General Category > RPGs
Anecdote Megathread
Moondog:
--- Quote from: Setherick on April 02, 2012, 09:25:48 AM ---
--- Quote from: SageNytell on April 02, 2012, 07:50:03 AM ---Important part bolded.
Who says anything about hit points being realistic? They exist for the purpose of the game because some way to track physical harm was deemed necessary, you said it yourself. Anyone with any experience in sports injuries or the medical profession could tell you how laughable a concept it is - it's about fun and ease of play, not realism.
--- End quote ---
My smart ass response was more directed at removing the need for deciding every action based on some sort of mathematical formula. I have somewhat of a math background so in a combat situation in a game I can quickly calculate the average amount of damage my character is taking per round of heavy fighting and decide probabilistically whether or not I should continue fighting. Immersive play removes the probabilities from the equation and you are forced to make a decision based on limited information. In high fantasy games, I see this as moving PCs to RP heroic actions that require leaps of faith more than they do number crunching. How much more nerve wracking is it to attack a dragon not knowing you're at low HP rather than attacking one knowing that you are?
As far as HP systems, I've always been kind of annoyed with systems that allow players an inordinate number of HPs anyway. I should be able to kill a monster or other PC with a single shot without having to rely on some gimmick (vorpal, save vs death, whatever).
--- End quote ---
I think we may just have a different view of what we want in our gaming. I like numbers. Numbers are fun and I get more involved in things when I know that by doing X I can get Y. So I will try X. Even if X is silly and probably heroically dumb.
That is to say, I don't think having the ability to calculate chances of success makes things any less heroic.
Edit: Yes, HP are unrealistic. I meant to say 'not knowing your own count is unrealistic' not that the abstraction is/isn't. Gotta be better at being specific, I guess.
Edit edit: Of course too much realism makes things completely goddamn boring; imagine a system that required you to make system checks vs septicemia or tetanus when injured in an even slightly dirty environment and calorie count vs exertio- so basically FATAL.
Edit Edit Edit: I think anything allowing one-shot kills would pretty much be the worst thing imaginable. "Your heroic swordsman walks down the street. Due to his low charisma, a child lobs a rock at his head." *roll* "He dies instantly." and then the game crashes to a screeching halt.
Flawless P:
Average commoners in 3.5 have a 10 in every stat.
They do 1d3 unarmed damage, so without con bonus you'd have 7 or 8 hp.
I think call of cthulhu abstracts hp best, 10 is average and most guns do 2d6 or more. Unconcious at 2 hp or lower.
Setherick:
--- Quote from: Flawless P on April 02, 2012, 11:30:03 AM ---I think call of cthulhu abstracts hp best, 10 is average and most guns do 2d6 or more. Unconcious at 2 hp or lower.
--- End quote ---
I agree, which is why Dodge is the single most important skill in the game if you want to make a munchkin. (That and Credit Rating. Coincidentally, Ross, my next CoC character will be a billionaire, ninja, computer hacker.)
Moondog:
--- Quote from: Flawless P on April 02, 2012, 11:30:03 AM ---Average commoners in 3.5 have a 10 in every stat.
They do 1d3 unarmed damage, so without con bonus you'd have 7 or 8 hp.
I think call of cthulhu abstracts hp best, 10 is average and most guns do 2d6 or more. Unconcious at 2 hp or lower.
--- End quote ---
False. Average commoners use 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 for their stats, typically putting the 13 in the attribute most useful to their profession (Charisma for a performer or speaker, wisdom for an herbalist, strength for a laborer), so they're at +1. Then there's the +2 to a stat due to being a human.
You are entirely right about the unarmed damage though. It *is* 1d3. . . despite me always assuming it was 1d4.
Huh.
Tadanori Oyama:
Humans in 3.5 don't get a +2 to anything, they get a bonus feat and a skill point. Pathfinder and 4E give them +2 to an attribute.
I'm waiting for the funny twist on this "anecdote" you all are brewing up.
If we had a forum roller I'd suggest a 3.5 D&D vs. CoC "commoner" death match.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version