I take it from DragonLovers post that he is deployed in Iraq rather than being Iraqi. But I imagine there are fair number of others with military, martial arts, and actual travel experience (I for example was an armored cavalry officer more than a decade ago, have studied and taught martail arts, as well as crawled through a fair number of real world ruins).
In my gaming experience most parties don't move tactically, coordinate fire, set up SOPs, etc. and as a result a "squad" of orcs using tactics could pretty effectly abush and destroy a middle level party.
My question is, do your monsters use tactics? If so how do you adjust the CR? If the mosters set up a get ambush what bonuses do you assign the monsters?
Similarly, how do you hande things that work in the game but just don't make sense in reality, do you award XP bonuses for characters that address those issues in game (my solution), do you just let it slide to expedite play (bulky treasure, non coin treasure are big ones for me).
And maybe this would be better in another thread but does any one else out there find that a lot of the fantasy is rather colorless. By that I mean does anyone else have the experience that real world settings are much more "fantasic" than most of the stuff greated by giants, magic, and races that live for centuries?
For example the real Shaolin Temple Complex, The Great Wall, THe Terra Cotta Warriors (if a little magic brought those to life the party would be well and truly screwed), the Forbidden City (as a palace), Temple of Heaven. Outside of China anything in the Angkor Wat area of Cambodia (especially the Bayon), The Royal Palace in Thailand. Personally I try to adapt these to the game, add some magic, grow the scale, tweea ksome of the design elements? I am alone in these or is reality generally to detail laden to work well in game terms?
I think another thing that is unrealistic in many games is that evil NPCs are so simplistic in their motivations.
So many times, the goal in a campaign is stopping some evil sorcerer bent on world domination, or preventing another destructive campaign by some Blackguard who's actions could not possibly be supported through the resources available. After all, how do these guys plan on utilizing their newfound power when every ounce of land under their control is ruined, and every able-bodied man is dead or in their fiend-sponsered army? They aren't evil, they are absoultely insane (IMO)
After all, do Orcs ambush PCs because they are are absolute evil, or because growing civlization has pushed their tribe into land made up of rocks and worthless scrubland? There is no viable agriculture and little available game, so what's a culture to do?
In my games I try to take this stuff into account when I come up with threats. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, but it's always fun to try.
|
Oi, I could ramble on and on in reply as you've presented numerous questions that I have a variety of experiences in my games over the years.
Tactics: hell ya. If the critter's average INT score is average or greater, I use some detailed tactics, especially if the critter is of a Lawful alignment. Less intelligent (or wise) critters will not use complicated tactics. Chaotic critters need to have a brilliant leader that deserves loyalty for detailed tactics to function properly. I do not adjust ELs unless the critters are using "tools" to carry out their tactics (traps/blinds/decoys).
Reality vs. Fantasy: the real world seems so much more brilliant because we can experience with all our senses. I'm positive that the fantasy settings we use are just as brilliant and rich in the humanoid lands and where the fantasical creatures hold sway, the experience would be beyond description. I think that's the point, it is beyond description. Sure, we can write/relate via language what something looks like, feels like, tastes like, smells like, sounds like, and "sense" like, but in fact all the players and DM can do is imagine it. The only time we can add the other senses is to relate things in the fantasy world to real world things. A "room's stench is similar to a dead possum at the side of the road that's been baking in the sun for a week" usually gets appropriate nose curling from my players. When describing natural things, I'll bring in a rock or plant sample to aid my descriptions.
Time to run to work. Good, otherwise I'd just go on and on and on...
I'm of the "whatever floats your boat" mentality. If you like realism, more power to you. If you don't (like me), that's cool too.
I don't generally play with rules like encumberance, or make people track their rations or arrows. I just don't care that much. And sometimes I just have really evil orcs that attack people for no reason. :-D
-Amber
|
Interesting post, Kyr.
First of all, on tactics: I agree, lots of players I've had in the past don't organize any kind of system for how they are going to do things... at least not until I've thrown a few organized groups of bandits at them. A lot of times (IMO), when players see the 'direction' of gaming you are coming from, they will adapt (at least somewhat) as a matter of survival.
As for things like encumbrance and tracking rations/arrows/bolts, I'm not to much of a stickler. As long as your not excessive about it (Okay, I understand that you want that nice tapestry of a Keoland royal hunt for your bedroom, but it's 12 feet long and 10 feet tall...that's going to present some challenges for you).
