E.G.G. On Realism & Combat

[Thunderfoot]

I expect that you mean White Dwarf - although I also liked the early issues of White Wolf

Yes, Right Dwarf was the only Republican leaning fantasy magazine of the day. Good Stuff!

EGG said some really far out stuff in the beginning, but later on in life, he seemed to get it together.

 

[mach1.9pants]

The article was pretty complex with Combat Armour Class (normal AC), Encumbrance AC (armour type AC), Target AC (a bit like touch AC and reflex save together) and Prone AC.
Good line from article : "Now conjure an image of your favourite fantasy hero, be he <snip>. What is he wearing? Nothing very special, usual, lest it be a leather loincloth. Now think of your favourite D&D fighter - a walking sardine-can of magic plate armour ..." This lead to a no armour AC of all fighting classes of 20-Dexterity.

Interesting article, although not as god as the 'how to lose HP and survive' one of my all time fave WD articles.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have to say Gary was right on this one. The D&D combat system was designed for quick abstract resolution so that the meat of the game, exploration and treasure seeking, could be resumed quickly.

Articles that were written to bring more simulation/realism to the combat system were in conflict with central themes of D&D. Detailed tactical combat was not a key focus of D&D at all.

In this article Gary was merely stating what was obvious-that one shouldn't look for realism in D&D combat because it was never designed for it.

Through the years there have been many added rules and sub-systems designed to add more detail and complexity to the D&D combat system and they all have had the effect of moving D&D farther from what it was designed to be.

Complaining that D&D is flawed because it didn't support detailed, simulationist combat is like being dissappointed in a naval battleship that can't fly. The D&D simple abstract resolution system is a poor model to base any kind of tactically focused on. No matter how much extra material is piled on top, the foundation is still composed of simple gamist abstraction.

D&D does what it is supposed to do very well.

 

[Bagpuss]

He says something else about D&D that I think the more recent versions 3rd Ed and beyond have forgotten about D&D.

"Combat at best is something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun"

It seems that combat is the goal of more recent editions, it certainly isn't something that is done quickly anymore.

 

[Hautamaki]

Gary's logic sort of goes off its own rails a bit though. He says "In summation, most players find that the game of seeking and gaining, with the ensuing increase in character capability is the thing. Combat at best is something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun,.."

If the goal is an increase in 'character capability' (by which we can only assume combat capability since that is the only capability actually increased by gaining levels in OD&D), then why is combat itself something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun? If combat is thought of mostly as a chore to be gotten over with then why is increasing combat capability the main goal?

I think that internal logic mishap is what lead to later editions D&D becoming much better at modelling combat, both from the standpoint of attempting 'realism' (and here I think we can also substitute for the word 'realism' the term 'associated mechanics' as opposed to 'disassociated' or 'abstracted' mechanics) and from the standpoint of making combat more tactically interesting.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

He says something else about D&D that I think the more recent versions 3rd Ed and beyond have forgotten about D&D.

"Combat at best is something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun"

I wouldn't say they've forgotten it.

Rather, I'd say that they realized:

"Combat is something that a lot of people actually enjoy; it is the fun part.* We should do something to make it more interesting."

* Or, at least, one of the fun parts.

 

[Zhaleskra]

It was written at a time when he seemed as if he was trying to keep the genie in his own bottle, but it was well and truly out and being enjoyed in myriad different ways beyond the 'official' way he would have preferred.

Once an author makes his game available it is no longer his "baby". You can tell people how you'd like them to run it, but you cannot force them to run according to your vision.

My Diomin is not Hyrum Savage's Diomin, my World Tree is not Bard's and Victoriah's World Tree.

As with all people, there are times I agree with what Gygax said, and times I wish I could go back in time and call him out on his weapons grade balonium.

 

[Gryph]

Once an author makes his game available it is no longer his "baby". You can tell people how you'd like them to run it, but you cannot force them to run according to your vision.

My Diomin is not Hyrum Savage's Diomin, my World Tree is not Bard's and Victoriah's World Tree.

As with all people, there are times I agree with what Gygax said, and times I wish I could go back in time and call him out on his weapons grade balonium.

There is respectful disagreement and then there's taking cheap shots at a dead man.

 

[rogueattorney]

Gary's logic sort of goes off its own rails a bit though. He says "In summation, most players find that the game of seeking and gaining, with the ensuing increase in character capability is the thing. Combat at best is something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun,.."

If the goal is an increase in 'character capability' (by which we can only assume combat capability since that is the only capability actually increased by gaining levels in OD&D), then why is combat itself something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun? If combat is thought of mostly as a chore to be gotten over with then why is increasing combat capability the main goal?

I think that internal logic mishap is what lead to later editions D&D becoming much better at modelling combat, both from the standpoint of attempting 'realism' (and here I think we can also substitute for the word 'realism' the term 'associated mechanics' as opposed to 'disassociated' or 'abstracted' mechanics) and from the standpoint of making combat more tactically interesting.

Gimme a break. Seriously? I mean seriously?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Gary's logic sort of goes off its own rails a bit though. He says "In summation, most players find that the game of seeking and gaining, with the ensuing increase in character capability is the thing. Combat at best is something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun,.."

If the goal is an increase in 'character capability' (by which we can only assume combat capability since that is the only capability actually increased by gaining levels in OD&D), then why is combat itself something to be done quickly so as to get on with the fun? If combat is thought of mostly as a chore to be gotten over with then why is increasing combat capability the main goal?

I think that internal logic mishap is what lead to later editions D&D becoming much better at modelling combat, both from the standpoint of attempting 'realism' (and here I think we can also substitute for the word 'realism' the term 'associated mechanics' as opposed to 'disassociated' or 'abstracted' mechanics) and from the standpoint of making combat more tactically interesting.

Are you quite certain the logic mishap is happening where you think it is?

In original D&D, gaining levels meant more than just getting better at combat. Gaining fame and fortune was a reward and so was getting to become a leader of your own keep, tower, temple, or thieves guild. In fact, only one of the three original classes was combat focused. When the thief was added as a fourth class then the combat focus dropped to 25% of the available classes.

If the game focus was on fighting monsters why add another class that was weak in combat?

The game can be played combat heavy, medium, or light as the players desire. The design of the game remained exploration/ treasure hunting focused leaving those wanting to dwell on combat for a large part of game somewhat dissatisfied. This is not the fault of the game, nor does it represent a lack of forethought by the designers.

Other game systems are designed to handle detailed tactical combat much better than D&D ever could. If heavy combat is what is called for grab a tactically rich system and go to it.

D&D today has become such a mess because so many people are trying to get it to be too many things and its core structure which is designed for simplicity, just can't handle being pulled in so many directions.