Quote from: soltakss;845263Now, Soltak Stormspear, he had deathly white skin, covered in a fine blue fuzz, had eyes of black, with no whites or pupils, "one of his ears sticks out and looks silly" and cast no shadow. He wore glass stilettos and had a cloak made of cat hair that whirled around him with the wind.

What a glorious peculiar image.

I love those character profiles that - through the natural flow of the game - become too wonderfully weird for real life AND standard fiction. It's like the way truly ancient mythology feels, with all the rough edges and absurd details.

Quote from: Ravenswing;845326Well, no shit, Sherlock.  Gamers like to game in the ways that reflect their personal preferences.  Stop the freaking presses.

Nah, see it's when they refuse to admit it's personal preferences.  
They hide it behind common sense and/or logic and/or realism.

Quote from: Ravenswing;845326That aside, I infer you also have a hard time wrapping your head around the concept that anyone could hold to a premise out of common sense or logic, as opposed to self-serving motives.  If that's the way you prefer to think, well, your lookout.

Common sense or logic is touted, when in actuality it is tradition or how I was taught.

Quote from: Sommerjon;845376Nah, see it's when they refuse to admit it's personal preferences.  They hide it behind common sense and/or logic and/or realism.

Getting a bit muddled there, aren't you, sport?  One has a personal preference for realism, not because of it.

Quote from: Sommerjon;845376Common sense or logic is touted, when in actuality it is tradition or how I was taught.

In a hobby scarcely forty years old, when a lot of us -- hell, several of those contributing to this thread -- were first generation gamers, claiming that folks hold to their gaming notions out of "tradition" or "how they were taught" isn't merely as insulting as Elfdart's nonsense, it's just plain clueless.

But heck ... if, like Elfdart, you'd like to confess that you hold your opinions not because you've thought them through, but because you've unthinkingly always done it that way, and common sense has nothing to do with any of it ... well, okay.  I won't call you a liar.  Fair enough?

Quote from: Motorskills;845094Now a more interesting question might be how you would manage this if you were running a historical RPG (e.g. Maelstrom's Elizabethan era).

I don't honestly know how small groups of troubleshooter mercenaries in Elizabethan times would used to operate....if they ever did.

How would they have moved around, how would they carry heavy breastplates if they didn't wear them all the time, where would they leave them when they weren't wearing? Would they simply choose to wear lighter protection except before a with-days-notice major battle?

I think the answer would be related to the mission and the distance from a recognisable base of operations.

Something which I think is often not apparent to all of us born after the Victorian era is just how many people were employed in domestic service in the past. A gentlemen wouldn't go anywhere without at least his valet; the notion of a party of people, none of whom have servants or retainers is entirely at odds with the historical periods games sometimes claim to be inspired by.

An Elizabethan troubleshooter or mercenary would have a servant or groom who looked after their stuff for them, including their mounts and pack animals. So if they weren't wearing their armour, it was stowed away on a mule, looked after by their servant. That same servant might help them get into that same armour if trouble was expected.

Of course that is at odds with modern notions of equality and such. Even besides that, I'm sure it would jar with many people's sense of heroism if a party of five PCs also included ten NPC retainers, servants, guards and other staff.

Quote from: Sommerjon;845376Common sense or logic is touted, when in actuality it is tradition or how I was taught.

I wasn't "taught" how to play by anyone, thanks.

Quote from: Kiero;845483I wasn't "taught" how to play by anyone, thanks.

Same here, and I'd have been better off if I had ignored 90% of the advice I got at first, as a young player and GM:).

Quote from: Ravenswing;845402Getting a bit muddled there, aren't you, sport?  One has a personal preference for realism, not because of it.

No.
Nah, see it's when they refuse to admit it's personal preferences.
They like to use one or all or a combination of these;
They hide it behind saying it's common sense.
They hide it behind saying it's logical.
They hide it behind saying it's realistic.
 
Elfdart said it correctly; How do I know it has nothing to do with "realism"? Because this thirst for "realism" is always selective, and it just happens to coincide with the DM's personal tastes.
Which is nearly the same thing I said to your original rant.
You want your rule system to reflect reality, only where you want it to.

Quote from: Ravenswing;845402In a hobby scarcely forty years old, when a lot of us -- hell, several of those contributing to this thread -- were first generation gamers, claiming that folks hold to their gaming notions out of "tradition" or "how they were taught" isn't merely as insulting as Elfdart's nonsense, it's just plain clueless.

You are a moron.

Quote from: Kiero;845483I wasn't "taught" how to play by anyone, thanks.

Hmm.  When a new idea comes your way about RPGs are you more likely to adapt the new idea into your gaming or stick to your long-established(psst...shhh...tradition or how I was taught) way?

Quote from: Kiero;845483Of course that is at odds with modern notions of equality and such.

And?

QuoteEven besides that, I'm sure it would jar with many people's sense of heroism if a party of five PCs also included ten NPC retainers, servants, guards and other staff.

Someone has to hold the horses, carry the torches, and brew the tea, not to mention hew the wood, haul the water, and light the fire. That's what servants are for old son. We may be called heroes, but by God, sir, we are gentlemen!

Quote from: Sommerjon;845543You are a moron.

"Lo! the harshest of all voices is the voice of the ass."

Quote from: Bren;845607And?

For some groups, that might be an issue. Especially those who might only be able to countenance a "progressive" theme to a game.

Not my thing, mind, but I'm sure there are groups out there where a stratified social structure where class matters would be a deal-breaker.

Quote from: Bren;845607Someone has to hold the horses, carry the torches, and brew the tea, not to mention hew the wood, haul the water, and light the fire. That's what servants are for old son. We may be called heroes, but by God, sir, we are gentlemen!

Absolutely, though it's something I didn't really appreciate until playing ACKS recently. In my D&D days of old, some 20-odd years ago, we didn't really grasp the significance of the henchman/hireling dynamic, and ignored them. Now I find myself wanting to add retainers to games that don't necessarily consider them, because having a wider "team" is more fun for me.

Quote from: Kiero;845625Absolutely, though it's something I didn't really appreciate until playing ACKS recently. In my D&D days of old, some 20-odd years ago, we didn't really grasp the significance of the henchman/hireling dynamic, and ignored them. Now I find myself wanting to add retainers to games that don't necessarily consider them, because having a wider "team" is more fun for me.

Fuck yes.  
People like logic in their games?  this is a great example of that.

Quote from: Kiero;845625For some groups, that might be an issue. Especially those who might only be able to countenance a "progressive" theme to a game.

Not my thing, mind, but I'm sure there are groups out there where a stratified social structure where class matters would be a deal-breaker.

Not my thing either, and those of us who aren't game designers can just not bother with those people's views:).
Seriously, if they're not playing at my table, their views aren't a problem that's going to come up in my game. This, in turn, makes it simply irrelevant for me as a Referee.
I guess if you're looking at it as a game designer, you should simply explain that yes, that's how society worked at the time, but the PCs are free to come up with their own solution.

QuoteAbsolutely, though it's something I didn't really appreciate until playing ACKS recently. In my D&D days of old, some 20-odd years ago, we didn't really grasp the significance of the henchman/hireling dynamic, and ignored them. Now I find myself wanting to add retainers to games that don't necessarily consider them, because having a wider "team" is more fun for me.

And I think that's the right direction. It's way more fun for me and my group as well;).

Quote from: Kiero;845625For some groups, that might be an issue. Especially those who might only be able to countenance a "progressive" theme to a game.

Not my thing, mind, but I'm sure there are groups out there where a stratified social structure where class matters would be a deal-breaker.

OK, so a fantasy game where that's their fantasy. Those folks should definitely stay the hell away from any game smacking of history or human nature.

QuoteAbsolutely, though it's something I didn't really appreciate until playing ACKS recently.

We started out playing D&D with torch bearers , mules, and mule tenders. They upped the survival chance for our first and second level PCs. After my PC reached 4th level I started running solo so I had a band of hirelings, charmlings, and later undead (how do you get an chaotic/evil elvish necromancer in OD&D? Put on the Helm of Alignment Change.)

Now I find that sometimes we need to either keep the number of hangers on or crew to an artificially low minimum or ignore them as individuals else we don't have enough play time for the actual PCs.

Quote from: Sommerjon;845543No.
Nah, see it's when they refuse to admit it's personal preferences.
They like to use one or all or a combination of these;
They hide it behind saying it's common sense.
They hide it behind saying it's logical.
They hide it behind saying it's realistic.
 
Elfdart said it correctly; How do I know it has nothing to do with "realism"? Because this thirst for "realism" is always selective, and it just happens to coincide with the DM's personal tastes.
Which is nearly the same thing I said to your original rant.
You want your rule system to reflect reality, only where you want it to.

You (repeatedly) assert this as axiomatic, but it ain't necessarily so.

It is also possible to build a game world by starting from what we know of reality; stipulating that X, Y, and Z are different; and then trying to work out what such a world would logically/realistically be like.  The GM doesn't have to pull things out of his ass based solely on his personal tastes.  There's also the option of saying, "based on what we know of the game world already, what makes the most sense/is most logical/is most realistic here?".

Personally, I prefer the latter approach and find that it makes for a much more consistent, logical, and, yes, realistic setting, in large part specifically because it maximizes the ability of players to reason about the game world independently of the GM and minimizes any tendency of the world to reshape itself based on the GM's whim of the moment.

Quote from: nDervish;845702You (repeatedly) assert this as axiomatic, but it ain't necessarily so.

It is also possible to build a game world by starting from what we know of reality; stipulating that X, Y, and Z are different; and then trying to work out what such a world would logically/realistically be like.  The GM doesn't have to pull things out of his ass based solely on his personal tastes.  There's also the option of saying, "based on what we know of the game world already, what makes the most sense/is most logical/is most realistic here?".

Personally, I prefer the latter approach and find that it makes for a much more consistent, logical, and, yes, realistic setting, in large part specifically because it maximizes the ability of players to reason about the game world independently of the GM and minimizes any tendency of the world to reshape itself based on the GM's whim of the moment.

I think part of the issue is that in game design/style, the terms, 'logical' and 'realistic' are used as synonymous, when they are not.  

Realistic infers that the rule or system is based on reality.  That it was pulled from the real world.  

Logical, in our context, is defined as the rule or system making sense based on other defined rules or setting documentation.

The two are NOT the same thing, however.  For example, as we have said, people wearing armor in town is more logical if the system in place has pretty regular, constant random checks for actual hostile and lethal encounters in said town.  It may not be realistic, but the in-game logic supersedes any relation to the actual historic real world analog.

Quote from: LordVreeg;845791I think part of the issue is that in game design/style, the terms, 'logical' and 'realistic' are used as synonymous, when they are not.  

Realistic infers that the rule or system is based on reality.  That it was pulled from the real world.  

Logical, in our context, is defined as the rule or system making sense based on other defined rules or setting documentation.

nDervish used logical to describe deriving the setting based on the rules and a few setting premises.

If you want to describe the derivation as "making sense" based on defined rules and setting premises, then the word you want is plausible not logical. The outcome may be logical without seeming plausible.

I usually speak in terms of believability and internal logic. Believability is just something feels real enough to pass. It might have holes under scrutiny after the game but no one really questions it during play. Internal logic just suggests that events and outcomes make sense based on what has been established, that there is chain of causation (i.e. an NPC is able to track them down because he had someone following the party the whole time, which is why they were being asked to make those detect rolls; he is after them because the guy they killed back in town was his brother, etc).