What I mean by Roleplaying in combat may not be necessarily covered by " I roll to hit, got an 18" versus A character who power attacks almost all the time because he is an aggressive mother fucker, or a Druid who decides to heal her companion and let the Cleric who has healed her quite a few times lay almost dying.

Its more about the decision on what you do then did I hit or not or describing combat. I throw in enough so that is not purely a numbers game.

Most fun I have had describing combat is using Spacemaster ( chart master in space . . .) And changing the criticals to fit the situation. I kept the damage and effects just changed the criticals cause after while they did get repetitive.

just my thoughts

Quote from: Nexus;691465Okay. We get it. You don't like descriptions except "I hit and do x hit points" or similar. You don't have to go through and piss on every example of something different. It doesn't make your preference any more objectively correct and it seems to piss you off when peopel return the favor.

You don't get it, man, you didn't play with Gygax.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691471The problem I have with such descriptions is that, when used in an abstract game featuring hit points, often you end up with the ' Fistful of Yen' effect. Specifically the scene where our hero knocks down the villain's henchman with a flying kick followed by a slow-mo stomp crushing his throat. Then the henchman gets right back up. This is followed by a slo-mo "WTF" from our hero.

Well maybe don't describe crushing their throat if they weren't incapacitated by the action? I mean I could describe an attack destroying the whole Solar System but it would probably be excessive if I just hit them for 20% their hitpoints (unless I'm playing 4e which jumps off the cliff with that dissonance). Also wow, that animation didn't age well, did it.

Not to mention that in some media or even modern wargames heroes can actually be thrown through walls and jump back into fighting so it's not automatically inappropriate, just probably inappropriate for D&D I guess.

Quote from: vytzka;691473Not to mention that in some media or even modern wargames heroes can actually be thrown through walls and jump back into fighting so it's not automatically inappropriate, just probably inappropriate for D&D I guess.

Hence why "Champions," the HERO system superhero game, has rules for "knockback," so when the referee says "he throws you through the wall and you skid 100 feet," she's actually telling you what the rules indicate happened.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691471The problem I have with such descriptions is that, when used in an abstract game featuring hit points, often you end up with the ' Fistful of Yen' effect. Specifically the scene where our hero knocks down the villain's henchman with a flying kick followed by a slow-mo stomp crushing his throat. Then the henchman gets right back up. This is followed by a slo-mo "WTF" from our hero.

I can see this happening in a game where a PC scores a home run critical on a bad guy for 40 points of damage! The bad has 120 hp and is still very much ready to keep fighting. Describing such a blow as " you slice open his belly and his entrails spill out like a pile of steaming spaghetti!!" really looks ridiculous.

For this reason I'm not a fan of even having critical hits in abstract HP game systems.

True, that's why I prefer to describe in stages and let the GM handle the results with me and the gm riffing off each other. Particularly in more abstract systems.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691461:eek: So, to try and disarm the orc, the player needs to roll to hit, THEN succed at an athletics check, THEN the orc gets a saving throw?

The end result of all that action: the PC is holding the orc's arm and nothing happened. Really, three failure points for a simple non-damaging action?

To Hit vs Armor Class
Needed because in classic D&D this is the mechanism to do something to a target in melee combat. Opposed checks get complicated because they tend to minimize or ignore character level/HD which is at the heart of classic D&D.

Succeed at an Athletic Check
This is in lieu of the damage roll.

Saving Throw to avoid losing weapon
In GURPS and other system with more tactical detail the target will do a some type of opposed strength check. That mechanism is not available in classic D&D.  

What do I have to use then? I could just make up a strength stat on the spot but I already have a abstract indication of the creature's capabilities its HD. In classic D&D saving throws are used to avoid "bad things". Saving throw also scale with HD and Level. Getting your arm wrenched and losing your weapon is a "bad thing". Hence my ruling that the target gets a saving throw.

More so trying to grab somebody arm and trying to twist or grab the weapon out of their grip is not a optimal attack strategy compared to whacking them with a sword. Like many similar forms of attack it shines only in specific circumstances or something born of desperation. I felt that having a save as the third and final step abstractly reflects this difference.

I find that the general resolution of to hit, make a check, and the make a save works out well in classic D&D to handle all kinds of non damaging attacks.

And produces similar results with various combinations of level/HD compared to GURPS or Hero System with similar combination of point totals.

Quote from: estar;691479To Hit vs Armor Class
Needed because in classic D&D this is the mechanism to do something to a target in melee combat. Opposed checks get complicated because they tend to minimize or ignore character level/HD which is at the heart of classic D&D.

They don't have to. Opposed to- hit rolls, whomever hits by the most or misses by the least is the winner. This keeps HD/level very much a part of the contest.
 

Quote from: estar;691479Succeed at an Athletic Check
This is in lieu of the damage roll.

Ah. Ok, so the arm lock scored some damage then? It wasn't apparent from the flow of the dialogue.

Quote from: Nexus;691465Okay. We get it. You don't like descriptions except "I hit and do x hit points" or similar. You don't have to go through and piss on every example of something different. It doesn't make your preference any more objectively correct and it seems to piss you off when peopel return the favor.

In Old Geezer defense what you think you will do after your 1000th roll hitting a target for 8 points of damage.

I don't think it has to be quite as barebones as Old Geezer describes. But I can say that after the Nth time florid descriptions get old. Which is true of anything that too repetitive.

There seems to be a cycle in Horror films where they try to one up each other in blood and gore. Then out comes a film or show that is really good and keeps all that to a minimum. Then there is a rash of minimalist horror and the cycle starts up showing once again why more is not always better.

Well the same with florid combat descriptions. I think the trick over the long haul is just keep it to a minimum. "He rocks back on his heel, staggers to one side, etc). And save the florid when it truly warranted by the result.

Player: I kick the Ogre Chief in the balls.
Player: I roll a nat 20!
Me: OK roll damage and add your max damage on top that.
Player: 38 points woohoo!
Me: The Ogre chief falls and you kicked him so hard that his brains squirted out of his ears.

Quote from: estar;691481In Old Geezer defense what you think you will do after your 1000th roll hitting a target for 8 points of damage.

I don't have a problem with how he likes his games. That's his business. He seems to have a group that enjoys his style and he has fun with them. Its the jumping in to mock how others are playing their games that beginning grate after running into it across three threads. Once is funny but multiple times... well its like "I hit. 6 dmg." over and over again...

Though if the GM is tossing opponents with over 8000 HP at characters that average 8 dmg per attack or creatures in the 1000s against characters that'll have to slog through them one by one, maybe its not descriptions that are making the combats tedious.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691480They don't have to. Opposed to- hit rolls, whomever hits by the most or misses by the least is the winner. This keeps HD/level very much a part of the contest.

Except there is no subsystem in classic D&D that uses opposed to hit rolls. Yes I modify my D&D game. But I try only to use changes that are D&Dish.

For example I use Ascending AC with the numbers that give the same odds as they do in OD&D. So to me this is an acceptable D&Dish change. Compared to say adding 1st Edition Arms Law to my game. Arms Law work perfectly fine with D&D but I don't consider D&Dish as it radically changes the game's mechanics.

So while an opposed to hit rolls would make sense for another RPG. It doesn't to me for D&D.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691480Ah. Ok, so the arm lock scored some damage then? It wasn't apparent from the flow of the dialogue.

The "damage" is the loss of the sword. The Athletic check* replaces the dice of damage the character would normally do.

Quote from: estar;691483The "damage" is the loss of the sword. The Athletic check* replaces the dice of damage the character would normally do.

How?

The hit succeeds. Per classic D&D when a hit succeeds you get something for it a.k.a. damage. (barring special defenses)

This would be like scoring a hit vs AC, then having to make a DR check to see if any got through, then the monster gets a save to avoid the damage. So the damage isn't the loss of the sword because the saving throw determines that.

There is no incentive or logical reason to attempt anything like this in a 3 failpoint/ 0 gain system.

Quote from: ptingler;691346Examples from today's session:

Player: I throw a spear at the closest orc. I got a 17.
GM: That hits.
Player: 5 points damage.
GM: He's hurt pretty bad, but still standing.
Player: I pull out my sword and charge.

Player: I cast Hold Person on the Gnoll.
GM: He fails his save and is paralyzed.
Player: I move behind him and slit his throat.

Player: I rolled a 3, miss.
GM: The Gnoll attacks you and does 8 damage.
Player: I'm dead.

This is us most of the time, with more colorful bits thrown in here and there when it makes sense and creativity allows. For my own part as a gm I tend towards "less is more" when describing things.

Quote from: Nexus;691482Its the jumping in to mock how others are playing their games that beginning grate after running into it across three threads.

You have been put into the world for my amusement.  Dance, monkey, dance!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691485How?

The hit succeeds. Per classic D&D when a hit succeeds you get something for it a.k.a. damage. (barring special defenses)

The to hit mechanism is only to hit something for damage in classic D&D particularly OD&D plus supplements.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691485This would be like scoring a hit vs AC, then having to make a DR check to see if any got through, then the monster gets a save to avoid the damage. So the damage isn't the loss of the sword because the saving throw determines that.

Yes it would be like that but in my view the 'to hit for damage' is the optimal attack. Everything else is inferior. I feel this represents real life consideration accurately which fits the gritter nature of my D&D games.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;691485There is no incentive or logical reason to attempt anything like this in a 3 failpoint/ 0 gain system.

Except when you need to disarm an opponent and can't the opponent out in one more hit. You can think of situations where that would come up.

Quote from: estar;691499Except when you need to disarm an opponent and can't the opponent out in one more hit. You can think of situations where that would come up.

Situations where that would come up? Sure. Situations where I would actually try it when the odds are roughly equal to an insect plague spontaneously coming out of my ass to devour the enemy, can't say that I would.

Get a room, you two.