Using Realism in RPG's, part 2

[Mike Holmes]

What John said.

Further, you're preaching to the choir in terms of the "turning point" model, Tomas. That is, many here believe that many or most conflicts can be handled with one die roll, no matter how long they take in game time. We refer to is as Conflict Resolution as opposed to Task Resolution. To be precise, Hero Quest, the game I first identified, states that all conflicts can be resolved in one roll, or more, if the GM thinks it's more appropriate to build Drama. And, in fact, that is the intent of HQ's extended system which builds drama as the AP totals drop.

We all believe that drama as you describe it is the thing to strive for - we're only arguing over particular details at this point.

BTW, while I agree with John that the particular back and forth model of HQ is not particularly conducive to particluar genres, that's not to say that HQ isn't dramatic. I just realize that it produces the drama using different techniques. In HQ, for example, you have to measure the AP bid by the description of the action which does not have values on a list. This means that the players are free, and in fact encouraged to describe things in some narrative detail. So you combine mechanical and descriptive play instead of alternating. Lots of ways to do this.

To get back to the thread's topic, this can be very "realistic" because there are no game construct limits on what can happen. Thus you're free to be as realistic as you can in description. (What it's not is Input Simulation).

Mike

[Drifter Bob]

I like it. I like the different damage breakdowns--we were looking for something like that originally but didn't have good ideas on how to divvy up the different types.

Good information. Good presentation.

Thank you very much.

I didn't like the sidebar critizing storm troopers (and saying something snarky about Star Wars fans). Let's face it--long before you get to issues of "why do they wear those suits" you have to get past a lot of other things (like why the hell can't they hit anything and how did the ewoks have anti-vehicle traps set up 10 yards from the imperial base without anyone knowing about it).

Basically, people either accept it as window dressing or have a lot more than armor to ask questions about (they wear armor so you don't have to think of them as people when they get gunned down).

-Marco

Well, i did have a little disclamer in that sidebar, warning people that it was mean spirited and politically incorrect.  And really, it wasn't about Star Wars so much as all movies.  Think about it.  While Hollywood does occasionally portray the effectivness of a bullet proof vest (invariably in the cliche of the hidden surprise armor like Peter Pan's 'kiss' or the book in the guys pocket in the WW II movie) but armor never works in Hollywood, it's just part of a bad guys costume.  Sometimes good guys wear it too, but they always forget their helmet.  Thats so you can see their pretty good guy faces.

I was most irritated in Last Samurai by this.  Just after showing some very realistic sword combat, (albiet with sticks) which clearly demonstrated how quickly one was likely to get hit in a fight, they still decide to let the two main characters get by with fighting without their helmets.  Tom Cruise puts on this beautiful elaborate Do but decides at the last minute not to muss his mullet by donning a helmet.  Grrr...

Hmm, I better watch it, thats the grumpy bad jeanry coming out.

Anyway I should point out that I really did like Star Wars, especially the first movie, though I didn't like the Ewoks.  I do understand that somethings are just suspended disbelief (like the engine noises in outer space... I'm fine with that) but some stuff just reaches the level of such an overused cliche that you just get fed up.  Like the Spring Loaded Cat (tm) noise you always hear when someone is sneaking around in the dark... I think useless armor is reaching that same level.

JR

[Drifter Bob]

Good detail in the article, Bob.

Thank you very much, Mike.

The hit me / hit you dynamic is basically false.

I'm so glad you mentioned that. Not only is it unrealistic, it's dull as hell, and doesn't match any sort of genre expectation that I'm aware of. So why folks cling to it (other than the obvious reason, tradition) is beyond me.

Mike

Actually, I agree this is a vital though contraversial point.  Yes, it's true that problems can arise from trying to get past this dynamic, and YES, I'm well aware of the rationalizations in D&D which attempt to explain it away i.e. it's not REALLY hit me hit you, all kinds of interesting stuff is going on behind the scenes, you just can't have any active role in it, your training, your equipment don't effect it.  But if you have faith in Gary Gygax, you know its there!  

Apologies to Gary actually it's probably not really his fault.

Anyway, Yes this is a big issue, I'll talk about one way I came up with once to achieve something like that swashbuckling dyanmic in a reply to another post in this thread.  Ultiamtely though, my point is simpyl that we should be aware the dynamic IS incorrect, just like if we had a modern system which couldn't differentiate between muzzle loading and breach loading firearms.  Maybe we don't know how to fix it yet but we should keep it mind, there is room for improvement.  IMHO someone may come up with a way to explpit that which will makle the game more fun.


And technically speaking, really there are a lot of different combat dynamics, which largely depend on how the opponents are armed.  As I mentioned in the article, a fight between two sword & shield armed opponents DOES kind of go hit me / hit you, because the deefense is so strong in the balance.  But long sword versus long sword (by which I mean two handed) or rapier versus rapier,  are totally different ,as is sword versus dagger, or staff versus dagger, or dagger versus unarmed, or sword versus flail.

It sounds horribly complicated, but if you quantify the physics of the basic weaponry and watch how people fight with them (in your neighborhood LARP if they do it hard enough or SCA group or best of all, WMA / Renaissance martial arts group) you can see that the dynamics while more complex than the one dimensional hit me / hit you, are nevertheless fairly simple, it's about reach, movement, attack and counterattack, parrying and striking....

JR

[Drifter Bob]

As far as emulating the See-Saw effect, I feel that this needs at least another layer than HQ.  It seems to me that this needs at least two changing stats: one for who currently has the initiative or advantage, and one for the progress of the fight.  In HQ, your success in one exchange doesn't alter you chance for success in the next exchange -- so progress is liable to flip back and forth with each roll.  I'm looking for something which encourages sequences of success for each side.  So rather than sequences like "ABBABABABAAB" (i.e. alternating each time between opponents A and B), there should be sequences like "AAAAABBBBBAAAABBBBB".