Now, as for the question about reality vs. fantasy settings. I definitely let my real world observations color my fantasy flavor. Part of it is because I am an archaeologist and have got to see lots of prehistoric and historic sites both in the US and UK, and got to do lots of research on others around the world, so my answer is Yes! The world is a freakin' cool place and you should use it in the game!
Suggestions (admittedly, this has a US bias, so bear with me):
1) If you ever get the chance to travel abroad...DO!! What better opportnities are you going to get to try to see a real/ruin of a castle, or temple, or ancient burial site? The Jorvic Viking Center in York, England is a particular treat for plunging you into the sights (and smells) of an Viking village. Nothing makes you part of history like nearly bashing your damn head open on one of Blarney Castle's cramped door frames as you're trying to go in and look through an arrow slit...
2) If you get the chance to travel in your home country...DO!! Every state in the US has a SHPO (State Historic Peservation Officer). Look 'em up on line, find out if there are archaeological sites in your region that you can visit. Get a sense for how people were living 200 years ago, 1000 years ago, 13000 years ago. You may not be playing a Stone Age game, but chances are, you have at least one or two 'savage' races who have low tech levels. How are they going to get along in the world? Well, learn how people were doing where you were a couple millenia ago.
3) Similarly, check out you National and State Parks. Invest in a trip to the American Southwest (my personal favorite region)! Check out the Grand Canyon, the huge pueblos of Chaco Canyon, the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde, Big Bend, Walnut Canyon, Wupatki, Canyon de Chelley, the Painted Desert, or any of dozens of other parks or wilderness areas. This is pretty parallel to suggestion #2, but it bears repeating. Anywhere in the country, get to your State Parks and backpack a trail and think what the mindset would be in a fantasy world. What's the visibility like? What's the heat/humidity/bugs factor? Take a journal, write things down!
4) Go check out a cave! If you can get to Carlsbad Caverns or Mammoth Cave, more power to you, but the Midwest is dotted with caves and there are several around the country. Go find out what it would be like to crawl around our world's Underdark. Most tours at some point turn off the lights and let you stand in complete darkness for a few seconds and feel how profoundly disorienting it is. Some will even have a point where they light a torch and show you how the earliest cave explorers probably saw the cave system. Even when you're herded around with a tour group, it's not hard to drift to the back and, for a moment, as your walking down a trail, act like you're holding sword and torch and hoping that wasn't a troop of grimlocs getting into place behind you.
5) We're in the technology age: Use the WWW to your advantage! If you can't visit parks or caves in person, you can still do it online. Lots of sites have photos and footage of sites, some have recreations of what they think was going on at sites deep in time. It doesn't give you as full a picture as actually being there, but it still gives you a starting off point. You can get site maps and brochures with graphics that can be adapted into handouts. (actually, this can be used for lots of game resources...for 'The Mad God's Key', I found a great photo of a Dire Bear skeleton standing on it's hind legs and am working on photoshoping the bear skull off and a owl skull(from BoneClones.com)...bingo... we have a picture of 'the Blessed One' owlbear skeleton as he rises from blood pool at the end.)
Use all of it as a springboard for making kick-ass descriptions to help get your player's heads into the world of the game.
|
"In my gaming experience most parties don't move tactically, coordinate fire, set up SOPs, etc. and as a result a "squad" of orcs using tactics could pretty effectly abush and destroy a middle level party."
I have no military background (I don't even know what "SOP" stands for) but I understand tactics on an intellectual level. As a player, I'm usually the one giving the orders in combat dispite the fact that two of the other players and the DM all have military backgrounds. We usually hit with lots of precision and are very effective. There are times when we get suprised an whatnot which is a little tougher. Overall, tactics are common on both sided from my experience.
As for realism, I think it depends on your taste. I use a "mid-level" amount of realism: enough that it is not rediculous, but not enough to bog things down and bore the players. My main concern is the story so if tactics and realismadd to that, I use it. I think tactics and motivation in particular (based on the INTand alignment of the monster) are the most important to the story.
I'm a big fan of reality. The more real it seems, the more the players connect. I try very hard not to over use monsters and try using NPCs in encounters. Ok, it's a fantasy world, but if there's a Manticore behind every bush, it just takes away the magic (I think). No, I'll use the Manticore maybe once in a campaign, so that when the players think back, they'll say: "Hey, remember the time we fought the Manticore?". I tend to do that with most monsters. Only exeption to that will be orcs, kobolds, goblins, etc... But even for these kinds of humanoids, I'll only use them in a specific area of my maps.
As for tactics, I also really try to make my encounters memorable by having different things happen in similar encounters. The kobolds in my world are quite pesky, and have a knack for building crude traps in the middle of nowhere (think ewoks). So when I roll kobolds on my encounter tables, the group will more likely find a covered pit trap than actual kobolds. More intelligent NPCs and monsters almost scare my players. I play them as I would my own PCs. So an encounter with an evil wizard and his goons is always a good fight, as I can fight pretty nasty when I want to.
Ultradan
Yes I am in the military and not Iraqi. I tend to organize my party when I game to help them with tactics. They do ok by themselves, but my own experience helps. We tend to stick pretty much to all of our preset roles as agreed when we started. My halfling rogue either tails the fighter and flanks the enemy or scouts ahead. When I DM I use tactics too. Though I will admit that I don't put as much effort into it as I do my party because I don't want to kill the characters.
Realism can help a game, and I use as many real time experiences as possible. I constantly relate how the D&D world is similar to ours in as many ways possible. Describing a copse of trees as one thats in a friend's backyard, or how something smells. But sometimes stuff is just so fantastical that there is no real description available. But I still try as best I can.
A bit from my Hoarde
Realism has its place. D&D is not one of them. If you really think about what life and human tactics would be like in the average D&D world:
--Standard medieval castles would be useless, as burrowing, flying, teleporting creatures would make them obsolete.
--Human armies would be small, very professional cadres who would specialize in taking out dangerous creatures and spellcasters very, very quickly. Lining up ranks of pitchfork wielding peasants would most certainly be out.
--1st level warriors? Go grow some wheat and come back when you're 3rd level or so and we'll see if we have a courier job for you.
--There would be no interracial harmony. Humans would root out any non-human race or creature and put them to the sword as quickly as possible....there are no good non-humans.
--There would be no interreligious harmony. A town/region/province/nation would be dedicated to one deity only, all others must die. Maybe a whole pantheon would be acceptable, but I doubt it considering how much some Christian sects hate each other.
--Dungeon exploring? Humankind would use divination spells to find all the entrances and exits and set up killing fields; then pour thousands of gallons of oil into the place and set it on fire. Hire adventurers? Whatever.....
--Spellcasters would be pincushioned by every arrow, bolt, spear that could be brought on them as quickly as possible when in combat. Civilization would either control them or kill them.
--City guards would roam in platoon sized formations, using war dogs, falcons and other creatures to spot invisible and hiding opponents. They would attack in masse when possible, but would usually retreat to set up a containment around the threat (the PC party) until hundreds of them got there to ventilate the enemy with as much damaging weapons as possible.
--Human armies would use the biggest weapons possible at all times. Siege engines would be modular and transportable and would be set up whenever possible to deal as much damage to the large enemy baddies as could be dealt in as short a period of time as could be. Fire, acid, oil, whatever....would be used.
I could go on and on about this. D&D fantasy worlds still have the base assumption that it's a standard medieval setting with some magical stuff on the fringes, but we all know that if there had been "real" dragons or "real" trolls in human history, human civilization would have utterly, utterly, destroyed them as quickly as possible.
I'll get to my thoughts on tactics next, bet you can't wait ;)
Tactics:
What annoys me about many published adventures is that they seem to assume the age old D&D wisdom of monsters hanging out in their respective encounter areas, smoking cigarettes and playing checkers until the heroes arrive.
My players know that is is never the case with me. They know that if they enter a place/dungeon, they had better be very quiet or the whole place comes down on them like a ton of bricks, using coordinated tactics. They see a large group of orcs in the open, they generally retreat, because they know that the orcs are not going to just wade in for the slaughter.
While only one other player in my group has military experience, they use some pretty good basic tactics. They generally keep one PC in reserve, watching the rear and watching for spellcasters at all times. They scout well and retreat when in doubt...it's kept them alive more than a few times. If they plan any more tactics than that, it usually gets too complicated and the game takes too long.
One lesson they've never learned (to date) is that they need to dispose of the bad guys bodies. I can't understand why they don't learn this? If they leave a key NPC's body behind, chances are that he will be found by his allies and raised from the dead or resurrected.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
In my gaming experience most parties don't move tactically, coordinate fire, set up SOPs, etc. and as a result a "squad" of orcs using tactics could pretty effectly abush and destroy a middle level party.
My question is, do your monsters use tactics? If so how do you adjust the CR? If the mosters set up a get ambush what bonuses do you assign the monsters?
Interesting post. Can you give an idea of what you mean by tactical movement and coordination of fire within the context of the game rules?
I try to be tactical, as I'm sure most DM's do, but it seems to me like a lot of real world tactics don't translate cleanly into the game rules. Suppressing fire seems like an example of a technique that works in real life, but not so much under the core rules.
Sebastian
I try for a middle-of-the-road approach. I make all my players carry 10 days' rations and spare bowstrings, but I don't bother tracking the number of arrows they shoot, within reason. If/when we have a high-enough level ranger to arrowstorm, I'll track it then - I always hated movies or TV where the good guy fired 18 shots from a revolver.
As for tactics, I agree completely. Monsters do not hang out in their little area whittling until the PC's come blundering around the corner. My players know they need to stay sharp and quiet, or they can find themselves with no notice up to their eyeballs in wandering monsters.
Also, they know by know to mount forward and rear guards, to keep outriders when they're out in the open, to watch in shifts at night, and all the gods help the PC who falls asleep on his/her watch.
Having served in Iraq Myself, I can say that modern military tactics don't mesh very well with D&D play. The main reason for this is the Lack of a one shot one kill capability in D&D. While it is nice to try to run a SWAT operation, unless you are playing first level, or against low level monsters, there is a very good chance that you will not be able to kill your foes before they off a prisoner, or escape it that is what they want to do.
In real combat, you don't have to kill your enemy, a wound can also take them out of the fight. In D&D whether you have 500 HPs or 1 HP, you can fight the same. This is also one of the things about many first person shooter computer games like Counter Strike, or most of the WWII games that makes it difficult for folks who have been in actual combat to play.
This is not to say that there are not workable tactics that can be used by characters in D&D, and almost every party I have ever DMed eventually works out a reliable set of combat maneuvers that make them a honed fighting force.
The biggest threat a Party has from monsters is the DM using his knowledge of the party against them when the particular monsters would not have such knowledge.
ASEO out
My players, bless 'em, actually prefer tactics to a straight-up brawl. The party will usually spend quite a few minutes, if they've got the advantage, coming up with a strategic plan that will take out the enemy with the least casualties and damage. They do come up with some of the strangest, but niftiest stuff. Because they do take the effort of planning instead of a hack-n-slash, I usually award them for it.
So, generally, we tend to err on the side of realism.
You have to suspend realism to some degree (more in some areas, less in others) for the game to work. If you make it too realistic, it becomes "reality," and we all know how fun that is.
Something that illustrates this very well and no one else has ever brought up that I know of, is ecology. If you try to bring realism to this aspect of the world, go ahead and throw out everything other then animals that have existed in historical times, and humans. No other races. No monsters. There is no way that an ecology, presumably one more or less identical to Earth's, could support all these creatures.
Let's assume you introduce just one monster to the real world: a troll. There goes all the wildlife of whatrever region it was placed in. There are no deer, no anything else, as they're all eaten by the trolls. Now the symbiosis of plant and animal is broken, and not only do people have to worry about trolls, but starvation as well.
In order to support the vast number of creatures presumed in a D&D world, there would need to be truely astronomical amounts of open land and natural resources, to an extent that begins to create logic problems with itself, which is why it doesn't exist on Earth.
So, if you're going to include magic and mosnters, you've already suspended a great deal of realism.
Also, as far as villains go: D&D villains are far more powerful than anyone in the real world could ever be, and thus wars of domination and destruction aren't such a stretch (not to mention the ability to reach OUTSIDE of the Material Plane to aquire resources you need if you blast a whole country). This also goes back to the reality part. In real life, people have fought for countless centuries over minor philosophical differences, governmental procedures, and the same scraps of land, over and over and over. There is little good and evil. There's just a percieved Us and Them. Not so fun.
But, in D&D, monsters DO exist, magic WORKS, and bad guys are truely evil, and just want to destroy/conquer/etc. Not always, but a lot of the time, the clear cut nature of good and evil is what makes it so fun.
Think what Lord of the Rings would have been like if Gondor and Morder were just two countries that occasionaly fought over territorial disputes, or even if Sauron had just been interested in plots to gain money and power for a life of luxury in his own realm. Boring. But, Sauron is the Dark Lord of Morder, and wishes for the conquest of all life in Middle Earth, while Gondor is the last great human kingdom, trying to desperately stand against the darkness while maintaining its last vestiges of ancient glory. Now you've got my attention.
I realize I didn't cover tactics in the above post. Use them as you are capable and see fit. Remeber that the modern day educational system is much better than that presumed in the standard D&D setting. Modern tactics would probably require an Int of 13+ to even concieve of, 15+ to really carry out well. Simply put, orcs are stupid (at least in most settings). Human commoners aren't much better.
Another thing to remember along this line: Even if the character is a super-genius, that doesn't mean he can grasp any modern concept he wants. There have been many super-geniuses in the past that had little concept of even basic modern sience, just because the culture around them didn't, and that much knowledge is just too much for even a prodigy to come up with all on his own. Technology/science moves in steps.
This mainly comes into play when, in my campaigns, I get a max Int player who wants to make modern style weapons and such, just because he's a "genius". Doesn't matter. If no one around you has ever even concieved of anything like an automatic rifle, you can't make one from scratch (not to mention all the other technologies that are requireed to produce such a weapon that don't exist in most settings).
Sorry for the long, ranting posts.
Modern tactics would probably require an Int of 13+ to even concieve of, 15+ to really carry out well. Human commoners aren't much better.
I disagree. Human tactics have always evolved to fit their opponent, no matter the technology level. Massed rank formation warfare, while stupid as seen through the modern eye, was appropriate for the medieval era. They didn't have to worry about fireballs, area effect spells, dragon breath, etc.
Sure, an occasional catapult missile soaked in pitch could take out more than one soldier at a time, but when siege weapons were in the battle, the massed formations always adjusted to take them into account.
Alexander, the Greeks, the Romans, the Assyrians, the Egyptians and especially the Chinese, used highly innovative tactics in warfare and if a D and D world was real, humankind would figure out innovative tactics to slaughter their enemies by the droves, as they always have.
Sun Tzu's book on the Art of War was written thousands of years ago and is still very appropriate in general terms. Had he been faced with having to defend China against real dragons or trolls, I have no doubt that he would have come up with something very deadly, even with the limited technology available.
"Modern" tactics aren't "modern" at all--they're simply an extension of the technology of warfare we have now. Great tactical thinking is timeless, always has been.
Disallowing innovative tactics in D and D because you think the concept is too "modern" is doing your players a disservice.
Not allowing PC's to develop automatic rifles is a totally different concept, of course.
Modern tactics would probably require an Int of 13+ to even concieve of, 15+ to really carry out well. Human commoners aren't much better.
I disagree. Human tactics have always evolved to fit their opponent, no matter the technology level. Massed rank formation warfare, while stupid as seen through the modern eye, was appropriate for the medieval era. They didn't have to worry about fireballs, area effect spells, dragon breath, etc.
Sure, an occasional catapult missile soaked in pitch could take out more than one soldier at a time, but when siege weapons were in the battle, the massed formations always adjusted to take them into account.
Alexander, the Greeks, the Romans, the Assyrians, the Egyptians and especially the Chinese, used highly innovative tactics in warfare and if a D and D world was real, humankind would figure out innovative tactics to slaughter their enemies by the droves, as they always have.
Sun Tzu's book on the Art of War was written thousands of years ago and is still very appropriate in general terms. Had he been faced with having to defend China against real dragons or trolls, I have no doubt that he would have come up with something very deadly, even with the limited technology available.
"Modern" tactics aren't "modern" at all--they're simply an extension of the technology of warfare we have now. Great tactical thinking is timeless, always has been.
Disallowing innovative tactics in D and D because you think the concept is too "modern" is doing your players a disservice.
Not allowing PC's to develop automatic rifles is a totally different concept, of course.
I apologize for the ambiguity. My point was that a group of orcs running through the woods wouldn't neccessarily have any concept of modern tactics, since they've never been demonstrated and the orcs probably haven't given it much thought. This would vary by culture; hobgoblins, for example, are lawful, and thus would have more of a tactical mind as a group.
Also, note that, in game terms, such great figures as Alexander, Sun Tzu, Hannibal, etc., would probably have Int scores of 15+, and thus could lead their men effectively. That's what made great generals great; their ability to come up with such plans. However, the average soldier might have little concept of these maneuvers, and would never devise them on his own. That is what I was trying to state.
I was also referencing the fact that tactical information from real battles is much more available in today's information age, so it would be even harder for a casual learner to come by such information in the presumed educational structure of the typical D&D world (though not TOO difficult, as such lore is some of the most widespread and studied in human history)
Yeah, I can see your point, Saern.
I don't run my D&D games the way that I think humanity would react to the presences of monsters, magic, etc. in "real life."
I think D&D humans are more enlightened and much more accepting of their fellow creatures than Earth humans would have been (or would be, for that matter).
Having said that, I still don't agree with the game concept that human armies and soldiers on the move always act like medieval soldiers trying to fight other medieval soldiers, acting with indignant surprise and dying in place when they run into spells or tough monsters.
In my campaign, the troops fight in nothing less than platoon sized formations against anything. The troops are almost always at least 3rd level and have alchemist's fire, acid flasks and oil ready to take care of threats. NCO's have magic weapons, there's at least a 3rd level cleric and arcane spellcaster in the group.
If any spellcaster is identified in the opposing force, that spellcaster better pray they have some protection spells up because the soldiers in my campaign will not rest until that spellcaster has been rendered combat ineffective.
Armies fight on their terms--they retreat when in doubt and respond with overwhelming force when they have to respond. When attacking enemies, human armies set up a protected camp near their target area (Roman-style) and then clear fields of fire. They try to draw the monsters to them so they can hit them with everything they've got, all at once.
That's why I think that soldiers in a D&D world would be higher level professionals rather than conscripts--they know what they're up against and adapt tactics to overcome pretty much any opposition. Guerilla warfare, ambushes, traps, siege weapons, armored war wagons, flame weapons, acid weapons, would all have been developed to deal with the enemies of civilization.
Sun Tzu's book on the Art of War was written thousands of years ago and is still very appropriate in general terms. Had he been faced with having to defend China against real dragons or trolls, I have no doubt that he would have come up with something very deadly, even with the limited technology available.
Hmmmm....
I can't quite agree here -- Sun Tzu would have fallen before that red dragon as quickly as he would have fallen before a Backfire bomber. Actually, the two probably have the same CR :)
Jack
Individually, of course, but don't you think that if the Chinese knew that red dragons could attack them they wouldn't have about 40,000 archers with acid vial tipped arrows ready for it when it flew over the Forbidden City?
Harry Turtledove's "Balance" series of alternate history novels captures what I'm trying to say very well. Earth gets invaded by technologically superior aliens in the middle of World War II....by the third book you're feeling sorry for the aliens, because humanity has adapted their fighting and tactics to combat them and is holding its own very well.
"Ginger bombs"
Not to mention the fact that new innovative tactics did historically travel very quickly...when someone invented some new tactic, the opponent would be using similar tactic in the next fight.
As for other matters of realism...magic and monsters indeed mess up a lot which basically is a good reason to limit them down so that a commoner can happily live his whole life without seeing a single dragon or a 3rd level spell.
I wouldn't see interracial or interreligious harmony that impossible either. Just because they weren't that big in medieval Britain doesn't mean they are impossible...take a look at modern Japan where many different and conflicting religions happily live next to each other and many people actually belong to several different religious sects. While actual interracialism cannot be seen in our world (we all are homo sapiens after all) there are plenty of places where different cultures have lived next to each other.
In both cases there is naturally strain, just like realistically there should be in fantasy societies. And of course places where only this religion or this race is allowed to live...
I was not suggesting as I think was assumed by a few that tactics would be the same is on the modern battlefield. But rather that tactics could play a role in making encounters more interesting. Orc patrols (for example) should have an SOP to deal with an ambush, have reinforced fall back position in their own territory, would know the best place to set ambushes on their own land to some advantage, etc.
Tactics would evolve to fit experience, they always have.
As do fortifications, most modules layout structures, without attention to how they would deal with seiges or infiltration attempts supported by magic, or monstrous assualts, or airborner attacks.
I like the idea of substances that resist such attacks, certain clays resistant to magic, charms the limit teleportation etc. Do other make extensive use of these?
Is there is a spell in the PHB - but I have to assume that more defences to such would evolve. Do most make those things up on the fly? Do you explain them at all? Or does dimension door provide a universal key?
I wouldn't see interracial or interreligious harmony that impossible either. Just because they weren't that big in medieval Britain doesn't mean they are impossible...take a look at modern Japan where many different and conflicting religions happily live next to each other and many people actually belong to several different religious sects.
...and even if we consider modern Japan to be somehow more enlightened than what can be expected on typical fantasy society, let's look at ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome. All of those were religiously very varied and even when they pretended to have "a single pantheon" there was lots of room for variation and inclusion of new divinities (not to mention worship of Kybele, Isis and others in Rome...).
Or crack up the Bible. For a notable part of Old testament there is a belief that God of Judaism is not the only god, but the only god Jews should worship. Even such strongly monotheistic religion did accept (at least at some point) that those other gods other people did worship were real...
All good points.
Some cultures are tolerant of other religions, some aren't.
Some are tolerant of other races, some aren't.
Behaviors, Language, Manner of Conducting business vary wildly in the real world.
It seems unlikely (to me at least) that a fantasy world with much greater diversity would be a generic backdrop. It would vary by city, region, country, in pronounced ways.
I just wondered what kind of emphasis people put on those characteristics in their games. Those differences (often subtle) make a big difference in my life, and I try to capture that for players and provide pretty rich descriptions (not that I always succeed)
In Saudi Arabia today Ramadan Kareem.
Kyr,
There are several spells in the PH that can be used to secure strongholds against magical attack. "Forbiddance" is probably the most useful of the bunch. "Magic mouth" is a classic. There are many others that can be applied.
I think the most defensible and useful structure in a D&D world would be a dungeon, actually. The entrance would funnel intruders to a choke point/killing field where overlapping fields of fire would allow the orcs/kobolds/skeletons/whatever to fire dozens of missile weapons at the attackers at the same time. Getting out of the "fatal funnel" would require some work, desperate, while under fire.
As far as religion goes, I mentioned in an earlier post that I believed the humans in a D&D world were part of the more enlightened crowd. However, when the conflicts between Gods are built into the description of the Deities, it doesn't take much of a stretch to think that it might not be that harmonious.
My players always have a hard time believing that civilized towns allow open worship of evil or even non-lawful, deities.
To answer the question about addressing magical means of assault, yes, I usually counter magic with magic. I allow plenty of room for Dimension Door and other such spells to be used, but when you're going up against a major defensive structure, it's not going to work. There's a reason no one's taken it yet, or at least not in a very long time. I generally place some form of arcane or divine warding field around the structure (which has rules as strict as any spell, since I'm not just trying to cheat my players), and I make extensive use of substances with various properties to do the same thing, or even stack effects.
And tactics should be taken into acount in ANY D&D setting. In my opinion, that's what a creature's INT is for. Kobolds might have relatively simple plans, but illithids are master tacticians, and you should be VERY careful when dealing with them. The same goes for wizards; one of the most dangerous (and stuupid) things you can do is assault a wizard in his lair.
Also, I have to point out again, orcs are stupid. They are, normally, meant to be dumb "Me smash!" types, at least in my opinion. Hobgoblins (who are lawful and more intelligent) can have all the tactics in the world. Orcs are just stupid AND chaotic. I also meant to point out the alignment system in the part about motivations of villains. In realtity, there are very few cases of alignments in absolutes. In D&D, it's everywhere. Evil is evil and does evil things. You can make the goals of a villain as detailed as you can imagine, but it's not required. Sometimes they just like spreading evil for its own sake.
I think that's the fundamental appeal of the D&D game--a simpler world, where good and evil is clearly defined and there are heroic quests to be fulfilled and adventure lies around every turn. I'm good with that, but I still try to make things a little more "believable" for my players and in my campaign.
Orcs may be stupid, but they would use some good basic tactics, which would be handed down using oral history or stories about how Gruumsh handled it. Ambush tactics, keeping a reserve, using missile weapons and reach weapons to maximum effect may be too complicated for the average orc to figure out on their own, but their tribal traditions, religious doctrine and history give them the knowledge of such tactics all the same.
Of course, a mass attack always has its place within such history. It's all how you want to run your game--I have a problem with constantly using "stupid, ugly" stereotypical depictions of monsters. I use them, just not all the time.
I'm not implying that you only use stereotypical monsters, Saern, I was just trying to make my point. There's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the archetypes...well, archetypical.