Quote from: CRKrueger;589390Didn't like that? If you want to actually have a serious conversation, try not to start out by misrepresenting what the other side actually is trying to tell you.

Yes, AD&D is deadly. Yes, despite playing like a genius, you may actually get hit for enough HPs to drop you.  However, does that mean tactics don't matter?  Of course not.  Tactics matter.  Forget the old "sack of flour and a 10' pole" Indiana Jones crap, simple things make a huge difference, like fighters in front, like humans with spears fighting behind dwarves, like thieves and rangers scouting ahead, like a hundred different things players all over the world did every weekend since before you were born.  Not because they keyed in to the GM's way of thinking, but because things work that way in our world, so it makes sense it works in others.

Stop parroting talking points like "game the GM or game the system" and think.  "Rulings not Rules" doesn't mean in my campaign water flows uphill and light doesn't cast shadows and you have to come to terms with my ridiculous set of house rules in order to function.  Yeah, there's the terms Dungeon Master and Game Master, there's also the term referee in the original books because that's what the DM was.  Yeah some referee's sucked, I'd like to find the guy that DM'd Ron Edwards and punch him in the sack for all the grief his bullshit games caused us.

You don't want a living breathing world where if you travel the mountains you might run into a giant, dragon or the Tarrasque.  You want an arena where you can tactically play the encounter.  You want a tactical roleplaying boardgame, and you have one.  Good for you.  Stop trying to pretend that's what anyone else wants or that your choice is somehow better.  And for the love of god, stop pretending that a DM in chains to the 3.5 CR system, encounter system, and treasure system is running any less of a "Magical Tea Party".

Good tactics = suicidal tactics. Um yeah.

Quote from: jibbajibba;589345Yup congrats you haven't read any books but you have heard of them
He is an excellent D&D character model for a certain sort of game.

All literacy characters are terrible D&D characters, because without the plot making them invulnerable they will die horribly and fast.

QuoteSo you are saying some times there will be monsters that want to kill you. Yes not sure you will be running though. Depends what you elect to do and where and why right?

Because there are enemies trying to kill you, any related problems (such as being unable to kill them, or to run from them) will also come up.

QuoteNow this is actually an intersting point and the answer is sort of. You need to have the brains and cunning to play Flashman sucessfully but you have to be playing a flashman sort of character to use the brains and cunning in that way. I say Flashman, Cugel the Clever is a very similar character (he is another literary character by the way).
So the personality of the character allows you to use player skills because they are skills the PC would have as well. Its a bit like a biologist playing in a modern espinoage game as a biologist and using his player skill becuase there is a cross over with the PC skill.

I'm a black belt, I always win combats*.

* - Not really.

QuoteMoney is not always a result of killing things no. You can marry the princess, win at the lottery get a job as a basket weaver and corner the decorative basket market .... Don;t think the guys that run IKEA ever killed anyone, although i might be wrong.

What princesses (and all royalty need) are strong people to protect them and their holdings. They don't really need much else, and a gimpy character most certainly does not qualify. All those other things earn you a pittance, so lolno.

QuoteAnd you are hiring specialists for certain tasks nothign wrong with that. from a combat strategy perspective sometimes a longsword is the right weapon sometimes its a crossbow sometimes its a gang of cutthroats and sometimes its the body of little girl in the right bedroom at the right time.

Except for the part where you're the PC, so if you need to outsource to all these other guys why aren't they in the party?

QuoteYou see you really can't understand... this conversation is a meta game conversation... we are talking about games and playstyles and choices that is meta-gaming the discussion of playing games.
So the fact that you can't move up the stack from talking specific rules to talking about why people make certain in game choices due to their own desires for what sort of game they want, the discussion of the discussion of gaming if you like, is interesting. You immediately default to a particular interation of a particular game system you are familiar with.
I would guess you are very much concrete-sequential ?


I asked for other hobbies or is this it?
Not a collector? I would have thought you would be a collector.
Actuarial? I know a fair few IT guys you have a lot in common with.

What the hell are you even talking about?

QuoteWell not all PCs need to be good at their job plenty of folks in real like just muddle through I have met a fair few pretty crap police officers and a lot of very dense soldiers
Again fiction is full of characters who are where they are by luck and circumstance.

As for the building thing. No idea its never happened but I have certainly got into a lot of fights I could have avoided by not worrying what happens to that guy and just calling the police.

And even being a police officer isn't that dangerous. Sure you get the occasional armed and dangerous guy who might kill you but mostly it's just routine safe stuff. An adventurer... not so much.

