Scourge of the Seas: too much?

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?

It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.

This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.

Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
63 answers Last reply
More about scourge seas much
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in news:MPG.1d82ba08fee935ef9897c5
    @news.iskon.hr:

    > Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
    >
    > It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
    > can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
    > 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
    >
    > This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
    > frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
    > runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
    > for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
    > need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
    > whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
    >
    > Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
    > one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?

    From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
    mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
    game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
    feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
    facing the patently fearsome.
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:17 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:

    >Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in news:MPG.1d82ba08fee935ef9897c5
    >@news.iskon.hr:
    >
    >> Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
    >>
    >> It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
    >> can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
    >> 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
    >>
    >> This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
    >> frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
    >> runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
    >> for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
    >> need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
    >> whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
    >>
    >> Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
    >> one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?

    While I have never read Stormwrack, in real life chasing down a ship
    that was fleeing usually took several hours under the best
    circumstances.

    >
    >From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
    >mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
    >game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
    >feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
    >facing the patently fearsome.

    That depends. While of course it is perfectly reasonable for merchant
    captains to surrender as soon as they see the flag of the Dread Pirate
    Murgatroyd, no matter how much a military captain may be wetting
    himself, he pretty much has to put up at least a little fight.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    David Johnston <rgorman@block.net> wrote:
    > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:17 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in news:MPG.1d82ba08fee935ef9897c5
    >>@news.iskon.hr:
    >>
    >>> Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
    >>>
    >>> It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
    >>> can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
    >>> 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
    >>>
    >>> This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
    >>> frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
    >>> runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
    >>> for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
    >>> need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
    >>> whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
    >>>
    >>> Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
    >>> one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
    >
    > While I have never read Stormwrack, in real life chasing down a ship
    > that was fleeing usually took several hours under the best
    > circumstances.

    I was thinking the same thing -- frightened for up to an hour won't make
    a difference in most cases *unless* they can't run.

    >>From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
    >>mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
    >>game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
    >>feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
    >>facing the patently fearsome.
    >
    > That depends. While of course it is perfectly reasonable for merchant
    > captains to surrender as soon as they see the flag of the Dread Pirate
    > Murgatroyd, no matter how much a military captain may be wetting
    > himself, he pretty much has to put up at least a little fight.

    Also, *too* fearsome a reputation can work against you. If you're the
    biggest, baddest pirate out there and never leave survivors, those
    you're hunting will either run away or fight to win -- you never give
    quarter, so if they can't run fighting their damnedest is their only
    hope.

    OTOH, if you're a strong enough pirate with a reputation for letting
    people live, you might find that they strike their sails when you
    challenge, pay the toll, and get on with their lives.


    Keith
    --
    Keith Davies "Trying to sway him from his current kook-
    keith.davies@kjdavies.org rant with facts is like trying to create
    keith.davies@gmail.com a vacuum in a room by pushing the air
    http://www.kjdavies.org/ out with your hands." -- Matt Frisch
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <Xns96C7B23F263EF619void@199.45.49.11>, void@verizon.net
    says...

    > > Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
    > >
    > > It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
    > > can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
    > > 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
    > >
    > > This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
    > > frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
    > > runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
    > > for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
    > > need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
    > > whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
    > >
    > > Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
    > > one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
    >
    > From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced.

    It seems so...

    > But I love that base D&D mechanics are going Simulationist.

    They are?

    > There is no good reason why the actual
    > game world should be game balanced in many areas.

    I think there is: so that the game is fun and for everyone, not just for
    the scourge of the seas.

    > This Scourge of the Seas
    > feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
    > facing the patently fearsome.

    I'm not questioning whether ship captains and crews should run away when
    faced with the patently fearsome.

    I'm questioning whether a single feat, with prerequisites that can be
    fulfilled at 2nd-level, should make you one of the patently fearsome.


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in
    news:MPG.1d8593837f2377799897cb@news.iskon.hr:

    > In article <Xns96C7B23F263EF619void@199.45.49.11>, void@verizon.net
    > says...
    >
    >> > Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from
    >> > Stormwrack is?
    >> >
    >> > It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship
    >> > that can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened
    >> > for 1d6 x 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender
    >> > instead.
    >> >
    >> > This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a
    >> > ship, frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the
    >> > whole ship runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory
    >> > unless you're out for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will
    >> > be, but still, all you need to do is to slow down the enemy
    >> > (through damage or magic or whatever) so that it cannot run away
    >> > and they surrender.
    >> >
    >> > Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost
    >> > of one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
    >>
    >> From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced.
    >
    > It seems so...

    I'll have to read the book, though. It's on order though -- I suppose my
    interest in the book was peaked by Hurricane Katrina.

    >> But I love that base D&D mechanics are going Simulationist.
    >
    > They are?

    3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different from
    First and Second Edition AD&D. I get my Simulationist (and Narrativist)
    kicks in the current game more from the side products like the
    Dragonlance and Eberron lines. However, I'm noticing more Simulationist
    fluff and even crunch in the base 3.5 D&D rulebooks. New mythologies in
    Races of Stone, Simulationist (setting) in the Environment Series,
    expanded prestige class pages based on how they fit into the game world
    (strongly Simulationist), even those +2 +2 skill feats in the 3.5 PHB
    are strongly Simulationist (System).

    >> There is no good reason why the actual
    >> game world should be game balanced in many areas.
    >
    > I think there is: so that the game is fun and for everyone, not just
    > for the scourge of the seas.

    Depends upon the group, but NPCs can't influence the attitudes of PC
    captains anyway. PCs who board ships without being the captain should
    realize they are taking these kinds of risks.

    >> This Scourge of the Seas
    >> feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and
    >> captains when facing the patently fearsome.
    >
    > I'm not questioning whether ship captains and crews should run away
    > when faced with the patently fearsome.
    >
    > I'm questioning whether a single feat, with prerequisites that can be
    > fulfilled at 2nd-level, should make you one of the patently fearsome.

