Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rothe" data-source="post: 3341543" data-attributes="member: 39813">I agree, I think we are reinforcing each others arguments.&nbsp; D&amp;D has features that make it a terrible simulator.&nbsp; RPGs that try (but will fail) to include all the variables are both poor simulator and often poor games.&nbsp; I agree on the difference between fighting in a controlled situation and not.&nbsp; There are many things we were not allowed to do which are the first things you would do in a fight to the finish.Certainly.&nbsp; Sparring in class was far different than any real fight I've been in.&nbsp; But you did ask for the toughest guy, and my Hapkido instructor was the toughest guy I ever struck, my proudest moment followed by a very painful one as he took me down.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; &nbsp; I think that supports my point.&nbsp; The more damaging the blow the more important it is to hit first.&nbsp; The most important thing, IME, is to get in the &quot;first&quot; really damaging blow.&nbsp; With fists it can be hard to land a single crippling blow on someone your evenly matched with or who out matches you, with a shotgun at 5 feet, not so hard I'd imagine.On &quot;realism&quot; you seem to equate it with exact simulation.&nbsp; I don't necessarily think that is the usage bandied about here or that saying some RPG approach is more &quot;relaistic&quot; than another is pointless.&nbsp; It probably should be limited to more &quot;realistic&quot; in a certain situation since for playability you may sacrifice &quot;realism&quot; in one area for that in another.For me, some game rule is more &quot;realistic&quot; when the game consequences of the rule match corresponding reality better, not the actual rule mechanic itself.&nbsp; Thus, highly abstract rules can be more &quot;realistic&quot; than detailed rules that attempt to include multiple real world variables; and IME abstract rules often are more &quot;realistic&quot; because they start with getting the result versus adding details and hoping the result falls out.&nbsp; For example, a rule that makes a spiked chain the best weapon is &quot;unrealistic&quot; in my view.&nbsp; Humankind has been trying to kill itself with melee weapons for millenia, if the spiked chain was really the superior weapon eveyone would have been using it no matter how hard it was to train with.&nbsp; Or a rule that let me throw a longsword as accurately as a spear would also have some &quot;realism&quot; problems in my book.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rothe, post: 3341543, member: 39813"] I agree, I think we are reinforcing each others arguments. D&D has features that make it a terrible simulator. RPGs that try (but will fail) to include all the variables are both poor simulator and often poor games. I agree on the difference between fighting in a controlled situation and not. There are many things we were not allowed to do which are the first things you would do in a fight to the finish. Certainly. Sparring in class was far different than any real fight I've been in. But you did ask for the toughest guy, and my Hapkido instructor was the toughest guy I ever struck, my proudest moment followed by a very painful one as he took me down. :) I think that supports my point. The more damaging the blow the more important it is to hit first. The most important thing, IME, is to get in the "first" really damaging blow. With fists it can be hard to land a single crippling blow on someone your evenly matched with or who out matches you, with a shotgun at 5 feet, not so hard I'd imagine. On "realism" you seem to equate it with exact simulation. I don't necessarily think that is the usage bandied about here or that saying some RPG approach is more "relaistic" than another is pointless. It probably should be limited to more "realistic" in a certain situation since for playability you may sacrifice "realism" in one area for that in another. For me, some game rule is more "realistic" when the game consequences of the rule match corresponding reality better, not the actual rule mechanic itself. Thus, highly abstract rules can be more "realistic" than detailed rules that attempt to include multiple real world variables; and IME abstract rules often are more "realistic" because they start with getting the result versus adding details and hoping the result falls out. For example, a rule that makes a spiked chain the best weapon is "unrealistic" in my view. Humankind has been trying to kill itself with melee weapons for millenia, if the spiked chain was really the superior weapon eveyone would have been using it no matter how hard it was to train with. Or a rule that let me throw a longsword as accurately as a spear would also have some "realism" problems in my book. [/QUOTE]

Verification