Col_Pladoh said:
Drifter Bob,
To cut to the chase here, for I haven't the time to spare for more point-by-point reply to so long a missive, in my considered opinion detailed "realistic" combat rules are a detriment to the RPG, not a benefit. There is already undue stress placed upon combat as the central theme of the game form, while it is in fact only one of several key elements. The designer would better serve the audience by stressing the other elements than would be dine by spending yet more content space on detailing fighting.
Cheers,
Gary
Gary, thanks for responding, and for your patience with my heretical ideas. I don't mind you not going through point by point, I thought you might appreciate some of the historical data. I'm sorry I'm so long winded.
Regarding realism in RPG's, I guess we disagree. I do believe combat is abstracted, but reality can lend us the best, most intuitive, most internally consistant mechanics. As for the combat focus of most rpg's, I agree (i thnk this is a legacy of DnDs evolution from wargames, though you could address that much better than I!) but I think, while complexity must be reigned in, realistic mechanics such as those in combat, can be interpreted and applied to the game. I'd see the combat mechanics, when well done, as a good place to start for many other things.
One sort of example of this perhaps is the Dying Earth RPG, where they put this persuasion / rebuttal system where people can convince each other of things, (like in the cugel stories in particular) with a kind of a competetive dynamic. Not realistic per say but with a real-feeling mechanic, IMHO, which makes things more fun. I'd like to see more of this kind of stuff brought into more RPGs for everything from Thief (sorry, rogue) abilities, to spell research, wilderness survival... any number of others.
If done right this can actually enhance role playing rather than getting in the way, which happens if too much complexity is allowed to creep in, always a danger.
DB
