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: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?  (Read 5854 times)

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17102
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #15 on: February 27, 2021, 07:01:19 PM »
Stick to say BX or AD&D or even 2e. Any thing from the OSR may or may not be actually functional if someones took it upon themselves to "fix" something.

One thing to consider is that in older editions Level 9 or so was considered fairly high level. Over time that has been pushed back some or the rate of EXP gain shifted while the curve has remained relatively stable oddly enough.

On OD&D Taise Dead is gained at level 6. The Raised character has to make a CON based save and is out of it for 2 weeks.
In BX for example Raise Dead is not gained till level 7 for Clerics. And a raised person has 1 HP and can do little more than walk for two weeks.
In AD&D Raise Dead is gained at level 9 and the raised person is in a similarley bad stat, 1 HP and bedridden for 1 day per day was dead. But with the added twist that has to make a system shock save first or the raise fails. And they permanently lose a point of CON.
In 2e is the same. Just states the CON loss with the spell rather than the stat.
3e Has Raise at level 9 as well. But can raise anything willing, and heals some at 1 HP/HD, and some stat loss restored to 1. Cures some poison and disease, etc.. You lose a level if over 1st or CON if 1st level. And some other quirks. Also costs a 400g diamond.
No clue what 4e does. Probably something odd.
5e Raise is much the same as 3e, but instead is at -4 penalty instead of a CON loss, and this is diminished by one per long rest. Also costs a 500g diamond. 5e though has Revivify which can be gained earlier but must be cast within a minute of death. And some other death neutralizing or blunting spells and cantrips.

So over time Raise has been pushed back in the timeline can get it. But I suspect this correlates to shifts in the system and when it was deemed the spell would and should start coming into play. Also keep in mind some older editions required people seeking someone raised to pay a rather stiff fee for the service.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #16 on: February 27, 2021, 07:10:23 PM »
On OD&D Taise Dead is gained at level 6.
Tase Dead would be a cool spell.  How do you say "Don't tase me, bro!" in zombie?  My guess: "Uhhhuuggghhhuhhh!"

Slipshot762

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 480
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #17 on: February 28, 2021, 01:43:49 AM »
If you use 3d6 rather than a 20 sider saves seem to be less harsh and easier to make.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #18 on: February 28, 2021, 09:07:19 AM »
And right now, you're throwing around words like nostalgia, and ruined, and displaying anger at people who say positive things about a playstyle you've decided you disliked before you gave it a chance.

I just in general dislike things when as you put it 'I don't get the conceptual gulf'.  When I was 'dissing' stuff, at no point was I criticizing the playstyle. I always say there can be many games for many kinds of people. I see way more grognards saying that modern games make you a sissy or that there is a 'right' way to play.

But lets MOVE ALONG from there. Tell me why the game gets less lethal after level 4, and then why was it so lethal up to that point. And whats the point of this design decision.
It is a conceptual gulf. It's a paradigm shift.

The game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta. Systemically, front line characters will have enough hp to survive a couple blows. It's no longer a razor's edge between life and death. Also, armor. Having enough money to buy a decent set of armor is huge -- a low level creature has about a 50% of hitting an unarmored or lightly armored opponent, but only about a 5% or 10% chance of hitting a heavily armored opponent. That acts as a hp multiplier. It's also when the party starts to have magical resources that allow them to deal with various extremities, like poison (slow poison can get you back to town and a cleric), and the money to afford NPC aid. Though it's 5th/6th level when clerics really start to shine.

From a meta perspective, it's also enough time for players to figure out how the game works, and stop doing things that quickly lead to death. Not expecting heroic plot immunity, using resources like hirelings and retainers, learning when to run and even that it's okay to run, how advancement works (go for the gold), marching order, precautions before sleep, weapon lengths, what level of verisimilitude is the baseline, etc. This is sometimes called "player skill", but I really dislike that term, because it's not some objective measure of skill, it's more about learning a set of conventions. Calling it the acclimatization phase might be better.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2021, 09:09:12 AM by Pat »

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #19 on: February 28, 2021, 09:53:48 AM »
The game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta.

At least to me, I won't say that makes the game less lethal (by my terms). If I play a Roguelike where failure means instant death and being sent back to the beginning, I can't claim it's something that's gotten less punishing if I figure out to exploit its systems.

I'm left unsure if this sort of gameplay is what I would want out of an RPG. Because it feels more gamey, then about being a role, and if I just want a purely gamey 'meta-knowledge' type game I guess I would prefer to play a board game that's easier to set up, or a rougelike videogame that I can play solo without needing to depend on a GM.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2021, 10:12:17 AM »
The game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta.

At least to me, I won't say that makes the game less lethal (by my terms). If I play a Roguelike where failure means instant death and being sent back to the beginning, I can't claim it's something that's gotten less punishing if I figure out to exploit its systems.

