.5 SRD.

Interesing. I think I like it better than Vitality/Wounds. Less numbers to track. I believe it's probably the same system from True 20
I'm not sure what is supposed to happen when PCs level up.

It reminds me a little of Savage Worlds.

Edit: I just realised I could use this to rebuild Symbaroum from the ground up in a way that actually works (since it's basically a D20 game anyway), by giving it levels but not classes or escalating hit points.

Also seems a good way to do armour as DR. Just have it add to the Fortitude Save.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I really like the wound system from Silhouette. Damage is (to hit roll - dodge roll)*weapon damage. Compared to your wound threshold. If it is 1/2 to 1x the threshold, you get a flesh wound, 1x-2x you get a deep wound, 2x+ is instantly and unrecoverable dead (barring something like magic).

People with light wounds can't sprint and get a -1 to all checks, People with deep wounds can only move at walking pace and get -2 to all checks, multiple deep wounds means you can't move at more than a crawl. All check penalties are cumulative.

Each time you take a wound you have to make a check to stay conscious (with the penalties for all wounds you have). Additionally, if your total penalty from wounds reduces your System Shock rating (5+health score) to 0 you start dying.

 

[TJS]

That's what I found in earlier editions as well. In terms of rests in 5e it is easy to just use the alternate short and long rest rules in the DMG.

To me though I've never had an issue with the swifty escalation of HP and power in D&D, to use a tired OSR phrase it is a feature not a bug. Trying to turn D&D into a gritty game like RQ or WFRP is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. D&D has always been a more heroic game and that power curve has always been part of its success.

Well I didn't say anything about making D&D more gritty. I was just pointing out that despite the abstract hit points, early D&D was probably a lot more gritty in feel than modern D&D.

But if you look at the maths for say 3.5. PCs got a lot more accurate over time, while their hit-points expanded to compensate for this. So you reached a point when an already abstract system became more abstract, and the different between success and failure on an attack roll and what it actually means becomes more opaque. I'm just pointing out that this may be less satisfying when it's a common reality of the system rather than an aspirational feature. My experience was that from about 5th to level on it became increasingly less satisfying to play a warrior, and I found this to be the case independent of any caster discrepancy. It felt like at the earlier levels I could easily imagine the visceral reality of my characters exchange of blows, but as things went up I felt increasingly like all I was doing was interacting with the numbers.

In 13th Age, in contrast damage, hit points, and defenses or scale in sync. However, from running 13th Age, I feel that it gets the balance wrong from the start. Thankfully, the maths is transparent enough that I can at least tweak it more to my liking (reduce hp and up damage).

 

[EmperorNorton]

I will say though, I think that HP has the right idea in some ways. HP kind of paces a fight. You always kind of know its heading towards a resolution. In systems that are much more binary, and most of the "skill" is in the attack roll/defense roll, fights can have really unpredictable lengths. And if you compensate for the "miss/hit" dynamic by trying to give it a move towards a resolution over time with things like action penalties when injured, it can often lead to "he who hits first automatically wins" if you aren't careful.

 

[Panzerkraken]

Interesing. I think I like it better than Vitality/Wounds. Less numbers to track. I believe it's probably the same system from True 20
I'm not sure what is supposed to happen when PCs level up.

As they level up, their Fort save goes up, so they can take more wounds before they hit the point where they need a 20 to not fail by -10.

 

[TJS]

As they level up, their Fort save goes up, so they can take more wounds before they hit the point where they need a 20 to not fail by -10.

Yes, but the scaling looks questionable I suspect damage will scale in a manner wildly beyond Fort save's ability to peg back.

It seems workable in a system where the maths is very tight, but questionable in a system such as 3.5 where it isn't.

Like for example if you took the basic math of 13th age which is much tighter and had the saves scale by about 1 point per level then you'd want the damage to also scale by about 1 point a level (rather than 1 die a level as it is now) so that it would remain even (you might not necessarily want it to remain entirely even - because then you'd risk feeling no sense of progression, but it's good to have baseline before considering deviation.)

The reason why it looks promising for Symbaroum, is that Damage scales in Symbaroum, but health doesn't and accuracy is generally bounded so that attacks and defences barely improve. What's more while the damage scales in excess of health it only does that because health is so static - it doesn't increase by huge amounts in total terms, so something like this might be able to peg it back with just a small amount of scaling.

 

[Moracai]

Ha. I just discovered this injury system is in the 3.5 SRD.

Interesing. I think I like it better than Vitality/Wounds. Less numbers to track. I believe it's probably the same system from True 20
I'm not sure what is supposed to happen when PCs level up.

It reminds me a little of Savage Worlds.

Edit: I just realised I could use this to rebuild Symbaroum from the ground up in a way that actually works (since it's basically a D20 game anyway), by giving it levels but not classes or escalating hit points.

Also seems a good way to do armour as DR. Just have it add to the Fortitude Save.

I believe that injury system is from Arcana Unearthed book, that somehow got added to the SRD. It reminds me of Mutants & Masterminds that also had a damage save, at least in one of its editions. I always think of Cyberpunk 2020 when damage saves come up. To me that was the first system to use them.

I even fiddled with a similar houserule system because I wasn't entirely happy with the above, or the M&M one. I've probably lost it, but I might have it on an external drive in the closet. I'll have a look after I've ran to the store and back.

I like Symbaroum a lot, and would like to take it out for a dinner someday, to see what happens. I agree that it has its flaws, but I wouldn't go adding levels to it (I can't see the benefit from doing so), but that's just my personal preference. Also I can't see how that it is a d20 game. Ok it uses a roll-under d20 mechanic, but any game that does not have classes or levels is a kissing cousin at best, in my mind.

 

[AsenRG]

I will say though, I think that HP has the right idea in some ways. HP kind of paces a fight. You always kind of know its heading towards a resolution.

Bug, not a feature.

 

[TJS]

I believe that injury system is from Arcana Unearthed book, that somehow got added to the SRD. It reminds me of Mutants & Masterminds that also had a damage save, at least in one of its editions. I always think of Cyberpunk 2020 when damage saves come up. To me that was the first system to use them.

I even fiddled with a similar houserule system because I wasn't entirely happy with the above, or the M&M one. I've probably lost it, but I might have it on an external drive in the closet. I'll have a look after I've ran to the store and back.

I like Symbaroum a lot, and would like to take it out for a dinner someday, to see what happens. I agree that it has its flaws, but I wouldn't go adding levels to it (I can't see the benefit from doing so), but that's just my personal preference. Also I can't see how that it is a d20 game. Ok it uses a roll-under d20 mechanic, but any game that does not have classes or levels is a kissing cousin at best, in my mind.

I was thinking very very soft levels.

It kind of has them already - at least to the extent that it pretends to have a challenge rating system. From memory about every 50 xp pcs are considered to basically go up a tier and be able to face bigger threats. (Of course that system doesn't work but something like the intent is there). There's also the abilities that require a certain level in other abilities before they can be acquired.

Something like +1 to a damage save every so many XP. You don't have even have to give it out for free, but I'd probably put some limits on PCs getting too far ahead of the curve.

 

[Moracai]

TJS In Symbaroum bonuses to damage saves could be a talent. They already have mastery levels. If necessary, you could tweak the cost when compared to other talents. There could be a better version from it that only monsters could have. But if your mind's set on levels, I'm not the one trying to talk you out of it!

I found the houserule that I was talking about before, but it was unfinished and too unwieldy. It resembled cyberpunk 2020 somewhat and relied in not one, but two tables. Well, two tables integrated into one, but yeah, unwieldy...

 

[TJS]

TJS In Symbaroum bonuses to damage saves could be a talent. They already have mastery levels. If necessary, you could tweak the cost when compared to other talents. There could be a better version from it that only monsters could have. But if your mind's set on levels, I'm not the one trying to talk you out of it!

