This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?  (Read 7321 times)

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #60 on: May 12, 2021, 09:21:20 AM »
I really want to try out Savage Worlds because it seems to have an in-between of levels and Point buy.
You get 1-2 points a level, and some abilities are gated off until you reach a high enough level.

In lethality, there is always a chance (even a low one) for a one-hit kill, no matter the level because of exploding dice.

   I like savage worlds. GURPS is my preferred game system, but I think GURPS takes some time to decide what you do or do not want to use.  Savage Worlds has a nice combination of incremental increases, as well as some abilities you can get later to make a hero larger than life.   The scenario I always think of that determines my preference for a game system is this:  If a warrior of good capability (lvl 10 fighter, a warrior archetype in GURPS around 200-250pts, or a seasoned - even hero level SW) is surrounded by 8 guardsmen all aiming heavy crossbows at him, is he concerned?  Dungeons and dragons he has no worries.  GURPS he is very worried.  Savage Worlds he is also very worried.   

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #61 on: May 12, 2021, 10:01:48 AM »
I addressed the attacks to the head thing since post 1 on this side topic. A random successful hit does not represent a strike to the head. That would be more in line with a critical hit. If we go by your assumption that means a 1hp peasant ALWAYS get struct in the head whenever hit with a low damage weapon, just so you can bend yourself into a pretzel to try to justify why level 0-1 characters have such ridiculously low HP. Working backwards from the assumption that D&D can do no wrong.

D&D is trash.
Yeah, at this point you're completely irrational.

Old school D&D doesn't have critical hits, so yes, a hit to the head is a normal hit. Or to be even more precise, hit points are an abstract measure of injury that's uncorrelated with any specific wound, which means the DM, or even the player depending on the social contract, can describe injuries in any way they see fit, including as head wounds.

And I specifically pointed out that hit points were pretty damn low for 0-level peasants, and argued the baseline should be more than 3 HD. I literally said the opposite of what you're claiming I'm contorting myself to support.

The real example of someone starting with a conclusion and then contorting everything to try to support it is your claim that D&D is trash because an abstract mechanic designed to create a good flow in a game doesn't sufficiently match your perception of reality.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 10:08:49 AM by Pat »

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #62 on: May 12, 2021, 11:25:38 AM »
Frankly, the death by house cat issue is why I always preferred Palladium’s HP = PE attribute (rolled on 3D6) + 1D6/level approach as it put an ordinary person’s HP at about 14.
In 1e someone doesn't croak until -10 hp, especially if the common misreading of that rule is used. Which works out to 13 to 14 hp. Coincidentally, that 10 extra hit points also works out to roughly 3d6. So you can make an argument that the default character in AD&D has the equivalent of 3 HD, with their class HD on top. Stretching it even further, you can argue that the class hit points on top are a character's heroism or staying power. After all, in a real fight, most people go down after one hit, regardless of the severity. The class hp on top are just your chance to keep fight. Plus, didn't Gygax start characters at 3rd level, at least in his later years? 3 HD also roughly corresponds with the expected HD for a natural animal of roughly human-size, like a hyena, wolf, or leopard. Overall, there's a decent argument that a capable adult human should have 3 HD.

Which might put weapon damage in context, a bit.
The only issue with treating the -10 as equivalent to Palladium’s PE+1d6 per level is that as soon as you go negative in D&D you fall unconscious and start losing an additional point every round (so 1/minute) until someone treats you or you die. That’s not the realistic outcome of a housecat attack even on someone so sickly as to have the minimum hit points (which in Palladium would be 4).

Palladium also has negative hit points; you die at -PE hit points (and their checks for dying come every hour instead of every round... which makes it a bit more foregiving for settings without magic) so that’s actually the analogue to the -10 in D&D.

Another factor that’s relevant too, particularly in this discussion, is the way Palladium’s approach (at least in 1e) also greatly capped the upper end of the hit point range. There were no bonus hit points per level; it was all front-loaded into using your PE score as the base.

So in AD&D a high Con (+3 mod) fighter might start with 9 hp, averages 77 hp at level 9 and 95 hp at level 15. In other words they start at under 10% of their maximum potential.

By contrast a high PE (20 because of the bonus d6 if a stat is 16+) character in Palladium might start with 24 hp, but only averages 51 hp at level nine and 73 hp at the system’s max level of 15... which means they start at 33% of their maximum potential.