    To be truly effective against the competent you will need a good
    Intimidate score, though.
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Joseph wrote:
    > Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in
    > news:MPG.1d8593837f2377799897cb@news.iskon.hr:
    >
    >
    >>In article <Xns96C7B23F263EF619void@199.45.49.11>, void@verizon.net
    >>says...
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from
    >>>>Stormwrack is?
    >>>>
    >>>>It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship
    >>>>that can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened
    >>>>for 1d6 x 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender
    >>>>instead.
    >>>>
    >>>>This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a
    >>>>ship, frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the
    >>>>whole ship runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory
    >>>>unless you're out for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will
    >>>>be, but still, all you need to do is to slow down the enemy
    >>>>(through damage or magic or whatever) so that it cannot run away
    >>>>and they surrender.
    >>>>
    >>>>Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost
    >>>>of one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
    >>>
    >>>From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced.
    >>
    >>It seems so...
    >
    >
    > I'll have to read the book, though. It's on order though -- I suppose my
    > interest in the book was peaked by Hurricane Katrina.
    >
    >
    >>>But I love that base D&D mechanics are going Simulationist.
    >>
    >>They are?
    >
    >
    > 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different from
    > First and Second Edition AD&D. I get my Simulationist (and Narrativist)
    > kicks in the current game more from the side products like the
    > Dragonlance and Eberron lines. However, I'm noticing more Simulationist
    > fluff and even crunch in the base 3.5 D&D rulebooks. New mythologies in
    > Races of Stone, Simulationist (setting) in the Environment Series,
    > expanded prestige class pages based on how they fit into the game world
    > (strongly Simulationist), even those +2 +2 skill feats in the 3.5 PHB
    > are strongly Simulationist (System).
    >
    >
    >>>There is no good reason why the actual
    >>>game world should be game balanced in many areas.
    >>
    >>I think there is: so that the game is fun and for everyone, not just
    >>for the scourge of the seas.
    >
    >
    > Depends upon the group, but NPCs can't influence the attitudes of PC
    > captains anyway. PCs who board ships without being the captain should
    > realize they are taking these kinds of risks.
    >
    >
    >>>This Scourge of the Seas
    >>>feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and
    >>>captains when facing the patently fearsome.
    >>
    >>I'm not questioning whether ship captains and crews should run away
    >>when faced with the patently fearsome.
    >>
    >>I'm questioning whether a single feat, with prerequisites that can be
    >>fulfilled at 2nd-level, should make you one of the patently fearsome.
    >
    >
    > To be truly effective against the competent you will need a good
    > Intimidate score, though.

    A 2nd level Draconic Human with Skill Focus: Intimidate and a 16
    Charisma (really a 14 plus the +2 racial mod) could have an Intimidate
    modifier of +13. If bards have intimidate as a class skill, this could
    easily be higher.

    - Ron ^*^
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <MPG.1d82ba08fee935ef9897c5@news.iskon.hr>,
    Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote:

    > Has anyone noticed just how good Scourge of the Seas from Stormwrack is?
    >
    > It lets you make an intimidate check against a captain of a ship that
    > can see you or your colors. If you succeed, they're frightened for 1d6 x
    > 10 minutes. If cornered, they don't fight, but surrender instead.
    >
    > This seems a bit too good. Since the captain is in command of a ship,
    > frightening the captain effectively "frightens" the ship; the whole ship
    > runs away from you. That alone is as good as victory unless you're out
    > for loot. Admittedly, most pirates and PC will be, but still, all you
    > need to do is to slow down the enemy (through damage or magic or
    > whatever) so that it cannot run away and they surrender.
    >
    > Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
    > one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?

    It's a funny one. It is as narrow as hell, but extraordinarily
    powerful. A similar Feat that worked on land would obviously be far too
    powerful.

    I would be inclined to limit the Feat to high level (or even Epic)
    characters.

    --
    Kevin Lowe,
    Tasmania.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> dared
    speak in front of ME:

    >Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    >> upon a tablet of ether:
    >>
    >>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different from
    >>> First and Second Edition AD&D.
    >>
    >> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
    >
    >No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure the
    >texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that.

    Eh?

    Rules that covered only Gamist concerns, and a general attitude of "if
    it ain't in the rules, it's not possible" was... simulationist?

    --
    The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out
    the conservative adopts them.
    Samuel Clemens, "Notebook," 1935
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:

    >Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    >> upon a tablet of ether:
    >>
    >>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different from
    >>> First and Second Edition AD&D.
    >>
    >> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
    >
    >No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure the
    >texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that. Just l

    Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off cliffs
    exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:431b92a0.53177495@news.telusplanet.net:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >>news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    >>> upon a tablet of ether:
    >>>
    >>>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different
    >>>> from First and Second Edition AD&D.
    >>>
    >>> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
    >>
    >>No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure
    >>the texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that. Just l
    >
    > Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off cliffs
    > exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
    >

    Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a highly
    magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters capable of great
    preternatural feats.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:17 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > > Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
    > > one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
    >
    > From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
    > mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
    > game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
    > feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
    > facing the patently fearsome.

    Pah. That's not simulationist of much at all. RL merchant ships only
    surrendered if it was clear they couldn't get away, and likely
    wouldn't win a fight (that's where your rep helps). If you have a rep
    for going harshly on captured crews even if they surrendered right
    away (as many 'primitive' pirates did) they'd fight anyway, no matter
    your rep. If you had a rep for being generous to those who didn't
    fight, and harshly on those that did, they'd be far less likely to
    fight.

    Even in pirate movies merchants generally only surrender immediately
    if the pirate has got the jump on them and they can't escape. Often
    there's still a fight, though.

    And what the heck sort of world is it where naval vessels just
    surrender? Some might, especially if they're from a 'navy' that's
    really just a shake-down operation. Any captian from a real navy that
    surrendered because the opponent was scary may as well commit suicide,
    though - if the captor doesn't kill him, his own government will.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 21:31:17 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >
    >>>Auto-victory against every vessel slower than your own for the cost of
    >>>one feat (that can be taken as soon as 2nd level)...?
    >>
    >>From a Gamist perspective, yes it is unbalanced. But I love that base D&D
    >>mechanics are going Simulationist. There is no good reason why the actual
    >>game world should be game balanced in many areas. This Scourge of the Seas
    >>feat seems a nice nod to actual behavior among ship crews and captains when
    >>facing the patently fearsome.
    >
    >
    > Pah. That's not simulationist of much at all. RL merchant ships only
    > surrendered if it was clear they couldn't get away, and likely
    > wouldn't win a fight (that's where your rep helps). If you have a rep
    > for going harshly on captured crews even if they surrendered right
    > away (as many 'primitive' pirates did) they'd fight anyway, no matter
    > your rep. If you had a rep for being generous to those who didn't
    > fight, and harshly on those that did, they'd be far less likely to
    > fight.
    >
    > Even in pirate movies merchants generally only surrender immediately
    > if the pirate has got the jump on them and they can't escape. Often
    > there's still a fight, though.
    >
    > And what the heck sort of world is it where naval vessels just
    > surrender? Some might, especially if they're from a 'navy' that's
    > really just a shake-down operation. Any captian from a real navy that
    > surrendered because the opponent was scary may as well commit suicide,
    > though - if the captor doesn't kill him, his own government will.

