What Was Gygax Thinking?

[Toadmaster]

I like the earlier editions in terms of how it affects the way the world works. It's often not great for play, though. However, the solution later version used, of making infinite cantrips a thing, and so on wasn't the best solution, IMO (though it's the one that sells in this day and age of video games in which mages just blast out spells constantly in combat). I'd have gone with buffing casters' mundane combat skills at low level so they had more to contribute in fights where they didn't want to use their spell(s) or after they'd run out.

So in a modern game the wizard would be a perfectly decent straight-up melee combatant, like a thief for example, but would never get access to all the shiny move and later super-powers that a fighter or combat-specialising thief would. Instead they'd get all those juicy reality-bending spells. Clerics would be the same, just with a slower start (because their baseline combat skill would be higher). How super-heroic fighters, etc. would get would depend on the setting - in some settings wizards are quadratic and fighter are not and that's just the way it is (and probably PCs shouldn't be getting to the levels where this matters too much).

When 2E added their version of feats (forget what they called them) then at least mages could be helpful like patching up wounded PCs, or other useful non-combat knowledge skills.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

When 2E added their version of feats (forget what they called them) then at least mages could be helpful like patching up wounded PCs, or other useful non-combat knowledge skills.

They had a few optional tools in 2E over the course of its run. Skills and Powers I think had something approaching feats, but early on you just had Non-Weapon Proficiencies. There is a Healing NWP, but it does cost a mage 1 extra slot to get that (so they can get it they just have to spend more because it is listed in the cleric group). But non-weapon proficiencies were very much optional (not default). So it would depend on the group (we mostly used them as I recall, however I am pretty sure many of the official modules, settings and supplements did not (I just ran some 2E modules and the ones I ran, as well as the setting books for them, didn't have NWP entries for the NPCs). There were also Kits in the complete books which made use of the NWPs optional mechanic (and they might have had some other widgets in there but I haven't used the 2E complete books in ages).

 

[Voros]

Of course it was intended to be used. Why else was it in the books?

Here is the relevant section in the 1e DMG (page 110), in true Gygaxian block of text format.

"Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonably severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may! Again, if you have available ample means of raising characters from the dead, even death is not too severe; remember, however, the constitution-based limit to resurrections. Yet one die roll that you should NEVER tamper with is the SYSTEM SHOCK ROLL to be raised from the dead. If a character fails that roll, which he or she should make him or herself, he or she is FOREVER DEAD. There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each!"

Several lines here would be considered OSR heresy these days.

 

[robertsconley]

Fol

When 2E added their version of feats (forget what they called them) then at least mages could be helpful like patching up wounded PCs, or other useful non-combat knowledge skills

In OD&D e LBB characters were equal in combat capability at the lower level. The fighter could wear better armor ever one had the same to hit chance and did the same amount of damage.

It wasn't until the Greyhawk supplement things started to shift.

One thing I did with my Majestic Fantasy RPG was to preserve this aspect of the 3 LBBs.

 

[JoeNuttall]

Of course it was intended to be used. Why else was it in the books?

When you read some stuff in the books you do indeed wonder if it was intended to be used - the hit location stuff from Blackmoor for instance is not very convincing. But in this case I think we can agree this spell was meant to be used.

Several lines here would be considered OSR heresy these days.

Yes, there are some people dressed from head to foot in OSR clothing who have some overly strong views, and it's best not to quote this in their hearing. I think there's another passage somewhere where he says it's a good idea not to kill newbie players in their first session so fudging the dice is suggested.

It wasn't until the Greyhawk supplement things started to shift.

I do like that statement. On the surface it reads the same as, for example, "it wasn't until WoTC took over things started to shift", but then you realise that the number of people who played D&D before Greyhawk was published was vanishingly small. So it's a bit like talking about preferring the Beatles before they went to Hamburg. But I do appreciate the sentiment, as there are changes in Greyhawk I'm none to fond of.

 

[AsenRG]

I deliberately chose Fantasy AGE because it is devoid of any mechanics about what injury means or what the point total of Health represents

OK, but again, if you expect me to dig out FantasyAGE (that I've already decided to let languish), you're overestimating my commitment to online debates.

