|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 24, 2017 19:20:12 GMT -6
chirinebakal,
Just FYI, all the methods you have mentioned equal a linear distribution (5% each side, 1-20, or percentile in 5% increments, or 1-100 in 1% increments). All linear. In fact, all the methods mentioned thus far are mathematically linear FWIW. Every method mentioned to generate 1-20 or percentile in 5% increments have the same odds. Rolling d20 twice or two at a time (1 die for the tens digits, and the other for the ones digits) are also equivalent. So, in short, everyone is on the same page in this regard. It doesn't matter if the die is marked 0-9 twice (colored or marked or whatever) or 1-20.
This ONLY changes when you SUM multiple dice together. 1 die = linear (whether just reading the face value or rolling for tens and ones digit as above). 2 dice (summed) = triangular. 3 or more dice (summed) = bell curve, normal, Gaussian, etc. The more dice, the lower the variance. Sorry for putting everyone to sleep. Beuller.. Beuller!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 24, 2017 17:56:08 GMT -6
Read the Silmarillion. Tolkien's elves used to be a lot more badass and a lot less mopey. The Silmarillion is fantastic. I love how the The Hobbit, the LotR, and the Silmarillion are all set in Middle Earth, written by the same author, and yet have three very distinct tones and styles. Basically, something for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 24, 2017 14:56:34 GMT -6
I cast Pedantic Spray!! 2d6 is not a bell curve. Graphically it has neither a "bell" nor a "curve". 2d6 is geometrically triangular. Adding a a third die (of any number of sides) DOES creates a bell curve (normal distribution). There is a big difference between triangular and normal probability distributions. For a game, it doesn't matter, but calling 2d6 a bell curve is incorrect. OK now my OCD is satisfied. Good discussions all around. EDIT: Whether Gary was aware of these differences, and thus enamored with 3d6 vs. 2d6 due to the probability distribution, or because it just "felt" right is pretty interesting to think about. We also have to remember that Gary was a big fan of just "2d6 and wing it" as well. Lots of tools in the toolbox. And with D&D it's more like a toolshed.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 24, 2017 14:33:29 GMT -6
I like anything that pushes SW to the fantasy side of the SF/F spectrum. So i'm all for it! Although, the droid thing is interesting and I'm not sure how I feel about it. I like the mystery of it all so I wouldn't want everything explained.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 18, 2017 14:31:48 GMT -6
Isn't the burden of proof on the OP?
"Here is my theory, here is my proof." I found the hypothesis interesting and well reasoned.
If Jon says, "I have no proof to add to this discussion," shouldn't that be the end of his obligation? What am I missing? Is @secretsofblackmoore actually asking Jon to prove that he doesn't have proof? I hope not.
That said, I agree with PD and there is no such thing as too much information. No harm in sharing. However, Jon has very valuable documents and so I totally understand his desire to release these historical artifacts on his own terms. I would do the same. Verifying authenticity, legal issues, respecting any personal requests, etc. should not be taken lightly.
Carry on...
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 18, 2017 14:17:43 GMT -6
I'm planning on performing a similar experiment later this summer with my kids. While they are fairly well versed with boardgames and card games, they haven't really played RPG other than a basic free-form game and a card/RPG Pokemon hybrid that was lots of fun. So, I'll basically start them off in a RPG where only the core resolution mechanic is set. Everything else, classes, races, ability scores, spells, monsters, etc will derive from their request. I'll post a log to see where all this ends up. That's a great idea. You could see if certain common elements of RPG's are naturally emergent. It will be hard to avoid decades of habits, but it sounds really fun. Kids have a way looking at things very directly and intuitively. Keep us posted on how it goes!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 18, 2017 14:08:42 GMT -6
I agree with most of these criticisms. I just don't like them being applied to Star Wars. Star Wars was first and introduced these tropes. I don't like blaming the source for all the copycats that followed. It's like blaming D&D for various RPG tropes, it's not the inventor's fault that everyone copied the basic structures and assumptions. Furthermore, we forget that in 1980 ESB blew everyone's collective minds. Nobody complained about this stuff 37 years ago because it didn't exist outside of old radio and print serials where Lucas (and Gygax, et al.) took inspiration. I guess I give the Star Wars franchise a lot of slack for being first. Maybe too much!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 18, 2017 0:44:21 GMT -6
Discussing Rand and Objectivism really needs historical context. Her views are a direct reaction to growing up and experiencing first-hand the Russian Revolution. She was an upper class Jew and her family was stripped of their wealth and business by the state. Later, she would be purged from the university system as well.
After immigrating to NYC, she would likely conclude that any system that was as far away from totalitarianism would be the ideal. She naturally took these ideas to their logical, and some would say, extreme conclusion. Essentially, whatever the opposite of the Russian regime was, that would be best. Of course, too far in that direction and you have anarchy, warlords, tribalism, and ultimately a dictatorship. Keep going in the other direction, and you have socialism, communism, then single party control, then again, ultimately, a dictatorship. Left or right, conservative or liberal, red or blue, puppies or kittens, the extremes end up in the same place where power is consolidated among too few.
Finding a happy medium has been this moment is human history's major achievement, in my opinion. Or not, who knows.
EDIT: Regardless, that Salon piece is condescending, elitist garbage.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 17, 2017 15:27:56 GMT -6
The "Zero to Hero" trope has been around since greek mythology and probably before. Perseus anyone? Achilles' myrmidons? Jason's party of heroes, the argonauts? Perseus grew up dirt poor and sought wealth, adventure, and glory. The desire to form adventuring parties and to explore the wilderness and ancient ruins while defeating monsters that threaten humanity (medusae, giants, gorgons, witches, minotaurs, nymphs, krakens, grendel etc.) is as old as civilization. Conan, The Hobbit, Beowulf, and John Carter all predate The Fountainhead.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 16, 2017 23:26:07 GMT -6
Fun stuff here! /snip Secrets of Blackmoor Toodles! Whoa. That's quite a first post!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 16, 2017 22:56:13 GMT -6
I wonder if the Armor Class listed at one point was a d20 roll under to hit? It would match the percentages in the first column of Table 14, exactly.
Note: The given percentile values are not the chance to hit but the chance to miss!!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 10, 2017 13:21:09 GMT -6
It exists… just not legally! True. Those fan projects are really amazing.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 9, 2017 9:31:00 GMT -6
In Chainmail and Dalluhn (and, IMHO, in "early" D&D) a combat round need not be a fixed period of time. Instead, a combat round is simply an exchange of blows. It takes however long is required for everyone involved to have their "chops" or "swings", but the exact period is immaterial. I really like this interpretation. Gives the ref and players a lot of freedom and flexibility. This seems the most intuitive approach to me. Thanks for the clarification. Everyone played/plays their own variation of D&D; the game is built that way. Dave's game, Gary's game, Prof. Barker's game, Warlock, Holmes' and so on were/are all different variations of the game. The printed "rules" describe yet another variation of the game which is different enough to how everyone played/plays to fill this forum, and dozens of others, with thousands of posts worth of discussion. It can be problematic, I think, to conflate the printed rules with "Gary's game", or "Dave's game", or whoever else's game. We know EGG wrote rules he didn't use, and we know he used a bunch of house rules too. A D&D game is also a continually evolving thing, whereas the printed rules can only capture a fixed snapshot in time... This can't be stated enough. My comment was tongue-in-cheek, but your point is an extremely important one. The rules as they evolved were both fluid and dynamic. Just because they were typed out and published at a particular moment in time, does make them any more valid than any other rule set. It is clear that the early rules were an amalgamation of ideas. These ideas coming from multiple sources while some were eventually abandoned or changed. Others were even added before the original publication and introduced in supplements. Things like this are always important to keep in mind. My curiosity will always be in seeing how others play, what they like and don't like, and how I can use that information to my advantage. The early days are fascinating to me. I am also always interested in what made the game so popular, and as such, what elements and aspects are more crucial to OD&D (by taste of course) and which are more fungible. I'm always seeking to tease out the core of what makes this game so influential (a fool's errand I'm sure). Good reminder, ways.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 9, 2017 1:45:05 GMT -6
Another reason to wish only the 1977 film existed: If that's all there was, it would be readily available on Blu-ray and on DVD for less than $10. Instead, it is not legally available at all, unless one wishes to pay big bucks on the secondary market. So much this. It's a cultural travesty that the unaltered OT doesn't exist in a modern HD format.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 8, 2017 20:49:45 GMT -6
I completely agree with the general premise. I ESPECIALLY agree regarding the prequels and the Disney movies.
I don't agree about TESB and ROTJ, however.