    I'm reminded of "Eric the Viking"...

    "No one's ever fought us before -- they were always too scared of us!"

    - Ron ^*^
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos <kaos@invalid.xplornet.com> wrote in
    news:jq6oh1pr2f4egp8j6qgqadgu6l7m4c5l69@4ax.com:

    >
    > Rules that covered only Gamist concerns, and a general attitude of "if
    > it ain't in the rules, it's not possible" was... simulationist?

    The First Edition DMG, for example, did not cover only Gamist concerns; it
    was strongly Simulationist. Gygax's idiosyncratic text is full of hard-line
    Simulationist priorities that focus upon the correctness of his alternate
    world. One example is Gary's stressing on the absolute importance of
    keeping extensive records of game time. I think Gygax's rule purity is
    another hallmark of fidelity to the "proper" Exploration of a fantasy
    world. It certainly wasn't relevant to Gamist concerns of challenging
    performance among the actual players. That said there were some Gamist
    adventures in the First Edition Era (though not adventures like Expedition
    to the Barrier Peaks, the classic Ravenloft modules, or the Dragonlance
    line). Products like First Edition's Wilderness Survival Guide are classic
    old school Simulationist rulebooks. But as I said many people played Gamist
    during First Edition; I think it was Dragonlance that made it obvious to
    those Gamist gamers where the focus of AD&D was going -- further away from
    Gamism, to where Gamism wasn't even a secondary priority as it was in early
    AD&D.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:57:12 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:


    >> Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off cliffs
    >> exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
    >>
    >
    >Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a highly
    >magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters capable of great
    >preternatural feats.

    So then they were simulating Road Runner cartoons? Because I can't
    think of any fantasy novel where you can toss say, Fafhrd or Aragorn
    off a cliff, they can fall straight to the bottom and then get up and
    dust themselves off.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:431c1355.2156407@news.telusplanet.net:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:57:12 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off
    >>> cliffs exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
    >>>
    >>
    >>Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a
    >>highly magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters
    >>capable of great preternatural feats.
    >
    > So then they were simulating Road Runner cartoons? Because I can't
    > think of any fantasy novel where you can toss say, Fafhrd or Aragorn
    > off a cliff, they can fall straight to the bottom and then get up and
    > dust themselves off.

    That reminds me of the Two Towers movie where Aragorn almost does that. But
    I believe Gary later recanted the falling damage rules, but I think that is
    because of too much streamlining of the rules -- not because of Gamist rule
    concerns.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:

    > Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
    > what world are you simulating where a character is either concious and
    > fighting, or dead?

    D&D3.x is the most gamist system I know of, and I would estimate I have
    read a 100 or more RPGs at one time or another (counting substantially
    different editions as different games).

    That said: Adrenaline. HP are at least as good a simulation of the real
    world as death spirals, and a far better simulation of much of pulp
    fiction where the hero being tired or wounded clearly has no
    significant effect on his performance. The ability to get knocked
    unconsious is a BETTER simulation of the pulp type source material, but
    HP aren't really bad.

    ANY single rule can be simulationist, if nothing else you are
    simulating "what would the world be like if things worked like this".
    What makes D&D3.x gamist is the entire package. HP are a resorce
    management tool, because the ability to take damage is a resource in
    the Game; spells come in slots because spells are a resource in the
    game; encounters run roughly 1:4 to the party's strength (regardless of
    the party's strength) because that is part of the game; and death has a
    revolving door because permanent death of a long time played character
    is no fun in the game.

    DougL
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Joseph wrote:

    > Yes, I agree, but I think WOTC is starting to realize the Gamist well
    > (producing a lot of splatbooks) is starting to dry up. I'm noticing more
    > Simulationism and even some Narrativist color in the recent
    > supplementary material. Interestingly, Eric Mona recently veered Dragon
    > magazine away from hard Gamist D&D coverage which prevailed recently
    > with the relaunch to a hybrid Gamist/Simulationist mix. Compare the
    > editorial from Dragon 323 with Eric's Dragon 328 editorial. Dragon has
    > become a must read for me again.

    Splat books aren't gamist. Consider that AFAIK the term was first
    applied to World of Dorkness suplements, which is an explicitely
    dramatist game system.

    Nor has WotC slowed down much on production of splat books, races of
    this that and the other, the complete munchkin, and enviroment-d20
    between them seem to be producing at least a suplement a month.

    Nor have I seen much in the Dragon worrying about the likely effects of
    their rules add ons and continuing silly proliferation of prestige
    classes.

    The feat that started this whole discussion is a disaster from a
    simulationist PoV.

    What is the world like where level 2 characters can force anyone the
    can corner to surrender? what happens when two of these go up against
    each other? Do navys insist on having only Paladins command warships
    for their imunity to fear? Do crews mutiny when their captain insists
    on wimping out for no good reason? Enquiring minds want to know. And
    GMs NEED to know to run simulationist in a world with such a feat!.

    But the feat works pretty well in a bad dramatist game where the DM can
    make sure it works the way he wants it to or in a bad gamist game where
    the DM designs challenges arround it.

    DougL
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Joseph wrote:
    > rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    > news:431c8843.32095734@news.telusplanet.net:
    >
    > > On 5 Sep 2005 17:10:35 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote:

    > >>Splat books aren't gamist. Consider that AFAIK the term was first
    > >>applied to World of Dorkness suplements, which is an explicitely
    > >>dramatist game system.

    Note that the only form of game balance that gamist really cares about
    is that there be multiple options of roughly equal utility available to
    the characters so that the players will have meaningful choices to
    make.

