A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So, to understand correctly, you do realism for the sake of realism, but where you do realism is arbitrary. Further, you do not want to discuss or contemplate the reasons for the arbitrary realism, or what gets realism and what doesn't . Also, those arbitrary choices are not design, even if you're modifying nechanics to achieve a play goal.

Have I captured this correctly?
Nothing I do is arbitrary. I have reasons for all of it.
 

Bedrockgames

Adventurer
Why can a mage or godling not forge armour that is as tough as the "natural" hide of a dragon? This is possible in AD&D, and in 4e, but not in 3E. What is going on with dragons in the fiction of that edition?

To me it makes no sense at all.
It has been a while since I've played 3E (I think my last 3E campaign was in 2014-2015, and it was a gonzo wuxia one, so I wasn't employing all the standard rules). But I do think there are a number of things in 3E and in 2E and 1E that stand out as odd in terms of realism. I remember having all kinds of discussions about them in the 90s for example after sessions. I can't recall specific rules as much as a player saying something like 'isn't it odd that X does this much damage but a dragon swallowing you whole does Y'. Things like that (I remember there being a moment in one of our games where a paladin got smashed by something and the damage made very little sense). But I think the key here is, these are areas that crop up once in a while, or that you don't notice until someone point them out. This example, is one I don't think I've ever noticed before but it does sound like something that might emerge in 3E. But 3E is so comprehensive, I can totally understand how an oversight like that might emerge (I've made a pretty robust rules system myself and this is genuinely one of the hardest kind of things to track IMO). My expectation here though is, it is an oversight, that if it were brought to their attention it is the sort of thing they might fix in a future edition (unless fixing it raises other types of issues). I totally agree, stuff like this can be spotted all over 3E, in part because there are just so many rules. My personal experience of 3E, is these things don't intrude too often into my experience of play though. Not to revisit the 4E versus 3E debate, because I think we've all expressed our full views and evolved on that front. But when 4E came out, one of the reasons I had a hard time with it, was the way healing worked in some instances tripped up how I tended to describe damage, and how my group tended to describe and conceive of HP loss in the game. That certainly could have been a product of our approach to play. But in that case, it felt intrusive because it came up frequently and I found myself either having to retcon a description or suddenly have a break down in internal logic where a massive wound was really just a scratch. I'd probably have an easier time with that today because my games tend to lean more on being cinematic. At the time, though, it stuck out a lot. I think with a game like 3E the things that intruded into my experience of play were more issues of balance or issues of how the game system tended to herd people into action i found a little on the ridiculous side (I remember finding Buffing to be a very puzzling and bizarre way for characters to behave for example----at least in a standard campaign that wasn't meant to feel like Dragon Ball). I realize you might have a very different conception of 4E and its HP system (if I recall your position in previous conversations). Not saying I am right, just using this as an example of how striking an intrusion would have to be to trip up my realism concerns at the time (contrasted with something that needs to be pointed out to me after the fact, or that I notice after the session).
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Nothing I do is arbitrary. I have reasons for all of it.
If your reason is preference then it's still arbitrary. Unless you have an objective, systemmic process for determining what's realistic or not, in which case I'd be very interested in hearing it.

The point here isn't to bag on you. I make tons of arbitrary choices in my gaming, as does everyone else. I try to stick to a few sets of principlea to reduce it, but that's where the game design comes in, and I don't do realism for the sake of realism, I do it if it helps a play goal, like immersion.

You've been treating this discussion as if it's a trap, somehow; that admitting game design is occurring or that you're using realism to bolster a play goal is leading go a counter to discredit your choices. It's not.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If your reason is preference then it's still arbitrary. Unless you have an objective, systemmic process for determining what's realistic or not, in which case I'd be very interested in hearing it.

The point here isn't to bag on you. I make tons of arbitrary choices in my gaming, as does everyone else. I try to stick to a few sets of principlea to reduce it, but that's where the game design comes in, and I don't do realism for the sake of realism, I do it if it helps a play goal, like immersion.

You've been treating this discussion as if it's a trap, somehow; that admitting game design is occurring or that you're using realism to bolster a play goal is leading go a counter to discredit your choices. It's not.
ar·bi·trar·yDictionary result for arbitrary
/ˈärbəˌtrerē/Submit
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
Something done on a whim is arbitrary. Simply being personal preference is not. A preference is not a whim.

Example. If I'm at a supermarket and I decide on a moments notice to grab a bag of M&Ms, that's a personal whim and is arbitrary. However, if I like M&Ms and I decide that I am going to get one bag whenever I go to the store, then it's not arbitrary.

When it comes to realism, I don't just decide to change anything on a whim. I keep the rule the same for quite a while while I assess what it is that I don't like about it, if it's enough to warrant a change, and in what way it will be changed if and when I do decide to change it.

Nothing I do with the game is arbitrary.
 

Imaculata

Adventurer
Why can a mage or godling not forge armour that is as tough as the "natural" hide of a dragon? This is possible in AD&D, and in 4e, but not in 3E. What is going on with dragons in the fiction of that edition?

To me it makes no sense at all.
It does not need to make sense. It is merely a means of scaling up the combat difficulty of a tough monster. Players are not meant to be upscaled as such, since they already have plenty of other power boosts in the form of spells and other equipment. If they allowed players to obtain similar amounts of armor, it would lead to infinite power creep that is impossible to balance encounters for.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I make tons of arbitrary choices in my gaming, as does everyone else. I try to stick to a few sets of principlea to reduce it, but that's where the game design comes in, and I don't do realism for the sake of realism, I do it if it helps a play goal, like immersion.
There's always going to be some things in the game (any system) that flat-out don't or can't match reality, and I think almost everyone accepts this. Examples: hit points; fireballs.

But there's also going to be lots of places in any system where there's a more or less even-up choice between a more realistic or less realistic option, and for these I'll nearly always advocate for the more realistic option. Example: hit points being a complete abstract (less realistic) vs hit points being to some degree reflective of physical harm and-or fatigue (more realistic). Example: fireballs expanding to fill a cube (less realistic) vs fireballs expanding to fill a sphere (more realistic).

Note that neither of the "more realistic" options above in fact achieve complete realism. They just get closer to it than the other option, which is all I can hope for.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
There's always going to be some things in the game (any system) that flat-out don't or can't match reality, and I think almost everyone accepts this. Examples: hit points; fireballs.

But there's also going to be lots of places in any system where there's a more or less even-up choice between a more realistic or less realistic option, and for these I'll nearly always advocate for the more realistic option. Example: hit points being a complete abstract (less realistic) vs hit points being to some degree reflective of physical harm and-or fatigue (more realistic). Example: fireballs expanding to fill a cube (less realistic) vs fireballs expanding to fill a sphere (more realistic).

Note that neither of the "more realistic" options above in fact achieve complete realism. They just get closer to it than the other option, which is all I can hope for.
And that's the key. People on the realism side of things are not trying to achieve complete realism. Far from it. They just want to move a bit farther down the line towards the complete realism end of the spectrum.
 

Bedrockgames

Adventurer
There's always going to be some things in the game (any system) that flat-out don't or can't match reality, and I think almost everyone accepts this. Examples: hit points; fireballs.

But there's also going to be lots of places in any system where there's a more or less even-up choice between a more realistic or less realistic option, and for these I'll nearly always advocate for the more realistic option. Example: hit points being a complete abstract (less realistic) vs hit points being to some degree reflective of physical harm and-or fatigue (more realistic). Example: fireballs expanding to fill a cube (less realistic) vs fireballs expanding to fill a sphere (more realistic).

Note that neither of the "more realistic" options above in fact achieve complete realism. They just get closer to it than the other option, which is all I can hope for.
This is something I think people all around have trouble remembering. Just because there is a thing in a system a person doesn't normally like, it doesn't mean that small presence ruins the game for them, nor does it mean that their acceptance of this thing means they want a whole game comprised of it. I can handle a modicum of immersion breaking mechanics here or there, especially if they add to the overall experience. But when games start getting deeply into stuff that breaks my immersion, I have a much harder time grokking them and enjoying them. And at the end of the day, gaming is a bit like pizza. I don't like Greek pizza one bit (regional name for pizza with crispy buttery crust and a mix of mozzarella and cheddar cheese---that simply doesn't adhere to the crust), but it is still pizza and I will gladly eat it if that is what people are ordering. Still, I make my opinions about Greek pizza well known.
 

Shasarak

Villager
Why can a mage or godling not forge armour that is as tough as the "natural" hide of a dragon? This is possible in AD&D, and in 4e, but not in 3E. What is going on with dragons in the fiction of that edition?

