Poll: Historical Kit & realistic rules

[Drifter Bob]

I would be interested in seeing D&D-style treatments of historical techniques and tactics - there's a tactical feat in Complete Warrior for fighting in a shieldwall, if I recall correctly - but I don't think D&D is the right system to use a "realistic" combat system in general with. The rest of the game isn't geared to it, so realism in combat rules but nowhere else would stick out like a sore thumb.

We tried to do it in a way that was basicaly scaled, so that you as a dM can use whatever extent of rules you feel comfortable with, and we also tried to smoothly integrate it into D&D, by sticking with the D&D feel. It's not hard bitten realism, it's more cinematic realism if you will. Characters are still pretty heroic. There are also a few non-combat optional rules which blend in a bit, things like optional grooming, clothing and jewelry modifiers to charisma. That way, a rich guy well dressed, coiffed, and decorated with plenty of 'bling bling' can be more impressive than some slob in rusty chainmail!

That was added because of the often remarkable historical obsession with looks and appearance of so many warriors; from Leonidas' 300 Spartans brushing their hair before battle with the Persian Army, to the ostentation of Kngihts and colorful outfits of Landsknechts...



DB

 

[RFisher]

I'm not afraid of charts. Charts are great for giving more textured results in one quick & easy step. Bring 'em on!

 

[Drifter Bob]

Looks like there is a fair amount of interest in the viking era stuff, which is a good thing, we focus heavily on that era.

For those of you who posted an interest in the classical era, is that specifically in early greek, hellenic greek (alexander), early roman, late roman, barbarian (german/celtic) or others, such parthians or carthaginians?

Similarly, for those who voted for Asian, are you more interested in Chinese, Indian, or Japanese kit or all three? Or other Asian cultures such as thai, pacific island, malay, indonesian, philipino...?

I'd like to figure out a good order to do these PDF's.

DB

P.S. Don't forget to check out the art:
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1670479#post1670479

 

[I'm A Banana]

True, it should probably be worded to say it works against an A of O generated by a enemy moving toward or past the player.

You'll still get 5-ft steps at odd times...if your friend attacks somone and then moves, he provokes an AoO, and you get to step, too...but if your enemy charges you, you don't. In addition, the charging guy will still get to hit you, since a 5-ft. step to the side or diagonally won't get you out of his threat range (unless you're at the very edge of his charge range anyway).

I could see the intent behind this feat working, but go back to what it was *intended* to do...sidestep charges? Allow you to move when your buddy moves next to you?

 

[Umbran]

Realism = complexity is an old fallacy, something which goes back to many gamers early experiences with systems like rollmaster, etc.

In terms of simulation, realism = complexity is an old truth you can learn from any physics teacher. The real world is complicated. If you want to simulate it, the simulation will be complicated.

Realism means verisimilitude.

Realism is only one subset of verisimilitude. Verisimilitude is a likeness of truths. There are many truths with which we may be concerned.

What level of detail you wish to model is up to you, the question is, how real is your source data?

There is no one single "the question". There are many questions.

How good your source data may be is not relevant if your methodology is not also realistic. Getting the weight of the historical weapon correct isn't relevant if the lifting capacities of humanoid-framed creatures isn't similarly technically correct. Did you go rewrite all the encumbrance and lifting rules too? If you did, things are getting more complicated...

Plus - you are talking about a game where men can survive falls from 200 feet onto a stone floor and walk away as if nothing had happened. A game in which a wizard can toss a 20' radius ball of fire hundreds of feet from his body - fire that is hot enough to kill in seconds, but which cannot scar!

In tha face of that, is differentiating between a kern axe and an existing game polearm verisimilitude? Is it in line with the other truths in the game world? How is basing combat on real-world masters a good thing when characters don't wound, bleed, and die like real-world people? The real-world fighting styles would likely be less than effective against a hero with a hundred hit points who doesn't weaken, tire, or bleed until he's completely incapacitated.

And adding rules to cover all that certainly makes the game more complicated...

I might prefer a system which ignores that and focuses instead on some other factors...

Yes. That's nice. But you were asking us what we wanted. I was giving one answer. What you want wasn't what you asked to know. Don't ask a question if you don't want an answer.

If I ditch dire flails but add messers or kern axes, I'm definately making it more realistic.

See above - patching realism upon an otherwise unrealistic system does not yield greater overall verisimilitude. It tends to create dissonance. Especially when there are already game items vaguely similar to kern axes and messers, such that I have to start remembering fiddling details to keep them all straight.

And I'm not even entering into the argument as to whether or not one shortish, broad, single edged sword is really all that much different from another, or one hacking polearm is different from another.

Now, we get to the important bit - the constructuve part of the criticism:

That being said, your book may be a fine one. I don't mind you trying to sell me different combat. But it being "realistic" isn't a selling point. The game as a whole is not realistic, so I don't think "realistic" combat is a good match.

 

[Drifter Bob]

In terms of simulation, realism = complexity is an old truth you can learn from any physics teacher. The real world is complicated. If you want to simulate it, the simulation will be complicated.

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Yes, the real world is complicated, but that doesn't mean that a simulation needs to be. Just look at it this way, you can have a simple but realistic model of the solar system in which the planets move as they really do, and thats it, or you can have one which goes into details of micro gravitational distortions, sidereal events, sun spots, comets, and any number of other subtle variables. One is not necessarily more realistic than the other. They are both abstractions, one is simply less detailed and one more so.

