Oe, Chainmail, Delving Deeper, Labyrinth Lord Society, GangBusters, Boot Hill 1e...
Joined: Feb 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 879 Location: Harrisburg, PA USA Karma: 72
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #15 on Jul 29, 2012, 10:28pm »
All I have to add to this conversation is that some folks on this board have apparently been sitting on the rough end of the polyhedrons for much too long. I've rarely seen games and hobby taken with such condescending tones.
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 504 Karma: 67
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #16 on Jul 29, 2012, 10:59pm »
Pointless nitpicking about unimportant definitions aside, I think I might actually like this idea Simon. I say "I think" because I'm still trying to wrap my slow mind around it. I can see this idea greatly enhancing my gaming pleasure both as DM and as a player. Thanks once again, I shall exalt thee.
Joined: Aug 2011 Gender: Male Posts: 297 Karma: 18
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #19 on Jul 29, 2012, 11:19pm »
austrodavicus, Ive been tolerant of your emotional outbursts before but I really can't see why you don't mind your own business. waysoftheearth is well able to speak for himself.
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 504 Karma: 67
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #20 on Jul 29, 2012, 11:22pm »
And I've been tolerant of your sarcastic comments and pointless nitpicking for a long time now and I can't understand why you feel the need to do so other than to create a scene and get your pathetic jollies from it. Why don't you either respond sensibly on these threads or bugger off and leave it to those who wish to do so?
Joined: Nov 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 504 Karma: 67
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #21 on Jul 29, 2012, 11:25pm »
Oh and please do enlighten me as to why "Laurel & Hardy have arrived." is an OK comment from you, but my response of "And Bozo is here already." is considered, by you, to be an "emotional" outburst? Please tell me the difference because I seem to be having trouble seeing it.
All I have to add to this conversation is that some folks on this board have apparently been sitting on the rough end of the polyhedrons for much too long. I've rarely seen games and hobby taken with such condescending tones.
My apologies to the board readership if any of my remarks were taken as condescending. No such thing was intended, to anyone. If I was overboard with the dictionary definition thing, I can only plead that a common understanding of terms and phrases in use is the foundation of any communication.
Have an exalt SMKSensei for reminding us all that this is all in the name of fun!
p.s. I still believe Kent's suggestion about N many damage dice rather than N many attack rolls is a good one, and I intend to "do the numbers" on it this evening to see how it turns out. I'll post the results when I have them...
One of OD&D's design quirks is [...] Two 1st level fighters would fight for an average of 3 rounds. [...] [W]hile two 9th level fighters would fight for an average of 16 rounds to get a result.
By comparison with boxing, two amateur [≈1st level] boxers fight for 3 3-minute rounds, while two professional [≈9th level] boxers would fight for 15.44898 (16, rounding up) 3-minute rounds, on average, if they were allowed to "go the distance"; allow me to justify that--I looked at a sample of n=49 boxing matches fought between 1900 and 1909, when there was no limit on how many rounds a fight could go, before being reduced to 12 rounds (after Ray Mancini tragically killed 23-YO Korean challenger 김득구 in the ring in 1982), and found the mean number of rounds fought was 15.44898. The standard deviation for this distribution was 11.21394. The minimum was 1 round, the maximum was 50 rounds. A histogram of the data looks vaguely Poisson log-normal:
In short, the "quirky" OD&D combat system somewhat mimics real-life boxing data: It actually takes longer for professional boxers to KO their equivalent opponents than it takes amateur boxers.
I know realistic combat wasn't Dave's or Gary's design goal. They were going for cinematic rather than realistic combat. But somehow they got realistic results, if boxing may be considered real...
Anyway, D&D is fantasy, and it's OK to have fights in one's game approach 5 rounds on average, asymptotically, as experience increases. And @waysoftheearth should be highly commended for his excellent analysis and recommendations.
* Every hit will cause 1-6 hit points of damage. Yay! * Damage per round progression is achieved, for monsters and PCs alike, by increasing number of attacks per round, as follows: [...]
Have you considered for each round, 1 attack at nd6 rather than n attacks at 1d6?
If the goal is 5 rounds of combat between equals, then instead of increasing the number of attacks to n=(HD-or-level/2) rounded-up, keeping 1 attack per round and multiplying damage by n makes good narrative sense, using the rationale that more XP doesn't make a PC faster, rather it makes each hit n times more lethal. This is the cinematic example that popped in my head:
Pai Mei 白眉, AKA the White Lotus, a 20th level fighter, doesn't get 10 attacks per round. Rather, his enormous experience allows him to perform the lethal Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique, "the deadliest blow in all of martial arts," which multiplies his damage by 10. However, Pai Mei could certainly "pull his punches," doing the normal 1d6 damage, if he really wanted to.
I could see either approach working, it just depends on the story you want to tell:
n attacks at 1d6 dmg = flurry of blows 1 attack at n times d6 dmg = 1 lethal blow
I looked at a sample of n=49 boxing matches fought between 1900 and 1909 ... and found the mean number of rounds fought was 15.44898. The standard deviation for this distribution was 11.21394. The minimum was 1 round, the maximum was 50 rounds.
That's excellent information Aher, but... these data appear to represent our "professional" (aka 9th level) boxers only. Are there any equivalent data for bout duration between our amateur (aka 1st level) boxers for comparison?
It doesn't seem fair to compare a constrained 3 round duration (if that's what it was) for amateurs, to the unconstrained 16 round average for pros.
Let's also not forget that boxing matches have a one minute rest between three minute rounds. Lethal combat wouldn't include this "luxury", and thus might be considerably shorter. I ceratinly agree that the professionals would last longer than the amateurs -- the question is how much longer?
I set these durations arbitrarily between 3 and 5 rounds (based more on player attention span than any realism), but these numbers could be tweaked to taste.
edit to add : Also, as higher level fighters (and monsters) generally have better ACs, the average fight duration would be longer than the figures I listed in the OP -- these were calculated against the "average possible AC" of 5.5.
In short, the "quirky" OD&D combat system somewhat mimics real-life boxing data: It actually takes longer for professional boxers to KO their equivalent opponents than it takes amateur boxers.
Hmmmmm... yes, but only for those monsters that do 1d6 damage regardless of hit dice. The other monsters exhibited a steady fight duration, while fighters had a "saw tooth" graph, that did trend upward (mostly).
Anyway, D&D is fantasy, and it's OK to have fights in one's game approach 5 rounds on average, asymptotically, as experience increases. And @waysoftheearth should be highly commended for his excellent analysis and recommendations.
Thanks Aher!
The other practical consideration is that if combats drag on too long at the game table, players tend to get bored and lose interest. It can become a dull "grind" to whittle away all those hit points.
these data appear to represent our "professional" (aka 9th level) boxers only. Are there any equivalent data for bout duration between our amateur (aka 1st level) boxers for comparison?
It doesn't seem fair to compare a constrained 3 round duration (if that's what it was) for amateurs, to the unconstrained 16 round average for pros.
The Wikipedia article on boxing notes: "Professional bouts are usually much longer than amateur bouts, typically ranging from ten to twelve rounds, though four round fights are common for less experienced fighters or club fighters" reinforcing the notion that experience equates with stamina. (Unfortunately, the data set the article points to in the footnotes to support this claim doesn't seem to be there anymore, so I couldn't crunch the numbers for "less experienced fighters.")
Let's also not forget that boxing matches have a one minute rest between three minute rounds. Lethal combat wouldn't include this "luxury", and thus might be considerably shorter.
Historically, the Roman infantry used a 3-line system (triplex acies) to allow tired men to rest. The Wikipedia article on Roman infantry tactics quotes Lt. Col. S.G. Brady:
When the first line as a whole had done its best and become weakened and exhausted by losses, it gave way to the relief of fresh men from the second line who, passing through it gradually, pressed forward one by one, or in single file, and worked their way into the fight in the same way. Meanwhile the tired men of the original first line, when sufficiently rested, reformed and re-entered the fight. This continued until all men of the first and second lines had been engaged. This does not presuppose an actual withdrawal of the first line, but rather a merging, a blending or a coalescing of both lines. Thus the enemy was given no rest and was continually opposed by fresh troops until, exhausted and demoralized, he yielded to repeated attacks.
Chainmail has fatigue rules (p. 11), so for example, troops must rest one turn per 3 combat rounds, or else suffer penalties to attack, defense and morale. Something akin to these fatigue rules could be house-ruled into the OD&D ACS. Then a party that developed smart tactics like the triplex acies that made allowances for rest would have an advantage over a party that didn't.
Indeed, let's get this party started. Ready to get off my laurels and have a hearty ale. Will somebody bring extra dice and remember to eschew curmudgeonry?
