|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 12:04PM
#21
|
|
|
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters?
Why must everything be something assumed as going against the players? Maybe it is more attractive to the story you are trying to tell and the players are trying to partake in. How heroic is it that they party is ambushed and the paladin saved the day because he sleeps in his armor? But a non-armored paladin saving the day from an ambush... now THAT is heroic!
Just balance the encounter properly, and the armorless paladin is a non-issue, and the story is more glorified without the players none-the-wiser.
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 - 12:12PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
A system that allows human characters to make world-breaking longjumps with ease is a needlessly unrealistic system. And yes, the 4e mechanics are not realistic in this regard, as they do not accurately represent the physics here; other game systems do a much better job of that. Of course, we all know that 4e made a conscious choice to disregard realism in favour of simplicity and balance. Some of us like to make houserules in order to account for the more unnecessarily inaccurate rules, because they interrupt our suspension of disbelief; others do not. What aspects of the game your group finds unbelievable will vary. But the physics of human bodies remain the same whether or not the game represents them accurately or inaccurately. So I see no reason not to improve the game's accuracy and realism when it can be accomplished with relative ease, as in this case.
Was it me or physics that was penalizing the characters for sleeping in armor under the 3.5 ruleset?
"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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 12:15PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters?
Why must everything be something assumed as going against the players? Maybe it is more attractive to the story you are trying to tell and the players are trying to partake in. How heroic is it that they party is ambushed and the paladin saved the day because he sleeps in his armor? But a non-armored paladin saving the day from an ambush... now THAT is heroic!
Just balance the encounter properly, and the armorless paladin is a non-issue, and the story is more glorified without the players none-the-wiser.
A good point, IMHO.
I should note that I apply my houseruled 'sleeping in armor' rules to the monsters as well. If the PCs can sneak into their camp while they are asleep, the monsters won't be able to put their armor on. This encourages the characters to think tactically.
"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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 12:19PM
#24
|
|
|
Yes, I can prove they didn't.
All you proved is that in a few cases, they didn't sleep in their armour, not that they couldn't have had they felt it necessary.
Can you provide counter-examples of armies actually sleeping in full plate?
Indeed I can. Here follow two such accounts:
Bernal Diaz del Castillo writes in his Conquest of New Spain, that during the campaign against the Tlaxcalans, that "we were accustomed to sleep in our armour," and that this practice helped greatly in repelling a nighttime attack.
Jehan, lord of Haynin, participated in Charles the Bold's campaign against the town of Ghent, which was in revolt in October of 1476. In his Memoirs, he records an incident during which most of his heavy cavalry column remained in armour all night for fear of night attack.
The historical evidence shows without a doubt that armies slept without armor even when in enemy territory and expecting an enemy attack.
What the historical evidence shows, QED, is that armies in fact, did not always take off their armour when in enemy territory and expecting attack. They wore their armour all night when circumstance obliged them to do so. It is interesting that your examples date from long before the Age of Plate Armour, while mine took place during plate armour's heyday.
As it happens, I own and regularly wear a full plate harness, a replica of a late 15th century Italian suit, in which I take part in combat re-enactment. I daresay that my armour is a great deal heavier and all-enclosing, more accurate, and better-tailored than what one sees on SCA fighters. Thus, I feel that I am qualified to speak with authority on this subject.
My harness weighs 72 pounds, including the arming doublet with mail attachments, and the clothing worn underneath. While I haven't slept an entire night in it, I have, on several occasions, taken naps in it, lasting a couple of hours or more. It's not anywhere near as bad as you seem to believe it is. I think I could sleep all night in it and arise the next morning none the worse for wear. Would I like to have to do so for several nights in a row? No, but I think I could without any serious reduction in my physical abilities.
Since I am also a surgical nurse by trade, I submit also for your consideration that I have witnessed many instances of patients resting comfortably all night long while in various types of traction, casts, etc.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 12:36PM
#25
|
|
|
Since we're whipping out our codpieces... :D
As a former professional athlete, if I slept on my pillow wrong or at on an inferior hotel mattress, I could be out of whack for a day or sometimes a week. I mean, I could perform, but not nearly at the capacity of which I was trained for. This could even lead to other injuries as my body would have to compensate for that gimpiness.
Based on that, I can guarantee you that while I could likely fall asleep in that suit of armor, there is no way in hell that I would be worth a damn when I woke up, particularly startled awake without any ability to stretch my muscles beforehand.
Sure, I could walk and do basic functions, but perform at my highest level? Not a chance.
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 - 12:40PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
All you proved is that in a few cases, they didn't sleep in their armour, not that they couldn't have had they felt it necessary. Why do you think that was?
No, I have proved that in many cases they did indeed feel it necessary but nevertheless either could or would not do so. Why do you think that was?
Indeed I can. Here follow two such accounts:
Bernal Diaz del Castillo writes in his Conquest of New Spain, that during the campaign against the Tlaxcalans, that "we were accustomed to sleep in our armour," and that this practice helped greatly in repelling a nighttime attack.
Jehan, lord of Haynin, participated in Charles the Bold's campaign against the town of Ghent, which was in revolt in October of 1476. In his Memoirs, he records an incident during which most of his heavy cavalry column remained in armour all night for fear of night attack.
So you are suggesting that the Conquistadores were wearing full plate? That seems to differ from contemporary depictions of them, which show them wearing at most a breastplate, not a full suit of armor.
And do the Memoirs of Jehan suggest that the heavy cavalry column got a good night's sleep, or merely that they remained on alert until the morning?
What the historical evidence shows, QED, is that armies in fact, did not always take off their armour when in enemy territory and expecting attack. They wore their armour all night when circumstance obliged them to do so.
Indeed. And they stayed awake when they did.
My harness weighs 72 pounds, including the arming doublet with mail attachments, and the clothing worn underneath. While I haven't slept an entire night in it, I have, on several occasions, taken naps in it, lasting a couple of hours or more. It's not anywhere near as bad as you seem to believe it is. I think I could sleep all night in it and arise the next morning none the worse for wear. Would I like to have to do so for several nights in a row? No, but I think I could without any serious reduction in my physical abilities.
Since I am also a surgical nurse by trade, I submit also for your consideration that I have witnessed many instances of patients resting comfortably all night long while in various types of traction, casts, etc.
I certainly respect your perspective and the personal knowledge of the issue that you clearly possess. But I wonder, if you suspect it wouldn't be that bad to sleep in full plate, why do you think then that it was not standard practice, historically speaking, for armies to sleep in armor? Because it is quite clear that it was not. Maybe someday you will try to sleep in your armor for a full night, and let us know how it goes?
Ancient and medieval soldiers, who wore their armor every day and whose lives depended on it, nevertheless took it off to sleep even when in enemy territory and expecting an attack. Why do you think that is? I suspect that it was because they realized they couldn't really sleep very well in their armor... what do you think? What would your explanation be for this historical fact, which seems to recurr across virtually all cultures and time periods in which heavy metal armor was worn?
Are you sure that if you spent the entire night in your armor, you wouldn't find yourself a little more fatigued the next day? And remember that that is really all we am representing, as DMs, when we impose a penalty of a healing surge or two on characters that fail an Endurance check to sleep in their armor.
"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
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 12:54PM
#27
|
|
|
The reason I hate this argument is that why must realism apply negatively against specific characters?
Why must everything be something assumed as going against the players? Maybe it is more attractive to the story you are trying to tell and the players are trying to partake in. How heroic is it that they party is ambushed and the paladin saved the day because he sleeps in his armor? But a non-armored paladin saving the day from an ambush... now THAT is heroic!
Just balance the encounter properly, and the armorless paladin is a non-issue, and the story is more glorified without the players none-the-wiser.
I also pointed out that if you want the party to be ambushed while they are asleep, or otherwise unprepared, and replicate the sense of their unpreparedness to simply impose an across the board penalty on all classes so that it is fair and balanced.
For example. The party is ambushed in their sleep. All characters are caught unaware, the Paladin's armor is hanging off him so that it is more comfortable to sleep in, the Rogue is groggy from a deep sleep, the Wizard didn't have time to activate his arcane defenses, etc. The penalty? All characters grant Combat Advantage for the duration of the encounter because they were unprepared. Or, in the alternative, all characters are granting Combat Advantage (Save Ends) to represent them trying to get their defenses in order as the fight goes on. Voila.
The game is premised on a rough parity between classes and a penalty that applies to only a select few throws off that balance. Realism does not need to play into the equation because the game is not designed to be realistic, the PC's can and do break numerous laws of physics all the time.
If a DM wants to make an encounter more difficult to represent what is in their minds a realistic concern then come up with a balanced mechanic for doing so. In my above example the entire party is penalized for being caught off guard. Additionally, the party would likely suffer a surprise round for being unaware and if you design the encounter with Lurkers or other enemies that play off Combat Advantage it would in fact be quite challenging to the entire party not just the unlucky sap that happens to wear heavy armor.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 1:08PM
#28
|
|
|
Well, we're all sharing our thoughts and opinions. There is no right or wrong answer here. 
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 - 1:41PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Jun 15, 2004
|
As a former professional athlete, if I slept on my pillow wrong or at on an inferior hotel mattress, I could be out of whack for a day or sometimes a week
This is why the PC's in my campaign now never travel without their own pillow. Sure, it's a house-rule, but the week-long penalty definitely enforces correct roleplaying on the part of the player. One PC even braved several volleys of arrow fire simply to retrieve his pillow. Luckily, he was ok again after a short rest.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 24, 2010 - 2:09PM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2009
|
Well, to be fair, that is why the adventurer's kit includes a bedroll 
"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
|
|
|