    Intraparty balance is ONLY important in the metagame. And IME the vast
    majority of groups actually don't care in real play. Nor is the
    importance of intraparty balance more or less important based on style.
    If you can get a group to try something like Ars Magica then IME they
    will quickly decide and that Grogs are often more fun to play with more
    screen time than the more powerful companions who in turn are often
    more entertaining than the vastly more powerful mages.

    Party-World balance is more easily adjusted in gamist play than in any
    other style. Just throw in more enemies or smarter enemies.

    > > In fact they are the opposite of being gamist, because the cool toys
    > > that new splats exist to provide inevitably undermine game balance.
    >
    > Hence it leads to likely dysfunctional Gamism...

    It is worse for the other styles. Dramatist it wrecks ongoind story
    lines. Simulationist it upsets the entire gameworld if it turns out
    that all the character builds so far seen were massively sub-optimal at
    their nominal job for no good reason.

    Gamist you just pile on more opponents. It is only a problem if the
    newly introduced option is plainly so superior that it flunks the
    "would everyone take this" test since then it is eliminating meaningful
    choices.

    Splat books with more powerful than core options are a bad idea for ALL
    styles of gaming except blatant Munchkin gaming (which can be fun to,
    but wears thin about as fast as Paranoia IME, both too good and too
    weak are boring). This is why I follow Hong and just say no for the
    most part.

    But gamist play can survive them as long as the splat books present
    LOTS of alternatives, other styles they are catastrophic for. (Or to
    put it another way, were I running pure gamist I would probably default
    to allowing the splat books since more options are good.

    DougL
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:57:12 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    > news:431b92a0.53177495@news.telusplanet.net:
    >
    > > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
    > >
    > >>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    > >>news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
    > >>
    > >>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > >>> upon a tablet of ether:
    > >>>
    > >>>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite different
    > >>>> from First and Second Edition AD&D.
    > >>>
    > >>> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
    > >>
    > >>No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure
    > >>the texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that. Just l
    > >
    > > Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off cliffs
    > > exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
    > >
    >
    > Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a highly
    > magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters capable of great
    > preternatural feats.

    So, what world, other than itself, was it simulating in which heroes
    fall off 200+ foot cliffs and walk away?

    Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
    fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
    dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
    conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
    you're alive and okay, or you're dead.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:5u2oh11u6m2di3i9jt5d1e854o1sb9can2@4ax.com:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 07:57:12 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    >> news:431b92a0.53177495@news.telusplanet.net:
    >>
    >> > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 06:38:44 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >> >>news:bndnh112icui0nt9amaekfu250gmhvsa9p@4ax.com:
    >> >>
    >> >>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 00:17:01 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net>
    >> >>> carved upon a tablet of ether:
    >> >>>
    >> >>>> 3.0 D&D rulebooks were profoundly Gamist which was quite
    >> >>>> different from First and Second Edition AD&D.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> What a load of bullshit. AD&D1 was incredibly gamist.
    >> >>
    >> >>No, Gary Gygax has always been a Master Simulationist; he made sure
    >> >>the texts of his baby -- First Edition AD&D reflected that. Just l
    >> >
    >> > Nobody who designs a system so high level fighters can fall off
    >> > cliffs exactly like Wiley E. Coyote is a simulationist.
    >> >
    >>
    >> Simulationism does not have to mean realism. Gary's Greyhawk was a
    >> highly magical world with powerful sword-and-sorcery characters
    >> capable of great preternatural feats.
    >
    > So, what world, other than itself, was it simulating in which heroes
    > fall off 200+ foot cliffs and walk away?
    >
    > Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
    > fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
    > dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
    > conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
    > you're alive and okay, or you're dead.

    You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
    Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction and
    fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote in
    news:1125962005.945045.190480@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

    > Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    >
    >> Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
    >> what world are you simulating where a character is either concious
    >> and fighting, or dead?
    >
    > D&D3.x is the most gamist system I know of, and I would estimate I
    > have read a 100 or more RPGs at one time or another (counting
    > substantially different editions as different games).
    >
    > That said: Adrenaline. HP are at least as good a simulation of the
    > real world as death spirals, and a far better simulation of much of
    > pulp fiction where the hero being tired or wounded clearly has no
    > significant effect on his performance. The ability to get knocked
    > unconsious is a BETTER simulation of the pulp type source material,
    > but HP aren't really bad.
    >
    > ANY single rule can be simulationist, if nothing else you are
    > simulating "what would the world be like if things worked like this".
    > What makes D&D3.x gamist is the entire package. HP are a resorce
    > management tool, because the ability to take damage is a resource in
    > the Game; spells come in slots because spells are a resource in the
    > game; encounters run roughly 1:4 to the party's strength (regardless
    > of the party's strength) because that is part of the game; and death
    > has a revolving door because permanent death of a long time played
    > character is no fun in the game.

    Yes, I agree, but I think WOTC is starting to realize the Gamist well
    (producing a lot of splatbooks) is starting to dry up. I'm noticing more
    Simulationism and even some Narrativist color in the recent
    supplementary material. Interestingly, Eric Mona recently veered Dragon
    magazine away from hard Gamist D&D coverage which prevailed recently
    with the relaunch to a hybrid Gamist/Simulationist mix. Compare the
    editorial from Dragon 323 with Eric's Dragon 328 editorial. Dragon has
    become a must read for me again.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 5 Sep 2005 17:10:35 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote:

    >Joseph wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, I agree, but I think WOTC is starting to realize the Gamist well
    >> (producing a lot of splatbooks) is starting to dry up. I'm noticing more
    >> Simulationism and even some Narrativist color in the recent
    >> supplementary material. Interestingly, Eric Mona recently veered Dragon
    >> magazine away from hard Gamist D&D coverage which prevailed recently
    >> with the relaunch to a hybrid Gamist/Simulationist mix. Compare the
    >> editorial from Dragon 323 with Eric's Dragon 328 editorial. Dragon has
    >> become a must read for me again.
    >
    >Splat books aren't gamist. Consider that AFAIK the term was first
    >applied to World of Dorkness suplements, which is an explicitely
    >dramatist game system.

