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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 5635259" data-attributes="member: 17106">Well, that's kind of the question in this poll. There is such a thing as combat with little or no rules, but I don't agree that combat is not inherently rules-intensive, nor with the conclusion that rules for combat define D&D. Combat inherently lends itself to rules better than conversation and the D&D rules reflect that, but I find D&D characters spend more time talking than fighting. Many people do like for there to be lots of combat, but there are many non-combat elements to D&D that are equally defining.With respect to CoC, I'd say that combat serves the purpose of setting tone, not "action resolution". I happen to think CoC d20 is a beautifully written rpg whose main flaw is that it doesn't describe physical injuries the way it does mental ones (i.e. it needs more combat rules). I would put it forward as an example of rpg design done right.More broadly, I think that the difference in damage between one gun and another is not a tactical issue of determining their relative power so the PCs can win combat (in CoC, they very often won't), but instead a description of reality that helps contribute to the sense of verisimilitude in an rpg. I'm looking at it less as being a set of rules for a game and more as being a convenient storytelling tool.***In both cases, I simply disagree. And in both cases, repeating points that I disagree with hasn't convinced me of their veracity. Obviously, people in this thread represent some very diverse philosophies behind gaming, and that's fine. No hard feelings.I suppose that was the OP's intent: poking the community and observing the response. I can't think of anything else to add to the discussion that isn't redundant to the 12 pages of posts above, so I'll leave it at that.</blockquote>

Verification