Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6626158" data-attributes="member: 40177">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!"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.  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.  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.  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.    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.  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 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.  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.  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).  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.  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"?  Well, can't fault you there.  Japan is terrible.  Shame on people for liking different things.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Fair, but not what you said in your original post.  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.  But only buildings.  Not their armours, torches, weapons, or anything else that arbitrarily piques your ire.  Carry on.  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.  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?!</blockquote>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.  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.  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.  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."  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.  Sounds good to me.  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.[/QUOTE]

Verification