We were not debating the "package deal" We were debating Armor Class versus Damage Reduction. Thrown in the mechanics of of detailed injury like GURPS, Runequest, other systems like the ones you mention of course it easier to describe. But if you need or prefer detailed injury mechanics then you have to concede that you would dislike just as much how Fantasy AGE handles Damage Reduction and Health compared to Armor Class and Hit Point.

Almost as much, probably (there is a reason I decided to let it languish, I'm just not sure what exactly it was - after finding an old post of mine, it seems my verdict was "not much of an improvement over D&D and doesn't use the Dragon Die nearly enough", at the time).
It still grants me a couple of things, though - hopefully:
1) an option to get "strike weakened by armour" and "strike stopped by the armour" without additional steps like "comparing to the unarmored AC" - which is basically amounts to keeping in mind two TNs and comparing to both. No, that's not a minor step, sorry.
2) A more intuitive (to me) way to narrate the wounds.
3) Hopefully again, but if not, it's a weakness of the system: A way for the combatants to protect themselves meaningfully without being armoured.
Why? Because in Armour-as-AC/AaAC systems all too often the AC from armour is the main way to "defend", and all that high stats, skill and even shields do, is uncomparable.
...now, maybe Fantasy AGE doesn't do that - but if it doesn't, it explains why I've let it languish, and basically "scrubbed it from Memory Lane"! I just find it a common flaw in AaAC systems.
And yeah, I am debating "AaAC systems and all the stuff that goes with them", not just AaAC vs AaTN. It's often hard to distinguish between the two, because some things go better with one than with the other.

Fantasy AGE is not unique in its lack of detailed injury rules and still uses the damage reduction mechanics.

OTOH, Classic Traveller has AaAC and has more detailed injury rules - which determine when it's a scratch, when it's an actual wound, and so on...
And I already gave you this example, if you check my posts in the thread.
But the MT/MgT/Cepheus/T4 model still works better for me, despite using the (more or less) exact same rules for wounding and defending.
And that's exactly for the reasons stated above.

So, would you accept a comparison between those two, instead?

Circling back to our debate. The problem isn't with Armor Class but with the lack of detailed injury rules that leave one hanging to describe what just happened as a result of a successful hit.

See the above counter-example.

As an example another system that where a person would struggle to describe damage despite the system using damage reduction is the original Basic Roleplaying by Chaosium. And it lacks hit location as well.
View attachment 55636

...Isn't that the same BRP as in the one in BRP Gold Book? Yeah, never found it hard to describe wounds with those rules!
(Though the lack of hit locations was a weak side of the system).

4e embraced this. A lot of people hated it, but it does seem to have finally gotten the original conception of hit points right.

Yes. It was a strong point of the system, just not enough to outweigh the rest of it...

Also, don't tell the grognards that 4e does something closer to how Arneson intended, or you'd make a lot of dentists rich! Power Word: Gnash shouldn't be used lightly (or for free)!

You can implement it as wounds which make you easier to hit/kill (but not making it harder for you to hit other people) so that after you've been wounded it now becomes riskier to continue in the battle. Or you can have a positional advantage, where the opponent is fighting better than you and instead of hitting you gets some bonus (which makes you more likely to get hit and killed), or you can have a ratchetting up of risk as the battle goes on (either fatigue or just a peril counter).
No doubt there's a better term for it, but none of those are what I'd consider a death spiral.

That would be an interesting mechanic. See my sig...

On this last point, it is one difficulty of making combat less abstract is that some systems work very well for man-sized humanoid versus the same, but as soon as you move out of that what makes sense for the combat changes. A halfling with a dagger is not going to chop the head off a giant, you can't disarm a giant octopus, and you can't trip a dragon. You can't parry the giant, the octopus is going to try and grab you with its tentacles, and the dragon's gonna wack you with its tail.

Man, all that stuff is already covered in the rules that use hit locations. Give it a rest.
The halfling (or the human, vs a bigger giant) uses a 1d10+10 for hit locations. Conversely, when on a high platform and fighting from above, or horseback, you roll 1d10.
There's no parrying a giant's club with a dagger. Indeed, the weapon is two size categories larger, so the damage gets through. Roll Evade instead.
There's no disarming an octopus. There's distentacobulating* it, though!

