In-universe justifications for game rules
Imperator
Member Posts: 154
So I have been thinking a lot about how the different game rules and such are justified in novels and short stories. For example, why do rangers get an automatic two bips in two-weapon fighting? Is just because of a certain drow-ranger, or was this something before Drizzt? And why can't paladins more than specialize in weapons? "I appear to be quite adequate with the sword, better not train anymore so as not to make anyone jealous"? I do know the reason for clerics not being allowed to carry bladed weapons due to gods not wanting them to shed blood (which really proves, that if nothing else, priests are really good at finding loop holes). And I guess armor on a mage would restrict their arm movements.
Feel free to hop in with answers, questions of your own, or just interestin tid-bits you might have knowledge of.
Feel free to hop in with answers, questions of your own, or just interestin tid-bits you might have knowledge of.
0
Comments
Even full plate armor isn't really that restrictive; it's designed to allow quite a lot of movement. The usual explanation I hear is that the metal somehow interferes with the spells.
I've heard it said that the reason mages etc can't use bows or crossbows is because they have to spend more time studying spells than practicing with weapons... yet, they can use throwing knives and slings which are far, far more difficult to wield accurately than a crossbow (which pretty much anyone can be reasonably proficient with, with just a little training).
Obviously, all these restrictions are just to try and balance the classes. Most in-universe attempts to justify them tend to come across as forced and labored.
I'm not exactly sure the thought process that lead to Rangers and two weapon style; but I believe the rule pre-dates Drizzt (I believe Drizzt was actually inspired by the rule, not the other way around). Per the 2E PH it only applied to Rangers wearing non-metal armors; so from a game balance perspective it was intended to provide a very good reason for Rangers to avoid heavy armors.
The restriction for blunt weapons on clerics is inspired by a medieval church rule, it makes little sense in any form of D&D. It wasn't even a constant in the Middle Ages! (favorite line from The Song of Roland "...and the good Arch-bishop Turpin sheathed his bloodied sword...") Every PNP game I've played in modifies the rule to some degree or another; either allowing clerics to use "favored weapons" of their deities or re-writing the allowed weapons from top to bottom. But it remains a core rule, so BG is correct to implement it. But Clerics will always be disadvantaged in combat by their Thac0 and lack of weapon specialization; so weapons restrictions have little to do with game balance (in older rules sets; that had neither specialization nor even proficiencies the weapon restriction played more of a game balance factor).
2 pips for paladins makes a lot more sense. First of all, keep in mind, all proficiency and specialization rules are optional in PNP. But the most common rule was that Paladins and Rangers weren't allowed specialization AT ALL. Weapon specialization was a perk of being a single class fighter only. Later, when more detailed weapon specialization rules were written, the idea was that paladins, rangers and multi-classes were always capable of just a little less in the weapon skill department than single class fighters. It was part of the price they paid for having a wider range of powers and abilities; they were less specialized in combat. BG uses a modified weapon proficiency system, a little different from anything in PNP, but I think they made a reasonable interpretation for game balance and playability.
@ambrennan, first I thought that they could simply just drop the shield, but aren't they usually strapped so you can't drop them?
@Coutelier, good point about metal interfering with magic, brings a sort of magic vs. tech in to play.
@atcDave, interesting stuff about clerics, also I kinda get that a mastery in a weapon would take quite a lot of effort and time, only available to those who dedicate their lives to it.
Perhaps there should be some sort of mechanic for innate talents,such as "this person has a good hand-eye coordination, can use bows without restrictions".
But for some reason I still love 2nd Ed. One example I can think of is acquiring a suit of elven chainmail. In 2nd edition it felt like cheating being able to cast mage spells in armor. You felt truly cool and powerful. In 3rd edition, there are ways around arcane spell failure and easier ways to add +armor ac so the mail loses some of that cool factor. This is but one example, but articulates the idea that easing restrictions on a rule system can have the consequence of diminishing the novelty of certain things.
But I think there are a number of things you kind of need to have in games that don't really translate well into other mediums, like novels. There's no such thing as levels or hit points in real life, for example; there is skill and experience, but even with lots of that a single tiny slip could still get you killed by a peasant child wielding a pointy stick. Or it can be hard to maintain a lot of drama and suspense if the audience is thinking the characters can easily be healed or resurrected.
