Lack of extreme realism in one area of the game doesn't relieve other areas of the game from the need for some realism. Allow me to repost here what I once posted elsewhere on the general topic of realism:
Think of it this way: Pretty much all tabletop RPGs, contrasted with computer RPGs, are different from actual reality by exception. In other words, we expect the games to obey normal physical laws except for places where the game changes them for the purposes of the game. In fact, we functionally have to have those expectations. There's no physics engine constructed by the rules from the ground up. If there were, they'd be impossible for a human referee to implement. That's very different from computer games which do build physics engines, in effect, to determine how the sprites/avatars/what-have-you move and interact with their environment. That all has to be built.
Because of this, when tabletop gaming, we have to use our own knowledge of reality around us to determine what seems a reasonable thing to do, to estimate what may have a chance of success (necessary for playing with a sense of rationality), and to form a mental image of what's going on in a scene (again, another contrast with computer RPGs, which present a visual image).
This is why people want some form of realism or verisimilitude. Some sense of it with respect to possible actions in the game is necessary. Some need for it is more subjective, particularly in the way realism helps with forming a mental and consistent picture of how the world works around the characters. Some players simply demand more of that than others, but all pretty much demand some. They expect things to fall down rather than up, they expect things with more mass to weigh more, and so on.
AKA = We want to know what the rules to the game are, so we know what and how to play the game, except were the game changes the rules of reality, so we know how to play the game with the new rules.
Lack of extreme realism in one area of the game doesn't relieve other areas of the game from the need for some realism. Allow me to repost here what I once posted elsewhere on the general topic of realism:
Think of it this way: Pretty much all tabletop RPGs, contrasted with computer RPGs, are different from actual reality by exception. In other words, we expect the games to obey normal physical laws except for places where the game changes them for the purposes of the game. In fact, we functionally have to have those expectations. There's no physics engine constructed by the rules from the ground up. If there were, they'd be impossible for a human referee to implement. That's very different from computer games which do build physics engines, in effect, to determine how the sprites/avatars/what-have-you move and interact with their environment. That all has to be built.
Because of this, when tabletop gaming, we have to use our own knowledge of reality around us to determine what seems a reasonable thing to do, to estimate what may have a chance of success (necessary for playing with a sense of rationality), and to form a mental image of what's going on in a scene (again, another contrast with computer RPGs, which present a visual image).
This is why people want some form of realism or verisimilitude. Some sense of it with respect to possible actions in the game is necessary. Some need for it is more subjective, particularly in the way realism helps with forming a mental and consistent picture of how the world works around the characters. Some players simply demand more of that than others, but all pretty much demand some. They expect things to fall down rather than up, they expect things with more mass to weigh more, and so on.
+1. Very eloquent post.
I really don't want a game to be realistic but I want just enough realism in the game to ground the game so that it's playable as all I have is real life to base things on.
In the real world no one, not even special force members with years of combat experience, can ignore a heavy crossbow even if its wielded by a child. That doesnt mean, that i would not bet on the soldier vs the child, but its still a serious risk for him.Always when during play such a "Dont move or i shoot" situation comes up, its always a strain upon players. Because they know that in real life, they should take such a threat seriously and they know, that story expects them to do, but they know as well, that their char values say, that those heave crossbow bolts are a nuisance.
So why talk about realism in the rules, when some of the oldest rules (damage and HP) are already highly unrealistic?
Rolemaster had a nifty skill called 'Ambush', I believe, that I snagged and modified for D&D campaigns. Basically, any time someone 'gets the drop on you' and has a knife to your throat, a crossbow pointed at your face, etc, and you weren't 'combat ready', you've been ambushed. The person with the crossbow to your face/knife to your throat can hold you at bay. As soon as you make a move/roll initiative, they can resolve a Coup de Grace against you.
It's certainly not RAW, but it does allow for people to actually *threaten* you with deadly force in those situations, instead of you just saying 'I'll shrug that off!'
I also make a point of letting my players know that Hit Points represent stamina/skill in combat, and less 'death of 1000 cuts'. Getting hit doesn't mean you got hit, it means you are wearing out, more likely to make a mistake later that ends up with a spear through your lung.
To be honest i am kind of burnt out of realism.
At this point i am looking more for a Board Game feel, that is fast, fun, and lets people role-play with out spending 10 minutes looking up this modifier and/or penalty for that.
Enough rules so everyone knows how to play, but no so many rules that is bogs everything down.
In the real world no one, not even special force members with years of combat experience, can ignore a heavy crossbow even if its wielded by a child. That doesnt mean, that i would not bet on the soldier vs the child, but its still a serious risk for him.Always when during play such a "Dont move or i shoot" situation comes up, its always a strain upon players. Because they know that in real life, they should take such a threat seriously and they know, that story expects them to do, but they know as well, that their char values say, that those heave crossbow bolts are a nuisance.
So why talk about realism in the rules, when some of the oldest rules (damage and HP) are already highly unrealistic?
Rolemaster had a nifty skill called 'Ambush', I believe, that I snagged and modified for D&D campaigns. Basically, any time someone 'gets the drop on you' and has a knife to your throat, a crossbow pointed at your face, etc, and you weren't 'combat ready', you've been ambushed. The person with the crossbow to your face/knife to your throat can hold you at bay. As soon as you make a move/roll initiative, they can resolve a Coup de Grace against you.
It's certainly not RAW, but it does allow for people to actually *threaten* you with deadly force in those situations, instead of you just saying 'I'll shrug that off!'
I also make a point of letting my players know that Hit Points represent stamina/skill in combat, and less 'death of 1000 cuts'. Getting hit doesn't mean you got hit, it means you are wearing out, more likely to make a mistake later that ends up with a spear through your lung.
Consider this stolen!
I will be adding the ability to break ambush just so players don't over-abuse it, but still, thanks.
Rolemaster had a nifty skill called 'Ambush', I believe, that I snagged and modified for D&D campaigns. Basically, any time someone 'gets the drop on you' and has a knife to your throat, a crossbow pointed at your face, etc, and you weren't 'combat ready', you've been ambushed. The person with the crossbow to your face/knife to your throat can hold you at bay. As soon as you make a move/roll initiative, they can resolve a Coup de Grace against you.It's certainly not RAW, but it does allow for people to actually *threaten* you with deadly force in those situations, instead of you just saying 'I'll shrug that off!'
I also make a point of letting my players know that Hit Points represent stamina/skill in combat, and less 'death of 1000 cuts'. Getting hit doesn't mean you got hit, it means you are wearing out, more likely to make a mistake later that ends up with a spear through your lung.
Consider this stolen!
I will be adding the ability to break ambush just so players don't over-abuse it, but still, thanks.
Could also make it a normal attack roll, just with the added Fort save like the coup de grace action. Can also modify the results, like just dropping the person to exactly 0, or giving them the helpless condition for [X] rounds, stunned, etc. But the basic concept of allowing a who completely gets the drop on you to get a special attack is very good.
Because people confuse magic for fantasy.
They've set up a strange magic vs realism grouping where things must be one or the other, when, in fact, all classes and PCs should be in the same group of "fantastic."
Minimizing suspension of disbelief enhances the versimilitude of the experience. There are a lot of peoaple that like to be able to imagine the scene being laid out in sharp detail - playing the movie in their heads. When the game expereicen is kept close to what we expereience every day, it's that much easier to imagine. When you add elements of the fantastic to it, those elements can really stand out, enhancing the wonder of magic and monsters - the more realistic, the more believeable even fantastic elements are, and the greater their impact.
.
..
...
....
.....
5853?
o_o What is 5853?
Where did it come from?
WHO DO YOU WORK FOR!!?
.
..
...
....
.....
Ah, search hits.
