Quote from: islan;455059Seriously, did anybody understand anything Phillip's been spouting off about?

I have nothing against the F/R/W split in 3e, seems a lot simpler and easier for the DM to use.  As for the full saving throw system, though, I found some problems in the math.  What it came down to, I found during my days of 3e, was that a character usually had either a really good chance to succeed at the saving throw, or it was near impossible (a nat 20 still counted as a success, right?).  But that was just from my point of view of playing in a few campaigns (most of them short), so I'm not sure how accurate it is.

No, that's about right.

I only barely remember the 2e saving throw system, but I know the 3.x / Pathfinder system is broken to shit. Its one of the worst parts of the games design.

Quote from: Cranewings;455061No, that's about right.

I only barely remember the 2e saving throw system, but I know the 3.x / Pathfinder system is broken to shit. Its one of the worst parts of the games design.

So it's a case of "good idea, poor execution," eh?

Quote from: islan;455059Seriously, did anybody understand anything Phillip's been spouting off about?

I did, and I think he's partially right in that fundamentally, no matter how you categorize saves, the basic premise has not changed, and the practice from a DM who masters the game instead of letting the game master him is pretty much the same.

Where I think he's wrong is the psychological impact there is on practitioners of the game when you switch the different categories, rename stuff and the like. Obviously, there are many D&Ders who feel confident that F/R/W does something for them that the previous saves categories didn't achieve. It seems more straightforward to know what kind of effect you are resisting to in broad terms, rather than hairsplitting between sources and devices.

I'm of two minds on this, in that I understand the increase in simplicity this represents for many gamers out there. For me, it's about the same, the difference being that in one situations (with F/R/W) you indeed have a straightforward sense of what to select to do this or that, whereas in the other (multiple saves categories per source/implement) there is a guess work involved on the part of the DM (like saying "make a save v. paralization to free yourself from the pile of rubble on top of your head"). For the same reason I like AD&D text and corner cases and "WTF does that mean?" moments when you read through its rules, I like the way these saves engage your thought process/imagination to prompt you to create your own interpretation of the rules and master the game.

In the end, I think it's fairly representative of differences in approaches between iterations of the game. For some people what I'm saying will make sense, and for others it just won't. Let's just say that there isn't a "right" or "wrong" answer here, I think. It just depends what you're searching for in playing the game.

Quote from: Benoist;455074(like saying "make a save v. paralization to free yourself from the pile of rubble on top of your head").

I like this.

Quote from: islan;455070So it's a case of "good idea, poor execution," eh?

The problem is how the occurrences come up. If you need a 20 to save, it's one in 20. If you get a 5% bonus it becomes 1 in 10. That's a big deal but if you need a 10, picking up a +1 means Jack shit. The game, therefor, makes it functionally impossible to get a meaningfully good saving throw past 50% but easy for it to be lower... Then they filled it the fuck up full of spells that let wizards and clerics of all kinds oneshot rogues and warriors 4 levels higher than themselves several times a day.

The different saving throw categories aren't something I really miss from 2E. 3E could use around two more save categories I think...probably a category for "Perception" saves against illusions and the like (Int modified?) instead of the Spot/Listen skill point sinks - and some sort of Strength-based save in place of grapple checks or opposed Str rolls.

JAs earlier point about how 2E had different rules for every situation, and how this made it difficult to use for full campaigns outside the dungeon without extra work, was interesting.

I agree the universal mechanic makes the life of the GM easier in some ways..at worst in 3E/4E you can roll the dice and see if the roll makes arguing over what modifier applies irrelevant, instead of having to wait until they at least decide its a roll-low, roll-high or roll d100. Perception type checks are my pet peeve since depending on situation it could be a d6 (finding secret doors, dwarf unusual stonework), a d100 (listen check), a Int/Wis check (Complete Fighter), an Observation proficiency check (also an Int/Wis check, or level-based if using Skills and Powers), or a saving throw.

