|
Post by robertsconley on Dec 24, 2021 10:01:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Dec 7, 2021 10:28:29 GMT -6
Also folks it is not particularly mysterious to figure out whether it worthwhile to get a attorney's advice. First go here www.copyright.gov/circs/circ22.pdfThe relevant section is on page 5. The most critical section is as follows on page 7. Rather than throwing our hands and moan and groan about the mysterious copyright gods, see what an attorney says and it may be possible to preserve and share all these old works that don't have a proper copyright notice. What the point of having rights if they are not exercised? The circular even address accidental omission. You can't say something is not copyrighted just because the notice was forgotten on a few copies. However most of these newsletter didn't have any type of notice throughout their run. So that is not a relevant factor. And like most of them or their individual articles were ever registered. Again this only applies to material prior to the 1978 cutoff date.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Dec 7, 2021 10:16:12 GMT -6
The big issue is that they're late enough for the copyright to be current. That my main point is that the automatic copyright rule only applies to works after 1976. It's all "get a lawyer" time. Yup, the point of my comment that it may be worthwhile for the community to hire an IP attorney to look into this. If it is no, then it no. But there is a possibility that they are in the public domain.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 20, 2021 13:46:15 GMT -6
So it sounds like the problem isn't Jon relying on written documents exclusively. It whether the written document he chose are credible or not. Whether he used all the relevant information found in those documents. Sounds like a good project for another historian to do.
As far as preserving oral histories that always a worthy goal but I don't see that being relevant to this project which seek to document a specific sequence of events.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 20, 2021 9:33:24 GMT -6
Recollections by sources who were present at specific events are no less reliable than a documented source, sometimes more reliable and sometimes less reliable. Reliability depends on each individual source. The point is that they still count as primary sources. Better get them while you still can. [/quote] But when one contradicts the other which do you go with? That was the issue, the written sources didn't support the details of the oral sources. And when you browse the list of sources for each chapter it obvious it not a case of "This one letter EXPLAINS EVERYTHING!" There are letters after letters, article after article, court cases, corporate reports, notes, and so on. That build up a picture that are at odds with oral account. To refute what Jon did or paint a different picture would have to go through all the different oral accounts and build up a similar mass of evidence. And last because of the use of letter and other personal communications there obviously more to be found. At this point I don't think the basic timeline will change. However I do think stuff like when Gygax stepped away in the early 80s will become clearer and that will change how one views later events by painting a fuller pictures. For example did anybody know that Dave Arneson wound not getting paid all his royalties for Don't Give up the Ship and then learning about it? Knowing that now, doesn't make his actions after the release of D&D a little more understandable as he getting out of college and he was already screwed once by being in the game business.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 20, 2021 8:36:29 GMT -6
So I finished the books. Boy 1985 was a shirtshow and like the rest of the book the story is nuanced. 1985 was the year of Ambush at Sheridan Spring and Gygax losing control of the company. Takeaways- Gygax ignored opportunities to take control although each situation was nuanced. Telling is the fact he felt he could buy out enough of the Blume shares to take control when he became aware of the takeover attempt. But couldn't be bother to do it early in the year when it was offered.
- Lorriane Williams came off better than I expected. Basically even if Gygax took control, the banks were breathing down TSR's neck. Lorraine William seemed to be primarily motivated to knock TSR away from it path to bankruptcy. And that she was working with a team of outsiders trying to get TSR out of the hole it was buried in.
- If there a villain in the story it is the Blume. Whatever Gygax excesses did, it was dwarfed by what the Blumes did. Ultimately the debt and the shirt show it causes was a legacy of their action. Gygax didn't always help the situation. But it was clear whatever his faults were Gygax was ultimately not interested in running a multi-million dollar corporation. He was basically a creative type and that where he was happiest.
So did Arneson and Gygax get to speak for themselves?I browsed through the list of sources organized by chapter and I have to say yes. The caveat is that there is obviously more material to be unearthed. Which to his credit Jon Peterson talks about. I was left with the impression he felt this work will be superseded by other in the coming years as more material is available. The main source of criticism is relying exclusively on written source and not incorporating oral sources. The sources are littered with material taken from personal letters from Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson. I didn't do exact count but it is enough that I think any criticism that it doesn't include oral sources it unwarranted. Personal letters are about as close we are going to get to a unvarnished account from either gentlemen as opposed to recollections made decades later. But again there going to have to be another book because eventually there will be more letters and materials unearthed written by the two to others or perhaps their own notes. When that happen then the picture painted by Game Wizards will have to be revised. Jon Peterson did a great job with this.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 18, 2021 7:24:31 GMT -6
So I am up to 1982 in the book. Basically folks being out of their league business wise. Spiced with occasionally doing the shirtty thing with a dash of nepotism. And sadly Gygax and Arneson both getting sidetracked creatively. Gygax as a result of dealing with the business of TSR and Arneson never quite getting it together himself but it looks like he managed help some folks get their projects in print.
A simplistic overview but over all I am pretty impressed with the details @jon Peterson unearthed and put together. Like Playing at the World, I think the book so far provide a definitive structure on which future efforts will have to address. Even if further details shed new light on what covered.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 18, 2021 7:21:19 GMT -6
I'm sure the documents I've been able to work with only scratch the surface of what has survived, of both things I know I haven't seen as well as "unknown unknowns." The trick, when you're in that position, is to try really hard not to color outside the lines, outside the cluster of data points that hang together, veering into that risky realm of supposition. When I did PatW, I thought I was trying hard, but in retrospect, I was pretty credulous - or maybe more generously, I didn't have access to enough material to steer myself away from folklore. I feel like I'm more exacting about that now, but it's an iterative process, I imagine - years from now I'll look back at GW and be like, "I can't believe I let myself say that." A tangent question, has the documentation situation over what notes Dave had when he ran Blackmoor pre-D&D improved any?
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 17, 2021 17:23:54 GMT -6
The problem isn't that there are rule books, the problem is the common assumption that everything you can do as a character in a campaign is defined in the rules. This most definitely. Much as I hate admitting it I run a later rule set that defines practically every action a character can due (or has some rule/roll for it.) I try to encourage the players to describe what their character is doing, especially when searching for something. They invariably think a simple die roll will suffice to accomplish the task without description, example "I search the room..." rolls die. I mess with them by saying "You find nothing of interest unless you tell me where you are searching, how you are searching and what you are searching for...you are going to find nothing!" I ran GURPS for over 15 years. As a rules system it is about as detailed as they come. However I was always one to say describe first, roll second. Some of my reason for doing that was practical. As I lived in a rural area, I often was the one who knew GURPS best. So by having that policy is made things less aggravating for the players when they only had partial knowledge of how GURPS worked. I generally explained the mechanics so it came off more as coaching rather than dictatorial. Over time I cam to realize the reason I gravitated to systems like Hero System and GURPS not because I wanted codification. I wanted consistency and support to cover areas that wasn't knowledgeable about. If the players opted to weave baskets, I knew GURPS had me covered. Also the systems like Hero System and GURPS also were toolkit system that allowed me to tweak them to fit my setting, the Majestic Wilderlands. And I applied those tweak when I started using OD&D in the form of Swords & Wizardry. Not to make OD&D more like GURPS, but rather to make OD&D fit better with how I defined the Majestic Wilderlands. With the condition that still is basically OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 14, 2021 11:44:06 GMT -6
I mean, if there are questions about the book, I'd be happy to discuss them here as well. So far I am enjoying it a lot and it looking very solid as far as using the source material. Everyone you describe comes off as people with various strengths and weakness. I think the book is going to annoy all sides on the debate about the origins of D&D and the start of TSR by painting a nuanced picture.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 14, 2021 11:40:21 GMT -6
... though really, most people should be happily gaming at that hour. I mean, if there are questions about the book, I'd be happy to discuss them here as well. Not a question but a comment, I think it would really benefit the hobby if permission could secured to release Dave's Article on the Roots of Dungeon & Dragons so people can read it in entirety. Bonus points if permission could be secured for Gygax's article from Dragon #7 as well. I just read the section of your book where you commented that even with the animosity between the two. The two articles mostly complement each other rather than just be opposing viewpoints of the same event.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 5, 2021 7:30:27 GMT -6
Since OD&D as written doesn't go into detail about initiative, how do you determine such a thing? Do you use Chainmail, your own initiative system, or backport initiative from a newer system? I even understand that some people may not use initiative! After all, combat is chaotic, and no intiative arguably encapsulates this! I use individual initiative although I will group troops of characters and monsters together depending on the situation. It will also forgo initiative if it is surprise, narrow corridor, or a constricted space and resolve combat in what I call natural order. Namely I start with those closest to the action. As in my experience from reenactments this best reflects how things play out. - It is 1d6 roll high.