Simon, I like what I've seen here thus far, and I look forward to seeing any enhancements that Kent's and aher's suggestions may bring.
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,209 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #27 on Jul 30, 2012, 6:55am »
Okay, so I did the arithmetic (!) for damage dice required to achieve the same DPR progression as my original post, and almost immediately realised that I didn't need to.
Here's the result:
The table lists number of attacks OR damage per attack required to achieve the given DPR. Don't use both together
A damage roll of 3+2 means roll 3d6 and add 2 to the result (e.g., 3d6+2).
It's quite plain to see that N many attacks per round each doing 1d6 damage per hit translates directly to 1 attack per round doing Nd6 damage per hit.
This would be quicker to run at the game table (as Kent hinted at a few posts back), but would result in more than half of all rounds being "misses" with no damage caused, and the relatively few hits being "king hits" (as I hinted at a few posts back).
It is my suspicion that the multiple attack roll combat would be a "game of attrition" over a few rounds, with a few smaller hits being scored here and there. While the multiple damage roll combat might instead be a case of "first hit wins".
For this reason I favour multiple attack rolls over multiple damage rolls, but others clearly feel differently, and that is perfectly fine.
In any case, this king hit issue could be remedied (if desired) by making hits 50% more likely, but dealing 67% as much damage, or by making hits twice as likely but causing half as much damage (just for example). The referee can do whatever he pleases of course.
The other outstanding question mark is; If there is to be a "golden" average number of combat rounds, how many should it be? How many combat rounds is long enough, but not too long?
I proposed somewhere between 3 and 5 in my OP, but there is some evidence that non-lethal boxing matches can last considerably longer. Adjusting the numbers to get the desired average duration should not be particularly difficult.
Joined: Sept 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,209 Location: Melbourne, Australia Karma: 195
Re: Simplified OD&D Combat that Scales « Reply #28 on Jul 30, 2012, 7:27am »
Just for completeness, here are those extra couple of damage progressions I mentioned in my last post:
In this chart, we see the damage to roll per hit with a single attack roll per round, if we use the 1st-3rd level fighter, 4-5 HD monster, or 10th-12th level fighter attack matrices respectively.
These amount to attacks being "normal" (for a 1st level fighter), almost 50% more likely to hit (effectively a +4 to hit adjustment), and almost twice as likely to hit (effectively a +7 to hit adjustment), while damage is 1, 2/3rds, and 1/2 as great, respectively.
I don't like these as much because a 1 HD man doesn't deal 1d6... and some of the numbers are more fiddly to remember.
(All this is constrained to the average combat durations I mentioned in the OP. If you want combat to last twice as long, halve the damage. Or halve the probability of a hit).
The Wikipedia article on boxing notes: "Professional bouts are usually much longer than amateur bouts, typically ranging from ten to twelve rounds, though four round fights are common for less experienced fighters or club fighters" reinforcing the notion that experience equates with stamina. (Unfortunately, the data set the article points to in the footnotes to support this claim doesn't seem to be there anymore, so I couldn't crunch the numbers for "less experienced fighters.")
Last year, I spent a few months watching UFC fights. I observed the following:
In matches featuring less experienced opponents, the majority of the fights ended in the first round. One of the fighters would let his guard momentarily slip and it would all be over.
Matches with more experienced fighters tended to last longer. Occasionally going the distance (3 rounds, 5 for main events.)
They made less mistakes, but more importantly, they were better able to recover when they did screw up.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
![[avatar]](http://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3632089479/384133a24f0d799205d632883fe0448e.jpeg "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Logged![[avatar]](http://i881.photobucket.com/albums/ac15/TravisDF/montaigne99.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i561.photobucket.com/albums/ss56/waysoftheearth/Ways_100x100.jpg "[avatar]")
![[image]](http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8154/7674556602_a92b115d95.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/044b4f46ae119b575c348147f52fec519d712c6ead3818d3b9eebd5f49e088b84g.jpg "[image]")
![[image]](http://www.mediafire.com/conv/806db4040b18d3178eff85478feb3ecd2d837c2710aa74a9e2a624de80f2f2b94g.jpg "[image]")
![[avatar]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SIGeq9D8APs/UUSXldBtiCI/AAAAAAAAEiQ/eM8iLi_zT7k/s320/100100.JPG "[avatar]")