On the other hand, with 2E there are tons of rules in the supplements, and there probably are some rules or a precedent for any situation worth speaking of in there somewhere. OK, probably more than one rule, actually
The other downside of the universal mechanic that they picked in 3e/4e [d20+mods] is that every odd-numbered ability score became pointless, and by applying an ability modifier to virtually every check they made ability scores much more important to characters. No more hopeless characters, and in the end (by 4e) they'd killed off rolling for ability scores entirely.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;455209I agree the universal mechanic makes the life of the GM easier in some ways..at worst in 3E/4E you can roll the dice and see if the roll makes arguing over what modifier applies irrelevant, instead of having to wait until they at least decide its a roll-low, roll-high or roll d100. Perception type checks are my pet peeve since depending on situation it could be a d6 (finding secret doors, dwarf unusual stonework), a d100 (listen check), a Int/Wis check (Complete Fighter), an Observation proficiency check (also an Int/Wis check, or level-based if using Skills and Powers), or a saving throw.

This is something I call the shell game, and I'm using it as a feature in the AD&D Ptolus game to keep players on their toes and avoid the reflex of thinking about the rules before the game itself. See this post in the OOC thread.

I do enjoy the fact that is the roll is good, for anything, you know the bonuses add up to success.

Quote from: islan;455059Seriously, did anybody understand anything Phillip's been spouting off about?

Phillip doesn't understand that saying "save vs. DC 20" (3E), "save at -2" (AD&D), and "make a check at -20%" (CoC) are all ways in which the GM of a game sets the difficulty of an action check.

After trying at least a half dozen ways of expressing that basically simple idea, I'm pretty confident that he is either incapable of grasping it or unwilling to grasp it.

About 80% of his confusing nonsense derives from this. The other 20% (involving a baffling array of proposed house rules which changed from post to post) I don't have any active explanation for.

Quote from: Benoist;455074I did, and I think he's partially right in that fundamentally, no matter how you categorize saves, the basic premise has not changed, and the practice from a DM who masters the game instead of letting the game master him is pretty much the same.

I think you're giving Phillip too much credit. AFAICT, he never addressed the actual issue of save categorization at all. Whenever I talked about it, he would interpret it as having something to do with the way in which difficulties were assigned.

QuoteObviously, there are many D&Ders who feel confident that F/R/W does something for them that the previous saves categories didn't achieve. It seems more straightforward to know what kind of effect you are resisting to in broad terms, rather than hairsplitting between sources and devices.

That may be true, but it's not what I was talking about. The key difference for me is not method of categorization, but the universality of the categorization.

QuoteFor the same reason I like AD&D text and corner cases and "WTF does that mean?" moments when you read through its rules, I like the way these saves engage your thought process/imagination to prompt you to create your own interpretation of the rules and master the game.

Which is what you're talking about here. But, frankly, I'm never going to be convinced that "this game fundamentally doesn't work so you have to house rule it in order to play it" is actually a feature.

Quote from: Cranewings;455154The problem is how the occurrences come up. If you need a 20 to save, it's one in 20. If you get a 5% bonus it becomes 1 in 10. That's a big deal but if you need a 10, picking up a +1 means Jack shit.

Dude. That's nonsense. It's a 5% boost either way. What you're arguing is basically the same fallacy as saying that a second lottery ticket is a great deal because you've doubled your odds from 1 in 14,000,000 to 1 in 7,000,000. Saying that "double your chances" is great and "+5%" is jack shit only works if those two values aren't completely identical.

More generally, I'm unclear on how any diced mechanic could satisfy you with this complaint. (This includes the AD&D mechanics which would suffer from the exact same problem BECAUSE THE MATH HASN'T CHANGED.)

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455336Dude. That's nonsense. It's a 5% boost either way. What you're arguing is basically the same fallacy as saying that a second lottery ticket is a great deal because you've doubled your odds from 1 in 14,000,000 to 1 in 7,000,000. Saying that "double your chances" is great and "+5%" is jack shit only works if those two values aren't completely identical.

More generally, I'm unclear on how any diced mechanic could satisfy you with this complaint. (This includes the AD&D mechanics which would suffer from the exact same problem BECAUSE THE MATH HASN'T CHANGED.)

