Topic: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Started by: Drifter Bob
Started on: 11/3/2003
Board: RPG Theory
On 11/3/2003 at 10:05am, Drifter Bob wrote:
Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Hello Forgers (that has a criminal connotation to it, Forgites? Forgees?) you may remember me from my earlier much reviled mechaics of melee article. Part 2 has been more or less completed, but the E-zine I usually contribute to is down, as the whole At-Fantasy site that it is part of is switching servers or something and it's been down for like two weeks. 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
It is still a bit rough and has some spelling mistakes and typos, but the basic point comes across. I'd be interested to see what people here make of it this time around.
DB
On 11/4/2003 at 9:54am, Jack Aidley wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
I'm much more impressed with this part than the first.
Your knowledge of medieval weapons and combat seems sound, interesting and well expressed, without being patronising; obviously, since I'm no expert I cannot comment on it's actual accuracy. And it thankfully lacks the demeaning tone of the first part.
I'd like to see more discussion about how these things could be implemented in a roleplaying game, and what trade-offs you see as being present. In particular I'd like to see how you are going to have a system in which Armour Works that doesn't have long and tedious battles (my experience of systems in which Armour Works).
Good work.
On 11/4/2003 at 10:12am, Drifter Bob wrote:
Dealing with armor
Mr Jack wrote: I'm much more impressed with this part than the first.
Your knowledge of medieval weapons and combat seems sound, interesting and well expressed, without being patronising; obviously, since I'm no expert I cannot comment on it's actual accuracy. And it thankfully lacks the demeaning tone of the first part.
I'd like to see more discussion about how these things could be implemented in a roleplaying game, and what trade-offs you see as being present. In particular I'd like to see how you are going to have a system in which Armour Works that doesn't have long and tedious battles (my experience of systems in which Armour Works).
Good work.
Thanks, I have to give credit to my friend Eddy, a guy I met on the internet who liked my first Melee article, for helping me edit out some of my naturally obnoxious and sarcastic comments. You have no idea how hard it is to restrain my evil impulses ;)
As for armor works and long tedius battles, I admit this can be a potential problem, If you are in a situation where combattants have head to toe armor. But history does show us ways of dealing with those pesky armored dudes.
Keep in mind there was only a fairly brief period of history (say 1250 - 1450) where really complete armor was worn, and then only by the wealthiest third or so of knights. By the end of the Renaissance period with guns ascendant, the need for really rapid manueverability dictated lighter and / or more piecemeal armor, with less protection on legs especially (see munitions armor). Before the first crusade certainly mail coats (hauberks) did not protect arms or legs much.
If you are dealing with full armor though, special armor piercing weapons, of which plenty did exist when heavy armor was prevalent, wrestling and grapping, ganging up with numbers (more than two to one), and heavy missile weapons can all still help bring an end combat pretty quickly. Still, it has to be admitted, in gentlemanly tournaments and judicial combats where heavy armor was worn and really effective armor piercing weapons were avoided, fights could often be long and boring and have no decisive outcome. People actually complained about this! But in actual no holds combat on the battlefield, often there were many field expedient if not gentlemanly ways of dealing with the armored knight.
Welsh longbowmen bonked French Knights on the head with big wooden tent stake mallets, thus ensuring they were rendered safe to capture and later ransom for huge amounts of money. Mongol horsemen lassooed heavily armored European knights and dragged them off for more sinister purposes. Italian peasants regularly picked off knights with those really heavy crossbows.
And if you look at the old fencing manuals largely intended for the knights themselves, they are full of all kinds of vicious wrestling, grappling, and judo-like techniques for knocking down your opponent, pinning them etc. If you have a helpless enemy in armor, there is usually a place to stick a dagger, as per the old cliches, in the visor or armpit, etc.
JR
On 11/4/2003 at 12:59pm, Ian Charvill wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Pretty meaty article there. I might comment more when I've had time to read it, but just a quibble that leapt out at me:
Inexperienced players would have lower morale, and more experienced players higher.
I'm guessing you mean characters there...
On 11/4/2003 at 1:03pm, Drifter Bob wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Ian Charvill wrote: Pretty meaty article there. I might comment more when I've had time to read it, but just a quibble that leapt out at me:
Inexperienced players would have lower morale, and more experienced players higher.
I'm guessing you mean characters there...
YEp ;
On 11/4/2003 at 1:14pm, Marco wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
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.
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
On 11/4/2003 at 5:26pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Spot on, Marco. GURPS even has an optional cinematic rule called the "Imperial Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy" rule in which stock vilains automatically miss with their first shot in order that the heroes become aware that they're under fire. See also the Bulletproof Nudity rules as a counter to armor for genres where you expect this sort of thing.
Good detail in the article, Bob.
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
On 11/4/2003 at 7:46pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Mike Holmes wrote: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.
Well, the "hit you, hit you, hit you" dynamic is potentially even duller, particularly for the characters who aren't getting a chance to act. I think "hit me, hit you" is often chosen because of this.
Genre matching is a good question. Most cinematic genres tend to have fights with a slow see-saw. The bad guy will have the upper hand for a period of many (4-8, maybe?) blows, with the good guy getting only a few hits in response. Then the good guy will reverse this and have the upper hand for a series of exchanges. There will generally be at least 3 and maybe up to 7 reverses in an extended fight.
I've never played in a system which I thought matched this very well.
On the other hand, this isn't true of all genres. I deliberately went with RuneQuest for my Vikings game, partly because I wanted to match saga combat. Combat in the sagas is not cinematic or fancy. It is fatalistic hacking which generally results in bloody wounds on both sides. I find that RQ combat it pretty good at matching this. (I am having problems with unarmed combat, though.)
On 11/4/2003 at 9:41pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Interesting that Hero Quest is the answer that I'd give to the whole See-Saw thing. I agree that "I Hit, I Hit, I Hit" can be boring. What I like to see is "we clash, something happens, we clash, something happens." I've never found that to be boring.
Mike
On 11/5/2003 at 2:01am, John Kim wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Mike Holmes wrote: Interesting that Hero Quest is the answer that I'd give to the whole See-Saw thing. I agree that "I Hit, I Hit, I Hit" can be boring. What I like to see is "we clash, something happens, we clash, something happens." I've never found that to be boring.
Well, as far as what is interesting or boring in general -- that is a matter of varying preference. I don't see there's anything inherently more interesting about "we clash, we clash" than "hit me, hit you". Personally, I tend to be interested in less abstract systems, like RuneQuest or the HERO System, as opposed to D&D or HeroQuest. But I can understand preferring more abstract.
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".
On 11/5/2003 at 10:14pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Good point. That would be Riddle of Steel. I knew we'd get there.
Mike
On 11/7/2003 at 11:49pm, Devlinhugh wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
One method me and my friends used once for the see-saw battle was where you have the person winning initiative 'setting the pace' so he strikes first then both combatants get a certain number of actions available in combat. You can move,block, hit, dodge or do a offensive/defensive counter.
The way this worked was a block was the simplist maneuver but it didn't change the pace,
hit and dodge were on par (but a succesful dodge changes the pace)
the defensive counter was even more complex(blocking in such a way it sets the defender up for a strike changes the pace)
then the trickiest maneuver was an offensive counter(where you time a strike so precisely that you hit the person with your weapon just before they hit you attacking & defending sivultaneously which also changed the pace).
Battles always seemed to see-saw when we did this but also it introduced tactics and risk in battle the person who controls the pace says what their going to do and you have to react taking risks to change the pace knowing if you just keep blocking they are eventually going to land some blows.
just my 2 pence.
By the way the essay is fantastic I have done various reinactments with a variety of medieval weapons and I'd say your assesment is spot on!
Best regards
DH
On 11/13/2003 at 4:42am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
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).
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.
In the Intitiative, Momentum, and Movement section, there is a heading that reads, "The hit me/hit you dynamic is basically false."
Agreed; it also is not intended by the OAD&D system (and the whiff factor of which people complain is similarly not intended.
In essence, if the game says you get two attacks per round, it means that twice in a minute you might have the opportunity to land a telling blow. It does not mean that you necessarily had that opportunity, or that you attempted to take advantage of it. A successful to hit roll means all of you saw an opportunity to hit, took advantage of it, and succeeded in landing a blow against your opponent which counted. If the roll fails, it does not tell you where it failed--whether you didn't get the chance to attack, or whether your attack was deflected by the shield or armor, or something between the two.
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.
I'm not saying it can't be done better; I'm just saying that a system that uses taking turns in its attack sequence doesn't necessarily mean that you're trading blows. Particularly if the chance of attack success is low for either or both parties, it is much easier to see it as a matter of opportunities successfully exploited, rather than back-and-forth hits. Further, it's quite reasonable to see the improvement in chance to hit and number of attacks per round as the character's increased ability to create those opportunities.
Later under multiple opponents you comment, "One primary factor which actually has been recognized by RPG's now is the idea of flanking." That implies (or at least, I would infer from it) that this was not recognized earlier. OAD&D did include flanking as a tactic; it was not emphasized and probably rarely used. However, it was clear in the rules that shield protection was discounted against attacks from directions other than front or left, and that rear attacks were bonused. By and large this was ignored, in part because players moved away from miniatures (and so had considerably less idea of the directional relationships between the characters), and in part because there was a second rule which specified the number of attacks against which a shield was useful based on its size (which meant that there were two rules to determine when a shield did not afford protection, and referees who did not ignore both generally used only the simpler one). I don't know that it was done well; I would say probably not--but it was not ignored.
