PDA

View Full Version : Realism in Fantasy



Conners
2013-03-04, 07:06 AM
This thread is for discussing actual realism in fantasy and fictional settings. Everyone agrees that verisimilitude and consistency is important to any story, and that you need to be careful when removing major elements of reality (like gravity)--this is for the more contested and opinion/taste-based discussion, of reality in fantasy.

There are many facets to this, and opinions can vary widely between them. Even if someone is interested in realistically deadly weapons, the idea of infection killing characters might be unattractive to them. Some might argue that it is a waste to restrict yourself to mundane things, when you could have characters summoning meteors or time travelling constantly.


So, let's discuss. I guess we could start with weapons--what do you prefer for weapons to be like within a fantasy story? Also, what is your opinion of weapons which behave closely to reality?

Yora
2013-03-04, 08:48 AM
When it comes to gear, I am a huge fan of as much accuracy as possible. I really love learning how technology actually works and to understand why inventors and enginers did things the way they did and why they didn't do others. When I see something in a movie or video game, I often think "how would that work? What did the director think with this?" And then I go and learn how steel is actually produced or what mechanism makes a gatling gun rotate. Which is why I am one of the dozen or so permanent posters in the weapons and armor thread. :smallbiggrin:
I would say that is indeed my biggest hobby, considerably above RPGs.

But that also means knowing the physics and the practical use of weapons and armor, I find it highly irritating to see anything and know "this does not work! I am sure dozens of people have tried this, but it never caught on because it has more drawbacks than benefits". There is no "splint mail" or "studded leather armor"! Splints have always only be used for arm or leg protection, and mail means chain. You can't have plate mail just the same as you can't have plate chain. It doesn't make sense. And putting studs on a leather armor does nothing to improve its protective value, but putting lots of little holes into the leather only makes it weaker. Now if you would actually use rivets to fasten metal plates to the inside of the leather, than you actually do get a really decent armor. But it's neither leather armor nor is it studded.
And speaking of which, leather armor is a terrible idea to begin with. You can't just make armor out of sheep and deer hides, you'd need the hide from the shoulders of a bull and that stuff is expensive as hell. And even that stuff can easily be cut with kitchen scisors. The only solid evidence for actual armor made from leather ever being used is layerd scales of leather. That works quite well, but is a completely different thing than the stuff described in RPGs.

So that's this. When I run games in my own setting, the weapon and armor lists get considerable overhauls.
(Go away dire-flail! You are an embarasment and insult to logic.)

Conners
2013-03-04, 08:55 AM
Do you have any thoughts on portrayal of weapon damage and injury?

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 09:22 AM
I enjoy both martial/combat realism and social realism. (Not social realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_realism).)

I like systems where weapons are dangerous and combat is deadly. It forces players to think and use other options. I don't think there's any requirement for combat in RPGs. My players - not deep actors or even loquacious speakers, by and large - thought our Artesia: Adventures in the Known World campaign was one of the best ever after two sessions with one fight.

I love systems like The Riddle of Steel and HârnMaster, where you can be killed by one good blow, injuries hinder and hurt, and wounds take time to heal. (In fact, I think "having to fight while wounded" is a great scenario that doesn't really work hit point -based RPGs; you're not less capable at fighting in them, you're just going to die in fewer hits.) HârnMaster has the additional benefit of having realistic armor (TROS armor helps, but doesn't so much top blows as slow them). A HM knight in full quilt and mail with a bascinet is nearly impervious, and can take on several unarmored warriors, dealing counterstrikes left and right instead of defending... until, of course, they get unlucky (or get pulled or knocked down). On the other hand, a HM knight wearing 80 pounds of gear is going to tire out fast, losing combat efficiency.

Aside on leather armor:


And speaking of which, leather armor is a terrible idea to begin with. You can't just make armor out of sheep and deer hides, you'd need the hide from the shoulders of a bull and that stuff is expensive as hell. And even that stuff can easily be cut with kitchen scisors. The only solid evidence for actual armor made from leather ever being used is layerd scales of leather. That works quite well, but is a completely different thing than the stuff described in RPGs.

This was actually a topic I read on a HârnMaster forum once... someone actually went and ass-pull calculated the number of yearling bulls (you wouldn't kill cows for it) you'd need to kill to get enough of their leather to cover a man to a thickness comparable to quilted "armor" (using cows about half the modern size, given that's about the size they were around the 11th century), and came weirdly close to a number given in a story about Cuchulainn (a suit of leather made of seven yearling bulls' hides).



Do you have any thoughts on portrayal of weapon damage and injury?

No hit points. Record individual wounds. Track effect on combat ability and proximity to death separately. Death comes from bleeding out (hypovolemic shock) or from damage to the CNS (brain, spine) or from absolutely massive damage (but that's usually really sudden hypovolemic shock, in effect).

TROS, HârnMaster, Twilight 2013, and some others do this.


For social realism, games like Artesia: AKW and HârnMaster are wonderful. They're based on an actual understanding of medieval society (and in A:AKW, ancient society and religion and myth) - even if, obviously, not always correct in all points (how could they be?), the verisimilitude is miles ahead of other games. Understanding, incorporating, and actively using the basics of medieval society and feudalism creates a setting that's just more believable and very deep. Ideas just jump out at me when I read about a realm like Kaldor, it's coming succession crisis, the many claimants to the throne, the way the subinfeudation is split between them... it screams civil war and gives me a good idea where everyone is going to be split. It even tells me (because of the insane level of detail in listing holdings) how many knights a given lord can call upon.

I so often find traditional pseudomedieval fantasy to feel hollow, because it's missing the grounding - the understanding of what the society would be based on (farming villages ruled from manors by knights, subinfeudated to higher lords). This even afflicts such supposedly realistic fantasies as A Song of Ice and Fire (where what knights do is never really addressed; I don't recall if there's been a single knight's manor or holding in the whole series, except possibly the fortification Yoren's group was attacked in).

That's not to say I can't enjoy unrealistic games. Sure I can. I love gonzo D&D. But it's a very different game then - it's a game about dungeons and the dragons therein, not about societies, politics, plots, romances, and all that other stuff that makes up actual stories outside of RPGs. (Funnily enough, if you look at old Greyhawk material, it shows probably the best understanding of medieval society and its trappings out of all D&D settings - so the styles aren't even mutually exclusive.)

Yora
2013-03-04, 09:23 AM
In that respect, I would say realism is just impractical. A single bullet can instantly kill a big man. But even some scrawny kid might keep fighting after being hit 20 times. It's entirely unpredictable and the same should probably be true for spear or arrow injuries as well.
Having a game in which you can instantly die at any moment without any warning or any chance to do anything against it simply doesn't sound fun. You want to be able to realize you are taking a bad beating and have a chance to retreat. Being able to start a fight and then judge if you can make it or have to make a run seems a rather imporant thing in an RPG to me, and that means you have to be entirely unrealistic.

Beleriphon
2013-03-04, 09:34 AM
But that also means knowing the physics and the practical use of weapons and armor, I find it highly irritating to see anything and know "this does not work! I am sure dozens of people have tried this, but it never caught on because it has more drawbacks than benefits". There is no "splint mail" or "studded leather armor"! Splints have always only be used for arm or leg protection, and mail means chain. You can't have plate mail just the same as you can't have plate chain. It doesn't make sense. And putting studs on a leather armor does nothing to improve its protective value, but putting lots of little holes into the leather only makes it weaker. Now if you would actually use rivets to fasten metal plates to the inside of the leather, than you actually do get a really decent armor. But it's neither leather armor nor is it studded.

Platemail doesn't bother me so much, as its just a contraction of plate-and-mail or its missing the D from plated mail. Either way it gained traction during the Victorian era and is a neologism. It isn't so much wrong as not appropriately clear nor likely the historical term used in English. For most people they're going to know what chainmail is, but if you just ask them about a mail shirt they're think you mean man's shirt or a shirt made out of envelopes.

Incidentally plated-mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plated_mail) is the closest thing that we have to D&D splint mail. Its a bunch of little plates looped into each link of chainmail. The link leads to Wikipedia which has some nice pictures of the stuff.

So I guess that's my tolerance for realism. As long as it seems functional and matches a currently accepted description of something that seems usable I figure its good to go. I'm never going to make a player tell me the Oakeshott type of sword they plan on using.


I so often find traditional pseudomedieval fantasy to feel hollow, because it's missing the grounding - the understanding of what the society would be based on (farming villages ruled from manors by knights, subinfeudated to higher lords). This even afflicts such supposedly realistic fantasies as A Song of Ice and Fire (where what knights do is never really addressed; I don't recall if there's been a single knight's manor or holding in the whole series, except possibly the fortification Yoren's group was attacked in).

A Song of Ice and Fire is more driven by society during The War of the Roses than previous true feudalism. Knights hang out and have their own holdings, are in turn beholden to a higher status lord. Really all they represent are middling status nobility that form a professional warrior class in the setting. As I recall the Starks live in pretty impressive manor/castle and A Game of Thrones even mentions the fact there is a village near the castle, and they travel through their holdings during the early part of the book.

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 09:37 AM
Having a game in which you can instantly die at any moment without any warning or any chance to do anything against it simply doesn't sound fun. You want to be able to realize you are taking a bad beating and have a chance to retreat. Being able to start a fight and then judge if you can make it or have to make a run seems a rather imporant thing in an RPG to me, and that means you have to be entirely unrealistic.

I feel this comes down to the bigger picture. If you're entering into a fistfight in a realistically deadly RPG, you know with quite a lot of certainty you're not in danger of death. If you enter into a knife fight, you're taking a risk of death. A gunfight that doesn't start with you shooting your opponent first, a huge risk of death.

Bullets are a special case, but even Twilight 2013 - where guns are really lethal - isn't really that crazy. And you can do a lot about whether you get shot in combat (unless it's a sniper, which is obviously a GM thing again; it can be fair or unfair) by using cover, smart tactics, etc.

Conners
2013-03-04, 10:01 AM
One thing I like about deadly combat, is threats become a realistic option. Threatening people in DnD either feels forced, or doesn't work (hard to threaten a guy who can just run away while being hit).

Raimun
2013-03-04, 10:24 AM
I don't expect too much realism in heroic RPGs.

The players are supposed to be the heroes and/or protagonists of the story, right?

They generally tend to get in fights, right?

This means they have to win or at least survive their fights, if it's meant that the characters play parts in a greater narrative, right?

Either the characters can take hits and defeat their enemies on their own or they need Plot Armor.

RPGs are about the Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun.

Raimun
2013-03-04, 10:26 AM
One thing I like about deadly combat, is threats become a realistic option. Threatening people in DnD either feels forced, or doesn't work (hard to threaten a guy who can just run away while being hit).

Threatening is always an option. Sometimes you just have to be more creative than just pointing them with a gun/crossbow, while everyone is just standing in a room.

Think about it this way: How can you threaten Batman?

Maquise
2013-03-04, 10:30 AM
And speaking of which, leather armor is a terrible idea to begin with. You can't just make armor out of sheep and deer hides, you'd need the hide from the shoulders of a bull and that stuff is expensive as hell. And even that stuff can easily be cut with kitchen scisors. The only solid evidence for actual armor made from leather ever being used is layerd scales of leather. That works quite well, but is a completely different thing than the stuff described in RPGs.


Leather armor was one of the oldest and most commonly used forms of armor in history. Here's an article on it. (http://www.history-of-armor.com/LeatherArmor.html)

Yora
2013-03-04, 10:36 AM
Yet nobody ever mentions any sources or evidence. They are all just repeating each other.

Maquise
2013-03-04, 10:49 AM
It seems to be a contested point; I think I've just scratched the surface and will have to dig deeper.

This does bring up a good point; realism in fantasy always runs into the problem where we are talking about a period of time that we still have a lot of unanswered questions about.

Conners
2013-03-04, 11:00 AM
@Raimun: In a realistic RPG, you could only threaten Batman under rather extreme circumstances.

Point a pistol at Batman from across a wide, empty room? I hope you're Deadshot, or just really skilled with that gun. Else, the room will be filled with a few more bullet holes, and teeth.

Have several men with automatic weapons aiming at Batman from multiple angles? He's going to have to have some way of getting out of that kill zone in a moment they're not paying attention. Something like a smoke bomb, an explosive he planted earlier as a distraction, or just that the guys are scared or incompetent enough that he spies an opening (Batman will have the skills and experience to do that).

Threatening people isn't easy in a realistic game. It is feasible.


@Maquise & Yora: Decided to ask about this. Asia used quite a bit of leather armour throughout history, since leather was cheaper over there. Know of one account about a Scottish lord, who had a leather cuirass, in the very early days. Buff coats, a fancy leather armour, was also used, when armour was becoming less popular.

Leather armour does exist--just that in Europe, it was generally too expensive and ineffective in comparison to mail armour.


Maquise makes a good point that often, the RPG makers don't know what they're writing about. And, that is an understandable limitation... not many people can ride a horse, try archery, study swordplay, and write a well-made game with one lifetime.

warty goblin
2013-03-04, 11:17 AM
Yet nobody ever mentions any sources or evidence. They are all just repeating each other.
Leather shields (http://www.bronze-age-swords.com/Clonbrin_shield.htm) were used during the bronze age, quite probably very extensively.


@Raimun: In a realistic RPG, you could only threaten Batman under rather extreme circumstances.

In a realistic RPG you don't have Batman.