*New Word! I want a trademark (R)!

Yes, there are some people dressed from head to foot in OSR clothing who have some overly strong views, and it's best not to quote this in their hearing. I think there's another passage somewhere where he says it's a good idea not to kill newbie players in their first session so fudging the dice is suggested.

...Can you find me a snapshot of that? Asking for some friends who'd die to see it!

 

[Fenris-77]

Not killing newbie players isn't a flavour of OSR that I'm familiar with.

 

[sharps54]

Did I hear the suggestion of fudging dice?!

 

[AsenRG]

Not killing newbie players isn't a flavour of OSR that I'm familiar with.

Well, seems like The Gygax was...

 

[Moracai]

Not killing newbie players isn't a flavour of OSR that I'm familiar with.

In my humble opinion players shouldn't be killed at all. At least not during the game session. Afterwards, eeeh...

joking aside, my first ever character died in the first encounter of the first session, and it was all my fault, for being too inquisitive about the broken gates that were before the courtyard of Bargle's castle.

 

[JoeNuttall]

A more concrete approach would be akin to what I’ve read about FATE (from AsenRG and others) in how combat is won by piling up conditions that confer a cumulative advantage. In a more traditional game, it could be as I described above, maybe with more opportunities for combatants to be knocked out as opposed to killed outright. Of course, that works better for intelligent/non-murderous foes than monsters or other enemies that won’t give any quarter.

On this last point, it is one difficulty of making combat less abstract is that some systems work very well for man-sized humanoid versus the same, but as soon as you move out of that what makes sense for the combat changes. A halfling with a dagger is not going to chop the head off a giant, you can't disarm a giant octopus, and you can't trip a dragon. You can't parry the giant, the octopus is going to try and grab you with its tentacles, and the dragon's gonna wack you with its tail.

Man, all that stuff is already covered in the rules that use hit locations. Give it a rest.
The halfling (or the human, vs a bigger giant) uses a 1d10+10 for hit locations. Conversely, when on a high platform and fighting from above, or horseback, you roll 1d10.
There's no parrying a giant's club with a dagger. Indeed, the weapon is two size categories larger, so the damage gets through. Roll Evade instead.
There's no disarming an octopus. There's distentacobulating* it, though!

I said that some systems that work well for man-sized humanoid don't make as much sense when you move away from that. In some systems you can change/enhance the rules to cope with it (and hence they're often included in the printed rules), but some systems break if you do that. I've included the quotes I was replying to, which makes the context clearer.

 

[AsenRG]

I said that some systems that work well for man-sized humanoid don't make as much sense when you move away from that. In some systems you can change/enhance the rules to cope with it (and hence they're often included in the printed rules), but some systems break if you do that. I've included the quotes I was replying to, which makes the context clearer.

OK, then I don't remember having seen those systems. Sorry for misunderstanding you!

 

[Brock Savage]

I happened to enjoy death spiral mechanics ever since I got a taste of them in Vampire: the Masquerade. That said, the bookkeeping would be onerous in a game like D&D where skirmishes happen on the regular.

I wouldn't expect a prevailing definition in RPGs for anything. We could have a debate on a definition for what one is...

...but I think it is usually used as a pejorative term, a criticism of a game. If someone said Harnmaster had a Death Spiral, I'd have thought that it was being rude about the game.

Death spiral uses simple, direct language that makes itself perfectly clear. I don't see a need for euphemistic language to avoid offending sensitive game designers.

 

[robertsconley]

I happened to enjoy death spiral mechanics ever since I got a taste of them in Vampire: the Masquerade. That said, the bookkeeping would be onerous in a game like D&D where skirmishes happen on the regular.

Harnmaster handles this by tracking the impact the same way you do as hit points. Anything that gets through your armor is recorded as injury points. Harnmaster uses 1d100 as it's main rolls and injury subtracts off of that roll reducing your effectiveness in combat.