I would draw this example back to the game in that, you have a solar system where jupiter is closest to the sun, and pluto is the hottest planet, and the earth revolves around the moon. All I'm saying is put the planets in their right place and you can have a system which makes more sense, corresponds with our expectations better, and is more realistic, without changing the level of complexity at all.

How good your source data may be is not relevant if your methodology is not also realistic.

My approach was to tinker with the methodology and the data, while sticking to the feel of the original system. For example, one way in which 'realistic' systems have tried to improve things in the past is by concentrating heavily on wounds. I think it's ok for wounds to be fairly abstracted, I'm more interested in combat mechanics, the strategy and tactics of fighting, than which bones break or which organs rupture or how much blood flows. At this level of abstraction, differentiating between a moderate injury and a serious (critical) one is enough for me.

Yes. That's nice. But you were asking us what we wanted. I was giving one answer. What you want wasn't what you asked to know. Don't ask a question if you don't want an answer.

I'm sorry, I just didn't agree with your premise. I've written two essays about realism in role playing games, and the crux of the point of both is that realism is not equivalent to complexity. The example you are reacting to above, replacing cleave with counterstrike, is just making a point about the level of complexity, not what I want or what you want, that is just a (sloppy, in this case) turn of phrase.

Especially when there are already game items vaguely similar to kern axes and messers, such that I have to start remembering fiddling details to keep them all straight.

To one extent, it's a matter of aesthetics and immersion. I personally think that the real weapons and armor make the game feel more real. Not everybody feels this way, I understand I know some people really like the double headed axes. I'm the kind of guy who cringes when I see the fireballs flying in the otherwise very promising beginning of "Gladiator". I may be in the minority, but I don't think I'm alone.

And I'm not even entering into the argument as to whether or not one shortish, broad, single edged sword is really all that much different from another, or one hacking polearm is different from another.

If they are that similar, we put them in the same category. The differentiation is made between actual functional differences. Again, it's not complexity for it's own sake!

Now, we get to the important bit - the constructuve part of the criticism:

That being said, your book may be a fine one. I don't mind you trying to sell me different combat. But it being "realistic" isn't a selling point. The game as a whole is not realistic, so I don't think "realistic" combat is a good match.

I'll try to work out another term. Historical based?

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

You'll still get 5-ft steps at odd times...if your friend attacks somone and then moves, he provokes an AoO, and you get to step, too...but if your enemy charges you, you don't. In addition, the charging guy will still get to hit you, since a 5-ft. step to the side or diagonally won't get you out of his threat range (unless you're at the very edge of his charge range anyway).

I could see the intent behind this feat working, but go back to what it was *intended* to do...sidestep charges? Allow you to move when your buddy moves next to you?

The point is actually mainly to avoid grapple. (It also works in conjunction with some other feats, to deal with a charge specifically, but that is a whole nother argument )

In these modified rules, Grapple is handled a bit differently, it's basically short range combat. Short weapons are effective in grapple, and can be used normally. Large weapons (M or larger for a human sized individual) basically cannot be used unless you have a special feat, and even then at a disadvantage. So animals and anyone armed with a short weapon will tend to try to close to grapple. This is one more way to avoid them.

DB

 

[Geoff Watson]

There are also a few non-combat optional rules which blend in a bit, things like optional grooming, clothing and jewelry modifiers to charisma. That way, a rich guy well dressed, coiffed, and decorated with plenty of 'bling bling' can be more impressive than some slob in rusty chainmail!

DB

So you can throw a bucket of crap at a Sorceror and he'll lose the ability to cast spells?

Geoff.

 

[sword-dancer]

Realistic portrayals of such equipment have yet to be seen in role playing games
?

If i play in this style, I use Harnmaster, TROS or Runequest.
But neither D&D or TDE.

Would you be interested in a suppliment which included historical weapons and armor from various eras: bronze age, classical (greek and roman), dark ages, viking era, medieval, and renaissance, as well as Eastern (indian, chinese, and japanese weapons).

Yes as long as you don`t fall in the EMA Hype, especially the Samurai and KAtana Hype.

One other comment,

It's just in the last 5 years or so that true historical western martial arts have become fairly widley known, with the translations of some of the Renaissance era longsword fencing manuals of the old masters like Tallhoffer.
DB

Ewart R Oakeshott was years before your five years.
Had it meaning, that you don`t mention the I.33 and Silver?

For you balance oriented folks out there there is also the added benefit that if you portray things realistically enough, there is almost always a natural balance which does crop up, such as between the various merits of different types of weapons.

I see no way you can realistically Balance a normal arming sword and a poleaxe, or balnce Chain against maximilian Full Plate.
Not to start with Katanas against warswords and Japanese Armour against Milanes Plate.

 

[Drifter Bob]

So you can throw a bucket of crap at a Sorceror and he'll lose the ability to cast spells?

Geoff.

No, we kind of assume you have crap all over you to begin with

Also, this is an OPTIONAL rule.

It doesn't actually boost charisma anyway, it gives a charisma bonus to diplomacy, intimidate, and bluff checks based on your appearance, grooming and 'bling'. This gives players something else to think about and spend money on, and has numerous role playing hooks. It makes that bard spend extra time primping and means that even a fighter might want to hold on to that gold chain he found, or that fancy silver inlayed armor, rather than just sell it for cash. A reason to visit the bath-house before an important meeting.

Appearance and ostentation are a huge part of life among both aristocrats and common soldiers in most of history (soldiers began to give it up around the time of conscription...)

This just gives you a way to play with that, if you want to.

DB