Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6257545" data-attributes="member: 7006">For me... the answer is simple.&nbsp; It is impossible to reconcile a genuine representation of actual weapon fighting with a game mechanic that will actually be fun for a predominant number of TTRPG players.Two armored sword fighters going at it will usually block/parry/block/parry/block/parry until finally someone actually makes contact weapon-to-flesh.&nbsp; That contact will either be a superficial wound because the attack was mainly stopped by the armor or dodged... or that contact will knock the person out of the fight almost immediately (either by killing him or causing a wound so devastating that the person is in so much pain that they cannot carry on.)So in terms of hit points and game mechanics... to &quot;realistically&quot; represent it, the combat should really be miss/miss/miss/miss/1 HP damage/ miss/miss/miss 2 HP damage/miss/miss/1 HP damage/miss/3 HP damage/ miss/miss/miss/75 HP damage!-- unconscious or dead.But almost no D&amp;D player would want to play a game like that.&nbsp; A whole heap of non-contact or superficial wounds until finally WHAM! the guy takes a sword to the abdomen spilling his guts out.&nbsp; The few that did?&nbsp; They probably wouldn't even be playing D&amp;D... they'd be playing something like The Riddle of Steel (where that kind of swordfighting tries to be better represented.)So to try and process sim any game mechanic to a narrative is not going to be functionally correct.&nbsp; There will always be issues, problems, and absurdity.&nbsp; And if you think there isn't, you are voluntarily ignoring all the reasons people can give as to why they don't align on a 1 for 1 basis.Games are games.&nbsp; There are mechanics we interact with to try and complete whatever the mechanic is asking us to do.&nbsp; And in most cases, a descriptive or narrative story is layered on top of those mechanics in order to make the mechanics seem a little more interesting and allow for interesting design of the game space.&nbsp; Chess would still be chess if the pieces were just blocks called &quot;Short piece&quot;, &quot;Straight Piece&quot;, &quot;L Piece&quot;, &quot;Diagonal Piece&quot;, &quot;Tall Piece&quot;, and &quot;Capture Piece&quot;... but way back when they decided to fluff the game up by describing it as a representation of combat on the field of battle.&nbsp; Kings, Queens, Knights, Castles, etc. etc.&nbsp; But nobody believes that's how Knights actually move.&nbsp; The mechanics and the story do not align on a 1 for 1 basis.&nbsp; Likewise... moving a piece across a gameboard and landing on someone's blue space does not actually mean you are paying someone rent for stopping in front of a hotel they own.&nbsp; Sure... the game has layered this &quot;real estate acquisition&quot; story on top of the game's mechanics... but its entirely superficial.So expecting Dungeons &amp; Dragons to actually accomplish it-- marry game mechanics to the description and narrative so that every single aspect of the entire game makes &quot;absolute sense&quot; and is &quot;realistic&quot;... to me is utterly ridiculous.&nbsp; It cannot be done.&nbsp; There will always be absurdity and &quot;abstraction&quot;.&nbsp; So just accept it and enjoy the game mechanics for what they are.&nbsp; And if parts of the game mechanics don't do anything for you... then just go ahead and change them or not use them.&nbsp; It's no big deal if you do!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6257545, member: 7006"] For me... the answer is simple. It is impossible to reconcile a genuine representation of actual weapon fighting with a game mechanic that will actually be fun for a predominant number of TTRPG players. Two armored sword fighters going at it will usually block/parry/block/parry/block/parry until finally someone actually makes contact weapon-to-flesh. That contact will either be a superficial wound because the attack was mainly stopped by the armor or dodged... or that contact will knock the person out of the fight almost immediately (either by killing him or causing a wound so devastating that the person is in so much pain that they cannot carry on.) So in terms of hit points and game mechanics... to "realistically" represent it, the combat should really be miss/miss/miss/miss/1 HP damage/ miss/miss/miss 2 HP damage/miss/miss/1 HP damage/miss/3 HP damage/ miss/miss/miss/75 HP damage!-- unconscious or dead. But almost no D&D player would want to play a game like that. A whole heap of non-contact or superficial wounds until finally WHAM! the guy takes a sword to the abdomen spilling his guts out. The few that did? They probably wouldn't even be playing D&D... they'd be playing something like [I]The Riddle of Steel[/I] (where that kind of swordfighting tries to be better represented.) So to try and process sim [I]any[/I] game mechanic to a narrative is not going to be functionally correct. There will always be issues, problems, and absurdity. And if you think there isn't, you are voluntarily ignoring all the reasons people can give as to why they don't align on a 1 for 1 basis. Games are games. There are mechanics we interact with to try and complete whatever the mechanic is asking us to do. And in most cases, a descriptive or narrative story is layered [I]on top[/I] of those mechanics in order to make the mechanics seem a little more interesting and allow for interesting design of the game space. Chess would still be chess if the pieces were just blocks called "Short piece", "Straight Piece", "L Piece", "Diagonal Piece", "Tall Piece", and "Capture Piece"... but way back when they decided to fluff the game up by describing it as a representation of combat on the field of battle. Kings, Queens, Knights, Castles, etc. etc. But nobody believes that's how Knights [I]actually move[/I]. The mechanics and the story do not align on a 1 for 1 basis. Likewise... moving a piece across a gameboard and landing on someone's blue space [I]does not actually mean[/I] you are paying someone rent for stopping in front of a hotel they own. Sure... the game has layered this "real estate acquisition" story on top of the game's mechanics... but its entirely superficial. So expecting Dungeons & Dragons to actually accomplish it-- marry game mechanics to the description and narrative so that every single aspect of the entire game makes "absolute sense" and is "realistic"... to me is utterly ridiculous. It cannot be done. There will always be absurdity and "abstraction". So just accept it and enjoy the game mechanics for what they are. And if parts of the game mechanics don't do anything for you... then just go ahead and change them or not use them. It's no big deal if you do! [/QUOTE]

Verification