Quote from: John MorrowThat's because they were designed with discreet one-on-one challenges in mind and because they are not representational, don't necessarily scale well to large multiple actor conflicts or deal with simultaneous actions very well.

I've seen this same mistake made with more tradition combat systems. All the focus is on making a one-on-one battle interesting and it comes at the cost of overly-complex and even unworkable rules when one attempts to apply them to the tradition rpg adventuring party (or larger groups).

Quote from: gleichmanI don't think John or I represent any sort of Orthodoxy in rpgs. If anything we're the Heretics here. The idea that rpgs should be representative instead of abstracted has always been a minority opinion.

More so online, but even in the Market Place where D&D has always defined Orthodoxy.

D&D defines D&D, not orthodoxy among designers

Outside of D20/OGL, how many games released since 1980 use DR armor?

My estimate is about 85-90%, based on games I have read/played/run. WHat do you estimate?

Inside the D20/OGL universe, how many games use DR armor?

I couldn't estimate that since I never buy D20/OGL games.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceD&D defines D&D, not orthodoxy among designers

Outside of D20/OGL, how many games released since 1980 use DR armor?

OK.  So why do you think that is?  

I think it's because, having seen the problems caused by certain abstractions in the D&D system, designers tried to avoid repeating the same mistake.  Non-representational abstractions can work quite well in board games where the options are limited and understood.  Non-representational abstractions caused problems when they were transferred into role-playing games because the options are fairly unlimited and not always understood up front.  Thus an abstraction that treated armor as a reduced chance to hit worked fairly well in a miniature game limited to units hitting each other in combat but not so well once those characters started to fall down pits, running through fire, getting stabbed while unconscious, and so on.

Quote from: flyingmiceD&D defines D&D, not orthodoxy among designers

D&D defines orthodoxy for the hobby, i.e. the largest group of players. I'm really not so interested in what the designers think on this point.

It would seem obivious to me for example that they would either become part of the Orthodoxy (and wear the D20 label) or reject it in order to offer a different product. That you and others as part of that rejection select damage reduction instead of damage avoidance for armor isn't all that interesting by and of itself.

Rather I find it more interesting that most players are good with damage avoidance and seem unconcerned with the representation costs thereof.

And I find it interesting that you consider Designers more important (i.e. they define what Orthodoxy is) than customers and market share. But that's another subject I suppose.

Quote from: John MorrowOK.  So why do you think that is?  

I think it's because, having seen the problems caused by certain abstractions in the D&D system, designers tried to avoid repeating the same mistake.  Non-representational abstractions can work quite well in board games where the options are limited and understood.  Non-representational abstractions caused problems when they were transferred into role-playing games because the options are fairly unlimited and not always understood up front.  Thus an abstraction that treated armor as a reduced chance to hit worked fairly well in a miniature game limited to units hitting each other in combat but not so well once those characters started to fall down pits, running through fire, getting stabbed while unconscious, and so on.

Of course. There's the orthodox position. Thank you, John!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceInside the D20/OGL universe, how many games use DR armor?

Since D&D 3e added that for somethings, particularly objects but also some really special natural/magical 'armor', I'd say a fairly good number of them as well.

It isn't a real Heretic Party till the Orthodoxy arrives. :thepope:

Quote from: DwightSince D&D 3e added that for somethings, particularly objects but also some really special natural/magical 'armor', I'd say a fairly good number of them as well.

That was my understanding, but since I don't deal with these games directly, I couldn't say.

Quote from: DwightIt isn't a real Heretic Party till the Orthodoxy arrives. :thepope:

Indeed! For a while there I was worried!

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceOf course. There's the orthodox position. Thank you, John!

So what's the heretical position and does it have to do with the aliens that met with Ross Perot before the 1992 election according to the Weekly World News?

Quote from: John MorrowSo what's the heretical position and does it have to do with the aliens that met with Ross Perot before the 1992 election according to the Weekly World News?

A heretical position is anything which is not orthodox. There is no "the" heretical position.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHere's my heretical thoughts on combat, in no particular order:

John beat me to the punch here, but while I generally agree with you, I felt the urge to swing by and dispute.

Quote from: flyingmiceArmor prevents damage. This can be done in game by preventing hits, or by absorbing damage. Statistically, either way works just fine. It doesn't matter for game purposes which method is used. Ultimately, the point is reducing average damage taken. Conceptually, people understand absorbing damage better, but it is often simpler to abstract that to preventing hits. So, go for reducing damage if the flavor is more important, and go with preventing hits if speed of resolution is more important.

This is the big one. Statistics can be misleading.  How do you model poisoned weapons then? Or acid?   Are magic weapons more accurate, more damaging, or both?   Yes, if none of those are remotely a concern, than certainly you can speed up play be reducing armor to a 'chance to hit'.   Of course, this leads to a new problem, the 'wiff factor'.  People hate the wiff factor, as a result we see games where players have abnormally high chances to hit one another, and much seeking of ways to increase chances to hit in combat.  Its less 'painful' in game play to have your opponents heavy armor absorb all or most of the damage than simply to 'miss'. Missing implies you aren't very good, and we like to think our heroes are good at stuff.

Quote from: flyingmiceInitiative can be thought of two ways as well, though both focus on "when". These are "when you do something" or "when you do something that matters." In a game that attempts to model the real world or a fairly realistic genre, a look at statistics says the vast majority of blows or shots attempted fail, even when the person acting is trained. Thus with the first concept of initiative, you tend to get get a very short round, with lots of misses, either by target avoidance, blocking and parrying, or by a low chance of hitting. The second concept leads to long rounds with a much higher chance of hitting, but very few actual attempts over that round, because the misses are assumed and not attempted. Changing the ratio of hits over time higher leads to non-realistic combat, which may be your design goal.

Actually, like the armor thing, this almost seems to be a defense of D&D (from you? Say it ain't so, clash... ), as like the armor thing, D&D is pretty much the only game in town with really long rounds.

There is an interesting sidebar in my recent melee vs ranged thread pointing out that in a real melee combat out and out missing is virtually impossible. Defending certainly exists, but just 'missing'? Not so much.  It shouldn't take a full minute of exchanges to get to the meaningful hit (and really, if that's your goal anyway, then what the roll SHOULD resolve is actually how long it takes to get there, in essence you determine your average DPS, vs your opponents...) even accounting for skilled opponents.  I'm not a fencer nor a fencing buff, but from SCA fighter practices I can tell you that a 'long fight' may only last a minute or two, and they don't even have to worry about 'minor injuries and blood loss'... just sweat and fatigue.

You are really talking about pacing, which is more than initiative and length of rounds, but you really fail to deliver any insight at all here.  More importantly you miss the fact that abnormally stretched rounds that focus on the 'important moment of truth' fail to work. People try to force them into a roll equals a swing mindset all the time, its an abstraction that, when coupled with rolls certainly, fails to sink in.

Quote from: flyingmiceDamage in the real world is mostly random. People have survived multiple hits with a machine gun, and died from a single stab with a kitchen knife, yet if you ask people which is deadlier, they will say the machine gun. In games, damage is what you want it to be. In a gritty game, a single stab with a kitchen knife should potentially kill, while in a cinematic game, a character should be able to absorb multiple potentially deadly blows. The problem, of course, comes in modeling the real world, where both should be true. A gritty game need not be realistic, and occasional cinematic results should be expected in a realistic game. With tools like wound levels and penalties, you can make a game seem grittier than it is without them. With tools like luck and hero points, you can make a game seem more cinematic than it would otherwise. Find the sweet spot you want in the game, and build the rest around it.

-clash

Milleniums End, of all the games I've owned, probably did it best (and worst).  You had diagrams of bodies with twenty-five 'locations', you had tables and charts. It was faster and more accurate than Pheonix Command, and it was a royal pain in the ass. A knife COULD kill you in one hit and a machine gun COULD just wound you a lot. And you'd probably bleed to death more than anything else.

The lesson I drew from it, at the end of the day? Not worth it.  Still don't like inflating hit points, still don't much like hit points in general, but I'd far rather deal with something abstracted than worry about ME's fiddly bits.

Quote from: SpikeJohn beat me to the punch here, but while I generally agree with you, I felt the urge to swing by and dispute.

Cool, Spike! Thanks for popping in! The place needed a little ozone.

-clash

Always happy to oblige.  I've been on a warpath on the internet for a while, so its nice to be able to pop off a few smites without worrying too much about hurt feelings afterwards...