Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mordring 04-13-05, 08:02 PM	Does anyone else beside me think have an issue demographics of D&D (low population, extremely low population density, unlikely community placement etc...)? Or a host of other horribly unrealistic things (combat, weapon damage, weapon proficiency, BAB and more.)? Or am I just a realisticness freak? "For using the words hobo and tautological in a real sentence, I award you a dollar"
LukiLoki 04-13-05, 08:08 PM	Yeah, I've been playing with sulfur and bat guano for years now, and I have yet to see a fireball.
Mumakil 04-13-05, 08:11 PM	Yeah, I've been playing with sulfur and bat guano for years now, and I have yet to see a fireball. :D It's a FANTASY roleplaying game.
Mordring 04-13-05, 08:15 PM	:D It's a FANTASY roleplaying game. It's not the magic I have an issue. It is stuff like: Village(500) nearest human settlement is roughly 80 miles away. Somehow survives with 25 warriors against the bi-weekly orc raids and semi annual dragon attack. and so on.
Omega13 04-13-05, 08:17 PM	Does anyone else beside me think have an issue demographics of D&D (low population, extremely low population density, unlikely community placement etc...)? Or a host of other horribly unrealistic things (combat, weapon damage, weapon proficiency, BAB and more.)? Or am I just a realisticness freak? Low population is due to high mortality rates for babies, like in medieval times. Population density is low because of low population and/or farm type families. As for weapon damage/HP, it represents the ability of a more skilled character (read: higher hit die/level) to turn an otherwise lethal blow into a less damaging one. A 20th level fighter doesn't take axe blows to the body, he is able to dodge it enough to reduce it to a cut on his arm. Weapon profieciency is not unrealistic. It represents the weapons that you know how to use. BAB is your skill in weapons. A more skilled fighter can attack more quickly and more accurately than a low level one. Warriors spend more time training with weapons that wizards, hence more profieciencies and higher BAB. So no, I think D&D is as realistic as can be expected for a game in its "time period".
LordHell 04-13-05, 08:17 PM	Hmmm. First of all, it entirely depends on the world you're playing in. My world is actually quite realistic and based on 12th Centuary Europe in terms of demographics and so forth. Some governments are 'advanced' centralized Monarchies - these governments tend to be richer and more established than the poorer Feudalism governments. The geography and government type has a direct effect on the demographics, population, and so forth of each area. All the 'monsters' are outside of the 'known world', which is seperated from the Humanized 'Middle Kingdoms' by almost impassable mountian ranges. Demihumans are feared, loathed, and in some places even enslaved. For the other comments (BAB, Damage, Etc) - they're only unrealistic if you lack imagination. Let me guess, you have a problem with the concept of hitpoints, armour class,etc. There are either two reasons for this: 1. You don't understand how these concepts work in D&D. Hitpoints isnt the number of hits you can take, despite the name. Armour Class deflects damage - not blows. A attack roll does not represent one swing, but rather, 6 seconds of parrying, weaving, dodging, etc. 2. You only even play high level games where these concepts tend to get a bit 'warped' and out of proportion.
twad 04-13-05, 08:22 PM	as other said.. fantasy. this demographic thingy is up to the DM to decide if it will be "realistic" or not.
Nizkateth 04-13-05, 08:22 PM	I tend to allow some of the more unrealistic views of things like Hp and AC at high and epic levels, to make it feel less like you've learned how to take every blow in a non-vial place, and more like your in the same league as heracles, achilles and other legendary figures who were nigh invulnerable to mundane attacks. Then again I also never use the massive damage threshold in d&d. I've also had players come upon towns that were already burned to the ground when the PC's arrive because I rolled low for population and it was near what I had already informed them was orc territory. That was motivating for the heroes.
The Shaman 04-13-05, 08:34 PM	So it is, so it ever has been....the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be an amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villains, who seek relaxation with a fascinating game, and who generally believe games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.
striderII 04-13-05, 08:47 PM	It's a FANTASY roleplaying game. Man, I totally hate this argument. Just because there are *fantastic* elements in the game, doesn't mean reality automatically takes a back seat. Does your game world have gravity? Do the people need to breathe, and eat, and sleep? If so, you might want to watch out - there may be too much reality in your fantasy. Things like HP and AC are okay, as they are abstractions designed to facilitate gameplay. Some allowances must be made, due to the fact we're playing a game here. That's not to say any and all "unrealistic" (in quotes because what's unrealistic to me might not be unrealistic to you) elements can be hand-waved. The game has to have an internal realism...a consistancy, if you will. The degree of success within the game as written is a bit subjective, however. The_Shaman, Wow, Gygax apparently wasn't shy about patting himself on the back, eh? He's right about one thing, though - the game is a dismal failure in regards to simulationism. Which may or may not be a good thing, depending on tastes, I suppose. strider ps. See - regardless of what people say on other threads, I *am* capable of making tactful replies. :)
LordHell 04-13-05, 08:58 PM	I disagree that the game is wildy unrealistic as this is up to your DM. One DM can run a completely realistic game for players interested in such things and another DM can run a game where reasons dont matter. However even 'simulation' games have abstractions in the name of gameplay. Take the combat mission series, arguably one of the best tactical computer wargames ever that advertises itself as a simluation. It has tons of abstractions in it to make the game fun over tedium. Imagine if you had to do all the paperwork required to be a Captian or whatever. There is a fine line between making a simulation that is semi-realistic and fun, or realistic and tedius. If your DM wants to introduce broken bones or whatever its quite possible for him to do so. In fact in my games I roleplay out these things to my players - but they don't actually have any ingame effects. For example, one guy may be stabbed quite seriously in the stomach, while this doesnt effect the game mechanically, if he rolls a miss I roleplay out the situation as if his wound had caused it, then at the end of combat I describe the blood coming from his wound at an alarming rate, even though his has no effect on his actual hitpoints it adds atmopshere and takes away from some of the games abstractions. If you think D&D is absurdly unrealistic like some of these movies you see on TV - you have to look at either your own DMing style or the style of your current DM, because after all he IS the director.
Vahenir 04-13-05, 08:58 PM	Strider's absolutely correct. The argument that it's fantasy is not valid for total disregard for realism (or to be used to jibe someone who is questioning the realism of certain aspects of the game). It's a world built in reality with fantasy elements added. Not a fantasy creation of unicorn thoughts and Elf muffins where "real" elements are only added on a whim when we all get bored floating around in the non-gravity world of pincushions. Edit: Oh and I agree with the initial poster. The demographics provided in the DMG are unrealistic -CONSIDERING- the existance of things like monsters. Presumably, villages would have to be larger, in general, to be able to sustain themselves against such attacks, and would have to control slightly larger protective forces.
LordHell 04-13-05, 09:06 PM	Edit: Oh and I agree with the initial poster. The demographics provided in the DMG are unrealistic -CONSIDERING- the existance of things like monsters. Presumably, villages would have to be larger, in general, to be able to sustain themselves against such attacks, and would have to control slightly larger protective forces. If you read the DMG it actually mentions all these things. It mentions that a town requires surrounding farmlands to grow, and so forth. The DMG mentions nothing about city spacing, but rather, town sizes. They are actually quite realistic based on the time period that D&D is meant to relate to. The biggest cities in the classic ages were cities like Rome and Carthage, which had upwards of 700,000 population. These massive metropolises TOWERED above the cities such as Londonium during the medieval period which had around 20-35,000 inhabitents. So really, you people have an unrealistic perspective to begin with. And besides, you're points about the DMG as about as moot as they can be. I could completely recreate Medieval Europe and base my entire campaign in there if I wanted - you cant get more realistic demographics than that. So which is it, the D&D system or custom user created worlds? It's the later clearly, people play what they want to play, realistic or not. And while we're arguing over moot, picky, and irrelevent points, no opinion is 'absolutely' correct. The only thing that is absolute is mathmatics.
Vahenir 04-13-05, 09:19 PM	Actually, even mathmatics is not absolute - because math is a theory to begin with. So technically, absolute is a subjective term to begin with. Anyway, way to not even read my post. I said the demographics are unrealistic for a -fantasy world with monsters roaming around-. Not for -Medieval Europe-. Gotta pay closer attention.
LordHell 04-13-05, 09:36 PM	Actually, even mathmatics is not absolute - because math is a theory to begin with. So technically, absolute is a subjective term to begin with. Anyway, way to not even read my post. I said the demographics are unrealistic for a -fantasy world with monsters roaming around-. Not for -Medieval Europe-. Gotta pay closer attention. Fantasy monsters arnt realistic to begin with - we don't even have anything to compare them too. My point remains: The System itself is not unrealistic, it's the DM's user created worlds that may or may not be realistic, depending on what kind of game the said DM wants to run. Gotta pay closer attention, Ive mentedion that a few times now.
