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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="am181d" data-source="post: 4110492" data-attributes="member: 3576">D&D has never been a simulationist game. Remember, in 1st and 2nd Edition, combat rounds were one minute long. The attack roll represented the cumulative effect of 1 minute of parries and blows.The tension really centers on to hit rolls, armor class, damage, and hit points. Armor makes you harder to hit? Taking damage doesn't impair you till you fall unconscious? The combat system in D&D from Basic through 3e has been an elaboration of a very simple system designed for miniatures wargaming. In 4e, they could have moved to a simulationist system by changing armor to damage reduction, adding a condition track, etc. but they made a different choice: to embrace the historical paradigm of Dungeons & Dragons and make sure that rules support fun, exciting play first and describe a concrete reality second.I'll admit that I was one of those folks who kept trying to jury-rig 3e with new rules for armor, dying, parrying, etc. but I have to say that I think 4e made the right decision in moving in the opposite direction with D&D.One of the things that I'm interested in hearing more about is that the game designers have said they've come up with a number of rules concepts that they really liked that just didn't fit into their idea of D&D. They didn't want to talk about those rules because they may work their way into future (non-D&D) games.This tells me that (a) they have a good idea of what D&D should and shouldn't be, and (b) we may be seeing some interesting non-D&D games over the next few years.</blockquote>

Verification