That's a terrible way of building/founding an opinion/case.
3,700 results for 'pie'!
THE PUBLIC DEMANDS PIE!
I also make a point of letting my players know that Hit Points represent stamina/skill in combat, and less 'death of 1000 cuts'. Getting hit doesn't mean you got hit, it means you are wearing out, more likely to make a mistake later that ends up with a spear through your lung.
+1 This is a very good point and I try to impart this concept to my players. Hit points represent three things
1. Actual Damage
2. Potential Damage
3. Fatigue
Just like you said, every "close call," is one step closer to the crossbow bolt that lands in your eye socket.
Ok, i know that, but why then play D&D/Pathfinder?
It was never made for that.
A RPG's system will always be an abstraction of reality put in some degree of quantifiable values.
Abstracted does not mean unrealistic, but there are points where the D&D/Pathfinder "engine" succeeds better in representing reality through its abstracted rules than others.
Also, there are points were players succeed better in conceptualizing the rules and applying them to their gameplay than others. Knowing (as a player) that your character can survive a 30 ft fall shouldn't directly relate to the character *knowing* that he can survive the said fall.
IMO, the fault isn't so much on the abstraction of the system, but on the players that abuse of the confidence they have in these abstractions. Knowing that you can survive 5 orcs is one thing. Knowing that you can let the orc hits you in average 12 times before you'll fall is metagaming. Similarly, believing that you have better chances surviving a 30 ft fall than taking on the guard at the door is one thing; casually jumping from the 3rd floor knowing that your hp buffer is well sufficient to absorb the blow is another.
Abuse of this leads to disbelief which for some of us, ruins the fun and "forces" DM to rebel with houserules that wouldn't be necessary with reasonable players.
'findel
|
Live with it, there is something magical already about a lev 1 barb, somehow he does not get broken bones and can take 1 bolt without much risks.
No, we don't have to "live with it", what you are describing is not fantasy but a bad system.
Those same "fantastical" rules apply to a 3rd level expert City S+++sweeper, they have nothing to due with the fantastic, fantasy or heroism. Don't confuse bad mechanics or math for heroism or fantasy.
All the world "realism" apply to every living creature and PC are not the exceptions.
Should a large creature - say an elephant, or a mid level commoner have a chance to fall 50 ft and survive due to their hp? They use the same rules as the PCs. Maybe a whole squad of 4th level Warriors designed to fall off cliffs? The rules support the design potential, even if the idea is metatrash.
There is nothing heroic about surviving something laid out by the HP system of the rules - as long as something has the hp, it can survive and the PCs don't use a separate system from the 3rd Level City S%$~sweeper, hp don't care if you are an NPC or PC, heroic or garbage, they are just points. This is an old an lame argument which has never been refuted by anyone posting here.
If you want heroic or fantastic rules for classes then redesign the classes so they find exceptions to the "realism" of the game world.
Don't confuse bad falling damage rules for anything other than bad falling damage/effect rules, or for that matter a crossbow bolt or sword.
Why are so many people concerned with realism in Pathfinder or with what feels sensible and what not?
Because you have to have a basis of reference before you can at all know how the changes to that basis makes it cool or not.
Since the only reference we all share in an undeniable fashion is 'reality' it is the starting point for EVERYTHING.
It would actually be harder to build an RPG without 'REALITY' than it would the other way around since you would have to come up with why gravity DOESN'T work, like it does in reality, or why the day is NOT lighter than night, like it is in reality, or why people do NOT need to breath, like they do in reality, and on and on.
Also, many people enjoy different flavors in their game. Some like their games to have fewer exeptions from reality than others because that is the sort of game they enjoy, just like some folks like chocolate while some folks like strawberry. It is personal preferance.
So the answer to your question is really that people like realism so they have a frame of referance to start their imaginations from. We all now reality so that is a pretty solid starting point. From there, the degree of variation from reality is individual preferance.
People are concerned with realism in their games (Pathfinder or any other) because that is what they enjoy. If you don't then fine. The #1 rule in pretty much any RPG is play the way you enjoy.
But remember it is realism that says swords are dangerous, strength makes you hit harder, fire burns (and so therefore do Fireball spells as an extention of the realism of fire), etc.
Without realism, fantasy would not be possible. Or anything for that matter.
Why are so many people concerned with realism in Pathfinder or with what feels sensible and what not?
Easy answer: because 3.5E essentially has two successors. Note that I'm not saying one of them is better than the other or that one's approach is better than the other, but what their approaches are in this respect as stated by their designers is pretty well a matter of public record.
4E, which completely abandons attempted realism in the pursuit of a fun/balanced game -- which isn't to say that 4E is wholly unrealistic, but its designers made a conscious choice to say: whenever realism/simulationism tells us the rule should be one thing and balance tells us the rule should be another thing, side with balance every time.
Pathfinder, which is still attempting more of a balancing act between realism/simulationism and balance/gameism.
Therefore realism is always going to be a big discussion point because it's the one of the two systems that prioritizes it to some degree, and therefore tends to be chosen by more of the players who prioritize it to some degree.
Well, if it makes anyone feel better I did a search for "The Truth" on the boards and got 11,891 results.
That's encouraging.
Thats the classic excuse, that i already found wanting 15 years ago.
1. if it would be fatigue, you would not need spells called "cure ... wounds" to get rid of it and it would vanish by itself after 2-3 days rest. Midgard has such a system i think, you lose exhaustion points, which regenerate over night, but if you start losing real hp death is pretty fast.
2. Jumping out of the 10th floor (=10d6 dam without acrobatics) cannot be a close call, either the human is dead (most of the time) or he survives heavily injured unable to walk away. But around lev 8, this is a 100% survival. What kind of experience can help when impacting with 180 km/h on a hard surface?Live with it, there is something magical already about a lev 1 barb, somehow he does not get broken bones and can take 1 bolt without much risks.
Again, not RAW, but:
'Cure' Spells, Herbal Remedies, and the like restore your vitality as well as healing actual injuries. I also modified my game so that HP damage does heal 'on it's own' much faster than by the rules, unless you take a serious injury (0 or fewer HP) in which case the 'normal' rules come into play.
And again, getting 'hit' in combat means that you are tiring/weakening. *No one* can survive a longsword through the heart. It's patently ridiculous to think that a first level fighter can be stabbed twice before dying, but a level 10 fighter needs 10-20 stabs to kill him. Instead, in a battle, the first level fighter has enough skill/energy to deflect/avoid/maneuver around 1-2 blows that would kill a commoner, but the third one gets past the defenses and skewers his liver. A level 10 fighter, though, can go through 10 or so attacks that would kill a commoner, and just be a little out of breath and starting to slow down.
As for falling, I still use the variant method... 1d6 for 10', 1d6+2d6 for 20', 1d6+2d6+3d6 for 30', etc... falling is deadly. 1d6 per 10' is only used if the person is falling onto something soft/deep water.
When you start looking into acrobatics/monk falling to avoid damage, then that's fantastic level stuff. It's not 'fall and roll', you describe it however you like, but that's the type of heroic maneuver that shoudl be equivalent to casting spells. Normal people would fall and die, but you're so awesome you can pull off super-human feats.
It is, after all, a heroic fantasy role-playing game. It's ok for the heroes to be heroic.
As I mentioned, it's less that "magic imbues everything" and more that "Fantasy does not require magic."
There's tons of myth and legend where heroes accomplish incredible things without ever once holding a bag of spell components ;p.
