PDA

View Full Version : What Would be the Perfect Realistic-type Tabletop Game?



Conners
2013-03-08, 11:44 PM
This thread is about discussing what elements would form the greatest possible tabletop game which attempts to be realistic. That doesn't mean it can't have fantasy elements, of course. Discussions don't need to be in-depth with mechanics--you can present basic ideas, or system you know of which have tried X.

People who are not interested in such a system are welcome to give feedback on ideas presented in the thread. See the spoiler tab at the bottom of this post for more detail.


On the basic level, there are five parts to a tabletop system of this nature. So that you don't have to cover your ideas for a whole system, and to split up our posts making them easier to read, I suggest we put the subject (as determined by the following categories) bolded and centred, above our suggestion.

Quoting and critiquing each other is of course, also part of the discussion.If your idea crosses over multiple topics and its hard to separate them, just do "Health & Combat & Fantasy".

Health

This is about injury, death, and medical mechanics. Whether to have HP, or Wound Tracking. Whether to have bleeding mechanics. How quickly players should be healable. It can also relate to how easy it is to die.

Combat

Simply, combat. This is probably the meat of our discussion.

Character

This relates to stuff like character generation, how the skill system works, and other such details.

Social

Basically how interaction should work within the game. Not just Diplomacy and Bluff rolls. Some games have had mechanics for breeding dogs, or holding dinner parties. This is for discussing how much of that would be interesting, as well as how to handle normal Diplomacy/Bluff kinds of situations.

Fantasy

This is for discussing how to handle fantasy elements, in conjunction with realism elements. Stuff like how a magic system should work, how to have "realistic monsters" etc..


For those disliking realistic games:The idea of whether one should make a tabletop game with realism as a goal, is not up for debate within this thread. If it was, we could easily get off track, and the discussion defuse.

Instead, you are welcome to give your feedback on mechanics presented in the thread, or that you are aware of from already made realism games. Either as to why you dislike them and it is a negative thing for a tabletop game, or as to why it is an exception and you think it was a good idea.


Looking forward to an interesting and creative discussion with everyone here. Let's see if our gaming experience has paid off!

Will post my own take on things a little later.

Exediron
2013-03-08, 11:59 PM
It lives!

I have high hopes for this thread, and hopefully it will attract enough people to really take on a life - and perhaps even make a system when all is said and done.

I mean to begin by addressing some basic questions such as: what makes a system realistic, systems I think do it partially right (or come close) and a few ideas I've already had. I want to devote some time to writing my first contribution and it's late now, so I won't be posting it tonight. Maybe tomorrow.

EDIT: I'm going to be compiling my posts in this thread on various aspects here, so that they can be viewed together:

Weapons and Damage Types [page 3]
I think a distinction we need to make here is that we're talking about a realistic system here, not a historically accurate system. The way I see it, a realistic fantasy system is a way to apply the laws of the real, physical world (physics) to a fictional world. Therefore the physics of weaponry is relevant - what actual historical weaponry was like, less so.

This post will be devoted mainly to the topic of weapons, with tangential points on damage, wounds and armor:

Damage Types:

Although there are variable and variables to spare, you can break the damaging attacks of an edged weapon down into three pretty broad categories: Chop, Slash and Thrust. You can also bash with an edged weapon, but you aren't really using it as an edged weapon at that point. Arguably every weapon should have the option to Bash, with the effectiveness based on the characteristics of that weapon.

(Descriptions are, of course, somewhat simplified)
A chop is when the edge connects more-or-less straight, with the force going inwards towards the target - the blade is driven into the target. Chopping attacks are tighter than slashes and create deeper, if smaller, wounds.
A slash is when the blade is primarily moving across the target, and the cutting action is caused by the blade slicing the target as it travels across. Slashing attacks create the largest possible wound sizes, but they are often shallower and require large movements to execute.
A thrust is when the weapon is inserted into the target point first, using its point to part the target and allow the blade entry for a significant length. Thrusts are good at penetrating armor and have a greater chance of an instantly fatal wound, but produce less bleeding than chops or slashes.
A bash is any blunt force attack made with the weapon; with a sword this would usually be using the pommel as the contact point, but it could be elsewhere. Bashes bypass most armor and cause concussion damage instead of bleeding.

Each of these broad damage forms corresponds roughly to a type of attack and weapon handling. In general, I think the wielder of the weapon should have the choice of which attack form to use, with the different damage types causing different wounding effects. Most weapons are best at only one or two damage types - the Katana (my own personal weapon of choice) would come out strong on the slash, weaker on everything else. Other weapons wouldn't be able to do some damage types at all. In game system terms, this helps to give weapons more meaningful differences other than just a single pure damage statistic: when fighting an unarmored opponent you might use a slashing attack for maximum damage, but if your opponent has chain mail on you'll have to switch to thrusting (or precision slashing, but I'll cover that later) which your weapon might be much worse at.

Just like weapons have strengths and weaknesses in various damage types, so does armor; chain armor is excellent against slashing attacks, only decent against thrusts and not very good at all against crushing. Most armor doesn't provide equal coverage to the entire body - a mail hauberk may leave the lower arms and legs exposed, and a cuirass leaves the limbs with weaker protections than the torso. There should be some ability to choose not only your attack type but the general target of your attack, with corresponding adjustments to the difficulty of the attack and its results.

Important Weapon Attributes:

In addition to the type and degree of damage they are capable of dealing, there are a few other attributes that are very important to weapons:

Speed: This represents the attack speed of the weapon, how fast it maneuvers, can be moved from offense to defense; it would have an effect on the difficulty of blocking the weapon and perhaps on whatever version of attacks per round exists in the system. If recovery is not a separate attribute, speed would account for recovery.
Reach: An underrated but very important aspect, reach is exactly what is sounds like: the striking distance of the weapon. Note that this is not the same thing as the length of the weapon - it is the distance from which an effective attack may be delivered. The reach of a primary thrusting weapon is always going to be better than a slashing weapon, and the reach of a shield bash is effectively zero.
Recovery: I'm not sure if recovery should be part of speed or not. Recovery is how long the weapon takes to ready for another attack after executing one. A 12lb sledgehammer would have excellent damage, but terrible recovery. Weapons with poor recovery time usually involve large movements to use, are very heavy, or both.
Fatigue: This is how much using the weapon in combat physically drains the wielder. The above mentioned 12lb sledge will very quickly tire its user out, whereas a knife will do so not significantly faster than fighting unarmed.
Blocking Ability: How many ways the weapon has to block an attack, if its strong enough to block an attack, if it can be used to snare an attack, etc. I'm not really sure how to implement this one as a numerical attribute.

An example weapon statistic block might look something like this (the values here are largely arbitrary, since there isn't any system to go with them - I favor a 100 based system, so they're based on that):

Katana
2 pounds, 28" blade, 38" overall
Chop 60
Slash 95
Thrust 60
Bash 30
Speed Good [this would be a number in a real system]
Reach Moderate [this would be a number in a real system]
Recovery Moderate [this would be a number in a real system]
Fatigue Light [this would be a number in a real system]

--=-=--

That's it for this post. I think the ability to make decisions such as area and type of attack ought to not only make combat more realistic, but give back some of the 'options' some people feel are lacking from melee fighters - these are the sort of options a real fighter chooses among, not whether or not to activate their Iron Tiger Heart Blinding Surge or whatever.

Next time I mean to discourse a bit about my thoughts on a basic combat system. I think a realistic system pretty much needs to focus on physical combat and treat magic as an extension of physics, so physical combat is going to be very important. One of the big mistakes D&D makes is treating magic as though it operates on utterly different rules than the rest of the world, rather than just being another way to manipulate those rules - which is more of how I see it. If magic works within the laws of physics (through some dark matter or however else you want to explain it) it helps to keep it scaling at a reasonable pace with physical warriors, and flat-out eliminates some of the more troubling aspects. I'll elaborate on this concept later as well.

Conners
2013-03-09, 01:32 AM
Health

I like the idea of keeping track of each body-part's condition. You'd also keep track of which part was how armoured. TRoS even had a system where you could decide which section of your body to focus your defence on, so that could be fun.



Combat

Would love to see some detail put into the combat. TRoS had a good system, where you could pull off a variety of actions and try to outsmart each other.

Games which have different wound charts for different attack types, and armour reacting differently to each type. Someone mentioned such a system in the other thread.



Character

The Lifepath system of burning wheel is probably a good example of character creation.

Skills, on the other hand... I have never been able to work out a good skill system. Will rely on others for help with this.



Social

Rules for commanding armies and maintaining an empire seem distinctly lacking in games.

Having Fable-like hero mechanics, where you can become famous and get involved with politics, armies or suchlike would be good to see. DnD tries it a little, with the Followers thing--but I'd like to see it expanded.


Fantasy

Hmm... maybe inspiration could be taken from The Witcher? Magic is a tricky one, all the same...

Maybe something where anyone can learn magic, though few choose to. After that, its a question of whether your a moderately skilled warrior who knows a few useful spells, of an outright mage who has potential for both great power and versatility?


Sorry if I'm being a little vague. Thought I should throw out some general thoughts to start things off with, before we get deeper into the discussion and mechanics of concepts we like.

mjlush
2013-03-09, 07:56 AM
I think you may be well advised to sit back and think what is realistic:-

Is it realistic to:-

Survive having a 2 inch iron bar fired through the skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)
Fall 18,000 feet without a parachute suffering only a sprained leg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade) or 33000 ft with major injury's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87)
Accidentally kill your self with a Bow and arrow (in 1552 Henry Pert shot an arrow in the air, and were it landed he was there)
How Adolf Hitler got into power, seriously if he was a character in a book, it would get shelved right next to Baron Munchausen


The point I'm trying to make here is that Reality is unrealistic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/RealityIsUnrealistic/RealLife) sites like Cracked (http://www.cracked.com/article_18421_6-insane-coincidences-you-wont-believe-actually-happened.html) make a living out of this sort of thing. I'm not saying that everything should be resolved on the 50:50 rule, but I am saying that realistic rules should embrace the chance of low probability events.

Rakmakallan
2013-03-09, 09:51 AM
As much as I love the idea of realistic (and hard) fantasy and sci-fi made into RPGs, there are only two conceivable ways of this happening: story games and overly-detailed games. In the former case it would be mostly rules-light, possibly GMless and degrees of realism would be incorporated in the game depending on the social contract it presumes. In the latter case, we would need pages upon pages detailing even the most minute detail for weaponry, armours, injury, physical and mental abilities, the nature and laws of magic and so on. For these and for more, we have FATAL. :biggrin:

neonchameleon
2013-03-09, 09:58 AM
Do you own a copy of GURPS? That's where I'd start.

Grinner
2013-03-09, 02:04 PM
For being an effort at anal-retentive realism, your core assumptions are both simplistic and childish.

You have combat listed as an entire category, but how much of reality is dedicated towards combat? Meanwhile, you have character skills, arguably one of the most essential elements, tucked away into character creation. Combat would comprise an extended contest of innate character attributes, and a few learned skills, and equipment. And when guns are involved? You may as well just flip a coin. Then there's also the complication of ancillary skills. What if the player has a solid knowledge of tactics, but the character shouldn't, or vice versa?

Aside from the issues regarding playability (or the Physics Homework Storytime! Problem, as I like to call it), you must also understand that you cannot accomplish this using extant mechanics, for these mechanics are inherently abstract. For example, what is a skill? Basketweaving is not just knowledge of basket patterns. It's a combination of bilateral finger dexterity, logic, and basket patterns. Hell, a sufficiently clever character could do away with basket patterns altogether or develop his own.

I think you're going about this the wrong way, and what I'm seeing now is the beginning of a fantasy heartbreaker. Your list even looks like the table of contents of a D&D handbook. Just go play GURPS and call it a day.

Conners
2013-03-09, 09:23 PM
I think you may be well advised to sit back and think what is realistic:-

Is it realistic to:-

Survive having a 2 inch iron bar fired through the skull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage)
Fall 18,000 feet without a parachute suffering only a sprained leg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Alkemade) or 33000 ft with major injury's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vesna_Vulovi%C4%87)
Accidentally kill your self with a Bow and arrow (in 1552 Henry Pert shot an arrow in the air, and were it landed he was there)
How Adolf Hitler got into power, seriously if he was a character in a book, it would get shelved right next to Baron Munchausen


The point I'm trying to make here is that Reality is unrealistic (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/RealityIsUnrealistic/RealLife) sites like Cracked (http://www.cracked.com/article_18421_6-insane-coincidences-you-wont-believe-actually-happened.html) make a living out of this sort of thing. I'm not saying that everything should be resolved on the 50:50 rule, but I am saying that realistic rules should embrace the chance of low probability events. I'm OK with modelling interesting stuff. But I don't see how you can model things that bizarre, other than outright plugging them into the game (like, "roll on table of bizarre stuff we looked up").

The falling one isn't too hard though--we just have to have a maximum falling damage (I forget what the maximum falling speed is), which is effected by weight of gear, armour, and what you land on (water isn't a bad one, but you need trees and snow, or some other combination, to survive the really high falls).


As much as I love the idea of realistic (and hard) fantasy and sci-fi made into RPGs, there are only two conceivable ways of this happening: story games and overly-detailed games. In the former case it would be mostly rules-light, possibly GMless and degrees of realism would be incorporated in the game depending on the social contract it presumes. In the latter case, we would need pages upon pages detailing even the most minute detail for weaponry, armours, injury, physical and mental abilities, the nature and laws of magic and so on. For these and for more, we have FATAL. :biggrin: While I think it is worth going into detail, there is a limit for how far you can reasonably go. Some people have managed to pull off complex systems with a few spreadsheets, and yet get through combat pretty quickly. So, it's mostly a matter of finding that balance.


Do you own a copy of GURPS? That's where I'd start. GURPS was made with the intention of it fitting any setting, with some adjustments. While it is a great system that does a good job of everything, having something which specializes in one setting/subject/theme has its advantages.

CarpeGuitarrem
2013-03-10, 02:58 AM
I actually have a rather interesting and realistic LARP that I participate in quite extensively. Here's a link to the rules. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life)

Conners
2013-03-10, 03:35 AM
Health

Another possibility, is rather than tracking the health of each limb, wounds are tracked in a vacuum from the the location chart. So, "arm damaged, -2 to combat rolls with that arm." would be on your list of wounds.

The question of bleeding can be annoying to track... even though it's similar to poison in other tabletop games. Probably the fact you rarely deal with poison in most encounters, but bleeding is common.

The other question is how to deal with blows which don't penetrate armour... It's hard to say.


I have ideas for how to manage these things, but some of them seem clumsy. Anyone else have ideas?

Lorsa
2013-03-10, 06:05 AM
There's a swedish game called EON which some people say have a "much more realistic damage system". It tracks three kinds of damage; Pain, Trauma and Bleed. Different kind of weapons do different types of damage. Not that EON is a good system to emulate as I believe it having so many inherent flaws that it's almost unplayable and fails at being both realistic and fun.

While I will have to think a bit on how health should work, I can say a few things are characters and their skills.

Many systems end up with starting characters not being very realistic at all. D&D is among the worst here, where an ordinary level 1 character has no useful skills whatsoever, can't craft or have any profession to a relevant level, can't swim or jump, don't know the value of objects around them and has no knowledge of their country's history or traditions. There's plenty of other systems that simply fails to emulate normal people.

