What Would be the Perfect Realistic-type Tabletop Game?

[Grinner]

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]

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.

There are formerly living creatures 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]

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]

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 .


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 .


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

[Rhynn]

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 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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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 as I understand it.

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

Video.

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. 2 pounds 4 ounces.

A huge honkin' two-handed axe is 3 pounds 13 ounces (almost 4 pounds).

Somem maces at two and one-quarter pounds and two pounds.

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]

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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,) 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]

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]

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]

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 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...ype=detailView

http://wallacelive.wallacecollection...ype=detailView

[Exediron]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ).

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.)