Fixing the Fantasy of Fantasy Gaming

[Pulsewidth]

For a high-magic fantasy setting with much better than average internal consistency, see Lawrence Watt-Evans' Ethshar series. It's more pseudo-Roman Empire than pseudo-medieval Europe, which is a good choice considering the similarities in plot possibilities between magic and technology. Starting with a relatively high-technology ancient society makes things a lot easier.

The magic systems have well defined limits: practical, political and social. Very powerful magic is generally expensive, unreliable and dangerous. Even so, magic has world-changing consequences, and if characters have magic they don't usually hold back from using it.

Ethshar was originally designed as an RPG setting, and the novels do have an RPG game feel to them. But unlike a lot of these types of novels, the characters aren't complete idiots and they exploit any "loopholes" in the world-building as much as they can. If Ethshar wizards somehow ended up in D&D land I'm sure they'd be casting infinite wishes within a week.

[FatR]

Early firearms were the deadliest weapons of their age by far (greater stopping power + extremely slim chances of recovering from a gunshot wound, thanks to practically 100% rate of wound infection and crap field surgery). Whether this difference should matters depends on how superheroic your system is. In DnD, I don't really know if mundane weapons should have different damage dice at all...

[kzt]

Getting an arm removed by an axe or having your head crushed by a mace are also pretty darn effective at making you combat ineffective. The reason that people kept using roughly the same melee weapons for many centuries across many cultures is that they work. They work really, really well.

For that matter, people who hunt deer with bows find that putting a razor tipped arrow through their chest is also damn effective, about as effective as shooting them with a hunting rifle. It's just a lot harder to get in position to take the shot.

Very few societies could afford to spend years training people how to use weapons that didn't actually work. Serious combat is very Darwinian. People who get killed due to a poor choice of tactics, weapons or armor don't train the next generation.

The reason this isn't represented in D&D type games is because they are not trying to provide even a vague degree of verisimilitude. When you go to something like Hero or GURPS or old RQ, yes, characters can get disabled or killed by single hits from most any weapon.

[CCarter]

Ethshar was originally designed as an RPG setting, and the novels do have an RPG game feel to them. But unlike a lot of these types of novels, the characters aren't complete idiots and they exploit any "loopholes" in the world-building as much as they can. If Ethshar wizards somehow ended up in D&D land I'm sure they'd be casting infinite wishes within a week.

I quite liked this series as well.

One thing thats interesting is that there are a lot of loopholes, but they're not generally known...Ethshar characters always seem to operate with very limited information as a balancing factor
(e.g. non-wizards don't know that wizards need an athame to cast spells, most wizards don't know that the basic combustion spell creates a huge fireball if you cast it on something thats already burnng, eternal youth spells are believed to be just a rumour).

Particularly outrageous things like the immortal guy with the indestrucible sword or the magical castle in space were largely one-off only since no one with the resources to duplicate them knows that they're possible and so would go to the bother.

Sort of like having D&D with every broken combo imaginable in play, but with players who have absolutely no idea of the rules.

Give a D&D player the Ethshar ruleset and they're analyze it promptly and go "Hey I've found if I cast True Ownership + Animation it makes me indestructible, so my wizard casts that...on himself, not on some hobo he found in the marsh like in the book."

[JigokuBosatsu]

The Ethshar stuff and the Lords of Dus series were both really great. The latter is a great idea of why you shouldn't give hobgoblin samurai fighters nice things.

And in the aforementioned "With a Single Spell" is quite possibly the most awesome spell ever, "Jalger's Jar Opener". Essentially it's a one-off summoning that brings forth an enormous demon to open a jar for you.

[K]

The Ethshar stuff and the Lords of Dus series were both really great. The latter is a great idea of why you shouldn't give hobgoblin samurai fighters nice things.

And in the aforementioned "With a Single Spell" is quite possibly the most awesome spell ever, "Jalger's Jar Opener". Essentially it's a one-off summoning that brings forth an enormous demon to open a jar for you.

The best thing about his books is that basically its not an RPG. I mean, no one has power that are good for adventuring: Wizards mostly don't have good spells and the ones they have are wicked expensive, Warlocks function in a small geographic area and have and have an expiration date (and Demonologists are just shorter expiration dates), Witches and Theurgists are really weak, and Sorcerers are limited to the few talismans they have though they might actually be a playable character type if they learn how to make more.

The fact that it's a world that makes sense is because he outlines very clearly the vast limitations to magic, something that DnD never does outside AMFs and dead/wild magic zones.

And basically every one of his stories is about exploiting a loophole in those limitations, except perhaps The Spriggan Mirror which is about a guy who knows about all the kinds of magic and just convinces people to use the best things on his behalf.

[FatR]

Getting an arm removed by an axe or having your head crushed by a mace are also pretty darn effective at making you combat ineffective. The reason that people kept using roughly the same melee weapons for many centuries across many cultures is that they work. They work really, really well.

I like, when people try to reason away observable facts, like "firearms, unlike every weapon before them, won the race against armor" (despite being much more expensive compared to crossbows and requiring as much or nearly as much extensive training as bows did, but with way lower rate of fire - but these at least, are not instantly obvious from one look at the history of warfare).
Except, no, I don't like this.

[tzor]

I like, when people try to reason away observable facts, like "firearms, unlike every weapon before them, won the race against armor"

I always love those arguments because they are so far from reality that they actually can be quite funny to anyone who understands history and the complex interaction of social, economic and political/religious forces.

Let's take armor. Armor was something worn by knights. Knights were armored calvery, and in a modern sense considered senior ranking officers. The amount of ways you could take down a knight isn't even funny. But if you were some peon in the army and you did that, your own leaders would kill you. Only knights fought knights, end of discussion. Once that broke down, and it became apoparent how easy it was to mob a knight, armor literally started to fall apart. By the time you get to the 18th century, "armor" was a symbolic necklace around officer's necks to indicate their authority as officers.

And don't discount the mighty mace. You don't have to chop off an arm in order to have an enemy armless; any compound fracture (until the 20th century) is going to eventually require amputation. That's the real difference between arrows and musket ball; the former would produce fatal wounds to the heart lungs etc while the later woud produce compound factures leading in infection gangrene and death.

[kzt]

I like, when people try to reason away observable facts, like "firearms, unlike every weapon before them, won the race against armor" (despite being much more expensive compared to crossbows and requiring as much or nearly as much extensive training as bows did, but with way lower rate of fire - but these at least, are not instantly obvious from one look at the history of warfare).
Except, no, I don't like this.

Firearms are HUGELY easier to train. It's not for nothing that Edward I made archery the only allowed sport on Sunday afternoons, which was the only free time people had. It took a lot of practice to learn to effectively shoot a bow. Or to fight with a sword, etc. And you were expected to know how to use the weapon when you signed up.

Essentially the pre-gun armies were composed of the military class, often supplemented by a large or small numbers of poorly/untrained peasants armed with weapons like spears. The military aristocracy were those people who had the available time and years of professional training to learn how to effectively fight with military weapons.

It's a LOT easier to train people to shoot guns. So the need for a "military class" largely vanished. And at the same time the size of military forces exploded. European armies typically chose to only spend a few weeks to train recruits who had never handled a musket how to shoot, then sent them out to fight. And they were effective.

However, ignoring the military and political social dynamics, the typical combat weapons used by pre-gunpowder armies were and remain damn lethal. All of them. The main limitation of a sword versus a guy with a pistol is that the pistol is effective at a lot longer range than the sword is effective. Pistols (of all calibers) actually suck at convincing people who are highly motivated to stop attacking. (As can be seen by the guy a few days ago who killed 3 robbers and failed to notice he had been shot 4 times in the process until his wife pointed out he was bleeding.)

Being hit with a sword, axe, mace or a .60 cal musket ball are all likely to immediately end your ability to fight. And a flanged mace swung by a strong guy really doesn't care what armor you are wearing. It will bend the armor and crush the bones under it.

So. no, if you are making being hit by a musket more deadly than being hit by a mace you are not simulating anything. You are just making shit up.

[Aryxbez]

I like the "Giant Sword" movement, not because it realistic but it has resonance with me because I've watched "Berserk" and played Soul Calibur and played Final fantasy, but check it the gunblade thing they tried turned me off. So you know its a really wide genre filled with things to satisfy every taste.

