I'm posting a reply to a quote from another thread so that thread doesn't get derailed anymore than it already is.
I love how people are fine with their character falling from 200 ft. and simply brushing off and walking away,but they call a difference between sword A and sword B a gross violation of realism.
Or being fine with the fact that you can shoot a longbow 4 times in 6 seconds. This is D&D, this game was never meant to be realistic.
If realism has no place in D&D, why not throw out any semblance of realism at all? PCs can do whatever they want, right? Physics be damned! To claim otherwise wouldn't be realistic, right? Right?
/facetiousness
Realism has it's place in games and you know it. The argument is not "D&D was never meant to be realistic". It's "how much realism should be adhered to in D&D?"... and thus we seem to have several distinct camps; those that believe that basic physics/realism should be adhered to at all times unless a power, feat or class ability says otherwise and those that believe that basic physics/realism should be adhered to unless ignoring it would benefit a PC in a way that enhances their enjoyment of the game.
These are two similar (more similar than either camp realizes, I'd wager) viewpoints, but so different at the same time. Camp A thinks Camp B doesn't care about immersion and Camp B thinks Camp A is overthinking things and should lighten up. Personally, I'm more Camp A. Both sides have valid arguments, but what frustrates me the most is Camp B's tendency to make arguments that "Pathfinder/D&D isn't supposed to be realistic. It has magic and dragons and stuff"... I hate that argument because it seems to imply that because magic and dragons are an element of the game, realism, even at it's most basic levels should be totally ignored. I do not agree with that.
Incidentally, as a DM I wouldn't allow a high level character to just walk away from a 200 foot drop without a broken leg or something. That's going to mess -anyone- up.
It's a trap.
I also think the question of realism in D&D/Pathfinder is very interesting and important. It invariably comes up in almost every discussion. Especially those about the rules.
When discussing this "realism", it is most important to define what one is talking about.
I do NOT define "realism" in fantasy as "equivalence to how things work in the real world".
For me "realism" in fantasy is in the sense of consistency inside a "fantasy context". This "fantasy context" is defined by the rulebooks and settings.
Otherwise, let me just quote from what I said in my UMD thread:
Finally, let me point out that "realism", in the sense of directly comparing a fantasy world to the real world, does not make any sense. The only realism that exists in a fantasy world, is the consistency within its own fantastic context, which is defined by the rulebooks and campaign settings.
What is important to note, is that the fantastic context contains certain elements and concepts from the real world. Thus the real world analogies we use are merely examples of elements and concepts that the game designers might have used to base the fantasy elements and concepts on.
I'd say as much asi it's fun for your group.
Aside from that I agree with admiral Lincoln.
god I love the responses so far ^^
but I'll try not to be that sarcastic and run into the trap
there is a line between no-physics and bending the laws of nature.
I mean Hercules did something in the stories that was not humanly possible, but should we therefor assume that he lived in a world where things fall upwards?
Just think of those falling guys as Neo-like people, who leave a small crate where they fall. For the rest, just imagine it's a world full of magic, and the atoms have magic-molecules. And because it's quite hard to imagine a world that different from ours, it's a lot similar. For example take the 2-dimensional world, flatland. Physics says that in pair dimensions, sound never stops to be. So you have to redefine sound, or manage that.
It's a trap.
If by that you're attempting to accuse the creation of this thread as some form of trolling, you would be incorrect. If that's not what you meant, I'm at a loss.
I'd say as much as it's fun for your group.
That sounds simple and reasonable until you have someone from Camp A and someone from Camp B in the same group.
I also think the question of realism in D&D/Pathfinder is very interesting and important. It invariably comes up in almost every discussion. Especially those about the rules.
When discussing this "realism", it is most important to define what one is talking about.
I do NOT define "realism" in fantasy as "equivalence to how things work in the real world".
For me "realism" in fantasy is in the sense of consistency inside a "fantasy context". This "fantasy context" is defined by the rulebooks and settings.
Otherwise, let me just quote from what I said in my UMD thread:
Finally, let me point out that "realism", in the sense of directly comparing a fantasy world to the real world, does not make any sense. The only realism that exists in a fantasy world, is the consistency within its own fantastic context, which is defined by the rulebooks and campaign settings.
What is important to note, is that the fantastic context contains certain elements and concepts from the real world. Thus the real world analogies we use are merely examples of elements and concepts that the game designers might have used to base the fantasy elements and concepts on.
That's actually really astute and I agree. I think what I'm looking for is that same sense of consistency without realism being totally thrown out the window.
Your limit is the suspended disbelief the group. Mind you some people will be much more hard pressed about certain subject than others. For example some people will have a problem coping with wizards forgetting the spells as they cast them. There sometimes issues with the innate ability to influence magic with charisma. I read a lot of complaints of players getting away with such things as swinging oversized weapons, swimming through lava, and safely managing a extreme drops. Magic often doesn't get that gripe because there isn't really anything to compare it to.
