WouldBeCreator said:
This is a fair argument, and one that I think I alluded to in this post or elsewhere. But I'm not altogether sure that it's a winner because I'm skeptical that GMs/DMs are able to stick to the rules even when there are rules. I speak here from my own very limited experience, since the only time I played dice & rules RPGs was for one summer camp when I was a freshman in high school. I was the DM for maybe 80-90% of the time, so in some ways I'm just projecting my own flaws here. So take those caveats with this argument.
I just thought I'd chime in here, since I have some experience of bad DMing (my own) at a tender age.
On the main issue, I generally agree with DM decisions over hard rules, and with no numbers (as far as possible) shown to the player in cRPGs - preferably few labels either. Most Succeed-or-Die choices (e.g. chasm jumping) should probably be avoided in cRPGs, unless failure can usually be made into an interesting challenge, rather than the end of the game.
On D&D stuff:
If you friend jumps and dies and that's it, then what the hell are you going to do?
There are two steps here - however you decide whether the jump was successful:
(1) Was the jump successful.
(2) What happens if it fails.
If you're sticking to the rules on (1), then you had better be ready to be inventive with (2). A few ideas off the top of my head:
Player fails jump by tripping as he starts to jump. He manages to grab onto the side of the chasm as he starts to fall (or not another die roll?? another interesting failure?). Before he can be pulled up, dramatic situation X occurs (combat / something more inventive). He is left hanging, perhaps separated from party, perhaps has to drop his backpack to climb up.
Player falls short of the other side and falls, injuring himself badly, but finding that the chasm was not as deep as it first appeared. {insert more drama here}
Player falls short of the other side, but falls onto a ledge. Maybe the party need to rescue him (encourage inventive rope use). Perhaps he can climb up from the ledge (more die rolls?). Perhaps there is a passage leading off from the ledge... {insert drama}
Player almost makes jump, but can only grab onto the other side with his hands. Needs to climb up / drop backpack / gets minorly hurt...
The basic idea is to punish the player for failing the jump, but not to kill him. The player probably knows that you're not going to let him die (unless he repeatedly takes the piss), but he'll also know that failure will make things much harder. He might get hurt / have to drop prized possessions to survive / be forced to overcome difficult obstacles...
Being a DM is hard because you need to respond inventively to any situation that arrises - preferably without killing half the party or making them feel godlike. Whether you decide on failure, or the dice decide is not too important. It's what you do from there that matters. You can do anything. You're telling a story, but the player's decisions should have a real impact on it. Heros don't always make it across chasms, they are just lucky enough to survive somehow when they fail. It's up to the DM to come up with an interesting "somehow" while making sure that the player loses out in some way. A creative DM will hardly ever need to kill players (if the players are anti death) - this doesn't need to make things less exciting.
Indeed, to this day I don't really understand how AD&D is actually playable. I mean, mages *really* only get 1-4 HP when they're starting out? Fighters too? So if you roll a 1, you'll die in any fight anytime anyone hits you? ...Meanwhile, your friend rolls two 8's, and he's eight times as powerful as you are?! He can take on a handful of goblins and a one rat is life or death for you? How can that be fun?
Quite a few DMs will give players a decent "roll" for the first level automatically. That's probably more fun, I agree.
For a level 1 mage, he'll probably die if he gets into melee combat (again an inventive DM can usually prevent death and instead give another punishment - if desired). Perhaps in that case first level characters shouldn't usually get into combat. Combat is dangerous for low levels, so should usually be avoided if possible. Occasionally it'll be necessary, but often it can be a "party vs one enemy" situation. Harder combats will be dangerous, but that can make them more exciting. Again, if players are death phobic, the DM will have to be inventive / bend the rules to avoid killing them - but should definitely punish them for these near death experiences. If they were unlucky, a slight punishment is reasonable. If they were stupid, a harsh punishment is better.
Also, you're exaggerating when you say that two 8's will make a fighter 8 times as powerful as two ones. For a start, many fighters will have a constitution hp bonus, so two ones might be 4 or 6hp. Also, if many hits will do e.g. 1d8 or more damage. On an 8, the fighter who rolled an 8 will die after 2 or 3 hits, while the one who rolled ones will die after 1 hit. Sure, he's much more powerful, but not eight times.
