Quote from: Chris24601;1032204Why have set dressers for films put in all sorts of meaningful background details that 99.9% of the audience is never going to notice? Because you're a professional dammit and you should care that you're doing your job right so that when the 0.1% do notice they'll appreciate that you actually know your shit (TVTropes even has a name for this; "shown their work").

At least, that's why I do it; for that one-in-a-thousand reader who does care and will come up to me at some convention and thank me for caring as much about what they care about as they do.

I do engraving work for a day job. A lot of it is commercial stuff where I'm doing up a hundred of this or a couple dozen of that that goes to some company looking to give some promotional item out to customers or employees. What keeps me doing the job instead of just packing it in for some 9-5 gig is the <1% of jobs where I'm putting together a custom piece just for them (often for a wedding, birthday, memorial or other special event) and they absolutely appreciate the craftsmanship and thought that goes into the job (more than half of which is presenting them options they didn't even know they had to make it truly personal). But I wouldn't get those jobs without putting just as much work into the other 99+% that the end user probably thinks just pops off an assembly line.

Maybe I'm an anomaly in that line of thinking though.

Quote from: chirine ba kal;1032205I agree with you - but I think we're both anomalies. I know exactly what you're taking about, re the detail and craftsmanship getting put into a project. I think you have the stats right, too; over all the time I've been in this hobby, I'd agree that about one in a thousand players who drop by one of my games actually notices the fine detail. The vast majority of them, I've found, simply don't have any background or knowledge to appreciate, understand, or notice what's on the table in front of them.

Like you, though, the very very rare times that somebody does indeed notice that Lord Chirine has a deck chair or that the Ladies-in-Waiting all have nice beach umbrellas does really please me.

It's the process of getting to meet them that I'm finding depressing.

Well, my wife is a crafter. What you're telling me is exactly like what I hear from you two:).
I think that "excellence is its own reward" applies in all kinds of human activity;).
Personally, I appreciate such details, or at least the ones I've noticed.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1032084Trying to rationalize D&Disms.  Dungeons, magic, the huge number of different creatures occupying exactly the same ecological niche, none of it makes any sense. Trying to force it to make sense takes away the fun.

I don't mind games that treat some of these with realism and rationality. "Dungeons" that are designed as actual structures with sensible ecosystems for example. But don't expect those games to lend themselves to the wild and wooly style of D&D.

I actually play a lot less D&D than used to because i got so sick of trying to rationalize D&Disms and realized I would rather play games that make more sense.

Yeah, this is why I've never been able to get into D&D in the first place.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1031569Name something that's very common to find in a D&D setting that you really don't care for. And, if explanation is needed, why.

 I have some problems with D&D type systems, but the settings don't bother me that much because I see D&D as its own genre that does its own thing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1032214Frankly, I agree.  You know how hard I worked to construct a medieval world with some degree of authenticity for my RPGs, and you know that nobody gave a crap.  It's the same in any endeavor, by the way; the vast majority of model railroaders, for instance, do not CARE that the Athearn 40' boxcar is 1 HO scale foot too wide.

Yep.

Now, if you modeled God's Wonderful Railway in OO, this wouldn't be an issue. Three-link couplings and shunters' poles, for that RPG immersion factor...

Quote from: AsenRG;1032257Well, my wife is a crafter. What you're telling me is exactly like what I hear from you two:).
I think that "excellence is its own reward" applies in all kinds of human activity;).
Personally, I appreciate such details, or at least the ones I've noticed.

Yep. I model for myself, and those who can be delighted by what I do.

Quote from: jeff37923;1032292I have some problems with D&D type systems, but the settings don't bother me that much because I see D&D as its own genre that does its own thing.

D&D is a treasure hunt game in a slightly medieval setting.  If you accept it on its own terms, it can be whacking great fun.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1032084Trying to rationalize D&Disms.  Dungeons, magic, the huge number of different creatures occupying exactly the same ecological niche, none of it makes any sense. Trying to force it to make sense takes away the fun.

I don't mind games that treat some of these with realism and rationality. "Dungeons" that are designed as actual structures with sensible ecosystems for example. But don't expect those games to lend themselves to the wild and wooly style of D&D.

I actually play a lot less D&D than used to because i got so sick of trying to rationalize D&Disms and realized I would rather play games that make more sense.

I took it for granted that dungeons and monsters are churned out by the forces of chaos.

