Roleplaying is equal parts puzzle solving board game and improv amateur dramatics. If you don't make the puzzles challenging, rewarding smart thinking and punishing bad planning or lack of thought, there's no challenge and no fun. D&D especially is a game you're supposed to lose at if you screw up, and I've never been a fan of the challenge rating idea. Encounters should be fluid and the players should know when something is too much for them. A good team composition will have enough knowledge skills that even if they're complete newbies, they can roll skills and examine the situation in character to know when something is too much.
Except you've said, a few times, that you "punish" players for not knowing stuff that their characters should know. That, to me, is not a fun way to play. I've been in those games. I'll pass. But I agree with you - you should make the game challenging. Absolutely. But "Challenging" is not "Aha! That violates my opinion of what's realistic! So time to be punished!"
Depends entirely on what you're carrying. I've worn suits of armour, and I can move about and be very mobile in chainmail (which should NOT be heavy armour, and in my game isn't because it's wrong), but you carry a full suit of chainmail in a backpack and you'll be tired in minutes and certainly not well weighted or suited for climbing, swimming etc.
Well, let's see. I rockclimb. Counting ropes, food, sleeping supplies, carabeeners, I'm probably carrying forty pounds or so? Going up a rock face. Chainmail is about that. So I don't know. I also did a twelve hour hike carrying fifty pounds. Over multiple days. I was tired, sure, but I lived. And I'm not a super guy in terms of strength, size, muscle mass, whatever.
Oh. I also do search and rescue. On a boat. And my gear there is fairly heavy. And it's not the weight that sucks, but the bulkiness. Trust me. Bulkiness is a lot worse than weight. You can ignore weight.
Now there's no armour check penalty, it just causes disadvantage for Stealth, but back when there was the idea that you could take off an entire suit of plate armour and put it in your bag, and so long as you're now encumbered you're fine... that never sat well with me.
Well I can tell you from personal experience, that if you put a bulky item in a bag, and it's not slowing down your limb movement, it's not nearly as bad. Putting the weight on your back, and not your limbs, is gonna make it seem like it weighs a lot less, too. This is pretty basic stuff.
(I also impose disadvantage on Athletics and Acrobatics when wearing heavy armour, because it should!). In fact, I practically re-write the armour rules.
Hey, I do too. It's a fair rule. Actually, my house rule is that whenever armour gives disadvantage on stealth, it's also disadvantage on acrobatics, and SOME Athletics checks. So there's that.
I don't allow studded leather, because there's no such thing, and it's a stupid idea that doesn't work.
So what do you do about dragons? Ogres? Hell, Renaissance Armour mixing with Medieval Armour? Where do you draw the line seperating "realism" from "fantasy game"? Honestly, I get sort of where you're coming from, but I don't really see the point about getting bent out of shape over stuff like Ring Mail, Studded Leather, etc., in a game where the fighter's best friend can throw fireballs.
I switch Scale Mail and Chain Mail around, because small interlocking scales would be both heavier and more defensive than chain, so that's the way it should be.
Sure, fair enough. I wouldn't, but I'm not really OCD on that sort of thing. We mostly just ignore it, but if that's the way it works for you, cool. Flavour is flavour.
I also outright ban "Ring Mail", which is again, made up nonsense of the highest order that not only wouldn't work but would be downright uncomfortable and even dangerous to it's wearer... what can I say, it bothers me when fantasy works get this crap wrong and I'm not prepared to sit around and pretend.
Dude, it's D&D. "Sitting down and pretending" is kind of what the game is all about! I don't think you can get past the pretend part.. maybe the "sit" part, but that always seemed secondary to me.
I will however allow someone to get a Buckler for +1 AC, and a Heavy Shield for +3 AC as "Shield" on it's own is not even close to adequate. They're 5gp and 50gp, and weigh 2lbs and 10lbs respectively. I also allow my players to buy a Helmet for an additional +1 AC, costing 25gp and weighing 3lbs (though I let them know this is included in plate, though it's optional to wear it, plate without the helmet still gives 19 AC). I do however impose disadvantage to Perception if you're wearing a helmet.