- You can add your dexterity bonus into the die roll.
- Fighters can add their to hit bonus which is equal to what they need to hit AC 9 at their current level - AC 9 at 1st level.
- Monsters add half their HD (round down) to the die roll.
- I manage it by calling out does anybody rolled higher than a 10? (Typically only fighters and high HD creatures). Resolve those in order. Then call out does anybody have a 9, 8, 7 and so on. Avoids having to write down or shuffle an initiative order and can handle groups as large as 8 players. The largest I have tried this with.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Oct 1, 2021 8:49:10 GMT -6
Is anyone planning on going and seeing the new Dune movie when it is released in late October? I am figuring CGI is advanced enough now to make it worth seeing if they don't butcher the books too badly. I know that is inevitable, but still... I have HBO Max so I plan on seeing it on my big screen TV. I just reread the novel to have it fresh in my mind. One thing I forgot that the book has a pretty big time jump in the middle so it makes sense there are two movies instead of one.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 30, 2021 7:00:45 GMT -6
A couple of points
Patents protect ideas. Because they confer an absolute monopoly on the use of the idea they are harder to get. A crucial element is that at least on paper you have to be novel compared to prior art.
Copyright protect expression of ideas. If your expression is different than you are free to create, and distribute works based on that specific expression.
Trade Dress is the look and feel of a product. For example the way a Gucci handbag looks including little details the entire package can be considered trade dress. Trade Dress has become a bit of grey area with the prevalence of digital technology. For example anybody can make a word processor with it's own look. But what if I duplicated the keyboard short cuts and menu layouts of a rival? In general trade dress cases come down on the side of "Would the consumer be confused as to the origin of the product." So a handbag manufacturer would probably be shot down on a slightly different Gucci knockoff. But a word processor that has a different look but same menus and shortcuts as Microsoft Word would probably not. At least as far as Trade Dress goes.
When it comes to gaming, patents don't come up often. The most relevant in recent decades was Wizards patenting Magic the Gathering tap a card by turning sideways mechanic. So in general when somebody does something like hit points, advantage/disadvantage, etc. It is fair game for other RPGs. Copyright or outright copy happens but it is usually clear cut especially when it a about unique creation like the Type S Scout/Courier, mind flayer or beholder compared to merchant starships, dragons, orcs, and trolls.
The big grey area in gaming is trade dress, is the specific package of mechanics that make a game is protectable about copyright or trade dress. Generally the answer so far in regards to copyright not is not protectable. But Trade Dress remains unsettled. So while Palladium Fantasy 1e with classes, levels, hit points, etc. is clearly not D&D despite using many of the same mechanics. The presentation is different, the lists (specific classes, monsters, etc) are different.
But if you look at something like Swords & Wizardry without the open content of the D20 SRD it could run afoul trade dress as it replicates closely the mechanics and lists of OD&D + supplements. Even though the writing is the original work of Matt Finch, it presented very differently, and there are some major differences as a game (single save number).
But it protected by the fact that the exact combination of mechanics and list items it uses were released as open content under the OGL. And by the fact that the way it presented it not likely to be confused with OD&D by a random consumer.
Finally the problem is not whether X company will win a suit of infringement, the problem is that there enough to have a dispute and thus enough to have a lawsuit with all its expenses. I realize that doesn't sound fair but that how it is with many things. What people do can't be neatly segregated into precisely defined boxes. So grey areas result with the need for adjudication. Something I am sure most of you reading this are familiar with within the context of a campaign and what players try to do as their characters. Especially with a RPG like OD&D.
