Quote from: Dumarest;1002364That's my approach to 99.9% of games. I start with the assumption that the writer had a reason for writing what he wrote and then use it to see how it works. Usually it works fine.

I concur, although I have extensive house rules and and a published supplement, I only wrote everything up after I played a campaign and several one-shot of the rule 'as is' to make sure I understand how it supposed to work. As far as I am concerned OD&D 'as is' works fine even with the core books only.

The only "deficiency" was it didn't reflect enough of the details i added to my setting. And that not the fault of the writers or the system. My solution was to add those details in but rather than try to shoehorn in a GURPS Lite, I figured out most D&Dish way to handle how my setting work. For the most part it meant just adding stuff rather than dicking around with the fundamentals of the rules.

The major comments I have are  that OD&D core book versus OD&D + Greyhawk is different. Plus for all the bitching about how unrealistic hit points are, OD&D core only is a pretty gritty game even at higher levels. Which is one reason why I continue to use only d6s are used to roll hit points in my campaigns.

In another thread I spoke negatively about adding any body stamina mechanic because the problem that is trying to fix is best dealt with in a D&D style game is to have a flat and low power curve in the way hit points, to hit chance, damage, and armor class grows from weak to strong.

D&D 5e touts their power curve as a feature but OD&D did it first. I am not a fan of AD&D any more because the increased stat bonus, the increased dice used for HP and stuff like Weapon Specialization distorts the power curve badly.

Don't forget monster attacks and damage.  When so many monsters, even low level ones, get multiple attacks like in Greyhawk, players need the help they get from Greyhawk or it will be a bloodbath.

Best to play a game following the rules BTB and then adjust as you progess.

Quote from: RunningLaser;1002311After reading Gro's post, makes me wonder how many game's play would be improved if you just took the rules for what they were and went with it.

This is the approach I took when I dug into the original Traveller rules (Books 1, 2, and 3) and found a really nifty RPG with a quick and flexible system for resolution and plenty of procedural driven hijinks for PCs to get involved with.

Actually, there is an easy way, at least with OD&D, to do exactly what Grover wants.

Just say, 'Fuck it, hit points ARE meat points.  Every time you hit it rips open a wound.  That's why it takes so long to recover.'

The whole reason Gary came up with the whole "Hit points are not meat points" thing was so that if you hit a helpless opponent on the head with a battleaxe, he dies.

But designer intentions are weaker than purchaser stupidity, so Gary had to write elaborate "coup de grace" rules ANYWAY, because the vast majority of buyers were too fucking stupid to figure out implications.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1002616Actually, there is an easy way, at least with OD&D, to do exactly what Grover wants.

Just say, 'Fuck it, hit points ARE meat points.  Every time you hit it rips open a wound.  That's why it takes so long to recover.'

The whole reason Gary came up with the whole "Hit points are not meat points" thing was so that if you hit a helpless opponent on the head with a battleaxe, he dies.

But designer intentions are weaker than purchaser stupidity, so Gary had to write elaborate "coup de grace" rules ANYWAY, because the vast majority of buyers were too fucking stupid to figure out implications.

Tell me there aren't really players and refs out there who have a bound, unconscious enemy who still has 10 hit points so they have to keep rolling hits and damage with their dagger when slitting a throat to inflict enough hit points to kill the poor sucker...

Quote from: Dumarest;1002666Tell me there aren't really players and refs out there who have a bound, unconscious enemy who still has 10 hit points so they have to keep rolling hits and damage with their dagger when slitting a throat to inflict enough hit points to kill the poor sucker...

I'll admit my focus on this point might be very narrow...
But from what I can tell a shift occurred early in the hobby:

Originally the Referee was there to adjudicate circumstances as they arose. Not toward any end, not toward any story... simply making rulings as best he saw fit.
The dice were there to be rolled in circumstances where the Referee decided he could not know the results, or was uncertain about making a ruling.

If a group of six Level 8 player characters came upon a cave of 3 1 HD goblins, then the Referee would not bother to roll unless he knew of some circumstance in which some circumstance of combat might matter. Otherwise, he would rule the PCs slaughtered the the goblins.

OD&D was written with this view in mind. Original Traveller was written with this view in mind.

And then something shifted and the rules were supposed to take over for the the need for judgement from the Referee. The Referee is now there to apply the rules on behalf of the players. But as much as possible, the rules handle the work.

Now, there might be good reasons for this, most commonly people who play with Referees with jackshit judgment who don't understand their job and even if they do are not the people you want in charge of making judgments. So the rules come to the forefront to everything is handled well.

Or, at least, that's the theory. The fact remains in countless cases judgments have to be made on the part of the Referee. But Referees don't know this, because they're being trained that the point is to apply the rules. And since the rules say, "Here are the rules for attacking, here are the rules for doing damage, here is how damage works," people start thinking, "Okay, that's how you apply damage no matter what." The notion that the circumstances should be guiding if you even apply the rules is lost.

Here is a passage from the 1981 edition of Traveller Book 1: Characters and Combat in the Special Consideration section, which covers things like Full Automatic Fire and Group Hits by Shotgun:

QuoteCoup De Grace: Any gun or blade may be used to administer a coup de grace and kill an unconscious or unstruggling individual (person or animal) at close range in one combat round if the character using the weapon so states. Ammunition is expended, but no die rolls are necessary. A coup de grace may be administered with hands or brawling weapons using special blows, but die rolls must be made.

But here's the thing: If you look at the Special Considerations section of the 1977 edition of Traveller Book 1: Characters and Combat you know what you find about Coup De Grace?

Nothing.

Everything else is there about Full Automatic Fire and Group Hits by Shotgun. But nothing about how you can kill an immobilized, unarmed target if you want. Because in 1977 no one would have thought it needed to be said.

And I swear to god... this is how you end up with Traveller5.

Quote from: Dumarest;1002666Tell me there aren't really players and refs out there who have a bound, unconscious enemy who still has 10 hit points so they have to keep rolling hits and damage with their dagger when slitting a throat to inflict enough hit points to kill the poor sucker...

Sorry, Ponch.

Remember, the only element in the universe more abundant than hydrogen is human stupidity.

Quote from: Dumarest;1002666Tell me there aren't really players and refs out there who have a bound, unconscious enemy who still has 10 hit points so they have to keep rolling hits and damage with their dagger when slitting a throat to inflict enough hit points to kill the poor sucker...

There are. I've seen at least four complaints of it over on BGG at the very least where someones bitching about how "unrealistic" it is that they have this guy gagged and bound and cant hit him hardly because they are low level and it is taking forever.

Or a thread here from last year complaining about not being able to sneak up on a guard and instakill them/being able to sneak up on a guard and instakill them/whatever.

Or the various threads here wherein someone reads some rule absolute literally (and usually in some fucked up literal sense), and how it makes no sense.

Because common sense is something a certain percentage of players and DMs have been lacking since just about after the moment the game hit the shelves. Ask any of the TSR staff that handled D&D and Dragon letters submissions.

Back on topic.

A more basic suggestion is...

Role Play it!

No... really.

Bobs hit and goes down. After revival Bob RPs the after effects of such a wound. No rules needed. Just do it.

This was the norm for our Gamma World play and PCs eventually were sporting scars and limps or missing limbs after a while due to lethality of the setting and system. And we RPed those wounds. No rules or mechanics.

There are two complicating factors on the "rules for killing helpless opponents" versus adjudication front, one negative, one positive:

Negative:  Even for people that know better (like me, a little late to the game compared to the roots, but not so late as to have never experienced it with the original attitude), it's easy in the heat of a session to slip into the later attitude.  There are times that I have to put a piece of paper with a big note with something like "Adjudicate, Then Use the Rules," in front of me.  That's because so many things can be handled by the rules, you can slip into a habit.  Though part of that for me is long sessions.  I've noticed I'm far less likely to do that in the first 2-4 hours of play.

Positive:  There was a tendency in early games for some smart ass player to take advantage of a GM who was still learning, and then they'd carry that attitude into every game.  "Helpless opponent" goes from "Bound, gagged, isolated in some back room with no hope of rescue" to "Patrolling guy you snuck up behind."  It's reasonable within the adjudication side (especially if it fits the tone) to say that an active but tired guard who is supposed to be watching for trouble doesn't get automatically killed just because someone got behind him.  Maybe he notices something at the last second.  That is, having some rules/guidelines as to when to use the rules or not is not a bad thing, but the adjudication is still a learned skill for every GM.  Granted, you'd get that skill faster with more practice--particularly if you threw all the smart ass players out of such sessions.  

I still say that the problem with modern D&D is not the rules, but the GM advice.  It's slowly, painstakingly getting better.

Given that the game explicitly says you do critical hits, not instakills, to unconscious monsters, my ruling for 5e is that this applies to combat scenarios only. You are moving quickly, you are trying to keep your eye on the door in case more baddies come, etc. You might miss the vitals. You might nervously fumble for your knife and slip. The monster might be on his face so you can't get his throat easily. Whatever.

If you sneak into the Commandant of Gran March's chamber while he is fast asleep and you have a poisoned knife, it doesn't really matter what level you are; he will die.

Quote from: Dumarest;1002666Tell me there aren't really players and refs out there who have a bound, unconscious enemy who still has 10 hit points so they have to keep rolling hits and damage with their dagger when slitting a throat to inflict enough hit points to kill the poor sucker...

I can see a justifiable argument being made that it is possible the knife slips or doesn't hit anything vital, or whatever. But really that only applies if you are interested in a blow-by-blow forensic reconstruction of events. If the important question is "do you kill the prisoner?" then the answer should obviously be "Yes. Now what?"

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1002256Now that I can respect. As someone who normally takes the weekend off, there are any number of threads I've undoubtedly lost track of and people wondering why I never responded.

I use the subscriber option.
If I stop replying, there's 99% odds that my estimate has changed and I don't consider the discussion to be worth my time any more:).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1002294Then embrace it.  No, I'm not being flippant.

I came back to OD&D after twenty or so years.  I'd tried to turn D&D into Pendragon, I'd tried to turn it into Fantasy Hero, Crom knows what else I'd done.  But after I returned to it, I realized that the way to have fun with D&D is stop trying to turn it into something else and let it be what it is.

D&D is full of goofy shit.  I suggest you learn to let go and embrace the goofy.  ("I didn't say she was crazy, Mickey, I said she was fucking Goofy.")

There is a ton of shit in D&D that makes no sense at all.  For instance, in OD&D, doors in the dungeon automatically open for monsters, and monsters can see in the dark.  If monsters get hired by a PC, it explicitly says they lose those abilities.  That makes absolutely no fucking sense in any kind of "world simulation" view.

HOWEVER, if you look on D&D as "Explore the Fun House from Hell, groan at the deliberately bad puns, curse at the referee for the damn deathtraps, and collect loot," it makes total sense.  AS A GAME RULE.

D&D is a resource management game.  (Personally, I suspect all wargames are resource management games, but I'm not going into that now.)

D&D is about managing resources.  Hit Points are the most important, most vital resource of all.  That's why XP for Gold so that if you steal the money you get full XP -- because you get the goodies, but do not deplete your scarcest resource.

In CHAINMAIL a Hero fights like four men and takes four hits to kill.  Levels and hit dice clearly derive from this.

Hit points act the way they do because they are a vital resource, and there must be a cost for losing a resource.  Say two 8th level fighters, each with 42 HP, go into the dungeon.  When they return, Abelard has 38 hit points left, but Bertram is down to 16, having taken 26 points of damage.

Bertram has lost a greater share of the vital resource called hit points, therefore Bertram must pay a greater cost than Abelard to restore that resource.

That's why, even though "hit points" are mostly fatigue and other et ceterae, Bertram doesn't just sleep for a day and a half and bounce up out of bed ready to go.

IF YOU LOSE MORE OF A RESOURCE YOU HAVE TO PAY A GREATER COST.

That's why HP work the way they do.  It's all about managing resources and paying a cost for lost resources.

And that's all well and great...but if you don't want to do that, the other option should be applied;).

Quote from: RunningLaser;1002311After reading Gro's post, makes me wonder how many game's play would be improved if you just took the rules for what they were and went with it.

Improved for whom:D?
Some games would be improved, no doubt. If the game's initial intentions aren't something you want to play, though, getting back to them is only going to hurt your enjoyment.

Quote from: ChristopherKubasik;1002551This is the approach I took when I dug into the original Traveller rules (Books 1, 2, and 3) and found a really nifty RPG with a quick and flexible system for resolution and plenty of procedural driven hijinks for PCs to get involved with.

And the way you present Traveller, it is a nifty game that does stuff I want to play in a way I find fun.
But then, imagine someone who wanted to play a rules-heavy game that accounts for much more real-world physics than Traveller. Would "going back to the core books" help that guy?
I'd bet on "no", myself;).
And that's why I said "this approach might not improve the game for everyone".
OTOH, it would help people understand whether it's worth it for them to keep trying to use that game. So it's still useful, but sometimes, it leads to you not using the game at all - which is also, arguably, what happened with rgrove, too;).

Quote from: Dumarest;1001041I thought you were into immersion. Referring to points of damage is the opposite of immersion.

The player is rolling the damage die. He knows what the number is. The Immersion is in my briefly relating the level of injury of his opponent.  In combat, it's unlikely that the average hit needs to be examined in minute or flowery detail.