Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Illithid_Tentacles 02-23-07, 06:47 PM	Why are you concerned with realism in a game that allows anyone with a 13 INT or CHA and enough training to create massive gouts of fire with nothing more than a handful of bat turds and some gobbledeygook? I'm not trolling or mocking anyone, I'm just genuinely curious about the thought process that is willing to accept the above as acceptable and routine, but has a problem with the verisimilitude of, say, attacks of oppurtunity.
Sylvaroth 02-23-07, 06:58 PM	Most attempts to add a degree of realism to D&D is for things that have a counterpart in real life (like sword duels, etc.). I have never seen somebody who tried to add more realism to the casting of fireball.
bartleby42 02-23-07, 07:24 PM	The reason that spells aren't discounted due to lack of realism is the fact that you are "running with the premise". A good example of this is the matrix. I do not have a problem with Neo flying around and stopping bullets, that is the premise, but I do have a problem with the fact that Neo flys into Trinity at incredible velocities and there is no ill effect. If a bullet is fatal why wouldn't something larger and faster than a bullet be fatal? The "unrealistic" part of flying around and all of that jazz I don't see as a problem, but the incorrect appilication of the already defined rules bothers me, it distracts from verisimilitude.
Sylvaroth 02-23-07, 07:39 PM	I do not have a problem with Neo flying around and stopping bullets, that is the premise, but I do have a problem with the fact that Neo flys into Trinity at incredible velocities and there is no ill effect. If a bullet is fatal why wouldn't something larger and faster than a bullet be fatal? The "unrealistic" part of flying around and all of that jazz I don't see as a problem, but the incorrect appilication of the already defined rules bothers me, it distracts from verisimilitude. Well, it's for the same reason that falling from the roof of the Empire State makes you go *SQUISH!*, while falling the same distance and ending up in Superman's arms lets you just feel save and warm ;)
DreadArchon 02-23-07, 09:07 PM	Most attempts to add a degree of realism to D&D is for things that have a counterpart in real life (like sword duels, etc.). I have never seen somebody who tried to add more realism to the casting of fireball. What? People do all the time. "You can't aim a fireball accurately enough to explode it without accidentally hitting allies!" is a two-threads-per-week topic. :confused:
Sylvaroth 02-23-07, 09:16 PM	What? People do all the time. "You can't aim a fireball accurately enough to explode it without accidentally hitting allies!" is a two-threads-per-week topic. :confused: Well that's a matter of RAW not realism, isn't it?
claypigeons 02-24-07, 01:11 AM	I always assumed that realism, for the bulk of the rules, is left at the door. Of course, this could just be a flawed idea of what the term "game" means... Then again, it could just be people trying to tell other people how to play their game. When your character can get hit the face (figuratively) with an axe and keep on fighting, you really don't have any basis for arguing realism. If you want realism, don't play a game. If you want to add realism to an existing game, then you have to do away with all the things that are not physically possible. Sure, we can use your new, "more realistic" combat system, and we can even toss in your "updated" weapons... But you can sure as hell bet we are taking away your magic, talking sword and your fancy spell casting ability... Honestly, you have to sacrifice realism for fun. Not completely, familiar elements...like breathing and gravity should remain... but, for the most part, fun should override the need for a completely realistic game.
Sylvaroth 02-24-07, 03:50 AM	Since D&D started out as a simulation of real life battles, I see no issues there. Of course it is a game, and of course flying lizards of the size of a barn or pointy eared spell flingers are not reality, but nobody really disputes that. Still one can try to add some real life elements and put it into D&D terms within the limits the rules impose. As an example, chess is a simplified simulation of a battle. All pieces have moves that represent how their real life counterparts could act, however this is restricted by the rules and possibilities of the board. That's what people try to do, when they say they want to have more realism in a certain element of D&D. You cannot 'get hit the face (figuratively) with an axe and keep on fighting' in this game, because the rules of combat clearly state that a single round worth of a character's actions represents a period of about 6 seconds in real life time, within which the character does much more than 'I punch you in the face and then I step back.' Called shots however are an example of attempts that have been made to add more realism (and complexity) to the way combat is simulated in D&D. A total lack of what one could call pseudo-verisimilitude would IMO result in the loss of connection with the topic. Why shouldn't we try to understand and explain why things are the way they are or could be in D&D as compared to the reality we know and live in? It is simply an attempt to get a grasp at the highly simplified ways of the game to think about variations of the rules. If it is fun for you, go ahead, D&D is all about enjoying yourself, if it is not, just don't do it, but every once in a while a DM or player runs into a situation when he is thinking 'that doesn't really fit, could I do it in a different way?' That's when you start to build a concept around the framework of the rules to suit your needs. That is why there are so very many supplements out there, and in the end this is why we are coming to these boards.