Finally the issue with games is that people generally want to play a specific version. Not something like it. Games like Monopoly, Diplomacy, Squad Leader, OD&D have a certain magic that even a near clone doesn't possess. OSRIC is a good example. It is a incredible resource for the AD&D hobby, but it not like reading, using, or playing with Gygax original rulebooks. So in general despite its role in invigorating the AD&D hobby, OSRIC will always be in 2nd place to the originals.
And unfortunately the charm of a specific version is definitely protected by copyright. So we are stuck unless there is an alternative that allows for a close clone. For AD&D that turned out to be a combination of OSRIC and availability of of PDFs and PoD. For the Fantasy Trip that turned out to be Steve Jackson taking advantage of the 35 year reversion rule and getting his rights back. Then putting out a new edition with a new presentation as he didn't have the rights to the original art or layout.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 28, 2021 17:54:06 GMT -6
Right now there are several major RPGs that are not "current" but have enough open content that a determined fan can make a go of it as far as a revival without fear of legal repercussions. Which ones are they? What RPGs are considered major other than D&D and Pathfinder? Runequest, Traveller, Fate
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 28, 2021 12:36:27 GMT -6
To my mind, an owner of an IP has a responsibility to the piece of art and to the collective human imagination to continuously make that IP available perpetually. If that IP is not make available, it should be make open source. Anything less is repugnant. Once again, I don't believe any person or company should be legally obligated by the sword of governmental might to do any of the above. It is simply my person belief. My view is that 28 year + 28 years on renewal before it public domain is sufficient return for anybody's creative investment. But in the current legal regime releasing open content under a open license that is as good or better suffices until the law changes. Right now there are several major RPGs that are not "current" but have enough open content that a determined fan can make a go of it as far as a revival without fear of legal repercussions.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 28, 2021 11:34:16 GMT -6
the rest are from TSR independent acquisition of Avalon Hill... ...Avalon Hill, which WotC now owns having bought TSR. WotC has buried the Avalon Hill IP and they also buried Dangerous Journeys/Mythus which does not resemble D&D at all. Again Wizards did not buy Avalon Hill, Hasbro did in August 1998. Since then they keep shuffling Avalon Hill IP between divisions. As for Avalon Hill IP. some of it buried, some of it is licensed, some of it sold back to its created. For example Multi-Man Publishing licensed Advanced Squad Leader. As for the SRD and Open Content, it places limits on users, but doesn't really give you all that much if you are writing something original. Doing something original, would be IMO better done without the OGL. Lots of games have Hit points and many other game terms predating the OGL, so those are clearly not protected.(not a lawyer, not advice, but if dozens of other companies pre-OGL were not sued, I would not be worried about it either) First off the only limitation the OGL places is that you can't cite compatibility and any thing you make directly based on the SRD also has to be open content. However if you make a new rule subsystem or a adventure or a setting those elements can be declared as product identity and remain as non-open content. And the point of the OGL isn't make hit point legal, it is to make the specific combination of Armor Class, Hit Points, Class, Level, etc useable by other without having to hire an IP attorney. I would view the SRD/Open Content/OGL of value only if it allowed me to slap compatible with D&D(version) on the product. So if I were to write something (I am not) I would just put compatible with the original 1974 RPG or compatible with the Advanced version of the original 1974 RPG and go on my way. There is a lot of things you could write that would be fully compatible and not remotely infringing. Fine, do that but do hire an IP attorney to you understand what the limits are. There are plenty of examples of where people succeeded in doing this and plenty of other examples where they had to pull products from sales especially in the D&D 3.X era. So it not as clear cut as you make it. In contrast it is clear cut with the SRD. You can use anything found in the D20 SRD provide you are willing to abide by not citing compatibility and anything you use directly you make open content. If you are not keen on sorting out what open content or not in your work then there is an acceptable way of doing that that may publishers used including myself for my Scourge of the Demon Wolf Adventure. Designation of Product Identity: The following items are here by designated as Product Identity in accordance with Section 1(e) of the Open Game License, version 1.0; Any and all Judges Guild logos, identifying marks, and trade dress; Any and all Bat in the Attic Games logos, identifying marks, and trade dress; all artwork, maps, symbols, depictions, and illustrations; all of Underworld and Adventures is designated Product Identity; except such items that already appear in the System Reference Document. Designation of Open Content: Subject to the Product Identity designation above, all creature and NPC statistic blocks are designated as Open Gaming Content, as well as all material derived from the SRD or other open content sources.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 28, 2021 10:32:23 GMT -6
Well the thing is that whatever Wizards does doesn't really matter as they release the core of the IP as open content free for anybody to use. So if a person doesn't think they are doing it right then they have the tools to show what they are doing wrong. And with the internet and digital technology being what it is this can be done within the time one has for a hobby. dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srdThe SRD and OGL have nothing to do with the IP they have buried that comes from companies that were bought up, all of the non-D&D based games and board games. I suppose the stuff I am talking about could be pirated, of which I am not a fan. But even to do that you would first have to be able to pay the collector prices for those items and then have the equipment and skills to reproduce it. Now if I wanted to make my own D&D (any version) clone, I could do that, but I don't need to since I have the originals I need and want of that material. While Wizards has a few buried games from the 90s mainly their own efforts. The rest are from TSR or Hasbro's independent acquisition of Avalon Hill. On the wargame side especially a lot of the games have been licensed or reverted to their creators. Regardless of the status of that issue. The post I responded to was about what being currently offered now under the D&D brand. And the most of the IP regarding that is available as open content.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 28, 2021 7:21:45 GMT -6
It's evil of them to not burn through millions of dollars reprinting a bunch of stuff that would never in a million years sell enough copies to recoup the production costs? They're not decreasing anything, all those games still exist, if you don't want to pay collector prices then make your own boards and tokens by taping or gluing print-outs of the game materials to cardstock. It is repulsive and evil (in my opinion) to prioritize profit over art, yes. That isn't to say WotC can't sit on their IPs. They can do whatever they want. That is their prerogative. I (personally) just think their decisions happen to be evil and lack magnificence (in the Aristotelian sense). Well the thing is that whatever Wizards does doesn't really matter as they release the core of the IP as open content free for anybody to use. So if a person doesn't think they are doing it right then they have the tools to show what they are doing wrong. And with the internet and digital technology being what it is this can be done within the time one has for a hobby. dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/systems-reference-document-srd
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 28, 2021 7:18:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 27, 2021 11:46:26 GMT -6
I thought one of the better things about 5e was the business model: fewer books of higher quality, no endless splat books with additional rules spread across dozens of titles. I can see this as good in theory, however in practice what we have had is large expensive hardcovers where 80% of the content is targeted towards players (and as we have also seen, not necessarily any higher quality than previous editions when it comes to playtesting of such). Xanathar's Guide, Tasha's Cauldron, etc. This is not accurate. This is a good list representative of most. dicecove.com/list-of-dnd-5e-books/We had 3 core books 4 supplements (rules expansion) two are mostly oriented towards players and two are mostly oriented for referees. 7 campaign settings which have some additional rules material 18 Adventures/Campaigns On the upcoming list we have 2 Campaign Settings 1 Supplement on Dragons looks to be mostly for referees. Now I get the rest of your post that the above wasn't your cup of tea. However there is the DM's Guild which has a wealth of material of varying formats including some that directly emulate older editions format.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 27, 2021 7:02:11 GMT -6