Throw in higher damage (mundane daggers are 1D6, longswords 2D6... dwarven crafted swords could add +6 to that, magic enchantments could add 2D6 more... and that’s not counting Strength or Hand-to-Hand bonuses) and it actually takes several levels of advancement in Palladium to be able to add enough hit points to actually take an additional hit and remain standing.

Neither approach is “right”, but my preference definitely leans towards Palladium’s.

Jam The MF

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1102
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #63 on: May 12, 2021, 12:50:26 PM »
Hit Point accumulation and Weapon / Spell damage should reflect something measurable, in my opinion.  Obviously, I can't use "Magic" as the reference point; but I can use Weapon damage.

In my last game; I rolled up a Wolf, as a random encounter.  A standard, run of the mill Wolf.  I didn't look up any stats.  One PC rolled 6 Damage on a d6, with a Short Sword.  A full damage blow, with a Short Sword.  I said that killed the Wolf, because I know it would be lethal.

Now; if 6 Damage kills a Wolf or a Common Peasant, I can base all other Weapon and Spell damage on how many Short Sword strikes they are equal to.  I can also base Hit Points on how many full damage Short Sword strikes it would take to slay a PC, NPC, Monster, etc.

Maybe that's the answer to my opening post in this thread?
Let the Dice, Decide the Outcome.  Accept the Results.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #64 on: May 12, 2021, 02:03:31 PM »
Hit Point accumulation and Weapon / Spell damage should reflect something measurable, in my opinion.  Obviously, I can't use "Magic" as the reference point; but I can use Weapon damage.

In my last game; I rolled up a Wolf, as a random encounter.  A standard, run of the mill Wolf.  I didn't look up any stats.  One PC rolled 6 Damage on a d6, with a Short Sword.  A full damage blow, with a Short Sword.  I said that killed the Wolf, because I know it would be lethal.

Now; if 6 Damage kills a Wolf or a Common Peasant, I can base all other Weapon and Spell damage on how many Short Sword strikes they are equal to.  I can also base Hit Points on how many full damage Short Sword strikes it would take to slay a PC, NPC, Monster, etc.

Maybe that's the answer to my opening post in this thread?

 It almost seems more akin to the aformentioned wound system used in Savage worlds....one telling blow drops a mook (there are special case creatures who may not be "named" but have more than one wound), but several, or a massive blow is needed to drop a PC or major character in one shot.   Have you played Savage Worlds?  I has incremental progression, a wound system that seems akin to your example, and its "levels" are really subgroupings of ranges of points for heros.   

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #65 on: May 12, 2021, 03:01:52 PM »
What feels right for a Level 1 Character, vs a Level 2 Character; or a Level 5 Character?

Do we really need Level progression in RPGs?

Well, there are only two RPGs I get deep, deep into. Core AD&D 1E and Lejendary Adventure. Everything else I dabble in.

In 1E, an 8th level character is about twice as powerful as a 4th level character, but a 16th level character is only marginally improved over an 8th level character. And I'm fine with that. I think that's really cool in fact.

In LA, the numbers are reversed, so 1st Rank is the best. But it's not just the numbers that are reversed. The paradigm is reversed. You build up your skills and abilities, and that qualifies you for certain orders and rank. It's quite possible to have two starting characters, one at 6th rank and one at 12th rank, and for them to be about equal. It's simpy that the former is specialized around climbing the social hierarchy of the order in question, while the latter probably has a lot of extraneous expertise.

Another thing I thought was really cool back in the day was the BBS game Legend of the Red Dragon. It was a level-based murder grind with approximately exponential power growth by level. But there were a lot of smaller, more incremental power-ups you could get in the course of the game as well. At the lower levels, those little power ups paled in comparison to the level benefits. But at higher levels, since it took longer and longer to get to the next level, the more of those power-ups you would accumulate during regular play, and they became more significant than level.

In all three games, level was important in terms of access. In LA it's simply access to social tiers. In D&D, it meant access to things such as higher level spells. If LORD it affected what encounters you would have as well as who you could challenge, and who could challenge you, in PvP.

But also, in all three games, level wasn't everything. In LORD, it was fairly common for lower level characters to beat higher level ones in PvP. In AD&D, the attribute effect was the opposite of levels: A fighter with 18's in STR, DEX, and/or CON could beat a fighter of 4 levels higher who only had 14's. While there's little difference between a Fighter with 9's and one with 14's. So a high level character gained relatively little from adding a new level, but had a lot more benefit in going from a 15 STR to 16 STR than he would a 10 STR to 11 STR. In LA there is little correlation at all between Rank and how powerful a character is overall.