The_Levitator 02-24-07, 04:30 AM	I know it's easy to lump large groups of people into single categories, but it's sometimes not fair. I use a ton of variants in my game but I don't add them for "more realism". First off, the only reason a variant isn't a rule is because it isn't in the book. A variant is just any other rule, like the myriad of other rules people are already using because they are "in a book". Not everyone adds variants for "increased realism." I add variants to my game for increased descriptive capability. I wish I were as talented as some DM's that can take a simple static-AC-single-roll style of combat and make every attack sound exciting, unique and interesting. I don't have that gift, so I add variants that help me get a better visual of the action that help me do a better job giving my players as immersive an experience that I can. Not all DM's are "roll, you hit for 5 damage, roll you miss, roll you hit for 7 points of damage" style DM's. Some DM's are trying to tell a great story with lots of description and visual imagery. But some of us need a little help. There's nothing wrong with the DM style of reporting-the-die-results style of gaming, it's just not my style. And since I don't feel that I have the skills to take the Core Rules combat system and make it sound as cinematic and visually interesting as I would like, I add variants to help me. Take the Opposed Roll variant, for example. It's a variant, but it's found in the DMG, so it hopefully has at least some merit with the HardCORES. I didn't add it for "better balance" or as an attempt to "improve" Core. I added it because the 2 numbers give me a better visual of the combat. With the Opposed Roll variant, a bad swing can still hit and a great swing can still miss. And another nice side effect for the DM is that it reduces metagaming by players and reduces the normal foregone conclusions of Core. It also adds excitement and drama to the game due to the increased randomness. Does the Opposed Defense Roll "increase realism?" Heck if I know. But it does give a guy like me who wants to tell great stories a few more tools to do it as well as I can. The only wrong way to DM is in a way that isn't fun for you or your players. Some people find the beauty of D&D is in its flexibility and room for personal creativity. Since the DMG encourages creativity within its own pages and even suggests many variants to its own rules, I'm always struck at the irony of DM's who get beat up for trying to be creative. While I will agree that there are DM's out there that are trying to make a fantasy game a little too real for most people's taste, not ALL DM's who use variants have the same reasoning for doing it. Now I know that the OP has stated that this wasn't a bait thread, but the stance was a bit assumptive that anyone who variates from core is only doing it for "increased realism". While it wasn't explicitly stated that way, it was implied by saying that "those DM's" were content with the magic system the way it was. And incidentally, it doesn't take more than 5 minutes on the net to find dozens of threads on a bunch of different forums where DM's are trying to make magic more "realistic". I know I sound a bit on the defensive, and I guess in a way, I am to an extent. It's just that poking fun at a playing style that isn't in line with your personal views of what the "correct" style is can tend to hurt other people's feelings and can come off a bit elitist. I've seen it on the other side too. It bothers me when non-Core DM's make fun of Core and RAW only DM's for being too afraid or lacking in knowledge to customize the game in some way for themselves. I don't know why some DM's think it's important to anyone else what their opinion of proper gaming style is to be. The thing that bothered me most about this thread is the one-sided view of it. There are as many threads about improving the magic system or making magic more realistic or believable as there are threads to make combat more realistic. It's a roleplaying game people. Fantasy is a subjective term. While Leo flying into Trinity didn't ruin my experience of the movie, I don't think I have the right to make fun of someone who found that part of the movie to push their suspension of disbelief too far. If you really want to know why DM's game the way they do, why not just ask them without taking veiled shots at them? And I don't think anyone here is thick enough to read the original post and not be able to pick up on the sarcasm with the very one sided description of combat versus magic. The very way the original post was worded comes across to me as an already biased view of a question before an answer is even given. To put it simply, my thought process is to try and create the kind of world my players want to play in. My thought process is to use whatever it takes to help me tell the best story I can. My thought process is to listen to my players and work with them to create a world that we can all enjoy and not cram my preconceived notion of what is "right" down their throats. My thought process was to come to a forum like this and share ideas about gaming and discuss those ideas without being belittled or insulted for having a view that is contrary to someone else. Making comments about someones "thought process" is most likely going to get a negative reaction from the people you say you are trying to get feedback from. I also felt it was a bit presumptive to assume that people who want combat to be a little more realistic find the magic in their world acceptable and routine. I am not trying to make my combat more realistic, nor do I find magic in my worlds to be routine. Magic, to me, is the most fantastical part of playing D&D. I hope I've given you at least 1 perspective on why a DM might use variants and house rules to improve their gaming experience. I might not be the one you wanted to hear from, because I don't add variants to make combat more realistic. But I feel like the thread was aimed somewhat at me, because I don't play RAW. If 100 people in a movie theater can't agree on what's "too fantastical" or "too realistic" in a movie, why are there people trying to have that kind of debate about a fantasy roleplaying game? Doesn't the term "fantasy" lend itself to personal interpretation by definition? Just because one group's idea of fantasy is realistic combat surrounded by a world of fantastical magic doesn't mean their "thought process" is flawed, just different from yours.
