What Would be the Perfect Realistic-type Tabletop Game?

[Conners]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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 and On Combat, 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]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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, 2), 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]

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]

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, 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]

"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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

<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]

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]

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 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]

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.

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.

[hamishspence]

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).