Skip to content

RPG's and realism.

bill_zagoudisbill_zagoudis Member Posts: 207
edited February 2013 in Off-Topic
How important is realism for you? Do you want your character to be realistic/close to you? do you powergame?or do you say 'it's dungeons and dragons a bit epicness won't spoil it'

Personally while i have absolutely no problem facing unreal opponents,i want my character to resemble me as much as possible. For instance i don't like playing as a mage/cleric because it makes such opponents feel less special, while i like the 'blademaster' theme i just can't pick a kensai an unarmored character could die from a flock of peasants throwing rocks at him,and don't get me started on the monk who would probably break his wrist if he punches a platemail(trust me punching stuff without boxing gloves hurts).Dual wield...why would one do such a thing? as if bashing with a large metal shield isn't damanging enough...let's wield a 1kg short sword instead!

So could you do it? Play a suicidial character that charges into battle unarmored,or equiped with nonsesense stuff like flail main hand morning star off-hand?

PS: come on even in powergaming shields are not worthless!(in fact vs 2-handers it's -2dmg and -5%crit chance) and you don't loose that much damage.dual scitmitars on the other hand are definately overated,for killing tough guys you will be whirwinding anyways right?
Post edited by Jalily on

Comments

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • KidCarnivalKidCarnival Member Posts: 3,747
    Well, this is the spoiler galore forum, so I can probably point out that charname is supposed to be "special" as a bhaalspawn. So "a bit epicness" can't be avoided, no matter what class you play.

    I don't mind if my charname isn't THE MOST POWERFUL BEING EVER in the group. That's probably helpful for solo runs, but frankly I don't see the point. Making use of different NPC combinations and their skills is half the fun. Completely dismissing NPCs as useless isn't for me, though I have done runs with groups of less than 6 for roleplay and challenge reasons.

    And then you have the concept of magic and deities granting powers to mortals that is entirely unrealistic if you compare it to how stuff works in reality. Would be a rather strange fantasy game if all that was "realistic".
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited February 2013
    I think you're grossly over-generalizing Kensai....while one might expect a sub-10 int or wisdom kensai to fall to something like that, an intelligent one would either avoid the situation in the first place, or use the environment and their agility to duck behind cover...besides..the average peasant would have to get EXTREMELY lucky to hit a Kensai in the first place (average 10-11 for stats, -6 penalty for using an improvised (non-proficient) weapon, base thac0 of 20 (total of 26), vs usually a 4 AC (assuming an 18 dex, which given their focus on speed and grace they'll be pretty dexterous). They'd have to roll a 22 (natural 20 in this case) to hit.


    Realistic can work as long as you understand how the magic system works. DnD is a very structured system with well defined rules about magic or other fantastical abilities, and as long as you keep them in mind, you can make realism work within that structure. (that massive damage rule for instance is there to represent that no matter how many hit-points you have, taking a hit like that in one blow would pulverize your internal organs and bones (mostly there to keep high hp fighters from just jumping off cliffs that can't deal enough damage to kill them in 1 shot in terms of raw damage, and other such silliness)(and hit points in general isn't so much that you can take more hits, it represents your ability to reduce the damage you take proportionally. Like an inexperienced lvl 1 fighter taking a longsword to the gut is in dire straights unless he just gets lucky, but an experienced warrior can take the attack in such a way that the blow misses vital organs or only causes flesh wounds rather then immediately life threatening ones (since proportionally the attack did less overall damage his total health %), but can if the battle goes on, slowly bleed them to death over time)


    And no, Monk's punching through platemail is actually legit. People can really do crap like that with enough physical conditioning. Google around for a bit. Not to mention, fists are by definition blunt attacks, and if you've conditioned your skin, muscles and bone enough, you could break bones or rupture internal organ through the plate mail, since it only stops blows from penetrating, but not the force of the blow.


    The reason you typically don't use shields in combat is that they're unbalanced to use as weapons. You can bullrush someone with a shield to try and knock them off balance, but except at very close range, you risk them rolling away and now you're completely off-balance and can't recover, unless you drop the shield. Light Shields, depending on their design could potentially be used as weapons (useful for a quick bash to the head or throat. That and most shields are actually made of hard wood, with a thin layer of metal attached to the outer edge, since they're too heavy to wield for long periods of time, as would be required in battle. Light Shields are mostly wood with metal barding to them some resistance to direct attack, but while keeping their lightness, while as above, heavy shields are wood with a full covering of metal on the outside. Bucklers are just thick metal bells, basically, that you use to turn aside blows, rather then trying to block them directly. A Main Gouge on the other hand, is a specially made dagger for parrying, catching, and breaking an opponents blade. Tower shields on the other hand are mostly metal, but are so heavy you use them in a testuto formation with pikes or spears, since running is impossible (These are restricted mostly to the front of the testuto formation, while the ones in the middle carry large shield, so they can break formation once they've pushed through the enemy line and quickly engage their targets of interest
    Post edited by ZanathKariashi on
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,387
    edited February 2013
    Ultimately I like the epic fantasy feel, I'm not very interested in realism. But I am a little, I think that's a big part of why ToB doesn't really interest me much, it's just sooooo high level and over-powered on everything. And yeah, I get that it's about a character ascending into the ranks of the gods, but it just isn't terribly interesting to me. I like the original BG and early parts of BG2 best for that reason. It's possible spell casters don't really excite me much for a similar reason, I'm happy to run them in a party and I even really enjoy the mix of classes and abilities. But I don't RELATE to spell casters, I always want my main character to be a tank or an archer.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    Bill, most historical battles were won by light armored soldiers. Heavy armor protects you, but it is uncomfortable and makes you slow. A monk can't punch heavy armor, but the neck and crutch are vulnerable!

    The battle of agincourt was won by the English because the french armored knights couldn't move well on muddy terrain. The astecs were better than spanish in close combat because being unarmored made them faster.

    I think of realism when it comes to how tough a combat can be - it hurts , it can kill you, you might lose an eye... I also avoid resting until I feel it is realistically possible.

  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,387
    DJKajuru said:

    Bill, most historical battles were won by light armored soldiers. Heavy armor protects you, but it is uncomfortable and makes you slow. A monk can't punch heavy armor, but the neck and crutch are vulnerable!

    The battle of agincourt was won by the English because the french armored knights couldn't move well on muddy terrain. The astecs were better than spanish in close combat because being unarmored made them faster.

    I think of realism when it comes to how tough a combat can be - it hurts , it can kill you, you might lose an eye... I also avoid resting until I feel it is realistically possible.

    Really, historically there's been a lot of back and forth between the effectiveness of heavy vs light forces, and generally it comes down to using them correctly. Greek heavy infantry (Hoplites) dominated battlefields for several hundred years by presenting impenetrable shield walls and long reaching spears. But they gave way to the phalanx using lighter troops with longer spears, which gave way to the legion using heavier troops in looser formations. The First and Third Crusades were easily won by very small numbers of heavy cavalry and infantry against lighter massed forces, while later Crusades were lost as middle eastern armies got better organized and added "tanked up" elite forces. And of course armored warfare of the 20th century was all about biggest and heaviest on open terrain, while light infantry ruled cities and rough terrain.
  • EdwinEdwin Member Posts: 480
    edited February 2013
    I tend to make character choices that enhance roles, rather than trying to max out a mathematical formula.

    For instance... Jaheira CAN wear plate mail, but I don't think she would. Viconia can equip plate mail early on if she drinks a strength potion first but I wait until she has a gauntlet or belt that would give her constant strength required to wear it, rather than cheesing it on with a potion.

    As for CHARNAME, I pick a concept and try to stick to it.that is one of the reasons playing an
    Oozemaster Druid with Devine Remix is so fun for me. too much dairy can clog you up.
  • ZanathKariashiZanathKariashi Member Posts: 2,869
    edited February 2013
    Technically, PnP F/D can't wear above leather (except hide, or similarly constructed out of natural material), since using metal armors (even studded is disallowed) prevents spellcasting and use of special abilities and other perks till 24 hours after you remove it. I really don't get why they didn't enforce that, if they're also enforcing the druid weapon restrictions (which have the same rules for violations).
  • ChowChow Member Posts: 1,192
    Realism is far less important than verisimilitude, at least for me. It doesn't matter how fiction and fantasy relate to the real world, or whether there are things it does differently or what might feel "wrong" - the only thing that matters is that the game has its own internal rules and abide to them, or at least provides reasonable explanations whenever something does break the rules.
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    What's the difference between realism and roleplaying in this matter?

    I never have Kivan wear metal armors because I don't feel he likes such armors (roleplaying) but also because I think that archers wouldn't wear heavy stuff (realism).

    Also, I wouldn't have jaheira summon animals as cannon fodder , because she cares about them , but I would have Edwin sacrifice his summons .
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,387
    DJKajuru said:

    What's the difference between realism and roleplaying in this matter?

    I never have Kivan wear metal armors because I don't feel he likes such armors (roleplaying) but also because I think that archers wouldn't wear heavy stuff (realism).

    Also, I wouldn't have jaheira summon animals as cannon fodder , because she cares about them , but I would have Edwin sacrifice his summons .

    Yeah, I usually won't have good aligned spell casters use summons at all for similar reasons, the whole thing seems pretty evil to me.
    I like the idea of Kivan in lighter armor, but that's one I'm not willing to limit myself to. Besides, I'm pretty sure medieval archers did wear whatever armor they were able to pilfer (and crossbows were often used by knights and nobles); but since bowman were usually drawn from the ranks of free farmers and woodsmen they didn't typically come from the kind of wealth that could afford armor.
  • ArchaosArchaos Member Posts: 1,421
    Um, then play Mount and Blade if you want extreme realism?
    As it's been said, you cannot avoid some epicness and being special in the BG, games.

    And I certaintly won't make a realistic or underpowered character in a game where you're a child of a god, people turn into bears and trolls, time is stopped and demons are summoned. It's silly for me.
  • bill_zagoudisbill_zagoudis Member Posts: 207
    battles were won by light troops because they were the vast majority of the troops,heavy armor was reserved for elite units,not drafted peasants(ofc there were exceptions to that) and light troops were used for luring opponents into ugly positions or flanking enemies, toe to toe they would suffer dramatic loses against heavy troops(this is SPARTAAAAAAA! is the most striking example,the hoplites took with them an average of about a dozen per person),also medieval knights,roman legions,byzantine cataphracts,always the terror of the battlefield was heavily armored(pre gunpowder) can this be coincidence?(ok maybe once per 1000 years an exception appeared like the mongols and the huns)

    as for the conditioning department it's simple really,if the object you strike is not deformed or knocked back your hand will absorb full force of the blow,i have done some conditioning myself btw(for mma) and i guarantee you that the only reason monks do those things is the ki,anything else fall on the bs department,hitting the heavy bag with bare fist can cause severe pain to the wrist and definately some light bleeding, in fact power pucnhes sometimes hurt a bit too even with the gloves(not enough to affect your performance)

    also peasants have to be extremely lucky to hit someone with a rock? really? i'm fairly certain i can do it 9/10 from relatively long distances and no i don't have 'weapon proficiency:rock', we just use to play that game were we threw a ball at each other,come on it's not that hard

    the dual wielding and two handed weapons were rare and for specific purposes,

    lastly you overestimate the shields weight,a medium shield is nothing really,anyone who excersises occasionally can wield one with ease(except tower shield,these were not for use in 1v1),as for the balance it's not a problem just pull back the blow if the target begins a dodging manuever early, much like boxing and even more like blunt weapons

    think of yourself participating in a contact sport,would you ever choose not to wear protective gear that the rules allow you to? would you play without a mouthguard or headgear because they are uncomfortable?(trust me they are) would you try a wtf taekwondo bout without the chest guard,or the leguards?

    the only reason one would not wear armor is because he can't afford it,period.

    why am i writing this? no point really,nothing personal either,i can argue all i want,it's the internet thing...
  • hammernanvilhammernanvil Member Posts: 98
    Heres an interesting thing I just read "It is a common misconception that the plate armour of European soldiers adversely affected mobility in a significant manner, but in fact plate armour was less heavy and featured more even weight distribution than a full complement of a modern firefighter's gear."


    That being said, No archer could wear armor and be very effective. Armor is too restrictive for archery, to draw a bow, the whole back neck and shoulders must be free.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,387

    Heres an interesting thing I just read "It is a common misconception that the plate armour of European soldiers adversely affected mobility in a significant manner, but in fact plate armour was less heavy and featured more even weight distribution than a full complement of a modern firefighter's gear."


    That being said, No archer could wear armor and be very effective. Armor is too restrictive for archery, to draw a bow, the whole back neck and shoulders must be free.

    I can't say specifically on any particular suit of armor, but archers clearly borrowed whatever pieces/parts they could as they picked them up on campaign. There is much reference to this in medieval records.
    It was also a requirement of several orders of knighthood that a fully armored man should be fit enough to go from flat on his back to mounted and underway in 30 seconds or less. Many of the popular myths about battle armor actually come from much later writings about tournament armor (men being winched onto horses), which is sporting gear, not combat gear.
  • hammernanvilhammernanvil Member Posts: 98
    A chest piece would be fitting, as long as it didn't restrict the shoulders, I would imagine it would be alright, I know for myself, I hate shooting with anything more than a vest on, I find anything else restricting.
  • NWN_babaYagaNWN_babaYaga Member Posts: 732
    edited February 2013
    As long as the games world feels authentic in itself i dont care how natures laws are ignored or how freeky things can get. So realism is only important when games borrow from historical backgrounds but adapt their content just to get a kids rating etc.
  • TeflonTeflon Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 515
    I don't care RPG's realism. It doesn't need to be exact same copy of real world.
    If rule of real world we living now have to be applied for the sake of realism then there would be no magic missiles and goblin pretty elves vorpal rabbit drakes etc.
    As a matter of fact, I like fantasy(=unrealistic) RPG, especially Dungeons & Dragons since it is different from the world we live now and maybe it is because I have simple mind ;)
    @bill_zagoudis By saying "RPG" what do you mean by that? A campaign? video game genre? or paper and pen role playing game?
  • DJKajuruDJKajuru Member Posts: 3,300
    Teflon said:

    I don't care RPG's realism. It doesn't need to be exact same copy of real world.
    If rule of real world we living now have to be applied for the sake of realism then there would be no magic missiles and goblin pretty elves vorpal rabbit drakes etc.
    As a matter of fact, I like fantasy(=unrealistic) RPG, especially Dungeons & Dragons since it is different from the world we live now and maybe it is because I have simple mind ;)
    @bill_zagoudis By saying "RPG" what do you mean by that? A campaign? video game genre? or paper and pen role playing game?

    I would rather think of realism as "feeling that it is real". Goblins do not exist , but a good writer will portray them as real dangers.
  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    I'd use the term "internal consistency" rather than realism.

    There needs to be a set of rules, laws or whatever that governs how the world can behave given its level of development, technology and magic (or not). As long as everything sticks to these rules and doesn't break them just to make a the Big Bad extra tough, or because it's cool, then I can suspend my disbelief.


    On a slightly philosophical note: If the forces of magic and nature can be bound by a normal person with a bit of training then the entire world couldn't exist as we know it. Why plow a field when you can summon an earth elemental to do it? What use is an expert in History and Antiquities if a level 1 mage can cast identify and tell you all about your rare item? Tolkein actually limits this pretty well. Wizards are inhuman and incredibly few in number. While powerful their spells are draining, limiting their use. More often than not Gandalf uses trickery, cunning or diplomacy to accomplish his ends rather than magic.
  • atcDaveatcDave Member Posts: 2,387
    Corvino some really excellent observations. Although I don't think every universe needs to be so strict; but it helps with "internal consistency" if the DM is aware of the wide reaching effects of magic on his world. I have seen fantasy worlds where magic almost replaces tech and we get a sort of fantasy 21st century. I have also seen low fantasy settings where few people have ever even seen a mage or magic item.
    Both ways can be a lot of fun; as long as the setting is consistent, and the effects of magic proliferation (or non-proliferation!) are well thought through by the setting designer.
  • old_jolly2old_jolly2 Member Posts: 453
    the RGB combinations of light of your display preference , and the air vibrating through your sound system are real. Ah , also the transistor saturations inside your RAMs and the scratches on your DVDs...

    And , your nosebone is real too...
Sign In or Register to comment.