It's all really nuanced and all really cool.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #66 on: May 12, 2021, 05:38:54 PM »
I addressed the attacks to the head thing since post 1 on this side topic. A random successful hit does not represent a strike to the head. That would be more in line with a critical hit. If we go by your assumption that means a 1hp peasant ALWAYS get struct in the head whenever hit with a low damage weapon, just so you can bend yourself into a pretzel to try to justify why level 0-1 characters have such ridiculously low HP. Working backwards from the assumption that D&D can do no wrong.

D&D is trash.
Yeah, at this point you're completely irrational.

Right back at you.

Old school D&D doesn't have critical hits, so yes, a hit to the head is a normal hit. Or to be even more precise, hit points are an abstract measure of injury that's uncorrelated with any specific wound, which means the DM, or even the player depending on the social contract, can describe injuries in any way they see fit, including as head wounds.

Normal hits in old D&D are always to head so that a 1hp peasant can die of a single hit with a stick. Got it.

And I specifically pointed out that hit points were pretty damn low for 0-level peasants, and argued the baseline should be more than 3 HD. I literally said the opposite of what you're claiming I'm contorting myself to support.

Where did you argue that? Cuz that has always been more or less my take about base HD in D&D, so if you had mentioned it, I wouldn't have argued against it--cuz that's basically what I tend to do. If fact, NONE of my arguments are against it, but essentially against the idea that 1 HD is enough. The only one I remember bringing up something similar to using 3 HD as a base at one point was Steven Mitchell in this post...

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/incremental-success-improvement-as-characters-progress-in-rpgs/msg1171904/#msg1171904

The real example of someone starting with a conclusion and then contorting everything to try to support it is your claim that D&D is trash because an abstract mechanic designed to create a good flow in a game doesn't sufficiently match your perception of reality.

That's a really good description of every single reply you've made to me on this topic from the get go.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #67 on: May 12, 2021, 07:24:02 PM »
I addressed the attacks to the head thing since post 1 on this side topic. A random successful hit does not represent a strike to the head. That would be more in line with a critical hit. If we go by your assumption that means a 1hp peasant ALWAYS get struct in the head whenever hit with a low damage weapon, just so you can bend yourself into a pretzel to try to justify why level 0-1 characters have such ridiculously low HP. Working backwards from the assumption that D&D can do no wrong.

D&D is trash.
Yeah, at this point you're completely irrational.

Right back at you.

Old school D&D doesn't have critical hits, so yes, a hit to the head is a normal hit. Or to be even more precise, hit points are an abstract measure of injury that's uncorrelated with any specific wound, which means the DM, or even the player depending on the social contract, can describe injuries in any way they see fit, including as head wounds.

Normal hits in old D&D are always to head so that a 1hp peasant can die of a single hit with a stick. Got it.
Where did I say that?

Oh, I didn't.

Never even implied it.

What's that called again? Something involving straw and persons of one gender? Or we could just call it a lie. That's simpler and doesn't require a memeterm.

And I specifically pointed out that hit points were pretty damn low for 0-level peasants, and argued the baseline should be more than 3 HD. I literally said the opposite of what you're claiming I'm contorting myself to support.

Where did you argue that? Cuz that has always been more or less my take about base HD in D&D, so if you had mentioned it, I wouldn't have argued against it--cuz that's basically what I tend to do. If fact, NONE of my arguments are against it, but essentially against the idea that 1 HD is enough.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/incremental-success-improvement-as-characters-progress-in-rpgs/msg1171981/#msg1171981

So not only did you claim I said something I didn't, but I've posted the very opposite of what you claimed just a page or two ago.

The real example of someone starting with a conclusion and then contorting everything to try to support it is your claim that D&D is trash because an abstract mechanic designed to create a good flow in a game doesn't sufficiently match your perception of reality.

That's a really good description of every single reply you've made to me on this topic from the get go.
Bullshit, see above. Sometimes you make worthwhile posts, but you seem stuck in irrational mode on this topic.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #68 on: May 12, 2021, 07:28:52 PM »
Frankly, the death by house cat issue is why I always preferred Palladium’s HP = PE attribute (rolled on 3D6) + 1D6/level approach as it put an ordinary person’s HP at about 14.
In 1e someone doesn't croak until -10 hp, especially if the common misreading of that rule is used. Which works out to 13 to 14 hp. Coincidentally, that 10 extra hit points also works out to roughly 3d6. So you can make an argument that the default character in AD&D has the equivalent of 3 HD, with their class HD on top. Stretching it even further, you can argue that the class hit points on top are a character's heroism or staying power. After all, in a real fight, most people go down after one hit, regardless of the severity. The class hp on top are just your chance to keep fight. Plus, didn't Gygax start characters at 3rd level, at least in his later years? 3 HD also roughly corresponds with the expected HD for a natural animal of roughly human-size, like a hyena, wolf, or leopard. Overall, there's a decent argument that a capable adult human should have 3 HD.

Which might put weapon damage in context, a bit.
The only issue with treating the -10 as equivalent to Palladium’s PE+1d6 per level is that as soon as you go negative in D&D you fall unconscious and start losing an additional point every round (so 1/minute) until someone treats you or you die. That’s not the realistic outcome of a housecat attack even on someone so sickly as to have the minimum hit points (which in Palladium would be 4).
I wasn't comparing to Palladium, I'm not familiar with that system. Though you're correct, in AD&D1e the 10 extra points involve dying. I'm not talking about strict RAW. I'm talking about alternate interpretations, drawing on several lines of evidence.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2021, 07:30:38 PM by Pat »

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #69 on: May 12, 2021, 09:07:23 PM »
I wasn't comparing to Palladium, I'm not familiar with that system. Though you're correct, in AD&D1e the 10 extra points involve dying. I'm not talking about strict RAW. I'm talking about alternate interpretations, drawing on several lines of evidence.
Fair enough.

I think I outlined the basics of Palladium Fantasy's approach to hit points in my previous post, but if you need any further info I'll be happy to share.

Its definitely got D&D's DNA, but Kevin had some very solid innovations back in the day and I think his biggest mistake was later trying to go back and unify everything into a single system instead of letting the idiosyncrasies of each setting be.

Fantasy was better without personal SDC, stat-boosting physical skills (and the increased bonuses that went with them that made armor almost irrelevant) and arguably PPE for spellcasting. Robotech was better when it wasn't trying to scale its MDC values to the "everything is MDC" world of Rifts. Heroes Unlimited was better when heroes got to apply their full dodge bonus to gunfire. Trying to make each setting use all the same physics robbed each one of their uniqueness.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2021, 10:16:36 PM »

I think I outlined the basics of Palladium Fantasy's approach to hit points in my previous post, but if you need any further info I'll be happy to share.

Its definitely got D&D's DNA, but Kevin had some very solid innovations back in the day and I think his biggest mistake was later trying to go back and unify everything into a single system instead of letting the idiosyncrasies of each setting be.
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.

Lunamancer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1293
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #71 on: May 13, 2021, 12:27:18 AM »
Regarding the 1E discussion here, I have to point out that the house cat example is seriously flawed. And I mean the example itself is the problem, not necessarily the rules per se. The house cat stats come up in 1.5E. And by that time, there was a lot of stat inflation going on. Things like bartenders being retired 4th level fighters were commonplace. It's not really the same game as core 1E that imagines 98% of human human population being 0th level.

There are a few data points that verify what I'm saying. Falling damage was revised to be cumulative. There was a story going around that it was originally intended to be that way but for an editing error. But the early published modules conformed to the flat d6 per 10', not the cumulative one. The story seems bunk. It was revised because in 1.5E there was stat inflation and DMs were concerned that high level PC fighters would start leaping off cliffs as some kind of absurd short cut.

Flat d6 damage per 10 feet, when you assume the world is mostly 0th level, actually fairly accurately syncs up with real world falling fatality statistics. Meaning the original 1E system works perfectly fine as is. The house cat stats were calibrated specifically for a stat-inflated campaign. It was not designed for use with the original concept of the game. Pitting MMII house cats vs 0th level characters is a lot like comparing monster stats from one RPG with human stats from a different RPGs. I wouldn't expect them to make any sense stacked side by side like that.

I believe 1E was in a unique place in the evolution of RPGs. It was the most played RPG of its time. It came late enough that there was already a ton of D&D play experience to draw upon and codify. But it was still too early on in the evolution of RPGs before the form had settled upon one paradigm that would prove to be most popular, which I characterize roughly as "Rag tag band of border-line psychopaths wander the land getting caught up in wacky adventures." And that paradigm was already in full swing by 1.5E.