First off all my points don't mean that you should like 5e. I can get to work as easily with my Kia Soul, but others may enjoy it more if you have a Corvette. You raised specific objections hence my replies either explaining how 5e is compared to older editions or correcting misconceptions. If you want to read this yourself. I recommend using this link. Outside of player selections and pared down lists like monsters it is the full rules of D&D 5e. media.wizards.com/2018/dnd/downloads/DnD_BasicRules_2018.pdfWell lets look at that, That seems harsh, and I'm sorry that you haven't seen any good points in 5E yet. I think that older editions are a lot easier to DM but newer editions are more player-friendly. If it requires a lot of time and effort and is difficult to run that means the DM (me) won't be having fun and if that is the case, then why run a game? Of course I don't use modules so I don't need something rules heavy to lay on top of running a do it yourself campaign. 5e is easier to run than AD&D because crucial rule sections like combat are laid out better and are easily grasped by even a novice. It is however not easier than B/X or BECMI D&D but the increase in complexity over those two editions is no different than the increase of complexity AD&D has over those respective editions. IMO you can have fun as a wizard without having unlimited spell casting. I can easily add fun cantrips that are also useful to my AD&D campaign with a reasonable number of uses per day. Unlimited casting of any cantrip is IMO unreasonable. So IMO 5E is at a disadvantage because it introduces things that are IMO a negative to the game. Yet AD&D allows magic users to have a bandolier of darts. And that what 5e cantrip amount to, taking darts and renaming them flame bolt along with other equal minor magical effect. As the previous poster noted about his wife, it has a positive psychological effect on the players as they feel their wizard are more wizard-like. For example in AD&D a magic-user is allowed to use darts which have a rate of fire of 3 and does 1d3 (S-M)/1d2 (L). It has a max range of 4.5 feet indoors and 13.5 feet outdoors (4.5 yards). I would not consider a AD&D less AD&D if that was changed to a fire bolt with a RoF of 1 does 1d6 damage with a range of 60 feet that the magic user can case unlimited times. The 5e version does 1d10 (and increases at higher level) and goes 120 feet however 5e monsters have better stats so it amounts to a wash compared to AD&D. I have ran both extensively. Just as various spells are a better deal in AD&D so are the spells that only can be cast through limited spells slot in 5e are a better dal. I have never enforced a lot of crazy limitations in AD&D, nothing wrong with letting a player have the race class combo he wants. Sure just I have altered OD&D with my Majestic Fantasy rules to make a variant that works with how I run campaigns. A variant that I like better than 5e. However despite my work on my own system, despite publishing and promoting it, I think D&D 5e has some strong merits especially compared to D&D 3.X or D&D 4e. Specific features work well with older editions like OD&D or AD&D. For example the Advantage and Disadvantage system of modifiers. Monster stat blocks are a lot more complex than in OD&D/AD&D but a lot of that is designed to offset the "kewl powerz" the players get. Also, I find that monster power levels aren't as intuitive as in order editions, so the occasional TPK results if I misjudge and my players are too slow to run away. I found it to be a mixed bag. My view is that OD&D has the simplest stat block in general however it's format bogs down when it comes to more detailed and powerful creatures. You have to parse a description to figure out everything that a creature can do. And it has stuff not neatly captured in a one-line stat block. AD&D tries to use the one-line stat block, but it doesn't capture everything that the monster manual stats have. While better than AD&D in presenting a standard format, many creature still require reading the description to get a sense of what they can do. D&D 5e has a stat block but it downside is that it upped damage and hit points to expand options of what characters and creatures can do. It comparable to AD&D at low level, but starts to expand at the middle levels/HD. [/quote]
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 22, 2021 7:21:39 GMT -6
I disagree, in OD&D it is reasonable for a 1st level fighter to spend the 50 gp to buy plate. In 5e Plate costs 1,500 gp and a 1st level character can't afford it. Then your conclusion can really only be: A plate-armored 0e fighter wins more often than does a mail-armored 5e fighter. Intuitively, the difference is that the plate-armored fighter is better off. And so any real difference between the 0e fighter and the 5e fighter is obscured. And I reported on this Finally lets drop Alex down to just Chain + Shield AC 4. Running the fights we find that Alex wins 66.1% of the time over Brian the Orc.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 22, 2021 7:11:03 GMT -6
Another simulation that could be useful is to compare the win rate of the plate-armored 0e fighter to the mail-armored 0e fighter. Any difference in win rate presumably represents the advantage of plate armor over mail (in 0e). The same could be done for 5e. It the same in any edition due to the 1d20 resolution system that hasn't changed. However the advantage conferred by +2 AC increase the greater the number of hit points the combatants has. With 5 hit points each it only a 13% advantage but with 50 hit points each and all else equal then it is 36% advantage with Alex winning 86% of the time.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 21, 2021 19:11:13 GMT -6