All in my opinion and in fun. Feel free to disagree or discuss further.
My guess is that when they were designing the Ranger class, they assumed that all of these things were traits common to all rangers in Middle Earth, not just Aragorn, and made them class abilities.
If you want literary references, Gandalf clearly had a bit of fighter in him. Conan was clearly a warrior/thief of sorts. Fafrd was also a bit of a barbarian/thief. Vlad Taltos had bits of assassin, wizard and priest mixed in. Elric was a warrior/mage. There are loads of characters that are not clearly defined by one single class.
Why can't humans multi-class? I doubt it takes anymore time than dual-classing, and if I remember correctly, even half-orcs can do it. And why can't non-humans dual-class?
I guess it's just mechanics, like Conan being a warrior/thief/ranger/barbarian/pirate. For a fictional character, it works, but if we want balanced videogames (or table top), limitations are in place.
It's just interesting that it was decided that multi-class was one concept, but humans were going to have a similar mechanic, but different execution all together.
For instance, Elves could only go to 10th level wizard. And I think Dwarves were capped at 12th level fighter (I am not sure on these, but you get the general idea). So the reason that an Elf could advance as a fighter/Mage was because they couldn't be as good at either as a human could be in both.
Why these rules hung on is anyone's guess. Probably a paradigm like most things. It was always like that so lets not change it. Of course it is possible to go too far the other direction as well and change things into 4th Edition. Yuck.
One of the ones that's always bothered me is the idea that you can use a sword and shield, or a two-handed sword, and switch easily on the spur of the moment to archery, and back again. In real life, that shield is strapped onto the left forearm. Getting rid of it would take some time. And where are you carrying all this stuff to put it away and access it so quickly, as part of a six-person squad that fights using guerilla or swat team tactics?
Our gaming party is an elite fighting squad that depends on extreme specialization of each team member, fast mobility, and good tactics and planning, for survival, as opposed to a posted military unit that serves as a part of a large army.
I can see a longsword, shortsword, or dagger, (but not a five-foot long greatsword), sheathed at the left hip, and a quiver of arrows strapped to the right hip, or the back. But where are you carrying your bow, if you have a shield strapped to your left forearm? If you draw steel, you'd have to throw the bow on the ground in a real fight, and forget about the shield, if you want to be ready to perform archery at a moment's need.
I think that real-life archers would only throw down their bows and draw steel if their position were overrun, and that they would have to spend so much time practicing archery, they would be less good at sword technique than full-time foot soldiers, only switching to melee as a last resort.
As for magic, I've always thought that the mana system makes the most true-to-life sense. I always reimagine the Vancian spellcasting system in terms of mana when I play. If you have one first-level spell slot, that means you only have enough "juice" to cast one first level spell per rest cycle, because you're a beginner who has only built enough stamina with magic to do the one spell. As you practice, you get stronger, and you build the magical stamina to be able to cast more and more spells.
I've noticed that actors who play mages and psi-powered characters usually play the spellcasting or psi-power action as though it were taking a lot out of them to use their powers - they furrow up their brows, and adopt looks of intense concentration, as though they were altering reality through sheer force of will. It does look like it would be kind of an exhausting thing to do, as it is traditionally played by actors.
It also makes sense to me that you'd build magical strength and stamina over time by exercising and practicing it every day, just as it works with physical skills and exercise, or with dexterity skills like playing a musical instrument, or, in the case of D&D, lockpicking, disarming traps, and picking pockets.
For thieves, I imagine that they're always practicing stuff like the old trick where you splay out your hand on a table and stab in between each of your fingers over and over in rapid succession, never hitting your fingers and always hitting the table, or manipulating small objects like marbles or discs in creative and skillful ways.
LOL. All in fun. You make some good points here, but I am in a silly mood. No offense intended.
On a serious note: I agree with this. I always imagine my wizards as being physically exhausted after casting spells. Maybe I just grew up reading Dragonlance, but I always felt that some ephemeral spell dancing around in your brain waiting to be let loose was far too much like Terry Pratchet rather than J R R Tolkien. Excellent imagery here. I am probably in the significant minority here but I think that in this Elder Scrolls got it somewhat right. Not that those games are ‘Great RPG’ games, but I think they got this bit right. The fact that you only get better at something by something ridiculous like actually DOING them, makes sense to me. I LOVE D&D, but the fact that a thief can become a master lock pick without ever having picked a lock, but simply by virtue of having been present during the death of X number of monsters and completed Y number of quests makes no sense to me. You actually have to DO it in order to get good at it.