I think Cranewings is referring to the disparity of saving throws between characters at higher levels, where one character needs to roll a 10+ and the other needs to roll a 20+.  Now I agree that "doubling your odds" doesn't mean much when you are doubling 5% to 10%, but a +1 really doesn't mean much to me when I have to roll over 20; I still will only succeed on a 20.

Meanwhile in old D&D, characters' saving throws usually only differ by about 5 or so, and modifiers are usually constrained to +4/-4; it's probably a very rare thing to have to roll 20+, when saving throws usually start at 15 or 16.  Now, I'm not ragging on the F/R/W setup or anything, just the math results that I've experienced in playing 3e.  If anything, the opposite problem is true in old D&D where, instead of failing all the time, characters are succeeding all the time at higher levels.  But I guess that's what they get for being of high level *shrug*.

Quote from: jibbajibba;454808This has become really funny.

A heated debate about whether the saving throw mechanism Gygax pulled out of his arse in 1976 is superior to a revision to a mechainsm pulled out someone else's arse in 1995

I'm betting this is the substitute for the edition wars of a few months ago. It has 1989 on it and everything.

Justin, it's true that it's almost impossible for dice to satisfy me in d&d. I think it's garbage that the system assumes characters with hitpoints can not ever be stabbed to death but can suddenly be knocked out by wizards or traps. They try to balance the grind of HP damage against the randomness of instant win effects and I think it sucks dick, which is why my home game is saturated with house rules.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455336I think you're giving Phillip too much credit. AFAICT, he never addressed the actual issue of save categorization at all. Whenever I talked about it, he would interpret it as having something to do with the way in which difficulties were assigned.

I think you're giving Phillip too little credit, to be honest. I'm not saying he's automatically right or that one shouldn't be offended by the aggressive way in which he chooses to present his points, but I'm confident he does have a point. Just giving in to the shit flinging just obfuscates everyone's arguments, IMO.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455336

QuoteObviously, there are many D&Ders who feel confident that F/R/W does something for them that the previous saves categories didn't achieve. It seems more straightforward to know what kind of effect you are resisting to in broad terms, rather than hairsplitting between sources and devices.

That may be true, but it's not what I was talking about. The key difference for me is not method of categorization, but the universality of the categorization.

That's actually what I'm talking about.

In one case, you will have the universality of the categorization requiring little to no thinking on your part, and you'll just apply the game system without questioning your own judgment. It'll be easy and passive. No questions asked.

In the other, you a have a sample of resistances to specific sources, and from there you have to interpret these values and question your interpretation of them to come up with different applications in the game. It asks of you to master the rules, instead of having the rules do the thinking for you.

I totally understand how easy is the way to go for many people who don't want to think about these aspects of game play. For them, a clear, broad separation between means of resistance will work best.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455336

QuoteFor the same reason I like AD&D text and corner cases and "WTF does that mean?" moments when you read through its rules, I like the way these saves engage your thought process/imagination to prompt you to create your own interpretation of the rules and master the game.

Which is what you're talking about here. But, frankly, I'm never going to be convinced that "this game fundamentally doesn't work so you have to house rule it in order to play it" is actually a feature.

I know this is something you don't see. Just because you don't see it or don't endorse it doesn't mean it's not a valid way to look at a game system, or that I derive less pleasure from doing so than you do playing d20. It's just a difference in perspective and what we enjoy about game play.

I don't consider a rules system to be some sort of program to run applications. It's a set of tools that allow me to run the game. From there, I appreciate when a game system lets me grow into my own interpretations, so that in the end the game becomes mine, and no one else's. The rules are not a third party looking over the table and adjudicating situations for me and my players. I am the one doing the adjudication. This game does work for me in the way it engages my mind continually, sometimes in the most surprising way.

The fact that you would interpret this as meaning the game "fundamentally doesn't work" tells me we're unlikely to come to any kind of agreement on this. By basically saying this, what I'm saying is obviously "wrong". The only way for us to solve this disagreement would be for me to accept that the rules should be some kind of seemless piece of programming that works like an app on your brain, that there is value in the rules beyond the way they are used at an actual game table, as a theoretical construct divorced from the people who interpret them, and I just don't agree with that. This is part of the illusionism 3rd ed embraced so readily with concepts like "game balance" and the like, and I have done my peace with it by rejecting it wholesale.

