Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7596358" data-attributes="member: 5142">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 &quot;realism scale&quot; has as much &quot;meat&quot; as talking about the invisible hand of the market, the leviathan of the state, the state of nature, or the social contract of governance. IMHO, &quot;Realism&quot; has more to do with the game fiction than the mechanics, though the mechanics may attempt to support and reinforce that fiction. I think that cultural tradition has largely given the AC mechanic a post hoc justification with fiction. It's &quot;normal&quot; because it's what most are used to experiencing in D&amp;D. D&amp;D often gets a free pass when it comes to how its mechanics and fiction are conjoined (e.g., hit points, saving throws, ability scores, etc.). Moreover, I don't think that it's necessarily about more or less realism. In fact, I have heard many YouTube personalities (who argue about historical combat and the like) get in a heated huff about how D&amp;D does combat and AC, perceiving it to be unrealistic. This is why I don't necessarily find the &quot;realistic&quot; vs. &quot;unrealistic&quot; debate particularly useful. Generally the more helpful debate pertains to those other gaming preferences/intent, particularly when evaluating, designing, or selecting an RPG for play. What genre are you trying to simulate? How would you like your combat to feel? What choices do you want your players to make? Etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7596358, member: 5142"] 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. IMHO, "Realism" has more to do with the game fiction than the mechanics, though the mechanics may attempt to support and reinforce that fiction. I think that cultural tradition has largely given the AC mechanic a post hoc justification with fiction. It's "normal" because it's what most are used to experiencing in D&D. D&D often gets a free pass when it comes to how its mechanics and fiction are conjoined (e.g., hit points, saving throws, ability scores, etc.). Moreover, I don't think that it's necessarily about more or less realism. In fact, I have heard many YouTube personalities (who argue about historical combat and the like) get in a heated huff about how D&D does combat and AC, perceiving it to be unrealistic. This is why I don't necessarily find the "realistic" vs. "unrealistic" debate particularly useful. Generally the more helpful debate pertains to those other gaming preferences/intent, particularly when evaluating, designing, or selecting an RPG for play. What genre are you trying to simulate? How would you like your combat to feel? What choices do you want your players to make? Etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification