A Dozen Crossbows Aimed at You ..

[Raven Crowking]

I don't understand why people have this idea to play a fantasy game as realistic as possible? Can someone enlighten me to that logic by any chance?

Honestly, there is no "logic" to liking any given type of fantasy. There can be reasons, however. Some people like the superheroic "just because it's cool" of certain anime; others think that it is lame. Some people really liked Armageddon; for others the terribly bad science destroyed the film.

In general, IMHO, everyone likes some level of reality in their fantasy. Few people play in worlds that are as arbitrary as Oz or Lewis Carroll's Looking Glass Land. In fact, the two D&D modules that were dedicated to Carrollian fantasy (Dungeonland and Beyond the Magic Mirror) are often criticised as being "too silly".

For some people, anime-style, comic-book style, and even Wuxia style fantasies seem "too silly". Realism vs. fantasy in a game isn't a black and white comparison; it is a broad spectrum of grey shades, where different people find different comfort zones.

Here is one of the best posts I've ever read on this idea: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3170040&postcount=217

RC

 

[Mark CMG]

.. and you're a high level character.

Say, your high level D&D character somehow finds himself in the sights of a dozen city watchmen with their crossbows. The watch leader says: "Drop your wands, weapons and holy symbols. You're under arrest". What do you think should happen?

The rules say that you'll probably wipe the floor with lowly watchmen, but some posters in the illogical rules thread said that's no good - there should be a real risk for any level character for a slit throat, gun to the head or being aimed at with crossbows.

That's why you need pixies on the watch . . . with their particular brand of missiles. Or some similar thing in a world where such exists.

 

[Tinker Gnome]

In the games I used to play in, that situation usually meant death if you did not surrender.

 

[Thurbane]

AFAIC, it's all in the tactical. A large enough number of low level mooks can threaten virtually any level party, with the right strategies. Not to mention that even if the party were to trounce the guards, there will be serious repercussions, in legal and moral terms...

Not every threat has to be immediate - if a party builds up enough ill will by laying the smackdown on low level guards, the "problem" will eventually escalate to the cities elite guards and leaders. Most decent sized towns that have regular dealings with adventurers are almost certain to have some contingency plans in place.

 

[Remathilis]

Say, your high level D&D character somehow finds himself in the sights of a dozen bugbears with their crossbows. The bugbear leader says: "Drop your wands, weapons and holy symbols. You're under arrest". What do you think should happen?

See, is it REALLY that surprising when you pitch ANY CR 2 creature vs. 15th level PCs?

Now, if you generate you're towns using the DMG (and if you don't, you'll have to adjust to 15th level PCs vs 2nd level watchmen) then you'll find a Typical Small City COULD have two 7-15th level fighters (plus a variety of two-lessers) and 2 8-16th level warriors (plus a bunch of two-lowers). Toss in a med-level cleric or adept (7-12th) and a wizard or sorc (7-10th) and you have a potent offensive force. IF 15th level PCs did something so heinous that it warranted normal intervention by local authorities, I'm SURE the constable can conscript some of these local HL's for "the sake of the community"

And that is a small city; large ones and metropolis's have LARGER forces, and small cities can usually send a runner to gather forces to handle said PCs.

If you take a SHARK! method of looking at things (HL isn't all that uncommon) then you can have powerful guards or local adventurers to act as deputies. Alternately, if you take an Eberron approach (low level magic is common) than guards armed with Eternal Wands, Tanglefoot bags, potions of True Strike, and Sleep Arrows seem to even the score abit as well.

However, NO ONE should expect HL D&D PCs to be scared of CR 2 Anythings, be it guards or bugbears...

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

What do I think should happen? Well, first... if the player asked, I would outline the situation...

You have 12 opponents with crossbows trained on a target. I would make the assumption that they have orders to shoot if he does anything threatening/funny/strange/whatever. Or something to that effect.

So, I would perceive that as 12 opponents that have armed and trained crossbows with readied actions to attack. The high level character then attempts some ‘funny business’, at which point all twelve of his opponents then get to shoot him before the character can attempt his action. There is of course no need for initiative. But I would consider the character to be flatfooted though.

Plus, if your a high level character that requires the city guard to subdue. I wouldn't be sending mooks out to deal with the problem. City guards at fifth level? Hardly. But then I believe in the ideal that NPCs should have levels as well, and not just a couple. You don't become the city-guard captain without being in the high-teens. Capable city guards I would start at level 10. Recruits I would make level 5.

As for the 'knife to the throat' situation that delericho mentioned. I would rule it the same as him. PC is helpless and with a readied action allowed to make a Coup de Grâce.

By that logic, what stops game worlds from being anarchic messes where high-level characters blow into town, slaughter all the guards and wander off with impugnity?

Nothing other than the NPCs being high-level as well. Frankly, face it folks... D&D's model of NPCs isn't particularly logical. There shouldn't be a separate ideal/model for PCs and NPCs. -- I was going to make a joke about 'impugnity', but I'll let that one pass...

The only problem will this be the tendency for people to want to run games where once you get past the low-level creatures/npcs you never get to see them again. But I see it more like EQ or WoW. Low-level PCs aren't running into the dangerous high-level areas. It's suicide. But high-level PCs/NPCs can always go back to those low-level area, they just don't have much need to.

I don't understand why people have this idea to play a fantasy game as realistic as possible? Can someone enlighten me to that logic by any chance?

How do you define normalize in a game-world/system? How can you even being to define the fantastic if you can't define normalcy? Do you go to the game table expecting to be able to do *anything* that you could possibly imagine with a first-level character? For example, do you expect your first level character to be able to survive a fall from a 10' drop? 20' drop? 30'? 50'? Where do you draw the line?

But most players I know want to come to the table and play in a game world where they can understand it's base, to understand the physics of the setting, usually by substituting their own understanding of the real world. Where the game-world reality's physics pretty much mirrors our own. Then you can heap on the fantastic, such as magick, psionics... and if you really want sexually ambiguous emo-boys who drive gravity-defying motorcycles... well... that's your game.

Hopefully, most people understand how reality/real-world works. Or at least can bring common-sense to the table. Yes, the rules should define the physics and normality of the game-world. What happens when two 'normal' or 'common' people attempt to beat each other with their bare fists, or use a club, a sword, a gun or magick. Then you can start to define what it means to be a hero in that game-world. But unless you come up with a rules-set that about the size of the Encyclopedia Galactica it's best to say: This world's physics is alot like our own. Of course, the rules should fully define the 'fantastic' in the game, but you need a good strong base to build this cathedral of the fantastic.

Do you want to play a game without rules? Where you claim you can wield a sword the size of telephone poll? Well... there is always Exalted for that.

 

[Imagicka]

That's why you need pixies on the watch . . . with their particular brand of missiles. Or some similar thing in a world where such exists.

Actually... this made me think of something... I always wanted to start a thread that would culminate in a fruitful brainstorming multitude of posts...

The topic? If you were the BBEG, what would you do to protect yourself? Now, there are a lot of variations on that theme... If you held a fortress, had to design the protection for a city... protect a kingdom... Which of course would be a lot of ground to cover. That's probably why I've never bothered to ask it...

If I would the protecting the city (or were the guy in charge...) I'd...

1.) "I would have pixies on the city watch ... with their particular brand of missiles. Or something similar thing in a world where such exists. " -- Mark CMG

P.S. What is the 'SHARK!' method? What's HL?

 

[ThoughtBubble]

I must have missed that memo... AFAICS the only way that D&D was 'intended' to be played was 'to have fun'.

IOW, please don't make comments that could imply that people playing in other ways are playing it 'wrong'.

Thanks

I have a question. Do you think that it is possible to play a bad game of D&D? Is it possible that setting up some rules or siuations (like ranged aimed attacks counting as CDGs to make the town guard more dangerous, or my DM's 'attacking body parts' rules) can actually make the game worse, or dilute its primary focus?

Now, I'm not going to say that house rules are horrible and cause cancer and ruin the game. However, each one you add takes it a little further away from core D&D. Which is cool, but eventually you do have to say "This chicken soup is clam chowder!"

Or, to bring this back to the topic at hand, unless we're in one of those game worlds where everything mysteriously scales to be near my level and a constant challenge, I'd find it questionable that my 15th level character would be threatened by 12 crossbows. It's possible, but not likely or expected. Adding or adjusting rules to make it more threatening is a neutral thing, but it's a step away from D&D, and especially the expectations I've grown accustomed to having be attached to levels.

 

[JoeGKushner]

I disagree. Because every city guard is a level 1 warrior (as in every edition's DMG), humanity has a great need for exceptional heroes!

I didn't like Iron Heroes but I did like that this point was made over and over again like a hammer blow to the head. The players are heroes. A 3rd level hero is going to take out a 5th level guard every time.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Plus, if your a high level character that requires the city guard to subdue. I wouldn't be sending mooks out to deal with the problem. City guards at fifth level? Hardly. But then I believe in the ideal that NPCs should have levels as well, and not just a couple. You don't become the city-guard captain without being in the high-teens. Capable city guards I would start at level 10. Recruits I would make level 5.

Wow. So a city guard is tough enough to single handedly battle lesser demons and such? At what level to the players become true heroes? It seems to me like you are making mooks awful powerful.