|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 10:42AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
I have already addressed the relevance of realism twice, in posts #6 and #9.
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
"When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin." -Reinhart
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 10:43AM
#12
|
|
|
You may now attempt to explain what realism has to do with D&D.
Well, since people have the option to inject whatever realism into the game that they wish, he does not need to. He simply paralleled an example. It's no different than why humans walk on 2 legs in D&D. I don't see any reason to explain why this realism was carried over.
It's a matter of taste.
For me, I would expect there to be some semblance of realism in actions. Why would creatures decide to ambush a sleeping party if the party was wearing armor? The point of the ambush is the catch the party as off-guard as possible to put them at a disadvantage. Just make sure to balance the encounter appropriately, and an unarmored paladin is not an issue.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 10:53AM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Apr 19, 2007
|
DnD characters are heroes well above normal minions that make up most rank and file. That's good enough reason for me to beleive the paladin could sleep in his plate. What you have to ask is not wether real armies through history would sleep in armour but would Aragorn sleep in armour, would Gimli sleep in armour or would the Black Knight sleep in armour.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 10:58AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
You may now attempt to explain what realism has to do with D&D.
It's a matter of taste.
Indeed, that's my whole point.
I apologize if some of my posts came off as a bit cranky, but I like realism in my game, and for that we have to look to history. You can dismiss realism if you like, and if that makes your game more enjoyable, all power to you. But if you're trying to make your game as realistic as a fantasy game can be, then sleeping in heavy armor should tire out your characters more quickly than not sleeping in heavy armor.
Another way of houseruling it would be to rule that if a character spends the night in armor, he or she gets the benefits only of a short, not an extended, rest. This too would be relatively accurate, as it sometimes occured that commanders ordered their troops to stay up all night in armor when they were expecting an attack. The chroniclers often note that this fatigued the forces when they had to fight the next day.
So do whatever you want; all I am saying is that in real life, sleeping in armor is uncomfortable. I don't think that this is really a very unreasonable statement.
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
"When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin." -Reinhart
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 11:12AM
#15
|
|
|
I apologize if some of my posts came off as a bit cranky, but I like realism in my game, and for that we have to look to history. You can dismiss realism if you like, and if that makes your game more enjoyable, all power to you. But if you're trying to make your game as realistic as a fantasy game can be, then sleeping in armor should tire out your characters more quickly than not sleeping in armor.
So do whatever you want; all I am saying is that in real life, sleeping in armor is uncomfortable. I don't think that this is really a very unreasonable statement.
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters? The Wizard is there slinging fireballs around, which is not realistic at all but it's allowed because he's a Wizard, that's why they do in fantasy. Similarly, why isn't sleeping in heavy armor something a Fighter or Paladin does in fantasy? The Wizard is able to use his Intelligence modifier for his armor class, fluffed as either some prescient sense of incoming attacks or an actual arcane shield but the Paladin or Fighter isn't simply such a tough badass that they can get by sleeping in their armor? Just because something in the rules has a real life comparison does not mean that rule is meant to be compared to real life. Or to put it another way, just because the fantasy element is not spelled out in bold print doesn't mean there is not a fantasy element at work.
If you want an encounter to take the party by surprise in their sleep and penalize the party for not being prepared then apply the penalties across the board. Don't let the Wizard benefit from their Int or the Rogue their Dex for AC purposes. Create a specially tailored encounter specifically for this scenario and make it fair to all involved. How much fun is a paragon tier encounter for the Paladin, meant to take the brunt of many attacks, when you hand out a -15/16 penalty to AC while the rest of the party is fine? Apparently the Paladin can realistically go toe to toe with Demons and other foes with his deities blessing but it's totally not kosher for his deity to grant him some extra toughness to sleep in armor?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 11:17AM
#16
|
|
|
In my campaign, a paladin would have a code to adhere to completely dependant on the deity she worshipped. Proper treatment and care of her armor (weapon, shield, holy symbol, etc.) may be a nightly ritual.
Some DM's may not want to go to this level of detail and some DM's may want the ritual described in detail so they have an understanding of what the NPCs will encounter when they do finally ambush.
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept.
Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new.
Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept.
Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Default module =/= Core mechanic.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 11:23AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters?
Because physics isn't fair, and doesn't care about game balance.
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
"When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin." -Reinhart
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 11:29AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
I should note too that I'm not just a vindictive DM trying to kill my players through unfair tactics. I've been on the other side too; my warlord once fought a battle in nothing but his nightshirt, and almost died because of it. I didn't complain because I found it to be realistic, and therefore helped me to suspend my disbelief in a way that makes the game more satisfying for me.
If you don't like it when some players suffer penalties and not others, then prioritize balance and ignore realism. Let's just not pretend that we're being realistic by allowing characters to get a good night's sleep while encased in a suit of steel platemail.
"What is the sort of thing that I do care about is a failure to seriously evaluate what does and doesn't work in favor of a sort of cargo cult posturing. And yes, it's painful to read design notes columns that are all just "So D&D 3.5 sort of had these problems. We know people have some issues with them. What a puzzler! But we think we have a solution in the form of X", where X is sort of a half-baked version of an idea that 4e executed perfectly well and which worked fine." - Lesp
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - Thecasualoblivion
"When I DM Next I feel that I might as well be running a game based off of notes scribbled on a paper napkin." -Reinhart
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 11:40AM
#19
|
|
|
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters?
Because physics isn't fair, and doesn't care about game balance.
Except that the 'physics' that exists in D&D isn't the physics that exist in the real world. PC defy it in more ways I can even begin to count. Why is not caring about the difficulty of sleeping in armor simply another example of the regular manner in which PC's defy all kinds of physical rules. As I said, just because you think something should be analogized to how it might work in the real world does not mean the developers did not willfully ignore real world physics and instead intentionally have PC's break that real world mechanic.
Physics, as such, does not exist in D&D. What exists is a lose approximation of physics and near infinite exceptions to these physics that the PC's break.
The long jump world record is about 30 feet, or 6 squares. It's a DC30 with a 10 foot running start to clear that distance. A level 1 PC with a decent athletics is capable of getting that. At higher levels PC's would blow away realism here quite easily. Should PC's not be allowed to surpass that because it isn't realistic? Like sleeping in armor it has a real world analogue. Similarly, that analogue does not hold true.
It is your choice, as a DM, to institute whatever house rules you like but if you want to penalize a PC just say so and do it, which is unfair to that PC when compared to others in the party. But relying upon physical realism to do so in a game that specifically does not apply real world physics is not an excuse. You are the one penalizing the PC, not physics.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 12:02PM
#20
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
It's actually kinda interesting that this particular subject comes up so often. All other RPGS (include AD&D 1e, 2e, and even hyper-realistic RPG's) never mentioned a penalty for sleeping in armor, and if 3e had never gave a penalty I'm pretty sure that no one would be clamoring to have one now.
|
|
|
