First, thank you everyone for the cool suggestions! I think I've been inspired by your creativity. I especially liked the thought about cold-blooded lizardmen being invisible to infravision. I also liked all the suggestions on possible ways to prove themselves.
Second, no-thank you to everyone arguing. Can we cut the bickering? I said "Discuss" not "Argue" =)
Third, I know I asked the Cold/Warm blooded question without any context to my world (which is new and heavily under construction). I did that on purpose to hear your responses. I heard a lot of good arguments on both sides. The reason I asked the question was because I designed a swamp that was almost purpetually dark, despite any sunny weather. The fog and mist hangs heavy and sunlight rarely penetrates to the swamp floor. And then I thought: "Oh balls! What if Lizardmen are cold-blooded? How could they survive?" So I made the post. And after hearing your suggestions and brainstorming on my own a bit, here's what I decided:
Lizardmen ARE Cold-Blooded. Why? It feels right to me and it adds some depth to the world. So how am I going to reconsile my sunless swamp? By adding something awesome, of course! I decided that the swamp is called the Fire Fens, because long ago a huge meteor broke into hundreds of small pieces and impacted the area. The meteorite rocks are about 10 feet across, on average. For some reason (magic!), the meteorites never cooled and they still radiate heat today. This particular tribe of lizardmen have built their tribe around a few of these rocks. They can keep plenty warm by staying in town. When they go out, a blood-temperature timer begins.
I think this awesome detail about the meteorites will inspire a few other adventures in the area too. Maybe now, maybe in the future.
Third, I know I asked the Cold/Warm blooded question without any context to my world (which is new and heavily under construction). I did that on purpose to hear your responses. I heard a lot of good arguments on both sides. The reason I asked the question was because I designed a swamp that was almost purpetually dark, despite any sunny weather. The fog and mist hangs heavy and sunlight rarely penetrates to the swamp floor. And then I thought: "Oh balls! What if Lizardmen are cold-blooded? How could they survive?"
I see this as an example of a cool idea being blocked (potentially) by a trivial, mutable detail in an effort to maintain (somewhat questionable) realism, and I find that unfortunate.
Lizardmen ARE Cold-Blooded. Why? It feels right to me and it adds some depth to the world. So how am I going to reconsile my sunless swamp? By adding something awesome, of course! I decided that the swamp is called the Fire Fens, because long ago a huge meteor broke into hundreds of small pieces and impacted the area. The meteorite rocks are about 10 feet across, on average. For some reason (magic!), the meteorites never cooled and they still radiate heat today. This particular tribe of lizardmen have built their tribe around a few of these rocks. They can keep plenty warm by staying in town. When they go out, a blood-temperature timer begins.
Excellent solution, and potentially the basis for some interesting hooks once prospectors start digging up the meteorites.
Are you really going to track blood-temperature? That's "realism" adding more bookkeeping for you. Even monsters that behave differently in different lighting conditions are a pain, and tracking temperature is not something the game really gives any guidance on.
You basically resorted to magic for you idea. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm curious where you draw the line, especially since there are probably cool and plausibly realistic ways for cold-blooded creatures to survive and thrive in low temperatures. Real fish and insects can survive in surprisingly low temperatures. Heck, just mastering fire would probably be enough for a race of cold-blooded humanoids. And since your world has magic, lizardmen probably have magic-users too. Suddenly, you've got lizardmen who carry smoldering bricks of peatmoss wherever they go, who prize fire magic above all else (and respect those who can control it), who covet and steal any item that gives off warmth. Maybe every lizardman must go through a ritual that endows him or her with the ability to create fire either magically or under otherwise impossible circumstances. Firebending lizardmen? Where do I sign up?
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
I see this as an example of a cool idea being blocked (potentially) by a trivial, mutable detail in an effort to maintain (somewhat questionable) realism, and I find that unfortunate.
Except that thinking through this potential issue created a cool idea. If he'd just not worried about it since after all it's a fantasy world and anything can happen, he wouldn't have thought it through. Having limits usually fosters creativity; absolute open-ended freedom often stifles it.
I especially liked the thought about cold-blooded lizardmen being invisible to infravision.
I just realized that in my group, this would matter particularly for our Drow player, because we've houseruled that Drow darkvision is actually infra-red (as it was in 3rd edition).
Except that thinking through this potential issue created a cool idea. If he'd just not worried about it since after all it's a fantasy world and anything can happen, he wouldn't have thought it through. Having limits usually fosters creativity; absolute open-ended freedom often stifles it.
It's just as often the other way around.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Third, I know I asked the Cold/Warm blooded question without any context to my world (which is new and heavily under construction). I did that on purpose to hear your responses. I heard a lot of good arguments on both sides. The reason I asked the question was because I designed a swamp that was almost purpetually dark, despite any sunny weather. The fog and mist hangs heavy and sunlight rarely penetrates to the swamp floor. And then I thought: "Oh balls! What if Lizardmen are cold-blooded? How could they survive?"
I see this as an example of a cool idea being blocked (potentially) by a trivial, mutable detail in an effort to maintain (somewhat questionable) realism, and I find that unfortunate.
Lizardmen ARE Cold-Blooded. Why? It feels right to me and it adds some depth to the world. So how am I going to reconsile my sunless swamp? By adding something awesome, of course! I decided that the swamp is called the Fire Fens, because long ago a huge meteor broke into hundreds of small pieces and impacted the area. The meteorite rocks are about 10 feet across, on average. For some reason (magic!), the meteorites never cooled and they still radiate heat today. This particular tribe of lizardmen have built their tribe around a few of these rocks. They can keep plenty warm by staying in town. When they go out, a blood-temperature timer begins.
Excellent solution, and potentially the basis for some interesting hooks once prospectors start digging up the meteorites.
Are you really going to track blood-temperature? That's "realism" adding more bookkeeping for you. Even monsters that behave differently in different lighting conditions are a pain, and tracking temperature is not something the game really gives any guidance on.
You basically resorted to magic for you idea. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm curious where you draw the line, especially since there are probably cool and plausibly realistic ways for cold-blooded creatures to survive and thrive in low temperatures. Real fish and insects can survive in surprisingly low temperatures. Heck, just mastering fire would probably be enough for a race of cold-blooded humanoids. And since your world has magic, lizardmen probably have magic-users too. Suddenly, you've got lizardmen who carry smoldering bricks of peatmoss wherever they go, who prize fire magic above all else (and respect those who can control it), who covet and steal any item that gives off warmth. Maybe every lizardman must go through a ritual that endows him or her with the ability to create fire either magically or under otherwise impossible circumstances. Firebending lizardmen? Where do I sign up?
Realism is very important to me, actually!! However, it's important to distinguish between the Realism of our real world and the Realism within the context of the game.
As a physicist, I often cringe at movies that display poor physics in action movies. You know, like the normal person (i.e. not a superhero) leaping between two vehicles moving in opposite directions. In the framework of that movie, such actions should be impossible.
Now what if I was watching Spiderman? Okay, fine. I accept the premise that this guy has superpowers. He CAN leap really far or fall from a great height without a scratch.
Realism (as established within the framework of the setting) is extremely important for believability and the ability to become immersed in the world. Would a first level fighter be able to slay a powerful dragon (under normal circumstances)? No, of course not...that wouldn't be realistic. Such unrealisms would make the game un-fun.
Okay, maybe none of my players would have noticed the connection between the lack of sunlight and this cold-blooded lizardman tribe. But *I* would have known. And if *I* don't have faith in the realism of my own game, why should be players? Furthermore, simply because I wanted to make sure the world was as believable and tangible as possible, I was able to brainstorm a really cool detail.
And just to clarify, I would never arbitrarily restrict a player's creativity for the sake of "my" world. This game is every bit theirs as it is mine. What's an author without readers? A filmmaker without viewers? A DM without players? The DM's job isn't to weild the Rules like a club...it's to co-create (along with the players) an amazing world for the players to explore so everyone can have fun. FUN is the ultimate goal.
Maybe others think about the game differently, but that's how I do it.
And just to clarify, I would never arbitrarily restrict a player's creativity for the sake of "my" world. This game is every bit theirs as it is mine. What's an author without readers? A filmmaker without viewers? A DM without players? The DM's job isn't to weild the Rules like a club...it's to co-create (along with the players) an amazing world for the players to explore so everyone can have fun. FUN is the ultimate goal.
Hypothetical: You've decided (as you said) to make lizardmen cold-blooded in your world. The players, not aware of this perhaps, brainstorm and settle upon a cool plan that will drive the action and tell a story in a positive way, but it requires that the lizardmen are warm-blooded. Will you make the lizardmen warm-blooded so their plan has a chance at working?
Also, this may have been mentioned, but I'm curious as to what edition you're playing.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
And just to clarify, I would never arbitrarily restrict a player's creativity for the sake of "my" world. This game is every bit theirs as it is mine. What's an author without readers? A filmmaker without viewers? A DM without players? The DM's job isn't to weild the Rules like a club...it's to co-create (along with the players) an amazing world for the players to explore so everyone can have fun. FUN is the ultimate goal.
Hypothetical: You've decided (as you said) to make lizardmen cold-blooded in your world. The players, not aware of this perhaps, brainstorm and settle upon a cool plan that will drive the action and tell a story in a positive way, but it requires that the lizardmen are warm-blooded. Will you make the lizardmen warm-blooded so their plan has a chance at working?
Also, this may have been mentioned, but I'm curious as to what edition you're playing.
Good question! I guess it depends on their plan, but I would probably let the players have a chance at succeeding. If their ideas are better than mine, who am I to get in the way?? Of course, I'd never tell them this. It would all be a spur-of-the-moment decision. Alternatively, I might suggest a way they could alter their plan that would work regardless of the blood type. That way everyone wins.
Sure, it's always the DM's worst nightmare when your preciously designed plans get prematurely unraveled by the players' more clever thinking. What to do? I always prioritize creativity and fun over rules. If it makes the game more awesome, then it happens. But sometimes "awesome" doesn't mean a boon for the players. It could mean plot tension or a crucial roleplaying moment. I like it when a player does what his CHARACTER would do instead of what HE would do.
A good DM can think on his feet and deal with the unexpected. A better DM designs the world so one pull of the string doesn't unravel the whole game. I don't claim to be either of the two, but I try! =)
As for the edition, I initially started designing this world for a 4e Essentials campaign, but I've decided to migrate it to D&D Next. Briefly, the campaign is called "Classic Tales" and the adventures are all classic faerie tales with a D&D twist. Trolls under bridges, wicked witches of the forest, the big bad wolf, haunted houses, Snow Wight and the 7 Evil Dwarves, rescue the princess in the tower....that sort of thing. I'm straying from that formula for the sake of the playtest, though. I want to save the real campaign for when the world is ready and the Next edition is live.
Realism is very important to me, actually!! However, it's important to distinguish between the Realism of our real world and the Realism within the context of the game.
Of course. But there's clearly a line here, and I'm curious about it.
As a physicist, I often cringe at movies that display poor physics in action movies. You know, like the normal person (i.e. not a superhero) leaping between two vehicles moving in opposite directions. In the framework of that movie, such actions should be impossible.
This has nothing to do with being a physicist. One can be a physicist and still enjoy cool stunts for what they are, especially since they usually don't have much bearing on the story.
Star Trek used to really bother me, but then I realized that the actual jargon they're using is irrelevant. The situation at issue could have arisen somehow, so let's just assume it do that and move on.
Now what if I was watching Spiderman? Okay, fine. I accept the premise that this guy has superpowers. He CAN leap really far or fall from a great height without a scratch.
And the Hulk, standing on a bridge, can punch to a dead stop something that could have shattered the bridge. So... it's a superpowered bridge? They should consider making the buildings out of the same stuff.
Realism (as established within the framework of the setting) is extremely important for believability and the ability to become immersed in the world. Would a first level fighter be able to slay a powerful dragon (under normal circumstances)? No, of course not...that wouldn't be realistic. Such unrealisms would make the game un-fun.
It's all in how you look at it, what you look at, and why you're looking at it.
The example of the fighter is a telling one. What seems to happen is that mundane stuff that everyday people feel they have a good handle on get the "realism" treatment, and other things get a pass. This typically happens to the detriment of fighters, because everyone thinks they have a sense for what a mundane fighter is capable of. Spellcasters then get more of a free pass because their abilities are realistic "as established within the framework of the setting." So, it becomes "realistic" for a wizard to take out a room of enemies, and for a fighter to be limited to one or two at a time. Wizards get to be Gandalf, but fighters don't get to be Hercules.
That's not the issue here, but it's one the stems from the same desire for realism, so I tend to look askance at "realistic" limits to mundane stuff.
Okay, maybe none of my players would have noticed the connection between the lack of sunlight and this cold-blooded lizardman tribe. But *I* would have known. And if *I* don't have faith in the realism of my own game, why should be players? Furthermore, simply because I wanted to make sure the world was as believable and tangible as possible, I was able to brainstorm a really cool detail.
And it is a cool detail, it's just curious to me how we draw lines as to what is and isn't acceptably "real" and what is and isn't fair game. The meteor idea, though cool, would cause a physicist to cringe a little, for a few different reasons. But it's cool, so it should be allowed to stand, so we can chalk it up to magic. Not a problem.
And just to clarify, I would never arbitrarily restrict a player's creativity for the sake of "my" world. This game is every bit theirs as it is mine. What's an author without readers? A filmmaker without viewers? A DM without players? The DM's job isn't to weild the Rules like a club...it's to co-create (along with the players) an amazing world for the players to explore so everyone can have fun. FUN is the ultimate goal.
Maybe others think about the game differently, but that's how I do it.
I think the only place we differ is on where we draw the "realism" line, what's okay to cover with "magic" or "fantasy" (or bending the laws of physics) and what isn't.
Good question! I guess it depends on their plan, but I would probably let the players have a chance at succeeding. If their ideas are better than mine, who am I to get in the way?? Of course, I'd never tell them this. It would all be a spur-of-the-moment decision. Alternatively, I might suggest a way they could alter their plan that would work regardless of the blood type. That way everyone wins.
No body loses if if the DM changes a detail that hadn't been established yet.
Sure, it's always the DM's worst nightmare when your preciously designed plans get prematurely unraveled by the players' more clever thinking. What to do?
Not make preciously designed plans. It took me a while to realize this, but it seems obvious now.
I always prioritize creativity and fun over rules. If it makes the game more awesome, then it happens. But sometimes "awesome" doesn't mean a boon for the players. It could mean plot tension or a crucial roleplaying moment. I like it when a player does what his CHARACTER would do instead of what HE would do.
A good DM can think on his feet and deal with the unexpected. A better DM designs the world so one pull of the string doesn't unravel the whole game. I don't claim to be either of the two, but I try! =)
Wow. I think of it the other way around, mostly because there appears to be no way to design a world without such strings. Could be I just don't never had the will to try hard enough, but then there are many who don't have the will to think on their feet.
[N]o difference is less easily overcome than the difference of opinion about semi-abstract questions. - L. Tolstoy
Good question! I guess it depends on their plan, but I would probably let the players have a chance at succeeding. If their ideas are better than mine, who am I to get in the way?? Of course, I'd never tell them this. It would all be a spur-of-the-moment decision. Alternatively, I might suggest a way they could alter their plan that would work regardless of the blood type. That way everyone wins.
Sure, it's always the DM's worst nightmare when your preciously designed plans get prematurely unraveled by the players' more clever thinking. What to do? I always prioritize creativity and fun over rules. If it makes the game more awesome, then it happens. But sometimes "awesome" doesn't mean a boon for the players. It could mean plot tension or a crucial roleplaying moment. I like it when a player does what his CHARACTER would do instead of what HE would do.
A good DM can think on his feet and deal with the unexpected. A better DM designs the world so one pull of the string doesn't unravel the whole game. I don't claim to be either of the two, but I try! =)
As for the edition, I initially started designing this world for a 4e Essentials campaign, but I've decided to migrate it to D&D Next. Briefly, the campaign is called "Classic Tales" and the adventures are all classic faerie tales with a D&D twist. Trolls under bridges, wicked witches of the forest, the big bad wolf, haunted houses, Snow Wight and the 7 Evil Dwarves, rescue the princess in the tower....that sort of thing. I'm straying from that formula for the sake of the playtest, though. I want to save the real campaign for when the world is ready and the Next edition is live.
I don't agree with your take on realism, but you have some really good ideas and I like your attitude. Please post more often!
I'd like to hear more about your classic tale adventures. I've never thought about doing that and it seems like something I could pull off. If you ever feel like starting a thread about it, count me in.
No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues. Reduce DM Prep & Increase Player Engagement:Don't Prep the Plot | Structure First, Story Last | Collaborative Roleplay | "Yes, and..." | Prep Tips Games I'm Running on Roll20: Island of the Frog | Vanguard of Dis | Star*Juice | Tesseract | The Crucible | Fimbulvetr | The Delve | Draj, City of the Moon Follow me on Twitter:@is3rith
"It's all in how you look at it, what you look at, and why you're looking at it.
The example of the fighter is a telling one. What seems to happen is that mundane stuff that everyday people feel they have a good handle on get the "realism" treatment, and other things get a pass. This typically happens to the detriment of fighters, because everyone thinks they have a sense for what a mundane fighter is capable of. Spellcasters then get more of a free pass because their abilities are realistic "as established within the framework of the setting." So, it becomes "realistic" for a wizard to take out a room of enemies, and for a fighter to be limited to one or two at a time. Wizards get to be Gandalf, but fighters don't get to be Hercules.
That's not the issue here, but it's one the stems from the same desire for realism, so I tend to look askance at "realistic" limits to mundane stuff."
Can I ask what exactly you think the mundane fighter is capable of?
I've personally always kind of viewed both the fighter/martial classes to be excellent at clearing out a room of enemies using their martial feats and skills. Even so far as in to let them do it in a single round or two. But I expect and demand that the wizard do the same with his own tactics and style. Presuming each class has it's own limiting factors for balance (such as a fighter not being able to spam a move because it's very tiring and a spellcaster having obvious limits on spells per day).
I'm not trying to take this to extremes, please note that. I just want a discussion about the realism between classes and the realism, or perhaps consistency is a more appropriate word, of fantasy.
Btw, Gandalf wasn't exactly all that powerful. Even when he graduated to the rank of White in the order. (and no, that's not me trying to downplay or diminish a cool character)
My username should actually read: Lunar Savage (damn you WotC!) *Tips top hat, adjusts monocle, and walks away with cane* and yes, that IS Mr. Peanut laying unconscious on the curb. http://asylumjournals.tumblr.com/
