Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 5536160" data-attributes="member: 66434">I have to say Gary was right on this one. The D&amp;D combat system was designed for quick abstract resolution so that the meat of the game, exploration and treasure seeking, could be resumed quickly. &nbsp;Articles that were written to bring more simulation/realism to the combat system were in conflict with central themes of D&amp;D. Detailed tactical combat was not a key focus of D&amp;D at all. &nbsp;In this article Gary was merely stating what was obvious-that one shouldn't look for realism in D&amp;D combat because it was never designed for it. &nbsp;Through the years there have been many added rules and sub-systems designed to add more detail and complexity to the D&amp;D combat system and they all have had the effect of moving D&amp;D farther from what it was designed to be. &nbsp;Complaining that D&amp;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&amp;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. &nbsp;D&amp;D does what it is supposed to do very well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ExploderWizard, post: 5536160, member: 66434"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification