A Rant About DMs who Cry Realism


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Now I understand that some DMs want a fair bit of realism in their game, but it's always so biased. They always complain about the martial classes that survive falls and perform death defying feats, but you never hear about problems with spellcasters. There are DMs who are so wiling to gimp the martial classes in favor of spellcasters. You never hear complaints about magic working realistically enough, you never hear complaints that your druid wants to shape shift constantly, that your cleric is pulsing healing energy out of them, that your sorcerer is growing claws, or that your bard is killing people with music, but you can always hear about your fighter that survived a fall.

If we had any sort of low level magic in our world that worked under reasonable rules these same people might cry that teleportation and wishes and many of the other high level stuff is just plain ridiculous and just plain impossible. However, since magic doesn't exist it can reach the limits. But a human that has trained his body to resist fire and falling damage and has grown the strength of a giant and thus able to swing a giant sword, that's just impossible! -_-

I really don't know if that DM philosophy has anything to do with the whole "Fighters are too weak, Wizards are too powerful as classes" but this need to make martial classes more bound to standards of our world while giving spellcasters free reign doesn't help out at all.

Shadow Lodge

Are you complaining about GMs who ignore the rules and inject 'realism' or GMs that try to err on the side of realism when the rules are grey on issues?


This is called the "argumentum ad fireballum". It's a rule that in any discussion of FRPG realism, someone will claim the whole discussion is moot because of the existence of spellcasters.

The truth is that a lot of GMs actually do greatly constrain what magic can do and require some consistency from the use of spell effects -- but the idea that the very existence of magic makes realism an impossible goal in any circumstance is ridiculous. We can allow for the possibility of magically healing wounds and producing fire from the aether, and still discuss what implications will follow from this and how to respond to them.


Ion Raven wrote:

Now I understand that some DMs want a fair bit of realism in their game, but it's always so biased. They always complain about the martial classes that survive falls and perform death defying feats, but you never hear about problems with spellcasters. There are DMs who are so wiling to gimp the martial classes in favor of spellcasters. You never hear complaints about magic working realistically enough, you never hear complaints that your druid wants to shape shift constantly, that your cleric is pulsing healing energy out of them, that your sorcerer is growing claws, or that your bard is killing people with music, but you can always hear about your fighter that survived a fall.

If we had any sort of low level magic in our world that worked under reasonable rules these same people might cry that teleportation and wishes and many of the other high level stuff is just plain ridiculous and just plain impossible. However, since magic doesn't exist it can reach the limits. But a human that has trained his body to resist fire and falling damage and has grown the strength of a giant and thus able to swing a giant sword, that's just impossible! -_-

I really don't know if that DM philosophy has anything to do with the whole "Fighters are too weak, Wizards are too powerful as classes" but this need to make martial classes more bound to standards of our world while giving spellcasters free reign doesn't help out at all.

Speaking for myself, I don't like when a game pushes my suspension of disbelief too far. Obviously, it is much easier to relate to something we know about (falling hurts!) than to something that we cannot experience first hand in our world (being magically healed of casting too many fireballs).

Liberty's Edge

Whenever I DM I usually explain those extreme things that fighter-types do as some form of subconscious magic that is extremely weak in potency but very stable (so it can't be dispelled or suppressed). It's a concept I call "world magic," wherein the world itself is made of magic that is in every being and every rock, and some people can utilize for amazing things. Mortal magic utilizes a broken-down version of this magic that is less stable, but is easier to control directly because of it.

Also, whenever people make comments that cry for realism I remind them that we are sitting around a table making stuff up as we go along for the sake of fantasy.

The fantasy world is a place where the rules of Cool and Verisimilitude are in constant war with each-other, with some mediations harder to accomplish than others.

I believe it was suggested by someone on the forums to make a distinction between the fantasy world realism and the real world realism by calling it "Fantasy Context." This is actually a pretty good phrase to describe the grouping of rules that govern the fantasy world in contrast to how those same (or similar) rules work in our world.

EDIT: I suppose the "Rule of Balance" should be included to complete the trinity, but this is rarely included in the discussions to which the OP refers.

Sovereign Court

The problem with your argument is that the whole point of Spellcasters is to break the laws of reality, while the point of the martial classes is to be awesome within laws of reality.

I am such a DM who 'cries for realism,' but I actually have house rules in place to reduce the potential of spellcasters in favor of balancing the game more evenly. So what if I don't allow Fighters or Barbarians to jump out of a flying castle thousands of feet above ground and live? I wouldn't let a spellcaster survive a drop like that either. The only instance where either of them would survive would be with a Feather Fall spell. The only difference between the two is that a fighter can't cast the spell. I don't let spellcasters break basic laws of reality without spells any more than I let Fighters, Barbarians, or Cavaliers.

I'm not nerfing Fighters and Barbarians by stopping them from doing stupid crap that breaks immersion; they're still awesome at what they do. It's just that breaking the laws of reality isn't what they do.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
StabbittyDoom wrote:
Whenever I DM I usually explain those extreme things that fighter-types do as some form of subconscious magic that is extremely weak in potency but very stable (so it can't be dispelled or suppressed).

A long time ago, I had a short-lived 1e campaign in which the vast majority of NPCs were 0-level and had decoupled skills and levels. So you could have a highly skilled NPC thief with three or four HP. PCs and extraordinary NPCs, though, were god-touched. For a PC with twenty or thirty HP, blows that would kill a normal outright would only leave them scratched or bruised. Life-draining undead actually consumed part of the power of the god-touch. Fighters put the god-touch into damage resistance and combat prowess, clerics did some of that but also got clerical magic, thieves boosted their damage resistance and skills, and magic-users poured most of it into arcane power (with a bit left over for damage resistance).

StabbittyDoom wrote:
Also, whenever people make comments that cry for realism I remind them that we are sitting around a table making stuff up as we go along for the sake of fantasy.

But even in that context, anything that breaks or bends WSoD should be avoided. That's really subjective, though, so trying to enshrine it in the rules may not work as well as one might hope.

StabbittyDoom wrote:
The fantasy world is a place where the rules of Cool and Verisimilitude are in constant war with each-other, with some mediations harder to accomplish than others.

You got that right.


Ion Raven wrote:

Now I understand that some DMs want a fair bit of realism in their game, but it's always so biased. They always complain about the martial classes that survive falls and perform death defying feats, but you never hear about problems with spellcasters.

I really don't know if that DM philosophy has anything to do with the whole "Fighters are too weak, Wizards are too powerful as classes" but this need to make martial classes more bound to standards of our world while giving spellcasters free reign doesn't help out at all.

I'm not quite understanding: Are You saying that if a fighter and cleric fall from a cliff, that a "realism" based GM will judge their fates differently?

Liberty's Edge

anthony Valente wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:

Now I understand that some DMs want a fair bit of realism in their game, but it's always so biased. They always complain about the martial classes that survive falls and perform death defying feats, but you never hear about problems with spellcasters.

I really don't know if that DM philosophy has anything to do with the whole "Fighters are too weak, Wizards are too powerful as classes" but this need to make martial classes more bound to standards of our world while giving spellcasters free reign doesn't help out at all.

I'm not quite understanding: Are You saying that if a fighter and cleric fall from a cliff, that a "realism" based GM will judge their fates differently?

He's saying that if a fighter and a wizard fall of a cliff, and the fighter survives through HP and the wizard survives using feather fall, they'd complain about the lack of realism in the former and ignore that lack of realism in the latter.


StabbittyDoom wrote:


He's saying that if a fighter and a wizard fall of a cliff, and the fighter survives through HP and the wizard survives using feather fall, they'd complain about the lack of realism in the former and ignore that lack of realism in the latter.

Eh in games I run both make a thumbing sound if they don't have a magic item or spell that casts feather fall or fly. Hp's alone are not gonna help.

Shadow Lodge

StabbittyDoom wrote:
He's saying that if a fighter and a wizard fall of a cliff, and the fighter survives through HP and the wizard survives using feather fall, they'd complain about the lack of realism in the former and ignore that lack of realism in the latter.

I'm not sure if that really is what he's saying, he isn't very specific beyond just a general rant.

Shadow Lodge

Just make it 3 successive 200' ledges, when you land on the first it collapses one round later. Then both the fighter and the wizard are screwed and the guy who ponied up for the ring of feather falling wins (and the witch with the fly hex).


Squidmasher wrote:
The problem with your argument is that the whole point of Spellcasters is to break the laws of reality, while the point of the martial classes is to be awesome within laws of reality.

This is an important issue here, and one I think a lot of people don't think about.

"Euclid taught me that without assumptions there is no proof. Therefore, in any argument, examine the assumptions." -E. T. Bell

I think Squidy here has stated one of those assumptions. To many people not using magic, means using the laws of reality. Therefore if fighters don't use magic, they must to those people be using the laws of reality.

I would suggest that there may be other alternatives then non-magic = laws of reality. There may be non-magical "laws of fantasy" that do not correspond to the "laws of reality". You can have a fantastical non-magic hero who does things that are impossible with the laws of reality.

Probably the best example that most people on these boards would be familiar with is something like the movie Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. The characters in that movie weren't doing "magic", but they were doing "fantastical" things. I don't think that just because a player doesn't want a character that does magic, that means the player is not open to doing "fantastical" things and being solely limited to the mundane abilities of everyday people in the real world.

I guess what I am saying here is that it seems as if people are falling into the false dilemma fallacy.


I think I'll ignore the fact that it's automatically assumed that I'm a guy...

Anyway, yes I am complaining of unfairness. Fighter in fall, wizard uses feather fall. Fighter in lava, wizard either flies or uses superior fire resistance. While the wizard gets to bend the laws of reality the fighter gets what? the ability to hit things. A fighter is also more vulnerable to mind affecting, the fighter can't dodge like the rogue who takes half damage from a fireball on a failed reflex save. The rogue who can deal ridiculous amounts of sneak damage by bluffing or flanking. While every other class can do amazing things, the fighter is limited by the DM by what they believe is within human limits.

I don't know if certain DMs don't get and thus they can't comprehend the concept of strength and endurance training. After coming so far with a caster that learned to shift planes and a rogue who can jump 20 feet in the air and a monk who can decimate building with his fists why in the world is this normal mook of a human even considered an equal when he can't even survive a fall? Is the fighter under some sort of muscle atrophy where no matter how hard he trains his muscles and skin will never toughen up?

Yes I believe in keeping the suspension of disbelief, but I want to call this favoritism disbelief. Sure the ranger can hide RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES, but the fighter, surviving from a fall off of a cliff... man that is sooo unrealistic >.> Now let's go fight some gods! o.O

Liberty's Edge

Ion Raven wrote:

I think I'll ignore the fact that it's automatically assumed that I'm a guy...

Anyway, yes I am complaining of unfairness. Fighter in fall, wizard uses feather fall. Fighter in lava, wizard either flies or uses superior fire resistance. While the wizard gets to bend the laws of reality the fighter gets what? the ability to hit things. A fighter is also more vulnerable to mind affecting, the fighter can't dodge like the rogue who takes half damage from a fireball on a failed reflex save. The rogue who can deal ridiculous amounts of sneak damage by bluffing or flanking. While every other class can do amazing things, the fighter is limited by the DM by what they believe is within human limits.

I don't know if certain DMs don't get and thus they can't comprehend the concept of strength and endurance training. After coming so far with a caster that learned to shift planes and a rogue who can jump 20 feet in the air and a monk who can decimate building with his fists why in the world is this normal mook of a human even considered an equal when he can't even survive a fall? Is the fighter under some sort of muscle atrophy where no matter how hard he trains his muscles and skin will never toughen up?

Yes I believe in keeping the suspension of disbelief, but I want to call this favoritism disbelief. Sure the ranger can hide RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES, but the fighter, surviving from a fall off of a cliff... man that is sooo unrealistic >.> Now let's go fight some gods!

o.O

Fighters can also pack on hundreds of pounds of adventuring gear (and fight in it) without much problem, and knock down walls and other obstacles in a wholly fantastic way.


Ion Raven wrote:

I think I'll ignore the fact that it's automatically assumed that I'm a guy...

Online most folks use 'man or Guy or dude". Nothing in your name says "I'm female nor does having a female avatar men your a woman. So must folks go safe with man, or guy.

As to the other stuff, fighters are super human in many ways. Make an archer and tell me that rate of fire is not down right fantastic, same with attacking a dragon, you shouldn't be able to hurt the thing at all, its mouse vs bull in size.

But yes, if he falls 200 feet without some way to slow down or fly, he dies.


Hmm, I guess it really is a matter of perspective. I find it more jarring that a fighter can actually slay things 50 times his or her size while a fall is an autokill. If you can have magic why can't I have this?


I know that 200 ft, on ground, with nothing in between is pushing it, but the hp has to mean something even if it means the DM adds fluff such as having the fighter hit something on the way down or splashing in water.


Run your games how ya like, some of us just do not enjoy every single PC is a character from some waxia or something. Same reason some of use don't allow monkey grip silliness. If ya want to be able to fly or float like a feather, then be a caster and take the spells.

Different strokes and all.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
If ya want to be able to fly or float like a feather, then be a caster and take the spells.

I deny your reality, and substitute my own.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
If ya want to be able to fly or float like a feather, then be a caster and take the spells.
I deny your reality, and substitute my own.

Which is fine, but in games I run if ya want spell then play a caster. I find fighters super human enough as is, with archers fighter 6 to 12 times what any human could do, your pushing the realm of unbelievable anyhow, Falling 200+ feet without magic aid and not dying is to far for me.

But eh to each his or her own. Ya can allow or disallow what ya like in your games, it has zero effect on mine

Scarab Sages

One major problem is the fantasy source literature.

In these, the Hero is usually a warrior type, young, inexperienced, clueless about life outside his village or cosseted castle.

He often gets mentored by an older, wiser, more well-travelled, more experienced 'wizard' type, who acts as Mr Exposition, explaining the setting to the reader, in the guise of training the Hero.

Luke & Ben Kenobi
Arthur & Merlin
Frodo & Gandalf

See a pattern?

Fans of the story then attempt to model the warriors and wizards in their game rules, by copying what the two types of character are shown to be capable of, completely ignoring the fact that one is a teenager who just fell off the turnip cart, while the other has been training for decades, if not centuries, and/or is a half-fiend, or an actual angel.


Yeah, I know about the whole realism issue. I mean it isn't like anyone has survived a 500 ft fall or anything.

EDIT: These are really telling how impossible it is to survive.

Skydiver Michael Holmes fell 15,000ft when his main chute tangled and his reserve failed. He broke an ankle. Chris Saggers escaped with a broken elbow after falling 22 floors from Salford tower block.


I tell ya what I'll let ya roll a 3d100, ya roll a 3 ya live

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I tell ya what I'll let ya roll a 3d100, ya roll a 3 ya live

Ah, what the hell then.

3d100 ⇒ (15, 76, 86) = 177

Edit: x.x


Snorter wrote:
or an actual angel.

Ya, rofl, I love that part as well. Tolken's "Wizards" were minor angles sent from paradise to keep an eye on things and help against Sauron (I guess a devil or fallen angle of greater then they status). It's why Gandalf was "sent back" as Gandalf the White. Type tag applies Outsider (Native), not Humanoid (Human).

In reading the original post... I'm confused did the final complaint come out really to be that the DM wouldn't let you use a Giant sized sword while you (Ion Raven) were arguing that the fighter should be able to because he has a matching strength? That's what it read like to me.

Scarab Sages

For those who want their Fighters to have more 'magical' powers...


Snorter wrote:
For those who want their Fighters to have more 'magical' powers...

Haha, amazing. Thanks for sharing the link.


i must agree with the OP, it bugs me too that some DM's feel that "non-casters" cant do much more than what a real person in the real world can do.

Dark Archive

Malaclypse wrote:
Snorter wrote:
For those who want their Fighters to have more 'magical' powers...
Haha, amazing. Thanks for sharing the link.

Nice. I think I'll create such a fighter and call him "Gish" ;-)


Realism flies out the window (no pun intended) when it comes to falling, btw. The fact that by RAW damage caps at 20d6 (200ft) means most 10th lvl and above melee characters will survive a fall of any distance. The fact is that Feather Fall is a life saver for casters that simply don't have the HP to survive a fall.

And besides, any character can buy a ring of Feather Fall. It is only 2,200gp after all.


I agree with nearly everyone here, it is fantasy. The realisism thing really has never raised it head much in my games but when it does its the little things that people tend to say is un-realistic. As I point out to these people when it does happen 'you cant please all the people all the time and to have rules that are truely realistic would mean that at any level 1 hit could kill'. these people also dont like playing 'kult' as they like to get into firefights but conplain when they are killed by the first bullet to hit them.

I try to make thinks seem realistic when I can and its not that far fetched to beleive the unbelievable when it means having fun. Everyones game/playingstyle is diffrent thats what makes this game so much fun.

As an aside people have been known to fall massive distances and survive just look at sky diving accidents, starnge things can happen.


Immortalis wrote:
As an aside people have been known to fall massive distances and survive just look at sky diving accidents, starnge things can happen.

I'm aware of these flukes, but they're the exception, not the rule.

+1 to the rest tho.

Silver Crusade

I consider any fall of more than 30ft to be a Coup de Grace. Solves the problem quite easily.


Yes. It does seem unrealistic that you can fall from 1 mile up or something and only take 20d6 points of damage. Yes above 10th level, most fighter should be able to handle a fall like that, stand up, brush off their armor, and say "Ouch, that hurt a bit, now rock on!". But I would judge a fall and determine if additional damage was called for, (Fezzik are there rocks ahead? If there are, we'll all be dead) stony mountainous terrain might amp the damage. Still, on average you'll get a result that causes massive damage, and yes, yes I know, a fighter around 10th level will save most of the time... but Lady Luck is a tricky damsel, you can't really trust her...

What I'm trying to say is: If it's sort of anti-climatic that your man-in-steel go squish from a mere fall, then I have no problem letting him survive.

If he gets bull-rushed off a cliff by the bad-guy then it's probably not that anti-climatic and I'd probably just let him land the best and only way he can *xd6 in your face! That's for fighting on the edge of a cliff...*

It all boils down to what is a good story. That's all.. ;-)

Cheers!


Personally, i prefer a sense of realism in my games - as much as taking into account that it's a world where magic exists - and as such, i rule that there's no cap on falling damage.

Dark Archive

Can I propose a realism reality-check here:

Any given incident is "realistic" if you would be happy to see that incident happening in one of your favourite fantasy books.

Personally, I like LOTR, so that's how I define realism. Someone will probably correct me on this but I'm sure Gandalf couldn't have escaped Saruman simply by jumping off Orthanc and surviving 20d6 points of damage.

Richard

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32

My view on realism, when I run a game is this: I want the world and its rules to be realistic enough that when my players defy them, it's suitably heroic. I make no distinction between magic or might of the physical variety. It's all about letting the heroes be heroes.

The Exchange

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:

I think I'll ignore the fact that it's automatically assumed that I'm a guy...

Online most folks use 'man or Guy or dude". Nothing in your name says "I'm female nor does having a female avatar men your a woman. So must folks go safe with man, or guy.

Safest assumption:

"Welcome to the internet. Where the men are men, and the women... well most of them are men too."


Mr. Fishy remembers a story of a man who jumped out of a plane and fell to the ground (His chute failed.) He sprained his ankle...his ankle. Out of a plane landed on the ground with a sprained ankle.

So the fighter "could" survive. Mr. Fishy allows a certain amount of over the top antics but the world still has to have an internal consistency, gravity, swords hurt, fire burns. There is still room for fantastic feats and strange occurences.

John Carter of Mars possessed super human strength on Mars. Because the gravity was weaker and the atmosphere thinner, fantastic effect with a internally consistent reason.


I like to put my games in what I call 'Action Movie Realism'. If I can watch die hard and see the main character get shot 3 or 4 times thrown out of a building, and survive because he landed on a car (real soft those action movie cars) or what have you, I can deal with it in my rpgs. And I really think the system itself lends itself to action movie realism rather then actual realism. After all if the fighter can survive getting hit by something the size of an office building (read collosal dragon) I dont have a problem with surviving a cliff fall. I think people who really want 'realism' need to make serious adjustments to the system. The best I've seen is the E20 system, which really makes it feel more 'realistic' for a fantasy game. Not my cup of tea mind you, but a good system. Then that 20d6 damage is an almost guaranteed kill to that 6HD character AND the collosal dragon is something you will have some serious trouble living through a claw swipe of.


Some things to keep in mind.

  • Most people are not 10th level. According to Legend Lore:
    As a rule of thumb, characters who are 11th level and higher are “legendary,” as are the sorts of creatures they contend with, the major magic items they wield, and the places where they perform their key deeds.
    I doubt there are a large number of people just about legendary. So just because the powerful heroes survive a fall doesn't mean everybody and their mother is going to be jumping off cliffs for fun.

  • Another thing to consider is that there is the massive damage rule that can be brought in. This isn't a guarantee killer, but it does add in the chance of death even if hp alone wouldn't kill the character. Perhaps a reasonable house-rule might be to add +2 the check for every 10 points of extra damage above 50 (falling 200 feet does 70 damage on average, so DC 19).

  • In the real world, people have fallen from insane heights and survived, some as mentioned above with only very minor injuries. So claims that it is an instant kill are actual not being realistic. It might be a probable kill but it should never been a guaranteed killed if one is claiming realism.

  • In a fantasy setting, things that are not magic, do not have to be mundane. They can still be fantastical without being magic. Enjoy the fantasy.


  • Kolokotroni wrote:
    I like to put my games in what I call 'Action Movie Realism'. If I can watch die hard and see the main character get shot 3 or 4 times thrown out of a building, and survive because he landed on a car (real soft those action movie cars) or what have you, I can deal with it in my rpgs. And I really think the system itself lends itself to action movie realism rather then actual realism. After all if the fighter can survive getting hit by something the size of an office building (read collosal dragon) I dont have a problem with surviving a cliff fall. I think people who really want 'realism' need to make serious adjustments to the system. The best I've seen is the E20 system, which really makes it feel more 'realistic' for a fantasy game. Not my cup of tea mind you, but a good system. Then that 20d6 damage is an almost guaranteed kill to that 6HD character AND the collosal dragon is something you will have some serious trouble living through a claw swipe of.

    +1 on the movie realism, that's the same way i feel about, if it worked on tv then i should be able to do it in the game.

    Sovereign Court

    Wolfthulhu wrote:
    seekerofshadowlight wrote:
    Ion Raven wrote:

    I think I'll ignore the fact that it's automatically assumed that I'm a guy...

    Online most folks use 'man or Guy or dude". Nothing in your name says "I'm female nor does having a female avatar men your a woman. So must folks go safe with man, or guy.

    Safest assumption:

    "Welcome to the internet. Where the men are men, and the women... well most of them are men too."

    :P

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
    northbrb wrote:
    +1 on the movie realism, that's the same way i feel about, if it worked on tv then i should be able to do it in the game.

    I do think that you have to define what realism you're using, much the same as defining what alignment means and other setting specifics. If fighters can cause enemies to explode via a dramatic entrance, the participants need to know that is what is realistic.


    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    northbrb wrote:
    +1 on the movie realism, that's the same way i feel about, if it worked on tv then i should be able to do it in the game.
    I do think that you have to define what realism you're using, much the same as defining what alignment means and other setting specifics. If fighters can cause enemies to explode via a dramatic entrance, the participants need to know that is what is realistic.

    More or less this, I mean by RAW fighters once ya get past 5th level or so are not really mundane, but more like mythic heroes. They do stuff that is out of reach of most mortal men.

    Its just each GM has a limit to how far is to far, and to many its like porn, they know how far is to far when they see it.

    Liberty's Edge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    northbrb wrote:
    +1 on the movie realism, that's the same way i feel about, if it worked on tv then i should be able to do it in the game.
    I do think that you have to define what realism you're using, much the same as defining what alignment means and other setting specifics. If fighters can cause enemies to explode via a dramatic entrance, the participants need to know that is what is realistic.

    So it goes back to expectations. In the absence of information to the contrary, a player will (not unreasonably) assume that with the exception of the defined supernatural, the game world behaves roughly in a way that conforms to their observations of reality. A good GM will discuss any exceptions to that sort of thing in advance, a good player will keep in mind the possibility that the game world may not conform to the real world (and trust that the GM has some method to his/her madness when it doesn't).


    Tanis wrote:
    Personally, i prefer a sense of realism in my games - as much as taking into account that it's a world where magic exists - and as such, i rule that there's no cap on falling damage.

    Because in real life when you fall your speed just keeps increasing, it's not like there's a thing called terminal velocity or anything...

    No matter the object, as long as there is air resistance your will eventually stop speeding up. As long as your going the same speed, your change in speed when you hit the ground will be the same, meaning the force of hitting the ground will be the same.

    The game devolves just saved you the time of going through the physics equations and assumed every PC's terminal velocity occurs after falling for 200 ft.

    Also, there was a link to an essay on the boards recently. I found it to be a quite fantastic read. The take away points were:

    The average human (in real life) is about a level 1 or 2 npc.
    Olympic athletes are more akin to level 3 - 4 pcs.
    The author read through LOTR and stated Aragon (think that's how you spell it.... been awhile since I've read them) as a level 6 ranger, and Gandolf as about level 10. And they were supposed to be the best of the best in that world.

    Would these people die from a 200 ft fall?
    Yes.

    Should someone who can literally fight a god and walk away die from a 200 foot fall?
    In my opinion, no.


    This falling damage bit seems like a really good place for the optional Massive Damage rules. Granted I might consider modifying the DC by +1/20 ft., or maybe not. I'd have to run the numbers and see where they fall (no pun intended).

    Reality has shown that it is survivable.

    Swimming in lava, that one pushes past my suspension of disbelief. However, according to the rules - contact = 2d6 and immersion (which would include swimming) = 20d6 - if you add in Massive Damage with a modifier to the save for consecutive rounds of damage, this works too.

    Maybe the massive damage rules should only be optional for combat damage but mandatory for environmental damage.


    I like the "movie reality" comments, and I'll push it a bit further -- when my 12th level fighter falls off a cliff, who says he's not tumbling down the sloped parts, and clinging to branches to slow his fall, and finally lands in a big snowdrift? It's all in imagination-land, and I can imagine a lot of scenarios that allow mundanes to be heroic, without also having them be magical.

    "Well, he fell when a dragon dropped him, so your claim fails."
    "Oh, yeah? Well, then, I obviously yanked off part of his wing and used it to hang-glide safely to the ground."
    Give me an "unrealistic" situation and I'll give you a way to make it make it possible without magic.

    Sorry, Seeker, but your problem with fighters falling seems to be too little imagination, not too much realism.

    1 to 50 of 197 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / A Rant About DMs who Cry Realism All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.