Is it just me, or do quite a lot of threads VisionStorm participates in turn into a shitfight between him and one other person? Just an observation. I think we could continue having a constructive discussion, and learning from people like oggsmash. That'd be good to do.

I think it's a fair argument that if PCs are running around with a hundred hit points that the system or GM will naturally inflate house cats up to be a nonzero threat to health. In a more realistic-themed game, you might want to have some sort of "nuisance" effect, where something does no real damage, but it does annoy and distract you - like being in a blizzard momentarily, cutting yourself shaving, getting blisters from marching too long, the digestive results of eating nothing but iron rations for a month - or being scratched by a house cat.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 13, 2021, 03:51:24 AM
I think it's a fair argument that if PCs are running around with a hundred hit points that the system or GM will naturally inflate house cats up to be a nonzero threat to health. In a more realistic-themed game, you might want to have some sort of "nuisance" effect, where something does no real damage, but it does annoy and distract you - like being in a blizzard momentarily, cutting yourself shaving, getting blisters from marching too long, the digestive results of eating nothing but iron rations for a month - or being scratched by a house cat.

Like bats in Basic D&D, which do no damage, but can cause confusion in large numbers.

Quote from: Pat on May 13, 2021, 02:06:03 AM
That's crazy for an animal that weighs maybe 20 pounds, and is described as "not particularly fierce nor are they brave".

Funny you should mention that. What does the MM say in the very next sentence after the one you quoted? "They appear here because of the magical bag of tricks (qv)."

I realize "because magic" is usually a weak argument. But when literally the only reason this entry is even included in the Monster Manual is "because magic" then you can't really wiggle out of it. That the bag of tricks is mentioned specifically leads me to believe these stats have more to do with defining the parameters of the bag of tricks than they do of small animals.

This line also says something about the Monster Manual in general--that it is not intended to be a bestiary of ordinary animals that would avoid confrontations with men entirely and present no danger at all. And it shouldn't be interpreted as such. Check the entry on herd animals, for example. It doesn't bother to list precise hit dice or damage from attacks. And it says they will immediately flee from what they perceive the greatest danger to be. Which can lead to a stampede, and that can be deadly if you're caught up in it. And to me that seems like that's the clear purpose of the entry--the danger of a stampede, not fisticuffs with a zebra.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 13, 2021, 03:51:24 AM
Is it just me, or do quite a lot of threads VisionStorm participates in turn into a shitfight between him and one other person? Just an observation. I think we could continue having a constructive discussion, and learning from people like oggsmash. That'd be good to do.

He HATES D&D; isn't that evident? Any sort of argument that shows D&D as anything other than contemptible trash is immediately attacked. I am fine with someone saying they don't want to play D&D for XYZ reasons, but that dude makes it sound like you've got to be some sort of mentally ill cretin to even consider that something like hit points are fine for a game about killing orcs and stealing their stuff.

Quote from: Pat on May 13, 2021, 01:51:08 AM

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 13, 2021, 01:26:41 AM
I don't give a shit what you call it. To you everything is a StRaWmAn, while your dodges and refusals to actually address what I actually said are somehow iron tight arguments*.

I addressed what you said in that post. I pointed out your lies.

Quote from: Pat on May 12, 2021, 07:24:02 PM
Oh, so a reply to someone else that doesn't even say exactly what you claimed in the ACTUAL post I replied to? Made after we were already 2-3 posts into this argument that now you're trying to pull off as if that was your argument all along, when that wasn't even your argument in that post, but merely a concession you made by the end when you said "Overall, there's a decent argument that a capable adult human should have 3 HD."

But I'm the one who's being irrational and arguing based on logical fallacies?

You didn't argue that humans should have 3 HD in that post, but extrapolated that due to a -10 HP rule (which I believe was merely an optional rule) it's almost like you actually had 3HD all along. Even though being merely able to survive comatose till -10hp is NOT the same thing as actually having 10hp or 3HD, but merely a buffer that applies while you're lying in the ground helpless and dying. Then by the end you finally conceded that maybe "there's a decent argument that a capable adult human should have 3 HD."

That's not the same as "arguing" that that should be the case. That's arguing that the reality is something else (which I disagree with, as explained above), then essentially saying "but you know what? Maybe, maybe you're right...adult humans should have 3HD (i.e. a concession that, not an argument for)."