Anyway, TL:DNR. Excellent post @belgarathmth
In the end, I think it just such a flexible and rich system.
You can always drop things in your hand as a free action.
My Fighter in Pathfinder will typically fire a single crossbow bolt and then drop his crossbow to the ground, retrieving it later.
Shouldn't humans consequently be unable to become, say, bards (or any other not-absolutely-pure) class?
There was also a quick draw feat to draw a weapon as a free action.
For the multi stuff, I suspected at first it was related to lifespan, but half orcs can multi and they die sooner. Made sense for other demihumans.
As I understand it, three reasons are common for unarmoured mages; all armour is heavy or bulky enough to interfere with spell casting, metal armour disrupts energy (very old idea: the fey were very vulnerable to iron), and mages lack training needed to wear and fight in armour. The last definately fits well with shields.
And again, no limits were put on humans. That would have detracted from the whole humanocentric focus of the original game as envisioned by Gary and Frank and the others. Yep, pretty much the way I always understood it. I had forgotten about the Fey aspect. Thanks for that.
Using elves as an example, an elven fighter/mage began at over a century old and could live about 700 years (in 2nd edition; in 1st edition the age limit was well over 1,000 years). By comparison, human characters started at 16-20 years old and would be dead of old age in the time it took an elven wizard to learn his first cantrip.
Edit: Looks like someone else already mentioned it.
The entire false cliché was made up by Gary Gygax, as a balancing element of his early prototype tabletop wargames that led to D&D.
http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/394539.html
http://genreauthor.blogspot.com/2011/10/could-clerics-shed-blood-example-of.html
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19814862/3E_Cleric_Weapon_Restrictions
There you have just a few references. I wish I could find the specific one I'm thinking of, that is somewhere on the Candlekeep Forums. It tells how Gygax and his early gaming friends stumbled onto having a player character vampire, and that Gygax invented the cleric class for another player character to be a foil to the first one.
Also, the primary motivation for the blunt weapons restriction was purely to make the cleric have a d6 of damage as opposed to the fighter's d8. Gygax was concerned that the cleric class with its divine magical, healing, and turning undead abilities not overbalance the fighter - you were supposed to pay for those extra powers by using smaller damage and hit dice, as well as -1 throughout your attack tables.
Here are two non-gaming historical sources I found. It's taken me over an hour of searching and re-searching to find them. "The truth is out there", but you have to work to find it. Part of the trouble is that we gamers are profoundly influenced by everything Gygax made up, to the point where we frequently confuse it with real history, which is quite different from D&D, especially when it comes to clerics.
http://www.answers.com/T/Knights_Templar
http://mpirrello.hubpages.com/hub/Military-Orders-and-the-Crusades
Although it is completely true the bludgeoning rule was originally introduced to AD&D as a balancing issue, it does seem to have been occasionally seen as a rule for military clergy (although not in Turpin's time! Traditionally he died at the Battle of Roncesvalles in 778. Although the Catholic Church says he died on Sept 2, 800. Gotta love medieval record keeping...), at least in some medieval literature.
Much like the crossbow was also "outlawed" by the church in 1139 (at least for use against Christians); that law also seems to have had little or no actual impact on usage.
Gygax and his buddies were gamers. But they were fairly serious miniatures gamers first. And as such, they actually did know enough history, myth and literature that their decisions were not completely arbitrary. But as the game has changed over the years some of those early decisions and rulings seem separated from how the game is now played. In particular, I think the advent of weapon specialization (first published in Dragon Magazine, then Unearthed Acana in 1985) for Fighters left the blunt weapon restriction obsolete. The 2E core rule books even suggested relaxing the restriction for specialty clerics of specific deities with obvious favored weapons (cleric of Poseidon should at least get a trident...). But the restriction continued in common usage regardless.
And I know that all sounds terribly pompous, I am sorry about that. But I love the history, and the history of the game. My love of ancient and medieval myth is what first drew me to gaming, many decades ago in the foundational period of gaming. So I always have a ton of sympathy for Gygax and his buddies trying to make all of this work and make sense.