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 5851 times)

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« on: February 27, 2021, 07:06:51 AM »
So I have read a bunch of different OSR materials and the nature of its combat maths kinda confound me in how they are 'supposed' to work.
As you level up, you go from things being hard to hit but easy to effect with spells, to things being easy to hit but hard to effect with spells.
I also know spells also scale up in effect, and usually do something on a successful saving throw anyway or don't grant one at all.

I'm left unsure what this is supposed to make higher-level combat like. Increasingly deterministic?
What's the effect of the combat supposed to be?

This isn't me judging it or the like, I just feel like im not 'getting' it and want some feedback/ explanation.

It's probably the case that the maths were just what they thought up at the time and didn't think it through any further then that.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #1 on: February 27, 2021, 07:35:17 AM »
I'm left unsure what this is supposed to make higher-level combat like. Increasingly deterministic?
What's the effect of the combat supposed to be?

It's not increasingly deterministic - you go from Saving on say a 14 at the start to saving on say a 2 or 3 at the end. But you're making a lot more Saves - and so are the monsters. I once (in the '80s) hit a high level 1e PC with a platoon of low level Clerics all casting Command, I think he made around 18 Saves before he rolled a 1. I also more recently Disintegrated my 9 year old son's MU-17 he'd played up from MU-4 over several years since the age of 5. He needed a 4 to save, made me roll and I got a 2. There were tears, but I feel it was a growth experience. :D

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #2 on: February 27, 2021, 07:41:16 AM »

This isn't me judging it or the like, I just feel like im not 'getting' it and want some feedback/ explanation.

It's probably the case that the maths were just what they thought up at the time and didn't think it through any further then that.

I think a fair bit of thought went into the Saving Throw tables; they are a major factor in turning magic & special attacks from rare & super deadly to common & mostly survivable - but still scary.  Seeing the balls-up 3e made of saving throws, with Fighters getting *more* vulnerable at higher level*, really brought home to me the cleverness of the original system.

I'm less sure about the to-hit tables being fully thought through; the original Chainmail combat system was very different and generally gave many more attacks at higher level, not a to-hit bonus. In that system a +1 weapon was a serious combat boost.  I think it was more about simulating greater skill than much thought about the game effect. Eg I don't see how Against the Giants can really work if the Fighter PCs are still attacking 1/round for ca 1d8+3 damage; even taking down a single giant is a huge slog.

*Lesson - never let an Ars Magica designer design your D&D edition, or you'll get Wizards & Grogs instead. :p

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #3 on: February 27, 2021, 07:58:09 AM »
It's not increasingly deterministic - you go from Saving on say a 14 at the start to saving on say a 2 or 3 at the end. But you're making a lot more Saves - and so are the monsters.

I'm not seeing it. As in can you elaborate further? I mean sure if you specifically get more foes with effects that target saves: Sure. But I don't see anything really allowing PCs to force more saves on foes (outside of being a wizard with more spells), and I don't see foes really force more saves (outside of the rise from very low HD to somewhat higher).

Quote
Seeing the balls-up 3e made of saving throws, with Fighters getting *more* vulnerable at higher level*, really brought home to me the cleverness of the original system.

Well outside of just bad maths on their end (IE just poorly made monsters that didn't follow the maths that they set for themselves to follow), the 'intended' power band just averages out to like a consistent 50% or so.
Player HP is also much higher in something like 3e, so even with theoretically worse saves, the effects are more survivable overall. Outside of the save or suck stuff which exists in every edition, unfortunately.

In addition the nature of the scaling means that lower level foes become much less of a threat then they are in earlier editions. As you pointed out that a bunch of low-level clerics throwing around command can force more saves, and the compound effect of more saves makes it more deadly unless your at the super highest character level. While in 3e because those spells save DCs will be lower to the fighters saves, they won't be as much of a threat.

However 3e maths are bungled in execution many ways, which took like 20 years of design by others to fix. But the theory behind it I believe doesn't get enough credit.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #4 on: February 27, 2021, 09:41:57 AM »
It's not increasingly deterministic - you go from Saving on say a 14 at the start to saving on say a 2 or 3 at the end. But you're making a lot more Saves - and so are the monsters.

I'm not seeing it. As in can you elaborate further? I mean sure if you specifically get more foes with effects that target saves: Sure. But I don't see anything really allowing PCs to force more saves on foes (outside of being a wizard with more spells), and I don't see foes really force more saves (outside of the rise from very low HD to somewhat higher).

Quote
Seeing the balls-up 3e made of saving throws, with Fighters getting *more* vulnerable at higher level*, really brought home to me the cleverness of the original system.

Well outside of just bad maths on their end (IE just poorly made monsters that didn't follow the maths that they set for themselves to follow), the 'intended' power band just averages out to like a consistent 50% or so.
Player HP is also much higher in something like 3e, so even with theoretically worse saves, the effects are more survivable overall. Outside of the save or suck stuff which exists in every edition, unfortunately.

In addition the nature of the scaling means that lower level foes become much less of a threat then they are in earlier editions. As you pointed out that a bunch of low-level clerics throwing around command can force more saves, and the compound effect of more saves makes it more deadly unless your at the super highest character level. While in 3e because those spells save DCs will be lower to the fighters saves, they won't be as much of a threat.

However 3e maths are bungled in execution many ways, which took like 20 years of design by others to fix. But the theory behind it I believe doesn't get enough credit.
In old school D&D, you do face more saves as you increase in level, and the effects also become more serious. MUs go from a single spell, to dozens, and from single-target spells to those that affect large groups; and more and more monsters appear with effects like poison or turn to stone. The effects also become more dangerous, with high level opponents causing more severe effects on a failed save. The chance to save increasing in absolute terms means as saves become more numerous and dangerous, they also become easier to withstand. And, because the resources to counter negative effects also increase with level, the ability to deal with something like a poisoned or a petrified party member also increases. Magic becomes more commonplace, varied, and dangerous, but it doesn't overwhelm the party.

That's a strong contrast with third edition, where as the magical effects faced become more dangerous and numerous, the chance of saving against each of them at best stays on par, but in practice tends to decrease, as casters pump up their spell DCs and target poor saves. The increase in hit points just means damage causing spells are ignored, while spells that incapacitate on a failed save are spammed.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2021, 09:43:31 AM by Pat »

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #5 on: February 27, 2021, 10:04:37 AM »
Magic becomes more commonplace, varied, and dangerous, but it doesn't overwhelm the party.

This just feels like arbitrary favoritism to me. But im not gonna fight more about classic D&D favoritism.
The question is about how old school combat maths worked...So the way Im guessing is:

Discouraging. As in while you can in theory 'tank' more stuff at higher level, combat still remains as deadly as before in a way because the game is very 'offensive' oriented.
Engaging in combat at all without stacked decks towards you is a bad idea even at high level.

It also discourages being invested in a single character too much since death comes so easy. Until you can afford many ressurections I guess. Strange economy D&D has.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2021, 10:06:29 AM by Shrieking Banshee »

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #6 on: February 27, 2021, 10:16:13 AM »
Magic becomes more commonplace, varied, and dangerous, but it doesn't overwhelm the party.

This just feels like arbitrary favoritism to me. But im not gonna fight more about classic D&D favoritism.
What? Seriously, what? How is that "favoritism"? I literally just described how old school D&D works in play.

This and your other posts make it seem like you have no experience with the game, but you've decided in theory how it works, and you're just ignoring everything other people say that doesn't match your preconceptions. S'mon and I are speaking from practical experience. That's how the game works. I'm also very familiar with how third edition plays, as well.

You're also completely wrong about death. After about 4th level, death in old school D&D becomes pretty rare. There are a number of reasons why, but I doubt you'd be interested in hearing them.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #7 on: February 27, 2021, 10:30:48 AM »
What? Seriously, what? How is that "favoritism"? I literally just described how old school D&D works in play.

I have heard like 6 different ways how old-school D&D is supposed to work. At times it's this brutal mistress that's supposed to be utterly cruel and unforgiving, and you have to have like 6 replacement characters in the wings and we LIKED it that way goshdarnit!. And at times its this way better powertrip then anything that came afterwards. Its better when it had less rules, and they where worse designed but thats a benefit because it taught people about game design.

I just have to take what everybody's claims are about it with a grain of salt.

Quote
This and your other posts make it seem like you have no experience with the game

I don't. Im trying to dip my toes into it with Kevins stuff because it looks so enticing but Im trying to understand how its internal logic works.
I'm largely sick of 3e (broken maths, annoying power band assumptions, etc), and Im looking for a new experience. But Im allowed to be skeptical about a 40+ year old game that I hear very conflicting information about for how great it is.

I have to assume a level of nostalgic bias from a time when everybody customized their game experience more to their table as a result making 'the best game ever' for their table alone and then talking about that home game like its what the printed materials are.

D&D 1e is like 6 different goddam editions. And like 3 of those editions ruined the game forever, and its very difficult for me to tell which one did it.

Quote
You're also completely wrong about death. After about 4th level, death in old school D&D becomes pretty rare. There are a number of reasons why, but I doubt you'd be interested in hearing them.
I would be. I would also like to know how common characters after level 3 were.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #8 on: February 27, 2021, 11:04:03 AM »
What? Seriously, what? How is that "favoritism"? I literally just described how old school D&D works in play.

I have heard like 6 different ways how old-school D&D is supposed to work. At times it's this brutal mistress that's supposed to be utterly cruel and unforgiving, and you have to have like 6 replacement characters in the wings and we LIKED it that way goshdarnit!. And at times its this way better powertrip then anything that came afterwards. Its better when it had less rules, and they where worse designed but thats a benefit because it taught people about game design.

I just have to take what everybody's claims are about it with a grain of salt.
Okay, I can understand that. I'll post more later, but the problem isn't in the descriptions. It's a conceptual gulf. You're looking at a lot of disparate pieces, but you're missing the framework in which they fit.
 
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. You're prima facie dismissing the playstyle, not giving it a fair shake. And unless you overcome your preconceptions about how the game works, you're not going to be able to see how all the pieces go together into a coherent whole.

It helps to assume that the people who like the playstyle do so for valid reasons, not because they're horribly mistaken. I'm not saying to have blind faith in something you don't understand, just to keep an open mind. A lot of people have played this way for decades, and analyzed it extensively. By contrast, your exposure is fairly superficial. Your starting assumption should be there's probably something there, you're just missing it.

The thing is, the old school playstyle is alien to most modern players. And by modern players, I'm not talking about 2020, or 2000... I'm also talking about 99.99% of the players who started in the 1980s. A lot of kids who picked up in the game in the 1980s were frustrated with D&D, for the same reasons you're frustrated today. The frustration comes from a clash of expectations.

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #9 on: February 27, 2021, 11:24:08 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.

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1189
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #10 on: February 27, 2021, 05:15:19 PM »
you can in theory 'tank' more stuff at higher level, combat still remains as deadly as before in a way because the game is very 'offensive' oriented.
Engaging in combat at all without stacked decks towards you is a bad idea even at high level.

It also discourages being invested in a single character too much since death comes so easy. Until you can afford many resurrections I guess. Strange economy D&D has.

Yes and yes for the 1st two observations.

Raise dead is encouraged to be made available early and often.  For a service if PCs can't afford to pay.  The idea is death by simple hit point loss is "check" not "checkmate".  But there is a penalty in loss of CON and declining likelihood of getting out of "check".  However some less common monsters/spells/etc. have attacks that mangle/ruin the body, disintegrate it, whatever.  So there is a risk that the easy button of raise dead doesn't work and you need the harder button of resurrection or wish - but wish is a rare-but-not-very-rare item. 

1E was a game that decided to make "deadly" a 7, and "ease of coming back to life" a 3 - that adds up to "10"
Other editions and games don't like "ease of coming back to life" at 3 and want it to be rare or whatever, so they make that a 7 and compensate by reducing "deadly" to 3.  That also adds up to 10.
But you can't keep ease of coming back to life at 7 and then drop a 7 deadliness into the game - that doesn't work.  It goes over "10".

You have to accept all of the design predicates to use 1E.  Most of the people not grokking it, in conversation, end up saying "well I don't like this or that so I ignore it, and then it seems like all these other parts produce an unfun experience".  Yes.
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

Shrieking Banshee

  • Narcissist Undead
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2507
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #11 on: February 27, 2021, 05:27:22 PM »
You have to accept all of the design predicates to use 1E.  Most of the people not grokking it, in conversation, end up saying "well I don't like this or that so I ignore it, and then it seems like all these other parts produce an unfun experience".  Yes.

Interesting. I may just try it out that way. Maybe make an in-universe explanation why the PCs and a few others are easy to ressurect, while death is harsh for others.

Edit: But doesn't raise Dead only kick in at level 9? Isn't it still super lethal up until then?
« Last Edit: February 27, 2021, 05:32:29 PM by Shrieking Banshee »

EOTB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1189
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #12 on: February 27, 2021, 05:52:22 PM »
The unspoken context of AD&D is the city of greyhawk with the dungeons of Castle Greyhawk approximately 1 hour away from the biggest metropolis on the planet.  EVERYTHING in AD&D is calibrated to the PCs having access to almost any service they could imagine or desire. 

That doesn't mean that a predicate is that the DM run it that way - it's to understand the null calibration, that's all.  So by taking the campaign setting to one of resource scarcity (such as "there's no one who can cast raise dead for 750 miles") it is upping the difficulty level. 

FWIW, even if I'm starting out a campaign in a pastoral village with only a level 2 or 3 local cleric, I give them scrolls of raise dead, or a rod of resurrection.  Magic items exist to explain probability anomalies.  And that service is available to those who will do a service in return.

EDIT - also, it's helpful to remember that the rules for PCs in the PHB are not necessarily rules for NPCs.  There's nothing wrong with having a 0-level NPC that has the power to raise the dead for some cool proto-saint type of reason, and no other powers.  Or whatever you can imagine.  1E is not some tight system where the DM puts together everything with the same widgets made available to players to build PCs, because it all wraps into an algorithm of all.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2021, 06:47:42 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

BronzeDragon

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #13 on: February 27, 2021, 06:02:00 PM »
I also more recently Disintegrated my 9 year old son's MU-17 he'd played up from MU-4 over several years since the age of 5. He needed a 4 to save, made me roll and I got a 2. There were tears, but I feel it was a growth experience. :D

Oh, there was growth there for sure. The growth of his undying hatred for you.

I'd sleep with a gun under my pillow after that one if I were you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Boris Grushenko

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: OSR Combat Math's: What does it mean?
« Reply #14 on: February 27, 2021, 06:48:51 PM »
I also more recently Disintegrated my 9 year old son's MU-17 he'd played up from MU-4 over several years since the age of 5. He needed a 4 to save, made me roll and I got a 2. There were tears, but I feel it was a growth experience. :D

Oh, there was growth there for sure. The growth of his undying hatred for you.

I'd sleep with a gun under my pillow after that one if I were you.

He tells me he loves me several times a day. Maybe he doesn't want me to kill his PC again.  ;D