So what is your point? You've done a lot of stupid things that somewhat inconvenienced you, so your characters should do a lot of stupid things that fucking kill them?

Quoteon an infinite timeline everybody dies.....
Maybe its just about the journey?

A 5 minute trip to hell. Enjoy.

QuoteI thimk the 'pole dancing' thing just emerges because people ask what would I do if I were in this situation. It's not about traps its about the most effective and efficient way to 'win' and in that sense I think it's very similar to optimisation.  You say ... If I were a Druid what woudl be the most optimal choices I could take within this rule system to maximise my efficiency and survivability. They say ... if I were an adventurer what would be the optimal choices I could take with in this game world to maximise my efficiency and survivability.

So if I put you in a situation where you might die, are you seriously trying to tell me you would not make what you considered to be the best choices to 1: Live. 2: Show that bastard Mr. GC what for? Are you seriously telling me you'd "roleplay" out dying a death you could avoid?

QuoteSee I don't agree that all D&D characters need to be professional adventurers. Certainly wider than D&D that is not the case.
A farmer forced to adventure is a pretty solid trope, as is the oafish noble, the clumsy wizard, the priest who has lost their faith etc etc ... now maybe if they reach 10th level they are a little more proficient but its not a straight line.

If such a character made it past the random levels they damn well better have a clue.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589412And even being a police officer isn't that dangerous. Sure you get the occasional armed and dangerous guy who might kill you but mostly it's just routine safe stuff. An adventurer... not so much.
.

It is the routine stuff, like driving fast to emergencies, that are often the most dangerous for cops.

Police officer makes number nine on this list of most dangerous occuaptions (based on fatalities per 100,000): http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-2011-9?op=1. I usually see it on such lists.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589414It is the routine stuff, like driving fast to emergencies, that are often the most dangerous for cops.

Police officer makes number nine on this list of most dangerous occuaptions (based on fatalities per 100,000): http://www.businessinsider.com/most-dangerous-jobs-2011-9?op=1. I usually see it on such lists.

Would you say that driving fast is an example of doing their job recklessly?

Quote from: Mr. GC;589415Would you say that driving fast is an example of doing their job recklessly?

I am just correcting your statement that it isn't a dangerous occupation. Otherwise not really following the discussion you and Jibba are having.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589417I am just correcting your statement that it isn't a dangerous occupation. Otherwise not really following the discussion you and Jibba are having.

My statement was clearly relative. Aka compared to adventuring, being a cop is pretty safe. Compared to anything in the real world, adventuring is dangerous.

Even active war zones are relatively tame by comparison.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589421My statement was clearly relative. Aka compared to adventuring, being a cop is pretty safe. Compared to anything in the real world, adventuring is dangerous.

Even active war zones are relatively tame by comparison.

Perhaps your style of adventuring is that way.  I would hazard a guess that you have very little down time between 'adventures'.  I do kinda question how dangerous you style of adventuring is if you group makes such effective groups.  How dangerous can it really be?  Unless you 'power level'?  Routinely go against things 3+CRs over you?

Quote from: Mr. GC;589421My statement was clearly relative. Aka compared to adventuring, being a cop is pretty safe. Compared to anything in the real world, adventuring is dangerous.

Even active war zones are relatively tame by comparison.

As Sommerjon says, it depends on the game (not to mention the warzone). If you are just talking dungeon crawl D&D, yeah, it can be pretty darn dangerous. If you are talking a lot of other games, much less so. I even run games where the players are FBI agents, so the level of danger is pretty comparable to a cop.

Also, even though the players in D&D are facing dangers most people never encounter in real life, because of how the mechanics and HP work, these are greatly nerfed once you get out of lower levels. I imagine player characters have a much higher survivabiliy rate for the activiities they engage in than if they were real people (even with a bunch of spells and magic items, I am guessing I wouldn't fair as well as a D&D character against a lich or dragon).

Quote from: Sommerjon;589422Perhaps your style of adventuring is that way.  I would hazard a guess that you have very little down time between 'adventures'.  I do kinda question how dangerous you style of adventuring is if you group makes such effective groups.  How dangerous can it really be?  Unless you 'power level'?  Routinely go against things 3+CRs over you?

Show me in the real world where people come into conflict with fiendish super geniuses. I'll wait.

Since no actual person has to deal with that, but D&D characters seriously are expected to deal with such things as "Erinyes" even at mid levels and it isn't even a big deal it's safe to say their lives are more dangerous.

The amount of downtime between adventures doesn't matter, what matters is that when it is go time, it's do or die time (that and if there WERE a lot of downtime, things get immensely easier when it is no longer downtime).