But NONE of that was ever your initial argument when you got into a discussion with me. Your initial argument was that rats should do 0 damage cuz 1 in 4 peasants (or something to that effect) only had 1hp. Which would be an argument in support of that status quo, not that maybe all adult humans should have 3HD, but a reinforcement of the idea that 1hp peasants are fine. Rat bites doing damage is what's the problem.

The idea that adult humans should have 3HD didn't even come up till after (in a post to someone else), and it would actually support my position (which is essentially baseline HP in D&D are too low), not contradict it. As it happens, I've been making all adult humans level 3 (3HD; children have 1HD, adolescents 2HD) in my games since the late 90s.

Yes, you're the one who's lying and arguing based on logical fallacies.

It's always been my argument. I made part of in the post I linked, I've made it elsewhere, and I've never said anything to contradict it. You're pretending I've revised my statements, and I haven't. You simply decided what I believed based on your prejudices and irreason, and now you're claiming I'm trying to change my position because I pointed out I never said or believed any of the stuff you made up, and provided an example that contradict your narrative. In your world, proof that I don't believe what you say I believe is somehow me waffling, not you being wrong.

Also, the whole post about 3 HD was me explaining different lines of reasoning to a third party. I wasn't defending any of the things you're pretending I don't believe. That's why it's not structured as a defense for or against the things you're claiming I believe but I don't.

You're correct about one thing: I did say that rats have 0 hp. That was my argument. None of this other stuff you made up.

To repeat: You're an irrational liar.

Whatever dude. I was writing a post going over every post leading up to this point in this conversation demonstrating how none of your arguments line up with what your saying now--all bare to see right on this fucking thread--but I accidentally closed the tap before I was done and I'm not going through all of that again.

You're a delusional nitwit that doesn't even the difference between purposefully inflammatory comments and a sTrAwMaN and consistently accuses me of shit that has fuck to do with what I'm actually thinking or saying. I'm done with you.

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 13, 2021, 09:49:16 AM
I'm done with you.

Good. Like I said before, you've made some good posts in the past, and we've have some positive exchanges. But I'm really tired of being told what I think, demands that I defend the (strawmen) positions you've made up for me, and then abusive insults when I point out I never believed any of that.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 13, 2021, 03:51:24 AM
Is it just me, or do quite a lot of threads VisionStorm participates in turn into a shitfight between him and one other person? Just an observation. I think we could continue having a constructive discussion, and learning from people like oggsmash. That'd be good to do.

Yes, and almost all of them are with Pat, who also gets into shitfights with other people and is constantly accusing people or strawmaning or malicious argumentation, or with BoxCrayonTales, who also goes off in his own weird tangents that many others also disagree with on the same thread.

But I notice how anytime someone make this observation none of them can point to the specific post I said something wrong or consider that it takes two to tango.

If you think the house cat stats from 1[.5]e are not realistic, you might not live in Portland OR.

https://time.com/20197/crazed-pet-cat-holds-family-hostage-and-forces-them-to-call-911-for-rescue/

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 13, 2021, 09:58:59 AM
Yes, and almost all of them are with Pat, who also gets into shitfights with other people and is constantly accusing people or strawmaning or malicious argumentation, or with BoxCrayonTales, who also goes off in his own weird tangents that many others also disagree with on the same thread.

Yep, and you fall for it, every time. (The other one to watch out for is jkhim, who shifts goal posts so fast they must be on skates.)

Quote from: Lunamancer on May 13, 2021, 09:02:03 AM
Funny you should mention that. What does the MM say in the very next sentence after the one you quoted? "They appear here because of the magical bag of tricks (qv)."

I realize "because magic" is usually a weak argument. But when literally the only reason this entry is even included in the Monster Manual is "because magic" then you can't really wiggle out of it. That the bag of tricks is mentioned specifically leads me to believe these stats have more to do with defining the parameters of the bag of tricks than they do of small animals.

This line also says something about the Monster Manual in general--that it is not intended to be a bestiary of ordinary animals that would avoid confrontations with men entirely and present no danger at all. And it shouldn't be interpreted as such. Check the entry on herd animals, for example. It doesn't bother to list precise hit dice or damage from attacks. And it says they will immediately flee from what they perceive the greatest danger to be. Which can lead to a stampede, and that can be deadly if you're caught up in it. And to me that seems like that's the clear purpose of the entry--the danger of a stampede, not fisticuffs with a zebra.