Personally I prefer my fantasy a bit lower key and more grounded. I don't require it to be a doctoral thesis in game form, but when everybody's running around killing gods and waving flaming swords and so forth, it just cheapens the whole thing.

Conners
2013-03-04, 11:26 AM
I could rig Batman in a realistic RPG. Give him very high stats for a human (but within human limits) of his build, and make him the Einstein of fighting when it comes to combat skill. A number of his gadgets would need adjustment, like the batarangs cut to the bone or nearly remove fingers in order to work, but some of the stuff we have in reality is similarly crazy as it is.

Amaril
2013-03-04, 11:27 AM
On the subject of hit points, I think the original Player's Handbook had it right. Hit points shouldn't represent actual injuries so much as fatigue--when an enemy's attack "hits" you and depletes your HP, what's actually happening is that they're forcing you to expend energy and compromise your positioning and balance to avoid being seriously hurt by the attack, perhaps incurring some minor bruises and scratches in the process. One can only do this for so long before finally slipping up and succumbing to a fatal attack.

As I mentioned, this was the approach described in 1e. The example they gave was that not even the toughest human could endure as many physical injuries as a horse, but a human with a lot of training and experience could keep fighting and avoid injury for a lot longer than a horse could. Thus, realistic hit points.

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 11:40 AM
One thing I like about deadly combat, is threats become a realistic option. Threatening people in DnD either feels forced, or doesn't work (hard to threaten a guy who can just run away while being hit).

Exactly. I prefer a game where by players think hard when someone pulls a gun or knife and points it at them. "Is this worth a fight? How can we get what we want?"

Leather armor sidetrack:


Leather armor was one of the oldest and most commonly used forms of armor in history. Here's an article on it. (http://www.history-of-armor.com/LeatherArmor.html)

There were certain types of leather armor, mostly in Asia/Mongolia (the Mongols had an excess of horses for leather), but in Europe, it was not present in anything like te form D&D gives. For one thing, leather was expensive and fairly rare. You can't kill cows until they're old and useless for breeding and milking. You only get so many bulls/oxen, and you need some for breeding and plowing - and you have to wait a year for them to be any good for leather. For another thing, it was no good. If you were rich, you got mail. If you weren't, you got thick cloth. In either case, you got better value for your money.

Fortunately, this is easily fixed by just replacing leather armor with quilted cloth armor - aketons, gambesons, etc. Thick cloth was by far the most common armor everywhere.

Conners
2013-03-04, 11:47 AM
@Amaril: They've had that for HP all the way to 4th Edition. It isn't realistic. If it was fatigue, you would get weaker and more penalties as you lost HP. It has an extremely different feel from games which do try to make their combat realistic.


@Rhynn: Really like the emphasis it puts on the social aspect. Who to fight, who not to fight, who pulls their gun first, whether the person you're threatening will do what you say or reach for their gun.

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 11:52 AM
@Amaril: They've had that for HP all the way to 4th Edition. It isn't realistic. If it was fatigue, you would get weaker and more penalties as you lost HP. It has an extremely different feel from games which do try to make their combat realistic.

Lots of RPGs track fatigue and damage separately, and have done so since the 70s - it's neither hard, excessively clumsy, nor rare. D&D just sticks with HP because it's a simple, simple game at heart (even with all the tacked-on complexities).


@Rhynn: Really like the emphasis it puts on the social aspect. Who to fight, who not to fight, who pulls their gun first, whether the person you're threatening will do what you say or reach for their gun.

Exactly.

I like to add other social considerations to violence in my settings. If you kill people, you're going to face consequences. Even if the killing is legal, it's going to make enemies - the friends and family of the deceased, for a start. Blood feud!

My players hardly ever kill humans in RuneQuest, except in war. And conversely, enemies try to surrender once they receive an incapacitating blow (lose use of a hand or leg, etc.) or are disarmed; and enemies will accept surrender.

This has long traditions in RuneQuest specifically - as far back as in the original house campaigns of RQ1, PCs were expected to hide treasure to use as a ransom when they were captured. There's no reason this couldn't work in D&D, too. (Although you'd have to think of reasons orcs & goblins would be interested in gold and silver to begin with.)

Amaril
2013-03-04, 12:06 PM
@Amaril: They've had that for HP all the way to 4th Edition. It isn't realistic. If it was fatigue, you would get weaker and more penalties as you lost HP. It has an extremely different feel from games which do try to make their combat realistic.


I agree it's still not perfect, but it's certainly better than the way most video games, for example, handle HP--by having a character be able to literally take twenty sword strikes before dying. I don't mind the lack of additional penalties for taking damage--I think that would bog down the combat a bit too much for it to be fun. I do, however, prefer editions with lower HP totals, since I think combat should be a lot more lethal than 4e makes it.

Harlan Vold
2013-03-04, 12:06 PM
Ive been playing Swords and Wizardry - White Box for a while now, and one of things that I like most about it is the narrowing of the gap in damage between weapons. A dagger will do 1d6-1 damage, whereas a bastard sword will do 1d6+1.

This really appeals to me since it is far more realistic, at least in my estimation. You get stabbed in the chest with an eight-inch dagger, your almost as likely to die as if you get stabbed with a three and a half foot sword.

Maquise
2013-03-04, 12:21 PM
I'm not that knowledgeable, but I would think that the main difference between a dagger and a longsword would be that one is longer and can hit the other guy first.

Harlan Vold
2013-03-04, 12:27 PM
I'm not that knowledgeable, but I would think that the main difference between a dagger and a longsword would be that one is longer and can hit the other guy first.

I agree. But once they hit, the damage done is roughly the same.

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 12:29 PM
I'm not that knowledgeable, but I would think that the main difference between a dagger and a longsword would be that one is longer and can hit the other guy first.

It depends on your level of simulation/reality modelling. A sword can cut through your wrist on a swing, but a dagger is unlikely to. But if you get stabbed in the throat with either, you're just as bad off.

Generally, old D&D combat rules are surprisingly good for being the first and so incredibly simple. AC actually makes sense - you're trying to get around armor, not through it, so it makes sense that it reduces the chances of dealing damage at all, rather than reducing it. It's still a simplification, but a good one. And being killed with one weapon is the same as being killed with another. (In OD&D, the idea was that a 0-level man has 1d6 hit points, and all weapons deal 1d6 damage... any weapon can kill in one blow, or not kill. Unless you're a hero of some sort, in which case you're tougher to kill for reasons of being a hero.)

A few games actually consider weapon reach - RuneQuest (as a function of attack speed in older versions, with longer being faster, but as actual weapon length in RQ6), The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel. I think it adds a cool dimension to play. Attacking a spearman with a dagger is crazy, but if you are good enough to get inside their reach, the spear becomes nearly useless.

Spiryt
2013-03-04, 12:34 PM
It depends on your level of simulation/reality modelling. A sword can cut through your wrist on a swing, but a dagger is unlikely to. But if you get stabbed in the throat with either, you're just as bad off.
.

One could easily found such daggers and such swords that the gap in 'wrist cutting ability' would be largely closed.

So generally, in any more 'realistic' modeling broad categories as longsword should be secondary to actual particular weapons modeling.

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 12:45 PM
One could easily found such daggers and such swords that the gap in 'wrist cutting ability' would be largely closed.

So generally, in any more 'realistic' modeling broad categories as longsword should be secondary to actual particular weapons modeling.

Sounds dangerously close to Dwarf Fortress level insanity (modelling material shear strength, weapon contact surface, etc.)... :smallbiggrin:

Naturally, you're going to get 2' daggers and 2' shortswords. What are you proposing exactly, though? You're going to have to make categories of weapons, and unless you're going the OD&D route, they're going to have to differ in performance in some ways.

Spiryt
2013-03-04, 01:09 PM
Sounds dangerously close to Dwarf Fortress level insanity (modelling material shear strength, weapon contact surface, etc.)... :smallbiggrin:

Naturally, you're going to get 2' daggers and 2' shortswords. What are you proposing exactly, though? You're going to have to make categories of weapons, and unless you're going the OD&D route, they're going to have to differ in performance in some ways.

I'm not talking about 2' daggers and 2' shortsword, I'm talking about

Sword like this oe (http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/224131.html?mulR=8113|40)

and

such dagger (http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/15906988_a-caucasian-kindjal-dagger)

Generally, caterories should probably be very vague like 'axe', 'one edged blade' etc. and weapons stated based on size and design.


I like to add other social considerations to violence in my settings. If you kill people, you're going to face consequences. Even if the killing is legal, it's going to make enemies - the friends and family of the deceased, for a start. Blood feud!

Depends on setting and people, I guess. Powerful/influential could sometimes conceivably kill some poor, struggling peasant without fear of retribution in a lot of places/systems.

The Fury
2013-03-04, 01:19 PM
Well, I suppose any given game ought to be realistic enough for willing suspension of disbelief. That said, every fantasy RPG I've played has asked me to accept some things that aren't quite right as I understand them-- generally in the combat system. One thing that I always thought was weird is that in D&D what's called a "longsword" is a slashing weapon. It does slashing damage, it can never do piercing damage according to the rules. Yet, every historical example of the weapon the "longsword" is meant to represent has a point-- ostensibly to stab or pierce. Weird.
I can accept weird stuff like the longsword thing a lot more readily than some other unrealistic things in D&D, like how Bluff vs. Sense motive usually goes. Say the Rogue steals the Cleric's holy symbol or something, the party is out in the wilderness en-route to someplace else so the Cleric reasonably suspects the Rogue. The Rogue rolls Bluff, the Cleric blows his Sense Motive so that line of inquiry is dropped. I would think that the Cleric would be a little more thorough because people generally are, that and when an explanation is offered during the Bluff it's usually a pretty weak one.
I guess I'm saying that I can accept some unrealistic stuff as long as people act like people.

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 03:01 PM
Depends on setting and people, I guess. Powerful/influential could sometimes conceivably kill some poor, struggling peasant without fear of retribution in a lot of places/systems.

Obviously. A blood feud by a villein against a baron wouldn't amount to much, and any attempt to pursue it would probably amount to treason. And then there's the outright laws allowing it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirisute_gomen).

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-04, 03:06 PM
I'm going to quote myself from another thread:

"I find that realism has become needlessly spit upon among roleplayers. I'm going to paraphrase 1st Edition D&D here: "this is a game, not simulation of reality. However, this doesn't mean that where it enhances the game, attempt at maximum realism isn't made." The reason for this is simple: people are used to making decisions based on perceived reality, and the more a game scenario deviates from that frame of reference, the harder it becomes for people to visualize the scenario, and consequently it becomes harder to make informed decisions within the game! See my recent thread: "Roleplaying training wheels: playing as yourself" for a more in-depth explanation of this."

For example, I'm a scout, have been for years. I know exactly how far I can walk in 1 hour, or how much stuff I can easily carry. If I'm playing a character of supposedly equivalent ability and the rules somehow prevent me from doing this, I'm going to be very confused.

I'm going to claim that traveling, weapon proficiencies, weaponry and recording time are elements of roleplaying that have not improved much, or have actually taken steps backwards from times of 1st Ed AD&D. The roots of modern tabletop roleplaying were in wargaming, and wargaming has always had a reasonable interest in modeling reality so that players can use their actual strategic knowledge to make decision.

Witness, for example, how 1st Ed takes into account how different types of weaponry fare against different types of armor, or how different weapons fare against each other. Compare with 3rd Ed that makes little distinction between armor types and weaponry.

Recording time is especially bad. Narrative time, based on "scenes" or "encounters" might sound easier to grok, but it actually leads to inconsistent working of abilities, and funny things like no-body being able to tell what time of day it is (or, just as funnily, nights and days that never seem to end).

Morty
2013-03-04, 03:09 PM
Personally, I think that "fantasy will never be realistic" is a misconception. Sure, when magic is involved, realism usually goes away, but what do we do with non-magical elements? They might well be realistic.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-04, 03:12 PM
1st Edition AD&D goes into depth why they should be realistic. It seems people have become too fixated to things where increased realism is a hindrance, while forgetting where increased realism is actually beneficial.

Zombimode
2013-03-04, 04:01 PM
I can accept weird stuff like the longsword thing a lot more readily than some other unrealistic things in D&D, like how Bluff vs. Sense motive usually goes. Say the Rogue steals the Cleric's holy symbol or something, the party is out in the wilderness en-route to someplace else so the Cleric reasonably suspects the Rogue. The Rogue rolls Bluff, the Cleric blows his Sense Motive so that line of inquiry is dropped. I would think that the Cleric would be a little more thorough because people generally are, that and when an explanation is offered during the Bluff it's usually a pretty weak one.

Reread the Bluff rules. The bluff last for one round. So in your example, the rouge will make up some explanation, and the cleric will be like "Uh-huh, if you say so, I guess.". But then, 6 seconds later: "Actually, when I think of it..."

awa
2013-03-04, 04:10 PM
also keep in mind when bluffing unlikely bluffs grant bonuses to the sense motive check.

and keep in mind some truly incredible bluffs have been pulled off in real life.

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 04:30 PM
Personally, I think that "fantasy will never be realistic" is a misconception. Sure, when magic is involved, realism usually goes away, but what do we do with non-magical elements? They might well be realistic.

Absolutely. It's a complete nonsense phrase of an argument, when there are many fantasy RPGs with magic that obviously are realistic (or, rather, more realistic than the average or the big names, which is what it actually means anyway).

"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good", or whatever. Yes, HârnMaster and The Riddle of Steel have magic - but the non-magical parts are still pretty dang realistic.