Sylvaroth 02-24-07, 08:41 AM	Well, isn't that what I said above but in much more words :D
Romulus LoneWolf 02-24-07, 10:40 AM	To me, it's a question of degrees of Suspension of Disbelief. I have no problem with using magic to throw fireballs around, but I think a fight should look realistic, as it makes it more interesting.
The_Levitator 02-24-07, 12:26 PM	Well, isn't that what I said above but in much more words :D :embarrass Yeah, sorry about that book I wrote up there. It was late, I was tired, and maybe a bit lonely, and perhaps just a little vulnerable. :rofl: Sorry if my post tweaked anyone here. Insomnia, wine and RPG forums don't mix well I guess! :hides:
Sylvaroth 02-24-07, 12:41 PM	Well, if you felt lonely and it was too late to hang around with friends, these boards are probably worth a visit. Aside from the useful information you can also always find the cause for a relieved snicker or an intriguing discussion.:D
The_Levitator 02-24-07, 01:13 PM	...you can also always find the cause for a relieved snicker or an intriguing discussion.:D And usually, you can get both in the same conversation! :D
Sylvaroth 02-24-07, 02:41 PM	And usually, you can get both in the same conversation! :D QFT
The Hive Custodian 02-25-07, 05:06 PM	Why are you concerned with realism in a game that allows anyone with a 13 INT or CHA and enough training to create massive gouts of fire with nothing more than a handful of bat turds and some gobbledeygook? Just because the D&D world doesn't follow the same rules as our world doesn't mean that it doesn't follow any rules at all. Magic (in theory) has its own logic in the D&D world; it's just harder to criticize it because there's nothing to reference it against in our real world. However, I think most people expect magic to follow clear, logical rules, even if they aren't the same rules that apply to real life. On the other hand, I think trying to make overly realistic rules for a roleplaying game is a futile endeavor. There are entire vocations devoted to finding realistic rules for our world--it's called science. If you want realism, go study science. A couple die rolls and tables isn't going to cut it.
Patrick Draken-Korin 03-27-07, 08:04 PM	One thing to consider would whether something is "realistic" or Realistic (actually equal to RL). Like Sylvaroth said, chess is a simplified simulation of combat. I don't play chess, because it is too simple; even playing field, rules simple enough for a computer to understand... what's the point? It's just logic puzzles (opposed logic maybe, but eh). D&D (and all the alternate systems and games, and variants in the mixing bowl) are also simulations, but are actually interesting. Why? There are complex rules and self-generating plots, sure, but it's the thought experiment that gets me. The DM says "these are the rules of the world, now try and deal with them" It's not Realistic, but it is "realistic" within it's own context. I wouldn't call it suspension of disbelief, so much as capability to think outside the box. In D&D there is magic. Now, personally, I believe there are a few things science can't explain in RL, but D&D magic isn't here. Probably for the best (how many of us would be PC's?). So the magic rules don't work 100% with physics? Good. Personally, I'd rather explain why they don't (say the overgod that created the world just didn't care), then try and mesh them (and ruin the experiment). Same for combat. It's all for the game and the people playing it. I am not a physicist or a weapon expert or a historian, but I am a gamer, and know how to put a campaign together. My order of operations? 1) Balance (against whatever base standard you accept) 2) Internal-consistency (the context of the thought experiment) 3) Logic (cause and effect, not RL relations) 4) Flavor/Fluff/Coolness, etc (the juicy bits) 5) Relation to reality 6) Precedence (not even really important when on a creation-binge) Where is the box? It's #5. What? RL sucks for gaming*. If you like it good, if you don't that's good too; you might just come up with something better. If you like the RAW, that's good, but if you don't then that's good too; you might just come up with something better. If you like the variants available, that's good, but if you don't then that's good too; you might just come up with something better. Game Happy.:) *Note; I have no problem with taking RL and modifying it for a game, I merely (passively) object to the reverse process.