I'm left unsure if this sort of gameplay is what I would want out of an RPG. Because it feels more gamey, then about being a role, and if I just want a purely gamey 'meta-knowledge' type game I guess I would prefer to play a board game that's easier to set up, or a rougelike videogame that I can play solo without needing to depend on a GM.
It may not become objectively less punishing for the subjective reasons I listed, but to continue your analogy, if a player knows Umoria well enough, the only real threat of death is an off-screen AMHD breathing gas. From the perspective of a player like that, the game is far less lethal than it is to a newbie who is killed by a c, and the same applies in old school D&D. Though old school D&D does become objectively less punishing as well, for the systemic reasons I touched upon.

Not everybody will like every game style. It's perfectly reasonable to look at a playstyle and go "that's not for me". But that's a personal preference, not an objective assessment.

I wouldn't say it's more gamey, tho. I find the system tends to slip into the background more in old school games than in new. Also, don't buy into the "mother may I" arguments against old school gaming. They always come from critics on the outside looking in, or from experiences with bad DMs; it's not something people who are familiar with and play the games really experience.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2021, 10:18:20 AM by Pat »

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2021, 10:29:15 AM »
It may not become objectively less punishing for the subjective reasons I listed, but to continue your analogy, if a player knows Umoria well enough, the only real threat of death is an off-screen AMHD breathing gas.
That's called player skill. I don't know why you dislike calling it that, but as you become skilled in something, it becomes more routine and easier. Not the system itself becoming easier. You don't become more 'acclimated' to basketball.

Quote
I wouldn't say it's more gamey, tho.
In the sense the focus is on meta-system mastery. I guess most often it would be called....Video-gamey? But since it came before videogames, thats why I called it gamey. As you laid it out, the game is about learning all X things.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2021, 10:52:09 AM »
It may not become objectively less punishing for the subjective reasons I listed, but to continue your analogy, if a player knows Umoria well enough, the only real threat of death is an off-screen AMHD breathing gas.
That's called player skill. I don't know why you dislike calling it that, but as you become skilled in something, it becomes more routine and easier. Not the system itself becoming easier. You don't become more 'acclimated' to basketball.

Quote
I wouldn't say it's more gamey, tho.
In the sense the focus is on meta-system mastery. I guess most often it would be called....Video-gamey? But since it came before videogames, thats why I called it gamey. As you laid it out, the game is about learning all X things.
Learning the pillar method is a player skill. Not save scumming isn't player skill, it's adopting a convention. Different things. That's why I don't like the term player skill, because it's misapplied.

It's not video gamey. I don't see how you're getting that.

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3772
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2021, 12:10:13 PM »
I think at least some of what Pat is discussing here could better be called "life skills in the campaign setting".  There are often but not always analogous to real-life skills, but ultimately that is neither here nor there.  An example is learning to protect your fragile party members. That has real world directly analogous bits, such as "Put your heavy infantry in the middle front, not your lightly armored archers."  The presence of wizards and other fantastical elements twists the specifics around, but the principles remain the same.  Learning the principles is a form of "skill" in general, call it player skill if you want, but it is applicable to other things outside gaming, such as a study of military history.  Learning how to apply those principles to the specific rule set is the real player skill.  Learning how to apply those principles as your character in a setting is a somewhat different thing. 

The rules are fairly simple.  The implications of some of the rules on the setting are often more complicated.

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1189
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2021, 01:34:07 PM »
The game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta.

At least to me, I won't say that makes the game less lethal (by my terms). If I play a Roguelike where failure means instant death and being sent back to the beginning, I can't claim it's something that's gotten less punishing if I figure out to exploit its systems.

I'm left unsure if this sort of gameplay is what I would want out of an RPG. Because it feels more gamey, then about being a role, and if I just want a purely gamey 'meta-knowledge' type game I guess I would prefer to play a board game that's easier to set up, or a rougelike videogame that I can play solo without needing to depend on a GM.

I haven't google N-grammed it, but I would be very surprised if "metagaming" as a term was even coined during the time the 1E core books were written.  The idea that people would want the game to hide that it is a game, with many of the same game conceits found in other games before it, would have been a surprising one at that time.

Long story short, 1E presumes explicitly that all participants will metagame (or just "game" - metagaming is recursive).  It encourages metagaming in all instances except where the megagaming is dishonorable, for lack of a better term.  Such as the famous example of reading the monster manual while fighting that particular monster in the game.

I would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG; the intros, the forwards, the sections on campaigns and running the game.  All the stuff that isn't game rules and terms, defined and mechanized.  If all of that makes you say "Yuck", you can run 1E but you'll be fighting against it every step of the way.  Some people do that very successfully because they still prefer its crunch math and flavor.  But best to do that with open eyes.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2021, 01:40:48 PM by EOTB »
A framework for generating local politics

https://mewe.com/join/osric A MeWe OSRIC group - find an online game; share a monster, class, or spell; give input on what you'd like for new OSRIC products.  Just don't 1) talk religion/politics, or 2) be a Richard

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2021, 02:00:25 PM »
I think at least some of what Pat is discussing here could better be called "life skills in the campaign setting".  There are often but not always analogous to real-life skills, but ultimately that is neither here nor there.  An example is learning to protect your fragile party members. That has real world directly analogous bits, such as "Put your heavy infantry in the middle front, not your lightly armored archers."  The presence of wizards and other fantastical elements twists the specifics around, but the principles remain the same.  Learning the principles is a form of "skill" in general, call it player skill if you want, but it is applicable to other things outside gaming, such as a study of military history.  Learning how to apply those principles to the specific rule set is the real player skill.  Learning how to apply those principles as your character in a setting is a somewhat different thing. 

The rules are fairly simple.  The implications of some of the rules on the setting are often more complicated.
Not quite. Let me see if I can explain it better.

Small unit tactics on a board is a skill. A real player skill. A skill wargamers have, and people new to roleplaying usually don't. Most of the original wave of D&D players had that skill, and didn't even have to think about it, because it was so deeply ingrained. It was how they approached analogous situations. Most of the second wave of roleplayers, the kids who picked up the game in the 1980s, lacked that skill.

But RPGs aren't wargames. It's in the name -- roleplaying game. (Yes, OD&D says miniatures on the cover, but that reinforces the shift, since it's missing in later editions.) The second wave of kids came infused with stories of epic heroes, like Lord of the Rings, or the serial and guaranteed victories of Saturday morning cartoons. Their expectations were based on those stories, so they came to D&D with the idea that they'd play singular role, who would have dramatic immunity, and be rewarded for being a hero. Old school D&D tends to dash those hopes, because it's not built around that. It's built around a wargaming chassis, base motives, and a certain degree of historical realism (though the caveats on the later is an entire essay on itself), and everything that implies. Yes, you can twist the game to be more forgiving and heroic, but you're fighting against the very structure of the game. At best, you can soften a few of the edges. A lot of people ended up playing hybrids, either half-adapting their expectations, or becoming frustrated.

And that's the problem. Expectations. Players from the 1980s until today come in with the wrong set. And that's not a matter of skill, it's something deeper. And that something is very hard to explain in text, because our expectations are largely unconscious. They're not a set of rules, that we can read and easily apply. They're how we think, and how we approach the world. As a result, players (including me) spent decades butting against the rules because our expectations didn't fit. That's why I say player skill is misapplied, because it's not a skill in any conventional sense. It's more akin to learning to appreciate romance novels, or sushi.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2021, 02:14:31 PM »
The game gets less lethal around 4th level because of a combination of things, some systemic, some meta.

At least to me, I won't say that makes the game less lethal (by my terms). If I play a Roguelike where failure means instant death and being sent back to the beginning, I can't claim it's something that's gotten less punishing if I figure out to exploit its systems.

I'm left unsure if this sort of gameplay is what I would want out of an RPG. Because it feels more gamey, then about being a role, and if I just want a purely gamey 'meta-knowledge' type game I guess I would prefer to play a board game that's easier to set up, or a rougelike videogame that I can play solo without needing to depend on a GM.

I haven't google N-grammed it, but I would be very surprised if "metagaming" as a term was even coined during the time the 1E core books were written.  The idea that people would want the game to hide that it is a game, with many of the same game conceits found in other games before it, would have been a surprising one at that time.

Long story short, 1E presumes explicitly that all participants will metagame (or just "game" - metagaming is recursive).  It encourages metagaming in all instances except where the megagaming is dishonorable, for lack of a better term.  Such as the famous example of reading the monster manual while fighting that particular monster in the game.

I would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG; the intros, the forwards, the sections on campaigns and running the game.  All the stuff that isn't game rules and terms, defined and mechanized.  If all of that makes you say "Yuck", you can run 1E but you'll be fighting against it every step of the way.  Some people do that very successfully because they still prefer its crunch math and flavor.  But best to do that with open eyes.

Very good post!  I heartily agree with everything above.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2021, 02:19:00 PM »
I would suggest reading the non-rules essays in the PHB and DMG

Which ones? Part of my frustrations with classic D&D is that there are like 6 different versions of it.
Im reading the premium version 1e and the verbiage is borderline chummy. Its like a pal talking to me. Its so...down to earth.

Regardless it very much seems like not my experience. It feels like something I can get better out of a videogame nowadays.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2021, 02:22:09 PM by Shrieking Banshee »

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2021, 03:43:20 PM »
I haven't google N-grammed it, but I would be very surprised if "metagaming" as a term was even coined during the time the 1E core books were written.

Yup https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=metagaming&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cmetagaming%3B%2Cc0 - looks like it appeared around 1995.

Armchair Gamer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • A
  • Posts: 3009
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2021, 04:23:33 PM »
Doesn’t ‘metagaming’ have roots (or at least a use) in the CCG culture?