That's about it; however, I noted your comment under Acrobatics and Swashbuckling, "Ideally I think such abilities should have degrees of skill associated with them rather than just being 'on or off' (or having various 'enhanced' versions of the feat in question) but all kinds of special skills such as acrobatics, juggling, rope climbing, backflips, tumbling..., uncanny balance and etc. and etc. can spice up combat in a variety of ways." 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 expected (e.g., penalties on attacks, bonuses on attacks, reduction or increase of damage, initiative adjustment are all potentially within the bounds of what a special skill can impact). I think that there are a few things you suggest which would be challenging to incorporate in Multiverser--but nothing which is not possible under the rules as written, that I noticed.
Hope this helps.
--M. J. Young
On 11/14/2003 at 12:11pm, Tomas HVM wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
John Kim wrote: 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".The problem with this is that the cinematic sequence you describe as "AAAAABBBBBAAAABBBBB" is in fact quite dull, if not for the dialogue and various camera angles. In a roleplaying game it is quite as dull as the "ABBABABABAAB"-sequence described by Mike. It is a cinematic element evolved through fine tuning of both acting, directing and clipping teqnicue. To use your creative energy in simulating cool filmscenes is in my view to consider RPGs some servant of cinematics, not an independent form, and thus missing the true objective of gamesmiths; to make good games (not films). To me your stance seems to be of value only in the restricted area of conveying some cineastic feel to some RPgs, not as an overall discussion of RPGs and combat (or conflict resolution in general).
In roleplaying games the conflict resolution tends to halt dialogue (the dice take over the focus), so you should try to keep it short. The die is the preferred tool for randomly based conflict resolution because it is speedy in use. This should not be misused to make dierolling the main focus of the roleplaying experience. The true potential of RPGs is to be unearthed in focussing on the drama in escalation of conflict, the drama created by the outcome of the conflict, and by considering the conflict resolution the turning point ("point" as in small and quick, but significant). This is true in political, social, intimate and physical conflicts.
You should try to adapt a sequence like this: ... abcabcabc -> A/B -> abcabcabc ... The first "abcabcabc" is the escalation of conflict. The conflict resolution is initiated simulataneously; "A/B", and resolved with speed, to create a dramatic outcome. The second "abcabcabc" is the outcome of conflict, and how it is modulated by the involved parties.
The "c" represent the ever present third party in all conflicts (other characters, surroundings, family, allies, potential "champions of the cause", etc.).
That's my two cents.
On 11/15/2003 at 4:50pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Tomas HVM wrote: The problem with this is that the cinematic sequence you describe as "AAAAABBBBBAAAABBBBB" is in fact quite dull, if not for the dialogue and various camera angles. In a roleplaying game it is quite as dull as the "ABBABABABAAB"-sequence described by Mike. It is a cinematic element evolved through fine tuning of both acting, directing and clipping teqnicue. To use your creative energy in simulating cool filmscenes is in my view to consider RPGs some servant of cinematics, not an independent form, and thus missing the true objective of gamesmiths; to make good games (not films). To me your stance seems to be of value only in the restricted area of conveying some cineastic feel to some RPgs, not as an overall discussion of RPGs and combat (or conflict resolution in general).
You misunderstand a bit. My talk about cinematic talking was intended as a branch from the main discussion, not as a solution for all RPG combat. I started it as a branch off from Mike's comments about "hit-you, hit-me" as not matching any genre. My original branch point was this:
John Kim wrote: Genre matching is a good question. Most cinematic genres tend to have fights with a slow see-saw. The bad guy will have the upper hand for a period of many (4-8, maybe?) blows, with the good guy getting only a few hits in response. Then the good guy will reverse this and have the upper hand for a series of exchanges. There will generally be at least 3 and maybe up to 7 reverses in an extended fight.
I've never played in a system which I thought matched this very well.
So here I'm not saying that all systems should match this cinematic pattern -- just that if you do want to match the cinematic genres, that's what you should do. I do think there is some value in genre emulation. Such games can be fun and insightful, but I certainly agree it's not a necessary goal of RPG design.
On 11/17/2003 at 6:24pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
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
On 12/8/2003 at 6:20am, Drifter Bob wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Marco wrote: 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
On 12/8/2003 at 6:38am, Drifter Bob wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Mike Holmes wrote:
Good detail in the article, Bob.
Thank you very much, Mike.
The hit me / hit you dynamic is basically false.
Mike Holmes wrote: 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
On 12/8/2003 at 7:03am, Drifter Bob wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
John Kim wrote:
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
On 12/8/2003 at 7:33am, Drifter Bob wrote:
RE: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
M. J. Young wrote: 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
On 12/8/2003 at 7:48am, Drifter Bob wrote:
Re: Using Realism in RPG's, part 2
Drifter Bob wrote: . 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