I played in a game that did stuff like this. You're welcome to your own game, but I find it's just layers of rules for little gain. Also, by adding helmets, you've just upped the average AC of the fighters by 1 for no real loss (except perception, which could be an issue, fair enough). And three sizes of shields, while realistic (absolutely!) ultimately has the same problem it's always had - two sizes of shields only show up... the light buckler, and the heavy +3 shield. No one takes the middle ground in that approach. It's the age old problem of "my game is anime, and I don't know why!". But hey, your game.
I think my rules on armour are more realistic and far more fair. Stupid things like "Ring Mail" and "Studded Leather" genuinely annoy me. I know they're there to give a natural upgrade path for characters but considering they start many classes with Chainmail (or in my campaign Scale), no-one's going to ever use "Ring Mail" are they.
Honestly, you're realizing why the rule is there, and acknowledging that it's there when you change. While I disagree with your logic, I can't fault you for doing it. But in my opinion (if you care), I never expect PCs to wear Ring Mail. I DO expect NPCs to wear it. Or, when the PCs get hirelings (which, in my games, they do), they start outfitting them with "the cheap stuff". So that's why it's there, at least for me.
Depends entirely how it's distributed, if you make sure to put the links in the correct orientation when making chainmail, it will hug the body and it honestly feels less bulky than a leather jacket. If you gave me that same chainmail shirt folded up in a bag, it would be uncomfortably heavy to carry. I'm sure soldiers do fight carrying bags, but it's just foolish to suggest it doesn't impact their fighting capabilities; also modern soldiers are kneeling, squatting, sitting etc. and pulling a trigger... hardly compares to charging into combat with a sword, axe, mace, or other such weapon and fighting in melee. Firing a gun with a pack on sure, a swordfight with a pack on... you're dead!
Again, not so. The Romans fought with gear on their backs. A LOT of gear. They were called "Marius' mules" for a reason. And sometimes they were able to drop their gear. Often, they weren't. And tell a modern soldier that they didn't try as hard as their medieval counterparts. Do it in a bar. Look out for barstools.
Your heaviest gear is going to be what's in your arms. Regardless of how much it weighs. Gear that you're wearing is gonna slow you down in your arms, hips, and legs. Gear on your back isn't going to, not until the fight is over. And then you'll be sore as hell.
Well that's good. The rules don't really suggest full sized swords, but short swords, daggers. Also, the secondary weapon was often used to get past defensive barriers. And let's not forget people that used flails, nets, hooks, anything like that as a secondary weapon.
But even if that's the case, my original point stands. It's a game where the fighter's best friend is summoning fireballs. Who cares if two weapon fighting didn't happen in the real world!? Fireballs DEFINITELY didn't happen, and we high five everytime one of those shows up (especially if it's a necklace of fireballs, and ESPECIALLY if someone was wearing it when it went off).
I do play Shadowrun... every Monday, what's your point?
Thought I smelled an SR player. And my point is, it's a game with a buttload of modifiers that are there purely for "realism"... in a game of elves and magic and cyberware. It's a fun game, mind, but it's ten times harder than it needs to be because of a hugely tiered rules system... that scares away all but the diehards.
A main-gauche is basically a shield as I said, it's just a strangely shaped shield. Yes you could stab with it, but you could also bash people with the rim of the shield, or punch with the central boss. Hell, a metal gauntlet was an effective weapon if you punched someone hard enough... so let's not pretend that the main-gauche is what people are doing. It's not... Two weapon fighting is being used by people who want to run around with a Conan fantasy wielding two massive battleaxes simultaneously, or Drizzt Do'Urden fanboys who desperately want two scimitars...
And why not? Conan is awesome. And if you like Drizzt, hey, have fun. It's not my job to tell other people what they can and cannot like. If someone wants to two weapon wield, why am I stepping in and saying "no, you can't do that, because I have sword experience and it's not practical in the real world"?
or there's an outside chance it's yet another hopeless weeaboo with a katana fetish who want to wield a Katana and Wakizashi at the same time, and I don't allow Japan-wank in my games, it just encourages them.
Well, can't fault you there. Japan is terrible. Shame on people for liking different things.
I'm hardly going to just sit there and let them die... I'll tell them periodically that there's a lot of smoke, the smell of the torches is getting very strong, the smoke is starting to make your eyes sting, it's getting hard to breath in here now... etc.
Eventually they'll figure it out, or they're die horribly of asphyxiation while holding a massive chimney in their hand. PC's that stupid deserve to die at their own hands. Especially when there's quite clearly "hooded lamp" marked on their character sheet.
Fair, but not what you said in your original post.
As for well ventilated... no they weren't, they were stone and thatch houses that would have needed to stand up to the weather and maintain heat. They would have had windows, a chimney etc. but they didn't understand air-flow in medieval times.
Funnily enough, I'm a carpenter with a history degree. Want to talk about air flow in buildings? Because I can talk about air flow in buildings.
That said, that's completely besides the point. We're not in medieval times, we're in a fantasy world with no relation to Earth at all, so who's to say what their buildings are like;
But only buildings. Not their armours, torches, weapons, or anything else that arbitrarily piques your ire.
Carry on.
and moreso what their underground multi-levelled dungeons and cultist temples are like. They're most certainly NOT well ventilated, especially if you're going deep enough that you're entering the Upperdark caverns.
That's fair. And if players try to do that, then maybe an encounter where they get boned would be fun. Agreed. So long as they get a warning before they're totally screwed by the use of a torch, I have no problem with this sort of thinking. Might even steal it at some point.
There's a difference between punishing characters for the players lack of knowledge, and punishing bad roleplaying. As you say, you know more about sailing than the players. I know absolutely nothing about sailing, but if I was going to play a sailor I'd probably stat someone with the 'Sailor' background, which gives me proficiency in Athletics & Perception and tool proficiencies for Navigator's Tools, and Water Vehicles. I'd then likely go with either Ranger or Rogue, either way I'm getting a minimum of 3 skills, maybe as many as 5, if I'm using the Variant Human. So, with that I'd make sure to take Nature, Survival and whatever others best fit the concept. If possible, I'd want to start with proficiency in Cartographer's Tools too, so I'd probably go Variant Human Ranger, and grab a feat that would let me have an additional tool proficiency. I'd make sure I had a decent Strength, Wisdom, Intelligence, and Constitution... probably leaving my Dexterity and Charisma for my lower stats as they're less important... Now, with that character I should be a damn fine sailor. Especially if I pick "The Sea" as my terrain for 'Natural Explorer', giving me advantage on any Perception and Knowledge checks pertaining to that terrain, making it impossible for me to become lost or ambushed at sea, and making it so that I can forage for food easier (which I'd interpret as meaning I know how to effectively fish in the open ocean). With all this, I'd then make a point of asking the GM if there's anything my character feels is missing, and even ask if I can make rolls for my various skills. "Can I make a Nature check to determine if it's save to embark". Things along those lines. I'd use common sense to make sure I've thought of things I feel I'd need. If as a GM someone is doing that, playing the character at least sensibly, I'd probably let things slide that their character should know, but they clearly don't out of character... it's all about getting the balance right, but players love to feel smart, and the best way you can do that is by making them actually think, put themselves into the mindset of the character in question.
Sure. And I fully agree (except about fishing in the open ocean; that's a terrible idea). But again, your original post didn't say that at all. It frequently used the word "punish", and I don't believe I have any right to punish my players for lack of knowledge.
[quote[If you've put your character in a position where he got crippled, blinded, and lost an arm... what the hell where you doing?![/quote]
Playing in your campaign, where I've failed three dying saves.
In context, our party rogue is level 2 right now... and she's failed three dying saves so far already! If she were in your game, she'd have a whole buttload of penalties... and would be playing a new character by now.
I'll pass. In my games, she's got a few scars, and a broken nose. No penalties, but some fun notes on her character sheet. It's been three weeks, and she's STILL excited about the time she hid behind a suit of animated armour, and when it came to life, it elbowed her in the face and broke her nose.
Seriously, in reality we have one body, one life... I've managed to live the last 30 years without crippling myself, blinding myself, misplacing my limbs, or dying hideously. Now yes, I get that this is a fantasy world, where warfare is commonplace, so the risk is much higher, but if you let everything not matter; the players will treat it like it doesn't matter. The players will think nothing of killing everything because that's what happens in D&D. The players won't bother to plan ahead, after all, it's 1000gp to come back to life and we're level 12 now, so 1000gp is pocket change... my magic sword costs 5 times that much! This is madness. If death had no weight attached to it, how do you raise the stakes. Why would anyone have a backstory about avenging the death of a friend of family member... just work as a merc for a year, buy a diamond and magically clone your loved one at your local friendly temple-r-us.
This is a common problem in D&D. Removing raise dead is an option that could fix it - and one I've done that works wonders. I highly recommend it. But permanently disabling characters for failing one dying save? That's WORSE than the way it is now, because it encourages players with worthless characters to retire and make a new one. And then, backstories become JOKES because you never know when your character is gonna get seriously maimed and become unplayable.
Not to mention, curing those problems is similar to raising dead in other games - you plop the money down for a restoration the way trophy wives plop down money for a new facelift. Guh.
Some of the best games I've played in have actual consequence. There's no resurrection in Shadowrun or World Of Darkness. Death is death... as is a major piece of character development, such as losing a limb or having a major injury.
I don't know WoD, but in Shadowrun, you lose a limb, you get it replaced. In D&D, the only way to do that is by getting a spell to fix it for you. Which is exactly the same as a raise dead. So I don't get how one doesn't have consequences and the other doesn't.
I had one player play his character blind, despite being a cleric who could heal himself at any time according to the rules; because he wanted to prove to his God and temple that he was worthy of his sight being returned by returning with his party and bringing the tyrant who blinded him to justice. It was great roleplaying, and only worked because of the cost.
What cost!? You just said he could heal himself at any time! So, what happened here was a player CHOSE to do something cool, and you went with it. That's good DMing. It'd be different if, say, the PC got blinded, and said "now it's personal!" and wanted revenge... and when he went to heal himself you said "Ah, actually, healing the blind is unrealistic. You can't do it."
Another time the player playing the Rogue followed a villain of unknown origin who stole a book of lore needed for their quest from the Wizard, finding the book in a fire, and having no way to put it out, he reached into the fire and took the book out, burning his hands terribly. For the next three sessions, he worked with the Wizard coaching him in how to disarm traps using mage hand, as the Wizard was so grateful. The party worked with him, helping him prepare his food and set up his tent, and because he couldn't fire his bow; he instead fell back on using his skills to help the party. After a few sessions they got to a temple and got a Restoration spell; they even got it for free as the Cleric made an appeal to the temple of Illmater for healing, as this man was willing to sacrifice his livelihood to support his allies... this was great roleplaying and would have been completely screwed if the players could just sleep for 8 hours and *bing* you heal everything; those massive burns, that big stab wound in your leg, the arrow sticking out of your shoulder... go to sleep it'll all be healed in the morning. That kind of healing makes D&D into nothing but a damn cartoon.
Sure. But that even, too, was rules as written, with the GM making a few exceptions for specific circumstances. And there's no problem with that. It's great times. But having a huge penalty because of a failed death save? They accumulate quickly, and now players are playing a gimp squad. Blech.
Also, some groups love healing most of their damage within a day or two. I'm one of those players. I want my characters to accumulate scars, not career-ending injuries. It's also why I don't personally play football or hockey.
Fair enough... You weren't invited anyway.
Sounds good to me.
Each to their own. I've been GMing now for 12 years, and my games have always been so popular I've had to turn players away. I welcome hearing how others roleplay, but you're not going to convince me my way is wrong. I've had too much good feedback to even entertain such a thing. It may not be to your taste, but it's certainly fun.
Sure. And that's great news. And by all means listen to the good feedback. But if you want a piece of helpful advice, I'd suggest that GMs generally always get good feedback; they have to look for the downsides. Maybe they're not there for your group - everyone's different - but in my experience, any sort of GM that speaks of "punishing" players, arbitrarily enforces "realism", takes stabs at house-rules that change the flow of the game to better reflect realism, and permanently hinders characters for doing things that they regularly do.... those sorts of GMs sometimes have unhappy players that don't say things.
Trust me. I've been that player.
Anyways, my two cents. Good luck with your game.