The other part of being injured doesn't require bookkeeping. Anytime you get injury you make one or more saves with XD6 with X being the severity of the injury. For example, all injury require a shock save or you go unconscious. You injury total divided by ten is a modifier to the die roll for this save. The more you are injured the hard it is to make these save.

For example a 2 point injury (remember this is a d100 system) is a scratch and there is no save will fail if the character wasn't injured to begin with. That same 2 point hit later in the fight when the characters had a 66 injury table means that the change failing the shock roll is higher as now you have +6 to the die roll. Lower is better in Harnmaster saves.

What put off most folks from Harnmaster is the chart but in its defense, it is really well designed and in actual play works very well. I played a number of RPGs with detailed combat systems (GURPS, Hero System, Mythras, etc.) and Harnmaster is the easiest to use by far for the number of details it has.

 

[Brock Savage]

Harnmaster handles this by tracking the impact the same way you do as hit points.

Thank you for weighing in, that seems like a pretty workable system! I had in mind something like White Wolf's death spiral and not more imaginative approaches.

 

[sharps54]

Yep, the WW one looks like what I think of as a death spiral as does the way Monster Rating goes down in Tunnels & Trolls and the way damage works in Risus.

 

[JoeNuttall]

Death spiral uses simple, direct language that makes itself perfectly clear. I don't see a need for euphemistic language to avoid offending sensitive game designers.

I wasn't concerned about the feelings of game designers - it's just strange language to use if you're promoting a game you enjoy as it will likely turn people off - unless it does have a bona-fide death spiral. For example I believe White Wolf does so it seems appropriate in that case. You can, of course, use whatever language you like!

 

[sharps54]

I wasn't concerned about the feelings of game designers - it's just strange language to use if you're promoting a game you enjoy as it will likely turn people off - unless it does have a bona-fide death spiral. For example I believe White Wolf does so it seems appropriate in that case. You can, of course, use whatever language you like!

I quite like both T&T and Risus but I won’t try to sugar coat the death spiral present in either game.

 

[JoeNuttall]

I quite like both T&T and Risus but I won’t try to sugar coat the death spiral present in either game.

Why do people think I'm sugar coating it? I explicitly called out T&T's death spiral earlier up. Not everything's black or white.

 

[Fenris-77]

DEATH SPIRAL

 

[sharps54]

Why do people think I'm sugar coating it? I explicitly called out T&T's death spiral earlier up. Not everything's black or white.

I’m not sure why I’m being quoted here as I “loved” your post above, you and I are in agreement.

 

[Brock Savage]

Why do people think I'm sugar coating it? I explicitly called out T&T's death spiral earlier up. Not everything's black or white.

You just said upthread that you think it's "strange" to use blunt, straightforward language like death spiral "if you're promoting a game you enjoy as it will likely turn people off"; that's textbook sugarcoating, LOL.

 

[BedrockBrendan]

I used to have win people over on a death spiral dice pool system, that was a tough sell. Now it is just a dice pool system; also a tough a sell

 

[JoeNuttall]

I’m not sure why I’m being quoted here as I “loved” your post above, you and I are in agreement.

Sorry, that's just forums for ya

You just said upthread that you think it's "strange" to use blunt, straightforward language like death spiral "if you're promoting a game you enjoy as it will likely turn people off"; that's textbook sugarcoating, LOL.

Not everything's a death spiral. If it's a death spiral, call it one, if it isn't why would you call it one? Why would that advice be sugar coating?

I give up with the internet sometimes.

 

[migo]

As far as I'm concerned, a death spiral is anything that makes things mechanically worse for you (and your enemy) as damage is dealt. So for instance, if you have a slot based encumbrance system, and wounds take up an encumbrance slot, then you've got one built in as long as you have penalties for being encumbered. This even lets you play the nearly naked barbarian warrior who is able to take more damage because they're not carrying as much. It doesn't have to be a steep spiral for it to be a spiral.

 

[Brock Savage]

Not everything's a death spiral. If it's a death spiral, call it one, if it isn't why would you call it one? Why would that advice be sugar coating?

I give up with the internet sometimes.

Consider the issue dropped; my intention wasn't to frustrate you.

 

[JoeNuttall]

Consider the issue dropped; my intention wasn't to frustrate you.