Quote from: Benoist;455406I think you're giving Phillip too little credit, to be honest. I'm not saying he's automatically right or that one shouldn't be offended by the aggressive way in which he chooses to present his points, but I'm confident he does have a point. Just giving in to the shit flinging just obfuscates everyone's arguments, IMO.


That's actually what I'm talking about.

In one case, you will have the universality of the categorization requiring little to no thinking on your part, and you'll just apply the game system without questioning your own judgment. It'll be easy and passive. No questions asked.

In the other, you a have a sample of resistances to specific sources, and from there you have to interpret these values and question your interpretation of them to come up with different applications in the game. It asks of you to master the rules, instead of having the rules do the thinking for you.

I totally understand how easy is the way to go for many people who don't want to think about these aspects of game play. For them, a clear, broad separation between means of resistance will work best.


I know this is something you don't see. Just because you don't see it or don't endorse it doesn't mean it's not a valid way to look at a game system, or that I derive less pleasure from doing so than you do playing d20. It's just a difference in perspective and what we enjoy about game play.

I don't consider a rules system to be some sort of program to run applications. It's a set of tools that allow me to run the game. From there, I appreciate when a game system lets me grow into my own interpretations, so that in the end the game becomes mine, and no one else's. The rules are not a third party looking over the table and adjudicating situations for me and my players. I am the one doing the adjudication. This game does work for me in the way it engages my mind continually, sometimes in the most surprising way.

The fact that you would interpret this as meaning the game "fundamentally doesn't work" tells me we're unlikely to come to any kind of agreement on this. By basically saying this, what I'm saying is obviously "wrong". The only way for us to solve this disagreement would be for me to accept that the rules should be some kind of seemless piece of programming that works like an app on your brain, that there is value in the rules beyond the way they are used at an actual game table, as a theoretical construct divorced from the people who interpret them, and I just don't agree with that. This is part of the illusionism 3rd ed embraced so readily with concepts like "game balance" and the like, and I have done my peace with it by rejecting it wholesale.

Ben that doesn't really make sense as an arguement mate.

You seem to be saying a game rule that is complex and obsure and therefore forces you try and decypher the intent of the designer so as to allow you to extrapolate said intent onto other situations is superior to one in which the designer's intent is clear because that promotes intellectual laziness.

Why not extrapolate this still further? Perhaps encoding the character generation rules in a cypher of some kind? Maybe writing the racial rules in the appropriate tongue? Elvish Rules in Sindarian anyone?

It appears to me that if you are someone that wants the game to be more toolkit based to provide you with a generic rule that you can apply to a set situation then you would favour the R/W/S save system with 3 generic categories of saves over the AD&D method with rod, Staves, Wands, Death magic, Breath Weapon etc etc as it gives you a range of DM options whenever a save is required.  eg ... The dragon turns its scaled head and released a gout of bellow red flame  Thief: I leap out of the way. Make a Reflex save Fighter: I lift my shield and crouch into the blast hoping my arm stays steady  Sure make a Stamina Save Wizard: I look into the beast's eye and challenge him to try and burn me! Sure make a Will...oh hold on don't be daft ...

Quote from: islan;455362I think Cranewings is referring to the disparity of saving throws between characters at higher levels, where one character needs to roll a 10+ and the other needs to roll a 20+.  Now I agree that "doubling your odds" doesn't mean much when you are doubling 5% to 10%, but a +1 really doesn't mean much to me when I have to roll over 20; I still will only succeed on a 20.

I assumed that was what he was talking about, honestly, until he said it wasn't. I do think the divergence in save bonuses is problematic. I'm not too concerned about the minimum 5% chance built into the system; I prefer the minor oddities that situation creates to a scenario where attacks literally cannot be avoided or cannot succeed.

But being irate because 5% -> 10% "doubles your chances" but 50% -> 55% doesn't? That's just a poor understanding of how math works.