The Shaman 04-13-05, 09:54 PM	It is stuff like: Village (500) nearest human settlement is roughly 80 miles away. Somehow survives with 25 warriors against the bi-weekly orc raids and semi annual dragon attack. and so on.The problem here isn't the demographics - it's a GM that doesn't look to a mechanism that could allow this village to "make sense." Perhaps the village pays tribute to the orcs, or acts as a center of trade for the them - think of the forts and trading posts in the frontiers of Canada and the United States early in the 19th century, isolated, surrounded by potentially hostile tribes at all times, surviving through a mix of displays of power and negotiation and tribute with tribal leaders. Perhaps that same dragon relies on the village for a steady supply of virgins, or livestock, or virgin livestock for that matter, and keeps the village under its protection - no sane orc would dare think of attacking this village. Perhaps there is another force altogether at work protecting the village from the hostile wilderness that surrounds it. The elders of the village believe that their militia and their thorny hedge protects the settlement from harm, when in reality it's an order of rangers that patrol the wilderness, keeping orcs and dragons at bay. (If this sounds familiar, it's beacuse this is how Bree survived under the protection of Strider and the Rangers of the North.) For my part, I don't look for "realism," if realism is defined as historically accurate or the result of extensive simulation. As a GM I work toward verisimilitude, rationality, internal consistency, for these are the keys to the suspension of disbelief. The suspension of disbelief is more important than realism, as real life is often boring and occasionally more unbelievable than fantasy.
LordHell 04-13-05, 10:01 PM	The problem here isn't the demographics - it's a GM that doesn't look to a mechanism that could allow this village to "make sense." :thumbsup: For my part, I don't look for "realism," if realism is defined as historically accurate or the result of extensive simulation. As a GM I work toward verisimilitude, rationality, internal consistency, for these are the keys to the suspension of disbelief. The suspension of disbelief is more important than realism, as real life is often boring and occasionally more unbelievable than fantasy. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Vastion 04-13-05, 10:08 PM	Ahh, the ol' 'How can this be real?' question. Well, you have to consider it's a game first of all. It's like playing cops and robbers when you were little except now you have rules that help support the 'reality'. In that world there were only 2 types of people...cop and robber. When you played you didn't really care why the cop was trying to shoot the robber or why the robber was a robber. It was way too much fun chasing your friend and screaming Bang! at the top of your lungs. If you thought about the details it would probably cease being fun. Honestly, if I wanted more realism in cops and robbers I would watch the news. The rules of the game are there to keep us from having my favorite argument when I was little. I shot you! I shot you first! No you didn't I shot you! Nuh uh, I jumped. You jumped the bullet? Yeah. ???? BAB, hit points, classes, all this helps determine who shot first and how hard. Realism would just mean we'll be rolling up lots of characters over and over again because people die in real life. However, it is nice to be able to suspend belief that there is this village in the middle of nowhere that just so happens to be next to a giant's lair, next to a horde of goblins, next to a cave full of dark elves. There it sits totally unmolested for the past 20 years. This sort of thing is totally in power of the DM. Monsters, the races, and environments can all make perfect 'fantasy sense' if presented the proper way. If you go solely by the DMG then I can see why this question pops up so often. You start with random environment (a) then you add random monster (b) then you add random plot hook (c). It all makes perfect sense!
Mordring 04-13-05, 10:59 PM	In regard to population let me quote a few number from D&D campiagns, and medieval Europe England: 5 million people, 40 per sq mile France: 20 million, 120 per sq mile Aundair(from Ebberon): 2 million, 16 per square mile see the difference In the middle ages, towns clustered together about a mile apart, with farmers living inside the towns, and going out very early to work the fields surrounding the town. second, BAB should replaced with skill in indivdual weapons or groups of related weapons. so instead of BAB +15, have longsword 12, longbow 6, etc... In my campaign BAB is only used to figure out if you qualify for a Prestige Class. The weapon damages favor melee combat, when in fact, a longbow would usually cause an injury far more sever than a broadsword( a D&D longsword). And, a longbow doesn't get caught on orc #4728562764's collarbone trying to pull it out
LordHell 04-13-05, 11:15 PM	In regard to population let me quote a few number from D&D campiagns, and medieval Europe England: 5 million people, 40 per sq mile France: 20 million, 120 per sq mile Aundair(from Ebberon): 2 million, 16 per square mile see the difference In the middle ages, towns clustered together about a mile apart, with farmers living inside the towns, and going out very early to work the fields surrounding the town. That's Ebberon, not D&D. Make your own world where it is so. second, BAB should replaced with skill in indivdual weapons or groups of related weapons. so instead of BAB +15, have longsword 12, longbow 6, etc... In my campaign BAB is only used to figure out if you qualify for a Prestige Class. The weapon damages favor melee combat, when in fact, a longbow would usually cause an injury far more sever than a broadsword( a D&D longsword). And, a longbow doesn't get caught on orc #4728562764's collarbone trying to pull it out Depends where the Longbow hit, doesnt it? Roll and 8 and that Longbow did indeed kill that Orc. Roll a 3 for damage and it hit him in the arm. And your problem is with the Fighter class being proficient in all martial weapons - but that's what a Fighter is. This comes down to your lack of understanding of the D&D basic rules. A Fighter is not some mere warrior or even a mere soldier, a Fighter is a cut above those, exceptionally skilled with a wide range of weapons and very rare in the context of things. For a fighter to be proficient in a spiked chain however, he has to take an exotic weapon proficiency to be good at it, otherwise he takes a -4 hit. However the fighter is still exceptionally skilled at combat and knows how to handle most weapons with great skill. You're not making your game realistic here, you're nerfing one of the main skills an already underpowered class has. This is the idea behind the Fighter - this is one thing that seperates him from the Warriors. On the other hand, take the Wizard, the Wizard has not been trained in any weapons apart from very simple ones. He WOULD have to take a feat to learn how to use a Longsword, or a Longbow, etc, otherwise he would suffer a -4 penalty. With his already low BAB this could quite possibly end up -ve. He simply hasnt spent the time and training around weapons to be good at them. I find your argument against logic and realism. I am a very good shot with a .22 caliber rifle, are you trying to say that I'd be a pathetic shot with a .303 or any other rifle of a different caliber? No, in fact I wouldn't be - and I'm not. There is also a very fine line between game balance and realism. If I wanted to make the game truely realistic it would not be very much fun for my players at all - most of them would die before reaching 2nd level.
Mumakil 04-13-05, 11:24 PM	Man, I totally hate this argument. Just because there are *fantastic* elements in the game, doesn't mean reality automatically takes a back seat. Does your game world have gravity? Do the people need to breathe, and eat, and sleep? If so, you might want to watch out - there may be too much reality in your fantasy. It wasn't an argument. It was a simple reminder not to take things so seriously. In a fantasy setting, it's up to you to determine what is realistic in your own campaign.
edgelett 04-13-05, 11:32 PM	Does anyone else beside me think have an issue demographics of D&D (low population, extremely low population density, unlikely community placement etc...)? Or a host of other horribly unrealistic things (combat, weapon damage, weapon proficiency, BAB and more.)? Or am I just a realisticness freak? "For using the words hobo and tautological in a real sentence, I award you a dollar" I decided to edit my post, as everything I was going to say has been covered. Carry on.
weasel fierce 04-14-05, 04:57 AM	Its something that the DM can adjust as he sees most fit. Demographic and economic systems in fantasy RPG's are generally a weak point, since the authors rarely have an in-depth knowledge of such things (and much of it is not all that interesting to read either), hence they gloss over it, and leave other things to be emphasized for adventure material. As for Gygax patting himself on the back, D&D has survived for some 30 years, and is keeping an awful lot of people at WOTC employed. Cant say he did badly ;)
Lina_Inverse 04-14-05, 08:41 AM	your a realism junkie.if i wanted realsim id go out into the real world. D&D is ment to be UNrealistic.the moment the barbarian could roll around in lava you should have realized this.a high level fighter has a good chance to survive a nuclear blast! D&D isnt designed for realism,its designed for heroic action.watch an action movie,or watch a kung fu movie.thats what D&D is trying to be.NOT a recreatement of historical europope+magic(which doesnt work funnily enough). go fricken play gurps if you want realism.i want over the top action,and D&D is designed for it.
Lostboy1701 04-14-05, 09:30 AM	Want realisim? Head out to your local weaponsmith (may have to walk or ride a horse for several days till you find one) and have him make you a nice fine broadsword then try and find someone that can throw an enchantment or 2 on it. Next, spend the better part of the next few years learning how to use it. Once you have "leveled up" enough, goin search of an Orc or Goblin (again, you may be walking or riding for a while to find one) or if all else fails... just find a human tyrant. Now go kill him. Watch out the police with guns (looks like small metal crosbows without the bow part). NOW... kill enough bad guys to gain a high reputation. PRESTO - Realistic game! What? Not realistic enough? Grrrrrrr... yer hard to please! Maybe you should play a bard! hehe Point is... yer rolling friggin dice! Stop whinning about realism if yer actually doing it. You accept its a game... so stretch yer mind a bit more and let go of these cracked out hang ups ya got! 'nuff said! Now will someone pass me my d20? I've got dragons to slay!
HypnoticMonk 04-14-05, 09:55 AM	"Realism" might be the wrong word for what I want from a game where we cast magic spells and slay dragons. What I want is "logic and consistency". Yes, some small villages might not get attacked, even though it would be easy to do so. Maybe there is so little to gain by attacking that city that it isn't worth the risk. What risk? Well, I hear rumors that some small cities hire these "adventurers" to either protect them or to take revenge vs. those who have attacked them. Some of these roaming mercenaries of various classes (you know who you are ) are actually willing to do so without pay, if the cause is good and just. Maybe the orcs have negotiated a truce with the city, or the orc leaders owe that city's mayor a favor, or maybe they have a trade agreement, or ... etc etc and etc.
striderII 04-14-05, 09:57 AM	It wasn't an argument. It was a simple reminder not to take things so seriously. In a fantasy setting, it's up to you to determine what is realistic in your own campaign. Perhaps "argument" was a poor choice of words, there. Far too many times I've seen someone post a thread wanting to inject a bit of realism into their games (to capture whatever flavor they were going for), only to see people use "it's a fantasy game! shut up, you're stupid!" as a valid reason *not* to do it. If you took offense, I apologize. Your last sentence I agree with entirely, however...I think it's pretty much what I had said before. As for Gygax patting himself on the back, D&D has survived for some 30 years, and is keeping an awful lot of people at WOTC employed. Cant say he did badly My comment was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek...I'm not sure if it conveyed well. your a realism junkie.if i wanted realsim id go out into the real world. I encourage you to do so. While you're at it, please learn or relearn the English language, and/or attend a typing class, with an emphasis on proper grammar and punctuation. D&D is ment to be UNrealistic.the moment the barbarian could roll around in lava you should have realized this.a high level fighter has a good chance to survive a nuclear blast! D&D isnt designed for realism,its designed for heroic action.watch an action movie,or watch a kung fu movie.thats what D&D is trying to be.NOT a recreatement of historical europope+magic(which doesnt work funnily enough). Fighters cannot survive a nuclear blast, regardless of their level. Why? Because there are no such things as nuclear detonations anywhere within the scope of the game system at all. I'm not sure why I even have to explain this to you. You like a certain type of game, and that's your right - play however you wish. I, for one, find your style incredibly distasteful, and your sanctimonious tone horrible. Please discontinue posting until you can realize there are ways to play this game that involve levels under 18 and actually *not* rolling dice. go fricken play gurps if you want realism.i want over the top action,and D&D is designed for it. Good for you. It's not the only way to play the game, however...why don't you get that? strider
Kail 04-14-05, 09:58 AM	In the middle ages, towns clustered together about a mile apart, with farmers living inside the towns, and going out very early to work the fields surrounding the town. Villages and towns grew up around fortifications and sources of good water or farmland. Farming villages existed to help in shared labor and offer the skills of people like blacksmiths and millers to the rest of the community. They were spaced according to available resources, security and geographic confines. You will find a few small clusters where the travel time is about a half a day of walking time. Then you will see large, open spaces with very small gatherings of a few families, or nothing at all. Often centered in a hub of communities there will be a county seat type area where the local lord has his home/castle/hill fort. second, BAB should replaced with skill in indivdual weapons or groups of related weapons. so instead of BAB +15, have longsword 12, longbow 6, etc... Here is where your confusing general combat ability with weapon specific skill{weapon focus/specialization}. BAB is the broadly covered ability of those with fighting experience to handle the situation they are, a raw measure of their skill and experience. Fighters and other martially compitent characters are proficient in a large range of weapons because with the basic principals of fighting over very broad catigories, there is not that much skill deterioration. In your above example, how would you rate a character's skill with a bastard sword and a short bow? How about a scimitar and a mace? Once a fighter/paladin etc. has been taught the basics of weapon handling, they will be able to apply these leasons and quickly adapt standard tactics to whatever weapon comes to hand. Exotic weapons are far enough outside of the basic handling characteristics or employment meathods that they inflict a penalty to weild without training to become familiar. As a real world expamle, a well trained practioner of Kali/Escrima/Arnis can effectively use a very wide range of melee weapons, even those they have not specifically trained with. This is due to their higher BAB than someone without said training. They will display more of this skill while armed with the appropriate stick/club or knife as they have more specialized training with those weapons. So, BAB works quite well if you understand what it represents to the game. Broad, general combat ability=BAB, skill with a particular weapon=weapon focus/specialization.
Arquinsiel 04-14-05, 10:48 AM	As a statement in favour of the weapon profiency rules: I'm a fairly acomplished foil fencer. I've been doing it for a very long time. Then a few months back I picked up a sabre for the first time and four days later I beat an international fencer with it. It's pretty much the same thing as fencing foil, there's just a few different things to take into account when you're using an unfamiliar weapon. Could I use a longsword? Yep, I have done. How about a mace? Yep, done that too. Axe? Spear? Halberd? Yep, once I got the basic idea of how to protect my body from hits and keep my feet under me so as to keep me balanced I pretty much had this weapon thing down. Sure, there are people a hell of a lot better with these weapons than me out there but I spent my feat slots on weapon focus (foil) and weapon finesse so it's only to be expected.
striderII 04-14-05, 10:51 AM	As a statement in favour of the weapon profiency rules: I'm a fairly acomplished foil fencer. I've been doing it for a very long time. Then a few months back I picked up a sabre for the first time and four days later I beat an international fencer with it. It's pretty much the same thing as fencing foil, there's just a few different things to take into account when you're using an unfamiliar weapon. Could I use a longsword? Yep, I have done. How about a mace? Yep, done that too. Axe? Spear? Halberd? Yep, once I got the basic idea of how to protect my body from hits and keep my feet under me so as to keep me balanced I pretty much had this weapon thing down. Sure, there are people a hell of a lot better with these weapons than me out there but I spent my feat slots on weapon focus (foil) and weapon finesse so it's only to be expected. Just to play devil's advocate here, not really a cut on you, but: Do this - go out, get your hands on an authentic rapier, and attempt any of the techniques you've learned with the foil. Just please don't blame me when you break your wrist or otherwise hurt yourself/fail to properly defend yourself. While, yes, the basics cover most weapons, there are subtle differences in the way even similar weapons feel and function. strider
Arquinsiel 04-14-05, 11:07 AM	Yeah, I got whacked really badly the first few times but I picked up the idea after about an hour or so. The hardest thing to remember about it was you need to defend your sword hand a hell of a lot more that you would otherwise. EDIT: the most recent thing I've been mucking about with is the viking sword seen here: http://www.vikingsword.com/petersen/ptsn066c.html They're bloody heavy, even compared to longswords.
Vahenir 04-14-05, 11:28 AM	The System itself is not unrealistic, it's the DM's user created worlds that may or may not be realistic, depending on what kind of game the said DM wants to run. Actually, your point does not remain. The DMG has demographics already set up. The point is, they do not take into account the fact that D&D assumes that there are monsters practically everywhere and of many varying power levels. Are monsters, in and of themselves realistic? No. Does that mean that is 'perfectly fine and realistic' to not take their existance into consideration? No. Too many people balk at the word 'realistic' as if it's some divine curse we lay on D&D - to forever be so utterly fantastic that no amount of realistic thought can be applied to it. That's just patently false and I feel bad for people who can't see that D&D can and does benefit from a certain level of realism in particular instances.
The Shaman 04-14-05, 01:10 PM	Let me start by saying that generally speaking I agree with your basic premise. I am a little hung up on the details, however.The DMG has demographics already set up. The point is, they do not take into account the fact that D&D assumes that there are monsters practically everywhere and of many varying power levels. Are monsters, in and of themselves realistic? No. Does that mean that is 'perfectly fine and realistic' to not take their existance into consideration? No.I don't have my 3.5 DMG handy, but the 1e DMG has this to say on the subject:It is highly recommendedthat you develop an overall scheme for both population and habitation. This is not to say that a random mixture of monsters cannot be used, simply selecting whatever creatures are at hand from the tables of monsters shown by level of their relative challenge. The latter method does provide a rather fun type of campaign with a ”Disneyland” atmosphere, but long range play becomes difficult, for the whole lacks rhyme and reason, so it becomes difficult for the DM to extrapolate new scenarios from it, let alone build upon it.....In general the monster population will be in its habitat for a logical reason. The environment suits the creatures, and the whole is in balance....It is certainly more interesting and challenging for players when they find that monsters do not spring up like weeds overnight - in dungeons or elsewhere. Once all dragons in an area are slain, they have run out of dragons! The likelihood of one flying by becomes virtually nil. The "frontier" moves...The 3.5 DMG offers similar guidance to GMs, to consider ecological concepts such as what a monster eats, its hunting or grazing grounds, and so on, in placing monsters. I haven't encountered too many GMs over the age of about 14 who take EGG's "Disneyland" approach without first developing a fantastic reason for it: for example, a magic portal causes monsters to appear in a system of caves - the monsters immediately set out to find food, becoming a plague on the surrounding countryside that the adventurers stop. This is fantasy sidestepping the bounds of ecology to some degree - it's also a staple of fantastic adventure, which is what D&D is about. For myself, I'm an ecologist by profession, so I tend to consider r-v.-K selection, food webs, succession, and so on as a matter of course. However, I don't get into the caloric needs of dragons, as I would much rather say that a dragon spends much of its time in a state similar to hibernation then comes out to gorge itself when awakes - this makes for a better story and I don't have to worry about providing enough herd animals and forage to keep a massive predator like a dragon fed on a regular basis.Too many people balk at the word 'realistic' as if it's some divine curse we lay on D&D - to forever be so utterly fantastic that no amount of realistic thought can be applied to it. That's just patently false and I feel bad for people who can't see that D&D can and does benefit from a certain level of realism in particular instances.For my part, I do balk at the word 'realistic' for several reasons. First, what 'reality' are we talking about?In regard to population let me quote a few number from D&D campiagns, and medieval Europe England: 5 million people, 40 per sq mile France: 20 million, 120 per sq mile Aundair(from Ebberon): 2 million, 16 per square mile see the differenceAre those figures for medieval Europe from 700 AD? 900 AD? 1100 AD 1300 AD? The population density of Europe varied widely in that span as waves of barbarians plundered their way across the continent, systems of government rose and fell, famine and disease depopulated huge areas, and technology and culture changed and evolved leading to different ways of making a living and different settlement patterns. Taking a single snapshot in time without placing it in its context and assuming this must be true for all fantasy worlds isn't 'realistic' at all. It also assumes that the only 'reality' is that of western Europe. What about China? Africa? Mesoamerica? Central Asia? Taking one's snapshot from these cultures might provide a very different 'reality' as well. Second, I'm not a scholar of antiquities. I cannot hope to create an accurate simulation of life in an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in 1031 AD, let along model an entire campaign world, with anything more than a wink-and-a-nod to the vast literature of medieval economics and culture. Moreover, I don't want to. What I can do is strive to make a game-world that is internally consistent, that creates a believable illusion of reality that encourages my players' willing suspension of disbelief. In the homebrew setting I'm working on right now, I have a map that shows what sorts of goods and commodities are produced in different regions of the world - furs and ivory come from this stretch of coast, wood for shipbuilding is found on this penninsula, iron weapons are produced for export by this empire, emeralds come from this mountain range, and so on. I have caravan routes and sea lanes mapped, so that I know the routes by which these goods and commodities are moved. If at some point I want to put the adventurers on a ship or in a caravan, I have a general idea of what goods are likely to be in the hold or on the backs of the camels. I generally refer to this as "verisimiltude," not reality, the sense that the game-world is a living, vibrant place - it is a function of the believable illusion I try to create for my players. When I sit down to read one of Howard's Conan stories, or a chapter from LotR, I am absolutely caught up in the world in which the characters' live, whether or not the population density of Gondor or Aquilonia is close to that of Mercia or Burgundy or Wurttemburg. Howard and Tolkein weave such masterful illusions that my disbelief is suspended - this is the lofty goal for which I strive as a GM.
Vahenir 04-14-05, 01:25 PM	You say you balk at the world realistic, but from your descriptions I would actually consider your settings to BE realistic. When discussing realism in fantasy, one needs to remember that realism does not represent, necessarily, how the actual real world is set up. Instead, realism in fantasy refers to internal consistency and most importantly - Believability -. For the sake of argument, let's look at Forgotten Realms. In my eyes, it's the most 'fantasy' of all fantasy settings. In a lot of ways, it makes almost no sense - random monsters are just kind of thrown in whenever it seems appropriate, and if you ask me - Forgotten Realms really represent what a lot of campaigns are like (from what I've gathered from being a member of these boards). That is not to say there aren't people like you and I that strive for a type of consistency and believability to a setting - something that allows us a much easier suspension of disbelief. But when it comes down to it, a lot of DMs run the average Forgotten Realms-type of campaign (whether they use the setting or not). In Forgotten Realms, you consistently hear about heroes saving villages that have about 200 soldiers, and let's just say 1000 villagers (maybe half of whom could theoretically wield a weapon if pressed to do so). That same village is then mentioned in the story to be extremely close to the Trollmoors, or an Orc raiding tribe - or some other well-established, fairly long-standing bad-guy place. To me, it is not realistic to assume that a village with a low population would -not- die out within a few generations being so close to something that is obviously going to be attacking them on a fairly regular basis for no other reason than they're evil and that's what evil things do. In that vein, I don't find the DMG demographics realistic, in the sense that they don't take into account aspects like the "roving monsters." A single roving frost giant will lay waste to most of the communities the DMG presses for. And I think they could have made it a lot more realistic (or should we say - believable?) if they'd separated the demographics into peaceful and "in danger" demographics to represent what a typical village looks like that doesn't have too much to worry about - and what one looks like that is on constant vigil for the next Orc raid or roving Troll. I think this would be realistic because D&D does automatically assume a certain level of randomization and baddie behaviour. And it's unrealistic for WotC to assume that all DMs, or even most DMs, aren't combining the typical "roving band of monsters" with the standard Demographics the DMG presents. Surely this is probably more of a DM problem than a DMG problem. But even so, WotC could go a long way for helping DMs make their worlds more believable by a simple inclusion like I mentioned.
Sulaco 04-14-05, 02:35 PM	Man, I totally hate this argument. Just because there are *fantastic* elements in the game, doesn't mean reality automatically takes a back seat. Does your game world have gravity? Do the people need to breathe, and eat, and sleep? If so, you might want to watch out - there may be too much reality in your fantasy. Yeah, it's almost as ridiculous as employing obtuse hyperbole in place of a cohesive argument.
The Shaman 04-14-05, 03:40 PM	You say you balk at the word realistic, but from your descriptions I would actually consider your settings to BE realistic. When discussing realism in fantasy, one needs to remember that realism does not represent, necessarily, how the actual real world is set up. Instead, realism in fantasy refers to internal consistency and most importantly - Believability -.We seem to be at a semantic impasse. One of the reasons I shy away from the word ‘realistic’ is that so often it’s (mis)used by a player or GM who wants the game mechanics to be a simulation rather than the abstraction that EGG unequivocally intended them to be: “Hit points aren’t realistic.” “Weapon damage isn’t realistic.” “The number of attacks per round isn’t realistic.” Even stuff like, “Fireball damage isn’t realistic – it should blow things up!” I mean, really – fireball? For that reason I prefer to use the words verisimilitude or consistency or plausibility rather than realism or (even worse) logic. The whole game is an abstraction, but as long as it’s consistent there’s a better than average chance that it will be believable in the minds of the gamers.For the sake of argument, let's look at Forgotten Realms. In my eyes, it's the most 'fantasy' of all fantasy settings. In a lot of ways, it makes almost no sense - random monsters are just kind of thrown in whenever it seems appropriate, and if you ask me - Forgotten Realms really represent what a lot of campaigns are like (from what I've gathered from being a member of these boards). That is not to say there aren't people like you and I that strive for a type of consistency and believability to a setting - something that allows us a much easier suspension of disbelief... I’ve never played in the Realms or read the novels (that is, never drank the Kool-Aid), but I’ve read a couple of the setting books. The Realms are predicated on magic suffusing everything about the world, which has some definite consequences for the game. There is a third-party sourcebook called A Magical Society: Ecology and Culture that addresses this question of many monsters (and by this I’m excluding humanoids like orcs, goblinoids, and so on) living in close proximity to one another. The book offers the premise that the presence of magic flows through everything and provides essential sustenance to magical monsters: Magically dependent creatures use ambient magic in their food to fuel their supernatural abilities or to support a physical structure that is counter to the laws of physics. Without the presence of magic in their food, they would die; storm giants are a good example. The typical storm giant is either a hunter/gatherer or an agriculturalist. The staple of their diet is magic-heavy vegetation farmed from any number of wild highly magical fungi. With hunting, they supplement their diet with top-level predators, who have the most concentrated magic in their tissue. The magic they consume from these two sources supports their physically impossible size and frame while powering their supernatural abilities and spell-like abilities. Storm giants can live on low-magic foods like bread and cheese, but given enough time they develop physical problems from magic deficiency.It’s not a big leap to say that one reason that some monsters can live in close proximity to humans and other humanoid races is that the monsters don’t prey on them due to their low level of magical nourishment. Perhaps manticores live on the cliffs overlooking the village and prey on the displacer beasts in the valley, ignoring the humans (and in turn keeping the population of displacer beasts, which will prey on the villagers, in check). I believe these types of settings can work – I also think they work best if the GM actually takes the time to account for these things, rather than just handwaving them away, but that’s just me. My personal preference, and probably yours as well, Vahenir, is a setting in which the mundane is common and the magical