I sometimes think the purpose of the internet is to frustrate people. The rpgpub manages to sail through choppy waters pretty well though, and it's always still fun.

Time for a cheery uplifting cartoon!

Unfortunately "Death Spiral" is not a promising search term for cheery gifs. How about this one:

 

[opaopajr]

I encouraged darts in a campaign and it went fine. Having three attacks a round was well appreciated throughout the classes.

But then I run a lot of dynamics during combat encounters, so distance, light, concealment/cover, climbing over & manipulating obstacles, melee tying up attacker movement, etc. all makes the experience delightfully stressful and filled with choices. If you feel that after your one spell you just sit around farting about tossing darts well, interesting table you got there, but not so on mine. And I'm sure the fighters appreciate a few successful darts lightening the attacking hordes that'd otherwise be flanking or overbearing them. Yes, I remember the overbearing rules.

I guess it is how you use a thing.

 

[Fenris-77]

I encouraged darts in a campaign and it went fine. Having three attacks a round was well appreciated throughout the classes.

But then I run a lot of dynamics during combat encounters, so distance, light, concealment/cover, climbing over & manipulating obstacles, melee tying up attacker movement, etc. all makes the experience delightfully stressful and filled with choices. If you feel that after your one spell you just sit around farting about tossing darts well, interesting table you got there, but not so on mine. And I'm sure the fighters appreciate a few successful darts lightening the attacking hordes that'd otherwise be flanking or overbearing them. Yes, I remember the overbearing rules.

I guess it is how you use a thing.

Yeah, my Deep Gnome character with 18/98 strength, a flying cloak, and specialization in darts says hi, nice scenario you wrote there, hope nothing happens to it...

 

[opaopajr]

Yeah, my Deep Gnome character with 18/98 strength, a flying cloak, and specialization in darts says hi, nice scenario you wrote there, hope nothing happens to it...

Yeah, just porting them on over from another table, don't mind me, totally legit!

He's a monster at under 30 feet/yards. Hey, if you got it all legit, pinkie swear, then let's see 'em save the fictional world. Go rock on with you bad self; be sure to bring your battle hamper!

 

[migo]

I sometimes think the purpose of the internet is to frustrate people. The rpgpub manages to sail through choppy waters pretty well though, and it's always still fun.

Time for a cheery uplifting cartoon!

Unfortunately "Death Spiral" is not a promising search term for cheery gifs. How about this one:
View attachment 55691

There's nothing quite like marriage to model gritty combat.

 

[ffilz]

Backing up a bit to detail in the combat system that makes more description easier...

For me an RPG really is a game. Yes, it's a particular kind of game where there is more to the game state that what is strictly in the rules (i.e. the fiction matters), but it's still a game. So from this perspective, I don't need to extrapolate extra information from the combat system. D&D's hit point track and armor class works just fine for me, though yes, I happen to prefer damage resistance armor, but it has nothing to do with the flow of combat coming off as a better story, it has to do with how the different mechanical effects play together as a game.

Now addressing death spiral and super lethal combat and stuff. I like systems that generally give players a chance to realize they are in over their heads and have a chance. Damage resistance armor actually helps this. RuneQuest IS pretty lethal, but unless you're fighting something huge or with insane magic, most of the time you can survive a single hit. Cold Iron with its hit points per level also gives plenty of warning, yet due to the open ended critical hits can also be pretty deadly. Cold Iron also has a death spiral. Being below 1/2 hit points in a -3 penalty to everything which means you hit less often, and get hit more often, and critical hits average to 1.5 extra multiples of damage. Getting hit for >1/2 hit points in a single blow not only leaves you with that -3 penalty, but you also got knocked to the ground for even more penalties. Both systems also severely penalize being ganged up on (Cold Iron not quite as bad as RuneQuest since you get to parry two opponents). But neither system is one where a solid but not crippling hit leaves you with almost no chance to change the tide, and once the tide really has turned, combat tends to go quick. Yes, I hate those games where losing takes a long time. I have actually experienced this the most in board games. Now both Cold Iron and RuneQuest DO have the "out of commission PC" problem.

Above has also been mentioned D&D's one shot 1st level magic users. That is one of the things I love about both RuneQuest and Cold Iron is that spell casters don't run out of steam so quickly. Plus, they need not be as weak in combat as a D&D magic user, neither have restrictions on armor wearing or weapon use for spell casters. In fact, at least the way I run RQ, really everyone is a fighter AND a spell caster. Cold Iron there's more distinction, but an 4th level magic user is also at least a 1st level fighter with decent armor and a weapon. If they can gang up on opponents, they might actually be useful.

What all of the above does point out though is that additional detail in the combat system makes the GAME more interesting as well as the STORY.

 

[TristramEvans]

As a counterpoint, the more crunch in combat, and likewise the longer it takes, the more you lose the corollary to the frenetic pace of combat in reality and with it the sense of urgency and tension. So the more the rules try to make combat realistic by modeling individual components, the more they lose the overall reality of how combat feels.

 

[robertsconley]

As a counterpoint, the more crunch in combat, and likewise the longer it takes, the more you lose the corollary to the frenetic pace of combat in reality and with it the sense of urgency and tension. So the more the rules try to make combat realistic by modeling individual components, the more they lose the overall reality of how combat feels.

If all is equal but rarely all else is equal. When fooling around with fudge and fate, I was able to make a detailed multiple-step combat system resolve in the same amount of time as any classic edition of D&D. The problem? Well, I screwed with the numbers in a way that all combat was resolved in one or two exchanges (rounds). So that wasn't a solution.

But I was aware of the issue and kept track of how many rounds it took to resolve combat. As well as how many first exchange and second exchange kills there were.

Majestic Realms RPG Combat Simulator

And there is a D&D variant

D20 RPG Combat Simulator

 

[Fenris-77]

As a counterpoint, the more crunch in combat, and likewise the longer it takes, the more you lose the corollary to the frenetic pace of combat in reality and with it the sense of urgency and tension. So the more the rules try to make combat realistic by modeling individual components, the more they lose the overall reality of how combat feels.

This is precisely why I tend to shy away from too much crunch in my combat. I really want to feel as fast and furious as I can manage. What exactly 'too much' looks like will differ quite a bit from person to person I imagine, and system mastery also probably has a role to play.

 

[Sharrow]

Way back in the day me and my high school friends played quite a lot of Space Opera, Aftermath!, and Chivalry & Sorcery. We trimmed a fair bit off SO's combat sequence by altering the order of some dice rolls, but never got it terribly fast (too much automatic weapons fire vs heavily armoured targets). The other two, with sufficient system mastery actually flowed pretty well and quite quickly. The problem was, it took a lot of system mastery and engagement by both the GM and all the players. Have someone not paying attention, or sort-of knowing the game and they slowed to a crawl. New players with no system mastery were actually less of a problem - you could just get them to say what they wanted to do and have a veteran translate.

 

[Agemegos]

Thank you for weighing in, that seems like a pretty workable system! I had in mind something like White Wolf's death spiral and not more imaginative approaches.

View attachment 55688

That’s not unlike James Bond 007 (and following its model, ForeSight and Classified). A light wound, medium wound, and heavy wound give a -1; -2; and -3 respectively to Speed and as an ease-factor modifier to all activity. You can soldier on with a LW in these systems, but you’re not meant to engage in attritional combat: a MW is the system’s way of telling you that you lost while leaving you alive enough to bug out., and past that you are incapacitated.

 

[Telok]

Personally I've come to appreciate a hybrid death spiral approach. Some layer of hit point like "walk it off" damage absorption on top of a critical wounds set up that can work as a death spiral and long term wounds.

 

[Arminius]

For example a 2 point injury (remember this is a d100 system) is a scratch and there is no save will fail if the character wasn't injured to begin with. That same 2 point hit later in the fight when the characters had a 66 injury table means that the change failing the shock roll is higher as now you have +6 to the die roll. Lower is better in Harnmaster saves.

I just want to note that this is different from the summary I gave earlier. Either I was mistaken (definitely possible) or HM 1e is different from 3e, which I think is what Rob is using.

 

[Fenris-77]

The HERO system does that with Stun damage and BDY damage.

plus some in-depth practical experiments...