Personally I think that having 1d8 hp (or 1d10...) is a bit silly. 1d4+2 or 1d6+2 etc. would make more sense. Stupid die rolls should be abandoned, but that doesn't make using dice a bad idea - you just need to have reasonable rules. I don't think 1d8 is reasonable. 1d4 + 2, 1d4 + 4 or 1d6 + 2 ... make more sense.
Again, it's worth wondering whether it's more fun to die to a dragon than it is to not get to determine *whether* it gets killed.
Again, the question shouldn't be whether the dragon dies or you die, but rather whether the dragon dies. Whether you die is a separate issue. The DM can usually save players in quite a few ways. For a start, if the players get into a situation where they can't win, the DM should try to make this clear either through narration, or by throwing in clues through events. If the players are losing, they should be encouraged - and rewarded - for making a sensible retreat - particularly if they cover their retreat in an inventive manner. It is quite reasonable to award experience for a sensible retreat in the face of clearly superior odds.
Even if you are using transparent die rolls, and a player is "killed", you can use the rule whereby being reduced below 0hp just knocks you out and requires weeks of recovery before you can do anything. If a player has this happen, the other party members will usually be able to get him out of the situation before he is properly killed - the DM can make sure they get out, but reward them if they do it cleverly / excitingly / inventively, and punish them (somehow) if they "wait for the DM to save them".
Better still for the player to be able to *see* it's mildly enchanted or *feel* it when he uses it than to have any label on it at all.
I definitely agree here.
No matter how well I role-played my barbarian warrior, if I rolled three 1's on his HP rolls, at level 3 he would be a total joke.
True - the range of hp should be less extreme.
And if in battle against an orc, I rolled back to hit rolls, it wouldn't matter how well I planned out the fight.
If the DM is good, he'll make it matter. Even if you play strictly by the rules, the DM can add extra bonuses / penalties when he chooses for situations not governed by the rules. He can also make
anything happen. A good DM will reward his players for good decisions in combat. He might do this through appropriate bonuses / penalties, or through "random" events.
NOTE: I've never really DMed properly. All my DMing was done with small groups of young players when I was under 14. I've been interested in P&P RPGs since, but have never played seriously. I have learned the error of my ways though (I hope), so that I'd at least be a much better DM now than I was then. I don't think my story-telling is good enough though.
That's why I'm baffled as to why people are so up-in-arms over Oblivion's new combat system. I'd much rather lose a fight because I missed with my targeting reticule than lose a fight because the computer generated a 3 rather than a 7. At least in the former scenario, I have some agency, and can get *better* rather than just reload.
In D&D a player should be awarded or punished based primarily on his roleplaying decisions, not on his die rolls. Clearly if he hits, he hits and if he misses he misses, but the chances of those occurences and their consequences should depend on the quality of the roleplaying decisions behind them.
Personally I don't see the problem with damage variation rather than to-hit variation. So long as a player is rewarded for picking sensible battles and being skilled / well prepared, I don't see that it matters how this is achieved. I'd still prefer most losses to make me think "I wasn't skilled enough", "I was badly prepared" or "I should have avoided that fight", rather than "I need to improve my clicking". This doesn't depend on to-hit rolls though, just on the extent that stats determine success in combat. If it isn't possible to block perfectly with a low block skill (or a bad shield), and low weapon skill (or a blunt weapon) leads to very low damage, I don't see the problem. So long as I can usually blame my roleplaying decisions, rather than my skill with a mouse, I'm not bothered.
It can be made harder to hit an enemy in indirect ways too in any case. E.g. increasing the time it takes to swing. Reducing the speed of a swing. Increasing the chance an enemy will block your swing (since he can see what you're about to do). Increasing the recovery time between swings. Increasing the time you're left unable to block after a swing (you'll be more likely to have to retreat slightly). All these things can be stat based.
I really don't see the need for an abstract "to hit" roll. Combat success just needs to be primarily stat based - whether this is true remains to be seen. Perhaps Oblivion's combat isn't any good, but I can't see how adding a to hit roll would improve anything.
I sugest you choose at least one weapon skill and one armor skill if you wan't the game to be at least playable. I would stay away from using h2h or bow as your main combat skills. MSFD posts in this mater were less than conclusive.