tedopon 03-31-07, 12:38 PM	...while falling the same distance and ending up in Superman's arms lets you just feel save and warm ;) It seems so wrong, but it feels so right.
Sylvaroth 03-31-07, 01:32 PM	It seems so wrong, but it feels so right. :rofl:
Kursk 03-31-07, 02:38 PM	The reason that spells aren't discounted due to lack of realism is the fact that you are "running with the premise". A good example of this is the matrix. I do not have a problem with Neo flying around and stopping bullets, that is the premise, but I do have a problem with the fact that Neo flys into Trinity at incredible velocities and there is no ill effect. If a bullet is fatal why wouldn't something larger and faster than a bullet be fatal? The "unrealistic" part of flying around and all of that jazz I don't see as a problem, but the incorrect appilication of the already defined rules bothers me, it distracts from verisimilitude. This is the best explanation for this that I've heard. These are the types of things that I house rule.
SilvercatMoonpaw 03-31-07, 04:30 PM	…I don't think anyone here is thick enough to read the original post and not be able to pick up on the sarcasm with the very one sided description of combat versus magic. I was.
Shadowhowler 04-01-07, 01:47 AM	I am on of those DM's that makes changes to the rules in the atempt to add 'realism'... but as the above 'Matrix' example showed (I love that analogy, BTW, I have used the exact same myself) it's not that I want everything to be exactly as it is in our world, it's that I want my D&D world to have it's own integral logic, and things in that world will function acroding to it, rather then an more 'out of character/play' regulator like 'balance'. Which is not to say balance in a party is not important, but maintaining that is my job as DM and good players also help me do so. I have been gaming for over 15 years, and among my circle of gamers I am one of a chosen few that is willing to DM. The other DM's and I share similar thoughts on realisim in our games, as do our players. We don't sacrafice fun for realism, the realism adds to the fun by allowing true character imersion to be so much simpler. However, we are roleplay heave rather then wargame heavy... I imagen a differant sort of group may have more of a problem here. Anyway... it's about personal prefrence, when it comes down to it. There is no right way, no wrong way... there is only the way that makes most sense to you and that you enjoy most. The trick is to play with other players and DM's that share your vision of whats fun... becuase if you idea of fun and other idea of fun are at differant ends of the spectrum, it just won't work. Sadly, I have recently moved from my circle of like minded players... and have played a few games with players in my new home, only to find we have totaly differant ideas of how to have fun with D&D, so my playing days may be over for the time being. :(
Karish 04-01-07, 09:19 AM	The only time I've tried to do "realistic" was d20 Modern. :P But when it comes to things that should apply given the physics of the game world, assuming the various principles of magic that exist, I can see why some would want to change things for the sake of realism.
Geoste 04-01-07, 10:41 AM	Most attempts to add a degree of realism to D&D is for things that have a counterpart in real life (like sword duels, etc.). I have never seen somebody who tried to add more realism to the casting of fireball. I have. House Rule link below. Specifically, Spell Targeting (aiming, handles crits and fumbles) and Spell Roll (handles base save DC). Basically, I am assigning any spell that needs to be targeted a Ranged Touch Attack (vs. DC 16 more or less and in a manner of speaking). Bonus used is the higher of: BAB + Dex (Ranged BAB), Spell casting attribute (Int for Wizards, Cha for Sorcerers) + BAB, or Spellcraft skill bonus. Yeah, it means that higher level spell casters will almost never miss, but there is always that Nat 1 waiting for them (possible Fumble and is at least off target by 1 square). Nat 20 on the Spell Roll gives the caster a "freebie" casting of that spell. Nat 1 may possibly burn Spell Points away (yes, I use that) if the Fumble check fails. I did not like the fact that Fireballs unerringly always landed right where the spellcaster wanted it to, but yet a Ray of Frost needs to be aimed. Granted, all this is not exatly more "realistic" (how can it be? When was the last time you saw a magician cast real spells?) but it makes spell mechanics go more in line with the physical Fighting types. -
serow_#R 04-01-07, 12:19 PM	Possibly 1 problem is that current PHB fighting classes use techniques that can be based off real-life stuff, like no-frills disarming and tripping. I think stuff from the Tome of Battle needs to be made into core ASAP, replacing the current fighting classes. Once it is made clear that all the PHB classes (whether magic-based or fighting-based) are classes which do crazy and unrealistic stuff, there'll be less argument about realistic D&D. "If you want realistic stuff, please support our D20Modern line of rulebooks and supplements. Nothing realistic here for you I'm afraid."
Greg K 04-01-07, 12:48 PM	I think stuff from the Tome of Battle needs to be made into core ASAP, replacing the current fighting classes. You are entitled to your opinion, but, as far as I am concerned, "Hell No" Once it is made clear that all the PHB classes (whether magic-based or fighting-based) are classes which do crazy and unrealistic stuff, there'll be less argument about realistic D&D. Stop worrying about others play the game and play how you like. The designers consider the rules and supplements to be a toolbox for the DM and/or group to tailor the game for what they want it to be. "If you want realistic stuff, please support our D20Modern line of rulebooks and supplements. Nothing realistic here for you I'm afraid." d20Modern is not meant to be realistic, its meant to be a cinematic representation. It says so right in the book. Not that there is anything wrong with people wanting to make it less cinematic. Also, look at the fx rules. there is nothing realistic about magic or psionics.
Kursk 04-01-07, 01:44 PM	I did not like the fact that Fireballs unerringly always landed right where the spellcaster wanted it to, but yet a Ray of Frost needs to be aimed. Well, one is trying to hit a 25 sqr foot area that isn't moving or trying not to be hit and the other is trying to hit s/g that is trying to evade it? Could be just me, but the two aren't comparable.
Shadowhowler 04-01-07, 05:46 PM	Possibly 1 problem is that current PHB fighting classes use techniques that can be based off real-life stuff, like no-frills disarming and tripping. I think stuff from the Tome of Battle needs to be made into core ASAP, replacing the current fighting classes. Once it is made clear that all the PHB classes (whether magic-based or fighting-based) are classes which do crazy and unrealistic stuff, there'll be less argument about realistic D&D. Of course, another perfectly valid option would be to completely ignore the ToB and maintain the realistic basis for the melee classes. Intresting how you only see only one possible solution there.
Xeviat-DM 04-02-07, 06:19 AM	The main reason I employ house rules that add "realism" to my games comes from the premise I opperate under: "If the game is as realistic as possible, then players will have an easier time suspending disbelief". A high level warrior can wade around in lava for a few rounds, or fall from an infinite height and be perfectly fine; situations like these often make players say "What?" and it ruins the illusion of the game. Also, by expanding combat options to include things that are perfectly feasible in real life (such as hitting someone in a vulnerable spot to stagger them for a short time), or even things that are not plausible but are possible (like batting someone away with a powerful attack), players are encouraged to fight smart rather than fight easy.
starfire311 04-02-07, 08:56 AM	I don't play chess, because it is too simple; even playing field, rules simple enough for a computer to understand... what's the point? It's just logic puzzles (opposed logic maybe, but eh). Oh, that was rich... man these forums are always good for a laugh. Anyway, I do use a lot of house rules, sometimes it is to add mroe realism, always it is to improve consistancy and "feel"
StarFyre 04-02-07, 12:02 PM	I think of it like this, like the matrix argument. Yes, it's a fantasy world and magic exists, and by definition, magic is ultimate since it can break all reality, etc..while technology works within a basis of reality. yes, as technology gets more advanced, it can seem like magic but the difference is..it never is magic. You technically could destroy the universe itself, all reality , etc with magic...no powerful bomb will ever do that (regardless what anyone says!!!)...unless you believe a person can create a weapon that will 'kill' christ, or allah or whatever god you believe in. Now, that is the basis for magic in the universe and the technology that each D&D setting (Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, etc) has. Now let's come to physics. Physics still exist in the world. the difference from our real world at dark ages/middle ages time period, is that D&D world ALSO has magic and monsters and heroes that are above and beyond regular common folk. But falling from a cliff, being shot with a cannon, according to physics/chemistry/biology, although not explained like that WILL kill a basic commoner (what do they have..like 1 hp? hehe) THis is true! No regular person will fall from a cliff and survive even in D&D. Some epic hero could cause they are defined more by the fantasy element in the game... But since physics, do exist in the game world...to make the world seem more real, some DMs make house rules for the world itself like our world...THEN by the use of your characters, monsters, magic, you exist as the fantasy element within the world. Realism/logic do have it's place even in a fantasy world. You need to look at what defines it as fantasy. From a literary sense, sci-fi is defined as the study or media representing something that COULD happen (ie. due to science we have not found yet) while fantasy by definition can't ever happen...(since it refers more to 'true' magic), etc. Both exist in D&D however, the world itself, due to magic existing, is fantasy. That doesn't remove the regular rules of the world though. Sanjay
Unsung_Heroes 04-02-07, 12:57 PM	Why are you concerned with realism in a game that allows anyone with a 13 INT or CHA and enough training to create massive gouts of fire with nothing more than a handful of bat turds and some gobbledeygook? Within a few assumptions, this is competely realistic. You're using the phrase "enough training" as though it were trivial. It's not. You must first realize that PC's are usually a minority in whatever world you play in. For every character with ranks in a PC class, there are hundreds of characters without (peasants, farmers, merchants, plain ol' folk). So a 1st-level PC is already an accomplishment. Then it keeps going up in a tier system. Let's say for every one 1st level PC that advances to 2nd level, there are 4 that die before they get the chance. Let's say it keeps going up like that every level. Fireball is a 3rd level wiz/sor spell, meaning that the character has to have gone through this process at least SEVEN times. This is HUGE. Using our mathematical assumption, that means our 7th level character is the only one of 5 to the seventh power, or 78,125 (the population of a good-sized city) to survive. As PCs with a DM watching our backs, we tend to scoff at 7th level, but the fact is that in most games, you are in a story with exceptional characters that, against all odds, manadged to survive to whatever level they are at. So you see, a 7th level wizard isn't just some chucklehead with a handfull of bat poop. These are the battle-hardened veterans; the people you don't mess with. The guy who can cast fireball in the D&D world is the equivalent of the Navy Seal who can walk unarmed into a biker bar, break the legs of every patron, then lay waste to the place with a molotov cocktail (and for dramatic effect, light a cigar off the flames of the burning building). There may not be parallel examples of spells or magic abilities in RL, but there are certainly parallels of the amount of experience that it took to gain those abilities. This is all Core, by the way. Your question was why I'm concerned with being realistic in a world like this, when the fact is that it is a realistic world. Magic, Deities, monsters, they're all just fluff.
Shadowhowler 04-02-07, 01:58 PM	The main reason I employ house rules that add "realism" to my games comes from the premise I opperate under: "If the game is as realistic as possible, then players will have an easier time suspending disbelief". A high level warrior can wade around in lava for a few rounds, or fall from an infinite height and be perfectly fine; situations like these often make players say "What?" and it ruins the illusion of the game. Also, by expanding combat options to include things that are perfectly feasible in real life (such as hitting someone in a vulnerable spot to stagger them for a short time), or even things that are not plausible but are possible (like batting someone away with a powerful attack), players are encouraged to fight smart rather than fight easy. You and I are on the same page, those are exactly my reasons as well. :)
Sylvaroth 04-02-07, 04:51 PM	You must first realize that PC's are usually a minority in whatever world you play in. For every character with ranks in a PC class, there are hundreds of characters without (peasants, farmers, merchants, plain ol' folk). So a 1st-level PC is already an accomplishment. Then it keeps going up in a tier system. Let's say for every one 1st level PC that advances to 2nd level, there are 4 that die before they get the chance. Let's say it keeps going up like that every level. Fireball is a 3rd level wiz/sor spell, meaning that the character has to have gone through this process at least SEVEN times. This is HUGE. Using our mathematical assumption, that means our 7th level character is the only one of 5 to the seventh power, or 78,125 (the population of a good-sized city) to survive. Interesting idea. If I understand correctly, one Character of 15th level would be the survivor of a PC population that almost equals todays world population? Let's assume that one out of thousand individuals becomes a PC. Let's further assume a total world population of around 1 billion. According to your concept, the one surviving 10th-level character (outliving around 1 million PCs) is the pinnacle of this world's power (and the only active PC :D). Looking at the trillions of PCs that would die (or retire) on the way to have one surviving 20th-level character, it seems that you could actually erase thousands of worlds worth of intelligent live (or millions, since the proportion of not-PCs to PCs was set at 1000:1). Wheew! My head starts spinning simply thinking about that.
Unsung_Heroes 04-02-07, 05:22 PM	The population of the world is for the DM to decide, not a present-day census:P So perhaps my math doesn't create a totally accurate picture, but I'm sticking with the concept behind it. There are much more 3rd level fighters out there than there are 13th level, because few fighters survive to level 13.
Sylvaroth 04-02-07, 05:55 PM	The population of the world is for the DM to decide, not a present-day census:P I was just going with your assumptions;) So perhaps my math doesn't create a totally accurate picture, but I'm sticking with the concept behind it. There are much more 3rd level fighters out there than there are 13th level, because few fighters survive to level 13. Eberron assumes that your characters will likely be the first characters to reach very-high levels. So taking the average adventurer party of four would take 312,000 PCs of 13th level (78,125 of which may be fighters) or around 3 trillions of 3rd-level PCs (763 billions of which may be fighters) to enable at least four PCs to rise to 20th level. It would take around 60,000 times todays world population worth of failed and successful 1st-level PCs to do so. WOW!
Unsung_Heroes 04-02-07, 06:08 PM	Nobody ever said adventuring was easy :D
Kursk 04-02-07, 06:29 PM	I was just going with your assumptions;) Eberron assumes that your characters will likely be the first characters to reach very-high levels. So taking the average adventurer party of four would take 312,000 PCs of 13th level (78,125 of which may be fighters) or around 3 trillions of 3rd-level PCs (763 billions of which may be fighters) to enable at least four PCs to rise to 20th level. It would take around 60,000 times todays world population worth of failed and successful 1st-level PCs to do so. WOW! And this is why, in our present world, we don't see many, if any, high level PCs. :D
starfire311 04-02-07, 07:06 PM	And this is why, in our present world, we don't see many, if any, high level PCs. :D yep, just too small of a sample size, that has to be it.
Patrick Draken-Korin 04-02-07, 09:02 PM	Quote: I don't play chess, because it is too simple;{snip}. Oh, that was rich... man these forums are always good for a laugh. First let me assure you that I suck at chess. :D Really I do. That's not the issue. I mean simple-complexity-of-form, not simple-easy. How many variables are there to chess? (you can actually program a computer to undertand them!) How many in an average D&D session? both can take hours, but how many chess games take you across a continent battling dragons and lizardfolk? (Okay, maybe a special edition set based on Dragonlance, or playing with miniatures, but that sorta proves my point).
CroBob 04-03-07, 03:31 AM	I generally make a house rule so that the given game mechanics mesh better or because it follows a style I'm going for. Realism is rarely an issue. What I find confusing is how people who have never been in a sword fight might think they can make a fictional sword fight more realistic than the rules already make them. That's not to say the abstract system is particularly realistic, but how does someone who's never swung a sword know it's unrealistic, or how to increase it's realism?
Sylvaroth 04-03-07, 12:56 PM	What I find confusing is how people who have never [fallen from a cliff] might think they can make a fictional [fall from a cliff] more realistic than the rules already make them. That's not to say the abstract system is particularly realistic, but how does someone who's never [jumped down from a considerable height] know it's unrealistic, or how to increase it's realism?:D Alternative: [fight a housecat]
Xeviat-DM 04-03-07, 04:41 PM	You and I are on the same page, those are exactly my reasons as well. :) Thanks.
CroBob 04-03-07, 11:45 PM	What I find confusing is how people who have never [fallen from a cliff] might think they can make a fictional [fall from a cliff] more realistic than the rules already make them. That's not to say the abstract system is particularly realistic, but how does someone who's never [jumped down from a considerable height] know it's unrealistic, or how to increase it's realism?:D Alternative: [fight a housecat] Incidentally, I've never altered the rules for falling from heights.
Xeviat-DM 04-04-07, 04:13 AM	I haven't touched the falling rules either. Since there is air resistance in most regions you'll ever play in, there is a terminal velocity to be reached. Since damage would technically be a measure of velocity and mass, said falling damage would be capped at something. The only thing I've ever considered changing about falling damage is adding size bonuses/penalties (after all, heavy objects deal more damage when they fall, they should be dealt the same damage). So larger creatures would suffer more falling damage, and smaller creatures would suffer less (ever drop a bug and watch it walk away just fine, where as if a person fell from a height of ten feet and landed on their back they'd be in a good deal of pain?). If you're looking for "realistic", use Star Wars's falling system. Damage is the same, but since Star Wars currently uses WP/VP, you need to make a save to avoid taking falling damage to wounds. They'll be changing this soon in Saga Edition, but that's another discussion.
Kineon_War 04-06-07, 10:46 AM	Why are you concerned with realism in a game that allows anyone with a 13 INT or CHA and enough training to create massive gouts of fire with nothing more than a handful of bat turds and some gobbledeygook? I'm not trolling or mocking anyone, I'm just genuinely curious about the thought process that is willing to accept the above as acceptable and routine, but has a problem with the verisimilitude of, say, attacks of oppurtunity. Well firstly, I'd say that it is my game and I'll play it how I want ot thank you very much. :rolleyes: However, I'll also add that I hate the D & D magic system in its current transformation. Magic is way too powerful in my opinion. The problem with breaking the laws of physics is that pretty soon, you end up with the universe unravelling.
RobbyPants 04-06-07, 02:08 PM	As with any house-rules, rules for adding realism need to be approached with caution. I've tried adding realism to varying degrees numerous times, and I always end up reverting back to the core rules. The reasons are twofold: More often than not, the increased dice rolling and bookkeeping are not worth the little bit of extra "realism". When you make something more "realistic" there is often some very exploitable loophole. For example, if I wanted to come up with rules for neck breaking (outside of a standard sneak attack, death attack, or Coup De Grace), then what I end up with is a party of monks that are all looking for one-hit-kills every battle. Plus, as mentioned, the game itself doesn't lend itself to realism, so I tend not to worry about it too much anymore. If I feel there's a major problem with a rule, I fix it, but I don't really try revamping the entire combat system anymore. :)
Vaelan 04-09-07, 04:59 AM	If you want to add realism to an existing game, then you have to do away with all the things that are not physically possible. Your claim that realism (and thus unrealism) must be absolute is refuted by the simple fact that the game as written is neither absolutely unrealistic nor absolutely realistic.
Dan Hemmens 04-09-07, 10:18 AM	Why are you concerned with realism in a game that allows anyone with a 13 INT or CHA and enough training to create massive gouts of fire with nothing more than a handful of bat turds and some gobbledeygook? I'm not trolling or mocking anyone, I'm just genuinely curious about the thought process that is willing to accept the above as acceptable and routine, but has a problem with the verisimilitude of, say, attacks of oppurtunity. As it happens I'm not one of those who strives for "realism" in RPGs. I get enough realism in real life after all. However, you are making what an old friend of mine would have called a "category mistake". Any fictional world is built on certain assumptions. Many those assumptions are carried over from the real world, but some are unique to the secondary creation. D&D assumes a world of quasi-medieval high fantasy. This means that you accept fireballs and dragons, that's part of the assumptions of the game world. On the other hand, because it's quasi-medieval, you also expect to have knights and swordfights and thieves with throwing daggers, and you expect them to work in a way which supports the way they are used in the gameworld (which, incidentally, is the same as the way which they are used in the real world). A classic example is the "not a step closer or I'll slit her throat" problem: the BBEG his holding one of the PCs, or an ally, with a dagger to her throat. She's conscious, so it's not actually a coup-de-grace, which means that the villain's terrible threat actually becomes "not a step closer, or I'll deal this person a trivial amount of damage!" 99% of the time, D&D worlds work like the real world. People chop down trees with axes, die from stab wounds, and work for 1sp a day. When the mechanics undermine those day to day observations, you break suspension of disbelief.
daggeroflath 04-10-07, 03:15 AM	Realism is one of many traits that can exist in a game. While I wouldn't consider it one of my top priorities, I would like the universe I create to be internally consistant. If anyone with high mental attributes can cast spells, then I'd like to give a reason why they can and have it apply throughout the game. If the players don't know what to expect from the world around them, how are they going to anticipate the consequences of their actions and make meaningful decisions?