Even with effective parties, adventuring is quite dangerous. You still see at least 1-2 deaths per level even when doing everything right. It's when you stop doing that things get truly lethal... then you start encountering scenarios in which a typical adventuring day consists of the party hitting a single routine encounter and having a literal 98% chance to all die on that encounter... and that's before considering the other three beyond that. Something you're supposed to do with no effort or thought, ends up essentially impossible.

Also, every fight that matters is at least 3 levels higher. Either because it's the boss, or a lot of encounters at once, or whatever. If you can't deal with the fights that matter, then the rest doesn't matter and you don't matter either. And before you start - statement of fact, not insult.

Brendan: Because of how HP works means that if you're fighting a dragon, you're likely to go from full to dead in one round. Regardless of if you're a D&D character or a real person somehow in the D&D world. So... no change there. A Lich is basically a spellcaster, so if they're worried about your HP they're doing it wrong.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589426Brendan: Because of how HP works means that if you're fighting a dragon, you're likely to go from full to dead in one round. Regardless of if you're a D&D character or a real person somehow in the D&D world. So... no change there. A Lich is basically a spellcaster, so if they're worried about your HP they're doing it wrong.

That depends on the dragon, edition, and you character level/class. But it is somewhat beside the point. The point is D&D is artificially less lethal than real life once you get out of the low HP zone.

In real life a stab wound can kill you in one blow, in D&D that is highly unlikely at higher levels. The HP system in D&D is exceptionally unrealistic and it protects characters from death. It is the unrealistic Hp and damage system that constant makes adventuring possible in D&D. The moment you implement a more realistic damage system without Hp that go up with level/xp, players suddenly stop being so bold.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589427That depends on the dragon, edition, and you character level/class. But it is somewhat beside the point. The point is D&D is artificially less lethal than real life once you get out of the low HP zone.

In real life a stab wound can kill you in one blow, in D&D that is highly unlikely at higher levels. The HP system in D&D is exceptionally unrealistic and it protects characters from death. It is the unrealistic Hp and damage system that constant makes adventuring possible in D&D. The moment you implement a more realistic damage system without Hp that go up with level/xp, players suddenly stop being so bold.

Older editions: Dragon breath is a OHKO.
Newer ones: Full attack is a one rounder.

The how changes, the what does not.

At higher levels one attack might not kill you but enemies also don't only get only one attack.

So you have people dying anywhere from semi often to constantly. And if you did add a "realistic" damage system? Enemies look at you, and you die.

Quote from: MGuy;588972Pfffffffff. I've already gone over this but here we go again.

1) Fighter. Just by the name you know that a fighter is for fighting. If it wasn't you would have a different name that would suggest a wider range of uses but since the fighter's claim to fame is how well it fights then reasonably when comparing two different fighters (all other things being equal including outside factors like "player skill") then you go through the numbers to see how well it fights.

2) Anything that is not on your character sheet is not something intrinsic to the fighter. Seriously there is no difference between being a "fighter" and being a "thief" other than what you put on your character sheet. It is the numbers and abilities that are present on your character sheet and in the rule book that keeps your characters different. Putting the relevant numbers on your character sheet is the only thing that makes you put "fighter" on your character sheet instead of "Wizard" when you want to be a swordsman.

3)When making a comparison between "characters" mentioning what the "player" can or can't do is merely a distraction. If you give the same guy the same character but one character's stats is better than the other character's stats then obviously the guy will do better with the character with better stats. That is so obvious that I'm surprised I'd have to mention it.

4) Now your response to 3 may be that you play in such a way that renders differences between stats for characters insignificant. If you're doing that then there really is no reason to even make stats for a character because you are just going to make them meaningless anyway and if you're going to do that I don't really understand why you would bother using stats at all.

As usual I think people are talking past each other.

a)A character can do a whole lot before accounting for exceptional abilities.

b)Plus the exceptional abilities granted by their class.

Critiquing the relative value of classes (esp. in a game where you pick your class) can be valid, but the counterpoint is that characters can interact with the larger game pretty significantly prior to accounting for mechanical features. How significantly you can interact with the world prior to accounting for mechanical features varies game to game, adventure to adventure, and setting to setting. The OSR, besides its focus on old editions, is all about adventures and settings built for play. You can see why it would be a sore spot to say that classes were barred from participation in that sort of content.

In response to 4) I'm sensing a false dichotomy. Firstly, when a niche is defined by scaled values (such as stats) instead of binaries (feats, class features, spells) the activity is something every class can participate in *and* the class abilities are relevant enough to use.