Ok, I once developed a way to do this in a system we were using mainly to simulate one-on-one duels in a post-apocalypse game we had come up with many years ago.  

I'm not sure if this is exactly how it's done in TROS but I think it's a little bit similar.

We took a piece of paper and marked it with 21 blocks 10 through 1, in decending order, then 0, then 1 through 10, in acending order.  Then we got a penny and we placed it in the middle, on the 0.

Then the two players selected combat strategies (ranging from full attack with no defense to full defense with no attack) and rolled (I think ten sided) dice, applying appropriate modifiers.  The result of the dice was only a hit if one guy got like 10 points or more higher than the other guy.  If you beat the other guy by a smaller number, the penny moved that much in your direction on the little chart.  If you lost, the penny moved against you that many squares on the chart.  Each point on the chart was a bonus for whoever was winning.  

So you could start off even, win one round by two points, now you have an extra +2.  Next round you win again by 5 points, now you are at +7.  But the round after that they go full defensive and you blow your die roll, and lose by 6, now you are only at +1.  They try an offensive gambit and you roll badly again, now they are winning and you are at -3.  You gamble in a risky all - offensive option in round 5, blow the die roll yet again, and this time they have hit you.

If I remember correctly you couldn't attack if you were at -5 or less.

Our system was over complicated, and we never really figured out how to do this with multiple combattants, but it was a hell of a lot of fun and very dramatic to play.  

It is defiantely one way to get that see-saw effect that you see in old swashbuckler movies.

JR

[Drifter Bob]

Bob--it looks good, although it's quite long; I printed it out nine days back, and have only now finished reading through it in the cracks of spare time I was able to eke out here and there (although it has admittedly been a busier than average week).

Thank you.  I'm notorious for writing far too voluminously.  alas, I have dabbled in computer programming for many years, and as a result my typing skills are far more developed than my writing skills, I'm sorry to say :(

I should learn to edit better and separate the wheat from the chaff, but I find that difficult to do with my own prose.

Apart from the sheer length (which is probably necessary given the excellent depth and breadth of coverage) I had a couple of quibbles.

At the end of the paragraph third above the major heading on Initiative, Momentum, and Movement, "a suit of plate armor should probably cost tens of thousands of gold pieces....rather than just a few hundred." This is something on which a well-schooled OAD&D would call you.

The "plate mail" of the players handbook, at 400 gold pieces, is not the full plate armor you envision. It is described as a combination of chain with strategically protective plates. Field plate and full plate were introduced in Unearthed Arcana, and cost significantly more--2000 and 4000 respectively. Also, these had to be custom made for the wearer, and required a significant investment in fitting time. It's not quite the price you envisioned, but it's more than the price you claimed.

If I were designing my own game, I'd identify many, many different types of plate armor, but in the article I didn't specify field plate versus any other kind.

However, going by the 3.0 Players Handbook (I don't have the 3.5 books) "Full plate" armor, at 1500 gp looks like complete plate armor to me, based on the picture (Of course, every type of armor in the rules is depicted as being full armor, including the breast plate)

Full Plate is described as "...shaped and fitted metal plates riveted and interlocked to cover the entire body." Like Gygaxes field plate, it is less cumbersome than other heavy armor "...full plate hampers movement less than splint mail aeven though splint is lighter."  and it goes on to say that "Each suit of full plate must be individually fitted to its owner by a master armorsmith..."

If we pour over every single suppliment book, Dragon magazine and all the rules from all three and a half to five versions of D&D (depending on your count) you can find nearly every problem with the game has been addressed by somebody at some point, almost anything can be found in that immense body of work, it's like arguing scripture.  My point is that full plate armor, or any really good armor should really be beyond the mundane.  Viking armor was so valuable it was often given names, for example.

The hit me/hit you dynamic is a player misunderstanding of the game mechanics; it is a quite understandable mistake to make, but it's not actually hard-coded in the rules, which do express the other view of combat in constant motion, strikes and parries and tactical movements through which those opportunities are created.

Lets just say I'm interested in systems which players are less likely to make this misunderstanding because they have a hands on ability to play with the strikes, parries and tactical movements that you speak of.

Multiverser incorporates much of this; I can think of in-play experience with acrobatics, backflips, tumbling, and balance in combat off the top of my head, and climbing and juggling are viable options for which I just don't know any players who have used them (yet). Also, they do have their own skill ability levels, and a variety of mechanical means to bring their effects into play which allows you to customize a skill to work as (snip)

Hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

Sounds like an interesting game!

JR

[Drifter Bob]

.  I don't know when it's going to come back up so I'm going to post a link to my article here :

http://bellsouthpwp.net/d/e/deodand23/MeleeChapter2c.htm

The new edition of Swords Edge is up now finally, and the Mechanics of Melee Pt 2 is in it.  

Http://www.swordsedge.net

If you like the article, or any other part of swords edge, email the editor Frazer Ronald and let him know.  He works long and hard on his excellent E-zine with little concrete evidence of appreciation.   I'm also trying to convince him to let me do a third, much shorter piece which will be about realism and missile weapons

Hopefully it's ok to do this here, I also have another project near completion, which is a new D20 book of spells and magic items based on Jack Vance's, Dying Earth to be released by Pelgrane Press in February 2004.

You can read a bit about it here in Pelgranes coming soon section

http://www.dyingearth.com/coming.htm

and here

http://www.dyingearth.com/article5.htm

in an only slightly mauled-by-the-editor description by the author himself, yours truly.

JR