tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3534782797790619934.post7209666470933125032..comments2024-03-10T04:32:25.985-07:00Comments on Improved Initiative: The 5 Totally Useless Statements You See In Every RPG DiscussionNeal Litherlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01307649737269196558noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3534782797790619934.post-7371163482766499012015-12-03T05:39:35.019-08:002015-12-03T05:39:35.019-08:00No, the sword will deliver a blow faster than a da...No, the sword will deliver a blow faster than a dagger. It has reach. A small turn in the wrist results in a quick acceleration at the tip. And swords don't really weigh 10lbs. Most swords in history weighed between 2 and 5lbs (two handed). <br /><br />At any rate, D&D (the example you give) is a highly flawed system. Yes, trying to fix one problem in it could break three or more other parts of the system. The system's inability to be modified shouldn't be used as an argument against criticism.Rich Mayo (MachOne Games)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03379335610709967857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3534782797790619934.post-60709861075675112962015-12-02T14:32:46.244-08:002015-12-02T14:32:46.244-08:00As noted in each of the above sections, there are ...As noted in each of the above sections, there are exceptions to each of them. I expressly noted that, provided the individual is aware that the DM has the right to alter rules as he and the table agree are fit, the statement is worthless. The assumption being that the opposite, the DM hasn't read the book and doesn't know that, is also true.<br /><br />I agree, games need internal consistency. Which is what a rules system is there to provide. The argument is not that you shouldn't infer things that aren't expressly covered to the best of your ability. The argument is that you cannot say that a rule is wrong and simply impose your own logic by using "that's how it works in the real world" as an excuse. You can't do this *precisely* because rule systems are designed with an internal consistency that has been balanced to work a certain way. So if someone says his dual-dagger rogue should get 4 attacks at level one because of his inherent speed and lighter weapons, while the greatsword wielding barbarian should still be limited to one, that argument would break, rather than reinforce, the system that's in place. Because attacks are balanced in number not based on the speed of the wielders, but by feats and base attack bonuses, which establishes a baseline of how many times you can roll your attack dice in a full attack action.<br /><br />Yes, you can stab with a quarter pound stilletto faster than you can swing a ten pound bastard sword. It is not, however, relevant to how the system was designed, and therefore changing that rule will throw everything out of whack in the name of one person's interpretation of being more "realistic".Neal Litherlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01307649737269196558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3534782797790619934.post-53485797588463648682015-12-02T13:58:22.843-08:002015-12-02T13:58:22.843-08:00#4 is not actually useless when talking to new pla...#4 is not actually useless when talking to new players / DMs. You are looking at the rules through the lens of a person who has been breaking them for years...<br /><br />But that is a *very unique things in RPGs*. There are no other games where one player can just break the rules because he wants to... So, therefore, when talking to a new DM that needs advice, it is *not* useless to say, "Hey, you are allowed to change the rules as you see fit at the table." because they might not know that! <br /><br />They have played games their entire lives where breaking the rules equals cheating... and this is a significant paradigm shift for new DMs.<br /><br />So, I disagree with your #4 on the grounds that it is relevant to new players and DMs... and on the internet when someone is asking for advice, you often don't know whether they just started playing in the last 4 months, or have been playing for almost 40 years.<br /><br />On the other hand, if you *do* know they've been playing for years and years, then yes it is a waste to restate the obvious. But what is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to everyone.<br /><br />On #3, there is a distinct difference between "unrealistic" and "not internally consistent". Even though the laws of physics can be broken using magic, the game should have internally consistent and logical workings.<br /><br />Even though a game has magic, the rules *do* exist as a simulation reality...Not an exact one, but still the mechanics are there to crudely model what we know of reality.<br /><br /> So really, there is nothing wrong with saying "I believe the falling damage rules are flawed" if the assumption that gravity works essentially the same way in the game world as it does in the real world. <br /><br />You state "Note that this is not a, "magic exists, therefore no complaints are valid," argument." but then you essentially make that exact argument.<br /><br />What it boils down to is that, even though it is a fantasy, certain "reality" rules are going to exist that are basically the same as our world... Unless the game world explicitly notes a difference (like a different level of gravity, or you can walk across water because of the inherent magic, or whatever). Without the game world adjusting the assumptions, we have to go on what we know from real life.<br />Raging Owlbearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10556804177905125874noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3534782797790619934.post-78992841368832523012015-12-02T06:54:22.012-08:002015-12-02T06:54:22.012-08:00Point 3) Realistic is often used to mean internal...Point 3) Realistic is often used to mean internally consistent. Stupid interactions create lack of verisimilitude; they make the world seem artificial. Artificial and fantastical are not the same things. An artificial world is a world where a person cannot jump over a 5ft fence but is able to wound a 10,000 lb dragon with their fist. A fantastical world has a 10,000lb dragon. And, certainly fantasy and reality are different, even, I daresay, opposite things. Reality in this context is rarely if ever used to mean anything other than "bound by logic." Speculative fiction is the process of imagining a "what if" and examining the consequences. Your assumption seems to be -- and this hobby is rife with those who agree with you -- that if you have fantastical you may as well have internally inconsistent, artificial, contrived, and nonsensical. You conflate all these concepts together. <br />This also ties into your point number one a bit too. History is internally consistent. When new technologies, like armour, evolved they were adopted. They had context. Armies weren't made up of soldiers with vastly different technologies because each soldier was expressing their individuality. <br /><br />I quite liked how you introduced the concept of context and consistency in this section. History is useful as a guide to inform a contextualized criticism of the structure of an imaginary world. It cannot be an authority on how things have to be. Rich Mayo (MachOne Games)https://www.blogger.com/profile/03379335610709967857noreply@blogger.com