I agree with Midnight_v, that I too am supporting of Big swords, having watched, and read Berserk as well. Also that whole bit of dying to bears, and dinosaurs, should only belong in the lower power levels of fantasy anyway. Realistic levels is like 1-5 out of 20 levels assumed here, past that point, hitting superhuman, to superheroes and so forth.

I can dig some Iron Age, where in Greek Mythologies exceptional mortals were actually able to compete with gods. So we have the option of letting players actually take on gods at the higher levels as it should be.

I also dig the mixing of technologies as well, Renaissance such with firearms, steampunk, to even this whole LCD laser lances, mechs, meets Conan like vibe going on. This all reminds me of Final Fantasy Legends II, where the setting had swords as well as guns, (spells of course) all being viable, going around the planes/worlds killing off gods and such.

Perhaps not entirely sure in thought of what I like of my fantasy, other than it supporting non-casters to having super powers to compete with spellcasters, pulp like elements, and otherwise any other awesome over top stuff.

[cthulhu]

The one difference between a gun and a sword or whatever is that shields work effectively against maces etc for a while at least. Shields are always woefully undermodelled in fantasy games though too!

Interestingly, the need for a professional military class is back with a vengeance.

[shadzar]

All I'm saying about dragons is that the D&D dragon is a completely different creature than what I've seen in the fantasy works I've read (with the possible exception of the dragon in Grunts, but it was more a set piece than an actual character...) and that centaurs' portrayal in D&D doesn't exactly make sense to me looking at the physiology. But D&D just wants a noble savage race and doesn't care how much sense it makes.

so if you want D&D dragons more like the strange ones in the books you read, then why not make them as such?

not everyone reads the same books, or maybe even reads those types of books that play or played/made D&D. maybe, like Nazgul, some things for D&D had to be changed due to legal obligations as compared to other stories.

what defines the "classic" dragon to you?

i am jsut lost about the centaurs...someone else mentioned the unwashed masses would probably smell not very different, and you want your equine to wipe their asses.....maybe centaurs human noses are so far away form their asses they dont smell themselves or are just so used to it to not take notice? i am lost what you want from a half-human, half-horse.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I've always played centaurs as filthy, matted beast-men who were either shy and reclusive when sober or violent and bullying when drunk. Either way, a centaur has no more culture than a beast.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Centaurs are just horse nomads. They do pretty much everything on horseback. Much like any other horse nomads, they don't even notice the smell if they've been curried.

[Ganbare Gincun]

I've always played centaurs as filthy, matted beast-men who were either shy and reclusive when sober or violent and bullying when drunk. Either way, a centaur has no more culture than a beast.

I couldn't have put it better myself. And they're worthless on a dungeon crawl; all it takes is a flight of stairs to put them out of commission.

Fucking centaurs.

[Darth Rabbitt]

Fucking centaurs.

How do they work?

This has probably been done before, but I couldn't help myself.

But seriously...

This was well before I joined, but I remember hearing something about long, heated discussions about centaurs here a while back.

I don't think this is going to end well.

But it should be fun to watch.

[PhoneLobster]

I don't know, all the videos of horses negotiating narrow passages and stairs didn't seem to change anyone's mind about centaurs not being allowed inside last time.

And as a realism argument it's stupid on first principles anyway.

[Prak]

Maybe humans are just fantastic racists who think centaurs are useless in a dungeon.

Recall, I steered clear of the centaur flamewar, so clear I entirely forgot about it.

[tussock]

1: Centaurs are voracious carnivores.
2: They look a bit like a hoofed greyhound in the lower half.
3: The human-like "torso" is really their bony gizzard.
3a: That little jaw dislocates to allow man-sized objects to be shovelled in.
4: They migrate constantly because of the ecosystem damage.
5: The bows are stolen from any elves they've run down and eaten.
5a: That's why elves sleep in trees.
6: "Civilised" centaurs are slave-warriors to a dominant culture.
7: No, you may not ride them.

Or ... http://oglaf.com/heterogeneous/

[Ganbare Gincun]

Maybe humans are just fantastic racists who think centaurs are useless in a dungeon.

Recall, I steered clear of the centaur flamewar, so clear I entirely forgot about it.

I wasn't even aware that there WAS a centaur flamewar before!

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I don't know, all the videos of horses negotiating narrow passages and stairs didn't seem to change anyone's mind about centaurs not being allowed inside last time.

And as a realism argument it's stupid on first principles anyway.

Indeed. Aren't there already rules for large things fitting into tight passaged? I don't see why it's even needed to penalize centaurs any more than other large creatures.

[Username17]

I wasn't even aware that there WAS a centaur flamewar before!

There sure was. Trying to have a discussion about making a fantasy heartbreaker and the kinds of characters that had to be represented mechanically for that to work - and Crissa and PhoneLobster crapped all over the thread with a giant bizarre screed about how fantasy games needed to let you play centaurs. Because... um... no discernible reason.

PhoneLobster started spamming the thread with literal pictures of horses crammed into rooms to demonstrate that they could physically fit into areas that were no larger than their own dimensions. Which totally isn't the point - they still can't actually do anything in those situations. It's still a cavalryman who can't dismount. Any time it would be inappropriate for you to be mounted on a horse, it would be inappropriate to bring a centaur character.

Aren't there already rules for large things fitting into tight passaged? I don't see why it's even needed to penalize centaurs any more than other large creatures.

Because they are in a much more ridiculous posture than any other large creature. They are both "long" (like a horse) and "tall" (like a man on a horse). It's not even like a huge mantis, that can flatten out or something to crawl through a low door. It is bar none the most unwieldy and ridiculous body type ever imagined by man. You might as well be asking to play a gelatinous cube. It can't present two short dimensions to any situation.

-Username17

[tzor]

Maybe humans are just fantastic racists who think centaurs are useless in a dungeon.

I'm just an old gamer that is too used to the old 1E model of dungeons and who knows a lot about how low the ceilings were when people only were 5' tall. Most stairways are a bitch for the two legged creatures, four legs would be difficult and circular stairs would be really bitchy.

(I've had to duck one too many times in a colonial house.)

Besides that, the "park your horse" outside was one of the things that most paladins hated to hear.

You didn't have to design a campaign around a beast rider who rode a bison. In the city of Lankhmar no less!

[PhoneLobster]

Because... um... no discernible reason.

Because if centaurs aren't allowed inside then neither are ogres, giants, dragons, wemics, trolls, golems, and indeed basically ALL large sized monsters. And your "body shape" argument is an infantile realism bitch fest that makes little sense. Oh a centaur the size of a mounted warrior can't dodge or swing in a narrow corridor? Sorry NEITHER CAN A TROLL.

I mean crap Minotaurs LIVE in mazes, but they are big, would be unable to dodge and swing and the corners will totally screw up their goring horns designed for CHARGE attacks. So fucking what, go have a cry about them not being allowed inside some more then.

In the mean time a "typical fantasy heart breaker" DOES need to represent horse and even LARGER sized critters AND needs to represent quadrupeds AND probably needs to represent centaurs specifically due to their iconic popularity.

But you were off on your little fucking rant about how you were allowed nay REQUIRED to insert your own wank job insectoid tauric creatures and THAT was fine, but no, centaurs weren't allowed in the game because YOU SPECIFICALLY demanded they couldn't go inside due to a realism argument so bad we could find videos that made you look like an idiot.

[Prak]

It's not even like a huge mantis, that can flatten out or something to crawl through a low door. It is bar none the most unwieldy and ridiculous body type ever imagined by man.
-Username17

Er, I really hate to bring this up, as I'm sure it was asked in the first war, but.... why not? I tend to figure the human torso is attached rather like a horse's neck and head, or, for that matter, a giraffe's neck and head. Both of which can flatten out. And it's not like there are real centaurs around to which to compare this. They are a fantasy creature, and can be composed in whatever vaguely plausible way we desire or need. And the human torso can't be any proportionately heavier than the neck and head of a giraffe compared to it's body. Granted, the centaur likely requires two hearts but.. well they have room.

Even so, there will be places where centaurs, trolls, etc will have difficulty, just like there are places where humans will have difficulty. A centaur or troll in a human built building will likely be no worse off than a human in a dwarf or halfling built building.