Quote from: Charon's Little Helper;1141734Indeed. I try to follow the KISS rule unless I have a good reason not to. (And not the KISS rule about wearing makeup and having pyrotechnics.)

Heh... The KISS rule is where it's at. For gaming and real unarmed combat.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1141938Of course, lecturing on realism in a game where there are fire-breathing dragons seems a trifle silly.

That is a sentiment I've always really disagreed with.  IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game.  The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules.  Also, I find it easier to "get in to" games that are as realistic as possible.

Quote from: Mishihari;1141993That is a sentiment I've always really disagreed with.  IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game.  The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules.  Also, I find it easier to "get in to" games that are as realistic as possible.

Agreed, with the implicit caveat that "as possible" includes the fact that not only are some degrees of realism too much for handling time and complexity, but more important, some translations of realism into the game model automatically exclude other parts of realistic processes and outcomes.  The classic example is of course that a certain amount of realism of combat in a game involves limited time to make hard decisions.  If the game becomes so complex that handling each step means that a subconscious part of your brain no longer feels time pressure or has to make meaningful decisions, then the game has sacrificed one important part of realism in heavy pursuit of another.

That's why all I really want is "good enough" fidelity to the model--which in some cases is even lacking in verisimilitude.  As in, for example, early D&D where armor making you harder to hit and not much in the way of maneuvers is "good enough" for some people because "there is a good chance that very shortly the orc is going to kill you" invokes a different aspect.  People draw the line in different places, but once the line is good enough for everyone at the table, it is time to concentrate on those other aspects.

Quote from: Mishihari;1141993IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game.  The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules.

Say that to Phoenix Command.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1141721OD&D had it right ... longest weapon attacks first, end of story. Since then people have been adding extra complexity just to make combat less realistic.

if the difference is great enough, shorter weapon may never get to attack. However, once you have multiple opponents, you can't hold them all away with your spear. This is pretty easy to make rulings on in practice. It isn't brain science or rocket surgery.
As to the rogue with the dagger, don't get squared up one on one against someone with a spear. Avoiding that situation is part of the fun of playing the character.

Quote from: Mishihari;1141993That is a sentiment I've always really disagreed with.  IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game.  The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules.  Also, I find it easier to "get in to" games that are as realistic as possible.

^This. 100%. Just because fantasy games can have magic, elves, dwarves, and fire-breathing dragons, doesn't mean common sense and a semblance of 'realism' should be void from the game. Immersion is precisely the reason why those things NEED to be in the game. It makes the game feel more plausible and less 'gamey'.

Given the 1974 OD&D's lack of a clear combat system and references to chainmail, I ended up coming up with my own system and initiative which was based on reach.  Ranged before spells before long weapons before short weapons before daggers/unarmed combat.  Once you get up close with someone with a long weapon then you go before them.  Same reach?  Simultaneous resolution.  A couple player characters got skewered charging spear wielding beast men, but once they closed, they killed them pretty quickly.  Lightly armoured warriors with javelins come into their own when they can skirmish like ancient light infantry.  We played for a few years with this simple approach and we never really had any "this isn't realistic" moments.

Which brings me to my tangent:

Realism in simulation (related to humans making decisions, not physical systems) is not connected with complexity.  Over the last decade or so I've had the opportunity to work with some professional simulation designers (for training simulations where humans have to learn about decisions they have to make, not physical systems) and they simply do not have this strange delusion common among gamers that realism is in any way connected with complexity.  The key to realism in a simulated decision making experience is variable isolation and reduction, not multiplication and conflation.  Define what you are simulating, isolate what is important for that and mercilessly cut anything that is not central to the experience of what you are simulating.

I also totally agree that having the mundane things make sense in a fantasy setting is important.  I'd say it's more important than in a strictly historical or period setting.  If you combine fantastic elements and unbelievable mundane happenings in fantasy you get surrealism.  You exit fantasy or sci-fi as a genre and start doing something else.  On the other hand if your historical setting has all the period details right and you mess around with some unlikely mundane happenings, people are far less likely to notice as their suspension of disbelief won't be taxed on multiple fronts.

One other thing about the reach based initiative.  Don't leave "describe what you do" mode.  The referee describes the situation, the players describe what they do, you use the system to resolve it and describe the new resulting situation.  There's no need for a unique "combat mode" for the game.  You can be running in smaller time increments like some arbitrary "round" vs "turn" length, but if you stick with the core activity of player RPGs (players describe what their characters do in response to the situation described by the referee) then it'll work fine.

Quote from: Mishihari;1141993That is a sentiment I've always really disagreed with.  IMO a game should be as realistic as possible, except where specifically required to support the fantasy elements of the game.  The more realistic a game is, the easier it is to make decisions, because your real world intuition will give you the right result without needing to analyze the rules.  Also, I find it easier to "get in to" games that are as realistic as possible.

That's great, but for me, the big one million dollar question is always gonna be 'Is it fun?'. And if it fails that, what's the point?

Adding levels of granularity to combat might be necessary, but every time someone says it's a good idea I flash back to the time I played the Imagine system.

Quote from: Chivalric;1142055One other thing about the reach based initiative.  Don't leave "describe what you do" mode.  The referee describes the situation, the players describe what they do, you use the system to resolve it and describe the new resulting situation.  There's no need for a unique "combat mode" for the game.  You can be running in smaller time increments like some arbitrary "round" vs "turn" length, but if you stick with the core activity of player RPGs (players describe what their characters do in response to the situation described by the referee) then it'll work fine.

I think there's a big problem for experienced GMs that we've been trained by decades of combat systems not to do that - to take our brain to a different mode whenever combat starts. I used to have no problem running 1e D6 Star Wars combat, which basically runs that way, but when it came to 'playtesting' for new D6 Mini Six campaign we swiftly had to abandon that and go to a turn-based combat based off iterative Agility rolls, same as if we were playing 3e-5e D&D.

I do still seem to be ok running 1e/OSRIC combat play-by-post in that mode though, so maybe there's some hope for me!

When I said "as realistic as possible," yes, the "as possible" part is critically important.  When you try for realism, there's often a tradeof in complexity, time in game, and computational effort.  While realism increases my fun, those other factors decrease it.  When I design, I'm trying to find the sweet spot that maximizes fun.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1142056That's great, but for me, the big one million dollar question is always gonna be 'Is it fun?'. And if it fails that, what's the point?

Adding levels of granularity to combat might be necessary, but every time someone says it's a good idea I flash back to the time I played the Imagine system.

Yeah, I'm with you here.

Also, does that degree of realism fit the premise of the game? Realism for realism is dumb IMO, and will lead to the kind of 80s design that's unnecessarily granular and slow, like say, Shadowrun or Gurps. These days I don't have the time nor inclination to spend an afternoon on a single combat sequence anymore, just for realism sake.

Quote from: Itachi;1142082...Also, does that degree of realism fit the premise of the game? Realism for realism is dumb IMO, and will lead to the kind of 80s design that's unnecessarily granular and slow, like say, Shadowrun or Gurps. These days I don't have the time nor inclination to spend an afternoon on a single combat sequence anymore, just for realism sake.

Different strokes, different folks.  For some players, it can never be too granular and they revel in it.  A day spent resolving a combat encounter is music to their ears.  I admit when I have partaken it can be a lot of fun delving into the minutiae for its own sake from time to time.

Probably still some older holdovers from the wargamer transition years out there:  the type who set up scenarios on giant tables in their basements.  Not to discount the younger players though, some people just have that insane love of detail in their mechanics.

It's interesting how the RPG scene has changed from a time when 'realism' and 'granular' were not dirty words and every publisher (and player) seemed obsessed about it.  Everyone seems too 'busy' these days and rules light seems the big thing.  It's like everyone's schedule suddenly became super busy.  As I'm approaching grumpy old man status soon, I'll go traditional and put the blame on 'social media'.

A more 'realistic' reason is it's less effort to go rules light and smack some story setting on another clone than make a heavy mechanics game that actually work well as a whole.  I do have respect for the crazy, intricate RPG rule-sets of old:  Probably written by Engineers.

One of my other favourite hobbies is flight simulators and hoo boy, the amount of effort they will go to make the game experience as realistic as possible knows no bounds.  The quest for the 'realism' grail is like another world for those people, approaching an obsession almost:  Same sort of people who would probably find Riddle of Steel not realistic and granular enough.  I have some level of respect for people who take the time and effort to learn something complex, as the learning can be its own reward.

Complex, intricate RPG rules is one person's boredom while another person's idea of enhancing the experience.  Wonder what RPG these types would like?  Something with a 400 page operations manual for character creation no doubt.  Heh

Exhibit A:
[video=youtube;-v4pYhK00Pk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-v4pYhK00Pk[/youtube]
Just wow...

In our game, if you approach someone with reach, they get a free attack against you (ie, if you attack someone with a spear while you have a sword).  Generally polearms have reach, but a sword and a dagger are the same from that perspective.  While grappling, you have major penalties for using a large weapon (like a bastard sword) that make small weapons advantageous.  Regardless of weapon speed, you get 'your number of attacks' each round - it doesn't really matter if that's 20 stabs with a knife versus one swing of a sword - it's more important to us that turns are relatively quick to resolve and damage is in line with what makes a good experience.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1142109While grappling, you have major penalties for using a large weapon (like a bastard sword) that make small weapons advantageous.  

When I've seen re-enactors grappling in plate armour with longswords, it's the pommel that they use as a bashing weapon - it seems quite effective for that.

A longsword or bastard sword can be grabbed by the blade and "half-sworded" this makes it more effective as a lever for grappling and allows the point to more easily be shoved through gaps in armour.

[video=youtube;2bdMfaymGlk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bdMfaymGlk[/youtube]