The "That's Unrealistic!" Retort Compendium

[fanboy2000]

2) We're nerds. We can, I think readily admit to that - most D&D gamers are nerds, and I'm certainly no exception.

I'm a nerd. And I'm sure I don't have an 18 Str.

However, when thinking about the things a "fighting man" can do, we don't think of things an actual 18 strength physical monster would do, we think of things that we, the far-less-then-18-strength nerd can do. "I cannot imagine myself standing up in something a heavy as plate mail, ergo nobody can." In essence, the in-game reality is less real to actual reality due to people seeing things through their own flawed vision.

I think you're right. I think part of it is that when we see Str 18 or Dex 18 people on things like the Olympics, we don't see them doing the kinds of things D&D emulates, so it's really hard to imagine them doing something else.

Here's an example for the thread. I was watching a live-action Spider-Man show at Universal Studios a couple of years ago. As part of that show, the guy playing Spider-Man hung upside down in that pose we so often see Spider-Man in. I was amazed that it was possible, but it was.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

However, when thinking about the things a "fighting man" can do, we don't think of things an actual 18 strength physical monster would do, we think of things that we, the far-less-then-18-strength nerd can do.

Speak for yourself on that one: I'm always thinking of extremely well trained athletes, soldiers, first responders, etc. when imagining the limits of PCs in a game.

Thus, for example, when I look at an RPGs strength chart, I'm thinking in terms of famous powerlifters and other concrete exemplars of extreme human strength.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Boy, being right is serious business.

Being wrong is for lazy people.

 

[Wik]

I'm pretty sure the reason we see this problem crop up pretty often ultimately bears down to the personality type that tends to be attracted to D&D - well-read nerds. And often, it's the guy that reads the most books that winds up being the GM (not always, mind you, just a broad generalization).

Nerds have a lot of knowledge. But quite often, they a large breadth of knowledge, but no real depth of knowledge. In other words, they know the basic story of world war two, the major battles, and maybe the names of a few of the navy ships or generals, but they don't know the nitty gritty details.

Basically, the GMs are in a position of authority and use that position to make interpretations based on knowledge they think they have but actually lack. This leads to GMs arguing about combat medicine with a paramedic, based on the fact that they read a book on wounds in the middle ages. Or about horseback riding and training based on a book they read about knights while talking to an equestrian. And so on.

 

[Dandu]

This might be of use if you have a non-magical means of sustenance (Vow of Poverty is Su, not truly nonmagical, but only example I can think of at the moment):
Indian man survives without food and water, baffles doctors | Posted | National Post
"He spent two weeks under constant surveillance in an area equipped with cameras and closed circuit television. During the 15-day period, which ended Thursday, Jani didn’t eat, drink or go to the toilet."

To quote Wikipedia (I know, not a good source from an academic perspective)

The case has attracted criticism, both after 2003 tests and after the recent 2010 tests. Sanal Edamaruku, president of the Indian Rationalist Association, criticized the 2010 experiment for allowing Jani to move out of a certain CCTV camera's field of view, meet devotees and leave the sealed test room to sunbathe. Edamaruku stated that the regular gargling and bathing activities were not sufficiently monitored, and accused Jani of having had some "influential protectors" who denied Edamaruku permission to inspect the project during its operation.

 

[Dausuul]

As regards the "can't stand up in full plate" thing, that's a longstanding myth going back quite a ways--it shows up in the 19th century, in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court," where the narrator describes knights in plate having to be lifted onto their horses with cranes. (Of course, they didn't have full plate in Arthur's day, either, but that's another story. )

Another such myth I've encountered is people talking about how the weights listed for swords in the PHB are way too low, when in fact the PHB tends to err on the high side--real swords are much lighter than you would think from looking at them or even swinging them around. Take a sword and swing it by the hilt, you might think it was ten or fifteen pounds; but it's all leverage. If you take the same sword, balance it across your palm, and curl it like a dumbbell, you'll feel how light it really is.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

As regards the "can't stand up in full plate" thing, that's a longstanding myth going back quite a ways--it shows up in the 19th century, in "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court," where the narrator describes knights in plate having to be lifted onto their horses with cranes. (Of course, they didn't have full plate in Arthur's day, either, but that's another story. )

Another such myth I've encountered is people talking about how the weights listed for swords in the PHB are way too low, when in fact the PHB tends to err on the high side--real swords are much lighter than you would think from looking at them or even swinging them around. Take a sword and swing it by the hilt, you might think it was ten or fifteen pounds; but it's all leverage. If you take the same sword, balance it across your palm, and curl it like a dumbbell, you'll feel how light it really is.

The second one comes from people buying terrible decorative swords and honestly thinking that's what real swords are meant to be like.

The first one is that we honestly don't give ourselves enough credit, and I refer to us as a whole species. The past is seen through rose colored glasses right up until technology comes up, and then suddenly we assume even up to the 17th century humans might as well have been cavemen. It's why stories and theories of aliens building the pyramids and other great man-made constructs are believed - people don't give themselves enough credit and don't realize that, hey, even in the past, we were a rather imaginative bunch.

So the armor thing, people think of armor and assume it has to be just a big heavy block of lead 'cause, you know, medieval people, what did they know, amirite? It goes back to why people feel magic is needed to do spectacular things rather then simply allowing for fantastic characters - because in their view, human beings literally cannot be awesome without a third party or outside source nudging them along.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I believe hoisted onto horses happened historically ... in jousts. And for jousting armour. But jousting armour was for sport rather than combat. In a joust, someone would be riding at you with a lance - and you wanted protection from that. And no peasant bastard was going to then rush in, find you couldn't get up, and instantly take you prisoner. Also no one was going to be shooting at your horse - horse dies and you can keep fighting if you can stand up. So jousting plate didn't have to bother with practicality outside the charge. Battlefield plate did and therefore didn't have such as crippling weakness as "too heavy to stand up in".

 

[jonesy]

Jousting armor was also usually one-sided. The lance side was built to be unusually heavy and dense, while the offside was light and sometimes just leather straps. And some had a built in shield at the waist. You go into actual battle in that and you're pretty useless. And dead.

 

[Jon_Dahl]

One thing that bothers me are the size-differences... Being a giant is just more than having a reach, having a bit more hp and that's about it. Facing a giant is disheartening stuff really and you really have to move around to lot to do it. In my opinion there has to something really special about a creature who can fight toe-to-toe against significantly larger opponent.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey0UVew1xNc"]YouTube - Kaoklai Kaennorsing v Hong-Man Choi[/ame]

Well Hong Man Choi is no where near undefeatable and much smaller guys have defeated him but there is certainly something special about the way you have to handle him (or lose). The way larger opponent can press on you (but you can't press back) and simply overwhelm an opponent is staggering and normally you don't realize it when halflings fence around with giant. Like my former DM said: "You don't have an olympic-style fencing match with a giant. Not in my game."

I agree with him 100%.