Core 1E's mission statement was to provide as much fun as possible to as many players as possible for as long a time as possible. And so it was written to accommodate a lot of different play styles. You can play 1E as a wargame as well as the rag tag high fantasy style. The 1-minute melee round abstractions were not tossed in there just to confound intuition. It's to help resolve large scale combat more quickly, and to minimize tracking of things like hit points. It was calibrated to mostly be a one-hit-kill system. What made some units more resilient than others was primarily the armor they wear. Which is also why a "hit" is defined as not just a hit, but a hit that also surpasses armor defense such that armor makes you harder to hit.

Ironically, the Greyhawk hardback brought the 0th level character back to the fore by introducing rules for 0th level PCs. I always thought it was a silly idea. It feels like what happened were Greyhawk originalists were trying to pushing back against stat inflation. Forgotten Realms is for pansies. Real men play Greyhawk, where we're so hard core, you have to work your way to even get to 1st level. And it didn't make sense in the context of the other AD&D works that were published before or after it.

If you want to play gotcha, then hey, you're right. Technically it all flies under the AD&D 1E banner. But if you want to serious and good faith analysis, you can't be talking about house cats.
That's my two cents anyway. Carry on, crawler.

Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito.

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #72 on: May 13, 2021, 01:26:41 AM »
I addressed the attacks to the head thing since post 1 on this side topic. A random successful hit does not represent a strike to the head. That would be more in line with a critical hit. If we go by your assumption that means a 1hp peasant ALWAYS get struct in the head whenever hit with a low damage weapon, just so you can bend yourself into a pretzel to try to justify why level 0-1 characters have such ridiculously low HP. Working backwards from the assumption that D&D can do no wrong.

D&D is trash.
Yeah, at this point you're completely irrational.

Right back at you.

Old school D&D doesn't have critical hits, so yes, a hit to the head is a normal hit. Or to be even more precise, hit points are an abstract measure of injury that's uncorrelated with any specific wound, which means the DM, or even the player depending on the social contract, can describe injuries in any way they see fit, including as head wounds.

Normal hits in old D&D are always to head so that a 1hp peasant can die of a single hit with a stick. Got it.
Where did I say that?

Oh, I didn't.

Never even implied it.

What's that called again? Something involving straw and persons of one gender? Or we could just call it a lie. That's simpler and doesn't require a memeterm.

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*.

*And yes, I'm sure that this is also a sTrAwMaN.

And I specifically pointed out that hit points were pretty damn low for 0-level peasants, and argued the baseline should be more than 3 HD. I literally said the opposite of what you're claiming I'm contorting myself to support.

Where did you argue that? Cuz that has always been more or less my take about base HD in D&D, so if you had mentioned it, I wouldn't have argued against it--cuz that's basically what I tend to do. If fact, NONE of my arguments are against it, but essentially against the idea that 1 HD is enough.
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/incremental-success-improvement-as-characters-progress-in-rpgs/msg1171981/#msg1171981

So not only did you claim I said something I didn't, but I've posted the very opposite of what you claimed just a page or two ago.

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.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #73 on: May 13, 2021, 01:51:08 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.

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.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Incremental Success Improvement, as Characters Progress in RPGs?
« Reply #74 on: May 13, 2021, 02:06:03 AM »
Regarding the 1E discussion here, I have to point out that the house cat example is seriously flawed. And I mean the example itself is the problem, not necessarily the rules per se. The house cat stats come up in 1.5E. And by that time, there was a lot of stat inflation going on. Things like bartenders being retired 4th level fighters were commonplace. It's not really the same game as core 1E that imagines 98% of human human population being 0th level.
There was some stat inflation in the MM2, but not huge stat inflation. Not enough to justifying turning a 0 into a 1d2/1 and then rear claws for 1d2 (yes, domestic cats in 1e do a lot more than just 1 point of damage). Wild cats, which are basically a slightly larger version of the domestic cat, do 1d2/1d2/1d2 and rear claw for 1d2/1d2, while having as many hit dice as an orc. That's more flakiness in how AD&D treats animals that are smaller than human size than any kind of stat inflation. It's worth remembering that the MM1, which predates any stat inflation because it was literally the first book ever published for AD&D, gives a jackal 1/2 HD and a bite that does 1d2 points. That's crazy for an animal that weighs maybe 20 pounds, and is described as "not particularly fierce nor are they brave".