Nice work. I love combat simulations and analysis However, we shouldn't be tempted to attribute 100% of the variance in win rates to the fighter, when the orc is changed between editions also. Brian the Orc for the 5e fighter is stated out per 5e while Brian the Orc in OD&D is stated out per Monsters & Treasures. * We should keep the weapons and armor of both combatants fixed between comparisons. Otherwise, some of the variation in win rates will be attributable to the different performance of the equipment, rather than the performance of the fighters themselves. E.g., in the above example the 0e fighter was "upgraded" to plate armor whereas the 5e fighter had mail armor. Also, the 5e orc was "upgraded" to a two-handed axe. These variables need to be controlled. I disagree, in OD&D it is reasonable for a 1st level fighter to spend the 50 gp to buy plate. In 5e Plate costs 1,500 gp and a 1st level character can't afford it. Also in 5e armor has trade off between Base AC and the maximum Dex bonus a character can apply to AC. Plate doesn't allow for a dex bonus to be applied but it grants a base AC of 18. Which is one better than Half-Place which has a base AC of 15 but allows a dex bonus of up to +2 to applied for a base AC 17. Unlike the following points, I am highlighting this specific because more so than later in OD&D equipment matters as you level. It is as important as the incremental improvement gained in character levels. Whereas in 5e what you gain as one levels is far more important. * If we use the normal combat rule (M&T p5) then the 3LBB fighter (with FC Man+1) has one attack as a man (THAC2 17) at +1 versus normal types (including orcs). * Who strikes the first blow is very consequential in 3LBB combat, particularly for normal types, but how initiative was determined wasn't mentioned. This might differ between editions, which would need to be accounted for. * Using rounded up average hit-point totals distorts the outcome somewhat. I.e., the ratio of 4.5:12 hp is not the same as the ratio of 5:12 hp. It would be more accurate to roll hp fairly for each bout. * As already noted, a single comparison between fighter and orc does not really tell us much about the fighter alone. It tells us something about the change in the orc-fighter relationship between editions. To learn about the overall performance of the fighter, we would need to do a similar comparison between a fighter and several of his most commonly encountered opponents. We could then infer something about the fighter from his performance across all these outcomes. With just a single comparison, there is a risk that orcs have changed more between editions than fighters have, and we attribute the result of changes in orcs to fighters. It never going to be an exact science. What the data tells me and,and this is backed up by actual play, is that 5e and OD&D are as not far apart as folks would think. The nuances of how each achieves this differ greatly but in the end they get to the same ball park as character progress. Especially if one sticks to the elements of 5e that echo OD&D the most like the Fighter-Champion, Rogue-Thief, Cleric-Life Domain, and Wizardry-Evoker. If you play Fighter-Battlemaster, or a Warlock those classe have elements that echo 3e and 4e than older editions. The other elephant in the room is that one-on-one duels are not very representative of actual play. It's as much about number of orcs appearing in an encounter as it is about their individual quality, and about the ratio of players to monsters. But that is much harder to model. Hope that's helpful. Sure, and I agree to an extent. My view is that rules work best if they reflect how the setting works whether it is OD&D or GURPS. Because most RPG system are about humans having adventures I found there is a degree of commonality. More than what most thing there are. The figure out where things line up with OD&D from when I ran things using AD&D, Fantasy Hero, and GURPS, I wrote that tool as one starting point. After that it was onto actual play because of the points you raised. Situations are nuanced and the only way to figure that out is to play out the situation in a campaign. Nice work Thanks One point I would like to mention is a lot of folks put too much credence into rules as written. For example there was a complaint that Wizards get to fire spells every round with a to-hit roll. D&D 5e won't break because a referee decides to jettison that. Decides to jettison prepared spells in favor of traditional memorization. I would however keep the spell descriptions and the fact that the power of the spell is based on the level of the slot used to cast it not the level of the caster. That goes hand in hand with how tough monsters are.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 21, 2021 11:39:32 GMT -6
Certainly for D&D style magic. But is not uncommon with other magic system including older ones like Runequest. One of the attractions of taking a mage is not having to roll to hit. Just remember with 5e, this stuff is "in addition to" not "in lieu of". Magic Missile still auto hits. Fireball, web still impacts everything in its area of effect. But instead of resorting to staff, daggers, (and darts if AD&D) when you run out of spells, you can fall back to a cantrip that requires a to hit roll.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 21, 2021 11:36:26 GMT -6
But if we are going to white room this, let's white room this. What are you talking about? When doing RPG comparisons often statistics are taken in isolation without considering how they work with everything else in a campaign. A lot of folks including myself call this white room analysis. For example, just because 5e fighters start with 12 hit points compared to an average of 4.5 hit points for a OD&D 3 LBB fighter doesn't mean characters have an easier time of it in 5e compared to OD&D 3 LBBs. There are consequences to the increased hit point and damage totals for 5e that isn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 21, 2021 10:38:50 GMT -6
From an OD&D perspective, having an unlimited cantrip that does a d4 or d6 damage doesn't seem to unbalance much. Particularly when the MU has to roll to hit. I guess one of the problems for me is that I have always had a problem with a mage having to roll to hit with a spell. Seems to me to be an odd thing. Certainly for D&D style magic. But is not uncommon with other magic system including older ones like Runequest.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 21, 2021 7:20:52 GMT -6
Let's them compare an OD&D fighter and 5E fighter to the average barber from each system. OD&D Fighter: 4.5 hit points OD&D Barber: 3.5 hit points 5e Fighter: 12 hit points 5e Barber: 4.5 hit points. That's quite an extreme difference. Since an orc is compatible to a fighter in both system, it looks like even orcs (and probably all monsters) got a massive bump, as well. First off a 1st Fighter in OD&D rolls their hit points and the default in 5e is that they get max hit points but only if they are a PC. It is a trivial change to say you get max hp in OD&D at 1st level or you need to roll your hit points at first level in 5e. But if we are going to white room this, let's white room this. So while working on my Majestic Fantasy RPG, I wanted to crunch various numbers to get into the ballpark of where I want things to be. So I created this www.batintheattic.com/dnd_combat/Which represents Alex and Brian whacking away at each other 10,000 times. So I went here to pick up typical 1st level fighter for D&D 5e. This will be Alex www.digitaldungeonmaster.com/fighter.htmlHere to get the orc Brian www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/orcAnd plugged in the numbers As you can see the advantage is to alex who wins 57.9% of the time. Then I plugged in OD&D numbers converting to ascending AC using AC 9 not 10 as the base. So first off Alex the fighter will have 1d6+1 hp at first level which is 3.5+1 = 4.5 rounded up to 5. Alex hits AC 9 for 10 so has +0 bonus to hit in an ascending AC. Alex rolls average for starting gold so starts out with Plate, Shield, and a Longsword (70 gp) for AC 2 or AC 17 (9-2+10) in a ascending AC system. As you can see on the monster attacking chart on page 20, Brian the orc will need a 17 to hit Alex. Brian the Orc has AC 6 which is AC 13 ascending (9-6+10). And again you can see on page 19 that Alex will need a 13 to hit AC 6. Brian the Orc HP is 3.5 rounded up to 4. As you can see that Alex the Fighter has even more of an advantage than in 5e winning 75.6% of the time. If you throw in Greyhawk and a 13 strength the +1 to hit will allow Alex to win 78.9% of the time. Go up to a 16 strength with a +1 to hit and +1 to damage then Alex will win 83.3% of the time. Finally lets drop Alex down to just Chain + Shield AC 4. Running the fights we find that Alex wins 66.1% of the time over Brian the Orc. So it looks to me that OD&D 3 LBBs and Greyhawk is the more generous system than 5e when it comes to fighters. But in reality with the different tactical option in D&D 5e, both for PCs and monsters I find it to be a wash in actual play. That over the long haul the power curve of 5e and the power curve of OD&D are fairly close. Both system have elements that if not kept a lid on will result in a campaign where the power curve diverges greatly. For example overly generous with magic items in OD&D. Or allowing the multi-classing option in D&D 5e.
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 20, 2021 15:34:11 GMT -6
How many hit points does average-joe barber have in 5e versus OD&D? A commoner has 4 hp or 1d8. www.5esrd.com/gamemastering/monsters-foes/npc/npc-commoner/The thing is about 5e is that the power curve is similar to that OD&D but to get the variety they wanted they upped the hit points so that they have more ways of doing damage. This having run the same setting, the Majestic Wilderlands, with both. It not a matter of "Oh 5e is bad because they upped the hit points". It more of they upped the hit points, upped the ways one can do damage, kept a lid on bonuses so that low level character have chance of hitting high hit dice creatures and vice versa. The overall effect is that a 5e 10th level party is about as much danger from a horde of orcs as a 10th level party in OD&D is.
|
|