Issue #88 (August 1984) presents a lengthy article by Arn Ashleigh Parker that uses physics -- complete with equations! – to argue that neither the as-published AD&D rules nor the purportedly Gygaxian revisions to same from issue #70 adequately reflects "the real world." Here's a scan of some of the equations Mr Parker uses in his article:
Amusingly, issue #88 also includes a very short rebuttal to the above article by Steve Winter. Entitled "Kinetic Energy is the Key," Mr Winter argues that, if one considers the kinetic energy resulting from a fall, you'll find that its increase is linear, thus making the original system a surprisingly close fit to the "reality." He makes this argument in about half a page, using only a single table (albeit one that draws on the earlier equations). While I agree with Winter that the original system is just fine for my purposes, it's nevertheless interesting that the author also makes his case on the basis of physics, as if the important point is that AD&D's rules map to facts about our world. It's a point of view I briefly held as a teen and then soon abandoned, for all the obvious reasons. Back in 1984, though, this was the height of fashion and many a Dragon article proceeded from the premise that the real world has a lot to teach us about how rules for a fantasy roleplaying game ought to be constructed ...
We definitely had some “Bobs” whose obsession was physics and “realism” around at the time. Combine that with the intellectual heft many gamers brought to the table and…well…we were graced with articles like these. Silly, but at the time, yes, it was all the rage.
ReplyDeleteHmm... don't have the full article so...
ReplyDeleteBut what really deals the damage is the stop at the end, so what we care about is how "long" that stop takes (a mattress lengthens the time to full stop). Hence the case of the air-stewards that fell off a plane and survived (CON18?)
NERDS RULE :-)
That could have spawned a whole series of articles on how landing surfaces affect falling damage!
DeleteI had a character survive a 500 foot drop, because I knew DragonLance forced my DM to make it so. Tasselhoff physics.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes me realize that maybe Gygax was on to something when he tried to prevent players from having access to the main rules in the DM's Guide. Players who had to trust the referee for life or death rolls (or the appearance of rolls) would find the calculations irrelevant to play.
I'm reminded of the fact that TSR Spelljammer (man, I hate having to specify that) seriously discussed the viability of high HP characters being able to survive a fall from orbit. IIRC anyone over ~70HP had a decent chance of soaking up the 20d6 falling damage, but you needed something to protect you from the reentry heat as well.
ReplyDeleteSo many of these articles have a decent idea but want you to add 4 pages of rules to your game. I can say zero of these ever made it to my table, even if I enjoyed the article.
ReplyDeleteLike for falling, I think d6 per 10' is reasonable for 10'-20'. After that, make it a saving throw to survive. Done.
I'm increasingly begining to think that the biggest changes in D&D are less about rules change and more about culture change. I wasn't alive back then, but do we have a sense if there was a significant chunk of the gaming population clamoring for extremely dense, specific rules like this, or is this more likely Dragon running up against a deadline and grabbing reader submitted content from a "Bob?"
ReplyDeleteSlavish devotion to real world physics is not in keeping with a game meant to model adventure stories. Total disregard for real world physics will sometimes shatter suspension of disbelief. A happy medium is necessary. The original falling damage rules are fine; the DM may need to describe a character's lucky or providential fall (a la the Prague Defenestration or the people who've fallen from airplanes).
ReplyDeleteAny rule: does the additional complexity add enough to the play of the GAME so as to make it worth it?
ReplyDelete