Fatigue is not very realistic!?

[Excist]

The way I think of it is that each 'swing' isn't really a swing, but more of a measure of what they accomplished in a set amount of time based on action points and their capabilities.

As such the swinging of the weapon is a minor part of their activity and has less effect on how quickly they tire in a fight compared to factors like how healthy they are (muscle:fat ratio and whether they are elderly), and how heavy their armor is.

For example a big hulking brute might have 1 attack with a big sword, but it takes a lot of swordplay or maneuvering to get that opportunity to swing.

A small lightly armored character wielding the same sword might tire fractionally quicker on the swing, but find it easier to get in close and take a swing.

The only thing that is slightly unrealistic is that a dagger and a huge axe are equally tiring, but the amount of fatigue the actual fatique is over the course of 1 round of swordplay can be rounded down to zero.

[Admiral_Aorta]

Lets turn to our expert on the subject of fatigue in fantasy universes,

[Torin]

Its not wrong that the weapon does the same damage if its the same object.
The actual damage in dominions is weapon damage + stenght
so giants do more damage due to their strenght. I do not see the point there. The same sword awards the same damage because its the same piece.
And why do the bigger units have to get different fatigue? I have issues with other things like a spear doing 3 damage and a sword 5. Why the spear does little if they stick inside people while sword cuts people.

[JonBrave]

Originally Posted by Kobal2

But it doesn't though. Give anybody an Enchanted Sword, and it'll do 9+STR damage. So all other things being equal, the giant will still do way more damage with it than the Markata.

In both cases, the sword contributes 9 points'-worth of damage. But if it's a giant-size sword that's just the same as if it's a midget-size sword, if that's what people say it represents. That's my point.

I don't mean be pedantic, or upset anyone! It's just something I thought about --- fatigue doesn't seem to be modelled as deep as other aspects.

I suppose I would want a "big" weapon to do more fatigue for a smaller being. Which would indeed mean they would be a disadvantage (compared to now) if given such an item. So.... smaller guys should either fatigue less or have higher-than-100%-threshold (compared to now). With no "big" weapon/encumberance, smallies can actually do more than giants who get tired, but you sacrifice that advantage if you arm them big. Now that's what I call realistic!

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by JonBrave

In both cases, the sword contributes 9 points'-worth of damage. But if it's a giant-size sword that's just the same as if it's a midget-size sword, if that's what people say it represents. That's my point.

I understand that, but then again an actual giant-sized sword would also be much heavier proportionally speaking (square-cube law, each time you increase the size of something by factor x its volume and mass is increased by factor x^3) and thus would also have to grant less defense/offence to reflect that huge increase in momentum. And cost way more fatigue to swing, even to a giant.

Weapon scaling without stat changes is not really realistic, but abstractions like these have to be made otherwise the game would simply be too complicated and cumbersome to design, let alone play.

[brxbrx]

You're assuming that they're giant humans, which isn't the case. They'd have much stronger bones and muscles, and perhaps organs we're unfamiliar with. Indeed, Jotun giants are descendants of ice, aren't they? Who knows how their bodies work.

Although your post reminds me of the World of Tiers, by Philip Jose Farmer. He described how a Lord crafted his world according to various Earth mythologies. Thus, he included centaurs, harpies, and the like.
Farmer went into detail describing the centaurs and their cardiovascular system, and how a simple human torso just wouldn't cut it to power a horse's body. Interesting stuff.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by brxbrx

You're assuming that they're giant humans, which isn't the case. They'd have much stronger bones and muscles, and perhaps organs we're unfamiliar with. Indeed, Jotun giants are descendants of ice, aren't they? Who knows how their bodies work.

Although your post reminds me of the World of Tiers, by Philip Jose Farmer. He described how a Lord crafted his world according to various Earth mythologies. Thus, he included centaurs, harpies, and the like.
Farmer went into detail describing the centaurs and their cardiovascular system, and how a simple human torso just wouldn't cut it to power a horse's body. Interesting stuff.

Saying 'its magic' is the same as abjuring it, and there's no such thing as a realistic fatigue system anymore. The magic might as well work out conveniently such that relative effort for a giant and human are the same. =P

Also, I would be highly entertained if there was an engineer that could spec the necessary material for that bone and the resulting necessary muscle tissue. I'm pretty sure you end up needing unobtanium (ie, materials that do not exist) for the muscle.

[brxbrx]

Hey, elephants exist. So, in an imaginary fantasy world, how contrived are giants?

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by brxbrx

Hey, elephants exist. So, in an imaginary fantasy world, how contrived are giants?

Very.

You may have noticed things like elephants spend most of their times on 4 legs, and aren't at all proportional to humans.

[Knai]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Very.

You may have noticed things like elephants spend most of their times on 4 legs, and aren't at all proportional to humans.

But, clearly, if any form is a size, all things can be that size. That's why we keep seeing the thousand kilogram ants all over the place. The square cube law is obviously nonsense, as are details like "temperature regulation within the body" or "pressure exerted upon the ground by varying sized surfaces".