Quote from: Chris24601;1032190Like I said, I don't blame Gary for the original armor tables; you can only use the info you have and "garbage in, garbage out" (how was he supposed to know that boiled leather armor was in the same class as jousting armor; stuff you wore in tournaments while armed with sword-shaped bludgeons... basically the SCA/Renfair armor of its day) but yeah, I do kinda hold it against modern 'developers' when they can't be bothered to do half an hour or so research into sources less than half a century out of date (though I make an exception if they're referencing primary sources). It's like saying you wrote a serious time travel story while including T-Rexes that are cold blooded, stand upright, drag their tails and don't have feathers (though this would be entirely forgivable if you said it was a retro 50s sci-fi story).

If you can't do the research equivalent of a sixth-grade history paper, why the heck should I trust your game math or that everything else isn't equally shoddy?

And again, I make an exception for someone just trying to deliberately ape early editions of D&D, but anyone designing something they claim is historically accurate or just to be modern game design using crap like leather and studded leather unironically deserves every jeer thrown at them.

I'll agree with all of this except the bolded part. It has nothing to do with research. I know we all want to think of this or that designer as truly clueless or the like, but... at this point in time (and frankly since the mid 90s or so) no one elbows deep in fantasy game design somehow has missed that padded, leather and studded leather are not as we picture them in D&D*. They did not somehow miss the single most widely known and forum-discussed fact about historical armors (that being studded leather, to my mind). They just don't care. Which is not necessarily better, but it is different.
*nor, for completely tangential examples that games routinely get wrong that I thoroughly believe no designer doesn't realize are wrong, that longsword is the wrong name for the D&D longsword, and that katanas are not all that and a bag of chips.

I'm not sure they are wrong, either. At least from their goals. 'Studded leather' sounds cool. Maybe a little biker gang or pirate wear (or just what the D&D illustrators have turned it into, which is historically inaccurate and wouldn't actually work, but looks cool). 'Padded armor' sounds like wearing a winter coat and/or what you wear under 'real' armor (neither of which  is not false, but does it a disservice in a way that takes a bunch of paragraphs to explain), and 'gambeson' sounds like an odd French word. I think the designers have taken a very 'it would take more ink than the average gamer really cares about to explain why they are wrong to think of leather or studded as awesome and that padded/gambeson is what would actually be awesome, and in the end what does it get me?' route.

I think the real problem IFAIC is that there really isn't such a thing as 'light' armor, but gamers want it for their rogues and rangers and the like. So that, to me, is the fundamental realism-vs.-genre issue.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1032426I think the real problem IFAIC is that there really isn't such a thing as 'light' armor, but gamers want it for their rogues and rangers and the like. So that, to me, is the fundamental realism-vs.-genre issue.

Good point.  That, and others have mentioned, the way "light armor" is often a partial set of other armor.  In any game without sectional armor (often for good reasons, due to the handling time), it's all an approximation anyway.

The lame gods and pantheons which always look and sound like a fourth-grader attempt at remembering greek and roman lore but mixed them with a Naruto episode. D&D is no the sole culprit though, even "I'm moare medieval than u" Harn as a pantheon that looks and sound like a supplement for Pokethulhu.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1032426I think the real problem IFAIC is that there really isn't such a thing as 'light' armor, but gamers want it for their rogues and rangers and the like. So that, to me, is the fundamental realism-vs.-genre issue.

In the medieval era, maybe not. In earlier ones, it was called leaving out the body armour, and just relying on your helmet and shield.

If you legit just don't care or don't think your audience would care you could still at least do a little something like call it say; light, medium, heavy and full and give some historical examples you think would fit into each.

It doesn't work for every system, but D&D's AC as a bypass check (instead of damage absorbtion) works really well with a light/medium/heavy armor system since it can refer to coverage. Light is a breastplate, medium is half-plate, heavy is munitions armor (3/4 Plate) and Full is a Full Plate Harness. If running something in an earlier medieval period you could swap it out for gambeson, mail shirt, mail hauberk and full coverage in chain (all presumably with a helmet) versus the less effective weapons of the day (you didn't need plate piercing weapons until there was plate to pierce... it's always been an arms race).

Also, I've never met anyone who's ever learned about brigandine (which given that it sounds like brigand is a much cooler name than the aforementioned gambeson is; evoking images of rough highwaymen and scoundrels) who continues to think studded leather is cool by comparison and "concealed steel plates riveted into a leather vest or coat" is every bit as short as "leather armor covered in metal studs for added protection" is.

It's antecedent the Coat of Plates would also be a good alternative since half its description is right there in its name.

As to the longsword, I have to at least give later editions of D&D credit for adding the versatile property to them so that their damage pops up to a respectable two-handed weapon when wielded as such (the longsword was truthfully a hand-and-a-half sword... best wielded in two hands, but useable in one hand if necessary... of which the bastard sword was just one example).

Now if only they'd add a proper straight-bladed Messer to the sword list.

Quote from: kobayashi;1032444The lame gods and pantheons which always look and sound like a fourth-grader attempt at remembering greek and roman lore but mixed them with a Naruto episode. D&D is no the sole culprit though, even "I'm moare medieval than u" Harn as a pantheon that looks and sound like a supplement for Pokethulhu.

Let me add to that...

A) everyone on the entire planet worshiping the same gods by the same names when even small historical empires couldn't even get everyone worshipping the same gods and, even when they kind of could, couldn't get them to use the same names for them.

B) Not really treating their pantheons like pantheons, but as a collection of invididual gods that you choose one from to worship exclusively.

-and-

C) Nearly every setting being another pantheon instead of say, a world with only animist beliefs or a monotheistic God or, maybe like the real world where there's a variety of different religions each with an explanation for their supernatural gifts while over in the corner the atheist wizard grumps that you're going to blow yourself up using arcane magic by screaming at sky gods instead of learning to channel it properly.

Nope... new setting, new set of gods each with a portfolio to match those available in the core book's default setting because that's what there's rules for and they don't feel like inventing their own.

Something to add about D&D settings that I got through my interest in anime and manga. Japanese interest in Western Fantasy comes almost entirely from D&D with its basis being Record of Lodoss War which came out in 1988. Since then, millions of anime and manga have been made based upon the D&D vision of medieval fantasy. Today, it is perfectly acceptable to find things in that media like entrances to megadungeons in the center of a town built up around the entrance to cater to adventurer's and fleece them of their wealth as they return (or don't). Adventurer is considered a job like almost any other, even if it is more dangerous than most.

You would not have gotten to that point if Japanese interest in Western Fantasy began with say Runequest or Le Morte de Arthur. D&D and its settings are their own unique thing and are fun to play because of it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1032459If you legit just don't care or don't think your audience would care you could still at least do a little something like call it say; light, medium, heavy and full and give some historical examples you think would fit into each.

It doesn't work for every system, but D&D's AC as a bypass check (instead of damage absorbtion) works really well with a light/medium/heavy armor system since it can refer to coverage. Light is a breastplate, medium is half-plate, heavy is munitions armor (3/4 Plate) and Full is a Full Plate Harness. If running something in an earlier medieval period you could swap it out for gambeson, mail shirt, mail hauberk and full coverage in chain (all presumably with a helmet) versus the less effective weapons of the day (you didn't need plate piercing weapons until there was plate to pierce... it's always been an arms race).

Oh, to be sure, they could. I notice in the last few editions, there are always only about 3-4 types of armor that end up being used after a certain point anyways (and in the TSR era it was 'as heavy as possible, unless you were in a naval-heavy adventure, or found a set of +5 ringmail or the like'). They could certainly go with maybe light, medium, semi-heavy, and heavy, and then just list examples that might qualify for each.

This does, however, create confusion where there used to be straightforward (if historically specious) answers. And that probably alienates more than it pleases. Again, I am not saying this is good or bad, merely acknowledging that someone like you (and myself, I would prefer that as well) are not the primary audience, but rather the casual gamer who just wants to write down what kind of armor they have and do not especially care about the historical realism.

QuoteAlso, I've never met anyone who's ever learned about brigandine (which given that it sounds like brigand is a much cooler name than the aforementioned gambeson is; evoking images of rough highwaymen and scoundrels) who continues to think studded leather is cool by comparison and "concealed steel plates riveted into a leather vest or coat" is every bit as short as "leather armor covered in metal studs for added protection" is.

It's antecedent the Coat of Plates would also be a good alternative since half its description is right there in its name.

Those are great historical 'pseudo-light' armors (wouldn't want to swim in either, and certainly would never mistake someone in coat of plates for an unarmored noncombatant, which I think is part of what people want out of 'light' armor). I use them in my own campaigns (coat of plate replacing studded, and brigandine for scale).

QuoteAs to the longsword, I have to at least give later editions of D&D credit for adding the versatile property to them so that their damage pops up to a respectable two-handed weapon when wielded as such (the longsword was truthfully a hand-and-a-half sword... best wielded in two hands, but useable in one hand if necessary... of which the bastard sword was just one example).

Now if only they'd add a proper straight-bladed Messer to the sword list.

I would agree on the Messer-- for a historical style game targeted towards medievally-knowledgeable adults. I can only imagine the confusion created at the table of the 10-year olds picking up the book and having to choose between "sword, gladius; sword, messer; sword, arming; sword, long; sword; zweihander." My group stuck with BECMI until I was 14, but we looked at AD&D, and I think the only mistakes we made was pronouncing scimitar 'skim-itar' and thinking the glaive was something from Krull (but then, I think we just looked at the polearms and thought, "gibberish I'm okay with not understanding."