A world without Yodo, Hoth, Lando, Boba, the Emperor, Ewoks, Jabba, etc. is not a world I want to live in!! Besides, Star Wars did a masterful job of hinting at a larger world that largely remains unexplained, while at the same time setting up future events and characters. It's this unique mix and rare balancing act that makes Star Wars one of the best examples of world-buiding ever. Couple that with truly likable characters, genuinely surprising plot twists, and iconic groundbreaking effects and set pieces, and you have a modern classic.
Only Tolkien (obviously) and Martin (potentially) were able to do this as deftly as Lucas. Tolkien being the first and the master at this. I'd allow Rowling in the conversation as well.
As a better example, I'd use The Matrix, which I still love. It did many of the same things that Star Wars did. What it's sequels didn't do is keep the same noir/Hong Kong feel as the original (a major misfire). They hit all the same story beats as the Original Trilogy but ultimately lacked in execution.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 8, 2017 15:21:00 GMT -6
Zen, in an effort to get back on topic, could you expand on your simultaneous combat? Assuming 1 minute OD&D rounds, did you just resolve actions one at a time or did everyone get to do what they wanted that round? In other words, if a monster died was he still allowed to attack? And how did you visualize movement where everyone is moving at the same time? Could an archer hit a goblin before it closed into melee? Or was it simultaneous as in one side goes then the other depending on who's the aggressor?
I have never experienced simultaneous combat outside of once-off situations and usually initiative ties went to the player (probably not fair in hindsight). The 1 minute turn would make all this action fairly abstract I'd imagine, which is probably the intended effect Gary had in mind at the time.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 8, 2017 15:09:09 GMT -6
The LBBs as written don't have any particular rules for declarations or disruption of spells. Indeed they don't. I just bought the WotC LBBs along with Chainmail in pdf earlier in the year (great value btw) and ctrl-f is a godsend. From everything I've read interrupting spells, declarations, and round-by-round initiative seems to be a Gary staple in actual play and even in his later con house rules (sidenote: is Gary even allowed to have house rules??? Should just be "the rules" ). Learning how Gary and Dave played compared to what was written is fascinating to me nonetheless. Great point about declarations requiring a couple laps around the table. I can totally see an evil wizard being absolutely devastating to a party of PCs without some means of interrupting (ref: sleep spell incoming, I hope you make your saves!). I suppose declarations and counter-moves are traditional wargaming concepts. I know Chainmail has both and I'm sure Gronan is very comfortable with those concepts. Add segmented rounds by distance to that list as well. All of these things can be found in Chainmail so it's no shock they would be used in the early days and even today by wargaming vets. Good insight, Zen.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 7, 2017 21:18:32 GMT -6
Declare first, because if a magic user is throwing a spell and gets hit before the spell finishes, they lose the spell. Declarations is another interesting tidbit. It certainly adds more strategy and makes spellcasting less of a sure thing. I like it.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 6, 2017 21:18:04 GMT -6
I can see 5E's legacy being this mechanic. I think every future official version of WotC's D&D will implement this in some way. It's truly innovative with hardly a complaint to be found. I can't imagine going to back to fiddly mods. I'm surprised more games haven't blantantly ripped it off. I know I would!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 6, 2017 19:34:27 GMT -6
I read through the linked thread. Really great analysis in there! Maybe I missed it, and if I did apologies, but when "combat rounds" are referenced, are we to assume this to mean the unit of time required for everyone to get a "turn" (in the board game sense) or is it understood to mean the amount of time each player is allotted during their "turn"? In other words, assuming a typical 4 party group along with a couple of monster types (as an example), would this equate to ~6 "turns" in a 1 minute round for ~10 seconds each? Generally in a ruleset using 10 second rounds, such as Holmes Basic, everyone (on both sides) gets one action in a 10-second combat round. After everyone has gone, the round is over and you move on to the next 10 second round. After 10 rounds, a turn is done - which is mostly important for spells, magic items and other effects that have a duration in turns. Thanks Zen. I started with the RC (and black box) in grade school in the early 90's and I am pretty sure I played this completely wrong. I dabbled in 2E as well and I can't remember how it interpreted round length. In fact, I have never considered that the 10 second (or 6 second B/X?) round was for ALL actions. I don't remember much besides, "okay, now it's your turn and you get one attack, spell, etc." Mind blown! I think I always assumed that the 10 or 6 secs was for each PC/NPC/Monster action. Anyway, I think I may join the 1 minute round camp (more options, less hand-wringing, and just easier for the ref to adjudicate without having to rationalize whether or not there is enough time to perform whatever action is attempted). I can certainly see it's merits. Using 1 minute rounds, the list of things you couldn't do would be much shorter than the list of things you could do to the point where such a list wouldn't even be necessary. Ultimately, however, I'm not sure it matters that much as it's simply an abstraction to simplify combat and keep time-keeping to a minimum (spells and such as you mentioned). After all, combat should be treated as a majorly inconvenient speed bump on the road to more sweet loot. The actual length of each round is of far less consequence than the (as Gronan mentioned) 1 action per player turn limitation. In my mind, that's the only substantial mechanical limitation for combat outside of spell durations, wandering monsters, rest, etc. Great stuff as always everyone. Learning a lot slowly going through all the old threads.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 6, 2017 17:56:21 GMT -6
Well, as Gary reffed it, everyone got an action in a one minute round; the number of players and NPCs was irrelevant. A simple initiative system (roll 1d6) determined the order people went in. Wow, thanks Gronan! This makes perfect sense to me. In fact, I think I like Gary's method (go figure) best of all. It combines the best of all options, in my opinion. Keeping the round duration roughly static and the actual number of total actions variable provides a huge variety of possibilities, both tactical and dramatic. Simple 1d6 per player initiative prevents one player from "hogging all the action" (and I don't mean in official "caller" capacity; that's something else entirely and is very useful when exploring and not trying to cause a great clamor in a quiet dungeon). Can't really get any simpler than that. If you may, Gronan, I have a couple of follow-up questions if somewhat off-topic: Did Gary require initiative to be rolled each round or once at the beginning of combat? I know the SR FAQ indicated each round, but i'm more curious about what was played than what was written. Second, were earlier actions allowed to be deferred later in the order*? (I'll guess the answer: depends on the situation and Gary's mood at the time!) *Individual initiative (assuming the ref rolls once for all monsters) when actions are allowed to be deferred boils down to side initiative with a little more structure, as far as I'm aware. Anyone please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect. Ex. Player A, B, Monsters, C, A, B, Monsters, C, A, B, Monsters, C, A, B and so on.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 6, 2017 10:52:03 GMT -6
After another cup of coffee, consider: surprise and initiative.
Was the assumption simultaneous combat? Side initiative? Individual? One minute of actions per player during individual initiative would play much differently (better or worse?) to one minute side initiative rounds (30 seconds per side split up among participants seems perfectly reasonable). One minute of simultaneous combat per round is basically Tunnels and Trolls territory and would make things even more abstract (again, better or worse?).
And finally, would a surprise round also follow the one minute convention? I'm not sure what the precedent for this would be.
All that said, if I had pick a favorite, I greatly prefer side initiative comprised of one minute rounds. This would allow for for a variety of actions of various lengths. Anywhere from 5-30 seconds per side (depending on what each participant is trying to accomplish and whether the referee decides to split up each action or run it simultaneous). In addition, time-keeping and initiative-tracking becomes trivial and players avoid checking out waiting for their turn while encouraging cooperation and tactical thinking.
*Throws 2 coppers into the pot.*
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Jun 6, 2017 10:27:33 GMT -6
I read through the linked thread. Really great analysis in there! Maybe I missed it, and if I did apologies, but when "combat rounds" are referenced, are we to assume this to mean the unit of time required for everyone to get a "turn" (in the board game sense) or is it understood to mean the amount of time each player is allotted during their "turn"?
In other words, assuming a typical 4 party group along with a couple of monster types (as an example), would this equate to ~6 "turns" in a 1 minute round for ~10 seconds each?
Also, it was mentioned that combat was often conducted in real time, so could this mean that each player had about a minute to take their "turn" (decide on actions, movement, attack, spells, funky maneuvers, etc.) to keep melee combat "fast and furious"? The consequence would be a player basically has a 1 minute sand counter to act, otherwise:
Ref: "Time's up slowpoke!! While Tyrion the Comtemplative is strategizing, (points to Bronn the Fighter), it's your turn now! We'll get back to Tyrion later!
Just food for thought. Love this forum btw!
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on May 9, 2017 1:35:21 GMT -6
But will it stand up under scrutiny? It's hard to tell. One thing is certain, we can all expect some stiff competition.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Mar 20, 2017 21:52:12 GMT -6
Nice recap of last year's event. Looking forward to your eventual thoughts on this year's GC.
|
|