Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 11:09:09 -0400 
From: "Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Critical Hits ... again (sorry)


From: sgibson@cs1.uct.ac.za (S GIBSON)

>PHB is the equivalent of about US$50.00 *grimace*) here in SA.
Ouch.

>But the system says that a man size creature should take 1d10 + whatever 
>bonuses damage... unrealistic? Definitely! This is just the normal, non-
>critical, hit being done here. Then the critical hit comes along on the 
>roll of a 20 ... the players face lights up ... the whoops of delight echo 
>through the playing area (damn right!).
...
Ok, so critical hits occur on a 20, 5% ofthe time.  

>Well, here's a suggestion : make the critical strike such that, due to it 
>being a rare occurence, it will surely kill, instantly or over no more 
>than a handfull of rounds. This sounds more realistic, doesn't it?
...
You consider 5% a rare occurance?  In a multiple opponent fight it's
very likely.  In a multiple opponent fight it's very likely a player
will be killed by a critical hit, it does provide incentive to avoid
combat, but some would argue that's now what fantasy adventure is
about:  winning battles despite all odds.   Remember, this is a 5%
chance of dying *per attack* made against a character.

>The one problem is compiling these tables ... I have tried and it is 
>blooody difficult! But after a while the bugs seem to surface and the 
>system gains in simplicity and above all REALISM.
I don't think most people play D&D because it's realistic.  What are
the odds of 1 unarmored man winning against 20 peasants?  In real
life:  very low, in fantasy adventure (for someone like Conan, or in a
modern era Rambo) it happens.  

You talk about realism for weapon hits, do you also have realistic
results for poison, acid, etc?  Do people get crippled after combats
with results like gouged eyes, mangled hands, etc?  If so most
fighters will in pretty pathetic shape by 2nd level.  Do
spells cause this type of severe damage (how can someone survive being
hit by a fireball, since it's 30' diameter you can't claim that it missed)?

I agree that this is more realistic, but I see 2 problems with this.
One it screws fighters over (I haven't seen an argument that fighters
are too powerful, I've seen complaints about mages and clerics
though).  Now fighters are even weaker that they have a lower
survivability.  I've been in a campaign with a critical hit system and
was very glad I was a mage (losing attributes from critical hits isn't
joy either).  This creates even more incentive to play a mage or
priest (like there wasn't enough already). 

Second is it more fun?  You've played this thief for 6
months, have really gotten to like the character, and are really
involved in the campaign.  Then some peasant rolls a critical hit,
gets lucky and kills you.  Is this fun?  That's why d&d created an
abstract (unrealistic) hp system.  So people could play heroic types
of characters.  I feel it's one of the few things they did well in the
system.  

I've seen realistic systems and decided I didn't like them as
much, as described before.  Yes, people get mangled in fights; but in
a 'realistic' system the odds of a group of people doing anything even
remotely heroic without being poisoned, magiked, shot at by 50 peasant
archers (one of the 50 archers is bound to get a 20 since they get 2
shots per round...), etc is extremely low. If you want a realistic
game play Stormbringer and not use any of the superpowerful races (or
for laughs let 1 person play a Melibonean).  

Sorry for the length, but someone used 'realism' and 'ad&d' in the same
post :-)

	joe


Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd