Have We Lost Our Way? Two masters on combat and alignment
- Thread starter Vindicator
- Start date
The original intentions are completely irrelevant. This is not literature or religion or a national constitution. This is a hobby activity. What is relevant is whether or not my players and I have fun.
I note that your quotes are from 1979 and 1989. Which means that they take no account of the decade and more of development and learning in the field that's happened since they were written.
As it turns out, the combat round issue is pretty funny - If you do one attack per round, in most senses it does not matter what slice of time that round encompasses. It takes roughly the same number of rounds to complete a combat. The length of the round matters not at all. And having it be six seconds long is more cinematically believeable than having it be a minute long.
The mechanics of combat and details of injury may not be the key, but having solid and easily comprehendable rules gives the players more choices in what they may do to try to escape the mortal threat. Mechanics create consistency, which is a cornerstone of suspension of disbelief in storytelling.
I don't see why you've included the alignment quote. If anything, 3e is closer to the ideal expressed there than 2e was, imho.
I note that your quotes are from 1979 and 1989. Which means that they take no account of the decade and more of development and learning in the field that's happened since they were written.
As it turns out, the combat round issue is pretty funny - If you do one attack per round, in most senses it does not matter what slice of time that round encompasses. It takes roughly the same number of rounds to complete a combat. The length of the round matters not at all. And having it be six seconds long is more cinematically believeable than having it be a minute long.
The mechanics of combat and details of injury may not be the key, but having solid and easily comprehendable rules gives the players more choices in what they may do to try to escape the mortal threat. Mechanics create consistency, which is a cornerstone of suspension of disbelief in storytelling.
I don't see why you've included the alignment quote. If anything, 3e is closer to the ideal expressed there than 2e was, imho.
Derulbaskul
Adventurer
Notwithstanding the sentiments expressed in the 1E DMG quote, one only need look at 1E's unarmed combat system or psionics system to discover that there was a marked gap between the sentiments and the ruleset. On top of that, add in the senseless weapon damage based on size, the needless complications of weapon length and speed factor, and there is a much more complicated system in the 1E books than there is in 3E.
Of course, 3E does allow more options but the complications aren't there because everything starts with a d20 roll. Perhaps 3E/3.5E is therefore closer to the sentiments expressed in EGG's original editorials?
Of course, 3E does allow more options but the complications aren't there because everything starts with a d20 roll. Perhaps 3E/3.5E is therefore closer to the sentiments expressed in EGG's original editorials?
FireLance
Legend
Ah yes, weapon size damage. If I remember correctly, a longsword did 1d8 damage against Medium-sized or smaller creatures and 1d12 against Large or larger creatures (not that we categorized size in those terms then, but you get the idea). Two-handed swords did 1d10 damage against Medium-sized or smaller creatures and 3d6 against Large or larger creatures. Bastard swords did 2d4 damage against Medium or smaller creatures and 2d8 damage against Large or larger creatures when used two-handed, otherwise they did damage as a longsword. Maces did 1d6+1 damage against Medium-sized or smaller creatures and 1d6 against Large or larger creatures.Derulbaskul said:
It wasn't all that bad because there was a table you could read off, but I much prefer the 3e system.
Drifter Bob
First Post
combat realism
While I don't view 3.E with the same overall optimism
, I agree with Thanee's point here. There is nothing wrong with more options. The old 1E D&D idea that the DM was supposed to make up all the interesting details of combat and narrate them just isn't enough. Players and DM's alike get bored with the simple I swing I hit, you swing you miss, I swing I miss, you swing you hit dynamic. (And rationalizing this basic is actually the source of a lot of the defensive quotes above).
With combat being such a large part of DnD as with so many other RPG's, it helps a hell of a lot for the players to have a few options to chose from. Too much complexity is definately to be avoided on the otherhand, but a few more options can make combat into an interesting tactical challenge instead of a boring repetivie exorcise.
Part of the real problem with combat in DnD and the vast majority of RPG's, is that combat works under the original basic assumptions made by Gygax et all in 1977, and hasn't really been realistically looked at since. As a result, with 3E, though you do have a few more options, which is a very good thing, the system itself though 'balanced', is actually getting less and less realistic, and perhaps worse, the ratio of complexity to flexibility is getting stretched pretty thin in favor of complexity, much of it unecessary. Thus combat takes a pretty long time and still basically phony feeling and tedious at least some of the time (come on, admit it!)
The fundamental understanding of what melee combat is should really be re-evaluated from the basis of people who understand how it actually works. A lot of the basic ideas and assumptions in DnD are frankly kind of blinkered. With the strong revival of serious groups studying real historical fighting techniques going on today, (like AEMMA and ARMA) RPG's can greatly benefit from re-evaluating these basic ideas. Witness the success of The Riddle of Steel rpg, a first time effort from a guy who never wrote for the RPG industry in his life, but happens to be a skilled martial artist and one of the worlds top rated german longsword fencers, he was able to come up with a basic dynamic for a combat system which is fast and super realistic (though not necessarily the be all and end all).
It should also be emphasized that more combat realism does NOT have to mean more complexity by any means. Basic assumptions can be tinkered with but still kept simple, or even made more simple than 3E DnD currently is. For example, most RPG's make no notice of the defensive or reach value of weapons. In DnD, you can defend yourself from a strike just as well with a dagger as you can with a staff. This has led to the equally fallacious notion that a dagger is practically a harmless weapon. A medieval dagger, which had a blade often 12-16" long, was incredibly lethal. The real advantage of larger weapons wasn't necessarily that they caused more damage, (in some cases they did, in many cases, they did not) but because they had reach to strike first and more easily, and can actively (by parrying) and / or passively (by threat of counterattack) defend better. Thats why most armies equipped their soldiers with spears, for the reach advantage. Damage wise... a spear head is rarely larger than a dagger blade!
3.X took a baby step in the direction of more realistic combat by allowing things like the defensive fighting option, the opportunity attack, and the feats combat expertise and power attack, but they also muddled the field quite a bit with things like the cleave feat, axes with blades on each end, double bladed swords, etc. and etc.
Anyway, combat realism is one of my pet peeves, I hope you will forgive this segue...
DB
Thanee said:
While I don't view 3.E with the same overall optimism
, I agree with Thanee's point here. There is nothing wrong with more options. The old 1E D&D idea that the DM was supposed to make up all the interesting details of combat and narrate them just isn't enough. Players and DM's alike get bored with the simple I swing I hit, you swing you miss, I swing I miss, you swing you hit dynamic. (And rationalizing this basic is actually the source of a lot of the defensive quotes above). With combat being such a large part of DnD as with so many other RPG's, it helps a hell of a lot for the players to have a few options to chose from. Too much complexity is definately to be avoided on the otherhand, but a few more options can make combat into an interesting tactical challenge instead of a boring repetivie exorcise.
Part of the real problem with combat in DnD and the vast majority of RPG's, is that combat works under the original basic assumptions made by Gygax et all in 1977, and hasn't really been realistically looked at since. As a result, with 3E, though you do have a few more options, which is a very good thing, the system itself though 'balanced', is actually getting less and less realistic, and perhaps worse, the ratio of complexity to flexibility is getting stretched pretty thin in favor of complexity, much of it unecessary. Thus combat takes a pretty long time and still basically phony feeling and tedious at least some of the time (come on, admit it!)
The fundamental understanding of what melee combat is should really be re-evaluated from the basis of people who understand how it actually works. A lot of the basic ideas and assumptions in DnD are frankly kind of blinkered. With the strong revival of serious groups studying real historical fighting techniques going on today, (like AEMMA and ARMA) RPG's can greatly benefit from re-evaluating these basic ideas. Witness the success of The Riddle of Steel rpg, a first time effort from a guy who never wrote for the RPG industry in his life, but happens to be a skilled martial artist and one of the worlds top rated german longsword fencers, he was able to come up with a basic dynamic for a combat system which is fast and super realistic (though not necessarily the be all and end all).
It should also be emphasized that more combat realism does NOT have to mean more complexity by any means. Basic assumptions can be tinkered with but still kept simple, or even made more simple than 3E DnD currently is. For example, most RPG's make no notice of the defensive or reach value of weapons. In DnD, you can defend yourself from a strike just as well with a dagger as you can with a staff. This has led to the equally fallacious notion that a dagger is practically a harmless weapon. A medieval dagger, which had a blade often 12-16" long, was incredibly lethal. The real advantage of larger weapons wasn't necessarily that they caused more damage, (in some cases they did, in many cases, they did not) but because they had reach to strike first and more easily, and can actively (by parrying) and / or passively (by threat of counterattack) defend better. Thats why most armies equipped their soldiers with spears, for the reach advantage. Damage wise... a spear head is rarely larger than a dagger blade!
3.X took a baby step in the direction of more realistic combat by allowing things like the defensive fighting option, the opportunity attack, and the feats combat expertise and power attack, but they also muddled the field quite a bit with things like the cleave feat, axes with blades on each end, double bladed swords, etc. and etc.
Anyway, combat realism is one of my pet peeves, I hope you will forgive this segue...
DB
Ladies and gentlemen, the debate seems, to me at least, to be moot.
1. All rules are optional. Don't like the rule, don't use it (though I would seriously talk to your players, first).
2. A set of rules that unites all elements of combat into a single system, is by definition, streamlined.
3. If you like 10 and 20 year old systems (and I have absolutely no problem with this, as my personal systems are almost 30 years old), then use them. As for original intent, however, it is utterly irrelevant. The original intent of laser research is often said to have been military (by rumor mongers at least), but today its primary purpose is information transmission. Should we disassemble data networks and build laser guns if this is true?
4. It's a game. I love the game, but it is still just a game. Use the new rules, or don't. Just enjoy it, either way.
1. All rules are optional. Don't like the rule, don't use it (though I would seriously talk to your players, first).
2. A set of rules that unites all elements of combat into a single system, is by definition, streamlined.
3. If you like 10 and 20 year old systems (and I have absolutely no problem with this, as my personal systems are almost 30 years old), then use them. As for original intent, however, it is utterly irrelevant. The original intent of laser research is often said to have been military (by rumor mongers at least), but today its primary purpose is information transmission. Should we disassemble data networks and build laser guns if this is true?
4. It's a game. I love the game, but it is still just a game. Use the new rules, or don't. Just enjoy it, either way.
Thotas
First Post
Strayed???
My first thought at reading the 3.x rules is that this looked like what they were trying to do all along. Upon playing them, I decided this was at least what I'd wanted to do all along. I'm not saying it's the best system possible, but the best form of this system? You betcha!
Well, for me anyway. So I haven't strayed; I and others like me have finally found our way.
My first thought at reading the 3.x rules is that this looked like what they were trying to do all along. Upon playing them, I decided this was at least what I'd wanted to do all along. I'm not saying it's the best system possible, but the best form of this system? You betcha!
Well, for me anyway. So I haven't strayed; I and others like me have finally found our way.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Ourph said:
And also assumed that for an entire minute of fighting, your opponent would somehow be facing away from you and would not pay any attention. I don't know about you, but to me, turning to face someone takes a fraction of a second... Which is reflected in the 3.X rules as flanking - you can face a certain number of opponents automatically, spending that 0.25 of a second or whatever to pay attention to them, but beyond that you'll be flanked. Which basically has most of the effects you listed above.
Frankly the combat system was far too gritty to be measured in minute-long rounds, and far too undetailed to be measured in shorter times. IOW, it didn't work.
As far as the "losing our way" question. Let me quote from Tom Moldvay in the Basic D&D rulebook (pg. B15) "Most adventures should not take more than a few hours of game time". I recently re-read that sentence and it left me stunned for several seconds. "Wow" I thought to myself, "How did we ever get from a system where a whole adventure (i.e. several combats, exploration, travel time, etc.) takes 2-3 hours to a system where a single combat can take upwards of an hour even at low levels?".
A few means, basically "some number that I didn't work out". So it could be anywhere from 2 hours to 50. Given the context, and experience with the average OD&D game, I'd say that 'few' meant 8 hours or thereabouts.
Saeviomagy said:
No, it meant that for an entire minute of fighting, you were waiting for your opponent to be facing away from you and not paying any attention so you could hit him in the back.
saeviomagy said:
Great! Then we're in agreement. Both 1e and 3e give the players plenty of reasons to maneuver and position themselves in combat. 1e uses facing and shield rules, 3e uses flanking and attacks of opportunity. Two different systems, but they're representing basically the same thing. (If you'll notice, that was my original point.)
saeviomagy said:
[sarcasm]Oh yeah! I absolutely agree! I tried to play AD&D for over a decade and I could never finish an adventure because the frickin' combat system just didn't work! I mean, I thought I was having fun at the time, but now that you've pointed out how absolutely impossible it is for a system based on minute long rounds to be usable (let along enjoyable) I realize I was actually in horrible, excruciating, mind-numbing pain during all of those marathon AD&D sessions, and the feeling of euphoria was probably just some sort of psychological coping mechanism.[/sarcasm]
Last edited:
Similar Threads
