Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 987348" data-attributes="member: 3929">Perform ranks each equaling an ability with one instrument was an abstraction that is absurd in reality. But it doesn't slow the game or cause any problems. While unrealistic, the mechanic works because it is unobtrusive and smooth.For similar reasons, there is no facing in 3e, or 3.5e from what I've heard. This is unrealistic (although some have tried to reason through it), and an abstraction of combat. It is also a smooth mechanic that doesn't get in anyone's way, unless they are looking to exploit some poor sap's position.In 2e, a PC would gradually get points to spend on their weapon proficiencies and specialization. The categories were narrow and contained very related weapons (bastard sword with two handed sword, the axe group,...). This mechanic was dropped in favor of a more open weapon proficiency system in 3e. Fighters can use all simple and martial weapons with no penalty. This is an abstraction. And I like it. It's smooth, and gets in no one's way.In DnD, Wizards, Druids, Clerics, Bards, Sorcs, Paladins and  Rangers all cast spells. IRL, there are no spells. This is an abstraction of reality. And folks love it. Bravo for this one.Magic swords can talk.You can travel the planes of the multiverse.Druids can turn into a shrew.You can have a personal 1-on-1 conversation with your god, when the time fits yourschedule.Dragons are running around laying waste to places. You can be an Elf.But God forbid a Bard can play so many instruments? It's not realistic?I think drnuncheon phrased it well: "My question still stands: why is this level of abstraction acceptable for combat - which is a huge part of the game - and not for Perform - which is a miniscule part of the game?"I'm waiting for a good answer.</blockquote>

Verification