If you go back to OD&D, animals appear in the wilderness encounter tables. They're (mostly?) intended to giant animals, which is why toads, lizards, beetles, and weasels are listed, along with lions. But their specific stats aren't listed. But they're clearly intended to be combat encounters. That's fleshed out in the MM, where there are full entries for multiple varieties of things like giant beetles or toads/frogs. which is mostly giant animals, or real animals that happen to be large or dangerous. The MM has them in the encounter tables, as well. Again, they're combat encounters.

The bag of tricks isn't any different. It's literally a combat item, because the animals pulled from it last only "until the current combat terminates". Though there is one contradiction with the jackal entry -- while the jackal entry in the MM says it's only there because of the bag tricks, then why doesn't the MM also have entries for (non-giant) weasels, skunks, rats, owls, goats, rams, and eagles? Because the ordinary versions can be generated by a bag of tricks, which gives their HD, hp, and damage. Out of that list, only the skunk does no damage at all, and owls and goats are spectacularly dangerous, doing 1d3/1d3 and 1d6 damage, respectively.

Though all those animals, and more (like hawks, crows, and the mighty ordinary squirrel) do appear in the MM2, which goes overboard in statting out animals that should be no threat at all.

So the original animals that appeared in the encounter tables or were given stats were clearly intended to be combat encounters. But you weren't supposed to go out and kill Bambi. The strong giant (or Martian) references made it clear these are the animals that appear in legends, or sword & sorcery tales. They're deadly man-eaters in the jungle, vicious pit-beasts with cruel masters, or unnaturally huge or aggressive.

And I think Gygax wanted to figure out the stats of normal animals are, because it gives a baseline for the monsters. There's quite a bit of consistency between size and HD, and the aggressiveness/danger posed by the various animals, for instance. The jackal was probably just an aberration. The MM2 by contrast, seems to be deliberate. I suspect it's mostly just padding. All those mundane animals appear because they had a new book they wanted to publish, and needed some more entries. Probably based on the idea that the animals might be controlled or otherwise forced against the PCs, instead of expecting the PCs to randomly murder ravens.

Quote from: VisionStorm on May 13, 2021, 09:58:59 AM

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 13, 2021, 03:51:24 AM
Is it just me, or do quite a lot of threads VisionStorm participates in turn into a shitfight between him and one other person? Just an observation. I think we could continue having a constructive discussion, and learning from people like oggsmash. That'd be good to do.

Yes, and almost all of them are with Pat, who also gets into shitfights with other people and is constantly accusing people or strawmaning or malicious argumentation, or with BoxCrayonTales, who also goes off in his own weird tangents that many others also disagree with on the same thread.

But I notice how anytime someone make this observation none of them can point to the specific post I said something wrong or consider that it takes two to tango.

Nonsense, other posters have pointed out (in this very thread) that you do this every time this topic comes up.

And here, you want an example where you said something wrong?
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/incremental-success-improvement-as-characters-progress-in-rpgs/45/?action=post;quote=1172019;last_msg=1172164

That's where the discussion started to go downhill. You were aggressively dismissive, which I don't care much about, but I'm mentioning it because it signifies a shift in tone on your part. And then you put words in my mouth, by saying I was arguing that peasants always get hit the head, and that I was trying to justify why the hp of peasants was peasants. And that's what I objected to, because I didn't say or defend either.

I also never denied that it takes two to tango, that's another false claim about my beliefs. In fact, I fully agree with that statement. I decided when I started posting on this board that I'd try to be nice, and to extend people the benefit of the doubt, and that I'd try to deescalate discussions. That's my normal pattern. But I also decided that I wasn't going to let it stand when people say things about what I believe that are false, like the three statements of yours that I just cited. And that I'd occasionally return insults with insults, but never instigate it.

I certainly could have dropped it, but I didn't. That's an active, deliberate decision on my part.

Quote from: Pat on May 12, 2021, 10:16:36 PM
Most people describe Palladium as a fantasy heartbreaker, so it's always interesting to hear what works from people invested in the system. It's really the details and interactions that matter more than raw concepts.

I suppose that depends on your definition of heartbreaker. If Tunnels & Trolls, Chivelry & Sorcery and Rolemaster are also considered heartbreakers than yes, Palladium would qualify, but Palladium was popular enough to have its own shelf at all the gaming and book stores in my area back in the Pre-WotC days (something only D&D and WoD also managed at the time) and outlasted contemporaries like FASA or WEG (their most recent Fantasy release was February of this year) so if your definition is "niche game no one ever played" then it'd not be a heartbreaker.

I leave the final decision on that to you as it's pretty subjective.

What I find interesting related to it though is It's the way regional perceptions affect whether something is seen as mainstream or a heartbreaker. Anecdotally, in Lafeyette, IN in the late 90's when I was in college you couldn't shake a stick without hitting a WoD LARPer (many of who made the one hour commute to Indianapolis on the weekends to play in larger games). Meanwhile, up in Fort Wayne (where my family lives) at the same time trying to find a game that wasn't Palladium or HERO System was a chore (this was c. 97-99 when TSR was basically bankrupt and WotC hadn't yet stepped in so D&D was on the wane in the area at that time).

Also, as I've previously mentioned, Palladium is the only reason I'm still into gaming at all after a horrible experience with an AD&D DM nearly drove me from the hobby (I have no beef with people who like the OSR, but the experience was bad enough it keeps me from enjoying any TSR-era based game to this day).

The differences in both mechanics (Palladium Fantasy was the first time I could play a light armored warrior like you'd see in fantasy television and movies of the time and not have the system punish you for it) and setting (I was first drawn in by the Robotech RPG being advertised in Dragon Magazine and re-entered the fantasy genre through Palladium Fantasy after that) kept me in gaming at a point when I could have drifted away entirely and so, for that, Palladium has an immense amount of banked good will with me.

Drifting back to the actual thread topic of incremental improvements though, what I liked in Palladium was that the classes were more specific (i.e. instead of fighter there was mercenary, soldier, bowman, knight, etc.) which gave them a better sense of place in the world and, most especially, I liked that PC's started with a presumed level of competence.

You weren't some wet behind the ears rookie; if you chose knight, you didn't start as a squire, you were a full blown knight with the horse, armor and weapons that the station required and the skill to back it up. You weren't the greatest knight ever with the best gear possible, but you wouldn't have to squint to maybe see something that might someday resemble a knight either as it sometimes felt with a D&D Fighter at the time (particularly if you rolled crap on the starting gold).

Your skill percentages in areas your class was expected to be good at were high enough to make your attempts to use them not a joke and they improved slowly from there to virtually assured success at high level. If you picked up a new skill it started at a higher base percentage and also slowly improved from there. Your combat bonuses were adequate at level one, solidified by level 3 and then slowly improved from there.

And it was similar in their other systems. When you played Robotech you didn't start as a raw recruit or infantry grunt. If you selected the Veritech Pilot class you began as a fully trained combat pilot with a fully armed (era-appropriate) Veritech Fighter. A Ley-Line Walker in Rifts started with about 40-50% of their maximum level PPE (spell points) capacity and workhorse spells that accounted for roughly half the spells you'd gain directly from your class (learning additional spells beyond those you started with or worked out by leveling up was a major incentive for adventuring for spellcasting classes).

Of particular note too in terms of advancement was that by level 4-6 PCs were generally developed enough that leveling could be slowed to practically nothing and you'd just not notice (all your key class skills were nearly maxed by then and most if not all class features were unlocked... core combat bonuses had been acquired and spell point capacity was high enough that a full night's rest couldn't even restore it all*).

There was an entire two year period in a Rifts game where the GM just stopped tracking XP (we were level 5-6) and no one noticed because A) we were still having fun and B) the acquisition of better gear and learning spells in the non-leveling way subbed in for experience levels. The settings were generally rich enough that adventuring could be an end unto itself at times rather than just a tool for advancement.**

Indeed, one of the best lessons I think I learned from Palladium's approach was that you can have a fairly low ceiling on vertical improvement as long as there is sufficient lateral improvements for PCs to acquire.

* Spell points (called PPE for magic, ISP for psionics) in Palladium are regained at a flat rate per hour that is independent of level so once your personal PPE/ISP totals exceeded what you could regain in a reasonable night's rest all you were really building up was an emergency reserve that would require downtime or low-magic use days to recover. In actual play spellcasters tended to treat 8-10 times their hourly PPE/ISP recovery rate as a sort of "soft cap" and only reluctantly tapped into points beyond that since recovering those would be far more difficult during an ongoing adventure. Most spellcasting classes reach that 8-10 times recovery level around level 3-5 depending on their initial roll for the size of their pool so for routine casting you didn't "need" to attain a higher level and thus a pause in leveling wasn't particularly onerous as long as you could still learn additional spells in the meantime.

** Palladium never gated things like followers to any sort of level-based mechanics (nor was there a maximum number of henchmen linked to any game mechanics) so the typical TSR-era endgame of domain management was entirely level independent and could begin as soon or late as the PCs showed interest in it... which was another reason that pausing leveling didn't particularly matter after you reached that "core competicy" point.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 13, 2021, 10:42:22 AM

Quote from: Pat on May 12, 2021, 10:16:36 PM
Most people describe Palladium as a fantasy heartbreaker, so it's always interesting to hear what works from people invested in the system. It's really the details and interactions that matter more than raw concepts.

I suppose that depends on your definition of heartbreaker. If Tunnels & Trolls, Chivelry & Sorcery and Rolemaster are also considered heartbreakers than yes, Palladium would qualify, but Palladium was popular enough to have its own shelf at all the gaming and book stores in my area back in the Pre-WotC days (something only D&D and WoD also managed at the time) and outlasted contemporaries like FASA or WEG (their most recent Fantasy release was February of this year) so if your definition is "niche game no one ever played" then it'd not be a heartbreaker.

It's not based on popularity. The way heartbreaker has come to be used in the RPG world (largely thanks to Edwards' notorious essay), is a game that's based on one and only other game (almost always D&D), which it's trying to fix, by an author who has limited exposure to other games. There may be a gem of an idea in there, but if so it's lost in a highly derivative mess. The "fixes" are usually very familiar, ideas that have been circulating in the community for a while (ditching level limits, adding a skill system, or having crits were common in the AD&D era). Games that are as experimental or widely different as T&T or RQ don't qualify. I'm not familiar with Palladium so I can't judge it directly, but have you seen Palladium's ads in Dragon, back in the 1980s? Based on those alone, it sounds like a heartbreaker, because it's essentially promoting itself as like D&D, but better.

Heartbreaker is definitely a pejorative, but there's nothing inherently wrong with the concept. Even Edwards acknowledged they sometimes have interesting ideas, and it's possible to argue that the whole d20 boom after 3rd edition released is basically a giant heartbreaker bubble, and the same can be said about the OSR. Though those cases can be more accurately described as a burst of creativity centered around a core system. So it's possible for Palladium Fantasy to be both a heartbreaker, and to have surpassed the more dismissive aspects of the term.

Palladium Fantasy is Kevin Siembieda's idea of what D&D should look like, i.e., class-based system with percentile skills and a combat system that allows for defenders to react (parry, block, dodge). At its surface it looks like KS took the best parts of Runequest and D&D and just put them together for publication, but probably more likely he was exposed to all those systems when they came out and just integrated them into his own game as he saw fit, like any one of us does when we actually run games. There wasn't some sort of cohesive design process, more like, "lemme try this, oh that's cool, I'll make that a rule" etc., etc. When I ran AD&D in high school, I used Rolemaster for the crit tables, Palladium psionics and combat system, and some Runequest skills for resolving non-combat stuff. Ripped off whatever I could if I thought it'd be fun. I think the whole notion of a formalized process to create a game is very modern and results in a whole lot of garbage that looks great in a book and sucks at the actual table (D&D 3.X and the "unified mechanic" nonsense). It's easy to pontificate about "fantasy heart-breakers," but most of the time that sort of tripe comes from someone outside looking at the game you're running and enjoying, not understanding why you're doing anything.

Basically, Palladium Fantasy is a GOOD game because it is FUN to play. I would jump at the chance to run it in the future as a nice vacation from Greyhawk AD&D.

Quote from: Chris24601 on May 13, 2021, 10:42:22 AM
Indeed, one of the best lessons I think I learned from Palladium's approach was that you can have a fairly low ceiling on vertical improvement as long as there is sufficient lateral improvements for PCs to acquire.

That's exactly what E6, a d20 variant that caps all characters at 6th level, but allows them to continue to gain feats (and skill points), is about. The cap on level-based mechanics is fairly hard; you'll never hit better than a 6th level fighter or cast more powerful spells than a 6th level wizard, and that also applies to things like skills as well. But while your key stats don't improve, you can improve your other skills, learn new combat tricks, and so on. It works quite well.

You mentioned additional spells and equipment, does Palladium support any other kind of horizontal development, or was that mostly roleplaying and campaign development?