Sorry for the late response. Rough week.

Quote from: MGuy;589247The problem I'm having with people here is that for every argument I make people invent another position for me that involves attacking their playstyle and imagine I'm attacking that, then proceed to defend against an argument I didn't make. Like take this discussion for example. Half the responses assume that I want to get rid of "basket weaving" skills (as in elf's post). You assume I'm talking about games in a vacuum where, in this case, I'm not. There's also been mention of the player's ability to make up for a poorly crafted character that both require the player being allowed by the GM to minimize the character's weaknesses. What's worse people are twisting me pointing out that this is happening at all as an attack on their playstyle. I'd have to say that's my biggest problem with this board; that when you point out "this shit is happening" that must mean I'm saying it is badwrong.

Site hasn't always been like that. I think they're just agitated. See the response to Six Fixes earlier.

But also the larger argument (the one from the past several months, and with posters who weren't all you, whether it's fair to let that bleed in or not) had to do with things like relevance and whether a character could contribute.

In this thread, there's the (perceived) idea that certain skills are objectively less relevant. Even if you acknowledge that which skills are relevant vary game to game, you're at least going to have to clarify your position a few dozen times before people get the "maybe you should reduce or void the cost of irrelevant skills" bit as what it is.

As for the argument about contribution, see my response to the last post (and the post itself). Maybe you can see how people would imagine you're conflating character and class, and unique contribution with general contribution. Again, one of the necessary inconveniences of arguing with people who aren't starting from the same premises is constant clarification.

________________________________

Lastly, I should probably add that when people are questioning why some skills are more/less relevant than others, they're also coming from a model where people choose what they do based on what they're good at rather than having to choose what they're good at based on what they end up doing. Taking the rails off is huge when it comes to making skills more balanced in relevance for this reason.

Note that I prefer using both methods (choosing tasks based on competencies and competencies based on tasks).

I find discussing skills in any form to be pointless as there's almost nothing meaningful you can do with them. They are at best a separate resource pool, and as long as you don't go crossing them up (by say, wasting a feat on a Skill Focus) there isn't really any messing them up, nor is there really any getting them right. Aside from those few that actually do something like Tumble and UMD all your skills might as well be literal basket weaving for all the impact they have upon the game.

And so I focus on the evolved definition of the phrase instead.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589430Older editions: Dragon breath is a OHKO.
Newer ones: Full attack is a one rounder.

The how changes, the what does not.

At higher levels one attack might not kill you but enemies also don't only get only one attack.

So you have people dying anywhere from semi often to constantly. And if you did add a "realistic" damage system? Enemies look at you, and you die.

The point is HP are not realistic and D&D adventurers don't behave as real people would because of this. A lot of creatures have only one attack. An orc swinging a sword gets one attack. This ought to be able to kill a person in one blow in real life. But in D&D it can't once you get a certain amount of HP. When you have HP that can get into the double and triple digits, and supposedly lethal attacks that can only do 1-8 or 1-10 damage, no matter how you slice it, that is a nerfed version of reality.

Quote from: Mr. GC;589441I find discussing skills in any form to be pointless as there's almost nothing meaningful you can do with them. They are at best a separate resource pool, and as long as you don't go crossing them up (by say, wasting a feat on a Skill Focus) there isn't really any messing them up, nor is there really any getting them right. Aside from those few that actually do something like Tumble and UMD all your skills might as well be literal basket weaving for all the impact they have upon the game.

And so I focus on the evolved definition of the phrase instead.

Or is it based around the idea that spells replicate skills?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;589444The point is HP are not realistic and D&D adventurers don't behave as real people would because of this. A lot of creatures have only one attack. An orc swinging a sword gets one attack. This ought to be able to kill a person in one blow in real life. But in D&D it can't once you get a certain amount of HP. When you have HP that can get into the double and triple digits, and supposedly lethal attacks that can only do 1-8 or 1-10 damage, no matter how you slice it, that is a nerfed version of reality.

Level 5 is about the highest level you only see one attack. So at that level you have a standard party running HP in the range of 24-42.

Even level one enemies don't do 1-8 or 1-10 damage only unless they're not meant to fight.

Even well designed level 2s can do 26-48. And if you're just looking at normal enemies, two Ogres do 14-42 between them. So yeah.

Anyways, what's your point? That there should be even more random death, particularly on the already weak classes? That the already weak classes especially should be constrained by reality (read: suck horribly in D&D)?

I don't think those or the other things you could mean really help you much.

Quote from: Sommerjon;589445Or is it based around the idea that spells replicate skills?

No, because the skills suck in a vacuum.