Yora
2013-03-04, 04:42 PM
Realism is most importantly a feeling, not an accurate measurement. Sometimes you even have to do things in ways that are different from reality to create a more realistic appearance. Because people are really bad about understanding how things actually are, as compared to how they think they should be.

Chugosh
2013-03-04, 04:58 PM
I'm going to take a hack at this.
Realism. Why and how much?
I had about a page of thought on the subject, but it boils down after all to this:
Why play the game if you are going to be just as powerless and ineffective as you are at home, school, work and so forth? Why play if every day your character risks disease and death by eating and drinking? Why bother if any fight cold be a death match, just from a couple bad rolls or a bad decision?

Realism, in these cases, in a word, SUCKS!

BUT,
If you shift the focus a bit, and your game is NOT about the fight with the dragon or the teaming fray, but about people and how they get along, how they deal and love and laugh and live, why then you can have all the realism your scholarly heart desires and still make a good game of it.

Sorry. Still getting over the season end of Downton Abbey.

Seharvepernfan
2013-03-04, 05:18 PM
So, let's discuss. I guess we could start with weapons--what do you prefer for weapons to be like within a fantasy story? Also, what is your opinion of weapons which behave closely to reality?

I prefer mostly realistic looking weapons and armor. For example, I like the way things look in the baldurs gate/icewind dale games. Or just google search "realistic medieval armor" - I did, and the results I got are pretty much the way I prefer to imagine it. Weapons too; I don't like the gigantic, ornate, unwieldy looking things you see in most fantasy. I think a warhammer should look like this (http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/8104/aagj.jpg), not this (http://cdn.obsidianportal.com/images/383551/Skullcrusher_with_blood.jpg), though I'm not a jerk about it - magical weapons and armor can look "fantastical", and should.

I'm not personally willing to go and create new rules for how certain weapons react to certain armors; for instance: chainmail being especially effective against scimitars, but weak against warhammers. I'm fine with some abstraction in my games, but I go further than most DMs' for realism. Check out my houserules link; in just the first few tabs you'll see my rules most relevant to this issue. Also of interest, my wounds rules, and my parry/riposte rules (under "new feats").

In general, I made it easier to die. More "rocket tag-y". I prefer a grittier feel to my games, where cover/concealment/decoys & distractions/readied actions/delays/skills/etc, are more important.

Though not in my rules, I as a DM make my npcs less tough than other DMs tend to. I think that HP is thrown around too liberally.

I got rid of double-weapons, except the quarterstaff. That said, I have considered making the dire flail just a length of chain with a flail head on either side - I could see that being used by a sufficiently ambidextrous person.

Morty
2013-03-04, 06:45 PM
1st Edition AD&D goes into depth why they should be realistic. It seems people have become too fixated to things where increased realism is a hindrance, while forgetting where increased realism is actually beneficial.

That's my impression as well, yes. Realism is also often equated with playing boring characters, which is even more of a hilarious misconception.


Absolutely. It's a complete nonsense phrase of an argument, when there are many fantasy RPGs with magic that obviously are realistic (or, rather, more realistic than the average or the big names, which is what it actually means anyway).

"Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good", or whatever. Yes, HârnMaster and The Riddle of Steel have magic - but the non-magical parts are still pretty dang realistic.

Pretty much.

Mechanize
2013-03-04, 06:53 PM
Generally, old D&D combat rules are surprisingly good for being the first and so incredibly simple. AC actually makes sense - you're trying to get around armor, not through it, so it makes sense that it reduces the chances of dealing damage at all, rather than reducing it. It's still a simplification, but a good one. And being killed with one weapon is the same as being killed with another. (In OD&D, the idea was that a 0-level man has 1d6 hit points, and all weapons deal 1d6 damage... any weapon can kill in one blow, or not kill. Unless you're a hero of some sort, in which case you're tougher to kill for reasons of being a hero.)
.

There is nothing sensible about AC. How does one get around chainmail when it coves you from head to knee? You go through mail with a blunt or heavy headed weapon that is how. Aiming for gaps and going "around" armor that has gaps is harder than you could imagine, this is why all sorts of nifty weapons were created to counter plate. Plate rendered swords , and bows, practically useless. Halberds, picks, spiked clubs, flail, maces, bill hooks and the heavy crossbow... They were made to counter plate. Armor as DR makes much more sense.

Mechanize
2013-03-04, 07:05 PM
I'm going to quote myself from another thread:

"I find that realism has become needlessly spit upon among roleplayers. I'm going to paraphrase 1st Edition D&D here: "this is a game, not simulation of reality. However, this doesn't mean that where it enhances the game, attempt at maximum realism isn't made." The reason for this is simple: people are used to making decisions based on perceived reality, and the more a game scenario deviates from that frame of reference, the harder it becomes for people to visualize the scenario, and consequently it becomes harder to make informed decisions within the game! See my recent thread: "Roleplaying training wheels: playing as yourself" for a more in-depth explanation of this."

For example, I'm a scout, have been for years. I know exactly how far I can walk in 1 hour, or how much stuff I can easily carry. If I'm playing a character of supposedly equivalent ability and the rules somehow prevent me from doing this, I'm going to be very confused.


This! So important!

Realism does't have to affect the amount of fantasy in a game, but the mechanics should be fairly realistic. When you do a normal every day action and its rules don't follow general logic, it will will ruin the immersion.

MickJay
2013-03-04, 08:42 PM
There is nothing sensible about AC. How does one get around chainmail when it coves you from head to knee? You go through mail with a blunt or heavy headed weapon that is how. Aiming for gaps and going "around" armor that has gaps is harder than you could imagine, this is why all sorts of nifty weapons were created to counter plate. Plate rendered swords , and bows, practically useless. Halberds, picks, spiked clubs, flail, maces, bill hooks and the heavy crossbow... They were made to counter plate. Armor as DR makes much more sense.

It would make more sense in some of the situations you described, but then you end up creating tables listing every weapon and every armor to show what's effective against what, and then add another on top of that to indicate what happens on a very 'lucky' hit (a dagger or an arrow hits through a gap in a visor of an otherwise fully armored knight, for example). Older DnD did editions did have modifiers for armors (for example, chain was awful against blunt weapons). In the end, whatever abstraction you use to simplify combat, some part of the mechanic will be 'unrealistic'. In the long run AC as DR and AC as miss chance don't make much difference (if one's staying within the territory in which the game was intended to be played - that is, 'reasonable' values of AC and to hit bonuses). Whether I hit you twice for 1d8 damage or four times for 1d8 with damage halved, or perhaps -2 damage per hit, the final result will be roughly the same.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-04, 08:56 PM
There is nothing sensible about AC. How does one get around chainmail when it coves you from head to knee? You go through mail with a blunt or heavy headed weapon that is how.

... aaaand that's why melee combat is adjusted by Strenght in D&D.


It would make more sense in some of the situations you described, but then you end up creating tables listing every weapon and every armor to show what's effective against what, and then add another on top of that to indicate what happens on a very 'lucky' hit (a dagger or an arrow hits through a gap in a visor of an otherwise fully armored knight, for example).

Welcome to 1st Ed AD&D, and the reason why critical hits were invented. :smallwink: (It's even worse in Rolemaster.)


In the long run AC as DR and AC as miss chance don't make much difference (if one's staying within the territory in which the game was intended to be played - that is, 'reasonable' values of AC and to hit bonuses). Whether I hit you twice for 1d8 damage or four times for 1d8 with damage halved, or perhaps -2 damage per hit, the final result will be roughly the same.

This is an important point that people often miss when critizing Armor Class. In an abstracted system, where it is not very important to know why exactly you were not damaged, it makes sense to roll all possible defenses into one number. The way later D&D introduced DR and miss chances was pure madness - it effectively ended up with three mechanics to model the same thing.

warty goblin
2013-03-04, 09:03 PM
... aaaand that's why melee combat is adjusted by Strenght in D&D.
Which almost mostly makes sense. Dex to ranged attack never made any sense to me though.




Welcome to 1st Ed AD&D, and the reason why critical hits were invented. :smallwink: (It's even worse in Rolemaster.)
Personally I've never really liked critical hits that much. If you stab somebody through the visor it's because you were trying to stab them through the visor. It's not like stab wounds are uniformly distributed over the body or something.

Mechanize
2013-03-04, 10:25 PM
It would make more sense in some of the situations you described, but then you end up creating tables listing every weapon and every armor to show what's effective against what, and then add another on top of that to indicate what happens on a very 'lucky' hit (a dagger or an arrow hits through a gap in a visor of an otherwise fully armored knight, for example). Older DnD did editions did have modifiers for armors (for example, chain was awful against blunt weapons). In the end, whatever abstraction you use to simplify combat, some part of the mechanic will be 'unrealistic'. In the long run AC as DR and AC as miss chance don't make much difference (if one's staying within the territory in which the game was intended to be played - that is, 'reasonable' values of AC and to hit bonuses). Whether I hit you twice for 1d8 damage or four times for 1d8 with damage halved, or perhaps -2 damage per hit, the final result will be roughly the same.

The abstraction part makes sense... in the end, if the math is correct, DR based plate should end up reducing the same damage as AC.... IF weapons were all similar. Which, sad to say, in D&D they are very similar. A die size difference here, a crit size difference there. In the end it makes little difference.

DR is more realistic because some weapons will hit more often due to how easy they are to hit with, or swing, or weapon balance. Some weapons will hit less often but when they do, they will crush plate. Some weapons are much harder to block, like a Flail. Of course to make this all more realistic, weapons need to have a more realistic unique feel.

Its not as hard as you think to set up realistic DR. I've been doing my research on arms and armor for months now for my own system. Short of a few exceptions, mail being one of them due to how bad it is vs bludgeon, most armors offer greater protection vs slashing weapons than piercing or blunt. So, instead of having a DR for 3-4 weapon styles. (4 is more accurage because Axes do not Slash, they are a combination of blunt and slash... hack?) you just need 1 DR for armor, all weapons other than swords get bigger dice, swords get smaller dice yet bonus damage vs flesh/unarmored.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-04, 10:55 PM
You can get the same effect through adjusting To Hit score based on how different weapons fare against different armors, and how different weapons fare against other weapons. That's how 1st Ed AD&D did it.

Rhynn
2013-03-04, 11:59 PM
There is nothing sensible about AC. How does one get around chainmail when it coves you from head to knee? You go through mail with a blunt or heavy headed weapon that is how.

Yo go through it by striking below the knee, where you find the most injuries on corpses from medieval battles. (Partly because of shields, too.) By striking the face, which was often unprotected. And, granted, in the case of mail, sometimes (not often) by managing to strike through the mail (if not penetrating it, then traumatizing the tissue under it).

Spears and swords were the weapons of war of choice when mail armor dominated, not maces.


Plate rendered swords , and bows, practically useless..

Is that why longswords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html) flourished in the era of plate, and in fact did not exist before it? And why the glory period the longbow, including the Hundred Years War, coincides with the proliferation of plate harness (i.e. after the 13th century) ?


Aiming for gaps and going "around" armor that has gaps is harder than you could imagine, this is why all sorts of nifty weapons were created to counter plate. [...] Halberds, picks, spiked clubs, flail, maces, bill hooks and the heavy crossbow... They were made to counter plate. Armor as DR makes much more sense.

I don't need to imagine - I can look at the plates from and read the text in fighting manuals that explained how to do it. And armor-piercing weapons were not the rule - swords were by far the most common sidearms. (And the halberd wasn't exactly an armor-piercer; the pollaxe and pollhammer were probably capable of it, though. The bill hook certainly isn't going to cut through steel, though any heavy weapon might traumatize through it with a good blow.)

Conners
2013-03-05, 01:26 AM
I'm not sure how often longswords were used in battle. While they can be used to effect against plated knights, I'd say it's not that much to do with their sword like properties (that of cutting a man in two).

This doesn't really contradict either of your points. Swords have somehow remained useful, in almost every era (you even get use of them nowadays, every so often).



I've been doing my research on arms and armor for months now for my own system. Short of a few exceptions, mail being one of them due to how bad it is vs bludgeon, most armors offer greater protection vs slashing weapons than piercing or blunt. So, instead of having a DR for 3-4 weapon styles. (4 is more accurage because Axes do not Slash, they are a combination of blunt and slash... hack?) you just need 1 DR for armor, all weapons other than swords get bigger dice, swords get smaller dice yet bonus damage vs flesh/unarmored. I am intrigued as to your system. Would you be willing to tell me a little more about it? If it seems off-topic, we could take it to PM.

GoddessSune
2013-03-05, 05:37 AM
So, let's discuss. I guess we could start with weapons--what do you prefer for weapons to be like within a fantasy story? Also, what is your opinion of weapons which behave closely to reality?

Well, I'm no weapons expert. But then even the experts don't agree(and we don't even want to get started with the whole nationality problem where each expert will, amazingly, say that the weapons of their home country are and were ''beyond awesome''.)

But to have combat using dice, you need to roll and have a chance to hit or miss. The attacker needs a way to enhance the strike. The foe needs to do things to make it hard for you. Oh and you need a method to keep track of ''how alive'' a person is. So games have AC, HP, BaB, and all the rest. You want a quick way of resolving ''I swing my sword at the goblin''.

I don't see much of an alternative. It would take like a 5,000 page rule book to ''realistically'' stat out every type of weapon and armor. Then you would need like another 10,000 pages of combat rules. Oh and don't for get the ''realistic'' life and wound rules for another 2,000 pages. And even if you had all of that, it would be near impossible to use. "Ok the goblin will attack with it;s club. Lets all turn to page 765 clubs. Ok the goblins club weight is three pounds and it's three feet long, the goblin can exert 67 joules of force(?) vs the air resistance of one atmosphere (10,000 millibars ?). Now you have plate mail on....lets see page 3,876 says....."

Rhynn
2013-03-05, 06:22 AM
I'm not sure how often longswords were used in battle. While they can be used to effect against plated knights, I'd say it's not that much to do with their sword like properties (that of cutting a man in two).

That's not a "sword property." Nevermind that cutting a man in two is going to be nearly impossible, European double-edged swords had sharp points. They were for cutting, thrusting, and for all sorts of other maneuvers - they had absolutely superior defensive capabilities (good luck fighting a sword with an axe or mace - you'll be countered on your first attempted parry). They were particularly useful in harnischfechten because they were so versatile - you can't use a mace as a lever to bind, control, or throw down your opponent.

Longswords absolutely were used in battle. They specifically evolved to be used against plate harness, becoming sharper and better for thrusting. It was a weapon for war, on foot and on horseback, in the 14th-16th centuries (the period that full harness was most used). It was also a civilian weapon. This is obviously attested to by the extensive schools and techniques for fighting armored and unarmored with longswords. These techniques didn't develop in a vacuum, and wouldn't have become so prevalent and popular if they hadn't been useful, even essential.


Well, I'm no weapons expert. But then even the experts don't agree(and we don't even want to get started with the whole nationality problem where each expert will, amazingly, say that the weapons of their home country are and were ''beyond awesome''.)

There are plenty of experts who have no such nationalism issue. A real expert should understand and acknowledge that each weapon evolved for a very specific purpose. A rapier isn't superior or inferior to a longsword, it's for a different use. A scimitar isn't better or worse than a falchion, it's different. Bad weapons weren't going to survive in battlefield use for centuries.


But to have combat using dice, you need to roll and have a chance to hit or miss. The attacker needs a way to enhance the strike. The foe needs to do things to make it hard for you. Oh and you need a method to keep track of ''how alive'' a person is. So games have AC, HP, BaB, and all the rest. You want a quick way of resolving ''I swing my sword at the goblin''.

"AC, HP, BaB" - I take it this is just a generalization? Because many RPGs work on fairly different principles


I don't see much of an alternative. It would take like a 5,000 page rule book to ''realistically'' stat out every type of weapon and armor. Then you would need like another 10,000 pages of combat rules. Oh and don't for get the ''realistic'' life and wound rules for another 2,000 pages. And even if you had all of that, it would be near impossible to use. "Ok the goblin will attack with it;s club. Lets all turn to page 765 clubs. Ok the goblins club weight is three pounds and it's three feet long, the goblin can exert 67 joules of force(?) vs the air resistance of one atmosphere (10,000 millibars ?). Now you have plate mail on....lets see page 3,876 says....."

You can get very realistic approximations in very playable, even short, rules. The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, HârnMaster...

People shouldn't dismiss the idea of realistic and playable combat rules if they aren't familiar with different kinds of combat rules.

Lorsa
2013-03-05, 06:48 AM
For me Fun beats Realism everyday. In RPG's as well as in computer games. I live in the real world but I choose to indulge myself in roleplaying games not to get more reality but to have fun.

Now there are times when realism doesn't interfere with fun and for those times aiming for more realism is better. But playing in a fully realistic medieval setting? That probably wouldn't be any fun at all and would most likely aid in a total party wipe by plague or some other form of disease. I'll choose fun over dying a horrible diseased death any day.

So, realism for realisms sake seem pointless to me, realism because it enhances the fun is good, but only because it enhances the fun.

Mechanize
2013-03-05, 10:18 AM
If you are going to argue with me, at least post some source of information. I've been researching this topic more than any sane person should for the past few months and have found that pretty much everything you said is only partially correct and does not support the argument very well.


Yo go through it by striking below the knee, where you find the most injuries on corpses from medieval battles. (Partly because of shields, too.) By striking the face, which was often unprotected. And, granted, in the case of mail, sometimes (not often) by managing to strike through the mail (if not penetrating it, then traumatizing the tissue under it).

Indeed, and when someone wears greaves and a full helm with mail.. does that not mean you now go through the armor, instead of around it? This is what I said in the first place. Going around armor is difficult. If you've ever been in a fight, you would know that it is messy. Not some choreographed movie.


Spears and swords were the weapons of war of choice when mail armor dominated, not maces.

And why exactly do you think axes, falchion, picks, maces and other heavy weapons became used more often? Because mail was kicking the **** out of swords and spears. It was cheaper to give an army a weapon vs mail, then giving your whole army mail.


Is that why longswords (http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html) flourished in the era of plate, and in fact did not exist before it? And why the glory period the longbow, including the Hundred Years War, coincides with the proliferation of plate harness (i.e. after the 13th century) ?

Few in the era of plate actually wore plate. Real life isn't D&D. They didn't sell plate armor at every corner shop. Swords were still common because the people who used them most normally used them against unarmored people. The sword is by far the superior weapon vs unarmored foes with improper weapons.


I don't need to imagine - I can look at the plates from and read the text in fighting manuals that explained how to do it. And armor-piercing weapons were not the rule - swords were by far the most common sidearms. (And the halberd wasn't exactly an armor-piercer; the pollaxe and pollhammer were probably capable of it, though. The bill hook certainly isn't going to cut through steel, though any heavy weapon might traumatize through it with a good blow.)

Again, swords were common because most people wore low grade, if any, armor, thus making them superior. They were the easiest weapons to use as well due to their balance, compared to an axe, hammer, or mace.

Bill hooks and halberds were not used so much to pierce armor, but to give the user options. Trip, stab, chop, snag a piece of armor and pull him down.

A heavy weapon will traumatize. One smack on the head with a mace and its lights out. Any athlete that wears a helmet can tell you stories about how they got knocked out with a helmet on... I know I can. lol Helmets don't protect vs KO, they protect your skull from being smashed.

Lord Raziere
2013-03-05, 10:23 AM
Yeah, I long ago figured out verisimilitude is what I want in my fantasy. for it to SEEM real. not to be actually real. real realness sucks.

Mechanize
2013-03-05, 10:33 AM
For me Fun beats Realism everyday. In RPG's as well as in computer games. I live in the real world but I choose to indulge myself in roleplaying games not to get more reality but to have fun.

Now there are times when realism doesn't interfere with fun and for those times aiming for more realism is better. But playing in a fully realistic medieval setting? That probably wouldn't be any fun at all and would most likely aid in a total party wipe by plague or some other form of disease. I'll choose fun over dying a horrible diseased death any day.

So, realism for realisms sake seem pointless to me, realism because it enhances the fun is good, but only because it enhances the fun.

I think it is important to note the difference between realistic mechanics and a realistic world. A realistic world, in my opinion as well, would be super boring. A world without monsters, dragons, and magic weapons just isn't as cool.

Realistic mechanics, however, are what give that unrealistic world a realistic feel in your imagination. When you hack at a monsters head with your all amazing magical greatsword +5, a part of you knows that very few foes could survive such a blow. That part of you is just common sense, its what we know in real life. When mechanics don't follow common sense it pulls us out of the adventure because our brain stops us and says, "what the heck? That made no sense!" lol

Conners
2013-03-05, 10:43 AM
@GoddessSune: Certainly, a computer-level of simulation is impossible for a tabletop game. Abstraction is necessary, even if it's something as simple as actions taking longer or shorter amounts of time in the game than they do in real life.

From what I have heard, all swords perform very similarly, so long as they're of similar size.


@Rhynn: Sorry for the late reply. I decided to ask about this to find out what the case was.

Was told that the Japanese sometimes experimented with cutting bodies with a sword. The bodies were the corpses of criminals. The record for the number of bodies cut through, in one blow, is nine, supposedly. The practice is sometimes called Tameshigiri.

Haven't been told much as to how prevalent longswords were in battle. Poleaxes were apparently the favourite weapons of foot knights, though.


@Lorsa & Lord Raziere: Have either of you played games that are intended to be realistic? Just, your posts are vague as to what you dislike. If there are details you dislike about realistic games, that is fine-it's just that currently I am ignorant as to your reasoning.

Lord Raziere
2013-03-05, 10:50 AM
sorry, not gonna elaborate. thats all I'm gonna say.

Conners
2013-03-05, 10:52 AM
OK. Having peoples general thoughts is good. Makes it hard to discuss, though.

Prime32
2013-03-05, 11:01 AM
I got rid of double-weapons, except the quarterstaff. That said, I have considered making the dire flail just a length of chain with a flail head on either side - I could see that being used by a sufficiently ambidextrous person.That would be basically a meteor hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer). The original dire flail is closer to a three-section staff (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-section_staff) (though with the proportions of a two-section staff). As a sidenote, a gyrspike (that longsword/flail double weapon) is closer to how kusari-gama were actually used than the D&D stats.

obryn
2013-03-05, 11:43 AM
My preferences vary depending on which system I'm playing. However, in general, I think tracking specific injuries is kind of a drag and I tend to avoid games that do so.

When I'm running D&D, I want stuff to be larger-than-life and beyond-mortal-limits because it kind of has to be or else you end up with spellcasters ruling the roost. Jump across a 20' chasm in armor? Sure; just make your check. Slay a dragon with a dagger? Okay, sounds cool, good on you.

When I'm running Call of Cthulhu (in its d20 variety) I keep things more grounded/realistic. VP/WP works okay for this.

When I'm running Savage Worlds/Realms of Cthulhu it's grittier than D&D - getting hurt means something - but it's still largely pulp action. You know, punching deep ones in the face.

Other games likewise vary.

-O

Seharvepernfan
2013-03-05, 12:45 PM
That would be basically a meteor hammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_hammer). The original dire flail is closer to a three-section staff (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-section_staff) (though with the proportions of a two-section staff).

Wow, that's awesome. That's exactly what I imagined, except with a flail head, not just a circular weight. I'm glad to know those are actually functional.

oxybe
2013-03-05, 12:48 PM
@Lorsa & Lord Raziere: Have either of you played games that are intended to be realistic? Just, your posts are vague as to what you dislike. If there are details you dislike about realistic games, that is fine-it's just that currently I am ignorant as to your reasoning.

for me it's the fact that if i want to experience "realism" all i need to do is open the door and go for a walk.

"realistic" combat rules tend to be of the "gets killed really fast" or "downward spiral" style that i dislike. i hate quick to die games. it kills any potential investment in either character or setting if my single method of interaction is about as disposable as a kleenex.

"realistic" travel rules tend to bore me. anyone who says it's about the journey and not the destination is a lying sac of **** that never went on a day-or-more long trip with the family or on a bus/plane/train/place with people. travel is rarely exciting and is worse in "ye olde times" where you have to deal with rations and weather and other micromanagement i don't care for

"realistic" skill systems tend to be far more specialized and involved then i care for, often ending with a character that needs to micro manage his individual skills.

most importantly, i play games to escape reality. i can understand that the sky is blue and water is wet for the sake of convention and ease of conveying ideas and concepts, but people tend to be weirdly specific in their selection of what to treat as real. but that's not realism, that's verisimilitude.

magic gets a free pass because magic, but when we start poking holes in the magic we're told to ignore the holes because magic and we're simply supposed to accept that. but that hurts my verisimilitude.

or when the game says "X is a concept Y supports the best" but in reality "Y is complete crap at X and Z is really good at it" that hurts my verisimilitude.

i like it far more then the game is consistent in it's interpretations of the rules and it's interactions then if the game tries to pain a "real" landscape because it's the rules i interact with and use to gauge how i'm going to react to things in the world, not the fluff.

Piedmon_Sama
2013-03-05, 07:36 PM
Its not as hard as you think to set up realistic DR. I've been doing my research on arms and armor for months now for my own system. Short of a few exceptions, mail being one of them due to how bad it is vs bludgeon, most armors offer greater protection vs slashing weapons than piercing or blunt. So, instead of having a DR for 3-4 weapon styles. (4 is more accurage because Axes do not Slash, they are a combination of blunt and slash... hack?) you just need 1 DR for armor, all weapons other than swords get bigger dice, swords get smaller dice yet bonus damage vs flesh/unarmored.

Back when I once attempted to write my personal Ultimate Grognard Rules of Reelizm, I came to the same conclusion. For certain weapons like battle-axes and warpicks, a new category (I also called it "hacking") that could effectively ignore DR from full plate would be required.

IRL these weapons (particularly two-handed axes or picks) could be considered "balanced" by the fact that if you don't score on your first hit you're pretty well boned for defending yourself, I should think. But this is pretty difficult to replicate in D&D where hitpoints mean you can essentially afford to just stand there and take a few axe-blows to the chin, putting the sole focus on having the biggest axe.

It was a problem I never really felt like I solved to my satisfaction, I'd be interested in hearing further thoughts on the matter if you've had some since this post.

When I was reworking 3.5 weapon and armor rules, I felt like there should be a risk/reward matrix with weapons. At one end of the spectrum you've got your longsword for max utility, not great at beating through armor but able to switch between offense/defense easily. At the other end you have Big ****off Polearms which are out at the extreme for either gibbing your opponent in Round 1 or being a huge liability. This of course called for Parry rules and actions per round and I sort of abandoned it when I realized I was stumbling my way into the Palladium system.

Conners
2013-03-05, 07:51 PM
@obryn: You only need to make warriors larger than life to keep up with wizards, if your wizards are from DnD (or a few other games). A fighter is nowhere near as good as a DnD wizard, despite being larger than life.

I can understand not wanting to have to track wounds.


@oxybe: Agree about over-complication. That's much of the reason I got sick of DnD.

I play realistic games to escape reality. Don't like it when my weapons feel blunt.

Rhynn
2013-03-05, 11:09 PM
It was a problem I never really felt like I solved to my satisfaction, I'd be interested in hearing further thoughts on the matter if you've had some since this post.

The Riddle of Steel knows two ways to attack - swing and thrust. These can be blunt or edged. When you make an attack, your degree of success is added to your weapon's base damage (derived from your Strength), your opponent's armor value is deducted (and a modifier based on your weapon is added; some weapons fare better against heavy armor, in particular; there's only one armor value for each armor, unless you use optional rules), and you look up the result on a table based on the attack type, where you cross-reference hit location and the final damage (1-5). It's pretty much the most realistic and smoothest and tactically interesting RPG combat system I've ever seen - my players picked it up in minutes.

The issue of axes, etc. being worse for defense is addressed too - your target number (on d10s from a pool you divide between your actions) for attack and parrying is based on your weapon. Swords (and spears/polearms used two-handed) have low target numbers for defense. Axes, maces, daggers, etc. have high ones (and you may be better off evading/dodging, but that either limits your attacking or is really hard).

In Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, there's three damage types (blunt, cut, puncture). Mail armor convers non-critical cuts into blunt. Plate armor converts non-critical cuts and punctures into blunt. Each armor has different values against each damage type. Blunt causes less severe bleeding. The "modelling resolution" for weaponry isn't high enough to really produce great differences between axes, maces, and swords in defending (although war swords are better at it than most single-handed weapons, and shields are way better).

In HârnMaster, weapons have attack and defense classes (attack classes mostly based on length, although shields have their own shield classes). An axe isn't as good at defending as a sword, but shields are even better. Like in A:AKW, there's three classes of injury (blunt, edge, point), armor protecting against each differently (much better than in either of the above, in general; a knight in full mail with quilt backing is a real juggernaut, not impervious but extremely dangerous).

I find that TROS does the best job at the widest range of combat situations. HM works for what it is intended to work for, e.g. 11th century or so combat (mail armor, one-handed weapon, shield), but TROS can do unarmored fencing (whether rapier, longsword, or sabre), harnischfechten, winding & binding, knife-fighting, grappling, etc. better. In HM, injuring a man in full plate harness would be very close to impossible, but no such harness exists in the setting - plate is mostly limited to helmets. In TROS, a good enough attack result will go through any armor, and a strong enough fighter with the right weapon can cause some injury through any armor on any hit (although there's a possibly good optional rule for converting all damage into potential damage).

Lorsa
2013-03-06, 05:24 AM
What I said was meant to be general. Many people talk about Realism as though it's the #1 most desired trait in all games, which I find rather strange. For me, it's all about Fun, and if you find realism to be fun then that's all good and well but choosing more real over more fun? Who does that? No, I rate Fun as #1 in all things.

It is hard knowing if you played any systems aiming to be more realistic. Usually some games will focus on one aspect and make that realistic while forgetting other parts. But there are two things in particular that usually annoys me with realism.

Incidentally they both have to do with combat related mechanics. So yes, if you're running a strict no-combat game then realistic rules can be Fun.

The first is that 'realistic' tend to imply 'deadly' and that people die from one hit or one shot. Sometimes ignoring (as far as firearms is concerned) how difficult it can be to actually hit properly in the heat of battle. Getting one-shotted is never fun, and it makes combat so random that you have to avoid it, which is fine if you're aiming for running games without armed conflict but then I can't help but thinking why they spent all that time making such complicated combat rules only to make sure players never use them? Just write "combat is deadly - don't do it", having 1/4th of your book describing just HOW deadly it is seem pointless. People getting one-shotted and the party going first usually winning just ends campaigns. I don't like it as a GM any more than as a player.

The second is that 'realistic' mending of wounds tend to imply that it takes forever. So you actually DID survive (by chance or by spending some form of points these games usually give to make sure you keep your character alive and the story going), but now you have to spend months in bed before you can function. These games often have extremely severe wound penalties (to the point where it even stop feeling realistic) which means if you're hurt you can't really do anything so you have to rest (well also if you barely survived but is hurt you're NOT going to survive the next conflict). Recovering from a mortal wound in Burning Wheel for example can take as much as almost 3 years. That also effectively ends the campaign for that player and you might as well have died. Either the GM needs to come up with a reason the whole group would do nothing for 2 years (which if they were involved in something isn't going to happen) or you need to make a new character. Not very fun either way.

So basically, I don't like when 'realistic' implies far too easy campaign stoppers. Character death should certainly be a possibility and I by no means need there to be resurrection or the like, but when every armed conflict have a ~50% chance of effectively ending the campaign for one (or more) character(s) then I don't think it is Fun.

Conners
2013-03-06, 05:55 AM
I think you should try playing a game of one of the realistic systems, with some quick-starter rules. You might find it much different from how you imagine it is. You might have tried it, since you know some of the rules related to Burning Wheel, but currently I suspect that you might not have played a game of it.

A three year injury... Unless it's semi-permanent, where you basically never recover completely, then I have trouble seeing which injuries last that long.

For fun being number 1, I used to think along those lines. Extra Credits made an interesting point though. Fear, sadness, tension, and other such emotions can be provided by games. While still entertaining, it's different from a fun experience.

kardar233
2013-03-06, 06:04 AM
What I said was meant to be general. Many people talk about Realism as though it's the #1 most desired trait in all games, which I find rather strange. For me, it's all about Fun, and if you find realism to be fun then that's all good and well but choosing more real over more fun? Who does that? No, I rate Fun as #1 in all things.

It is hard knowing if you played any systems aiming to be more realistic. Usually some games will focus on one aspect and make that realistic while forgetting other parts. But there are two things in particular that usually annoys me with realism.

Incidentally they both have to do with combat related mechanics. So yes, if you're running a strict no-combat game then realistic rules can be Fun.

The first is that 'realistic' tend to imply 'deadly' and that people die from one hit or one shot. Sometimes ignoring (as far as firearms is concerned) how difficult it can be to actually hit properly in the heat of battle. Getting one-shotted is never fun, and it makes combat so random that you have to avoid it, which is fine if you're aiming for running games without armed conflict but then I can't help but thinking why they spent all that time making such complicated combat rules only to make sure players never use them? Just write "combat is deadly - don't do it", having 1/4th of your book describing just HOW deadly it is seem pointless. People getting one-shotted and the party going first usually winning just ends campaigns. I don't like it as a GM any more than as a player.

The second is that 'realistic' mending of wounds tend to imply that it takes forever. So you actually DID survive (by chance or by spending some form of points these games usually give to make sure you keep your character alive and the story going), but now you have to spend months in bed before you can function. These games often have extremely severe wound penalties (to the point where it even stop feeling realistic) which means if you're hurt you can't really do anything so you have to rest (well also if you barely survived but is hurt you're NOT going to survive the next conflict). Recovering from a mortal wound in Burning Wheel for example can take as much as almost 3 years. That also effectively ends the campaign for that player and you might as well have died. Either the GM needs to come up with a reason the whole group would do nothing for 2 years (which if they were involved in something isn't going to happen) or you need to make a new character. Not very fun either way.

So basically, I don't like when 'realistic' implies far too easy campaign stoppers. Character death should certainly be a possibility and I by no means need there to be resurrection or the like, but when every armed conflict have a ~50% chance of effectively ending the campaign for one (or more) character(s) then I don't think it is Fun.

See, this is why I like Eclipse Phase. Combat is generally very fast and quite lethal unless you invest heavily in toughness, but because of extremely effective healing vats (allowing characters to go from "extremely injured but still functional" to full in hours, "crippled from limb loss etc." to full in a couple days and "was dying so we froze him" in less than a week) and also easy resurrection; it just costs cash to download into a new body, and if your teammates grab your stack off your cooling corpse then you don't even lose any memories.

Lorsa
2013-03-06, 06:15 AM
I think you should try playing a game of one of the realistic systems, with some quick-starter rules. You might find it much different from how you imagine it is. You might have tried it, since you know some of the rules related to Burning Wheel, but currently I suspect that you might not have played a game of it.

A three year injury... Unless it's semi-permanent, where you basically never recover completely, then I have trouble seeing which injuries last that long.

For fun being number 1, I used to think along those lines. Extra Credits made an interesting point though. Fear, sadness, tension, and other such emotions can be provided by games. While still entertaining, it's different from a fun experience.

Which systems would that be? You didn't mention any specific.

If you look at the Burning Wheel rules for recovering from a mortal wound (if you have the artha to survive it) it starts with 4-24 months of being unconcious follow by a long string of recovering from all the stages of wounds which is a process that takes months. These can be non-permanent depending on your Health rolls.

I have no problem with fear and sadness in games, it can most definitely be fun. Maybe you misunderstand me, when I say Fun I don't necessarily mean comedic or I need to laugh all the time. My character can be depressed while I have fun as a player. It can definitely be fun to fail. But if any amount of realism doesn't add to my enjoyment, doesn't make me have a good time I will disregard it. Sometimes realism does add to the enjoyment, like weapons working different for different armor can definitely be fun. But addind realism for realism's sake? I don't understand that. You add realism if it somehow increases your enjoyment, your fun. If it doesn't well then skip it!

Rhynn
2013-03-06, 06:23 AM
The first is that 'realistic' tend to imply 'deadly' and that people die from one hit or one shot.

That's not the case in any of the realistic RPGs I like. It's possible, but not that common. Combat is dangerous, and therefore you don't want to rush into it, but it's perfectly doable.

The problem a lot of people seem to have is that they think you would/could/should play a realistic RPG like it were D&D 3E/4E. No. Of course not. That would be stupid and, well, unrealistic. Nobody rushes into lethal combat eagerly or does it lightly.


Sometimes ignoring (as far as firearms is concerned) how difficult it can be to actually hit properly in the heat of battle.

That doesn't sound realistic at all, either. Twilight 2013 certainly makes shooting hairy - if you're taking your time aiming, an enemy firing snapshots may be hitting you. Generally, TW2013 combat involves getting into cover and then taking shots at an enemy who is in cover. Eventually, one side is probably going to want to run away or surrender.


Getting one-shotted is never fun, and it makes combat so random that you have to avoid it, which is fine if you're aiming for running games without armed conflict but then I can't help but thinking why they spent all that time making such complicated combat rules only to make sure players never use them?

"Complicated combat rules" is a straw man. TW2013, HârnMaster, and The Riddle of Steel - the most realistic RPGs I know - don't have complicated combat rules. Certainly not if compared to D&D 3E.

And even though these games are realistic and deadly, people still play combat in them - it's just not the meat of the game. One or two fights per session, that are actually significant to the story, is probably the rule.

In general, realistic combat requires you to be smart. In our original test game of TROS, one of the PCs used his entire dice pool to thrust his sword into an opponent's eye through his visor, forgetting that there was an unengaged opponent near him (not saving points for defense, not maneuvering to stop him from engaging), and got killed by a blow to the head. The other PC ended up dagger-grappling with the opponent (he got in, constricting the guy's sword, and grappling to prevent him from drawing a dagger) and killing him.


The second is that 'realistic' mending of wounds tend to imply that it takes forever.

Yep, it can take weeks of downtime to heal from wounds. I don't mind at all. If the PCs are engaged in doing something, you'll still be roleplaying. If they're not, it gets fast-forwarded. FWIW, my AD&D involves weeks of downtime between adventures even with magical healing.


These games often have extremely severe wound penalties (to the point where it even stop feeling realistic) which means if you're hurt you can't really do anything so you have to rest (well also if you barely survived but is hurt you're NOT going to survive the next conflict).

Can you name some other games? Burning Wheel's 3 years sounds pretty extensive - I don't know any other RPG with healing periods as long.

You're either throwing up a lot of straw men or speaking about games far outside of my experience, so we should probably establish what the common ground is.

Conners
2013-03-06, 06:30 AM
@Lorsa: Not meaning any particular system, just one of the good ones that people can vouch for.

I think there is something wrong with Burning Wheel's system, unless you are remembering incorrectly... while there is probably some injuries which can have effects like that... it wouldn't be realistic to have that commonly be the case. Some people have been pretty conscious after losing an arm--I'm not even sure how you would survive four months of unconsciousness in a medieval period (not saying you can't--just that you better have people willing to care for you).

That is true. The reason people generally like to add more realism, is to have stronger immersion, and sometimes even to test or educate themselves. It adds immersion by making the player approach problems as they would in reality, which also serves to stretch your strategic thinking in real life situations, which is handy for writing.
When I was speaking of sadness and fear, I meant the player experiencing those things, rather than the characters. Characters in all RPGs should experience those, at some points.

Morty
2013-03-06, 06:37 AM
If you play a realistic system the same way you play Dungeons & Dragons then yes, your PCs will get one-shot and die or spend weeks recovering. If you don't play your characters as suicidal tomb-robbers the problem goes away.
The Riddle of Steel combat system may seem complicated, but that's because unlike in the d20 games, the vast majority of options are not waste of time compared to saying "I swing my sword at the guy". Mind you, while I like the combat system of TRoS, I really dislike the way it does sorcery - if I were to play it, I'd have to do something about it.

Gettles
2013-03-06, 06:38 AM
I'm fairly cynical about people claiming the need realism in games, mostly because I too often see it used in conjunction with "that's why your Fighter has to suck" arguments. So whenever it is even marginally justifiable I'd rather go all in on Charles Atlas Superpowers and just make people blatantly superhuman.

Conners
2013-03-06, 07:35 AM
I have no problem with super-human fighters. It's the fact that they're meant to be like normal people, when they're not. They are meant to be "special" but it doesn't really explain HP, or a variety of other oddity with the combat system. Would prefer it if they were superheroes/vampires/monsters who could only be injured so much before their regeneration (HP) would stop working.

Morty
2013-03-06, 07:36 AM
I'm fairly cynical about people claiming the need realism in games, mostly because I too often see it used in conjunction with "that's why your Fighter has to suck" arguments. So whenever it is even marginally justifiable I'd rather go all in on Charles Atlas Superpowers and just make people blatantly superhuman.

If by "games", you mean "D&D", sure. If you broaden your view, it might turn out that realistic fighters do not actually have to suck.

Rhynn
2013-03-06, 08:01 AM
The Riddle of Steel combat system may seem complicated, but that's because unlike in the d20 games, the vast majority of options are not waste of time compared to saying "I swing my sword at the guy". Mind you, while I like the combat system of TRoS, I really dislike the way it does sorcery - if I were to play it, I'd have to do something about it.

The Sorcery system is almost lazy, yeah. I probably wouldn't use it, or at least wouldn't let PCs be sorcerers. The latter would work for sword & sorcery (because that usually means "swords against sorcery"), and the former would work great for some fantasy (like ASOIAF) or historical settings (I think TROS would be great for any game set in the 18th century or at any earlier time, particularly pirate games, Renaissance games, Sengoku-period games, etc.).


If by "games", you mean "D&D", sure. If you broaden your view, it might turn out that realistic fighters do not actually have to suck.

Seriously. Good luck trying to magic yourself out of a fight in TROS. Not only is it wasteful, it's hard.

Lorsa
2013-03-06, 08:17 AM
Damn, I need to be better at learning how to insert multiple quotes (and I really should do what I'm supposed to do today instead of posting).

But to answer a few things:

Yes, I like Eclipse Phase too. While it is certainly deadly (and forces people to be smart), dying isn't such a huge deal. This isn't the reason I like the game, but it at least does not have any big campaign stoppers in it.

To Rhynn:

Well, I guess there are two discussions here; both what is realistic and if those things are desireble. I speak only from my experience from when people approach me with systems and say "this is so realistic!". I admit I haven't played Riddle of Steel or HârnMaster.

I am not denying that realism could be Fun, or that you should throw it out the window always. I am saying I don't think it has any intrinsic value in and of itself. I value everything as to how much enjoyment it brings. If realism brings enjoyment GOOD, but if not then what's the point? Some of my most enjoyable computer games for example, are those that don't even try to be realistic, they try to be... well fun!

I am not sure what you mean by building strawmen, I am not trying to prove that all realism is bad, merely speaking from my experience when people have approached me with things they claim to be realistic and the problems I have had with it. It's certainly possible there are other 'realistic' games that do not suffer from this. But that is a discussion about what is realistic or not (and perhaps if it's even possible to achieve).

But as for systems that are strangely descriptive of combat only for most people to say "you should just avoid it" again I can point to Eclipse Phase for example. The combat chapter is fairly large, and the amount of augmentations, weapons and gear meant to be used are extensive. Yet many people on their forum says "nono, you shouldn't have combat in Eclipse Phase, that's not what the game is for". I seem to think that if a game isn't meant for something then there's no good reasion to include rules for it, especially not extensive. Now I don't agree with these people about Eclipse Phase but still.

I don't want to get too stuck on combat mechanics though - even my D&D campaigns have plenty of sessions with just roleplaying, politics, planning, investigation etc. It is just that in my experience when people point towards systems that are 'realistic' (in their claim) the major difference usually is in the combat system because abstractions there seem to be what people most often have problems with.

It is quite possible TRoS might be just what I am looking for in a game; I haven't gotten to try it yet. I am not saying that realistic automatically makes something bad. But if you want me to be interested in something don't say "omg, this is SO realistic!" you should say "omg, this is SO much fun (because it is realistic)".

obryn
2013-03-06, 08:53 AM
@obryn: You only need to make warriors larger than life to keep up with wizards, if your wizards are from DnD (or a few other games). A fighter is nowhere near as good as a DnD wizard, despite being larger than life.
Depends on the edition, really. 3rd is pretty much an outlier, here with wizard supremacy. (It's there a bit in RC/1e, but if the DM uses the built-in balancing factors for casters, it's well-controlled. And in 4e, they're on a level platform.)

For realistic systems... I dunno, I think a rules-light, narrative system like FATE can (ironically?) approach higher levels of realism than a crunch-heavy one. Problems with realism happen largely when the game's rules don't model what the DM and/or players think is realistic. If the problematic rules are gone... Well, then you're just talking about what should happen, and moving from there.

-O

Morty
2013-03-06, 09:03 AM
The Sorcery system is almost lazy, yeah. I probably wouldn't use it, or at least wouldn't let PCs be sorcerers. The latter would work for sword & sorcery (because that usually means "swords against sorcery"), and the former would work great for some fantasy (like ASOIAF) or historical settings (I think TROS would be great for any game set in the 18th century or at any earlier time, particularly pirate games, Renaissance games, Sengoku-period games, etc.).

I don't like the sorcery system because it makes sorcerers frighteningly powerful by default and because I really can't stand magic systems in which you make spells up on the fly. I agree that it might work fine for sword & sorcery style games where the PCs oppose sorcerers, but not for much else. And besides, in many sword & sorcery stories magic is anything but spontaneous.

[quote]Seriously. Good luck trying to magic yourself out of a fight in TROS. Not only is it wasteful, it's hard.

Well, actually in TRoS it's pretty easy for a sorcerer to completely trounce a normal person without the normal person having a chance to do anything about it, at least from what I've gathered. But there it's a design decision instead of a mistake and it's caused by the sorcerers being consciously given a lot of power rather than by the fighters being given a pointed stick and told it's a class feature. I think it would be quite easy to remake the sorcery system to make sorcerers... well, maybe not balanced, because this word doesn't really fit here, but make them play on a level closer to the mundanes.

Rhynn
2013-03-06, 09:04 AM
It is quite possible TRoS might be just what I am looking for in a game; I haven't gotten to try it yet. I am not saying that realistic automatically makes something bad. But if you want me to be interested in something don't say "omg, this is SO realistic!" you should say "omg, this is SO much fun (because it is realistic)".

I could swear that's what I say, and I think that's what most people say.

Obviously, there's going to be some Byron Halls with their crazy unplayable pet projects, but the first purpose of the system is to create a fun experience doing X. Like I said before, if you're trying to imitate seinen manga, you're not going to be going for realism (except maybe as gritty sprinkles on a blood & gore pudding).

The Riddle of Steel creates a fun experience telling stories involving realistic combat (with the caveat that fighting over something your character is passionate about makes you a better fighter).

Twilight 2013 creates a fun experience playing a gritty, realistic post-apocalyptic survival game (or just a military game in the style of realistic action/war movies, or heck, even shows like Over There or Generation Kill; and if you change the weapons, Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers).

HârnMaster (which focuses on the pretty much completely ignored realism of societies) creates a fun experience playing stories in the style of historical fiction (Cadfael, Pillars of the Earth, World Without End, or the real medieval period - the Norman Conquest, the Anarchy, the Hundred Years War) in a fantasy setting.

Aces & Eights is plain awesome at doing Westerns (except Trinity, I guess... maybe...). In fact, because of its focus, it manages to be IMO be more realistic and more fun for Western movie style gunfights than TW2013 (which IMO reigns supreme for modern personal or small unit combats). Shot Clock for the win! But even this game, largely all about gunfighters in an imaginary Wild West, a gunfighter who's been in (now won) 11 gunfights has reached the pinnacle of his skill and experience. That's how important a gunfight is considered. (Brawling is a different matter.)

In all of these cases, realism is involved in making it work. But there's bad systems and there's good systems. There's (more) unrealistic systems and (more) realistic systems. You can combine those either way. Good realistic systems exist, and bashing realism in RPGs as a concept with the specifics of one system (or of no system) doesn't make sense - especially if you don't know very many realistic systems.

And it's not just about physical realism - that can be a very small part of it. HârnMaster doesn't have anywhere near the modelling resolution of TROS for combat, but it goes above and beyond any and all other games I know (and even specific sourcebooks like Fief) in portraying a realistic medieval society (with a bit of magic sprinkled in). I'd contend that this type of non-physical realism is what really makes a setting stand out and feel deep and create connections. Artesia: Adventures in the Known World isn't terribly concerned with physical realism of combat (although Mark Smylie probably knows real weapons and armor better than any RPG illustrator ever anywhere), but even without HârnMaster's level of detail, presents a world and societies that feel real, even while integrating widely-available magic, spirits, faeries, dragons, and undead (largely because it's as much, or more, about real mythologies as real societies). Even Greyhawk books grab at me because even skimming them I see attention to detail that creates this kind of verisimilitude.

Lorsa
2013-03-06, 09:37 AM
I could swear that's what I say, and I think that's what most people say.

You'd be surprised at what some people say or what I've heard in my days.

Arbane
2013-03-06, 12:15 PM
The problem a lot of people seem to have is that they think you would/could/should play a realistic RPG like it were D&D 3E/4E. No. Of course not. That would be stupid and, well, unrealistic. Nobody rushes into lethal combat eagerly or does it lightly.

The Celts and the Vikings would like a word with you.

Reality is often unrealistic.

Spiryt
2013-03-06, 12:27 PM
The Celts and the Vikings would like a word with you.

Reality is often unrealistic.

Any indication that "Celts and Vikings" took lethal combat in any way less seriously than most other people?

"Viking" in particular is actually mostly word describing Norsemen sailing to distant lands to get richer by different means - if by violence, it was usually combat against ambushed 'civilians'.

So not most lethal combat.

Conners
2013-03-06, 08:44 PM
All this talk about realistic games, and people who have put a lot of through into making realistic systems... makes me wonder what a conglomeration of our ideas, to create a new realistic tabletop game, would be like.

If other people are also interested, I'll start a thread for the subject.

warty goblin
2013-03-06, 10:23 PM
Any indication that "Celts and Vikings" took lethal combat in any way less seriously than most other people?

"Viking" in particular is actually mostly word describing Norsemen sailing to distant lands to get richer by different means - if by violence, it was usually combat against ambushed 'civilians'.

Or occasionally conquering large chunks of Britain, Ireland and France.

Rhynn
2013-03-07, 12:47 AM
The Celts and the Vikings would like a word with you.

Reality is often unrealistic.

A lot of people raided and conquered "for a living" - Huns, Goths, Mongols, Vandals, and so on and so on. That doesn't mean they did it casually or entered into combat lightly. They (like viking raiders) certainly preferred undefended or poorly defended targets when possible. And stories about berserkers stood out precisely because they were insanely reckless.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-07, 01:16 AM
Throughout history, combat has been pretty different than people today think it was. Equal forces clashing together and fighting to death was an exception - most of the time, when two armies met, they rattled their sabres (=intimidation) until the other side lost its nerve, then took a few stabs at their fleeing backs, and then the battle was over. Very often, the losing side was not exterminated, but rather, they were offered a position as soldiers in the winning side. This is what the phrase "turncoat" comes from - there really used to be soldiers who had emblems of different armies on different sides of their uniform, and when their side lost a battle, they just shrugged it off, flipped their uniform, and kept fighting.

Ergo, war was quite sporty at times. It reached its peak with (I think) Italian and Swiss mercenary companies, who sometimes didn't even do any actual fighting - that would've been senseless waste of manpower! Instead, the generals just played chess with real people, until one was outmaneuvered and admitted defeat.

True fight to death or extermination war only happened when one side was driven to a corner and had no choice but to fight back. The armies that hunted down fleeing enemy soldiers were generally regarded with terror. Those armies that killed surrendered enemy soldiers were especially notorious - read about the reactions people had when swedish soldiers executed surrendered russians during the times of Swedish Empire. They were essentially considered war criminals.

Exediron
2013-03-07, 02:53 AM
All this talk about realistic games, and people who have put a lot of through into making realistic systems... makes me wonder what a conglomeration of our ideas, to create a new realistic tabletop game, would be like.

If other people are also interested, I'll start a thread for the subject.

I would definitely be interested, although I can't promise too much time. I have designed some system modifications in the past and have a good working knowledge of statistics and probability, so this is the sort of thing that interests me a lot.

As far as why I like realistic systems: They encourage realistic behavior, which I consider to be an aid to role-playing. It's hard (for me/I find) to be properly immersed in a system if you have to accept huge, gaping breaks from reality every time your character does anything - or else ignore what works best. If you're faced with getting down a 100 foot wall as an obstacle, you shouldn't have to think to yourself 'why wouldn't we just jump?'.

In my opinion, you can tell if your realistic system is working by if people are making realistic decisions, and if the people who aren't are having any success. If there's a gunfight and someone is standing out in the open cracking off shots and he isn't dead yet, it's probably not a realistic system. If everyone is so busy hiding behind cover that nobody can get a shot in edgewise for fear of getting killed, it might be.

For me, knowing that there are consequences to actions is important, and that includes knowing that the consequence of starting a fight - potentially, any fight - is possibly getting killed. If you take that away players tend to act like psychotic hooligans. And also I think reward is linked directly to challenge and risk, and in a system like D&D there's usually no feeling of risk. Either you died, or you weren't ever really in danger of dying, with few exceptions.

The only problem is that realism and complexity basically increase together, and a complex system is a slow system. It's often worth it to just swallow the things that don't make sense and focus on other aspects of the game. The ideal would be a realistic system that isn't a pain to use.

Conners
2013-03-07, 03:20 AM
Glad to have someone interested in the idea. Anyone else wish to state their interest as well? Won't start the thread immediately--better to get a few people interested, so it'll have a good beginning. Will start it sometime tomorrow, if people are interested.


I very much agree with realistic systems encouraging realistic behaviour. That is probably the essence of many people's like of them. Also would like to agree with your other points.

Rhynn
2013-03-07, 06:30 AM
Ergo, war was quite sporty at times. It reached its peak with (I think) Italian and Swiss mercenary companies, who sometimes didn't even do any actual fighting - that would've been senseless waste of manpower! Instead, the generals just played chess with real people, until one was outmaneuvered and admitted defeat.

It was also very "sporty" for nobles throughout the European medieval period. A nobleman was worth an enormous ransom. A knight's ransom around 1300 was something like 1,000 pounds/livres, enough to pay 100 knights for 100 days. When you're waging a war, that's an enormously good deal to make. The enemy get back one knight into their "pool" and you can pay another 100. (By this period, scutage over military service was pretty much the rule.)

So, even a knight was worth far more alive than dead, and they were protected by armor that made them very hard to hurt. Even then they didn't take warfare lightly, although there's no doubt many or most entered it bravely and eagerly - but they were also determined to win or at least survive.

Related to that whole posturing business... as I understand it, Norse and Celtic armies in particular had a tradition, when meeting for a "proper battle," of sending out both individual skirmishers (hurling spears, etc.) and "champions" ahead of the ranks, to meet in the field between them and fight each other to get everyone worked up.

What I'd really love to know, though, is how they ever got anyone to be first over the wall / up the ladder in any siege ever...


in a system like D&D there's usually no feeling of risk. Either you died, or you weren't ever really in danger of dying, with few exceptions.

That's mostly a feature of late 2E, 3.X E, and 4E D&D. Earlier D&D was quite risky, but you could make it if you played smart and used all sorts of tricks: making proper use of your spells, distracting hostile animals with food, running like heck, striking deals with intelligent monsters, and fighting dirty. Once the paradigm became that you were supposed to encounter and fight monsters (and defeating monsters became first the main, then the only source of XP, displacing XP for treasure found), things had to change and survival had to get easier.

MickJay
2013-03-07, 09:02 AM
Any indication that "Celts and Vikings" took lethal combat in any way less seriously than most other people?

There are a few accounts by Roman historians about the equipment and tactics of the Celts that could be used to support this. Battle of Telamon could be given as an example of 'Celts not taking lethal combat seriously' (fighting naked, with a small shield as the only defense). Of course that doesn't necessarily mean they weren't treating it seriously: they were likely expecting an 'honest' face-to-face combat rather than a rain of javelins...

Piedmon_Sama
2013-03-07, 08:47 PM
Or occasionally conquering large chunks of Britain, Ireland and France.

This is about the 'vikings,' and I'd like to point out that in these large, sustained conflicts (as opposed to the small-scale raiding and piracy) the stereotypical image of the norse barbarian charging in a frenzy swinging his axe is equal parts a relic of contemporary Christian propaganda (God save us from the fury of the northmen), and norse sagas which were about as accurate to historical warfare as our Holywood films. The armies of guys like Ragnar Hairy-Breeches and Sweyn Forkbeard were successful due to the things that have made armies successful throughout recorded history--advantages in supply and logistics, superior tactics and equipment. It's a lot more likely these conquering northern hordes formed a shield wall and marched in lockstep on the field of battle than charging like a bunch of guys posing for a Deathmetal album cover.

Although, as others have rightly pointed out, actual pitched battles were much less frequent than constant repositioning and posturing between campaigning forces.

awa
2013-03-07, 10:14 PM
I would say there are differences in how different groups make war and how they perceive conflict. I cant give many example becuase this gets into politics and religion but.

I would point out that some tribal groups like say the high lands of papua new guinea had percent wise horrendous casualty rates. sure only a handful of people would die in any given conflict but they fought a lot and had a very small population's to begin with.

Compare that to a western nation were the military represents a tiny fraction of the population and having a sizable percent of it die say enough to meaningfully affect population demographics would be utterly unthinkable.

Also look at societies past and present willing to go to war over religious beliefs.

look at religious systems were warriors who die in combat are given a special place in the after life. contrasted to ones that state violence is morally wrong.

It's clear that different societies look at violence in different ways

Rhynn
2013-03-08, 12:09 AM
Also look at societies past and present willing to go to war over religious beliefs.

look at religious systems were warriors who die in combat are given a special place in the after life. contrasted to ones that state violence is morally wrong.

It's clear that different societies look at violence in different ways

Religion does change the game significantly, yes - the results of declaring the First Crusade were completely crazy: the intention was, aside from the politics, to let knights vent off some steam (killing believers in intra-European wars was a sin, but killing unbelievers was righteous and thus taking part erased your sins), but what they got was the People's Crusade.

However, that's war. Entering into war is significantly different from entering into personal combat, and even once you're in war, the personal combat can be scary. That's why modern military training is such an intense, break-down-and-rebuild process - to condition you into responding in the most useful way, rather than the most natural, to the fear of getting killed imminently.

And I seriously doubt that even peoples who regularly fought horrible battles (like, yes, some tribal cultures, where the aim probably often was eradication) fought casually or lightly. They still want to survive and preferrably win.

If it makes anyone happier, though, I can amend the original statement to "hardly anyone", because yes, there are guano crazy individuals (though not, I'd contend, guano crazy cultures - that is, cultures where even the majority don't care for their personal safety - that survive for very long). Also, I suppose some bearsarks etc. may just have been suicidally depressed. Most people are hardwired to want to live, just like most animals.

FatR
2013-03-08, 08:13 AM
If by "games", you mean "D&D", sure. If you broaden your view, it might turn out that realistic fighters do not actually have to suck.

A fighter with strength of an elephant and toughness of solid metal is not realistic, however you look at that.

A fighter without them is not going to survive a combat with something as trivial as a stone giant (12 feet tall, more agile and perceptive than an average human, muscles of a rhinoceros, skin tougher than the best mundane armor in existence, wears armor and uses weapons), whatever system you use to represent a stone giant.

And cutting off most of DnD's content because realistic fighters can't do jack to it is not "broading one's view".

Rhynn
2013-03-08, 10:07 AM
A fighter with strength of an elephant and toughness of solid metal is not realistic, however you look at that.

A fighter without them is not going to survive a combat with something as trivial as a stone giant (12 feet tall, more agile and perceptive than an average human, muscles of a rhinoceros, skin tougher than the best mundane armor in existence, wears armor and uses weapons), whatever system you use to represent a stone giant.

And cutting off most of DnD's content because realistic fighters can't do jack to it is not "broading one's view".

So he says "look beyond D&D" and in response you argue about D&D.

:smalleek:

Incidentally, pre-3E D&D fighters weren't as strong as elephants or as tough as metal.


A fighter without them is not going to survive a combat with something as trivial as a stone giant (12 feet tall, more agile and perceptive than an average human, muscles of a rhinoceros, skin tougher than the best mundane armor in existence, wears armor and uses weapons), whatever system you use to represent a stone giant.

Just asserting these qualities doesn't make them true. Normal men using hand (and thrown) weapons could (and did), in fact, fight, harm, and kill elephants. If you define stone giants, for instance, to be tougher than elephants, then that's your issue, I guess, but you can't expect everyone to automatically accept that assertion.

MickJay
2013-03-08, 10:16 AM
In 3.5, a standard elephant has 21 Con, a stone giant - 19 Con; the giant however still has a few more HP due to extra hit dice, and while the elephant has AC of 15, the giant has AC of 25 - making it considerably more difficult to kill.

hamishspence
2013-03-08, 10:16 AM
Given an elephant's quadrupedal nature, and size, if "strength of an elephant" means "able to lift/pull/etc as much as an elephant"- it's going to be a lot higher Str stat than that given for an elephant.

An African Elephant (in D&D) is a Str 30 Quadrupedal Huge creature- means that it can lift as much as a Str 43 Bipedal Medium creature.

Which is, 9600 lb as a maximum Heavy load.

Rhynn
2013-03-08, 11:52 AM
In 3.5, a standard elephant has 21 Con, a stone giant - 19 Con; the giant however still has a few more HP due to extra hit dice, and while the elephant has AC of 15, the giant has AC of 25 - making it considerably more difficult to kill.

3.X ACs are sort of artificially inflated - they're not set to model some reality, they're set to make it X% likely that a theoretical character of a given level hits them. The AD&D ACs are 6 (elephant) and 0 (stone giant), which means... well, it also means that a fighter of some level is X% likely to hit them and deal damage.

Point being, those numbers don't translate to any particular reality. You'd pretty much have to make a circular argument defining stone giants as too big, strong, and tough to injure without supernatural abilities for them to be too big, strong, and tough to injure without supernatural abilities.

FatR
2013-03-08, 12:28 PM
So he says "look beyond D&D" and in response you argue about D&D.

And cutting off most of DnD's content because realistic fighters can't do jack to it is not looking beyond DnD either. It is settling for less. Or playing an entirely different genre.


Incidentally, pre-3E D&D fighters weren't as strong as elephants or as tough as metal.
Incidentally, they totally were. People just disregarded that "verissimilitude" thing and rather unconvincingly pretended that you can reliably kill giants and dragons in direct combat with skill alone. Or hid behind magic items as an explanation why a fighter is not reduced to bloody sludge after being chewed on by a purple worm.


Just asserting these qualities doesn't make them true. Normal men using hand (and thrown) weapons could (and did), in fact, fight, harm, and kill elephants.
Giants are not dumb animals, however.


If you define stone giants, for instance, to be tougher than elephants, then that's your issue, I guess, but you can't expect everyone to automatically accept that assertion.
I'm asserting nothing. I'm just transferring statblock of an average stone giant into real-world terms, so that you can undestand what a mid-level DnD (or any other system, dealing with similar level of fantasticness) is, and why warriors bound to real-world levels of skill simply have no place in it.

Morty
2013-03-08, 12:29 PM
A fighter with strength of an elephant and toughness of solid metal is not realistic, however you look at that.

A fighter without them is not going to survive a combat with something as trivial as a stone giant (12 feet tall, more agile and perceptive than an average human, muscles of a rhinoceros, skin tougher than the best mundane armor in existence, wears armor and uses weapons), whatever system you use to represent a stone giant.

And cutting off most of DnD's content because realistic fighters can't do jack to it is not "broading one's view".

:smallconfused: What does this have to do with anything I said, if I may ask? In D&D, a realistic fighter would have no chance to be relevant. In other systems, realistic fighters are plenty relevant. So what's your point?

FatR
2013-03-08, 12:33 PM
:smallconfused: What does this have to do with anything I said, if I may ask?
You have said the following:

If by "games", you mean "D&D", sure. If you broaden your view, it might turn out that realistic fighters do not actually have to suck.
I've explained why this is wrong.


In other systems, realistic fighters are plenty relevant. So what's your point?
Only because those systems do not and cannot cover the same conceptual space as DnD. Or most of fantasy genre, for that matter. My horisons aren't going to be broadened by yet another gritty system trying to correctly reproduce real-world combat, because the very fact that I'm playing DnD in the first place probably means that I care about fantasy parts of fantasy more than about historical reproduction, and for real-world combat simulation to become relevant you need to cut most of those fantasy part off.

Morty
2013-03-08, 12:45 PM
Only because those systems do not and cannot cover the same conceptual space as DnD. Or most of fantasy genre, for that matter. My horisons aren't going to be broadened by yet another gritty system trying to correctly reproduce real-world combat, because the very fact that I'm playing DnD in the first place probably means that I care about fantasy parts of fantasy more than about historical reproduction, and for real-world combat simulation to become relevant you need to cut most of those fantasy part off.

And who said they have to cover the same conceptual space as D&D? Your argument seems to be that if a system does not routinely put the PCs against the same kind of challenges mid-to-high level D&D does, it's worthless.

Synovia
2013-03-08, 12:57 PM
A fighter with strength of an elephant and toughness of solid metal is not realistic, however you look at that.

A fighter without them is not going to survive a combat with something as trivial as a stone giant (12 feet tall, more agile and perceptive than an average human, muscles of a rhinoceros, skin tougher than the best mundane armor in existence, wears armor and uses weapons), whatever system you use to represent a stone giant.

And cutting off most of DnD's content because realistic fighters can't do jack to it is not "broading one's view".

Why is it a problem to have a fighter as strong as an elephant with skin as tough as metal?

D&D 3.5 fighters can walk through lava. Thats not realistic at all. There are D&D fighters who can jump 75 feet. Thats not realistic. An epic level fighter can climb a glass wall without any tools. Thats not realistic. An epic level fighter can STAND on the back of his horse, and fight with absolutely no penalties. IE, hes just as effective as he is on the ground. An Epic fighter can swim up a waterfall.

So why the hell do people get all bent out of shape about "fighter magic". Fighters, atleast in 3.5, were magic.

hamishspence
2013-03-08, 01:01 PM
And, if you're bringing in D20 Modern stats- that fighter can get shot by a Main Battle Tank Gun and have a good chance of surviving. Or several Hellfire missiles.

We're definitely in superhero territory here.

Talakeal
2013-03-08, 03:25 PM
Why is it a problem to have a fighter as strong as an elephant with skin as tough as metal?

D&D 3.5 fighters can walk through lava. Thats not realistic at all. There are D&D fighters who can jump 75 feet. Thats not realistic. An epic level fighter can climb a glass wall without any tools. Thats not realistic. An epic level fighter can STAND on the back of his horse, and fight with absolutely no penalties. IE, hes just as effective as he is on the ground. An Epic fighter can swim up a waterfall.

So why the hell do people get all bent out of shape about "fighter magic". Fighters, atleast in 3.5, were magic.

That is epic level though, hardly 3.5 as a whole. Epic level is a module which doesn't mesh with most campaign settings. For example Raistlin is the only epic level character in the whole world of dragonlance and iirc there are none in Eberon.

Going by realism epic level 3.5 is as far away from normal dungeons and dragons, as presented in the fluff text and novels, as regular dungeons and dragons is from real life.

Also, fighters have terrible skills. Most of that stuff you described would require a fighter to have serious magical augmentation or be very very high level to pull off. Again iirc, I don't have the book on me.

Asteron
2013-03-08, 03:52 PM
I'm probably going to regret getting involved here, but here goes:

I do not want to play in a realistic type game at all. Reality blows. I get enough of it every day when I drive to and from work (which is probably more deadly than being in a true-to-life medieval battle...)

I'll go ahead and defend D&D 3.X because that is the system I play most often. You can get gritty realism in that system: it just happens before level 6. Compare that with some of the other systems out there (or earlier versions of D&D) and they are likely similar in lethality. After that, however, the rules change and you are no longer playing in the real world by any stretch of any imagination. I'm sure that some of you have seen this (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2) article. While it's not bulletproof, it pretty succinctly demonstrates how anything above and beyond 6th level reaches pretty mythic proportions rather quickly. When you add magic in that bends the very rules of physics, your fighters had better be able to do something extraordinary.

And I'm ok with that. Why? Because some part of this 5'10, 180lb semi athletic banker wants to be the 7'10 half-dragon goliath warblade who flattens elephants with one punch that he plays every other Sunday. Is it unabashed escapism? Yes, but I'll refer you to my earlier point about reality blowing...

I also don't find HP as problematic as most of you. HP isn't "I stand completely still while my enemy stabs me through the throat and I just ignore the gaping wound in my trachea..." Rather it's "my enemy stabs at my throat (and hits an unprotected part; thus AC is irrelevant here) but I turn just enough to turn the gaping wound in my trachea into a painful but non-lifethreatening scratch..." After all, it's a lot harder to stab someone in the throat when they are just as good (or better) as you are at fighting. They move and twist so that landing a solid, lethal blow is much harder to do. The more "scratches" you do, the harder it is to ignore (death by a thousand cuts) and you eventually die.

Synovia
2013-03-08, 04:17 PM
That is epic level though, hardly 3.5 as a whole. Epic level is a module which doesn't mesh with most campaign settings. For example Raistlin is the only epic level character in the whole world of dragonlance and iirc there are none in Eberon.

Going by realism epic level 3.5 is as far away from normal dungeons and dragons, as presented in the fluff text and novels, as regular dungeons and dragons is from real life.

Also, fighters have terrible skills. Most of that stuff you described would require a fighter to have serious magical augmentation or be very very high level to pull off. Again iirc, I don't have the book on me.

True, but those are all ridiculous examples. There are all sorts of stuff that Fighters do at low levels that are unrealistic.

The Men's world record long jump is ~29 ft. A jump based fighter can have a 50% shot at making that at 5th or 6th level.


I agree with Asteron. No other class in D&D is expected to be "realisitic." Why the heck should the fighter be? I want high level fighters to be able to do things like creating earthquakes with a great maul.

Morty
2013-03-08, 04:31 PM
I love how this thread has gone from "how realistic do you like your fantasy" to "Fighters in D&D don't have to be realistic".

Asteron
2013-03-08, 04:35 PM
I love how this thread has gone from "how realistic do you like your fantasy" to "Fighters in D&D don't have to be realistic".

That's because it's the reasoning behind our saying "not realistic at all..."

TuggyNE
2013-03-08, 09:23 PM
D&D 3.5 fighters can walk through lava. Thats not realistic at all. There are D&D fighters who can jump 75 feet. Thats not realistic. An epic level fighter can climb a glass wall without any tools. Thats not realistic. An epic level fighter can STAND on the back of his horse, and fight with absolutely no penalties. IE, hes just as effective as he is on the ground. An Epic fighter can swim up a waterfall.

One of these things is not like the others. It might be rare to have someone who can fight effectively in melee while standing on a running horse, but it's by no means beyond the realm of reasonable human accomplishment; standing on a moving horse is one of the easier trick riding stunts, and even adding the motion required to dodge, parry, and thrust doesn't seem likely to make it impossible for sufficient training and skill to overcome.

Conners
2013-03-08, 11:50 PM
For those who were interested in my earlier suggestion about making a thread for discussing the perfect realistic tabletop game, here it is: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=14858630


As for the discussion up to now... I don't think it matters whether or not DnD should have a realistic fighter. Personally, I feel that DnD should be more honest that their fighter is some kind of supernatural superhero character, and make the class around that sort of idea instead of going with pseudo-realism. The fighter isn't supposed to be as strong as an elephant and hard as steel--he is supposed to have hit-dice equal to his level and be able to fight creatures of a total CR up to his level. Reality or sci-fi was not in mind when making the system, so trying to compare it or make like either one is a very difficult and perhaps even fruitless effort.

Exediron
2013-03-08, 11:52 PM
I find it interesting that nearly everyone seems to act like the power level of magic users is set in stone and to balance the fighter you have to make them near-magical. Why can't it work the other way? Magic isn't real, so its laws and abilities can be defined as whatever you want. It could easily be designed to balance much lower on the scale.

Mr. Mask
2013-03-09, 02:40 AM
How did I miss this thread...?


Haven't read through the extremely large number of words and pages this thread has thus far fill with, but I do have an opinion on the matter.

Well, more of a book.

Developing a story within a fantasy setting, which is also educational about actual medieval life.

As for that in a game... well, I am looking forward to the sequel to TRoS. I see no problem with putting dragons, orcs, and wizards in realistic games, either.

Rhynn
2013-03-09, 03:40 AM
I agree with Asteron. No other class in D&D is expected to be "realisitic." Why the heck should the fighter be? I want high level fighters to be able to do things like creating earthquakes with a great maul.

This thread isn't about D&D fighters needing to be realistic, like, at all? :smallconfused: Did I miss someone saying they should be?

Morty
2013-03-09, 05:18 PM
This thread isn't about D&D fighters needing to be realistic, like, at all? :smallconfused: Did I miss someone saying they should be?

Most such threads tend to get derailed in that direction, unfortunately.

JusticeZero
2013-03-09, 06:11 PM
Battle of Telamon could be given as an example of 'Celts not taking lethal combat seriously' (fighting naked, with a small shield as the only defense)....
My admittedly limited knowledge on the subject is that they WERE taking it seriously, but the successful doctrine they were trained to use was poorly suited for what they had to fight that time. I'm told that a common celtic tactic was fought "naked with just a small shield" because they were used to sneaking in, then rushing in at high speed, getting the surprise round, jumping over the front line (which wouldn't work well with heavy armor), then fighting their way out of the now compromised formation from the wrong side of their foes' defenses while the enemy was still trying to organize a defense. It might have even worked against a pure Roman melee phalanx.

Beleriphon
2013-03-09, 09:50 PM
I'm told that a common celtic tactic was fought "naked with just a small shield" because they were used to sneaking in, then rushing in at high speed, getting the surprise round, jumping over the front line (which wouldn't work well with heavy armor), then fighting their way out of the now compromised formation from the wrong side of their foes' defenses while the enemy was still trying to organize a defense. It might have even worked against a pure Roman melee phalanx.

I suspect that the Celts found that the formations and training the legions had probably defeated most of their training to start with. If your objective is to rush into a line and disrupt it from the back, or sneak into a camp at night, then you're hooped if you try it with guys that build a fortified camp every night or try to get into formations that were specifically designed to deal with that sort of attack.

I'm sure that Celts took deadly combat seriously, the problem is I don't think they were equipped to deal with the Roman legions combat tactics, and culturally weren't inclined to change their methods to match the legions. The Roman never actually used phalanxes, so there's that as well. A good solid Athenian phalanx the Celts probably would have crippled with those tactics, but the Roman's box formations and organization were just murder for anything but an equally organized response.

Synovia
2013-03-09, 10:05 PM
One of these things is not like the others. It might be rare to have someone who can fight effectively in melee while standing on a running horse, but it's by no means beyond the realm of reasonable human accomplishment; standing on a moving horse is one of the easier trick riding stunts, and even adding the motion required to dodge, parry, and thrust doesn't seem likely to make it impossible for sufficient training and skill to overcome.

With no penalty. That means he is exactly as effective as he is on the ground. Think about that.

That means that the warrior can move within the 5x5 area of the square he occupies without hinderance, no matter how the Horse is moving. its a physical impossibility.

TuggyNE
2013-03-09, 10:43 PM
With no penalty. That means he is exactly as effective as he is on the ground. Think about that.

That means that the warrior can move within the 5x5 area of the square he occupies without hinderance, no matter how the Horse is moving. its a physical impossibility.

That's, yes, roughly what I was thinking. I'm not sure exactly what repeating what you said earlier in different terms is supposed to accomplish? I still think the DC for that is too high, and since it was only barely in Epic Skills anyway, that drops it back out.

Without one of us digging up a citation one way or another, I don't think this is resolvable by asserting respective assumptions back and forth.

awa
2013-03-09, 10:45 PM
it's an abstraction you also don't take any penalty for sitting on the back of a horse either that's just as unrealistic. keep in mind you are saying that fighting from a standing position on a horse is just as hard as fighting on a tight rope with no penalty.

Synovia
2013-03-11, 04:06 PM
That's, yes, roughly what I was thinking. I'm not sure exactly what repeating what you said earlier in different terms is supposed to accomplish? I still think the DC for that is too high, and since it was only barely in Epic Skills anyway, that drops it back out.


We'll have to just disagree then. I've seen people ride the backs of horses standing up, but I've never seen someone who I thought would be able to successfully defend themselves from a dedicated attack while doing so.

You think someone could dodge arrows while standing on the back of a horse?

awa
2013-03-11, 08:11 PM
easier then they could on a tight rope.

all you need is 5 ranks in balance to take no penalty on balance checks.

hamishspence
2013-03-12, 07:17 AM
That said, if they do hit you, you need to make a balance check to not fall off.

A 1 inch (or very slightly less) thick tightrope, means a DC of 40.

awa
2013-03-12, 11:08 AM
and honestly thats kinda stupid to that means no real person could ever walk on a tight rope much less reliably

Synovia
2013-03-12, 11:21 AM
and honestly thats kinda stupid to that means no real person could ever walk on a tight rope much less reliably
No it doesn't.

Also, 1 inch is a DC20. Less than 1 inch is a DC40.

If you're not being attacked, you take 10.

10 + 4 (Dex) + 2 (Proper shoes) + 2 (Agile) +2 Synergy (5 Ranks in Tumble) + 5 Balance= 25 at Level 2.

It would really depend on how big a bonus we give for the balance bar they carry. I wouldn't be surprised to see a +10. At that point we're only talking 10 ranks of Balance to be able to hit it on taking 10.

Also, for reference, when you see people walking between buildings, or niagra falls, or anything like that, its usually a 2" or 3" wire. Which is a DC15.

If anything, its too easy.

Carry2
2013-03-12, 01:08 PM
...A good solid Athenian phalanx the Celts probably would have crippled with those tactics, but the Roman's box formations and organization were just murder for anything but an equally organized response.
As I understand it, the Celtiberians in spain were apparently pure murder for the Romans, using chariots for hit-and-run or guerilla tactics in hilly or forested terrain (much as the Britons did early on.) The spanish campaign was purely one of attrition, which the romans only won because they had central command of their population and their opponents didn't. (I guess you could call that another aspect of an 'organised response', but on a much larger scale than battle tactics.)

On the subject of realism in fantasy- I like it as much as possible, but I can't really defend it as anything other than a matter of taste. You either intrinsically prefer it in your fiction, or you don't. I guess.

awa
2013-03-12, 05:24 PM
+10 to balance for a balance bar is insanely excessive (and means tight rope walking is only possible while carrying a bar with master work shoes) I wouldn't give it more then +2 (which shouldn't stack with the pole) but i suppose i underestimated the thickness of a tight rope i though it would fall in the dc 40 range (although I believe a tight rope moves a bit so the dc would likely be higher then the base line balance dc)

edit normal person is often taken to mean level 6 or less and a level 6 person with 18 dex max ranks + relevant feats and synergies would represent the very best tight rope walker in the entire world who has spent a life time mastering this art.

second a few minutes of quick searching has had little luck finding any info on tight rope thickness but the one bit i did find indicated some are less then an inch wide and thus dc 40 impossible to reliably preform without being virtually the best in the world with a magic balancing pole.