Ironically, there have been reports of people who can survive extreme heat, have a high resistance to electricity, and have superior muscle control.
By the time your players are level 20, they are demigods. It's not that there aren't any rules, it's just that they are at a point where they are bypassing those rules. This is just my personal opinion, but if you can suspend belief to allow a wizard to amass that amount of knowledge to teleport and call demons without having his explode, why can't you suspend it for the fighter to be resilient in a fall. These characters are abnormal and superhuman. Do your players go WTF how does superman fly?
As a player, for something that has rules (such as lava) I'd expect those rules to be used unless I've been forewarned.
For something like a 200ft drop, one could enforce a Fort save or go limp. Though to just automatically rule something like that without warning and without even a DC will just annoy the players.
The word I think being sought for is not 'realism' but verisimilitude - the internal consistency of the imagined world in the game we play, and it's consistency with the world around us. The world around us doesn't have wizards and dragons, but we can suspend disbelief because of our experience does include shops a people, and the concept of swords and that hitting people with them hurts.
You should always bear in mind that hit points are not health points - they are a combination of health, toughness, skill and luck. A two hundred foot fall from a cliff is normally lethal to the average man, and yet people have survived such: you hit a tree on the way down, or the place where you fell was above a sharply inclined scree slope, or the cliff just wasn't vertical and you skidded and bounced down a series of break-falls. That fall off a sky-scraper was broken by the shop awning far below you, and the crate of peaches bellow that (you are covered in peach purée, but you are alive).
You can go further into legend as levels rise - heroes like Achilles who was all but invulnerable, or Hercules who could wrestle an elephant, or Gandalf who didn't stay dead. Because you started as human, you can appreciate these changes, the verisimilitude is maintained by the systems internal consistency.
It's a trap.
+1
The trap is trying to argue anything in Pathfinder/D&D based off of real world physics or real world weaponry.
You get hit by a lance carried by a knight on horseback at full charge. That's about 1000 kg of momentum delivered to a 5 cm cross sectional spear head at about 18 meters per second.
18*18=324, times 1,000 kg = 324 kilonewtons of force. That's twice the kinetic energy than a .50 caliber sniper round delivers.
In its era, the cavalry charge with lance was the most impressive battlefield weapon on earth in terms of what damage it could do.
In Pathfinder, it's less damage than a 7th level rogue will do with a rapier.
In Pathfinder, the longbow and composite longbow completely own the crossbow.
In the real world, the longbow yielded rapidly to the crossbow because the crossbow was easier to train someone to shoot and more accurate at the same level of skill. Either one could reliably kill a man armored with mail in a single shot, or render him unable to continue fighting.
This isn't to say that Pathfinder should be changed. It's saying that arguing anything in Pathfinder based on 'real world' physics is a trap. There are plenty of games that do a better job of 'real world physics & gritty fantasy' than Pathfinder.
You'll have a much harder time finding players to play them with you, because Pathfinder's play style and design choices are very appealing to a wide range of players.
By the time your players are level 20, they are demigods. It's not that there aren't any rules, it's just that they are at a point where they are bypassing those rules. This is just my personal opinion, but if you can suspend belief to allow a wizard to amass that amount of knowledge to teleport and call demons without having his explode, why can't you suspend it for the fighter to be resilient in a fall. These characters are abnormal and superhuman. Do your players go WTF how does superman fly?
I tend to look at it very different than you do, it seems. A 20th level Human Fighter for example is still just a man to me. He's not a superhuman. He's very skilled and battle hardened, but in the end he's no more than he was when he was level one. He got more skilled... he wears magic items that give him special abilities... but he was not magically bestowed with anything that allows him to transcend disbelief beyond that which his attributes, class or racial abilities and the abilities his magic items affords him.
The word I think being sought for is not 'realism' but verisimilitude - the internal consistency of the imagined world in the game we play, and it's consistency with the world around us. The world around us doesn't have wizards and dragons, but we can suspend disbelief because of our experience does include shops a people, and the concept of swords and that hitting people with them hurts.
You should always bear in mind that hit points are not health points - they are a combination of health, toughness, skill and luck. A two hundred foot fall from a cliff is normally lethal to the average man, and yet people have survived such: you hit a tree on the way down, or the place where you fell was above a sharply inclined scree slope, or the cliff just wasn't vertical and you skidded and bounced down a series of break-falls. That fall off a sky-scraper was broken by the shop awning far below you, and the crate of peaches bellow that (you are covered in peach purée, but you are alive).
A great point, Dabbler. There are many folks who tend to assume that hit points are purely how tough you are.
You can go further into legend as levels rise - heroes like Achilles who was all but invulnerable, or Hercules who could wrestle an elephant, or Gandalf who didn't stay dead. Because you started as human, you can appreciate these changes, the verisimilitude is maintained by the systems internal consistency.
That's just it. An archer can fire 6 arrows in a turn because the character has class abilities and feats which allow for it. I've heard folks claim that an 8 foot greatsword should be able to be wielded in a 5 foot corridor at no penalty (something which directly benefits a PC)... why? Because there is no rule which prevents it. I'd be willing to bet (many) of those same players would argue that if it pertained to an NPC using the weapon against the PCs, the NPC should be denied.
Pathfinder is a game where punching fire to death is a good idea, there are nonmagical humans whose badassery is measured in multiple T-Rexes, and there are giant robotic demon-spiders with laser vision. "Realism" is not at issue. Verisimilitude, however, is another story, and you can have hundred-pound swords without the slightest sacrifice of verisimilitude.
It's a trap.+1
The trap is trying to argue anything in Pathfinder/D&D based off of real world physics or real world weaponry.
You get hit by a lance carried by a knight on horseback at full charge. That's about 1000 kg of momentum delivered to a 5 cm cross sectional spear head at about 18 meters per second.
18*18=324, times 1,000 kg = 324 kilonewtons of force. That's twice the kinetic energy than a .50 caliber sniper round delivers.
In its era, the cavalry charge with lance was the most impressive battlefield weapon on earth in terms of what damage it could do.
In Pathfinder, it's less damage than a 7th level rogue will do with a rapier.
In Pathfinder, the longbow and composite longbow completely own the crossbow.
In the real world, the longbow yielded rapidly to the crossbow because the crossbow was easier to train someone to shoot and more accurate at the same level of skill. Either one could reliably kill a man armored with mail in a single shot, or render him unable to continue fighting.
This isn't to say that Pathfinder should be changed. It's saying that arguing anything in Pathfinder based on 'real world' physics is a trap. There are plenty of games that do a better job of 'real world physics & gritty fantasy' than Pathfinder.
You'll have a much harder time finding players to play them with you, because Pathfinder's play style and design choices are very appealing to a wide range of players.
I get what you're saying, but I'm talking about things on a more basic level than real world pounds per square inch of velocity times the root of an unladen swallow stuff.
I mean things that are just -common sense-, yet there are either no rules to prevent something or there are actually rules in place that directly fly in the face of that common sense (like swimming in a pool of lava for 2 rounds and coming out injured but very much alive... you know, because you had plenty of hit points).
Pathfinder is a game where punching fire to death is a good idea, there are nonmagical humans whose badassery is measured in multiple T-Rexes, and there are giant robotic demon-spiders with laser vision. "Realism" is not at issue. Verisimilitude, however, is another story, and you can have hundred-pound swords without the slightest sacrifice of verisimilitude.
I simply cannot look at the game that way. On a very basic level, things have to make sense to me.
Wait... nonmagical humans? T-Rexes? I got every reference but that one. o.O
|
It's a trap.+1
The trap is trying to argue anything in Pathfinder/D&D based off of real world physics or real world weaponry.
You get hit by a lance carried by a knight on horseback at full charge. That's about 1000 kg of momentum delivered to a 5 cm cross sectional spear head at about 18 meters per second.
18*18=324, times 1,000 kg = 324 kilonewtons of force. That's twice the kinetic energy than a .50 caliber sniper round delivers.
In its era, the cavalry charge with lance was the most impressive battlefield weapon on earth in terms of what damage it could do.
In Pathfinder, it's less damage than a 7th level rogue will do with a rapier.
In Pathfinder, the longbow and composite longbow completely own the crossbow.
In the real world, the longbow yielded rapidly to the crossbow because the crossbow was easier to train someone to shoot and more accurate at the same level of skill. Either one could reliably kill a man armored with mail in a single shot, or render him unable to continue fighting.
This isn't to say that Pathfinder should be changed. It's saying that arguing anything in Pathfinder based on 'real world' physics is a trap. There are plenty of games that do a better job of 'real world physics & gritty fantasy' than Pathfinder.
You'll have a much harder time finding players to play them with you, because Pathfinder's play style and design choices are very appealing to a wide range of players.
I get what you're saying, but I'm talking about things on a more basic level than real world pounds per square inch of velocity times the root of an unladen swallow stuff.
I mean things that are just -common sense-, yet there are either no rules to prevent something or there are actually rules in place that directly fly in the face of that common sense (like swimming in a pool of lava for 2 rounds and coming out injured but very much alive... you know, because you had plenty of hit points).
A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture.
A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture.
It's only common sense if you're a history or physics buff.
I'm talking about layman's common sense.
Me? I did not know that piece of trivia before.
I mean things that are just -common sense-, yet there are either no rules to prevent something or there are actually rules in place that directly fly in the face of that common sense (like swimming in a pool of lava for 2 rounds and coming out injured but very much alive... you know, because you had plenty of hit points).
Let me boil it down for you:
RPGs as game systems are reward mechanisms for particular play styles. Decide what you want rewarded in play style and player behavior, and pick an RPG that rewards that kind of play.
Pathfinder rewards a very specific style of play: Characters progress through mortality to action heroes, to wuxia action heroes to minor demigods.
A 20th level fighter is NOT just a 'battle hardened veteran'. He's a man who can go toe to toe with a Balor and likely win out.
If that isn't the kind of player behavior you want to see, play a different game...but don't expect people who are happy with Pathfinder to join you in that different game.
|
|
A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture.It's only common sense if you're a history or physics buff.
I'm talking about layman's common sense.
Me? I did not know that piece of trivia before.
No, it's a common sense if you are an average person living in the society at given time.
I don't need physics to know that a .50 cal round will kill me dead in one shot.
700 years back I wouldn't need physics to know that a knight on a horseback will kill me dead in one hit.
I mean things that are just -common sense-, yet there are either no rules to prevent something or there are actually rules in place that directly fly in the face of that common sense (like swimming in a pool of lava for 2 rounds and coming out injured but very much alive... you know, because you had plenty of hit points).
Let me boil it down for you:
RPGs as game systems are reward mechanisms for particular play styles. Decide what you want rewarded in play style and player behavior, and pick an RPG that rewards that kind of play.
Pathfinder rewards a very specific style of play: Characters progress through mortality to action heroes, to wuxia action heroes to minor demigods.
A 20th level fighter is NOT just a 'battle hardened veteran'. He's a man who can go toe to toe with a Balor and likely win out.
Not without his magical gear, he can't. He's not really winning that fight because as you put it "he's a demigod"... he's winning because he spent a crapload of gold on his AC and damage output.
If that isn't the kind of player behavior you want to see, play a different game...but don't expect people who are happy with Pathfinder to join you in that different game.
Funny, I thought Pathfinder was a game that could cater to a wide variety of players. Apparently it only caters to a specific playstyle and if you don't like it, "go play a different game". You're getting pretty close to making personal attacks. That's not the purpose of this thread, let alone these boards.
A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture.It's only common sense if you're a history or physics buff.
I'm talking about layman's common sense.
Me? I did not know that piece of trivia before.
No, it's a common sense if you are an average person living in the society at given time.
I don't need physics to know that a .50 cal round will kill me dead in one shot.
700 years back I wouldn't need physics to know that a knight on a horseback will kill me dead in one hit.
My point is we don't live 700 years ago... we live in modern times and even though you may know a bit more than your average person does about history, realize that there are many people to whom that knowledge isn't necessarily "common sense".
I reject realism and substitute believability. Logic is also acceptable. When you don't put an adult Red Dragon in a 10 by 10 room, that's not because of realism. Pathfinder has, up to now, had a lot more internal consistency than most games of it's ilk.
|
|
My point is we don't live 700 years ago... we live in modern times and even though you may know a bit more than your average person does about history, realize that there are many people to whom that knowledge isn't necessarily "common sense".A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture.It's only common sense if you're a history or physics buff.
I'm talking about layman's common sense.
Me? I did not know that piece of trivia before.
No, it's a common sense if you are an average person living in the society at given time.
I don't need physics to know that a .50 cal round will kill me dead in one shot.
700 years back I wouldn't need physics to know that a knight on a horseback will kill me dead in one hit.
A guy on a horse with a pointy stick is going to kill you if he hits. You need as much common sense for that as to know that if you jump from the 3rd floor, you're likely dead or heavily injured.
|
My point is we don't live 700 years ago... we live in modern times and even though you may know a bit more than your average person does about history, realize that there are many people to whom that knowledge isn't necessarily "common sense".A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture.It's only common sense if you're a history or physics buff.
I'm talking about layman's common sense.
Me? I did not know that piece of trivia before.
No, it's a common sense if you are an average person living in the society at given time.
I don't need physics to know that a .50 cal round will kill me dead in one shot.
700 years back I wouldn't need physics to know that a knight on a horseback will kill me dead in one hit.
Really? Are people THAT dumb in this day and age to not realzie that a knight on horseback skewering you with a lance is gonna kill you?!? Man I realize that people can be dumb...but I guess I failed to realize exactly how dumb people have gotten.
Really? Are people THAT dumb in this day and age to not realzie that a knight on horseback skewering you with a lance is gonna kill you?!? Man I realize that people can be dumb...but I guess I failed to realize exactly how dumb people have gotten.My point is we don't live 700 years ago... we live in modern times and even though you may know a bit more than your average person does about history, realize that there are many people to whom that knowledge isn't necessarily "common sense".A knight on a horseback is very much common sense. It's so much common sense that crossbows, longbows, artillery and finally rifles were all created in order to move that lance-armed knight out of the picture.It's only common sense if you're a history or physics buff.
I'm talking about layman's common sense.
Me? I did not know that piece of trivia before.
No, it's a common sense if you are an average person living in the society at given time.
I don't need physics to know that a .50 cal round will kill me dead in one shot.
700 years back I wouldn't need physics to know that a knight on a horseback will kill me dead in one hit.
You get hit by a lance carried by a knight on horseback at full charge. That's about 1000 kg of momentum delivered to a 5 cm cross sectional spear head at about 18 meters per second.
18*18=324, times 1,000 kg = 324 kilonewtons of force. That's twice the kinetic energy than a .50 caliber sniper round delivers
-REALLY-? THAT's common sense? o.O
I didn't realize your average person was a math and physics major.
It's a trap.+1
The trap is trying to argue anything in Pathfinder/D&D based off of real world physics or real world weaponry.
The trap is not the physics, the trap is assuming the physics translates to the hit-point system linearly.
You get hit by a lance carried by a knight on horseback at full charge. That's about 1000 kg of momentum delivered to a 5 cm cross sectional spear head at about 18 meters per second.
18*18=324, times 1,000 kg = 324 kilonewtons of force. That's twice the kinetic energy than a .50 caliber sniper round delivers.
In its era, the cavalry charge with lance was the most impressive battlefield weapon on earth in terms of what damage it could do.
In Pathfinder, it's less damage than a 7th level rogue will do with a rapier.
You see, you are assuming kinetic energy is proportional to damage, and damage is proportional to kinetic energy. That's not even half the story. The energy forms the basis of the damage, yes, but hit points also depend on luck, skill etc. and not just toughness and health. Against the guy who hasn't much luck, the lance runs him through, period. Against the guy with a lot of luck, his armour deflects it, you graze him and he gets away. The rogue with the rapier has the ability to sway the odds, he is thrusting for the vitals so while he doesn't have the kinetic energy of the lance, he nails the ordinary guy right through the heart, stone dead, with deadly precision. The luckier guy gets to live, but that rapier hurt him bad.
In Pathfinder, the longbow and composite longbow completely own the crossbow.
In the real world, the longbow yielded rapidly to the crossbow because the crossbow was easier to train someone to shoot and more accurate at the same level of skill. Either one could reliably kill a man armored with mail in a single shot, or render him unable to continue fighting.
The kinetic energy of a bolt from a 700lb crossbow span is not significantly more than that of an arrow from a 100lb longbow draw, because the crossbow is much less efficient at transmitting the power to it's missile. The longbow was used right up through to the 1650's in Britain (it was used in the English Civil War), until the musket began to seriously replace both it and the crossbow. The longbow was as effective as either, and faster firing, but it was the training required that gave the others the edge, not lethality. The Duke of Wellington wanted longbowmen to fight in the early 1800s, but sufficient men with the skill could not be found.
Sorry, this has been thrashed out a lot on these boards, and a lot of people get their history badly wrong on the subject.
This isn't to say that Pathfinder should be changed. It's saying that arguing anything in Pathfinder based on 'real world' physics is a trap. There are plenty of games that do a better job of 'real world physics & gritty fantasy' than Pathfinder.
That's because Pathfinder and D&D are 'heroic' systems. They are designed so that characters can grow to become 'heroes' that are not easy to kill. The hit-point system is part of this. I always liken it to Bruce Willis in Die Hard: he gets more and more beat up as the film progresses, but he's still functioning and he escapes death a dozen times in the process.
You'll have a much harder time finding players to play them with you, because Pathfinder's play style and design choices are very appealing to a wide range of players.
Everyone wants to be a hero. That said, I've played and enjoyed more 'realistic' systems, and they have their attractions. Pathfinder is just better supported and more to my taste.
Living in a dark ages world without magic, you would want to die.
If you are the GM, fine, allow death by shock trama if getting hit by a lance. Don't expect me to play at your table.
As other posters have put forward verisimilitude is very important in a game world. As long as the world has some sort of internal consistency and logic applied to it, then you can have as much craziness going on as possible.
Remember also that 98% of humans and demi-humans in the world are 1st level commoners, experts and warriors with less than 15 hit points. Characters are "special" people who break the limits of everything. They are the action stars of the game and many of the normal rules never or rarely apply to them.
Thus while a normal commoner or warrior will be killed by a 200-foot drop (or at the very least dying from their injuries if the GM rolls really badly) for many 20th level characters it's merely an inconvenience (indeed most 20th level characters have flying or teleportation magic handy by that stage).
On a side note, I've always used the mount's Strength modifier when determining Str damage for a mounted charge (its the mount's momentum doing most of the work). Of course high-level characters are often stronger than regular mounts but for paladins, druids or rangers it can make mounts more effective (since their Strength increases over the levels).
|
|
Living in a dark ages world without magic, you would want to die.
If you are the GM, fine, allow death by shock trama if getting hit by a lance. Don't expect me to play at your table.
That's exactly what the thread is about. The OP wants some degree of realism (BTW, that's his argument about not giving Fighters over-natural abilities in other threads).
The problem is, if we deepen the realism level in D&D we run into things as lances or shooting a longbow 5 times in 6 seconds. You have to keep the detail level consistent, because if you introduce hyper-detailed and realistic rules in area A and don't introduce the same level of detail in areas B and C, the game goes out of whack.
This is a common problem of many historical wargames, both computer and tabletop, when they feature incredibly detailed vehicle rules and generalized infantry rules (or vice versa).
You need as much common sense for that as to know that if you jump from the 3rd floor, you're likely dead or heavily injured.
And yet there are free runners...
Anyway Dork Lord, you should look at E6
Additionally, its all about the kind of game you want. I got in many an argument with my group bard because he felt my summoner's ability to conjure magical creatures into battle was totally mindblowing, not because of anything system-based but because his fantasy interests lie more in the direction of Conan.
Realism, or the lack thereof, doesn't bug me much. +1 for verisimilitude.
|
The joy of a fantasy world is that you get to manipulate the physics to be internally consistant to your world, not the real world.
My friends and I like a little bit of reality to our game. We try to mesh real physics, biology and chemistry to the effects that we have in the game to help us in problem solving and describing the effects of things. However we never let that get in the way of the balance in the game nor having fun at the table.
For example, we say that a fireball has an explosive effect that can in fact dampen other fires or maybe blast people over etc. However, we rarely worry about the fact that an explosive force of that level would probably also suck all the air from a room and suffocate everyone inside. Choose the level of reality that makes your game fun.
If you get a chance to read Terry Pratchett, he really takes this to a good level for his world, having changed the physics of light for example to compensate for magic and the non spherical nature of his planet.
The trick is to stay consistant for your world, as this is what lets players keep their sense of immersion moreso than real world physics.
People are building castles in a world with flying monsters.
Organized armies in a world with Cloudkill.
Realism?
D&D has never been realistic, and if you think a level 20 fighter is still just a normal man, go play GURPs. I don't mean that insultingly - GURPs is honestly the better game for you. Because D&D is not, and has never been, realistic. D&D is not "realistic fantasy." When I open the DMG or PHB of any D&D edition, it doesn't talk about being realistic.
"Realism" is a code word for "The fighter has to suck." Yeahno.
In D&D fighters aren't guardsmen who just happen to go out on weekends to kill kobolds. They're Gilgamesh, Roland, Beowulf. They are the heroes of myth and legend, and really, that's what it comes down to.
In D&D, when "realims" and "myth and legend" collide, myth and legend should win. Myth and legend should win every single time time, because why else would we play the game?
The ironic thing is, "myth and legend" and "realism" aren't too far apart in a lot of ways. When people ask for "realism," what they often times - perhaps unconsciously - mean is, "I want everyone to be an un-muscular 20-something nerd." Falling three stories and being just fine? Yeah, that happens in real life. Oh sure, none of us could probably do it, but we're a bunch of nerds talking about dungeons and dragons on the internet. We aren't adventurers.
As for "gritty, low magic" adventures, Conan was once crucified and was just fine afterwards. B-B-B-BUT...MY REALISM!
If that isn't the kind of player behavior you want to see, play a different game...but don't expect people who are happy with Pathfinder to join you in that different game.Funny, I thought Pathfinder was a game that could cater to a wide variety of players. Apparently it only caters to a specific playstyle and if you don't like it, "go play a different game". You're getting pretty close to making personal attacks. That's not the purpose of this thread, let alone these boards.
Um, you're seeing a personal attack in my suggesting that Pathfinder won't make you happy, but other things will?
Realism is less important than verisimilitude, and verisimilitude is largely what 'simulation' RPG play is all about.
Your disconnect is that things in Pathfinder break verisimilitude to you, like being able to wade out into a pool of molten lava for 12-18 seconds to grab the magic gewgaw, and then being healed up afterwards, no worse for wear.
Pathfinder caters to a very specific play style. The play style is fairly wide ranging in what it encompasses, and that play style is 'generic fantasy with power-ups'. Pathfinder does NOT attempt to be a generic quasi-realistic game engine; GURPS and Hero both sort of do that to different levels of cinematicism.
Pathfinder is a very good version of D&D. However, "D&D" has largely written its own fantasy genre. This is a genre that largely accepts that a man can take a swan dive off of a 200 foot cliff and walk way, because the rules say so.
If you want a 'grittier' game, use a game system that handles that sort of verisimilitude better...or keep frustrating yourself trying to shoehorn Pathfinder into it.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=352719
Seriously, E6. Just apply it to Pathfinder. Those lower levels are the sweet spot for what you're looking for. Seriously... E6 is about upgrading in skills without becoming a ridiculous superhuman. I believe that Pathfinder can apply to many types of playing styles, it's just that certain play styles need a little more help than others.
Should a world based on myths and legends be dominated by real world physics? Well, if a guy with a 40 strength picks up an ancient gold dragon, should he sink into the ground?
If the Hulk picks up a battleship, does he sink into the ground?
When it comes to fantasy, physics is for the small minded.
No, it's really not. What we want is for our every-day understanding of physics to be generally reflected in our games. It is, in fact, necessary in a typical table-top game. Computer games have it easy. They define exactly what the physics of the game are because they have to define how the the elements move and react to the other objects around them. But for our table-top games to make sense in our own heads, we have to incorporate what we know of everyday physics. We don't have any other physics model that will automatically be applied.
Of course, the average layman's concept of physics is limited to very basic stuff. Will they think about the Hulk sinking into the ground if he picks up a battleship? Or the likelihood that the battleship will simply break apart if he tries? Probably not. We make allowances for the fantastic in our physics model because it's specifically cool to do so and we're not going to sweat it that much. But are we going to let the character who heads off a cliff to simply hang there in midair defying the laws of physics simply because they never studied law like in a Warner Bros. cartoon? Not unless we're specifically playing Toon.
So myths and legends aren't dominated by physics but they sure are informed by them. And they should be. We just don't want to sweat too many details.
Hey - I'll second the thought that GURPS needs to get some more love if the little "this makes NO SENSE!!!" moments in PF/D&D generally are getting your panties in a bunch. I *promise* you'll be pretty satisfied with that system if you want to err much more towards the "real" than the "fantastic" as a bottom line.
THAT out of the way, there are *many* options (even from WAY back in AD&D 2e mind you) that dial up the "real" even within the framework.
Quick list of examples:
*System Shock %
*Massive Damage
*Random die damage rolls for falls (what if a bunch of 1's turn up for the majority of a 60' fall?)
*Damage Save system (pioneered by Mutants and Masterminds as far as I can tell - freakin' beauty of a system, too!)
Now, my point - "jumping ship" doesn't need to be the answer entirely either, HOWEVER - you need to open yourself up to alternative mechanics and really try to fine tune the options out there to match the flavor you're looking for.
It's *your* game after all ... the rules you pick just help you play it.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the "OMG, the rule says X, we can't possibly go around X because it says on Page Z that rule X is PRECISELY what this is all about!!!" mentality is something prone to ... a newer generation of gamers. I mean to say, people that are much more intimidated by the rules and are not willing to contest, challenge, or redesign them with as much freedom as those of us from the "old school" days when the rules were more like a shotgun, even when presented. Seriously, the old rules would say, "Here's how we do X, but if X isn't your style, you may like A, B, or C, hell, sprinkle some Z in there. Keep in mind as you tinker ..." so, it back in the day the rules really actively encouraged EVERY gamer to fine-tune stuff.
I think the younger crop ... I think they're just scared of the rules for some reason.
:shrugs:
In any case, I'm going to suggest that you get a copy of Unearthed Arcana and try out some of the many different options and rules presented within it's pages.
Of particular note I'm thinking that starwars "vitality/wounds" thing might be of interest. I mean, if you're angry about lava, just rule it as directly affecting "wounds" and NO ONE is going to EVER try swimming through the stuff ... I promise! ;-)
.
..
...
....
.....
Well, since it's a fantasy game, I'm all for realism - as long as it's fantastic!
:)
Ok, fine - you should have as much realism in your games as you need to have fun.
My fautless logic? Games should be fun.
Thank you and good night!
Have fun!..
Or Else.. -.o
If realism has no place in D&D, why not throw out any semblance of realism at all? PCs can do whatever they want, right? Physics be damned! To claim otherwise wouldn't be realistic, right? Right?/facetiousness
…
Incidentally, as a DM I wouldn't allow a high level character to just walk away from a 200 foot drop without a broken leg or something. That's going to mess -anyone- up.
For me, it depends upon what level you're playing. At lower levels, I play the game with a nod toward "realism". This gradually goes away as level increases past 5th, and the game really enters the realm of "fantastic" at 11th level.
|
D&D/Pathfinder has pretty much always been quite realistic. We forget how realistic it is. The realism is astounding when you really look into it.
D&D/Pathfinder is plenty realistic - what's unrealistic are the characters people make in it. Level 20 characters are not realistic. Level 20 characters are supposed to be all kinds of broken and ridiculous. They're level 20. That's what level 20 is for. If you want realistic, go back to the low levels. And you can stay there. You can kill dragons, fell giants, and battle hordes of orcs as a 3rd-level character. You just have to be much, much more cunning about it than a 12th-level character.
18*18=324, times 1,000 kg = 324 kilonewtons of force.I case it hasn't been mentioned yet, you forgot to divide by 2.
KE = 1/2*mv^2
-Skeld
Thanks. I was being a bit lazy there. It's still a gobsmacking huge number, compared to what you can generate by swinging a sword. :)
Warned it’s a trap and then people stumble right in anyways… :)
Anyhow, my two bits is, yes, I see your point. Some things strike us as enormously ridiculous but the idea has always been the DM is supposed to make up the difference. If you survive a charge by a guy with a lance because you have enough hit points than the proper description shouldn’t involve you getting skewered in the chest. Instead you probably leapt out of the way at the last second but hit the ground hard enough to sprain your arm...or whatever. Something like that.
Same for the fall. If a character somehow survived a 200ft fall then it probably wasn’t a straight fall. He must have rolled downhill part of the way, caught some handholds, whatever. If it was a sheer fall, no getting around it…well, standard DM practice in my day (2e) was add modifiers until you get the desired result. A dead fall from 200ft onto the jagged rocks below would be grounds for some seriously deadly modifiers.
Me…as DM, I’d go the other way. Explain the situation in a way that kind of makes sense and move on. If a character survives a dragon’s fire…then don’t describe the scene as him or her taking it full in the face.
Also, yeah, as someone said, the high levels are basically demi-gods. The characters are the equivalent of Hercules or Wonder Woman. Their capabilities are well beyond the scope of normal human beings. In fact, isn’t the general rule that most NPCs in the world, even experienced warriors, are only level ones or twos? So even a Lvl 8 is someone well beyond an average human’s capabilities. We often think of Lvl 1 as meaning rookie but I don’t think it’s supposed to mean that. I think even a Lvl 1 is a supposed to be someone of rare ability.
I simply cannot look at the game that way. On a very basic level, things have to make sense to me.
Wait... nonmagical humans? T-Rexes? I got every reference but that one. o.O
It's not a matter of how you look at it. It's a matter of how the game is. If you don't like the game, fine, but it is what it is, and it's not what it's not.
D&D/PF is not medieval grit. It's heroic fantasy. It's over-the-top, defined primarily by genre convention, not realism. A guy swinging around a hundred-pound sword is not a violation of genre convention. D&D is closer to gnomes hurling earth elementals out of catapults than "Jim died of dysentery."
And the T-Rex thing deals with the CR system as a definition for how powerful a player is. It's been changed a bit, but in 3.5, by definition, a 20th-level human Fighter with no magical ability at all is supposed to be as powerful as sixty-four T-Rexes. By the Pathfinder revision, that's probably more like 32 or 48, but still, a high-level muggle is not Bob the Watch Captain, level 20. They're superhuman. In fact, their strength scores alone mark them as such; you can have a fairly low-level, nonmagical human who's stronger than an ogre. That's not an ordinary mortal.
This is a game whose root lore includes the Ulster Cycles, which has swords that lop off mountaintops and Cuchulain goes Super Saiyan. Really, the system's tame in comparison.
Funny, I thought Pathfinder was a game that could cater to a wide variety of players. Apparently it only caters to a specific playstyle and if you don't like it, "go play a different game". You're getting pretty close to making personal attacks. That's not the purpose of this thread, let alone these boards.
"A variety of players" and "everyone" are two entirely different things. Yes, 3.5/PF are designed to cater to a variety, but at it's core, it's a game of heroic fantasy. Heroic fantasy is not a gritty, realistic, or historically accurate genre; it's pulp. Pulp fantasy covers a vast amount of ground, but if you go outside the realm of pulp fantasy, the game is flat-out not designed for you. Look into GURPS, Burning Wheel, Pendragon, Conan, Iron Heroes, Ars Magica, or any of dozens of games that dial the pulp back a notch or twelve.
Mutants and Masterminds is designed to cater to a huge range of subgenres, from golden age to dork/iron age and many of the myriad subgenres that supers comics cover, but it's still fundamentally a supers game and doesn't fare that well outside of supers (which, ironically, includes a great deal of fantasy).
This ain't GURPS we're talking about, which is designed to be truly universal.
For the record, Conan d20 isn't a good example of a non-pulp game. It's very pulpish. It, however, not high fantasy like Pathfinder. It's sword and sorcery.
Ah, I wasn't aware. I'd only heard of it second-hand and thought it'd fit.