You hit it, you killed it!

[Deleted]

"Crummy" is an old railroad term for "caboose".

[captaincrumbcake]

Apr 30, 2016 11:16:42 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

"Crummy" is an old railroad term for "caboose".

Wow. So now I'm the tail-end of a runaway train, am I?

[captaincrumbcake]

I'd like to point out something, that, seems acceptable in principle, but when expansion of the concept is suggested (as in this thread) there is hesitance and resistance. And that is:

Instant Kills already exist within the framework of the rules; even the 1974-76 manuals. How is this possible? Simple: if anything has but 1 HP and is successfully struck, it is "killed." Even creatures with 2, 3, 4 HP can be instantly killed when struck, if magical weapons/other items add to the damage generated by an attacker. (Clearly, many don't; but some do.)

Thus, in principle, should a character hit a foe, and be able to deliver a minimum of, say, 4 HP, a mechanic for I-K is already in place. 
So why does the suggestion of the idea of expanding the principle make no sense, when the principle itself, is easily acceptable?

Just some more of my foggy mountain rambling. Certainly not intended to subject anyone to such horse-pucky with any malice.

[robkuntz]

CCC noted: "So why does the suggestion of the idea of expanding the principle make no sense, when the principle itself, is easily acceptable?


The principle is only applicable in part, that is why. It is a conditional principle and not generally applicable due to the constraints of knowledge in any given situation. It's granular not linear.

[captaincrumbcake]

No doubt we could discuss this subject in length.
I'm hoping to someday test-run this idea and see if/where, in principle, it fails/succeeds.

[robkuntz]

Apr 30, 2016 13:12:11 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

No doubt we could discuss this subject in length.
I'm hoping to someday test-run this idea and see if/where, in principle, it fails/succeeds.

As well as you should in order to prove the principle either true or false within what you conceive as it is capable of (as it is your own postulate) compared to what it might otherwise provisionally reveal if left untested and to the vagaries of opinion (including my own).

[Admin Pete]

Apr 30, 2016 11:16:42 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

"Crummy" is an old railroad term for "caboose".

Or an old or converted truck used to transport loggers to and from work. 

[Deleted]

Apr 30, 2016 12:53:13 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

I'd like to point out something, that, seems acceptable in principle, but when expansion of the concept is suggested (as in this thread) there is hesitance and resistance. And that is:

Instant Kills already exist within the framework of the rules; even the 1974-76 manuals. How is this possible? Simple: if anything has but 1 HP and is successfully struck, it is "killed." Even creatures with 2, 3, 4 HP can be instantly killed when struck, if magical weapons/other items add to the damage generated by an attacker. (Clearly, many don't; but some do.)

Thus, in principle, should a character hit a foe, and be able to deliver a minimum of, say, 4 HP, a mechanic for I-K is already in place. 
So why does the suggestion of the idea of expanding the principle make no sense, when the principle itself, is easily acceptable?

Just some more of my foggy mountain rambling. Certainly not intended to subject anyone to such horse-pucky with any malice.

For some of us at least, we've tried instant kill rules and discarded them.  Do you think Gary never thought of them?  He left them out for a reason.  And over the last 42 years a number of other people thought of them too.

There is no reason to not add them if you desire, of course, but the first step is to consider "how will this change the game?"  There are those of us who have considered it and have decided against it, and "what do you think of this" is a different question from "will this work."

Mileage, vary, yours.

[robkuntz]

WEll, Barker got away with it: "The lucky hit", etc. But I have seen (and played in) games where it has run amok. As I said, these have less to do with realism than just plain power mongering. Why would not the ability to inflict a critical then ascend per level? It would sure shorten the fights tremendously if say 4 first levels ran into 2 third levels, the latter having better chances to score crits. Otherwise most rules are across the board, which gives the low levels an awkward chance of killing the super hero with a lucky hit. I know, I've done it in a person's game: Roll 2 20's btb = dead. I agree that it changes the game immensely and in ways many DMs will find astounding in some cases. Get lucky and get tons of money and magic fast. Better to develop skills in game than rules to replace play, anyway. YMMV.

