Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7744208" data-attributes="member: 996">Probably /instead/ of TWFing is the only way it'd make sense. &nbsp;'Backswing' as an attribute of a club makes some sense.&nbsp; 'Backswing' making you hit better after a miss, not so much.&nbsp; Backswing is the path before the attack, no?&nbsp; 'Follow-through' that after... A small, agile, close-in weapon, would gain more /benefit/ in attacking a vulnerable foe, narrowing the gap in it's damage potential relative to the biggest baddest weapons?&nbsp;It's amazing, sometimes, how often you have to repeat things that are unequivocally true:&nbsp; like D&amp;D (PF is a clone of a D&amp;D ed) is a wildly complex game.&nbsp; Yes, it is.&nbsp; It was also originally a wargame - it said so right on the cover of 0D&amp;D.&nbsp; It didn't much change when it went from 'wargame' to 'RPG,' either.Complex, yes.&nbsp; Wargameyness, well, it didn't take much to append the mini handbook to 3e.&nbsp; 2e really struck me as the only ed to really try to distance itself from wargaming roots.&nbsp; 5e has pretensions of doing so, with it's &quot;TotM by default&quot; line, but doesn't do anything to back it up. &nbsp;I'm not sure if that's the proud-parent effect, or the anyone who disagrees with me is stupid effect, or a hefty helping of both.&nbsp; ;PSeriously, though, everytime someone acknowledges the complexity of an RPG, someone brings kids into it.&nbsp; I've run Champions!, arguably among the most complex RPGs anyone's ever contemplated designing, for kids younger than 10.&nbsp; It's just not evidence of simplicity.&nbsp; It is evidence of fairly good cat-herding skills, though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7744208, member: 996"] Probably /instead/ of TWFing is the only way it'd make sense. 'Backswing' as an attribute of a club makes some sense. 'Backswing' making you hit better after a miss, not so much. Backswing is the path before the attack, no? 'Follow-through' that after... A small, agile, close-in weapon, would gain more /benefit/ in attacking a vulnerable foe, narrowing the gap in it's damage potential relative to the biggest baddest weapons? It's amazing, sometimes, how often you have to repeat things that are unequivocally true: like D&D (PF is a clone of a D&D ed) is a wildly complex game. Yes, it is. It was also originally a wargame - it said so right on the cover of 0D&D. It didn't much change when it went from 'wargame' to 'RPG,' either. Complex, yes. Wargameyness, well, it didn't take much to append the mini handbook to 3e. 2e really struck me as the only ed to really try to distance itself from wargaming roots. 5e has pretensions of doing so, with it's "TotM by default" line, but doesn't do anything to back it up. I'm not sure if that's the proud-parent effect, or the anyone who disagrees with me is stupid effect, or a hefty helping of both. ;P Seriously, though, everytime someone acknowledges the complexity of an RPG, someone brings kids into it. I've run Champions!, arguably among the most complex RPGs anyone's ever contemplated designing, for kids younger than 10. It's just not evidence of simplicity. It is evidence of fairly good cat-herding skills, though. [/QUOTE]

Verification