As a rule, people in general are rather... well general with their skills. There are experts but even those can usually dance, swim, tie knots, craft, jump, sneak etc etc. A good system I believe, should encourage people have to a decent baseline among many number of skills and supply enough skill points or whatever for this to be feasible. While the Burning Wheel creation system is quite fun to go through and has the added realism of people not being equal (although this depends on how balanced you want the system to be) it is also rather strict and restrictive. You can't be a doctor for just 2 years, or a captive of war for 1. Giving people some pool of points to distribute among their skills is I think more realistic as it allows for a larger amount of backgrounds. So, a good skill system I think will encourage people to be generalists.

mjlush
2013-03-10, 07:35 AM
GURPS was made with the intention of it fitting any setting, with some adjustments. While it is a great system that does a good job of everything, having something which specializes in one setting/subject/theme has its advantages.

I think your going to have to define realistic now. If realistic set of rules specializes in a given setting/subject/theme, that rather implys that the rules are reflecting the reality of that setting/subject/theme rather than 'Real Life' (or more to the point Real Life with some, none or more unreal aspects overlaid). From there it is an easy jump to say that Toon is a realistic system as it accurately simulates Tom and Jerry style cartoon action.

To put it another way a realistic set of rules should, with minor modification, be able to be used in any realistic setting there inherently generic

IMHO this is what GURPS does pretty well... in fact the only setting that GURPS fails in is where your trying to be unrealistic. GURPS supers is a case in point (I've not read GURPS Diskworld or Girl Genius but I suspect they are similar)... it covers the gritty realistic supers well, but as soon as you start get into four colour comics the realism gets jarring and the system starts to break down.

Jeff the Green
2013-03-10, 08:36 AM
I don't think that you could design a realistic, universal system. Because there are too many stories you could tell, there are too many subsystems you'd have to make. I mean, you could do politics, scientific discovery, war, social interaction (of hundreds of different kinds), athletic competition, survival, interaction with animals...

So really the only approach that might work is a very rules light approach. Maybe even freeform, with a nearly powerless DM.

Rhynn
2013-03-10, 09:06 AM
The other question is how to deal with blows which don't penetrate armour... It's hard to say.

I have ideas for how to manage these things, but some of them seem clumsy. Anyone else have ideas?

Well, a whole pile of RPGs deal with these, in different ways.

In HârnMaster, there's rules for armor converting hits from Edge and Point weapons into Blunt (all damage rolls use 1D6, 2D6, or 3D6 based on the severity of the hit, plus a bonus from your weapon, but Blunt requires the most damage points to cause serious injuries, and can't e.g. decapitate or dismember you). In Artesia: Adventures in the Known World, any non-critical hit is "non-penetrating" against plate, and non-critical Cut hits are "non-penetrating" against mail or scale. The main failing of The Riddle of Steel, IMO (and it's a pretty insignificant one), is that armor is always penetrated when you land a successful blow, and many of the results make no sense (i.e. the result almost always requires that the armor was actually punctures or cloven open). This is partly a result of the really specific to-hit tables of TROS.

As for damage, all of those games have their own method. In HârnMaster, you'd record "GB22 r elbow" (grievous bruise, AKA crush, 22 Injury Points - which cause Physical Penalty to all physical skills - right elbow) or "SS16 thorax B1" (serious stab, thorax, bleeding wound 1 meaning you get 1 Blood Loss Point per Turn; BPs cause Physical Penalty; once they exceed Endurance, you go into shock and pass out, and once they exceed twice Endurance you die). Each injury would be recorded separately. HârnMaster is one of those games where you can die of an injury long after the fight, due to complications, but it's intentionally been made unlikely - if you get treatment, you'll probably be fine.

In A:AKW, you'd rather similarly record "groin 8 Cut", or maybe "left arm 8 Impact, Grievous -8 DEX Bleeds" (bleeding is 1 Body point per phase/round/minute based on injury type).

In TROS, you'd record "left hand BL 0 S 7 P 7-X broken" (Blood Loss 0, Shock 7, Pain 7-X; X being your Willpower, Shock being immediate penalty, Pain being permanent penalty and wound severity for healing).

In Aces & Eights, using the Advanced Scrapes rules, you'd record, say "left foot 2" (meaning you're down two hit points; hp basically never improve after character creation) or "right forearm 11 broken bone, bullet lodged, severe bleeding, arm mangled" (a whole host of injury effects that affect your Speed and Accuracy, the use of the arm, etc.). Hit point loss affects Speed and Accuracy, and depending on your Reputation, may force you into cover or to run away. There's a chance to die from poor treatment or lack of treatment, and a fair chance you'll never heal entirely from serious injuries (retiring due to injuries is a perfectly fine fate for a PC, and simply refraining from being a professional gunfighter is okay too). But the game can be played with just the Basic Scrapes rules, which let you have a long life of gunslingin' with no permanent injuries and no chance of death from complications. The game is, after all, supposed to be an old-school D&D style Wild West game, with high lethality. (Based on the Knights of the Dinner Table game parody Cattlepunk.)

GURPS is realistic but has, in some ways, a lesser "resolution" to the modeling than some of the others (except A:AKW, certainly). You have hit points equal to your Health attribute, injuries cause you to lose them (different types of damage have different multipliers for the damage that makes it through armor, and some more exotic types have multipliers for armor, too). Losing HP causes shock (temporary degradation of skills). Losing enough risks unconsciousness. Losing more than enough risks death. And losing a whole lot causes death automatically. (Losing even way more destroys your remains, if possible.) Major wounds (enough HP at once) can cripple limbs. Optionally, injuries may cause bleeding (not fast enough to matter in combat; it's over units of one minute, when combat is in units of one second), and accumulated injuries can cripple limbs.

In Twilight 2013, you'd record "slight, left leg" or "critical, head". Each combination of location (head, torso, arm, leg) and severity (light, moderate, serious, critical) has its specific effects, and each severity has its general effects. Damage is your weapon's base plus your margin of success, and each hit location has a threshold of X points for each severity (based on your attribute scores).


Tracking "limb hit points" is, IMO, very low-resolution "realism." RuneQuest has done it forever, and it's fine, but it's not super-realistic. (Not that RuneQuest is in general. It's strictly impossible for a human to survive 20 stab wounds, for instance.) It just doesn't make a lot of sense - the level of the individual injury is what really matters. I can have 10 shallow cuts on my arm and not have it be useless, and the pain will probably affect anything I do to some degree, so you might as well model universal "pain."


Every one of those systems models a certain kind of combat, though. Even GURPS, which is "universal" but fits best when you want a good degree of gritty realism. (It can be mitigated with advantages and optional rules that add levels of complexity over the base.) Aces & Eights is Wild West gunslinging and knife-fighting (and a whole separate non/less-lethal brawling system). Twilight 2013 is modern small unit combat with firearms. The Riddle of Steel is ancient personal close combat up to the 18th century or so. HârnMaster is Dark Ages to High Medieval (say 8th through 13th century) personal close combat.

If you hope to design a game system, you need to know many game systems thoroughly, understand their goals and how their rules achieve those goals (or fail to; bad examples are okay too). And I mean many, like a dozen or more. Preferrably of similar genres and/or levels of realism as your own goal is.

Choosing at least slightly popular ones (rather than other people's fantasy heartbreakers, or very niche games) is probably a good idea, because it can give you an idea of what level of realism is actually playable. That's absolutely a choice you have to make. All of the above games compromise realism for the sake of getting the results they want, for the sake of playability, and sheerly because you can't get perfect realistic modelling anyway. You have to cut corners in a way that gets the results you want.

Conners
2013-03-10, 09:19 AM
There's a swedish game called EON which some people say have a "much more realistic damage system". It tracks three kinds of damage; Pain, Trauma and Bleed. Different kind of weapons do different types of damage. Not that EON is a good system to emulate as I believe it having so many inherent flaws that it's almost unplayable and fails at being both realistic and fun.

While I will have to think a bit on how health should work, I can say a few things are characters and their skills.

Many systems end up with starting characters not being very realistic at all. D&D is among the worst here, where an ordinary level 1 character has no useful skills whatsoever, can't craft or have any profession to a relevant level, can't swim or jump, don't know the value of objects around them and has no knowledge of their country's history or traditions. There's plenty of other systems that simply fails to emulate normal people.

As a rule, people in general are rather... well general with their skills. There are experts but even those can usually dance, swim, tie knots, craft, jump, sneak etc etc. A good system I believe, should encourage people have to a decent baseline among many number of skills and supply enough skill points or whatever for this to be feasible. While the Burning Wheel creation system is quite fun to go through and has the added realism of people not being equal (although this depends on how balanced you want the system to be) it is also rather strict and restrictive. You can't be a doctor for just 2 years, or a captive of war for 1. Giving people some pool of points to distribute among their skills is I think more realistic as it allows for a larger amount of backgrounds. So, a good skill system I think will encourage people to be generalists. The use of three types of damage might be a good way to go. Hopefully we can avoid the problems which EON presented.

I agree strongly with you on character skills. I've been unhappy with the way games like DnD handles it... The problem is, people end up putting all of their points into skills which they know or think might be useful during the game, and that is almost never a trade skill.
While Burning Wheel's lifepath system seems to do some things quite well, you're probably right that there are problems with the current model. The question is how we get players to invest in a variety of skills...



I think your going to have to define realistic now. If realistic set of rules specializes in a given setting/subject/theme, that rather implys that the rules are reflecting the reality of that setting/subject/theme rather than 'Real Life' (or more to the point Real Life with some, none or more unreal aspects overlaid). From there it is an easy jump to say that Toon is a realistic system as it accurately simulates Tom and Jerry style cartoon action.

To put it another way a realistic set of rules should, with minor modification, be able to be used in any realistic setting there inherently generic

IMHO this is what GURPS does pretty well... in fact the only setting that GURPS fails in is where your trying to be unrealistic. GURPS supers is a case in point (I've not read GURPS Diskworld or Girl Genius but I suspect they are similar)... it covers the gritty realistic supers well, but as soon as you start get into four colour comics the realism gets jarring and the system starts to break down. Haven't looked at Toon in detail, but it's possible it does closely simulate Tom and Jerry.

On a basic level, some tabletop systems probably do a decent job of this. Generally, though, we probably don't need to make a system which simulates modern war as well as medieval war--that tends to require more abstraction to get it to work non-clumsily. For a system which can portray any setting, GURPS is the best choice. In this case, I merely wish to work with members of the community to create a tabletop system they would love to play, with realism as a major element. My preference is for a medieval type setting, but will be happy with what the community is interested in.



I don't think that you could design a realistic, universal system. Because there are too many stories you could tell, there are too many subsystems you'd have to make. I mean, you could do politics, scientific discovery, war, social interaction (of hundreds of different kinds), athletic competition, survival, interaction with animals...

So really the only approach that might work is a very rules light approach. Maybe even freeform, with a nearly powerless DM. I agree. If we wanted to do that, GURPS or probably something more rules-lite would be the wise choice. Seems I was not proper in my wording, since people have misunderstood my intention. Sorry about that.



Character

We want players to have normal skills to make their characters interesting, outside of combat and adventure. Question is, how best to accomplish this? Maybe make out-of-combat skills cheaper to purchase points for...?



EDIT: Going to reply to Rhyn. Didn't see his post till after I posted.

Emmerask
2013-03-10, 09:25 AM
For Health/Combat I really really like dark eyes system, its complex enough but not so complex that you have to have a chart with countless numbers in front of you.

-You have your overall health, if you get to 5 to zero you are not able to fight anymore if you go below zero you die in d6 rounds.

When your health is below 1/2, 1/3 or 1/4 you also get combat ability reduction.

-Your body also has 7 zones (head, chest, stomach, left/right arm, left/right leg), each can sustain 3 wounds that of course reduce your characters abilities in associated fields.

-Each zone is individually armored and the armor value is subtracted from the damage value, if the resulting damage is > 0 your hitpoints are reduced.

-If the damage is > the wound threshold (a number depending on constitution and strength) you get a wound (or more if dmg * 2 > etc).

It sounds all a bit much on first glance, especially if you come from less complex systems like d&d but you can track all this on one tiny diagram with your body
example of the sheet: http://derricks-home.de/images/img_dsa/DSA_Heldenbogen_Kampfwerte.gif

In my opinion its the perfect balance between complexity and easy to use.
You don´t have to keep track of individual hitpoints for each bodypart while combat still has an effect on you unlike binary systems like d&d where there are only two states, alive or dead ^^.

Conners
2013-03-10, 09:39 AM
Tracking "limb hit points" is, IMO, very low-resolution "realism." RuneQuest has done it forever, and it's fine, but it's not super-realistic. (Not that RuneQuest is in general. It's strictly impossible for a human to survive 20 stab wounds, for instance.) It just doesn't make a lot of sense - the level of the individual injury is what really matters. I can have 10 shallow cuts on my arm and not have it be useless, and the pain will probably affect anything I do to some degree, so you might as well model universal "pain." You're right. I should've thought that idea out better. Sorry about that.

I agree with everything you've said. I'm also very impressed by your knowledge of systems. I hope you'll stay around to help us further.



Health

Thinking about what you said.... hm... Which system do you have preference for, as a base model?

I rather like Harnmaster's system, but I haven't a lot of experience playing it.




@Emmerask: Thank you for mentioning this system. I'll have to take a look at it too, later. What do you think of the systems Rhynn mentioned?

Lorsa
2013-03-10, 10:01 AM
I tend to think pain isn't such a big deal in combat as people think. Usually the body blocks out severe pain cause by heavy trauma in order to actually do something (like getting away). It's more likely to be an effect afterwards. Injuries that make parts of your body stop working are more likely to have negative effects, but people have been running with strained ankles and broken bones so in general I seem to think people overly assume realistic implies sever wound penalties. When I broke my arm I hardly felt anything except a strange numbness and when my dad cut off part of his right hand fingers with a chainsaw (at age 18 or so) he was able to walk back from the woods without feeling any pain. If your hand is cut off you won't be able to use a sword but you'd probably be able to run away or fight with your other hand.

Pain is usually an issue after fights and even then if you really focus on something you can mostly ignore it. The headache you can get from an ordinary cold is usually worse than a strained ankle you can't walk on as far as impairing actions (except walking of course).

Spiryt
2013-03-10, 10:09 AM
It really depends on situation, starting with determining if given organism is actually "in fight" - if somebody is getting wounded badly without being actually pumped up or frightened, pain will definitely occur.

When I chopped small wound on my calf with an axe I didn't really feel anything at all ever, but if I had hit the bone I would probably hurt my throat yelling.

Eldan
2013-03-10, 10:25 AM
Hm. The problem is that with realistic healing, the characters are likely out of order for days to weeks after each bit of combat. With lasting injuries.

Plus things like weapon upkeep, hygiene, disease...

Emmerask
2013-03-10, 10:30 AM
I tend to think pain isn't such a big deal in combat as people think. Usually the body blocks out severe pain cause by heavy trauma in order to actually do something (like getting away). It's more likely to be an effect afterwards. Injuries that make parts of your body stop working are more likely to have negative effects, but people have been running with strained ankles and broken bones so in general I seem to think people overly assume realistic implies sever wound penalties. When I broke my arm I hardly felt anything except a strange numbness and when my dad cut off part of his right hand fingers with a chainsaw (at age 18 or so) he was able to walk back from the woods without feeling any pain. If your hand is cut off you won't be able to use a sword but you'd probably be able to run away or fight with your other hand.

Pain is usually an issue after fights and even then if you really focus on something you can mostly ignore it. The headache you can get from an ordinary cold is usually worse than a strained ankle you can't walk on as far as impairing actions (except walking of course).

A wound doesn´t make you unable to fight that is true, though this slight numbness in the broken arm you mentioned for example would mean you are slower/less accurate with your sword-arm resulting in a lower attack or defense score.

@ Connors, well the gurps system is pretty much equal to the dark eye system in a lot of ways, thats not a big surprise since dark eye is more or less a low magic specialized gurps system.

As for most of the others, I think one really has to find the balance between realism and an easy to use system, having to write down every single wound and having to look up what exactly this does is too much imo and will hamper gameplay.

Conners
2013-03-10, 11:24 AM
I tend to think pain isn't such a big deal in combat as people think. Usually the body blocks out severe pain cause by heavy trauma in order to actually do something (like getting away). It's more likely to be an effect afterwards. Injuries that make parts of your body stop working are more likely to have negative effects, but people have been running with strained ankles and broken bones so in general I seem to think people overly assume realistic implies sever wound penalties. When I broke my arm I hardly felt anything except a strange numbness and when my dad cut off part of his right hand fingers with a chainsaw (at age 18 or so) he was able to walk back from the woods without feeling any pain. If your hand is cut off you won't be able to use a sword but you'd probably be able to run away or fight with your other hand.

Pain is usually an issue after fights and even then if you really focus on something you can mostly ignore it. The headache you can get from an ordinary cold is usually worse than a strained ankle you can't walk on as far as impairing actions (except walking of course).

It really depends on situation, starting with determining if given organism is actually "in fight" - if somebody is getting wounded badly without being actually pumped up or frightened, pain will definitely occur.

When I chopped small wound on my calf with an axe I didn't really feel anything at all ever, but if I had hit the bone I would probably hurt my throat yelling.
A wound doesn´t make you unable to fight that is true, though this slight numbness in the broken arm you mentioned for example would mean you are slower/less accurate with your sword-arm resulting in a lower attack or defense score. Hmm... these are good points. The less we have to track pain, the less of a burden it is on combat. But there is the problem that even without pain, stuff like your arm being broken would, I guess, start to have a small to big effect on your combat skill?

The question of how to handle people hurt outside of combat, when their bodies aren't ready, is also worth considering.



Hm. The problem is that with realistic healing, the characters are likely out of order for days to weeks after each bit of combat. With lasting injuries.

Plus things like weapon upkeep, hygiene, disease... Well, we could try it on the realistic level, then start to work out how much fantasy magic is worth applying for playability. I think this will vary group to group. Some might like the idea of shuffling between several characters, while the others recover.


@ Connors, well the gurps system is pretty much equal to the dark eye system in a lot of ways, thats not a big surprise since dark eye is more or less a low magic specialized gurps system.

As for most of the others, I think one really has to find the balance between realism and an easy to use system, having to write down every single wound and having to look up what exactly this does is too much imo and will hamper gameplay. The question is, should we aim for ease of use, then see how realistic we can make it? Or see how realistic we can get, then adjust it for ease of use? We might have to start with the latter, since I don't know how to do the former.



Combat

Let's talk about Pain...

Based off earlier comments, perhaps pain should be combined with injury? Rather than calculate wounds separately, it would be considered when writing up the penalties for broken arms and the like?

Does this seem a good idea? Would anyone like to voice some further thoughts on pain?

Rhynn
2013-03-10, 11:36 AM
Hm. The problem is that with realistic healing, the characters are likely out of order for days to weeks after each bit of combat. With lasting injuries.

Yes, absolutely. I don't see anything wrong with playing a game where the PCs have to take a few weeks to recover after a fight. Games that don't have D&D's rules aren't played like D&D. Not all fantasy RPGs need to have daily action and fights. Weeks of downtime and "normal living" (either skipped over or filled with just roleplaying, to some degree) are fine. I think fights should punctuate play rather than form the body of it, and this produces perfectly enjoyable games (in fact, I was surprised that my usually hack-and-slashy players enormously enjoyed a pretty combat-light, interaction-and-thinking-heavy game of Artesia).

You see characters dealing with long-lasting injuries in fiction a lot. The recent TV series Copper, ASOIAF, etc. In HârnMaster or TROS, "you're attacked by thugs/assassins while recovering from injuries" is a great scenario - suddenly, your character can't handle a bunch of thugs with knives as easily as he usually could. IMO in Aces & Eights, where characters can't advance forever but campaigns are supposed to be open and ongoing (sandbox, more or less), lethality and permanent injuries help give characters' stories endings - although I personally don't think I'd mind playing an ex-gunfighter who has to try to change his life (and deal with ghosts of the past) after he's injured badly and permanently.

HârnMaster also has a relatively detailed healing system, where you can indeed get infections in your wounds, etc., but unless your character is lying in a Gargûn dungeon (larder) or something, you can always do something when things take a turn for the worse. (Up to and including seeking divine aid.)

That sort of play isn't going to appeal to everyone, but that statement is true of every single RPG ever, and therefore completely irrelevant when the goal is "a realistic RPG." Every set of design goals for a system or a setting is going to rule out a lot of players, and refusing to do that IMO leads to producing crap that does nothing well.


Plus things like weapon upkeep, hygiene, disease...

I don't know any game that has the first (HârnMaster has weapon and armor breakage, but that's in-combat). Same for the second. The third is a part even of D&D, and can be a pretty significant way of challenging players in some games - and why not? (It's an essential part of the challenges of gritty post-apocalyptic survival like TW2013 - being forced to drink unfiltered water means you're exposed to illness, which leads to conflict and to action as you seek medicine or medical expertise... good realistic systems interacting with each other spontaneously generate things for players to do.)

mjlush
2013-03-10, 11:38 AM
Haven't looked at Toon in detail, but it's possible it does closely simulate Tom and Jerry.

It does... the thing is its not what most people would regard as a realistic system :smallsmile:


On a basic level, some tabletop systems probably do a decent job of this. Generally, though, we probably don't need to make a system which simulates modern war as well as medieval war--that tends to require more abstraction to get it to work non-clumsily. For a system which can portray any setting, GURPS is the best choice. In this case, I merely wish to work with members of the community to create a tabletop system they would love to play, with realism as a major element. My preference is for a medieval type setting, but will be happy with what the community is interested in.


I'm sorry to have to bang on about this but you really really really need to define what you mean by realism. Especially if you want to mesh the rules and world

You say realistic medieval type setting your now working on two kinds of realism

Realism of the setting and realism of the rules.

Realistic medieval type setting basically says to me, the main PC killer is going to be infection. If there is enough magic and/or anachronistic tech sloshing round to prevent that, your going to have to decide how that will affect the rest of the setting.

Frankly you could have the most prefect physiological trauma model (so detailed and complex it will only run on one of the top ten supercomputers), but it will be totally wasted if the setting does not make sense.

Define how the setting works and you can start to make a rules system that will model the setting.

Rhynn
2013-03-10, 11:49 AM
Define how the setting works and you can start to make a rules system that will model the setting.

Yup. Game-design sort of has to go top-down, like program design. (I've never heard of anyone coming up with agile methods for game design, but I guess someone might prove me wrong.)

What are you trying to do / model? What are your use requirements and goals? What are your use cases?

What sort of classes / rules modules (Character Creation, Task Resolution, Combat) is that going to involve?

How do these classes / rules modules interact? (How does combat relate to injury & healing? How does magic relate to everything?)

What sort of functions / rules for things (rules for hitting things, rules for parrying things, rules for shooting things) are needed?

How do these functions / rules work together?

What is the specific test of these functions / rules?

Conners
2013-03-10, 12:06 PM
I'll answer Rhynn's questions soon, but I think everyone who is interested in the thread should also answer them (including Rhynn). We could compare our answers, and see what we agree on.

Eldan
2013-03-10, 02:02 PM
Rhynn: I'm not saying that it's bad. In fact, I quite like some of the ideas, certainly in fiction. I'm just tihnking that it would create a dynamic very different from most RPGs that exist today.

mjlush
2013-03-10, 02:34 PM
I'll answer Rhynn's questions soon, but I think everyone who is interested in the thread should also answer them (including Rhynn). We could compare our answers, and see what we agree on.

I'd disagree, I think a certain amount of leadership is in order. Put together a manifesto of what you have in mind, post it and listen and react to the feedback. Throw some ideas out and let them bounce off other people. You are the person most enthused about this idea it is likely that you will be the main author and play tester, I think that gives you the privilege to shape it.

Remember If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it.
Charles Kettering

Rhynn
2013-03-10, 02:48 PM
Rhynn: I'm not saying that it's bad. In fact, I quite like some of the ideas, certainly in fiction. I'm just tihnking that it would create a dynamic very different from most RPGs that exist today.

Well, from D&D and its kin, certainly, but I'm not sure I'd say "most" ... the D&D-style games are not, necessarily, a majority (they may be a plurality, and certainly have far and away the greatest market-share).

And yes, the different dynamic is exactly it.

One must hink about what dynamic you want, what dynamic the rules create, and how those mesh.

Different dynamics work for different games. If I want to play action-movie style fantasy (the basic late-2E / 3E D&D style), I don't even want bleeding rules, except as a special effect for some attacks. I certainly don't want complicated healing and chirurgery rules, and not even very detailed combat. If, however, I'm playing "Pillars of the Earth/World Without End/Robin of Sherwood" (e.g. HârnMaster), I probably do.


I'll answer Rhynn's questions soon, but I think everyone who is interested in the thread should also answer them (including Rhynn). We could compare our answers, and see what we agree on.


Put together a manifesto of what you have in mind, post it and listen and react to the feedback. Throw some ideas out and let them bounce off other people. You are the person most enthused about this idea it is likely that you will be the main author and play tester, I think that gives you the privilege to shape it.

Yeah, really, mjlush has the right of it. I'm just providing perspective (from owning altogether too many RPG books and having played altogether too many very different kinds of RPGs and having spent altogether too much of my life thinking and writing about RPGs).

I'd suggest you ask yourself what the point of this project is, to begin with. Is it just for its own sake? Do you want a system to play yourself, and none of the hundreds (seriously, and I'm not talking PDF fantasy heartbreakers) out there fit? Do you want to sell one? A project with no drive, no plan, no design document, no one in charge isn't going to go anywhere. Plenty of projects with all of those never do.

I think discussing realism in RPGs is always worthwhile - although, honestly, the realism of societies, economies, and life is IMO much more interesting and fruitful to discuss than the realism of rules and physical modelling, because it's easier to change without writing whole new coherent system. You can make a D&D setting feel real (enough) just by changing what is presented during play and in what manner, without changing the rules at all. But trying to make a game system just to have a (another) realistic one isn't necessarily that fruitful - especially design by committee. (There's a reason that expression is so often derogatory.)

Lorsa
2013-03-10, 05:15 PM
And we swedes who are so great at commitees!

Conners
2013-03-12, 09:32 AM
Thought about it for a while, here is my proposal for a project.


Name: Project Arthur
Goal: An attempt to make a new RPG which improves upon concepts of TRoS, Harn Master, and other such RPGs. As well as combine key elements from said games.
Type: Community-driven. I have been elected a sort of project manager, also.

Setting: Medieval with fantasy elements. Details undecided.


Any other details that seem necessary? Would like to return to discussing gameplay mechanics.




Health
How much healing magic and ability is the right amount? Some people might like the idea of it taking months to heal from injuries, some people do not. I'm a bit concerned about healing being too easy to acquire, since this make deadly wounds seem pointless.

As I said earlier, it is possible for GMs to alter this how they like--but I figure it's still worth discussing.

Alex Star
2013-03-12, 10:03 AM
I personally feel that the method in which damage is tracked (ergo Health) has a pretty strong trickle down effect on the rest of combat.

The goal should be for combat to remain interesting and dynamic while still retaining the element of lethality.

Essentially Health should work on a 3 metric basis.

Vitality, Endurance, Skill or the VES system

Vitality is a measure of a persons physical condition.
Endurance is a measure of their stamina.
Skill is a measure of their ability to perform actions.

In effect it works like this.

FighterA has the following Stats(non-specific numbers used for example as this system isn't even developed yet.)

5 Vitality 20 Endurance 10 Skill He also has an Armor rating of 10


OrcA attacks FighterA and scores a *HIT* against his Armor by rolling a 12
FighterA can spend Endurance to add up to his Skill to his Armor
FighterA adds 3 to his Armor by spending 3 Endurance preventing the *HIT* from doing damage.

FighterAs stats are now

5 Vitality 17 Endurance 10 Skill 10 Armor
Combat goes on for a few more rounds until FighterAs stats are

5 Vitality 2 Endurance 10 Skill 10 Armor

OrcA attacks FighterA and scores a *HIT* against his Armor by rolling a 15
FighterA does not have the endurance to raise his Armor enough to compensate.
OrcA does 3 Damage

Now FighterAs stats are

2 Vitality 2 Endurance 10 Skill 10 Armor

FighterA is in trouble. He doesn't have the Endurance to withstand a big attack so he's taking damage directly to his Vitality. If his Vitality drops below 0 he dies.

Under this system Endurance is also spent to make attacks and perform actions in combat, nothing is done without a cost.

The balance and realism of this system provides the picture that every *HIT* does *EFFECT* your opponent in some way, without the concept of warriors shrugging off huge damage without having a scratch on them.

Grinner
2013-03-12, 10:09 AM
Any other details that seem necessary? Would like to return to discussing gameplay mechanics.

Well...

Why do extant systems not suffice?
Exactly what kind of gameplay are you aiming for?
Do you just want a highly detailed death simulator, or is there a point to this?
How realistic are you willing to go? Since you seem focused solely on combat, will injury be inflicted only to body sections, or will punctured organs, severed arteries, and infection be accounted for?
For that matter, what does realism entail?


You are not the project manager. You are the author. This is your project. Writing a game is a lot of work, and I don't think anyone wants to do it for you. They do, however, wish to provide feedback.

Alex Star
2013-03-12, 10:29 AM
Building off of my previous post on Health I'm going to tackle Damage/Wounds/Healing as a separate topic.

Damage is what occurs when a Character takes a *HIT* against his Vitality this causes some type of Wound

Wounds track by a measure of severity. How much Vitality was lost to a single attack is the largest part of this. It also operates on a triple metric.

Minor Wound is caused by an attack doing less than 1/4 of the Characters REMAINING Vitality before damage was calculated

Moderate Wound is caused by an attack doing more than 1/4 but less than 1/2 of the Characters REMAINING Vitality before damage was calculated

Major Wound is caused by an attack doing more than 1/2 of the Characters REMAINING Vitality before damage was calculated

Depending on how complex a game you want to run as a GM you can either use a *WOUND CHART* to designate specific damage or you can simply assign a penalty to actions based on the amount and type of Wounds a player has.

Minor Wounds = All Actions cost 1 more Endurance for each Wound

Moderate Wound = All rolls are at a -1 Penalty for each Moderate Wound or worse.

Major Wound = Character is *Stunned* for 1 round.

Effects are cumulative. If a Character has 1 Minor Wound and 1 Moderate Wound

All actions cost 2 more Endurance and all rolls are at a -1 Penalty

A character with 1 Major Wound is *STUNNED* for 1 Round, faces a -1 Penalty to all rolls, and all actions cost 1 more Endurance

Healing on the other hand is handled on two levels.

Vitality Healing
Endurance Healing

Endurance Healing is faster and easier giving a character a boost to their ability to perform in combat.

Vitality Healing is more power and takes longer actually healing a characters phsyical condition with the ability to remove wounds.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-12, 10:47 AM
For all of these things, to actually write this kind of game, you need to be, or at least need to consult, an expert in each given field.

To write health rules, you will need a doctor.

To write combat rules, you will need professional soldiers and trained martial artists.

To write social rules, you will need public speakers and psychologists.

To write character rules, you're going to need developmental psychologist and biologists, though this one is notable easier than other portions. You don't need a very realistic character creation system for the end result to be realistic. You can make a list of real, observed character traits and assign costs to them.

Writing rules for fantasy is the hardest part. In my opinion, the perfect "realist" RPG would not be fantastic in nature at all. Any speculative elements would be tightly rooted in hard science. Twilight is actually closest to what I mean here, as it takes the real world, then alters history on few key points, and writes its setting from there.

I think the "perfect realist RPG" is limited to, at most, alternative history and hard science fiction taking place on earth. Softer sci-fi and secondary world settings, and especially anything with magic, is right out.

...

You know, now that I think of it, the closest thing to perfect realist RPG I've played is Twilight 2012.

Moving on:

If you want to have any hope of realism while still having an alternate world, using one of the speculated worlds made by actual scientists should serve as an example. Yes, they've actually theorized a tidal-locked planet orbiting a red dwarf star containing life, complete with several speculative lifeforms. This will be difficult without serious knowledge of astrophysics, geography, biology etc.

Alex Star
2013-03-12, 10:58 AM
Now using the Health/Damage/Healing system we have in place we can start looking at a Combat system.

(by the way I'm kinda just making all this up as I go along so some of this probably could use some refinement)

FighterA Stats
10 Vitality 40 Endurance 10 Skill 10 Armor

Now is when we get into a little bit more about how Endurance and Skill affect combat.

Endurance is the economy that is spent every encounter. It replenishes INBETWEEN encounters.

Skill is the economy that is spent every ROUND. It replenishes every ROUND

Essentially Skill determines how much Endurance a Character can spend each round.

Combat starts by determining an Action Order

Characters will have some type of modifier based on ability scores that we have not yet generated. This will be added to their Skill to determine when their Base Action Order further referred to as BAO.

OrcA has a BAO of 12
FighterA has a Skill of 10 and a Modifier of 1 giving him a BAO of 11.

Current Action Order

OrcA - 12
FighterA - 11

Each round a Character can spend Endurance up to 1/4 of his total Skill rounded up to increase their Position in the Action Order by the amount spent. For Round 1 Fighter A chooses not to do this.

OrcA goes first attacking FighterA and missing

FighterAs turn then comes up. He has the ability to spend Endurance to perform actions. He can spend up to 1/2 of his Skill rounded down to perform actions in a single round, but no more than 1/4 of his TOTAL Skill rounded up on a single action.

Different Actions in combat cost different amounts of Endurance and it is cumulative based on how many actions a Character is trying to take.

Basic Actions cost 1 Endurance each cumulative action doubles the Endurance cost required to perform it. A Character can also spend Endurance to increase the chance of success for a specific action up to 1/4 of his total Skill rounded up per action

FighterA spends 2 Endurance for a +1 Bonus and attacks OrcA and *HITS*
FighterA rolls *Damage*

NOTE: Basic monsters are not subject to the VES (Vitality, Endurance, Skill) ruleset, and just have a general Health number. This is for ease of combat on the Game Master.

A few rounds of combat Pass and FighterAs stats look like this

FighterA Stats
10 Vitality 12 Endurance 10 Skill 10 Armor

FighterA cannot afford to let the battle with OrcA go much longer or he will be spent and start taking damage to his Vitality.

FighterA spends 2 Endurance to raise his BAO by 2 changing the Action Order for the current round as follows.

FighterA - 13
OrcA - 12

FighterA acts first for this round.

FighterA spends 5 Endurance to Attack OrcA twice with a +1 Bonus to each attack. (1 for first attack 1 for +1 bonus, 2 for second attack 1 for +1 bonus). This is the maximum he can spend in a single round.

FighterA has now spent 7 Endurance in this one round, his total Skill is 10 if OrcA has a another chance to attack FighterA will only be able to spend 3 Endurance to raise his Armor (more would break his Skill cap)

Fortunately FighterAs risky double attack is enough to kill OrcA and end the combat. FighterAs Endurance replenishes to full. However, had he taken any Wounds or damage to his Vitality these would not be healed.

Alex Star
2013-03-12, 11:13 AM
Obviously the effect desired of my recently developed VES system is the following.

Each combat is fast paced and lethal. At any point a powerful enough attack can render a Character severely wounded or dead. At the same time it compensates for the concept of attacks *hitting* people without having to *hand wave* the damage that they would have dealt.

Assigning every action in combat a cost is designed to harmonize the concept that attack and defense occur in a symbiotic state. The more effort you spend on one, the more it effects your ability to do the other.

Alex Star
2013-03-12, 11:36 AM
Now I'm gonna attempt to come up with something for the subject of Skills

Since the triple metric has been working so well for us so far lets stick with that

Skills will be divided into 3 categories.

Physical, Social, Mental or the PSM

Some of you might recognize that from the old White Wolf ability score system. Here we're going to use that for Skills

Physical skills govern tasks that require physical exertion.
Social skills govern tasks that require interaction with others.
Mental skills govern the tasks that require intellect as a primary driver.

I'm not going to take the time to develop a fleshed out skill list and categorize them right here, because that's not the purpose of this exercise at this point.

Skills will be assigned to a corrosponding combination of ability scores. Lets say we use a 6 Ability score system.

Muscle is a Characters physical fitness. (Str and Dex for you D&D guys)
Stamina is a Characters hardiness (Con)
Knowledge is a Characters learned intelligence (Int)
Intuition is a Characters innate intelligence (Int/Wis)
Willpower is a Characters force of will (Wis/Cha)
Appearance is a Characters physical appeal (Cha)

Each of these abilities feeds down into a secondary Stat which governs Skills and Combat, but for the purpose of this we're focusing on Skills

Muscle and Stamina form your BODY Stat
Knowledge and Intuition form your MIND Stat
Willpower and Appearance form your SOUL Stat.

These are your BMS Stats

Physical skills are governed by BODY
Mental skills are governed by MIND
Social skills are governed by SOUL

Each individual skill is governed by a specific ability. While the corresponding BMS stat for a specific category determines how much training a character can have in both a specific skill and the category of skills in general.

Example:

A character with a high BODY stat can train many different Physical skills to a very high level.

A character with a low BODY stat can train only a few different Physical skills to a very limited level.

Alex Star
2013-03-12, 12:03 PM
Okay good so we've managed to develop some pretty solid building blocks for a system.

VES governs Combat
PMS governs Skills

Now how do we build a Character? And how do we get these numbers that I've been throwing around.

Well we've already established a set of Ability Scores

Muscle
Stamina
Knowledge
Intuition
Willpower
Appearance

So how do we generate those scores? Lets use a simple point buy system.

All abilities start at 2. And you get 10 points to spend. We're gonna build FighterA here.

Muscle 6
Stamina 4
Knowledge 2
Intuition 4
Willpower 4
Appearance 2

The bonus for a specific ability is 1/2 of the ability score rounded down. So FighterA looks like this.

Muscle 6 (+3)
Stamina 4 (+2)
Knowledge 2 (+1)
Intuition 4 (+2)
Willpower 4 (+2)
Appearance 2 (+1)

The ability scores now feed into the BMS stats using their combined bonuses. FighterA has the following BMS

BODY 5
MIND 3
SOUL 3

So now we need to generate those VES stats that we need so badly.

This is going to be done by choosing the characters Class in this case FighterA is going to be a Fighter

Fighter has the following VES stats

Vitality = BODY x 2 + MIND
Endurance = BODY x 4 + SOUL x 2
Skill = MIND x 2 + SOUL

So Fighter A has the following VES

Vitality - 13
Endurance - 26
Skill - 9

Each level our FighterA will increase his VES in addition to this the Fighter Class has specific abilities that govern how he spends his VES works in combat.

Here is our Level 1 Fighter, FighterA!

Muscle 6 (+3)
Stamina 4 (+2)
Knowledge 2 (+1)
Intuition 4 (+2)
Willpower 4 (+2)
Appearance 2 (+1)

BODY 5
MIND 3
SOUL 3

Vitality - 13
Endurance - 26
Skill - 9

FighterA can now gain training in PMS skills. He is trained in a # of skills equal to the governing BMS stat for that category. He can train those skills to a maximum of the current governing BMS stat.

So he gains training in 5 Physical skills capped at 5 Ranks each, 3 Mental, and 3 Social.

The number of Skill Points he has to spend in each category is determined by his Class he automatically gains 1 Rank in all skills he chooses to "Train" in.

So now we have a naked Level 1 Fighter who is ready to put on some gear and go adventuring.

Rhynn
2013-03-12, 12:17 PM
How realistic are you willing to go? Since you seem focused solely on combat, will injury be inflicted only to body sections, or will punctured organs, severed arteries, and infection be accounted for?

Dwarf Fortress level all the way! Separately model hair, skin, muscles, bones, nerves, arteries, fingers, noses, teeth... :smallcool:


You know, now that I think of it, the closest thing to perfect realist RPG I've played is Twilight 2012.

2013! But yeah, I definitely agree. And I think it's a good combination of complexity of playability. Separating rules into stages of realism and letting everyone choose what level of realism to use was a pretty swell idea, too. Using the most complex action rules (which I actually assumed from reading the basics to be the default...), with actions finishing after their ticks have counted down, you can get all kinds of crazy realistic little detail, like shooting someone who was about to throw a live grenade, or throwing back a live grenade, or getting show by a lucky snap shot while trying to take your time aiming, etc.


For all of these things, to actually write this kind of game, you need to be, or at least need to consult, an expert in each given field.

To write health rules, you will need a doctor.

To write combat rules, you will need professional soldiers and trained martial artists.

To write social rules, you will need public speakers and psychologists.

To write character rules, you're going to need developmental psychologist and biologists, though this one is notable easier than other portions. You don't need a very realistic character creation system for the end result to be realistic. You can make a list of real, observed character traits and assign costs to them.

Well, that's a bit exaggerated, but not far from the truth at all. Twilight 2013 is based on actual experts' books, etc. The reading list includes On Killing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Killing:_The_Psychological_Cost_of_Learning_to_ Kill_in_War_and_Society) and On Combat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Combat:_The_Psychology_and_Physiology_of_Deadly _Conflict_in_War_and_in_Peace), etc., and the weapon statistics are based on actual performance values (they had a formula for converting foot-pounds of energy into damage values, and the VERY optional complicated rules actually give weapons different damage values for different ranges based on that). And it goes without saying that the writers were military buffs and that shows. (The official forums, while they existed, were probably 50-75% current or ex military personnel who played the game.)

But IMO so long as you have a good enough idea of how X plays out, you can approximate it with rules. The real measure of realistic rules is realistic outcomes, which you can get with really complicated and detailed rules, or with more abstract and simple rules.

By realistic outcomes I mean things like the rules making taking cover in a firefight a big advantage, and making actually hitting things in a close-range shootout pretty dang hard.

If your rules are capable of producing stories that sound, down to the level of detail you actually modelled, like real accounts of whatever you're modelling, then you've probably got a pretty realistic system.


What I settled for, trying to make a better Cyberpunk 2020 (Cyberpunk 2025, natch) based on Fuzion, was reading some FBI reports about firearm wound effects and trying to model some basics (bleeding and shock, psychological effects) in a relatively abstract way, going over a lot of RPG rules involving modern combat and a lot of Fuzion rules.

I pretty much smashed together CP2013 and TW2013 (coincidence? I think not!) wounds, kept CP2020/CP2013/TW2013 hit locations, added a little rule for shots to the arm having a chance to penetrate into the torso (it was a pretty common theme in reports of gunfights), added some chances of spinal injury (it's a cyberpunk setting, that stuff ain't permanent), put in a psychological incapacitation roll (made once per fight when you first get hit), and abstracted blood loss into a shock roll. It's far from finished (working out armor rules will be a hassle), but I found these basic blocks satisfactory.

Carry2
2013-03-12, 12:17 PM
While the Burning Wheel creation system is quite fun to go through and has the added realism of people not being equal (although this depends on how balanced you want the system to be) it is also rather strict and restrictive. You can't be a doctor for just 2 years, or a captive of war for 1.
I think you can 'jump' between other unrelated lifepaths in Burning Empires, but you have to add an extra year to your age, or something. However, the restrictiveness of BW's lifepath system is also, in large part, a reflection of the quasi-medieval setting, with systems of hereditary privilege, trade-guild monopolies, feudal allegiance and indentured labour in effect. Social mobility is possible, but it's not quick and it's not easy. (I think Luke Crane mentioned this particularly with reference to The Blossoms Are Falling, set in Heian-Era Japan.)

Honestly, I think you're going to have a very hard time beating Burning Wheel when it comes to the nuts and bolts of physical and social verisimilitude. (Heck, you could cut the complexity of the system by half and still wind up with 90% of output accuracy, so if anything, the problem is one of overkill.)

It's important to note, however, that the elements of Burning Wheel which are arguably the most engaging and vital for many players- specifically, the Artha system, improvised setting content via wises and circle tests, the Let it Ride rule- have little or nothing to do with accuracy of simulation. (Arguably, they even exist to counteract the effects of realism.) These features exist, first and foremost, to ensure that storyline cannot be predetermined, and revolves first and foremost around the PCs' agendas and choices.

Much the same can be said for The Riddle of Steel, insofar as good use of stances, maneuvers, dice pool allocation, etc. can give you a substantial edge in combat, but these factors pale next to the impact of Spiritual Attributes. Without that key advantage, PCs would rapidly die screaming... on account of all the, you know, sword-fighting.

Speaking personally, I'm very fond of nitty-gritty detail and historical accuracy and so forth, but when it comes to realism, be careful what you wish for. These games may not actually be primarily-about the things you think they are primarily-about.

erikun
2013-03-12, 02:23 PM
Overall, I think that a system should attempt to produce realistic results because the default assumption, at least for most people, would be that reality applies unless there is something in the system that overwrites it.

For example, consider a character hitting a stone opponent (let's say a gargoyle) with a sword. The sword ricochets off its body when hit. What is the default assumption? That the sword can't break through the stone body, and that some other weapon is necessary. (Sledgehammers or pickaxes would presumably work better.) A frequent D&D player may choose to keep swinging with their sword, because they are used to "does not deal damage" to mean "does not hit AC" and so knows that another attack might pierce the gargoyle's skin.

Also note that a system could be called "realistic" without every aspect of the system being realistic. A system that used the above mechanics for combat but used D&D HP for damage/healing could still be called "realistic"; with the system being upfront with the HP mechanic, it won't be prone to confusing when a character takes or deals damage.


And so, I come to my question: What do you want to model realistically? What do you want to model simply? What do you want to abstract for mechanics? What do you want mechanics for, and what do you want to leave up to DM arbitration?

Because I'm sure that we could make complex economic interactions between city-states on the value of goods when a sudden influx happens (such as adventurers selling off gear), but it would probably be far more practical to say "X sized store can only buy/sell Y value goods" and leave it at that.

Acanous
2013-03-12, 09:19 PM
This thread is about discussing what elements would form the greatest possible tabletop game which attempts to be realistic. That doesn't mean it can't have fantasy elements, of course. Discussions don't need to be in-depth with mechanics--you can present basic ideas, or system you know of which have tried X.

You know, I think FATAL was the greatest system ever invented. The attention to detail and modern themes were spot-on.

Conners
2013-03-13, 03:52 AM
@Alex Star: That's an interesting system. You should probably work on it as its own thing.



But IMO so long as you have a good enough idea of how X plays out, you can approximate it with rules. The real measure of realistic rules is realistic outcomes, which you can get with really complicated and detailed rules, or with more abstract and simple rules.

By realistic outcomes I mean things like the rules making taking cover in a firefight a big advantage, and making actually hitting things in a close-range shootout pretty dang hard.

If your rules are capable of producing stories that sound, down to the level of detail you actually modelled, like real accounts of whatever you're modelling, then you've probably got a pretty realistic system. Experts would be nice, but working it out to the level you described should be fine.



And so, I come to my question: What do you want to model realistically? What do you want to model simply? What do you want to abstract for mechanics? What do you want mechanics for, and what do you want to leave up to DM arbitration?

Because I'm sure that we could make complex economic interactions between city-states on the value of goods when a sudden influx happens (such as adventurers selling off gear), but it would probably be far more practical to say "X sized store can only buy/sell Y value goods" and leave it at that. Your example with the gargoyle is a good one. I'd like a system where a gargoyle isn't just another enemy you bash for a few rounds. Instead, you'd need to throw it off a building, or hit it with hammers, or run away.

The idea of using real life tactics to succeed in a game is also something I find appealing. Would like the combat to be as deep as manageable, without making it hard to play. A focus on social status and interaction might also be great. Other features... would need to discuss them more to know for sure.


Carry2's point about Burning Wheel makes me wonder if we should just use Burning Wheel's character creation system, with some editations to match what is homebrewed. If we aren't doing this for profit, it should be all right (so long as we don't post illegal information from the book).

Lorsa
2013-03-13, 04:44 AM
Carry2's point about Burning Wheel makes me wonder if we should just use Burning Wheel's character creation system, with some editations to match what is homebrewed. If we aren't doing this for profit, it should be all right (so long as we don't post illegal information from the book).

Like I said, it forces some arbitrary restrictions on character creation, and I am not talking about social mobility which is realistic if you want to model the medieval setting in history. The problem is you can't have a lifepath shorter than the time listed. Maybe have lifepaths that cover only 1 year of time and then you can take them multiple times without penalties?

Conners
2013-03-13, 06:42 AM
A modification of that nature is probably a good idea. Will work it out when we have some more details solidified.


Sorry for being quiet. Will try and sort through the discussion and pick out some systems I think we should look into more.

Rhynn
2013-03-13, 07:26 AM
Like I said, it forces some arbitrary restrictions on character creation, and I am not talking about social mobility which is realistic if you want to model the medieval setting in history. The problem is you can't have a lifepath shorter than the time listed. Maybe have lifepaths that cover only 1 year of time and then you can take them multiple times without penalties?

I also much prefer 1-year lifepaths. Twilight 2013 uses a lifepath system, too, and it, too, has set lengths for different careers. It'd make more sense, to me, to split them into 1-year spans (maybe you didn't have time to be a doctor for more than a year before World War III hit?), and require X years to complete some of them (like the various college degrees).

Artesia: Adventures in the Known World uses a year-by-year lifepath (modified Cyberpunk 2020); you have a career in each year, and random events can offer you a chance to change career (upward social mobility due to noble or religious patrons, joining the clergy, becoming a warrior during a war, becoming a bandit during bad times, becoming a traveller, etc.). For each year spent in a career, you get a certain number of points to allocate into its skills etc.


Experts would be nice, but working it out to the level you described should be fine.

You will sort of have to become an amateur, at least (in the positive sense), in your relevant subject matter and frame of reference. If you don't know, for instance, how sword duels went (or could go; 1 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php), 2 (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/kill2.php)), or what sort of results stabbings have even now, or how armor actually worked, etc., you've got no chance of approximating realism - your system might end up with people being cut by swords while wearing mail or plate. (A sin even the great TRoS has!) Approximating reality requires understanding reality, which is often counter-intuitive, and is certainly frequently counter to what we learn. (Being run through the heart with a sword doesn't kill you? You're joking! ... you're not? What the heck! Well, surely getting shot in the heart with a bullet -- no? What!)

erikun
2013-03-13, 11:08 AM
Your example with the gargoyle is a good one. I'd like a system where a gargoyle isn't just another enemy you bash for a few rounds. Instead, you'd need to throw it off a building, or hit it with hammers, or run away.

The idea of using real life tactics to succeed in a game is also something I find appealing. Would like the combat to be as deep as manageable, without making it hard to play. A focus on social status and interaction might also be great. Other features... would need to discuss them more to know for sure.
If possible, I would recommend avoiding this unless you want gargoyles to be special, or want it to be a "Boss" encounter. Making everything a difficult puzzle to figure out just means that characters begin carrying around a golfbag full of weapons (anti-gargoyle hammer, anti-undead mace, anti-hydra flaming sword) or a super-vorpal sword that cuts through everything.

If anything, you probably want to limit the number of "categories" that creatures are vulnerable to. If you have some creatures that can only be bashed (gargoyles resisting bladed swords) and some creatures that can only be cut (slimes resisting bashing hammers) then the "golfbag" only ends up being two weapons. It is a lot more reasonable for a character to be walking around with a magic sword and magic hammer than a dozen different flavors of magical weaponry.

((And on this point, you want to consider how your choices will affect gameplay. Sword-resistant gargoyles are certainly a neat idea, but as above, it might promote gameplay that you don't want.))

Rhynn
2013-03-13, 11:29 AM
If possible, I would recommend avoiding this unless you want gargoyles to be special, or want it to be a "Boss" encounter. Making everything a difficult puzzle to figure out just means that characters begin carrying around a golfbag full of weapons (anti-gargoyle hammer, anti-undead mace, anti-hydra flaming sword) or a super-vorpal sword that cuts through everything.

I think that could be a great approach to monsters in a low fantasy or sword & sorcery game, or even something like "gritty D&D" (cf. Witcher books). Every monster is a puzzle, at least the first time, but you are unlikely to meet the difficult ones more than once in your life, making carrying piles of weapons unfeasible. (Also, just tell your PCs "no" if they want to wear four swords. Or tell them try to fight and move like that to see how it is.) And I don't mean an "apply the correct sword" puzzle, I mean an actual puzzle requiring thinking up tactics. Old D&D encouraged this - I know far more stories of PCs using ropes, grappling hooks, harpoons, deadfalls, and other trickery to deal with dragons than stories about them simply beating one dead. Heck, look at Dragonslayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonslayer), where a special weapon and special tactics are needed - and that's a pretty simple/light version of the concept.

After all, why wouldn't be a gargoyle - a monster made of stone, presumably hideously strong (imagine the force behind a stone fist traveling at anything like the speed human punches do!), able to fly, almost undetectable - be a hideous challenge.

The Riddle of Steel evokes something a bit like this in its bestiary (Of Beasts and Men), with stories about the various monsters and creatures that feature them as the major plot point. It'd also fit in great in Hârn.

It really does remind me, stylistically, of the boss monster fights in the first Witcher game (except those weren't really puzzles in any real sense, you just had to figure out what weapon and fighting style to use, and what alchemy or signs worked).

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-13, 11:54 AM
"Golf bag of weapons" is how D&D has historically played, and it is very thematically fitting if supernatural monsters have such immense variety as, say, in Monster Manuals. The thought of supernatural enemies being "bosses", ie. rare and special encounters, makes much more sense for a "realistic" fantasy RPG than having them be "mooks" or stepping stones towards tougher challenges.

It's not like you can use a single weapon against all sorts of threats in real life either. Different tools are used for different situations. You don't really use bazookas against infantry, or flame throwers against tanks, or sniper rifles in close-quarter combat.

Rhynn
2013-03-13, 12:32 PM
It's not like you can use a single weapon against all sorts of threats in real life either. Different tools are used for different situations. You don't really use bazookas against infantry, or flame throwers against tanks, or sniper rifles in close-quarter combat.

Indeed. If we're talking realism at all, the idea of taking on enormous dragons with swords and axes is just ludicrous. Even fighting a giant turtle would require some really innovative tactics and weapons.

Some RPGs already have this worked into them to a degree. In MRQ2 and RuneQuest 6, you can't just take a sword to a dragon - you'll never get close enough to use it without being ripped into pieces. You'll need a pike or other long spear to fight at the dragon's range. (Well, actually, you could try to Evade to close with the dragon - hoping its enormous skill advantage doesn't kill you - and then find it unable to attack you properly as you hack and cut at it... but that's beside the point.)

Really, the more I think on it, the more I want a setting or campaign where monsters are really monstrous and facing them is a big deal, in the style of the Sinbad movies or Jason and the Argonauts... hmmm.

Conners
2013-03-13, 09:30 PM
(Being run through the heart with a sword doesn't kill you? You're joking! ... you're not? What the heck! Well, surely getting shot in the heart with a bullet -- no? What!) I've actually heard of a few of those incidents (or similar ones). I agree that a basic understanding is key. With your help, and some other people's, I think I can manage.


Really, the more I think on it, the more I want a setting or campaign where monsters are really monstrous and facing them is a big deal, in the style of the Sinbad movies or Jason and the Argonauts... hmmm. This is very much what I'd like to go for. Monsters in games like DnD all feel very much the same... You bash on them until they die.

But stories have a lot more variety. Some monsters shouldn't be fought with brute force. Many monsters in fiction require study and forethought to be beaten.

erikun
2013-03-13, 11:41 PM
I think that could be a great approach to monsters in a low fantasy or sword & sorcery game, or even something like "gritty D&D" (cf. Witcher books). Every monster is a puzzle, at least the first time, but you are unlikely to meet the difficult ones more than once in your life, making carrying piles of weapons unfeasible.
I'd really like that approach, actually. It makes "monsters" actually seem like monsters, rather than XP bags or stat blocks. It is part of why I like the World of Darkness system and setting: most opponents you run across are something that are supposed to take a session or two preparing to even face them.

The idea of a bunch of "common" human(oid) opponents and the occasional dangerous "monster" is appealing, but you'd want to make sure everyone is on the same wavelength and wanting to play the same game. If you have a player trying to play it D&D style (or worse, the GM) then the system could seriously begin to break apart.

Again, though, it is about deciding on a theme for the system and building it around that theme. This is kind of why a "general game system" doesn't really work, because you can't have both Witcher-esque play and D&D-esque play without a large amount of rules transitioning between the two; you'd be better working on one design or the other.

Rhynn
2013-03-14, 02:35 AM
The idea of a bunch of "common" human(oid) opponents and the occasional dangerous "monster" is appealing, but you'd want to make sure everyone is on the same wavelength and wanting to play the same game. If you have a player trying to play it D&D style (or worse, the GM) then the system could seriously begin to break apart.

That's true as soon as you say "realistic system", though. If someone tries to think of or play a remotely realistic game like (late 2E through 4E) D&D, they're in for a rude shock (and a new PC).


Again, though, it is about deciding on a theme for the system and building it around that theme. This is kind of why a "general game system" doesn't really work, because you can't have both Witcher-esque play and D&D-esque play without a large amount of rules transitioning between the two; you'd be better working on one design or the other.

I'd almost say "D&D-esque play" can't work with a realistic system, but then it really depends on which D&D. OD&D-style play, where you avoid unnecessary fights and have to use a lot of cleverness to stay alive and get the treasure, that totally works. Later D&D, where it's assumed you fight all monsters as "encounters," absolutely not.


I'd really like that approach, actually. It makes "monsters" actually seem like monsters, rather than XP bags or stat blocks. It is part of why I like the World of Darkness system and setting: most opponents you run across are something that are supposed to take a session or two preparing to even face them.

It's really a fascinating idea... I definitely want to work on it now. I'm just not even quite sure which game system that'd fit best. The Riddle of Steel, maybe - forget about using most of the existing combat mechanics at all against real monsters, you can't fit them like you would a human or comparable humanoid. (You could still use the basics, like evasions and attacks, but feints, counters, and most other maneuvers? Fuhgeddaboudit.) Plain old-school D&D, maybe. RuneQuest 6 or MRQ2 would probably work.

Conners
2013-03-14, 04:55 AM
If I get this RPG done, and we do a good job on it, it should be a great platform for the kind of adventures you're thinking about.

Thinking I'll add "Monsters are interesting" as one of the goals. Makes me think this'll be like a Demon's Souls/Dark Souls RPG (except less gamey).




Fantasy
Let's talk a little about monsters.

With the example of a gargoyle... It's not the sort of creature you imagine cutting, so we give it good armour value against cuts (and probably decent armour against other damage types).

Would you be able to parry a gargoyle, or block its strikes...? They seem kind of strong--so I think if you successfully blocked them with a shield or a hard parry, you'd take damage to your endurance or something.
Then there's the question of those flexible parries... which don't take the full blow, but instead divert the attack and roll off of it. I guess you could do that, with a gargoyle (assuming a man-sized-ish one)?


With a huge dragon... these ones are tricky to work out unless you're super powerful. I mean, if you try to get close to it, it'll slash you with its claws, teeth, horns, whatever. If you try to engage it from range with a pike, it could probably breathe fire on you till you were toast. A system where several people stab it with pikes from range, and duck behind shields or cover when the dragon tries to breath fire on them, could work, perhaps?

For some reason, this makes me wonder how possible it would be to kill a dragon Shadow of the Colossus style, climbing onto it while your friends distract it.


Ghosts and other such creatures, which can't be fought physically, are also worth thinking about. I wonder how to arrange it so that you have to do neat things like make a circle of salt, without it becoming easy to deal with ghosts or what-have-you..

mjlush
2013-03-14, 06:59 AM
<snip>

Fantasy
With a huge dragon... these ones are tricky to work out unless you're super powerful. I mean, if you try to get close to it, it'll slash you with its claws, teeth, horns, whatever. If you try to engage it from range with a pike, it could probably breathe fire on you till you were toast. A system where several people stab it with pikes from range, and duck behind shields or cover when the dragon tries to breath fire on them, could work, perhaps?


Realistically I don't think you could kill a dragon let alone a 'huge' one, its hard enough to kill an elephant or a whale and they don't have high intelligence, decades/century's of experience, armour plate, keen senses, flight, sharp claws and breathe fire.

It may be possible to lure it in to a killing zone and use a huge number of ballista (better still cannon), but I wish you luck dragons don't get huge by being easily tricked.

If you want dragons killable you need dragon killing magic which increases the magic level and opens up a whole new can or wyrm



For some reason, this makes me wonder how possible it would be to kill a dragon Shadow of the Colossus style, climbing onto it while your friends distract it.


I can't see that working in a realistic system, heroic/cinematic/superhero game, yes every time. To achieve something like that you need a really game breaking level of skill.

You really need to define what you mean by realistic. Perhaps a series of case studys. If X fights Y it would take Z seconds game time and a A% chance of fatality.

Rhynn
2013-03-14, 07:56 AM
Realistically I don't think you could kill a dragon let alone a 'huge' one, its hard enough to kill an elephant or a whale and they don't have high intelligence, decades/century's of experience, armour plate, keen senses, flight, sharp claws and breathe fire.

Depends on the size of your dragon, surely. Elephants were taken down using the right tactics by Alexander's forces and by Roman legions. (Granted, Hannibal's elephants were fairly tiny, and AFAIK the Indian ones gave Alexander's forces quite a bit more trouble.) Whales have been getting harpooned for ages. (Like, 5000 years. Seriously.)

An elephant-sized dragon is still a horrifying monster - they don't have to be hundreds of feet long. (I do agree that AD&D 2E scale dragons would be physically invincible. A 350' long dragon? Forget it!)

Indeed, systems inclined towards realism tend to have fewer house-sized monsters. HârnWorld's dragons are a "modest" 25' feet (10' of which is body), and rarely more than 40' (that sounds way beyond "huge" to me) - but they're as hard to hurt as a knight in full armor, hit harder than any weapon, and can burn you to cinders. Definitely an opponent that requires something smarter than "we surround it and hit it."

And the point, certainly, is that it's difficult! Why else would it be an adventure?

This does bring up a point of scale, though. A realistic fantasy world (that is, one that feels real) isn't necessarily going to have fantasy elements as a standard D&D fantasy world.

mjlush
2013-03-14, 10:24 AM
Depends on the size of your dragon, surely. Elephants were taken down using the right tactics by Alexander's forces and by Roman legions. (Granted, Hannibal's elephants were fairly tiny, and AFAIK the Indian ones gave Alexander's forces quite a bit more trouble.) Whales have been getting harpooned for ages. (Like, 5000 years. Seriously.)


Yes, you can kill elephants and whales, but elephants and whales arn't as hard to hurt as a knight in full armor, hit harder than any weapon, and can burn you to cinders



Indeed, systems inclined towards realism tend to have fewer house-sized monsters. HârnWorld's dragons are a "modest" 25' feet (10' of which is body), and rarely more than 40' (that sounds way beyond "huge" to me) - but they're as hard to hurt as a knight in full armor, hit harder than any weapon, and can burn you to cinders. Definitely an opponent that requires something smarter than "we surround it and hit it."


You missing the it can fly bit (though I guess in HârnWorld they may not)
if it can fly, surrounding it is not even an option, the only way to engage it is via missile fire. Now 200 longbow men all aiming at its eyes is a valid and workable tactic but an arrow shot upwards rapidly louses momentum. at a rough guess I'd say if it stays higher that about 100ft its basically immune to bow fire and even ballista bolts will have lost most of their speed. Its far more mobile than any cavalry unit and I would assume smart enough to avoid any archery unit.

In a fight between a dragon and any Medieval type army I'd expect to see one fat dragon at the end of it.

In a fight between a sleeping dragon and a band of misfits I'd expect to see one badly wounded dragon and a lot person shaped ash.



And the point, certainly, is that it's difficult! Why else would it be an adventure?


My point is that to defeat something as 'unrealistically' powerful as a dragon you have to use equally unrealistic elements to make the defeat believable.
Now Our Dragons Are Invincible (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDragonsAreDifferent) is a perfectly good trope, but the setting should acknowledge that in a why haven't dragons taken over sort of way (yes there are lots of answers to that question IMHO the most interesting is 'They Have')



This does bring up a point of scale, though. A realistic fantasy world (that is, one that feels real) isn't necessarily going to have fantasy elements as a standard D&D fantasy world.

This is absolutely the case.. its rather why I picked up on the dragons

Grinner
2013-03-14, 10:38 AM
Realistically I don't think you could kill a dragon let alone a 'huge' one, its hard enough to kill an elephant or a whale and they don't have high intelligence, decades/century's of experience, armour plate, keen senses, flight, sharp claws and breathe fire.

It may be possible to lure it in to a killing zone and use a huge number of ballista (better still cannon), but I wish you luck dragons don't get huge by being easily tricked.

If you want dragons killable you need dragon killing magic which increases the magic level and opens up a whole new can or wyrm

I saw what you did there. :smallwink:

Anyway! I remember reading a bunch of books and at least one Dragon Magazine involving dragonslayers, who seem to be largely comprised of tricksters. Rarely do they fight the dragon in melee, and even then, they do everything they can to tip the scales in their favor, honor be damned.

Even in The Hobbit, that town guardsman killed Smaug by aiming for his soft underbelly, and he used his special family heirloom arrow to do it.


Depends on the size of your dragon, surely. Elephants were taken down using the right tactics by Alexander's forces and by Roman legions. (Granted, Hannibal's elephants were fairly tiny, and AFAIK the Indian ones gave Alexander's forces quite a bit more trouble.) Whales have been getting harpooned for ages. (Like, 5000 years. Seriously.)

An elephant-sized dragon is still a horrifying monster - they don't have to be hundreds of feet long. (I do agree that AD&D 2E scale dragons would be physically invincible. A 350' long dragon? Forget it!)

Indeed, systems inclined towards realism tend to have fewer house-sized monsters. HârnWorld's dragons are a "modest" 25' feet (10' of which is body), and rarely more than 40' (that sounds way beyond "huge" to me) - but they're as hard to hurt as a knight in full armor, hit harder than any weapon, and can burn you to cinders. Definitely an opponent that requires something smarter than "we surround it and hit it."

And the point, certainly, is that it's difficult! Why else would it be an adventure?

This does bring up a point of scale, though. A realistic fantasy world (that is, one that feels real) isn't necessarily going to have fantasy elements as a standard D&D fantasy world.

Square/cube law. I remember reading somewhere that a fifty-foot giant's heart would immediately explode, killing the giant. If this is going to be realistic, anything larger than an elephant will be extremely difficult to justify.

I love that this is finally taking on some kind of identity, by the way. :smallsmile:

hamishspence
2013-03-14, 10:58 AM
Dinosaurs seemed to manage it. Still, carnivores seemed to top out at close to the T. rex level (a few bigger, but generally not by much).

Grinner
2013-03-14, 11:14 AM
Dinosaurs seemed to manage it. Still, carnivores seemed to top out at close to the T. rex level (a few bigger, but generally not by much).

According to Wikipedia, they were about 40 feet long and 13 feet high. That's quite sizable...maybe a difference in physiology allowed them to get so large without their internal organs exploding?

erikun
2013-03-14, 01:01 PM
Square/cube law. I remember reading somewhere that a fifty-foot giant's heart would immediately explode, killing the giant. If this is going to be realistic, anything larger than an elephant will be extremely difficult to justify.

I love that this is finally taking on some kind of identity, by the way. :smallsmile:
There are formerly living creatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropoda) that dwarf your giant-example, so it is definitely possible to have living things that large. It will necessitate a different body form - the human body probably cannot survive growing to fifty feet tall - but that doesn't mean you cannot have living creatures that large.



Fantasy
Let's talk a little about monsters.

With the example of a gargoyle... It's not the sort of creature you imagine cutting, so we give it good armour value against cuts (and probably decent armour against other damage types).

Would you be able to parry a gargoyle, or block its strikes...? They seem kind of strong--so I think if you successfully blocked them with a shield or a hard parry, you'd take damage to your endurance or something.
Then there's the question of those flexible parries... which don't take the full blow, but instead divert the attack and roll off of it. I guess you could do that, with a gargoyle (assuming a man-sized-ish one)?
I think it would be best to start with asking "Why do people use swords?" and similar questions to determine the appropriate mechanics. For example: swords and axes, and other choppy-weapons, tend to benefit from the momentum with the swing. They also benefit from having a relatively small striking area. This makes them very effective against anything they can cut, delivering a lot of force to tear through a target. The problem, though, is that any material that can resist the cutting (chain mail, plate) ends up mostly immune to the damage beyond the physical blow.

Thrusting weapons, such as spears and daggers, tend to be great against armor. They are one of the few things that punch through plate, and can more or less go straight through mail. The big problem with them, as I understand it, is that you get far less leverage out of a thrust than with a swing; you are doing less damage stabbing than your are slashing.

Smashing weapons, such at hammers, can be swung like a sword to get the best force. Most armors aren't able to resist them, and the wide area ensures that the force of the blow is dealt on the target. The problem is that they don't have a cutting edge, and so they do not get to focus the force of the blow on a small area. They tend to be additionally heavy, as well, and so harder to swing around.


Of course, I am not an expert in such things. You'd probably want to do some further research with different types of weapons against different types of armor. However, it seems to me that you'd want to handle striking things in two steps: first see if the blow hits the target, and then see if the blow penetrates the "armor" and deals damage. In the example with a gargoyle, a sword blow might hit the gargoyle but not penetrate the stone "armor". Characters might try stabbing it with the sword points (more likely to get through, but deal less damage) or pull out a hammer and try swinging at the gargoyle.

One nice thing about this idea is that you wouldn't really need seperate rules for damaging objects. Breaking through a stone wall would use the same rules as breaking through a stone gargoyle, because it's all about dealing damage through rock.

Spiryt
2013-03-14, 01:20 PM
Thrusting weapons, such as spears and daggers, tend to be great against armor. They are one of the few things that punch through plate, and can more or less go straight through mail. The big problem with them, as I understand it, is that you get far less leverage out of a thrust than with a swing; you are doing less damage stabbing than your are slashing.


You need really small amount of force to well, force the spear right trough human torso. 'Damage' is not really simple matter of force against most targets.

And piercing weapons won't go 'straight trough' actual mail. Accurately made mail can resist them pretty well, and there are records of men in mail unhorsed by the lance blow, but without actual wounds.



Smashing weapons, such at hammers, can be swung like a sword to get the best force. Most armors aren't able to resist them, and the wide area ensures that the force of the blow is dealt on the target. The problem is that they don't have a cutting edge, and so they do not get to focus the force of the blow on a small area. They tend to be additionally heavy, as well, and so harder to swing around.


Most hammers and maces aren't very heavy.

Generally, in reality, it's not exactly accurate to stick to this "piercing, bashing, slashing' thing.

Mechanics, angles etc. of swinging the weapon, and it's 'method' of harming will vary a lot depending on many, many things.

Mr. Mask
2013-03-14, 02:03 PM
Thinking I'll add "Monsters are interesting" as one of the goals. Makes me think this'll be like a Demon's Souls/Dark Souls RPG (except less gamey). A realistic Dark Souls? Where do I sign up?

I might be a bit of help on the expert thing. Some of my friends could be placed in that category. I work cheap, too :smallwink:.


Here's a free sample.


Injury

I wouldn't bother with damage types. The main reason to have that would be for shirts of mail. Since mail is always worn with padding (with rare exceptions), its ineffectiveness towards various levels of sticks is exaggeratory.

Another cause for splitting damage types, is having lethal and stun damage. Considering the lethality of weapons often named "blunt"... this distinction is one I find unsatisfactory. Historically, I don't think clubs were the popular way of taking a hostile prisoner. If it was constables press ganging some civilians, then clubs are about the right level of lethality for the threat. If it's an enemy soldier with a sword and armour... it's preferable to make them surrender via intimidation, or to have several men wrestle them into submission (placing a knife against certain areas is good persuasion).
Further research is needed before I can comment in more detail on taking captives.

I think someone mentioned bleeding. Most encounters should go by too quickly for bleeding to be an issue, within the battle. Wounds serious enough that you'd want to keep track of blood-loss, are generally incapacitating.

Pain is trickier. Have looked into this one quite a bit... and results are known to be very random. Some people go into shock from minor injuries, while others keep going with ridiculous wounds. There's no simple answer like willpower, or something to that nature. It's just based off details too small for a super computer to work it out.
Pain can still be modeled to a reasonable level of authenticity. Will take some forethought, though--too much for today. Will think about it again when more of the combat mechanics are decided upon.

Wound tracking is another challenge for the lobes. A lot of this will depend on how nuanced and time-consuming you want your mechanics. Basic understanding of how much medical attention you require after battle, whether the use of a limb or other vital parts are disabled, how long it will take to heal if at all possible, and some chance of infection just to get the reality across are the points which should be aimed for.

As to whether wounds or HP seem like a better idea... will let you chew on that yourselves for a while.



There's my introduction for you. If you would so deem that I am worthy to be of assistance--that'd be awesome :smallsmile:.


[EDIT:] Missed Spirit's post about damage types. Now I feel a bit redundant for pointing it out...

Rhynn
2013-03-14, 02:07 PM
My point is that to defeat something as 'unrealistically' powerful as a dragon you have to use equally unrealistic elements to make the defeat believable.
Now Our Dragons Are Invincible (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurDragonsAreDifferent) is a perfectly good trope, but the setting should acknowledge that in a why haven't dragons taken over sort of way (yes there are lots of answers to that question IMHO the most interesting is 'They Have')

Obviously you'd want / need magic, although I should point out that dragons breathing fire (or anything) or even flying aren't a given (even in Middle Earth, the winged fire-drakes are the most terrifying dragons there are; the much more common cold drakes neither breathe fire nor fly). Intelligence isn't even a given. And without one or more, or even any, of those traits, they can still be dragons perfectly fine.

I'm not saying, though, that they need to lack any of that stuff.

Also, the flying is actually one of the easier bits to deal with - wing membranes aren't going to take terribly well to being pierced several times by javelins, arrows, or ballista bolts.

In Hârn, I'd start dealing with a dragon by finding a mage (Shek-Pvar) to enchant me an big fireproof shield and a long spear that can pierce armor... then maybe another 9 for a bunch of other guys... then either "clipping" its wings in flight or luring it into a confined space.

There's all sorts of "heroic" but not outrageous or cinematic ways, too - an ambush from under some water (possibly getting it in the throat or underside; even dragons will need to drink sometimes, most likely), etc.


According to Wikipedia, they were about 40 feet long and 13 feet high. That's quite sizable...maybe a difference in physiology allowed them to get so large without their internal organs exploding?

Haw. I get the feeling N. Robin Crosby must have based Hârnic dragon size on dinosaur size, now... since they generally don't exceed 40'.


You need really small amount of force to well, force the spear right trough human torso. 'Damage' is not really simple matter of force against most targets.

Yeah, apparently it takes surprisingly little force to penetrate the human body with a blade. Other than bone and hard cartilage, the skin offers the greatest resistance...


And piercing weapons won't go 'straight trough' actual mail. Accurately made mail can resist them pretty well, and there are records of men in mail unhorsed by the lance blow, but without actual wounds.

I was under the impression that depending on ring size and tip size ("armor-piercing" weapons tend to have really sharp tips), you could get an inch or so of penetration, which might be a nasty wound in the right place? (If it pierces the quilt backing.) It also seems that the mail will bunch around the tip, through, quite likely catching it and requiring some force to pull it free...

Not as a matter of course, obviously - you'd have to hit the ring pretty dead on, and that won't happen nearly every time.


Most hammers and maces aren't very heavy.

Aren't most one-handed "main weapons" pretty much 2-3 lbs. in weight? So 1-1.5 kg? Sword or axe or mace or hammer, that seems to be the average.

And yeah, hammers in particular rely on tiny contact area - as do most maces, they'd be either flanged or have tiny round heads (similar to modern retractable batons).

Spiryt
2013-03-14, 02:34 PM
Aren't most one-handed "main weapons" pretty much 2-3 lbs. in weight? So 1-1.5 kg? Sword or axe or mace or hammer, that seems to be the average.

And yeah, hammers in particular rely on tiny contact area - as do most maces, they'd be either flanged or have tiny round heads (similar to modern retractable batons).

Depends hugely on period or place, obviously - a lot of 12th -14th century European/Russian/Byzantine maceheads are really suprisingly light - as low as ~ 150 grames...

We can't prove that all of them were actually used as weapons, obviousy, but some of them quite apparently were -they have signs on repeated impacts against stuff.

erikun
2013-03-14, 11:16 PM
And piercing weapons won't go 'straight trough' actual mail. Accurately made mail can resist them pretty well, and there are records of men in mail unhorsed by the lance blow, but without actual wounds.
What mail are you thinking of? Because I am thinking of chainmail and other forms of interlocking rings of material, which is pretty much the definition of mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour)) as I understand it.

Most battles involving lances (and horsemen) would involve some kind of plate armor, I'd think.


Most hammers and maces aren't very heavy.
We are talking, if I understand correctly, about the difference between 3-pound swords and 5-pound hammers. Five pounds may not sound like much compared to the way D&D weighs weapons, but stuck on the end of a long stick it can be quite awkward (especially compared to maneuvering around with a sword).

Again, I'm not expert on the subject. I could be wrong on several points. And slash/thrust/bash was just an easy way to describe it; I'd think that swing/thrust might be more realistic, with something else factoring the edge of the weapon.

Or maybe I'm just rambling.

Exediron
2013-03-15, 12:13 AM
I think a distinction we need to make here is that we're talking about a realistic system here, not a historically accurate system. The way I see it, a realistic fantasy system is a way to apply the laws of the real, physical world (physics) to a fictional world. Therefore the physics of weaponry is relevant - what actual historical weaponry was like, less so.

This post will be devoted mainly to the topic of weapons, with tangential points on damage, wounds and armor:

Damage Types:

Although there are variable and variables to spare, you can break the damaging attacks of an edged weapon down into three pretty broad categories: Chop, Slash and Thrust. You can also bash with an edged weapon, but you aren't really using it as an edged weapon at that point. Arguably every weapon should have the option to Bash, with the effectiveness based on the characteristics of that weapon.

(Descriptions are, of course, somewhat simplified)
A chop is when the edge connects more-or-less straight, with the force going inwards towards the target - the blade is driven into the target. Chopping attacks are tighter than slashes and create deeper, if smaller, wounds.
A slash is when the blade is primarily moving across the target, and the cutting action is caused by the blade slicing the target as it travels across. Slashing attacks create the largest possible wound sizes, but they are often shallower and require large movements to execute.
A thrust is when the weapon is inserted into the target point first, using its point to part the target and allow the blade entry for a significant length. Thrusts are good at penetrating armor and have a greater chance of an instantly fatal wound, but produce less bleeding than chops or slashes.
A bash is any blunt force attack made with the weapon; with a sword this would usually be using the pommel as the contact point, but it could be elsewhere. Bashes bypass most armor and cause concussion damage instead of bleeding.

Each of these broad damage forms corresponds roughly to a type of attack and weapon handling. In general, I think the wielder of the weapon should have the choice of which attack form to use, with the different damage types causing different wounding effects. Most weapons are best at only one or two damage types - the Katana (my own personal weapon of choice) would come out strong on the slash, weaker on everything else. Other weapons wouldn't be able to do some damage types at all. In game system terms, this helps to give weapons more meaningful differences other than just a single pure damage statistic: when fighting an unarmored opponent you might use a slashing attack for maximum damage, but if your opponent has chain mail on you'll have to switch to thrusting (or precision slashing, but I'll cover that later) which your weapon might be much worse at.

Just like weapons have strengths and weaknesses in various damage types, so does armor; chain armor is excellent against slashing attacks, only decent against thrusts and not very good at all against crushing. Most armor doesn't provide equal coverage to the entire body - a mail hauberk may leave the lower arms and legs exposed, and a cuirass leaves the limbs with weaker protections than the torso. There should be some ability to choose not only your attack type but the general target of your attack, with corresponding adjustments to the difficulty of the attack and its results.

Important Weapon Attributes:

In addition to the type and degree of damage they are capable of dealing, there are a few other attributes that are very important to weapons:

Speed: This represents the attack speed of the weapon, how fast it maneuvers, can be moved from offense to defense; it would have an effect on the difficulty of blocking the weapon and perhaps on whatever version of attacks per round exists in the system. If recovery is not a separate attribute, speed would account for recovery.
Reach: An underrated but very important aspect, reach is exactly what is sounds like: the striking distance of the weapon. Note that this is not the same thing as the length of the weapon - it is the distance from which an effective attack may be delivered. The reach of a primary thrusting weapon is always going to be better than a slashing weapon, and the reach of a shield bash is effectively zero.
Recovery: I'm not sure if recovery should be part of speed or not. Recovery is how long the weapon takes to ready for another attack after executing one. A 12lb sledgehammer would have excellent damage, but terrible recovery. Weapons with poor recovery time usually involve large movements to use, are very heavy, or both.
Fatigue: This is how much using the weapon in combat physically drains the wielder. The above mentioned 12lb sledge will very quickly tire its user out, whereas a knife will do so not significantly faster than fighting unarmed.
Blocking Ability: How many ways the weapon has to block an attack, if its strong enough to block an attack, if it can be used to snare an attack, etc. I'm not really sure how to implement this one as a numerical attribute.

An example weapon statistic block might look something like this (the values here are largely arbitrary, since there isn't any system to go with them - I favor a 100 based system, so they're based on that):

Katana
2 pounds, 28" blade, 38" overall
Chop 60
Slash 95
Thrust 60
Bash 30
Speed Good [this would be a number in a real system]
Reach Moderate [this would be a number in a real system]
Recovery Moderate [this would be a number in a real system]
Fatigue Light [this would be a number in a real system]

--=-=--

That's it for this post. I think the ability to make decisions such as area and type of attack ought to not only make combat more realistic, but give back some of the 'options' some people feel are lacking from melee fighters - these are the sort of options a real fighter chooses among, not whether or not to activate their Iron Tiger Heart Blinding Surge or whatever.

Next time I mean to discourse a bit about my thoughts on a basic combat system. I think a realistic system pretty much needs to focus on physical combat and treat magic as an extension of physics, so physical combat is going to be very important. One of the big mistakes D&D makes is treating magic as though it operates on utterly different rules than the rest of the world, rather than just being another way to manipulate those rules - which is more of how I see it. If magic works within the laws of physics (through some dark matter or however else you want to explain it) it helps to keep it scaling at a reasonable pace with physical warriors, and flat-out eliminates some of the more troubling aspects. I'll elaborate on this concept later as well.

Rhynn
2013-03-15, 04:13 AM
What mail are you thinking of? Because I am thinking of chainmail and other forms of interlocking rings of material, which is pretty much the definition of mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour)) as I understand it.

Pretty sure he's talking about the same stuff. Most weapons won't go through it.

Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl-ec6Ub7FM).


Most battles involving lances (and horsemen) would involve some kind of plate armor, I'd think.

That's entirely time-dependent. Pre-13th century, no. 13th century and onward, in increasing amounts. By the 15th-16th century, mail would mostly be found on sown onto gambesons or arming jackets in places that won't be covered by plate (inside of your elbow, under your arm, sometimes your back, etc.).


We are talking, if I understand correctly, about the difference between 3-pound swords and 5-pound hammers. Five pounds may not sound like much compared to the way D&D weighs weapons, but stuck on the end of a long stick it can be quite awkward (especially compared to maneuvering around with a sword).

Five pounds sounds like a lot. That's not a one-handed weapon. (3 pounds is quite hefty for a sword, too - that's two-handed longsword or fairly heavy rapier territory.)

A replica warhammer (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_aa_wham.html). 2 pounds 4 ounces.

A huge honkin' two-handed axe (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_em_beardaxe.html) is 3 pounds 13 ounces (almost 4 pounds).

Somem maces at two and one-quarter pounds (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_aa_iberian.html) and two pounds (http://www.myarmoury.com/review_mrl_gmace.html).

All replicas, obviously, but read the reviews. The weights aren't going to be off by very much (and might, in fact, be over).

You aren't going to find one-handed weapons that exceed 3 pounds by a lot, generally. (Unless they were ceremonial, in which case all bets are off.)


Again, I'm not expert on the subject. I could be wrong on several points. And slash/thrust/bash was just an easy way to describe it; I'd think that swing/thrust might be more realistic, with something else factoring the edge of the weapon.

This I agree on. I think Edge/Slash/Cut, Point/Pierce/Puncture, and Blunt/Impact/Crush (GURPS, TROS, Hârn, A:AKW, etc.), possibly with distinction between Swing and Thrust (GURPS, TRoS), are adequate divisions for a RPG.


I think a distinction we need to make here is that we're talking about a realistic system here, not a historically accurate system. The way I see it, a realistic fantasy system is a way to apply the laws of the real, physical world (physics) to a fictional world.

This seems obvious, yeah. Historical accuracy is for settings, not systems.


Katana
2 pounds, 28" blade, 38" overall
Chop 60
Slash 95
Thrust 60
Bash 30
Speed Good [this would be a number in a real system]
Reach Moderate [this would be a number in a real system]
Recovery Moderate [this would be a number in a real system]
Fatigue Light [this would be a number in a real system]

That looks like a completely excessive level of modelling, where you'd get differences between individual weapons (what if my katana has a 29" blade and is 40" overall? Do the numbers change at least 1%?). I've never seen that level of modelling accuracy in any RPG that I can recall.

Mr. Mask
2013-03-15, 05:31 AM
Damage Types:

Although there are variable and variables to spare, you can break the damaging attacks of an edged weapon down into three pretty broad categories: Chop, Slash and Thrust. You can also bash with an edged weapon, but you aren't really using it as an edged weapon at that point. Arguably every weapon should have the option to Bash, with the effectiveness based on the characteristics of that weapon.

(Descriptions are, of course, somewhat simplified)
A chop is when the edge connects more-or-less straight, with the force going inwards towards the target - the blade is driven into the target. Chopping attacks are tighter than slashes and create deeper, if smaller, wounds.
A slash is when the blade is primarily moving across the target, and the cutting action is caused by the blade slicing the target as it travels across. Slashing attacks create the largest possible wound sizes, but they are often shallower and require large movements to execute.
A thrust is when the weapon is inserted into the target point first, using its point to part the target and allow the blade entry for a significant length. Thrusts are good at penetrating armor and have a greater chance of an instantly fatal wound, but produce less bleeding than chops or slashes.
A bash is any blunt force attack made with the weapon; with a sword this would usually be using the pommel as the contact point, but it could be elsewhere. Bashes bypass most armor and cause concussion damage instead of bleeding.

Each of these broad damage forms corresponds roughly to a type of attack and weapon handling. In general, I think the wielder of the weapon should have the choice of which attack form to use, with the different damage types causing different wounding effects. Most weapons are best at only one or two damage types - the Katana (my own personal weapon of choice) would come out strong on the slash, weaker on everything else. Other weapons wouldn't be able to do some damage types at all. In game system terms, this helps to give weapons more meaningful differences other than just a single pure damage statistic: when fighting an unarmored opponent you might use a slashing attack for maximum damage, but if your opponent has chain mail on you'll have to switch to thrusting (or precision slashing, but I'll cover that later) which your weapon might be much worse at.

Just like weapons have strengths and weaknesses in various damage types, so does armor; chain armor is excellent against slashing attacks, only decent against thrusts and not very good at all against crushing. Most armor doesn't provide equal coverage to the entire body - a mail hauberk may leave the lower arms and legs exposed, and a cuirass leaves the limbs with weaker protections than the torso. There should be some ability to choose not only your attack type but the general target of your attack, with corresponding adjustments to the difficulty of the attack and its results.

The proposed level of detail would be something I'd like forward to in a video game. As of now, I have worries as to our ability to create mechanics that will make the suggested distinction more than a minor benefit.

I have always had an interest in games where I could target specific areas. Thus far, after the many I've encountered, none of them have done the idea justice. The rule of thumb is to always aim at the head. With the ability to armour body parts, this would merely change the dynamic to aiming at the least armoured place.

To my knowledge, mail is quite good armour, and isn't weak against penetration. Swords, arrows, spears and lances have difficulty with mail. The weapons which do not have difficulty penetrating mail, are made for the destruction of armour. Mail's failing against these weapons should not be attributed as weakness, but instead that the weapons in question are impressive.
Even bashing, championed as the nemesis of mail, has not been effective in testing as would be expected. Since mail is always used with padding, with rare exceptions, the benefits were not so strong as expected.


With a computer to manage the numbers, I think detailing this would be a very worth-while endeavor. For now, I'm unsure about these options being applied in a tabletop game.

Carry2
2013-03-15, 06:42 AM
Like I said, it forces some arbitrary restrictions on character creation, and I am not talking about social mobility which is realistic if you want to model the medieval setting in history. The problem is you can't have a lifepath shorter than the time listed. Maybe have lifepaths that cover only 1 year of time and then you can take them multiple times without penalties?

I also much prefer 1-year lifepaths. Twilight 2013 uses a lifepath system, too, and it, too, has set lengths for different careers. It'd make more sense, to me, to split them into 1-year spans (maybe you didn't have time to be a doctor for more than a year before World War III hit?), and require X years to complete some of them (like the various college degrees).
Well, how much of a particular profession can you really learn in one year? Given the skill points you're given per lifepath, dividing the time increments would lead to some awkward fractions in the math. You could work around it, but I honestly can't say it's ever struck me as a vast drawback of the system. *shrugs*

...your system might end up with people being cut by swords while wearing mail or plate. (A sin even the great TRoS has!)

I think a distinction we need to make here is that we're talking about a realistic system here, not a historically accurate system. The way I see it, a realistic fantasy system is a way to apply the laws of the real, physical world (physics) to a fictional world.
As I understand it, a direct piercing sword-thrust with a strong run-up could penetrate mail or plate, at least if you aim for the weaker points at the joints. It depends whether you're talking about damage-as-accuracy or not, and whether it's a slashing maneuvre or piercing damage, etc.

You might, just conceivably be able to improve on BW/TroS in terms of combat simulation, but given the benefit of consultation with actual medieval swordsmanship experts and years of playtesting, the odds of an informal community-led effort doing much better are slim. Exediron has made some excellent points about the relative merits of weight, fatigue, weapon reach, etc. (reach being very important, since a honking great longsword is useless at close quarters,) but about 90% of these dynamics are already covered extensively in Burning Wheel. Stick a fork in it- it's done.


Frankly, I think all the emphasis on combat realism in this thread is a little misplaced. I'd like my game, at least, to incorporate some of the more... liberating aspects of realism- such as NPCs that actually behave like independent agents, rather than puppets of GM railroading, and PC decisions+dice-rolls that actually have consequences, even when it conflicts with "the plot". What mechanics are we going to use to ensure that, exactly?

More generally, what is our stance on IC vs. OOC information? This is a subject of huge concern to many groups with simulationist inclinations, but it's treatment within the hobby is also riddled with double-standards and superficialities. (I'll put this bluntly: GM dice-fudging IS metagaming, because physics doesn't know about your plot.)

How do we intend to handle social conflicts within this world? Some players feel that systems like the Duel of Wits are obtrusive and artificial, but the problem with leaving the solution of inter-PC disputes purely to the real players talking it out is that it becomes harder to factor out real-world emotional baggage. In other words, it often leads to less in-character behaviour, not more.

Compared to these problems, the question of, say, how to square the inclusion of magic is a relatively minor concern. All of the above are rather more likely to be significant bones of contention, and I haven't mentioned anything about the problems of geographic scale and time-keeping, economic cycles, personal investments and crafting skills, etc. etc. etc.

Those would all most likely demands threads unto themselves.

Carry2
2013-03-15, 06:56 AM
It's important to note, however, that the elements of Burning Wheel which are arguably the most engaging and vital for many players- specifically, the Artha system, improvised setting content via wises and circle tests, the Let it Ride rule- have little or nothing to do with accuracy of simulation.
Given my comments in the previous post (and elsewhere (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14880809&postcount=127),) I guess I can amend that statement- these features arguably do promote certain kinds of realism, but possibly at the expense of others.

Simple example- if the players are always permitted to know the target numbers for their rolls, this almost certainly means they will sometimes know things that their characters could not. But if the players do not always know the target numbers for their rolls, what prevents the GM from arbitrarily deciding success or failure regardless of plausibility? And which of these outcomes is more unrealistic?

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-15, 07:02 AM
If you want to know how much a year's training is worth, the following approximates will help:

10 hours to master a trivial skill (a single not, tic-tac-toe)
100 hours to become decent in a non-trivial skill (learning to drive a car)
10 000 hours to master a non-trivial skill (becoming a professional stunt driver).

All hours refer to focused practice.

For the record, a vocational degree in Finland takes 120 educational weeks (roughly: three years) to achieve. Each educational week represent 40 hours of work - so, 4800 hours is what it takes to graduate. Of course, these hours are divided among multiple skills.

Assuming that in addition to a degree, you need 5 years of work experience to count as a professional (a common assumption): 5 years of working 8 hours per day, 210 days a year equals to 4800 (education) + 8400 (experience) = 13 200 hours of practice.

What ancient Chinese had to say about martial arts:

It takes 10 days to master the staff (kun).
It takes 100 days to master the sabre (dao).
It takes 1000 days to master the longsword (Jian).

Assuming 1 day equal roughly 8 hours of focused practice:

80 hours for staff.
800 hours for sabre.
8000 hours for longsword.

At a glance, it looks like the Chinese approved with 10 000 hour rule.

On another hand, a more recent study suggests that to achieve truly ground-breaking levels of skill requires 25 000 to 50 000 hours of focused practice. That equates to 15 to 30 years.

Rhynn
2013-03-15, 08:21 AM
Well, how much of a particular profession can you really learn in one year? Given the skill points you're given per lifepath, dividing the time increments would lead to some awkward fractions in the math. You could work around it, but I honestly can't say it's ever struck me as a vast drawback of the system. *shrugs*

Oh, it's really an insignificant quibble. It just tends to lead to, say, most TW2013 doctors having age differences divisible by 4, which is a bit weird.

There's ways to balance it out, but it all depends on the advancement mechanics. In TW2013, you add points to skills and there are point thresholds for skill levels (and each skill level lets you roll more dice to try to roll under your target number), and the more points you have the greater the distance to the next threshold (1/2/4/8/16/32/64). I think it could work with 1-year lifepaths (especially as the points you get are often neatly divisible by the number of years, or very close to it).

In Artesia: AKW, each level of a skill costs as many points as the level is: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 = 55 to get to level 10. The lifepath is in 1-year units; in one year, you might learn the very basics (level 1) in all a profession's skills (which, under the study mechanics, pretty much pans out), but to get to level 10 in even a single skill would take something like 10 years of lifepath experience in that career (and you'd be rubbish or unskilled at all its other skills).


As I understand it, a direct piercing sword-thrust with a strong run-up could penetrate mail or plate, at least if you aim for the weaker points at the joints. It depends whether you're talking about damage-as-accuracy or not, and whether it's a slashing maneuvre or piercing damage, etc.

I said cut for a reason. I think sword with a long, tapering sharp point may indeed cause wounds through mail. In TRoS, you can pretty much cut a man in half through armor. (I won't complain about cloven helmets, because apparently that could be done, although I have my doubts about the blow continuing into the skull). Cutting armor cannot really be done with hand weapons (though you can absolutely traumatize tissue, and maybe even break bone, through it). Denting plate can be, yes, but that's about it. You can't cut iron or steel with iron or steel unless the object being cut is very thing and/or brittle.

Getting around armor is completely different, but my TRoS complaint is that the combat table results often don't leave that possibility. It doesn't matter, though, to me.

Puncturing armor is definitely possible, though I doubt it was very common. Proper riveted (not butted) mail was very resistant, however, and the thick padding (20-30 layers of quilt; it'll bend needles while you try to sow it together) would often stop the weapon after it had lost most of its energy penetrating the metal. (If you get through the armor, though, penetrating human tissues is almost scarily easy.)


You might, just conceivably be able to improve on BW/TroS in terms of combat simulation, but given the benefit of consultation with actual medieval swordsmanship experts and years of playtesting, the odds of an informal community-led effort doing much better are slim.

If you read my posts, I'm a Devil's advocate here pretty exclusively. I think it's pretty near impossible to get better than HârnMaster or TRoS (the latter comes ahead in terms of combat being interesting and fun) and still have a playable system.


Frankly, I think all the emphasis on combat realism in this thread is a little misplaced. I'd like my game, at least, to incorporate some of the more... liberating aspects of realism- such as NPCs that actually behave like independent agents, rather than puppets of GM railroading, and PC decisions+dice-rolls that actually have consequences, even when it conflicts with "the plot".

Absolutely. As I said in this thread (or the one that started this? Or both?), I by far prefer the realism of HârnWorld the setting to the realism of HârnMaster the system. I prefer the "mythological fidelity" of RuneQuest's Glorantha and Artesia's Known World to both of their systems, which are probably halfway between D&D and HârnMaster for realism.

Spiryt
2013-03-15, 10:12 AM
What mail are you thinking of? Because I am thinking of chainmail and other forms of interlocking rings of material, which is pretty much the definition of mail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_(armour)) as I understand it.

Most battles involving lances (and horsemen) would involve some kind of plate armor, I'd think.



Lances and horsemen were involved in fighting since the dawn of history, and plate armor hails from 13th century (if we follow rather loose definition, and say that coats of plates, or single plates here and there count as "plate armor).

In crusade records I mentioned, we can only assume that "lorica" or some other latin word from sources refers to mail, because it was most prized form of armor among Europeans back then.




We are talking, if I understand correctly, about the difference between 3-pound swords and 5-pound hammers. Five pounds may not sound like much compared to the way D&D weighs weapons, but stuck on the end of a long stick it can be quite awkward (especially compared to maneuvering around with a sword).


Five pound warhammer would be two handed one, one handed is rather unlikely.

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=61472&viewType=detailView

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection.org/eMuseumPlus?service=ExternalInterface&module=collection&objectId=61474&viewType=detailView

Exediron
2013-03-15, 05:07 PM
Five pounds sounds like a lot. That's not a one-handed weapon. (3 pounds is quite hefty for a sword, too - that's two-handed longsword or fairly heavy rapier territory.)

...

All replicas, obviously, but read the reviews. The weights aren't going to be off by very much (and might, in fact, be over).

You aren't going to find one-handed weapons that exceed 3 pounds by a lot, generally. (Unless they were ceremonial, in which case all bets are off.)

It's fairly heavy, I'll grant you, but I own a (modern - no claim that it is historically accurate, but it is functional) sword that weighs in at 4.5 lbs. It's a hand-and-half sword which I use one handed, with a long hilt and a heavy ball on the pommel to bring the balance point all the way down to just above your hand. It swings and spins beautifully because of its balance and doesn't feel its weight at all except when its coming down for a cut. It does of course have a lot of momentum, so you have to use a slightly different technique on recovery.

My point here is that with a good balance, a sword over 3 pounds can definitely be usable one handed - although it is easier the larger you are.


This seems obvious, yeah. Historical accuracy is for settings, not systems.

It does. The reason I mentioned that is that a lot of people seem to be focusing entirely on what armor or weapons actually existed in our history, which I see as irrelevant.


That looks like a completely excessive level of modelling, where you'd get differences between individual weapons (what if my katana has a 29" blade and is 40" overall? Do the numbers change at least 1%?). I've never seen that level of modelling accuracy in any RPG that I can recall.

That's a point, and probably the 1-100 is too much detail for basic weapon modeling. However, the point is to make an RPG more realistic than any extant system - otherwise it's sort of pointless.

The size was just added for flavor, and should probably be a range instead of a single number. I picked what is about average. An extra inch of blade increases reach a bit, decreases speed a bit and makes the weapon more suited for a taller wielder. I was thinking of the statistics (chop, slash, etc.) to reflect more the effect produced by that design of weapon; a slightly longer Katana will still have the same relationship between its slashing and thrusting ability, more or less. It might be better to express it some other way, however.


The proposed level of detail would be something I'd like forward to in a video game. As of now, I have worries as to our ability to create mechanics that will make the suggested distinction more than a minor benefit.

...

With a computer to manage the numbers, I think detailing this would be a very worth-while endeavor. For now, I'm unsure about these options being applied in a tabletop game.

This is definitely true. But without a computer to help, I don't really see how you can get an improvement in realism without a corresponding increase in complexity. It's up to the system design to make the system as easy to use as possible, but it can't be as simple as D&D and also properly simulate the real world.


Frankly, I think all the emphasis on combat realism in this thread is a little misplaced. I'd like my game, at least, to incorporate some of the more... liberating aspects of realism- such as NPCs that actually behave like independent agents, rather than puppets of GM railroading, and PC decisions+dice-rolls that actually have consequences, even when it conflicts with "the plot". What mechanics are we going to use to ensure that, exactly?

Although we're talking about combat now, I don't think anyone here intends to focus on it in particular - it's just easier to discuss one element at a time. If everything is discussed all at once, you get ten different discussions going all at once and nobody can make sense of it.

I don't really see NPCs or their behavior as the call of the system. I believe strongly in the separation of mechanics and role-playing, and I don't want my system to dictate the way the characters act or the way the DM runs the game. However, many people don't feel the same way, so it probably does need some discussion. You raise a valid point (at least for less experienced or dedicated role-players) about a lack of social mechanics leading to the players and not the characters taking the lead.

mjlush
2013-03-16, 05:16 AM
It does. The reason I mentioned that is that a lot of people seem to be focusing entirely on what armor or weapons actually existed in our history, which I see as irrelevant.


This is not a rant aimed at you Exediron, this is a rant aimed at Conners

The reason why people are talking about weapons actually existed in our history is because they don't have anything else to focus on. Should we spend any time modeling the ballistics of the English longbow vs modern stabproof vests? Perhaps less extreme how about longbow vs armor of 1346 or armor of 1429, for some reason armor improved a lot in those years.

We don't know what the technology level of this setting is ... (even that's not really enough the Romans had the technology to make firearms, what they lacked was the knowledge that gunpowder was possible).

We know nothing about this setting.

We don't know if dragons can fly.

We don't know if magic is a subtle craft of influences or an Epic Power that can reshape the land at a whim.

We don't know even know if the setting is metal rich (like Europe) or poor (like Japan).

Conners you say you don't want a generic system well thats what your getting, worse your getting a generic system based on a hodgepodge of ideas and views of reality. Without some leadership or at the very least chairmanship this is heading to make Spawn of Fashan look like a case study of good game design.

Frozen_Feet
2013-03-16, 11:13 AM
I restate my opinion: if you want a realistic system, you better keep fantasy elements at a minimum. Instead of alternate world high-fantasy, go for contemporary modern setting, pseudohistory, or hard sci-fi.

The more deviations you make to reality, the less realistic your game is going to be by definition.

Exediron
2013-03-16, 03:02 PM
I restate my opinion: if you want a realistic system, you better keep fantasy elements at a minimum. Instead of alternate world high-fantasy, go for contemporary modern setting, pseudohistory, or hard sci-fi.

The more deviations you make to reality, the less realistic your game is going to be by definition.

Well, yes - technically that's true. Which is why realistic is possibly the wrong word. But what I see as a realistic system is a set of rules which allow you to model elements or situations - which may or may not exist - as they would be if they existed in the real world. I'm not looking for a system to simulate the Earth, I'm looking for a system to accurately model the way things work in the real, physical world. I don't so much care if a giant exists, or even if a giant is possible; I do care if the system can properly reflect how damaging the blow of the giant would be and how difficult it would be to take the giant down.

In my opinion, the perfect system is utterly setting-neutral and is a framework for resolving whatever you want to point it at, sort of like how the engine of a computer game has little real bearing on how the game itself plays. On top of the system you then put the setting, which defines what exists in the game world and why. The setting tells you that there are bands of giants in the wastelands and that their bones and organs have soaked up magical energy from long exposure to the wastes, allowing them to reach a size otherwise impossible for a biped - the system figures out how you can dodge the giant's blow, how much it kills you if it hits, and whether or not your puny sword can pierce the giant's skin.

If I'm alone in viewing a system vs. a setting this way, I'll work on my own theory and leave it out of this thread. Really, since this is connors' thread, I suppose it's connors' vision of a system that we need to know.

EDIT: After referencing connors' posts on the first page, it appears that this system is supposed to be integrated with a setting ("GURPS was made with the intention of it fitting any setting, with some adjustments. While it is a great system that does a good job of everything, having something which specializes in one setting/subject/theme has its advantages."); therefore I will focus on just providing ideas for rules or opinions on specific discussions.

Carry2
2013-03-17, 03:39 PM
Although we're talking about combat now, I don't think anyone here intends to focus on it in particular - it's just easier to discuss one element at a time. If everything is discussed all at once, you get ten different discussions going all at once and nobody can make sense of it.

I don't really see NPCs or their behavior as the call of the system. I believe strongly in the separation of mechanics and role-playing, and I don't want my system to dictate the way the characters act or the way the DM runs the game.
Well, one can equally argue it's not the system's place to 'dictate' the direction of your sword-cuts or how often PCs should bump into combat encounters, on the basis that no formal system can possibly capture all the nuances, etc. etc. etc. (And it's true that no formal dice system will ever capture all the nuances of swordplay, but that's not the primary justification for the system- the system exists to resolve disputes between the real people at the table about how the sword-fight would turn out, and if those people happen to value realism, modelling reality becomes a means to that end.)

Yet we have systems with plenty of rules on the subject of how combat will turn out or ought to be presented, based on positioning and dice rolls and challenge ratings and encounters-per-day, etc. This doesn't mean the players don't get input, it just means they need to work within certain constraints or incentives, which is effectively what the game is. I consider the situation with IC social conflicts to be exactly analogous.

I'm also a strong advocate of the position that if there is a difference between good and bad Role-play, and you can cogently articulate what that difference is, then you have already, in effect, formulated rules on the subject. (And that's a large part of what the BW Artha system is about.)


In Artesia: AKW, each level of a skill costs as many points as the level is: 1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10 = 55 to get to level 10. The lifepath is in 1-year units; in one year, you might learn the very basics (level 1) in all a profession's skills (which, under the study mechanics, pretty much pans out), but to get to level 10 in even a single skill would take something like 10 years of lifepath experience in that career (and you'd be rubbish or unskilled at all its other skills).
That actually makes a good deal of sense, if you consider the diminishing-returns in effect with a lot of practice-based advancement (including the BW family.) So... yeah, I guess that could work.

...If you read my posts, I'm a Devil's advocate here pretty exclusively. I think it's pretty near impossible to get better than HârnMaster or TRoS (the latter comes ahead in terms of combat being interesting and fun) and still have a playable system.
Well, I certainly stand corrected about the point on damage and armour.

Absolutely. As I said in this thread (or the one that started this? Or both?), I by far prefer the realism of HârnWorld the setting to the realism of HârnMaster the system. I prefer the "mythological fidelity" of RuneQuest's Glorantha and Artesia's Known World to both of their systems, which are probably halfway between D&D and HârnMaster for realism.
It's interesting to note that Hero Wars and Hero Quest, also set in Glorantha, seem to have abandoned physical simulation almost entirely in favour of a more abstract conflict-resolution system and stakes-setting with a more 'cinematic' feel. Do you know if that worked for you, personally?

Rhynn
2013-03-17, 08:23 PM
It's interesting to note that Hero Wars and Hero Quest, also set in Glorantha, seem to have abandoned physical simulation almost entirely in favour of a more abstract conflict-resolution system and stakes-setting with a more 'cinematic' feel. Do you know if that worked for you, personally?

I never actually ran either, although I bought most of the books & supplements up to the first edition of HeroQuest as they came out (I just didn't feel a need to keep buying the core rulebook, especially as they started divorcing it from the setting for some reason). I completely love the setting books and the Sartar Rising campaign, and use them for RQ, but I can't see my players getting into the HW/HQ system. I think they fit the setting well, though - my Glorantha definitely always stretched what RuneQuest (especially RQ3) is, but the newer editions in particular are IMO made to accommodate that. Heroquesting is central to my view of Glorantha, and I think HW/HQ had great rules and structure for that (although I've come to think it needs more old-school random tables :smallcool: ).

But I still like a slightly gritty and simulationist Glorantha, and prefer RuneQuest over HeroQuest. (The PenDragon Pass variant is something I'd like to try, or even mash up with RQ, but never have so far.)