is rare, what gamers tend to call “low magic.” I don’t know that a low magic setting (as used here) is automatically more believable or credible: it may be less of a stretch for the players to relate to the rhythms of a low magic world, but a good GM can have both a sense of wonder and a measure of verisimilitude in a high magic world like the Realms – it just takes more work. A lot more work if it’s to be done right, IMHO.In Forgotten Realms, you consistently hear about heroes saving villages that have about 200 soldiers, and let's just say 1000 villagers (maybe half of whom could theoretically wield a weapon if pressed to do so). That same village is then mentioned in the story to be extremely close to the Trollmoors, or an Orc raiding tribe - or some other well-established, fairly long-standing bad-guy place. To me, it is not realistic to assume that a village with a low population would -not- die out within a few generations being so close to something that is obviously going to be attacking them on a fairly regular basis for no other reason than they're evil and that's what evil things do.And so perhaps it will – just because something is in a setting at the time the game begins doesn’t mean it was always there or will be there in the future. Maybe the razing of the village by orcs or giant vermin or vermicious knids becomes a part of your campaign storyline. That fact that it’s there NOW doesn’t mean that it can’t change. The only published setting I’ve ever used was the old Wilderlands of High Fantasy. The setting included lists of villages stats: population, alignment, major products, leader, and so on. There was little or no ‘flavour’ text: that was up to the GM to supply. It was great fun as a GM to look at the village of Froghollow with its population of neutral good humans ruled by a lawful evil elf, and then devise the reasons why this came to pass, and what would happen in the future. For me, the status quo is fleeting. Coming back to your example of the village “extremely close” to an orc raiding tribe, here’s how I might play it: the reason the orcs haven’t laid waste to the village is that the chieftain in charge of the raiders is a half-orc who’s human mother lives in the village. As long as he remains leader of the tribe, the village is safe, apart from the occasional stolen horse or cow taken from an outlying farmstead. However, once that half-orc dies or otherwise loses control of the tribe...In that vein, I don't find the DMG demographics realistic, in the sense that they don't take into account aspects like the "roving monsters." A single roving frost giant will lay waste to most of the communities the DMG presses for.If one unthinkingly follows the RAW or fails to provide a plausible rationale, then yes, this can strain the limits of credulity. It does not have to be so, however.And I think they could have made it a lot more realistic (or should we say - believable?)...or credible, or plausible... ...if they'd separated the demographics into peaceful and "in danger" demographics to represent what a typical village looks like that doesn't have too much to worry about - and what one looks like that is on constant vigil for the next Orc raid or roving Troll. I think this would be realistic because D&D does automatically assume a certain level of randomization and baddie behaviour...Surely this is probably more of a DM problem than a DMG problem. But even so, WotC could go a long way for helping DMs make their worlds more believable by a simple inclusion like I mentioned.No argument from me here – I’m not a big fan of many of the design choices made by the publishers of the World’s Most Popular Roleplaying Game. I think an industry leader should do exactly that: LEAD. More guidance on how to personalize a campaign-setting would be a good thing, IMHO. That’s not to say there aren’t some useful resources out there to help with this, though. My personal favorite is A Magical Medieval Soceity: Western Europe, which I routinely plunder for ideas on demographics, subsistence, and so on. GMs interested in taking their games ‘to the next level’ should have this in easy reach, on their bookshelf or hard-drive, IMHO.
Mordring 04-14-05, 06:01 PM	I'll admit, for medieval demographic, villages line trade routes, and cluster around cities, with very large areas of wilderness off the main roads, where bandits( in our case monsters) would hang out. Maybe it has just been the people in my group, but we've played in worlds with pop. density to make the Sahara in 3000 B.C. look like Tokyo 2040 A.D. As for weapons, AC represents, among other things, your basic knowledge of how to defend yourself, not BAB. I do a lot of simulated combat (swordfighting) and knowing how to use a broadsword does not teach you how to use a battleaxe or whatever. In medieval times, a knight (a fighter for D&D) would spend much of his childhood, until he was knighted, learning to use two weapons: a lance, and probably a broadsword. Now hand him a battleaxe, or a rapier, or a scimitar, or a claymore. He would know how to not chop his foot off, but not much more. He wouldn't know how to use them in combat. He also wouldn't know much more than the basics of archery (+1 bonus, maybe). Your fighter, starting at age 20, lets say, would know how to use four weapons, if he trained from the time he could hold a wooden sword, nonstop, learning basically nothing else. Which a farmer's son would not. The weapons masters of Europe probably would Ftr 20, and proficient in near all weapons, but those people would 40-50, and have done nothing else beside train. And take an English commoner (com 1). He practiced with a longbow, all day, once every seven days,and could fire 10-20 arrows a minute accuratly(that rules out rapid shot). So 10 rounds in a minute, 6 seconds in a round gives you and arrow every 3 seconds (attack bonus +6/+1, at least). As for the guy who is good with guns, a gun is a lot more cross appliacable with similar guns, than a longbow and a shortbow, no offense. Alot of archers would be badly thrown off, if not using their own bow. And our English commoner, with attack bonus +6 for longbow, would be lucky to have touched a sword (a decent broadsword would be a years wages). And a longbow closer than 200 yards would penetrate full plate every time, and an english archer was good enough to hit a moving target in the head or chest, near every time. So our level 5 fighter loses to a level 1 commoner. The combat system all but disregards the reach of a weapon. A normal spear)not a longspear, or pike would 6-8 feet long. A broadsword would be 3 ft long. A short sword 1 1/2 to 2 feet. In my swordfighting, we use realistically weighted and sized weapons,and if your opponent outreaches you, you are almost certain to lose unless you are alot better than your opponent, and even then, it will be very difficult. One of our warriors I will always beat in swordfights, but him against our three best swordsmen, swordsmen lose. he uses a glaive (spear w/ a sword blade)
Vahenir 04-14-05, 06:52 PM	One of the reasons I shy away from the word ‘realistic’ is that so often it’s (mis)used by a player or GM who wants the game mechanics to be a simulation rather than the abstraction that EGG unequivocally intended them to be: “Hit points aren’t realistic.” “Weapon damage isn’t realistic.” “The number of attacks per round isn’t realistic.” Even stuff like, “Fireball damage isn’t realistic – it should blow things up!” I mean, really – fireball? I'm with you here. You're right, it was just semantics. My use of a word you prefer not to use for the same thing I use it for.. .(wow..) caused a little tension, that's all. Because I agree with you here. I keep hit points, combat stays fairly abstract, with only minor changes, etc. I've never heard the "Fireball isn't realistic" debate but... it sounds pretty hilarious. I'm not of the ilk that believe D&D's rules should be a simulation. If I wanted -real- gritty realism, I'd toss on my body protection and go wack swords around with my fellow reenactors. verisimilitude That's a better term for it. But I'll be damned if I can remember it when I need to. I believe these types of settings can work – I also think they work best if the GM actually takes the time to account for these things, rather than just handwaving them away, but that’s just me. My personal preference, and probably yours as well, Vahenir, is a setting in which the mundane is common and the magical is rare, what gamers tend to call “low magic.” I'm definitely a fan of high fantasy - low magic. Most of the settings I willingly run or play in fall into that category, actually. And so perhaps it will – just because something is in a setting at the time the game begins doesn’t mean it was always there or will be there in the future. Maybe the razing of the village by orcs or giant vermin or vermicious knids becomes a part of your campaign storyline. That fact that it’s there NOW doesn’t mean that it can’t change. That's absolutely right. And just to say - I agree with your other examples (such as the half-orc tribal leader). But a lot of settings don't go to the trouble of creating that sense of believability. For example - in my Forgotten Realms example... it's common to see "both the Orc tribe and the village have been where they are for 400 years." And then you'll never here any other information to explain how the two co-existed without one wiping the other out, especially when FR tends to be a very "bad guys versus good guys, very little exceptions" kind of setting. No argument from me here – I’m not a big fan of many of the design choices made by the publishers of the World’s Most Popular Roleplaying Game. I think an industry leader should do exactly that: LEAD. More guidance on how to personalize a campaign-setting would be a good thing, IMHO. Agreed. My personal favorite is A Magical Medieval Soceity: Western Europe, I have this book as well. I actually have a -lot- of Third Party products. I feel that they tend to be more useful in the long run. More ideas, more advice, more tidbits I actually need. This isn't a slight against WotC, but I really don't need 30 more PrCs, 20 new Exotic Weapons, 142 new Spells, and a new Race of Base Class with every single book. I have so something like 20 Third Party books, and about 70 Third Party PDFs. Great stuff. ----------------------------- In medieval times, a knight (a fighter for D&D) would spend much of his childhood, until he was knighted, learning to use two weapons: a lance, and probably a broadsword. Now hand him a battleaxe, or a rapier, or a scimitar, or a claymore. That's actually not even close to accurate. Firstly, there's no such thing as a broadsword. The weapon you're trying to describe is an arming sword (a one-hand sword, what D&D calls a longsword). Secondly, Knights were often trained in a great variety of weapons. Depending on the era they lived in, they'd specialize in the arming sword, longsword (bastard sword), battle-axe, flail, and spear (+lances). With this definitive knowledge of most different forms of weapons, a Knight could use basically any weapon of his era and general culture that you put into his hand. An English Knight, for example, would be able to skillfully wield pretty much any hand-held weapon common to England during his life. He also wouldn't know much more than the basics of archery (+1 bonus, maybe). Actually, in many European places, bows were considered "beneath" the nobility. As such, most Knights probably wouldn't even know how to string a bow, let alone use one. The weapons masters of Europe probably would Ftr 20, and proficient in near all weapons, but those people would 40-50, and have done nothing else beside train. And I don't think you quite understand Weapon Proficiency. Proficiency (the word) means competence. Weapon Proficiency simply means you understand the basics of the use of a particular weapon. Basically - you know it well enough not to hurt yourself with it. Almost anyone trained with a small variety of weapons will be proficient in many more. He may not be exceptional with them, but that's represented by other feats like Weapon Focus. Proficiency just represents general knowledge - knowing enough about a weapon so that you can use it, and are not a danger to yourself with it. One of our warriors I will always beat in swordfights, but him against our three best swordsmen, swordsmen lose. he uses a glaive (spear w/ a sword blade) D&D doesn't represent this because D&D is not a combat simulation game - it's a heroic fantasy game. Getting bogged down too much will slow down play and make it -less- fun for most people. I've been studying and practicing martial skills for over 10 years, and even -I- would get bored with all the calculations necessary for D&D combat to play as if it were real. Further, what you described in the portion I quoted up there tells me that you fool around with people who don't know what they're doing. No offense intended. As primarily a swordsman myself, I can safely say that I would tear apart someone waving around a glaive at me unless you was a fair deal MORE skilled than me. And one more time - no such thing as a broadsword.
Mordring 04-14-05, 08:24 PM	I'll defer to 10 years of experience. But 10 years of experience has taught you alot more tricks than I've learned in 10 months. I think what we have is a differing idea of what competent means. To me competent means more than just knowing how to not injure yourself. It means know proper stance for that weapon, some of the basic techniques and manuevers, etc... In my eyes, truly focusing on a weapon is worth alot more than +1 or +2. A broadsword is a german weapon that is 3ft long. It is also(in my experience) used as a generic term for a medium sized slashing sword. A german longsword is what D&D calls a bastard sword. It was also frequently called a hand and a half sword. It makes sense that a warrior would be able to wield similar weapons with less skill, but able to do it. Vahenir, your combat simulations: how large are your battles? The method of fighting for one on one get more different to more people involved. You could be able to beat anyone in the world one on one, but in a melee, someone could run up behind you and stab you in the back. The largest I've been in was 20 or so people. People tend to end up in crude formations, whether they want to or not, once the intial charge is over and the people who got cut off behind the enemy's line are mopped up. Only people with a death wish or really good armor charge these lines. Usually the defender will have a spear wall, or a pike wall which is even more deadly. The complete fighter makes provision for some of these, but not all. Quote:Actually, in many European places, bows were considered "beneath" the nobility. As such, most Knights probably wouldn't even know how to string a bow, let alone use one. A knight would know (barely) how to shoot a bow. Nobles got kicks out of hunting, and falcon v deer= deer still alive. The knight doesn't need to know how to string a bow, or aim it. He'd have a servant to actually kill game for him (Yes actually shooting would be beneath him.) I don't know a whole lot about medieval hunting, but falconing wasn't the only method of hunting, and spears were usually used for boar hunting. So I take back the +1, but he could get the arrow off the string. Suspension of disbelief: I can do this more easily if the world makes sense. A frontier town will be significantly bigger than a town 2 miles from the capital. Also, frontier towns will have a much higher percentage of skill fighters. If a town is supposed to hire adventurerers, then why are they always so poor? (maybe from hiring adventurers) Hit points: People say these simulated the effort to get out of the way and such, turn wounds into grazes. Some things would be awful hard to dodge or turn into a graze, like an arrow, fired from a longbow, from 6 feet away.
The Shaman 04-14-05, 11:52 PM	I can do this more easily if the world makes sense. A frontier town will be significantly bigger than a town 2 miles from the capital.I don't understand - could you give an example of this?Hit points: People say these simulated the effort to get out of the way and such, turn wounds into grazes. Some things would be awful hard to dodge or turn into a graze, like an arrow, fired from a longbow, from 6 feet away.This is a common problem among D&D players. Hit points do not intrinsically reflect physical damage - this is stated in every edition of the rule books that I've read back to 1e AD&D. As someone who GMs a lot of d20 Modern, it's necessary for me to account for "damage" from bullets on a regular basis - the way I rule on it a bullet may cause a clean hit (lots of damage), a graze (some damage), or a near-miss (a little damage). In the latter case, a bullet may strike a piece of the character's equipment such as a cartridge pouch or a rucksack, or it may cause some sort of secondary damage, such as kicking up sand in a character's eyes. It could be stopped by a ballistic vest or deflected by a helmet. It could cause a window to shatter that forces the player to duck for a moment. The point is, in D&D and related d20 games hit points are damage reduction, not the physical ability to take damage. Until or unless you can accept and be comfortable with that level of abstraction, you will not enjoy playing D&D. Now you could try to houserule something different - I did, when I was young and naive and thought that stuff like hit locations and damage to arms or legs was important. Or you could change systems and try something along the lines of GURPS. My personal feeling is that the abstractions in D&D do a good enough job so that we in our gaming group can play the kinds of fast-paced heroic fantasy that we enjoy.
striderII 04-15-05, 09:09 AM	Yeah, it's almost as ridiculous as employing obtuse hyperbole in place of a cohesive argument. Congratulations, you caught on. That's *exactly* why I used it - to demonstrate the sheer ridiculousness of it by showing it's inverse. However, 100 points to you for correctly using "obtuse hyperbole" in a sentence, and an additional 50 for spelling it right. strider
Alcari Ambaron 04-15-05, 10:19 AM	on the fact of weapon proficiency and BAB. It not totally realistic, but i believe that, if you use seperate bab's for seperate weapons makes the game far to annoying. A fighter that's onlt proficient with a sword, bt not with a spear, cant never deal any good piercing damage. Same with bludgeoning. it would be realistic to have sepearte bab's. I consider myself pretty skilled with a longbow, but i cant hit the broad side of a barn with a sling, even though its a simple weapon.... Some town locations may not make sense, but that's the same with towns and cities in real life. The are some coastal towns in third world countries that are so close to the sea, they flood every year. killing dozensof people. IMHO, after 5 floodings in a row, people would catch on and move, but they dont. Why not? they NEED that same sea that destroys their houses to feed them, if you live from fishing you cant live 50 miles inland. Same in D&D, if you've got your farm set up where it is now, you wouln't like to move. and what's the point in moving if there are goblin/orc/whatever raids everywhere in the whole world? i agree that it doesn't make sense to live next to a dragon's lair, but if there's an orc settlement nearby, it would not pose a problem to a town that would have some form of defense, even it were only a 6ft high pallisade. The point of defending such a town is not making it an impregnable fortress that could withstand any orc attack. the inhabitants would only need to make it look like an attack would cost the orcs more then it would gain them. also, population is rather thin spread, but this doesn't mean there actually are 16 people on EVERY square mile. in any normal world people would live in communities and travel to their farmland, NOT live in a house outside the townwalls (would be crazy sinse a commoner would be killed by a single goblin) Quote: Originally Posted by Mordring I can do this more easily if the world makes sense. A frontier town will be significantly bigger than a town 2 miles from the capital. I don't understand - could you give an example of this? simple, a town close to the capital would be a farming community. whereas a town near the unexplores frontier would have a large wall for defense, have many laborers, house blacksmiths/masons/carpenters etc...it would need to support the local infrasturcture (or the contruction of it) The method of fighting for one on one get more different to more people involved. You could be able to beat anyone in the world one on one, but in a melee, someone could run up behind you and stab you in the back. (...) Only people with a death wish or really good armor charge these lines. Usually the defender will have a spear wall, or a pike wall which is even more deadly. most battles are not won by individual skill, and a big difference with fencing is that, in a battle, people don't take turns with attacking. the best swordsman in the world could get stabbed by a half-blind crippled moron who never held a sword in his life. in D&D however a single high-level fighter could take out a whole army of conscript beacuse they would never land a blow on them. Imagine yourself fighting (with a sword) 20 or so 8-year olds (with swords)........ok, evil ill-tempered 8-year olds bund on killing you. you would have vastly more skill(BAB) then them, but they'd still win by sheer numbers. my final point here is that, in many aspects D&D is not like the real world, it would not make sense in the real world. However it SHOULD make sense in it's own world. a little help for those who are not a skilled in the English as some: verisimilitude \ver-uh-suh-MIL-uh-tood; -tyood\, noun: 1. The appearance of truth; the quality of seeming to be true. 2. Something that has the appearance of being true or real. In an attempt to create verisimilitude, in addition to the usual vulgarities, the dialogue is full of street slang. --Wilborn Hampton, "'Sugar Down Billie Hoak': An Unexpected Spot to Find a Father,"
The Shaman 04-15-05, 10:40 AM	Imagine yourself fighting (with a sword) 20 or so 8-year olds (with swords)........ok, evil ill-tempered 8-year olds bent on killing you.PLOT HOOK! *yoink!* ;)
Clawhound 04-15-05, 11:17 AM	One does not have realism or fantasy, but degrees of realism and fantasy. Dragons are unrealistic, but we love them anyway. Flying, invisible wizards are unrealistic. Towns beseiged by terrible foes are unrealistic. But they are real enough the propel the adventure, and the adventure is what really matters.
Vahenir 04-15-05, 11:26 AM	To me competent means more than just knowing how to not injure yourself. It means know proper stance for that weapon, some of the basic techniques and manuevers, etc... The very word competence means have 'adequate' ability. I'm sure you know what the word adequate means. And in my experience, you do not need to know any real level of 'stances' or 'techniques' to be adequate with a weapon. You simply need to know its function well enough not to risk danger to yourself with it, and well enough that if someone of similar skill attacks you, you'd have a chance at actually hitting them without getting yourself killed. And the word "proficient" means "competence." So there you go. A broadsword is a german weapon that is 3ft long. Absolutely incorrect. The term broadsword is a term that came into existance during the 'Age of Enlightenment.' The most common weapons of the time were lower-end firearms and smaller-end swords. Rapiers, smallswords, etc. These swords, obviously, were quite thin. Due to this, earlier-period swords that were still used for wartimes (or kept as antiques) were referred to as "broad" swords - which was referring to the fact that their blades were broader than the swords in common use during that time. So you see, the term broadsword is a misnomer. It, theoretically, doesn't exist, as it doesn't actually refer to any weapon so much as EVERY sword wider in the blade than a rapier or smallsword. I don't know where on earth you heard that a broadsword is a German sword. I've never even heard such a thing. It sounds like someone was just trying to impress you by making something up. There are only two interpretations of the term broadsword - and only one of them is correct. (The other interpretation is another common misnomer - some people who haven't studied up believe that broadsword refers to a basket-hilted arming sword, which it does not). As for the other terms: A shortsword would have been called either a short sword or an arming sword. A D&D longsword would have been called an arming sword or war sword. A D&D bastard sword would have been called a long-sword, war sword, or hand-and-a-half sword. A D&D greatsword would have been called a long-sword or a great sword (depending on the actual size of the two-hander). As you can see, Medieval terminology overlapped. The most common term actually would have been just "sword." Many people wouldn't have even differentiated between the types. But yes... the term broadsword does not apply to any particular weapon. Hence, 'broadswords' don't exist as a class unto themselves.
Lina_Inverse 04-15-05, 01:16 PM	Fighters cannot survive a nuclear blast, regardless of their level. Why? Because there are no such things as nuclear detonations anywhere within the scope of the game system at all. I'm not sure why I even have to explain this to you. You like a certain type of game, and that's your right - play however you wish. I, for one, find your style incredibly distasteful, and your sanctimonious tone horrible. Please discontinue posting until you can realize there are ways to play this game that involve levels under 18 and actually *not* rolling dice. i would like an aplogy,that is clear flamebait. i certinly have not insulted you.and you state i should stop posting?
Vahenir 04-15-05, 01:54 PM	i certinly have not insulted you.and you state i should stop posting? Actually, coming off as if your way of playing is the only way (or the superior way) is extremely insulting. Not to mention, as was said, sactimonious. Not to attack you Lina, but I've noticed that attitude in quite a few of your posts. And to be honest, I agree with Strider. You should stop and realize that your way is not superior and that your opinions do not override anyone else's - and that's an attitude that comes off very strongly in your posts, regardless of whether or not you realize it. i would like an aplogy,that is clear flamebait. Oh please. He was stating his opinion on your behaviour and the attitude that comes off in your posts. That's not flame-bait, and I strongly doubt you're going to get an apology from someone voicing their concerns about how you act.
Kevtar 04-15-05, 02:09 PM	Not all Math is non-absolute. There are Mathematical laws that govern numbers, equations, and the like. As Vader once said, "Search your feelings, you know it to be true..."
Dan Hemmens 04-15-05, 02:15 PM	It's not the magic I have an issue. It is stuff like: Village(500) nearest human settlement is roughly 80 miles away. Somehow survives with 25 warriors against the bi-weekly orc raids and semi annual dragon attack. and so on. The problem here is that you are trying to turn a heroic fantasy into a consistent world. Or rather, the problem is that the D&D designers and developers tried to turn a heroic fantasy into a consistent world. More specifically, they tried to turn a heroic fantasy into a consistent world, when what they shoud have done is create a consistent world and put a heroic fantasy in it. Now I'm certainly not saying that fantasy shouldn't be "realistic" (whatever you choose that to mean), that's just an argument people use to avoid thinking about things. What I am saying, is that you need to draw the distinction between a world where things happen, and a world where things happen all the time. For example. Your village, with its 25 warriors, does not suffer from biweekly Orc raids and an annual Dragon attack, because if it did it would be wiped out horribly. Rather it has infrequent Orc raids, and only during the winter, when the Orcs are driven out of their own lands by hunger or malice. Of course, that's a really boring village to actually have an adventure in. So you have two options. You either: Do what D&D so often seems to have done, and introduce biweekly Orc raids, and an annual dragon attack, in order to give PCs something to do. Alternatively you do what you should be doing, which is to say that the small and infrequent Orc raids have grown mysteriously strong, very recently, and make the PCs the only hope of defeating them, and finding out what is causing the problem. That's heroic fantasy. Unfortunately, D&D has instead degenerated into this strange festival atmosphere, where hordes of adventurers and hordes of monsters line up to fight one another all over an alledgedly working gameworld. This makes no sense. As for hit points. Look, it's all very simple: Hit points do not represent actual physical damage. They represent your ability to turn a potentially grevious injury into a less serious one, as a result of your experience and general heroism. Fighters, having better combat training, therefore get more hit points. Their intense combat training makes them better placed to survive sword cuts, animal bites, magical discharges, long falls, and drowning.
striderII 04-15-05, 04:23 PM	i would like an aplogy,that is clear flamebait. i certinly have not insulted you.and you state i should stop posting? Well....I'm not entirely sure what an "aplogy" is...could you perhaps define it? However, looking at Dictionary.com...they suggest that perhaps I'm looking for "apology". If that's what *you're* looking for, you're not going to find it from me. Perhaps you could stop telling other people how bad they "suck" or how they're "playing the game wrong", and maybe I'll not rip into you (note, I still won't apologize for what I've said so far). What I find entirely amusing is that you've responded to this comment, but left my total rant on you on the "How not to be useless in a dungeon?" thread on the What's a Player To Do? board alone. Why is that? Vahenir, Thanks for getting my back, bro. :) strider
Vahenir 04-15-05, 04:28 PM	What are friends for.
striderII 04-15-05, 04:42 PM	What are friends for. Snoogans. Where are you on AIM, anyway? I'm only going to be on for another half an hour or so...it's hilarious fun to chat with you, and make fun of the plebians. :) strider
Vahenir 04-15-05, 05:40 PM	Where are you on AIM, anyway? I'm only going to be on for another half an hour or so...it's hilarious fun to chat with you, and make fun of the plebians. I regularly forget to turn it on. My apologies. Will have to catch you next time.
striderII 04-15-05, 09:08 PM	I regularly forget to turn it on. My apologies. Will have to catch you next time. How can we make fun of plebians if you don't turn on your AIM? Wow, I just so had a Pink Floyd moment there.... "how can you have any pudding if you can't eat your meat?" I need sleep - and it's only a bit after nine. *sigh* strider
Lina_Inverse 04-15-05, 09:44 PM	Actually, coming off as if your way of playing is the only way (or the superior way) is extremely insulting. Not to mention, as was said, sactimonious. Not to attack you Lina, but I've noticed that attitude in quite a few of your posts. And to be honest, I agree with Strider. You should stop and realize that your way is not superior and that your opinions do not override anyone else's - and that's an attitude that comes off very strongly in your posts, regardless of whether or not you realize it. considering a good chunk of the boards acts the way that only "roleplaying" is the only right and proper way and is near insulting to anyone who doesnt thing that way.being defensive is natural. want me to aplogize for being defensive? fine,im sorry im a bit rude on the subject,but i have to defend peoples right to wargame and powergame.includeing my own. someone on this board has to.
Mordring 04-15-05, 10:15 PM	As for hit points. Look, it's all very simple: Hit points do not represent actual physical damage. They represent your ability to turn a potentially grevious injury into a less serious one, as a result of your experience and general heroism. Fighters, having better combat training, therefore get more hit points. Their intense combat training makes them better placed to survive sword cuts, animal bites, magical discharges, long falls, and drowning. The way our damage system works is similar but uses different mechanics to simulate the relative undodgeability of certain attacks, and takes more time. You get a set of hit points at 1st level, and dodge points like you would normally get hit points but you can't always use them. When ever you are hit, you make a dex check against a DC based off of how caffeine the GM has had. base 12 for melee, and base 18 for ranged. Add +1 to melee DC for every point of Str bonus. Multiply the difference between your result and the DC by ten to get the number of dodge points you get to use of that attack. So if you roll 16 against 12, you can use 40 dodge points. If the damage exceeds the dodge point limit for that attack, it goes it hp. So, with my point blank longbow example, that would be DC 24, making that very difficult to dodge, but say from 200 yards a whole lot easier. Lots of other modifiers also involved. I expect the following responses: "Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard!" "Thats way too complicated!" "Weird realism nut" "Thats not realistic" and more degrading and insulting responses
The Shaman 04-15-05, 10:32 PM	I expect the following responses: "Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard!" "Thats way too complicated!" "Weird realism nut" "Thats not realistic" and more degrading and insulting responsesNone of the above - sorry to disappoint you. I just have a question: How does this enhance your experience of playing the game?
Mordring 04-15-05, 10:36 PM	None of the above - sorry to disappoint you. I just have a question: How does this enhance your experience of playing the game? Now I'm horribly depressed. To answer you question, its because I like stuff to be as realistic as possible, and due to some genetic mutation, I have more difficulty having fun, the less realistic I think something is. So if I'm totally ignorant of how something works, I'm good. But I'm not. :(
Mordring 04-15-05, 10:41 PM	considering a good chunk of the boards acts the way that only "roleplaying" is the only right and proper way and is near insulting to anyone who doesnt thing that way.being defensive is natural. want me to aplogize for being defensive? fine,im sorry im a bit rude on the subject,but i have to defend peoples right to wargame and powergame.includeing my own. someone on this board has to. You people, carry on you feud somewhere else please. And Lina, it isn't very hard to be polite.
striderII 04-15-05, 10:48 PM	considering a good chunk of the boards acts the way that only "roleplaying" is the only right and proper way and is near insulting to anyone who doesnt thing that way.being defensive is natural. want me to aplogize for being defensive? fine,im sorry im a bit rude on the subject,but i have to defend peoples right to wargame and powergame.includeing my own. someone on this board has to. Let's address a few salient points here. 1. No, I don't want you to apologize. I really don't care...I'd rather just either ignore you, or happily curtail your excesses....systematically dismantling your paper-thin arguments is good warm up. :) 2. Be rude all you want...it actually doesn't bother me. As far as I'm concerned, "welcome to the Internet", y'know? 3. You have a right to play the game however you wish. I've even told you (in the very post you quoted, no less) to do so. My issue is when anyone says "this is the only one and true way to play", or strongly implies it, which you do in almost *every* post you put up. Add to that I've recently (although not the first time), saw your "help" to someone be, essentially, "you have a crappy character - you suck". Your general feel from every single post of yours I read does not convey any degree of usefulness at all. That, in my opinion, is not needed at all on these boards (or, any boards for that matter). So be upset. Be righteously indignant. Demand all the apologies you want, but as long as you continue in your arrogant, sanctimonious ways, you will get no apologies from me. strider (ps. Lina - check the above post. See how much cleaner things look when you aren't too lazy to have proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation?)
WizO_Cat 04-15-05, 10:59 PM	Kittens and puppies ... kittens and puppies ... * Points at avatar *
Mordring 04-15-05, 11:05 PM	Absolutely incorrect. The term broadsword is a term that came into existance during the 'Age of Enlightenment.' The most common weapons of the time were lower-end firearms and smaller-end swords. Rapiers, smallswords, etc. These swords, obviously, were quite thin. Due to this, earlier-period swords that were still used for wartimes (or kept as antiques) were referred to as "broad" swords - which was referring to the fact that their blades were broader than the swords in common use during that time. So you see, the term broadsword is a misnomer. It, theoretically, doesn't exist, as it doesn't actually refer to any weapon so much as EVERY sword wider in the blade than a rapier or smallsword. I don't know where on earth you heard that a broadsword is a German sword. I've never even heard such a thing. It sounds like someone was just trying to impress you by making something up. There are only two interpretations of the term broadsword - and only one of them is correct. (The other interpretation is another common misnomer - some people who haven't studied up believe that broadsword refers to a basket-hilted arming sword, which it does not). As for the other terms: A shortsword would have been called either a short sword or an arming sword. A D&D longsword would have been called an arming sword or war sword. A D&D bastard sword would have been called a long-sword, war sword, or hand-and-a-half sword. A D&D greatsword would have been called a long-sword or a great sword (depending on the actual size of the two-hander). As you can see, Medieval terminology overlapped. The most common term actually would have been just "sword." Many people wouldn't have even differentiated between the types. But yes... the term broadsword does not apply to any particular weapon. Hence, 'broadswords' don't exist as a class unto themselves. Armed with irritation and new knowledge (and old stuff I was too lazy to mention earlier), I return. I heard broadsword as a name for a sword that was three feet long, from a medieval history specialist, who has been doing re-enactments for over a decade. he had no reason to try to impress me. You say yourself medieval terminology overlapped. An arming sword was just a sword belted at the waist. Is it conceivable that maybe you are wrong, or that broadsword is another name for an arming sword that you have never heard?
Vahenir 04-16-05, 12:09 AM	Armed with irritation and new knowledge (and old stuff I was too lazy to mention earlier), I return. Well, put away the irritation. You were given bad information, and that's not my fault. I heard broadsword as a name for a sword that was three feet long, from a medieval history specialist, who has been doing re-enactments for over a decade. he had no reason to try to impress me. You say yourself medieval terminology overlapped. An arming sword was just a sword belted at the waist. Is it conceivable that maybe you are wrong, or that broadsword is another name for an arming sword that you have never heard? No, it's not conceivable. And as a matter of fact, it's patently false. The term was not used to describe any type of weapon in the Medieval era. To be perfectly blunt, your "medieval history specialist" should spend less time re-enacting, and more time studying. I refer you here: http://www.thearma.org/essays/broadsword.htm So unless you think your buddy there knows more about weapon terminology than the society devoted to the study of swords, their history, and their use - then it's time to put away the term broadsword once and for all. Enjoy the article. Edit: Looking over my post.. that last "Enjoy the article" comment may seem like it was a sarcastic jibe at you. I just want to be clear that it wasn't, it was sincere.
The Shaman 04-16-05, 01:52 AM	To answer you question, its because I like stuff to be as realistic as possible, and due to some genetic mutation, I have more difficulty having fun, the less realistic I think something is. So if I'm totally ignorant of how something works, I'm good. But I'm not. :(Please don't take this as dismissive or disparaging: you should consider a different game system. D&D and most d20 games are not meant to be simulations. Abstractions are the name of the game, and if you're not comfortable with that, you end up kluging some sort of (usually Byzantine) house rule system because the game simply won't take you to where you want to be. For myself, I have an easier time with my suspension of disbelief, even on mechanics that relate to real-world phenomena that I know well, so I like the system for its speed of play - my imagination fills in the blanks just fine. There is a new edition of GURPS out - you really should take a look at it, as you might find it meets your needs in ways that d20 games can't. Good luck to you! :)
Dan Hemmens 04-16-05, 05:46 AM	I expect the following responses: "Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard!" "Thats way too complicated!" "Weird realism nut" "Thats not realistic" and more degrading and insulting responses Actually, I can kind of see what you're going for, although I do have a couple of questions: Firstly, how much "realism" are you actually after? I assume you're still playing Heroic Fantasy, otherwise you wouldn't want to have HP (or rather, DP) at *all*. This being the case, however, what do you do about AC. If HP now represent dodging, then do you still get a Dex bonus to AC? What about Damage Reduction? For that matter, how do your Dodge Points work with Divine healing? Ultimately, though, I have to side with Shaman, it sounds like you want something different, and if you're going to be rewriting the system this much, you may as well just try a different game, or write your own from the ground up (it isn't as hard as you'd think).
Mordring 04-16-05, 03:07 PM	Please don't take this as dismissive or disparaging: you should consider a different game system. I do. I play Shadowrun far more often, and while it is far more complicated, I think it is more realistic(I don't like the class system in general, or the randomized character generation) And Vahenir, after further investigation,I concede, though I really think you could be nicer to the History professor I learned this from.