News:

Endorsement:  I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Main Menu

WARNING: D&D TALK

Started by Cramulus, November 14, 2008, 04:09:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Who Wins?

Demi-Lich
21 (67.7%)
Tarrasque
10 (32.3%)

Total Members Voted: 31

Requia ☣

#195
Hmm, Pathfinder Book + PDF is 50 bucks, exactly what I have in birthday money from my aunts :D

Book + PDF is 60 :| But I can get just the PDF for ten, and save my money for the other books that are coming out.  :D
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

PopeTom

Quote from: GA on October 08, 2009, 06:33:10 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 05:49:33 AM
And here's the neat thing, you really only need to have one DDI subscriber in your group for everyone to benefit.  Though I would imagine in most cases this would be the DM. If $10 per month it too much for one person to bear than a gaming group of 5 (4 players 1 DM) could chip in $2 per month per person.  If I was playing in a 4th Ed. group I'd gladly give my DM $2 a month to access just the tools alone and make the game experience a lot easier for everyone playing.

I'd argue that Dragon is/was (don't know how it looks now) much more useful.  I don't remember how much a subscription was, but it was a lot less that $120 a year.  At most 1/3 that.

DDI subscription options:

1 months $9.95
3 months $23.85 (7.95/mo.)
1 year $71.40 ($5.95/mo.)

The cover price on the last issue of Dragon magazine published by Pazio is $10.99, I imagine that the cost is similar for Pazio's published edition of Dungeon.  I'm also assuming that they did not raise or lower the cover price just because it was the last issue. 

Which means it's cheaper to pay month to month for a DDI subscription than it was to go buy either Dungeon or Dragon each month at your local store.  It's about half the cost per month if you bought both magazines at your local store.

I had ordered subscriptions to both Dungeon and Dragon from Pazio through Amazon.com in August of 2006, so I can still access the price I paid for a yearly subscription.

One magazine cost $39.95 per year.  So subscribing to both cost $79.90 per year.
So a full years subscription to DDI is ~$8 cheaper than to the Pazio publications plus you get access to the on-line tools.
-PopeTom

I am the result of 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years of random chance. Now that I exist I see no reason to start planning and organizing everything in my life.

Random dumb luck got me here, random dumb luck will get me to where I'm going.

Hail Eris!

Requia ☣

Do you get to keep all the months you payed for with DDI if you stop paying?
Inflatable dolls are not recognized flotation devices.

PopeTom

Quote from: Requia ☣ on October 08, 2009, 07:21:52 AM
Do you get to keep all the months you payed for with DDI if you stop paying?

You can download either individual articles or entire issues as .pdf files.

I am uncertain of the functionality of the tools if you let your subscription lapse.

On start up they check for updates, I imagine during that phase they also check to see if you have a current subscription.

Though last I was aware the Monster Builder was still in beta and may be usable by anyone who wants to try it.  The Character Builder allowed you to level up to a 3rd level character as a demo of its ability.

Also the Character Builder is updated with all the data from Dragon magazine as well as from the campaign settings books.  There are two classes, the Swordmage (Forgotten Realms) and the Artificer (Eberon) that I can build using the Character Builder and not have to buy the campaign setting books for either of those campaigns.
-PopeTom

I am the result of 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years of random chance. Now that I exist I see no reason to start planning and organizing everything in my life.

Random dumb luck got me here, random dumb luck will get me to where I'm going.

Hail Eris!

Quote from: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 04:46:53 AM
Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 01:42:36 AM
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

That's the point of the abstraction though.  A hit with an attack roll does not directly translate to a physical hit on your character.  Sometimes it's your luck running out, sometimes it's barely getting out of the way but you are now in a less tenable position, or sometimes it's just your character being overwhelmed by the dire situation he/she is in.  It is not that hard to work into the narration of combat to the point where over the span of a fight there are only one or two solid hits that do physical damage to the character.

My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics.. if you like, instead of being abstractions of HIT POINTS. So my point isnt that you're not allowed to pretend that hit points mean anything at all, you are.  Its just that the system itself suffers a flaw for this being necessary.


PopeTom

Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 11:09:12 AM
Quote from: PopeTom on October 08, 2009, 04:46:53 AM
Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 01:42:36 AM
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

That's the point of the abstraction though.  A hit with an attack roll does not directly translate to a physical hit on your character.  Sometimes it's your luck running out, sometimes it's barely getting out of the way but you are now in a less tenable position, or sometimes it's just your character being overwhelmed by the dire situation he/she is in.  It is not that hard to work into the narration of combat to the point where over the span of a fight there are only one or two solid hits that do physical damage to the character.

My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics.. if you like, instead of being abstractions of HIT POINTS. So my point isnt that you're not allowed to pretend that hit points mean anything at all, you are.  Its just that the system itself suffers a flaw for this being necessary.

It just becomes more things you need to keep track of though.  And I imagine in many games it would just degrade into <thing that can get hurt> points.

I'm trying to think of a game I've played that didn't use hit points (or a similar variation) and am drawing a blank.  I don't think the d20 version of Mutants & Masterminds used hit point, but they did have optional rules to add them back in.  I can't remember what World of Darkness systems use, all I can remember is my character sheet looking like an SAT answer sheet.
-PopeTom

I am the result of 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years of random chance. Now that I exist I see no reason to start planning and organizing everything in my life.

Random dumb luck got me here, random dumb luck will get me to where I'm going.

Hail Eris!

Cramulus

Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 01:42:36 AM
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

I assume your barbarian gets healing spells after combat?  :? that's why you're not roleplaying the headwound for multiple gaming sessions. It's maaaaaagic.

also: if your DM is describing your barbarian taking multiple axe wounds to the head in one fight, he's doing it wrong



Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 11:09:12 AM
My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

It's not additional narration, it's different narration. It'd only be "additional" if you were married to HP purely as a measure of physical stamina, which is a little bit missing the point. Personally I think it's functional fixedness on your part.


Quote
A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics..

How is Hit Points not an actual game mechanic?

HPs do precisely what they're supposed to do. They're a measure of "how long you can keep fighting."  Which, in a fight, is what really matters. It's basically what your opponent is decreasing with his attacks. It's a little bit abstract, but so is rolling a die.

You might prefer Pallidium, where you have to roll to hit, then roll for hit location, then roll to see if you penetrate the dude's armor, then roll for damage, then possibly roll for a crit. It's very "realistic"? I don't even know what that means when we're talking about fantasy RPGs. But it tries to simulate combat to an unfun amount of detail (IMO). If your group really like wasting 5 minutes per action trying to figure out specifically which limb is damaged and how, and for how long, there are systems that do that. But I've always felt that it's kind of like being the nitpicky kid who watches batman and goes, "WTF, no human can jump that high. This is so unrealistic."


#203
Quote from: Cramulus on October 08, 2009, 01:18:16 PM
Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 01:42:36 AM
My current barbarian, for example, can be hit in the head with an axe a very good of times... and within a week he's completely forgotten these brutal axe wounds. I'd rather a wounding system, where damage dealt is actually significant.

I assume your barbarian gets healing spells after combat?  :? that's why you're not roleplaying the headwound for multiple gaming sessions. It's maaaaaagic.

also: if your DM is describing your barbarian taking multiple axe wounds to the head in one fight, he's doing it wrong

You miss my point here. My intention is to demonstrate just how abstract HP actually is in D&D, depending on your character build there is a decent chance that you can survive several hits with an axe without difficulty, and that even without healing spells, your character will be back to full health relatively quickly. The barbarian getting hit in the head with an axe was merely an example to point out the degree to which the system can challenge suspension of disbelief, so yes... I guess we can say that he didnt literally get hit in the head, but he could still be reduced to a single hit point, and be back to full health in a week or so without healing spells. Broken limbs and debilitating wounds dont really exist, all thats really happening when you take damage is an abstract variable that could be anywhere in between having your eyes gouged out and having your feelings hurt.


Quote from: cramulus
Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 11:09:12 AM
My point is specifically that I would prefer no abstraction, and that a hit with an attack roll should literally mean a physical hit. The additional narration thats required is merely an attempt to bridge the gap between the system itself, and believability, and it shouldnt be necessary.

It's not additional narration, it's different narration. It'd only be "additional" if you were married to HP purely as a measure of physical stamina, which is a little bit missing the point. Personally I think it's functional fixedness on your part.
I am married to HP purely as a measure of physical condition, actually. I dont feel its missing the point at all.

Quote from: cramulus
Quote
A characters footing, his luck, his mental state, are all things that could be adequately represented by actual game mechanics..

How is Hit Points not an actual game mechanic?

HPs do precisely what they're supposed to do. They're a measure of "how long you can keep fighting."  Which, in a fight, is what really matters. It's basically what your opponent is decreasing with his attacks. It's a little bit abstract, but so is rolling a die.
I didnt say HP wasnt a game mechanic, I just feel that its in inadequate one. Also, I dont think rolling a die is abstract; its a polyhedron and it gives you a random numerical value when roll it on a flat surface.

Quote from: cramulus
You might prefer Pallidium, where you have to roll to hit, then roll for hit location, then roll to see if you penetrate the dude's armor, then roll for damage, then possibly roll for a crit. It's very "realistic"? I don't even know what that means when we're talking about fantasy RPGs. But it tries to simulate combat to an unfun amount of detail (IMO). If your group really like wasting 5 minutes per action trying to figure out specifically which limb is damaged and how, and for how long, there are systems that do that. But I've always felt that it's kind of like being the nitpicky kid who watches batman and goes, "WTF, no human can jump that high. This is so unrealistic."

I see what you're driving at here, and happen to agree with you. There is a point when things get too complicated, and outright simulationism isnt something I look for in a system at all. In my opinion, there should be a healthy balance between simulationism and narrativism. I feel that there are some areas in which D&D can be lacking. Regarding HP, Its not that I dislike narrative freedom on the part of the game master... narrative legerdemain is the only think that makes HP even slightly believable, its completely necessary.

Note that all of my statements thus far are statements of personal preference. I dont think any sort of absolute realism is possible in a game, but some systems are better than others in this regard. Anyway, I tend to favor a wounding system over a hit point system, with negatives applied to statistics based on severity of wounds. Also Burning Wheel employs an interesting double-blind system regarding combat footing and attitude.

I'm not a big fan of palladium, as a company, to tell you the truth. Its been a number of years since I looked at the fantasy system, I doubt that I'd want to do so again.

Regardless of any of the arguments that have been stated, my personal preference has not changed. Nor is it likely to, my reasons for this are stated.

Anyway, this is a relatively minor gripe on my part, I'm kind of surprised it turned into a giant shitstorm.

Cramulus

Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 01:48:57 PM
Anyway, this is a relatively minor gripe on my part, I'm kind of surprised it turned into a giant shitstorm.

is this a shitstorm?

Sorry if I came off harsh,
I like arguing about RPGs.  :p


PopeTom

Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 01:48:57 PM
Anyway, I tend to favor a wounding system over a hit point system, with negatives applied to statistics based on severity of wounds. Also Burning Wheel employs an interesting double-blind system regarding combat footing and attitude.

The problem with applying penalties for wounds over the course of a combat is it tends to form a downward spiral.  A situation where once one side gets hurt it has basically become the losing side. It is rare that that kind of situation is ever fun for players.

Quote from: Z³ on October 08, 2009, 01:48:57 PM
Anyway, this is a relatively minor gripe on my part, I'm kind of surprised it turned into a giant shitstorm.

Not shitstorm, discussion.  If this were a shitstorm at least one side would be non-rational.
-PopeTom

I am the result of 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years of random chance. Now that I exist I see no reason to start planning and organizing everything in my life.

Random dumb luck got me here, random dumb luck will get me to where I'm going.

Hail Eris!

Cain

FUCK YOU, 1ST EDITION ADVANCED D&D IS THE ONLY TRUE SYSTEM EVAR!  I'M SORRY U LUSERS AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE ADVANCED VERSION OF THE GAME!

PopeTom

Quote from: Cain on October 08, 2009, 06:03:53 PM
FUCK YOU, 1ST EDITION ADVANCED D&D IS THE ONLY TRUE SYSTEM EVAR!  I'M SORRY U LUSERS AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE ADVANCED VERSION OF THE GAME!

no fuck you, real gamers only play using nothing but copies of Dave Arneson's original crib-note modifications to Chainmail and Gary Gygax's desire to slaughter PCs!

Anyone else it just a corporate sell out shill!

And while I'm on the subject, fuck you Disney for buying Marvel Comics.  I loved reading Marvel comics when I was a kid not my childhood memories are all going to get reaped by Mickey Mouse!!!

:mad:!!!!!
-PopeTom

I am the result of 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years of random chance. Now that I exist I see no reason to start planning and organizing everything in my life.

Random dumb luck got me here, random dumb luck will get me to where I'm going.

Hail Eris!

The Good Reverend Roger

All change is good.  The Fonz should have gotten an Oscar for the scene where he jumps the shark.  Adding commercials to cable TV in 1984 was brilliant.

And Coke II was the best thing to happen, ever.  Ever.
" It's just that Depeche Mode were a bunch of optimistic loveburgers."
- TGRR, shaming himself forever, 7/8/2017

"Billy, when I say that ethics is our number one priority and safety is also our number one priority, you should take that to mean exactly what I said. Also quality. That's our number one priority as well. Don't look at me that way, you're in the corporate world now and this is how it works."
- TGRR, raising the bar at work.

PopeTom

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 08, 2009, 07:00:25 PM
All change is good.  The Fonz should have gotten an Oscar for the scene where he jumps the shark.  Adding commercials to cable TV in 1984 was brilliant.

And Coke II was the best thing to happen, ever.  Ever.

Some change is good, some is bad, most is meh.

Though as far as 4th Ed is concerned I'm not sure how you can judge what kind of change it is as a previous post suggests that you have neither played or even read the new rules.
-PopeTom

I am the result of 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years of random chance. Now that I exist I see no reason to start planning and organizing everything in my life.

Random dumb luck got me here, random dumb luck will get me to where I'm going.

Hail Eris!