    In fact they are the opposite of being gamist, because the cool toys
    that new splats exist to provide inevitably undermine game balance.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:431c8843.32095734@news.telusplanet.net:

    > On 5 Sep 2005 17:10:35 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Joseph wrote:
    >>
    >>> Yes, I agree, but I think WOTC is starting to realize the Gamist
    >>> well (producing a lot of splatbooks) is starting to dry up. I'm
    >>> noticing more Simulationism and even some Narrativist color in the
    >>> recent supplementary material. Interestingly, Eric Mona recently
    >>> veered Dragon magazine away from hard Gamist D&D coverage which
    >>> prevailed recently with the relaunch to a hybrid
    >>> Gamist/Simulationist mix. Compare the editorial from Dragon 323 with
    >>> Eric's Dragon 328 editorial. Dragon has become a must read for me
    >>> again.
    >>
    >>Splat books aren't gamist. Consider that AFAIK the term was first
    >>applied to World of Dorkness suplements, which is an explicitely
    >>dramatist game system.
    >
    > In fact they are the opposite of being gamist, because the cool toys
    > that new splats exist to provide inevitably undermine game balance.

    Hence it leads to likely dysfunctional Gamism...
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:21:04 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > > Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
    > > fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
    > > dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
    > > conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
    > > you're alive and okay, or you're dead.
    >
    > You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
    > Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction and
    > fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.

    Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
    what world are you simulating where a character is either concious and
    fighting, or dead?

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:koiph11li0aq625bbdrl536hh77ammoabr@4ax.com:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:21:04 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> > Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
    >> > fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
    >> > dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
    >> > conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
    >> > you're alive and okay, or you're dead.
    >>
    >> You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
    >> Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction and
    >> fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.
    >
    > Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
    > what world are you simulating where a character is either concious and
    > fighting, or dead?

    Some forms of epic mythology like the Iliad and Beowulf.
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:18:26 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:

    >Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >news:koiph11li0aq625bbdrl536hh77ammoabr@4ax.com:
    >
    >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:21:04 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    >> upon a tablet of ether:
    >>
    >>> > Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
    >>> > fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
    >>> > dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
    >>> > conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
    >>> > you're alive and okay, or you're dead.
    >>>
    >>> You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
    >>> Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction and
    >>> fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.
    >>
    >> Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
    >> what world are you simulating where a character is either concious and
    >> fighting, or dead?
    >
    >Some forms of epic mythology like the Iliad and Beowulf.

    In Beowulf, Mr. B tears Grendal's arm off. This appears to impair
    Grendal's ability to fight.
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    rgorman@block.net (David Johnston) wrote in
    news:431c7fc6.29921879@news.telusplanet.net:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:18:26 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >>Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >>news:koiph11li0aq625bbdrl536hh77ammoabr@4ax.com:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:21:04 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    >>> upon a tablet of ether:
    >>>
    >>>> > Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person
    >>>> > could fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just
    >>>> > keel over, dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can
    >>>> > be cut up, lose conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but
    >>>> > throughly wounded) - you're alive and okay, or you're dead.
    >>>>
    >>>> You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
    >>>> Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction and
    >>>> fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.
    >>>
    >>> Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
    >>> what world are you simulating where a character is either concious
    >>> and fighting, or dead?
    >>
    >>Some forms of epic mythology like the Iliad and Beowulf.
    >
    > In Beowulf, Mr. B tears Grendal's arm off. This appears to impair
    > Grendal's ability to fight.

    It's not exact, but I'm thinking of the PCs not the monsters. Grendal's
    pretty much at 0 HP anyway when Beowulf rips his arm off. Grendal knows
    he is going to die; the fight is over... the rest is just some poetic
    color. And Beowulf's fight with the dragon is classic AD&D with a
    dramatic speech before Beowulf's heroic death. DM's can allow such
    dramatic flourishes even with the 0 HP rule as long as death is sure to
    follow.
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:15:37 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > The First Edition DMG, for example, did not cover only Gamist concerns; it
    > was strongly Simulationist. Gygax's idiosyncratic text is full of hard-line
    > Simulationist priorities that focus upon the correctness of his alternate
    > world. One example is Gary's stressing on the absolute importance of
    > keeping extensive records of game time.

    So? That's at least as gamist as simulationist in a game that's about
    resource management.

    > I think Gygax's rule purity is
    > another hallmark of fidelity to the "proper" Exploration of a fantasy
    > world. It certainly wasn't relevant to Gamist concerns of challenging
    > performance among the actual players. That said there were some Gamist
    > adventures in the First Edition Era (though not adventures like Expedition
    > to the Barrier Peaks, the classic Ravenloft modules, or the Dragonlance
    > line).

    Two of those examples post-date Gary's involvement in module writing.
    Both were originally Hickman's doing, and both are an early attempt at
    dramatism.

    > Products like First Edition's Wilderness Survival Guide are classic
    > old school Simulationist rulebooks.

    Bollocks. The rules are clearly gamist - they are designed more with
    an eye to challenging a party than providing a realistic result (or
    even one that matches the fiction).

    > But as I said many people played Gamist
    > during First Edition; I think it was Dragonlance that made it obvious to
    > those Gamist gamers where the focus of AD&D was going -- further away from
    > Gamism, to where Gamism wasn't even a secondary priority as it was in early
    > AD&D.

    DL was dramatist in approach, not simulationist. It may have been a
    railroady set of modules, but it was definately dramatist. In fact,
    that they were railroady lets them out as simulationist right away,
    especially given the way in which the railroading was done.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:18:26 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    > news:koiph11li0aq625bbdrl536hh77ammoabr@4ax.com:
    >
    > > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:21:04 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > > upon a tablet of ether:
    > >
    > >> > Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person could
    > >> > fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just keel over,
    > >> > dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you can be cut up, lose
    > >> > conciousness, and then regain it to press on (but throughly wounded) -
    > >> > you're alive and okay, or you're dead.
    > >>
    > >> You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
    > >> Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction and
    > >> fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.
    > >
    > > Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
    > > what world are you simulating where a character is either concious and
    > > fighting, or dead?
    >
    > Some forms of epic mythology like the Iliad and Beowulf.

    Move the goalposts often?

    And where's the dying speech mechanism?

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:0bmph1dbur93krrq44i77fioc6oplkhnu6@4ax.com:

    > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 23:18:26 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    >> news:koiph11li0aq625bbdrl536hh77ammoabr@4ax.com:
    >>
    >> > On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 15:21:04 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    >> > upon a tablet of ether:
    >> >
    >> >> > Oh yeah - and what world was it simulating in which a person
    >> >> > could fight unimpaired until the moment of death, and then just
    >> >> > keel over, dead? Note that there's no middle ground where you
    >> >> > can be cut up, lose conciousness, and then regain it to press on
    >> >> > (but throughly wounded) - you're alive and okay, or you're dead.
    >> >>
    >> >> You are confusing the resource mechanics of hit points with anti-
    >> >> Simulationism. It isn't. Hit points are based upon pulp fiction
    >> >> and fantasy heroics of characters like Conan.
    >> >
    >> > Nope. I'm not considering that aspect of hit points at all. Again,
    >> > what world are you simulating where a character is either concious
    >> > and fighting, or dead?
    >>
    >> Some forms of epic mythology like the Iliad and Beowulf.
    >
    > Move the goalposts often?
    >
    > And where's the dying speech mechanism?

    Gygax was certainly aware of mythology, and there is no harm in having a
    dying speech as long as you *die* after. The combat rounds are one
    minute long and abstract after all. Not everything needs to be spelled
    out in the rules.
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 5 Sep 2005 17:59:44 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > IIRC AD&D1 had non-lethal damage, so you could knock someone
    > unconsious.

    Only for fists, as I recall. Of course, the unarmed combat/grappling
    rules were completely screwed up.

    > Even the original D&D game had subdual damage, but only for
    > dragons, and it was broken at that (you could subdue a 100HP dragon
    > with 1 point of damage and a lucky die roll, then sell it in town for
    > lots of money).

    Ah yes.

    > The current rules are a better simulation of pulp (negative points
    > should scale with HD and Con though, it is very very rare for a high
    > level tank to end up down but not out IME), but HP even in the AD&D1
    > incarnation with no subdual damage still beat the most common
    > alternative cold.

    What was the most common alternative in your opinion?

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:hv4qh15bk47att6444pdohfbd528tulfvm@4ax.com:

    > On 5 Sep 2005 17:59:44 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> IIRC AD&D1 had non-lethal damage, so you could knock someone
    >> unconsious.
    >
    > Only for fists, as I recall. Of course, the unarmed combat/grappling
    > rules were completely screwed up.

    You could strike to subdue using weapons for 75% temporary and 25% real
    damage. The unarmed and grappling rules certainly were a little odd,
    though.

    >> Even the original D&D game had subdual damage, but only for
    >> dragons, and it was broken at that (you could subdue a 100HP dragon
    >> with 1 point of damage and a lucky die roll, then sell it in town for
    >> lots of money).
    >
    > Ah yes.

    It was a wee bit more complicated and difficult than that.
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:27:33 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > It's not exact, but I'm thinking of the PCs not the monsters. Grendal's
    > pretty much at 0 HP anyway when Beowulf rips his arm off. Grendal knows
    > he is going to die; the fight is over... the rest is just some poetic
    > color. And Beowulf's fight with the dragon is classic AD&D with a
    > dramatic speech before Beowulf's heroic death. DM's can allow such
    > dramatic flourishes even with the 0 HP rule as long as death is sure to
    > follow.

    No support for that. You're making stuff up. If we're allowed to make
    stuff up then any set of rules supports any type of play perfectly
    (assuming a competent GM).

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:445qh193k8b8fuf323grdunns7plq1bjgk@4ax.com:

    > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:27:33 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> It's not exact, but I'm thinking of the PCs not the monsters. Grendal's
    >> pretty much at 0 HP anyway when Beowulf rips his arm off. Grendal knows
    >> he is going to die; the fight is over... the rest is just some poetic
    >> color. And Beowulf's fight with the dragon is classic AD&D with a
    >> dramatic speech before Beowulf's heroic death. DM's can allow such
    >> dramatic flourishes even with the 0 HP rule as long as death is sure to
    >> follow.
    >
    > No support for that. You're making stuff up. If we're allowed to make
    > stuff up then any set of rules supports any type of play perfectly
    > (assuming a competent GM).

    Wow, use a little common sense (at least for your players' sake, Rupert).
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:32:13 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > Gygax was certainly aware of mythology, and there is no harm in having a
    > dying speech as long as you *die* after. The combat rounds are one
    > minute long and abstract after all. Not everything needs to be spelled
    > out in the rules.

    So, how long can the dying speech be? Can others continue to act
    during it? And if I'm allowed a dying speech when I get whacked, how
    can you justify instant death for guards?

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:25:13 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    > news:445qh193k8b8fuf323grdunns7plq1bjgk@4ax.com:
    >
    > > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:27:33 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > > upon a tablet of ether:
    > >
    > >> It's not exact, but I'm thinking of the PCs not the monsters. Grendal's
    > >> pretty much at 0 HP anyway when Beowulf rips his arm off. Grendal knows
    > >> he is going to die; the fight is over... the rest is just some poetic
    > >> color. And Beowulf's fight with the dragon is classic AD&D with a
    > >> dramatic speech before Beowulf's heroic death. DM's can allow such
    > >> dramatic flourishes even with the 0 HP rule as long as death is sure to
    > >> follow.
    > >
    > > No support for that. You're making stuff up. If we're allowed to make
    > > stuff up then any set of rules supports any type of play perfectly
    > > (assuming a competent GM).
    >
    > Wow, use a little common sense (at least for your players' sake, Rupert).

    So, we are allowed to make stuff up, which means the rules tell us
    nothing about the style of play they support best, because we can just
    do whatever. Right.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > On 6 Sep 2005 10:33:00 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    > > > What was the most common alternative in your opinion?
    > >
    > > Death spirals. At the time various incarnations of death spirals and
    > > D&D style HP were the only two systems out their AFAIK. Either wounds
    > > gave a penalty or they didn't, but I can't think of a game where
    > > unconsious was a significan alternative (since I don't remember most of
    > > the rules from that far back this is based on only having characters
    > > knocked out by GM fiat). Negative HP was a not uncommon houserule even
    > > that far back, but I don't think it was published.
    >
    > Traveller had no death spiral, and had unconsciousness - you took
    > wounds to your three physical attributes, and when one dropped to zero
    > you were out, when all three were zero you were dead. While they
    > dropped this didn't count as an actual loss of that stat during the
    > current fight - but it did count for the next one, which is reasonably
    > realistic.