Yes you can but talents really need to be tiered anyway - like say in Savage Worlds.

 

[AsenRG]

Yes you can but talents really need to be tiered anyway - like say in Savage Worlds.

Or tied to non-essential skills, creating a natural pacing mechanism tied to the limited XP.
I also recommend checking Dominion D12 for an example of a nice damage save mechanic.

 

[Moracai]

A back while I did some math. A first level fighter could beat up 8 civilians in a day. How is that not a superhero game?

 

[TristramEvans]

How is that not a superhero game?

Is that what a superhero is to you?

 

[Moracai]

Is that what a superhero is to you?

Pretty much, yes.

 

[TristramEvans]

Pretty much, yes.

Then I guess pretty much every RPG is a superhero game, starting with OD&D.

I have a much different definition of a superhero myself, so it's not how I would phrase it, but generally most games allow the possibility of a level of competancy that is many times that of a "normal" inhabitant of that game's world/reality. In a game that uses a level system, it seems practically unavoidable.

 

[Voros]

Then I guess pretty much every RPG is a superhero game, starting with OD&D.

I have a much different definition of a superhero myself, so it's not how I would phrase it, but generally most games allow the possibility of a level of competancy that is many times that of a "normal" inhabitant of that game's world/reality. In a game that uses a level system, it seems practically unavoidable.

That is one among many reasons that I find the common use of the term 'superhero' as a disparagment of later versions of D&D misplaced although I doubt Moracai meant it in that way.

I do think the common use of the term to belittle later editions sets up a false dichotomy between earlier editions and more recent editions, even in the early editions after level 5+ D&D is no longer 'gritty.' Its default is quite high magic and powerful. The grittiness of RQ and WFRP was likely in direct reaction to the high powered nature of D&D play (hence the emphasis on 'realism' in some of RQ's ad material back then) and that was long before WoTC came on the scene.

Of course the other issue is that there's nothing the matter with competent and high powered play, nerdmacho aside that is common in most classic superhero rpgs like MSH.

 

[TristramEvans]

I found 4e to be more "videogamey" than "superheroic" myself

 

[TJS]

A back while I did some math. A first level fighter could beat up 8 civilians in a day. How is that not a superhero game?

What that says to me is that a further 12 levels beyond that point is unnecessary and attempting to include it just drags game systems down.

(I know that a small minority of people enjoy it - but what you really need for that style of play is a dedicated D&D variant. Have level 1 equivalent to level 11 - but keep the simplicity level in keeping with level 1 and build up complexity from there - include a life path character gen system to help describe what PCs did before they were 'epic'. If you play a regular game until level 10 and want to continue then you just 'translate' your PCs into a new game.)

 

[Voros]

What that says to me is that a further 12 levels beyond that point is unnecessary and attempting to include it just drags game systems down.

(I know that a small minority of people enjoy it - but what you really need for that style of play is a dedicated D&D variant. Have level 1 equivalent to level 11 - but keep the simplicity level in keeping with level 1 and build up complexity from there - include a life path character gen system to help describe what PCs did before they were 'epic'. If you play a regular game until level 10 and want to continue then you just 'translate' your PCs into a new game.)

Considering the tremendous success of D&D and 5e in particular I think it is a stretch to say a 'small minority' enjoy it. The OSR's attempts to strictly limit D&D to try and make it 'gritty' is the actual small minority.

The fact that so few people make it to high level play in D&D I think is more due to the often glacial level advancement once you approach higher levels and simple boredom/burnout on campaigns that go that long.

Contrary to some analysis I don't think that most campaigns die off because things become 'too easy' at high level but due to other potential flaws in D&D for long term play. Domain play is sometimes offered as a solution and although I've always loved it since it was properly introduced in BECMI I think it is safe to say that is more a niche form of play with little wide appeal.

Why that is I think is a more interesting question, one I would advance is that domain play is more historical genre-emulative than fantasy-literature genre emulative and most people continue to play D&D for those fantasy genre emulative reasons that some want to admit.

 

[Stevethulhu]

I found 4e to be more "videogamey" than "superheroic" myself

My sole issue with 4e was that it was a minis board game masquerading as an RPG. It wasnt particularly like any videogames I've played, other than the artwork. The game play wasnt conducive to playing much of a role, other than your combat role. But nor was it particularly like playing a video game.

 

[Chris Brady]

My sole issue with 4e was that it was a minis board game masquerading as an RPG. It wasnt particularly like any videogames I've played, other than the artwork. The game play wasnt conducive to playing much of a role, other than your combat role. But nor was it particularly like playing a video game.

WoTC did put out some pretty good board games using the system. And for me, the closest video games you could use as an example were the Strategy based JRPGs with it's squares of range.

3e was very MMO to me though, with it's low damage, high armour fighters, glass cannon mages of versatility, buff machine healers and positional killer rogues.

 

[TJS]

Considering the tremendous success of D&D and 5e in particular I think it is a stretch to say a 'small minority' enjoy it. The OSR's attempts to strictly limit D&D to try and make it 'gritty' is the actual small minority.

The fact that so few people make it to high level play in D&D I think is more due to the often glacial level advancement once you approach higher levels and simple boredom/burnout on campaigns that go that long.

Contrary to some analysis I don't think that most campaigns die off because things become 'too easy' at high level but due to other potential flaws in D&D for long term play. Domain play is sometimes offered as a solution and although I've always loved it since it was properly introduced in BECMI I think it is safe to say that is more a niche form of play with little wide appeal.

Why that is I think is a more interesting question, one I would advance is that domain play is more historical genre-emulative than fantasy-literature genre emulative and most people continue to play D&D for those fantasy genre emulative reasons that some want to admit.

I don't really understand why you've framed your response as a disagreement, but then gone on to basically agree with me.

More due to glacial advancement than...?

Edit: I didn't speculate on the reason because that's unknowable and there likely isn't a single reason anyway. I'm not assuming that the reasons I gave for myself earlier were universal. I'm just saying that if people don't get beyond around level 12 (as all data seems to bear out), than you don't need to design a game to get to that point with all the attendant difficulties involved in doing that, as a number of D&D clones have realised over the years.

I think 3.5 tied itself into knots trying to translate 20 levels of AD&D play. I think that everything over about name level in older D&D was really more aspirational than reality.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Of course the other issue is that there's nothing the matter with competent and high powered play, nerdmacho aside that is common in most classic superhero rpgs like MSH.

This is the thing that most confuses me about the criticism of some games. Like, its fine to say "I want to play a low power game" but so often games that hit power levels that are more superheroic/mythic, people are like "ew pewpew powers" and deriding it as though it is somehow less "mature" than the games where they pretend to be "gritty" power level elves and dwarves just kind of... seems dumb.

Like sure like what you like, but high powered games are no better or worse than low powered games, just different.

 

[Magister]

Then I guess pretty much every RPG is a superhero game, starting with OD&D.

Since the 8th level fighter in OD&D was in fact "Superhero", yes, that would be correct.

 

[Voros]

I don't really understand why you've framed your response as a disagreement, but then gone on to basically agree with me.

More due to glacial advancement than...?

Edit: I didn't speculate on the reason because that's unknowable and there likely isn't a single reason anyway. I'm not assuming that the reasons I gave for myself earlier were universal. I'm just saying that if people don't get beyond around level 12 (as all data seems to bear out), than you don't need to design a game to get to that point with all the attendant difficulties involved in doing that, as a number of D&D clones have realised over the years.

I think 3.5 tied itself into knots trying to translate 20 levels of AD&D play. I think that everything over about name level in older D&D was really more aspirational than reality.

But Arduin, Deities & Demigods, Godbound and lots of anecdotal stories from our childhood and the history of the game show that a not insignificant number of people do enjoy high level play, they just don't like the grind to get there.