Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

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! :)

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

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.

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

No, because giants are stronger

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

Realistically, Giants wouldn't be able to stand, much less swing a weapon. They should start at 100 fatigue and *slowly suffocate* as their diaphragm is insufficient to lift their ribcage while they lay about like quadrapalegics because their bones are incapable of supporting their mass and their muscles incapable of moving their limbs.

The moment you talk about the realism of fatigue, weapon length, and weapon damage, you have to deal with the some other basic facts of reality. Such as:

-Mass scales with volume (L^3)
-Bone strength scales with cross-sectional area (L^2)
-Muscle strength scales with cross-sectional area (L^2)
-Oxygen penetration/blood distribution scales with L^4/3 (Its, um, complicated and has to do with the mathematics of network distribution systems, but that's the right number).

etc...

So if a giant is a mere 2x as big as a human, he weights 8x as much but only has 4x as much muscle and bone strength. That's a serious issue. (Plus problems with blood pumping, and so on).

If we're going to abjure body scaling, why should we care about realistic fatigue or damage scaling? How would you even calculate these things without having a realistic model for body scaling?

(I mean, fatigue realistically depends on lung capacity, blood throughput (which itself depends on artery/vein size and heart strength), number of capillaries/average distance of capillaries to muscle tissue, Fe/hemoglobin concentration in the blood, muscle energy expended per motion, and so on. All of these things are intimately tied to body scaling.)

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

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.

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

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.

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

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

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

Very.

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

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

Squirreloid, you just made my day with your last few posts outgeeking the OP. Well done!

Re: Fatigue is not very realistic!?
 

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".