Okay due to the number of responses I have only responded to @
Aldarc's comment so far, other points I either agree with or haven't really gotten around to them or do not form part of the conversation topic I'm interested in. I also provided a short synopsis of many of the responses below as it makes it easier for me to gather my thoughts. Feel free to correct.
I don't agree because this seems like a binary viewpoint of combat defense that evaluates realism in terms of whether a system has an AC mechanic or not. It's overly simplistic, lacking scope of how other games perform a similar function with different mechanics. Some games use counter combat rolls. The DM rolls (defense/combat) and the player rolls (defense/combat), and the success of the attack is in the difference. Is that more or less realistic than AC? Other games have the player roll defense, whether using dice polls or defeating a static difficulty number. Is that more realistic than AC? Many systems use armor as damage absorption/reduction. Is that more or less realistic than AC? I can't say for certain, because this does not fundamentally strike me as a debate on realism, but, rather, a debate on gaming preferences and aesthetics rather than some silly, vacuous notion of realism being on a scale, which unsurprisingly seems to having moving goalposts and arbitrary standards. The "realism scale" has as much "meat" as talking about the invisible hand of the market, the leviathan of the state, the state of nature, or the social contract of governance.
Okay, in that instance I can agree with you when one attempts to measure up differing mechanics which are attempting to do the same thing (AC versus Absorption for instance). it does come down to subjectivity.
Would you agree though, for the sake of the argument, if we look at D&D solely and said the next edition of D&D will either have an AC mechanic (as it does now) or every attack will be considered successful, no die roll required. If you have to compare those two scenarios - is one
more realistic/authentic than the other or do you feel that still comes down to preferences: those that wish to role dice and those that don't.
Personally I feel at this point it cannot be just preferences and that there is a case for
insert preferred buzzword, either wearing armour protects your character in some way, however abstract, or it is just cosmetic.
SYNOPSIS
My conversation starter was AC vs No AC which is
more real.
@
Aldarc suggested its preferences as you cannot measure what is
more real between AC vs Absorption mechanic. Mostly dealt with above.
@
Ovinomancer said he would measure
more realism at the fiction level not via processes and described a 'GM decides' game which inputs
realistic results via GM narration. Have to give this more thought.
@
hawkeyefan is ok with the terminology
more realism except when measuring system vs system, a little similar to Aldarc as he follows the line of preferences which I understand, but probably no surprise to him, I disagree with the BitD example he used - it is TOTALLY gamist and we probably won't agree. In this specific instance I would probably side with Max.
@
AbdulAlhazred returns to the semantic debate and prefers the term
more authentic giving his reasons for the use of either term as he views it. I may not agree entirely, but my interest does not lie in the semantic debate. I'm ok with the term
more authentic as I've said many times, I was using the
more realism term as a shorthand for a great many things.
@
pemerton reiterates everyone else's point in his first two replies (which is where I am). Where I feel I need to point out, the mechanics giving rise to
more realism were always acknowledged as very abstract in design and overly simplistic. i.e. If we fall from a distance in RL we take damage, similarly in the gaming fiction. Are they same or even close in design or outcome, of course not. @
Maxperson has made this point numerous times, but posters still feel the need to mention how poorly mechanics imitate RL.