Rather then simply require magic, allow for non-magical fantasy. "A wizard did it" doesn't suddenly remove the need for realism, we just let it work as an excuse because we recognize that we don't want hardcore realism in D&D; otherwise, we'd have no wizards or clerics. The problem is that we've taken the excuse and codified it in a way that restricts non-casters from doing cool things.
|
|
On the other hand, who is to say some amount of magic doesn't infuse everything? So an average commoner can survive a fall that would kill almost anyone IN our world. The fact that a commoner can survive it, makes that normal FOR their world. If all the npc's also act and treat a few stories as nothing, it adds that much more realism to it.
LOL, I don't think that was the intention when the original hp rules were laid out - and by extension the increase in hp over the various incarnations of the game with base damage for falling, swords, fireball, etc, remaining the same.
I could just see it now...
Cerk the Black and his buddy Erhen have a shopkeeper propped halfway out the window of his Inn with Cerk clutching the npcs shirt.
Cerk "Listen fatman, I know you've been working with those bastards who are trying to kill us....start talking"
Erhen-"Listen to him innkeeper, that’s a long drop down - you don't want think about what's going to happen to your head once you hit the ground"
Innkeeper leans over his shoulder and peers at the floor below him
Innkeeper- "Well...."
Cerk - "What fatman, speak up!"
Innkeeper -"Well, its only around a 32 to a 35 feet drop, for technical purposes it would be considered a clean 30 feet"
The two heroes look at each other then look at back at the innkeeper
Erhen- "and what then, you aren't afraid of what's going to happen to you when you hit the dirt...."
Innkeeper - "Oh yeah, the dirt....maybe even some softer mud down there.....well, there's no way a fall like that is going to kill me, I won't talk"
Heroes - "wuh.."
Innkeeper - "Would you two fellows consider me at least a minor player in this whole scheme?"
Cerk - "I don't know what you're getting at fool, we know you're involved in this whole thing some way and if you don't start talking, out you go -head first!"
Innkeeper - "So, you admit that I am at least a minor player in this whole scenario. At best if you throw me out this window I'll be slightly injured - maybe even hurt for a few more days, but more than likely I won't even need full bed rest or any kind of special medical attention. I know I won’t break any bones.
Hell, after you drop me I will walk back through the front doors of my inn, get cleaned up and then get right back to work."
Erhen - "Alright fool,.....have it your way then" as he begins to slowly and menacingly draw out his dagger from its sheath.
Innkeeper - "A dagger huh? Hmmm…....maybe you should reconsider throwing me out the window"
I think a lot of the "realism" problems with the HP system are due to people not understanding how HP works. HP is an abstraction of how well the person can avoid/ignore damage. A 10 damage hit is a but a scratch to someone with 200 hp. It is a serious life threatening injury to a commoner with 5 hp.
People think 20 damage, that is the maximum a crossbow can do, that must really hurt, but to understand HP realistically, you have to think in percentages. A blow that takes out 100% of your remaining HP + your con score is a deadly blow. A shot does less than 10% of your current HP is a glancing hit, even if it is a critical. If you uses these kind of guidelines and describe the hits as such, the realism is there.
The level 4 villager with 25 hp who gets hit for 10 damage from a crossbow probably took a shot in the arm/shoulder. A 20 damage crit from a crossbow would probably describe as a gut shot(painful, but not instantly fatal). A 30 damage critical from a longbow would but an arrow in the lungs, probably near the heart(not instantly fatal, but the guy needs immediate medical attention). A 40 damage hit would be a shot through the eye or heart, instantly fatal.
For a level 1 villager with 5 hp, 10 damage is a shot in the lungs. 20 damage is instantly fatal. You would use the same descriptions, but for lower amounts of damage.
Its just, that thinking for the 200 hp char a 6 story drop is just a minor scratch is unrealistic. One can believe, that a experienced fighter always moves right at the last moment to only get a scratch from a crossbow bolt, but unlike a bolt earth cannot miss.A 10 damage hit is a but a scratch to someone with 200 hp. It is a serious life threatening injury to a commoner with 5 hp.