[Deleted]

Agreed. Plus, of course, we have the people who need a rule for EVERYTHING. I don't care what level Big Badguy is; if you find him sound asleep, and you have a two handed axe, and you don't fumble, and you hit him in the head with a two handed axe while he is asleep, HE IS DEAD NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL HE IS. I don't need a "coupe de grace" or "helpless opponent" rule. I understand the way OD&D combat works, and I know when as referee to make a ruling.

Of course, my IQ is larger than my shoe size, which helps.

[robkuntz]

"Of course, my IQ is larger than my shoe size, which helps."

You should have really put that in a larger Font size, say 48 pt., just to emphasize, for sure...

Yep, the days of yore are not old, just not remembered by the many for they were never learned...

[Admin Pete]

captaincrumbcake  I have used critical hits and I have played without them. I have had a lot of fun both ways. Whether or not I use them depends on the flavor I want for the game. In general my personal preference is not to use them. Sometimes you want a player to be able to have a shot at pulling off a miracle win. Other times that is not the game you want, so you don't do it. 

As already said, consider how it can change the game and what can happen if they get a lucky kill of something that should have wiped the floor with the whole party. Do you want that and can you live with it.

I am in favor of this - if you have a really flexible group and they are on board with you doing something for a few sessions and then dropping it. Then just tell the players over the next so many games I am going to experiment with a bunch of different house rules one or two at at a time just to see how they work. If you have never tried something yourself, it doesn't really matter that we have and how we feel about it. If you want to try it, then try it and let us know how it went.

The ongoing group I am playing with since July 2009 has undergone many rule variations and never one have they objected to the changes nor have they asked me to bring something back or to not do something. I ask for and receive feedback on a ongoing basis and this group has been very flexible and no rules lawyers in the group.

[Deleted]

May 1, 2016 19:09:19 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

If you have never tried something yourself, it doesn't really matter that we have and how we feel about it. If you want to try it, then try it and let us know how it went.

Totally true.  I have lost count of the number of hacks over the years we've done.  One of the first was a set of two-weapon fighting rules that were either three or five typed pages, I don't remember which.  After a couple of months we just said "Ya know, this ain't working" and stopped using them.

Heck, that's how Gary wrote OD&D.  Put down some ideas and fiddle with them until the game plays the way you want it to.

[bestialwarlust]

May 1, 2016 17:17:25 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Agreed. Plus, of course, we have the people who need a rule for EVERYTHING. I don't care what level Big Badguy is; if you find him sound asleep, and you have a two handed axe, and you don't fumble, and you hit him in the head with a two handed axe while he is asleep, HE IS DEAD NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL HE IS. I don't need a "coupe de grace" or "helpless opponent" rule. I understand the way OD&D combat works, and I know when as referee to make a ruling.

Of course, my IQ is larger than my shoe size, which helps.

And I think that sums up all of the issues with games. So people want a rule to tell them how to play. I've seen it in groups they play one heavy rules version and they think they have all these options because the book tells them how. You put the same players down with OD&D and though they can do the same and more they seem to freeze up on creativity. I wonder if it's from years of bad GM's who couldn't think outside the rules and so those players got used to GM's who didn't dare question or change a rule or make a ruling on the fly. So players were conditioned to if they don't see it in the book they can't do it.

[Deleted]

I was, at the same time, playing SWd20, a very rules heavy system and OD&D, very rules light, with the same group of people.

IN SW, when something came up, everybody looked at their character sheets. IN OD&D everybody looked at each other and started talking.

Rules drive behavior.

[captaincrumbcake]

May 1, 2016 21:41:00 GMT -5 bestialwarlust said:

May 1, 2016 17:17:25 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Agreed. Plus, of course, we have the people who need a rule for EVERYTHING. I don't care what level Big Badguy is; if you find him sound asleep, and you have a two handed axe, and you don't fumble, and you hit him in the head with a two handed axe while he is asleep, HE IS DEAD NO MATTER WHAT LEVEL HE IS. I don't need a "coupe de grace" or "helpless opponent" rule. I understand the way OD&D combat works, and I know when as referee to make a ruling.

Of course, my IQ is larger than my shoe size, which helps.

And I think that sums up all of the issues with games. So people want a rule to tell them how to play. I've seen it in groups they play one heavy rules version and they think they have all these options because the book tells them how. You put the same players down with OD&D and though they can do the same and more they seem to freeze up on creativity. I wonder if it's from years of bad GM's who couldn't think outside the rules and so those players got used to GM's who didn't dare question or change a rule or make a ruling on the fly. So players were conditioned to if they don't see it in the book they can't do it.

 

I do not find this is applicable to what the subject (and point) of this thread is about.



There have been a lot of comments offered, and--IMO-- too much drifting going on.



It is difficult to address a given matter, when (a) the matter isn't being well defined and, (b) seems to change to suit the supplier.



I'd like to reiterate that the subject is valid for consideration in one's own game; it can be taken or left. But I disagree with any notion that it is being presented as some kind of Act to insert Realism into the game (that we all know). It is far from that. Further, it is not intended to nail-down or provide rules-to-end-all. At the most, it is simply an expanded idea that is already present in the game; while it may be hiding here and there, if one only looks for it, it can be found. (When a Fire Giant does 2 dice +2 damage upon striking, it is rather apparent that, most likely, should it be striking a level 1 MU, it is probably going to be a "he hit you/you're dead" situation.)

"Well, the level 1 character deserves if for being a dumb-azz! and going up against a fire giant," some might trumpet. Then, turn around and exclaim that "character's need to learn their lessons, and protecting them from tough encounters--even those they should learn to run from--does them no service and makes for poor DMing!"

Those that think so are merely wanting to have it both ways.

Of course, everyone's mmv

[robkuntz]

CCC noted: "I'd like to reiterate that the subject is valid for consideration in one's own game; it can be taken or left. But I disagree with any notion that it is being presented as some kind of Act to insert Realism into the game (that we all know). It is far from that. Further, it is not intended to nail-down or provide rules-to-end-all. At the most, it is simply an expanded idea that is already present in the game; while it may be hiding here and there, if one only looks for it, it can be found. (When a Fire Giant does 2 dice +2 damage upon striking, it is rather apparent that, most likely, should it be striking a level 1 MU, it is probably going to be a "he hit you/you're dead" situation.)"

Yes. That is why I said that in those situations it is a given, but otherwise remains a conditional principle; and thus the confusion that derives in how to make it other than a fact of built in scaling. There are assumptive leaps deriving from your example that do not make sense logically, or at this point in your postulation, so rather than defend the principle as you sense it, perhaps you should do what PD suggested and use it, and as I suggested and prove it is what it is (or not) what you are indeed asserting. Then we will all be less confused by drifting about with you. YMMV

[Admin Pete]

Apr 26, 2016 10:57:02 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Okay, folks. Here's a table for Crit. Hits/Kills I designed.
While it is totally arbitrary, I based the figures on the character(fighter)level vs the creature-monster HD.
All Critical Hits require (1st) a natural 20 (until higher levels are achieved), then, a second 20 sided die is rolled and if the result is equal or greater to the # given on the table it is an instant kill.
As fighters get higher in levels, the # needed for an instant kill decreases(see table); if the figure below a monster's HD shows a +1-2-3, etc., an instant kill requires a second natural 20 plus the number shown that may be provided by magical weapons, items or strength bonuses (if using GH and subsequent editions).

While it may appear complicated (cough, cough), it's not. It's just a table. No different than the combat and save charts you (as a DM) likely already use. Getting accustomed to it would require about 3 minutes of your time. If you like it, use it as a template. Modify it. Alter it to suit your own sense of values. (And, sorry about the wobbly columns. I did this in my paint program!)
It is still developmental as far as I'm concerned, and needs some play testing (before I incorporate it into The Lost Lands campaign, anyway.) 

captaincrumbcake I was looking at your table again and just for comparison the rule that I used, when I used it, was the same as someone else noted here. Roll a natural 20, then roll again and on a second natural 20 the result is an auto kill. I never scaled it, that was the same rule for any level player or any HD monster. I am not sure it is implicit in your post above, but I have also played the same rules for the monsters as for the PCs. IMC when there are critical hits those apply by the monsters against the PCs too. I never have rules that only apply one-sidedly against the monsters, if it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander.

[robkuntz]

Well, critical hits are rather an arbitrary rule, anyway. There is no ascertaining from historical record where to derive a base for such expansion/extrapolation; and certainly less so when we are already dealing with a severely abstracted set of rules regarding "general combat" in pseudo historical senses. So, go for it I say. Whatever twirls your twizzle stick. But as far as the "science" of it I say as usual, BAH! I for one would be more disposed to listening to a player's plan to outright kill an opponent and then assessing that possibility (then probability if YES/TRUE) stream than having a built in formula, but that's the game-play rather than the game-rule.

[Admin Pete]

May 2, 2016 7:23:19 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

 I for one would be more disposed to listening to a player's plan to outright kill an opponent and then assessing that possibility (then probability if YES/TRUE) stream than having a built in formula, but that's the game-play rather than the game-rule.

This is what I prefer, just tell me what you want to do.

[captaincrumbcake]

In response to Rob's point--

Having one's player describe what he'd(the character) like to do to perform an instant kill on a monster, is fine. But not applicable to the point of the table I provide. What you're addressing, Rob, sounds more like an assassin's ability--not something that might occur in the heat of a long and tiring melee combat, involving multiple moving targets all intended on killing you! And that is the point of the table; at least in theory.

And, yup--I admit that the table is arbitrary. It is not, however, intended to reflect any notion of realism, or whatever.

Now, to PD's point (here: I am not sure it is implicit in your post above, but I have also played the same rules for the monsters as for the PCs. IMC when there are critical hits those apply by the monsters against the PCs too. I never have rules that only apply one-sidedly against the monsters, if it is sauce for the goose it is sauce for the gander.
)

If you think about it, I'll bet you can see that that's not, truly, the case. Let me expand upon this claim.

Characters rise in levels, and they get better at performing certain class actions: spell casting, turning undead, combat, thiefy things. Monsters (in the traditional/generic sense), don't. I'll bet you allow all bugbears, ogres, giants, etc., to fight using the same To Hit column (leaders with more HD, aside), don't you? Why? Surely some, if not many, of them are combat veterans, having taken part in many battles and campaigns over the course of time... So why would you not allow those to have better combat odds? more on par with a human fighter of equal experience?

Characters get better. It's built into the game's philosophy. Monsters (especially non-humanoid types), do not progress. (Note: there are some individual exceptions that need not confuse the issue.)

So, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, individual style and preference is, let's be honest, the only real explanation of either accepting or rejecting the introduction/or removal of new tinkerings into the game as we know it.

And as always, ymmv

[robkuntz]

CCC noted: "Having one's player describe what he'd(the character) like to do to perform an instant kill on a monster, is fine. But not applicable to the point of the table I provide. What you're addressing, Rob, sounds more like an assassin's ability--not something that might occur in the heat of a long and tiring melee combat, involving multiple moving targets all intended on killing you! And that is the point of the table; at least in theory."

Well... NO. It was a general example of wanting to kill someone and forwarding a plan for it and has no time/space constraints. One can say in the heat of battle that they utilize what they have or what is apparent in the environment, whatever, to do the deed, just as an assassin plans more minutely for the future. Both cases depend upon a plan which include available resources as adduced and are not constrained by anything but that (as far as plans go). Whether they are effective plans depends upon the ruling forthcoming from the input to output stages. Gary and I did this all the time while DMing. It's called: systematizing.

[captaincrumbcake]

Ever been in a brawl? a street fight? There is no plan. Any plan at all is, strike, strike, dodge, dodge, and possibly get the hell out of there. Reducing sword and armor combat into the game, the creators (rightfully) designed an abstraction of such activity. I, personally, do not think the suggested table is any more or less non-abstract than the combat system used by so many for all these years.

That said, there is another point, I think that Mike expressed, that I believe needs addressing.

He referred to it as "hacks" I believe. In that (I'll paraphrase), many of the original game designers/players tried lots of things, and discarded them for being undesired. But the key to all that IMO is this:
well, so what? You tried some things (your versions of...whatever) and didn't like it. That doesn't mean the, whatever, failed necessarily. It could have been ill-conceived, kinks not ironed out, or any number of things; or may well have just not been liked by those testing the whatever, out. That is not, in itself, evidence that the whatever, when attempted by others, would meet the same fate. For what is, in the end, just a preference of one, or some, doesn't dictate that the same preference will be (nor should be in this case) shared by all.

And, if there is a spirit to this game (as many of us have contended), then the idea of introducing (or bringing back) concepts and perspectives for possible use, should not be discouraged nor boo-hooed simply because they may have been attempted before, and those doing so, simply did not like them.

As I previously suggested, this is a subject that could easily be discussed, in length.

[robkuntz]

Yes I have been in a brawl. But more importantly i have used the systemization as noted, above, many times. And it works. And no one is boo-hooing your concept; they may be attempting to ascertain more of it and whether it is useful for them. I do not find it useful for reasons stated elsewhere, but I have done nothing but encourage you to find it useful for yourself. You, unfortunately, keep insisting that my own systemization (assassin notation, now, street brawl) is in fact not what you would feel is conducive to your own views. So, now that we have reached parity, enjoy yours and everyone else, including me, will be enjoying ours.

[captaincrumbcake]

Well clearly, Rob, there is nothing wrong with us having a difference of opinion on the subject. And the gentle sparring we find enjoyment in does not mean that, just because I do not fully comprehend your point or position, that we are somehow at odds.

Everyone should be enjoying their own (even if shared by 1 or many)style and version of the game.
Perhaps I appear to be responding too sensitive to the issue and/or comments. Whether true or not.
In the end, I do indeed plan to test this concept/& table, to see if it succeeds or fails in actual use.

[robkuntz]

The problem is in the interface, that is, the Internet. It is conclusive in dealing with set in stone tables and the rules attached to these. That's linearity. It adds up and so it can be described as a set in stone routine good for text book examples. However, the game is non-linear, for if it were not we could describe every facet of it and thus have a rule for every situation, which in a world of ever changing contexts is impossible.  Arneson, Gygax and myself understood this and thus we defaulted to ongoing systemization--an Arnesonian concept, btw--extolled by his quote that, "Rules Lawyers are the enemy".  Arneson was a minimalist for structure, which allowed for his other quote to manifest, "I like loose so you can change what isn't working."

So, if you were here in Corsica and I had you in an adventure, and while in that adventure a situation arose and we did inputs to outputs it could be easily understood.  Otherwise the whole would have to be exampled in situ with too many words.  I do that in the BOOK in many places. For now you'll just have to take my word for it that Gygax and myself could leverage it like breathing air.

[Deleted]

May 2, 2016 11:57:50 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Ever been in a brawl? a street fight? There is no plan. Any plan at all is, strike, strike, dodge, dodge, and possibly get the hell out of there.

Apparently, you and I brawl very differently ... I've always had a plan and that has always given me an edge. :/

[captaincrumbcake]

(lol)
Perhaps I am, but, an amateur brawler.

[robkuntz]

May 2, 2016 14:09:47 GMT -5 JMiskimen said:

May 2, 2016 11:57:50 GMT -5 captaincrumbcake said:

Ever been in a brawl? a street fight? There is no plan. Any plan at all is, strike, strike, dodge, dodge, and possibly get the hell out of there.

Apparently, you and I brawl very differently ... I've always had a plan and that has always given me an edge. :/

The shortest fights are won through plans.  The longest ones are usually the drunken brawls.

[robkuntz]

Point out the plans devised during this brawl, erh, fight: