Most Ridiculous Rules in RPGS

[Mordar]

I have no quarrel with someone who might say, for instance, "The D&D HP system doesn't model anything at all. It's entirely an abstract game mechanic, an open-ended "cinematic toughness", and nothing more." -- I don't like the system, and that person does, and we can disagree as a matter of differing tastes.


I do however have a quarrel with the ongoing attempts to claim that said system is actually a functional map/model of anything at all, and there's a massive, blatant, laugh-out-loud-funny irony in the comment (the one you quoted) about "pretending it's something it's not".


If it's resistance to damage, then what is the armor portion of AC, and what's a fortitude save, and what's DR? If it's evasion of damage, then what is the dexterity portion of AC, and what's a reflex save? For some reason, there seems to be no way to pin this down, and the answer keeps changing depending on the situation presented, and when the contradictions of that answer are brought up, it changes. Again.

You know how there are prediction equations that combine an array of independent variables to put forth an estimate or prediction of the dependent variable? Like say, disease mortality or morbidity. Some of the IVs might be socioeconomic status, race, age, region...would you ask how each of those contribute to risk of exposure versus gestation versus infection versus immune response efficacy, and if the answer were not a one-to-one match up would you dismiss the whole of the equation?

Or would you accept that each of the IVs could be tied to each of those elements that play into disease morbidity?

HP, AC and Saves could be said to model character survivability. That does not require each element of the model to be tied in a one-to-one fashion to avoiding contact, reducing damage, absorbing damage or resisting effects, or any other such elements.

- M

[Max_Killjoy]

You know how there are prediction equations that combine an array of independent variables to put forth an estimate or prediction of the dependent variable? Like say, disease mortality or morbidity. Some of the IVs might be socioeconomic status, race, age, region...would you ask how each of those contribute to risk of exposure versus gestation versus infection versus immune response efficacy, and if the answer were not a one-to-one match up would you dismiss the whole of the equation?

Or would you accept that each of the IVs could be tied to each of those elements that play into disease morbidity?

HP, AC and Saves could be said to model character survivability. That does not require each element of the model to be tied in a one-to-one fashion to avoiding contact, reducing damage, absorbing damage or resisting effects, or any other such elements.

- M

I'm not trying to model the disease risk and progression through a population -- I'm looking for functional, enjoyable game mechanics that map well enough to the setting and atmosphere of plausible game worlds to provide sufficient verisimilitude and yet not dominate the gaming session. When something new comes up, the (or a good) answer on how to handle it should derive naturally from the rules.

Rules that are muddled and overlapping and require reference to specifics on a case-by-case-by-case basis every time something comes up, don't do that at all, at least not for me.

[RazorChain]

You know how there are prediction equations that combine an array of independent variables to put forth an estimate or prediction of the dependent variable? Like say, disease mortality or morbidity. Some of the IVs might be socioeconomic status, race, age, region...would you ask how each of those contribute to risk of exposure versus gestation versus infection versus immune response efficacy, and if the answer were not a one-to-one match up would you dismiss the whole of the equation?

Or would you accept that each of the IVs could be tied to each of those elements that play into disease morbidity?

HP, AC and Saves could be said to model character survivability. That does not require each element of the model to be tied in a one-to-one fashion to avoiding contact, reducing damage, absorbing damage or resisting effects, or any other such elements.

- M

I'm not either trying to model the disease risk and progression through a population, I'm mostly just arguing for the arguments sake.

But if my high level fighter is on a nudist beach and gets shot in the back by three crossbows without noticing them. He must have stumbled on a clam and only got grazed? Or was he so well hung and the assailants were females and lost their concentration? Or did they hit him in the ass because they were staring at it?

My high level fighter doesn't do ice baths...he does lava baths, he trust that luck will save him. Remember kids, it's good for the immune system.

When that wizard used vampiric touch on my fighter he wasn't draining my life force...he was draining my mojo!

My fighter can gulp down deadly poisons with the best of them because....of hmmm....skill in resisting poisons. In fact my fighter doesn't like that aspect of his bloated HP pool because technically alcohol is poison so he needs to drink barrels of it to get drunk.

[2D8HP]

I'm looking for functional, enjoyable game mechanics that map well enough to the setting and atmosphere of plausible game worlds to provide sufficient verisimilitude and yet not dominate the gaming session. When something new comes up, the (or a good) answer on how to handle it should derive naturally from the rules.

Rules that are muddled and overlapping and require reference to specifics on a case-by-case-by-case basis every time something comes up, don't do that at all, at least not for me.

Yeah 1970's D&D was a hodgepodge of "good enough rules now are better than a perfect rules later", that were put together on the fly. It's a mess, but I loved it because it had some great advantages:

1) It was fun.
2) I found other people who played it.
3) I memorized the rules back when I had a young and agile mind.

I still remember a lot of it (which I often remember instead of the game I'm actually trying to play).

Fortunately when I need to GM settings that D&D is inappropriate for I have an alternate truly multi-setting RPG rules system I made up in the 1980's based on a careful reading of the 1975 Greyhawk supplement for D&D, the 1978 Runequest rules, and the 1981 Call of Cthullu rules, which I now name "Gut check the RPG", and I will share with you:

1) GM describes a scene.
2) Player says an action that their PC attempts.
3) GM decides if the PC has no chance of success, no chance of failure, or a partial chance of success.
4) If a partial chance of success, GM makes up on the spot a percentage chance of success.
5) Player rolls D100 (two 0-9 twenty-siders back then).
6) If the player rolls under the made up number their PC succeeds in attempting the task, if over the PC fails.
7) GM narrates the immediate consequences until it's time to again ask, "what do you do".
8) Repeat.

It seemed to work.

Honestly, these days trying to learn rules other than character creation is a chore for me, and I mostly read RPG's for setting "fluff".
I may already own a RPG with a brilliant rules system that I would love, but I am unlikely to ever find out.

[Mordar]

I'm not trying to model the disease risk and progression through a population -- I'm looking for functional, enjoyable game mechanics that map well enough to the setting and atmosphere of plausible game worlds to provide sufficient verisimilitude and yet not dominate the gaming session. When something new comes up, the (or a good) answer on how to handle it should derive naturally from the rules.

Rules that are muddled and overlapping and require reference to specifics on a case-by-case-by-case basis every time something comes up, don't do that at all, at least not for me.

I'm not either trying to model the disease risk and progression through a population, I'm mostly just arguing for the arguments sake.

But if my high level fighter is on a nudist beach and gets shot in the back by three crossbows without noticing them. He must have stumbled on a clam and only got grazed? Or was he so well hung and the assailants were females and lost their concentration? Or did they hit him in the ass because they were staring at it?

My high level fighter doesn't do ice baths...he does lava baths, he trust that luck will save him. Remember kids, it's good for the immune system.

When that wizard used vampiric touch on my fighter he wasn't draining my life force...he was draining my mojo!

My fighter can gulp down deadly poisons with the best of them because....of hmmm....skill in resisting poisons. In fact my fighter doesn't like that aspect of his bloated HP pool because technically alcohol is poison so he needs to drink barrels of it to get drunk.

The disease model was used as example to show that a model can be multivariate without having one-to-one ties to a given element of the DV and valuable without being perfect, that's all.

I appreciate both your answers and of course I recognize that at the extreme ends (and sometimes not so extreme ends) the model fails. Sure, survivability can include some hero-luck (if that's really what you choose/want to call it)...and if draining life force isn't draining mojo I'm not sure what it is...but there really isn't an answer for the more ridiculous examples like the lava bath or the 200' falls, other than saying the characters that can indeed survive those without magic are extremely few and far between.

Now the poisons...well, Wesley managed to build resistance to poison by taking a few levels of Dread Pirate...so I'm thinking our Knight of the Realm might well have developed a similarly hardy constitution

- M

[Arbane]

My HP defense: It works more often than it doesn't, it's quick, and generally makes for fun gameplay.

I'm not going to claim it is 100% consistent with anything. It's not.

That works fine. The problem comes when people try to rationalize HP as an actual Thing That Exists in the game world. Then it ends up in this thread...

(And I think the fact that the HP Plot Armor can't be used to defend against save-or-cry spells is one of the many things that screws over the peasantry when compared to their spellcasting overlords.)

[georgie_leech]

That works fine. The problem comes when people try to rationalize HP as an actual Thing That Exists in the game world. Then it ends up in this thread...

(And I think the fact that the HP Plot Armor can't be used to defend against save-or-cry spells is one of the many things that screws over the peasantry when compared to their spellcasting overlords.)

Hm. I wonder what kind of effect it could have on, say, Fighters, if they had an ability that let them "spend" HP to avoid/end debilitating conditions like paralysis, blinding, or even death?

[Knaight]

The disease model was used as example to show that a model can be multivariate without having one-to-one ties to a given element of the DV and valuable without being perfect, that's all.

A multivariate model can also break down all the time and produce bizarre results it shouldn't, which could be easily avoided by making a simpler model that uses better variables.

[kyoryu]

A multivariate model can also break down all the time and produce bizarre results it shouldn't, which could be easily avoided by making a simpler model that uses better variables.

"Do not multiply entities unnecessarily"

[Mordar]

A multivariate model can also break down all the time and produce bizarre results it shouldn't, which could be easily avoided by making a simpler model that uses better variables.

Correction to my post: I shouldn't have said multivariate...that was incorrect. And I know better. I should have said that the model could have multiple IVs.

Response here: Assuming the model displays significance, multiple IVs provided a better picture in the majority of cases than a single IV model. Your comment seems to say don't use multiple variables because that equation breaks down, so avoid that by using a simple (simpler = fewer IVs?) model with better variableS. So don't use multiple variables, instead use fewer multiple variables?

Of course you need proper variables/inputs...so are you suggesting that AC, HP and Saves aren't the proper variables, or saying that there should just be a single element that is used to "model" the ability to survive? What is your preferred system for handling the mix of things that can hurt/deleteriously impact a character?

I think there is kind of neat idea there...and I'm sure someone has come up with it somewhere else...but combining the defensive things into a single value/resource (call it Life Score) that represents damage absorption, damage mitigation, damage avoidance, disadvantageous status resistance and so forth and giving the player greater control on the use of that resource ("I'll use 7 Life Score to not become blinded by the flash grenade!") presents an interesting idea.

- M

[Bohandas]

I think you mean the sins of Reality.

Cracked: 6 Soldiers Who Survived $#!% That Would Kill a Terminator

Cracked again: 5 Insane Falls You Won't Believe People Survived

Oh, another fun thing: With D&D hitpoints, but without magic, feats, or other special stuff, it's impossible to have someone stagger up to you wounded, gasp out a few words, and die.

This actually suggests a tweak to me that could restore realism. What if for every so many hp lost you had to save or hurt a body part and take a penalty. These guys all got their arms and legs and eyes messed up.

EDIT:
See DMG pg 27, "DAMAGE TO SPECIFIC AREAS" for what kind of penalties these would impart

[Jormengand]

Hm. I wonder what kind of effect it could have on, say, Fighters, if they had an ability that let them "spend" HP to avoid/end debilitating conditions like paralysis, blinding, or even death?

You mean like the Shrug Off ability I give most of my mundanes?

[Quertus]

I'm looking for functional, enjoyable game mechanics that map well enough to the setting and atmosphere of plausible game worlds to provide sufficient verisimilitude and yet not dominate the gaming session. When something new comes up, the (or a good) answer on how to handle it should derive naturally from the rules.

Rules that are muddled and overlapping and require reference to specifics on a case-by-case-by-case basis every time something comes up, don't do that at all, at least not for me.

Ah, so you're looking for ease of mapping. "Readability" is one of my highest benchmarks for code, so I approve.

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?

But

Would you really enjoy a system that correctly modeled my padded weapon example, complete with physical and mental stamina, speed, reach, skill, specific maneuvers known, ability to read body language, ability to translate that to maneuvers known, etc etc?

My fighter can gulp down deadly poisons with the best of them because....of hmmm....skill in resisting poisons. In fact my fighter doesn't like that aspect of his bloated HP pool because technically alcohol is poison so he needs to drink barrels of it to get drunk.

AFAIK, that's not HP that keep the fighter from getting drunk.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ah, so you're looking for ease of mapping. "Readability" is one of my highest benchmarks for code, so I approve.

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?

Exactly. Exactly.


(E: the "map" terminology, for me, comes from my statement that the game system is the map, the setting and characters and atmosphere even story are the actual territory. )

But

Would you really enjoy a system that correctly modeled my padded weapon example, complete with physical and mental stamina, speed, reach, skill, specific maneuvers known, ability to read body language, ability to translate that to maneuvers known, etc etc?

There's a limit to what's practical, and actual gameplay to take into consideration.

[RazorChain]

Ah, so you're looking for ease of mapping. "Readability" is one of my highest benchmarks for code, so I approve.

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?

Or high Constitution makes you luckier?

[PersonMan]

That works fine. The problem comes when people try to rationalize HP as an actual Thing That Exists in the game world. Then it ends up in this thread...

I'm curious - earlier, during the beginning of the HP disagreement, I mentioned how I think of HP. Do you think that doesn't work, and if so where does it break down? At this point I'm fairly certain it works as far as the system is concerned (although some of it is odd when you get to stuff like drowning tanking your HP near-instantly).

I sometimes think of it as a mix between ability to shrug off or otherwise deal with injuries [Edit: And sheer physical toughness]. If you have 100 HP, you can be covered in massive burns and keep fighting, but when you hit 1 HP you're at your limit, so anything more that hits you causes all the damage you've taken to stop being able to function normally. It could be that a high-level fighter at 1 HP isn't a guy covered in cuts and bruises, but rather someone who barely seems alive to the untrained viewer - massive wounds covering his body, broken bones protruding from arms that are somehow still being used as if they were undamaged.

Yes, this does break with the idea of "HP isn't purely physical injury" completely, but it is a way of seeing the HP model as something other than "just HP". After enough of a beating has been applied, the character's willpower gives out and they fall, still holding on to life but in a horribly mangled state (and therefore requiring a lot more healing magic than Mr. Knocked Out By His Cat).

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, D&D doesn't get top ratings in this regard. Making you faster... improves what? Making you luckier... improves what?

It's not perfect, but it does pretty well iff you go with "HP = Health". Making you faster improves movement rate (and gives one more attack per round). Making you luckier gives a small luck bonus to your d20 rolls.

If you go with "HP = Plot Armor" then yes, it becomes a silly mess. That's why it's so funny that some people insist that this must be the only explanation.

[Max_Killjoy]

It's not perfect, but it does pretty well iff you go with "HP = Health". Making you faster improves movement rate (and gives one more attack per round). Making you luckier gives a small luck bonus to your d20 rolls.

If you go with "HP = Plot Armor" then yes, it becomes a silly mess. That's why it's so funny that some people insist that this must be the only explanation.

If HP = just Health, you get a different set of issues, such as "How does the exact identical wound that would have reduced the character to a bleeding, dying mess at level one, now barely affect the character at all at level ten?"

[The Glyphstone]

If HP = just Health, you get a different set of issues, such as "How does the exact identical wound that would have reduced the character to a bleeding, dying mess at level one, now barely affect the character at all?"

Take a few extra seconds and render damage as a fraction. The monsters' Damage Roll is 8, that translates to 66% of your first-level Con 14 Fighter's health. A monster's damage roll of 8 at level 20 is slightly more than 5% of their health.

Sure, it adds a useless math step as part of the 'describing damage' step to combat resolution, but if realism is valuable, a little bit more math won't hurt. Entire games, like GURPS, are built around having rolls/stats for every 'realistic' aspect even if it slows down actual gameplay. And it gives us an excuse to write another table, in classic Gygaxian style, with specific descriptions being tied to certain percentages of health loss.

Why isn't this in the rules already? Because the modern designers have lost the Gygaxian spirit. They don't even make you roll on the Random Harlot table anymore.

[Max_Killjoy]

Take a few extra seconds and render damage as a fraction. The monsters' Damage Roll is 8, that translates to 66% of your first-level Con 14 Fighter's health. A monster's damage roll of 8 at level 20 is slightly more than 5% of their health.

Sure, it adds a useless math step as part of the 'describing damage' step to combat resolution, but if realism is valuable, a little bit more math won't hurt. Entire games, like GURPS, are built around having rolls/stats for every 'realistic' aspect even if it slows down actual gameplay. And it gives us an excuse to write another table, in classic Gygaxian style, with specific descriptions being tied to certain percentages of health loss.

Why isn't this in the rules already? Because the modern designers have lost the Gygaxian spirit. They don't even make you roll on the Random Harlot table anymore.

That doesn't change anything at all.

The attacker made made their roll by the same margin, and the damage roll was the same. Therefore, the wound was the same.

The same wound somehow did a different "fraction of health" to the same character because... of what?

[Kurald Galain]

The attacker made made their roll by the same margin, and the damage roll was the same. Therefore, the wound was the same.

No, that does not follow. That's just your assumption.

And it's an assumption that leads to all kinds of ridiculous outcomes, which is why I suggest making a different assumption.

[ace rooster]

If HP = just Health, you get a different set of issues, such as "How does the exact identical wound that would have reduced the character to a bleeding, dying mess at level one, now barely affect the character at all at level ten?"

Cause he is just that heroic.

I'm reminded of the film Last Action Hero, where Arnie plays a film character brought to reality. He survives a kill shot by being taken back into the film, where the doctor looks at the injury and says something like "Are you joking, I wouldn't even call this a flesh wound".

[Bohandas]

I sometimes think of it as a mix between ability to shrug off or otherwise deal with injuries. If you have 100 HP, you can be covered in massive burns and keep fighting, but when you hit 1 HP you're at your limit, so anything more that hits you causes all the damage you've taken to stop being able to function normally. It could be that a high-level fighter at 1 HP isn't a guy covered in cuts and bruises, but rather someone who barely seems alive to the untrained viewer - massive wounds covering his body, broken bones protruding from arms that are somehow still being used as if they were undamaged.

Yes, this does break with the idea of "HP isn't purely physical injury" completely, but it is a way of seeing the HP model as something other than "just HP". After enough of a beating has been applied, the character's willpower gives out and they fall, still holding on to life but in a horribly mangled state (and therefore requiring a lot more healing magic than Mr. Knocked Out By His Cat).

That sounds like a good explanation.

It does come off a little bit like the Black Knight though. "That's just a flesh wound"

[Max_Killjoy]

No, that does not follow. That's just your assumption.

And it's an assumption that leads to all kinds of ridiculous outcomes, which is why I suggest making a different assumption.

Zero assumptions.

All variances other than the target character's HP have been accounted for.


Ridiculous outcomes occur if two mechanically identical hits do not represent equivalent wounds.


There's just no way to have ever-increasing hit points without something breaking.

[Lacuna Caster]

Take a few extra seconds and render damage as a fraction. The monsters' Damage Roll is 8, that translates to 66% of your first-level Con 14 Fighter's health. A monster's damage roll of 8 at level 20 is slightly more than 5% of their health.

I've been outta the loop, so maybe I missed this earlier, but how does this explain the immersion-in-lava rule and tough-guys-are-harder-to-heal effect?

Guys, why do we have to make this complicated? What exactly is wrong with level-20 adventurers being the Justice League in wands and chainmail?

[Kurald Galain]

Guys, why do we have to make this complicated? What exactly is wrong with level-20 adventurers being the Justice League in wands and chainmail?

Nothing. Except that some people insist they can be killed by a single blow, but they never take blows ever because they're just that good (except when the blow is on fire or poisoned or a large number of other exceptions...)

[Knaight]

Nothing. Except that some people insist they can be killed by a single blow, but they never take blows ever because they're just that good (except when the blow is on fire or poisoned or a large number of other exceptions...)

Exactly. Medieval superheroes who genuinely do take ridiculous wounds and basically ignore them are modeled comparatively well.

[Max_Killjoy]

Exactly. Medieval superheroes who genuinely do take ridiculous wounds and basically ignore them are modeled comparatively well.

Which would be fine, if the game and its proponents were frank and honest about what the system does well.

Instead, it's too often been "Running a fantasy game of any kind? Use D&D/d20!"

[soldersbushwack]

Guys please stop crapping up the thread. This thread isn't about pushing your views on whether or not D&D accurately models reality well. If you want a more accurate system just play GURPS or something.

[Khedrac]

Max_Killjoy,
I tried pointing out some way back (as have others) that just because rules are ridiculous they are not necessarily bad. Also that D&D is liked by enough people that while it may be "bad" for you it is not "objectively bad".
You could have accepted this and ignored all the other people that carried on arguing a point that in general is a matter of opinion and not subject to argument.

You didn't stop though - you came out with this:

Zero assumptions.

All variances other than the target character's HP have been accounted for.

Ridiculous outcomes occur if two mechanically identical hits do not represent equivalent wounds.

There's just no way to have ever-increasing hit points without something breaking.

You have now stated that if the rolled result is the same the would must be the same.
Oh dear.
This means that for D&D, a dagger can only cause 4 possible non-critical wounds when wielded by an averag person.
At first glance that seems to suggest your assertion that D&D is "objectively bad" (and not just ridiculous).

Perhaps, but every single other role-playing game that uses a dice roll to determine weapon damage has the same problem - there has to be a discrete number of possible outcome rolls. This number of outcomes is far far smaller than the number of possible different results from attacking someone with a knife, ignoring fatal strikes (the criticals).
(I suspect all RPGs that use dice, and most of the ones that don't suffer from the same problem, but I don't know enough about them all to be sure.)

By your critera every role-playing game is bad. Fine - please get out of the RPG sub-forums of this site because clearly you think them all "objectively bad".

If you don't think this stop trying to argue that something that is demonstrably subjectively bad is objectively bad. It isn't objectively bad because far too many people like playing it for that to be the case. It is subjectively bad because it has major problems for lots of people.
You have now demonstrated that your arguments are specious because you simply don't want to accept that your opinion is just your opinion and other people can disagree with you.
Note: the people who expect to be able to convince you that it is a good system are equally in the wrong, but most of them have shut up and most of the posts are now people just trying to show that it is not "objectively" bad.

Yes, I know in the quoted post you did not use the term "bad" you referred to ridiculousness, but no-one has queried that for ages, they have been trying to counter your "objectively bad" assertion, therefore your post has to be in support of that part of your position. If not, I apologise for misunderstanding you, but you could have clearly stated that you no longer stand by "objectively bad".

PS - thank-you for leading me to another ridiculous aspect of D&D - that there are only 4 different results from a knife stab.