People in real life can have freak accidents where they survive tremendous falls, and what's an adventurer if not someone who more or less lives in that sliver of "freak accident?" That's purely falling too, assuming there's no cliff or anything - the adventurer could be grabbing roots and plants as he tumbles down a cliff, smacking into outcroppings on the way down, slowing his fall.
If the falling rules dont fit for you why not try somelike the coup de grace rules. If they survive the damage dealt by the fall then they have to make a fort save DC=10+damage taken or die. If that isnt deadly enough then try DC=(height fallen)+damage taken or die. After all rule 0 says use what you feel is best for you, these are guide lines on how to play. I think I might try my idea in our next game someone falls.
Its just, that thinking for the 200 hp char a 6 story drop is just a minor scratch is unrealistic. One can believe, that a experienced fighter always moves right at the last moment to only get a scratch from a crossbow bolt, but unlike a bolt earth cannot miss.
And that RIGHT THERE is a perfect example of the whole issue. Some folks are comfortable with the fighter dropping 6 stories and getting damaged and walking away from it. They cite fantasy game and heroic deeds and that is within their range of acceptable 'realism' for RPGing.
And some find that not within their acceptable range of realism.
REALISM is not the issue. The degree's of change from 'our' realism is the actual issue. Some are comfortable with greater degree's and some are not.
In the end, like nearly everything in Pathfinder/D&D, it comes down to what your group is comfortable with and can have fun playing.
The only controversy really happens when groups or people with different definitions of 'acceptable realism' come into contact.
Its just, that thinking for the 200 hp char a 6 story drop is just a minor scratch is unrealistic. One can believe, that a experienced fighter always moves right at the last moment to only get a scratch from a crossbow bolt, but unlike a bolt earth cannot miss.A 10 damage hit is a but a scratch to someone with 200 hp. It is a serious life threatening injury to a commoner with 5 hp.
One of the interesting factoids from one of the 2nd edition books. The longest fall survived by a human without a parachute is 10000m, that is something like 3.5 miles.
iirc he hit a lot of tree branches, if I'm thinking of the same guy.
Yet, it is miraculous that he didn't spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair.
Depends, there are a lot. From Wiki: Freefall
Surviving fallsJAT stewardess Vesna Vulović survived a fall of 33,000 feet (10,000 m)[4] on January 26, 1972 when she was aboard JAT Flight 367. The plane was brought down by explosives over Srbská Kamenice in the former Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic). The Serbian stewardess suffered a broken skull, three broken vertebrae (one crushed completely), and was in a coma for 27 days. In an interview she commented that, according to the man who found her, "...I was in the middle part of the plane. I was found with my head down and my colleague on top of me. One part of my body with my leg was in the plane and my head was out of the plane. A catering trolley was pinned against my spine and kept me in the plane. The man who found me, says I was very lucky. He was in the German Army as a medic during World War two. He knew how to treat me at the site of the accident." [5]
Survived, but badly hurt.
Juliane Köpcke survived a long free fall resulting from the December 24, 1971, crash of LANSA Flight 508 (a LANSA Lockheed Electra OB-R-941 commercial airliner) in the Peruvian rainforest. The airplane was struck by lightning during a severe thunderstorm and exploded in mid air, disintegrating two miles up. Köpcke, who was 17 years old at the time, fell to earth still strapped into her seat. She survived the fall with only a broken collarbone, a gash to her right arm, and her right eye swollen shut.[8]
This is probably the one you are thinking of. Sounds like she was able to walk away.
Juliane Köpcke survived a long free fall resulting from the December 24, 1971, crash of LANSA Flight 508 (a LANSA Lockheed Electra OB-R-941 commercial airliner) in the Peruvian rainforest. The airplane was struck by lightning during a severe thunderstorm and exploded in mid air, disintegrating two miles up. Köpcke, who was 17 years old at the time, fell to earth still strapped into her seat. She survived the fall with only a broken collarbone, a gash to her right arm, and her
Little do we know she is an epic level stuntwoman.