    Right, our Traveller games were so ground combat light that it never
    came up.

    > RuneQuest had no death spiral, though getting limbs chopped off did
    > tend to put a crimp in one's day. You could go unconscious, but the
    > range was pretty narrow.

    RuneQuest limb loss was constant, while unconsiousness was almost
    unheard of. A clear death spiral effect in actual use in melee
    combat. (Ranged combat could avoid this.)

    In any case most of my RuneQuest experience is RQIII which
    IIRC postdates AD&D1 by a few years.

    > C&S certainly allowed you to be knocked out but not dead, and it
    > didn't have much of a death spiral.

    No default knock-out IIRC, it required special effort, which is
    no better than AD&D1 in terms of knocking people out, and it had
    a death spiral. So it is worse than AD&D1 at emulating what you
    want.

    > Rolemaster, OTOH, had a nasty death spiral effect. It did make it
    > reasonably likely you'd be knocked out but not dead, though.

    Deathspiral. And IME by the time you are knocked out you are
    bleeding for 3 points+ of damage a round and everyone else
    is busy. I think I saw MAYBE one chartmaster character survive
    being knocked out.

    Basically your counter-examples come down to Traveller as a
    possibly better way to represent cinematic damage, and Traveller
    doesn't work EITHER, cause when Conan wakes up he will be in
    no condition to go another round.

    DougL
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 6 Sep 2005 10:33:00 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > > What was the most common alternative in your opinion?
    >
    > Death spirals. At the time various incarnations of death spirals and
    > D&D style HP were the only two systems out their AFAIK. Either wounds
    > gave a penalty or they didn't, but I can't think of a game where
    > unconsious was a significan alternative (since I don't remember most of
    > the rules from that far back this is based on only having characters
    > knocked out by GM fiat). Negative HP was a not uncommon houserule even
    > that far back, but I don't think it was published.

    Traveller had no death spiral, and had unconsciousness - you took
    wounds to your three physical attributes, and when one dropped to zero
    you were out, when all three were zero you were dead. While they
    dropped this didn't count as an actual loss of that stat during the
    current fight - but it did count for the next one, which is reasonably
    realistic.

    RuneQuest had no death spiral, though getting limbs chopped off did
    tend to put a crimp in one's day. You could go unconscious, but the
    range was pretty narrow.

    C&S certainly allowed you to be knocked out but not dead, and it
    didn't have much of a death spiral.

    Rolemaster, OTOH, had a nasty death spiral effect. It did make it
    reasonably likely you'd be knocked out but not dead, though.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:

    > > Basically your counter-examples come down to Traveller as a
    > > possibly better way to represent cinematic damage, and Traveller
    > > doesn't work EITHER, cause when Conan wakes up he will be in
    > > no condition to go another round.
    >
    > IME RQ and C&S were better than AD&D1. YMM obviously V.

    Oh, they were far better SYSTEMS. I played about 150 times as
    much RQIII as AD&D1 (two long campaigns as opposed to 1 session).

    I just don't think they were any better, or even as good, as
    cinematic damage mechanisms.

    DougL
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
    news:jo4rh1hq1hnkr8ccqng8to636q8gr2eq6g@4ax.com...
    > On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:25:13 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    > > > No support for that. You're making stuff up. If we're allowed to make
    > > > stuff up then any set of rules supports any type of play perfectly
    > > > (assuming a competent GM).
    > >
    > > Wow, use a little common sense (at least for your players' sake,
    Rupert).
    >
    > So, we are allowed to make stuff up, which means the rules tell us
    > nothing about the style of play they support best, because we can just
    > do whatever. Right.

    Remember, kids. Josie's "eccentric" and his "alternative" thought
    processes prevent him from understanding that evaluating the rules by
    ignoring the rules is completely devoid of merit. Such is the curse of the
    farking maroon.


    -Michael
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
    news:bfTTe.2594$9x2.214@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

    > "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
    > news:jo4rh1hq1hnkr8ccqng8to636q8gr2eq6g@4ax.com...
    >> On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 04:25:13 GMT, Joseph <void@verizon.net> carved
    >> > > No support for that. You're making stuff up. If we're allowed to
    >> > > make stuff up then any set of rules supports any type of play
    >> > > perfectly (assuming a competent GM).
    >> >
    >> > Wow, use a little common sense (at least for your players' sake,
    > Rupert).
    >>
    >> So, we are allowed to make stuff up, which means the rules tell us
    >> nothing about the style of play they support best, because we can
    >> just do whatever. Right.
    >
    > Remember, kids. Josie's "eccentric" and his "alternative" thought
    > processes prevent him from understanding that evaluating the rules by
    > ignoring the rules is completely devoid of merit. Such is the curse of
    > the farking maroon.

    So it is reasonable to assume that First Edition rules imply that when
    you reach 0 hit points you die that instant -- No last words, last looks
    at the world. And this was the intention in a combat system of one
    minute rounds with combat far more abstract than Third Edition?


    --
    Remove 619 for Verizon e-mail address.

    Add jovu to 619@msn.com for alternative MSN e-mail address.
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 7 Sep 2005 08:52:33 -0700, "DougL" <lampert.doug@gmail.com> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > > C&S certainly allowed you to be knocked out but not dead, and it
    > > didn't have much of a death spiral.
    >
    > No default knock-out IIRC, it required special effort, which is
    > no better than AD&D1 in terms of knocking people out, and it had
    > a death spiral. So it is worse than AD&D1 at emulating what you
    > want.

    I thought C&S1 allowed you to go negative and not die. Later editions
    certainly do (most of my play was in C&S2). The only death spiral IME
    was that if you ran out of fatigue you lost effective skill and did
    less damage. However, if you ran out and the opponents hadn't also you
    were dead anyway - you just hadn't stopped moving yet.

    > > Rolemaster, OTOH, had a nasty death spiral effect. It did make it
    > > reasonably likely you'd be knocked out but not dead, though.
    >
    > Deathspiral. And IME by the time you are knocked out you are
    > bleeding for 3 points+ of damage a round and everyone else
    > is busy. I think I saw MAYBE one chartmaster character survive
    > being knocked out.

    I saw quite a number, but you really had to pray hard that someone
    with some herbs of a Flowstop spell was still standing at the end.

    > Basically your counter-examples come down to Traveller as a
    > possibly better way to represent cinematic damage, and Traveller
    > doesn't work EITHER, cause when Conan wakes up he will be in
    > no condition to go another round.

    IME RQ and C&S were better than AD&D1. YMM obviously V.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:10:39 GMT, Joseph <jovu619@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > So it is reasonable to assume that First Edition rules imply that when
    > you reach 0 hit points you die that instant -- No last words, last looks
    > at the world. And this was the intention in a combat system of one
    > minute rounds with combat far more abstract than Third Edition?

    As when you drop to 0HP you get no further actions - no dying blow at
    your enemy, no last spell, yes it is.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:0m40i11fdrfug1pmu976t2dh7vumuld0h5@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:10:39 GMT, Joseph <jovu619@verizon.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> So it is reasonable to assume that First Edition rules imply that
    >> when you reach 0 hit points you die that instant -- No last words,
    >> last looks at the world. And this was the intention in a combat
    >> system of one minute rounds with combat far more abstract than Third
    >> Edition?
    >
    > As when you drop to 0HP you get no further actions - no dying blow at
    > your enemy, no last spell, yes it is.

    I'm referring to things that are not actions by the rules; they have no
    mechanical effect relevant in a combat situation. It's just a little color;
    the rules give enough space to reasonably allow it.

    --
    Remove 619 for Verizon e-mail address.

    Add jovu to 619@msn.com for alternative MSN e-mail address.
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:49:20 GMT, Joseph <jovu619@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > > As when you drop to 0HP you get no further actions - no dying blow at
    > > your enemy, no last spell, yes it is.
    >
    > I'm referring to things that are not actions by the rules; they have no
    > mechanical effect relevant in a combat situation. It's just a little color;
    > the rules give enough space to reasonably allow it.

    So, you can talk while dead as long as it's not to cast spells, crawl
    as long is it's not to pull that lever over there, and so on? Does
    that mean I can make a death scream, but only if no friends are near
    to avenge me?

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:mf80i1h5h6d4ecm65aon92cu3ekhrr2ksr@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 10:49:20 GMT, Joseph <jovu619@verizon.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> > As when you drop to 0HP you get no further actions - no dying blow
    >> > at your enemy, no last spell, yes it is.
    >>
    >> I'm referring to things that are not actions by the rules; they have
    >> no mechanical effect relevant in a combat situation. It's just a
    >> little color; the rules give enough space to reasonably allow it.
    >
    > So, you can talk while dead as long as it's not to cast spells, crawl
    > as long is it's not to pull that lever over there, and so on? Does
    > that mean I can make a death scream, but only if no friends are near
    > to avenge me?


    No, I'm simply saying that the exact moment you hit 0 hit points is
    undefined in the rules. Allow a little in-world time between the attack
    that kills you and actual death. But only if that time can not be used
    for any combat actions, or used to save the character.


    --
    Remove 619 for Verizon e-mail address.

    Add jovu to 619@msn.com for alternative MSN e-mail address.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:48:29 GMT, Joseph <jovu619@verizon.net> carved
    upon a tablet of ether:

    > No, I'm simply saying that the exact moment you hit 0 hit points is
    > undefined in the rules. Allow a little in-world time between the attack
    > that kills you and actual death. But only if that time can not be used
    > for any combat actions, or used to save the character.

    Talking is a combat action. And if you can talk, you can activate a
    voice activated item.

    --
    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz>
    "Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
    should be free."
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote in
    news:iuc0i1p2bon1m2j15ea8io15dovckmoajr@4ax.com:

    > On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 11:48:29 GMT, Joseph <jovu619@verizon.net> carved
    > upon a tablet of ether:
    >
    >> No, I'm simply saying that the exact moment you hit 0 hit points is
    >> undefined in the rules. Allow a little in-world time between the
    >> attack that kills you and actual death. But only if that time can not
    >> be used for any combat actions, or used to save the character.
    >
    > Talking is a combat action. And if you can talk, you can activate a
    > voice activated item.

    AD&D 1st Edition Players Handbook (1978) page 105: "First Strike: The 1
    minute Melee round assumes much activity -- rushes, retreats, feints,
    parries, checks, and so on. Once during this period each combatant has
    the opportunity to get a real blow in. Usually this is indicated by
    initiative, but sometimes other circumstances will prevail... Your DM
    will adjudicate such matters with common sense."

    And this was a change AD&D 1st Edition Dungeon Master Guide (1979) page
    82: Zero Hit points: When any creature is brought to 0 hit points
    (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought
    the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding
    rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached
    and the creature dies. Such loss and death are caused from bleeding,
    shock and convulsions, non-respiration, and similar causes. It ceases
    immediately on any round a friendly creature administers aid to the
    unconscious one. Aid consists of binding wounds, starting respiration,
    admistrating a draught (spirits, healing potions etc.), or otherwise
    doing whatever is necessary to restore life.

    Any character brought to 0 (or fewer) hit points and than revived will
    remain in a coma for 1-6 turns. Thereafter, he or she must rest for a
    full week, minimum. He or she will be incapable of any activity other
    than that necessary to move slowly to a place of rest and eat and sleep
    when there. The character cannot attack, defend, cast spells, use magic
    devices, carry burdens, run, study, research, or do anything else. This
    is true even if cure spells and/or healing potions are given to him or
    her, although if a heal spell is bestowed the prohibition no longer
    applies.

    If any creature reaches a state of -6 or greater negative points before
    being revived, this could indicate scarring or the loss of some member
    if you so choose. For example, a character struck by a fireball and then
    treated when at -9 might have horrible scar tissue on exposed areas of
    flesh -- hands, arms, neck, face."

    Hmm, Gives reasonable space to the DM, and is quite Simulationist.

    --
    Remove 619 for Verizon e-mail address.

    Add jovu to 619@msn.com for alternative MSN e-mail address.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Joseph <jovu619@verizon.net> wrote, after quoting AD&D hp rules:
    > Hmm, Gives reasonable space to the DM, and is quite Simulationist.

    You keep using this word, "simulationist." I do not think it means what
    you think it means.
    --
    Bradd W. Szonye
    http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Command Prompt Video Games