Quote from: RPGPundit;1003655The 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.

For quite a few of us, that method would produce a level of immersion comparable, but not quite reaching, that of a good boardgame;).

I describe every hit with some flourish.

"Immersion" is a word I've come to avoid.  I've seen it used for everything from "I try to make decisions from my character's point of view" to "I'm having a psychotic break and have lost all touch with reality."

What do you use in its place then.

"Absorption," "engrossment," "concentration" all work.

"Being focused on the game" works too.

When I'm operating model trains I'm focused on what I'm doing.  I ignore people right next to me.  I follow the actual railroad rules as best as I can.

But I never lose sight of the fact that I'm playing with a model train.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1003756"Immersion" is a word I've come to avoid.  I've seen it used for everything from "I try to make decisions from my character's point of view" to "I'm having a psychotic break and have lost all touch with reality."

Fair enough, but if you replace "immersion" with "making decisions from the character's point of view", my previous statement would still stand as written:).

Spoiler

Well, if you prefer, I'd say I can't switch between the game and in-game points of view fast and cleanly enough to update the mental picture of "I hit him for 6HP" in real time, especially when it's unclear how much the total is (systems with small variations are less of an issue). Consequently, I start making decisions that follow from the rules, not the in game situation, which hurts my decision-making-from-character's-point-of-view-ability even further;).

Is the fucker still standing?  Then I hit him again.

There.  Done.

Quote from: rgrove0172;999860I could have sworn I posted this as a discussion topic a while back but I cant find it and sadly, cant remember for sure if it was here or elsewhere so...

Im playing D&D 5th Ed. with a new group and things are going well. I am also rebuilding a 30 year old campaign in the 5th ed. role for my own campaign to start during the holidays.

In becoming reacquainted with D&D I am struck by an oddity in the narration of combat effects. Its been around forever and been discussed to death Im certain but as I am returning to the game after a LONG hiatus its a new issue for me.

I am well versed in what a HP actually represents and understand that hitting someone in D&D and applying damage does not necessarily represent physical injury to them, BUT

How the hell does a GM then narrate the fight?

I would be willing to bet that a Vast majority of GMs, when consulting their Goblin's AC and determining the player's roll did indeed register a hit, probably say something like...

"Your sword cuts into the Goblin and he screams, spitting at you through his pointed teeth, but he is still standing."

The same would apply when the Goblin attacks the PC. More than likely some sort of Impact or Injury is related, because....lets face it, a HIT is a HIT - not a miss that bled some of the target's energy, stamina, skill or luck away. Mechanically that may well be what is represented but it seems very difficult to reply to a player that succeeded in rolling higher than his target's AC with...

"Your swing is a good one and he really has to dodge out of the way to avoid it, looks like you are pressing him hard, defenses are weakening!"

I mean, seriously? Does anyone actually do that?

I had that problem with D&D right from the beginning and it was one of the reasons, along with getting more HP as you advanced and lots of other things, that I devised my own system. To be fair, however, if HP are physical damage and only physical damage, one might want some way to track fatigue and stress because they are real.

As a GM, I generally managed by noting that both sides in a fight would experience fatigue and stress at about the same rate, so they should come up only in exceptional cases. When more help arrives for one side or the other, they might have an advantage in these areas. If they had to run to reach the fight that might not be true or they might even be more fatigued than the combatants already there. People who are losing a fight badly are often more stressed but that's a problem that usually solves itself.

I found it easy to handle those things through rulings but writing rules for them is harder.

Quote from: rgrove0172;999860The issue here is of course of no consequence unless you factor in healing, which in 5th ed is pretty rapid (ridiculously rapid) So when a GM explains the Goblin slashes the PC's arm, bruises him through his armor and cracks a rib as he falls down... it creates a very odd situation when these apparently nasty injuries suddenly dissappear without any magical assistance after the guy takes a nap.

So... Im not complaining about the healing (Thats another thread) instead Im simply asking how to narrate the actual loss of HP so this odd disconnect doesnt occur in the game?

Thanks in advance!

Are you bound to healing rules that you find ridiculous? If they don't fit with way you want to run, alter them.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1003804Is the fucker still standing?  Then I hit him again.

There.  Done.

Indeed.

I wouldn't narrate combat in Palladium, because its rounds are short and with opposing rolls there's a lot of dice-chucking anyway. It narrates itself. I do add some flourish to combat situations in OD&D though.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1002616But 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: 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...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1002679Sorry, Ponch.

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

OD&D is a great game however it not without it's flaws particularly in its presentation. It neither obvious or intuitive to most people to think that if the rules doesn't cover something in a campaign that the referee should make it up based on his experience of what would happen.

Yes Gygax said this at the end.

QuoteAFTERWORD:
There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will often have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing.

However given how entrenched the idea that when one plays a game one plays it by the rules. That to do so otherwise is cheating.  The above and other similar advice in the intro and scattered about the text was not enough.  It needed a fuller explanation. Neither Holmes, AD&D, or other RPGs have gotten this right in the decades since.

If there are idiots, they are those who mock people for being stupid and not trying to figure out how to explain things better.

Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1003900I had that problem with D&D right from the beginning and it was one of the reasons, along with getting more HP as you advanced and lots of other things, that I devised my own system. To be fair, however, if HP are physical damage and only physical damage, one might want some way to track fatigue and stress because they are real.

And was it as easy to understand and as fast to resolve as D&D take? There are plenty of RPGs who I like better than D&D when it comes to realism and making sense. GURPS and Harnmaster among them. But it doesn't come free. Combat take longer to resolve, characters take longer to create, and so on.

Would make a difference in handling hit points if I told they stem from the fact that a ordinary warrior took one hit to kill, a Hero (4th level) took 4 hit to kill, and a Super Hero (8th level) took 8 hits to kill? That 1 hit = 1 kill was found to be boring and so was expanded to 1d6 hit points.

The implication being, like the above, is that a 2nd level character can last twice as long on the battlefield than a ordinary warrior. A hero can last four times as long and so on.  In GURPS and Harnmaster this is handled by the most experienced character having more skill thus better at defense and not likely to be hit as often.

I found that if the interplay of the numbers are such (Hit points, to-hit bonus, armor class, etc) that one winds up the pretty much the same as the other in how the fights play out.  Knowing that made all the difference for me in my ability to narrate a D&D fight versus a GURPS fight.

Hit points are already too complicated. Replace with a box that says:

QuoteThou'rt Dead: Yea/Nay

Quote from: estar;1004554OD&D is a great game however it not without it's flaws particularly in its presentation. It neither obvious or intuitive to most people to think that if the rules doesn't cover something in a campaign that the referee should make it up based on his experience of what would happen.

Yes Gygax said this at the end.


However given how entrenched the idea that when one plays a game one plays it by the rules. That to do so otherwise is cheating.  The above and other similar advice in the intro and scattered about the text was not enough.  It needed a fuller explanation. Neither Holmes, AD&D, or other RPGs have gotten this right in the decades since.

If there are idiots, they are those who mock people for being stupid and not trying to figure out how to explain things better.

In general, I agree. I love TSR-era D&D. I think the game--the one you are intended to play, not necessarily the one published in any book they ever made--is wonderful. But you are right, dodging the criticism that the games were not greatly written by saying that those who do not get it are stupid is a dodge. The games could have been written better. I am thoroughly sympathetic to the argument for the earliest editions that "at the time, almost everyone was taught by a friend who was taught by a friend who was taught by Gary, so it wasn't a high priority," but eventually that excuse runs out

Now, as a counter-example of why you might not want to do so, 3e was supposed to be the well-combed-through, thoroughly well explained edition, and what did people do? Complain that the drowning rules (which move your hp total to 0 after you run out of held breath) didn't make exclusions if you have negative hp. So you kind of are damned if your vague and damned if you are clear.

Quote from: Simlasa;999862"You gave it to him hard that time!"

*giggity*