To me it makes no sense at all.
In ADnD a +5 Plate gives you an AC of -2 which is just less then a Platinum Dragons AC of -3.

In 4e a +6 Battleforged God Plate Armour gives you +20 to your AC (so base AC 30) which is much less then an Ancient Red Dragons AC of 48.

So what is wrong with Armour in 3e again?
 

Sepulchrave II

Adventurer
In ADnD a +5 Plate gives you an AC of -2 which is just less then a Platinum Dragons AC of -3.

In 4e a +6 Battleforged God Plate Armour gives you +20 to your AC (so base AC 30) which is much less then an Ancient Red Dragons AC of 48.

So what is wrong with Armour in 3e again?
Everything's fine.

An ancient red dragon has a natural armor bonus of +33 in 3.5; that’s the equivalent of +25 full plate – it’s worth about 6.25Mgp.

Epic wealth guidelines suggest that this would be appropriate for a character of 50th level – it would represent around 25% of their gear value.

Creating it would require a caster with the Craft Epic Arms and Armor feat. The creator would need to be 75th level to have sufficient burnable XP; if the cooperative XP variant on p. 125 of the ELH is used, then 25th level is the minimum requirement - you still need 28 ranks in Spellcraft.
 

pemerton

Legend
In 4e a +6 Battleforged God Plate Armour gives you +20 to your AC (so base AC 30) which is much less then an Ancient Red Dragons AC of 48.
I've played a lot of epic tier 4e. PC ACs are in the same general vicinity as monsters. I think yiour calculation of the +6 Armour AC is not factoring in the level bonus. (Eg the 30h level paladin PC in my game wears plate armour and carries a shield and has an AC of 47; the scale-wearing fighter has an AC of 45.)
 

pemerton

Legend
It does not need to make sense. It is merely a means of scaling up the combat difficulty of a tough monster.
I've got no objection to scaling. What makes no sense to me is that attempt to overlay the veneer of simulation - by calling the upscaling "natural armour" rather than (say) a level bonus.

I appreciate that not everyone has these issues with 3E - it's quite a popular system. But they are significnat contributors to my dislike of it.
 

pemerton

Legend
There's always going to be some things in the game (any system) that flat-out don't or can't match reality, and I think almost everyone accepts this. Examples: hit points; fireballs.
What part of Cthulhu Dark doesn't match reality? (I've linked to the system, which you can read before answering: it's free and very short.)
 

Shasarak

Villager
I've played a lot of epic tier 4e. PC ACs are in the same general vicinity as monsters. I think yiour calculation of the +6 Armour AC is not factoring in the level bonus. (Eg the 30h level paladin PC in my game wears plate armour and carries a shield and has an AC of 47; the scale-wearing fighter has an AC of 45.)
If your only restriction is getting an AC over a Dragons AC then you can do that in every edition of DnD once you start adding up Armour, Shield, Dex, Magic, Feats.

But that is not what you wanted though, you wanted an Armour that was better then a Dragons Armour.
 

Sepulchrave II

Adventurer
Why can a mage or godling not forge armour that is as tough as the "natural" hide of a dragon? This is possible in AD&D, and in 4e, but not in 3E. What is going on with dragons in the fiction of that edition?

To me it makes no sense at all.
This was your original question.



Do you understand how you shifted the goalposts?
 

pemerton

Legend
If your only restriction is getting an AC over a Dragons AC then you can do that in every edition of DnD once you start adding up Armour, Shield, Dex, Magic, Feats.

But that is not what you wanted though, you wanted an Armour that was better then a Dragons Armour.
The paladin I mentioned has no source of AC besides his armour and shield. And it is on a par with a dragon.
 

pemerton

Legend
This was your original question.



Do you understand how you shifted the goalposts?
In AD&D and in 4e a character who wears the best possible armour can have an AC on a par with a dragon. I posted a 4e example of this just above.

In 3E a character can't have a +30 bonus to AC from armour. (I'm not having regard to the epic rules in making that claim. The epic rules for 3E are, in my experience, widely criticised, and the post upthread indicates that by the time an epic character has armour that will grant a bonus to AC comparable to a great wyrm dragon, s/he will be of a level that makes great wyrm dragons irrelevant in play.)
 

Advertisement

Top